Forever Alpha

An exploration of SPACE 1999 through the lens of fan fiction

FOREVER ALPHA

An exploration of SPACE 1999 through the lens of fan fiction

FOREVER ALPHA

edited by John K. Balor

Lulu Press Raleigh, North Carolina

Lulu Press, Inc. 3101 Hillsborough Street Raleigh, NC 27607 www.lulu.com Published by Lulu Press. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Introduction and editorial comments. Copyright © John K. Balor, 2016. Foreword. Copyright © Petter Ogland, 2016. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-365-11329-1 (paperback) ISBN 978-1-387-36149-6 (e-book) First printing: June 2016. The main body of this book consists of email messages published on the Online Alpha Yahoo Discussion Forum between August 2015 and May 2016. Individual messages are public domain and can be found by searching the Online Alpha archive. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/OnlineAlpha/info The ‘Forever Alpha’ series and other works by Senmut can be found in the following section of the SPACE: 1999 Fiction Archive: http://www.space1999fiction.com/list.asp?AuthorId=5

Dedicated to Senmut for his extraordinary fan fiction talent

vii

Contents Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................ix Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................xii 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Keeping Online Alpha alive ......................................................................................................................1 1.2 SPACE: 1999 as a source for political activism........................................................................................4 1.3 Discussion design and structure of debate.................................................................................................6 1.4 Outcome in terms of message volumes and discussant engagement ........................................................6 1.5 Overview of the book ................................................................................................................................8 Part I. THE RELEVANCE OF ‘SPACE: 1999’ FAN FICTION .......................................................................9 2. THE ‘SPACE: 1999’ NOVEL .......................................................................................................................11 2.1 Preliminary discussion of “Crossfire” .....................................................................................................11 2.2 For those who hate superheroes ..............................................................................................................16 2.3 Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 ....................................................................................................22 2.4 The “badness” of Galactica 1980 ............................................................................................................36 3. THE ‘SPACE: 1999’ SHORT STORY..........................................................................................................47 3.1 Preliminary discussion of “It’s gotta be the beer”...................................................................................47 3.2 The bashing is back .................................................................................................................................56 3.3 Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? .................................................................61 3.4 1999/UFO similarities… interesting to me .............................................................................................83 Part II. THE ‘FOREVER ALPHA’ SERIES .....................................................................................................85 4. FOREVER ALPHA .......................................................................................................................................87 4.1 Commentary and analysis........................................................................................................................87 4.2 Re: The bashing is back.........................................................................................................................107 4.3 They are only opinions ..........................................................................................................................115 5. GREETINGS FROM CYLON.....................................................................................................................119 5.1 Commentary and analysis......................................................................................................................119 5.2 Shatner: SW vs. ST vs. S19? .................................................................................................................129 5.3 Just opinions – part 1.............................................................................................................................132 5.4 Just opinions – part 2.............................................................................................................................140 5.5 Just opinions – part 3.............................................................................................................................153 5.6 Leadership challenges ...........................................................................................................................160 6. … ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT ...............................................................................................183 6.1 Commentary and analysis......................................................................................................................183 6.2 Journey into Whiteness..........................................................................................................................186 6.3 Neil deGrasse Tyson..............................................................................................................................186 6.4 Fan fiction..............................................................................................................................................189 6.5 Fanderson documentary.........................................................................................................................190 6.6 The GEICO advertising campaign ........................................................................................................220 7. SCHANKE RESURGENS...........................................................................................................................227 7.1 Commentary and analysis......................................................................................................................227 7.2 A trip down memory lane......................................................................................................................228 7.3 New Star Wars film, etc. .......................................................................................................................236 7.4 Space history .........................................................................................................................................238 8. CROSSFIRE.................................................................................................................................................246 8.1 Commentary and analysis......................................................................................................................246 8.2 A different view of Space: 1999............................................................................................................248 8.3 Re: Leadership Challenges ....................................................................................................................251

viii 8.4 Leadership/authority..............................................................................................................................258 8.5 Trivia .....................................................................................................................................................278 8.6 A site that may make some angry..........................................................................................................289 8.7 The Maya that wasn’t ............................................................................................................................292 8.8 Re: Leadership/authority .......................................................................................................................296 8.9 New trivia blooper test ..........................................................................................................................300 9. OUT OF THE FRYING PAN ......................................................................................................................309 9.1 Commentary and analysis......................................................................................................................309 9.2 Utopia ....................................................................................................................................................312 9.3 Re: New trivia blooper test....................................................................................................................314 9.4 The End is Near… We’re Doomed (well, not quite yet…)...................................................................325 9.5 Re: New trivia blooper test....................................................................................................................328 9.6 Half time… for S1999 ...........................................................................................................................336 9.7 Confronting the beast ............................................................................................................................341 9.8 Fan Fiction.............................................................................................................................................346 Part III. SHORT STORIES ...............................................................................................................................357 10. ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF ...............................................................................................359 10.1 Commentary and analysis....................................................................................................................359 10.2 Interstellar............................................................................................................................................365 10.3 End of Eternity ....................................................................................................................................370 11. IT’S GOTTA BE THE BEER ....................................................................................................................376 11.1 Commentary and analysis....................................................................................................................376 11.2 The Infernal Machine ..........................................................................................................................385 11.3 Rehashing old arguments gets us nowhere..........................................................................................388 11.4 The Taybor ..........................................................................................................................................398 11.5 Brian the Brain ....................................................................................................................................414 11.6 The Breakaway convention .................................................................................................................427 12. I THINK TONY WOULD BE VERY HAPPY .........................................................................................439 12.1 Commentary and analysis....................................................................................................................439 12.2 Why couldn’t it have been you? ..........................................................................................................450 12.3 Dragon’s Domain ................................................................................................................................455 12.4 Here’s some fun and history................................................................................................................463 12.5 Yahoo for sale?....................................................................................................................................478 12.6 Space Warp..........................................................................................................................................487 12.7 Rehashing, rehasing, and more rehashing ...........................................................................................500 13. TO TAKE THE RISK ................................................................................................................................510 13.1 Commentary and analysis....................................................................................................................510 13.2 Re: Yahoo for sale? .............................................................................................................................514 13.3 And we thought SPACE: 1999 was original .......................................................................................518 13.4 The Last Sunset ...................................................................................................................................529 13.5 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................543 References ........................................................................................................................................................545 Index.................................................................................................................................................................549

ix

Foreword The premise in Gerry Anderson’s SPACE: 1999 is that the 1974 challenge of dealing with nuclear waste has in 1999 been solved by use of waste deposits on the Moon. Although nothing similar happened in real life, when the real world caught up with the time line of the science fiction narrative, it has nevertheless been argued that science fiction is important for exploring a sufficiently wide range of alternatives in scenario planning1. It has also been argued that SPACE: 1999 is particularly important in this context due to when, where and how the series was made and what has later been written about its continued relevance for present geopolitical challenges2. In fact, it has been argued that elements of SPACE: 1999 could be used in the context of action research on how to engineer social change3, but nothing has so far been said about how to do this in practice. One way of approaching this challenge is to start with an engineering model of change management, such as the operational research model in figure 1, and then explain how elements of SPACE: 1999 could be embedded into the model. As the argument about the relevance of SPACE: 1999 has been based on how the series can be understood from the perspective of critical theory, the linking between the series and the change management model could be realised by using individual episodes of SPACE: 1999 as models of real-life problematic situations and then apply the solution methods provided by the episodes as inspiration for how to change the real-life situation.

Problematic situation

Formulate

Model

Deduce

New situation

Model conclusions Interpret

Figure 1. The operational research approach to change management4

For example, if look at the 1970-73 study conducted by technology scholars in collaboration with the Norwegian Iron and Metal Workers Union on how to implement information systems at Kongsberg Weapons Factory and related sites5, the problematic situation at the upper left of the diagram consisted of how to increase industrial quality and productivity while preventing management from deskilling the work force through means of technology innovation6. Looking at the repertoire of SPACE: 1999 episodes, an entry like “Guardian of Piri” could be used as means for formulating the model in the upper right corner of the diagram, describing the situation in terms of a Piri-like environment of ‘false consciousness’ with people being unaware of how they were being replaced by machines and made obsolete. Johnson, B.D. (2011). Science Fiction Prototyping: Designing the Future with Science Fiction. Morgan & Clayton Publishers; Nygaard, K. (1996). “Those were the days - or - heroic times are here again?” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 8(2), 91-108. 2 Ogland, P. (ed.) (2014). SPACE: 1999 – Episode by Episode. Lulu Press. 3 Ogland, P. (2015) “Foreword” in: Balor, J.K. (ed.) SPACE: 1999 – the 40th anniversary celebration. Lulu Press, (pp. ix-xiii). 4 Phillips, D.T., Ravindran, A. & Solberg, J. (1976). Operations Research: Principles and Practice. Wiley (p. 5). 5 Personal communication with Jens Kaasbøll and Gisle Hannemyr, January 2016 6 Nygaard, op. cit., pp. 100-104. 1

x

The “deduction” part of the diagram would then correspond to how the episode plays out in terms of John Koenig trying to create critical awareness among the Alphans by means of shock treatment and destruction of the servant of the Guardian for the purpose of making Moonbase Alpha take emancipatory action. When using these ideas in the context of action research, the central point would then be the empirical testing associated with the lower part of the diagram where the SPACE: 1999 solution has to be interpreted as an intervention strategy to be carried out in the real world. In the case of the Metal and Iron project, the meaning of Koenig’s actions would be translated into educating the conflicting parties about computer technology and reaching a legal agreement that would prevent manipulation and misuse. In the “new situation” at the bottom left of the diagram this was implemented as the “Norwegian data agreement” between the Trade Union Congress and the National Federation of Employers in 19757. Although SPACE: 1999 provides a rich repertoire of conflict models by means of the 24 episodes of the first series and the additional 24 episodes of the second series, the approach may still seem somewhat inflexible in the sense that the problematic situation has to match with one of these 48 conflict models and the deduction of model conclusions has to be defined by how these conflicts were solved in the given episodes. If one compares this approach with well-known problem structuring methods based on drama theory8, there is a striking difference in the way the problem structuring method typically makes use of concepts from game theory in the construction of a problem narrative rather than using a given repertoire of dramas as a set of templates for problem analysis and solution design. However, it is exactly here John K. Balor’s book “An exploration of SPACE: 1999 through the lens of fan fiction” makes an interesting contribution by showing how SPACE: 1999 can be broken down into paradigmatic conflicts and solutions in the way Senmut’s FOREVER ALPHA fan fiction illustrates how to mix elements from different episodes for creating new stories that feel similar to the original stories while exploring new sets of conflicts and solutions that can be tailormade for analysing real-life situations. In the language of Henry Jenkins9, Senmut operates as a “text poacher” by making use of intellectual property designed for consumption as a means for creating works of art with political relevance. More than this, by also using elements of the television series BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (1978-79) and FOREVER KNIGHT (1992-96) for writing SPACE: 1999 stories, the SPACE: 1999 universe is expanded through an intertextual exploration that makes it possible to understand new aspects of the original SPACE: 1999. Using this approach, there are no limits to what kinds of conflicts that can be modelled using SPACE: 1999, and the solution space associated with the game representation of the fan fiction dramas become similarly dramatically expanded. Of particular importance in the case of Senmut’s FOREVER ALPHA fan fiction is how crossover-links with television series made at a different period in time, or representing a different cultural basis, can be useful for exploring sides of SPACE: 1999 that otherwise might easily be hidden. For example, adding a semi-fascist series like BATTLESTAR GALACTICA to the universe makes it possible to disclose the socialist or humanistic nature of SPACE: 1999 in new ways, while the addition of FOREVER KNIGHT provides a useful tool for reading aspects of the SPACE: 1999 drama through Marx’s concept of ‘vampire capitalism’. In the context of the change management framework described in figure 1, the discussions in this book contribute in ways of showing how such a system could be designed. On one level, the discussants observe how Senmut decomposes the original characters and narrative structures into units that are remixed to create new stories. On a second level, it is observed that this approach of using only Nygaard, op. cit., p. 102. Bennett, P., Bryant, J., & Howard, N. (2001). ”Drama theory and confrontation analysis” in: Rosenhead , J.V. and Mingers, J. (eds) Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict, Wiley (pp. 225-248) 9 Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual Poachers: Television fans and participatory culture. Routledge. 7 8

xi characters and events that are already defined within the SPACE: 1999 universe, and those of related series such as BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and FOREVER KNIGHT, result in new stories that feel intimately connected with the SPACE: 1999 canon. In other words, what the discussants observe is how the original structures are decomposed to allow creation of new stories while at the same time making sure that the nature of the new stories does not transcend those of the originals. These observations are interesting in the context of simlar work carried out by John Tulloch and Henry Jenkins10, but where Jenkins is more concerned with how fan fiction writers take possession of stories and characters for political expressions that may sometimes be contrary to those of the original writers, when it comes to the case of political SF like Aldous Huxley’s BRAVE NEW WORLD or Gerry Anderson’s SPACE: 1999, the challenge of the fan fiction writer is not necessarily to change the ideology but to use the existing framework for continuing the articulation of the ideology in ways that continue to make the source material politically relevant for the present and the future. With reference to the diagram in figure 1, the FOREVER ALPHA fan fiction approach is also different from other attempts at looking at information systems development through use of self-made science fiction. A relevant example is a STAR TREK-like narrative used for analysing challenges and suggesting solutions on how to integrate design of ISO 9001 quality management systems with principles of Lean Production.11 Although this example can also be seen as a response to the initial challenge of the need for technology researchers to make use of science fiction in scenario planning, the challenge in this case is that it does not refer to the ideology associated with series like STAR TREK or SPACE: 1999. It plays with images and ideas from such series, but it does not aim for literary quality and does not link with literary discourses within fandom or academia. Consequently, it could be judged irrelevant by both communities, and as an approach for technological management change it is of questionable value as it becomes instrumental without tapping into the depth of the political narratives that are necessary for generating change on a deep level. However, as we see in the case of Senmut’s fan fiction, integrating “text poaching” with political activism and information systems design adds to existing literature on how to make use of Jenkins’ ideas in the context of participatory systems design.12 In this sense the book provides an important contribution to the theory and practice of systems development and scenario planning. On the other hand, due to the number of stories discussed, the time used for discussing each story, and the number of people participating in the discussions, the importance of the book is perhaps even more relevant as a call for research by means of testing the SPACE: 1999 fan fiction approach in the context of critical writing, political activism and social change.

Petter Ogland Oslo, June 2016

Tulloch, J. & Jenkins, H. (1996). Science fiction audiences: Watching Doctor Who and Star Trek. Routledge. Guderian, J., & Renaud, T. (2008). Lean 9001: Battle for the Arctic Rose. Society of Manufacturing Engineers. 12 Bannon, L. J., & Ehn, P. (2012). “Design matters in participatory design” in: Simonsen, J. & Robertson, T. (Eds.). Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. London: Routledge (pp. 37-63). 10 11

xii

Acknowledgements First of all I would like to thank Prof. Mark Spalding at the Arizona State University for suggesting that the FOREVER ALPHA discussion should be edited into a book. His persistent support and encouragement has been of imperative importance in the way I ended up committing myself to almost 320 hours of editorial work. Secondly I would like to thank Kerry Keene for starting the FOREVER ALPHA discussion by raising the question of where to direct further discussions after the Online Alpha 40th anniversary episode by episode (ExE) commentary and analysis was completed13. Although I have to take the responsibility for suggesting to discuss the fan fiction of Senmut, and then taking a leading part in this project, Kerry’s insistence on the importance of keeping the Online Alpha forum alive by engaged and meaningful debate has been of great importance both for the running and completion of the project. I would then like to thank Senmut for allowing Online Alpha to discuss and debate his fan fiction stories as a means for exploring SPACE: 1999. Not only has his collection of novels and short stories been useful for looking at SPACE: 1999 from new perspectives, but his own engagement in the debates has been instructive and helpful. Clearly, without Senmut’s artistic contributions as a fan fiction writer and his willingness to discuss his own work, this book would never have been made. Finally I would like to thank to all participating discussants, including Shana G., Rick Curzon, Erich Wise, David Welle, Jonathan Reiter, Paulo Pereiro, Fred, Gary, Midst2day, Blondgod, Jherek Carelian, James Rowings, Richard Bendell, Lynn Laakso, Kathryn Riley, Dan Eveland, Andrea Gualco, John Marcucci and David MacPherson. Also thanks to Online Alpha moderator Anthony D. for doing an excellent job. I would also like to express my gratitude to David Welle and Petter Ogland for their edits of the original 1997-98 ExE discussion. These previous edits have served as a guiding models and ideals for my own editiorial work, including the edit of the FOREVER ALPHA discussion.

John K. Balor

13

Message #30854 in the Online Alpha archives

Introduction

1

1. INTRODUCTION This introduction chapter consists of five sections. The first section explains the background for the discussion and how the fan fiction theme was selected. The second section provides theoretical contextualisation. The third section gives an overview of fan fiction to be discussed. The fourth section presents the list of discussants. The fifth section gives an overview of the book.

1.1 Keeping Online Alpha alive In August 2015, after the second SPACE: 1999 episode by episode (ExE) commentary and analysis by Online Alpha was completed, a debate emerged on how to continue discussions in a structured manner without necessarily repeating the process of going straight into another ExE. Considering how the first ExE some fifteen years earlier had improved the quality of the discussions on the forum, only to create a vacuum after the ExE was completed, having structured discussions going could be a critical point for keeping a discussion forum like Online Alpha thriving. The purpose for a discussion forum is always to engage in various topics of debate, but as the topics may at any point emerge as a consequence of various events, what had made the two ExE discussions successful was that they provided a format for keeping a discussion running for a long period without having to decide on topics in advance. In other words, the ExE format functioned as a scaffold for cultivating discussions of a wide range of topics, in a similar way to how distributed information systems may be scaffolded during stages of development (Staring, 2011). The discussion thread below shows how the idea of discussing fan fiction emerged as one of several possible topics for further debate. 30863 Where do we go from here? balor1999 Aug 3, 2015

Kerry wrote: “We have come to the end of the episode analysis and the question begs to be asked, where do we go from here?”

Jemarcu commented: “Kerry, not sure where we go from here. Perhaps a discussion of the various themes or topics in Space 1999. That could really be neat, as it would allow us to straddle episodes and seasons, while at the same time narrowing the focus of our discussion.”

There are several important themes and topics that could be explored further, I agree, although many of these themes and topics have already been an important part of the ExE. For instance, in the Fanderson documentary Christopher Penfold identifies environmentalism as a key theme in SPACE: 1999. This is something that generated much debate during the ExE rounds. Some people argued that climate change is a hoax and SPACE: 1999 was reflecting fears of the 1970s that were hopelessly out of touch with current

knowledge. Others saw the SPACE: 1999 as being in support of what 97% of what current climate scientists believe, and thus an extremely important text in terms of addressing what is probably the most important issue of our time and age. Another issue Penfold mentions is the anti-war statement in WAR GAMES. As the series was made during the cold war period, the message resonates with the message of the nuclear freeze movement of the period. In COSMOS, which some of us consider as the third season of SPACE: 1999, Carl Sagan complained about how much of the tax money goes to military spending. I don’t what the percentages were in the late 1970s, but now I understand that about half of US taxes go to the military. In Harald Schumann’s documentary “On trail of the Troika” (ARD German public television, 2015)14, the collapse of Greece is explained by factors like an enormous military budget and a tiny class of ultra-rich people taking over the country as a consequence of neoliberal deregulation of the economy.

14

See Bondy (2015)

2

Introduction

Other themes and topics we have discussed are Johnny Byrne’s stories about class struggle and capitalist exploitation in episodes like MISSION OF THE DARIANS and THE METAMORPH. Although these are issues that have been with us through large parts of the ExE, I see them as so fundamental to the understanding of SPACE: 1999 that they could be well worth exploring on their own, allowing us to straddle between episodes and seasons, as Jemarcu suggests. Wertham’s theory of fascism in superhero literature and what this implies in the case of Maya and Y2 is another interesting theme, although this would be something that has relevance for Y2 only. On the other hand, in order to make a “themes and topics” approach work depends heavily on whether it is possible to reach an agreement on what the essential themes and topics of the series are. For instance, during the ExE there were those who believed that themes like abortion and euthanasia were prominent in individual episodes or parts of the subtext of the series as a whole. Personally, however, I could see nothing in the series that would motivate such discussions beyond perhaps making footnote comments in episodes like ALPHA CHILD. So, in order to prevent future discussions from being hijacked by people who want to discuss issues that have nothing to do with SPACE: 1999, I believe a “themes and topics” approach has to start by identifying what the makers of the series and how this relates to scholarly SF debates. First we have to consider what people like Penfold, Byrne and Gerry Anderson have said in places like the Fanderson documentary about why Y1 was such a good series and why Y2 was so bad. Then we have to address the scholarly literature for putting the comments in a larger context, and by this I think it would be necessary not only to consult Fageolle, Keazor, Iaccino, Bussieres and Liardet, but it would also be necessary to consider the tradition of post-Marxist scholarship on science fiction (Adorno, Suvin, Jameson, Freedman, Fuhse etc) as this is not only a natural extension of the understanding of SPACE 1999 expressed by the intellectual giants of S99 scholarship, such as Fageolle and Keazor, but it also clearly resonates with what Barry Morse and others have said about Moonbase Alpha as a socialistic outfit (cf. Wood, 2010, p. 82).

On the other hand, if people need a short break before going into another attempt at serious exploration of SPACE: 1999, perhaps we could read and discuss some of Senmut’s excellent novels and short-stories? I have just read his short-story TO TAKE THE RISK that is not only brilliantly written but also tells an interesting story of what might have happened if THE LAST SUNSET had ended in a slightly different manner. John B. *** 30865 Re: Where do we go from here? starblade.rm Aug 3, 2015 “We have come to the end of the episode analysis and the question begs to be asked, where do we go from here?”

Well, perhaps instead of using neo-marxism as done so far, we can use neo-fascism to understand the series. The capitalist-fascist regime of the Lunar Commission dumps it is nuclear poison on the Moon like the fascist corporations do now on in 3rd world countries. This causes a mysterious illness to spread but instead of stopping sending the poison, Simmonds, the heartless fascist, is more interested in saving his own job and to keep the money flowing than on the health of the natives, I mean, the moon base personnel. So he flies to Africa or Alpha can't remember quite well, in order to stop the uprising of the restless locals and convince them since they took the money, now they must keep accepting the nuclear shit. So when the whole village goes up in a huge explosion, 300 natives and one fucking fascist are reported missing. On a later episode we found out the fascist, like the cockroaches, has survived the nuclear blast and now tries to cheat and lie his way back. For that he takes a boat of refugees but instead of ending in Lampedusa or being saved by some European Navy he ends up dying during the cross. The end :-)

Introduction Paulo *** 30866 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Where do we go from here? sennmut Aug 3, 2015

Hey! Don't forget the blue alien, that shows up to liberate the wage-slave proletariat from their capitalist overlords!!!! *** 30867 Re: Where do we go from here? balor1999 Aug 4, 2015

As always, Paulo, you produce some highly interesting ideas that could stimulate insightful readings of SPACE: 1999 to address contemporary political and economic challenges. In 2011 Ariana Huffington published the book “Third World America: How Our Politicians are Abandoning the Middle Class and Betraying the American Dream”, and as her analysis boils down to how unregulated casino capitalism is taking over the world, the statement of the book could easily be used as a statement of world developments in general. The way neoliberalism make the corporations into the only citizens that matter, and all the rest of us become like a giant underclass, or a third-world country, also resonates deeply with E.C. Tubb’s interpretation of the SPACE: 1999 series. I remember I was somewhat disappointed when I started reading the novelisations of the S99 episodes in the hope that they would add further detail to what I had seen on the screen but discovered that there was very little psychological depth to be found.

3

What I found, however, especially in Tubb stories like “Earthfall”, was a rewriting of the series in the kind of neo-fascist style you describe. At the time I dismissed the novels because I felt the characters were out of touch with the “real” characters, but perhaps I would enjoy them more if I though of the books more in terms of efforts by Tubb and others to flush out what they saw as the political subtext of the scripts. Anyway, I think you ideas of supplementing the neo-Marxist articulation of how to understand SPACE: 1999 with a neo-fascist corporate-centred angle is a good idea for gaining deeper understanding of the geopolitical situation in 1974 and S99 can be used for making us reflect upon the most pressing challenges of today. John B. *** 30868 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Where do we go from here? sennmut Aug 4, 2015

It sounds like Balor needs his meds, again. Make sure those buckles are tight, Nurse! ***

When considering issues like how to keep a discussion forum alive, one might think of the outcome of this book from the perspective of evaluating the idea of scaffolding Online Alpha discussions by focusing on fan fiction literature. More precisely, the focus of the experiment is on the FOREVER ALPHA series of fan fiction novels, and the evaluation consists of observing how the engagement in this discussion compares with the two ExE discussions. In order to motivate belief in the scaffolding idea, the next subsection will try to explain why focusing on fan fiction would be expected to result in lively discussions. This will follow with data analysis of discussion engagement by means of quantifying discussants and output of discussion messages. The final subsection contains an overview of the book as a whole.

4

Introduction

1.2 SPACE: 1999 as a source for political activism According to Ogland (2014), one way of explaining the success of the first ExE from 1997-98 is by way of showing how it was used for debating two fundamentally different interpretations of SPACE: 1999. The two perspectives could broadly be described as the approach used by fandom and the approach used by academia, exemplified by the the positions in the 1997-98 debate articulated through the fandom-oriented work of Muir (1997) against the academically oriented work of Fageolle (1996). As explained by Tulloch and Jenkins (1995), what typically gives somebody status in TV fandom is the ability to handle large amounts of trivial facts about a television series and to suggest innovative and interesting connections between different episodes or how a series like SPACE: 1999 might relate to other series like STAR TREK from the perspective of narrative structure and characterisation. For example, the main thesis in Muir’s book is that SPACE: 1999 functioned as a bridge between the original STAR TREK series from the sixties and the STAR TREK series from the eighties and onwards. Although this has later been developed into a scholarly thesis for understanding the role of SPACE: 1999 as a cultural and political mediator of ideas (Keazor, 2012), in the original formulation by Muir the focus was only on the relationship between the fictional texts without any concern for the sociological or political context from which they were produced. Although expert knowledge is also what creates merit in an academic community, what matters is not excessive trivia knowledge or non-contextualised speculations about issues like how different episodes of SPACE: 1999 fit together or helps shape an overall fictional universe. As illustrated in an interview with James Bond scholar Christoph Lindner, sometimes an academic may deliberately and artificially downplay the role of trivial knowledge and thus distance himself from fandom by apparently pretending that he does not know taken-for-granted facts like whether Timothy Dalton made one or two James Bond films (Wharton, 2015). As further pointed out by Tulloch and Jenkins (1995), when interviewing popular culture students about DOCTOR WHO, the kind of knowledge that matters is to which extent DOCTOR WHO becomes interesting in the context of critical theory or other social theories of academic relevance. While this perspective is totally ignored by Muir’s (1997) reading of SPACE: 1999, it is central to how Fageolle (1996) understands the series. The central thesis in his book “COSMOS 1999: L’épopée de la blancheur” is that SF in general and SPACE: 1999 in particular can be seen as a uniquely interesting “mythology of modernity” that not only makes one understand contemporary society in an insightful manner but where individual episodes can function as templates for political action. In other words, when Ogland argues that the success of the first ExE can be explained by the way of how the episode discussions where characterised by conflicting views, represented by the radically different positions articulared by Muir and Fageolle, the point is that the ExE addressed the challenge of how to bridge the understanding SPACE: 1999 by integrating the type of knowledge that is typical of fandom with what is typical of academia. In principle this should be a win-win situation as a deeper understanding of the text itself can be gained by engaging with the larger perspectives drawn out by academic literature while academic studies may gain from engaging with ideas developed within fandom. For example, the concept of the Mysterious Unknown Force (MUF) originated within fandom, and it has also become an important concept within academic scholarship (e.g. Iaccino, 2001). However, as seen in the edit of the second ExE from 2013-15, fans may be resistant to engage with scholarly knowledge and discourse (Balor, 2015). After presenting the conflicting viewpoints of whether popular culture in general and SF television in particular should be seen from the critical theory perspective, as means for consumer society to indoctrinate members of society with false consciousness that prevent them from revolting, Tulloch and Jenkins (1995, pp, 67-174) argue that getting engaged in fandom does indeed lead towards development of useless knowledge and distraction from engagement in real-life challenges, and they articulate the situation by describing the fans as a “powerless elite”. Fans can be seen as experts that sometimes know more about the fictional universe of a television series than what the writers and

Introduction

5

producers know, and may as such be seen as an elite group, but they are also powerless in the sense that they usually have little influence on future productions. In the final section of their book, however, Tulloch and Jenkins (pp. 175-265) discuss strategies for breaking out of the fandom prison by means of turning fandom into something useful. When looking at SF audiences from this perspective, they focus on three groups of SF audiences. One group consists of those who use SF and SF television as inspiration for becoming engineers and scientists, and how they are cultivating interest in science and engineering by continually engaging with SF. This is a perspective that is also relevant for SPACE: 1999. Engaging with this kind of orientation, Ogland (2015) has argued that SPACE: 1999 may be a particularly interesting series in the context of Nygaard’s (1996) call for students of technology to engage with SF literature. A second way of making use of SF texts, as Tulloch and Jenkins see it, is by observing how SF narratives often involve protagonists that are outside of mainstream society. Such characters may function as role models for engaging with social equality issues from the viewpoint of gender, race, sexuality or other groups in need of social emancipation. In the case of SPACE: 1999, West (2004) argues that Maya from the second series of SPACE: 1999 fulfilled this function as an icon for the gay liberation movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In the FOREVER ALPHA discussion that follows, additional perspectives such as seeing Maya in the context of the women’s liberation movement and the civil rights movement are also considered. However, it has also been pointed out that sympathetic readings of Maya and Y2 face the challenge of first having to convince readers and discussants that Maya and Y2 should be considered part of the SPACE: 1999 canon. While most scholarly literature either takes an explicit negative perspective on Y2 (Fageolle, 1996; Iaccino, 2001) or choose to ignore Y2 (Keazor, 2012; Bussieres, 2015), there are those who believe that there is merit to be found by going beyond the camp of Y2 (Liardet, 2014), or that the fascist elements of Maya and Y2 can be used in the context of dialectical discourse (Ogland, 2014; Balor, 2015). The third way of making use of SF texts, and the theme of this book, is by means of engaging with the text through the use of fan fiction. When Tulloch and Jenkins write about this topic, they mention that the larger part of the fan fiction community are women, so in the case fan fiction is used in a political context this may typically be in the context of dealing with issues like gender imbalance and oppression of women (pp. 196-212). However, if we see feminism as a special case of critical theory, oppression of women in society becomes then a special case of the potential use of SF fan fiction for disclosing oppression and designing means of emancipation within a larger political context. In this sense there is a strong correlation between how Fageolle (1996) explains the relevance of SPACE: 1999 and what fanfiction writers do when exploring political subtext and making use of the SF narratives for designing political action. When dealing with a series like SPACE: 1999, the distinction between fan fiction and the SPACE: 1999 books that were commissioned by the production company ITC as part of promoting the series becomes interesting. For instance, if we take the case of the acclaimed SF writer E.C. Tubb, who wrote the first novel “SPACE: 1999 - Breakaway” (1975) and several other SPACE: 1999 books, both based on original scripts and plot ideas developed by himself, Tubb brings a distinct voice and a personal perspective to the SPACE: 1999 literature. Due to his social background, one might even expect that he would enhance aspects of the political subtext of SPACE: 1999 in ways that would be enlightening for a scholarly understanding of the series. On the other hand, as making the texts too politically explicit would probably not necessarily be in the interest of ITC, it is perhaps not so surprising that the novelisation of the SPACE: 1999 episodes are less politically overt that one might have hoped for15. However, more important than E.C. Tubb’s political views are the theoretical lenses used for reading the political subtext of SPACE: 1999 during the Online Alpha discussions. For instance, the second Perhaps due to his pragmatic interest in reaching a mass market for his writing, it has been also difficult to find interviews or text samples where Tubb talks about politics. 15

6

Introduction

ExE of 2013-15 was specifically designed to address the social and political context in SPACE: 1999 as a response to comments about insufficient focus on such issues during the first ExE of 1997-98 (Balor, 2015). Nevertheless, if one chooses to believe that part of the success of both of the ExE discussions had to do with the way discussions and debates were generated from polarising interpretations, a way to stimulate further debate along similar lines could be to discuss the literary extension of SPACE: 1999, either by means of the commissioned literature, the commercial literature still being produced, or the novels and short stories written by fans of the series. In other words, the reason it seems likely that SPACE: 1999 fan fiction should be expected to result in lively debate, especially if one would choose to select a body of fan fiction that the discussion forum as a whole or a critical group of members is familiar with, is that SPACE: 1999 fan fiction is a way of intervening with the SPACE: 1999 narrative and thus bound to be political. The more politically articulate the fan fiction writer is, regardless of what his political beliefs might be or how they would relate to the political subtext of SPACE: 1999, the more likely it seems that the debating positions explored in both the first and particularly the second ExE could be expanded further and reproduce the engagement and liveliness of the ExE discussions.

1.3 Discussion design and structure of debate As was seen in the transcript of the introductory discussion thread above, the idea of choosing Senmut’s novels and short stories was mentioned as an alternative to other suggestions on how to keep Online Alpha alive, and then emerged as a discussion topic without further debate. As Senmut had been one of the most active discussants during the second ExE, and made a clear political positioning in terms of stating what he considered valid and invalid interpretations of SPACE: 1999, his fan fiction was interesting. Furthermore, his impressive body of work was easily accessible thorough the internet and was given good reviews by members of the SPACE: 1999 fan fiction community. Although the Online Alpha Yahoo Groups hosted 1055 members at the time when the discussion started, only 37 members participated in the 2013-15 ExE discussion. This was less than the 84 people participating in the 1997-98 ExE discussion, but still sufficient for creating an output of messages that was of comparable size to the the first ExE. A way of looking at the use of fan fiction as means for scaffolding discussions may thus be investigated by comparing the fan fiction discussion with the previous ExE discussions by way of looking at participation and output of messages. The operational scaffolding of the discussion was to be based on Senmut’s novels and short stories dealing with SPACE: 1999, but this would require agreement on an order for reading. When the discussion started, some of the discussants were not aware of the chronological order of how the stories had been written, so the emergent order of discussion became a random mix of short stories and novels. However, as the discussion started to gain momentum, the chronological order of the FOREVER ALPHA stories became known and discussants also started watching episodes of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and FOREVER KNIGHT that were needed for understanding the stories. This resulted in three phases of discussion. After an initial phase of discovering the work of Senmut, there was a second phase of dealing with the novels, and then a third and final phase focused on the Senmut short stories as a means for wrapping up.

1.4 Outcome in terms of message volumes and discussant engagement Before the second SPACE: 1999 ExE discussion on Online Alpha stimulated debate and engagement, the discussion forum had gone through a dry period of hardly any discussion or debate. Would it be possible to prevent the Online Alpha activity to drop to this early level after the ExE was completed? This question is not only interesting from an academic perspective, but it also matters for what kind of discussions should be designed after the fan fiction discussion has run its course. The statistical process control (SPC) chart in figure 2 gives a visual demonstration of how Online Alpha was close to dead before the second ExE started. The second ExE is then characterised by a quick rise towards a peak level of engaged debate before settling down on a more sustainable level.

Introduction

7

The FOREVER ALPHA discussion that followed can be seen to have less monthly variation in terms of message output but also with a slightly lower average volume of contributions. However, in comparison to the Online Alpha process before the second ExE, the situation during the FOREVER ALPHA discussion is much better. So, the immediate impression is that the fan fiction theme provided the necessary scaffolding needed for keeping the forum alive.

13 Fe b14 A pr -1 4 Ju n14 A ug -1 4 O ct -1 4 D ec -1 4 Fe b15 A pr -1 5 Ju n15 A ug -1 5 O ct -1 5 D ec -1 5 Fe b16 A pr -1 6

ec D

O ct

-1

3

450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Messages

Centre = 115

UCL = 196

LCL = 34

Figure 2. Monthly count of messages on the Online Alpha discussion forum

However, when looking more closely at the data from the viewpoint of how many people were parcipating and the distribution of messages among these people, the result does not look equally convincing. In table 1 the list of discussants is sorted by order of how actively engaged they were in the debate as measured by the number of individual contributions (emails). Each of the columns indicates the number of messages each discussant has contributed to each individual chapter. Discussant/Chapter John K. Balor Senmut John Marcucci Kerry Keene Shana G. Rick Curzon Erich Wise David Welle Blondgod Gary Jonathan Reiter Paulo Pereiro Midst2day Fred Anthony D. James Rowings Jherek Carelian D. MacPherson Lynn Laakso Richard Bendell Kathryne Riley Dan Eveland Andrea Gualco Sum Participants

C01 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3

C02 32 34 18 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 5

C03 21 19 7 7 9 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 9

C04 21 12 2 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 5

C05 27 38 17 12 6 0 0 10 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 9

C06 32 32 16 11 11 0 5 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 9

C07 13 14 9 4 2 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 7

C08 26 32 30 12 7 0 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 116 10

C09 23 24 20 7 13 0 4 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 100 10

C10 12 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 3

C11 31 25 9 24 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 6

C12 24 28 13 12 2 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 104 9

C13 14 11 1 9 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 45 9

Sum 280 274 143 111 62 28 17 14 7 5 5 4 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 967 23

Table 1. Distribution of participants and messages during the FOREVER ALPHA discussion

Although there is a significant variation in the number of particiants and messages for the discussions covered by the thirteen chapters, on average each story resulted in 75 messages. If one ignores the initial discussion on how to frame the debate in the first chapter, the average output of messages for a chapter dealing with a particular story was 81 messages per chapter. On average, the discussion of a particular story would involve eight people, with a minimum of three and a maximum of ten

8

Introduction

discussants. When we look at the contributions from individual discussants, the table shows that the four most productive discussants (about 20% of the group) generated about 80% of the total output of messages. Statistics from the table can be compared with similar tables from the 1997-98 ExE and the 2013-15 ExE (Ogland, 2014; Balor, 2015). The first ExE from 1997-98 resulted in 1303 messages distributed among 84 participants. The average output per month was 93. The second ExE from 2013-15 resulted in 1830 messages distributed among 37 participants. The average output per month was 178. In this context the FOREVER ALPHA discussion resulted in fewer messages and fewer participants, but the monthly average of 115 messages is comparable with the ExE discussions. All the three discussions show significantly higher output of messages than the average number of 14 messages per month observed during the months prior to the second ExE.

1.5 Overview of the book The book is structured in three parts. The first part links the suggestion at the beginning of the discussion above (section 1.1) with the initial attempts to dicuss Senmut’s fan fiction by looking at sample works from his FOREVER ALPHA series and collection of short stories. The second part of the book provides a story-by-story discussion of the FOREVER ALPHA series in the order of how the stories were published. The third part provides similar discussion of the short stories in order of publication.

9

Part I. THE RELEVANCE OF ‘SPACE: 1999’ FAN FICTION This first part of the book contains the discussions that followed immediately after the “where to go” discussion-thread reproduced in the introduction. Although it was suggested in that thread that a natural place to go after the ExE discussion could be to look at the relevance of fan fiction as an alternative way of gaining insights about SPACE: 1999, it took some time before the discussion gained momentum. In order to get the discussion started, the editor of this book tried to draw attention to a couple of short fan fiction stories. The general idea was to stimulate the forum to read and discuss the complete works of Senmut on SPACE: 1999, but there was at the time no overview of what this list of works consisted of and what would be an appropriate order of reading and discussing the stories. Starting with the short stories in a somewhat random order seemed like a reasonable approach as the short stories were easy to access and easy to read. However, as they were quick to read it was also difficult to use the texts as a basis for long discussions until members of the Online Alpha forum would recognise them in the context of the complete body of work. This first try at getting the discussion started is documented in the transcripts below. The next try consisted of picking the “Crossfire” story from the FOREVER ALPHA series, as this was a lengthier story that had gotten some very favourable reviews on an online fan fiction archive (Ariana, 2001). This turned out to be a more successful approach as it allowed the editor of this book to read the story chapter by chapter while making daily comments until others started to join in and the discussion started to build. The complete discussion is documented in chapter two. To test that the discussion had gained sufficient momentum, the next story to be discussed was the short story “It’s gotta be the beer”. Although the story itself was quick to read, the way the “Crossfire” discussion generated discussions due to the way it provided a lens of looking at SPACE: 1999 through the perspective of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, the short story created a similar engaged debate by means of how it suggested ways of looking at Year Two of SPACE: 1999 through the lens of Bugs Bunny. The complete discussion is documented in chapter three. Below are the initial attempts at creating a discussion of the relevance of fan fiction for understanding SPACE: 1999 by means of looking at the short stories “To take the risk” and “I think Tony would be very happy”. Although these initial attemps were not successful in terms of stimulating debate, they are still interesting in the context of how the discussion got started. 30869 To Take the Risk (Senmut, 2013) balor1999 Aug 5 10:48 AM

I am not a great fan of SPACE: 1999 fan fiction and even consider the works of Tubb, Rankine, Ball and such as more or less uninteresting for the purpose of understanding the series, although the books written in the 1970s could perhaps be seen as reflections on the same sort of issues that the television series was concerned with, and as such add some minor insights on how to understand the series as a whole. When it comes to Senmut’s fan fiction, however, I am willing to make an exception. Unlike other writers I am familiar with, Senmut has a magnificent ability to capture the

psychology and nature of the characters of the series in a manner that makes his fiction into a seamless continuation of what we see on the screen. His story TO TAKE THE RISK is a good example. When I read that story my mind conjured up images from THE LAST SUNSET, and the way people acted were totally consistent with how I knew them from the series. In fact, when John makes an abrupt decision, I was reminded of THE LAST ENEMY, and the reaction from the others felt exactly like how we saw it in that story. There were also aspects of the story, like when they are looking out the window, that reminded me of the ending of MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, and the whole issue

10

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

of creating a home reminded me both of ANOTHER TIME ANOTHER PLACE. As a comment from somebody who generally does not read fan fiction, I would say that this story, similar to other works of Senmut that I am acquainted with, is exceptionally good. I will not comment on the story itself, and to which degree there might be a political subtext here that correlates with what we see in the television series, but from a stylistic point of view, this is craftsmanship on a very high level. To me this is better than any SPACE: 1999 fiction I remember to have read. *** 30870 I Think Tony Would Be Very Happy (Senmut, 2009) balor1999 Aug 6 11:47 AM

Senmut’s ‘I THINK TONY WOULD BE VERY HAPPY’ is another interesting contribution to the body of SPACE: 1999 literature. In the same way as TO TAKE THE RISK, the story is a reflective epilogue to an episode that brings pieces together, and it the same way the written characters feel true to the nature of the characters we have seen on the screen. This time it is DRAGON’S DOMAIN that is the main source of inspiration. What I particularly liked about this entry was the idea of how the Alphans are planning to use pieces from the Ultra Probe. In the television series all we see is Eagles and pieces of Moonbase Alpha being blown to pieces and people dying. If the whole story had been like this, they would all have been dead before the beginning of Season 2, so it seems reasonable that they would have to make of all kinds of hardware and resources they could get their hands on.

In this sense I feel Senmut’s story adds a new dimension to Penfold’s original script. As was illustrated in our ExE discussion, there are different ways of interpreting the meaning of this particular story, and I will not repeat my own views on this, but to my mind Senmut adds new dimensions in terms of interpreting of the ‘St. George and the Dragon’ mythology as having to do with how the Alphans learn to cope and increase their potential for survival in adverse situations. On one hand I would like to question this in the light of how it might subvert and undermine the ideological content of the episode, the issue about how Penfold comments on how outwardly success can often be explained by psychological illness, and how the rise of modern capitalism can be understood as coming at a cost of destroying humanity. On the other hand, this is not how I choose to interpret what Senmut is doing. In my mind he is tapping into the creative stream that we see on the screen and flowing with the nature of the show as he fills in gaps and makes comments. I think that is why I like him so much, and that is why his writing is so much better than that of Bill Latham, for instance, although I have only read one of his novels. As Tony Verdechi also plays a minor part in this story, one could interpret the story as a small attempt to bridge the two seasons, something I’m not very fond of as S1 and S2 are like oil and water to me, but I still admire the originality and high quality writing of the piece. Like everything I have read by Senmut so far, this story is a miniature masterpiece. John B. ***

The SPACE: 1999 novel

11

2. THE ‘SPACE: 1999’ NOVEL This chapter consists of four sections. Section 2.1 starts out as an unfolding commentary and analysis with some emphasis on BATTLESTAR GALACTICA due to the way this narrative is written into the SPACE: 1999 story. In section 2.2, an old thread from the second ExE is revived as the fascist nature of BSG makes it possible to ask question about the crypto-fascist nature of the second series of SPACE: 1999. In section 2.3 the discussion returns to BSG again, and in section 2.4 the “Crossfire” discussion reaches a conclusion by discussants reflecting on how both of the two television series changed during their second seasons.

2.1 Preliminary discussion of “Crossfire” The discussion starts in an exploratory manner. There are references to particular incidents in the “Crossfire” story, but mostly in an indirect manner by referring to particular episodes and characters from BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. While some discussants comment on the differences in political subtext for the two television series, others see the two series as consistent and supportive, while yet others find little of interest in BSG from a SPACE: 1999 perspective. 30871 Crossfire (Senmut, 2004) balor1999 Aug 7, 2015

CROSSFIRE is an interesting text both in the sense that it extends the previous short-stories by being a short novel and by being a crossover between SPACE: 1999 and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen BSC since 1979 or whenever it first premiered, so my understanding of that aspects of the text is very poor. On the other hand, I like the way the crossover matches Y2 with BSC as they strike me as being similar types of shows. By that I mean that this is not a thoughtful reflection on Y1, like we see in I THINK TONY WOULD BE VERY HAPPY and TO TAKE THE RISK, but rather an action-adventure with elements of comedy. At least that is how I understand the story from reflecting on the prologue and first chapter. There are different opinions on whether Freiberger’s attempts to insert humour into SPACE: 1999 were successful or not, but when Senmut emulates this aspect in his prologue, having Tony and Maya watching videos and eating popcorn, I think it works splendidly. The scene is exactly like how we would expect it to be from watching the series, and there is a very nice touch of comedy when they discuss a video called COSMIC PRINCESS. Hah hah. To me this story exemplifies Senmut’s craftsmanship in not only creating miniature masterpieces of what SPACE: 1999 feels like but showing how this can be done in a

sustainable manner through the development of a longer text. John B. *** 30876Re: Crossfire (Senmut, 2004) balor1999 Aug 11, 2015

In order to be able to understand CROSSFIRE better, I decided to watch the first three episodes of the 1978 original BATTLESTAR GALACTICA series. All I remembered from back in 1978 was that it starred Lorne Greene and that it was pretty bad. Watching it almost 40 years later, it was easy to understand why I didn’t like it back then. Not only were the titles, the music and the overall feel of the series similar to STAR WARS, it was even more politically questionable. It was made at the time Jimmy Carter was doing SALT II and Middle East peace conferences, and the theme of the series was how peace negotiations were naïve and how military action was the only solution. In many ways it reminded me of STARSHIP TROOPERS, and I felt like watching a Nazi propaganda series. Terrible stuff. If it hadn’t been for the 1970s feel to it, I would probably have turned it off after ten minutes. Senmut’s CROSSFIRE, on the other hand, is good. I’m not sure if his crossover with BSG is based on the 1978 original or the 2003 remake, and I haven’t seen enough of BSG to really

12


appreciate what he is doing, but the story he is telling is well crafted. There are also some interesting touches like Helena being referred to as Dr. Koenig and Maya is referred to as Mrs. Verdechi. She is also pregnant, so I wonder how this will evolve. There are also some political issues in Senmut’s story. The Alphans appear to have entered a territory ruled by a Nazi-Soviet pact, and they have to deal with some Nazi-like military types. I don’t know if Senmut is using this for exploring the fascist themes some of us have found to be prevalent in Y2, but considering his input to the ExE, I doubt it. Nevertheless, the story is well written and I look forward to seeing how it unfolds. John B. *** 30877Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Crossfire (Senmut, 2004) sennmut Aug 11, 2015

On 11 Aug 2015 balor1999@... writes: In order to be able to understand CROSSFIRE better, I decided to watch the first three episodes of the 1978 original BATTLESTAR GALACTICA series. All I remembered from back in 1978 was that it starred Lorne Greene and that it was pretty bad. Watching it almost 40 years later, it was easy to understand why I didn’t like it back then. Not only were the titles, the music and the overall feel of the series similar to STAR WARS, it was even more politically questionable. It was made at the time Jimmy Carter was doing SALT II and Middle East peace conferences, and the theme of the series was how peace negotiations were naïve and how military action was the only solution. In many ways it reminded me of STARSHIP TROOPERS, and I felt like watching a Nazi propaganda series. Terrible stuff. If it hadn’t been for the 1970s feel to it, I would probably have turned it off after ten minutes.

Okay, for me, the 1978 series is the one and ONLY BSG. That remake thing was, well, eeewwwwwwww.......... As for moi, I liked it at once, and I actually liked it better than Star Wars. Still do, even after all this time. I did not see the theme as peace negotiations being naive. If you recall, the Colonials lost because of treachery at the top levels of their government, NOT because of a desire for

peace. After a millenium of conflict, who wouldn't want peace? Recall Adama's comments to Adar, that the Human way of existing, a desire for freedom and to question, was totally alien to the Cylon mentality. As to Starship Troopers, I have never seen it, and know little beyond it being quite graphic. Senmut’s CROSSFIRE, on the other hand, is good. I’m not sure if his crossover with BSG is based on the 1978 original or the 2003 remake, and I haven’t seen enough of BSG to really appreciate what he is doing, but the story he is telling is well crafted. There are also some interesting touches like Helena being referred to as Dr. Koenig and Maya is referred to as Mrs. Verdechi. She is also pregnant, so I wonder how this will evolve. There are also some political issues in Senmut’s story. The Alphans appear to have entered a territory ruled by a Nazi-Soviet pact, and they have to deal with some Nazi-like military types. I don’t know if Senmut is using this for exploring the fascist themes some of us have found to be prevalent in Y2, but considering his input to the ExE, I doubt it.

The 1978 version. Like I said, TOAO! Anyway, this Xover relates specifically to the BSG episodes Greetings From Earth, and Experiment In Terra. You should watch those, as a basis for comparison. I am not exploring anything, Balor, in the political realm. Generally, I eschew politics in story telling. On those rare occassions I do make some political references, I tend to be open, and say what I mean. I don't like, nor make use of, such subtext. It's not fair to the readers, and I do not write to preach, or any such. I write for the fun of it, and if it happens to be entertaining at the same time, so much the better. What political stuff may exist was in the original source material to begin with, and must be taken as it stands, in any Xover attempt. As to pregnancies, it seemed a logical development. Being stuck on the Moon would get a tad boring, and sooner or later, they will run out of birth control stuff. Considering the situation, pre-Breakaway, birth control may never even have been considered much, re the Medical Department. But with more than 50 people dead since leaving Earth, there is some extra space, and it would, at least for some, give them the feel that they have a future. Also, possibilities for drama, there. As to Tony and Maya, I doubt that they considered hybridization between Human and Psychon a

The SPACE: 1999 novel serious possibility, when they decided to shake things up. *** 30878 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Crossfire (Senmut, 2004) jemarcu Aug 11, 2015

I'll make no secret of my love of quality fan fiction, and Sen has produced more than his fair share of it, IMHO. To me, a Space 1999/ BSG crossover makes perfect sense. Both are survivors of some terrible calamity, and they both are only one mistake away from annihilation, albeit for different reasons. And, they are both searching for a safe haven. Finally, they are both led by strong, visionary leaders with different temperments. Adama is very patriarchal, aristocratic, calm, wise and clever. Koenig is high strung, resourceful, relentless, and although he simmered down a lot in S2, he had a high capacity for tantrums, unlike Adama. Adama only lost his cool when severly provoked, and even then he instantly regained his composure. Yet, they both had a strong moral center and unshakeable confidence. Adama was more guided by a specific religious faith, whereas the metaphysics of Koenig are still unclear. Having these 2 outstanding leaders share the same storyline, however briefly, was marvelous. Rgds, John M. *** 30879 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Crossfire (Senmut, 2004) sennmut Aug 11, 2015

Glad you liked it, Jemarcu. I figured it was about ti,e the two met up. Now, anyone get the inside jokes? ;) Kudos to Balor, for catching the “Cosmic Princess” bit. *** 30880 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Crossfire (Senmut, 2004)

13

John Marcucci Aug 12, 2015

John Koenig's brother Walter?? And an eagle pilot named Wyn-Davies?? I'm sure there were more I missed. *** 30881 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Crossfire (Senmut, 2004) balor1999 Aug 12, 2015

Thanks for explaining about BSG episodes, Senmut. I notice that EXPERIMENT IN TERRA and GREETINGS FROM EARTH are episodes towards the end of the series. So far I have only seen SAGA OF A STAR WORLD and LOST PLANET OF THE GODS. In comparison with SPACE: 1999 the latter episode remind me of TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA in the sense of being a story about how life on Earth evolved from some planet in distant space. I agree with Jemarcu that the choice of making a cross-over between SPACE: 1999 and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA is an interesting choice. For me these two series are fundamentally different on an ideological level, but there are also similarities, and by reading a cross-over story like this one is given the opportunity to see how they match. Jemarcu comments on the differences between Koenig and Adama. To me the main difference is that BSG is right-wing military science fiction done as space opera while SPACE: 1999 is left-wing political allegory in the style of serious science fiction (2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, SOLARIS, STAR TREK). However, Y2 moves more in the direction of space opera, and by reflecting on the similarities with BSG one might imagine Y3 evolving in this direction as this was how things were going in the late 1970s. Unfortunately I still have problems understanding important aspects of the story as I have only started watching BSG. However, by reading one chapter at a time I hope to be able to catch up with the television series before having completed the novel. The story seems to be filled with inside jokes and commentaries, although I haven’t read about Koenig’s brother Walter and Wyn-Davies yet.

14


I read a nice comment about Leiter watching TERMINATOR 2, though. John B. ***

Kerry, the situation you describe is ..somewhat similar. Certainly, the flame wars between s1 and s2 of Space 1999 continue to this day. The difference is that "Galactica 1980" is almost universally detested, and most fans of TOS do not even regard it as canon.

30882 Re: Wrap-up: The Return of Victor Bergman kerryirs Aug 12, 2015

Sen, would you agree with that?

[…]16

30884 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Wrap-up: The Return of Victor Bergman sennmut Aug 12, 2015

As for crossover fan stories, I'm not a big fan of those. Sometimes fans will take two dissimilar TV shows and try to tie 1999 in with it. BSG is a bit similar to 1999, both orphans in the cosmos, although, those of the Galactica are looking for what they believe to be the twelfth tribe, us. But overall, I wasn't a big fan of this series. I'm not sure, but didn't Larson run into the issues of budget cuts and changes that Anderson did? Can you imagine the shock BSG fans got when the second season aired and most of the cast was missing, except for Lorne Greene and a series name change to GALACTICA 1980? I wonder if the debate has raged over the last 37 years between the fans of this shows two seasons and I wonder what the cast feelings are over the changes. I've seen the story CROSSFIRE but I haven't read it. One of the things that I've always found funny in BSG are the names of some of the characters Greenbean? Starbucks is now associated with a coffee chain, Apollo, a mythical God. Yeah, I know. We were visited by ancient aliens. Anyway, it's fun to exchange views on this stuff. *** 30883 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Wrap-up: The Return of Victor Bergman John Marcucci Aug 12, 2015

Editor’s note: As this discussion took place during the completion of the 40th anniversary ExE discussion, this particular post contained elements relevant for both debates, with the first part of message #30882 ending up as the final message of the ExE discussion (Balor, 2015, p. 702).

16

***

Pretty much. It's often just ignored. *** 30891 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Wrap-up: The Return of Victor Bergman sennmut Aug 14, 2015

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 kerryirs writes: As for crossover fan stories, I'm not a big fan of those. Sometimes fans will take two dissimilar TV shows and try to tie 1999 in with it. BSG is a bit similar to 1999, both orphans in the cosmos, although, those of the Galactica are looking for what they believe to be the twelfth tribe, us.

The 13th Tribe, actually. ;) Couldn't resist. *** 30892 sennmut Aug 14, 2015

Thanks for all the kind remarks, re my FanFic. Makes me feel as if it wasn't a waste of time writing it in the first place. *** 30893 RE: [OnlineAlpha] (unknown) John Marcucci Aug 14 4:45 AM

Far from it ! Only thing is, I sometimes feel guilty reading your stuff, because its scot free, but its higher quality than most of the "literature" one has to pay for.


*** 30903 RE: [OnlineAlpha] (unknown) balor1999 Aug 14, 2015

Based on what I have read of published S99 fiction, I completely agree with Jemarcu's remark about the high quality of Senmut's work. Senmut, have you ever considered approaching Powys to ask whether they would be willing to publish your complete works as an anthology entry within their SPACE 1999 series? John B. *** 30904 Re: [OnlineAlpha] (unknown) sennmut Aug 14, 2015

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 John Marcucci writes: Far from it ! Only thing is, I sometimes feel guilty reading your stuff, because its scot free, but its higher quality than most of the "literature" one has to pay for.

Hhmm........well----Make all checks payable to.... *** 30905 Re: [OnlineAlpha] (unknown) sennmut Aug 14, 2015

On 13 Aug 2015 balor1999@... writes: Based on what I have read of published S99 fiction, I completely agree with Jemarcu's remark about the high quality of Senmut's work. Senmut, have you ever considered approaching Powys to ask whether they would be willing to publish your complete works as an anthology entry within their SPACE 1999 series?

No. It would cross over too many copyright boundaries. Nice idea, though. ***

15

30906 Re: [OnlineAlpha] (unknown) John Marcucci Aug 14, 2015

Don't be so sure. I have seen in Barnes & Nobles, paperback editions of Star Trek/ XMen crossovers. And Amazon is taking bids from folks to write fan fiction for profit, for ebooks only. ***

16


2.2 For those who hate superheroes Wertham’s (1954) theory of fascism in superhero literature, like his discussion of the “Superman” comics, has been discussed and debated on Online Alpha for many years as a lens for understanding Maya and the nature of Year Two of SPACE: 1999. At the time of the second Episode by Episode (ExE) discussion, the theme of fascism in popular culture became particularly relevant (Balor, 2015), and the discussion below relates to one of the final ExE threads as it carries the discussion into the context of the “Crossfire” story. 30910 Re: For those who hate superheros kerryirs Aug 15, 2015

For those who hate seperheroes, take a look at the site below. They are bigger than ever and now female supervise are here. So that author John B. quotes and in his eyes are a symbol of fascism would be all bent out of shape if he's still alive. https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/rise-ofthe-female-superhero-ever-since-superman126459307033.html I've never looked at Maya as such and think those who believe this miss her vulnerabilities. I think Nick Tate is one based on his comment in, I believe, Robert Wood's book. She's vulnerable both physically and at times emotionally. *** 30911 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: For those who hate superheros John Marcucci Aug 15, 2015

The hatred of superhero thing is actually very easy to understand. "Superheros" are a uniquely American invention, like the Mormon religion, the Panama Canal, the Model T Ford. They could not have arisen anywhere else. So, hatred of superheroes (and the conservative traditional values they often represent, such as truth, justice, patriotism, family, God, etc.) is actually just code for hatred of America, Christianity, and tradition. These leftist pseudo-intelectualls think they are so clever, but their metaphors are so childishly transparent as to be infantile and laughable. Rgds, John M.

*** 30912 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: For those who hate superheros sennmut Aug 16, 2015

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 kerryirs writes: For those who hate seperheroes, take a look at the site below. They are bigger than ever and now female supervise are here. So that author John B. quotes and in his eyes are a symbol of fascism would be all bent out of shape if he's still alive.

Nor have I. Maya is a bundle of contradictions. At once feminine and often vulnerable, and when needed, as hard as steel. She is no "superhero", or a icon of "fascism", whatever that may be. She is just another being, cast adrift in the universe. Her skillset may be a bit different, but at the core, no different from any other Alphan; she uses the knowledge and talents that she was dowered with to survive in a haostile universe. One of these is her shapeshifting. That no more makes her "fascist" than Hugh Hefner is a proponent of chasity, because he lived on the same planet as Mother Teresa. *** 30913 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: For those who hate superheros sennmut Aug 16, 2015

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 John Marcucci writes: The hatred of superhero thing is actually very easy to understand. "Superheros" are a uniquely American invention, like the Mormon religion, the Panama Canal, the Model T Ford. They could not have arisen anywhere else. So, hatred of superheroes (and the conservative traditional values they often represent, such as truth, justice, patriotism, family, God, etc.) is actually

The SPACE: 1999 novel just code for hatred of America, Christianity, and tradition. These leftist pseudo-intelectualls think they are so clever, but their metaphors are so childishly transparent as to be infantile and laughable.

Well, in their modern incarnation, certainly, Jemarcu. One could go all the way back to Sumer, and recall the tales of Enkidu and Gilgamesh, or Herekles, in ancient Greece. All the usual fighting and slaying all the icky monsters et al was there. As to the rest, I agree. Superheroes, at least until recently, have embodied, to one extant or'tuher those values. It is a code for hatred of America (except when we are needed to win wars, or dish up the foreign aid). Enough soap-box. back to Alpha, et al.

17

argument I would perhaps associate with Senator McCarthy in the 1950s, at the time when Dr. Wertham was at his most active, but I have never heard anybody accusing Wertham of hating America. John B. *** 30915 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: For those who hate superheros sennmut Aug 17, 2015

It has NOTHING to do with "fascism", Balor. All that superhero stuff is just plain escapism. Eye candy with special effects. Empty calories, a sort of celluloid junk food. But you fascist theorizing is junk. There is no such thing in the real universe.

***

***

30914 Re: For those who hate superheros balor1999 Aug 17, 2015

30916 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: For those who hate superheros jemarcu Aug 17, 2015

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on superhero literature, Kerry. I think you are right that Dr. Wertham would probably have been seriously worried by the way there seems to have been an increase in superhero blockbuster movies in recent years. I guess that his comment would have been that desperate situations make people search for desperate solutions, and with the current financial and social climate, fascism through superhero literature is an alarming sign of the times.

You just heard ME accuse him of hating America, Werthan was a left wing nut ball. Senator Joseph McCarthy was a staunch, if sometimes erratic, patriot who like to pull a cork too much.

Unfortunately, Wertham died in 1981 so it is his intellectual heirs we have to ask if we want to keep up to date on the debates on fascism in superhero literature and how this might relate to Maya and the second series of SPACE 1999. Personally, I think this is a very relevant topic as it ties in with James Iaccino’s theories of how Y2 destroyed the SPACE 1999 franchise as a whole. I also think Jemarcu has a point that superhero literature is an American invention. SUPERMAN, BATMAN, SPIDERMAN, FLASH GORDON, BUCK ROGERS etc were all American inventions as far as I know, but I don’t agree with him that disliking this kind of literature is synonymous with a hatred for America. This is a kind of

Rgds, John M. *** 30919 Re: For those who hate superheros kerryirs Aug 19, 2015

John M,, be careful. Joe McCarthy was a liing right wing nut and his committee ruined many lives. I think it took a US Army colonel and Edward R. Murrow to shame him. McCarthy was also centured by the Senate. I also believe it was one of the first TV broadcasts of its type. The link below has more on the paranoia of McCarthy. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/epis odes/arthur-miller/mccarthyism/484/

18


But enough of that. I do agree superhero entertainment and entertainment in general is just as you said, escapism. Some take it too seriously. I say enjoy and don't treat the subject matter like a drama class with a term paper due.

right (Republicans) and political centre (Democrats), and that is one of the main reasons why both major parties are now in the hands of big corporations. Here is an interesting interview where he discusses the situation with journalist Chris Hedges.

Let&s continue on exploring 1999. There's a lot still to talk about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9eRr SfNzng

*** 30920 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: For those who hate superheros sennmut Aug 19, 2015

Well, if McCarthy was a right-wing nut, I wish we had more of him. Yup. I'm a nut, too! ;) (Also, it's spelled "censured", BTW) Interesting take on superhero stuff. Not a "drama class with a term paper". Well put. It is also an "art form" that has a capacity for mocking itself. Christopher Reeves' look at the camera, upon finding the undersized public phone in one film, was hilarious. Then of course, there is always Dangermouse! Okay, okay........ As to Space...what do you all think they do with the stiffs? Bury them out on the surface? Cremation? The subterranean vaults? *** 30921 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: For those who hate superheros John Marcucci Aug 19, 2015

boot hill out on the surface seems to make the most sense *** 30924 Re: For those who hate superheros balor1999 Aug 19, 2015

Excellent comments about McCarthy, Kerry, and I enjoyed reading the article. According to Noam Chomsky, the worst thing about the McCarthy period was that it wiped out the American left. What was left was the political

I think the rise of SUPERHERO literature in recent times is a telling sign, and I am glad that you continue to bring up this topic in the debate. I believe the way Freiberger turned the socialist SPACE: 1999 series into a fascist superhero series was the ideological reason for why it failed. I don't understand how Gerry Anderson and the rest could accept the ways things were going, but I understand they had little to say. The money people had taken over. John B. *** 30925 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: For those who hate superheros sennmut Aug 19, 2015

"Wiped out the American Left"? If only, Balor. If only. Again, there is no such thing as "fascism" (which you still need to define!) in Space. Zilchola. *** 30928 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: For those who hate superheros jemarcu Aug 19, 2015

--- wrote : "Wiped out the American Left"? If only, Balor. If only. Again, there is no such thing as "fascism" (which you still need to define!) in Space. Zilchola.

It sounds like Petter Balor Ogland learned his American history from the back of a Happy Meal box.

The SPACE: 1999 novel *** 30929 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: For those who hate superheros sennmut Aug 20, 2015

Do folks hang around long enough to read them? *** 30932Re: For those who hate superheros kerryirs Aug 20, 2015

John B., you hit it on the nose about the political parties in this country. Not only are big corporations controlling them to an extent, but big PACs are even worse. With recent not so Supreme Court rulings, it's even worse. And when a candidate claims corporations are people, too, what does that say about this broken system? Corporations are a government creation via law. Don't get me on trying to restrict voting Rights going right now or the voting process with these electronic voting machines. Those are whole other arguments. *** 30933 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: For those who hate superheros sennmut Aug 20, 2015

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 kerryirs writes: Don't get me on trying to restrict voting Rights going right now or the voting process with these electronic voting machines. Those are whole other arguments.

I don't trust electronic voting machines. *** 30934 Re: For those who hate superheros jemarcu Aug 20, 2015

Nonsense. Corporations are a voluntary association of PEOPLE. THey are made up of stockholders, managers, employees and

19

customers. People are free to come and go as they choose. The hysterical babbling against "evil corporate America" is a result of profound ignorance of basic economic facts and natural law. And , its ever so selective! "Big Oil Bad, Apple good... Monsanto bad, Ben and Jerry's good!" Anyhow, mankind would never have gotten to the moon without Boeing, McDonnel Douglas, IBM, etc. Rgds, John M. *** 30935 Re: For those who hate superheros balor1999 Aug 21, 2015

Thanks for sharing important insights, Kerry. What I see in America and other parts of the world is the development of the kind of system we see in MISSION OF THE DARIANS and THE METAMORPH. On the top of social pyramid we have the corporations represented by Neman and Mentor. On the bottom of the pyramid we have the poor people on Daria’s level seven or inside the Psychon mines, and between those extremes we have Moonbase Alpha, representing the middle class struggling ever harder to survive. Perhaps people like Bernie Sanders can do something to improve the system, but Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein believe it is too late. Democracy is eroding. The corporations are taking over. The only means of survival is to do what Luke and Anna did, they believe. People at the grassroots level must to take responsibility. I think the Occupy Wall Street Movement showed that it is possible to mobilise people bottom-up, and there is much to learn from THE TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA in this sense. Nobody believes in slogans like ‘what is good for General Motors is good for America’ anymore. In our context that would mean ‘what is good for Simmonds is good for Moonbase Alpha’. It may have been true at some time, but now ‘we are sitting on the biggest bomb man has ever made’ as Koenig said. Unless something is done to prevent corporate greed from destroying democracy, the world will end in total disaster.

20


John B. *** 30937 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: For those who hate superheros sennmut Aug 21, 2015

On 21 Aug 2015 balor1999@... writes: it is too late. Democracy is eroding.

most extreme right-wing statements I have seen on this forum. Perhaps there is support for this kind of thinking in BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, but to me it strikes me as the exact opposite of everything SPACE: 1999 stood for. But perhaps I have misunderstood what they are saying or they are pulling some kind of elaborate joke. Kerry, could you please comment on how you interpret what Jemarcu and Senmut are saying. I’m not sure I get it. John B. ***

I certainly hope so. *** 30938 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: For those who hate superheros John Marcucci Aug 21, 2015

From slinter@...: I certainly hope so.

Democracy is mob rule, followed by chaos and a dictator. Our Founding Fathers gave us a republic, with a mixture of democratic, aristocratic, and monarchial institutions, fairly well balanced. Worked great for a while. It seems to be unravelling. What will come after is unclear. *** 30940 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: For those who hate superheros sennmut Aug 21, 2015

Dictatorship. "In the interests of the people, and public safety", of course. Always is, Jemarcu. *** 30941 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: For those who hate superheros balor1999 Aug 22, 2015

As much as I admire Senmut’s fictional writing, the recent comments from Jemarcu and Senmut about democracy as “mob rule” and endorsement of dictatorship “in the interest of the people and public safety” are among the

30942 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: For those who hate superheros sennmut Aug 22, 2015

Not a joke. It is exactly what's on the label, Balor, set forth plainly and without prevarication. I see democracy as just that, and always have. BSG makes no overt statement about the rectitude of various forms of government, beyond the obvious implication, that the sort of unchecked and limitless absolutism of the Cylons, as personified in the Imperious Leader, is bad. As to Space, since I do not see it as in any way a political show, again, various forms of government are not evaluated. From bits and pieces, EOE, AC, TIM, TM, and TLE, that most societies the Alphans encountered were largely collectivist in nature, often jackbootedly so. The folks in WG, and most brutally of all, the Dorcon Empire. But, and here we must disagree, Space was never about politics, subtextual or otherwise. It was about surviving in a bizarre and often unfathomable universe. As to democracy, it is often touted as the solution to myriad social problems. My statements below stand. Without checks and balances, it is a recipe for dictatorship. Myself, I believe in a Republic, with adequate balance of powers, and clearly delineated liberties. Flopping about in a mire of social and political inanities, in order to be responsive to "the will of the people", leads to chaos. Thucydides description of the debate in the Athenian Assembly, over the Mitelynian question, might be illustrative.


*** 30943 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: For those who hate superheros John Marcucci Aug 23, 2015

Well said, Sen! *** 30944Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: For those who hate superheros balor1999 Aug 23 10:19 AM

Senmut wrote: “BSG makes no overt statement about the rectitude of various forms of government, beyond the obvious implication, that the sort of unchecked and limitless absolutism of the Cylons, as personified in the Imperious Leader, is bad. As to Space, since I do not see it as in any way a political show, again, various forms of government are not evaluated. From bits and pieces, EOE, AC, TIM, TM, and TLE, that most societies the Alphans encountered were largely collectivist in nature, often jackbootedly so. […] But, and here we must disagree, Space was never about politics, subtextual or otherwise. It was about surviving in a bizarre and often unfathomable universe.”

To me BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and SPACE 1999 embody reverse political subtexts. SPACE was a British show focused on socialist values, as Barry Morse has explained, and consequently at odds with the conservative Edward Heath government of the period. BSG was an American show with a Mormon-like nationalist and military conservative attitude that strikes me as totally at odds with the attitudes of the Jimmy Carter administration. While Carter was negotiating the SALT II agreement and peace in the Middle-East, in BSG episodes like “Experiment in Terra” we have Apollo teaching the leaders that the opposite of war is not peace but rather slavery, and military strength alone is what supports freedom. To me this seems to be the exact opposite of what Carter stood for, but it resonated well with how the US military budget was doubled during the Reagan administration that followed.

21

In other words, I believe both BSG and SPACE were politically subversive, but in exact opposite directions. From the viewpoint of art history, as Keazor writers, SPACE was important because it embodied the reflections and values of the post-hippie counterculture period, such as concern for the environment, anti-war movements and New Age spirituality. I don’t know anything about the scholarly literature on BSG, but I would assume that it could be interpreted as culturally significant in a similar way although in this case describing the disastrous cultural change in the late seventies that paved the way for Thatcherism and Reaganomics. Luckily, this forum is a SPACE 1999 forum so we can happily distance ourselves from the political subtext of BSG, although I enjoy reading Senmut’s crossover stories and find the comparison of the two series useful for understanding how much better SPACE 1999 was. John B. ***

22


2.3 Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 In order to understand the “Crossfire” story and use the story as a vehicle for discussing SPACE: 1999, some of the discussants realise it is necessary with a basic understanding of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. Not only are events and characters from the first season of BSG an important part of the “Crossfire” plot, but the differences between the two seasons of BSG parallel the differences between the two seasons of S99 in interesting ways. 30885 Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 John K. Balor Aug 12, 2015

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 John Marcucci writes: Kerry, the situation you describe is ..somewhat similar. Certainly, the flame wars between s1 and s2 of Space 1999 continue to this day. The difference is that "Galactica 1980" is almost universally detested, and most fans of TOS do not even regard it as canon.

Very interesting comments, Kerry, and I also appreciate the comments from Jemarcu and Senmut. If the second season of BSG is almost universally detested, then the situation is very similar to S99. I try to watch the first season in order to understand CROSSFIRE, but perhaps I should then have a look at GALACTICA 1980 to get an impression of how the new producer and change of format betrayed the original visions for the series. According to what I have read about GALACTICA 1980, it doesn't sound so bad, but I need to check it out. Senmut, what is your opinion of GALACTICA 1980? Is the change from BATTLESTAR GALACTICA to GALACTICA 1980 as radical as the change from Y1 to Y2 in S99? John B. *** 30886 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 sennmut Aug 13, 2015

The shock of transition, as it were, between BSG and GAL80 is quite sharp, but in part explained. We learn that it has been "many yahrens" since the events in BSG's final ep, The Hand of God, and that many of our heroes have been lost. A few of the names of characters in GAL80 sometimes turn up in BSG in passing. For continuity's sake, if nothing else. Unfortunately, the Network pulled some fast ones of Mr. Larson, budgetary

among others, and wanted things to be "educational", and "kid friendly." You can imagine the result. Most fans accept only the final ep, The Return Of Starbuck, as "canon". Even there, the fan re-edits make alot more sense. Hope that helps. *** 30887 CROSSFIRE (Senmut, 2004) John K. Balor Aug 13 9:57 AM

Kerry wrote: “As for crossover fan stories, I'm not a big fan of those. Sometimes fans will take two dissimilar TV shows and try to tie 1999 in with it. BSG is a bit similar to 1999, both orphans in the cosmos, although, those of the Galactica are looking for what they believe to be the twelfth tribe, us. But overall, I wasn't a big fan of this series. […] I've seen the story CROSSFIRE but I haven't read it. One of the things that I've always found funny in BSG are the names of some of the characters Greenbean? Starbucks is now associated with a coffee chain, Apollo, a mythical God. Yeah, I know. We were visited by ancient aliens.”

I’m not a reader of fan fiction (S99 or otherwise) and I am not a fan of BSG. Nevertheless, in his introduction to the book edit of the first 1997-98 ExE, Ogland (2014, p. xv) makes the following comment: “A second type of contribution was that made by fan fiction writers commenting on episodes by discussing characters and events as though they were real and thus projecting their own subjective understanding of situations and personalities for investigating and sharing. These contributions could be seen as the extreme opposite to the objective technical and scientific commentaries. The subjective nature of the fan fiction would be more like a discussion and exploration of how characters within the series would respond to situations outside of what was seen on the screen (Sokol, 2012). Due to the nature of this kind of analysis, some of the contributions tended to be

The SPACE: 1999 novel extremely long, but sometimes they could produce interesting psychological insights that were helpful when looking for the deeper meaning of the series in the sense of political subtext.”

Although this comment was made as a reference to the kind of comments and analyses contributed by people like David Welle in the first ExE, and which was also seen and appreciated in the second ExE, to me there are also similar insights to be found by reading Senmut’s stories. Now and then Senmut or somebody else referred to his stories as a part of the ExE, but never looking at them with any depth. Although that was natural in the context of the ExE, now that ExE has been completed we have a great opportunity for reading and commenting on these stories in more detail. Of the stories I have read so far, I have found them both enjoyable and interesting in terms of looking at the SPACE 1999 narrative from new and interesting perspectives. His CROSSFIRE story is a very good example. Although the idea of comparing the S1/S2 issue in S99 with the S1/S2 issue in BSG could have been brought up in another context, by reading and discussing CROSSFIRE this interesting topic emerges by itself. I would very much recommend you and everybody else on the forum to read CROSSFIRE and join the discussion. As with all of Senmut’s work, it is extremely well written and a joy to read. John B. *** 30888 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 balor1999 Aug 13, 2015

Thanks, Senmut. Those are useful comments. However, as I continue to read CROSSFIRE, I have a problem catching up with the relevant BSG episodes. Last night I watched "The Lost Warror", which was a bit like SHANE, but if I continue in this tempo I will take too long before I reach "Greetings from Earth" and "Experiment in Terra". Do you think I will ruin the BSG experience by jumping to these

23

episodes now, assuming there is a specific timeline and order of episodes in BSG, or was it written in the style of S99 that would allow the viewer the watch episodes without any particular order? John B. *** 30889 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 sennmut Aug 13, 2015

Jumping won't hurt. It might even highten curiousity about the earlier eps. *** 30890 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 jemarcu Aug 13, 2015

If you're diving into Sen's S1999/ BSG crossover series, I strongly suggest you start with "Greetings from Cylon", as that is where our heroes first meet up.. and there is a lucid explanation for Victor Bergman's absense from s2, and his re appearance John M. *** 30902 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 balor1999 Aug 14, 2015

Has Senmut written a complete BSG/S99 series? I knew he had written BSG fiction, but I wasn't aware of GREETINGS FROM CYLON being a crossover. The S99 works of Senmut I have identified consists of the following list: 1. To take the risk 2. I think Tony would have been very happy 3. Crossfire 4. It's gotta be the beer 5. Allow me to introduce myself 6. Et Willelm ad Pevensae venit 7. Forever Alpha

24


Is this the complete list, or am I only scratching the surface of what he has written? John B. *** 30907 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 jemarcu Aug 14 3:30 PM

http://www.space1999fiction.com/list.asp?Aut horId=517

30922 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 balor1999 Aug 19, 2015

Thanks for explaining. I'm now in chapter 9 of CROSSFIRE where the character Maxwell plays a central part. Is this the same Maxwell that was the girlfriend of Charlie Watts in EXPERIMENT IN TERRA? John B. ***

*** 30917 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 balor1999 Aug 18, 2015

30923 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 sennmut Aug 19, 2015

Maxwell was her father. General Maxwell. I have watched the BSG episodes “Greetings from Earth” and “Experiment in Terra”, both being very helpful for getting a better understanding of the universe Senmut describes in CROSSFIRE. However, there are also other characters that show up, like Dr. Nick Barber and police officer Schanke. I don’t know yet to which extent they influence the plot, but the story seems to be more than a crossover between S99 and BSG. And, who is the character Brie? Is that somebody I should have recognised from BSG? John B. *** 30918 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 sennmut Aug 18, 2015

Brie is a Viper pilot, stuck on Alpha after their original encounter with the Colonials, in an earlier story, along with Greenbean. Dr. Barber you will find in my first Xover, Forever Alpha, which begins a few months before Breakaway. That story was an Xover with the series Forever Knight. Schanke was Nick's old Partner, back in Toronto. *** 17

Editor’s note: The section of Ariana’s “Space: 1999 fiction archive” containing works by Senmut

*** 30931 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 balor1999 Aug 20, 2015

Thanks for explaining, Senmut. I keep reading CROSSFIRE at a slow pace in order to be able to catch up watching BSG episodes. I find BSG pretty shallow in comparison with S99, but for nostalgia reasons it is still nice to watch. John B. *** 30945 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 John K. Balor Aug 24, 2015

I have now reached chapter 11 in CROSSFIRE where President Adar is referred to as "that deluded old pacifist". Senmut, although you claim your fictional writing is completely apolitical, only playing with the political context that is already in the BSG universe, I feel your political voice when reading the story in the same way as when we are discussing SPACE: 1999. But, I don’t mind. I don’t think Greenbean would have described President Adar as “that deluded old pacifist” in the TVseries, but I don’t mind such words coming out

The SPACE: 1999 novel of his mouth when reading your story. It fits with my understanding of how you perceive the world. I also like the way you let Greenbeam and Brie compare Adama and Koenig. In order to get into your story I had to jump episodes in BSG78, as you advised, and that was useful for understanding the context of Paradeen, the Nationalists, the Eastern Alliance, Leiter, Maxwell and so on. On the other hand, there is a very natural arrow of time in BSG. Events in earlier episodes are premises in later episodes. It is not very important, as most episodes seem to work fine as individual entities, but it is a nice touch that I miss in SPACE: 1999. Although I understand the reasons why Gerry Anderson and ITC wanted to have the episodes completely independent of each other, BSG feels more like a series and less like an anthology of episodes by creating this kind of continuity. *** 30946Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 sennmut Aug 24, 2015

Yes, I admit to liking the "natural arrow of time" aspect in BSG, and it would have improved Space somewhat. When a series "flows" like a book you are reading, it makes it feel more realistic. John and Helena, for example. Maybe other relationships, as well. As to Greenbean's comment, remember he is a career military person. Not a political scientist. And, when things go toes up, it is Human Nature to look for someone to fix all the blame onto. Adar is a convenient target, being dead, despite the fact that it was the treacherous Baltar who was the archtect of the Colonial Holocaust. *** 30947 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 John Marcucci Aug 24, 2015

True, Sen. But Adar was deluded, and he was a pacifist, so Greenbean's statement is just a re affirmation of the obvious, as it was portrayed on screen.

25

BSG Saga of a Star World did indeed have a political message, and it is this: what happens to a free society that lets its guard down when confronted by an aggressive, amoral enemy. France in 1940, Poland in 1939, the USA in 1941. The lesson is that societies who want to remain free and ndependent must pay a price in blood, treasure, and vigilance. This is an undeniable truth of human history that no thinking person disputes. But sometimes we need to be reminded oof it, and BSG/ TOS did a good job of that. Rgds, John M. *** 30948 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 balor1999 Aug 25, 2015

Jemarcu wrote: "BSG Saga of a Star World did indeed have a political message, and it is this: what happens to a free society that lets its guard down when confronted by an aggressive, amoral enemy. [...] The lesson is that societies who want to remain free and ndependent must pay a price in blood, treasure, and vigilance."

This is how I interpret the political subtext of BSG as well. To use the phrase T.M. Disch uses as a header for chapter 8 in his excellent book "The Dreams Our Stuff is made of: How Science Fiction Conquered the World" (New York: Touchstone Publishing, 1998), it is "Republicans on Mars - Science Fiction as Military Strategy". I thought Disch wrote a wonderful book commenting on the fascism of Robert A. Heinlein, Larry Niven, Orson Scott Card in a way that was quite different from the scholarly literature on Science Fiction and Critical Theory that we have already discussed. I don't know Disch's political position, he is probably more to the centre than Suvin, Jameson, Adorno, Marcuse and so on, but he is clearly not a Republican. Haha. In chapter 8 he talks about the fanatical rightwing attitudes of Heinlein and those kinds of people, but I thought his chapter 9 on aliens in science fiction literature was perhaps even

26


more insightful. The point he makes there is that people like Heinlein tends to describe aliens like bug monsters (e.g. STARSHIP TROOPERS), which makes it impossible to identify and feel empathy with them, and thus supports the kind of ideology Jemarcu describes, while STAR TREK and more progressive science fiction tends to describe aliens as different kinds of mirror images of our own civilisation, stressing the importance of diplomacy and mutual understanding. The difference between BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and SPACE: 1999 is quite iluminating in this respect. When our friends are being attacked by Cylons in BSG, this reveals the right-wing political subtext that Jemarcu talks about. By thinking about the enemy as robots, it is impossible to get any sympathy. Characters like Count Iblis, Baltar and Reiter are also fairly unsympathetic, but not in the same way. If you want to write effective right-wing science fiction, the best approach is to make it impossible to identify with the "enemy", Disch says, and talks about INDEPENDENCE DAY as a good example. Of course, there was very little of this kind of stuff in SPACE: 1999. Even robots like Brian the Brain and the Vegans are not without sympathy. I think there is a hallmark of good science fiction there. In SPACE: 1999 we are always forced to consider diplomatic solutions. In fascist science fiction like BSG and STAR WARS, the solution is always to increase the military budget, kill the others and blow up their establishments. Not so in SPACE: 1999. John B. *** 30949 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 sennmut Aug 26, 2015

There you go again with your favorite word, Balor. Everything is "fascist". DEFINE! And I don't mean refer to some on-line dictionary that no one ever heard of. How do YOU define it. YOU, no one else. *** 30950 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980

balor1999 Aug 26, 2015

Senmut, I don’t understand why you insist on me giving my personal definition of fascism. I started out by saying that I used it in the conventional sense by referring to Marcuse, Adorno, Wertham and Critical Theory literature in general. Then I provided the Free Dictionary definition, to show that my understanding of the concept is no different from how anybody else sees it. Finally, the Wikipedia definition was published on the forum. What is the problem? What I am trying to contribute to the discussion is a focus on how the insights from Fageolle, Keazor, Liardet and critical theory can be used for understanding SPACE: 1999, not new definitions of concepts that are already welldefined. Nevertheless, to try to answer your question in the context of BSG and S99, the key point I see in the writings of Marcuse is that fascism in BSG is not only something we see in the Nazi-like Commander Leiter and the Easter Alliance with their black military uniforms, but it also mirrored into Adama and the Galactica crew when the story is constructed in a manner where it becomes necessary to respond to violence with violence. I watched THE ESCAPE OF BALTAR last night, and I wonder what it might have been like seeing this in 1978. Back then we would probably first watch the news commenting on Carter doing SALT II negotiations, peace negotiations in the Middle East and negotiating the Iranian hostages, and then we would watch BSG with its repeated message that diplomacy doesn’t work and has to be replaced with military action. In this context BSG strikes me as being a politically subversive series. It was communicating the exact opposite message of what the US government was giving at the time. It was saying that it was time for military force to replace democracy and diplomacy. The meaning in BSG, as I see it, is to think of the US as a military dictatorship with Adama on top. I don’t know if Glen A. Larson would admit to this, but in comparison to SPACE: 1999 it feels this way. On the other hand, I have now completed chapter thirteen in your excellent CROSSFIRE story, and I was very much encouraged by

The SPACE: 1999 novel your previous response concerning Greenbean’s comments about Adar. One thing is what the characters are saying, and another thing is what the overall story is telling. I think this is quite telling when Koenig meet with Arra. I was impressed with this sequence, and the story runs from cliffhanger to cliffhanger. For a moment Alpha was on a collision course with Paradeen, but then something mysterious happened and I look forward to hearing about what will happen next. John B. *** 30951 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 sennmut Aug 27, 2015

On 26 Aug 2015 balor1999@... writes: Senmut, I don’t understand why you insist on me giving my personal definition of fascism. I started out by saying that I used it in the conventional sense by referring to Marcuse, Adorno, Wertham and Critical Theory literature in general. Then I provided the Free Dictionary definition, to show that my understanding of the concept is no different from how anybody else sees it. Finally, the Wikipedia definition was published on the forum. What is the problem? What I am trying to contribute to the discussion is a focus on how the insights from Fageolle, Keazor, Liardet and critical theory can be used for understanding SPACE: 1999, not new definitions of concepts that are already welldefined.

Because words are importnat. As nero Wolfe once said "I use words to say what I mean." Plato, I believe it was, said we must define our terms. Words like "fascist", as well as "Communist", "racist", or "whateverphobe" get tossed around a great deal in today's discourse, often carelessly. To me, Fascism is the militarist dictatorship, ala Mussolini from which the term derives, or similar ones, with a serious jackboot race-based metric for evaluating Human beings. You will notice, in both Space and BSG, the color of one's skin, or place of national origin, are meaningless. It is the Alliance, in BSG, that decrees their enemies to be "naturally" inferior, and all other policies of state flow from this. Maya is never judged, except perhaps by a few in private, as less worthy of God-given dignity, because she was not born a Human.

27

I suspect you, or at least those works that you have absorbed, see any form of law-and-order, of enforcing law for the sake of public safety, as "Fascism". Well, as one of our Founding Fathers, James Monroe put it, "if men were angels, there would be no need of governments." Koenig accepts myriad inputs from his people, before rendering a decision. Adama, if you recal, said how his people "love freedom, we love independence, to feel, to question, to resist oppression." Well, I'm no Marcuse, or any of his ilk, but I don't see alot of "Fascism" in a social philosophy that both treasures, and encourages, a drive for independence. Something that Dione et al, The Dorcons, or the Eastern Alliance, seem to eschew at every turn, in their quest for power. In short, we must define words, or else they mean nothing. And when words mean nothing, they can end up meaning anything. Nevertheless, to try to answer your question in the context of BSG and S99, the key point I see in the writings of Marcuse is that fascism in BSG is not only something we see in the Nazilike Commander Leiter and the Easter Alliance with their black military uniforms, but it also mirrored into Adama and the Galactica crew when the story is constructed in a manner where it becomes necessary to respond to violence with violence. I watched THE ESCAPE OF BALTAR last night, and I wonder what it might have been like seeing this in 1978. Back then we would probably first watch the news commenting on Carter doing SALT II negotiations, peace negotiations in the Middle East and negotiating the Iranian hostages, and then we would watch BSG with its repeated message that diplomacy doesn’t work and has to be replaced with military action. In this context BSG strikes me as being a politically subversive series. It was communicating the exact opposite message of what the US government was giving at the time. It was saying that it was time for military force to replace democracy and diplomacy. The meaning in BSG, as I see it, is to think of the US as a military dictatorship with Adama on top. I don’t know if Glen A. Larson would admit to this, but in comparison to SPACE: 1999 it feels this way.

The Colonials respond with violence, in self defence. It is their interminable enemies the Cylons, who do not swerve from the path of violence. Now, I saw the ep which you reference, Baltar's Escape, back in those days, and saw it for what it was. Adventure. Also, a

28


logical way for the Alliance prisoners to effect their escape from the Colonials, so we that we could then build up to the events in Experiment In Terra. If one must use the oft-abused word "Fascist", then I think it applies to the Alliance. The racial attitudes, the militaristic strutting, as well as the utter disregard for the countless millions of "non-designated members of our own Alliance" who will be wiped out in a nuclear exchange, I think, gives us a clear moral picture. Just as Koenig, despite all, can make a moral judgement about Mentor's use of lobotomized slaves in his mines, amid the drive to save Alpha. Dr. Rowland is evil, because he has no regards for the lives, or sanity, of others, while Tanner does. Koenig sides with Tanner, to save his people from being turned into Brussel Sprouts. I see nothing "Fascist" here, in the actions of the Commander, though the opposite can certainly be said of the Easter Alliance, and it singleminded genocidal determination to win, even if they must wipe out millions. There is no mirror at all. The two are as unlike as broccoli and motor oil. *** 30952 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 balor1999 Aug 27, 2015

Senmut wrote: Words like "fascist", as well as "Communist", "racist", or "whateverphobe" get tossed around a great deal in today's discourse, often carelessly. To me, Fascism is the militarist dictatorship, ala Mussolini from which the term derives, or similar ones, with a serious jackboot race-based metric for evaluating Human beings.

In the heat of debate people say a lot of things, I agree. Those on the right-wing side of politics may accuse those on the left of being “communists”, and those on the left may accuse those on the right of being “fascists”. In such contexts words and concepts may get tossed around rather carelessly, just like people on this forum have accused of being “trolls” and all sorts of things by those who disagree with their views on GA, FF, Y1/Y2 or other controversial issues, but I think there is a significant difference between using words like “communist/fascist” for making personal

attacks and for exploring the political subtext of a series like S99 or BSG. When we look at the historical context of critical theory as developed by the Frankfurt school, the background was that they were a group of German left-wing intellectuals of Jewish origin who were disillusioned with Russian communism had escaped Nazi Germany to settle down at Columbia University NY and elsewhere to be astonished to discover how similar the oppressive social structures in a capitalist society like the US, and they were worried. Now, it is easy to understand their reaction from the basis of their personal background, but the reason they become important in the formation of the New Left was because the way they formulated their insights was enlightening for the next generation and has remained so every new generation to come. As Jan Arendt Fuhse points out in his brilliant 2003 article about science fiction as critical theory, not only is there a good fit between good science fiction and critical theory, good science fiction IS critical theory. Good science fiction provides a means of interpreting the world in the same way as Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse did in their readings of society, and not only is this true with science fiction classics like FRANKESTEIN, NINETEEN EIGHTYFOUR and BRAVE NEW WORLD, it is also the case with modern SF literature and film such as THE MATRIX and CUBE, Fuhse argues. Referring to Fuhse this makes it possible for Keazor (2014) to make the natural question of whether SPACE: 1999 should also be understood in a similar way. From his viewpoint of course it does, but it is also something that needs further discussion and clarification, he says. In this respect, I think we contributed reasonable well in our recent ExE, although I would very much have liked to have seen Keazor’s response to that debate. So, in terms of defining fascism, I don’t think there is any difference between how I understand the term and how you describe it as “the militarist dictatorship, ala Mussolini from which the term derives, or similar ones, with a serious jackboot race-based metric for evaluating Human beings”. The only point in your understanding that I’m slightly uncertain of is the race issue. Of course, the “one race, one religion, one government and no

The SPACE: 1999 novel separation of classes” speech that Maya gives in RULES OF LUTON gave Martin Willey the impression that she was speaking of a “Nazi paradise” (Ogland, 2014, p. 434), and many of us consider this an extremely useful and important observation, but I believe Pierre Fageolle provides an even deeper understanding. Fageolle guides us through the use of people like Bruno Bettelheim, something that can be used for providing a deeper understanding of why racism is associated with fascism. Just like the members of the Frankfurt school, Bettelheim was also an intellectual Jew who escaped the Nazi regime to settle down in the US, but when contemplating the issue of the concentration camps he suggested that the reason why the Nazis were so anxious to get rid of the Jews had to do with the high percentage of Jews in leadership roles in the labour unions. So, even though fascist ideology may contain irrational myths about race, there may be deeper intellectually and financially oppressive reasons behind this. I don’t know if Bettelheim’s ideas had anything to do with Senator McCarthy and the “red scare” hysteria in the 1950s, but his argument suggests a parallel in the sense of creating an internal enemy as an ideological device for wiping out those on the left side of the political spectrum and thus giving more power to the hegemonic social elites on the right. This is one of the reasons I find your CROSSFIRE story not only enjoyable to read but also highly significant for gaining a deeper understanding of SPACE: 1999 through the implications of Fageolle and Keazor. Not only is your story fascinating in itself, on several levels, but it also provides food for thought in terms of mixing SPACE: 1999 with the kind of “fascist” science fiction that BSG represents. I have now watched the second to last episode, TAKE THE CELESTRA, which started out a little bit like THE MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY in the sense that our sympathies were with Aurora and the crew rather than Captain Chronos, but just like FIRE IN SPACE and many other episodes, by paying homage to a famous film with a critical perspective on society, it was reinterpreted in a way to fit with the military right-wing agenda of the series. In FIRE the central point about business greed against safety regulations that

29

formed the ideological basis for TOWERING INFERNO was replaced by the Galactica being attacked by Cyclons. In CELESTA the oppressive character of Chronos turned out to be a benign father figure that simply had not understood the devious nature of one of his officers. What BSG seems to do to me, is to take a lot of famous plots and rewrite then in order to fit with the Reagan campaign against Carter, or more generally provide a right-wing mythology similar to STAR WARS although perhaps even more to the right on the political spectrum than what George Lucas was willing to. I think the way you make us reflect on these issues fit perfectly with the recent addition to the SPACE: 1999 scholarly literature by means of Didier Liardet’s recent book “Cosmos 1999: Le fabulaire de l’espace” (2014). Following on the footsteps of Fageolle, Liardet identifies themes in SPACE 1999 that we would naturally associate with the political left, and similar to you he compares the series with other works of fiction that provide new and interesting ways of understanding it. John B. *** 30953 Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 sennmut Aug 28, 2015 In the heat of debate people say a lot of things, I agree. Those on the right-wing side of politics may accuse those on the left of being “communists”, and those on the left may accuse those on the right of being “fascists”. In such contexts words and concepts may get tossed around rather carelessly, just like people on this forum have accused of being “trolls” and all sorts of things by those who disagree with their views on GA, FF, Y1/Y2 or other controversial issues, but I think there is a significant difference between using words like “communist/fascist” for making personal attacks and for exploring the political subtext of a series like S99 or BSG.

AGAIN, my point. Since I, and many other on the list, DO NOT subscribe to the idea that S99 HAS a political subtext, the argument is an empty one. There is no political subtext, in either show. To give you the benefit of the doubt, each series was trying to be topical, and

30


many eps reflect this. But political subtext...no. It just is not there When we look at the historical context of critical theory as developed by the Frankfurt school, the background was that they were a group of German left-wing intellectuals of Jewish origin who were disillusioned with Russian communism had escaped Nazi Germany to settle down at Columbia University NY and elsewhere to be astonished to discover how similar the oppressive social structures in a capitalist society like the US, and they were worried. Now, it is easy to understand their reaction from the basis of their personal background, but the reason they become important in the formation of the New Left was because the way they formulated their insights was enlightening for the next generation and has remained so every new generation to come. As Jan Arendt Fuhse points out in his brilliant 2003 article about science fiction as critical theory, not only is there a good fit between good science fiction and critical theory, good science fiction IS critical theory. Good science fiction provides a means of interpreting the world in the same way as Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse did in their readings of society, and not only is this true with science fiction classics like FRANKESTEIN, NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR and BRAVE NEW WORLD, it is also the case with modern SF literature and film such as THE MATRIX and CUBE, Fuhse argues. Referring to Fuhse this makes it possible for Keazor (2014) to make the natural question of whether SPACE: 1999 should also be understood in a similar way. From his viewpoint of course it does, but it is also something that needs further discussion and clarification, he says. In this respect, I think we contributed reasonable well in our recent ExE, although I would very much have liked to have seen Keazor’s response to that debate.

Again, you speak of things that are not there. Marcuse and his "school" have about as much to do with S99 as a tarantula does with a wedding cake. All it is is a bunch of pseudointellectuals, trying to appear deep and relevant, by publishing meaningless tomes on an old series. It is meaningless type. Ink on a page. Critical theory is gunk, and in no way contributes to anything of serious social or moral value. Oh, BTW..."oppressive social structure in a capitalist society"? IF ONLY! I wish it were a hundred times as "bad" as those intellectual fifth columnists thought it was. Yeah, if only. So, in terms of defining fascism, I don’t think there is any difference between how I understand the term and how you describe it as

“the militarist dictatorship, ala Mussolini from which the term derives, or similar ones, with a serious jackboot race-based metric for evaluating Human beings”. The only point in your understanding that I’m slightly uncertain of is the race issue. Of course, the “one race, one religion, one government and no separation of classes” speech that Maya gives in RULES OF LUTON gave Martin Willey the impression that she was speaking of a “Nazi paradise” (Ogland, 2014, p. 434), and many of us consider this an extremely useful and important observation, but I believe Pierre Fageolle provides an even deeper understanding.

Then you contradict yourself. You have described Koenig's governance of Alpha as "fascist' and "proto-fascist", yet you say you don't think there is any difference in how we understand the term fascism. Well, there is a CHASM of difference. When I spoke of race, were you unaware of the laws in Italy, in 1938, restricting Jews? (One of Mussolini's speeches, describing the Jews as "strangers to Italy", was given from his villa, built atop a JEWISH catacomb! Gotta laugh!) The 1934 Nuremberg Laws in Germany? Based on racial theory. There is NONE of that on Alpha. In fact we see people of different "races" in high and responsible positions on Alpha. Ouma, Kano, Matthias, the Chinese lady who never gets named. In BSG, Colonel Tigh is Black, as we saw folks of various ethinicities on the Council, before the Holocaust. Boomer leads a Viper Squadron. I see nothing "fascist" in any of that. As to Maya's comments to Koenig in TROL, let us remember that her knowledge of Psychon's past is largely what Mentor told her. Since she was not born in the "Days of Paradise", but after the planet was well into it's death rattle, she has no firsthand knowledge of what Psychon was truly like, before the crisis began. We do not know what records were saved, or that she may have had access to. Her comment, while genuinely meant by her, must be seen in the light of her source/s of information. Highly suspect, at best. Maya spoke of Psychon's "High Scientific Council", and her father's place on it. Whether this was the actual governing body of State, an adjunct advisory body, or entirely private and outside the sphere of power, is never made entirely clear, sadly. If Psychon was ruled, more or less, by the "scientific elite", than comparing it to a "Nazi Paradise" might not be too far off. Perhaps things drifted that way, as

The SPACE: 1999 novel Psychon began to die. Certainly, the behavior of Dorzak does not give one great cause for hope, in that area. In any event, Mentor's actions should be seen in the light of a scientist, desperate to succeed at his project, and having now passed the indefinable line, where now he will do virtually anything to see it through to it's consummation. He cares for nothing, but the success of his vision. Only maya can cut through that fog, and by then it is too late for either her father, or Psychon. What I mean is that we should not see conditions on Psychon, i.e. the aliens in the mines, as evidence of some "fascist or capitalist" oppression, but as the fruit of a mind driven ever nearer to complete madness. No political subtext need apply. Fageolle guides us through the use of people like Bruno Bettelheim, something that can be used for providing a deeper understanding of why racism is associated with fascism. Just like the members of the Frankfurt school, Bettelheim was also an intellectual Jew who escaped the Nazi regime to settle down in the US, but when contemplating the issue of the concentration camps he suggested that the reason why the Nazis were so anxious to get rid of the Jews had to do with the high percentage of Jews in leadership roles in the labour unions. So, even though fascist ideology may contain irrational myths about race, there may be deeper intellectually and financially oppressive reasons behind this. I don’t know if Bettelheim’s ideas had anything to do with Senator McCarthy and the “red scare” hysteria in the 1950s, but his argument suggests a parallel in the sense of creating an internal enemy as an ideological device for wiping out those on the left side of the political spectrum and thus giving more power to the hegemonic social elites on the right.

Well, I can't speak for Bettleheim, but as to mcCarthy...would to God we had a hundred like him. yes, i actually did say that. If only. This is one of the reasons I find your CROSSFIRE story not only enjoyable to read but also highly significant for gaining a deeper understanding of SPACE: 1999 through the implications of Fageolle and Keazor. Not only is your story fascinating in itself, on several levels, but it also provides food for thought in terms of mixing SPACE: 1999 with the kind of “fascist” science fiction that BSG represents. I have now watched the second to last episode, TAKE THE CELESTRA, which started out a little bit like THE MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY in the sense that our sympathies were with Aurora and the crew rather than Captain Chronos, but just like FIRE IN SPACE

31

and many other episodes, by paying homage to a famous film with a critical perspective on society, it was reinterpreted in a way to fit with the military right-wing agenda of the series. In FIRE the central point about business greed against safety regulations that formed the ideological basis for TOWERING INFERNO was replaced by the Galactica being attacked by Cyclons. In CELESTA the oppressive character of Chronos turned out to be a benign father figure that simply had not understood the devious nature of one of his officers. What BSG seems to do to me, is to take a lot of famous plots and rewrite then in order to fit with the Reagan campaign against Carter, or more generally provide a right-wing mythology similar to STAR WARS although perhaps even more to the right on the political spectrum than what George Lucas was willing to.

I never saw TLC in terms of Mutiny On The Bounty. I saw it as an episode that was, on one level, a bit of fluff, needed to fill in the schedule. But also, that Commander Chronus, the disciplinarian, had grown complacent. He just assumed that all was well, because orders were, a least on the surface, obeyed. If this ep has ANY "subtext", it might be that discipline, while always needed, must be tempered with compassion. For all his vaunted military achievements, Chronus did not know how to do that, while Adama did. As to these eps being "right wing", recall the dates. The series ended in early 1979, and the Reagan-Carter duel was still in the future. Most folks thought Reagan had no chance, so that theory does not fit. While I am glad you like my stuff, there is no "fascist" ANYTHING that BSG represents. My main motivation was in wondering what might have happened, after the Colonial Fleet passed through the region. I wrote stuff in the fasion that I would have liked to see it on TV, had that been possible. I write in the manner of a photographer. Someone once told me, when you take a picture, specifically nature stuff, think of how youd paint it, if it were a painting, and try and compose accordingly. I write as if I had control over stories for a series. I write what I would like to have seen, while always remaining within the given parameters of the show in question. Xovers are tricky, to be sure, but the challenge is half the fun. AGAIN to reiterate.....there is NO political subtext in what I am writing, Balor. Intended or otherwise. It's just writing for the sake of

32


writing. Even my Peter Gun/Forever Knight Xover was just for a fun romp. No other reason. I think the way you make us reflect on these issues fit perfectly with the recent addition to the SPACE: 1999 scholarly literature by means of Didier Liardet’s recent book “Cosmos 1999: Le fabulaire de l’espace” (2014). Following on the footsteps of Fageolle, Liardet identifies themes in SPACE 1999 that we would naturally associate with the political left, and similar to you he compares the series with other works of fiction that provide new and interesting ways of understanding it.

Glad I seem to be scholarly, but it's accidental. Again, NO political subtext/s need apply here. *** 30955 Re: Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 balor1999 Today at 10:05 AM

Senmut wrote: You have described Koenig's governance of Alpha as "fascist' and "proto-fascist", yet you say you don't think there is any difference in how we understand the term fascism. Well, there is a CHASM of difference. When I spoke of race, were you unaware of the laws in Italy, in 1938, restricting Jews? […] The 1934 Nuremberg Laws in Germany? Based on racial theory. There is NONE of that on Alpha.

I have argued that Y2 moved in the direction of fascism with Moonbase Alpha becoming more like a military outfit, a clearer demarcation between the leadership elite in Command Centre and the people like Sanderson doing the daily work, and Koenig behaving more erratically and more like a proto-fascist dictator. For me all this adds up in making the Y2 series more “fascist” in the sense of describing a militaristic society where the working class is being exploited by a social elite in a similar way to what we saw in Y1’s MISSION OF THE DARIANS. Nevertheless, I agree with you that there is no explicit racism on Moonbase Alpha, so that I why I drew the attention to Fageolle’s use of Bettelheim for commenting on the role of racial theory in the context of fascist ideology. I do not challenge your view that racist theories played an important part in the

historical fascism of Mussolini and Hitler, and the ideas of the Frankfurt school was important for the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s and others who study racial oppression, colonial and post-colonial theory, but from the viewpoint of Bettelheim the race theory was not a goal in itself. It was a means to an end. It had to be understood in the context of Marxist economic theory of how the hegemonic class maintains its power by eliminating threats coming from the below. To me Fageolle’s use of Bettelheim helps articulate an understanding of SPACE: 1999 based on this premise. So, although I agree with the way you explain ‘fascism’, I would add a footnote what you say about racism by referring to Bettelheim. Of course racism is an important part of how we understand fascism, but it strikes me as a symptom rather than a premise. Perhaps we have clarified a small difference of understanding of the concept here, and thus making it easier to discuss political subtext (or lack of political subtext, as you argue) in SPACE: 1999. However, the interdependence between fascism and racism is not an open and shut case. Here are some comments from politics.co.uk: (http://www.politics.co.uk/commentanalysis/2013/04/03/comment-can-you-reallybe-a-fascist-without-being-a-racist) John Weiss, a professor of history at Wayne State University, sought to give a definition of fascism in his book, The Fascist Tradition: Radical Right-Wing Extremism in Modern Europe. He arrived at a list of ideas that he believed to be shared by the majority of the people commonly referred to as fascists: organicist conceptions of community; philosophical idealism; Idealisation of "manly" (usually peasant or village) virtues; a resentment of mass democracy; elitist conceptions of political and social leadership; racism (and usually, though not necessarily, anti-semitism); militarism; imperialism. Marxist definitions of fascism link it with capitalism. In 1935 the Communist International published the following definition: "Fascism in power is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialistic elements of finance capitalism."

The SPACE: 1999 novel Leon Trotsky described fascism as: "The historic function of fascism is to smash the working class, destroy its organisations, and stifle political liberties when the capitalists find themselves unable to govern and dominate with the help of democratic machinery." Secondly regarding racism, the Oxford dictionary defines racism as: "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races: theories of racism prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." Racism was and still is used to justify imperialism, colonialism and slavery by portraying the victims of such regimes as inferior to the white population in imperialist countries. A recent example is how racism was directed at Muslim communities to justify the unpopular war on Iraq, widely seen as the US's attempt to increase its control over Middle East oil. Although the commentator is trying to argue your point that racism is a part of fascism, although from what I assume to be a different political perspective, two of the three fascism definitions he makes use of do not take racism into explicit consideration. Although Bettelheim did not use the language of Trotsky or the 1935 Communist International, the spirit is similar in the sense that it focuses on economic and political struggle as the main issue while the racial theories themselves become part of the superstructure, similar to how Neman created a superstructure in terms of false gods for the people on level seven of SS Daria to control their behaviour and make sure that it would be in service of the interests of the ruling class. I never saw TLC in terms of Mutiny On The Bounty. I saw it as an episode that was, on one level, a bit of fluff, needed to fill in the schedule. But also, that Commander Chronus, the disciplinarian, had grown complacent. He just assumed that all was well, because orders were, a least on the surface, obeyed. If this ep has ANY "subtext", it might be that discipline, while always needed, must be tempered with compassion. For all his vaunted military

33

achievements, Chronus did not know how to do that, while Adama did.

I have now reached chapter seventeen in your story and watched all 24 episodes of BSG. Still I have some difficulty remember the names of BSG characters that showed up in single episodes, such as “John” from EXPERIMENT IN TERRA (who you magnificently compare with Arra) and Specter (from THE YOUNG WARRIORS?), and I’m not sure about Richter, Grun, the Melnorian ship and so on, but the story is fascinating. Although I have mixed feelings about BSG, thank you very much for making me re-visit this series from my childhood. I didn’t think much of it back then, just like I thought BUCK ROGERS IN THE 25TH CENTURY from the same period was similarly inferior to SPACE: 1999, but it brings back memories. And, there are certain nice things about BSG. For instance, I always liked Terry Carter as Dennis Weaver’s companion in MCCLOUD, and I think he did a similarly great performance in BSG. I also liked the ending with the Apollo 11 transmission, and I liked the way the series moved forward, creating an arrow of time through the 24 episodes that I felt was lacking in S99. Just like SPACE: 1999, however, it started with a bang and it ended with a hope in the sense that the ending of THE HAND OF GOD was a bit similar to THE TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA, so I enjoy your story very much and look forward to reading the final chapters. John B. *** 30958 Re: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 John Marcucci Aug 28, 2015

Indeed. As has been said before, many times, this forum is not a place for pseudointellectuals to drop names of obscure political hacks. It has no bearing. People who recklessly throw around words "fascist", as Petter does, are not interested in discussion. They are trolls seeking validation, and spreading discord. For example, anyone who insinuates that Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher, or Fred Frieberger, were

34


"fascist", they have ipso facto placed themselves in the same category as people who believe the Earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese. No discussion is possible with this sort, good intentions aside. *** 30959 Re: Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 jemarcu Aug 28, 2015

--Fred *** 30961 Re: Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 sennmut Aug 28 11:49 PM

Nebbishes? Is that some new alien horror, for Alpha? ***

Sen, agree about the great Senator Joe McCarthy. His only problem was that he liked to pull a cork too much. But that was enough. The debate over Senator McCarthy and the extent of Soviet infiltration into the United States in the 1950's was settled long ago. The Venona and ALES files, released from Soviet archives after the fall of Communism prove beyond any remaining doubt that McCarthy was right. Alger Hiss and the Rosenburgs were guilty as sin. The US government was infiltrated at the highest levels by Soviet agents. Its over, done with, and settled. THe proof is irrefutable. No serious scholar or thinking person disputes this any longer. Of course, that would exclude Petter and his list of nebbishes. Rgds, John M. *** 30960 ...don't forget "The Return of STARBUCK"! (Galactica: 1980) spaceforce3000 Aug 28, 2015

...don't overlook the True Final episode of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA....Episode #10 of GALACTICA: 1980 - The Return of Starbuck! Watch the cliffhanger to end all cliffhangers for free on YouTube: LINK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULcVa2K JJvo (BTW a few fans have speculated that the "Cylon-as-a-protector" aspect of this episode was a major inspiration for TERMINATOR 2). A great episode! Don't miss it!

30962 Re: ...don't forget "The Return of STARBUCK"! (Galactica: 1980) balor1999 Aug 29, 2015

Thanks for your inspiring comments, Fred. I have just watched the first part of the GALACTICA 1980 pilot and found it surprisingly good considering what I have heard that GAL80 should be as different from BSG as S99/Y1 is from S99/Y2. GAL80 didn't strike me as being in conflict with BSG at all. It had the same music, the same starship models, the interior of the Galactica looked more or less the same as it did in BSG, Adama was about 15 years older than on BSG, Boxie had grown up as Troy and some of the main characters from BSG had apparently died or disappeared. It all seemed very natural to me, and the first part of the pilot was good too, or at least no worse than the typical BSG episode. But perhaps I am misguided. Perhaps GAL80 will take a bad turn in one of the next episodes and sink to the level of S99/Y2. I hope not. In fact, when I watched this I kept wondering whether S99 would have been better if they had done what Glen A. Larson did here, namely to change the title of the show and the main theme of the show. Both BSG and S99 are about a people searching for a home. In GAL80 they have reached Earth and the story seems to develop in another direction, so far dealing with preparations for carrying out what in S99 was called "Operation Exodus". I wonder if S99/Y2 would have been better if they had done the same thing. For instance the name SPACE 1999 doesn't make much sense for describing Y2. They are no longer in the year 1999 and the series is no longer paying homage to Kubrick's SPACE ODYSSEY, neither in visual terms or storywise.


On the other hand, I find it interesting that there is a similar conflict between seasons in BSG/GAL80 and the fans are in disagreement. My impression so far is that there is much less reason for conflict in this case. GAL80 seems to follow seemlessly upon BSG, illustrating how they should have written S99/Y2 to make it less contradictary in the context of Y1. I look very much forward to watch the remaining GAL80 episodes, including THE RETURN OF STARBUCK, while I read the exiting conclusion of Senmut's CROSSFIRE story. John B. *** 30964Re: [OnlineAlpha] Battlestar Galactica & Galactica 1980 balor1999 Aug 30, 2015

Senmut wrote: The shock of transition, as it were, between BSG and GAL80 is quite sharp, but in part explained. We learn that it has been "many yahrens" since the events in BSG's final ep, The Hand of God, and that many of our heroes have been lost. A few of the names of characters in GAL80 sometimes turn up in BSG in passing. For continuity's sake, if nothing else. Unfortunately, the Network pulled some fast ones of Mr. Larson, budgetary among others, and wanted things to be "educational", and "kid friendly." You can imagine the result. Most fans accept only the final ep, The Return Of Starbuck, as "canon". Even there, the fan reedits make alot more sense.

I have now been watching the second part of the GAL80 pilot, but so far I have discovered no shock of transition. I feel the transition between the two series/seasons to be quite smooth. Of course, GAL80 doesn’t feel like STAR WARS. It feels more like STAR TREK where they occasionally travelled to Earth, like “Tomorrow is Yesterday” or STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME. But S99 is more like STAR TREK than STAR WARS, I would say, so that is perhaps the reason I have no problem with the transition so far? In the second part of the pilot we see that Boomer is still active on Galactica. Clearly not all of the heroes from

35

BSG have been lost. I assume you are right about budgetary cuts, but GAL80 still looks quite expensive too. John B. *** 30965 Re: ...don't forget "The Return of STARBUCK"! (Galactica: 1980) balor1999 Aug 31, 2015

Fred, I have now watched the first three episodes of GALACTICA 1980 (the pilot), and I don't find it all that different from BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. Nevertheless, I understand that the series was a commerical and critical failure and only lasted ten episodes while there were more episodes in the planning. I like your comments on BSG regarded STAR WARS, but could you share some views on BSG/S99 and GAL80? Although I find both BSG and GAL80 much interior to S99, I am nevertheless puzzled by the failure of GAL80. To me it feels almost like BSG/GAL80 was a transition from STAR WARS to STAR TREK before STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, finding it even more puzzling why GAL80 didn't succeed. John B. ***

36


2.4 The “badness” of Galactica 1980 The second season of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA is sometimes referred to as GALACTICA 1980 as this was the alternative title of the second season’s three-part pilot episode. Interesting, some fans of the original BSG series have been dismissive of the second season, in the same way as many fans of SPACE: 1999 are dismissive of its second season, meaning that there might be opportunities for insightful comparisons. The discussion starts out by looking at individual episodes of GAL80. 30966 The "badness" of GALACTICA: 1980 spaceforce3000 Aug 31, 2015

...well, the 3-part Pilot of GALACTICA: 1980 is pretty good. Lots of action...lots of the always awesome Richard Lynch. It's unfortunate that ABC rushed the series into production with a March debut only 2 months after airing of the Pilot... Noted critic John Kenneth Muir called the *Spaceball* episode as the "most inconsequential hour in the history of sci-fi TV" and I think that is a fair assessment (BTW, did this episode inspire the title of the Mel Brooks 1987 classic movie SPACEBALLS?) The 2-part episode *The Super-Scouts* is another infamous clunker (although the climax is pretty cool...). *The Night the Cylons Landed* 2-parter isn't too bad at all...but the plot is too thin spread over 2 episodes...if this had been a 1-part, tightly plotted episode it could have been great. The *Space Croppers*...just a meh episode....the sequence with the rapid plant growth accompanied by new age music is surprisingly well-done...guest star Ana Alicia is cute...but on the whole, there is very little to recommend about this episode. ...and then, seemingly out of nowhere, the brilliant and imaginative *The Return of Starbuck* comes along. How sad that after 9 fairly inconsequential episodes, the GALACTICA: 1980 series **finally** finds its footing at the very end. What took so long? The series was cancelled a day or two after *The Return of Starbuck* aired. Trivia Note: The GALACTICA: 1980 cast had **just** began filming Episode #11, *The Day They Kidnapped Cleopatra* when ABC cancelled the show. No one seems to know if

any scenes were actually completed before the cancellation. I doubt whatever scant minutes of film they completed for this episode was even processed. No doubt the undeveloped film reels were tossed in the trash. You can read the entire script here http://galactica1981.tripod.com/Scripts.htm -- Fred *** 30967 Re: [OnlineAlpha] The "badness" of GALACTICA: 1980 sennmut Sep 1, 2015

It was a problem of too many cooks. larson had a vision, and a great one at that. The NitWerk suits decided that yeah, it was great, all it needs is....and we saw the results. Everyone has someting to "contribute", and by the time they are all done, it's loused up but good. One reason we see so many shows carried on, via the Net, now, with "webisodes". The Networks and their visionary types can't be trusted to do it right. *** 30968 Re: The "badness" of GALACTICA: 1980 balor1999 Sep 1, 2015

Thanks for sharing observations and insights, Fred. So far I have only seen the 3-part pilot and the first part of THE SUPER SCOUTS, so my impression of the show is still in formation. Nevertheless, I find it interesting what you say about the pilot being pretty good. To me the pilot was not significantly better or worse than the average first season episode, so I didn’t understand the negative reactions. As I started watching THE SUPER SCOUTS, however, I was a bit sceptic. Although ALPHA CHILD is a great episode, and many of the

The SPACE: 1999 novel STAR TREK TOS episodes involving children are fine, I was thinking whether the children were suppose to indicate the age of the target audience. When Johnny Byrne was interviewed about the target audience for SPACE 1999 he said that he had no particular audience in mind beyond the show being family oriented. To me that made sense, and I also felt that the original STAR TREK series was aimed at the general audience. In the case of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, however, I wonder if it was deliberately targeted at a younger audience, just like STAR WARS, and GALACTICA 1980 seem even more indicative of this. On the other hand, the first part of SUPER SCOUTS wasn’t all that bad. It had some humorous situations, just like the pilot – which was quite funny in parts, and the environmentalist theme was interesting. An important theme of the pilot was the nuclear power concern after Three Mile Island, and in this episode there was an interesting angle on conflicting capitalist and environmentalist concerns. When observing this I almost got the impression that the right-wing nature of the original BSG series had matured into a more progressive and socially responsible GAL80. I haven’t watched enough episodes yet to see whether this is the way it goes, but if that should be the case then the political colours of Glen A. Larson may not be as obvious as I first thought. When watching BSG I was beginning to wonder whether I had missed some of the political subtext in 1970s series like ALIAS SMITH AND JONES and MCCLOUD, but perhaps Larson was less politically explicit than I first thought when considering BSG. Anyways, it was of great use to read your review of GAL80, Fred, and I look forward to watching the rest of the episodes as a read the final chapters of Senmut’s CROSSFIRE. By the way, on the page of unproduced scripts you referred to, there is a BSG script also called CROSSFIRE. Is this script in any way connected to Senmut’s story? John B. *** 30969 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The "badness" of GALACTICA: 1980

37

sennmut Sep 1, 2015

I was unaware of any such BSG story. What's it about? *** 30970 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The "badness" of GALACTICA: 1980 balor1999 Sep 1, 2015

Below is the summary from the link Fred provided. To me it seems like a totally different type of story, more like an origin/creation story, but I asked in case there were some subtle connections between the two stories I was not aware of. J.B. CROSSFIRE By John Ireland, Jr. Starbuck is on patrol with a squadron of cadets. The Galactica picks up a large amount of heat coming from an asteroid the pilots are approaching. An unmanned probe is launched to investigate and its camera finds a huge mountain with a powerful cannon. The cannon destroys the probe. Adama orders the patrol to retreat but Cadet Terry Cree attacks the cannon. He is hit by smaller Cylon guns, crashes, and is soon captured. The Galactica cannot retreat because several Cylon basestars are approaching from the rear. An assault team lead by Captain Skyler and Starbuck flys to the asteroid. Once there, they split up into two teams to take the mountain from different sides. Starbuck's team finds a small village inhabited by an immortal humanoid race called the Nari, created millenia ago by a female human. They are now enslaved to the Cylons. Starbuck is shown a book (written in Hebrew) describing how they were created. Unfortunately, neither they nor Starbuck understand the language. Later, Starbuck sees a room full of copies of famous Earth paintings by Margrit, Van Gogh, Rembrandt, Renoir, and Warhol. Adama communicates with Skyler and orders them to capture the weapon instead of

38


destroying it. Starbuck frees Cree. Then he and Skyler put on the helmet and armor of captured Cylons and capture the control room. They aim the cannon at the Cylon basestars and destroy them. Later, some of the Nori visit the Galactica and give Adama the book which tells of their creation. *** 30971 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The "badness" of GALACTICA: 1980 sennmut Sep 1, 2015

It was revamped into The Gun On Ice Planet Zero. Interesting premise.

*** 30975 Re: The "badness" of GALACTICA: 1980 kerryirs Sep 2, 2015

Crashing in a Viper isn't good for ones health. The pilots wore no spacesuits and those helmets would be useless. I hope that asteroid had an atmosphere. I was never a big fan of BSG. it reminded me too much of STAR WARS which I was never a big fan of either. THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK is my favoured of the movies, if I have to pick a favorite.

*** *** 30974 Re: The "badness" of GALACTICA: 1980 balor1999 Sep 2, 2015

30976 Re: The "badness" of GALACTICA: 1980 balor1999 Sep 3, 2015

Fred wrote: “The 2-part episode *The Super-Scouts* is another infamous clunker (although the climax is pretty cool...).”

To me the climax of THE SUPER SCOUTS was a bit like CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. An UFO landed with a universal message about peace, love and the need for taking care of the environment. I’m not sure I would use the expression “pretty cool” for describing the dialogue between the industrial leader and Adama about short-term benefits of laissez-faire capitalism against the long-term benefits of complying with environmental regulations, but it was certainly important and makes the series more relevant for today than ever. In this respect I suppose one could argue that GAL80 is closer to S99 than BSG. I have also read the second to last chapter in Senmut’s CROSSFIRE story. There are some parallels here as his story also ends on a happy note with peace negotiations and the importance of avoiding humiliation for either of the two parties to avoid future escalation of conflict. It was a very good chapter, and I look forward to reading the conclusion. John B.

Good points, Kerry. I don’t know if Dr. Wertham ever saw STAR WARS and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, but if he would have decided to comment on them it would probably be along disclosing the fascist nature of both series. Thanks to Fred, we have already seen Robert J. Sawyer’s video commentary on STAR WARS as fascism. Although it is not obvious to me that George Lucas made his film for the purpose of showing how science fiction cinema could be used for articulating a rightwing reactionary and militant message, contrary to the dominant trend of the times as seen by counterculture SF classics such as 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, SILENT RUNNING, ANDROMEDA STRAIN, WESTWORLD, THX1138, THE STARLOST, SPACE: 1999 and so on, but the response to his film could be interpreted in the context of people rejecting the intelligent and progressive nature of these films as the “tentacles of capitalism” (to use one of PP’s excellent expressions) was searching for ways of using SF as means of controlling the minds of the consumers. I completely agree with your assessments of STAR WARS and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. Although it can be argued that STAR WARS was inspired by SPACE: 1999

The SPACE: 1999 novel by means of how Lucas visited the Pinewood sets to learn about special effects and the nature of the show, ideologically STAR WARS is quite the reverse. In my opinion it was not STAR WARS or STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION that were the carriers of the SPACE: 1999 heritage, as Muir (1997) seems to think, but it was ALIEN (1979). In the first ALIEN film we have an isolated community of workers being exploited by capitalist interests as a metaphor for modern society. To me it was this film that represented the big screen vision of SPACE: 1999 in terms of making use of SPACE: 1999 special effects and a script that resonated with the SPACE: 1999 ideology. STAR WARS and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA represented the opposite. Unfortunately ALIEN was ideologically corrupted with the follow-up ALIENS, but that is another story. Having said that I agree with you in your comments on STAR WARS and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, I must also admit that I have read Senmut’s CROSSFIRE with great fascination. If we were to use your assessment of BSG, Kerry, what he does is to merge the universes of one of the greatest SF television series of all time (S99) with one of the worst (BSG), and observe what happens. Although one might expect this would be a recipe for disaster, to me it was not. I found his literary experiment quite exiting and illuminating. It has made me watch BSG in a new way, enjoying it much more now than I did 35 years ago. Back then I only saw parts of BSG/Y1, but now I have also seen much of BSG/Y2, and I find the difference between Y1/Y2 very interesting in the context of our own S99 Y1/Y2 discussions. If you have not read CROSSFIRE yet, I would strongly recommend doing it. Not only is it very well written, it is also food for though in the context of our S99 debates. John B. *** 30977 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The "badness" of GALACTICA: 1980 sennmut Sep 3 2:14 PM

39

But BSG is not "fascist", in any way. Neither is SW. ALIEN eas just a Technicolor gorefest, without depth or real significance. Now, please, DEFINE fascist, in 10 words or less, Balor. NOT according to any book or author, but according to you, alone! *** 30978 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The "badness" of GALACTICA: 1980 balor1999 Sep 4, 2015

Do we need more definitions of fascism? First I said that I used the term in the same way as Wertham and Marcuse. Then I provided the Free Dictionary definition. Then we had the Wikipedia definition published on the forum. Then you gave us your definition, which I agreed with, except for a small reservation about the difference between fascism and racism (reference to Fageolle/Bettelheim). Then we had the Oxford Dictionary definition of fascism, plus the 1935 Communist International definition and Trotsky’s definition. Do we really need more definitions? But, since you insist, here we have a definition that seems reasonable to me: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definitio n/american_english/fascism Definition of fascism in English: noun 1An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. 1.1(In general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice. The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach. So the question is whether we see BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (year 1) with Adama and the rest of his military outfit as representing an authoritarian and nationalistic

40


right-wing system of governance and social organisation. Right now I’m deeply into BSG/Y2, so I have almost forgotten how Y1 was like, but my immediate impression when watching it was that this was a story about “the supremacy of one national or ethnic group (the people on Galactica), a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader (Adama), and a strong demagogic approach”. As I seem to remember SF author Robert J. Sawyer pointing out in his YouTube documentary, STAR WARS can be seen to represent the same values. For us, however, it is not so important in itself whether BSG or SW is fascist or socialist, but the interesting thing is how our understanding of these series can help us understand S99. One key issue in the Online Alpha debates is whether S99/Y2 contains elements of fascism, as argued by some, and how this can be understood without accusing FF of being a fascist. I think the central point in such a debate is to build on Wertham’s theories of fascism in superhero literature and show how this is first seen in the 1930s and 40s films serials of SUPERMAN and BUCK ROGERS, and then how George Lucas and Mario Puzo tapped into this ugly past when creating STAR WARS in 1977 and SUPERMAN in 1978. Freiberger was probably aware of the fatigue of democracy in post-Vietnam and postWatergate America, and sensed the need for the articulation of fascist values (although not necessarily fascism itself), and thus wanted to destroy SPACE: 1999 by reversing the socialist ideology into fascism. However, he was not alone in understanding the signs of the times that soon result in the election of people like Thatcher and Reagan as national leaders. Glen A. Larson’s BSG is essentially a rip-off of STAR WARS that is perhaps even more right-wing, militant, nationalistic and antidemocratic, at least the pilot, although it got more humane in the second series. Nevertheless, I have now completed you CROSSFIRE story, and I liked the ending very much. I do not read your story as a political commentary in the same way as the series it was based upon, as you have explicitly told us that it was not intended as such, but I read it as an inventive and exiting story that is interesting to read. It was nice listening to Tony and Maya discussing ON HER

MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE, RETURN OF THE PINK PANTHER and COSMIC PRINCESS, having the story end in a similar way to how it started. This story was well written, and I enjoyed it very much. John B. *** 30979 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The "badness" of GALACTICA: 1980 sennmut Sep 4, 2015

I mean YOURS. How you personally define it, since you use the word quite frequently, and if I may say so, carelessly. There is no such thing, in either BSG, SW, or Space. At all. Adventure and entertainment, some better than others, but that is all. Fageolle, et al, are wrong, period. As to copying, were you aware that Larson had the premise for BSG three years before SW, but that no one was interested? Until SW was such a hit. BTW, I have a contempt for democracy. Does that make me fascist? Are you aware of the actual root of that term? *** 30980 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The "badness" of GALACTICA: 1980 balor1999 Sep 5, 2015

If I remember correctly, Thomas Disch described the works of Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle and Robert Heinlein as “fascist” in his interesting 1998 book “The dreams our stuff is made of: How science fiction conquered the world”, but then again his language and description of fellow SF contributors was polemic and colourful. In their book “Red Planets: Marxism and science fiction” (2009), Bould and Mieville are very clear in labelling good science fiction as socialistic and go into deep detail about the political views of important SF contributors, but they are more cautious in describing the right-wing extremists. I don’t think they used the word “fascist”, and neither do I think Carl

The SPACE: 1999 novel Freedman does so in “Critical Theory and Science Fiction” (2000). So, you may be right that we should be careful in how we use certain words and concepts. Of course, my comments were in not intended to insinuate anything about your political beliefs, regardless of whether you believe in democracy or not. My interest is in the ideology of S99, and not in whether I agree or disagree with the political viewpoints of my fellow discussants. On the contrary, I think it is good for the debate that we view the world differently, as this is helpful for looking at S99 from different perspectives, and I particularly like the way you contribute to new understandings of S99 by speculating about what a crossover between S99 and BSG might feel like. Nevertheless, I think there are elements of BSG that fit with the descriptions like “belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach”. You may decide that for you this does not necessarily mean “fascism”, but it is a direct quote from the Oxford online dictionary, and I think it would fit nicely with the kind of ideology that Dr. Wertham saw in the SUPERMAN comic books of the 1940s. But, I am now referring to BSG/S1. BSG/S2 is quite different, and due to this I can understand why some people feel the second series of BSG is better. In fact, I would expect that most fans of S99 would prefer GAL80 to BSG for exactly this reason. Ideologically GAL80 is much closer to S99 although BSG and S99 are thematically more similar in terms of both being “space ark” stories. It is also interesting what you say about BSG being conceptualised and planned three years before STAR WARS. Perhaps Larson was originally thinking of making a series more similar to THE STARLOST or SPACE 1999, but due to how STAR WARS suddenly changed the nature of science fiction he then decided to make a total reconceptualisation. To me this would explain the odd ideological change between BSG/S1 and BSG/S2. From this perspective it would be that BSG/S1 is the bastard child while BSG/S2 represents a return to the ideological roots that we can observe in pre-STAR WARS works like SPACE 1999.

41

John B. *** 30981 Re: The "badness" of GALACTICA: 1980 balor1999 Sep 6, 2015

Hello Fred, I have very much enjoyed using your excellent review of the second season of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA as a guide for watching the complete series and trying to understand more of the context in Senmut’s wonderful CROSSFIRE story. Although what you wrote was fairly critical of the second season in comparison with the first, I agreed on much of what you wrote. For instance you said that “The Night the Cylons Landed” was not too bad at all, and could perhaps have been made even better if the two-part story had been merged into one. I agree. The episode was not too bad. To me it was quite amusing, and I even enjoyed it as a two-part episode. When I watch “Bringers of Wonder” I have often thought that it could have been made much better by removing all those terrible scenes with Maya transforming into a rubber monster, but then again I think the length of it may not be the main problem. It could perhaps have worked as a two-part episode if it had been done in a Y1 context. Terence Feely originally wrote it as a one-part episode and was asked to revise it into a twoparter, but the problem was what FF did do the final script he handled in. I don’t feel like this when watching “The Night the Cylons Landed”. To me this episode is sufficiently tight and works well within the politically reflective social comedy format of the second series. I also liked “Spaceball”. The fact that John Kenneth Muir didn’t like it doesn’t tell me much. Although he wrote an important book on SPACE: 1999, the kind of episode analysis he provides in that book hardly engages with the political subtext of the series and makes more or less no reference to the scholarly SF literature. Considering Muir’s academic background, I find this very surprising, as writing such a book could have given him a

42


great opportunity to reflect on SPACE: 1999 in the context of what Suvin, Jameson, Bould and the others have written about SF, critical theory and post-Marxist philosophy, but I see none of that in Muir’s book. He does not even mention Fageolle. How could one not mention Fageolle when writing about SPACE: 1999? Incredible. In fact, he does not mention Drake either, and Heald is only briefly mentioned on page 182 in terms of “a critical book for any SPACE: 1999 to own is THE MAKING OF SPACE: 1999 by Tim Heald, published by Ballantine Books. Released in 1976, this book is a source of interesting and hard-to-find information about the production of Year Two”. While there is nothing wrong per se with what he is saying here, Fageolle, Drake and Heald would have given him a great opportunity for engaging with the scholarly SPACE: 1999 and position his own views in the context of the diverse opinions of the other expert. Unfortunately, there is very little of this, so his views on the series as a whole and individual episodes feels very much like the views of what any fan without his scholarly background might write. So, unless he changed tactics in his BATTLESTAR GALACTICA book, I wonder whether there should be any reason to give more weight to what Muir is saying about “Spaceball” than what you, I, Senmut or anybody else on this forum might have to say about it. Personally, I liked the episode. It reminded me of a similar episode from THE LITTLE HOUSE OF THE PRAIRIE. I also though “Space Croppers” was a nice entry, and I agree with what you say about Ana Alicia being pretty and the good use of new age music in the sequence with the rapid plant growth. I also liked the way the episode centred on a conflict between labour and capital. Given the right-wing nature of the first series, I find it quite remarkable how the second series has a completely different feel. It is no longer issues like the belief in the supremacy of one particular group of people, contempt for democracy, insistence on obedience to a powerful leader and strong demagogic approach that characterise what we see. Quite to the contrary, the focus is on issues like social justice and environmental concern. BSG changed from right-wing to left-

wing in exactly the opposite manner of how S99 changed from left-wing to right-wing. I also enjoyed your comment on “The Return of Starbuck”. I would not go as far as saying that the second series finally finds its footing with this final entry, but I liked the Robinson Crusoe story with an attempt to humanise the Cylons by way of how “Cy” becomes Starbuck’s “Friday” and helps him build a home and family. The way the story was told from the viewpoint of explaining the origin of Dr. Zee also worked fine with me, but in the context of the series as whole it felt more like an anecdote than something that would be suited as a conclusion for both the season and the series as a whole. It is too bad that they never managed to complete “The Day They Kidnapped Cleopatra”. Although I see BSG is profoundly inferior to S99, there are interesting similarities between the two series. In both cases there is a radical difference between the two seasons, and in both cases the final season was a commercial flop. If S99/Y2 had been produced in a similar manner to BSG/Y2, I expect that the fate had been even more similar in the sense that S99/Y2 would have folded after ten episodes or perhaps even earlier. John B. *** 30982 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The "badness" of GALACTICA: 1980 sennmut Today at 3:30 AM

On 06 Sep 2015 balor1999@... writes: When I watch “Bringers of Wonder” I have often thought that it could have been made much better by removing all those terrible scenes with Maya transforming into a rubber monster, but then again I think the length of it may not be the main problem. It could perhaps have worked as a two-part episode if it had been done in a Y1 context.

Maya transforms in that one to learn more about the aliens. The first rule of war is to know your enemy. As long as they hold the Alphans in a mind-controlling grip, and hide their true nature, they cannot be "known" and assessed realistically or logically. Since she is

The SPACE: 1999 novel not a warrior, she gains knowledge and insight in the only way open to her, given the circumstances. Campy rubber suits, yeah. But go with the plot. I also liked “Spaceball”. The fact that John Kenneth Muir didn’t like it doesn’t tell me much. Although he wrote an important book on SPACE: 1999, the kind of episode analysis he provides in that book hardly engages with the political subtext of the series and makes more or less no reference to the scholarly SF literature. Considering Muir’s academic background, I find this very surprising, as writing such a book could have given him a great opportunity to reflect on SPACE: 1999 in the context of what Suvin, Jameson, Bould and the others have written about SF, critical theory and post-Marxist philosophy, but I see none of that in Muir’s book. He does not even mention Fageolle. How could one not mention Fageolle when writing about SPACE: 1999? Incredible.

No, when one realizes that fageolle has nothing to say. If the eps had the subtext you are always on about, then they uttewrlay failed of their purpose, if some "adcdemic" was needed to explain them, decades later. If the audience doesn't get it, no "scholarly" whatever will do anything. BTW, I missed Spaceball. Quite to the contrary, the focus is on issues like social justice and environmental concern. BSG changed from right-wing to left-wing in exactly the opposite manner of how S99 changed from left-wing to right-wing.

Why, Balor, must you ALWAYS see something political in EVERYTHING? BSG did not go "left-wing", any more than Space had politcal subtext. You need to dispense with these "academics", and just watch. I also enjoyed your comment on “The Return of Starbuck”. I would not go as far as saying that the second series finally finds its footing with this final entry, but I liked the Robinson Crusoe story with an attempt to humanise the Cylons by way of how “Cy” becomes Starbuck’s “Friday” and helps him build a home and family. The way the story was told from the viewpoint of explaining the origin of Dr. Zee also worked fine with me, but in the context of the series as whole it felt more like an anecdote than something that would be suited as a conclusion for both the season and the series as a whole. It is too bad that they never managed to complete “The Day They Kidnapped Cleopatra”. Although I see BSG is profoundly inferior to S99, there are interesting similarities

43

between the two series. In both cases there is a radical difference between the two seasons, and in both cases the final season was a commercial flop. If S99/Y2 had been produced in a similar manner to BSG/Y2, I expect that the fate had been even more similar in the sense that S99/Y2 would have folded after ten episodes or perhaps even earlier.

Both BSG and Space flopped for the same basic reason. NitJerk suits wouldn't know good stuff if it crapped all over them. Most of them have no concept of what makes good drama/comedy/Sci-Fi. It's all tits and explosions, and as much eye-candy as the budget will allow. Real drama need not apply, and probably would not be recognized. *** 30983 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The "badness" of GALACTICA: 1980 sennmut Sep 7, 2015 Nevertheless, I think there are elements of BSG that fit with the descriptions like “belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach”. You may decide that for you this does not necessarily mean “fascism”, but it is a direct quote from the Oxford online dictionary, and I think it would fit nicely with the kind of ideology that Dr. Wertham saw in the SUPERMAN comic books of the 1940s. But, I am now referring to BSG/S1. BSG/S2 is quite different, and due to this I can understand why some people feel the second series of BSG is better. In fact, I would expect that most fans of S99 would prefer GAL80 to BSG for exactly this reason. Ideologically GAL80 is much closer to S99 although BSG and S99 are thematically more similar in terms of both being “space ark” stories.

I never saw that, in BSG, on the part of the Colonials. They helped the Hassaris (which got them into their initial trouble with the Cylons), and mixed with aliens on Carillon as if it were no big deal. The folks with the supremeacy hang-up were the Cylons themselves, who sought to impose their paradigm of perfection on the whole universe, and so everyone not perfect must go. Humans, and indeed all other sentient beings, were slated for erradication, because of this view. Recall that the Cylons also exterminated the Delphian race, just to possess their planet's resources. If you wish, this attitude could be called "fascist", as it had a virulently racial overtone, though the real

44


extent to which a culture of machines could be called a "race" is debateable. But between the shows, both Space and BSG, I see no connection with the super-hero comics you mention. In most of those, Nazi spies got blasted, or Hitler got beat the crap out of. No real parallel in Space. It is also interesting what you say about BSG being conceptualised and planned three years before STAR WARS. Perhaps Larson was originally thinking of making a series more similar to THE STARLOST or SPACE 1999, but due to how STAR WARS suddenly changed the nature of science fiction he then decided to make a total reconceptualisation. To me this would explain the odd ideological change between BSG/S1 and BSG/S2. From this perspective it would be that BSG/S1 is the bastard child while BSG/S2 represents a return to the ideological roots that we can observe in pre-STAR WARS works like SPACE 1999.

What changed the "nature of science-fiction" was the fact that SW made pots of money. The entertainment industry is only interested in the returns, not if something is good, or uplifting, or true, or edifying. They just want to know, will it pay. (excepting those who want to use the medium to propagandize to a certain social view/s) When SW, against all predictions, made Lucas an uber zillionaire, amazingly, scripts and concepts that had been rejected out of hand were suddenly interesting. The attitude of studio suits is one reason for the explosion of Net-based productions. Regular people can "see" their fav series or film the way they would have liked it to have gone. NOT the ignominious death some studio idiot condemned it to. Anyway, NO fascism, period. It's all entertainment vs. $$$. Or whatever. I honestly wish you'd lay off the "political subtext" jazz, and just try and enjoy. *** 30984 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The "badness" of GALACTICA: 1980 jemarcu Sep 7, 2015

The definition of fascism I learned in school was a highly centralized, authoritarian nation state characterized by extreme nationalism, agressive foreign policy & military adventures to gain territory and resources, and a very high

level of governmenr control over the economy, while still retaining a vestige of the free market and the external trappings of a republic. In fact, FDR's New Deal and Mussolini's economic policies were pretty indistuiguishable. This is what Mussolini built in Italy. There was no racial element in fascism. Italian Jews came through the war comparitively well compared other countries. Indeed, Mussolini tried several times to form an alliance against Hitler with Britain and France, but they rebuffed him ( see the Stressa Front). The purpose of this high school history lesson is to demonstrate that fascism has nothing whatsoever to do with BSG, Space 1999, superman, or anything else in the realm we are discussing. Rgds, John M. *** 30985 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The "badness" of GALACTICA: 1980 sennmut Sep 7, 2015

Go, John!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *** 30986 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The "badness" of GALACTICA: 1980 balor1999 Sep 7, 2015

Senmut wrote: No, when one realizes that fageolle has nothing to say. If the eps had the subtext you are always on about, then they uttewrlay failed of their purpose, if some "adcdemic" was needed to explain them, decades later. If the audience doesn't get it, no "scholarly" whatever will do anything. BTW, I missed Spaceball.

Keazor makes extensive reference to Fageolle. Liardet refers to Fageolle. In the first Alpha Online ExE there were lots of references to Fageolle. In the ExE we have just concluded there were extensive references to Fageolle. It is not necessary to agree with Fageolle, and I wonder if Muir does, but to ignore him when writing a scholarly work on SPACE: 1999 only contributes in weakening the credibility of the work. The only excuse I can see in this case is that Muir may not have been aware of Fageolle

The SPACE: 1999 novel at the time as the important 1996 revision of “Cosmos 1999: Épopée de la blancheur” was released at the time when Muir was completing his own book. This should not have prevented him from being aware of the original 1992 edition, however, although it is always the 1996 edition people refer to. Although many of us consider Fageolle as the father of SPACE: 1999 scholarship, with more or less everything written since as irrelevant or footnotes to his work, I would agree it is quite possible to understand the series without his aid. There are many layers of depth in SPACE: 1999, but on the surface level it is a sophisticated yet not incomprehensible science fiction aimed at the general international audience. Despite some harsh critique in the US, and even harsher comments from UK critics, the first season of series was a tremendous success in most other of the more than 100 countries where it was shown. Of course the audience “got” the series without necessarily making the same connections that Fageolle does through his structural analysis and references to art, philosophy and politics. For the casual viewer Fageolle may be of no importance at all. It is in a forum like ours that Fageolle suddenly becomes tremendously important because we are not only watching the series, we are also discussing it for the purpose of understanding it more deeply both in terms of how it can be used for understanding the period when it was made and what makes it relevant and interesting for the present. It is in this context that Fageolle becomes indispensable. For instance, when we read Keazor’s extremely important text on SPACE: 1999 in the context of art history and critical theory, he is clearly standing on the shoulders of Fageolle. It does not matter that Keazor’s text adds perspectives to our understanding of SPACE: 1999 that go far beyond what Fageolle wrote about a couple of decades earlier, it was still Fageolle who introduced the ideas that has informed the literature ever since. We can also see this in Liardet’s book. It is possible to read Liardet without being aware of Fageolle, but I doubt it would be possible to understand Liardet in the pivotal way we have tried to make use of him in our discussions.

45

In the context of BSG, I’m surprised to hear that you missed “Spaceball”. Does this mean that you haven’t seen GAL80 since it was originally aired? Yesterday I watched a highly interesting BSG documentary “Remembering Battlestar Galactica” from 2004. Although there were many interesting issues discussed here, like how BSG was originally planned as a mini-series before it suddenly was expanded into a 24 episode series and they had to work around the clock in order to prepare scripts – very much in the same style that Barry Morse has told us was the case with S99, what surprised me the most was that there was no mention of GAL80. In fact, what several of the actors said was that they were severely disappointed when the series folded after just one season as they believed it could grow into a second season, a third season and beyond. This struck me as odd as I was under the impression that GAL80 was the second season of BSG. The GAL80 story continues where the first season left off, the music was the same, the models were the same, even the title is the same. At least in the version I have seen, after the three-part pilot called “Galactica 1980” the title of the show, as shown on the screen, was "Battlestar Galactica”. To me this makes it more natural to think of it as a second season than a spin-off. We don’t know what happened to Apollo, but Starbuck shows up. I don’t understand how they can talk about why there was no second season when GAL80 clearly was it. Nevertheless, this is what they did on the documentary, and that made me think of what a wonderful world it would have been if the same tactics had been used in the case of SPACE: 1999. The situation is very much the same. In fact, the second year of S99 feels even more remote to the first year than what was the case with BSG. The cast has changed, the sets have changed, music has changed, and the “space ark” nature of the show has changed. It is a completely new show. Ideologically (at least in parts) and artistically it has nothing to do with the original series. The only thing that remains the same is the title. It is still called SPACE: 1999 although it has nothing to do with what the original SPACE: 1999 was like. Why can’t the SPACE: 1999 community do what the BSG community has done? Why

46


can’t we just pretend that Y2 never existed and erase it from the collective memory, like what the people on the BSG documentary did? I think that would have solved a lot of problems. In fact, this is a strategy that has already been explained by Fageolle, and nobody seriously interested in S99 find much value in Y2 anyway. The only serious paper that deals with Y2 is Iaccino's 2001 paper in the journal called Studies in Popular Culture (Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 65-80), and the only point he is making is that SPACE: 1999 folded because Y2 was trash. Of course, it is an important insight, and the paper is well written, but I feel we need to focus our

discussion more on the good aspects of SPACE: 1999. As Fageolle and others have shown, Y1 is a most remarkable series, not only for understanding the cultural and political climate of the period when most of us grew up, but it is also a series that presents solutions in terms of how to deal with some of the most important geopolitical issues of today. John B. ***

The SPACE: 1999 short story

47

3. THE ‘SPACE: 1999’ SHORT STORY The chapter consists of four sections. Section 3.1 provides a general commentary and analysis of a short story called “It’s gotta be the beer”. As the central theme of the short story is interpreted as a comment of the cartoonish quality of Year Two, this motivates more detailed discussions about Year Two in section 3.2 and 3.3. Section 3.4 summarises the view of Y2 as a regression back to his early puppet shows by taking a closer look at one of Gerry Anderson earlier series, namely UFO.

3.1 Preliminary discussion of “It’s gotta be the beer” The central point in the short story about Bugs Bunny visiting Moonbase Alpha is interpreted to be the connection between Maya and Bugs Bunny as cartoon characters. From this perspective the short story could be used as an insightful commentary and analysis of the campiness of Year Two as a whole. Some of the most important arguments in this debate involve how Fred Freiberger had gone directly from Hanna-Barbara to SPACE: 1999, specifically talking about how ideas from this environment shaped his visions for the series, and how Martin Landau referred to Y2 as MR MAGOO. 30987 It's gotta be the Beer (Senmut, 2003) balor1999 Sep 8, 2015

I believe Jemarcu once said something along the lines of even a good writer has a bad day once a while when referring to Senmut’s “It’s gotta be the beer”. I will admit that it is a different story, both in comparison with his impressive Forever Alpha Saga and with his miniature work like “To Take the Risk” and “I think Tony would be very happy”, but I actually found the story quite amusing. More than that, I found it amusing on more than one level. On the textual level I found it funny in the way it started out quite seriously, than got slightly more outrageous as all sorts of strange objects where thrown out of the hole where the rocket had landed, giving me the impression that Senmut was perhaps paying tribute to THE TAYBOR in a similar way to how he pays tribute to THE LAST SUNSET, END OF ETERNITY and DRAGON’S DOMAIN in his other miniature works. Finally, however, when Bugs Bunny appears, I found this as a total surprise. In other works, the short story was like a joke, with Bugs Bunny talking with a Brooklyn accent being the payoff after the gradual build-up. I thought that was surprising, inventive and funny. But, to me there is hint of even more depth here than simply making a surprising crossover between two completely different universes. I don’t know if this was in Senmut’s mind, but my immediate reaction when somebody writes

a crossover between S99/Y2 characters and characters from a Warner Brothers cartoon is that this could be seen as an amusing comment on how Fred Freiberger deliberately set out to destroy SPACE: 1999 by rethinking it as a cartoon. In Tim Heald’s book, Freiberger talks about his experience in working for Hanna Barbera around 1972-75, and how this gave him ideas on how to “improve” SPACE: 1999. In the French interview from 1999, Martin Landau says that Y2 was a total disaster as it became like a cartoon. I don’t know if he was thinking specifically about how this changed affected Koenig, but he compared Y2 with MR. MAGOO. I thought this was a funny comparison because it felt so right. What would SPACE: 1999 look like if it had been recreated as a cartoon, just like they did with STAR TREK in 1973? It would probably have looked exactly like the Y2 we know, except that the characters were drawn out and badly animated rather than the live action disaster we ended up with. And, yes indeed, in this context it would make perfect sense to think of Koenig as Mr. Magoo. If we think of Y2 the way it is, it is almost like Landau was trying to act Mr. Magoo, and, of course, Barbara Bain was even worse. In Y1 Landau and Bain gave profound performances of highly complex people. In Y2 they were more like puppets and cartoon characters. No depth at all. If we think of the Y1/Y2 transformation in a similar way to how Freiberger and Landau talked about it, Senmut’s story is not only funny but it is saying something profoundly true about the nature of what the show had become. When we think of Y2 it should not

48


really be surprising to meet somebody like Bugs Bunny. It should not be surprising at all. The way FF changed the show, it is exactly what we should expect to see. John B. *** 30988 Re: [OnlineAlpha] It's gotta be the Beer (Senmut, 2003) sennmut Sep 9, 2015

Nope, Balor. There was no intention, beyond being whimsical. I was not reflecting on anything, except having watched an old Bugs Bunny cartoon, and suddenly had the kooky idea of him showing up on Alpha. No subtext, no commentary, zilchola. In fact, I kind of liked aspects of Y2, but just wish they had been explained, is all. I dislike abrupt transitions. Or, it may just have been the beer. *** 30989 Re: [OnlineAlpha] It's gotta be the Beer (Senmut, 2003) balor1999 Sep 9, 2015

Nevertheless, the story provides an excellent opportunity for reflecting on the cartoonish nature of Y2. For instance, when SPACE: 1999 is compared with STAR TREK, like Iaccino does in his excellent 2001 paper, he says that the fatal mistake of Y2 was to introduce a Spock-like alien (Maya), make Koenig more like Kirk, make the sets smaller, and generally making the show more similar to STAR TREK. Of course he is right in all these changes being totally stupid and being imperative for explaining why the show flopped, but I think it is possible to make a much more insightful and accurate explanation when we realise that Freiberger was probably having the animated STAR TREK series in mind rather than the original series when he decided to redesign SPACE: 1999. In fact, one of the comparisons Freiberger does between STAR TREK and SPACE: 1999 in Heald’s book is that STAR TREK was a series of morality tales while he had no intention of

making SPACE. 1999 like that. He wanted to make it into an action-adventure series, like TAS. For instance, his single worst idea for Y2, the inclusion of a metamorph creature as a token alien on Moonbase Alpha, is something he attributes to a specific Hanna Barbara show. I don’t remember the name of the show, but I believe he said it was about a Native American sorcerer who could change himself (herself?) into a bird. In this context it feels perfectly natural when Senmut writes a story about Maya meeting Bugs Bunny. In principle, the introduction of Bugs Bunny to the SPACE: 1999 universe is no more radical than what happened when Maya was introduced. Actually, I would describe it as far less radical. The major change in the SPACE: 1999, the change that was similar to the change between STAR TREK’s TOS and TAS, happened in the change between Y1 and Y2. When Bugs Bunny enters the Y2 universe, this only helps making the change more visible and identifiable. In this case I also feel Senmut’s skills as a writer helps making the point easy to grasp. Of course, the introduction of Bugs Bunny in his story comes as a surprise, but the cartoon character is written into the story in such a seamless manner that the integration between the Loony Tunes universe and the S99/Y2 universe becomes perfectly natural. In Robert Wood’s book Johnny Byrne is quoted in reflecting on whether Y2 was made as part of some money laundering plot, and thus deliberately designed for failure. When we discussed this issue, it appeared that Byrne was probably mistaken, but if one were to design a TV show with the intent to flop, I think there is much to learn from the making of the second series of SPACE: 1999. First one needs to start with a profoundly intelligent and successful show, such as the 2001-inspired SPACE: 1999, to give the impression of wanting to create a success. Then one hires a “show killer” to pretend to make improvements on the show while in reality designing it to become a guaranteed failure. Such a ploy might have been plausible regardless on whether Gerry Anderson was in on in or not. Most likely he would have known nothing while the whole thing was managed by the ITC New York office.

The SPACE: 1999 short story In other words, despite Senmut’s assurances that there were no intensions with the story beyond what we see on the surface level, the nature of the story nevertheless makes it into a wonderful opportunity for reflecting on the deeper aspects of FF's version of SPACE: 1999. To me this illustrates the important nature of Senmut’s literary contributions, and how these stories can be used for feeding debate and for contributing new understanding. John B. *** 30990 Re: [OnlineAlpha] It's gotta be the Beer (Senmut, 2003) balor1999 Sep 10, 2015

Another interesting aspect of having a crossover between Y2 and Bugs Bunny is that it can be used for commenting on how Freiberger subverted SPACE: 1999 by turning science fiction into fantasy through the inclusion of Maya. David Sneed, in his excellent “Science Fiction: A Very Short Introduction” (Oxford University Press, 2011), describes the richness of science fiction and the poverty of fantasy in the following way: “Fantasy […] has been sharply distinguished from SF by some Marxist critics for consisting of narratives outside history, although critical writing on fantasy has often documented cases where SF shades into fantasy and vice versa with the same text” (p. 122). This viewpoint can be used in support of the argument that Fred Freiberger was deliberately trying to destroy SPACE: 1999 by eliminating everything that was good about the original series and revisioning it through crap like Maya, rubber monsters, sitcom humour, mindless run-around episodes and all the other disastrous elements that he contributed to the show. If we see this from the viewpoint of the Marxist SF critics Sneed refers to, his actions can be interpreted as political actions. He took a format that was essentially a format for expressing social criticism and turned it into mindless junk that was designed for the purpose of making the viewers into non-critical and passive consumers that would avoid asking the kind of critical social question that are the soul and purpose of Y1.

49

To make the point even clearer, in the concluding chapter of his book, Sneed comments on the importance of science fiction as social commentary in the following manner: “The Marxist line of SF criticism and its adaptations has proved to be the most productive, especially in its applications of the notion of estrangement. […] Applied Marxism has proved useful in articulating the nature of science fiction film representation: its privileging of image over dialogue, its antiFaustian tendency, its shifting presentation of the alien, and its linkage between deep space and wonderment, among other themes explored by Vivian Sobchack, the leading theorist in this area” (p. 129). Especially when we consider the deep contributions to SPACE: 1999 theory by people like Henry Keazor, and the way he uses critical theory and references to Marxist interpretations of world history, the points made by Sneed become extremely relevant on how to understand the difference between Y1 and Y2. Although Keazor does not describe FF as the devil and Y2 as inferno, like Fageolle does, he simply dismissed the second series as uninteresting. Iaccino makes a deeper effort in trying to explain why SPACE: 1999 failed as a whole due to the crappiness of Y2, but I believe there is still room for further theorising in terms of contributing to a deeper understanding of how and why Freiberger destroyed SPACE: 1999 by means of the line of thought Sneed mentions above. To me the text by Senmut where he speculates about an encounter between Maya and Bugs Bunny is not only well written and amusing on a textual level, it also carries profound implications on a subtextual level. Although it is possible to use the cartoon format for presenting political ideas, such as in ANIMAL FARM, it is not the kind of subtext we associate with Bugs Bunny. On the contrary, by turning SPACE: 1999 into a Bugs Bunny cartoon, which is what Freiberger essentially did, he went even further than creating scepticism among Marxist SF critics recognise the importance of science fiction and detest fantasy, he drove a stake through the heart of SPACE: 1999. He tried to redesign the series in a manner that would make it impossible to

50


carry any meaning at all. He redesigned SPACE: 1999 in a manner that would not only alienate the viewers who had understood and appreciated the original series, he also destroyed the reputation and credibiltiy of Gerry Anderson as someone who had risen from the world of children’s television into making important social commentary through the means of contemporary and spectacular science fiction. In fact, Gerry Anderson never recovered. He did some wonderful work in the 1950s, 60s and early 70s, but after Freiberger’s destruction of SPACE: 1999 Anderson's reputation was in ruins and he never did anything worthwhile ever since. Before Freiberger he was seen as the man who ideologically and artistically recreated 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY for the small screen, one of the greatest achievements in television history. After Freiberger he was associated with Maya, rubber monsters and all the crap that characterises Y2. His life work had been destroyed. He was a living dead. Thinking about SPACE: 1999 from this perspective, I have sympathy for those who have argued that a proper understanding of Y1 can only be measured against the level of hate one holds against Y2. Although Fageolle does not use these exact words, I find the spirit of his book very much along such lines. At least in 1996, when he released the second edition of “Cosmos 1999: Épopée de la blancheur” – the Bible of SPACE: 1999 scholarship, it would be almost impossible to argue differently. More recently, however, Liardet published his thoughtful “Cosmos 1999: Le fabulaire de l’espace” where he proposes an alternative solution for SPACE: 1999. Although we all know that Y2 is crap, just think of what Nick Tate, Martin Landau, Johnny Byrne have said about FF and Y2 over the years, it may still be possible to enjoy Y2 from a more distant and ironic perspective, in a similar way to how a sophisticated viewer may enjoy a camp classic like BARBARELLA. In the context of discussing the works of Senmut, I find it interesting how these different stories he bring to the table address (directly or indirectly) the central issues within the SPACE: 1999 discourse. Although some have discussed “It’s gotta be the beer” as one of his

lesser contributes, I would disagree. To me it is one of his more important contributions in the sense that he conjures up surprising images that can be used for stimulating debate that deal with the essence of the show. John B. *** 30991 Re: [OnlineAlpha] It's gotta be the Beer (Senmut, 2003) sennmut Sep 11, 2015

On 10 Sep 2015 balor1999@... writes: Another interesting aspect of having a crossover between Y2 and Bugs Bunny is that it can be used for commenting on how Freiberger subverted SPACE: 1999 by turning science fiction into fantasy through the inclusion of Maya. David Sneed, in his excellent “Science Fiction: A Very Short Introduction” (Oxford University Press, 2011), describes the richness of science fiction and the poverty of fantasy in the following way: “Fantasy […] has been sharply distinguished from SF by some Marxist critics for consisting of narratives outside history, although critical writing on fantasy has often documented cases where SF shades into fantasy and vice versa with the same text” (p. 122).

Nothing of any such was thought or intended. It was on a whim, nothing more. Artistically, I am no fan of FF, so I think of him as little as possible. There is no connection at all, Marxist or otherwise. This viewpoint can be used in support of the argument that Fred Freiberger was deliberately trying to destroy SPACE: 1999 by eliminating everything that was good about the original series and revisioning it through crap like Maya, rubber monsters, sitcom humour, mindless run-around episodes and all the other disastrous elements that he contributed to the show. If we see this from the viewpoint of the Marxist SF critics Sneed refers to, his actions can be interpreted as political actions. He took a format that was essentially a format for expressing social criticism and turned it into mindless junk that was designed for the purpose of making the viewers into non-critical and passive consumers that would avoid asking the kind of critical social question that are the soul and purpose of Y1.

FF was doing no such thing. He just had a vision of what SciFi was supposed to be, and

The SPACE: 1999 short story never crawled out of it. Most of us would disagree with him, certainly, but there was no "plot" of any sort. FF was only doing what he was hired to do, though to be sure I would never have picked him for the job. To make the point even clearer, in the concluding chapter of his book, Sneed comments on the importance of science fiction as social commentary in the following manner: “The Marxist line of SF criticism and its adaptations has proved to be the most productive, especially in its applications of the notion of estrangement. […] Applied Marxism has proved useful in articulating the nature of science fiction film representation: its privileging of image over dialogue, its antiFaustian tendency, its shifting presentation of the alien, and its linkage between deep space and wonderment, among other themes explored by Vivian Sobchack, the leading theorist in this area” (p. 129). Especially when we consider the deep contributions to SPACE: 1999 theory by people like Henry Keazor, and the way he uses critical theory and references to Marxist interpretations of world history, the points made by Sneed become extremely relevant on how to understand the difference between Y1 and Y2. Although Keazor does not describe FF as the devil and Y2 as inferno, like Fageolle does, he simply dismissed the second series as uninteresting. Iaccino makes a deeper effort in trying to explain why SPACE: 1999 failed as a whole due to the crappiness of Y2, but I believe there is still room for further theorising in terms of contributing to a deeper understanding of how and why Freiberger destroyed SPACE: 1999 by means of the line of thought Sneed mentions above.

I have to say, that AFAIC, NOTHING that derives from Marxism, however it is adapted, has any real value, for Human society. All that Marxism has brought to the world is agony, terror, want, and despair. It no more has anything to contribute to the world of SciFi than a TV test pattern has to contribute to a study of the genesis of Renaissance art. Alot of the folks Balor mentions seem to have minds that see conspiracies everywhere; in this case, every ep MUST have some "political subtext". Sadly, no matter how much one tries to point out that there is none, they seem deaf to all apologia. It diminishes and taints the discussion. Yeah, Y2 had some crappy aspects, but given that many of the money people grew up

51

watching Buck Rogers, or Ming the Merciless, it is no surprise. Their view/s of SciFi did not mature with the advance of science, and it shows. That is why many groups of fans, be it Star Trek or whatever, ahve taken to doing their own episodes, on the Net. The modern power of the computer makes this possible. We can make something that is true to the original we loved, if we like. To me the text by Senmut where he speculates about an encounter between Maya and Bugs Bunny is not only well written and amusing on a textual level, it also carries profound implications on a subtextual level. Although it is possible to use the cartoon format for presenting political ideas, such as in ANIMAL FARM, it is not the kind of subtext we associate with Bugs Bunny. On the contrary, by turning SPACE: 1999 into a Bugs Bunny cartoon, which is what Freiberger essentially did, he went even further than creating scepticism among Marxist SF critics recognise the importance of science fiction and detest fantasy, he drove a stake through the heart of SPACE: 1999. He tried to redesign the series in a manner that would make it impossible to carry any meaning at all. He redesigned SPACE: 1999 in a manner that would not only alienate the viewers who had understood and appreciated the original series, he also destroyed the reputation and credibiltiy of Gerry Anderson as someone who had risen from the world of children’s television into making important social commentary through the means of contemporary and spectacular science fiction.

THERE IS NO SUBTEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I would ask, when you say FF made the show "impossible to carry any meaning at all", what sort of meaning? I suspect, from what you have said all though these crossfiring anathemas, that you saw Y1 as somehow representing the Marxist development of society towards the fantasyland of "true communism". When the format was changed, and we got Maya, you felt as if that progression was sabotaged. Were that true, then thank God for it. Anything that does so is to be blessed. In fact, Gerry Anderson never recovered. He did some wonderful work in the 1950s, 60s and early 70s, but after Freiberger’s destruction of SPACE: 1999 Anderson's reputation was in ruins and he never did anything worthwhile ever since. Before Freiberger he was seen as the

52

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction man who ideologically and artistically recreated 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY for the small screen, one of the greatest achievements in television history. After Freiberger he was associated with Maya, rubber monsters and all the crap that characterises Y2. His life work had been destroyed. He was a living dead.

By the time it was all over, GA had gone through an ugly divorce, where his ex worked, so it has been said, to destroy his creation. When all was said and done, I can see him producing nothing of significance afterwards, though he was far from idle. He was also no longer a young man, so we cannot write too much into his diminished output. Mnay filmmakers/producers have produced less as the years went by. Thinking about SPACE: 1999 from this perspective, I have sympathy for those who have argued that a proper understanding of Y1 can only be measured against the level of hate one holds against Y2. Although Fageolle does not use these exact words, I find the spirit of his book very much along such lines. At least in 1996, when he released the second edition of “Cosmos 1999: Épopée de la blancheur” – the Bible of SPACE: 1999 scholarship, it would be almost impossible to argue differently. More recently, however, Liardet published his thoughtful “Cosmos 1999: Le fabulaire de l’espace” where he proposes an alternative solution for SPACE: 1999. Although we all know that Y2 is crap, just think of what Nick Tate, Martin Landau, Johnny Byrne have said about FF and Y2 over the years, it may still be possible to enjoy Y2 from a more distant and ironic perspective, in a similar way to how a sophisticated viewer may enjoy a camp classic like BARBARELLA.

No, we do NOT all "know that Y2 is crap". It is no such thing. It is different, jarring, and such, but your opinion is your own. Don't state it as dogma, for it isn't. In the context of discussing the works of Senmut, I find it interesting how these different stories he bring to the table address (directly or indirectly) the central issues within the SPACE: 1999 discourse. Although some have discussed “It’s gotta be the beer” as one of his lesser contributes, I would disagree. To me it is one of his more important contributions in the sense that he conjures up surprising images that can be used for stimulating debate that deal with the essence of the show.

It was just a whimsical excercise in fun. Nothing more.

*** 30992 Re: [OnlineAlpha] It's gotta be the Beer (Senmut, 2003) balor1999 Sep 11, 2015

Senmut wrote: I have to say, that AFAIC, NOTHING that derives from Marxism, however it is adapted, has any real value, for Human society. All that Marxism has brought to the world is agony, terror, want, and despair. It no more has anything to contribute to the world of SciFi than a TV test pattern has to contribute to a study of the genesis of Renaissance art. Alot of the folks Balor mentions seem to have minds that see conspiracies everywhere; in this case, every ep MUST have some "political subtext". Sadly, no matter how much one tries to point out that there is none, they seem deaf to all apologia. It diminishes and taints the discussion.

As you have been constructively pointed out when we have tried to understand and comment on possible fascist aspects of Y2 through the perspectives offered by Dr. Wertham, the way people put different meanings into the word “fascism” may cause misunderstanding. I think you were quite right in pointing this out, and for me this lead to an improved understanding of how Fageolle makes use of Bettelheim in his analysis of SPACE: 1999 that allows for a fascist understanding of Y2 that considers racism as “superstructure” on top of the economic “basis”. I was happy to see that Jemarcu seemed to agree on the importance of understanding fascism from the viewpoint of economics, rendering the role of racism almost irrelevant, although he and I may disagree on the relevance of applying the concept of fascism for understanding certain aspects of Y2. In the case of Marxism, I feel there is a similar tendency for misunderstanding. The kind of Marxist understanding that people like Adorno, Jameson and Freedman bring to the table when analysing the science fiction is totally different from the politics of oppressive communist regimes. The purpose of critical theory is exactly the opposite. Marcuse was not a communist. He was working with OSS during the war, fighting communism, but his genius and the legacy of the whole Frankfurt school is

The SPACE: 1999 short story that they noticed that oppression is not only something that happens openly. In fact, capitalist countries can be equally oppressive as communist countries, he argued, although in a much more subtle manner. In the context of science fiction, NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR is a dystopia that describes a communist-like tyranny while BRAVE NEW WORLD describes the capitalist equivalent. Adorno, for instance, was very much concerned with this, and wrote a commentary about Huxley, as Fuhse points out when arguing that good science fiction performs the same function as what we see in the writing of the Frankfurt school. Where this fits into our discourse, as I see it, is primarily through the call for debate raised by Prof. Keazor in the foreword to Ogland’s edit of the first ExE. Keazor stresses the relevance of critical theory by referring to the Marxist or post-Marxist tradition of SF scholarship, and makes very specific suggestions on how SPACE: 1999 could be used as a particularly interesting example for illustrating and exploring the point Fuhse makes about the similarities between good SF and critical theory. To me this foreword is one of the most important texts among the growing number of writings about SPACE: 1999 as it articulates the programme initiated by Fageolle in a precise and clear manner that gives direction and advice on how we can contribute to the common understanding of SPACE: 1999 through means of the kind of discussions we are having on this forum. Yeah, Y2 had some crappy aspects, but given that many of the money people grew up watching Buck Rogers, or Ming the Merciless, it is no surprise. Their view/s of SciFi did not mature with the advance of science, and it shows. That is why many groups of fans, be it Star Trek or whatever, ahve taken to doing their own episodes, on the Net. The modern power of the computer makes this possible. We can make something that is true to the original we loved, if we like. Here you articulate something I find extremely useful and important when trying to grasp the deeper meaning of you Bugs Bunny crossover story. The money people grew up watching Buck Rogers and Ming the Merciless, and for this reason it becomes a natural frame of

53

reference when they want to use television as means of preventing the viewers from thinking and acting. It is the kind of thing that Huxley wrote about the BRAVE NEW WORLD and Ray Bradbury in FAHRENHEIT 451. By turning the socially critical and timely relevant SPACE: 1999 of Y1 into the meaningless action-adventure soap opera we see in Y2, FF and the money people he represented were deliberately destroying the meaning of the series. They destroyed it because they wanted the viewers to passively watch the show, get dumbed down, and be more susceptible to whatever was being shown during the commercial breaks. Y1 made people think and reflect. That was no good in the case of mass control through television. From this perspective it is quite clear why Y1 had to be destroyed and replaced by its Y2 anti-thesis. Y1 does not serve the interests of an oppressive regime. Y2 does. If Fageolle were to update his 1996 masterpiece to make the release fit with the release of Y2 on Blu-ray, I’m certain he would have included a chapter on how we should celebrate the Blu-ray release by destroying and burning the disks as an act of emancipation against the oppression of the Y2 money people and what they represented. Although 1968 is one of the landmark years of modern history in terms of how events of that year shaped the New Left, I think 1976 is perhaps an equally important year in terms of how it included several events that could be seen as the idealism of 1968 falling being eaten by the monsters of greed and capitalism. In this sense I believe Y2 of SPACE: 1999 could be seen as a symbol of everything that is wrong in the world. Y1 was a reflection on the 1968 dream. Y2 was about the death of that dream. John B. *** 30995 Re: [OnlineAlpha] It's gotta be the Beer (Senmut, 2003) sennmut Sep 12, 2015 If Fageolle were to update his 1996 masterpiece to make the release fit with the release of Y2 on Blu-ray, I’m certain he would have included a chapter on how we should celebrate the Blu-ray release by destroying and burning the disks as an act of emancipation against the oppression

54

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction of the Y2 money people and what they represented. Although 1968 is one of the landmark years of modern history in terms of how events of that year shaped the New Left, I think 1976 is perhaps an equally important year in terms of how it included several events that could be seen as the idealism of 1968 falling being eaten by the monsters of greed and capitalism. In this sense I believe Y2 of SPACE: 1999 could be seen as a symbol of everything that is wrong in the world. Y1 was a reflection on the 1968 dream. Y2 was about the death of that dream.

If there was a 'dream", than it is well dead. Had I been in a position to do so, I would have helped pound the steak through it. PLEASE, Balor...can you stop all the Marxist/Fageolle/Wertham effusion? It is valuless garbage, and has no worth whatsoever, either for the show, or society as a whole. You go on as if everyone were on thesame page as you. It ain't so. Can you please STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *** 30996 Re: [OnlineAlpha] It's gotta be the Beer (Senmut, 2003) sennmut Sep 12, 2015

Barbara Bain said the original Main Mission set was very hard to light properly, because of the size. That's why it got smaller in Y2. Trek became a cartoon, for reasons of $$$. Cartoons are alot cheaper. *** 30997 Re: [OnlineAlpha] It's gotta be the Beer (Senmut, 2003) John Marcucci Sep 12, 2015

Main Mission was too exposed. Fine for a scientific research post in Earth orbit, but in a hostile outer space, S1 proved MM was too exposed. A move to the underground command center made perfect sense... as do laser batteries, heavy rocket guns, combat eagles. *** 30998 Re: [OnlineAlpha] It's gotta be the Beer (Senmut, 2003) Expand Messages sennmut

Sep 12, 2015

You mean stuff made by capitalism, Jemarcu? *** 30999 Re: [OnlineAlpha] It's gotta be the Beer (Senmut, 2003) balor1999 Sep 12, 2015

Jemarcu wrote: Main Mission was too exposed. Fine for a scientific research post in Earth orbit, but in a hostile outer space, S1 proved MM was too exposed. A move to the underground command center made perfect sense... as do laser batteries, heavy rocket guns, combat eagles.

Although the discussion of the crossover between Maya and Bugs Bunny provides an excellent opportunity to discuss Wertham’s theories on fascism in superhero comic books, in the sense that her superhero capability of transformation becomes more ready for analysis against the backdrop of a proper cartoon world – like that of Bugs Bunny, in the context of militarization of SPACE 1999 in Y2 I think it should be sufficient to draw attention to the Oxford dictionary characteristics of “fascism” - without actually having to use the word itself. In this way I hope we can skip the irrelevant discussion of whether Wertham, Marcuse and the others were right in using this word for characterising the kind of adventure we see in Y2 and rather focus on the depravity of the show itself – without labelling it. Using the description from the Oxford dictionary, we can present Moonbase Alpha of Y2 in terms of "the supremacy of one national or ethnic group (Alpha), a contempt for democracy (e.g. Sanderson episode "The seance spectre"), an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader (Koenig, e.g. "The Exiles" or "Seed of destruction"), and a strong demagogic approach (loyalty being more important than logic, "The AB Chrysalis")”. What I am trying to get at here is that the changes from Y1 to Y2, as seen from the internal viewpoint of the fictional characters on Moonbase Alpha, may perhaps be more easily explained by the way Koenig and his Main Mission team were working on internal issues means of controlling Alpha and maintaining

The SPACE: 1999 short story power rather than external threats. In our recent comparison between S99 and BSG, we noticed there was an important difference in the way the aliens were portrayed. I think Thomas Disch makes an excellent point of this in his 1998 book where he says that extreme right-wing writers like Heinlein, Pournelle and Niven tend to create scenarios where the aliens are bugs or some other kind of enemy that can only be handled through force and violence while the more thoughtful left-wing science fiction, like SPACE: 1999 in our case, presents aliens as complex characters that have to be dealt with more intelligently in order to provide sustainable long-term solutions. Typically the aliens in intelligent science fiction represent a mirror image of the Alphans or our own society, as Keazor (2012) points out. When we think of it, most of the aliens in SPACE: 1999 were either friendly or neutral, like Raan, Captain Zantor, or Arra. In the cases when having to deal with more problematic characters, such as Balor, Dione, or the Darians, there was always an understandable logic behind the motives and actions of the antagonists. It was only in cases like the blue light of capitalist oppression in FORCE OF LIFE and the spirit of automation in GUARDIAN OF PIRI that the Alphans were incapable of dealing with the situation in a humanistic manner, but in such cases the stories represented confrontations of a different kind. The point is that the standard strategy in Y1 was diplomacy, not war. The only episode I can think of that worked against the ethos of the series was THE LAST ENEMY where Dione and her crew were blown to pieces in the end. But, as Johnny Byrne has stated, this is an episode that should never have been made, and when we look at the various commentary books, it is usually considered one of the weakest entries in the series. So, the question is rather whether the Y1 universe was hostile or whether this was simply the way it was perceived by the Alphans and gradually a belief that was

55

fostered by Koenig and his managerial group for maintaining power and control. As a parallel, when Europe and the rest of the world is being flooded by refugees from Syria and elsewhere, from the viewpoint of refugees the world may look hostile, but from the viewpoint of the countries that want to help the problem has more to do with the lack of infrastructure and capacity. If we think of the development from Y1 to Y2 from the viewpoint of the Alphans being a group of people trying to survive in a difficult world, like refugees and immigrants from countries of poverty and/or internal conflict, making their organisation more militaristic does not seem like a good choice. There are far too many people in the world thinking like that today, and it is not making the situation any better. In other words, regardless of whether we think of the change from Y1 to Y2 as the series turning slightly fascist or not, the ideological change is clearly a betrayal of the values that characterised the first series. I think the contempt for Y2 articulated by Gerry Anderson, Byrne, Landau, Tate, Fageolle and others must be understood in this perspective. John B. *** 31010 Re: [OnlineAlpha] It's gotta be the Beer (Senmut, 2003) John Marcucci Sep 14, 2015

Slinter wrote: You mean stuff made by capitalism, Jemarcu?

The very same. I'll start believing in marxism the day that North Korea or Cuba puts a man into earth orbit, or even provides flush toilets for half of their population, without starving the other half of their population ***

56


3.2 The bashing is back Although the Bugs Bunny perspective provides a useful lens for discussing the cartoonish nature of Year Two, there are still those who believe there is merit to Year Two. As such fans not only have to argue against scholars and fellow fans but also the makers of SPACE: 1999, a challenging but interesting debate follows. The counter-arguments can be seen to produce important feedback for developing further insights on how to read SPACE: 1999 in the context of critical theory. 31000 Re: The bashing is back kerryirs Sep 12, 2015

I sometimes wonder if all Byrne wanted to do was pick a fight with FF based on his comments over the years. As I've said before, I give Freiberger credit for not climbing into the sewer with some of these people. But again, I do wish he would've come back at them, without using words like dickhead, of course. May I also remind fans that 1999 was roundly criticized by the majority of SF fans fans of Trek or not. Also, a year three was contemplated until Grade decided to turn to movies like THE CASSANDRA CROSSING and RAISE THE TITANIC which sank ITC. *** 31001 Re: So, the bashing has returned kerryirs Sep 12, 2015 Although the discussion of the crossover between Maya and Bugs Bunny provides an excellent opportunity to discuss Wertham’s theories on fascism in superhero comic books, in the sense that her superhero capability of transformation becomes more ready for analysis against the backdrop of a proper cartoon world like that of Bugs Bunny, in the context of militarization of SPACE 1999 in Y2 I think it should be sufficient to draw attention to the Oxford dictionary characteristics of fascism - without actually having to use the word itself. In this way I hope we can skip the irrelevant discussion of whether Wertham, Marcuse and the others were right in using this word for characterising the kind of adventure we see in Y2 and rather focus on the depravity of the show itself - without labelling it.

For a theory to be a theory, it has to start with hypothesis to back it up, like the theory evolution or any other theory. The comments above are strictly John Balor's opinion born from hate for a man he's never met in person and bases his views on some extracted comments from Heals's book which are also

extracted from probably a full interview with FF. Reading these and his association with Hanna-Barbera, one gets the view that his idea for Maya comes strictly from a cartoon. But if one has read Kevin McCorry's 1999 interview with FF, one will learn that he was very interested in Greek and Roman mythology, which is full of gods taking other forms. It also happens to be in the King James Bible and the Torah. So John, are you recanting on some of your nicer comments during the analysis of Y2 episodes? Finally, it may not have been as humorous, but Bugs could've visited Alpha during Y1 if Sennmut wanted to have written the story that way. But if he'd said "What's up doc?", he probably would've received no or little reaction and then a command conference to discuss it. Think about it. What conspiracy theory would you have come up with John? *** 31004 Re: So, the bashing has returned balor1999 Sep 13, 2015

Kerry wrote: For a theory to be a theory, it has to start with hypothesis to back it up, like the theory evolution or any other theory. The comments above are strictly John Balor's opinion born from […] some extracted comments from Heals's book which are also extracted from probably a full interview with FF. Reading these and his association with Hanna-Barbera, one gets the view that his idea for Maya comes strictly from a cartoon. But if one has read Kevin McCorry's 1999 interview with FF, one will learn that he was very interested in Greek and Roman mythology, which is full of gods taking other forms. It also happens to be in the King James Bible and the Torah.

What constitutes a theory is an interesting question. For instance, Freedman spends a

The SPACE: 1999 short story large part of the first section in his excellent book “Critical Theory and Science Fiction” (Wesleyan University Press, 2000) discussing various ways of thinking of theory in general and critical theory in particular. Although I believe Freedman is highly relevant and a very natural starting point for our discussion of SPACE: 1999 and critical theory, I believe there are much easier ways to define the concept of a theory than the elaborate (although highly interesting) excursion Freedman makes from Kant’s three critiques towards the postmodern philosophers of the late 1990s. In fact, here I believe my views are more similar to those of Kerry, if I understand him correctly, that there should essentially be no difference between the way theories are being used in social science and natural science. So, in this case I would position myself along with the argument made by Jon Elster in “Making sense of Marx” (1985) that critical theory could and should be articulated through the conventional mathematical use of game theory. What this means, of course, is that we end up with theories that relate to models of the empirical phenomenon that will not be able to fully describe what we are analysing. A verbal theory might penetrate much deeper, but, as Kerry points out, a mathematical theory allows the development of testable hypotheses. At least in principle. Is Wertham’s theory of fascism in superhero literature a testable theory? It depends. Something that worried him was juvenile delinquency and the development of anti-social behaviour in youth, and he believed that some of this behaviour could be explained by popular culture aimed at children, such as television and comic books. In our context it is his ideas about how comic books like SUPERMAN corrupted the mind of the innocents and made them into crypto-fascists, and how this may be carried over into the context of the second series of SPACE: 1999 by thinking of Maya as a symbol of fascism. I don’t know how Kerry would propose how to test the influence of Maya and Y2 on the political persuasions of those who grew up watching it, but I think it is worth remembering that there has at least being voices on this forum that have been highly critical of the progressive messages in Y1 and

57

episodes like WAR GAMES while highly enthusiastic about reactionary messages in Y2 and episodes like BETA CLOUD. I will not mention names, but I seem to remember Kerry referring to these voices as representatives of the “conservative lunacy fringe”, and I think there might be something to this. The way I see it, the political narrative in Y1 is concerned with left-wing ideals such as social justice and handling challenges through the means of diplomacy while Y2 developed a more right-wing approach by making Moonbase Alpha into a militaristic outfit. To me the theories of Wertham resonate quite loudly when I watch both series, believing that Y1 had a good impact on many of us watching it as children while Y2 had a similarly negative impact. If somebody would like to follow in the footsteps of Jenkins and Tulloch (“Science fiction audiences”, Psychology press, 1995) in conducting empirical research on the political impact of series like DR WHO and STAR TREK on their target audiences, it would have been very interesting to hear what such a study might have to say about SPACE: 1999. I would not have been surprised if such a study would confirm Wertham’s theories in a context that is relevant for us. This kind of empirical support would then be highly useful for discussing how to understand what Heald and McCorry has said about Freiberger’s role and impact on the shaping and outcome of Y2. I agree with Kerry that we have to read Heald critically. What he presents in his book are excerpts of interviews and personal reflections based on observations and discussions. Although the book was written with the intent of promoting SPACE: 1999, the book may also include views that are specific to Heald and reflect Heald’s personal opinions of Freiberger that may not necessarily be read as the final word. However, we know that Heald was not the only person that was sceptical of Freiberger. Byrne has spoken of Freiberger and his metamorph character in a very negative way, and so has Gerry Anderson, and so has Martin Landau, and Nick Tate even went to the step of referring to Freiberger as a “dickhead”. But, we also need to look at the Kevin McCorry interview in a similarly critical

58


fashion. I’m afraid I don’t know anything about McCorry, so I don’t know his motivations for asking these questions and what the questions sounded like when he presented them. Although I might be totally wrong, my guess would be that McCorry was a Y2 fan who was frustrated by the way Anderson, Byrne, Landau, Tate, Merton, Fageolle and all the others expressed contempt for Maya, Y2 and Freiberger’s shaping of the second series, and thus wanted to hear what Freiberger might have to say in his defence. In other word, this could have been an interview with an agenda, thus formulating the questions in a manner that would elicit the kind of answers he was hoping for, like a postintellectualisation of the generally considered disastrous move of introducing a metamorph character (Iaccino, 2001) by retrospectively talking about stories about metamorph characters in classical mythology. Anyway, both Heald and McCorry provide important texts to the body of SPACE: 1999 literature, and one should not forget neither of them as we continue to try to make sense of the series. However, I think we should refer to these discussions as attempts to understand aspects of S99 rather than “bashing”, although I agree with Kerry that it can be easy to get somewhat carried away when discussing matters that we are emotionally engaged with. It is probably good advice to try to be more academically detached when discussion some of these issues. Perhaps we could use Liardet as a model in the sense of how he manages both to trash Y2, FF and Maya and to ironically recognise the value of the progressive political subtext of Y2 stories. John B. *** 31005 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: So, the bashing has returned sennmut Sep 13, 2015

Balor, are you deaf??? There is NO FASCISM, in the show or in Maya. Period. Critical theory is delusional trash. When will you get it that you and you only "see" this stuff? Your endless harping on this stuff drags down the exchanges, and turns this into a reeducation camp. Can't you just drop it?????????????????

*** 31006 Re: So, the bashing has returned balor1999 Sep 14, 2015

Kerry wrote: So John, are you recanting on some of your nicer comments during the analysis of Y2 episodes? No, I think the ExE was successful in disclosing aspects of Y2 that had not been discussed so deeply before, like the environmentalist theme in JOURNEY TO WHERE, the critique of consumer society in THE TAYBOR the gun legislation and antiviolence theme in THE MARK OF ARCHANON and so on. Of course, there was disagreement in how to interpret these episodes, but my understanding of Y2 was that the ideological content was very much in correspondence with what we had seen in Y1, with the notable exception of the “protofascist” nature of the Woodgrove trilogy. I still think that my views on SPACE: 1999 were slightly altered during the ExE in terms of being able to appreciate episodes that I had previously seen as totally pointless. For instance, A MATTER OF BALANCE has never made much sense to me until we started looking at it from the perspective of being a story about sexual harassment. On the other hand, I find Senmut’s crossover between Maya and Bugs Bunny exceedingly useful as it illustrates the method Freiberger was using in his attempt to destroy SPACE: 1999 through artistic and political subversion. I think this is an important point because form and content tend to go together. In Y1 we had fine content and fine form. In Y2 we tend to have fine content in crappy form. Finally, it may not have been as humorous, but Bugs could've visited Alpha during Y1 if Sennmut wanted to have written the story that way. But if he'd said "What's up doc?", he probably would've received no or little reaction and then a command conference to discuss it. Think about it. What conspiracy theory would you have come up with John?

The SPACE: 1999 short story I think the fact that Senmut chose to look at Y2 rather than Y1 is important in this context. What he manages to do by presenting a crossover like this is to show that Y2 was really a cartoon. It was more similar to STAR TREK: TAS than it was to STAR TREK: TOS. That is what I see as the main insight to be drawn from his story. As we also have discussed, the idea that Y2 should be compared with TAS is not all that far fetched as Freiberger more or less says it out loud in Tim Heald’s book where he talks about his background with Hanna Barbera and how this gave him certain ideas about how to make S99 more successful. Making a crossover between Y1 and Bugs Bunny makes no sense. It is like trying to make a crossover between 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and Bugs Bunny, or SOLARIS and Bugs Bunny or FAHRENHEIT 451 and Bugs Bunny. The cartoon format works fine when working with the concepts Freiberger introduced for the purpose of destroying S99. It does not work as a tool for understanding what the real thing was like. John B. *** 31007 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: So, the bashing has returned sennmut Today at 11:35 AM

Balor wrote: I still think that my views on SPACE: 1999 were slightly altered during the ExE in terms of being able to appreciate episodes that I had previously seen as totally pointless. For instance, A MATTER OF BALANCE has never made much sense to me until we started looking at it from the perspective of being a story about sexual harassment. On the other hand, I find Senmut’s crossover between Maya and Bugs Bunny exceedingly useful as it illustrates the method Freiberger was using in his attempt to destroy SPACE: 1999 through artistic and political subversion. I think this is an important point because form and content tend to go together. In Y1 we had fine content and fine form. In Y2 we tend to have fine content in crappy form.

I picked the Y2 format for the Bugs Bunny piece because I think Catherine Schell was hot, and for no other reason. Period. The only

59

subversion would have been if I'd gotten her out of her uniform! Or Helena. Or Kate. Or... Honestly, that was ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *** 31008 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: So, the bashing has returned John Marcucci Sep 14, 2015

Kerry wrote: For a theory to be a theory, it has to start with hypothesis to back it up, like the theory evolution or any other theory. The comments above are strictly John Balor's opinion born from hate for a man he's never met in person and bases his views on some extracted comments from Heals's book which are also extracted from probably a full interview with FF. Reading these and his association with Hanna-Barbera, one gets the view that his idea for Maya comes strictly from a cartoon. But if one has read Kevin McCorry's 1999 interview with FF, one will learn that he was very interested in Greek and Roman mythology, which is full of gods taking other forms. It also happens to be in the King James Bible and the Torah.

Petter's incoherant musings don't qualifiy as a theory, or a hypothesis, or even a notion. They are delusional ideological ejaculations that have nothing to do with reality. *** 31009 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The bashing is back John Marcucci Sep 14, 2015

Kerry wrote: I sometimes wonder if all Byrne wanted to do was pick a fight with FF based on his comments over the years. As I've said before, I give Freiberger credit for not climbing into the sewer with some of these people. But again, I do wish he would've come back at them, without using words like dickhead, of course.

That sounds completely reasonable. Byrne was a writer, and Freiberger was the producer. Creative differences and friction are natural, understandable, and healthy. The crap that comes out in interviews years later is, to me, laregey just that: crap.

60


No, Freiberger was not a fascist but many of his foul mouthed critics come off to me as marxist. Certainly, they used a lot of marxist agitprop tactics: character assassination, spreading rumors, naming and shaming, outrageous unsupported accusations, politicized rhetoric, marginalizing people who disagree with them, personal attacks and insults. It all fits. We see all that here with Petter/ Balor of course. And we also see it in some of the comments made by Byrne and others. Sad, but probably unavoidable, given the times in which we live Regds, John M. *** 31011 Re: So, the bashing has returned kerryirs Sep 15, 2015 Wertham’ theory of fascism in superhero literature a testable theory? It depends. Something that worried him was juvenile delinquency and the development of anti-social behaviour in youth, and he believed that some of this behaviour could be explained by popular culture aimed at children, such as television and comic books. In our context it is his ideas about how comic books like SUPERMAN corrupted the mind of the innocents and made them into crypto-fascists, and how this may be carried over into the context of the second series of SPACE: 1999 by thinking of Maya as a symbol of fascism. I don’t know how Kerry would propose how to test the influence of Maya and Y2 on the political persuasions of those who grew up watching it, but I think it is worth remembering that there has at least being voices on this forum that have been highly critical of the progressive messages in Y1 and episodes like WAR GAMES while highly enthusiastic about reactionary messages in Y2 and episodes like BETA

First of all Sennmut, you hit it right on the nail. A theory has to have something to back it up. Having not read any of the books that John B. references, except Herald's, I can only guess that many still are based on the opinions of the authors, no matter what they use to support their arguments. John, I'm not going to comment much on the following because I don't buy into it. I don’t know how Kerry would propose how to test the influence of Maya and Y2 on the

political persuasions of those who grew up watching it, but I think it is worth remembering that there has at least being voices on this forum that have been highly critical of the progressive messages in Y1 and episodes like WAR GAMES while highly enthusiastic about reactionary messages in Y2 and episodes like BETA CLOUD.

Maybe I'm not so hung up on politics as yourself. Maya was no politicl anything, as much as you'd like to make her out to be. For me, Maya comes across as a kind and caring person. I also think that you and this Wertham dude underestimate kids when it comes to the dreaded "superhero". I watched this stuff as a kid and as far as I can tell, I'm not mentally unbalanced. I would venture to guess that 99.99999% of those who grew up watching these or Warner Brothers cartoons didn't go out and set traps for their friends as coyottee did to the road runner. Sure, some kids did get hurt jumping off of the roof thinking they could fly like Superman, but I blame the parents for not explaining to those kids that it is only fantasy. As far as George Reeves goes, who knows why he shot himself? I haven't checked into it lately. Maybe he believed he was Superman; as an adult, he should've known better. I won't pretend to speak for Kevin McCorry, but perhaps he felt that all of the knocking of FF, the man deserved a means to respond in his own defense. And in that interview, not once did Freiberger have an unkind word for anyone who worked on the series. I can't say that for Anderson, Byrnes, Tate, Landau, and some others. I get the feeling they had an ax to grind for the failures of year one. Year two wasn't perfect, but there was an attempt to flesh out these characters and to get away from the esoteric storylines. Finally, WAR GAMES as a peogressive episode. As I've said before, the basic story is fine, it's the ending I didn't care for.Also, the aliens must not have thought of the Alpans as all that progressive since they used illusions taken from their memories of our warlike history to mount their attack. And Koenig's response was to land on the planet and fight to gain a toehold. With only 180 people (I think that was the rough number)? Again, this was all pulled out of their memories. It reminds me of one of the pockets of surviving humans in BENEATH THE PLANET OF THE APES

The SPACE: 1999 short story who also used illusion as a defense and also worshiped a doomsday weapon from the 20th century. Of course, that weapon ended up destryoing the whole planet. To wrap, both seasons have their strengths and weaknesses. To attack one man because some in the year one group want to blame him for all that is wrong with 1999 without looking at what came before is in my view unfair.This series was on life support long before Friebergwr got there, I think primarily due to cost overruns, time issues, the premise, a general lack of charachtwrs one could care about, and some episodes that just flat out violated basic science, explaining away the errors with the so-called MUF.

61

Take these comments how you want, but it is hard to believe that after more than forty years this is still a major issue in 1999 fandom. It does make wonder what's the point? History can't be undone. Oh, wasn't a comment made concerning the Y2 blu-ray discs and how Fageolle would feel about it. I think it has been said that he would've liked to see Y2 not have ever been made. Suppose some felt the same about his book, never to have been written? ***

3.3 Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? The role of Fred Freiberger is particularly relevant when trying to understand Year Two, and an important part of how to understand Year Two consists of understand why and how Freiberger used Year Two to destroyed the reputation of SPACE: 1999 as serious science fiction. Once again the feedback from those who fail to see Freiberger as the destroyer of SPACE: 1999 can be seen as helpful for sharpening the arguments and developing deeper relationships with the literature. 31012 Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? kerryirs Sep 15, 2015

John, with all due respect, FF didn't destroy Anderson's or anyone else's career. If you keep going, you'll find some reason to blame him for the sinking of the Titanic, WW II, the problems in the Middle East, plagues of locusts somewhere in the world, despite the fact the man has been dead for twelve years. Why can't you let it go? It's possible to take any book and exstrapulate from it something that you or anyone can use as a criticism for something you or anyone doesn't like. As for "shading into fantasy", with 1999 that isn't the case; it leapt headlong into it.The minute Anderson came up with blowing the moon out of orbit in order to meet one of the edicts of ITC's upper management, 1999 became a fantasy concept with some SF elements.Despite this major flaw in science, I find this somewhat interesting, random travel through space can open up a lot of interesting ideas; survival for one and showing how the crew adapts while meeting unknown dangers.

And then John B. comes out with this. This viewpoint (talking about fantasy) can be used in support of the argument that Fred Freiberger was deliberately trying to destroy SPACE: 1999 by eliminating everything that was good about the original series (like waiting almost a year to decide to commission a second season and not getting the actors to return, some having already found other jobs?) and revisioning it through crap like Maya, rubber monsters, sitcom humour, mindless runaround episodes and all the other disastrous elements that he contributed to the show. (Let's see, FF was the one who cut the budget due to the overruns in time and money in Y1. Hmmm. Not!) If we see this from the viewpoint of the Marxist SF critics Sneed refers to, his actions can be interpreted as political actions. (No, i think we can see this from the viewpoint of ITC who wasn't happy with some of what was put out in Y1.) He took a format that was essentially a format for expressing social criticism and turned it into mindless junk that was designed for the purpose of making the viewers into non-critical and passive consumers that would avoid asking the kind of

62


critical social question that are the soul and purpose of Y1. (FF tried to take, at times a bland, slow moving standing around characters that were hard to care for at times series and put some energy into it. It didn't always work, but for me, I liked the characters far more in Y2 than Y1. Bergman and Carter are the exception to this. I like them.) I wish FF and this Fageolle could've sat down and talked face-to-face. I wonder if he would've used words like the devil in front of FF. I think not. I think FF would've let him have it verbally. It's easy for people to sit on the sidelines and criticize. I know, we have Landau's comments and the others post 1999 (they were sure different during the series production; he admitted shortcomings in the first season. I bet he won't now, he didn't in that French video), but I wonder how those returning felt going in. Did they come to Y2 with a negative attitude as word got out about changes coming, or it manifested as the season went on? I know Landau used to put comments on the scripts. Now if you want to see the problems a production can have, go to TCM and look for their recent showing of the making of GONE WITH THE WIND. You want to talk about a mess, no real script, script was written as the production was going on, budget overruns, directors either fired or quit, and yet, the final product is a classic. I'm not comparing 1999 to GONE WITH THE WIND except to say that most productions have problems. BREAKAWAY is a perfect example of this. I've read where the Landaus were always working with the script writers in the first season. I also reccomend the YouTube short video THE REASON or WHY SPACE: 1999 WAS CANCELED, something like that. The video blames the split between Sylvia and Gerry for a lot of it. And yet, they were considering a third season. Maya, as I've stated before, is in my view, the most three diminsional character in the entire series. She goes from a person who loses everything she's ever known to becoming an orphan, from a home world standpoint, to

having to adapt, both psychologically and emotionally, to a whole new environment. This is exactly what the Alphans had to do. This, for me, is part of what makes her a unique character and the fact that the role was really the first of its type specifically for a woman in a continuing role as an alien. Look at all of the female roles that have followed since. But that's only the beginning. She could've become a bitter, hateful person, blaming the Alphans for her father's death, but she didn't. She probably decided it wouldn't do any good to go that route, so she adapted. But the memories are just below the surface at times. Notice I.have not mentioned shape shifting as there is so much more to this character, something it seems her critics refuse to or want admit to. Oh, well. I doubt forty years on that minds will be changed, but. we'll see what happens with the responses. *** 31013 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? SHANA G Sep 15, 2015

All, It’s the chicken or the egg game again. Season 1 set the ground work for the show, but it was very bland. Season 2 introduced some spice into the show. More exciting scripts, showed the affection for John and Helena and superior special effects. We found out so much about the characters personal lives, and I think that is priceless. Kick me if you need to, but both had their plusses and minuses, but I find season 2 more palatable to the my taste. I would have seen more of Sandra, but Alibe Parsons character had just taken off and think she did a fine job. Then there is the minus of Yasko, who just didn’t seem to fit in in Command Center. Love to all, Shana

The SPACE: 1999 short story *** 31014 Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? balor1999 Sep 15, 2015

Kerry wrote: John, with all due respect, FF didn't destroy Anderson's or anyone else's career. If you keep going, you'll find some reason to blame him for the sinking of the Titanic, WW II, the problems in the Middle East, plagues of locusts somewhere in the world, despite the fact the man has been dead for twelve years.

The point I was trying to make was how Gerry Anderson’s reputation has suffered due to the second series of SPACE: 1999. If he had decided to end his career after the completion of the first series of SPACE: 1999, he would have been remembered as one of the giants of science fiction. SPACE: 1999 would also have been remembered as a much better show as it would then not have been contaminated by all the poor suggestions and decisions Freiberger contributed in his effort to rejuvenate it. The idea to include a metamorph like Maya into SPACE: 1999 must be one of the worst decisions ever made in the context of a science fiction television series. Gerry Anderson commented something along lines when he commented on the interview Freiberger gave with STARLOG in 1981. Freiberger said various things in one issue of STARLOG, and then Gerry Anderson had to dement what Freiberger had been saying and explain why Maya was such a bad idea in the next issue. I feel sorry for Anderson and everybody else who were involved in Y1 for having been dragged into the mud of Y2. As for "shading into fantasy", with 1999 that isn't the case; it leapt headlong into it. The minute Anderson came up with blowing the moon out of orbit in order to meet one of the edicts of ITC's upper management, 1999 became a fantasy concept with some SF elements. Despite this major flaw in science, I find this somewhat interesting, random travel through space can open up a lot of interesting ideas; survival for one and showing how the crew adapts while meeting unknown dangers.

Here I believe we interpret the concepts of ‘science fiction’ and ‘fantasy’ differently. To me stories like Jules Verne’s ‘Voyage to the Moon’ and H.G. Wells ‘The Time Machine’

63

are science fiction because they deal with science, regardless of whether the ideas and methods they discuss are impossible. ‘Lord of the Rings’ and fairy tales about elves, dwarfs, princesses, metamorph characters called Maya and such, is the fabric of ‘fantasy’ as I see it. Having the Moon blown out of Earth’s orbit due to and explotion of nuclear waste deposited there may be poor science, but at least it was an attempt to give a kind of scientific and technological motivation for the journey. The Alphans meeting a metamorph creature straight out of a fairytale story when visiting a remote planet does not even pretend to have anything to do with science. FF tried to take, at times a bland, slow moving standing around characters that were hard to care for at times series and put some energy into it. It didn't always work, but for me, I liked the characters far more in Y2 than Y1. Bergman and Carter are the exception to this. I like them.

I think this is why our viewpoints clash from time to time. For me there is nothing bland and slow-moving about Y1. It was a series that was deep and rich in political subtext and handled events in a psychologically realistic manner. Early episodes like BREAKAWAY, BLACK SUN, MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH and RING AROUND THE MOON are outstanding in this respect. Prentice Hancock said at one stage that the early episodes were his favourites because then they were searching and experimenting and finding the shape. Barry Morse said something similar, and complained that the later episodes became too focused on hardware and ultimately ignored the psychological and sociological complexity we see in these first entries. I do not agree with them that there was something essentially wrong with the later episodes, but I fully agree that the first handful of episodes were revolutionary in terms of science fiction television and should be seen as the benchmark from where to measure the series as a whole. Y2, on the other hand, was total disaster from episode one and onwards. As I have said earlier, there is much to enjoy with Y2 as well, but it cannot be enjoyed in the direct manner as we can with Y1. Characters behave unrealistically, fairytale characters like Maya are introduced, there is an abundance of rubber monsters, there is a lot of meaningless sitcom

64


humour, and a lot of action intended to give the show more pace, but only results in making it more predictable and boring. We could go on and on, as we have done so many times before, but for those of us who have read Liardet, I think it is much better to forget about the Y2 style and rather concentrate on the stories that were often quite good. I wish FF and this Fageolle could've sat down and talked face-to-face. I wonder if he would've used words like the devil in front of FF. I think not. I think FF would've let him have it verbally. It's easy for people to sit on the sidelines and criticize. I know, we have Landau's comments and the others post 1999 (they were sure different during the series production; he admitted shortcomings in the first season. I bet he won't now, he didn't in that French video), but I wonder how those returning felt going in. Did they come to Y2 with a negative attitude as word got out about changes coming, or it manifested as the season went on? I know Landau used to put comments on the scripts.

I remember being told that the French delegation at one of the SPACE: 1999 conferences where FF was present either left the room when he entered or tried to boo him off. I don’t know if Fageolle was among the representatives, but when you watch the French documentaries they are sometimes so keen on trashing FF that Martin Landau had to put in a word in saying that there were actually some okay things about Y2. On the bonus disc of the French DVD box you can see this. It was quite fascinating to watch because Landau obviously felt the same way as the interviewer, but when the interviewer really took off, Landau had to put down the breaks. Hah hah. Maya, as I've stated before, is in my view, the most three diminsional character in the entire series. She goes from a person who loses everything she's ever known to becoming an orphan, from a home world standpoint, to having to adapt, both psychologically and emotionally, to a whole new environment. This is exactly what the Alphans had to do. This, for me, is part of what makes her a unique character and the fact that the role was really the first of its type specifically for a woman in a continuing role as an alien. Look at all of the female roles that have followed since. You seem to see Maya in Y2 as I see Helena in Y1. Not only in episodes like MOLAD and

RATM do I see Barbara Bain giving Emmy performances. Along with Landau and Morse she made the characters on Moonbase into complex and interesting people that we cared about. In Y2 she was transformed into a Bugs Bunny cartoon character. This is why I like Senmut’s story so much. Although all of his stories I have read so far are excellent, this one really hits the nail on the head in terms of concepts. Having the Y2 cast meet up with Bugs Bunny to reveal that they are all living in the same cartoon universe, strikes me as a brilliant idea. To me, the story “It’s gotta be the Beer” represents Senmut at his very best. It is both funny and profound. A miniature masterpiece. But that's only the beginning. She could've become a bitter, hateful person, blaming the Alphans for her father's death, but she didn't. She probably decided it wouldn't do any good to go that route, so she adapted. But the memories are just below the surface at times.

Maya was a bit like Maria in METROPOLIS. She was living in an upper echelon world of business, beauty and science, not being aware of how this paradise had been built on the exploitation of the working class imprisoned as slave work in the mines. I assume that she must have made some reflections on what kind of society she came from when she entered Alpha, but each time she meets people from her past or talks about Psychon, she talks as though she knew nothing of what was going on and still has not understood anything. Just think about how she talks with DORZAK, the conversation she had with Koenig in RULES OF LUTON or when she talks about comparative theology in NEW ADAM NEW EVE. As these episodes were written by different people who probably didn’t care all that much about Maya in the first place, I’m not sure it makes much sense to put the jigsaw pieces together for the purpose of creating a psychological profile, but if we were to do so, the only image I can see is that of a totally naïve person, much like Maria in METROPOLIS. Nevertheless, I think Catherine Schell performed well. She was given crap to work with, but somehow managed to make it work. If we should compare her with Jane Fonda in

The SPACE: 1999 short story BARBARELLA, as Liardet suggests, I would say that Schell impressed me more. John B. *** 31015 Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? starblade.rm Sep 16, 2015 Maya was a bit like Maria in METROPOLIS. She was living in an upper echelon world of business, beauty and science, not being aware of how this paradise had been built on the exploitation of the working class imprisoned as slave work in the mines.

See the film Snowpiercer. You are going to love it. Paulo *** 31016 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? sennmut Sep 16, 2015

On 15 Sep 2015 balor1999@... writes: Y2, on the other hand, was total disaster from episode one and onwards. As I have said earlier, there is much to enjoy with Y2 as well, but it cannot be enjoyed in the direct manner as we can with Y1. Characters behave unrealistically, fairytale characters like Maya are introduced, there is an abundance of rubber monsters, there is a lot of meaningless sitcom humour, and a lot of action intended to give the show more pace, but only results in making it more predictable and boring. We could go on and on, as we have done so many times before, but for those of us who have read Liardet, I think it is much better to forget about the Y2 style and rather concentrate on the stories that were often quite good.

I see Maya as quite a different sort. A symbol of loyalty and integrity. She not only adapts to her new and unexpected home, not unexpectedly, since she is no mud-brick primitive to begin with, she also is willing to defend it against one of her own kind, the sinister Dorzak. It's not that she has "gone native', it is that she is showing forth the real her, the person inside. She understands that the Alphans had no wish to drift through the

65

Psychon system, or bring about the destruction of the planet. The whole cascade of events from that point were out of her control, and even to some extent Mentor's, and she understands that Koenig had a base full of people to try and save. Despite the, no doubt, intense inner struggle, she saw that her father had been in the wrong, and that Alpha was the injured party. Obviously, her mother raised her right. ;) When the landing party may be stranded forever on I's planet, she is willing to sacrifice the relative comforts of Alpha, for an unknown, probably short, future, to try and save Tony and the rest. She is no wallflower, choosing suicide, rather than let the Dorcons chop her brian out, and continue their evil ways. No doubt, ahd Archon et al had their way, they would have enslaved the Alphans, and toasted the base, despite promises. One can hardly fault her choice, given the situation. In short, Maya is not "unrealistic", although fewwer transformations might have been okay. She is, instead, intensly loyal, and trustworthy to a fault, having assimilated to Earth ways, without ever losing her essential self. She is smart, without being a know-it-all, strong without being a super-bitch. She is a character others on Alpha could do worse than to emulate. *** 31017 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? John Marcucci Sep 16, 2015

Sen, I agree with this completely. I've introduced several people to S1999 in the past few years, and all of them like the character of Maya very much, and think she adds a lot of value to S2. She is saucy and sweet natured, and as you say confident and competant without coming across as a bitch. You saw this early on, esp in "The Exiles", when after seeing Tony cut down, and seeing how utterly ruthless the exiles were, the cold rage on Maya's face as she transformed into a mountain lion. But for her moral restraint, she would have torn their throats out. Rgds, John M. ***

66


31018 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? sennmut Sep 16, 2015

Yup. Like I said, her mama raised her right. I suspect mentor was too busy to, well, mentor her properly. ;) *** 31019 Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? balor1999 Sep 16, 2015

Thanks for the suggestion, Paulo. I have no idea what SNOWPIERCER is, but I will try to track it down and have a look at it. John B. *** 31020 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? John K. Balor Sep 17, 2015

Senmut wrote: I see Maya as quite a different sort. A symbol of loyalty and integrity. She not only adapts to her new and unexpected home, not unexpectedly, since she is no mud-brick primitive to begin with, she also is willing to defend it against one of her own kind, the sinister Dorzak. It's not that she has "gone native', it is that she is showing forth the real her, the person inside. She understands that the Alphans had no wish to drift through the Psychon system, or bring about the destruction of the planet. The whole cascade of events from that point were out of her control, and even to some extent Mentor's, and she understands that Koenig had a base full of people to try and save. Despite the, no doubt, intense inner struggle, she saw that her father had been in the wrong, and that Alpha was the injured party. Obviously, her mother raised her right. ;)

I like the psychological insights into characters and events you present here, and the reason I find your stories so appealing probably has a lot to do with your intunitive understanding of characters and events. If you only were able to reproduce the political subtext from the real series into you stories, you would have been a

natural heir to Johnny Byrne and the authoritative voice of "year three". But, you are what you are. You must follow your own voice to make your writing authentic, and in that respect I think you succeed on a high level. When the landing party may be stranded forever on I's planet, she is willing to sacrifice the relative comforts of Alpha, for an unknown, probably short, future, to try and save Tony and the rest. She is no wallflower, choosing suicide, rather than let the Dorcons chop her brian out, and continue their evil ways. No doubt, ahd Archon et al had their way, they would have enslaved the Alphans, and toasted the base, despite promises. One can hardly fault her choice, given the situation. In short, Maya is not "unrealistic", although fewwer transformations might have been okay. She is, instead, intensly loyal, and trustworthy to a fault, having assimilated to Earth ways, without ever losing her essential self. She is smart, without being a know-it-all, strong without being a super-bitch. She is a character others on Alpha could do worse than to emulate.

My comments about realism were no so much about how Catherine Schell and creative people like yourself are capable of bringing Maya to life as it was about the totally idiotic idea of including a metamorph character into the series. The kind of realism I was thinking about was the kind of realism that Suvin (1979) and Freedman (2000) talk about when they try to define science fiction as critical theory. In Suvin's famous definition of science fiction and Freedman's further elaboration, the central point is how science fiction is different from fantasy and mainstream literature, and the reason they are interested in this distinction is because they see science fiction as essentially the same as critical theory. For example, Freedman makes fascinating comments in the lines of all Marxist storytelling is science fiction, thus seeing the works of Berthold Brecht as canonical texts of science fiction. So, what I was thinking about was realism in the sense of being able to tell interesing stories, and I believe this is where the concept of the metamorph character falls flat. According to the comments made by Gerry Anderson in STARLOG, it was not only Johnny Byrne who hated Maya. All the British script writers hated Maya. Clearly they hated her because she was the anti-thesis of science fiction. She was a 'fantasy' character that could perhaps be used for telling right-wing fantasy stories, like the

The SPACE: 1999 short story "Nazi paradise" story in RULES OF LUTON, and other stories that were the opposite of what SPACE: 1999, but she was extremey inefficient for writing science fiction in the sense of how academics like Suvin, Jameson, Freedman, Fuhse and the people who made the original SPACE: 1999 understood the concept of science fiction. John B. *** 31021 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? sennmut Sep 18, 2015

Well, we move in different universes. I do not 'reproduce the political subtext" because I don't believe there is one. I completely reject the notion. If there HAD beeen any such, then by needing fageolle, et al, to illuminate it for us means that the writers failed to plainly manifest it. Unless you believe that only the "enlightened" can see these things? When Maya came along, I found her delightful. I liked the idea of a resident alien, and a shapeshifter was a cool idea as well, whoever came up with it. rather than a negative, she enhanced the show, after the departure of Paul, Kano, and Prof. Bergman. I also reject "critical theory". It is a mental divergence that has no value wahtsoever for Humanity, except as possible compost, and certainly does not defiine SciFi, in any way, fashion, or mode. It is a dead end, morally and intellectually, like Marxism itself, and we should concentrate on the show, and what was actually put on screen, rather than such distracting contaminations. Woof. *** 31022 Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? kerryirs Sep 18, 2015 She was a 'fantasy' character that could perhaps be used for telling right-wing fantasy stories, like the "Nazi paradise" story in RULES OF LUTON, and other stories that were the opposite of what SPACE: 1999, but she was

67

extremey inefficient for writing science fiction in the sense of how academics like Suvin, Jameson, Freedman, Fuhse and the people who made the original SPACE: 1999 understood the concept of science fiction.

Let's see, you've said in the past that you're not calling FF a Nazi, but in the excerpt above you refer to RULES OF LUTON as a "Nazi paradise" story, which to me is tantamount to calling FF a Nazi. John, which is it, are you or are you not calling FF a Nazi, a man who fought them and parachutes into Nazi held territory after his plane was shot down? On top of that, he was Jewish. You refer to STARLIG. Wasn't their first major article on 1999 entitled RECOVERING FROM THE MUF, or something like that by David Houston who coined the term? It seems he didn't care for some aspects of the first season, either. For example, episodes that relied on supernatural intervention of some kind to get the Alphans out of trouble. Now, if you want fantasy, try the MUF and spirits. What's that old line from HAMLET, to paraphrase, Methinks you doth protest too much. I'm sorry, but I don't think 99% of SF/Scify fans rely on some person(s) from accademia to influence their taste in what they should like or not like. I for one may read what they say and might agree in some cases, but overall, what I like or not like is my own judgement, not someone who I've never heard of. As for the British writers not liking the transformation concept, despite it's been a part of the SF/fantasy genre forever, is fine with me. They tended to use it less than Fred did and that's fine, too. I'm also going to refer you to John Kenneth Muir's blog and his interview with Brian Johnson in 2005. Johnson didn't care that much for the 1999 premise from the start. In a short comment at the Catacombs site, he found issues with both seasons, but thought that FF was a good writer. To Sen and John M, good job on looking at Maya from a character perspective. I couldn't agree more. She is no wallflower, she'll kick ass if she has to but prefers the ways of nonviolence.

68


Finally, wasn't the first Trek episode from the TOS about an alien menace that could assume human form and loved salt? Just asking. *** 31023 Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? balor1999 Sep 18, 2015

Kerry wrote: Let's see, you've said in the past that you're not calling FF a Nazi, but in the excerpt above you refer to RULES OF LUTON as a "Nazi paradise" story, which to me is tantamount to calling FF a Nazi. John, which is it, are you or are you not calling FF a Nazi, a man who fought them and parachutes into Nazi held territory after his plane was shot down? On top of that, he was Jewish.

Martin Willey was the first one to describe Maya’s speech in RULES OF LUTON as a “Nazi paradise” speech (Ogland, 2014, p.440). I very much doubt that he by this was suggesting that Freiberger was a Nazi, and neither do I. However, as we have discussed several times, there are elements in the Woodgrove trilogy and the Maya character that makes it easy to get associations of fascism, at least if we look at these concepts through the writings of Dr. Wertham. I don’t want to go through all that again, but if we think of SF from the viewpoint of how it is dicussed in Freedman’s “Critical Theory and Science Fiction” (Wesleyan University Press, 2000), the challenge is that Maya may be a good antagonist character for describing the oppressive forces of capitalism but a poor character for articulating and discussing the emancipatory strategies of the underprivileged classes. In folklore and fantasy literature a natural place for a shapeshifter would be a devilish character that changes shape for the purpose of infiltrating and destroying. If Maya had been written like this, Y2 could perhaps have worked as proper science fiction, a bit like ALIEN, where the shapeshifter could be seen as a symbol of capitalist oppressive forces. However, to make her a protagonist makes no sense at all. The point of science fiction is to follow the political conflict by observing the means and mechanisms of oppression and

explore the ways of the oppressed for dealing with the situation. Anton Zoref in FORCE OF LIFE and Luke & Anna in TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA are prime examples of prototype science fiction narratives, clearly defining Y1 as proper science fiction. In Y2 it is extremely difficult to create stories like that because Maya can always solve the situation by breaking the rules. She would be perfect as an oppressor, and as she is a part of the management team she could perhaps be thought of in such terms occasionally, but essentially she is created as a protagonist and that makes no sense at all from the kind of science fiction perspective we are now discussing. You refer to STARLIG. Wasn't their first major article on 1999 entitled RECOVERING FROM THE MUF, or something like that by David Houston who coined the term? It seems he didn't care for some aspects of the first season, either. For example, episodes that relied on supernatural intervention of some kind to get the Alphans out of trouble. Now, if you want fantasy, try the MUF and spirits.

I was only referring to what Gerry Anderson said in a STARLOG interview when being asked to respond to some comments Freiberger had made in a previous interview. I was not making statements about STARLOG per se. However, you make an important point about MUF and spirits. I’m not yet sure about about how Freedman would respond to this, but when he claims that science fiction is critical theory this begs the question of how to deal with spirituality. For instance, would he only accept the orthodox Marxist viewpoint of dialectal materialism, or would he include or perhaps even focus particularly on postMarxist philosophy where spirituality plays and important part, such as in the works of Erich Fromm. Freedman makes the following statement: “My aim is not to read science fiction ‘in light of’ critical theory, but to articulate certain structural affinities between the two terms. Although critically informed readings of particular science fiction texts will inevitably play a part in [the book], my chief intent is to show that the conjunction of critical theory and science fiction is no fortuitous but fundamental” (p. 23).

The SPACE: 1999 short story If we are to understand SPACE: 1999 within such a context, I believe it is necessary to engage with the texts of Fromm and others for making sense of the MUF and the spiritual aspects of the series, and I think it is perfectly natural and even necessary to do so in order to take people like Byrne, Penfold, di Lorenzo and Terpiloff seriously. The spiritual aspect was such a central theme in Y1 that alone the way Y2 ignored this central aspect of the show could be seen as a betrayal and departure. However, we are now discussing a particular type of spirituality, the kind of spirituality that I would associate with Carl Sagan in his Gifford lectures, and thus allow us to see COSMOS as the “third year” of SPACE: 1999. We are talking about spirituality and politics in the same way as we saw in the liberation theology in Latin America in the 1950s as a means of fighting the military oppressive regimes supported by the US to prevent the rise of communism. I'm sorry, but I don't think 99% of SF/Scify fans rely on some person(s) from accademia to influence their taste in what they should like or not like. I for one may read what they say and might agree in some cases, but overall, what I like or not like is my own judgement, not someone who I've never heard of. Well, anybody is free to explore SPACE: 1999 on his own terms without any reference to insightful and influential readers of the series, such as Fageolle, Keazor, Liardet and the rest, but without dialogue with the literature there is very little opportunity for developing and sharing insights that will be considered interesting and useful for the community at large. When people praise Y2 and complain about Y1, this strikes me as a very clear signal of somebody who is not up to date with the scholarly understanding of the series. During the past few decades there has been a large developments in the understanding of science fiction in general and series like SPACE: 1999 in particular. I believe we have even made some small contributions ourselves through our ExE discussions, but to ignore all these various perspectives in the belief that it is better to watch a complex series like SPACE: 1999 without any theoretical background sounds like a recipe for total misunderstanding of the series to me.

69

As for the British writers not liking the transformation concept, despite it's been a part of the SF/fantasy genre forever, is fine with me. They tended to use it less than Fred did and that's fine, too. I'm also going to refer you to John Kenneth Muir's blog and his interview with Brian Johnson in 2005. Johnson didn't care that much for the 1999 premise from the start. In a short comment at the Catacombs site, he found issues with both seasons, but thought that FF was a good writer.

Brian Johnson worked with special effects. I know he was part of the discussion group, along with Keith Wilson, Gerry Anderson, Landau and the writers at least in the first season, as they wanted to know what was achievable in terms of special effects and what was not, but I don’t see how his opinions on the ideological aspects of the series would be of much relevance. If you really want to understand SPACE: 1999, I would recommend doing what Paulo Pereiro told us recently, namely to watch the recent science fiction film SNOWPIERCER. For me that was a perfect example of what SPACE: 2099 is or should be. Rather than society analysed from the perspective of a runaway Moon, here we had a similar story about society as a runaway train, and the whole story was concerned with the journey of emancipation of the underprivileged at the tail of the train as they fought their way forwards and upwards in society to discover and fight the various mechanisms of psychological and physical oppression. To me this was one of the best science fiction films I have seen in recent times. It was SPACE: 1999 presented in a different format. It was the kind of science fiction that I assume Penfold, Byrne, di Lorenzo, Terpiloff and the others would describe as magnificent. John B. *** 31024 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? balor1999 Sep 19, 2015

Senmut wrote: I do not 'reproduce the political subtext" because I don't believe there is one. I completely reject the notion. If there HAD beeen any such, then by needing fageolle, et al, to illuminate it for us means that the writers

70

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction failed to plainly manifest it. Unless you believe that only the "enlightened" can see these things?

When was the golden age of science fiction, Disch asks in “The dreams our stuff is made of” (1998), and jokingly answers that it was the age of twelve. Personally I believe there is a grain of truth in this joke. I was twelve when I first saw SPACE: 1999, and I did not need to be “enlightened” in any way to understand the episodes. On the other hand, there are different levels of understanding. Fourth years later I believe I understand SPACE: 1999 in a very different way, and although this improved understanding is largely based on my own reflections on the series and discussions on this forum, it is also coloured by being privileged in being exposed to some of the most authoritative readers of the series, such as Fageolle, Keazor and Liardet. When Maya came along, I found her delightful. I liked the idea of a resident alien, and a shapeshifter was a cool idea as well, whoever came up with it. rather than a negative, she enhanced the show, after the departure of Paul, Kano, and Prof. Bergman.

When Maya came along, I felt exactly the same as what Gerry Anderson, Byrne, Penfold, Landau, Tate, Merton and the rest have been saying repeatedly, namely that Maya and all the other Y2 changes were a betrayal of everything Y1 stood for. Johnny Byrne even speculated that the well-known “show killer” FF was hired by ITC for the purpose of destroying the show in the context of some money laundering scheme. Although FF denied this when being asked by Kevin McCorry, it is difficult to understand why SPACE: 1999 was changed the way it was if it was not for the purpose of making the series flop. I also reject "critical theory". It is a mental divergence that has no value wahtsoever for Humanity, except as possible compost, and certainly does not defiine SciFi, in any way, fashion, or mode. It is a dead end, morally and intellectually, like Marxism itself, and we should concentrate on the show, and what was actually put on screen, rather than such distracting contaminations.

If we want to improve our understanding of the series, we need to engage with relevant theories and debates. To me the first step looks

like reviewing the SPACE: 1999 literature, in the manner we have been discussing the theories of Fageolle, Keazor and Liardet, and the second step would be to understand how this can be used for understanding SPACE: 1999 within the greater context defined by the giants of SF scholarship, such as Suvin, Jameson and Freedman. Not only would it be meaningless to ignore critical theory when different forms of critical theory is the theoretical foundation for SF scholarship in general, it is also meaningless when we look at how the ideological content of SPACE: 1999 has a natural affinity with this type of theoretical perspective. John B. *** 31025 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? balor1999 Sep 20, 2015

Senmut wrote: In short, Maya is not "unrealistic", although fewwer transformations might have been okay. She is, instead, intensly loyal, and trustworthy to a fault, having assimilated to Earth ways, without ever losing her essential self. She is smart, without being a know-it-all, strong without being a super-bitch. She is a character others on Alpha could do worse than to emulate.

Fewer transformations would have been okay, and no transformations at all would have been even better. It would also have improved the situation significantly if she was not a resident alien, Moonbase Alpha’s Miss Spock, but rather a human from Earth as everybody else. If we think of her like that, then I agree agree that she is smart, without being a know-it-all and strong without being a super-bitch. The only problem is that we already had a character like that. Her name was Dr. Helena Russell. So, although I appreciate your analysis and commentary on Maya and find your reflections on the writing of your “It’s gotta be the beer” story interesting, to me the enjoyment of the story is still that it creates a natural habitat for Maya by confronting her with the Loony Tunes universe.


Catherine Schell is a fine actress, and much of Y2 work well on a sitcom or soap opera level, but in terms of science fiction Maya is a disaster. To me she might as well have worn a swastika as I think she is a perfect example of what Wertham points to when he talks about fascism in superhero literature. Unlike science fiction heroines like Barbara Bain’s Dr. Russell or Sigourney Weaver’s Officer Ripley, who could both be read into a post-Marxist context by way of feminist theory, any attempt to use post-colonialist perspectives or something similar for achieving a similar type of narrative in the case of Maya seems futile due to the idiotic metamorph capability. Although a metamorph character would have worked fine in the context of the oppressor that creates a challenge for the Moonbase Alpha survival game, having this kind of character as a protagonist rather antagonist short-cuts the meaning of the story, turning victims into oppressors, and making the increasingly militaristic nature of the story into proto-fascist propaganda. Although Byrne’s speculations about Freiberger being hired for the purpose of destroying S99 remains nothing more than speculations, I think it is interesting what Gerry Anderson says in the afterword to Robert Seller’s book “CULT TV: The golden age of ITC” (Plexus Publishing, 2006) about getting the impression that somebody wanted Lew Grade out of the way. Although I know of no evidence in support of FF being hired for the purpose of destroying Lew Grade, and perhaps others will explain what a ridiculous idea this is, it is nevertheless interesting that a very good way of eliminating Lew Grade from the scene would probably be to hire somebody like FF to turn an ITC flagship production like S99/Y2 into a disaster. But enough of Y1/Y2 dichotomies for a while. I now look forward to return to Senmut’s FOREVER ALPHA SAGA, and I hope as many as possible will like to join me in reading and discussing the story that started it all, the original FOREVER ALPHA story. John B. ***

71

31026 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? SHANA G Sep 21, 2015

John, With all due respect, you just keep saying the same things over and over and over. You have to accept that Space:1999 had 2 seasons, not just one. Season 1 was ok but rather dull at times, Season 2 brought life, affection, caring and more humanity, and just plain excellent special effects. You need to stop ripping it apart, as I favor season 2. I really don’t care what Fageolle, Keazor and Liardet say about season 2, it was fun.Please keep FF out of this as the man is deceased and cannot defend himself. So please, get off the soapbox since there are many of us that like BOTH seasons. It’s a matter of taste. So as they say its mind over matter, so if you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter. Big hugs to all, Shana G *** 31027 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? balor1999 Sep 21, 2015

Shana wrote: With all due respect, you just keep saying the same things over and over and over. You have to accept that Space:1999 had 2 seasons, not just one. Season 1 was ok but rather dull at times, Season 2 brought life, affection, caring and more humanity, and just plain excellent special effects.

I’m sorry if it sounds like I am saying the same things over and over and over. Although I admit that the central point I am trying to make in the context of discussing “It’s gotta be the beer” is the same point, essentially that Y2 was a cartoon - a “Mr Magoo” as Landau derogatorily described it in the French documentary from 1999, something I feel is significantly enhanced when we reflect on

72


Senmut’s story beyond the initial surprise of having Maya meet with friends like Bugs Bunny, I also believe that new ideas and perspectives are added in each iteration. Discussing "It's gotta be the beer" provides an excellent opportunity in this respect. From my viewpoint season one was far better than simply ok, and it was never dull. Season two, however, did not bring life, affection, caring and more humanity to SPACE: 1999. It made the series more similar to a Bugs Bunny cartoon, which to me means exactly the opposite of what you are saying. You need to stop ripping it apart, as I favor season 2. I really don’t carewhat Fageolle, Keazor and Liardet say about season 2, it was fun. Please keep FF out of this as the man is deceased and cannot defend himself.

Rather than ripping Y2 apart, I am trying to understand the concept and meaning of SPACE: 1999 as a whole. I know there are a few people who enjoy Y2 more than Y1, and you may be one of those people, but to me that is a position that is incongruent with the kind of deeper understanding of the series that we see expressed by authoritative readers of the show, such as Fageolle, Keazor and Liardet. It does not mean that it is impossible to take such a position, and it is indeed a very interesting position if one is capable of building a convincing argument. This is a hard task, however, as everybody involved in the show and all the scholars and academics hold the reverse view. It would be like going to a university literature class and try to argue that Bugs Bunny has more depth than James Herriot. Perhaps a really skilled thinker might be able to get somewhere with this, but most people would fall flat on their face. Y2 is crap. That is the answer we get from those who made it and those who have studied it seriously. So please, get off the soapbox since there are many of us that like BOTH seasons. It’s a matter of taste. So as they say its mind over matter, so if you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter.

On the surface level one might say that it is a matter of taste whether one prefers Y1 to Y2, Y2 to Y1 or find them both equally fine, but the point I have been trying to make is that SPACE: 1999 can also be understood on a deeper level, a level where taste meets with

morals. This is the reason why we have been so concerned with the theories of Wertham and Adorno on popular culture, oppression and fascism. One way of reading Keazor and Fuhse on SPACE: 1999, that I believe makes perfect sense in the context of what Suvin and Freedman say about critical theory and science fiction, is that Y1 is a narrative about breaking out of false consciousness, developing critical awareness and taking steps on a journey of emancipation. Y2, on the other hand, represents the exact opposite values. In Y1 we identify with the conflict from the viewpoint of the repressed. In Y2 we are supposed to identify with the oppressors. The people on Moonbase Alpha are no longer the hapless victims of circumstances, they are the ones creating problems and destroying the world in the sense of having become Star Trekkers. This is how I interpret Johnny Byrne’s comments in the Fanderson documentary when he talks about the influence of FF, and this is also how I interpret Iaccino's famous article from 2001. So, do we want to be a part of the Nazi people who find enjoyment in Y2 or do we want to identify with people like Anderson, Penfold, Byrne, Landau and Morse who were creatively and intellectually responsible for the original vision and outcome of SPACE: 1999? When we think about it like this, it becomes much more than a matter of taste. There are moral components associated with each of the seasons that make them significantly different. It is here I feel Keazor is extremely helpful in terms of explaining in detail how much SPACE: 1999 was a product of 1975 and the various political and intellectual discourses of that time, thus making it natural for us to ask what consequences might follow from this when we use the series as a theoretical lens for understanding the contemporary world of 2015. As these ideas and associated questions are deep, I believe it is only natural that we keep repeating ourselves as we go through hermeneutical circles of trying to improve our understanding of the series by triangulating against the various theoretical positions articulated by Keazor, Liardet, Fageolle, Wozniak, Iaccino, Drake, Wood and all the rest of the scholars and experts that have contributed to the SPACE: 1999 literature. Although the spiral may be moving slowly, I


73

think we are making progress. For most of us I expect the understanding of S99 is much better now than it was before we started the 2013-15 ExE.

To say that something is authoritative just because you happen to like it and agree with it is crazy.

John B.

Rgds, John M. ***

***

31028 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? sennmut Sep 21, 2015


On 21 Sep 2015 balor1999@... writes:

John B,

Rather than ripping Y2 apart, I am trying to understand the concept and meaning of SPACE: 1999 as a whole. I know there are a few people who enjoy Y2 more than Y1, and you may be one of those people, but to me that is a position that is incongruent with the kind of deeper understanding of the series that we see expressed by authoritative readers of the show, such as Fageolle, Keazor and Liardet. It does not mean that it is impossible to take such a position, and it is indeed a very interesting position if one is capable of building a convincing argument. This is a hard task, however, as everybody involved in the show and all the scholars and academics hold the reverse view. It would be like going to a university literature class and try to argue that Bugs Bunny has more depth than James Herriot. Perhaps a really skilled thinker might be able to get somewhere with this, but most people would fall flat on their face. Y2 is crap. That is the answer we get from those who made it and those who have studied it seriously.

Authoritative according to whom? To most of us on here, Fageolle, et al, are the used food, along with the endless reams of waste paper they spread around, NOT Y2. *** 31029 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? jemarcu Sep 21 5:05 PM

Indeed. How can any reasonable person say that a work is "authoritative" when almost no one in the discussion or fan community has read it?Other than Petter, I've never encountered anyone, either on line or in person, who has read these supposedly authoritative works, or even heard of them.

Before I get too deep, with all due respect, it offends me the way that you talk about S2. There are many good qualities about S2 that we didn’t see in S1. Many of us like both seasons, and every episode has a message, if you just look for it. I ask for a truce of S1/S2 attacks, and lets discuss what’s important, our beloved show. Hugs, Shana G *** 31031 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? Jherek Carnelian Sep 21, 2015

He doesn't call himself Balor for nothing. *** 31032 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? John Marcucci Sep 21 8:04 PM

The thing is, I feel the same way about other series as Petter/ Balor does about Space 1999. I liked BSG but mostly disliked Galactica 1980 and the series re boot. I liked Mario Puzo's novel "THe Godfather" but disliked the author who came after him, and hold his additions of no account. Rather than expending energy analyzing and trashing something that I intensely dislike, I just ignore it. I concentrate

74


on the series I do like. The discussions, the sharing, the critiques, the fan fic, etc. If you hate space 1999 season 2 to the point that you don't even think it is the same series , fine.. THEN DON"T TALK ABOUT IT. Ignore it. Ironically for Balor, the more he trashes s2 and fulminates about its shortcomings, fascism, conspiracies, etc., the more he internalizes and validates S2 as legitimate. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.. according to his own warped ideology. He is helping to create a consensus that s2, while it had its faults, WAS a part of the same series and DID have much to recommend it. So , even though we find his comments offensive and disturbing, he is probably doing more to defeat his own "cause" than any of us could do. Rgds, John M. *** 31034 Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? balor1999 Sep 22, 2015

Kerry, you are right in pointing out that most of the points I try to contribute to the discussion are not entirely my own. Most of the views I advocate are theoretically grounded through well-known literature, but I still hope to be able to make a contribution by showing how these various perspectives on SF can be articulated in new and interesting ways by reflecting on how the ideas of the intellectual giants such as Adorno, Marcuse, Suvin, Freedman, Wertham, Keazor, Fageolle etc match and add meaning to SPACE: 1999. However, I would not characterise any of the people I refer to as "unknown authors". Perhaps people like Fageolle, Muir, Wood, Liardet, Keazor and the likes are unknown by many outside the realms of SPACE: 1999 scholarship, but for us they are all household names. This group of people are the intellectual giants of S99 scholarship that have produce the texts we all have to engage with in order to understand the existing knowledge and debates concerning our favourite series. I think most people on this forum are aware of most or at least some of these important authors.

On the next level, we have the literature concerning SF and critical theory. To say that Suvin, Jameson, Bould, Mieville and Freedman were "unknown authors" would also be wrong, I feel. They may be unknown for people who do not care about SF, or do not care about how SPACE: 1999 as SF, but for the kind of discussion we conduct on this forum they are extremely important because these are the people who have shaped the general theories that Fageolle, Keazor, Liardet and the rest build upon when they analyse and comment upon SPACE: 1999. On the final level, we have the more general philosophical and sociologial theory developed by the likes of Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, Althusser, Lacan, Bloch, Foucault, Heidegger and so on and so forth. These names are among the most well-known and influencial authors in the world, and much of the scholarly SF project could be seen as investigating the nature of SF texts through the lens of theories and viewpoints articulated by members of this group. The way Keazor and colleagues have written about SPACE: 1999 in such a context, of course, makes S99 into a very small example within a very large group of texts being studied, but it could be seen as a very interesting example, as I have tried to argue. John B. *** 31035 Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? kerryirs Sep 22, 2015

So, John you're into conspiracy theories which have no basis in fact? I suspect before FF came to 1999 he probably didn't know who Lew Grade was or perhaps even ITC. The more I read of Anderson's views, the more I think he may have been smoking soemething other than cigarettes. Maybe Anderson was insecure when it came to live productions, having spent most of his career with puppet productions. This isn't a knock on him for that, as he hoaned his skills in SFX and set design. Many who grew up with these shows credit him for breaking new ground, Lucas for one, I believe.

The SPACE: 1999 short story But it left him lacking when it came to dealing with actors in my view. Puppets don't talk back or have contract issues. I don't know how his other live action shows THE PROTECTORS and UFO were handled from a behind-thescenes perspective, but 1999 seemed to have problems from the start with writers, time and production problems, and throw on top of that the 70s "energy crisis". John says, It would also have improved the situation significantly if she was not a resident alien, Moonbase Alpha’s Miss Spock, but rather a human from Earth as everybody else. If we think of her like that, then I agree agree that she is smart, without being a know-it-all and strong without being a super-bitch. The only problem is that we already had a character like that. Her name was Dr. Helena Russell.

Well, I agree what you say about Dr. Russell, but the knowledge of physics is not in her knowledge portfolio. That's what Bergman was there for. But his knowledge was limited by earth's knowledge of the late 20th century. Maya, on the other hand, brought knowledge of an advanced race. Her people had advanced star travel at the height of their civilization. Note the fact that people left Psychon before conditions got so bad that escape would be impossible. Now to build an interstellar vessel that can support 1,000 people is way above earth science in the time of Alpha and our own. In Dorzak's case, his ship may have been intergalactic, since Maya says that Psychon astronomers had picked up controlled photon emmissions in what she refers to as "the third galaxy", I guess in relation to her world. This may also mean that the moon during one of its jumps has left our galaxy. Sahala also refers to the Croton system or galaxy of Croton, one or the other or both. I'm not sure without rewatching the episode. And yet, at times, Maya had to stop and think about an alien technology as in A MATTER OF BALANCE. She activated the accelorator OK, then had to stop as she tried to remember the one on her own planet. That's where Sharmeen told her which knob and the direction to turn it. But you can see the frustration in Maya's face when she has to

75

draw on so much knowledge, probably knowledge gained over thousands of years. John also wrote: Catherine Schell is a fine actress, and much of Y2 work well on a sitcom or soap opera level, but in terms of science fiction Maya is a disaster. To me she might as well have worn a swastika as I think she is a perfect example of what Wertham points to when he talks about fascism in superhero literature.

Of course, I don't buy into that and Wertham is someone I think who was off his rocker, sort of like Dr. Spock in the 60s who tried to tell parents how to raise their kids. My parents never bought into his BS, I know many did. Now John, i think you've gone around the bend saying Maya should've worn a swastika, which meant Catherine Schell would've had to have worn it. First off, I sincerely doubt she would've done it and secondly her family hid from the Nazis and then escaped the Communists in 1948. Of course, this view of yours is ludicrous, but keep on if it makes you happy. Gerry Anderson's view, with no evidence to back it up, speculated that someone wanted Lew Grade out of the way and FF was the man, a man Anderson hired, is laughable and I think Gerry had early onset dementia to come up with something as stupid as that. However, after expressing all the above, Shana is right. It is time to stop the bickering and the trashing of S2 and FF and anyone whi may disagree with Anderson, Landau, etc. We should celebrate this unique series and the fact that material is still being released on the series after 40+ years. Finally, Wertham will be rolling over in his grave as a new Fall series is coming to CBS called SUPER GIRL. I guess she'll be wearing an SS uniform under her outfit. *** 31036 Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? balor1999 Sep 23, 2015

76


Kerry, I think you have a point about Wertham probably rolling over in his grave at the thought of SUPERGIRL, and you made an interesting connection with Dr. Benjamin Spock. I also remember this book from my childhood, and I think there was a lot of wisdom in it by the way he encouraged more democracy and equality within families. I know he was politically active. He was part of the anti-war movement in the 1960s, for instance, so I can see how he may fit in with how Keazor, Fageolle and many of us understand SPACE: 1999. When it comes to conspiracy theories, however, I’m not sure I’m following you. Perhaps I was expressing myself unclearly. My point was not to reveal the hidden truth about how FF was hired by Abe Mandell in order to take down Lew Grade by making Gerry Anderson’s S99 into a commercial disaster. Although this is indeed a very interesting idea to contemplate, it is, as you say, pure speculation and probably has no connection with reality. On the other hand, it is a theory that fits nicely with what has been said by various people, including Anderson , Byrne, Tate and others. For instance, why on Earth would anybody make all those changes from Y1 to Y2 if the point was not to alienate fandom and destroy the series? From this perspective it makes a lot of sense, and if Byrne was right in S99/Y2 was being used within the context of a money laudring plot it would explain how somebody like FF could survive showbusiness through the reputation of being known as the “show killer”. It is too bad that Gerry Anderson found out too late. Once FF had taken over, as GA says, there was nothing he could do but watch this maniac systematically wreck and ruin the foundations of what had originally been a great show. Rather than gradually loosing respect for Anderson, as you say, my admiration for GA has only grown by way of how he has spoken more and more freely about what a disaster Y2 was, how Maya was a totally ridiculous character, how FF contributed nothing but destruction and idiocy, and thus showing how he was a victim of circumstances, in the same way as Landau, Byrne, Tate, Merton and all the rest who have repeatedly been talking trash

about Y2 at conventions and in interviews for several decades. Tate even went to the stage of referring to FF as a ‘dickhead’ at a S99 convention. At first I didn’t believe my ears, but gradually I have understood how much FF and all of Y2 was despised by the people who made SPACE: 1999, and I feel thankful for Anderson, Byrne, Landau, Tate, Merton and the rest being allowed to tell the story like it really was. In a way Shana is right in pointing out that there is a risk of sounding like a broken record when going on about these issues over and over again, but, on the other hand, it is perhaps the conflict between Y1 and Y2 that most clearly defines the nature of SPACE: 1999. It is a debate that never ends because there is no way of dealing with the problem in the manner Fageolle suggests, namely destroying all the 35 mm negatives, video tapes and video files and thus erase the whole of Y2 from our collective memory. For many it may be pleasant to think such thoughts, but it is unrealistic. We have to live with Y2 and we have to deal with it. That is the challenge of SPACE: 1999 fandom. But this is also why we can enjoy Senmut’s “It’s gotta be the beer” as catharsis. On the surface level we can smile at the surprise of Maya meeting Bugs Bunny, and then we can go deeper and reflect about how this actually makes a lot of sense since they both belong to the same world of cartoons. And there is no reason to stop there. When we engage with SF scholarship by the likes of Jameson and Freedman we can see how both Maya and Bugs Bunny can be seen as part of a capitalist means of controlling the minds of the workers by feeding them trash for preventing them from taking action in matters of importance. And finally, we can see the connections Wertham sees when looking at the kind of literature Maya is representative of in the context of fascism. In fact, in his excellent book on SF and critical theory, Freedman appears to be very supportive of Wertham’s project when looking into the world of SF, and advocates use of the theories of Ernst Bloch for describing fascism in science fiction. Freedman talks about STAR WARS and the works of Robert Heinlein in this context, and even goes to the extent of questioning Asimov and Clarke because he feels there is a lack of socialist utopian visions in their works, but

The SPACE: 1999 short story who knows what kind of profound insights he might have found in S99/Y2 if he had chosen to focus his intellectual genius in that direction. In other words, there are still wide gaps in the articulated knowledge about SPACE: 1999 that are waiting to be filled. In this sense, I feel we as a community are just beginning to understand the series. Although people like Fageolle and Keazor are visionary intellectuals that have contributed in laying the foundation for a good understanding of the series, we still have to design and build the complete house. Due to the richness and depth of the series, there are large opportunities for making significant contributions here. In fact, I think we have already made some interesting and important observations and reflections in our ExE and elsewhere, but there is still much more to explore. The opportunities for discussion and debate are vast. John B. *** 31037 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? sennmut Sep 24, 2015

On 23 Sep 2015 balor1999@... writes: Kerry, I think you have a point about Wertham probably rolling over in his grave at the thought of SUPERGIRL, and you made an interesting connection with Dr. Benjamin Spock. I also remember this book from my childhood, and I think there was a lot of wisdom in it by the way he encouraged more democracy and equality within families. I know he was politically active. He was part of the anti-war movement in the 1960s, for instance, so I can see how he may fit in with how Keazor, Fageolle and many of us understand SPACE: 1999.

Precisely the reason Dr. Spock was such a disaster. His 'wisdom" was a disaster. "More democracy and equality". PLEASE! I just ate! When it comes to conspiracy theories, however, I’m not sure I’m following you. Perhaps I was expressing myself unclearly. My point was not to reveal the hidden truth about how FF was hired by Abe Mandell in order to take down Lew Grade by making Gerry Anderson’s S99 into a commercial disaster. Although this is indeed a very interesting idea to contemplate, it

77

is, as you say, pure speculation and probably has no connection with reality. On the other hand, it is a theory that fits nicely with what has been said by various people, including Anderson , Byrne, Tate and others. For instance, why on Earth would anybody make all those changes from Y1 to Y2 if the point was not to alienate fandom and destroy the series? From this perspective it makes a lot of sense, and if Byrne was right in S99/Y2 was being used within the context of a money laudring plot it would explain how somebody like FF could survive showbusiness through the reputation of being known as the “show killer”. It is too bad that Gerry Anderson found out too late. Once FF had taken over, as GA says, there was nothing he could do but watch this maniac systematically wreck and ruin the foundations of what had originally been a great show.

Then GA could have taken his name off it, and walked. Remember, he was going through a nasty divorce, and his attention was divided. In a way Shana is right in pointing out that there is a risk of sounding like a broken record when going on about these issues over and over again, but, on the other hand, it is perhaps the conflict between Y1 and Y2 that most clearly defines the nature of SPACE: 1999. It is a debate that never ends because there is no way of dealing with the problem in the manner Fageolle suggests, namely destroying all the 35 mm negatives, video tapes and video files and thus erase the whole of Y2 from our collective memory. For many it may be pleasant to think such thoughts, but it is unrealistic. We have to live with Y2 and we have to deal with it. That is the challenge of SPACE: 1999 fandom.

No way, as Fageolle suggests? I must agree there, since Fageolle has NOTHING to contribute. At all. Nor do any of the others you mention, nor any Critical School maniacs. So, can we just bury it? But this is also why we can enjoy Senmut’s “It’s gotta be the beer” as catharsis. On the surface level we can smile at the surprise of Maya meeting Bugs Bunny, and then we can go deeper and reflect about how this actually makes a lot of sense since they both belong to the same world of cartoons. And there is no reason to stop there. When we engage with SF scholarship by the likes of Jameson and Freedman we can see how both Maya and Bugs Bunny can be seen as part of a capitalist means of controlling the minds of the workers by feeding them trash for preventing them from taking action in matters of importance. And finally, we can see the connections Wertham sees when looking at the kind of literature Maya is representative of in the context of

78

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction fascism. In fact, in his excellent book on SF and critical theory, Freedman appears to be very supportive of Wertham’s project when looking into the world of SF, and advocates use of the theories of Ernst Bloch for describing fascism in science fiction. Freedman talks about STAR WARS and the works of Robert Heinlein in this context, and even goes to the extent of questioning Asimov and Clarke because he feels there is a lack of socialist utopian visions in their works, but who knows what kind of profound insights he might have found in S99/Y2 if he had chosen to focus his intellectual genius in that direction.

My story was written just for a whim. For fun. THERE IS NO SUBTEXT, and no connection with Maya being cartoonish. It was just a moment's craziness, which I am now beginning to regret. *** 31038 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? GARY Sep 24, 2015

John, You get the proof of the money laundering thing, and I will eat my bra! You just can’t change what happened 40 years ago. It’s done and in the can as they say. Do you watch UFO? Is Straker a Nazi the way he runs SHADO? Just a question as you know I love a duel with you, in a none fighting manner. Hugs, Shana G *** 31039 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? sennmut Sep 24, 2015

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 GARY wrote: You get the proof of the money laundering thing, and I will eat my bra!

What seasonings? (Just curious.)

*** 31042 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? GARY Sep 25, 2015

Shana, I don’t wear a bra…. Try sending from your account not mine. Good Analogy about Straker….. Dad *** 31044 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? balor1999 Sep 24, 2015

Hello Shana There is no proof any money laundering on S99 as far as I know, and perhaps it never happened, so I don't want to "duel" that. Nevertheless, it is interesting to hear what Johnny Byrne had to say: "I thought for a moment that [Season Two] was actually what they call a loss-leader: that they had found a way of laundering some very dodgy money by transforming it into a television programming and putting it out in a way that least disturbed the existing order to things" (Wood, 2010, p. 251). The important issue here, as I see it, is not that FF was a "show killer" hired to destroy S99 in a plot to knock down Lew Grade, but that Johnny Byrne at least for a moment contemplated such a possibility. Along with Gerry Anderson, Martin Landau, Nick Tate, Ray Austin and Zienia Merton, Byrne has been one of the most clearly spoken in terms of saying how much he hated Maya, how he thought FF destroyed what they had tried to accomplish during Y1, and how the world would probably have been better off if Y2 had never been made.

The SPACE: 1999 short story Although you may privatly think that Y2 was better than Y1, which is of course perfectly fine as a private opinion, I hope you understand that this view is the exact opposite of what the makers of the series thought and what the scholarly community thinks. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having personal opinions that are at odds with most other people think. It may even be stimulating in the context of discussion and debate, but it has to be backed up with intellectual arguments that make such opinions interesting within the context of the debate. For instance, Liardet argues a position similar to yours in saying that Maya was trash, FF was trash and Y2 was trash, but it was still enjoyable trash because of the political subtext of Y2 episodes were to a large extent similar to those of Y1. Do you see what I mean? He is not saying that Maya was pretty and the Eagles were cool. He is saying that there are aspects of Y2 that fit into the theoretical programme initiated by Fageolle and elaborated by Keazor, making not only Y1 or S99 but also Y2 relevant for the kind of SF discourse that Keazor associates with Adorno, Jameson and Fuhse. There is merit to Y2 in this context. It is on this level that I find the Y1 vs Y2 discussion interesting. For instance, to which extent may one say that the presence of a socialist utopian vision in Y1 made S99 into proper SF, in the sense the Freedman understands the concept of SF, and to which extent does the lack of this feature make Y2 into inauthentic SF or perhaps even fantasy or proto-fascist propaganda? Freedman has a lot of interesting thoughts on issues like these that I believe can greatly enhance our understanding and enjoyment of the series. John B. *** 31045 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? sennmut Sep 24, 2015

On 24 Sep 2015 balor1999@... writes: There is no proof any money laundering on S99 as far as I know, and perhaps it never happened, so I don't want to "duel" that. Nevertheless, it is

79

interesting to hear what Johnny Byrne had to say: "I thought for a moment that [Season Two] was actually what they call a loss-leader: that they had found a way of laundering some very dodgy money by transforming it into a television programming and putting it out in a way that least disturbed the existing order to things" (Wood, 2010, p. 251).

So, in saying there is no proof, you still manage to hurl the accusation. Are you a lawyer, by any chance? Although you may privatly think that Y2 was better than Y1, which is of course perfectly fine as a private opinion, I hope you understand that this view is the exact opposite of what the makers of the series thought and what the scholarly community thinks. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having personal opinions that are at odds with most other people think. It may even be stimulating in the context of discussion and debate, but it has to be backed up with intellectual arguments that make such opinions interesting within the context of the debate. For instance, Liardet argues a position similar to yours in saying that Maya was trash, FF was trash and Y2 was trash, but it was still enjoyable trash because of the political subtext of Y2 episodes were to a large extent similar to those of Y1. Do you see what I mean? He is not saying that Maya was pretty and the Eagles were cool. He is saying that there are aspects of Y2 that fit into the theoretical programme initiated by Fageolle and elaborated by Keazor, making not only Y1 or S99 but also Y2 relevant for the kind of SF discourse that Keazor associates with Adorno, Jameson and Fuhse. There is merit to Y2 in this context.

Again, names no one but you has ever read. Lidaret. Keazor. et al. They, and whatever they hacked out, has no value, either to Space fandom, or in any other realm. It is on this level that I find the Y1 vs Y2 discussion interesting. For instance, to which extent may one say that the presence of a socialist utopian vision in Y1 made S99 into proper SF, in the sense the Freedman understands the concept of SF, and to which extent does the lack of this feature make Y2 into inauthentic SF or perhaps even fantasy or proto-fascist propaganda? Freedman has a lot of interesting thoughts on issues like these that I believe can greatly enhance our understanding and enjoyment of the series.

Once more, you throw your favorite word grenade. Everything is fascist. You are obsessed.

80

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction ***


fell and be worthwhile. While I respect your opinion, I believe that are good things about S1 and 2. I wouldn’t trade them for the world. Hugs, Shana

John, *** I agree with you about the duel as it makes me think. I think that if Sir Lew Grade hadn’t pulled the funds from Season 3 to another project, Alpha would have found its way to happiness. I understand that you prefer S1 to S2, and I respect that. I like both years for different reasons, and I hope you respect that as well. I have seen the video of the making of Space:1999, and was friends with Johnny Byrne before he passed away. He was a wonderful gentleman, as you are. However in those years that I spoke with him, I find it ironic that he never trashed either season to me, nor my dad. He was a man of faith and hope, and inspired me to love the series more. It’s all we have, S1 and 2. No one is right or wrong, it’s a matter of personal taste. But I do have to re-ask if you would find Straker a Nazi for the way the UFO series that I was brought up with well. I loved SHADO, and the crew. My father say I have insight that is years ahead of my age, 26, and I try to find a balance out of it all. But John, being my dear friend, I read what you say, and think about it before I reply. I just believe that we shouldn’t go off the “opinions” of others in books to judge what we like. I like both seasons, but I find Command Center more warm and efficient than Main Mission. But like I said it’s all personal choice. Shana *** 31047 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? SHANA G Sep 25, 2015

John, I am a teacher for kids with autism, and Asperger syndrome, so I know what it’s like to work with the down and out and make them

31048 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? balor1999 Today at 12:55 PM

Hello Shana, I watched UFO a long time ago, but I never connected with it in the same way as SPACE: 1999, so I’m not sure I understand your question about Straker being a Nazi. Is this how you see him? I’m sure there is a lot of political subtext we could dig into if we started watching and discussing UFO. The end of the sixties was a political period all over the world, and some people people who contributed to SPACE: 1999 had been major contributors to UFO, such as Donald James, Tony Barwick and David Tomblin, but for the moment I would prefer if we continue discussing Senmut’s stories. Once we reach a conclusion on this “It’s gotta be the beer” discussion, I look very much forward to reading and discussing the first story in the FOREVER ALPHA SERIES. I have already read the first chapter and it is very well written. Concerning your point about respect, there have been periods on this forum when certain members go on vigilante attacks on other members by “exposing” them in referring to them by other names they use for signing their posts or arrange polls for having them banned, but apart from such incidents I feel the discussions and debates are generally carried out in an environment of mutual respect. To me it is self-evident that we need to have mutual respect in order to be able to carry out meaningful discussions and debates, although that does not necessarily mean that we all interpret episodes and characters in the same way. For instance, when you talk about UFO supposedly being a series about fascism, I have

The SPACE: 1999 short story absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Are you trying to build an argument in support of a view that what some see as proto-fascist tendencies in Y2 did not enter by way of FF but rather was a part of Y1 that can be traced back to UFO? This does not sound convincing to me, but – by all means – if you can back than up with theory and observations it could be an interesting debating point. If you articulated more clearly what you seem to propose, perhaps I could explain my contrary position in a more precise manner. It is interesting that you refer to your teaching background again. For me there are two reasons for watching SPACE: 1999. The first reason is that it provides as cultural lens for understanding important political currents of the early 1970s that have become more pronounced and important 40 years later, such as nuclear waste, climate change, fragility of financial systems, world peace and social justice. The second reason is how the series help frame these issues in a manner that allows us to consider these issues through the means of critical theory and political activism. To me this is where SPACE: 1999 fits in with SF scholarship and provides an extremely interesting case, despite being essentially a niche series when compares to more wellknown yet less interesting series like DOCTOR WHO, STAR TREK and STAR WARS. John B. *** 31049 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? SHANA G Sep 26, 2015

John, You asked me if I was a lawyer, that’s why I replied with what I do for a living. If you aren’t aware of the UFO series then my post is wasted on the Gerry/Sylvia Anderson show creatiness. UFO BY GA/SA still stands the test of time with some excellent story writing. As well rounded a man as you are, I’m quite shocked that you didn’t latch on to UFO. My mistake.

81

I cannot debate a point with you if I cannot connect the dots for you between the two, and with no FF to blame. However, the good thing after 45 years, UFO still stands the test of time today. Anyone open to debate about GA/SA going right with UFO, to the left with 1999 Y1, and back to the right again with Y2? Hugs, Shana *** 31050 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? balor1999 Sep 26, 2015

Shana, I think your theory about going one direction with UFO, another direction with S99/Y1 and returning to the original direction with S99/Y2 is an interesting theory. Unfortunately I believe it is contradicted by empirical evidence in terms of how Gerry Anderson have spoken warmly about Y1 as a continuation and improvement of UFO - while Y2 was a total disaster that had nothing to do with his previous directions, but I can see your point in both UFO and S99/Y2 being more shallow that S99/Y1. In that sense I suppose one could group the series together the way you propose. As I said earlier, I have seen UFO, but it is a long time ago, and I didn’t get hooked in the same way as I did with SPACE: 1999. That doesn’t mean that I didn’t like UFO. To me it was an okay science fiction series, a bit like THE INVADERS from the same period, and perhaps even slightly better in some respects. There were some drama episodes that were quite good, as I seem to remember, although there were also a lot of action adventure stories that I felt I had grown out of then, and feel even less interesting now, like Paul Foster trying to escape from a Submarine catching water or having a shoot-out with an alien on the Moon. I don’t remember these episodes in detail, but at the time I didn’t feel they had the same level of depth as the first year of SPACE: 1999.

82


Nevertheless, both Chris Drake and Henry Keazor write about the importance of UFO for understanding SPACE: 1999, so it is an interesting topic. Perhaps we could have a deeper look into UFO after we have completed the discussion of Senmut’s stories. Have you read his initial FOREVER ALPHA story by the way? John B. *** 31051 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? sennmut Sep 26 3:27 PM

UFO was above “The Invaders”. *** 31056 Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? kerryirs Sep 28 6:27 PM

"I thought for a moment that [Season Two] was actually what they call a loss-leader: that they had found a way of laundering some very dodgy money by transforming it into a television programming and putting it out in a way that least disturbed the existing order to things" (Wood, 2010, p. 251). Two things, the above quote from Johnny Byrne, as it is attributed to him, and the UFO/S1999/Y1/Y2 thread. The quote. For someone who is considered intelligent, I find Byrne's comment makes no sense. And too me, at least in today's world, a comment like this may have opened him up to a lawsuit. I don't know when this comment was supposedly to have been made, but to make an accusation like this without proof is reckless if not stupid. As for his loss leader crack, Gerry Anderson fit the bill to a tee. For all of Anderson's criticisms over the years, where was he during

year two? The same question could've been asked of Roddenberry. However, I understand that both men were going through divorces at their respective times as executive producers. I feel that both abandoned their productions to a certain extent, nonetheless. That's water under the bridge. Now, to the UFO/1999 thread that Shana brought up. I've seen some UFO episodes recently on YouTube and I find them more of an action/adventure style of episode than the low-key style used in S1 of 1999. Steaker couldn't sit around in a command conference debating an issue as events usually happened too fast for that; he had to think on his feet. Now, that doesn't mean he didn't discuss an issue with Freeman when needed, but generally, it was get the intercepters into space, ground and air forces mobilized, and coordinate all three from SHADO HQ or from the moonbase. And of course, there's S.I.D. So there was a lot going on, similar to 1999 Y2. Despite what was intended, I feel that UFO is far more similar to Y2 than Y1. And then there's the episode in UFO that dealt with drugs (I forget the name) which got some people upset. Here's where a series dared to do something different in what is basically a standard premise, aliens vs humans, similar to another series around the same time THE INVADERS. That's it for me. UFO was OK, but nothing I followed over the years. *** 31090 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? Erich Wise Oct 12, 2015

On September 23, 2015, Shana wrote: You get the proof of the money laundering thing, and I will eat my bra!

Can we watch? ***


83

3.4 1999/UFO similarities… interesting to me A final debate, that follows from reading and discussing Senmut’s short story, relates to how the second year of SPACE: 1999 could be seen as a regression back to the earlier works of Gerry Anderson, such as his UFO series from the late sixties. This part of the debate functions as a particularly relevant summary of this section of the book, showing how far Anderson had reached since the time of THUNDERBIRDS, and how quickly he slid back to square one with the completion of the second year of SPACE: 1999. 31052 1999/UFO Similarities.... interesting to me SHANA G Sep 26 5:04 PM

On September 26, 2015, balor1999@... wrote: Nevertheless, both Chris Drake and Henry Keazor write about the importance of UFO for understanding SPACE: 1999, so it is an interesting topic. Perhaps we could have a deeper look into UFO after we have completed the discussion of Senmut’s stories. Have you read his initial FOREVER ALPHA story by the way?

John, No I haven’t had time. Where do I find it? I’d love to read it. I have been working 2 jobs, so I have very limited time. But, I always make time for you! There is a lot to be looked at in my UFO/1999 theory. See if you can catch a few on YouTube, and we will be both well versed Big Hugs, Shana *** 31053 Re: 1999/UFO Similarities.... interesting to me balor1999 Sep 27, 2015

Shana, referring to you view on UFO, S99/Y1 and S99/Y2 as a "theory" was perhaps going a bit far as you don't propose to explain anything. You just say that for you there is a likeness between UFO and S99/Y2 while you see S99/Y1 is the odd man out. The reason I referred to this as a theory was because that allowed me to make a counter-argument by trying to show how GA and the rest saw S99/Y1 as an improvement of UFO while S99/Y2 was a forced moved in a direction they

had no interesting in going. Nevertheless, you may have arguments up your sleeve to counter my arguments, so I will not pushing this further. Perhaps you have read somewhere that GA was secretly pleased with S99/Y2 and felt that S99/Y1 was a mistake. This is contrary to what I have heard, but we can discuss such issues later. For the moment I'm more interested in getting started with Senmut's FOREVER ALPHA. As Senmut is an active member on the forum, I'm probably not the right person to ask where to find the text, but here is one link: https://www.fanfiction.net/s/516101/1/ForeverAlpha I also have limited time for reading fiction, but the chapters are not so long, so if we break it down chapter by chapter, I think it should be quite easy for all those wanting to participate in the discussion to engage. Personally I didn't know very much about FOREVER KNIGHT before reading this story, so I have been watching some FK episodes on YouTube for getting into it. John B. *** 31054 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: 1999/UFO Similarities.... interesting to me sennmut Sep 28, 2015

And many of the FX shots still hold up, pretty well. *** 31055 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: 1999/UFO Similarities.... interesting to me SHANA G Sep 28 6:29 PM

Mr. Slinter,

84


Perhaps the word theory was incorrect, and I apologize for that. I just wanted to stop the conversation as I want to read Mr. Senmuts story and not steal his thunder. I hope we can hold this analogy for a later discussion? One again, I apologize for the verbiage, I meant no disrespect. Hugs, Shana *** 31058 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: 1999/UFO Similarities.... interesting to me sennmut Sep 28 11:17 PM

31057 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: 1999/UFO Similarities.... interesting to me balor1999 Sep 28, 2015

The FX shots were good in UFO, I agree. Gerry Anderson and his team provided a benchmark in this respect, but to me the special effects in UFO were more like THUNDERBIRDS than SPACE: 1999. In some respect I tend to think of UFO more like a live action version of THUNDERBIRDS than the more serious type of contemplative drama we associate with SPACE: 1999. Of course, there were UFO episodes that were character driven or had something interesting to say in terms of political or other type of subtext, but often it felt like a vehicle for the models and special effects created by Derek Meddings and his group.

31059 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: 1999/UFO Similarities.... interesting to me SHANA G Sep 29, 2015

To me SPACE: 1999 felt like a much more mature show in the sense that the models and special effects felt more integrated as part of the story, and the special effects were better too. At least before the time of Blu-ray and HD television, the Eagles felt like real machines to me. Seldom were I reminded of watching models, like on THUNDERBIRDS and UFO, but it was more like the real thing.

This is what it’s for “Shana, referring to you view on UFO, S99/Y1 and S99/Y2 as a "theory" was perhaps going a bit far as you don't propose to explain anything.”

On the other hand, I would still agree that the rotating UFOs and the various vehicles and explosions on UFO were probably state of the art pr 1969-70, and still hold up well today.

Sorry if you are confused, but I was raised with good manners.

John B.

Uhh.....okay. I'm a tad confused, but okay. ***

Shana *** 31060 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: 1999/UFO Similarities.... interesting to me sennmut Sep 29, 2015

Major Totality of 10-4ness of the you of thankness. ***

***

85

Part II. THE ‘FOREVER ALPHA’ SERIES This second part of the book documents discussions of the six stories contained within the FOREVER ALPHA series. Although the fifth story, “Crossfire”, has already been discussed within first part of the book, it was nevertheless decided that it could be useful to read and discuss the story once more as it might be experienced differently within the context of the chronological order of how the stories were published.      

Forever Alpha (1999) Greetings from Cylon (2000) ... et Willelm ad Pevensae venit (2001) Schanke Resurgens (2002) Crossfire (2003) Out of the Frying Pan (2012)

The format used for discussing each of the six episodes are similar in the sense that the discussion starts out with commentary and analysis that deals specifically with the the story, often first impressions based on reading the first few chapters, before other discussions follow. Sometimes the commentary and analysis is quite short, and the discussions that follow tend to break into themes that are indirectly related to the novel, but the discussions follow a natural flow as discussants read and reflect on the Senmut novels at a pace of about one chapter each day. To give a short introduction to each of the six stories, the summaries below are the ones used at the Space: 1999 Fan Fiction Archive (Ariana, 2001): FOREVER ALPHA Dr Nick Barber, aka Nick Knight, and his wife Nat get an assignment to Moonbase Alpha. But shortly after their arrival, Meta Probe astronauts start dying of a mysterious illness... GREETINGS FROM CYLON The Alphans encounter a Cylon ship during a routine mission. ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT Nick and Nat have settled in to life on the wandering Moon. But a ghost from their past threatens their new existence... Sequel to Forever Alpha and Greetings From Cylon. SCHANKE RESURGENS Sequel to ...Et Willelm Ad Pevensae Venit. CROSSFIRE After transiting a mysterious vortex, the Alphans find themselves in a new region of space, with planets that might provide a new home. And in the crossfire between two warring powers. OUT OF THE FRYING PAN Drifting deeper into the new region of space, Alpha once again encounters the Cylons... and helps bring a dead civilization back to life. In a similar way to how the discussions of the SPACE: 1999 fan fiction novel and the fan fiction short story were played out in part one of this book, the discussions covered in this second part are generally more concerned with the idea of investigating fan fiction as means for turning passive fans into engaged activists in the manner explained by Tulloch and Jenkins in their book on science fiction audiences (1995). However, as the point is not to replicate the ideas and arguments made by Tulloch and Jenkins, but rather to investigate how their ideas can contribute to the theory of SPACE: 1999, following the lead of Fageolle (1996), Keazor (2012), Liardet (2014) and others, the discussion of

86

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

each individual story within the FOREVER ALPHA series is a bit like the Homeric Odyssey in the sense that there are occational departues from focus on particular stories when Online Alpha felt the need to investigate themes that felt important for the understanding of this overall aim. Nevertheless, the discussion of each story starts out with commentary and analysis specifically dealing with the particular episode, and as the members of Online Alpha kept on reading the stories, whenever important links were found between the discussion of the particular story and the more general themes being looked into, these links where brought forward for further discussion.

Forever Alpha

87

4. FOREVER ALPHA This chapter consists of three sections. In section 4.1, the first fourteen chapters of “Forever Alpha” are discussed, putting particular emphasis on how the cross-writing with vampire literature opens up for questions and search for political subtext that might otherwise be less easy to address. In sections 4.2 and 4.3 the discussions are more concerned with how this story can be used in the context of discussing the differences between the two seasons of SPACE: 1999, showing how the ideas and concepts discussed in section 4.1 can have practical implications for the reading of the series as a whole.

4.1 Commentary and analysis The first part of the discussion focuses on the first chapters of the story. The main topic of debate is the role of vampire mythology in Marxist understanding of society and what kind of implications can be found from this when writing and reading a crossover story between the 1990s vampire series FOREVER KNIGHT and the 1970s science fiction series SPACE: 1999. Several important issues are investigated, including how the political nature of vampire films have changed in recent decades. 31061 Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) balor1999 Sep 29, 2015

The way I have understood it, FOREVER ALPHA was Senmut’s first attempt to write about SPACE: 1999 from a fictional perspective, perhaps building on his experience in fictional writing on other themes, and to me it stands out as both innovative and insightful. In other words, it is a joy to read, just like the other Senmut stories I have read. Although I have read very little fan fiction, SPACE: 1999 or otherwise, I gave this initial story of the FOREVER ALPHA series a try some years back, but I only managed to get halfway through it because I had never seen the FOREVER KNIGHT series and consequently understood very little of the story beyond the fact that it was well written. Actually, I’m not sure I knew at the time that all these stories were connected, and that CROSSFIRE described events that happened much later in the series, but as I knew the original BATTLESTAR GALACTICA series (first year at least) better, it was perhaps not so bad to start with CROSSFIRE to get inside this particular universe that Senmut describes. However, when we are now discussing the complete series, I found there was no way I could read and discuss FOREVER ALPHA without first having a better understanding of FOREVER KNIGHT, so I have now watch the 1989 pilot and the first six episodes of the first season (1992). I don’t know if this is sufficient, but at least it made me enjoy the first chapter

in the story on a completely different level, and I will continue to watch FOREVER KNIGHT episodes to be able to understand the richness of Senmut’s writing and also be able to come up with some ideas of my own of why this combination of FK and S99 could be interesting for adding to our collecting understanding of the series. I like the way the story begins, the way Nick appears to be a friend of Ben Vincent, and how he enters Moonbase Alpha in a montage that is not too different from the way we see John Koenig entering Moonbase Alpha in “Breakaway”. As I have discovered in much of Senmut’s writing, there are also some amusing comments here and there, like comments on the 1970s retrostyle costumes people are wearing in 1999, and how this makes somebody think of Rudi Gernreich. Ha-ha. Nevertheless, as we enter this story I expect the key insights on S99 will come from the way the subtext of FK may be used for exploration. When I started watching FK I was expecting that that the vampire theme was going to be some kind of metaphor for the aids discussion that were high on the agenda at the time when FK was being made, but as I’ve watched more episode, I’m not sure this is the right lens for understanding FK. My impression is that it is using the vampire metaphor more in the context of drug or alcohol addiction, and the idea of a vampire wanting to become human is best understood in such a context.

88


I’m not sure if this is a reasonable understanding of FK as a whole, as I don’t know if it will develop thematically over time, but if it should turn out to be reasonable, I wonder what this might mean in the context of cross-writing it with S99. John B. *** 31062 Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) balor1999 Sep 30, 2015

Some of the brilliance in Senmut’s writing is how he handles dialogue. Often the characters appear to think and talk exactly like how we know them from the series. Not only is it like that with SPACE: 1999, but the characters from FOREVER KNIGHT also sound like that to me. However, as I’m still on season 1, there are issues not to clear. For instance, Nick Knight is now married to Nathalie, who appears to have become a vampire herself, and Nick is no longer part of the Toronto police force. He is now Dr. Nick Barber, who has made a name for himself through medical research and development in New York. I wonder if this is a reflection of how the series develops over the seasons, or whether this how Senmut has developed the characters himself. Issues that are more easily appreciated for those of us who know a lot about SPACE: 1999 and less about FOREVER KNIGHT is the interesting conversation between Nick and Helena in chapter two. As FOREVER KNIGHT was made in the 1990s and S99 in the 1970s, this makes for interesting cross-over writing when the projected future of one series meets with the imagined contemporary of another. Although it seems to work quite well so far, I wonder how this mixture will play out. To me the cross-over between SPACE 1999 and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA worked fine because the two series were made at the same time. CROSSOVER was a story that almost felt as though it had been written as 1979-80 third year episode of SPACE 1999. The style of acting, the sets, the attitudes, and everything else that was typical of the late seventies and emulated by these two series mixed well together.

The situation is very different when one tries to cross-write a series that is typical of the seventies with something that is typical of the nineties. It will be interesting to see how this is solved and what kind of insights this might provide for our collective understanding of SPACE: 1999. Personally, I often tend to forget that the series is supposed to be taking place in 1999 and a few years ahead. Liardet writes interestingly and amusingly about this in the final chapter of his book, but for me SPACE: 1999 has always been about 1974 and how future in a 25 year perspective was projected from that point of view. I have never thought about it as actually having anything to do with the year 1999. The way Senmut has written this story, the similarities and differences between the 1970s and the 1990s seem to be a part of the story. John B. *** 31063 [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) sennmut Oct 1, 2015 Some of the brilliance in Senmut’s writing is how he handles dialogue. Often the characters appear to think and talk exactly like how we know them from the series. Not only is it like that with SPACE: 1999, but the characters from FOREVER KNIGHT also sound like that to me. However, as I’m still on season 1, there are issues not to clear. For instance, Nick Knight is now married to Nathalie, who appears to have become a vampire herself, and Nick is no longer part of the Toronto police force. He is now Dr. Nick Barber, who has made a name for himself through medical research and development in New York. I wonder if this is a reflection of how the series develops over the seasons, or whether this how Senmut has developed the characters himself.

Well, perhaps brilliant is too strong a word. I just write the way I would like to hear the dialogue being spoken, were actors doing it, or would speak it, myself. Alot of TV dialogue, basically, sucks, and shows lousy English skills. As to N&N being a pair, alot of FKFic writers have seen things progressing that way, just as alot of Space Fic writers see Koenig/Helena as a couple. In some FK flashbacks, we saw Nick as a doctor, so that seemed a good "in", as it were, for getting onto

Forever Alpha Alpha. Nat, of course, already had her sheepskin. Issues that are more easily appreciated for those of us who know a lot about SPACE: 1999 and less about FOREVER KNIGHT is the interesting conversation between Nick and Helena in chapter two. As FOREVER KNIGHT was made in the 1990s and S99 in the 1970s, this makes for interesting cross-over writing when the projected future of one series meets with the imagined contemporary of another. Although it seems to work quite well so far, I wonder how this mixture will play out. To me the cross-over between SPACE 1999 and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA worked fine because the two series were made at the same time. CROSSOVER was a story that almost felt as though it had been written as 1979-80 third year episode of SPACE 1999. The style of acting, the sets, the attitudes, and everything else that was typical of the late seventies and emulated by these two series mixed well together.

Let us recall that FK was "90s people", where as Space was "70s people" pretending to be "90s people". If that makes sense. Personally, I don't see the two decades as all that different, in terms of the Human condition. Human beings haven't really changed appreciably, in the last few millenia. We still have all of the same interminably dreary progression of faults and foibles and inclinations that our ancestors had. Original Sin hasn't gone away, and I doubt that will change much, in the future. Yes, I was trying to write Crossfire as if it were in a Y3 episode. Those of us who like both seasons, albeit on different levels, can envision what a Y3 would have been like, given certain constants. For me, Professor Bergman must still somehow be there. Also, Alpha's technology must be augmented; not merely by what Maya can bring from the science of Psychon, but what they acrue as they drift along. Certainly, enough of both the Satasius, and the Bethan gunship, remained to glean something of value. The same for the wreckage of Gwent, and Jarak's "fleet". I suspect that some tech transfer occured, during the time Zantor was there, and Brian the Brain must have scanned some things of interest, before that whole saga hit the fan. So, when we get to our putative Y3, these things seem normative, at least to moi. The situation is very different when one tries to cross-write a series that is typical of the seventies with something that is typical of the

89 nineties. It will be interesting to see how this is solved and what kind of insights this might provide for our collective understanding of SPACE: 1999. Personally, I often tend to forget that the series is supposed to be taking place in 1999 and a few years ahead. Liardet writes interestingly and amusingly about this in the final chapter of his book, but for me SPACE: 1999 has always been about 1974 and how future in a 25 year perspective was projected from that point of view. I have never thought about it as actually having anything to do with the year 1999. The way Senmut has written this story, the similarities and differences between the 1970s and the 1990s seem to be a part of the story.

I have no thoughts or ideas, nor had any, regarding any "collective understanding" of anything. I wrote FA on a whim, almost as a laugh, and was surprised how easily it came together. I think blending decades, unless they are truly seperated by a chasm of time, is not as hard as some might deem it. People, as I said, remain people, and the world of 1999 is not all that different from the world of 1974. Except perhaps a little sadder. *** 31064 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) balor1999 Today at 5:27 PM

Senmut wrote: As to N&N being a pair, alot of FKFic writers have seen things progressing that way, just as alot of Space Fic writers see Koenig/Helena as a couple. In some FK flashbacks, we saw Nick as a doctor, so that seemed a good "in", as it were, for getting onto Alpha. Nat, of course, already had her sheepskin.

Okay, thanks of explaining. FOREVER KNIGHT went from 1992 to 1996. You pick up the story in 1999, so it makes sense that there may have been changes and developments. I feel I have watched enough episodes to get a feeling for the FK characters, but I assume my understanding would have been even better if I had seen all episodes from all three seasons several times. In chapter 2 you make a reference to the vampire Erica who committed suicide by sitting on a bench in a park as the sun was rising. I have no idea whether her spirit will continue to haunt Nick the way you suggest or whether that is one of your contributions to the series. When you

90


write about LaCroix and his radio show from Toronto, I was reminded of the two first episodes (and the 1989 pilot). I got the impression that he was killed at that stage, and what I have seen of him in later episodes are only in flash-backs, but I would not be surprised if he turns up again. Let us recall that FK was "90s people", where as Space was "70s people" pretending to be "90s people". If that makes sense. Personally, I don't see the two decades as all that different, in terms of the Human condition. Human beings haven't really changed appreciably, in the last few millenia. We still have all of the same interminably dreary progression of faults and foibles and inclinations that our ancestors had. Original Sin hasn't gone away, and I doubt that will change much, in the future.

You are probably right about that, but there are always cultural changes, and culture changes the way we perceive life. Something I remember well from 1997 was the first AUSTIN POWERS movie that poked fun at the cultural changes and attitudes between 1967 and 1997. What was hip in 1967 looked incredibly dated in 1997. What was considered fresh and liberating in 1967 seemed strange and irresponsible in1997. Austin and Dr. Evil were mirror images of each other. The change between 1974 and 1999 was perhaps not as large as this. Perhaps the most important aspect of SPACE 1999, as commented by Keazor, is how it was a reflection of the historical demarcation point between the economical growth after WWII and the landslide and continual disasters that followed after 1972. In other words, if one were to make a cross-over between STAR TREK and FOREVER KNIGHT it could easily end up like an AUSTIN POWERS comedy, but in the case of SPACE 1999 it is more like the difference between the initial realisation of how nationalism, capitalism and state socialism had not worked out as predicted and a 20 year later reflection on how to come to terms with such realities. I think this is part of the reason I believe FOREVER ALPHA has something to add to the scholarly understanding of SPACE: 1999, or at least initiate some ideas that can be discussed, debated and add to this type of knowledge. I have no thoughts or ideas, nor had any, regarding any "collective understanding" of anything. I wrote FA on a whim, almost as a laugh, and was surprised how easily it came

together. I think blending decades, unless they are truly seperated by a chasm of time, is not as hard as some might deem it. People, as I said, remain people, and the world of 1999 is not all that different from the world of 1974. Except perhaps a little sadder.

To me there is much more to FOREVER ALPHA than you propose here. Just like CROSSFIRE and IT’S GOTTA BE THE BEER, I feel your writing is working like a torch for the rest of us to see aspects of SPACE: 1999 that would otherwise not be so obvious. What I perhaps see as the most important aspect of this prism you provide us with is the use of the vampire metaphor. Personally, I have never been all that keen on Dracula and vampire stories myself, as I prefer science fiction to fantasy, which is part of the reason why I don’t like S99/Y2. As pointed out by Freedman and others of the scholarly SF community, SF is an important genre because it is a natural way of articulating critical theory. Fuhse even goes to the extent of saying that SF and critical theory is the same thing, something Freedman seems to support in his book, something that also fits perfectly with the theories developed by Fageolle and Keazor. But, as you remind me in your cross-over between an SF narrative and a vampire narrative, the reason why vampire literature is so popular is because it is such a powerful metaphor for how capitalism works. Karl Marx wrote that capitalism is like a vampire in the way it only lives by sucking the living labour. As some of his most important comments about vampire capitalism was written 15 years before Bram Stoker’s Dracula, I believe there is reason to consider Dracula and the vampire mythology as a whole as an attempt to articulate some of the conflicts with associate with Marxist philosophy in different forms. In fact, when I watched Christopher Lee’s initial HORROR OF DRACULA (1958), I was reminded that they paid tribute to this intellectual heritage by having a character named Marx living next door to where Dracula carries out his exploits. All of those European Dracula and vampire films were using some kind of critical theory as I remember it. In the last one of the Christopher Lee series, Dracula was property developer living inside a business complex destroying labour by Satanism and other oppressive means.

Forever Alpha

Paul Morrisey’s 1973 film BLOOD FOR DRACULA is another post-Marxist classic where the whole plot is articulated in the context of class struggle with the protagonist trying to educate the potential victims in Marxist theory for the purpose of preventing them from being destroyed by Dracula and the capitalist values he represents. In my opinion that is probably the best vampire film ever made, and Morrisey also made a similar FRANKENSTEIN that was similarly all about false consciousness, critical awareness and emancipation. Personally I have often found the Frankenstein story more interesting than Dracula as it deals more explicitly with science, technology and society, but the power of the vampire mythology as means of political analysis should not be forgotten. Not at least Pope Francis’ recent comments about unbridled capitalism being ‘the dung of the devil’ and how he talks about the need for taking action concerning climate change shows how this fight against vampire capitalism is as important as ever. So far, however, I am still in the beginning of the FOREVER ALPHA story. I have gotten to the fascinating passage where Nick and Nat meet Anton Zoref and Eva for a poker evening. As FORCE OF LIFE is a SPACE: 1999 episode that feels like a vampire story in certain respects, I look very much forward to see how the story continues. So far, every page has been joy and food for reflection. John B. *** 31065 Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) kerryirs Oct 1, 2015

Sennmut wrote: For me,Professor Bergman must still somehow be there. Also, Alpha's technology must be augmented; not merely by what Maya can bring from the science of Psychon, but what they acrue as they drift along. Certainly, enough of both the Satasius, and the Bethan gunship, remained to glean something of value. The same for the wreckage of Gwent, and Jarak's "fleet". I suspect that some tech transfer occured, during the time Zantor was there, and Brian the Brain must have scanned some things of interest, before that whole saga hit the fan.

91 So, when we get to our putative Y3, these things seem normative, at least to moi.

I've often wondered the same thing. Let's not forget the Voyager tapes and the Sidon ship from SPACE WARP, which is alien technology that the Alphans made a point to bring back. Imagine the improvements to Alpha's technology that could've been depicted if the writers had incorporated them in future episodes at the time. I guess we'll have to leave it to the fans, as was done in a nice YouTube entry depicting how SPACE: 2099 might look. *** 31066 Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) kerryirs Oct 2, 2015

Correction : I think the alien ship in SPACE WARP was called Minnon (Sp) from the race called the Betanon. *** 31067 Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) balor1999 Oct 2, 2015

Senmut wrote: For me, Professor Bergman must still somehow be there. Also, Alpha's technology must be augmented; not merely by what Maya can bring from the science of Psychon, but what they acrue as they drift along. Certainly, enough of both the Satasius, and the Bethan gunship, remained to glean something of value. The same for the wreckage of Gwent, and Jarak's "fleet". I suspect that some tech transfer occured, during the time Zantor was there, and Brian the Brain must have scanned some things of interest, before that whole saga hit the fan. So, when we get to our putative Y3, these things seem normative, at least to moi.

Kerry responded: I've often wondered the same thing. Let's not forget the Voyager tapes and the Sidon ship from SPACE WARP, which is alien technology that the Alphans made a point to bring back. Imagine the improvements to Alpha's technology that could've been depicted if the writers had incorporated them in future episodes at the time. I guess we'll have to leave

92

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series it to the fans, as was done in a nice YouTube entry depicting how SPACE: 2099 might look.

Something I find interesting about FOREVER ALPHA is how Y2 characters like Tony Verdeschi, Ben Vincent and Alibe are central characters in a settings that I suppose most of us tend to think of in Y1 terms. In other words, the writing almost feels as though it was a Y3 prologue to BREAKAWAY as this mixing of characters from Y1 and Y2 conjures up very different types of images. In a way I think Kerry says something interesting when he talks about a fan-made SPACE: 2099. I don’t know if the SPACE: 2099 idea that has been tossed around for some time will ever bear fruit, but it is obvious that the fans continue to make their own versions of Y3, Y4, Y5, SPACE: 2099 and all sorts of things. To me this is quite fine as I enjoy reading FOREVER ALPHA and the other Senmut stories we have discussed so far. I also think the cross-over genre is quite fascinating as it provides means of bringing forth new images and new ideas. The idea of writing a cross-over between BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and SPACE: 1999 was quite revolutionary to me as I see these two series as fundamentally different on an ideological level. Nevertheless, the cross-over worked splendidly, and was quite helpful for gaining a better understanding of SPACE: 1999 by being forced to compare and contrast as part of the reading process. FOREVER KNIGHT is a very different type of series, but I feel this is an excellent choice too. Lots of questions that otherwise would probably not have been asked immediately comes to mind when trying to reflect upon how this enjoyable cross-over plays out. So far I have the feeling that I am reading a FOREVER KNIGHT story that happens to involve SPACE: 1999 as Nick and Nat are the main protagonists so far while the SPACE: 1999 characters mainly create atmosphere rather than driving the plot forwards. Nevertheless, in chapter 3 and 4 we understand that Nick met with Victor Bergman some 30 years earlier, so tension starts to build that might pay off interestingly as the story continues to develop. John B.

*** 31068 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) sennmut Occt 3, 2015

On 01 Oct 2015 balor1999@... writes: To me there is much more to FOREVER ALPHA than you propose here. Just like CROSSFIRE and IT’S GOTTA BE THE BEER, I feel your writing is working like a torch for the rest of us to see aspects of SPACE: 1999 that would otherwise not be so obvious. What I perhaps see as the most important aspect of this prism you provide us with is the use of the vampire metaphor. Personally, I have never been all that keen on Dracula and vampire stories myself, as I prefer science fiction to fantasy, which is part of the reason why I don’t like S99/Y2. As pointed out by Freedman and others of the scholarly SF community, SF is an important genre because it is a natural way of articulating critical theory. Fuhse even goes to the extent of saying that SF and critical theory is the same thing, something Freedman seems to support in his book, something that also fits perfectly with the theories developed by Fageolle and Keazor.

No! Nyet! Non! Nein! Nihil! Uh uh! There is NO SUBTEXT in anything I wrote. Period. And, I would never have written a bit of it if I had thought it would be misconstrued to aid in the search for such. There is no connection to "critical theory", a school of thoughtlessness that I totally and completely reject. If you like the stuff, Balor, fine. But PLEASE do not make out of it anything that I did not put into it. And this I did NOT. But, as you remind me in your cross-over between an SF narrative and a vampire narrative, the reason why vampire literature is so popular is because it is such a powerful metaphor for how capitalism works. Karl Marx wrote that capitalism is like a vampire in the way it only lives by sucking the living labour. As some of his most important comments about vampire capitalism were written 15 years before Bram Stoker’s Dracula, I believe there is reason to consider Dracula and the vampire mythology as a whole as an attempt to articulate some of the conflicts with associate with Marxist philosophy in different forms. In fact, when I watched Christopher Lee’s initial HORROR OF DRACULA (1958), I was reminded that they paid tribute to this intellectual heritage by having a character named Marx living next door to where Dracula carries out his exploits. All of those European Dracula and vampire films were using some

Forever Alpha kind of critical theory as I remember it. In the last one of the Christopher Lee series, Dracula was property developer living inside a business complex destroying labour by Satanism and other oppressive means.

This has zilch to do with capitalism. As I have said, I completely reject any connection, however tenuous, with Marx or his putrid political supperations. What Marx wrote has no interest for me, aside from being a signpost of what psuedo-intellectual mummery to avoid, and I do resent somewhat the comparison of my stuff, IN ANY WAY, to ANYTHING of Marx's. In actuality, I revere Capitalism, and despise anything remotely socialist. As to labor, one could just as easily say they are the vampires feeding off Capitalism, since it provides the jobs. Neither is a nice mental image. But there is NO connection between my stuff, and Marx, and as I said, please do me the favor of not comparing any of it to the outpourings of that third-rate mind. Paul Morrisey’s 1973 film BLOOD FOR DRACULA is another post-Marxist classic where the whole plot is articulated in the context of class struggle with the protagonist trying to educate the potential victims in Marxist theory for the purpose of preventing them from being destroyed by Dracula and the capitalist values he represents. In my opinion that is probably the best vampire film ever made, and Morrisey also made a similar FRANKENSTEIN that was similarly all about false consciousness, critical awareness and emancipation. Personally I have often found the Frankenstein story more interesting than Dracula as it deals more explicitly with science, technology and society, but the power of the vampire mythology as means of political analysis should not be forgotten. Not at least Pope Francis’ recent comments about unbridled capitalism being ‘the dung of the devil’ and how he talks about the need for taking action concerning climate change shows how this fight against vampire capitalism is as important as ever.

Same. See above. BAlor, these are supposed to be about Space:1999. NOT a political diatribe about the trash and sewage of Marxism. 'kay? So far, however, I am still in the beginning of the FOREVER ALPHA story. I have gotten to the fascinating passage where Nick and Nat meet Anton Zoref and Eva for a poker evening. As FORCE OF LIFE is a SPACE: 1999 episode that feels like a vampire story in certain

93 respects, I look very much forward to see how the story continues. So far, every page has been joy and food for reflection.

Just spreading the characters around. *** 31069 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) balor1999 Oct 3, 2015

Senmut wrote: This has zilch to do with capitalism. As I have said, I completely reject any connection, however tenuous, with Marx or his putrid political supperations. What Marx wrote has no interest for me, aside from being a signpost of what psuedo-intellectual mummery to avoid, and I do resent somewhat the comparison of my stuff, IN ANY WAY, to ANYTHING of Marx's. In actuality, I revere Capitalism, and despise anything remotely socialist. As to labor, one could just as easily say they are the vampires feeding off Capitalism, since it provides the jobs. Neither is a nice mental image.

The way I know you through the discussions we have had over the years, I would indeed be quite surprised if FOREVER ALPHA was intended as a critical theory narrative concerning the exploits of vampire capitalism. Nevertheless, when we consider the history of vampire folklore and the role this played not only in the writings of Marx and Engels but also how vampire cinema continue to use these images as a commentary on class conflicts and critique of unbridled capitalism, I still it is warranted to take this imagery more seriously than you propose. Actually, in order to better understand the nature of FOREVER ALPHA and how it builds on ideas from FOREVER KNIGHT I have been watching several vampire films recently in addition to FK episodes. So far I have focused on the Hammer films and seen HORROR OF DRACULA (1958), THE BRIDES OF DRACULA (1960), THE KISS OF THE VAMPIRE (1963), DRACULA – PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1966) and DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GAVE (1968). My observation is that all of them deal with class conflict in one way of the other, usually in the context of a feudal society where Count Dracula or some other vampire

94


representative of the ruling class is drinking the blood of local farmers, villagers and other labour representatives. This fundamental conflict between the exploiter and the exploited is described in articulated through different means in the different films, reflecting social reality and social conflicts as they developed in the late fifties and sixties. What was quite attractive about the 1968 was how it made a point about Marcuse’s arguments that the working class of the late 20th century was not a revolutionary class and thus why it would be more natural to expect the revolution to come from elsewhere. Of course, the Berkeley students liked this very much, and identified with his message, but perhaps not as much as the students in Paris who almost managed to create a revolution. DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE focuses much on this perspective by making the moral choice of the students as the central theme of the film. Will they tolerate the capitalist oppression of Dracula or will they support the socialist rhetoric expressed by Catholic Church. This leads to a story of personal development from initial false consciousness, then critical awareness and finally emancipatory action, as the students revolt against vampire capitalism.

GALACTICA, SPACE: 1999 and FOREVER KNIGHT. For me BSG is perhaps not a perfect example of right-wing fascism, but it comes pretty close. In that series everything is in black and white. It is a kind of “Bible and rifle” story about good guys and bad guys. FOREVER KNIGHT is the extreme opposite. The central theme here is Nick Knight’s existential doubts and reflections about what is right, what is wrong, who he is, what should he do, and so on. And between these two extremes we have SPACE: 1999 with its leftwing observations and commentary of society told through the metaphor similar to Gidden’s famous “Juggernaut” about late modernity spiralling out of control. The way I see it, SPACE: 1999 is perhaps ideologically equally distant from BSG from FK, but that doesn’t reduce my enjoyment of reading Senmut’s story. Quite to the contrary. The way he makes these different worlds, founded on different ideologies, meet and community through the platform of his excellent series of texts, make them only more enjoyable and more relevant for the way we try to improve our understanding of SPACE: 1999 and its socio-cultural relevance. John B.

On the other hand, I do not see so much of this political subtext your writing, and neither do I see too much of it in FOREVER KNIGHT, although it is obviously there. In the same way as the baby boomers had difficulty implementing their ideals from the 1960s when they came into positions of power and influence in the 1990s, I do not see FOREVER KNIGHT as equally politically explicit as vampire films of the 1960s. Like the idealists of the 1960s realised later on, the world is perhaps not as black and white as the traditional Marxist vampire stories lead us to believe. FOREVER KNIGHT seems to me to reflect the typical concerns of the post-modern philosophy of the late 1980s and 90s. By taking a symbol of evil, such as the vampire, and making him into the hero of the story, the morals become unclear and complex, and to me it also becomes a powerful expression of the intellectual discussions and debates of that period. In this respect it is interesting to have these cross-over texts between BATTLESTAR

*** 31070Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) sennmut Oct 4, 2015 The way I know you through the discussions we have had over the years, I would indeed be quite surprised if FOREVER ALPHA was intended as a critical theory narrative concerning the exploits of vampire capitalism. Nevertheless, when we consider the history of vampire folklore and the role this played not only in the writings of Marx and Engels but also how vampire cinema continue to use these images as a commentary on class conflicts and critique of unbridled capitalism, I still it is warranted to take this imagery more seriously than you propose.

Well, amybe that is what you want to see in it. However, as I said before, I would prefer if you were to keep such musings to yourself. I don't like having what I wrote contaminated by anything, however remotely, connected to

Forever Alpha Marxist poison. Please, indulge me on this point. In this respect it is interesting to have these cross-over texts between BATTLESTAR GALACATICA, SPACE: 1999 and FOREVER KNIGHT. For me BSG is perhaps not a perfect example of right-wing fascism, but it comes pretty close. In that series everything is in black and white. It is a kind of “Bible and rifle” story about good guys and bad guys. FOREVER KNIGHT is the extreme opposite. The central theme here is Nick Knight’s existential doubts and reflections about what is right, what is wrong, who he is, what should he do, and so on. And between these two extremes we have SPACE: 1999 with its left-wing observations and commentary of society told through the metaphor similar to Gidden’s famous “Juggernaut” about late modernity spiralling out of control.

As always, you toss around the word "fascism" like a talisman. Well, FIY, what you call fascism, and decry so badly, encapsulates values that I personally treasure and revere as normative for a decent civilization. Yes, I amd a believer in much of what you hate and despise. So, can you PLEASE knock off the constant political screed, and just give it a rest? I'm sick of it, and I'm sure most of the rest are as well. The way I see it, SPACE: 1999 is perhaps ideologically equally distant from BSG from FK, but that doesn’t reduce my enjoyment of reading Senmut’s story. Quite to the contrary. The way he makes these different worlds, founded on different ideologies, meet and community through the platform of his excellent series of texts, make them only more enjoyable and more relevant for the way we try to improve our understanding of SPACE: 1999 and its socio-cultural relevance.

ALL the above are founded on THE SAME ideology. Right vs. wrong, and how people deal with that challenge, in situations outside their previous life. If that's "fascism" or whatever, than I'm gonna put bundles of rods with axes all over the house! *** 31071 Re: Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) balor1999 Oct 4, 2015

Senmut wrote:

95 ALL the above [BSG, KN & S99] are founded on THE SAME ideology. Right vs. wrong, and how people deal with that challenge, in situations outside their previous life.

Well, I agree that the conflict between right and wrong is present in all series, but I will still argue that there are fundamental differences in how each series chooses to approach this conflict. In BATTLESTAR GALACTICA the conflict is described from a military perspective, very much like STAR WARS. There are the good people like Adama and his folks, and then there are the bad people like Baltar and the Cylons. In one of the episodes we are even told that the head of the Cylons is the Devil himself. In the second season they were starting to investigate the complexity of morals like Starbuck trying to survive on a planet with the aid of a friendly Cylon, but in the first year everything was black and white. Our people were the good guys, and when the Cylons were blown to pieces we did not feel sorry for them. Justice was being carried out. Bad guys got what they deserved. To me this is a very different message than we get from watching episodes of SPACE: 1999. If we compare the BSG scenario with an episode like VOYAGER’S RETURN, the question of who is good and who is evil, who is right and who is wrong, is not obvious. In fact, the theme of the episode is the problem of making clear demarcation lines of this type. On one hand the Judges of Sidon are trying to carry out justice by destroying Alpha and the rest of humankind in response to how the humans destroyed their civilisation, and there is a certain logic to that. As is sometimes pointed out, Johnny Byrne apparently chose the name Sidon to make us think of Sion and thus have the story mirror the Nuremberg trials, but in the view of this episode justice is not restored by revenge. Having the survivors of the concentration camps killing all the Nazis and Germans in general would not be an acceptable solution, and in this sense John Koenig is not willing to accept the judgement of Sidon. From the viewpoint of Robert Wood, this scenario can be seen as a comment on capital punishment in general, thus making a similar attack on how this is practiced in America and

96


a few other countries in a similar manner to what Pope Francis has been saying recently. “One rather strong political statement is made with Victor’s line, ‘We believe that revenge, sanctioned by authority, is also a sign of a debased culture’. To put it another way, justice is not accomplished through revenge. Thus, for example, a civilised culture could never permit the use of the death penalty” (Wood, 2010, p. 133). So, even though both BSG and S99 deal with issues of right and wrong, and how people deal with that challenge, when I watch BSG I keep hearing the sheep from Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM saying “four legs good, two legs bad”, while S99 has a much deeper and more responsible look at such issues. In fact, the episodes of Y1 that Johnny Byrne liked the least were the ones where the conflicts became too much of good guys versus bad guys, like END OF ETERNITY and THE LAST ENEMY, and, as he explains in the Fanderson documentary, this is also the reason he saw Freiberger’s Y2 as a betrayal of everything Y1 stood for. Rather than using the S99 format for analysing complex moral issues, FF wanted to transform it into an action-adventure series where Moonbase Alpha would embody a kind of fascist ideology that would allow them to feel morally superior to everybody else. It is a 180 degrees turn from what was the essence of Y1. In other words, series like BSG and S99 were NOT founded on the same ideology. They were founded on reverse types of ideology, at least when we compare BSG/Y1 with S99/Y1. Interestingly S99/Y2 became more like BSG/Y1, while BSG/Y2 became more like S99/Y1, but that is another story. When it comes to FK, that was a completely different type of series. It was made 15-20 years later, and reflect the moral dilemmas of a very different period. In 1974, when S99 was made, people were beginning to realise that the period of post-war economical growth had ended, and S99 is very much a reflection of coming to terms with this. In 1993, however, the world was much more cynical, and that is probably the reason why they felt the vampire metaphor was a good way of commenting on the political and social debates of the period.

There is one thing, however, that struck me when I read chapter 5 and 6 in FOREVER ALPHA, and that is the conversation between Nick Barber and Alan Carter. It appears that Nick saved Carter at a time when Islamic fundamentalists where planning to hijack and crash planes into major buildings in Washington D.C. From what I have understood, this story was written a couple of years before 9/11. Or have I gotten the publication date wrong? Or is this something you inserted into the story when revising it at a later stage? John B. *** 31072 Re: Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) sennmut Oct 5, 2015

On 04 Oct 2015 balor1999@... writes: In other words, series like BSG and S99 were NOT founded on the same ideology. They were founded on reverse types of ideology, at least when we compare BSG/Y1 with S99/Y1. Interestingly S99/Y2 became more like BSG/Y1, while BSG/Y2 became more like S99/Y2, but that is another story. When it comes to FK, that was a completely different type of series. It was made 15-20 years later, and reflect the moral dilemmas of a very different period. In 1974, when S99 was made, people were beginning to realise that the period of post-war economical growth had ended, and S99 is very much a reflection of coming to terms with this. In 1993, however, the world was much more cynical, and that is probably the reason why they felt the vampire metaphor was a good way of commenting on the political and social debates of the period.

Well, as I have said, believe what you want, but please do not use any of my stuff as a launch pad for it. I want my stuff to remain free of any Marxist taint. There is one thing, however, that struck me when I read chapter 5 and 6 in FOREVER ALPHA, and that is the conversation between Nick Barber and Alan Carter. It appears that Nick saved Carter at a time when Islamic fundamentalists where planning to hijack and crash planes into major buildings in Washington D.C. From what I have understood, this story was written a couple of years before 9/11. Or have I gotten the publication date

Forever Alpha wrong? Or is this something you inserted into the story when revising it at a later stage?

Nope. Originally written that way, in 1999. It was the sort of thing I expected the terrorist folks to pull, eventually, though I admit some shock when it did occur. *** 31073 Re: Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) balor1999 Oct 5, 2015

Senmut wrote: Nope. Originally written that way, in 1999. It was the sort of thing I expected the terrorist folks to pull, eventually, though I admit some shock when it did occur.

It is a deeply enjoyable story, and quite surprising too, on many levels. Chapter seven where Carter tells the story about being attacked by a vampire in Australien wilderness was extremely well written. I was a bit surprised that he would be carrying a .357 Magnum, but then again I'm not familiar with Australian gun laws. I would have thought they were more restrictive than in the US, although probably more liberal than in Europe. John B. *** 31076 Re: Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) balor1999 Oct 6, 2015

Something I like about FOREVER ALPHA is how it continually changes between suspense and humour. Chapter 7 was rather shocking in terms of the vampire attack. Chapter 8 is completely different with lots of jokes or amusing remarks. For example, from the viewpoint of Anton Gorski it is claimed that Simmonds knew about as much about space and space travel as did the average plumber about characterising non-linear dynamics by use of wavelet analysis. Ha-ha. From me it would probably have been more natural to say that Simmonds knew as much about these issues as the average expert on characterising non-linear dynamics by use of wavelet analysis

97

would know about plumbing, but it was a funny line. Another funny situation was John Robert Koenig travelling in the Cascade Mountains of Washington State with his brother Walter Koenig. Ha-ha. I wonder if Walter told him stories about STAR TREK. A third gag was a comment about how to respond to the virus infection. A few people have gone crazy and passed away, but Warren and Sparkman are still in perfect health, and there is a back-up crew consisting of Bennett and Wyn-Davies. Ha-ha. Nice touch. John B. *** 31077 Re: Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) balor1999 Oct 7, 2015

One thing I wondered about in chapter 9 was the story about how Nat became a vampire. Is this something that happens in the FOREVER KNIGHT series, or is it something that is specifically a part of this story? I am still watching the first season of FK, and nothing quite as fundamental as that has happened yet, although it was nice to have seen the episode dealing with Nat’s brother as that the use of that incident was nicely used in FOREVER ALPHA. Another thing that strikes me when reading Senmut’s story is how some of the characters are slightly different from how I understood them in the series. It is only minor issues, and they are definitely “out of character”, but they just feel slightly different from what I would have expected. For instance, Ouma is described as Kano’s assistant. I would have thought it it was the other way, making it natural for fan fiction writers to explain the change of actors by saying that Ouma passed away during the Breakaway incident and leaving Kano to take over. I am also slightly surprised about how Gorski and Simmonds are characterised. In Senmut’s story Gorski appears to be a somewhat sympathetic character being frustrated by the political manipulations of Simmonds. I have

98


always understood the characters the other way around. When Koenig meets Gorski in BREAKAWAY there is a slight change of dialogue between Bergman and Koenig where they make some remarks about Gorski. There is never anything similar with Simmonds. To me there is nothing villainous about Simmonds. In BREAKAWAY he simply represents a different perspective because he has to deal with the issues in a different manner, like we later see in the retrospect scene from DRAGON’S DOMAIN where Koenig, Bergman and Cellini meet with Dixon. In EARTHBOUND he is a bit more ruthless, I admit, but only because Koenig is trying to outmanoeuvre him. I don’t see anything particularly villainous about Simmonds, and I think that is one of the strengths of the series. On the other hand, I think Senmut adds great insights to characters by writing about them from his perspective. John B. *** 31078 Re: Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) balor1999 Oct 8, 2015

FOREVER KNIGHT continues to be a joy to read. The dialogue feels authentic. The characters feel real. The story contains elements of mystery, humour and suspense. I’m not sure I see all that much political subtext, at least not of the kind I associate with SPACE: 1999, but the way it links ideas and events between FK and S99 provides opportunities for reflection. I still have a lot of FK episodes to see, so there are certain elements of the story I don’t get. For instance, in chapter 10 both Schanke and LeCroix play important roles. As far as I have reached in FK, LeCroix is dead and Schanke is alive, but here the opposite appears to be true. Perhaps I should read the story once more after I have watched all the three seasons of FK, appreciating the story even more, but on the whole I feel I know the FK characters well enough to be able to enjoy and understand the conflicts and issues.

What perhaps remains the challenge for me in continuing to read this story is the relevance of mixing S99 with FK. On one level I think the idea is interesting as it makes it possible to read S99 story in the context of how the vampire folklore is an important metaphor in Marxist theory for explaining the nature of capitalist oppression, but I already feel that such issues are handled in episodes like FORCE OF LIFE, END OF ETERNITY and DRAGON’S DOMAIN. For this reason I continue to watch Hammer’s vampire films from the sixties and seventies. After DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE, a film that was made at the time of the student revolts in Paris and elsewhere, and used the vampire mythology as an interesting political metaphor, I watched the 1969 followup TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA. The theme of this film was how the parent generation of the 1968 activists were seduced by the powers of vampire capitalism and how the sins of the fathers impacted on the children, apparently being made as a commentary on US involvement in Vietnam. The way so-called pillars of society were described as decadent and having them participate in devil worship and black mass gave the film a strong political edge. The next entry, SCARS OF DRACULA, was almost completely lacking in such qualities, and there was no obvious political subtext as far as I could see. On the contrary, it rather seemed in parts like an attempt to remake certain aspects of the first Hammer Dracula film for a new generation, but in my view sadly failing as it does not seem to comment on political and social issues. The only reason for recommending this one, that I can think of, is how it makes use of locations and actors that we know well from SPACE: 1999. Although the locations are nice in all these Hammer vampire films, the forests and lakes are the same as we see in episodes like FULL CIRCLE and RULES OF LUTON. It is a strange experience observing this, making both S99 and the Hammer films less mysterious, but just like Senmut’s crossover stories it is visually and thus psychologically helpful when we are now exploring themes of vampire capitalism in FOREVER ALPHA. I don’t know if the lack of political subtext in SCARS OF DRACULA made it into a

Forever Alpha commercial failure, but with the next entry they changed the format completely by having Dracula resurrected in contemporary London per 1972. As pointed out by Keazor in his eminent analysis of SPACE: 1999, 1972 could be seen as the demarcation year between the economic growth of the post-war period and the landslide and disasters to follow. Because of how S99 was a reflection of this event, Keazor is able to give it merit as an important entry within the history of popular culture. I think very much the same think could be said about DRACULA AD 1972. Although I would perhaps have preferred a more clearly articulated post-Marxist reflection among the protagonists within the film, such as Peter Cushing playing the grandson of van Helsing, it nevertheless strikes me as a potent commentary of the end of the progressive love and peace movement as vital actors within the 1968 reforms are seduced by the power of vampire capitalism and turned into creatures of the night. I also believe this is the first of the Hammer Dracula films that talks about the spread of vampire capitalism as a virus. One vampire bits another, turning him/her into a vampire, which will attack another and so on. Deep political subtext here, and for this reason a very good film. The next one is called THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA and continues in the contemporary world of 1972/73 in the same way as TASTE THE BLOOD continued from RISEN FROM THE GRAVE. In this second contemporary film the pillars of society are practicing devil worship and Dracula himself is a mysterious business figure. Here we see the use of vampire folklore for commenting on the worst sides of capitalism in a very clearly articulated political story. I have seen it a couple of times before, but started watching it again last night. I think this is one of the best of the lot. In a sense I would expect it would be easier to make a crossover story between the Hammer vampire films and SPACE: 1999 as it would involve the same scenery, many of the same actors, same type of acting, being cultural products reflecting the same period of time (the early 1970s), which would then make it much easier to argue how the post-Marxist ideology we know from SPACE: 1999 has an intellectual and artistic history.

99

By choosing a Canadian series like FOREVER KNIGHT the effect is quite different. FK was made at a much later time, it was made within a different culture on a different continent, and there are no similarities or relationships in terms of actors, locations, direction, music and style. It is a completely different thing. Nevertheless, I thing these are also some of the strengths of the story. Rather than going for the obvious, Senmut presents a way of looking at SPACE: 1999 that is new and interesting. I look very much forward to reading the next chapter and see what will happen then. John B. *** 31079 Re: Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) sennmut Oct 8, 2015

Well, aside from Marx Has Risen From The Grave, there is no correlation betwixt vampire horror films, and Capitalism. Unless the film stock was made in a Western country. So, please, let's drop all this pseudo-intellectual piffle, drive a (silver) dollar sign through the cold, dead, Satanic heart of Count Marxula, and get back to Space. Hhmm????????? *** 31080 Re: Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) balor1999 Oct 9, 2015

Senmut, I think you underestimate the power of the vampire theme in your writing. For those of us who did not catch FOREVER KNIGHT in the 1990s, it is not an easy series to understand as it is a socio-cultural reflection of what the world looked like 15 years ago and not of the time when SPACE: 1999 was made, so we have to understand it within the cultural context that shaped SPACE: 1999. In my opinion, the Hammer vampire films are the most obvious tools for translation. This series of films started out in the late fifties and continued until the mid-seventies, producing exactly the kind of historical and ideological background that helps us understand where SPACE: 1999 came from.

100


As far as I can see, especially when looking at this particular sequence of films, the vampire mythology is closely linked to the kind of social and economic analysis suggested by Marx and Engels and then developed by the New Left in the sixties and early seventies into the post-Marxist ideology that we see in the political subtext in series like SPACE: 1999. In this context I would particularly recommend the second to last entry in the Hammer Dracula series, THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA, where capitalism is described as devil worship and Dracula disguises himself as the mysterious business recluse D. D. Denham who lives at the penthouse of in a large office building in London rather than a Transylvanian castle. From this office building he controls the banking industry, the oil industry and the chemical industry, all of which he is using in his goal of destroying the world. I don’t know what script writer Don Houghton was thinking when he wrote this, but it feels as though it was directly inspired by Karl Marx’s writing about vampire capitalism. Last night I also managed to watch the final film in the Hammer Dracula cycle. This one was called THE LEGEND OF THE SEVEN VAMPIRES and was also scripted by Don Houghton, but it was completely lacking the important political subtext of his two previous entries, as far as I could see. Based on this it is easy to see why it was the final film in the series. Houghton and Hammer had probably said all they wanted to say about vampire capitalism, and without the political subtext audiences find no interest in watching films like this. Furthermore, the world was in transition. Although films like THE EXORCIST and THE OMEN could be seen as natural extensions of the vampire capitalism stories, and thus natural evolutions of the genre in the mid-seventies, it was only a matter of time before the vampire capitalism of Thatcher and Reagan would suck out all the blood of the New Left movement and set the wheels in motion for making the world into a living hell for those on the lower ranks of the social ladder. Although I appreciate the relevance of how you use FOREVER KNIGHT as a lens for understanding SPACE: 1999 in such a context, I still think the contemporary vampire cinema

of the sixties and early seventies would have been more useful for understanding the points Keazor makes in his analysis, and I think this could also have provided a natural and useful link for understanding more clearly how Keazor expands and elaborates on certain points of Fageolle’s analysis of the series. I am particularly thinking about how Fageolle makes use of Bettelheim’s socio-psychological analysis and how this carries elements of Marxist or post-Marxist thought that need to be articulated for the SPACE: 1999 community at large to more easily understand the depth of Fageolle’s analysis. Despite having said this, I still think that the idea of making a crossover between FK and S99 is remarkably innovative and insightful. Although you could have used vampire cinema that tapped into the same social climate that helped shape SPACE: 1999, you choose to select vampire cinema from a different sociocultural climate fifteen years after the series was made. The power of this perspective is that we are enticed to consider the legacy of SPACE: 1999 in terms of the sustainability and relevance of the political subtext. As I have reflected, due to your excellent writing, the kind of tales of vampire capitalism that we see in stories like FORCE OF LIFE has a long history in British cinema that it was natural for Johnny Byrne and David Tomblin to utilise when they made this particular episode, but your writing also makes us ask the question of the relevance of the vampire capitalism perspective as the world caught up with the projected future in the 1974 series. Did the political analysis suggested by the show bear any relevant to what the world actually looked like in 1999? In chapter 11 you add more food for though in the way you write about characters like Tony Verdeschi, Carolyn Powell, Alan Carter and Helena Russell interacting with Nick and Nat and other characters from FK. I also find it interesting how you tend to focus on Y2 characters when writing about events that are supposed to be happening shortly before the Y1 pilot. To me this is an interesting move as it perhaps suggests that the Y2 characters makes many of us think of S99 in a politically opposite way to how it was developed in Y1. In other words, the linking between vampire capitalism and a Y2 retelling of the Y1 pilot

Forever Alpha could perhaps also be useful for further discussion on how and why Freiberger destroyed the visions of the original series. I hope all people on this list take the opportunity to read FOREVER ALPHA and the other stories as we continue to discuss as I believe there are wonderful opportunities for gaining a deeper understanding of SPACE: 1999 by reflecting on what these crossover stories tell us about the original visions of the series. John B. *** 31081 Re: Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) sennmut Oct 9, 2015

Balor...NO!!!!!! How many times have I said it???? THERE IS NO SUBTEXT to Space, or to my writings. As hard as it is to accept, that's the way it is. Now, I have asked you to refrain from any linkage between what I wrote, and your outlandish and bizarre connections between what is merely pure entertainment, and the deranged sludge of this constant political raving. I am not only tired of this, but I am also offended by your coupling of vampirism with capitalism. Capitalism is one of Man's greatest blessings, and I wish and hope for it's spread. Socialism, on the other hand...well, that hand might need amputation. I chose the Xover I did merely on a whim, with no deep reflections, or "subtext" of ANY sort. It was just for fun. Reagan and Thatcher...? Would that we had a hundred like them, now. At any rate, please. STOP connecting my stuff with your Marxist junk. I am trying to be civil. *** 31082 Re: Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) kerryirs Oct 10, 2015

First I'm not a big fan of horror or vampires, but this pontithcating about the death penalty gleaned from VOYAGER'S RETURN reminds me of a passage from the Bible that goes something like, "Vengeance is mine sayeth the

101

Lord." I find it interesting that Byrne also gives Victor his line about believing in revenge is an example of a debased society. Oh, brother, is that the pot calling the kettle black. Revenge has been going on by the human race since the beginning of recorded history, and perhaps before; and it is still goes on. If he was speaking of the Alphabet in particular, fine but, as a race, we have no place to talk. Byrne wrote some very good episodes and VOYAGER'S RETURN is on of them, but at times he got a little preachy, in my view. One could also tha sayt about A B CHRYSALIS when Koenig tells the aliens, "Loyalty is better than logic, hope is better than despair, and creation is better than destruction." But again, one can hear the anger in Koenig's voice. Then John Balor refers to some comments from Byrne. In fact, the episodes of Y1 that Johnny Byrne liked the least were the ones where the conflicts became too much of good guys versus bad guys, like END OF ETERNITY and THE LAST ENEMY, and, as he explains in the Fanderson documentary, this is also the reason he saw Freiberger’s Y2 as a betrayal of everything Y1 stood for. Rather than using the S99 format for analysing complex moral issues, FF wanted to transform it into an actionadventure series where Moonbase Alpha would embody a kind of fascist ideology that would allow them to feel morally superior to everybody else. It is a 180 degrees turn from what was the essence of Y1.

Morality? It seems to me that the Alphans were often a punching bag in Y1 while trying to be the nice guys on the block. I think they found out that it isn't that easy in a hostile environment. One can see the change in attitude in ALPHA CHILD when Koenig and three others plant themselves near Jarak's ship ready to blow holes into it, or when he orders eagles to go after Gwent, despite Victor telling him this isn't your style. Maybe Koenig was tired of being the punching bag. I think this was one reason Y2 took a different tact, a change that says, adapt or die. Again, I didn't see the Alphans going out of their way to get involved in the affairs of others on their own; the threats were imposed upon them by external forces. They would've been more than happy to live and let live.

102


There's one other knock or crack that Byrne often leveled at Y2 that I find somewhat funny, and that is, he felt that the characters went from being human in a sense they are like us to being spacemen and women. Well, Scott Kelly was interviewed earlier this week from ISS Alpha and he was asked how he felt slightly over halfway through his year stay on the station. He said he felt more like part of the space station than a citizen of earth, or words similar. He's a spaceman, to use a '50s word, that is until he gets home. And that's the difference between him and Koenig and his people; Kelly can go home, the Alphans can't. Wasn't it Koenig who told Simmond's that dwelling on something that is scientically impoosible is pretty much a waste of time? That to me was one of the transition points where the Alphans realized that there was no going home, that Alpha was their home until they've found a new home. That made them astronauts while mainintaing what it means to be human. Finally, the word fascist rears it ugly head again. This is getting a little old. These characters in Y2 were no more fascists than Byrne or FF were. Byrne owed FF and others a great debt for freeing Europe from the grips of Nazi Germany. But I guess the hate for this man blinds some to what he did; and this hatred is based on their perception of what a TV should've been (in their view) with no regards to what Anderson did or didn't do or what ITC, the holder of the purse strings wanted or perhaps demanded. *** 31083 Re: Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) balor1999 Oct 10, 2015

Kerry wrote: First I'm not a big fan of horror or vampires, but this pontithcating about the death penalty gleaned from VOYAGER'S RETURN reminds me of a passage from the Bible that goes something like, "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord." I find it interesting that Byrne also gives Victor his line about believing in revenge is an example of a debased society. Oh, brother, is that the pot calling the kettle black. Revenge has been going on by the human race since the beginning of recorded history, and perhaps before; and it is still goes on. If he was

speaking of the Alphabet in particular, fine but, as a race, we have no place to talk.

I agree in what you say about vampires. I like science fiction but I’m not an aficionado of fantasy literature. I have not read LORD OF THE RINGS, but I have seen the films, and they didn’t do all that much to me. It is the same with STAR WARS and the second year of SPACE: 1999. When the writers start throwing in vampires and metamorph characters, I’m usually out. I can accept dubious science in the sense of the Moon being blown out of Earth’s orbit if it is used to frame interesting stories about real people and conflicts, but when we have a character that turns into a gorilla or an orange tree to save the day, it becomes too ridiculous to me. However, in the case of Senmut’s FOREVER ALPHA I think differently. The reason I find his writing interesting and enlightening for our present discussion is because he taps into the rich Marxist mythology of vampire capitalism. Senmut has pointed out that the story itself was not written with the intent of conducting a Marxist analysis of society based on the concept of ‘vampire capitalism’, but I don’t think that should prevent the rest of us from joining the dots and see the larger picture that emerges from this particular crossover perspective. When it comes to Johnny Byrne’s reflections on death penalty and how revenge is an example of a debased society, I think that is a highly important and relevant issue. In one way I believe you are right about the pot and kettle argument in the sense that Victor comes from a culture that used to practice such atrocities, but it was finally abolished not too long before SPACE: 1999 was made. The last executions in the UK were by hanging, and took place in 1964, prior to capital punishment being abolished for murder (in 1965 in Great Britain and in 1973 in Northern Ireland). As Johnny Byrne grew up in Dublin these particular changes in legislation may be part of an important subtext in VOYAGER’S RETURN that perhaps have not been discussed too often on this forum. Although not applied since, the death penalty in UK was abolished in all circumstances in 1998. In this respect it almost feels as though some of the political messages SPACE: 1999 changed the world for

Forever Alpha the better consistently with the speculative projections suggested by the 1974 television series. I think such observations are also highly relevant for understanding Byrne’s criticism of Y2 based on the philosophical and political discourses that were dealt with in Y1. Y1 was concerned with complex moral issues. For instance, nobody considered shooting Simmonds for his misdoings in EARTHBOUND, but in Y2 there was a total change of direction. The general strategy of trying to solve issues in a peaceful and sustainable manner through negotiations and mutual understanding was replaced by an oppressive logic that results in the kind of mistrust and mutiny we see in episodes like A MATTER OF BALANCE, THE SÉANCE SPECTRE and THE LAMBDA FACTOR. The morality compass turned 180 degrees and we started bordering on the shores of protofascism. Morality? It seems to me that the Alphans were often a punching bag in Y1 while trying to be the nice guys on the block. I think they found out that it isn't that easy in a hostile environment. One can see the change in attitude in ALPHA CHILD when Koenig and three others plant themselves near Jarak's ship ready to blow holes into it, or when he orders eagles to go after Gwent, despite Victor telling him this isn't your style. Maybe Koenig was tired of being the punching bag. I think this was one reason Y2 took a different tact, a change that says, adapt or die. Again, I didn't see the Alphans going out of their way to get involved in the affairs of others on their own; the threats were imposed upon them by external forces. They would've been more than happy to live and let live.

I think you address the moral corner stone of the series here. Although it may not be the nice guys on the block when living in a hostile environment, what Byrne suggests is that it is time for changing the environment rather than allowing ourselves to level down to the same moral bottom level as the other seem to live by. To me it seems lie this was what caused so much frustration for Byrne in the changes from Y1 to Y2. In Y2 they were discussing how to solve morally and politically complex questions in a sensible and sustainable manner. In Y1 it was just a question of how bomb the bad guys without any reflection of how terror

103

bombing only results in more people getting radicalised and joining the enemy forces. As we have talked a lot about Wertham’s theories of fascism in superhero literature in the past, perhaps a way to summarise Y2 would be to say that it starts with Moonbase Alpha hitting on the fascist Psychon planet in the Y2 pilot episode, getting the daughter of the fascist commander of that planet onboard Moonbase Alpha, and then observing for the rest of the season how the Alphans are morally corrupted until they are on the brink of turning into a fascist regime by the end of the season. In this context I think it is very easy to understand Byrne’s comments about FF and Y2 in the Fanderson documentary and elsewhere. Perhaps this could also be a gentle reminder as we continue to read and discuss Senmut’s FOREVER ALPHA story. I have just read chapter 12 where Simmonds persuades Koenig to replace Gorski. Although there are no Y2 characters in this particular chapter, the way Senmut chooses to include Y2 characters as part of the build-up to the BREAKAWAY disaster could be interpreted politically in the sense of suggesting that the moral breakdown we observe in Y2 were seeded at the very beginning of the story through the involvement of alienating forces like Abe Mandell of ITC New York. John B. *** 31084 Re: Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) sennmut Oct 11, 2015

On 10 Oct 2015 balor1999@... writes: I agree in what you say about vampires. I like science fiction but I’m not an aficionado of fantasy literature. I have not read LORD OF THE RINGS, but I have seen the films, and they didn’t do all that much to me. It is the same with STAR WARS and the second year of SPACE: 1999. When the writers start throwing in vampires and metamorph characters, I’m usually out. I can accept dubious science in the sense of the Moon being blown out of Earth’s orbit if it is used to frame interesting stories about real people and conflicts, but when we have a character that turns into a gorilla or an

104

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series orange tree to save the day, it becomes too ridiculous to me.

The gorilla I can understand...the oragne tree, not so much. ;) However, in the case of Senmut’s FOREVER ALPHA I think differently. The reason I find his writing interesting and enlightening for our present discussion is because he taps into the rich Marxist mythology of vampire capitalism. Although Senmut has pointed out that the story itself was not written with the intent of conducting a Marxist analysis of society based on the concept of ‘vampire capitalism’, I don’t think that should prevent the rest of us from joining the dots and see the larger picture that emerges from this particular crossover perspective.

Balor, there ARE NO DOTS TO CONNECT!!!!!!!! I have made this clear, I had hoped. I have not tapped into anything, because there IS NO "vampire capitalism" to tap into. I ahve asked you, politely, to stop using my stories as a soapbox for your communist screds. Have you not seen those requests? When it comes to Johnny Byrne’s reflections on death penalty being and how revenge is an example of a debased society, I think that is a highly important and relevant issue. In one way I believe you are right about the pot and kettle argument in the sense that Victor comes from a culture that used to practice such atrocities, but it was finally abolished not too long before SPACE: 1999 was made. The last executions in the UK were by hanging, and took place in 1964, prior to capital punishment being abolished for murder (in 1965 in Great Britain and in 1973 in Northern Ireland). As Johnny Byrne grew up in Dublin these particular changes in legislation may be part of an important subtext in VOYAGER’S RETURN that perhaps have not been discussed too often on this forum. Although not applied since, the death penalty in UK was abolished in all circumstances in 1998. In this respect it almost feels as though some of the political messages SPACE: 1999 changed the world for the better consistently with the speculative projections suggested by the 1974 television series.

Victor comes from a culture that used to quite properly visit justice on such malefactors, yes. What I always saw in his comment was that the Sidons presumed to impose a sentence, without the "defendant", in this case Earth, being heard or allowed to mount a defense of any kind. Their "justice" smaked of a kangaroo court, though admittedly having several of

your planets rendered lifeless could spoil your whole day. I think such observations are also highly relevant for understanding Byrne’s criticism of Y2 based on the philosophical and political discourses that were dealt with in Y1. Y1 was concerned with complex moral issues. For instance, nobody considered shooting Simmonds for his misdoings in EARTHBOUND, but in Y2 there was a total change of direction. The general strategy of trying to solve issues in a peaceful and sustainable manner through negotiations and mutual understanding was replaced by an oppressive logic that results in the kind of mistrust and mutiny we see in episodes like A MATTER OF BALANCE, THE SÉANCE SPECTRE and THE LAMBDA FACTOR. The morality compass turned 180 degrees and we started bordering on the shores of protofascism.

NO FASCISM! Theris one here, and, yet again, you skirt a firm, precise definition of the word. PRECISE and unambiguous. As we have talked a lot about Wertham’s theories of fascism in superhero literature in the past, perhaps a way to summarise Y2 would be to say that it starts with Moonbase Alpha hitting on the fascist Psychon planet in the Y2 pilot episode, getting the daughter of the fascist commander of that planet onboard Moonbase Alpha, and then observing for the rest of the season how the Alphans are morally corrupted until they are on the brink of turning into a fascist regime by the end of the season. In this context I think it is very easy to understand Byrne’s comments about FF and Y2 in the Fanderson documentary and elsewhere.

Again, you play with your favorite word. (oaky, 2nd favorite. "Subtext" is the first.) It is easy to label people, when you live in an intellectual cocoon. Come out into the real world, Balor. Marx is dead, and so are all his grandchildren. Perhaps this could also be a gentle reminder as we continue to read and discuss Senmut’s FOREVER ALPHA story. I have just read chapter 12 where Simmonds persuades Koenig to replace Gorski. Although there are no Y2 characters in this particular chapter, the way Senmut chooses to include Y2 characters as part of the build-up to the BREAKAWAY disaster could be interpreted politically in the sense of suggesting that the moral breakdown we observe in Y2 were seeded at the very beginning of the story through the involvement of alienating forces like Abe Mandell of ITC New York.

Forever Alpha

I included Y2 characters simply to show that I see a continuity between the two. There is NO "politically" in my choices. Merely a use of available material. PERIOD. Now balor, I have asked, politel, for you to STOP using my stuff as a reference point for your diatribe. What you choose to believe inside is your choice, but here, on the list, I would prefer it if you leave the cuddly communist crud at home, and stick with what was really intended, or stop referring to them at all. Got me? Now if you will excuse me, I have to sharpen and polish the fasces. Gotta keep up appearances, ya know. *** 31085 Re: Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) John K. Balor Oct 11, 2015

Senmut wrote: I included Y2 characters simply to show that I see a continuity between the two. There is NO "politically" in my choices. Merely a use of available material. PERIOD. Now balor, I have asked, politel, for you to STOP using my stuff as a reference point for your diatribe. What you choose to believe inside is your choice, but here, on the list, I would prefer it if you leave the cuddly communist crud at home, and stick with what was really intended, or stop referring to them at all. Got me? Now if you will excuse me, I have to sharpen and polish the fasces. Gotta keep up appearances, ya know.

As I have said before, I believe it is a mistake to confuse critical theory with communism, at least if you are thinking about communism in terms of the kind of state socialism that we saw various examples of in the previous century. In fact, when Keazor discusses the merits of SPACE: 1999 in the context of Hobsbawm’s analysis of recent history, the point Hobsbawm makes is that the 21st century was characterised by how state socialism betrayed the socialist visions that Barry Morse talks about when he comments on the ideological content of SPACE: 1999. We should also remember that important founding figures of the New Left, such as

105

Herbert Marcuse, were members of OSS during the war, fighting communism. So, when you help us see the relevance of the Marxist concept of ‘vampire capitalism’ in SPACE: 1999, by way of your excellent crossover story, I think most of interpret this in a much more straight-forward way than you seem to believe. What I believe most of us see is how the political rhetoric of the Hammer vampire films of the sixties and early seventies carries over into SPACE: 1999 and beyond. These vampire films were not a celebration of obviously oppressive communist regimes but rather a warning against how similar but more subtle means of oppression were developing in the free world through means of uncontrolled capitalism. Please remember that we are now talking about the sixties and early seventies. Young people were more politically conscious back then, and for popular cinema and television to score with the audience it was only natural that they should also tap into the dominant political discourses of the day. I think it is impossible to understand SPACE: 1999 without taking this into consideration. On the other hand, I think you are extremely helpful in this respect, in the crossover FOREVER ALPHA where the political subtext of the vampire genre is being integrated with SPACE: 1999. To me this is a stroke of genius. If you had made a crossover between SPACE: 1999 and a werewolf story, I don’t think it would have worked at all. It is the way you tap into the ‘vampire capitalism’ image that makes it work. Nevertheless, I think we have all been hearing how you repeatedly have pointed out that it was not your intent to open up SPACE: 1999 for political analysis, and I think it is only natural that we respect you point of view, but I remember Johnny Byrne making comments on the Space1999 list many years ago about what he had intended with some of the scripts and what the fans found in them. For instance, there was no concept of a Mysterious Unknown Force (MUF) when SPACE: 1999 was being written, but in retrospect he agreed that it was a useful concept for discussing aspects of the story that was better understood in retrospect. I respond to your text in a similar way. For instance, in chapter 13 I can take delight in how you use the first half of BREAKAWAY for telling a very different story that has more

106


to do with FOREVER KNIGHT, and I can enjoy it because I am now familiar with both series and can enjoy the insightful way you play images and themes from both series up against each other. Not only is the story excellently written, and in my opinion much better written than how I remember E.C. Tubb’s novelisation of the script, but you also add something that I was looking for in Tubb and was not able to find in the same way as when I read your story, namely political subtext. In retrospect this almost seems like a paradox as I believe that E.C. Tubb was firmly established on the left side on the political spectrum, I still think there is more between the lines in your stories. There is more warmth, depth and character in your stories, I would say, although at the risk of not doing E.C. Tubb justice as it is such a long time since I read his stories, but this is how I think about it now. Still, however, I find it interesting and surprising how much time and attention you spend on Y2 characters. According to what I read in an interview with E.C. Tubb, he watched and enjoyed SPACE: 1999 on television, but only Y1. Like everybody else, he thought Y2 was crap. John B. *** 31087 Re: Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) sennmut Oct 11, 2015

You are like a brick...you don't listen. I have asked you to stop. Now, please, I would prefer it if you stopped reading my stuff, entirely. I do not want any further contamination and mutilation of what I wrote. STOP THIS, NOW! *** 31088 Re: Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) balor1999 Oct 12, 2015

Perhaps the problem is that I like your writing too much. Of course, I could limit myself to saying things that I enjoy the pace of your

stories, I enjoy the dialogue, I enjoy they way you bring characters to life, I enjoy the suspense, the mystery, the humour and so on, but I feel that doesn’t bring justice to your writing. For me there is much more to it. The way I see it you have created a model of SPACE: 1999 that make some aspects of the series come more clearly out in the foreground, make other aspects more left in the background, but also perhaps deliberately “misrepresent” some aspects. I understand I can be difficult for an author when his audience is seeing different things in his writings that what he tried to put there himself, but somehow I think that is a price the creative artist has to pay. I am sure that Johnny Byrne would be shocked by some of the comments on this forum in terms of how certain people claim that there is no ideological content to political manifestos like MISSION OF THE DARIANS and THE METAMORPH. In one way I can understand his frustrations, but on the other hand I think he would have to understand that his readers understand his texts in different ways depending on their cultural, geographical and socio-economical background. I know that Stephen King was deeply frustrated by how Stanley Kubrick interpreted his novel SHINING into a film, and I know that Stanislaw Lem was equally frustrated by Andrej Tarkovsky’s interpretation. Nevertheless, both the films and the novels are widely regarded as literary and cinematographic benchmarks, so once I again I think this illustrates the hermeneutical point that a text has to be continually reinterpreted in contexts that create meaning for the individual reader and groups of readers. In the case of Stanislaw Lem, Freedman (2000) presents a brilliant analysis of the story in his book about Science Fiction and Critical Theory, and as SOLARIS is an important text in relation to several SPACE: 1999 episodes, I think there is much to learn from Freedman’s writing. In fact, I have found his ideas and perspectives quite helpful when reflecting on your FOREVER ALPHA stories. Something I like very much about FOREVER ALPHA is the way it follows the BREAKAWAY narrative quite closely and then manages to tell quite a different story on

Forever Alpha top of that. I don’t know if this is a common approach among fan-fiction writers, but to me it comes across as quite novel. A story of this type that comes to mind is Brian Aldiss’ FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND. I remember reading that book in my youth and finding it quite interesting in the way it mixed the universe of Shelley and Byron with that of the fictional characters of Mary Shelley plus some addition stuff about time travel from the future. When I saw Roger Corman’s 1990 film version of the story some years ago, I was even more impressed as I was now better able to appreciate the political subtext. It is the same thing when reading your stories. The way you play with the SPACE: 1999 universe in the same way as Brian Aldiss did with the FRANKESTEIN story, I think you make all of us think about it in a slightly different way from what we were used to. So, in spite of my admiration for your craftsmanship and style, I find even greater value in the way provide us with a lens for scholarly analysis and discussion. In the perspective you provide, some of the aspects of the original BREAKAWAY story is forgotten and some of it becomes more intensified, even to the extent I what I would personally characterise as “distortion” in the way you add Y2 characters and make Simmonds into a villain. I remember that E.C. Tubb represented Simmonds in a similar way, but I think in his case that was because he wanted to emphasise managerial oppression in general and how the key representatives of Moonbase Alpha find themselves in the middle of a class war

107

struggle. In your case, however, I would be very surprised if this was the reason for representing Simmonds in the way you do. In fact, I would expect the reasons for making him into this kind of caricature were motivated by exactly opposite political reasons. I have just read chapter 14 in FOREVER ALPHA, and the story is as exciting as ever. Although I know how the background story develops I have no idea who the enforcer is and what will happen to Nick and Nat. I find the text deeply enjoyable. The only thing I am missing as we continue discussing the story is that so few others have taken the opportunity to join in. In my mind FOREVER ALPHA is a wonderful story that should stimulate lots of debate on how we understand SPACE: 1999, including perspectives that I would expect to be very different from mine. As it is the first story in the FOREVER ALPHA SAGA, I think there is a great opportunity for all 1053 members of the forum to participate in the reading and discussion as I expect it will be much easier to understand the later stories in the saga by starting with this one. Out of ignorance I started reading CROSSFIRE, which was a very fine story indeed, but if I knew then what I know now, I would definitely have started with FOREVER ALPHA. John B. ***

4.2 Re: The bashing is back A new thread is created as a discussant adds a comment to one of the messages from the “It’s gotta be the beer” discussion (section 3.2). Although the comment was made in a different context, it quickly gets response from other discussants that makes it relevant in the “Forever Alpha” context. The way the two threads are joined together is to a large extent a result of the way Marx’s notion of vampire capitalism was used in the initial analysis, thus illustrating the usefulness of this perspective. 31089 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The bashing is back Erich Wise Oct 12, 2015

give Freiberger credit for not climbing into the sewer with some of these people. But again, I do wish he would've come back at them, without using words like dickhead, of course.

Kerry wrote:

May I also remind fans that 1999 was roundly criticized by the majority of SF fans fans of Trek or not. Also, a year three was contemplated until Grade decided to turn to

I sometimes wonder if all Byrne wanted to do was pick a fight with FF based on his comments over the years. As I've said before, I

108

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series movies like THE CASSANDRA CROSSING and RAISE THE TITANIC which sank ITC.

Most SF fans were fans of Star Trek and Star Trek fans wanted new Star Trek. Of course they criticized Space: 1999 because a) they did things like blow the moon out of orbit (still the biggest mistake, in my opinion) and b) it wasn't Star Trek (e.g., it didn't have the eternal optimism that the future would be great and the mood of the episodes was quite different). If it had been closer to Star Trek then it would have been criticized for copying Star Trek. The fact that it was a foreign-made series didn't help either. The serial nature of some episodes was ruined by not having the episodes shown in production order. (I saw "Testament of Arkadia" in December 1975 while I didn't see "Black Sun" (the explanation of how the moon could come across so many planets, a common complaint) until January 1976 and "Earthbound" (what happened to Simmonds and where has he been?) the following month.) Space: 1999 was going to be criticized; it didn't matter what they did or how they did it. At least they had a chance to film more or less the way they intended the first year. It is fortunate the episodes were produced before any aired or else the changes for the second season may have occurred mid-first season. *** 31091 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The bashing is back balor1999 Oct 13, 2015

Erich Wise wrote: Most SF fans were fans of Star Trek and Star Trek fans wanted new Star Trek. Of course they criticized Space: 1999 because a) they did things like blow the moon out of orbit (still the biggest mistake, in my opinion) and b) it wasn't Star Trek (e.g., it didn't have the eternal optimism that the future would be great and the mood of the episodes was quite different). If it had been closer to Star Trek then it would have been criticized for copying Star Trek. The fact that it was a foreign-made series didn't help either. The serial nature of some episodes was ruined by not having the episodes shown in production order. (I saw "Testament of Arkadia" in December 1975 while I didn't see "Black Sun" (the explanation of how the moon could come across so many planets, a common complaint) until January 1976 and

"Earthbound" (what happened to Simmonds and where has he been?) the following month.)

In my opinion there is an important connection between points (a) and (b). The difference between a series about USS Enterprise being able to travel across the world for the purpose monitoring and exploring and a series about Moonbase Alpha on a random trajectory as a juggernaut out of control are completely different metaphors. USS Enterprise is a carrier of the belief in the eternal optimism that the future world would be great while Moonbase Alpha carries a more uncertain and realistic view. Not only where the two series produced in two different countries, dominated by different cultures, but the productions were also separated in time. Although the sixties was a time of political awakening, it was also a time of belief in technology and progress. The early seventies were different, and, as Keazor argues, the cultural merit of SPACE: 1999 is exactly how this particular series grasps the particularities of this transition. It is also a question of whether SPACE: 1999 would have been a better series if it had started out more like Y2 in the sense of being more like STAR TREK and less like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. I don’t think so. The STAR TREK fans may have wanted STAR TREK, but SPACE: 1999 was its own series. It was similar to STAR TREK in certain ways, but it was also very different. In the opinion of Iaccino (2001) the reason why SPACE: 1999 ultimately failed had nothing to do with Lew Grade spending money on THE CASSANDRA CROSSING and RAISE THE TITANIC. The reason it failed was because of how Y2 became too similar to STAR TREK, thus SPACE: 1999 loosing its original identity. The point about the serial nature of the series is also interesting. In a way it feels a bit like THE STARLOST in the sense that this contemporary series also had an arrow of time but with segments that were created in a manner that the order the episodes were being watched were not all that important. However, there is an overall arc, and the same is the case with SPACE: 1999. Although the series was designed to be shows in random order, the closer such an order is to the production order the more sense it makes. For most of us I expect THE TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA is

Forever Alpha the natural conclusion of the first series. The theme of the series was finding a home, and in this episode at least some of them do. It is a natural milestone for completing the first series, and if they had decided not to make more episodes, it would have been a natural conclusion for the series as a whole. The case of EARTHBOUND is another interesting story. Some fans argue that it is a natural fit as the second episode in the series because of the continuation of Simmonds, but for most of us that would make no sense as the Kaldorians talk about spending 75 years returning to Earth when using technology that is even supposed to be far superior to Earth technology. As always, the production order is the natural order. Why there is no mention of Simmonds in the three episodes between is anybody’s guess, and is the kind of thing that could produce food for fan fiction writers. In fact, I would be quite curious to hear how Senmut has solved this issue. Perhaps we will know as we continue to read the FOREVER ALPHA series. In the initial story Simmonds plays an important part as the bad guy, almost like a parallel to Baltar in BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. Although I feel this demonisation of Simmonds fits badly with the ideological subtext of SPACE: 1999 from the viewpoint of how it has been explained by Byrne and others, but it is nevertheless interesting as probably an important aspect of how Senmut wants to tell his story. John B. *** 31092 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The bashing is back sennmut Oct 13, 2015

Okay, regarding Simonds...he is a vilain because of several things. He doesn't care that people are dying on Alpha, he is more concerned with the Meta Probe, and the political fallout of it's failure, than lives. After all, if the ILFC drops support for the project, where does that leave Simmonds? In Eathbound, he is willing to kill all the Kaldorians, to get ahold of their ship. He is willing to shoot down Alpha personnel, and even let the base freeze to death, to get what he

109

want. On these levels, as well as others, Simmonds is a very villanous guy. *** 31093 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The bashing is back John Marcucci Oct 13, 2015

Indeed. Simmonds, esp. in this episode, is a symbol of the worst aspect of Earth's social/ political development of the 20th century: the crooked, amoral, all powerful government commisar who sees people as nothing more than eggs to be cracked in order to make an omellette. What better way to start a new life in the 21st century than to purge out this old leaven by making this marxist archetype a victim of his own megalomania? Rgds, John M. *** 31094 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The bashing is back balor1999 Oct 14, 2015

Senmut wrote: Okay, regarding Simonds...he is a vilain because of several things. He doesn't care that people are dying on Alpha, he is more concerned with the Meta Probe, and the political fallout of it's failure, than lives. After all, if the ILFC drops support for the project, where does that leave Simmonds? In Eathbound, he is willing to kill all the Kaldorians, to get ahold of their ship. He is willing to shoot down Alpha personnel, and even let the base freeze to death, to get what he want. On these levels, as well as others, Simmonds is a very villanous guy.

When you reveal Alexandra to be the enforcer and describe her demise in chapter 14, I thought you wrote about that in a highly effective manner by portraying her as somebody totally evil. In the context of how Marx and Engels wrote about vampirism this makes perfect sense, even though I know you dislike this comparison and have said that you are not particularly happy by the way your text is being used as a tool for socio-economical analysis. In order to better understand the symbolism you introduce by adding vampires on Moonbase Alpha, I have now watched

110


Hammer vampire films that were made outside of the Dracula cycle: COUNTESS DRACULA (1970), THE VAMPIRE LOVERS (1970), LUST FOR A VAMPIRE (1971), TWINS OF EVIL (1972), VAMPIRE CIRCUS (1972) and CAPTAIN KRONOS: VAMPIRE HUNTER (1974). Some of these were based on or inspired by Le Fanu’s “Carmilla” story and all of them had more of a Freudian than a Marxist narrative, I would say, or at least adding strong Freudian elements to the general Marxist nature of the vampire mythology. As always with these films, and highly significant in our case since they were made in the early seventies just before the production of SPACE: 1999, the vampires represented the ruling class (capital) while the victims were members of the working class and the protagonists where members of the middle class were caught in the moral dilemma of whether they would be seduced by the power of capital or take a moral stance of solidarity with the oppressed. What is more prominent in these films, however, is the way the female vampires seduce men and women into becoming servants of oppressive capital interests, and much of the focus of these films is on the eroticism of this seductiveness. I don’t know if it is the Freudian aspect of the vampire genre that lead you into writing a crossover between FOREVER KNIGHT and SPACE: 1999, although I am somewhat reluctant to believe that in the context of what you have said about Freudianism in the past, but to me the Freudian aspect of the vampire films, especially in the context of the 15 Hammer films I have recently seen, is simply a part of the overall Marxist socio-economical analysis of period tales that are used for making a comment on contemporary society. In such a context I feel a character like Alexandra makes perfect sense. The less we know about her the better. The point is that we should not identify with her, like we can with Nick and Nat, but simply see her as a symbol. When it comes to Simmonds, I read him quite differently from how you seem to do. For me he is a complex character, must like John and Helena, and not just a symbol of the evils of capitalism or whatever Terpiloff was using him for in EARTHBOUND. To me it is more like

Terpiloff takes a complex character from BREAKAWAY and makes him onedimensional because that fits with the ideological point he wants to make in EARTHBOUND, and that is quite all right, but it does not mean that Simmonds becomes a one-dimensional character simply because of this. There is nothing evil of villainous about Simmonds in BREAKAWAY, I would say. He is simply representing the NASA-like viewpoint of the Lunar Commision, just like Dixon is doing in a later episode. These people are not vampires in the SPACE: 1999 context as I see it. If we disregard some of the more polemic Terpiloff episodes, there is very little of a bad vs. good narrative in SPACE: 1999. As Johnny Byrne has pointed out, that was not the point of the series. The point is that Moonbase Alpha represents Earth as we see it today, faced with challenges of fragile economics, pollution and climate change, migration from poor countries to rich countries, and the problem is how to deal with such issues. Fascist narratives about the good (us) versus the bad (them) are obviously not narratives that are sustainable if we want to prevent total breakdown and disaster. SPACE: 1999 was always about social equality and solidarity. This does not mean that I disagree with your interpretation of Simmonds not being a very good role model, but I don’t think he was more of a villain than John Koenig or Alan Carter. All people see the world from their perspective, and that is what causes problems in BREAKAWAY. When Simmonds is stranded on Moonbase Alpha without any proper function and responsibility he becomes a problem in EARTHBOUND, but that is essentially because John Koenig seems him as a rival and thus consciously or subconsciously stages the elimination and death of Simmonds through the way he conducts the decision process about which person to return to Earth. In other words, I see an important part of FOREVER ALPHA is not only that it adds characters and adds complexity and detail to characters we already know, but it also reduces complexity and detail for other characters. There is nothing wrong in this, of course. In fact, it is highly interesting and useful as this makes the story into a theoretical lens for understanding SPACE: 1999 from a particular

Forever Alpha

111

perspective. I know you disagree with me on this, but I would argue that the way you introduce vampires and reduces Simmonds as the representative of stability and order into a one-dimensional villain makes SPACE: 1999 more easily understood as a post-Marxist fable.

used because I like keeping to as many original characters as possible. In the case of Alexandria, she is an unresolved plot point from FK, so I used her, instead of making up someone new. That is the entirety of her depth as a character.

John B.

Again, you keep on with this crap about the "oppressed" and all. Well, if capitalism is oppression, then may God strike us with more of it. And, as Tevye said in Fiddler On The Roof; "May I never recover!" Again, you use your favorite piece of washroom wall scribble, "fascist". If Koenig is a fascist, than I am too. And proud of it!!!!!!!! Remember, it is Koenig who is accepting of the Kaldorians, and never once says a word about "race", nor does Helena, Carter, or any of the regular Alpha crew, whereas from the first, Simmonds is set upon murder. We should all be that sort of fascist! Koenig doesn't see him as a rival, any more than a baby does a bad case of diaper rash. He is an irritant, a man who would commit mass murder, without compunction, and Alpha is the better for him being gone.

*** 31095 Re: The bashing is back kerryirs Oct 14, 2015

John Balor wrote: In the opinion of Iaccino (2001) the reason why SPACE: 1999 ultimately failed had nothing to do with Lew Grade spending money on CASANDRA’S CROSSING and RAISE THE TITANIC. The reason it failed was because of how Y2 became too similar to STAR TREK, thus SPACE: 1999 loosing its original identity.

Actually, it did. Grade, from what I read years back, wanted to get into doing films, which ITC had already been doing with the PINK PANTHER films and others. Even Martin. Landau said in an interview around the time after 1999, that the series was sunk by The Titanic, referring to the huge sums Grade sank into the film. It eventually led to the demise of ITC. Finally, there was talk of doing a third season and a spin-off with Catherine Schell's Maya as the central character. Of course, neither happened. There's a YouTube short video that puts forth the view of some who worked on the series that the Anderson's divorce had a lot to do with the eventual cancelation of 1999. So take it for what's worth after forty plus years. *** 31096 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The bashing is back sennmut Oct 15, 2015

AGAIN!!!!! You ignore my request NOT to compare anything I have written with Marx, in any way, on this list. Is this so hard? THERE IIS NO SYMBOLISM! I used the characters I

Space:1999 was about adventure, wonder, the bizare vastness of an often incomprehensible universe, and how tine we are in it. It was NEVER about all that social equality crap. Again, I am trying to remain polit here, please refrain in the future from ANY more linkage between my stuff and ANY connections with Marx, or Freud, or the rectal supperations thereof. There is none, none was needed. Stop! *** 31097 Re: The bashing is back balor1999 Oct 15, 2015

Kerry wrote: Actually, it did. Grade, from what I read years back, wanted to get into doing films, which ITC had already been doing with the PINK PANTHER films and others. Even Martin. Landau said in an interview around the time after 1999, that the series was sunk by The Titanic, referring to the huge sums Grade sank into the film. It eventually led to the demise of ITC.

The way understand Iaccino’s important 2001 article is that the reason for the ultimate failure of SPACE: 1999 was because of how FF

112


changed the format by doing things like introducing a character like Maya, change of music, change of sets, change for narratives from contemplative stories to action-adventure stories, change of acting style from serious drama to sitcom etc. Although these changes were made for the purpose of making the series a commercial success by meeting the expectations of the audiences, especially the STAR TREK fans in the US, this was a fundamental mistake. As Iaccino analyses it, by making SPACE: 1999 more similar to STAR TREK it became like a rip-off rather than the highly original and interesting series that it initially set off to be. As ITC were hoping for success, they speculated about a third series and a spin-off series, but because of how SPACE: 1999 failed due to Y2 such ideas would never become reality, regardless of whether they had invested in expensive projects like RAISE THE TITANIC or not. The only reason SPACE: 1999 failed, as Iaccino sees it, is because of FF and Y2. To me he seems to be making a valid point. SPACE: 1999 was dead long before Lew Grade and ITC decided to spend money on other projects. The way I understand Iaccino, SPACE: 1999 was dead the moment FF was contracted and arrived in London. By the way, Kerry, have you read Senmut’s FOREVER ALPHA story? I am getting close to the end now, only one chapter left, and it is a wonderful piece of literature. I would very much like to hear your opinions of it.

Perhaps it is a bit unfortunate that Senmut has repeatedly stated that he dislikes any attempt to draw out Marxist and Freudian insights from the way he integrates the vampire narrative with the BREAKAWAY narrative, but to me this still remains one of the most valuable aspects of the text, namely how the inclusion of mythological characteristics that we associate with particular ways of socioeconomic and psychological understanding makes it possible to understand and discuss SPACE: 1999 in a manner that makes it easier to engage with fundamental SF debates such as those articulated by Carl Freedman, Jan Arendt Fuhse and Henry Keazor. More than this, in some aspects I feel Senmut borders almost on the level of Fageolle in terms of adding valuable insights that help frame the discussion. For somebody reading Fageolle for the first time, the expectations would perhaps be that the Marxist and Freudian perspectives of SPACE: 1999 should be articulated by references to the writings of Althusser and Lacan, or at least these are the kind of expectations Freedman pronounces in his text, but part of the creative genius of Fageolle is how he surprises his audience by articulating these perspectives through the use of texts by the likes of Butor and Bettelheim instead. To me there is a similar kind of originality in the works of Senmut when he uses FOREVER KNIGHT, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and BUGS BUNNY for creating tensions between the SPACE: 1999 text and these very different sorts of texts.

John B. *** 31098 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The bashing is back balor1999 Oct 16, 2015

I have now completed FOREVER ALPHA, and to me it has been a terrific experience. Not only is the story enjoyable on the surface level, with deep insight into characters, situations and filled with surprises and tension, but I also think it shows how fan-fiction can help the scholarly literature by providing new angles that can be useful for understanding a phenomenon like SPACE: 1999.

For those of us who are interested in how both the fan community and scholar community may gain by improving means of communication, I think Senmut’s writing provides a wonderful opportunity for building on the theories of Tulloch and Jenkins in the wonderful 1995 book about SF audiences when they talk about issues like SF audiences and ideology (chapter 4), negotiating ideology and pleasure (chapter 6) and fans as a powerless elite (chapter 8). Of course, when Tulloch presents his studies of these issues, that are directly related to DOCTOR WHO and plays inherently on the political subtext expressed through this particular series, the outcome may not be exactly the same in our case as SPACE: 1999 is significantly different in several ways. For instance, one of the key

Forever Alpha points in this book is how DOCTOR WHO and STAR TREK are expressions of British and American national cultures and political discourses, but in this respect SPACE: 1999 is interestingly different, I would argue, as it was an international collaboration between the UK, US and Italy. One aspect of this is the fact that SPACE: 1999 was a much greater hit in countries Italy, Spain, Portugal, Brazil, France, Germany and Scandinavia than in the UK and US where it was met with hesitation because of how it tried to mix elements that was supposed to make it successful in both the UK and US while resulting in alienating both audiences. I think it is perhaps very much for this reason that the scholarly canon of SPACE: 1999 builds on Fageolle rather than Muir. Fageolle, and later Keazor, Liardet and Turdo, were able to see the depth of the series in ways that were missed by UK and US critics and scholars because of the cultural contradictions in both Y1 and Y2, and how Y2 became an anti-thesis to Y1. It is in this context that I believe Senmut presents a major contribution to the debate by telling stories where the SPACE: 1999 is confronted with completely different narratives that hold the potential of being extremely useful for creating aha-experiences by representatives of the scholarly community. For instance, it would have been interesting to hear Fageolle’s views on the FOREVER ALPHA saga and to which extent he would see the cross-writing as efficient for clarifying Marxist and Freudian aspects of the subtext in a similar way to how we have been discussing it. Further more, in some ways I feel our discussions are quite similar to how Tulloch is engaging in discussions with DOCTOR WHO fans about political subtext. SF and television in general is meaningless unless one is able to discuss the political subtext. What is perhaps the main difference between Tulloch and ourselves is that the discussion he refers to in the book he wrote with Jenkins (chapter 4-8) can be more easily seen as dialectical evolution towards consensus readings of SF series in the political context we have been discussing while the discussions on this forum tend to remain in a state of continual debate. While this is certainly unfortunately in some ways, as it is difficult to engage in detailed

113

discussions about particular ideological details when the nature of the debate is concerned with the total political framing of the series. I think it is important to respect and admire Senmut both for his artistic contributions and what he says about ideological content in his own writing as compared to what he sees in SPACE: 1999, but I think it we would also be disrespectful of him and the value of his work if we do not allow ourselves to point out what we see as the wider and deeper contributions of his writings in terms of the kind of discussions and debates we carry out on this forum. To me FOREVER ALPHA was a major pleasure to read, and I look very much forward to have a go at the next entry in this series. John B. *** 31099 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The bashing is back sennmut Oct 16, 2015 Perhaps it is a bit unfortunate that Senmut has repeatedly stated that he dislikes any attempt to draw out Marxist and Freudian insights from the way he integrates the vampire narrative with the BREAKAWAY narrative, but to me this still remains one of the most valuable aspects of the text, namely how the inclusion of mythological characteristics that we associate with particular ways of socio-economic and psychological understanding makes it possible to understand and discuss SPACE: 1999 in a manner that makes it easier to engage with fundamental SF debates such as those articulated by Carl Freedman, Jan Arendt Fuhse and Henry Keazor.

"We" do no associating whatsoever, Balor. It is you who insists upon these imaginary links between my stuff, and this cadre of pseudoscholars whom you quote like Sacred Scripture. My stuff has as much relation to them as the Regula Sancti Benedicti does with Playboy magazine. And that is being kind. More than this, in some aspects I feel Senmut borders almost on the level of Fageolle in terms of adding valuable insights that help frame the discussion. For somebody reading Fageolle for the first time, the expectations would perhaps be that the Marxist and Freudian perspectives of SPACE: 1999 should be articulated by references to the writings of Althusser and Lacan, or at least these are the kind of

114

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series expectations Freedman pronounces in his text, but part of the creative genius of Fageolle is how he surprises his audience by articulating these perspectives through the use of texts by the likes of Butor and Bettelheim instead. To me there is a similar kind of originality in the works of Senmut when he uses FOREVER KNIGHT, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and BUGS BUNNY for creating tensions between the SPACE: 1999 text and these very different sorts of texts.

Seriously, I find that highly insulting. Please refrain. *** 31100 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The bashing is back balor1999 Oct 17, 2015

I got some of your references to FOREVER KNIGHT characters and events, such as Erica committing suicide by sitting on a bench while the sun was rising and Nat’s brother turning into a vampire, but I don’t think I have seen the episode with Alexandra yet. Is it one from the latter part of season 1 or perhaps one of the later seasons? Or did she appear in more than one episode? I am now planning to take a break from watching FK and start focusing on BSG instead, but I will return to FK later. By making this switch and watching original BSG episode once more I hope this will improve my understanding and appreciation of GREETINGS FROM CYLON. Is there anything we need to know before starting to read and discuss the CYLON story? John B. *** 31101 Re: The bashing is back Kerry Oct 19, 2015

John, first I haven't read Forever Alpha. I'm not a fan of vampire stories or movies. I'll also throw in I'm not a fan of zombie movies or TV series like THE WALKING DEAD, which I haven't seen any of in its five plus years on the AMC channel. But having read your comments, it appears that Senmut put a lot of effort into the story.

As for this person (Jim?) Iaccino's comments, well, as to the importance of the article, I can't comment too much other than what you cite in your post. As for the article's importance, that's in the eye of the beholder, and since you agree with it, I can see why you feel it has some importance. However, he hasn't added much to the negative discourse that some of the Y1 fans have leveled at Y2. But, in my view, Iaccino is arguing the result instead of looking at the full picture. For example, he never looked at the failure of Y1, the delay in ITC's decision to go with a second season, the low-key, slow moving scripts of some of the episodes, the one-dimensional characters, and the seriousness, which at first was a logical approach given the situation that Alphans found themselves in, did he? But people can't continue to be so nonplussed where they need to rely on "the magic wand" as Byrne said in the interview with John K. Muir in his 2001 interview, referring to MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, which can apply to BLACK SUN, and others. Let's not forget the MUF. Iaccino is entitled to his opinion, but for me, he's off the mark. Space failed for a whole lot of reasons, starting with no network pickup (although i read something recently that NBC (?) was interested until ITC jacked up the price), irregular airings, airing episodes without any particular order (some areas seeing another episode as the first episode instead of BREAKAWAY, changes without explanation, etc. As for sets, I think budget had a lot to do with that. For example, Main Mission is a nice set, but it was too big for TV at the time, hard to light, expensive, and Landau had to yell across the set to be heard when he was in Koenig's office. And the actors didn't care for it, especially Bain. Except for the changes, these events took place BEFORE FF got there, who originally only wanted to work with the writers, not become the producer. He did it as a favor to Anderson, as he related in Kevin McCorrey's interview with Fred in 1999. I see you ignored what Landau had to say concerning why he thought the series wasn't picked up for a third season and Grade's desire

Forever Alpha to get back into making movies. As I've said, it makes no difference forty plus years later. *** 31102 Re: The bashing is back balor1999 Oct 18, 2015

I don’t think it is necessary to be a fan of vampire and zombie films or stories to appreciate Senmut’s FOREVER ALPHA story. Just like you I am not a particular fan of either of these genres, but I appreciate the way these narratives tend to carry important political messages. As we discussed in the context of the Hammer films of the sixties and seventies, most of these films could easily be seen as extensions of the way Marx and Engels talked about vampire capitalism. The films made around the time of SPACE: 1999 were particularly explicit in this sense, portraying Dracula as a business tycoon and a symbol of capitalism run rampant. The Zombie genre is something I primarily know from the political films made by George A. Romero. Here we have many interviews and commentaries by Romero explaining how the films were made from the viewpoint of the New Left. So, despite Senmut’s insistence on having no political agenda with his writing, I think the texts themselves are extraordinary useful for arguing how the fanfic community is capable of reading and reproducing the ideological

115

content of a series like SPACE: 1999, very much in support of what Tulloch and Jenkins argue in their 1995 book but perhaps even stronger as Senmut’s playfulness with different genres is done in such an intuitively insightful manner that it is perhaps easier to enjoy the texts themselves for what they can tell us. As you say, Senmut seems to have put a lot of effort into these stories, and as with other creative geniuses, sometimes the work itself speaks more clearly than the man behind it. When it comes to Iaccino’s article in volume 23 number 3 of the journal STUDIES IN POPULAR CULTURE, I think there are deep insights here that could be helpful for explaining why Y1 was so great and why Y2 destroyed SPACE: 1999 as a whole. Personally I think Iaccino’s message is excellent as it mirrors what we have heard cast and crew saying repeatedly, how great Y1 was and how Y2 was a pile of junk, and when this view is supported and explained by Head of Psychology Programs at Benedictine University of Illinois, Prof. Dr. Iaccino, I think it becomes even more difficult not to sympathise with the opinions on FF and Y2 by Gerry Anderson, Johnny Byrne, Nick Take and Martin Landau that we all know so well. John B. ***

4.3 They are only opinions When some discussants argue that Year One is of higher merit than Year Two by referring to scholars, fans and the makers of the series, others respond by saying that there is no objective criterion for evaluation. There may be different opinions of what was good and what was bad, but they are only opinions. There are no facts that can be used for reaching agreement, it is argued. This turns out to be relevant debating positions for addressing the final part of the “Forever Alpha” story. 31104 Re: Fw: Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Forever Alpha (Senmut, 1999) kerryirs Oct 19, 2015

Perhaps another aspect to the "concept" of the MUF is in Byrne's response to John Kenneth Muir's question put to him in a 2001 interview. The reference here is MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH.

MUIR: My problem with that story is that everybody dies in the climax and then is miraculously resurrected when Helena wishes it. BYRNE: If you kill of your main characters too often, you do have this terrible reality gap. So you have to choose your moments very carefully. I think Gerry [Anderson] is very keen indeed on waving a magic wand, and everything comes out all right in the end. I'm

116


not sure I would have worked it out in quite that way. And Anderson rips Y2 after an observation like that? Man that is off the wall nuts. The thing is, they didn't do something like this just once, the MUF could've also said to have helped in BREAKAWAY, perhaps in THE TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA, BLACK SUN, and others. And yet some fans just ignore the fact that this force pulled the Alphans out of the fire on several occassions and that's OK with them. Some may interpret the MUF as God, and if they do, fine. Too me, it's to convienent a way to get the Alphans out of trouble and save the series from an abrupt end. Interesting, that's how some fans/critics view Maya, an easy solution to a problem. The difference, is Maya is a breathing flesh and blood character that has a background, has had losses in her young life, just like the rest of us. She's not some omnipotent entity which only thinks a thought in a thousand years of our time. Other than that BLACK SUN has some nice aspects to it.

life energy from people and power systems. It reminds me of the movie LIFE FORCE. I think there was a QUARTERMAS film in the 60s that was somewhat similar. I looked for this article and I couldn't find it. As I said in my last post, this dude doesn't add any more than you or any others who have over the years criticized FF and Y2. He's the one that fans blame for all the faults or reasons 1999 didn't last longer than two years, which is longer than most of Anderson's shows ever did. This opinion is based on memory. So this Dr. Iaccino is a psychology professor at a Catholic institution. Heaven help us. Just what we need, another "talking head". And as I said in my last post, critics are arguing the results, not the whole picture. John, you're an example. You refuse to look at the faults of Y1 and ask yourself why ITC waited almost a year to decide to go for a second season, and whether you like it or not, 1999 was dead in the water and not because of anything FF did, but what the Anderson, Byrne, Penfold and others did prior to his arrival. That doesn't let FF entirely off the hook, either.

*** 31105 Re: They are only opinions kerryirs Oct 19 11:43 PM

John posted: When it comes to Iaccino’s article in volume 23 number 3 of the journal STUDIES IN POPULAR CULTURE, I think there are deep insights here that could be helpful for explaining why Y1 was so great and why Y2 destroyed SPACE: 1999 as a whole. Personally I think Iaccino’s message is excellent as it'd mirrors what we have heard cast and crew saying repeatedly, how great Y1 was and how Y2 was a pile of junk, and when this view is supported and explained by Head of Psychology Programs at Benedictine University of Illinois, Prof. Dr. Iaccino, I think it becomes even more difficult not to sympathise with the opinions on FF and Y2 by Gerry Anderson, Johnny Byrne, Nick Take and Martin Landau that we all know so well.

Well, John, I'll put it to you this way, and with all due respect to Senmut, I'm not going to read a topic or story that I'm not interested in. Vampires have nothing to do with 1999 in general. The closest thing to that might be Zoref in FORCE OF LIFE when he draws the

I have a questing. If Y1 were the only season funded by ITC, who would you have blamed for its cancellation, Andersons, Byrne, or someone else? I have no problem disagreeing with Iaccini or any other critics. As I said, all he did was parrot the unfair knocks leveled at one man without taking into consideration that he stepped into a no win situation. Apparently ITC didn't want another Y1 style of show, for whatever their reasons. Finally, this diatribe, when one thinks about it, is really pointless. Y2 exits and that's all there is to it. Those who support burning it (tongue in cheek or not) should take a look back in history before spouting something like that. So, can we get off this repetitive subject. Minds aren't going to be changed, especially after forty+ years. *** 31106 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: They are only opinions

Forever Alpha John Marcucci Oct 20, 2015

Kerry, I beg to differ. I am 48 and I have changed my mind about a few things. I am persuaded by logical arguments grounded in facts. Petter's inane babblings, regrettably but predictably, do not meet this standard. *** 31108 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: They are only opinions sennmut Oct 20, 2015

You young whippersnapper! *** 31109 Re: They are only opinions kerryirs Oct 20 6:09 PM

John M. I agree. *** 31107 Re: They are only opinions balor1999 Oct 20, 2015

Kerry, I think there is a difference between “waving the magic wand”, as Johnny Byrne said about the problem of depending too much on endings like we see in MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, and what he has said in other contexts about the ridiculousness and difficulty in writing stories where one of the characters is a sort of character that can “wave the magic wand” whenever she feels like it. In the Y1 case he was talking about the challenge of writing disaster stories in a type of series where everything has to be brought back to normal before the beginning of the next episode. In the Y2 case he was commenting on having a sort of superhero character as part of the team that would turn Moonbase Alpha into a proto-fascist organisation, if we accept Wertham’s analysis of superhero literature. To me we are talking about two very different things here, and it has very much to do with the different natures of Y1 and Y2. The theme in Y1 was how the breakaway Moon was a symbol of modernity, just like Gidden’s juggernaut in his famous 1984 book “The

117

consequences of modernity”, and the idea is that we do not control our destiny in the same way as seen in STAR TREK and STAR WARS. We cannot control, but we can try to adapt. Particularly if we try to read Y1 from the viewpoint of Keazor, by 1974 most people started to realise that the economic growth of the post-war period was no longer sustainable, global population growth was becoming a concern, people started worrying about the natural environment, and there were all sorts of political and social problems. This was the environment that shaped SPACE: 1999 and these were the issues that the target viewers of SPACE: 1999 were concerned with. For this reason there were episodes about hope and disaster, disaster and hope, as you point out, like MOLAD, BLACK SUN, WAR GAMES and TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA. They all represented important political statements that help us understand the nature of the series in retrospect. What seems to be the reason why there was hesitation in continuing with a second series was because ITC were not able to get SPACE: 1999 on any of the major US television networks. As Nick Tate and others have said, at the end of Y1 there was no talk about any Y2. Given the previous history of Lew Grade and ITC in such matters, like in the case of THUNDERBIRDS and UFO, the next step would not be to make a new season. It would be to make something completely different. That was also what Anderson and Byrne tried. They wrote and produced the pilot episode for an educational science fiction series THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. However, when that series did not survive beyond the pilot, they discussed alternatives and somehow the idea of making a second series of SPACE: 1999 was suggested. At least, this is how I have understood the history of SPACE: 1999. From then on everything is more clearly documented, through Tim Heald’s book and elsewhere, as FF arrived and just destroyed everything in sight. The result was Y2, and as we all know, the cast, crew, critics and scholars thought that the way FF were responsible for the change of Y2 was absolutely disastrous and the only reason why people remember Y2 today is probably because they have seen the MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATRE 3000 version of

118


COSMIC PRINCESS. I expect that just the memory of Y2 gave Gerry Anderson pain until the very day he died. The decision to hire FF to make a second series of SPACE: 1999 was probably the worst decision of his life, and while he had been a rising star that reached a climax with the first season of SPACE: 1999, from then on his career plummeted. If Y2 had not been made, the world would have been a

better place. That is what Fageolle says, and I tend to agree. John B. ***

Greetings from Cylon

119

5. GREETINGS FROM CYLON This chapter consists of six sections. In section 5.1 the first ten chapters of the second story in the FOREVER ALPHA series are discussed, with particular emphasis on how fan fiction can contribute to an improved understanding of political subtext. The sections 5.2 to 5.5 represent a break from the chapter-by-chapter discussions as ideas from previous threads are discussed. This break culminate in the discussion of ‘leadership challenges’ section 5.6, which turns out to be an interesting frame for continuing the chapter-by-chapter discussion with emphasis on political implications.

5.1 Commentary and analysis As the nature of cross-writing SPACE: 1999 with BATTLESTAR GALACTICA was discussed in the context of “Crossfire” in chapter 2, the commentary and analysis of “Greetings from Cylon” starts out by trying to identify particular aspects of this story to use as a lens for gaining new insights about SPACE: 1999. It is for instance suggested that the role of Baltar could be an interesting focus, but as the discussion progresses Baltar is only one of several interesting ideas. 31103 Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) balor1999 Oct 19, 2015

something similar, so I expect it is a perfectly natural thing to do, but as we are now concentrating on Senmut’s literary universe, I think this is a very good way of segregating his kind of literary experiments in a way that perhaps makes it even easier to think of his cross-fiction models as tools for reflecting on the original 48 episodes in addition to the way they tell interesting and entertaining stories in themselves.

FOREVER ALPHA was a story that was mostly concerned with events prior to what happened in BREAKAWAY, and then retold the BREAKAWAY story from the viewpoint of characters from FOREVER KNIGHT who happened to be on the Moon when these things were happening. However, something that made the BREAKAWAY background story different from how it was presented on the screen was the presence of Y2 characters. For instance, Tony Verdeschi played a pivotal part in how the story evolved, while Paul Morrow was only mentioned briefly, and Dr. Ben Vincent was a much more central character than Dr. Bob Mathias. Because of this I was never quite sure if I was seeing John and Helena in their Y1 or Y2 uniforms. Sometimes, when the story contained direct quotes from episode dialogue, I was reminded of what the original episode was like, but often the images inside my head where those of Y2.

In his miniature stories, as we have observed, he has made some interesting comments on individual episodes like END OF ETERNITY, THE LAST SUNSET and DRAGON’S DOMAIN, and I’m not sure where in the timeline IT’S GOTTA BE THE BEER is supposed to fit in, but in the longer stories that make up the FOREVER ALPHA SAGA there is a prologue in terms of the original FOREVER ALPHA story and then it looks like the five remaining stories follow one upon the other in the context of what one might think of as a fictional Y3 season after Y2 ended with THE DORCONS.

As I have now read the first chapter of GREETINGS FROM CYLON, I think I can appreciate the way Senmut mixed Y1 and Y2 in FOREVER ALPHA in the sense that it felt like a natural way of retelling the pilot for the purpose of now establishing a Y3-like format. Perhaps what I found most instructive with the first chapter of CYLON was how references to Maya and the Dorcons makes it quite clear that we have now jumped past the 48 episodes and are now in a different type of universe. I believe the people at Powys’have done

In order to fully enjoy GREETINGS FROM CYLON, I also started watching the BATTLESTAR GALACTICA pilot SAGA OF A STAR WORLD last night, but had some difficulty staying awake after the first segment. I was planning to watch all three parts in one sitting, like I did last time, but perhaps there is a reason why it was broken into three segments like that. It probably works better when viewed in the manner it was constructed, as three individual episodes, rather than having the whole thing edited into a single television

120


movie. As I am now familiar with all of the episodes from both seasons of BSG it was interesting to watch the pilot once more. Although BSG is made for children and S99 (first season) was made for adults, it is interesting to watch it in the context of Senmut’s writing and certainly the special effects are no less spectacular than those on S99. The music is also quite good at times. It will be very interesting to see how GREETINGS FROM CYLON will evolve. So far the Alphans have discovered a Cylon space ship and have met with a Cylon without knowing what to expect. I wonder what will happen next. John B. *** 31110 Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) balor1999 Oct 21, 2015

It is interesting to read GREETINGS FROM CYLON now that I am more familiar with BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. However, there are still things that puzzle me. For instance, in chapter 2 Senmut introduces a BSG character called Gumio. Was that somebody from the actual series, or is it somebody created for this particular story? On the superficial level of simply enjoying the mixture of S99 and BSG, GREETINGS FROM CYLON is great fun. As usual it is splendidly written, and the way events are developing at three different locations at the same time, as has also been the case in other Senmut stories, is well done and helps build tension and sufficient complexity for making it interesting. When it comes to the more important issue of whether GREETINGS FROM CYLON can be used for exploring the SPACE: 1999 in different ways from the other stories is perhaps a little bit too early to tell. Although Senmut has denied his stories having anything to do with vampire capitalism or conflicts between socialism and fascism, the stories have nevertheless been extraordinary useful for giving insights on such issues. I have not seen much to build on in this respect when it comes

to CYLON yet, but I hope also this story will be worthwhile reading for those of us who submit to Tulloch’s thesis that science fiction audiences read and watch SF because of the way SF is an interesting format for reflecting on contemporary issues concerning technology and society. In this sense I feel our current discussion of the FOREVER ALPHA SAGA is a natural extension of the SPACE: 1999 ExE as we now not only comment on the political subtext of SPACE: 1999 but also try to see to which extent fan-fiction writers match and elaborate on that subtext when they explore the S99 narrative through the use of crossover fiction. It is still early days for me when it comes to reading GREETINGS FROM CYLON, but I look very much forward to reading the next chapter and see what events will unfold and see how this might help us in our continuing exploration of SPACE: 1999. John B. *** 31111 Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) balor1999 Oct 22, 2015

Carl Freedman starts his excellent book “Critical theory and science fiction” (Wesley University Press, 2000) with a quote from Althusser that goes like this: “To change the world is not to explore the moon. It is to make the revolution and build socialism without regressing back to capitalism. The rest, including the moon, will be given to us in addition” (p. i). When reading Senmut’s second story, GREETINGS FROM CYLON, I am reminded of Althusser’s famous words as I struggle with seeing how the story adds to our understanding of SPACE: 1999 beyond what we have already discussed in the context of CROSSFIRE. More than that, I think I made a grave mistake in reading CROSSFIRE before GREETINGS FROM CYLON as the impression so far is that CYLON is perhaps the better story for discussing the effect of mixing the two narratives of S99 and BSG together while

Greetings from Cylon CROSSFIRE could be used for discussing the particular implications of the BSG episodes that Senmut makes explicitly use of in that context. On the other hand, I have still only reached chapter 3 of CYLON, and what I have noticed so far is that there is a stronger focus on Baltar than it was in CROSSFIRE. In fact, the story is dedicated to John Colicos, so perhaps it will gradually become clearer that Baltar is the central character of the episode. I hope so. I found Baltar to be an interesting character in the original series, although somewhat underwritten, or at least I’m not sure I fully understood his motivation. I think he was more like Gwent than Balor in the sense that he was so focused on revenge and power. Perhaps Senmut could share some of his thoughts of Baltar in comparison with S99 characters. GREETINGS FROM CYLON builds slowly, but there are interesting things happening in the background. It will be interesting to see how the story continues to unfold.

121

Oct 22, 2015

Sen, I feel for you. Having quality work co opted by political hacks is an old and sorry story. I remember a long time ago watching an interview with the guy who wrote "Watership Down", Adams I think his name was, an Englishman. Great book! But the interviewer kept pestering him about how the whole story was a marxist allegory. The doe rabbits were exploited workers, the warren was a symbol of mother earth being destroyed by big corp., SIlverfish was a corrupt church, etc, ad nauseum. Well, Adams denied it all categorically. He said he just meant to write a story his kids would like, thats all. No political intent or subtext at all. But some people are delusional, or just mean. Some people like to take chicken salad and turn into chicken shit. Whaddaya gonna do? Rgds, John M. ***

John B. *** 31112 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) sennmut Oct 22, 2015

Damn it Balor! I have asked you nicely, now I will UN-nicely. STOP MENTIONING ANY OF MY STUFF ALONG WITH SOCIALISTIC CRAP!!!!!!!!! I do not want anything I have written being given moral equivalency with that filth and garbage! Now I am getting seriously pissed. STOP all mention of my writings on the list, forthwith! I am sick of this endless preaching of socialist cancer. Death to the revolution! Death to socialism!!!!!! See how annoying it gets? STOP! *** 31113 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) John Marcucci

31114 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) sennmut Oct 23, 2015

And they call what we write fantasy! *** 31115 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) balor1999 Oct 23, 2015

Senmut, I think we must have gotten off on the wrong foot somehow. All I have been saying for the past weeks and months is how much I admire and enjoy your stories. Not only are they exciting on the surface level, but I also feel that they have something to offer on deeper levels in the sense that the crossover ideas present different ways of looking at the meaning of the original SPACE: 1999 narrative. The way I see it, much of what you contribute could be of value for the scholarly discourses concerning SPACE: 1999 and SF in general. However, I do not claim that any of the ideas or associations I as a reader extract from the

122


story may correspond to what you as a writer has put into it. So far I have only tried to understand the stories in the context of contemporary academic discourse concerning science fiction literature in general and SPACE: 1999 in particular. If I were to triangulate this against your intents in writing the stories, I would have to have to have more biographical background to understand where you fit into the SF landscape. On the following discussion site Richard Adams is asked about interpretations of his work that he consider completely wrong or has made him angry (literary criticism or otherwise), and he answers by saying that “the Marxist interpretation of WATERSHIP DOWN makes me laugh sometimes!”. Somebody then responds by saying that “obviously with any work of great literature there will be hundreds of interpretations”. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1n 3quw/i_am_richard_adams_author_of_watersh ip_down/ I would be very happy if you would consider the feedback from me and others on this forum in a similar spirit. Part of the greatness of your writing is that it sparks the imagination in so many of us, and apparently in quite different directions. I have just completed chapter 4 of GREETINGS FROM CYLON, and the story continues to fascinate me. The chapter starts with an interesting reflection on the speed and direction of the runaway Moon, something that gives me certain associations in terms of famous sociological literature, but I won’t go into that now as you have asked me not to. There is also a wonderful cliff-hanger ending where the Alphans are greeted by Baltar as they are approaching the planet where Adama and the rest put him in exile. It will be very interesting to see what will happen next. John B. *** 31116 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) sennmut Oct 23, 2015

SCREW SCHOLARLY DISCOURSE! THERE IS NOTHING DEEPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! STOP NOW!!!!! *** 31118 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) balor1999 Oct 24, 2015

Okay. As I have just read chapter 5, I only want to say that I continue to be impressed with how you manage to keep me as a reader in suspense by running three narratives in parallel, just as if I were watching the story on television. There are several things going on at the same time. Fraser is down on the planet where Baltar has been exiled and decides to free him. At the same time Alan is saved by Apollo after being attacked by Cylons and he is then brought back to meet Adama and Tigh on Galactica, telling them that the people on Moonbase Alpha come from Earth. Not only is the story interesting in itself, but it is told in a creative and interesting manner. I look forward to reading the next chapter. John B. *** 31119 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) balor1999 Oct 25, 2015

To continue the discussion of GREETINGS FROM CYLON within trying to understand it in the wider context of scholarly discourse on SF in general and SPACE: 1999 in particular, there is still much to enjoy. Something I find particularly interesting is the portrayals of Baltar and Adama. In the recent ExE and previously I have argued that Koenig and Balor are essentially the same person, building on Keazor’s theory of how the aliens the Alphans meet are mirror images of themselves, and this leads me to ask the same question in the case of Baltar and Adama. From this perspective I think Senmut’s description of both characters is highly interesting as I get the feeling that he may perhaps be thinking along similar lines.

Greetings from Cylon I have only reached chapter six so far, but in this chapter both Baltar and Adama are characterised. Baltar is explained from within in the sense that there is a fascinating commentary about how he depends on being able to control and how he sees everything from the perspective of himself being in the centre. Adama is described in a more distant way, but the impression I get is quite similar. He is also a man who sees himself as a patriarch or a god and expects everybody else to approach him in that way. In other words, the two characters could be seen as expressions of the same idea. Perhaps they were both conceptualised as self-portraits by Glenn A. Larson in the same way as Ian Fleming made both James Bond and Blofeld in his own picture. I think there is relevance for SPACE: 1999 in this as one of Johnny Byrne’s complaints about his own story END OF ETERNITY was that he made Balor too one-dimensional. In interviews he explained that he felt the episode lacked the social and moral complexity we see in stories like ANOTHER TIME ANOTHER PLACE or MISSION OF THE DARIANS because it too quickly boils down to the dilemma of how to kill a killer that can’t be killed. That is not really a very interesting dilemma. What makes the story interesting is what motivates Balor and how that relates to the GUARDIAN OF PIRI where Koenig had to apply Balor-tactics of shock treatment for waking the Alphans out of their false consciousness. This similarity of motivation and actions, and then the confrontation between Balor and Koenig where they discuss their respective philosophies, that is what I see as the core of END OF ETERNITY. So without bring political subtext or other issues that I know Senmut dislike being addressed in the context of his stories, I think he provides important food for thought in the manner he portrays Baltar and Adama and thus makes this parallel in BSG function as a possible model for investigating the relationship between Balor and Koenig in our own S99 universe. John B. ***

123

31121 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) balor1999 Oct 26, 2015

It is difficult to discuss SPACE: 1999 and Senmut’s crossover stories without addressing the issues of how SPACE: 1999 reflected the political climate of 1975 and why it is more relevant than ever in 2015. To me a SPACE: 1999 discussion becomes more or less meaningless when we forget such issues and why SPACE: 1999 is interesting in the context of contemporary scholarly debates. Nevertheless, there is still much to enjoy about GREETINGS FROM CYLON on the surface level. For instance, in chapter 7 we can continue to admire Senmut’s craftsmanship as a writer as he gradually builds tension in the confrontation between the Alphans and the Galacticans. While their meeting is on friendly terms, there is also an element of mutual suspicion, and the chapter ends with a magnificent cliff-hanger when Baltar suddenly pops up among the Alphans to say hello to Adama. It will be interesting to see what will happen next. John B. *** 31122 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) sennmut Oct 26, 2015

The political climate of 1975 is meaningless, today. The "scholarly debates" are meaningless on just about every level. *** 31124 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) balor1999 Oct 27, 2015

Of course, I will not impose anything about the political climate of 1975 on a story that you wrote in 2000. If your story reflects any political subtext, I would assume that would have something to do with the Clinton area, but I do not see anything overtly political in your writing. If it had been written a few years later, perhaps I might have asked if you were thinking of the war in Afghanistan or in Iraq,

124


and perhaps your CROSSFIRE story was a reflection on such issues, but when I am reading chapter eight in GREETINGS FROM CYLON, where Adama and Baltar are confronted, I am not seeing any particular political subtext in relation to what was going on in the real world at that time. Or perhaps I am missing the central point of the text? Perhaps it was written as a reflection on the Camp David peace summit or some other political event of that period? When I referred to the political climate of 1975, I was thinking of the original television series. I think it is impossible to understand SPACE: 1999 in the sense that Keazor and Fageolle understand SPACE: 1999 without considering the political climate not only of 1973-75 but also how this period was perceived in contrast to the period of economic growth after the war until about 1972. This is a key point in Keazor’s article, and perhaps the single most important aspect of his analysis as it functions as a stepping stone for understanding the relevance of SPACE: 1999 as a political text for today. When it comes to the scholarly discourses on SF in general and SPACE: 1999 in particular, I think it is imperative that we on this forum relate to these texts in one way or another. If we agree with John Tulloch (1995) that SF fandom is a “powerless elite”, in the sense that texts like SPACE: 1999 are important expressions of critical theory understood by the fans but oppressed by the cultural hegemony of the ruling classes, then I believe the best way of making an impact in terms of trying to improve the world in achieving goals of improved social justice is by aligning the voice of fandom with the voice of academic scholarship. John B. *** 31125 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) sennmut Oct 27, 2015

On 27 Oct 2015 balor1999@... writes: Of course, I will not impose anything about the political climate of 1975 on a story that you

wrote in 2000. If your story reflects any political subtext, I would assume that would have something to do with the Clinton area, but I do not see anything overtly political in your writing. If it had been written a few years later, perhaps I might have asked if you were thinking of the war in Afghanistan or in Iraq, and perhaps your CROSSFIRE story was a reflection on such issues, but when I am reading chapter eight in GREETINGS FROM CYLON, where Adama and Baltar are confronted, I am not seeing any particular political subtext in relation to what was going on in the real world at that time. Or perhaps I am missing the central point of the text? Perhaps it was written as a reflection on the Camp David peace summit or some other political event of that period?

NO political event! At all. Merely continuing the story as I would have written it. But NO subtext whatsoever. When I referred to the political climate of 1975, I was thinking of the original television series. I think it is impossible to understand SPACE: 1999 in the sense that Keazor and Fageolle understand SPACE: 1999 without considering the political climate not only of 1973-75 but also how this period was perceived in contrast to the period of economic growth after the war until about 1972. This is a key point in Keazor’s article, and perhaps the single most important aspect of his analysis as it functions as a stepping stone for understanding the relevance of SPACE: 1999 as a political text for today.

Considering the "political climate" of the time only muddies the waters. To include them makes any real enjoyment of the show impossible, and should be discarded. When it comes to the scholarly discourses on SF in general and SPACE: 1999 in particular, I think it is imperative that we on this forum relate to these texts in one way or another. If we agree with John Tulloch (1995) that SF fandom is a “powerless elite”, in the sense that texts like SPACE: 1999 are important expressions of critical theory understood by the fans but oppressed by the cultural hegemony of the ruling classes, then I believe the best way of making an impact in terms of trying to improve the world in achieving goals of improved social justice is by aligning the voice of fandom with the voice of academic scholarship.

More garbage. 'nuff said. *** 31126 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000)

Greetings from Cylon balor1999 Oct 28, 2015

Reading chapter nine of GREETINGS FROM CYLON reminded my of Senmut’s position at the start of the recent ExE discussions. In an important input to the discussion he asked the debaters to define what they saw as the central idea in the BREAKAWAY episode. If I remember correctly my response was along the lines of how Fageolle and Keazor analyse the episode, suggesting the nuclear waste situation and the escalation towards the events that drive the Moon out of Earth’s orbit as a metaphor of similar power as Giddens’ (1984) juggernaut metaphor of modernity. Senmut, however, did not find this perspective useful and said that to him the central theme of the episode was the concept of ‘family’. By reading GREETINGS FROM CYLON it is perhaps easier to understand Senmut’s perspective, or at least we see the idea of family being discussed in several interesting ways. For instance, the chapter opens in an interesting way with the narrator reflecting on the relationship between Victor (who is now in a wheelchair), Helena and John. Although Helena was referred to as “Mrs. Koenig” in an earlier chapter, I’m not sure if that was meant to mean that they were married already, or whether there were such thoughts in the air, but by the time we reach CROSSFIRE it is clear that they have married, just like Tony and Maya also have. However, in this early part of the chapter it is not the marriages that constitute the central point but rather how the situation itself has made Moonbase Alpha into one large family, or at least this is how it is reflected upon from the viewpoints of Victor and the narrator. Later in the chapter there is a similar reflection from the viewpoint of Adama as he contemplates the similarities between the journey of the Alphans and the journey of the Galacticans. Furthermore, it is written in a highly intelligent and sensible manner that is so typical of Senmut’s approach in all the texts I have read by him so far. While I may disagree with him in what I see as imperative for understanding the series, namely the importance of taking the political subtext seriously, it is difficult not to admire his panache as a writer. I don’t know how much

125

time he has spent polishing each sentence and paragraph, but the result is certainly remarkable. Although not all that many have chosen to join the discussion, I hope there are lots of Online Alpha members reading and enjoying the texts in parallel with these discussions we are having. John B. *** 31127 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) SHANA G Oct 28, 2015

John, I would LOVE to see you write something that WE can all judge your story….. V/R, Shana *** 31128 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) John Marcucci Oct 29, 2015

Hear, hear! *** 31129 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) SHANA G Oct 29, 2015

John, You know something like, “meanwhile back on Stalag Moonbase Alpha, the reference library is ordered destroyed as it does not conform to the socialistic neo-Nazi beliefs of Fageolle and Keazor. Victor is no longer an asset to Alpha and is ordered to his last Travel tube ride, at Eagle 6. He will be taken to one of the underground caves and gassed. The Arians will broadcast the happenings of this horror to every monitor on the base This should teach all of the of the other Alphans, if they do not conform to Fageolle and Keazor beliefs, this will be their future as well.”

126


This is how I interpret your Alpha. Respectfully,


?????????????????????????

Shana G, and a little pissed off

*** ***


Shana, is this before the wage-slave proletariat is handed over to mentor for work in the mines, or after? I forget. (You know how forgetful we patriarchalist sexist fascist capitalist opprresors can be.) *** 31134 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) SHANA G Oct 29, 2015

Does it matter?? John only sees one side of the coin, and I think this is the way he would like Alpha to be run. I don’t know about you but I’m tired of hearing about the two idiots Fageolle and Keazor. This is supposed to be a fun list, about a tv show we love, not a throwback to WWII. Shana….. *** 31131 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) jemarcu Oct 29, 2015

John B// Petter, for once we can agree on something. Senmut most certainly is a talented writer. His works will go down in the annals of fan fiction as among the finest. We should all be encouraging him to publish original works. Much as I love his fanfic. its like having Millet paint your bathroom. Rgds, John M. ***

31136 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) John Marcucci Oct 29, 2015

Millet, an awesomely talented artist who painted "TheAngelus", one of my favorite works of art. Sure, you've got the talent man. If you have to put up with flames, you might as well get paid for it right? What better way to poke the marxists in the eye than to make people pay for the privelege of reading your ideas. *** 31137 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) sennmut Oct 29, 2015

I shall look it up. I am rather partial to van Eyk's The Adoration of the Lamb, moiself. Getting pub'd has proven difficult. Selfpublication is out of my piggy-bank's phaser range. *** 31133 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) balor1999 Oct 29, 2015

Shana wrote: “meanwhile back on Stalag Moonbase Alpha, the reference library is ordered destroyed as it does not conform to the […] neo-Nazi beliefs […]. Victor is no longer an asset to Alpha and is ordered to his last Travel tube ride, at Eagle 6. He will be taken to one of the underground caves and gassed. The Arians will broadcast the happenings of this horror to every monitor on the base This should teach all of the of the other Alphans, if they do not conform to […] beliefs, this will be their future as well.”


In essence I think you are presenting a very good description of Y2 here. I have usually applied the word “fascism” rather than “neoNazism”, but the meaning is essentially the same. The ideological conflicts between Y1 and Y2 can be seen in Barry Morse’s characterisation of Moonbase Alpha as a socialist outfit (Wood, 2010, p. 88) and Martin Willey’s comment about Psychon as a Nazi Paradise (Ogland, 2014, p. 434). The conflict between Y1 and Y2 is socialism versus fascism. I don’t think it can be summarised more clearly than that. Something that I don’t think has been discussed all that much, but which strikes me as quite relevant if we want to expand on Wertham’s theory of fascism in superhero literature, is to elaborate on the connection between GUARDIAN OF PIRI and THE METAMORPH by means of how Catherine Schell is playing an accomplice to the main villain in both cases. If we read THE GUARDIAN OF PIRI in the context of critical theory it becomes a striking example of how material, ideological and institutional processes in capitalist society mislead members of the non-ruling classes and prevent them from taking political action. Here Catherine Schell plays an important part as the seductress that make the Alphans develop false consciousness. If we see Y2 as a continuation of Y1 rather than a remake, a natural interpretation of THE METAMORPH would be to see Maya as the same seductress, but now – as you point out in the passage above – as a symbol of fascism (e.g. neo-Nazism), and this would indeed be a natural way of interpreting this particular episode through the lens of critical theory. In this way the second year of SPACE: 1999 becomes more like ALIEN in the sense that they have landed on a strange planet and accidentally picked up a lethal creature (Maya) who then sets out on a destructive rampage as she destroys Moonbase Alpha by turning it into a fascist community, or a Stalag as you describe it. Alas I’m not a fan fiction writer, but the idea about taking Victor to the underground caves and having him gassed seems like excellent story fodder for fan fiction writers interested in linking Y1 and Y2

127

together in a manner that makes ideological sense. Unfortunately, the only fan fiction literature I have studied in some detail is the work of Senmut, and I don’t really see him writing stories like that. On the contrary, when I read chapter ten of GREETINGS FROM CYLON the closest thing to political subtext are some remarks about Islamic Fundamentalisms and conflicts between Israel and neighbouring Arab countries. Although there may be a deeper meaning to these comments than what Senmut has been willing to admit, I do not see him as a political writer in the sense of what is needed for elaborating the ideas you suggest. Your idea is great, however, and it fits perfectly with how Carl Freedman discusses the relationship between critical theory and science fiction in is fascinating book “Critical theory and science fiction” (Wesleyan University Press, 2000), but it is the kind of story that would have to be written by somebody who would be more willing to engaged with the political subtext of SPACE: 1999, somebody more like Stanislaw Lem, Ursula Le Guin, Joanna Russ, Samuel Delany, or Philip Dick. When I continue to praise Senmut for his masterful storytelling about SPACE: 1999, it is not because of the political subtext that I see in his texts. In fact, each time I bring up this subject or even just hint at how his stories can be useful as tools for gaining deeper insights on the original SPACE: 1999 stories and have something to add in the context of contemporary scholarly debate, he usually responds in a rather negative way. What I like about Senmut’s stories is his inventiveness and quality as a writer. Have you for instance read the way he develops a romance between Alan and Athena in chapter ten of GREETINGS FROM CYLON? Although it reminded me of Alan and Sahala in DORZAK, for me it came as a total surprise, and it was remarkably well written, functioning more or less like a cliff hanger. I look very much forward to reading the next chapter and see how GREETINGS FROM CYLON develops. It is full of surprises. John B. ***

128


31135 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) SHANA G Oct 29, 2015

***

John,


Y2?????????????? Try Y1… In Y2 the characters grew, Alan, Tony Maya, Helena. They did not wait for 1 man to make the decision, it was a democracy, not a monarchy as S1.

In which case, Arra must be an oppressor, too. She's a Queen, so she is part of the exploitative ruling class, and she exploits Alpha to bring about the "Great Mutation". A baddy, obviously!

Do you want examples? Shana *** 31138 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) starblade.rm Oct 29, 2015

*** 31140 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) sennmut Oct 29, 2015

So, Maya was in fact a sort of proto-Thatcher, then? Brought to Alpha to seduce them with her fascist comic-book ways?

Senmut wrote: Shana, is this before the wage-slave proletariat is handed over to mentor for work in the mines, or after? I forget. (You know how forgetful we patriarchalist sexist fascist capitalist opprresors can be.)

Not only they work in the mines, but in "The Metamorph" we can see them completely brain-dead and zombified. Proof the capitalism can only survive as long it sucks the life force of the slave workers. Much like in the Industrial Revolution. No wonder Mentor was so fat and his planet exploded. This was not a Metamorph, but a metaphor for capitalism. A bunch of fat guys who make his system to explode (Great Depression, 1973 oil crisis, 2008 subprime crisis). The same for Taybor the trader. Another fat capitalist who produces nothing, scams the others with trades, uses tanks to impose his views. Kind like the capitalist empires. We can almost start a neo-fascist colonialist analyses of S1999 based on these episodes :-) Paulo

*** 31143 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) starblade.rm Oct 29, 2015 So, Maya was in fact a sort of proto-Thatcher, then? Brought to Alpha to seduce them with her fascist comic-book ways?

Seen this about Thatcher many years ago. Remembered it tonight. Took a bit to discover it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35hXQ0C 2O3k Perhaps we can have Maya reciting Sylvia Plath Every woman adores a Fascist, The boot in the face, the brute Brute heart of a brute like you. while her father blows the capitalist planet :-): Paulo ***


129

5.2 Shatner: SW vs. ST vs. S19? The following discussion thread was not written as a direct response to the “Greetings from Cylon” discussion, but it quickly becomes part of the discussion as the initial post included relevant and interesting comments about comparison and cross-over between different science fiction series. By introducing STAR TREK and STAR WARS into the discussion of fan fiction, further insights on the relevance for using BATTLESTAR GALACTICA for understanding SPACE: 1999 develop. 31142 Shatner: SW vs. ST vs. S19? (Semi-OT) David Welle Oct 29, 2015

Alphans, I'd not normally propagate something about someone seemingly trolling in an old "war" of /Star Wars/ vs. /Star Trek/. I am not impressed with that or this case at all and would not pass it on, especially it being mostly off topic besides. However, in pulling /Space: 1999/ into the comparison, it resulted in this mixed commentary that I happened to find: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/1 0/28/williams-shatner-disses-star-wars-ontwitter/ The commentator referenced S19 as a "classic sci-fi series" but also seemed to think it was a BBC series, and did not seem impressed with S19 spacesuits.

though this is just my off-hand synthesis of many years of half-remembered observations. For me, the "vs." in my subject is secondary. I like all three and other series, for different reasons and sometimes some of the "same" or "similar" reasons. Plenty to compare and constrast, to like, dislike, or shrug at, rather than battle, sideswipe, or troll over. For whatever this is worth, anyway.... ----David *** 31145 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Shatner: SW vs. ST vs. S19? (Semi-OT) John Marcucci Oct 29, 2015

Thanks for the post, Dave. Interesting comments. BTW, I am enjoying your fanfic on metaforms.

It also referenced a shortcut link to the that mapped back to the original post that I referenced at the top of this post. https://twitter.com/WilliamShatner/status/6563 52456406794240/photo/1 His comparison drew out comments from people who were either fans or nostalgic about S19 with very little of the negative comments that S19 references also tend to attract. That is really the main reason I posted about this in the first place. I find it interesting that when it arises sort of at random in some forum, S19 does tend to garner a lot of positive comments, but sometimes some negative ones that were almost absent in the thread I cited. Over the years I've noticed that four things tend to get the most comments (in no particular order): Eagles, Koenig, Maya, Carter, the Dragon, Moonbase, and the Breakaway --

*** 31149 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Shatner: SW vs. ST vs. S19? (Semi-OT) David Welle Oct 29 7:42 PM

On 2015-10-29 20:07, John Marcucci wrote: Thanks for the post, Dave. Interesting comments.

You're welcome, and thank you. BTW, I am enjoying your fanfic on metaforms.

Thanks, I appreciate that. Been too long since I've worked on any fanfic either.... Been too long since reading any fanfic, for that matter! Thank you, ----David

130


*** 31150 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Shatner: SW vs. ST vs. S19? (Semi-OT) balor1999 Oct 30, 2015

David wrote: For me, the "vs." in my subject is secondary. I like all three and other series, for different reasons and sometimes some of the "same" or "similar" reasons. Plenty to compare and constrast, to like, dislike, or shrug at, rather than battle, sideswipe, or troll over.

I also find STAR WARS, STAR TREK and SPACE: 1999 interesting, but among the three SPACE: 1999 is the one I really like. It was essentially based on 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and STAR TREK in Y1, it became very much like a STAR TREK rip-off in Y2, and it became an inspiration for STAR WARS in terms of special effects. In this sense the three series are related, and particularly the relationship between STAR TREK and SPACE: 1999 is a central theme in the scholarly texts by Muir and Iaccino. In the first chapter in Tulloch and Jenkins’ “Science fiction audiences” (Routledge, 1995) there is a rather interesting analysis of the making of STAR TREK that I believe could be mirrored if one wanted to make a similar analysis of the making of SPACE: 1999. The central dilemma they are addressing is the issue of defining an audience, and it is described as a conflict between Roddenberry who wanted to make intelligent television with political and social commentary and the network executives who wanted to make idiotic television for appealing to the lowest denominator. It is just like reading about SPACE: 1999. While Y1 was sometimes referred to as “a thinking man’s science fiction” (Wood, 2015, p. 364), Y2 was designed for the idiot crowd as is clearly documented by how Freiberger explains his visions and approach to Tim Heald in the 1976 book. However, the important point made by Tulloch and Jenkins has to do with the cultural change of the post-war period that was reflected in how NBC thought about television, as illustrated in the quote below.

[…] Star Trek itself reflected many of the moves that were redefining network television during the 1960s. Vance Kepley has summarised the changes NBC underwent in the alte 1950s and early 1960s. “The company shifted from live programmes to predominantly telefilms; it abandoned a schedule noted largely for its specials to implement one characterised by the rouintes of series programming; it established a policy of acquiring its shows from a stable set of outside programme suppliers.” Kepley traces a reorientation of the network’s management, which led from Pat Weaver’s ‘Operation Frontal Lobes’ of the 1950s with its commitment to public service programming and intellectually challenging drama, towards the more entertainment-focused approach taken by David Sarnoff and Robert Kintner from 1956-65. Weaver’s programming strategy had played an important role in building an audience for early television, attracting urban and affluent viewers with ‘caviar’ and getting them to stay around for ‘the bread and butter’. Sarnoff and Kintner’s focus on building viewer loyalty for ‘least objectional’ series programming was important in stabilising NBC’s audience, broadening its base and ensuring consistent advertising revenue. […] The paradox of STAR TREK was that the programme itself reflected the strategies of the Kintner era (a genre series filmed rather than live, produced by an outside contractor who regularly supplied network programming, foregrounding entertainment rather than education, modelled after WAGON TRAIL) while its producer still spoke of it in terms of the ideals of the Weaver era and targeted it at an audience demographic that was seen as increasingly unattractive within the network’s overall marketing strategies. As a result, STAR TREK stood in constant danger of cancellation and Roddenberry depended on science fiction fans for support (p. 8). What we see in SPACE: 1999 is the same thing. Y1 was designed for an audience that could read and think. It was designed for the Pierre Fageolles, the Henry Keazors and the Paulo Pereiras of this world; the people who are capable of understanding SPACE: 1999. However, as we have observed on this forum

Greetings from Cylon and elsewhere, not all that many people are capable of understanding the political subtext and intellectual merit of SPACE: 1999, so Freiberger believed that the series could get a higher rating by dumbing it down. In other words, Gerry Anderson’s dilemma as a producer was exactly the same as Gene Roddenberry. Gerry Anderson wanted to make television that would break him out of the ‘children’s television’ category and establish a name for himself in the UK and abroad, thus producing something with social and political relevance – like the first season of SPACE: 1999, but ITC New York were more concerned with attracting as a large an audience as possible and hired Freiberger to remake SPACE: 1999 into a STAR TREK rip-off. More than that, in Heald’s book Freiberger explains that STAR TREK was a morality show but that he had no such high ambitions for SPACE: 1999. He wanted the philosophy and intellectual aspects of the show replaced with action, romance and humour. As he perhaps felt that STAR TREK had been taken off for being too intellectually demanding, he wanted the new version of SPACE: 1999 to be as intellectually undemanding as possible. In this context it is with extreme pleasure I read Paulo’s fantastic analysis of THE METAMORPH and THE TAYBOR. To me this illustrates Liardet’s (2014) point that there is value in Y2 beyond the fact that it was designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator audience. There is merit to Y2 despite the way it embraced fascist values that were opposed to the socialist values of the initial series. If Paulo had written a book about SPACE: 1999, I believe it might have contended with Fageolle’s 1996 classic in being the most enlightening book ever written about SPACE: 1999. When it comes to STAR WARS as the third series in this comparison, Lucas may have learned a thing or two about special effects by visiting Pinewood while they were making Y1 of SPACE: 1999 but in terms of content I see it as much closer to Y2. Just like Y2, STAR WARS is essentially fascist propaganda. The 1977 film represented a total reversal of what was the basis for cinematic science fiction at the time. In the late sixties and early seventies SF cinema had become a vehicle for critical theory, expressing concerns about

131

environment, population explosion, military interventions in Vietnam, social unjustice and all the typical concerns of the New Left. Although George Lucas may have sympathised with the political agenda, he was also a fan of the old Flash Gordon serials - which is a typical fascist series from the Wertham (1954) perspective, and although his naïve belief in “good vs. evil” in the initial STAR WARS film, the STAR WARS saga itself developed and matured and gradually developed into a political commentary (the most recent trilogy) about the erosion of democracy and the development of tyranny under the Bush administration. So, although I will perhaps not go as far as David in saying that I “like” all three series, at least not in the same way, I certainly find them all related and interesting. John B. *** 31151 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Shatner: SW vs. ST vs. S19? (Semi-OT) sennmut Oct 30, 2015

Balor wrote: What we see in SPACE: 1999 is the same thing. Y1 was designed for an audience that could read and think. It was designed for the Pierre Fageolles, the Henry Keazors and the Paulo Pereiras of this world; the people who are capable of understanding SPACE: 1999. However, as we have observed on this forum and elsewhere, not all that many people are capable of understanding the political subtext and intellectual merit of SPACE: 1999, so Freiberger believed that the series could get a higher rating by dumbing it down.

That is insulting. In the extreme. An elitist rant, a self-important screed wherein only the rarified few really "understand" what's there. The rest of us are all dumb shits, because we are not on the heights of this Fageollean Olympos? That is grossly elitist, which makes you a sort of "intellectualist" oppressor, I suppose. And like many such, you live in the fantasy that what you accept is manifestly true, and that it is a settled thing. Not!

132


Balor, as much as I enjoy busting your bubble, there is no subtext. I am quite serious. Fageolle and the rest are a bunch of third-class intellects, trying to scam a few bucks off the weirder fringe of the Sci-Fi world, with their worthless evulsion of reused TP. The "we" you speak of consists entirely of yourself. No one else on this list sees these fantastical connections, and for a good reason. They don't exist, as much as you dearly want them to. In every post, you repeat the same tired old glop, as though it were fresh, new, and whatnot. It isn't. It's a stinking fish. Please. Just stop. *** 31152 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Shatner: SW vs. ST vs. S19? (Semi-OT) sennmut

Oct 30, 2015

Balor wrote: In this context it is with extreme pleasure I read Paulo’s fantastic analysis of THE METAPHOR and THE TAYBOR. To me this illustrates Liardet’s (2014) point that there is value in Y2 beyond the fact that it was designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator audience. There is merit to Y2 despite the way it embraced fascist values that were opposed to the socialist values of the initial series.

Let's hear it for the fascist values!!!!!!!! Viva whatever Balor dislikes!!!!!!! Screw the socialist crap!!!! Wooo. Hoooo! ***

5.3 Just opinions – part 1 So far the discussion of Senmut’s fan fiction has been used as a method for addressing various interesting aspects of SPACE: 1999 as new insights are developed and presented, but the following discussion-thread takes a more restrospective approach, starting as a response to many of the SPACE: 1999-related reflections and debates that had evolved since the discussions at the very beginning of the book, and then gradually aligning with the pace of reading and continuting new and interesting ideas. 31147 Just Opinions (p1): Resets, MUF, Maya, Koenig, Machina? David Welle Oct 29, 2015

MUIR: My problem with that story is that everybody dies in the climax and then is miraculously resurrected when Helena wishes it.

Alphans,

BYRNE: If you kill of your main characters too often, you do have this terrible reality gap. So you have to choose your moments very carefully. I think Gerry [Anderson] is very keen indeed on waving a magic wand, and everything comes out all right in the end. I'm not sure I would have worked it out in quite that way.

Though this started as a reply to one thread, I pulled in thoughts on sibling threads, and over a couple of weeks (and drawing on thoughts on a couple weeks or more of other threads and musings, it grew). Part of the subject is inspired by another thread too, but altered somewhat so I could split what was going to be a longer email into a few emails (some weeks of musings or maybe just meanderings got lengthy). Not sure whether I'll finish final thoughts and parts tonight, though. Might take longer than that to wrap it up. Onward.... On 2015-10-19 16:09, Kerry quoted, re MOLAD:

Interesting. I agree that a full "reset" is a tool to not use lightly. Certain stories or universes can try using it multiple times if it is clearly a central part of the plot or even a central theme -- but there is still a lot of work to make it "work" that well (i.e. be comprehensible and enjoyable). Otherwise, if it is not central, a "reset" feels like one of those storytelling tools best used only once, at the right time, in the right way, set up well. A lot of viewers might accept (or even enjoy) one, but each additional case probably loses buy-in very quickly,

Greetings from Cylon maybe half each time (just a GUESS for sake of conversation). And Anderson rips Y2 after an observation like that? Man that is off the wall nuts. The thing is, they didn't do something like this just once, the MUF could've also said to have helped in BREAKAWAY, perhaps in THE TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA, BLACK SUN, and others. And yet some fans just ignore the fact that this force pulled the Alphans out of the fire on several occassions and that's OK with them. Some may interpret the MUF as God, and if they do, fine. Too me, it's to convienent a way to get the Alphans out of trouble and save the series from an abrupt end.

This can be interpreted as a possible /deus ex machina/. While I would not completely reduce the MUF question to a DEM either, there does seem some overlap, and thus makes it a valid question. A "reset" especially can easily appear to be like a DEM, in my opinion. More later. **** Maya / Machina? **** Interesting, that's how some fans/critics view Maya, an easy solution to a problem.

Yes, her character is sometimes termed a /deus ex machina/, but I've never thought that to be the case. In many cases, her contributions -scientific, metamorphic, or whatever -typically fall into the category of "contribute as a team member" much more than "save the day." Even in "The Beta Cloud," where her getting literally into the robot's head were the final actions that defeated it, it was only after a group of Tony, Maya, Sandra, and Bill (with a some assistance from an otherwise ill Alan) tossed up every defense they could think up, collectively eliminating various possibilities until the last few minutes where she realized what the problem might be and was able to successfully act upon it. The last point is important too -- "successfully" -- because it was not always so either. Looking at every transformation for example, some were only contributory, like in OMOH where a transformation netted little other than being able to determine that attacking the central computer directly would be futile. John then changed tactics and it was he and Helena who drove a resolution. Some of her transformations didn't even net an "elimated an option" but were simply neutral, ineffective

133

(e.g. scaring the Exiles but not, in that animal form, recognizing to keep them away from the weapon, perhaps out of her own inexperience acting in such forms), or at times counterproductive. Of course, some were helpful, but I think it is a lot more varied across the continuum of results. Plus, while she has some unique experiences and knowledge, there are also obvious gaps, makes mistakes in missions, and times still seems to be learning how to best use her own talents. All of this was like probably any other oft-seen character too. She, in a sense, was "only human" too. Besides all that, there were also a number of episodes where she was barely present, was more in the background, or was entirely absent. To me, the character, her actions, and their results, all taken as a whole, are too complex to call a /deus ex machina/. **** Aliens / Machina? ***** Maya does not seem godlike, even if a couple of her talents are pretty unusual. Well, maybe just one. Even her computational abilities are not that far beyond human savants. The metamorphic skill of course is not human, but if we took that away from this character, would that not imply we should take away some of the more unusual abilities of other aliens seen in both seasons of S19? Unusual abilities were already posited and demonstrated. Does that make all aliens akin to something like a /deus ex machina/? Maybe I'm stretching the question and the term beyond what makes sense, but I think that is part of the point. She seems "only human" in so many ways, her contributions had complex and varying results and just as often minor, neutral, or even somewhat negative, and she seems fallable. That one such alien ended up on Alpha is, if perhaps not necessarily inevitable, was probably more than a 50/50 likelihood. In one of my stories, involving Sandra encountering information about a variety of other realities, Maya really was about a 50/50 on whether she was present, with some other aliens, familiar or unfamiliar, being mentioned as ending up on other versions of Alpha.

134


Even her areas of knowledge are wide in some areas but minimal in others. She has preknowledge of only a couple/few of the alien races later encountered (Archanons and Dorcons are the only two that jump out). When I wrote /Bridge Two/, I thought it was actually unusual in showing how the Alphans could take advantage of her "neighborhood" knowledge (as incomplete as it was about the main situation present there) before it ceased to have much value barring a few later case like I mention. So were her contributions that out of scale compared to other Alphans, or her more unusual abilities that out of scale to other aliens seen before or after? In my opinion, far from it, and she feels much more "human" than most of the other alien characters. To me, her character seems much more complex and balanced than sometimes given credit for. Of course, that's just my thoughts. **** Aliens / Superheroes/villains? **** I saw the /Heroes/ television series for a little, but it grew tiresome after awhile. I find franchises like X-Men or Marvel are entertaining in occasional doses but get hard to take after awhile. Same for other superhero stories. I don't find anything wrong with "superhero" stories /per se/ because there is value to real-life heroes and value to people being humble about heroism, and superheroes in some senses are just exaggerations of both, sometimes address the "with great power comes great responsibility" theme that can resonate in real life too. Sometimes they have complexity, sometimes they just appeal to more "mythic" thematic lines. Maya never struck me as a superhero, and compared to such stories or even some of the other aliens in S19, her abilities are almost modest, her contributions those of a team member, the results complex, etc. She is also a refreshingly modest personality, even humble at times. Not hiding how and what she is, but never thinking that sets her above others -- and being "apart" is about the last thing she wants. Where there are supposed superheroes in fiction, there are often supervillians with roughly equal (even if different) unusual

abilities, but far less in the way of any good intent. If Maya's abilities are more in line or even less (scale-wise) than other aliens, can one turn around the discussion and say some of the aliens are more akin to superheroes or supervillians? I don't think so. I would not even compare the MUF to that. **** MUF / Machina? **** The MUF, by contrast and comparison, depending on how often one thinks it might have been involved, was more of a reset or way out, in my opinion. Sometimes, it took the form of an almost-total reset but with some "lesson learned" perhaps, in some sense, like in "War Games" or MOLAD. Sometimes, it could be said to be more subtle, that there were still costs but that the Alphans still survived. Yet in some broad interpretations, the same could still be said of some Y2 resolutions, that the Alphans were "strangely fortunate." Yet it wasn't pointed out in the way it was in "Black Sun" -- though in the standard order of episodes, the third episode seems pretty early to be that philosophical about surviving for "so long" (paraphrasing). It can be said S19 was showing aspirations early, yet it likewise still feels odd to me in a continuity sense to be referencing that or "maybe we've made it this time" in just the second episode. Still, it is an interesting question, but I find the MUF concept closer to the /machina/ concern, even if there is potentially more to it than just a simple reset -- the times where there was not a reset anyway. That I think there likely is more to it keeps the topic one of interest and is why I won't call the MUF an outright DEM even if there is some overlap. However, I can definitely see why a number of viewers had problems with what was (disparagingly at the time) summed up by one commentator as the "Mysterious Unknown Force." Some viewers have found it intriguing, some frustrating, and some perhaps did not perceive it as either. Many of us fans have sort of adopted what was a critical statement, where I think the original critic was probably trying to implicitly (or explicitly?) compare what he saw as a /deus ex machina/ problem.

Greetings from Cylon Frankly, I see the MUF as a mix of potential DEM and subtle hints at something more. Yet I still see the MUF as closer to a DEM than Maya was. There's another comparison that may show part of the point too. **** Others / Machina? **** How often was it that it was *Koenig* who saw or worked the Alphans out of danger? Maybe not right away, needing to feel out the situation, sometimes after losing some crew member(s), but eventually being the one to find the wedge and break open the problem and solve it. He's welcoming but cautious, suspicious without being paranoid, intelligent, good at thinking on his feet, and strong-willed. Right person to have gotten the Commander role at virtually the last moment before Breakaway? Even in "The Metamorph," Maya may have saved the Alphans, but it was still John (with subtle contributions by Helena and Alan at least) who still had to "battle" to get through to her enough for her to check out the accusations against her father. Then Koenig and indeed all of them saved her in turn. That is one favor the Alphans before and after Psychon showed: pulling each other out of danger over and over. They were not always successful at it, however, but to me their saving each other repeated, or trying their hardest to do so even when they fail, that are a defining, positive collective trait of the characters. Yet, when one looks at Koenig's repeated role in these crises, and even considering he is the leader, it could be said that he manages to see the way through crises so often. So is Koenig a /deus ex machina/? Or is he a character that happens to have talents that as part of a team help the Alphans survive? Again, I think it is the latter. While his character had personality traits that aided in survival, and he was the leader of these cast aways, he still listened to his people, worked in a team-like fashion even if most final decisions elevated to command corps level were still his to make. He was fallible too. Sometimes his actions were neutral or made things worse before they got better.

135

All the main characters and others were contributing like team members, but with some differences. Koenig had final authority but listened to his people. Russell was CMO, and could be hard-edged of soft-natured. Carter was Chief Pilot but could have knee-jerk responses at times (nearly got people killed at times). Maya had computer-like mental abilities and was a metamorph but sometimes those abilities helped less than at other times (and she tore up an Eagle hangar and injured some people one time). And so on.... **** Sort of Semi-Summary? **** The MUF can be a thematic element in S19, but I find it difficult to see arguments about Maya being a potential DEM without wondering how much different of a mix of results and teamwork she is than any of the other primary characters, or wondering more quickly if the MUF -- and some outright resets -- are not compared to a DEM. It seems some of us just like to think that this particular DEM is perhaps something more intentional, subtle, or interesting in its own right. Yet forty years ago, there was plenty of criticism about S19 -its premise, characters, or this DEM/MUF thing. Frankly, I'd rather watch characters who do manage by wit, luck, or maybe a little help, do manage to mostly survive AND stay fairly intact mentally and socially, rather than a bunch of half-functioning headcases in some "dark and gritty" universe that feels unrealistic for how most characters are roughly the same shades of medium-gray. The Alphans had hope, the Colonists of the old BG had more day-to-day hope. So did the Britons and Americans and others in WWII. Apollo 13, Mark Watney ("The Martian") and NASA in both. So on.... Stiff upper lip. Finding the silver lining, the positive in the negative, growing even as they struggled to survive, rather than falling apart and at each others' throats. Not without loss, injury, depression, argument, etc. Yet striving to survive and grow. So frankly, I'm willing to play around with what is there in S19 and some of what might be implied. I have even hinted at a possible MUF sometimes in my own stories, at least once or twice, mostly in the characters getting a little philosophical. Semi-critical analysis and

136


yet still using some such can get along well. Yes, some thuds and duds that I've struggled with and tend to just ignore parts of when looking for references when writing characters looking back on past encounters and perhaps lessons learned. Yet there is a lot of positive material or interesting open/loose ends. Perhaps a lot comes down to willing suspension of disbelief, and *over what* and *how much* can vary in each viewer, reader, writer, and film-maker. **** Ahh, feels good to be doing some analysis again. Been too long. But, as the Subject of this email says it is just opinions. Anyway, more on some other topics later (time or day). ---David Welle http://metaforms.space1999.net/ *** 31159 Re: Just Opinions (p1): Resets, MUF, Maya, Koenig, Machina? balor1999 Oct 31, 2015

In the summary part of the first of three parts analysis and commentary, the part about the Mysterious Unknown Force (MUF) and the use of a Deus ex Machina (DEM) in both seasons of SPACE: 1999, David included the following statement: Frankly, I'd rather watch characters who do manage by wit, luck, or maybe a little help, do manage to mostly survive AND stay fairly intact mentally and socially, rather than a bunch of half-functioning headcases in some "dark and gritty" universe that feels unrealistic for how most characters are roughly the same shades of medium-gray. The Alphans had hope, the Colonists of the old BG had more day-today hope. So did the Britons and Americans and others in WWII.

Although I appreciate David’s insightful reflections on MUF and DEM, arguing a position quite similar to what Kerry has argued earlier, I am a bit worried that they are coloured by a misunderstanding of what SPACE: 1999 was all about. Of course, it is possible that I have been mislead or failed to grasp what David means in the extract above,

but the point I want to argue is that S99 was not BSG and it was not a WWII series. Also, as Johnny Byrne explains emphatically in the Fanderson documentary, S99 was not STAR TREK. It was not a series about a group of people going on a mission to control and expand the interests of some military and economic empire. Quite the contrary, at least if we accept Keazor’s (2012) authoritative interpretation of SPACE: 1999, the series was about the social, economic and political consequences of post-war global situation from about the period of the Club of Rome report in 1972 and onwards. I don’t know if I would describe the Alphans as “a bunch of half-functioning headcases in some ‘dark and gritty’ universe”, but I remember somebody on this forum some years ago describing SPACE: 1999 as a series people in their 40s having existential issues. Although I did not mind this aspect of the series when I first saw the series at the age of ten, and continue to appreciate this perspective as I grow older and have past the age of Landau and Bain when they were making the series, I can understand that some people had difficulty with the intelligence and maturity of the show. It was not a kiddie-show. As Johnny Byrne pointed out in some interview, it was not aimed at some particular age group, and it was clearly not a childrens’ series like DOCTOR WHO or earlier Gerry Anderson series like STINGRAY or THUNDERBIRDS. It was based on Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and shared similarities with other serious science fiction films like SOLARIS and THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN. It was a “thinking man’s science fiction”. So, expecting to find simplistic WWII stories about “good guys versus bad guys” or expressing the right-wing politics of the original BSG seems to me to be a total misunderstanding of what SPACE: 1999 was all about. The writers of the series were concerned with spiritual, philosophical and political issues that reflected the exact opposite point of view. Chris Penfold had deep concerns for the way society was developing in the context of post-WWII modernity, Johnny Byrne had been living in a hippie commune, and Edward di Lorenzo was a spiritual writer. All of them were relatively young at the time and clearly espoused the values of the baby


137

boomers (New Left), not that of the WWII generation. Of course, Fred Freiberger was of the WWII generation, and the changes he brought along to SPACE: 1999 could be interpreted as an attempt to reinvent the series in the context of what David describes as “characters who do manage by wit, luck, or maybe a little help, do manage to mostly survive AND stay fairly intact mentally and socially”, but it had nothing to do with SPACE: 1999. It was the exact opposite of SPACE: 1999, as Johnny Byrne points out in the Fanderson documentary. This explains why most of the contributors to the original series of SPACE: 1999 seem to agree with Fageolle when he said that the world would be a better place if all the 35 mm negatives and all copies of Y2 had been sent into deep space and destroyed. John B. *** 31160 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Just Opinions (p1): Resets, MUF, Maya, Koenig, Machina? SHANA G Oct 31, 2015

John, Do you ever notice that you keep typing, but you never say anything? You just repeat yourself over and over and over. As for the 35mm sent to space, we’ll take your stupid books with them. Long live SEASON 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Shana…… *** 31162 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Just Opinions (p1): Resets, MUF, Maya, Koenig, Machina? sennmut Nov 1, 2015

Upon reflection, I think that Balor really needs a..... I am soooo bad! A mentor. .....ducks thrown keyboards!

*** 31167 Re: Just Opinions (p1): Resets, MUF, Maya, Koenig, Machina? Kerry Keene Nov 1, 2015

John Balor wrote: ...This explains why most of the contributors to the original series of SPACE: 1999 seem to agree with Fageolle when he said that the world would be a better place if all the 35 mm negatives and all copies of Y2 had been sent into deep space and destroyed.

Those who worked on 1999 and agree with the above need to remember their history. People over the centuries have died protecting freedom of expression and that battle goes on today against those who disagree some with movie, book, article, electronic media content. Having said that, I wonder how John Balor would feel if people allocated that Fageolle's book should've been burned or banned? And that goes for the rest of those people he likes to cite. It reminds me of FAHRENHEIT 451, the temperature that paper burns. I suspect that film burns at less than that, not sure. John, do you really subscribe to this extreme position? You have a choice, don't watch year 2; it might lower your anxiety. As for understanding 1999, well, it doesn't take rocket science to understand this or any other series. Yes, I get the political and social implications the authors have stated they intended. But one can go just so far. For me, as the Alphans got further and further from Earth, the old political systems become more and more meaningless as they meet more ETs and have to adjust to their new lives. Cooperation is the only thing that will keep them alive. Call it socialism if you want, but not in the political sense as we think of it. It is the human need to help one another and that is what the Alphans are all about. As for Maya, David and I see this character pretty much the same way, but for me, I love her personality. She has such a range that can go from sadness over losing her world and her family to a person who is upbeat and funloving to the serious and curious person when problems are needing to be solved. And last

138


but not least, she is willing to put her life on the line to defend those she loves, yes loves. John Kenneth Muir has a fine article on his blog where he takes a look at the character and Catherine Schell's desire not to make her a cold, emotionless person, but a well rounded person with a full range of emotions. The article was done in 2005. So that's my 2 cents. David, a little inflation. *** 31168 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Just Opinions (p1): Resets, MUF, Maya, Koenig, Machina? David Welle Nov 2, 2015

"Good news, everyone!" Fry: "What is it, Professor?" "I've heard they want to send copies of /Space: 1999/ Year Two into outer space, to be sure it is known to -- and remembered by -- as many alien cultures and future human colonies as possible, and that if we ever lose all our copies of it, that there are billions of copies that can be returned to us." Leela: "That is good news, and such an honor for its place in our culture, but why only Year Two? Surely it won't be complete without the first 24 just-as-classic episodes as well." After a pause, "Oh, right, that would be sad. I must be getting forgetful." Scruffy: "You are all forgetting a five-minute short produced the very year Fry was frozen?" Bender: "Who are you? And wasn't it an Eagle that shot all the /Star Trek/ episodes away?" Farnsworth: "Surely it had to have been a Hawk. Faster ship, after all." Amy: "A variant of an Eagle, but remember how that action hit us back? A space monster. A court martial. Zapp back." Leela: "Don't remind me."

Hermes: "Yeah, a lot of ship damage to account for. I was filling out requisition forms for forever...." **** Only slightly more seriously, some of the probes to our outer planets did carry records of pieces of Earth's civilizations, to float into space for uncounted millennia, with the possibility of it being found by someone or something or by people again. So deep-spacing a media item could just as easily sound like an honor. Yes, I know what I'm doing. It is so easy to flip words into opposites, but even as a joke I don't wish to do that again. (Homer, probably heavily paraphrased: "Oooh! Opposite Land! Where rain falls up, cats chase dogs...." Lisa: Yes, Dad... Opposite Land.) Oh, and /Futurama/ suggested this was done to Trek because the Church of the Trekkies (or whatever it was called) had become too big of a cult. Yet I don't see anyone here virtually worshiping at the altar of Year Two. The world being a better place if 24 episodes of a mildly-obscure science fiction television series from the 1970s were deep-spaced or worse? I had no idea that S19 Y2 has been having such a perceived destructiveness on so much of world culture that it would need to be given, in some different form (mass destruction of media) the same treatment that is normally used by failed totalitarian states, tinpot dictators, and radical sects that have tended to be the worst things that anyone would want to be conquered by and/or have to live under. Wow. Just... wow. Even the comparison makes me want to just move on. So, moving on.... Not only has Y2 already came into existence, signals from all the broadcast stations, if strong enough, may have made it reach out to the 39 light-year radius already this year. Oh, and Y1 may have made it to a nice round 40 light-year radius! Good news, everyone! ;-) Not far enough to reach Omicron Persei 8 yet, so we do not have to worry for awhile yet about Lrrr being infuriated the series was canceled after only 48 episodes and deciding to

Greetings from Cylon invade Earth to get a less-abrupt finale. (Okay, now I'm done with the instant crossover fiction/commentary for this email.) Kerry Keene wrote: As for understanding 1999, well, it doesn't take rocket science to understand this or any other series.

If someone had really wanted S19 to be understood in only one way by an elite few that would have understood it on the loftiest of levels, and enjoyed only by those few, it would never have been green-lit, would have never sold. If that is the only way a series can be understood, it's distribution would be so rarified or non-existent, especially back in those days. Ergo, I do not believe the producers overall were looking for a privileged-few release. As for Maya, David and I see this character pretty much the same way,

Yes, I think so, and my "fish out of water" point was one way in which I see the character in a thematic sense. In a character sense -- the most important considering we're talking about a character -- I agree strongly with the rest of what you say below: but for me, I love her personality. She has such a range that can go from sadness over losing her world and her family to a person who is upbeat and fun-loving to the serious and curious person when problems are needing to be solved. And last but not least, she is willing to put her life on the line to defend those she loves, yes loves.

There is a lot of strength to the character. She can be strong-natured and can be very intense (e.g. some of those looks before transforming, or looking down the "line" of the stun gun in NANE, or arguing with the "commander" in "Seed of Destruction") yet also caring, listens and responds to the concerns of others, sweet, and yes, loving. There is almost always hope in her, and when it sometimes runs out for her, she is willing to accept it from others (e.g. "Metamorph", "Beta Cloud"). There is a considerable range to the character. Also, in part, though I'm ranging back into a partially-thematic (but still character-based) thought, she may have also helped the Alphans

139

to find more hope of their own too, that not all aliens were interested in killing or ignoring the Alphans. Not all Y1 aliens were that way either, but so many were indifferent or worse that Alpha has had a very rocky history with aliens, and she's a steady, positive presence that could have been a small steading influence on the Alphans in a general sense. (Just an added point, I'm sure there are more.) You know, Kerry, you just gave me an idea for another post or more.... Not sure if I can get one written tonight or not, but I'll see. John Kenneth Muir has a fine article on his blog where he takes a look at the character and Catherine Schell's desire not to make her a cold, emotionless person, but a well rounded person with a full range of emotions. The article was done in 2005.

Yes, and I think she did so well with that, agreed. I would assume the writers brought some of this to her character as well, in terms of her dialogue and actions, and the directors too, but I have no doubt a huge part of it was Catherine Schell's acting. I think I've seen that one at some point, but will have to look for it again. Catherine Schell brought her to life, and her approach made her very much different than Spock. Not that he was without caring, and they both shared some interesting mental abilities, and both respected/cared for life they encountered in the universe, but their emotional constitutions were very distinct from each other in many ways. (I'm over-simplifying again.) So that's my 2 cents. David, a little inflation.

. Maybe I forgot my economic history (of which I am also not an expert!). Then again, saving all those one-thousandths of cents for all these years may have saved me, er, maybe a half a penny by now? Guess maybe I've earned another quarter-post? Probably won't cover the next post you made me think up, however! ---David Welle http://metaforms.space1999.net ***

140


31170 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Just Opinions (p1): Resets, MUF, Maya, Koenig, Machina? John Marcucci Nov 2, 2015

31172 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Just Opinions (p1): Resets, MUF, Maya, Koenig, Machina? sennmut Nov 3, 2015

Kerry, your defense of freedom of expressions is laudable. However, I don't think we have to worry about any book burning orgies where the works of Fageolle et al. are the guest of honor for the simple reason that there are no copies extant. Its not available to buy at any price. I'm beginning to think that Fageolle and his book are both the figment of Petter's imagination. Like a unicorn.

Or, there would be no fire, for lack of fuel? Interesting idea, Jemarcu.

Rgds, John M. ***

*** 31174 Re: Just Opinions (p1): Resets, MUF, Maya, Koenig, Machina? kerryirs Nov 3, 2015

John M, your comment and that of Sennmut's crack me up. Never thought of of it that way. One would probably need a flammable agent to get the fire started. ***

5.4 Just opinions – part 2 While the first part of the “Just opinions” discussion-thread was more concerned with issues like thinking about the “Mysterious Unknown Force” in Year One and Maya in Year Two as a ‘deus ex machina’ mechanism, the second part is more concerned with the political subtext of the series. This is also seen as a relevant and important contribution to the overall discussions as it feeds the discussion of how both of the two first novels in the FOREVER ALPHA series provide complementary viewpoints for deepening the understanding of SPACE: 1999. 31153 Just Opinions (p2): Crossovers, Piri, Politics, Vampires, Pyres? David Welle Oct 31, 2015

Second part to a split-up email, this time with the right Subject line on first try with this. :-) **** Crossover Fan Fiction Stories **** I've released two such stories myself, and am two-thirds through writing a third, longer one. One was sparked by seeing an image right before a bicycle ride and having a sudden amusing brainstorm during the ride, another from a thread on this list (several versions ago) about trying to find the parallels in the two universes. The third came out of a semi-joking email conversation (off-list) sparking a more serious idea, with the other person encouraging me to run with it. So all three were on a lark or from a spark (both to a degree, really).

Another prompt I know of from others' crossover stories is simply having equallyfavorite or near-equally-favorite series (or sometimes movie), and just wanting to try mixing them. Wasn't really the case for me, but I think Ariana's S19/DS9 crossover novel (/A New Moon Over Bajor/) was an example of that, in her case, if I recall correctly. I would tend to assume the same of the /Forever Knight/S19 crossover stories as well, though I am less certain about that. There does not have to be some overarching theme, beyond the two universes themselves, and the author's points of interest. There does not have to be real-life politics, to have perfectly-sufficient, non-political reasons for why someone happens to want to temporarily overlap two "universes" for the length of one or a few stories. Human nature is not always of individuals acting for grand political thematic reasons, but

Greetings from Cylon for various reasons. Humans are much more complex than some political systems care to admit or can even deal with, and overall, most humans infrequently act solely for political reasons, but personal reasons, family reasons, community reasons, religious reasons, etc. Sometimes a complex mix thereof. So not every human action, such as writing a crossover story (or any story) is for political reasons either. Does that make non-political stories worthless or needing to create political energy out of an apolitical vacuum? Far from it, in my opinion. **** Political Vampires? **** Yeah, not much of vampires in S19 canon, even metaphorically. As someone already pointed out, the energy force that took hold of Anton Zoref does have some parallels, and perhaps there are a few more weaker comparisons. However, I do find a closer albeit more metaphorical parallel in S19 canon; but first, I do want to address some political comparisons, because I find it easy to see a complete opposite interpretation to ones I have seen mentioned recently. Just my opinions, but two contrasting paragraphs and a "concluding" paragraph, then I'll start getting to the most salient S19 comparisons (one brief, one longer). The closest real-life parallel I find to political vampires, even if still metaphorical, are marxistic-based systems. The most productive people, instead of being rewarded, are drained of their incentive. In the name of forced equality (and increasingly-coerced conformation to a "correct" way of thinking), productive and creative passion is sucked away until virtually everyone living a lowest common denominator (LCD) that itself continues to decline. Personal choices on where to apply oneself fade. Escape to better conditions elsewhere in the same nation is difficult when everyone's close to LCD. Trying to get out entirely is at the risk of getting shot - yet many more tried to get out than in. A few masters at the top of layers of central control that slowly choke individual achievements that could otherwise add up. Entire nations fail within three generations (maximum shelf life

141

of commun-ism observed so far, for example), and before then can become dirt-poor cults of personality inside a prison-like system. Some nations increasingly try modifying away from some such systems before they fail, while still trying to cling to some of the theory. Allowing individuals to find their own best circumstances, except where outright crime is involved (and that is a tricky balance, admittedly), has lead to or allowed fast expansion of entire industries built by people that had to be far more efficient than government, and in turn benefitted not just the company that created it but those other companies of people who want to further build in such industries, and the company and people that buy those things that create more efficiencies for themselves. Sure, the organizers of successful companies get a lot of money, but that encourages people, and a lot of others can earn a living, or seek better chances in new opportunities. It is powerful having lots of individuals and small groups responding to small, medium, and large-scale events to fix or avoid problems or find improvements, and helping others along the way (as part of a company, religious organization, charity, etc.). More likely to flow around or away from problems and seek better circumstances. More responsive than some single, monolithic bureaucracy. Both paragraphs above are very much oversimplifications of very complex human social systems that ALL have flaws and problems and complaints, but to me there are still some major underlying differences between them in in both theory and results, that one system seems more social dead-end for almost everyone while another allows a lot of freedom to try improving ones circumstances with effort and creativity even if it is not necessarily easy and not perfect either. Getti ng things done (making food, supplies, providing services, having ability to find what one needs and perhaps also wants), almost always takes work. Too easy, and maybe not so much is getting done. (Of course, too much excess work can wear on people, but ALL systems are subject to at least some abusive practices, but a system with more freedom is more likely to allow people to make new choices.) Did the Alphans have it easy? No. Somewhat comfortable in some ways, but

142


difficult in others, tragic at times. Not easy, and often challenged. It is too easy to throw around the term "vampire" it seems, too easy to find metaphorical vampires in various places and opposing systems, if so inclined sometimes. So are some critics more correct, or is the comparison too vague, or is it really just human complexity showing good and bad in various places? I have opinions but also want to state it is really difficult to reduce complex systems down to simple polemics despite seemingly doing so a few paragraphs ago. Doesn't mean criticism, praise, skepticism, shrugs, and other responses should not be applied to various parts of ANY system, but I'll start shifting to the bigger S19 comparison I promised, after one more comment that returns to fiction writing for a moment. Personally, I generally would rather accept the authors' own explanatory words (whether Adams or Senmut) that politics were not on their mind, especially if they go out of their way to rebuke a specific comparison as completely opposite of their world-view (and I mean that in a variety of senses). Sure, there can be some stories that accidentally suggest a little more than the author intended, but something far beyond and quite opposite of how they think? Very unlikely, and even if it appears in some small degree, then maybe it is probably more criticism than praise. At least so I would tend to assume as a reader (and as a writer for that matter). **** Who Needs Guardianism? **** So where is the S19 comparison here? The ultimate centralization shown in S19, in my mind, was the Guardian of Piri. A single centralized provider was entrusted to take care of every person's needs, to the point that it appears all incentive to strive, along with other factors, shriveled, followed by their minds and bodies. The original Pirians went *extinct* under that self-inflicted treatment, because the Guardian and its programming ignored too much human/alien nature, unintentionally draining the life out of them. It threatened to do the same to the Alphans. That computer probably had no idea why, because it failed to know or account for aspects of sentient nature.

I think a key problem with an over-centralized provider is that the more responsibility it takes on (is given), the more it takes responsibility away from individuals. Citizens can in a metaphorical sense regress from mature adults to young adults, teenagers, children, toddlers, and finally infants, instead of nuturing a sense that people grow into mature adults. Sound familiar? Evolving backwards? Sunim. That's a minus. Oh, and notice they too were trying to escape that, albeit by hook and crook. A healthy society needs adults to be responsible adults. Not an easy thing, but I guess it is not meant to be? I know, not what "A Matter of Balance" was about either -- just a small comparison. On Piri, it seems that the centralized provider created a situation where the people were provided everything they needed or wanted. Yet when does wanting for nothing turn into not wanting to do anything, then wanting nothing, and finally not wanting to bother living? It drove the Pirians extinct, and whatever their form, their minds must have had *some* similarities to the Alphans, for the latter were quickly declining. It was supposedly freeing them to think higher thoughts, but quickly leading to them not bothering to think much at all. A supposed high-er way of living that was really laying them low, draining and destroying them as surely as the Pirians. It looks so tempting, so easy, but the Peace of Piri was a fading, quiet, total death. A further flaw with trying to do that among modern humans is that authorities acting as centralized providers of more and more, are not computers like the Guardian. If some people are working less, others have to do more work (automation has not removed that fact, and total automation raises some of the same questions about a sort of guardian-like system too). If they aren't allowed to keep more of the reward, then it is all exhaustion and little reward. Just "taxing the rich more" does not go far; e.g. 30% more income tax on an executive earning say $10M, spread around say 300 million people is $0.01 per other person, less after bureaucratic inefficiency -and you're discouraging people from working harder and building useful companies for others to earn a living among. Socialistic systems have to take more and more from

Greetings from Cylon most, central powers deciding more for individuals and families rather than the individualds/families. The more money earned, the more taken away. Major source of encouragement (not sole but major) for working fades. Productivity declines. Lowest common denominator. Some not wanting to work harder by choice or more creatively because they aren't seeing the reward, others not working because they are being directly or indirectly rewarded for NOT working even if they could. How does that work? Yes, I'm oversimplifying complex systems, but I still wonder again... How does that work? Also, in such a system, someone still has to lead. The more centralized to a handful or single leader (rather than layers and larger numbers in each layer), the more a fewer number of leaders end up with an increasingly huge amount of power and over more money, the more easily they can become corrupted. Dictatorships. Cults of personality. Even aside from that, they are massive bureaucracies that are slow to respond to condditions that change, iron systems of control that end up fragile monoliths that eventually tip over and break apart. Piri apparently lacked the dictatorship but just as thoroughly became a metaphorical vampire. Or maybe it still had the dictatorship. The Servant of the Guardian was a conduit for the Guardian clearly insisting, through temptation, coercion, and eventually direct control, that its will be imposed on the Alphan people. Oh, it looks so easy, so good, so perfect, but it hides an empty heart. The Guardian remained on Piri as a still-active monument to how dangerous it is to oversimplify sentient nature, to assume too many things, to give up too much personal responsibility to a singular provider, or to overlook or ignore too many secondary effects and their potentially damaging or devasting consequences. They created a vampire that turned their world into a sort of pyre. In a way, "Guardian of Piri" is the rare S19 episode that I see as having a strong comparison to a political system, showing one stark reality of the dystopic nature of a "centralized paradise" can be. It seems to me that the theory falls far short of properly reflecting the complexity of human nature -positive, neutral, negative, and everything

143

between. Yet the fictional Pirians and some real humans were willing to hand over so much responsibility! Both stories and histories are in some ways rather frightening. Now did the script writer have that comparison in mind? I don't know, but I have found it pretty easy to jump to these comparisons, but is forty years of absorbing this episode and a lot of material on real-life history jumping to unintended or outright wrong comparisons? Well, maybe it still is. It's still just my opinion of what the episode looks like. Still, I don't know what the writer was thinking and I am not an expert on politics, so I have no interest in putting words in the writer's mouth, and any mistakes in my subjective interpretation are solely my own. **** Space Politics? ***** Other than what I think is a strong comparison potential with "Guardian of Piri" to overcentralized systems, I think we rarely get hints of politics in S19. A little with the Alphans, especially around Simmonds. Some hints about Earth, but only through the narrow view of space commission[er]s and a vague comment or two later on. What Moonbase Alpha is to me is an amalgam of quasi-military and research organization. Most or all countries have a military. Many or most countries have research organizations. In many ways, militaries often resemble other militaries more than what politics exist above each of them. Same for research organizations. Furthermore, Moonbase Alpha was overseen by an international organization. Hard to glean much about the politics above other than what seen merely one step above, in the International Lunar Commission via its leader, Simmonds. And who knows how satisified the rest of the higher-ups at the ILC were with his performance. Our view is very limited, in my opinion. So I tend to take it that MBA really was not political, as Koenig later says. Organizationally, Alpha seems to change little after Breakaway. Some new complexities emerge over time, naturally, but the structure continues essentially unchanged. They are too small to call a civilization, and too tied up in

144


trying to survive and learn how to thrive in space to reconsider their structure much, barring some signs of mutiny or perceived mutiny (one of the complexities I mentioned, but there are a few others). Had the Alphans started expanding more after Y2, where further layers of complexity would force reconsiderations, politics may have started emerging. In the two seasons we saw, Simmonds got political but then turned to blackmail or extortion, and Sanderson railed against Koenig who he saw in a more political sense. (Davis and Ferro just sought their own breakaway, at least partially under outside influence.) Politics just does not seem much of Alpha's life, IMO. How much do we really get to know any political system among aliens? Many of them are just so alien, or have such alien situations. For example, Psychons having such plentiful LOCAL resources is not something any system on Earth has ever enjoyed, so is there even a comparison or is it just an alien situation with a perhaps alien solution? I cannot say that Psychon was socialist or capitalist or a monarchy or anything else familiar to us. We only get a couple hints from Maya but to me they point to them having some system that we'd probably not recognize in its whole. For most aliens, I think it is difficult to recognize any parallels or apply human comparisons without risking stretching too far I think. Furthermore, "we" usually only "interact" with one or a few representatives of each alien culture, and often only get to hear one perspecitive or story. A few comparisons do emerge. The Dorcons seem rather Roman, apparently on purpose. The Bethans and Deltans each look like a polis with an archenemy (like some city-state relationships in Ancient Greece) yet with only two such units, not enough to have shifting alliances with others too (unlike Ancient Greece). Some room to mine political comparisons, even if more to ancient poli or empires. The "War Games" aliens sit in boxes, which I would take as symbolic disconnected from the rest of life, how they perceive others as viruses, as they issue pronouncements on the inferiority of others. Balor of Progron rails

against the system of his old world, but describes mostly the perceived stagnancy of it than how it is organized, and decides torture and murder is the way to improve things. What sort of dictatorship would he have set up in the end, I wonder. He talked a lot about trying to restore his people but he was a controlling sociopath who was thrown off his planet. Arra is called a queen, but is she like an ant queen, or like a fully-controlling monarch of old, a figurehead elevated to a representative, or perhaps someone elected to shepherd them into their mutation and called a queen because that was the sort of authority with which she was invested for their remaining time as they were? I'm not sure we ever found out. After all, Great Britain still has a queen yet has a parliamentary system that does most of the top-level government work. Yet in at least part of some galaxy in S19, there is apparently a vibrant trading network. But do we even know if they would strip Taybor of his credentials if they knew how much of a con man he got with the Alphans? We now nothing about them other than some hints -- filtered by what we and the Alphans may or may not believe from what he said. **** Who Needs Politics? **** Why should the fictional aliens all always have to represent parallels with real-life humans, much less most of them be touting the benefits of one major system over another? That actually sounds limiting to me. Some ground that can be of interest yet only one set of themes among many that fictional aliens can introduce. Yes, some science fiction in general is about creating such parallels, often interestingly so, but human politics does not have to lurk everywhere when we are talking about a "universe" with perhaps-infinite possibilities? Nah. I am with some others who say that S19 was a platform to tell stories -- and from the producers', actors', writers', etc., also hopefully make some money from it (lacking the chance to do so, those particular stories would likely never have been told at all). The people of Texas City said, "Who needs nature?" Not that I agree with them, but Maybe

Greetings from Cylon the Alphans could have said, "Who needs politics?" John said, "We are not political." At some point, if they started becoming a civilization, they WOULD need to make such decisions, though. Human nature is too complicated to avoid some social structures that eventually lead to politics, apparently out of some necessity even though some abuses can happen. But politics is hardly what people think about all the time, and to me, little of S19 looked political, my own Piri comparison and some lesser ones aside.

145

The answer to this section's question, is probably like with "Who Needs Nature?" Honestly, if looking at our own individual and social complexity, probably "yes" for both, if not always enthusiastically for the one on politics. Yet it is the last that probably makes many readers and watchers want to leave it behind sometimes, or just see something alien and different rather than comparisons to the familiar all the time. Politics all the time is not everything to most people. **** A Bit of Temporary Wrap-Up ****

The same question can apply to storytellers and readers/watchers. Sometimes we (of either/both categories) want to leave real-world things behind. Real-life politics may be the last thing we want to watch or read or write on some or many particular days. Or leave behind money problems, maybe relationship problems. Maybe wanting to forget about some crime encountered or heard about. Some stories or series have some of those elements. Naturally. We write stories about a lot of things of interest. Some stories do not, however. I think it is logical. If every story were political, then by the same logic, each and every story would have crime, money problems, relationship problems, racism, earthquakes, sexism, misbehaving children, electronics failing, health problems, nagging insects, a burst water pipe, tangled hair, missing keys, mismatched socks, a door that won't open, a vehicle that won't start. Sounds like every story would have to be the same shuffling rock monster just with some of the pieces in different places. How repetitious would that be. No story can be about everything. Thus, plenty of stories exclude plenty of topics. Any one story excludes most themes. Many stories are not about politics. In fact, I would say few are political, or simply use an existing or narrow context "as is" to talk about something OTHER than that context. Which roughly matches how little in the way I see of politics in S19. So while politics were not completely absent in S19, I think it is far from a major, unified theme, but small hints of recognizable -- or more often very unrecognizable or simply unknown -- systems.

So enough politics from me for now, I think (unless I reply once or twice to a few responses). Still, as the subject says, it's Just Opinions -with a lot of over-simplication too. So those are just some observations, thoughts, speculations, for whatever it is worth. I leave it for others to decide, because I am far from an expert an expert on politics or history or fiction. At least one more part to these emails, on separate but still fairly recent topics, to follow at some point (assuming anyone is still reading any of this!). ---David Welle http://metaforms.space1999.net *** 31154 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Just Opinions (p2): Crossovers, Piri, Politics, Vampires, Pyres? John Marcucci Oct 31, 2015

A lot of ground covered heree, but good insights as always. Vampires: some people hate mixing genres, because the results are bad more often than not. Its like making a successful lemon merengue pie. Unlike your typical apple or cherry pie, there is no margin for error. A lot of things have to be just so, and if any one of them isn't, the whole pie is garbage. But when it does go riight..ahhhh. lemon nirvana! Sen's "Forever Alpha" series is an example of when everything comes together so perfectly, Nick

146


and Natalie seem like a perfectly natural part of the warp and woof of MBA. Politics: Man's nature is political, and the English speaking world imparticular has strong traditions of self government, freedom, and self determination under rule of law. A thrid season of S1999 would have had to acknowledge this, whethr they found a new world or not. These instincts could not be supressed forever. Eventually, Koenig would have to replace the old command structure inherted from the LSRO with a genuine elected council of some sort, with real power, or be faced with a more serious rebellion than Sanderson and his posse. Koenig, being the kind of leader he is, would recognize this and accede to it. We saw this dynamic portrayed very well in BSG. Adama was the fleet commander, but he always had to consider the Council of the 12. At one point, even though the council had demonstrated themselves to be incompetant, and about to make a disastrous decision ("Baltar's Escape"), he still scolded his frustrated officers for momentarily forgetting their sworn oath to obey the civil government. Regards, John M. *** 31156 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Just Opinions (p2): Crossovers, Piri, Politics, Vampires, sennmut Oct 31, 2015

David Welle wrote: On Piri, it seems that the centralized provider created a situation where the people were provided everything they needed or wanted. Yet when does wanting for nothing turn into not wanting to do anything, then wanting nothing, and finally not wanting to bother living? It drove the Pirians extinct, and whatever their form, their minds must have had *some* similarities to the Alphans, for the latter were quickly declining. It was supposedly freeing them to think higher thoughts, but quickly leading to them not bothering to think much at all. A supposed high-er way of living that was really laying them low, draining and destroying them as surely as the Pirians. It looks so tempting, so easy, but the Peace of Piri was a fading, quiet, total death.

For Piri, the comparison I see is the Krell, from Forbidden Planet. Like Piri, they built the ultimate Provider, and it ended up killing them. *** 31157 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Just Opinions (p2): Crossovers, Piri, Politics, Vampires, Pyres? David Welle Oct 31, 2015

On 2015-10-30, John Marcucci wrote: A lot of ground covered heree, but good insights as always.

John, Thank you, and I enjoyed your good insights...: Vampires: some people hate mixing genres, because the results are bad more often than not. Its like making a successful lemon merengue pie. Unlike your typical apple or cherry pie, there is no margin for error. A lot of things have to be just so, and if any one of them isn't, the whole pie is garbage. But when it does go riight..ahhhh. lemon nirvana! Sen's "Forever Alpha" series is an example of when everything comes together so perfectly, Nick and Natalie seem like a perfectly natural part of the warp and woof of MBA.

I have read some very strained crossovers in the past, so I agree with your point, and find the metaphor appropriate. My two released crossover stories, I distinctly remember both finding some initial points that seemed to work together, but also sought more (actual or made-up) as I brainstormed and wrote. I am in no place to judge how that turned out, but that is simply my recall of some process I had in mind while writing them. 1999 and 2001 do share more commonalities than S19 and /The Simpsons/, but the latter was also done for humor. Both just matched up some pieces of what I saw in both, twisting some details to try making them work. The third, in-progress one is longer and more complicated for the mixture is a different one, not so much of finding commonalities but working a "what if?" scenario, doing more transplantation of various kinds, and hoping it will all work together in the end. More challenging.


(Just my processes, not saying anything positive or negative about others'.) On the flip side, another humor-based story, parody more than anything, I once (probably like 1994 or so) started a 5-10 SF series mashup. This was early in starting to try writing S19 fanfic, and part of the purpose was, believe it or not, to try working out some of the places where I could mis-step in fanfic writing. It was never a serious effort that I wanted to publish, and I had the feeling it would have been releasing a very soupy mess! Gee, what was it all including? S19, old BG, DW (probably two Doctors at that), V, ST (probably more than one), maybe SW, perhaps a few "cameos" by other series (if that mashup of words even makes sense). Still, though doing it more to try avoiding some pitfalls writing S19, it probably taught me how messy a poorly-consided or -executed crossover could end up (even before I started finding any to read) and was likely why I had some process in mind when I made a serious crossover story try years later. Politics: Man's nature is political, and the English speaking world imparticular has strong traditions of self government, freedom, and self determination under rule of law. A thrid season of S1999 would have had to acknowledge this, whethr they found a new world or not.

True, though I would only say that part of man's nature is political. Sentient nature can be a lot of things, and the mass failure of some entire political theories is something I would lay at the feet of theories that assume all of human nature is political. Some systems seek to make duty to the state be everything, position in state to be virtually the only reward, and so on. Yet they fail, in part because these are not people's everythings and not their sole sense of rewards and drives. Human nature is not that simple. I think that is another of the fatal flaws of comm/marx/social-ist systems, concentrating too much power among too few under the assumption that almost everyone would appreciate almost everything about it. That is probably part of why the tradition you cite are so powerful. I wonder if it goes all the way back to the Magna Carta being some of the first "impositions" of individual rights onto

147

feudal structures. One of the first cracks in traditional feudal frameworks. This document certainly was a predecessor to a number of key rights-demanding documents that would follow over the centuries that followed. I would add, though still probably as much a result of the traditions you cite as an addition, the greater chance at individual property ownership. This too is not to be underestimated as a factor too having greater rights, as well as, generally speaking, spreading yet some more power and wealth away from excessive centralization. However, it is also something the Alphans have not yet had to consider -- but is one they might eventually have to think about as well. Still, that politics is definitely *part* of human civilization and nature is sort of why I asked the "Who Needs Politics?" question and then answered it with a "yes." The Alphans would need a new system eventually, especially if they had any hope for long-term growth, and just given human nature. Hopefully it would not be some moldy, halfbaked theories from the late 1800s that led to the ruination of dozens of nations in the next century. These instincts could not be supressed forever. Eventually, Koenig would have to replace the old command structure inherted from the LSRO with a genuine elected council of some sort, with real power, or be faced with a more serious rebellion than Sanderson and his posse.

Agreed. Alpha's system was more or less frozen in the way it was right at Breakaway, though in Y2, I see some aspects of change and hints of perhaps more to come in. But let me start back at the beginning.... Simmonds chafed within it, but he was gone pretty quickly and it really got quiet for awhile. Instead of trying to accept that Alpha was for now going to remain essentially apolitical, he agitated, tried to throw some weight he no longer had, and when that did not work, threw a souped-up temper tantrum and tried to escape via extortion. One assumption I have in my own writing from essentially the beginning, that I've also seen elsewhere (e.g. Meredith Kausch's stories), is of increasing crosstraining, and of finding other skills. Either this

148


was not happening yet by "Earthbound" or Simmonds had little interest in learning some new role on Alpha. He was, after all, picked by Computer as being the one who'd have the least impact on Alpha's viability if he left. Then a bunch of officers disappeared. Many of us have thoughts on why, that aside, it had to have hurt, even if the series does not explore it much. However, it is fascinating that the officer corps shifts their discussions more into the open after that point. Many take place right in Command Center, involve more people at random. Not that I saw Command Conferences in Y1 as a deliberate attempt to secret information away, as much as just some separation of layers. Yet in Y2 we see command corps discussions somewhat more in the open, at least somewhat more often. (Some discussions ended up being in personnel quarters, but that happened in Y1 as well.) In both seasons, they listened to the others in MM or CC or others, even if they (or ultimately the Commander) made the final decision. Yet this was a first change was interesting too. Maybe not political per se but a hint of some structural/procedural change. I wish it had been explored more in canon, but I've touched on related points (if not quite this one – I think I might have missed this particular consequence) in some stories too. Verdeschi became second in command, which I also think was an interesting move. He showed himself to be respectful, but in ways very different than Morrow had been, and was often a contrarian, something I saw as valuable when the command corps ranks were thinned. Tony was not above arguing, making points that maybe even he did not believe in, just to make sure they were discussed, etc. Plus, he struck me as an officer more likely to keep interacting with non-officers as friends, long after his promotion. Yet Sanderson's posse, as you put it well, were first signs, however deluded they may have been with their seance beliefs, of some restiveness. A mix of quasi-military and research org worked in Earth orbit when there were higher authorities (unclear as they mostly were to us

viewers), and managed to keep working well post-Breakaway, but it still represents a fragmentary, amalgam proto-society largely frozen in old patterns. Things could simply not remain frozen like we saw in Y1, or starting to change in some relatively small ways in Y2. Koenig, being the kind of leader he is, would recognize this and accede to it.

Yes, and it is something I think I've seen in fanfic at least a few times, if I recall correctly. I have not quite gotten there in my own writing but have been laying down some loose and open ends all along, knowing I'd eventually start having stories deeper into a "Y3-like" timeframe. We saw this dynamic portrayed very well in BSG. Adama was the fleet commander, but he always had to consider the Council of the 12. At one point, even though the council had demonstrated themselves to be incompetant, and about to make a disastrous decision ("Baltar's Escape"), he still scolded his frustrated officers for momentarily forgetting their sworn oath to obey the civil government.

Exactly! Another reason I appreciate the greater hope and structure I thought was visible in the original BG rather than the collapsing collection of half-functioning headcases in the newer BSG (I exaggerate somewhat, but in my opinion not much). Old BG's Adama was hoping for a world postflight, either finding mythical Earth or just a new home. Their "rag-tag fleet" pulled in people from all twelve colonies, and a lot more of them total than Alpha (thousands or tens of thousands compared to Alpha's hundreds). Ship leaders, new leaders emerging among the people IIRC (or maybe I was reading between the lines on the latter). Though IIRC, none of the original Council of Twelve survived the destruction of the Colonies, lot of fragments of the colonies did, and I found it not the least bit surprising that a new Council of Twelve would form. Probably just about invitable and sensible. Adama's ship was also the final fragment of the military of the Colonies, but though he had to take up role as shepherd of all the ships at times, there was still some separation visible, more as BG went along. And this series was

Greetings from Cylon hardly ignoring realities. Strife within ships. Problems in the /Rising Star/, some people starving or abused. Friction with the military that showed up in a few other episodes too. The scolding you mentioned was a wonderful moment, where Adama was reminding the military that he was leading that the military would eventually not be the leaders, but would have to step back as civilian authority started gaining some legs and regaining some wisdom. For in general, however imperfect representative civilian leadership can be, it is still superior to being led by a single general or dictator. I think Adama perhaps also feared the corruption too much power for too long could bring to himself (or an officer taking his role if he were killed or debilitated), or of taking too much power away from others. I find the old BG to have been more of a political series than S19, though it was not like every episode was such either. It was just more of a theme and sometimes plot than in S19, I think. And it makes sense, because like I've said about both, (relatively) much more of the Colonies survived as a "rag-tag" collection of various ships and colonists, whereas S19 was a singular existing, small organization that was simply severed from its origin and cast away "as is" -- and it stayed largely the same way for the time we saw the characters, for it seemed to work well enough, even considering losses. Yet I agree it would not be able to do so forever. ---David Welle http://metaforms.space1999.net *** 31158 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Just Opinions (p2): Crossovers, Piri, Politics, Vampires, David Welle Oct 31, 2015

On 2015-10-31,slinter@... wrote: For Piri, the comparison I see is the Krell, from Forbidden Planet. Like Piri, they built the ultimate Provider, and it ended up killing them.

149

The two machines (incredibly powerful) and their end results (extinction of their builders, killing them without any intent to kill them) certainly have a lot of comparisons, I agree, but it is the intermediate results that are rather different. The Krells' inner strife was allowed to take murderous form, whereas the Pirians' inner sloth is what emerged, and apparently they just withered away. Unleashing inner monsters vs. removing all striving from Pirians and Alphans. Different takes on the ideas. Was it different programming? The Krell plugged so much more directly in but still having to "think outwardly" but the Pirians having instructed their machine to create a Peace and it finding the only way was to service and in a sense mentally coerce/control its people into a "correct" way of thinking, in a sense "drugging" its people to achieve it, to the point of destroying striving and soon even imagination to strive (or to fantasize supposed "id monsters" perhaps)? Not sure, but there are some differences, either of omission or just of different natures of the poorly-designed machines they made. In both cases, they missed or ignored secondary effects. Freud is another late 1800s theorist that again may have seen certain things and assumed more about them than is really true. Points about conscious, subconscious, and unconscious mind seem to be in strong evidence, and he is right that people tend to have some degree or another of selfishness. Yet the forms he lumps them into are perhaps oversimplications in some ways. The "id" idea is an interesting thought, but again, human nature is complex, human upbringing is a lot about parents and those surrounding them training more of the excessive selfishness out of children and to embrace more of the social nature that seems just as partially-inbuilt into human nature as selfishness is, before selfishness can keep growing too much and transform into something troubling or even monstrous. Of course, this does not always work out well. Even aside from such cases (last sentence above), selfishness is part of human nature too, yet a "neighboring" mental force of selfinterest is not always so harmful. It can help people steer away from things that can hurt them, leave problematic situations to seek

150


better circumstances for themselves, and if mixed with social/familial ties, can help steer their families towards better circumstances, or aid their companies, communities, and other organizations towards improvement too. Too exaggerated, though, and self-interest can become selfishness. A fine line, or a very fuzzy boundary, between them, I think. My knowledge here is even less, my opinions are fewer and not as strong as regarding some other theories from that time. Between that and it being late and me being tired, I'm not sure I have much to add now, even though there probably is more to compare and contrast regarding Krell and Piri. ----David *** 31165 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Just Opinions (p2): Crossovers, Piri, Politics, Vampires, balor1999 Nov 1, 2015

As Shana has pointed out, we are bound to repeat ourselves when we discuss the central issues of SPACE: 1999, particularly the conflicting ideologies articulated through Y1 and Y2. As Richard Bendell once pointed out, there are three major positions in this debate. Either we like Y1 and dislike Y2, like the makers of SPACE 1999 did and the scholarly community does, or we dislike Y1 and like Y2 like those who don’t understand SPACE: 1999 do, or we follow the “political correctness” of Online Alpha by pretending to pretend to like both Y1 and Y2 in order not to offend anybody. As I want to take SPACE: 1999 seriously, my natural choice is of course to like Y1 and dislike Y2. Although I admire attempts to compare the MUF (Y1) with Maya (Y2) from the viewpoint of a ‘deus ex machina’ (DEM) perspective, to me the conclusions some people seem to draw from such a comparison is wrong because it does not take the ideological and political subtext of the series into consideration. When there were false endings in Y1, like in MOLAD and WAR GAMES, the point Johnny Byrne was making in his conversation with John Kenneth Muir was that this kind of ending has to be used

sparingly. Stories that depend on such endings are not necessarily bad in themselves, but in the context of a 24 episodes series like SPACE: 1999 you can perhaps use them once or twice, but you cannot have the whole series depending on this kind of extraordinary intervention every week. Although the point in MOLAD about Helena’s inner world breaking being reflected in the total destruction of her outer world is an important idea in that episode, indeed making Fageolle claim that MOLAD is the most important episode of the series as a whole, it is not necessarily a story construction that functions all that well when we discuss the series as a sequence of plots that are supposed to support an overall narrative about how the Alphans go from BREAKAWAY to TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA. It can be used once, like how Odysseus has to cross the river of Styx after meeting with Circe, but it cannot be used too often. So, although the MUF was perhaps meant as a synonym for DEM by Houston in his 1977 STARLOG article, for the fans of the series it was interpreted differently as it helped articulate aspects of the spiritual context of the series. I think it is also interesting how Johnny Byrne also embraced the concept of the MUF although he has also explained that there was no conscious concept of a MUF when the series was being written and produced. However, when we come of Maya as a DEM, I think the situation is completely different. The problem with Maya, as pointed out by Gerry Anderson, Johnny Byrne, Martin Landau and many others, is that she serves no purpose within the series beyond being a DEM. When David and others praise the character, which I interpret more to be an acknowledgement of how Catherine Schell managed to breath life into a potentially lifeless character, it strikes me how the metamorph ability is always left out. In other words, what those who appreciate Y2 appear to be saying is that they find Maya to be an interesting character despite being a shape-shifting alien – not because of it. However, in the first part of his “just opinions” message, I felt David was only writing a prologue to the more important issues discussed in part 2. One of the points David argues here is that the “vampire capitalism” metaphor used by Marx and seen by some of

Greetings from Cylon us as relevant in the context of Senmut’s FOREVER ALPHA fails on two levels. Firstly it seems unreasonable to come up with Marxist interpretations of stories like “Watership Down” (Richard Adams) and “Forever Alpha” (Senmut) when the writers have clearly stated that they were not intended as such – perhaps even indicating that such interpretations would be contrary to how the writers understand the world politically and otherwise. The second failure has to do with how attempts to implement Marxist theory in practise has resulted in the exact opposite of what Marx intended, namely oppressive regimes that behave exactly according to the vampire image in terms of sucking the life out of the people who were supposed to benefit from the system. He even suggests that GUARDIAN OF PIRI could be interpreted in this context as a kind of “1984” warning of what happens when bureaucracy and central planning goes too far. I think he is wrong on both accounts. Using the case of “Watership Down” as I do not want to rile up Senmut, Adams’ response was that he found the idea of a Marxist interpretation laughable. He did not find it problematic as he had contributed a text to the world and perhaps part of the reason for the popularity of the book had something to do with how some people found it as a useful vehicle for discussing Marxist theory, but it was quite clear that it had not been written with any such intent. I remember there are similar responses from Johnny Byrne in the space1999 mailing list archives where he responds to questions about how to interpret his stories that he was the writer of the story while the interpretation process is something that has to do with the reading of the story. This is the point I have been trying to argue in the case of Senmut’s writings. Stories like GREETINGS FROM CYLON are interesting stories because they go beyond what one would expect to find in a typical S99 fan fiction story or the kind of S99 stories that E.C. Tubb and others have written. They are rich and interesting in the same way as the Greek tragedies, the works of Shakespeare, the plays of Ibsen and Shaw, the writings of Tolstoy and so on. The reason why these examples of classical literature have remained classics over many generations is not because the readers understand them exactly the way the writer had

151

intended, but it is because they are rich and complex texts that help us understand something about present society. For example, Jan Kott’s interpretations of Shakespeare’s historical plays in Poland during the cold war were remarkably interesting because they functioned as system criticism in a way that was never intended by Shakespeare. Kott was able to say something about life under Stalinist oppression without inventing a single word of his own. He simply stages the plays of a poet from a different country that was written several centuries ago. Of course, it is helpful for the understanding of RICHARD II, KING LEAR and HENRY IV to understand Elizabethan England, but in order to make the text function in the context of critical theory it is more important to recognise the relevance of the story for understanding present society. It is in this context that I see the works of Senmut as important for the Alpha Online community as a whole. Not only are his stories remarkably well written, they can also be used as a lens for understanding SPACE: 1999 more deeply. Concerning the second about how Marx and Engels made use of vampire folklore for describing capitalist exploitation of the working class when writing about England during the industrial revolution, and how David feels the vampire metaphor is perhaps more relevant for describing the oppressing experienced in Stalinist Russia and other “Marxist” regimes, I don’t think neither Marx himself nor neo-Marxist thinkers like Gramsci, Althusser and Marcuse would disagree. The point is not the label people use when committing crimes of oppression and violence but rather how the vampire motif represents a clearly defined model of how oppressive societies works. After having watched 15 Dracula and vampire films from the late sixties and early seventies while reading and discussing FOREVER ALPHA, I would say that they were all remarkably similar in the way they all described a conflict between the ruling class (typically represented by count Dracula, count Karstein or somebody similar as a feudal lord) oppressing the working class (peasants and workers) while the protagonist representatives of the middle class make different sorts of alignments with the Church in trying to fight the evils of a corrupt capitalist society. Although the films made between 1968 and 1973 were particularly political,

152


portraying Dracula as a modern business tycoon and having the hero a political activist that gained power from the liberation theology of the Church, all the films from the whole period I investigated (1958-74) were more or less expressing the same ideological beliefs. I think this is particularly relevant if we want to read THE GUARDIAN OF PIRI as some kind of vampire story. Although I have nothing against this idea, thinking about it as a kind of Orwellian NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR story makes little sense to me as there appears to be no sense among the Alphans that they are living in an oppressive and bureaucratic structure that limits their ways of expression and generates the kind of paranoia we know people have experienced living under such regime. On the contrary, the kind of oppressive regime we see in GUARDIAN OF PIRI is the capitalist oppressive regime we remember from Huxley’s brave new world. Just like the people in Huxley’s world believed that they were privileged by living in a modern society rather than the dangerous wildness, it gradually became apparent that they were being controlled and oppressed in a much more sophisticated manner than what we saw in the Orwellian story. This is the kind of oppressive reality that we see on PIRI, the kind of oppressive reality were people are being brainwashed into believing that what is good for the ultra-rich is good for themselves, the kind of social structure where people in general have developed a false consciousness of pride, loyalty and satisfaction within a system where they are being systematically exploited. In fact, this is the reason why Carl Freedman develops his thesis about science fiction being the literary canon for developing and analysing ideas within the context of critical theory. This is the reason why Keazor finds SPACE: 1999 to be one of the most important science fiction series ever made. There is a wonderful passage in “Science fiction audiences” by Jenkins and Tulloch (1995) where Henry Jenkins explains why and how STAR TREK became important to him, something that would probably resonate even more strongly within the SPACE: 1999 community were we are discussing a series dealing with a much more important and relevant political subtext.

Henry Jenkins had been raised by conservative Republican parents, taught in racially segregated schools, and came of age within a city still struggling to resolve the civil rights conflicts of the 1950s and 1960s. He first saw STAR TREK: THE WRATH OF KAHN while living in Cobb County, Georgia, a conservative district which was the national headquarters for the anti-communist John Birch Society and was represented by Larry MacDonald, who wanted to reinstate the House UnAmerican Activity Committee. STAR TREK and its fandom offered him a ‘utopian’ vision of a world which accepted a broader range of cultural diversity than he encountered in his everyday life. Viewed in that context, he experienced STAR TREK as a progressive text which played a crucial role in shaping his political commitments to feminism, homosexual rights, racial justice and multicultural education (p. 21). To me this shortned life-story of the famous Prof. Dr. Henry Jenkins at MIT illustrates the power of science fiction as critical theory in the sense of what we first see in Fageolle’s foundational 1996 text and later elaborated and expanded by Keazor in the way he argues the important position of SPACE: 1999 within the overall landscape of science fiction and critical theory where people like Suvin, Jameson, Freedman and Fuhse are among the key contributors that we repeatedly return to in our discussions. I think the discussion of fan fiction is a wonderful opportunity to realise what John Tulloch (1995) writes about as SF fandom being a “powerless elite” in the sense that we have access to this wonderful literature but we need to find ways to articulate the outcome of our discussions through channels that will make it possible to break out of the false consciousness created by junk like Y2 either by rejecting it or reinterpreting Y2 in the manner of what the original scripts were saying before Freiberger doctored them and by embracing Y1. To me this seems like the ultimate goal of SPACE: 1999 fandom and should be the main reason for being engaged with the show. This is how I interpret the final chapter in Fageolle’s book and the deeper meaning in Keazor’s authoritative reading of the series.

Greetings from Cylon John B. *** 31166 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Just Opinions (p2): Crossovers, Piri, Politics, Vampires, SHANA G Nov 1, 2015

153

S2. Some like both, as I do. There is no one to blame but Sir Lew Grade for pulling the funding. Please respect the thoughts of others without a lecture to all. No one cares about the books. Now can we return this list to a family friendly group, after all, it was 40 years ago? It’s in the can.

John, Shana You have to accept the fact that the tv show is science fiction. Some like S1, and some like

***

5.5 Just opinions – part 3 In this third part of the “Just opinions” thread, the discussion takes a more overall look at the series from a production viewpoint. As one discussant points out, the reason Year One was not as big a success in the US as hoped for had probably less to do with the format of the show than failure in being captured by one of the large television networks. In Canada, Japan, France and other countries where Year One was shown in favourable way, it was a tremendous success. Year Two, on the other hand, failed because it was a poor show. 31155 Just Opinions (p3): Failing, Faults, Fanfic, Fish? David Welle Oct 31, 2015

Alphans, A third part, this one shorter as it worked out. Not sure if I'll have any more in this long set. **** Failing Series and Fault Lines **** That by many accounts S19 was failing in Y1 (distribution difficulties, ratings vs. cost, some having trouble connecting to the series in other ways (real or perceived problems people had with the characters or stories or such) was ultimately a problem for the series. Johnny Byrne himself made that clear in different words back in the Breakaway convention in 1999. He was the host for Fred Freiberger's appearance there and made it clear (to me at least) that the series was in such a level of hiatus after Y1 that it was effectively cancelled (very few series in declared or /de facto/ hiatus ever return), and that only changes would bring it back. FF was put in an awkward position. More than two decades after the fact, JB was trying to bridge what has always been something of a chasm in fandom.

Heavily paraphrasing here, but one of his main points, I thought, is that a series with only two seasons and a relatively small fandom should not always be fighting the same old battle over and over. From what I could tell, he was not one to keep his opinions to himself (inc. about Y2), yet what I saw was he also wanted fans to not be throwing so much vitriol on water long since passed under the bridge. Conversing and even arguing, sure, but fighting? There are differences between constructive criticism and discourse, vs. "political correctness", vs. tearing down and belittling. But sadly, it appears our fandom will always have its fault line. **** Tangent (in more than one sense) **** Speaking of fault lines but drifting half offtopic.... After seeing this year's "San Andreas" movie, I also happened to wonder if the Moon's departure might have triggered devastation like that along the same fault. The movie, like S19 or various other movies, does require some suspension of disbelief over, in this case, some probably-exaggerated features of the quake compared to current theories of that particular fault's tendencies, but add in the

154


Moon's departure, and it might have just amped it up. Now there is where the seed of crossover stories perhaps sometimes happens too. Sometimes just a single, simple conceptual connection! (No, I'm not implying I'm writing one, just making a couple of observations.) **** Enjoyment vs. Involvement ***** Before this series of emails, I wrote one where I said I liked ST, SW, and S19, but that is an inclusionary statement, not a quantification. It is /Space: 1999/ that I have always appreciate the most. First science fiction I saw, and still definitely my favorite! /Space: 1999/ is a series that was made to be enjoyed and appreciated by many, not a few. No one designs a television series to be enjoyed by a few. That is career suicide. It is sad that neither Y1 or Y2 managed to muster the numbers. Despite S19 having flaws, to me its two seasons overall have a variety and richness in characters, plots, and themes, and I would have loved to see more. Probably one reason I read fan fiction, the Powys novels, and so on. The series has value, and I appreciate it. Does everyone appreciate it exactly the same way? No. Should we? I think not. The conversation would get pretty boring pretty quickly if that were the case. Characters, plot, and theme are all important, but the key to me is the characterization, I think. That is where I often find the layers, through what we see of their experiences or their personalities. I've had some problems with some aspects of characterization. If characterization is weak, some interest or enjoyment can still be found from the plot and theme, but the core, the heart one can say, is missing, and that matters to me. Despite me seeing some weaknesses in characterization, though, I still find so much in S19's characters, and write them, wanting to add even more to many of them, while writing up what I hope are interesting or enjoyable plots and exploring themes I find interesting. I enjoy a lot of science fiction (and don't enjoy or have no interest in some). I'll sometimes talk ST, SW, S19, B5, and other series or movies or movie series with others. Yet S19 is the only

existing universe I've chosen to write fan fiction in (crossovers aside). THere is a lot to build upon, and some gaps I like to try to fill, and I like working with it, to the tune of more than a dozen stories so far, from short to very long. I find a lot of meaning and reward in the series. I think I see a lot of value in it, but also know what I see may or may not overlap with what others see. That also means not everyone has interest in my stories, or fan fiction at all, and that does not bother me either. I write because I enjoy it, and hope that at least some others like reading it. Not sure if anyone is interested in this random POV from a fanfic writer, but there it is. **** Maya and Fish Out of Water **** Kerry (I think) wrote (sorry, lost the attribution as this email spread into at least three): The difference, is Maya is a breathing flesh and blood character that has a background, has had losses in her young life, just like the rest of us. She's not some omnipotent entity

Well said, and a much shorter way of saying some of the things I did in p1 of this long set of emails. It also reminds me of another recent comparison, both of which go back to some of my thoughts regarding the characters and series.... As pointed out in some way the last few weeks, and a long-time favourite theme of mine, the Alphans are adrift in a universe they struggle to understand and survive. They are fish out of water in many ways. Not every way, and they are learning. We "see" their "universe" almost totally through their eyes. It is a powerful perspective. To me, it is the characters' that tell their story. Maya, in joining with the Alphans, is a fish out of water herself. She adds another layer of point of view. Various points of views are something I find very interesting, as well as fish-out-of-water stories. Far from the only themes I like, but I like the different perspectives the Alphans cast on their own existence, their former lives, those they encounter, and the universe as a whole.

Greetings from Cylon After waxing more political than usual in my prior email, I feel like waxing a bit poetic(?) for a moment.... They all lost their original world. The Alphans affecting the universe. The universe affecting the Alphans. The Terrans affecting the Psychon. The Psychon affecting the Terrans. All trying to create one effect... of finding a new place out there. ---David Welle http://metaforms.space1999.net

155

In the final analysis, it wasn't that Year 1 of Space: 1999 wasn't a ratings or financial success, rather it apparently wasn't a BIG enough success to Sir Lew Grade. Now, what that translates into or what he wanted for it to reach that level only he would know, or perhaps Gerry Anderson. Maybe it made $10 million, but he wanted $15 million in 1975-76 dollars, we have no idea, Since they are no longer with us we'll probably never know just what was the hesitation to immediately renewing and producing a second season. One thing we do know is that most UK productions of the time rarely went onto another season so it wasn't part of their TV culture either and maybe that was part of the issue too.

*** 31161Re: Space 1999 Y1 and Y2 myths vs reality - Just Opinions (p3): Failing, Faults, Fanfic, Fish? midst2day Oct 31, 2015

There seems to be a great deal of myth concerning the real success of Y1 from a distribution and ratings perspective. By all accounts, in every market in the world where it was given a consistent time slot by large TV broadcasters and at a good viewing time, the show was a steady to a HUGE success in countries like Canada, Japan and France and many other European countries. The only two places where success was harder to gain was ironically in the UK where it was shown sporadically and sometimes in awful time slots such as midnight. Very hard for anyone to be able to watch or connect to a show under those circumstances. The other was in the US where in markets such as San Francisco and New York where it was given regular and good time slots (sometimes even preempting regular network programming) it again was massively successful! Problem was, each TV station in each US market decided where and when to show it, and in which order so it wasn't always given the same profile, or gained the same level of success. In Canada for example, the CBC in English Canada showed it at very good times and in production order so it was very easy to find, watch, follow and grow with the show. And, many did. Same thing in the Quebec market where it has a loyal French following.

A question to ask is if Year Two of 1999 had been instead been produced as Year One, would there even have been a 2nd season? The answer is almost a definitive no as ratings dropped drastically for Freiberger's version even though the show now had an established audience of fans who loved Y1. And, it was mostly relegated to late Saturday morning fare along with other kid's shows and cartoons, in Canada at least. It was no longer seen as a mature, thought-provoking and adult sci-fi show. *** 31164 [OnlineAlpha] Re: Space 1999 Y1 and Y2 myths vs reality (Failing ratings?) David Welle Nov 1, 2015

On 2015-10-31 midst2day@... wrote: There seems to be a great deal of myth concerning the real success of Y1 from a distribution and ratings perspective. By all accounts, in every market in the world where it was given a consistent time slot by large TV broadcasters and at a good viewing time, the show was a steady to a HUGE success in countries like Canada, Japan and France and many other European countries.

I guess by the time I reached the third part of my series of emails, I was summarizing too much. I have argued a little more closely in the past and still will right now that S19 *did* have some extraordinary successes, in becoming what appears to me to be a pioneer

156


in first-run syndication -- certainly in the U.S. where not getting network carriage for a new TV series is usually a death kneel at the time. However, not getting that network carriage was a first major blow. The series WAS rejected by all three big U.S. networks at the time. That had to have been a big blow to Grade and the Andersons. They/ITC scrambled (I don't have much detail knowledge on this), and got alternate carriage, but that had to have come at some cost, both more for the effort, and possibly because of poorer advertising revenue opportunities for a series not being carried nationally in the U.S. and likewise due to the sometimes poor (and erratic) time placement in the various countries. Now, the advertising revenue is not something the producers get directly, but it can influence the kinds of pressures put on the production companies, and create other secondary but still critical effects, though my detail knowledge of these areas of production vs. broadcaster vs. advertisers is shaky at best. S19 in the beginning, before being shopped to the networks was apparently considered to have a strong potential to becoming a blockbuster series with big ratings and money. A lot of funds were sunk into it (record for a season at the time?). The bar on expectations was thus very high, but was rejected by networks and though getting a mix of strong and not so strong ratings in markets, I think it got harder to see it as a success. From what I heard, part of this same problem hit the original /Battlestar Galactica/ as well, that it had very high ratings, after it *did* get a U.S. network, and did have strong ratings, but was so expensive they really needed it to have even higher ratings. It was not considered successful enough to fund for a second season until after a long hiatus (and changes that sound even more major than S19's – though I was never aware of G80 until decades later and have not seen it so don't have direct experience of that). Beyond that, my knowledge of BG behind the scenes is not all that strong (beyond a few things I've randomly run into while reading and ran into in the convention of 1999 or 2000 where there was more BG presence in the convention), so I'll leave this BG mention of this at that.

S19's Y1 was not considered successful enough, it appears. As you stated, we'll never know all of what Grade and Anderson may have known or been thinking. However, S19 was put on hiatus. There were pressures for changes already starting within Y1's broadcast timeframe, and according to Byrne in 1999 became essentially a requirement for going forward with a Y2. As I have said before, that put Freiberger and even the series in a difficult position. Changes don't always make all current viewers happy, and for S19 obviously did not. At the time (and still now), I enjoyed Y2 more than Y1 (but I still am a fan of BOTH!), but not everyone did, so some drifted away, while potential fans who drifted away (e.g. the same concerns that led to a then-mocking "Mysterious Unknown Force" criticism, the "but it's not /Star Trek/ problem, or the frequent complains of "wooden characters", or for whatever reasons) they weren't necessarily going to get back if they did not hear about coming changes or had given up too much to try again. I was fan from the start but not an involved one until much later (1993 or 1994), so I have little direct perspective on the prior paragraph, much of which is things I've read from press at the time and the rest from S19 convention guests of honors years, both starting about two decades after the fact for me. Johnny Byrne, during the 1999 convention, argued there would not have been a Y2 at all without changes, so given that Y1 was *not enough of a success*, it sounds like (not just Byrne's perspective but things I've heard or read elsewhere over the years) the choices were either a Y2 with changes, or no Y2. Of course, how the changes were implemented were another choice, but I'm not clear if the parties agreed to go forward after the high-ups brought in Freiberger or before that. I like Y2 too, though it has its flaws (as did Y1 in some ways that bothered me more), so I'm not even being that critical. Also, much of my perspective is that, since I was not *involved* at the beginning and am drawing on things I've heard or read over the two-plus decades since I did become involved. So I have no proof of much of anything here, but that is my perspective, that the numbers were not good enough for the expense and the tastes of executives, and led to changes.


So I'm sorry I was being imprecise in one of my prior emails and sounding like I was saying it got poor numbers. It was more that it got a mix of great to middling numbers but did not have enough numbers for the cost of Y1's production (which was apparently mostly or entirely wrapped BEFORE it was shopped to broadcasters -- not the most typical approach either), and already under pressures regarding the responses. These apparently led Grade and perhaps others to put it on hiatus, and only got renewed under the condition of making changes. If Y1 had been a huge enough success overall, rather than in particular ways, countries, and timeframes, a second season would have probably happened with a lesser amount of changes. Hopefully this was a better way of stating and summarizing the perspective I've gotten from a two-plus decades of reading various genre (and some general) articles on the series, even if that reading didn't start until almost two decades after first broadcast. Rather difficult to argue some of these points with any sort of authority, though, so I'm not trying to. Put another way, this is just my 1.999 cents. :-) Still, I like /Space: 1999/, even with some preferences within it (not just over seasons but episodes, characters, themes, etc.). So these historical arguments are more of historical interest (and I do tend to like history in various ways) than reflective of my longtime/current enjoyment of the series. ---David Welle http://metaforms.space1999.net *** 31169 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Space 1999 Y1 and Y2 myths vs reality (Failing ratings?) balor1999 Nov 2, 2015

Midst2day wrote: A question to ask is if Year Two of 1999 had been instead been produced as Year One, would there even have been a 2nd season? The answer is almost a definitive no as ratings dropped drastically for Freiberger's version even though the show now had an established audience of

157 fans who loved Y1. And, it was mostly relegated to late Saturday morning fare along with other kid's shows and cartoons, in Canada at least. It was no longer seen as a mature, thought-provoking and adult sci-fi show.

David Welle included the following comment in a message where he responded to Midst2day: Johnny Byrne, during the 1999 convention, argued there would not have been a Y2 at all without changes, so given that Y1 was *not enough of a success*, it sounds like (not just Byrne's perspective but things I've heard or read elsewhere over the years) the choices were either a Y2 with changes, or no Y2.

Although David states in another part of his message that he liked Y2 liked more than Y1, I don’t think it is obvious for most people that it was better with Freiberger’s Y2 than no Y2 at all. In fact, as has been mentioned quite often on this forum, Fageolle said that the world would have been a better place if the 35 mm and all copies should have been sent into outer space to be demolished. For him it was clearly less attractive to have a mutated versions of SPACE: 1999 in the shape of FF’s Y2 than having no Y2 at all, and that is also the impression I get from most others who were involved with the original SPACE: 1999 that became Y1. Nevertheless, it is interesting that David mentions Johnny Byrne at the Los Angeles convention in 1999, introducing Fred Freiberger in diplomatic terms and also asking fans not to develop the Y1/Y2 conflict into a battle. It is interesting because when we read the quotes in Robert Wood’s books, quotes on Martin Willey’s website and watch the Fanderson Documentary, Johnny Byrne does not make any attempt to hide what he felt about FF and Y2. In fact, some fan (Kevin McCorry?) confronted Freiberger with what Byrne had been saying in interviews and on television, and Freiberger seemed surprised and sad as he thought they had gotten on quite well at Pinewood. The point I am trying to make is that there are limits to what Johnny Byrne would be saying about the Y2 and the changes from Y1 to Y2 at a conference when sharing a panel with Freiberger and what he would be saying in a context where he could speak more freely. For

158


instance in the Fanderson Documentary, where we not only hear his words but also see his facial expressions and body language, my impression is that he is saying more or less exactly the same thing as Fageolle was saying, namely that Y2 was a mistake. It should never have been made. The world would probably have been a better place if it had been destroyed. On the other hand, we must separate between figurative talk and actual intents. Unlike Kerry I do not interpret these statements in the context of FAHRENHEIT 451 and book burning. To me it is more like a making a clear statement about what is SPACE: 1999 canon and what is not. What Fageolle, Byrne, Keazor, Bussieres and all the others are saying is that the SPACE: 1999 community should have learned from the BATTLESTAR GALACTICA community by embracing the first season and rejecting the second season as if it never really existed. I don’t think Fageolle or anybody else ever had intention of implementing the utopian plan of aiding the world by eliminating Y2 from the surface of the Earth, but I’m quite sure that if such a plan was carried out at least 90% of all fans, scholars, critics and the makers of SPACE: 1999 would have watched in awe at the explosions in the sky and applauded it. For most people with any sort of feeling for SPACE: 1999 it would have been a day of rejoice. But, as Kerry points out, it will never happen because the kind of people are appreciate and enjoy Y1 are not the same group of people that burn books and video tapes. Although the point in FAHRENHEIT 451 was that books are dangerous for oppressive regimes as they make people think rather than having the population glued to television (where they way Y2-like soap operas in Bradbury’s book and Truffaut’s film), the message of the book/film is not that we should smash the television sets. In this sense I think Kerry reminds us of the important point made by Liardet in his excellent 2014 book “COSMOS 1999: Le fabulaire de l’espace” (Éditions Yris), namely that there is merit to Y2 if we manage to look beyond FF’s impact on it. In Heald’s book “The making of SPACE: 1999” (1976), there are references to a

discussion between Heald and Freiberger where Freiberger’s asks rethorically “Do you give me whipped cream when I want shit?” (p. 108). In other words, Freiberger was quite clear about what he was doing. He was making shit. The Y1 writers and scripts may have been of Shakespeare-quality, as Heald points out (pp. 108-109), but Freiberger did not want Shakespeare. He wanted shit. Once we understand this, I think it will be much easier to understand why Nick Tate called him a dickhead, why Gerry Anderson felt that he should be kept in an insane asylum, why Johnny Byrne wanted to spend as little time with FF as possible and was wondering whether Y2 was part of some money laundering scheme, why Martin Landau described Y2 as MR MAGOO and so on. In this context I don’t think Fageolle’s comments about the relief all would feel if Y2 was forgotten and lost forever is all that strange. I think it goes even deeper than this. The moral dilemma we are facing when considering whether it would be better to have the new BD release of Y2 along with the all the previous releases in different formats and the 35 mm originals destroyed or whether they should be kept as a symbol of freedom for people to read and watch what they like in a free society, is the dilemma of whether one should support fascist films and literature. I am now thinking in terms of how Wertham (1954) teaches us to think about Y2. Like Kerry, I doubt very much that Wertham would suggest burning SUPERMAN comics and COSMIC PRINCESS video cassettes, but there is a deep dilemma here. If we agree with Iaccino (2001) that Y2 was a STAR TREK rip-off, not only in stylistic terms but more importantly in how the progressive ideology of SPACE: 1999 in Y1 regressed into a more conservative with almost proto-fascist undertones in Y2, as pointed out in a quote from Prof. Jay Goulding (York University, Toronto) in the excellent 1995 book by Tulloch and Jenkins: Advanced industrial societies produce all sorts of material class related contradictions which have their counterparts at the cultural or ideological level. These societies preach equality of opportunity and produce inequality; they speak in the name of peace and continue to stack up nuclear weapons; they plan strategies to expand space through

Greetings from Cylon world development and produce further dependent colonisation; they forward philosophies of freedom and continue to operate through domination, they speak the name of the free market and act in the name of corporate monopoly and privileged access (p. 26). Goulding thus proceeds in explaining the realities of STAR TREK as representing an ideology that is in many ways exactly the opposite of what Roddenberry has claimed. For instance, in Goulding’s view, STAR TREK’s violation of the Prime Directive replicate the US government’s military interventions in Latin America. Non-interference means that Kirk and the Enterprise can intervene in any society that does not appear to be democratic. Communist societies, socialist societies, hippy societies, women’s societies, utopian societies are favourite targets for the Trekkers as they were for the US in the 1960s… Behind the friendly helpful hand of the Federation with its statues of full and free development we have two major forms of domination: a cultural domination which leads Kirk and friends to teach aliens how to be American; and a political domination based on devastating firepower (pp. 27-28). So, I don’t think the issue of ‘book burning’ is what should cause worry. The central problem in the Y1/Y2 dilemma is what Johnny Byrne explains in the Fanderson Documentary when he said that he hated Y2 because the Alphans had become Trekkers. In other words, he felt that SPACE: 1999 had been ideologically hijacked by Fred Freiberger to make it represent ideas that he was totally against. I understand that he had to be more diplomatic when sharing a panel with Freiberer at the LA convention in 1999, but it seems quite obvious to me what he actually thought of Y2, and I think this is important for all of us to understand if we REALLY want to understand SPACE: 1999.

159

31171 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Space 1999 Y1 and Y2 myths vs reality (Failing ratings?) sennmut Nov 3, 2015

Again, quotes from Fageolle, et al. Balor, if we REALLY want to understand Space:1999, how about if you limit yourself to, instead of what some wanna-bee intellectuals wrote, what Johnny Byrne himself ACTUALLY SAID?????? JUST what he said, and nothing more, at the con or elsewhere. Let's send Fageolle, Keazor, et al, into space, and see them demolished. Seems a better course of action, to moi. Or, maybe they'll all meet just up with Simmonds, somewhere. *** 31179 Re: Space 1999 Y1 and Y2 myths vs reality (Failing ratings?) kerryirs Nov 4, 2015

John B wrote A question to ask is if Year Two of 1999 had been instead been produced as Year One, would there even have been a 2nd season? The answer is almost a definitive no as ratings dropped drastically for Freiberger’s version even though the show now had an established audience of fans who loved Y1.

Well, the question is interesting but moot. The reality is that Y1 came first, it did well for a time and when it came time to renew, ITC and Grade dragged their feet in making the decision to go with a second season. By then many of the cast had gone on to other jobs. In fact Freiberger said that he and his wife were packing to return to the US when he came up with they idea for Maya. It was he AND Gerry Anderson who pitched the concept to ITC and Grade and they decided to go forward with the show. Y2 must have done well enough to get a consideration for a third year, something ITC was not prepared to do a Y2 after Y1, at first, for whatever reason.

John B. ***

Another thing. John B. you may not intentionally do this, but you tend to talk down to people and that can be insulting. You tend to redicule opinions at times when you use a phrase like so and so doesn't understand the

160


meaning of 1999 or what Byrne or Penfold were trying to get across. People can inturoret things differently and that's what makes this forum interesting. It'd be awfully boring if we all agreed one another.

Don't take this so seriously. ***

5.6 Leadership challenges The following discussion thread started with the first contributor sharing some reflections about leadership challenges after responding to comments on his analysis of “The Guardian of Piri” in the “just reflections – part 2” discussion. However, as the second discussant points out, the ‘leadership challenges’ debate has long roots on the Online Alpha forum. When commenting on how the leadership issue has been reflected in various episodes he thus draws extensively on comments made during the second ExE discussion (Balor, 2015). It is also argued that the “Greetings from Cylon” episode is a useful lens for exploring the ‘leadership challenges’ issue as presented in SPACE: 1999. 31163 Leadership Challenges David Welle Nov 1, 2015

Alphans, So just when were there serious challenges to the command authority on Moonbase Alpha? I am not talking normal process of other officers being in temporary command of the base while the commander is on a mission, and most certainly not about basic, essential arguments in command conferences or similar discussion (but I may still reference a few more-notable cases just to say I don't think it applies). Rather, I'm looking more for when his position of authority is strongly questioned or attacked from in (with or without external influence). "Breakaway": Cmdr. Gorski replaced by Cmdr. Koenig. Part of a normal process but in rather extraordinary circumstances. I wonder if Comm. Simmonds started having second thoughts about his(?) decision to install Koenig, later on, but they still work together well enough, even if via compromise and arguments. "Earthbound": Simmonds is restive against Koenig, but the source ofthe former's authority was cut off, and while Simmonds strongly disagrees with Koenig, Simmonds does not challenge his authority; rather, he tries to subvert the decided process and use extortion to get off the base. Not a true challenge.

"Another Time, Another Place": The alternateKoenig died in a crash. Paul presumably took temporary command during transition. However, once settled, there was dispersal, and while it is not entirely clear, it seems like each settlement may simply have its own leader. Even *if* there are some gatherings of settlements' leaders, we have no information on how they interact. "Guardian of Piri": Almost everyone on the base is compromised under the influence of the Guardian, and they are prompted to remove Koenig from Command. It sort of is but is not like being under the influence of a drug, but since that influence was applied as a controlling measure by an outside authority, I doubt it is technically a mutiny. He has to fight off the Guardian and its servant, destroying them both in the end, to get his people back. "Alpha Child": Aliens try to take over the humans' forms, which would include command. Outside intervention prevented this from happening. "Collision Course": Koenig is considered compromised, and is removed from command. Actually rather understandable, and it was done by a normal process. That no real harm came to Alpha over John's actions before and after the removal does not lessen that. Rather interesting case, actually. "Death's Other Dominion" (a few paragraphs): Given this situation being the first serious possibility of settlement but there being some

Greetings from Cylon very serious drawbacks (but none seeming fatal), Cmdr. Koenig suggests letting Alpha hold a vote on whether to move to Ultima Thule, as an alternative to him or the command corps deciding or the untenable thought of individual Alphans leaving or staying and leaving Alpha undermanned. However, the Thuleans' leader dies while trying to leave Thule to argue on behalf of Thule to the Alphans. This ends up demonstrating (more like proving) the Thuleans are in something of a prison, or at best a guilded cage that is probably better called an ice cage. It is unclear if any sort of vote followed on Alpha, though after what they would report (and came back with) (perhaps considered unnecessary given what would be reported, though a vote does follow on Thule. It is this case that suggests part of a potential future path for the Alphans, a democracy or republic. While Koenig had a side (against settlement on Thule), he was ready to accede to this process and its decision. The Thuleans seem to be taking Rowland's death as a chance to make a similar shift. They, like the Alphans as I mentioned earlier, seem frozen in some old structures left over from their prior ship-bound existence, even if Rowland took over when Tanner faltered. This suggests the default back on Earth was of direct democracies or representative republics, for as soon as semi-military/research structures start becoming inadequate for some temporary or permanent reasons, and they start acting more like small societies, cast away Earth people seem ready to decentralize authority to some degree or another. (Hmm, did not mean to turn into a political rather than just a command discussion, but it seems I missed a smaller but significant political case in one of my prior emails. Moving on....) "End of Eternity": If Balor had not been able to coerce the Alphans to his way, would he have simply outright taken over? If he had, I doubt that would have been anything but a deadly dictatorship. Fortunately, Koenig manages to eject him before it came to that.

161

("Mission of the Darians": Not really a command challenge, but it is interesting to note that there was no real consideration of moving to the /Daria/ or a pending vote. Apparently moving to a badly-broken ship with broken and now slightly-patched society was not something they wanted. Not much worse a situation than Thule even before the latter's cage-like nature was proven, in my opinion. But maybe after seeing how bad an alreadymarginal Thule looked, entering another marginal situation became a little less likely?) "The Testament of Arkadia": Some argument here, and eventually a case of two people extorting their way off base, but not really a challenge to Koenig keeping his position. ("The Metamorph": Tony's in temporary command and Koenig, under duress on a mission and giving orders clearly (to us) detrimental to Alpha, he nonetheless slips a secret order that contradicts the public underduress orders. So not really applicable as a strong resistence to him or his orders. Tony, in temporary command of Alpha, gets some argument to what ends up looking like his order, but that does not rise to questioning the authority he had at the time either.) "Seed of Destruction": When the Commander seemingly turns more and more set on a course that seems destructive to Alpha, some resistance starts emerging. Perhaps the Arra and Piri cases made the Alphans a little more accepting that the Commander may understand some particular better, but Maya does not share that direct history and questions more than the others, though she finally convinces Tony, Helena, and to a lesser initial degree Alan, and the four push back more. Tony and Maya commit what looks like mutiny (stealing a ship), but Helena and Alan fighting back more and more directly on Alpha as well. Turns out that the "commander" was a fake plant, but what happened on the way to finally removing the fake is interesting. "The Bringers of Wonder": John seems to become completely irrational, very distinctly moreso than over Arra, and is removed from command, for good reason. Yet when he recovers actual rationality via a medical procedure, he sees a new enemy in their midst, and works to convince others, not really as

162


commander, other than drawing on some other's base of respect for him, but by other means. Once he starts convincing a few, he still acts as a leader in this situation, but does not recover full command until very near the end of episodes. "The Lambda Factor": Carolyn Powell, granted extraordinary power by an outside force, becomes, with some already major fault lines in her personality, quickly corrupted, and tries to take over command and in her case become a sort of instant dictatorship via strong mental control of others. After John was debilitated awhile under a somewhat different result of the same force, he regains his center and is able to resist Powell until the mental powers implode within her, leaving her reduced to almost a blank slate. "The Seance Spectre": A group of four, under the influence of some collective delusions, attempt a coup to try to force settlement on Tora, which while being something that does turn out to be present (surprisingly to the others), is far from what the four think it is. Three of the four eventually pull back after the new evidence, but Greg Sanderson keeps trying to up-end Koenig's authority, nearly killing him at least twice until the commander later ends up killing him. Summary: While there is generally trust in John Koenig, he was removed for medical reasons (rightly or occasionally "wrongly" due to external influence) more than once, was willing to put something critical up to a vote, was temporarily removed from power due to an attempted coup or similar at least twice. The amount of trust seemed to vary at times, which I see as not a thematic inconsistency but is explainable as a combination of the characters' past experiences and of other changing circumstances or trends. ---David Welle http://metaforms.space1999.net *** 31173 Re: Leadership Challenges balor1999 Nov 3, 2015

The leadership challenge has been a part of the SPACE: 1999 discourse for a long time. For some of us an important change from Y1 to Y2 is how Moonbase Alpha changed from a representative workplace democracy towards a tyranny. Not only does Y2 contain “Nazi paradise” speeches like the one in THE RULES OF LUTON, but there are also situations where the militarised workplace ideology is challenged, like in SEED OF DESTRUCTION, or the cases of open class war like in episodes like THE SÉANCE SPECTRE and THE LAMBDA FACTOR. That does not mean, however, that these kinds of conflicts were not hinted at in Y1. For instance, both FORCE OF LIFE and MISSION OF THE DARIANS tell stories about class divided societies where the oppressed class is being manipulated by use of religion and technology. There are also episodes like EARTHBOUND and DEATH’S OTHER DOMINION that comments on how power corrupts in the sense that one starts wondering what motivates Koenig from behaving the way he does. Thus it is interesting to read David Welle’s comments on the leadership challenge by analysing the challenges Koenig is facing by going through relevant episodes. He concludes his analysis in the following manner: While there is generally trust in John Koenig, he was removed for medical reasons (rightly or occasionally "wrongly" due to external influence) more than once, was willing to put something critical up to a vote, was temporarily removed from power due to an attempted coup or similar at least twice. The amount of trust seemed to vary at times, which I see as not a thematic inconsistency but is explainable as a combination of the characters' past experiences and of other changing circumstances or trends.

Although I do not necessarily disagree with this statement, I think this way of reading the series is dangerous and against the ideology of the series (Y1) in the sense that it puts too much trust in leadership. Of course, when FF takes over SPACE: 1999, it becomes a much more concerned with hero worship of leaders, and thus fitting with how many of us see symptoms of fascism in Y2. I think this is also interesting and relevant in the context of GREETINGS FROM CYLON where Senmut manages in an interesting manner to compare and contrast the military nature of Galactica

Greetings from Cylon with Adama as the leader with the quasimilitary nature of Moonbase Alpha in Y2 with Koenig on top. As I am now reading chapter eleven in this enlightening story, where Adama looses his stoic temper that we remember from the BSG series, I think Senmut manages to show us how the ideology of SPACE: 1999 changed over Y1 and Y2, and thus making Moonbase Alpha into even more like a military outfit in Y3. The problem with David’s analysis, as I see it, is that it downplays the role of workplace democracy and tension between the management group and the regular members of MBA in Y1 and it does not sufficiently take into account the leadership corruptness and oppression we see dominating MBA in Y2. In other words, I feel David’s reading of the series is very different from my own, something that may perhaps have something to do with how he says that he prefers Y2 to Y1 (although liking both seasons), thus perhaps more easily convinced that the elimination of officers between seasons (what Shana describes as “sending Victor to the gas chamber”) was excusable because then Koenig could handpick a leadership team that would not challenge him and the social structure of the base, thus allowing MBA to develop more quickly into a military dictatorship. I see the story quite differently. For example, when David says that Simmonds did not really represent a threat in EARTHBOUND, I read the situation in a contradictory manner. What seems to be the main conflict in that episode, as I see it, is the way Simmonds is politically impotent but still a possible threat to Koenig, and this is why he sets up the scheme of letting the computer select Simmonds to travel back to Earth while deliberately keeping the information private in order to drive Simmonds to desperate means and cause self-destruction. I am not saying that Koenig is a Stalinist leadership figure, but I think the writers of the show were concerned about the irrational loyalty some people have to leaders in general and members of the ruling class in particular, so this is why I feel this is a way of understanding the episode that fits much better with the overall ideology and political subtext of the series.

163

In the case of DEATH’S OTHER DOMINION, David expands into a deeper analysis as there are obviously several issues at concern here. What is perhaps most important to me about this episode is that it was written by the same person who wrote EARTHBOUND, and in terms of leadership challenges I think it says very much the same thing. The central point is that Koenig is not willing to settle on Ultima Thule because that would mean that he would have to give up his leadership position. To me this is the only explanation why Helena and Victor are convinced while he is not. They have nothing to loose by settling on Thule. In fact, from what they have seen, life on Thule is much better than on MBA. For Koenig, however, he would have to face being removed from his leadership position, and this he cannot allow. Apart from this, I think David writes brilliantly about the episode. In particular I like the following comment: However, the Thuleans' leader dies while trying to leave Thule to argue on behalf of Thule to the Alphans. This ends up demonstrating (more like proving) the Thuleans are in something of a prison, or at best a guilded cage that is probably better called an ice cage. It is unclear if any sort of vote followed on Alpha, though after what they would report (and came back with) (perhaps considered unnecessary given what would be reported, though a vote does follow on Thule.

Although the Thuleans had existed in what seemed to be a republic with Rowland as the representative of the people for 800 years, it was not a democracy. Rather than having the representatives of the people represent the actual values and beliefs of the people, the Thuleans were imprisoned by the cultural and political hegemony of the ruling class. It was only when this “representative of the people” (capitalist oppressor) was eliminated that democracy was allowed to flourish, and Thule could reorganise as an autonomous collective. In other words, I think ‘leadership challenge’ is and remains a central theme in SPACE: 1999, both in Y1 and Y2. In Y1 I see the leadership challenged being commented upon and analysed from the viewpoint of dilemmas of how to make a workplace democracy work and how to create social justice. In Y2 I see a disaster story about leadership challenges

164


becoming leadership problems as the whole series takes a drastic turn to the political right as it moves into the territory of what Wertham refers to as fascism. John B. *** 31175 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 3, 2015

Utter drivel! Sheer delusional lunacy (pun intended!), on Balor's part. If what we saw on Alpha was "fascism" or "capitalist oppression", then I would embrace it wholeheartedly, were I there. The rest is supperating ooze from...well, guess where. *** 31176 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges balor1999 Nov 4, 2015

I tried to read chapter twelve of GREETINGS FROM CYLON from a ‘leadership challenges’ perspective, but I’m not sure it was intended to be read that way, and I’m not sure it was a particularly insightful way of looking at it. What strikes me about the Senmut stories is that they seem much more concerned with the men of action, like Alan Carter and Starbuck, than they are with leadership types like Adama and Koenig. That doesn’t mean that Adama and Koenig are not present. They also play important parts in the stories, but to me it doesn’t feel like they are the most central character. At least this is the impression I have gotten so far, and in the case of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA there may be a good reason for this as Adama is more like a grandfather figure in the background while the central plots tend to evolve around the kind of issues Apollo and Starbuck are involved with. The reason why SPACE: 1999 (first season) is different, I think, is because it is a much more adult science fiction series. John, Helena and Victor are middle-aged, and they are main cast. Characters like Alan, Paul, Sandra and Kano

are also important, but only as supporting cast. In other words, the casting structure is opposite of that of STAR TREK and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA in the sense that SPACE: 1999 feels like it is aiming for a more grown-up and reflective audience. It feels like it is aiming for the audience that enjoyed watching films like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, SOLARIS and FAHRENHEIT 451. I think this fits with what John Tulloch writes about science fiction audiences in chapter four of the 1995 book he wrote with Henry Jenkins. In that particular chapter he discusses the DOCTOR WHO serial ‘The Monsters of Pelagon’ with sociology university students and engineering university students, and the way they talk about the serial is remarkably different. Although the engineering students are capable of understanding much of the political subtext of the serial, the sociological students immediately engage in a debate where they discuss DOCTOR WHO from the viewpoint of critical theory where the liberal rhetoric of this particular series is just token language with no meaning, as the purpose of television in general is to prevent the audience for contemplating their class consciousness, or whether there are aspects of text that should be taken seriously. Here I see a strong parallel with the discussions we are having on this forum. As GREETINGS FROM CYLON feels like a Y3 episode, the different gazes of the audiences that Tulloch talk about remind me of different ways of looking at Y2. The challenge I see with Y2 is the way we have people like Fageolle who want to burn the series because he sees it as trash that he fears might contaminate the ideological understanding of SPACE: 1999 as a whole, while on the other hand we have people like Liardet who believe there is merit to Y2 when we go beyond the tasteless and campy nature of the show. Which of these two positions is right? Obviously Y2 is trash that never should have been made in the first place, but once we have it, we either have to do like the BSG fans in saying that the second season is not canon (although it obviously is) or we have to do what Liardet suggests, namely deconstruct it by reading it in a manner that eliminates the traces of Freiberger and liberates the true political

Greetings from Cylon subtext that was embodied in it by the script writers. Perhaps there is a role for fan fiction in this project. Henry Jenkins writes about SF fan fiction writers as “text poachers” in the sense that they steal themes and narratives from television series and shape them into serving their own purposes. In our context that would perhaps be a bit like thinking of our group of fan fiction writers as the Lukes and Annas of the Online Alpha community, poaching themes, narratives and hijacking an Eagles with resources in order to establish their own version of Moonbase Alpha on Arkadia. In many ways I can sympathise with Jenkins in this, especially from the perspective of how Tulloch and Jenkins write about STAR TREK and DOCTOR WHO as culturally conservative texts that are used by the social elites for reproducing the cultural hegemony of the ruling class and thus prevent reflecting among the socially and economically oppressed. From this perspective I can see fan fiction playing an important role in the creation of political movements aiming for social justice. What we perhaps need to focus on when discussing S99 fan fiction, as I see it, are fan fiction writers focusing on deconstructing Y2 by eliminating the fascist elements that FF (deliberatly or not) put into it and rewriting it in a manner that will emphasise the progressive aspects of the original scripts. In this way we can celebrate the Online Alpha fan fiction community as political activists working for the improvement of society, perhaps even having a long track record of politically relevant interpretations of the series that many of us have been completely unaware of. John B. *** 31177 Re: Leadership Challenges kerryirs Nov 4, 2015

John B wrote. The reason why SPACE: 1999 (first season) is different, I think, is because it is a much more adult science fiction series. John, Helena and Victor are middle-aged, and they are main cast.

165 Characters like Alan, Paul, Sandra and Kano are also important, but only as supporting cast. In other words, the casting structure is opposite of that of STAR TREK and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA in the sense that SPACE: 1999 feels like it is aiming for a more grown-up and reflective audience. It feels like it is aiming for the audience that enjoyed watching films like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, SOLARIS and FAHRENHEIT 451.

Interesting view, but what was the reality? Does anyone know what the average age of the viewership at the time 1999 originally aired? I tend to think it was in the eight to ten year old group.I was in my twenties. I'm not sure if that age group made up a significant portion of the viewing public or not. Generally speaking SF doesn't do well in the ratings among adults. If a SF series is done, like the spurt of shows in the 70s and a few thereafter, they don't last very many seasons like say GUNSMOKE or M*A*S*H. I think adults want either a comedy that will let them wind down from a day at work or some show they may be able to relate to instead of aliens and ships zipping around the galaxy. Even Trek didn't do that well until it hit syndication. *** 31178 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges John Marcucci Nov 4, 2015

Kerry, I was 8 when Space 1999 showed up on my TV (in all its black and white glory), and I was immediately transfixed. I agree that Anderson was aiming for a more adult audience, but so was Star Trek, the original series. ST/TOS target demographic was young adults. Everyone knew this. The suits at NBC certainly knew it, because when they wanted to kill the series in S3, they moved it to Friday night at 10:00 pm.. the time when its target demographic was out partying. Consequently, it took a nosedive in the ratings, and that was that. Middle aged? The cast of Star Trek was about the same average age of Space 1999. BSG was alittle different. They had a bunch of young hot shot pilots with strong and often clashing personalities, but balanced by the wise

166


patriarch Adama, and the stern graying exec Tigh. In fact, I credit BSG for this move. In the late 60's and early 70's, patriarchy was out. Guys over 60 were considered square and out of touch and added no value to the small screen. No sex appeal. The character of Adama was a bold move considering the times. There were no wise old patriarchs on Star Trek. Bergman on Space 1999 sort of filled that role, but not as a leader. More as an advisor and trouble shooter. Bergman was great in these roles, but his big mistakes in "End of Eternity" and more importantly "Death’s Other Dominion" showed he was not cut out for command.

understood sufficient for the political indoctrination to work. Although I’m not perfectly convinced about the way critical theory was used in this context, as DOCTOR WHO has a much more clearly articulated leftwing orientation than many other science fiction series in the sixties and seventies, and I think the arguments would have been much more convincing in the context of series like STAR TREK, BUCK ROGERS and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, but it is still the argument is interesting because there is a similar progressive political subtext in SPACE: 1999 that makes it similar to DOCTOR WHO and different from it’s American contemporaries.

Rgds, John M. *** 31180 Re: Leadership Challenges balor1999 Nov 5, 2015

You make good points about age groups, Kerry. From a mass audience perspective, Freiberger may have been right in saying that science fiction is a children’s format or teenage format while, as you point out, series like GUNSMOKE and M*A*S*H may have had a greater appeal to adult audiences. In chapter five in the excellent “Science fiction audiences” book, John Tulloch interviews teenagers about the DOCTOR WHO serial “The Monsters of Pelagon” in order to see whether they were able to understand the political subtext in the same way as university students were. Despite this particular serial being particularly politically overt, like MISSION OF THE DARIANS or THE METAMORPH in our context, the teenagers didn’t understand it. I found this quite interesting in the context of how the university students discussed DOCTOR WHO as a children’s series and were worried about how it was used for reproducing the cultural hegemony of the ruling class despite telling stories about the 1974 UK mining strikes and women’s liberation, because it was written by members of the middle-class and not by those fighting for a more fair society. Although the children and teenagers didn’t seem to fully understand the political subtext of the show, I expect they

On the other hand, I think it is important to stress what is one of Keazor’s main points, namely that SPACE: 1999 was produced BETWEEN series like STAR TREK and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. In other words, when Jenkins and Tulloch comment on STAR TREK as pretending to represent values of freedom, liberty and social justice while actually using this as propaganda within the context of expanding the American empire through cultural and military means (Tulloch & Jenkins, 1995, pp. 27-28), this was a reflection on American politics before Watergate and Vietnam failure. SPACE: 1999 was made in a different historical context. It was not only made in the post-Watergate and post-Vietnam period, but it was also made before the influence of Thatcher and Reagan. Although BATTLESTAR GALACTICA was made before Thatcher and Reagan came to power, I think it reflects the cultural change that made it possible for them to reach power. Even in the second year of SPACE: 1999 there is an element of crypto-fascism that did not become part of mainstream science fiction cinema and television until STAR WARS, BSG and BUCK ROGERS. Although I can agree with Kerry that STAR TREK was a series aiming at a teenage audience and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and BUCK ROGERS were probably aiming at an even younger audience, I don’t think this was necessarily true with SPACE: 1999. Although S99 was enjoyed by children and people in their teens, it also caused problems in various countries for being too adult. In France and Denmark certain episodes were not shown

Greetings from Cylon because they were considered too scary, and in other countries it was shown late at night when children would normally be at sleep. My memories of SPACE: 1999 was that it was something the whole family saw together, and I remember many of the episodes being quite tense. As it was essentially as story about people in their 40s having existential issues, I don’t think I really understood the full depth of the series at the time, but when I was able to see the series again at the age of about 30, I was struck by how good it was. At the time I wasn’t too sure what it would look like from a more grown-up perspective as what we enjoy as children may not necessarily be the same things that we enjoy later in life, but in the case of SPACE: 1999 I felt the show was perhaps even better when it could be watched through the means of higher cultural competence.

167

going to bed with Athena. I’m not sure whether Senmut’s experiment is successful or not, or even if I fully understand what he is exploring here, but it is written with his usual panache and thus creating one cliff-hanger situation after another. At the same time he also explores the similarities in the narratives of BSG and S99 in the sense that they are both looking for a home similar to Earth, but unlike previous situations like when the Alphans met with the Thuleans or the Darians, in this story they vote in favour of abandoning the Moon and moving in on the Galactica. I found it quite interesting to read about this after we have spent some time reflecting on David Welle’s comments on ‘leadership challenges’ throughout the series, writing specifically about the kind of situations that Senmut write about here. John B.

In a way it is interesting to keep watching SPACE: 1999 as we grow older. Barry Morse was 56 when the first series was being made. Although I have not reached his age yet, I am older than Martin Landau who was 46 at the time. I now see SPACE: 1999 in a different way than I did in 1976 because I can relate to the political subtext and the psychology of the characters in a much deeper and more meaningful way than I could back then. So, even when Kerry may be right in saying that Online Alpha fandom may have a core of people who were about ten at the time of BREAKAWAY, I still believe that the series itself was designed for the general audience, perhaps a family oriented audience as it mixed political analysis and complex psychological drama with spaceships and explosions, and although those were in their 30s and 40s in 1975 did not all turn into hard core fans, I still think they enjoyed the show as much as those who were twenty years younger, although in a more sophisticated manner. It is interesting that we discuss these central parts of what made SPACE: 1999 so difference while also reading and discussing GREETINGS FROM CYLON because in chapter eleven and twelve, as we reach the middle of the story, I feel that Senmut is conducting a highly interesting experiment in trying to see whether SPACE: 1999 can also function on the level of soap opera. In these fascinating chapters we see Starbuck flirting with Maya, making Tony jealous, and Alan

*** 31181 Re: Leadership Challenges kerryirs Nov 5, 2015

John M, good points. Do you remember a post, I don't remember exactly how long ago, two or three months maybe, where one of the group posted a link for a three volume book on TREK/TOS and this link presented an excerpt from the third volume of the book on issues the third season faced, one being the 10pm Friday time slot. According to the author, and I'm not sure if Roddenberry wanted it moved to an earlier slot, but NBC was considering putting it on Tuesday nights at 8:00, the same time as the JERRY LEWIS SHOW, which wasn't doing that well. Lewis threatened to file a lawsuit against NBC if they changed his time slot. So, if true, another reason why Trek/TOS died, only to live again in syndication. I also read recently that NBC was interested in 1999 but Grade raised the rates and that ended that. Interesting, if true. BSG probably asked Lorne Greene to take the role of the wise Adama for his name recognition and for other reasons. Not being a big fan of BSG, it had few cast members viewers recognized, as did 1999. Outside of the Landaus and Barry Morse, we didn't know these people in North America, particular the

168


US. Maybe fans in Canada did, having seen more British TV on a regular basis than a lot of us probably did at the time. *** 31182 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 6, 2015

BALOR!!!!!!! Once more, you mention my stuff, in the same e-mail as you again drag out your post-Marxist/Keazor/political subtext drivel. I have asked you NOT to mention my stuff in the same postings. I do not like what I have written tainted even the slightest bit with such Marxist/Lefty sewage. Please respect my wishes in this. *** 31183 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges John Marcucci Nov 6, 2015

Don't worry about, bro. You can use c note for toilet paper. It doesn't mean money is worth any less. It just means you're out $100. Ok, so it not such a hot anal-ogy. *** 31185 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 6, 2015

Will I have to oppress any member of the wage-slave proletariat to get that 100 clams? *** 31184 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 6, 2015

On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 kerryirs writes: BSG probably asked Lorne Greene to take the role of the wise Adama for his name recognition and for other reasons. Not being a big fan of BSG, it had few cast members viewers recognized, as did 1999. Outside of the Landaus and Barry Morse, we didn't know

these people in North America, particular the US. Maybe fans in Canada did, having seen more British TV on a regular basis than a lot of us probably did at the time.

I recall in an interview somewhere, many yahrens ago, that Greene said how much he really liked the whole BSG concept, and the role of Adama. So much so that, or so I have heard, he did his appearances in GAL80 gratis. Of course, as usual, the TV NitWerks didn't recognize quality when they saw it, same as with 1999. It's all BTAE, anymore. *** 31186 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges balor1999 Nov 6, 2015

I was not aware of Lorne Greene being willing to participate in GAL80 for free. Perhaps he felt that the ideological changes from the political right to the left improved the show? As Senmut indicated in a previous post, GREETINGS FROM CYLON may not have been written with an explicit political agenda in mind, so I understand that he gets worried when we discuss the story in the context of how to understand the political subtext of SPACE: 1999. I think it is important to respect his views on this as I can easily understand his frustrations with his writings being “hijacked” for arguing political points that are in direct opposition to his own. Nevertheless, I very much doubt that anybody familiar with Senmut or his writings from this forum or elsewhere would be lead to believe that there is a progressive agenda in his stories. This was exactly my point when commenting on the middle part of his story. To me it seems like GREETINGS FROM CYLON develops into a ‘soap opera’ literary experiment towards the middle of the story. I see very little politics in this part. I see a lot of interaction between characters and attempts of investigate people and relationships, but I see very little political subtext in the way I see when watching episodes of BSG and S99. In this sense I can understand what Senmut has said about the political aspects of his stories, but I feel there is more to it than that.

Greetings from Cylon What do people mean when they present a work of art and say that it has no political meaning? For example, Pierre Fageolle starts his book by a lengthy discussion of the abstract works of art by Wassily Kandinsky and quotes from Kandinsky’s 1912 classic text about the spiritual in the arts. In this text Kandinsky presents himself as a “non-political” artist, making negative comments assumed relationships between politics and art, yet most of us would read Fageolle’s book as a masterpiece precisely because of how he opens the S99 text for political interpretations. Not only does S99 present itself as a way of interpreting the world, Fageolle says, it also suggests ways of improving it through concrete action. I do not think it is possible to overestimate the importance of Fageolle in the context of contemporary SPACE: 1999 research and discourse. In a way, everything written about SPACE: 1999 since 1996 could be seen as footnotes to Fageolle. I think part of the authority Fageolle has achieved within the scholarly community may have something to do with issues like how he makes use of Kandinsky. In a similar way to how we try to understand the extraordinary writings of Senmut for the purpose of being able to enjoy SPACE: 1999 on a deeper level, Fageolle looks at the writings of perhaps the most famous painter in the world and makes use of his non-political writing for understanding the political subtext of a series like SPACE: 1999. I wonder what Kandinsky would have thought. Would he have reacted like Senmut and emphatically expressed his wishes not to be quoted in a political context that he wanted no part of, or would he have responded like Richard Adams by laughing at loud at the various misguided attempts to read political subtext into his “Watership Down” story? It is difficult to say, but from the viewpoint of the SPACE: 1999 community the important point is not so much what Kandinsky might have thought but rather how Fageolle makes use of a canonical text from the world of arts and suggests ways of making use of that text for providing new ideas and insights into a totally different area of popular culture studies through the example of SPACE: 1999. Although we don’t know what Kandinsky would have thought, I believe that people

169

familiar with either Kandinsky original text, SPACE: 1999 or both would be instantaneously impressed. It is a remarkable achievement by Fageolle, and I think this is one of the reasons this particular book sets the benchmark for scholarly SPACE: 1999 literature. The challenge we have with how to deal with Senmut’s literature must be understood in a similar context, I feel. Those who have expressed their opinions on his writings on this forum are extremely positive. I do not remember the exact words that have been used, but they are extremely positive, not only within the context of S99 fan fiction but also in the context of S99 fiction in general. The dilemma I feel we are facing is that those of us who feel this way would also like to share our experiences and associations from reading and discussing the stories. We want to do this in a manner that allows us to add to the ongoing SPACE: 1999 discourse, as there are clearly profound insights to be found when looking at SPACE: 1999 from the viewpoints suggested by Senmut, but we do not want to exasperate Senmut in the process. I think it would be useful if we could all try to come up with solutions on how to discuss stories like GREETINGS FROM CYLON in a manner that contribute to the overall agenda of the Online Alpha discussion forum while at the same time make sure that nobody feel offended. Is it possible? I hope it is, because there is so much to enjoy in Senmut’s stories. John B. *** 31187 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges balor1999 Nov 7, 2015

In chapter 15 of GREETINGS FROM CYLON Senmut makes an unusual twist by only writing about physics, astronomy and a sun that goes supernova. It is not a very long chapter. In fact, it is remarkably short, but nevertheless very efficient. I have absolutely no idea what motivated him to write like this, but to me it is a reminded of how some of us think of Carl Sagan’s COSMOS as the third year of SPACE: 1999. Although the science in

170


Sagan’s series was more robust than what we saw in SPACE: 1999, the moral message was very much the same. To me Sagan’s series about astronomy, science and civilisation was the same as in his 1995 book “The demonhaunted world: science as a candle in the dark”. In a world that depends more and more on our ability to understand complex technological and social systems, the general public has to understand science. Problems are not solved by putting one's trust in religious and political charlatans. However, as I was reminded watching videos of Frank Schaeffer talking about the legacy of his father Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer of HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE fame and one of the founders of the religious right in the US, the people who helped create the right-wing religious fanatical movements were not necessarily insincere. The problem was not necessarily their moral judgements, but it was their lack of ability to understand that complex systems require complex analysis and an understanding of long-term consequences. While Frank Schaeffer worked with his father and helped him produce the HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE series, it took him several decades to realise that his father’s pre-modern outlook on the world was a recipe for disaster when he gradually came to realise how it was cynically exploited by right-wing politicians serving the interests of the capitalist elite. Unfortunately Carl Sagan is no longer with us, but it is interesting to imagine what a conversation between Sagan and Schaeffer junior might have been like. Perhaps it would have been something like the conversation between John and Victor in BLACK SUN. I can easily imagine Schaeffer asking Sagen, “you are not referring to God, are you?”. As Carl Sagan was far from irreligious, as we know from his 1985 Gifford lectures and elsewhere, his eyes would probably move like Victor’s eyes move in this particular scene, and he would respond in a similar way to what Victor said. The way one can say that there is only a thin line between science and mysticism is something I felt Sagan constantly reminded us of in COSMOS. One particularly nice thing about considering COSMOS as Year Three of SPACE: 1999 is the way we could think of it as a return to the

moral values and sound ideology of Year One after it started flirting with fascism in Year Two. And, I don’t think it matters all that much that none of the characters from the previous seasons of SPACE: 1999 are present in COSMOS. When changing from Y1 to Y2 most of the Y1 characters were removed and replaced with others, so having all the Y2 removed and replaced by Sagan in Y3 could be argued to make perfect sense. As we are constantly reminded of when we read the works of Freedman, Jameson and Suvin, the purpose of science fiction is to make us reflect upon the world from the viewpoint of critical theory, and I believe we are extremely lucky as a community to have the works of Fageolle and Keazor to help us understand what this means in the context of SPACE: 1999. John B. *** 31188 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 7, 2015

BALOR!!!!! How many times have I asked you, that you not co-join references to my stuff in the same post as Fageolle, et al. Yet, you continue. You also include Sagan (I shall refrain from comment!) in your missives. If you cannot do as I have asked, then please stop referencing my work, entirely. *** 31189 Re: Leadership Challenges kerryirs Nov 7, 2015

I think the closest this generation has to a Carl Sagan is Neal Degrasse Tyson. He has Satan's love of astronomy and a similar personality with a sense of humor. Most importantly, he can take complex concepts and bring them down to the level of the Lehman. His remake of COSMOS was very good. *** 31191 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 7, 2015

Greetings from Cylon Satan? *** 31190 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges John Marcucci Nov 7, 2015

".. Satan's love of astronomy.." Inteentional jibe or Freudian slip?? Either way, I love it. Very apt. *** 31192 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 8, 2015

No doubt, Jemarcu, that error has been made billions and BILLionssss of times. *** 31193 Re: Leadership Challenges balor1999 Nov 8, 2015

It is interesting what you say about Neil deGrasse Tyson, Kerry. I only saw the first episode of the 2014 version of COSMOS, and although I liked the final part of that episode where Tyson talks about how his meeting with Sagan as a seventeen year old made him realise what kind of person he wanted to be, I was not equally impressed with the 2014 show as I was with the original COSMOS series from 1980. There are similarities between Tyson and Sagan, as you point out, but I felt Tyson came out rather bland in this pilot episode. His manner of speaking and body language felt more like that of an actor than the personal and charismatic style we associate with Sagan, but perhaps it could be explained by the fact that Tyson was only the presenter of the show, presenting a text that was written by others. I understand it was written by Ann Druyan and Steven Soter who wrote the old COSMOS series in collaboration with Carl Sagan. But, if we consider COSMOS: A PERSONAL VOYAGE to be the third season of SPACE: 1999, perhaps we can think of COSMOS: A SPACETIME ODYSSEY as SPACE: 2099. What do you think? There was talk about making a new series SPACE: 2099 based on

171

the ideas from SPACE: 1999, but I doubt anything will ever come out of this. If we think of COSMOS 1980 as the third year of SPACE 1999, perhaps we could think of Tyson's COSMOS 2014 as SPACE: 2099. The only doubt I have is that I don’t see Neil deGrasse Tyson as the same kind liberal icon as Carl Sagan, and thus might not be an equally good spokesman for the political and ideological subtext in SPACE: 1999. In the original COSMOS series I felt the aim of the series was to describe a conflict between those who believe in science and a just society against those who believe in capitalist oppression, militaristic exploits and religious indoctrination. In some aspects, as when the focus was on the history of science, I think there were remarkable similarities between SPACE and COSMOS. For instance, there was an episode “The backbone of night” where Sagan talked about Pythagoras and Plato from a class analysis perspective, arguing how the religious doctrines of Plato and the way neoPlatonism influenced Christianity in centuries to follow served the purpose of the ruling classes while the evolutionary process of science through hypothesis and experiment was a force of social and intellectual liberation. To me this was the kind of episode could be seen as the heart and center of the whole series, much in a similar way to how an episode like BLACK SUN functioned in the context of SPACE: 1999. As you point out, there are strong similarities between Tyson and Sagan, but at least in the initial episode of the new COSMOS series I did not experience the social relevance to the same extent that made the original 1980 series into one of the most important political tractates of the period, and the natural extension of SPACE: 1999. But perhaps COSMOS: A SPACETIME ODYSSEY became more socially concerned and politically relevant as the series progressed. Perhaps it becomes something we could refer to as SPACE: 2099 if we manage to understand the nature of the new series as a whole. Afterall, it was written by the same people who wrote the original COSMOS, and the intent of the series was to present the ideas of the old series in a format that would speak to a new generation.

172


John B. *** 31194 Re: Leadership Challenges Kerry Keene Today at 5:07 PM

Jemarcu wrote: Inteentional jibe or Freudian slip?? Either way, I love it. Very apt

No Freudian slip or jibe. Before you criticize Sagan I suggest you look up his life (if you haven't done so already) and read how he got involved in science and then read the comments of those who knew him. I suspect your dislike of the man either comes from a political or religious view, or both. That's fine, but I hope it's based on knowledge and not a knee-jerk reaction. No dig at you, just curious. Thanks. *** 31195 Re: Leadership Challenges jemarcu Nov 8, 2015

I never disliked Carl Sagan, may God have mercy on his soul. I never knew him personally. I watched his "Cosmos" series when it first came out in 1980. It was a slick piece of marketing, with very high production values.... and it had a number of very serious flaws, which I think I have already covered on this thread. Sagan did some solid work for NASA back in the day, but when he falsified history, like he did when blamed the sacking of the library at Alexandria on a Catholic bishop, or when he tried to pass off his metaphysical musings. ("starstuff is all there ever was, and all there will ever be") as science, he brought discredit upon himself. And lets not forget his rants about "nuclear winter". No, he was more a political hack than a true scientist. Otherwise, why would he debate William F Buckley about Darwinism? According to the Darwinists, the debate was over before it began, and never should begin.

And Neil whatzis name? He's a nebbish. He has been caught in so many slanders and false statements its not even funny. J. Marcucci *** 31196 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 9, 2015

Plus typing a "t" instead of a "g". Hehehehehehe.......... *** 31197 Re: Leadership Challenges balor1999 Nov 9, 2015

Good comments, Kerry. Carl Sagan was one of my childhood heroes. I was fascinated with science fiction from watching SPACE: 1999, and then came this remarkable documentary series about cosmic evolution, science and civilisation. However, what may the largest impression me was perhaps not the textbook aspects of the series but rather than political and philosophical aspects of it. When I bought SPACE: 1999 on VHS tape in the late 1990s, I also bought VHS copies of COSMOS, and I keep them on the same shelf. To me SPACE and COSMOS are two sides of the same coin. From a political or ideological perspective they are more or less identical, but the way the message is presented is slightly difference in the sense that one series deals with science fiction and the other with science fact. Based on your enthusiasm for Neil deGrasse Tyson, I watched the second episode of both COSMOS 1980 and COSMOS 2014. The original episode was called “One voice in the cosmic fugue” and the theme of the episode was how the natural evolution of man has to be understood in the context of the natural evolution of life on Earth and the evolution of the cosmos in general. In the original episode Carl Sagan says that “evolution is not a theory, it is a fact”. In the remake of the episode Neil deGrasse Tyson says something similar although with stronger emphasis as the

Greetings from Cylon scientists vs. creationists debate has perhaps gotten stronger since the time of the original series. I think perhaps COSMOS was at its best when it was at its most polemic. The way I understood Carl Sagan was that he was fighting for scientific literacy among common people as a means for emancipating them from the oppression of the ruling forces seeing the benefit of a population who thought the Earth was flat, natural evolution did not exist, manmade climate change was a hoax and so on. When comparing COSMOS 1980 with COSMOS 2014 it is interesting to notice how little the positions in this debate have changed. In fact, it almost seems like the side of the mythmakers is growing while the scientists are have more difficulty than ever. This is the exact opposite of what I would have thought in 1980, but then I was less aware of the way capitalist forces are spending enormous resources preventing scientific truths to be discovered and disseminated. COLLISION COURSE is an episode that deals with the debates between the scientifically literates and illiterates, but I see the episode as making a different point as it can be better understood in the context of the technologyscepticism articulated in Marcuse’s “The onedimensional man” and other foundational texts of critical theory. A better understanding of the current fight is probably seen in THE GUARDIAN OF PIRI where Koenig has to slap his fellow crewmen to make them wake up and understand what Carl Sagan and others have been saying all along. John B. *** 31198 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 9, 2015

Funny. To me, Sagan was exactly the opposite. I came to despise the man. The antithesis of about 90% of my weltenschaung. I found him overly theatrical, and borderline pompous. As well as two-faced and historically inaccurate at times.

173

I recall Sagan's comment, “evolution is not a theory, it is a fact”, to which he added "it rrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeealllllllly happened." Later on, I do not recall which ep, he said that the "only sacred truth in science is that there are no sacred truths." Well, one cannot have it both ways. And Balor, do "the ruling forces" really want people to believe in a flat Earth? REALLY??????? C'mon. As to Koenig, in GOP, did he really tell them to listen to Sagan? I don't recall that in the dialogue. ;) *** 31199 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges balor1999 Nov 10, 2015

I find that funny too, and that is something I like about you, Senmut. To me Carl Sagan was a childhood hero, his views being in correspondence with how I interpret SPACE 1999 and otherwise perhaps in 90% agreement with my general world view. You tell us that you see him exactly the opposite way. You despised him back then, you say, and add that his outlook on the world is more or less in 90% disagreement with your own. I find this funny because of the way I enjoy reading your cross-over stories despite the way we differ in our understanding of SPACE: 1999 and the relevance of the scholarly community for making sense of it. More than that, I like you as a fellow discussant on this forum. We take up different positions in the debates, but you treat fellow discussants with respect. While some others try to “expose” people they disagree with on the forum by addressing them by other names, or try to have them removed from the list because they don’t agree with the way others interpret the show, you always conduct yourself in a respectable manner. I think this forum would be a better place if there were more people like you around. Last night I watched more COSMOS. This time it was episode 3 “Harmony of the Worlds” of the original series, where Sagan contrasts astrology and religious superstition

174


with astronomy and proper science. To me this was another great episode that spells out Sagan’s message with the series that to me is far more important than the textbook material about cosmology, astronomy, biology and so on. The remake of the episode from 2014 was very good too. I think I’m starting to get used to Neil deGrasse Tyson now. In the beginning his speech modulation and body language didn’t feel true. While Carl Sagan spoke like a typical academic giving a popular lecture, Tyson felt more like an actor. However, after watching a few episodes I don’t mind his style all that much. Although he didn’t write the episodes himself, and is in fact very much like an actor as he didn't write the text and as apposed to Sagan who just spoke naturally, Tyson is also a merited scientist, so I feel he adds authority to the series. I also like the way the new series tells the stories from the old episodes in slightly different ways. For instance, the points Sagan was making in the original version of episode 3 with Kepler illustrating the conflicts between science and religious superstition is retold by focusing on Edmund Halley and Isaac Newton, providing the same message by telling a slightly different story. I am also progressing nicely with GREETINGS FROM CYLON. I have now reached chapter eighteen, and I get a feeling that the this and the two previous chapters represent a sort of climax of the story as everything has become a gigantic battle with the Alphans and Galacticans caught between the Cylons and an exploding sun. In general I am not a fan of war stories and battle sequences, neither on the screen nor in books, but I must admit that these sequences are very well written. It will be interesting to see what follows next as the story gradually draws towards an end. John B. *** 31200 Re: Leadership Challenges Kerry Keene Nov 11, 2015

Well, I don't read politics into what Neal deGrasse Tyson has said, at least not the times I've seen him interviewed. Religion, yes. Oh,

there is one time I think he commented politically, but it was in relation to the way NASA's funds have been cut over the years. I'm just glad to have someone who is willing to put forth science and particularly astronomy into the public realm in a way that people can understand. We need more of that in this country, especially how we don't fare well in world rankings when it comes to math and science. Neal, keep it up.:-) *** 31201 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 11, 2015

Well, I know little of Tyson, so I can't comment overly, beyond that what little I have seen impresses me not. As to funding, he has a point, though. I suspect that if certain elements in the body politic wwould agree to continue funding NASA, if it meant that they could ultimately tax any life that we had found on Mars. For it's own good, of course. *** 31202 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges balor1999 Nov 11, 2015

I agree with Kerry. My impression so far is that Neil deGrasse Tyson is less political than Carl Sagan, but, on the other hand, I may have gotten this impression because I don’t know him too well. For instance, in an interview he said that he did not want to comment on politics related to gender and race. If he was invited to talk about himself as being black and a well-known astrophysicist, he would decline, he said, as he felt issues like race and gender would only distract from his main message about the importance of stimulating interest in mathematics and science within the general population. However, in each of the four episodes of COSMOS 2014 I have seen so far, he makes

Greetings from Cylon direct or indirect comments about the conflicts between a religious view and a scientific view of the universe. One of his best comments, in my opinion, was in episode 3 where he commented on the difference between religion and astronomy in terms of saying that religious explanations of the world sometimes give comforting answers but not produce useful questions. It was the same point Sagan was making in the original episode, but I think Tyson was clearer and perhaps more elegant in some of the formulations. I have also heard him answer questions about religion by saying that he does not feel there is sufficient empirical evidence for starting to believe in the existence of a personal God. This seems to align with Sagan’s view that people are indoctrinated by religious views that can easily become harmful in the long run, while science is the process of challenging existing beliefs through the process of theory and experiments. On the other hand, I watched a 1990 keynote Carl Sagan gave at a religious conference where he talked about the need for collaboration between scientists, politicians and religious people of different beliefs for addressing the issue of climate change and similar concerns. To me both Sagan and Tyson seem like very religious people, religious in the sense of sharing the religious beliefs of Baruch Spinoza, Albert Einstein and Victor Bergman. Last night I watched the fourth episode of COSMOS 1980, called “Heaven and Hell”. The purpose of this episode, as I understood it, was to create awareness among common people about issues like climate change, the ozon layer and the greenhouse effect, and the need for political action. Starting with a story about religious and scientific interpretations of comets it evolved into a story about Venus as an image of a burning hell. If we let the world be run by capitalist interests in making shortsighted profit and forget about our responsibility for the Earth as a whole, we put forces in motion that will transform Earth into a Venus-like hell. To me this was Carl Sagan at his best, explaining how science and politics go together. We may burn and slash the planet for making short term profits while hoping that there is a God that will prevent us from selfdestruction, or we may take a more responsible view by aligning philosophy, politics and science.

175

I then watched the fourth episode of COSMOS 2014 to compare, but that particular episode was based on a later COSMOS 1980 episodes about relativity and time travel, so it wasn’t possible to compare Tyson and Sagan in terms of how the issues of religion and politics were updated in the newer version of “Heaven and Hell”. Nevertheless, the more I watch COSMOS 1980 & 2014, the more I feel like watching real scientists explaining that political and philosophical subtext in SPACE: 1999. To me there is a fascinating connection here. John B. *** 31203 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 11, 2015

Yes, of course. Those eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil capitalists, who want to destroy the world! Turn it into a wasteland! Let everyone DIE!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! The world they share with the rest of us. Yeah, right. *** 31204 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges jemarcu Nov 12, 2015

Chicken Little and his apostles of sheep. Every counterfeit religion needs a high clergy, (Sagan et al), scripture, (Origin of Species) liturgy, (Cosmos the tv series) creation myths, (the big bang) and of course an end of the world prophecy.(man made global climate change). Having cast off true religion, the apostles of chaos have to come up with these counterfeits to satisfy Man's instinct for transcendent and supernatural reality. Rgds, John M. *** 31205 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges

176


Jonathan Reiter Nov 12, 2015

Whoa... Profound, Man. Like totally, Really... And I’m not kidding. Jonathan Reiter jr *** 31206 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 12, 2015

On 11 Nov 2015 jemarcu@... writes: Chicken Little and his apostles of sheep. Every counterfeit religion needs a high clergy, ( Sagan et al), scripture,(Origin of Species) liturgy, (Cosmos the tv series) creation myths, (the big bang) and of course an end of the world prophecy.(man made global climate change). Having cast off true religion, the apostles of chaos have to come up with these counterfeits to satisfy Man's instinct for transcendent and supernatural reality.

Now, we return you to Alpha Labs, where a seance to contact plants is now in progress. Over to you, Mr. Mateo...... *** 31207 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 12, 2015

Although in much the same vein, even Bronowski's The Ascent of Man is postmetabolic biomass loads better than Cosmos. Had to use Sagan as a textbook in one colege course. Or, rather, coarse. Clark's Civilisation would have been a better choice, still. *** 31208 Re: Leadership Challenges kerryirs Nov 12, 2015

Whoa! Where did this line of thought come from? You know, if we had stuck with the teachings of the church, particularly the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, where would our knowledge of science of the world

around us and space be today? I dare to think not that far. And yet the church today has its own observertory and has actually adopted some tenents of science. The current Pope actually holds a degree in chemistry and has recognized the threat of climate change and its effects on the populations around the world, especially the poor. But this is only occurred recently. Organized religion has its good points, but it can also be used as a means of controlling people's thoughts. Until the invention of the printing press, one of the few sources of religious teachings was the church. With the printing press, people could read the Bible or any other religious book for themselves. Thank goodness for the First Ammendment or we might have a theocracy in this country, what with all of the religious types who seem to have taken over the Republican Party you know "The Tea Party" (I have another name for them) which really isn't an official political party. Now that Sagan has been villified, like some have done to FF, let's get back, as has been pointed out, to seances and ghosts. Happy Thanksgiving to those in the US. *** 31209 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges John Marcucci Nov 12, 2015

No one "vilified" Carl Sagan. Stop..please stop, with the victim-puking. Its most unseemly. I simply gave an informed opinion about Sagan and some of the very nonscientific things he has said over the years.. and the next thing I know you are freaking out about the middle ages, religion, etc. Why do some people insist on dragging their religious prejudices into every...single.... discussion? Because I disagree with Sagan's theological musings and political rants, that makes me anti-science? WTF? Regards, John M. ***


31210 Re: Leadership Challenges balor1999 Nov 12, 2015

I think this is one of the best messages you have written on this forum, Kerry. Thanks for reminding us of how Neil deGrasse Tyson is perhaps the closest thing we have to Carl Sagan and SPACE: 1999 today. When I watched this video of Neil deGrasse Tyson I was reminded things you have been saying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sApQ80 QRiE

177

hydroponics will be making a statement, shortly... *** 31212 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges John Marcucci Nov 13, 2015

Indeed. And that little detail of the Catholic Church safeguarding and passing on civilization when everything went to the shitter in 476 AD. But for the Catholic Church, Carl Sagan would have been stuck in geocentrism. ***

John B. *** 31211 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 13, 2015

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 John Marcucci writes: No one "vilified" Carl Sagan. Stop..please stop, with the victim-puking. Its most unseemly. I simply gave an informed opinion about Sagan and some of the very non-scientific things he has said over the years.. and the next thing I know you are freaking out about the middle ages, religion, etc. Why do some people insist on dragging their religious prejudices into every...single.... discussion? Because I disagree with Sagan's theological musings and political rants, that makes me anti-science? WTF?

Dragging ones "prejudices" into every discussion provides for padding, Jemarcu. Makes things seem fuller than they in reality are. After all, tweren't us that began padding each post with what pseudo-academic nonentities were saying about the show, and what it "really" meant. As to "religion", should we tell them that Copernicus was a priest, or that Galileo's studies and researches, not to mention the rent, were paid for by the Church? That the Great Bacon was a deeply committed believer, or Newton, or Farraday, or Pasteur? Think we otta, Jemarcu? Okay, back at Alpha Labs, there is a report, from an unnamed source, that the plants in

31213 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 13, 2015

Oh, you mean the part where all those eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil freedom-hating theocratic monks saved the left-overs of Classical civilization, things like, oh, writing, by copying all those scrolls in monastaries? Stuff by Empedocles, Herodotus, Pythagoras, and those guys? Preserving reading and writing, so we all didn't end up back in a cave or something? You mean that part? *** 31214 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 13, 2013

And, this just in from from Moonbase Alpha's hydroponics lab..... "Leaf us alone!!!! You make us feel soiled!!!" "Now back to you, Chet." "Thanks, Dave." *** 31215 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges balor1999 Nov 16, 2015

I have just completed Senmut’s GREETINGS FROM CYLON story, and I was happy to see

178


that there was no science bashing or vilification of scientists in this story. Inspired by Kerry’s comments about Neil deGrasse Tyson being the closest thing to a Carl Sagan for the present generation, I have watched a lot of Tyson videos on YouTube, and I have been deeply impressed. As he refers to Carl Sagan as his mentor, it is perhaps not so strange that he shares many of the same ideas and concerns, not at least a general worry about nations where political leaders and others in position in power and influence do not believe in issues like natural evolution and man-made climate change. Considering the fact that even the Pope believe in such issues, right-wing Christian fundamentalists is a danger of turning some Western countries into equivalents of Islamic fundamentalists nations, as Frank Schaeffer has said. However, what impresses me most about Tyson, and where I perhaps feel he resonate the most with Carl Sagan and the writers of the SPACE: 1999 series, is when he says he is an agnostic. Unlike Richard Dawkins, who could perhaps be described as a militant atheist, Tyson is not on a religious mission to turn people into atheists. He does not care about what people think as long as it does not interfere with science. Religious views, such as beliefs in creationism, climate change being a hoax, the earth being flat and other absurd ideas, can be taught in religious class. Natural evolution, cosmology, earth science and so on should be taught in science classes. As long as it is done like this, the public is served by both being informed about what Islamic and Christian fundamentalists believe in, and what science tells us. The two circles do not interfere. In another interview he pointed out that Jimmy Carter was an engineer, and that is perhaps one reason educated people understood what he was trying to do. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, was an actor. He may not have been much of a thinker himself, but was extremely good at presenting the solutions offered by the capitalist ruling class in a manner that convinced the man in the street. Here is the core of the problem. Engineers and scientists are seldom charismatic people and they present problems in complex and scientific ways that uneducated people have difficulty in understanding. This is something that capitalist

elites can take advantage of. They can spend enormous amounts of money on misinforming the general public and support scientifically illiterate politicians that are willing to do their bidding. In this context people like Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson stands out as beacons of light in a demon-haunted world of superstitions, corruption and religious fundamentalism. To me this is why COSMOS 1980 felt like the third season of SPACE: 1999. Sagan was talking about cosmic evolution in the context of the history of science and civilisation. Not only did this make science much more interesting, it also showed how science interlinks with politics and the importance of having an educated electorship to make sure that nations select educated people to represent themselves, not ending up like third-world countries where scientific illiteracy and religious fundamentalism make it possible for capitalist elites to exploit the ignorance of the people and make conditions worse. Here I feel Tyson is saying exactly the same things that Sagan said 30 years ago. On one hand, SPACE: 1999 was entertainment, like BATTLESTAR GALACTICA or FOREVER KNIGHT, as Senmut illustrates brilliantly in his crossover stories, but on the other hand it was much more than that. As has been pointed out by scholars and academics, SPACE: 1999 was also an important philosophical text where the writers for the series dealt with important issues of the time. I recently watched an episode of STAR TALK where Neil Tyson discussed STAR TREK with George Takei and others. It was a wonderful discussion of science, politics and philosophy. It illustrated not only that Roddenberry and the makers of STAR TREK were addressing important and interesting issues of the time, but – more importantly – it illustrated the importance of authoritative readership as Tyson and colleagues were able to comment on aspects of the series that was based on a scientifically and politically sound understanding of how the world works. I don’t think there is a large enough audience for SPACE: 1999 for somebody like Tyson to consider making a similar commentary on that series, but in many ways SPACE: 1999 was a much more scientifically and politically interesting series that STAR TREK. It was

Greetings from Cylon more realistic in the sense of being less optimistic, thus being more effective in diagnosing the world situation per 1974 in a manner that makes the diagnosis still relevant forty years later. In fact, it may have become even more relevant, as Fageolle, Keazor and others suggest.

179

that you see it differently, and I respect that. I thought GREETINGS FROM CYLON was a great story, and I look forward to reading the next entry in the FOREVER ALPHA series. John B. ***

John B. *** 31216 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 16, 2015

Balor, are you blind or deaf? I have asked repeatedly that my stuff NOT be mentioned on the same page as ANY of your so-called academics and such. Are you deliberately trying to piss me off? Aside from disagreeing with about 90% of your missive, I find your comment about "no science bashing" in my stuff to be insulting. Why in God's Name should I bash science? This really sucks. Please knock it the bloody hell off. *** 31217 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges balor1999 Nov 16, 2015

Sorry, Senmut, I didn’t expect you to respond like this. My point about “no science bashing” in GREETINGS FROM CYLON was meant in reference to the science bashing and vilification of scientists we sometimes see on this forum. I saw absolutely nothing of that in GREETINGS FROM CYLON, and neither did I expect to see it as you have previously stated that you try to separate politics from fictional writing. I think you said something along the lines that you tend to find fictional stories with explicit political agenda to be boring, so you separate politics and fictional writing. Personally, I see it differently as I agree with Carl Freedman and others that science fiction and critical theory are inseparable, and thus see Keazor’s points about SPACE: 1999 as particularly relevant in this context, but I know


As I have said, I believe "critical theory" to be intellectual pus. Anyway, next story? Blood, guts, and delightful carnage!!! *** 31222 Re: Leadership Challenges Kerry Keene Nov 19, 2015

Just found this on YouTube. Neil Tyson talks about worm holes, black holes, and multiverses. If one could exist in a higher dimension, it may be possible to see one's own past, present, and future and access them at will. The concept is called a tesseract (which is a geometric figure similar to a cube) and has been used in some recent films. Here's the link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7tV7v71k -I This interview is his response to the movie INTERSTELLAR. Very interesting. If one watches the whole interview, the next entry in the Neil Tyson YouTube entries is a talk about black holes. To learn about the concept of the tesseract, wikipedia has an article on the concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract Enjoy. *** 31223 Re: Leadership Challenges Kerry Keene Nov 19, 2015

180


Here's Tyson's views on God and religiion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS_vHybF hTY *** 31225 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges John Marcucci Nov 19, 2015

If Tyson is a just a scientist, then why are his views on religion any more relevant than his views on the history of Turkish opera? *** 31228 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 20, 2015

Depends...does he speak Turkish? ;) *** 31231 Re: Leadership Challenges kerryirs Nov 20, 2015

Well, John, I could say that about priests or ministers views on medicine or science, especially those in religion who believe the universe and Earth are only 6,000 years old, which is nonesense. As Tyson said in the piece on his views on religion, he says 50% of scientists believe in a higher power, but they keep their religious beliefs out of the lab, which is a good thing. Religion provides a basis for what we call morality and how we should treat people. Unfortunately, many use religion as a weapon to judge others and a reason to discriminate against people and ideas they disagree with. This might also be said of those on the other side as well, the hardcore atheist. This is why most people consider themselves moderates or slightly right of center, not extremists. If one wants extremism, look to the crazies in the Middle East and other parts of the world. One only need to look back to the 70s and the IRA. Need I say more? ***


On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 kerryirs writes: Well, John, I could say that about priests or ministers views on medicine or science, especially those in religion who believe the universe and Earth are only 6,000 years old, which is nonesense.

If you insist. As Tyson said in the piece on his views on religion, he says 50% of scientists believe in a higher power, but they keep their religious beliefs out of the lab, which is a good thing. Religion provides a basis for what we call morality and how we should treat people. Unfortunately, many use religion as a weapon to judge others and a reason to discriminate against people and ideas they disagree with. This might also be said of those on the other side as well, the hardcore atheist. This is why most people consider themselves moderates or slightly right of center, not extremists.

Most people consider themselves "moderates" becaue they are unable or unwilling to make a moral commitment to anything, whatever it may be. I'm comfy, don't rock my boat. If one wants extremism, look to the crazies in the Middle East and other parts of the world. One only need to look back to the 70s and the IRA. Need I say more?

Please, not on my account. *** 31234 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges John Marcucci Nov 20, 2015

Kerry, for you to lump people who believe in a young Earth with the Muslim genocidal fanatics currently together, is beyond laughable, its beyond absurd, so it merits no refutation. In the 20th century alone, militant atheist regimes, such as the Soviet Union, Red China, the Kmer Rouge, etc. murdered abourt 100 million people. In Spain in the 1930's, the atheist communists rounded up about 5000 priests and nuns.. and murdered them, before

Greetings from Cylon Franco defeated them. Today, in our own country, atheists like Planned Parenthood abort living babies, cut them up whle still alive, and sell the body parts in plain view of the law. G.K. Chesterton said that a madman is not someone who has lost all reason. Rather, it is someone who has lost everything BUT reason. These hyper-rational scientists, politicians, and bureacrats, who think religious ideas about the sanctity of life and the dignity of the human person, are just outmoded, bigoted notions that stifle progress.. they are responsible for suffering and humna rights violations on a scale that makes the Spanish Inquisition look like a spanking. Cabot Rowland from DOD is a perfect example of this mindset..performing inethical experiments that left people brain damaged, so he could pursue his dreams to improve humanity. Sound familiar? I didn't see any crucifix around his neck. Rgds, John M. *** 31237 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 21, 2015

AMEN, Jemarcu! Eloquently put, and much better than I could have. My only, poor, addition, is that it is folks like Sagan, Tyson, et al, who would lead us into a new Dark Age, one as Churchill said, "made more protracted, by the lights of a perverted science." *** 31235 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges John Marcucci Nov 20, 2015

Oh, and re: the IRA.. they were fighting to liberate and unite their homeland from what they considered to be foregn occupiers. Yes, their tactics were sometimes questionable, but this was also true of the government they were fighting. It was more Irish vs. English than Protestant vs Catholic by the time of the 1970's. Your history has a few gaping holes in it. ***

181


Not to mention the IRA having decidedly Marxist leanings. (I wonder if they read Fageolle?) *** 31236 Re: Leadership Challenges balor1999 Nov 20, 2015

Well spoken, Kerry. In another interview Tyson talks about being raised as a Catholic, but not by fanatics. Religion is a basis for morality and how we should treat people, as you say, not as a basis for how we should understand the physical world, and certainly not as a weapon to judge and discriminate others. I also believe that Tyson would agree in what you say about hardcore atheists too. Actually, there are some very good YouTube conversations between him and Richard Dawkins where he makes this clear. In one of these conversations it is said that it is only 30% of the scientists who beliece in a higher power, but the number is not all that important. The point Tyson wants to make is that it is a high number, but it is of little importance as long as the scientists do not let religion interfer with science. Among elite scientists the fraction is lower, about 10%, but this could still be seen as relatively high. Dawkins thought it was outrageous, but Tyson says that freedom of religion is a basis for a free society, so as long as it does not interfere with politics and science, people should be allowed to believe whatever they like. I think Carl Sagan held views very similar to Tyson on this. Your point about extremism in the Middle East and IRA in the 1970s is excellent. This is exactly the kind of thing we don't want. With the Religious Right gaining power, whether they are Christian fundamentalist or Muslim fundamentalist, it is goodbye to modern society and back into the dark ages. In France they have taken steps in trying to secularise society to prevent religious bias and discrimination, but it comes at a high cost of

182


stirring up fanatics. This is dangerous territoriy, but moderation is certainly the goal, as you say. I think SPACE: 1999 has something to teach us here. When Victor Bergman talks about God and spirituality in BLACK SUN, he talks about the God of

Baruch Spinza, Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan. John B. ***

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit

183

6. … ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT The chapter consists of six sections. The first section is a general commentary and analysis of the first part of the story. Section two expands on the introductory comments by relating it to Fageolle’s reading of the series. Section three takes the discussion in a different direction by commenting on aspects of Senmut’s story in the context of viewpoints articulated by astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson. In section four the context of “et Willem ad Pevensa venit” is extended by looking at fan fiction as a general phenomenon. The chapter concludes by commenting on the ending of the story in the context of a new Senmut miniature story where a scence from S99/Y2 pilot is rewritten as a crossover with a GEICO commercial.

6.1 Commentary and analysis As was seen at the end of the previous chapter, Senmut warned the Online Alpha discussants that “et Willelm ad Penvensae venit” would be a story about blood, guts and carnage. The initial commentary and analysis makes this cue as a central theme for understanding the form and meaning of the first part of the story, trying indirectly to relate the implications of the warning with the political subtext rendered clear in the original SPACE: 1999 series by means of the fan fiction story. 31219 ...et Willelm ad Pevensae venit (Senmut, 2001) balor1999 Nov 17, 2015

Despite Senmut’s warnings about blood, guts and carnage, ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT starts in a very pleasant and interesting manner. With the previous story ending with Maya and Tony getting married, the first chapter in this new story starts with the announcement that Maya is pregnant. Doctor Nat tells her that she will be giving birth to twins, and so far everything looks nice. I assume I have to continue watching FOREVER KNIGHT episodes in order to understand the finer details of the story, but as usual Senmut writes with eloquence and a wonderful sense for character psychology. There are also interesting references to episodes like THE METAMORPH, THE DORCONS and ALPHA CHILD. Apparently, Jackie Crawford did not become a perfectly normal child. In the way Senmut starts his story, we are told that there is something mysterious about him, but it is not yet clear whether this will have any significance for the story or what will happen. If it had not been for Senmut’s warnings about the nature of the story, I would have thought that ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT would be a relaxing experience after the tense war story that dominated GREETINGS FROM CYLON. At least the beginning is very pleasant. I wonder what will happen next.

John B. *** 31220 Re: et Willelm ad Pevensae venit (Senmut, 2001) balor1999 Nov 18, 2015

Having completed the second chapter of ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT, there is no blood, guts and carnage to be seen so far, despite Senmut’s warnings, a strange dream Nick explains to Nat, and the way the title of the story hints at the Battle of Hastings. This is fine with me as I feel Senmut is at his best when he puts his brain at exploring relationships and the psychology of individual characters. In fact, in one of the reviews of this story I noticed how some people praised Senmut for his ability to recreate John Koenig in the way we know him from the television series, something many fan fiction writers apparently struggle with. Personally, I don’t remember all that much of Koenig in the Senmut stories I have read so far. I have been impressed by how he brings life to Alan, Maya and Tony, and he is quite good with Helena too, but it will be interesting to see more of Koenig. Another thing I liked very much about this story is how it recapitulates the climax of the previous story. Amidst all those battle sequences it was somewhat unclear to me what

184


happened to the Galactica. Providing a short summary and explanation was very helpful. On the whole, ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT starts off like a wonderful story, just like the other Senmut stories we have been reading and discussing, so my expectations remain high. John B. *** 31224 Re: et Willelm ad Pevensae venit (Senmut, 2001) balor1999 Nov 19, 2015

I hope what Senmut said about blood, guts and carnage was meant as a joke. At least, the third chapter in ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT points in a completely different direction. In these early chapters Senmut writes with what I would describe as deep understanding of character and situation, and I am perhaps also beginning to see what others have said about his ability to capture Koenig as we know him from the screen. The third chapter is a bit like MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH and TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA in the sense that they are exploring a planet with a red sky with ruins of a civilisation that was destroyed a few hundred years ago. I have absolutely no idea what these things mean in the context of how the story will unfold, but I like the way Kerry keep reminding us of Neil deGrasse Tyson as the closest thing we have to a Carl Sagan for the present generation. As the first series of SPACE: 1999 is filled with discussions of science and spirituality, not at least in the context of episodes like MOLAD and TOA, it will be very interesting to see whether our collecting reading of ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT might stimulate more discussion about Tyson, Sagan, COSMOS and SPACE: 1999. John B. *** 31230 Re: et Willelm ad Pevensae venit (Senmut, 2001) balor1999 Nov 20, 2015

ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT continues to be a pleasure to read. I don’t know what others think, but to me it has been of great use trying to catch up on FOREVER KNIGHT episodes while reading about Nick and Nat. The other night I watched “The Spin Doctor”. In this episode we saw Nick having flashbacks from the 1950s when he was an assistant professor at the University of Chicago and was being prosecuted by the House of the Un-American Activities Committee for his beliefs in social justice and his unwillingness to comment on the political beliefs of individual members of staff. The incident is not mentioned in ET WILLELM, but it was an important part of the plot in FOREVER ALPHA as it turned out that Bergman had been a student at Chicago at the time and recognised Nick as a flamboyant teacher. There was nothing about the political beliefs of Nick and Bergman in Senmut’s story, but as we all know how Bergman was on the left side of the political spectre, I found it interesting to watch the FOREVER KNIGHT episode Senmut refers to in the sense that it explains, between the lines, how Bergman was inspired by Nick’s political views. Of course, we are discussing the fictional universe defined by Senmut here, so whatever we choose to believe, he can easily adust misunderstandings by adding anecdotes to his next story, if he plan to continue writing, but it is nevertheless an interesting thought that Bergman was probably inspired by somebody. Given that the events of SPACE: 1999 take place around the turn of the century, and that Barry Morse was 56 when the series was made, his fictional character would have been born around 1943. That would have made him about 10 years younger than Carl Sagan. Would this make it reasonable to think that somebody like Carl Sagan could have been his inspiration as a scientist and humanitarian at the time he was doing his PhD? For those of us who think of COSMOS as the third season of SPACE: 1999 it is a pleasant thought, I would say. John B. ***

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit 31233 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: et Willelm ad Pevensae venit (Senmut, 2001) sennmut Nov 20, 2015

Did I write the same story you are referring to? I don't recall anything about social injustice in that ep of FK, at all. I also have asked, MANY TIMES, for you not to mention Sagan in the same page as anything of mine. Recall? Stop it! *** 31239 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: et Willelm ad Pevensae venit (Senmut, 2001) balor1999 Nov 21, 2015

It is difficult to discuss Senmut’s stories when he feels insulted each time we try to make sense out of them by referring to SPACE: 1999 scholars or the academic study of science fiction. Perhaps this is the reason why so few people have anything at all to say about ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT and the other stories. To me this is sad because the stories are extremely well-crafted, fun to read, and have a potential for stimulating SPACE: 1999 discussions. In chapter five ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT takes a dramatic turn as the story suddenly returns to Earth were LeCroix ponders what to do for reaching Nick. Nick, on the other hand, experiences strange dreams of satanic sacrifices, and at the end of the chapter something mysterious happens when the Alphans are trying to solve some engineering problem, and LeCroix suddenly emerges out of smoke and lightning. The situation is not too unsimilar to what happened in THE TROUBLED SPIRIT, but I expect the consequences will be more similar to END OF ETERNITY as LeCroix is like a simplistic version Balor. Perhaps this is the turning point that makes the story focus on blood, guts and carnage. I hope not, because it started out in a much more promising way, but if it keeps up with the

185

usual Senmut standard it will be interesting read nevertheless. I remember reading Bill Latham’s first SPACE: 1999 novel and feeling rather disappointed as he used END OF ETERNITY as a premise but left out all the interesting aspects of the original and filled it with blood, guts and carnage instead. I hope Senmut doesn’t fall into that trap. At least Senmut has a much better grasp of the central characters. When I listen to the dialogue in a Senmut story, it is almost like listening to a dialogue from one of the television episodes. John B. *** 31242 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Et Willelm ad Pevensae venit (Senmut, 2001) balor1999 Nov 22, 2015

Senmut shows a lot of creativity in ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT. When LeCroix and somebody else arrived on the Moon, Nick and Jackie Crawford disappeared and found themselves in Earth at a time before the Moon was blown out of orbit. The sixth chapter is wonderfully written, and feels like a mix between ANOTHER TIME ANOTHER PLACE, TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA and JOURNEY TO WHERE. It will be interesting to see what happens next. Nathalie was considering destroying LeCroix as she discovered his identify and before he was totally recovered, but did not. Uh-oh. It looks like a setup for total disaster. If it had not been for Senmut’s complaints about trying to understand his stories in the same way as we try to make sense of SPACE: 1999 in general, by means of critical theory, I think this story could stimulate interesting discussions, but for the moment it is perhaps better to read the story in a superficial manner and delay the interpretations for later. John B. ***

186


6.2 Journey into Whiteness As Senmut is hesitant about discussing the works of scholars like Fageolle in the context of his stories, the following thread illustrates the challenge in trying to use Fageolle as a basis for understanding SPACE: 1999 and commenting on the fan fiction without intruding on the “et Willelm ad Pevensae venit” discussion. The discussion is nevertheless important for the FOREVER ALPHA discussion as a whole due to the way it helps articulate the difference in debating positions when it comes to the viewing of Fageolle’s account of SPACE: 1999 as an authoritative reading of the series. 31221 Important book for sale balor1999 Nov 18 7:04 PM

For those who have not yet gotten a copy of Fageolle's famous book, here is a chance for buying it at FNAC. The price is 197 Euro (about 210 US dollars). http://livre.fnac.com/a983792/Pierre-FageolleCosmos-1999-l-epopee-de-la-blancheur John B. *** 31226Re: Important book for sale jemarcu Nov 19, 2015

Are you serious?? $210 could feed a famly of six in Burkina Faso for three months!! *** 31227 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Important book for sale sennmut Nov 20, 2015

How about in Fernando Po?

31229 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Important book for sale balor1999 Nov 20, 2015

It is not a bad thing to say that anybody willing to spend $210 on SPACE: 1999 should also be morally committed to spend $210 on humanitarian aid. I think that would be very much in the spirit of SPACE: 1999, and I’m certain that Gerry Anderson, Johnny Byrne and Barry Morse would have applauded the idea if they were still with us. However, I believe they would be even more supportive of changing the rules of the economic system in ways that reduced the income gap between the financial elite and the rest of the world. At least this would be very much in line with Fageolle’s authoritative reading of SPACE: 1999 as not only lens for understanding the world but also a call for political action. Although for fans and scholars the book is clearly worth much more than the market value of $210, it is nevertheless interesting what people in general are willing to pay for it. John B. ***

***

6.3 Neil deGrasse Tyson In order to develop the discussion of “et Willelm ad Pevensae venit” in a different direction from the theme of vampire capitalism, discussed in previous entries, Neil deGrasse Tyson’s comments about science and social justice reveals itself to be an interesting opportunity for reflection and debate. These ideas tie in with previous discussions about how Carl Sagan’s COSMOS relates to SPACE: 1999, and it maps out roads for future exploratory discussions. 31240 Neil deGrasse Tyson balor1999 Nov 21, 2015

Here is another great Neil Tyson video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=035lOhkN bkM

I totally agree with Kerry in the suggestion that deGrasse Tyson could be the Carl Sagan for the present generation. It is almost as if we could use Tyson's talks and speeches as commentary tracks on the SPACE: 1999

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit episodes and we would have the political subtext of the episodes made explicit. John B. *** 31241 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Neil deGrasse Tyson sennmut Nov 22, 2015

Please, Balor. I just ate! *** 31243 Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson Kerry Keene Nov 22, 2015

Here's Neil's further comments on how he got into science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtMWvJi FR9E *** 31244 Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson Kerry Keene Nov 22, 2015

Follow-up on my last e-mail on Neil Tyson. He also further comments on race and his decision to become a scientist. *** 31245 Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson balor1999 Nov 23, 2015

Great input, Kerry. I have just completed chapter seven of ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT and you make me reflect on whether the vampire issue could be interpreted in the context of race and prejudice. Senmut is rather reluctant to discuss SPACE: 1999 in the context of scholarly writings on SPACE: 1999, but I don’t know what he might have to say about the issue of race and science. I know for Gerry Anderson this was an important issue, as he has explained in interviews on how his Jewish background made him suffer prejudice as a child. I also remember that he was very unhappy with ITC wanting Catherine Schell as Maya. In the

187

Fanderson Documentary he explains how he wanted a particular black actress for that role, but how an unnamed yet important person from ITC New York made some extremely derogatory and racist remarks, resulting in Catherine Schell being cast as Maya against the will of Anderson. Although there are still some people who want to blame GA for what went wrong with SPACE: 1999 as they launched onto Y2, to me it seems more like he was puppet on a string being forced to do whatever ITC New York told him. Neil deGrasse Tyson’s stories about how his father was an active member of the civil rights movement and how they all wanted Neil to spend his intellect in a manner that would contribute to social justice rather than wasting it on astrophysics and cosmology is a wonderful story. It is a wonderful story because he probably made a much more important contribution to social justice by first becoming a well-known spokesman of science and then addressing the various political and social questions from a rational perspective than he would have become if he had chosen a different path. I was quite impressed by some of YouTube videos we are watching and discussing now. When I saw the first episode of COSMOS 2014, I felt Tyson was inferior to Carl Sagan, but the more I learn about him the more impressed I am. I think you said the magic words, Kerry, when you said that Tyson is the Sagan of the present generation. Tyson and Sagan are different and similar in interesting ways, but at heart they represent the same sound values. When I listen to people like Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson, it gives me hope. To me they embody the ideas that are projected through Victor Bergman in SPACE: 1999. In a world increasingly dominated by capitalist greed, religious fanatics and total breakdown of the natural, financial and social infrastructure, Victor Bergman, Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson give us hope that it is still possible to change the world into a place where our children and grandchildren may live an prosper. It is not easy because these scientific visionaries present an agenda that does not fit with what the capitalist oppressors and religious fanatics want us to believe, but hopefully series like COSMOS 1980, COSMOS 1999 and COSMOS 2014 can make an impact on what people in general choose to believe in.

188

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series Is the posting list ever going to get family friendly again?

John B. ***

Hugs,

1246 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson sennmut Nov 23, 2015

Shana

AGAIN!!!!!! You mention my stuff on the same page as your Marxist, social justice crud. I specifically asked you NOT to mention Sagan when my name/stuff is mentioned in the same e-mail. In any event, the "sound values" both S and Tyson represent...get thee behind me!!!! I hope the "capitalist oppressors" are multiplied many-fold, and the "religious fanatics" as well. To hell with this, and damn it, Balor, stop smearing all this social justice dung on ANYTHING containing reference to me or to my writings.

31249 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson John Marcucci Nov 24, 2015

***

I hear ya, Shana. Mind you, I'm a grown man and I like a spirited debate, and I don't mind when people give me s**t, as it were.. but this is too much. Sen has put his heart and soul into some really great fanfic, and he's not afraid of constructive criticism, but this incesant "marxist" critical theory talk is too much.

Mods, can you do anything? Rgds, John M. *** *** 31247 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson John Marcucci Nov 23, 2015

Classic agitprop. This is what Marxists excel at, throwing around loaded terms like fascist, religious fanatic, capitalist, etc.. and they really don't understand what they are saying. Clearly , Petter / John Balor does not understand most of what he says, he is just repeating soundbytes. Like the sheep in "Animal Farm". Four legs good, two legs bad! That is the extent of his understanding of complex issues. Yes, MODS.. at long last, can something be done? Please? We've suffered enough.

31250 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson SHANA G Nov 24, 2015

John M., I have lost my interest in posting because of all of the Marxist foolishness. Sen’s fan fic is awesome!!! Hopefully we can bring it back home to what this “blog” is all about. I teach children with Autism, and they behave better! This has gone so far, can we even bring it home at this point? Shana

Rgds, John M. *** *** 31248 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson SHANA G Nov 24, 2015

All:

31251 Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson kerryirs Nov 24, 2015

I surely hope so. For members in the US, happy Thanksgiving. ***



Shana...I would never have thought of my Fic as "awesome", but thanks, anyway. I'm glad that you find it worth the candle. I just got an idea, and ran with it. Have you ever tried any fanFic writing?

189

*** 31255 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson John Marcucci Nov 25, 2015

Hear, hear! ***

*** 31254 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson SHANA G Nov 25, 2015


Well tha thank uh, thank you verry much. Sen, I am not that talented, but you are an inspiration to us all. You have a gift of telling the story that makes it so real!

Still, why not try? I didn't thunk that I could have. ***

Shana

6.4 Fan fiction In the previous thread it was seen how the discussion approach used so far broke down because the author of the story responded to the attempts to discuss it from an academic viewpoint by asking the moderators to have the discussants thrown out of the forum. This resulted in a new thread on how to discuss fan fiction in a meaningful manner without stirring up the author if he or she should happen to also be a part of the Online Alpha community. 31256 Fan Fiction John Marcucci Nov 26, 2015

Really? What would Fageolle say??? ;) ***

While we're on the subject: there is a treasure trove of quality Space 1999 fan fiction out there. Sen is responsible for more than his fair share of it, but also David Welle, Emma Burrows (alias Ariana) and many talented authors have posted to metaforms, fanfiction.net, and Ariana's Space 1999 site.

31259 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Fan Fiction John Marcucci Nov 26, 2015

Fageolle is a figment of Petter Ogland's imagination. ***

We could do worse than read these and discuss them. Rgds, John M. *** 31258 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Fan Fiction sennmut Nov 26, 2015

31260 Fan Fiction balor1999 Nov 26, 2015

I don’t remember Pierre Fageolle saying anything about fan fiction in “COSMOS 1999: Épopée de la blancheur”, but, as Senmut points out, that does not mean that Fageolle’s positioning in the SPACE: 1999 debate should be irrelevant in the S99 fan fiction debate.

190


Some of us have indeed argued that his perspectives could be extremely relevant for understanding aspects of the fan fiction literature we have been discussing the past few months. The only problem is that the author of this fiction disagrees so much with the viewpoints of Fageolle and much of the related SF scholarly literature that he expresses insult when the scholarly S99 literature is mentioned in comments that make explicit references to his texts. Although it is fair game for an author to express discontent with how his readers are trying to make sense of the stories, it is nevertheless problematic in the context of trying to stimulate debate. When the moderators are being requested to take action each time somebody disagrees with somebody else, it becomes increasingly difficult to make a discussion forum flourish through exchange of different opinions and views, especially views that align with dominant views within the SF discussions carried out in scholarly journals, conferences and books. Perhaps this recent suggestion of talking about fan fiction in more general terms than just focusing on one particular author would help matters. In fact, I think this approach would be much more consistent with how Prof. Henry Jenkins at MIT writes about fan fiction as a tool for social justice, individual expression and a fight against the oppression of consumerist capitalist society. While Jenkins has developed much of his theory based on

empirical research on the STAR TREK fan fiction community, the theoretical understanding of SPACE: 1999, as articulated by Keazor (and others) through the use of Fageolle’s authoritative reading of the series, makes SPACE: 1999 into a much more powerful vehicle for theoretical analysis and political activism. If such a change of focus would be helpful for stimulating more friendly and thoughtful exchange of viewpoints and ideas, I think such a change could be very helpful for the Online Alpha community and perhaps even stimulate more people to participate in the discussions without fear of being thrown out or put under severe moderation for trying to align our discussions with those of the scholarly community. John B. *** 31261 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Fan Fiction sennmut Nov 26, 2015

My mention of Fageolle was not serious, Balor. I was mocking, since I consider all of that to be of no value, whatsoever. Please recall this. The "opinions" of these people are like wash water, to be tossed out. ***

6.5 Fanderson documentary In the Neil deGrasse Tyson thread, one of the discussants (message #31245) mentioned the way some reviewers of SPACE: 1999 fail to understand Gerry Anderson’s situation when producing the disastrous Year Two and then made use of how Maya was casted to illustrate this point. The following thread developed as a response to that particular point. The discussion shows how several important ideas are developed and refined. 31262 Re: Fanderson documentary kerryirs Nov 26, 2015

Yes it was first thought that Maya would be portrayed by a black actress, but the one they had in mind was out of acting according to the STARLOG 40 interview with FF. Then Anderson had a person (same as FF or different?) in mind.

I haven't heard Anderson's views on this; I'll have to watch the FANDERSON piece. I know Abe Mandel was heavy into "advising" Anderson on what the trend was, if you want to call it that, in the US. Hopefully racism didn't enter into the decision. After seeing the part where Anderson talks about the hiring of Catherine Schell and auditioning the lady that he initially wanted, it seems the guy from New York was the bigot.

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit However, Anderson goes on to say that Catherine Schell had worked on the first season and turned out to be the right choice. I've read, and Catherine Schell has said that Bain was apprehensive at first about her being on the series. She even sat in on the auditions and finally accepted the fact that Catherine Schell was joining the series. Catherine Schell also said that Bain had it put in her contract that Catherine could not appear as herself at anytime or appear in the last scene of any episode. Catherine thought it was silly. Check out STARBURST 42. It might be at the Catacombs. I've watched the section of the FANDERSON documentary where Anderson says that if you're going to be the head writer (FF) and I'm going to allow you to do what you want to do, then I'm going to make you the producer (which Fred didn't really want and was given the impression that he would be working with the writers only). Anderson goes on to say that he wasn't going to put his name to any changes that Fred (probably under orders from New York) was going to make. This is what ticks me off with Gerry Anderson. Note the word "allow" in the Anderson satenent above. In my view, he was still the executive producer, the man with the final word what gets put on screen, the scripts. Like I've said before, Anderson seems to have left FF out on a limb, as Roddenberry did, only to come back years later and level bombshells at him. This too me shows a man who was bitter, probably at ITC, and took it out on FF. I wish this documentary, if you want to call it that, had had a response from FF. All it had were archive interviews with him, but no new interview where he could have responded. But again, they may have tried to have contacted him and couldn't or did and he declined; we'll never know as there is no statement at the end that an attempt was made or not. Finally, Anderson said if he had been more forceful, he would've stood up to ITC. Listen to the commentary versionof DRAGON'S DOMAIN. He swore no one else would tell him how to run his productions again. The uniform changes. See Keith Wilson's comments and that of Lesley de Petitt, who

191

was casting director, but it seems also worked as costume designer as well. It appears the unisex uniforms didn't fit right on everyone. Wilson also felt the unisex look had come and gone. Oh, Wilson loved desigining the aliens. That's its for now. *** 31263 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary sennmut Nov 27, 2015

Given all the infighting, it's amazing they turned out as good a product as they did. *** 31264 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary balor1999 Nov 27, 2015

Gerry Anderson does not mention names in the Fanderson Documentary. He talks about a black actress that he thought would be perfect for the role, and then he talks about somebody from ITC New York describing the actress as a “black hooker”. While telling this story he makes a lot of body gestures and facial expressions, showing that he felt this characterisation was completely out of place, and I also believe he explicitly mentioned the issue of racism or prejudice. When I first saw this interview I wasn’t aware of Anderson’s Jewish background and how that had been a burden to him, but now I can understand even better how Anderson must have been feeling after having created the magnificent Y1 and then seeing how Freiberger and ITC New York were not only destroying his artistic reputation but also his artistic integrity. The more we understand about the making of SPACE: 1999 the easier it is to agree with Fageolle in the need for burning and destroying Y2 as a means of collectively forgetting that it ever existed. However, as Liardet has pointed out, there are also other ways of dealing with Y2. Even though most of us hate it and wish that it had never been made, Henry Jenkins is rather optimistic on behalf of the fan fiction community as a way of putting together pieces of junk in a manner that produces interesting

192


and powerful meaning. One of the examples he mentions is the YouTube video “Donald Duck meets Glenn Beck in Right Wing Radio Duck”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfuwNU0 jsk0 To me this video is a good example of what Jenkins talks about in terms of what it would mean to interpret SPACE: 1999 in the context of supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement against Vampire Capitalism and other issues we have been discussing. For instance, right now I am reading a crossover fan fiction story between vampires and SPACE: 1999, and in addition to being extremely engaging and well written, it is quite similar to the “Right Wing Radio Duck” story in the sense that it is to a large extent a remix of story elements from the television series that makes it potentially fascinating for investigating the political subtext of SPACE: 1999 in ways that would otherwise be quite cumbersome. John B. *** 31265 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary sennmut Nov 27, 2015

By not mentioning her name, Anderson was just being a gentleman. Having faced racism himself, he was perhaps more understanding than others might have been. The rest of this missive is filled with meaningless dreck. Of course, since Space was fantasy, maybe "political subtext" fits right in. *** 31266 Re: Fanderson documentary kerryirs Nov 27, 2015

Like I mention in my last post put on the DRAGON'S DOMAIN episode with commentary and you'll hear the frustration in Anderson's comments about having someone 3,000 mikes away putting in their views and edicts concerning the production and swears he

wouldn't let happen again. I guess he didn't. He also said in the Fanderson piece that, to paraphrase, perhaps I was too nice a guy and perhaps I should've stood up against what ITC wanted. Roddenberry tried that with NBC and all it got him was what Anderson got, frustration. However, and frankly I don't know why FF didn't see this, he was walking into the same or similar situation with 1999 as he faced with Trek; executive producers who had basically quit, both leaving him to sink or swim with little support, budget cuts, time slot issues (worse with 1999 as it was a syndicated show), and meddling from the companies who held the purse strings. Body language or not, Anderson screwed FF over by hiring him for a job where he'd be working with the writers and then throwing him under the bus by hitting him with the producer's job. I know, from what FF said in the Kevin McCorry interview, I don't think his wife was happy about it. She reminded him that this was going to be an "easy job" with some free time. Of course, this didn't happen. FF has to take his share of the blame as well for the cancellation of 1999, despite the fact that Grade wanted to get back into movie production. Landau mentioned this near the end of the piece. I wonder what would've happened if Grade hadn't made that decision? A year 3 was being considered I've read. Sennmut's right about the behind the scenes issues. It's amazing this or any other shows get made. I'm sure other series have had similar issues. As I mentioned not long ago, GONE WITH THE WIND had such problems being made, it is a wonder that it ever saw the light of day. *** 31267 Re: Fanderson documentary balor1999 Nov 28, 2015

Thanks for mentioning Anderson’s commentary on DRAGON’S DOMAIN, Kerry. I watched the episode with the commentary track last night, and he spends quite a lot of time talking about the frustrations

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit he had with ITC New York. The problem was not necessarily that he didn’t understand Abe Mandell point of view but rather the challenges of communicating across cultural barriers. When they were making a show in the UK and felt that it was absolutely brilliant, there was no guarantee that there would be a similar response in the US. In fact, we know from this forum that some of the US members felt Y1 was too much aimed at educated audiences in the UK and Europe. This was the reason Fred Freiberger was brought in from the US in order to make Y2 less intellectually challenging. However, this is also the reason why scholars like Keazor finds merit in Y1 while disregarding Y2 as trash. As he and his colleagues see it, Y2 was deliberately designed as trash, and has no other place in the history of popular culture than on the cultural junkyard. When it comes to the argument that GA “screwed” FF by assigning him an impossible task, I’m not sure I agree. Unlike the case of Roddenberry withdrawing from season 3 of STAR TREK to work on other projects while the executive producers had to fight as best as they could, GA was always a part of the SPACE: 1999 team, spending his best efforts in making both Y1 and Y2 successful. However, in the case of Y2 was not only at war with Abe Mandell at ITC New York. He also had to fight the “show killer” Fred Freiberger who did everything in his power to destroy SPACE: 1999 from within. Why did FF behave the way he did? Was he insane, as Gerry Anderson believed? Was he hired by the television mafia as part of some money laundering scheme, as Johnny Byrne speculated? Or was he on drugs? Quite recently I watched a Carlos Castaneda documentary, and one of the experiences Castaneda wrote about in one of the earlier books was how Don Juan taught him how to change into a bird, allowing him to float through the sky. My immediate reaction to this story was that this was exactly the same story Freiberger used for explaining the origin of Maya. He said that his inspiration for Maya came from a story about a Mexican-Indian shaman being able to transform himself into a large bird. The way he told the story, I was under the impression that it came from the script of a Hanna-Barbera series under

193

development, but in retrospect it seems much more reasonable to expect that it came from the story Castaneda was telling, considering the enormous influence of Castaneda at the time. Perhaps Freiberger was experimenting with drugs, and that is why he felt like Maya was a good idea? It makes sense. I don’t think anybody outside the world of drugs would find Maya a good idea, but perhaps under the influence of narcotics it would make sense? On the other hand, I don’t know anything about Freiberger’s views and habits concerning drugs, so perhaps he was just observing how Castaneda was selling millions of books telling these kinds of stories and felt like it was an interesting idea to exploit. Regardless of why Freiberger wanted to rewrite SPACE: 1999 in a manner that would make it more appealing to the drug culture, it is the change itself rather than the reason for the change that is important. While the audience targeted with Y1 was the educated middle class, by making Freiberger the executive producer of Y2 the target audience for this season became the pre-school crowd and the dope heads. I think the extreme frustration with Y2 with intellectuals like Fageolle, Keazor, Bussieres, Liardet and Iaccino must be understood in this context. If we think of it from the viewpoint of THE GUARDIAN OF PIRI, Freiberger was like the servant of the Guardian in the way that he was a servant of the capitalist forces that wanted to turn audiences into easily manipulative drug addicted consumers, while Fageolle and the rest of the SPACE: 1999 scholars would be like John Koenig slapping misguided fans of SPACE: 1999 around in order to save them from the nightmare of drug addiction and regain psychological, social and political consciousness. John B. *** 31268 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary SHANA G Nov 28, 2015

John, Drug addiction??? Really??? How can you

194


attack at man that is dead. Have some respect for FF and GA!

on the series and they spoke of Roddenberry's attitude. I find that similar here in 1999.

There are 3 sides to every story, FF’s GA’s and the truth!

In any case, it's water under the bridge. I've just purchased the blu-ray version of Y2, the PAL (region B) and I have to say the quality is excellent. The Dolby 5.1 allows one to hear things that were hard to hear on standard DVSs, like the interviewed in the archive interviews. I night this version just In case it doesn't make it to the US. Of course, I had to invest I. An all region player. It's worth it.

And, please stop calling season 2 trash! Shana *** 31269 Re: Fanderson documentary kerryirs Nov 28, 2015

Well, may more new items continue to be produced based on 1999 including fan fiction.

John B, I thought you said that the comment below was figuritive. Fageolle in the need for burning and destroying Y2 as a means of collectively forgetting that it ever existed.

If it is meant to be figuritive, you use it over and overit like it has a literal meaning in your view. If that's the case, I'm glad you and this Fageolle weren't part of a "censor board" for any of the television stations that aired the series, if they did exist. Let people like what they want to like without laying a guilt trip on them. As a fan of year two, with its faults, I also like year one with all of its faults. I could get on this forum if I were obsessed with year two and call for the burning of year one constantly, but it wouldn't get me anywhere. Unfortunately, some of those in the cast of year one who are the biggest critics of Y2, haven't looked back at Y1 over the years. I think Landau said he felt half of the Y1 episodes were very good and the rest were good to whatever he said on the Fanderson piece. Anyway, that's enough of that. I have one last comment and that's your comment on my views on Anderson "throwing FF under the bus." John, I can only go by what the man said, "I'm not putting my name on any changes that you want to make. ..." In my view, that means you're on your own, just like Roddenberry did in ST: TOS. I believe a three volume book has been written on the original series and the author interviewed some of those who worked

*** 31270 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary jemarcu Nov 29, 2015

Shana, this is nothing new: character assassination, insinuations, false charges, outrageous hyperbole and personal slurs: this is who Petter Ogland/ John Balor is. He is a guttersnipe hiding behind a keyboard, and there are no depths to which he will not sink. Lets move beyond it. Rgds, John M. *** 31271 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary sennmut Nov 29, 2015

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 kerryirs writes: Well, may more new items continue to be produced based on 1999 including fan fiction.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!! *** 31272 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary SHANA G Nov 29, 2015

John, It just get more ridiculous. Both seasons had their strong and weak points. Thank God we

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit live in America, where we have the freedom of choice. I find it disgusting that someone goes after 3 dead men, who can’t speak for themselves. If I had my way, I would put John B. in a chair and make him watch season 2 over and over until he appreciated the creative artistry of season 2 which just happens to be different from Y1. Season 2 marathon anyone??? Hugs, Shana *** 31273 Re: Fanderson documentary balor1999 Nov 29, 2015

You are right in what you say about figurative speech, Kerry. Fageolle said that the world would have been a better place if all the Y2 negatives and copies and been destroyed, something I believe Gerry Anderson, Johnny Byrne, Chris Penfold, Ray Austin, Martin Landau, Nick Tate, Zienia Merton and all the rest would happily agree with, but I don’t think either of them would encourage such actions. As you have said yourself, the values embodied in SPACE: 1999 are the exact opposite of the values held by political and religious fanatics that burn books and use machine guns against abortion clinics. The central message in the first year of SPACE: 1999 is the message of tolerance. When it comes to the second year of the series, I’m more uncertain. As we have discussed over the years, there are many ways we can approach the problem of trying to make sense out of the second series. For instance, the idea of seeing Fred Freiberger’s influence on SPACE: 1999 as that of trying to make the series it into fascist propaganda is an idea with trails back to the first ExE of 1997-98, and that gained increased momentum in our second ExE of 2013-15 due to the way the theories of Wertham had become part of our discourse. I still believe that there are many more insights to be found by analysing Maya as a superhero and symbol of fascism, although it is not

195

necessarily a discussion we need to engage in right now. What I find more interesting for the present is the possible link between Fred Freiberger and drug culture. Do you think that Freiberger was on drugs when he got the idea about Maya? If this had been the case, it would explain a lot. It would explain why Gerry Anderson thought he was insane and why Johnny Byrne thought he was a criminal. It would also explain why he responded to people threatening to leave the sets of ALL THAT GLISTERS by saying that this was the benchmark for the kind of episodes he wanted for Y2. Among the many interesting questions Kevin McCorry asked Freiberger in his 1999 interview, I think a question about Freiberger’s views on the drug culture and whether he was on drugs when making SPACE: 1999 would have been useful. Do you agree? On the other hand, it is not necessarily Freiberger’s private views on drugs that would be important in this context. He was hired to do a job, and his motivation is clearly directed more towards understanding the audience than expressing his own views. In fact, I would not be surprised if he privately was concerned with the negative effects of drugs on society, but nevertheless wanted to exploit the fact that many people got into drugs in the late sixties and early seventies. As he tells Tim Heald in the 1976 interviews, when an audience wants shit it was his job to give them shit. When I watched the Carlos Castaneda documentary, I was struck by the similarities between the drug-induced stories told by Castaneda and the story Freiberger wanted to tell in Y2. I think there are opportunities for discussion here. To me Y2 has always been totally ridiculous. In those countries that bothered to show Y2, I have gotten the impression that it was mostly shown on the early Saturday morning slot, along with the cartoons, as nobody above the age of 5 would find anything of interest in the way SPACE: 1999 had been recreated. However, if we interpret Maya and Y2 from a drug perspective, perhaps it is possible to understand it differently. Perhaps teenagers and young adults experimenting with hallucinogenic drugs could identify with Maya’s transformations.

196


What do you think, Kerry? You were slightly older than me when Y2 was originally shown on television. Does the idea of the show being designed for the dual audience of pre-school children and young adults smoking pot make sense to you? If you agree, perhaps we could use this as leverage for engaging with Liardet’s analysis of Y2. Liardet is much more optimistic than Fageolle, and I think there is value to be found in Y2 if we manage to unpack it in the right manner. John B.

Thoughts? Shana ***

*** 31274 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary midst2day Nov 29, 2015

Freedom of choice is thankfully not just limited to or available in America. And, funny enough the comment to force John B to watch Season 2 over and over is exactly the opposite of that freedom. It is to 'force' him to have to do something he clearly doesn't want, nor would ever want to do, which would actually be just as wrong to do as well. Balor has the freedom to make ridiculous, even bizarre comments, and we have the freedom to ignore him. Or, others can continue to engage with him, argue with him, insult him, tell him to stop and yet get seemingly nowhere in the process. The one obvious answer seems to be one that appears to be continually ignored which is almost as bizarre as Balor himself. Namely, everyone who keeps engaging with this fellow who clearly keeps annoying and upsetting others is not to threaten Balor with threats to ask the Mods to ban him, or suggest violence of any kind, but for all to respond to him with nothing, just with silence... *** 31275 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary SHANA G Nov 30, 2015

AHHH,

You are correct about the freedom of choice, however John B does not respect the fact that some of us enjoy Y2. All he does is shove Y1 down our throats, and if you disagree with his position, you are wrong. Maybe a Y2 online Alpha group would be a viable option, and of course moderated for all to join, but John B.

31276 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary balor1999 Nov 30, 2015

Shana asked for thoughts. My thought is that I basically agree with Midst2day. The problem is not that there is too much freedom of thought on a discussion forum. I believe in freedom of thought. The problem is the contrary, namely that some of the discussants want to put restrictions on what people are allowed to say. For instance, each time somebody makes a reference to the scholarly SPACE: 1999 work of Fageolle or Liardet, he is met with insults and discussants requesting the moderators to have him removed from the forum. The same happens if somebody should bring attention to what Gerry Anderson and Johnny Byrne have said about the differences between Y1 and Y2. I think this way of behaving on a discussion forum is an extremely unproductive form of behaviour. It is the way religious fundamentalists behave. Luckily, there are also some educated people on the forum who are actually quite good at making rational arguments while following the standard netiquette. Midst2day is a good example. Kerry is perhaps an even better example. If you want to reduce the influence of some certain member on the discussion forum, stop responding to his inputs. This is a practice I try to follow concerning some members who contribute nothing but insults, and I also notice that there are some who follow this practice as a response to my inputs on the forum. This is fine. This is civilised conduct. This is how a discussion forum should operate. Every person should be allowed to contribute opinions as long as they are presented within the bounds of normal netiquette, but whether his comments

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit should be responded to or not is entirely up to the other members of the forum. This brings me to a related problem. What bothers me most at the moment is that I am reading a fantastic piece of SPACE: 1999 fan fiction that I want to comment on in the context of SF studies and published SPACE: 1999 scholarship, but when I have announced the title of what I am reading and the author is a member of the forum, my comments on how to understand SPACE: 1999 through the lens of fan fiction has mostly resulted in misunderstandings and emotional outbursts. Although I can understand a fan fiction author who do not want to be associated with ideas that he strongly disagree with, such as the case of Richard Adams laughing about Marxist interpretations of “Watership Down”, it nevertheless becomes extremely difficult to comment on an important piece of literary work if we have to make sure that we don’t say anything that is in contradiction to the political views of the writer of such a work. I don’t know what Midst2day would recommend in such a case, but to avoid offending a particular fan fiction writer whose fiction I enjoy, I think I will focus on some of the ideas I get from reading fan fiction in general rather than saying too much about what I am actually reading, apart from saying that I am reading a crossover story between SPACE: 1999 and FOREVER KNIGHT. We have already discussed how this type crossover story can function as a theoretical lens for understanding the political subtext of SPACE: 1999 through the use of Marx’s concept of ‘vampire capitalism’, but such crossover stories can also be useful for analysing other issues. The scholarly literature on SF and SPACE: 1999 is particularly useful in this context. Perhaps the most important Y2-hater of them all, Professor James Iaccino at the Chicago Schools of Professional Psychology, wrote a magnificent article about how Fred Freiberger was the destroyer of SPACE: 1999 (Studies in Popular Culture, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 65-80), but also written about FOREVER KNIGHT in a way that is useful for understanding how S99/FN crossover fan fiction can be used for understanding S99. His argument is that the vampire genre went thorough a change in the

197

1970s that can be partly seen by some of the later Hammer films where they used Elisabeth Bathory and Carmilla as vampire models to expand the Marxist ‘vampire capitalism’ theme into discourses concerning the politics of sexuality and gender. According to Iaccino, Anne Rice’s novel “Interview with the vampire” (1976) was an important change in the way of how vampire narratives are being used nowadays, and then he goes about explaining the homosexual themes in Rice’s story and how this narrative is central for the understanding of the 1992 television series FOREVER KNIGHT. Homosexuality is the central theme in FK, as he sees it. For me this was an interesting analysis in the context of how we are now discussing whether Freiberger was designing Maya and Y2 while being on drugs or whether it was designed for the purpose of appealing to drugged audiences. As we already know from the excellent 2004 paper by Christopher West (Left History, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 161-189), the cultural importance of Maya in retrospect is that she became an icon for the gay culture. So here we have an interesting difference between how Maya and Y2 was designed for the purpose of appealing to those experimenting with hallucinogenic drugs while the audience embracing the series was that of those concerned with issues like lesbian socialism. I find this conflict between the designer and the user of television narratives highly interesting when we consider Liardet’s call for more research on Y2 for the purpose of rendering it meaningful. What this illustrates to me is that SPACE: 1999 fan fiction literature is an important source of exploring the deeper themes of SPACE: 1999. I doubt I would have been familiar with Iaccino’s important writings on FOREVER KNIGHT, and how these writings fit in with the overall understanding of SPACE: 1999, if it had not been for the creativity of fan fiction writers. I think we should celebrate the fan fiction writers among us. When at their best, not only do they conjure up fascinatingly entertaining stories about SPACE: 1999, but – more importantly – they help us engage with the scholarly literature and help us understand aspects of the SPACE: 1999 that might otherwise remain quite invisible.

198


John B. *** *** 31280 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary sennmut Dec 1, 2015

31278 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary balor1999 Nov 30, 2015

TM? Balor...no one would be wanting to ban you, if every post wasn't yet another screed about Marxst theory, and what Keazor or Fageolle said or didn't say, about Y2 or Maya, or who is or is not a neo-fascist this week according to Marcuse. Okay, we know where you're at, but the rest of us aren't. can't you respect that, and just leave it? Just ONE TIME, can't you post something that doesn't sound like a lecture at Berekely??????????? Please? *** 31281 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary John Marcucci Dec 1, 2015

Indeed. Its one thing to disagree. We all disagree about Space 1999 all the time. But John Balor/ Petter Ogland goes way beyond that , into insults, insinuations, personal slurs, slander, and long pedantic diatribes of irrelevancy. *** 31277 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary sennmut Nov 30, 2015

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 SHANA G writes: You are correct about the freedom of choice, however John B does not respect the fact that some of us enjoy Y2. All he does is shove Y1 down our throats, and if you disagree with his position, you are wrong. Maybe a Y2 online Alpha group would be a viable option, and of course moderated for all to join, but John B. Thoughts?

10-4! Post one...How does the Alpha of TM, differ in temperment and outlook from the Alpha, immediately post-Breakaway?

*** 31282 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary sennmut Dec 1, 2015

The Metemorph. *** 31283 Re: Fanderson documentary kerryirs Dec 1, 2015

John B., here's a little excerp from Kevin McCorry's interview with FF. It concerns the status of Space after Y1. We were in our fourth week in England (in 1975) when Gerry informed me that Lord Grade decided to cancel the show (after Seasonn One). It shows what happens when the one who holds the purse strings isn't happy. This next excerp I think John B. falls under, FF came to destroy Space. Here's Freiberger's response to Kevin's question. Some fans very obtusely allege attempts (among them the "imposition" of Maya) on your part to destroy Space: 1999 (i.e. that you came to England intending malice upon the show). Do you fully repudiate this view? I have been accused of causing last year's El Nino and this year's earthquakes in South America, but this accusation is the wildest one yet! Note: This interview was done 1999 I believe. This belief by some is so irrational it doesn't merit a comment except to say that these are people who are so full of hate that they can't

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit see straight. This also goes for some Trek fans as well. Here's a key point of why I think that Anderson took a hands off attitude in Y2. Gerry Anderson rolls his eyes in a lamenting way and jests about the need for "mentioning in white coats" to attend mental aid to you when he talks about your idea about "talking plants". How do you feel about this? Do you believe that it is against artistic integrity for one producer to publicly attack the ideas of a colleague? If Gerry Anderson objected to the concept about talking plants, I wish he would have conveyed it to me. He was the executive producer... His objection would have been enough to cause me to abandon the story. Finally is the last question and FF's philosophy and his views on the series in the late 90s. What is your opinion of Space: 1999 today? Because the powers in control decided that the first season was not successful does not mean that the productions were not well done in terms of the acting, the directing, the stories. There are many reasons why a series is cancelled other than quality of the episodes. Ratings is the economic driving force. Are people watching the series? Obviously not enough. So, Lew Grade and his advisers decided that if the show was to succeed in the second year, it could not be the same as the first season. So, changes were made. And obviously, the public did not respond. So, the series came to an end. What I am saying is that it is a waste of energy, it seems to me, to argue that one year was better than the other. The single fact is that neither season attracted enough audience to sustain the series. Wouldn't it be pleasant if the fans accepted that all of those involved in producing, acting, writing, and directing did their best and are as disappointed as the fans that there wasn't a third, fourth, and fifth season? But life goes on, and we have to adjust. I find that for me the best thing to do is not hunt for someone to blame but to find solace in the future.

199

I guess this sums up my feelings on the last forty plus years of random and this useless bickering. Now John, your accusation out of the blue about the "drug culture" ands FF. What's your point? You've accused him eververything from a fascist to you name it. But this drug thing has nothing to do with FF or 1999 and it's time to give it a rest. Personally, over the years some of the things that have been said about FF, I suspect that if he wanted to push it, I'm sure he could've filed lawsuits for decimation of character. But like he said above, he felt it was a waste of energy. As for those like Byrne who called him criminal, I'm coming to the conclusion that maybe Byrne and Anderson were on drugs based on their statements over the years without assuming any blame for themselves. Oh, Byrne did his analysis on Y1, but that's it. Like I said, it's time to give this bickering a rest after 40 years plus. *** 31284 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary SHANA G Dec 1, 2015

Kerry, Don’t forget that season 2 also makes you gay, while alongside of doing drugs….. Interesting….. Shana *** 31285 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary sennmut Dec 1, 2015

Does it turn you into a transvestive, colorblind, and give you indigestion, too? ;) *** 31286 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary balor1999

200


Dec 1, 2015

It seems like my comments resulted in misunderstandings. Rather than saying that people become drug addicts from watching Y2, my point was that it is perhaps easier to enjoy Y2 if you are a drug addict. The argument was based on similarities between how Fred Freiberger talked about what inspired him to create Maya and the stories Carlos Castaneda talked about, resulting from his drug-induced experience of feeling like Maya. When we compare these two stories the similarities are so striking that it seems reasonable to question whether the similarities were accidental or if Castaneda’s story was the main source of inspiration for Freiberger. The plausibility would be even greater if Freiberger was a drug addict himself, but unfortunately I have not seen any evidence pointing in this direction, despite Gerry Anderson saying that the man belonged to an asylum for the mentally disturbed and most everybody else involved in the making of Y2 describe Freiberger in a very negative way. Nick Tate, for instance, has in recent years been referring to Freiberger as a “dickhead”. As Kevin McCorry did not ask Freiberger about whether the idea of Maya was a result of conducting experiments with hallucinogenic drugs, an alternative explanation could be that Freiberger was not into drugs himself but expected that science fiction audiences existed either of pre-school children or drug addicts. Obviously, these two groups are the only groups that would find the introduction of Maya to SPACE: 1999 a good idea, so the redesign of SPACE: 1999 could also be explained from a strictly business perspective without any reference to Freiberger’s private views on drugs. Perhaps the idea of introducing Maya was based on anthropological and positivst research into science fiction audiences of the period, or perhaps it was Freiberger's intuition that told him that his target audience would have to be small children and/or drug addicts. What is interesting in retrospect, however, is that the real audience for Y2 was the gay community. Although West (2004) says that Maya was an important icon for the gay community, he does not say anything about drug addicts. This leads to the speculation of

whether Freiberger was misreading his audience. He was expecting Maya to be appreciated by drug addicts, but in retrospect we see that it was the gay community that embraced the character. This was not meant as an attack on Freiberger. If he was convinced that SF audiences consisted of drug addicts, Y1 was clearly too intellectual and the Y2 revamp would make sense. On the other hand, did he believe that the drug addict community (plus the gay community) would be a sufficiently large audience for making Y2 into a hit? I don’t know. I would expect this to be a fringe audience rather than a target audience, but as Liarget comments, Y2 was definitely designed to be camp, so perhaps Freiberger had demographic data to support his business strategy. This reminds me, does anybody know whether Gaybase Alpha is still operative? I have never been a member of that group myself, but when Shana suggests the idea of having a separate Yahoo group for discussing Y2, perhaps Gaybase Alpha is such a group? This does not mean that we should not get engaged in discussions about the relevance of Maya and Y2 and issues like lesbian socialism and cultural diversity on this forum. While Fageolle hates Y2, Liardet has a more compromising view on Y2 by saying that it is more a matter of understanding the political subtext of the series as a whole. From my point of view it seems like the way we have used critical theory for understanding Y1 still applies for Y2, but we have to narrow down on specific forms of critical theory such a queer theory for understanding the significance of Y2. Perhaps this could provide answers to the question that was asked about THE METAMORPH and post-BREAKAWAY conditions yesterday. While my immediate response to such a question would be that the social structure and mechanisms of capitalist oppression are much more clearly visible in THE METAMORPH than in BREAKAWAY, a problem with such a statement is that it feels a bit like comparing apples and oranges. The first series of SPACE: 1999 aimed for hard science fiction with spiritual and political themes while the second series was more in the domain of fantasy. As the two formats are completely different, comparing the two pilot

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit episodes in terms of political subtext may consequently be misleading as it could be counter-argued that they were making the same points by the use of their significantly different formats. Perhaps a better way of discriminating between the two series would be to say that Y1 was founded on traditional critical theory while the importance of Y2 comes from seeing it through the perspective of queer theory. I wonder if these ideas could be useful for the Gaybase Alpha crowd? If the Y2 discussions were to be mainly conducted on that forum, this would also be helpful for the Online Alpha group in the sense of being able to focus on Y1. In many ways this could be a win-win situation as there would be less reason to bring up Fageolle’s ideas about burning and destroying Y2 on this forum as Y2 would then be more or less obliterated from our collective consciousness as SPACE: 1999 would then be more or less synonymous with Y1. John B.

201

“I wonder if these ideas could be useful for the Gaybase Alpha crowd? If the Y2 discussions were to be mainly conducted on that forum, this would also be helpful for the Online Alpha group in the sense of being able to focus on Y1. In many ways this could be a win-win situation as there would be less reason to bring up Fageolle’s ideas about burning and destroying Y2 on this forum as Y2 would then be more or less obliterated from our collective consciousness as SPACE: 1999 would then be more or less synonymous with Y1.”

John B, I have never encountered such a hateful and horrendous statement in my life! SCREW YOU AND YOUR SEASON 1. THIS LIST BELONGS TO EVERYONE, straight, gay, and lesbian, black, white etc.!!!!! You are a racist pig, a liar and a cheat to the good people of this blog. You should be ashamed of yourself!!!! A very pissed off Shana ***

*** 31287 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary John Marcucci Dec 1, 2015

Thing is, for some people ( I won't mention names), giving up their particular hatred, and all the loony conspiracy theories and pseudointellectual moralizing that goes along with it, would mean giving up the only thing in their lives that keeps them going, or gives their lives any purpose at all. Sad but true. *** 31290 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary sennmut Dec 2, 2015

Oh, don't be so cynical, Jemarcu! Tell us what you REALLY think!!!!!! *** 31288 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary SHANA G Dec 2, 2015

31289 [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary sennmut Dec 2, 2015

So, now Maya is the result of drugs, and she's gay? Somehow, I think Tony might have noticed the latter. Once more, unto the stench, dear friends. Political subtext where there is none, and "scholarly" comments, where there are no scholars. How long, O Lord, how long????? *** 31292 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary balor1999 Dec 2, 2015

I am not saying that Maya is gay. I am only quoting from Christopher West’s important 2004 paper where he is referring to the importance of Maya as an iconic figure within the gay community. As most of the SPACE: 1999 scholars reject Maya and Y2 as trash, with the notable exception of Didier Liardet who thinks there is merit beyond the campy

202


format of the second series, I think it is possible to contribute to a deeper understanding of Y2 by considering it through the perspective of queer theory. To me this seems like a natural way to explore the value of Y2 in the direction of what Liardet suggests.

conversation between Freiberger and Heald was all about. I find it extraordinary that Freiberger wants to describe a series he was responsible for in this manner, but if his target audience was the drug community, it makes sense.

However, this does not automatically translate into an understanding of Maya being gay. There is a difference between how something is designed and how it is perceived. What seemed like an interesting hypothesis to me was that Maya was the product of Freiberger doing drugs or trying to reached out to a drugged audience, due to the similarities with Carlos Castaneda’s famous drug-induced story from his best selling book “The teachings of Don Juan” (1968). In this book the author explains how he was taught by the shaman Don Juan to metamorph into a crow, and this is exactly the same story Freiberger refers to when talking about what inspired him in the creation of Maya. From what I’ve understood, there were many famous people who admired Castaneda, including John Lennon, William Burroughs, Frederico Fellini and Jim Morrison. I don’t know if Freiberger was part of this crowd, and he was too old to be part of the Woodstock generation that took the message of the book to heart, but so were Fellini and Burroughs – who were about the same age as Freiberger, so it is not impossible. Gerry Anderson’s comments about Freiberger’s sanity could be seen as supportive.

Freiberger got to know SPACE: 1999 by watching eight episodes. I think it would be natural to expect that he must have immediately noticed how similar it was to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and from what I’ve understood, part of the reason why SPACE ODYSSEY became such a massive hit after initially being considered too slow and philosophical was because of how the final part of the film was interpreted as a visual expression of what it feels like taking hallucinogenic drugs. Suddenly the film became an expression for the “spaced out” aspects of the Woodstock culture, and people were experimenting with taking drugs while watching the film, or comparing their own hallucinogenic experiences with the images projected on the screen. Perhaps this is how Freiberger got the idea of Maya. Perhaps he thought that the next step for SPACE: 1999 would not be to focus on the first two thirds of SPACE ODYSSEY that had been used as a basis for Y1 but rather the delve into the hallucinogenic aspects of the third part of the film and thus seeing Maya as a way of making SPACE: 1999 more appealing for the part of the youth culture in the 1970s that were heavy into drugs. It does not seem unreasonable to me that such an audience would appreciate stories about a character from a different world that would turn into a crow and other animals, if this was what Freiberger was thinking. In this sense one might say that there is short path from Kubrick to Castaneda.

On the other hand, as we do not seem to know all that much about Freiberger’s experiences and attitudes in regard of hallucinogenic drugs, an alternative approach is to completely ignore the artistic or creative aspects of Freiberger’s role as script editor and rather focus on him as a producer and what might have been his strictly business-oriented perspective by trying to give the audience what it wants regardless of his own artistic judgements. As we remember from Tim Heald’s book, Freiberger describes his attitude towards the SPACE: 1999 audience by saying that the audience wanted shit and that was what he was going to give them (Heald, 1976, p. 108). I have always found it a bit peculiar that he was so blunt about this, but from the perspective of trying to understand Y2, I find it useful. Y2 is shit. That is my understanding of what this particular

Concerning Shana’s comments about whether Gaybase Alpha would fulfil the requirements she requested in terms of a SPACE: 1999 group primarily focused on Y2, I don’t know. From my perspective it should seem like a natural place for discussing the deeper layers of Y2 through the use of queer theory and related perspectives, but, as she says, that does of course not prohibit anyone who feels like contributing a deeper understanding of Maya and Y2 on Online Alpha through the use of queer theory. Personally, I would welcome any attempt to articulate deeper understanding of

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit SPACE: 1999 on this forum, and if somebody would suggest that issues concerning repression of sexual minorities could be relevant for a more pervasive understanding of the political subtext in SPACE: 1999 as a whole, I believe this could also stimulate important conversations with great opportunity for improving our understanding of the original conceptualisation of SPACE: 1999 that we know as Y1. John B. *** 31293 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary sennmut Dec 2, 2015

On 30 Nov 2015 [email protected]: Perhaps the most important Y2-hater of them all, Professor James Iaccino at the Chicago Schools of Professional Psychology, wrote a magnificent article about how Fred Freiberger was the destroyer of SPACE: 1999 (Studies in Popular Culture, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 65-80), but also written about FOREVER KNIGHT in a way that is useful for understanding how S99/FK crossover fan fiction can be used for understanding S99. His argument is that the vampire genre went thorough a change in the 1970s that can be partly seen by some of the later Hammer films where they used Elisabeth Bathory and Carmilla as vampire models to expand the Marxist ‘vampire capitalism’ theme into discourses concerning the politics of sexuality and gender. According to Iaccino, Anne Rice’s novel “Interview with the vampire” (1976) was an important change in the way of how vampire narratives are being used nowadays, and then he goes about explaining the homosexual themes in Rice’s story and how this narrative is central for the understanding of the 1992 television series FOREVER KNIGHT. Homosexuality is the central theme in FN, as he sees it.

Are we talking about the same show? I watched every ep. Nick at least twice has sex with Natalie, he has been Janette's lover for centuries, Vachon is Urs' lover, LaCroix lusted after Nick's sister, et al. The central theme? Get real. *** 31295 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary

203

balor1999 Dec 3, 2015

I agree that there is more to FOREVER KNIGHT than homosexuality. Clearly you understand the show much better than I do, as I have only seen the pilot and the first 19 episodes of the first season so far, and from my understanding of the series it deals with all sorts of issues. In the last episode I saw, the Toronto police station was taken hostage by a criminal who wanted to free his brother while Nick had flashbacks about trying to help a group of people from East Germany escape into the West. Here I understood the vampire theme as a metaphor for being inside a prison. The previous episode was concerned with an Alcoholics Anonymous clinic, and the blood thirst of the vampire was a symbol of alcohol addiction, sex addiction and addictions in general. As I have now reached chapter 13 in your excellent ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT, a story that strikes me as being no less about FOREVER KNIGHT than SPACE: 1999, I don’t really see anything here that makes me think of homosexuality as the centre of FOREVER KNIGHT either. However, this does not make me question whether Dr. Iaccino has been watching the same show as I have been watching. As a professor of psychology with a keen interest in popular culture, he writes about S99/Y2 as trash and FK as homosexuality with authority because of his insightful reading and historical contextualisation of both series. His comments about FOREVER KNIGHT was something I found in his chapter “The World of Forever Knight: A Television Tribute to Anne Rice’s New Age Vampire” (pp. 231-246) of the book “The Gothic World of Anne Rice” (Hoppenstand & Browne (eds.), Bowling Green University Press, 1996). Unfortunately, he doesn’t say anything about SPACE: 1999 in this book, but when we use your crossover story as an inspiration for connecting what Iaccino says about SPACE: 1999 and what he says about FOREVER KNIGHT, we get an opportunity for enriching the understanding of Y2 that Iaccino documents in his 2001 paper by means of what he says about FOREVER KNIGHT in the 1996 book. Of course, it would be quite easy to explore this particular side of Maya and Y2 without the

204


Iaccino connection, with Christopher West’s important 2004 paper being an obvious reference, but I think Iaccino adds to discourse in terms of triangulating the observations and explaining in depth why and how vampire mythology changed from being used between 1850 to 1970 as a symbol of capitalist oppression while a more Freudian interpretation of the mythology has become more dominant during the past 40 years. This is what I see as the main insight from Iaccino’s text, and that is why I believe fan fiction in the shape of crossover stories between FOREVER KNIGHT and SPACE: 1999 can be useful if we want to expand on Liardet’s (2014) interpretations of Y2 through the means of queer theory. Although I agree with Shana that it should be a perfectly legitimate to engage with this kind of theoretical discourse on Online Alpha, I still think that those interested in Y2 would be able to gain richer response and deeper insights by means of engaging in queer theory debates with the Gaybase Alpha crowd. In this sense I still think it would be a good idea to separate the discussion of Y1 and Y2 by focusing on Y1 on Online Alpha and Y2 on Gaybase Alpha, as I don’t think fans of SPACE: 1999 in general are all that interested in Y2. Of course, Y2 is still important within the wider context of SPACE: 1999, but among the scholars of SPACE: 1999 it is more of a niche interest. John B. *** 31296 Re: Fanderson documentary kerryirs Dec 3 3:53 PM

Interesting. So this James Iaccino is another who believes FF destroyed 1999? I guess he hasn't read Kevin's interview with FF where he calls this line of thinking basically crap (my word). And why does this professor even care about this particular TV series in the first place? You'd think he has better things to do or write about. I could say something about his background in terms of an accusation but, I won't climb into the gutter. I'll just say that he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.

Balor, it seems you read, but do not comprehend. You continue to spew falsehoods call opinions from people you call important. You are so wrapped up in your little world called SPACE: 1999 that you have a hard time seeing reality. This series was DEAD, DEAD after Y1. Now who is to blame for that? Not Freiberger; that falls on the shoulders of Anderson, Byrne, Penfold, and Grade. I read recently that NBC had an interest in the series but, Grade raised the amount he wanted for the series and NBC declined. Whether that's true or not we'll probably never know. It may be more myth that has built up around this series over the years. This doesn't absolve FF from some of the issues in Y2, but to lay it all at hus feet; no way. Some of the changes he had little or nothing to do with. Much of the look came from Keith Wilson. The changes in the uniforms was his and Lesley de Pettit. Main Mission set, probably Keith Wilson and Freiberger have had a role in the change based on interviews I 've seen or read. The change was also made due to economics. The set was hard to light and costly. *** 31297 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary sennmut Dec 4, 2015

I think, Kerry, the basic problem is, some among us have gotten into a twist, seeing Alpha as some sort of socialist utopia in the making. From things dropped by Balor, Y1 would be the slow, but inevitable, progress towards true communism. Balor is, after all, a marinated Marxist. Then, along comes Y2, and the glaring changes. Maya, and some of the other changes, have no place in the progress of the Marxian dialectic, so, now that this putative utopis just got un-utoped, someone has to be blamed. Koenig is a fascist, Maya is a fascist/gay icon, FF deliberately destroyed the show, he of course being a fascist, the dialogue in TROL describing a Nazi/fascist paradise, ad infinitum, ad nauseum... I think you get my point. With no more socialist utopias left to snuggle up to, someone

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit has to take the blame. So, hey, let's all blame the dead guy!

205

to destroy the show, why should he admit to this in the interview with McCorry? No reason at all.

*** 31298 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary SHANA G Dec 4, 2015

Kerry, I actually think that the changes made in season 2 were badly needed to keep the show going, and I would take Command Center any day over “Main Mission”. What does Main Mission mean anyways? The command structure was a more shared duty from John, between John, Tony, Alan, and Helena. For instance, Tony in Catacombs, Alan and Helena in Space Warp, Tony and Maya again in Beta Cloud for example. I season one if it wasn’t blessed by John, it was dead on arrival. As a chuckle, at least in Season 2 They got the Eagle Doors right, compared to “This is Eagle 6 to Alpha” a pilot says but the door behind him says 5 as seen in Breakaway Commissioners Eagle, and the Black Sun survival ship in year 1. Hugs to you guys, Shana *** 31299 Re: Fanderson documentary balor1999 Dec 4, 2015

Perhaps Iaccino had not read McCorry’s interview with Freiberger. He makes no reference to the interview in his 2001 paper as far as I remember. On the other hand, he could have read the interview but also been aware of Freiberger’s flexibility with the truth, as Gerry Anderson made us aware of when having to make explanatory comments in the next issue of STARLOG after Freiberger had been interviewed about SPACE: 1999. In other words, whether Freiberger was hired to destroy SPACE: 1999 or not, he would have no incentive for saying that such accusations were crap when being interviewed about the issue several years later. If indeed he had been hired

Nevertheless, my impression is that Johnny Byrne’s suspicion that Freiberger had been hired to destroy SPACE: 1999, as part of some money laundering scheme, was just a thought that occurred at a particular time, and not necessarily something that he continued to believe in. When Johnny Byrne talks about Freiberger destroying SPACE: 1999, this is usually in a more figurative context of how Freiberger wanted to dumb down and betray the visions of the original series by recreating it as a kiddie show. Sadly, Johnny Byrne is no longer among us, so it is not possible to ask him about whether he believed Freiberger was on drugs when he created Maya or whether Maya was imposed on the series under the assumption that people on hallucinogenic drugs were an important part of the target audience. Concerning another issue, namely that fact that SPACE: 1999 was dead after the conclusion of Y1, I do not see reasons for why we should find people to blame for that. Some series last an extraordinary long string of seasons, such as GUNSMOKE or BONANZA, others last only a few seasons. STAR TREK lasted three seasons. SPACE: 1999 lasted one season. The problem is not that SPACE: 1999 was dead after the first season. The problem is the way they tried to resurrect it in a manner that was a total betrayal of what the original series stood for. Nobody within the SPACE: 1999 community had any serious problems with the original series. Gerry Anderson, Martin Landau, Nick Tate, Johnny Byrne, Chris Penfold and all the rest all talk about it in an enthusiastic manner in the Fanderson Documentary and elsewhere. It is Y2 that they describe as crap. The problem is not that SPACE: 1999 was dead after Y1. The problem is that Y2 was made. If you ask Keazor, Fageolle, Liardet, Iaccino or most any SPACE: 1999 scholar, the making of Y2 was a fundamental mistake. It should never have been made. John B. ***

206


31300 Re: Fanderson documentary kerryirs Dec 4, 2015

Sennmut, you made your point beautifully. Unfortunatelly Balor isn't going to change. He's locked into his bubble and the material he agrees with. That's sad because the guy is intelligent, just full of anger over a production (ITC) company that he feels i guess betrayed his Utopia, as you put it. He can't change history. Thanks. *** 31301 Re: Fanderson documentary balor1999 Dec5, 2015

I appreciate what you write about beauty and intelligence, Kerry. Senmut is a talented writer, and many of his stories can characterised as beautiful works of art. When he presented us with a warning the ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE would be all about blood, guts and carnage, I got worried, but now having reached chapter 15, I would agree with you that beauty is a much better characteristic. Perhaps even more than in the previous two stories of the FOREVER ALPHA cycle, I feel his talent for psychological insights come to their right. Within the world of SPACE: 1999 fictional literature, he is heads and shoulders above anything else I have read. Concerning your kind remarks about the way I try to explore SPACE: 1999 in an intelligent manner, I can only say that I try to do my best. The approach I follow is that of trying to understand the overall themes of the series by building on the already rich academic and scholarly literature and then try to develop further understanding by looking more deeply into what the makers of the series have been saying in various interviews and presentations. However, I still think we have a long way to go. In particular I think we have a lot to gain by engaging deeper with the scholarly SF literature in general and seeing SPACE: 1999 as a special case of what Carl Freedman articulates as the connection between SF and

critical theory. We know that Keazor has already made important progress in this direction, building on the one hand on Fageolle and on the other trying to bridge into Jan Arendt Fuhse’s alternative to Freedman on how to read science fiction as critical theory. As we continue to explore these issues, I think it is important that we do not fall into the trap of debating the political viewpoints of our fellow discussants and rather try to focus on the text. Apart from certain intense periods of the recent ExE discussion where at least one discussant tried to convince the forum that SPACE: 1999 could politically aligned with certain extremist right wing views on issues like natural evolution, climate change, weapons control and economic deregulation because he himself kept such views, most people on this forum keep their political views to themselves and rather try to understand the text from how it can be understood through historical-sociological contextualisation. I think it is important that we continue on this path if we want to enlarge our understanding SPACE: 1999. What this means, as I see it, is that we cannot ignore what Gerry Anderson, Martin Landau, Johnny Byrne and the others have said about Y2. It is not a matter of secluding oneself into a bubble by reading material that we agree with. Quite to the contrary, it is a matter of breaking out of such bubbles by engaging with the rich and wonderful scholarly SPACE: 1999 literature that describes Y2 as rubbish, use this as a premise then goes out on a quest in order to understand why it happened and how these insights can help us understand the real value of SPACE: 1999 that is essentially expressed through Y1. John B. *** 31302 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary sennmut Dec 5, 2015

BALOR!!!!!!!! I asked you NOT to EVER mention anything regarding critical theory on the same page as anything of mine!!!! ***


31304 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary balor1999 Dec 5, 2015

I’m sorry about that, Senmut. As you know, I am an admirer of your fictional work, I understand how you don’t want people to read political context into it that is contrary to your own belief system, and I am trying to contribute to the discussion of how high quality fan fiction, like the fiction you produce, fits into Henry Jenkins theories of fan fiction and critical theory, looking at our particular case of SPACE: 1999, but WITHOUT making any specific references to your writings. As the previous post was written as a general response to some comments made by Kerry, questioning whether we should keep ourselves inside the bubble of fandom-driven discourse to avoid engaging with the reality of what the scholarly community has to say about the second series of SPACE: 1999 – and what the people who made SPACE: 1999 have said, I was not explicitly addressing the theories of Jenkins and Tulloch concerning SF fan fiction and critical theory. I suppose this is the reason I made a slip-up. Nevertheless, it was not with intent, and I will try to prevent it from happening again. While on this topic of civilised conduct and mutual respect, I would also appreciate if you did not refer to me as a “marinated Marxist” searching for “socialist utopias” and “true communism”. As far as I remember, I have never said anything about my personal political beliefs on this discussion forum. I have only said that I try to understand SPACE: 1999 from the viewpoint of those who made the series and how it is generally received within academic scholarship and among the more educated part of fandom. Personally I might be an idiot Republican on the far right who thinks Y2 is a masterpiece of political rhetoric and that Barry Morse’s interpretation of Moonbase Alpha of Y1 to be a “socialist outfit” is evidence of the moral inferiority of Y1, and you don’t know, because I have never said anything about my personal political beliefs. I have never done that because it is irrelevant. We are not here to discuss the political opinions of individual members of Online Alpha. We are here to discuss SPACE: 1999.

207

We are here to discuss the political opinions of people like Johnny Byrne, Chris Penfold, Barry Morse and the rest. This is the reason why critical theory plays such an important part in the understanding of SPACE: 1999. John B. *** 31305 Re: Fanderson documentary kerryirs Dec 5, 2015

John writes: The problem is the way they tried to resurrect it in a manner that was a total betrayal of what the original series stood for. Nobody within the SPACE: 1999 community had any serious problems with the original series.

Well, one key person who did have a problem with the first season, Sir Lew Grade, the head of ITC. I'm sure he was getting reports from New York on how the season was doing and I guess he didn't like what he saw. The almost year gap before a decision was made to go ahead with the series didn't help. Many of the actors had gone onto other jobs. This put a real time constraint on the production as it has been said that ITC put a time limit on when production was to be completed. This time constraint was probably due to the exceedingly long time it took to complete Y1. My point is that nothing happens in a vaccuum. There's always a cause for why something happens. Apperantly Grade had issues with the first season as I mention above. As for Anderson's accusation that Freiberger's goal was to destroy 199 and his integrity, all I have to say is this, Anderson has no proof of this in the sense he.has never quoted FF as having told him this was his intension. I seriously doubt Freiberger had heard of 1999 or perhaps Anderson himself before Anderson contacted him. Again, Anderson was the executive producer and if he suspected this was Freiberger's intent, he could've stepped in; the fact he didn't supports my view that Anderson threw FF under the bus. I guess he felt that if the series were canceled, no one

208


would blame him. Well, too me, Anderson couldn't wash his hands of responsibility by blaming everything on FF. The concept of the series was his. As for Johnny Byrne's money laundering crack, that's the type of comment that is really uncalled for, figuritive or not. It intimates criminal intent. As one hears on the news now, when it concerns current issues, words matter. Oh, why can't we blame those who made Y1 for its cancellation? You and others are quick to blame one man for 1999's demise. The concept was all Anderson, the story line and style of Y1 was Byrnes, Penfold, and the other writers. It was these people who came with some good stories but, also some stories that were hard to buy into, like the endings for MOLAD, BLACK SUN, WAR GAMES, and some others. Other stories violated logic at times like TROUBLED SPIRIT. Oh, wasn't that epoisode about trying to talk to plants? I find it funny that Anderson was so upset with THE RULES OF LUTON while ignoring subpar episodes like TS. Anyway, it doesn't make much difference now. But didn't Landau also say that only half of Y1 episodes were good and the others were of various quality? Morse also had some creative differences did he? As Freiberger said, in his view, bitching about the Y1/Y2 feud is a waste of energy. *** 31306RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary John Marcucci Dec 5, 2015

Rgds, John M. *** 31307 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary sennmut Dec 6, 2015

You "apologize", yet you still go on to mention those people and their stuff, in the same email!!!!!!!! It's critical theory, critical theory, and then, GASP!!!!!, critical theory. I think you just can't help yourself, Balor. It's so much a part of you. As to you never having "said anything about my personal political beliefs on this discussion forum", are you kidding? Everything is about Marxist something! If not the threadbare critical theory, it's the class struggle, or capitalist overlords, or exploitation of the proletariat, ad nauseum. You mention Marx often enough to have to pay royalties for the use of the name! What other conclusion can one reasonably come to? it would be as if someone on here mentioned Papal Encyclycals, and looked for the 'theological subtext" in every ep. If we pegged them as RC, would we be far off? Same with you. Now STOP mentioning ANYTHING of mine in conjunction with ANYTHING even remotely Marxist. I really am losing patience. *** 31310 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary SHANA G Dec 6, 2015

Slinter,

Good points.

AMEN!

Sure, one could make the argument that S2 was a total betrayal of what S1 stood for. It could just as easily be argued that S1 was a betrayal of Lew Grade's original vision for the series, and that Freiberger was brought in to bring Grade's vision to fruition in S2. That S2 was the true vision and S1 was hijacked. One argument holds no more water than the other. That being the case, its a pointless argument to have... unless you're totally beyond rational thinking, that is.

Shana *** 31308 Re: Fanderson documentary balor1999 Dec 6, 2015

I can agree on some of the things you say, Kerry. For many of us, the first season of SPACE: 1999 stand out as a masterpiece of SF

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit television, and the scholarly community helps us in developing this belief, but the makers of the series were more humble. Sylvia Anderson was not happy with the choice of the Landaus as leads. Keith Wilson didn’t like Rudi Gernreich’s costumes. Barry Morse had mixed feelings about the show after he was declined the opportunity to return for the second series. Johnny Byrne, Chris Penfold and Edward di Lorenzo were frustrated with ITC New York’s involvement in the writing process, and they did not feel that every script turned out equally successful. So you are right. The way we understand SPACE: 1999 today is probably more shaped by the insights from scholars like Fageolle, Keazor, Liardet, Wozniak, Bussieres, Turdo, West, Wood, Muir, Drake and the rest than those of the makers of the series and contemporary critics. However, I think you forget one important thing. When we watch the Fanderson Documentary or read about what the makers of the series have said in lectures and interviews, they are always saying that Y1 was a wonderful series but Y2 was not. Usually they say that Y2 was a mistake. Even Freiberger would agree that Y2 was a mistake in the sense of not being sold to the US television networks and not resulting in Y3, Y4 and Y5, but when Johnny Byrne and the rest talk about the mistakes of Y2 they talk about something completely different. They talk about the fact that Y2 was crap. They objected to what Fred Freiberger told Tim Heald in the 1976 interviews that SF television audiences wanted shit, so he was going to give them shit. Perhaps it makes business sense to sell shit to an audience that wants shit, but it must have been a depressing experience for the writers and actors to be told to write and perform shit. Why they stayed on as a long as they did is anyone’s guess. I suppose they must have been desperately in need of the money, but Johnny Byrne only committed one script to the series as the three scripts he had already prepared were designed for the Y1 format. Chris Penfold reluctantly submitted one script after being told to do so by Anderson as a token of old friendships, but regretted having done so when he saw what it became like in production. Similar experiences are recorded by other writers. Director Ray Austin left the series after frustrations with Freiberger, presenting FF with a gift-wrapped rock with

209

the words “I name this rock Fred Freiberger”. Zienia Merton couldn’t stand the series and left. Nick Tate referred to FF as a “dickhead”. Martin Landau assessment of Y2 as a whole was that it had become a cartoon. It had become MR MAGOO, as he told the French television team in 1999. My question is then, why should we delude ourselves into liking Y2 when nobody else does? The people who made it despised it. It was made on the premise of television audiences being idiots, assuming it would be possible to make SPACE: 1999 into a commercial success by redesigning it in manner that would only appeal to idiots. Do we really want to belong to this target audience? Fred Freiberger says that he wanted to produce shit. Do we really want to say thank you and please feed us with more shit? Would the world have been a better place if FF had continued and produced an even shittier Y3? As Fageolle pointed out, the world would have been a much better place if Y2 had never been made. The original 24 episodes of SPACE: 1999 would be more than enough for securing the series a reputation of being one of the finest pieces of television SF ever made. Y2 only contributed in dragging SPACE: 1999 down into the mud. As we have already discussed, some of us seem to believe that FF was under the impression that his target audience existed of pre-school toddlers and drug addicts. I can’t imagine how anybody else could find anything of interest in a series like Y2. The academics and scholarly experts on SPACE: 1999 certainly do not. The making of Y2 was like painting moustaches on the Mona Lisa. It was an insult to Y1 audience, as is well documented in the AlphaCon video that was made by the Fanderson Documentary people (Mallett & Pearce, 1991), and it was an insult to the people who made Y1. In particular it remained an embarrassment for Gerry Anderson for the rest of his life. As a consequence of Y2 he said that he would never again give up his right to have complete control over his productions, and he stuck with that, although his reputation had been tarred by Y2, probably explaining why he was never able to reach the same level of success that he had achieved in earlier days. So in this sense, Fred Freiberger was more than a “show killer”, he was an “angel of

210


death”, as I believe Johnny Byrne named him. He not only killed shows, he also destroyed the reputation of people working on those shows. I think it is important that we are all aware of what Y2 was like. It was not comparable to Y1 in any respect. Y1 was good. Y2 was trash. Having established the facts, I still think there is room for discussion along the line that Kerry suggests. In many ways I think Kerry would be right if he would only acknowledge the premise for the discussions being that Y1 was good and Y2 was trash. To me this is so obvious when we refer to the SPACE: 1999 literature and the interviews with the people who made the series, so why can’t we skip this part of the debate and rather focus on the more interesting implications suggested by Liardet, namely that there can be merits to Y2 despite the fact that it was trash. As I have suggested, there are opportunities for discussing Maya and Y2 in the context of fascism, there are opportunities for discussing Maya and Y2 from the viewpoint of Carlos Castaneda and the early seventies drug culture, and there are opportunities for discussing Maya and Y2 from the viewpoint of the gay liberation movement of the period. All these perspectives can be useful for framing Y2 within a narrower intellectual framework that can be seen as part of the wider critical theory perspective that frames SPACE: 1999 as a whole. To me this seems like the only way of responding to the Y1/Y2 debate in a constructive and rational manner. We must start by acknowledging how Y1 and Y2 differ, the first series being a masterpiece and the second series being trash, and then try to consolidate the two series by showing, through the perspectives suggested by Liardet, that they can be thought of as articulating similar narratives of critical theory and thus similar forms of political subtext but through different formats. If we build on the texts by Carl Freedman, I think we could say that Y1 represents a mainstream format for presenting critical theory. Y2, on the other hand, is a niche format where we have to approach critical theory either from the opposing, complementary or niche perspectives like those of fascism, drug culture or gay culture. This makes sense to me. What do you think, Kerry?

John B. *** 31312 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary Erich Wise Dec 6, 2015

Slinter wrote18: Given all the infighting, it's amazing they turned out as good a product as they did.

If you're talking about year 2, they didn't. *** 31316 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary sennmut Dec 6, 2015

I was referring to the series, overall. *** 31314 Re: Fanderson documentary kerryirs Dec 6, 2015

Shana, I agree on Command Center. It looks more like the Manned Spacecraft center control room in Houston, consoles, large screen up front, screens in the consoles, etc. FF mentioned they pattered CC after NASA. Main Mission, I'm not sure where they came up with that name. NASA always uses mission control in their messages. The set was nice but too big for TV at that time. Now a days with larger screens, it shows up better. It'd look great on a theater screen back then and maybe now. I never liked the set layout where the opeartives sat. It reminds me of an elementary school teacher's desk that I knew once had. No screens, just paper output. Even in the 70s they had CRT monitors. I wonder why they didn't start out with those to begin with. Then I remember reading that all the monitors on the Message #31263 at the very beginning of this discussion thread: Senmut comments on Kerry Keene’s message #31262 about a black Maya and other topics of disagreement during the planning and making of Y2. 18

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit commposts created problems with the production team in terms of filming. They finally figured it out. They also experimented with some new techniques as well. I've read that Barbara Bain didn't care for the main mission set. She thought it was too big and preferred a more intimate set. If you notice, the bridge on a Navy ship isn't this huge complex. The command opperatives and those who people the helm are only feet away. I do like Koenig's office and I wish they'd kept that, but perhaps space became an issue or it was decided to drop it. They had no choice but to open these characters up, despite what Byrne has said in his "spaceman" crack comments. If the audience has no interest in what happens to the characters, then too me the story suffers by being somewhat one dimensional. The story and characters have to mesh and the characters have to care about each other. There was some of this in Y1, but for me, more was needed. For example, Paul Morrow was dull in most instances. Even his attempted joke in FULL CIRCLE about Brazil where the nuts come from falls flat, because humor isn't in his personality. This wasn't Prentice Hancock's fault, it was the nature of the scripts. Now I agree that humor in the beginning episodes wouldn't have fit due to the situation the Alphans found themselves in. But as time went by, and they adjusted, then the atmosphere could've lightened a bit, and it did with Koenig putting together the puzzle and his Kindo match shows Koenig can relax at times. Overall, Y1 was achingly oppressive at times from an emotional standpoint. Despite this, Y1 has some great story concepts. Freiberger was right, the British writers were ahead of what was coming out of Hollywood. Back to this criticism of Y2 was more about "spacemen" than people from Earth, as Byrne felt Y1 was, to me, is an excuse he used to rip the second season. The Alphans are no longer Earthmen. What's the old saying, there's no going home again. Well, in the lives of Koenig and his people, they are no longer earthmen and women, but are Alphans lost in the cosmos while maintaining their humanity. These

211

people haven't forgotten where they came from, as Alan tells Sahala how important it is to him that he came from Australia. And Koenig and Tony's references to religion (NEW ADAM, NEW EVE, BRIAN THE BRAIN), respectively. Shana is right on when she points out these characters were allowed to "spread their wings". First, the command structure is better. There is a clear second in command and Alan would take over, as he did in SPACE WARP, when Tony weren't available. Helena did the same in AB CHRYSALIS, as Koenig's standing. We seldom saw this in Y1. MISSING LINK comes to mind. But FULL CIRCLE does counter this to some degree. Well, that's it for now. To the critics, I say instead of accepting all of the pot shots Y2 has taken from whomever, and instead of following what they say like sheep, try to reconsider Y2 in a different light. It wasn't perfect, nothing is, but the characters were humanized (for me, more likable), more stories with less of the metaphysical aspect to them, and some humor. Hang in. *** 31317 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary sennmut Dec 6, 2015

I think the reason for the expansive sets, in Y1, was the nature of Alpah, itself. After all, one is on the Moon, and you can't just step outside for a stroll, when you're feeling a bit boxed in. The early space missions all suffered from tiny, cramped capsules, and needfully so, given costs and such. But when on Alpha, one would need a feeling of space (no pun intended, of course!) and openess, for the psychological well-being of the personnel. I am sure LSRO, the Space Commission, et al, conducted studies, to guage how people responded over long periods, in work places of various sizes and population densities. I for one would prefer, were it me, an environment less confined feeling, if I'm going to be up there for however long the standard tour was. Like the Navy, not everyone can handle six or eight months stuffed inside a submarine.

212


As for the paper tapes, well, they never expected to be cut off from home. And, fewer screens means less electrical loads on the system. In the event of an emergency, like a breakdown in the vid output system, they have a way for the computer to give answers, that takes less power. Just a thought. Or maybe part of Alpha was funded by National Cash Register Co. ? *** 31318 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary Erich Wise Dec 6, 2015

Jemarcu wrote: Sure, one could make the argument that S2 was a total betrayal of what S1 stood for. It could just as easily be argued that S1 was a betrayal of Lew Grade's original vision for the series, and that Freiberger was brought in to bring Grade's vision to fruition in S2. That S2 was the true vision and S1 was hijacked. One argument holds no more water than the other. That being the case, its a pointless argument to have... unless you're totally beyond rational thinking, that is.

And if the series started out as this "true vision of Season 2" it would have been compared to Lost in Space, regarded as a kiddie program, there never would have been a second season and none of us would be here discussing it today. In other words, nonsense. Year 1 was the true Space: 1999. *** 31320 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary John Marcucci Dec 7, 2015

Lost in Space lasted for 5 seasons. Star Trek for 3. Gunsmoke for over 20. I guess that will generatee more commentary about how stupid and vapid the American public is, from the America haters on this list. *** 31321 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary sennmut Dec 7, 2015

I thought LIS was only 3 seasons. *** 31322 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary Erich Wise Dec 7, 2015

John Balor wrote: Concerning another issue, namely that fact that SPACE: 1999 was dead after the conclusion of Y1, I do not see reasons for why we should find people to blame for that. Some series last an extraordinary long string of seasons, such as GUNSMOKE or BONANZA, others last only a few seasons. STAR TREK lasted three seasons. SPACE: 1999 lasted one season. The problem is not that SPACE: 1999 was dead after the first season. The problem is the way they tried to resurrect it in a manner that was a total betrayal of what the original series stood for. Nobody within the SPACE: 1999 community had any serious problems with the original series. Gerry Anderson, Martin Landau, Nick Tate, Johnny Byrne, Chris Penfold and all the rest all talk about it in an enthusiastic manner in the Fanderson Documentary and elsewhere. It is Y2 that they describe as crap. The problem is not that SPACE: 1999 was dead after Y1. The problem is that Y2 was made. If you ask Keazor, Fageolle, Liardet, Iaccino or most any SPACE: 1999 scholar, the making of Y2 was a fundamental mistake. It should never have been made.

Exactly. Some people still want to confuse popularity (ratings) and quality. They have nothing to do with each other. Saying Space: 1999 was dead after Year 1 concerns only the ratings. Sure, Year 1 had problems but those problems weren't the set (changed), music (changed), characters and actors (changed) and things such as mood, atmosphere and style (all changed). There were legitimate reasons for some of the changes but they were still changed. The biggest problem of Year 1 was some of the writing but even the worst writing of Year 1 was aimed at the thinking adult. Changing it to a clone of Lost in Space ("The Great Vegetable Rebellion") or trying to imitate Star Trek with a Spock-lite character didn't help. An analogy can be made to the American police comedy-drama series Hooperman starring John Ritter, his best series. (Three's Company may have been more popular but...

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit re-read the top paragraph.) This series was filmed without an audience with a single camera. After two years of quality writing but not-too-spectacular ratings, the powers that be at ABC decided to change the series. Barney Miller had been a successful multi-cam police comedy series originally taped before an audience and shown on ABC for eight seasons. So the executives wanted to change Hooperman into a different series which more resembled a more successful past series (Sound familiar?) They wanted it taped before an audience. John Ritter, whose company produced the show, knew the integrity of the series would suffer. So he made the decision to end the series even though there were only two seasons and the program would probably be largely forgotten in the future.Too bad Gerry Anderson didn't have the same integrity. *** 31323 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary John Marcucci Dec 7, 2015

The issue here is one of balance. Quality and artisitc vision has to be balanced with economic realities. Regretably, Space 1999, despite a lavish budget, never achieved that. *** 31324 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary Erich Wise Dec 7, 2015

Jemarcu wrote:

213

You seemed to be comparing the quality of S2 of Space 1999 to Lost in Space, as a reason for the former's non renewal. If S2 was a carbon copy of Lost in Space, then logically it would have lasted as long, by attracting and holding the same "kiddie" audience and jettisoning the so-called "mature" audience of S1. other shows have faced these crisis and come through. S1 of Star Trek, the Next Generation, had some serious flaws. Course changes were made. Picard's character was made a more manly and decisive, a little less of a dithering consensus builder. More clearly defined gender roles were established for the main characters. The "man-skirt" was abolished. (thank Christ!). Characters like Worf and the Ferengis, who had formerly been made the repository of all the human qualities that liberals hate (bravery, loyalty, patriotism, faith, entrepeneurship. thrift) were given more depth and sympathy. Why was St/ TNG able to survive these radical course changes, but S1999 and BSG were not? Better leadership at the top is the only answer I can think of that makes any sense. Rgds, John M. *** 31326 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary sennmut Dec 7, 2015

Or just greed. ***

Lost in Space lasted for 5 seasons. Star Trek for 3. Gunsmoke for over 20. I guess that will generatee more commentary about how stupid and vapid the American public is, from the America haters on this list.

I was talking about Space: 1999. What does that have to do with your response? *** 31325 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary John Marcucci Dec 7, 2015

31327 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary Erich Wise Dec 7, 2015

You seemed to have missed a few words of my post. "IF THE SERIES STARTED OUT as ...Season 2 it would have been compared to Lost in Space." I was responding to your post that "It could just as easily be argued that S1 was a betrayal of Lew Grade's original vision for the series, and that Freiberger was brought in to bring

214


Grade's vision to fruition in S2. That S2 was the true vision and S1 was hijacked." I wrote nothing about why Year 2 was not renewed. The answer is obvious. The ratings didn't improve. And as I had stated before, ratings and quality are two different things. (And what is Lew Grade's vision? All he did was come up with the money.) *** 31328 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary balor1999 Dec 7, 2015

If SPACE: 1999 had started out as Y2, my guess is that it would only have lasted a handful of episodes. As Muir argues, one of the reasons Y1 did not become quite as popular in the US as ITC had hoped for was because the STAR TREK community felt it was too similar to STAR TREK on a conceptual level yet too different from STAR TREK in terms of mood, characters, acting, storytelling and so on. Clearly SPACE: 1999 contained elements of STAR TREK and 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and the STAR TREK community didn’t like this mix. On the one hand it felt like a STAR TREK rip-off, on the other hand it felt too serious by building on elements of SPACE ODYSSEY. If, on the other hand, the SPACE: 1999 had started out as a mix between STAR TREK and LOST IN SPACE, I think the reception had been even worse. When James Iaccino tries to explain why SPACE: 1999 failed, he makes exactly this point. SPACE: 1999 was an interesting show with integrity and different from what had been seen before. The makers of the series and the international critics perceived it as a high quality series. However, as it didn’t get the ratings they had been hoping for in the US, certain people started to look at how SPACE: 1999 could be made more similar to SF shows had been attracting good ratings. STAR TREK had only survived three seasons but was popular as a rerun and had a cult following. LOST IN SPACE had survived for five season19s. To improve ratings the Editor’s note: According to Abbott (2006), the series started with an unaired pilot (1965) and then lasted three seasons (1965-68).

19

series was consequently revamped to make it more similar to STAR TREK and LOST IN SPACE. Big mistake. How would the audiences have responded if SPACE: 1999 had started out like this? They would obviously have seen it as not only a ripoff of STAR TREK and LOST IN SPACE, which Y2 clearly was, but they would also have described it as poor rip-off because of the British accents and how British scripts did not match with the type stories people in Iowa and Nebraska were expecting. It would have been a total failure from day one. Besides, in 1977 a series based on STAR TREK and LOST IN SPACE would be guaranteed to flop anyway as this was the year of STAR TREK, which became the template for popular SF television in the shape of things like BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and BUCK ROGERS. In other words, the problems with SPACE: 1999 had nothing to do with Y1. The first season of SPACE: 1999 is the reason why it deserves a place in this history of SF television. SPACE: 1999, as understood through Y1, is an important and interesting series in a large set of contexts. The only serious mistake relating to SPACE: 1999 was Y2. The mistake was to make Y2. It should never have been made. John B. *** 31329 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary GARY Dec 8, 2015

John B. states In other words, the problems with SPACE: 1999 had nothing to do with Y1. The first season of SPACE: 1999 is the reason why it deserves a place in this history of SF television. SPACE: 1999, as understood through Y1, is an important and interesting series in a large set of contexts. The only serious mistake relating to SPACE: 1999 was Y2. The mistake was to make Y2. It should never have been made.

Well John, I find it odd that you know what people in Iowa and Nebraska like or dislike, as you do not live in America. When I was growing up, Space 1999 was on numerous TV

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit stations at the same time. Did you know that we had just gotten cable just for s:1999? It was on channels 10, 25, 27, 38, 56, 64 and WPIX 11 out of New York city, all at different times of the day and night. With said stations being out of Providence and Boston. Season 2 was a complete hit in New England. I was 10 at the time and Space 1999 played on air until I was either 23, or 24 years of age. There was a beautiful article, in the Providence Journal in 1976 about the show, and its caption was “John Koenig, he’ll be more human”, with his picture on the cover of the article. I remember when the stations showed Y1 and not being able to wait for the rotation to Y2. Perhaps S2 was a flop to you, but now that I am 51, given a choice, I would watch a Y2 episode over Y1 any day. It was exciting times, and Y2 made it less plastic then Y1, and more interesting. If you would like to debate this more, I’m here… Shana’s Dad, Gary *** 31330 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary sennmut Dec 8, 2015

Wahoo, Shana's Dad! *** 31332 Re: Fanderson documentary kerryirs Dec 8, 2015

I second that! Way to go Shana's dad!. *** 31331 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary balor1999 Dec 8, 2015

I appreciate your invitation to debate, Gary. I think there is much to discuss and debate in the context of SPACE: 1999, and the Y1/Y2 issue is certainly interesting. Among SPACE: 1999 fans it has been an important issue ever since

215

Y2 was introduced and alienated most of fandom. However, as you point out, there are also those individuals here and there who find Y2 equally interesting as Y1 or even more interesting. I sometimes wonder why it is so. If I go to a restaurant to have my favourite soup and is suddenly informed that the chef has decided to urinate in the soup, would I continue to go to this restaurant? Along with most customers I would not, but I suppose there are a few hard core people who feel so loyal to the restaurant that they would continue to visit and, perhaps to justify their decision to themselves and others, would actually say that the new soup is even better than the old one. If we translate this situation to SF fandom, to me this brings up the issue of audience competence. In chapter seven of SCIENCE FICTION AUDIENCES (Tulloch & Jenkins, 1996, Routledge, pp. 125-143), John Tulloch interviews film and media students and people who attend DOCTOR WHO fan conferences. The difference is striking. Because of their knowledge of critical theory, the media students engage in deep and fascinating discussions about different aspects of given DOCTOR WHO episodes and the series in itself with references to how it was shaped by political discourse of the day and how it is relevant for our present understanding of the world. The fans, on the other hand, are completely lost. They have close to no understanding of the series beyond what they see on the screen and how various characters and aspects of plots of one episode or serial relate to characters and plots of another. In other words, as a SF audience they are textually illiterate. I think Tulloch makes interesting observations here that are particularly relevant for us in the way SPACE: 1999 is both similar and different from DOCTOR WHO. What is perhaps the most obvious difference is the way DOCTOR WHO of the seventies, including most of the episodes Tulloch discuss, were written by people who tried to present something interesting in a format that could be appreciated by both children and adults. In the case of the second series of SPACE: 1999 we have, on the other hand, Freiberger’s comments to Tim Heald (1976, p. 108) that he was making shit. He was not interested in using SPACE: 1999 for debating philosophical

216


ideas, he states quite clearly when comparing SPACE: 1999 with STAR TREK. He was interested in getting ratings. As we have already discussed, it seems more reasonable to expect that his idea of Maya came from an idea of wanting to appeal to drugged audiences than it was an expression of his own views on drugs. To me this is the central issue. Freiberger watched eight episodes of the original SPACE: 1999. He saw potential in the special effects, but otherwise thought it was not commercial enough. As one of the British writers interviewed by Tim Heald said, “a television series may be a great success in Hampstead, but not at all in Iowa” (paraphrase). By the way, I don’t understand how you can comment on whether I have lived in the US or not as I have never said anything about this on this forum, although I can understand your comment in the context of how some people on this forum consider personal attacks and misrepresentation of fellow discussants as virtue. I am happy you are not one of them. Anyways, the point I was trying to argue was that not only did Gerry Anderson, Martin Landau, Johnny Byrne and the usual crowd see Y2 as trash. It was actually designed by Freiberger as what he himself referred to as “shit”. In other words, he was urinating in Gerry Anderson’s soup and then asking Anderson to serve the soup to the customers. Given this situation, I have no problem understanding Anderson’s comment about making Freiberger executive producers if he was going to bend around with the SPACE: 1999 format in ways that repelled him. Okay. The makers of SPACE: 1999 didn’t like Y2. The international audience didn’t like Y2. Academics with sympathy for SPACE: 1999 avoid mentioning Y2 as it has no cultural merit. Why? Nobody liked it and nobody sees any merit in it because it was trash. It should never have been made. Still, it was made, so we have to live with it, and this creates a dilemma. As I see it, there are two main approaches for solving the dilemma. We have Fageolle’s solution and we have Liardet’s solution. Fageolle’s solution is that Y2 should be “burned and destroyed” (metaphorically) and thus be eliminated from collective

consciousness as it contributes nothing but dragging SPACE: 1999 into the mud. Although this is a typical approach used in scholarly SPACE: 1999 literature, as we can see from the works of Keazor, Bussieres, Wozniak and so on, avoiding the embarrassment of Y2 is more difficult when it comes to fandom as there are always somebody who keeps reminding us that Y2 exists. This is also somewhat related to Tulloch’s observations concerning the different levels of cultural competence among SF scholars and SF fans. SF scholars can easily see what has merit and what has not by way of how SF texts relate to critical theory. SF fans may typically not have this competence, Tulloch argues. Liardet’s solution to the dilemma is also a solution to the situation Tulloch describes. We simply have to educate the fans by creating bridges between academia and fandom that makes it possible to discuss series like SPACE: 1999 through means like critical theory. In my mind this is a much better approach as it is more tolerant and conclusive. We have to look at Y2 through a different lens. We have to investigate it in a manner where Freiberger urinating in Anderson’s soup becomes a platform for constructing avenues for further rich and deep exploration of SPACE: 1999 as a whole. As I have suggested, there are at least three such possibilities ready at present. Firstly, we can continue to explore what has been said about Y2 and fascism on this forum and elsewhere. Secondly, we can explore the idea that Maya was either created by Freiberger on drugs or was created as an attempt to align with the drug culture. Thirdly, we can take note of how Maya became a symbol for the gay liberation movement. All these three ways of exploration could then tie in with the way we explore SPACE: 1999 on the whole through the use of critical theory. Personally I see great opportunities here. Not only do we have way to reduce the tension between those who identify with the original SPACE: 1999 seen in Y1 and those who prefer Freiberger’s revamp, but it is also a way of educating fandom out of the “get a life!” situation parodied by William Shatner on Saturday Night Live towards making SPACE: 1999 into an important cultural text in the manner it deserves to be read and debated.


John B. *** 31333 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary sennmut Dec 8, 2015

TO HELL WITH CRITICAL THEORY! OUT TO THE TRASH WHERE IT BELONGS!!!!! *** 31334 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary John Marcucci Dec 8, 2015

Gary, I grew up in Rhode Island about the same time as you. I was about eight when Space 1999 firts came out. Amazingly enough, my father, a WW2 vet and no lover of sci fi he, first brought it to my attention. He had been on a recent trip to Florida, and had seen it on TV and liked it. We didn't have cable, or even color TV but I was enthralled all the same. I remember when S2 started. My first reaction to the changes was "WTF is this??" But, after a short while, I said "Yeah, this is different. Not bad, but different" I missed Victor and some of the other characters, but I loved Maya and Tony, and the more optimistic tone of S2. Petter talks about pissing in soup?? Hmm well, I think he has been drinking his own bathwater for some time now, and it shows. Anyone who says that most fans hated S2 clearly does not know what the hell he is talking about. And I applaud your willingness to engage Mr. Petter Ogland of Norway (aka John Balor) in fruitful dialogue, but I fear you are tilting at a windmill there. Rgds, John M. *** 31336 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary GARY Dec 8, 2015

John M.

217

WJAR 10 played the hell out of it and WLVI 56 did as well at first. Then while on those stations, channel 27 picked it up and played it 7 days a week and twice on Saturday. Those were the good days when tv was worth watching, and out of 4 kids, my mother (deceased) would never let me watch it alone. Then she became addicted as well. When Shana was born, and started getting older, she used to sit on my lap or lay on the couch with me and we’d watch the videos together, with popcorn. My younger daughter like UFO, but it scared the hell out her at times. Then TV went to shit with too many reality shows, and I barely even watch TV anymore. V/R, Gary *** 31337 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary John Marcucci Dec 8, 2015

Indeed, those were the days! Sure, there was a lot of garbage on TV back then too, but there were a lot good shows as well. Now, the good shows are few and far between. Now that "Justified" is off the air, there is not a single show I follow on any network. (I will confess to having occasionally watched "Wife Swap". Although I genrally loathe reality shows, this one was compelling. Watching real life culture clashes between San Francisco hipsters and Bible belt Christians; neat freaks and animal lovers... lots of food for thought there.) Interesting that views on Space 1999 seem to be divided into 3 camps: people who hate both seasons, people who hate S2/ love S1, and the rest of us (rational) people who find the good and bad in both with perhaps a preference for one season over another. regards, John M ***

218


31335 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary GARY Dec 8, 2015

John, I appreciate your point of view and explanation as to why you prefer S1. But you also have to respect the fact that there are people that enjoy both seasons, myself being one of them. I was also a friend of Johnny Byrne until his passing, and we spoke regularly. Johnny never had anything bad to say about both seasons. One of the interesting points he did tell me is that Martin Landau and Barbara Bain were very difficult to work with at times. Also Nick Tate and Tony Anholt were wonderful team players and did get very aggravated with the Landaus’ holding up production due to temper tantrums. I am also a friend of Juliette Landau, their daughter, and she states that the Landaus’ did enjoy some of changes in S2, like being able to show their affection for each other more than S1 and the addition of Catherine Schell. However, they did not like the way that Victor, Kano, Paul, Tanya just vanished. That there should have been a bridge between seasons explaining why they are gone. It was filmed, but cut from the Metamorph. So here we are 40 years later, still beating the dead horse which there is nothing we can do about. So John, while I respect your knowledge, and quotations from your sources, I got it firsthand many years ago from the horses mouths, not their behinds. Also, you are correct about “All that Glisters” was a bad script, however they were being paid handsomely to act, not to act like children. I close now, and await your comments, as we can debate as gentlemen, not fools. V/R, Gary *** 31340 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fanderson documentary balor1999 Dec 9, 2015

Hello Gary, Thanks for your kind response, and I totally agree with your comment about debating as gentlemen, not as fools. Having been part of Online Alpha since November 2004, I have so far only experienced one “fool” who incessantly makes personal attacks on fellow discussants rather than counter arguments and tries to have those who disagree with his right wing extremist political views thrown out of the forum. The rest of the group is a friendly community where discussions are carried out in a gentlemanly manner. Although I enjoy a good debate, I’m not sure I fully understand the position you are arguing and how my position is supposed to be different from yours. I have also communicated with Johnny Byrne, although only through e-mails in the late 1990s, so I may not have the benefit of the lengthy period of personal conversations that you refer to. On the other hand, I also get the impression from what you are saying that Byrne said nothing about Maya and Y2 of similar kind to what he said in the Fanderson Documentary and the various quotes we find in Wood’s book and elsewhere. I’m not sure how you interpret this, but for me it sounds like he understood how fond you were of Y2 and perhaps felt that negative comments about Maya and Y2 would in inappropriate. At least this is the way I would feel if I were in his position. There are also other examples of Johnny Byrne being more careful in what he was saying in order to avoid unnecessary controversy. John Kenneth Muir’s 1999 interview with him on his webpage comes to mind. Although Muir tries to argue the case of Y1 against Y2 in his book, to me he comes off as somewhat schizophrenic in sometimes taking the scholarly position that Y1 was great and Y2 was trash while at other times praising Freiberger for some of the changes he brought to Y2. Perhaps Muir was caught between two chairs in the sense of writing a book that he hoped would appeal to the scholarly community while at the same time not alienating the part of fandom that embraced both seasons. Or perhaps he really liked Y2 but tried to disguise it as he wanted to be taken seriously by educated readers. I have no ideas what is hidden between the lines in his book,

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit and perhaps Johnny Byrne was experiencing something similar, and thus was cautious about saying too much about what he really felt about Maya and Y2 when being in conversation with Muir. Once again, if I had been Byrne, this is probably the approach I would have used as well. In other words, I think it is important to respect individuals, and how we may interpret SPACE: 1999 in different ways, but I don’t think this should prevent us from reflecting about the series as a whole in order not to upset those who do not have the competence for understanding the difference between Y1 and Y2, as Tulloch would say. As I have pointed out several times, Gerry Anderson, Martin Landau, Johnny Byrne and even Fred Freiberger thought that Y2 was trash. If we want to believe that Y2 had great merit, we have to make an argument that takes this into consideration. Not only did the makers of Y2 consider it being trash, the audience thought it was terrible (Mallett & Pearce, 1991), and then we have people like Prof. Iaccino explaining why it was trash and why Freiberger was responsible for the destruction of SPACE: 1999. I’m not saying that it is impossible to like Y2, but I’m saying that it is a hard climb trying to convince others that there is value in Y2. However, recently there has been academic interest in researching this path. Until recently, everything scholars had to say about SPACE: 1999 was more or less footnotes to Fageolle (1996), and we all know his opinion of Y2. Using the philosophy of post-Marxist thinker Michel Butor, Fageolle explains how Y1 provides a metaphor for modernity, and then makes use of post-Freudian/Marxist author Bruno Bettelheim as means for articulating how SPACE: 1999 can be used for stimulating political activism. Fageolle’s book is a landmark of SPACE: 1999 scholarship, and when people like Keazor (2010) continue the exploration of the political and historical significance of SPACE: 1999, his text is filled with references to Fageolle. On the other hand, Fageolle has only negative things to say about Maya, Y2 and Freiberger. Keazor and all the others agree, of course, so Y2 is generally ignored in the scholarly literature, with the notable exception of Liardet’s recent book

219

“COSMOS 1999: Le fabulaire de l’espace” (Edition Yris, 2014). It would be interesting to hear your opinion, but from my perspective the importance of Liardet’s text is that he opens the gate for serious analysis of Y2 through perspectives like fascism, drug culture, queer studies and other niche perspectives where the issues that make Y2 appalling can be used as a benefit through a proper framework for reading it in a constructive and meaningful way. In other words, I think there are opportunities for reconciliation between what Tulloch refer to as SF fandom as a “powerless elite” (having expert knowledge on a series like SPACE: 1999 but without any influence on the people who make such series) and how to use the texts with political intent through what Jenkins refers to as “text poaching” in the sense of how S99 fan fiction can be used to support the political agenda outlined by Fageolle. These are issues that interest me. I don’t know if you have been reading some of the fabulous fan fiction that some of the rest of us have been discussing on this forum recently, but for me this has been an eye opener. I believe there are opportunities for collaboration between scholarship and fandom by framing SPACE: 1999 through lenses that fit with the general critical theory perspective of the series and then motivate political action through the use of fan fiction. What do you think? John B. ***

220


6.6 The GEICO advertising campaign The next discussion thread starts with the author of “et Willelm ad Pevensae venit” illustrating his method of crossover story telling by illustrating how a particular scene from “The Metamorph” could be used as part of a GEICO advertising campaign. The input is then used by other discussants who want to discuss fan fiction from the viewpoint of political activism. This becomes useful feedback for concluding the discussion of the third novel in the FOREVER ALPHA series. 31341 sennmut Dec 10, 2015

"Ah, Maya! Observe!" "An increase in Psyche's power levels! But how?" "One of the Alphan pilots has been in rapport with her. And this! This is the result!" "He agreed?" "Oh yes." "And there were no harmful side effects?" "None!" "But that's wonderful, Father! Will the rest of them help us, too?" "Yes, I'm sure they will. They are intelligent people." If you're mentor of Psychon, you suck peoples brains out to feed your computer, so you can restore your planet, and then lie about it to your daughter. It's what you do. Geico... Fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on Eagle insurence. *** 31342 Re: balor1999 Dec 10, 2015

This crossover between THE METAMORPH and the GEICO advertising campaigns reminds me of why I enjoy Senmut’s fan fiction so much. While having a remarkable ability in making stories come alive, or an “awesome” ability as Shana would say, he also has a remarkable ability for creating interesting plots.

I have now completed chapter eighteen in ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT, and both the characterisations and the plot in the story makes me feel almost as though I am watching an episode from a Y3 series of SPACE: 1999. There is something about his idea of telling stories through the crossover method that makes his stories both immediately recognisable as SPACE: 1999 stories yet distinctly novel. In the case of this particular entry, I would say that the main plot is remarkably similar to JOURNEY TO WHERE, and for that reason it is so easy to identify with characters and events as we have seen it all before and even know what their lines will be. On the other hand, the story is totally different from JOURNEY TO WHERE because it is Nick and Jackie Crawford who go through a time travel back to medieval times, and the details of the story are completely different. In thist story Senmut also plays one of his other triumph cards, namely his fascinating with history. An extremely useful technique he uses in this context is by having Jackie respond to the various events they are witnessing from the viewpoint of a child of our generation while Nick has to make sure that he understands the realities of the context the time period they have been trapped in. For me this is something that works extremely well as a way of mixing psychological insight and drama with a story about time travel and historical events. In some ways I am reminded of some of the old DOCTOR WHO serials, where we would sometimes have a similar type of tension between the youthful and the wise, but the story is definitely a thing of its own. It feels like SPACE: 1999. I hope others are reading and enjoying these stories as much as I do. When I reflect on what has happened during the first eighteen chapters of the story, there is a natural and logical progression of events, but it is much less easy

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit to predict what will happen next. Wonderful stuff. John B. *** 31344 Re: balor1999 Dec 11, 2015

One of the points Henry Jenkins argues in the book about science fiction audiences is that fan fiction should be thought of as means of the “powerless elite” of SF fans to break the chain of oppression of how television SF narratives reproduce the ideology of the ruling class and use the process of writing and reading fan fiction as means of emancipation. As his main focus is on STAR TREK, he is using the way women are portrayed in the original series as an example of repressive thoughts of the period and how female fan fiction writers were aligning with the feminist movement of the seventies when writing stories that deconstructed these aspects of the original narratives into a more progressive way of understanding society. In the context of how Carl Freedman writes about SF as being naturally aligned with critical theory, I think there is an interesting connections to be drawn between the works of Jenkins and Freedman in the way Freedman’s example of authoritative SF works supporting a progressive ideology can be vastly extended by including high quality fan fiction into the SF canon that Freedman is trying to construct. To make this point relevant in the context of SPACE: 1999, I think Fageolle’s closing words in his seminal work on the series, said in the context of ideas developed by postFreudian thinker Bruno Bettelheim, is well worth repeating: “Moralité: il ne vous reste plus qu’à revisionner ces contes d’Anderson, pour en tirer le suc symbolique. Regardez votre époside préféré, et regardez comme il vous resemble, comme il vous a aide. Vivez de longues, longues années de bonheur et ayez beaucoup d’enfants!” (1996, p. 114). To me this is exactly what Henry Jenkins tells us the feminist fan fiction writers of STAR

221

TREK stories are doing, namely exploring their favourite episodes as means of developing critical awareness and stimulating political action, thus producing the foundation for future generations to understand the political subtext of the series not only by what it actually said but also by what it did not say. In the case of focusing on a series like SPACE: 1999 we are also in a much more fortunate situation than those looking at STAR TREK because our favourite series was developed at a time when the growth economy of the post-war period had reached an end and people were starting to question the socio-economic and political agendas that had proved successful for the past 30 years. STAR TREK, as Jenkins points out, was a much more narrow-minded series. Despite the mythology surrounding Roddenberry as a prophet of the progressive left, it is also possible to read this as what Roddenberry was saying himself while the actual ideology of the series was quite the opposite and much more in support of the reactionary political views of the period. One of Jenkins points is that there are many ways of reading STAR TREK, and that that the fan fiction writers he refer to became political activists in the way the make use of challenges, contradictions and potentials of the STAR TREK stories for the purpose of discussing ways of fighting inequality and supporting social justice. Although SPACE: 1999 also contains diverse stories, engaging with a large body of issues that were at the centre of political debate in the early seventies, in our case we are fortunate in the sense that the underlying ideology of the series is much more clearly founded on what might broadly describe as critical theory, thinking specifically of how Freedman (2000) makes use of the concept in his studies of SF by including post-structuralism, psychoanalysis, feminist socialism and various brands of progressive thinking that expand or rearticulate some of the core ideas of developed within the Frankfurt school of social philosophy. In this sense I believe the future of SPACE: 1999 should be seen as relatively bright. Although the canon of the series is restricted to the first 24 episodes of Y1, with the additional apocryphal 24 episodes of Y2 as useful support

222


when understood through theoretical perspectives that support the ideology of Y1, we have fan fiction writers among us today who have stepped into the shoes of Byrne and Penfold and can be seen to keep the ideological flame of SPACE: 1999 alive if we manage to analyse and understand the works of these contributors in a meaningful manner. John B. *** 31346 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: sennmut Dec 11, 2015

And the TREK shall make you free. Wow. I feel soooooooooooooooo much better! *** 31347 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: balor1999 Dec 12, 2015

Shall the TREK make us free? I believe that Jenkins answer would be both yes and no. On one hand one might say that the function of the stories told in STAR TREK and SPACE: 1999 fulfil a similar function as the stories that have shaped culture and religion for previous generations. These are stories that can shape how we understand society and how we choose to act in the world. To me, Marinaccio’s 1994 book “All I Really Need to Know I Learned from Watching STAR TREK” is a good example of this. For Marinaccio the stories about Kirk and Spock serve a similar purpose as the stories about Abraham and Moses would do for others. By taking STAR TREK seriously, the TREK shall make us free. Using Kirk as a role model is comparable to using Abraham, Moses, Jesus or St. Paul as a role model. The 79 episodes of STAR TREK can be seen as a canon of religious texts in a similar way as the canonical texts of the Bible. However, if Jenkins were to answer the question of whether TREK can set us free with an affirmative yes, I think he would rather focus on the feminist fan fiction as an illustration of how participatory culture can grow out of a commercial franchise and exploit the franchise as means of raising critical awareness and stimulating political action. I

have noticed that Jenkins often use the Occupy Movement as an example of how engagement with popular culture can influence political action with a focus on social justice. If we look at Marinaccio’s book, as a contrary example, my memory of his interpretation of TREK is that he is much more focused on the reactionary aspects of the show, aspects that make others question whether STAR TREK really was as progressive as Roddenberry and others have described it in retrospect. If interpreted in such a way, TREK would not make people free. It would prison people in belief systems that serve the capitalist classes rather than their own interests. I think these are interesting issues when we discuss SPACE: 1999 and fan fiction. Unlike STAR TREK, containing a pool of stories with mixed political messages and where the sampling of episodes is of fundamental importance for making the overall text into a vehicle for putting people in prison or setting them free, SPACE: 1999 is ideologically much more clear-cut. Part of the reason for this probably has something to do with how STAR TREK was made during a transition period from popular support for military interventions inVietnam to a period of opposing views, the only ideological change in SPACE: 1999 is the change between Y1 and Y2. If we see Y1 as canon and Y2 as apocryphal, SPACE: 1999 should in principle be a much better series for articulating the kind of political action that Jenkins seeks. Incidents like where Koenig blows up Dione in LAST ENEMY are exceptions to the rule of conflict resolution within the series rather than the norm. The norm in SPACE: 1999 is a systematic questioning of authority and power. Violence is only a solution in extreme cases like when Luke and Anna have to take matters in their own hands when dealing with environmental issues like climate change where lack of political will prevents necessary precautions. Even when we read S99 fan fiction by people that seem to be on the opposite side of the political spectre in terms of what SPACE: 1999 stood for, the nature of the series still makes it possible and even natural to read a progressive agenda between the lines of these works. From my perspective the political subtext and ideology of SPACE: 1999 seems far more robust than the series Jenkins and

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit others analyse. I think SPACE: 1999 should be seen as extraordinary useful in this way, something that has already been pointed out by Keazor, but is also something that needs to be explored further.

223

(VO) If you're the Moon, you orbit Earth. It's what you do. (VO) Unless... -- We interrupt this commercial....

John B. *** 31348 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: sennmut Dec 12, 2015

Balor, sarcasm just slips by you, doesn't it? P.S. ==== Luke and Anna were not concerned with climate change. They got taken over by a bunch of really old dead skeleton guys. Period! *** 31349 Re: [OnlineAlpha] It's What You Do David Welle Dec 13, 2015

On Wed, 9 Dec 2015, Senmut wrote: "Ah, Maya! Observe!"

Ah, Alphans! Observe! If you're mentor of Psychon, you suck peoples brains out to feed your computer, so you can restore your planet, and then lie about it to your daughter. It's what you do. Geico... Fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on Eagle insurence.

Humor! **** (SFX) Eagle leaves Earth. Pilot: "Moonbase Alpha from Eagle Two. We'll be arriving on schedule." (SFX) Eagle flies towards Moon. Paul Morrow: "Eagle Two from Moonbase Alpha. We copy." Pilot: "Commander Koenig. We'll be landing at Moonbase Alpha at twenty-three thirty-five lunar time."

(SFX) Eagles furiously trying to disperse a dangerous mass. Simmonds: "Well, I must say it does look pretty promising to me. Now, I have to issue a communique, sooner or later." (VO) If you're Commissioner Simmonds, you issue communiques. It's what you do. (VO) Until.... John Koenig: "Wake up, Commissioner. If this goes wrong, there won't be anybody to issue a communique. There will be no survivors." Paul: "Commander! It's going up!" (SFX) Explosions on lunar surface. (SFX) Moon accelerates into deep space. John: "Maybe that's where our future lies. Maybe there." (VO) If you're the Moon, you fly through interstellar space. It's what you do. (VO) Geico... Fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on satellite insurance. **** Okay, a bit off pattern, but this struck me as a three-for-one. ----David *** 31350 Re: [OnlineAlpha] It's What You Do balor1999 Dec 13, 2015

Not only do we as Alphans observe humour in Senmut’s Metamorph/Geico crossover, we observe political humour. We observe satire. This is what makes the miniature crossover

224


relevant to me and the issues we are currently discussing. I will not mention any particular scholars or theoretical perspectives in the same message as I comment on specific works by Senmut, as I have been asked not to do so, but what makes the satire relevant to me is the way it plays on the class structure and Mentors exploitation of the alien workforce while misinforming his daughter about what is going on. A well-known professor of media studies that we often mention on this forum would probably compare this masterful piece of satirical fan fiction with the celebrated “Right Wing Radio Duck” YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfuwNU0 jsk0 To me this is the essence of the S99/Geico satire. It shows the power of fan fiction as a way of responding to oppression through humour. By laughing at desperate situations we may be able to relax and articulate emancipatory strategies in a calmer and more reflective manner. I also see the S99/Geico satire as a beautiful example of how we can read the Y2 narrative in an intelligent manner, making intelligent using of characters and events for the purpose of articulating important messages. This also reminds me of a passage in ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT where the Alphans discuss what do to with LaCroix. Exactly as we would have predicted from our discussions of Maya as a symbol of fascism, her immediate answer is to have LaCroix executed. While she was usually more pacifist in the television series, in this fan fiction story her true colours are flagged much more clearly. Koenig, on the other hand, is exactly as we remember him from the series, reflecting on situations where they had to turn to violence in episodes like THE LAST ENEMY and END OF ETERNITY, but then saying that this is not the Alphan way. Capital punishment is not acceptable in a civilised society. In other words, the power of fan fiction is the way it can be used for investigating the political subtext of series like SPACE: 1999 and articulating this subtext in a manner that makes it relevant in the context of current political debates.

John B. *** 31351 Re: [OnlineAlpha] It's What You Do sennmut Dec 13, 2015

There is NO political anything. Just a juxtaposition of unlikely things, for the sake of a laugh. You see what is not there, Balor. That saddens me. *** 31352 Re: [OnlineAlpha] It's What You Do John Marcucci Dec 13, 2015

Sen, this is why Petter was banned, by democratic vote, from this list once before. AND why 6 or 8 people voted last year to ban him again. It is truly sad. *** 31353 RE: [OnlineAlpha] It's What You Do SHANA G Dec 14, 2015

John B,. Do you ever give up???? its humor for God’s sake. Have you ever not told your kids something to protect them from harm, or to not let them know what you are doing? Like Santa, and putting out the presents after they are asleep? Shana *** 31354 RE: [OnlineAlpha] It's What You Do balor1999 Dec 14, 2015

As a response to Freiberger’s objections with SPACE: 1999 that it did not contain enough humour, I think it was Chris Penfold who said that he did not find the situation of Moonbase Alpha travelling through interstellar space to be a particularly humours situation. I think Johnny Byrne responded differently by saying

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit that there was actually humour in SPACE: 1999, but it was a type of British humour focused on character eccentricities and not “one-liner” type humour of the kind we see in the second series. Personally, I interpret the series more like Penfold than Byrne here. While Y2 uses elements of sit-com humour to lighten things up, like beer jokes and Maya turning into creatures for comedic purposes, I’m not sure about Y1. Perhaps there are some elements of tragicomedy in characters like Gwent, but it has never struck me as being particularly funny. Perhaps there is humour in the manner Prof. Bergman presents a clever idea, or perhaps there is humour in powerful people Koenig making fatal mistakes, or perhaps there is comedy in Alan Carter’s less than heroic speech about why he has been kept in the dark in BLACK SUN. I don’t know. Humour is subjective and cultural. When it comes to Senmut’s contributions, however, he often makes me laugh. More than than, he also makes me think as well. That was the point I was trying to communicate when we some time ago were discussing IT’S GOTTA BE THE BEER, and it was the same point I wanted to make in the context of the GEICO joke. Unlike the pathetic jokes in Y2 that often made the epilogue ruin the serious nature of the story, like in the case of CATACOMBS OF THE MOON, the reason I like Senmut’s comedic writing is because it is both witty and intelligent. In the case of IT’S GOTTA BE THE BEER he made us reflect on the nature of Maya as a cartoonish character when confronting Bugs Bunny, and it also produced a comedic effect in reproducing Martin Landaus argument that Y2 was cartoonish trash. If Landau had written this small piece of ingenious fan fiction, he would probably have the Alphans meet Mr. Magoo rather than Bugs Bunny, but I thought the use of Bugs Bunny was clever. To me this was SPACE: 1999 satire at its best because it made us unite with the SPACE: 1999 cast and crew in laughing at how terrible Y2 is and how it never should have been made. To me the GEICO joke was a bit similar. The way I understood it was that we were supposed to laugh both at Mentor as a political oppressor and at his daughter Maya for being naïve. In

225

retrospect Senmut has explained that the story was not intended as satire in the sense of being a political joke, but I still think that those of us who got a laugh out of it understood it like that. To me it is the political context that makes it funny, and the Geico slogans are used to emphasise the oppressive and manipulative nature of the man at the top of the corporation. This is exactly the kind of joke that could have been used by the members of the Occupy Movement for commenting on what people in financial institutions are doing and what they are perhaps telling their daughters. To me it is the political relevance that made the joke so funny. There are also much amusement in Senmut’s more serious texts, such as ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT, but nothing that strike me as politically funny. To me there is a lot of politics in these texts as well, despite what Senmut says about the stories from an author’s perspective, but this has more to do with situations and dialogue, and not typically related to his witty use of humour. John B. *** 31355 Re: [OnlineAlpha] It's What You Do sennmut Dec 14, 2015

To be added to the Great Litany: From all Balor's attempts at analysis, From all neo-Marxist criticisms of dead producers, And from all misperceptions of political subtext, Good Lord deliver us! *** 31356 Re: [OnlineAlpha] It's What You Do balor1999 Dec 15, 2015

I have now completed ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT, and it has been a remarkable read. In retrospect the story appears quite linear, but when I was reading it I had no idea what would happen around the

226


next corner. As with all the stories I have read by Senmut so far, it was witty, suspenseful, intelligent and rich with psychological insights. In the end it also included elements of spiritual philosophy as the main antagonists discussed the nature and meaning of time travel. From the reviews I have read, there are many who have enjoyed the story too. I remember one reviewer saying something along the lines that it was a perfect ending to the FOREVER ALPHA trilogy, but I assume that was said before the series had extended into the present six volumes. There is a very natural flow between the stories as they evolved through a clearly defined arrow of time. For instance, this story ends with the news that John and Helena are expecting a baby. This adds beautifully to what we have already been told that both Tony and Maya and Alan and Athena are expecting too. It is almost like this series prepares the reader for something like SPACE 1999 – THE NEXT GENERATION. As I have said before, I think Senmut would make a lot of people happy if he would be willing to negotiate with Powys or somebody else for the purpose of having the stories published in a book format. Of course, we are all lucky to be able to read the stories on the internet for free, but I still think I would be possible to reach an even wider readership by having them published in a regular format as

well. Personally, I would never have been aware of the stories if it had not been for the fact that I was a member of this discussion forum, so I believe there may be others in a similar situation that would be pleasantly surprised if they discovered these treasures of SPACE. 1999 fan fiction along with the other SPACE: 1999 books. I now look forward to reading SCHANKE RESURGENS. As I have only seen the first season of FOREVER KNIGHT, with the exception of the final three episodes, I was not even aware that LaCroix was alive, and I certainly had no idea of Schanke being dead. From what I understood from the Wikipedia overview and Dr. Iaccino’s discussion of the series, the air crash that kills Schanke happens in the first episode of the third season, but not having seen every episode of FOREVER KNIGHT and not remembering every detail of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA doesn’t interfere too much with the joy of reading. It just makes it more interesting to watch these series while going through the FOREVER ALPHA series. I hope SCHANKE RESURGENS will be as good as the stories we have discussed on this forum so far. John B. ***


227

7. SCHANKE RESURGENS The chapter consists of four sections. The first section is a straight-forward commentary and analysis dealing with the first few pages of the story. This is followed with a section framing the discussing of the story through the use of old STAR WARS reviews, followed by comments in the context of STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS. The fourth section reconnects with central themes of “Schanke Resurgens” by means of discussing space history.

7.1 Commentary and analysis In the case of “Schanke Resurgens,” the introductory discussion is shorter than in previous cases as related discussion threads start to emerge only after a couple of introductory messages. Nevertheless, the initial commentary and analysis gives a brief introduction to the story while further commentary and analysis follows as part of related discussions in the sections that follow. 31357 Schanke Resurgens (Senmut, 2002) balor1999 Dec 16, 2015

SCHANKE RESURGENS starts with a mystery prologue. Although Donald Schanke died in a plane crash in S03E01 of FOREVER KNIGHT, in the prologue he seems alive and wondering who will take care of his wife and children. Is he gone to heaven and having conversations with the angles? I was not sure what was going on as I was reading, but then I gradually got the impression that one of the vampires had gotten hold of him and made him into an immortal. I’m still not sure, but I suppose explanations will follow quickly. As usual Senmuts starts his story in an intriguing manner. I have absolutely no idea what this story will be about, but based on my experience with previous Senmut material, I expect that he will take us on a rollercoaster ride of action, romance, mystery with some added elements of humour and reflective thought. Of course, from my perspective what will be the most interesting is how the story can stimulate ideas and discussions that might add new insights to our present understanding of SPACE: 1999. I have no idea what this particular story may have to offer in this context, but we can always hope for the best. I also hope others will join in on the reading and discussing. As usual, my pace of reading will be a chapter a day, so it does not take much time or effort on a daily basis, and I like this pace because it allows us to spend some time on each of the stories, just like we did with the episodes in the recent ExE. If Senmut is up to his usual standards in SCHANKE RESURGENS, I expect there will be enough

food for thought for at least three weeks of discussions. John B. *** 31363 Re: Schanke Resurgens (Senmut, 2002) balor1999 Dec 18, 2015

The first couple of chapters in SCHANKE RESURGENS is a delight to read. As usual Senmut demonstrates his excellence in capturing psychological and relational insights. The characters feel perfectly alive, and exactly like we remember them from the television series. This applies both for SPACE: 1999 characters and FOREVER KNIGHT characters. There are also a few characters from BATTLESTAR GALACTICA here, like Athena, Greenbean and Brie, but if the story continues to unfold like ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT, I do not expect them to take any major part in the events until we reach CROSSFIRE, the next entry in the series. There are also excellent references to moments from SPACE: 1999 in the story. In the first chapter the conference room where Big Jim Sullivan did his performance in THE TROUBLED SPIRIT is revisited, and Senmut makes use of the sequence for discussing the mix of ethnic and cultural differences among Alphans. I thought this was quite well done as it is a theme that is not explicitly touched upon the series, as I remember it, only indirectly by the way people look as though they come from different corners of the world and have names to confirm this. Unlike STAR TREK, which

228


seemed to me to be more oriented towards making a statement on such issues, in the case of SPACE: 1999 I have always felt that the mix of different nationalities had more to do with how the international scientific community is a mix of people from different parts of the world although they do not necessarily carry very much of their particular culture or tradition along with them. From this perspective I find Senmut’s focus on multi-ethnicity interesting as it strikes me as an example of how fan fiction researchers (I will not name names to avoid upsetting people!) argues that fan fiction writers take possession of copyrighted texts and characters and reproduce them for political purposes. I will not comment on what this might mean in the context of SCHANKE RESURGENS here, as that would imply mentioning scholars and theories, but perhaps this is something that could be interesting to explore in a wider

context of SF fan fiction in general as we continue the discusson. For the moment I think it is sufficient to comment on the surface aspects of SCHANKE RESURGENS, namely that the prologue and the first couple of chapters are excellently crafted, just as we come to expect as long as Senmut is at the steering wheel. I think it is useful to have some of these brief comments and reflections on the general aspects of the story before we start looking at the deeper structure of the story and what this particular story has to offer in terms of developing a deeper understanding of the original SPACE: 1999 text. John B. ***

7.2 A trip down memory lane The following discussion thread was initiated by reflections on how the original STAR WARS trilogy had resulted in diverse opinions when it was originally released. These observations resulted in comments about STAR WARS and SPACE: 1999 as cultural expressions of particular periods of history, and paved way for further discussion of “Schanke Resurgens” through this comparative type of perspective. 31358 Re: A trip down memory lane Kerry Keene Dec 17, 2015

Here's a little diddy I found and is quite interesting now that the new SW movie is due out the 18th. This clip was a "Nightline" entry from 1983. Siskel and Ebert and John Simon review THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and SW in general. Also note the comments on special effects and how it can aide and detract from a production. I love the SFX from 1999. It added so much realistic aspect to the series, but it also took away some ot the characterization that was needed, particularly in Y1. Anyway, the debate is an interesting one, Siskel and Ebert who enjoyed SW and John Simon who hated it and too me SF in general. https://www.yahoo.com/movies/watch-siskeland-ebert-defend-star-wars-against171213654.html

*** 31359 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane John Marcucci Dec 17, 2015

Good find, Kerry. I'm embarrassed to say this John Simon wrote for National Review, formerly one of my favorite periodicals. BTW, he is right about "Tender Mercies". Outstanding movie. That aside, this man admitted he has no children. I think that's where the disconnect may be. Other than that, John Simon seems like a man who could have benefitted from a night of drinking and dancing at Tipitina's in New Orleans. Regards, John M. ***

Schanke Resurgens

31360 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane sennmut Dec 17, 2015

Formerly? *** 31362 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane John Marcucci Dec 17, 2015

It has lurched leftward somewhat, since Mr. Buckley's demise. *** 31361 Re: A trip down memory lane kerryirs Dec 17, 2015

John M., good point about John Simon not having kids. Perhaps that's why Siskel and Ebert could relate to the young people in the crowd. *** 31364 Re: A trip down memory lane balor1999 Dec 19, 2015

The way I understood this “travel down memory lane” was that John Simon represented the view of most film critics of the period. Not only did they see the original STAR WARS trilogy as a childish regression back to the world of FLASH GORDON after SF had made progress with films like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, SILENT RUNNING and LOGAN’S RUN, but they also saw the SW films as manipulative and dangerous. To me John Simon is only hinting at what Marcuse, Adorno and the Frankfurt school could have made into a perfect example of how the capitalist power elite use popular culture for the purpose of sedating the population into consumer machines rather than critical thinkers. In this context it is the viewpoint of Ebert and Siskel that has to be explained. It is their enthusiasm for the STAR WARS trilogy that is extraordinary. In retrospect I think they were a sign of the times in the way Ebert says that it is

229

possible to enjoy both Ingmar Bergman and George Lucas, suggesting that trash culture should be considered equal to the masterpieces of cinematic expression, which makes it easier to see why there are no Bergmans today but an endless stream of STAR WARS. In other words, what we see here is the cultural superstructure responding to changes in the economic basis as the new left lost power to right wing populism. For those of us who were hooked on SPACE: 1999, we had already seen this dramatic change in terms of how Y2 was a corruption of Y1, but STAR WARS was the landmark change showing the decline of belief in science and democracy and the embracement of the fantasy belief in unregulated markets and hero worship of capitalist fascism. In other words, Ebert and Siskel were the prophets of the new age of mindless acceptance of the idea that everything that serves the ruling class is good for the society as a whole. Despite the John Simons of this world trying to warn against what was happening, the battle was lost. When the young members of the middle class were no longer afraid of being sent to die in Vietnam, they became less critical and eventually bought into the kind of ideology we see in STAR WARS. The age of unreason had begun. John B. *** 31365 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane sennmut Dec 20, 2015

Regression? Just what sort of "regression" and "progress" are you talking about? Just how was 2001 a progression beyond? Please, be specific, and try not to quote Marcuse or fageolle more than 10 times per paragraph. *** 31366 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane sennmut Dec 20, 2015

On 19 Dec 2015 balor1999@... writes:

230

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series For those of us who were hooked on SPACE: 1999, we had already seen this dramatic change in terms of how Y2 was a corruption of Y1, but STAR WARS was the landmark change showing the decline of belief in science and democracy and the embracement of the fantasy belief in unregulated markets and hero worship of capitalist fascism. In other words, Ebert and Siskel were the prophets of the new age of mindless acceptance of the idea that everything that serves the ruling class is good for the society as a whole. Despite the John Simons of this world trying to warn against what was happening, the battle was lost. When the young members of the middle class were no longer afraid of being sent to die in Vietnam, they became less critical and eventually bought into the kind of ideology we see in STAR WARS. The age of unreason had begun.

That is so mindlessly twisted, I scant know where to begin. Liking SW makes one part of the "Age of Unreason"? "Hero worship of capitalist fascism"? Utterly bizarre, Balor. Where the hell did that come from? *** 31367 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane balor1999 Dec 20, 2015

If we follow Keazor’s (2012) argument of how SPACE: 1999 has cultural merit because of how it captures the essence of the demarcation point between the growth economy of the postwar period and the disaster decades to follow, this makes it interesting to look at comparable works of SF that were produced just before the transition point and just after. Just before and around the time of the first season of SPACE: 1999, we had such important works of SF as 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, SILENT RUNNING and LOGAN’S RUN. After the time of second season of SPACE: 1999 and immediately after we had such crap as STAR WARS, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and BUCK ROGERS. There is a clear change in cultural expression here, which makes us look for answers in the economic basis. Such changes are indeed easy to find. In the late sixties and early seventies we saw the rise and fall of the New Left. In the late seventies and early eighties we saw a dramatic change towards the political right. If we think of the cultural superstructure as a reflection of the economic basis, we see that

the progressive belief in science and critical theory – expressed through important works of SF from 2001: SPACE ODYSSEY to first season of SPACE: 1999 – is replaced by reactionary beliefs in religious fundamentalism (e.g. the “Moral Majority” of Jerry Falwell and associates) and a replacement of Carter’s alternative energy programme to fight oil shortage and international negotiations with Reagan’s focus on deregulation and military strength – seen in the superstructure by means of movement from SF towards fantasy and reflective SF towards SF as mindless war movie. So, not only is the change between Y1 and Y2 of SPACE: 1999 an aesthetic change from intellectual SF towards childish crap, in a way similar to how John Simon reviewed the original 1977 STAR WARS film and the first trilogy as a whole, the change is also a political reflection of how society was changing. I think this is why so many of us find SPACE: 1999 to be such and important and fascinating series. It deals with the period in time that explains the roots of the disasters to today in terms of climate, finance and terrorism. In Y1 we have a narrative for dealing with such problems and preventing them from escalating. The key writers and people involved in Y1 can easily be identified with the New Left of the period. In Y2, on the other hand, we have reactionary people like Fred Freiberger taking over the show and making it into a propaganda vehicle for the disastrous change in politics that was being seeded at that time. While Muir (1997) and others have written much about STAR TREK and SPACE: 1999, I think far too little has been said about the relationship between SPACE: 1999 and STAR WARS. In fact, when Liardet (2014) talks about Y2 of SPACE: 1999 as camp, he puts it in the same category as STAR WARS. If we want to continue to explore Y2 through means of fascism, drug culture and queer studies, I think all of these threads can be explored more deeply by comparing it with STAR WARS and television series that were inspired by it, such as BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. John B. ***

Schanke Resurgens 31368 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane balor1999 Dec 21, 2015

A trip down memory lane by way of remembering how intelligent people like John Simon rejected STAR WARS when it was initially released can be useful when discussing the merits of SPACE: 1999. Reading Senmut’s SCHANKE RESURGENS may be another interesting trip down memory lane for those who watched FOREVER KNIGHT in the mid 1990s. Unfortunately, I was not one of those people, and I have never been too interested in vampire stories, but due to Senmut’ skill as a writer I have enjoyed both watching old FOREVER KNIGHT episodes and vampire films in general the past couple of months. As FOREVER KNIGHT was a cultural product of the Clinton area, one might ask whether there is a pattern that vampire films and series are more popular during periods with the Democrats in power, as the vampire folklore deals with financial elites sucking the blood out of the common people, while zombie movies might be more popular during periods of Republican government as these films could be seen to represent the fear of the poor and disenfranchised revolving. Here is a website trying to look into the idea by trying to correlate the release of films with parties in political power. http://www.mrscienceshow.com/2009/05/corre lation-of-week-zombies-vampires.html As the writer says, there seems to be a correlation between release of zombie films and the Republicans in power, but the case of vampire films and Democrats is less certain. The test is not perfect, he says, and perhaps better correlations would be found by including more data and thinking about how the study could be improved, but the empirical findings do at least not contradict the idea that the cultural superstructure changes with the economic basis in terms of how the popularity of vampire films versus zombie films could be used as an indicator. On the other hand, I want to be careful in not commenting too much on how I read the political subtext in a vampire story like SCHANKE RESURGENS. In fact, I don’t

231

want to mention any specific scholars or specific political theories when making a direct reference to one of Senmut’s texts, although I find it interesting that it has been at least suggested that vampire films and television series are more popular in culture at times when the people have chosen a Democrat government. Apart from this, I found chapter five of Senmut’s story enlightening in terms of explaining the prologue. By accident the Alphans appear to have created a duplicate of Schanke on Moonbase Alpha, and when I thought I had misunderstood the prologue in the sense of getting the impression that a dead Schanke was talking with people in an afterlife world, I now get the impression that this was indeed exactly what was happening. In other words, Senmut adds new dimensions to his story telling in this fourth instalment of the FOREVER ALPHA series by engaging in aspects of metaphysics or religious philosophy. As usual, it is wonderfully written, and a joy to read, this time with the plot developing in a similar way to BLACK SUN with Moonbase Alpha heading for a phenomenon that eats gravity while spiritual and metaphysical discussions emerge. I have no idea how the story will develop, but at the moment it is highly interesting and based on what we know about Senmut’s stories in general, my expectations for further development are high. John B. *** 31369 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane sennmut Dec 21, 2015

NO POLITICAL CRAP, BALOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *** 31370 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane Erich Wise Dec 21, 2015

Jemarcu wrote:

232

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series I'm embarrassed to say this John Simon wrote for National Review, formerly one of my favorite periodicals. BTW, he is right about "Tender Mercies". Outstanding movie. That aside, this man admitted he has no children. I think that's where the disconnect may be. Other than that, John Simon seems like a man who could have benefitted from a night of drinking and dancing at Tipitina's in New Orleans.

Don't really understand what you're saying here. A: You have to have children to like a movie? B: If your kids like it then you will like it (or have to like it) too? C: Star Wars is childish? D: You no longer agree with the politics of National Review so you can't agree with anything a writer there writes? *** 31371 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane John Marcucci Dec 21, 2015

A: You have to have children to like a movie? No. B: If your kids like it then you will like it (or have to like it) too? No C: Star Wars is childish? No D: You no longer agree with the politics of National Review so you can't agree with anything a writer there writes? No *** 31372 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane Erich Wise Dec 21, 2015

Kerry wrote: John M., good point about John Simon not having kids. Perhaps that's why Siskel and Ebert could relate to the young people in the crowd.

Why can't he not like the movie on its and his own terms? Just because YOU like something doesn't mean everyone has to. *** 31373 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane

John Marcucci Dec 21, 2015

I thought his justifications for hating the movie were silly and irrational. He is entitled to his opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. Do you have a problem with that? It sounds like you do. *** 31374 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane Erich Wise Dec 21, 2015

All I did was ask a simple question and you're telling me I have a problem. Whether something is good or bad has nothing to do with who or how many people like it. As mentioned before, quality and popularity are not related. You don't have to like something that is good. You don't have to hate something that is bad. Critics know this, if they like something that is bad they call it a "guilty pleasure." But people like you want to put down people who don't like the same things you do. For whatever reason. *** 31375 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane John Marcucci Dec 21, 2015

Erich, there is really no need to get hysterical here. Calm yourself. Actually, you asked some questions (which I answered), then you made some statements. Its one thing to say you dislike a movie on artistic or aesthetic grounds, but this fellow Simon really made an ass of himself, getting so emotional and irrational to the point that he arrogantly insults the viewing public for being so stupid as to actually enjoy a movie (sounds like someone we all know on this list..), then, this childless batchelor, again arrogantly presumes to instruct parents on what they ought to be allowing their kids to see. So, if you want to defend arrogance, rudeness, and the ivory tower mentality, knock yourself out. Rgds, John M.

Schanke Resurgens

*** 31376 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane SHANA G Dec 21, 2015

Guys, I think we need to go back to our corners. You know there is only 1 person enjoying the bickering. We are all friends here, are we not? Here is a hug for you all ( ) Merry Christmas!

233

I'm not a big SW fan either, but I don't go around trashing it or those who like it, calling them part of the trash culture. Too me, that's a waste of time and energy. Why don't you just accept the fact that 1999 Y2, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, BUCK ROGERS IN THE 25th CENTURY, and other similar shows and movies, before and after, aren't going away, as much as you'd like them to. Finally, I hate to say this, but I find your attitude somewhat snobbish. I respect your views, but don't look down your nose at others. I think people would respect you a lot more. Sorry for preaching.

Shana

*** ***

31377 Re: A trip down memory lane kerryirs Dec 21, 2015

John B wrote: In fact, when Liardet (2014) talks about Y2 of SPACE: 1999 as camp, he puts it in the same category as STAR WARS. If we want to continue to explore Y2 through means of fascism, drug culture and queer studies, I think all of these threads can be explored more deeply by comparing it with STAR WARS and television series that were inspired by it, such as BATTLESTAR GALACTICA.

Let's see, you've accused FF of being part of the drug culture, despite the fact the man was in his 60s when he got involved with 1999; hardly a man of the drug culture. Now you're accusing George Lucas of the same thing? Maybe it's this Liardet who is on drugs. Again, you are ignoring the fact that STAR WARS the original trilogy and the movies since have become a large part of the entertainment lexicon over the last forty plus years; whereas, sad to say, SPACE: 1999 has not. Oh, SF fans may have heard of it, but ask someone from the general public and you'll either get a blank stare or I've never heard of it. And over 100 million who have seen the latest film can't all be wrong and you be the only right person in the vast SF universe. I'm sorry, but you're out voted.

31378 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane John Marcucci Dec 21, 2015

There are some people, like that NR reviewer John Simon, who just hate all sci fi on principle. Well, thats cool. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I know people who are outraged,, simply outraged, at the popularity of "50 Shades of Grey". They don't understand why millions of women are captivated by it. Again, not my cup of tea, but as with Star Wars, you have to admit there is a phenomenom, there is an appeal. I may not understand it, but its there. I guess the explorer in me is more inclined to try to understand why, before I condemn it. With "50 Shades of Grey", this is hard because I was raised to believe that porn is for dirty people. Maybe looking at "Star Wars" objectively is just as hard for some people. I don't know. Rgds, John M. *** 31381 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane sennmut Dec 22, 2015

234


Reminds me of my old geology professor. SciFi was bad, because it had "dangerous concepts". He never did elaborate on that, sadly. *** 31379 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane SHANA G Dec 21, 2015

Kerry, I agree 100% about your post!! No one is better that anyone else! Shana *** 31382 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane balor1999 Dec 22, 2015

Kerry, I am happy to hear that you are not a big STAR WARS fan either, and I thought your link to John Simon’s disparaging review of the original STAR WARS films in the New Yorker was excellent. As Erich Wise has been saying quite frequently, popularity is not the same as quality, and this New Yorker review illustrates this perfectly. The review gives a convincing explanation of why STAR WARS is trash, yet it was a box office success. Quality is not the same as popularity. We are faced with a dilemma. Do we want high quality and low popularity or do we want low quality and high popularity? In the late sixties early seventies, the global political climate made it possible to produce popular culture that was of high quality with high popularity, which the first series of SPACE: 1999 is a clear example of, but towards the latter part of the seventies the political winds changed. I think the distinction between quality and popularity is extremely important when we look at something like SPACE: 1999. The first series of SPACE: 1999 was a successful quality series, but not sufficiently successful to convince those in power to make a second season. Instead they hired Fred Freiberger to

try to make it more popular by reducing the quality. In his conversations with Tim Heald, Freiberger speaks quite freely about this. In one passage he speaks of his vision of SPACE: 1999 as a rip-off of STAR TREK without the moral and depth that made STAR TREK good. In another passage he talks about SPACE: 1999 as shit. It is quite obvious that he had no intensions of creating quality television. He wanted to create popular television. The reason Y2 is trash is because it was designed as trash. If we had asked John Simon about Y2, he would probably have said exactly the same as we have heard Fageolle say so many times. Y2 was trash and should never have been made. In fact, I think John Simon’s review adds new insights onto why there is a logical connection between liking SPACE: 1999 and hating Y2. He talks about how STAR WARS corrupted the intelligence of children and how it was not only in poor taste but dangerous to watch. This is perhaps what I find the most interesting about the connection between Y2 and STAR WARS. They can both be read as fascist propaganda, and do we really want our children to be indoctrinated watching garbage like that? Good science fiction, such as NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, BRAVE NEW WORLD and FAHRENHEIT 451 deal with issues like how indoctrination is being used by the ruling class for manipulating the people and preventing them from revolting. STAR WARS and S99/Y2 are examples of how this is done in practice. In this sense I feel we are moving in the right direction when we are discussing how STAR WARS resembles S99/Y2 and how educated people like New Yorker reviewer John Simon are repulsed by how so many people find this kind of trash attractive. I suppose intellectuals in Germany, Italy and other places during the post WWI period were equally shocked by the rise of fascism among apparently ‘normal’ people. As Wertham pointed out in “Seduction of the innocent” (Rinehart & Company, 1954), exposing children to Superman comics and other means of fascist indoctrination through comics and popular culture is bound to create social problems in the long run. Had Wertham been alive to observe the rise of the STAR WARS phenomenon, I’m certain he would have been shocked.

Schanke Resurgens As a way of taking the problem seriously, Fageolle has suggested (metaphorically) that we should burn and destroy Y2. While there is merit to this suggestion, I still think Liardet’s alternative recommendation of trying to take Y2 seriously is better. The problem with Y2 is not necessarily the fascist message in the “Nazi paradise” speech and the nature of Maya as a superhero per se, but it is the way these aspects of the series can easily be digested without critical thought. In other words, the propaganda might work. In order to prevent this, I think we should build upon Liardet and the existing scholarly works on Y2 that might help us to expand our understanding of it through theories on fascism, understand why and how it is designed for drug addicts and then perhaps use the lens of queer studies for articulating ways of seeing it positively as a niche approach to critical theory. John B. *** 31383 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane balor1999 Dec 23, 2015

After having completed chapter 5 in SCHANKE RESURGENS, it is difficult to be anything but impressed. What impresses me the most is how the story is being used for engaging with metaphysical questions. Not only do we have central characters like Helena explaining her personal views on belief questions, but much of the dialogue deals with afterlife issues, and the chapter ends with Schanke commenting on having seen and spoken with God. To me there is an interesting difference between Senmut’s approach of SPACE: 1999 fan fiction and what we see in the likes of STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS. To me the new STAR WARS film feels very much like a fan fiction product. It is very much like something that is a celebration and exploration of earlier films, the 1977 original in particular, with the only real contribution perhaps being the use of modern special effects and contemporary acting style to retell the story for a 2015 audience. In other words, it doesn’t seem to have anything to say. As we have already discussed, perhaps the merit of

235

the 1977 original was primarily that it indicated a political change, so I was thinking whether this 2015 was indicating a frustration with the political status quo and perhaps designed to appeal to those who see Donald Trump as a “new hope”. Yuck. Nevertheless, when watching the film it felt more like a mindless remake of the “new hope” film from 1977 and play with STAR WARS conventions than actually trying to say something. Here we have an interesting contrast with SCHANKE RESURGENS where I get the impression that Senmut is using the story format for discussing religious and political ideas that are important to him. Although I do not necessarily agree with what I read, or perhaps it would be better to say that I do not always understand the political and religious subtext in some of Senmut’s writing in the context of the political and religious subtext of the original television series, I admire Senmut for pushing the envelope of the original narrative. As we have seen time and time again, Senmut’s interesting ideas of mixing SPACE: 1999 with FOREVER KNIGHT, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, Bugs Bunny and GEICO commercials stimulate discussion and debates that make us understand and engage with aspects of the original SPACE: 1999 series that would perhaps otherwise not be commented on. In this sense I agree with a certain MIT professor (I will not mention names as I have been asked not to do so when referring to a specific Senmut story) that fan fiction is only becoming more and more important both in how films, television series and other aspects of popular culture are developing and how they are used meaningfully in the context of political activism. My impression is that the new STAR WARS film could have been much better if it had been written by somebody like Senmut. John B. *** 31384 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A trip down memory lane sennmut Dec 23, 2015

236


I have not seen the new SW film. Tickets are just too pricey.

way to bring Schanke back, and this seemed a way to do it.

To be truthful, I am not "exploring" any metaphysical themes. I just wanted to find a

***

7.3 New Star Wars film, etc. When STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS was released, the focus changed from comments about the initial reviews of the series in 1977-83 towards reflections on how SPACE: 1999 and “Schanke Resurgens” relate to the new STAR WARS film and the STAR WARS series as a whole. This results in engaged debate and articulation of insights on how to expand on previous ideas concerned with looking at SPACE: 1999 throught the lens of critical theory. 31385 new Star Wars film, etc. jemarcu Dec 24 9:52 PM

I sent 5 of my brood to see the new SW flick yesterday, matinee so ticket prices were reasonable, and they had to pay for their own popcorn. Of course they all liked it, and my kids run the gamut: in their temperments and interests soldier in training, gifted artist, aspiring enterpeneur, autistic day laborer, etc. To me, Star Wars is a combination of 2 things uniquely American: the western and the Saturday matinee serials, placed in a nominally sci fi setting. Westerns and serials were the staples for millions of working class kids for generations. We could not afford the opera, or the symphony, or more than one trip per summer to the ball park even. These movies were fun, they taught values that strenghtnen civilization, and they were affordable. Its not surprising to me that ivory tower, leftist types hate this type of diversion. They don't believe in the freedom of the working man to enjoy simple pleasures like movies, backyard barbecues, beaches, hunting. They would have us all in the world of socialist realism, living in concrete blockhouses, and listening to propaganda broadcasts on PBS and NPR, and waiting in endless lines for our ration of cabbage and potatoes. When you hear "critical theory", this is what it really adds up to: shared misery and artistic repression.

world, of course he can and often does. In the stunted world of ivory tower elitism, apparently not. Regards, John M. *** 31389 Re: [OnlineAlpha] new Star Wars film, etc. Jonathan Reiter Dec 25, 2015

Yeah. Also, they make noise about intolerance for them and their points of view until they get this tolerance, and when the tables are turned, nobody else gets any. Strange World View for these goofs, eh? Jonathan Reiter jr *** 31391 Re: [OnlineAlpha] new Star Wars film, etc. sennmut Dec 25, 2015

Mickey Spillaine meets Tolstoy? "Okay, free, Russkie!" Hhmm............. ***

To me , the gulf between Space 1999 and SW is not that large. Cannot a man enjoy opera AND baseball, country music AND jazz, barbecue spare ribs AND beef wellington? Mickey Spillane AND Tolstoy? In the real

31392 Re: [OnlineAlpha] new Star Wars film, etc. Jonathan Reiter Dec 25, 2015

Schanke Resurgens I suppose so... Jonathan Reiter jr *** 31394 Re: [OnlineAlpha] new Star Wars film, etc. sennmut Dec 25, 2015

That was supposed to be "freeze", not "free". Ooopppss. *** 31395 Re: [OnlineAlpha] new Star Wars film, etc. balor1999 Dec 23, 2015

Jemarcu wrote: To me, the gulf between Space 1999 and SW is not that large. Cannot a man enjoy opera AND baseball, country music AND jazz, barbecue spare ribs AND beef wellington? Mickey Spillane AND Tolstoy? In the real world, of course he can and often does. In the stunted world of ivory tower elitism, apparently not.

I remember documentary where they interviewed students and staff at Berkley at the time when Herbert Marcuse played an important role at campus, and one of the things some students mentioned was that they tried to make him listen to popular music – but with little success as he was only interested in Beethoven and other types of serious music. There is also a famous interview with Theodor W. Adorno where he was asked about the important of Bob Dylan for the counter-culture movement, and then responded by saying something along the lines that he found it difficult to see how fight the negative effects of consumer society by supporting an artist who was one of the best-selling artists of one of the major record labels. In the context of how critical theory distinguishes between authentic cultural expressions like those of classical music and inauthentic cultural expressions of popular culture, which is dominantly produced and used by the ruling classes for developing false consciousness among the oppressed and prevent them from revolting, I think we have

237

reached large progress this year when there seems to be little or no disagreement on Jemarcu’s comments above, namely that there is a gulf between SPACE: 1999 was STAR WARS similar to the gulf between the literary works of Leo Tolstoy and Mickey Spillane. We may perhaps disagree about how wide the gulf is, and whether it is possible to bridge it, but a gulf there is. The fact that we seem to be able to agree on statements like these indicates to me that we have moved a long way towards convergence and understanding in 2015. First of all, to be able to compare SPACE: 1999 with STAR WARS by saying that SPACE: 1999 is an authentic cultural object while STAR WARS is not, this means that we have to ignore S99/Y2 as being part of SPACE: 1999. In a way this means victory for the Fageolle point that we should now be more ready to (metaphorically) “burn and destroy” S99/Y2 to erase it out of our collective consciousness. From the viewpoint of Adorno, Marcuse, Benjamin and the rest of the culturally oriented members of the Frankfurt school, S99/Y2 would clearly have been a prime example of inauthentic culture at its worst, and a prime example of how culture is being used by the ruling elite to manipulate audiences into submissiveness. This GUARDIAN OF PIRI-like scenario of Maya/Y2 is something we have discussed at length in ways of how Freiberger appears to have been thinking of the audience either toddlers or drug addicts, and thus developing a cultural product that was aimed at keeping them in this non-reflective and non-critical state. It is interesting to see this in context of how films like STAR WARS builds on inauthentic culture of earlier decades, such as Westerns and Saturday matinee serials aimed at engaging the working class masses with artificial suspense, action and drama that focus on individual heroism rather than coordinating interests through labour unions and those who articulate their own interests. This way of nesting the history of STAR WARS back to its origins is indeed an excellent move as that makes the cultural criticism of popular culture of that period, such as the writings of Adorno and Benjamin, immediately applicable for analysing both STAR WARS of the Reagan

238


and Bush periods as well as exploring why we are seeing a revival of STAR WARS today. In a similar way, we can map out the history of SPACE: 1999 in the style of how Drake (1994) and Keazor (2012) has already done this by seeing it as building on the authentic counterculture values we see in films like DR STRANGELOVE (1964) and 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) by way of Anderson’s JOURNEY TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE SUN (1969) and UFO (1970). In other words, SPACE: 1999 builds on a completely different understanding of the SF format, and here we could also build on Adorno, but rather than exploring his writings on inauthentic culture we would rather focus on something like his 1930s essay on Huxley’s BRAVE NEW WORLD as a critical perspective on mechanisms of oppression in capitalist societies (reproduced in his PRISMS book from 1967). This could indeed be used as a very interesting starting point for further ExE discussions were we could more deeply into the aspects of political subtext that makes SPACE: 1999 into the opera, jazz, Beef Wellington and Leo Tolstoy of filmed SF.

"Velda? Can you call Barrington?" "Right with you, Mike. I just got to the the spot where Anna gets it on with Count Vronsky." "Huh?" Blam! Pow! Blam!! "Hey, I got a situation here!" "So does Anna, Mike. Ya know, you should read more." ---------------------------P.S.--If we build on Adorno, won't all those bricks get kinda heavy, for him? *** 31399 Re: [OnlineAlpha] new Star Wars film, etc. John Marcucci Dec 25, 2015

Its a damn good thing I never founnd a gal like Velda, as I probably would have married her. ***

John B. *** 31397 Re: [OnlineAlpha] new Star Wars film, etc. sennmut Dec 25, 2015

And now, next, on Mike Hammer...

31401 Re: [OnlineAlpha] new Star Wars film, etc. sennmut Dec 26, 2015

Well, the odds were kind of...stacked, in her favor. ;) ***

7.4 Space history In addition to comparing elements of “Schanke Resurgens” with aspects of STAR WARS, real events from the NASA history of the Apollo programme can also be useful for putting SPACE: 1999 in an interesting perspective. This turns out to be another highly interesting direction for debate as it allows the discussants to expand on earlier discussions on how Carl Sagan’s COSMOS can be thought of as the third season of SPACE: 1999. 31386 Space history. sennmut Dec 24, 2015

Hi, yall........... Just in case anyone remembers, or doesn't for that matter...47 years ago tonight, Apollo 8 entered lunar orbit. A bit later, Astronauts

Frank Borman, James Lovell, and William Anders, read the opening verses of Genesis, from over a quarter million miles away. I remember watching it all on our old Magnavox B&W TV, and asking my mother if this was history. She said yes, it was. It was glorious, stepping out into space.

Schanke Resurgens How far we've come, eh? *** 31387Re: [OnlineAlpha] Space history. John Marcucci Dec 25 12:29 AM

Yeah..thanks for the reminder, bro. I only saw it as a re run, but its a very moving moment in history. *** 31388 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Space history. Jonathan Reiter Dec 25, 2015

Not far enough. I still won’t be happy until we have a permanent habitation on the Moon and Mars... Jonathan Reiter jr *** 31390 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Space history. sennmut Dec 25, 2015

No, we have not. Not by a long shot. We haven't gone a thoudandth as far as we should have. Instead of the "Alpha", that we all hoped for, we now have a defunct shuttle, and an oft out-of-sorts space station. Instead of colonies on Mars, we have a rover, with a busted wheel. History has been robbed. Our history was robbed from us. *** 31393 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Space history. Jonathan Reiter Dec 25, 2015

Yup. Jonathan Reiter jr *** 31396 Re: Space history. kerryirs Dec 25, 2015

239

I also remember the Apollo coming around the moon and there was that beautiful earthwise. Later Apollo 8 astronauts took that photo of earth20. It really gives one a perspective of our place in the universe. *** 31405 Re: Space history. balor1999 Dec 26, 2015

Thanks for sharing these wise words, Kerry. The 1972 iconic picture of Earth as a “blue marble” is something makes many of us think of SPACE: 1999. Not only was the iconic picture reproduced in BREAKAWAY, but the way the picture gives us a perspective of our place in the universe, as you say, makes it into an iconic representation of the ideology of SPACE: 1999 as we understand it on this forum. Unlike other SF series, SPACE: 1999 was not concerned with reproducing the ideology of the ruling class, defending military interventions and budgets, and making people distrustful of science and education. On the contrary, the essence of SPACE: 1999 was building on the values and ideas that we identify with modernity, the ideas that we associate with Marx, Darwin and Freud. When we engage in debates about SPACE: 1999 we engage in debates where modernity is taken for granted. This makes the series very difference, for instance, in comparison with series like BATTLESTAR GALACTICA with its premodern world-view based on religion and military power. The way SPACE: 1999 was originally designed for people who share modern perspectives on how the world works, episodes dealing with spiritual issues, such as BLACK SUN, became much more interesting. Victor Bergman’s religious discourse and comments about the thin line between science and mysticism remind me of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein and Baruch Spinoza. As Christmas is a time when speeches about peace and understanding are being made, I think one of the most important steps toward reaching better conditions for mutual respect Editor’s note: The “Earthrise” photo was taken on December 24, 1968 20

240


and understanding comes form understanding the secular religious world-view mentioned by Victor Bergman and articulated more clearly by Carl Sagan in COSMOS. The point Sagan makes, and Tyson repeats and elaborates, is that religious fundamentalism is the anti-thesis to science. When we see the 1972 NASA photograph we are reminded of how fragile our world is, and there are wonderful sequences in COSMOS where Sagan talks about religion and science in the same way as Victor Bergman did. To take care of environment, to fight unequal distribution of wealth, to support the oppressed, these are ideas I associate first with Gerry Anderson’s COSMOS: 1999, then with Carl Sagan’s COSMOS: 1979 and finally with Neil Tyson’s COSMOS: 2014. Rather than trying to appeal to people who believe in magic and are afraid of science, like Freiberger tried to do when introducing Maya and thus corrupting the nature of the series, the essence of SPACE: 1999 and the COSMOS series were that they stressed the importance of understanding science in a society that has more or less become totally dependent on technology. Not only does the scientific view mean that we cannot see evolutionism and creationism as “equal” hypotheses. Natural evolution is the way educated people understand the world. Creationism is how people without knowledge and education understand the world. I remember Carl Sagan made this point quite clearly in one of the first episodes of COSMOS, finding him being surprisingly didactic about for those of us who were not aware of people who thought otherwise, because in SPACE: 1999 issues like natural evolution is taken for granted as part of how modern man understands the world. MISSING LINK is an obvious reference, but it was a fabric of the worldview needed to understand the series as a whole, as we see in cases like FULL CIRCLE and SPACE BRAIN. What is perhaps even more important in the case of understanding SPACE: 1999 as a “mythology of modernity” (Fageolle, 1996), is the role of science in society by means of critical theory. One thing that struck me in Rius (1976) famous introduction to Marxism is the way the revolution in perception of society

is described as a change from a traditional world view where people believed whatever religious and other authorities told them to believe, and moved towards a more critical viewpoint where one tries to understand the mechanisms of how oppression and manipulation happens. Once again we see the relevance of SPACE: 1999 and COSMOS as political texts with an agnostic rather than theist/atheist perspective. A prime example in SPACE: 1999 where the episode MISSION OF THE DARIANS leaves Koenig with an unsolved dilemma in terms of what do to when established worldviews break down due to analysis use of critical theory and resulting political activism. Both Sagan and Tyson have described themselves as agnostics based on the principle that religious “knowledge” should in principle be no different from ordinary scientific knowledge. Finally, concerning the influence of Freud and modern psychology on the series, I think this can be seen by how even “villainous” characters like Simmonds are portrayed in realistic ways that makes us understand why they are forced to carry out what they do. In a pre-modern series like BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, the bad guys are bad and the good guys are good. I suppose this kind of “psychology” is not uncommon in parts of the Middle East and other places where people live as traditionalists rather than moderns, but SPACE: 1999 takes as modern psychological approach. Good examples, in my opinion, are given by how the conflict we see in episodes like EARTHBOUND turns out to be a conflict where Simmonds gets gradually forced into taking desperate actions after being bullied by Koenig. Of course, Simmonds is not totally sympathetic, but neither is Koenig. They are rivals, and because the story is written from the viewpoint of having Koenig win the battle, he wins. Koenig doesn’t win because he is “right”. He wins because he is a leader, and no leader should be trusted. This is perhaps what I see as the most important moral message in SPACE: 1999. The message is that there are no heroes and no villains. As explained in DRAGON’S DOMAIN, “heroic” behaviour can in most cases be explained as neurotic or psychotic behaviour, and in FULL CIRCLE we see that the “villains” are often ourselves. There are no heroes and no villains. We are all in the same boat. SPACE: 1999 is a parable

Schanke Resurgens about the world society. We are all members of Moonbase Alpha. John B. *** 31406 Re: Space history. balor1999 Dec 27, 2015

In a similar way to how iconic NASA pictures like “Earthrise”, “Blue Marble” or “Pale Blue Dot” gives us a perspective on our place in the universe, as Kerry says, Senmut’s stories are also remarkable narratives that mixes drama and action with philosophical thought. For instance, in chapter seven of SCHANKE RESURGENS the story deals with a conflict similar to what we remember in BLACK SUN in terms of deciding who will go into the “lifeboat” and who will have to stay back on Moonbase Alpha. The lifeboat in this case consists of putting the entire population of Moonbase Alpha into a computer and having a single individual standing outside to operate it. What emerges out of this scenario is a remarkable sequence where Don Schanke becomes a Christ-like character who decides to sacrifice himself for the purpose of saving the rest of the population. Even more interesting is the way Schanke arguments by using the exact words of Simmonds from EARTHBOUND. He says that he is the natural choice because he serves no purpose on Moonbase Alpha. In other words, one way of reading this part of SCHANKE RESURGENS is to think of Schanke as a means of gaining deeper understanding EARTHBOUND. Rather than seeing Simmonds as the villain of that episode, he could alternatively be seen as a Christ-like character that wants to sacrifice himself for the purpose of the larger community. To me this adds depth to one of the more difficult episodes of the SPACE: 1999 canon. While SPACE: 1999 started out with an outstanding quartet of episodes, BREAKAWAY, MOLAD, BLACK SUN and RATM, the fifth episode has always felt like a plummet down to the linear story telling with a superficial or almost misleading moral message that made SPACE: 1999 more similar to other SF series of the period. However, I have always felt that the

241

clue to a better and deeper understanding of this episode has to do with being able to read it from Simmonds perspective. If we try to do that, it quickly becomes obvious that the roles from BREAKAWAY have turned, and now it is Koenig manipulating Simmonds rather than the other way around. But it is more to it than that. When we read SCHANKE RESURGENS we can move a step beyond the deep reading of EARTHBOUND based on script alone as we are now given Schanke as a psychological model for understanding Simmonds. Once again we see how Senmut’s writing is not only rewarding on the immediate level of providing fascinating stories of drama, suspense, humour and action, but also how high quality fan fiction goes a step beyond in terms of becoming a tool for alternative and deeper readings of the original source material. John B. *** 31407 Re: Space history. balor1999 Dec 28, 2015

One strange thing about SPACE: 1999 when we watch it today is that the year 1999 is becoming more and more a part of our distant past than the distant future it was in 1974. When SPACE: 1999 was written, they fantasised about what the world would look like 25 years into the future. Now it is more than 16 years since we passed the ‘breakaway’ date of 1999. Nevertheless, the series feels no less dated that Orwell’s NINETEEN EIGHTYFOUR or Kubrick’s 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Similar to those SF milestones, SPACE: 1999 feels like a socio-political reflection of issues that were important at the time it was made, and the series remains important because all these issues have just become more relevant as we reached and gone beyond the actual year of 1999. In a similar way I feel Senmut has a magnificent capability for capturing the timeless aspects of SPACE: 1999 in his various novels and short stories. Something that makes me particularly impressed is the way all he stories explore the universe of

242


SPACE: 1999 in often totally different ways. SCHANKE RESURGENS is a wonderful example. Unlike some of the previous stories, where the cross-over with BATTLESTAR GALACTICA was using for telling war stories and the cross-over with FOREVER KNIGHT resulted in blood and violence, SCHANKE RESURGENS is to me a more reflective story. Of course, it contains the usual aspects of suspense, romance and mystery, but what makes it different from the rest, as I see it, is the way it explores metaphysical themes in an interesting manner that both echoes SPACE: 1999 and feels like an expression of the author’s personal views. This is perhaps part of the reason why I feel that Senmut stands heads and shoulders above most other SPACE: 1999 fiction I have read. In my opinion he has a perfect balance between a very good and respectful understanding of the original series while also being capable of using elements of SPACE: 1999 in conjunction with other series to tell something original and interesting that makes us see SPACE: 1999 from a new perspective. If we originally thought of SPACE: 1999 from the viewpoint of the 1968 “Earthrise” or 1972 “Blue Marble” pictures, then Senmut makes it possible for us to think of it from the perspective of the 1990 “Pale Blue Dot” image and beyond. His ideas contribute new perspectives and enrich our understanding of SPACE: 1999. John B. *** 31408 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Space history. sennmut Dec 29, 2015

On 27 Dec 2015 balor1999@... writes: In a similar way to how iconic NASA pictures like “Earthrise”, “Blue Marble” or “Pale Blue Dot” gives us a perspective on our place in the universe, as Kerry says, In other words, one way of reading this part of SCHANKE RESURGENS is to think of Schanke as a means of gaining deeper understanding EARTHBOUND. Rather than seeing Simmonds as the villain of that episode, he could alternatively be seen as a Christ-like character that wants to sacrifice himself for the purpose of the larger community. To me this

adds depth to one of the more difficult episodes of the SPACE: 1999 canon. While SPACE: 1999 started out with an outstanding quartet of episodes, BREAKAWAY, MOLAD, BLACK SUN and RATM, the fifth episode has always felt like a plummet down to the linear story telling with a superficial or almost misleading moral message that made SPACE: 1999 more similar to other SF series of the period. However, I have always felt that the clue to a better and deeper understanding of this episode has to do with being able to read it from Simmonds perspective. If we try to do that, it quickly becomes obvious that the roles from BREAKAWAY have turned, and now it is Koenig manipulating Simmonds rather than the other way around.

I don't see Simmonds as anything but a "villain". He does what he doea, not even shrinking from being willing to murder, to get a ride home. Simmonds doesn't care about anything or anyone. Schanke, on the other hand, is willing to sacrifice himself, that other might survive. He is, though I was not thinking of this at the time, a "Christ-like" figure, though I would use the appelation with caution. Simmonds, on the other hand, is concerned only with Simmonds, and to hell with everyone else. *** 31409 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Space history. balor1999 Dec 30, 2015

In chapter nine of SCHANKE RESURGENS we see that Schanke not only saves the day for the Alphans but also survives himself. In that sense he is perhaps less of a Christ-figure than I was lead to believe when he was ready to sacrifice himself, but to me it is still the spiritual quality of SCHANKE RESURGENS that makes the story appealing to me. It feels like paying homage to BLACK SUN and other episodes where the spiritual and existential aspects of the series were being explored. For instance, it also includes references to Arra in a way that suggests a deterministic reading of the events in COLLISION COURSE. Regardless of whether Schanke dies or not, the way he argues himself being the one that should carry out a certain task because he has no function on Alpha is an exact mirror of what Simmonds says in EARTHBOUND, and to me this is helpful for getting a more nuanced

Schanke Resurgens understanding of Simmonds. To me there is nothing villainous about Simmonds per se, but he becomes the villain of the episode due various circumstances, such as Koenig’s manipulative scheming. In this sense I feel SPACE: 1999 was much closer to Shakespeare and Greek tragedy than manipulative crap like STAR WARS with stories about “good versus evil”. I don’t think SPACE: 1999 ever dealt with the concept of good versus evil with the exception of episodes like DRAGON’S DOMAIN where Paulo and others have suggested that the Dragon was a symbol of capitalism sucking the life out of the working class while Cellini represented the workers who understood how the system worked and were able to set themselves free. In this sense one could say that most any episode of SPACE: 1999 was concerned with political conflict, and the stories are always written from the perspective of how the viewers are supposed to identify with the oppressed rather than the oppressors, but this is different from the “good vs. evil” right wing thinking we see among Christian and Muslim fundamentalists. On the psychological level, the SPACE: 1999 stories are written from the perspective of allowing us to understand what motivates the different conflicting parties. If we look at EARTHBOUND from the viewpoint of comparing Simmods with Schanke, I think we can understand Simmonds better. Unless everybody else on Moonbase Alpha, Simmonds and Schanke were summoned against their wills. Just like Schanke, Simmonds’ real life was related to what was happening on Earth. His family, his friends and his colleagues were all on Earth. Unlike the Alphans, he had no function to perform on the Moon apart from representing Earth authorities, and as Koenig would not have any rivals for the leadership throne, he exploited the situation when they were given the opportunity to send one Alphan back for the purpose of destroying Simmonds. To me this is perhaps the most important aspect of EARTHBOUND. It is a story about rivalry between leaders. Neither of them is good, and neither evil, but as all history is written from the viewpoint of the winners, one gets the impression that Koenig was somewhat morally superior to Simmonds while in reality he was not. In fact, he was probably worse as

243

he was the one who put the tragedy in motion by systematically suppressing and manipulating Simmonds until Simmonds reached a level of desperation where nothing could be done but observe how the tragedy would reach climax. Johnny Byrne talks about the psychological and moral world of SPACE: 1999 in a similar way when he says that END OF ETERNITY was one of his least favourite scripts. The problem he had with the script was that it ended up with the politically rather uninteresting situation of “how do we deal with a killer who can’t be killed” rather than the complex moral dilemmas of distribution of wealth in stories like MISSION OF THE DARIANS. Byrne explains the problem by saying that Balor’s behaviour was not sufficiently motivated. In other words, it becomes too difficult for the viewer to sympathise with Balor in the same way that we can sympathise with Regina, Zoref, Simmonds and other victims. Although Balor can be seen as doing exactly the same thing as Koenig was doing in GUARDIAN OF PIRI, namely to use shock treatment for raising critical awareness and thus stimulate the Alphans to break out of false consciousness and reach personal and social freedom, he felt there was something still lacking. The battle between Koenig and Balor became too much a battle between “good and evil”, which was exactly the kind of narrative that Byrne disliked and talked disparagingly about as “space people” ethics in the Fanderson Documentary. If we want to understand SPACE: 1999 from the viewpoint of the intellectual climate of the early seventies that shaped it and makes it more relevant than ever in a world that has become increasingly problematic, it is exactly this religious fundamentalist worldview of ongoing battles between good versus evil that we have to get rid of. Although STAR TREK has been argued by Roddenberry and the early writers of television history to express a progressive viewpoint, Tulloch and Jenkins (1995) among others have been keen to point out that it also contained a fair element of episodes like A PRIVATE LITTLE WAR that was based on the “good vs. evil” right wing religious ideology. In the late sixties and early seventies, the social change changed the nature of popular culture for a short period in the

244


sense of producing series like SPACE: 1999, but quickly it returned to the fascism of STAR WARS and its offspring in the late seventies and eighties as the right wing religion of market fundamentalism swept the Western world and caused irreparable damage. It is from this perspective that I think SCHANKE RESURGENS is of great help. It is a story that helps us to understand the central message of the New Left of the late sixties and early seventies, namely that we are all in the same boat. Simmonds is not a symbol of evil. He is a symbol of how people are shaped by the systems they believe in. Simmonds was a victim of the economic system, just like Dione was a victim of the military system and the ruling class in MISSION OF THE DARIANS had victimised themselves due to their right wing fundamentalist religious beliefs. By seeing the story about Schanke as an alternative telling of BLACK SUN through the perspective of having Simmonds from EARTHBOUND as the person who becomes the accidental hero of the story, I believe we are enriched in our understanding of SPACE: 1999. To me this is an illustration of why not only SCHANKE RESURGENS but all the Senmut’s stories that we have discussed so far should be worthy of scholarly interest. Not only are the stories exciting as pure fiction, but they are also designed in a manner to make us reflect and help us clarify the deeper meaning of SPACE: 1999. If Senmut had decided to publish his collected works of S99 fiction in a book format, I would predict that he could easily outsell all previously published S99 fiction. John B. *** 31410 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Space history. sennmut Dec 31, 2015

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Balor, you have once more coupled my stuff with your Marxist worldview. Why is it so hard to do as I have asked, and make no reference whatsoever to that? I do not subscribe to the Marxist viewpoint. In fact, I believe in Capitalism, and

wish for it's growth and expansion. Marxism works best when it greases the treads of our tanks, to paraphrase General Patton slightly. Now please, can you not respect my one simple request in this? Not even on the same page. If you must ululate such panagyrics regarding my stuff, please, leave anything whatsoever that bears the taint of Marxist OFF THE DAMNED PAGE! *** 31411 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Space history. balor1999 Dec 31, 2015

I have now read the final chapter of the SCHANKE RESURGENS story, and I am impressed. I don’t remember making the kind of political interpretations you refer to in my previous post, as the strategy I try to follow is to separate the references to SF scholarship from messages where I comment directly on your story, but I admit that it can be challenging to discuss a text without making the kind of theoretical references that are needed for understanding how it relates to SPACE: 1999 as a whole. Nevertheless, there is so much to enjoy in SCHANKE RESURGENCE and the other stories that it is also possible to comment on it without pointing out how useful and important it within the larger context of the SF discourse. To me the final chapter of SCHANKE RESURGENCE is yet another example of fan fiction writing at the highest level. Not only are the threads connected in an excellent manner that makes use of events both from this particular story, earlier stories in the FOREVER ALPHA series, and events from the television series involved, but it also builds tension with respect to what will follow in the next story. The way it ends in an epilogue where the spaceship containing Commandant Leiter from BATTLESTAR GALACTICA is remarkably well done. In fact, it is so well done that I find it difficult not to start reading CROSSFIRE once more in order to appreciate it even more in the context of the understanding of the FOREVER ALPHA universe that has emerged from reading the previous stories.

Schanke Resurgens For me the discovery and possibility for engaging with Senmut’s fan fiction universe has been one of the most interesting events on Online Alpha this year. I have never been particularly interested in fan fiction, and I also had a look at some of Senmut’s writing some years back, but it was only by means of making it into discussion theme on the forum, in a similar way to how we have been discussing SPACE: 1999 through the ExE format, that I really began to understand the value of S99 fiction in general and Senmut’s writings in particular. Although it is probably more than fifteen years since the first time I read Tulloch and Jenkins’ “Science fiction audiences: Watching Doctor Who and Star Trek” (Routledge, 1995), I think it was only when we started to discuss Senmut’s work in detail that I began to understand the depth and importance of what Tulloch and Jenkins are saying. There is something extraordinary with Senmut, and I am very happy that I am not the only person on this forum to have recognised this. Others have said the same thing. This is fan fiction at the highest level.

245

By reading and commenting on the final chapter of SCHANKE RESURGENS on the final day of 2015, this can set the scene for starting 2016 in a very positive way by reading and discussing CROSSFIRE. Although we have already read and discussed this story, it is by online reviewers described as Senmut’s masterpiece, and I believe reading and discussing it in the context of the FOREVER ALPHA series as a whole rather than an independent story would be open up both the story and the series in new and exciting ways. I want to thank all those who have participated in the FOREVER ALPHA discussions this year, showing us all how fan fiction can be a helpful tool for gaining a deeper understanding of SPACE: 1999, and I look forward to more discussions in 2016. John B. ***

246


8. CROSSFIRE The chapter consists of nine sections. The first section is a straight-forward commentary and analysis. In the second section a discussion develops by means of engaging with Carol Borden’s feminist reading of SPACE: 1999. The third section is a continuation of discussions about religion and politics from section 5.2. In the fourth section the discussants continue in conversations about how these aspects of religion, politics, leadership and authority. The fifth section is an attempt to redirect the discussion in the direction of “Crossfire” by engaging in trivia question and discussing the role of trivia knowledge in the shaping of fandom. As the attempt to engage with potentially political aspects of “Crossfire” resulted in controversy, the sixth section changes course by looking at the same ideas in the context of a fan review of the series. In the seventh section the discussants look at the original Y2 premise of having a black actress play Maya. The eights section is a return to the leadership/authority theme, and the final section returns to trivia questions and fan fiction.

8.1 Commentary and analysis As with “Schanke Resurgens”, the initial commentary and analysis deals only with the very beginning of the story and thus allows the discussants to spend more time reading and debating “Crossfire” throught particular themes and topics in later sections. Still, however, several important ideas an introduce in this introducation, including reflections on the first four episodes of SPACE: 1999 and STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE. 31413 Crossfire (Senmut, 2003) balor1999 Jan 1, 2016

I can think of no better way of celebrating the first day of the New Year than by reading the prologue to Senmut’s excellent CROSSFIRE. To me this story has a particular meaning because it was the first Senmut story that we jointly read and discussed on this forum, and I think the prologue is particularly funny due to the dialogue between Tony and Maya when watching old pirate movies and discussing the cover of the VHS/DVD version of COSMIC PRINCESS. Ha-ha. For those of us who are by now familiar with the story, and have also watched the original BATTLESTAR GALACTICA episodes quite recently, I suppose it will be a particularly fine way of enjoying and discussing SPACE: 1999 during the first few weeks of January. When I looked for online reviews of Senmut’s fan fiction, reviews of CROSSFIRE were among the first I found, and they were extremely good. Here is a sample review by Louie Pastiche from 2005: Superb! That's the only word I can think of, that even comes close to doing this justice. Then again, maybe a certain fellow reviewer said it better, when he regaled this story's companion piece with the phrase: "Way to go, Mr. S!"

Personally I was totally drawn into the story the first time I read CROSSFIRE, and reading the prologue again only confirms my admiration and recognition of Senmut’s talent as a fictional writer. The way the characters talk and behave feels exactly as though the characters had stepped out of the television screen and down into the text. The psychology and exploration of relationships is not only a perfect match with how we already know these characters but they also feel alive in the sense that they continue to develop in the Senmut fictional universe in interesting ways that seem perfectly consistent with how we already know them. I did not find a review of CROSSFIRE that included the phrase “Way to go, Mr. S!”, but I found an enthusiastic review of SCHANKE RESURGENS where it was used. What perhaps strikes me in particular, when reading these different stories, is the uniformly high quality of Senmut’s writing. I believe I have now read all the short stories and the novels except for the sixth and final entry in the FOREVER ALPHA series, and they are all remarkably well done and interesting to read. They are also very different. Reading these stories is almost a bit like watching the first four episodes of SPACE: 1999 in the sense of seeing the writers and film makers at their most explorative and creative. Just like

Crossfire Prentice Hancock, I have always felt that BREAKAWAY, MOLAD, BLACK SUN and RING AROUND THE MOON were the highlights of SPACE: 1999 because one can almost feel the makers of the series struggling with the format as means of expressing ideas and giving it shape, whereas EARTHBOUND and later episodes, still excellent of course, build on the platform of the first four episodes. To me the Senmut stories are like the first four episodes of SPACE: 1999. They feel constantly fresh and interesting. John B. *** 31415 Re: Crossfire (Senmut, 2003) balor1999 Jan 2, 2016

Rereading the first chapter of CROSSFIRE is pure delight. Not all novels, films and television are equally impressive when we watch them the second time. I thought MISSING LINK was quite impressive the first time, but on repeated viewing I feel it depends too much on long atmospheric shots that do little in terms of contributing to the ideological and substantial aspects of the story. On the other hand, sometimes films may seem better in retrospect. When I saw STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE in 1979, I thought it was rather slow and boring, but twenty years later it felt like a great science fiction film and by far the best of the entries in the STAR TREK movie series. Most often, however, the appreciation stays the same. The first series of SPACE: 1999 impressed me in the 1970s, and the impression has remained the same ever since. In a similar way, the second series felt like crap when I first saw it, and it still feels like crap today, even when I try to look at it from the more constructive perspective suggested by Liardet (2014), which at least turns it from crap into potentially interesting crap. When I now make another attempt at CROSSFIRE, my feelings are similar to those as when I watch the first series of SPACE: 1999. I was impressed when I first read the story, and I remain impressed today. It is intelligently written. It is funny, exciting, and it contains a perfect mix between reflection and action.

247

The only thing that bothers me slightly about reading and discussing fan fiction is that the study of audiences and audience culture is not necessarily the same as the study of science fiction and popular culture. If we compare Freedman’s (2000) writing about SF from the viewpoint of critical theory with Tulloch and Jenkins’ 1995 book on SF audiences, the focus is different. Freedman is concerned with authoritative readings of classical SF texts, especially how they can be understood in the context of critical theory, something that is highly relevant for us when we engage with the authoritative readings of SPACE: 1999 by people like Fageolle and Keazor. Tulloch and Jenkins, on the other hand, are more concerned with the people who read and watch SF, and how they make sense out of the texts. In this case it is not always so important what was written into the texts, as they explain in the context of how the 79 episodes of STAR TREK contained both progressive and reactionary narratives, but the focus is on reading formations in terms of how fans and writers of STAR TREK history choose to read it from a progressive rather than reactionary viewpoint, thus making STAR TREK fiction into something that is useful for political activism. When we discuss CROSSFIRE, I think both of these perspectives have to be taken into consideration. However, before Senmut makes another comment about how I am referring to authors and viewpoints he dislikes in a mail where I explicitly mention one of his masterpieces, I need to point out that I do not suggest that the ideology CROSSFIRE is in any way aligned with the viewpoints of these authors and theories from the perspective of the writer. Just like in the case of STAR TREK, the FOREVER ALPHA series may be a reflection of political viewpoints that have developed during the course of writing, or it may be a reflection of viewpoints that have remained stable, but there is always a challenge of whether the readers are understanding the text in the same way as the writer intended. This is particularly relevant in a case like SPACE: 1999 where the political subtext is much more unified and clearly progressive than a series like STAR TREK that was made during a period when popular opinions on issues like the Vietnam War where changing.

248


Due to the mix of different messages in STAR TREK, authoritative readings depends on forming a canon of episodes that either makes it into an ideological vehicle for progressive or reactionary thought. In the case of SPACE: 1999, at least when we consider the original series, there is no such room for discussions. It is very clear what the writers had in mind, as can be seen through interviews in the Fanderson Documentary and elsewhere, so that is why the second series became such a betrayal of everything SPACE: 1999 stood for. That is why people like Fageolle and the fans interviewed by Mallett and Pearce in their 1991 AlphaCon documentary felt that the world had been a better place if the second series had been burnt and destroyed. I think these issues are important to consider when discussing a story like CROSSFIRE that may be funded on certain ideological perspectives but nevertheless makes intertextual references to television series like SPACE: 1999, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and FOREVER KNIGHT that are all clearly different in the way they express different cultural superstructures corresponding to changes in the economic and social basis. In this sense I believe Tulloch and Jenkins have a point in how texts of this type open up for

different ideological readings, some of which I assume Senmut would agree with and others which he would not, but from the viewpoint of SPACE: 1999 fandom, represented by Online Alpha, I would nevertheless argue that the progressive ideology of SPACE: 1999 has to be recognised as hegemonic, thus allowing the post-Marxist perspective from SPACE: 1999 to function as a lens for understanding BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and FOREVER KNIGHT rather than attempting any sort of reverse reading. In other words, to me CROSSFIRE is a masterpiece on several layers. Obviously it is an example of elevated fan fiction that could easily be compared with professional fiction, and surpass much of the professionally written SPACE: 1999 fiction with ease, but it is also a masterpiece in the sense of being an important text for negotiating authoritative perspectives on how to read SPACE: 1999 ideologically by stimulating discussions and debates about political subtext. For most of us I think reading and discussing a text like CROSSFIRE is time well spent. John B. ***

8.2 A different view of Space: 1999 In a similar way to how “Crossfire” deals with both Y1 and Y2, and is thus open for reading Y1 through the ideological perspective of Y2 and vice versa, one of the discussants stimulates debate by referring to an online commentary that gives a reflective view on some of the differences between the two seasons. This has a positive effect on the discussion as new perspectives are introduced and suggests ways of looking at “Crossfire” that differs from the views presented earlier in the book. 31414 Re: A different view of Space: 1999 Kerry Keene Jan 2, 2016

http://teleport-city.com/2015/01/27/space1999-aliens-are-jerks/ It'll be interesting to see what the response will be. :-) *** 31416 Re: A different view of Space: 1999 jemarcu

Jan 3, 2016

She obviously knows the series. And, she has some good insights. *** 31417 Re: A different view of Space: 1999 balor1999 Jan 3, 2016

Carol Borden says that her two lessons from watching SPACE: 1999 is firstly that space is depressing and best represented by the colour

Crossfire taupe and secondly that aliens are jerks. I’m not sure these are statements I would characterise as indication of knowing the series or having good insights. Or at least it depends what we mean by knowing SPACE: 1999 and what we mean by insights. Personally, I tend to get sceptical of any SPACE: 1999 text that includes pictures of Maya and screen-dumps from Year Two. Of course, this can be misleading, such as when Liardet put an image of Koenig from Year Two on the front cover of his important book “COSMOS 1999: Le fabulaire de l’espace” (Edition Yves, 2014), as in his case I suspect it was deliberately done partly to provoke fellow scholars who do not see Y2 as part of the SPACE: 1999 canon and partly to symbolise his thesis that there can be merit to Y2 if we choose to interpret it through means like drug culture and queer studies. Of course, for the mainstream scholarly community, Maya and Y2 are non-topics. As is expressed on a related blog, http://teleportcity.com/2013/11/04/space-1999-1/, Y2 is best understood as part two of STAR TREK’s Season Three. Although this was meant as a joke, I thought this joke was much funnier than Carol Borden’s SPACE: 1999 spoof page. To me this page runs essentially as a spoof page. If I were to say that she knows SPACE: 1999 and shares insights, that would be in the same manner as Mel Brooks’ knows STAR WARS and shares insights on the original trilogy in his spoof film SPACEBALLS. On the other hand, writing about SPACE: 1999 in a totally ridiculous manner, trying to make sense out of the format while disregarding the content, does not mean that the blog is worthless. In fact, I think blogs like these can provide excellent food for the kind of analysis that Liardet calls for. However, Borden’s theoretical lens does not seem to fit with the typical lenses we have discussed for Y2 so far, such as fascism, drug culture or queer studies. My impression is that Borden is writing from a feminist perspective, which can also be seen as an important genre within the larger framework of critical theory and SF (Freedman, 2000). If we choose to interpret Borden’s writing through this perspective, we are presented with a world were Maya is a symbol of feminist liberation and the statement “all aliens are jerks” could be a substitute for “all men are jerks” in the context of her

249

experiences of oppression in a male-dominated society. Of course, it would have been easier to gain insights from her writing if she had been more explicitly political by engaging with feminist socialist literature and critical theory, but to me this looks like the writing of post-modernist feminist socialism in the style that was pioneered by Donna Haraway in her 1985 “Cyborg manifesto”. As Borden is also a fiction writer, I think her blog on SPACE: 1999 is highly interesting in the context of our current discussion of CROSSFIRE. When Tulloch and Jenkins write about female SF fan fiction as means of feminist reflections and means of political activism, Borden’s writings on SPACE: 1999 could indeed represent important insights on SPACE: 1999 from the viewpoint of critical theory. John B. *** 31418 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A different view of Space: 1999 sennmut Jan 3, 2016

EEEeeeeeeeekkkk! For once, I am agreeing with Balor! Did we hit a space warp????? Okay. To me, Space was thought-provoking. Often topical. But never depressing. It was elevating, in that we saw Humans in a positive light, without the overdone Trek preachiness. Oh Lord, check my BP!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh...there's a mention of critical theory. Back to normal. Forget I said anything.......... *** 31419 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A different view of Space: 1999 balor1999 Jan 4, 2016

I’m happy to see that Senmut and I are able to reach agreement now and then. Although I greatly admire his novels and short stories, I have never understood what he has against academics and scholars arguing that there is intellectual merit to SPACE: 1999 or what he has against Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse

250


Tyson remaking SPACE: 1999 as COSMOS: 1979 and COSMOS: 2014, but as long as we can agree that the first series of SPACE: 1999 was thought-provoking and elevating I am perfectly happy. On the other hand, I would not be totally dismissive of what Carol Borden is writing. What bothers me is that she presents SPACE: 1999 by showing images of Maya and scenes from Year Two. To me this is almost sacrilege as Maya and Year Two was in many ways the anti-thesis of SPACE: 1999. There is a scene in the third season of GAME OF CARDS where imaginary US President Francis Underwood goes to church for contemplation but ends up spitting a crucifix in the face because he feels nothing but contempt for the Christian “love thy neighbour” ethics. To me this is what Year Two represents in relation to SPACE: 1999. It was Fred Freiberger spitting Gerry Anderson in the face. Yet, as Liardet tells us, there might still be possible to learn a thing or two about by SPACE: 1999 by analysing the spit and compare the DNA of Y2 with Y1. Although Y2 was made in contempt of Y1, it still had to at least nominally relate to the original SPACE: 1999 concepts. More than that, the people who wrote for Y2 were partly the same people who wrote for Y1 and partly people who came from the same kind of background, so the DNA may in fact be quite similar. So, Liardet may be right in saying that it is the Y2 format that repels us, not necessarily the content. If Y2 had been made using the same scripts but without Maya and keeping the colours taupe rather than bright, using classical music rather than fusion jazz, and telling the actors to behave like normal people rather than cartoon characters, perhaps we would agree with Liardet that there would be merit to Y2. My impression, however, is that Borden is trying to make a similar kind of argument as Liardet. When she talks about SPACE: 1999 from the perspective of depression and “aliens are jerks”, we must remember that she is the editor of THE CULTURAL GUTTER where she tries to write thoughtfully about disreputable art. http://theculturalgutter.com/tag/carol-borden

From this perspective Year Two of SPACE: 1999 is an interesting choice. Clearly it belongs to the cultural gutter. Nobody likes Y2. Gerry Anderson hated it. Johnny Byrne hated it. Martin Landau hated it. The fans hated it. I cannot think of anybody who understood and liked SPACE: 1999 that also did not also hate Year Two. So, from the viewpoint of trying to add thoughtful reflection to disreputable art, something that really belongs in the cultural gutter, I think she is spot on target. In fact, her text makes sense when viewed as an extension of Liardet, especially if we interpret Borden’s writing through the perspective of critical theory, which in this case seems to be articulated through the use of feminist perspective. In this sense I can agree with Senmut that Borden’s model of SPACE: 1999 is a misrepresentation, but I am not sure that Borden is actually meaning what she appears to be saying. My feeling is that what she is actually saying, if we peel away the irony, is the usual message we get from all intellectuals who engage with SPACE: 1999, namely that Y1 was a classic and Y2 was crap. John B. *** 31420 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A different view of Space: 1999 sennmut Jan 5, 2016

I was being sarcastic, Balor. Oh well. My beef with the review was that it was done in such a snarky way. The snide, at times cynically rancid comments that poured forth add nothing to the discussion, and only serve to harden pre-existing attitudes. One can argue the relative merits of Y1/Y2 on artistic, FX, or other grounds, but the snotty barbs flung by the writer in no way help at all. The review belongs, with apologies to Captain Zantor and his crew, with Commissioner Simmonds, decaying inside a slow space ship to wherever. P.S. Please, stop insisting that "all intellectuals" despise Y2. That is elitist and arrogant. Please, let us leave the elitist arrogance off of this list. Peasant!

Crossfire

251

8.3 Re: Leadership Challenges The following thread is a continuation of the exchange of different understandings of the political and religious context of SPACE: 1999 in section 5.6. This leads to investigations of how SPACE: 1999 relates to Clarke and Kubrick’s 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and Carl Sagan’s COSMOS, suggesting that there is a red thread connecting these films and series. As an interesting bonus, the discussion implies new links between “Greetings from Cylon” and “Crossfire”. 31421 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges Erich Wise Jan 5, 2016

I'm sure those wo died thanks to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Ho, (say when) would agree with you. If only they could.

On November 20, 2015, Jemarcu wrote:

Jemarcu, once again, you've hit it on the head. You should start a news magazine!

Kerry, for you to lump people who believe in a young Earth with the Muslim genocidal fanatics currently together, is beyond laughable, its beyond absurd, so it merits no refutation. In the 20th century alone, militant atheist regimes, such as the Soviet Union, Red China, the Kmer Rouge, etc. murdered abourt 100 million people. In Spain in the 1930's, the atheist communists rounded up about 5000 priests and nuns.. and murdered them, before Franco defeated them. Today, in our own country, atheists like Planned Parenthood abort living babies, cut them up whle still alive, and sell the body parts in plain view of the law. G.K. Chesteron said that a madman is not someone who has lost all reason. Rather, it is someone who has lost everything BUT reason. These hyper-rational scientists, politicians, and bureacrats, who think religious ideas about the sanctity of life and the dignity of the human person, are just outmoded, bigoted notions that stifle progress.. they are responsible for suffering and humna rights violations on a scale that makes the Spanish Inquisition look like a spanking. Cabot Rowland from DOD is a perfect example of this mindset..performing inethical experiments that left people brain damaged, so he could pursue his dreams to improve humanity. Sound familiar? I didn't see any crucifix around his neck.

None of these actions happened BECAUSE (or if) they are atheists. Trying to blame these actions on atheism is ridiculous. Religions cause more problems than they solve (if any). *** 31422 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Jan 5, 2016

*** 31423 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges Erich Wise Jan 5, 2016

So you think atheism caused these things? I'd say you were brainwashed by religion. There is help for you if you seek it out. It's called thinking for yourself. *** 31426 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Jan 5, 2016

I would say the opposite, and there is help for you, if you want it. These people died as a result of the hatred of religion that is at the heart of the Marxist sewage that passes for a philosophy. As for thinking for myself, I've been doing it for a long time. That's why i believe the way I do. You might try it, someday. *** 31427 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges jemarcu Jan 5, 2016

Well, it was an atheist regime, guided by an atheist philosophy, led by atheists who went out of their way to extirminate religion in all its forms, especilaly Christianity. The coincidences are kind of piling up there.

252

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series ***

31428 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Jan 5, 2016

Now, now, Jemarcu. Yer gonna sound like some kind of conspiracy theorist if you aren't careful!!!!! *** 31429 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges balor1999 Jan 5, 2016

Religion and spirituality is a central theme in SPACE: 1999. When Victor talks about the difference between science and religion in BLACK SUN, I am reminded of Carl Sagan’s word towards the end of the final episode of COSMOS: We humans long to be connected with our origins so we create rituals. Science is another way to express this longing. It also connects us with our origins. And it, too, has its rituals and its commandments. Its only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths. All assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are worthless. By the way Victor responds to John Koenig’s question about God, it is clearly that Victor’s spirituality is the same as that of Baruch Spinoza, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson. This is what I see as the central spiritual message in Year One of SPACE: 1999. It takes a philosophical stance on religion issues, and is very similar to Sagan’s COSMOS. It also rejects religious fundamentalism, as we see by the way Paul turns into a religious fanatic in THE LAST SUNSET. In Year Two of SPACE: 1999 there is less concern with spiritual matters, but a similar critique of traditional religion slips in when Maya talks about comparative theology in NEW ADAM NEW EVE. When we can go on discussing SPACE: 1999 decade after decade, it is the depth and richness of the episodes in terms of political and spiritual subtext that gives meaning to this endeavour, I would say. In the same way as

Carl Sagan was an icon for the liberal movement, explaining the world by saying things like “the cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be”, SPACE: 1999 articulated the same spiritual and political ideas that we later saw in COSMOS through a different type of poetic language. As Carl Sagan wrote in his 1973 book “Cosmic Connections” (Cambridge University Press, pp. 182-184), he was invited by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke to discuss ideas for 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, such as how to depict extraterrestrial intelligence, so one way of thinking about SPACE: 1999 is to see it as an offspring of ideas partly developed by Carl Sagan in A SPACE ODYSSEY and a carrier of these ideas until Carl Sagan was able to articulate them even more clearly in his COSMOS series. In other words, SPACE: 1999 could be thought of as the perfect blend between the ideological and artistic aspects of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and COSMOS. It was not a series concerned with theism or atheism, but it was a series that talked about the importance of what both Sagan and Tyson describe as agnosticism as a way of addressing religious questions in the same way as one addresses scientific questions. The way SPACE: 1999 rejects religious fundamentalism and replaces this with the religion of Spinoza, Einstein, Sagan and Tyson is in my opinion one of the deepest and most important aspect of the series. John B. *** 31430 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Jan 6, 2016

"Arguments from authority are worthless." Perhaps, then, we should have fewer quotes from Sagan, Fageolle, Tyson, Marcuse, et al, and have more original offerings. After all, arguments from authority are worthless. Didn't Sagan say so? And he was certainly an authority. ***

Crossfire

31431 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges John Marcucci Jan 6, 2016

"Arguments from authority are worthless.." Did Carl Sagan REALLY say that?? LOL! Well, that statement alone proves he was a fraud. Better science through logical fallacies. Thats what Sagan was all about.. If he really made this breathtakingly stupid remark., that is. *** 31432 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges balor1999 Jan 6, 2016

In the final part of the COSMOS episode “Who speaks for Earth,” when Carl Sagan said that “arguments from authority are worthless,” this was said in the context of commenting on how science is similar to religion yet profoundly different. Both aim to explain the universe and our place in it, but science uses a method of conjecture and refutation to develop models and theory while religion makes use of methods like the hermeneutical circle for cultivating sacred texts and myths. He is not saying that we should not listen to authority. In several another episodes of COSMOS he talked about the importance of challenging scientific authority. The purpose of science is to develop new knowledge. Authority is constantly challenged. In religion, on the other hand, the purpose is the exact opposite in the sense of creating culture, identity and meaning by sharing myths and beliefs. Although Victor Bergman and Carl Sagan talk about science and religion being similar in certain ways, they are not saying that they are identical. When watching an episode of SPACE: 1999 or reading a chapter in the Bible, I do not typically challenge the authority of the text by saying that Jesus or St. Paul was wrong on this or that topic, or that MOLAD was flawed because of the ending where everything was miraculously restored. In such cases I am more interested in understanding why Jesus or St. Paul said so and so, and how this can be interpreted in both a historical and contemporary context, and similarly I try to

253

understand MOLAD both from the historical perspective of how and why it was written and in what way does the story address issues of relevance today. In this latter case, authoritative readings by Fageolle, Keazor, Turdo, Bussieres and others are of vital importance, just like Tillich, Schweizer, Buber and so on are of vital importance for how modern societies understand the Bible. Nevertheless, all authorities should be challenged, even authorities like Fageolle, Liardet, Keazor, Marcuse and Sagan. I don’t think Sagan would disagree on this. In fact, each time he submitted a scientific manuscript for publication he was challenged, and his authority as a highly merited scientist would in principle be worthless in such a context. The focus is on the argument, not who is making it. In fact, I think there is something to learn for Online Alpha here is we sometimes have these incidents where arguments are met by personal attacks and ridicule as a way of avoiding to deal with the arguments themselves. Luckily, the situation has improved during the past few months, and I hope it will remain in this way where we can all exchange ideas without fear and contribute to a mutually better understanding of SPACE: 1999. On the other hand, even though Sagan says that “argument from authority is worthless,” this does not mean that authority is worthless. In other episodes, when he talks about issues like UFOs and alien encounters or natural evolution vs. creationism, he does not say that one belief is equally good as another. Quite to the contrary, in such circumstances authority serves a highly important function in the way of describing the burden of evidence. If a person makes an extraordinary claim, such as having been abducted by aliens, he needs to back up this claim with extraordinary evidence. It is the one who challenges scientific authority who bears the burden of evidence. It is the creationists who have to convince the scientific “common sense” belief in natural evolution, not the other way around. In the case of discussing SPACE: 1999, we are faced with the same issue. We may challenge Fageolle, Keazor, Liardet and what Anderson, Byrne and Landau have said about Freidberger, Maya and Y2 according to the Fanderson Documentary and Robert Wood’s

254


book, but if we want to make extraordinary claims about these authorities being misguided or fundamentally wrong, we need to back that up with extraordinary evidence. If we want to challenge Marcuse and critical theory by saying that there is no reason to be critical because the 1% money and power elite knows what is best for the remaining 99% of us, that is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. It would be like saying that the Alphans and Kaldorians should have listened to Simmonds in EARTHBOUND the moment he said that he represented Earth authorities and then immediately believed that whatever he would say or do would be for the best of all. The central stories in SPACE: 1999 are in praise of blind loyalty. They are like that. We are not told that settling down on Piri is probably a good idea. We are told to be critical, especially of power and authority. Just think of Alan struggling with loyalty issues in SEED OF DESTRUCTION. As pointed out by sociologists and SF authorities like Jameson, Freedman and Fuhse, the importance of SF as a genre is the way it articulates ideas we typically associate with people like Adorno, Marcuse and Habermas. Keazor goes a step further and shows how this is particularly relevant in the case of SPACE: 1999. So, “argument from authority is worthless,” as Carl Sagan says, but authority is still vitally important as an expression of what is considered “common knowledge” by the scholarly community. In our case I think this is most clearly articulated by Fageolle’s authoritative view that Y1 is a classic and Y2 is crap, and then having Liardet trying to launch a difficult but highly interesting attack on this authoritative reading of SPACE: 1999 by saying that there can actually be merit to Y2 by viewing it from a particular perspective.

On the other hand, even though Sagan says that “argument from authority is worthless,” this does not mean that authority is worthless. In other episodes, when he talks about issues like UFOs and alien encounters or natural evolution vs. creationism, he does not say that one belief is equally good as another.

Then his argument is circular, and we are back to square one. If authority is not worthless, than any argument from it could have value. But if argument from authority is worthless, than so is authority, and thus all arguments from authority... Well. And if one beliefe is not equally good as another, who has the authority to determine which is better? There go those pesky arguments from authority, again... *** 31434 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges John Marcucci Jan 7, 2016

And don't forget this little glittering jewel of colossal ignorance: "The only absolute, is that there is no absolute." You can't make this stuff up. And they gave this guy his own show?? if Carl Sagan were alive today, his press releases would be relegated to the entertainment page, right next to Kim Kardashian's facebook posts.. and that would be generous. Rgds, John M. *** 31435 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Jan 7, 2016

And Billi Clinton's meditations on chastity, as well?

John B. ***

***


31436 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges balor1999 Jan 7, 2016

On 06 Jan 2016 balor1999@... writes:

Crossfire I’m not sure I understand what is circular in Carl Sagan’s argument. What he was saying, as far as I could see, is that there is difference between accepting what your boss says because he is your boss and accepting what your colleague says because he makes a theoretical argument supported by convincing empirical evidence. What is circular about that? In BLACK SUN they asked scientific authority Victor Bergman what to do. After some reflection, he came up with the Force Field idea. Did they accept his solution based on his authority? No, they decided to test the idea. In DEATH’S OTHER DOMINION both Helena and Victor believe in the scientific authority of Dr. Rowland, but it turns out that he had been withholding evidence. His authority in this case turned out to be worthless. To me there is a strong ideological connection between SPACE: 1999 and COSMOS. When we watch episodes of COSMOS, Carl Sagan is not only talking about black holes and whether it might be possible to travel through them, much more importantly he is talking about how a scientific outlook on the world relates to politics and religion. It is on this deep level that the two series connect, I would say. We can either surrender to religion by putting our trust in politicians and religious leaders puppeteered by the 1% elite, like the people on level seven in MISSION OF THE DARIANS did, or we can adopt critical awareness and even question the authority of our leaders when necessary, like Luke and Anna did in THE TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA. As I see it, both SPACE: 1999 and COSMOS are children of the liberation movements and general awakening that was happening all over the Western world in the late sixties and early seventies. In the present geopolitical climate I believe it is more important than ever to watch and discuss series like these. They were the outcome of a particularly fruitful period of our cultural past, and as members of Online Alpha we are in the fortunate situation of being able to discuss, understand and act on this premise. John B.

255 ***


Well, if you don't understand the circularity of Sagan's drivel, I cannot help you. It's quite obvious, actually, and has nothing to do with economics. I don't see any ideological connection between the two shows, either. If there were any, I'd burn my disks. As to authority, re Victor in BS, or Rowland.... It's TV, Balor. ANYTHING can connect, in TV, It's not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *** 31438 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges balor1999 Jan 7, 2016

My impression is that you are interpreting Sagan’s claim that “arguments from authority are worthless” as “authority is worthless”, and showing how this leads to contradiction. To me, however, this is a straw man argument as “arguments from authority are worthless” was said in the context of explaining the importance of theory and empirical evidence in scientific arguments, and Sagan has never said that “authority is worthless”. Quite to the contrary, he clearly believed in scientific authority in terms of how the scientific community share certain paradigmatic beliefs. For instance, a mainstream scientific journal would typically not accept manuscripts where the submitter makes use of UFOs, ESP, creationism or climate denial as part of his espoused world-view. This is exactly the kind of issue that is discussed in DRAGON’S DOMAIN. Does Victor embrace Cellini’s ideas of monsters in space and try to convince Dixon by means of arguing that any theory can be as valid as another? No, he says that Cellini brought back some interesting data and a remarkable story. Exactly what to make out of this story and data is difficult to say, he continues, but it would be interesting to investigate. Well, Dixon is not sufficiently convinced to spend his reputation and a vast

256


amount of money on this, so they get no funding. To me this seems like a rather good model of how the ideas of scientific authority and “arguments from authority are worthless” fit together. In order to get financial support for their project, Bergman, Koenig and Cellini have to make an argument that challenges scientific authority in terms of how the data and story might put existing theories about the universe in new perspectives. They have to argue that Dixon and the scientific community he represents would be spending their money wisely by funding this project. What happens instead is that Cellini tries to argue from his own authority as a witness to what happened on the previous expedition, but this kind of authority becomes clearly worthless in the context of the discourse as Dixon can come up with all sorts of alternative explanations for what the story and data might represent. To me this only illustrates how deeply connected SPACE: 1999 and COSMOS were. COSMOS was fact and SPACE: 1999 was fiction, but on a deep level they were concerned with the same issues. In fact, the connection between SPACE: 1999 and COSMOS is so fruitful that SPACE: 1999 has been used in university courses for teaching science students about ethics and philosophy (Bowater et al. “Using science fiction to teach science facts,” Biochemical Society, December 2012, pp. 15-20). John B. *** 31439 Re: Leadership Challenges kerryirs Jan 15, 2016

*** 31440 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges John Marcucci Jan 7, 2016

Kerry, I think all you have to do is open your local phone book, go to the yellow pages, under "churches", and you will have your answer. The average American is more likely to maintain his allegance to his sports team than he is to stay in the religion of his parents, or even keep the same wife until death. There are over 20,000 distinct Christian denominations in this country, with the number going up every day, because people have their own ideas on religion. Americans are historically very suspicious of self-appointed "authorities". The corrupt clergyman, the amoral scientist, the megalomaniacal corporate magnate, the souless government bureacrat, .. these are all archetypes based on a reality, and they all stem from the same fault in human nature. Authority of any kind always has the potential to be abused. Freedom is a good thing. I would not care to live in a country where I could not start my own church, business, bridge club, etc., if I wanted to. On the other hand, freedom can only exist as a part of law. The hierarchy is firmly embedded in nature. The lower order serves the higher order. Dirt and water serves plants. Plants serve animals. Dirt, water, plants and animals all serve man. Man serves God. How can any organization, be it a church, an army, a business, a family, or a moonbase, be run without authority? The Soviets tried to run their army for a while without officers, and their factories without plant managers. They gave that up pretty quick. Even communists aren't complete fools.

If Carl Sagan is willing to question authority, are those steeped in religion willing to question their church or rabai, priest, or minister? Thanks for the printing press. From that point on people could read for themselves and make up their own minds the Bible's meaning with guidebce from their particular religious group, if they wish.


Just a thought.

On 07 Jan 2016 balor1999@... writes:

Regards, John M. ***

Crossfire My impression is that you are interpreting Sagan’s claim that “arguments from authority are worthless” as “authority is worthless”, and showing how this leads to contradiction. To me, however, this is a straw man argument as “arguments from authority are worthless” was said in the context of explaining the importance of theory and empirical evidence in scientific arguments, and Sagan has never said that “authority is worthless”. Quite to the contrary, he clearly believed in scientific authority in terms of how the scientific community share certain paradigmatic beliefs.

If one says that arguments from authority are worthless, then the authority those arguments are drawn from is itself suspect. The only other possible take is that the person/persons making the claims are themselves in some fashion suspect. Either way, there is a disconnect. *** 31445 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Jan 8, 2016

Balor wrote: For instance, a mainstream scientific journal would typically not accept manuscripts where the submitter makes use of UFOs, ESP, creationism or climate denial as part of his espoused world-view. This is exactly the kind of issue that is discussed in DRAGON’S DOMAIN. Does Victor embrace Cellini’s ideas of monsters in space and try to convince Dixon by means of arguing that any theory can be as valid as another? No, he says that Cellini brought back some interesting data and a remarkable story. Exactly what to make out of this story and data is difficult to say, he continues, but it would be interesting to investigate. Well, Dixon is not sufficiently convinced to spend his reputation and a vast amount of money on this, so they get no funding.

Dixon is the consummate politician. He also know which side his crumpet has the marmelade on. If he is completely honest, and Cellini's story is believed, then people could panic, and there goes the space program. There goes Dixon's job. The fact that they have the flight data recorder from the Ultar probe, along with whatever forensic evidence might have remained on the ax Cellini used, says that

257

Dixon et al knew perfectly well that there was indeed a "monster" out there, and chose to cover it up, and send Cellini off to weave baskets. It was a political cover-up from the minute the techs cracked the flight recorder. Cellini never had a prayer. *** 31446 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges John Marcucci Jan 8, 2016

Hmmmm. Never thought of that, but it makes sense. A government agency engaged in a cover up?? Now who would believe it? *** 31449 Re: Leadership Challenges kerryirs Jan 8, 2016

John M, good points. Also, without authority one has anarchy. But that doesn't mean we have to except everything they say or do. That's why, I think it was Jefferson, who promoted the idea of an educated populace, for without it, it would make this experiment called democracy, at the time, and even now, very important to maintaing a democratic system of government. Unfortunately, those that vote in this country is so disappointing at times, especially in off-year elections or primaries. As for religion, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and the eastern religions may have different branches on the same tree of the particular religion, but the core beliefs come from the same source material whether it be the Bible, Torah, or the Quran or other text say for Hinduism or Buddhism. Like I repeat, I salute the printing press and the ability it gave humanity to explore knowledge on ones own without someone putting their own spin it. ***

258


8.4 Leadership/authority The focus on authority issues in the previous discussion-thread spawns a new thread that allows the discussion to focus more clearly on what the “Crossfire” story contributes to the understanding of the SPACE: 1999 universe. As also illustrated in previous discussions, the clarity in the debating positions, concerning how the political subtext of SPACE: 1999 is interpreted differently, in this case helped by the fan fiction perspective, is what makes the discussion fruitful and interesting. 31441 Leadership/ authority jemarcu Jan 7, 2016

Dear fellow Alphans, This is a great topic, that came up from time to time on S1999. On several occasions, the Alphans were confronted with charismatic figures who made grandiose promises on their own authority, butressed by their charisma/ paranormal powers, etc. The first example was Cabot Rowland. And who was it that fell most powerfully under his spell? You got it. The hyper rationalist scientist, Victor Bergman. It was the authoritative leader, John Koenig, with his strong personality and a well balanced intellect, who saw through Rowland's lies and was unaffected by his scientific megalomania. In "New Adam, new Eve", we see again a charismatic figure who manipulates Man's natural deference to the Almighty. Why did Koenig maintain his skepticism? Again, its that strong, heroic personality at work again. He was prudent enough to insist that they take an eagle to the planet, thus saving them all in the end. Would Bergman have so insisted? One wonders. Had Carl Sagan been visiting MBA on Breakaway, I don't think he would have lasted very long, or been very useful to the Alphans. He would have been the first to follow Rowland, or bow down to Magus. But, I can see why Petter likes to make a connection between Cosmos and S1999. They are both fiction. But there the similarity ends. Whatever authority Koenig has, he has earned by keeping the Alphans alive for 6 years. It is of an entirely different type of authority than that which he exercised when he first took command on Sept 9th 1999. My point is, I guess, is that people don't follow titles, or education, of high idealism. They follow courage, strength, justice, forbearance, and wisdom.

Regards, John M. *** 31442 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority sennmut Jan 8, 2016

EXCELLENT, Jemarcu. You have come close to it, here. In the case of Rowland v. Koenig, I would only add that Koenig, as a former student, and long-time friend, of Bergman, was because of that, quick to see the uncharacteristic behavior on Victor's part. After all, putting your head in some weird machine, when all the others who did have had their brains turned into rutabegas, is not a wellthought out, rational scientific approach. Koenig, as you say, being well-balanced, and with the drive of a natural-born leader, was able to save Bergman from a fate worse that tofu. Much the same with NANE. Perhaps Koenig's Jewish background plays a part, here. This "God" sure isn't behaving like what he would have heard from the Rabbi in Synagogue on Saturdays, as a kid. That, and his protective instinct towards his people, again saved Alpha. As to authority, Koenig's is not just what he was given by the Space Commission/LSRO folks, on 9/10/99. He has a natural authority. What the Romans referred to as auctoritas. A hard-to-define sort of authority. Inborn, part of you, yet still hard to define accurately. It's not even an authority from God, always. Hard to define, yet you know it when you see it. You feel a pull, a tug, to obey/follow this person. The sort of person who makes everything stop, just by walking into a room, has a kind of auctoritas. Koenig has this, in spades, but he never abuses it, of his own accord. Like the ancient Greeks, he is always conciouss of his limits, as a leader, as a Human Being, and as a man. As Socrates said: ????? sea?t??--gnothi seauton--know thyself.

Crossfire

259

Jan 8, 2016

*** 31443 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority sennmut Jan 8, 2016

The wise man does not lay up his own treasures. The more he gives to others, the more he has for his own. - Lao Tzu On the basis of this snippet, I woulkd say that Prof. Bergamn was, all told, a wise man. He gave of his knowledge and wisdom freely, and was never grasping or otherwise unkind. The reult was, I think, that he became rich. *** 31447 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority John Marcucci Jan 8, 2016

Excellent analysis, Sen. In fact I would say that of all types, scientists are probably the most suseptable to groupthink. Look at how ruthlessly the scientific establishment today deals with dissenters from Darwinism or the global warming hoax. Sure, funding plays a big part in that, but there is more to it. I think with scientists, I tits a case of "individuality is fine, as long as we're all doing it together." Bergman's reaction to Rowland is a perfect example of this. Rgds, John M *** 31448 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Jan 8, 2016

Well, they have the evidence. The flight recorder, the hatchet, the command module itself. They know. Thus it becomes Politics 101. Coverst thou thy el-tusho, at all costs. Blame the survivor. *** 31450 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority balor1999

Jemarcu wrote: Whatever authority Koenig has, he has earned by keeping the Alphans alive for 6 years. It is of an entirely different type of authority than that which he exercised when he first took command on Sept 9th 1999. My point is, I guess, is that people don't follow titles, or education, of high idealism. They follow courage, strength, justice, forbearance, and wisdom.

Well, perhaps people in general prefer charisma to intelligence. I remember the 1980 debate night between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan gave me this impression. Carter was an engineer who tried to explain to the general public how complex problems had to be solved in a responsible way, a message that was difficult to explain charismatically. Reagan, on the other hand, was a charismatic actor who voiced the interests of market fundamentalism and military strength. The outcome of the selection was that charisma won over intelligence. However, when we look at Moonbase Alpha, we are not looking at the leadership preference of the uneducated and easily manipulated average Joe. Moonbase Alpha is a community of scientists and specialised technical personnel. For this reason I interpret an episode like DEATH’S OTHER DOMINION very differently. The reason Victor takes part in Rowland’s experiments is because science is based on mutual trust. If somebody tries to publish false results, plagiarise others or otherwise conducts in a manner that undermines trust in the scientific community, he can easily be blacklisted, loosing his academic position, having his PhD withdrawn and so on. As Victor sees Rowland as a colleague, perhaps somebody he knew from earlier days as they are both involved in space research, it is only natural to trust him. Helena trusts Rowland as well. What is more interesting, however, is why Koenig develops mistrust in Rowland. The way I see it, this is most easily explainable if we see Koenig as somebody who started out as an administrative leader of Moonbase Alpha but has become a charismatic leader and is

260


now being worried that his leadership position may be taken away from him if they settle down on Ultima Thule. In other words, the authority issue is handled in a similar way in SPACE: 1999 as it is done in COSMOS. The Alphans respect scientific authority and people who follow scientific protocol. They do not trust people who claim religious authority, like Magus in NEW ADAM NEW EVE. I don’t know how this corresponds with how people in general relate to authorities, but at least it is a good role model that we should all try to emulate.

He is his own man, and that is perhaps the one essentiual quality of leadership. Carter never had it. His botching of various crisis during his administration were evidence of that, and part of the reason why the voters, who put so much hope in him in 1976, turned their backs on him in 1980. He meant well, but at the critical moments, he was indecisive and bumbling. Clearly, Admiral Rickover knew what he was doing when he blackballed him from the nuclear navy. Regards, John M ***

John B. *** 31451 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority John Marcucci Jan 8, 2016

So, Americans were"educated" in 1976 when they elected Cater over Ford, then over the course of 4 years, they became uneducated again? Whatever. Any thinking person who watches the presidential debate from 1980 (available on youtube), or even reads the transcript, can see plainly that Carter came off as a somewhat unbalanced demagogue, a cold technocrat totally removed and insensitive to the suffering of ordinary people, whereas Reagan was the happy warrior: calm, competant, thoughtful and caring. He posed questions to which Carter had no answer. I often think Reagan and Koenig are alike in one regard. The character of Koenig lacks Reagan's charm, but in 1987, every single one of Reagan's advisors begged him not to include the phrase "Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" in his now famous speech at the Brandenburg gate in Berlin. Four times they removed it, and four times he ordered it put back in. Reagan listened to his own judgement, and the result was one of the greatest speeches of all time. It certainly hastened the mostly peaceful collapse of one of the most brutal, inhumane regimes in history. Koenig is like that too. He has advisors, he solicits advice and tries to build a consensus where he can. But on core issues, he never wavers and does not fall victim to groupthink.

31452 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority David Welle Jan 9, 2016

Alphans, John Marcucci brings up a phrase "hyper rationalist" and the question about heroism and rationalism. I would add words like "balance" and "teamwork." The problem I see demonstrated with hyperrationalism is becoming too hyper-theoretical and losing sight of the practical. It is especially in conflict when dealing with human nature. If someone or some group or movement oversimplifies human nature, assuming too much of the best or worst of people, then the theorists go astray. Theory and practicality are supposed to help each other. Pure theory can get lost in the clouds and should thus be seen for what it is: unproven potential, perhaps on the right track, perhaps not, or perhaps somewhere in between – not necessarily fact. Pure practicality can get itself bogged on the ground or even mud. Theory can lift attention towards the clouds, while practicality helps keep it grounded. Theory needs to be proven in incremental steps, not be treated as something to thrown oneself into totally. Practicality often needs a dose or theory to prevent it from decaying or ossifying. John's emailed points about Rowland and Magus as the "charismatic" type are good points. These characters are strong demonstrations of those tending to spout pure theory while sweeping contradictory facts under the rug -- some of the latter being very

Crossfire ugly. Good scientists know "fact" is a big word, many or solid proofs are required, contradictory findings deserve investigation rather than suppression, and are willing to overturn their own thoughts to lesser or greater degrees if complications are found. Sometimes it refines a theory. Sometimes it replaces a theory with one that is a better approximation (e.g. Newtonian physics providing equations that are still a good approximation for most space travel, but Einsteinian physics providing better refinements for travel closer to the Sun, or the greater precision needed for GPS satellites -- as just two ways to look at the practical results). Bad scientists let themselves become entrenched in one theory and start calling it "fact" prematurely or for too long after it is shown to be not so good of an approximation. Some scientists -- or politicians wanting to use a few studies to bolster their politics -- jump in too quickly and call things "fact" or "bunk" when the reality of that situation is often subtler and more complex than that. One big problem with pure charismatics, whether among some scientists, politicians, celebrities, or whoever, is they often talk generalities or even just simple slogans, with little or no attention to all the complexities and side effects. Not that everyone can talk about all that at once, but there is the place for reasoned, rational debate. Scientific, political, and other social structures that welcome debate and build around it. Debate about bills and potential side effects before making them laws. Debate about a best course before deciding on a particular action. Rowland, Magus, marxists, and others tend to spout pure theory, of their dreams, and fail to account for human reality. Marx-based nations having a lifespan of three generations has given practical demonstration that the theorist and others "building" upon such theories failed to account for much of human complexity, good AND bad AND a lot in between. Magus spouted poetic possibilities for the future of humanity, extracting a mere four individuals as his perfect genetic mix, yet failed to take into account that genetics do not account for everything, that HE DOES NOT KNOW EVERYTHING about genetics (which he tried to hide), and how smart and clever the

261

combination of a few individuals (or the greater whole in other cases) can be. Of course, experiments are generally worthy and necessary processes, but when done with the kind of morals which those like Magus, marxists and others lack or lose along the way. Rowland is not much different than Magus in this way, even if far less powerful. Yet he was a pure-charismatic too, and a scientist, which IN HIS CASE did not make for a good combination. I stress "in his case" because just having charisma is not a bad thing, and can be good, same for scientists. It is the combination of locking oneself into a single theoretical agenda, facts/drawbacks/practicality be damned, and using one's charisma as a tool to try locking others into the same unhealthy pattern. A single characteristic or tool is not necessarily bad or good, but can be used to various means ranging from good to bad, to complicated combinations in between. Bergman is one I consider to generally be a good scientist, and generally has a lot of genuine charisma (i.e. personable warmth and true wisdom). Most of the time, it works well for himself AND for Alpha. He is an asset. Yet he is still a complicated human being, and also closer to the end of his life than the beginning, and in the idea of a longer life, to have more time to explore more mysteries of life and the universe, he let himself get pulled in, abandoned the caution he shows most at other times, and nearly makes a huge mistake. He is flawed too. I have often pointed to this incident as the time he momentarily lost himself the most. There is a difference between being openminded yet cautious, vs. letting one's brain fall out. Bergman is usually in the former but was straying into the latter this time, I think. Yet he is not constantly doing that, and often advises restraint, especially when he knows he or everyone does not have enough facts yet, and is more than willing to admit his own limitations in a vast and complicated universe. (I wrote a scene in one fanfic story where Koenig was reading a speech Bergman had once made on how scientists should be comfortable in remaining uncomfortable in -but intrigued by -- a universe with vastness in large and small, that seeking is good thing but

262


so is, in effect, humbleness. That to me is a part of the personality I saw in his character.) Charismatics with an agenda and theory but little fact and/or too much contradictory evidence swept under the rug, rely on being able to fool some people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, hoping to amass power or influence for their cause (to mangle Barnum's(?) saying with some other points). Now some don't get far, but some do, and it can be the latter that do the most damage to others. Practical history has proven that, and these S19 episodes, among others, demonstrate it too. So I submit that a supposed "rationalist" who become so purely theoretical, or so locked into a small number of studies (i.e. a few data points), yet who treats it as fact too soon, or without regard to other practical considerations, is really not rational at all. They become irrationalists. A true rational person treats a theory as a theory, the best approximation to as many known observations as possible. Of course, few people can know enough of a topic to recognize good theories from poor ones. Some may rely on some charismatics who make those declarations for them, but others may recognize they simply don't know enough, and are willing to opine but are humble enough to say they aren't sure or don't know, and leave it at that or learn more. It is unfortunate that words like "rationalist" and "scientist" are corrupted by irrationalists, bad scientists, or irresponsible charismatics. A true rationalist or scientist does not ignore contradictions, but admits to their possible existence and perhaps importance. No person can know or understand everything, after all. Human nature is fallible, and it is not just over topics like the above, but about many things. There is a tension between anarchy on one side, true freedom in the middle, and fascism/communism/totalitarianism on the other. Both extremes represent a failing in handling or understanding human nature. I lump the three "isms" together (and point out that socialism can creep towards any of them), in this context, as they are all attempts to centralize too much control into a few people who think they know it all and/or just want the control -- yet cannot completely or

permanently succeed in either because human nature is much more complex than that. The control might last for awhile before it is either overthrown or collapses under its own weight. They all tend to be "lowest common denominator" structures too, for they remove too many individual strivings that can be greater as a whole than any centralized planning, as the latter often removes too many individual rewards. Humans can value various things, not just solely some oft-vacuous praise by an oft-abusive totalitarian regime. Anarchy is a different kind of lowest common denominator because, to over-generalize a little, almost everyone in that lack of structure is looking out SOLELY for themselves or a few others. Freedom is neither anarchy nor any creeping totalitarianism. It is a multi-faceted, complex concept because it occupies and emerges from a complex set of factors in human nature. Most people value ability to make choices for themselves, yet also cherish social structures that are above anarchy yet also above totalitarianism. They want to guide their own lives to a strong degree, yet also need social structures to provide more opportunity. Family, community, social and/or religious organization, and collections of communities such as province/state, nation/state, etc. (resources they can use to better their own lives or family or community), and/or company or own business (somewhere or something where they can contribute work for reward in return that they can use to better their self, family, community, social/religious group, region, nation for common defense or such, etc.). All in balance and allowing choices yet providing some structure and limits. Freedom includes structure and, given human nature, requires a degree of leadership. Parents leading within their family, an individual leading within a company or organization or higher-level structure. Yet not everyone can be a leader everywhere, but want some leaders at some levels to help organize structure they can participate in yet still have choices as well, even to the point of leaving a company or community for one they or their family sees as having more opportunity for a better life, in whatever sense(s) they might be striving for (resources, safety, social opportunities, etc.).

Crossfire Some strive for the Moon or beyond, figurative or fictionally. On the latter, the Alphans were all there by choices within opportunities afforded by freedom that they had. They wanted to become scientists or doctors or pilots or support personnel on the Moon. Astronauts in real life look towards some future -- personal or for our species – in space. They combine such lofty theory with the practical considerations of how to go about it as safely as reasonably possible while also making a living doing that. They know themselves and their talents best, and when afforded sufficient freedom and opportunity, and with sufficient will, can seek it out. There too is another complex word -- "will" -to not be over-simplified either. Some have strong drive, some a more subtle one, some little at all. "Social-istic" structures would reward all equally, mostly discouraging the first group (except for those small numbers that value nothing more than political reward/power), paying lip service to the middle group, and in a sense rewarding those doing the least. The Alphans each individually had the will and had and/or learned the talents to get themselves posted to Alpha which itself had a layered leadership structure too. They did not go to the Moon to war with other individuals in an anarchic structure. They didn't go there because they were told by the state to do so, except maybe for members that rose up to the Moon within a military structure -- but that too was something they chose at an earlier point as a way to benefit themselves and earn a living, and presumbly continued to strive within. The commander had to earn his way towards that position as well. Of course, sometimes it is not that clear cut either, again because of complex human nature. There can sometimes be corruption above, below, or at that particular leadership level. Thus more layers of checks and balances again. In this case that the commander would still be held accountable, and be removable. Gorski was removed because he seemed (in my opinion) to be hiding too much of the seriousness of the situation. However, both Gorski and then Koenig were directly overseen by a commissioner who seemed to be doing some of the same. Yet a commissioner is "just" the

263

leader of a commission/committee, so maybe Simmonds knew Koenig could be willful and persistent for the truth, but it could be that the majority of the ILC's leadership voted for Koenig and Simmonds had to just tolerate and try to manage or control him. I am not so sure we knew all the specifics. Post-Breakaway, Koenig is still answerable to his officers, who can and sometimes did remove him, sometimes for good reasons (overall or at least in their minds), sometimes not (under some external, charismatic, controlling influence). Koenig also knows he is RESPONSIBLE, to the people he leads, to try keeping them safe in an often-hostile universe. He does not see controlling people as something beneficial to some greedy purposes of his own. He sees the loss of an individual as a tragedy. He may recognize that some died to try yo help others, and probably appreciates their contribution or even heroism (if such is the case), but does not see people as throwaway, even when leadership on postBreakaway Alpha means he sometimes has to pick people to go in harm's way. Yet he often chooses to put himself in harm's way, or Helena, or others closest to him, but only because he sees the necessity in the conditions. And just to get back to earlier points, Koenig appears to be one who can appreciate theory AND value practical matters or evidence. Maybe he should be called a practical theorist. He'll work with and welcome theory, or speculate/hypothesize/theorize himself too, but will balance it out with practical matters or findings. Does he always make perfect choices? No. He is human, he is flawed, he makes mistakes. But he regrets them, mourns when that means someone is lost. He sometimes loses his temper. Gets so wound up in his responsibility that he approaches breakdown (which would benefit no one). Is perhaps going to retire white-haired and half-exhausted, but from giving it his all and doing his honest best. Importantly, he also accepts the input of his officers and many others. Yet when a problem is elevated to his level or he has dove into a problem, he still has to make decisions, some difficult. In him I see someone who will be glad to turn over leadership to the next "generation" (in whatever sense) when the time

264


is right, not trying to hold on for his own benefit. There is a flaw with theoretical structures with no leaders. Not everyone wants to lead. Not everyone is responsible in every way. Even small teams relying mostly on team decisions/votes will still need a leader to sometimes guide, drive, or occasionally decide. Otherwise, some things needing a decision may be lost or elevated more than the concerns need. The former can lead to missed opportunities or become problems latter. The latter can be as bad in other ways, because that can be either frustrating to the leader (a responsible one who knows he or she should not be deciding too many low-level details), or corrupting (offering too much power over lower-level details to someone who might abuse that). (I wrote a part of a scene in a fanfic, where Koenig asked to decide on something relatively trivial that he promptly re-delegates back and suggests someone else to ask. A few months later, after losing a some actual and /de facto/ officers, he reflects back on that and how he (and somewhat implying the remaining officers too) could end up "being swamped with minutiae about cacti, bolts, a kilogram of beryllium, data disks, a leaking faucet, a squabble over who got to borrow an exercise mat next, a spare kilowatt-hour of energy, and/or some errant clock somewhere." I wrote it because I just see him as someone who is disinterested in controlling everything, and seeing the benefit in better-balanced leadership structures and replacing gaps with others rather than trying to fill them himself. So far from a fascist, he appears to be a responsible leader, the kind that has a place in human society.) I posit that most people joined Alpha as a microcosm of society, of having a true freedom of structure, opportunity, and choice, not smothered by absolutists or over-centralized control, or fractious by semi-anarchy. They decided to join Alpha, become part of a team, with a leader, an officer, and a commander -or to become one of those knowing it as opportunity and responsibility all in one. Of course, Breakaway more or less eliminated one choice, the ability to leave Alpha considering how perilous its survival is. Yet though Koenig lost the accountability to higher-ups in the ILC

and such, he seemingly ended up more accountable to his officers. Either way, I think the character simply felt accountable/responsible to and for all Alphans. He was even willing to relinquish authority or at least the one key decision, at Ultima Thule. I have stated in the past that Thule looked as much a "barracks" to me as Alpha, even aside from things we as viewers were learning about its immortality cage. Yet some Alphans apparently saw Thule as an opportunity, others as just another barracks. Koenig was ready to respect their collective vote for one path or the other (they could not split up or Alpha would die eventually). More to the point (and far more succienctly), as John M. wrote: Whatever authority Koenig has, he has earned by keeping the Alphans alive for 6 years. It is of an entirely different type of authority than that which he exercised when he first took command on Sept 9th 1999. My point is, I guess, is that people don't follow titles, or education, of high idealism. They follow courage, strength, justice, forbearance, and wisdom.

There is a question about "heroes" -- another complex topic. Some labeled heroes by others will often deny they are a hero, saying they just did what anyone else would have, or were just doing their job. The former could be randomly saving a stranger, the latter a someone who does so from time to time as part of a sometimes dangerous job they took on. Yet maybe the idea is that a "hero" is the person who does the right thing when others may not have chosen that path. Someone labelled a hero should not let it go to their head, and the denial by many of them may be the simplest way of preventing an ego-inflation that can be problematic. Yet to categorically deny heroism as a concept is to re-label one of the better aspects of people as something undesirable. Lowest common denominator again. Heroism is something to appreciate and perhaps emulate if the circumstance arises, but not worship, for they are still human and imperfect too. So-called "superheroes" are perhaps just a way of further fictionalizing the concept and mixing it with the question of having even greater power, of a

Crossfire more fictional kind, but perhaps as a metaphor for other kinds of real-life human power. From what I understand, superhero stories are often about responsibility or becoming corrupted by such power. That too reflects back on more "everyday heroes" -- that some may take this "status" and perhaps abuse it. Yet aside from the "superhero" tangent, some people trying to deny the idea of real-life or fictional heroism seem to do it out of being hyper-theorists who have lost track of practical aspects of human nature. Or perhaps some are charismatics who seek to hoard power around themselves and may want to deny "everyday heroes" because they instead want themselves, their state aparatus, and their yes-men to be the only sanctioned heroes. Yet if one takes a broad definition of hero, there are many heroes in real life, and on Alpha. If Koenig is a hero, then so is Russell, Carter, Verdeschi, Maya, and anyone else who saved anyone else at some point, if not even more than that perhaps. It is a fluid and somewhat subjective concept, yet is one which can be beneficial to a society. However, a few can abuse it, or can be so badly flawed in other ways that they just happen to be a hero in one occasion but mostly a villain in other cases -neither of which I saw portrayed on Alpha. So are we supposed to just look at such characters or possible real-life heroes and be critical of the concept just because a few happen to abuse such appelations? Are we supposed to say heroism is a bad thing because it speaks to someone striving too hard, or because some see heroes in a too-worshipful way (cult of personality)? Are we supposed to say earning more money for working harder, more creatively, or taking on more responsibility is bad because a few might abuse money? Are we supposed to say all leadership is bad because some abuse it? To say freedom is wrong because some abuse it and that means everyone else should be controlled more? Nothing in our human lives is perfect. If we throw out anything with imperfections, what is left? Perhaps nothing but brutal control or brutal anarchy -- lowest common denominator living and far from perfection. I think most Alphans saw benefits to a balanced structure in pre-Breakaway Alpha,

265

yet post-Breakaway, seemed to find the structure of Alpha as a benefit that could help them survive to perhaps build a civilization of their own. There ARE choices in between the fascism or anarchy Alpha could have become under lesser leaders and/or with less character in its, er, characters. All seemed anxious for a new life on some planet, yet most seemed generally satisfied with Koenig's leadership most of the time, even if grumbling at some times. No leader can escape that, and a good leader will understand that particular human complexity and try to deal with it with fairness while not kowtowing too much to certain individuals or special interests and perhaps start sliding towards weakness or corruption Worthy, complex topics John Marcucci raises, I think, even if he is more to the point than I am! :-) These are things /Space: 1999/ touch on directly or indirectly and are some of the reasons I appreciate such series and stories. I find more subtleties and complexity here especially but in other "similar" series, far more than "modern, gritty" stories that have decided there are no heroes, that everyone is a half-functioning headcase, or that there is one hero-type that ought to be worshipped in a warped cult of personality, or that everyone is just generally bad most of the time. Human nature is more complex than that. There are plenty of bad people, but there are good but still sometimes-flawed people, or people struggling to improve themselves, or people rejecting all structure, or sliding into the abyss (perhaps in need of some heroes or good examples in their lives?). Look what those bombarded by fascists and such had to put up with in WWII, and those who banded together (as individuals and with leaders) and temporarily sacrificed so much of their normal lives to commit their efforts and/or some of their resources for the effort to defeat such threats. One does not have to worship heroes to appreciate heroism. Balance, again. The Alphans found courage in their lives, under bombardment and as castaways. They found it in philosophy, in humor, in activity, in working hard, relaxing too, and each other. Some frayed under pressure. Some died, or got sick. A few rebelled. Yet the majority remained strong or at least courageous under

266


pressure. Perhaps almost all were heroes in some ways. They may be fictional, facing fictional strife, with their own (fictional yet realistic) strivings, conflicts, some finding or having abilities ranging from realistic to fictional; but the Alphans handled themselves so much better than other sets of characters in similar situations, especially the more "modern" or perhaps "deconstructionist" stories. I appreciate series and stories like S19, that show range in human nature but show a lot of its strengths too, as opposed to "dark and gritty" stories where there is barely any range at all in the characters. To me, those far-murkier series can be "hyperrealistic" to the point of being "unrealistic" for how narrow a messed-up range of human nature they choose to focus on. It sort of reminds me of rationalists who might become irrational, theorists who might forget the practical and become ungrounded, the pure practictioners who may care nothing at all for theory (loftier goals), and some scientists who forget real science is a process and that "fact" is a very big word and become unscientific. These topics within S19 cometimes remind me of lyrics of a particular song, in part because of a fan video I first saw in 2010 (partial snippets follow): **BGN** There is no courage without fear. There is no wisdom without regrets. No admiration without scorn. There is strife within the tempest, and there is calm in the eye of the storm. And so the heroes of the ages, are stripped of honesty and love, to make them seem less noble, and hide what we can become. **END** (extracts from "Eye of the Storm" by The Cruxshadows) See also this wonderful and thematic mix of parts of this song with snippets of /Space: 1999/ video, edited together by another fan, John Connelly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWXLXau SSck ----David *** 31453 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority sennmut Jan 9, 2016

On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 David Welle writes: To me, those far-murkier series can be "hyperrealistic" to the point of being "unrealistic" for how narrow a messed-up range of human nature they choose to focus on. It sort of reminds me of rationalists who might become irrational, theorists who might forget the practical and become ungrounded, the pure practictioners who may care nothing at all for theory (loftier goals), and some scientists who forget real science is a process and that "fact" is a very big word and become unscientific.

Like, perhaps, Mentor? So rational and scientific in his drive to achieve one goal, that he became "messed up"? *** 31454 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority David Welle Jan 9, 2016

Good question, Senmut. I think it is more like his drive to achieve one goal overrode his rationality and science, that his mind and what was left of his scientific process became engaged so solely on that goal that he swept everything else aside, or hijacked it solely for his goal, morals and almost everything else be damned. He even submitted aliens to the same general sort of treatment Dorcons inflicted upon some Psychons, turning them into mindless husks, a fate Maya clearly saw as worse than death, perhaps reflecting a horror most Psychons felt about such an end. A horror that he willingly undertook, not because he was rational anymore, but because his rationality got hijacked by a darker obsession, one that had started with lofty goals but became unchecked by himself or others. Unchecked, and eventually unhinged. He became a sociopath, the only thing he managed

Crossfire to protect from his on decline was his daughter, and in the end she ended up losing him and being lodged with aliens he had tried to kill. To me, he no longer struck me as rational or scientific, but conniving and manipulative. Conniving people can often affect an air of rationality, can use some of its patterns but for irrational or immoral purposes. Manipulators can arise in science, where someone gets so tethered to something that they'll manipulate the data to make it look better to fit the theory, rather than trying to rework the theory to fit practical results. Bad scientists, irrational "rationalist" -walking contradictions that truly do exist and can be destructive to themselves and sometimes others as well. Scientists are people too, flawed, and can go astray sometimes or more permanently and get way off the track, and become such contradictions. Really, in a sense, they just are not scientists anymore except on the surface, nor truly rational any longer but borrowing some remaining ghost of their "logic" for destructive goals. Logic, science, and rationality are processes complicated by – and sometimes distorted or abused by -- other aspects of human nature. Just as leadership has value but can be corrupted sometimes, and needs checks and balances at various levels, rather than a small pool of people claiming to know everything. This is where science and rationality can be made into empty husks by the corrupt, a shiny surface that instead of extending deeper instead covers emptiness or rot. These are not true science or rationality. Supposed leaders who are abandoning responsibility for the sake of self-aggrandizement aren't true leaders, but corrupt or corrupted deceivers. Heroes that abuse such "status" cease to be heroes. Plenty of other examples in society. I do not want to throw out the general principles just because some hucksters, frauds, snake-oil salesmen, deceivers, and such sometimes abuse them. Rather, that there there have to be checks and balances. Human nature is complex, and trying to oversimplify and assume only the worst or best of humanity can lead to unbalanced, anarchic, or suffocating structures, rather than a complex freedom with both choices and structure.

267

Science is a process of checks and balances because humans cannot know everything, make mistakes, are flawed, and sometimes can be abusing the process for purely personal gain. Peer review, publishing so that others can try similar experiments to try confirming, denying, and even in between ("some points are supported and perhaps worth further study, while others seem unconfirmed but we welcome others' results too"). A single study is in a sense but a single data point within a larger context. So listening to an unscientific media source discussing a single study can be intriguing yet accidentally misleading just as much. Grains of salt being needed, as it were. So it can be easy to be too trusting of what sounds like science or rationality, or too dismissive if one has run into too many seeming contradictions, when really both are just tools and we have to evaluate what *sources* we are listening to about such matters, and be more willing to filter on that basis too. Mentor was left with no checks on him, and lost his own balance as well. Not to say the lack of balance was solely because he was unchecked. Some (many?) people can remain balanced in many ways from within, from their upbringing, their innate nature, their friends, to have absorbed enough to stay balanced even if some of the checks go missing for awhile. Mentor, though, had an evidently deep flaw in his nature, one that left unchecked grew worse, to the point he became a monster, as Maya herself strongly alluded (or simply stated) at a later point. Maya had trusted him as a daughter to a father with a solid familial bond, and accepted his reassurances on what was happening to the aliens she was sometimes meeting. When she checked, he baldly lied to her face. Yes, protecting her -- but in a sense from entangling her in his own darkness. In the end, though, she DID end up checking him, when she was prompted into where she could seek the truth, which she did, and realize how unbalanced he had become. So with Mentor, instead of there being a separate person, a "charismatic" hijacking science for lofty-sounding dreams that may completely lack a practical core that can later

268


turn rotten, it seems like Mentor became his own charismatic (yikes!), convincing himself he was doing the right thing, and ended up with the same rotten core. Science and rationality are processes, tools that can be used for good, hijacked for bad, or a host of other things in between.

This is where I think Space 1999 was a brave show, showing the dangers of science unhinged. Many "scientists" today squawk and moan like branded calves if you even suggest that they ought to be bound by ethics or civilizational standards in their research. The very idea !

Being hyper-theoretical without grounding in the practical, can become not just ungrounded, but completely untethered. I don't think it is a flaw in rationality, but in relying on pure theory as the sole source for inspiration.

Rgds, John M

It is like a toolbox with one tool, a band with one instrument. Both can be useful or entertaining up to a certain point, but it is difficult to build a house or a big sound from either. To me, true rationality isn't just pure theorizing, but seeing, searching for, and incorporating the practical alongside the theoretical. Both are stronger together. This can be in little ways, big ways, and everything in between. ---David Welle http://metaforms.space1999.net *** 31455 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority jemarcu Jan 9, 2016

So much to unpack in your observations Dave, as usual. Mentor can be perhaps viewed as a tragic figure because, in his single minded attempt to save his planet, he lost his sanity. But before he lost his sanity, he had to first abandon morals, ethics, etc. The theme of science divorced from ethics, in the pursuit of ostensibly noble goals (the ends justify the means) does seem to be a recurrent theme in Space 1999. Rowland, Mentor, Magus, Raan, Mateo. Then there were The Exiles and Dorzak, while not scientists , definded "freedom" as free to kill, freedom from outmoded ideas of right and wrong.

*** 31456 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority balor1999 Jan 9, 2016

I would agree that one of the themes in SPACE: 1999 related to the dangers of science unhinged. VOYAGER’S RETURN is a story about scientific and technological hubris. THE TROUBLED SPIRIT could be read as a story about performing risky experiments for the purpose to expanding the boundaries of knowledge. DEATH’S OTHER DOMINION is a story about investing in technology research for military purposes rather than investing in social infrastructure. I am not so sure, however, that there is a general tendency among scientists today to “squawk and moan like branded calves if you even suggest that they ought to be bound by ethics or civilisational standards in their research”. Quite to the contrary, there are international standards like the 1978 Vancouver Protocol and various national and international guidelines on good scientific practice. However, there is the important case of “scientists” at places like the Heartland Institute that have previously been funded by the tobacco industry to “prove” that there are no bad health consequences of smoking, and are now being funded by the oil industry to “prove” that man-made climate change is a hoax. These “scientists” are a menace not only to the scientific community but to society in general as they spread doubt and confusion about the validity of the research conducted by real scientists. In the case of Mentor, however, I see the theme of THE METAMORPH not to be about moral flaws in individual scientists but rather a story about how technology is often used in the interest of the ruling class for the manipulation

Crossfire and exploitation of the lower classes. As the story was written in late 1975, when Marcuse and the Frankfurt school were still a dominant influence on intellectuals all over the world, this particular episode reads like an expansion of the ideas about political oppression and religious manipulation we see in MISSION OF THE DARIANS. In other words, I believe the message in Byrne’s writing is not so much Mentor as a flawed character as that of a symbol of the unity of science and capitalist oppressive power. The story describes a system where workers are being exploited in the mines for the purpose of people like Maya sharing a comfortable life with the social elite. What makes THE METAMORPH different from MISSION OF THE DARIANS is that the role of religious manipulation is downplayed for the purpose of having the episode focus on how science is being used for the benefit of one particular group rather than the society as a whole. In fact, there is an echo of how some of Carl Sagan’s COSMOS episodes talked about the paradoxes of how philosophers like Plato and Aristotle were working for the rich and famous and thus never discussed the issue of how to use science for reforming economic, social and religious practice. The problem, as Sagan tells the story, was that Greek society was based on a slave economy, so trying to make social change would undermine the fundaments of society as a whole. It was only at the time of when Holland became a country freed from the claw of the Catholic Church that science and technology was able to thrive, he says. In other words, the narrative on science and technology in THE METAMORPH strikes me as being articulated as systemic criticism. However, I found it interesting listening to Senmut and David Welle discussing the psychology of Mentor. Something that strikes me when reading David’s analysis and Senmut’s fan fiction, like I am rereading his CROSSFIRE story now, is the way excellent psychological understanding of individual characters seem to come at the cost of ignoring the ideological context of how the original SPACE: 1999 stories were written. In a similar way to how David can go on endlessly with fascinating speculations and reflections on the psychological nature of Koenig and Mentor, Senmut provides equally insightful commentary in his stories, but as they both

269

ignore the political subtext in the sense of ignoring how, why and when the original SPACE: 1999 scripts were written, the character analysis of the protagonists become more insightful than those of the antagonists. For instance, when Jemarcu compares Koenig with Ronald Reagan by saying that they were both “happy warriors”, Senmut gives a much more complex analysis of Koenig in CROSSFIRE and the other stories. The way Koenig is described in the FOREVER ALPHA series is much more like the complex character we see on the screen. He is a man who objects to violence, but is often forced to question his own standards and think pragmatically. For instance, in one episode when he had to deal with a particularly difficult question he reflected on his actions against Dione in LAST ENEMY as something that unfortunately had to be done, and not an expression of why he believed was right, and in this manner Senmut adds to our understanding of Koenig in a highly competent and interesting manner. However, when it comes to the understanding of people like Mentor and Simmonds, I feel the contribution from the fan fiction and fan fiction analysis I have encountered so far is more implicit and less direct. Saying that Mentor or Simmonds were flawed or politically corrupt does not really add very much insight to their characters, I feel. We face the same dilemma that Johnny Byrne talked about when commenting on his own story END OF ETERNITY. The fact that Balor was a “killer that could not be killed” was not sufficient for making it into an interesting story, he felt. The original script was lacking something in terms of making it easier to understand and identify with why Balor understood the world from a certain perspective and how that made him act in certain ways. Personally, I have never felt it was all that difficult to understand Balor as he is mirroring the exact same attitudes and patterns of behaviour that we see from Koenig in GUARDIAN OF PIRI, but Byrne’s comments are nevertheless useful in the sense that discarding Mentor or Simmonds by saying that they were morally corrupt does not produce a proper understanding neither of them as individuals nor the role they play in the episode.

270


In this respect, I want to comment on what David says about heroes and heroism. Although I agree with much of what he is saying, I think it would be wrong to describe SPACE: 1999 as a type of show that celebrated heroism in the same sense as we see in the original STAR TREK series or the first season of the original BATTLESTAR GALACTICA series. The issue of heroism in SPACE: 1999 is discussed and analysed in DRAGON’S DOMAIN with the conclusion that the people we typically associate with being heroes are typically mentally disturbed individuals. This strikes me as being a central message of SPACE: 1999, and perhaps a message that has become more popular in modern SF as modern society is less easy to understand in terms of “good vs. evil” than it was during the cold war period. Today it is not so much capitalism versus communism as it is ways of implementing capitalism in a way that prevents the world from destroying itself. As Helena Russell said in BREAKAWAY; “We are looking for answers. Not heroes”. John B. *** 31457 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority SHANA G Jan 9, 2016

Good Morning all, This is getting kind of lame. How about some Space:1999 trivia?21 Shana *** 31458 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority jemarcu Jan 9, 2016

As usual Petter, your analogies are flawed and worthless for the simple reason that no one was ever compelled to buy a pack of cigarettes, and everyone knew that smoking had health risks since the 1920's. The government knew that Editor’s note: This message triggers the next discussion thread (section 8.5).

21

Love Canal was a toxic waste dump, because the chemical company told them it was, but they went ahead and built schools and parks there anyway. The Soviets knew that the design for Chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen, but they built it anyway because as Marx said, in order to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs. In the late 60's however, a working group at Harvard very cleverely redefined the definition of death from the universally accepted cardiopulmonary standard, to so-called declaration of "brain-death", which is medically meaningless. It allowed the elites to begin harvesting organs from still living people, usually low income types who show up in the emergency room. This was covered in the novel "Coma" which came out right before Space 1999 hit the small screen. The character of Mentor fits in perfectly with this amoral ethos of the late 60's and 70's, with the exception that Mentor in the end repented, whereas our real life Mentor's like Gosnell, Planned Parenthood, etc. have no shame or remorse as they happily vivisect living human beings while dining on wine and salad in posh restaurants. The face of evil: like Mentor, elegant, caring, sophisticated, and reasonable. Rgds, John M. *** 31460 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority John Marcucci Jan 9, 2016

"..It was only at the time of when Holland became a country freed from the claw of the Catholic Church that science and technology was able to thrive, he says... " Thank you Petter, for providing more proof that Carl Sagan was an anti-Catholic bigot. I had forgotten that line! *** 31463 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority sennmut Jan 10, 2016

Crossfire Yeah. His Saganicity must have forgotten how Copernicus, you know, the guy who came up with the heliocentric theory, and whom the crater is named after, was A PRIEST!!!! Man, I hate it when that happens. *** 31464 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority sennmut Jan 10, 2016

On 09 Jan 2016 balor1999@... writes: I am not so sure, however, that there is a general tendency among scientists today to “squawk and moan like branded calves if you even suggest that they ought to be bound by ethics or civilisational standards in their research”. Quite to the contrary, there are international standards like the 1978 Vancouver Protocol and various national and international guidelines on good scientific practice. However, there is the important case of “scientists” at places like the Heartland Institute that have previously been funded by the tobacco industry to “prove” that there are no bad health consequences of smoking, and are now being funded by the oil industry to “prove” that man-made climate change is a hoax. These “scientists” are a menace not only to the scientific community but to society in general as they spread doubt and confusion about the validity of the research conducted by real scientists.

But Balor, that reflects the social state of things in 1978. Surely, things have changed since then? You are always saying that about Space, or other shows. Times change, and all that????????? In the case of Mentor, however, I see the theme of THE METAMORPH not to be about moral flaws in individual scientists but rather a story about how technology is often used in the interest of the ruling class for the manipulation and exploitation of the lower classes. As the story was written in late 1975, when Marcuse and the Frankfurt school were still a dominant influence on intellectuals all over the world, this particular episode reads like an expansion of the ideas about political oppression and religious manipulation we see in MISSION OF THE DARIANS. In other words, I believe the message in Byrne’s writing is not so much Mentor as a flawed character as that of a symbol of the unity of science and capitalist oppressive power. The story describes a system where workers are being exploited in the mines

271 for the purpose of people like Maya sharing a comfortable life with the social elite.

Of course you see it that way, Balor. But that's alright. One nive thing aboutn us is that we think it's okay for you to be wrong. We understand. What makes THE METAMORPH different from MISSION OF THE DARIANS is that the role of religious manipulation is downplayed for the purpose of having the episode focus on how science is being used for the benefit of one particular group rather than the society as a whole. In fact, there is an echo of how some of Carl Sagan’s COSMOS episodes talked about the paradoxes of how philosophers like Plato and Aristotle were working for the rich and famous and thus never discussed the issue of how to use science for reforming economic, social and religious practice. The problem, as Sagan tells the story, was that Greek society was based on a slave economy, so trying to make social change would undermine the fundaments of society as a whole. It was only at the time of when Holland became a country freed from the claw of the Catholic Church that science and technology was able to thrive, he says. In other words, the narrative on science and technology in THE METAMORPH strikes me as being articulated as systemic criticism.

There you go, making arguments from authority again. Sagan is the authority, so you quote him, chapter and verse. Be consistent, Balor, please? Sagan was an intellectual slut. Let's leave him in the rotting past, okay? However, I found it interesting listening to Senmut and David Welle discussing the psychology of Mentor. Something that strikes me when reading David’s analysis and Senmut’s fan fiction, like I am rereading his CROSSFIRE story now, is the way excellent psychological understanding of individual characters seem to come at the cost of ignoring the ideological context of how the original SPACE: 1999 stories were written. In a similar way to how David can go on endlessly with fascinating speculations and reflections on the psychological nature of Koenig and Mentor, Senmut provides equally insightful commentary in his stories, but as they both ignore the political subtext in the sense of ignoring how, why and when the original SPACE: 1999 scripts were written, the character analysis of the protagonists become more insightful than those of the antagonists.

Because there IS NO POLITICAL SUBTEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't know how many times I have to say it. I do not "ignore" it, because it is not there!!!!!!!!!!!! No political

272


subtext, and the fact you keep seeing what no one else sees is worrisome, Balor. Very. For instance, when Jemarcu compares Koenig with Ronald Reagan by saying that they were both “happy warriors”, Senmut gives a much more complex analysis of Koenig in CROSSFIRE and the other stories. The way Koenig is described in the FOREVER ALPHA series is much more like the complex character we see on the screen. He is a man who objects to violence, but is often forced to question his own standards and think pragmatically. For instance, in one episode when he had to deal with a particularly difficult question he reflected on his actions against Dione in LAST ENEMY as something that unfortunately had to be done, and not an expression of why he believed was right, and in this manner Senmut adds to our understanding of Koenig in a highly competent and interesting manner.

Yes. Koenig is a man who acts. he will move up to the point of action, then hold, if needs be. Hold, but never hesitate. Koening is not one who hesitates. However, when it comes to the understanding of people like Mentor and Simmonds, I feel the contribution from the fan fiction and fan fiction analysis I have encountered so far is more implicit and less direct. Saying that Mentor or Simmonds were flawed or politically corrupt does not really add very much insight to their characters, I feel. We face the same dilemma that Johnny Byrne talked about when commenting on his own story END OF ETERNITY. The fact that Balor was a “killer that could not be killed” was not sufficient for making it into an interesting story, he felt. The original script was lacking something in terms of making it easier to understand and identify with why Balor understood the world from a certain perspective and how that made him act in certain ways. Personally, I have never felt it was all that difficult to understand Balor as he is mirroring the exact same attitudes and patterns of behaviour that we see from Koenig in GUARDIAN OF PIRI, but Byrne’s comments are nevertheless useful in the sense that discarding Mentor or Simmonds by saying that they were morally corrupt does not produce a proper understanding neither of them as individuals nor the role they play in the episode.

EOE could have been improved, yes. Such a tale really needed the two-hour treatment. to fully flesh things out. I wanted to know more about Progron, and the interior of the asteroid prison, and more of Balor's history. What was he, before? Did the transformation to immortality unhinge him, or was he already

that way? Many things to speculate upon, here, and now only in the realm of FanFic can we seek answers. But to compare Koenig with Balor is to do violence to the whole ethos of Space. Koenig acts as he does, because he truly cares for his people, and perhaps, inside, believes that God will one day call him to account, here. This aspect was never explored much. But Balor is a frothing psycho, who tortures and kills for the fun of it. The two men have nothing in common, whatsoever, and to try and seek moral equivalency is as grotesque as Balor, himself. In this respect, I want to comment on what David says about heroes and heroism. Although I agree with much of what he is saying, I think it would be wrong to describe SPACE: 1999 as a type of show that celebrated heroism in the same sense as we see in the original STAR TREK series or the first season of the original BATTLESTAR GALACTICA series. The issue of heroism in SPACE: 1999 is discussed and analysed in DRAGON’S DOMAIN with the conclusion that the people we typically associate with being heroes are typically mentally disturbed individuals. This strikes me as being a central message of SPACE: 1999, and perhaps a message that has become more popular in modern SF as modern society is less easy to understand in terms of “good vs. evil” than it was during the cold war period. Today it is not so much capitalism versus communism as it is ways of implementing capitalism in a way that prevents the world from destroying itself. As Helena Russell said in BREAKAWAY; “We are looking for answers. Not heroes”.

Yes, sometimes people will equate heroes with mental illness...until they need to have their butts saved, than suddenly it is different. Helena sticks to the "party line", re Cellini, right up until she sees the monster finishing off the buffet. Then, now that the story was true all along, and Alpha has been saved from being turned into a potential smorgesboard, Cellini was really a good guy, after all. Was good to his mother. Didn't kick dogs. It is often that way with true heores. They are ding-dongs and screwballs...until they are needed, then it's different. Especially, when they interrupt the progression towards true communism, Balor. In which case, God send us tons more heroes. ***

Crossfire

31467 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority balor1999 Jan 10, 2016

Senmut commented on my reference to international guidelines for good scientific practice such as the 1978 Vancouver Protocol on the one hand and the dubious practice of organisations like the Heartland Institute on the other. But Balor, that reflects the social state of things in 1978. Surely, things have changed since then? You are always saying that about Space, or other shows. Times change, and all that?????????

The social state of things has changed since the 1947 Nuremberg Code, the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and the 1978 Vancouver Protocol, but that doesn’t mean that one should be less concerned with ethics in science. Real scientists try to follow such rules and regulations as closely as possible. The Heartland Institute and similar propaganda machines do not. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartla nd_Institute The problem is not whether it has been common knowledge since the 1920s that smoking is bad for your health. The problem is that the tobacco industry has been trying to misinform the public by paying organisations like the Heartland Institute to create confusion about how bad smoking is, in a similar way to how they are now being funded by the oil industry to create confusion about climate change research. However, I was making these comments in response to another discussant seeing DEATH’S OTHER DOMINION and THE METAMORPH as comments about ethics in science. Although I can agree that DOD can be linked with Carl Sagan’s COSMOS in the way he repeatedly talks about how much is being spent on military research in comparison to what is spent on research that is of humanitarian interest, I do not see ethics in science as a dominant theme in SPACE: 1999. There are some episodes, of course, where this issue is discussed, such as when Vana makes comments about experiments with live animals

273

in MISSING LINK, but overall I see the political subtext in SPACE: 1999 being concerned with how institutional practice is governed by economic forces rather than moral problems that can be explained on religious or psychological grounds. There you go, making arguments from authority again. Sagan is the authority, so you quote him, chapter and verse. Be consistent, Balor, please? Sagan was an intellectual slut. Let's leave him in the rotting past, okay?

Carl Sagan was an authority in astrophysics and cosmology, but when I see parallels between COSMOS and SPACE: 1999 it is essentially by way of how both series can be seen as expression of similar ideologies. For instance, when Sagan talks about the layers of the human brain in one of the final episodes of the series, he says that one of the things that characterises the reptile brain at the core is the willingness to blindly follow leaders. In this sense we are no more intelligent than crocodiles, he says, but fortunately we have developed outer layers of the brain that gives us the opportunity to act intelligently. By the way, when I referred to the episode where he discusses the Golden Age of Holland in the 17th century, I was paraphrasing him when I used the expression “claw of the Catholic Church”. Although this was indeed the point he was making, in the sense of how it was possible for intellectuals to publish works in Holland that were or would be banned in the rest of Catholic Europe, I did him injustice if I gave the impression that he was an “antiCatholic bigot”. On the whole, I think COSMOS was deeply respectful of why people have psychological or sociological needs for trusting in religious ideas and rituals, and he even spent quite some time discussing parallels between cosmology in Hinduism and the worldview of modern science. His criticism of religious institutions, such as the Catholic Church and others, was mainly in the context of what I would characterise as critical theory, namely how economic interests of the social elite is controlled by keeping the public ignorant of how the scientific process and scientific worldview functions. In other contexts Sagan has lectured about collaborating with the Catholic Church and other religious communities for raising awareness about of the fragility of the global

274


environment, war mongering, nuclear winter and so on. Although I take deep pleasure in reading CROSSFIRE for the second time, now being able to appreciate many of the links with BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and FOREVER KNIGHT that I missed during the first reading, I am still a little bit surprised by the way the conflicts between the Nationalists and the Eastern Alliance is handled on almost “good vs. bad” terms when SPACE: 1999 was generally a study of different shades of grey. In this sense I also felt that COSMOS and SPACE: 1999 were similar in the way they try to present conflicts through the means of alternative perspectives that would render the complexity of the situation and prevent people from jumping to quick and disastrous conclusions. But to compare Koenig with Balor is to do violence to the whole ethos of Space. Koenig acts as he does, because he truly cares for his people, and perhaps, inside, believes that God will one day call him to account, here. This aspect was never explored much. But Balor is a frothing psycho, who tortures and kills for the fun of it. The two men have nothing in common, whatsoever, and to try and seek moral equivalency is as grotesque as Balor, himself.

I think this is why Johnny Byrne disliked END OF ETERNITY. If it turns out that Balor was nothing but a frothing psycho, who tortures and kills for the fun of it, then the episode becomes essentially meaningless. How is Koenig going to understand Balor on such terms? The only way for him to do this is by seeing that deep down he is perhaps also a frothing psycho, who tortures and kills for the fun of it, like how he might have gotten some hidden pleasure out of torturing Helena and killing Dione. In this sense there is some level of depth in the relationship between Balor and Koenig, which at least fits with a critical reading of SPACE: 1999 from the perspective that we should be aware of leaders. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. On the other hand, when I read CROSSFIRE along with your other stories, you investigate the protagonists in fascinating ways that I feel are consistent with how I know them from the television screen. Your John Koenig is a complex character. Alan Carter is less complex but resourceful and kind. Your portraits of

Tony and Maya are particularly good, I feel, as Tony strikes me as being slightly more rigid in your stories than on the screen, which is excellent for understanding his psychology, while your portrait of Maya fits nicely in with what we have discussed about fascism. Where John Koenig weights arguments before making moral judgements, Maya is often the one who demands revenge or having somebody killed. In the case of CROSSFIRE, I think you are extremely successful with characters like Commandant Leiter as well. Although he was a fairly one-dimensional character as I remember him from the screen, you add new dimensions by letting us read his mind and explain his patterns of thought, adding depth to his character without distorting anything that we already know about him. In general I am quite impressed with your ability to get under the skin of the characters we watch on the screen. CROSSFIRE is a treasure to read. John B. *** 31468 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority John Marcucci Jan 10, 2016

"...The problem is not whether it has been common knowledge since the 1920s that smoking is bad for your health. The problem is that the tobacco industry has been trying to misinform the public by paying organisations like the Heartland Institute to create confusion about how bad smoking is, in a similar way to how they are now being funded by the oil industry to create confusion about climate change research..." What drivel. Scientists have always been whores for moneyed interests. The diet industry, the food industry, the dental industry, even big pharm. And, of course the scientists who take big money in the form of grants from the government to perpetuate the man made climate change HOAX, and brutally suppress all dissenting views, as the East Anglia e-mail releases proved. While we're on the subject, where did the money to produce and distribute Space 1999 come from? Advertisers, of course. Was it worth watching Space 1999, having to sit through all those commercials for dental

Crossfire floss, anusol, and tampons? Well, I guess so otherwise none of us would be here. This is the price we have to pay. In order to fund research that actually improves quality of life, we have to put up with all the above. There are thousands of whores and frauds like Carl Sagan, but its worth putting up with them it to get one Banting, or Salk, or Pasteur. That's the trade off. Rgds, John M *** 31469 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority SHANA G Jan 11, 2016

John B, Instead of going into one of your another of your drab ramblings, how about we bring some life back to this blog? 22 Let’s do some trivia If the group permits, I will start. Shana *** 31470 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority sennmut Jan 11, 2016

O Shana, startest thou. Yea, verily! *** 31471 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority balor1999 Jan 11, 2016

I do not interpret the message in SPACE: 1999 as that of scientists being “whores” and “frauds”. It was a series that had a less optimistic view on the future than in STAR TREK, even to the extent that it contained elements of technology pessimism, as Keazor (2012) points out, but I do not see it as 22 Editor’s note: Responses to this message are found in the next discussion thread (e.g. message #31481 onwards in section 8.5).

275

rejecting modernity, science and technology for the purpose of returning to a simpler and more savage Arcadian past. There are, of course, elements of this kind of thinking in episodes like ANOTHER TIME ANOTHER PLACE and THE TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA, but in neither of these episodes do I see Johnny Byrne rejecting modernity as a whole for the purpose of returning to a premodern world of religious superstition. On the contrary, my impression of what he is saying is that we need to step back and reflect on what kind of society we want before we destroy the planet through pollution and nuclear war. This is exactly the same message Sagan sends in COSMOS. On one hand science is a candle in the dark that makes it possible to learn and develop, but on the other hand science in the wrong hands has also lead to weapon of mass destruction and research on methods of psychological and social manipulation. In Marcuse’s masterpiece “The One-Dimensional Man” (1964) this is a central point. As most scientists and technologists are working for the military establishment and big corporations, it may indeed be possible to refer to them as “whores” and “frauds”, although these are not words Marcuse uses, and neither were such words used by the editor of Nature when he pointed out the Heartland Institute’s lack of credibility on issues like climate change and smoke health hazards. Nevertheless, there may also be some longterm benefits from right-wing extremists bashing science and trying to create confusion about the validity of scientific results that are widely shared by the scientific community. As we saw in the case where lobbyist hacked into theUniversity of East Anglia data system, stole and misrepresented emails, this resulted in improved quality control. The scientific method is a self-improving method, as Carl Sagan says on several occasions in COSMOS. The problem, however, as Birgitte Nerlich points out in her 2010 article “Climategate: paradoxical metaphors and political analysis” (Environmental Values, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 419-442), is whether the rhetoric manipulation used by the climate deniers would be sufficient for undermining the authority of science and the scientific method on a larger scale.

276


From the viewpoint of how Marcuse discusses science and technology from the viewpoint of critical theory, the climate debate is the exact opposite of what he was arguing in 1964. While his concern was that science was being used by oppressors as means of preventing the oppressed from revolting, like we see in the case of Dr. Rowland of DEATH’S OTHER DOMINION, in the present context it is the distortion of science that is being used as a tool for making the powerful more powerful at the cost of destroying the Earth. There is a very interesting interview from German television in YouTube where Marcuse is confronted with his view on science and technology from a 1976 perspective, where the environmentalist discourse that we see in SPACE: 1999 had become more prominent, and which gives him an opportunity to reflect more deeply on the issue from a viewpoint not too dissimilar from what we see in JOURNEY TO WHERE.

be not so good of an approximation. Some scientists -- or politicians wanting to use a few studies to bolster their politics -- jump in too quickly and call things "fact" or "bunk" when the reality of that situation is often subtler and more complex than that..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6SRaS0y pkA

“An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap. (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose (“omnibus reactor”). (7) Very little development is required. It will use mostly “off-the-shelf” components. (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now. “On the other hand, a practical reactor plant can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It is requiring an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. Corrosion, in particular, is a problem. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of the engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated.

John B. *** 31472 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority sennmut Jan 11, 2016

You keep arguing from authority, i.e. Satan....uh, Sagan. Are you aware of the conflict, Balor??? *** 31473 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority John Marcucci Jan 11, 2016

Dave23,

re your last post which I am digesting a little at a time: "..The problem I see demonstrated with hyperrationalism is becoming too hyper-theoretical and losing sight of the practical... Bad scientists let themselves become entrenched in one theory and start calling it "fact" prematurely or for too long after it is shown to 23

Reference to David Welle’s message #31452

I was thinking about this the other night and watching an old interview of Admiral Hyman Rickover, the guy who invented the nuclear navy. Interesting in that he was an engineer, not a scientist per se, and by his own admission he had zero charisma. Indeed, he was blunt, profane, and of him one commentator said "if you were stupid you should be dead." Nevertheless, through his force of personality, his obsession with safety and quality control, he built an organization with technology that had not yet been conceived yet, with an unparalelled 100% safety record for 50 years. Here is his comment on theory vs. reality.

"The tools of the academic-reactor designer are a piece of paper and pencil with an eraser. If a mistake is made, it can always be erased and changed. If the practical-reactor designer errs, he wears the mistake around his neck; it cannot be erased. Everyone can see it. “The academic-reactor designer is a dilettante. He has not had to assume any real responsibility in connection with his projects. He is free to luxuriate in elegant ideas, the practical shortcomings of which can be relegated to the category of “mere technical

Crossfire details.” The practical-reactor designer must live with these same technical details. Although recalcitrant and awkward, they must be solved and cannot be put off until tomorrow. Their solutions require manpower, time and money."24 I would say that if we ever get a moonbase alpha, it will need the leadership of someone like Rickover, and people like Sagan and his ilk will be worthless. Regards, John M. *** 31474 Re: Leadership/ authority kerryirs Jan 11, 2016

Where John Koenig weights arguments before making moral judgements, Maya is often the one who demands revenge or having somebody killed. John B., if the above quote refers to CROSSFIRE, I can't comment on the context as it is used in the story. However, taken on its own, I totally disagree with it. Maya never was vengeful. She was reluctant to use force where life might be taken. Examples: ALLTHAT GLISTERS, THE AB CHRYSALIS, THE RULES OF LUTON. In THE AB CHRSALIS, one can hear the reluctance in her voice when she tells Alan that her orders are to fire on the complex. One can also see the relief in her face when Koenig cancels the order. I will modify my view a bit on her feelings in ALL THAT GLISTERS. When she explained to Koenig that the modified laser would dry up a reservoir (a bit of an overstatement, but she was making a point), she was also concerned that it might kill the alien. However, when the alien was attempting to fuse her with itself, her instinct for survival kicked in, so she pleaded with Koenig to fire. But in the end, it was Maya who came up with a way to make the clouds to give up their water. This is hardly a vengeful person. Maya

Editor’s note: http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/ Rickover.pdf 24

277

also commented that the alien didn't want to kill us, but only wanted to survive. This episode also shows the morality of the Alphans. Koenig, facing a deadline, could've said no, we have to get back. But he took a few extra minutes to allow Maya to set up the crystals for release, thus saving a lifefirm from extinction. Finally, a couple of things. First, I don't think that Catherine Schell would've taken on the role if she were to have portrayed the character as a hateful, vengeful person. That's not her personilty. She's actually a very nice person based what I've read from those who have worked with her and those who have met her. Sure, she could've done the role that way, but I don't think she would've been happy about it. Second, let's get away from using fascism and Maya in the same sentence. They don't go together. I don't believe that FF had fascism in mind when he came up with the idea of Maya, considering he fought fascism and was taken prisoner by the Nazis, and he was Jewish. This was hardly reasons to use fascism in the concept. *** 31475 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership/ authority John Marcucci Jan 11, 2016

"...Where John Koenig weights arguments before making moral judgements, Maya is often the one who demands revenge or having somebody killed..." You really have to wonder, when someone makes statements like that.. what show are they watching? Certainly not Space 1999. Either that, or there is a serious disconnect from reality on the mental health plane. Maya is essentially bloodthirsty?? What rational person would say something so patently absurd? *** 31476 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership/ authority sennmut Jan 11, 2016

278

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series ***

That, and she's a fascist gay icon, too, don't forget. *** 31477 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership/ authority John Marcucci Jan 11, 2016

I know, I know. Its get more and more bizarre as the years go by. "The Madness of Petter Ogland." *** 31478 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership/ authority sennmut Jan 11, 2016

31479 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership/ authority John Marcucci Jan 11, 2016

Its just a convenient word to demonize, used by people who can't think.. so, they think of the most polarizing, loaded words they can, and hurl them .. much like a chimpanzee hurling his own feces at a perceived threat. *** 31480 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership/ authority sennmut Jan 12, 2016

I hate it when crappy stuff like that happens.

Gotcha. What is it with this word, fascist, anyway???

***

8.5 Trivia As the discussion moves in directions that do not necessarily involve “Crossfire”, an inquiry from one of the discussant to do conduct a game of SPACE: 1999 trivia becomes an opportunity for getting back on focus. As becomes evident during the discussion, even assumingly harmless processes like running a trivia game can result in controversy when looking at the political context of knowledge production in fandom versus academia. 31459 Trivia jemarcu Jan 9, 2016

2. Mission of the Darians. It's funny to see how obvious the nudity is and how it got overlooked by the director/producer etc.

1) Name the only episode from S2 that briefly used music from S1 2) Which episode in S1 had a "wardrobe malfunction" that slipped by the censors? 3) How many actors from Space 1999 that later appeard in Star Wars can you name?

3. Dave Prowse, Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing? I'm not a Star Wars follower or fan and I'm sure there are more. *** 31465 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Trivia John Marcucci Jan 10, 2016

*** blondgod@... wrote: 31461 Re: Trivia blondgod1999 Jan 10, 2016

1. This is a mystery to me. I've literally watched every episode dozens of times over the years and never realized they used Y1 music in Y2. Which ep. is it?

1. This is a mystery to me. I've literally watched every episode dozens of times over the years and never realized they used Y1 music in Y2. Which ep. is it?

In "One Moment of Humanity" very brielfy, right before the robot starts to seduce and

Crossfire dance with Helena, they play the creepy music from S1 3. Dave Prowse, Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing? I'm not a Star Wars follower or fan and I'm sure there are more.

In "Dorzak", th guy who plays Sam Malcom also played the Imperial general who argued with Darth Vader and consequently almost got his breathing priveleges revoked. *** 31466 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Trivia James R. Rowings, J.D. Jan 10, 2016

3) Also Julian Glover, who was Jarok in "Alpha Child" - General Veers, in Empire Strikes Back. Jim *** 31481 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Trivia balor1999 Jan 12, 2016

I found the trivia question about actors from SPACE :1999 that later appeared in STAR WARS to be interesting. As I am now rereading CROSSFIRE and also watching BATTLESTAR GALACTICA episodes to help me understand further levels of depth in Senmut’s story, it is obvious that there would have been no BSG if it hadn’t been for STAR WARS. When I watch the episodes now, I do not think about it as much as when I watched the beginning of the three-part pilot “Saga of a Star World” for the first time in 40 years some months ago. The musical theme was similar, the titles were designed in a manner that reminded of STAR WARS, and the nature of the story was very STAR WARS-like. Nevertheless, Semut also reminded us that Glen A. Larson had drafted the show long before STAR WARS was made, so it would be unfair to call it a STAR WARS rip-off. BATTLESTAR GALACTICA is its own thing, but when we compare it to other “space ark” series, like THE STARLOST or even SPACE: 1999, it is clear that it borrowed much from STAR WARS. I don’t know whether the fan fiction community has produced a body of

279

crossover literature between SPACE: 1999 and STAR WARS, but I am very happy that Senmut decided to make use of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA instead. Perhaps he might have produced something equally fascinating and insightful by mixing SPACE: 1999 and STAR WARS, but the more I engage with the FOREVER ALPHA fan fiction, the more I appreciate the decisions that have been made and the outcome of those decisions. In a recent post, Kerry commented on what I said about Maya and Koenig when commenting on CROSSFIRE. I talked about aspects of Senmut’s competence as a fictional writer in the sense that he bringers characters to life. When reading CROSSFIRE and the other stories, it very much feels like watching what a third season of SPACE: 1999 might have been like. To me this is an achievement because I have read commercial SPACE: 1999 literature that has been much less successful in this regard. For instance, I had great expectations when I read E.C. Tubb’s novelisation of the first few episodes, but ultimately the reading experience was a disappointment because his version of John, Helena, Victor and the rest did not feel like the characters on the screen. Of course, E.C. Tubb was a highly competent SF writer, and he added other twists and aspects to the retelling of the stories such as saying things like Triton from RATM was one of Neptune’s moons, if I remember correctly, but to me he totally changed the atmosphere of the series. When reading his books, I did not feel like watching SPACE: 1999. I felt like watching a reimagining of the series. I have felt the same way when reading some of the Powey books. In the case of Senmut’s stories, however, it feels like the real thing. It was in this context that I commented on Maya, Koenig and Alan. I don’t know how Senmut apparently manages with ease what others struggle to achieve, but my experience in reading works like CROSSFIRE is that Koenig and Alan are exactly like we remember them from the screen. Sometimes it helps that Senmut makes use of scenes that we remember from the television episodes, but at other times he creates situations that are totally different from anything we have seen before, and the characters still remain true to the series in the

280


sense that we can see and feel Landau, Bain, Morse, Tate, Schell and the rest bringing the proceedings to life. John Koenig is a complex character, and the way Senmut comments on what goes on in his mind fits perfectly with how I understand him from the screen. Maya is portrayed in an equally masterful way in the sense that Senmut explains her in a manner that makes her feel much more like the Nazi symbol that Martin Willey saw when commenting on THE RULES OF LUTON than the way Catherine Schell tries to give her a smooth and calm outer appearance. Here is an example towards the end of chapter sixteen in ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT when the Alphans discuss what to do after LaCroix has materilised on Moonbase Alpha. "Yes, Commander," said Maya, next to Tony. "Why return him at all? We all saw the autopsy report on the dead man. LaCroix killed him, in some sort of dark ritual. Why return a murderous criminal to Earth? Surely, every society has its undesirables. Why would Earth need any more?"

"But Nat didn't want to become what she is, Commander," said Maya. "And Nick has turned against it. He wants to be normal again. Look at all the good he's done here on Alpha. All the good he did on your world before, through his deBrabant Foundation. It helped to fund Alpha, and help countless people through charities. Nick is not the sort of.well, man that LaCroix is. If I had to, I know who I would rather trust my life to." "I agree, John," said Tony. "Returning LaCroix to Earth is the same as giving him a license to kill again. He reminds me of those scum at the Nuremberg trials, always trying to justify what they did, or mobsters who insist that it was 'just business'. Maya's right." "I agree that I have no liking for the man. He is evil. A sociopath, Bob calls it. But what do you suggest we do? As if I needed to ask." "Kill him. Nat's told us some of the ways you can kill a ..vampire. Once we get Nick and Jackie back, or we know for certain that we never can, we put Lucien LaCroix to death." "Maya?"

"I have to agree, John," said Tony. "While he's committed no crime here on Alpha, he's admitted to crimes back home. He's in affect confessed to murder. Under normal circumstances, we'd hold him till whichever nation it was extradited him from Alpha." "Which of course isn't going to happen," said Koenig. "Exactly, but in our situation screw the law. We're all the Earth law there is out here, and LaCroix is from Earth. We can judge him and sentence him right here. We shouldn't send him home, just so he can go on killing people." "After all, Commander," said Maya, "he is a .vampire. He kills people for food, and thinks nothing of it. On my world, for what it's worth, he'd never see another hour." "But Nick and Natalie are vampires, too. Doesn't that make them evil, as well? After all, Nick is over 800 years old, to hear Nat or LaCroix tell it.?"

"I agree," said the Psychon. Koenig was surprised. Maya was usually the most pacifistic person on Alpha. For her to recommend execution. "Very well," said Koenig. "I'll let you know what I decide." To me this exchange of dialogue presents deep insights into a typical situation involved Tony, Maya and Koenig in a manner that is slightly different from what we have seen on television because both Tony and Maya are so insistent on killing. In the same way as Koenig I was at first slightly surprised in seeing Maya recommending execution, but it fits perfectly with the reading of her character through Wertham’s theories of superhero literature being fascist propaganda. In other words, not only do I agree with Senmut that this is what Maya and Tony are really like, I would say that this is a perfect example of how fan fiction can illuminate a theoretical understanding of a series like SPACE: 1999 by constructing

Crossfire literature experiments to see whether Wertham’s theories make sense. For me, at least, this is a perfect illustration that they do. I believe there are rich insights on SPACE: 1999 to be found when reading stories like ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT and CROSSFIRE. High quality fan fiction can help us understand and articulate aspects of the series that are otherwise much less directly accessible. John B. *** 31482 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Trivia John Marcucci Jan 12, 2016

"...I believe there are rich insights on SPACE: 1999 to be found when reading stories like ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT and CROSSFIRE. High quality fan fiction can help us understand and articulate aspects of the series that are otherwise much less directly accessible...." Well, well.. a monent of lucidity. Saints be praised! *** 31483 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Trivia balor1999 Jan 13, 2016

Kerry wrote: “…Where John Koenig weights arguments before making moral judgements, Maya is often the one who demands revenge or having somebody killed…” John B., if the above quote refers to CROSSFIRE, I can't comment on the context as it is used in the story. However, taken on its own, I totally disagree with it. Maya never was vengeful. She was reluctant to use force where life might be taken. Examples: ALLTHAT GLISTERS, THE AB CHRYSALIS, THE RULES OF LUTON. In THE AB CHRSALIS, one can hear the reluctance in her voice when she tells Alan that her orders are to fire on the complex. One can also see the relief in her face when Koenig cancels the order.

Context matters, I agree. However, there are also aspects of personality that transcend

281

context, and in this case I think Senmut adds important psychological detail to Maya that fits we how we have analysed episodes like THE RULES OF LUTON but is less explicit in other episodes like ALL THAT GLISTERS and THE AB CHRYSALIS. In other words, I believe Senmut helps us to understand the psychological subtext and ways to interpret Maya in THE AB CHRYSALIS as more similar to what she is in THE RULES OF LUTON when we think of how she is portrayed in ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT. Although LaCroix is a challenge in the WILLELM story, the point is that Koenig is not certain how to deal with him while both Tony and Maya are encouraging that he should be killed the quicker the better. This may be contrary to what we might expect from some episodes, such as THE AB CHRYSALIS and ALL THAT GLISTERS, but to me it seems to be in perfect agreement with how we understand Maya and Tony from THE RULES OF LUTON, THE BETA CLOUD and SPACE WARP. Afterall, we must remember that Maya was Freiberger’s invension, so I think these episodes in particular are important for understanding her. Not at least do I think this is important from the viewpoint of finding insights that matches Fageolle’s authoritative reading of the series where the Woodgrove trilogy is described as the absolute nadir of the show. Focusing on Maya as she is defined in these episodes and then correlating the understanding with Wertham’s theoretical understanding of superhero literature as fascism is something I would believe not only fits with Fageolle’s position but also expands it in a useful manner. We know that Y2 as crap, but the important thing to discuss is why Y2 is crap. I think the position of reading Y2 as fascist propaganda is an excellent opportunity for explaining why we have difficulty with Maya and Y2. Then, if we please, we can take the alternative approach, suggested by Liardet, in trying to restore merit to Maya and Y2 by finding alternative readings. Perhaps we can also gain insights from CROSSFIRE and other Senmut stories in that respect, but so far I have not seen anything in his writing that would illuminate Maya as a symbol of political

282


feminism or an icon for the gay movement. Senmut’s strength, as I see it in the psychological reading of Maya and Tony, fits more with what we have discussed in terms of totalitarianism and fascism. For instance, when Maya says that LaCroix would not have survived a day on Psychon, this fits perfectly with the idea that she was not totally naïve about what was going on. She was the daughter of a tyrant who systematically gave her false information, and to a large extent she appears to have accepted his explanations, but it seems that she perhaps knew more than she had previously admitted. She wasn’t the daughter of the fascist leader for nothing. Once again I think this illustrates the usefulness of fan fiction for exploring sides of a show like SPACE: 1999 that are only hinted at, and only understood by few – like when Martin Willey talked about the “Nazi paradise” speech in THE RULES OF LUTON, but these are issues that require psychological depth and talent to bring forth. In my eyes, Senmut has both. I would recommend that anybody who has not read any of the FOREVER ALPHA stories or his short stories should consider giving them a try. John B. *** 31484 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Trivia sennmut Jan 14, 2016

Balor, you have done it again. Do I have to come over there, and impose my fascist totalitarianism on you, i.e. throttle you? I have asked, and nicely, myriad times, for you NOT to equate in any way, even to being on the same page, any of my stuff, and ANYTHING by Fageolle, Wertham, or the rest of that lunatic bunch. Maya makes the comments she does, re LaCroix, because in a society that seemed, from what we know, to be fairly pacifistic, with little crime, someone who was an unrepentant serial murderer would not be tolerated. LaCroix is such a person, who has not one iota of regret over the countless people that he has killed and consumed for food. Returning him to Earth would be like letting a serial murderer out of prison, to go back to killing. And if they kept him on Alpha, he

would eventually escape, or they would have to confine him in such a way, as he would slowly starve to death, a nasty end for vampire or mortal. While Maya is the most pacifistic of souls on Alpha, as I said, she also can grasp pragmatism. In the long run, it would be more merciful, to LaCroix, to make it fast, that let him die slowly and horribly. It had NOTHING to do with her knowing or not knowing the sort of things Mentor was up to, below stairs. That subtext enough for ya? *** 31485 Re: Trivia kerryirs Jan 14, 2016

Sennmut, good job. Unfortunately, I think, Mr. Balor has a one track mind. *** 31486 Re: Trivia balor1999 Jan 14, 2016

I’m sorry about relating to the theoretical context. I try to avoid this as much as possible when dealing specifically with your writing, but sometimes I forget as I find it difficult to discuss SPACE: 1999 in a meaningful way without a theoretical positioning. Nevertheless, I have nothing but admiration for your fan fiction. As I have just been reading chapter eleven of CROSSFIRE, I can enjoy it even more now that I am more familiar with FOREVER KNIGHT and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. In fact, I was watching the first part of “The Living Legend” last night, and there are lots of issues about heroism and responsibility in that episode that remind me of some of your writing. Nevertheless, I think there are several ways of understanding the sequence in WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT where Tony and Maya are eager for having LaCroix killed as quickly as possible while Koenig is more reflective and thoughtful. Of course, I will not impose anything on the text that you deny being there, but to me there are valuable insights on the conflicting ideological views typical of Y1 and Y2 that are brought to the surface when reading this. It all depends on how we interpret

Crossfire the original series. For instance, I think Martin Willey has an important point when he refers to Maya making a “Nazi Paradise” speech during the conversation with Koenig in RULES OF LUTON. She is talking about an ideal race and society in terms that makes us suspect that there has been some sort of ethnical cleansing going on. By referring to the story as “Nazi Paradise”, the natural association is that of Holocaust. Maya is talking about how wonderful this event was in terms of how it “purified” Psychon. If you had allowed me, I think this would have been a wonderful opportunity for discussing the views of a certain German-American intellectual who had lots of interesting ideas about how we should interpret “Superman” and similar comic books, but I have to restrain myself. However, what makes this passage with Maya, Tony and Koenig interesting today is the way the world of today is facing the problem of religious extremists driving planes into buildings and other types of terrorist activities. My understanding of Maya from the way Freiberger portrayed her, and the way you make these aspects of her personality even clearer, is that she would be among the people shouting at the top of her lungs that not only should we kill these terrorists but we should also kill or eliminate all those who share similar religious beliefs. In contrast to Koenig, who is trying to face the threats and conflicts in a rational manner that is aimed at integration and means of preventing further conflict, Maya and Tony thinking about these issues in exactly the same terms as how the Nazis were talking about the Jews. To me these are examples of how high quality fan fiction can provide deep insights into a television series where such issues were only hinted at. Without making any explicit references to French intellectuals who have written authoritative and definitive accounts on SPACE: 1999, I would say that the beauty of some of your writing is that it provides rich examples that extrapolate what we have seen in the original series in ways that fit with these authoritative interpretations. I am not saying that you necessarily agree with what these French intellectuals are saying, or how they are saying it, but if we think of your contributions to fan fiction in terms of adding to the body of interesting stories, I would say that some of the

283

stories you write are of immense relevance and importance for illustrating points that have been made by academics for decades yet have not been properly understood are assimilated by fandom yet. I don’t know if I am allowed to refer to Prof. Henry Jenkins at MIT, but I will take a chance and say that if he had read and studied your work in a similar way to how he has written about STAR TREK fan fiction, I think he would have been impressed. John B. *** 31487 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Trivia sennmut Jan 15, 2016

Balor....Maya cannot and could not be in any way a Nazi. The Nazis thought of women as little more, in the long run, than broodmares. Engines for producing new soldiers for the Fatherland, just as Mussolini, in one of his screeching diatribes, said that "women are to the mothers of soldiers". As a woman, I doubt Maya would have cared much for a social system that relegated her value and importance to the level of her egg availability. She was speaking of her planet's resources, before the place all went to hell, and the economic system that resulted on Psychon from this. Without knowing more of the Psychon psychology (sorry!), we cannot with certainty divine the economic, social, or legal systems, that obtained, before the cataclysym. From her quickness in adapting to Human ways, I suspect it was not a complete 180 from the way things are/were on earth. Even Mentor suggested that the two had many similarities. In no way was this "fascist' or "Nazi". And please leve those "intellectuals" out! They have nothing to contribute. *** 31488 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Trivia John Marcucci Jan 15, 2016

Well said, Sen..as usual.

284


These allegations are not serious, thoughtful comments anyway, as you so amply demonstrated below. Anyone who tosses out the terms "fascist" or "Nazi" interchangeably is not to be taken seriously, as they are 2 different things. Anyone who uses either term to describe the character of Maya is in need of mental health counseling. Regards, John M. *** 31489 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Trivia John K. Balor Jan 15, 2016

If Maya had been cast according to Gerry Anderson’s wishes, she would have been portrayed by a black actress, and then Liardet or somebody else might have argued that it would be possible to find merit in Y2 in terms of race perspectives. However, this did not happen, so if we want to argue against Fageolle, Wertham and those who see Maya as a “Nazi Queen”, we either have to reason by saying that the intension was to have a black Maya, or we would need to focus on Maya from a feminist perspective in the sense of dealing with male oppression, or we would build on West’s writing about Maya from the viewpoint of a gay icon and argue that she and Y2 had a positive impact in such a context. Although all these aspects of trying to make sense out of Maya and Y2 could be argued to have some merit, in the sense that they can all be seen as niche perspectives within the overall viewpoint of critical theory, I still find that they are overshadowed by the way Wertham’s perspective makes Maya into a symbol of fascism. Of course, we are not talking about historical fascism in the sense of Spain, Italy or Germany in the 1930s, meaning that particular ideas of the period about how women’s place in society may not necessarily be all that relevant, but what we are discussing here is a more abstract notion in line with how Marcuse and other members of the Frankfurt school were fearing the rise of fascism in America and elsewhere. It does not have to be an exact replica of what has been before, but in order for the word to have meaning it has to be some kind of right-wing oppressive and totalitarian regime.

Did we see anything like that in Maya and Y2? I think we did. I think the value of Wertham’s analysis of superhero literature is that it helps us understand why Fageolle and almost everybody think of Y2 as crap. On a surface level one might say that Y2 was crap because it was written for children while Y1 was written for adults, but there is more to it than that. Freiberger did not only change the format of the show, he also changed the ideology, or at least he tried to do so. In the first series SPACE: 1999 was concerned with issues like the environmental concerns, the nuclear armament race, social inequality, social alienation, and a whole range of issues that were high on the agenda by members of the Frankfurt school and others. When Freiberger took over, he wanted none of this stuff. He wanted SPACE: 1999 to be what Adorno had previously described as a tool for indoctrinating society into the values of the ruling class. To me this is particularly clear with the introduction of Maya as means of changing SPACE: 1999 from science fiction to fantasy, and furthermore in the Woodgrove trilogy where each episode can be read through the perspective of Wertham as fascist propaganda. In other words, when Fageolle says (metaphorically) that Y2 should be burned and destroyed, he is disencouraging people from engaging with Y2 in the same way as he would disencourage people from reading neo-Nazi propaganda literature. I think this is an important point, namely that Maya and Y2 is not only unhealthy from the viewpoint of how awful the series became after Freiberger took over, but – more importantly – because it became a type of series that would be unhealthy for children and impressionable people to watch. These are the arguments Wertham uses, and I think that is the right perspective we need when making the initial assessment of Y2. Of course, after this position has been established, we can start to discuss Liardet’s alternative reading of the series in terms of how most of the scripts were actually written by those who had contributed to Y1, and how it is necessary to decode each and every Y2 episode for understanding the moral content. In fact, if we do that, as we did during the ExE,

Crossfire there is indeed much of value in Y2. We only have to get rid of Maya and the Y2 format. If we can try to imagine what Y2 might have looked like if it was done in the style of Y1, then there could indeed be much of merit and much to discuss.

285

organization (does that translate into a single government similar to the Federation with planetary governments as members?) I will say this, the threat of annihilation by a race of robots was a good incentive to behave. It was also a commentary on the McCarthy era at the time.

John B. *** 31490 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Trivia SHANA G Jan 15, 2016

In season 2’s “Mark of Archenon”, what Eagle was on standby to help John and Maya? Shana *** 31491 Re: Trivia kerryirs Jan 16, 2016

John Balor wrote. For instance, I think Martin Willey has an important point when he refers to Maya making a “Nazi Paradise” speech during the conversation with Koenig in RULES OF LUTON. She is talking about an ideal race and society in terms that makes us suspect that there has been some sort of ethnical cleansing going on. By referring to the story as “Nazi Paradise”, the natural association is that of Holocaust. Maya is talking about how wonderful this event was in terms of how it “purified” Psychon.

I think in the forty plus years that I've been a fan of 1999, I've only run into two instances of people intimating that Maya came from a "Nazi Paradise", you and Martin Wiley. I remember his comment on the Catacombs website and his analysis of ROL. I thought the comment was stupid then and I still do. Why can't you realize that Maya was looking back on her planet's past history and not Earth's? Why can't an alien culture, fiction or someday maybe the real thing, may have a totally different history than ours? I remember what Klatu told the boy at Arlington National cemetary when Bobby asked if where he came from if they had cemeteries. Klatu said his people had cemeteries, but not like this one. He told the boy that his people had no wars. Later he explained that the planet's had a single

If so, Psychon is no less different. Maya tells Koenig that her people also had no wars. Does that make Klatu is a Nazi? Maya and her people are no more Nazis than you or Martin are. Unlike us, Maya's people learned that conflict to settle issues was a waste of resources, time, and lives. This doesn't mean that Psychon didn't have its violent past, but it seems to me that would probably have been thousands of years into their distant past. So let's forget this "purified Psychon" crud. What you and Martin are doing is superimposing our history onto Maya's, and in the 1999 universe, it doesn't fit. So, since Vulcan also has one government and one race, are they also Nazis and Vulcan "purified"? You see how ludicrous this can get? Too me, Maya represents what I hope our race will morph into, people who use their intelligence, respect for others, and solve issues without the use of force our race does today. John also wrote in a previous post: We know that Y2 as crap, but the important thing to discuss is why Y2 is crap. I think the position of reading Y2 as fascist propaganda is an excellent opportunity for explaining why we have difficulty with Maya and Y2.

John also wrote: Although LaCroix is a challenge in the WILLELM story, the point is that Koenig is not certain how to deal with him while both Tony and Maya are encouraging that he should be killed the quicker the better. This may be contrary to what we might expect from some episodes, such as THE AB CHRYSALIS and ALL THAT GLISTERS, but to me it seems to be in perfect agreement with how we understand Maya and Tony from THE RULES OF LUTON, THE BETA CLOUD and SPACE WARP. Afterall, we must remember that Maya was Freiberger’s invension, so I think these episodes in particular are important for understand her.

286


Well, John gets wrong again. In THE RULES OF LUTON, Tony isn't involved in the goings on on the planet. Again, he seems to totally disregard the conversation between Koenig and Maya for whatever reason, probably because of his unreasonable hatred of Freiberger, and over a TV series. As I said in another post, Koenig and Maya, unlike in Trek's ARENA and the OUTER LIMITS' FUN AND GAMES, the two Alphans tried to avoid a fight. Only when they had no choice did they confront the three aliens. The first contact is when Koenig was assaulted and wounded. It is then that Maya took action by attacking the alien, not to kill it, but to drive it off. The form she took as a lion did not launch an attack, either; again only to freighten it. It wasn't her fault it couldn't swim. She begged the alien to wait, that they wanted to talk with it. The only time she was forced to take deadly action was when the alien got too close where she and Koenig were hold up. This isn't the action of a hateful, vengeance person, but one who had no choice, it was either Koenig and her life or the alien's. It was something she didn't take pleasure in. Finally, BETA CLOUD and SPACE WARP. Neither of these episodes deal with Maya in a negative way as John would have us believe. In the former, she and Tony are attempting to defend Alpha against an outside antagonist, much as the Alphans did in Y1, Balor for one. In SPACE WARP, Maya is not responsible for her actions. Finally, who is the "we" in We know that Y2 was crap? I know you'll bring up the usual names, but I seem to remember that Keith Wilson enjoyed desiginig the aliens used in Y2 and Barbera Bain referred to Maya as an intriguing character in the Fanderson piece. You don't speak for me or others on this forum. I'll tell you what's crap, your view that Y2 is fascist propaganda. Now that was pulled out of an orifice of the body. I'll let you decide what orifice. *** 31492 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Trivia

sennmut Jan 16, 2016

AMEN!!!!!!!! *** 31493 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Trivia John Marcucci Jan 16, 2016

Yeah, in spades! Its a standard trope in science fiction that alien planets/ civilizations are monolithic.This was true in Star Trek as well as S1999. The idea of an alien planet that was united peacefully into one race/ religion/ government is hardly new. On our own fair planet, we have many nation states that have been insular for centuries, who would also fit that description: Japan is a prime example, also Iceland. This is nothing more than a convenient plot device for unambitious writers. *** 31494 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Trivia sennmut Jan 16, 2015

Who worship the Marxist dialectic. *** 31495 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Trivia balor1999 Jan 16, 2016

As you point out Kerry, when applying “we” in sentences like “we know that Y2 is crap”, I am referring to the usual list of names, mostly the academic or scholarly community, but fans and also the makers of SPACE: 1999, such as Anderson, Austin, Landau, Byrne, Tate, Merton and so on. I am not referring to individuals on this forum or elsewhere who explicitly say that they prefer Y2 to Y1. Nevertheless, if we accept Fageolle’s authoritative reading of SPACE: 1999, I think it is reason to claim that it is not possible to understand SPACE: 1999 without also agreeing to the statement that Y2 was crap. However, as I have pointed out before, I believe that “Y2 is crap” is more like a premise

Crossfire than a conclusion. In order to have a meaningful debate, we have to start by creating an environment that allows meaningful discussion, so we need to agree on some basics. First of all there are some facts. When Shana asks us what Eagle was on standby to help John and Maya in MARK OF ARCHANON, this could be interpreted as a means of helping to build a basis for discussion in the sense of focusing on facts. This is an interesting initiative, particularly if we read the chapters in Tulloch and Jenkins’ “Science fiction audiences” (Routledge, 1995) where they discuss the differences between discourse in SF fandom and academia. Although they register trivia questions and competitions as important in fandom because it provides an opportunity for individuals to show off expert knowledge, they also find it problematic in the sense that it is the kind of knowledge that leads fandom into becoming “powerless elites”. The trivia competitions help develop social structures and develop a community like Online Alpha into a cultural elite in the sense of having more trivial knowledge about a phenomenon like SPACE: 1999 than anywhere, but it also becomes powerless in the sense that such knowledge has very little value beyond the boundaries of the internal community. So, I think we need to reach further. In my opinion, the basis for a discussion of a series like SPACE: 1999 has to start with something deeper than trivia questions. It has to start with a mutual understanding of what the series is essentially about. We have to look at the main metaphors of the series, such as the Moon spinning out of Earth’s orbit due to technological disaster in trying to deal with the side-effects of nuclear power, and we have to look at the political subtext of the series as a whole. What is perhaps the most striking feature in this respect is how the central metaphor is more or less identical to Anthony Giddens’ description of modernity as a juggernaut spinning out of control at high speed and with nobody able to control it (“The Consequences of Modernity”, Wiley, 1990). To me that is the essence of what SPACE: 1999 is about, and although it is an image created in 1974, it is more relevant than ever in 2016. For some scholars, such as Fageolle and Keazor, such readings are at the core of their texts. For others, such as Wood and Drake, the

287

social commentary is on a more anecdotal level, but it is still there. On the fundamental level I would say that all the SPACE: 1999 texts of relevance are in agreement. The challenge is how to bridge the understanding of SPACE: 1999 on a forum like ours with the academic understanding. This is the reason I argue that we have to start with the very central credo of SPACE: 1999, namely that Y1 was a classic and Y2 was crap. In my opinion, this foundation for having a meaningful conversation cannot be avoided. A proper understanding of SPACE: 1999 comes at the cost of seeing why Y2 was crap. In a way it is quite obvious when we read the interviews with Freiberger in Tim Heald’s book because Freiberger’s mission was to redesign the series from being deep and meaningful into becoming shallow and commercially successful. He also talks with Heald about how Y1 was “Shakespeare” and how Y2 was “shit”. Obviously, he didn’t care about the quality of the show. He was interested in ratings, not quality. If people prefer to watch “shit” rather than “Shakespeare”, then he obviously had to produce “shit” rather than “Shakespeare”. As STAR TREK was the most popular SF television series of the period, he wanted to turn SPACE: 1999 into STAR TREK, but he is also careful to mention in conversation with Heald that he had no ambition in making SPACE: 1999 format as means for telling moral tales. He was not interested in quality. He was only interested in ratings. According to Iaccino (2001), this is the reason Y2 became a fiasco and why SPACE: 1999 has been tainted with a bad image ever since. In my opinion, all these aspects of SPACE: 1999 should be easy to understand. The scholars think it is trash. Most of the fan community think it is trash. Everybody involved with Y2 hated it. These are simple facts in the same way as the facts we need to answer Shana’s trivia games. More than that, if we want to interpret the facts within a theoretical context, we already have Fageolle’s fundamental text from 1996 and a continually growing body of scholarly works that continue along the line of what Fageolle has explained. In order to have a meaningful debate, we have to start with a common understanding of SPACE: 1999 that fits with the facts and that

288


everybody can agree with. In my mind, Fageolle’s famous book is the obvious starting point.

John B. ***

However, once we have reached this agreement, then we can start to have interesting discussions on how fan fiction, trivia questions and theoretical perspectives can be used for either making Fageolle’s position stronger or to follow the alternative path suggested by Liardet in terms of finding meaning and merit in Y2 beyond what we have already agreed to. This is where I feel we should be. This is where the discussion gets interesting as I see it. This is where we can use Jenkins’ theories of fan fiction as political activism for understanding Senmut’s fan fiction either in support of Fageolle, in terms of how his stories can be used for gaining deeper understanding of Maya through Wertham’s theories of superhero literature as fascism, or we could look for alternative signs in his text in the style of looking for how his writing might support Maya as symbol of feminist liberation movement, gay liberation movement, civil rights movement, or more direct expressions of the overall perspective of critical theory that Freedman (2000) sees on a deep level as what creates the differences between fantasy and science fiction. In other words, was SPACE: 1999 fascist fantasy series? No. It was science fiction. Only Y2 had elements of fascism and fantasy. SPACE: 1999 was concerned with big issues such as climate change, how to sustain life on Earth, how to deal with issues like war and nuclear armaments rise spinning out of control, whether technology is helping mankind when it is being used by the ruling class as a tool for suppression, and so on and so forth. These were the big issues in SPACE: 1999 and that is why it should be seen as science fiction in the tradition of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and SOLARIS. It was intelligent and reflective. It was a kind of masterpiece that grew out of the social and intellectual climate of the early seventies. It would be almost impossible to make something like this today, as the 2014 remake of COSMOS illustrates. Although we face the same social, ecological and economic problems as we did in 1974, with far more dire consequences as the problems have only escalated during the past 40 years, a series like SPACE: 1999 is only more relevant than ever.

31496 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Trivia sennmut Jan 16, 2016

Okay, that is it! Balor, I am hereby requesting that you CEASE AND DESIST from any further references to my FanFic, since you insist on continuing to ignore my requests NOT to link them in ANY way with Fageolle, Wertham, or any Marxist lens. I have been tolerant, but I am sick of seeing my stuff equated with the fly-blown feces that is Marxist "thought", and the continued references to Fageole's "authoratative" babblings. You endlessly reference the welldeparted Sagan, yet quote him as an authority. Every post seems to be dripping with references to fascism, gay rights, superheroes, capitaliust oppression, or the whiney-assed "class struggle". I really am becoming quite angry about this, and while there is nothing I can do, on a legal level, I am INSISTING, with the entire list as my witnesses, that you either cease, or leave. *** 31497 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Trivia balor1999 Jan 16, 2016

I must have misunderstood, and I am very sorry. I thought the agreement was that I should not make any references to the people and ideas you mention when also making explicit references to your work. In the previous post I was careful not to make any explicit references as I was arguing the point Tulloch and Jenkins make in the three final chapters of their book, namely how fan fiction can be a way of breaking out of the state of fandom as a “powerless elite” into a state of political activism. I had no intent on breaking any agreements. If you feel upset, I apologise deeply. This will not happen again. I am a great admirer of your fan fiction, finding CROSSFIRE so good that I am reading it for the second time to enjoy it in the context of how the FOREVER ALPHA chronicle evolves through the context of the different stories. In the future I will make no specific references

Crossfire neither to particular fan fiction works by you or your oeuvre in general when making theoretical arguments. I’m in favour of good debate and diversity of opinions, but it is also important to maintain a friendly atmosphere and prevent people from being upset. John B. *** 31498 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Trivia SHANA G Jan 16, 2016

289

Shana *** 31499 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Trivia John Marcucci Jan 16, 2016

Eagle 3 of course! But that was easy.. we need questions that one cannot look up in the transcripts on The Catacombs. ***

In season 2’s “Mark of Archenon”, what Eagle was on standby to help John and Maya?

8.6 A site that may make some angry As the trivia discussion created problems in how to discuss the “Crossfire” story in the context of relevant SPACE: 1999 discourse, one of the discussants tries to solve the situation by bringing attentional to a controversial SPACE: 1999 review. This idea proves to be exactly what was needed in order to get the discussion back on track, which in this case means engaging with academic literature on science fiction audiences. 31500 Re: A site that may make some angry kerryirs Jan 16, 2016

Check out the site below and it'll bet it will upset some. I found it interesting. The Sutherland had some possitive things about Y2 AND Maya. http://www.agonybooth.com/tv/Space_1999_S eries_Review.aspx *** 31501 Re: A site that may make some angry blondgod1999 Jan 16, 2016

That was interesting to read. Thanks for the link. Of course, I don't agree with most of it, but it's fun to get a different take on things. *** 31502 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A site that may make some angry John Marcucci Jan 17, 2016

Not all that upsetting. Nothing I've not heard before from the Star Trek fanatics, and this person really does not know the series. *** 31504 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A site that may make some angry balor1999 Jan 17, 2016

Thomas Stockel’s review starts with a vomitprovoking picture from Y2 with Maya, Helena and John. He then says that he assumed that everyone knew about SPACE: 1999 and knew how bad it was. Should this make us angry? As I understood the relationship between the picture and the text to suggest that we all know how bad Maya and Y2 are, I was not angry at all. On the contrary, anybody who hates Maya and Y2 gets my attention. I was happy. Perhaps there might be some interesting insights here. However, as I continued reading, the review turned out to be the exact opposite of what I had expected. Stockel starts out summarising the history of Gerry Anderson in terms of building up expectations for SPACE: 1999 being the high pointin his career, but then pans it by saying

290


more or less the same as what Freiberger had been saying. The series was too similar to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, the stories were too intellectual, the actors were taking their roles too seriously, and so on. In other words, the reviewer admits to being an idiot. He also says that it felt like STAR TREK with every character being like Spock. Given this total lack of understanding SPACE: 1999, it is not surprising that he embraces Y2 by saying that he fell in love with Maya and how fantastic each and every change Freiberger brought to the show was. Yuck. Nevertheless, he describes Maya “as possessing the added bonus of the comic booklike power of shape-shifting,” so at least this fits with the discussion we have been having in relation to Wertham’s writing about comic books and fascism. I also liked the way he described the relationship between Tony and Koenig like that of Major West and Doctor Robinson from LOST IN SPACE. The way Stockel thus differentiates between Y1 as serious SF and Y2 as children’s television is appreciated.

from Jay Goulding for explaining what this means in the context of STAR TREK: Advanced industrial societies produce all sorts of material class related contradictions which have their counterparts at the cultural of ideological level. These societies preach equality of opportunity and produce inequality; they speak in the name of peace and continue to stack up nuclear weapons; they plan strategies to expand space through world development and produce further dependent colonisation; they forward philosophies of freedom and continue to operate through domination; the speak in the name of the free market and act in the name of corporate monopoly and privileged access (Tulloch & Jenkins, 1995, p. 26).

So, what can we learn from this review? As the two responses to the review so far have been that we don’t agree with what is being written or that it sounds like the person is a STAR TREK fanatic, I think we are gradually reaching a consensus on Online Alpha that Y2 was crap and people like Mr. Stockel, who liked Y2, must be a STAR TREK fanatic or somebody who does not understand SPACE: 1999. In other words, even idiotic reviews can be useful when read and discussed in collaboration.

Although Tulloch and Jenkins agree with Goulding that STAR TREK and much of popular culture in general can be interpreted in this way, and in our case S99:Y2 becomes an obvious example, they argue that there are ways of breaking out of such prisons. The first step is to raise critical awareness by seeing how people are totally lost in their inability to understand media content. To me Stockel’s review is an excellent example as he so freely admits to not understanding Y1 while embracing Y2 because he buys Freiberger’s rhetoric of “STAR TREK, third season, part 2” without reflecting on the content. What Stockel obviously need to understand is the fascist nature of Maya and Y2. Whether engaging with Tulloch and Jenkins would help him develop critical awareness is another thing, but at least the case is useful for illustrating the challenge.

I am less certain about the use of the review in the context of how we have been discussing SPACE: 1999 fan fiction and fandom from the perspective of Tulloch and Jenkins. For instance, Stockel makes no reference to issues like race, class, gender or sexuality as a possibility for understanding the political subtext of Y2 through the lens of critical theory. On the contrary, he says that Y1 gave him a headache because of the seriousness of the approach, and thus appreciated how Y2 become more lighthearted and action-oriented. In other words, here we see an example of what Tulloch and Jenkins refer to as the Frankfurt school position on SF, using a quote

The second step, as articulated in the second part of Tulloch and Jenkins’ “Science fiction audiences”, is to engage in fan fiction or other types of fandom activities where the oppressive nature of the SF narrative can be changed into a tool of liberation. As I am now very cautious not to upset people I admire, I will just echo Tulloch and Jenkins in saying that SPACE: 1999 fan fiction could be a wonderful opportunity for reversing the fascist nature of Y2 into something that would fit more appropriately with the liberating nature of Y1. Jenkins, who is one of the world authorities in this field, discusses feminism and gay rights in the final chapters of their book,

Crossfire and race is discussed in other parts of the book, although class and economic discrimination is less focused on. If we look at our context of SPACE: 1999, the series in itself is a wonderful tool for breaking out of the sort of prisons that Thomas Stockel describe. There is no reason to be trapped in a world were we do not understand Y1 by finding it intellectually challenging while embracing the simpler Y2 without realising how it is designed to function as ideological Trojan horse. By engaging in discussions on Online Alpha we can go through the journey described by Tulloch and Jenkins by first admitting to why Y2 is crap and then deconstruct it in a manner where it becomes more ideologically consistent with Y1. John B. *** 31506 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A site that may make some angry John Marcucci Jan 17, 2016

The only thing that provokes vomit on this list Petter/ Balor, is your pathetic, sick comments. Get lost. *** 31507 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: A site that may make some angry sennmut Jan 17, 2016

Translation....the changes to Y2 interupted irrevocably the evolution of Alpha into true communism. Nasty, nasty Maya, and her comic-book fascism!!!!! NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!! *** 31513 Re: A site that may make some angry Kerry Keene Jan 19, 2016

John B. wrote:

291

Given this total lack of understanding SPACE: 1999, it is not surprising that he embraces Y2 by saying that he fell in love with Maya and how fantastic each and every change Freiberger brought to the show was. Yuck. Nevertheless, he describes Maya “as possessing the added bonus of the comic book-like power of shapeshifting,” so at least this fits with the discussion we have been having in relation to Wertham’s writing about comic books and fascism. I also liked the way he described the relationship between Tony and Koenig like that of Major West and Doctor Robinson from LOST IN SPACE. The way Stockel thus differentiates between Y1 as serious SF and Y2 as children’s television is appreciated.

I figured this would get a rise out of you. Because this reviewer doesn't agree with you, he doesn't understand 1999. Yes he does, in his own way he does. After reading the review, I came away with the feeling that the reviewer has certain criteria that he wants in a TV series and I guess in a movie as well. John he's entitled to his opinion and using terms like vomit shows me that you don't think so. It also shows that not "everyone" agrees with you, that there are those who like what you don't like. It's time, in my view, to realize when you use the collective "we", that you are speaking for yourself, not everyone else. Even Nick Tate felt that there was a lack of emotion on Y1. I think he referred to the expressions as "poler faced". So, relaxe and let people have their views without the pejorative you tend to throw at their views. Remember, as I've said before, this forum is to presnt the views of fans. Oh, on the site, Tom presents views on EARTHBOUNF, despite his analysis, he liked and BREAKAWAY which he didn't care for that much. Again, it is his opinion and that's what it's all about. :-) ***

292


8.7 The Maya that wasn’t In one of the comments toward the end of the trivia discussion (section 8.5) the issue of what would have been the political relevance of following the original idea of having a black actress play Maya was discussed. This discussion thread puts more focus on this particular idea. This allows the discussants to get into the core of the overall fan fiction debate, namely how to awaken and transform fans of television SF into political activists. 31503 The Maya that wasn't David MacPherson Jan 16, 2016

It is true that Fred wanted a black actress for Maya. She was moderately well known in the states. Since she has not been mentioned by name lately, it may serve as a trivia question. Would someone like to answer? *** 31505 Re: [OnlineAlpha] The Maya that wasn't John Marcucci Jan 17, 2016

Rosalind Cash ? *** 31508 Re: [OnlineAlpha] The Maya that wasn't balor1999 Jan 18, 2016

According to Clark and Cotter’s interview with Fred Freiberger in STARLOG 40, November 1980, Maya was written as a black character. Freiberger also says that “we went after Teresa Graves for Maya.” Earlier in the interview he talked about himself, Gerry Anderson and Abe Mandell as a unit, but it is uncertain what he means by “we” in this context. In the Fanderson Documentary, Gerry Anderson says that he was very much in favour of Teresa Graves (although he does not mention her name), but says that the New York office wouldn’t have her and pushed for Catherine Schell instead. In the interview Freiberger says that Graves had gone into religion and given up acting, something that seems to be partially confirmed from other sources saying that she was concerned with downplaying violence in the

series “Get Christie Love!” (1974) because of her believes as a Jehovah’s Witness, and if we check imdb her career stretches from 1969 to 1975. In the Fanderson Documentary, however, Gerry Anderson tells a slightly different story. He says that she was rejected by ITC New York because she looked like a “black hooker”. Interestingly, as I watched the pilot episode of “Get Christie Love!” on YouTube last night, in the beginning of the film she is a police woman pretending to be a prostitute. If Mandell’s comments on Graves were said in the context of the film, it may not been as blatantly racist as the impression one gets from watching the Fanderson Documentary. On the other hand, there seems to be no reason why Gerry Anderson should turn a story about not getting an actress because she had given up acting into a story about not getting an actress because of racist attitudes at the ITC New York office, so perhaps the true story is a mix of all of the above. Nevertheless, as I watched the film with Teresa Graves, I think I understand Gerry Anderson’s point about Graves probably being a much better Maya than Schell. As Anderson explains in the interview with Nicholas Cull in the 2005 book “British Science Fiction Television: A Hitchhiker’s Guide”, he had himself experienced racism when growing up as a Jewish child in London, so it makes sense that he was interested in a black Maya that would give the second series of SPACE: 1999 a political subtext of racial oppression. I have always thought of Catherine Schell as a great actress, although I’ve always felt that the Maya character in itself was a mistake, but after having seen “Get Christie Love” I think I see why Anderson looks so frustrated and angry with having to use Schell rather thanGraves. At least from the basis of this 1974 television movie, Teresa Graves has a

Crossfire very different sort of personality, and would have made Maya into a very different character. I’m not saying that Y2 would become any less trashy if they had done it like that, but I think it would have been easier to see Liardet’s point that there might be something worthwhile to Y2 if it were more aligned with the civil rights movement. According to Wikipedia, Teresa Graves was the first Africa-American woman to star in her own hour-long drama television series, so perhaps having her play Maya could have made the second series of SPACE: 1999 more politically relevant. In this context it is sad that GA and FF were not able to get Graves to do the part. John B. *** 31515 Re: [OnlineAlpha] The Maya that wasn't balor1999 Jan 19, 2016

In response to my comments on Stockel’s SPACE: 1999 review, Kerry wrote: I figured this would get a rise out of you. Because this reviewer doesn't agree with you, he doesn't understand 1999. Yes he does, in his own way he does. […] he's entitled to his opinion and using terms like vomit shows me that you don't think so. It also shows that not "everyone" agrees with you, that there are those who like what you don't like. It's time, in my view, to realize when you use the collective "we", that you are speaking for yourself, not everyone else.

Perhaps some of my terms could have been chosen better, but the point I was trying to make is that there are different ways of understanding a series like SPACE: 1999. For instance, we can do as Stockel does and say that SPACE: 1999 was bad because it was not STAR TREK. Of course, he is entitled to have this opinion, but to me it is not an opinion that is particularly helpful for the discussions we are having on this forum. It is an opinion that illustrates the expectations of some of the SF audiences in the early 1970s, and in this sense it sheds some light on why Y1 was not as fully appreciated as one might have otherwise expected, and it also explains why Freiberger tried to turn SPACE: 1999 into “STAR TREK,

293

Season Three, Part II”, as thus destroyed the whole series (Iaccino, 2001). Nevertheless, the kind of understanding that Stockel presents is only useful for explaining why SPACE: 1999 ultimately failed. It does not explain why most of us actually like it. A better way of understanding SPACE: 1999, as I see it, is by looking at it from the perspective of Gerry Anderson and the audience who understood and appreciated what he was doing. Not only is this approach more in line with the principles of hermeneutics, it is also an approach that gives meaning to the discussions we are having on this forum. It is a type of explanation that looks at the historical forces that shaped SPACE: 1999 and the reason why it may be more relevant than ever at the present. For instance, after having been impressed by Teresa Graves in the television movie “Get Christie Love” (1974) that became the pilot for the television series of the same name, and understanding why both Freiberger and Anderson wanted Graves rather than Schell in the role of Maya, I watched Teresa Graves’ previous film VAMPIRA (1974) last night. As we have already spent some time discussing the relevance of ‘vampire capitalism’ for understanding aspects of SPACE: 1999 political subtext, I thought this could be an interesting view. In the film we have Graves playing the vampire wife of David Niven’s Dracula. Due to some mistakes with the blood they used for resurrecting her, she turned out black instead of white. The plot of the comedy then evolved around finding out what had gone wrong and how to make her white again, although in the end they ended up making David Niven black instead. Rather than dealing with ‘vampire capitalism’, as was the norm of most of the UK vampire films of this period, this one was more in the style of the transition period that Iaccino writes about in his FOREVER KNIGHT article, showing how Anne Rice’s INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE (1976) was the turning point that changed the subtext in vampire films from ‘vampire capitalism’ towards issues like homosexuality. Having watched some of these films in order to better understand the relationship between FOREVER KNIGHT and SPACE: 1999, I would perhaps rather have

294


said that the change seems to be more in the direction of having earlier vampire films entirely focused on class towards going more in the direction of race, gender and sexuality. In other words, the genre stays true to the politics of critical theory, but the focus is slightly changed.

to find merit in Y2, but this discussion of how and why Teresa Graves was a better Maya than Catherine Schell does at least seem like a good starting point. John B. ***

In the case of VAMPIRA the theme was definitely more on race and gender than on class, although it contained elements of all relevant aspects; class, gender, race and sexuality, everything described from the viewpoint of critical theory, of course, although not very deeply as the film was essentially a comedy. Neverthless, Teresa Graves was brilliant in the part as Vampira. In the beginning of the film she spoke with an educated British accent, remarkably well too, dressing and behaving as was part of some upper class society living in the 1920s. However, after she went to the cinema and watched the blaxsploitation film THAT MAN BOLT (1973), she changed personality and became more like a part of the contemporary counterculture. Having now seen two films with Teresa Graves, I am beginning to wonder whether I need to adjust my views on Fred Freiberger. In the case of Gerry Anderson, it seems quite obvious to me that using Teresa Graves would make it possible to make Maya into a much more politically relevant character, having her problems with getting accepted on Moonbase Alpha into a mirror of the civil rights movement and discourses on racism at the time, and there are several interviews with Gerry Anderson where he speaks about racism. Although West (2004) writes about Maya as an icon for the gay movement, I think Gerry Anderson would have been even more pleased if she had become an icon for black pride and the civil rights movement. I don’t know whether Freiberger and similar experiences as Anderson in terms of prejudice and racism, but if his intent with Y2 was to make it into a socially relevant series about how to deal with racial oppression, then we need to reconsider his role in the development of the series. On the other hand, if his idea was to make Maya into a black fascist, I am not so sure of whether this would improve matters. I still think we have a long way to go if we want

31516 Re: [OnlineAlpha] The Maya that wasn't sennmut Jan 20, 2016

They didn't pick Graves because she had become very difficult to work with, thanks to her joining the JWs. It had zilch to do with her being Black, or any such nonesense. She had just become a pain to deal with, and soon dropped out of the business, anyway. *** 31524 Re: [OnlineAlpha] The Maya that wasn't balor1999 Jan 20, 2016

Perhaps you are more familiar with the circumstances than I am, but the impression I get from reading the interview with Freiberger in Starlog 40 and listening to Gerry Anderson is that it was indeed an important point that Maya should be black. STARLOG: Was Catherine Schell your original choice for the Maya part? FRED FREIBERGER: No. We went after Teresa Graves to be Maya. We wanted her but we heard that she was deep into religion and had gone into retreat somewhere. . .had left acting. The original Maya was to have been a black girl. We did test a lot of black girls inEngland. We would have loved Teresa Graves, but we couldn't get her. Abe Mandell recommended Catherine Schell; we looked at the Pink Panther film she was in and were quite impressed. The character of Maya was a tough concept to sell to the British writers, but for some reason, easier to sell to the Americans. I knew that science-fiction fans would accept this character if we did it right. In a later issue of STARLOG, Gerry Anderson makes some comments on what Freiberger was

Crossfire saying. For instance, he says that the reason it was difficult to sell the Maya concept to the British writers was because it was a stupid concept. When it comes to the strange comment about why science fiction fans would accept Maya if they did it right, this is perhaps more easily understood in the context of something else Freiberger said in the interview. One of the reasons I was able to come up with Maya was part of my science-fiction background. I worked three years with HannaBarbera on their Saturday morning shows. Working in kid's television sparks your imagination; you can do some wild things. In other words, the reason why Freiberger thought SF fans would accept Maya was because his target audience was the pre-school group that watches Hanna-Barbera’s Saturday morning shows. Of course, nobody else would accept Maya, as Gerry Anderson explained, but Freiberger’s strategy for making SPACE: 1999 into a commercial success was to redesign it so that it would fit along with the Saturday morning cartoons. In fact, in many countries that was exactly the time slot Y2 was given, if they indeed decided to show it at all. While Freiberger added Maya for the purpose of making the series appeal to children rather than adults, and it is quite clear that Anderson thought Maya was a stupid idea, it seems to me that the reason he still went along with it was because it would make it possible to have a show with a black woman in the lead. In other words, he saw the disaster of how the original SPACE: 1999 was being destroyed as an opportunity for remaking it as a political series about racial oppression and emancipitation. This makes sense from what he has said about his own background and the political nature of the original series. However, when it turned out that Teresa Graves was unavailable and ITC New York insisted Catherine Schell rather than another black woman, he realised that Y2 was a total failure. It would not only be a failure in terms of regressing back to children’s television of “Twizzle”, “Supercar” and his early puppet shows after having done some serious work,

295

and this I assume this is the reason he gave Freiberger the role as executive producer, but he now also understood that it would be an artistic failure in the sense that it would not function as the kind of political vehicle he probable expected it to be. It was total failure all the way. Nevertheless, when we look at Y2 in retrospect the important thing to remember is probably what it was intended to be, and not what it became. If we want to support Liardet in his dialogue with Fageolle, I think this is where we have to look. John B. ***

296


8.8 Re: Leadership/authority The following continuation of the leaderhip/authority discussion starts with a discussant making comments about the viewpoint that SPACE: 1999 can be seen as a commentary on ethics in science from the viewpoint of the behaviour of individual scientists. This generates further respons from another discussant who sees the series as more concerned with ethics in science from a sociological perspective. 31517 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority David Welle Jan 20, 2016

On 2016-01-08, jemarcu@... wrote: So much to unpack in your observations Dave, as usual.

John, Thank you; though I hope it the baggage fees were not too high along the way! (Er, bad airline joke?) Mentor can be perhaps viewed as a tragic figure because, in his single minded attempt to save his planet, he lost his sanity. But before he lost his sanity, he had to first abandon morals, ethics, etc. The theme of science divorced from ethics, in the pursuit of ostensibly noble goals (the ends justify the means) does seem to be a recurrent theme in Space 1999. Rowland, Mentor, Magus, Raan, Mateo. Then there were The Exiles and Dorzak, while not scientists , definded "freedom" as free to kill, freedom from outmoded ideas of right and wrong.

I agree. That is a problem with so many charismatics or movements claiming they're trying to help the people they supposedly serve, and are either serving solely themselves or genuinely think they are helping but take simple-minded, poorly-researched, barely debated approaches that on the surface may look like "If we do A[ction], we'll help create B[enefit], but failing to take into account C[ontradition], [D]angers, side [E]ffects, [F]ailures elsewhere, one more [G]ood point, itself creating [H]uge problems from its sideeffects, all creating more [I]ndifference among a few more in regard to the promulgators. Again, one study, whether in science or about society, is, in the bigger picture, just one data point, needing a lot more verification from various viewpoints. One study, whether medical, social, astronomical, or whatever, is far from fact. Modern "mainstream" media do

not clarify that, however, exaggerating and distorting people's understanding of what the study may mean. Some extreme political movements, whether fictional or real, claiming to help some group often do something superficial that actually undermines their longterm future, love to pluck out individual studies that bolster their viewpoint, ignore or ridicule mildly or very contradictory studies, etc. S19 was rife with such unintended consequences playing out. Immortality in a gilded cage named Ultima Thule (ultimate frozen land? -- lots of literal and figurative applications there). Immortality among Balor's people creating stagnation and the rise of at least one monster, Balor, who then supposedly sought to return his culture to the "right" path but through torture and murder, insisting only his viewpoint was correct. Mentor, seeking to return his planet to life, tilting against windmills, killing aliens while lying to his daughter. Mateo sneaking around scientific and team process, thus lowering safeguards, pursuing things unscientifically, and leading to several deaths, including his own. This is where I think Space 1999 was a brave show, showing the dangers of science unhinged. Many "scientists" today squawk and moan like branded calves if you even suggest that they ought to be bound by ethics or civilizational standards in their research. The very idea !

Science is a process, and in effect is a toolbox. In most hands, on teams with good leaders and mostly good people, all helping the untrained learn more and guard against some people doing shoddy work. A more literal toolbox can be used to build good, strong houses over time, imperfect but improving each iteration if the builders are learning from their own and others' past experience. Or they can do shoddy work. In a hurry, taking shortcuts. Deciding to use some inferior boards in what they are building rather than toss them out as scrap, or

Crossfire saw off the bad part and use the good part as a shorter length useful somewhere else. Mentor may have once built beautiful houses out of science. But he became corrupted by obsession on a single goal, and a deep flaw in his own personality, that unchecked, led him to abandoning most of the tools, and repurposing some for purposes of his own. Instead of building another beautiful house, he build a house of horrors, a trap creating living husks, both being ultimately rejected by his own daughter, who was all too willing in the end to put the condemnation notice up and let Koenig tear it down. Any real house needs supervision as it is being built, inspected when it is done, inspected by the initial owners, inspected again by later buyers. For a house can receive additions made by new builders, and they might have added those things poorly, making them bad or perhaps even doing damage to the original structure. Science is a process needing checks and balances. People need a good doctor to interpret medical research, more than paying attention to individual studies reported by some major media having poor understanding of science as a process, and instill either too much trust or too much skepticism of a process they are actually misrepresenting or at very least irresponsibly hyping (initial "results" they like) or irresponsibly ignoring (initial "results" that might contradict their own favored viewpoints). In those ways, media can sometimes parallel a bad scientist sweeping a contradiction under the rug rather than trying to take it into account or at least bring it up. A good, responsible scientist would be willing to bring up something like this: "5.1% of the time we saw this unexpected result, that was beyond our study's scope to investigate. It is in need of further research to see if it is the result of some other process, an un-identified secondary effect in what we are seeing, or is perhaps a more serious flaw in our hypothesis." Or to accept peer review making counter-observations on the study and then the original group or some new group taking that concern into account with a new study, and so on, iteratively -- a process.

297

It is people who use the toolbox, and people are imperfect, flawed, and sometimes corrupted along the way or badly flawed from the start. That is why science is not just the toolbox, but the process around it, of teamwork and inspection and buyers who buy carefully, looking for the better results built by better people, proper reporting, open mind yet healthy skepticism too, and so on. So yes, maybe /Space: 1999/ was a brave show in reminding everyone that as beneficial as science can be, we have to be careful of the charismatics that may be claiming to represent it but have their own goals, or in real life the popular media reporters who may oversimplify something complex too much, to the point of misrepresenting it, and reminding us of what real scientists generally know, embodied in metaphorical statements such as, "for each answer, we found two more questions." Or celebrities who buy into one idea and may oversell it to their fans. Or who people can buy into such oversimplifications too quickly and need to dig deeper into it, filter out over-enthusiastic initial reporting or grandious claims, or find better people to trust. Much of the series overall had many episodes dealing with issues of trust, regardless of who or representing what. Yet it was not a message of distrust everyone and everything. It was more one of trying to find a balance between suspicion/distrust on one hand, and blind faith on the other. Yet with the Alphans, we see a process, and complexity. Sometimes some individuals would be too trusting, sometimes some would be too distrusting. Sometimes it was the same individuals fluctuating in their approaches. Or that the team had a collective balance. Sometimes two steps forward, one back -- and now and then a step forward and two back. Plenty of reasons to distrust aliens, for example. Yet plenty of reasons to allow trust as well. Alan sometimes being a little more more "shoot first, ask questions later" (nearly got Helena shot on Retha, for example) yet at other times willing to extend more trust (e.g. being the only giving Sahala some chance to explain herself after shooting Maya). Tony can be the suspicious side, yet early on we see him trusting Maya in "The Exiles" and willing to trust the epinymous characters too, when John

298


was more suspicious about the exiles. Yet later, they trust Maya that the Dorcons are deadly, even after she turned out to be wrong about Dorzak because he had changed so drastically. Same with Victor as already discussed, that he can be cautious and very scientific at times but goes off the rails at Thule.

assuming the far more complex and far harderto-predict phenomenon of weather cooperates, I think I'll go outside with my telescope (wellcrafted by people who have learned to do it well in a company that wants to put out quality instruments I think), and watch that happen! (Sorry, after how I discussed science, I couldn't resist. :-)

Alphans seem to know to some degree at the start but continue to learn that each case can be different, that complexities and seeming contradictions abound, and to survive have to be willing to work in BOTH theoretical (abstract) and practical (concrete) terms, not over-simplify complexity. They have to learn, or they will make too many poor decisions and altogether perish, abruptly or slowly. Important lessons in many ways, I think. That does not mean we don't look for the simplest answer or solution, especially if time is lacking, but that does not mean we make knee-jerk decisions if time affords at least some chance to gather more data, debate some more, or even solve one part of a problem early on.

* Part of what makes this event interesting is how, in an instant, a star (even a somewhat brighter one like Aldebaran) winks out when blocked by the Moon, because as big as stars are, they (except for the Sun) are so far away that they are mere visual pinpoints here, and the Moon has no atmosphere to bend/blur the light. (Okay, a few slight simplifications in this paragraph, but the practical results are the same for an amateur astronomer in this case and at my location tonight. :-)

Sometimes simple answers are the best, sometimes they misrepresent a more complicated reality, sometimes a situation can be overcomplicated and obscured, and sometimes things can be oversimplified to the point of absurdity. The challenge is sorting all this out -- and keeping one's morals, ethics, and balance while doing so. Keeping good toolboxes around. Knowing how to use them. Listening to others. Keeping an open mind but not letting one's brain (or ethics) fall out. These were things some Alphans excelled at, that some were learning to be/do, that some were not always as wise but would associate more with those who tended to be wise (seek good leaders, appreciate and try to emulate heroism without worshipping such people), and some would lose their way and become unbalanced and let old flaws become chasms that would swallow them and sometimes others. Well, some particular, well-built scientific processes in the area of astronomy have determined that the Moon will cover Aldebaran fairly soon here (a majority of the U.S. happens to have the best view of this time around). That sounds interesting*, and

----David *** 31528 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Leadership/ authority balor1999 Jan 21, 2016

David Welle wrote: Mentor may have once built beautiful houses out of science. But he became corrupted by obsession on a single goal, and a deep flaw in his own personality, that unchecked, led him to abandoning most of the tools, and repurposing some for purposes of his own. Instead of building another beautiful house, he build a house of horrors, a trap creating living husks, both being ultimately rejected by his own daughter, who was all too willing in the end to put the condemnation notice up and let Koenig tear it down.

This is one way of understanding the episode. There are deep insights to be gained by investigating the characters and their relationships, and in my experience fan fiction writers are exceptionally good at doing this in a convincing manner. However, there are also other ways of understanding THE METAMORPH, like trying to read it into the context of when it was written, who wrote it, who it was written for, and how it relates to other episodes of SPACE: 1999. If we take a brief moment to consider such questions, I would say that it has less to do with flaws in

Crossfire

charismatics that may be claiming to represent it but have their own goals, or in real life the popular media reporters who may over-simplify something complex too much, to the point of misrepresenting it, and reminding us of what real scientists generally know, embodied in metaphorical statements such as, "for each answer, we found two more questions." Or celebrities who buy into one idea and may oversell it to their fans. Or who people can buy into such oversimplifications too quickly and need to dig deeper into it, filter out overenthusiastic initial reporting or grandious claims, or find better people to trust.

personality than the larger issue of the role of science in capitalist society. Like Tulloch and Jenkins discuss in chapter two of their book, using other examples, a natural way of reading a character like Mentor is through the lens of instrumental science used as means of oppression in capitalist society versus science used as means of liberation and creation of a more equal and just society. From this perspective, it is not Mentor’s ethics that is the problem but rather the right wing political view that he represents that is the problem. Rather than using the toolbox of science to build a beautiful house in the style of how Barry Morse described Moonbase Alpha as a “socialist outfit” or shared wealth and responsibility, he is instead turning Psychon into a psychic prison of horrors as he ignores social and environmental regulations in his ruthless quest for optimising the conditions for the ruling class. In other words, the message of the episode is very much a reiteration of MISSION OF THE DARIANS but where the emphasis on religious as means of manipulation has been replaced with a focus on the use of science and technology for implementing breakdown of society. In this sense THE METAMORPH is an interesting and important text, and with strong similarities with DEATH’S OTHER DOMINION in the way it looks at science and technology in a similar way as dominant intellectuals of the period, such as Marcuse (1964) and Braverman (1974). One way of reading DEATH’S OTHER DOMINION is to think of Koenig and Moonbase Alpha as representatives of the middle class in the conflict between Rowland’s leadership and Thulean labour, and how social revolution comes from the working class but is ignited by impossible conditions from the middle classes. If we read SPACE: 1999 in the context of Marcuse, I think this is an important point, as he argued that the social revolution in the Western world had to come from the students and intellectuals as the working class of the period was not a revolutionary class. To me it seems reasonable to interpret THE METAMORPH in a similar way. So yes, maybe /Space: 1999/ was a brave show in reminding everyone that as beneficial as science can be, we have to be careful of the

299

Although we have to be careful about how scientific results are presented, whether by charismatic presenters with political agendas or by popular media reporters who may oversimplify something to the extent of misrepresenting it, I do not really see THE METAMORPH as a story about presenting science. Rather than presenting science, it is a story about doing science. Science and technology are two-edged swords. The scientific method can be used for curing medical illness or for creating atom bombs. Social science, and economics in particular, can be used for creating a fair society where people work according to ability and are rewarded according to their needs, or it can be used for creating systems that make the rich richer at the cost of destroying the welfare of everybody else. When we look at THE METAMORPH as a story about leaders like Mentor and his beautiful daughter Maya living in ignorant bliss on the top of the social pyramid while imported labour are used as slave labour in the mines down below, I have very few doubts about what Johnny Byrne was trying to say when he wrote this episode. It was not about “flaws in character” and challenges in how scientific results are being presented. It was about fundamental capital/labour conflicts, the role of science and technology in such conflicts, and how such conflicts will sooner or later result in social, economic and environmental breakdown. John B. ***

300


8.9 New trivia blooper test As was discussed in section 8.5, trivia questions plays an important role in the formation of fan communities, and can also be used as leverage for moving the discussions in the direction of questions that deal more deeply with political and subtextual aspects of the series. The following discussion thread starts with a trivia blooper questions related to “Black Sun” but quickly evolves into a discussion of how the ideological content of Y1 and Y2 support and contradict each other. 31522 New trivia blooper test SHANA G Jan 20, 2016

In the episode “Black Sun” , while Alan is telling John he should be on the survival ship, what blooper does he make? This one is easy… Shana *** 31525 Re: [OnlineAlpha] New trivia blooper test John Marcucci Jan 20, 2016

Well, not for me! *** 31527 RE: [OnlineAlpha] New trivia blooper test SHANA G Jan 21, 2016

Hello all, Here is the answer to the question. While Alan is saying he should be on the survival ship, he states about “Eagle 5 is being fueled and loaded etc.” , However if you catch it, the survival ship is actually Eagle 6. Shana *** 31529 Re: New trivia blooper test kerryirs Jan 21, 2016

John, some interesting points. I don't agree with some of your assumptions and these authors you're so fond of quoting cut no ice with me. If they wanted to do an overall look at 1999, perhaps they should've looked at both

seasons, praising or criticizing where they felt either season needed criticizing or praise. At least that would've been a fairer way to do it. Do they do that? I tend to doubt it. To counter Anderson's comments in the Fanderso piece, I present a part of FF's McCorry interview done in 1999. I've done this before, but it doesn't seem to register with you. What was the status of Space: 1999 at ITC when you were summoned from the U.S. to appraise the series for a second season? Was it on an extended hiatus? Was it slated to be cancelled and given a last-minute reprieve? Or was it already cancelled and then revived? ITC didn't summon me. Gerry Anderson came to Los Angeles, where he interviewed me for the story editor job. He wanted me to come to England for a short period... I believe four weeks... where we would assess the series. It seemed that Lord Grade (at that time Sir Grade) would make a decision during that period as to whether to pick up Space for a second year. I arrived in London with my wife and a lot of luggage. She was reluctant to go to England, but I persuaded her by stating that I had a job I liked... story editor... dealing only with writers, and we'd have loads of leisure time to enjoy London. We were in our fourth week in England (in 1975) when Gerry informed me that Lord Grade decided to cancel the show (after Season One). My wife and I were packing to leave... and I'm a bit hazy about the exact sequence of events. I don't remember whether Gerry suggested it or I did- that I take a shot at reviewing some episodes of Space... state where it fell short and suggest where it could be helped. I did a critique, added the character of Maya. Gerry sent the material to Lord Grade, and the series was given a second chance. At our next meeting, Gerry told me

Crossfire that he would like me to produce the series. I was reluctant to get into that area again because being a producer entailed a lot of hard work in dealing with actors, directors, writers, cameramen, the studio, the networks, cutting one film while preparing another to shoot, etc. etc. etc.. I discussed the situation with my wife, and she reminded me how I expected to have an easy and relaxed life in England, and cautioned me about all the exploding egos I'd have to contend with. I mentioned the good rapport I had with Gerry Anderson, and I felt he seemed to be asking for my help, and I didn't want to turn him down. So, I made the decision to accept his offer. A decision that now, in hindsight after 23 years, I realise was the dumbest one I ever made in my entire life. NOTE25: The last comment here is made in reference to information provided to Mr. Freiberger about the incessant attack upon him in absentia by fans of the show. Is it fair to say that had it not been for your input, suggestions, and addition of Maya, there would not have been a second season? Yes. The last question and answer might come across by some as an ego trip, but based on the status of Space at the time, dead, it is probably true. As Stockel pointed out in his review of Y2, Anderson quit. This is my view as well and Anderson basically did that when he offered FF the job as producer because he didn't want his name on the changes, changes he basically approved of when he helped FF pitch a second season to ITC. This shows me that Anderson wanted a scapegoat in case things didn't work out. So for me, his views are hollow, hypocritical. Ironically, there was talk of a third season. Even Landau admitted that on the Fanderson piece. ***

Note by McClorry as part of his transcript, http://www.kevinmccorrytv.ca/freiberger.html 25

301

31530 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test John Marcucci Jan 22, 2016

Nothing but the truth there, Kerry. Regrettably, its also nothing will change the mind of someone who has already convinced himself that Freiberger was an evil fascist from the beginning. *** 31531 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test sennmut Jan 22, 2016

OR, that all wisdom ultimately flows from the ululations of The Holy Saint Karl of Marx. An eternally self-referencing loop. *** 31532 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test sennmut Jan 22, 2016

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 kerryirs writes: We were in our fourth week in England (in 1975) when Gerry informed me that Lord Grade decided to cancel the show (after Season One). My wife and I were packing to leave... and I'm a bit hazy about the exact sequence of events. I don't remember whether Gerry suggested it or I did- that I take a shot at reviewing some episodes of Space... state where it fell short and suggest where it could be helped.

It took 4 weeks for the next potential story editor to get around to watching some Y1 eps of the show he might end up helming? Something doesn't quite click, here. *** 31533 Re: New trivia blooper test kerryirs Jan 22, 2016

John M., you are so right. *** 31534 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test SHANA G

302


Jan 22, 2016

attention. The following early passage from the interview struck me as quite illuminating:

All: So I guess trivia is a waste of time for my efforts? Shana *** 31535 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test John K. Balor Jan 22, 2016

Kerry, I agree that Kevin McCorry’s interview with FF is an important text, and perhaps you are right in saying that there are elements in this text that we haven’t discussed sufficiently yet or perhaps not taken sufficiently into account when we discuss certain aspects of the relationship between Y1 and Y2. On the other hand, I also agree with Senmut comment that some of the things Freiberger is saying seem somewhat surprising or do not quite seem to click. One thing is to totally ignore what Freiberger is saying to McCorry in this interview, but I think we should also be careful about taking whatever he says as gospel. Please remember Gerry Anderson’s comments in the next edition of Starlog after their 1980 interview with Freiberger was in print. Anderson and the rest of his team have said things about Freiberger at conventions and interviews that contradict or at least give alternative explanations of some of the claims Freiberger have made. I think it is also important to stress that McCorry himself is hardly what you would describe as an objective reporter. He is quite clearly a man on a mission. Some of the questions he asks Freiberger are loaded, and if you look at McCorry’s webpage you will see that most of the graphics are from Y2. So, there should be no doubt that his personal views on Y2 are quite different from those espoused by SPACE: 1999 authorities like Fageolle, Keazor and Liardet. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that he has nothing to offer. I think you are quite right in pointing out that there is much interesting in this interview that could be worth some more

McCorry: As has been stated by your Star Trek colleagues, your contributions in its final season had no effect (negative or positive) on the foregone conclusion of NBC cancelling the show. What do you feel was the reason for its cancellation? Freiberger: The show was cancelled because our ratings were never good in prime-time. Our share of the audience ran between 25 to 28, all three seasons. It was only when the show went into syndication so that the kids could view it at 5 or 6 in the afternoon that it became a smash. Of course, today, a 25 share puts a series in the Top Ten. What Freiberger is saying here is that STAR TREK did not become a success until it was rescheduled for a slot that was more suitable for young children. In other words, his interpretation of the STAR TREK phenomenon was that it was a kiddie phenomenon. Perhaps he was right, I don’t know, but it is a different explanation from other explanations that emphasise the quality of the show and how Prof. Henry Jenkins talks about how he himself got caught up with STAR TREK as a young adult during the reruns in the early seventies. For Freiberger this seems irrelevant. The way Freiberger looks at it, is that STAR TREK was initially niche television that did not become a mass phenomenon until it was embraced by children who probably did not understand nor care about how Roddenberry, Gerrold, Trimble and others have tried to explain what it was about and why it was good. So, regardless of what Freiberger might have felt when he was producing the third season of the series, in retrospect he sees the success of something like this by means of how it can appeal to a very young audience. This explains later comments about the nature of the changes he wanted and why he added Maya. McCorry: Is it fair to say that had it not been for your input, suggestions, and addition of Maya, there would not have been a second season? Freiberger: Yes.

Crossfire

Although Freiberger admits to never having seen LOST IN SPACE, when he wants to make SPACE: 1999 more similar to STAR TREK, he is not talking about how the original series were written and produced in the 1960s, he is talking about the reruns in the early 1970s. Furthermore, as the popularity of STAR TREK among young children in the early 1970s resulted in the production of the STAR TREK: THE ANIMATED SERIES, we can see how Freiberger was trying to recreate SPACE: 1999 in the same was as STAR TREK: TAS recreated STAR TREK: TOS. McCorry: To what extent was your work in children's television, at Hanna-Barbera and on “The Superfriends”, a factor in the creation of Maya? Freiberger: I created a live series for HannaBarbera. In discussing with Joe Barbera about another live series, the subject came up about an American Indian medicine man who could transform into a bird. And where might this idea about an American Indian medicine man who could transform into a bird come from? It obviously came from Carlos Castaneda’s enormously popular book “The Teachings of Don Juan” (1968). So, here we have the very interesting meeting point between kiddie television and drug culture. What Freiberger and Barbera seems to have been discussing was how to take the iconic aspects from Castaneda’s drug culture bestseller and use those as a basis for making children’s television programmes. It might even not have been such a bad idea as one might expect that those watching Saturday morning cartoons were indeed small children and drug addicts. So, there we have it. Freiberger’s vision for SPACE: 1999 was to turn intelligent science fiction into juvenile crap that could only be enjoyed by toddlers and drug addicts. Although it is easy to understand Anderson’s reactions in wanting to have nothing to do with crap like this, thus giving Freiberger the chair as executive producer, but it is also possible to understand Freiberger’s cynical views. We must remember, as he points out himself several times in Tim Heald’s book, that he was hired not to improve the quality of SPACE:

303

1999 but to improve the ratings. In other words, if intelligent people thought S99 had become crap, this was totally irrelevant as long as the new series was able to draw a sufficiently large audience. When Freiberger observed how a moderately ambitious series like STAR TREK did not become a success until it reached a wider audience with the reruns in the early seventies, he saw this as a template for how to increase the ratings for SPACE: 1999. To me, however, when we use the viewpoints of people like McCorry and Stockel for understanding SPACE: 1999, what we understand is the business logic of Freiberger. We get a better understanding of why Freiberger said things like “if I order shit, will you give me Shakespeare”? Y1 was Shakespeare and Y2 was shit. By listening to McCorry and Stockel we understand the reason why Freiberger thought it would be easier to sell shit than Shakespeare, why it would be easier to sell Y2 than Y1, but we do not gain much insight on neither Y1 nor Y2. The only conclusion we can draw from reading McCorry’s interview with Freiberger is that Freiberger expected his audience to consist of small children and drug addicts, and thus he wanted to change SPACE: 1999 in ways that would make it more appealing for this target group. What I think is a much more useful approach for trying to understand Y2 is by following the path suggested by Liardet, and thus forget about target audiences and rather focus on the creative artists behind the series. One interesting thread we have been discussing in this context is the idea of having somebody like Teresa Graves play the lead Maya as that would be a much more powerful and relevant political idea than what STAR TREK did in terms of having Uhura hidden away in the background. Last night I watched THAT MAN BOLT (1973) to get a more complete picture of Teresa Graves as an actress and why both Freiberger and Anderson thought she was perfect for the role of Maya. Unfortunately, in BOLT she only has about 10-15 minutes of screen time as a night club singer in Las Vegas before she gets assassinated while making love with Fred Williamson. It is not a big role, but it

304


is a powerful role, and she is given special billing both during the titles and end titles. Most of all it shows her ability to both sing and act. Perhaps if she had been included, we could have had Maya as a night club singer. The more I think of Teresa Graves as the original Maya, and how disappointed Freiberger and Anderson were with having to substitute her with Catherine Schell, the more I see Liardet’s point about how it might be possible to find merit in Y2 if we look deep enough. To me it seems like S99/Y2 was a lost opportunity for making political statements about racial oppression. If we think of how Angela Davis has spoken about Marcuse as a mentor for the Black Panther party in the sixties, I think that a black Maya would have contributed tremendously as a way of looking at the narratives of individual Y2 episodes from the viewpoint of critical theory. If we want to give Y2 merit, I believe this is the kind of path we have to investigate. John B. *** 31536 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test jemarcu Jan 22, 2016

NO! Keep it going. Its fun, (unlike reading through endless lines of regurgitated left wing delusions.) Rgds, John M. *** 31537 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test sennmut Jan 23, 2016

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 John K. Balor writes: To me it seems like S99/Y2 was a lost opportunity for making political statements about racial oppression. If we think of how Angela Davis has spoken about Marcuse as a mentor for the Black Panther party in the sixties, I think that a black Maya would have contributed tremendously as a way of looking at the narratives of individual Y2 episodes from the viewpoint of critical theory. If we want to

give Y2 merit, I believe this is the kind of path we have to investigate.

No, Y2 was a loost opportunity to acheive a Y3. Bad scheduling, artistic ruptures with Y1, and some less than stellar storyline all served to see to it that it became a "lost opportunity". The rest of that dreck has and had nothing whatsoever to do with any of it. Can you just drop it, Balor? *** 31538 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test balor1999 Jan 23, 2016

If we apply the logic of Henry Jenkins argument from his book “Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide” (New York University Press, 2008), I would say that fan fiction is the Y3 of SPACE: 1999. If Senmut allows me, I would in particular emphasis his FOREVER ALPHA series with such highlights as CROSSFIRE as exceptionally good examples of how SPACE: 1999 continues to live and evolve in a shape that to me is probably more perfect than an ITC-based Y3 would ever be. Jenkins makes the point that internet is an important aspect of this argument because, in our case, the works by Senmut and fellow fan fiction writers are distributed world-wide and are consequently accessible to the same people who watch SPACE: 1999 on TV, VHS, laserdisc, DVD, Blu-ray or by streaming services. Of course, fan fiction is no new phenomenon, but I think Jenkins makes an important point when he links it with free-ofcharge internet distribution and the way fan fiction is reviewed and discussed by peer writers and others that find this kind of literature interesting. The impact is dramatically different. Stories are not distributed by Xerox copies of handwritten manuscripts for a small group of literary oriented fans. They are published independently or in online “journals” such as Ariana’s SPACE 1999 Fan Fiction Archive for world-wide audiences. As I will try to “just drop it” with respect to social theory and SPACE: 1999 scholarship for a moment, to use Senmut’s expression, I hope

Crossfire he will allow me to be a little more specific. I have previously stated that I think works like CROSSFIRE and the FOREVER ALPHA series in general is of such a high standard that it could easily be published alongside the works of Tubb, Ball, Rankine, Muir, Latham and the rest of the commercially available S99 fictional literature. In fact, from what I have read of this literature, I would say that his writing ranks above much of the professionally written SPACE 1999 fiction. Particularly in terms of getting characters right, exploring relationships and filling gaps of unexplained events or paradoxical situations in the original series, I think he is exceptional. Furthermore, I think the way he makes these stories available for free works to his advantage in gaining a potentially wider audience and thus making it even easier to think of the FOREVER ALPHA series as S99/Y3. Of course, I wouldn’t mind if he had decided to make money out of his talent as a writer, and perhaps he is publishing commercial novels and short stories under a different name for all that I know, but the way he presents us with exceptionally high quality S99 literature free of charge and easily available all over the world is remarkably generous. I don’t think I have met anybody who I would describe as an heir to Johnny Byrne and the rest of the original writing team in a similar way as Senmut. To me FOREVER ALPHA is S99/Y3. John B. *** 31539 Re: New trivia blooper test kerryirs Jan 23, 2016

Actually Sennmut, there was talk of doing a third season, NOT so after year one to even do a second season. Lew Grade canceled the show after Y1. Landau has said that there was talk of a third season in the past and even in the Fanderson piece. So Y2 must've not been such "desk", right? As I've said, if Y1 was so great, why did ITC feel it wasn't worth renewing? As the reviewer I posted said, he felt Y1 was a mess, poor

305

acting, lazy writing, etc. Personally, I don't agree with a lot of what the reviewer had to say, but he does make some interesting observations. Many of those observations are the same many fans at time also made. So let's not be so hasty to blame one season or person over the demise of 1999. Again, we can debate this for the next fifty years and nothing will change, people will believe what they want to believe. *** 31540 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test John Marcucci Jan 23, 2016

I can think of a number of shows that had great potential in all the important areas (cast, effects, concept, etc.) but had mediocre to crappy 1st and even 2nd seasons. ST/TNG comes to mind. But, the investors recognized the potential and the production team stuck with it, and there you go. Had Gerry Anderson stayed involved, and Lew Grade backed it, I believe the creative tension bewteen Frieberger, Anderson, and the writers and actors could have resulted in an outstanding 3rd season, where the strengths of s2 and s1 would both come to the fore. Ah well, who was it that said the saddest phrase in the English language is "what might have been." ? I'm just grateful for the quality fanfic that we do have. Rgds, John M. *** 31541 Re: New trivia blooper test balor1999 Jan 24, 2016

Kerry wrote: As I've said, if Y1 was so great, why did ITC feel it wasn't worth renewing? As the reviewer I posted said, he felt Y1 was a mess, poor acting, lazy writing, etc. Personally, I don't agree with a lot of what the reviewer had to say, but he does make some interesting observations. Many of those observations are the same many fans at time also made.

306


My impression is that Lew Grade thought it was better business strategy to innovate than to exploit old ideas, even in cases of series that had done reasonably well. After UFO had been moderately successful and they were considering doing a second series, Grade was concerned about a sudden drop in the Nielsen ratings, so he asked Gerry Anderson to go ahead with something different instead. Thus was the birth of SPACE: 1999. According to what Nick Tate and others say in Wood’s “Destination: Moonbase Alpha” (2010), there was no talk about a second series during the completion of the first one. The main concern for Anderson and ITC at that time was to sell it internationally, particularly to the major US networks. Unfortunately, ITC failed to reach an agreement with the major networks, so this was a disadvantage in terms of how to reach as many viewers as possible, although SPACE: 1999 got widely distributed nevertheless and became a moderate success. Given the fact that the making SPACE: 1999 had been a stressful experience, including Lee Katzin, Edward di Lorenzo and Chris Penfold being asked to leave and the marriage of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson breaking up, not to mention the problem with getting the product sold in the way they had hoped for, my impression is that there were indeed no immediate plans for any more seasons of SPACE: 1999. I don’t know when Johnny Byrne was asked to write his “Critical Commentary on SPACE: 1999 (first series)” (Heald, 1976, p. 95), but I assume it was after the failure of THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. The pilot episode “Into Infinity” of THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW was shot at Pinewood in June 1975 and aired in December 1975. It was intended as the first of seven episodes, and if the pilot episode had resulted in the making of the complete series, perhaps Anderson had been too busy with this to be interested in additional series of SPACE: 1999. Although “Into Infinity” is not one of my personal favourites, I think it had a much greater potential than Freiberger’s revamp of SPACE: 1999. Just like S99/Y2, it was aimed at a younger audience by modelling LOST IN SPACE, and they went for a more actionoriented musical score by using Derek

Wadsworth rather than Barry Gray. Where S99/Y2 went from science fiction to fantasy, THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW went from science fiction towards dramatised science. Unfortunately, THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW did not sell, so Gerry Anderson was misguided into getting in touch with Fred Freiberger sometime between August 1975 and September 1975 for the purpose of convincing Lew Grade to invest money in S99/Y2, and, as we all know, the result was catastrophic. Freiberger’s analysis of science fiction was that STAR TREK did not become a phenomenal success before the time of STAR TREK: THE ANIMATED SERIES, so he wanted to use his experience from HannaBarbera for creating a similar SPACE: 1999 – THE ANIMATED SERIES. I don’t know what fans of STAR TREK: TAS say about STAR TREK: TOS, but my impression is that a large majority of the STAR TREK: TOS fans do not even consider STAR TREK: TAS as part of overall STAR TREK canon. So, when we look at Stockel’s review of SPACE: 1999 I see this as similar to a STAR TREK: TAS fan attacking STAR TREK: TOS for being a mess, poor acting, lazy writing etc. I don’t understand why Kerry wants to consider somebody like that as an authority on SPACE: 1999. Just look at how motivates his review: When I put together my first Space: 1999 recap, I guess I was taking a lot for granted. I was assuming everyone was familiar with Space: 1999, and knew how bad of a show it was. By the way, this “first SPACE: 1999 recap,” that he refers to, is a 15 minute summary of EARTHBOUND with a commentary track trashing SPACE: 1999 in every way he can think of. I have no idea why he made this recap, but perhaps he is reliving the 1970s when STAR TREK fans took pleasure in trashing SPACE: 1999. So, perhaps STAR TREK fans may find this funny or interesting. In the context of our discussion on this forum, however, I feel he adds very little as he admittingly neither understood nor cared for SPACE: 1999. John B.

Crossfire

*** 31543 Re: New trivia blooper test balor1999 Jan 25, 2016

I think a lot more could be said about why we should listen to those who understand and care about SPACE: 1999 rather than those who do not understand it and trash it, and I think Tulloch and Jenkins has much of interest to say on this. However, as I have just completed the final chapter in my second reading of Senmut’s CROSSFIRE, I will for a brief moment ignore all references to social theory and scholarly SPACE: 1999 literature in the hope that Senmut will allow me to use a small extract of his story. The passage I have in mind is the first paragraph of chapter nineteen, which goes like this: The Alphans were naturally unhappy at the Terran's refusal, but knew that they not in any position to try and force the issue. Before the Moon moved at last out of range, they exchanged data files, star charts, and medical information. The Melnorian's charts showed several sun-like systems in the general region ahead, although their cartographers knew no more than that. Then, all farewells said, Moonbase Alpha was once more alone, sailing silently into the night. If we look at this paragraph in the context of Stanley Fish’s “How to write a sentence” (Harper, 2011), I would say that this is exactly the kind of quality he is trying to get his readers to emulate. It is not the only time I have noticed the poetic quality of Senmut’s writing, but I see it is a good example, and I found it particularly powerful in the way it sets the mode for the final chapter. Of course, if people want to read and watch Thomas Stockel talking about how he felt SPACE: 1999 was a mess, poor acting, lazy writing, etc., that is fine. It is often possible to learn something from listening to and arguing with people we disagree with, or at least get some ideas on how to counter-argue, but if we really want to think about what S99/Y3 might have been like, if Gerry Anderson and ITC had miraculously managed to settle on a format that was both high quality and appealing to a

307

wide audience, I think we need to look no further than the FOREVER ALPHA series. To me, CROSSFIRE and the series as a whole illustrates two aspects of high quality fan fiction. Firstly, as the quoted paragraph illustrates, it is extremely well written. Secondly, it is written by somebody who understands the psychology of the characters and their relationships, and makes use of that understanding for exploring what the adventures beyond THE TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA and THE DORCONS might have been like. Rather than redefining characters and relationships for the purpose of articulating his own ideological viewpoints, like we have seen in some of the commercially available SPACE: 1999 fiction, when I read CROSSFIRE and the rest, each time Koenig or Dr. Russell enter the scene, I can hear the voices of Landau and Bain. Of course, there may be some ideological viewpoints expressed in the text, at least in the context of how I read these stories, but they never intrude on the nature of the characters and their relationships. Reading these novels always feels like watching the television series as it was. Before we started discussing CROSSFIRE and the FOREVER ALPHA series as a whole, I was somewhat sceptical of fan fiction. My impression was that fan fiction was the kind of fiction that did not live up to the standards of what gets published. Now my viewpoint has changed completely. Now I see the best of high quality fan fiction as not only better than much of the commercially available fiction, but I also think that some the best works of fan fiction helps us understand a series like SPACE: 1999 in new and important ways. Although people like Thomas Stockel are important in terms of helping people in general to remember that there once was a show called SPACE: 1999, and that a lot of STAR TREK fans hated it, but if we think of the future of SPACE: 1999 from the viewpoint of Online Alpha and others who understood and appreciated it, I think the value of someone like Senmut is dramatically more important. John B. ***

308


31544 Re: New trivia blooper test kerryirs Jan 25, 2016

John B., DAY AFTER TOMORROW was done for NBC as an after school special and I assume it was to look at black holes and space travel in general. Unfortunately, it suffered a lot of the same problems as 1999 did at the time, 1975. One were the characters, bland. So in a sense, this special was Y1 in on that score. On another, the science was a bit questionable, but one can say that about all SF. That's why they call it fiction. The production values were quite good, using redressed nodels from 1999. The making of Y1 did take a lot out of those who worked on it; what was it, nearly fifteen months? Byrne and Penfold have said as much. I think this is another reason Grade put the

clamps on Anderson and Y2 in terms of time and money. Again, cause and effect. That doesn't alter the fact that Y2 also didn't have other issues. Some would say FF, but that is too simplistic in my view. There were other behind the scenes going on as well. I agree with you in that ITC was making purely a business decisions, for example, Grade's desire to get back into movies. By the way, ITC and Jack Wrather did a 1981 LONE RANGER movie. It can be found on YouTube. Oh, if DAY AFTER TOMORROW had been made into a TV series, I'm sure the premise would've been compare to LOST IN SPACE. ***

Out of the Frying Pan

309

9. OUT OF THE FRYING PAN The chapter consist of eight sections. The first section deals directly with the fan fiction text of the final story in the FOREVER ALPHA series. The second section deals with SPACE: 1999 as utopia. This leads to section where ideas from “Out of the Frying Pan” are discussed in the context of where chapter 8.9 left off. The remaining sections 9.3 to 9.8 follow a stream of discussions as various threads emerged in the context of the overall discussion of the novel.

9.1 Commentary and analysis The discussion of the fan fiction novel is introduced with a couple of commentary and analysis posts that try to link the beginning of the story with the rest of the FOREVER ALPHA series and the fan fiction genre as a whole. This does not create immediate debate, but the ideas are important in the sense that they become more prominent as the discussion continues. 31545 Out of the Frying Pan (Senmut, 2012) balor1999 Jan 26, 2016

I will take a chance. I will write a few words about Senmut’s OUT OF THE FRYING PAN. I will say nothing about social theory and scholarly SPACE: 1999 literature, just comment on the story itself, and I would like to hear what others have to say about it. So far I have only read the prologue, and I am quite curious to learn more. There are two things that I am particularly interested in. The first concern is the fact that this is, at least so far, Senmut’s final entry in the FOREVER ALPHA series. I know there are others who have tried to contribute to the continuation of the FOREVER ALPHA series, but in the context of the discussions we have been conducting since the end of the last ExE, the focus has been on Senmut’s writings, and in this sense OUT OF THE FRYING PAN could be seen as the final entry. Does it end with some kind of conclusion? As it was published exactly eight years after the revised version of CROSSFIRE, does it read like an epilogue for the FOREVER ALPHA series? Or is it open-ended in the same way as previous entries, just begging for more fan fiction to follow in the steps? Is Senmut planning on writing more? Or has he already written a next entry that is just ready to be published? I don’t know how much time and effort Senmut puts into these stories, and I know he has also written much fan fiction that does not relate to SPACE: 1999, but FOREVER ALPHA was published in 1999, then came GREETINGS FROM CYLON in 2000, and

ET WILLELM AD PEVENSAE VENIT in 2001, SCHANKE RESURGENS in 2002, and CROSSFIRE in 2003. Since the beginning there was a stable output of one story each year, and then suddenly nothing. In fact, people had to wait nine years before OUT OF THE FRYING PAN was published, or eight years if we measure against the republished version of CROSSFIRE from June 2004. This is the context of my second concern, namely how has this delay made an impact on the writing. Has the writing matured in the sense that OUT OF THE FRYING PAN is of even higher quality than some of the masterworks of the earlier period, or has the writing deteriorated as he got tired of writing about SPACE: 1999 and wrote this final entry as a semi-engaged attempt to return to something that had earlier been close to his heart? Well, so far I have only read the prologue to OUT OF THE FRYING PAN, so it is a bit early to make judgements on the work as a whole, but to me there is no sense of fatigue in the prologue. As I read it, this is Senmut at his usual best. I am almost tempted to say that it is even better than usual, writing about a quiet evening at Command Centre with relaxed dialogue and interesting discussions about reprogramming Brian the Brain to do recognition flights on the Swift. I think all of this is beautifully written. Each and every person is precisely in character with how we know them from the screen, and it actually feels like a beginning of a television episode. It is almost as if we can hear the title music when the prologue ends with suspense in terms of a distress call from Battlestar Pegasus.

310


One thing that has often been brought up in the discussions about the difference between Y1 and Y2 is the acting style. Some of us see the style of Y1 as based in serious drama with realistic and often penetrating characterisation of complex characters while the Y2 redesign consisted of replaced that with shallow characters acting in sitcom-style or as if they were part of a cartoon. Others, such as Kerry, often articulate a reverse view, saying that Y2 characters were fascinatingly alive while Y1 characters felt bland. I’m not sure I remember how Senmut has positioned himself in this debate, but when I read the OUT OF THE FRYING PAN prologue and think about the other stories I have read, I get this feeling of the characters being like a mix between Y1 and Y2 characterisation. As much of Senmut’s writing is actionoriented, and involves a lot of Y2 characters, many of the images that develop in my mind are Y2-like. On the other hand, we must remember that the first novel, FOREVER ALPHA, was written very much like BREAKAWAY told from a FOREVER KNIGHT perspective. In all the novels there is a very interesting mix between Y1 and Y2. Unlike Gerry Anderson’s THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, which felt like Year One-anda-Half to me, the FOREVER ALPHA series of fan fiction novels is something I would rather prefer to describe as Y3. It is a bit like MESSAGE FROM MOONBASE ALPHA, I would say. I think that epilogue was Johnny Byrne’s attempt to bridge the two seasons together and wrap up the series by having Sandra in Y2 costume talking about Victor and Maya, and then commenting on how the Meta signal from the Y1 pilot was a message from a future Terra Alpha long after the encounter with Y2’s Dorcons. This is what I like about the FOREVER ALPHA series, and this is what I hope to see more of in OUT OF THE FRYING PAN, namely a way of bridging Y1 and Y2 in a way that makes both intellectual and emotional sense. I look very much forward to continuing my reading journey through this final entry in the FOREVER ALPHA series. So far it looks very promising, and it even has a very interesting title. OUT OF THE FRYING PAN and into the…?

John B. *** 31546 Re: Out of the Frying Pan (Senmut, 2012) balor1999 Jan 27, 2016

To fully comprehend the value of a work like OUT OF THE FRYING PAN, I find it useful also to listen to what others have said. So far I have only been able to find one review. It was written 15 January 2014 by somebody called John. Although I doubt it, I don’t know whether it might be any of the Johns on this forum. It is certainly not me. John gives the story a rating of four out of five stars and makes the following comment: Excellent addition to the series, and lots of good teasers for the next entry. Its what we've all come to take for granted. Having completed the first chapter of the novel, to me it feels more like five stars than four, but I certainly agree with the comment. Of the comments I have found about Senmut’s fan fiction works on this forum and elsewhere, I have noticed that they are uniformly enthusiastic. In a similar way to this reviewer, I also believe that we all, at some stage – after perhaps having read a couple of his stories, started taking for granted that any work by Senmut would be a work of high integrity and quality. In my case, I’m not sure if it was CROSSFIRE or FOREVER ALPHA that did it. Although CROSSFIRE seems to be considered the masterpiece among the reviewers, and the was the first novel in the series that I read, I still think it was FOREVER ALPHA that made me realise that Senmut was extraordinary. From then on, as I read the stories in chronological order, each story was as good as the previous one, if it was not better. For those who have followed this reading path, I believe the reviewer may be hitting bull’s eye when he says that Senmut is hitting the level of excellence with OUT OF THE FRYING PAN that we have all come to take for granted. To illustrate my point, and I hope Senmut allows me to quote from his story, there are several passages in the first chapter that are

Out of the Frying Pan quite extraordinary well written and insightful. Here is an example of what goes on in Athena’s mind as she reflects on Brian, the Swift and the history of space: She had read the early history of Earth's space exploration, from Sputnik through the Apollo program (she wondered how her brother, Strike Captain Apollo, would feel about that). Skylab, ("stupid, stupid to let it die!") Mir, and all the other footholds Man had established in space. But it all seemed so...haphazard at times. Americans, Europeans, the Japanese, the Soviets, Red China ("What makes a nation red?") all vying to outdo each other, and all hiding behind one sort of political agenda or another. […] All these missions had their origins in different agencies, or under the auspices of a variety of nations, most in competition with each other. Only the Mars Terraforming Project seemed to encounter some measure of success. It was a wonder that any kind of serious space exploration had continued! Although Jenkins has argued that fan fiction is a powerful tool for making political statements, more or less rendering fan fiction into important literature for this reason alone, I will not comment on the political views that may be hiding beneath the paragraph above, only point out the complex and intelligent patterns of reflections we often see in the FOREVER ALPHA series. This is far from the “if it moves, shoot it” logic that unfortunately tends to dominate much SF. As we see here, as we have seen lots of times before, stories like OUT OF THE FRYING PAN is something different. It is built on the same kind of foundations as SPACE: 1999 in the sense that it mixes action, romance and drama with often deep and reflective thought. But the Swift mission, of which Brian the Brain was the sole "survivor", had been the most mysterious. Not sponsored by any nation or space agency thereof, it had been unknown even to Koenig and Alpha's senior staff, and referenced in but a single computer file. Why? she wondered. Why would a space mission obviously costing an immense amount of money, and requiring the investment of enormous planning and talent, be largely unknown to most people on the planet that had launched it? She had dug deeper, and found

311

that the Swift mission had been entirely a private affair, funded by a group of shadowy, as well as extremely wealthy individuals and corporations, that felt that it was not only well past time to make serious moves out into the galaxy, but that Earth no longer had a place for them. They wanted a new world, where they could start afresh, and build the sort of utopian, "spiritual" civilization that they felt Earth no longer could. After almost six years of clandestine work, and vast sums of money artfully hidden, the ships, their technology culled (legally and otherwise) from various sources, they were ready. The crews, an equal number of men and women drawn from the cream of the scientific and academic worlds, had been chosen not just for their brains, but also for their genes. This was to be a mission of colonization, and in a spirit smacking no little bit of eugenics, they wanted "only the best". One may have different opinions on private space programmes and what the implications of the passage above means, but to me it illustrates the reflective quality of the writing. It is when I read this, and the nature of the prologue and the first chapter as a whole, that I felt like this was a five star novel. However, the best example of the high level of quality of Senmut’s fan fiction, as I see it, is illustrated in this exchange of dialogue from the beginning of the chapter. Athena is explaining the story of how Galactica discovered Kobol. "And it was dead?" asked Victor. "Completely," answered Athena. "The sun was extremely dim, flaring up only now and then, and all the oceans and rivers were dried up. We scanned, but never found so much as a weed. Utterly lifeless." "What caused it?" asked Maya, thinking of the slow death of her own world, Psychon. "No one knows for sure. Some think it was environmental pollution, some said it was over-exploitation of resources. Some scientists thought that perhaps the Void itself had affected both the planet and the sun in some way. But we never did find out for sure. All we know is that when the settlers arrived in the

312


Colonies, they destroyed all their ships and technology, as a sort of penance to God for misusing it." Although it would be tempting to make references to social theory and scholarly SPACE: 1999 literature when reading this, I will refrain from this but rather echo the words of the reviewer who found OUT OF THE FRYING PAN as excellence from beginning to

end. I know nothing about the end yet, but from the viewpoint of just having started, this looks indeed like another example of excellence, just like what we all seem to take for granted. John B. ***

9.2 Utopia One of the central themes in the beginning of “Out of the Frying Pan” is how Brian the Brain is reprogrammed to become a functional member of Moonbase Alpha. In his response to the initial commentary and analysis, the author of the FOREVER ALPHA series shares an article from Wired about a neurologist who hacked his own brain. 31547 sennmut Jan 28, 2016

Reminds one of Kano, and how his brain had implants, to link up to a computer. http://www.wired.com/2016/01/phil-kennedymind-control-computer/ *** 31548 Re: [OnlineAlpha] (unknown) John Marcucci Jan 28, 2016

Yes it does. Interesting though. Another example of how the writers projection of how far technology would progress in 25 years. Their estimates were optimistic, to say the least. Was this is a conceit of Gerry Anderson, i wonder. In UFO, he projected that race hatred would be a dim memory by 1980. *** 31549 Re: [OnlineAlpha] (unknown) sennmut Jan 28, 2016

Ah, utopia-think! *** 31550 Re: [OnlineAlpha] (unknown) balor1999 Jan 28, 2016

Having just read chapter two of a particularly fine work of fan fiction, the idea of science fiction and social utopias was not the first think on my mind, but I agree that it is a relevant and important topic to mention. If we look at the history of science fiction and SF scholarship in general, the concept of a socialist utopia has always been a central theme. When discussing different ways of defining what should be meant by SF, Freedman (2000) considers Thomas Moore’s UTOPIA as one possible source for defining the genre. If I remember correctly, I also think Adorno’s famous book PRISMS (1967) contained a chapter on Huxley’s BRAVE NEW WORLD from an utopian perspective, although the original article was published much earlier, and when we look at the scholarly work of distinguished SF researchers such as Darko Suvin, Fredric Jameson and Jan Arendt Fuhse, the idea of how SF in the context of the socialist utopia is a the very core of their reading of the genre. When it comes to our own intellectual lighthouses, such as Fageolle, Keazor and Liardet, this idea also fits well, especially in the case of Fageolle and Drake, although I think Keazor would be quick to add that SPACE: 1999 contains equal amounts dystopia. Each time they think they have arrived at some kind of paradise, like with MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, GUARDIAN OF PIRI, ATAP or DEATH’S OTHER DOMINION, it turns out that they had been lead astray by false premises.

Out of the Frying Pan GUARDIAN OF PIRI, in particular, strikes me as a typical dystopian story, very similar to BRAVE NEW WORLD, in the sense of how it portrays consumer capitalism as a creator of false consciousness, deskilling and making the inhabitant of Piri expendable. To me this seems to be more or less exactly the same narrative that we find in BRAVE NEW WORLD, although Harry Braverman’s important and enormously influential book, “Labour and Monopoly Capitalism: The Degradation of Work in the 20th Century” (Monthy Review Press, 1974) was probably what made David Weir write the episode. The “labour process debate” was a direct output of the book, and still remains one of the central themes within the SPACE: 1999 discourse and other academic discourses of today. In the context of fan fiction, however, my impression is that SPACE: 1999 and the socialist utopia is more like an opportunity that needs to be more deeply explored than something that has been properly dealt with. At least that is my impression based on my somewhat eclectic reading of SPACE: 1999 fan fiction literature. Perhaps Jenkins would say that the situation is better with respect of STAR TREK fan fiction. STAR TREK was obviously a more clearly utopian series, with its bright vision of how technology and modernity would create a fundament for economic justice and social equality, but, as Tulloch and Jenkins point out in one of the earlier chapter of their book, if one looks more deeply into the STAR TREK narrative it is also possible to see it as a kind of BRAVE NEW WORLD dystopia in the sense that the series simply mirrored the political streams of the period, first being supportive of military interventions in Vietnam and then conveniently changing ideological aspects of the narratives as public opinion changed during the end of the nineteen sixties. For Jenkins this is not so important because he is interested in how fans and followers make use of commercial narrative like STAR TREK for the purpose of political activism in support of issues like economic justice and social equality – regardless of what Roddenberry and the Desliu executives had in mind when the series was made. For Jenkins it is not the series itself that is important but how it is being interpreted by political activists in their pursuit

313

of what ultimately might be called as socialist utopia. A just society. It is when we think of it from this perspective that I believe we are much more fortunate as discussants of SPACE: 1999, which has a much more clearly and uniformly articulated political subtext. As Barry Morse said, Moonbase Alpha was essentially a socialist outfit (Wood, 2010, p. 82). Perhaps this is the reason a person like Thomas Stockel writes blogs and makes videos about how much he hates SPACE: 1999. Perhaps he is a right wing fanatic who understands SPACE: 1999 better than he is willing to admit and consequently feels an incessant need to tell the whole world how much he hates it. For those of us who both understand and enjoy SPACE: 1999, the situation is much better. For us SPACE: 1999 is not only a fond memory of the late nineteen sixties and early seventies when people started thinking for themselves, developing critical awareness and taking part in political actions, rather than blindly following leaders with dubious motives. SPACE: 1999 also contains a message for the present and the future. Although there is a continual growth of scholar SPACE: 1999 literature that deals with the series from this perspective, I hope that this deeper understanding of the series will gradually influence the grassroots, in terms of the fans, as SPACE: 1999 has remained an important cultural and political text several decades after it was made. John B. *** 31554 Re: [OnlineAlpha] (unknown) sennmut Jan 29, 2016

Intellectual lighthouses? Fageolle, et al, are intellectual lighthouses, in much the same way as a cell pit is a compost pile. *** 31555Re: [OnlineAlpha] (unknown) John Marcucci Jan 29, 2016

314


Well said, Sen. 99.9 % of Space 1999 fans have never even heard of the so-called experts that Petter quoates ad nauseum, much less read any of them. Its his delusion. Sad, really.

sennmut Jan 29, 2016

Actually, I meant to type "cess pit". Never type while otherwise occupied.

***

***

31556 Re: [OnlineAlpha] (unknown)

9.3 Re: New trivia blooper test The way “Out of the Frying Pan” integrates Y1 and Y2 was a central theme in the introductory commentary and analysis. This section starts off as a continuation of how the Y1/Y2 issue was discussed in the context of “Crossfire”, and tries to be more specific in how to understand the parameters of quality and popularity in the context of both SPACE: 1999 and fan fiction. 31552 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test Erich Wise Jan 28, 2016

31553 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test John Marcucci Jan 28, 2016

On January 23, 2016, Kerry Keene wrote:

Yes, its money. Of course. And thank God for that, because the alternative to commercially funded TV is that the taxpayers are forced to finance dreck like Frontline & Cosmos, and that's not good.

Actually Sennmut, there was talk of doing a third season, NOT so after year one to even do a second season. Lew Grade canceled the show after Y1. Landau has said that there was talk of a third season in the past and even in the Fanderson piece. So Y2 must've not been such "desk", right? As I've said, if Y1 was so great, why did ITC feel it wasn't worth renewing? As the reviewer I posted said, he felt Y1 was a mess, poor acting, lazy writing, etc. Personally, I don't agree with a lot of what the reviewer had to say, but he does make some interesting observations. Many of those observations are the same many fans at time also made. So let's not be so hasty to blame one season or person over the demise of 1999. Again, we can debate this for the next fifty years and nothing will change, people will believe what they want to believe.

Here we go again. You're equating popularity (ratings) with quality. There is no connection. A high-quality program can get high ratings or low. A low-quality program can get high ratings or low. Programs are generally cancelled because of low ratings or lower ratings than expected or desired. Quality has nothing to do with it. It's money. ***

But, I would amend by saying its not ONLY money. Execs have been known to turn down lucrative projects because they were politically incorrect. "The Passion of the Christ" was enormously profitable, but Mel Gibson could find not a single investor in Hollywood. He had to self finance. Self financing, private equity groups: thats how you get maverick shows on TV these days. More freedom equals more money. Cable TV is exempt from FCC rules, and they have produced some great shows. Regards, John M. *** 31557 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test balor1999 Jan 29, 2016

I completely agree, quality and ratings are two different things. In Tim Heald’s “The Making of SPACE: 1999” (1976, pp. 105-111) , Freiberger is very clear about communicating to potential script writers what he needs for the series. He does not want “Shakespeare” in the

Out of the Frying Pan sense of scripts that a peer community of script writers would find excellent and of utmost quality. He wants “shit”, he says. Why does he say that? His intention is obviously to communicate that he is focusing on the business logic. He wants the show to attract a big audience, and it is difficult to do that by making something that is requires that the viewers has a certain level of taste and intelligence. Freiberger wanted to redesign SPACE: 1999 to make it fit with the expectations of those watching STAR TREK reruns. In the McCorry interview he explained this interestingly by saying that he was not interested in the people who watched STAR TREK in the late 1960s. That was a too limited audience. He was interested in the people who were watching STAR TREK in 1973, by the time it had grown a mass audience and was being remade as an animated series. If we think of Freiberger as a producer of pornography, I think the difference between quality and popularity becomes even better. A producer of pornography would not be interested in winning Oscars and Emmys. He is only interested in selling films, and this is Freiberger’s perspective. He was not interested in improving the quality of SPACE: 1999. He was interested in turning it into “porn” or whatever format that would make it easier to sell. The moment Gerry Anderson realised that this was how his new script editor was thinking, it is easy to understand why he felt reluctant to have all that much to do with Y2, and felt it would be better of FF would also take the responsibility as executive producer. As GA says himself, in the Fanderson documentary I believe, “if FF was going to bend around with the format in all kinds of objectionable ways, it would be better if he also took on the role as producer” (paraphrase). I think this understanding of Y1 as classic and Y2 as crap is indeed a foundation that we need to accept for being able to discuss and communicate in a meaningful way on this forum. If we first accept this premise, then it becomes much easier to discuss Liardet’s ideas on how we can still find merit in Y2. John B. ***

315

31558 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test blondgod1999 Jan 30, 2016

I'm going to have to enjoy another beer before I can decipher all of that. *** 31559 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test sennmut Jan 30, 2016

Lager, pilsner, draft, what? *** 31560 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test balor1999 Jan 30, 2016

Perhaps my point would be easier to decipher if I put it another way. The purpose of my post was to endorse what Erich Wise said when he contributed the following message: Here we go again. You're equating popularity (ratings) with quality. There is no connection. A high-quality program can get high ratings or low. A low-quality program can get high ratings or low. Programs are generally cancelled because of low ratings or lower ratings than expected or desired. Quality has nothing to do with it. It's money.

I’m not sure if I would go as far as Erich by saying that there is absolutely no connection between popularity (ratings) and quality, but I would agree that they should be seen as two separate variables. I also think that Freiberger was just as aware of this as anybody else, as can be seen by the way he makes use of the concepts ‘Shakespeare’ and ‘shit’ when discussing with Jim Hawkins and Tim Heald what kind of scripts are needed for S99/Y2. He uses these concepts for explaining the extremes of script quality where ‘Shakespeare’ indicates world-class writing of the kind that becomes part of the world literary heritage, the language in general and is continuously played on screen and stage all over the world more than 400 years after it was written. I don’t think he means that Y1 was on the level of Shakespeare in this sense, but it was clearly ambitiously written in a way that makes S99/Y1 into

316


something that is worthy of literary SF analysis and discussion. However, Freiberger was not hired for making SPACE: 1999 into something that would compete with the finest of BBC drama and European art cinema. He was hired to improve ratings. He was not interested in pleasing the critics and fans. He was interested in expanding the fan base in a similar way to how STAR TREK had expanded its fan base in the early seventies when it became a mass phenomenon by means of reruns and being directed towards a younger and less sophisticated audience through the animated series. As seen from Freiberger’s discussion with McCorry, this was the template he had in mind when starting to work on SPACE: 1999. What Fred Freiberger seem to have felt, is that the original SPACE: 1999 was too much like BBC’s Play of the Month series. It was too intellectual. It felt too much like the kind of British dramas, comedies and science fiction series that were mainly shown on PBS. What was needed was a radical redesign that would dumb it down and making it enjoyable for the people who were fans of STAR TREK: THE ANIMATED SERIES. As has later been shown by the success of reality shows, quality and popular success can often be inversely correlated. The more stupid a show is, the more commercially successful it may be. So, how did Freiberger plan to make SPACE: 1999 the most stupid science fiction show in the world? First he needed a blank slate in terms of firing all the actors who had been part of the original series. Then he needed new characters and actors that would appeal to a younger and less sophisticated audience. Inspired by the remarkable success of Castaneda’s story about the Indian medicine man that turned himself into a bird in “The Teachings of Don Juan” (1968), Freiberger must have realised that there are similarities in how members of the drug culture and small children think in the sense that this kind of character would appeal to both groups. He had found a way of making SPACE: 1999 into ‘shit’ (lowest level of quality) while having a potential for becoming tremendously popular. So, when Erich explains the difference between quality and popularity, and concludes

by saying that business logic implies popularity being more important than quality, I totally agree. I think SPACE: 1999 is an excellent example of how this works in practice. They started out with a high quality television show that had been moderately successful. Freiberger’s strategy for making it into a hit was based on the idea of increasing popularity by means of reducing quality. You cannot sell BBC’s Play of the Month series to pre-schoolers and spaced out members of the drug community. It would become a commercial flop. Popularity is more important than quality. Freiberger was of the opinion that the lower quality he would be able to achieve, reaching the rock bottom level of ‘shit’, as he describes it, the more likely he expected the series to be commercially successful. So, in a way we can say that SPACE: 1999 self-destructed due to how the second year eliminated everything that was characteristic of the series and made it into a rip-off of STAR TREK as this was what business analysis suggested would be the best thing to do (Iaccino, 2001). Erich summed up the situation by his final sentence: It’s money. In the context of Tulloch and Jenkins (1996, chapter 1), when discussing how US television changed from the “golden age” of live television in the 1950s into the “vast wasteland” of the 1960s, the self-destruction of SPACE: 1999 is a good example of how laissez-faire capitalism destroys the quality of television. From this viewpoint I think it is interesting to contrast the failure of SPACE: 1999 with the success of COSMOS by what Carl Sagan in conversation with Johnny Carson says about the importance of institutions like PBS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YKCA_ XNuh4 Although Sagan would have liked the opportunity to reach more homes by means of collaborating with CBS, he was afraid of executives putting demands and constraints on the development of the series, like we have seen in the case of Freiberger on SPACE: 1999, so he felt that the only way of reaching the kind of high quality he wanted for COSMOS was by way of collaborating with PBS.


was thinking, it is easy to understand why he felt reluctant to have all that much to do with Y2, and felt it would be better of FF would also take the responsibility as executive producer. As GA says himself, in the Fanderson documentary I believe, “if FF was going to bend around with the format in all kinds of objectionable ways, it would be better if he also took on the role as producer” (paraphrase).

John B. *** 31561 Re: New trivia blooper test Kerry Keene Jan 30, 2016

You know, Anderson tried what he thought was "quality" in Y1 (pattering it after 2001, which I've read that Kubrick thought about suing him) and much of it was, but ratings weren't maintained. Quality and ratings do go together. If people think a series has "good quality" they will stick with it. It seems to me that Y1 started out pretty good, but sank as the series went on, thus Grade's initial decision not to renew 1999. Maybe that was due to the feedback from the New York office, but I also think he saw the numbers as well. I know Balor likes to constantly bash Freiberger, it wasn't he who had anything to do with Y1, some of the poorly written scripts, inconsistant characterizations, and budget and time overruns. That's on Anderson and his team, and yet, he and many fans never admit to that when they take after FF, a man HE hired, and I can also say that about those others in Y1 like Landau, Tate in particular. Balor also brings up Heald's book and pages 105 - 111. He always brings up the passage where FF uses the word "shit". He never follows it up with Heald's comments. Let me reccomend that people read pages 110 and 111. It explains the emotions a producer might go through as he has to tell a writer that he has some good ideas, but he has to turn him down. It isn't easy. I wonder if Mr. Balor would like the job. Also, let's lay off the BS about FF and pornography. From Mr. Balor, If we think of Freiberger as a producer of pornography, I think the difference between quality and popularity becomes even better. A producer of pornography would not be interested in winning Oscars and Emmys. He is only interested in selling films, and this is Freiberger’s perspective. He was not interested in improving the quality of SPACE: 1999. He was interested in turning it into “porn” or whatever format that would make it easier to sell. The moment Gerry Anderson realised that this was how his new script editor

317

John, I got news for you, production companies are also interested in selling films/TV shows. Why? To make money. Despite your views on STAR WARS, the reason it stays around and 1999 has struggled, SW has made huge amounts of money, and as long as it does, there will be more, possibly for the next forty years. That's the capitalistic way, isn't it? That part where Anderson asks FF to take the producers role as well shows me Anderson quit, just as Roddenberry did. Amzaing how 1999 and Trek TOS paralell. *** 31562 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test SHANA G Jan 30, 2016

All: I don’t know about you, but I am highly insulted about John B’s comment about Y2 and porn. That’s way over the line… Shana *** 31563 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test John Marcucci Jan 30, 2016

Shana, about the only thing Petter has right is his appraisal of sen's fanfic. I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day. He has called Frieberger a fascist, a druggie, and now a pornographer? Is this kind of deranged nonsense a surprise to anyone on this list? Rgds, John M ***

318


31564 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test blondgod1999 Jan 30, 2016

this foolishness, that I’d rather be doing another EXE. Shana

Senmut wrote:

***

Lager, pilsner, draft, what?

Keystone Light. Cheap but oh so tasty. And it did help somewhat. However, comparing Y2 to porn made me spit my drink out. If that's someones idea of porn, then they need to get better porn. *** 31565 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test sennmut Jan 30, 2016

On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 SHANA G writes: I don’t know about you, but I am highly insulted about John B’s comment about Y2 and porn. That’s way over the line…

Amen, Shana! It's like his comment, referring to Maya as the "fascist gay icon". Where the hell does he get this stuff? Ain't the show I remember! *** 31566 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test SHANA G Jan 31, 2016

All: I don’t know, but it sure pisses me off. We are entitled to like what we want, not what John wants us to like! Shana *** 31567 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test SHANA G Jan 31, 2016

John M., It’s so degrading to me since I like season 2. However, we have gone so far off course with

31568 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test Lynn Laakso Jan 29, 2016

On Friday, January 29, 2016 balor1999@... wrote: I think this understanding of Y1 as classic and Y2 as crap is indeed a foundation that we need to accept for being able to discuss and communicate in a meaningful way on this forum. If we first accept this premise, then it becomes much easier to discuss Liardet’s ideas on how we can still find merit in Y2.

I don't think we all have to be of the opinion that Y! is Classic and Y2 crap -this forum has many different people and ideas-to say we all need to believe the same as you to "understand" is wrong. I have no intention of accepting any ideas just because they think I should.Some people really like season 2 and they should not be excluded or made to feel since they don't agree with you they are wrong. *** 31569 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test balor1999 jan 31, 2016

Blondgod wrote: However, comparing Y2 to porn made me spit my drink out. If that's someones idea of porn, then they need to get better porn.

I was not discussing pornography per se. My point was that Freiberger was interested in increasing ratings at the cost of reducing the quality. He said that Y1 was ‘Shakespeare’ while he wanted Y2 to be ‘shit’. Why did he say that? I think it is much easier to understand if we use the word ‘pornography’ rather than ‘shit’. As nobody wants to watch something they consider ‘shit’, Freiberger’s point gets blurred, but pornography is an example of

Out of the Frying Pan something of low cultural value but nevertheless extremely popular. I notice that Kerry still tries to convince us that quality and ratings are positively correlated, meaning that there television shows with a large following are usually of higher quality than television shows with a low following. Although in some cases this may be true, I also think Erich Wise made a good point in saying that often there is no correlation at all. A high quality show may get low ratings or high ratings. A low quality show may get high ratings or low ratings. However, I also think Freiberger has a point. Often there is a negative correlation between quality and popularity, and in this case pornography strikes me as a particularly good example. So, I was not discussing pornography per se. Nevertheless, when Blondgod extends my argument by introducing the idea of different quality levels of porn, and if Y2 is to be understood as porn then at least it would be low quality porn, then I think we are moving the discussing in the right direction. I think this is interesting input in the context of how French intellectuals like Didier Liardet have been arguing that BARBARELLA is the natural reference point for S99/Y2, so here I believe Blondgod’s input gives us an opportunity to engage with the scholarly debates. The question then is whether BARBARELLA is pornography. I would say not. Director Roger Vadim made the following comment on Jane Fonda and the film: I can tell you all the things she won't be. She won't be a science fiction character, nor will she play Barbarella tongue in cheek. She is just a lovely, average girl with a terrific space record and a lovely body. I am not going to intellectualise her. Although there is going to be a bit of satire about our morals and our ethics, the picture is going to be more of a spectacle than a cerebral exercise for a few way out intellectuals. She is going to be an uninhibited girl, not being weighed down by thousands and thousands of years of Puritan education. (“What Kind of Supergirl Will Jane Fonda Be as Barbarella?” Los Angeles Times, 10 Sep 1967)

319

Understanding the film like this makes it similar to EMMANUELLE (1974), which was also shown in mainstream theatres, but is more similar to pornography in the sense that it mixes elements of feminist discourse and social commentary with more explicit sexual content. Unlike other sexually explicit political films of the period, such as LAST TANGO IN PARIS, EMMANUELLE feels more like an exploitation film. At least I would argue that this is the legacy of the film as the series progressed through a series of less politically ambitious sequels. So, in a sense, I think Blondgod provides good input in how we should not only understand Freiberger as a producer of porn but also Y2 as porn in itself, although very low quality porn. There is a link between S99/Y2 to porn by way of BARBARELLA, EMMANUELLE and European art films that used explicit sexuality as means for doing post-Marxist analysis of contemporary society, such as the later works of Pier Paulo Pasolini and the earlier works of Tinto Brass. To me this is a way of building on Liardet’s understanding of Y2 as porn while still trying to argue that it has merit in the way the Y2 scripts contain political subtext that render them meaningful in the context of critical theory. On the other hand, this is a way of making sense of Y2 as pornography by following the authoritative reading of Didier Liardet. It is a much deeper understanding of Y2 than the kind of understanding we get from reading what Freiberger explains in conversations with Kevin McCorry and Tim Heald. If we just listen to what Freiberger had to say himself, the impression is that he wanted to make Y2 as porn because porn is easy to sell. So, if we try to intellectualise his approach, it would probably be more similar to how FLESH GORDON (1974) was made as a pornographic parody of the FLASH GORDON serials of the late nineteen thirties. Although some might argue that FLESH GORDON is also a political satire, perhaps trying to say something about sexual hypocrisy in certain cultures, it is foremost an exploitation film. I don’t know if Freiberger had seen this particular film, but it strikes me as the typical type of low quality science fiction porn that makes it into a natural reference point for S99/Y2.

320


John B. So, in a sense, Petter is mentally ill.

*** 31570 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test John Marcucci Jan 31, 2016

So, in a sense, Petter is mentally ill. *** 31571 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test SHANA G Jan 31, 2016

John,

Certe!! Certe!! *** 31575 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test sennmut Feb 1, 2016

On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 SHANA G writes: It’s so degrading to me since I like season 2. However, we have gone so far off course with this foolishness, that I’d rather be doing another EXE.

Then, Your Shananess, take it away!!!!!!!!!

You’re nuts!

***

Shana *** 31572 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test John Marcucci Jan 31, 2016

Which John?? Please clarify *** 31573 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test blondgod1999 Feb 1, 2016

John K. Balor wrote: So, in a sense, I think Blondgod provides good input in how we should not only understand Freiberger as a producer of porn but also Y2 as porn in itself, although very low quality porn.

I did not provide any input, just a comment. Please leave me out of this endless discussion. I should not have responded. *** 31574 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test sennmut Feb 1, 2016

On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 John Marcucci writes:

31576 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test sennmut Feb 1, 2016

On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 SHANA G writes: You’re nuts!

Like Brazil? (Shameless trivia plug! Shameless trivia plug!) *** 31577 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test sennmut Feb 1, 2016

On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 John Marcucci writes: Which John?? Please clarify

The nutty one, of course! *** 31578 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test balor1999 Feb 1, 2016

Kerry wrote: You know, Anderson tried what he thought was "quality" in Y1 (pattering it after 2001, which I've read that Kubrick thought about suing him)

Out of the Frying Pan and much of it was, but ratings weren't maintained. Quality and ratings do go together. If people think a series has "good quality" they will stick with it. It seems to me that Y1 started out pretty good, but sank as the series went on, thus Grade's initial decision not to renew 1999.

I may be wrong, but if memory serves me correctly Paulo Pereiro presented us with some documents many years ago about how Stanley Kubrick wanted to sue Gerry Anderson for making a television series that looked and felt too much like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. It did not result in anything, as far as I remember, but it is still interesting information the clearly back up what you say about Gerry Anderson was aiming at the benchmark of science fiction top quality of the period. For most of us, I suppose 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY still remains the benchmark of high quality cinematic science fiction. It is one of those rare science fiction films that transcends the genre and is hailed as a monument of art cinema. Personally I think SOLARIS is a better film, and there are also other good ones, such as FAHRENHEIT 451, but 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is probably the most iconic example of the perfect blend between high quality and high ratings. I also agree in what you say about the initial episodes of S99/Y1 being better than the last ones. This is also what Prentice Hancock said. To me there is nothing that beats the quality of BREAKAWAY, MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, BLACK SUN and RING AROUND THE MOON. Although Y1 is a fantastic series from beginning to end, it is one of those series where the masterpieces came out quite early, while they were in an experimental phase, trying to find the shape of the series. Barry Morse several times mentioned BLACK SUN as an example of what he felt the series should try to focus more on. Less special effects and explosions. More focus on adult drama with an emphasis on spiritual and existential issues. I think Barbara Bain also identified BLACK SUN as her favourite, while Martin Landau added BREAKAWAY as similarly remarkable. All of Y1 has much in common with 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but there is something about these four first episodes that make them particularly relevant in this context. I don’t know about you, Kerry, but to me

321

EARTHBOUND is the first indication of something going wrong with Y1. Perhaps “going wrong” is the wrong phrase as the episode is still good and the whole season is, in fact, remarkably good, but EARTHBOUND breaks with the style of the first four episodes in having a much more linear plot and much less psychologically complex characters. Over time I have come to like EARTHBOUND, but in 1977 it was one of my few disappointments with the series. RING AROUND THE MOON and MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH are episodes that I remember from childhood as symbolising SPACE: 1999 at the very best, while EARTHBOUND is one that I remember as being particularly disappointing. The first four episodes felt as though they had been shaped by cinematic genius of the period, such as Ingmar Bergman, Jean-Luc Godard, Frederico Fellini or Michelangelo Antonioni, while EARTHBOUND was a step back to the conventional television SF drama we find in STAR TREK and elsewhere. On the other hand, I am not so sure about quality and ratings going together. When we look at the reception of SPACE: 1999 in the news media of the time, perhaps specifically in the US and UK press, there were some good reviews, but there were also many who were obviously expecting something in line with STAR TREK and did not know what to make of it as it was so completely different. They appraised the obvious, such as the outstanding special effects, but did not understand the subtlety of plots and characterisations. In fact, I think this was a perfect example of how quality and ratings did not go hand in hand. Actually, I think it mirrored the initial reviews of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY in the sense that many of the initial reviewers were impressed by the special effects but didn’t understand the film at all, and thus gave it a mediocre review. It took long time before it was understood as the masterpiece that it has later become, and I think there is something similar with SPACE: 1999. This strikes me as quite common with quality. It may take some time to understand why something is of extraordinary high quality, but once it has been realised, it becomes a momentum. Beethoven got mediocre reviews for some of his works because they were revolutionary in the minds of contemporary audiences and critics that were expecting something else. In hindsight

322


they stand out as milestones in the history of human culture. In this context I think would like to mention how OUT OF THE FRYING PAN also contains elements that remind me of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and SPACE: 1999 at its very best. What is remarkable with Senmut is that he continues to experiment with new ideas in all his stories. Although they feel totally authentic in the context of SPACE: 1999, as though they had been written specifically for ITC under the guidance of Chris Penfold and Johnny Byrne, but they also add some very new and interesting angles. What is particularly interesting about OUT OF THE FRYING PAN is the role of Brian the Brain. While I have always liked him as an interesting character, and I also think there are interesting ways of interpreting BRIAN THE BRAIN as an episode, as I have previously mentioned, what Senmut managed to do in OUT OF THE FRYING PAN, in my opinion at least, is to elevante Brian into the level of HAL9000 of 2001 in the sense of becoming one of the most touching characters in the story. If Senmut permits me, here is a small passage from chapter four that gives us a glimpse into what the world of Brian looks like: It was gloomy inside, save where the occasional shaft of sunlight stabbed down through the open roof, with more rubble, plants, and even a few wild animals in his path. None of the light fixtures were working, but that didn't trouble Brian, since he could "see" in a dozen different wavelengths outside the visible spectrum. Large sections of the ceiling had fallen in, cables and conduit hanging like jungle vines, giving the place a primeval feel. He continued to move cautiously through the empty building, scanning and recording, but so far had found nothing remotely resembling an intact or active data terminal. What was that? He turned his head quickly around, at a noise. On his sensors, there was a fleeting IR trace, and some bio-signs. Something alive was moving about in the wreckage. Something...

"Ahhhhhhhh!!!" he cried out, as something plopped to the floor in front of him. He backed up a few clicks, then another whatever-it-was dropped to the floor next to the first. "Please don't hurt me!" he wailed, as yet another of the creatures appeared, now surrounding him. One of the things moved closer, touching him. Brian responded with a short blast of ultraviolet from his head turret, and for a moment the intruders seemed to back off a bit. Then, Brian's world went crazy, as someone... Once again we see the quality of Senmut’s writing in the way he is capable of exploring all sorts of emotions, characters and situations in ways that makes things come alive and feel right. I don’t know if there were any intentions of competing with 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY here, and in a way a very much doubt it, but to me Senmut helps elevate SPACE: 1999 fan fiction to the level of Arthur C. Clarke and the other upper crusts of literary science fiction. John B. *** 31579 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test jemarcu Feb 1, 2016

Lynn, its whats been killing this list. "Lets have a discussion, but first you must agree to my premises,otherwise you are an uniformed, right wing religious fanatic." Thats what Petter Ogland (aka John K Balor) has been subjecting us to. Very sad. Rgds, John M. *** 31580 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test sennmut Feb 1, 2016

We can't do anything about that, Jemarcu. That Bbalor would say all this was part of the evolution of the dialectic, and an historic inevitability!!!!!!!! I guess.


*** 31581 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test balor1999 Feb 2, 2016

Senmut ends chapter five of OUT OF THE FRYING PAN with the following sentence: Brian wanted to cry again. It is a stand-alone sentence, and it is remarkably powerful in the context of the story so far and the progress of this chapter in particular. In his bestselling book “How to write a sentence” (Harper, 2011), literary theorist Stanley Eugene Fish has a chapter devoted to the topic of last sentences. To illustrate his points, he makes an abundance of references to well-know literary classics, and he is writing about the final sentence of the story as a whole, but a chapter can also be thought of as a story within a larger story, and in this context I think he would have appreciated what Senmut does here. The reason I tend to like films like SOLARIS and FAHRENHEIT 451 more than 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is because of the detached coldness we see in more or less all of Kubrick’s works. Kubrick was a photographer who became a director, and to me all of his films feel like that. He is always observing. He is never engaging with the story, like Tarkovski did in SOLARIS. To draw a parallel, I would say that Kubrick is to Tarkovski what David Tomblin is to Ray Austin. While Tomblin’s FORCE OF LIFE feels cold and detached like Kubrick’s 2001, Austin’s RING AROUND THE MOON feels totally engaged with characters and situations from the inside out, in the same way we feel when we engage with SOLARIS. It is then perhaps not so surprising that David Tomblin worked as assistant to Kubrick on some of his films, while Austin developed into a director by way of first being a stuntman and then a stunt coordinator. There is a unique sense of movement and engagement in the works of Ray Austin that sometimes tend to make the final episode much better than we should have expected from what the script was like. COLLISION COURSE is a prime example, I would say, and the Y2 turkey ALL THAT

323

GLISTERS somehow transcends its own stupidity into becoming something that can be totally fascinating to watch. Perhaps because of Kubrick’s general coldness, I think scenes like HAL9000 being disassembled in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY becomes so remarkably strong in a humanistic perspective. Not only is the middle sequence with HAL the most emotional part of 2001, or indeed the only emotional part in a film that seems to be deliberately designed in a manner to show the dehumanising effect of technology on humans, especially in the first part at the space station, but the remarkable thing is how the HAL9000 computer is the most human character in the whole film. I think it is possible to think of Gwent and Brian as homage to SPACE ODYSSEY in this sense, or rather how both of these machines are overemotional, and particularly effective in INFERNAL MACHINE were Gwent’s emotional outbursts and execution of all kinds of emotions are effectively contrasted with the restrained acting style that made Y1 into thoughtful, enjoyable and realistic drama. Now, Brian is a Y2 character, and his whining voice and puerile humour would probably make him out of place in Y1 yet perfect in Y2, but the genius of Senmut, as I experience it while reading OUT OF THE FRYING PAN, is how he makes Brian into a much deeper and interesting character than he was in the television episode. Senmut manages to make Brian into a deep and richly complex character in the same way as what Kubrick and Clarke did in the case of HAL. Senmut’s Brian is a character that transcends both Y1 and Y2 and helps define the FOREVER ALPHA series as a kind of Y3. I don’t think the isolated sentences and passages I have quoted from OUT OF THE FRYING PAN can give any kind of justice to what Senmut achieves with his writing, as the depth of characterisation of Brian can probably only be understood in the context of the nature of the story as a whole, but it is a remarkably fine work. It is a wonderful story to read and engage with. John B. ***

324



Enough panagyrics, Balor! All I can say is that I write, as I would like to see, the story on the screen. I write the sort of stuff I would write, if I wrote for TV. Most of TV is dreck, and especially stuff that has to preach a message, yet do it through bad writing. One of the reasons I watch so little TV these days. Documentaries and science shows are about my speed. *** 31584 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test balor1999 Feb 3, 2016

Henry Jenkins keeps talking about how fan fiction can be more important than commercial fiction and how fan made YouTube videos can be more important than commercially made television series. I will not embarrass people by talking even more about why I like OUT OF THE FRYING PAN, but I think Jenkins has a point. One thing is to consume television and collect stuff. Another thing is to use television and popular culture as input for creating something. I’m no expert on fan fiction, but my impression is that it comes in all shapes from the very bad to the very good. OUT OF THE FRYING PAN and the stories that preceded it would in my estimation belong to this latter category. Of course, the reason Jenkins speaks so highly of the best forms of fan fiction has to do with how he sees it as a tool for mobilising political activism, but that is not a point I have made in my recent posts. It is the quality of the writing I wanted to emphasise, and the way the FOREVER ALPHA series illustrates a way of integrating Y1 and Y2 into something that is neither Y1 nor Y2 but more like what I would describe as Y3. While I can comment about fan fiction and political activism in a different context, talking

about my understanding of fan fiction in general rather than commenting on a particular story, when it comes to a work like OUT OF THE FRYING PAN it is perhaps the reverse effect that intrigues me. It is not as much how the fan fiction deconstructs the original series in order to convey a political message, but rather how the fiction stays true to the original visions of Anderson, Byrne and the rest in the way that it becomes an interesting lens for reflecting on aspects of the original television series that would be otherwise hidden. In other words, what I see as the power in this particular body of fictional texts is how it sometimes helps us reflect on aspects of SPACE: 1999 that are important but otherwise more or less invisible. In this sense the series is more like a mirror than a lens. Rather than distorting the original text, it clarifies the original text in the way characters, plot elements and themes are mirrored into a different narrative where the characters continue to live congruently with the original series yet in a completely different context. I don’t know if television is any worse or better today than it used to be. Personally I tend to think of the early seventies as a golden age of cinema and television, with the first season of SPACE: 1999 being an example of what it was at its very best, but I know I have a selective memory. Not every film and television series of the period was a masterpiece. As Freiberger helps us remember, STAR TREK: THE ANIMATED SERIES from 1973, which was no masterpiece in my mind, was also a child of this golden age of the early seventies. Nevertheless, the best fan fiction makes us remember the good things and forget about the bad. I am happy that there are people out there who try to write SPACE: 1999 they way they would have liked to have seen it on the screen, sharing their vision with the rest of us, and sometimes creating works of art. John B. ***


325

9.4 The End is Near… We’re Doomed (well, not quite yet…) While discussing the style and content of “Out of the Frying Pan”, suddenly the Online Alpha moderator announces that Yahoo is having financial difficulties, and that the destruction of the Yahoo Groups services may not be too unlikely. The announcement provides new context for discussing SPACE: 1999 through the lens of fan fiction. 31583 The End is Near...We're Doomed (well, not quite yet...) atd1999 Feb 3, 2016

Hi all, Just wanted to give everyone a headsup....Yahoo is having some financial difficulty and is cutting services, etc. I haven't heard anything (so far) about Yahoo!Groups being cut, but I wouldn't be surprised. I'm not sure if they still make money selling ads here. So...I'm confident they'll give us plenty of warning if they are shuttering Yahoo!Groups, but in case you want to take action now (save messages, download files, etc.) I thought I'd send out a note. I am NOT closing OnlineAlpha...so no worries there! 1999 Lives, Anthony *** 31585 Re: The End is Near...We're Doomed (well, not quite yet...) balor1999 Feb 4, 2016

It looks like Online Alpha is heading towards a black sun. I don’t know what the probabilities for survival are, but I assume they are slim. Anthony has earlier spoken about a rescue Eagle in the shape of setting up a facebook group, or something similar to that, so perhaps he will do as Carter and try to save some of the people on this forum. I don’t know. Personally, however, I think I will stay in main mission, discussing science and philosophy with Senmut when Yahoo make their announcements and start demolishing the Yahoo Groups. Just before the lights go out, perhaps we could share some sixty year old brandy that I have been saving for ten years.

I’m not certain if the destruction of Online Alpha would be a cause for celebration, but at least we could drink for everything might have been and everything that was. I joined the forum in November 2004 and engaged in a couple of months of intense discussions. By then Senmut and many others of the currently active members had been around for many years. However, it is only during the past six years, since April 2010, that I have been making contributions to the debates and discussions on a more or less daily basis. Those have been great years, and I think we have had some really good discussions, now perhaps having reached a much more unified view on what SPACE: 1999 was about and why authoritative readings of the series by people like Pierre Fageolle and others are of such fundamental importance for achieving meaningful debate. Unless the Bergman shield will function in terms of Yahoo finding ways of improving their financial situation and deciding to make the Yahoo Groups live, I think these years on Online Alpha have been interesting and insightful. While many of us grew up in the nineteen seventies, experiencing SPACE: 1999 as a benchmark of science fiction in terms of special effects that were close to the standards of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and psychological depth that was close to the standards of SOLARIS, I think it is only in more recent years that most of us have gained a deeper understanding of the sociological and political aspects of SPACE: 1999. Of course, everything starts with Fageolle’s famous book from 1996, and how the deep arguments and insights in that book contested the more shallow reading of SPACE: 1999 that we found in Muir’s book from the same time. Much of this debate, and the revelation that Fageolle’s reading of SPACE: 1999 represented for the Online Alpha community, can be seen in the transcripts from the first

326


ExE (Welle, 2007; Ogland, 2014). Although most anything said about SPACE: 1999 today are footnotes to Fageolle, I think the current debates are shaped more than anything by the way Keazor (2012) expanded Fageolle’s theories and added his own insightful readings that gave way for the current way of thinking about SPACE: 1999 through the lens of critical theory (Keazor, 2014). For instance, I think it would be almost impossible to make deep sense out of Liardet (2014) without contextualising his ideas through the frameworks of Fageolle and Keazor.

31587 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The End is Near...We're Doomed (well, not quite yet...) John Marcucci Feb 4 7:14 PM

We should also not forget important contributors like Iaccino, West, Wood, Willey, Drake, Bussieres and Wozniak. If it had not been for these intellectual towers, we would probably be as lost in our Online Alpha discussions as Moonbase Alpha was wandering aimlessly through outer space. More than anything, I believe, the importance of these individual SPACE: 1999 scholars and academics have helped us in seeing how SPACE: 1999 fits in within the larger framework of SF scholarship, represented by giants like Suvin, Jameson, Freedman, Mieville, Bould, Fuhse, Wertham, Adorno, Marcuse and the rest.

All:

So, unless the Bergman shield should happen to work, making Online Alpha Yahoo Groups survive, I think we should enjoy our last days on this forum doing what we always do; engage in interesting discussions and debates. John B. *** 31586 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The End is Near...We're Doomed (well, not quite yet...) SHANA G Feb 4 6:31 PM

All: We need to move it over to gmail groups! Shana ***

I agree. Or reddit *** 31588 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The End is Near...We're Doomed (well, not quite yet...) SHANA G Feb 4 7:37 PM

What’s going on with yahoo anyways? I havent seen the news in 2 days. Shana *** 31589 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The End is Near...We're Doomed (well, not quite yet...) balor1999 Feb 5, 2016

I expect Anthony will continue to keep us informed about the situation at Yahoo and the future of Yahoo Groups. Although an attempt to run Operation Exodus by moving onto another platform may be a success, it can also result in disaster. It depends on many things, not at least moderation policy. The reason Online Alpha has survived 16 years on Yahoo Groups and still continues to host discussions that generate more than 100 messages a month has, in my estimation, very much to do with the moderation policy on the forum. Sometimes I wish it would be stricter, in the sense that standard netiquette would be the norm rather then the way certain members have a tendency for responding to opinions they do not agree with by making personal attacks and trying to “expose” people they disagree with, but on the whole it is better to allow the fanatics to attack institutions of democracy and freedom than to throw people out because they have difficulty in following the rules of civilised conduct. I think Anthony and his co-moderators have been doing a very fine job here, trying to balance the line between stimulating debate and protecting

Out of the Frying Pan individuals from being harassed. It is a difficult line to balance, and I know of several discussion forums that have collapsed because they have not had a similar level of wisdom as the moderators on Online Alpha have. In a presentation at the University of Oregon, about a decade ago, Henry Jenkins talked about this challenge from a slightly different perspective. His challenge was not to survive as an academic within a community of uneducated fans but rather to survive as a fan of popular culture among academics. Building on the insights from the Frankfurt school and elsewhere, the natural approach to studies of popular culture would of course be to warn against it as the purpose of popular culture is to brainwash the population into becoming mindless consumers and collectors, Jenkins have been spending several decades arguing that popular culture can also be used as a tool for political activism, having the members of groups like Online Alpha use the political subtext of the series seriously and engage in political movements to fight for social justice and economic equality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkzCNx1 JgpM Unfortunately, although he has written about STAR TREK and SF in general, I have never heard or read him talk about SPACE: 1999. To me this is unfortunate not only because the first year of SPACE: 1999 was the series that shaped me and continues to do so, more than any other television series I can think of, but even more because of the recent authoritative readings of the series by Keazor and other intellectuals that help frame it in the context of critical theory.

327

movement, the civil rights movement, women’s liberation, and would later become relevant in the context of things like the antiglobalisation movement and the occupy movement. However, among all those important series of the early 1970s, to me SPACE: 1999 stands out as head and shoulder above all because of the ambitions associated with it. Not only did Gerry Anderson aim for reproducing the style and level of special effects seen in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, writers such as Johnny Byrne and the rest of the group made the series intellectually ambitious. It is perhaps this combined effort that makes Keazor and others able to describe SPACE: 1999 as a retrospect masterpiece that in many ways surpassed far more known but far less ambitious projects like STAR TREK and STAR WARS. I think it is in this context that I enjoy reading high quality fan fiction and watching the episodes over and over, year after year. As we see from the growing body of academic and scholarly literature, the first year of SPACE: 1999 was unique in the history of science fiction, and it is perhaps only more or less 40 years after that it is starting to be recognised as the highly important cultural object that it is. I think it will be of no less relevance for the next 40 years as we observe the looming disaster of the climate, the financial system and the social situation. These things are connected in a way that makes the worst scenarios in SPACE: 1999 into relevant nightmares that our children and grandchildren and to deal with, unless we take political responsibility, like the people on Moonbase Alpha tried to do. John B. ***

Of course, SPACE: 1999 was not only series of intellectual merit in the early nineteen seventies. THE STARLOST was also good, and then we had things like STAR MAIDENS and DOCTOR WHO. All of these series dealt with issues like class, gender and race and reflected the importance of the various movements of the period, such as the anti-war

328


9.5 Re: New trivia blooper test After the interlude, the discussion about quality and popularity from the “New trivia blooper test” thread continues. A particularly fruitful theme within this context is the question of how to measure quality against popularity. One discussant characterises a weakness in some of the pro-Y2 arguments as being unhelpful “it’s good because I like it”-arguments, and this becomes an important reference in future debates. 31590 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test Erich Wise Feb 5, 2016

John K. Balor wrote: In Tim Heald’s “The Making of SPACE: 1999” (1976, pp. 105-111) , Freiberger is very clear about communicating to potential script writers what he needs for the series. He does not want “Shakespeare” in the sense of scripts that a peer community of script writers would find excellent and of utmost quality. He wants “shit”, he says. Why does he say that? His intention is obviously to communicate that he is focusing on the business logic. He wants the show to attract a big audience, and it is difficult to do that by making something that is requires that the viewers has a certain level of taste and intelligence.

Freiberger never said he wanted shit. You don't understand what he said. He said something on the order of IF I wanted shit, do you give me whipped cream? Note the word IF. Perhaps you wouldn't be so quick to misquote him if had said "If I wanted whipped cream, do you give me shit?" But it's the same point. *** 31591 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test Erich Wise Feb 5, 2016

On the other hand, most people do not know what makes something good, only if they like it. "It's good because I like it." That's why Year 2 supporters get insulted when they are rightly informed that Year 2 is crap. They don't understand that it is perfectly acceptable to like something that is bad. Movie reviewers call these guilty pleasures; they know it's crap but they still like it. I've like a few series myself that were crap. I liked it while knowing it would never win any awards. It seems to me that Y1 started out pretty good, but sank as the series went on...

And just what do you mean here? Judging from your previous sentence you seem to be referring to quality. Since no one saw the episodes in production order, and most didn't even see the series in the same order, what does "as the series went on" mean? The production order? That would mean good and bad episodes (in your opinion anyway) would alternate as people originally watched them. The aired order? Whose aired order? Yours? Mine? I would be the first to say Year 1 had many problems. But either things that weren't problems were changed (cast, sets, music) or things were changed to a silly or childish level (emotions, action, acting). They went in the wrong direction.

Kerry Keene wrote: Quality and ratings do go together. If people think a series has "good quality" they will stick with it.

Uh, no. There are just too many examples of good shows being cancelled because of low ratings and lousy shows that go on forever. On the other same some good shows last a long time, while some bad shows are cancelled immediately. There are just too many variables in the world of television to say that ratings and quality go together.

*** 31592 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test Erich Wise Feb 5,2016

John K.Balor wrote: I may be wrong, but if memory serves me correctly Paulo Pereiro presented us with some documents many years ago about how Stanley Kubrick wanted to sue Gerry Anderson for making a television series that looked and felt too much like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. It did not result in anything, as far as I remember,

Out of the Frying Pan but it is still interesting information the clearly back up what you say about Gerry Anderson was aiming at the benchmark of science fiction top quality of the period.

Jackie Gleason wanted to sue The Flintstones for copying The Honeymooners. He was advised not to because of all the children (and adults) who liked the series and Gleason would have been known as a series killer. *** 31593 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test John Marcucci Feb 5, 2016

Erich, I am wondering about this. Is this a case of confirmation bias, or prejudice? What I mean is, when a show I really like gets cancelled after one or two seasons, due to low ratings, money issues , whatever.. I tend to nurse that grudge for a long time, forgetting the ,many series I DID like that went on for a respectable amount of time. Space 1999, BSG (original), The Paper Chase, were all cancelled too soon. But other shows like Laramie, Hogans Heroes, Barney Miller, ST/ DS9, and others were shows I liked very much ,and went on for a respectable amount of time. Some shows that were canclled early, like BSG, were showing profits. Other shows, like ST/ DS9 that lasted a long time barely broke even. I would submit that while money is certainly a big factor, there are more variables involved here than we think. And this just begs another question: what is a quality show? What standard are you using to decide that Space 1999 was a quality show, but maybe Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea was not? Other than our own personal preferences, there is the consensus of self appointed , paid critics, and the popularity of the show with the public. Why was Doc Severenson's orchestra considered quality, but Lawrence Welk's, not so much? Yet, the Lawrence Welk show lasted for 25 years. There are many more examples. For instance. to me shows like Laramie and Gunsmoke were "quality" shows, and they both lasted for years, Gunsmoke especially.. but I am sure that the Kindly Norwegian Gentleman ( KNG ) , Petter Ogland, aka John K Balor would find both

329

shows appallling examples of American violence, capitalist exploitation, imperialism, narrow mindedness, etc etc , ad naueseam. Some people look at Andy Warhol's stax of Campbell soup cans and see art. I see conceited, delusiional crap. I wouldn't tell an admirer of Warhol he was wrong, but I would not hold back in telling him my opinion of Warhol, if asked. It all depends on your point of view. Regards, John M. *** 31594 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test sennmut Feb 6, 2016

And, of course, spend your capitalist, exploitative, fascist, imperialist, proletariatoppressing money elsewhere. ;) *** 31595 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test balor1999 Feb 6, 2016

Erich Wise wrote: Most people do not know what makes something good, only if they like it. "It's good because I like it." That's why Year 2 supporters get insulted when they are rightly informed that Year 2 is crap. They don't understand that it is perfectly acceptable to like something that is bad. Movie reviewers call these guilty pleasures; they know it's crap but they still like it. I've like a few series myself that were crap. I liked it while knowing it would never win any awards.

One thing is for certain, and that S99/Y2 was never a candidate for winning any awards, except for things like the Golden Turkey Award. In fact, COSMIC PRINCESS got the dubious honour of being celebrated on MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATRE 3000. Why? It got celebrated on that show along with hundreds of other incredibly stupid films because Y2 is crap. Are we certain that Y2 is crap? Yes. What if somebody happens to like some Y2 episodes? THE METAMORPH at least seems to have some political subtext? No, Y2 is crap. There is no doubt about it. Just

330


listen to what the critics said in the 1970s and what the scholars have been repeating ever since. Prof. Dr. James Iaccino has even published a paper in the acclaimed STUDIES IN POPULAR CULTURE journal on why Y2 was crap and how Freiberger was responsible for turning SPACE: 1999 into crap. But what about the fans? What about the people who like Y2? Well, it is true that some people watch Y2 as a guilty pleasure, but that tend to be people who do not understand SPACE: 1999. The fans that understood and enjoyed SPACE: 1999 in the original format hated the revamp. Just look at the interviews in the AlphaCon video (Mallett & Pearce, 1991). In fact, nobody likes Y2. Gerry Anderson hated it. Martin Landau hated it. Nick Tate hated it and referred to Fred Freiberger as a ‘dickhead’. The scholars hate it. Just read the famous book by Pierre Fageolle and see what he has to say about Y2 and FF. You can then read most any scholarly book or article on SPACE: 1999 and see how the authors refer to, repeat or expand upon the arguments made by Fageolle. If we listen to what Freiberger said in interviews with Tim Heald and Kevin McCorry, the target audience he was aiming for when redesigning SPACE: 1999 were preschoolers or people without intellect and taste. In the interviews with Heald he talks about wanting to make ‘shit’. In the conversation with McCorry he says that he was not as much interested in the original STAR TREK series as he was in the contemporary impact of the series in the early seventies through reruns and the animations. He also talks to both Heald and McCorry on his experience at Hanna-Barbara, and how this shaped his visions on how to redesign SPACE: 1999. “Do you give me whipped cream when I want shit,” Freiberger asks Jim Hawkins (Heald, 1976, p. 108), and this is clearly not an empty phrase. Hawkins was the resident playwright at the theatre of Hull (ibid, p. 105), and he had just completed a play that was going into production (p. 106), so the meaning of Freiberger’s phrase is clearly that he fears Hawkins might deliver something intelligent and interesting, something that would fit the Y1 format, while Freiberger’s vision for Y2 is ‘shit’. Or, as Heald comments: “Jim Hawkins

may be the Shakespeare of science fiction but at this moment Freddie Freiberger doesn’t want a Shakespeare” (p. 108). Freiberger wanted to make ‘shit’. In this context, it is interesting how Erich’s reflections on quality and popularity resulted in the following response from another discussant: And this just begs another question: what is a quality show? What standard are you using to decide that Space 1999 was a quality show, but maybe Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea was not? Other than our own personal preferences, there is the consensus of self appointed , paid critics, and the popularity of the show with the public. Why was Doc Severenson's orchestra considered quality, but LawrenceWelk's, not so much? Yet, the Lawrence Welk show lasted for 25 years.

What is a quality show? How can we say that Y1 was high quality while Y2 was not? Should we be dictated by some cultural elite in defining what quality is? Isn’t quality subjective anyways? Does it matter what French intellectuals like Fageolle and Liardet has to say about SPACE: 1999? After all, they are just viewers like anybody else, so why should their opinions matter more? Well, it matters because of cultural competence. People like Jenkins, Keazor and Liardet have doctorates in cultural theory and have written extensively about popular culture and SPACE: 1999 and/or related themes in books and peer-reviewed journals. They provide authoritative readings of cultural texts that contextualise phenomena like SPACE: 1999 historically, culturally and politically, showing how the series not only engaged in important social discourse of the 1970s but also how it has become a remarkably relevant text for understanding and designing political actions in a present world that has become more and more similar to the nightmares described in the series. Ignoring the difference between quality and popularity, saying that quality can be measured by popularity, we end up with a type of cultural relativism where porn can be seen as is more culturally important than Shakespeare. I don’t know if Kerry or others would argue that porn is better than Shakespeare, but to me this is what people are saying when they claim that

Out of the Frying Pan Y2 was equally good or better than Y1. When we look at what Freiberger says about SPACE: 1999 in interviews with McCorry and Heald, he says that quality is unimportant. Getting a massive audience is the only thing that matters. In other words, his business model is that of turning SPACE: 1999 into porn, and to a large extent I believe he succeeds. If we are going to understand the difference between Y1 and Y2, I believe that thinking about Y2 as porn can be highly useful perspective. By looking back on what Erich Wise wrote, the problem is not that Y2 supporters get insulted by academics, intellectuals, cast, crew and fans saying that Y2 was crap or porn. The problem is that they don’t see that it is perfectly acceptable to like something that is bad. It is possible to watch Y2 porn and like it. Movie reviewers refer to this as guilty pleasures, as Erich says. The point is that popularity and quality are two separate parameters. You can measure popularity in terms of return on investment and deal with it from a strictly business perspective, which is what Freiberger does and why his Y2 is no different from porn, but in order to understand quality it is necessary with cultural competence. I remember some 15-20 years ago there was a freelance film director on the old space1999 list who talked about remaking SPACE: 1999 as porn with an aging Caroline Munro as Maya and the rest of the cast with continental porn actors. It was supposed to be a very low budged production, done as homage to Jess Franco, with Airfix Eagles hanging in strings and so on, but I don’t think he ever managed to get the necessary funding. John B.

331

public fails to latch onto it, then quality doesn't matter. Quality is in the eye of the beholder. In the eye of the productions company and networks, ratings means money. And if a TV show has "quality" in the eye of the creators and perhaps the production company, and the viewing audience fails to get hooked, then say good buy to that production. Year 1 may be a perfect example of this hard cold reality. Space was being considered for a third season, but Grade wanted to go into a different direction, movies. Years ago, TV networks tended to give a show more time to get its footing, so to speak, but now that doesn't seem to be the case in many instances. I see they've made a short six to eight episodes of the old series "The X Files". Having never wathced it much, I assume it had some good quality scripts, but it also had ratings and a fan base. It also had a network and a regular schedule. That's something 1999 didn't have. Even you John admit that, in your view, the first four episodes of Y1 were very good but later on the quality slipped. Perhaps that's what the viewers felt as well, as the ratings also slipped. I guess this is why shows like THE OUTER LIMITS, THE TWILIGHT ZONE, and others are considered "classic SF/Fantasy. I'm not sure what the ratings were, but they did have quality, quality enough to allow the TWILIGHT ZONE to last several years. I will grant that they were anthology shows, but i will also say that if they didn't have the viewership, the highest "quality" scripts wouldn't have made a bit of difference without ratings. Viewership means people watching commercials which means they might buy the sponsors products, thus the sponsors would continue to buy spots during a series.

*** 31596 Re: New trivia blooper test Kerry Keene Feb 7, 2016

The cruel fact is, this is a business, no matter how fans feel about their favorite shows or movies. The production companies look at the bottom line.

John B., let me tell you that someone can write the greateodest book or script, in the view of the author or his or her family and acquaitences, but if they go to sell it and no one is interested, or if it does make it to the bookstores or screen (TV or theater), and the

As for John B comparing or using the word pornagraphy in discussing Y2, all I can say is that Shana is right on. It appears that most others also agree. Joh, look up the word before applying it to a family show.

332


Finally, you refer to Heald's book again without reading on and pages 110-111. Check those pages out and see if you'd like to take on the job of producer, a job Freiberger initially DID NOT WANT. Again, in my view, Anderson gave up, just like Roddenberry did.

hate it all equally, for the same reasons. Is their hatred any less rational than the hatred we see from KNG, (Petter, John Balor) for Season 2? Rgds, John M. ***

In the end, we can debate, call names, slur one season over another, the fact is, it will not make one iota of difference! The Space: 1999 history has been written and unless Space: 2099 ever gets produced, it isn't going to change. John B., live with it! Thanks everybody. *** 31597 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test SHANA G Feb 7, 2016


I have noticed this as well. The Uber-Trekoids seem to hate anything that doesn't match up with their utopian vision. I have heard many a screed towards Space. They will say, for example, how 1999, i.e. the year, makes no sense now, since that date is already come and gone. Yet, they will stick religiously to 1996, as the date Khan and his genetic supermen left earth, aboard the Botany Bay. Since we had no such ships in 1996, sadly, well, you see my point.

John,

***

I’ll say it again, you’re a moron, and most all of us don’t give a rats ass what you say anymore!!!

31600 Re: New trivia blooper test balor1999 Feb 7, 2016

Kerry wrote:

Shana *** 31598 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test John Marcucci Feb 7, 2016

Shana, our friend KNG has managed to insult just about everybody who does not agree with his point of view. He is thorough, I'll give him that. One thing we're forgetting is awards: Star Trek won at least one Hugo Award as I recall, and was nominated for few more but Space 1999 was never even nominated for one. The reasons why are probably related to the same irrational prejudice that made some Star trek fans hate Space 1999 with a passion. Interesting though: the people I have known, Star Trek fans mostly, who HATE Space 1999 make no disrinction between S1 and S2. They

John B., let me tell you that someone can write the greateodest book or script, in the view of the author or his or her family and acquaitences, but if they go to sell it and no one is interested, or if it does make it to the bookstores or screen (TV or theater), and the public fails to latch onto it, then quality doesn't matter. Quality is in the eye of the beholder. In the eye of the productions company and networks, ratings means money. And if a TV show has "quality" in the eye of the creators and perhaps the production company, and the viewing audience fails to get hooked, then say good buy to that production. Year 1 may be a perfect example of this hard cold reality.

I will not say that I have no sympathy for what Kerry is saying. In fact, defining ‘quality’ and explaining how it differs from ‘popularity’ may not always be as simple as Erich suggests, so I believe Kerry makes an important point. If we look at Erich’s argument, the way I have understood it, he makes the point that a high quality show can have low ratings or high ratings, and a low quality show can also get high ratings or low ratings. Although I don’t

Out of the Frying Pan remember exactly, he may have used examples for clarifying the point, but at least I don’t remember any examples that totally convinced me of his arguments. For instance, I think he mentioned series like “Gunsmoke”, “Bonanza” and “Barney Miller” at some stage, but to me it is not obvious how any of these series were high quality despite all of them getting high ratings at some stage and lasting for many seasons. In the case of “Barney Miller”, I have only seen the first season, so I may have missed something if it developed in important ways during the next seven seasons, but to me it was an amusing but still quite conventional sit-com series. It had some nice characters, and a wide variety of challenges and problems at the detective’s squad room, sometimes job-related and sometimes family-related, but it did not strike me as particularly more profound than other comedy shows of the period, like “Taxi”, “Three’s Company”, “The Jeffersons”, “Happy Days” or “Laverne & Shirley”. Sometimes the shows could be concerned with some serious issue like racism or unemployment, but usually this was done in a superficial manner as the point of the series was to make people relax rather than get politically agitated. So, if we are going to discuss quality of television series, there is a challenge that much of it is quite similar. Furthermore, which series get nominated for awards sometimes seems as though it was done as a way for the industry to award the makers of shows that manage to draw large audiences and stay on for many seasons rather than an actual assessment and award of the quality of the show. For example, when Barbara Bain got repeated Emmy awards for her performance in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, for what to me seemed like an almost non-performance in comparison to her gripping interpretation of Helena Russell in the first year of SPACE: 1999, this gives me a hint that such awards have to be taken with a grain of salt. Of course, they would not award an actor/actress or a show that was totally hopeless, but in a case like MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE one might suspect that her award may have had more to do with how she was perhaps popular with the audiences as she was the only female in an all male cast, and thus important for the show. So, rather than being awarded for an outstanding performance,

333

perhaps she was being awarded for doing a competent performance that contributed to the success of the show and thus signalling that actors who are helpful in making a series successful are more easily rewarded than actors giving outstanding performances. If we are going to discuss the real quality of Barbara Bain’s performance in first MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, then the first year of SPACE: 1999, and finally the second year of SPACE: 1999, we need to look at acting on film, stage and television in a more competent manner. For example, in the first year of SPACE: 1999 it has previously been argued (Ogland, 2014, p. 261) that it would be possible to compare Barbara Bain’s performance with the performances we see in CRIES AND WHISPERS, SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE, THE AUTUMN SONATA and similar masterpieces by Ingmar Bergman. Although SPACE: 1999 was a television series that was written and produced for a much wider audience than the art house crowd that was the target audience when the Bergman films were given international release, there is still a similar ambition in the scripts and performances in many of the Y1 episodes. By making such comparisons, we can see that the first series of SPACE: 1999 was of remarkably high quality in terms of performance levels among the leads and the supporting cast. Also, by making similar types of comparisons with Y2, it is easy to confirm what Erich said about how the acting style was changed to a silly or childish level. SPACE: 1999 changed from serious drama to sitcom science fiction. Regardless of what the popularity ratings say, in terms of acting quality it plummeted down to the level of “Barney Miller” and “Three’s Company”. In a similar way we can look at other aspects of how Fred Freiberger redesigned SPACE: 1999. His aim was to increase the popularity of the show, not the quality. According to Iaccino (2001), it was the resulting plummet in quality that made the ratings drop and ultimately result in no further seasons. In the case of the international release of SPACE: 1999 this is quite obvious, as seen in the AlphaCon Video (Mallett & Pearce, 1991) and the “La Nuit Special Cosmos 1999” documentary (Verat, 1999), by way of how the drop in quality resulted in drop of ratings and popularity26.

334


However, the reason for hiring Freiberger was because they ITC the new series to be popular in the US, and by the way we understand Freiberger’s analysis, he was particularly interested in making SPACE: 1999 into ‘shit’ that would appeal to pre-schoolers and members of the drug culture, the kind of people that would find a character like Maya amusing. So in order to gain a bigger audience, the series had to be made more accessible for people with less than average intellectual capacities, meaning that the subtle characterisations, philosophical themes and intellectually complex aspects of Y1 had to be replaced with something that would go easier with the people who were primarily consuming SCOOBY-DOO and STAR TREK cartoons. I would very much like to hear what Erich Wise might have to say about this, but to me the quality of a show like SPACE: 1999 has to be measured by completely different means that what is used for measuring popularity, namely one has to use the methods applied by cultural theorists like Fageolle, Keazor, Iaccino, Bussieres, Wozniak and Liardet. One needs to engage with the historical, cultural and political context of when a series like SPACE: 1999 was made, and then explain the quality of the show in terms of how it can be understood in this context and to which degree it remains relevant and important in the context of the current cultural and political situations and discourse. John B. *** 31601 Re: New trivia blooper test kerryirs Feb 7, 2016

Shana, I couldn't have said it better. I think perhaps Erich is drinking from the same cup intolorance that Balor is drinking from. Mr. Balor, what awards did Y1 win, I'm not talking about SFX, writing awards? None! I'll ask again, if Y1 was so great, and it has some fine moments and episodes, why was Sir Grade Editor’s note: For further comments on Y2 as the destruction of SPACE: 1999 and Y1/Y2 from the viewpoint of a cultural devide between Europe and USA, see Petit (1999).

26

unhappy with it? Why did he and ITC feel it didn't cut the mustard and changes needed to be made? I want your opinion. Y2 is crap? Let's see, we've gone through the episode by episode, but I'll some that I think rank as some of the best of the entire series. "Journey To Where", "Immunity Syndrome", "Dotzak", "New Adam, New New Eve", "Bringers Of Wonder Parts 1 & 2", "Devil's Planet", "The Metamorph". I personally like "The Rules Of Lutin", not because of the concept, but because of the intiment moments between Maya and Koenig and the respect each has for the other. So John and Erich, if you want respect for your views, it's time you two recipricated. This has been going on too long and is probably one reason fandom has stayed stagnant for years along with the fact there hasn't been anything new except for the books, published by Powyrs Media and a model here and there. So, keep it up. In the end you and Erich might be the last two on the list. I'm getting tired of the constant bashing without end. If you two think Y2 is crap, that's fine, but respect others who disagree and stop making general statements about people you don't even know. *** 31605 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test SHANA G Feb 8, 2016

Dear John, I tell you again, you are a moron. Just because YOU don’t like season 2 doesn’t mean that YOU should not respect the people that do. You are rude and condescending, and maybe S1 should have been out in the trash. Why don’t you do us all a favor and shout the hell up when it comes to Y2. You have pushed all of my buttons. If you can’t say anything nice about Y2, then don’t type it! This gay porn Nazi, communistic Y2 talk has been way over the line for a long time. Shana ***


335

Rgds, John M. 31615 Re: New trivia blooper test kerryirs Feb 8, 2016

*** 31618 Re: New trivia blooper test midst2day Feb 8, 2016

John wrote: According to Iaccino (2001), it was the resulting plummet in quality that made the ratings drop and ultimately result in no further seasons.

Oh, really? If Y1 had the "quality", what happened? It should've been a slam dunk to have been renewed. Instead it got canned. Ratings? As for acting or flat performances, in many cases, was something, for me, Y1 suffered from. At times, Barbara Bain delivered her lines so low key, that I wasn't sure I heard what she was saying. For me, it was almost a dead pan delivery. At least in Y2 I could one hear her and two she projected feelings far more than she did in Y1. This might have been due to her training in Bain's portrayal of Russell in Y1. In Y2 I found her to be warmer and showed far more concern than at times in Y1. Quality, again, is in the eye of the beholder. Y2 has its flaws as does Y1. So John Balor, if you'd spend as much time looking at Y1, its writers, the original concept of 1999, and Anderson in terms of the pros and cons as you do bashing Y2 and FF, it might be an interesting contrast to your other rants. Let's see you do this using YOUR own views and leave these so-called "intellectuals" on the sidelines. *** 31616 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test John Marcucci Feb 8, 2016

Well said, Kerry. Its ultimately a chicken-egg argument. Is someone a "culturally competent" intellectual because they hate Y2? Or, does someone hate Y2 because they are a culturally competent intellectual? You see how empty and puerile Petter's arguments are.

Kerry, It seems remarkably contradictory how on the one hand you decry the negativity on the list these days, yet almost immediately thereafter take to making a variety of disparaging, or implied negative comments about Year 1 in order to strike back at Balor. As fans of the show, whether just Y1, just Y2, or even better both seasons of Space: 1999, wouldn't it be better to simply ignore him and let his inflammatory comments stay silent in a vacuum of non-response than to do the very thing you accuse him of, making fun of or criticizing something that many of us hold dear??? Shana has made it direct and clear that she doesn't think much of Balor's comments and certainly doesn't appreciate them. Yet, he ignores her quite easily and then continues on in mindful bliss that he is achieving, and continues to achieve the VERY things he seems to want the most - to create upset amongst Y2 fan members and to draw undeserved attention to himself. As mentioned before, don't feed the monster and he'll eventually realize that this is no longer fun any more. None of us should allow him to keep making fools of us because the only one gaining anything out of all this right now is him. If EVERYONE would finally just ignore him, block him, or simply delete his comments then maybe the list can get back to us all just appreciating the show and actually caring and accepting one another like our Alphans did. As his name says, he's NOT one of us and just like the real Balor he gets his jollies out of upsetting and torturing people which is why he continues to do so. Why that hasn't become blindingly obvious to everyone is the real question to ponder ...

336


*** 31621 Re: New trivia blooper test kerryirs Feb 9, 2016

You have a point midst2day, but at times "the beast" has to be confronted. My comments concerning Y1 actually have been around for years. Despite the shortcomings of 1999 (and it isn't the only one), it is the only series over the years I've really taken an interest in to the extent to getting involved in fandom. Balor's views are fine as long as he keeps them on topic instead of moving into personal attacks and name calling. I prefer discussing the show in terms of content, as we've done and the characters, which it seems to me we've done less. We'll just have to see what the future brings in terms of content and the forum itself. As Dr. Brown once said in BACK TO THE FUTURE III, "The future hasn't been written yet, no ones has, so let's make it a good one." Keep that in terms of the events of the movie. The writing

of the future begins now. Let's work to improve on the present in order to lay a good foundation for the future, this forum included. Peace. *** 31624 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: New trivia blooper test SHANA G Feb 9, 2016

All: Very well said! Balor just needs to go put his baby bonnet on, get his bottle, and go take his nap in the crib. I have just hit my bullshit point with him downing Y2, when so many of us like it. I mean y2= gay porn????? Really??? Love to all, Shana ***

9.6 Half time… for S1999 One of the discussants decides to comment on the annual Super Bowl championship game of the American National Football League (NFL). Although this starts out as a distraction from the discussion about reading SPACE: 1999 through the lens of fan fiction, it soon evolves into an interesting metaphor for the conflicting viewes concerning Y1 and Y2. 31602 Half time..for S1999 jemarcu Feb 8, 2016

OK sports fans, its half time and Manning is holding his own. As soon as Coldplay is done, I'm watching Part I of "THe Bringers of Wonder" Having Lady (sic) Gag-Gag masssacre the National Anthemwas bad enough.

Will Maya turn into a hulking tackle, and win the game? *** 31604 Re: Half time..for S1999 blondgod1999 Feb 8, 2016

Lady Gaga did an amazing job. That was an unnecessarily cruel comment.

Rgds, John M. *** 31603 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Half time..for S1999 sennmut Feb 8, 2016

BOW (both Part 1 and 2) are very good episodes. I still haven't seen the "movie" they cobbled together for it, Destination Moonbase Alpha. Is it much different? ***


31606 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Half time..for S1999 SHANA G Feb 8, 2016

John M. I think the ½ time show was terrible this year, very boring Shana

337

I wonder if they had any intramural football leagues on MBA. Technical Section vs Hydroponics? *** 31611 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Half time..for S1999 blondgod1999 Feb 8, 2016

This group isn't what it once was. So tired of the negativity. *** ***

31608 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Half time..for S1999 John Marcucci Feb 8, 2016

Its only cruel if its true. Don't like the woman, don't care for her "singing". Mariah Carey or Joss Stone would have been a better choice for the National Anthem. Just sayin' *** 31609Re: Half time..for S1999 jemarcu Feb 8, 2016

31612 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Half time..for S1999 sennmut Feb 8, 2016

On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 John Marcucci writes: Its only cruel if its true. Don't like the woman, don't care for her "singing". Mariah Carey or Joss Stone would have been a better choice for the National Anthem. Just sayin'

I would have preferred Placido Domingo, or Andrea Bocelli. ***

Blondgod wrote: BOW (both Part 1 and 2) are very good episodes. I still haven't seen the "movie" they cobbled together for it, Destination Moonbase Alpha. Is it much different?

Never seen it. Why bother? You can either eat your steak or grind it up into hamburg to make it stretch, but you can't make more steak. *** 31610 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Half time..for S1999 John Marcucci Feb 8, 2016

Shana wrote: I think the ½ time show was terrible this year, very boring

Well, the Bronco's didn't get away clean, but they got away. Wasn't expecting that. Hopefully, Manning will retire while he can still walk.

31614 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Half time..for S1999 balor1999 Feb 8, 2016

If we were to compare the current state of the Y1/Y2 debate with Super Bowl 50, I would say that Erich defeated Kerry 24-10 with the following comment: Most people do not know what makes something good, only if they like it. "It's good because I like it." That's why Year 2 supporters get insulted when they are rightly informed that Year 2 is crap. They don't understand that it is perfectly acceptable to like something that is bad. Movie reviewers call these guilty pleasures; they know it's crap but they still like it. I've like a few series myself that were crap. I liked it while knowing it would never win any awards.

To me this is a perfectly reasonable statement, and it is also a rather important statement in the context of how we need to find a platform that makes it possible to bridge the understanding of Y1 and Y2 in a constructive

338


manner. As Erich correctly points out, at least as far as I can see, the typical argument for merit in Y2 is based on statements like “It’s good because I like it”. This is clearly not sufficient, especially not when everybody else, including the cast and crew, say that Y2 was crap. What is needed for elevating the debate is to align position with scholars and intellectuals who at least have some minimum level of sympathy for Y2. To me, the obvious point of reference in such a context is Liardet (2014). Liardet strikes me in this context as a remarkable courageous man in the sense of being a French intellectual who has a following among SPACE: 1999 followers with limited sympathy for Maya, Y2 and FF. I think most of us never tire from reading Fageolle’s (1996) authoritative and influential book about SPACE: 1999, but he is only one voice in the fugue of intellectuals who have contributed to the current state of knowledge of SPACE: 1999. Without mentioning the usual names, such as Keazor, Bussieres, Wozniak and so on, I think the French “Nuit Special Cosmos 1999” documentary (Verat,1999) is extraordinary perceptive, and so is the documentary made for the French DVD release (Carrazé & Wybon, 2002), but also the highly insightful analysis by Christophe Petit that was originally published in the French journal Génération Séries no 30 (sept.-oct.-nov. 1999), but is now available on the internet. http://generations-series.com/2014/06/cosmos1999-voyage-au-bout-de-la-nuit/ What all these intellectuals are saying is exactly the same as Erich Wise and others have been saying for a long time: Y2 is crap. In fact, they go further than that. They say the same as James Iaccino (2001), namely that Freiberger and Y2 destroyed SPACE: 1999. So, given this context, I think Liardet is courageous in trying to argue that there might be merit to Y2 after all. How does he do it? Does he say “Y2 is good because I like it”? Of course not. He starts by reaching for a platform that makes rational debate possible. He starts by explaining why Y2 is crap and then builds from this. In other words, he does exactly what Erich suggests we should all do. “Movie reviewers call these guilty pleasures; they know it's crap but they still like it.” But,

Liardet does more than that. He explains what he means by ‘crap’ by historical, cultural and political contextualisation. He suggests that we should read Y2 in a similar way to how we would read Roger Vadim’s BARBARELLA (1968). This has then become extremely useful for the debates on this forum, because it has lead us into the idea of thinking of Y2 as pornography, although – as Kerry points out – perhaps the term ‘pornography’ is slightly misleading in the sense that many would not see BARBARELLA as pornography. Nevertheless, what Liardet manages is to establish Y2 at the absolute bottom of trash culture, thus connecting with the French intellectuals mentioned above and the SPACE: 1999 scholarly community as a whole, but doing this in a manner that makes it possible to analyse and discuss Y2 in a culturally competent manner than can then be used for giving merit to the series. It is in this respect that I would say that Kerry gets 10 points against Erich’s 24. Look for instance at the following comment: Y2 is crap? Let's see, we've gone through the episode by episode, but I'll some that I think rank as some of the best of the entire series. "Journey To Where", "Immunity Syndrome", "Dotzak", "New Adam, New New Eve", "Bringers Of Wonder Parts 1 & 2", "Devil's Planet", "The Metamorph". I personally like "The Rules Of Lutin", not because of the concept, but because of the intiment moments between Maya and Koenig and the respect each has for the other.

Although there is no argument beyond the usual “it’s good because I like it,” it is nevertheless a list of episodes that often feature when we try to look at how to continue Liardet’s experiment. For instance, JOURNEY TO WHERE is obviously interesting because of how the narrative deals with the important issue of climate change and environmental activism. NEW ADAM NEW EVE critiques institutionalised religion. BRINGERS OF WONDER deals with the dangers of consumer capitalism. THE METAMORPH deals with class society and becomes increasingly relevant as we see the whole world developing in the direction of a 1% of extreme wealth and political power exploiting the 99% who are desperately trying to make the ends meet.

Out of the Frying Pan In other words, I do not share Blondgod’s concerns about negativity and how the group is no longer what it used to be. On the contrary, I think the group has developed significantly in a right direction during the past few years. We have now to a large extent passed the impasse of earlier days when discussion consisted of talking about fan-made Eagle models and saying “Y2 is good because I like it”. In my opinion we are having far better discussions on the Online Alpha discussion forum that have ever been presented before. We now have discussions that help us deepen our understanding and appreciation for SPACE: 1999. John B. *** 31613 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Half time..for S1999 sennmut Feb 8, 2016

On 07 Feb 2016 blondgod@... writes: This group isn't what it once was. So tired of the negativity.

Okay, all, answer this........What one thing defines Moonbase Alpha, more than anything else? *** 31617 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Half time..for S1999 jemarcu Feb 8, 2016

The will to survive. *** 31619 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Half time..for S1999 sennmut Feb 9, 2016

Good answer. Anyone else? *** 31620 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Half time..for S1999 balor1999 Feb 9, 2016

339

When you made a similar question about BREAKAWAY, at the very beginning of the second ExE (message #28230, 28 May 2014), you suggested “family” as a possible answer. I remember I disagreed with that, as I see the meaning of BREAKAWAY in terms of being essentially a political episode, but when you ask about what defines Moonbase Alpha without reference to any particular episode, I think “family” is a good answer. Of course, we may disagree on how widely this metaphor is to be understood, like how Barry Morse talks about the Moonbase Alpha crew as a socialistic outfit (Wood, 2010, p. 82) - something I see as important input on how to understand SPACE: 1999, but if we forget the choice of words for a moment and think in more general terms, I would agree with you if you were to say something along the lines of Moonbase Alpha being more like family rather than everybody for himself. I also like the family metaphor when thinking about Online Alpha. Although some like Y2 and some like Y1, some like to analyse and some like to write fan fiction, and we all like to share and discuss our various ideas and perspectives - even quite loudly at times, it still feels very much like family discussions to me. When some say that they prefer one season over the other, or even express opinions of the kind that the world had been better off if one of the seasons had never been made, I still see the discussions and debates in the context of how we enjoy and share our enjoyment of SPACE: 1999 as a whole. As I have just completed chapter ten of OUT OF THE FRYING PAN, I hope you will allow me to quote a passage that I found particularly beautiful and also a fitting answer to your question. It is a reflective moment between John and Helena towards the end. But for the moment, it was only good news. As Alpha drew closer, her course curved slightly, due to Gamoray's, and her suns', gravity. While it was soon clear that she was not going into orbit, either around the suns or the planet itself, it would still give them almost five hours more time within Eagle range, for the transport of equipment and supplies.

340


"Why," Helena asked, as they watched another ship lift off for Gamoray, "does every planet we come to that could support us have to be inhabited?" "Or have some weird properties that could kill us?" Koenig added. "I don't know, Helena. "I just know that we can't stay here, if the Delphians forbid it. I know how I'd feel if it were Earth, and some group of aliens came along." "I agree, John," she sighed, hand absently on her abdomen. "It's just....I want a real world for our child. This..." she indicated Alpha about them, "isn't a world. It's a tin can." "I know, Helena," he sighed as well. "I know." He looked out the window, at the lunar surface, recalling their time near the planet Ariel. Given an almost Earthlike atmosphere to keep them from landing on the planet, the aliens had taken it away again when it became obvious that the Moon would not be going into orbit around the sun. He had often wonderedan intelligence capable of such an incredible technological feat, as well as altering the Moon's spin and gravity to compliment the new air, surely could have altered their course, to make sure they went into orbit about that sun. Why not? Fear? He had no answers, despite having asked the question a thousand times. Some people reflect on SPACE: 1999 by writing scholarly articles, while others prefer to do the same by writing fictional accounts. Regardless of the approach chosen, when it is done at the utmost level of quality, I think it adds to our common understanding and appreciation of the series, sometimes academically and sometimes poetically. John B. *** 31623 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Half time..for S1999 SHANA G Feb 9, 2016

John, Like your quote below says about family, you are the one that stops this blog from being a family. You make it uncomfortable and dysfunctional. Your deep rooted hate of season 2 makes it impossible to have an intelligent conversation about Y2. You have no respect for others other than the stupid books you quote, which should be thrown in the trash. Shana *** 31625 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Half time..for S1999 SHANA G Feb 9, 2016

Senmut wrote: Good answer. Anyone else?

How about the ability of being able to stay human, with love, laughter, anger and fear, as if they were still on Earth? Shana ***


341

9.7 Confronting the beast One of the final posts from the “New trivia blooper test” thread (section 9.5) evolved into the discussion about how to express opionions on Y1 and Y2. One of the central point in this discussion is how fans of Y2 can argue their point of view when those on the Y1 side of the debate have all the good arguments. The first contributer to the discussion presents a possible strategy which then becomes topic for debate. 31622 Re: confronting the beast midst2day Feb 9, 2016

Kerry Keene wrote: You have a point midst2day, but at times "the beast" has to be confronted. My comments concerning Y1 actually have been around for years. Despite the shortcomings of 1999 (and it isn't the only one), it is the only series over the years I've really taken an interest in to the extent to getting involved in fandom. Balor's views are fine as long as he keeps them on topic instead of moving into personal attacks and name calling. I prefer discussing the show in terms of content, as we've done and the characters, which it seems to me we've done less. We'll just have to see what the future brings in terms of content and the forum itself. As Dr. Brown once said in BACK TO THE FUTURE III, "The future hasn't been written yet, no ones has, so let's make it a good one." Keep that in terms of the events of the movie. The writing of the future begins now. Let's work to improve on the present in order to lay a good foundation for the future, this forum included. Peace.

Thing is that the beast seems to follow a very familiar pattern and has done so for at least a couple of years, probably longer by the sounds of it. There may be short times of complimentary, even insightful discourse, then out comes the standard inflammatory "Year 2 is 'cr*p'" remarks to upset people.and restart the cycle all over again. Might be time to consider that confrontation is both his motive and objective and confronting him is precisely what he wants and seems to get his jollies over. Regarding your comments about Y1, thing is that many fans on this list don't have concerns about it, and overall view the show NOT in terms of its 'shortcomings' but rather in what makes it one of the finest sci-fi shows in TV history.

There have been plenty of other non-fans to regurgitate and repeat ad nauseum the supposed shortcomings of the show for some 4 decades now. They didn't turn any of us into haters of the show before, and certainly shouldn't turn us into doubters either today. And, it seems so strange that the ones who should understand that best, namely Year 2 fans because they've often had to suffer criticisms from non-fans and overzealous 1999 fans alike, now seem to revel in trying to do the same against Y1 which only serves to upset any fans who do like Y1 (and very likely Y2 as well in different ways) who all get painted with the same brush simply because some poster that goes by the name of Balor likes to shoot his mouth off and stir up trouble. A possible approach is if Balor's views in some posts are fine and stay on topic, then engage him in kind. But, if he then puts out his own version of inflammatory cr*p as he regularly does, then all should ignore and shun him because, again, it is blindingly obvious that the same pattern repeats over and over and things never get better. Rather those few left around here just seem to get more bitter, and as you mentioned, this list seems more about negativity than a nice place for all the fandom of Space: 1999 to meet and share their love and appreciation of the show without turning on one another in a never-ending series of false fights and meaningless confrontations that no one can or should ever hope to win. Peace, respect and acceptance to you too. :) *** 31626 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: confronting the beast John Marcucci Feb 9, 2016

Midst2day,

342


What you wrote about John K Balor is spot on, and your suggested solution only requires a modicum of self discipline on my part., in not responding to provocations. Rgds, John M. *** 31627 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: confronting the beast balor1999 Feb 10, 2016

Midst2day wrote: Thing is that the beast seems to follow a very familiar pattern and has done so for at least a couple of years, probably longer by the sounds of it. There may be short times of complimentary, even insightful discourse, then out comes the standard inflammatory "Year 2 is 'cr*p'" remarks to upset people, and restart the cycle all over again. Might be time to consider that confrontation is both his motive and objective and confronting him is precisely what he wants […].

I’m not surprised that there are patterns to be found in my contributions to the forum because my motives and objectives are very simple. I am basically interested in two issues. The first issue is rather general has to do with the general understanding of SPACE: 1999, particularly possibilities is bridging the knowledge and insights about the series from a fan perspective and a scholarly perspective. In other words, I’m interested in how the documented insights from people like Fageolle, Liardet, Keazor, Wozniak, Bussieres, Wybon, Turdo, Iaccino, West, Drake, Muir and the rest can help us improve our understanding of SPACE: 1999. But more than that, I also believe that our understanding of SPACE: 1999 as fans can function as input for scholarly understanding, meaning that it is possible to break out of what Tulloch and Jenkins (1995, pp. 144-172) refer to when they describe fans as a ‘powerless elite’. The second issue that interests me relates directly to this process of emancipation, namely the role of fan fiction as a lens for understanding SPACE: 1999 as means for political activism. Again this is inspired by Tulloch and Jenkins, particularly the third part of their book, where Jenkins talks about STAR TREK and political discourse, addressing

issues like the Civil Rights Movement, Socialist Feminism, the Gay Rights Movement, the Anti-War Movement, and which he in later books and lectures expands further by discussing how fan fiction and popular culture have been effectively used the Anti-Globalisation Movement, the Obama Election Movement, the Occupy Movement and so on. Although I have great sympathy for many of the political ideas expressed by Roddenberry through STAR TREK, I think Tulloch and Jenkins (p. 26) address a central issue when the quote Jay Goulding’s critique of STAR TREK from his 1985 book “Empire, Aliens and Conquest”. I believe I have already referred to this particular quote in earlier posts, but as Goulding makes such an important point, I think it is worth repeating: Advanced industrial societies produce all sorts of material class related contradictions which have their counterparts at the cultural or ideological level. These societies preach equality of opportunity and practice inequality; they speak in the name of peace and continue to stack up nuclear weapons; the plan strategies to expand space through world development and produce further dependent colonisation; they forward philosophies of freedom and continue to operate through domination; they speak in the name of free market and act in the name of corporate monopoly and privileged access. By recognising that this is the true meaning of STAR TREK, something quite different from reading of the text that began with David Gerrold’s “The World of Star Trek” (New York: Ballantine, 1973) at the time when STAR TREK started developing into a larger phenomenon through the reruns and animations – and which made Roddenberry and other selectively use episodes that fitted with the dominant (left wing) political rhetoric of the period, I think we are in a vastly superior position when discussing a television show that was actually made in 1974 with a much clearer foundation in the political ideas that Roddenberry and other representatives of the progressive left wanted to express. Of course, for Jenkins the true ideology of STAR TREK is of no fundamental concern as

Out of the Frying Pan his focus is on how a canon of the left-wing oriented episodes could be used by fans turning into political activist, or fans producing fiction that would ignore the oppressive, manipulative and right-wing aspects of the show, but in the case of SPACE: 1999 we do not have to face such challenges. SPACE: 1999 as a whole, at least Y1, is solidly founded in a meaningful understanding of the world that reflects the political and ideological viewpoints of Byrne, Penfold, di Lorenzo and the rest of the politically progressive writing team, making the series ever more relevant for understanding current geopolitical developments in terms of climate crises, global financial crisis, migration crisis and so on. Not only is SPACE: 1999 an interesting lens for understanding the present, as we might have predicted from reading Freedman’s “Critical theory and science fiction” (Wesleyan University Press, 2000), but it is also an interesting platform for designing political action. However, there are also challenges. The main challenge, as I see it, is the challenge of understanding how Y2 fits into this project of bridging fandom and academia. This is a challenge on several levels, not at least because there are conflicting views within fandom concerning the role of Y2 within the context of SPACE: 1999. For the more articulate fans, like what we have seen in the case of the French fan community, Y2 is understood in the same way as how I understand a large majority of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA fans understands GALACTICA 1980. They despise it and do not consider it canon. In other words, the more articulate part of SPACE: 1999 fandom tends to do exactly the same as the scholars, academics, critics, cast and crew associated with SPACE: 1999; they consider Y2 to be crap, and mostly agree with Fageolle’s viewpoint that all the negatives and copies of Y2 should have been (metaphorically) sent out into deep space where they could be destroyed and saved humanity for ever having to deal with trash like that again. But, here we are talking about fans that understand and appreciate SPACE: 1999. As Muir (1997, p. 88) points out, there are also “many fans of the series […] loved the second season and preferred it to the first season by a

343

wide margin”. In other words, we cannot simply ignore Y2, as Fageolle (1996), Petit (1999) and Wybon (2014) directly or indirectly suggest. In order to bridge fandom with academia – for instance by the means suggested by Liardet (2014), we first have to deal with the challenge of Y2 and the Y1/Y2 debates, and it has to be done in a way that makes sense both from a scholarly perspective and a fandom perspective. We have to include fans of SPACE: 1999 that “love” Y2 and thus do not really understand the series. How can we do this? As this is a discussion forum, I think the only way towards a common platform for understanding SPACE: 1999 comes through discussion and debate. Here I strongly agree with Jürgen Habermas (1987) that we have to establish conditions that make it possible to conduct meaningful debate, characterised by the ideal situation where people speak comprehensively, truthfully, authentically and appropriately. As Erich points out, having people say “Y2 is good because I like it,” is not sufficient. Such statements may be truthful and authentic, but in the context of reaching a common platform for understanding and further debate, they are not comprehensible nor are they appropriate. Here is what Erich said about going beyond the “Y2 is good because I like it” argument: Most people do not know what makes something good, only if they like it. "It's good because I like it." That's why Year 2 supporters get insulted when they are rightly informed that Year 2 is crap. They don't understand that it is perfectly acceptable to like something that is bad. Movie reviewers call these guilty pleasures; they know it's crap but they still like it. I've like a few series myself that were crap. I liked it while knowing it would never win any awards.

I totally agree, and from my viewpoint, this would be in perfect alignment with Habermas’ notion of ideal communication situations from his theory of communicative action, namely that we establish a basis for communicative rationality by agreeing on the basics of SPACE: 1999 discourse, namely the understanding of Y1 as classic and Y2 as crap. To me this seems to be the bare essentials of what SPACE: 1999 is all about. Although this viewpoint may take some time to swallow for those who prefer Y2 to Y1, I

344


still think it is the only reasonable position to take if we want to go beyond the level of “Y2 is good because I like it” type of debate. Actually, if we manage to reach agreement on Y1 as classic and Y2 as crap as a basis for collective understanding, it should be much easier to explore what Liardet (2014) refer to as the hidden merits of Y2. There should me much less need to continue the exploration of Y2 as pornography and fascism, because once we get past the way Y2 turned out to be, we can rather look into what it could have been. For instance, how it could have functioned in the context of the civil rights movement and women’s liberation if Teresa Graves had been cast as Maya, as both Freiberger and Anderson wanted, rather than Catherine Schell. We could also contemplate what Y2 had been like if it had been produced following the Y1 style, including music, costumes, acting and without Maya, and see how much more prominent the political subtext of individual episodes would have been, and how much more useful they would consequently have been in the context of understanding the geopolitical situation past and present and then use this for designing political activism. I believe there are vast opportunities for insightful debates and development of interesting knowledge if we choose to engage more deeply with the increasing body of authoritative readings of SPACE: 1999 and focus on why the series really matters. John B.

In my opinion, looking for authoritative readings of “SPACE: 1999” should be a cornerstone in how to find ways of bridging the knowledge about the series produced by fandom and academia. When Freedman (2000) writes about the relationship between critical theory and science fiction, the search of authoritative readings is a central point, or often it is simply recognising authoritative readings as a basis for the formation of canon. To be more precise, his aim, he explains (p. xv), has been to do for science fiction what George Lukács did for historical fiction in his famous book “The Historical Novel” (1962): “The historical novel” remains, for all its imperfections and ambiguities, the finest literary-critical account of any particular genre. Leaving aside, however, the question of to what degree I succeed in emulating the brilliance of Lukács’s achievement, there should be no question that the fundamental intention of this volume is strictly parallel to that of Lukács’s great work. Just as Lukács argues that the historical novel is a privileged and paradigmatic genre for Marxism, so I argue that science fiction enjoys – and out to be recognised as enjoying – such a position not only for Marxism but for critical theory in general. So, if we include Freedman’s definition of critical theory as something he uses not necessarily restricted to Marxist philosophy but more similarly to how we are using it on this forum, I think this brings us a rather clear picture of where we are at:

*** 31628 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: confronting the beast sennmut Feb10, 2016

The below, Fageolle, et al, is "authoritative" regarding Space, as pneumonia is to a lung. Parasitical. Period. *** 31629 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: confronting the beast balor1999 Feb 11, 2016

I define critical theory as something broader than Critical Theory in the Frankfurt School usage but not unrelated to it. I use the term to designate the traditions of dialectical and selfreflective through initiated during the historical moment of Kant and Hegel. Insofar as twentieth-century work is concerned, I maintain a certain privilege for specific forms of critical thinking: Marxism above all, but also psychoanalysis and the best work of such postdialectical theorists as Foucault and Derrida (ibid, p. xvi). From this perspective there should be no difficulty in declaring Fageolle’s 1996 masterpiece as an authoritative reading of SPACE: 1999. More than that, Fageolle was

Out of the Frying Pan the first intellectual that I am aware of to create a school of how to understand SPACE: 1999. Henry Keazor is particularly notable in this respect, considering his extensive use of references to Fageolle’s work and his endorsement of the use of critical theory as a lens for understanding SPACE: 1999. One might even say that Keazor is the one that gives Fageolle the much needed academic credibility by way of endorsing and expanding Fageolle’s ideas by embedding them in contemporary academic discourse. Although Fageolle has for decades been a well-known figure in fandom, because of how the debates in the first 1997-98 ExE to a large extent was an exchange of conflicting views based on people who were either positioning themselves along with interpretations suggested by Fageolle (1996) or Muir (1997), it is only until more recently that SPACE: 1999 has become an important part of academic discourse. The central text in this respect, as far as I can see, is Iaccino’s (2001) explanation of how and why Freiberger destroyed SPACE: 1999 through the means of Maya and Y2. This is an absolutely fundamental text for understanding all academic and scholarly discussions that follows, as I see it, although Keazor’s texts from 2012 and 2014 are perhaps even more important for understanding the shape of current discourse, both in academia and fandom. Of course, we must not forget the importance of the increasingly large amount of important academic papers and books being written that fill in the gaps left vacant after the initial analysis conducted by these giants of SPACE: 1999 literary analysis. It is the ideas that are important, not the people. In other words, from my perspective we are in a much better position than Freedman. Not only can we stand on the shoulders of previous giants of SF analysis, such as Jameson, Suvin and Freedman himself, but we also have our own Newtons and Einsteins of SPACE: 1999 research in the shape of Fageolle, Iaccino, Keazor and the rest. We are indeed in an extremely fortunate situation, and it is something we need to make use of as we continue our discussions and debates on Online Alpha and elsewhere.

345

John B. *** 31630 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: confronting the beast sennmut Feb 11, 2016

The more we tell you that we don't agree, Balor, the more we get the "authoritative" crap about Fageolle, et al. Are you incapable of understanding that no one agrees with you, or the offal you keep peddling? These faux intellectuals are as full of it as their books. *** 31632 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: confronting the beast SHANA G Feb 11, 2016

John B., And we care about this because????? Shana ***

346


9.8 Fan Fiction One of the central points in the previous thread was how Senmut’s FOREVER ALPHA fan fiction has to be understood in the context of the larger body of SPACE: 1999 fan fiction as means of exploring the series and designing political actions. The following thread concludes the discussion of “Out of the Frying Pan” by addressing the issue of SPACE: 1999 fan fiction within this larger context. 31631 Fan Fiction jemarcu Feb 11 4:01 PM

I think its pretty clear that for the foreseeable future, the continuation of Space 1999 is going to be the exclusive province of fan fiction writers, Senmut being the prime example of that. But, there are many others. The below is one of my favorites. I'd be interested in your thoughts, reviews, etc. http://www.space1999fiction.com/story.asp?id =transformation&Style=plain *** 31633 Re: Fan Fiction balor1999 Feb 12, 2016

To me there are two reasons why we should take SPACE: 1999 fan fiction seriously. The first reason is that it can be used as an interesting lens for providing new insights on how we understand the original series. Here I see Senmut’s work as a perfect illustration of this point, like how he makes nominal character Brian the Brain from Y2 into a central character in OUT OF THE FRYING PAN. Not only is the idea of making Brian into a main lead an innovative idea in itself, or at least it is not something I am not aware of anyone having done before, but it is also insightful as a manner of discussing issues like courage, which strikes me as being one of the central themes of this particular novel. The second reason why fan fiction matters, from my perspective, is by way of how it can stimulate political activism. This is one of the central points in Jenkins’ analysis of the fan fiction and popular culture phenomenon, and something he says in interviews that he has been struggling with for decades. Now, I will not go into the particular type of politics and political activism that Jenkins has in mind, as this may not necessarily correspond with the

viewpoints expressed between the lines in Senmut’s writing, but I think it should be possible to say something more general about the prescriptive qualities of stories like OUT OF THE FRYING PAN. As has been expressed many times, both by people on this forum and fan fiction reviewers on various fan fiction archives, the quality of Senmut’s writing is extraordinary. What is usually meant by this, based on how I read the reviews and my own assessments of the novels and short stories, is that they are extraordinary enjoyable to read. In fact, the stories are told in a manner that makes it difficult stop reading. They are deep in character and relationships, thus containing elements of high quality psychological drama, and they are full of mystery, romance, and action, and in this way providing quality in terms providing quality in terms of external situations that feed the inner aspects of the stories. The stories also contain narrative quality in the sense that they move forward in a manner that is often unpredictable for the reader, at least for me, but end up naturally in a way that makes the progression easily understandable in retrospect. In other words, the Senmut novels are very similar to what the SPACE: 1999 television series was like at its best, and, as some of us have pointed out before, given the sufficient resources, they could have been dramatised in a manner that would make them easily describable as S99/Y3. However, as I pointed out, I think there are also elements of prescriptive quality in the stories, and by this I mean that they embody a system of ideas and values that are interesting and important for (political) action. As I may be walking on thin ice here, I will not be too specific, but to me there is an ethical quality in Senmut’s writing that also matches the original SPACE: 1999 episodes very well. Of course, as he has pointed out himself, there is nothing “preachy” about OUT OF THE FRYING PAN or any of the other stories we have discussed

Out of the Frying Pan so far, so in this sense they are different from STAR TREK episodes where the epilogue concludes with a statement of what the moral of the story was, but his stories strike me as being written as moral fables in the style of how SPACE: 1999 was written. For example, if we look at an episode that Johnny Byrne discusses in Wood’s book, and elsewhere, as his masterpiece of the series because of political content and implications, namely MISSION OF THE DARIANS, it ends in a rather open way by Alan asking Koenig whether he would have acted differently than the Darians if something similar had happened on Alpha, and Koenig responding by choosing not to answer the question. To me this is something that illustrates the effectiveness of Johnny Byrne as a writer, and when I read stories out of the FOREVER ALPHA cycle, I can sense some of the same greatness. What I see is quality on a level that goes beyond the typical morality plays. Having just completed chapter thirteen in OUT OF THE FRYING PAN, I am just totally impressed by what Senmut does with Brian. It is not only what Brian says and does, but sometimes we are given access to his inner thoughts, and sometimes we have the narrator commenting on Brian’s nature. It is an extremely beautiful account of what might be considered a discussion of the philosophy of courage. It is beautifully written, and it is filled with contradictions and complexity, in a way that makes me think of how Christopher Penfold wrote about the same theme in DRAGON’S DOMAIN. The main difference here, however, is that a written story gives us more easily access to the inner world of characters. Of course, if we have brilliant actors and the purpose is to create realistic drama, like they did in Y1 (as opposed to the cartoonish sitcom drama in Y2), we still get access to the inner world of the characters, MOLAD and RATM probably being the best examples of SPACE:1999 at its psychologically most profound, but still it is difficult to convey the type of inner monologue and narrative commentary that we find in good literature. Nevertheless, at his best Senmut has the ability to excel in this department. To me this is particularly striking when we compare stories like OUT OF THE FRYING PAN with the SPACE: 1999 stories of a professional and

347

commercial writer like E.C. Tubb, who is by many considered to be one of the major names in SF literature, seeing how Tubb does not reach even close to what Senmut achieves when Senmut is at his best. So, I definitely agree with the opinion that for the foreseeable future, the continuation of SPACE 1999 is going to be the exclusive province of fan fiction writers, with Senmut being the prime example of that. John B. *** 31634 Re: Fan Fiction balor1999 Feb 13, 2016

When talking about fan fiction and foreseeable future, I was reminded of the following point made by Kerry in a recent post: We'll just have to see what the future brings in terms of content and the forum itself. As Dr. Brown once said in BACK TO THE FUTURE III, "The future hasn't been written yet, no ones has, so let's make it a good one." Keep that in terms of the events of the movie. The writing of the future begins now. Let's work to improve on the present in order to lay a good foundation for the future, this forum included.

I also believe that we create our own future, or to be more consistent with the SPACE: 1999 metaphor of the world being like a run-away moon wandering aimlessly through the universe, the future is written through means of political actions, such as those made by the Alphans, in the face of taking action with issues like climate change, social justice, and economic oppression. Although the Alphans had little control over the trajectory of the Moon, they nevertheless had the opportunity to make decisions along the route in the hope that it would at least prolong their survival. In my opinion, there are few people who have made this point clearer than Pierre Fageolle in his final chapter of “COSMOS 1999: L’épopée de la blancheur”, what is arguably the most important analysis of SPACE: 1999 ever written. If we are reminded of how Freedman (2000, pp. xvi, 1-13) made psychoanalysis a component of the extension of critical theory beyond the realms of the Frankfurt school,

348


which can hardly be seen as a radical extension - as one of the major contributions from people like Marcuse and Fromm was indeed to develop Marx’s socio-economic analysis by expanding it through the use of Freudian analysis, I find it fitting how Fageolle chooses to use a quote from Bruno Bettelheim for framing his concluding points about SPACE: 1999 and the future: “A la fin du conte, le héros a triomphé les épreuces, ou bien, malgré delles, il est resté fidèle à lui-méme, ou bien encore, en les subissant, il a attaint sa vraie personannalité. Il est devenu un autocrate, dans le meilleur sens du terme: un individu qui sait se gouverner” (Fageolle, 1996, p. 113). Although Bettelheim political views of the late 1960’s developed in the direction of social conservatism, when we look at how Fageolle makes use of Bettelheim, and how we might consider psychoanalysis as a way of bridging aspects of how we understand SPACE: 1999 from both a fandom perspective and an academic perspective, I think it is important to consider Bettelheim’s famous friendship and correspondence with Austro-Marxist and fellow psychiatrist Rudolf Ekstein (Fisher, “Bettelheim: Living and Dying”, Editions Rodopi B.V., 2008, pp. 57-118). At least in the way Fageolle makes use of Bettelheim, which becomes a central point if we want to use Freedman’s theory of science fiction as critical theory for improving our understanding of Fageolle’s use of psychoanalysis in the context of Keazor’s strategy for disclosing the political subtext of SPACE: 1999, then I think it is necessary to reflect on less overt aspects of Bettelheim’s political thinking that seem fundamental for understanding the conversations with Ekstein. What seems to be to be particularly useful in this context is Weisbord’s (1961) analysis of Bettelheim’s foreword to Dr. Miklos Nyiszli’s book “Auschwitz”. In the second part of the review of the foreword, after reflecting on what Bettelheim has said about the Jews being exterminated without fight – Bettelheim (himself a Jew and survivor of Dachau and Buchenwald) explaining this by referring to (Jewish) capitalist ideology of money and property being more important than life, Weisbord makes the following comments:

The fact that the Jews were picked out for extermination by Hitler was not because of the passivity of the Jew and his wish to die, but, precisely because of his tenacity for life. The fundamental attack of Hitler was not against the Jew as such but against Marxism or Communism. He was led to fight the Jews because, for one thing, the Jews played such a leading role in international communism. His first concentration camps were not for Jews but for Marxists and labour leaders, an overproportionate number being Jews in those movements. What was the role of the Bettelheims and wealthy Jews against such Jewish communists and militant labour leaders at that time? The interests of the wealthy and middle class Jews compelled them to join hands with Hitler against the Communists even though preponderatingly led by Jews. So, even though Bettelheim came from a Viennese bourgeoisie background, being on the opposite political fence of Rudolf Ekstein, both his writings and actions can be interpreted in the context of depreciating his own privileged background and the capitalist philosophy of his own class, by means of how he described holocaust, his friendship with Ekstein, the way his personality was described as filled with conflict and controversies at the University of Chicago, and how he ultimately took his own life. Although I feel Fageolle might have made it easier for Keazor and the rest of us if he had chosen someone like Erikson, Fromm or Lacan, but Fageolle insists on Bettelheim because of Bettelheim’s analyses of fairy tales, which makes a perfect match for prescriptive theory as a response to Michel Butor’s prescriptive theory of science fiction as the central mythology of the present (Fageolle, 1996, p. 79). So, if we choose to understand Bettelheim in the context of how Fageolle makes use of him, which implies a deeper understanding of Bettelheim than what would be needed if he had used somebody like Lacan, there is indeed a profoundly symmetry in the book that provides a beautiful analysis of SPACE: 1999 from the perspective of symbolist spirituality of Kandinsky by way of Butor’s articulation of SF as mythology (in a

Out of the Frying Pan similar way as Suvin, Jameson and Freedman) to the prescriptive analysis of mythology as means for political action, based on Bettelheim, but articulated by Fageolle himself in the following manner: Enfin, les héros des Anderson ne parlent pas de leurs émotions main les éclairages, les symboles, ou même le montage en parlent pour eux. Par example, en conclusion de “Question de vie ou de mort”, Helena Russell n edit pas qu’elle pense à son inaccessible époux. Mais le va-et-vient de l’image entre son visage et Terra Nova le dit pour elle. Or, citon une fois de plus ce cher Bettelheim: “Dans les contes de fées, les processus intérieurs sont traduits par des images visuelles”. Moralité: il ne vous reste plus qu’à revisionner ces contes d’Anderson, pour en tirer le suc symbolique. Regardez votre episode préféré, et regardz comme il vous ressemble, comme il vous a aide. Vivez de longues, longues année de bonheur et ayez beaucoup d’enfants! In other words, despite making no reference to SPACE: 1999 fan fiction, in conclusion Fageolle is essentially saying the same as Kerry and the rest of us. The future has not yet been written, so let’s make it a good one. The writing of the future begins now. More than that, let us follow the lead of Senmut and other exponents of high quality fan fiction in exploring the SPACE: 1999 as means for understanding the past and creating the future. John B. *** 31635 Re: Fan Fiction balor1999 Feb 14, 2016

A few days ago, when Senmut and I were discussing Fageolle’s authoritative reading of SPACE: 1999, as part of the “confronting the beast” thread, Shana questioned the relevance of the discussion: And we care about this because?????

Although we have now moved on, in the sense that the present discussion is now done under the banner of the “fan fiction” thread, I still think this is a good question, and I believe the

349

reason the question matters has to do with how it links up many of the issues that have been debated recently, including the bridging between fandom knowledge and scholarly knowledge, resolution of the Y1/Y2 dilemma and, in particular, understanding the relevance of fan fiction as the future of SPACE: 1999. The first point is in my opinion what lays the foundation for addressing the remaining issues. As Erich and others have pointed out, there are limits to how far a debate can go when the arguments are shaped in the form of “X is good because I like it”. Whether we are arguing that Maya and Tony were important contribution to SPACE: 1999, Y2 has merit, or whatever we want to say, it has to be said in a manner makes it possible to be taken seriously by those who understand SPACE: 1999 from the Y1 perspective. Saying that “Y2 is good because I like it” is not likely to lead to success when everybody else, including cast, crew, fans, critics and scholars, considers Y2 to be crap that should never have been made in the first place. A more effective way of communication is needed. Here we have the first example of why we should care about the authority in Fageolle’s reading of SPACE: 1999. The point is not that Fageolle, like everybody else, hates Y2 and believes the world would have been a better place if all the Y2 and negatives and copies had been destroyed. The point is that he contextualises his argument in a manner that allows intelligent debate. As was mentioned in a previous post, Fageolle contributes in establishing a platform of “communicative rationality” (Habermas, 1984; 1987) in the sense of presenting a framework that makes it possible to understand the rules for reaching an understanding and conducting argumentation in the context of SPACE: 1999. As we have looked at in the case of how Fageolle considers Bettelheim as means for explaining how SPACE: 1999 can be used for designing political action, Fageolle assumes a level of cultural competence from his readers that can provide some challenges from readers outside of France. Although German art professor Henry Keazor at the University of Heidelberg is perhaps the perfect example of how Fageolle’s reading is not only authoritative but also much easier to grasp

350


once the French intellectualism is translated into the more mainstream academic language of critical theory, we have to remember that Keazor is foremost an expert on French Baroque painters, Poussin in particular – meaning that his reading of Fageolle is shaped by a certain type of cultural competence that is more or less taken for granted when Fageolle starts his book by referring to the art philosophy of Russian abstract painter Wassily Kandinsky. However, as we noted in the case of Freedman (2000, pp. 1-13), it is quite possible (and most of us would perhaps even argue quite natural) to consider French intellectuals like Foucault, Derrida and Fageolle as part of what we understand by critical theory. Here we must be thankful to Keazor for making this point explicit, and thus making SPACE: 1999 into a particularly relevant example in the discourse among giants like Jameson, Suvin, Bould and Fuhse concerning the relationship between SF and critical theory.

of the Barricades”, Hamish Hamilton Ltd., 1988, p. 203). So, Fageolle’s point about how SF in general and SPACE: 1999 in particular can be used as a mythology is different from, say, the conversation between George Lucas and Bill Moyers on the reading of the STAR WARS series from the perspectives of Joseph Campbell anthropological philosophy (Wagner, 1999). In fact, it can be described as more or less the complete opposite, especially in the context of how we have previously discussed STAR WARS through Robert J. Sawyer’s important reading of the series as fascism (Sawyer, 2008). Fageolle sees SPACE: 1999 as the exactly opposite, building on Butor’s famous article about science fiction and mythology from 1953, and thus making it possible for Keazor to expand this through the lens of Eric Hobsbawm’s (Marxist) historical analysis of the 20th century. This is why Fageolle matters.

For example, when Fageolle makes use of Michel Butor for the purpose of explaining the relevance of SF in general and SPACE: 1999 in particular as a mythology of modernity, it is important to understand what this means in terms of how Keith Crome and James Williams describe the role of philosophical existentialism and western Marxism as part of the French intellectual environment that shaped class mates like Michel Butor, Roger Raport and Jean-Francois Lyotard at Sorbonne in the post-war period (Crome & Williams, “The Lyotard Reader and Guide”, Columbia University Press, 2006, pp. 3-4). Even more importantly, however, is the role Michel Butor played when Paris students occupied the Sorbonne in May 1968: "Occupation fever gripped the intelligentsia. Radical doctors occupied the premises of the Medical Association, radical architects proclaimed the dissolution of their association, actors closed all the theatres of the capital, writers led by Michel Butor occupied the Societé des Gens de Lettres at the Hotel de Massa. Even business executives got into the act, seizing for a while the building of the Conseil National du Patronat Français, then moving on to the Confederation Generale des Cadres.” (David Caute,“Sixty-Eight, the Year

In fact, he matters tremendously, and that is why we should care about his authoritative reading of SPACE: 1999. Not only is he of foundational importance when it comes to the cultural, historical and political contextualisation of SPACE: 1999, he also is an important contributor to how we should understand the Y1/Y2 dilemma. Regardless of how we position ourselves in the Y1/Y2 debates, I think it would be more or less impossible to ignore his input concerning what has become the dominant scholarly mode of understanding the series. Where would Keazor be without Fageolle? Where would Liardet be without Fageolle? Where would Online Alpha be without Fageolle? I am not saying that some of our most important intellectual texts and debates would not have emerged without the presence of Fageolle, as it is the ideas rather than the people that are important in this context, but I still think that it is important to consider “Cosmos 1999: L’épopée de la blancheur” as the Online Alpha Bible in the sense that this particular text has come to define not only the central SPACE: 1999 debates but also articulating the default position that summarises how cast, crew, fans and scholars love Y1 and hate Y2.


In other words, Fageolle’s book defines the basis for communicative rationality within the context of Online Alpha and SPACE: 1999. We do not have to agree with everything that Fageolle says, but we need to consider the perspective articulated in his book when trying to expand our understanding of SPACE: 1999 in new and exciting directions, through analysis, debate and the creation of fan fiction. John B. *** 31636 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fan Fiction sennmut Feb15, 2016

And I said Fageolle is not authoritative, period. Don't name-drop me, Balor. I will not be an abettment to your Marxist sermons. The only "mythology" is what Fageolle et al spewed onto paper. *** 31637 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fan Fiction sennmut Feb 15, 2016

On 14 Feb 2016 balor1999@... writes: Where would Online Alpha be without Fageolle?

Back on track, actually discussing the show, and not some pseudo-intellectual feces. *** 31638 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fan Fiction balor1999 Feb 15, 2016

Senmut wrote: And I said Fageolle is not authoritative, period. Don't name-drop me, Balor. I will not be an abettment to your Marxist sermons. The only "mythology" is what Fageolle et al spewed onto paper.

When I was referring to the two of us discussing Fageolle’s authoritative reading of

351

SPACE: 1999, this was what I had in mind. To me, Fageolle’s text is the theoretical foundation we use for understanding SPACE: 1999. You, on the other hand, disagree. For example, on the 11th of February, you made the following comment: The more we tell you that we don't agree, Balor, the more we get the "authoritative" crap about Fageolle, et al. Are you incapable of understanding that no one agrees with you, or the offal you keep peddling? These faux intellectuals are as full of it as their books.

I think this is a good illustration of how we disagree. If I understand you correctly, you believe what Tulloch and Jenkins (1995, pp. 176-78) refer to as ‘fandom knowledge’ is sufficient in itself, seeing no use for historical, cultural and political contextualisation for understanding the text, or as Tulloch and Jenkins put it: If academic critics step outside the narrative’s fictional framework to focus on larger social determinants or institutional contexts, fan criticism operates within the fictional world, framing interpretations that are consistent with fandom’s prevailing realist aesthetic. Ideological contradictions are understood as conflicts between characters and the alien cultures the represent rather than between opposing discourses within a constructed text (p. 176). To me this is not sufficient, and I see it as a main cause for endless discussions that go nowhere, exemplified by things like – Y2 is great – no, it isn’t – yes, it is – no, it isn’t – yes, it is – and so on ad infinitum. By ignoring the contextual and ideological framework suggested by thinkers like Fageolle, there is no foundation for communicative rationality, and discussion ends up like the famous Monty Python sketch about the argument clinic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_Clinic As pointed out in the “cultural references” part of the article, the Monty Python sketch has been used by scholars and academics as an example of how not to argue, because, as Michael Palin’s character notes, the argument contains little more than ad hominem attacks and contradictions, and does not contribute to critical thinking. In other words, it illustrates

352


the kind of “Y2 is good because I like it” foundation for making arguments that Erich has been criticising. Continuing Eric’s argument, what we need to do as a community is to admit that Y2 was crap, and then use this as a basis for establishing communicative rationality and engage in real discussion and debate that contributes to critical thinking and the development of new understandings. How do we do this? We start at the obvious place, namely with Fageolle because of his important role as somebody who looks as SPACE: 1999 from a perspective that unites academic knowledge and fandom knowledge while also not being afraid to position himself clearly in the Y1/Y2 debate. I think this latter point is particularly important, because when we consider academics like Keazor, Wozniak, West and Bussieres, they go much further than Fageolle in terms of historical, cultural and political contextualisation, but they do not address the Y1/Y2 dilemma. On the contrary, they say, diplomatically, that Y2 is of little relevance in an academic context because it was unoriginal and uninteresting. Well, this is of course true in a scholarly context, as explained in great detail by Iaccino (2001), but it does not prevent the Y1/Y2 debates to take a central place in fan communities such as Online Alpha. Saying the obvious, that Y2 was crap, only contributes in heating the debate. Ignoring Y2, as these people suggest, is clearly not a solution. The conflict remains. It is in this context, I believe, that we see the relevance of Fageolle more clearly. Fageolle is one of those rare people who, like Tulloch or Jenkins, manage to blend fandom knowledge with academic knowledge in a perfectly seamless manner. So, the reason his “Cosmos 1999: L’épopée de la blancheur” stands out as an Online Alpha Bible is because he engages in fandom debates by use of academic methods. Not only does he take a clear position in the Y1/Y2 debate that is of central importance for fandom - yet with little or no importance for academia, but Fageolle’s position in this particular debate is based on ‘academic knowledge’ in the sense that his theoretical framework paves way for the more articulate yet essentially similar framework

developed by Keazor (2012), which then becomes highly relevant for understanding the first Online Alpha ExE (Ogland, 2014) and the role of critical theory for uniting ‘fandom knowledge’ with ‘academic knowledge’ (Keazor, 2014). So, as a response to your comments on textual authority and name-dropping, I would say that my position is exactly the opposite of how I understand your position in this particular debate. I consider authoritative texts, such as the one by Fageolle, to be immensely important both for the understanding of SPACE: 1999 as a phenomenon and how we engage with the series on this Online Alpha forum. Regardless of whether one chooses to go with Keazor or Liardet in the resulting debate concerning the potential merits of Y2, I believe that Fageolle’s reading of SPACE: 1999 is both fundamental and authoritative in the sense that his text is the source from where all other debates emanate. Of course, the texts by Muir, Drake and Wood are also important, but neither of these read SPACE: 1999 with a similar authority as Fageolle does. John B. *** 31639 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fan Fiction sennmut Feb 15, 2016

Hell's bells! NOTHING of Fageolle is authorotative, Balor. NOTHING!!!!!! Now stop connecting ANYTHING I may have said or not said IN ANY WAY to that crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *** 31640 Re: Fan Fiction Kerry Keene Feb 15, 2016

Mr. Balor never stops or understands the word NO! He wrote: Continuing Eric’s argument, what we need to do as a community is to admit that Y2 was crap, and then use this as a basis for establishing communicative rationality and engage in real discussion and debate that contributes to critical thinking and the

Out of the Frying Pan development of new understandings. How do we do this? We start at the obvious place, namely with Fageolle because of his important role as somebody who looks as SPACE: 1999 from a perspective that unites academic knowledge and fandom knowledge while also not being afraid to position himself clearly in the Y1/Y2 debate.

I'll tell Mr. Balor where we need to start, by accepting statements above as crap. Mr. Balor needs to stop telling people how to think. Maybe he's so insecure about his thought processes that he has to constantly refer to people no one has ever heard of or care about. I often wonder why these people take up their time with a TV series, though unique, is merely a blip on the SF/TV radar. It didn't have the cultural impact that Trek or STAR WARS or even 2001 has had. Mr. Balor's library must be vast enough that he probably has to rent storage to hold all of the books and article he quotes or his hard drive must be massive in order to hold them all. The fact is, whatever a person says, whether it be someone in the political field or social sciences or any other field, opinions rage in anny and all fields. Let's what's going on politically over the death of a Supreme Court justice. So Mr. Balor, you need to chill out. Because if yo'd admit it to yourself, Y1 isn't this example of perfection, no matter how you continue to perfess it to be. *** 31643 Re: Fan Fiction balor1999 Feb 16, 2016

Well, Kerry, perhaps you are right in saying that Y1 should not be seen as an example of perfection, because along with Prentice Hancock and others I believe that the first few episodes, the first four to be exact, were of radically higher quality than the series as a whole. Although the quality was high, there was variation in quality. In this sense we could describe SPACE: 1999 as an example of a series that peaked quite early. How often do we see masterpieces like MOLAD and RATM as part of popular television programming? Not very often. Films like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and SOLARIS were aimed at the art house crowd. SPACE: 1999 was made for a

353

popular audience, but still we get something that is quite close to perfection, at least in the case of the first four episodes. During the most recent ExE, I also remember Senmut describing RATM as close to perfection. Nevertheless, “close to perfection” is not the same as “example of perfection”. Kubrick and Tarkovsky spent years and years in planning and shooting 2001 and SOLARIS. We all probably remember how Barry Morse used to complain about how SPACE: 1999 started with a handful of manuscripts with limited background for the main characters to help them understand what they were supposed to do, and then how episodes were written frenetically to meet the production deadlines. While 2001 and SOLARIS were developed by the elaborate processes of the Rembrandts and Michelangelos of cinema, SPACE: 1999 was created by following the structure of mass production. So, when looking both at the outcome and the process of the making of SPACE: 1999, it would be difficult to describe it as “example of perfection”, although I think “close to perfection” is a fair statement. It is perhaps particularly interesting how this “blip on the SF/TV radar” could for many, at least for me and many others on Online Alpha, become more significant than similar phenomena with greater impact on popular culture, such as STAR TREK and STAR WARS. I think the answer has much to do with how Keazor (2012) reads SPACE: 1999. As Keazor stands on the shoulders of Fageolle, he is able to see longer and penetrate deeper into issues that Fageolle barely mention. The most important aspect, I think, is how Keazor addresses the debate between Fageolle (1996) and Muir (1997) by creating a unifying position that allows a Fageollean perspective on Muir’s main argument. As we remember, Muir’s main argument is that SPACE: 1999 functioned as a bridge between STAR TREK: TOS and STAR TREK: TNG. As SPACE: 1999 was made as a sort of mixture between 2001 and STAR TREK, it both attracted and disturbed the STAR TREK fans of the period. After SPACE: 1999 had run its course, however, a new series of STAR TREK emerged that (according to Muir) borrowed elements from SPACE: 1999. Muir thus says that STAR TREK fans should praise SPACE: 1999 for contributing to keeping STAR TREK

354


alive rather than complaining about how “awful” it was. Now, French intellectuals like Fageolle, Petit, Bannier, Wybon and Liardet take a completely different position. For them STAR TREK was not a big matter because it was not shown on French television until the early 1980s, so there was no similar clash between followers of ST and S99. On the contrary, SPACE: 1999 came out of the blue as a remarkably ambitious SF series that aimed to match the special effects of 2001, the psychological depths of SOLARIS, and at the same time being aimed at a more or less mainstream television audience. In this context, Freiberger’s attempts to make Y2 more similar to STAR TREK made no sense at all27, and contrary to seeing the series as a meaningful bridge between STAR TREK: TOS and STAR TREK: TNG it was more meaningfully seen as a bridge between phenomena typified by the likes of 2001 and ALIEN, where, for instance, Brian Johnson made contributions to both. Although SPACE: 1999 still becomes a cultural bridge, it bridges something completely different. While STAR TREK was a mixed bag in terms of political subtext, at least if we follow Charles Elkins, David Buxton, Jay Goulding in the way their texts are used by Tulloch and Jenkins (1995, pp. 25-29), putting Roddenberry’s retrospective reading of STAR TREK into questioning, in the case of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY there is no doubt where Kubrick and Clarke stand politically. Rather than turning with the winds, 2001 is clearly of monumental importance as a cultural reflection of the late sixties as seen from the viewpoint of the progressive left. This is important in Fageolle’s reading of SPACE: 1999 due to the way Ridley Scott’s original ALIEN from 1979 is also an expression of the same ideals, now anticipating the onslaught of Thatcherism and Reaganomics as a SF horror story about corporate business rendering its workers expendable in their aim for profit and ruthless search for resources that will result in global disaster.

It is in this context of mixing Muir’s and Fageolle’s interpretations of SPACE: 1999 as a cultural bridge that I feel Keazor excels in his analysis. Rather than saying that Muir is wrong and Fageolle is right, or vice versa, he makes use of both perspectives for developing an even deeper understanding of SPACE: 1999 by contextualising it historically, culturally and politically in terms of how Eric Hobsbawm describes the economic, cultural and political changes from the period of economic growth from 1945 to 1972 and then the disaster decades that would follow. What is perhaps particularly remarkable in the case of Keazor is how he frames his research question by means of commenting on Muir’s analysis but then quickly aligns with Fageolle when providing his own theoretical analysis and explanation. So, to return to Kerry’s concern about Fageolle as a foundation for understanding SPACE: 1999 and creating a basis for communicative rationality, in my opinion the continued discussion should only make it more clear that the only meaningful way of understanding SPACE: 1999 is by means of Fageolle’s viewpoint of Y2 as crap. However, as I have stated many times before, Y2 as crap is a premise – not a conclusion. By following the ideas of Liardet (2014) and others, it should be possible to use the “Y2 is crap” premise as basis for arguing quite opposite conclusions, namely that Y2 has merit due to the fact that the political subtext of SPACE: 1999 largely stayed the same during both seasons, despite Freiberger’s attempts to corrupt the series both aesthetically and politically, so there is much of interest to look into if we consider what Y2 would have been like with Teresa Graves instead of Catherine Schell or what it would have been like if it had been made without Maya and done in a style more similar to Y1. To me this looks like a natural basis for creating a platform for meaningful discussions that can turn the unnecessary conflict between advocates of separate seasons into a friendly and mutually respectful discussion on why there could be reasons for taking Y2 seriously. John B.

Editor’s note: See Bannier’s (2009) reflections of how Freiberger’s redesign of the series destroyed the reputation of Space: 1999 as a whole.

27

***

Out of the Frying Pan 31644 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fan Fiction sennmut Feb 16, 2016

On 16 Feb 2016 "balor1999@... writes: To me this looks like a natural basis for creating a platform for meaningful discussions that can turn the unnecessary conflict between advocates of separate seasons into a friendly and mutually respectful discussion on why there could be reasons for taking Y2 seriously.

No, the only platform it could create would be made of used food. Standing on it makes you both sink, and stink. *** 31645 Re: Fan Fiction kerryirs Feb 16, 2016

John, I'm not getting into any further debate on these points, as it gets us no where, but you did use a little phrase that boils down to what this forum is all about, "in my opinion..." That's all it is. Unless someone is stating a fact about the series, it all boils down to opinion, even the actors/actresses views. One can state a fact on how some of those who worked on the series might have felt, but for me, it doesn't affect how I feel about any aspects of 1999; it's their opinions. And that goes for those "intellectuals" you constantly like to quote. Next topic, please. *** 31646 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fan Fiction John Marcucci Feb 16, 2016

Any discussion of Space 1999 fan fiction must, in my opinion, include the excellent work of Emma Burrows, a.k.a. "Ariana". Not only did she pen an outstanding Space 1999/ Star Trek DS9 crossover story, but she manages the below site, where one will find some real jewels from many different authors, including Sen. Ariana is well known as a Y2 booster, preferring Y2 over Y1. Her Space 1999 pedigree is impeccable.

355

http://www.space1999fiction.com/ *** 31647 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Fan Fiction balor1999 Feb 17, 2016

Ariana may be an important contributor to “SPACE: 1999” fan fiction, and I notice that some of her works have even been published commercially, but based on my reading experience there is nobody who compares with Senmut. I have now completed the final chapter of his OUT OF THE FRYING PAN, and to me this was evidence of him not having lost his touch. Quite to the contrary, despite the fact that this novel was written many years after the five earlier entries in the series, to me his final novel so far was showing us all Senmut in better shape than ever. More than that, it ended in a mysterious way, dealing with something happening near Kobol. In other words, it gives us a hint that he may be planning yet another story for making a proper conclusion to the FOREVER ALPHA saga, but this is only my guess – and hope!!! What perhaps comes clearer to me when reading all these novels in chronological order is how Alpha seems to be travelling in more or less the exact opposite direction of Battlestar Galactica. As I have now read all the stories and consequently completed the FOREVER ALPHA saga as it stands today, I am reminded of how I thought about it when reading the first few pages, six or seven months ago. At that time I was struck by how Senmut was merging SPACE: 1999 with BATTLESTAR GALACTICA as those two series seemed to me to represent two opposite ways of looking at the world from the perspective of the 1970s. When I started watching BATTLESTAR GALACTICA episodes, this impression was made even stronger as BSG seemed to have a conservative political agenda, which – from my perspective – seemed to clash dramatically with the progressive nature of SPACE: 1999. However, as I have watched all the 24 episodes of BSG twice during this period of reading Senmut’s novels - and the all 10 episodes of GAL80 once, I must admit that the series has a certain charm.

356


The way the Alphans and Galacticans seem to be travelling in different directions could perhaps also be interpreted politically, in the sense that Moonbase Alpha is in search of establishing a socialist utopia while the Galacticans are travelling in the opposite direction in terms of wanting to conserve and defend existing social orders. I will not go further into this as I have a feeling that this was not necessarily a point Senmut wanted to make with his sequence of stories, but I will say that I am much more impressed with his ideas of mixing SPACE: 1999, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and FOREVER KNIGHT in retrospect than I was before getting into the story. In fact, now I am almost inclined to refer to Senmut as a genius of fan fiction. In each of his stories there is something new. I wonder if that is the reason why it took so long to go from CROSSFIRE to OUT OF THE FRYING PAN, that he had run out of ideas, because his first five stories are far from formula. In their own way, each story contributes perspectives on SPACE: 1999 that I have never seen before. One of the most remarkable things is perhaps how he makes such strange mixes as BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and SPACE: 1999 or FOREVER KNIGHT and SPACE: 1999 feel totally natural. All characters, from each of the three series, feel exactly as they did when watching them on the screen, and although the series were totally different, the way Senmut

mixes them together, it seems like the most natural thing on Earth. Not only that, often these strange mixes make some of us think about SPACE: 1999 and the other series from a new perspective. Beside the poetry of mixing these things together and creating something of great beauty, it is also done with a level of intelligence that stimulates reflection and thus contributes to development of new understanding. As I said, I have a hope. I have a hope that Senmut will continue contributing stories to his FOREVER ALPHA series until we see the Alphan settle down on Kobol or whatever his ideas or plans might be. There is a fascinating ending in OUT OF THE FRYING PAN where the series is summed up by how different characters from different worlds ended up becoming Alphans. First we had Nick and Nat, then Athena, Brie, Greenbean, then the medival soldiers from the Battle of Hastings, then Don Schanke, then the Cylon robots, and in this final story two new Alphans are added in the shape of two young Delphians from Gamorey. As a reader, I almost feel like I have become a member of this new Moonbase Alpha myself, as I feel with the protagonists as Senmut continues the journey from the world of Johnny Byrne and the Y1/Y2 writing teams into his own remarkable world of S99/Y3. ***

357

Part III. SHORT STORIES This part contains a discussion and analysis of four short stories that may or may not be seen as part of the FOREVER ALPHA saga. All the short stories relate to particular episodes of SPACE: 1999 but neither of them contain any explicit references to FOREVER KNIGHT, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA or other aspects or events that were important in the context of the FOREVER ALPHA series of fan novels. Nevertheless, the short stories were written around the same time as the FOREVER ALPHA novels, as seen by the following overview:    

Allow me to introduce myself (2002) It’s gotta be the beer (2003) I think Tony would be very happy (2009) To take the risk (2013)

The first short story was written at time of “Schanke Resurgens”, and as the theme of the story is the resurgence of Balor from “End of Eternity”, one might hypothesise that the novel and the short stories are thematically connected also on a deeper level. The second short story has already been discussed quite extensively in chapter three. However, in the earlier chapter it was investigated as an example of a SPACE: 1999 fan fiction short story without trying to comment on the text in relation to the FOREVER ALPHA series as a whole. When the short story is revisited in chapter eleven, some of the issues that were not touched upon earlier, such as whether there might be a connection between the short story and the “Crossfire” novel, are explored in greater detail. The two final short stories have also been briefly mentioned in chapter three, but in chapter twelve and thirteen the general idea is to explore the texts more deeply, both in terms of how the short stories relate to novels in the FOREVER ALPHA saga and also how they contribute to the understanding of the episodes “Dragon’s Domain” and “The Last Sunset”. In similar manner as with the two earlier parts of the book, the discussions presented in part three are more concerned with the issue of how fan fiction can be used as lens for understanding SPACE: 1999 than providing detailed analysis of the stories by themselves. This does not mean that each short story is not investigated properly. Perhaps to a greater extent than what was possible with the longer stories, when dealing with the short stories the manner of discussion changed in the sense that stories had already been read prior to the discussion or at a very early stage of discussion, making it possible to explore how the stories could add new insights to the understanding of individual episodes of SPACE: 1999 – or SPACE: 1999 as a whole – without the challenge of the novels where the discussants were reading the stories chapter by chapter while discussing. On the other hand, as can be seen from the “Confronting the beast” thread in section 9.7 of the “Out of the Frying Pan” investigation, the discussion of the FOREVER ALPHA series of novels ended up with several Online Alpha members discovering that the idea of discussing how to gain new insights on SPACE: 1999, through the means of discussing high quality SPACE: 1999 fan fiction, was perhaps not as interesting or useful as they had originally anticipated. As a consequence of this, the discussions that followed, and which consitutate the body of this third part of the book, is in some cases primarily a discussion between Senmut and the discussant who initially proposed discussing Senmut’s fan fiction.

358

Part III – Short Stories

Although this turn of events could in some sense indicate that the use of fan fiction as a topic for scaffolding sustainable discussions on a forum like Online Alpha was not as successful as expected, it was still possible to spend several weeks on discussing each of the short stories. In fact, the following discussion could in some respect be seen as perhaps even more focused on both the individual works of fan fiction and the role of fan fiction as a lens for understanding SPACE: 1999 as there is less distraction in terms of debate that emerged from comments that were not all that central to the general discussion. In the following four chapters, the SPACE: 1999 short stories are investigated one by one, trying to see to which extent fan fiction can be used as a lens for understanding SPACE: 1999 as political analysis of the time the series was made and how the fan fiction might contribute in translating this understanding for present society and suggest designs for political activism in relation to challenges concerning issues like climate change, economic inequality and social oppression.

Allow me to introduce myself

359

10. ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF The chapter consist of three sections. The first section deals directly with the content and style of the fan fiction short story. Other sections address issues that are introduced by various members as the short story continue being discussed.

10.1 Commentary and analysis The commentary and analysis starts by commenting on the form of the text, arguing that there are insights to be found in the short stories that can explain why the novels work as well as they do. The analysis then takes a stab at the content, suggesting that the ideas in the short story are also to be found elsewhere when consulting what Johnny Byrne and others have said about “End of Eternity”. 31648 Allow me to introduce myself (Senmut, 2002) balor1999 Feb 18, 2016

Silence fell, and he began to feel himself revive. Slowly, slowly, cell by cell, gasp by gasp...

In order to really understand the depth and quality of Senmut’s writing, I think his miniature piece ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF is a very good illustration. I don’t know how others think and feel when they read this, but to me this is close to perfection. The first half describes what the world feels like from inside the head of Balor. The second half describes his awakening from an external perspective. I hope Senmut sees no harm in the complete text being shared on this forum:

He opened his eyes, and looked straight up. At first, he thought he must be blind. All was darkness. Then, slowly, he could see light, or rather lights. Smears and flashes of color, flitting and hovering about him. He could feel that he was on a table of some sort, and taking a deep breath, he sat slowly up. The lights, or whatever they were, moved back, and suddenly, all was silence. He could hear only his own heart beating, his own breath. He looked all about, seeing nothing but the strange transient illuminations. He reached out, but felt nothing, his fingers closing on emptiness. Slowly, he sat up straight, feeling his body healing, and the fact that he was almost naked, his clothes virtually destroyed. How...? Of course! It all came back to him. That worm...But there would be time, later, for that. For now...

Voices. Voices. Everything seemed to be infused with voices. The air that suddenly filled his lungs again, the lights that penetrated the darkness of his eyes, even the sensations on his ravaged skin. Voices. "What is it?" "Humanoid. It was detected by one of the capsules before it returned. It lay near the Base." "How did it come to be here?" "It seems to have clung to one of the returning capsules." "How could it have survived? On their surface, with no air?" "Unknown." "It did so on the surface before our gift." "And now it is here, in our air." "Will it recover?" "Unknown. We have no experience." "It is like the others." "Yes. But also unlike." "If it does?"

"Greetings," he said, in his best, friendliest tones. "Allow me to introduce myself." He stood, and began to smile, a smile of pure malignancy. "I am Balor. Of the Planet Progron. To whom have I the honor of offering thanks for my rescue?" Although I’m not perfectly sure what the context of the story is, I assume it might be a hint at what is happening after END OF ETERNITY when some other group of space people accidentally discover Balor, but the important thing is the way it is written. Unlike anybody else I know of, Senmut is a master of bringing characters to life, and here we see a wonderful example of how he does it, how he alternatives between inner monologue, dialogue and the voice of the narrator.

360


I don’t know if it is a common technique among other fan fiction writers, but in much of what I have read by Senmut so far, this is one of the magical methods he uses. As readers we are moved around. Sometimes we are inside the head of the protagonists, at other times we are next to them listening to their discussions, and at yet other times we are informed by the narrator explaining what is going on either in the inner world and outer world of what is happening. It feels like watching television, and sometimes it feels even better because of the way we are given access to thoughts and emotions in a way that is difficult to reproduce on film, even when SPACE: 1999 made use of some of the best actors of the period, such as Richard Johnson, Freddie Jones and Peter Cushing. The point is not to sound negative about other writers, but if we compare Senmut’s passage above with Bill Latham’s first Balor novel, the difference is enormous. Without saying anything about Latham, who is one of the main drivers behind the Powys Media – and might be a brilliant writer in his own respect, at least in the case of Latham’s “Resurrection” we do not even get close to the kind of atmosphere and level insights that Senmut present here. Some people say that a discussion of “SPACE: 1999” fan fiction without mentioning Ariana must be incomplete. I don’t know. To me it is the kind of text presented above that makes fan fiction interesting to read.

survive, while in the case of ALLOW ME, the resurrection of Balor is almost the opposite. In his analysis of END OF ETERNITY, Liardet (2014) is also concerned with spiritual overtones and the concept of resurrection, although for him it is the resurrection of Koenig that is the focus of attention: L’aspect religieux de la série trouve son manifeste le plus éclatante avec le mort puis la renaissance de Koenig sous l’impulsion d’un être omnipotent capable de dépasser les barriers de la mort (ibid, p. 82). In other words, from the viewpoint of Liardet, Balor is not only an angle of death, but he is also a bringer of life. As we remember, Balor often talks about his healing capacities, and although he is not capable of resurrecting the dead – at least as far as I have understood the story, at least he has the capability of restoring life from something that is almost dead. To me this is yet another way of looking at the important parallel between END OF ETERNITY and GUARDIAN OF PIRI. In order to wake the Alphans up, after they have settled on Piri, Koenig has to shake them up, like using shock treatment on Helena. In the case of Balor, it is less clear what he gains by shaking up the Alphans by creating chaos and destruction, but there are similarities. He wants to help them break out of a state of complacency. In this context, I find it highly interesting how Senmut plays with the idea of bringing him back.

John B. *** 31649 Re: Allow me to introduce myself (Senmut, 2002) balor1999 Feb 19, 2016

An interesting aspect of ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF is that it was written around the same time as SCHANKE RESURGENS, and both stories share a similar focus on the idea of somebody being resurrected. As we have previously discussed in the case of SCHANKE, there is an almost Messianic aspect of that story as Schanke decides to offer his own life for the Alphans to

As we may remember, Johnny Byrne also played with this idea, and talked explicitly about writing an episode for S99/Y3 that would allow him to investigate Balor more deeply: I felt that the character had no been fully exploited. He was a character who had some very interesting qualities about him. And I’ll tell you how I was going to bring him back. In the third series, we would be scooping up some mineral rich particles somewhere in space. They would be brought back to Moonbase to be used in some way. And once back in a living environment Balor would re-form out of these particles, because he had been atomised, and essentially he is immortal – spontaneous

Allow me to introduce myself regeneration – so he would only ever be in a form of stasis. He wouldn’t be dead. And we would have had Balor back, and we would have had a much more interesting examination of what type of person, and what type of psychology motivated him (Wood, 2010, p. 155). Byrne continues by saying that Balor was a favourite character of his, but felt disappointed because he felt Balor was worth more on screen, despite Peter Bowles giving a wonderful portrayal. Well, I wouldn’t say that half a page of Senmut’s writing compensates for what Johnny Byrne was never able to implement, but I still think it illustrates how Senmut’s writing can be understood in the context of S99/Y3 due to his understanding of how these characters think and behave. John B. *** 31650 Re: Allow me to introduce myself (Senmut, 2002) balor1999 Feb 20, 2016

Another aspect of the relationship between ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF and SCHANKE RESURGENS is what Turdo (2015, pp. 152-154) describes as the yin and yang of evil and goodness in Balor. The way Turdo reads the episode, the point is not that Balor is an evil maniac that cannot be killed, but rather how he represents both good and evil. È una sorta di incarnazione vivente del concetto dicotomico e ancestrale di yin e yiang: forze opposte che in realtà sono complementari, come il male che non può esistere senza bene e viceversa (ibid, p. 153). Turdo central points are the possibilities associated with Balor’s healing powers, and Victor’s scientific curiosity about what makes immortality possible beyond the challenge of the situation they are dealing with. If the Alphans had been able to negotiate with Balor or somehow understand his motives better, perhaps somehow make him fit in, perhaps he could have become a power of good rather than evil. This aspect of the story parallels what we saw in DEATH’S OTHER

361

DOMINION, particularly in the sense that both Victor and Helena were interested in collaborating with Dr. Rowland in his technological research while Koenig decided to defect, as his view of Rowland as a political threat makes him more cautious. In END OF ETERNITY the Alphans experience an overt threat in the sense that Balor is more like the blue light in FORCE OF LIFE than the scientist in DEATH’S OTHER DOMINION, but the conflict remains much of the same. They have to consider the dilemma of whether to continue on a path of knowledge and discovery that may have fatal human consequences, such as aggressively engage in research that is likely to result in global selfdestruction (e.g. military research on weapons of mass destruction), or to take a more humanistic approach where research problems are more focused on issues like improving infrastructure and making sure education and healthcare is something available to all. This is how I interpret the essence in Turdo’s reading of END OF ETERNITY, and although it may not necessarily be identical to the way Senmut interprets the episode, I still like the way Senmut presented his two opposite resurrection stories in 2002. In particular I think he is successful in the way he describes the dilemmas and challenges that Schanke deals with, and how his final decision to make a personal sacrifice for the purpose of making the Alphans live is not because he is some kind of moral superman. Quite to the contrary, in FOREVER KNIGHT he was always the one who seemed most easily distracted and most likely to misinterpret situations, not a man of particularly great courage, and also someone who made a lot of wrong choices. I think it is exactly these aspects of his nature that makes his decisions so impressive and important in SCHANKE RESURGENS. From this perspective, one might say that Senmut’s Schanke is a good illustration of Turdo’s comments about good and evil as complimentary forces, and I would also be very careful in suggesting that there is a similar complexity in Senmut’s Balor as we see him in ALLOW ME, but there are interesting parallels in the way Senmut has both Schanke and Balor resurrected. If Senmut had extended ALLOW ME into a complete novel, I would not be

362


surprised if Senmut’s Balor would become more similar to the Balor Johnny Byrne says he wanted to create but was not able to do because of the restrictions of the 50 minute format. I am saying this because that is how I feel about Senmut’s LaCroix. Although LaCroix is easily interpreted as a symbol of evil, in a similar way to Balor, I felt that Senmut added complexity to LaCroix that made him more of a person and less of a symbol. In this context, it would have been very interesting to see what Senmut might had done in the case of Balor if he had put his mind into to. So far there are only a few references to Balor in the FOREVER ALPHA series, and the short story ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF does not really explain all that much about the “real” Balor, but at least it suggests a way of opening up the character in a far better way than I have seen any other fictional writer being able to do. John B. *** 31651 Re: Allow me to introduce myself (Senmut, 2002) balor1999 Feb 21, 2016

What I read as the central theme in Tulloch and Jenkins’ “Science Fiction Audiences” (1995) is how television is designed to turn citizens into non-political consumers while fandom can sometimes provide a method of breaking loose of the false consciousness by means of creating critical awareness and stimulating political action. Fan fiction is one of the major tools audiences can use in this context, Jenkins says. To which extent ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF can be read politically is uncertain to me. First of all it is a very short story, one of the shortest “SPACE: 1999” stories Senmut has written, as far as I can see, if we do not include the GEICO spoof he presented a few months ago. It is also not so much a story in itself as an exercise in descriptive writing. On the other hand, it reminded me of an imdb review I read quite recently: At one point, a terrorized Jenny screams "I don't understand!" And Vilmer replies

"Welcome to the real world." For me, this sums up everything I like about this movie. The TCM series has -- at the best of times -- been about random violence...usually for the sake of sensationalism. But underneath it all is the creepy realization that not everybody thinks like you do. Some of them do things which make no sense to you. When you step into their reality, you're at their mercy, and you'll never understand exactly why. This instalment plays the "why?" theme to the hilt, eventually copping out somewhat near the end when they should have just left us wondering. Not having anything to do with END OF ETERNITY, this was from a review of RETURN TO THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1994). Like many films of this type, each instalment is essentially a remake of the original film, but if the original story is sufficiently interesting, the retelling can sometimes add further insights, like in this case. The way I have understood the original TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE from 1974, it was made as a comment on Vietnam and Watergate by having a group of progressive hippies travelling into rural USA where they encounter a reactionary dysfunctional family that appears to reflect the collective insanity that happens when traditional society is challenged by modernity. In other words, the original film is a study of contrasting values, the progressive modernists meeting the reactionary traditionalists. I’m not sure I would agree with the reviewer that TCM 4 from 1994 is such a great film, but I think the reviewer gives a wonderful comment on what is the psychological essence of all these films. The essence, from the viewpoint of the progressive urban youngsters, is that they don’t understand how the reactionary rural people think. For instance, why are they politically conservative when they are a victim to how forces of capitalism have destroyed the foundation of their rural community? Why are they clinging to rituals and tradition when this only makes the situation worse? As John Kenneth Muir (2009) pointed out in a TV interview when he was not talking about SPACE: 1999, the power of the horror films of the seventies and eighties were that they were political films. They were dealing with the

Allow me to introduce myself anger and frustrations that people were experiencing during that period. So, when Muir (1997) writes about END OF ETERNITY, it is essentially from the viewpoint as a horror film: “End of Eternity” is one of the best episodes of the entire 1999 series because it adheres so clearly to the central theme that space is a region of mystery, the unknown and, ultimately, terror (ibid, p. 63). Given this perspective, perhaps it could be possible to read the episode politically, in the way Tulloch and Jenkins encourages us to do, but unfortunately the kind of insights that Muir can provide us with on horror films of the period do not extent into SPACE: 1999. Although he writes enthusiastically about the episode, he does not comment on what he see as the political meaning of it, beyond quoting from the epilogue where Helena speaks of not meddle into another world’s justice and how this makes him think of the Alphan’s curiosity as their persistent flaw. Although the parallel may be somewhat stretched, it seems to be that there is a parallel between how the Alphan’s accidentally open Balor’s cell and how the young progressives in TCM knock on the door of the reactionary butchers asking for gasoline. More than showing terror for the sake of terror, the similarities between the stories consist of the confrontation between different ideologies within what should be expected to more or less the same community. Although Senmut’s ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF is too short to add very much to END OF ETERNITY, in a similar way as TCM4 does not add all that much to TCM, to me it still functions as an interesting tool for reflecting on the original episode, just like the imdb reviewer used TCM4 for explaining the political nature of TCM. John B. *** 31652 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Allow me to introduce myself (Senmut, 2002) sennmut Feb 22, 2016

363

It cannot, nor should be. There was, and is, NO [political intent or design in the story. It was simply thought up on a whim, and hacked out in a few minutes. THAT WAS ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I would again ask that politics and my writings NOT be compared in any way. *** 31653 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Allow me to introduce myself (Senmut, 2002) balor1999 Feb 22, 2016

I have difficulty believing that a miniature masterpiece like ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF was hacked out in a few minutes, but I believe what you say about the text having no political intent. Although I have found political contemplation in many of the FOREVER ALPHA fan fiction novels, like Maya or Koenig reflecting on the political nature of the conflict in CROSSFIRE, I still understand your comments about how you have tried to make your stories free of political messages in the sense of how you have commented on how too much fiction is ruined by heavy handed moralising. In many ways, I agree with you. There are television series or episodes from such series that seem quite persistent in hammering down some kind of political message. I’m not sure if STAR TREK is the best example of this, but occasionally they were quite explicit in trying to explain the message of the week. For example, in their discussion of the series, Tulloch and Jenkins mention “A Private Little War” as an example of STAR TREK being used for the purpose of arguing in support of American interventions in the Vietnam War, while “Devil in the Dark” argued the opposite point about understanding others before jumping into military action. This dual nature of STAR TREK, how it captured the gradual change in dominant public opinion concerning the Vietnam War during late sixties, is interesting, Tulloch and Jenkins argue, as the retrospective “meaning” of STAR TREK depends very much on how we decide to rank the 79 episodes and which of them we see as most important ones for explaining what the series was all about.

364


In the case of SPACE: 1999, the situation is very different, especially if we choose to focus on Y1. Rather than reflecting change of political opinions as a consequence of issues like Vietnam, the series reflects a more pessimistic view on humanity after Vietnam, Watergate, the oil crisis, and a general afterthought on how the economic growth in the post-war period could not last. Technological progress had side-effects in terms of ecologically and socially unwanted consequences. In other words, SPACE: 1999 was a much more pessimistic and much more realistic and politically important series that STAR TREK. It was a type of series that reflected on the problems that were beginning to show in 1974 and have, over the decades, just become more and more dominant as we see the world today. In this way SPACE: 1999 shared much of the same bleakness of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY.

revolution that would create a way of collective thinking to allow a more systemic understanding of the world we live in.

When we are discussing ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF as a way of reflecting on END OF ETERNITY, I was reminded of how Kerry and Jemarcu some time ago spoke of Christopher Nolan’s 2014 film INTERSTELLAR. I watched that film quite recently, and to me it almost felt like a remake of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Not only was the story about technology and ecological disaster similar, but the part with the robots and the voyage beyond Jupiter as seen from a perspective of psychological self-examination was similar. The choice of music was also of the same kind, almost making the film sound like an homage to Kubrick at times, and the special effects were, of course, superb.

Anyways, in a similar way to how ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF can help us reflect and understand aspects of END OF ETERNITY that we may not have thought of before, I had this same impression with Nolan’s film as a way of trying to engage with 2001 and the politics of the late sixties in the context of how the positions back then are reflected in the way we try to understand the current world. So, although ALLOW ME may not be political writing, it is wonderfully written, and I would still agree with Jenkins that fan fiction matters.

To me INTERSTELLAR becomes somewhat too complex in comparison with 2001. Furthermore, as I found it difficult to identify with the leading characters, it was not a film that resonated all that well with me, but perhaps it becomes better with repeated viewings. However, I have understood that Nolan had great ambitions, and the film was supposed to draw on inspiration not only from 2001 but also other great classics like METROPOLIS, BLADE RUNNER and STALKER. I could recognise elements of STALKER during the early part of the film, at the farm, but I am less sure about METROPOLIS and BLADE RUNNER. It was an ambitious film that perhaps requires more thought.

John B. ***

Unlike ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF, which you argue to be apolitical, INTERSTELLAR seemed to me to be remarkably political, probably more political than SPACE ODYSSEY, which is perhaps not so surprising as we now live in a world that is far more socially and politically complex than it has ever been. However, what was perhaps party of the beauty of SPACE ODYSSEY was the simple narrative and the simple structure of the film, which made it into a useful model when SPACE: 1999 wanted to tell a similar story about how economic, ecological and social disaster on earth could only be handled my some way of social evolution. What is needed, as seems to be argued here, is a social


365

10.2 Interstellar As the introductory commentary and analysis ended with comments about Christopher Nolan’s 2014 film INTERSTELLAR, the discussion continues from this perspective by adding onto a couple of comments that were made during the period when “Schanke Resurgens” was in focus. 31402 Interstellar jemarcu Dec 26, 2015

Allow me to recommend this movie. I just watched it on Amazon prime tonight, and in many ways it comes across as a big screen version of the S1999 episode "The Black Sun". The idea of survival at all costs, contingency plans, men facing their final moments,, concepts of loyalty. love, the balancing of morale against false hopes, and science spilling over into metaphysics. All the elements are there. I was amazed at the parallels. Strong acting, great effects.

Never seen it. I trust that no capitalist overlordoppressed proletariat wage-slaves were harmed, in the production of this film?

While I think both Kerry and Jemarcu provide important comments on how Nolan’s INTERSTELLAR can be seen as a link with COSMOS and SPACE: 1999, in the context of presently discussing how fan fiction can open up an episode like END OF ETERNITY, I think Senmut makes an even more important point in addressing the political aspects of INTERSTELLAR. In fact, when I was watching the films a few days ago, I was thinking exactly like Senmut. I was asking myself about the political relevance of the film.

Merry Christmas, John *** 31403 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Interstellar sennmut Dec 26, 2015

Never seen it. I trust that no capitalist overlord-oppressed proletariat wage-slaves were harmed, in the production of this film? *** 31654 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Interstellar balor1999 Feb 23, 2016

In November 2015, Kerry mentioned INTERSTELLAR to illustrate how Neil deGrasse Tyson used popular science fiction films to educate the general audience about science. About a month later, Jemarcu told us that he had watched the film and gave some comments about what he saw as parallels with SPACE: 1999 in general and BLACK SUN in particular. Senmut responded to this in the following manner:

Yesterday I watched some interviews with Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan, Rip Thorne, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss and others commenting on the film, but very little was said about the political subtext of the film. Mostly it was a discussion about art and science in the sense of how realistic the science of the film was and what kind of compromises Chris Nolan as an artist had to make with Rip Thorne as a scientist in order to make the film what they wanted it to be. Although this in not uninteresting, particularly in the way that it parallels the Kubrick’s focus on getting the science correct in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and how Gerry Anderson was criticised (by some) for making scientific blunders in a television series that otherwise did a superb job emulating the benchmark qualities of 2001. However, neither 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY nor SPACE: 1999 were created as tools for teaching science. On the contrary, as pointed out by Keazor (2012), their aims for scientific and psychological realism were made for dramatic reasons. While scientific and psychological realism went out the window with S99/Y2, thus destroying the legacy of the series (Iaccino, 2001; Bannier, 2009), in the original version of SPACE: 1999 the scientific and psychological realism could be seen as a way empowering the political narrative of the

366


series. At least, this is part of how Freedman (2000) argues when dealing with the relationship between critical theory and science fiction, paying attention to Suvin’s definition of SF by his famous “presence and interaction of estrangement and cognition”, and thus making us see the “literary” SF of 2001 and 1999/Y1 as important examples of SF defined by critical theory while STAR WARS and 1999/Y2 would not be more easily described as ‘fantasy’. So, even if when Senmut said that he had never seen INTERSTELLAR, he nevertheless asks the type of questions about the film that to me seem to be at the very heart of what the film should be expected to be about, yet is not addressed in the various interviews I have seen so far. In fact, obscurity in terms of political relevance may be one of the reasons Lawrence Krauss panned the film in one of the YouTube clips. He said that it lasted almost 3 hours but felt like it was 33. To a certain degree I believe I can understand what he says. Somehow, the film feels like it is politically motivated. The general motivational idea is how unregulated capitalism has destroyed the world climate and we now face two solutions; either (Plan A) to evacuate the population of Earth onto another planet, or (Plan B) send up a group of astronauts into space with human seeds that can be used for populating and colonising some planet, in case Plan A should not work. As it turned out, there really was no Plan A to begin with, so the story is somewhat similar to SPACE: 1999 in terms of a small group of people in search of a home to start life again, which in the language of Freedman and Jameson typically reads as a metaphor for the search for a socialist utopia, thus indicating how 2001, 1999 and INTERSTELLAR could in principle be very similar. The problem, however, is that the political aspect of the film is radically downplayed against special effects and an attempt to tell a story about an astronaut father who leaves his children, and the emotional interplay that follows from this. There is nothing wrong with this part of the plot per se, but – unlike SPACE: 1999 and 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY – it undermines the more important political aspects of the story.

So, when Senmut says that there is no political intent with ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF, I cannot disagree with this statement. It does not feel political, and Senmut says that it is not political. Nevertheless, I think that the importance of the short story has to do with the way it can help us try to get a deeper understanding of the political aspects of END OF ETERNITY, in a similar way as the downplaying of the political aspects of the narrative in INTERSTELLAR helps us see the political narrative in 2001 and 1999 more clearly. John B. *** 31655 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Interstellar sennmut Feb 23, 2016

It was SARCASM, Balor. Just mocking sarcasm, and nothing more! Are you incapable of seeing anything not convoluted and bizarre???? *** 31656 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Interstellar balor1999 Feb 24, 2016

Regardless of whether it was meant as sarcasm or not, to me the question addressed exactly the kind of issues I was focusing on while watching the film. Last night I watched more interviews and panel debates concerning INTERSTELLAR, and the concern for climate change and environmental sustainability were some of the issues the producers and actors were asked about. Unfortunately, none of them were able to give any clear answers, so to me the probing into the political subtext of INTERSTELLAR is still the central issue for understanding what it was really all about. Although there are superficial relationships between INTERSTELLAR and the likes of 2001 and 1999, deep relationships would have to be defined by looking at the political subtext. I choose to see the relationship between INTERSTELLAR and 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY in a similar was as how I see the difference between high quality SPACE: 1999

Allow me to introduce myself fan fiction and the original SPACE: 1999 television series. The reason why I find SPACE: 1999 fan fiction interesting is because it can be used in the context discussed by Henry Jenkins, as means for turning oppressed viewers into engaged political activists. He has written extensively about this in the context of STAR TREK, HARRY POTTER, THE HUNGER GAMES and other examples from popular culture, and then looked at how popular culture has been used by the Occupy Movement and elsewhere. In this context fan fiction plays an important part as it taps into something popular, like STAR TREK, and uses that particular format for developing political texts. I have found this interesting in the context of SPACE: 1999, which is clearly a much more politically important text than STAR TREK (Keazor, 2012; 2014), but I also want to extend Jenkins argument by making a different argument about fan fiction. When we have a popular television series with a clear political subtext, like SPACE: 1999, the role of fan fiction is not to make it political – as it is already political – but to encourage reflection and debate that makes it easier for fandom to align with scholars and academics such as Fageolle and Keazor in terms of obtaining a clearer political understanding of the text, which may then result in political activism. In other words, when an author of fan fiction says that a particular story was not written with political intent, I think this is important to acknowledge, but just like we saw in the case of INTERSTELLAR, even “non-political” stories can function politically as a lens for opening up the political content of the original texts that they are referring to. So, in a case where we should happen to read a “nonpolitical” fan fiction story dealing with elements of END OF ETERNITY, the deeper value of such fan fiction texts – especially if they are of high quality – is that they can help us to reflect and discuss the deeper political meaning of the END OF ETERNITY story. This argument applies to INTERSTELLAR as well, if we choose to think of it as “fan fiction” based on 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or SPACE: 1999. One thing that Christopher Nolan said during one of the debates, that made me realise how different

367

INTERSTELLAR was from 2001 and 1999, was how the film was also inspired by Philip Kaufman’s 1983 film THE RIGHT STUFF. To me that was a film that was the completely opposite of SPACE: 1999. It was a film about space age heroes, and for this reason it was, to me, one of the most boring films I have ever seen. It was like a 3+ hour version of DRAGON’S DOMAIN without Koenig, Bergman, Helena and the usual lot, just a group of suppressed hysterics like Tony Cellini. I think that is perhaps the reason I agree with Lawrence Krauss that INTERSTELLAR felt more like 33 hours than 3 hours. The main character, Matthew McConaughey playing a character called ‘Cooper’, was very much a Tony Cellini maverick-type of character, and we see everything from his perspective, without the sobering perspectives that a Helena, Victor or Dixon would have given to the story. I think DRAGON’S DOMAIN was an interesting episode in the sense of trying to psychoanalyse the nature of the hero, and finding a suppressed hysteric beneath the bravery, but it worked because the story was not really about him. It was about Helena and John having conflicting interpretations of who he was and what motivated him, but in the case of films like THE RIGHT STUFF and INTERSTELLAR there was no similar attempt to contrast between the psychotic behaviour and normal behaviour. We were more or less invited to see the world through the eyes of the psychotic, and thus sharing his fears, doubts and victories, making these films more similar to how we are supposed to root for Kirk and expect that his leadership will save the day, in contrast to the more sane approach in SPACE: 1999 were Koenig’s leadership and decisionmaking often lead to disaster, like in MOLAD and WAR GAMES. In other words, while a series like STAR TREK, with support of the kind of moral we see in films like INTERSTELLAR and THE RIGHT STUFF, appear to be designed for the purpose of indoctrinating audiences in how we should blindly trust our leaders, SPACE: 1999 followed a completely opposite direction in saying that we need to have a fair dose of scepticism for people in leadership positions. I am no fan of Donald Trump, but I think he has said important thinks about post-9/11 history

368


of US foreign policies, and how the killing of Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein were total mistakes, only resulting in making the world into a more unsafe place. To me, much of the moral of SPACE: 1999 can be summed up with Helena’s comment to Koenig in BREAKAWAY: “We’re looking for answers, Commander. Not heroes”. John B. *** 31657 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Interstellar balor1999 Feb 25, 2016

In November, when we were discussing GREETINGS FROM CYLON, Kerry made the following comment about Neil deGrasse Tyson and INTERSTELLAR: Just found this on YouTube. Neil Tyson talks about worm holes, black holes, and multiverses. If one could exist in a higher dimension, it may be possible to see one's own past, present, and future and access them at will. The concept is called a tesseract (which is a geometric figure similar to a cube) and has been used in some recent films. Here's the link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7tV7v71kI This interview is his response to the movie INTERSTELLAR. Very interesting. If one watches the whole interview, the next entry in the Neil Tyson YouTube entries is a talk about black holes.

In the various YouTube interviews and commentaries by scientists on INTERSTELLAR, I have found three main positions. First we have the positive reviews by people like Kip Thorne, who has written a book about the science of INTERSTELLAR and was also a main inspiration for the film and worked on it as both scientific advisor and producer. Then we have the negative reviews by people like Lawrence Krauss who say the science was ridiculous. Finally we have people like Neil deGrasse Tyson who take a middle position in saying that science fiction does not have to be scientifically accurate as long as the ideas presented in the film contributes to public interest in science, and the ideas themselves are based on real science, although

they are extended into fantasy due to the nature of science fiction. When it comes to SPACE: 1999 we know there are a lot of scientific blunders. For instance, Kerry often likes to remind us of the ridiculousness of the premise of the series, the Moon being blown out of Earth’s orbit, and then how fast they must be thrusting through the universe in order to encounter all these planets, aliens and strange phenomena during a relatively short period of time. However, I think it is a mistake to think of SPACE: 1999 as ‘hard’ SF. In their book on science fiction audiences, Tulloch and Jenkins (1995, chapter 9) discuss STAR TREK from the viewpoint of ‘hard’ SF (technological utopia), ‘soft’ SF (social utopia) and space opera (actionadventure). Although Spock and the Vulcans could be seen to represent the ideology of ‘hard’ SF by means of how problems are solved by means of economics and engineering, none of the members of the STAR TREK writing team were ‘hard’ SF writers, Tulloch and Jenkins say. On the contrary, while ‘hard’ SF had been a dominant genre since Hugo Gernsback in the 1920s until the 1950s, from the early 1960s and onwards, ‘soft’ SF started to dominate the genre, and the challenge for the STAR TREK writers was rather to prevent the series from becoming too politically concerned with the social and political discourse of the day, such as the Civil Rights Movement, Anti-War Movement, and other anti-establishment movements, as this would not necessarily be in the interest of the STAR TREK producers for making the series gain as large an audience as possible. Nevertheless, STAR TREK can also be read as ‘hard’ SF as Lawrence Krauss did in “The Physics of STAR TREK” (HarperPrennial, 1995) or the way Gresh and Weinberg wrote about the evolvement of computer technology through the perspective of the series (“The Computers of STAR TREK”, Basic Books, 2001). As SPACE: 1999 is clearly no less scientific than STAR TREK, despite what some trekkers want to argue, there is also a wonderful book that analyses certain aspects of the science of SPACE: 1999 in an interesting, competent and quite extensive manner, although in a larger context of the body of science fiction cinema (Mark C. Glassy, “The

Allow me to introduce myself Biology of Science Fiction Cinema”, McFarland, 2001). But, although such exercises are interesting and useful, particularly from the viewpoint of somebody like Neil deGrasse Tyson who is interested in using examples from popular culture to help people get interested in mathematics and natural science, SPACE: 1999 is clearly designed as ‘soft’ SF in the sense that the ideological content of the series is quite the reverse of Gernsback’s belief in ‘technological utopia’. It also uses this position as a way of discussing ‘social utopia’ through means of how, for instance, Barry Morse saw Moonbase Alpha as a ‘socialistic outfit’ (Wood, 2010). Moonbase Alpha was rigged as a socialist community not because this was something that Koenig or anybody else enforced upon the unit, but rather because it was a necessity for survival: The political structure of Moonbase Alpha wasn’t discussed, but there again I have to revert to saying that there was precious little time for in-depth discussion of relationships or structures, because we were starting with less than one script and it was immensely important to get on with just shooting it. So, unfortunately, there was very little opportunity to discuss such things as the militaristic as opposed to socialistic structure of the community itself. These things emerged more by chance than by consideration. It may have been presented that the crew of Moonbase Alpha were a more or less socialistic outfit. They needed to be, of course, having been cut off from Earth. It may be this sense of community gradually established among the Alpha crew was perhaps interpreted as TOO socialistic by people in the United States who had control over the various networks. (p. 82) So, contrary to Iaccino (2001), who says that Freiberger destroyed SPACE: 1999 by lobotomising it and making it into a rip-off of STAR TREK, Barry Morse comes up with an interestingly similar explanation concerning the initial reception of the series in the US, although it is not an apologetic explanation. What he says is that the reason the first year of SPACE: 1999 was not as great a success in the US as many would have hoped for, was because it was not because it was a rip-off of the somewhat politically progressive STAR

369

TREK but because it was MORE progressive than STAR TREK. In other words, due to the way the series evolved in an emergent rather than planned manner, Gerry Anderson and Abe Mandell did not have time to consider whether the political subtext provided by Johnny Byrne and the rest of the writing team would be too controversial for places like Midwest conservative America. Once again we see the difference between INTERSTELLAR, STAR TREK and SPACE: 1999. When Jenkins writes about STAR TREK fan fiction authors struggling with the issue of making right-wing episodes like ‘A Private Little War’ fit in with how people want to read the progressive nature of the series as a whole (Tulloch & Jenkins, 1995, p. 175-178), the kind of fan fiction we discuss in the context of SPACE: 1999 works in a quite different way. Because the political ideology of SPACE: 1999 evolved in an emergent fashion through the minds of progressive writers who were engaging with the main political topics of the day, the challenge of fan fiction is not to make the series more political but to help the readers get a better understanding of the political nature of the series, and then be able to use the SPACE: 1999 narratives as tool for designing political actions in the style of the Occupy Movement or making such movements more sustainable and political by getting people like Bernie Sanders into the White House. I think it is on this level that a film like INTERSTELLAR fails for me. While I can admire the way it is done as an homage to Kubrick’s 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, it captures the style of the 1968 masterpiece without capturing the content. In this sense I see SPACE: 1999 as far superior in the sense that it was such a perfect translation of the Kubrick’s ideas, both the visual designs and – even more importantly - the socio-political content, even to the extent that Kubrick was at a time considering to take legal actions again Gerry Anderson and ITC. It is also in this context that I admire the kind of high quality fan fiction we have been discussing for the past 6-7 months. SPACE: 1999 is a text that matters. John B.

370


10.3 End of Eternity As “Allow me to introduce myself” is based on story elements from “End of Eternity”, the next discussion thread tries to address the role of this particular story and SPACE: 1999 fan fiction in general for understanding and translating insights from SPACE: 1999 as a historical series into the political concerns of the present. Part of this historical and political background deals with Johnny Byrne as a central member of the London counterculture in the 1960s and early 1970s. 31658 End of Eternity balor1999 Feb 26, 2016

In their analysis of STAR TREK audience, Tulloch and Jenkins discuss the role of Roddenberry as a carrier of the STAR TREK philosophy by drawing on Foucault’s discussion of myth from his 1979 text “Authorship: What is an author?” (Screen, 20(1), pp. 13-34). Here they do something similar to what Fageolle (1996, p. 79) does for SPACE: 1999 through his use of Michel Butor, but in a different way and with different intents. In their reading of Foucault, he makes three claims: 1. The author serves as a principle of classification, helping to organise the relations between the texts 2. The author serves as a principle of explanation 3. The author functions as a sign of value, since only certain texts are read as authored The way this is used in the STAR TREK analysis is by means like suggesting how the mixed ideology in the 79 episodes should be ranked or interpreted in a particular way, to make it fit with Roddenberry’s espoused political views, and making Roddenberry’s own commentary on the series as a political lens for an authoritative reading of the text. Although Tulloch and Jenkins point out that Roddenberry had his own agenda in creating a myth around himself as a progressive thinker, suggesting that much of what he has said about the intents of STAR TREK may have been created in retrospect, this is not so important as their book is about how SF audiences interpret series like STAR TREK politically and use their interpretations of designing political action. So, although it is important what Roddenberry says, whether he is authentic or not is of lesser importance, if the sayings fit with the overall goal of the fan as a political activist.

I find this interesting when we look at an episode like END OF ETERNITY from the viewpoint of fan fiction. In our case, I believe Johnny Byrne may be the closest thing we have to a Roddenberry in terms of being seen as the Focauldian author, although this has to be balanced against the role and influence of Gerry Anderson and Christopher Penfold when we want to understand SPACE: 1999 as a whole. Or, perhaps it is better to do as Fageolle (pp. 43-46), saying that it is the understanding of Penfold, Byrne and di Lorenzo as a group that defines authorship in the case of how we should understand the series. Nevertheless, in the case of END OF ETERNITY we have a text that was authored by Byrne and thus use Foucault’s statements in a similar manner as Tulloch and Jenkins did for discussing at least his distinctive influence on the series. Concerning the first point about classification, we are lucky to have Wood’s book and other sources where we can see what Byrne has said about END OF ETERNITY in relationship to other texts, and what I believe is the central point he makes in this context is how this particular episodes relates to FORCE OF LIFE. Balor is on par with the being which infiltrates Alpha in FORCE OF LIFE. Both were meant to portray an observable, but incomprehensible alien imperative at work. In FORCE OF LIFE it was sensed rather than seen and generally speaking it worked. In END OF ETERNITY the imperative was seen but not sensed strongly enough. I think Balor needed a stronger cultural context for his actions. I smiled when I later saw how Sigourney disposed of the alien in ALIEN… (Wood, 2010, p. 156). Given how we have previously discussed the neo-Marxist nature of FORCE OF LIFE as a story about capitalist used of technology for

Allow me to introduce myself the purpose of deskilling and making labour expendable28, a natural interpretation of Balor would be that of how Barry Morse’s reading of Moonbase Alpha as a socialistic outfit is being threatened by the neoliberalist ideology of Balor, Balor thus being seen as representing the Heath government during the UK mining strikes and other domestic and international challenges around the time when the episode was written. I think the way Byrne refers to ALIEN immediately after comparing FORCE OF LIFE and END OF ENTERNITY endorses this interpretation as the storyline in ALIEN is that of a crew of the commercial spacecraft Nostromo explicitly treated as expendables by the capitalist employers back on Earth. Now we have also commented on Foucault’s second point about how the author serves as a principle for explanation. Of course, we can expand on these first two points by discussing Byrne background in the hippie collective, his engagement with the anti-war movement, and how the political subtext of FORCE OF LIFE and END OF ETERNITY fits with his most explicitly political episodes, such as MISSION OF THE DARIANS. However, to fill in more on Johnny Byrne’s background as means for obtaining a deeper understanding of SPACE: 1999, here is a passage from Gerard deGroot’s 2008 book “The Sixties Unplugged” (London: Pan): Johnny Byrne, who lived in a proto-commune in London, recalls the arrival of a young American woman named Nadia, a veteran of Berkeley. She “radicalised everybody… She was the one who got them all down to Grosvenor Square during the big demonstration in ’68. I remember endless weeks and weeks of people talking about using their banners as lances, spears, unhorsing policemen and charging them – the tactics of confrontation” (p. 359). In other words, when commenting on Foucault’s third point, about how the author functions as a sign of value, in our case we see how an episode like END OF ETERNITY, where the Alphans are forced into political action, can be read in the context of how young radicals were forced into political action on behalf of how the British antiwar movement 28

Balor (2015), pp. 131-142.

371

aligned with the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign (VSC) for the purpose of responding to the greater political challenges of the day. For my perspective, it is exactly here we can see an important role for high quality “SPACE: 1999” fan fiction, namely the role of translating the political subtext of SPACE: 1999 from how it was reflecting the political climate of the late sixties and early seventies into stories that make us see the relevance of the political message today. John B. *** 31659 Re: End of Eternity balor1999 Feb 27, 2016

Ten years ago, Dr. James Riley from Faculty of English at the University of Cambridge published an interview with Jenny Fabian (‘Interview with Jenny Fabian’, Redeye 1.1, 2006), focusing on the autobiographical novel “Groupie” that she wrote with Johnny Byrne about the swinging sixties, makes the following background comment: Byrne and Fabian were key players in the hedonistic underground culture of the sixties. Their twilight world consisted of all- night parties at legendary clubs UFO and Middle Earth within an atmosphere of enormous creativity that was built on a backdrop of avant-garde literature, psychedelic drugs and personal liberation. Byrne had been writing consistently since the early sixties when he met Fabian, (then 19) and encouraged her to begin documenting her sexual exploits amongst the rock ‘n’ roll fraternity. In answering the first question of how she got in contact with Byrne, Fabian says the following: Through a school friend of mine I met a poet called Spike Hawkins and through him I met the poet Johnny Byrne with whom I wrote “Groupie”. I also met Thom Keyes [writer of THE TAYBOR for S99/Y2] who wrote “All Night Stand” and Roger Jones who I’m not sure what he was doing at the time. This is just prior to the psychedelic sixties hitting off but

372


they were already smoking dope and taking pills, behaving in a way that looked like fun to me. It was through hanging around with them that I first started going to poetry readings. I was just drawn to those sorts of people. In order to understand an episode like END OF ETERNITY, and also to understand the impact of Johnny Byrne on SPACE: 1999 in general, I think it is important to be aware of what kind of life he was living at the time and what were the central political debates he was engaged with. After publishing “Groupie” in 1969, which quickly became a sensational bestseller, he wrote a 1971 play for the BBC called “The Season of the Witch” following a similar type of plot. Unfortunately, I have only seen the condensed 16 minute version of the television drama, starring the wonderful Julie Driscoll as a girl who does the same kind of thing that Jenny Fabian did (or her alter ego in the “Groupie” novel), namely to leave the humdrum of conventional 9-5 life and finding meaning and purpose in life by moving in with hippies and making contributions to society in terms of protesting against American interventions in Vietnam, and that sort of think, but it was a wonderful film. It doesn’t seem like the complete film is available for sale at the moment, but in case it should become available at a later stage, it would be a must-watch for anybody wanting to get a better understanding of SPACE: 1999 by means of looking at the Johnny Byrne influence. For the moment, however, we can enjoy the condensed version of the film on YouTube. At least the condensed version contains wonderful footage of Julie Driscoll in front of the antiwar protesters being attacked by the police. When we look at END OF ETERNITY by means of how Tulloch and Jenkins talks about the Foucauldian author, which in this case means an attempt to read the story based on what we know about Johnny Byrne and the values he represented at this time, then it seems to me that one obvious way of interpreting the story is by seeing Balor as a figure like Lyndon B. Johnson or Richard Nixon entering the hippie commune of Moonbase Alpha by means of police brutality and other methods for destroying the values

that Moonbase Alpha and people like Byrne, Keyes, Jones and Jenny Fabian stood for. I think this is also the reason why Byrne never mention END OF ETERNITY as one of his favourite episodes. He said that he was very happy with the premise and wanted to return to it if was given the opportunity to write for S99/Y3, but what he repeatedly says is that he felt there was a lack of psychological and sociological motivation for understanding why Balor did what he did. When we look at the story from the perspective of the life Byrne was living in the late sixties and early seventies, I think what he has difficulty expressing and explaining in the episode is the image of Balor as a right wing terrorist. In other words, if we understand Moonbase Alpha as the peaceful antiwar demonstrators in “The Season of the Witch”, Balor is a symbol of the ideology that makes the police forces attack them without being provoked. The conflict between Balor and Moonbase Alpha would in this sense essentially be a political confrontation, and where we have the discussion between Koeng and Balor about whether he is willing to submit to Balor’s terms, this could be seen as a comment on whether people like Johnny Byrne and his fellow travellers within the London hippie community would be willing to submit to the forces of oppressive capitalist establishment that was endorsing the Vietnam War. Although we have seen some very fine examples of high quality fan fiction trying to expand on the elements from END OF ETERNITY, if we look at how Jenkins argues the value of fan fiction as means of turning passive fans into engaged activists, what we clearly need is more high quality fan fiction with a stronger emphasis on what Jenkins refers to as the presence of the Foucauldian author, or what in our case simply means to more clearly embrace the values of Byrne and friends as a way of not only reading episodes of SPACE: 1999 but also as a way of writing new episodes by means like fan fiction. John B. *** 31660 Re: End of Eternity balor1999

Allow me to introduce myself Feb 28, 2016

Another interesting connection to look at, when we try to understand END OF ETERNITY from the viewpoint of what Byrne had been engaged with immediately before that story, is the relationship between this story end Thom Keyes’ THE TAYBOR. Although this is something that might be more relevant for looking into when commenting on high quality fan fiction that deals more specifically with S99/Y3 plots and characters, it is still interesting to reflect on whether Balor and Taybor could be seen to represent the same threat to society, as seen from the viewpoint of the Byrne/Keyes/Jones/Fabian collective in the late sixties and early seventies, namely the issue of how both represent different sides of the oppressive capitalist system that these young political activists where fighting against. In his book “A Gallery to Play to: The story of the Mersey Poets” (Liverpool University Press, 1999), Phil Bowen describes the relationship between Byrne, Keyes and Fabian in the following manner: [Liverpool poet Brian] Patten knew many of [the counter-culture’s] leading players during his frequent visits to the infamous flat at Cranley Mansions in South Kensington, housing at any given time Johnny Byrne, Spike Hawkins and the notorious Thom Keyes. Jenny Fabian remembers the scene in her book GROUPIE: “Spike introduced me to Johnny Byrne and Thom Keyes. Keyes was absolutely unbearable. He treated Johnny and Spike like shit. He treated everyone like shit. As the days went by at Cranley Mansions he became so spaced out on Methedrine who knows what was really speaking. He was a real little fuhrer. But it was his place: you couldn’t tell him to piss off”. Byrne had met the seventeen-year-old Keyes in Liverpool through his interest in beatnik literature. ‘He was the only beatnik I knew who drove in a sports car. He’d come through Christ Church College, Oxford, and when he came to London he would go to the Casanova Club where he had a gambling account.’ (p. 89).

373

In the long run, however, we know that Byrne and Keyes got extremely well along as they shared the same political perceptions, and – if I remember correctly – it was Byrne who suggested that Keyes should make a contribution to SPACE: 1999. Prior to this Byrne had already made a tribute to Keyes by naming Regina Kesslan in ANOTHER TIME ANOTHER TIME after Keyes wife. If we contemplate END OF ETERNITY through THE TAYBOR or vice versa, by way of reflecting on how Byrne and Keyes were leading players in the London counter-culture, we end up with both episodes dealing with conflicts between capital and labour as seen from the viewpoint of Moonbase Alpha as a late sixties or early seventies hippie community. So, although FORCE OF LIFE may be the most obvious reference for understanding END OF ETERNITY, there are interesting and subtle links between many episodes, helping us to disclose the political significance of SPACE: 1999 beyond the important work already done by Fageolle, Keazor, Liardet and others. John B. *** 31661 Re: End of Eternity balor1999 Feb 29, 2016

How does the fan fiction approach help us understand the political subtext in END OF ETERNITY that becomes transparent by contemplating Johnny Byrne as one of the leading players of the London counter-culture in the sixties? As using fan fiction as a lens for understanding an episode like END OF ETERNITY is a completely different lens than what the historical-critical method provides, the benefit of the fan fiction approach is obviously in the way it can explore the themes and symbols of an episode. Perhaps this might be worth looking into in the case of ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF. There are three themes that I see as particularly relevant in END OF ETERNITY. The first theme is the issue of meddling with another peoples’ justice. This relates to the

374


conversation between John and Helena in the epilogue, and this is how Muir (1997, p. 63) interprets the episode. Today it might be relevant for discussing how killing of people like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi has impacted the stability of the Middle East, migration crisis and international terrorism. When we look at the time the episode was written, I suppose it would not be too unreasonable to think of it in the context of the Vietnam War.

most clearly with Liardet’s interpretation of the episode as dealing with life, death and immortality and resurrection. While Liardet’s reflections on immortality is a more or less straight-forward comment on what Balor says in his speech, and then echoed by Victor Bergman question about whether Moonbase Alpha would be willing to accept immortality if it had been offered to them, I think Liardet’s comment about resurrection is once more worth repeating:

Another theme is the way of how END OF ETERNITY continues the discussion of immortality that was used in DEATH’S OTHER DOMINION. Now, here we have to assume Johnny Byrne’s role as script editor meant that he was actually involved with episodes apart from his own, and we do actually know that he did important rewriting on episodes like THE LAST ENEMY and SPACE BRAIN, but in the case of DEATH’S OTHER DOMINION we must at least assume that he was aware of the script as it was being presented, developed and produced. For Liardet (2014, p. 82), the immortality theme is the central theme of the episode.

L’aspect religieux de la série trouve son manifeste le plus éclatant avec la mort puis la renaissance de Koenig sous l’impulsion d’un être omnipotent capable de dépasser les barrières de la mort.

Finally we have the issue of matter/antimatter that Byrne introduced in MOLAD and continues to use in this episode. In MOLAD he makes use of matter/antimatter in a philosophical sense by the way he lets Lee Russell give a speech about how matter never dies and how our thoughts can influence the material world. In END OF ETERNITY there is less explicit discussion of matter/antimatter from a philosophical perspective, but Turdo (2015, p. 153) interprets the matter/antimatter theme as a type of yin/yang moral philosophy and thus sees this as the central aspect of the episode. Turdo thus sees the episode as an attack on religious extremism where those who are not with us are against us, and sees the episodes as suggesting a more humanistic and reflective perspective where what is seen as good (or evil) in the eyes of someone may not necessarily be so in the eyes of another. How can we use ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF for exploring some of these three central themes of the episode? As the text is more like a pastiche than an actual story, it does not go deeply into any of the three themes, but I think it resonates perhaps

So, at least from Liardet’s perspective, there is a strong resemblance between END OF ETERNITY and SCHANKE RESURGENS in the sense of how he sees Koenig as actually dying and actually being given a new life by an omnipotent being that has overcome the barriers of death. If we then choose to see SCHANKE RESURGENCE and ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF as two stories from 2002 dealing with more or less the same ideas, what strikes me as perhaps being the most important difference is the way that Don Schanke is being reborn as a better or at least slightly more reflective person while Balor remains the same. In the case of John Koenig there is also a similar change in the way that his resurrection changes his attitude about Balor. If we try to see this in the context of Johnny Byrne as a counter-cultural activist in the 1960s, taking part in the antiwar demonstrations, it seems to me that Liardet reads religious symbolism of the episode in the political context of how the beatnik counterculture of the late fifties and early sixties went through a kind of resurrection in the midsixties when they understood the “evilness” of the establishment and the need for standing up against oppression and war. Perhaps Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd-Webber were the most perceptive in the way they decided to retell the last days of Jesus in their musical JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR as a political fable about the hippies and their counter-culture values set against the values of the oppressive Lyndon B. Johnson / Richard Nixon


375

establishment. The musical started as a rock opera in 1970, then became a Broadway hit in 1971, and was then made into a film in 1972.

the expense of forgetting about the political ideals of equality, freedom, democracy, compassion and justice.

Particularly when I watch Johnny Byrne’s 1971 BBC play “The Season of the Witch”, I get a strong sense of a parallel between the conflict in that play and the conflict we see in END OF ETERNITY. When Johnny Byrne creates the situation of how to fight an immortal killer, he is asking the same question that people of his generation were asking themselves when participating in the antiwar demonstrations. The fear of the episode, how the neo-conservatism of Balor might contaminate Moonbase Alpha and destroy what Barry Morse describes as the nature of Alpha as a ‘socialistic outfit’, was also the fear of the counter-culture movement in the sense of how people grow older and become more concerned with personal wealth and comfort at

So, what I see as a significant contribution from fan fiction that is not as obviously seen from the perspective of the historical-critical method, is the way of tapping into the mythological and religious imagery of the text. Although Liardet makes use of his cultural Catholicism for decoding the mythological and religious imagery in END OF ETERNITY, I think high quality fan fiction is even more capable of doing this. John B. ***

376


11. IT’S GOTTA BE THE BEER The chapter consist of six sections. The first section deals directly with the content and style of the fan fiction short story. The other sections are related to three specific SPACE: 1999 episodes and other topics that are brought up due to the nature of the short story.

11.1 Commentary and analysis The commentary and analysis starts by relating to the discussion of how the short story was previously used as an example of a fan fiction short story (chapter 3), and then tries to build on this for expanding the discussion further. The way Gerry Anderson has in retrospect talked about the problems with the Maya character is an important part of the analysis and food for debate. 31662 It's gotta be the beer (Senmut, 2003) balor1999 Mar 1, 2016

to THE INFERNAL MACHINE by way of how the Alphans are being approach by a mysterious and possible sinister spacecraft.

Even though we have discussed IT’S GOTTA BE THE BEER at great length earlier on, I still think it is a good idea to have a second look at the story now that we have gone through all the fan fiction novels in the FOREVER ALPHA series. As it turned out to be much to be gained by discussing ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF through the perspective that it was written at the same time as SCHANKE RESURGENS, perhaps it is possible to gain similar insights from IT’S GOTTA BE THE BEER by noticing that it was written around the same time as CROSSFIRE.

However, before we continue the exploration of how a fan fiction story like BEER might be used for improving our understanding of SPACE: 1999, I think it is appropriate to say something about the quality of the story itself. As was pointed out last time we discussed this particular story, some people see it as one of Senmut’s weaker stories, using the expression “even artists can have a day off” (message #29689)29, but this is not the way I see it. As I also said the last time we discussed it, I see no particular weak points in this short story. It is written in a short and snappy manner, exploiting the format of the short story to the fullest, starting out in a serious manner and keeps the tension until the very end when it reveals itself as a joke.

Furthermore, as the last time we look at BEER, we were mostly concerned with how it could be used for understanding the conflict between Y1 and Y2, by way of how the encounter between Maya and Bugs Bunny could be used for commenting on the comic book nature of Maya and the whole of Y2 as opposed to the comparatively realistic drama in Y1, I would find it interesting to see whether we could use the story for looking at other aspects of SPACE: 1999. When I just read it once more, there are particularly three episodes of SPACE: 1999 that come to mind. First of all, the beginning of the short story reminds me of THE INFERNAL MACHINE in the sense that the Alphans are being approach by a strange space vehicle. Secondly, it reminds me of both THE TAYBOR and BRIAN THE BRAIN in the sense that the story plays with cartoonish characters in a comic manner. Each of these two stories also has a prologue that is similar

Well, perhaps we should have been suspicious of the mock seriousness in the beginning as we notice the Y2 setting by the way of how Senmut includes Tony and Maya, which may or may not be seen as a hint that what we are going to experience is not going to be lighthearted. Of course, in the case of the fan fiction novels, it was quite possible to tell intelligent stories by including characters like Tony and Maya, but that was due to the intelligent way the stories were written and not having anything to do with the characters themselves. So, perhaps most of us were surprised that it was possible to write intelligently when including characters like that. Even Gerry Anderson admitted that the British writers had great difficulty writing intelligently when they were forced to deal 29

Balor (2015), p. 306.

It’s gotta be the beer

377

with a character like Maya (“Letters”, Starlog, 42, January 1981). To the surprise of many of us, however, Senmut managed to do this with apparent ease.

understanding SPACE: 1999 in ways that may not be as obvious as this.

Nevertheless, when Maya is used intelligently in the fan fiction novels this is because the format of the novel makes it possible to do so. In a short story like IT’S GOTTA BE THE BEER there is no attempt to go into any particular detail with the characters. Here they are only used for setting up the environment for what is essentially a joke. But there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think it is brilliantly done, and the story is highly amusing because, as we discussed last time, it pokes fun at the frustrations we all have with Y2 and in particular what Landau has said about the Y2 being too much of a cartoon, specifically comparing it with MR. MAGOO in the interview he gave for the “La nuit special Cosmos 1999” documentary (Verat, 1999).

***

Would the joke have been funnier if it was Mr Magoo rather than Bugs Bunny coming out of the space ship? No, I don’t think so. What Senmut does so brilliantly here, I feel, is that he plays with our frustrations of Y2 as a childish cartoon, which would perhaps make us expect somebody like Mr. Magoo entering Command Centre at some stage if somebody knowing about how the cast and crew felt about Y2 were to make a spoof of it, but the double surprise is then that we do NOT encounter Mr. Magoo. We encounter Bugs Bunny instead. I think this is what elevates the story into not only being funny but also funny on a highly intelligent level, playing along with fandom competence, and thus making it more amusing for the fans, who are all aware about how much Landau and everybody else detested Maya and Y2, and thus being able to delivering the joke in a way that makes it twice as funny as it otherwise would have been. But, as I said, I think there is much more to IT’S GOTTA BE THE BEER than these amusing aspects of how everybody involved with SPACE: 1999 hated Freiberger, Y2 and Maya. These are aspects of the story we have already discussed at great length, so I think it would be interesting to go beyond this and see how fan fiction can be used as a lens for

John B.

31663 Re: It's gotta be the beer (Senmut, 2003) kerryirs Mar 1, 2016

Mr. Balor, I think you take this far too seriously. Why not just read a story or watch an episode without picking it apart, at least just once, please. Let me also throw in a fan writer I've enjoyed over the years and that's David Welle. His Bridge series of stories are an excellent example of character development as are his other stories. They flow nicely like Senmut's do. *** 31664 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: It's gotta be the beer (Senmut, 2003) John Marcucci Mar 1, 2016

Hear hear! Daves fan fic is first rate *** 31665 [OnlineAlpha] It's gotta be the beer (Senmut, 2003) sennmut Mar 2, 2016

Balor, you just keep at it. In fact, you always cease to amaze me. IGBTB was NOT written to help understand the "conflict" between Y1ers and Y2ers, something that "we" did not do, but you only. It was nothing more than a sudden whim, that came to me after watching an old Bugs Bunny cartoon. It suddenly struck me how utterly absurd it would look, with Bugs turning up in Command Center, dressed for the beach. It was NOT for the purpose of commenting on ANYTHING. I have no idea where you dredge these cockeyed ideas up from, but it was simply done for the sake of a laugh, and that was that. As to Mr. magoo, well, I just couldn't fit his old car in Command Center. Bummer.

378


*** 31666 RE: [OnlineAlpha] It's gotta be the beer (Senmut, 2003) SHANA G Mar 2, 2016

Guys, Why do you even care what John B. says? Shake it off to the fact he tries to light fires that aren’t there for burning. Just click delete when he sends something, very easy I have learned! Shana *** 31667 Re: It's gotta be the beer (Senmut, 2003) balor1999 Mar 2, 2016

Kerry wrote: Let me also throw in a fan writer I've enjoyed over the years and that's David Welle. His Bridge series of stories are an excellent example of character development as are his other stories. They flow nicely like Senmut's do.

My point is not necessarily that Senmut is heads and shoulders above everybody else in the SPACE: 1999 fan fiction community. To make comments like that I would have to have read far more of what other fan fiction writers have produced. However, I have read some commercial fiction and some fan fiction, and in the context of what I have read, Senmut stands out as a remarkably accomplished writer. Not only do his texts flow nicely, as you say, but I also find him creative and talented beyond much of what I have read elsewhere. Nevertheless, my fascination with SPACE: 1999 fan fiction has more to do with the theoretical works by Jenkins and others on how this kind of writing can be used for turning passive followers of shows like SPACE: 1999 into engaged political activists. In this context I see Senmut’s SPACE: 1999 cycle of six novels and four short stories as a particularly interesting because of his

interesting stories and the high quality of his writing. For instance, I think there would have been great opportunities for writing SPACE: 1999 fan fiction in support of somebody like Bernie Sanders, particularly at a time when it looks like the majority of Democratic voters do not seem to worry about how Hillary Clinton’s Super PAC will have an impact on her politics, if she should get elected. Jenkins does not say so much about SPACE: 1999 per se, but he talks about fan fiction and popular culture in general, and the increasingly important role they have played the support of grassroots movements like the Occupy Movement and in the campaigns for getting Obama elected. The problem with popular culture, however, is that it is generally not designed to last. Although STAR TREK and STAR WARS lives on, most people have forgotten much more important series like SPACE: 1999, although the political subtext of SPACE: 1999 was much more unified and more progressive than what we saw in the original STAR TREK series. For instance, when commenting on the role of women in society, Tulloch and Jenkins (1995) quotes a fan critic saying the following: STAR TREK’s reputation for progressiveness is due more to its suggestion of a future society devoted to equal rights than to what was portrayed in the show… The supposed sexual equality of the Federation was left largely to the viewers’ imagination (pp. 197-98). Jenkins then continues by discussion characters like Uhura, Chapel and Rand in this context of supposedly progressiveness in terms of gender quality, but where the politics of the series actually fitted better conservative views of women as secondary characters in society. This is particularly noticeable in the case of Majel Barrett, he argues, who played the progressive feminist Number One in “The Cage” pilot but was considered too progressive and was thus redesigned into the submissive Nurse Chapel when the series went into production. Although SPACE: 1999 was made some five years later, and perhaps also benefited from slightly different attitudes towards women in Europe and the UK, there is a remarkable

It’s gotta be the beer similarity between Dr. Helena Russell in Y1 and Number One in STAR TREK. It is also interesting how Freiberger probably felt that Helena was too progressive in the sense of perhaps being a problem with conservative viewers in Middle America, that would get turned off by her strength and independence, and how that may have influenced the idea of making her into a more submissive and overtly emotional character in Y2. On the other hand, both Freiberger and Anderson wanted Teresa Graves as Maya, and at least Anderson was terribly disappointed by ITC’s decision to go with Catherine Schell, as he explains in the Fanderson Documentary. Here it looks like at least GA saw an opportunity for making a progressive statement with the new series. By following FF’s advice on making Helena into less of a threat to conservative viewers scarred by Women’s Liberation Movement, Anderson apparently wanted to compensate by making Maya into a symbol for the Civil Rights Movement and minority movements in general as he had himself been a victim of prejudice and discrimination (Cull, 2006, pp. 116-130). Nevertheless, as Iaccino (2001) observed, the political intensions of Y2 were crushed and it ended up being a crappy rip-off of STAR TREK that destroyed the reputation of SPACE: 1999 as a whole. I think it is in this context that stories like IT’S GOTTA BE THE BEER makes a contribution. By considering high quality fan fiction that deals (deliberately or not) with the conflict between Y1 and Y2, it becomes easier to see the political relevance of Y1 by the way Y2 failed – and it also is interesting to see some of the potentials that Y2 might have had if GA had been allowed to carry his own vision with the series without the destructive influence of FF. John B. *** 31668 Re: It's gotta be the beer (Senmut, 2003) kerryirs Mar 2, 2016

Mr. Balor wrote,

379 By following FF’s advice on making Helena into less of a threat to conservative viewers scarred by Women’s Liberation Movement, Anderson apparently wanted to compensate by making Maya into a symbol for the Civil Rights Movement and minority movements in general as he had himself been a victim of prejudice and discrimination (Cull, 2006, pp. 116-130).

First of all, when was Helena ever a threat? I think there had been enough shows prior to 1999 that had women in key roles that their appearances probably didn't bother too many people. Nichols had thought about leaving Trek but was talked out of it by Martin Luther King. He thought her role was too important in a couple of ways, first African-American and a woman in a key role in a primetime series. In the sixties, that may have been a "threat" to some of the more reactionary types back then. By the 70s I don't think most people cared. The women's movement was at the forefront at the time. Politically, some people felt threatened by it, mainly the insecure. What FF and the writers did was to put Helena more into a central position. When was she ever put in a position of command in Y1? She seemed to have a more forceful personality, as she at times questioned orders or pushed for a hard decision to be made, as in CATACOMBS OF THE MOON where she reminded Tony that he was in command and the decision to release the material for the heart was his. As for your views on Maya, I suggest that you read John Kenneth Muir's views on the character and Catherine Schell's response when told of how some thought of the character as a role model for future roles, as seen in TREK: TNG and other shows. Catherine said that she never set out to make Maya a role model but was thrilled that some thought of the character that way. John pointed out all of the women's roles in SF TV and movies that came after Maya. I don't think that Catherine Schell was concerned about NOW or the women's liberation movement or the civil rights movement in this country when it came to this role. The link is below. http://reflectionsonfilmandtelevision.blogspot.c om/search?updated-max=2005-0906T07:46:00-04:00&max-results=10&m=1

380


Finally, as for Ms. Graves, as someone in the group pointed out and as did FF, she had left acting and joined a religious group. I think I tried watching GET CHRISTIE LOVE, but I don't remember much about it except it wasn't on very long.

including how he wanted the 45 year old actress to play a 29 year of character “who is vibrantly in love with Koenig”. To me this looks like part of a strategy for making Bain become more like a sort of wacky “Lucille Ball”-character than the political threat she was perceived as by reactionary audiences during the first series.

*** 31669 Re: It's gotta be the beer (Senmut, 2003) balor1999 Mar 3, 2016

Kerry wrote: First of all, when was Helena ever a threat? […] The women's movement was at the forefront at the time. Politically, some people felt threatened by it, mainly the insecure.

I think this is the central point. Although there were many complaints about the first season of SPACE: 1999, people saying that the plots were incomprehensible and the actors were “wooden”, more than anybody else I think Barbara Bain was a main target. Why? If we look at episodes like MOLAD or RATM, her performance was far more sophisticated and artistically impressive than what she had been awarded Emmys for when performing on MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE. Why was she attacked rather than getting the recognition she obviously deserved? The reason is obviously political. As you say, the women’s movement was at the forefront in the 1970s, and some people - mainly the insecure - felt threatened by it. Seeing Barbara Bain portraying Helena as a competent and authoritative medical figure probably made them see SPACE: 1999 as an attack on their reactionary world-view and made them come up with all kinds of absurd attacks on S99/Y1. I don’t know if Fred Freiberger was one of these reactionary types, and I actually doubt it, but he was the one who claimed to understand how the “American Mind” worked, so one of his main strategies was clearly to tone down anything that might be conceived as a political threat. If we read Freiberger’s description of format characters from his “note to the writers” (Heald, 1976, pp. 101-103), his tactic for depoliticising Helena is evident in several ways,

Of course, I would not say that IT’S GOTTA BE THE BEER deals specifically with feminist liberation, or any type of critical theory at all, but I think the confrontation between S99/Y2 as live action and Bugs Bunny as a cartoon could be read as a political statement somewhat along such lines. I’m not saying that it was written with such intents, and I think Senmut has been quite clear on saying that it was not, but for the reader of fan fiction I think there is emancipatory power in this story, just as with all of the fan fiction stories we have discussed so far. At least for me it is a very good example of how fan fiction can be used for explaining why people love Y1 and hate Y2. Y1 tries to bridge art with popular culture in the sense of building on cinematic works like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and focuses on complex characters and complex relationships, like we remember from the Ingmar Bergman films of the period, where Barbara Bain does an absolutely stunning performance that is practically indistinguishable from the great Bergman actresses of that time, such as Liv Ullmann and Bibi Andersson. Y2, on the other hand, as wonderfully illustrated by this brilliant piece of satirical fan fiction, was more like a Bugs Bunny cartoon. John B. *** 31670 Re: It's gotta be the beer (Senmut, 2003) kerryirs Mar 3, 2016

John B., I guess you don't get it. Senmut has said over and over that ITS GOTTA BE THE BEER was nothing more than a whimsical story. As for Barbara Bain's role, well, that was established before FF got there. I think he

It’s gotta be the beer wanted to "flesh out" the character more by giving her a warmer side, allow her to be able to relax, even crack a smile at times. And if you don't think people aren't going to form relationships, then I think you should think about what a place Alpha would be, go to work, maybe relax a bit, eat and sleep and go back to work. Kind of dull. Freiberger wanted to bring some interaction among the charachters over and beyond their work, hobbies, games (as seen in the LAMBDA FACTOR) where we see an electronic game, which was just hitting the market in the 70s. That's one thing one sees a difference between Y1 (a puzzle) and Y2, electronic games when it comes to relaxation. I liked it when Koenig and Russell could express feelings for one another. It was done on a mature level. You wrote: If we read Freiberger’s description of format characters from his “note to the writers” (Heald, 1976, pp. 101-103), his tactic for de-politicising Helena is evident in several ways, including how he wanted the 45 year old actress to play a 29 year of character “who is vibrantly in love with Koenig”. To me this looks like part of a strategy for making Bain become more like a sort of wacky “Lucille Ball”-character than the political threat she was perceived as by reactionary audiences during the first series.

The above comment is off base to me, funny if one takes seriously. The characters didn't act like two love sick teenagers. Remember both had been married before and probably gone through theater already. John, give us an example of what you're talking about here. *** 31671 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: It's gotta be the beer (Senmut, 2003) sennmut March 4, 2016

Dr. Russell's "woodeness" in Y1 is largely illusory. I admit that I myself, never saw her as such. Remember, this is a woman who has lost her husband, with nothing but work to fall back on, posted off-planet, suddenly in the midst of a disease no one can figure out, and the political mess created by Simmonds, meets someone disturbingly like Lee, blown out of orbit, meets Lee again, loses him again, is kidnapped by aliens, nearly has her brain fricassied by the Tritonians, almost turned into

381

tofu by the Darians...need one go one? All the time, having to deal with keeping Alpha alive (notice her, after the delivery of Jackie Crawford. She was smiling and open...more like the Y2 Helena.), and growing feelings for Koenig. What did you expect from this woman? Bubbling effusiveness? Ask the next bunch of alien horrors over for a beer? She is withdrawn and apparently stand-offish for a reason. She is trying to adapt and deal with a situation/s for which none of them could ever have been trained, and with which she must come to terms with as she goes. By the time of Y2, she has, at least to some extent, come to terms with things as they are, and begun to open up a bit more, showing more of the inner Helena. And that is ALLLLLLLLLLL there is to it. No feminist crap, no anti-feminist crap, no critical theory trash, NOTHING. Just storytelling, plain and simple. *** 31672 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: It's gotta be the beer (Senmut, 2003) balor1999 Mar 4, 2016

Kerry wrote: [John and Helena] didn't act like two love sick teenagers. Remember both had been married before and probably gone through theater already. John, give us an example of what you're talking about here.

Although giving examples seems like a fair request, it is nevertheless not so easy because we also have to see the change in Helena’s behaviour against the general change from the serious drama in Y1 into the sitcom or actionadventure nature Y2. John Koenig is also slightly changed, but not all that much. In the case of Helena, however, there is a significant change, and I think that was something Barbara Bain and the producers were concerned with due to some of the negative response due to how audiences mistook her serious approach in Y1 for being “wooden”. In one of the television interviews Martin Landau discussed the issue of “wooden” actors. He was terribly upset by the cast being characterised in this way, saying that they were anything but “wooden”. On the contrary, they

382


were trying to portray deeply complex individuals that were dealing with a series of highly stressful events. I totally agree with how Senmut comments on this, and I think his ability to read the characters of both Y1 and Y2 is part of the reason why his stories work so well. However, if we want examples of how Freiberger wanted John and Helena to act more like love sick teenagers, the example that comes to mind is the filmed interview Barbara Bain gave when they were shooting A MATTER OF BALANCE. When she responds to the question of how her character had changed, she said something along the lines of how Helena and John had an affectionate but distance relationship in the previous season while now they were madly in love with each other. To illustrate the point, the documentary included a scene from BRINGERS OF WONDER where they hug and kiss and go “yes, yes, yes, yes!!!!”

budget style with amateur porn actors and old toy Eagles in strings. Unfortunately, the project was never realised, but simply thinking about the project gives me pleasure as it seems to me to capture what Freiberger was really up to when he revamped SPACE: 1999. Furthermore, it is also a vision that fits with Liardet’s idea that S99/Y2 can only be understood through the perspective of BARBARELLA. In fact, I think Morgado’s reconceptualisation of S99/Y2 as a pornographic version of BARBARELLA would make perfect sense on several levels, not at last on the political level. If we see Helena in Y1 as a symbol of the feminist movement of the seventies, then making Maya into a symbol of women being exploited by the sex industry in Y2, this would be perfect for making a point about how the political values of SPACE: 1999 were reversed when going from Y1 to Y2. John B.

Nevertheless, for me it is not such much particular scenes in Y2 that de-politicises Helena and changes her from a feminist role model into a submissive housewife to please reactionary viewers, but rather the nature of the second series as a whole. Although I am not aware of Freiberger using the expression “love sick teenagers”, his instruction to the 45 year old actress was that she was supposed to play a 29 year old girl who was vibrantly in love, so I think the expression “love sick teenagers” is an adequate description of what he was trying to achieve. Apart from Senmut’s intelligent use of Bugs Bunny as a means for deconstructing S99/Y2, there is another person I vividly remember trying to create similar insights by use of economic means. I am thinking of the Portuguese film director Paulo Morgado who once explained his plans for making a “tribute” to S99/Y2 by means of a pornographic feature film with an aging Caroline Munro (probably around the age of 50 when he proposed the idea) to play the 25 year old Maya on a sexual journey through space. My understanding was that the film was supposed to be a sort of hardcore version of BARBARELLA, told within the framework of the second season of SPACE: 1999, and done in an extreme low-

*** 31673 Re: It's gotta be the beer (Senmut, 2003) kerryirs Mar 4, 2016

Senmut, your views on Helena and mine pretty much coinside. Early on was an adjustment period to the situation for all. As the series wore on, one could see changes in Helena's persona, subtle at first, started to change, as did Koenig's, more relaxed. This would be a normal evolution of coming to terms with their situation and learning to survive until hopefully a new world was found, a new home. Byrne's criticism of the Alphans becoming spacemen and losing something of what it meant to be human, I never bought into. Personally I think that was Byrne's way of taking another shot at FF and Y2. An example, for me at least, where this criticism is a farce is when Alan tells Sahala that they are all from Earth and then he narrows that down by telling her that he was from Australia and how important that was to him. That doesn't sound like the Alphans had forgotten their heritage to me.

It’s gotta be the beer Another example is when Koenig relates Earth's history to Maya and how the war had affected him, losing his wife and their future together. And JOURNEY TO WHERE is another example of a longing to return home when Logan made contact, only to realize that wasn't likely to happen after the earthquake and the deadline. But they never gave up hope. And then there's Simmonds, always harping about returning to earth. In a way, he reminds me of Dr. Smith on LIS. If the character hadn't been "dispatched" in EARTHBOUND, I can imagine him bugging Koenig ever chance he got about returning to earth. Just a thought. *** 31674 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: It's gotta be the beer (Senmut, 2003) John Marcucci Mar 4, 2016

Kerry, I think the growth and maturing of the characters is one of the strongest elements of s2, mainly because its believeable. The characters becoming more warm, relaxed, and showing more of their inner lives made them more assessable to the viewing audience. Btw, didn't Helena take command in The AB Chrysalis? Regards, John m *** 31675 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: It's gotta be the beer (Senmut, 2003) balor1999 Mar 5, 2016

Kerry, a couple of days ago you wrote: As for your views on Maya, I suggest that you read John Kenneth Muir's views on the character and Catherine Schell's response when told of how some thought of the character as a role model for future roles, as seen in TREK: TNG and other shows. Catherine said that she never set out to make Maya a role model but was thrilled that some thought of the character that way. John pointed out all of the women's roles in SF TV and movies that came after Maya. I don't think that Catherine Schell was concerned about NOW or the women's

383 liberation movement or the civil rights movement in this country when it came to this role. The link is below. http://reflectionsonfilmandtelevision.blogspot.c om/search?updated-max=2005-0906T07:46:00-04:00&max-results=10&m=1

Are you sure you have given me the right link? All I get is a list of Muir’s blog entries from 2005, but no transcript of the second interview he did with Catherine Schell. When searching for this second interview on his blog, I cannot find it, although I did find him explaining that he first interviewed Schell on the phone in 1994 and then interviewed her once more some years later. I did not capture when this was, but I expect it may have been at a SPACE: 1999 conventions. Although I agree with Dr. Iaccino’s (2001) authoritative analysis of S99/Y2, where he says that Freiberger was more or less individually responsible for the destruction of SPACE: 1999 (p. 78), I found the following passage from Muir’s 1994 interview with Schell interesting: “I never thought of Maya as a role model, perhaps because in my life I have never been held back from doing something just because I am a woman. I’m thrilled that she is seen by many as a role model, but I did not intend it that way. Perhaps because Maya was an alien, she was allowed to do more than ‘human’ women were at the time.” (Muir, 1997, p. 92) So, if we see Barbara Bain as being too much of an overt symbol of 1970s political feminism in a sense that was perceived as a threat for the reactionary segments of the US audiences at the time, we can still see how Gerry Anderson and the script writers of Y2 were able to continue their political mission as before by applying more subtle methods, such as making Maya into a symbol of for the women’s liberation movement, the gay rights movement, and the civil rights movement by hiding it under the banner of how she was presented as an ‘alien’. If we are going to look at some of the more useful and interesting aspects of Y2 analysis, the kind of analysis pioneered by Liardet (2014), then you may be guiding us in the right direction, Kerry, by helping us identify texts

384


that help us see the political relevance of Y2. However, I would very much appreciate if you could replace the link you initially provided with a link that goes directly to the text you had in mind. John B.

Manhattan convention in 2000. The extract at the bottom of the blog is from the 1994 interview he used in the 1997 book. I have not seen any videos or transcripts of the 2000 interview, but perhaps there is nothing in that interview that would add significantly to what she previously said about feminism and role models in 1994.

*** 31676 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: It's gotta be the beer (Senmut, 2003) sennmut Mar 5, 2016

On 05 Mar 2016 balor1999@... writes: So, if we see Barbara Bain as being too much of an overt symbol of 1970s political feminism in a sense that was perceived as a threat for the reactionary segments of the US audiences at the time, we can still see how Gerry Anderson and the script writers of Y2 were able to continue their political mission as before by applying more subtle methods, such as making Maya into a symbol of for the women’s liberation movement, the gay rights movement, and the civil rights movement by hiding it under the banner of how she was presented as an ‘alien’.

Or, if we don't. Let's not, since none of this was ever intended, nor has any value whatsoever. *** 31677 Re: It's gotta be the beer (Senmut, 2003) kerryirs Mar 5, 2016

Try this link. http://reflectionsonfilmandtelevision.blogspot.c om/2005_09_04_archive.html?m=1 As for role models, each to his own opinion. *** 31678 Re: It's gotta be the beer (Senmut, 2003) balor1999 Mar 5, 2016

Thanks for sharing the link, Kerry. Muir says that he interviewed Schell twice, once on telephone in 1994 and once at a

When it comes to Muir’s private opinions on Maya, and how Catherine Schell compares as a role model with other women from SF television on his personal scale of what makes women attractive, I tend to agree with your comment: As for role models, each to his own opinion.

I think this is a particularly relevant in the way Muir interweaves Schell’s reflections on women’s emancipation. From what I understand, his point is not necessarily that he supports gender equality and women’s emancipation from the viewpoint of critical theory, but rather that he gets a kick out of watching beautiful women behaving in particular ways. So, what Muir does is to alter the meaning of ‘role models’ as something that can be used for political activism into ‘model roles’ for women he likes to watch as a passive consumer of television. Although I can agree with your comment “each to his own opinion” in this particular context, I think Schell’s original comment was important. In fact, here is a wonderful television interview with Herbert Marcuse from 1976 where he discusses the importance of the feminist movement and women’s liberation from the viewpoint of critical theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5PU0EA Si_Q If we are going to go beyond the “each to is own” perspective and see whether there is political relevance and merit in Y2, this could be an interesting approach. Not only would it be a natural expansion on the theoretical understanding of SPACE: 1999, from the viewpoint of Fageolle and Keazor, but it would also overlap Liardet’s innovative perspectives in an important way.

It’s gotta be the beer However, I think it is important to remember that Maya as a feminist symbol in Y2 has to be seen as a replacement of Helena as a feminist symbol in Y1, so we have to consider whether the idea of turning SPACE: 1999 into camp is something that gives it more political power. This is a viewpoint that might be supported by Muir’s 1994 interview with Schell, but it has to be analysed in the context of the opposing view that the changes from Y1 to Y2 rendered the series stupid and politically helpless, as Iaccino, Keazor, Fageolle and others have been arguing. What seems to me to be a central point in this context is the way Muir chooses to comment about his sexual orientation at the very first sentence in the blog about Maya. As we know from Christopher West’s article about SF and homosexuality, where Maya is described as a symbol for the gay movement, it may indeed be quite surprising to find anyone outside the gay community finding value in Y2. Perhaps this is the reason Muir felt this strong urge to start his essay by declaring his sexual orientation and showing that it is possible to like Maya without being gay.

385

that it would be easier to find merit in Y2 by looking at how it could be of use for the gay rights movement. I’m not sure what Herbert Marcuse would have said in this context, but if we think of what Schell said about Maya in 1994 and what Marcuse said about feminism in 1976, then Y2 could perhaps be thought of as having merit in dealing with economic and social oppression as seen from a niche perspective like socialist lesbian studies. Like we have discussed earlier, I think much unnecessary disagreements and misunderstandings from the Y1/Y2 debates could be avoided if we left Y2 as a topic for Gaybase Alpha and thus allowing the rest of the community to focus on Y1. That does not necessary mean that we should not discuss Y2 on Online Alpha, but if we are going to improve the quality of communication then I think we might benefit by a deeper alignment with how cast, crew, fans, critics, scholars and academics think about SPACE: 1999. John B. ***

Nevertheless, if it should turn out that those who like Maya are mostly gay, I would expect

11.2 The Infernal Machine Although there are in “It’s gotta be the beer” no specific references to any particular SPACE: 1999 episode, the opening of the short story has some structural similarities with “The Infernal Machine”, so a discussion emerges about whether also other aspects of the fan fiction story might be used for reading this particular SPACE: 1999 in a novel manner. 31680 The Infernal Machine balor1999 Mar 7, 2016

Muir makes a point about his sexual orientation when commenting on Maya and Y2, and I think it may be right that the best way of making sense out of Y2 might be from the viewpoint of how Christopher West describes Maya as an icon for the gay movement. Tulloch and Jenkins (1995, chapter 12) also spend a significant amount of space discussing how SF can be used for supporting gay rights. While I think this is a valid and important perspective, to me it is more like a niche debate that would probably be carried out with greater competence by the people who

inhabit places like Gaybase Alpha. From the viewpoint of Online Alpha I would say that important perspectives dealing with oppression in the context of gender, race and sexuality have to be understood as specific themes that could be used for illustrating some of the more general themes described in the works of Byrne, Penfold, Terpiloff and the rest. Once again I would argue that we need to read SPACE: 1999 differently than how Jenkins reads STAR TREK. The challenge with STAR TREK, as explained in the early chapters in the book by Tulloch and Jenkins, is that it was not really as progressive as it was later declared to be. Issues like gender, race and sexuality may

386


have been “progressive” compared to television series that were written to feed the reactionaries, but where Jenkins sees the relevance of fan fiction is in the way it has been used for turning the pseudo-progressive message of STAR TREK into a vehicle for real progressive thinking and political activism. Clearly, in the case of SPACE: 1999 there is no need for this kind of manipulation because SPACE: 1999 was politically grounded on what we might today describe as critical theory, as we have heard the writers explain in the Fanderson Documentary. In other words, the relevance of fan fiction in our case is not to rewrite the political message but to show how issues like Johnny Byrne’s engagement with the anti-war movement in the late sixties translates, by means of his writings for SPACE: 1999, into engagement with the political movements of today. I don’t know if IT’S GOTTA BE THE BEER is the best example for analysing this, because Senmut has clearly stated that he had absolutely no intent of making overt political statements when he wrote the story, but as many of us seem to interpret the encounter between Maya and Bugs Bunny as more politically loaded than it was intended, I still think it is relevant. Of course, what gives the story a punch is precisely this finally when Bugs Bunny shows up to remind us that Maya was conceived as a cartoon character. But, if we were to leave the issue of Maya and how she might play a role in debates about gender, race and sexuality for a moment, one powerful aspect of the story that I enjoy is the opening where we have the threatening arrival of the spaceship. Although the way it creeps under the surface like some kind of worm makes it particularly sinister, when comparing the sequence with episodes we already know, THE INFERNAL MACHINE is for me the first episodes that comes to mind. I don’t know if Senmut had any particular scenes or episodes in mind when he wrote this short story, but to me it reminds me of THE TAYBOR, BRIAN THE BRAIN and THE INFERNAL MACHINE. Part of the reason why I am reminded of this particular trio is perhaps because the two Y2 episodes are particularly cartoon-like, and both of them

have plots and characters that I associate with THE INFERNAL MACHINE. THE INFERNAL MACHINE is perhaps not one of my personal favourites, partly because it feels a bit theatrical with all the shouting and crying – and partly because of some of the plot aspects (like the meaningless attacks), but I still think it is an important episode. As Wood indicates (2010, pp. 189-190), it may be possible to find depth in the story be seeing it as a science fiction version of Oedipus Rex, or at least somewhat inspired by this story. He does not explain what he means by this, so perhaps he assumes it is obvious. In a way Companion is both mother and father to Gwent, and through the forced nature of how they live together and how Companion dies, one might say that Gwent kills his father and marries his mother. The theme of blindness from Oedipus Rex (both real and symbolic) is also utilised as part of the plot, and both stories end in a similar way by the blind and devastated Gwent seeking his own death. I’m not arguing that IT’S GOTTA BE THE BEER becomes an invaluable tool for understanding the deeper aspects of THE INFERNAL MACHINE – like observing the similarities with Oedipus Rex, but I still think the intelligence and wit in the kind of fan fiction that IGTTB represents can be highly useful for breaking out of the box and thus being indirectly able to see deeper connections. John B. *** 31682 Re: [OnlineAlpha] The Infernal Machine sennmut Mar 8, 2016

BALOR! I have had it! I have asked, and now I am insisting! I do not know if there is some sort of legal action one could take, this being just an internet list, but I have asked a million times that NOTHING WHATSOEVER of my stuff even be referred to on the same page as that putrid sewage you hold so high. Marcuse, or Fageolle, or Tulloch...all these fauxintellectuals pretending to actually have the slightest insight on this topic. I do not want even the tiniest reference to ANY of my FanFic in the same post as ANYTHING that

It’s gotta be the beer refers to these whining attention whores disguised as political theorists or academics. My stuff has about as much to do with that sort of fly-blown mucus (Marcuse?) as my dog, and he's deceased. Now, and I am not asking, but telling you this time, NO MORE REFERENCING ANY OF MY FIC, AT ALL, IN ANY POST REFERRING TO YOUR POST-MARXIST CRAP! NOW GOD DAMN IT I AM MAD! I HAVE ASKED NICELY, MORE THAN ONCE, BUT TO HELL WITH THAT. NO MORE OF THIS STINKING BUTT-DRIP MARXIST FILTH! EVER! Now I hate to be nasty, but please, take your copy of Marcuse, and shove it! *** 31684 Re: [OnlineAlpha] The Infernal Machine balor1999 Mar 8, 2016

Senmut, I owe you an apology. Whenever I have referred to your fan fiction, I have systematically been trying to point out how I believe your intents are quite clearly different from how Jenkins and others discuss the value of fan fiction. While I thought I was on the safe side by explicitly stating that you were saying so and so while academics and SPACE: 1999 scholars were saying such and such, in other words, trying to avoid confusion by eliminating any possibility for people getting the impression that you had intents with the stories that you clearly did not, but you are right. You now correctly remind me of what you have previously said about referring to your stories when making comments about academic or scholarly discourse as defined by Fageolle, Keazor, Fuhse and the rest. I am sorry about this. It will not happen again. As you know, I am a great admirer of your fictional work, and the strategy I have been trying to follow, since you expressed your clear opinions on this issue some time ago, has been to first comment on your stories without any theoretical contextualisation, and then try to engage with the theoretical discourse by only mentioning fan fiction in the general, and thus avoid this issue you bring up. This has been my intent, but as my enthusiasm for your

387

writing is by no means diminished by the way I feel the kind of high quality fan fiction you represent fits perfectly as examples for illustrating or providing counter-examples to how Jenkins and others choose to look at fan fiction, there have been unfortunate slip-ups. That should not have happened. However, as much as I regret violating my own intentions in how I planned to deal with your literature, that fact that we have had a couple of incidences where you feel you have to point out that you don’t like the context of how your stories are being discussed makes me wonder whether fan fiction discussion is really such a good idea after all. After we were done with the ExE, I though a structured discussion of a particular body of SPACE: 1999 fan fiction could be useful for scaffolding discussions and debate in a similar way as going through each of the 48 episodes, but in retrospect I am less certain. One thing is to have different interpretations of what Johnny Byrne meant by writing this or that story or whether it makes sense to compare SPACE: 1999 with Carl Sagan’s COSMOS, but when we are discussing the work of somebody who is part of the Online Alpha community it may not be equally easy to structure positions and debates in a manner that does not create unfortunate side-effects, even in a case where some of us consider the particular fiction in question to be more or less like a Year Three of SPACE: 1999. So, as I believe I was the one to suggest that we should have a discussion of FOREVER ALPHA and related stories, I do not think I will initiate similar discussions about the fan fiction works of David Welle, Ariana or other key figures within the fan fiction community, although I might take part in such discussions if they were initiated by somebody else. Despite the fact that there are still a couple of short stories from the Senmut cycle I would to comment on, in a very careful and nonpolitical manner, from a personal perspective I think the FOREVER ALPHA discussion has been highly useful and enlightening. Not only has it given me the opportunity to explore literature that I consider to be of extraordinary high value – in the context of SPACE: 1999 fiction – but also to explore the connections between three domains, namely the scholarly SF literature we associate with Suvin,

388


Jameson, Fageolle and Keazor, the SF audience literature represented by people like Tulloch and Jenkins, and Online Alpha as a third domain that function as an interface between the other the two. More than anything else, I have found the fan fiction we have discussed so far to been useful for adding new perspectives on how to read canonical stories that we are already familiar with, such as THE INFERNAL MACHINE in this case. I still think the exercise of looking at this particular episode through the lens of fan

fiction that shared some of elements of the story – although not necessarily being written with this particular episode in mind – was an interesting exercise, and I think there is much more that could be said about THE INFERNAL MACHINE by continuing along this line. John B. ***

11.3 Rehashing old arguments gets us nowhere In this thread follows a discussion of the final comment in the discussion thread from section 11.1, hidden under the banner of “rehashing old arguments” to make sure that the author of the story would not get offended by references to issues that did not necessarily have anything to do with his writings. 31681 Re: Rehashing old arguments gets us no where. kerryirs Mar 7, 2016

Here's the link to the Main Mission 2000 site. You might find the comments and photos interesting. http://moonbase99.space1999.net/mm2k.htm Here's the link to the text of the interview that John Muir did with Catherine Schell at that convention. http://www.space1999.org/features/articles_int erviews/mm2000_catherineschell.html

When it comes to Muir’s private opinions on Maya, and how Catherine Schell compares as a role model with other women from SF television on his personal scale of what makes women attractive, I tend to agree with your comment: I think this is a particularly relevant in the way Muir interweaves Schell’s reflections on women’s emancipation. From what I understand, his point is not necessarily that he supports gender equality and women’s emancipation from the viewpoint of critical theory, but rather that he gets a kick out of watching beautiful women behaving in particular ways. So, what Muir does is to alter the meaning of ‘role models’ as something that can be used for political activism into ‘model roles’ for women he likes to watch as a passive consumer of television.

John B., you never cease to stir the pot, do you? What the Hell does Maya and something called Gaybase Alpha have to do with anything? Be careful, because I seem to remember Nick Tate without a tunic on (GUARDIAN OF PIRI) and I seem to remember the comments from some of our female fans at the time years ago. And yet I've never associated that with any kind of sexual orientation. Do you have some kind of phobia about this or is this some stupid comment from one of those so-intellectuals you constantly hit with?

Your comments above may fly in the face of Muir's wife who I suspect would disagree with you.

You wrote:

I don't think Catherine's view on how she wasn't held back because she's a woman has anything to do with the overall women's

JKM, I think was comparing Maya to other SF female roles rather than comparing Catherine Schell to other women. Even Ms. Schell admitted years ago that one reason Maya was added was to "spice things up a bit". That was her opinion, not Freiberger or Anderson's. In my view, the series needed some umoph put into the series. At times these characters in Y1were dull.

It’s gotta be the beer movement, just her personal situation. Come to think of it, I've never read anything on Catherine's political views. Maybe that's intentional.

389

John M., go for it concerning the phrase. I couldn't agree more on your other comments. It's sad. ***

I think you're reading your bias against Maya into Muir's meaning and perhaps trying to read his mind. Why not post your comments on his blog and see what he says? It might be fascinating to see what he says. Finally, as for West and the others you quote, they're entitled to their views, but one word one of them used, according to you is "stupid". You know, I could open a can of "stupid" on Y1 very easily, but it wouldn't change anything. All it would is waste my time, rehash what has already been said in the last forty plus years and we'd be right back where we started, opinions probably wouldn't have changed much. So have at it, as long as we don't get personal or insulting; although, the insulting has already been done when it comes to Freiberger. *** 31683 Re: Rehashing old arguments gets us no where. jemarcu Mar 7, 2016

"...Lets not open a can of stupid." I like that phrase, Kerry! I'm afraid I'll be really tempted to use it at our next monthly staff meetings at work. Maybe I'll try it on my kids first. Indeed, i have to say when it comes to eating our own livers, no one does it better than Space 1999 fans, and Petter Ogland would put Hannibel Lector to shame in this department. You don't see other fandoms engaged in such useless drama. Regards, John M *** 31685 Re: Rehashing old arguments gets us no where. kerryirs Mar 8, 2016

31686 Re: Rehashing old arguments gets us no where. balor1999 Mar 9, 2016

Kerry, Thanks for sharing the link to the Main Mission 2000 convention and the transcript of Muir’s interview with Catherine Schell. In retrospect I realise that I had gone through both links before, but that was a very long time ago, so it was very nice to have a second look. Most of what Schell says in the 2000 interview is more or less the same as she said in 1994, but it was nevertheless fun to read. When I came to the part were she mentions a book called something like “The 200 Worst Films Ever Made”, I thought she was going to discuss COSMIC PRINCESS, but it turned out to that her part in the book had to do with the film MOON ZERO TWO. I remember seeing that film 15-20 years ago, and I remember thinking to myself at the time that the film was a waste of time, but I don’t remember it being as bad as COSMIC PRINCESS. Few things are as bad as S99/Y2. However, it was also interesting hear Schell comment on the Maya spin-off series. Of course, this was what Freiberger was really after. He wanted to use SPACE: 1999 as an excuse for making his own series that had nothing to do with SPACE: 1999. He hated SPACE: 1999. I seem to remember reading a comment by him somewhere were he said something about Landau and Bain not being right for the series, which is clearly true when we consider how he redesigned it, but that they were under contract so there was nothing that he could do about that. However, if S99/Y2 had been a greater success that it actually was, he might have been able to fully implement his vision, which was a series about Maya and Tony that had nothing to do with SPACE: 1999. Personally, I think it would have been even better if they had skipped S99/Y2 and gone directly for this Maya spin-off, as then

390


SPACE: 1999 would not have been tarnished by the legacy of Y2. Nevertheless, Kerry, your main point seems to be that “rehashing old arguments gets us nowhere”. So, rather than go on hampering about the old Y1 versus Y2 issues over and over again, what we need is a new approach that allows fresh ideas and new insights. Personally, I think we have been moving in the right direction for some time. First of all we must remember how cast, crew, critics and fans all hate Y2. Fageolle is particularly articulate in this respect, I would say, but if you read the books, articles and comments by other French intellectuals (e.g. Petit, 1999; Bannier, 2009; Wyborn, 2015), he is simply saying the same as everybody else. However, what came down as a political bombshell quite recently was Liardet’s (2014) idea that there could actually be merit to Y2.

Gerry Anderson has made about racism. So, point number one is how it is possible to see Y2 in the context of the civil rights movement. An interesting side mark in this context, perhaps, is Catherine Schell’s comments in the 2000 interview that the reason Freiberger and Anderson wanted a black Maya was probably because Barbara Bain wanted Maya played by somebody very different from herself, to avoid comparison and competition. That seems reasonable to me, but it does not alter the fact that casting somebody like Teresa Graves as Maya would have made political sense in the context of what Gerry Anderson said in other interviews (e.g. Cull, 2006). The second issue we focused on was how Barbara Bain’s role as an authoritative and competent doctor in the original series caused reactionary viewers to name her “wooden” or make other insults because they could not deal with the political context of the women’s liberation movement of the early 1970s. For this reason Dr. Russell was remade into a more submissive and emotional character in Y2, to please those reactionaries. Despite Freiberger’s attempts to downplay the political significance of the series, it was particularly interesting to hear Catherine Schell’s 1994 comment about how she was proud of seeing Maya being used as inspiration for the feminist movement.

I think this came as a shock to the whole SPACE: 1999 community that somebody with the intellectual capacity and integrity of Liardet would make such a controversial claim. It is totally against what everybody else have been saying for 40 years, but Liardet actually makes an argument. It is indeed a very good argument. He says that S99/Y2 has to be understood in the context of BARBARELLA. So, using this as a basis, we have tried to investigate Y2 in new and interesting ways. The first and perhaps most important idea is to clear the ground for building a common platform for understanding both for those who like Y1 and those who like Y2, and we tried to do that by referring to Y2 as pornography. As some have pointed out, Y2 is not pornography per say as it was mainly designed for preschool children and/or people on drugs – as we saw when observing how the idea of Maya most probably arrived from the cult surrounding Castaneda’s “The Teachings of Don Juan” (1968) – but it has to be understood as pornography in the sense the cultural level that Freiberger aimed at.

The third issue was based on Chrisopher West’s observation concerning the importance of Maya as a symbol for the gay rights movement. What is particularly interesting about this perspective, I would argue, is how Muir starts his blog entry on Maya by declaring his sexual orientation. To me this would not be something one usually does not do when discussing a television series, unless – of course – the series itself has been designed or is being strongly identified with people of a particular sexual orientation. I think a phenomenon like Gaybase Alpha is a strong indication that Y2 is something that may appeal to sexual minorities.

Now, after having reached a platform for common understanding, we can start rebuilding the reputation of S99/Y2 by looking at some of the less obvious qualities of the series. One thing we focused on in that respect was how Teresa Graves was originally cast for the lead role, and how that fits with interviews

So, there we have it. Rather than saying that “rehashing old arguments gets us nowhere”, I think we have moved a long way, trying to build on Liardet’s revolutionary theory on how there may be actually merit to Y2, trying to fill in some of the blanks in terms of how this merit can be seen. However, I also think it is

It’s gotta be the beer important to see how the various issues of social justice, exemplified in our case through discourses on gender, race and sexuality, have to be understood through the more important concern for economic justice. Critical theory is essentially based on economic reasoning and how social injustice arises from larger struggles having to do with power and wealth. It is, of course, this larger battle that defines the Y1 narrative, but if we can see Y2 as contributing to the overall agenda and meaning of SPACE: 1999, I think we are definitely going somewhere. We are going in the right direction. John B. *** 31687 Re: Rehashing old arguments gets us no where. balor1999 Mar 10, 2016

Given the starting point of how Y2 has been described as superhero fascism, I think we have moved quite a bit towards a more positive climate where it is become socially acceptable to say that there may be some merit in Y2, if we acknowledge that it is on the same cultural level as pornography. Although I think it is fair to say that those who have been consistently talking about how they value Y2 have also contributed in reducing the tensions and creating a better climate for discussions, I still think we would have gotten nowhere if it hadn’t been for the French intellectuals, and here I am thinking specifically about Didier Liardet. Although Fageolle’s 1996 book has been considered the Bible among SPACE: 1999 fans, when Liardet published his book in 2014, it was almost like Fageolle’s book became like the Old Testament in comparison to Liardet’s New Testament writings. Just like we have been told that the New Testament was not supposed to replace but rather refill the Old Testament with new meaning, Liardet’s book provided a means of reading the old texts in a spirit more dominated by values we would perhaps today describe as more humanistic. In this sense I think it is natural to see Fageolle as an Old Testament prophet talking about Y2 with moral outrage and describe FF as the devil himself, while Liardet takes a more balanced perspective by

391

saying that “blessed are the meek” and so on, in the sense arguing that even though we should think of Y2 as pornography with occasional fascist overtones, it is still possible to find merit in the series. As we continue to investigate Y2 from the Liardedian perspective, we notice that the series does indeed have something to offer in terms of possible inspiration for those who want to engage on the moral side of the political battle concerning issues like gender equality, racial equality, respect for sexual minorities and concern for the environment, in a fight against the intolerance of religious fundamentalism and economic oppression. Certainly, it is not easy to make intellectual sense out of Y2, as it was deliberately made as a STAR TREK rip-off in a style that was expected to make it appeal to drug addicts and pre-school children, which is why nobody in academia or scholarship have had anything positive to say about Y2, but I think the beauty of a discussion forum like Online Alpha is that it gives us opportunities to reflect more deeply on what people like Liardet are saying. The way I see it, and I hope that Kerry and others agree with me, is that the only way towards a Habermasian context of communicative rationality starts with finding ways of bridging the viewpoints of fandom with those of academia. It is necessary to find a way of achieving mutual respect in the way a series like S99/Y2 makes sense intellectually and emotionally. To me Liardet articulates the most obvious solution to the problem. If we want to bridge the scholarly interpretation of Y2 as fascist pornography with limited appeal outside the circles of the gay community with the viewpoint of fans who say that “Y2 is good because I like it”, Liardet says that we have to think of Y2 in the same way as we think of BARBARELLA. In other words, first must accept that the scholarly understanding of Y2 as fascist pornography is a reasonable interpretation of the series, and then we can use this platform for discussing the political virtues of the series. Of course, BARBARELLA is only an example in this context. In order to understand the merits of Y2 it would probably be useful to map out a catalogue of gay-oriented fascist pornography that could be used explaining

392


how Y2 fits in within the larger context, and then perhaps be able to explain why films like COSMIC PRINCESS and S99/Y2 as a whole stand out as a remarkable achievement within this genre, due to the way the format is used as a vehicle for making political statements that are in compliment with the classical SPACE: 1999 of Y1 and films of high merit, such as 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and SOLARIS. At least I believe this would be a much more successful approach than Catherine Schell’s hint that it might be wise to think of COSMIC PRINCESS and S99/Y2 in the context of “The Worst 200 Films Ever Made”. John B. *** 31689 Re: Rehashing old arguments gets us no where. kerryirs Mar 11, 2016

I'm glad you enjoyed the links. As for COSMIC PRINCESS, that was nothing more than ITC's attempt to make money off of their product as they did with ALIEN ATTACK and other episode compilations. This was somewhat common years ago with other TV series. I think it was also done with THE MAN FROM UNCLE. The one thing about MOON ZERO TWO is that someonec did their homework. For example, they used the term "far side" of the moon instead of the "dark side", which is not correct in referring to the side of the moon we never see from earth. John B. wrote: However, it was also interesting hear Schell comment on the Maya spin-off series. Of course, this was what Freiberger was really after. He wanted to use SPACE: 1999 as an excuse for making his own series that had nothing to do with SPACE: 1999. He hated SPACE: 1999. I seem to remember reading a comment by him somewhere were he said something about Landau and Bain not being right for the series, which is clearly true when we consider how he redesigned it, but that they were under contract so there was nothing that he could do about that. However, if S99/Y2 had been a greater success that it actually was, he might have been able to fully implement his vision, which was a series about Maya and Tony that had nothing to do with SPACE:

1999. Personally, I think it would have been even better if they had skipped S99/Y2 and gone directly for this Maya spin-off, as then SPACE: 1999 would not have been tarnished by the legacy of Y2.

First of all, you're trying to read minds again or intimate something that FF never said or hinted at when it came to a Maya spin-off series. Again, I'd like some source materials to back up your claim. I'd like to know where you got the idea FF hated 1999 so much that he wanted to create another series, etc. This is what I'm talking about, rehashing things that aren't going to change, the history of the series isn't changing nor apparently your unreasonable hatred for a man over a TV series, just like some Trek fans, despite the fact that both shows basically dead. Here's a little diddy I found that might of interest to some. http://www.republibot.com/content/%E2%80% 9C-series-killer%E2%80%9D-can-we-allplease-stop-calling-fred-freiberger-now As for the Landaus "not being right for the series", FF felt a younger cast was important, but I must also remind you that it was Sylvia Anderson who expressed reservations about hiring the Landaus in the first place, preferring Katherine Ross and Robert Goulet. I'm a big believer in cause and affect. Y1 came first, depicting a premise that I think most SF fans just couldn't or wouldn't buy into and the beginnings of ITC's interference. It was they who said no more earth-based series. That killed UFO and forced Anderson to do a quick switch to a new idea in order not let the work already done not go to waste. In my view, this is an example of 1999 being rushed into production without some thought given to the premise. I understand, via an interview on the Y1 blue ray disks, I believe, Anderson came up with the idea to blast the moon out of orbit, a concept used later in a SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN episode, I believe, except in that episode, the moon was heading towards earth. Again, pure fantasy in both cases.

It’s gotta be the beer Let's get back to spin-offs for one minute. A spin-off series isn't the death nell of the original series, merely a character from that original series given their own series. I think one of the most famous of these was ALL IN THE FAMILY spawning the series THE JEFFERSONS. I don't where the idea of a Maya spin-off came from (I've not read where FF ever mentioned it) but I understand that if it had come to pass, it would've been thirteen episodes. As for hating 1999, FF has never said that or that his goal was to destroy the show; that's BS coming from some fans. McCorry asked him about that and he basically called that crap. FF from the interview. KM30: Was Season 2 intended as a remake of Space: 1999 rather than as a continuation? FF: Season 2 was intended to keep the series alive. It had been cancelled and then revived as noted earlier. Here's what I mean about Anderson quiting the series and basically withdrawing his support. KM: Gerry Anderson rolls his eyes in a lamenting way and jests about the need for "men in white coats" to attend mental aid to you when he talks about your idea about "talking plants". How do you feel about this? Do you believe that it is against artistic integrity for one producer to publicly attack the ideas of a colleague? FF: If Gerry Anderson objected to the concept about talking plants, I wish he would have conveyed it to me. He was the executive producer... His objection would have been enough to cause me to abandon the story. KM: Some fans very obtusely allege attempts (among them the "imposition" of Maya) on your part to destroy Space: 1999 (i.e. that you came to England intending malice upon the show). Do you fully repudiate this view? FF: I have been accused of causing last year's El Nino and this year's earthquakes in South ‘KM’ and ‘FF’ are added by the editor to make the dialogue easier to read. For the full interview: http://www.kevinmccorrytv.ca/freiberger.html

30

393

America, but this accusation is the wildest one yet! Here's FF's comments on Maya. Whether one beloved him or not, that's up to that person. KM: Did your idea for Maya stem from your reading of Johnny Byrne's script for "The Biological Soul" as a personalised, female extension of Byrne's notion of a machine capable of transforming a planet, or had you decided on the "metamorph" concept before Byrne's script was presented to you? FF: No. In Greek mythology, Zeus transformed himself into a swan to seduce Leda. Horror fiction is loaded with werewolf characters. In fairy tales, princes are turned into frogs. For any of us to claim originality with the device of a being changing into another life-form is sheer arrogance. KM: Did you extensively study Greek legend and/or language in your school days? FF: I was always interested in mythology. That's enough. Have we moved forward? In some ways, but it seems the Y1/Y2 debate always creeps back in. *** 31690 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Rehashing old arguments gets us no where. John Marcucci Mar 11, 2016

Kerry, Like you and most thinking people, I too am long past the point of listening to Frieberger haters. If a man spends his whole life drinking and whoring and eating fast foods, is the doctor brought in to care for him in the last year of his life to blame when the man dies? Rgds, John M. *** 31693 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Rehashing old arguments gets us no where. balor1999 Mar 12, 2016

394


Kerry wrote: Have we moved forward? In some ways, but it seems the Y1/Y2 debate always creeps back in.

In my opinion we have made great progress, not at least due to your fine inputs, Kerry. The Y1/Y2 debate creeps back, but that is only because it is so fundamental for understanding SPACE: 1999. Last night I watched the 1994 interview with Martin Landau from the 2002 bonus disc of the French COSMOS 1999 box set, and he went on and on about Y1/Y2. I was a delight to listen to. Y2 was a cartoon. Maya was a stupid idea. Freiberger not only tried to make SPACE: 1999 into a STAR TREK ripoff, but he also more or less destroyed the series. It was a wonderful interview. When Landau is talking with French intellectuals he rises to their level and explains Y2 as it really was. It is interesting watching these interviews with Landau, Tate and Merton made several decades after the series was released. They all praise Y1 and they all say that Y2 was crap. Of course, they say it in different ways. Tate said that Freiberger was a ‘dickhead’ and received wild laughter and standing ovations. Landau said it differently by provided a deeper analysis in explaining how and why Y2 was crap, but although he used a different type of language than Tate, his opinion was clearly the same. It was also interesting reading the 2000 transcript of Muir’s interview with Catherine Schell were she talks about “The 200 Worst Films Ever Made”. I don’t know if she had seen the MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATRE 3000 version of COSMIC PRINCESS, but there can be no doubt that cast, crew, fans and critics all agree that S99/Y2 is one of the worst crimes ever committed to celluloid. Nevertheless, I believe we have moved far beyond the stage of arguing how Y2 was trash by observing what more or less everybody with some claim to authority or competence in SPACE: 1999 have uniformly said so. Thanks of Liardet I believe we have now been able to create a platform for debate were we can agree on the obvious, namely that Y2 was trash, and then move towards more interesting areas of discussion, namely how Y2 can be seen to have merit despite being trash. Liardet encourages us to watch and discuss

BARBARELLA for understanding S99/Y2, building on the tradition of how cultural analysis is done by Paris intellectuals. Not since Fageolle’s 1996 masterpiece do I think the world has witnessed such insights and capability for understanding SPACE: 1999 as we see in Liardet’s 2014 book. The reason it perhaps takes some time for people to grasp the importance of Liardet’s perspective could have something to do with how BARBARELLA was made almost ten years before the second series of SPACE: 1999. If we were to view S99/Y2 as a reflection of trash culture, wouldn’t it be more natural to look at something made in the mid1970s as a reference? I think we really helped me in this respect was reading the following review at amazon.co.uk by GeekZilla9000 on 25 Jan. 2013: The 1960s produced some of the most important works of science-fiction in cinematic history - features which have influenced generations, pushed boundaries of technique and storytelling. La Jetee, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Planet of the Apes stimulate the cerebrum and represent a master class in allegorical exploration of what it is to be human - but only Barbarella saw Jane Fonda get her chebs out in zero gravity as she embarked on an adventure in a fur-lined spacecraft. Nearly half a century on, Fonda still looks incredible - but the rest of the film hasn't aged well. Barbarella was a flop at the time but has gained a cult following, and although the film is average at best - you can't help but feel defensive about it. With killer lines such as "wait, let me adjust my tongue-box" and "decrucify him or I'll melt your face" along with a bonkers plot, this is an entertaining film - but not in the way it intends to be. The visual effects are dodgy and some of the sets look cobbled together from whatever was left around the studio (with backdrop curtains which could have been rejects from a school play). It's sometimes hard to believe that this was released the same year as Kubrick's masterpiece. Despite the lack of intelligent plot and the absence of a half decent script, Barbarella does contain some iconic moments - those demonic, biting dolls are still the stuff of nightmares. It's not just the visuals which

It’s gotta be the beer have dated, the attitudes towards women who are basically just there to look pretty look thoroughly unmodern, especially when Barbarella is coerced into sex with a stranger pretty much just because he says he wants to (a few minutes after meeting). The Blu-Ray release is impressive however, it's certainly a much cleaner image than the VHS version I watched about 20 years ago (I feel old just typing that). Actually, I'm very surprised at how good the film looks. The picture is grainy in just a few scenes, but that is no doubt from the master and rigorous grain removal would have smeared any detail, on the whole though the film is gorgeous and it enhances the crudeness of the sets and rubbish special effects - and that is where much of the charm lies. Audio-wise it sounds okay, the soundtrack isn't a classic one and there's no atmosphere here to enhance so the film doesn't lose anything from having a score which is effectively sound-effects, beeps, and second rate pseudo-pop. In a nutshell: Barbarella isn't great sci-fi, it's not even a great film. But all the things which make it naff also happen to be the things we celebrate about it, and with this Blu-Ray release it's never looked so good. What I feel the reviewer helps us realise is how both 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and BARBARELLA were released the very same year, the historically important year 1968, and yet how completely different they are. I think this is the key for understanding the schizophrenic nature of SPACE: 1999 and the Y1/Y2 debate. Y1 modelled itself on 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and Y2 modelled itself on BARBARELLA. The role models seem completely incompatible, but they are both politically founded in the New Left movement of the late sixties. I think it is here that we have really moved ground in our Y1/Y2 discussions. In this respect I enjoyed Kerry’s reference to the 2009 article from Republibot.com arguing that “the show killer” was an inappropriate nickname for Fred Freiberger. It was a nice article, and I enjoyed reading it. The author looks at four series that have contributed to Freiberger being given the name “the show killer”, namely the final seasons of STAR TREK, SPACE: 1999, THE SIX MILLION

395

DOLLAR MAN and JOSIE AND THE PUSSYCATS, and then makes the argument that Freiberger didn’t kill any of these shows. He simply made the final season into crap, thus providing the fans with more episodes to watch although, assuming that fans do not care about whether episodes are classics or crap as long as the number of episodes is increased. So, for instance in the case of SPACE: 1999 we have 48 episodes, generally seen as 24 classic episodes and 24 crappy episodes, which is more than just having 24 classic episodes. While cast, crew, fans and critics think we would have been better off if we only had the 24 classic episodes, the writer of the article think we should rejoice in having 48 episodes. Unfortunately, he does not address the issues raised by Fageolle, Iaccino and many others, namely how adding 24 low quality episodes did not make add to the value of SPACE: 1999 as much as it subtracted value. Fageolle has been particularly clear in his opinion on how Y2 degraded SPACE: 1999 and how the world would have been a better place if all the Y2 negatives had been sent into outer space and destroyed. Nevertheless, this was part of the earlier Y1/Y2 debate. By using Liardet rather than Fageolle as a basis for understanding Y2 we can take a more constructive approach. What seemed to confuse Fageolle and most others, myself included, is how we thought S99/Y2 was supposed to be understood as a continuation of S99/Y1 and thus expecting it to continue in the tradition of bridging the best of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and STAR TREK. It was not. Y2 had nothing to do with 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and the relationship with Y1 was only nominal. A much better way to understand Y2, as Liardet helps us realise, is to think of it as a bridge between BARBARELLA and STAR TREK. In other words, the Online Alpha discussions are highly useful for helping us all move forward in our understanding of SPACE: 1999 as a whole. In fact, I think the current level of debate on Online Alpha indicate that we have a much better and more articulate understanding of SPACE: 1999 than before, something that is reflected in the manner we are able to ask better questions. For example, what seem like some of the most important questions to ask

396


now are questions that can help us to understand BARBARELLA as a lens for rendering the political subtext of Y2 more clearly. John B.

experts in general, such as Pierre Bannier, Jérôme Wybon, Christophe Petit, Thomas Rucki, Alain Carrazé and Eric Vérat, the depth and scope of their analysis of the series is far beyond anything easily seen anywhere else. Dr. Hazareesingh must clearly be onto something.

*** 31694 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Rehashing old arguments gets us no where. sennmut Mar 12, 2016

On 12 Mar 2016 balor1999@... writes: It was a wonderful interview. When Landau is talking with French intellectuals he rises to their level and explains Y2 as it really was.

Rises to their level? Why so low? Surely he did better than that? *** 31695 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Rehashing old arguments gets us no where. balor1999 Mar 12, 2016

This is indeed a good question. Why does Landau change his appearance when discussing with French intellectuals? And more importantly, why is it that the French seem to understand SPACE: 1999 so much better than anybody else? These are questions discussed in a more general context by Oxford historian Sudhir Hazareesingh in his 2015 book “How the French Think: An Affectionate Portrait of and Intellectual People” (Allen Lane/Penguin Press). http://www.economist.com/news/books-andarts/21654003-why-life-mind-so-importantfrance-they-think-therefore-they-are As we see from the review of the book above, Dr. Hazaresingh believes that there are fewer French intellectual icons on the scene today after the time of Sartre, Camus, Foucault and Derrida, but he claims that this is compensated by the high intellectual level found within the culture in general. In other words, when we translate this into the world of SPACE: 1999, there may few people to fill the shoes of somebody like Pierre Fageolle, but when we look at the level of French SPACE: 1999

What is perhaps particularly interesting, and relates very much to how we discuss the political subtext of SPACE: 1999, are the final comments the linked review where it is pointed out that Thomas Piketty’s neo-Marxist bestseller “Capital in the 21st century” (2013) is not mentioned in Hazareesingh’s book because he apparently thinks of Piketty more as an economist than a public intellectual. In our case Piketty’s world would clearly be of importance as it aims to explain the political and economic debate about the “1% versus the 99%” that is frequently brought up in the discussions here on Online Alpha. I have so far not seen any of French SPACE: 1999 scholars making explicit references to Piketty, but for the moment I think the international SPACE: 1999 community is probably too occupied with analysing BARBARELLA and Liardet’s recent book to start digging in new directions. So, as a response to your question about how Martin Landau appears to speak more intellectually and freely when communicating with French intellectuals, I would assume it has something to do with his background and ability as an actor to understand and assimilate people and culture. When being interviewed by Carrazé (or Vérat, a few years later) it probably comes natural to him to adopt a similar intellectual pose and thus be able to explain SPACE: 1999 in a manner that gives meaning for the people he is discussing it with. John B. *** 31697 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Rehashing old arguments gets us no where. balor1999 Mar 13, 2016

Here is another interesting link: https://nancyroche.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/ in-praise-of-barbarella/

It’s gotta be the beer John B.

397

only have 24 episodes of Space: 1999, and with him you’ve got 48. ***

31699 Re: Rehashing old arguments gets us no where. Kerry Keene Mar 13, 2016

frankly, the Y1/Y2 debate is getting old and stale. I don't see anything new in the debate, the same old sources are rehashed, the same interviews quoted that for me adds nothing new to the debate. I've seen the 1994 interview with Landau, talk about a one-sided piece of mong, no input on his feelings about the issues in Y1, script issues, time overruns, delays, etc. It really is hard to destroy a series, as many have accused FF of, when the series' he had worked on were already canceled or had run their course. Just in case those who haven't read the article at, http://www.republibot.com/content/%E2%80% 9C-series-killer%E2%80%9D-can-we-allplease-stop-calling-fred-freiberger-now here's the author's view on 1999. Take Space: 1999: Again, horribly expensive, horribly unpopular at the time, fraught with production delays, and helmed by producer Gerry Anderson, who’d had a long and illustrious career making puppet shows. (Really good puppet shows, it must be admitted.) The show’s survival was contingent upon it being a hit in the UK and the USA, but it just wasn’t. In the US in particular, it was quite the bomb, and it was dead. Cancelled. Anderson managed to fast-talk his American backers in to giving the show another shot if it was retooled somewhat, and if an American producer were brought in to run roughshod over the British crew. Enter Fred, a man with a pretty successful track record on TV, and a history with one of the most high-profile SF productions ever. He was a heavy hitter, and he was willing to take a chance on yet another doomed show. Now, I’m not going to say that he didn’t make a lot of serious production blunders while he helmed it, but the fact remains that the show wouldn’t have made a 2nd season if it hadn’t been for him. The fact remains that without Fred Freiberger, you’d

I don't agree with all of this, but the first part has some fact backing it up. So, as I've said before, the first season, though good in many cases, it came first, it set the tone for the series in terms of concept, and as a TV program director said in '76, he liked the changes for the upcoming season, but thought it was too late. (See Robert Wood's book) So, it appears no matter who took the helm, it wouldn't have mattered. Finally, I still blame Anderson for much of the problems. He basically took a hands off stance, much as Roddenberry did, and then goes after the fact and rips the man he hired. Too me, that sucks. I've also seen the Fanderson piece and i remember Barbara Bain calling the Maya character intriguing. I also seem to remember that Keith Wilson liked creating various alien creatures. Yes, this is more the visual aspect of the series, but important in a SF series. I also noticed that the Fanderson piece didn't interview anyone from Y2 or a new interview with FF. I know they're biased, but if they did offer to interview say Catherine Schell or Tony Anholt and they declined, they should've noted that on the piece. Since they didn't i take it they didn't bother. So i take this Fanderson piece, though interesting in some respects, with a grain of salt. Perhaps the YouTube piece will add another aspects to 1999's demise. It's called "Why Space: 1999 Was Canceled? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woOVC6r bfuY So it is far more complicated why a series or a movie fails than just blaming one person. John Balor, I thought you'd have learned that by now. *** 31706 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Rehashing old arguments gets us no where. Erich Wise Mar 16, 2016

398


I believe that was Robert Culp not Robert Goulet. Unless they wanted to do a musical version ("Space!" with songs such as "When the Moon Comes Over the Mountain" and "By the Light of the Silvery Moon." *** 31707 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Rehashing old arguments gets us no where. John Marcucci Mar 16, 2016

Don't forget "MacArthur's Park" and the National Anthem. *** 31709 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Rehashing old arguments gets us no where. sennmut Mar 17 2:44 AM

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 Wise writes:

version ("Space!" with songs such as "When the Moon Comes Over the Mountain" and "By the Light of the Silvery Moon."

"When the Moon hits your eye, like a big pizza pie, that's a-Breakaway!!!!" *** 31712 Re: Rehashing old arguments gets us no where. kerryirs Mar 17, 2016

Actually, Robert Goulet was also an actor. I don't know if you remember the short lived series BLUE LIGHT, which dealt with Goulet portraying a double agent in WW II. It could've been Culp, going on memory. The point is, Sylvia Anderson had her reservations about the Landaus. ***

I believe that was Robert Culp not Robert Goulet. Unless they wanted to do a musical

11.4 The Taybor The next thread evolves an attempt to merge themes from the previous discussion about the relationship between BARBARELLA and S99/Y2 and how “It’s gotta be the beer” contributed to the understanding of “The Infernal Machine” in the discussion thread before that. The historical context, involving the interplay between Johnny Byrne, Thom Keyes and Regina Kesslan, becomes an important part of the discussion. 31688 THE TAYBOR balor1999 Mar 11, 2016

Last night I watched THE TAYBOR and the first half of BARBARELLA. It is a remarkable experience watching BARBARELLA and S99/Y2 back to back. It is like watching 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY back to back with S99/Y1. It is an exercise that makes it easy to grasp Liardet’s point about how BARBARELLA being the natural lens for understanding S99/Y2 in a practical way. As we have been discussing fan fiction that explores ideas like confronting Maya with characters like Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck, watching BARBARELLA is particularly enlightening as that film was also based on a French comic strip series from the early sixties.

Unfortunately, I have never read the comic strips, so I assume that is why I find certain aspects of the film difficult to understand, but my general impression is that Roger Vadim tried to explore much of the same New Left political territory Stanley Kubrick was exploring through 2001, although in this case it is done in a more of a comic-strip fashion. What Liardet says in terms of BARBARELLA being the key for understanding S99/Y2 makes even more sense when I am watching the film back to back with THE TAYBOR. Well, the reason I chose THE TAYBOR had more to do with the current discussions about fan fiction and how it has certain structural similarities with THE INFERNAL MACHINE than anything in particular that reminds me of BARBARELLA, but it still struck me as an

It’s gotta be the beer instructive episode to watch for making comparisons. For instance, for no apparent reason, THE TAYBOR starts in the solarium with a lot of nice looking Alphan females in their underwear. I cannot imagine a Y1 episode starting like this, but in the context of S99/Y2, particularly from the viewpoint of BARBARELLA, it is a perfect way to start the episode. The title sequence of BARBARELLA consists of Jane Fonda doing a striptease, so they are definitely on target in this episode of Y2. However, as THE TAYBOR develops it becomes clear that the theme of the episode is written as an analysis of consumer capitalism, focusing on how meaning is lost by making everything into economic commodities, culminating in how Maya is made into an economic commodity, thus making the film into a story about how the sex industry as a natural part of consumer society and laissezfaire capitalism. In this respect, I think the following comment is particularly interesting: "In science fiction, technology is everything," said Vadim. "The characters are so boring they have no psychology. I want to do this film as though I had arrived on a strange planet with my camera directly on my shoulder - as though I was a reporter doing a newsreel." (“Vadim's 'Barbarella,' a challenging film: A free hand Employs improvisation”, article by Kimmis Hendrick in The Christian Science Monitor 14 Oct 1967, page 6). This is clearly mirrored in Freiberger’s remake of SPACE: 1999. While Y1 consisted of interesting characters, exploration of the human condition and the human psychology, in Y2 everything is made as flat as possible. There is no psychology, as Vadim says. The characters in Y2 are like the puppets in the earlier Gerry Anderson shows, like STINGRAY and THUNDERBIRDS. No psychology and no depth. However, as Liardet instructs us, and as we see from this quote from Vadim, deciding to make something as campy and idiotic as possible can be a deliberate choice. Indeed, it can be a political choice. When we look at an episode like THE TAYBOR, the campy costumes and the cartoonish nature of the whole enterprise fits

399

perfectly with the type of story that Thom Keyes has written. When he was living with Johnny Byrne in the London hippie-commune, taking part in the 1960s anti-war demonstrations, the society he describes in THE TAYBOR is exactly the kind of established society he was fighting against. In this sense he is a perfect writer for S99/Y2 as he is so clearly against everything that Fred Freiberger and Abe Mandell stand for. It would have been interesting to hear what Keyes would have to say about his engagement with SPACE: 1999 in retrospect, and I would not be surprised if he would say that this particular series represented everything he disliked about television and consumer culture. As an interesting contrast, Johnny Byrne used the name of Thom Keyes wife, Regina Kesslan, in the wonderful Y1 episode ANOTHER TIME ANOTHER PLACE. Although Byrne and Keyes shared much history during the late sixties and early seventies, the way the New Left politics of the late sixties and early seventies is expressed in ATAP is completely different from THE TAYBOR because of how ATAP makes it is possible to identify with the people on Moonbase Alpha as somebody we care about. Freiberger destroyed that in Y2. In THE TAYBOR they have been reduced to puppets delivering “amusing” lines in situations where they are dining and wining. Nevertheless, the challenge is not so much the scripts, acting, sets and production itself as it is finding the right sort of mental frame for interpreting what we see. The more I contemplate Didier Liardet’s revolutionary book from 2014, the more I see his point about how S99/Y2 can only be understood through a lens like BARBARELLA. John B. *** 31691 Re: THE TAYBOR kerryirs Mar 11, 2016

I'm not going to get much into this, but I found John Balor's comment a bit amusing. This is clearly mirrored in Freiberger’s remake of SPACE: 1999. While Y1 consisted of

400

Part III – Short Stories interesting characters, exploration of the human condition and the human psychology, in Y2 everything is made as flat as possible. There is no psychology, as Vadim says. The characters in Y2 are like the puppets in the earlier Gerry Anderson shows, like STINGRAY and THUNDERBIRDS. No psychology and no depth. However, as Liardet instructs us, and as we see from this quote from Vadim, deciding to make something as campy and idiotic as possible can be a deliberate choice. Indeed, it can be a political choice.

Wasn't a key knock on Y1 its lack of multidimentional characters? Flat, to use his word. Liardet doesn't instruct me in anything. I notice a lot of these people that John quotes are French. Hmmm, must be these so-called intellectuals.

is not political, I think it is wise to listen with caution. If we look at ONE MOMENT OF HUMANITY, my impression is that Tony Barwick makes Koenig say that the Alphans are “not political” to make the exact opposite argument, namely that Moonbase Alpha is DEEPLY POLITICAL. Why else should he bring up the topic of politics? It is like the classic illustration of asking somebody not to think of a pink elephant. It is impossible to understand the sentence without thinking of a pink elephant, and it is the same with John Koenig’s claim about the Alphans not being political.

31696 Re: THE TAYBOR kerryirs Mar 12, 2016

ONE MOMENT OF HUMANITY, as I see it, is a post-Marxist fable about oppression and liberation from the viewpoint of how the owners of the means of production have lost control over technology and thus become their own oppressors. Although Keazor ignores Y2, if we are to follow Liardet’s example and try to place categorise the episode within the SPACE: 1999 canon, I would say that it fits clearly in within what Keazor describes as the theme of technology pessimism. In other words, it is an extension of what we have seen in GUARDIAN OF PIRI, DEATH’S OTHER DOMAIN and THE INFERNAL MACHINE, as a natural illustration of some of the key philosophical and political ideas articulated by Marcuse (1964).

Hey, Everybody. Wasn't it in ONE MOMENT OF HUMANITY that Koenig tells Zamara that they weren't political? The writers, who knows? Not really got into their backgrounds.

As I mentioned in a recent post, here is an interesting link describing the importance of BARBARELLA from an academic perspective:

Moving on ... Let's do. *** 31692 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: THE TAYBOR sennmut Mar 12, 2016

Ploitical, political, political! Space:1999 is anything but political. Someone has their needle stuck. ***

*** 31698 Re: THE TAYBOR balor1999 Mar 12, 2016

Koenig telling Zamara that the Alphans are not political reminds me of Hillary Clinton’s statement a few days ago, at CNN’s Democratic debate in Miami, when she said that she is not a natural politician like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Of course, this was said in a context, so will not comment on the statement in itself, but when I hear somebody like her, or John Koenig, saying that they are not natural politicians or that Moonbase Alpha

https://nancyroche.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/ in-praise-of-barbarella/ If we are going to pursue that idea that S99/Y2 has to be understood as “pornography” before contemplating the merit of the series from the viewpoint of political subtext, I think Dr. McGuire Roche provides an excellent starting point in her analysis of BARBARELLA. As she explains in the article, she teaches BARBARELLA in her university courses as a feminist film text, and some of the arguments that gives the text credibility, she explains, relate to Jane Fonda saying that the film was “a kind of tongue-in-cheek satire against

It’s gotta be the beer bourgeois morality”. In other words, as a visible counter-culture activist in the Vietnam era, Fonda saw the film as a political vehicle, thus making her reflections fit superbly with Liardet’s project of how to make sense of Y2. We also know that her visits to France and contacts with French intellectuals that helped develop her critical awareness and participation in political activism, so this only strengthens the importance of engaging with the French scholarly literature on SPACE: 1999. In other words, the conversation between Koenig and Zamara in ONE MOMENT OF HUMANITY may be one of the single most important exchanges in the whole of S99/Y2 for understanding the political commitments of those writing for the series and why Fageolle and similar thinkers hold the keys for fans and followers to be able to understand and enjoy SPACE: 1999 as a whole. John B. *** 31700 Re: THE TAYBOR balor1999 Mar 14, 2016

One question we might ask ourselves is how much has our understanding of an episode like THE TAYBOR improved after reading fan fiction where Maya is compared with characters like Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck in the light of Liardet’s expansion of Fageolle’s theories? I think the answer would be that there has been a significant change. However, in order to understand this change, I think it is important to point out that the idea of reading the episode as a post-Marxist analysis of consumer society, dealing with similar issues as Arthur Miller’s DEATH OF A SALESMAN, is not new among SPACE: 1999 fans. In fact, most of what we today see as the obvious political context of the episode was pointed out during the first ExE in 1997-98 (Ogland, 2014, pp. 415-416). Some of these ideas were included in the more recent second ExE in 2013-15, adding further discussion on the important role of Ralph Nader and people like him in protecting us against the Taybors of the real world.

401

Nevertheless, what was perhaps lacking in both of these discussions was the issue of how the Y2 framework made this episode different from what it might have looked like in a Y1 context. When discussing such issues, I find Kerry’s recent comments interesting: frankly, the Y1/Y2 debate is getting old and stale. I don't see anything new in the debate, the same old sources are rehashed, the same interviews quoted that for me adds nothing new to the debate. I've seen the 1994 interview with Landau, talk about a one-sided piece of mong, no input on his feelings about the issues in Y1, script issues, time overruns, delays, etc.

Here I have a radically different view. To me the recent debate about exploring Liardet’s suggestions on how to read the cinematic text of Y2 has provided significant food for thought. Although Kerry may be right in saying that we are to a large extent revisiting old sources, such as the 1994 and 1999 interviews Martin Landau did with two different French television crews, and the usual quotes from Johnny Byrne and the others found in Robert E. Wood’s book or elsewhere, but what is significantly different is the way we are now trying to understanding Y2 on the lens of BARBARELLA. I think this has been incredibly useful. If we compare BARBARELLA with similar “pornographic” SF films like FLESH GORDON (1974) or GWENDOLINE (1984), what strikes me is the relevance of BARBARELLA as a theoretical sense for understanding S99/Y2 as “pornographic” SF while the two others are less suitable in this respect as they are less articulated in terms of political subtext. As was argued by Dr. McGuire Roche at the Vanderbilt University, what makes BARBARELLA interesting is the way it makes use of camp and satire as means for making political commentary. Although the film is said to follow the original 1962-64 comic strip by Jean-Claude Forest quite closely, the film script was written by the important counter-culture author Terry Southern, who also wrote DR STRANGELOVE, and politically the two films do not appear to be all that different. They are both political satire from a New Left perspective, dealing with the kind of issues that were central in Kubrick’s 2001: A SPACE

402


ODYSSEY and Anderson’s SPACE: 1999, but now from the perspective of satire. I've also seen the Fanderson piece and i remember Barbara Bain calling the Maya character intriguing. I also seem to remember that Keith Wilson liked creating various alien creatures. Yes, this is more the visual aspect of the series, but important in a SF series. I also noticed that the Fanderson piece didn't interview anyone from Y2 or a new interview with FF. I know they're biased, but if they did offer to interview say Catherine Schell or Tony Anholt and they declined, they should've noted that on the piece. Since they didn't i take it they didn't bother.

Oddly, I now feel I have to agree with some of the things Kerry is saying. I would never have agreed on issues like this before contemplating Liardet’s highly important input to the discussion, but now it actually makes sense. If BARBARELLA had been made in the style of one of those two other SF masterpieces that were released in 1968, namely 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or PLANET OF THE APES, the style would probably have been inappropriate for what the film was trying to say. So, as Kerry points out, the visual aspects matter in a SF series. Y1 was done as realistic SF drama, but Y2 was done in the style of BARBARELLA because that was the kind of format that was needed for doing satire in a manner where you can present something in a style that appeals to pre-school children while dealing with content that has to do with social criticism in the spirit of Johnny Byrne and Thom Keyes engagement with the anti-war demonstrations in the late sixties. So, Kerry, although I find your inputs to the discussion excellent, enjoying many of the points you make, I think you are too pessimistic. I think the recent discussions have resulted in improved understanding of SPACE: 1999. In fact, I would almost describe it as revolutionary changes in how we understand SPACE: 1999 in the sense that the difference between Fageolle and Liardet could in a sense be described as two paradigmatically different ways of understanding the series. Nevertheless, as we see through our discussions, the paradigms are not incompatible. In the same way as we can enjoy both 2001 and BARBARELLA as important outputs of the counter-cultural revolution in the late sixties, both Y1 and Y2 can similarly be understood as

further evolution of the perspectives presented in these two classics from the viewpoint of the early seventies. John B. *** 31701 Re: THE TAYBOR kerryirs Mar 14, 2016

THE TAYBOR bad, RATHM good? THE TAYBOR isn't perfect, but has a point about someone can't always possess somethig or somone, especially against their will. RATHM put me to sleep the first time I saw it; the next time I saw it, I was better off asleep. *** 31702 Re: THE TAYBOR balor1999 Mar 15, 2016

I would describe the difference between THE TAYBOR and RATM in a different way. Trying to go along with your view that Y2 is worth watching, something that is indeed supported by Liardet’s important contributions to the scholarly debate, I would say that RATM is serious drama while THE TAYBOR is satire. Although RATM is one of my personal favourites, and an episode that Senmut once described as ‘amost perfection’, for the purpose of contrasting THE TAYBOR with something from Y1, I think THE INFERNAL MACHINE would be a better choice. Here is an example of how Robert E. Wood addresses the Y1/Y2 debate in the context of his TAYBOR analysis: ‘The Taybor’ could be easily interpreted as commenting rather effectively on materialism and consumerism. The central dichotomy of the episode is that Taybor has lots of beautiful possessions, but he leads an empty existence. It is a valuable commentary on our economically oriented world. Taybor also bears parallels with Companion from ‘The Infernal Machine’ – a solitary being travelling space in a ship – and thus also recalls the themes of that earlier episode: isolation and loneliness. However, these more internal concepts were dealt with more effectively through the serious tone of

It’s gotta be the beer ‘The Infernal Machine,’ rather than the comedic approach found here. (2010, p. 330) As can be seen from other parts of his review, Wood sees THE TAYBOR as one of the weaker episodes of Y2, but I think his comparison with THE INFERNAL MACHINE illustrates some of the challenges Kerry refer to in the Y1/Y2 debate and how we now appear to be in a better position to resolve that debate. I think the solution has to do with acknowledging the difference between serious drama and satire. Although Wood points out the seriousness of the Y1 episode and the comedic nature of the Y2, I do not feel that he sufficiently acknowledges how the nature of the two seasons, the first based on A SPACE ODYSSEY and the second based on BARBARELLA, shapes not only the nature of the stories that can be told but also the way the should be told. In other words, Y1 was designed as a format for telling serious stories while Y2 was designed as a format for telling comedic stories. Y1 is serious drama. Y2 is satire. However, Kerry contextualises the meaning of THE TAYBOR in a slightly different manner, and I think this is a helpful reflection for moving the discussion forwards: THE TAYBOR isn't perfect, but has a point about someone can't always possess somethig or somone, especially against their will.

While Wood and the rest of us interpret the episode from the viewpoint of a classical criticism of materialism and consumerism, thus focusing on the sociological meaning, I think Kerry’s comments can be useful for expanding the interpretation in the kind of psychological interpretations that would make sense from the viewpoint of critical theory. What I am specifically thinking of here is the way Kerry relates the “possession of something” with the “possession of someone”. I think this could be highly relevant in the context of how Jane Fonda explained the meaning of BARBARELLA as essentially being a “satire against bourgeois morality”. What I am thinking of here is how Kerry’s comments about possessing something or somebody fits with Fonda’s comments about how the ‘free love’ rhetoric in BARBARELLA

403

should be seen in a political context. I don’t know Johnny Byrne and Thom Keyes thought of BARBARELLA as a film, but it is interesting to think of BARBARELLA when we look at Jonathon Green’s book “Day in the life” (1988), with numerous interviews with Johnny Byrne and friends from the London counter-culture talking about what their lives were like in the late sixties and early seventies, just before SPACE: 1999 was being made. As THE TAYBOR was written by Thom Keyes, it is particularly interesting to hear what Johnny Byrne and the rest had to say about him. Here is an example: Johnny Byrne: I had met Thom Keyes when he was about seventeen before he went to Oxford. Thommy though I was God because I seemed to command regiments of women who would do my bidding at the drop of a hat. […] He was incredibly randy and there was always the feeling with Thommy that he was a dirty schoolboy who never quite got over getting his finger round the elastic of a little girl’s knickers So what we see here is that both Johnny Byrne and Thom Keyes were living the ‘free love’ ethos as an important part of the New Left ideology of the sixties. Here are some reflections from Jenny Fabian, who was writing the novel GROUPIE with Johnny Byrne at the time: Jenny Fabian: I did used to go round and visit Thom in Maida Vale when he was writing ALL NIGHT STAND or when he was waiting for it to be published. […] He treated everyone like shit. As the days went by at Cranley Mansions he became so spaced out on methedrine who knows what was really speaking. […] Steve Abrams had turned up, but he didn’t make any impression on me, cos I was busy screwing pop groups. Here we see that Jenny Fabian was perhaps the Maya of real life in the London sixties in the way she living the BARBARELLA life of pop, drugs and ‘free love’. I think it is quite remarkable how useful Liardet’s idea of using BARBARELLA as a lens for understanding Y2 is. Steve Abrams, along with other people living in the commune, were immortalised in SPACE: 1999 by the way Byrne sometimes used their names on characters. Steve Abrams

404


is the Eagle pilot who is killed during the prologue of VOYAGER’S RETURN. Here is an interesting comment from Abrams, talking about Thom Keyes and his wife Regina Kesslan that Byrne later made in a central character in ANOTHER TIME ANOTHER PLACE: Steve Abrams: Basically Cranley Mansions was Thom Keyes, Johnny Byrne, Spike Hawkins, and at one point Brian Patten. There was a guy called David Rook, he was in film and had lots of beautiful girls around him. With him went an otter which lived in one of the bath tubs. Cranley Mansions was a completely mad place. When Keyes was at his worst he had a sign about who could be admitted to the house: there were seven people who could be admitted, nobody else. Me, Marlon Brando, Vadim… Neither Brando nor Vadim were likely to come round but they were the first two people that Regina fucked when Thom took her out to Hollywood. So, Regina Kesslan could also be seen as a kind of Maya in the way she was living out her ‘free love’ lifestyle in the manner we remember from BARBARELLA. According to Abrams, the first thing she did when arriving in Hollywood was to get in bed with BARBARELLA director Roger Vadim. In this sense we can see how profoundly insightful Liardet’s BARBARELLA model is. While Kubrick’s SPACE ODYSSEY was used as main inspiration for the style and political subtext in Y1, in the case of Y2 we see that not only is the new design much in line with BARBARELLA, but the satirical content of the film fits perfectly for describing the lifestyle and attitudes of Byrne and friends a few years before they made SPACE: 1999. Kerry, as I have said before, I think you are too pessimistic about how the discussions and debates are progressing. It takes time to develop insight. These recent insights concerning the importance of understanding S99/Y2 in the context of BARBARELLA are insights that have taken a long time to evolve. If we look at the reference index in Ogland’s 2014 edit of the first ExE, there are no references to BARBARELLA, so even though it may have been discussed in the late 1990s it was clearly not central to the understanding of the series in the way we understand

BARBARELLA as a proper lens for making sense out of Y2 now. During the second ExE there were several references to BARBARELLA, starting with some references to the film in the context of THE LAST ENEMY, but from January 2015 and onwards it is primarily mentioned in the context of Liardet’s analysis. In other words, it has taken us more than a year to just to realise how important this aspect of his book is. So, Kerry, you got to have patience. A good understanding of SPACE: 1999 that acknowledges both the scholarly perspectives and the points you have been making over the years does not arrive without time and effort. We need to discuss and look at the text from different perspectives, and never give up, only then will we be able to articulate an understanding of SPACE: 1999 that everybody can feel comfortable with. John B. *** 31703 Re: THE TAYBOR balor1999 Mar 16, 2016

THE TAYBOR was directed by Bob Brooks. As Heald (1976, p. 154) explains, Brooks was concerned and anxious about the assignment because this was the first time he had ever directed anything other than commercials. However, Brooks enjoyed the experience of making the episode, and based on the success of his efforts he was later invited to do THE IMMUNITY SYNDROME. Brooks’ style of directing is consciously visual. “I’m not one of those people who go through the dialogue memorising every line.” As befits a former still photographer, he works predominantly through his eyes. “I draw the thing out. I storyboard it all.” These detailed storyboards were a source of some amusement at first because, as far as I could see, no one on SPACE had ever worked with a director who used one. (ibid, p. 155). Although there are some nice visual aspects to THE TAYBOR, like the orange and rainbow coloured spaceship which has a sort of BARBARELLA-look, on the whole I would

It’s gotta be the beer say that the episode is remarkably conventional when considering that it was made by somebody who started out as a photographer and moved into films by way of commercials. Ray Austin’s output, for instance, when we think of a sample episode like ALL THAT GLISTERS, is much more visually dynamic. It is also interesting that Brooks mentions his lack of attention to dialogue in an episode that consists more or less of non-stop talking. I think THE TAYBOR must be one of the most verbose episodes of the lot, but still Brooks manages to pull the episode together. To contrast Brooks with the more experienced Charles Crichton, Heald starts his comparison by making the following comment: Charles Crichton’s approach is altogether different, and as one of the longest-running directors on the show, it is obviously a crucial style which has done much to set the tone and filming procedures of SPACE: 1999. While accepting that there are vital conventions to be observed, he likes to think of the show as being akin to such books as Tolkien’s LORD OF THE RINGS and ALICE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS. Some science-fiction purists might object, but he fully accepts that, for example, “If you are going to travel several hundred million light-years in a very short time, you must explain that this was made possible because of something called a time warp.” Once you have done that, however, he believes in letting things rip: “You’re in fairyland.” (ibid, p. 156). As we have already discussed, the view of Suvin (1979) and Freedman (2000) is that there is a difference between fantasy and science fiction from the viewpoint of how science fiction is a natural way of articulating critical theory while fantasy is not. In this respect, I think it is important to notice that Crichton’s comments about ‘fantasy’ were made in the context of Y2. What kind of mental models he had when making Y1 is unknown to me, but I have also heard him at a different time talking about ALICE IN WONDERLAND, and that was also after Y2. Now, the Fantasy/SF distinction is another interesting theme for understanding the difference between Y1 and Y2 through the perspective of fan fiction stories that compares

405

Maya or Y2 as a whole with cartoon characters or cartoon series. As we have already discussed, the fact that BARBARELLA was based on a comic strip was one aspect that made it relevant as a lens for understanding Y2, the fact that it played with “pornographic” conventions for the purpose of functioning as a satire against bourgeoisie morals is another important factor, but Crichton’s point that Y2 can be understood as ‘fantasy’ against the ‘science fiction’ of Y1 is also something that is relevant to consider. I also think there is a similar dilemma with BARBARELLA. Roger Vadim’s 1968 classic is a social satire poking fun at conservative and reactionary values, through the means of a ‘fantasy’ format, although the story also includes important elements of science fiction such as space technology, mad scientists, social oppression and countercultural revolutionaries wanting to change society for the better. Trying to understand how Crichton’s points fits in with our currently emerging understanding of Y2 as pornography with social significance, I decided to watch William Osco’s 1976 pornographic musical version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND. As Roger Ebert reviewed it favourably at the time, perhaps it might be better than one could expect, and perhaps it could help us develop a better understanding of S99/Y2 as pornographic satire. However, after having seen the film, I have somewhat mixed feelings. On the one hand, I think Crichton was right in saying that the change from Y1 to Y2 was a change from SF to Fantasy, and thinking of S99/Y2 as a pornographic version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND definitely fits with Paulo Morgado’s unrealised plans for making a pornographic remake of S99/Y2 with Caroline Munro as Maya, but on the other hand I am not so certain. One difference that is relevant, I would say, is how Vadim’s BARBARELLA is only “pornographic” in a connotative sense, i.e. by association, but Osco’s ALICE is “pornographic” in a detonative sense of being explicit and detailed when presenting sexual practice. Although both films were shown on mainstream cinemas, they have a fundamentally different feel. While BARBARELLA feels like a European art film, where what we see on the textual level essentially functions as means for conveying the political message on the subtextual level,

406


ALICE feels like an American exploitation film with no particular political message beyond drawing an audience and making money. However, if we look at Jenkins’ analysis of STAR TREK fan fiction in chapter 12 of the 1995 book he wrote with Tulloch, he discusses issues like sexuality by making a point out of how gay fans were trying to make political interventions with Paramount for the purpose of adding visually gay characters and situations involving homosexuality. Although Roddenberry expressed sympathy with the gay rights movement, it was nevertheless difficult to make STAR TREK: TNG deal with sexuality in the same as ST: TOS had dealt with gender and race. What becomes one of the central points in Jenkins’ analysis is whether gender, race and sexuality is handled by connotation or denotation. For the political activist wanting to use a television series it gives the series more power if the political issue of gender, race or sexuality is handled explicitly rather than by association. This is where I see a parallel with our SPACE: 1999 discussion. If we want to understand S99/Y2 as pornography, would not an explicitly pornographic film like ALICE IN WONDERLAND be a better model than a film like BARBARELLA that can only be understood as pornographic on an abstract level by means of themes, plot and attitudes of the characters? I think it would be interesting if Kerry or somebody else would respond to this, because there are interesting dilemmas here. What I am thinking of in particular is how the original ALICE IN WONDERLAND text can be read as a political satire of late 1900th century capitalist England, so both texts are essentially saying the same thing, but they are expressed in two different ways. BARBARELLA is pornographic by connotation and political by denotation, and ALICE is pornographic by denotation and political by connotation. I think this is an interesting distinction when we look at the two films as models for understanding S99/Y2. John B. *** 31704 Fw: [OnlineAlpha] Re: THE TAYBOR

sennmut Mar 16, 2016

John K. Balor wrote: As we have already discussed, the view of Suvin (1979) and Freedman (2000) is that there is a difference between fantasy and science fiction from the viewpoint of how science fiction is a natural way of articulating critical theory while fantasy is not. In this respect, I think it is important to notice that Crichton’s comments about ‘fantasy’ were made in the context of Y2. What kind of mental models he had when making Y1 is unknown to me, but I have also heard him at a different time talking about ALICE IN WONDERLAND, and that was also after Y2. Now, the Fantasy/SF distinction is another interesting theme for understanding the difference between Y1 and Y2 through the perspective of fan fiction stories that compares Maya or Y2 as a whole with cartoon characters or cartoon series.

Nice try, Balor, but you have once again connected my fic with your Marxist religion. You were told to stop! *** 31710 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: THE TAYBOR SHANA G Mar 17, 2016

ALL: I have to wonder if there is any correlation between Martin Landau in Y1 and he landing the spot of “Gepetto” in the movie Pinocchio. After all, he did have much experience being “wooden” after Y1. Thoughts? Shana *** 31711 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: THE TAYBOR sennmut Mar 17, 2016

Only if Catherine Schell was actually Pinocchio. After all, the wood did change shape. ;) ***

It’s gotta be the beer 31713 Re: THE TAYBOR kerryirs Mar 17, 2016

Well, Catherine Schell's character had far more personality than most if not all the characters in Y1. That was one of the knocks against it. When Zienia Merten screamed (FULL CIRCLE), it made me cringe, not in her fear on screen, but like when somebody runs their nails across a blackboard. As I've said, what came before sometimes affects what comes next. Y1 had some really good stuff in it, but not enough for the powers that be, I guess. They held the purse strings. I will agree that format changes, except for the concept itself, can be dramatic, especially without explanation. I understand that Byrne wanted to do that, but it didn't make it into the final script, for whatever reason. Great fodder for fan writers, though. *** 31715 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: THE TAYBOR sennmut Mar 17, 2016

What changes? Not sure I caught it. *** 31716 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: THE TAYBOR balor1999 Mar 18, 2016

Senmut wrote: Nice try, Balor, but you have once again connected my fic with your Marxist religion. You were told to stop!

I was talking about fan fiction that compares Maya or Y2 as a whole with cartoon characters or cartoon series in general. This was not a reference to your work, although I will admit that you have written a wonderful story that fits into this category. I was writing about the genre as a whole to avoid talking specifically about your works when referring to SPACE: 1999 scholars and academic works. However, I think Kerry makes an interesting point that might connect Y2 with high quality fan fiction with the following comment:

407 Well, Catherine Schell's character had far more personality than most if not all the characters in Y1. That was one of the knocks against it.

What I assume Kerry is meaning here is that Jane Fonda in BARBARELLA could be seen to have more personality than Keir Dullea or Gary Lockwood in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. On a superficial level, I agree that it might look like that, but perhaps not necessarily so when we remember Vadim’s comment about BARBARELLA: "In science fiction, technology is everything. The characters are so boring—they have no psychology. I want to do this film as though I had arrived on a strange planet with my camera directly on my shoulder—as though I was a reporter doing a newsreel." In other words, Jane Fonda may look like she has more personality than Keir Dullea, or Maya may look like she has more personality than Bergman, but in reality it is the other way around. As Vadim points out, when developing S99/Y2 in the style of BARBARELLA, the point of the redesign is to make it into a satire. This means that the characters become more exaggerated, more cartoon-like, which is done by removing rather than adding psychological depth. The satirical characters become larger than life. It is exactly the opposite of what Kubrick was doing in SPACE ODYSSEY. He was concerned with scientific realism and psychological realism, particularly in the context of how technology changes society and individual psychology. While Jane Fonda is like Maya, Keir Dullea is like Anton Zoref. Kubrick’s characters become less overtly emotional and to understand their conflicts and situations thus require more concentration. This is one of the reasons the idea of thinking of S99/Y2 as pornography makes sense. Unlike Y1, in the case of Y2 we are NOT dealing with a format that is designed for reflection and deep insights. By lowering the series to the level of pornography, what Freiberger achieves is to gain a wider audience at the cost of eliminating what the original fans found attractive about Y1. In this context perhaps William Osco’s pornographic version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND from 1976 is perhaps a better explanatory example that I first thought. Charles Crichton described Y2 as

408


‘fantasy’ by referring to Lewis Carroll’s famous novel, thus making an important point about how Y2 differs from Y1 in being ‘fantasy’ rather than ‘science fiction’, and the pornographic 1976 version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND would thus be a particularly good model for understanding what Crichton was saying. On the other hand, we must not forget that there are other film versions of the Lewis Carroll stories. An exceptionally good version, that I believe both Fageolle and Liardet would agree could even make sense in the context of Y1, is Claude Chabrol’s ALICE OU LA DERNIERE FUGUE from 1977. Here we have a film that makes use of the original satirical material about class conflicts in Victorian England into a deep psychological study of existential issues in contemporaryFrance done in the style of MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH. Chabrol’s version is the extreme opposite of Osco’s version, just like BARBARELLA is the extreme opposite of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and Y2 is the extreme opposite of Y1. Yet, in all cases the central story is the same. All these stories, whether they are done in a realistic style or done as satire, they all deal with oppression, false consciousness, critical awareness and emancipation. In order to help the discussion move forwards, in the way Kerry keeps encouraging, I think it is important to notice the likenesses and the differences between Y1 and Y2. For instance, when Fageolle has expressed ideas in the line of how he feels Y2 should be burned and destroyed because it is pornography, Liardet has said that we should not confuse the format with the content. Although the formats are difference, Y1 aiming for realism while Y2 done as satire, the political content of both series have much in common. Themes like social oppression through technology, conflicts between monopoly capital and labour, and how environmental challenges can be used as means for gaining emancipatory strength are themes that are prevalent in both series. It is just a question of whether the political subtext is presented through the means of realistically oriented SF or satirically oriented SF. It is a question of how we recognise works like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and BARBARELLA as

the foundational models for understanding the respective seasons of SPACE: 1999. John B. *** 31717 Re: THE TAYBOR kerryirs mar 18, 2016

John, are you sure about your statement below? In this respect, I think it is important to notice that Crichton’s comments about ‘fantasy’ were made in the context of Y2. What kind of mental models he had when making Y1 is unknown to me, but I have also heard him at a different time talking about ALICE IN WONDERLAND, and that was also after Y2.

Are you certain that he wasn't talking about the series as a whole? In my view, the minute Anderson came up with the idea of blowing the moon out of orbit is when 1999 became fantasy with SF elements, not the other way round. Crichton's use of LORD OF THE RINGS and ALICE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS in comparing 1999, didn't limit that comparison to Y2, but the series as a whole. Now if you want to talk fantasy, I can't think of two better examples. According to your post, Crichton also said: "If you are going to travel several hundred million light-years in a very short time, you must explain that this was made possible because of something called a time warp.” Once you have done that, however, he believes in letting things rip: “You’re in fairy-land.” (ibid, p. 156). "You are in fairy-land..." John, which season was he talking about? I can't tell. BREAKAWAY came in Y1 as did BLACK SUN. There's the beginnings of his "fairyland". Y2 had space warps or probably better known now as worm holes. The first and third episodes of Y1 (BREAKAWAY and BLACK SUN) would probably represent the "time warp" sinerio that Crichton mentioned. He also says "let it rip",

It’s gotta be the beer which I guess he meant the rules of science and even SF be damned. That, too me, put 1999 into fantasy, because we ain't (excuse me Shana, bad English), going to cross space on the moon. Finally, the BARBARELLA comparison that you constantly through out is more amusing than a serious attempt at analysis. Call it satire, or whatever, it doesn't fit in my view. *** 31718 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: THE TAYBOR sennmut Mar 19, 2016

On 18 Mar 2016 balor1999@... writes: In other words, Jane Fonda may look like she has more personality than Keir Dullea, or Maya may look like she has more personality than Bergman, but in reality it is the other way around.

More personality? More like she took her clothes off more than the others did. Obviosly a sign of deep and intensely thoughtful drama. *** 31719 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: THE TAYBOR John Marcucci Mar 19, 2016

Taking off her clothes prior to turning 30 is the most useful service Fonda ever performed in her life. *** 31720 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: THE TAYBOR sennmut Mar 19, 2016

Even that is questionable. *** 31721 Re: THE TAYBOR balor1999 Mar 19, 2016

Kerry asked me about ALICE IN WONDERLAND and BARBARELLA. When it comes to Crichton’s comparisons between ALICE and SPACE, I read this in the context of how many of us think of Y1 as science

409

fiction and Y2 as fantasy. I have read Crichton make this comparison twice. The first time was in Heald’s 1976 book about the making of Y2. The second time was in an interview for a Swedish television magazine in December 1977. Although both comments were made after the completion of Y2, I agree with Kerry that this is not evidence that he was not talking about the series as a whole. However, if we take Crichton’s comment to relate specifically to Y2, then it strikes me as an insightful comment, as (1) it fits with Freedman (2000) in his distinction between fantasy and SF from the viewpoint of critical theory, and (2) it provides an alternative lens for reading Y2 through the perspective critical theory – now in the context of the kind of social satire we see in ALICE IN WONDERLAND. In other words, if we see Crichton’s comment as a comment about Y2 it is a insightful comment while if we see it as a comment on SPACE: 1999 as a whole – without making any distinctions between Y1 and Y2 – the comment becomes banal. To me there is a fundamental difference between the “fantasy” of having the Moon break out of Earth’s orbit in BREAKAWAY and introducing character like Maya in THE METAMORPH. Although the science in BREAKAWAY is preposterous, it is narrated with a straight face, and it is only use in the same sense that Jean-Paul Sartre makes use of the artificial environment in NO EXIT (“Huis clos”, 1944), that is as an environment for exploring the perpetual ontological struggle of being caused to see oneself as an object in the world of another consciousness. Or at least, this could be one way of reading BREAKAWAY if we looked at the episode from an existentialist perspective. The point is that the ways the rules of science are broken in BREAKAWAY contribute to rendering the episode as meaningful SF in Suvin’s (1979) definition of SF as “a literary genre whose necessary and sufficient conditions are the presence and interaction of estrangement and cognition, and whose main formal device is an imaginative framework alternative to the author’s empirical environment” (quoted in Freedman, 2000, p. 16).

410


As Freedman comments, the beauty of this definition is not only that it aligns SF with critical theory but also that it makes clear distinctions between SF and genres like realistic literary mainstream on the one hand and folk tale or fantasy on the other. It is the dialectic between estrangement and cognition that defines SF as a genre. The estrangement we see in BREAKAWAY is the Moonbase Alpha environment and the plot resulting in the Moon breaking out of Earth’s orbit. The cognitive aspect of BREAKAWAY is what “enables the science-fictional text to account rationally for its imagined world and for the connections as well as the disconnections of the latter to our own empirical world” (Freedman, p. 17). To make us see the contrast between BREAKAWAY and THE METAMORPH, we can take note of how he explains how to make use of the dialectical approach: If the dialectic is flattened out to mere cognition, then the result is “realistic” or mundane fiction, which can cognitively account for its imaginings but performs no estrangement; if the dialectic is flattened out to mere estrangement (or, it might be argued, pseudo-estrangement), then the result is fantasy, which estranges, or appears to estrange, but in an irrationalist, theoretically illegitimate way. So, while both BREAKAWAY and THE METAMORPH contain elements on estrangement, both in the political sense and otherwise, BREAKAWAY takes the cognitive approach we recognise from works like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY while THE METAMORPH goes in the opposite direction of irrationalism and theoretical illegitimacy. As pointed out by Gerry Anderson in one of his STARLOG comments, having an unbelievable character like Maya created lots of problems for the writers to produce meaningful texts. Nevertheless, even though Freedman argues (along with Suvin) that SF is the proper format for exploring critical theory within the context of fiction, there is also a growing body of literature on how ‘fantasy’ can be used for similar purposes. To me Liardet (2014) is the most important spokesperson for this perspective when he recommends reading Y2 through the perspective of BARBARELLA.

Although I’m not certain how Freedman would categorise this particular film, to me seems to be a good example of where the dialectics of estrangement and the cognitive results in loosening up on the cognitive aspects to include satirical and irrational aspects of storytelling. We are not expected to take BARBARELLA seriously on the surface level. As cast and crew of the film pointed out, there is an important political message on the subtextual level, but on the textual level it is presented as camp. It is presented as satire, not as something that is expected to be understood realistically. So, when Kerry says that Liardet’s comparison between BARBARELLA and Y2 is more amusing than a serious attempt at analysis, I would have to disagree. I would also like to ask Kerry why the use of BARBARELLA as a satirical lens for rendering meaning to Y2 should not be fitting. For me it fits perfectly. In fact, it is a model that makes it possible to discuss Y2 on a higher level than listening to people saying “Y2 is good because I like it”. When we identify Y1 with 2001 and Y2 with BARBARELLA this seems to be to a highly useful strategy for letting some of the cultural merit of BARBARELLA rub off on Y2. As illustrated by cases like how Dr. McGuire Roche uses BARBARELLA as an important feminist film text, BARBARELLA has gained cultural capital over the years, while S99/Y2 has remained a lost case. However, if we present S99/Y2 as relating to BARBARELLA in the same way as S99/Y1 relates to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, we would suddenly make an interesting argument that could make it possible to engage in dialogues with people like McGuire Roche and others interested in SF from a critical theory perspective. In other words, I think it is fine that there are those who find the alignment of BARBARELLA and Y2 as amusing, and perhaps they are right in pointing out that we need to explore the relationship between the two more deeply before being able to present a meaningful analysis, but I definitely think we are on the right track. John B. ***

It’s gotta be the beer 31722 Re: THE TAYBOR kerryirs Mar 19, 2016

John B. wrote: What I assume Kerry is meaning here is that Jane Fonda in BARBARELLA could be seen to have more personality than Keir Dullea or Gary Lockwood in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. On a superficial level, I agree that it might look like that, but perhaps not necessarily so when we remember Vadim’s comment about BARBARELLA:

John, wrong assumption. My comment dealt with Y1 and nothing else, not 2001 and sure as Hell not BARBARELLA, which only YOU have ever brought up. I wonder if trying to create twenty-four episodes patterened after 2001 was a good idea. I'm not trying to push this forum in any direction other than presenting a different view other than the majority on this forum and especially the hard-core Y1 types like youself. It might be a hopeless cause, especially if you've closed your mind to other viewpoints and you constantly cite these so-called scholars that no one has ever heard of. I respect your views, and you've made some good points over the years, but you interject things into the conversation, in my view, have nothing to do with 1999, like BARBARELLA. You also wrote, On a superficial level, I agree that it might look like that, but perhaps not necessarily so when we remember Vadim’s comment about BARBARELLA: "In science fiction, technology is everything. The characters are so boring—they have no psychology. I want to do this film as though I had arrived on a strange planet with my camera directly on my shoulder—as though I was a reporter doing a newsreel." In other words, Jane Fonda may look like she has more personality than Keir Dullea, or Maya may look like she has more personality than Bergman, but in reality it is the other way around. As Vadim points out, when developing S99/Y2 in the style of BARBARELLA, the point of the redesign is to make it into a satire. This means that the characters become more exaggerated, more cartoon-like, which is done by removing rather than adding psychological depth. The satirical characters become larger than life. It is exactly the opposite of what

411 Kubrick was doing in SPACE ODYSSEY. He was concerned with scientific realism and psychological realism, particularly in the context of how technology changes society and individual psychology. While Jane Fonda is like Maya, Keir Dullea is like Anton Zoref. Kubrick’s characters become less overtly emotional and to understand their conflicts and situations thus require more concentration.

I don't agree much with the above, especially this comparrison of Y2 with BARBARELLA, a film I doubt anyone other than SF fans and Fonda fans have ever heard of. As for this Vadim, whoever the heck he/she is, doesn't know what they're talking about. I can see why you and this Vadim think the characterizations in Y2 might be more "exaggerated", if one compares them to 2001 and Y1. Cartoonish, not the case. If there is something a TV series needs as much as good writing, it's characters that the viewer can identify with, root for. That's why shows like GUNSMOKE and M*A*S*H lasted for long as they did and remain popular in syndication. Now, how do you feel about 2010, totally different in style and characters. It was far political. Maya and Bergman, two of my favorite characters, two very different characters, and yet the same in many ways. Both cared for their fellow men and women, intelligent, would stand up and raise questions or express opinions in certain situations. Bergman more the reserved professorly type due to years of experience; Maya, more outgoing, gregarious type due to her youth and years of being sheltered on a dying world, fully mature by the end of Y2. It would've been fun to see them together. So, BARBARELLA has nothing to do with 1999 or Y2 and neither does pornography. That's an accusation that you've pulled from some BS reading or conclussion that you've come to. As for Crichton, I'm still waiting for you to show me where he equates Y2 to fantasy while leaving Y1 out of it. The whole series is fantasy with SF elements. *** 31723 Re: THE TAYBOR balor1999

412


Mar 20, 2016

Kerry wrote: My comment dealt with Y1 and nothing else, not 2001 and sure as Hell not BARBARELLA, which only YOU have ever brought up. I wonder if trying to create twenty-four episodes patterened after 2001 was a good idea.

I think the idea of trying to create twenty-four episodes patterned after 2001 was a brilliant idea. That particular film, probably more than any other science fiction film ever made, showed that science fiction does not have to be BUCK ROGERS or FLASH GORDON. The science fiction format can be used for dealing with complex philosophical, political and psychological issues. When Keazor (2012) writes about the realism of S99/Y1, he is not only talking about how they tried to emulate the visual realism of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY but also how the characters and actors were playing the story straight in the style of the contemporary late sixties and early seventies drama on film and television. To me that was really the golden age of film and television. It was the time of Kubrick, Fellini, Bergman, Antonioni, Pasolini, Godard, Truffaut, Bunuel and all the rest who were seeing the cinema as a serious art form, unlike what soon followed in terms of commercial junk. In a way it would be natural to say that SPACE: 1999 was an important landmark in this socio-economical change from what made Y1 into a work of art while Y2 became a piece of junk, but thanks to Kerry and others, I am gradually changing my opinion of Y2 as perhaps more significant in the history of television SF than I used to think. However, I don’t understand what Kerry has against BARBARELLA. To me, Liardet’s idea of looking at S99/Y2 through the lens of BARBARELLA is perhaps the single most important insight from his vastly impressive intellectual discussion of the series as a whole. En placant au centre de ses récits des éléments figuratifs représentant le progrès technologique dans toute sa démesure (ordinateurs, vaisseaux spatiaux, armes futuristes, etc.), la série propose un spectacle féérique partiellement atténué par le pessimisme de son propos (et l’absence

d’humour) qui transparît au cours de la première saison et sa vision kitsch (costume et maquillages délirants, apparitions de créatures monstrueuses, etc.) lors de suivante, proche de films comme BARBARELLA (Roger Vadim-1967). (Liardet, 2014, p. 214) In other words, what Liardet is saying here is a unified appraisal of SPACE: 1999 by acknowledging the strength of both seasons by means of their differences. While everybody can agree with what he says about how Y1 deals with technological progress in a sceptical manner, where Liardet is different from Fageolle is in the final part of this passage where comments on the kitsch of Y2 and how it can be explicitly compared with BARBARELLA. As he clearly means himself, and as we also have seen by looking at BARBARELLA from different perspectives, looking at Y2 through this lens gives the right sort of frame for discussing the intellectual merits of the season without being distracted by Freiberger’s reconceptualisation. Kerry continues: I'm not trying to push this forum in any direction other than presenting a different view other than the majority on this forum and especially the hard-core Y1 types like youself. It might be a hopeless cause, especially if you've closed your mind to other viewpoints and you constantly cite these so-called scholars that no one has ever heard of. I respect your views, and you've made some good points over the years, but you interject things into the conversation, in my view, have nothing to do with 1999, like BARBARELLA.

It may not be as hopeless as you think. In fact, many of your comments have made me rethink my opinions on Y2, and you have definitely helped me understand how Liardet’s analysis of SPACE: 1999 complements and expands on the authoritative writings of Fageolle. While I respect and value Senmut for his important contributions to the SPACE: 1999 discourse as a fictional writer, I have a similar respect for you as someone who fights the lonely and seemingly impossible battle of defending Y2 against the view of cast, crew, fans and critics. In a way it reminds me of the idealism of Don Quixote as it is so clearly against all common sense, but there is poetry in your actions in the same way as there is poetry in Cervantes masterpiece. In fact, Don Quixote is from time

It’s gotta be the beer to time voted as the most important work within the Western literary canon, so I cannot say that I am not impressed by your efforts. Actually, I am deeply impressed, and I am also impressed by the way you always present your views in an intelligent and friendly manner, often with references to interviews and commentaries, and never do I believe I have heard you making personal attacks on individuals or in any other way behave improperly on the forum. This does not mean, of course, that I always agree with what you say. I think it would be more natural to say that my understanding of SPACE: 1999 is often the exact opposite of yours, but not always. The more we discuss, the more I am able to see that you have a good point now and then, and even when I disagree I can understand some of your arguments. For instance, when you interpret parts of what Freiberger said to Heald in “The making of SPACE: 1999” differently than I do, or have a different interpretation of the conversation between Freiberger and McCorry, I find it interesting that we sometimes reach different conclusions by looking at the same data. However, I wish we could reach a common platform for continuing discussions in a way that makes it possible to bridge the fandom knowledge of SPACE: 1999 with the scholarly or academic knowledge of the series that we see in the works of Liardet, Keazor, Bussieres, Iaccino, Wozniak and others. In this sense, my suggestion that we should think of Y2 in terms of pornography was an attempt to reach out a hand. My point is not that Y2 is pornography per se, but when we look at what motivated FF in redesigning SPACE: 1999 from serious SF into satirical SF, this could be thought of in the same way as how Paulo Morgado wanted to make a pornographic remake of S99/Y2 in the late 1990s for the purpose of trying to understand the series through the lens of Spanish political filmmaker Jess Franco. If we look at SPACE: 1999 from the viewpoint of Pierre Bourdieu’s theories of cultural capital, I think it would be possible to expand on Richard Bendell’s important Y1/Y2 classification scheme (message #28372) by

413

aligning it with French social theory that would further elaboration on the theories of Fageolle and Liardet. For instance, if we could equate Y2 with the cultural capital associated with pornography while Y1 would be aligned with that of high art, this could then perhaps be used in the context of analysing the dynamics of how Bourdieu analyses the tensions and interplay between cultural capital and economic capital. I’m not sure how far we would be able to carry out such an analysis, but perhaps it could be used for explaining some of the espoused differences in how GA and FF have talked about SPACE: 1999 in retrospect. But, it is not necessary to pursue the “Y2 = pornography” idea. To me it seemed like a natural extension of Liardet’s comparison between Y2 and BARBARELLA, and something that would definitely make his ideas fit with those expressed 15 years earlier by Fageolle and several other French intellectuals. It is quite possible that we may achieve equally much and perhaps even more by simply using Liardet’s connection between Y2 and BARBARELLA as means of allowing us to think of Y2 as satire. After all, the point I assume both of us are interested in, is how to read the political subtext of Y2 with similar ease that we do with Y1. By thinking about Y2 in a similar way as Y1 this becomes difficult because the Y2 format makes it difficult to understand it as serious SF, but when we recognise it as satirical SF, interpreting it in the same vein as BARBARELLA and other works of satirical SF, the format itself becomes less distracting. John B. ***

414


11.5 Brian the Brain In the comments and analysis section, at the beginning of this chapter, it was suggested that there were elements in “It’s gotta be the beer” that were reminiscent of “The Infernal Machine”, “The Taybor” and “Brian the Brain”. While the two first of these three episodes have been discussed in previous section, the next discussion thread was focused on “Brian the Brain”. 31724 Brian the Brain balor1999 Mar 21, 2016

BRIAN THE BRAIN is another episode that was mentioned in the context of how fan fiction aimed at comparing and contrasting Maya with cartoon characters can be helpful for providing new angles for understanding S99/Y2. In a similar way to THE TAYBOR, this episode contains elements of comedy while it also has similarities with THE INFERNAL MACHINE in the sense that it is concerned with themes like self-obsession, eternal life through technology and loneliness. This connection is also pointed out by Robert Wood: [The episode] is somewhat cute, but this ‘kidnapping power-man machine that wants to live forever’ story was told far better with Gwent in Year One’s ‘The Infernal Machine’. While the plots of the two episodes share certain surface similarities, there is no comparison at all in terms of execution. There is something to be said for the venerable theme of the danger of technology, which has provided some of the best plots in the series. Here, however, the potential of the theme is lost to the paucity of the script and realisation of the production (Wood, 2010, p. 344). When I look at Wood’s comments, I wonder if we might perhaps all try to learn something from how Kerry often contrasts the two seasons, and it would be very interesting if Kerry could make a comment on the similarities and differences between THE INFERNAL MACHINE and BRIAN THE BRAIN to get us going, but to jump one step ahead, I think the point Wood sometimes seems to ignore is how Y1 was made as serious SF while Y2 was satirical SF. In this case one might even consider the reference to the Swift spacecraft as a tonguein-cheek reference Jonathan Swift as a possible father of the satirical SF genre, although there

is a tradition in SPACE: 1999 to name smaller ships after then names of birds, such as Eagles, Hawks and Swifts. In fact, the way the word ‘Swift’ can be interpreted both ways was part of the 1997-98 ExE discussion of this particular episode, several discussants finding the relationship between Brian and GULLIVER’S TRAVELS interesting (Ogland, 2014, pp. 466-468). However, I think the real insights from the episode come when Liardet looks at it through the lens of BARBARELLA: L’agencement intérieur du vaisseau spatial et la reconstitution d’une planète à l’atmosphère irrespirable font partie des points positifs; l’intrigue propose aussi quelque réparties verbales marquantes («La qualité que j’admire le plus en vous, Koenig, c’est l’autorité, c’est très impressionant!») dont la teneur rehausse, par moments, l’intérêt de récit. (Liardet, 2014, p. 177) This particular point about how Brian pokes fun at Koenig as an authority figure was also something I enjoyed immensely when I watched the episode last night. In fact, I almost laughed out loud, and to me this what makes BRIAN THE BRAIN into highly enjoyable satirical SF, and thus completely different from THE INFERNAL MACHINE. Although the two episodes have things in common, both in terms of form and content – and I completely agree with Wood on that point, it is nevertheless important to understand the difference between Y1 and Y2. If we forget that Y1 is serious SF while Y2 is satirical SF, it would be like comparing 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY with BARBARELLA. It is a futile comparison in the sense that misses the point about the difference between mainstream realism and satire. However, it should be noted that Liardet shares some of the same criticism of the episode that can be found in the works of Wood and Turdo:

It’s gotta be the beer Alan Carter et Sandra Benes sont absents de cet épisode aux prémices intéressants – un robot ayant assassiné son créateur afin de pourvoir continuer à exister; doté d’une conscience, il est capable d’éprouver des émotions, pleurant ainsi la mort de ce dernier – mais dont les développement poussifs et les carences de la version francaise (ainsi la voix insupportable attribuée au robot, par ailleurs curiesement surnommé Marcel!) relativisent l’intérêt en dépit d’une solide mise en scéne et d’une conclusion satisfaisante. (ibid, p. 176). It would be interesting to hear what Kerry might have to say about this, but personally I feel quite the opposite of what Liardet is saying here. I thought the French version was superior to the English version, and in particular I found the voice of the robot in the French version to be a great improvement. In the French version he sounded far more whining. I think was a great improvement on the original in the sense that Brian sounds less like Jerry Lewis or Mickey Rooney (Wood, 2010, p. 341) and more like Mickey Mouse. Well perhaps not exactly Mickey Mouse, but at least far more extreme and deliberately annoying than in the English version. On the other hand, I don’t know why they changed his name to Marcel, but perhaps it was made for making the dubbing sound more natural, like they did in other cases like translating “Eagle One” to “Aigle Noir” (Black Eagle). John B. *** 31725 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Brian the Brain sennmut Mar 21, 2016

Yo, Balor...could you screw the French, and translate for us dumb Yankees? Mercy Buckets. *** 31726 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Brian the Brain balor1999 Mar 22, 2016

Liardet had some nice things to say about BRIAN THE BRAIN, like commenting

415

positively on the interior design of the Swift spacecraft and the atmosphere on planet ‘D’. He also mentions some of the things Brian says, like the unforgettable: “You know what you've shown, Koenig, is leadership. I'm very impressed. I'm making a note.” I haven’t seen anybody else specifically mentioning this great line, although Muir (1997) and Wood (2010) mention other lines that they find amusing or interesting. To me, however, the sarcastic comment about Koenig’s leadership is perhaps the single best line in the whole episode in the sense that it fits with Liardet’s interpretation of S99/Y2 as a BARBARELLA-like SF satire, and what is more typical in satirical writing than poking fun at authorities? Once again I think we see indications of Liardet’s 2014 reading of SPACE: 1999 almost surpassing the level of intellectual insights we have seen in Fageolle’s classic book from 1996. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Liardet is saying anything different from what Fageolle is saying, but what we see is how Liardet is able to show, in a rather straight-forward manner, how Y2 can also be read from the viewpoint of post-structuralism or critical theory. The reason he is able to do so is because he holds the key for how to understand the second series, namely by looking at it through the lens of BARBARELLA (Liardet, 2014, p. 214). As we remember from the opening sequence in BARBARELLA, after having undressed, Jane Fonda is suddenly interrupted by a call from the President, and when asking the President whether it would perhaps be proper for her to dress before they continue the conversation, the President says that there is no need for that, and goes on explaining the plot of the film in hilarious manner by hinting at his own incompetence and double moral standards. When Brian the Brain salutes Koenig for his brave leadership, it reminds me of this particular scene from BARBARELLA that pokes fun at leadership and authority in general. So, when Liardet, Wood, Tordo and others comment on the weaker aspects of BRIAN THE BRAIN, I’m not sure I agree. In the case of Wood and Turdo, I think they both expect too much realism, making the kind of comments that we associate with Muir (1997)

416


when he talks about internal inconsistencies within the episode and in relation to the greater narrative of the series as a whole, but to me this seems somewhat irrelevant when we are discussing satire. Nobody would make comments like that when watching Mel Brooks’ SPACEBALLS poking fun at the original STAR WARS trilogy. Nobody cares about the internal inconsistencies in a film like BARBARELLA. I think this is also part of Charles Crichton’s comment about Y2 being like ALICE IN WONDERLAND. When having gone down the rabbit hole or through the looking glass, issues like Maya mistaking the Swift for being a planet ,the computer having “slowed up”, or how many space missions were carried from Earth between 1974 and 1999 is totally irrelevant. If indeed they should be relevant, it seems more likely that scriptwriter Jack Ronder wrote about these things from a satirical perspective. For instance, the fact that Maya as the science officer of Moonbase Alpha believes at first that the small Swift carrying Brian is a huge planet, a gigantic blunder that makes her look like an idiot as Wood (p. 341) sees it, could be meant as a way of poking fun of political misuse of science, like in DR STRANGELOVE. In fact, I think it is strange that they do not poke more fun at Maya in Y2. If we agree with Crichton’s view of Y2 as ALICE IN WONDERLAND, what he really means is MAYA IN WONDERLAND, and there are important similarities between MAYA and ALICE, like how Alice drinks something that makes her small enough to enter through a tiny door and later drinks something that makes her larger than houses and trees. There are similarities in the ability to transform, although in the case of Alice she is more or a victim to what is happening around her than Maya, who tends to be more in control. For instance, in BRIAN THE BRAIN, Maya is the first to distrust Brian. In itself, this is not so bad, but if we look at Y2 from the viewpoint of Wertham (1953), making her into a superhero makes us suspicious of Y2 having a fascist subtext. Although Maya has much in common with Barbarella, Alice and Candy (from Terry Southern’s 1958 satire based on Voltaire’s ‘Candide’), if we choose to go along with Liardet in reading Y2 as satire, I think it would have been easier if she had been even more similar to these characters. Nevertheless, often

the satirical elements of Y2 sometimes work out quite well, and to me BRIAN THE BRAIN is one of the better ones in this respect. John B. *** 31727 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Brian the Brain SHANA G Mar 22, 2016

Another blabbering from the village idiot… Shana *** 31728 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Brian the Brain balor1999 Mar 23, 2016

In COSMIC PRINCESS Maya was politically naïve in a similar was as Barbarella, so in this sense I feel there is a strong connection between COSMIC PRINCESS and BARBARELLA. If ITC had made the film in the same way as they did with ALIEN ATTACK, namely to add some new sequences for the purpose of improving continuity, I think COSMIC PRINCESS could have been improved in becoming more similar to BARBARELLA and CANDY if they had added some nude scenes with Catherine Schell, done in a similar style as they did with Jane Fonda and Ewa Aulin. Among the many interesting comments from Johnny Byrne selected and presented by Martin Willey on one of his Catacombs pages, http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/crguide/v czjb.html, we can read the following: A bunch of us, including Thom and Regina, were living together first in London, then in the country where we shared a large rented house owned by one of the Bloomsbury writers. We were still living together at the time I joined Space. Zoref is the name of a late sixties friend. He and his friend, Christian Marquand, the actor, spent time in London. Thom had met them in Hollywood, along with Roger Vadim, after whom Regina named her cat. If anyone has seen the fun, but disastrous film version of Terry Southern's comic sex epic, Candy, you'll

It’s gotta be the beer see Thom Keyes make a brief appearance in a long tan leather overcoat. Christian had been setting this film up in London, and Brando appeared in it because he and Christian were friends from way back - Brando named one of his sons after Christian. Here we see that Johnny Byrne refers to CANDY in a manner that makes it into a natural reference for understanding S99/Y2. Not only is CANDY very similar to BARBARELLA in terms of being a political satire based on a pornographic premise, but we also see that Byrne, Keyes and the rest of the team of writers were fans of BARBARELLA director Roger Vadim, and CANDY director Christian Marquand was a member of the group. Unlike Byrne, however, I’m not sure I would describe CANDY as a ‘disasterous film’. I saw it quite recently and thought it was remarkably similar to BARBARELLA in many ways, and thus a potentially interesting model for understanding S99/Y2. As a character, Candy was quite similar to Barbarella. She was beautiful, and both politically and otherwise naïve, and thus the plot essentially consisted of sexual situations involving her and various representatives of authoritarian institutions, such as education, health, military, art and religion poked fun at. From this perspective, Brian’s sarcastic comment about Koenig’s leadership in BRIAN THE BRAIN can perhaps be even better understood in the context of CANDY. If we think of how Byrne, Keyes and the rest participated in the Grosvenor Square antiwar demonstrations in 1968, the strip-tease sequence where the general has sex with Candy and inadvertently gives disastrously wrong instructions to his troops is a good sendup. In many ways I would say that the satire was stronger in CANDY than in BARBARELLA, or at least more topical, but this also results in the film seemed perhaps more dated in retrospect. All the jokes in CANDY are playing on 1967-68 issues while the SF format of BARBARELLA makes the satire feel more timeless. If this is why Byrne felt less than enthusiastic, then I can agree that he might have a point. However, I’ve understood that they made a second attempt at filming Southern’s novel in 1978 as THE

417

EROTIC ADVENTURES OF CANDY, this time being more faithful to the original novel by making it as hardcore pornography. Morgado (2007) was of the opinion that S99/Y2 would be easier to understand if done as hardcore pornography, in the low-budged surrealist style of Jess Franco, but personally I think the results would have been better if they had inserted scenes with Catherine Schell or a body-double in COSMIC PRINCESS to make the film more similar to BARBARELLA and CANDY. Although Liardet’s 2014 analysis has been useful in pointing out how the cultural level of S99/Y2 equals that of pornography, I agree with Kerry that the pornography idea may still be leading us in the wrong direction. The reason why the writers of SPACE: 1999 were interested in CANDY and BARBARELLA obviously had more to do with how the pornographic nature of the stories provided a good structure for social and political satire, thus transcending the banal nature of pornography into an effective vehicle for disclosing the oppressive nature of capitalist institutions and making other hits at establishment culture. When Liardet addresses the relevance of BARBARELLA as a lens for understanding S99/Y2, this is what I think he has in mind. John B. *** 31729 Re: Brian the Brain kerryirs Mar 23, 2016

I'll get to my views on BRIAN THE BRAIN/INFERNAL MACHINE in another post, but this Liardet's comments was maybe because the guy was drunk or on drugs. Let's poke some fun at these so-called intellectuals. Besides, it's no worse John than you calling FF a fascist, and every name you can think of. And just as a reminder of those who have different views on Y1, I insert the comments from the site i posted earlier. http://www.agonybooth.com/tv/Space_1999_S eries_Review.aspx:

418


The point is, by the time this bunch tackled Space: 1999, they inarguably had plenty of experience in all the various fields of TV and motion picture production. They had no doubt learned from both their successes and failures what worked and didn’t work when it came to contemporary science fiction and TV programming for children and adults. So when I sat down to watch Space: 1999’s first season, I was truly baffled at how they had gotten so much wrong. What the author is referring to is all the experience that Anderson and his team had when 1999 came along, in his view, they still got it wrong. Not necessarily my view, but another's. This is to counterbalance some of what Balor has been saying. Maybe the author doesn't fit into the catagory of what Mr. Balor considers an intellectual, but I think the author is a down to earth dude who says it as he sees it without being high and mighty about it. Just a thought. *** 31730 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Brian the Brain sennmut Mar 23, 2016

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 kerryirs writes: I'll get to my views on BRIAN THE BRAIN/INFERNAL MACHINE in another post, but this Liardet's comments was maybe because the guy was drunk or on drugs. Let's poke some fun at these so-called intellectuals. Besides, it's no worse John than you calling FF a fascist, and every name you can think of.

Everyone is a fascist who does not buy into or promote his obseesion with the tired and threadbare Marxist class warfare sludge. Sadly, like other fossils, this isn't going to change. *** 31731 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Brian the Brain SHANA G Mar 23, 2016

Kerry I agree!!!

Shana *** 31732 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Brian the Brain balor1999 Mar 24, 2016

I cannot guarantee that Liardet was not drunk or on drugs when writing his brilliant analysis of S99/Y2 in the context of BARBARELLA, but I would be surprised if he came up with such profound insights if he were in such a state. On the other hand, Carl Sagan said that many of his ideas had emerged while he was smoking marijuana, so the phenomenon of using artificial stimulants is not completely unknown among the brightest of intellectuals and academics. To succeed in science or literary analysis, it is necessary both to be creative and disciplined. Some people have experienced that alcohol or drugs have been useful for coming up with innovative ideas, as Sagan argues when explaining his own case, but when doing experiments and writing up it is necessary with discipline, so I drugs or alcohol would be extremely counter-productive at this stage. So, if Kerry finds Liardet’s comments about Y2 and BARBARELLA to be so extraordinary insightful that they must have been ignited by a state were he has been able to go out of the box, perhaps by use of alcohol or drugs, then that sounds like a nice compliment to me. However, as my impression that Sagan’s use of drugs is not typical of how scientists and intellectuals work, I still tend to be somewhat sceptical of Kerry’s comment. At least, I would not buy the idea without further evidence, and as Kerry is the one who makes an extraordinary claim, I would see it as natural that Kerry is the one that has to provide extraordinary evidence. On the other hand, the interesting things about Liardet is perhaps not his methods of working but rather the outcome of his work. Next to Fageolle’s classic from 1996, Liardet’s book from 2014 is clearly among most important works ever written on the topic of SPACE: 1999. In the case of Fred Freiberger, alcohol and drugs, I see the situation differently. Here we start with the mystery of how anybody could come up with such a stupid idea as Maya. As

It’s gotta be the beer Landau, Byrne, Anderson and others have said, Maya was a terrible idea. This is something we often discussed, so there is no point in repeating everything, but here is a typical example of what Johnny Byrne has said: http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/crguide/v czjb.html I told them I didn't want to be story editor and said I would write just three stories for the next season, the first of which was called THE BIOLOGICAL SOUL and was roughly what later became THE METAMORPH except that there was no Maya in it. I had reservations about Maya, because I thought she was making it all too easy. If you have characters who are virtually invulnerable you lose out in terms of drama. You need your people to be in jeopardy and if she can turn into a beetle and crawl under a force field, that eliminates a lot of the difficulties. So, as Byrne saw it, the introduction of a character like Maya would only eliminate drama and make it difficult to write something meaningful. This is exactly the same thing that Gerry Anderson told STARLOG in 1980, when responding to some of the rubbish Freiberger had said in an interview published in the previous issue. Consequently, what turns out to be one of the major mysteries of S99/Y2 has to do with why somebody who was brought over to save the show acted in a way that made it look like he was doing the exact opposite. As Johnny Byrne pointed out elsewhere, at some stage it became known that Freiberger had a reputation as “the show killer” and Byrne started wondering whether S99/Y2 was designed to fail for the purpose of some money laundering scheme (Wood, 2010, p. 251). Although it appears to be no evidence connections between FF and organised crime, it is nevertheless interesting that the making of S99/Y2 made Byrne produce a conjecture along such lines. But, if we are willing to ignore the idea that Maya and Y2 changes were introduced for the purpose of making SPACE: 1999 fail, another possible explanation for adding Maya was that FF was a part of the drug community or otherwise felt like taking the main character from the drug Bible “The Teachings of Don Juan” (Castaneda, 1968) was a good idea. Although

419

Kerry seem to believe that the most likely explanation in this case was that FF was on drugs, I have tried arguing the opposite, namely that he was not on drugs himself but had noticed how it was not uncommon among a particular brand of people to watch the final third of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY while taking hallucinogenic substances. The way I would argue my point about FF trying to reach an audience of drug users rather than using drugs as means for stimulating his own creative processes, is based on my understanding of FF as a business person rather than a creative artist. Now I hope Kerry will produce counter-arguments, and thus help us get a more multifaceted picture, but my reading of McCorry’s interview is that FF approached SPACE: 1999 in a rather businesslike and instrumental way. My understanding of why he insisted on eliminating intelligence from the series is that it had nothing to do with his own intelligence but rather his understanding of SF audiences. What comes out quite clearly to me, in the early part of the interview, is that he was not seeing dope heads as the only target audience for SF. The main target he had in mind was the people who were discovering STAR TREK through reruns. While STAR TREK in the late sixties was a niche series, in the early seventies it had become a mass audience phenomenon, assumingly something FF was able to explain partly due to how STAR TREK: TAS connected with a younger generation and partly (perhaps) in how older people were watching the series while being on drugs. So, here I believe Kerry and I think differently. When I get the impression that Kerry sees FF as a creative contributor, I would rather see him as a “suit” who interferes with the creative work of the scriptwriters and artists for the purpose of making the series more commercially successful. I believe there is a similar difference of perspective when it comes to the issue of the fascist nature of certain episodes of Y2. The point I have been trying to argue is not necessarily that FF is a fascist, but that there are disturbing elements in certain Y2 episodes indicating that FF wanted not only to change the format but also the content of S99. He wanted to replace the counter-culture ideals of Y1 with the reverse values of fascism in Y2. This is another topic we have discussed

420


extensively before, so I will just summarise the main argument, namely how the point was raised by Martin Willey in his essay on RULES OF LUTON some time in the 1990s, how this point resulted in debate about how to understand FF’s impact on Y2 as a whole during the first ExE (Ogland, 2014, pp. 431448), and how these ideas were more clearly integrated with Wertham’s (1953) theory of fascism in superhero literature during the second ExE. Now, Kerry has raised the issue of how we can comment on FF’s work as having fascist undertones without also making indirect accusations of FF being a fascist, but as a response to this, I have tried to make counter-arguments in the same way as the issue of drug abuse, namely that FF may have been using fascist ideology in a strictly instrumental manner, in the sense of changing the political subtext of the television series for the purpose of responding to what he expected the target audience wanted to hear rather than what he believed in himself. Here I think there is an interesting parallel in Donald Trump’s nomination campaign. Although many have pointed out similarities between Trump and Hitler in how he plays on people’s fears and feelings in a speculative manner, it is less certain whether he actually believes in what he is saying. As a business person and demagogue he appears to be following the strategy of saying whatever he believes the masses want to hear. What he is saying as a public person may not necessarily reflect what he things as a private person. This is also how I understand Freiberger, and that is also what I believe Byrne was thinking when he was speculating about FF being associated with organised crime. Freiberger had a way of convincing GA and everybody else that they should do all sorts of changes with the S99 format for the purpose of reaching a wider audience, and by creating a sense of authority by referring to his background in SF, including the year with STAR TREK, he could tell the British that they did not understand how the “American Mind” worked, and thus position himself in a manner where he in practice overruled GA and everybody else. In the context of Trump, one might say that FF managed his “campaign” in a manner that made him “President” of SPACE: 1999. As can be seen in Heald’s book, how GA thought that FF was insane, and the way actors referred

to him as a ‘dickhead’, he quickly developed into a tyrant. However, as we now are discussing the impact of fan fiction that is done in the style of crossover-writing between Y2 and cartoon series, I think this is a great opportunity to explore Wertham’s theories about fascism in superhero literature more deeply. Something I would like to ask Kerry and others is to which extent “Nazi pornography” of the type ILSA – SHE WOLF OF THE SS (1974) could be used as a lens for improving our understanding of episodes like RULES OF LUTON. I watched this particular film last night, and I must admit that it was somewhat depressing to watch, as it existed essentially of naked women being raped, tortured and killed, I tried to think of it constructively in the sense of how Maya talked about ethical cleansing and racial purity in the ideologically central scene in RULES OF LUTON. In fact, I thought the film was quite useful in this context, and it provided a way of looking at Y2 as pornography in a way very different from how we see it as satirical SF by comparing it with BARBARELLA, CANDY and ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Actually, I think ILSA was a very useful model for understanding and articulating how to explore the theories of Wertham in the context of S99/Y2. John B. *** 31733 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Brian the Brain sennmut Mar 24, 2016

On 24 Mar 2016 balor1999@... writes: Here I think there is an interesting parallel in Donald Trump’s nomination campaign. Although many have pointed out similarities between Trump and Hitler in how he plays on people’s fears and feelings in a speculative manner, it is less certain whether he actually believes in what he is saying. As a business person and demagogue he appears to be following the strategy of saying whatever he believes the masses want to hear. What he is saying as a public person may not necessarily reflect what he things as a private person. This is also how I understand Freiberger, and that is also what I believe Byrne was thinking when he was speculating about FF being associated with organised crime. Freiberger had a way of

It’s gotta be the beer convincing GA and everybody else that they should do all sorts of changes with the S99 format for the purpose of reaching a wider audience, and by creating a sense of authority by referring to his background in SF, including the year with STAR TREK, he could tell the British that they did not understand how the “American Mind” worked, and thus position himself in a manner where he in practice overruled GA and everybody else. In the context of Trump, one might say that FF managed his “campaign” in a manner that made him “President” of SPACE: 1999. As can be seen in Heald’s book, how GA thought that FF was insane, and the way actors referred to him as a ‘dickhead’, he quickly developed into a tyrant. However, as we now are discussing the impact of fan fiction that is done in the style of crossover-writing between Y2 and cartoon series, I think this is a great opportunity to explore Wertham’s theories about fascism in superhero literature more deeply. Something I would like to ask Kerry and others is to which extent “Nazi pornography” of the type ILSA – SHE WOLF OF THE SS (1974) could be used as a lens for improving our understanding of episodes like RULES OF LUTON. I watched this particular film last night, and I must admit that it was somewhat depressing to watch, as it existed essentially of naked women being raped, tortured and killed, I tried to think of it constructively in the sense of how Maya talked about ethical cleansing and racial purity in the ideologically central scene in RULES OF LUTON. In fact, I thought the film was quite useful in this context, and it provided a way of looking at Y2 as pornography in a way very different from how we see it as satirical SF by comparing it with BARBARELLA, CANDY and ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Actually, I think ILSA was a very useful model for understanding and articulating how to explore the theories of Wertham in the context of S99/Y2.

You STILL bring in my stuff, however obliquily. I guess other people's wishes mean nothing in the face of your need to spout your drivel. Say what you will, it is my stuff you are referring to. That, and now you drag in Trump and Hitler, for insights into the show? Balor, this shit is sick. Just sick. *** 31736 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Brian the Brain balor1999 Mar 25, 2016

David Welle published a crossover between SPACE: 1999 and FUTURAMA on this forum

421

not so long ago. On Ariana’s fan fiction archive, we can find Tim Gueguen’s crossover between SPACE: 1999 and BEAVIS AND BUTT-HEAD. However, for those of us who consider Senmut to be the king of fan fiction, his story IT’S GOTTA BE THE BEER is the prime example when we think of high quality crossover fan fiction dealing with S99/Y2 and cartoon characters. Nevertheless, in my previous post I was talking about fan fiction crossover between S99/Y2 and cartoon characters in general. Although I was trying to make a point about how this type of fan fiction can help us understand the nature of Y2 as satirical SF in the style of BARBARELLA, which of course was based on Jean-Claude Forest’s comicstrips from the early sixties, pointing out the difference between realism of Y1 in contrast to the cartoonish nature of Y2 is not a new thing. I think Martin Landau has made this point several times. In the French television interview from 1999 he was very explicit, saying that the highly complex and fascinating world of Y1 was reduced to a flat Y2 cartoon under the leadership of Freiberger, and specifically comparing Y2 with MR. MAGOO. During the firsts ExE of 1997-98, there were people comparing Y2 with SCOOBY DOO (Ogland, 2014, p. 291), which could be a relevant comparison as this was one of the series FF tried to destroy when working for Hanna-Barbara in 1972-73. Others pointed out that his work with JOSIE AND THE PUSSYCATS during the same period may have been an even more relevant comparison (Cuda, 2008), and in an article Kerry recently referred to, Freiberger’s contribution to JOSIE AND THE PUSSYCATS IN OUTER SPACE was mentioned as one of reason why he gained the reputation of being the “show killer”. When it comes to the issue of fascism in Y2, based on an observation made by Martin Willey in the context of RULES OF LUTON and later expanded on by others, I think the crossover fan fiction that presents S99/Y2 in the context of comic strips and cartoon characters are relevant. I am now not talking about any particular work of fan fiction, but when we look at Wertham’s (1953) analysis of fascism in superhero literature, the kind of comic strips he is referring to is BUCK ROGERS, CAPTAIN MARVEL, FLASH

422


GORDON and SUPERMAN. So when we try to understand an episode like BRIAN THE BRAIN or RULES OF LUTON by watching exploitation films like ILSA – THE SHE WOLF OF THE SS, we are trying to explore the relevance of Wertham’s theories by looking at films that represent fascism in a less heroic image than seen in SUPERMAN and Nazi propaganda like TRIUMPH DES WILLENS and OLYMPIA. I think part of the genius behind Liardet’s analysis of Y2 is that he uses a satirical SF film like BARBARELLA for making sense out of the series. Rather than inviting to a deeper analysis of the fascist nature of Maya, Psychon and Y2, like perhaps Fageolle would have applauded, he suggests that Y2 can be read through the perspective of satirical SF texts that pokes fun at the fascist nature of FLASH GORDON, SUPERMAN and so on. This is the obvious nature of a film like BARBARELLA, and in the similarly structured CANDY, directed by Byrne’s friend Christan Marquand and where Thom Keyes (writer of ‘The Taybor’) plays one of the roles, the satire goes even deeper as it engages with police brutality and bourgeoisie morality as it attacks established institutions like the church, education, art, finance and so on. In other words, intelligent fan fiction can be used for helping us understand aspects of SPACE: 1999 that would otherwise lay hidden. John B. *** 31737 Re: Brian the Brain Kerry99 Mar 25, 2016

Just a short response. I learned that the first sentence of a paragraph is the important one. So the following sentence from Byrne's views from the Catacombs site says something. My differences with him (FF) were entirely creative. We both had a different vision of how Space 1999 should evolve, and Fred's was no less valid than mine. You know, they tried it Byrne and Penfold's way in Y1 and came up with some excellent

material, but they went with style and writer philosophy and sacrificed character development, with some exceptions. I was watching TCM recently and they had on a director and he said that he was told once that story and characters make a movie or TV series. I think that's where 1999 suffered in Y1, particularly in the character department. Characters have to show feelings or some kind of emotion. One example I can think of is in FULL CIRCLE when Alan compares the planet to Brazil and Paul's dead pan response was "Where the nuts come from." I assume that was an attempt at humor; it fell flat. This next excerpt from your post John I don't know whether to busrt out laughing or comment extensively, but I promised to keep short. What he (Trump) is saying as a public person may not necessarily reflect what he thinks as a private person. This is also how I understand Freiberger, and that is also what I believe Byrne was thinking when he was speculating about FF being associated with organised crime. Freiberger had a way of convincing GA and everybody else that they should do all sorts of changes with the S99 format for the purpose of reaching a wider audience, and by creating a sense of authority by referring to his background in SF, including the year with STAR TREK, he could tell the British that they did not understand how the “American Mind” worked, and thus position himself in a manner where he in practice overruled GA and everybody else. In the context of Trump, one might say that FF managed his “campaign” in a manner that made him “President” of SPACE: 1999. As can be seen in Heald’s book, how GA thought that FF was insane, and the way actors referred to him as a ‘dickhead’, he quickly developed into a tyrant.

Organized crime? Speculating or not Byrne was out of line on that. What does crime have to do with a TV series AND how do YOU understand a personYOU don't even know? Remember, Anderson is the one who hired FF, the man who bailed on him, as Roddenberry did, AND it was he and FF that pitched the Maya concept to Lew Grade. You've got to see the whole picture and the show as a whole, because the two seasons didn't take place in a vaccuum. For one thing, I think ITC demanded changes as much as you say FF wanted. I don't think he was this all-

It’s gotta be the beer powerful Oz figure who snap the whip and people jumped. That was probably Lew Grade, since he also laid the law down on budget and a time constraint. I 'd say that the cost of Y1 brought that on. Y2 wasn't perfect, unlike some who feel that Y1 is. It isn't a question of creativity, one season over the other, it's a question of fairness. You've bought into the Fanderson piece, the "mighty French intellectuals", Anderson's hostile comments over the years, those of Byrne, and Nick's vulger remark, and yet 1999 was dead after the first season. Now who is to blame for that? Let me see you put in text Anderson, Byrne, or Penfold or all three. Crichton's views seem to concern the show as a whole. Finally, you are now an all knowing person when it comes to FF's private thoughts? So you read minds now? Good trick. You could make a fortune on a psychic hotline show. *** 31738 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Brian the Brain sennmut Mar 26, 2016

On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 Kerry99 writes: Finally, you are now an all knowing person when it comes to FF's private thoughts? So you read minds now? Good trick. You could make a fortune on a psychic hotline show.

True, Kerry, but if he did, wouldn't he be exploiting some wage-slave proletariat, distracting them from the class struggle, with such bourgoise values? Just askin'........ *** 31739 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Brian the Brain balor1999 Mar 26, 2016

I’m not sure how Kerry got the impression that I have access to Freiberger’s private thoughts. Perhaps I expressed myself in an unfortunate manner. The only point I was trying to make is that the change from Y1 to Y2 has created a lot of discussion among fans of the show of why

423

the changes happened, so we have all been speculating in order to try to understand the nature of the change. As FF played an important part in the change, especially if we consider Gerry Anderson’s hint that FF might be insane and Prof. Dr. James Iaccino at the Chicago School of Professional Psychology (and former Head of Psychology Programmes, Benedictine University, Lisle, Illinois) indirectly supported Anderson’s diagnosis by holding Freiberger singularly responsible for the demise of SPACE: 1999, trying to understand FF is crucial for understanding the change. While I believe Anderson and Iaccino are in a far better position to speculate about how Freiberger’s mind worked, along with others who worked closely with him – such as Byrne, Landau and Tate, I think that is no reason why we should not try to develop our own theories on how SPACE: 1999 changed from realist SF in Y1 to satirical SF in Y2. As Kerry has probably noticed, some of us are now looking at Y2 from a much more optimistic perspective than what has been usual in academia for the past 40 years. There is a big difference between calling something trash, which is essentially what Fageolle does – and what has been the classical understanding of Y2, and seeing Y2 as satire by comparing it with works like BARBARELLA, CANDY and ALICE IN WONDERLAND – which is more in line with Liardet’s innovative reading of the series. Nevertheless, Kerry made the following comment: You know, they tried it Byrne and Penfold's way in Y1 and came up with some excellent material, but they went with style and writer philosophy and sacrificed character development, with some exceptions. I was watching TCM recently and they had on a director and he said that he was told once that story and characters make a movie or TV series. I think that's where 1999 suffered in Y1, particularly in the character department.

There are two things I would like to mention here. The first thing is the issue of style and philosophy associated with Y1. In the Byrne interview that both I and Kerry have been quoting from, Byrne addresses this issue in the following manner:

424


And to be fair to Fred, words like metaphysics and philosophy in the context of a show written for a mass audience, send all the wrong signals to those paying the piper. They conjure up images of talking heads and static cameras - something he had been brought in to eliminate. I still believe that Fred's changes and priorities could have been reconciled with the S99 we had established in Y1. This might have been easier had he arrived at the end of a Y2, but coming when he did, along with the abruptness and totality of the changes, left both seasons floundering, I feel. Nevertheless, Fred Freiberger was brought in for a reason. The reason was to make the show more successful in the US. Y1 had been a tremendous success all over the world, being shown in over 100 countries, but paradoxically in the UK and the US it had been less successful than expected. Of course, it had been sufficiently successful to create a following among fans, but in terms of critical reviews Anderson was less than pleased (Heald, 1976, pp. 187-188, 194), and the current question was how to make it more successful in the US. As Byrne points out, words like metaphysics and philosophy in the context of a show written for a mass audience could send all the wrong signals to those paying the piper. However, this leads into my second point about how Kerry argues that characters were better defined in Y2 than in Y1, and here I think it is important to stress that most of us, including Johnny Byrne, see it exactly the opposite way. Here is a continuation of what Johnny Byrne had to say: This thought may also be at the heart of the doubt I have about Maya. Contact with aliens had occurred in Y1, but always from the viewpoint of Earth people who'd view them as strange and incomprehensible as the rest of phenomena they encountered in their journey. Now suddenly we have an alien as part of the community, one whose differences were rarely if ever examined in any serious way. Sure, she could change shape, but in all other respects she was one of the gang, right down to her affair with Tony. Nothing wrong with that in principle, but it arguably shifted our perceptions of the

Alphans. Metamorphosis not only applied to Maya. Overnight it also transposed the Alphans from Earth people into Space people, a community to whom the limitations of present time was intrinsic to the concept, to one reflecting a community set in future time. My feeling is that, great character though she was, Maya's insertion into Moonbase Alpha at the time it happened, might have been premature. In retrospect it is obvious that Byrne was correct about Maya being premature. Clearly she should never have been inserted into the series in the first place, especially if we think of Y2 as a continuation of Y1, but now we have discovered something different, namely Y2 should not be thought of as a continuation at all. Y2 is no more a continuation of Y1 than BARBARELLA is a continuation of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. The premises of the two seasons are as different as the two films. Kubrick’s film was done in a realist style to deal to function as an allegory about social and political issues of the day. Vadim’s film was done in a satirical style for essentially dealing with the same issues. It is the same with Y1 and Y2. Despite what we have said about FF’s apparent goal to change the ideological content of SPACE: 1999, when we look at the series in retrospect, through the lenses suggested by Liardet, the overall impression of Y1 and Y2 is that they both embody the same type of political subtext, based on counter-culture values of the late sixties and early seventies. It is true, for some of us, that episodes like RULES OF LUTON, SPACE WARP and THE BETA CLOUD may be more easily understood through the context of Nazi exploitation films like ILSA – THE SHE WOLF OF THE SS, but for understanding the second series as a whole it is obvious that satirical SF films like BARBARELLA, CANDY and ALICE IN WONDERLAND are much more useful. Once we recognise this important point, I think Kerry’s argument about how the characters became more meaningful in Y2 falls apart. One thing is to say that the characters in Y2 were more clearly defined than those in Y1, and that could be a valid point for arguing that caricatures are more clearly defined than real people, but clearly they do not become more

It’s gotta be the beer meaningful in a psychological sense. The change from Y1 to Y2, as explained by Landau and others, is that they took highly complex characters and reduced them to caricatures for the purpose of making the series more accessible for feeding the Saturday Morning Cartoon audience. I think this is important to consider in the context of Kerry following remark: Characters have to show feelings or some kind of emotion. One example I can think of is in FULL CIRCLE when Alan compares the planet to Brazil and Paul's dead pan response was "Where the nuts come from." I assume that was an attempt at humor; it fell flat.

The Y1 characters were deeply emotional. Just think of an episode like MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH or RING AROUND THE MOON. You can take any episode of Y1 and enjoy the emotional and psychological quality of the performances of the regulars and guest stars, and then you can contrast this with an episode like THE TAYBOR or BRIAN THE BRAIN. To say that Taybor or Brian are more sophisticated characters than John, Helena or Victor in Y1 is to say that Jane Fonda’s performance in BARBARELLA was more profound than what Keir Dullea in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. It is an absurd comparison. I agree that Jane Fonda is cute and fun in BARBARELLA, giving a performance that is comparable to what Catherine Schell did in S99/Y2, but you cannot compare it with John Shrapnel’s Shakespeare-inspired performance in DEATH’S OTHER DOMINION or similarly profound performances by actors like Richard Johnson, Peter Cushing or Peter Bowles. The two seasons are worlds apart in this respect. In Y1 we see complex and interesting characters played by some of the greatest British actors of the period in a wonderfully subtle and fascinating manner. In Y2 we still have great actors, but they are all playing as though they have been instructed to act like onedimensional puppets or cartoon characters. Then we have the point about humour. Of course there is not all that much humour in Y1, for the same reason that there was not all that much humour in films like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, LA JETÉE and PLANET OF THE APES. In films like BARBARELLA, CANDY and ALICE IN WONDERLAND

425

there is humour in abundance, and character relationships are defined in a very similar way to how we see it in Y2. This doesn’t mean that films like BARBARELLA and CANDY are “better” than 2001 and PLANET OF THE APES. It just means that we are comparing apples and oranges. Y1 was made as realistic SF. Y2 was made as satirical SF. What do you say about this distinction between realism and satire, Kerry? Does it solve the Y1/Y2 dilemma for you? For me it has been very useful. For me this perspective has made it possible to think about the Y1/Y2 relationship in a much more constructive manner. John B. *** 31740 Re: Brian the Brain kerryirs Mar 26, 2016

I agree with Sennmut, can we ditch the French? I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. As for THE INFERNAL MACHINE and BRIAN THE BRAIN, both are similar, technologhy running amok, as has been seen throughout SF TV and movies. But one of the differences between Y1 and Y2 is that some episodes in Y2 got away from the deadly serious apisode after episode to an occassional lighter episode while still making a point. I remind you of the Trek: TOS episode THE TROUBLE WITH TRIBBLES, not exactly a deadly serious entry, but considered by many to be a classic Trek entry. Personally I'm surprised the Alphans weren't battling high blood pressure and all that entails after Y1. They seldom seemed to have downtime (once in a while you'd see a puzzle being worked or a concert).I've heard some of those who worked on the series were "burned out". I think Penfold may have commented on this. Too me it isn't just the story, it is the characters as well, which I see you don't talk about much, John, unless it's to take a shot at Maya or one of the others.

426


As for BRIAN THE BRAIN and THE INFERNAL MACHINE, as I said, there are similarities and differences. I'm going to talk more about the differences and the first difference is how the Alphans first come across these two. With Gwent, it appears on screen and contact is made. Koenig gives permission to approach, but only to a certain point. Gwent, trying to sound friendly, continues to approach against Koenig's orders. That's when the shooting starts. The contact ends up being contempt for Koenig and his people. Wasn't it Companion who said he always gets his way later on in the episode? As for Brian, the Alphans are reviewing what they'd learned on their journey when a sensor alert goes off reporting a gravity disturbance, probably from the planet. Now I'm not sure if an Eagle is sent before or after contact is made; it's been a while since I've seen it. When contact is made, the Alphans realize it's a ship from earth, another difference from THE INFERNAL MACHINE. No hostile act is made on either side. In fact, Brian is "happy" to see someone from earth. One thing in common Gwent and Brian seem to have is a sense of self awareness. I guess we can discuss whether Gwent is some sort of "living" entity or not, but for the sake of the discussion here, let's assume both have been programmed with highly advanced artificial intelligence subroutines that permit them to learn from their environment. That knowledge may come from sensors aboard their ships and in the case of Gwent, Companion may have aided in this learning process for Gwent. He/it seemed to require companionship whereas Brian didn't. All he and Gwent also wanted was to exist indefinitely. In the end, neither achieved their goals. Gwent crashed on the moon, maybe suicide (a human act) and Brian was forced to see the error of his ways, after Alpha recovered their computer files. Maya suggested returning Brian's data core and then thought better of it. It's Tony who suggested programming the Ten Commandments into him.

Finally, it is Koenig who discovered what was to be Brian's replacement which "upset" Brian. He states that if there is to be a replacement, he'd be the one to make the improvements, not some human, even if it was his Creator/father. I%ll leave it there and let others expand on the comparison, if they like. *** 31742 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Brian the Brain John Marcucci Mar 26, 2016

The only difference is that in TIF, Gwent was a human consciousness decanted into a machine as a way to become immortal.. An example of hubris more so than BTB, which was more of an experiment that went horribly wrong. Like Henry Pyms robot Ultron from The Avengers. Regards John M *** 31743 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Brian the Brain sennmut Mar 27, 2016

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 kerryirs writes: Too me it isn't just the story, it is the characters as well, which I see you don't talk about much, John, unless it's to take a shot at Maya or one of the others.

Because he needs to focus on those eeeeeeevil fascists, and how they oppress the enslaved proletariat. Characters are of no value, outside the struggle! Didn'tcha know? ***


427

11.6 The Breakaway convention To focus on aspects of the “Brian the Brain” discussion that had more to do with nature of the change between Y1 and Y2, the following thread emerged to address the need for investigating different opinions on Freiberger’s role in the change. As usual, this leads to engaged debates and insightful discussions as the “It’s gotta be the beer” discussion reaches its conclusion. 31741 The Breakaway convention 1999 kerryirs Mar 26, 2016

Check out the site and the comments therein. http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/w2con99 .html Here's what I found. Finally, on Monday 13th, surprise guest Fred Freiberger appeared to a warm reception. Space: 1999 fans have been split for over the merits of the two seasons of the show for decades, and Freiberger's honest recollections and opinions won over many fans who had condemned the Year 2 changes. Freiberger pointed out the series had been cancelled after Year One, and it was only by proposing radical changes that another series came to be made. If Year One had been sold to a US television network there would have been no need for any changes. If course, Y1 wasn't picked by a network and we can only speculate what would've happened if had been. I know they got feedback during the making of Y1 as it was in the can. I think they did during Y2 as it started airing while production was still going on. *** 31744 Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 balor1999 Mar 27, 2016

Thanks for sharing the link to Martin Willey’s report from the 1999 convention, Kerry. Although Willey is a reliable source, we must remember that this is his personal account of the events. At the links section at the bottom of the page, there is a link to Linda LeMienne’s account. Her summary of the interaction between Freiberger and the audience is as follows:

Mr. Fred Freiberger was a surprise guest on Monday. I commend him for appearing before what might have been a hostile crowd. In spite of things said about Mr. Freiberger, people were very civil towards him, and I was encouraged by everyone who spoke, and were patient with him.31 I also seem to remember reading a different report where we were told that the French delegation tried to boo Freiberger off stage. In other words, different people may report events differently. Although it appears that the people at the convention found it interesting listening to Freiberger’s comments about the series, he still remains a controversial figure. The point about the French delegates reminds me of a different remark Kerry made recently: I agree with Sennmut, can we ditch the French? I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

If it is true that the French delegation met Freiberger with booing, I think this illustrates the importance of including the French perspective. Without the contributions from intellectuals like Fageolle, Liardet, Rucki, Petit, Vérat, Wybon, Carrazé and so on, I think the SPACE: 1999 debates would have gone nowhere. I think it would be fair to state that the intellectual history of SPACE: 1999 started with the release of Fageolle’s “Cosmos 1999: L’épopée de la blancheur”. In fact, I think this could be seen as a fairly uncontroversial statement as the first edition of Fageolle’s book preceded Chris Drake and the second edition of the book preceded John Kenneth Muir. In both cases Fageolle represented the state of the art of SPACE: 1999 analysis, and in the opinion of some of us, very few writers have been capable of even coming close to what Fageolle achieved in these early masterpieces.

http://space1999con.tripod.com/Breakawayindex3.html 31

428


But, to respond more clearly to Kerry’s question, what are we trying to prove by including the French perspective in our discussions about SPACE: 1999? I would say that what perhaps makes the French perspective more relevant than anything else is the way these fans and intellectuals appear to have the cultural competence for reading SPACE: 1999 through lenses of sociology, psychology and philosophy in a manner that helps us understand how the series was an outcome of the period it was made and how it remains relevant today. I think this is particularly clear when we see how Keazor makes use of Fageolle for developing a theory of SPACE: 1999 through the perspective critical theory. While the first ExE of 1997-98 was very much a debate between positions argued by Fageolle (1996) against those Muir (1997), an important aspect of Keazor’s (2012) argument is in showing how Muir’s argument about SPACE: 1999 being a bridge between STAR TREK: TOS and STAR TREK: TNG is only a special case of the more important point that SPACE: 1999 can be read as an articulation of a particular point in history that functions as a demarcation between the postwar period of economic growth and the disaster decades that have followed.

between Y2 and cartoon characters has been highly useful. I am now not talking about any particular work of fan fiction but rather the “Y2 vs. cartoon/comic-strip” genre in general. I think this discussion has helped us see Liardet’s points about Y2 and BARBARELLA, and it has helped us look at previous discussions concerned with the fascism in Y2 in a new and more constructive manner. At least to me there have been valuable insights from looking at the distinction between what Wertham sees as fascism in particular brand of American comicstrips (Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Superman etc) and how some of these strips have been used as a basis for satire among French and Belgian comic-strip writers, such as with JeanClaude Forest’s BARBARELLA.

In other words, what we are trying to “prove” in our discussion is the relevance of SPACE: 1999 in the context of what Freedman (2000) writes about SF and critical theory. I’m not sure that the word “prove” is the right word in this context, as the relevance of SPACE: 1999 has already been “proved” by Fageolle and Keazor, and keeps on being repeated by Liardet and others, but in order to continue the discussion on how we can build on the insights of these giants of SPACE: 1999 scholarship, we must learn how to stand on their shoulders in the hope of being able to see even further. Actually, I don’t think we have done all that badly. The way we have been trying to make use of the theoretical and empirical research on fan fiction and SF audiences (Tulloch & Jenkins, 1995) for understanding how high quality SPACE: 1999 fan fiction can help us gain new insights.

***

Not at least in the current discussion about different perceptions of FF and the Y1/Y2 dilemma, I would say that the discussions about fan fiction designed as crossover-stories

When Kerry writes interestingly about the differences and similarities between THE INFERNAL MACHINE and BRIAN THE BRAIN, stressing the importance of characters, I think some of the points could have been made even more relevant by acknowledging how Y1 is realist SF drama while Y2 is a cartoon-like SF satire. John B.

31745 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 sennmut Mar 27, 2016

On 27 Mar 2016 balor1999@... writes: I also seem to remember reading a different report where we were told that the French delegation tried to boo Freiberger off stage. In other words, different people may report events differently. Although it appears that the people at the convention found it interesting listening to Freiberger’s comments about the series, he still remains a controversial figure.

Well, they were French. Y'know, after all... *** 31746 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 sennmut Mar 27, 2016Today at 2:41 PM

On 27 Mar 2016 balor1999@... writes:


Not at least in the current discussion about different perceptions of FF and the Y1/Y2 dilemma, I would say that the discussions about fan fiction designed as crossover-stories between Y2 and cartoon characters has been highly useful. I am now not talking about any particular work of fan fiction but rather the “Y2 vs. cartoon/comic-strip” genre in general. I think this discussion has helped us see Liardet’s points about Y2 and BARBARELLA, and it has helped us look at previous discussions concerned with the fascism in Y2 in a new and more constructive manner. At least to me there have been valuable insights from looking at the distinction between what Wertham sees as fascism in particular brand of American comicstrips (Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Superman etc) and how some of these strips have been used as a basis for satire among French and Belgian comic-strip writers, such as with JeanClaude Forest’s BARBARELLA.

Balor. go outside, and write "THERE IS NO FASCISM IN Y2. I WAS WRONG!" 100 times on the side of the building. *** 31747 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 SHANA G Mar 28, 2016

You forget that he is a MORON and can’t spell anything but Y1!!!!! Shana *** 31748 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 John Marcucci Mar 28, 2016

Wow. You have to be a special kind of a**hole to get a peaceable sweetheart like Shana mad you. *** 31749 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 SHANA G Mar 28, 2016

John M, I just find it utter ridiculous that the same thig said over and over, with no point. Who the hell

429

is someone to tell this forum what they can and cannot like based on an opinion only? We all have our opinions, and granted that season 1 was good, albeit, season 2 had some awesome qualities as well! BOTH SEASONS had their good and bad episodes but that’s over 40 years ago. I wish there would have been a season 3, 4, 5 etc. but we will never really know what happened as those that made the decisions have passed on. Someone just need to pull his head out of his ass, and respect others views and not act like a pompous ass! As always, Hugs, Shana G *** 31756 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 sennmut Mar 29, 2016

Come on, don't mince words, Shana. tell us what you really think!!!! *** 31750 Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 kerryirs Mar 28, 2016

I'm not asking what you're trying to prove by including the "French perspective", just why the need to put quotes in French. So you're bilingual that's fine, we're predominately Engliglish speaking on this forum, I assume. As to trying to get into Freiberger's private thoughts, or maybe his "real motives", as you've tried to to do overv the years, here's in your own words is an example where I think you're coming from, a nonsensical point of view. By lowering the series to the level of pornography, what Freiberger achieves is to gain a wider audience at the cost of eliminating what the original fans found attractive about Y1. In this context perhaps William Osco’s pornographic version of ALICE IN

430

Part III – Short Stories WONDERLAND from 1976 is perhaps a better explanatory example that I first thought.

Get real, man. You're entitled to your views, but this sinks to the bottom of the sewer for me. The French? What a group of fans. I've read on other sites how rude some of them could be. Too me, this is an example of how some people can take this fan stuff too far. Booing somebody because they disagree with them, especially when it comes to a TV series, is counterproductive, in my view. I'd prefer that people/fans ask questions to find out what led to a decision or a group of decisions behind the scenes. It might lead to an understanding why certain decisions were made. But if people walk in with a closed mind, no matter what FF or anyone else would say would change their views or open them to reconsidering their position a bit. Mr. Balor, 1999 was only a TV series that we all got hooked on, it's not a life and death struggle between nations, groups of people, or whatever. It's a TV series. *** 31757 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 sennmut Mar 29, 2016

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 kerryirs writes: I'm not asking what you're trying to prove by including the "French perspective", just why the need to put quotes in French. So you're bilingual that's fine, we're […] Mr. Balor, 1999 was only a TV series that we all got hooked on, it's not a life and death struggle between nations, groups of people, or whatever. It's a TV series.

The "French Connec....Perspective" is a prop. An intellectual crutch, to prop up his desperate a all-consuming need for the Marxist world view to be correct. With the collapse of the cuddly bear in Moscow, he needs something to keep him warm, and all that psuedointellectual French doo-doo fills a void, apparently. It has become a veritable religion, sorry to say. I can find no other explanation. ***

31759 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 balor1999 Mar 29, 2016

I did not see Kerry’s comments about the “French perspective” to be particularly concerned with politics. To me it read more like a reflection on how different people approach the series in different ways. The French? What a group of fans. […] Too me, this is an example of how some people can take this fan stuff too far.

Although it is nice to see that Kerry has a clear position on this, I have a different view. Contrary to the view that some of the French fans and intellectuals are taking SPACE: 1999 too seriously, I would say that their combination of emotional engagement and intellectual analysis should serve as a role model for all of us. If we look at the 1997 book by Muir, I would describe that book as strong on emotional engagement but weak on intellectual analysis (although Muir says that McFarland helped him to make the finished book more academic than the manuscript in submitted in 1994). When we look at Keazor’s academic analysis from 2012, we get the opposite. Here we have something that is weak on emotional engagement (because it is written for an academic audience) but strong on intellectual analysis. But, if we choose to use Fageolle’s 1996 masterpiece “Cosmos 1999: L’épopée de la blancheur” to represent what we mean by the “French perspective”, it is a book that is strong on emotional engagement and strong on intellectual analysis. I did not see any explicit political speculations in Kerry’s analysis, but I agree with Senmut that the “French Perspective” is helpful for understanding SPACE: 1999 on a deeper level. When Senmut talks about Marxism in this context, I think it is important to distinguish between the neo-Marxist ideology of the early seventies and today. The ideology that shaped the making of SPACE: 1999 is that of Marcuse and the Frankfurt school. As Johnny Byrne has explained through interviews, when engaged with issues like planning the antiwar demonstrations at Grosvenor Square they were helped by political activists who had participated in similar actions at Berkeley, and

It’s gotta be the beer this had impact on SPACE: 1999 because of how Johnny Byrne was still a part of this London counterculture community when he got engaged with the series. When we look at neo-Marxism today, however, this is something different, as Bould and Mieville’s important 2009 book “Red Planets: Marxism and Science Fiction” illustrates.

431

said something important in a response to my comments about reading Y2 through the lens of William Osco’s 1976 pornographic version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND: You're entitled to your views, but this sinks to the bottom of the sewer for me.

Where I think Senmut makes a mistake, is when he comments on the invalidity of this latter Marxist perspective by referring to the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s. To me it seems like Senmut is confusing the espoused ideology of certain terror regimes with how critical theory has used a Marxist perspective for disclosing oppression in societies that have been politically opposed to communist oppression. When we read the works of Marcuse and fellow members of the Frankfurt school, they are not defending communism against capitalism. Quite to the contrary, the point they are making is that the kind of openly oppressive mechanisms seen in communist countries could also be seen in capitalist countries, although in a more subtle and thus more dangerous manner, more like what we see in episodes like FORCE OF LIFE, MISSION OF THE DARIANS, DEATH’S OTHER DOMINION and other episodes of SPACE: 1999. In fact, more or less every episode of SPACE: 1999 can be read in such a context, and it is particularly in their ability to read such television texts in interesting and authoritative ways that I feel the French fan community has made a significant contribution to how we understand SPACE: 1999 today.

This is exactly the point I want to make. For me too, Y2 is indeed “the bottom of the sewer”. That is a wonderful expression, and it is an expression I’m certain that both Fageolle and Liardet would agree with, despite their disagreements on how to build further theory once this consensus platform of how to understand Y2 has been reached. What I particularly like about the expression is the way Kerry describes something sinking to the BOTTOM. We cannot go any deeper. We have reached ground level. This is exactly why it is so useful, and in this respect I am almost tempted to say that Kerry has by this expression made an important contribution to the way we need to approach the Y1/Y2 debate in a sensible manner. If we can all agree that Y2 is “the bottom of the sewer”, then we can forget previous misunderstandings due to how we have spoken passed each other due to poor choice of words, and now rather start building theory in a mutually constructive manner. We need to build a theory on how to swim upwards from the bottom of the sewer, so that we can get out of the septic tank and continue up towards the stars where we can discuss why the original Y1 conceptualisation of SPACE: 1999 made it into one of the most significant pieces of SF history.

Not only have French SPACE: 1999 scholars provided insightful analysis on how to understand SPACE: 1999 in a historical and ideological perspective, something that made it possible for Keazor to provide a landmark on the merits of SPACE: 1999 as a work of politically important art, they have also discussed how the series remains relevant for today and can in some ways function as inspiration for present political activism. Once again, it is the name of Fageolle that stands out, but, as some of us have come to realise due to the interesting Y1/Y2 discussions on Online Alpha, Liardet adds perspectives that makes it possible to understand the series in a slightly new way by also including Y2 as part of the analysis. In this context, I think Kerry

While using the 1976 pornographic version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND as a lens for placing Y2 at the bottom of the sewer, where it belongs, we can now return to Liardet’s less drastic models such as BARBARELLA for looking at Y2 in a more constructive manner as satirical SF, but I think it is also important to spend some time dwelling on Osco’s film. When we look at Charles Crichton’s comments about Y2 as ALICE IN WONDERLAND, I don’t know if he was thinking specifically about Osco’s pornographic version from 1976 or the original 1865 novel. As Osco’s film was made at the same time as they were making Y2, I would not be surprised if he was thinking about the pornographic version, but it is difficult to say as he makes no specific

432


references when being interviewed by Heald. So, regardless of what Crichton was thinking at the time, the important thing is how the 1976 serves as a model for allowing us to understand Y2 in an insightful and useful manner today. As I have said in earlier posts, I don’t think Osco’s film is particularly useful for trying to drag Y2 out from the bottom of the sewer. It is useful for framing the second series, but then we would need a non-pornographic version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND for analysing how Y2 could function as critical theory by examining themes like oppression and the emancipation of the oppressed. Unlike Y1, however, where the real SF approach can make liberating sense in terms of what Fageolle writes about in the final chapter of his book and what Freedman (2000) has written about SF and critical theory, I believe Y2 as satirical SF would primarily function as means for creating critical awareness. By looking at the “1% vs. 99%” society of today through the lens of Y2, the satirical nature of the series might be helpful in a similar way to H.C. Andersen’s story about THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES, but just like that story ends with oppression being disclosed by confronting the mechanisms of oppression with laughter, it does not go beyond the point of creating awareness. Similarly, when dealing with SPACE: 1999, I hope we can see that Y2 can useful for creating awareness, but when it comes to a deeper political analysis and how to stimulate political action, we need to return to the world of real SF and Y1. John B. *** 31762 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 SHANA G Mar 29, 2016

All; As usual the village idiot speaks, and yet with another useless novel of a post. Shana ***

31760 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 sennmut Mar 29, 2016

On 29 Mar 2016 balor1999@... writes: I did not see any explicit political speculations in Kerry’s analysis, but I agree with Senmut that the “French Perspective” is helpful for understanding SPACE: 1999 on a deeper level. When Senmut talks about Marxism in this context, I think it is important to distinguish between the neo-Marxist ideology of the early seventies and today. The ideology that shaped the making of SPACE: 1999 is that of Marcuse and the Frankfurt school. As Johnny Byrne has explained through interviews, when engaged with issues like planning the antiwar demonstrations at Grosvenor Square they were helped by political activists who had participated in similar actions at Berkeley, and this had impact on SPACE: 1999 because of how Johnny Byrne was still a part of this London counterculture community when he got engaged with the series. When we look at neoMarxism today, however, this is something different, as Bould and Mieville’s important 2009 book “Red Planets: Marxism and Science Fiction” illustrates.

I was mocking, Balor. Sarcasm. Can you not tell the difference?????????? *** 31761 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 sennmut Mar 29, 2016

On 29 Mar 2016 balor1999@... writes: Where I think Senmut makes a mistake, is when he comments on the invalidity of this latter Marxist perspective by referring to the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s. To me it seems like Senmut is confusing the espoused ideology of certain terror regimes with how critical theory has used a Marxist perspective for disclosing oppression in societies that have been politically opposed to communist oppression. When we read the works of Marcuse and fellow members of the Frankfurt school, they are not defending communism against capitalism. Quite to the contrary, the point they are making is that the kind of openly oppressive mechanisms seen in communist countries could also be seen in capitalist countries, although in a more subtle and thus more dangerous manner, more like what we see in episodes like FORCE OF LIFE, MISSION OF THE DARIANS, DEATH’S OTHER DOMINION and other episodes of SPACE: 1999. In fact, more or less every episode of

It’s gotta be the beer SPACE: 1999 can be read in such a context, and it is particularly in their ability to read such television texts in interesting and authoritative ways that I feel the French fan community has made a significant contribution to how we understand SPACE: 1999 today.

Again, Balor, I was mocking. You seem to not grasp the differences. *** 31763 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 balor1999 Mar 30, 2016

Some days ago I made the following comment, responding to Kerry about how our understanding of SPACE: 1999 has increased after making use of a particular type of fan fiction for expanding on the ideas of Liardet and others: Not at least in the current discussion about different perceptions of FF and the Y1/Y2 dilemma, I would say that the discussions about fan fiction designed as crossover-stories between Y2 and cartoon characters has been highly useful. I am now not talking about any particular work of fan fiction but rather the “Y2 vs. cartoon/comic-strip” genre in general. I think this discussion has helped us see Liardet’s points about Y2 and BARBARELLA, and it has helped us look at previous discussions concerned with the fascism in Y2 in a new and more constructive manner. At least to me there have been valuable insights from looking at the distinction between what Wertham sees as fascism in particular brand of American comicstrips (Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Superman etc) and how some of these strips have been used as a basis for satire among French and Belgian comic-strip writers, such as JeanClaude Forest’s BARBARELLA.

Senmut responded in the following manner: Balor. go outside, and write "THERE IS NO FASCISM IN Y2. I WAS WRONG!" 100 times on the side of the building.

Although I have empathy with the viewpoint that it would be easier to enjoy Y2 if it was not contaminated with fascism, I think we may be too optimistic if we believe that taking Liardet’s perspective will automatically invalidate Willey’s observations about the fascist nature of RULES OF LUTON and how this fits with Wertham’s theory of superhero literature. I agree it would be nice if we were

433

able to do so, but I do not think it is possible. One thing is the fascist nature of THE METAMORPH, where Mentor rules Psychon by use of military police for controlling the slave economy, but this is not the same as having main character expressing themselves through the means of Nazi propaganda in RULES OF LUTON. Given what we know about Byrne’s intellectual background and how the script for THE METAMORPH was not written too long after MISSION OF THE DARIANS, a natural way of understanding that story is as a conflict between socialism and fascism, but no matter how much Freiberger wanted to change the original ideological content of the story, it is more like a story about the nature of liberation from a capitalist society that has evolved into a fascist tyranny than fascism per se. In other words, the episode is more like METROPOLIS in the sense that it is unclear whether it is fascist or socialist. I would expect that most people would see METROPOLIS as one of the benchmarks of socialist SF cinema today, but when we read interviews with Fritz Lang, we know that he was not so happy with METROPOLIS in retrospect because of the way the class struggle conflict is solved. The script was written by Thea von Harbou, and as she was a kind of Ayn Rand-like author, writing novels that became increasingly patriotic and moraleboosting, METROPOLIS suffers from the same dilemma as THE METAMORPH in the sense of being influenced by two opposing political views. If we choose to read the original story about Maya and Psychon through the lens of what we know about the life and works of Johnny Byrne, then I think it would be natural to think of it as a politically sound satire in the style of BARBARELLA and CANDY, but if we choose to see it in the context RULES OF LUTON and other Freiberger texts than I’m afraid that a film like ILSA – THE SHE WOLF OF THE SS would be a more natural model. Actually, I think Willey’s identification of fascism in Y2 by commenting on RULES OF LUTON is one of the most important comments ever made on the second series. I don’t think he wanted to make a great point about it, but the idea got picked up by the Online Alpha community, and in both the first

434


ExE and the second ExE it became an important debating point for understanding the series. I don’t think the point is any less relevant now. In fact, I think it may be even more relevant, and for those who have not yet seen Don Edmonds’ 1975 exploitation film ILSA – THE SHE WOLF OF THE SS, this is a film that is quite helpful for seeing Y2 as something that belongs to “the bottom of the sewer” by means of looking at it from the perspective of Nazi-pornography rather than the fantasy-pornography in William Osco’s 1976 version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Here we see some of the usefulness of analysing Y2 from the “bottom of the sewer”, to use Kerry’s wonderful description of what I take to be the central idea in Liardet’s cultural investigation. The starting point for any analysis of Y2 is by identifying it as pornography, and then we can use different genres within pornography as a way of trying what it is trying to say. While most of Y2 is better understood as satire, the pornographic version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND may be a better approach than Liardet’s suggestion about using BARBARELLA if we want to emphasise the “bottom of the sewer” perspective. Particularly if we want to build on Crichton’s ALICE IN WONDERLAND theory when wanting to make sure that Y2 stays firmly planted on the bottom of the sewer, I think 1976 version of ALICE would provide a useful lens for understanding the story of Maya and the rest. On the other hand, if we want to argue that there is merit in Y2, Liardet’s advice in focusing on BARBARELLA is probably better. However, to return to Senmut’s point, I don’t think we can disconnect Y2 from fascism. The connection between Y2 and fascism has always been a controversial issue, and I am often reminded of Kerry’s point that reading FF’s impact on Y2 as that of turning it into fascism seems to imply that FF was some kind of fascist. Of course, this is not what we want to say, but how can we avoid even hinting in this direction? To me this is perhaps were the conceptualisation of Y2 as pornography helps us. If we think of FF’s impact on SPACE: 1999 was to turn it into pornography, with his own scripts being remarkably similar to ILSA – THE SHE WOLF OF THE SS, then we are not accusing him of fascism. On the contrary,

we are only saying that he was not concerned with art. He was only concerned with money, thus explaining why he wanted SPACE: 1999 remade as pornography, and the fascist issues become secondary as they are presented in the context of exploitation rather than an expression of his own ideological beliefs. John B. *** 31764 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 SHANA G Mar 30, 2016

John B, When are you going to get it? We don’t really care what you have to say!!! Your posting are not informative, just annoying. The have special doctors for your condition, they are called psychiatrists. Shana *** 31765 Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 kerryirs Mar 31, 2016

OK, John. You want my views on the "French perspective", as you call it. But first, politics. I'm frankly tired of politics and what is going on in the lead up to the 2016 presidential election here in the US is pethetic. Unlike you, I don't look for political conspiracies in every episode of 1999. Oh, sure. With Simmonds in BREAKAWAY, he wreaked of political expediency in wanting to get the Meta probe launched, despite a medical mystery and the safety of the crew be damned. EARTHBOUND, less so. It was Simmonds thiking only of himself when he attempted to take over the alien ship. He kind of reminds me of Dr. Smith from LOST IN SPACE. That comparison might send Mr. Balor over the edge. Now, to the rude French fans and these writers that John B. loves so much. First, emotional

It’s gotta be the beer involvement in a TV series or movie, or any other medium is fine as long as one's love for something doesn't lead to the disrespect of another to the point of insulting another person or their views, I have no problem. But when a group or an individual starts booing or calling a person a criminal (or intimating such), "dickhead", fascist, pornographer (in a round about way by comparing Y2 to the porn version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND, I think), then I have real problems with these people. This is why I think some take fandom and a fantasy series too seriously. And it isn't just 1999, but Trek, STAR WARS, 2001, and countless other examples. Some of these writers do add something to what has been written over the years, but I think some also detract from it. For example, Fageolle's comment that you like so much about Y2 either should not have been made or burned. This attitude tells me that this dude isn't open to any views on the subject other than his. That's fine, but whether he spoke in jest or not, speaking of burning the work of another human being has always bothered me. I wouldn't call for the burning of his book(s) even though I may disagree with ninety percent of it/them. I guess I remember seeing the burning of books, beating of people because they disagreed with the prevailing attitudes of the time. Fageolle should remember what France went through in WW II before calling for banning or destroying someone else's work. It doesn't take rocket science to understand 1999 or most other works of SF. In my view, these authors are over analyzing this series, bringing in stupid comparisons like BARBARELLA and ALICE IN WONDERLAND, the non-family version and you're falling right in line with that line of thought. As we continue discussing this, we always seem to get back to rehashing the same old thing, Y1 good, Y2 bad. You can believe what you want, but I think you need to turn your eyes to Y1 and do an critical analysis. I wonder if you'll be as hard on it as you are on Y2. Despite the fact Y1 had some good things going for it, it still lacked a lot. Let's see if you can find them and see if we'll agree.

435

As for the rude French fans, I've read where Byrne basically told everybody to treat Freiberger with respect. Based on what Wiley wrote, some fans came away with a bit of a different view, maybe not totally changed but open to a different viewpoint. That's it for now..Let's try and keep this civil. *** 31766 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 sennmut Mar 31, 2016

Or, how Maya is not only a Nazi, but a gay rights icon. Still working on that one! *** 31767 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 SHANA G Mar 31, 2016

Excellent post Kerry!!! Shana *** 31768 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 balor1999 Mar 31, 2016

As usual Kerry makes excellent points. I think a good way of responding to some of these could be by first addressing Senmut’s comment: Or, how Maya is not only a Nazi, but a gay rights icon. Still working on that one!

One way of interpreting this statement is to recognize a dilemma in homosexuals being one of the groups being persecuted by the Nazi regime. This results in the paradox of the interpretative tradition of seeing Maya and other aspects of FF input to SPACE: 1999 consisted of adding fascist elements, making episodes like RULES OF LUTON comparable with a contemporary Nazi exploitation film like ILSA – THE SHE WOLF OF THE SS, while others (e.g. West, 2004) describes Maya as a gay rights icon – something that may be supported by the existence of a phenomenon

436


like Gaybase Alpha. In other words, Maya seems function both as a symbol of oppression and liberation. It is an interesting dilemma. The way I would address this dilemma is probably by starting with the oppressive angle as FF’s destruction of SPACE: 1999 is such a dominant theme within discourses both within fandom and scholarship. Not only is it a dominant theme in the Y1/Y2 debates, but it is also important because it explains why Y2 caused such a stir. It was not only new sets, new music, new characters to replace some of the old ones that made people take notice. Some have expressed concern about the unexplained change of format, how the new series looked and felt like a completely different show, but from a scholarly perspective that is only a symptom of the real change. The real change from Y1 to Y2, as Willey points out in his analysis of RULES OF LUTON, is how the surface changes were indications of deeper change on the political level. With Kerry’s reference to the US 2016 presidential campaign, one might say that the political change from Y1 to Y2 was like going from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump. It was a change from socialism to fascism. I think this is important to understand the essence of the Y1/Y2 challenge. When Kerry writes about problematic aspects of Fageolle comment about burning and destroying all the Y2 copies and negatives, we have first to understand how Fageolle represent a perspective where Y2 is seen as Nazi pornography at the “bottom of the sewer”. In other words, if Kerry wants to compare Fageolle’s statement with historical events, the relevant image is not Nazi book burning but rather feminists burning pornographic material or Catholic priests performing exorcism and destroying books used in Satanic rituals. The central clue here is Kerry’s own important notion of “sinking to the bottom of the sewer”. When Fageolle is talking about burning Y2, he is not talking about destroying something of cultural value. Quite the opposite, he is talking about saving the world from some of the worth filth that has ever been produced. This is why Liardet’s analysis of Y2 by means of BARBARELLA is so important. It is important because looking at Y2 through the lens of BARBARELLA allows us to think about it in two different ways.

To continue with the classical assessment of Y2, let us start by the view shared by cast, crew, fans and scholars, and the Kerry describes as problematic in the following manner: But when a group or an individual starts booing or calling a person a criminal (or intimating such), "dickhead", fascist, pornographer (in a round about way by comparing Y2 to the porn version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND, I think), then I have real problems with these people.

I think Liardet’s point about BARBARELLA can prevent us from having problems with what Johnny Byrne, Nick Tate and many others have been saying over the years. Firstly, Liardet’s point about Y2 and BARBARELLA has to be understood in the context of how he compares Y1 with 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Looking at Y2 through the lens of BARBARELLA allows us to think about it two different ways. Just like the somewhat similar film CANDY, also from 1968, BARBARELLA was not based on pornographic material, or at least the people who wrote the Variety review used the expression “adult comic strip” to explain JeanClaude Forest’s original story. This means that one way of reading Liardet’s comparison is to think of this as Y2 “sinking to the bottom of the sewer”, indicating that this is where Liardet and the rest feel it belongs. From this perspective, there is not a long way from BARBARELLA to the pornographic 1976 version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND, which ties in nicely with what Charles Crichton told Heald in the “Making of SPACE: 1999” book. In other words, the challenge as I see it is not necessarily that we get offended by how cast, crew, fans and scholars thought that Y2 was trash. The challenge is how we can say that we may still be able find value in it. This is where Liardet helps solve Senmut’s dilemma of Maya as oppression and liberation, as I see it. First of all, I think it is important to interpret an episode like RULES OF LUTON in the context of a Nazi exploitation film like ILSA – THE SHE WOLF OF THE SS and not real historical events. In this sense it should be read differently than the classical Nazi propaganda in films like TRIUMPH DES WILLENS and OLYMPIA. The film ILSA is offensive, but it

It’s gotta be the beer is only made for the purpose of making money. This is what links it with Freiberger if we think of Freiberger as somebody who wanted to turn SPACE: 1999 into Nazi propaganda because he felt this might be a good way of making money. To me this seems like a reasonable assumption. The paradox of how Maya is supposed to represent both the oppressor and the oppressed is then solved through Liardet’s analysis by the fact that films like CANDY, BARBARELLA and ALICE IN WONDERLAND were made as political satire. If we are going to get Y2 out of the sewer, I think we have to acknowledge this, and by doing so, I think there are great opportunities for reading the second series through the perspective of how Maya can be seen as a feminist symbol, as an icon of the gay movement, as a symbol of the civil rights movement (Teresa Graves), and so on. In other words, there are great opportunities for finding value in Y2, but it depends on how we choose to read the series. We can read Maya as a symbol of the oppressive regime she represents, or we can read her as a kind of naïve Candy/Barbarella/Alice-character that stumbles through the universe on a voyage of personal and social emancipation.

437 gay rights icon – something that may be supported by the existence of a phenomenon like Gaybase Alpha. In other words, Maya seems function both as a symbol of oppression and liberation. It is an interesting dilemma.

Hell's Bells, Balor! The Nazis also persecuted Catholic priests, for God's sake! Is maya going to become the great Catholic Icon, now? Saint Maya of Alpha? This whole "analysis" (emphasis on the first 4 letters) is ludicrous! Utter crap! *** 31770 Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 kerryirs Mar 31, 2016

Thanks. Maybe some of it will sink in, but I doubt it. All I want is for John B. to at least become a little more open to the views of others, less strident in his hate for one man and realize that running a TV series or movie is a huge project with hundreds of people involved; it isn't black and white - A and B produces C. A lot of decision are made by higher ups that are out of the control of those on the floor or production offices. We live in hope.

John B.

***

*** 31769 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 sennmut Mar 31, 2016

On 31 Mar 2016 balor1999@... writes: As usual Kerry makes excellent points. I think a good way of responding to some of these could be by first addressing Senmut’s comment: Or, how Maya is not only a Nazi, but a gay rights icon. Still working on that one! One way of interpreting this statement is to recognize a dilemma in homosexuals being one of the groups being persecuted by the Nazi regime. This results in the paradox of the interpretative tradition of seeing Maya and other aspects of FF input to SPACE: 1999 consisted of adding fascist elements, making episodes like RULES OF LUTON comparable with a contemporary Nazi exploitation film like ILSA – THE SHE WOLF OF THE SS, while others (e.g. West, 2004) describes Maya as a

31771 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 SHANA G Mar 31, 2016

Well all I can say is “It’s better to live a your own man than as a fool in someone else’s dream” Shana *** 31773 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 John Marcucci Apr 1, 2016

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting tired of John Balor (aka Petter Ogland) mocking us here on this list, and by extension, mocking all Space 1999 fans.

438


Rgds, John M. *** 31774 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 SHANA G Apr 1, 2016

31776 Re: The Breakaway convention 1999 kerryirs Apr 1, 2016

Sennmut and Shana, I couldn't have said it better. Good job. ***

Well you know how I feel!!!! Shana ***


439

12. I THINK TONY WOULD BE VERY HAPPY The chapter consist of seven sections. The first section presents ideas on how the short story can be used for gaining insights and structuring debates. The remaining sections present insights from related debates, including discussions about how the story may be used for studying the relationship between “Dragon’s Domain” and “Space Warp”.

12.1 Commentary and analysis As the story is quite short, the commentary and analysis is essentially used for identifying or suggesting themes that can make this particular story useful for gaining new perspectives and insights on SPACE: 1999. One important theme is the issue of Cellini’s mental health and how this should be understood within the wider context of the political and philosophical themes in the Penfold episodes. 31775 I think Tony would be very happy (Senmut, 2009) balor1999 Apr 1, 2016

Perhaps some of the genius behind IT’S GOTTA BE THE BEER was the fact that it was crossover fan fiction, just like the fan fiction novels in the FOREVER ALPHA series. This does not make a story like I THINK TONY WOULD BE VERY HAPPY less interesting in my opinion, but it may perhaps be interesting in a slightly different manner. In fact, it would be rather interesting to hear some of Senmut’s comments on how and why he wrote this story, but one thing I like about it is how addresses the issue of what Moonbase Alpha keeps alive by making use of whatever they find. I don’t think this was ever explicitly mentioned in the television series, but Senmut makes a point out of this in several of his stories, and it is a natural point. In order to survive they have to exploit whatever knowledge and technology they come across on their journey. Perhaps it would be wrong to say that the issue of advancing knowledge and making reuse of whatever technology they find is never addressed in the television series, because VOYAGER’S RETURN is perhaps a good example of where such a scenario is used for producing the dilemma that drives much of the episode. While Victor sees the opportunity for making use of the memory bank from Voyager for helping Alpha to map out unknown territory and aid them in their survival, Helena is afraid that the risks associated with any engagement with Voyager are too big. Powerful technology can do great good, but it can also do great harm.

In Senmut’s epilogue to DRAGON’S DOMAIN, I do not see exactly the same type of dilemma, at least not on the surface of the story, but it is always interesting to keep at the back of one’s mind when reading stories dealing with such issues. In SPACE: 1999, technology and progress was always a twoedged sword, more often representing technology pessimism than a belief in a bright future. In this sense, Freiberger’s idea of making THE FUTURE IS FANTASTIC as a subtitle for Y2 clearly contrasts the nature of the Y1 stories, including episodes like DRAGON’S DOMAIN. However, before contemplating how Senmut’s story can help us see DD and S99 in new and interesting ways, I think it is proper to mention the usual high quality of the writing. For those of us who have read most of Senmut’s S99 fan fiction, we have by now perhaps been so accustomed to the high quality of the writing that we have stopped taking notice. I think that is a mistake. Particularly in the short stories, like in the case of I THINK TONY WOULD BE VERY HAPPY, there are great opportunities for enjoying what Kerry has described as the “flow” in Senmut’s writing and what some of the rest of us have recognised as high level of craftsmanship behind each sentence and paragraph. Something that has been previously mentioned is how Senmut has a rather unique ability to get into the minds of the characters on the screen and reproduce their mentality in a manner that make them feel identical to how we already know them. As I am not a fan fiction writer myself, I am not sure of what level of insight and empathy is needed for doing this, but it is evident that it is not

440


something anybody can do with ease. In particular, I remember one of the people reviewing another of Senmut’s stories saying that he was extraordinarily impressed with Koenig. Koenig is a character that is difficult to get right, he said, but Senmut got him exactly as he is on the screen. This is a kind of evaluation I can perfectly agree with. In my experience from reading some of the SPACE: 1999 fiction, I feel that Senmut often does far better than some of the professional writers in capturing the psychology of the individual Alphans. The way Koenig is characterised in I THINK TONY WOULD BE VERY HAPPY is a perfect example. When I read the dialogue between John and Helena, it was like watching unused scenes from DRAGON’S DOMAIN. What they are saying and how they are saying it is perfectly in line with how it was written by Penfold and how Landau and Bain chose to interpret it. Another theme that might be worth discussing in the context of this particular fan fiction story is Kerry’s claim that Y1 was not as perfect as some of us believe it was. When Kerry makes this comment, I do not see it as an attack on Y1 per se but more like a way of arguing that we should not make double standards when comparing Y1 and Y2. Obviously Y2 had faults, as Anderson, Byrne, Landau, Tate and most everybody else are quick to point out, but so did Y1. Or at least, this is the point I hear Kerry is arguing. Personally, I am not so sure. To me Y1 stands out as a benchmark in SF television. It may be less known and with a lesser following than STAR TREK and DOCTOR WHO, but in many ways it is a much more interesting show. That is how I see it. However, there is a small detail that makes TONY interesting in the context of the Y1/Y2 debate, and that is how Senmut chooses to make Tony Verdeschi into a distant relative to Tony Cellini. In other words, I THINK TONY WOULD BE VERY HAPPY is more than an epilogue to DRAGON’S DOMAIN, it can also be understood in the context of the Y1/Y2 debate. As I found IT’S GOTTA BE THE BEER extraordinary useful in the sense of making us look and discuss Y2 through the lens of innovative models provided by SPACE: 1999 scholars, I hope that this Senmut story will also be able to help us understand and debate

aspects of SPACE: 1999 that would otherwise be less accessible. John B. *** 31777 Re: I think Tony would be very happy (Senmut, 2009) balor1999 Apr 2, 2016

Another thing that fascinates me with I THINK TONY WOULD BE VERY HAPPY is the way the moral of the story is slightly changed. The way I understood DRAGON’S DOMAIN, it was an investigation of the ST. GEORGE AND THE DRAGON mythology from a modern perspective, ending up with the conclusion that those described as heroes at the time of St. George would today more likely be described as suppressed hysterics or given some other mental diagnosis. To me this is an important point of the episode, or perhaps the very core message that explains why the episode was written in the first place, but in Senmut’s epilogue this aspect is played down by having John Koenig confirm his views on Cellini from the early part of DRAGON’S DOMAIN and Helena admitting that she was wrong in diagnosing him as mentally unstable. What Senmut does here fascinates me not because I agree with what he does, but because he puts a question mark behind the commonsense interpretation of the episode by letting John and Helena align with a reactionary rather than progressive reading of the episode. At this very moment I feel a strong urge for explaining this point by referring to some of the most authoritative and insightful interpreters of SPACE :1999 and some of the best academic literature, but I will restrain from this as I’m not sure Senmut would like that. It is probably better to delay the more important type of analysis to a later stage when we can look at DRAGON’S DOMAIN from a more general perspective of fan fiction without making explicit references to I THINK TONY WOULD BE VERY HAPPY. Nevertheless, I feel much of the strength of this particular short story is not only in the beautiful way it is written. For me the story is even more interesting in terms of how it can be used for structuring debates and developing

I think Tony would be very happy insights about DRAGON’S DOMAIN and the relationship between Y1 and Y2. What has perhaps particularly struck me when I look at the two ExE discussions and the present FOREVER ALPHA fan fiction discussion, is how bringing up the controversial topic of Y2 causes more engagement than simple staying on the safe side and talking about the merits of Y1. I am not perfectly sure why it is like this, because the scholarly literature on SPACE: 1999 is essentially concerned with Y1, leaving only a few footnotes to comment on Y2 – often in a dismissive or derogatory manner, but on Online Alpha the pattern is almost reverse. It may be possible to go on discussing and exploring Y1 by engaging with the scholarly literature and expanding on some of the most insightful views from the important S99 scholars and SF academics, but such discussions seem to engage only a relatively small group of people. In order to create engagement all around the table, it usually works better once Y2 becomes part of the discussion. From this perspective I find it interesting that Senmut concludes his story with a scene similar to the burial of Gwent’s companion by saying that Tony Verdeschi was a distant relative, Cellini’s only kin on Alpha, and let Verdeschi give a moving eulogy where he quotes from some of Cellini’s poetry. So, not only is I THINK TONY interesting in the way it puts a question mark behind the moral message in DRAGON’S DOMAIN, it also challenges Y1 readership by making a Y2 character into a central part of the story. There is much food for thought and debate here. Not only that, but there is more. After Verdeschi has given his eulogy, Koenig shares some thoughts, followed by final prayers from the chaplain. Here we have a third interesting aspect that makes Senmut’s world of SPACE: 1999 different from Gerry Anderson’s series, namely including elements of organised religion. As in all of his stories, this is never done in an intruding manner, and it is always motivated naturally from particular events or as means for reflection or for driving the story forwards, but it is nevertheless quite different from the television series where religion is either dealt with through mysterious practice (Y1) or in an anti-religious or critical perspective (Y2).

441

Even though a story like I THINK TONY WOULD BE VERY HAPPY is quite short in terms of word count, it nevertheless has great potential for raising debates and gaining insights on SPACE: 1999 due to the way it at least deals with at least three controversial issues. For those of us who have taken delight in reading the complete works of Senmut’s SPACE: 1999 fan fiction, none of the three controversial issues mentioned in this particular short story come as a surprise. They are all part of how the FOREVER ALPHA universe functions, and personally I have often described this particular universe as the Y3 of SPACE: 1999, but it is a universe that merges the seemingly incompatible series of Y1 and Y2 with completely different series such as FOREVER KNIGHT, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and BUGS BUNNY, plus some of Senmut’s personal ideas that I don’t think are necessarily present in any of these series, yet magically makes his vision of SPACE: 1999 emerge as a coherent whole. Although I do not expect a story like I THINK TONY WOULD BE VERY HAPPY to create the same level of engagement and discussion as we experienced in the case of the magnificent IT’S GOTTA BE THE BEER, I still think the story contain so many interesting ideas that it should result in interesting debates and hopefully also new insights on SPACE: 1999 as a whole. John B. *** 31778 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: I think Tony would be very happy (Senmut, 2009) sennmut Apr 3, 2016

On 02 Apr 2016 balor1999@... writes: What Senmut does here fascinates me not because I agree with what he does, but because he puts a question mark behind the commonsense interpretation of the episode by letting John and Helena align with a reactionary rather than progressive reading of the episode. At this very moment I feel a strong urge for explaining this point by referring to some of the most authoritative and insightful interpreters of SPACE :1999 and some of the best academic literature, but I will restrain from this as I’m not sure Senmut would like that. It is probably

442

Part III – Short Stories better to delay the more important type of analysis to a later stage when we can look at DRAGON’S DOMAIN from a more general perspective of fan fiction without making explicit references to I THINK TONY WOULD BE VERY HAPPY.

Sigh. It has zilch to do with "reactionary" vs "progressive" anything, Balor. I don't believe in that slop, so I don't write accordingly. I wrote it the way I did because I felt the original ending was too abrupt. I realize alot of that has to do with the time constaints of a television production. You can't, sometimes sadly, include everything. But I just felt that the supplies and equipment left aboard the probe ship were too great a find to just leave behind. Alpha needs every diode they can lay their hands on. Trying to secure the probe ship seemed a quite logical thing to attempt. Besides, leaving the slaughtered astronauts behind just didn't seem right to me, and I would have written it differently, had the script been mine. The funeral was subdued, since it was intended as a cap to things, with little real drama in itself. Having Verdeschi make so brief an appearance was a cheap way of linking Y1 and Y2. There was no "suppressed hysterics" in it, merely the revelation that Cellini was after all, right. sadly, to the cost of Alpha. There was a monster aboard the derelict fleet, and no amount of counselling or therapy, or other psychobabble drivel, is going to change that objective reality. That is really all there is to my ending. Once helena understands that the monster was real, she naturally shows caution at bringing the remains to Alpha. Since this is a totally alien life form, how can they be sure it's really dead? There are no "vs" here, between reactionary and progressive. No Marxist dialectic. Merely the caution of a scientist, and doctor, doing her job. Keeping Alpha safe, and the balance between that, and the need for what is aboard the probe vessel. And naught else. *** 31779 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: I think Tony would be very happy (Senmut, 2009) balor1999

Apr 3, 2016

It is always useful to get feedback from the author to make sure we are not reading things into the story that were not intended to be so. Nevertheless, “I THINK TONY WOULD BE VERY HAPPY” is story that has received much acclaim, and I think Senmut is too modest to admit why his stories are uniformly described as high quality fan fiction. 1) Ideological interpretation I think the importance of Helena’s attitude is the central point here. Although she diagnosed Cellini as a suppressed hysteric, thus making his mental condition as a better explanation than any possible real events when interpreting his account of what happened during the Ultra Mission, this does not automatically make her assessment wrong when they discover that his story was based on reality. To me Cellini behaves in an irresponsible manner through the whole episode. Why he was allowed back to Moonbase Alpha after the Ultra Mission events is surprising to me, but as the story does not go into this, we have to accept that he is there for some reason. However, it is interesting how Koenig describes him as an individualist, and how we might interpret this in the context of how Barry Morse has spoken about Moonbase Alpha as a socialist outfit. Of course, there is nothing wrong with being an individualist per se, and all scientists are individualists to a certain way, Victor Bergman probably more than anybody else, but individual strength also has to function in the context of what is good for the community as a whole. That is a dilemma that we saw investigated in DEATH’S OTHER DOMINION where Dr. Rowland personal visions and ambitions did not fit with those of his community, and to a lesser degree it was also a theme in THE INFERNAL MACHINE when Gwent talks about the scientist that made him not being sufficiently appreciated on the planet they came from. Also, in EARTHBOUND, when Simmonds no longer represents anybody beyond himself, his attitudes are no longer compatible with what serves the community as a whole. Tony Cellini is yet another example. When Koenig talks about him as a poet, astronaut and scientist in the early part of the episode, and

I think Tony would be very happy the way we see Cellini in these scenes taking place some years before the timeline of the episode, he seems more like Rowland, Gwent and Simmonds than somebody concerned with issues like social justice and responsibility. So, when we see Koenig have such high esteem for Cellini, this can help us understand why he wanted to show off in BREAKAWAY and BLACK SUN, doing things that were either unnecessary or should have been done by others, and was thus scolded by Helena. Obviously Koenig suffers from some kind of interiority complex in relation to Cellini, or is otherwise misguided in his belief that the actions of this suppressed hysteric are heroic in the sense being a role model for potentially responsible people like himself. This is why it seems to me that the message that Penfold wants to make in this episode is that people acting heroically are usually people who are acting irrationally. The rational people in DRAGON’S DOMAIN are people like Helena, Victor and Dixon. Cellini is clearly irrational. John Koenig is somewhere between rational and irrational. Koenig worships Cellini for his many achievements, but he can also see the rationality behind the arguments made by the others when trying to look at alternative explanations of what actually happened on the Ultra Mission. So, what I believe Penfold is saying here is that Cellini is the type of person that would hijack a plane and crash it into a building. Although he may have reasons for doing so, they are reasons that are not acceptable for society as a whole, and that is why it is better to diagnose him with mental illness that describing him as some kind of hero. As we know, many of the leading figures in history have been diagnosed as being mentally disturbed. For instance, it has been argued that Stalin’s cruelty and paranoia could be explained suggesting that he had a ‘degenerative brain condition’ (The Telegraph, 21 April 2011)32. Similarly, research from Oxford University has suggested that people like Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher had ‘psychopathic tendencies’ (BBC News, 18 June 2013)33. In DRAGON’S DOMAIN we

443

have Penfold playing with this idea in suggested that mythological heroes, such as St. George, were actually mentally disturbed people, and we have to be particularly careful with people like that today, if they are able to get into position of power. So, even though I understand what Senmut is saying in terms of time constraints of television production and that he felt the episode ended too abruptly, I would still argue that he adds valuable input to the discussion by writing an epilogue where the reverse of what I expect to be Penfold’s purpose with the episode is made into the final word. I do not think there is any harm done by rewriting the morals in the epilogue, especially when it is done with the usual skills that we all have come to expect from somebody like Senmut, but I still think it matters in terms of how to read the episode. As we have discussed earlier, towards the end of Y1 they were reaching a fatigue that makes the nature of some episode feel somewhat closer to what we would see in Y2, so by indirectly reversing the political subtext of DRAGON’S DOMAIN, and including a character from Y2, I think Senmut adds interesting food for thought and discussion. 2) The linking of Y1 and Y2 Applying his usual modesty when it comes to commenting on his own writing, Senmut calls the inclusion of Tony Verdeschi as a “cheap way of linking Y1 and Y2”. Although I can appreciate Senmut’s characteristic modesty, to me there is nothing cheap about his writing. As many of us have said, in different circumstances, Senmut’s contribution to SPACE: 1999 fiction often makes it natural to think of him in a similar way as how we think of Penfold and Byrne, and among fellow SPACE: 1999 fan fiction writers he is clearly among the best. For instance, parts of Chip Bell’s review of Senmut’s story goes as follows (Sep 18, 2009)34: Excellent excellent excellent! […]. Space warp is one of my favorite episodes because of the derelict they salvage and work with. The idea that alpha could have it’s capabilities expanded in such a way is utterly fascinating

32http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/euro

pe/russia/8466880/Josef-Stalin-had-degenerativebrain-condition.html

33 34

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-22952211 https://www.fanfiction.net/r/5291829/

444


This particular review built on Mackon’s earlier review (Aug 11, 2009)35: [..] It always bugged me how they abandoned all the resources & knowledge in that fleet of derelict ships. It makes sense that they wouldn't expand too much effort on the alien gear they may never be able to use (although the scene at the end of the Season 2 episode 'Space Warp' where they detach the alien ship that they were using as a booster is the one that really sticks in my head)Its good to see it put to rights. What we see here is how reviewers respond to Senmut’s link between Y1 and Y2. Both Mackon and Chip Bell refer to SPACE WARP where Tony Verdeschi plays an important part. To me there is nothing “cheap” about how Tony Verdeschi is used in “I THINK TONY WOULD BE VERY HAPPY”. It is exactly the opposite. The reference to Verdeschi is intelligent and subtle, as can be seen by the following comments from Jovian Jeff (April 9, 2010)36: That was awesome! Am I right in the gist of the other post and you have more of these stories elsewhere? I love the Space 1999 stories you've done, making Tony a relative was a nice touch, especially as I recall a commentary, Tony Cellini's was suppose to be a regular on the show, which Tony Verdeschi became. Well even if that is all bogus, great work, and a nice piece all around. Here we see somebody who really appreciates the value of what Senmut did by referring to the history of the series by how Tony Cellini was originally supposed to be Alphonse Catani (to be played by Giancarlo Prete from THE TROUBLED SPIRIT), but was then changed into Alan Carter. As Jovian Jeff points out, making Tony Verdeschi into a distant relative of Tony Cellini becomes a nice touch for reminding us of how Cellini/Catani was originally intended to be a regular character.

35

https://www.fanfiction.net/r/5291829/

36https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/%E2%80

%9Ci-think-tony-would-be-veryhappy%E2%80%A6%E2%80%9D-a-space-1999story.164425/

3) Organised religion Although I agree with Senmut’s point that the funeral was subdued, at least in comparison with other of his stories where the issue of religion has been integrated in an intelligent and through-provoking manner, I still think it matters. I think it matters because the introduction of a chaplain and religious rituals contrasts the way religion is dealt with in Y1 and Y2. Although Moonbase Alpha can be seen as a metaphor for humanity in general, and for many people organised religion plays an important part in life, I would find it surprising if a research community on the Moon, consisting of no more than 311 people, would include a chaplain in addition to scientists, engineers, technicians, administration, medical and security. In fact, my expectations of the attitudes in such an environment would probably be more similar to what Maya talks about in NEW ADAM NEW EVE, namely making arguments similar to what Carl Sagan later did on COSMOS in questioning the rationality of traditional religious belief systems. Nevertheless, religion plays an important part in Y1, although more in the style of New Age mysticism as when they are guided through the BLACK SUN or the absurd situation in COLLISION COURSE where they are convinced to abandon reason in the hope that a mysterious event will save them as Moon is about to crash into a planet. Religion plays an important part within the plots and themes in SPACE: 1999, but never in a manner where traditional belief systems are supported or taken for granted. Quite to the contrary, when Victor is being asked by John about his belief in God, Victor answers avoidingly by referring to ‘Cosmic Intelligence’. He clearly distances himself from traditional religion here, just as John Koenig does in the manner of how the question is posed. Nevertheless, it is Victor who brings up the theme of exorcism in THE TROUBLED SPIRIT, and it is Victor who says ‘amen’ when completing the improvised ritual before they send Gwent’s companion out into space. Even though I think Senmut adds food for thought and debate by including the funeral scene in the way he does, the more immediate value of the story is perhaps better expressed in Qtelatino’s review (Aug 11, 2009)37:

I think Tony would be very happy

A very touching, nice and fitting conclusion to Dragon's Domian"s four victims. Very nice. Keep up the good work. To me “I THINK TONY WOULD BE VERY HAPPY” is an interesting episode because of the three controversial issues it presents, but not only because of the intellectual implications of the episode, it is also a profoundly successful story on an emotional level, so in this sense I would say that the intellectual implications do not distract from experiencing the story as a nice and touching piece of small-scale fan fiction. John B. *** 31780 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: I think Tony would be very happy (Senmut, 2009) sennmut Apr 4, 2016

On 03 Apr 2016 balor1999@... writes: This is why it seems to me that the message that Penfold wants to make in this episode is that people acting heroically are usually people who are acting irrationally. The rational people in DRAGON’S DOMAIN are people like Helena, Victor and Dixon. Cellini is clearly irrational. John Koenig is somewhere between rational and irrational. Koenig worships Cellini for his many achievements, but he can also see the rationality behind the arguments made by the others when trying to look at alternative explanations of what actually happened on the Ultra Mission. So, what I believe Penfold is saying here is that Cellini is the type of person that would hijack a plane and crash it into a building. Although he may have reasons for doing so, they are reasons that are not acceptable for society as a whole, and that is why it is better to diagnose him with mental illness that describing him as some kind of hero.

But, Cellini is NOT ill, in any way. The alien derelicts, as well as the monster, ARE objectively real. Cellini is right, and those who would deign to adjudge him as non compis mentis are objectively wrong. Mental illness doesn't even enter into it.

37

https://www.fanfiction.net/r/5291829/

445

As we know, many of the leading figures in history have been diagnosed as being mentally disturbed. For instance, it has been argued that Stalin’s cruelty and paranoia could be explained suggesting that he had a ‘degenerative brain condition’ (The Telegraph, 21 April 2011). Similarly, research from Oxford University has suggested that people like Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher had ‘psychopathic tendencies’ (BBC News, 18 June 2013). In DRAGON’S DOMAIN we have Penfold playing with this idea in suggested that mythological heroes, such as St. George, were actually mentally disturbed people, and we have to be particularly careful with people like that today, if they are able to get into position of power.

Stalin was a creep because Stalin chose to be a creep. As to Churchill and Thatcher, they are among the best Western Civ has produced, and you are letting your dislike of "class" creep in again. Naughty, naughty! *** 31781 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: I think Tony would be very happy (Senmut, 2009) balor1999 Apr 4, 2016

The story told by Cellini turned out to be true, but, as far as I am concerned, the question of his mental condition seemed to remain unsolved. When I watched both DRAGON’S DOMAIN and SPACE WARP last night, to understand the connection some of the fan fiction reviewers pointed out, what I found the most interesting about DRAGON’S DOMAIN were issues like how Cellini responded to Helena’s medical examination by saying that he was NOT RATIONAL. He was not interested in conducting rational conversations. From the viewpoint of the world, as he presented it, he might be talking about Santa Clause and now he expected Helena to make questions about his sex life in order to search for explanations for his remarkable story by means of psychological condition. I’m not even sure if he was a rational person before the encounter with the Dragon, but to me it seemed as though the latent mental instability was released or became more apparent after the event. In another scene Dr. Russell says that she was against the idea of bringing Cellini back to Moonbase Alpha while Koenig responds that this was a decision

446


he felt was right. In other words, bringing Cellini back must have been something that happened during an early stage of the BREAKAWAY episode, after Koenig had met with Gorski, but probably before problems started piling up. Exactly why Koenig wanted to add a mentally unstable person to Moonbase Alpha seems a bit unclear to me, but when we look at the work done by Prof. Dutton at the University of Oxford, his comment on having psychopaths like Churchill and Thatcher run the country was that mental illness can sometimes be useful. In a time of national or world crisis, human qualities like compassion and empathy may not be as valuable as they are under normal circumstances, so that is why psychopaths can raise to power and sometimes even be of use for the nation, as was the case with Winston Churchill. In the case of Mrs. Thatcher, on the other hand, I did not notice Prof. Dutton having anything positive about the outcome of her influence, but we see how Cellini is also a man without empathy and morals. He is focused only on one thing, and thus manipulates everybody else in order to be able to carry out his mission. To me it is not so much a question about whether Russell or Koenig was right. Cellini is obviously unstable all the time we see him. He is a fictional version of the phenomenon Prof. Dutton was talking about when it comes to people in power or extraordinary achievements. Some of these people, like the politicians Dutton looked at, would tell people anything or do whatever to achieve their goals. They are clearly totally untrustworthy, and yet people vote for them to become their national leaders. This is perhaps what strikes me as most interesting with this particular episode, when looking at it again. Why does Koenig believe that Cellini is fit for leadership and responsibility? Why is he of this opinion when the more commonsensical view expressed by Helena and Victor is that he is not. Here I think Senmut’s “weak link” between Y1 and Y2 is useful. As Y1 and Y2 are connected by Verdeschi giving a speech during the funeral, this provides us with an opportunity for a theme we have discussed many times before, namely how Koenig developed into a “strong” leader Y2 and how everything

associated with his new regime gradually turned in direction of fascism. Although this is an aspect of Y2 that has been less debated recently, because of how we have chosen to look at Liardet’s more optimistic view of Y2 through the lens of satire instead, but when fan fiction reviewers start pointing out the relationship between episodes like DRAGON’S DOMAIN and SPACE WARP, then perhaps it is time to take notice. RULES OF LUTON has been used as the entry point for discussing fascism in Y2, but we should probably try to investigate episodes like THE BETA CLOUD and SPACE WARP more deeply to see how this ideology may be expressed in these episodes. In fact, when I watched SPACE WARP last night, I kept on reminding myself of the 1975 Nazi exploitation film ILSA – THE SHE WOLF OF SS, and there are indeed strong similarities. The main problem, however, is that Ilsa is a medical officer who performs experiments on her female concentration camp prisoners while Helena seems more concerned with getting Maya back to health. Nevertheless, the actress who played Ilsa was about the same age as Barbara Bain and looked a bit like her, so the setting was quite similar. I think we should also take into consideration that Barbara Bain was not particularly happy with Catherine Schell having become such a dominant part of the series, so at least on a subconscious level I would expect it could be natural to think of Helena wanting to conduct medical experiments on Maya. What we have already said about fascism in Y2 also helps making this interpretation more reasonable. However, I still think SPACE WARP is a more difficult episode to understand than RULES OF LUTON. In the latter episode we have Maya making Nazi speeches. That makes it much easier to understand what Freiberger was trying to achieve. In the case of SPACE WARP the dialogue is less political, at least as far as I can tell, but it is possible that it is only a question of looking more deeply into what the characters are saying and using the right frame for decoding the content. After all, I don’t think too many people had understood the meaning of RULES OF LUTON before Martin Willey pointed out the obvious in one of his episode essays some 20 years ago. On the other hand, perhaps the suggested link

I think Tony would be very happy between DRAGON’S DOMAIN and SPACE WARP can function as means for getting a better understanding of both episodes. John B. *** 31783 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: I think Tony would be very happy (Senmut, 2009) jemarcu Apr 4, 2016

Sen, as usual you have the right of it. Its hard to believe any space agency would not carefully vet the members of such a long expedition for mental fitness. As for Celini's mental state AFTER the expedition. well, after what he went through it would be unusual for him not to suffer from stress related illnesses such as PTSD, nightmares, etc. If my crew were eaten alive before my very eyes, and no one believed me, I guess I would be a little stressed too. Still, I have often wondered about Helena. It was not Celini that was mentally ill, but Helena's prejudice against Celini sometimes bordered on fanatacism. What could account for that? Maybe, a little subconscious misandry, some feminist contempt for Celini's strong masculine personality? Could be. In 1975, traditional gender roles were on the way out, and "girl power" was on the rise, so maybe having Helena react so strongly against a John Wayne type was a part of that? Who knows. But patriarchy triumphed in the end, as it usually does. Celini did what he had to do, put it on the line, and cut a path for Koenig to save the day. If they re make this episoode like they did BSG, the men will be drunk and cowering in the corner while Helena engages the monster in hand to hand combat naked, and strangles it to death, a la Ripley in "Alien". Regards, John M. *** 31784 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: I think Tony would be very happy (Senmut, 2009) sennmut Apr 5, 2016

447

Thanks. I think Cellini also suffered from survivor's guilt. The "why me?" so many soldiers have come home with, after being the last one left. That, and the being labelled as a nut case, in the public eye, with the Space Commission covering up the truth, would certainly drive even the strongest character to the edge. As to Cellini being back on Alpha, your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps he was part of Koenig's "price" for being Simmonds' man on Alpha. Perhaps, given his experience, he was helping to train the Meta probe astronauts on the ins and outs of such a long flight, especially if the control systems were similar to that of the Ultra ship. Simmonds, after all, was in a hurry to get it going, and may have decided to cut corners, and ignore Cellini's history. With folks dying, they may have decided to tap him to fill a now-vacant position. There are several possible takes, for FanFic writers to explore. But Cellini was obviously not having a problem whatsoever, until they once more encountered the monster. It seemed to call to him. Any abberation I think we can put down, at least in part, to that. That's my two commlock's worth. *** 31785 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: I think Tony would be very happy (Senmut, 2009) sennmut Apr 5, 2016

Another idea comes to mind, all, re Helena's attitude towards Cellini. Just thought of it. Recall that Helena's husband was not that long ago lost on a space mission. Obviously, she and Lee were tight, and the loss was deeply felt. Perhaps, even on a subconcious level, her feelings towards Cellini stem, in part, from the fact that, despite all, he returned, while Lee did not. A "Why couldn't it have been you?" sort of thing, a state not unknown in many families who have lost someone in war. Combined with the on-the-surface unbelievability of "the monster", it could have combined into a toxic and unprofessional brew, poising all. Thoughts? ***

448


31786 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: I think Tony would be very happy (Senmut, 2009) John Marcucci Apr 5, 2016

Celini's story reminds me of Captain Charles McVay, the commander of the USS Indianapolis. During ww2, his ship was torpedoed by a Japanese sub after dropping off the a -bomb, and becaue of a communications foul up, no distress signal was sent. 3/4 of his crew were eaten by sharks or died of dehydration in the middle of the Pacific. The navy pinned the blame on him, and he was court martialed. He suffered mental health problems after that and finally took his own life years later. Sad story. Celini was likewise the mission commander, so naturally he felt responsible for the deaths of hs crewmates, even if it was not his fault. Rgds, John M. *** 31787 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: I think Tony would be very happy (Senmut, 2009) sennmut Apr 5, 2016

Got it. On the nose, Jemarcu. And no Marxist-leaning psychoanalysts were harmed in the typing of tis e-mail! *** 31788 Re: I think Tony would be very happy (Senmut, 2009) kerryirs Apr 4, 2016

John, you just won't stop will you? You're the only one that brings up fascism and "Nazi speeches" in your posts. I'm going to start calling you Johnny One Note if aren't careful. *LOL*. An example, see below. Here I think Senmut’s “weak link” between Y1 and Y2 is useful. As Y1 and Y2 are connected by Verdeschi giving a speech during the funeral, this provides us with an opportunity for a theme we have discussed many times before, namely how Koenig developed into a “strong” leader Y2 and how everything associated with his new regime gradually turned in direction of fascism. Although this is an aspect of Y2 that

has been less debated recently, because of how we have chosen to look at Liardet’s more optimistic view of Y2 through the lens of satire instead, but when fan fiction reviewers start pointing out the relationship between episodes like DRAGON’S DOMAIN and SPACE WARP, then perhaps it is time to take notice. RULES OF LUTON has been used as the entry point for discussing fascism in Y2, but we should probably try to investigate episodes like THE BETA CLOUD and SPACE WARP more deeply to see how this ideology may be expressed in these episodes.

I seem to remember that you're the only one who links THE RULES OF LUTON to fascism and Nazis. In most other SF shows, aliens are of one race and one government. They are depicted as not being so divided across such lines as "race", religion, ideology, etc. That doesn't mean they all think the same as in a movie like 1984. Under your definition, Vulcan and other SF races who have one government are all Nazis, which is absolutely rediculous. That would mean that Roddenberry was a Nazi. I've never read where you or anone else has ever accused him of such, just Freiberger, a man who fought them. Your position on this makes no sense to me. If one takes the story of of the Tower of Babel, the human race once spoke one language and cooperated with one another. But they decided to build a tower to reach heaven. Of course God got ticked off and scrambled their speech and scattered the people. Personally, it's an interesting fable, but it dies depict the human race as one, which we still are. The things that divide us now are politics, religion, racism, and hate, economics, just to mention some. Now that doesn't mean there aren't aliens who have a military nature, but that isn't Maya or the Psychon that she knew. Dorzak does make the statement that Psychons are steeled by their struggles. Personally, I think this is more his views as opposed to a commentary on his race. Maya and the Alphans have faced struggles as well and they have managed to stay on an even keel. I do wonder what to the other Psycons that arrived with him. It seems Dorzak was the problem, and yet Sahala blamed the who group. Pengold never makes this clear, an oversight on his part perhaps. One note before I continue. Barbara Bain had it put into her contract that Catherine Schell

I think Tony would be very happy could not appear out of makeup or appear in any last scene of an episode. Catherine Schell has commented on this and finds it silly. Catherine has speculated that she is somewhat younger than Bain and that's the reason she did it. She also feels they are of similar appearance. From TV ZONE 42. Interview with Catherine Schell, 1993. Excuse the format, photos didn't come over. Charades "I drove out and we had a long chat at his house and he offered me the part. And he said, 'We have to go through a kind of charade at the moment, because your name has been mentioned time and time again, and Barbara [Bain] doesn't want you'. Because we were very similar types, Barbara and I, only that I was so much younger than she was, and I'm sure she didn't want that. She wanted somebody who looked totally different from her, so that there would never be a comparison. And the following day, on a Monday, I was picked up again and we did some film tests. There were all these girls going in, going out, and they were still doing film tests. I said, 'What is this? I've already been offered the part' and that was the charade that they had to play for Barbara, because she had to look at all the film tests. She had to make a choice, whom she wanted, and in the end she did choose me. But is was with the condition that I looked very strange and that's why I had the make-up, much darker hair." Other sources have reported that Maya was originally to have been played by a black or oriental actress; at what stage had this been changed? "There was the idea that they were either going to use a Chinese girl or a black girl for Maya. And they did do tests with a chinese girl and a black girl, which Barbara saw and they weren't good enough. She wanted good actors, and she accepted me then." Restrictions Catherine recalls that such restrictions recurred throughout the second season, as Barbara Bain had a say on what could be done

449

with Maya. "The producer told me that she had put it in her contract that I must never look as myself: I could only ever look as Maya. And they ahd written a scene for The Beta Cloud where Tony is in a hospital reading a magazine. In it is a picture of Catherine Schell, and he is looking at it saying, "Oh, isn't she nice...' and Maya has a look at the picture and she says, 'You think that's nice, that's your taste? You're mad.' and then she changes herself into Catherine Schell. And that was completely scratched out, because Barbara had a look at that and said, "Sorry, in the contract it says she is never ever to look as Catherine Schell. This scene has to be changed.'" What the Hell is this - ILSA – THE SHE WOLF OF SS? This has nothing to do with SPACE WARP. The SS were a sadistic group. Are you comparing Helena Russell to the SS? If so, how does this reflect on Barbara Bain? I've never seen someone who harbors so much hate for one man over a TV series that you have to pull out so much nonesense to try and make a point. I also have a sense that you also don't think much of Catherine Schell because of your hatred of her character. Catherine has never in forty years insulted anyone connected with 1999. I can't say that for Anderson, Tate, Byrne, and some others. This is onecreason why I like her and the fact that those who have met her call her a very nice person. So I don't know what you get out of these accusations, but hopefully you'll take an introspective look inside of yourself and see what you find there. I'll leave you to it. ***

450


12.2 Why couldn’t it have been you? The psychological reading of Helena, based on an intertextual analysis of “Dragon’s Domain” and “Matter of Life and Death,” triggers a new discussion thread that illustrates how the fan fiction approach for episode analysis can add new perspectives and insights. This provides important insights that turn out to be useful when looking at how the character changed from Y1 to Y2. 31789 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Why couldn't it have been you? R Bendell Apr 5, 2016

Slinter wrote: Another idea comes to mind, all, re Helena's attitude towards Cellini. Just thought of it. Recall that Helena's husband was not that long ago lost on a space mission. Obviously, she and Lee were tight, and the loss was deeply felt. Perhaps, even on a subconcious level, her feelings towards Cellini stem, in part, from the fact that, despite all, he returned, while Lee did not. A "Why couldn't it have been you?" sort of thing, a state not unknown in many families who have lost someone in war. Combined with the on-the-surface unbelievability of "the monster", it could have combined into a toxic and unprofessional brew, poising all.

Very insightful observations, Slinter, that make a world of sense and seem like they would be entirely consistent with how Helena acted towards Cellini, what we saw on screen, and what we can surmise about the fine lines inbetween. Certainly adds even more emotional depth to what is already a standout episode. Richard *** 31790 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Why couldn't it have been you? John Marcucci Apr 5, 2016

Yeah, it sure does. When Helena uncharitably and unfairly refers to Celini as a "suppressed hysteric", she seems on the verge of becoming hysterical herself. Anyone can lose objectivity. *** 31791 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Why couldn't it have been you? balor1999 Apr 5, 2016

I didn’t see anything “uncharitably” or “unfairly” in Helena’s diagnosis of Cellini as a suppressed hysteric. Given the unbelievable story he was telling and his erratic behaviour, my guess is that any medical professional with the relevant competence would make a similar diagnosis. I certainly didn’t see her as “on the verge of becoming hysterical herself”. She maintained her composed self in a similar manner as she did in most of Y1. The only episode that comes to mind where she looses her temper is when Balor threatens her position in END OF ETERNITY. Her response to that situation is emotional but understandable, and not something I would describe as hysterical. There is also the situation when she turns into a stone-age medicine woman in FULL CIRCLE, which allows her to rage out in contrast to the professionalism that characterises her behaviour in Y1. Nevertheless, I think Senmut makes a very good point. I am not sure exactly when the Astro 7 Mission took place and Lee was lost, but it seems reasonable to guess that it may have happened around the same time. According to the following time-line, the Astro 7 disaster happened just before the Ultra Mission disaster, but I don’t know how these dates were constructed: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jizp?Space-1999The-Thirty-year-Alternate-History It is also possible that Lee got lost on the Astro 7 mission just after Cellini’s story, as the timeline is uncertain, so in such a case Senmut’s argument would be reduced to Helena feeling empty because of Lee being out in space while she was back on Earth. On the other hand, both DRAGON’S DOMAIN and MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH were among the first episodes written, and in the draft version of BREAKAWAY there is also some talk of Lee, so I think Senmut makes a splendid comment by suggesting how we have to consider Helena’s state of mind when dealing with

I think Tony would be very happy Cellini. In spite of this, I am still not sure I am convinced of his conclusion when he suggests that these personal events might have caused her to act unprofessionally. To me, Helena’s assessment of Tony Cellini seems highly professional, and her comments about having doubts about letting him return to Moonbase Alpha seem quite reasonable indeed, particularly in the context of how he ends up running around in pyjamas, hijacking Eagles, and putting other peoples lives in danger. There is nothing odd about Helena’s reactions in this episode, I feel. Dixon expresses similar concerns when he interviews Koenig, Bergman and Cellini, and Bergman supports both Dixon and Helena in saying that Cellini’s explanations could be interpreted as a conscious or subconscious cover-up for a person who cannot live with failure. Even if we disregard Helena’s comments and assessments, I think it is quite clear that Tony Cellini is a mentally disturbed individual. In the retrospective parts of the episode he comes across as someone with a latent condition, but when he meets with the monster, his psychosis blossoms in the full. The only rational thing to do here is exactly what Dixon and Helena suggest, namely to take care of him and let him use his talents somewhere outside of Moonbase Alpha or the space mission programmes. Why Koenig insists on bringing him back to Moonbase Alpha is a complete mystery, and seems to me to be more of an indication of Koenig himself needing a mental check-up himself, unless there are some rational explanations for why they should want Cellini back. As far as what we are told in the episode, it seems more like Koenig is willing to give Cellini a second chance because they were old friends, so bringing him back to Alpha is something Koenig perhaps does against the advice of everybody else, like we have seen him do with catastrophic consequences in an episode like MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH. However, if we accept Y2 as a continuation of Y1 rather than an independent remake/satire inspired by the original series, then it makes sense to compare Koenig and Cellini. The mental breakdown of Cellini in DRAGON’S DOMAIN can thus be seen as a parallel of the mental breakdown of Koenig in Y2 in terms of

451

how the workplace democracy of Y1 is replaced with military discipline with fascist undertones. Kerry shares a wide range of interesting ideas and comments on this that provides excellent food for discussion, like the following passage: Now that doesn't mean there aren't aliens who have a military nature, but that isn't Maya or the Psychon that she knew. Dorzak does make the statement that Psychons are steeled by their struggles. Personally, I think this is more his views as opposed to a commentary on his race. Maya and the Alphans have faced struggles as well and they have managed to stay on an even keel. I do wonder what to the other Psycons that arrived with him. It seems Dorzak was the problem, and yet Sahala blamed the who group. Pengold never makes this clear, an oversight on his part perhaps.

Here I am reminded of something that we have perhaps not taken seriously enough in earlier debates, namely the role of episodes like DORZAK for gaining a deeper understanding of the series from the perspective suggested by Wertham (1953). I have been so fascinated by Liardet’s writing about BARBARELLA and how Y2 has to be understood as satire, that I have almost forgotten that there are few Y2 episodes that do not fit with Liardet’s interpretation. Here I am thinking of the Freiberger’s Woodgrove trilogy. To me it seems much less obvious that we should be able to see connections between RULES OF LUTON, SPACE WARP and THE BETA CLOUD and satirical films BARBARELLA or CANDY, as I don’t really see very much satire in the Woodgrove trilogy. In fact, I have difficulty seeing very much in these three episodes, something also Fageolle says in his ideological analysis of the Woodgrove trilogy, but Martin Willey’s point about Maya’s Nazi speech in RULE OF LUTON makes sense. So, in my opinion, in order to make sense out of Y2 we have to look at it from two perspectives. For most episodes, we can use BARBARELLA as a lens, but when it comes the Woodgrove trilogy, which is where Freiberger gives himself the opportunity to write out the vision of Y2 as he sees it, it seems to me that ILSA – THE WOLF OF THE SS is a much better role model. Kerry asked me how this particular film got into the discussion, so here I must admit that it is not something I have found searching the scholarly

452


SPACE: 1999 literature. Making references to this film is my own contribution to the discussion, suggesting that it can help us build on the theories of Willey and Wertham in a manner that helps us see their point about fascism. So far I think the ILSA model looks like an inspired idea. Not only is it helpful for understanding how RULES OF LUTON can be thought of as a WWII story, but it is also makes it possible to look at SPACE WARP from the perspective of Helena being a Nazi doctor doing medical experiments on Maya, just like in the ILSA film, but there are challenges with this interpretation that we need to discuss. In this context I find it useful how Kerry brings up an episode like DORZAK. To me, Psycho episodes like DORZAK, THE DORCONS and THE METAMORPH are probably more easy to understand through the lens of BARBARELLA than ILSA, but if we want to conduct the kind of intertextual analysis that fan fiction writers are so good at, perhaps we can improve our understanding of the Woodgrove trilogy as fascism by means of looking at these episodes that deal with the history of Maya and Psychon although not written by Freiberger himself. John B. *** 31792 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Why couldn't it have been you? sennmut Apr 6, 2016

On 05 Apr 2016 "balor1999@... writes: I didn’t see anything “uncharitably” or “unfairly” in Helena’s diagnosis of Cellini as a suppressed hysteric. Given the unbelievable story he was telling and his erratic behaviour, my guess is that any medical professional with the relevant competence would make a similar diagnosis. I certainly didn’t see her as “on the verge of becoming hysterical herself”. She maintained her composed self in a similar manner as she did in most of Y1. The only episode that comes to mind where she looses her temper is when Balor threatens her position in END OF ETERNITY. Her response to that situation is emotional but understandable, and not something I would describe as hysterical. There is also the situation when she turns into a stone-age medicine woman in FULL CIRCLE, which allows her to rage out in contrast to the

professionalism that characterises her behaviour in Y1.

Well, some of us do/did/ That's just it...we see the eps, indeed the whole show, through vastly different lenses. No political subtexts, no class struggle, to need of psuedo-intellectual Marxist hangers on to tell us what they writers/producers REALLY meant. Stuff no one ever heard before. we just see the show, plain and straightforward. Let's keep it that way. *** 31793 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Why couldn't it have been you? John Marcucci Apr 6, 2016

I think this is called 'Solipsism". An inability to recognize even the possibility of a reality outside one's own thoughts, experiences, prejudices, etc. *** 31794 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Why couldn't it have been you? sennmut Apr 6, 2016

Sounds like a slipperyslopeism. *** 31795 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Why couldn't it have been you? balor1999 Apr 6, 2016

I don’t think I would go as far as describing Senmut’s unwillingness to engage with academic literature and scholarly debates as solipsism. I admit it can be thought of as solipsism, but I would prefer to describe it as him having a complementary view, consistent with how I would expect fan fiction writers to approach a series like SPACE: 1999, and thus put less emphasis on his lack of engagement with scholarly literature. In fact, I think many of his perspectives become more innovative and interesting because he looks at the stories without positioning his views in the context of Fageolle, Keazor and Drake. So to me, solipsism may not necessarily be a bad thing. It depends very much on what the intellectual

I think Tony would be very happy output of the given solipsist might be. In the case of Senmut, I would say that his track record of making valuable and insightful contributions to the SPACE: 1999, especially through his fan fiction, is remarkable. The important issue is whether somebody is contributing to the discussion, not so much on his method or philosophy as long as the contributions are interesting. On the other hand, I think most of us have much to learn from Kerry’s unsolipsistic and exemplary use of data for backing up arguments. To avoid solipsism, most of us try to align with the current debates within SPACE: 1999 literature, positioning ourselves in relation to important scholars like Liardet, Muir and Turdo, trying to develop a theory of SPACE: 1999 in the context of earlier authoritative writings, but unless we are careful, we know that Kerry will make critical comments concerning how these theories fit with the facts in terms of what Anderson, Freiberger and Schell have said in interviews or presentations. For example, when I feel encouraged by how Chip Bell and other fan fiction reviewers have compared DRAGON’S DOMAIN with SPACE WARP, and want to explore this relationship in the context of gaining a deeper understanding of the Woodgrove trilogy from the theoretical viewpoint expressed by Willey and Wertham, Kerry provides important data in terms of a 1993 interview with Catherine Schell, where comments on what she saw as Barbara Bain’s views on the casting of Maya. I’m not certain I fully understood the point Kerry was making with this reference, but from the way I was trying to use the 1975 Nazi exploitation film ILSA – THE SHE WOLF OF THE SS for making sense out of SPACE WARP, the interview was helpful. The point I have been struggling with is how the Woodgrove trilogy is different from the remaining body of Y2 episodes. While I believe that Liardet’s argument that BARBARELLA can be used for reading Y2 as satire is useful, I do not think it works in the case of the Woodgrove episodes as they appear to be based on a different political worldview. However, the point Liardet made by comparing Y2 was BARBARELLA was not only that it was satire, it was also that Y2 feels

453

like a comic strip, just like BARBARELLA was based on a comic strip. Now, comic strips are like caricatures. They can be used for satirical purposes, like poking fun at misuse of power – as in Jane Fonda’s comment about BARBARELLA being a satire about bourgeoisie values, but it can also be used as a demagogic tool for brainwashing people into accepting hegemonic views. This is the point Wertham makes when he warns against certain comic books based on how they directly or indirectly encourage fascism. For us Wertham has become an important intellectual within SPACE: 1999 theory due to the way he gives meaning to Martin Willey’s observations concerning Maya’s Nazi speech in RULES OF LUTON. So, when we have Chip Bell and others linking DRAGON’S DOMAIN and SPACE WARP, I wonder whether this can be helpful for understanding SPACE WARP in a similar way that Wertham lets us understand RULES OF LUTON. In other words, can the “hero’s journey” in DRAGON’S DOMAIN tell us something about the psychology of the “heroic” SS stormtroopers as driven by the kind of psychological mechanisms Helena describes in this episode, and how can this be used for understanding SPACE WARP by relating it to Fred Freiberger’s own experience as a war pilot and prisoner of war. So, rather than using BARBARELLA as a model, I was interested in the film equivalent of what Wertham talks about. By doing some search on the internet, I came up with a particularly nasty genre known as Nazi exploitation films, where Don Edmonds’ 1975 film ILSA – THE SHE WOLF OF THE SS appears to be one of the most infamous and influential entries. Although it was a hard film to watch, because of the depravity of it all, it seemed to me to be a perfect link between what Wertham sees when reading SUPERMAN comics and what we see when watching RULES OF LUTON. In fact, as ILSA is concerned with a concentration camp administrator who tortures and conducts medical experiments on her female prisoners, the framework of the story seems even more relevant when looking at something like SPACE WARP. The only problem I have, after having watched SPACE WARP three evenings in a row, is to understand Helena’s

454


attitude towards Maya. Is she sincerely concerned and only trying to help, as appears to be the case when doing a surface reading of the episode, or is there something more sinister going on beneath? When we look at the 1993 interview with Catherine Schell, Kerry provides us with data that in my opinion supports a deeper reading of the episode from the viewpoint of making it possible to see Helena as a SS doctor and Maya as a concentration camp prisoner being experimented upon. If we want to use DRAGON’S DOMAIN for elaborating on this, I think it is important to notice the difference in Helena’s attitudes and behaviour. As in all Y1 episodes she comes across as a dedicated and professional person, but when we contrast this with what we seen in Y2, she has suddenly become a wooden character with hardly any personality at all. So, the question is what she is hiding behind her superficial appearance in Y2. Is it a Nazi doctor who likes to do experiments on her patients, especially Maya? Not necessarily, and certainly not in most episodes, but when we look at the Woodgrove trilogy, where the issue of fascism has been identified as central for gaining a proper understanding of what they were trying to say, I believe this is worth looking into. When reading SPACE WARP out of such a context, the off-stage tension between Bain and Schell is clearly not irrelevant for how to understand the relationship between the two characters as good actors always base their interpretations on real experiences. There is one particular smile on Helena during the first time Maya asked to be strapped up that I have watched repeatedly in order to gain a deeper understanding on this relationship. While most of Helena’s actions during this sequence seem to be driven out of concern, there is a particular smile that at least made me wonder whether she was actually enjoying seeing Maya in pain. It was not a sadistic smile, but it was the kind of smile that made sense in the context of how Catherine Schell tells the story about their relationship in the 1993 interview. So, to me this could at least be a hint of Helena displaying some of her darker sides. However, what we have discussed so far is based on the relationship between the actors. This has to do with how the story is presented,

not how it is written. The important issue to consider, when comparing SPACE WARP with ILSA – THE SHE WOLF OF THE SS, is to which extent this is a lens that would make sense in the context of what we know about Fred Freiberger. For instance, during his time as POW, was he aware of people like Joseph Mengele and death camps where people like him were being experimented upon by Nazi doctors? Well, perhaps the point is not so much what he was aware of at the time in Germany, but clearly it was something the he and everybody else were aware of after the war. In other words, reading the story in the context of ILSA does not seem unreasonable, given what we know about Freiberger. If we want a less drastic interpretation, it may not even be necessary to bring in the topic of Nazi doctors medical experiments, and simply see the story as a story of somebody in a POW wanting to break out and return home. It could be the story of Freiberger himself wanting to return to his own “Psychon” of New York, while realising the hopelessness of the situation. On the other hand, if we simply choose to look at SPACE WARP from a psychological perspective of someone wanting to return to some impossible past, we miss the point about FF being a Jew held captive in a Nazi prison. So, the ILSA model does indeed suggest an interesting reading of the episode in a manner that may help us to gain a deeper and fuller understanding of SPACE: 1999 as a whole, especially when it comes to the understanding of the more problematic Y2. John B. *** 31796 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Why couldn't it have been you? sennmut Apr 7, 2016

It's not that I am "unwilling to engage", Balor. It is that there is nothing to engage. What you repeatedly and annoyingly refer to as "authorotative", the printer droppings of Fageolle, Keazor, et al, are vacuous, and entirely empty of the slightest substance. These men have about as much to add to our appreciation of the show as black and white film does to the study of color theory. Many of

I think Tony would be very happy us havve repeatedly told you how we reject their stuff, and do not see it their way at all. Yet, you keep coming back as if we all agreed with you, and your view was somehow selfmanifest. The "discussion we are having", which you alone seem to be able to hear.

455

Pardon me, I am receiving a number of distress calls................ ***

12.3 Dragon’s Domain After having spent some time on discussing the interplay between Helena and Cellini, the discussion opens up for more general comments on “Dragon’s Domain” and how fan fiction can be used for finding insights in Y2 episodes by comparing and contrasting with Y1 episodes. Insights and arguments developed as part of the previous thread plays an important point in the further direction of discussion and analysis. 31797 Dragon’s Domain balor1999 Apr 7, 2016

A couple of days ago, someone made the following comment: Still, I have often wondered about Helena. It was not Celini that was mentally ill, but Helena's prejudice against Celini sometimes bordered on fanatacism. What could account for that? Maybe, a little subconscious misandry, some feminist contempt for Celini's strong masculine personality? Could be. In 1975, traditional gender roles were on the way out, and "girl power" was on the rise, so maybe having Helena react so strongly against a John Wayne type was a part of that? Who knows. But patriarchy triumphed in the end, as it usually does. Celini did what he had to do, put it on the line, and cut a path for Koenig to save the day.

This is not how I read DRAGON’S DOMAIN, nor have I seen scholarly interpretation of the episode talking about it from this gender conflict perspective, but I find the idea interesting in the context of trying to understand SPACE WARP through its suggested relationship with this episode. While we noticed that the 1975 Nazi exploitation films ILSA – SHE WOLF OF THE SS allowed us to think about Helena as a Nazi doctor doing medical experiments on Maya, something that seemed like a reasonable interpretation given what we know of Freiberger’s war time experiences, it is still unclear to which degree this interpretation helps us understand SPACE WARP as fascism in the same way as Willey helps us understand RULES OF LUTON by pointing towards Maya’s Nazi speech.

In order to contemplate more deeply on this, I watched the 1976 sequel to the original ILSA film last night. The sequel was also made by Don Edmonds’ and is called ILSA, HAREM KEEPER OF THE OIL SHEIKS. Just like the original film, this one was also totally revolting but it was interesting in the context of the gender conflict some people appear to see in DRAGON’S DOMAIN. While the Nazi ideology is partly a revolt against how modern society has impacted on gender roles, thus demanding a return to traditional values of men being like John Wayne and the woman’s place in society as that of being a submissive slave (“Kinder, Kirche, Küche”), the 1975 film did not emphasise that aspect of Nazi ideology very much. However, when the film was remade by replacing the Nazi context with an Islamic traditionalist context, the gender conflict became much more obvious. In the 1976 film, the central characters had become Arabic “John Wayne” types keeping beautiful women caged up in a harem and torturing them when they were not pleased with their services. Although the Ilsa films are the kind of films that I suppose Kerry would describe as “bottom of the sewer”, which is why I believe they are highly relevant for comparative analysis with episodes of Y2 that French intellectual Pierre Bannier describe as “les nuls” (Fageolle, 1996, p. 106), there are challenges in how we can use these films in a similarly insightful way as Liardet makes use of BARBARELLA for making sense out of Y2 on the whole. For instance, when we look at SPACE WARP through the “gender struggle”

456


interpretation of DRAGON’S DOMAIN, that we see reflected in ILSA, HAREM KEEPER OF THE OIL SHEIKS, we could use this for trying to connect the parallel stories with John Koenig being a kind of Arabic “John Wayne” oppressor of women and Maya part of his harem on Alpha with Helena playing the role of former SS officer Ilsa in being in charge of discipline. This is partially helpful, I think, as thinking of Koenig as a patriarch in a religious fundamentalist community may be similarly insightful as our previous efforts in thinking of him as an SS officer, but I still feel we have to struggle with these interpretations. I think the SS interpretations are interesting based on what we know about Freiberger’s war time experience, but when it comes to religious fundamentalist, I’m not so sure. Was Freiberger a right-wing religious maniac? This is not what I have heard. In fact, I don’t remember having heard anything about his religious views at all, with the exception that he mentions his distraught when he realised that he was going to be a Jewish prisoner in a German military prison during the war. So, seeing the second ILSA film as a lens for opening up aspects of SPACE WARP and other Woodgrove episode for the purpose of discussing politics and religious fundamentalism may not be the best way to approach. Actually, in Maya’s Nazi speech from RULES OF LUTON she talks about ONE religion, so there might be a link to Islamic/Christian/Jewish fundamentalism there, but I’m still not sure if this drives us in the right direction. For this reason, I think it is perhaps better to focus on the gender issues, meaning that we choose to look at ILSA, HAREM KEEPER OF THE OIL SHEIKS as essentially being about disciplining women into becoming commodities. If we look at it from this perspective, I think there are insights to be found when comparing DRAGON’S DOMAIN and SPACE WARP. If we agree with the perspective that DRAGON’S DOMAIN should be viewed from the perspective of 1975 feminism where “John Wayne” stereotypes are being questioned in the context of what function they serve in modern society and whether a person living by such ideas in a modern society can be seen as mentally fit, we can see an empancipatory

theme in DRAGON’S DOMAIN that contrasts the submissive nature of SPACE WARP where women are described as hysterical and unable to take care of themselves. So, perhaps the main difference between DRAGON’S DOMAIN and SPACE WARP in this perspective is not so much the difference between Helena in the two episodes but rather the difference between Penfold’s progressive description of Helena as the equal to John and Victor in DD and Freiberger’s traditional description of Maya as unable to control her own feelings and behaviour in SW. To me this seems to make sense both when we look at the generation gap between Penfold and Byrne on one hand and Freiberger on the other, but also based on how people have written about the fascist nature of episodes like RULES OF LUTON. After making sense out of RULES OF LUTON, we expect to make sense out of SPACE WARP using a similar type of theoretical lens. John B. *** 31798 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Dragon's Domain SHANA G Apr 7, 2016

All: In my opinion, this post doesn’t amount to a pisshole in a sink! Shana *** 31799 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Dragon's Domain John Marcucci Apr 7, 2016

Shana you're being kind *** 31800 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Dragon's Domain sennmut Apr 7, 2016

I think Tony would be very happy Careful! The sink lobby might sue for character defamation! *** 31801 Re: Dragon's Domain kerryirs Apr 8, 2016

Mr. Balor, you have lost your mind! John wrote. This is not how I read DRAGON’S DOMAIN, nor have I seen scholarly interpretation of the episode talking about it from this gender conflict perspective, but I find the idea interesting in the context of trying to understand SPACE WARP through its suggested relationship with this episode. While we noticed that the 1975 Nazi exploitation films ILSA – SHE WOLF OF THE SS allowed us to think about Helena as a Nazi doctor doing medical experiments on Maya, something that seemed like a reasonable interpretation given what we know of Freiberger’s war time experiences, it is still unclear to which degree this interpretation helps us understand SPACE WARP as fascism in the same way as Willey helps us understand RULES OF LUTON by pointing towards Maya’s Nazi speech.

What the Hell do you know about Freiberger's war record other than the fact the man was shot down and taken prisoner? He's the one that mentioned this in interviews; otherwise, I doubt we'd have known about it. In addition, he was a member of the Eigth Air Force, primarily a B-17 group, so his plane carried ten crewmembers. I don't know if he was a pilot or held another position in the crew. But to inpune his service by innuendo, is stupid and sick. Next John you may accuse FF of being a collaborator. You seemed to obsessed with the Nazi ideology. By trying to save Maya's life, which she never touched a scapel to flesh, you watch some forty year old obscure film and jump to the insane conclusion that Helena is basicallly an SS doctor, like Mengele. I don't know whether to laugh or shake my head in astonishment. I've followed 1999 for forty years and I've read many fan stories and posts, but yours is the most hate filled writing I've read. Your continued use of Nazi comparisons and even questioning Freiberger's religious beliefs is uncalled for. This is one reason people are constantly questioning your motives.

457

The reason I posted the partial Catherine Schell interview was to counter your assertion that Barbara Bain had concerns about Maya becoming a key character in the series. I felt it was necessary to get the views of a person involved, since we aren't going to get it from Fanderson or any of these French types or any of these others you quote. You may have sensed my anger as all you do is continue to put down Freiberger, Y2, and those who worked on it You disagree with what Ms. Schell has to say despite the fact she was there. Anderson's views I respect, but all he had to say were put downs of the man HE hired and then did what Roddenberry did, washed his hands of a series he helped to bring to its knees and canceled. So keep up the nonsense, because you aren't speaking to the converted. You can be a productive contributer on this forum. For example, there are some similarities between DOD and SW. For example, as someone brought up perhaps Cellini had some guilt about surviving. Maya have had some deep feelings that she could'elve done more to save her father and that became manifested in her illness, not this other BS about not being able to control her emotions.I think Maya is always conscious of what she can do and is constantly having to maintain control. Then you go and some nonsense like this.. I think the SS interpretations are interesting based on what we know about Freiberger’s war time experience, but when it comes to religious fundamentalism, I’m not so sure. Was Freiberger a right-wing religious maniac? This is not what I have heard. In fact, I don’t remember having heard anything about his religious views at all, with the exception that he mentions his distraught when he realised that he was going to be a Jewish prisoner in a German military prison during the war. So, seeing the second ILSA film as a lens for opening up aspects of SPACE WARP and other Woodgrove episode for the purpose of discussing politics and religious fundamentalism may not be the best way to approach. Actually, in Maya’s Nazi speech from RULES OF LUTON she talks about ONE religion, so there might be a link to Islamic/Christian/ Jewish fundamentalism there, but I’m still not sure if this drives us in the right direction.

458


If you aren't sure about this stuff, why post it, to get a rise out of people? I wonder how you would feel as a Jew in a anti-semetic culture like the Nazis? I think you might be concerned as well. So enough of this. I like posts where episodes are looked at without all this outside pablum. *** 31802 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Dragon's Domain sennmut Apr 8, 2016

More like used pablum, Kerry. *** 31804 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Dragon's Domain Rick Curzon Apr 7 8:06 PM

I used to be on this forum years ago and Balor was posting endless long posts and making references to Pierre Fagoelle's obscure Frenchlanguage-only book back then.....it's like I never left. I must admit though, comparing Dragon's Domain, Space Warp and the first two Ilsa films is hilarious. I've seen them and they are pure trash with no esoteric aspects whatsoever. I suspect that there are less salacious films that could have been used to make some spurious point re a comparison with episodes of Space: 1999. Are Ole Ostrup or Scott Michael Bosco still about? Rick *** 31805 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Dragon's Domain Rick Curzon Apr 7, 2016

Shana wrote: In my opinion, this post doesn’t amount to a pisshole in a sink!

Agreed

Rick *** 31806 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Dragon's Domain balor1999 Apr 8, 2016

Rick Curzon made the following comment: I must admit though, comparing Dragon's Domain, Space Warp and the first two Ilsa films is hilarious. I've seen them and they are pure trash with no esoteric aspects whatsoever. I suspect that there are less salacious films that could have been used to make some spurious point re a comparison with episodes of Space: 1999.

I don’t think it should be necessary to once more go through the complete history of why we have found it productive to look at the ILSA films for understanding certain aspects of Y2, or certain aspects of certain Y2 episodes to be more precise, but as Kerry raises some important points concerning what we know and what we do not know about Freiberger’s war time experience, at least I feel it could be useful to repeat the context of the discussion in terms of the points I have been trying to raise. Of course, there is a long history of dilemmas and challenges concerning the Y1/Y2 dichotomy, but in late 2014 Dr. Liardet released a scholarly work by the name of “Cosmos 1999: Le fabulaire de l’espace” that in some respects challenges Fageolle’s authoritative reading of SPACE: 1999. Perhaps it is not right to say that Liardet challenges Fageolle, as they both agree with the general viewpoint of cast, crew, fans and critics that Y1 was a masterpiece and Y2 was trash, but Liardet offers a solution for making sense out of Y2 that is not present in the works of Fageolle. What Liardet says is that the way we need to approach Y2 is by looking at it in a similar way as we would with BARBARELLA. So, even though he admits Y2 being trash, it can be thought of as interesting trash, something that we have spent some time discussing, like when we looked at Dr. McGuire Roche’s praise of BARBARELLA as a feminist text.

I think Tony would be very happy For some of us this represented almost a paradigmatic turn in how we now choose to approach Y2. While the consensus used to be driven by Fageolle’s claim that the world would be a better place if all the negatives and copies of Y2 were shipped out into space and destroyed, the new consensus seems to be that we should think of Y2 as “pornography” with social and political subtext. Actually, there were some discussions concerning whether the term “pornography” was appropriate, with one particular discussant saying that such an interpretation would make Y2 into an extremely poor type of pornography, but I think this is besides the point, because we are not interested in the quality of the pornography. What we are interested in his how Liardet’s suggestion in using BARBARELLA as a reference point (and the “pornographic” comic strip from the early sixties) makes it possible and even quite natural to link the discussion of Y2 with what Johnny Byrne has already said about Terry Southern’s pornographic novel CANDY and the 1967 film based on the novel. In other words, I believe we have made great progress in terms of gaining a better understanding of Y2. For some of us, it has even been a pleasure to watch some Y2 episodes in the context of what Liardet has suggested. Rather than being annoyed by the way Y2 is designed as an antithesis to Y1, we can now acknowledge the usefulness of this redesign for making Y2 less similar to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and more similar to BARBARELLA. However, there still remains a fundamental problem with Liardet’s approach, and that is how none of the Woodgrove episodes seem to make very much sense from the BARBARELLA perspective. Unlike satirical works like BARBARELLA and CANDY, works that were considered important by the group Johnny Byrne surrounded himself with in the sixties and early seventies, while living as part of a counter-culture commune in London, the political and ideological subtext of the Woodgrove episodes are exactly the opposite of what this group stood for. Johnny Byrne has indeed gone on quite a bit explaining how he felt Freiberger’s visions for SPACE: 1999 represented the exact opposite of what was the philosophical and political foundation for the original series. How to interpret episodes like

459

RULES OF LUTON and SPACE WARP in the context of what Liardet suggests consequently creates a challenge. Nevertheless, when we look at the enemy picture drawn by people like Byrne, especially when he talked about his engagement with the antiwar demonstrations at Grosvenour Square in 1968, it is exactly the “fascist” regime represented by people like Freiberger that they were demonstrating against. Well, of course not Freiberger himself, and I think Kerry keeps on making this important point about how we need to distinguish the ideology from the people, but it is the values and ideas that Freiberger represent that causes so much frustration with Byrne and the rest. If we now look at the various inputs from Fageolle, Liardet, Willey, Byrne and Freiberger himself, it came apparent that what we needed to look at was not BARBARELLA itself but something similar that mixed fascism with pornography. In this sense, I think the ILSA film series turned out to be an extremely useful lens for understanding how to understand episodes like RULES OF LUTON and SPACE WARP. For instance, when we listen to Maya’s Nazi speech in RULES OF LUTON while reflecting on images and dialogue from ILSA – SHE WOLF OF THE SS, I think we grasp the essence of the story in a highly precise way. In particular, I believe the salacious nature of the ILSA films are highly important in this context as Freiberger expressed clearly that he did not want to use SPACE: 1999 as a vehicle for presenting morality plays (Wood, 2010, p. 427). So, the point is not that Freiberberger made Y2 into pornographic fascism due to any personal political views, but the point is that he made it into pornographic fascism for exploitation reasons, exactly the same that we see in the ILSA films. As Rick says, these films were “pure trash with no esoteric aspects whatsoever”. This is indeed the reason why they appear to be the perfect lens for understanding the Woodgrove episodes. In other words, I think we have made great progress in our discussions, and very much thanks to the recent idea of looking at what S99 fan fiction can teach us about SPACE: 1999. In this particular case of comparing DRAGON’S DOMAIN and SPACE WARP,

460


the insights that made us look at ILSA came not from the fan fiction story itself but rather from comments made by the fan fiction reviewers. Once again I think this simply illustrate the extreme value of fan fiction and fan fiction writers within our community. John B.

SHANA G Apr 8, 2016

John, I have to wonder if you are a Nazi? You seem to know so much about it. Shana

*** 31807 Re: Dragon's Domain kerryirs Apr 8, 2016

*LOL* *** 31808 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Dragon's Domain Rick Curzon Today at 12:18 PM

Spare me, please. Try responding in one paragraph in future. It's absolutely amazing; I left this group years ago because of your ridiculous, way overlong, faux esoteric posts that took the whole thing waaaaaaaaay too seriously because it became extremely boring on here as a result. I come back after at least five years away (at a guess) and the very first post that comes down the pipe is yours. I thought with the release of the series two on BD that we might have some more balanced, fun discussion....some came back. Guess I was wrong. It looks like you've never stopped. Incidentally, who is the "we" you refer to finding it productive to look at the Ilsa films? Barbarella as a feminist text...have you read the Jean Claude Forrest comics? From this point on I'm just deleting your posts. Perhaps some more light hearted and stimulating discussion will come down the pipe at some point. Rick

*** 31812 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Dragon's Domain sennmut Apr 8, 2016

Closet self-loathing Nazi in denial? *** 31813 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Dragon's Domain John Marcucci Apr 8, 2016

Rick, welcome back. I'VE got the Annoying Norwegian Troll ( ANT ) on delete as well. If the rest of us follow suit, we will be rid of him for good. We still manage to have some interesting and fun discussions. Dragons Domain is one of my favorite episodes. What is your impression of it? Regards John M *** 31814 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Dragon's Domain Rick Curzon Apr 8, 2016

It's a great episode and when I was a kid my favourite; the Dragon scared the bejesus out of me. Is the ANT John Balor = Ole Ostrup? Rick

*** 31811 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Dragon's Domain

***

I think Tony would be very happy 31815 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Dragon's Domain John Marcucci Apr 8, 2016

Yes. Petter Ogland a.k.a John k Balor a.ka. Hans Hansen. Yeah, when I introduced my kids to Space 1999, they too were freaked out by the dragon. My own opinion is that it was a vampiric version of the creatures we saw in Bringers of Wonder... But that's a sally into the fascinating realm of fanfic.

461

This Balor joker sounds like another sad case. Rick *** 31819 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Dragon's Domain John Marcucci Apr 9, 2016

Never ran across him, thankfully. Petter/ Balor has been trolling this list since at least 1998, and has been banned at least twice.

*** *** 31816 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Dragon's Domain Rick Curzon Apr 9, 2016

31820 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Dragon's Domain balor1999 Apr 9, 2016

Have you not encountered Ole Ostrup yet? Rick *** 31817 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Dragon's Domain John Marcucci Apr 9, 2016

I don't think so. Who is that? Another alias? *** 31818 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Dragon's Domain Rick Curzon Apr 9, 2016

He's infamous, having been dogging the 1999 fan world for over twenty years with his obsessions. He - and Scott Michael Bosco, who worked for A&E video in the USA - are always complaining of imperfections in the video transfers of 1999. Every video version ever released (VHS, Laserdisc DVD and now BD) seems to have pissed them off somehow with their imperfections. Ostrup has a 1 star review up on UK Amazon for the series 2 BD release because apparently some sound effects are missing off this new version. According to others the sounds missing have been missing on practically every video version and no one bar Ostrup and Bosco seem to know which ones.....or have ever noticed them.

In my opinion Ole Alstrup, Scott Bosco and Petter Ogland are all important contributors to the SPACE: 1999 debates, not at least when it comes to technical issues, but what I believe has been more useful in our recent discussions has been the way some of us have tried to understand the role of S99 fan fiction from the viewpoint of how it has been discussed by Tulloch and Jenkins (1995). More than anything, I think the DRAGON’S DOMAIN discussion has been particularly useful in this respect, by way it has not only addressed high quality fan fiction, seeing how fan fiction writers open up new roads of insight and opportunities for discussion, but also by way of how good fan fiction literature can produce interesting reviews. The way Chip Bell relates DRAGON’S DOMAIN and SPACE WARP when commenting on one particularly fine work of fan fiction, is something that, in my opinion, adds new dimensions to our discussions. The way fan fiction reviewers contribute to the discourse is not something I remember being discussed by Tulloch and Jenkins in the 1995 book, although I assume is has been widely discussed elsewhere as the peer-review process obviously plays an important part when looking at fan fiction writing as a community of practice, and it must be particularly relevant for people like Jenkins who are mainly interested in fan fiction from the viewpoint of

462


how it can contribute in turning passive consumers of television into politically engaged activists. In fact, I think the ‘community of practice’ concept (Wenger, 1998) might be particularly relevant when we look at how to align the interests of Jenkins with the ideological message in the works of SPACE: 1999 scholars such as Fageolle and Keazor. What I have particularly in mind is how we might think of Fageolle’s poststructuralist analysis of SPACE: 1999 by means of actor-network theory (ANT) as a way of discussing how Keazor’s focus on SPACE: 1999 as critical theory might be realised through the formation of activist movements. Even though some would like to think of Bernie Sanders as playing a similar role as Herbert Marcuse in terms of functioning as a much needed symbol for what we might associate with the New Left of the past and the Occupy Movement of the present, whenever Marcuse or Sanders have been asked about their roles in such movements their point has always been to downplay their own personality and focus on the political interests of the people. It is in this respect that I believe a reading of Jenkins by way of Fageolle and Keazor can encourage the SPACE: 1999 community into becoming more of a political movement, as a parallel to what Jenkins has written about STAR TREK, although much more forcefully due to the political heritage of SPACE: 1999 by means of it can be seen as a medium for politically overt figures like Johnny Byrne and Barry Morse. In this sense I believe ANT (Latour, 2005) could indeed be a highly useful lens for understanding how to encourage this transformation. In fact, I think the role of S99 fan fiction would play an enormously important role in such a transformation as the fan fiction would to a certain extent represent the semantic aspect of the actor-network, or at least an important part of the semantic network that is needed for coordinating behaviour. It is perhaps partly due to such reasons that Chip Bell’s association between DRAGON’S DOMAIN and SPACE WARP is so useful. In order to make the political subtext of SPACE: 1999 come alive through political action, it may be necessary to take Y2 more seriously. Like most people I have always been somewhat sceptical of this, agreeing largely

with what Fageolle, Keazor, Bussieres, Iaccino and others have said of Y2, but the more we have been discussing the works of Liardet, the more convinced I am that he has a point. Not only does Liardet’s point about taking Y2 seriously look obvious from an ANT perspective, but it may also help us finding ways of discussing the Y1/Y2 dilemma by engaging with Woodgrove episodes. Now, this is clearly no simple task due to the fascist nature of these episodes, but it is definitely worth a try, and in the end it is probably necessary for making the actor-network resilient. The way I see it, the ILSA films have given us some ideas on how to approach the Woodgrove trilogy, but there is still something lacking. So far we have manage to let episodes like RULES OF LUTON and SPACE WARP “sink to the bottom of the sewer”, to use Kerry’s excellent expression, but that is not really anything new. These episodes have always been on the bottom of the sewer, as we notice both Bannier and Fageolle explaining at depth in Fageolle’s 1996 masterpiece. The point was not that some or all of Y2 is trash, as that is something everybody agrees upon already, but rather how to articulate and conceptualise the trash in a manner that makes it possible for these episodes to rise from the bottom of the sewer onto the surface of the septic tank where it can be released. As we have seen, Liardet has almost more or less given us the perfect solution to how this can be done, but obviously his approach of looking at Y2 from the viewpoint of BARBARELLA does not work in a case like SPACE WARP and other Woodgrove episodes. The inscribed ideology in these episodes does not allow them to function as political satire in a similar way as BARBARELLA does, so that is why the ILSA films fit in. But can the ILSA film help us rise the Woodgrove episodes from the bottom of the sewer and upwards? Well, as Rick also pointed out, at least the two first ILSA films are “trash without any esoteric aspects whatsoever”, but he does not mention the third ILSA film, namely Jess Franco’s ILSA – THE WICKED WARDEN from 1977. Personally, I have not seen this film yet, but given how we remember Paulo Morgado wanting to create a pornographic version of Y2 as an homage to Jess Franco, perhaps this third film in the

I think Tony would be very happy series will turn out to be the key for getting a better grip on how to get a more unified understanding of Y2.

463

John B. ***

12.4 Here’s some fun and history As the “Dragon’s Domain” thread included calls for taking a lighter approach to some of the discussions, for the purpose of encouraging more people to participate, one of the discussants responded to this by suggesting how a historical narrative might be useful. This turns out to be a useful and constructive move, opening up the debate for new perspectives and providing new opportunities for developing insights. 31809 RE: Here's some fun and history kerryirs Today at 1:38 PM

http://apollo17.org/ Check out this web site and relive Apollo 17, the last manned mission to the Moon. Enjoy. *** 31821 RE: Here's some fun and history balor1999 Apr 10, 2016

I can think of several reasons why Kerry might start talking about the Apollo programme when we are discussing DRAGON’S DOMAIN. I don’t know if any of the reasons are right, but DRAGON’S DOMAIN is an episode that contains food for thought about the real issues of space travel. For instance, the story itself is about a space mission, and it is presented in a remarkably realistic manner, or at least realistic in the sense of emulating the 2001 SPACE ODYSSEY style of impressive models floating slowly through space accompanied with classical music, and it contains an important conversation between Dixon, Cellini, John and Victor where Dixon says that the truth about space travel is that it is terribly expensive. For Drake (1994), these themes are the central themes of both UFO and SPACE: 1999. In fact, there is an interesting difference between Keazor (2012) and Drake in their analysis of SPACE: 1999 in this respect as Drake sees technological optimism as a central theme of the series while Keazor sees technological pessimism. I don’t think Keazor mentions this

particular diversion of views when he articulate his perspective, but in retrospect it is so obvious that one might wonder if Drake was watching a different show when writing about SPACE: 1999 in the early 1990s. Actually, when Drake developed an online extension of his book in the early 2000s, presenting highly interesting comments and much deeper analysis of individual episodes, I think he included an excuse concerning the shallowness of his analysis in his original book, as it was commissioned by ITC to coincide with the release of UFO and SPACE: 1999 on VHS. As he more than compensated for this on his online analysis, it is only too unfortunate that these pages are no longer available. As with all excellent analysis by scholars and academics, it was a fantastic praise of Y1 as a masterpiece while completely ignoring Y2. Actually, he may have said something about Y2 being trash, as would be expected by anyone wanting to be taken seriously in writing about SPACE: 1999, but it is so long ago that I don’t remember. I think it is kind of Kerry to remind us that the last mission to the Moon was in 1972 while first plans for SPACE: 1999 were created in early 1973. Barry Morse always complained about how scripts were written just before they were going to shoot, so there was no time for the actors to really develop an understanding of the characters and overall situation before they went into production. I can understand his frustrations on this issue, but especially when we look at the first four episodes of the first series, they have a unique freshness to them that probably benefited from the fact that nobody knew exactly what they were doing. To acknowledge Kerry’s earlier and oft repeated point about not every Y1 episode is

464


an example of perfection, I would say that the first minor weakness of Y1 is when they reach episode five, EARTHBOUND. What seems to be happening at this time is that the series becomes more predictable. It is the first episode that feels more like STAR TREK or something similarly conventional, as opposed to the high art we see represented in the first four episodes. Nevertheless, even its weaker hours Y1 still remained the best SF television series of the period, and for many of us it has never been surpassed. One thing that I believe Barry Morse fails to mention about the lack of scripts is that they actually had a pool of scripts at the very beginning, including the script called WEB that later become DRAGON’S DOMAIN. Other scripts were THE BREATH OF DEATH by Irving Neiman and SIREN PLANET by Art Wallace. The latter one was rewritten by Johnny Byrne into MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH. I also believe that other scripts such as FULL CIRCLE, WAR GAMES and THE LAST SUNSET were presented at an early stage, but I’m not sure. Anyway, I would have expected that there should have been enough food for the actors to get an impression on what the series was aiming to become by looking at these early scripts, but it is possible that Victor Bergman did not have a very big part in those early scripts, and we also know that some of the early scripts were scrapped while others were heavily rewritten. In the case of DRAGON’S DOMAIN, we know that it was produced after Christopher Penfold had left the series, and as Johnny Byrne said that he didn’t remember being involved with the rewriting of it, Martin Willey assumes that the rewriting was done by Charles Cricthon, Gerry Anderson and Martin Landau. Nick Tate has in retrospect said that he was terribly disappointed with the rewrite because Penfold had told him that it was a script particularly written for him, but I think it is also quite well known that Martin Landau was not too happy with this idea, so this may be some of the reason why they changed the main character from Alan Carter to Tony Cellini and why Koenig steps in to save the day at the end of the episode. On the other hand, Byrne has sometimes said that he felt that Penfold’s episode was based on

BEOWULF, and, as we know, that story ends with the death of Beowulf during his final battle with the dragon. So, if the idea was to first present Alan Carter as a suppressed hysteric and then having him die towards the end of the episode, that would be difficult to fit in with the rest of the series. In this respect, it was probably a good choice to introduce Tony Cellini and allow the ideological and philosophical nature of the episode to remain unaltered. Actually, it is for this reason that I find the discussion about relationships between DRAGON’S DOMAIN and SPACE WARP to be interesting. In order to see whether it is possible to add further to this particular discussion, I have now watched Jess Franco’s ILSA – THE WICKED WARDEN from 1977. Just like the previous two entries by Don Edmonds, the third ISLA film is 90 minutes of naked women being oppressed, raped, tortured and killed by former SS commander Ilsa (Dyanne Thorne), who is of similar age and looks as Helena in Y2, although this time with red hair and hiding under the name of Greta. Interestingly, the context in this film has changed from the concentration camp of the first entry and the world of religious fundamentalism in the second, and is now taking place with Ilsa as the warden of an institution for mentally ill young women in South America. This means that Ilsa functions in a role that is in some ways more similar to Helena, and watching her torture her patients by sticking needles in the bodies or sadistically killing them by putting plastic bags over their heads, becomes visual cues that allows us to think of the relationship between Helena and Maya. On the other hand, I do not think it is the extreme violence and depravity in the third Ilsa film that is the most important aspect of what it offers in our context. Although some have said that Jess Franco’s ILSA is the hardest to watch of the four films, as he perhaps manages to create a greater level of realism than in the other entries, from our perspective I would say that the basic ILSA story is essentially the same. By this I mean, if we want to understand the impact of Freiberger on SPACE: 1999 by analysing the Woodgrove trilogy by means of the ILSA films, the structure of the ILSA films are all more or less identical in the sense that it makes us think of

I think Tony would be very happy Y2’s Moonbase Alpha as a concentration camp with Helena as a Nazi doctor doing medical experiments on Maya. The second film changed the context of the situation by having the atrocities take place among religious fundamentalists with a traditional society, thus allowing us to widen the discourse in terms of contemplating the cultural aspects of what Freiberger was trying to achieve in this trilogy of depravity, but the essence remains the same. What makes the third ILSA film different, in my opinion, is how it is now made by a political filmmaker rather than the exploitation filmmakers that were responsible for the other films. Although the film is supposed to take place in South America, it is shot in Europe with an international multi-language cast while Spanish auteur director Jess Franco was living in exile and making films about the fascism in Spain. I think this is why several of the reviews I have read talk about the “realism” of the film and how bad they felt after having watched it. I don’t know if any of the torture sequences and other disgusting aspects of the film was based on real events, but the film feels very much like a work of personal expression, like similar types of art films by Bertolucci, Brass and Pasolini. In this respect it is totally different from the other ILSA films. However, what strikes me as most important is the implied meta-narrative where Franco includes sequences of Ilsa filming the women in her ward being tortured and killed and then sell the snuff films to the local pornography distributor. In other words, Franco uses his own history and experience with fascist Spain as inspiration for telling a story set in South America for commenting on capitalist fascism in a similar style as what Marcuse, Adorno and Horkheimer had written about and lectured on for university students in late sixties. There are several scenes and aspects of the film that makes it politically relevant in this sense, like the way the final cannibalistic orgy is being planned in collaboration between one of Ilsa’s assistants and the local pornography distributor while the camera lingers on Coca Cola commercials, or how there is an undercurrent theme of Marxist rebels are fighting against the fascist regime by means of how we see Marxist symbols of liberation occasionally painted on walls. But the film is not about liberation. It is about oppression and

465

deprivation. Apart from the literature of Marcuse and others that influenced the Johnny Byrne generation, I would say that this particular ILSA film manages to do what none of the other ILSA films do, namely to create a cinematic parable of critical theory, very much in the sense of what Freedman praises in his book “Science fiction and critical theory” (2000), although it does not become proper SF until we choose to use it as a lens for understanding Woodgrove episodes like SPACE WARP. However, the cultural quality of Franco’s ILSA in comparison with Edmonds’ ILSA creates a challenge and a dilemma in terms of how it fits in with our reading of Freiberger’s impact on SPACE: 1999. The reason the ILSA films seemed perfect for understanding the Woodgrove trilogy in the first place was because of what Rick Curzon later described in terms of pointing out how the films were “trash with no esoteric aspects whatsoever”. It is perfect because that is also exactly how Fageolle and Bannier describe the Woodgrove trilogy. But the third ILSA film is different. It is still a disgusting film, making any comparison with SPACE WARP and other Woodgrove episode make such episodes “sink to the bottom of the sewer” as Kerry excellently puts it, but it is a film that is made disgusting with a purpose. It is a political film that is made for the purpose of shocking the audience out of complacency and make them realise that the ideology of the free world does to a large extent comprise elements of financial fascism that make us all similar to the inmates in Ilsa’s ward. If we were discussing other episodes of Y2, like Johnny Byrne’s THE METAMORPH or Christopher Penfold’s DORZAK, then this kind of reading of Psychon as a mental hospital and prison would make perfect sense, but not so when trying to understand Woodgrove episodes. As we remember, the reason we could not use BARBARELLA for understanding the Woodgrove episodes were because they were not designed as satire. On the contrary, the contained elements of fascism, so that was why the ILSA films were so useful. Now we are confronted with a particular entry in the ILSA series that is ideologically the opposite of the rest. The film is like a cuckoo bird in the sense of pretending

466


to be an exploitation film while actually being political art. How can we deal with that? Freiberger certainly had no artistic pretensions when working on SPACE: 1999, and definitely not the kind of subversive criticism of the system that he was an important symbol and representative of. How to deal with this is indeed an intellectual challenge. Nevertheless, what strikes me as a possible solution is if we try to separate between writer and director for each of the Woodgrove episodes. Even though we would like to think of Freiberger as a writer and producer of fascist pornography, this does not mean that we have to think of directors like Peter Medak, Val Guest and Robert Lynn in a similar manner. Absolutely not. In fact, this is perhaps were Jess Franco and the third ILSA film can fit in for producing a strategy on how even find merit in the worst episodes of Y2. Although Jess Franco both wrote the script and directed the third ILSA film, in such a case he was writing something that was bounded by certain requirements, namely the nature and structure of the other ILSA films. In other words, what he did with the ILSA formula could perhaps be compared to what Charles Crichton did in terms of rewriting and adjusting Penfold’s original script for DRAGON’S DOMAIN. If we now return to the driving idea of how fan fiction has made it possible for us to compare DRAGON’S DOMAIN and SPACE WARP, we could perhaps try to argue that there is a similar phenomenon going on here. While Freiberger wrote SPACE WARP as fascist pornography, in the way we have tried to see Helena as a Nazi doctor experimenting on the alien inmate Maya while SS commander John Koenig is on a mission, there is no reason to believe that director Peter Medak was thinking along such term. Quite to the contrary, his approach would probably be similar to Franco’s, namely a reflection on how to proceed with the material given to him in a manner that could be used for telling a completely different story. I don’t know what others think about this approach, but to me this strikes me as the best approach we can take for the moment. Perhaps by watching the final ILSA film and trying to understand the political views of Medak we can make further progress.

John B. *** 31822 Re: [OnlineAlpha] RE: Here's some fun and history Rick Curzon Apr 10, 2016

No one is listening or reading this stuff. Rick *** 31823 Re: [OnlineAlpha] RE: Here's some fun and history sennmut Apr 11, 2016

On 10 Apr 2016 balor1999@... writes: In order to see whether it is possible to add further to this particular discussion, I have now watched Jess Franco’s ILSA – THE WICKED WARDEN from 1977. Just like the previous two entries by Don Edmonds, the third ISLA film is 90 minutes of naked women being oppressed, raped, tortured and killed by former SS commander Ilsa (Dyanne Thorne), who is of similar age and looks as Helena in Y2, although this time with red hair and hiding under the name of Greta. Interestingly, the context in this film has changed from the concentration camp of the first entry and the world of religious fundamentalism in the second, and is now taking place with Ilsa as the warden of an institution for mentally ill young women in South America. This means that Ilsa functions in a role that is in some ways more similar to Helena, and watching her torture her patients by sticking needles in the bodies or sadistically killing them by putting plastic bags over their heads, becomes visual cues that allows us to think of the relationship between Helena and Maya.

Balor, this is sick. Diseased! To equate Helena, and the situation she is in on Alpha, along with everyone else, with some sexually perverted Nazi bitch torturing and raping the helpless is as grotesque as anything I have eve seen you post here. In fact it is worse. A hell of alot worse. I honestly didn't think your posts could get any more disgusting, but you do have a capacity for surprise! You seriously need to scoop up this used food you call thoughts, and shoot them into...well, you know.


*** 31824 Re: [OnlineAlpha] RE: Here's some fun and history balor1999 Apr 11, 2016

Please remember that we are now trying to investigate how an episode like DRAGON’S DOMAIN can be useful for understanding SPACE WARP. We are not talking about SPACE: 1999 in general or even Y2 in general. We are talking about the Woodgrove trilogy. As we have discussed earlier, the Woodgrove trilogy is extremely difficult to understand because Liardet’s suggestion on using BARBARELLA as a theoretical lens doesn’t seem to make much sense here. There is no satire or counter-cultural political subtext in these episodes, at least as far as I can see, so the only thing we have to build on are Martin Willey’s comments on Maya’s Nazi speech from RULES OF LUTON and how we can try to generalise from this by use of Wertham’s theory about fascism in superhero literature, as explain in his 1953 book “Seduction of the innocent”. Nevertheless, I must admit that the ILSA films are strong stuff. They are not the kind of films I would recommend people in general to watch, but when it comes to understanding Freiberger’s vision of SPACE: 1999 I think they are highly useful. I think Rick captured the essence of the films when he described them as “trash with no esoteric aspects whatsoever”, which is also a phrase I believe most of the cast, crew, fans and critics of SPACE :1999 would have to say about the Woodgrove trilogy. For instance, if we consult Fageolle’s brilliant analysis from 1996, he allows Pierre Bannier to characterise the trilogy in the following manner: Sans choquer personne, on peut advancer que les épisodes «Les directives de Luton», «Le nuage qui tue» et «une autre terre» illustrent à merveille ce qu’on appellera du gâchis de pellicule. Certain pensent même que Gerry Anderson aurait du s’abstenir de tourner toute la seconde saison, pour le bien de la série, et pour sa propre image de marque de producteur... (Fageolle, 1996, p. 106).

467

In other words, what Bannier and Fageolle are saying here is that they are offending nobody when saying that the three episodes of the Woodgrove trilogy is crap. More than that, they believe it would have been better for Gerry Anderson if he had restrained from making Y2 as the only thing this second series achieves is to ruin his name and reputation. Although Fageolle’s assessment of Y2 is wellknown, as it has been mentioned so many times on this forum, what has perhaps not been mentioned equally often is the way he introduces this passage with the words “sans choquer personne”, meaning that Fageolle and Bannier take their assessment of Y2 in general and the Woodgrove trilogy in particular to be an expression of how EVERYBODY feels. I think this is an important point, especially when we consider the enormous influence this book has had on SPACE: 1999 scholarship in general. To me this is important background when we try to find meaning in Y2 by following the interesting path suggested by Liardet. Now, there is no reason to expect that Liardet would disagree with what Bannier and Fageolle are saying. In fact, I think there is plenty of evidence in his magnificent 2014 book that he is in perfect agreement. Actually, it could be useful to quote from his book to illustrate how he also considers Y2 to be trash, for instance in the very first page of the book where he introduces the series for his target readership and the important analysis in chapter 8, but I think it is more important to focus on how we on this forum are trying to use some of the more constructive aspects of his writings for figuring out a way of making sense out of Y2. Actually, this is not hard at all as he gives the solution on page 214 by suggesting that we should use BARBARELLA as a theoretical lens. In fact, this is what some of us have been doing for some time, and speaking from a personal perspective, I would say that it has been a revelation. I think this particular theoretical model has moved the discussion many steps forwards, probably making more progress on the Y1/Y2 problem during the past few months than we have achieved collectively over a period of several decades. I don’t know why it has taken almost 40 years before somebody comes up with a perfectly simple

468


solution to this problem, because there is definitely no hint of any such solution when we read earlier influential works by Fageolle (1996), Muir (1997), Iaccino (2001) and Keazor (2012). Even when we look at Wood’s (2010) extensive quotes from conferences or the book edit of the first ExE (Ogland, 2014), there is very little that would prepare the world for the dramatic paradigm change suggested by Liardet towards the end of his study. Given how simple Liardet’s solution is, the fact that the idea had not been mentioned earlier is even more remarkable, but presenting simple solution to complex problems is often a mark of deep insight, and with his doctorate in French literature and extensive list of scholarly publications, Liardet is clearly among the most important voices within contemporary SPACE: 1999 debate. It is perhaps particularly due to his enormous contribution to the current understanding of SPACE: 1999 and Y2 that I feel excited by the way we have discovered a minor challenge with his theory, namely the way BARBARELLA is of limited value for making sense of the Woodgrove trilogy, and how we – almost by accident – have discovered that the ILSA films appear to represent exactly what we are looking for. So, I think it is important to bear in mind that the interpretation of SPACE WARP from the perspective of Helena being a Nazi doctor doing medical experiments on Maya has to be understood within this very narrow context. I think it is also extremely important to point out that ILSA, SHE WOLF OF THE SS is not a Nazi propaganda film. It is an exploitation film. The only purpose of the film, and I notice that Rick seems to agree with me on this, was for the producer to make money by appealing to the worst instincts in audiences by assuming that they would pay money for watching something that comes out of the “bottom of the sewer”, to use Kerry’s excellent expression. This is why the original ILSA from 1974 seems to fit perfectly with Freiberger’s vision for SPACE: 1999. It matches exactly the way he presents his own mentality in the interviews with Heald and McCorry. Freiberger wanted to build a new series of SPACE: 1999 by distancing it from the intellectual, ideological and philosophical aspects of the first series, something that we know annoyed Johnny Byrne enormously, but

not only that. Rather than making the new series intellectually, ideologically and philosophically void, Martin Willey and others have helped us to understand how this void was replaced by fascism. Just to make one point clear, and I know this has been said numerous times, but it is still immensely important, and that is Kerry’s argument that if we accuse a man of making fascist television then we are also directly or indirectly accusing that same man of being a fascist. I can see that it is easy to fall into the trap of accepting this argument, but that is why the ILSA films are of such immense importance. The ILSA films are far more explicit in terms of displaying narratives and actions that we associate with fascism, whether it is contextualised by means of Nazi concentration camps, the treatment of women in certain Middle East cultures, military regimes in South America, Stalin’s Gulag and the Russian mafia in Montreal, but that doesn’t mean that the filmmakers were fascists. In fact, I doubt that anybody would accuse people like Don Edmonds, Jess Franco and Jean Lafleur from being fascists. At least in the case of Jess Franco, we know that it was the exact opposite. I also think the ILSA films are useful for illustrating how the concept of ‘fascism’ has been used in many of the Online Alpha discussions, and why it is so important. Rather than talking about fascism in the strict historical context of Mussolini’s Italy, we have been using the concept in the same way as illustrated by the ILSA films, trying to align the ILSA argument with how Keazor (2010; 2014) talks implicitly and explicitly about the usefulness of reading SPACE: 1999 from the viewpoint of critical theory. It was in this context that I found the third ILSA film remarkably insightful for understanding an episode like SPACE WARP. Although the connection between Helena as the Nazi doctor and Maya as the concentration camp inmate being experimented upon could be easily induced from the first ILSA film, in fact this first film is clearly the most important of the lot in the sense that it presents the general structure of the film series that is repeated in the later entries, but the third film is remarkable because it steps out of the domain of being a pure exploitation film into also providing social analysis and criticism.

I think Tony would be very happy This is perhaps also the reason some people find this particular film even more horrible to watch than the rest, because it feels “realistic” in some deranged and unpleasant way. Of course, the film is pure fiction, but it is indeed extremely nasty in the way the atrocious events are contextualised in a manner that make them perhaps more psychologically revolting than in any of the other films. Although the film pretends to take place in some unnamed South American country, the mechanism of rape, torture and violence are presented in a manner that illustrates the fears and anxieties of how fascism can become a dominant ideology with capitalist society, as discussed by Marcuse and fellow members of the Frankfurt school, not to forget Harry Braverman’s extremely important book “Labour and Monopoly Capitalism” from 1974. To me this means that we are now dealing with the core of SPACE: 1999 as to be found in Keazor’s authoritative reading of the television text. In fact, we are seeing how the different perspectives of Liardet, Fageolle and Keazor complement each other and help us see not only the more or less obvious meaning of Y1 but also the more convoluted Y2. More than this, we are gradually gaining access for a meaningful reading of controversial episodes like SPACE WARP and RULES OF LUTON. Nevertheless, the problems are not over yet. As I mentioned in the concluding part of a previous comment, there is a significant difference between how Jess Franco uses the ILSA formula for producing social criticism of capitalist society as an exile from fascist Spain and how Freiberger is presenting SPACE WARP as an exploitation episode in a similar style as the three other ISLA films. My suggestion on how we can proceed on this challenge, as I mentioned in the previous post, was in trying to distinguish between Freiberger as the author of an ILSA-like narrative that we see represented in SPACE WARP and Peter Medak as the distinguished international filmmaker who got the dubious honour of trying to make the atrocious script into film. It is here I believe it is important to distinguish between exploitation filmmakers like Don Edmonds (first two ILSA films) and artistic filmmakers like Jess Franco and Peter Medak. In fact, there are several interesting interviews with Medak on YouTube where he talks about

469

filmmaking from an artistic perspective and the importance of making films from the insideout rather than the outside-in perspective that Freiberger and the exploitation industry represents. The argument I want to make is how Medak and Freiberger can be seen as representing opposing political positions, thus making it more clear how Freiberger was on the oppressive side of society, reading his destruction of SPACE: 1999 as a means of not personal expression but cultural expression on behalf on capitalist fascism that we believe he can be seen to represent. Medak, on the other hand, could then be seen as a liberator who somehow is working within the Freibergerian oppressive system at Pinewood but sees an opportunity for using trashy episodes like SPACE WARP for expressing the opposite political views of those enforced by Freiberger. In this context, I think ILSA, THE TIGRESS OF SIBERIA (the fourth and final film in the series) might come in as a useful metaphor as it once more retells the story of the Nazi doctor performing medical experiments on her concentration camp inmates (e.g. Helena experimenting on Maya in SPACE WARP), but now in the context first of running a Gulag camp for political dissidents and later becoming the head of a the Russian Mafia in Montreal, after falling in disfavour with the regime that replaced Stalin. As Medak took part in the 1956 student uproars in Hungary, he was forced to flee the country, and thus moved to Britain where he later developed into one of the important filmmakers of the previous century, making for instance the important 1972 counter-cultural satirical film THE RULING CLASS that might have been an influence for Johnny Byrne and his friends within the London art-sex-drug collective. The fact that somebody like Medak would be asked to make a film based on the kind of trash that Freiberger was pouring out is astonishing in itself, but from our perspective it can be a clue to a better way of understanding the episode in the sense that having an established artist being responsible for making what is essentially an ISLA exploitation film, we are in the same situation as when we are discussing why Jess Franco’s ISLA is so different from the rest. In other words, we do not only have

470


to depend on the text itself for making sense out of SPACE WARP, or whatever visions Freiberger tried to accomplish by penning this particular episode, but more importantly is how we can look at how Medak used this trash as input for expressing his own visions, and based on his previous work on films like THE RULING CLASS, it is obvious that Medak was on the same side as Johnny Byrne and the rest of the writers during the ideological battles that took place while making the second series of SPACE: 1999. John B. *** 31825 Re: [OnlineAlpha] RE: Here's some fun and history richard curzon Apr 11, 2016

For whose benefit are you writing these great long rants? Rick *** 31827 Re: [OnlineAlpha] RE: Here's some fun and history sennmut Apr 11, 2016

His own, Curzon. Trying to prove something to himself, I suspect. *** 31826 Re: [OnlineAlpha] RE: Here's some fun and history sennmut Apr 11, 2016

"Fageolle's brilliant analysis..." Bull! There is nothing "brilliant" about any of that crap. Fageolle and his ilk are a cadre of babbling fools, trying to sound like intellectuals, and being French, they can get away with it. That, and Balor's consistent mantra of Maya's "Nazi speech" shows his inability to hear a damned thing anyone else says. Balor wouldn't know "Nazi" if the Nuremburg Rallies fell on him. While Y2 was not Shakespeare, if the views expressed therein are "fascist", then I happily embrace them. Got that, Balor? Now go take

your whiney-assed communist crap, and put an egg in your shoe. And can the French. *** 31828 Re: Here's some fun and history kerryirs Apr 11, 2016

John wrote. I think it is kind of Kerry to remind us that the last mission to the Moon was in 1972 while first plans for SPACE: 1999 were created in early 1973. Barry Morse always complained about how scripts were written just before they were going to shoot, so there was no time for the actors to really develop an understanding of the characters and overall situation before they went into production. I can understand his frustrations on this issue, but especially when we look at the first four episodes of the first series, they have a unique freshness to them that probably benefited from the fact that nobody knew exactly what they were doing. To acknowledge Kerry’s earlier and oft repeated point about not every Y1 episode is an example of perfection, I would say that the first minor weakness of Y1 is when they reach episode five, EARTHBOUND. What seems to be happening at this time is that the series becomes more predictable. It is the first episode that feels more like STAR TREK or something similarly conventional, as opposed to the high art we see represented in the first four episodes. Nevertheless, even its weaker hours Y1 still remained the best SF television series of the period, and for many of us it has never been surpassed.

First of all there are no "several reasons" I posted the Apollo 17 link. I saw it on my home page and thought people might enjoy it, especially those who are to young to remember it. It has nothing to do with 1999 and the plans to make the series. I'm sorry John, I'm not into conspiracy theories without proof to back them up, so instead of asking me why I posted the link, you made the assumption that I had a reason other than the one that list above. Question. Do you think that Barbara Bain would've taken this role if she felt that there was an inkling of a Nazi aspect to the role, especially considering that her husband was Jewish? I cinserely doubt it.

I think Tony would be very happy *** 31831 Re: Here's some fun and history balor1999 Apr 12, 2016

Engaging in the current discussions about what fan fiction can teach us about DRAGON’S DOMAIN, Rick opined the need for a lighter approach. Kerry posted a message about the Apollo 17 mission. I assumed these messages were connected, indeed believing they could be connected in many ways, but it turned out I was wrong. Kerry’s message had nothing to do with DRAGON’S DOMAIN. First of all there are no "several reasons" I posted the Apollo 17 link. I saw it on my home page and thought people might enjoy it, especially those who are to young to remember it. It has nothing to do with 1999 and the plans to make the series.

Even though the Apollo 17 link was not intended to have anything to do with the ongoing discussions, I still think it was interesting and relevant input in the context of what we were looking at. There may be some members on the forum that are too young to remember Apollo 17, but I think most members can relate to it because it happened just before SPACE: 1999 went into planning and production. More than that, as Drake (1994) points out, the closing of the Apollo programme is an important historical event needed for understanding SPACE: 1999. Indeed, when Keazor (2012) paves the way for an understanding of SPACE: 1999 through the means of critical theory, a Marxist reading of modern history – including the Apollo space programme – is essential context. What I found particularly useful in Kerry reminding us of the Apollo 17 mission is an implied emphasis on realism in Y1 and the lack of realism in Y2. This is a point that has been made several times, and I think nobody does it better than Keazor. Here is a good example: The circular arrangement of the moon base, its elevator launch pads, and the modular girdand-girder structure of the space transporter used in the series – baptised as a nod to the first moon landing module named Eagle – bears a close resemblance to the moon base and its moonbus featured in Stanley Kubrick’s

471

1968 film 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Widely recognised as a milestone of the genre, Kubrick’s film was compared to SPACE: 1999 […] And in both cases, the seriousness and credibility of the depicted future purposefully enhanced the more mystical bias of both tales, where each time an alien, but obviously friendly force, seems to steer and direct the events. In 2001, an alien intelligence lures the humans into deep space in order to establish direct contact and propel humankind on a journey leading to a higher evolution. In SPACE: 1999 it is made clear, slowly but surely throughout the first season, that the odyssey of the moon – though seemingly inspired by an accident provoked by humanity’s short-sighted storage of nuclear waste on the earth’s satellite – follows a destiny and purpose determined millions of years ago. (Keazor, 2012, pp. 192-3). In this particular extract, which is part of a larger context where Keazor discusses the seriousness and credibility of SPACE: 1999, there are two kinds of realism he alludes to. The first type of realism is the way SPACE: 1999 tries to achieve a similar high level of SFX realism that was seen in Kubrick’s 2001, and to me the special effects achieved by the Anderson team are even quite remarkable today, especially when we watch an episode like DRAGON’S DOMAIN where there are scenes of space travel that are similar to what we saw in Kubrick’s epic. The other kind of realism that Keazor talks about, which is to him far more important when he elaborates his argument in later sections of the text, is the realism in the way dealing with psychological, social and political issues. For instance, when he uses the phrase “a destiny and purpose determined millions of years ago” above, this phrase takes on a deeper meaning when he later on discusses the series in the context of the famous writings of Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawn. To me this suggests that Kerry’s intervention in the DRAGON’S DOMAIN debate, by bringing attention to the Apollo 17 mission, was perhaps more useful than personally anticipated. When we now have been discussing a particular piece of exceptionally fine fan-fiction, and have observed how fanfiction reviewers have made sense out of this work for the purpose of linking DRAGON’S

472


DOMAIN and SPACE WARP, I think the implications of Kerry’s link – in the sense to drawing attention to seriousness, credibility and realism – enhances the debate. In fact, I think it is hitting the nail on the head in terms of how we have been trying to use the ILSA films for achieving a better understanding of not only SPACE WARP but also the complete Woodgrove trilogy by means of trying to see what the seriousness and credibility of an episode like DRAGON’S DOMAIN can do to our understanding of an episode like SPACE WARP that is characterised by the exact lack of such characteristics. To fill in on this, I think Kerry’s following question is highly useful: Question. Do you think that Barbara Bain would've taken this role if she felt that there was an inkling of a Nazi aspect to the role, especially considering that her husband was Jewish? I sincerely doubt it.

To me this is exactly the right question to ask because it challenges the ILSA interpretation in an intelligent manner and thus makes it possible to reflect more thoughtfully on what we have achieved so far. As I have stated earlier, I think we have achieved almost revolutionary results when we compare how BARBARELLA and ILSA provide theoretical models of Y2 that questions the earlier orthodoxy as expressed by the quote from Bannier and Fageolle in a recent message, so what we need now is constructive and critical debate for seeing whether the interpretation of Helena as an “Ilsa” character makes sense. We have already seen that it makes very much sense to read SPACE WARP from the viewpoint of ILSA, SHE WOLF OF THE SS and the sequels when we focus on what Freiberger wanted to achieve with SPACE: 1999, but does it make sense in the context of not only looking at Barbara Bain’s performance and whether she would be willing and able to inhabit such a role? As I mentioned in an earlier post, I spent three consecutive evenings watching SPACE: 1999, first in the original version, then dubbed in German and then in French, to see whether the episode as a whole made sense from an ILSA perspective, and I was particularly concerned with a particular smile on Helena’s face during an early scene with Maya on the operation table before the uncontrolled transformations

take place. Using this type of scrutiny, I was only more convinced of the utility of the ILSA approach, and the way Kerry brought attention to the off-screen tensions between Bain and Schell made the ILSA interpretation only more convincing. However, now Kerry adds another critical and important question to the table, namely whether Bain would be willing to perform the role in the manner suggested. Kerry sincerely doubts this. I am more uncertain. Before explaining why I think the ILSA model also makes sense from an acting perspective, I think it is important to acknowledge Kerry’s point by saying that I also believe Bain had constraints on what kinds of roles she would allow herself to do. In fact, I remember an interview when she talked about the period between MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE and SPACE: 1999 by saying that it was a challenging period because most of the roles she was offered involved excessive nudity. For many people this would perhaps not be a problem, for instance I remember Sigourney Weaver saying that she was disappointed that Ridley Scott did not stick to his original decision to do the final scene in ALIEN with her in the nude rather than having her in underwear, but I believe the influence of neoconservatism in the late seventies and early eighties caused a reaction against the liberal attitudes of the late sixties and early seventies that made it more difficult to have the film reach as wide an audience as possible by including nudity, so – to the despair of Sigourney Weaver – this particular sequence was redesigned. For Barbara Bain, on the other hand, the situation was the opposite. She was only offered roles that required nudity, and perhaps as she thought such roles would be damaging to her image, or for whatever reasons, she turned those offers down. In other words, as Kerry points out, she operated with constraints in terms of what she would do as an actress. However, the reason I am less doubtful than Kerry if whether she would be willing to play a Nazi doctor performing medical experiments on concentration camp inmates, including acts of torture and murder, is because we have already seen Martin Landau perform as a Nazi officer in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE. I am thinking of the episode “The Legacy” from the

I think Tony would be very happy first season, although I have a vague memory that he might have done similar Nazi roles in later episodes as well. In fact, I think Landau was quite good in playing South American dictators, Nazi officers and mad military types of all kinds. In many of these roles he projected the mixture of authority and ruthlessness that made him totally convincing, and I have never heard him say anything about having doubts doing such characters. I remember Al Pacino discussing the problem Kerry brings up in the 1996 semi-documentary LOOKING FOR RICHARD about the preparation for playing Shakespeare’s RICHARD III. Although it would be wrong to compare the ILSA films with Shakespeare, I think the approach good actors use with preparing for a problematic character, like Richard or Ilsa, is very much the same. The point Pacino made was that it would not work if he saw Richard as an evil character. People do not tend to see themselves as evil. If Pacino were to play Richard as evil, then it would look totally unconvincing. The challenge when preparing for a play like that was to get under the skin of the character, to really understand what motivates a character like Richard III and why he says and does what the text requires him to say and do. In SPACE: 1999 we see a lot of the same thing. The brilliance of performers like Roy Dotrice and Peter Bowles is that they make characters like Simmonds and Balor into sympathetic characters, or if not sympathetic – at least they become characters that it is possible to understand. Gianni Garko’s interpretation of Cellini is another example. Although ILSA, SHE WOLF OF THE SS and the sequels were rather uneven in terms of performances among the cast as a whole, Dyanne Thorne was uniformly excellent as the title role in all films. In fact, she was surprisingly good considering that the films (except the third instalment) obviously had no higher artistic ambitions than those expressed by Freiberger when he talks about his involvement with SPACE: 1999. Actually, the performance of Dyanne Thorne was on a completely different artistic level than what we see Barbara Bain do in Y2. Thorne was doing a real performance, like we saw Bain do in Y1, and not the puppet theatre performance Bain experimented with in Y2.

473

Here we have another interesting point that I believe can be used as a response to Kerry’s question. If Barbara Bain was willing to sink to the level of what Freiberger was aiming for in Y2, why do we then question whether she would be willing to play a Nazi doctor? In fact, I think we have an astonishing paradox here. On the one hand we have Bain turned down film offers in the early seventies because she either felt uncomfortable doing them or felt they would be bad for her reputation, but then she participates in S99/Y2 that must have been far worse in both respects. As far as I can see, anybody willing to participate in S99/Y2, and particularly in Woodgrove episodes like SPACE WARP, would have had no inhibitions whatsoever in participating in ILSA films of the most deprived kind. I would suspect that for somebody like Barbara Bain to play the role of Ilsa, including the explicit and brutal nature of how the films focus on rape, torture and violence, would almost be like a holiday after having done the second year of SPACE: 1999. So, in my opinion, Kerry asks a very good question, but it does not result in weakening the relevance of the ILSA films as models for understanding Woodgrove episodes. Quite to the contrary, the question only helps us understand on an even deeper level why the ILSA films complements Liardet’s suggested use of BARBARELLA for understanding Y2. John B. *** 31832 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Here's some fun and history sennmut Apr 12, 2016

On 12 Apr 2016 balor1999@... writes: Even though the Apollo 17 link was not intended to have anything to do with the ongoing discussions, I still think it was interesting and relevant input in the context of what we were looking at. There may be some members on the forum that are too young to remember Apollo 17, but I think most members can relate to it because it happened just before SPACE: 1999 went into planning and production. More than that, as Drake (1994) points out, the closing of the Apollo programme is an important historical event needed for

474

Part III – Short Stories understanding SPACE: 1999. Indeed, when Keazor (2012) paves the way for an understanding of SPACE: 1999 through the means of critical theory, a Marxist reading of modern history – including the Apollo space programme – is essential context.

The "ongoing discussions" exist only in your fevered mind, Balor. Not in the real world. As to the "Marxist reading of modern history", is there really enough toilet paper for all that? *** 31833 Re: Here's some fun and history kerryirs Apr 12, 2016

The one question I've had concerning 1999 is how long did Anderson and group take to come up with the concept for the series before they went before the camera? From what John points out as Barry Morse's comments to have been, not long. I think most producers like to have several episodes on hand to avoid this last minute rush to get something worthy of putting before the camera. BREAKAWAY may be an example of this. From what I've read, the shooting dragged on until Gerry Anderson took control and basically rewrote the script and also basically took over to get it filmed. What was it, six weeks it took to get it done? And there's MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH. Again, I think this script had to be rewritten. Another matter/anti-matter story, which can be interesting, but an anti-matter Lee Russell coming into contact with matter would've ended the story pretty quickly. Despite this, I thought the story was pretty good until the end where somebody (the MUF maybe) threw magic dust on the planet and everything turns out OK. Even Byrne didn't care for that kind of thing. Again, BREAKAWAY and MOLAD threw this series into fantasy with SF elements. BLACK SUN sealed the deal in terms of this show being more fantasy than "mainstream SF". Finally John recently pointed out that he thought I wasn't here to bash Y1, and he's right to a point. For me, it doesn't get us anywhere, except animosity. However, it would be easy to do. Unfortunately, there's enough of that already.

*** 31834 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Here's some fun and history Rick Curzon Apr 12, 2016

They had made UFO (1969-70) which was screened in the UK 1970-71, but took till 1972-73 to be shown in the USA. At that point Anderson and Co. were making The Protectors (1971-73) but were also in preproduction on UFO: 1999 but the ratings for UFO dipped at a crucial moment and ITC America cancelled it. Not wanting to waste all that preproduction, Anderson put all of the work into Space: 1999 with some obvious tweaking. Abe Mandell of ITC America had forced Anderson to move UFO to the Moon so it didn't take much tweaking on the whole. Space: 1999 Series 1 commenced production in September (or so) 1973 and finished in March 1975. Series two was made in only 10 months during 1976. Rick *** 31835 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Here's some fun and history balor1999 Apr 13, 2016

This is the point I thought Kerry was making when referring to the Apollo 17 link, namely how SPACE: 1999 evolved out of a context that was partly defined by previous Anderson efforts and partly by how those efforts reflected the current stage of space programmes like Apollo. Of course, UFO is an important aspect of this history, which is also a central point in Drake’s analysis of SPACE: 1999, not at least in the manner makes use of his own feelings as a young boy when commenting on the period: In the early 1970s, as I recall, everyone believed that we were about to enter a marvellous new era of scientific achievement on space exploration. The Space Age, as it was known, never quite materialised, but to a young boy who dreamed of becoming an astronaut, UFO captured perfectly the feeling


475

of excitement and optimism that was so prevalent at the time. (Drake, 1994, p. 7)

been written about the series, if we choose to disregard his online amendments from 2001.

So, here we can see some of the “fun and history” that Kerry referred to. Nevertheless, Kerry’s link was specifically to the Apollo 17 mission, so this is why I was assuming an implied association with DRAGON’S DOMAIN, namely the issue about “the reality of space adventuring is that it’s terribly expensive” and thus the closing down of the Ultra programme as a parallel with the closing down of the Apollo programme.

Nevertheless, Keazor acknowledged the importance of Fageolle when he wrote his seminal text in 2012, although by this time it was of course Fageolle’s second edition from 1996 that had become the milestone that defines the beginning of the following decades of serious attempts to make sense out of SPACE: 1999, and if we read between the lines in Keazor’s text, I believe that Keazor’s attempts to explain SPACE: 1999 in the context of earlier efforts like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, DOPPELGÄNGER: JOURNEY TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE SUN and UFO should be understood in the context of how Fageolle writes specifically about DRAGON’S DOMAIN by referring to what Michel Butor (1953) had earlier said about SF and modernity. In other words, when Keazor implies a neo-Marxist interpretation of SPACE: 1999 by means of using Hobsbawm’s 1995 book about the history of the 20th century as a way of scaffolding an authoritative way of reading the television text, he is not only contributing to Freedman’s (2000) project of showing how SF and critical theory are naturally aligned, but he is actually doing this by building on Fageolle’s similar way of using Butor.

By 1975 the Apollo missions had come to an end and the future of space travel looked decidedly bleak, but this didn’t stop Gerry and Sylvia Anderson from unleashing their most spectacular and ambitious series onto an unsuspecting world. SPACE: 1999 rekindled that aflame of early 1970’s optimism which, albeit very briefly, burned a little brighter than anything this industry has managed to produce since (ibid). Although I can enjoy the “fun and history” perspective suggested by Kerry, and which to me gave immediate associations with Drake’s writings, I still think it is based on a slight misrepresentation of both UFO and SPACE: 1999. What I mean by this is that I believe Keazor’s (2012) reading of the television text adds perspectives that may not have occurred to Drake at all. We must remember that when Drake was writing this first book on SPACE: 1999 for the English language audience, the only book of similar statue that was available was the 1992 version of Fageolle’s book, and Drake may not even have been aware of this important work. Of course, there was a body of SPACE: 1999 literature by means of Heald’s book, fan magazines, newspaper critics and some spurious mention of SPACE: 1999 in books and journals on SF, but Fageolle’s was, as far as I can see, the only serious attempt at the time to make intellectual sense out of the series. As Drake apparently was not aware of Fageolle, he also had very little to build on in his feeble attempts at developing an explanatory theory of SPACE: 1999 by means of UFO. In fact, I think most of us would agree that Drake’s 1994 book is probably the least impressive of the various interesting books and journal articles that have

What perhaps made it difficult for Drake to realise this particular point, if he had indeed read Fageolle at all, was that for many of us it was not common knowledge that Butor was one of the leading intellectuals in support of the 1968 student revolts in Paris. If I have a small quibble with the works of Fageolle, it is perhaps exactly this point. His books are written with a particular French intellectual audience in mind that makes it unnecessary to spell out points that may not be grasped at all by a wider audience, and I suspect this is part of the reason why the book has not yet been translated into English, despite by far being the most influential and important text ever written on SPACE: 1999. If it were to be translated, this would be a tremendous task as it would requite introductions and footnotes that would probably make the book twice or three times as large as it already is. Nevertheless, Keazor grasps the essence of Fageolle and makes exquisite use of many of

476


the key points when continuing to increase our understanding of SPACE: 1999 is such an important text within the history of SF. Where Drake sees UFO in the context of space age optimism, and SPACE: 1999 as a symbol of how that spirit is kept alive through popular culture while the social, political, economic and material conditions change, Keazor has a diametrically different perspective. For him the value of SPACE: 1999 lies exactly what I thought Kerry was referring to, namely the importance of the year 1972 with the final Apollo mission in the context of how this particular year is given emphasis in Hobsbawm’s Marxist reading of modern history. As I understand it, the point Hobsbawm argues is that the failed efforts in trying to develop socialism in the post-war period has to be understood in the context of socialism seemed less relevant during the period of economic growth from 1945 to 1972, and when disaster struck with climate crisis, oil crisis, economic crisis, Watergate and so on, things turned even worse when market fundamentalism and global capitalism started to wreck havoc in the following decades. Now, SPACE: 1999 could not say anything about what happened after 1977, but as it was a SF series, it was concerned with ideology and perspectives on the future. For both Fageolle and Keazor this is what makes the text so fascinating, and I think that is why a forum like Online Alpha keeps on going strong after more than 20 years of daily discussions about this wonderful TV series. However, I think there are also issues that Fageolle and Keazor mention that could we widely expanded upon, and Kerry’s reference to the Apollo 17 link reminded me in particular about the UFO/SPACE: 1999 perspective. I think there are possibilities for improvements here because I do not only think that Keazor only presents a slightly different interpretation from that of Drake. I think the interpretation is radically different not only in how he reads SPACE: 1999 but also how he reads UFO, which he, unfortunately, says far too little about. If I were to look at UFO from Keazor’s perspective, I would not see space age optimism at all. I would see it as an invasion story, similar to THE INVADERS. In fact, Gerry Anderson makes use of THE

INVADERS protagonist Roy Thinnes in the UFO prototype film JOURNEY TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE SUN (DOPPELGANGER), and the worrying part of THE INVADERS is that it is clearly a red scare television series that embraces the worst sides of McCarthyism of the 1950s as a way to reach audiences that were concerned with the counter-cultures movements of the late sixties. What struck me when I saw the complete two season of THE INVADERS not so long ago, is how extremely right-wing it is. From an ideological perspective, it could be seen as the exact opposite of everything STAR TREK stood for, which is interesting in the sense that the series were made in parallel. As we have previously seen, STAR TREK could at best be understood as a weak version of SPACE: 1999 in terms of dealing with social understanding from a New Left perspective. When it comes to the politics of DOPPELGANGER and UFO, I will not claim to know more about the Andersons that what Barry Morse said on this issue, namely that, in spite his understanding of SPACE: 1999 as a socialist television series, he had no ideas about the political viewpoints of the Andersons. As I notice that Kerry has started making questions about BREAKAWAY and MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, I think some of these questions would be more appropriate in the context of DOPPELGANGER and UFO. While the political subtext and ideology of SPACE: 1999 is obvious from what we know about Johnny Byrne and the rest, to me it is much less clear what the old UFO episodes were trying to say. Were they espousing perverse political ideology, like in the case of THE INVADERS, or were the Anderson’s only using this particular format to articulate viewpoints that would be more consistent with what we see in SPACE: 1999? I think these are important counter-questions to ask in the context of how Kerry is challenging us on how to understand BREAKAWAY and MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH from the viewpoint of DRAGON’S DOMAIN. John B. ***

I think Tony would be very happy 31836 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Here's some fun and history sennmut Apr 13, 2016

On 13 Apr 2016 balor1999@... writes: What perhaps made it difficult for Drake to realise this particular point, if he had indeed read Fageolle at all, was that for many of us it was not common knowledge that Butor was one of the leading intellectuals in support of the 1968 student revolts in Paris. If I have a small quibble with the works of Fageolle, it is perhaps exactly this point. His books are written with a particular French intellectual audience in mind that makes it unnecessary to spell out points that may not be grasped at all by a wider audience, and I suspect this is part of the reason why the book has not yet been translated into English, despite by far being the most influential and important text ever written on SPACE: 1999. If it were to be translated, this would be a tremendous task as it would requite introductions and footnotes that would probably make the book twice or three times as large as it already is.

"French intellectual audience in mind that makes it unnecessary to spell out points that may not be grasped at all by a wider audience" Right. And the rest of us who watched the show are a bunch of drooling retards. So, did these guys ever write anything for the dumb shit audience? *** 31837 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Here's some fun and history richard curzon Apr 13, 2016

I'd like to know for whom these posts are for; there is no real two way discussion...it's just proclaiming? I don't have the time to read these things and when I have done they're pretentious and taking an entertainment far, far too seriously. Rick ***

477

31838 Re: Here's some fun and history kerryirs Apr 13, 2016

Thanks Rick. It'd be interesting to know how long other shows took to go from concept to production. I've heard Roddenberry took several years hashing out what would become STAR TREK before filming started. From the the time UFO was canceled after it hit the US market until 1999 came along wasn't much time. Apparently there weren't any plans in the works in case UFO didn't make it, thus the quick change in format and concept. That's what I've always wondered about. *** 31839 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Here's some fun and history richard curzon Apr 13, 2016

Just a quickie re Star Trek: 1964: The Cage (first pilot with Jeffrey Hunter) 1965: Where No Man Has Gone Before (second pilot with William Shatner) 1966-67: First season broadcast. 1967-68: Second Season 1968-69: Third season Rick ***

478


12.5 Yahoo for sale? In chapter 9.4 it was mentioned that the days of Online Alpha may be counted as Yahoo is experiencing financial problems with the suspected consequence that Yahoo Groups will be closed down. The discussion that follows is based on trying to read the latest news updates in the context of the “Dragon’s Domain” discussions. However, the discussion quickly moves beyond the issue of the Yahoo Groups issue and continue to engage with and expand on issues from previous threads. 31829 Yahoo for Sale? atd1999 Apr 12, 2016

Hi all! Just me again....wanted to give everyone a heads-up - it looks like some interest in buying Yahoo! is starting to appear - from what I've seen, Verizon and a few others may make some bids as early as this week. I'm hoping that Groups won't be affected - I really think that a new owner could flesh out the Groups and make it a Facebook competitor, but who knows? Keep your eyes open for any news...everything is the same until it changes. 1999 Lives, Anthony *** 31830 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Yahoo for Sale? John Marcucci Apr 12, 2016

Anthony, had you ever considered reddit as a new location for us. IMHO, a far better option than FB. *** 31840 Re: Yahoo for Sale? balor1999 Apr 14, 2016

When Anthony says that “everything is the same until it changes” and predicts that Yahoo Groups will be demolished or radically changed in the near future, my feeling is that not all change is good change. Like when he first brought up this issue some months ago, my immediate reflection was that we were in a BLACK SUN situation where there is an impending doom and people start thinking

about creating Bergman shields and launching rescue Eagles. I know that Anthony has for some time been talking about an Operation Exodus of leaving Online Alpha Yahoo Groups to settle down on Terra Nova Facebook, but so far the response on Online Alpha has been that we prefer the list format and as there already exists SPACE: 1999 Facebook Groups to join, there should be no need for abandoning the current home of discussions for those who are not interested in Facebook. However, due to the financial difficulties at Yahoo, now resulting in the company perhaps being bought by somebody else, it is not unnatural to expect that there will be changes. In fact, Yahoo already made some changes with the visual design and other aspects of Yahoo Groups a few years ago, mostly for the worse in my opinion, but I understand the need for experimenting with the design of products in a competitive market. It is often argued that market competition leads to product improvements, and may in such cases be good for the customers and society in general, but this is not always the case. When Bourdieu (1996) writes about the impact of neoliberalism on French television, his point was to illustrate that more channels and more competition resulted not in better but worse television. The way he describes it, and here I am making a fictional example to relate it to our context, in France they used to have a lot of discussion programmes where people like Fageolle, Bannier and Liardet would engage in endlessly long and deep conversations about things like how S99/Y1 could be understood in the context of the 1968 student revolts in Paris, but with more competition and more channels, it became important to attract as many viewers as possible, and the quality immediately went down the drain as television became more Freibergerised and Y2-like. To me it seems like we are now experiencing the same thing on the internet. In the early

I think Tony would be very happy days of internet, like with the space1999 mailing lists in the 1990s, there were long and deep conversations, and even people like Johnny Byrne joined in from period to period. Although it was probably a natural choice to move to Yahoo Groups in year 2000, I think the quality of the discussions never reached the same level as before. The old lists used to be available on the Online Alpha Archives maintained by David Welle and Marcy Kulic. Unfortunately it appears that there was some breakdown on the servers where these archives were kept, so now the greatest jewels on Online Alpha discussions are probably lost for eternity, but we can still catch some glimpses of it by means of David’s ExE edit on his homepage or by reading Ogland’s book. Nevertheless, when we look at the 16 years of discussions at Yahoo Groups in comparisons, not everything is worse. There have been periods of draught with little happening and there have been periods of great creativity and engagement. Personally, I would say that the current period, starting with the second ExE in the spring of 2014, has been a very good period with lots of interesting discussions. It is perhaps particularly in this context of how Online Alpha seems to be doing better during the past few years, in comparison to most of its existence, that it is sad to hear that our days may be counted. If I were to choose a different episode than BLACK SUN to describe the situation, I think I would perhaps use the quote from WAR GAMES, when the alien tells Koenig that “the death struggle of inferior species is very often the finest hour of their existence, but the end is, nevertheless, the end”. As SPACE: 1999 is superior to much else of popular culture, I’m not sure I’m perfectly happy with the expression ‘inferior species’, but if the competition between Yahoo Groups and Facebook results in Yahoo Groups being closed down, we are indeed a dying race, and the end is, of course, the end. However, as the theme of our current discussion is what fan fiction can teach us about DRAGON’S DOMAIN, I think there is an important resonance between WAR GAMES and DRAGON’S DOMAIN in the sense that Tony Cellini is indeed making his death struggle into the finest hour of his existence, and the episode ends with John and

479

Helena discussing whether his death struggles could be used as a mythology for Moonbase Alpha’s journey through space as a whole. Although Cellini made heroic efforts in his final struggles, the reason why he was able to do this was because he was a suppressed hysteric, I hear Chris Penfold say between the lines, just like the Moon destroyed all intelligent life within a solar system by crashing through the SPACE BRAIN. In our conquest to survive, in combination with insufficient understanding of large scale challenge (like climate change, migration and the global economy), destruction follows in our footpaths. I suppose it is this particular pessimistic nature of SPACE: 1999 that made Chrisoph Petit write his beautiful yet insightful article “COSMOS 1999: Voyage au bout de la nuit” in the Sep/Oct/Nov 1999 issue of Générations Séries, and I take it that it is the same feeling that made Fageolle name his book “COSMOS 1999: L’épopée de la blancheur” and align the mythology discussed in DRAGON’S DOMAIN with the way Michel Butor sees SF as the mythology of moderny. Although all of this turns out to be somewhat depressing, I think it is important the way the political relevance of how these French intellectuals read SPACE: 1999 is rendered more accessible for a wider audience when Keazor (2014) uses critical theory as a means for translating ideas that are deeply embedded in structuralism and post-structuralism. What this means is that Fageolle’s final chapter, about how SPACE: 1999 can be used as a tool for individual and social emancipation, becomes more evident through Keazor as something that gives meaning in terms of supporting and participating in movements like Democracy Spring. Although having Online Alpha Yahoo Groups demolished cannot be compared with how real people are suffering from how the most untamed forms of laissez-faire capitalism create economic disaster and social inequality beyond repair, on a small scale we can observe similarities in the way Anthony warns about a possible future for Online Alpha. As pointed out in Bourdieu’s book, there is a strong interplay between cultural capital and financial capital, and letting the Freibergers of the world remain in positions of power does not only

480


result in cultural disaster but total breakdown of societies and the destruction of civilisation as a whole. John B. *** 31841 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Yahoo for Sale? sennmut Apr 14, 2016

Huh? *** 31842 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Yahoo for Sale? balor1999 Apr 15, 2016

Let me put it another way. Where I see Anthony’s comments about Yahoo relevant for us, beyond the fact that the future of the discussion forum becomes uncertain, is how the comments allow us to focus on what Tulloch and Jenkins (1995) say about turning fandom into political activism. Perhaps political activism is too strong, as I am still a bit uncertain to which extent happenings like the “Save STAR TREK Campaign” and be compared with the DEMOCRACY SPRING demonstrations, although there are structural similarities both on the behavioural and conceptual level, given that we read STAR TREK as a political text in the same way as we do with SPACE: 1999. In this context it is perhaps even somewhat redundant to talk about the “Save STAR TREK Campaign” as Muir (1997, p. 178) writes about the similarly structured “Save 1999 Campaign”. Here is a more detail account of the campaign: http://fanlore.org/wiki/The_Space:1999_Societ y December marks the third anniversary of the creation of The Space:1999 Society and the movement to save Space:1999.... The origins of the Space:1999 Society date back to December 1976, when Ted Hruschak and Dan Pallotta created the Save 1999 Campaign, and effort to organize a write-in campaign to prevent the impending cancellation of Space:1999 in February 1977. "Save: 1999" began its effort

by taking a test ad in The Cauldron, the student newspaper of Cleveland State University, publicizing the write-in campaign and the organization. In addition, "Save: 1999" applied for recognition as an official student organization at the university. As a student organization applicant, "Save: 1999" was able to place posters in various campus buildings and set up an information table. Potential members were offered advice on writing to the networks about Space: 1999 . Special "Save: 1999" stickers were also distributed. Progress was slow until just after ITC cancelled Space, when Ted Hruschak met fanzine publisher Mona Delitsky, who was laying the groundwork for the first-anywhere Space:1999 convention. "Save: 1999" was the ideal vehicle for the convention effort. Mona enlisted the aid of several other dedicated Space fans and "Save: 1999" was rechristened as The National Save: 1999 Alliance. The NSNA was intended to be an informallystructured, non-profit organization operated by fans as a service to other fans. A letter describing the organization and offering information about the upcoming convention in return for nothing more than an SASE was published in Starlog magazine, By no means the first Space: 1999 group to be created, the Alliance nevertheless brought together a large number of Space: 1999 fans and successfully sponsored Space: 1999 Convention 1978 in Columbus, Ohio. What I find particularly interesting here is the way the campaign was organised as a university activity. I find this interesting in the context that Kerry may not necessarily have been ten years older than the average fan, as Kerry sometimes likes to point out when arguing that the series was aimed more at 10 year olds than 20 year olds. At least in the case of Y1 I think this is quite obvious that they were not necessarily aiming at children as the main target. Personally I was of age 10 when the original S99 was aired, and I had no difficulty understanding the series on a textual level, but I would not claim that I understood the series on the same level as Fageolle, Bannier and Keazor have spoken about it since. Understanding something at a subtextual level requires a much higher level of sophistication and maturity, something that

I think Tony would be very happy would normally require a university education. When Tulloch and Jenkins (1995) deal with different levels of understanding, they use media and sociology students at an Australian university to show what an adequate understanding of a series like DOCTOR WHO, STAR TREK or SPACE: 1999 might mean, and contrasts this with how people without sufficient cultural competence often fail to understand even the simplest level of subtext in such shows. Another reflection when reading about the “Save: 1999” campaign is that it apparently started in February 1977. Can this be correct? In February 1977, Y2 had already been aired, and everybody knew what kind of disaster this was, so why on Earth would anybody be interested in saving SPACE: 1999 at this stage? Certainly not university students who had sufficient cultural competence needed to understand and appreciate Y1. Perhaps the date is misquoted on this resource page, or perhaps Y2 was not shown in areas close to Cleveland. In the case of Y2 and age of target audience, Kerry is of course right in pointing out that the average age of the viewers would be more likely to be 10, or, in my estimation, probably much younger, like 3 to 4 year olds. I don’t think anybody above the age of 5 would find much interest in Y2, and I think this was part of Freiberger’s strategy. When he looked at the success of STAR TREK in the early seventies, as he explains in the interview with McCorry, he was not interested in the original audience that saw it as intellectually stimulating and politically relevant in the late sixties, but more in terms of how shows like STAR TREK: THE ANIMATED SERIES had made STAR TREK into a phenomenon that was appreciated by a wider audience, especially the very young. So, trying to launch as “Save: 1999” campaign at the time when SPACE: 1999 had already been destroyed seems like a paradox to me. There must be something wrong here, unless, of course, more sophisticated viewers were already interpreting Y2 along the lines suggested by Liardet, namely looking at it as politically subversive pornography. I don’t think we should rule out this opportunity, and actually I think it might be a plausible explanation. The reason I say this is because of how Bjo Trimble, one of the main forces

481

behind the late sixties “Save STAR TREK” campaign was involved with the design of the pornographic FLESH GORDON in the early seventies. I think this is particularly interesting for us at Online Alpha since we have used William Osco’s pornographic ALICE IN WONDERLAND as a model for understanding what Charles Crichton meant when he talked about S99/Y2 in the context of Lewis Carroll’s famous work. William Osco was also the producer for FLESH GORDON, so here we have a possibility for adding further depth to our understanding of Y2 as pornography. Nevertheless, we cannot dwell on the “Y2 = pornography” idea forever. That will lead us nowhere, as Kerry will probably soon point out, but I still think the pill and the “free love” ideology of the late sixties put marks on the early seventies counterculture when we notice how people like Bjo Trimble started to engage in pornographic SF and how people like Nancy McGuire Roch write about BARBARELLA as a feminist text. The way Johnny Byrne has spoken about CANDY also plays an important role here, I find. How all this fits together is probably best explained in Gina Misiroglus 2009 book “American countercultures: An encyclopedia of nonconformists, alternative lifestyles, and radical ideas in US history” (Routledge), where Laura Finger makes the following observation: Trekkies saw in the series a call to change their lives to the better, to seek infinite possibilities, question them, and build a better future. Many credited the show with inspiring them to become activists for civil rights, peace, women’s rights, or gay and lesbian rights; others were inspired to seek careers in the sciences (p. 719). In other words, the way Freiberger wanted to take a wonderful show like S99/Y1 and reduce it to the pornography we see in S99/Y2 may not necessarily be interpreted as a total destruction of the series, as in how Iaccino (2001) describes Freiberger as the destroyer of S99, but if we align ourselves with Liardet’s (2014) perspective, and look at how Bjo Trimble’s cultural activism in the case of STAR TREK provided a means for engaging in more politically relevant activism, there is no reason to feel bad watching S99/Y2 when

482


we see that leading activists from the STAR TREK branch were engaging with far more explicitly pornographic material as means for engaging with civil rights, peace, women’s rights, gay and lesbian rights and so on. I believe what these discussions about what fan fiction can teach us about SPACE: 1999 show us how important it is for fans to align with the radical ideas expressed in a series like SPACE: 1999 and cultivate these ideas for the purpose of engaging with the important counterculture movements of today, like the Democracy Spring movement. To me it is here that the legacy of SPACE: 1999 lies. It is this kind of engagement that I believe would have made Johnny Byrne feel that his years at Pinewood between 1973 and 1977 were well spent. John B. *** 31843 Re: Yahoo for Sale? kerryirs Apr 15, 2016

John, the possible move of this forum to another venue isn't political but financial. Yahoo has been losing money for a while now. There have various suitors wanting to buy the company. What's the purpose in bringing up SAVE SPACE' 1999? That happened 40 years ago. I grant you it is a piece of random history. Then you write. What I find particularly interesting here is the way the campaign was organised as a university activity. I find this interesting in the context that Kerry may not necessarily have been ten years older than the average fan, as Kerry sometimes likes to point out when arguing that the series was aimed more at 10 year olds than 20 year olds. At least in the case of Y1 I think this is quite obvious that they were not necessarily aiming at children as the main target. Personally I was of age 10 when the original S99 aired, and I had no difficulty understanding the series on a textual level, but I would not claim that I understood the series on the same level as Fageolle, Bannier and Keazor have spoken about it since. Understanding something at a subtextual level requires a much higher level of sophistication and maturity, something that would normally require a university education. When Tulloch and Jenkins (1995) deal with different levels of

understanding, they use media and sociology students at an Australian university to show what an adequate understanding of a series like DOCTOR WHO, STAR TREK or SPACE: 1999 might mean, and contrasts this with how people without sufficient cultural competence often fail to understand even the simplest level of subtext in such shows.

Well, I was probably ten to fifteen years older than what I've read the average age of the average fan was at the time. I was in my midtwenties at the time. I've never said the show was aimed at any age group, just that's what the viewer age was, and generally, I think most SF shows and movies attract younger viewers. However that may have changed somewhat as older people now were aware of shows like Trek or STAR WARS, so they might be more open to SF. Statements like the below leave me with the impression that you are talking down to people, that you and these authors that you love so much are better than we lowly "uneducated troglodytes". When Tulloch and Jenkins (1995) deal with different levels of understanding, they use media and sociology students at an Australian university to show what an adequate understanding of a series like DOCTOR WHO, STAR TREK or SPACE: 1999 might mean, and contrasts this with how people without sufficient cultural competence often fail to understand even the simplest level of subtext in such shows.

Yeah, right. I'm sorry, but this is the height of arrogance. Then of course, you transition into the Y1/Y2 argument again. Sorry, but fandom started during or after Y2. I don't know why you can't get it through your head that Y1 laid down the premise of 1999, the tone of the series, and when it failed to meet Grade's expectations, he killed it. If the show had been such a great hit, why did he wait nearly a year to resume production? Y1 was the first canelation of the series, not Y2. However, even Landau has stated that there was talk of a third season, except Grade wanted to get back into movies. Again, this is interesting, but it never came to be. So we can carry this on forever and get no where. But I guess it gets your juices going

I think Tony would be very happy *** 31844 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Yahoo for Sale? John Marcucci Apr 15, 2016

ANT talking down to people?? That's hard to believe...like water flowing downhill. *** 31845 Re: Fw: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Yahoo for Sale? sennmut Apr 16, 2016

Remember, Balor is an ardent and unrepentant Marxist. EVERYTHING is, and must be, seen through the Marxist-Darwinian lens of the dialectic, and he literally CANNOT conceive of anything of any value in society that transpires outside of the class struggle. ALL things have a "political subtext" in his universe. He reminds me of the character David Soul played in Fiddler On The Roof, Perchik, the young and ardent Bolshevik, who said that "everything's political", as if such were as self-evident as the sunrise. To him, "everything has a socio-economic base". Balor is the same, and barring a miracle from OnHigh, he will never change. *** 31846 Re: Yahoo for Sale? balor1999 Apr 16, 2016

To me, Kerry’s point about the average age of S99 fans per 1975 and the point Tulloch and Jenkins make about cultural competence are related. If we look at some of the best episodes of SPACE: 1999, such as BREAKAWAY, MOLAD, BLACK SUN and RATM, how would a culturally incompetent 10 year old understand these episodes in contrast to a 25 year old culturally competent person? Obviously, there is a large difference in how the episodes are perceived and interpreted. This has nothing to do with arrogance, but important input from academic research that may help us to understand why the Y1/Y2 dilemma has cause so much debate over the years.

483

For instance, when I was 10 while Kerry was 25 when we both watched SPACE: 1999 around the same time, my guess is that Kerry grasped elements of the series that went above my head. However, the point Tulloch and Jenkins make is not so much about what made us respond to a series like SPACE: 1999 in the first place, but how we have made sense of it as we have kept on watching it as we go through life. Here they identify two attitudes or two different regimes of knowledge in terms of what they refer to as a scholarly attitude and a fandom attitude. These attitudes are analysed individually in chapter 4 and chapter 7 in their important book “Science fiction audiences” (Routledge, 1995), with some comparative reflections in chapter 8 and also in the second part of the book (chapters 9-12) that deals more with how to motivate television SF fans into becoming political activists. Actually, they deal with teenage audiences as well (chapter 5), but the point of that chapter is just to illustrate how culturally incompetent teenagers usually are, and how they may enjoy a show like SPACE: 1999 without actually understanding it. Chapter 6 focuses on parents and their concerns about children watching things like SPACE: 1999, but although I remember discussions many years ago about parents trying to prevent their children from watching Y2 in order to prevent the children’s brains to rot, there has been less emphasis on this aspect recently. So, in our context, I think it is the dichotomy between the formation of knowledge within the regimes of fandom and scholarly analysis of SPACE: 1999 that is important; how the series is understood and debated within fandom in comparison to how it is discussed and debated within academia. I think perhaps the best example of this dichotomy can be seen when we look at two important books that were released almost simultaneously, namely John Kenneth Muir’s EXPLORING SPACE: 1999 and Pierre Fageolle’s COSMOS 1999: L’EPOPEE DE LA BLANCHEUR. Although both books are important, they are very different in the way they are written. Muir’s analysis is driven by an apparent need to articulate the value of SPACE: 1999 against attacks from fans of STAR TREK. Although this makes the book interesting for academics like Tulloch and Jenkins, who are more concerned with the fans of SF shows than the

484


shows in themselves, it has little relevance in the context of the debates run by SF scholars like Suvin, Jameson and Freedman. When we look at Fageolle, on the other hand, his analysis of SPACE: 1999 is based on how the series can be rendered important as a lens for understanding the geopolitical situation at the time the series was made and how this particular conceptualisation has sustainable value in the context of motivating current political activism. In other words, the very nature of Fageolle’s writing, regardless of whether we grasp his subtle points based on understanding issues like Michel Butor’s role during the 1968 student uproars in Paris, or the revolutionary aspects of Kandinsky’s visual art, the tone of the work and the engagement with literature of art, politics, sociology and psychology makes it into a completely different type of text. It becomes a text that makes a potential viewer of SPACE: 1999 into a person who would like to participate in movements like Democracy Spring or other means that can be of help for improving society by means of addressing issues like economic inequality and social injustice. Although Keazor (2012; 2014) is an even more articulate author, many of the ideas that sound novel in the way of contextualising SPACE: 1999 by means of Marxist readings of modern history or endorsing critical theory as the right approach for making sense out of the series, this can be understood as repeating or rearticulating Fageolle’s structualist writings into something that can be more widely disseminated and understood by a broader group of people interested in SF and SPACE: 1999. What this means is that we are not describing those not engaging with Fageolle’s text as “uneducated troglodytes”, but rather to show that the perspective offered by Fageolle, Bannier, Liardet, Wozniak, Bussieres, Keazor and an increasingly long list of important scholars writing about SPACE: 1999 is a journey out of the prison of passive fandom and into the real world of political activism. Rather than allowing people like Freiberger turning SPACE: 1999 into a tool for having people watching Maya making fascist speeches, by engaging with the positions and debates articulates by these scholars we are encouraged to participate in demonstrations

against the upper fraction of the 1% elite that wants to destroy democracy and turn nations and the world as a whole into a gigantic oligarchy. SPACE: 1999 can be used as a radical political text. It provides guidelines for political mobilisation with the aim of achieving freedom. This is the message in the final chapter of Fageolle’s book, and this is the reason why the book remains as important as ever, even 20 years after its release. Now, this leaves us with the question of the Yahoo groups. As Kerry points out, the reason why Anthony predicts that Yahoo Groups will be closed down is not political but economic. Nobody has been arguing that Yahoo Groups is politically dangerous because it allows people to engage in debates that may question whether it is healthy in the long run to allow corporate interests to destroy the climate, undermine democracy and turn the world into something that benefits only the ultrarich while the rest of us are end up as wage slaves and cannon fodder. There is no such argument, but this is, of course, what happens when places like Yahoo Groups are closed down and replaced with formats that are less suitable for the kind of discussions we try to stimulate and cultivate here, and that is why it makes no sense to differentiate between economic and political perspectives. This is indeed exactly the point in Keazor’s analysis of SPACE: 1999 when he encourages us to engage with academic SF discussions framed by people like Adorno, Jameson and Fuhse. For those of us who believe that people like Fageolle and Keazor have a point in how to make sense of SPACE: 1999, this is indeed how the future of Yahoo Groups and Online Alpha needs to be read. More than that, the Yahoo messages from Anthony force us into seeing the relationship between the socioeconomic basis of society and the cultural superstructure that we discuss in the context of SPACE: 1999. In fact, the way Yahoo Groups is part of an information infrastructure owned by monopoly capitalists and used by political activists, I believe there are lessons to be learned from studying related SPACE: 1999 political activism of the past, such as the SAVE: 1999 campaign, and how the activists of that period integrated the fandom information infrastructure with the academic infrastructure, and were thus able to used this

I think Tony would be very happy installed base as means for bootstrapping the campaign on top of that. John B. *** 31847 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Yahoo for Sale? Rick Curzon Apr 16 6:59 PM

Another windy post. Rick *** 31848 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Yahoo for Sale? John Marcucci Apr 16 10:41 PM

ANT is famous for them. *** 31849 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Yahoo for Sale? Rick Curzon Apr 17, 2016

Tell me about it. His posts barely respond to anyone else's and then slide back into quoting these faux intellectual books. Rick *** 31850 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Yahoo for Sale? sennmut Apr 17, 2016

Garbagio!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *** 31851 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Yahoo for Sale? balor1999 Apr 17, 2016

When people are talking about garbagio and faux intellectual writings, the only associations I get is the writer that Kerry sometimes likes to quote, namely Thomas Stockel with his hate filled writings about SPACE: 1999 on the

485

Agony Booth site. I know that Kerry means well when quoting Stockel, perhaps wanting to argue that it is equally respectable to hate Y1 as it is to hate Y2, but in my opinion the argument doesn’t work particularly well. The problem is that Stockel has limited authority as a SPACE: 1999 expert. The way I understood it, he was one of those STAR TREK fans of the early seventies who hated SPACE: 1999 and has been continuing to writing about SPACE: 1999 in that context ever since. I remember there were some people making comments on his page on why he was writing about SPACE: 1999 when he hated it so much, but then he responded by referring to that being purpose of the Agony Booth site. It is a site for people wanting to write trash about series they don’t like. I’m not sure I would go as far as describing Stockel and his writing as garbagio and faux intellectual, as there may be aspects of his writings that could be used in support of Iaccino (2001) for explaining why people hate Y2, but for us on Online Alpha I think writers of this type are of limited use, even though Kerry thinks he has a point or two. In order to explain my position, I think it is useful to remember the Richard Bendell Classification Scheme that was introduced some years ago (message #28372). The idea behind the scheme was to group S99 fans into four categories by looking at how they position themselves in the Y1/Y2 debate. The four positions are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Like Y1, like Y2 Like Y1, dislike Y2 Dislike Y1, like Y2 Dislike Y1, dislike Y2

As we know, cast, crew, fans and critics have always been in category 2, seeing Y1 as a masterpiece and Y2 as trash, but, as Muir (1997, p. 88) points out, “many fans of the series, especially in America, loved the second season and preferred it to the first season by a wide margin” (category 3). In other words, the Y1/Y2 debate has been dominated by a tension between position 2 and position 3. If I were to reflect on how Kerry and I have been discussing how this tension can be resolved, Kerry believes the path forward goes by way of aligning with people like Stockel (2013), who dislikes both seasons (position 4), while

486


my belief is that we need to move from position 2 towards position 1 by means of Liardet (2014), acknowledging that it is possible to like trash like Y2 if we understand it through the lens of BARBARELLA and ILSA. Although I can understand the motivation behind Kerry’s argument in terms of how moving from position 3 to position 4 does not require the need for engaging with the scholarly literature or understanding why Gerry Anderson, Martin Landau, Johnny Byrne and all the rest hated FF and Y2, but when we notice how the consequence of aligning with Stockel also means going from a position of liking Y2 towards disliking Y2, I would say that this kind of solution is a looseloose solution. Perhaps Kerry sees the Y1/Y2 as a kind of Prisoner’s Dilemma situation (Binmore, 2007), thus believing that the only Nash equilibrium for the game is in the position of hating both Y1 and Y2, but to me this seems to completely ignore the importance of what now seems to evolve as the consensus within the French S99 community. What I am thinking of here, of course, is the enormous importance of Liardet’s suggestion that we should think of Y2 through the lens of BARBARELLA. I know that Kerry has been sceptical of this idea, but I have never quite understood why because for me this seems like a perfectly simple and easy way of moving from category 2 to category 1 in the Bendell classification scheme. Just to think openly on this, if Kerry should be right in assuming that the only stable solution to the Y1/Y2 dilemma is that we all decide to dislike both Y1 and Y2, then I think we need to understand Liardet’s contribution in the context of reverse game theory (mechanism design) in the sense of changing the payoff in the Prisoners’ Dilemma into something like a Stag Hunt game where the paired strategy associated with category 1 not only remains the Pareto optimal solution but also a Nash equilibrium to the game. This is exactly what I believe. To put it in more plain language, I believe that Kerry finds it reasonable that we should hate both Y1 and Y2 because Gerry Anderson has said that FF belongs in a lunatic asylum, Johnny Byrne believed that Y2 was being designed as trash for the purpose of some

money laundering scheme (that FF was obviously involved with), and Nick Tate described FF as a ‘dickhead’. Although I believe I can understand Kerry’s argument, I think the argument totally ignores the importance of what Liardet has now been saying for almost two years, namely that it is possible to accept the facts about FF and Y2, in terms of what was exemplified above, while still finding cultural merit in it. How do we do this? How do we find merit in trash? If Y2 is on the same level as exploitation cinema and pornography, how can we say that there is still merit in it? Easy. We just follow Liardet’s suggestion in thinking of Y2 by means of cultural satire in the style of BARBARELLA and align our intellectual positions with those used by those defending BARBARELLA as a progressive text, like Dr. McGuire Roche at the Vanderbilt University in Nashville. What happens when we do this is that we suddenly notice how the political subtext of Y2 becomes visible in terms of showing how Y2 perhaps even more than Y1 deals with issues like the civil rights movement (Gerry Anderson’s comments on Teresa Graves as Maya, 1991), women’s rights (interview with Catherine Schell, 1993), gay and lesbian rights (West, 2001), and – most importantly – economic oppression. It is particularly in reference to this latter case that I believe it is impossible to participate in a SPACE: 1999 debate without taking people like Fageolle and Keazor seriously. Of course, we should not forget essential contributors like Pierre Bannier, Christoph Petit and Jerome Wybon, but for most of us I expect that Fageolle and Keazor are the intellectual lighthouses that make us see SPACE: 1999 within the context of the larger SF debate that we associate with giants like Adorno, Suvin, Jameson, Freedman and Bould. It is in this context that I was referring to the SAVE: 1999 campaign, driven by similar economic issues that Anthony refers to in terms of the possible destruction of Online Alpha due to Yahoo being put out for sale, but by how the SAVE: 1999 activists aligned with the university system that allowed them to see themselves as political activists. I think one should be careful to align the kind of activism that springs out of the political subtext of SPACE: 1999 with political campaigns within

I think Tony would be very happy the existing political system, but as I watched Senator Sanders’ speech at the South Bronx last night, I was deeply impressed by how the style and content of his speech resonated with the subtext in SPACE: 1999. I could easily imagine Sanders fighting along with Johnny Byrne during the 1968 antiwar demonstrations in London, just as much as I could imagine Byrne joining Sanders in the 1965 civil rights march in Washington. To summarise, I think it is about time to forget about garbagio and faux intellectuals like Stockel, and to consolidate our positions with scholars and real intellectuals like Fageolle and Keazor. In my opinion the future of Online Alpha depends more on this kind of positioning than the technical platforms we use for facilitating discussions and debates.

487

Rick *** 31853 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Yahoo for Sale? sennmut Apr 17, 2016

Garbagio on steroids!!!!!! *** 31854 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Yahoo for Sale? sennmut Apr 17, 2016

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 Rick Curzon writes: ...and off we go again. You like knitting flags don't you?

John B. *** 31852 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Yahoo for Sale? Rick Curzon Apr 17, 2016

More like weaving baskets, with the occassional butterfly net thrown in. ***

...and off we go again. You like knitting flags don't you?

12.6 Space Warp Before the “Yahoo for sale?” discussion, the focus had been on how fan fiction reviewers saw a connection between “Dragon’s Domain” and “Space Warp” by reflecting on Senmut’s 2009 story. The discussion thread that follows picks up where the previous DD/SW discussion left off. A wide range of important ideas are addressed as part of the discussion. 31855 Space Warp balor1999 Apr 18, 2016

When reviewing a particularly fine example of S99 fan fiction related to DRAGON’S DOMAIN, Mackon and Chip Bell looked at ways of exploring links with SPACE WARP. As for me there was no obvious connection between these two episodes, I was thrilled by the way fan fiction can function as a mediator for connecting previously unexplored aspects of intertextual relationships in SPACE: 1999, and how this can aid us in our understanding of the series as a whole. Not only was this useful in the sense of giving us an opportunity to look more deeply at Liardet’s idea of how

BARBARELLA can be used as a tool for fleshing out the ideological content of Y2 and see how it fits with Y1, but also because the particular connection between DRAGON’S DOMAIN and SPACE WARP suggested a weakness in Liardet’s theory, namely that premise for using BARBARELLA to understand Y2 was more or less absent when looking at Woodgrove episodes. I think it is important to once more stress why Liardet’s BARBARELLA idea represents a revolution in terms of how to make sense out of the Y1/Y2 dilemma. The argument is a two-step argument. The first step for solving the Y1/Y2 dilemma is to reach alignment with

488


how most people position themselves within the Y1/Y2 debate. The second step is to show that this dominant position does not necessarily exclude the opposing position. Here is how the BARBARELLA argument works. First we observe that most people think of Y1 as a masterpiece and Y2 as trash. By using the BARBARELLA model we are able to make the concept of ‘trash’ more precise. By way of linking it with both the 1962 Jean Claude Forest comic strip, the 1967 film by Roger Vadim and perhaps also Axel Braun’s 2015 pornographic remake of the film, we are able to identify Maya and Y2 with pornography. This first step is of paramount importance because it provides a means of aligning Fageolle’s (1996) theoretical understanding of FF, Maya and Y2 with the empirical facts we know from interviews with Fred Freiberger conducted by Heald (1976) and McCorry (1999). In fact, the perspective of seeing Freiberger as a producer of social pornography relieves much of the tension in Fageolle’s writing because we are now more able to understand not only WHAT Freiberger did but also WHY he did it. When we read what Freiberger said about how he was only engaged in S99 for making money, and how the intellectual and philosophical nature of the series was preventing it from reaching the wide audience he was aiming, his idea of remaking the series as “pornography” is useful because it is a useful term of understanding the cultural level he was aiming for, namely the “bottom of the sewer”, to use Kerry’s apt expression. Okay, so this is the first step. I would expect that Gerry Anderson would be comfortable with this step, as would also Johnny Byrne, Martin Landau and Nick Tate, and I think Fageolle would be particularly happy with what we see in extension of Liardet as thinking of Y2 as pornography. However, the small minority of people that Muir (1997, p. 188) describes as those who “prefer Y2 to Y1 by a wide margin” would probably not be equally enthusiastic. This is because we have not yet discussed step 2. Step 2 consists of observing how Johnny Byrne and the rest of the people surrounding him in the London hippie community (Thom Keyes, Regina Kesslan, Steve Abrams etc) were seeing Roger Vadim (director of BARBARELLA) and Terry Southern (scriptwriter of BARBARELLA) as intellectual heroes of the counterculture

movement (Bowen, 1999, p. 89). In particular, several members of the group were involved in turning Terry Southern’s 1958 pornographic novel CANDY into a film, and, as we understand from Bowen’s book, the reason why Byrne and his colleagues were engaged in such projects had to do with how pornography could be used as a political tool for exposing and attacking bourgeoisie morality (cf. Jane Fonda’s comments on BARBARELLA and Johnny Byrne collaboration with Jenny Fabian in writing GROUPIE). So, here we see how the two-step method works. First we develop an intellectual framework that fits with the dominant understanding of Y2 as trash, and then we show that this framework can be used for scaffolding a highly productive understanding of Y2 as satire used as a political tool to aid the counterculture in their fights against the establishment in the late sixties and early seventies. Before Kerry intervenes in pointing out that all this has been said several times before, I think it is important to contrast this way of using Liardet (2014) in comparison to how Kerry has suggested using Stockel (2013). Although I think Kerry manages to achieve very much of the same result by using Stockel’s hatred for both seasons of SPACE. 1999, thus theoretically doing the same thing in first aligning with the dominant view of Y2 as trash and then eliminating tension in the Y1/Y2 debate by arguing that Y1 is trash as well, but to me this is a vastly inferior approach in the sense that it does not help in developing theory that can be used for gaining a deeper understanding of the series. In fact, the result is exactly the opposite. In terms of Y2 we get no deeper understanding that what Fageolle has already claimed, and what Iaccino (2001) has analysed and described in even more depth, and the contribution of a richer understanding of Y1 is similarly nil. Actually, in case of Y1 it is even worse as the aim of Stockel is to trivialise SPACE: 1999 for the purpose of showing that STAR TREK and other series of the period were far better. If we look at Liardet and Stockel in this context, there is no doubt in my mind. The approach recommended by Liardet results in a richer and deeper understanding of SPACE: 1999. The approach recommended by Stockel is like shooting oneself in the foot. It does not

I think Tony would be very happy lead to anything of value. In fact, I don’t see why we should associate with people like Stockel at all. He is only an advanced form of much of the criticism that was raised against SPACE: 1999 by STAR TREK fans and critics in the early seventies, and has been repeated by critics and media scholars that have not even attempted to take SPACE: 1999 seriously by engaging in the debates defined the Fagolle, Keazor and the likes. If Kerry continues, with the best intensions, to insist that there are deep and valuable insights to be found in Stockel (2013), I’m afraid that I can only paraphrase Ernst Queller and Helena when they are saying that “the road to hell is built on good intensions”. To me it is obvious that Liardet is a giant leap forwards while Stockel is not. However, and here is perhaps the tricky part and why SPACE WARP is so interesting, when we try to use the two-step method above, inspired by Liardet’s writings, it turns out not to be particularly helpful in the case of the Woodgrove episode. The method is excellent for all other Y2 episodes, and perhaps also for Y2 as a whole, but not so with the Woodgrove trilogy. The reason for this is obvious. There is no substance in the Woodgrove episodes, and this is not even a surprise, it is an obvious consequence of how Freiberger talked about SPACE: 1999 in the interviews with Heald and McCorry. He was deliberately trying to eliminate meaning from SPACE: 1999 for making it more digestible for a wider audience, and here I think it is quite important to notice how he keeps on repeating that he was not trying to make SPACE: 1999 into STAR TREK of the late sixties. Not at all. In the late sixties STAR TREK was a niche programme. Freiberger was interested in the STAR TREK phenomenon due to the reruns and the cartoons in the early 1970s. I also think the cartoons, STAR TREK: TAS, was of particular importance here because it provided a way of reaching a younger audience. Gene Roddenberry always told the story about how STAR TREK was considered too cerebral, and how they had to fight with the executives and how the series only became a regular series after first trying it out by means of two pilots. For Roddenberry this was important because the argument of STAR TREK being cerebral and being politically relevant gave the series an intellectual status

489

and helped him develop a myth around himself (Tulloch & Jenkins, 1995, chapter 1). With Fred Freiberger the context is exactly the opposite. He was not concerned with developing a myth around himself based on something he had already made. He was interested in why STAR TREK was suddenly so popular, years after the series had been taken off the air, and his understanding is radically different from that of Roddenberry. Although the political subtext of STAR TREK, at least as expressed in some of the episodes, may have given it some credibility among university students, and helped ignite the renewed interest in the series, the reason it became so popular with a wider audience had nothing to do with politics. It was because of how it was structured as an action-adventure series, not to different from the FLASH GORDON and BUCK ROGERS serials he probably grew up with himself, which is much more clear when we look at STAR TREK: TAS. Not only does Freiberger’s analysis become clear when we look at the interviews conducted by Heald and McCorry, and some passages in Wood’s book that may perhaps have been extracted from the Breakaway 1999 convention, but most of all we see it in his notes to the production team when arriving at Pinewood (Heald, 1976, pp. 97-99). So, his strategy for turning the second season of SPACE: 1999 into a success was to make it devoid of meaning, but is this really possible? If we ask Adorno and other members of the Frankfurt school of sociology, the answer is obviously no. As meaning is something that is created through a hermeneutical cycle that involves both a sender (text) and a receiver (reader), trying to eliminate meaning in a text only results in giving it a different meaning. In the case of SPACE: 1999 this is particularly interesting in the case of how Martin Willey implies RULES OF LUTON as a fascist text by means of the central role of Maya’s “Nazi speech” (Ogland, 2014, pp. 440-442). Perhaps “imply” is a strong word, as he is essentially just commenting on the nature speech, but his ideas have nevertheless been of tremendous importance of the discussions on Online Alpha where we have been using the works of Wertham (1953), among others, for understanding the cultural, generational and (assumingly) political differences between

490


Fred Freiberger on one hand and Johnny Byrne on the other. It is at this stage of analysis and discussion that the link between DRAGON’S DOMAIN and SPACE WARP suddenly become interesting. As we tried to eliminate the gap in Liardet’s theory by suggesting that the ILSA films (1974-77) could be used for understanding the Woodgrove trilogy, with particular relevance for SPACE WARP, in a similar way as Liardet suggests using BARBARELLA for the other episodes, this resulted in new challenges and further need for debate. However, as the “Yahoo for sale” event and other issues made us deviate from this important discussion, I hope we can now return to see how we may jointly try to solve some of the dilemmas associated with the ILSA interpretation of SPACE WARP. What I am particularly thinking of is how the discussion broke off just when we were discussing the issue of how Gerry Anderson had convinced a director of immense international statue, the famous Peter Medak who had previously done such significant work as NEGATIVES (1968), A DAY IN THE DEATH OF JOE EGG (1972) and THE RULING CLASS (1972), into making something that he himself (Anderson) and everybody else involved in SPACE: 1999 clearly viewed as trash. When we use the ILSA model for understanding the fascist nature of SPACE WARP, getting somebody like Medak to direct it is perhaps even more astonishing. Unfortunately, I don’t see that Liardet, Fageolle or anybody else among our favourite SPACE: 1999 scholars have written about how to interpret this, but that doesn’t mean that we should feel constrained. On the contrary, I believe this is a wonderful opportunity for trying to add to Liardet’s revolutionary approach on how to make sense out of Y2 and the Y1/Y2 dilemma. Indeed, I think we have already touched upon important ways of addressing this particular problem that may very well result in new and important insights on how to understand SPACE: 1999, trying to bridge the classical understanding of the series (Fageolle, 1996) with the new and revolutionary ideas suggested by Liardet and others. John B.

*** 31856 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Space Warp sennmut Apr 18, 2016

This piece must have been awarded as part of a guarantee. Satisfaction guaranteed, or double your garbage back. *** 31857 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Space Warp richard curzon Apr 18, 2016

2,162 words. Rick *** 31858 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Space Warp balor1999 Apr 19, 2016

I am not sure if I see the number of words in a message as all that relevant. For instance, Fageolle’s original book from 1992 is only 70 pages long while his revised book from 1996 consists of 128 pages. Does that mean that the revised book is twice as insightful? Not necessarily. For me the main insights can be easily digested from the first edition, although nobody refers to the 1992 edition anymore. It is the 1996 that has become the canonical text. In this sense, the increase in size has also resulted in an increase of value. On the other hand, if we compare Fageolle’s 128 pages with the 212 pages in Muir’s book, I think the opposite is true. Fageolle manages to say far more and make far more important and insightful points that Muir, despite the fact that the book is about half the size, although I would say that Muir’s 212 pages are more insightful than the 96 pages in Drake’s book. Wood and Turdo have both written quite long books, both of them almost 500 pages long, and they are both very good, but in a different way as Fageolle, Muir and Drake. The longest book I am aware of is Ogland’s transcript of the first ExE of almost 740 pages, which is also a valuable text, although in a different way than Heald’s 260 pages or Liardet’s 256 pages. I would even argue that the 2010 book

I think Tony would be very happy by Paul Mohamed is quite interesting in certain ways, despite being only 76 pages long, but, then again, some of the most insightful texts about SPACE: 1999 are the academic book chapters and journal articles written by people like Keazor, Wozniak, Bussieres, Iaccino, O’Brien, West, Glassy, Wybon, Petit, Bannier and so on, and these are of course quite short in comparison with the books. In other words, I think we are going off in the wrong direction if we start evaluating messages, articles and books by simply counting the words. Some writers use a lot of words without necessarily saying all that much, while others, and I am here perhaps thinking about Fageolle in particular, write with such precision and intensity that it is difficult to understand the depth of each sentence without being immersed in the culture that has shaped the ideas, in addition to being quite well read. In fact, I think this holds true for most of the French writers on SPACE: 1999, and clearly also on people like Keazor, not to mention the giants of SF analysis, such as Suvin, Jameson and Freedman. This is indeed the very point made explicit by this latter group, namely that SF can only be understood in the context of critical theory, which is generally made into a more implicit point by those writing specifically about SPACE: 1999. So, rather than counting words, I think we should focus more on ideas. What I find particularly relevant in this context is how we could make use of Peter Medak as an interpreter of Charles Woodgrove in the case of SPACE WARP. As far as our analysis has reached yet, we have seen that the ILSA films are useful for understanding SPACE WARP on two levels. On one level, the ILSA films, the first one in particular, helps us connect SPACE WARP with Freiberger’s background as a prisoner of war in Germany, and how that might make him want to write about Helena as a Nazi doctor doing sadistic experiments on Maya. On the second level, the way the ILSA films are brutal and misogynistic in a purely speculative way, using the atrocities of concentration camps and other perverse scenarios as a means for appealing to the worst in people, fits with how Iaccino (2001) describes the psychology of laissez-faire

491

capitalism by focusing on the case of how Freiberger destroyed SPACE: 1999. Although all of this is insightful for understanding why not only people like Fageolle but also cast, crew, fans and critics of SPACE: 1999 hated Y2, we are at a dead end when it comes to Liardet’s project of having a second look at the second series by looking at it as pornographic satire. Although some might argue that the ILSA films could be seen as some kind of extremely dark satire, I very much doubt that was what people like Don Edmonds, Jess Franco and Jean Lafleur had in mind. All of the four films are clearly exploitation films, created for the single purpose of making money by shocking people and appealing to their worst instincts, although Franco’s third entry in the series is more like an art film in the sense that it uses the exploitation format for making social criticism of capitalist societies in general, very much in the style of how Vadim and Fonda commented on BARBARELLA, although in this case in the forum of surrealism rather than satire. What I believe may be the best way for solving this dead-lock, when it comes to finding constructive meaning in episodes like SPACE WARP, is to keep a separate view on writer and director. As we have already noticed in the case of BARBARELLA, most of the interesting things said about the film have come from people like Vadim and Fonda, the director and main actress, rather than the script writer, who in this case happen to be the very interesting and relevant countercultural icon Terry Southern. In a way it is almost surprising that Southern is not the one people refer to when explaining the meaning of the film, as he would most surely have said much of the same that Vadim and Fonda were saying, although perhaps even with greater authority due to his intellectual status, but as the idea of the film was to follow the narrative of Jean Claude Forest’s story in a fairly straight-forward manner, the important aspect of the film becomes how the ideas of Forest are translated and communicated through Southern, Vadim and Fonda, and in this context Southern may be the least important person among the three. What I hope is that we can look at SPACE WARP in a similar way. As Freiberger was

492


only interested in SPACE: 1999 as a vehicle for making fascist “pornography”, not in a political sense but in a commercial sense – presenting Y2 as exploitation cinema, he automatically makes himself into the least interesting person when it comes to the task of interpreting the Woodgrove episodes in a constructive manner. What Freiberger manages to do is to sink the Woodgrove episodes down to the bottom of the sewer, and then leaving the task for the rest of the cast and crew to somehow work against the logic of what he has presented and try to fill the format of the episode with different content that somehow makes it less meaningless or less perverse. The director is, of course, the main person responsible for putting the pieces together, and in the case of SPACE WARP, the task of directing the episode was given to Peter Medak. Although Medak had made several important films before getting engaged with this crap, THE RULING CLASS (1972) is the one everybody associates him with. This is a wonderful film that deals deeply with the issues that Byrne and Penfold were concerned with, and is at the heart of SPACE: 1999, namely the countercultural conflict. Peter O’Toole plays a single heir to great wealth, but as he has become insane and believes he is Jesus Christ, the rest of the family tries to have him committed to the asylum in order to take possession of the heritage. What is the focal point of the satire in this first half of the film is how O’Toole keeps on quoting Jesus, talking about peace, love, forgiveness and all the central aspects of the Gospel while the members of the capitalist ruling class has nothing but contempt for a person that does not worship power and money. It is remarkably funny in the sense of how Noam Chomsky and others have talked about the early Church as a socialist movement, fighting the oppression in a similar manner as Liberation Theologians were fighting oppression in Latin America around the time when this film was being made, and how organised religion later became a part of the oppressive system. This is typical sharp satire made at the same time as the film version of JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR, which shares a similar theme, but here done in a satirical manner to get the point across.

The second part of the film starts with a psychiatrist trying to cure O’Toole, which is problematic for the family who would rather have him put in the asylum and loot the money, but due to some dramatic therapeutic methods, O’Toole changes personality completely. He now starts behaving like a typical member of the ruling class, although he now thinks he is Jack the Ripper. As being a sadist killer, like Jack the Ripper, is such a perfect description of how the ruling class functions in society, all his friends and family are totally impressed, especially when he talks extreme right-wing politics, so the story ends with him being given a part in parliament with standing ovations while he makes fascist speeches about killing and spreading fear. Yet more brilliant satire. In fact, there are elements of the film that reminded me both of Johnny Byrne’s antiwar movie ADOLF HITLER: MY PART IN HIS DOWNFALL (1972) and Christopher Penfold’s socialist comedy TAKE ME HIGH (1973). From this perspective, Peter Medak would definitely be the right director for a SPACE: 1999 project. So, how does Medak’s progressive ideology counterpoint the fascist nature of Freiberger’s SPACE WARP and help us understand the episode in a more constructive manner? Although some of the inventive camera angles and artistic use of lenses in SPACE WARP are reminiscent of what Medak had done in his earlier films, I think we need to investigate Medak’s influence in a very indirect manner. As I have not read the original script, I don’t know if Medak did any changes in the dialogue or action, although I very much doubt this due to Freiberger’s dual role as producer and writer. I would expect that the only dimensions of freedom given to him were in how to turn the script as written into a completed episode. In other words, he would have much less input here than he would have when making THE SÉANCE SPECTRE, which is a satirical episode more similar to THE RULING CLASS. Although the casting of somebody else than Brian Blessed for playing Mentor when Maya turns into him might lead to some ideas, my guess is that the most effective way forwards would be to look at SPACE WARP from an intertextual perspective, like looking at it from the perspective as the second half of COSMIC

I think Tony would be very happy PRINCESS, and in this context see it as developing aspects of the class struggle issue in THE METAMORPH, or seeing it from the perspective of THE RULING CLASS by linking it with THE SÉANCE SPECTRE through the director Peter Medak. In the long run, I believe we should be able to make sense out of SPACE WARP, but I also think that this is a typical case of an episode that needs to be attacked and attacked from different angles as there is no obvious ways of understanding it in a constructive manner. John B. *** 31859 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Space Warp richard curzon Apr 19, 2016

1,902 your're pontificating at greater and greater length. Try a post that says what you need to say in about 200 words tops. Rick *** 31860 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Space Warp sennmut Apr 20, 2016

On 19 Apr 2016 balor1999@... writes: Wood and Turdo have both written quite long books, both of them almost 500 pages long, and they are both very good, but in a different way as Fageolle, Muir and Drake.

"Turdo". How appropriate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Surely descriptive of the entire post. *** 31861 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Space Warp sennmut Apr 20, 2016

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 richard curzon writes: 1,902 your're pontificating at greater and greater length. Try a post that says what you need to say in about 200 words tops.

But would we lesser developed intellects grasp it, if it were so short?

493 ***

31862 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Space Warp Rick Curzon Apr 20, 2016

Who cares? Rick *** 31863 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Space Warp sennmut Apr 20, 2016

Precisely! *** 31864 Re: Space Warp kerryirs Apr 20, 2016

Personally, I'd just like to see a post where Balor doesn't refer to any of these authors at all and just give his opinion. I'm ready to flush these authors down into the sewer to see if we can get a break from them. It's really not their fault, but enough already. The sad part is, it adds nothing new to the discussion. I suspect that Mr. Balor has been making the same arguments for the entire time that he's been on the forum, insults, name calling, and accusations, all aimed at one man, someone he's never met or spoken with. And on top of that, he leaves Anderson blameless, for the most part, for the multitude of problems that 1999 had BEFORE Freiberger even got there. The Trek fans did pretty much the same thing. Personally, I think it was Anderson Grade laid the hammer down on when he decided to back a second season and put stipulations on the second season, budget cuts and tight shooting schedule. That's what happens when a production company goes over budget and time overruns. I wish Y2 had had a year-and-ahalf time to work with, but again, it didn't help Y1; it still got zapped. So, Mr. Balor, let's see a post where these authors aren't refered to and what we get is your opinion. Oh, I don't expect it'll change,

494


but not to see these people referred to would be so refreshing. So, the challenge has been offered. Surprise us. *LOL* *** 31865 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Space Warp richard curzon Apr 20, 2016

And keep it to about 200 words or so. Who has the time to read these 1,000+ posts? Rick *** 31866 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Space Warp balor1999 Apr 20, 2016

Einstein is supposed to have said that everything should be kept as simple as possible, but not simpler. When we are dealing with such a complex issue as trying to understand SPACE: 1999, I think it would be meaningless if we were to put constraints on ourselves by not arguing more than 200 words at a time and not being allowed to use theory. Where would we be without theory? Newton said that the reason he was able to see further than others was because he was standing on the shoulders of giants. Of course, this also applies within our world of SPACE: 1999 discussions, and there can be no doubt about who the intellectual giants within our community are. I was almost saying Fageolle, Fageolle and Fageolle, but, as we have seen, the world of SPACE: 1999 theory keeps expanding. Fageolle may perhaps be seen as the father of modern SPACE: 1999 discussions, like a Kepler or a Descartes or a Francis Bacon, but he is no longer the only source worth quoting. Kerry wants to be surprised. I wonder if Kerry will be surprised if I compare SPACE: 1999 theory with a tree and say that Fageolle is the trunk of the tree while other writers, such as Drake, Turdo, Wood, Muir, Bannier, Wozniak, Keazor and so on are the branches? Of course, some branches are thicker and more robust than others. Keazor is an obvious example, and so is Liardet. Kerry’s favourite, Thomas

Stockel, also belongs to the tree, but to me he represents a weak and dry branch. I suppose it is possible to develop a theory of SPACE: 1999 based on the idea that Gerry Anderson is to blame for everything that went wrong, but what can we hope to achieve by developing this kind of theory? I get the impression that Kerry wants to develop this perspective because he is interested in dragging Y1 down into the sewer where Y2 lives. Of course, I don’t think it is impossible to develop such a theory, continuing along the path of what Stockel suggests, but is it useful? Will it make Online Alpha happier, healthier, and stimulate more debates and more insights? I’m not so sure. In fact, I think it is a theoretical path that will result in developing an understanding of SPACE: 1999 that is exactly the opposite of what we want. The way I understand Stockel is that the fault with SPACE: 1999 is that it wasn’t STAR TREK, and then he continues to elaborate that in great depth by showing how the sets, stories, characters, style and most everything in SPACE: 1999 was different from STAR TREK. In fact, it was a bit like Kubrick’s “2001”, which was indeed very different from STAR TREK, but, of course, then Freiberger enters the scene and tries to make SPACE: 1999 more similar to STAR TREK by eliminating intelligent characters like Bergman and introducing Maya as a Spock rip-off, plus all the other things like making Moonbase Alpha more like a military outfit. Although Stockel may speculate as much as he pleases along such lines, perhaps finding RULES OF LUTON as the best S99 of them all because it reminds him of ARENA, and THE IMMUNITY SYNDROME being fantastic simply due to the fact that the title of that episode had already been used on STAR TREK, it is a kind of theoretical understanding that is the exact opposite of what the cast, crew, fans and critics of SPACE: 1999 understand the series. Online Alpha is not Agony Booth, the website Stockel has chosen as his home because it is dedicated to people who want to trash television series they do not like. What brings us together is not that we dislike SPACE: 1999. What brings us together is that we like SPACE: 1999. Personally I have spent 40 years on this series, and when Kerry once said

I think Tony would be very happy that there was no other television series that he had spent so much time with, I felt exactly the same way. There are many books, films and television series that have made an impression on me as I walk though life, but for me SPACE: 1999 is special. This is the reason why I find thinkers like Fageolle and Keazor useful. Unlike those who say things like “SPACE: 1999 is good because I like SPACE: 1999”, Fageolle and Keazor explain why SPACE: 1999 is good. In fact, it is not only “good” in the sense that it is nice to watch, it is good in the sense that SPACE: 1999 it tells us something about the geopolitical situation per 1975 and gives us opportunities to reflect on the relevance of the problems and suggested solutions in the context of today. I would say that it is particularly in this context that we see the value of Drake, Turdo, Wybon, Fageolle and the rest. They show us that SPACE: 1999 can be used as a sensemaking tool. When we watch and discuss SPACE: 1999 now, I feel we are doing the same thing as Jan Kott was doing in the late fifties and sixties when he was using Shakespeare as a tool for criticising the oppressive nature of Soviet regime and explaining to the world what it felt like living in Poland during that period (Kott, 1964). As we know that Peter Brook’s KING LEAR (1971) and Roman Polanski’s MACBETH (1971) were both influenced by Kott’s socialist realism, as Kott’s model was of course equally efficient for analysing the nature capitalist oppressive regimes, I do not think it would be farfetched to expect that there might be similar ties SPACE: 1999, not at least Shakespearian episodes like DEATH’S OTHER DOMINION where John Shrapnel was selected to play a role based on his association with the Royal Shakespeare Company’s version of one of these plays, but also more generally how certain episodes of SPACE: 1999 can sometimes have a Shakespearian feel. For instance, I do not think that anybody how have seen Leo McKern play the title role in Peter Brook’s KING LEAR would doubt that this may have influenced why he was chosen to play Gwent’s companion. In other words, it all boils down to critical theory (e.g. Keazor, 2014). The reason people keep on watching Shakespeare and SPACE: 1999 is because these are classical stories that explain the problems of the world to us in a more poetic

495

although essentially the same way as people like Noam Chomsky or Bernie Sanders do. I think the appeal of a series like SPACE: 1999 today is that it provides a tool for understanding the need for political activism in the same way as Sanders tries to link the 1965 civil rights march with the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations of 2011, although without making it necessary to rely on individual characters like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or Nelson Mandela or even Sanders in our present context. The stories are more important than individual characters. One thing is listening to Johnny Byrne or Christopher Penfold making political speeches about the need for strong unions at the face of capitalist fascism, but watching SPACE: 1999 is something completely different. It is the poetry of stories combined with the political subtext that make them into eternal stories about economic oppression and social inequality. When Kerry asks me to express my own opinions, regardless of what others have said, I think what I have said above is a reasonable summary of why I believe SPACE: 1999 is such an important series. John B. *** 31867 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Space Warp Rick Curzon Apr 20, 2016

Yadda yadda yadda. Rick *** 31868 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Space Warp sennmut Apr 21, 2016

On 20 Apr 2016 balor1999@... writes: Einstein is supposed to have said that everything should be kept as simple as possible, but not simpler. When we are dealing with such a complex issue as trying to understand SPACE: 1999, I think it would be meaningless if we were to put constraints on ourselves by not arguing more than 200 words at a time and not being allowed to use theory. Where would we be without theory?

496


Alot better, actually. And it would help if the 200 words were, ya know, your own??????? Not culled from the toilet-rolls of a bunch of faux-intellectuals, that wouldn't know reality from a hole in the ground. (Cess pit in hole optional.) *** 31869 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Space Warp Kathryn Riley Apr 20, 2016

You know, I've been lurking here for quite awhile. For what it's worth, I think Y1 is a better class of show than Y2, but Y2 is somewhat more enjoyable re personal relationships and also Helena has better hair. I don't need to dissect it more than that to enjoy it as much as I've been enjoying it since I was 15 and it first debuted. Debates can be enjoyable, but they can also become ridiculous, a la any of the recent political television appearances of all the candidates for president, and certainly, the harangues that go on here. I've been lurking long enough to say that this forum becomes very dead and boring without Mr Balor's presence, but likewise, pretty boring with him, too. He's kind of like Jack Nicholson in 'As Good As it Gets' - off center enough to be entertaining in small doses but it would be a trial to know him in person. Why, oh why, did anyone have to say anything about him limiting himself to 200 words or so? Did you not foresee he would take that as a challenge? Is there some reason you can't just do what I do and stop reading after his first several lines and move on with life? I really don't want to see him banished again, but I really do wish there didn't have to be a response to everything he says. It's like giving a tip to a bad waiter; it just encourages him. *** 31870 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Space Warp balor1999 Apr 21, 2016

Not only is Y1 a better class of show than Y2, as you suggest, Kathryn, Y1 is a remarkably high class show within the context of more or less anything we would like to compare it to. At least, this is the point Wybon makes in his excellent 2014 book “Les guerres des étoiles:

1975-1995 l’invasion SF” (Paris: Edition Huginn-Muninn) where he skips “2001”, STAR TREK and all the other earlier classics by saying that SPACE: 1999 is the most important SF series ever made. One particular illustration that I though was particularly good was the SFX shot of the bomber from WAR GAMES as it passes slowly above the camera on its way to destroy Moonbase Alpha, and how this particular show was remade in more or less exactly the same manner in STAR WARS (1977), ALIEN (1979), THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME (1979), STARCRASH (1979), SATURN 3 (1980), GALAXINA (1980), BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS (1980) and GAMEKA AND THE THREE SUPER-WOMEN (1980). The visual montage Wybon makes use of here is fantastic, I would say, and I expect he could have included lots of other examples, like the parody to of this particular shot from the beginning of Mel Brooks’ SPACEBALLS (1987). However, this is just the visual illustration he makes for showing how SPACE: 1999 was of equal importance to FLASH GORDON, STAR TREK, “2001”, PLANET OF THE APES and all other SF films and TV series that remain with us because of some particularly striking visual idea. The real point of the book, of course, is to show how SPACE: 1999 is the natural starting point for telling the story of SF in film and television for the period 1975 to 1995. This of course also means that he has to include a short summary of the earlier decades in the introduction part of his book, but by making SPACE: 1999 into the starting point of a particular era in SF history, I think he reiterates Keazor’s (2012) point in reflecting on the political significance of the series from a historical perspective, by means of how SPACE: 1999 could be seen as the final example of a counterculture SF narrative in a culture that was ready to turn right-wing and self-destruct by choosing to “surrender to the exquisite forces of pain and suffering [of global laissez-faire capitalism],” to use a phrase from END OF ETERNITY. However, when it comes to views like “Y2 is somewhat more enjoyable re personal relationships and also Helena has better hair,” there is of course no more support to find in Wybon’s book than in any other serious

I think Tony would be very happy SPACE: 1999 literature. Just like any other scholar wanting to comment on the surface merits of Y2, Wybon sees nothing but trash. As usual Freiberger is seen as the ogre that came and destroyed what was one of the finest achievements in SF history, and Wybon chooses to illustrate this by quoting Martin Landau and Johnny Byrne. Of course, there is now a wide source of material he could have used, like the delightful keynote where Nick Tate refers to FF as a ‘dickhead’, but Wybon chooses to focus on a passage from Eric Verat’s (1999) televised interview with Landau, where Landau says that Freiberger had no respect for the actors, and then quotes Byrne talking about FF’s disasterous impact on the scripts. Wybon does not refer to Gerry Anderson saying that FF should have been committed to an asylum for the mentally ill, but his analysis is very much in line with the head of the Psychology Department at Benedictine University, Isle, IL, at the time, Dr. James Iaccino who gave a professional assessment of FF and blamed him for the destruction of SPACE: 1999 in the highly readable 2001 paper “A content analysis of SPACE: 1999’s two seasons” in the STUDIES IN POPULAR CULTURE journal. Wybon, like Fageolle and others before him, puts the blame on Fred Freiberger when he implicitly talks about the awful wooden nature of personal relationships, Helena’s awful hair and all the other despicable aspects of Y2. Actually, Wybon is more restrained in his condemnation of Y2 than other French intellectuals, although his views are clearly no different, as can be seen here: Malgré tous les changements imposes par Fred Freiberger, la série n’améliore pas ses audience outre-Atlantique et elle est finalement annulée (p. 19). In other words, Wybon is making the sarcastic comment that the changes imposed by Freiberger did not improve US ratings, so the show was finally cancelled. If we listen between the lines in the rest of this passage where the line was taken from, I think we can also hear him praise God for the fact that they did not succeed in developing Y3. In the final line of his excellent analysis he states laconically that Maya and THE METAMORPH was introduced to French

497

audiences ten years after the series was made, as of course Y1 was considered as a masterpiece by the people at TF1 in 1975 while Y2 would obviously be identified as trash and something that should not be shown to French audiences. However, as we know, the political change in the 1980s also had an impact on French television, as Bourdieu (1996) explains, so in 1987 they had sunk to the level where even bottom sewer trash like Y2 would be shown. Unfortunately, as I have not read Wybon’s 2015 book, that deals specifically with SF television in France, I don’t know what kind of lament and suffering Y2 imposed on the French population in 1987, but it is, of course, possible that people like Liardet were already developing their theories of Y2 as BARBARELLA at that time, thus making it possible to enjoy the content of Y2 without paying too much attention to the format. As anybody engaged with reading French SPACE: 1999 literature knows, we should never underestimate the intellectual power among these thinkers. Each book or article on SPACE: 1999 by one of these French intellectuals are eye-opening spectacles that never cease to amaze, and they should be of great inspiration for all of us on Online Alpha in showing how SPACE: 1999 can be seen as an important cultural artefact in the history of popular culture. John B. *** 31871 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Space Warp sennmut Apr 21, 2016

More French crap. Uhhh, I mean merde. *** 31872 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Space Warp balor1999 Apr 22, 2016

Well, of course the French perspective is important, but this not the only perspective. Right now Keazor is probably even more influential in SPACE: 1999 scholarship, and Keazor is German, so that it why he makes use of Jan Arendt Fuhse for explaining the critical

498


perspective in SPACE: 1999, as opposed to Iaccino who is clearly on the right track in blaming FF for everything that is wrong with Y2, but does not go into detail in the same way as Keazor on how Freudianism and Marxism is united within the context of critical theory. On the other hand, the sociology of SF that Keazor makes use of, when referring to Fuhse, seems to have developed somewhat independently of the American branch of SF and critical theory that we know through the works of Suvin, Jameson and Freedman. Perhaps not totally independent, but still in a way that gives the sociological works a slightly different flavour. Personally, I have only read Marcuse’s “OneDimensional Man” in English, so I don’t know if it feels completely different in German, but I have watched several interviews and documentaries with Marcuse in German, and to me the philosophy seems to espouse the same values, regardless of language. In fact, in the the episode of Bryan Magee’s MEN OF IDEAS (1978) that consisted of a 45 minute long conversation with Marcuse (episode 3), you could see that Marcuse was occasionally about to started talking in German, or even more clearly in the reverse case with the 1976 conversation between Herbert Marcuse, Ivo Frenzel and Willy Hochkeppe where we see him struggling to find certain German words because he had at that time lived so long in the US that some of his thinking or his way of explaining his thinking was in English. There are of course those who say that French is the only language useful for intelligent thinking, and unless you are able to express your ideas in French, they cannot be worth very much. I remember the first time I came across people who think like this was when reading a work on the history mathematics by Jean Dieudonné. Dieudonné was not of this opinion himself, but, as I remember it, he told a story about the French response to the American development of Category Theory was that it could not be a very much use of high intellectual quality as it had not been developed by the French. Although it sounds like an arrogant attitude, I think it is something completely different, but I remember being quite astounded by how individuals or intellectual communities could hold attitudes like this. After all, mathematics is not a matter of taste and discussion. It is the truth. Nevertheless, as we see from the sociology of

knowledge (e.g. Latour, 2005), not even science, engineering and mathematics are without politics, so saying that a book on mathematics or SPACE: 1999 is probably of limited value unless it has been written by a Frenchman or is heavily influenced by French ideas, is not as absurd as it might sound. In fact, in our case I think Fageolle would be a perfect example of this. Where would we have been today with respect to insightful knowledge about SPACE: 1999 if it had not been for Fageolle? We would probably still be commenting on Helena’s hairstyle in Y1 versus Y2 or discussing how to put together Eagle models. So, the point is not that some of the brightest and most influential observers of SPACE: 1999 are all French, such as Wybon, Fageolle, Bannier, Petit, Verat, Carrazé and Liardet. The point is the ideas they contribute to the ongoing discussions, regardless of where they came from or in which language these ideas were originally articulated. For example, if we compare two quite similar books, like Robert Wood’s 2010 edition of “Destination: Moonbase Alpha” and Giuseppe Turdo’s “Destinazione obbligata: Alpha” (2015), I would say that they both have their independent strengths. Wood’s major achievement, as I see it, is in integrating a large volume of quotes from cast and crew into the story, so that both the analysis of the series as a whole, the individual seasons, and the individual episodes are made easier to understand by including the right quotes from Anderson, Byrne, Penfold, Landau, Morse and the rest at the right places, in addition to Wood’s own reviews and reflections that are sometimes quite perceptive. Although Turdo largely repeats both the formula and much of the content from Wood, he gives it his own twist by way by how he chooses to edit the comments from cast and crew into the narrative, and sometimes including comments that Wood did not use, for instance comments from some of the Italian actors, and the analysis of the series as a whole and individual episodes is in some cases quite different from how Wood sees it. Although I’m not sure the French writers are correct in aligning the Y1/Y2 debate so much with differences in North American versus European culture as they do, but in some ways

I think Tony would be very happy they are by this trying to explain the outcome on one of the central challenges of the series in the first place, namely that SPACE: 1999 and many of the other ITC series made by Gerry Anderson and Lew Grade were designed not only for the UK or European market, but they also hoped to profit by being shown in the US. For example, when Pat McGoohan approach Lew Grade with the idea for THE PRISONER, he wanted to make it into a seven part serial because he felt that was the right format, but the acceptance condition he got from Grade was that it would have to be turned into a series as it would otherwise be difficult to sell in the US, so that is the reason McGoohan and partners spent a few weekends fleshing out another ten scripts. In most other series, we see that they decide to add American actors in the lead roles, like the Landaus in SPACE: 1999, and in this case there was also an agreement to use American writers and directors. However, people like George Bellak and Lee Katzin only survived for a short time, and the American influence on SPACE: 1999 came through writers who had been living in England for such a long time that they were almost to be understood as English, or some efforts at remote control management from people like Abe Mandell. There obviously was a cultural challenge. Given the business model behind SPACE: 1999, I do not think that the arrival of Fred Freiberger should be seen as all that surprising. Lew Grade and Gerry Anderson wanted to sell SPACE: 1999 to the US networks, and based on the experience during the first year of sending scripts back and forth over the Atlantic, causing enormous problems with the rewriting of some scripts, could be solved by having somebody on board who understood the target audience better. Freiberger claimed to be such a person, and he had a sufficiently impressive CV to make people believe him, if they did not look too closely at it. To me this is perhaps where it becomes the most interesting to compare how Iaccino (2001) and Fageolle (1996) explain how FF destroyed SPACE: 1999. For Fageolle, and other French intellectuals, Freiberger was translating something that was of universal interest (Y1) into something that would only be of interest in North American (ibid, p. 26). As also Muir (1997, p. 88) points out, it was not necessarily that all American liked trash like Y2, but it is

499

the fact that in a large country it may be easier to identify a target audience of people who enjoy trash, and it was obviously this group that Freiberger was trying to reach. He was not aiming for SPACE: 1999 fans, nor was he aiming for the niche audience of STAR TREK fans that were devoted to the series in the late sixties, but he was aiming for the large crowd of people who had discovered STAR TREK in the early seventies by way of STAR TREK: TAS and the reruns. What I think is interesting when we compare the analysis of Fageolle, and fellow French thinkers like Petit (1999) who describe SPACE: 1999 through a lens of broad cultural analysis based on economic, political and cultural facets, with Iaccino giving a complementary explanation by viewing the failure of Y2 from an American observational context. The main difference in the analysis, as I see it, is that Iaccino does not to the same extent as the French believe that Freiberger was competent as a cultural translator. In fact, the point in Iaccino’s article is that he confirms Gerry Anderson’s nightmare, namely that they had hired a scriptwriter/producer that should have been locked up in an asylum for the insane. It is obvious that Freiberger destroyed SPACE: 1999, Iaccino explains by going through the concept of Y2 and more or less every episode of the season, but what gives his assessment of FF particular validity is that he was the head of the psychological department at the Benedictine University of Illinois when he did this research and got the paper published. I think there is an important difference between seeing FF as somebody who was calculating in a rational manner how to destroy SPACE. 1999 by making it into fascist pornography, and somebody that was simply out of his mind. At this stage I think it is useful to return to the books by Wood and Turdo once more. As we are now interesting in the relationship between DRAGON’S DOMAIN and SPACE WARP, I find it interesting to see how Wood and Turdo comment on each of the entries of the Woodgrove trilogy. Although they are both intelligent people, of course they describe all three episodes as pure trash, but in the case of Wood we get the impression that he suffers from some kind of internal struggle when making these comments, as though he also

500


consider the episodes as guilty pleasure, something that is perhaps best illustrated in the way he rates the episodes 4.5, 5.0 and 5.5 out of 10 stars. Although these scores may be the lowest ratings he gives to any of the 48 episodes he reviews, he is nevertheless giving them close to a median score on a ten point scale. This is completely different from Turdo who gives each of the Woodgrove episodes a score of 1 on a scale from 1 to 5. For Turdo there is obviously no doubt at all, and no guilty pleasures whatsoever, as he scores reveal. So in this respect, one wonders if the French actually have a point. While people outside North America see nothing of value in the Woodgrove trilogy, like how Bannier (1996) gives these episodes a score of ZERO regardless of scale, in the US there is at least a small community of people that find (guilty) pleasure in Y2.

perspective. The French perspective is obviously important, but we need to look at the French perspective as input for wider discussions where all members of Online Alpha are included. Although SPACE: 1999 fandom would have been much easier if we all decided to destroy and burn the Y2 episodes, as Fageolle suggests, I think part of the challenge and the reason that keeps us discussing the series decade after decade is because of this tension between the cultural merit of Y1 and the lack of cultural merit in Y2. In a sense I think we should consider ourselves lucky to have this internal tension within the series as it allow a dialectical way of developing insights and understanding of SPACE: 1999 as a whole. John B. ***

On the other hand, Senmut may be right in saying that we focus too much on the French

12.7 Rehashing, rehasing, and more rehashing As a way of trying to move the discussion forwards, one of the discussants suggest that the way the Y1/Y2 dilemma has been discussed in the context of “Dragon’s Domain” and “Space Warp” can be made more insightful by looking at the status of the Anderson marriage towards the end of Y1. This turns out to be a useful comment as it spawns new ideas and still more debate. 31873 Re: Rehashing, rehashing, and more rehashing. kerryirs Apr 22, 2016

John, you are funny. Until a month ago, I didn't know Thomas Stockel existed, and he's hardly a favorite. In fact, I find most of these so-called experts lacking in some facts. At least Robert Wood either spoke to some of those who worked on the series or found reference materials and quotes. I wish the French "experts" would dig into the history of the show more and look at the behind the scenes issues that led to the demise of Y1, since you and they think it was divinely inspired. So, I'm listing a link I've been looking to find again after seeing it here. http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-truth-about-whatwent-wrong-with-the-third-season-o1684057419

I mention this link as an example of what can go on behind the scenes, that there is more to what we see on screen and to show why Tim Herald's book doesn't tell the whole story. Nothing is mentioned about Y1, oh maybe about people and characters leaving, nothing concerning why changes were made, at least not in detail. Although Wood's book comes close, I'd like to see a definitive volume written by an author who doesn't have an ax to grind and would be unbiased one way or the other in terms of the Y1/Y2 debate. This would probably preclude a fan from writing it or the French authors who are so biased that their onpinions would mean little. In fact, I'm starting to view these French so-called "experts" as a bunch of nerddie pinheads. Sorry for the disrespect John B., but it is intentional While reading the material on the link above, note the parallels between Y3 of Trek TOS and Y2 of 1999, particularly when it comes to the

I think Tony would be very happy eexcutive producers. Both gave up on their creations, both had problems in their marriages, and both blame the problems of their particular creation on one man, a man who had nothing to do with the first two seasons of Trek or Y1 of 1999, in each case the two shows had already been canceled. Anderson and Roddenberry both took shots at FF during production, Roddenberry in particular, was far worse. Now, this doesn't mean that FF remains blameless in each case, no, but to shove all the blame onto him for the shortcomings of these shows or the SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN (which had run its course anyway) is pure and simple BS!! John you and these French nerds should realize that FF was a human being and personal attacks hurt. Read Freiberger's comment on his comparing being locked up as a POW for two years and the hate he continued to receive for 25 plus years from some Trek fans and now some 1999 fans. Well, that's it for now. Hopefully we can move onto other things, because as I've said before, all this is is rehashing stuff that's already been put out there before. AND IT AINT GOING TO CHANGE. Oh, as for the tree metaphor, a good chainsaw would take care of that. :) *** 31874 Re: Rehashing, rehashing, and more rehashing. balor1999 Apr 23, 2016

As usual you make good points, Kerry, but I expect it comes as no surprise to you that I do not completely agree with all aspects of your argument. Nevertheless, to start with the good points, you are always quick to point out that rehashing old arguments does not lead forward. I totally agree. Sometimes we get stuck on the same argument, and although we may add slight perspectives that prevent us from saying exactly the same thing over and over again, few of us have the ability to change the paradigm of how we understand SPACE: 1999, like how Liardet does when talking about BARBARELLA as a lens for

501

understanding Y2. To me this was a revolutionary perspective that allows us to look at that Y1/Y2 dilemma in a much more constructive manner, and I would actually say that the ILSA perspective is a non-trivial contribution to this aspect of the debate, as it addresses the question of understanding Y2 episodes that are not obviously taken care of by the BARBARELLA lens. Of course, I am here talking about the Woodgrove episodes, and SPACE WARP in particular. Another point you make, that I think is highly important, is your criticism of some of the French S99 scholars in the way they belong to an intellectual tradition that puts more emphasis on inventive and insightful ideas that are sometimes presented at the cost of not spending and equal amount of time on empirical data. Now, I will not say that the scholars we have been discussing here are faulty of this, but I think you have a point that much of the intellectual tradition they represent have been criticised for doing exactly what you are saying. I am for instance thinking of the famous criticism raised by Sokal and Bricmont in their 1997 book “Impostures intellectuelles” (Edition Odiles Jacob), but we should also remember that some of the criticism raised in that book was defended with eloquence by members of the community being attacked, also resulting in some counterattacks by questioning the political intensions of Sokal and Bricmont, and also questioning ethical aspects of their book, as much of what was described was taken out of context. To me perhaps the Sokal debate in itself was more important than who was declared the “winner”, as I felt that both sides had valid points, and I felt the debate raised an important point at that time. Nevertheless, in principle I agree with you, Kerry. There should be a balance between theory and observation, and you are in many ways a role model in this respect in the way you either back up your own arguments with references to what members of cast and crew have actually said, or do not hesitate to question me and others when we for example quote from Heald (1976) in ways that you feel is taken out of context. Of course, this does not mean that I agree with your arguments, as I have noticed that you read Freiberger in the context of Heald and McCorry (1999) in a very

502


different way from how I do, but I like the way you comment on how I comment on what Freiberger said on one particular page in Heald’s book by referring to something he said on another page, and thus making it possible for me to understand your argument in a manner that makes it possible to conduct meaningful conversation. However, as I said above, although I like your way of arguing, as they are transparent and good for creating meaningful dialogue, I often disagree with the actual points you make. For instance, in Charlie Jane Anders’ review of the third volume of Mark Cushman’s “These are the voyages” series of STAR TREK companion books, by way of the link you presented in the previous post, I believe I read the essence of the review in a very different way from how you apparently do. Perhaps I am simplifying your argument, but if you are saying that the main reason for the demise of SPACE: 1999 was Gerry Anderson having problems with his marriage while Freiberger was doing as best as he could trying to save a sinking ship, this is very different from how I understand it, even when we compare the situation with the situation during the final season of STAR TREK. Of course, you are right about the Andersons splitting up, and how this may have had a negative impact on the making of both the second and the first season, but I also remember from Wood’s book or elsewhere that the Andersons kept their quarrels private. I don’t remember who among the cast and crew pointed this out, but the way I remember the story, the announcement that they were breaking up came as a total surprise at the end of the season. In the case of Sylvia Anderson, many people spoke very nicely about her and her influence on Y1. Unlike Gerry, she was more of a people person, so many of the actors felt this was very useful. I think Zienia Merton in particular mentions this point. Johnny Byrne and Keith Wilson also spoke very nicely about Sylvia. Penfold, on the other hand, said that she had no impact on the series whatsoever, talking then about the development of the scripts, although Gerry was highly important in this respect. In fact, GA could be something of a problem at times, I remember Penfold saying, because once he had gotten an idea into his mind it was more or less

impossible to make him change. I am not certain what episodes or situations Penfold may have been thinking about here, but we also know that Byrne complained that sometimes they had to rewrite mediocre scripts for making them presentable when a better approach would have been to develop something from scratch. I expect THE LAST ENEMY may have been one of the scripts he was thinking about, as I know he was involved in the rewriting of that, and it is an episode which not even the original writer and episode director Bob Kellett was particularly happy with. Personally, however, I have always wondered if the context of THE LAST ENEMY was directly inspired by the matrimonial problems the Andersons were having at the time, although that might indicate that Gerry was seeing somebody on the side, and I have no idea about whether this was true. In fact, I know hardly anything about the matrimonial problems they were having at this time, except from a YouTube clip that Kerry has provided links to, several times, where GA says that they were not on speaking terms, the situation was hopeless, and in the end he decided to move out. Although I can agree with Kerry that these matrimonial problems might help us understand some aspects of SPACE: 1999, I doubt it might be very useful for adding significant insights to the kind of discussions we are concerned with on Online Alpha, namely the understanding of the political subtext of the series. The only relevance I could see where would be if Barbara Bain’s original outline of THE SECOND SEX could be given a feminist political interpretation, in the style of Simone de Beauvoir’s 1949 book that the title alludes to. I think it is also worth remembering that the way Martin Landau describes the episode in the interview with Eric Verat in 1999 is that he thought of it as an allegory on the Middle East peace negotiations, with Koenig in a Kissinger-like position. If Bain and Landau had such completely different understanding of an episode that she had outlined, one might suspect that their marriage was also having challenges at the time, and that Bain was writing the script from a more personal perspective, but to me this becomes speculations that lead us nowhere because such attempts to understand the psychological

I think Tony would be very happy aspects of the episodes undermines the focus of trying to understand them sociologically and politically. So, this is my view on Kerry’s first point. I think the matrimonial crisis the Andersons were experiencing may have had some impact on Gerry’s temper, in the way we notice that several people were fired during the process of making Y1, but on the whole we ended up with one of the best examples of SF on film or television ever made, so I see no reason to complain or starting to look at problems that were not there. In fact, in the Fanderson documentary, when discussing the premise of getting involved with Y2, GA says that he was very pleased with the outcome of Y1, the Landaus were very pleased, and people in general were very pleased, but ITC New York were not pleased. From the way the story is told in this documentary, one gets the impression that GA was being tricked into accepted FF, and from then on everything became a disaster. Actually, Nick Tate says the same thing in Wood’s book: I think that after the first series was made and we all thought we were coming back in August and we didn’t, ITC came to Gerry late and said, “Look – as you know, we’re not going to go ahead with this series the way it was. But we’ve decided we will do a new version of this series – but we have to do it our way. We’ll send out a man to you who will take over and show you what we want. And these are the things we want…” And they told him and Gerry apparently accepted (Wood, 2010, pp. 416-17). In other words, Tate believes that ITC made GA “an offer he could not refuse”. To me this ties nicely in with Johnny Byrne’s suspicion that the Mafia or some other part of organised crime had taken over and now hiring Fred “the show killer” Freiberger as somebody who would make sure that Y2 would never become a success, as the whole process was a cover-up for some money laundering scheme (ibid, p. 251). Although it appears that the inclusion of Maya and all the other terrible changes from Y1 to Y2 was because FF thought that only idiots watched SF, and thus wanting to make S99 as idiotic as possible, thus wanting to improve the impact of the show rather than destroying it, I still think it is impossible to

503

forget what GA, Johnny Byrne, Martin Landau, Nick Tate and so many others have said publicly about Freiberger. Although Tate’s term ‘dickhead’ is perhaps not the most polite way of putting it, in this case I think has been useful to have somebody from Australian, where they may perhaps not be as much restricted by trying to keep a polite social façade as in other countries, explain in simple words what he and everybody else were feeling. Sometimes a lot of tension can be relieved by somebody calling a spade a spade. When I read the review of Marc Cushman’s book, I was reminded of how Landau has in retrospect been complaining about Freiberger in exactly the same way as Nimoy did. Shatner didn’t have a problem with Freiberger, because Kirk is essentially a one-dimensional character, but Spock is not, just like Koenig, Russell, Bergman and the SPACE: 1999 characters in general are not. In retrospect, I think it is almost impossible to disagree with Iaccino (2001) and others who have bluntly stated that FF killed SPACE: 1999. No matter how much FF want to present himself differently when being interviewed by McCorry and others, it is much easier to sympathise with GA when he explains how he felt something was wrong when FF started talking about talking plants and Luton airport. John B. *** 31875 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Rehashing, rehashing, and more rehashing. sennmut Apr 23, 2016

On 23 Apr 2016 balor1999@... writes: I think it is also worth remembering that the way Martin Landau describes the episode in the interview with Eric Verat in 1999 is that he thought of it as an allegory on the Middle East peace negotiations, with Koenig in a Kissingerlike position. If Bain and Landau had such completely different understanding of an episode that she had outlined, one might suspect that their marriage was also having challenges at the time, and that Bain was writing the script from a more personal perspective, but to me this becomes speculations that lead us nowhere because such attempts to understand the psychological aspects of the episodes undermines the focus of

504

Part III – Short Stories trying to understand them sociologically and politically.

Then maybe we need to dump the social and political crap, and just watch them for the entertainment valu. Period. Or is that too tough? *** 31876 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Rehashing, rehashing, and more rehashing. Rick Curzon Apr 23, 2016

Agreed. The characterisations in Space 1999 were not really developed very well, and I find it hilarious that Balor reckons Kirk was one dimensional and then states that those in 1999 were not. Rick *** 31877 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Rehashing, rehashing, and more rehashing. balor1999 Apr 24, 2016

I do not think there has to be a distinction between SPACE: 1999 as a social and political lens and SPACE: 1999 as entertainment. In fact, I think one of the best examples of what was both a deep analysis of the social and political analysis of an episode of SPACE: 1999 that was also highly entertaining was Paulo Pereira’s analysis of DRAGON’S DOMAIN during the last ExE discussions. As the underlying theme of all recent discussions has bee the investigation of how fan fiction reviewers have commented on the relationship between DRAGON’S DOMAIN and SPACE WARP, I think it could be useful for all of us to have a second look at this modern classic among outstanding SPACE: 1999 episode reviews (message #29716): The monster in DD represents capitalism, who can only survives by consuming victims, sucking the life out of a working class (the prey) and leave nothing but empty shells of the ones it has devoured. Cellini represents those workers who once understood how the system works, were able to

set themselves free and decides to warn the rest, but the new working class (the alphans) refuses to believe in him. Fuelled by the promise of riches (the alien vessels), the working class only understands the capitalist trap when it is too late. And a bit like Maximo Gorky's "Mother" the main character must die at the tentacles of the capitalist system in order to save the others. Not only did this review add deep insights that fit perfectly with Barry Morse’s description of Moonbase Alpha as an anarcho-syndicalist commune, or ‘socialist outfit’ as was the term he used (Wood, 2010, p. 82), but it is also a stimulating input that resulted in applause and congratulatory inputs from several other discussants. So, the challenge I see in Senmut’s question and Rick’s response, is essentially the challenge of doing what Paulo demonstrates above, namely the challenge of fleshing out the political subtext of the series in a manner that is not only insightful but also entertaining. If we look at how Paulo succeeds in this challenging task, I think key is how he combines looking at DRAGON’S DOMAIN through a political lens while also using an example from literature to illustrate his point. In many ways this is exactly the same approach that Fageolle uses, and perhaps there is even a direct link here as Paulo admits Fageolle having a healthy influence on his understanding of the series (message #29301). Nevertheless, there is no reference to Fageolle in the analysis of DD above, so what is presented is unique and insightful interpretation of the deeper meaning of the episode. I think this is what makes the analysis so entertaining. So, my response to Senmut’s question of whether we should forget about social and political interpretations of SPACE: 1999, and focus more on the entertainment value, or whether this will be tough to do, I think the best answer to these questions is to point out that we do not necessarily have a dilemma here. In fact, for many of us, the social and political readings of SPACE: 1999 is a central part of the entertainment value of the series, especially when we think of Y1. Of course, when we reach Y2 there is a challenge, particularly with episodes like SPACE WARP,

I think Tony would be very happy BETA CLOUD and RULES OF LUTON, where there appears to be a general consensus that the episodes neither have political subtext nor entertainment value. I think Turdo (2015), in particular, explains this in a highly convincing manner, although he is, of course, reiterating what Fageolle (1996), Iaccino (2001) and others have been saying before him, but to me it is still important how he uses the one to five star assessment scale in an intelligent manner for showing how the Woodgrove trilogy has a natural place on the bottom of the scale. As Turdo refers extensively to Wood in his review of these episode, for example mentioning Wood’s excellent description of BETA CLOUD as a lobotomised version of END OF ETERNITY, if we translate Wood’s individual scoring of episode with the method used by Turdo, Wood gives the Woodgrove episodes scores between 2 and 3 stars on a scale from 1 to 5 while Turdo makes the more natural choice of giving them the lowest score on the scale. Although I don’t think we can learn all that much about the episodes by looking at how different fans and scholars rate them on numerical scales, I think it is interesting how Turdo indirectly compares DD and SW by giving top score to the first and bottom score to the second. Although this is only a reflection of how Turdo subjectively feels about the two episodes, as perhaps the leading Italian SPACE: 1999 scholar at the present, Turdo’s subjective feelings are interesting, and his subjective feelings are also interesting as they seem to be to be quite representative of how most people view these two episodes. For instance, on the internet movie database (imdb), DD is given a score of 8.6 while SW gets 6.2. Of course, there is a difference between how we should look at episode scores by somebody who devotes a large proportion of his life thinking about SPACE: 1999 by writing a book and those who randomly contributes to the imdb assessments without necessarily knowing anything about S99 at all, but it both cases we see that DD gets a relatively high score and SW gets a relatively low score. I think this can be valuable information when we consider the point made by Mackon and Chip Bell in terms of how it is possible to see a link between DD and SW.

505

Clearly, the link between DD and SW is not in terms of socio-political meaning or entertainment value. As Paulo clearly illustrates, DD is rich with socio-political meaning, which is why it becomes entertaining, while in the case of SW the best way we have come to see it is by comparing it with the ILSA exploitation films. During our debates, some of us have also argued the position that the ILSA films are neither designed as socio-political analysis nor do they have entertainment value in the usual sense. They have entertainment value for people who like watching films about young women being raped, tortured and killed, in very explicit and nasty ways, but it is not what I would describe as ‘entertainment value’ for people in general. In fact, I think most healthy people would find the ILSA films at least as repulsive as the Woodgrove trilogy of Y2, but this was exactly the reason why we chose to look at the ISLA films, as they allow us to get a better understanding of the Woodgrove episodes as social pornography. So, here we have an interesting contrast. Paulo compares DRAGON’S DOMAIN with world literature like Gorky’s “The Mother” while others, like Johnny Byrne, compares the episode with the English national epic poem “Beowulf”. Regardless of what Kerry says about Y1 having faults and problems, whenever somebody chooses to analyse Y1 it is always done in reference to great poetry and fine art. In contrast, when people try to make sense out of Y2, the first references that come to mind are always from the worst aspects of mass culture, such as Hanna-Barbera cartoons, exploitation films, Nazi propaganda, pornography, and so on. Even when Liardet shows us a way of bridging our understanding of the two series in a way that is supposed to be equally acceptable to both sides of the debate, the lens he suggests for reading Y2 is BARBARELLA, foremost the 1967 film with Jane Fonda, but implicitly also the Jean Claude Forest comic strips from 1962 and perhaps also the more explicit inspired pornography that followed. In other words, when we want to compare DRAGON’S DOMAIN with SPACE WARP, we are trying to bridge two completely different worlds. We are trying to bridge a world of literature, art and culture with a world of exploitation, pornography and populist right-wing political views.

506


Is it possible to bridge two such extremely different worlds at all? When I reflect upon Senmut’s question about whether it is possible to bridge the world of socio-political analysis and entertainment value, which is not really much of a question as the answer is a clear affirmative, the question I would hope that he would be posing, if it is not already hidden within his other question, is this question of whether it is possible to enjoy both Y1 and Y2. Is it possible? Or to be even more precise, as Y1 is obviously possible to enjoy as it is one of the finest SF series ever made, is it possible to enjoy Y2? I think this is the real question that keeps driving the SPACE: 1999 debate for decade after decade. For almost 40 years, there was a clear answer to this question, and the answer was ‘no’. Obviously, no healthy normal person can find anything of value in Y2, no more than he would find anything in value from watching ILSA films where helpless people are being raped, tortured and killed. Of course, as Erich Wise has occasionally pointed out, people may admit to getting a guilty pleasure out of watching Y2, in a similar way to how they would describe getting a guilty pleasure out of watching pornography or something else without cultural merit, but nobody argue that there is anything of value in Y2. In particular people who really understand SPACE: 1999, like Keazor, Fageolle and Iaccino, would never describe Y2 in the same way as they describe Y1. However, now we live in a new world. A revolution has taken place. When Liardet released his masterwork “Cosmos 1999: Le fabulaire de l’espace” in November 2014, he changed the Fageollean hegemony within the scholarly discourse, that had been the status quo since the publication of the first edition of Fageolle’s book in 1993, although the had been the common sense understanding of Y1/Y2 since 1977. The old consensus, from 1977 to 2014, was that Gerry Anderson should never have made Y2 in the first place, and the best way to deal with Y2 in retrospect would be to send all the negatives and copies of the series out into deep space where they could be burned and destroyed. This is the old view. The new view is completely different. Since 2014 we now understand more clearly how to make sense of out trash like Y2, given that we

look at it from the right perspective, like using BARBARELLA as a theoretical lens, and within the academic and scholarly part of the SPACE: 1999 this is a completely new perspective. When we look at everything that has been written about Y2 by people of merit, since the series premiered in 1977, it is only that Y2 was trash, trash, trash. It should never have been made, and it is a total embarrassment for anybody wanting to argue that SPACE: 1999 as a whole has cultural merit. Now, on the other hand, we can argue that Y2 is quite interesting in its own respect. It deals with important issues like industrial pollution and climate change (JOURNEY TO WHERE), the lure and danger of consumer capitalism (THE TAYBOR), violence and the need for gun regulation (MARK OF ARCHANON), class struggle and exploitation of labour in capitalist society (THE METAMORPH), and so on and so forth. Even Freiberger’s worst idea of all, Maya, becomes a symbol of the civil rights movement, political feminism, gay and lesbian rights, and other issues that directly or indirectly relate to the overall political subtext of the series. Liardet’s analysis of SPACE: 1999 does not close down the doors behind previous giants of SPACE: 1999 analysis, such as Fageolle, Keazor and Iaccino, it opens up for more analysis of the same kind by showing that Y2 can in principle be seen as equally fertile ground for developing a proper understanding of S99 – given that we use BARBARELLA or something similar as a key for opening the door. This is were we stand today, as I see it, and I think fan fiction plays an important role in the way we try to bring insights from Y1 into the way we are now starting to look at Y2. I have promised not to mention any particular works out of Senmut’s magnificent fan fiction oeuvre in posts were I also discuss political and academic issues, but as a general comment I would say that his way of bridging ideas, themes and characters from Y1 and Y2 into a fictional Y3 has been of great inspiration. There is something very healthy and constructive in the way people like Senmut to engage with SPACE: 1999, and, as we have seen, I am not the only one who gets all sorts of inspiration from reading his stories. During the last few weeks we have largely discussed

I think Tony would be very happy ideas articulated by Mackon and Chip Bell as they reviewed one of Senmut’s most impressive miniature masterpieces. Nevertheless, since I used Paulo’s analysis of DD as a response to Senmut’s question about analysis and entertainment, I think that Paulo is also one of the great bridge builders on Online Alpha. While being able to provide deep and penetrating analysis of episodes like DRAGON’S DOMAIN, apparently without any effort at all, he has as long as I have known him never hesitated in commenting on how he sees DEVIL’S PLANET as the finest hour of SPACE: 199938. In this sense, I think I would describe Paulo as part of an intellectual avant-garde that is both well read in classical SPACE: 1999 theory, such as Fageolle, but also anticipates the conclusions from Liardet long before these ideas are published and will eventually end up in the academic mainstream. To me this is what makes Online Alpha into an interesting and useful community. It is interesting and useful in the way that it allows us to expand on our understanding of SPACE: 1999 by discussing with people who share the same fascinating with the series, but who look at it from complimentary perspectives. It is when we harness this strong side of the community that I feel that we are at our best and manage to bring the discussion forward. John B. *** 31878 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Rehashing, rehashing, and more rehashing. Rick Curzon Apr 24, 2016

Enough already. Rick *** 38 Editor’s note: Although a full account of Paulo Pereira’s extensive analysis and insightful commentary on DEVIL’S PLANET spans several decades, and is distributed among several SPACE: 1999 discussion forums, some summary exposition can be found within the second ExE discussion (Balor, 2015, pp. 146-147, 168-169, 204, 344, 649653, 655, 658).

507

31879 Re: Rehashing, rehashing, and more rehashing. kerryirs Apr 24, 2016

Anderson quarrl? Well, using Anderson's own description, it got so bad that he moved out. That had to have an effect on the show and it's something that is hard to keep secret. I've also read that the Landaus were also having marital issues. Having said that, I'll admit I really don't care about people's private lives, but in this case it had an effect on the series. What would have been the look of Y2 is Silvia Anderson had been around? Would there have even been a secound season? Rick, I agree with you. One of the things that made Trek popular were the big three characters; whereas, 1999 lacked that in Y1. Having said that, I still like Alan Carter and Prof. Bergman; Koenig is OK. Helena was warmer and more outgoing in Y2. *** 31880 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Rehashing, rehashing, and more rehashing. John Marcucci Apr 24, 2016

Space 1999 benefitted from the fact that it came at a time when people were starving for good Sci fi adventure tv... And s1999 was the only game in town. Star Trek with all its flaws awakened people to the awesome possibilities of quality Sci fi on the tube. Caught between ST/ TOS and all the movies and tv that came after, S1999 occupies the dubious position of that chick you hooked up with for a summer when you were on the rebound from being dumped.. Right before you met the gal you ended up marrying: You have very fond memories of her because she was sweet and hot and maybe a little bit crazy..but her name is not mentioned at family gatherings, nor is her picture on display. Regards, John M *** 31881 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Rehashing, rehashing, and more rehashing. Rick Curzon Apr 25, 2015

508


Year 1 has some very low key characterisation but not much consistency as the writers jerk the characters around according to the needs of the plot; the varying romances as characters bounce from one person to another from one episode to the next is a dead giveaway in this regard. One aspect that Year 2 gets right is it solidifies this aspect of the relationships, but sadly takes about twenty intellectual steps backwards. In any case I find that neither series is truly satisfactory on the characterisation front. Whereas, this was one of Star Trek's strengths and why it's been a much more successful show both artistically and emotionally. I have great nostalgia for Space:1999 and the first series is easily one of the finest scfi...indeed Tv series ever made, flaws and all....but it's a colder, more intellectual victory. Rick *** 31882 [OnlineAlpha] Re: Rehashing, rehashing, and more rehashing. sennmut Apr 25, 2016

Balor, you are too much. My comment was meant as SARCASM!!!!!!!!!!! Do you even know what that is? What I posed was not a question....SARCASM pure and simple. A concept that seems to elude you, no matter how much one might hope for it to be otherwise. As to all this "Anal"ysis of the show by your pet intellectuals...TO HELL WITH ALL OF IT!!!! They have nothing to add, except ever more thick and fragrant layers of fly attractant. There is no class struggle, either in the show or in real life, and if you believe there is, well, I guess we could put you on the prayer list. If even that will help. It is all TRASH AND FILTH! Get it? Now either develop some selfrestraint regarding your pet religion, or take your personal opiate and put in your shoe with that egg! ***

31883 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Rehashing, rehashing, and more rehashing. sennmut Apr 25, 2016

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 Rick Curzon writes: Year 1 has some very low key characterisation but not much consistency as the writers jerk the characters around according to the needs of the plot; the varying romances as characters bounce from one person to another from one episode to the next is a dead giveaway in this regard. One aspect that Year 2 gets right is it solidifies this aspect of the relationships, but sadly takes about twenty intellectual steps backwards. In any case I find that neither series is truly satisfactory on the characterisation front. Whereas, this was one of Star Trek's strengths and why it's been a much more successful show both artistically and emotionally. I have great nostalgia for Space:1999 and the first series is easily one of the finest scfi...indeed Tv series ever made, flaws and all....but it's a colder, more intellectual victory.

And superior to Trek in some ways, IMNSHO. Humans are portrayed more honestly, not as some wonderous purveyors of wisdom, who go about the galaxy fixing problems, and scattering justice and equality in their path. Humans are flawed and mistake-prone, and Space shows this, as the Alphans struggle to maintain the best in what it means to be Human. *** 31885 Re: Rehashing, rehashing, and more rehashing. kerryirs Apr 25, 2016

John B., good post. He wrote, Perhaps I am simplifying your argument, but if you are saying that the main reason for the demise of SPACE: 1999 was Gerry Anderson having problems with his marriage while Freiberger was doing as best as he could trying to save a sinking ship, this is very different from how I understand it, even when we compare the situation with the situation during the final season of STAR TREK.

Actually not. My point was how these two shows paralleled each other in their final year. Y1 had a lot of other issues going beyond Anderson's private life, which personally, I really don't care about. It's that I think it did

I think Tony would be very happy have an effect on the series in some ways; a distraction for one thing. You may not know this, but even before 1999 went into production, Freiberger was considered for story editor. I read this recently on The Space: 1999 Catacombs. I guess he had other things to do as George Ballak was selected, but I think stayed only a short time. Right from the start ITC was gearing 1999 for the US audience. This didn't start in Y2. They were thinking commercialism right from the start, thus the hiring of the Landaus, Balak, and I think Wallace.

509

We can agree to disagree, that's what this forum is all about, sharing views. But I wish the accusations and name calling would stop when it comes to FF. One can agree or disagree with what was done under his watch, but using hateful terms gets us nowhere. Remember, to hate someone over a TV series is a sad commentary on those that do it. He was a human being with a family and it hurt as was pointed out in Cushman's book. There you are, my 2¢. ***

510


13. TO TAKE THE RISK The chapter consist of five sections. The first section presents ideas on how the short story can be used for gaining insights and structuring debates. The next three sections embody debates resulting from issues like reading the story in the context of “The Last Sunset”. The final section contains concluding reflections and remarks concerning the totality of discussions about fan fiction and SPACE: 1999 within this book.

13.1 Commentary and analysis The aim of the introductory discussion is to identify ideas and themes in the short story that can be useful for discussing “The Last Sunset” in particular but also more general aspects of the series as a whole. Similarities in “To take the risk” and “I think Tony would be very happy” are pointed out and suggested as possibilities for developing further discussion along similar lines as those seen in the previous chapter. 31884 To take the risk (Senmut, 2013) balor1999 Apr 25, 2016

I still think there is much more than can be said about “I think Tony would be very happy”, and how this made us look at ideas developed by fan fiction reviewers Mackon and Chip Bell, but I agree with Senmut that it is perhaps time to take a little break from the analysis. That doesn’t necessarily mean that I think the discussion following from Senmut’s previous small-scale masterpiece was completed. In fact, I think there is a lot more that could have been said by for instance following Johnny Byrne’s suggestion of thinking about DRAGON’S DOMAIN in the context of BEOWULF, and as I watched the computeranimated BEOWULF (2007) with Anthony Hopkins, Ray Winstone and Angelina Jolie quite recently, I do indeed believe that there is enough food for thought for several weeks or months of further discussion on that topic. But, I agree with Senmut, enough analysis for now. Instead I have been reading Senmut’s latest fan fiction masterpiece, the wonderful short story “To take the risk” that continues where THE LAST SUNSET ended. The way Senmut describes the story himself, on one of the archives where it can be downloaded, is that it is a “what-if” story the follows immediately on THE LAST SUNSET without being part of any FanFic series, and by that I assume he is referring to his magnificent FOREVER ALPHA series that we have been discussing in great detail during the past 9 months or so. Actually, I would like to contest the claim of the story as not being part of a FanFic series,

as I see all of Senmut’s S99 stories as part of an organic unity that is largely shaped through the FOREVER ALPHA series of novels, but I can see his point that the story does not touch upon the events describes in any of the novels. In this respect it indeed very much a standalone story, and in format it is quite similar to the stand-alone story “I think Tony would be very happy” in the sense of both stories written as an extended epilogues to well-known Y1 episodes. At this stage within our overall discussion of Senmut’s fan fiction, I think it would be almost unnecessary to comment on the flow of the text, the wonderful psychological insights into the various characters, and the general originality and profoundness of the story. I don’t know if it would be right of me to refer to Senmut as the king of S99 fan fiction, and I would probably be wrong in making such claims, as I am not really an expert on the genre and I know that there are many others who are extraordinary good at writing S99 fan fiction, but there can be no doubt that Senmut is one of the best. This is at least the opinion I have formed after continuing reading novel after novel and short story after short story. In fact, while I gave up E.C. Tubb and Rankine after reading a couple of the first S99-related novels, finding limited value in these books when it came to the kind of discussions we engage with at Online Alpha, Senmut is the kind of writer that makes me jump from chapter to chapter and story to story. Not only are his narratives well written and interesting in the way they develop plot and give psychological insights on characters, they are also extremely good on a deeper level, in the

To take the risk sense that they bring food for thought and stimulates discussions and debate. As far as I can tell, “To take the risk” is Senmut’s latest S99 story, and it is the only of his S99 stories that we have not discussed yet. Actually, this is not fully correct as I believe Senmut informed Online Alpha about the story when it was released in 2013, and there were several people that made some nice comments back then. Also, the very first post in this fan fiction discussion we have been having for the past 9 months started out with a comment on “To take the risk” (message #30869), pointing out how the story may conjure up pictures not only from THE LAST SUNSET but also from THE LAST ENEMY, MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH and ANOTHER TIME, ANOTHER PLACE. So, in a certain sense “To take the risk” has already been introduced on Online Alpha, but I would not say that it has been properly discussed yet, at least not in a similar way as we have discussed the other novels and short stories. It is interesting when I have now read the story once more, and looked at the comment that talked about other Y1 episodes, as this matching between episodes was exactly the same as how I experienced it. I’m not so sure about how the final scene from MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, where Helena looks out of the window, fits with the story, so I would perhaps not emphasise that so much, but John’s negotiations with the Ariel probe struck me as being very similar to what we saw in the final act of THE LAST ENEMY, and the way the settle down and try to inhabit the Moon after it has lock onto orbit around Ariel’s sun has a very similar flavour to what we see when the Alphans discover a parallel universe in ANOTHER TIME, ANOTHER PLACE. This way of creating connections between episodes is something I like very much when reading Senmut stories. In the case of “I think Tony would be very happy”, the ceremony reminded me of THE INFERNAL MACHINE. I don’t know whether these stories were deliberately written in an explicit cross-textual manner, in the sense that Senmut was having these other episodes in mind as he wrote along, but the way such associations can be made by the reader makes the stories highly enjoyable to me. They suggest ways of increasing our

511

understanding of individual characters by seeing them act or respond to new situations in similar ways as we have seen them done earlier, in different contexts. For example, when Koenig might be seen as not being his typical self in the way he somewhat desperately tries to trick Dionne in the final act of THE LAST ENEMY, when Senmut creates a similar scene within an extended epilogue to THE LAST SUNSET, I think this is of great value for understanding how Koenig is as a person. In this context, I felt Senmut made an interesting comment in a recent post within the “rehashing, rehashing, and more rehashing” thread: And superior to Trek in some ways, IMNSHO. Humans are portrayed more honestly, not as some wonderous purveyors of wisdom, who go about the galaxy fixing problems, and scattering justice and equality in their path. Humans are flawed and mistake-prone, and Space shows this, as the Alphans struggle to maintain the best in what it means to be Human.

There was, however, another thing that I noticed in today’s reading of “To take the risk” that I perhaps did not pay similar attention to in my earlier readings of the story, and this was the way Senmut had matched up Kano and Alibe as a couple. Perhaps my memory is playing a trick on me, but I seem to remember that this is also something he developed in the FOREVER ALPHA series. I cannot remember it as being significantly relevant for the plot of the story, but it was one of these details that often makes Senmut’s stories so fascinating to read, speculating about relationships and telling stories about how life evolves on Moonbase Alpha that gives an interesting contrast to the typically more plot-driven nature of his novels, meaning that there is always a nice complement between character and plot when we engage with his literature. However, it was not the match between Kano and Alibe per se that fascinated me in this context, but it was how Senmut included a Y2 character in a Y1 episode, just like he did with saying that Tony Verdeschi was a distant relative of Tony Cellini in his previous short story. Although these attempts to mix Y1 and Y2 are somewhat subtle, in the sense that they can be easy to ignore as in this case it just consists of

512


a brief mention of Alibe in an epilogue to THE LAST SUNSET, without necessarily having all that much to do with the larger aspect of the story, it was exactly this kind of thing that triggered Mackon and Chip Bell to give some very appreciative comments on “I think Tony would be very happy”, and it was to a large extend their way of understanding that particular story that made the Online Alpha discussion of it so engaging. In the case of “To take the risk”, the connection between Y1 and Y2 is more subtle, although perhaps not necessarily less important. In his various stories, Senmut inserts jokes, comments, trivia and all sorts of things, so I would say that it is very much up to the reader how we choose to engage in these various ideas and how we choose to make them part of our discussions within our journey towards a deeper and better understanding of SPACE: 1999 as a whole. Although “To take the risk” appears to be the final story from Senmut so far, I do not hope nor do I believe that it will be the final S99 story we will hear from him. Regardless of what he thinks of how some of us interpret his stories, and my impression is that he considers quite a lot of what has been said as rubbish, I still hope that the attention we have given to his work during these past nine months will encourage him to write more. I know that there are several others along with me on the forum that considers his literary work as a benchmark for high quality fan fiction. John B. *** 31886 Re: To take the risk (Senmut, 2013) balor1999 Apr 26, 2016

A couple of days ago, a discussant described his fascination with SPACE: 1999 in the following manner: Caught between ST/ TOS and all the movies and tv that came after, S1999 occupies the dubious position of that chick you hooked up with for a summer when you were on the rebound from being dumped.. Right before you met the gal you ended up marrying: You have very fond memories of her because she was sweet and hot and maybe a little bit crazy..but

her name is not mentioned at family gatherings, nor is her picture on display.

I don’t know how representative this view is for people on Online Alpha, but in my own case SPACE: 1999 is more like the woman I married and wanted to have children with. If SPACE: 1999 had been a sweet summer romance that was not seriously intended, like a distraction between more serious relationships, then I wouldn’t have spent the next 40 years talking about it. To me it was exactly the other way around. I was amazed with SPACE: 1999 when it was first shown, and I still think it is a benchmark that is very seldom matched, and that is why I spend so much time on Online Alpha, and that is why I enjoy reading stories like TO TAKE THE RISK. I’m not the only one who likes reading Senmut’s stories, and although there may be some people with lukewarm feels towards S99 that still like reading his work, I would expect such people to be in minority. I don’t think there are all that many reading his work and other fictional and scholarly works on SPACE: 1999 if they think of SPACE: 1999 as a substitute girlfriend while searching for the right one. For instance, fan fiction reviewer Kamkats exclaimed his fascinating with RISK by going WOW!!! and saying that Senmut should have been a scriptwriter for the show39. That doesn’t sound like somebody who thinks of SPACE: 1999 as a substitute girlfriend. To me that sounds like somebody who appreciates S99 as the SF landmark that it is, and congratulates Senmut by saying that his work is of similar quality as the real stuff. Another reviewer, who goes under the name “99lover”, made the following comment shortly after TO TAKE THE RISK was published in July 2013: This would have been a fitting way to end the series! Absolutely fantastic. Thank you for sharing your work40. Not only does this person refer to him- or herself as somebody who loves SPACE: 1999, and not only thinks of it as a random romance between two more serious romantic 39 40

https://www.fanfiction.net/r/9499081/ ibid

To take the risk relationships, but the person makes use of this status when talking about the perceived value of Senmut’s fan fiction. In other words, the person makes indirectly two statements. The first statement is that the person believes SPACE: 1999 is absolutely fantastic. The second statement is that Senmut’s RISK story is absolutely fantastic. In other words, Senmut’s story is of such high value that it could be used as a fitting way to end the series, thus echoing the other reviewer who felt that Senmut should have been a regular writer for the show. However, as Kerry added more interesting input to the Y1/Y2 debate, continuing the argument on how Y1 was riddled with problems that we need to understand before trying to explain the demise of SPACE: 1999 based on Y2 alone, I do not think of Kerry as somebody who sees SPACE: 1999 as a random romance some 40 years ago while looking for and eventually finding something better. I will not speak for others, but some time ago, when a certain discussant said that SPACE: 1999 was perhaps third or fourth on his top five list, or something like that, Kerry said the same thing as I was thinking, namely that for some of us SPACE: 1999 is the only show that we have been engaging with so systematically and deeply over such a long time. If I had thought that STAR TREK was a much better show than SPACE: 1999, then I would probably have spent my time on some STAR TREK discussion forum, not on Online Alpha. I have seen a lot of films, watched a lot of television and read a lot of books, and there is much to be enjoyed besides SPACE: 1999, but for many of those of us who have contributed to Online Alpha and elsewhere for perhaps several decades, I would be surprised if the common view was the SPACE: 1999 was substitute television while waiting for something better to be shown. In fact, I like Kerry’s critical attitude because it reminds me of the SF/S99 scholars that we sometimes refer to. If we all went along saying “SPACE: 1999 is good because I like SPACE: 1999”, the discussion would quickly be over, and there would not be much need for a discussion forum like Online Alpha. On the other hand, when people say things like Senmut should have been a scriptwriter for the series because he understands S99, or that TO

513

TAKE THE RISK would have been a perfect ending for the series as a whole, then we moving in the direction of what could stimulate insightful discussions. Would Senmut’s final short story be a better ending than Byrne’s MESSAGE FROM MOONBASE ALPHA? How would we compare Senmut with Penfold? How would we compare him with Terpiloff? Although I do not propose that we should necessarily debate questions like these, because the point of the discussion is not Senmut, Kerry, or me as people, the questions can be used for looking at the ideas the individual members of OA contribute to make the discussions interesting and sustainable. To me, debating with Kerry is very different from reading Senmut stories, but in both cases I feel that my understanding of SPACE: 1999 increases. Due to the combination of being polite and yet having a very clear position on topics like the Y1/Y2 debate, Kerry is a wonderful debater. Due to his creativity and technical skills as a writer, Senmut is engaging to read and worth listening to. Although I don’t think they have said all that much about ranking of SPACE: 1999 in relation to other television series, I would be very surprised if both of them would say that they would rank SPACE: 1999 as no. 49 on a list of their 50 favourite shows. To me, the view of thinking of SPACE: 1999 as a short romance that we somehow reluctantly got into and have in retrospect tried to forget is not the kind of understanding of the show that I would expect from people who are pillars of the Online Alpha community. To me it seems totally bizarre to hold such views while also being some of the most visible and valuable members of the OA society. John B. *** 31889 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: To take the risk (Senmut, 2013) sennmut Apr 27, 2016

Okay, you like my stuff, balor. But please, no panagyrics! I'm not Caesar. ***

514


13.2 Re: Yahoo for sale? Before the initial analysis and commentary is completed, a discussant sees an opportunity to use the context of the way “To take the risk” is discussed to address central themes that were an important part of the discussion of the previous short story. The previous discussion was articulated as part of the “yahoo for sale” thread in section 12.5. 31887 Re: Yahoo for Sale? kerryirs Apr 26, 2016

John seems to forget what he's written over the years or he may not have used the word hate. And then, of course, we have Fageolle’s infamous view about burning people's works because he didn't like it. The same could be said of his book, but in either case it would be wrong. See below. When people are talking about garbagio and faux intellectual writings, the only associations I get is the writer that Kerry sometimes likes to quote, namely Thomas Stockel with his hate filled writings about SPACE: 1999 on the Agony Booth site. I know that Kerry means well when quoting Stockel, perhaps wanting to argue that it is equally respectable to hate Y1 as it is to hate Y2, but in my opinion the argument doesn’t work particularly well. The problem is that Stockel has limited authority as a SPACE: 1999 expert. The way I understood it, he was one of those STAR TREK fans of the early seventies who hated SPACE: 1999 and has been continuing to writing about SPACE: 1999 in that context ever since. I remember there were some people making comments on his page on why he was writing about SPACE: 1999 when he hated it so much, but then he responded by referring to that being purpose of the Agony Booth site. It is a site for people wanting to write trash about series they don’t like.

First of all, I've referred to Thomas Stockel's site once (until now), the time I posted it, no more. I feel, generally, once is enough for people to get the gist of a point I was trying to make. In the case of using Stockel's 1999 views, might point was that we all have opinions and it doesn't require one or more degrees to have one. Since when does one need some kind of "authority" in order to have an opinion? If you reread his article, you'll see where Stockel has nothing but praise for the Anderson's for their work. It's 1999 that disappointed him. He felt with all of their experience in TV and the entry

into movies, he expected more from 1999. That's his opinion. To sum up what Space: 1999 is about: In the far flung year of 1999 (the show’s pilot was filmed in ’75—why the Andersons felt a need to place this show so close to the present day when Stingray, Thunderbirds, and Captain Scarlet all take place a century in the future baffles me. Was it just because they liked the name?), Earth has united into one world government (see the problem with basing this show a mere 24 years in the future? The Andersons must have been incredible optimists). Earth has constructed a base on the moon, and dumped all its nuclear waste there. Why didn’t they just launch it all into the sun? It’s pretty sad when Superman IV makes more sense than this show’s premise. Note his point about Earth being under a unified government. Does this make Anderson a Nazi as Wiley says Maya may be by explaining her planet's history to Koenig? By the way, you seem to concur, but also accuse Freiberger of holding Nazi views when you know nothing of his political views, and if you'd admit to yourself, is a bunch of garbage. John, people are entitled to like or not like something without inpugning a person's intentions. My intent was to present a different viewpoint, nothing more. Frankly, I don't remember how i came across Stockel's site other than trying to find new 1999 sites and his came up during a Google search. Like i've said before, your library of books must be quite large. Every time you post something, you're quoting someone else. Speaking of a person you like to quote, Liardet’s idea of how BARBARELLA... is funny at best and irrelevant at worse, in my view.

To take the risk Note: This was begun before my most recent post, so about a week old at the time I post this. SPACEBALLS, May the Schwartz be with you, or something like that. *** 31891 Re: Yahoo for Sale? balor1999 Apr 27, 2016

Thanks for getting us back on track, Kerry. We can talk forever about how we admire Johnny Byrne and Barry Morse, how we like a particular episode of S99 or how we enjoy a particular piece of fan fiction, but as Senmut points out, we should be careful not to get derailed and ending up writing panegyrics. We are not as interested in praising a person or a work of art as we are in discussing how ideas associated with such people or works can help us gain a deeper understanding of SPACE: 1999. Indeed, this is one of the central dilemmas discussed by Tulloch and Jenkins (1995), namely the difference between fan knowledge and scholarly knowledge. Fan knowledge, as they describe it (pp. 125-143), can be enormously vast and detailed, but often it is trivial and is essentially meaningless outside the realms of fandom. This is why I value Kerry’s attempt to pull us back to the more scholarly type of discussions were we can engage more clearly with issues like the political subtext of the series. In this context, Kerry stakes out the course at the very introduction of the message: John seems to forget what he's written over the years or he may not have used the word hate. And then, of course, we have Fageolle’s infamous view about burning people's works because he didn't like it. The same could be said of his book, but in either case it would be wrong.

These are important points, I agree, although I don’t think I would refer to Fageolle’s view on the need for burning and destroying Y2 as an “infamous view”. For me it would be more natural to describe Fageolle’s views as amusing and insightful, in the same way as Nick Tate’s description of Freiberger as a ‘dickhead’ could be seen as amusing and insightful. Responding to Tate by calling him by similar names as he used on FF or

515

encouraging people to burn Fageolle’s books seems totally counterproductive to me. In fact, this is the kind of reaction I associate with how certain people started burning Beatles records after John Lennon reflected on the nature of consumer capitalism by observing the worrying fact of how The Beatles were more popular than Jesus in some places. When we are so lucky to have people like John Lennon, Nick Tate and Pierre Fageolle making profound statements about popular culture, I do not think the best response is to burn books and records. Actually, this strikes me as the worst kind of approach, as it somehow responds to the idea of drawing down the blinders because we do not want to see the truth. It is probably correct that it hurts to discover the truth about SPACE: 1999, in the sense of how Landau, Byrne, Anderson, Tate, Merton, Austin and all the rest thought Y2 was absolutely terrible, a view that may be depressing if we have some nostalgic feelings about Maya and the monsters in the sense that it reminds us of innocent childhood memories, but when we learn that Y2 was perhaps not as great as we used to think, I do not believe this should be reason for disengaging with all discussion and try to return to memories of childhood bliss by putting on BETA CLOUD. Quite to the contrary, I think this feedback should be used constructively as a tool that allows us to see how consumer society is constructed like a prison, turning us all into wage slaves, except for the upper fraction of the 1% most wealthy that are buying our politicians, and use this knowledge from people like Lennon, Tate and Fageolle as means for personal and social emancipation. Although I think these past nine months of discussing S99 fan fiction has been fruitful in many ways, I feel that Kerry reminds us of the important point that Online Alpha is essentially based on one single discussion that overshadows everything else, namely the Y1/Y2 discussion. When we look at both the the ExE discussions and this more recent fan fiction discussion, I think what fuelled engagement, and has helped provide new insights on SPACE: 1999, was essentially driven by the conflicting views within the everlasting Y1/Y2 debate. That does not necessarily mean that an ExE discussion or a joint reading and discussion of a complete

516


oeuvre of S99 fan fiction are unimportant. Not at all. I think the framing of the Y1/Y2 debate within such structures are probably enormously important as they function as means for scaffolding the debate, but I still believe that what causes engagement and momentum to the discussion as a whole, whether it consists of analysing and making commentaries of 48 television episodes or a body of 6 novels and 4 short stories, is in the way the detailed discussions of individual entries deal with the Y1/Y2 dilemma. During the past nine months, I think we have observed this repeatedly, like Landau’s input to the Y1/Y2 debate by saying that Y2 was like a cartoon series in comparison to the wonderfully rich and realistic Y1, or even more specifically that Y2 was like the MR MAGOO cartoon series, and how this extremely important and insightful observation from Landau became even more relevant and useful in the context of how we were discussing a particularly brilliant piece of fan fiction where Maya met with another famous cartoon character. Personally, I think that was perhaps one of the best discussions we have had on the forum during this particular period, as it so perfectly illustrated the point made by Tulloch and Jenkins (1995) about how popular culture of the S99/Y2-type is a prison that we need to escape from by ways of developing critical awareness, like we can do by watching S99/Y1, and then gradually see how our engagement within the fan community can be transformed into political activism of the type that supports the values that Johnny Byrne, Barry Morse and others have espoused. Here I am of course talking about things like Johnny Byrne’s engagement with the Vietnam antiwar demonstrations in 1968 and how Barry Morse has spoken about Moonbase Alpha as a socialist outfit. The real challenge of watching and discussing SPACE: 1999, as I see it, is how to translate the political values and awareness that we associate with the late sixties and early seventies, the moral basis for SPACE: 1999 so to say, into something that speaks as loudly and clearly to those today who are of the same age now as we were back then. Fageolle frames his book very much in such a context, using SPACE: 1999 not only as a political lens for understanding the present and the past, but

also giving explicit guidance on how to focus on particular episodes as inspiration for personal and social activism. Keazor builds on these ideas and give them more theoretical context by explaining how the critical theory of the Frankfurt school (Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, Habermas etc) provides a natural way of making sense out of the series, and, as we have seen in our discussions, Keazor is only one voice in the fugue of a large choir of intellectuals who have made this very same point during various points of recent history when looking at SF in general, like Adorno, Jameson and Fuhse to name a few. To me this is where our discussions matter, and in this respect I am very happy that Kerry draws attention back to the “Yahoo for sale” discussion thread, as that was a thread were we tried to look explicitly on what we could learn by studying the S99 theory of Fageolle and Keazor in the context of how the SAVE: 1999 campaign was organised by piggybacking on academic networks and opportunities. Of course, as Kerry also pointed out when we were last discussing this particular point, the SAVE: 1999 campaign in itself is old hat as SPACE: 1999 will remain a part of the past, just like the Bernie Sanders campaign looks like it will fade out unless something spectacular happens, but in some ways the SAVE: 1999 and the Sanders campaigns have had a lot in common, and by seeing how the issues Sanders have been raising and the need for addressing these issues by use of grassroots movements rather than by selecting some tyrant that is supposed to create a better world, or believing in big industry and big money pushing modern versions of slogans like “what is good for General Motors is good for America”, we need to draw inspiration from the core issues and values in SPACE: 1999 by looking at the political subtext in the scripts by Johnny Byrne and the other progressive thinkers behind the series. Now, this was only a response to the first paragraph in Kerry’s highly relevant message that includes several important points, including the enormously important issue of fascism in Y2. I will not respond to this in detail as that would require adding more text than I have already written, but they way Kerry asks whether we should question the political views of Thomas Stockel based on how he puts

To take the risk emphasis on what we generally refer to as “Maya’s Nazi speech” for giving a general assessment of the whole series is a very good point. However, as Senmut pointed out when talking about panegyrics, it is not Stockel per se that we are interested in, whether he should be seen as a Caesar or a rebel among S99 scholars. We are not as interested in Stockel as a person as to his ideas, and to which extent his ideas can contribute in the developing our understanding of SPACE: 1999 as a whole. As I have stated before, I think his way of understanding SPACE: 1999 is of limited value to us, and this has absolutely nothing to do with whether he is a Nazi or not. Of course, if he should turn out to be a Nazi, as Kerry wonders, I don’t think that would improve his position as a relevant source for helping us for understanding SPACE: 1999, but I think it is important to distinguish between the man and his ideas. It is the ideas that are of potential relevance for us, and I notice that Kerry continues to find inspiration by quoting from Stockel’s analysis. As I said, I have my doubts if there is anything of value to be found there, but one should also be careful in making such general claims as sometimes we may find inspiration from even the unlikeliest sources. Kerry’s final point has to do with Liardet’s BARBARELLA theory. Here I partly agree and partly disagree. Where I agree is in the point that the idea is funny. Yes, I agree with Kerry on that. It actually put a smile on my face the first time I read it, and the idea continues to amuse me. The reason it amuses me is because I feel that Liardet hits the nail so perfectly. To use a Biblical metaphor, it almost feels like SPACE: 1999 fandom was walking for almost 40 years in the desert, being totally confused about how to make sense of Y2, until suddenly Liardet shows us the entrance to the Promised Land by way of explaining how the pieces fit together. So, here I agree with Kerry. It is funny. Liardet’s BARBARELLA theory is a reason to rejoice. To a large extent our troubles are over. We can now enter a new stage of settling down after decades of aimless wandering around. Kerry’s second point, however, I am more uncertain about. Is Liardet’s BARBARELLA model irrelevant? Based on what I have just said, I would say that the exact opposite is true. The model is one of the most relevant models ever introduced into SPACE: 1999 scholarship,

517

but then again we have to reflect on what Kerry means by ‘irrelevant’ in this context. Although BARBARELLA is not irrelevant for explaining Y2, it could perhaps be seen as irrelevant within the larger context of solving the Y1/Y2 dilemma. What I am thinking of here is what I said earlier about the way the Y1/Y2 debate appears to the fuel and drive all other debates on this forum, regardless of whether we are doing ExE discussions or looking at the relevance of S99 fan fiction. What could make BARBARELLA irrelevant in such a context is the potential for the model to shut down all further discussion because it explains Y2 and there would be no more reason for discussing the Y1/Y2 dilemma. However, I do not think this is likely to happen, and that is perhaps what Kerry is thinking too, so in such a context the model could appear to be ‘irrelevant’. Nevertheless, if this is indeed the point Kerry is making, I would say that the importance of dialectics seems to be left out of the equation. Even though the introduction of the BARBARELLA model does not solve the Y1/Y2 dilemma, in the sense of showing how it is possible to see Y1 as realistic SF and Y2 as satirical SF, at least it creates synthesis to two earlier positions that elevates the discussion onto a new level. In fact, this was something we tried to address when trying to look at particular episodes of Y2 through the lens of the ILSA films. As a conclusion, I would say that the future of S99 discussion does not look all that grim, although we should be aware of the possible closure of Yahoo Groups, as a consequence of Yahoo being sold, may be hanging over us as an impending doom. When the Alphans were facing similar doom in BLACK SUN, they planned and prepared as best as they could, but in the end it turned out that they survived. I believe we are in a similar situation. If this is indeed the end of Online Alpha, then we should share some sixty year old Brandy and remember all the good discussion we have had here, but there is also the possibility that we may still be able to survive for more decades. All we can do is to hope for the best. John B. ***

518


31892 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Yahoo for Sale? sennmut Apr 27, 2016 However, as Senmut pointed out when talking about panegyrics, it is not Stockel per se that we are interested in, whether he should be seen as a Caesar or a rebel among S99 scholars. We are not as interested in Stockel as a person as to his ideas, and to which extent his ideas can contribute in the developing our understanding of SPACE: 1999 as a whole.

said to tone down the praise of me, period. My classical reference, which I now see as a mistake, was to how some rhetoriticians would sometimes heap endless and fawning praise upon certain Emperors, who did not deserve it. That was all, and I never equated any such reservation with this Stockel person. As Nomad said to Captain Kirk: "Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated." ***

Balor, I pointed out no such things. You are making wild, non sequitur leaps of illogic. I

13.3 And we thought SPACE: 1999 was original The following discussion thread started out as a comment on how a similar premise to what we saw in “Breakaway” had been used in a different SF television series 25 years earlier. The observation generates response and further posts that try to explore the implied ideas by ways of making use of Senmut’s short story. 31888 Re: And we thought Space: 1999 was original Kerry Keene Apr 27, 2016

31893 Re: And we thought Space: 1999 was original balor1999 Apr 28, 2016

While looking around on YouTube for some SF, old or new, I ran across an old 50s TV series called SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE. Some of you may remember it growing up. Well, one of the episodes is entitled THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MOON. Basically it's about a scientist, using a special camera, notices a halo surrounding the moon. It's not visible in normal light, but using infrared camera and an electron microscope. He discovers that the halo is radioactive dust. Another photo shows objects near the moon and later on, it's discovered that aliens are using the moon as a nuclear waste dump.

Thanks for explaining about SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE, Kerry. I was not aware of that series, but it was nice watching THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MOON last night. In a way it reminded me more of the film DESTINATION MOON (1950) than of BREAKAWAY, but you are right about both episodes making use of the same idea of storing nuclear waste on the moon. Actually, in the 1956 TV episode the host explains in the epilogue how people a seriously considering placing nuclear waste on the moon as there is bound to be problems in storing it in Earth. We cannot simply dump it in the sea, he says, and live like there is no tomorrow, although this is of course the mentality of the oil industry and other representatives of big money trying to convince the public that 97% of all scientists are wrong and that climate change is really a hoax.

Now that does sound familiar, but instead of us doing it, it's an alien race with the same problem, how to dispose of their nuclear waste? I just found it ironic how two shows had a similar idea nearly twenty-five years or so apart. Of course, the aliens didn't have the problem of the nuclear waste igniting. Interesting, nonetheless. ***

Another thing the host says in the epilogue is that in about 50 years, people will probably use the Moon as a dump for nuclear waste. Given that this episode was made in 1955, if we add fifty years we get pretty close to the time line in SPACE: 1999. If he had said 40 years

To take the risk instead of 50 years, he would have made a perfect prediction, although only with reference to SPACE: 1999, as nothing like this has yet happened in real life. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see that this particular aspect of BREAKAWAY represented a type of science fiction that is not entirely farfetched speculation. At least according to what is said here, the idea of dumping nuclear waste on the Moon, which would perhaps also include the development of something like Moonbase Alpha as part of the control structure, is an idea that has been seriously discussed. On the other hand, when it comes to the artistic and political aspects of the episode, I would like to hear your opinion Kerry, but to me it felt a bit like DESTINATION MOON in the sense that the aliens dumping nuclear waste could be seen to represent the Russians developing the Moon as a platform for launching nuclear missiles at the US and Western Europe. Actually, this would not fit perfectly with the narrative of the story as the message is presented more like an ecological commentary on what to do with nuclear waste and how the aliens presented a benevolent solution by dumping the waste on the far side of the moon, but I suppose I was expecting a “red scare” message due to the cold war environment of the period it was made. As the episode progressed, it turned out that this was wrong, as the message had more to do with the general concern for dangerous technology, which was another popular theme of 1950s SF. Fred Freiberger’s THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS was a bit like that, as I remember it, being more like an ecological parable than a right-wing political analysis, thus making it into an important influence on GODZILLA. Perhaps one might find a connection between the ecological message in THE BEAST and THE RULES OF LUTON, as I remember there was also an ecological focus in Freiberger’s SEALAB 2020 series that he made for HannaBarbera, but as the ecological message in all three examples are shallow, and in some episodes of SEALAB 2020 so stupid that one is almost lead into wondering whether FF was mocking the ecologist movement, I’m not sure this is particularly helpful for adding to our understanding of his influence on SPACE: 1999.

519

However, it might be interesting to use THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MOON for discussing relationships between BREAKAWAY and THE LAST SUNSET. I understand that Senmut doesn’t want us to praise him too much for his contributions to S99 fan fiction, but still I think we should be allowed to draw attention to how fan fiction reviewers have described his TO TAKE THE RISK as a masterpiece that could have been used as an ending for the series as a whole. I’m not sure if they by this are referring to Y1, Y2 or the Y3 that we associate with Senmut’s FOREVER ALPHA arc of stories, but to me this particular detail doesn’t matter all that much. The interesting aspect of the idea is how this implies looking at THE LAST SUNSET as the final episode of SPACE: 1999. According to what Willey reports on his Catacombs site, THE LAST SUNSET drafted as one of the few scripts that were made before the development of the series, and it was inspired by a British TV play called THE OFFSHORE ISLAND. The internet movie database summarises the 1959 play in the following manner: A British family living in an isolated valley in the aftermath of a nuclear war finds that their idyll is shattered when a detachment of American troops arrive. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0422869/) As I have not seen the play, and did not find it when searching on YouTube, it is difficult to do anything but guess in what the relationship between the play and the episode might be, but at least it gives us a way of thinking about THE LAST SUNSET as something similar to ON THE BEACH and other novels and films that deal with the end of the world from a nuclear holocaust perspective. I think it is perhaps mostly from this perspective that I find Kerry’s reference to the episode from SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE as a relevant for discussing the wider implications of Senmut’s latest piece of S99 fan fiction. As the imdb description of THE OFFSHORE ISLAND sounds almost like a contemporary version of Shakespeare’s THE TEMPEST, this could explain why Penfold names his planet Ariel, but it is less clear to which extent the conflict between the British family and the

520


American troops are reflected in THE LAST SUNSET. With the exception of Paul getting out of control in the final part of the episode, to me there is very little social conflict in the episode, thus seeing it more like a comment on what would later unfold in real life as the Three Mile Island disaster and fictionally as THE CHINA SYNDROME, but perhaps others would interpret the hints of conflict between the Alphans in this episode as similar to what would happen if the idyll of a British family trying to survive a post-nuclear-war scenario on some remote outpost were invaded by American troopers. I don’t know. John B. *** 31894 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: And we thought Space: 1999 was original sennmut Apr 28, 2016

On 28 Apr 2016 balor1999@... writes: Thanks for explaining about SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE, Kerry. I was not aware of that series, but it was nice watching THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MOON last night. In a way it reminded me more of the film DESTINATION MOON (1950) than of BREAKAWAY, but you are right about both episodes making use of the same idea of storing nuclear waste on the moon. Actually, in the 1956 TV episode the host explains in the epilogue how people a seriously considering placing nuclear waste on the moon as there is bound to be problems in storing it in Earth. We cannot simply dump it in the sea, he says, and live like there is no tomorrow, although this is of course the mentality of the oil industry and other representatives of big money trying to convince the public that 97% of all scientists are wrong and that climate change is really a hoax.

Yes, of course. The oil industry wants to dump all sorts of waste in the sea, and does it every day. After all, Balor says so, as he takes a break from Fageolle worship. Balor, is there anything that isn't political, sociallogical, or some sort of evil plot against the people???????? How sad. *** 31895 Re: And we thought Space: 1999 was original

kerryirs Apr 28, 2016

What I like about SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE is that Truman Bradley explains the concept of stories by using science of the time and by using demonstrations. As for setting up a base on the moon as a way to counter nuclear attacks, well, I'm not sure about what the Soviet was Union was planning, but the US military looked into that very possibility back in the late 50s and early 60s before giving up on the notion. I'm not sure, but there may be an international agreement that prohibits the militerization of the moon. Another thing, can you imagine the uproar that would occur if the public found out we were sending payloads of nuclear waste to the moon or hurtling toward the sun? I'm sure everybody has heard the outcry from some when nuclear powered probes are sent up, like Voyager, and it carried a small amount of nuclear fuel. I think sending nuclear waste to the moon wouldn't go over well with the public or other governments. Besides, all we'd be doing is sending more of our pollution elsewhere, sort like an of out of sight, out of mind philosophy. Then of course, chemical rockets are like time bombs in their own right, one failure and there would be the risk of spreading nuclear waste all over the countryside.not a pleasent thought. *** 31896 Re: And we thought Space: 1999 was original dan_eveland Apr 28, 2016

I loved this show. I have been looking for this online but can’t find it. I still have his entire speech (the one they replayed at the end of every show) memorized. I hope you enjoyed our story. We’ll be back with you a week from today with another exciting adventure from the world of fiction and science.

To take the risk

Until then, this is your host, Truman Bradley, saying: “see you next week” Now, that is from memory from a show not seen by me in 35 years, so it could be wrong. *** 31897 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: And we thought Space: 1999 was original James R. Rowings, J.D. Apr 28, 2016

On 4/28/2016 kerryirs wrote: Another thing, can you imagine the uproar that would occur if the public found out we were sending payloads of nuclear waste to the moon or hurtling toward the sun? I'm sure everybody has heard the outcry from some when nuclear powered probes are sent up, like Voyager, and it carried a small amount of nuclear fuel.

You mention my idea - Why didn't they shoot the nuclear waste into the sun instead of dumping it on the moon? (Because then we wouldn't have a reason for the moon to leave and then have the series we love!) Uproar - I imagine in today's world it would be pretty big with social media. I don't think it's an issue unless the transport vehicles were to explode/break up during ascent (the issue, if I remember correctly, about Voyager's launch), but imagine there would still be a lot of people against it. Jim *** 31898 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: And we thought Space: 1999 was original balor1999 Apr 29, 2016

I watched another episode of SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE last night. As THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MOON was the final episode of the first season, I decided to watch the pilot episode, BEYOND. Unlike Dan, I had little difficulty finding the episodes. As far as I could see, all 78 episodes seemed to be available, and in the case of the first season, I checked that all 39 episodes are there. The ones I found were all tinted to make them look as though they had been made in colour, but

521

that worked fine with me. Usually I usually prefer watching films and television in the way they were originally designed, but sometimes even drastic alterations, like adding colour to SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE episodes can function reasonably well, just as I found sharper visuals and better sound on the restoration of SPACE: 1999 for DVD and Bluray to be an improvement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6amJMW m9hzA What I am perhaps particularly reminded of when watching episodes from SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE is how Tulloch and Jenkins (1995, chapter 1) discuss the difference between the “golden age” of American television in the 1950s and the “wasteland” that followed in the 1960s and beyond, due to what they see as the consequences how market capitalism took hold of the medium and completely destroying it. I think SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE is a good example in terms of how the series was consistent with the idea of Hugo Gernsback and others in how the purpose of SF is to teach science and technology. Although Truman Bradley was not a scientist, to me he seems to be explaining the concepts of the stories with reference to science and demonstrations in a convincing and authoritative manner. I expect they must have had some scientific advisor involved in the writing of Bradley’s monologue and demonstrations, and I do not necessarily think that it would have worked better with a real scientist doing the presentations. Unless the producers they had access to people of similar capabilities as Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson back then, and whether such people would be willing to present as show like SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE, I think Bradley does very fine job indeed. The way SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE is used to promote not only science and technology but also how science and technology cooperates with the military is another interesting aspect of the show that makes it very typical of the time period. In a way, one might say that STAR TREK, almost exactly ten years after, continues the exploration of how science and technology can be used as part of an emperialistic narrative

522


(ibid, chapter 2, p. 26), but not all STAR TREK episodes had a fascist overtone, and Roddenberry was particularly concerned about the history of STAR TREK should be written from the perspective of placing the episodes representing progressive ideas as the core and foundation (ibid, p. 40). This change in political subtext is even more noticeable when we move another ten years forward in time and notice how SPACE: 1999 presents the whole idea of science, technology and military from a critical perspective, that is not only typical of the early seventies but also remarkably consistent with the kind of social criticism that we find in some of the most important intellectual works of the time, such as Herbert Marcuse’s “One-dimensional man” (1964). In other words, the change from the golden age of educational and intellectually stimulating television in the 1950s to the sorry situation that Bourdieu lamented about in 1996, evolved in a complex manner. On the one hand one could see STAR TREK as a destruction of some of the most important values embedded in SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE, like in the way the educational aspects of the stories from the viewpoint of science and technology have been removed, but one might also say that some of these educational aspects have been translated into social science as the political subtext of STAR TREK is far more complex than, at least, what I have seen in SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE. The message about science and technology being tools of progress, prosperity and military advantage have been replaced by a more reflecting concern about what will happens in a capitalist society when the owners of the means of production use of science and technology to enforce oppression. Actually, this is a better description of the political subtext of SPACE: 1999 than it is of STAR TREK, but as Roddenberry’s series also contains elements of technology pessimism and critical awareness on social matters, STAR TREK could be seen as an important link between series like SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE and SPACE: 1999. Of course, history did not end with SPACE: 1999. Much interesting SF has followed. In fact, I very much like how both Keazor (2012) and Wybon (2014) choose to see SPACE: 1999 as a demarcation point in the history of popular culture rather than a transition point,

like Muir (1997) does when describing it as a link between STAR TREK: TOS and STAR TREK: TNG. In my opinion Muir is wrong while Keazor and Wybon are right. Muir is not wrong in terms of his argument being invalid, but I find him wrong in the sense of devaluating SPACE: 1999 by reducing it to a link between two series that I believe are of much less cultural value, although they obviously have a larger following. In fact, I think Muir is doing fans of SPACE: 1999 a disservice by framing our series as a summer romance or a substitute girlfriend between two more seriously important relationships, to use the metaphors of another discussant on this forum. To me Keazor and Wybon are much more perceptive in their understanding of the role of SPACE: 1999 in cultural history in the way that Keazor identifies the series as a cultural landmark that describes the change from the earlier period of the post-war economic growth (circa 1948-72) and the following disaster decades that started in the seventies and were fuelled by global Thatcherism and Reaganomics into the current disasters relating to climate, economics and social justice, and how Wybon makes use of SPACE: 1999 as the stepping stone for describing this evolution into decline and disaster by looking at SF during the period 1975 to 1995. In other words, where I see Muir as wrong and Fageolle as right, in their readings of SPACE: 1999 within a wider social context, is in the way Muir ignores the importance of critical theory while Fageolle embraces it and thus stimulates a wealth of scholarly SPACE: 1999 literature that shows us how SPACE: 1999 was not only an artistic triumph (Y1), but it should also be read as a politically important text (both Y1 and Y2), as it creates a mythology that fits with the kind of political reading of society that have been more or less considered taboo from the downfall and collapse of state communism in the late 1980s and early 1990s, until the recent interest in socialism and Marxist analysis of economy and society, made more socially acceptable by the fact that the self-destruction of capitalism and social climate in the US has made it possible for somebody like Senator Bernie Sanders to run for president. Although Sander’s political agenda may by most people outside of the US be seen as centrist rather than socialist, I think

To take the risk the language Sanders has been using is perhaps more important as it makes people realise that collective ownership and responsibility may not always be worse than being rules by some upper fraction of a 1% elite that essentially only care for themselves. To me this is important context for understanding why we are still discussing SPACE: 1999 more than 40 years after it was released. Most of us are not discussing it as a substitute STAR TREK, as one might be lead to believe when reading Muir’s book about the merit of SPACE: 1999 in the way it made STAR TREK survive from TOS to TNG, but we are discussing SPACE: 1999 because it made sense then and it makes sense now. In fact, as the series is both about the apocalypse of monopoly capitalism (from a 1973 perspective articulated by people like Harry Braverman) and the origin of a new social order represented by how Barry Morse describes Moonbase Alpha as a ‘socialistic outfit’, it becomes more relevant with each year and decade. I think this is particularly visible when we think of Bernie Sanders in the context of SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE. If he had then been using the kind of language he has been using in his campaign now, he would probably not have been running for president. It would have been more likely that he would have been exiled for un-American activities. Today, however, people realise that we are no longer living in the 1950s. Political and economic solutions that created prosperity for all back then is now only creating prosperity for a small elite. This is the central theme in SPACE: 1999. This is how Keazor explains the relevance of the series as a cultural landmark and why it now should be seen as more relevant than ever. Solutions that worked well in the post-war period do not work equally well now because the conditions have changed. In SPACE: 1999 this is metaphorically addressed by the idea of dumping nuclear waste on the Moon without realising, until too late, that this is not a sustainable solution, and thus resulting in total chaos that the Alphans gradually have to deal with as they try to rebuild society in a manner that aims for ecological awareness and higher levels of economic and social justice.

523

John B. *** 31899 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: And we thought Space: 1999 was original richard curzon Apr 29, 2016

Do you think you could please keep your posts to the first paragraph? Rick *** 31900 Re: And we thought Space: 1999 was original kerryirs Apr 29, 2016 I have been looking for this online but can’t find it.

You can find the episodes of SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE on YouTube. I don't know if they have ever been released on DVD. A search might turn up something or check Amazon. *** 31901 Re: And we thought Space: 1999 was original kerryirs Apr 29, 2016 Uproar - I imagine in today's world it would be pretty big with social media. I don't think it's an issue unless the transport vehicles were to explode/break up during ascent (the issue, if I remember correctly, about Voyager's launch), but imagine there would still be a lot of people against it.

There you go. Didn't a SpaceX rocket blow up a couple of months ago? It only takes one for social media to blow up with tweets and the networks and the do nothing Congress to start screaming bloody murder. No, another solution needs to be found. Remember the large storage area built in Nevada, I think, to store nuclear waste? Then the debate began on how to safely transport the stuff. I haven't heard much lately on this. Is it even completed? ***

524


31902 Re: And we thought Space: 1999 was original balor1999 Apr 30, 2016

SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE is fun to watch. The pilot episode BEYOND was quite similar to DRAGON’S DOMAIN in the sense of authorities being concerned with an astronaut (air force test-pilot) who had seen as “monster”, a UFO in this case, which led to a conflict of whether to believe that the protagonist was imagining things or whether he had actually seen what he claimed to have seen. It was very much like watching the conflict between Helena and Dixon against John and Cellini. The astronaut was a similarly “heroic” character as Celllini, but where the point of the SPACE: 1999 episode was to argue that heroic behaviour is typically a consequence of madness (“suppressed hysterics”), thus making heroes into dangerous characters in support of how Wertham (1953) argues that SUPERMAN is fascist literature, there was no such type of political subtext in the 1955 episode. On the contrary, the 1955 episode does not question the sanity of the astronaut but rather creates a riddle about how to explain his experience. In the end, the Helenas and Dixons of the episode manage to convince the him that what he had seen was an optical illusion, but then, just about when the episode is about to conclude, somebody explains that the optical illusion theory could not be right, so this results with the open question of whether he had actually been followed by a UFO. The second episode, called TIME IS JUST A PLACE, was equally fine. This time they had dramatised a story by Jack Finney, who wrote INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, and it was quite interesting to watch because it so clearly illustrates the difference between the political subtext in Finney’s original 1955 BODY SNATCHERS novel and the 1956 film and later films based on the same premise. Unlike the 1956 film, which is so great because it feels like a comment on the spread of McCarthyism and destruction of the American political left by an invasion of rightwing extremists from outer space, and Philip Kaufman’s 1978 film where the right-wing alien invaders are referred to as Republicans, when I read the original 1955 not so long ago,

I did not sense any of this political context at all. It felt much more like dealing with how science and technology impacts on society in terms of changing values and behaviour, and that is also the theme of this 1955 episode. In the far future, as projected in this episode, when science and technology has changed the world completely, people are less happy and start travelling back in time, to the mid 1950s, to experience a less complex world of economic growth and simplistic moral values. The episode is almost prophetic in the sense of how the hopelessly lost people travelling from our time back to the 1950s sound as if they were members of the Tea Party movement or some other right-wing extremist group completely out of touch with what is happening in the world today. In this sense the episode feel as relevant today as it probably felt in 1955, although for different reasons. I must once again thank Kerry for bringing our attention to this wonderful series. SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE reminds us that we do not have to belong to Fred Freiberger’s target audience for enjoying SF. In fact, the more we like S99/Y1 and the less we like S99/Y2, the more I suppose we enjoy watching something like SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE. Of course, SFT is not politically sophisticated in the same way as S99, or not even STAR TREK at its best, but it is not crap like STAR TREK:TAS or S99:Y2. It is not a series made specifically for toddlers or drug addicts, or assuming that the viewers are idiot that enjoys being fed fascist messages and speeches, or – as has been speculated in the case of S99:Y2 – perhaps even specifically designed to fail as part of some money laundering operation. Quite to the contrary, SFT is intelligent SF than can be enjoyed by people of all ages, just like S99:Y1, although, perhaps less overtly political. At least for me, SFT is a wonderful time machine back to an earlier period of history where people were living simpler lives. Of course, as Johnny Byrne would have been quick to point out as member the Beatnik movement in the late fifties and early sixties, it was also a period of great political, social and existential problems, but when we listen to the soundtrack of SFT and documentaries from this period, it is almost absurdly up-beat in comparison to how most people view the world today.

To take the risk Actually, I was hoping to find an episode of SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE that would capture some of the conflicts in THE LAST SUNSET, since we are also discussing how fan fiction related to this particular episode may help us achieve a better understanding of SPACE: 1999, but none of the three episodes of SFT that I have watch so far gave me any particular associations in this direction. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if there are episodes in SFT that can be highly relevant for understanding THE LAST SUNSET, especially since we know how Chris Penfold based his story on a 1959 SF play about people trying to survive in the aftermath of a global nuclear war. Perhaps Kerry, or somebody else who has seen more episodes of SFT than I have, can suggest particular episodes that deal with the LAST SUNSET scenario. John B. *** 31903 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: And we thought Space: 1999 was original Rick Curzon Apr 30, 2016

Only four paragraphs this John, keep whittling it down. Rick *** 31904 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: And we thought Space: 1999 was original sennmut Apr 30, 2016

So, we Conservatives and "right-wingers" come from outer space, huh? Not a single damned word has made the slightest impression on you. A closed mind, if there is one in there. Balor, you are weider than technocolor poop. *** 31905 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: And we thought Space: 1999 was original balor1999 May 1, 2016

525

I think it is fairly common to interpret Don Siegel’s INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS as a comment on how red scare, blacklisting and McCarthyism transformed America for the worse in the fifties (e.g. King & Krzywinska, 2000). Nevertheless, I have also read interviews with Siegel saying that he had absolutely no intensions of making statements like that, so we are also in a situation similar what we earlier discussed in the case of Richard Adams and “Watership Down”, i.e. where Adams laughed about people interpreting his story as a Marxist parable because that had not been the intent of the story. The point, however, especially when we consider the arguments made by Tulloch and Jenkins (1995) about SF and fan fiction, is that meaning arises from considering both the text and the readership. Although Siegel may say that BODY SNATCHERS was not about the destruction of American by invasion of right-wing extremists from outer space, the viewers of the film may still have good reasons for reading it in this manner. It all depends on how we manage to run through the hermeneutic circle of going back and forth between the text and meaning until we manage to find something that sustainable sense. In the case of Online Alpha, Fageolle (1993) is often presented as the master reader we need to follow in the sense that he was the first to present a meaningful interpretation of SPACE: 1999, even before the Fanderson Documentary (1996) had been released. In other words, through the strength of looking at SPACE: 1999 in a critical manner, Fageolle was able to anticipate what Gerry Anderson, Johnny Byrne and others would later confirm in terms of describing Y1 as a masterpiece and Y2 as trash. For understanding SPACE: 1999, authoritative readings like that of Fageolle is of equal importance as to what the makers of SPACE: 1999 have said, if we want to gain a deep and sustainable understanding of what the series was all about. On the other hand, the point I was trying to make when referring to INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, was not how it described the destructive effect of anticommunist hysteria as a means of eradicating the political left in the US, and thus create the premise of a two-party system that consists of the political centre versus the political right, but my point was how the original BODY

526


SNATCHERS text is far less political than the film and the sequels/remakes that followed. I don’t know anything about Jack Finney’s political views, but when we read his book, I would believe that most of us would see the book more conservative than radical. The fears expressed in the book are not related to the conflicts between communists, anticommunists and people being concerned with the negative consequences of this polarisation, but rather the book seems much more concerned with the worries of how modern technology changes society and how we think and behave as people. I think this is quite obvious when se look at Jack Finney’s episode “Time is Just a Place” in SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE. In this sense I think INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS is significantly different from thematically similar films based on the works of Robert Heinlein, such as THE BRAIN EATERS and THE PUPPET MASTERS. In these films the invasion metaphor is supposed to represent communism infiltrating and taking over US society, and here I do not think there is any difference in what can be read in the books and what is presented on the screen. The political subtext is identical. They both share the same destructive right-wing ideology. The Jack Finney story is different. The original text is more existential than political, and this leads to the films based on the story being read as containing a more intelligent political analysis of society.

SPACE: 1999. They can both be seen as example of intelligent SF.

Last night I watched another episode of SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE called “Out of Nowhere”. Also in this episode the Cold War scenario is an important part of the plot, and in the end the villains trying to jam the US radar defence system were caught by the police, after the scientists had carried out the investigations in collaboration with the military. Unlike crap like THE BRAIN EATERS, that showed us some of the worst aspects of this period in its attempt to create unwarranted suspicion, stimulating intolerance and destroying society rather than improving it, SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE takes a more intelligent approach by considering what was seen as a serious threat and make that into a premise of political detective puzzle. I think this is perhaps here the most obvious link between SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE and

Also, the way SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE focuses on dialogue and interesting plots rather than special effects is perhaps something that makes it useful for understanding SPACE: 1999. Although Gerry Anderson’s series was the benchmark of special effects in 1975, bringing the visual qualities of “2001” to the small screen, what makes it interesting today is perhaps exactly the opposite, namely how the special effects are used intelligently in aid of the stories rather than overshadowing the story, as is so typical in the blockbuster movies that started to develop in the 1970s and has later destroyed much of cinema as means for writers, actors and directors to express themselves artistically in a meaningful manner. The way I have understood the story behind THE LAST SUNSET, the reason why it was penned down at an early stage and was considered an important story from a

However, I think the difference between the two series can be used for illustrating one of Freedman’s main points in “Critical theory and science fiction” (2000, Wesleyan University Press), namely that SF is a natural genre for providing critical analysis of society (by mean of critical theory) while police thrillers and detective stories are exactly the opposite, often typical frameworks for creating narratives in support of oppression and fascism. While SPACE: 1999 is an example of SF at its very best, in the sense of what Freedman is talking about, SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE inhabits the dubious territory of both being SF and a series of detective stories, thus effectively eliminating much of the strength of the SF genre as a tool for critical social analysis. On the contrary, SFT becomes a series that defends existing social order, thus making it potentially politically challenging if it were to deal with issues like defending economic and social injustice, and there was indeed a particular scene that struck me as interesting in this respect in OUT OF NOWHERE when we look at the conversation between the scientists and the unskilled worker with a toothache, but I interpreted that as a description of social relationships in the 1950s rather than a political statement. On the whole, I find SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE to be interesting and quite well made.

To take the risk production perspective, was because it was expected to be relatively cheap to produce. As it does not depend on a large amount of explosions, planets, alien space ships and other things that might result in expensive sets, it was seen as something that could be produced between two expensive episodes. However, when then they started producing it they soon realised that creating the illusion of an inhabitable Moon required more expensive sets than what had been the case for other episodes. John B. *** 31906 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: And we thought Space: 1999 was original Rick Curzon May 1, 2016

Oooh, creeping back up John......five paragraphs! Rick *** 31907 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: And we thought Space: 1999 was original sennmut May 2, 2016

Yes. "a comment on how red scare, blacklisting and McCarthyism transformed America for the BETTER in the fifties." There, Balor. Fixed it for ya. Now, can we please get back to the show, rather than this issue of PRAVDA? *** 31908 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: And we thought Space: 1999 was original balor1999 May 2, 2016

To me the present discussion interconnects with SPACE: 1999 in several ways. On one level I think SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE is useful for understanding fan fiction interpretations of THE LAST SUNSET in the way it makes us look at this particular episode of SPACE: 1999 from the viewpoint of the 1950s, which is helpful from the viewpoint of

527

how THE LAST SUNSET was based on the plot of the 1959 television play THE OFFSHORE ISLAND about survival and social conflicts in the aftermath of a nuclear war. I watched yet another episode of SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE last night, an entry called Y.O.R.D about telepathy and flying saucers. This one reminded me a bit of THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD (1951), due to the Antarctic setting, the flying saucers and the military involvement, and it was yet another interesting glimpse into the world of the 1950s. As I understood it, the military shot down the UFO at the end of the episode, for no apparent reason beyond thinking of it as a possible threat, and then the lead scientist talked about how the meetings between two planets had not been so successful this time, and hoping that the next meeting would be more peaceful. This ending was a bit puzzling as it mixed Carl Sagan’s optimistic message from COSMOS about intergalactic brotherhood and solidarity with the message of THE THING about how all aliens are potentially dangerous and have to be shot down. If we compare these two messages with THE LAST SUNSET and other episodes of SPACE: 1999, I find them interesting in how they do not seem to fit all that well. To a certain extent there is talk about peace and solidarity in episodes like EARTHBOUND and COLLISION COURSE, but in cases like THE LAST SUNSET, SPACE BRAIN and WAR GAMES the message is more that any attempt to make contact is bound to be disastrous with those who choose to befriend us, so they rather decide to avoid contact with humankind. I think this is interesting because Sagan’s COSMOS could in many ways be described as the third year of SPACE: 1999, in the sense that the political subtext of the two series are almost identical, and we could think of Carl Sagan in relation to SPACE: 1999 in a similar way as Truman Bradley’s role in SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE, namely somebody who explains the stories, but there are significant differences, like how Sagan held an optimistic view of science and technology while Penfold and others were more reserved. Although this is an important difference, particularly in the way Keazor (2012) reads SPACE: 1999, perhaps the difference is not as

528


big as one might first be lead to believe. We also have to consider how science and technology in both COSMOS and SPACE: 1999 are discussed within a political context, which in both cases is articulated as a critique of consumer capitalism and established institutions such as the church and the military, but where SPACE: 1999 is seeing science and technology as tools for the oppressors to prevent democracy and social justice to prevail, Carl Sagan sees science and technology as tools that have to be used by the oppressed for fighting the social and economic elite that wants to keep the public in the dark. Sagan said it like this: “We live in a society absolutely dependent on science and technology and yet have cleverly arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. That's a clear prescription for disaster.” I think this is one of the clear overlaps between COSMOS and SPACE: 1999, and I also think that watching something like SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE makes it easier to see this overlap because of how Truman Bradley plays a Carl Sagan-type of role in explaining the stories. I wonder what it might have been like if they had done something similar with SPACE: 1999, i.e. having Carl Sagan introduce each episode by commenting on science and politics, just before the episode titles, and in the end having Sagan remind us of the scientific and political relevance of what he had just seen before inviting us to a new show next week. Of course, this is not how SF shows were done in the 1970s, and I can think of various reasons why they would not do it like that, but it is still an interesting thought experiment, as I think it would somehow felt very right. Wernher von Braun endorsed SPACE: 1999 by means of a letter, but I think having Carl Sagan introducing and closing each episode would have been more effective. Another thing I like about SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE is the way the word ‘theatre’ is used as part of the title. In COSMOS they used several dramatised episodes, like the life of Kepler, Huygens and La Pérouse or some excerpts from H.G. Wells’ WAR OF THE WORLDS, so we get this effect of interplay between documentary and theatre. This is particularly successful, in my opinion, when the dramatised stories involve political issues,

as it then becomes a perfect illustration of Carl Sagan’s ongoing point about how the rulers of society have always tried to suppress knowledge as they know that effective slave societies, such as wage slave societies, can only function efficiently when the slaves do not know what is going on. In this respect I think the COSMOS series was extremely good, and when I watch SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE I can see something similar in the interplay between Truman Bradley and the episode of the week, and this kind of dynamic is something I miss in SPACE: 1999. The best approximation to this phenomenon we have there is the interplay between Victor Bergman and the rest, especially if we keep in mind what Barry Morse has said about Moonbase Alpha as a ‘socialistic outfit’, but I think it would have worked even better if the episodes had been introduced with a politically engaged natural scientist. Nevertheless, the most important aspect of having ‘theatre’ in the title of a SF television series is that it makes it natural to think of the series from the viewpoint of Drama Theory as discussed in Rosenhead’s book “Rational analysis for a problematic world”, Wiley, 1989), where Drama Theory is specifically seen from the viewpoint of systems thinking and critical theory. In other words, among the contributors in Rosenhead’s book there are those who propose Drama Theory as a way of structuring problems relating to social oppression and emancipation, and if we combine this with the perspective in Freedman’s “Critical theory and science fiction” (Wesleyan University Press, 2000), we get a theoretical framework not only for understanding SPACE: 1999 but also for turning SPACE: 1999 into political activism. So, as a response to Senmut’s comment about “getting back to the show”, I would say that we never left the show. At least for me, each and every comment about SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE and SF in the fifties has been interesting in the way it helps us not only understand SF of the 1970s in comparison with SF of the 1950s, but it has allowed us to look at some of the aspects of the early SF television series that can help us to understand what Tulloch and Jenkins (1995) say about the relevance of fan fiction and related engagement as means for turning passive

To take the risk consumption of SF television into political activism of the kind we have seen in relation to efforts like the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Democracy Spring movement and the Bernie Sanders campaign. I think this is the best example of how we can say that SPACE: 1999 was not only a phenomenon of the 1970s. It is also a television series that matters today. John B. *** 31909 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: And we thought Space: 1999 was original sennmut May 2, 2016

On 02 May 2016 balor1999@... writes: So, as a response to Senmut’s comment about “getting back to the show”, I would say that we never left the show. At least for me, each and every comment about SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE and SF in the fifties has been interesting in the way it helps us not only understand SF of the 1970s in comparison with

529 SF of the 1950s, but it has allowed us to look at some of the aspects of the early SF television series that can help us to understand what Tulloch and Jenkins (1995) say about the relevance of fan fiction and related engagement as means for turning passive consumption of SF television into political activism of the kind we have seen in relation to efforts like the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Democracy Spring movement and the Bernie Sanders campaign. I think this is the best example of how we can say that SPACE: 1999 was not only a phenomenon of the 1970s. It is also a television series that matters today.

We never left? All you post is Marxist crap, along with whatever ooze you scraped up from Fageolle and the ilk. This is not the show. This is Balor's dillusionary world, where everyone agrees with him, and everything is all about the Marxist religion. Stop it, and NEVER mention me in the same post as those termites, EVER again. ***

13.4 The Last Sunset In Senmut’s story there is a reference to Alibe who only appeared in the final three episodes of Y2. However, as fan fiction reviewers argue that “To take the risk” could have worked as an ending for the series, the way the story links with the three final episodes of Y2, and thus the ending of SPACE: 1999 as a whole, is something that is explored in the following thread. 31910 The Last Sunset balor1999 May 3, 2016

Perhaps Senmut is right. Perhaps we have spent too much time discussing SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE without making it clear how this contributes to new and important understanding of SPACE: 1999. To me there were several important links between the two series, not at least in terms of how THE LAST SUNSET was based on a 1959 play that dealt with some of the same issues that we see in SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE, such as military interventions and the possibility of a nuclear holocaust. In fact, when I last night watched the episode “Stranger in the desert”, this narrative dealt indeed with the issue of how the idyll of somebody living in the desert was shattered by ruthless prospectors with guns. Now, the person in the desert was not a British family trying to survive the aftermath

of a nuclear war and the intruders where not detached members of an American platoon, but still the scenario managed to comment on cultural differences and the thin line between civilisation and chaos. Although some might agree with Senmut that we have gone too far off topic by discussing episodes of SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE, to me this has been an important part of the overall SPACE: 1999 discussion. Nevertheless, it might be a good idea to return more concretely to the debate about what “To take the risk” can tell us about THE LAST SUNSET and other aspects of SPACE: 1999. Something I have thought about in this context, although probably not mentioned yet, is the way the fan fiction reviewers talked about Senmut’s story as a masterful ending of SPACE: 1999 as a whole and how Senmut has chosen to include Alibe, a character that only appeared in the three final episodes of Y2, as

530


the link between Y1 and Y2. Here we have something that could be worth commenting, namely how “To take the risk” could be seen as a way of ending Y1, Y2 and Y3 at the same time, and by Y3 I mean the FOREVER ALPHA series, although Senmut comments explicitly in his presentation of the short story that it has nothing whatsoever to do with other stories he has written. The way “To take the risk” can be seen as an ending of Y1 is fairly straight forward. It would probably require reorganising the viewing order of the episodes to make THE LAST SUNSET into the final episode of the season, just after THE TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA, or one could imagine that the Alphans visit Ariel for a second time and then actually manages to get into orbit around Ariel’s sun. The way I have understood the plot in THE LAST SUNSET was that the Alphans were under the impression that they were going into orbit around Ariel, but to prevent them from settling, the Ariels created the illusion of a habitable world on the Moon, just as long to keep the Alphans occupied with this challenge rather than moving onto Ariel when they had the chance, because at the end of the episode the Moon is on its way out this particular solar system. In Senmut’s alternative version of the story, they are no longer satelliting Ariel, but they move into orbit around Ariel’s sun. Although this follows immediately after the traditional ending of THE LAST SUNSET, I do not think we would violate the nature of the story by thinking about this as something that happened after “Out of the Frying Pan”, the final novel in the FOREVER ALPHA series. As Moonbase Alpha is on a random trajectory, there is in principle not impossible that they would at some time cross their own path and end up within the Ariel solar system. In fact, this could even make sense in the context of MESSAGE FROM MOONBASE ALPHA if we choose to think of Sandra’s story about abandoning Moonbase Alpha and settle down on Terra Alpha as either being the terraformation of the Moon that Senmut describes, or settling down on one of the nearby planets within the Ariel system, if the first experiment of living on the Moon did not work out in the long run.

I don’t know how Senmut would respond to something like this. In many of his own stories he tries to fill gaps and correct problems with the original narrative, but here we might consider doing something similar to Senmut’s string of stories. Of course, he has already stated that “To take the risk” was just a fantasy or a “what-if” story that was not intended to have anything to do with the more epic stories he has contributed, but as it has gotten so good reviews and is a favourite among many of us, I hope he will at least accept that some of us try to see his complete output of S99 fan fiction as part of a unified whole. If we think of the story as an alternative ending of Y1, the way it seems to be intended, by also having Alibe as part of the crew, it also becomes an ending of Y2 as the Moon going into stable orbit around the Ariel’s sun and creating a possibility for life, similar to what we saw in the alternative universe in ANOTHER TIME ANOTHER PLACE, and how life unfolded for Luke and Anna on ARKADIA, this fits badly with the events that follow in THE METAMORPH and onwards. In other words, I think “To take the risk” could be thought of as a very nice ending of Y1, Y2 and Y3, agreeing very much with what “99lover” and other fan fiction reviewers have said about Senmut’s final story. John B. *** 31911 Re: [OnlineAlpha] The Last Sunset sennmut May 4, 2016

Okay, I picked Alibe at random. Her name starts with "A", so there you have it. That, and she had so little screen time, why not? There was no other motivation or plan, no deeper meaning. As to why I picked this ep, again, why not? From the first time I saw this one, when I was about 13 or so, the idea of the Moon with an atmosphere has fascinated me. It remains a fav of mine, even today, and I think I have probably watched it more than any other, Y1 or 2. So many possibilities open up, if you wrap the Moon in an envelope of air. And while the series was not done when they wrapped on this one, I have often thought it would have been a good finale for the show. It

To take the risk is hard to see a man like Koenig not trying something, anything, to pull off a win, here. And that folks, is it. No subtext, no inner meaning, no message, political or otherwise. Many writers write to make a point, or a political statement, or to push some sort of social agenda. Me, when I write (if I may put myself into the catagory of "writer"), I simply write the sort of things that I would like to see/have seen, on the TV, or at the movies. I'm not being snooty, but I have to confess that so little that is put out today appeals to me. Certainly, not at the current price of movie tickets. *** 31912 Re: [OnlineAlpha] The Last Sunset balor1999 May 4, 2016

An interesting aspect of adding the character of Alibe into THE LAST SUNSET discourse, is that it was originally the same character as Sandra. Here is part of an interesting interview with Alibe Parsons found at the catacombs, http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/crguide/v czap.html: I was really taking over Zienia Merton's role because she was going off to make a film, so the role had already been established in the sense that there was a communications officer, but on a base that big it was obvious that they would have more than one communications officer, so I was just another one. That allowed me to take the character and make it what I wanted it to be without being bound to anything that Zienia had done before. The character didn't actually have a name in the scripts that had been written because the part had been written for Zienia's character, but the producer said, "Oh, you've got a nice name that's unusual and sounds rather futuristic, do you mind if we use it?" and I said, "Not at all!". But I'm not sure that it was the right decision because it's sometimes difficult for people to divorce the character that you're playing from the real-life you, so using your own name - especially one as unusual as mine is - probably wasn't a good idea.

531

If we look at the idea of adding Alibe and writing an epilogue to THE LAST SUNSET as an alternative ending for SPACE: 1999, I think much of what Alibe Parsons says here is quite interesting. For instance, her role is really Sandra’s role. The part she was given was originally written for Sandra, but when Zienia Merton got fed up with Fred Freiberger and decided to make THE COSMETICS REVOLUTION instead of completing her work with Y2, Alibe Parsons was hired to do Sandra’s role, and thus the character Alibe was created. However, if we think of MESSAGE FROM MOONBASE ALPHA as the final ending of SPACE: 1999, then we would have to recognise Sandra and Zienia Merton as an important character within the overall context of SPACE: 1999, and her reasons for abandoning Y2 and returning for the epilogue becomes an interesting point for a potential increase in our understanding of the series. We often refer to how Gerry Anderson, Johnny Byrne and Nick Tate referred to Y2 as crap and FF as a disaster, but I believe far too little has been said about Zienia Merton explaining her experience. I don’t know why that is, because her views are exactly the same as the ones above, seeing Y1 as a masterpiece and Y2 as crap, and being frustrated with FF to the extent of deciding to leave the series before it was completed. Nevertheless, one reason why we have not talked so much about Zienia is perhaps because she has always talked about the Y1/Y2 dilemma and the FF problem in a more controlled manner. I don’t think I’ve ever heard her use works like ‘crap’ or ‘dickhead’ when discussing these issues, although her comments have sometimes been stingy, so there has been no problem understanding how she shares the view of the others who worked on both series. In the case of Zienia, I think it is perhaps easier to understand her feelings for FF and Y2 by reflecting on what Alibe Parsons described, namely how she decided to leave Y2 for making a film that was more in the style of what Y2 should have been like. I’m not saying that THE COSMETICS REVOLUTION is all that similar to BARBARELLA, because it is not a SF film in a traditional sense, but as a political satire about the destructive liberation of market forces and how a divided political left have to unite in order to fight against the

532


demolition of nature and society as deregulation, privatisation and pollution takes foothold in the late seventies, it could very much be seen as SF in the way Freedman (2000) defines SF, and how he considers the works of Berthold Brecht and left-wing politically oriented drama as a whole as SF in the sense of discussing the future through perspectives on oppression and critical theory. What is perhaps particularly interesting in THE COSMETICS REVOLUTION is how Zienia is given top billing as the devilish woman (“Lucy Ferner”) that represents multination monopolistic capitalism, and how she is the spider that pulls the strings in the eradication of nature and society by seducing and manipulating governments and members of local society. To me this was quite fascinating to watch as her character is so different from Sandra in certain ways, more similar to Catherine Schell’s Guardian of Piri in some scenes, especially when she wears long black hair and actually look amazingly pretty, but also in the way her plays her role by means like full frontal nudity and jumping naked around in bed with our working class hero, who eventually manages to blow up the evil capitalist enterprise with dynamite in the final frames of the film. Although actors are trained for interpreting a wide range of characters, it is so unusual to see Zienia playing somebody that is strong, uninhibited, manipulating and evil after associating her so closely with the shy and friendly Sandra. After what she it was like working under FF, and participating in crap like Y2, I can easily understand that she had a strong urge to do something completely different. On the other hand, I would not say that THE COSMETICS REVOLUTION is completely different from SPACE: 1999. On the contrary, my feeling is that the film captures much of the political subtext of SPACE: 1999, in this case formatted more in the style of the satirical Y2 rather than the realistic Y1, and Zienia’s character Lucy Ferner is not all that different from Sandra in some respects. I understand how all good actors interpret characters by making use of their own feelings and experiences, so there are scenes in THE COSMETICS REVOLUTION where Lucy appears shy like Sandra, although mostly she is to Sandra like what Paul Morrow on drugs was to his normal self in THE LAST

SUNSET. It is the same character, but presented in a distorted manner. Here I feel the same way about Catherine Schell. Although many people talk about her warmth as Maya, if we are to take SPACE: 1999 seriously, like thinking about THE METAMORPH as a story about social oppression and how Maya was a part of the social elite responsible for the destruction of the planet, then I think it is useful to think of Maya as a reincarnation of the Servant of the Guardian of Piri. This is perhaps the same thing I feel when watching THE COSMETICS REVOLUTION. Lucy Ferner is to Sandra Benes what the Servant is to Maya. It is the same character, because it is played by the same actress – thus expressed through the emotions and life experience of this particular actress, while also being a different character. I wonder if the producers of THE COSMETICS REVOLUTION were also thinking along such lines when casting Zienia Merton in the lead, because when this film was being made, SPACE: 1999 was a phenomenal success in Europe and all over the world, and it had not yet lost all credibility due to the disaster of Y2. Even though THE COSMETICS REVOLUTION is a satire about the conflicts between socialism in service of protecting nature and society in defence against the evil forces of unregulated global capitalism, they probably understood that the character of the devil would be more effectively presented in the shape of somebody like Zienia Merton. John B. *** 31916 Re: [OnlineAlpha] The Last Sunset sennmut May 5, 2016

Again, Balor. Again, you have ignored my wishes, and mentioned my stuff, in the same post as your usual Marxist dreck. I have told you, myriad times, I do not want anything of mine on the same page with ANY of your Marxist filth. I don't care what limp and isipid excuses you use, about how it "increases our understanding", or whatever. It is just an excuse for more of your missionary zeal in spreading the word of that bag of filth, Marx.

To take the risk Now damn it, STOP!!!! I do not want ONE SINGLE WORD of ANYTHING of mine to appear with ANYTHING related to Marxist maggot crap. Can you understand? Are you capable of stopping? NO excuses, no apologetics. NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

533

Medical Center and in a survival situation. It was pretty cool when she fired the laser rifle and blew the Eagle sky high as a means of attracting Koenig's attention. It was a clear act of desperation. ***

If I could take legal action to stop this vile exhumation of Marxist sewage, I would do so! *** 31913 Re: [OnlineAlpha] The Last Sunset richard curzon May 4, 2016

The Last Sunset is a good episode despite the silly science, but if we take Space: 1999 as an example of a parable ala Planet of the Apes (1967, another scientifically preposterous piece of scifi) and take it all at face value, then it holds up well...even if they have Paul becoming some kind of religious fanatic suddenly. Even if he never seemed to be that way out before. Rick *** 31914 Re: The Last Sunset kerryirs May 4, 2016

Rick hits the nail on the head again. Maybe those funky mushrooms that mysteriously pop up out of soil that had not known water for perhaps millions of years, if at all, caused Paul to go nuts. I will give the writer this, he at least recognized that for a body to have an atmosphere, gravity has to be strong enough to hold onto it. But one also has to have mass and the moon just not have enough to hold an atmosphere. So the aliens provided some "magical science" to compensate for the moon's low gravity. Then when the moon started moving away from their sun, the aliens sent their machines back to reclaim the atmosphere and turn off the gravity. OK boys and girls, next "science lesson". Having said all of that, I also like THE LAST SUNSET. It gave Helena more to do outside of

31915 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Last Sunset sennmut May 5, 2016

There was a paper published, many Moons ago (sorry!), by NASA scientists James Oberg, IIRC in his book New Earths, that stated that if the Moon were to have an atmosphere, it would take several thousand years before atmospheric loss would become noticeable. Others have said it would take less time. Dunno. Not being an astrophysics technogeek, I shall defer to him on this point. I figured the mushrooms were sent by the aliens, as both a food source, and as a way of perhaps kickstarting a surface eco-system. Victor said it was chock full of nutrients, but had the hallucinogens as well. Like the corrosive element in the atmosphere, and the excessive oxygen level, the aliens, while of incredible technical sophistication, are also fallible. I think it's an interesting take, that the super-aliens are as fallible as we are. *** 31917 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Last Sunset richard curzon May 4 2:21 PM

It's a fun episode, but I find most of series 1 excellent and LS is probably one of the weaker instalments. Rick *** 31918 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Last Sunset balor1999 May 5, 2016

I agree that THE LAST SUNSET is a fun episode, and I also agree that most of series one is excellent, but I’m not sure I would

534


describe it as particularly weak in comparison with the rest. In this respect I felt more at home with the previous message describing it as a good episode, despite some weak scientific premises, but still good SF in the same way as PLANET OF THE APES (1967) is good SF. The way Kerry critiques some of the scientific aspects of the episode and how Senmut responds some of this critique by referring to Oberg’s book only strengthens my appreciation of the entry. In this sense I agree with the assessment of THE LAST SUNSET as a good episode, but why is it good? Rick compares it with PLANET OF THE APES, and this is interesting in the sense that the merit of that particular film is often related to how it functions as a comment of the struggles of the civil rights movement, so I admire the idea of using this cinematic SF classic for reading social and political context into THE LAST SUNSET, although I feel the idea has to be elaborated more. Kerry, on the other hand, talks about Helena getting out of the home environment and participating in political actions by use of guns and violence, which to me reads like an attempt to read THE LAST SUNSET in the context of the women’s liberation movement of the early seventies. This is also an interpretation that I think has merit in terms of explaining why we see THE LAST SUNSET as a good episode. However, I think we can learn even more about the episode by listening to fan fiction writers adding a new epilogue, connecting the Y1 episode with Y2 by way of Alibe, and receiving applause from fan fiction reviewers in terms of describing the result as a masterpiece and a fitting ending to the SPACE: 1999 saga as a whole. Nevertheless, before making further comments on this particular idea, I need to respond to Senmut’s recent post about mentioning his writings in a context of discussing scholarly interpretations of SPACE: 1999. As I have stated many times before, my intension is not to say that any of his writing has anything to do with the political and social interpretations of SPACE: 1999 that we see in the scholarly literature, so I have been extremely careful not to mention any of the titles or specifics of his works when trying to contribute to the discussion of how to make sense out of SPACE: 1999. My strategy has

consequently been to talk about fan fiction in general when talking about ideas like using Alibe for connecting Y1 and Y2, writing new epilogues to S99 episodes, or seeing THE LAST SUNSET from the viewpoint of how it would have functioned as a final episode for the series as a whole. I think it is important to stress this point once more. There must be many fan fiction writers who have written about Alibe in a Y1 context, and surely Senmut cannot be the only person who has written a new epilogue to a classic Y1 story. Furthermore, the idea of seeing THE LAST SUNSET as the final episode of the series cannot have been all that surprising for those who lived in areas where this particular episode was perhaps the last episode of the Y1 batch to be shown. Of course, when I make use of these ideas for talking about how Alibe Parsons replaced Zienia Merton, when Zienia decided to leave Y2 to make THE COSMETICS REVOLUTION, I am drawing directly inspiration from having read Senmut’s story, but it is not intended as a comment on the story itself. In a similar way to how we discussed the relationship between DRAGON’S DOMAIN and SPACE WARP by drawing upon ideas from another Senmut classic, whenever the discussion moved in the direction of adding to the understanding of SPACE: 1999 by engaging with existing scholarly knowledge, this was done by abstract references to fan fiction literature in general in order to avoid controversy. Having made this point, I think it should be safe to return to my point about how I believe the connections discovered by reading fan fiction can help us understand an episode like THE LAST SUNSET in a deeper way than what has so far been indirectly said about the civil rights movement and the women’s liberation movement. Where I believe THE COSMETICS REVOLUTION makes a significant contribution to the understanding of THE LAST SUNSET is in the way it is essentially interested in the economic basis for society rather than the social superstructure. Although the superstructure is important and relevant when discussing issues like how this episode can be understood in the context of race and gender, I believe that there is a great danger of being manipulated by the oppressive forces we try to fight when focusing on such

To take the risk issues alone – without relating it to the economic base. For instance, Kerry emphasises the way Helena has emancipated out of her domestic role in a way that allows her to take action and thus raising to the same level as Koenig and the male protagonists. This is one way of reading the story, but we should not forget that her actions are made out of desperation rather than a deliberate act of social liberation. In other words, the episode could equally well be interpreted in the context of how economic oppression made women in the 1970s have to leave the traditional role as housewives not on an emancipatory basis but rather out of how survival of the family depended on more than one income. I don’t know how Kerry would respond to this, but to me this is an interpretation that makes at least as much sense as the romantic idea that Helena was on a journey of self-discovery and selfemancipation while trying to reach contact with Koenig. In fact, I would say that it is a much more reasonable interpretation of this particular scene based on what we know about the political and philosophical nature of SPACE: 1999 as a whole. In THE COSMETICS REVOLUTION the social satire is based exactly on these kind of mismatches between the economic base and cultural superstructure. When Zienia Merton arrives by plane as a monopoly-capitalist demon from hell, in the opening scene of the film, the point in using somebody as innocent as “Sandra Benes” in that kind of a role is exactly to give credibility to her seductive plans for destroying nature and society, by means of appealing to the worst instincts in people when it comes to money and power. It is by seducing local entrepreneurs into accepting her multi-national capitalist plot for developing a global cosmetics industry, that produces a totally unnecessary product while exploiting world resources and creating social instability, the comedy is put in action by how we see potentially well-meaning people being excited with right-wing politics and thus destroying their own world, until a young “Bernie Sanders” character manages to convince people of what is really going on, so that they can finally take proper action.

535

When Kerry talks enthusiastically about Helena blowing up the Eagle for saving the day, I would like to draw the attention to the scene in THE COSMETICS REVOLUTION where they blow up the cosmetics factory, resulting in all the venture capitalists and corrupt politicians being covered in the human and animal excrements that were used for producing the cosmetic products. To me this is a powerful way of reading THE LAST SUNSET as the conclusion of SPACE: 1999 by way of linking it with the background story about Alibe Parsons and Zienia Merton. If we ask about why THE LAST SUNSET is good, I think this is a good explanation. It is an explanation that not only makes use of what we actually see on the screen but also a deeper understanding of both the making of the story itself and the making of SPACE: 1999 as a whole. John B. *** 31919 Re: The Last Sunset kerryirs May 5, 2016

Senmut wrote: There was a paper published, many Moons ago (sorry!), by NASA scientists James Oberg, IIRC in his book New Earths, that stated that if the Moon were to have an atmosphere, it would take several thousand years before atmospheric loss would become noticeable. Others have said it would take less time. Dunno. Not being an astrophysics technogeek, I shall defer to him on this point. I figured the mushrooms were sent by the aliens, as both a food source, and as a way of perhaps kickstarting a surface eco-system. Victor said it was chock full of nutrients, but had the hallucinogens as well. Like the corrosive element in the atmosphere, and the excessive oxygen level, the aliens, while of incredible technical sophistication, are also fallible. I think it's an interesting take, that the super-aliens are as fallible as we are.

Good points, but being, what was it, 20,000 feet thick, I wonder if the atmosphere had an ozone layer to protect from radiation from the alien sun. Just wondering. ***

536


31920 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Last Sunset sennmut May 6, 2016

Helena said that the atmosphere began to "thin off at 20,000". Presumably, over time, as equilibrium was achieved, it would form an ionosphere, ozone layer, et al. It would have been thicker than a mere 20,000 feet. Assuming she did not mean meters, in which case, the atmosphere was even thicker. *** 31921 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Last Sunset sennmut May 6, 2016

On 05 May 2016 balor1999@... writes: In this sense I agree with the assessment of THE LAST SUNSET as a good episode, but why is it good?

It's good because it's story does not take place on some alien world, with weird monsters. The "alien world" in our own familiar Moon, radically transformed by unthinkable technology. We see yet again how the Alphans respond, to a situation no one never dreamed of. Again, we see the alien beings sitting in judgement of Humanity, again, as in WG, holding themselves superior to mere Humans. (Of course, at almost 86% oxygen, Humans might not have been able to survive on Ariel for long. That is a consideration.) True, Humans do not, at first glance, come off well in TLS, but recall that the Arielites set the conditions of the test, not the Alphans. Any Human "failings" were as much a result of their meddling, as of any shortcomings in Human Nature. Once more, we see that the super aliens, possessed of technologies we cannot fathom, are not, by virtue of same, superior or less susceptible to bad behavior, like fear and xenophobia, that could, possibly, killed everyone on the Moon. Given the crappy way the Arielites behaved, I would say yhe Aphans came out looking better. *** 31922 Re: The Last Sunset

andreagualco May 6, 2016

Reading all the comments that have been written over the episode came to me just a great desire to watch it. Tonight it was possible and I have enjoyed it ! My considerations : It is already finished? I wanted that the episode lasted longer... It is the episode of smiles ... everyone smile, at least in the first part; In Main Mission there is a really beautiful lighting; Moving the joy of everyone when it starts to rain. There are two minor characters at the window with tears of joy. Really well played ... They are happy for the rain and just this morning I was complaining to me that it rained ... I should appreciate more water sister ... without her ... The End; It is the smiles episode, but also the terrible feeling that everything is coming back as before: Black and absolute vacuum, cold, silent. Again all sealed.. It was a short joy, a short illusion. How much values the "beach" party, the sun, the rain, the walk ... The last shot is for Sandra and Paul. I would like to have a software to touch up those many visible errors (wires, commlock buttons, backgrounds ... ). But there is also much attention to the details. Such as when Tanya slips playing badminton. Behind her we can see just for one second a camera on a tripod that moves ... maybe it was recording a video for the Alpha News service. For 40 years I see the Space:1999 episodes and in the various stages of my life I will always appreciate something new. Thank you and please excuse me for my bad English Ciao!!!

To take the risk

*** 31923 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Last Sunset John Marcucci May 6, 2016

Slinter wrote: It's good because it's story does not take place on some alien world, with weird monsters. The "alien world" in our own familiar Moon, radically transformed by unthinkable technology. We see yet again how the Alphans respond, to a situation no one never dreamed of. Again, we see the alien beings sitting in judgement of Humanity, again, as in WG, holding themselves superior to mere Humans. (Of course, at almost 86% oxygen, Humans might not have been able to survive on Ariel for long. That is a consideration.) True, Humans do not, at first glance, come off well in TLS, but recall that the Arielites set the conditions of the test, not the Alphans. Any Human "failings" were as much a result of their meddling, as of any shortcomings in Human Nature. Once more, we see that the super aliens, possessed of technologies we cannot fathom, are not, by virtue of same, superior or less susceptible to bad behavior, like fear and xenophobia, that could, possibly, killed everyone on the Moon. Given the crappy way the Arielites behaved, I would say yhe Aphans came out looking better.

Well, I don't know. The Arielan said "they were nether malevolent nor benevolent." That leaves a cold pragmatism. I wonder.. how would Earth react to a wandering moon with 300 aliens wanting to settle on Earth? When I look South at our own border and the teeming masses poised to flood over it, I can understand why they want to come.. but at the same time, I'd prefer they focus their energies on making their own homelands better places. *** 31924 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The Last Sunset balor1999 May 6, 2016

Migration into the US from south of the border is one example. Another example is the recent leaks about the US/EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), where it has been revealed that the hidden agenda behind the agreement is for the US to deregulate consumer protection and welfare standards in

537

Europe. Of course, once this agenda was leaked, the reaction from some European countries were similar to how the Arielites responded to a virus trying place itself in orbit. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/m ay/03/doubts-rise-over-ttip-as-france-threatensto-block-eu-us-deal However, I also liked Senmut’s less political but still highly interesting interpretation of the episode. It's good because it's story does not take place on some alien world, with weird monsters. The "alien world" in our own familiar Moon, radically transformed by unthinkable technology. We see yet again how the Alphans respond, to a situation no one never dreamed of. Again, we see the alien beings sitting in judgement of Humanity, again, as in WG, holding themselves superior to mere Humans.

Here it is perhaps useful to add that Penfold was the son of a vicar, explaining why not only THE LAST SUNSET and WAR GAMES are concerned with observations of Humanity as seen from the perspective of God, but also how this is a dominant theme in more or less all of his episodes, including SPACE BRAIN where we see Humanity destroying God in the way that was only hinted at by the virus metaphor in TLS and WG. True, Humans do not, at first glance, come off well in TLS, but recall that the Arielites set the conditions of the test, not the Alphans. Any Human "failings" were as much a result of their meddling, as of any shortcomings in Human Nature. Once more, we see that the super aliens, possessed of technologies we cannot fathom, are not, by virtue of same, superior or less susceptible to bad behavior, like fear and xenophobia, that could, possibly, killed everyone on the Moon.

If we think about the relationship between the Alphans and Ariels as that of the relationship between the Israelites and God, I would not say that the books of Samuel and the Judges and other parts of the Bible dealing with the conflicts between the Israelites and God typically take the perspective of God being driven by fear and xenophobia. Of course, militant atheists like Richard Dawkins would argue along such lines, which is perfectly fine with me, but to me this results in destroying the meaning of the Biblical text rather than

538


making it relevant and meaningful. It is a question of whether we want to render a text meaningless or meaningful when we choose to look at it. I think it is important to understand where Penfold comes from and how his stories are like Biblical allegories. Given the crappy way the Arielites behaved, I would say yhe Aphans came out looking better.

Again, to me this like referring to some passage in the Old Testament and saying that, given the crappy way God behaved, one could say that the Israelites came out looking better. I do not say that it is necessarily wrong to interpret the Bible in this manner, but it strikes me as an interpretation that undermines the moral messages that were written into it. In the same way I would say that drawing a picture of crappy Arielites and virtuous Alphans undermines the moral message seen not only in THE LAST SUNSET but in all of Penfold’s contributions to SPACE: 1999. John B. *** 31925 Re: The Last Sunset kerryirs May 6, 2016

John, if you're going to refer to Alibe Parsons' quote from the Catacombs, also note that she felt that Y2 was getting better, as in my opinion, the last six episodes or so, i'd say from THE BRINGERS OF WONDER onward show. Then throw in episodes like JOURNEY TO WHERE, AB CHRYSALIS, and others I could name, and Y2 has quite a number of fine entries. She also pointed out how well she was treated by the cast and how well they got along. If you listen to Landau, you'd think there was constant bickering going on. Despite Barbara Brain's edict that Catherine Schell would never appear as herself or in the last scene of an episode, Catherine states in her autobiography that she and Barbara got along fine. Wasn't it Barbara Bain who called Maya an intriguing character in that Fanderson piece? As for Zienia Merton, yeah, I've read her comments on how she thought that FF didn't

like her, which he never said anything against her, as far as I know. What was said behind the scenes, who knows? I also think there was a contractual issue as well, just a guess. If it were, I think the executive producer handles those issues, and that would've been Anderson along with Mandell and ITC. For me, this type of stuff really doesn't interest me. It's gotten to the point where everything someone does is splashed all over the net or social media, thus my intense dislike of Facebook, Twitter, Snap Chat, and the rest. Forums like this are fine since they provide a place where people of similar interests can get together, without collecting private information. As for Helena's "amancipation", well, I think that had already been accomplished before BREAKAWAY. Let's see, according to the old STARLOG 1999 notebook, she was born in 1960, grew up in that decade, became a teenager in the 70s, well into the women's liberation movement, and by the time the '80s rolled around, she was probably beginning her medical school education. Depending on how she was affected by the war of '87, she had probably finished, maybe applied for a position in an organization similar to NASA, and as they say, the rest is history. She may have even met Lee Russell about that time. So, I see Helena Russell as a professional woman long before either applying for or being appointed to Alpha. *** 31926 Re: The Last Sunset balor1999 May 7, 2016

It is interesting how Alibe Parsons and others talk about Y2 getting better towards the end while Freiberger was talking about how he gradually exercised less control as the series moved on. My impression is that FF was at his most influential at the time when they were making episodes like ALL THAT GLISTERS. With that particular episode he managed to get on everybody’s nerve by insisting that the idea of living rocks and “red is death” represented a benchmark of quality SF that they should try to emulate as the series progressed. On the other

To take the risk hand, Landau felt that the episode was so bad that he threatened to leave, while episode director Ray Austin actually left. Austin’s farewell gift to FF was a rock with a note on it. The note read “I hereby name this rock Fred Freiberger”. Catherine Schell said the episode was so ridiculous that she and the other actors had a hard time not breaking out in laughter, while I Tony Anholt simply referred to it as “absolute rubbish”. It is somehow surprising that Gerry Anderson does not mention this particular episode, but perhaps he was attending other matters when they were shooting it. When we look at the final product, I actually think it is one of the better episodes of Y2, but this has everything to do with Ray Austin’s direction and nothing to do with Fred Freiberger’s enthusiasm. In fact, it reminds me of COLLISION COURSE in the sense of how Austin managed to perform miracles with mediocre scripts, turning them into a basis for masterpiece episodes. Of course, I would not say that Terpiloff’s COLLISION COURSE is bad in comparison to other things we have seen, but I doubt it would stand out as the classic it became if it had not been for Austin’s competent direction. There is something similar with ALL THAT GLISTERS, I would say, so that is perhaps the reason that Gerry Anderson’s public attack on Fred Freiberger is based on THE RULES OF LUTON. Although RULES OF LUTON shows that Freiberger was serious when he said that ALL THAT GLISTERS should be seen as a benchmark of the series, thus creating a story about talking plants to follow up on the idea of living rocks, it was probably easier to GA to describe FF as insane based on how he wrote stories like these rather than just endorsing others having written along similar lines. Actually, it would have been interesting to have heard more about the writing of ALL THAT GLISTERS. Did Keith Miles make up the story himself, or was it done in collaboration or due to strong influence of Fred Freiberger. Due to the general awfulness of the script, I suspect that FF was strongly involved with the creation of it. However, after Freiberger had managed to make sure that they had at least a dozen episodes that were so stupid and made with such bad taste that there would be a chance of reaching his the target audience of toddlers and

539

morons, he didn’t bother to exercise an equal amount of control with some of the final episodes. For instance, Johnny Byrne said that THE DORCONS made it into production with few changes because he was now both aware of what Freiberger wanted and Freiberger himself was less controlling. Perhaps FF was starting to get bored with SPACE: 1999 and was already thinking of how to “improve” THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN. On the other hand, I’m not sure about Kerry’s suggestion that FF started disengaging with SPACE: 1999 as early as when they still had six scripts left to produce. At least in the case of THE BRINGERS OF WONDER we know that both Gerry Anderson and Terence Feely were totally depressed by what Freiberger had done to this. FF was obviously still in destructive mode. Penfold also said that the produced version of DORZAK was completely different from what he had submitted, but I don’t remember him explaining the differences in more detail. If we disregard BRINGERS OF WONDER because of all the stupid chase scenes, particularly in part 2, that makes the episode feel like BETA CLOUD or RULES OF LUTON, I would perhaps agree with Kerry that the five final episodes of Y2 may be among the better episodes of the season. Of course, it is possible that we are taking Alibe Parsons’ statements a bit too seriously as I doubt that she saw all that many early Y2 episodes before she got involved in the series. After all, her part in the series was a very small part, she was only brought in as a replacement for Zienia Merton, and I expect we have all heard about Zienia’s complaints about how she never got her own dressing room, was paid by the hour rather than having a contract, how she was told a few hours in advance when to appear in an episode, and so on. Furthermore, Zienia understood, like all the rest of the cast, how Y2 was crap, so she grabbed the opportunity when she was offered something more intelligent, like the political satire THE COSMETICS REVOLUTION, leaving FF to find another actress he could exploit. In order to avoid sounding like a complete idiot, I think Alibe’s made her decision to join Y2 sound less desperate by saying that it looked like the series was slightly improving as it was reaching the end of Y2. Of course, she understood that Y2 was junk, but – as Tony Anholt said in an interview we discussed some

540


time back – sometimes it is necessary for an actor to take part in rubbish as doing live performances of Shakespeare may not be sufficient for day-to-day survival. By the way, Kerry, thanks for mentioning Catherine Schell’s autobiography. I was not aware of her having written an autobiography before you mentioned it, so it is interesting to hear you comment on it. Does it contain a lot of trashing of FF and Y2? If so, I will consider buying it, but otherwise I will probably let it pass. I think she was a fine actress, and her role as the Servant of the Guardian of Piri was wonderful, and I have also seen her in other films and television series, but Freiberger’s idea of adding a resident alien, ripping-off on STAR TREK by creating a female version of Mr. Spock, was in my opinion one of his worst ideas. Making her into a “metamorph” made the idea even worse, as Johnny Byrne, Gerry Anderson, Martin Landau and others have pointed out. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/17 81961611/fromswedenwit-20/ On the other hand, when you discuss the emancipatory aspect of Helena in THE LAST SUNSET by referring to how Barbara Bain’s character was supposedly born in the 1960s and had lived through the period of the women’s liberation movement in the 1970s, you are taking the idea more literary than I had expected. You read gender emancipation as part of the SPACE: 1999 text, while I was thinking of it as part of the political subtext in terms of what the writers and actors were thinking and doing without necessarily making it into an explicit part of the plot. I thought your enthusiastic remarks about Helena blowing up the Eagle had to do with the situation Penfold created, that made Helena behave as an icon of the women’s liberation movement without necessarily being part of that movement, but I think you expand on this in a very good way. It is interesting what you now say about how Barbara Bain may have created her role based on how the world might look like for somebody born around 1960, and thus being at an impressionable age when political feminism reached a high point in the 1970s, around the time when they were making SPACE: 1999 and STAR MAIDENS. Actually, I would say that STAR MAIDENS

was far more significant in this respect, but perhaps it would be possible to say that radical feminism was perhaps something that became more clearly articulated on the political agenda around 1975, thus explaining why Helena might perhaps be seen as a moderate feminist while characters like the ones played by Lisa Harrow, Judy Geeson and Christiane Krüger in STAR MAIDENS, and Catherine Schell in the second series of SPACE: 1999, were of the more radical type. I found it interesting what Catherine Schell had to say about this in retrospect, namely that she had never thought of Maya as a symbol of radical feminism herself, as she had managed quite well without remembering an particular instances where she felt being oppressed due to being a member of the female gender, but she said that she was happy that post-Marxist feminists were drawing inspiration from the Maya character. What I see as relevant and interesting here is the way these feminists Schell refers to must have been thinking of Maya as a force of liberation in a society where gender discrimination would be part of the capitalist tactics of serving the 1% economic elite and preventing the remaining 99% from revolting. In fact, I think it is from this perspective that the SPACE: 1999 issues on gender, race and sexuality becomes interesting for understanding the deeper political perspectives that we associate with it. Although it should be uncontroversial to say that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of gender, race and sexuality, something that was stressed repeatedly in episodes of STAR TREK and elsewhere, where I believe SPACE: 1999 goes further is in the way it explains why it is wrong. It is not only wrong because it conflicts with the socialist ideals of Moonbase Alpha, represented by means like the roundtable conferences in Y1, in the sense that discrimination feels wrong when we identify with individuals or groups being oppressed, but it is wrong in the sense of what we see in BREAKAWAY and elsewhere, namely that controlling the ideological superstructure becomes a means for controlling the economic base. When Simmonds tells Koenig that he wants to replace Helena with a team of top professionals, he is not oppressing her as a woman. He is trying to remove her because her scientific understanding of reality does not

To take the risk fit with his business aims. She becomes a bit like Jack Lemmon in THE CHINA SYNDROME in the sense that she knows that the nuclear plant is unsafe but is uncertain how to handle it, because she knows that management has been cutting down on quality control for reducing costs and increasing profits. Telling the truth can be seen as being “illoyal” to management, and it is also difficult to engage people on the factory level and the community as a whole because the nuclear plant is what provides jobs for the community, but what will happen is everything blows up? This is the kind of dilemma Jack Lemmon was fighting with in THE CHINA SYNDROME, and it is the same dilemma that surrounds Helena in BREAKAWAY. In other words, I think the realistic nature of Y1 makes Helena’s feminism more powerful and interesting because it addresses the sociological nature of the problems discussed in SPACE: 1999. When FF changed the nature of SPACE: 1999 by turning science fiction into fantasy, he may have made it easier to see Maya as a symbol of the civil rights movement, radical feminism and gay rights, as we have observed how various academic and scholarly actors have picked up on that particular aspect of the second series, but I think this perspective misses the importance of what Freedman (2000) says about SF and critical theory. It is the realistic nature of Y1 that makes issues like alienation and oppression interesting and valuable as inspiration for political analysis and action. It may be equally possible to discuss economic and social oppression by means of fantasy texts like Y2, as we have seen in earlier parts of the discussion, but I think the lack of realism makes the link between analysis and action awkward. Actually, this is one of the central points in Zienia Merton’s THE COSMETICS REVOLUTION. In that film, the male socialist hero is married to a Marxist-Leninist who spends all her time analysing society from a workers perspective and arranging demonstrations to fight capitalist oppression. Although she is also among the heroes of the film, fighting the evil forces of monopolycapitalism represented by Zienia Merton’s character, her view is that the workers should take control of the cosmetics industry because

541

she sees the problem as a question of distribution of wealth regardless of the environmental challenges that the cosmetics industry represents. In other words, she is living in a fantasy world where things like global warming and man-made climate change does not exist or can be ignored in the shadow of the larger class struggle scenario. The practical consequences, of course, of dealing with people who use Y2 as a basis for understanding reality, is that they have to be ignored as one tries to develop a better understanding and basis for action based the more realistic Y1. Consequently, what our hero does is to blow up the cosmetics factory with the venture capitalists and corrupt politicians inside while his wife and her group are shouting slogans and waving with banners outside. To me this illustrates the meaning of what Helena does when she blows up the Eagle in THE LAST SUNSET. She is doing the same as the protagonist in THE COSMETICS REVOLUTION because she is the only person who is sufficiently sane to understand what is going on and where this will resolutely lead us unless somebody takes responsibility. To me this is one of the reasons why SPACE: 1999 is such a great series, why it has survived and continues to stimulate debates 40 years after it was released, and how it can and should be used for dealing with the large systemic problems of today. John B. *** 31930 Re: The End kerryirs May 9, 2016

Wow, a lot here. You're back to the long posts, mixing several topics together. I'm going to try and keep this short, as I see this as going over old ground, again. Read Catherine Schell's book if you want to know how she felt about her feelings on the situation in the early 60s, at least in her case. I'll say right now, the book is brutally honest, covering her birth during an allied bombing raid, her becoming sick in the cellar she and her family were hiding in not long after her

542


birth, her father being hunted by the Gestapo for deserting his duty and returning to his family in disguise, their surviving Communisism until their escape in 1948, and a lot more. Catherine Schell is a survivor and someone who, despite the tough times, her parents kept the family together and she never lost her humanity. Those who have worked with her call her a kind and sweet person, as do fans who have met her, at least the ones I've read. A survivor. This is how I see Maya. I think Catherine Schell perhaps patterened the charachter after her own experiences in some ways. I haven't gotten that far yet, but I might skip ahead and see. Instead of making a snap judgement, seeing her as a Spock rip-off, as some critics like to point out, I decided to see how the character would evolve. Almost immediately I knew she was 180 degrees from Nimoy's character. Smart and alien, yes, but after that, totally different. Maya could be the cool scientific type, but she always was warm and caring and add a sense of humor, you have a three dimensional character. As for Alibe Parsons' views, I don't know if she had seen any episodes prior to joining the show or not. Perhaps, as she was comparing what she may have seen to the ones appeared in, I don't know. Maybe someone has information on this. All I've seen of her comments were on the Catacombs website. As for ALL THAT GLISTERS and THE RULES OF LUTON, well this is old ground but, what the heck. The former is an OK episodes and I'm aware of the cast's issues with it. But I've mentioned this before, it's no better or worse than the Horta in Trek or the rock creature in which Kirk and Spock, along with an imitation of Lincoln and a Vulcan who was the image of the one who was the key to what Vulcan would become vs three eveil figures from history. At least the alien didn't move (rocks don't have legs or joints) or talk. The "rock" used a form of telepathy (which requires a brain, and that's another issue).

And yet, I don't remember hearing bitching from Treks cast or fans. I was also young at the time and not in fandom, so maybe they did.. As for the latter, I don't think plants were talking and LUTON is no worse an idea than TROUBLED SPIRIT was, which violated the law of cause and effect. But we'll ignore that as it was a Y1 episode. I saw the trees on Koenig's screen. Perhaps there were entities that had taken possession, which is really not one of my interests in terms of subject matter, but ancients used to believe "spirits" lived in such places along with mountains, etc. FF like the ancient Greek and Roman myths. Again, I like this episode because of the relationship between Maya and Koenig AND their attempts to avoid a conflict, until it was forced on them. Finally, I've never read where FF eased his role in Y2. He never said it as far as I know and read. Actually, he didn't want the producer's role in the first place. Anderson pushed that onto him and then did what Roddenberry did, QUIT!! I just remember the Abe Mandell quote that you lifted from Bob Wood's book. I think that says a lot why changes, for good or ill, were made. Time to move on! *** 31931 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The End SHANA G May 10, 2016

Kerry, Very well said!!!! Shana *** 31935 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: The End Rick Curzon May 10, 2016

Agreed Rick

To take the risk

543

13.5 Conclusion In the following message there are some attempts at summarising the success of the totality of the discussions presented in the book, describing the FOREVER ALPHA discussions as a success and as something that should be used as inspiration for scaffolding further SPACE: 1999 discussions when searching for other themes that can raise deep and sustainable engagement from the Online Alpha community as a whole. 31927 Conclusion balor1999 May 8, 2016

On 30 July 2015, as we were completing the second ExE, Kerry made the following comment: We have come to the end of the episode analysis and the question begs to be asked, where do we go from here? (message #30854) The second ExE had been a tremendous success, creating more engagement and debate than what had been seen on the forum for a long period, but would it be possible to maintain this level of engagement after the ExE had been concluded? I don’t know how many of us who thought it would be a good idea to read and discuss Senmut’s novels and short stories, but I remember that I was one of those who thought it would be a very interesting idea. For some Online Alpha members, Senmut’s novels and short stories were already well known, and had indeed been mentioned during the ExE discussions, but for others they were new. Since I joined this forum in September 2004, I believe I have heard references to the stories now and then, and I remember in particular TO TAKE THE RISK being mentioned and discussed around the release of the story in July 2013. I also had a look at the story myself around that time, along with the original FOREVER ALPHA story, and I recognised the high quality of the writing, but at the time I believe many of us were too engaged with other Online Alpha debates, so apart from some congratulations and a few appreciative comments on the high quality if his latest output, there was no real discussion or debate in a similar way to what we have seen in the ExE discussions. However, after the completion of the second ExE and in our search for a new structure that

might help scaffold more ongoing discussions, the collected works of Senmut suddenly seemed like an interesting choice. Indeed, as I now believe we are reaching the end of the discussions of TO TAKE THE RISK, which is the tenth and final of the Senmut sequence stories we have been discussing during these past 9-10 months, I think it seems reasonable to conclude with a small reflection. Of course, there is a slight risk in doing this, as Senmut has referred to earlier reflections of a similar kind as “panegyrics”, apparently not feeling too comfortable with having himself and his worked praised as though he was the emperor of fan fiction. I think this has also have pointed out by other discussants, saying that despite Senmut’s role in S99 fan fiction as one of the best and most influential within the genre, there are also others good and influential writers that should not be forgotten. I think this is an important point, but from my perspective the relevance of the FOREVER ALPHA discussions was concerned with the issue of exploring SPACE: 1999 through the lens of fan fiction, where the Senmut output was both a natural and fortunate choice for doing so, although we could alternatively have looked at the works of others. Perhaps sometime in the future we could repeat the exercise by looking at the complete works of some other influential S99 fanfic writer, but in our case we chose to look at the six novels and four short stories of Senmut, and I think that was a very good choice. At least from my perspective, the discussions have been deep and long. Lots of people have engaged in the debates, there have been diverse and interesting opinions, resulting in an output of about 100 messages per month. This is not as much as the 200 messages per month we had during the second ExE, but it shows that Online Alpha is health and alive in comparison to alarming situation from October 2013 to May 2014 when there was hardly any traffic at all.

544


To me this illustrates the relevance of Kerry’s “whither next” question, quoted above, and the importance of our response by suggesting and then using the structure of Senmut’s literary output as means of continuing the exploration of SPACE: 1999. Although I think the structure is of immense importance here, namely the way that Senmut has produced a significant body of work in terms of six novel and four short stories, I don’t think the discussion had been particularly successful if his work had not been of the outstanding quality that has been widely recognised by fan fiction reviewers and people on this forum. In other words, when reflecting on the importance of the quality of Senmut’s work for stimulating discussion and debate, there is a tricky balance between pointing out the quality of his works and producing “panegyrics”. But perhaps this is something than can be partly resolved when we look at Senmut’s explanation of how he decided on his penname. "SENMUT" was the name of an Ancient Egyptian, Senmut sa Ramose, whom I happen to admire. He was the Vizier, Chief Architect, daughter's tutor, and a bunch of other stuff, to the Pharaoh (Khnumt-Amun) Hatshepsut, 1508-1458 BC, of the 18th Dynasty. I picked it on a whim one day, as a pen-name for a story I wrote, for another FanFic list. Just kinda stuck. BTW, Balor, the original Senmut was by birth a commoner, and became part of the ruling class, so I guess he's in the classstruggle, somewhere? (message #29343).

As this was taken out of a particular context, namely the COLLISION COURSE discussion from the second ExE, I will not comment on the important class-struggle issue brought up in the final sentence, but perhaps the quote could be useful for preventing “panegyrics” in the sense of recognising the difference between Senmut as a chief architect of S99 fan fiction and the Pharaoh. Now, I don’t know who the Pharaoh of S99 fan fiction is, or if indeed any such person exists, but if Senmut allows us to think of him as the master architect who created the Pyramids and Sphinxes of S99 literature, then I think I am able to express my admiration for his work and the relevance I see in FOREVER ALPHA and the other stories as part of SPACE: 1999 culture. To me, the experiment of exploring SPACE: 1999 through the lens of fan fiction, using the works of Senmut, has been a highly successful experiment. It has been a joy to engage with the various texts, and it has been interesting to see the wide range of discussions and debates the texts have stimulated. I also hope there are many others who have enjoyed this experiment on the same level as I have, and I hope we can learn from this in our quest for new themes for scaffolding further successful Online Alpha discussions. John B. ***

References

545

References Abbott, J. (2006). Irwin Allen Television Productions, 1964-1970: A Critical History of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Lost in Space, The Time Tunnel and Land of the Giants. McFarland. Adams, R. (1972). Watership Down. London: Rex Collings Ltd. Adorno, T.W. (1967). Prisms: Studies in contemporary German thought. University of Michigan Press. Ariana (2001). SPACE: 1999 – Fiction Archive, http://www.space1999fiction.com/ Balor, J.K. (ed.) (2015). SPACE: 1999 – the 40th anniversary celebration, Lulu Press. Bannier, P. (1996). Quel regard après 1999? In : Fageolle, P. Cosmos 1999: L’épopée de la blancheur. Nouvelle edition revue et augmentée. Mas Blanes, Pézilla-la-Rivière: DLM Edition. (pp. 51-52). Bannier, P. (2009). Cosmos 1999, science fiction et introspection. https://scribium.com/pierrebannier/a/cosmos-1999-science-fiction-et-introspection/ Binmore, K. (2007). Game Theory: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press. Bondy, A. (director) (2015). Die Spur der Troika: Macht ohne Kontrolle, Television documentary film, Arpad Bondy Filmproduktion, Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg. Borden, C. (2015). Space 1999: Aliens are Jerks, http://teleport-city.com/2015/01/27/space-1999aliens-are-jerks/ Bould, M. & Miéville, C. (2009).Red planets: Marxism and science fiction. Pluto Press. Bourdieu, P. (1996). Sur la television. Paris: Liber-Raisons d’agir. Bowen, P. (1999). A Gallery to Play to: The Story of the Mersey Poets, Liverpool University Press. Braverman, H. (1974). Labour and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth centry. NYU Press. Bussiéres, M.-P. (2015). From classical Greece to science fiction: Heroic aesthetics and the popularity of Eagle pilot Alan Carter in SPACE: 1999, Journal of Popular Television, 3(1), 3-20. Butor, M. (1953). La crise de croissance de la Science-Fiction, Cahier du Sud, 37(317), 31-39. Butts, M. (2000). MainMission: 2000 – panel discussion with Catherine Schell, Space1999.org, http://www.space1999.org/features/articles_interviews/mm2000_catherineschell.html Carrazé, A. & Wybon, J. (2002). Bonus material, Cosmos 1999 - l’intégral de la série, DVD box set, TF1 video. Castaneda, C. (1968). The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaki Way of Knowledge. University of California Press. Caute, D. (1988). Sixty-Eight, the Year of the Barricades. Hamish Hamilton Ltd. Clark, M. & Cotter, B. (1980). An Interview with Fred Freiberger Part II. Starlog, No. 40, November 1980, 58-61. Cook, J.R. & Wright, P. (eds.) (2006). British science fiction television: a hitchhiker’s guide. IB Tauris. Crome, K. & Williams, J. (2006). The Lyotard Reader and Guide, Columbia University Press. Cuda (2008). Maya and the Pussycats in Outer Space! Cosmos 1999 Yahoo Group, message #9838, https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/cosmos1999/conversations/messages/9838 Cull, N.J. (2006). The man who made THUNDERBIRDS: An interview with Gerry Anderson, in: Crook, M. & Wright, P. (eds.): British science fiction television: a hitchhiker’s guide. IB Tauris. (pp. 116-130). Disch, T.M. (1998). The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of: How Science Fiction Conquered the World. New York: Touchstone. Drake, C. (1994). UFO – Space: 1999. London: ITC & Boxcar Publishing Elster, J. (1985). Making sense of Marx. Cambridge University Press. Fabian, J. & Byrne, J. (1969). Groupie. New English Library. Fageolle, P. (1993). Cosmos 1999: L’épopée de la blancheur. Mas Blanes, Pézilla-la-Rivière: ...Car rien n’a d’importance Edition. Fageolle, P. (1996). Cosmos 1999: L’épopée de la blancheur. Nouvelle edition revue et augmentée. Mas Blanes, Pézilla-la-Rivière: DLM Edition. Finger, L. (2009). Trekkies. In: Misiroglus, G. (Ed.) American countercultures: An encyclopedia of nonconformists, alternative lifestyles, and radical ideas in US history, Routledge (p. 719).

546

References

Fish, S.E. (2011). How to write a sentence. HarperCollins. Fisher, D.J. (2008). Bettelheim: Living and Dying, Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi B.V. Foucault, M. (1979). What is an author? Screen, 20(1), 13-34. Freedman, C. (2000). Critical theory and science fiction. Wesleyan University Press. Fuhse, J.A. (2003). Das Andere der Gesellschaft – Science Fiction als Kritische Theorie, Soziale Welt, 54(3), 223-240. Gerrold, D. (1973). The World of Star Trek, New York: Ballantine. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. John Wiley & Sons. Green, J. (1988). Days in the Life: Voices from the English Underground, 1961-1971. Pimlico. Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume One: Reason and the Rationalisation of Society. Oxford: Polity. Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume Two: The Critique of Functionalist Reason. Oxford: Polity. Haraway, D. (1991). A Cyborg Manifestor: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminis in the Late Twentieth Century, in: Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. (New York: Routledge), pp. 149-181. Hazareesingh, S. (2015). How the French Think: An Affectionate Portrait of and Intellectual People, Allen Lane/Penguin Press. Heald, T. (1976). The Making of Space: 1999. New York: Ballantine Books. Houston, D. (1976). Recovering from the Unknown Mysterious Force, Starlog, No. 2, November 1976, 32-35 Huffington, A. (2011). Third World America: How Our Politicians are Abandoning the Middle Class and Betraying the American Dream, New York: Collins. Iaccino, J.F. (1996). The World of Forever Knight: A Television Tribute to Anne Rice’s New Age Vampire, in: Hoppenstand & Browne (eds.) The Gothic World of Anne Rice, Bowling Green University Press. (pp. 231-246) Iaccino, J.F. (2001). A Content Analysis of ‘Space: 1999’'s Two Seasons, Studies in Popular Culture, 23(3), 65-80. Jenkins, H. (2008). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide, NYU Press. Kandinsky, W. (1912). Du Spirtuel dans l’art, et dans la peinture en particulier. Paris: Galeri René Drouin. Keazor, H. (2012). A stumble in the dark: contextualizing Gerry and Sylvia Anderson's Space: 1999, in: Geppert, A.C.T. (ed.) Imagining outer space: European astroculture in the twentieth century. Basingstroke: Palgrave MacMillan (pp. 189-207). Keazor, H. (2014). Foreword, in: Ogland, P. (ed.) SPACE: 1999 – Episode by episode, Lulu Press. (pp. ix-x) King, G., & Krzywinska, T. (2000). Science Fiction Cinema: From Outerspace to Cyberspace. Wallflower Press. Kott, J. (1964). Shakespeare, our contemporary. W. W. Norton & Company. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: Introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Liardet, D. (2014). Cosmos 1999: Le fabulaire de l’espace, Draguignan: Édition Yris. Mallett, T. & Pearce, G. (directors) (1991). Space: 1999 Alphacon – The Video. VHS documentary. Produced by Fanderson & Kindred Production. Mallett, T. & Pearce, G. (directors) (1996). The Space: 1999 Documentary. Television programme. Produced by Fanderson & Kindred Production. Marinaccio, D. (1994). All I really need to know I learned from watching Star Trek. New York: Crown Publishers. Marcuse, H. (1964). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advancedindustrial society. Beacon Press. McCorry, K. (1999). SPACE: 1999 - Exclusive interview with Fred Freiberger, http://www.kevinmccorrytv.ca/freiberger.html McGuire Roche, N. (2011). In Praise of Barbarella, https://nancyroche.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/inpraise-of-barbarella/

References

547

Misiroglus, G. (Ed.) (2009). American countercultures: An encyclopedia of nonconformists, alternative lifestyles, and radical ideas in US history, Routledge. Morgado, P. (2007). Caroline Munro as Maya? Cosmos 1999 Yahoo Discussion Group, Message #7810, https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/cosmos1999/conversations/messages/7810 Muir, J.K. (1997). Exploring Space: 1999 – An episode guide and complete history. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarlane Publishing. Muir, J.K. (2005). Sci-Fi TV’s Sexiest Female Alien – Maya! John Kenneth Muir’s Reflections on Cult Movies and Classic TV, Saturday, September 10, 2005, http://reflectionsonfilmandtelevision.blogspot.com/2005_09_04_archive.html?m=1 Muir, J.K. (2009). Interviewed in: Monument, A. (director). Nightmares in Red, White and Blue: The Evolution of the American Horror Film, documentary film, Lux Digital Pictures. Muir, J.K. (2011). From the Archive: Brian Johnson (February, 2001), https://johnkennethmuir.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/from-the-archive-brian-johnson-february2001/ Muir, J.K. (2014). John Kenneth Muir’s Retro-TV Files – An interview with script editor Johnny Byrne, http://www.johnkennethmuir.com/JohnKennethMuirsRetroTVFile_Space1999.html Nerlich, B. (2010). 'Climategate': paradoxical metaphors and political paralysis. Environmental Values, 19(4), 419-442. Nygaard, K. (1996). Those were the days - or - heroic times are here again? Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 8(2), 91-108. Nyiszli, M. (2011). Auschwitz: A Doctor’s Eyewitness Account. New York: Arcade Publishing Oberg, J. (1981). New Earths: Restructuring Earth and Other Planets, Stackpole Books. Ogland, P. (ed.) (2014). SPACE: 1999 – Episode by Episode. Lulu Press. Ogland, P. (2015). Foreword, in: Balor, J.K. (ed.) SPACE: 1999 – the 40th anniversary celebration, Lulu Press. (pp. ix-xii) Petit, C. (1999). Cosmos 1999: Voyage au bout de la nuit, Génération Séries, No. 30 (sept.-oct.-nov. 1999), 14-16. (http://generations-series.com/2014/06/cosmos-1999-voyage-au-bout-de-la-nuit/) Piketty, T. (2013). Capital in the 21st century, Harvard University Press. Republibot (2009). “The Series Killer” - Can we all please stop calling Fred Freiberger that now? Republibot.com, http://www.republibot.com/content/%E2%80%9C-series-killer%E2%80%9Dcan-we-all-please-stop-calling-fred-freiberger-now Riley, J. (2006). Interview with Jenny Fabian, Redeye, 1(1), http://residualnoise.blogspot.no/2013/04/an-interview-with-jenny-fabian.html Rius (1976). Marx for Beginners. Pantheon Books. Sagan, C. (1973). Cosmic Connections. Cambridge University Press. Sagan, C. (1980). Cosmos. New York: Random House. Sagan, C. (1995). Demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. Random House. Sagan, C. (2006). [Edit of the 1985 Gifford Lectures, University of Glasgow]. In: Druyan, A. (ed.) The Varieties of Scienfic Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God, New York: Penguin Press. Sawyer, R.J. (2008). A galaxy far far away – my ass!!! YouTube documentary in three episodes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3s2p05OAmU Scott, K. (2000). Main Mission Memories, Main Mission: 2000, New York, NY, September 1-3, 2000, http://moonbase99.space1999.net/mm2k.htm Sellers, R. (2006). Cult TV: The golden age of ITC, Plexus Publishing. Sneed, D. (2011). Science Fiction: A Very Short Introdution, Oxford University Press. Sokal, A. & Bricmont, J. (1997). Impostures Intellectuelles, Editions Odile Jacob. Sokol, P.T. (2012). The Powysverse Compendium. Los Angeles: Powys Books. Staring, K. (2011). Organizational Open Source in the Global South: Scaffolding implementation based on distributed development, PhD thesis, University of Oslo. Stockel, T. (2013). SPACE: 1999 – A Series Review, http://www.agonybooth.com/tv/Space_1999_Series_Review.aspx Suvin, D. (1979). Metamorphoses of science fiction: On the poetics and history of a literary genre. Yale University Press. Tubb, E.C. (1975). Breakaway. London: Orbit Books.

548

References

Tubb, E.C. (1977). Earthfall. London: Futura Publications. Tulloch, J. & Jenkins, H. (1995). Science Fiction Audiences: Watching Doctor Who and Star Trek. London: Routledge. Turdo, G. (2015). Destinazione Obbligata: Alpha – Guida non ufficiale a Spazio 1999, Topes Edizioni. Verat, E. (director) (1999). La Nuit Special Cosmos 1999. Série Club, 13 September 1999, M6/TF1. Wagner, P.M. (director) (1999). The Mythology of ‘Star Wars’. Documentary TV film. Films for the Humanities. Weisbord, A. (1961). Professor Bruno Bettelheim’s foreword to “Auschwitz”. La parola de Popolo. August/September 1961. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/weisbord/Professor.htm) Welle, D. (ed.) (2007). Space: 1999 – Episode by Episode, Commenary and Analysis by Online Alpha, http://metaforms.space1999.net/exe.htm Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wertham, F. (1954). Seduction of the Innocent. New York: Rinehart & Company. West, C. (2004). Homophile Fictions: Fan Writing, Science Fiction, and the Birth of Gay Communities in Post-war America. Left History, 9(2). 161-189. Wharton (2015). The Spy who we loved: The enduring appeal of James Bond, http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/the-spy-who-we-loved-the-enduring-appeal-of-jamesbond/ Willey, M. (2016). The Catacombs: Comprehensive guides to Space: 1999. http://catacombs.space1999.net/ Wood, R.E. (2010). Destination: Moonbase Alpha. Denbighshire, England: Telos Publishing. Wood, R.E. (2015). Destination: Moonbase Alpha. Revised and updated edtion. Denbighshire, England: Telos Publishing. Wybon, J. (2014). Les guerres des étoiles: 1975-1985 – L’invasion SF, Paris: Huginn & Muninn Editions.

Index

549

Index 1984 (film);448 2001: A Space Odyssey (film);13; 34; 38; 48; 50; 52; 59; 108; 130; 136; 164; 165; 202; 214; 229; 230; 238; 241; 251; 252; 288; 290; 317; 321; 322; 323; 325; 327; 328; 353; 354; 364; 365; 366; 367; 369; 380; 392; 394; 395; 398; 402; 403; 404; 407; 408; 410; 411; 412; 414; 419; 424; 425; 435; 436; 459; 463; 471; 475; 494; 496; 526 2010: The Year We Make Contact (film);411 A Cyborg Manifesto (essay);249 A Day in the Death of Joe Egg (film);490 A Gallery to Play to: The story of the Mersey Poets (book);373 Abraham;222 Abrams, Steve;403; 404; 488 Adams, Richard;121; 122; 142; 151; 169; 197; 525 Adolf Hitler: My Part in his Downfall (film);492 Adorno, Theodor W.;2; 25; 26; 27; 28; 30; 52; 53; 72; 74; 79; 229; 237; 238; 254; 284; 312; 326; 465; 484; 486; 489; 516 Aldiss, Brian;107 Alias Smith and Jones (television series);37 Alice in Wonderland (film);405; 406; 408; 409; 420; 423; 424; 425; 430; 431; 434; 435; 436; 437; 481 Alice in Wonderland (novel);405; 406; 409; 416; 421; 431; 432; 434; 435; 437 Alice ou la derniere fugue (film);408 Alice through the Looking Glass (novel);405; 408 Alicia, Ana;36; 42 Alien (film);39; 68; 127; 354; 370; 371; 447; 472; 496 Alien Attack (film);392; 416 Aliens (film);39 All I Really Need to Know I Learned from Watching Star Trek (book);222 All in the Family (television series);393 All Night Stand (novel);371; 403 AlphaCon (documentary film);209; 248; 330; 333 Alstrup, Ole;458; 460; 461 Althusser, Louis;74; 112; 113; 120; 151 American countercultures: An encyclopedia of nonconformists, alternative lifestyles, and radical ideas in US history (book);481 Anders, Charlie Jane;502 Anders, William;238 Andersen, H.C.;432 Anderson, Gerry;2; 14; 18; 25; 28; 29; 47; 48; 50; 51; 52; 55; 57; 58; 60; 61; 62; 63; 66; 68; 69; 70; 71; 72; 74; 75; 76; 77; 78; 81; 82; 83; 84; 102; 111; 114; 115; 116; 117; 118; 131; 132; 133; 136; 150; 155; 156; 158; 159; 165; 186; 187;

190; 191; 192; 193; 194; 195; 196; 198; 199; 200; 202; 204; 205; 206; 207; 208; 209; 212; 213; 216; 219; 221; 238; 240; 250; 253; 284; 286; 289; 292; 293; 294; 295; 300; 301; 302; 303; 304; 305; 306; 307; 308; 310; 312; 315; 317; 320; 321; 324; 327; 328; 329; 330; 332; 335; 344; 349; 365; 369; 370; 376; 379; 383; 384; 388; 390; 392; 393; 397; 398; 399; 400; 402; 408; 410; 413; 418; 419; 420; 421; 422; 423; 424; 440; 441; 449; 453; 457; 464; 467; 471; 474; 475; 476; 486; 488; 490; 493; 494; 497; 498; 499; 500; 501; 502; 503; 506; 507; 508; 514; 515; 525; 526; 531; 538; 539; 540; 542 Anderson, Sylvia;62; 81; 209; 306; 476; 502; 514 Andersson, Bibi;380 Anholt, Tony;218; 397; 402; 539; 540 Animal Farm (novel);49; 51; 96; 188 Antonioni, Michelangelo;321; 412 Aristotle;269; 271 As Good as It Gets (film);496 Asimov, Isaac;76; 78 Aulin, Ewa;416 Austin Powers: Man of International Mystery (film);90 Austin, Ray;78; 90; 195; 209; 286; 323; 405; 515; 539 Babylon 5 (television series);154 Back to the Future III (film);336; 341; 347 Bacon, Francis;177; 494 Bain, Barbara;47; 54; 64; 71; 114; 136; 191; 211; 218; 280; 286; 307; 321; 333; 335; 380; 381; 382; 383; 384; 389; 390; 392; 397; 402; 440; 446; 449; 453; 454; 457; 470; 472; 473; 502; 503; 538; 540 Ball, Brian;9; 305 Ball, Lucille;380; 381 Bannier, Pierre;354; 365; 390; 396; 455; 462; 465; 467; 472; 478; 480; 482; 484; 486; 491; 494; 498; 500 Banting, Frederick;275 Barbarella (comic strip);428; 429; 433; 460; 488; 505 Barbarella (film);50; 52; 65; 319; 338; 382; 390; 391; 394; 395; 396; 398; 399; 400; 401; 402; 403; 404; 405; 406; 407; 408; 409; 410; 411; 412; 413; 414; 415; 416; 417; 418; 420; 421; 422; 423; 424; 425; 428; 429; 431; 433; 434; 435; 436; 437; 451; 452; 453; 455; 458; 459; 462; 465; 467; 468; 472; 473; 481; 486; 487; 488; 490; 491; 497; 501; 505; 506; 514; 517 Barbarella XXX (film);488; 505 Barbera, Joe;303 Barney Miller (television series);213; 329; 333 Barnum, P.T.;262

550 Barrett, Majel;378 Barwick, Tony;80; 400 Bathory, Elisabeth;197; 203 Batman (comic books);17 Battle Beyond the Stars (film);496 Battlestar Galactica (television series);6; 9; 11; 12; 13; 14; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 38; 39; 40; 41; 42; 43; 44; 45; 46; 55; 73; 87; 88; 89; 92; 94; 95; 96; 109; 112; 114; 119; 120; 121; 123; 129; 135; 136; 146; 147; 148; 149; 156; 158; 163; 164; 165; 166; 167; 168; 178; 184; 213; 214; 226; 227; 230; 233; 235; 239; 240; 242; 244; 246; 248; 270; 272; 274; 279; 282; 329; 343; 355; 356; 357; 441; 447 Baltar's Escape;26; 27; 146; 148 Experiment in Terra;12; 13; 21; 23; 24; 28; 33 Fire in Space;29; 31 Greetings from Earth;12; 13; 23; 24 Lost Planet of the Gods;13 Saga of a Star World;13; 25; 119; 279 Take the Celestra;29; 31 The Gun on Ice Planet Zero;38 The Hand of God;22; 33; 35 The Living Legend;282 The Young Warriors;33 Beavis and Butt-Head (television series);421 Beck, Glenn;192 Beethoven, Ludwig van;237; 321 Bellak, George;499; 509 Beneath the Planet of the Apes (film);60 Benjamin, Walter;237 Bennett, Nigel;97 Beowulf (film);510 Beowulf (poem);464; 505; 510 Bergman, Ingmar;229; 321; 333; 380; 412 Bertolucci, Bernardo;465 Bettelheim, Bruno;29; 31; 32; 33; 39; 52; 100; 112; 114; 219; 221; 348; 349 Bettelheim: Living and Dying (book);348 Binmore, Kenneth;486 Birch, John;152 Blade Runner (film);364 Bloch, Ernst;74; 76; 78 Blood for Dracula (film);91; 93 Blue Light (television series);398 Blue Marble (photo);241; 242 Bocelli, Andrea;337 Bonanza (television series);205; 212; 333 Borden, Carol;246; 248; 249; 250 Borman, Frank;238 Bosco, Scott Michael;458; 461 Bould, Mark;40; 42; 43; 74; 326; 350; 431; 432; 486 Bourdieu, Pierre;413; 478; 479; 497; 522 Bowen, Phil;373; 488 Bowles, Peter;361; 425; 473 Bradbury, Ray;53; 158 Bradley, Truman;520; 521; 527; 528 Brando, Marlon;404; 417

Index Brass, Tinto;319; 465 Braun, Axel;488 Brave New World (novel);28; 30; 53; 234; 238; 312; 313 Braverman, Harry;299; 313; 469; 523 Breakaway (book);5 Brecht, Berthold;66; 532 Bricmont, Jean;501 British Science Fiction Television: A Hitchhiker's Guide (book);292 Bronowski, Jacob;176 Brook, Peter;495 Brooks, Bob;404; 405 Brooks, Mel;36; 249; 416; 496 Buber, Martin;253 Buck Rogers (comic strip);53; 421; 428; 429; 433 Buck Rogers (film serial);40; 51; 53; 412; 489 Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (television series);17; 33; 166; 214; 230; 233 Buckley, William F.;172; 229 Bugs Bunny (cartoon films);9; 47; 48; 49; 50; 51; 53; 54; 56; 58; 59; 64; 72; 73; 76; 77; 112; 114; 225; 235; 376; 377; 380; 382; 386; 398; 401; 441 Bunuel, Luis;412 Burroughs, William;202 Burrows, Emma ("Ariana");3; 9; 24; 85; 140; 189; 304; 355; 360; 387; 421 Bush, George W.;131; 238 Bussières, Marie-Pierre;2; 5; 158; 193; 209; 216; 253; 326; 334; 338; 342; 352; 413; 462; 484; 491 Butor, Michel;112; 114; 219; 348; 350; 370; 475; 477; 479; 484 Buxton, David;354 By the Light of the Silvery Moon (song);398 Byrne, Johnny;2; 37; 48; 50; 52; 55; 56; 57; 58; 59; 60; 66; 69; 70; 71; 72; 76; 77; 78; 79; 80; 82; 95; 96; 100; 101; 102; 103; 104; 105; 106; 107; 109; 110; 114; 115; 116; 117; 123; 132; 136; 137; 150; 151; 153; 156; 157; 158; 159; 160; 186; 193; 195; 196; 199; 204; 205; 206; 207; 208; 209; 210; 211; 212; 216; 218; 219; 222; 224; 225; 243; 250; 253; 269; 271; 272; 274; 275; 286; 299; 305; 306; 308; 310; 322; 324; 327; 343; 347; 356; 359; 360; 361; 362; 369; 370; 371; 372; 373; 374; 375; 382; 385; 386; 387; 393; 399; 401; 402; 403; 404; 407; 416; 417; 419; 420; 422; 423; 424; 430; 431; 432; 433; 435; 436; 440; 443; 449; 456; 459; 462; 464; 465; 468; 469; 470; 474; 476; 479; 481; 482; 486; 487; 488; 490; 492; 495; 497; 498; 502; 503; 505; 510; 513; 515; 516; 524; 525; 531; 539; 540 Byron, George Gordon (Lord);107 Campbell, Joseph;350 Camus, Albert;396 Candide (novel);416

Index Candy (film);416; 417; 420; 421; 422; 423; 424; 425; 433; 436; 437; 451; 459; 481; 488 Candy (novel);416; 459; 488 Capital in the 21st century (book);396 Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter (film);110 Captain Scarlet (television series);514 Carey, Mariah;337 Carmilla (novel);110; 197; 203 Carrazé, Alain;338; 396; 427; 498 Carroll, Lewis;408; 481 Carson, Johnny;316 Carter, Jimmy;11; 12; 21; 26; 27; 29; 31; 178; 230; 259; 260 Carter, Terry;33 Cash, Rosalind;292 Castaneda, Carlos;193; 195; 200; 202; 210; 303; 316; 390; 419 Castro, Fidel;251 Caute, David;350 Cervantes, Miguel de;413 Chabrol, Claude;408 Chesterton, G.K.;181; 251 Chomsky, Noam;18; 19; 492; 495 Churchill, Winston;181; 443; 445; 446 Civilisation (television series);176 Clark, Kenneth;176 Clark, Mike;292 Clarke, Arthur C.;76; 78; 251; 252; 322; 323; 354 Clinton, Bill;123; 124; 231; 254; 400 Clinton, Hillary;378; 400 Close Encounters of the Third Kind (film);38 Colicos, John;121 Coma (novel);270 Connelly, John;266 Convergence Culture (book);304 Copernicus, Nicolaus;177; 271 Corman, Roger;107 Cosmic Connections (book);252 Cosmic Princess (film);11; 13; 40; 118; 158; 246; 329; 389; 392; 394; 416; 417; 493 Cosmos 1999: L’épopée de la blancheur (book);4; 45; 50; 52; 189; 347; 350; 352; 427; 430; 479; 483 Cosmos 1999: Le fabulaire de l’espace (book);29; 32; 50; 52; 158; 219; 249; 458; 506 Cosmos 1999: Voyage au bout de la nuit (article);479 Cosmos: A Personal Voyage (television series);1; 69; 169; 170; 171; 172; 173; 175; 176; 178; 184; 186; 187; 238; 240; 250; 251; 252; 253; 255; 256; 258; 260; 269; 271; 273; 274; 275; 314; 316; 365; 387; 444; 527; 528 Harmony of the Worlds;173 Heaven and Hell;175 The Backbone of Night;171 Who Speaks for Earth?;253 Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey (television series);170; 171; 172; 173; 174; 175; 187; 188; 240; 250; 288 Cotter, Bill;292

551 Countess Dracula (film);110 Crichton, Charles;405; 406; 408; 409; 411; 416; 423; 431; 432; 434; 436; 464; 466; 481 Cries and Whispers (film);333 Critical Theory and Science Fiction (book);41; 57; 68; 120; 127; 343; 465; 526; 528 Crome, Keith;350 Cube (film);28; 30 Cull, Nicholas;292; 379; 390 Culp, Robert;398 Cult TV: The Golden Age of ITC (book);71 Cushing, Peter;99; 278; 279; 360; 425 Cushman, Mark;502; 503; 509 Daffy Duck (cartoon series);398; 401 Dalton, Timothy;4 Danger Mouse (television series);18 Darwin, Charles;239 Davis, Angela;304 Dawkins, Richard;178; 181; 538 Day in the life (book);403 de Beauvoir, Simone;502 de Pettitt, Lesley;191; 204 Death of a Salesman (play);401 deGroot, Gerard;371 del Rio, Eduardo ("Rius");240 Delany, Samuel;127 Delitsky, Mona;480 Derrida, Jacques;344; 350; 396 Descartes, René;494 Destination Moon (film);518; 519; 520 Destination: Moonbase Alpha (book);306 Destination: Moonbase Alpha (film);337 Destinazione obbligata: Alpha (book);498 di Lorenzo, Edward;69; 136; 209; 306; 343; 370 Dick, Philip;127 Dieudonné, Jean;498 Disch, Thomas;25; 26; 40; 55; 70 Doctor Who (television series);4; 57; 81; 112; 113; 136; 147; 164; 165; 166; 215; 220; 327; 440; 481; 482 The Monsters of Pelagon;164; 166 Domingo, Placido;337 Don Quixote (novel);413 Doppelganger (film);475; 476 Dotrice, Roy;473 Dr. Strangelove (film);238; 402; 416 Dracula - Prince of Darkness (film);93 Dracula (novel);90; 91; 92; 93; 94; 98; 99; 100; 110; 115; 151; 152; 293 Dracula A.D. 1972 (film);99 Dracula has risen from the Grave (film);93; 94; 98; 99 Drake, Chris;42; 72; 82; 209; 238; 287; 312; 326; 342; 352; 427; 452; 463; 471; 473; 474; 475; 476; 477; 490; 493; 494; 495 Driscoll, Julie;372 Druyan, Ann;171 Dullea, Keir;407; 409; 411; 425 Dutton, Kevin;446

552 Dylan, Bob;237 Earthfall (novel);3 Earthrise (photo);239; 241; 242 Ebert, Roger;228; 229; 230; 232; 405 Edmonds, Don;434; 453; 455; 464; 465; 466; 468; 469; 491 Einstein, Albert;175; 182; 239; 252; 345 Ekstein, Rudolf;348 Elkins, Charles;354 Elster, Jon;57 Emmanuelle (film);319 Empedocles;177 Empire, Aliens and Conquest (book);342 Engels, Friedrich;93; 94; 100; 109; 115; 151 Erikson, Erik H.;348 Erotic Adventures of Candy (film);417 Exploring Space: 1999 (book);483 Eye of the Storm (song);266 Fabian, Jenny;371; 372; 373; 403; 488 Fageolle, Pierre;2; 4; 5; 26; 27; 29; 30; 31; 32; 39; 40; 42; 43; 44; 45; 46; 49; 50; 51; 52; 53; 54; 55; 58; 61; 62; 64; 69; 70; 71; 72; 73; 74; 76; 77; 79; 85; 90; 92; 100; 112; 113; 114; 118; 124; 125; 126; 130; 131; 132; 137; 140; 150; 152; 157; 158; 159; 164; 169; 170; 179; 181; 183; 186; 189; 190; 191; 193; 194; 195; 196; 198; 200; 201; 205; 206; 209; 212; 216; 219; 221; 234; 235; 237; 240; 247; 248; 252; 253; 254; 281; 282; 284; 286; 287; 288; 295; 302; 312; 313; 325; 326; 330; 334; 338; 342; 343; 344; 345; 347; 348; 349; 350; 351; 352; 353; 354; 367; 370; 373; 384; 385; 386; 387; 388; 390; 391; 394; 395; 396; 401; 402; 408; 412; 413; 415; 418; 422; 423; 427; 428; 430; 431; 432; 435; 436; 451; 452; 454; 455; 458; 459; 462; 465; 467; 468; 469; 470; 472; 475; 476; 477; 478; 479; 480; 482; 483; 484; 486; 487; 488; 490; 491; 493; 494; 495; 497; 498; 499; 500; 504; 505; 506; 507; 514; 515; 516; 520; 522; 525; 529 Fahrenheit 451 (film);164; 165; 321; 323 Fahrenheit 451 (novel);53; 59; 137; 158; 234 Falwell, Jerry;230 Fanderson Documentary (film);1; 2; 72; 96; 101; 103; 104; 136; 137; 157; 158; 159; 187; 190; 191; 192; 193; 194; 195; 196; 198; 199; 201; 203; 204; 205; 206; 207; 208; 209; 210; 211; 212; 213; 214; 215; 217; 218; 243; 248; 253; 286; 292; 301; 305; 314; 315; 317; 379; 386; 397; 402; 423; 457; 525; 538 Faraday, Michael;177 Feely, Terence;41; 539 Fellini, Frederico;202; 321; 412 Fiddler on the Roof (musical);111; 483 Fifty Shades of Grey (novel);233 Finger, Laura;481 Finney, Jack;524; 526 Fish, Stanley Eugene;307; 323

Index Flash Gordon (comic strip);422; 428; 429; 433 Flash Gordon (film serials);17; 131; 229; 319; 412; 422; 489; 496 Fleming, Ian;123 Flesh for Frankenstein (film);91; 93 Flesh Gordon (film);319; 401; 481 Fonda, Jane;64; 319; 394; 399; 401; 403; 407; 409; 411; 415; 416; 425; 453; 488; 491; 505 Forbidden Planet (film);146; 149 Ford, Gerald;260 Forest, Jean-Claude;401; 421; 428; 429; 433; 436; 460; 488; 491; 505 Forever Knight (television series);6; 24; 32; 83; 87; 88; 89; 90; 92; 93; 94; 95; 96; 97; 98; 99; 100; 106; 110; 111; 112; 114; 119; 140; 178; 183; 184; 185; 197; 203; 204; 226; 227; 231; 235; 242; 248; 274; 282; 293; 310; 356; 357; 361; 441 The Spin Doctor;184 Foucault, Michel;74; 344; 350; 370; 371; 372; 396 Franco, Francisco;39; 181; 251 Franco, Jess;331; 413; 417; 462; 464; 465; 466; 468; 469; 491 Frankenstein (novel);28; 30; 91; 93; 107 Frankenstein Unbound (novel);107 Freedman, Carl;2; 41; 52; 56; 57; 66; 67; 68; 70; 72; 74; 76; 77; 78; 79; 90; 92; 106; 112; 113; 114; 120; 127; 152; 170; 179; 206; 210; 221; 247; 249; 254; 288; 312; 326; 343; 344; 345; 347; 348; 349; 350; 366; 405; 406; 409; 410; 428; 432; 465; 475; 484; 486; 491; 498; 526; 528; 532; 541 Freiberger, Fred;11; 18; 28; 29; 33; 40; 41; 47; 48; 49; 50; 51; 52; 53; 56; 57; 58; 59; 60; 61; 62; 63; 64; 67; 68; 69; 70; 71; 72; 74; 75; 76; 77; 78; 79; 81; 96; 101; 102; 103; 104; 107; 111; 112; 114; 115; 116; 117; 118; 130; 131; 137; 152; 153; 155; 156; 157; 158; 159; 162; 164; 165; 166; 176; 190; 191; 192; 193; 194; 195; 197; 198; 199; 200; 202; 203; 204; 205; 207; 208; 209; 210; 211; 212; 213; 215; 216; 218; 219; 224; 230; 233; 234; 237; 240; 250; 277; 281; 283; 284; 285; 286; 287; 290; 291; 292; 293; 294; 295; 300; 301; 302; 303; 304; 305; 306; 308; 314; 315; 316; 317; 318; 319; 320; 324; 328; 330; 331; 332; 333; 334; 335; 338; 344; 345; 354; 369; 377; 379; 380; 381; 382; 383; 388; 389; 390; 391; 392; 393; 394; 395; 397; 399; 400; 402; 407; 412; 413; 417; 418; 419; 420; 421; 422; 423; 424; 427; 428; 429; 430; 433; 434; 435; 436; 437; 439; 446; 448; 451; 452; 453; 454; 455; 456; 457; 458; 459; 464; 465; 466; 467; 468; 469; 470; 472; 473; 479; 481; 484; 486; 488; 489; 490; 491; 492; 493; 494; 497; 498; 499; 501; 502; 503; 506; 508; 509; 514; 515; 519; 524; 531; 532; 538; 539; 540; 541; 542 Frenzel, Ivo;498 Freud, Sigmund;111; 149; 239; 240 Fromm, Erich;68; 69; 348

Index Frontline (television series);314 Fuhse, Jan Arendt;2; 28; 30; 53; 67; 72; 79; 90; 92; 112; 113; 152; 206; 254; 312; 326; 350; 387; 484; 497; 498; 516 Futurama (television series);138; 421 Gaddafi, Muammar;368; 374 Galactica 1980 (television series);14; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 32; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 38; 41; 43; 45; 73; 156; 168; 343; 355 Space Croppers;36; 42 Spaceball;36; 41; 42; 43; 44; 45 The Day They Kidnapped Cleopatra;36; 42; 43 The Night the Cylons Landed;36; 41 The Return of Starbuck;22; 34; 35; 36; 42; 43 The Super Scouts;36; 37; 38 Galaxina (film);496 Galileo Galiei;177 Game of Cards (television series);250 Gameka and the Three Super Women (film);496 Gandhi, Mahatma;495 Garko, Gianni;473 Geeson, Judy;540 Gernreich, Rudi;87; 209 Gernsback, Hugo;368; 369; 521 Gerrold, David;302; 342 Get Christie Love! (television series);292; 293; 380 Gibson, Mel;314 Giddens, Anthony;94; 95; 117; 125; 287 Gilgamesh (book);17 Glassy, Mark C.;368 Gleason, Jackie;329 Glover, Julian;279 Godard, Jean-Luc;321; 412 Godzilla (film);519 Gone with the Wind (film);62; 192 Gorbachev, Mikhail;260 Gorky, Maxim;504; 505 Gosnell, Kermit;270 Goulding, Jay;158; 159; 290; 342; 354 Goulet, Robert;392; 398 Grade, Lew;56; 71; 74; 75; 76; 77; 78; 80; 107; 108; 111; 112; 114; 117; 153; 155; 156; 157; 159; 167; 192; 198; 199; 204; 207; 208; 212; 213; 214; 300; 301; 305; 306; 308; 314; 317; 321; 331; 334; 422; 423; 482; 493; 499 Gramsci, Antonio;151 Graves, Teresa;292; 293; 294; 295; 303; 304; 344; 354; 379; 380; 390; 437; 486 Gray, Barry;306 Green, Jonathon;403 Greene, Lorne;11; 12; 14; 167; 168 Gresh, Lois. H.;368 Groupie (novel);371; 372; 373; 403; 488 Guest, Val;466 Gulliver's Travels (novel);414 Gunsmoke (television series);165; 166; 205; 212; 213; 329; 333; 411 Gwendoline (film);401

553

Habermas, Jürgen;254; 343; 349; 391; 516 Halley, Edmund;174 Hamlet (play);67 Hancock, Prentice;63; 211; 247; 321; 353 Happy Days (television series);333 Haraway, Donna;249 Harrow, Lisa;540 Harry Potter (film series);367 Hawkins, Jim;315; 330 Hawkins, Spike;371; 373; 404 Hazareesingh, Sudhir;396 Heald, Tim;42; 47; 48; 56; 57; 58; 59; 60; 117; 130; 131; 158; 195; 202; 209; 215; 216; 234; 287; 303; 306; 314; 315; 317; 319; 328; 330; 331; 332; 380; 381; 404; 405; 409; 413; 420; 421; 422; 424; 432; 436; 468; 475; 488; 489; 490; 500; 501; 502 Heath, Edward;21 Hedges, Chris;18 Hefner, Hugh;16 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich;344 Heidegger, Martin;74 Heinlein, Robert A.;25; 26; 40; 55; 76; 78; 526 Henry IV (play);151 Herodotus;177 Herriot, James;72; 73 Hiss, Alger;34 Hitler, Adolf;32; 44; 348; 420; 421 Ho Chi Minh;251 Hobsbawm, Eric;105; 350; 354; 471; 475; 476 Hochkeppe, Willy;498 Hogan's Heroes (television series);329 Hooperman (television series);212; 213 Hopkins, Anthony;510 Horkheimer, Max;28; 30; 74; 465; 516 Horror of Dracula (film);90; 92; 93 Houghton, Don;100 Houston, David;67; 68; 150 How Should We Then Live (film series);170 How the French Think (book);396 How to write a sentence (book);307; 323 Hruschak, Ted;480 Huffington, Ariana;3 Huis clos (play);409 Hunter, Jeffrey;477 Huxley, Aldous;53; 152; 238; 312 Huygens, Christian;528 Iaccino, James;2; 4; 5; 17; 46; 48; 49; 51; 58; 72; 108; 111; 112; 114; 115; 116; 130; 158; 193; 197; 203; 204; 205; 212; 214; 219; 226; 287; 293; 316; 326; 330; 333; 334; 335; 338; 342; 345; 352; 365; 369; 379; 383; 385; 395; 413; 423; 462; 468; 481; 485; 488; 491; 497; 498; 499; 503; 505; 506 Ibsen, Henrik;151 Ilsa (film series);458; 459; 460; 462; 464; 465; 466; 467; 468; 469; 472; 473; 490; 491; 505; 506; 517

554 Ilsa, Harem Keeper of the Oil Sheiks (film);455; 456 Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS (film);420; 421; 422; 424; 433; 434; 435; 436; 437; 446; 449; 451; 452; 453; 454; 455; 457; 459; 464; 466; 468; 469; 472; 473; 486; 490; 501 Ilsa, The Tigress of Siberia (film);466; 469 Ilsa, The Wicked Warden (film);462; 464; 465; 466; 468 Impostures intellectuelles (book);501 Independence Day (film);26 Interstellar (film);179; 364; 365; 366; 367; 368; 369 Interview with the Vampire (novel);197; 203; 293 Invasion of the Body Snatchers (film);524; 525; 526 Invasion of the Body Snatchers (novel);524 Ireland, John;37 James, Donald;80 Jameson, Fredric;2; 25; 42; 43; 52; 67; 70; 74; 76; 77; 79; 152; 170; 254; 312; 326; 345; 349; 350; 366; 388; 484; 486; 491; 498; 516 Jefferson, Thomas;257 Jenkins, Henry;4; 5; 57; 85; 112; 113; 115; 130; 152; 158; 164; 165; 166; 190; 191; 192; 207; 215; 219; 221; 222; 243; 245; 247; 248; 249; 283; 287; 288; 290; 291; 299; 302; 304; 307; 311; 313; 316; 324; 327; 330; 342; 346; 351; 352; 354; 362; 363; 364; 367; 368; 369; 370; 372; 378; 385; 386; 387; 388; 406; 428; 461; 462; 480; 481; 482; 483; 489; 515; 516; 521; 525; 529 Jesus Christ Superstar (film);492 Jesus Christ Superstar (musical);374 Jesus of Nazareth;222; 253; 374; 492; 515 Johnson, Brian;67; 69 Johnson, Lyndon B.;372; 374 Johnson, Richard;360; 425 Jolie, Angelina;510 Jones, Freddie;360 Jones, Roger;371; 372; 373 Josie and the Pussycats (cartoon series);395; 421 Journey to the Far Side of the Sun (film);238; 475; 476 Kandinsky, Wassily;169; 348; 350; 484 Kant, Immanuel;57; 344 Kardashian, Kim;254 Katzin, Lee;306; 499 Kaufman, Philip;367; 524 Kausch, Meredith;147 Keazor, Henry;2; 4; 5; 21; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31; 44; 45; 49; 51; 53; 55; 69; 70; 71; 72; 73; 74; 76; 77; 79; 82; 85; 90; 92; 99; 100; 105; 108; 112; 113; 117; 122; 124; 125; 126; 130; 131; 136; 152; 158; 159; 166; 168; 170; 179; 190; 193; 198; 205; 206; 209; 212; 216; 219; 223; 230; 238; 247; 253; 254; 275; 287; 302; 312; 326; 327; 330; 334; 338; 342; 345; 348; 349; 350; 352; 353; 354; 365; 367; 373; 384; 385; 387;

Index 388; 400; 412; 413; 428; 430; 431; 452; 454; 462; 463; 468; 469; 471; 474; 475; 476; 479; 480; 482; 484; 486; 487; 489; 491; 494; 495; 496; 497; 498; 506; 516; 522; 523; 528 Kellett, Bob;502 Kelly, Scott;102 Kepler, Johannes;174; 494; 528 Kepley, Vance;130 Kesslan, Regina;373; 399; 404; 416; 488 Keyes, Thom;371; 372; 373; 399; 402; 403; 404; 416; 417; 422; 488 King Lear (film);495 King Lear (play);151 King, Geoff;525 King, Martin Luther;379; 495 King, Stephen;106 Kintner, Robert;130 Kissinger, Henry;502; 503 Klein, Naomi;19 Koenig, Walter;13 Kott, Jan;151; 495 Krauss, Lawrence;365; 366; 367; 368 Krüger, Christiane;540 Krzywinska, Tanya;525 Kubrick, Stanley;34; 106; 136; 202; 241; 251; 252; 317; 320; 321; 323; 328; 353; 354; 364; 365; 369; 394; 398; 402; 404; 407; 411; 412; 424; 471; 494 La Jetée (film);394; 425 La Nuit Special Cosmos 1999 (documentary film);333; 338; 377 La Pérouse, Jean-Francois;528 Labour and Monopoly Capitalism (book);313; 469 Lacan, Jacques;74; 112; 113; 348 Lady Gaga;336 Lafleur, Jean;468; 491 Landau, Juliette;218 Landau, Martin;47; 50; 52; 55; 57; 58; 60; 62; 64; 69; 70; 71; 72; 75; 76; 78; 111; 114; 115; 116; 136; 150; 158; 167; 168; 192; 194; 195; 205; 206; 208; 209; 212; 216; 218; 219; 225; 250; 253; 280; 286; 301; 305; 307; 314; 317; 321; 330; 377; 381; 389; 392; 394; 396; 397; 398; 401; 406; 419; 421; 423; 425; 440; 464; 472; 473; 482; 486; 488; 497; 498; 499; 502; 503; 507; 509; 515; 516; 538; 539; 540 Lang, Fritz;433 Lao Tzu;259 Laramie (television series);329 Larson, Glen A.;14; 22; 26; 27; 34; 35; 36; 37; 40; 41; 44; 123; 279 Last Tango in Paris (film);319 Latham, William;10; 185; 305; 360 Latour, Bruno;462; 498 Laverne & Shirley (television series);333 Le Fanu, Sheridan;110 Le Guin, Ursula;127 Lee, Christopher;90; 92; 93; 278; 279 Lem, Stanislaw;106; 127

Index LeMienne, Linda;427 Lemmon, Jack;541 Lenin, Vladimir;251 Lennon, John;202; 515 Les guerres des étoiles: 1975-1985 (book);496 Lewis, Jerry;167; 415 Liardet, Didier;2; 5; 26; 27; 29; 32; 44; 45; 50; 52; 58; 64; 65; 69; 70; 71; 72; 73; 74; 79; 85; 88; 89; 113; 131; 132; 158; 164; 191; 193; 196; 197; 200; 201; 202; 204; 205; 209; 210; 212; 216; 219; 230; 233; 235; 247; 249; 250; 253; 254; 281; 284; 288; 293; 295; 302; 303; 304; 312; 315; 318; 319; 326; 330; 334; 338; 342; 343; 344; 350; 352; 354; 360; 373; 374; 375; 382; 383; 384; 390; 391; 394; 395; 396; 398; 399; 400; 401; 402; 403; 404; 408; 410; 412; 413; 414; 415; 416; 417; 418; 422; 423; 424; 427; 428; 429; 431; 433; 434; 436; 437; 446; 448; 451; 453; 455; 458; 459; 462; 467; 468; 469; 473; 478; 481; 484; 486; 487; 488; 489; 490; 491; 494; 497; 498; 501; 505; 506; 507; 514; 517 Life Force (film);116 Lincoln, Abraham;542 Lindner, Christoph;4 Lloyd-Webber, Andrew;374 Lockwood, Gary;407; 411 Logan's Run (film);229; 230 Looking for Richard (film);473 Lost in Space (television series);212; 213; 214; 290; 291; 303; 306; 308; 383; 434 The Great Vegetable Rebellion;212 Lovell, James;238 Lucas, George;29; 31; 38; 39; 40; 44; 74; 131; 229; 233; 350 Lukács, George;344 Lust for a Vampire (film);110 Lynch, Richard;36 Lynn, Robert;466 Lyotard, Jean-Francois;350 M*A*S*H (television series);165; 166; 411 MacArthur's Park (song);398 Macbeth (film);495 MacDonald, Larry;152 Magee, Bryan;498 Making sense of Marx (book);57 Mallett, Tim;209; 219; 248; 330; 333 Mandela, Nelson;495 Mandell, Abe;76; 77; 103; 104; 190; 193; 292; 294; 369; 399; 474; 499; 538; 542 Manning, Peyton;336; 337 Mao Zedong;251 Marcuse, Herbert;25; 26; 27; 28; 30; 39; 52; 54; 56; 74; 94; 105; 151; 173; 198; 229; 237; 252; 253; 254; 269; 271; 275; 276; 284; 299; 304; 326; 348; 384; 385; 386; 387; 400; 430; 431; 432; 462; 465; 469; 498; 516; 522 Margrit, René;37 Marinaccio, Dave;222

555 Marquand, Christian;416; 417; 422 Marx, Karl;57; 90; 92; 93; 94; 99; 100; 104; 107; 109; 111; 115; 150; 151; 197; 208; 239; 261; 270; 301; 348; 533 McCarthy, Joseph;17; 18; 29; 31; 34; 285 McCloud (television series);33; 37 McConaughey, Matthew;367 McCorry, Kevin;56; 57; 58; 59; 60; 70; 114; 157; 192; 195; 198; 200; 204; 205; 300; 302; 303; 315; 316; 319; 330; 331; 393; 413; 419; 468; 481; 488; 489; 502; 503 McGoohan, Patrick;499 McGuire Roche, Nancy;400; 401; 410; 458; 481; 486 McKern, Leo;495 McVay, Charles;448 Medak, Peter;466; 469; 470; 490; 491; 492; 493 Meddings, Derek;84 Men of Ideas (television series);498 Mengele, Joseph;454; 457 Merton, Zienia;58; 70; 76; 78; 195; 209; 286; 394; 407; 502; 515; 531; 532; 534; 535; 538; 539; 541 Message from Moonbase Alpha (short film);310; 513; 530; 531 Metropolis (film);64; 65; 364; 433 Michelangelo;353 Miéville, China;40; 74; 326; 431; 432 Miles, Keith;539 Miller, Arthur;401 Millet, Jean-Francois;126 Misiroglus, Gina;481 Mission: Impossible (television series);333; 380; 472 The Legacy;472 Mohamed, Paul;491 Monroe, James;27 Moon Zero Two (film);389; 392 Moore, Thomas;312 Morgado, Paulo;382; 405; 413; 417; 462 Morrisey, Paul;91; 93 Morrison, Jim;202 Morse, Barry;2; 21; 45; 63; 64; 72; 105; 127; 167; 168; 184; 186; 207; 208; 209; 280; 299; 313; 321; 339; 353; 369; 371; 375; 442; 462; 463; 464; 470; 474; 476; 498; 504; 515; 516; 523; 528 Moses;222 Mother Teresa;16 Moyers, Bill;350 Mr. Magoo (cartoon films);47; 71; 158; 209; 225; 377; 421; 516 Muir, John Kenneth;4; 36; 39; 41; 42; 43; 44; 45; 67; 69; 74; 113; 114; 115; 130; 132; 138; 139; 150; 209; 214; 218; 219; 230; 305; 325; 342; 343; 345; 352; 353; 354; 362; 363; 374; 379; 383; 384; 385; 388; 389; 390; 394; 415; 427; 428; 430; 453; 468; 480; 483; 485; 488; 490; 493; 494; 499; 522; 523 Munro, Caroline;331; 382; 405

556 Murrow, Edward R.;17 Mussolini, Benito;27; 28; 30; 32; 39; 44; 283; 468 Mutiny on the Bounty (film);29; 31; 33 Mystery Science Theatre 3000 (television series);118; 329; 394 Nader, Ralph;401 Negatives (film);490 Neiman, Irving;464 Nerlich, Birgitte;275 New Earths (book);533; 535 Newton, Isaac;174; 177; 345 Nichols, Nichelle;379 Nicholson, Jack;496 Nightline (television series);228 Nimoy, Leonard;503; 542 Nineteen Eighty-Four (novel);28; 30; 53; 151; 152; 234; 241 Niven, David;293 Niven, Larry;25; 40; 55 Nixon, Richard;372; 374 No Exit (play);409 Nolan, Christopher;364; 365; 367 Nygaard, Kristen;5 Nyiszli, Miklos;348 O’Brien, Daniel;491 O’Toole, Peter;492 Obama, Barack;342; 378; 400 Oberg, James;533; 534; 535 Oedipus Rex (play);386 Ogland, Petter;4; 5; 8; 18; 22; 29; 30; 53; 68; 127; 189; 194; 198; 217; 278; 322; 326; 329; 333; 352; 389; 401; 404; 414; 420; 421; 437; 461; 468; 479; 489; 490 Olympia (film);422; 436 On Her Majesty's Secret Service (film);40 On the Beach (film);519 On Trail of the Troika (television film);1 One-Dimensional Man (book);275; 498; 522 Orwell, George;96; 241 Osco, William;405; 408; 429; 431; 432; 434; 481 Pacino, Al;473 Pale Blue Dot (photo);241; 242 Palin, Michael;351 Pallotta, Dan;480 Parsons, Alibe;62; 531; 534; 535; 538; 539; 542 Pasolini, Pier Paulo;319; 412; 465 Pasteur, Louis;177; 275 Pastiche, Louie;246 Patten, Brian;373; 404 Patton, George S.;244 Pearce, Glenn;209; 219; 248; 330; 333 Penfold, Christopher;1; 2; 10; 69; 70; 72; 116; 136; 160; 195; 204; 205; 207; 208; 209; 212; 222; 224; 225; 306; 308; 322; 343; 347; 370; 385; 422; 423; 425; 440; 443; 445; 449; 451; 456; 464; 465; 466; 479; 492; 495; 498; 502; 513; 519; 525; 527; 537; 538; 539; 540

Index Peter Gunn (television series);32 Petit, Christophe;334; 338; 343; 354; 390; 396; 427; 479; 486; 491; 498; 499 Piketty, Thomas;396 Planet of the Apes (film);394; 402; 425; 496; 533; 534 Plath, Sylvia;128 Plato;27; 171; 269; 271 Play of the Month (television series);316 Pol Pot;251 Polanski, Roman;495 Pope Francis;91; 93; 96 Pournelle, Jerry;40; 55 Poussin, Nicolas;350 Pravda (newspaper);527 Prete, Giancarlo;444 Prisms (book);238; 312 Prowse, David;278; 279 Puzo, Mario;40; 73 Pythagoras;171; 177 Quartermas (film series);116 Raise the Titanic (film);56; 108; 111; 112 Rand, Ayn;433 Rankine, John;9; 305; 510 Raport, Roger;350 Rational analysis for a problematic world (book);528 Reagan, Ronald;21; 29; 31; 33; 40; 100; 101; 166; 178; 230; 237; 259; 260; 269; 272 Red Planets: Marxism and Science Fiction (book);40; 431; 432 Reeves, Christopher;18 Reeves, George;60 Rembrandt van Rijn;37; 353 Remembering Battlestar Galactica (documentary film);45 Renoir, Auguste;37 Resurrection (novel);360 Return to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (film);362; 363 Rice, Anne;197; 203; 293 Rice, Tim;374 Richard II (play);151 Richard III (play);473 Rickover, Hyman;260; 276; 277 Right Wing Radio Duck (short film);192; 224 Riley, James;371 Rising Star (television series);149 Ritter, John;212; 213 Roddenberry, Gene;82; 130; 131; 159; 167; 178; 191; 192; 193; 194; 221; 222; 243; 302; 313; 317; 332; 342; 354; 370; 397; 406; 422; 448; 457; 477; 489; 501; 522; 542 Romero, George A.;115 Ronder, Jack;416 Rook, David;404 Rooney, Mickey;415 Roosevelt, Franklin D.;44

Index Rosenberg, Julius & Ethel;34 Rosenhead, Jonathan;528 Ross, Katherine;392 Rucki, Thomas;396; 427 Russ, Joanna;127 Saddam Hussein;368; 374 Sagan, Carl;1; 69; 169; 170; 171; 172; 173; 174; 175; 176; 177; 178; 181; 182; 184; 185; 186; 187; 188; 238; 239; 240; 249; 251; 252; 253; 254; 255; 256; 257; 258; 269; 270; 271; 273; 275; 276; 277; 288; 316; 387; 418; 444; 521; 527; 528 Salk, Jonas;275 Sanders, Bernie;19; 369; 378; 436; 462; 487; 495; 516; 522; 523; 529; 535 Sarnoff, David;130 Sartre, Jean-Paul;396; 409 Saturday Night Live (television series);216 Saturn 3 (film);496 Sawyer, Robert J.;38; 40 Scars of Dracula (film);98 Scenes from a Marriage (film);333 Schaeffer, Francis A.;170 Schaeffer, Frank;170; 178 Schell, Catherine;59; 64; 65; 66; 71; 75; 111; 127; 138; 139; 150; 187; 190; 191; 218; 277; 280; 292; 293; 294; 295; 304; 344; 354; 379; 383; 384; 385; 388; 389; 390; 392; 394; 397; 402; 407; 416; 417; 425; 446; 449; 453; 454; 457; 472; 486; 532; 538; 539; 540; 542 Schumann, Harald;1 Schweizer, Albert;253 Science Fiction : A Very Short Introduction (book);49; 50 Science Fiction Audiences: Watching Doctor Who and Star Trek (book);57; 130; 152; 166; 215; 245; 287; 290; 362; 483 Science Fiction Theatre (television series);518; 519; 520; 521; 522; 523; 524; 525; 526; 527; 528; 529 Beyond;521; 524 Out of Nowhere;526 Stranger in the Desert;529 The Other Side of the Moon;518; 519; 520; 521 Time is Just a Place;524; 526 Y.O.R.D;527 Scooby-Doo (television series);334; 421 Scott Card, Orson;25 Scott, Ridley;354; 472 Sealab 2020 (television series);519 Seduction of the innocent (book);234; 467 Seller, Robert;71 Severinson, Carl Hiding "Doc";329; 330 Shakespeare, William;151; 158; 243; 287; 303; 315; 318; 328; 330; 425; 470; 473; 495; 519 Shane (film);23 Shatner, William;129; 130; 131; 132; 216; 477; 503 Shaw, George Bernard;151 Shelley, Mary;107

557 Shelley, Percy;107 Shrapnel, John;425; 495 Siegel, Don;525 Silent Running (film);38; 229; 230 Simon, John;228; 229; 230; 231; 232; 233; 234 Siskel, Gene;228; 229; 230; 232 Sixty-Eight, the Year of the Barricades (book);350 Sneed, David;49; 50; 51; 61 Snowpiercer (film);65; 66; 69 Sobchack, Vivian;49; 51 Socrates;258 Sokal, Alan;501 Solaris (film);13; 59; 106; 136; 164; 165; 288; 321; 323; 325; 353; 354 Soter, Steven;171 Soul, David;483 Southern, Terry;401; 416; 417; 459; 488; 491 Space: 1999 (television series) A Matter of Balance;58; 59; 75; 103; 104; 142; 382 AB Chrysalis;538 All that Glisters;195; 218; 277; 281; 285; 323; 405; 539; 542 Alpha Child;2; 20; 21; 36; 101; 103; 160; 183; 279 Another Time, Another Place;10; 123; 160; 185; 275; 312; 399; 404; 511; 530 Black Sun;63; 108; 114; 116; 117; 133; 134; 170; 171; 182; 205; 208; 225; 231; 239; 241; 242; 244; 247; 252; 255; 300; 321; 365; 408; 409; 443; 444; 474; 478; 479; 483; 517 Breakaway;12; 24; 62; 63; 87; 92; 97; 98; 103; 104; 105; 106; 107; 110; 112; 113; 114; 116; 119; 125; 129; 133; 135; 143; 147; 150; 153; 160; 167; 198; 200; 205; 239; 241; 242; 247; 258; 263; 264; 265; 270; 272; 291; 310; 321; 339; 368; 408; 409; 410; 434; 443; 446; 450; 474; 476; 483; 518; 519; 520; 538; 541 Brian the Brain;26; 89; 91; 211; 309; 311; 312; 322; 346; 376; 386; 414; 415; 416; 417; 418; 422; 425; 426; 427; 428 Catacombs of the Moon;205; 225; 379 Collision Course;160; 173; 242; 323; 444; 527; 539; 544 Death's Other Dominion;160; 162; 163; 166; 181; 251; 255; 259; 268; 273; 276; 299; 312; 361; 374; 400; 425; 431; 432; 442; 457; 495 Devil's Planet;507 Dorzak;31; 64; 65; 66; 75; 127; 268; 279; 296; 298; 334; 338; 448; 451; 452; 465; 539 Dragon's Domain;10; 47; 98; 119; 191; 192; 240; 243; 255; 257; 270; 272; 347; 357; 367; 439; 440; 441; 442; 443; 445; 446; 447; 448; 450; 451; 453; 454; 455; 456; 457; 458; 459; 460; 461; 462; 463; 464; 466; 467; 471; 472; 475; 476; 478; 479; 487; 490; 499; 500; 504; 505; 507; 510; 524; 534 Earthbound;98; 103; 104; 108; 109; 110; 148; 160; 162; 163; 240; 241; 242; 243; 244; 247;

558 254; 291; 306; 321; 383; 434; 442; 464; 470; 527 End of Eternity;20; 21; 47; 96; 98; 101; 119; 123; 161; 166; 185; 224; 243; 269; 272; 274; 357; 359; 360; 361; 362; 363; 364; 365; 366; 367; 370; 371; 372; 373; 374; 375; 450; 452; 496; 505 Force of Life;55; 68; 91; 93; 98; 100; 116; 162; 323; 361; 370; 371; 373; 431; 432 Full Circle;98; 211; 240; 450; 452; 464 Guardian of Piri;55; 123; 127; 140; 142; 143; 145; 146; 149; 150; 151; 152; 153; 160; 161; 173; 193; 237; 243; 254; 269; 272; 312; 313; 360; 388; 400; 532; 540 Journey to Where;58; 185; 220; 276; 334; 338; 383; 506; 538 Matter of Life and Death;9; 63; 64; 114; 115; 117; 132; 134; 150; 184; 208; 241; 242; 247; 253; 312; 321; 347; 353; 367; 374; 380; 408; 425; 450; 451; 464; 474; 476; 483; 511 Missing Link;211; 240; 247; 273 Mission of the Darians;2; 19; 32; 106; 123; 161; 162; 166; 240; 243; 244; 255; 269; 271; 278; 299; 347; 371; 431; 432; 433 New Adam New Eve;64; 139; 211; 252; 258; 260; 334; 338; 444 One Moment of Humanity;133; 278; 400; 401 Ring around the Moon;63; 64; 241; 242; 247; 279; 321; 323; 347; 353; 380; 402; 425; 483 Seed of Destruction;54; 139; 161; 162; 254 Space Brain;240; 374; 479; 527; 537 Space Warp;91; 205; 211; 281; 285; 286; 424; 439; 444; 445; 446; 447; 448; 449; 451; 452; 453; 454; 455; 456; 457; 458; 459; 461; 462; 464; 465; 466; 467; 468; 469; 470; 472; 473; 487; 489; 490; 491; 492; 493; 494; 495; 496; 497; 499; 500; 501; 504; 505; 534 The AB Chrysalis;54; 101; 211; 277; 281; 285; 383 The Beta Cloud;57; 60; 133; 139; 205; 281; 285; 286; 424; 446; 448; 449; 451; 505; 515; 539 The Bringers of Wonder;41; 42; 161; 334; 336; 337; 338; 382; 538; 539 The Devil's Planet;334; 338 The Dorcons;20; 27; 65; 66; 119; 134; 144; 183; 266; 307; 452; 539 The Exiles;54; 65; 268; 296; 297 The Full Circle;407; 422; 425 The Immunity Syndrome;334; 338; 404; 494 The Infernal Machine;20; 21; 323; 376; 385; 386; 387; 388; 398; 400; 402; 403; 414; 417; 418; 425; 426; 428; 442; 511 The Lambda Factor;103; 104; 162; 381 The Last Enemy;9; 20; 21; 55; 96; 101; 222; 224; 269; 272; 374; 404; 502; 511 The Last Sunset;2; 9; 47; 119; 252; 357; 464; 510; 511; 512; 519; 520; 525; 526; 527; 529; 530; 531; 532; 533; 534; 535; 536; 537; 538; 540; 541 The Mark of Archanon;58; 285; 287; 289; 506

Index The Metamorph;2; 19; 20; 21; 106; 127; 128; 131; 135; 139; 161; 166; 183; 198; 200; 218; 220; 223; 268; 269; 271; 273; 298; 299; 329; 334; 338; 409; 410; 419; 433; 452; 465; 493; 497; 506; 530; 532 The Rules of Luton;29; 30; 64; 67; 68; 98; 162; 204; 208; 277; 280; 281; 282; 283; 285; 286; 334; 338; 420; 421; 422; 424; 433; 435; 436; 437; 446; 448; 451; 452; 453; 455; 456; 457; 459; 462; 467; 469; 489; 494; 505; 519; 539; 542 The Seance Spectre;54; 103; 104; 162; 492; 493 The Taybor;47; 58; 128; 131; 132; 144; 371; 373; 376; 386; 398; 399; 400; 401; 402; 403; 404; 405; 406; 407; 408; 409; 411; 412; 414; 422; 425; 506 The Testament of Arkadia;13; 19; 33; 68; 108; 116; 117; 133; 150; 161; 184; 185; 255; 275; 307; 530 The Troubled Spirit;185; 208; 227; 268; 444; 542 Voyager's Return;95; 101; 102; 104; 268; 404; 439 War Games;1; 20; 57; 60; 117; 134; 144; 150; 208; 367; 464; 479; 496; 527; 536; 537 Spaceballs (film);36; 249; 416; 496; 515 Spiderman (comic books);17 Spillane, Mickey;236; 237 Spinoza, Baruch;175; 239; 252 Spock, Benjamin;75; 76; 77 St. Paul;222; 253 Stalin, Joseph;251; 443; 445; 468; 469 Stalker (film);364 Star Maidens (television series);327; 540 Star Trek (film series);247 Star Trek (television series);4; 13; 15; 26; 35; 37; 39; 47; 48; 51; 53; 54; 56; 57; 59; 68; 81; 90; 97; 107; 108; 111; 112; 113; 117; 129; 130; 131; 132; 136; 138; 147; 152; 154; 156; 158; 159; 164; 165; 166; 167; 178; 190; 192; 193; 194; 199; 205; 212; 213; 214; 216; 221; 222; 227; 230; 234; 243; 245; 247; 248; 249; 270; 272; 275; 283; 286; 287; 289; 290; 293; 302; 303; 306; 307; 313; 315; 316; 317; 321; 327; 330; 332; 342; 347; 353; 354; 355; 363; 364; 367; 368; 369; 370; 378; 379; 385; 386; 391; 392; 394; 395; 406; 419; 420; 421; 422; 425; 428; 435; 440; 462; 464; 470; 476; 477; 480; 481; 482; 483; 485; 488; 489; 493; 494; 496; 499; 500; 501; 502; 507; 508; 511; 512; 513; 514; 521; 522; 523; 524; 540; 542 A Private Little War;243; 363; 369 Arena;286; 494 Devil in the Dark;363 The Cage;378; 477 The Immunity Syndrome;494 The Trouble with Tribbles;425 Tomorrow is Yesterday;35 Where No Man Has Gone Before;477 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn (film);152

Index Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (film);35 Star Trek: Deep Space 9 (television series);140; 329; 355 Star Trek: The Animated Series (television series);48; 59; 306; 316; 324; 334; 419; 481; 489; 499; 524 Star Trek: The Motion Picture (film);246; 247 Star Trek: The Next Generation (television series);4; 35; 39; 213; 305; 353; 354; 379; 383; 406; 428; 522; 523 Star Wars (film series);12; 38; 40; 129; 130; 131; 132; 147; 230; 233; 234; 236; 237; 238; 317; 327; 350; 353; 366; 378; 416; 435; 482 Star Wars (film);11; 12; 26; 29; 31; 35; 37; 38; 39; 40; 41; 44; 76; 78; 81; 95; 102; 103; 117; 129; 130; 131; 154; 166; 227; 228; 229; 230; 231; 232; 233; 234; 235; 237; 243; 244; 249; 279; 496 Star Wars: The Force Awakens (film);227; 235; 236; 237; 238 Starburst (magazine);191 Starcrash (film);496 Staring, Knut;1 Starlog (magazine);63; 66; 67; 68; 150; 190; 205; 292; 294; 302; 377; 410; 419; 480; 538 Starship Troopers (film);11; 12; 26 StarTalk (television series);178 Stingray (television series);136; 399; 400; 514 Stockel, Thomas;289; 290; 291; 293; 301; 303; 306; 307; 313; 485; 486; 487; 488; 489; 494; 500; 514; 516; 517; 518 Stoker, Bram;90; 92 Stone, Joss;337 Supercar (television series);295 Supergirl (television series);75; 76; 77 Superman (comic books);16; 17; 41; 43; 57; 60; 158; 234; 283; 422; 428; 429; 433; 453; 524 Superman (film serials);40; 60 Superman (film);40 Superman IV (film);514 Suvin, Darko;2; 25; 42; 43; 66; 67; 70; 72; 74; 152; 170; 312; 326; 345; 349; 350; 366; 388; 405; 406; 409; 410; 484; 486; 491; 498 Swift, Jonathan;414 Take Me High (film);492 Takei, George;178 Tarkovsky, Andrej;106; 323; 353 Taste the Blood of Dracula (film);98; 99 Tate, Nick;16; 50; 52; 55; 57; 58; 60; 70; 76; 77; 78; 117; 158; 195; 200; 205; 209; 212; 218; 280; 286; 291; 306; 317; 330; 388; 394; 423; 436; 440; 449; 464; 486; 488; 497; 503; 515; 531 Taxi (television series);333 Tender Mercies (film);228; 232 Terminator 2: Judgement Day (film);14; 34 Terpiloff, Anthony;69; 110; 385; 513; 539 That Man Bolt (film);294; 303 Thatcher, Margaret;33; 40; 100; 101; 128; 166; 443; 445; 446

559 The Adoration of the Lamb (painting);126 The Adventures of Pinocchio (film);406 The Andromeda Strain (film);38; 136 The Angelus (painting);126 The Ascent of Man (television series);176 The Autumn Sonata (film);333 The Avengers: The Age of Ultron (film);426 The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (film);519 The Biological Soul (story);393; 419 The Biology of Science Fiction Cinema (book);369 The Brain Eaters (film);526 The Brides of Dracula (film);93 The Cassandra Crossing (film);56; 108; 111 The China Syndrome (film);520; 541 The Computers of Star Trek (book);368 The Consequences of Modernity (book);287 The Cosmetics Revolution (film);531; 532; 534; 535; 539; 541 The Cultural Gutter (journal);250 The Day after Tomorrow (television series);117; 306; 308; 310 Into Infinity;306 The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark (book);170 The Dreams our Stuff is made of (book);25; 40; 70 The Emperor's New Clothes (story);432 The Empire Strikes Back (film);38; 228; 279 The Exorcist (film);100 The Flintstones (television series);329 The Godfather (novel);73 The Gothic World of Anne Rice (book);203 The Historical Novel (book);344 The Honeymooners (television series);329 The Hunger Games (film series);367 The Invaders (television series);81; 82; 476 The Jeffersons (television series);333; 393 The Jerry Lewis Show (television series);167 The Kiss of the Vampire (film);93 The Legend of the Lone Ranger (film);308 The Legend of the Seven Vampires (film);100 The Little House on the Prairie (television series);42 The Lord of the Rings (book);63; 102; 103; 405; 408 The Lyotard Reader and Guide (book);350 The Making of Space: 1999 (book);42; 158; 314; 328; 413; 436 The Man from Uncle (television series);392 The Martian (novel);135 The Matrix (film);28; 30 The Mother (novel);504; 505 The Odyssey (epic poem);86 The Offshore Island (television drama);519; 527 The Omen (film);100 The Outer Limits (television series);331 Fun and Games;286 The Paper Chase (television series);329 The Passion of the Christ (film);314 The Physics of Star Trek (book);368 The Prisoner (television series);499

560 The Protectors (television series);75; 474 The Puppet Masters (film);526 The Return of the Pink Panther (film);40; 111; 294 The Right Stuff (film);367 The Ruling Class (film);469; 470; 490; 492; 493 The Satanic Rites of Dracula (film);99; 100 The Season of the Witch (play);372; 375 The Shape of Things to Come (film);496 The Shining (novel);106 The Simpsons (television series);146 The Six Million Dollar Man (television series);392; 395; 501; 539 The Sixties Unplugged (book);371 The Starlost (television series);38; 41; 44; 108; 279; 327 The Teachings of Don Juan (book);202; 303; 316; 390; 419 The Tempest (play);519 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (film);362; 363 The Thing from another World (film);527 The Time Machine (novel);63 The Towering Inferno (film);29; 31 The Twilight Zone (television series);331 The Vampire Lovers (film);110 The Walking Dead (television series);114 The World of Star Trek (book);342 The X Files (television series);331 Thinnes, Roy;476 Third World America: How Our Politicians are Abandoning the Middle Class and Betraying the American Dream (book);3 Thorne, Dyanne;464; 466; 473 Thorne, Rip;365; 368 Three’s Company (television series);212; 333 Thunderbirds (television series);83; 84; 117; 136; 399; 400; 514 THX1138 (film);38 Tillich, Paul;253 Tolkien, J.R.R.;405 Tolstoy, Leo;151; 236; 237; 238 Tomblin, David;80; 100; 323 Trimble, Bjo;302; 481 Triumph des Willens (film);422; 436 Trotsky, Leon;33; 39 Truffaut, Francois;158; 412 Trump, Donald;235; 367; 420; 421; 422; 436 Tubb, E.C.;3; 5; 9; 106; 107; 151; 279; 305; 347; 510 Tulloch, John;4; 5; 57; 85; 112; 113; 115; 120; 124; 130; 152; 158; 164; 165; 166; 207; 215; 216; 219; 243; 245; 247; 248; 249; 287; 288; 290; 291; 299; 307; 313; 316; 342; 351; 352; 354; 362; 363; 368; 369; 370; 372; 378; 385; 386; 388; 406; 428; 461; 480; 481; 482; 483; 489; 515; 516; 521; 525; 529 Turdo, Giuseppe;113; 209; 253; 342; 361; 374; 414; 415; 453; 490; 493; 494; 495; 498; 499; 500; 505 Twins of Evil (film);110 Twizzle (television series);295

Index Tyson, Neil deGrasse;170; 171; 172; 174; 175; 177; 178; 179; 180; 181; 183; 184; 186; 187; 188; 189; 190; 239; 240; 250; 252; 365; 368; 369; 521 UFO (television series);47; 75; 78; 80; 81; 82; 83; 84; 117; 217; 238; 306; 312; 392; 463; 474; 475; 476; 477 Ullmann, Liv;380 Utopia (book);312 Vadim, Roger;319; 338; 398; 399; 400; 404; 405; 407; 411; 412; 416; 417; 424; 488; 491 Vampira (film);293; 294 Vampire Circus (film);110 van Eyk, Jan;126 van Gogh, Vincent;37 Vérat, Eric;333; 338; 377; 396; 427; 497; 498; 502; 503 Verne, Jules;63 Voltaire;416 von Braun, Wernher;528 von Harbou, Thea;433 Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (television series);329; 330 Voyage to the Moon (novel);63 Wadsworth, Derek;306 Wagon Trail (television series);130 Wallace, Art;464; 509 War of the Worlds (novel);528 Warhol, Andy;37; 329 Watership Down (novel);121; 122; 151; 169; 197; 525 Wayne, John;447; 455; 456 Weaver, Dennis;33 Weaver, Pat;130 Weaver, Sigourney;71; 370; 472 Weinberg, Robert;368 Weir, David;313 Weisbord, Albert;348 Weiss, John;32 Welk, Lawrence;329; 330 Wells, H.G.;63; 528 Wenger, Etienne;462 Wertham, Fredric;2; 16; 17; 26; 27; 38; 39; 40; 41; 43; 52; 54; 56; 57; 60; 68; 71; 72; 74; 75; 76; 77; 78; 103; 104; 117; 127; 131; 158; 164; 195; 234; 280; 281; 282; 284; 288; 290; 291; 326; 416; 420; 421; 422; 428; 429; 433; 451; 452; 453; 467; 489; 524 West, Christopher;5; 197; 200; 201; 203; 204; 209; 284; 294; 326; 342; 352; 385; 389; 390; 435; 437; 486; 491 Westworld (film);38 When the Moon Comes Over the Mountain (song);398 Wife Swap (television series);217 Willey, Martin;29; 30; 68; 127; 157; 280; 282; 283; 285; 326; 416; 420; 421; 427; 433; 436; 447;

Index 451; 452; 453; 455; 457; 459; 464; 467; 468; 489; 514; 519 Williams, James;350 Williamson, Fred;303 Wilson, Keith;69; 191; 204; 209; 286; 397; 402; 502 Winstone, Ray;510 Wood, Robert E.;2; 16; 48; 72; 74; 78; 79; 82; 95; 96; 127; 130; 157; 209; 218; 253; 287; 306; 313; 326; 339; 347; 352; 361; 369; 370; 386; 397; 401; 402; 403; 414; 415; 416; 419; 459; 468; 489; 490; 493; 494; 498; 499; 500; 502; 503; 504; 505; 542

561 Woodgrove, Charles;58; 68; 281; 284; 451; 452; 453; 454; 456; 457; 459; 462; 464; 465; 466; 467; 468; 472; 473; 487; 489; 490; 491; 492; 499; 500; 501; 505 Wozniak, Monika;72; 209; 216; 326; 334; 338; 342; 352; 413; 484; 491; 494 Wrather, Jack;308 Wybon, Jérôme;338; 342; 343; 354; 390; 396; 427; 486; 491; 495; 496; 497; 498; 522 Wyn-Davies, Geraint;13; 97 X-Men (film series);15; 134