Login

Username

Password



Not a rebel yet?
CLICK HERE to register.

Forgotten your password?
Request a new one from Orac HERE.

Current User Info

· Lurkers Lurking: 13

· Rebels Active: 0

· Total Rebels: 926
· Newest Rebel: Paul Hassall

Login Help

If you are having problems logging in, please bear in mind that if you originally registered at the site before 8th January 2014 and you haven't re-registered since that date your old login details will no longer work. If this is the case, please re-register, preferably with your former username. If you are having trouble with the registration process itself, try looking HERE and HERE for help and advice. If you need further assistance, please do CONTACT us.

Current Poll

Who is your Favourite Guest Rebel?

Avalon - (Project Avalon)
Avalon - (Project Avalon)
18% [17 Votes]

Selma - (Horizon)
Selma - (Horizon)
5% [5 Votes]

Tyce - (Bounty)
Tyce - (Bounty)
14% [14 Votes]

Norm One - (Redemption)
Norm One - (Redemption)
2% [2 Votes]

Bek - (Shadow)
Bek - (Shadow)
7% [7 Votes]

Kasabi - (Pressure Point)
Kasabi - (Pressure Point)
19% [18 Votes]

Hal Mellanby - (Aftermath)
Hal Mellanby - (Aftermath)
14% [14 Votes]

Hunda - (Traitor)
Hunda - (Traitor)
5% [5 Votes]

Deva - (Blake)
Deva - (Blake)
9% [9 Votes]

Other
Other
6% [6 Votes]

Votes: 97
Login to vote.
Started: 09 July 2016

Polls Archive

Forum Activity

Newest Articles

B7 Images

+ Cookies +

The Horizon website uses cookies to allow user log-in and navigation. The site does not host advertising that requires the use of third-party cookies. Registering as a member of this site implies your consent to the use of cookies.

View Thread

 Print Thread
Blake's 7: A Critical Guide
BradPaula
So sorry to hear of naughty fans sending you emails, Rodney. You have nothing to feel badly about, the book was a joy to read. The problem is, the internet is largely anonymous and people feel they can tell it like it is, or for that matter, isn't and get away with it. Please don't take it too hard. Many of us here loved your book and others would like to have the chance to buy it, so please, could you reconsider and just delete any emails by those idiots who feel power in anonymity? Grin
Zil: Oneness must resist the Host.
 
Rodney
Thanks once again. I've left it available on Lulu.com and withdrawn it from Amazon. Alternatively, people can continue to receive a free electronic copy if they so wish.
Vila: Where are all the good guys?
Blake: You could be looking at them.
Avon: What a depressing thought!
 
AndrewP
As with other posters, I'm deeply sorry to hear about people being sent unpleasant e-mails about their books ... or anything else for that matter!

So far, I've browsed through about 10 episodes or so across the run in the volume and I think that it's fundamentally a nice little read. There's enthusiasm for the show and it's great to see so many nice moments celebrated and highlighted - brings back a lot of happy memories for me. There's some new comparisons and ideas which I'd not come across before, and while I don't necessarily agree with them all, they are original and I feel that I'm gaining a few new perspectives (indeed, in this respect I enjoyed the foreword to be given the perspective of a "second generation" fan discovering the show via UK Gold).

I can see that pure fandom may have a problem with some of the spellings and the odd fact, but they don't really impact on the critical analysis. Kentero/Centero ... regardless of what the first letter is, it's not altering the commentary of the shows that's being delivered here.

I do suspect though that - like John Kenneth Muir's earlier book - this is one that might well find more of an audience with an academic audience less familiar with the subject matter than necessarily the existing fan base; I say that partly because it's very heavily narrative based in many ways. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it possibly means some fans will feel this element is over-familiar.

Fundamentally, these seem to me to be rather nice appreciations of the memorable aspects of what - for me - is still a good fun series. Rodney seems to have had a lot of fun watching the show through again ... and I think that's rather lovely.

Looking forward to dipping into more of this.

All the best

Andrew
 
Anniew
AndrewP This chimed exactly with my thoughts after reading the bookend expressed them so well. A great review - balanced, affirmative, clear.
Just because I can't sing doesn't mean I won't.
 
Spaceship Dispatcher
AndrewP wrote:

I can see that pure fandom may have a problem with some of the spellings and the odd fact, but they don't really impact on the critical analysis. Kentero/Centero ... regardless of what the first letter is, it's not altering the commentary of the shows that's being delivered here.

I'm in agreement with Andrew here; Blake's 7 was a bold and creative show about ideas, imagination, exploring social and personal issues, and telling good stories first and foremost. It was (as far as I have been able to observe as a second generation fan) never a show that was hung up about continuity or canon, and the obsession about fictional names, dates and places that can characterise other fandoms. It's not as if the writers themselves agonised over the names of things in the first place, as most where probably made up from pure whimsy on the spur of the moment due to the time demands of television writing at the time. Additionally, I would note that names in real life are frequently fluid over both time and distance as can be seen in any atlas or book on world history; criticism should be levelled at the thousands of maps and publications that have misspelled LONDINIVM as London for centuries if place spellings are so absolute! In reality, if we cannot even agree on spelling on one planet now, how can we rule out variation in a future empire that covers so many more. Also, many names are not actually seen written on screen and thus the spellings are only part of a secondary canon anyway; taken from secondary sources like cast lists and production documents. Even things we take for granted like character names may not be confirmed on screen, and some names are commonly spelt in different ways by fans; such as spelling Vila as Villa and so on.
Reversing the polarity of the neutron flow. I bet that means something. It sounds great.

Blake's 7: Trojan Horse (s4 fanfic) - Blake's 7: Through the Needle's Eye (s2 fanfic)

Spaceship Dispatcher's fanfic site
 
AndrewP
Hi Annie Smile

Anniew wrote:

AndrewP This chimed exactly with my thoughts after reading the bookend expressed them so well. A great review - balanced, affirmative, clear.


Bless you. As I say, only had chance to look at a few episodes. It's actually one of the first books of this sort that I've read in years. I picked up quite a few on various series in the late 1990s/early 2000s, but over the last ten years I've found far too many tomes of reviews that I couldn't keep up with them all. So I've switched far more to autobiographies, biographies and production histories myself. But a pleasant little read so far ... mainly because it's nice to see other people getting so much out of the series! Smile

All the best

Andrew
 
AndrewP
Hi Alex Smile

Spaceship Dispatcher wrote:I'm in agreement with Andrew here; Blake's 7 was a bold and creative show about ideas, imagination, exploring social and personal issues, and telling good stories first and foremost.


It's the sort of show that doesn't quite exist any more in some respects. It was pre-watershed (indeed, generally 7.15pm rather than 8.10pm) and so although predominantly straight space adventure it would still have elements such as child abuse to make its narratives more powerful (a real eye-opener in the debut episode!). And when the time did allow for finesse and comment on social situations, they were in there - true to many of the original uses of the genre (i.e. criticizing the status quo via allegory without being too obvious about it). I remember Terry Nation commenting on how "Bounty" was inspired by middle-east issues of the time. And some of Allan Prior and Bob Holmes' scripts draw upon colonial history as well. All good stuff.

It was (as far as I have been able to observe as a second generation fan) never a show that was hung up about continuity or canon, and the obsession about fictional names, dates and places that can characterise other fandoms. It's not as if the writers themselves agonised over the names of things in the first place, as most where probably made up from pure whimsy on the spur of the moment due to the time demands of television writing at the time. Additionally, I would note that names in real life are frequently fluid over both time and distance as can be seen in any atlas or book on world history; criticism should be levelled at the thousands of maps and publications that have misspelled LONDINIVM as London for centuries if place spellings are so absolute! In reality, if we cannot even agree on spelling on one planet now, how can we rule out variation in a future empire that covers so many more. Also, many names are not actually seen written on screen and thus the spellings are only part of a secondary canon anyway; taken from secondary sources like cast lists and production documents.


Ah - you see for me, cast lists and production documents are also primary sources, arranged in chronological importance closest to the date of original transmission; finished programme in transmitted form takes precedence for me though. And that's why it's interesting to get different perspectives! Smile

Even things we take for granted like character names may not be confirmed on screen, and some names are commonly spelt in different ways by fans; such as spelling Vila as Villa and so on.


All very true, and in this case a variant spelling is hardly here or there. If it had been a reference book about the show which I would have expected to be accurately researched against the paperwork and the finished programmes, then that'd be a different matter and I think I would be highly critical because it would be failing to achieve its purpose. But it's not that sort of a volume. It's a personal perspective on the narratives and the elements which made them so engaging. And that purpose still stands, regardless of spellings.

I really hope other people have the chance to read this. Rodney seems to have had a lot of fun doing it. And it'd be a shame for it to only have a limited circulation ...

All the best

Andrew
 
Anniew
Andrew Grin. Annie
Just because I can't sing doesn't mean I won't.
 
wall1885
I was looking at buying this but wasn't sure. Does anyone have a copy and is it worth buying?
I have a similar book - A History and Critical Analysis of ""Blake's 7"", the 1978-1981 British Television Space Adventure'' and was wondering if there are significant differences that make it worth while having both?
 
Spaceship Dispatcher
wall1885 wrote:

I was looking at buying this but wasn't sure. Does anyone have a copy and is it worth buying?
I have a similar book - A History and Critical Analysis of ""Blake's 7"", the 1978-1981 British Television Space Adventure'' and was wondering if there are significant differences that make it worth while having both?

Hello Wall1885, I have moved your question to the dedicated thread on the book in the hope that you might find at least a partial answer to your question in the older posts. I have Rodney's book, but not the other one you mention so can't really make a comparison.
Reversing the polarity of the neutron flow. I bet that means something. It sounds great.

Blake's 7: Trojan Horse (s4 fanfic) - Blake's 7: Through the Needle's Eye (s2 fanfic)

Spaceship Dispatcher's fanfic site
 
wall1885
aplogies for my error and Thank You
 
trevor travis
wall1885 wrote:

I was looking at buying this but wasn't sure. Does anyone have a copy and is it worth buying?
I have a similar book - A History and Critical Analysis of ""Blake's 7"", the 1978-1981 British Television Space Adventure'' and was wondering if there are significant differences that make it worth while having both?


I don't have Rodney's book as yet, but I have quickly seen SD's copy and it's probably far better than "A History and Critical Analysis of Blake's 7, the 1978-1981 British Television Space Adventure'', which keeps on referring to Star Trek and Space:1999 (two dreadful series, far inferior to B7) for some reason.

Probably the best guide that I've seen is "Liberation", which is good, despite it having one or two strange ideas - which are often the subject of light-hearted fun on here.

But there's probably room for a better guide. The Survivors Telos guide blows Liberation out of the water, and is an example how good such a book can be.
 
wall1885
Thanks TT, I have Liberation and do enjoy thumbing through t from time to time.

I also agree with your views on the Star Trek and Space 1999 references - annoying and pointless IMHO
 
Spaceresearcher
Well I've got Blakes 7: A History and Critical Analysis, so why not add to the collection of others thought on Blakes 7 with this new guide.

Way to go for publishing it. I'd love to see one done by the members of Horizon. I think that would make for a very enjoyable Blakes 7 guide. Imagine what we could add to a guide after all these years of Blakes 7 joy!!! Smile
 
AndrewP
Very interesting to read people drawing comparisons between Rodney Marshall's recent work and John Kenneth Muir's piece of over a decade ago. In some respects, although they seem to be doing the same job, I feel that they're written for very different markets and doing some very different things. Certainly, I derived different values from both of them.

What I like about John's work is that he's very aware of a wide range of other genre films and series and makes some good comparisons with them which may tempt Stateside viewers to take a look from an academic perspective. McFarland's vary immensely in quality; I have some which I adore and often refer to (like Burl Barer's "The Saint" ) and also a number which I bought blind and sold on as quickly as I could before they contaminated my collection. John's books are - to my mind - above McFarland's average and I'm happy for them to reside on my shelves, even if they don't get many visits from me.

But then again, the whole critical analysis arena is one which I can take or leave, because ultimately - what we're talking about 90% of the time - is reviews. And I've had decades of reviews to read in fanzines even before the internet started offering them to me for free from every conceivable Google operation. I'm always happy to browse them for new ideas and perspectives, but my main interest is centred on hard research from paperwork or interviews which demonstrates and understanding of how and why a programme was made, and the feedback loops of what critical, industry and public reaction subsequently had on the way a show developed. This isn't what Rodney book sets out to do anyway (it's very clear about that) and it's not massively what John set out to do either.



Here's a piece which I wrote about John's "Doctor Who" book back in the late 1990s. It's from an old raw text file so sorry the formatting is all over the place ... but what I'm hoping to comment on is how and why John is writing so that others can understand what I took from his work. It originally appeared in "Celestial Toyroom", the DWAS Newsletter:

A LATERAL REAPPRAISAL OF A CRITICAL HISTORY

by Andrew Pixley

Darren Allen's review of John Kenneth Muir's A Critical History of Doctor Who made me most reluctant to part with about 50 when I read it in CT267. However, since my personal finances had improved in recent months, earlier this week I took the plunge and invested in a copy from those awfully nice people at Galaxy 4 (who warned me that, in their opinion, I was about to exchange hard earned cash for something which was not much cop). And I have to say, that I'm very glad I did buy it. After all the derision heaped on the work, I've found it truly fascinating to read.

That isn't to say that it's a good book. Or even an accurate one. Far from it! But it is a fascinating one ... for it's almost as if it's fallen forward through a timewarp from circa 1989.

Darren's comments are - to all intents and purposes - spot on! And I can safely say that I believe that this work will not enrich the knowledge of most readers of Celestial Toyroom much even after they're staggered through the 500 odd pages. From my understanding of Doctor Who fandom (which is, admittedly, limited), a typical reader on coming across this book would want to use it is a glorified episode guide - akin to The Doctor Who Programme Guide and/or The Television Companion. And as such, they will find it lacking. This is because the target market for the book is not the average UK Doctor Who fan.

From my understanding of the target audience for McFarland's books, it appears that these are limited print-run, hardback, semi-academic works - ideally placed on the shelves of a media section in the average American university library, and to act as a quick but comprehensive reference and - more importantly - introduction for the series. As Muir points out in his opening chapters, none of America has seen all of Doctor Who, some of it has seen most of it, while part of it has seen none of it. What Muir is actually doing through this book is something I strongly applaud - he is selling the show to American fans of SF television and films, encouraging them to take a look at a cheap but much moved little imported series which is becoming increasingly difficult to find in the syndicated schedules. Alternatively, they might just like to invest in one of the Fox video releases. And the bait which Muir is cleverly using is a very potent one; he compares Doctor Who to more familiar (indeed popular) icons from the world of television and films such as Star Trek, Space: 1999, Alien, The Time Machine, etc. etc. If you enjoyed Best of Both Worlds, then why not take a butchers at The Tomb of the Cybermen? Found Invasion of the Body Snatchers to your taste? Well - seek out The Faceless Ones. That sort of thing.

As such, I have very much enjoyed Muir pointing out to me some of the US shows which I might actually take a look at and compare to some of my Doctor Who favourites. Seldom does he actually suggest that one is inspired by the other ... he merely observed similarities, and comments on how the serial - if he has been lucky enough to view it - has struck him as being effective or not.

This takes us into the area of personal taste where - again - I cannot criticise the author at all. We all see things differently and like different flavours. The first episodes of The Avengers I ever saw was From Venus With Love, a funny, tongue-in-cheek colour Diana Rigg episode from 1967; I loved the style (still do) and that for me is what The Avengers is about. Consequently, I find a lot of the Honor Blackman episodes from 1962 to 1964 very dull and leaden. But for Dave Rogers, who started watching from Day One, these videotape entries are what the show is truly all about, and my From Venus With Love is just an example of how silly the show got as a piece of camp Sixties schtick. Who's right - who's wrong? It all depends on how you like your Avengers.

Because of Muir, I really fancy giving Paradise Towers another spool through the vid some time. He's clearly enjoyed it a great deal. I recall liking Part One when it went out, and then feeling rather ambivalent to the rest of the story.

But of course, the big niggle for anally-retentive Doctor Who fact fans everywhere is the accuracy of the book. As a big picture, the volume is a superb idea in concept - covering an overview, genesis, comparisons, the stories, fandom, merchandise, etc. At the microlevel, as Darren says, it is a bit of a mess. And I can see how it's happened.

Firstly, I suspect the bulk of this book was written in late 1997 and given a quick (very quick) polish in Summer 1999; thus omissions such as recovered episodes and works such as The Television Companion and The Ice Warriors Collectors Edition can be explained away since Muir was not aware of them. Furthermore, I would guess that Muir's less involved in and knowledgeable of Doctor Who than we have been used to. I would venture to suggest that Muir should be regarded almost as a 'non-fan' author; possibly the only one aside from Peter Haining to have published a major work (and this is - by its size alone - a major work) on the subject. Indeed, comparisons to Peter Haining will become quite important later on. Bear with me!

Let us consider the authors of Doctor Who factual books, starting with The Making of Doctor Who, the first publication to look back over the show's entire history; this was largely written by Malcolm Hulke (one of the series' regular writers at the time) and Terrance Dicks (the show's current script editor). Next came Doctor Who, the tenth anniversary Radio Times special - with, I would imagine, a large input from Dicks again on the storylines ... so much so that they show up again in the 1976 revised edition of The Making of Doctor Who, which was this time largely written by the former script editor.

So - who came next? Jean-Marc Lofficier in 1981 with his The Doctor Who Programme Guide which became the bible to an entire generation of fans on both side of the Atlantic as they memorised production codes and director credits like holy mantra. This is probably still the most important and potent reference work written on Doctor Who in terms of impact; it came at just the right time. But, this was 1981, and Jean-Marc had seen barely any 1960s Doctor Who at this point - being reliant almost entirely on the Target Making of, BBC synopses furnished by fan-friendly John Nathan-Turner and a pile of Jeremy Bentham's earliest DWAS synopsis sheets from 1976. The next works of note came from Peter Haining, a prolific and wide-ranging author/compiler whose genuine interest in Doctor Who was later found to fall-short of the devotion demanded by his readership. Although Doctor Who - A Celebration is still one of the best ever overviews for a general readership new to the series, the volumes that followed looked more and more rushed, with the fine detail - if any - left to the likes of fans such as Jeremy Bentham and David J. Howe to fill in. Many old fan myths from the 1970s and 1980s were perpetuated at this critical time in the explosion of fan interest, and have engrained themselves deeply so into the collective psyche that - even though proven wrong many years ago - are difficult for even the most hardened of us not to fall back on at times. And let's remember that Haining is a professional writer who has to make a full-time living - probably producing about six or seven volumes a year. That leaves you about six to eight weeks to research each diverse book ... and it's not terribly easy to get a full understanding or good level of detail on a topic as complex as Doctor Who ...

The next fan who was lucky enough to get a book published was really Jeremy Bentham, who was able to craft a loving work about the show's origins in Doctor Who - The Early Years based on interviews and research conducted on his landwork Doctor Who - An Adventure in Space and Time for CMS. This set new standards again, and little of the book has been contradicted since ... or at least not until the information explosion of 1993. Likewise, in the professional publication field there were few new surprises in Jean-Marc's updated version of The Programme Guide in 1989. There were a few other 'factual' books, generally published by those working on the show (e.g. John Nathan-Turner, David Banks) or by fans (e.g. Adrian Rigelsford, David Saunders, Jean Airey, Laurie Haldeman, John Peel).

Of course, access to BBC paperwork in vast quantities changed everything in 1992 with the significant publication of Doctor Who - The Sixties from three Doctor Who fans - David J. Howe, Mark Stammers and Stephen James Walker - and then articles by the likes of Marcus Hearn in Doctor Who Magazine. But by this time, the grip of Doctor Who, particularly in America, was on the slide with no new product available for syndication. Further professionally published works followed from fans such as Paul Cornell, Keith Topping, Martin Day, Lance Parkin, Justin Richards, Andrew Martin, etc. etc. Over this period, criticism would now be heaped on works that either didn't delve deeper with new information (although in the case of some, the format of the work did not allow for this in the first place) to satisfy the trivia-hungry sector of the market, or which (like The Doctors - 30 Years of Time Travel) ignored the research of other recent works which were already in print. But - by and large - the writers were now fans and were in the UK. And many of us were very lucky at having access to the wealth of material we do - something we perhaps take for granted.

So - here comes John Kenneth Muir who lives in the USA and is probably on a fairly small wage to deliver what is quite a sizeable work. The bibliography and text make it clear that he hasn't seen an issue of Doctor Who Magazine in many, many years (he refers to John Nathan-Turner as still being a consultant - which ceased in 1992) and that the only one of the "new" Howe-Stammers-Walker books he has is The Sixth Doctor Handbook (indeed, the final two and The Eighties do not appear to be have been published at the time of writing). But how easy are these things to get in the US? We're lucky in the UK that W.H. Smiths or Forbidden Planet can be counted upon for the new paperback, CD or DWM ... but I don't know what the Stateside picture is like. And what about the price? If you're being paid a pittance for the work, can you afford exotic and expensive imported books from the UK? And how do you track down DWM back issues. And then how do you read all this stuff quickly enough to do your book inside, say, six months? It's a lot of work. I think he did his best on an immense subject here - we're talking 600 odd episodes of Doctor Who not 17 outings for The Prisoner here - and in places he has made logical, if wrong, guesses based on the information at hand which all of us in the research game have been guilty of at some time or another. In fact, he's admitted as much, explaining that for the "missing stories", he has assembled synopses from The Programme Guide and the Target novelisations (which makes the entry for The Massacre rather bizarre). That said, I still disagree that it isn't possible to do a suitable evaluation of the "missing stories", but - unlike many of us - he probably doesn't have the audios and telesnaps and scripts, etc. etc.

The thing which the author did do is something which I applaud. With limited time and resources, he did at least concentrate on watching all the shows he could - the core subject matter. This comes across in droves since many of the spellings he comes up with are quite inaccurate, but are actually reasonable phonetic attempts to capture these weird and wonderful character and planet names. His comments are valid, as he himself is commenting on the effect that the material had on him, and how he reacted to it, or parallels that he saw. If only he hadn't tried to surmise so much on the production and factual side ... which is where he is let down so badly by being unaware of the hugely detailed works compiled by his United Kingdom counterparts. Indeed, the primary Doctor Who historians which the author refers to are names such as Jean-Marc Lofficier, John Peel and Eric Hoffman ... highly regarded for their work in the 1980s and still venerated in the US, but not the pinnacle of research for a UK audience whose bookshelves are choked with volumes from the Howe-Stammers-Walker stable.

Yet there are facets which Muir has brought along, which I strongly applaud! He has tried to do things which nobody else has. For example, there's a credit listing which includes minor production crew - people whose names could only have been transcribed from closing credits or obtained from the DWAS's Cast and Credits book (which I sincerely doubt he had access to or even knows about!). There are also comprehensive footnotes throughout the book where Muir cited and specifies all his quotes and where facts have been drawn from, allowing the reader to follow up the source material or evaluate its validity (and obviously it's clear here that the US magazine Starlog is not the most reliable organ for Doctor Who news over the years). But then again, if you're new to Doctor Who and are confronted by dozens of books and hundreds of magazines ... how would you determine whether to believe a Lofficier synopsis over a Brunt one? Or a Rigelsford shooting date over a Howe schedule? It really takes a long time to work out what's right, what's wrong and ... more importantly ... what was 'right' at the time and is now simply out of date.

Some of the comments I have heard about the book would have you believe it to be the work of Beelzebub. But who created the mistakes that are attracting the flack? Some are from old works by venerated names such as Peter Haining and Jean-Marc Lofficier. Others no doubt have sprung up from within our own bubbling quagmire of fandom over the years. All that the author has done is collate what he has been able to read in a way that makes sense to him in the time he has allowed. I would be far more scathing of a book that came out in the UK from a fan which referred to Serial C as Beyond the Sun or listed Roy Denton rather than Will Stampe as '1st Man' in the cast list of The Massacre of St Bartholomew's Eve ... mainly because for a UK fan, the information is to hand. But then again, suppose that error-riddled episode guide was written in a fanzine by an enthusiastic 8 year-old who had three library books and 10 issues of DWM to hand, but whose fact compilation was spurred on by a massive love for this incredible, magical series which he/she had just discovered? I doubt that I would be so critical in this case ...

I am delighted that John Kenneth Muir persevered through presumably low wages and many hours of video viewing to produce this vast volume. I am glad that he is bringing the word of Doctor Who - if a slightly garbled one at times - to a potential new readership of SF fans. I am certain that A Critical History of Doctor Who is not suitable for UK Doctor Who fans ... but I am also certain that it was a brave work to take on, and if only a handful of new devotees come to enjoy this fantastic series by browsing on academic bookshelves, then that work has been worthwhile.


I would also strongly recommend "Liberation" which offers a far better understanding of the technicalities of making the series; this is no criticism of either John or Rodney, simply that Alan and Fiona set out to write a very different sort of book, which they did - to my mind - very nicely! Smile

All the best

Andrew
Edited by Spaceship Dispatcher on 10 April 2016 18:48:20
 
AndrewP
trevor travis wrote:

I don't have Rodney's book as yet, but I have quickly seen SD's copy and it's probably far better than "A History and Critical Analysis of Blake's 7, the 1978-1981 British Television Space Adventure'', which keeps on referring to Star Trek and Space:1999 (two dreadful series, far inferior to B7) for some reason.


I'm actually very fond of both "Star Trek" (the original 1960s incarnation) and "Space: 1999" (a fascinating show which never quite gets it right). And while my love for "Blake's 7" eclipses both of them, I'm always very happy indeed to sit down and watch episodes from either ... or spend some time reading about them (of late, I've been getting a real kick from Mark Cushman's rather lovely books on "Star Trek"). I think they were both good yardsticks for John Kenneth Muir to use for his US-based media studies audience; they'd certainly be familiar with the former show, and the latter - even in syndication - probably got far more exposure than "Blake's 7" ever did. I'd say that these were good ways into "Blake's 7" for an audience who might be unfamiliar with it.

The Survivors Telos guide blows Liberation out of the water, and is an example how good such a book can be.


I do like "Liberation" a great deal, but I thorough agree that Rich Cross and Andy Priestner's "The End of the World?" is a terrific book. "Survivors" has been spoiled with a couple of nice books over the years; Kevin P Marshall's book was also a godsend at the time. But - yes - agree that the Telos is up there with some terrific books like Martin J Grams' volume on "The Twilight Zone" or some the tomes I've purchased by Mark Dawidziak or Michael Seely's wonderful work on "Doomwatch".

All the best

Andrew
Edited by Spaceship Dispatcher on 10 April 2016 18:51:30
 
markab2
I liked Space: 1999, it reminds me of school holiday mornings when we spent a few years in the mainland UK (when I was hooked on B7, might I add!)
 
wall1885
Thanks for your input everyone. I love Liberation....I think I will end up buying the critical guide, it sounds like it will offer me a different take on the previous critical analysis book.

Plus its the only Blake's 7 related book I don't have so I might as well add it to my bookshelf.
the mother in law bought me Blake's Heaven - Maximum Fanpower for my Birthday last month and I'm just about to start giving that a read. Sounds like it could be fun
 
Travisina
wall1885 wrote:
...Blake's Heaven - Maximum Fanpower for my Birthday last month and I'm just about to start giving that a read. Sounds like it could be fun

You might spot some Horizon members among the contributors Wink
Twitter: @TravisinaB7
Tumblr: tumblr
There's no point being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes
 
Rodney
I can't pretend to be a B7 expert. Just a fan who decided to pen his thoughts on the show. The Avengers is my main area of 'expertise'.
I too would love to see a collective book on B7, not unlike the ones I edited on The Avengers. I suggested to Alex a while ago that maybe we could get forumists/writers together to look at the following:
sets and locations;
music;
fashions;
each of the main characters;
the scripts;
direction;
recurring themes.
Basically, examining the series from every possible angle.
It could make for an exciting book. What do people think? (I think it might be more thought provoking than fan books simply about why one likes the show, how you got into watching it, etc.)
Vila: Where are all the good guys?
Blake: You could be looking at them.
Avon: What a depressing thought!
 
Jump to Forum:
Orac rendered this page in 0.46 seconds
9,904,534 unique visits since 8th January 2014