To anyone who grew up in the late 50's/early 60's, tv was an important part of their culture. One of the best shows concerning the supernatural (and perhaps the first in its genre) was "One Step Beyond". An Analytical Guide to Televisions One Step Beyond gives the backround information and Mr. Newlands own personal observations of the show. This was just a few months prior to his death. It is chock full of useful information to the researcher of early television as well as any fan of this genre. The author obviously loved this show and spent a great deal of time and effort on this and it shows. While it is a little expensive, it is indespensible to anyone who needs information and backround to this delightful series and well worth the money spent. Brian Kenaga

People seem to enjoy being scared out of their wits. Big-budget movies have done it with relative ease, but trying to portray terror in a 30 or 60 minute TV show, complete with commercials, is a bit more difficult. There have been some major successes ("Kolchak: The Night Stalker", "The X-Files", "Buffy" and "Angel", but there have been some real dogs ---anyone remember 'Manimal'? This author presents the definitive work on TV horror shows, starting with Rod Serling's "Night Gallery." He reviews each episode, gives complete cast/crew credits, and doesn't waste words in analyzing each show. "Boos" and "ghouls" of all ages will find this a treasure-trove of TV terror.

The reader comments on the Amazon site lead me to expect this book to be a serious academic study of "Doctor Who," exploring the themes and stories both as elements of the popular culture and as literary forms. Muir demonstrates an encyclopedic knowledge of science fiction television from "Captain Video" to "Red Dwarf." Sadly, he doesn't appear to have read many books, thus the scholarly critique I had anticipated was not to be found. He is not interested in sociological or psychological deconstruction, nor with any rigorous application of literary theory. You won't find any arcane academic language, references to Derrida or Freud, or other intellectual posturing. But neither will you find it to be a satisfying analysis of the cultural and literary interaction between the show and it's audience.

Instead, Muir mostly concerns himself with "Doctor Who" in relationship to other television shows which aired before, during and after it. Much energy is focused on the question of which show was first to address a topic or use a plot device, and how the same formulas have been recycled repeatedly.

He begins with a cogent analysis of the origins of "Doctor Who," identifying H.G. Wells' The Time Machine (specifically, the 1960 George Pal film with Rod Taylor) and Nigel Kneale's marvelous "Quatermass" stories (produced by BBC TV in late 1950's) as the two templates around which the vast majority of "Doctor Who" stories are built. However, he ignores any literary antecedents that must have had at least as much if not more influence on the original series writers. You will not find the names Jules Verne, Arthur C. Clarke, Ray Bradbury, Robert Heinlein or Madeleine L'Engle in his copious (and excellently thorough) index. For Muir, other than tangential references to the cinema, television is largely a self-contained universe.

Not surprisingly, his analysis is starkly without context. Although he has clearly read enough to understand the historical development of the series in England, he shows no real understanding of the culture which created and interacted with the show.

This lack of context is highlighted by the near complete absence of fan material - a shocking exclusion considering the massive amount of critical commentary produced over 30 by dedicated and intelligent fans, much of it not only well written, but literate and insightful. Indeed, Muir's few nods to a body of critical writing outside his own amounts to a few isolated pages of quotes, presented without comment on the remark or it's author (so if you don't already know who Harlan Ellison is, he's not going to help you). It is not until well past his review of the show's history that he mentions, almost in passing, that "Doctor Who" ceased being a kiddie show by 1975. In fact, it's that very change - how and when "Doctor Who" grew into an adult entertainment - that is the most important element in the show's history, not to say it's impact on popular culture. His failure to grasp this essential point as the appropriate focus of a critical history -preferring instead to draw out lengthy parallels between "Doctor Who" and the many science fiction TV shows of the sixties and seventies - reduces the book to a catalogue of plots and themes rather than a critical history.

Which is not to say that his observations are without merit. In fact, he has insightful and interesting things to say about a wide variety of issues, ranging from racism to jelly baby jokes. His discussion about gender and sexism, especially as it relates to the Doctor's female companions over the years, is extremely intelligent and well written. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the issues he raises are left largely unexplored, as though, merely by having brought them up at all, he has successfully addressed them. His preoccupation with other contemporary science fiction television does him ill service here, as many passages hinge not on the intrinsic merit of a "Doctor Who" story, but on how the same themes are treated in the "Star Trek" universe.

Muir is badly served, ultimately, by the structure he has chosen. The program guide format compels him to reiterate his previous ideas regularly, rarely adding any additional information or development to the original premise. This quickly become tiresome, unless the reader is absolutely fascinated by the number of time the name "Travers" has been used or which actors and directors also appeared on "Blake's 7" and "Space:1999." (The vast majority of this material is, of course, already abundantly available, in more complete and less expensive guides.)

Ultimately it's hard to figure out precisely who the intended audience for this book might be. The title is somewhat of a misnomer, as there is no attempt to survey the existing body of historical or critical writing on the topic. It is, therefore, insufficient as a serious scholarly study... it's a bit pricey for a highly subjective program guide. It offers nothing new in it's treatment of the show's history, and is neither particularly complete (ignoring the contributions of many writers, directors and actors who deserve greater prominence) nor scrupulously accurate (e.g. failing to identify uncredited writers and story origins, referring to the 1920's as "Victorian," misusing the word "empirical"). What it mostly amounts to is a book-length, library bound fanzine with a mild case of delusions of grandeur. The book is not really suitable to the neophyte fan, who would probably find it too expensive, but neither will it satisfy the most demanding aficionado, who will be irritated either by it's format or content.

Still, I would encourage people who fall between those two extremes to read it; if for no other reason than to promote greater discussion of the ideas Muir begins to address. This is not the serious scholarly analysis that "Doctor Who" deserves, but it's an excellent starting point.

Fans of the cult science fiction British film will find A Critical History Of Dr. Who On Television an essential reference which provides critical and historical examinations of the ideas, morals and philosophies contained in the hit television series. This provides anecdotes and fine insights, including series synopsis, guest lists and commentary for each episode, and an overview of critical reception. Essential for avid Dr. Who fans.

If you are an avid Doctor Who collector like I am, you probably have several of the many programme reference guides available to the fans already. Also, like me, you may wonder what makes a new reference work valuable; why should one buy THIS book; what does it offer that others I already own do not already say?

These were the questions I was asking when I discovered the publication of Mr. John Kenneth Muir's library-bound book, A Critical History of Doctor Who on Television. Like many other works, this book catalogues the 159 television serials extensively, and makes mention of the many other formats of the myth (the two 60s movies, the countless novels published both concurrently with and after the series' end, the 1996 television movie, the merchandise, the fan clubs and the internet resources, to name a few). The book also lists technical details of each episode, something exhaustive detail-seeking fans will appreciate.

But the thing that makes this book unique is its tracking of the themes of Doctor Who. We all are aware of at least some such themes in our treasured show : the alien invasions, the oppression and ultimate redemption of the weak, the evil imperialistic corporations, the evil threats from mythological origins, time paradoxes, environmental crises, or the question of interfering with known history. We are probably also aware of many of the show's antecedents, whether it be movies or programs we have only heard the names of (The Quatermass Experiment), or early USA science fiction that lent its own ideas - despite being launched later than Doctor Who (like the original Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica). This book makes a serious effort at tracking the various themes and their impact on not only the show's narrative style and tone, but also on the ultimate morality put forth in each decade, and traces how the show's morality changes with every distinct era.

The book also tracks the underlying thematic underpinnings of the show through the decades. One such example is the tracing of the development of the Time Lords - how they progressed from an almost supernatural and all-powerful force when we first meet (and fear) them in Troughton's era, to their almost self-parody existence through Pertwee's era, through their great demystification in Tom Baker's and Davison's shows, to the statement of their ultimate philosophies in Colin Baker's "The Trial of a Time Lord." It shows how our views of the Doctor's race have changed as we see them go from being almost Gods, to being stagnant, to being a bureaucratic mess, to ultimately being revealed as morally degenerate as many of the races the Doctor has fought in all his years. It links how seeing such things as this "See the Heroes Fall" motif might be a reflection of the times of that particular set of shows. Thematic strands such as this make for interesting reading throughout Muir's book. It also tracks antecedents to story plots from the obvious Frankenstein/Morbius references to not so obvious ones that give serious food for thought.

Something else that fascinates me about Muir's book is the tracking of seeming "offspring" of Doctor Who - where ideas original (or semi-original) to the series seem to have been lifted or borrowed to incorporate into other art forms on other series - Where was this idea explored in the movie Stargate? What exactly ARE the parallels between the Cybermen and the Borg in Star Trek : the Next Generation? Have you ever compared the Axons and the Borg? How is a scene from City of Death almost followed exactly in All Good Things from Star Trek : the Next Generation with "Q" playing the role of the Doctor? Nowhere in the book does Muir suggest that any of these ideas were blatantly "stolen" either for the series, or stolen from it for other series... but the parallels are amazing to behold as he delineates them (not to mention often humorously tongue-in-cheek; did I expect a "fully functional" Data reference when discussing Artificial Intelligence?). It makes for fascinating reading.

Finally, Muir uses the book to show the series in light of serious critical approaches, whether from literary or film-related schools of thought, making this a truly academic sort of study. His insights point out obvious plot flaws, "cop-outs" in resolutions, breaks in narrative flow, where obvious filler was used, and of course, the moments of sheer inventive brilliance that make us love the series so much - where it takes something stale and expected and transcends what we expect to make a unique, almost magical experience for the watcher. Muir injects doses of his own opinion, but backs these opinions up with a solid critical eye. Even though I personally disagree with some of his conclusions (e.g., the narrative value of "Ghost Light" and surrounding serials, the relative innovation of the stories of the Davison era), I can always respect what he has to say, because it is said so well. His discussions have made me rethink and reinvent my views of the Troughton era, and have re-affirmed my beliefs about Colin Baker's era. I have used this book many times already to start discussions with my friends over some of the more controversial aspects of the show's 26-year run, and I think that this has to be a good thing for a show that has not aired new regular episodes for 11 years.

Any venue that can stir debate and get people thinking about Doctor Who again must be essential for its fan base to continue. As Muir says, "It is only by debate and constant reinterpretation that these works of 20th century art will survive into the next millennium and be remembered." If keeping Doctor Who alive was indeed Mr. Muir's goal, I think that he has succeeded greatly. To incorporate SO MUCH information into one book and still have it be so readable and enjoyable is quite a feat indeed. So don't let the higher price tag than usual stop you from owning this book; it is absolutely essential reading for the Doctor Who reader, and you'll be glad it's in hardback when you find yourself going back to it time and time again.

If your a Kevin Smith fan, and interested in film in general check this book out. Despite many..many type-o's the book is worth a read.

An Askew View: The Films Of Kevin Smith by film and television journalist and expert John Kenneth Muir is an insightful commentary on Kevin Smith's cinematic works that have gone on to achieve a kind of cult-following, including his films: "Clerks," "Chasing Amy," and "Dogma", as well as such efforts as "Mallrats" and the ill-fated "Clerks: the Animated Series" (which was ultimately killed to make room for the then-megahit "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" game show). Interviews with Kevin Smith and other filmmakers form the backbone of this fascinating companion book that is highly recommended reading for students of filmmaking, as well as the legions of Kevin Smith fans.

This is a really fun book, loaded with new interviews with all the View Askew regulars, including Scott Mosier, Walt Flanagan, Bryan Johnson, Jeff Anderson, Brian O'Halloran, Vincent Pereira Dwight Ewell, Ethan Suplee and others. And their stories are hysterical! More to the point, the book goes behind the scenes to reveal new stories behind the movies - direct from the horses' mouths, including some of the really early ideas behind CLERKS. A highly amusing and funny read. I laughed out loud so many times reading this book that people around me thought I was crazy. I've already let one of my friends borrow it and now I want my copy back...

I got this book because I love Blake's 7, have for years. I was quite interested in reading a professional opinion on the show.
Muir does an excellent job discussing the history of the show, citing some behind the scene stories of how things came about. He also does an excellent job of focusing on Terry Nation, his ideas of the future, and his take on social issues such as slavery, prejudice, tyranny, and genetics (to name just a few). But, unfortunatly, the analysis begins to fade after the discussion of series 2, and drops more into plot summaries and discussion of guest stars and their characters.

This book seems more devoted to Terry Nation and his stories, and after Nation left the show (after series 2), Muir has very liitle critical discussion left.

Also, the book is lacking in images, having only 9 images (b&w), none of them from the actual series (I am uncertain if he was unable to get the rights to publish photos. If he could not, then this is excusable).

However, having pointed out the books flaws, the first sections is well worth the read.

John Kenneth Muir's text on the British TV series Blake's 7 is an enthusiastically written and well researched one. Given Muir's writing pedigree, which includes similar analyses of programs such as Dr Who, Space 1999 and Battlestar Galactica, plus his examinations of the films of directors such as Wes Craven and John Carpenter, it is evident his knowledge of the sci-fi/horror genres is exhaustive and admirable. As opposed to previously books which offered little or no in depth analysis, Muir's book looks at each episode with a critical eye. This is not new, however: various Internet sites have forums and reviews of episodes in which fans offer their opinions. However it is comforting to be able to read a list of them in the old fashioned form of a book (the Luddite in me!). His analyses are very well written. Thankfully they skim over the plot descriptions (anyone reading this book would know the plots backwards anyhow), and offer many interesting points. I can't say I agree with all of his conclusions, but that is the wonderful thing we call democracy. If everyone agreed on everything, what a boring place it would be! Muir savages some episodes I hold in high regard; however I respect his opinions and uphold his reasoning, as I would anybody's. Apart from the episodes, Muir writes some very interesting essays - the "anti-Star Trek" one is, in my opinion, the best. The examination of the sci-fi story arc and the shorter piece on sexual machinations among the crew also hold the interest. Putting Blake's 7 into a historical context, relating it to sci-fi programs of its day and also more recent programs such as Babylon 5, is also well done, maintaining that Blake's 7 has not had its day and is still relevant in today's deconstructions of the genre. Although this book is excellent, there is one major irritating fault - the book seems to have not been proof read at all, with glaring mistakes. For example, his examination of the season B episode "Weapon" refers to Fen as Coser's companion, when she was Rashel. The cast list to "Traitor" (Season D) credits David Quilter as "The General" and not "The Tracer", while the essay on sex, naturally discussing the controversial gender themed episode "Power", constantly refers to it as "Rescue". There are countless others. This criticism may come across as nitpicking, but for an author of Muir's calibre, especially given his insights and knowledge of the program, along with his other writing efforts, they are unforgivable oversights. They may have been simple typographic errors, but Muir, of all people, should have noticed them before publication. However, this should not detract from the book's excellent writing and interesting observations. For a fan of Blake's 7, it is very worthwhile and engaging, able to be read and re-read.

Having read other excellent titles by John Kenneth Muir on the series Space:1999 and Doctor Who, I was thrilled to discover he had the courage to take on Blake's 7 as well. Blake always seemed to me to be an odd hybrid of Saturday morning action adventure and dystopian fairy tale. Its dark vision of an oppressive empire, ironically named the 'Federation', contrasted with the cheap sets, the expressive acting of Jacqueline Pearce, and the poorly choreographed fight scenes. Still, Blake's 7 has always been a guilty pleasure, and a joy to watch. Muir takes us on a comprehensive journey through the series history. The book offers details such as back stage gossip, struggles with the budget, explains the frequent cast changes, and includes a detailed analysis of each episode. Muir's writing style is both engaging and amusing. I loved this book, despite the simple cover art. It's a must for any Blake's 7 fan, and well worth the cover price.

John Kenneth Muir's "Horror Films of the 1970s" is a great reference guide for all horror movie fans. Covering 228 horror films from the 70s, the book is crammed with with detailed information within its 662 pages.

The book begins with a "History of the Decade" and then breaks down the horror films by year, ending with a brief conclusion and several appendices, which include "1970s Hall of Fame," "Recommended Viewing," and "Memorable Movie Ad Lines."

Muir tackles most of the films in the book (I say most because not all of the films reviewed follow this format....some are just given a brief mention and are not even rated.) by breaking it down into sections. First, he provides excerpts from critical reviews of the film. He then provides a cast and crew list. He then provides a POV section (where those people associated with making the film offer their thoughts on the film.) Next comes a synopsis of the film's storyline before moving on to the author's own commentary and review of the film. Finally, there is a Legacy section which details any important (good or bad) contribution that the film may have made to the genre as a whole. The author also provides a rating system (one to four stars) ranking the over-all quality of the film.

Muir's love of the genre is evident in the text, although his commentarys can sometimes be lengthy (he seems to have a gift for gab.) This reader found that Muir can sometimes "over analyze" a film, reading things into the script that I don't think were ever really there to begin with (not even by the makers of the film). The commentarys, however, have helped me to view a film differently, shedding light on aspects of the film that I may have otherwise overlooked. I am now much more aware of how camera techniques, lighting, editing and score (critical in all films but probably even more so to the horror genre) can contribute to the success or failure of a film. Muir even points out how some film's subtext points directly to the fears and concerns of the audience in the "disco era." (Again, something I may have overlooked.......especially 30 years later.) All these small points add up and can make watching one of these movies a much more enjoyable experience. This makes the book a remarkable success in my opinion.

On the whole, the book is a very enjoyable read and most horror lovers will probably find it quite satisfying. I am now in search of many of the films included in the book that I haven't yet seen. Some I have never even heard of until being introduced to them by Mr. Muir. Hopefully, a sequel (Horror Films of the 1980s)is somewhere on the horizon.

John Muir's filmbooks are really in their own genre -- they're not quite film analysis, they're not quite fan appreciation -- they're somewhere in the middle, and that's what gives them their special appeal. Ever watch a DVD with director's commentary? That's what it's like reading one of Muir's film books -- you're discussing films with someone who loves them, and it's infectious. The end result is it's not dry film criticism (do we really need another Freudian analysis of anything?) -- it's sharing the joy and wonder of great films and not so great films and some downright guilty pleasures with someone who really brings experience, humor, knowledge, and enthusiasm to the subject matter. As a major fan of horror films from the 1970s, this book jumps right to the top of my list of "must-haves". It's not a reference book -- it's a cover-to-cover read that's just formatted like a reference book. You'll find old favorites in here as well as get a little exposure to some films you haven't seen and probably should. It was the "best of times" for horror films (its only competing decade would be the 1930s, IMHO), and this book ranks with the "best of books" for a great decade for creepy movies. It does a great job of putting these films in their proper context (it was a fascinating decade, and its horror films really mirror that). This is a book that will make you smile, and throw you back a few decades into a time that was simpler and more confused...If you like horror films, you'll love this book. This should be a daily calendar! 365 Great Horror Films a Year!

"In Defense of Space: 1999" might have been a better title for this book. I've been a fan of the show since I saw it in first run, when I was in my early 'teens. And I'm still a fan now (I bought the episode DVDs). I agree that many reviewers have unfairly "bashed" this show, perhaps because it did not fit the mould of other televised sci-fi. (Actually, I would class "Space: 1999" as fantasy or drama, but not as science fiction.)

Unfortunately, author Muir seems almost zealously (and tediously) determined to justify the show against all comers. Too much time is spent comparing "Space: 1999" to other shows, rather than praising it for itself. Gerry and Sylvia Anderson have produced some of the sexiest and most stylish sci-fi/fantasy on TV. They've got the "cool." And "Space: 1999" is one of their greatest.

If you are a fan, you will want to buy this book. It is worth the trip. It is a rare look at the creation and development of a popular show.

Two thumbs up and three cheers for Muir's Exploring Space:1999. This is the reprint of the 1997 book by the author of Terror Television (which also has a chapter on Space:1999)and The Films of John Carpenter. This is a sturdy, utilitarian volume with some good photographs of Catherine Schell, two original illustrations, and a great text. Today, everybody from the New York Times to TV Guide is hailing Space:1999 as a lost masterpiece but in 1997 Muir's was the only voice in print supporting the series, - and we can be thankful for it. The book stands the test of time because Muir writes so well about the series' strength, and destroys many of the old arguments against the show through logic, reason,and with empirical evidence. He writes about how 1) the series is high-quality and 2)how it picks up on interesting film techniques to tell its stories and advance its themes. I don't agree with every episode review in the book, but Muir is consistent - preferring those with "film style" rather than solid, traditional stories. This is great, innovative reading, and well worth the price.

Being a fan of Space:1999 since its debut in 1975, I immediately bought this book to see what it was all about. Like the book Space:1999 - The Future Is Fantastic (which would come out some three years later), this book about the classic British science fiction series was well researched and exhaustively informative. Like Paul M. Sammon's book on the making of Blade Runner, John Kenneth Muir's book really captured every detail about the show. From the synopsis of all 48 episodes, to direct quotes of dialogue from the characters and interviews with various actors, actresses, behind the scenes personnel, and the creators Gerry and Sylvia Anderson, this book was a pure pleasure to read. Muir's comments and criticisms about each episode and the show in general were justifiable in some areas, and in others, not. However, his book on the show, and the information contained were muti-dimensional and layered. Like many fans of the show, Muir's writings clearly indicate that he too is a fan, and truly cares about this classic piece of science fiction. He also goes into detail about how strong a cult-fan following the show has, and why it was on for only two years. Especially the changes made between the first and second seasons.

If you enjoy Space:1999, then you will want to pick up a copy of this excellent and informative book. If you really enjoy Muir's book on this show, then you'll want to check out his book on another classic piece of science fiction and fantasy. A legendary space opera known as Battlestar Galactica.

this is one of the worst books i've ever bought. if you have ever read Fangoria magazine you would have gotten better pictures and more information on mr. carpenter. how can a book like this not go into detail about carpenters famous movie scores! the book is not complete for they don't even mention the made for tv movie ELVIS he made with kurt russell.better information could be obtained from dvd production notes.somebody please write a fitting tribute to a great director.

Perhaps the greatest research and analysis of any filmmaker (let alone of Carpenter himself) I've had ever the joy of reading. Muir certainly gave me a completely different perspective of Carpenter's films. I actually found myself going back and re-watching scenes of his films I've watched a million times in a new light (After learning of Carpenter's motivations for "Escape From L.A." in this book, I went from seeing it as a so-so sequel, to terrific remake!). I can't reccomend it enough to anyone who, like myself, would call Carpenter their favorite director. His reviews and insights are both honest and insightful (his critique of the Carpenter produced "Halloween III", a guilty pleasure of mine, had me roaring with laughter). Don't balk at the price, it's absolutley worth it as it is packed full of fascinating information. If you-re a die hard Carpenter fan, you'll be missing out if you pass this up.

Muir's comprehensive analysis of the works of John Carpenter moves even the dilettante to review them with a more appreciative perspective. Muir reveals interesting sociological and psychological themes within Carpenter's works that compel the reader to truly re-evaluate Carpenter's talent.

The book was obviously written by an author who "knows his stuff" and appreciates the full value of the subject matter. This is what makes reading this work enjoyable and entertaining. I recommend this book to any fan or critic of the works of John Carpenter.

I am a diehard Battlestar Galactica fan and I would not waste the (money) to read this uthor call the show a "guilty pleasure". He did not do one interview for the book, instead over 200 pages he sounds like he is whining rather then analytically breaking apart the series.

This book has no legitimate pictures of any of the cast, only scans (and might I say poor quality scans at that) of Battlestar merchandise. Besides the horrible price, Mr. Muir also wrote an overpriced book on Space: 1999 and he goes around claiming to be a BG expert and a Space: 1999 expert as well.

Let me put it this way: anyone who includes Galactica: 1980 and gives it any credence at all can't possibly love the series all that much. In any good book about BG it is an appendix at most. Cheesy interior designs don't impress me all that much.

I think you should pass on this book and wait for the anticipated new unofficial book that is being planned for 2003. Check out battlestargalatica.com, they just announced it on December 20, and it looks like it will be half as much as this and have interviews and better pictures.

This book is a detailed anaylsis (with some author bias) regarding Battlestar Galactica, but not its [dumb] offspring, Galactica 80. It goes into many things from the creation of the show to an episode guide to a look at the many legal problems and issues with Star Wars.

I like the author's take on the Star Wars vs. Galactica mess. He does have a point regarding copying. If Kurosawa and the creator of Flash Gordon used Lucas' logic then all the profits from Star Wars should go to them...

His analysis of each episode is actually pretty good. He doesn't shy away from calling a number of episodes dogs especially the cowboy in space junk. Not everything that Glen Larson did regarding Galactica turned to gold.

My only problem was that he over emphasizes the importance of both BG and Space 1999 in SF TV. I think that in terms of visuals, BG and Space made a difference in SFX and how they were done on TV (no more Salt Shakers and styrofoam sets!) As for writing? No, because it wasn't all that good. If both shows had better writing then they wouldn't have been canned after two years, but that is just my opinion.

This is a very interesting, thought-provoking book about Battletar Galactica that is perfect for easy reference and has become a permanent fixture near my TV. The author knows the ins-and-outs of the series and writes well about it, and has clearly given his "analysis" a lot of thought (whether one agrees with it or not). He has a good eye for details and knows why the series was sometimes great/sometimes not - capturing the essence of a flawed classic. Overall a provocative read - not studio (or fan) propaganda.