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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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.

The SPACE: 1999 novel

*** 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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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.

The SPACE: 1999 novel

*** 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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

"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.

The SPACE: 1999 novel

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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.

The SPACE: 1999 short story

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

The SPACE: 1999 short story

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

31030 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? SHANA G 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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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 ***

31046 RE: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Are you starting the Y2 slash and burn posts all over again? SHANA G Sep 25, 2015

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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? ***

The SPACE: 1999 short story

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

Part I – The Relevance of SPACE: 1999 Fan Fiction

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

This is how I interpret your Alpha. Respectfully,

31132 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) sennmut Oct 29, 2015

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

Shana G, and a little pissed off

*** ***

31130 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) sennmut Oct 29, 2015

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.”

Greetings from Cylon

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

***

John,

31139 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Greetings from Cylon (Senmut, 2000) sennmut Oct 29, 2015

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 ***

Greetings from Cylon

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

*** 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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Greetings from Cylon

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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.

Greetings from Cylon

(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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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.

Greetings from Cylon

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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. ***

Greetings from Cylon

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

31218 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 16, 2015

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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? ***

31232 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 20, 2015

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

31238 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Nov 21, 2015

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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. ***

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit

31253 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson sennmut Nov 25, 2015

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

31257 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson sennmut Nov 26, 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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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!!!! ***

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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.

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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. ***

…et Willelm ad Pevensae venit

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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. ***

***

31433 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Jan 7, 2016

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 ***

31437 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Jan 15, 2016

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

Part II – The Forever Alpha Series

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.

31444 Re: [OnlineAlpha] Re: Leadership Challenges sennmut Jan 8, 2016

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