![]() ![]() Ironically, Alexander's shortcomings as an author make the book more valuable now than it would be otherwise. There are pages and pages where Alexander does nothing but quote lengthy letters in their entirety. It is useful, however, because it quotes extensively from various correspondence to and from Roddenberry. The book's appendix does not have any dates more specific than 1968 for the script, either.ĭavid Alexander's book is an exercise in hagiography, and it's not particularly well-written (Alexander will often get facts and even dates wrong to flatter his subject, and will excuse Roddenberry's bad behavior and then criticize others for the exact same actions, etc.). David Alexander's biography suggests there was a script, but the only primary source quoted (a June 1968 letter to Isaac Asimov) mentions a "script treatment," not a screenplay. Regarding Tarzan, I know that Roddenberry completed a lengthy outline (~100 pages), which can be found buried in the UCLA special collections, but I've never seen a script. ![]() Click to expand.As a general rule, any of the Van Hise Star Trek books are crap. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |