From David Weber at
https://www.facebook.com/david.weber.5621/posts/pfbid02GHjKu4QTo4pL4biU4BWd2UWLosQf1WdAMH191gqwNWDxcgjE8fJMUWneUYLBRKdNl

"Okay, so by now a lot of people have heard about DragonCon's decision
to eliminate the military science fiction/fantasy category from the
Dragon Awards and fold it into the Best Novel category.
A lot of those people are upset, even angry, over the decision, and I
understand that. As a multiple Dragon winner in that category, I am
probably one of the pros hearing the most about it from my readership.
And, as I have said before, it is a decision with which I disagree.
Having said that, however, I think it's important for the people who are
upset to understand that so far as I can tell, there is no malign intent
involved in this decision. Like a lot of you, I intend to advocate to
get it changed, to get our category restored to the awards, but angst
and outrage are not the way to go about that.
The Dragon Awards were created by DragonCon for many reasons. One,
frankly, was the perception by a significant portion of fandom that
existing awards — like the Hugo and the Nebula — had been politicized.
That they were no longer voted on the merits of the work itself but
because the work in question had checked off the proper boxes.
DragonCon's answer to that perception was to create a family of awards
which were clearly voted upon by ALL fandom, not by a subset of it which
might be agenda driven. The Dragons were also intended to be a family of
awards which addressed all of fandom's different genres and readerships,
in a format which would incorporate a degree of flexibility that would
allow them to remain current and relevant. At the same time, DragonCon
recognized that the award CEREMONY itself would not be a cost effective
exercise on the convention's part. And, finally, the decision to
eliminate the award for military science-fiction/fantasy was made,
according to DragonCon, because this was the "least-nominated,
least-voted" category, so if something was going to be pruned, it made
sense to prune the award which had had the least support.
Let's look at that one point at a time.
First, the convention worked hard to address an issue which has been
very divisive in fandom for some years, and for that it deserves our
thanks and our commendation. DragonCon's answer to the acrimonious
argument about merit versus ideologically correct was to say "If you
think that a work deserves recognition, this is a place where YOU can
nominate it and YOU can vote for it, and the SOLE CRITERION for the
award will be the number of votes it receives from ALL OF FANDOM, not a
smaller, select group with which you may or may not agree." Think about
that. Without condemning existing, older awards or telling people who
were upset with those older awards processes to shut up and sit down,
DragonCon offered a venue in which those on either side of that debate
would find an open, transparent, even-handed, open-to-all forum in which
to advocate for the works THEY loved.
Second, they always intended for there to be room to "tweak" the
process. The fact that they are now tweaking it should thus not come as
a surprise to anyone Even if we DON'T agree with this particular "tweak."
Third, before people get bent out of shape over the "cost-effective"
metric, think about it for a moment. DragonCon is huge, yet I would be
surprised if more than 350 people have turned up for any of the Dragon
Award presentation ceremonies. Those people who have turned out have
been hugely supportive and very interested in and involved with the
process, but they represent a fairly teeny subset of con's total
attendance. For that matter, the literary portion of DragonCon is only
one of its multifaceted sides, and whether we want to admit it or not,
the "literary" attendees clearly represent an absolute minority of total
attendance. So even though the convention would be paying for the space
the awards ceremony uses whether the ceremony used it or not, even
though all of the audiovisual equipment would already be there, they are
still diverting staff who might have been doing something else to
managing it, and that same space could be programmed for a different
function that might very well attract significantly more attendees.
Given the fact that DragonCon has to pay the bills, that is neither a
minor nor an unreasonable consideration.
Fourth, DragonCon got fewer nominations and fewer total votes in this
category than in the others.
Now, having laid all of that out doesn't mean that I think this was the
best decision ever made, because I don't. Military science-fiction,
whether it is recognized as that genre or lumped into things like "space
opera," is quite probably the biggest single science fiction genre out
there. It's certainly been around a long, long time. WAR OF THE WORLDS,
20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA, Robert Heinlein, Keith Laumer, Poul
Anderson, Gordon Dickinson, Jerry Pournelle, Larry Niven . . . . It's a
very, very long list which has been part of the spinal cord of
science-fiction from the very beginning, and it is alive and well today.
Yet the Dragon Award for military science fiction and fantasy was the
ONLY award specific to the genre. The only award that uniquely
recognized that long, long literary tradition. That, coupled with the
fact that the Dragons ARE fan-nominated and fan-voted in a venue open to
EVERY fan, gave it a special value which should appeal to all readers of
science fiction, even if military sci-fi isn't YOUR favorite genre.
There is also the consideration that independently published and
self-published authors are heavily represented in the Dragons in general
and in this genre in particular. Literary awards in general are
dominated by traditionally published authors, of which I am one, and
traditional houses are far better placed to campaign in favor of THEIR
authors (especially in the nominating process) than most indies or
self-published authors. When ALL of fandom can nominate and vote, simply
by registering online to do so, that ability to "game the awards" is
lessened, and (in my opinion) the field as a whole profits. So while I
understand DragonCon's desire to "streamline" the process, I am dismayed
by a decision which will lessen opportunities — especially NOMINATION
opportunities — for those independent presses and self published authors.
But one point which has to be addressed is that if it is, indeed, true
that military science-fiction was the least-nominated/voted category
despite its readership, then readers and its fans have to shoulder their
own share of the blame. This is on us, as much as it is on any DragonCon
decision-maker.
If readers decide they are angry with the con, whether it's because of
masking policies, perceived "wokeness," or any other reason and then do
not participate in the nominating and voting process, they have only
themselves to blame when too few votes are cast in support of their
beloved genre. That's the bottom line.
I encourage anyone who is as dismayed by this decision as I to contact
DragonCon directly. Express your concern and your disappointment. But
this is neither the time nor the appropriate place for any attack dog
mentalities. When you address DragonCon, you will be addressing one of
the largest conventions in the country. Indeed, in the world. And it is
a convention which created the Dragon Awards in the first place to be
responsive to science-fiction and fantasy fandom in a way which was
intended, in no small part, to help us bind up some of the wounds which
have come to divide us. It is not perfect, it does not always make
perfect decisions, is run by imperfect human beings, but in my
experience with it, it is NOT the enemy.
It should not be addressed or treated as if it is.
Contact the convention. Make your point. Tell the decision-makers you
think this was a wrong decision. Provide RATIONAL reasons to support
that argument, not vituperation or accusations. Show them that despite
the low vote total in the last cycle of awards, there really are A LOT
of military sci-fi readers out there and that this award means a lot to
that readership. And then, if and when decision to delete the category
is revisited, nominate and VOTE to show the convention just how robust
our readership actually is.
If we lose this award permanently because we refused to demonstrate our
support for it in a tangible fashion that cannot be ignored, then it
will be a self inflicted wound.
And our own fault."

Lynn

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 12:27:10 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire quoted, in part:

> The Dragon Awards were created by DragonCon for many reasons. One,
> frankly, was the perception by a significant portion of fandom that
> existing awards — like the Hugo and the Nebula — had been politicized.
> That they were no longer voted on the merits of the work itself but
> because the work in question had checked off the proper boxes.

Although David Weber's advice that being confrontational is not the way to get
things done is wise, it is rather obvious that this decision, whatever its merits, will
give the appearance that DragonCon has been taken over by the sort of people
that it was founded in order to get away from.

Given the current dysfunctional state of politics, I think the real "solution" is for
another breakaway group to issue its own science-fiction awards, so that those who
would like to get away from political correctness without being Trump supporters,
and those who are Trump supporters, can each do things their own way without
instead being enmeshed with fighting with each other.

John Savard

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 1:10:22 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 12:27:10 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire quoted, in part:
> > The Dragon Awards were created by DragonCon for many reasons. One,
> > frankly, was the perception by a significant portion of fandom that
> > existing awards — like the Hugo and the Nebula — had been politicized.
> > That they were no longer voted on the merits of the work itself but
> > because the work in question had checked off the proper boxes.
>
> Although David Weber's advice that being confrontational is not the way to get
> things done is wise, it is rather obvious that this decision, whatever its merits, will
> give the appearance that DragonCon has been taken over by the sort of people
> that it was founded in order to get away from.
>
> Given the current dysfunctional state of politics, I think the real "solution" is for
> another breakaway group to issue its own science-fiction awards, so that those who
> would like to get away from political correctness without being Trump supporters,
> and those who are Trump supporters, can each do things their own way without
> instead being enmeshed with fighting with each other.
>
If, on the one hand, the established and respected science-fiction awards
have become... oh, say, like James Nicoll's selection of novels to review....
too much socially-conscious effort to promote works outside the mainstream,
unjustly neglected though they may be - and the *rebellion* against that is
_also_ overly politicized...

then, it follows, that if we actually had white males writing science fiction today
reminiscent of that of Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke, _that_ science fiction would
not be showing up at *anyone's* award ceremony.

Which means that if science fiction wasn't dead, it would still *seem* to be dead.

However, I don't think that _politics_ killed science fiction. Maggots feeding on
a decaying corpse, instead, are the image that comes to my mind.

In the first instance, science fiction went downhill from its glory days of the
golden age... *not* because we aren't twelve years old any more. The world
has *not* run out of twelve-year-olds.

This is despite declining sperm counts.

No; in the first instance... the problem was:

a) television, and
b) a shortage of trees, that led to a rise in the price of newsprint.

The song said "Video killed the radio star", and the phenomenon here
was clear as well; television, supported by TV commercials, was free,
hence quite cheap, and pulp magazines went up in price, and so they
were no longer a major form of mass entertainment.

That, of course, though, is a transition that took place *long ago*.

Then video games and cable TV killed network television.

And then the Internet came along!

So we are *three* media revolutions away from the glory days of
science fiction, and hence we should _hardly_ be surprised that it
isn't quite thriving these days as though nothing had happened between
today in 2022 and back in, say, 1934.

Even if you don't count World War II and the Apollo moon landings.

Not having an award ceremony you can trust to point you to the
good science fiction you would like to read... is just icing on the cake,
not the root of the problem.

John Savard

Maybe I should raise this on the Facebook post but:
notwithstanding the title, is _The War of the Worlds_
milsf?

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in news:fe7f66a8-
04d5-469e-ade2-ba3257b218c3n@googlegroups.com:

> Maybe I should raise this on the Facebook post but:
> notwithstanding the title, is _The War of the Worlds_
> milsf?
>
It is when you want to associate your own work with well known
classics.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 11/23/2022 1:11 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> Maybe I should raise this on the Facebook post but:
> notwithstanding the title, is _The War of the Worlds_
> milsf?

I wouldn't classify it that way.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 11/23/2022 3:11 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> Maybe I should raise this on the Facebook post but:
> notwithstanding the title, is _The War of the Worlds_
> milsf?

Alien invasion story.

Lynn

In article <tlmn72$j4nk$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/23/2022 3:11 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> Maybe I should raise this on the Facebook post but:
>> notwithstanding the title, is _The War of the Worlds_
>> milsf?
>
>Alien invasion story.
>
>Lynn
>

I would say the unauthorized sequels were more milsf than the original.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

In article <fe7f66a8-04d5-469e-ade2-ba3257b218c3n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>Maybe I should raise this on the Facebook post but:
>notwithstanding the title, is _The War of the Worlds_
>milsf?

Generally, the characters in MilSF are the soldiers, not
the collateral damage.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

In article <fe7f66a8-04d5-469e-ade2-ba3257b218c3n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

> Maybe I should raise this on the Facebook post but:
> notwithstanding the title, is _The War of the Worlds_
> milsf?

I consider it to be a disaster novel.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On 24/11/2022 08:11, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> Maybe I should raise this on the Facebook post but:
> notwithstanding the title, is _The War of the Worlds_
> milsf?

More a commentary on colonialism.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 11:24:09 PM UTC-7, grschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 24/11/2022 08:11, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > Maybe I should raise this on the Facebook post but:
> > notwithstanding the title, is _The War of the Worlds_
> > milsf?

> More a commentary on colonialism.

That was the _intent_. But it could go over the heads of some
readers. So I don't think that can be used for purposes of
genre classification.

My understanding of Mil-Sf is that it isn't just anything that
is about war or armed conflict. It has to focus on military
or military-related matters; the capabilities of weapons
systems, the camraderie of soldiers, the responsibilities of
command, and so on and so forth.

Even that definition is too broad, since arguably some
episodes of Star Trek - and nearly the entire Gerry
Anderson television series UFO - could be classified as
"mil-sf" under that definition.

But I'm not feeling prepared at this moment to figure out
how to sharpen up the definition to make it more accurately
correspond to what is generally thought of as mil-sf.

John Savard

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 3:11:58 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> Maybe I should raise this on the Facebook post but:
> notwithstanding the title, is _The War of the Worlds_
> milsf?

Only in the loosest possible categorization. It's a war story, certainly. But it's a little like comparing _The Lone Ranger_ to _Gunsmoke_. Both are set in (approximately) the same time period and general region of North America, but one is a hybrid Western/police story and one is basically a superhero story set in the Old West. Two different genres.

In TWotW, it's really only a 'war story' in the sense of one side getting curb-stomped by a technologically superior enemy force. It's explicitly (among other things) a send-up of Western military conquests of lower-tech societies, a commentary on what it feels like/looks like to be on the lower-tech side of that inequation, without the compensating effects that sometimes permit weaker opponents to triumph. It's not really a contest at all.

Most milsf is about actual conflicts, one side may be stronger than the other but usually _is_ a real conflict even so, the war is actually a war.

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 12:32:47 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 11:24:09 PM UTC-7, grschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 24/11/2022 08:11, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > > Maybe I should raise this on the Facebook post but:
> > > notwithstanding the title, is _The War of the Worlds_
> > > milsf?
>
> > More a commentary on colonialism.
> That was the _intent_. But it could go over the heads of some
> readers. So I don't think that can be used for purposes of
> genre classification.
>
> My understanding of Mil-Sf is that it isn't just anything that
> is about war or armed conflict. It has to focus on military
> or military-related matters; the capabilities of weapons
> systems, the camraderie of soldiers, the responsibilities of
> command, and so on and so forth.
>
> Even that definition is too broad, since arguably some
> episodes of Star Trek - and nearly the entire Gerry
> Anderson television series UFO - could be classified as
> "mil-sf" under that definition.
>
> But I'm not feeling prepared at this moment to figure out
> how to sharpen up the definition to make it more accurately
> correspond to what is generally thought of as mil-sf.
>
> John Savard

As a partial stab at a definition, I would say that to qualify as 'primary milsf', the story needs to not just involve those things, even substantially, but rather that they need to be more-or-less _central_ to it.

Occasional specific episodes of _Trek_ could arguably qualify as milsf. Possibly the STTOS episode _Balance of Terror_ could be called that. On one level it's a submarine story in space, but it also touches on command responsibility at a very basic level: Kirk has to make the right choice or the result could be, probably would be, massive war that could leave _billions_ dead or permanently harmed, and wreck whole worlds. But Kirk has a couple of options open to him and _either one_ could have that possible result, and he has to choose one.

That sort of command responsibility is a milsf sort of issue.

On 11/23/2022 10:19 PM, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
> On 24/11/2022 08:11, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> Maybe I should raise this on the Facebook post but:
>> notwithstanding the title, is _The War of the Worlds_
>> milsf?
>
> More a commentary on colonialism.
>
I've heard that before but was never clear on whether that was Wells'
intent or some readers' interpretation.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> schrieb:
> Maybe I should raise this on the Facebook post but:
> notwithstanding the title, is _The War of the Worlds_
> milsf?

It's a satire on European colonianism. Blood-sucking aliens
defeated by disease, indeed...

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 11:57:25 PM UTC-7, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> I've heard that before but was never clear on whether that was Wells'
> intent or some readers' interpretation.

I'm fairly sure that it is generally accepted that this was Wells'
intent. I don't recall an explicit statement to that effect by him,
however. What I _do_ recall is that he did make a statement that
he gave up writing science fiction, and switched to writing books
about political issues, specifically because he was trying to make
points in his science fiction works... which hardly anyone seemed
to get.

John Savard

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 1:32:47 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 11:24:09 PM UTC-7, grschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 24/11/2022 08:11, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > > Maybe I should raise this on the Facebook post but:
> > > notwithstanding the title, is _The War of the Worlds_
> > > milsf?
>
> > More a commentary on colonialism.
> That was the _intent_. But it could go over the heads of some
> readers. So I don't think that can be used for purposes of
> genre classification.
>
> My understanding of Mil-Sf is that it isn't just anything that
> is about war or armed conflict. It has to focus on military
> or military-related matters; the capabilities of weapons
> systems, the camraderie of soldiers, the responsibilities of
> command, and so on and so forth.

I'm told _War of the Worlds_ was part of a trend of the times for future war stories involving new, hi-tech (for the times) weapons, although the other invasions of England were generally launched from the Continent. I should probably see if I can find any titles or authors and see what Project Gutenberg has archived. The only one I remember is P G Wodehouse's spoof, _The Swoop_.

> Even that definition is too broad, since arguably some
> episodes of Star Trek - and nearly the entire Gerry
> Anderson television series UFO - could be classified as
> "mil-sf" under that definition.

I don't see why some episodes of Star Trek shouldn't be mil-sf. It was an anthology show. Should there be some tortured definition of comedy so that "The Trouble with Tribbles" isn't one?

--
-Jack

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 1:57:25 AM UTC-5, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 11/23/2022 10:19 PM, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
> > On 24/11/2022 08:11, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >> Maybe I should raise this on the Facebook post but:
> >> notwithstanding the title, is _The War of the Worlds_
> >> milsf?
> >
> > More a commentary on colonialism.
> >
> I've heard that before but was never clear on whether that was Wells'
> intent or some readers' interpretation.

Wells said the following about the "inferior races" in _Anticipations_
(1901) https://gutenberg.org/files/19229/19229-h/19229-h.htm :

"And how will the New Republic treat the inferior races? How will it deal
with the black? how will it deal with the yellow man? how will it tackle
that alleged termite in the civilized woodwork, the Jew? Certainly not as
races at all. It will aim to establish, and it will at last, though probably only
after a second century has passed, establish a world-state with a common
language and a common rule. All over the world its roads, its standards, its
laws, and its apparatus of control will run. It will, I have said, make the
multiplication of those who fall behind a certain standard of social
efficiency unpleasant and difficult, and it will have cast aside any coddling
laws to save adult men from themselves. It will tolerate no dark corners
where the people of the Abyss may fester, no vast diffused slums of
peasant proprietors, no stagnant plague-preserves. Whatever men may
come into its efficient citizenship it will let come—white, black, red, or
brown; the efficiency will be the test.

[snip Wells's ruminations about the Jews]

And for the rest, those swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and
yellow people, who do not come into the new needs of efficiency?

Well, the world is a world, not a charitable institution, and I take it they
will have to go. The whole tenor and meaning of the world, as I see it, is
that they have to go. So far as they fail to develop sane, vigorous, and
distinctive personalities for the great world of the future, it is their
portion to die out and disappear."

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 6:32:47 AM UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 11:24:09 PM UTC-7, grschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 24/11/2022 08:11, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > > Maybe I should raise this on the Facebook post but:
> > > notwithstanding the title, is _The War of the Worlds_
> > > milsf?
>
> > More a commentary on colonialism.
> That was the _intent_. But it could go over the heads of some
> readers. So I don't think that can be used for purposes of
> genre classification.
>
> My understanding of Mil-Sf is that it isn't just anything that
> is about war or armed conflict. It has to focus on military
> or military-related matters; the capabilities of weapons
> systems, the camraderie of soldiers, the responsibilities of
> command, and so on and so forth.
>
> Even that definition is too broad, since arguably some
> episodes of Star Trek - and nearly the entire Gerry
> Anderson television series UFO - could be classified as
> "mil-sf" under that definition.
>
> But I'm not feeling prepared at this moment to figure out
> how to sharpen up the definition to make it more accurately
> correspond to what is generally thought of as mil-sf.
>
> John Savard
I would say that in mil-sf a significant amount of the time the way that characters interact is not governed by the customs of the society at large but by the rules and conventions of the military - and in a great deal of mil-sf some current or historical military. In good mil-sf, like Weber's the author has thought about this and will also do enough world-building to show you the surrounding societies. In second rate mil-sf this is an excuse for the author almost paste in a load of boilerplate without coming up with anything new or interesting.

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 5:31:18 AM UTC-7, jack....@gmail.com wrote:

> I don't see why some episodes of Star Trek shouldn't be mil-sf.
> It was an anthology show. Should there be some tortured definition
> of comedy so that "The Trouble with Tribbles" isn't one?

Star Trek made history precisely because it _wasn't_ an "anthology show";
it had _continuing characters_, unlike The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits,
and Playhouse 90.

It certainly is true, though, that it was built around individual episodes,
not long story arcs.

While "The Trouble with Tribbles" definitely was comedy, and so was
"A Piece of the Action", I think that by the _usual_ "definition" of mil-sf,
nothing in Star Trek would really qualify.

John Savard

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 8:43:14 AM UTC-7, Ahasuerus quoted, in part:

> Certainly not as
> races at all.

> Whatever men may
> come into its efficient citizenship it will let come—white, black, red, or
> brown; the efficiency will be the test.

There, you see! He wasn't racist!

Of course, from the _rest_ of what he wrote, it is somewhat difficult
to be entirely confident in that conclusion. It seems as though while
he was not prepared to argue that the common prejudices of his time
were _entirely_ wrong, he still advocated dealing with people as
individuals, not on the basis of their race, because he did deny that
those prejudices were completely _right_ either.

Being skeptical instead of ideological is a good thing, and he was
perhaps ahead of the benighted times in which he wrote that.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:491b33bc-bccc-4fcf-b79e-bbf305bf03ccn@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 5:31:18 AM UTC-7,
> jack....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I don't see why some episodes of Star Trek shouldn't be mil-sf.
>> It was an anthology show. Should there be some tortured
>> definition of comedy so that "The Trouble with Tribbles" isn't
>> one?
>
> Star Trek made history precisely because it _wasn't_ an
> "anthology show"; it had _continuing characters_, unlike The
> Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, and Playhouse 90.

Virtually every television show prior to Star Trek had continuing
characters. What the fuck are you jibbering about?

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

In article <491b33bc-bccc-4fcf-b79e-bbf305bf03ccn@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 5:31:18 AM UTC-7, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I don't see why some episodes of Star Trek shouldn't be mil-sf.
>> It was an anthology show. Should there be some tortured definition
>> of comedy so that "The Trouble with Tribbles" isn't one?
>
>Star Trek made history precisely because it _wasn't_ an "anthology show";
>it had _continuing characters_, unlike The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits,
>and Playhouse 90.
>
>It certainly is true, though, that it was built around individual episodes,
>not long story arcs.
>
>While "The Trouble with Tribbles" definitely was comedy, and so was
>"A Piece of the Action", I think that by the _usual_ "definition" of mil-sf,
>nothing in Star Trek would really qualify.
>
>John Savard

I would say "Balance Of Terror" clearly qualfies.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 11/24/2022 3:45 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 5:31:18 AM UTC-7, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I don't see why some episodes of Star Trek shouldn't be mil-sf.
>> It was an anthology show. Should there be some tortured definition
>> of comedy so that "The Trouble with Tribbles" isn't one?
>
> Star Trek made history precisely because it _wasn't_ an "anthology show";
> it had _continuing characters_, unlike The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits,
> and Playhouse 90.
>
> It certainly is true, though, that it was built around individual episodes,
> not long story arcs.
>
> While "The Trouble with Tribbles" definitely was comedy, and so was
> "A Piece of the Action", I think that by the _usual_ "definition" of mil-sf,
> nothing in Star Trek would really qualify.
>
> John Savard

Star Trek got canceled because it was the most expensive show in TV.
Desilu could not take the risk and so let it go.

Lynn