The "It's About TV" Interview: David Hofstede, author of When Television Brought Us Together

It's been awhile since I've put someone in the spotlight for the It's About TV Interview, a process so terrifying that it's been known to send people fleeing in abject horror. But enough about the readers... (And, by the way, they love the subjects; it's the interviewer himself that they can do without.)

However, David Hofstede, author of the Comfort TV website, has bravely stepped into the breech to talk about the upcoming second edition of his book,When Television Brought Us Together: Celebrating the Shows and Values That Shaped America's First Television Viewing Generations. That's a hell of a title for a hell of a good book, and David was most gracious and generous with his time in agreeing to sit in the hot seat for our latest interview.

l  l  l

It's About TV: I love your idea of "Comfort TV," which plays such a big part as a concept in When Television Brought Us Together. How did that idea come about, and how would you define it to the ordinary person today who probably doesn't even know television existed before twenty minutes ago?

David Hofstede: The idea originated with my blog, which I started back in 2012 when the market for classic TV books had dwindled because of the internet. I needed a new outlet to share my thoughts about the era of television that I love, and that seemed like the best option.

As for what “comfort TV’ is – I think for most of us it’s the shows we grew up with, shows we shared with our family and friends. A connection is forged with them, so we enjoy revisiting them as adults not only for the joy they first brought us, but for the happy memories we associate with them. And as we’ve watched the country and the culture undergo profound changes since they first aired, they also provide a sanctuary when current events become too disillusioning.

How would you define the era of "comfort TV"? Is it chronological, for example the 1950s through the 1970s, or is it by genre? In other words, are there programs from the recent past that you would say belong in the Comfort Era?  

For me it’s the 1950s through the ‘70s, and into the ‘80s as well. I think for a series to generate the kind of warm nostalgic feelings associated with Comfort TV there has to be a familiarity that only grows with the passage of time. For those younger than us I see that happening with a terrific show like Gilmore Girls, which ran from 2000-2007 and is now a favorite series to revisit for those in their 40s.

Now, enter When Television Brought Us Together. Obviously, it's an outgrowth of the blog, but what specifically caused you to take a book-length approach to the topic?

It certainly started with the blog, but it also grew out of an effort to take a macro view of the three-network era of television - what were its defining characteristics, and why did it resonate so deeply with the generations that grew up with its shows? It certainly had its critics back in the day, as evidenced by TV Guide essays penned by egghead intellectuals who looked down on much of its product. But looking back, I think we were fortunate to have the guard rails put in place by the Code of Practice for Television Broadcasters; to have writers like Roswell Rogers and Rod Serling and Carl Reiner and Sterling Silliphant delivering smart scripts on tight deadlines, and to embrace characters across every genre providing examples of responsibility and integrity. We learned good things from those shows, even if we didn't realize it at the time. 

When Television Brought Us Together implies several things, chief among them that it no longer performs this function. Am I reading something into that, or do you feel this way as well, that it either can't bring us together, or that it actively tries to drive us apart? 

It can’t bring us together anymore – not with hundreds of channels and streaming services showing thousands of programs. Widow’s Bay, the Apple TV series that just swept the Emmy Awards, is watched by an average of 2.5 million people. That’s about 0.72% of the country. Only the Super Bowl still attracts the level of viewership numbers that would qualify television as a mass medium.

You make some wonderful observations in the book about how classic-era television shows present values that seem almost quaint today, such as your rhetorical question as to why Bewitched's Darrin doesn't simply let Samantha wiggle her nose and take care of everything herself. Presumably, between Sam and (I Dream of) Jeannie, Darrin and Tony were set for life. They'd won the lottery, and married beautiful women besides. Yet it doesn't seem to have occurred to either one of them to take financial advantage of that. What does that same about them--or, perhaps more pointed, what does it say about our values today?

What is says about them is that they were products of mid-20th century America, when there was perceived nobility in an honest day’s work that extended from the custodial staff to the executive suite, and maxims like “You don’t get something for nothing” were universally understood. What does it say about us now? It’s hard not to wonder whether the bedrock values that sustained us through centuries are now at risk from a systematic dismantling of Western culture.  I know that’s pretty heavy stuff when we’re talking about I Dream of Jeannie. But ask yourself how men competing in women’s sports would have been perceived in the Comfort TV era. Or the Lindsay Clancy trial, or the growing favorable view of socialism. As I posit in the chapter on Dragnet, what would Sgt. Joe Friday think of L.A. as a sanctuary city?

God forbid, those elected officials would be in line for one of Joe's famous "Listen, mister" lectures!  

(Laughs.)

You have sections in the book on "How times have changed," where you take certain aspects of modern life and show how these changes have affected television shows and the tropes that used to be pretty common back in the day. Tell us a little about that, and if you think there's anything that's replaced them as an effective trope?

I wanted this to be more than a book about TV – I wanted to reflect on the times when these shows were new – what life in America was like back then, and how much of how we live and work and play in 2026 is different. What we’ve gained, and more so what we’ve lost, and how that is illuminated in the sitcoms and dramas from that time.

One of the reasons these shows have such enduring appeal is the opportunity they provide to revisit the world they inhabited. As an example, there is a “How times have changed” essay in the book about photography. Back then snapshots of a child’s birthday or a family vacation were treasured things, to be stored in an album and revisited through the years. Now we have cameras in our phones that instantly deliver thousands of images, and people take selfies of every routine activity. It’s easier, certainly more convenient, but there’s nothing special about it anymore.

One of the impressions that one gets from social media is that younger generations are, well, let’s say ignorant of the past. Not just television, but life in general. If you were going to choose, say, a half-dozen shows as examples of what the would used to be like, what would they be? 

One of my guilty pleasures is watching reactor channels on YouTube, and smiling as 20-somethings discover the Beatles and Casablanca and The Twilight Zone. Some of those videos get hundreds of thousands of views, and I find it reassuring that at least some of the iconic artistic achievements from the past are being rediscovered. My hope is that the shows celebrated in the book will also continue to find an audience and not get lost amidst a TV landscape with infinite choices. Will anyone still care about The Brady Bunch, The Mary Tyler Moore Show and I Love Lucy in 25 years? I don’t know. But I think they’d like them if they tried them.

Are we just old, or is television really worse than it used to be? I’ve asked this before, but why? And did this have to happen, or was there a turning point, an event that really altered our cultural perspective on television?

I can’t assess the current state of television because I gave up on it more than a decade ago. My viewing these days is limited to news, sports and General Hospital. I’m sure there are new scripted shows that are great. If there’s a difference between then and now it’s in how success for a series is measured, which also touches on how the economics of the medium have changed. In the three-network era creators strived to appeal to the widest possible audience, in a way that would not risk offending viewers and advertisers because, with few exceptions, ratings were the sole arbiter of success or failure. Now those guard rails are gone, and more provocative shows can target a 12-episode season to a niche audience.

For those who think this book sounds familiar, this is actually an updated version of the original edition from a few years back. For those of us who have and enjoyed the original, what's new in this edition?

About 20 new chapters, updates and revisions to previous chapters, and lots of photos.

We've both been accused in the past of being on the conservative side of the political aisle. Is there anything ideological in what we're talking about, or is the idea that we're political reactionaries just a lot of hot air?

It’s apparent to me that views considered mainstream in the Comfort TV era are now branded as conservative or even far-right. I can’t change that, nor do I think a different label negates their validity. Readers will find those views upheld in “How times have changed” essays on healthcare and schools and journalism. Anyone watching how Dr. Alex Stone treats patients and parents on The Donna Reed Show, or the classroom scenes from any vintage family situation comedy, or observing in Lou Grant how Lou demanded accuracy and objectivity from his reporters, may wonder why those values have fallen out of favor.

It's not all doom-and-gloom, though, and I hope I haven't given readers an inaccurate picture of When Television Brought Us Together. It's delightful, charming, nostalgic, and fun, and not just for us relics from the Comfort TV era. Anyone with any affection for the classic era of television is going to like this book. 

We’ve touched on some serious topics, but I don’t want people to think the book is some scholarly treatise. It’s fun, and often funny (I hope!) and crafted to generate happy memories. Any book that celebrates the music of Kaptain Kool and the Kongs can’t be all that stuffy.

l  l  l

Mitchell here. Thanks again, David, for taking some time with the infamous It's About TV Interview. I don't think it's a secret for readers that I'm a friend of David's, and a big fan of his writing. Therefore, you might expect that, well, of course I'm going to give a positive reading to the book. But you've got to take me seriously here, folks, because this really is a terrific book, and it accomplishes the task of being both lighthearted and humorous on one hand, and serious and insightful on the other. That's not an easy thing to do, and David does it so well here.

If you've got the first edition of When Television Brought Us Together, you're going to want this updated edition for many reasons, not the least of which being the new content that David mentioned. And if you didn't get it back then, now's the time to rectify that mistake! TV

If you enjoy the content here and want to support my broader creative work, please consider leaving a tip at my Ko-fi page. Any amount you contribute helps me continue writing, researching, and sharing these articles and projects. Thank you!

What's on TV? Monday, September 20, 1971

Tonight represents a landmark in the history of televised sports. No, it's not the inaugural season of Monday Night Football; that was last year. It's close, though: for the second season debut, Frank Gifford replaces Keith Jackson as play-by-play announcer, a move that has twin ramifications. In joining Howard Cosell and Don Meredith, Gifford helps form one of the most memorable broadcasting teams in television sports history, one that would earn the praise and ire of millions around the country. They helped turn Monday Night Football from a mere football game to an event, a colossal Roman circus that inspired such activities as barroom contests to throw bricks through televisions when the trio appeared on the screen. More sedate, but perhaps more significant, Jackson moved from the NFL to college football, in the process becoming one of the greatest big-game announcers in television history. On such a historic night as this, everything else pales in comparison, right? This week's issue covers the Philadelphia-New York City area.

This week in TV Guide: September 18, 1971

IIn the era which we call B.C.—that is, Before Cable—movies on television were a Big Deal. A Very Big Deal, in fact. They were, and had been for years, a staple of local television, and in the late 1950s ABC had experimented with a couple of movie packages consisting of pre-1950 movies or movies from England, but when NBC's Saturday Night at the Movies debuted in 1961, it represented a masssive change. Now, for the first time, movies that had been in theaters after 1950 could be seen in the comfort of your very own living room. Some of them were even in color, and all of them were shown in a time slot of at least two hours, meaning they didn't have to be hacked to death first. I explain all this for those of your out there, primarily younger readers, who may not be able to imagine a time when people like me got excited about watching movies on TV that were interrupted at regular intervals for commercials and had often been edited for time or content (or both). What can I say? Thinks were simpler then.

This is all a lead-in to one of this week's cover stories, Al Morgan's look at the men who decide what movies we see on TV. Their names are Barry Diller, Larry White and Mike Marden. They work for the three networks, and as Morgan writes, "Far beyond the dreams of any statesman, they can unite the country: unite it in rooting home the hero in a chariot race or unite it breathing heavily in the Burton-Taylor boudoir."*

*Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. They were an item once.

They all agree that things have changed dramatically over the years. In television's early days, the networks would bid against each other for movies, with the price for a single movie jumping "from less than $200,000 to more than a million." With that kind of price war, something had to change; enter the "film package." Distributors would put together a package of as many as 40 movies; the catch was that in order to buy the really good ones, you also had to take the, let's say, less desirable ones. (Kind of like cable television packages, come to think of it.) For example, there's the one CBS bought several years ago. It included hits like Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, The Night of the Iguana, The Sandpiper, North by Northwest, and an Elvis movie. It also included "gems" like Your Cheatin' Heart (George Hamilton as Hank Williams), Hold On! (starring Herman's Hermits), and The Alphabet Murders (Tony Randall trying to play Hercule Poirot). As Mike Marden says, "In those days, our rule of thumb was 'You got 'em, you play 'em.' Today the public won't sit still for a bad movie, a really bad movie." He adds that it's more of a buyer's market today, that the days "when the networks bought anything that moved and talked" are long since over. 

Everyone agrees that NBC has the largest film library; "We haven't bought a package in two years," Larry Wilson says, and when they do, "we look at them on an individual basis. They are offered to us. We buy or we don't buy." ABC's library isn't bad either; Diller says the inventory is big enough that the network could program until 1975 without buying anything more. Diller is especially proud of the network's recent deal for two playings of Cleopatra for more than $4 million. He's also pleased with his purchase of the John Wayne Western The Sons of Katie Elder. "Wayne is pure gold to us," he says. CBS describes it's situation as "comfortable"; Marden says, "I haven't even bought many individual pictures lately." His most recent gems: Ben-Hur and A Streetcar Named Desire.

Scheduling movies is a real chess game for these men. A well-timed movie can take the edge off of a series premiere or other special program. A two-part movie not only doubles the potential ratings bonanza (two nights instead of one!), it also justifies the expense of purchasing that movie (Cleopatra supposedly cost ABC $4 million). This very week, CBS is premiering Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? in the old Ed Sullivan timespot to try and retain Ed's loyal audience. Summer nights make the perfect time for dumping those dogs that you had to purchase in order to get the movies you really wanted. And a blockbuster can help improve ratings for local affiliates, thereby earning loyal and undying gratitude. 

Star power is a big part of making investments pay off. John Wayne is "pure gold" not only for ABC, but CBS as well, and you have to think NBC's feeling pretty good about this week's two-part running of The Alamo. But there's one thing the networks haven't gotten into yet: foreign films. Only ABC has taken a chance: having previously shown A Man and a Woman as a kind of test, Barry Diller went ahead this year and bought Z, Costa-Gavras's political thriller that was a Best Picture nominee at the Oscars. It's an important movie, Diller says; "I hope people will watch it, but it's a movie that should be seen." I guess if we really want foreign films, we'll just have to wait for TCM.

l  l  l

From 1963 to 1976, TV Guide's weekly reviews were written by the witty and acerbic Cleveland Amory. Whenever we get the chance, we'll look at Cleve's latest take on the shows of the era.

The subject of Cleveland Amory's column this week is not a show. Rather, one could say that his focus is on the show within the show. It's the phenomenon known as the VIV—the Very Important Voice—and it's the latest fad in the advertising genre known as the television commercial. It's become so big, in fact, that according to Cleve there's at least one agency in Hollywood that works on nothing but voice talent for commercials. "Last year," says agency owner Charles Stern, "performers on shows earned $35,000,000. Performers on commercials earned over $65,000,000." Well, he's got me convinced; where do you line up for this kind of gig?

Nowadays everyone's doing it: J.D. Cannon for Piels, Jose Ferrer for Schlitz, Lloyd Nolan for Ford, Greg Morris for Datsun, Jack Kelly for Contac, David Wayne for American Airlines, Orson Welles for Eastern Airlines. As a matter of fact, Amory says, when Orson Welles took over Eastern from Alexander Scourby, "it was almost as much of a cause célèbre as when Robert Lansing was replaced from Twelve O'clock High or when Martin Landau and Barbara Bain were replaced in Mission: Impossible." And while big names like Jim Backus, Chuck Connors and Vincent Price are easily recognizable voices, Amory pays particular attention to the voice of a man he calls "unknown": Paul Frees.

Paul Frees is in fact a relative unknown when it comes to his face, but as a voice talent he has become one of the most famous of all time, rivaled today perhaps only by Mel Blanc and Daws Butler. You probably know him for his cartoon voices: Boris Badenov on Rocky and Bullwinkle, Inspector Fenwick on Dudley Do-Right, Burgermeister Meisterburger in Santa Claus is Comin' to Town, and a host of other roles for Jay Ward, Rankin/Bass, and others. He's also done voiceover work on movies from The Manchurian Candidate to Patton, and often worked as a sound-alike for none other than Orson Welles. Amory says that he can do anybody—James Stewart, Jack Benny—better than they can. He regularly earnes over $250,000 a year. For that kind of money, I'd be only too glad to be an unknown, too.

l  l  l

There's a lesson to be taken somewhere from ABC's Wednesday night schedule. At first glance, you can see why the network would be excited about it; the star-studded lineup features returning series with Elizabeth Montgomery (Bewitched), Bill Bixby (The Courtship of Eddie's Father), Henry Fonda (The Smith Family), and new shows starring Shirley MacLaine (Shirley's World) and Anthony Quinn (The Man and The City). As I said, a lot of star wattage. There's only one problem: by the end of the 1971-72 TV season, none of them will be left on the network's schedule. What happened?

In the case of Bewitched, it's a bit misleading; the show had been a hit for ABC for eight seasons, going back to 1964, and had Montgomery wanted, it probably could have continued for another season or two.* Eddie's Father was a success as well, if not as successful as Bewitched; it ran for three seasons, which today would qualify it as an unmitigated smash. But The Smith Family, the third of the returning shows, only produced 39 episodes over a season-and-a-half, and neither Shirley's World nor Man and The City managed a second season. Hardly what one might expect from a lineup featuring multiple Emmy and Oscar winners. As for what happened, I have a theory, although that's all it is. Briefly, it could be described thus: there are stars, and then there are stars.

*Elizabeth Montgomery was understandably tired of the role after such a long run; in addition, she and husband (and Bewitched producer William Asher) were in the process of divorcing.

Elizabeth Montgomery and Bill Bixby were estabalished TV stars, Montgomery through Bewitched and Bixby with My Favorite Martian and Eddie's Father; they also featured in several TV movies over the years. They'd built up a rapport with viewers, who'd become comfortable with welcoming them into their living rooms each week. Fonda, MacLaine and Quinn, on the other hand, had made their fame on the big screen. Only Fonda had helmed a TV series before, The Deputy (1959-61), and in that one he'd usually played a secondary role. MacLaine and Quinn, on the other hand, were part of an inflow of movie stars into television for the 1971 season, one that included Jimmy Stewart, Glenn Ford, and Yul Brynner. TV Guide, in surveying the damage the following year, will suggest that television executives may have been so concerned about attracting big stars that they neglected to give them strong vehicles for their talents. Only Glenn Ford, in the Western-cop show Cade's County, had a series that matched up well with the star's image, and it's probably no coincidence that Cade's County was perhaps the best one of the bunch.

In the intervening years, the crossover from movies to television and back has become more common, thanks mostly to prestige shows on cable outlets. Still, it's hard to imagine a network today trying to build a successful lineup around the star system. 

l  l  l

It's the second (!) season opener for All in the Family (Saturday, 8:00 p.m. ET; and they said it would never last), with the Bunkers having to deal with the aftermath of deadbeat cousin Oscar, who comes to visit and—well, becomes just dead Oscar. That's followed at 8:30 p.m. by the debut of Funny Face, starring Sandy Duncan, who's this week's cover star. The network really believed in Sandy, really wanted this series to work, but after a few weeks, Duncan undergoes surgery for a tumor behind her left eye, and the show essentially goes on hiatus for the rest of the season. It will return next year, retooled as The Sandy Duncan Show, but the show itself is never as talented as she is. At 9:00 p.m., NBC Saturday Night at the Movies has one of those blockbusters we talked about earlier, part one of The Alamo, with John Wayne as producer and director, as well as playing Davy Crockett. We also get an all-star cast including Richard Widmark as Jim Bowie, Richard Boone as Sam Houston, Laurence Harvey as William Travis, and Chill Wills in an Oscar-nominated turn as Beekeeper. Part two airs Monday, same Batjac-time, same Batjac-channel.* And at 10:00 p.m. on ABC, it's the debut of the British-import series The Persuaders!, with Tony Curtis and Roger Moore wonderful as two multimillionaire playboys who become crimefighters in their spare time.

*Batjac being the name of John Wayne's production company.

As I alluded to earlier, The Ed Sullivan Show has taken its last bows, replaced by the new CBS Sunday Night Movie (7:30 p.m.), starting off with 1967's Best Picture nominee Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?, Spencer Tracy's last movie, co-starring Oscar winner Katharine Hepburn and Sidney Poitier. Crist has mixed feelings about this one; the performances of the three leads "are lovely to behold," but as for the movie itself, its thesis that "interracial marriage among the rich and successful is permissible provided the couple leaves for Africa by midnight" is "nothing less than vomitous." There's also The Duke again, this time with Robert Mitchum in El Dorado (9:00 p.m., ABC), although Crist says that both the movie and its stars are "hobbling around on crutches." Maybe you're better off with the premiere of The Jimmy Stewart Show (8:30 p.m., NBC), the star's first television series; it's also the first and only time Stewart ever allowed himself to be billed as "Jimmy" rather than "James." He gets that billing for 24 episodes.

It's the season premiere of Monday Night Football this week, with Minnesota taking on Detroit (9:00 p.m., ABC). We'll have more about that in Monday's TV listing. Meanwhile, Billy DeWolfe returns as a guest star on The Doris Day Show (9:30 p.m., CBS), Charles Nelson Reilly joins the cast of Hershel Bernardi's sitcom Arnie (10:30 p.m., CBS), and Joan Rivers is the guest hostess on The Tonight Show (11:30 p.m., NBC). On Tuesday, it's the fifth-season opener for Ironside (7:30 p.m., NBC), with "an exciting new star," James Olson, playing a contract killer. Olson had actually been around for some time, doing a lot of television, as well as cheesy movies like Moon Zero Two, and very good movies like The Andromeda Strain and Rachel, Rachel. That's followed by the debut of Sarge (8:30 p.m, NBC), starring George Kennedy as a former policeman turned priest, who deals with a dying man (Jack Albertson) looking to even the score with a mobster. If you're looking for something a little less intense, Glen Campbell has a pretty good guest lineup (7:30 p.m., CBS), with Bob Hope, Dionne Warwicke, and the Smothers Brothers.

We've already looked at ABC's Wednesday lineup, but there's more to the evening's entertainment. For one thing, it's the second-season debut of McCloud on the NBC Mystery Movie (8:30 p.m.) Like you, I remember the Mystery Movie mostly from Sunday nights, but it actually started out on Wednesday. (And McCloud got its start as part of Four-In-One, where it rotated with San Francisco International Airport, Night Gallery, and The Psychiatrist.) Meanwhile, the program description claims that singer Steve Lawrence is making his TV dramatic debut as an ambitious surgeon in Medical Center (9:00 p.m., CBS), but we all know that his real TV dramatic debut was in Rod Serling's fantasy drama Carol for Another Christmas back in 1964. All they had to do was ask me; I would have told them. And at 10:00 p.m., it's none other than the aforementioned Night Gallery on NBC.

Thursday features a couple more new series on ABC, beginning at 9:00 p.m. with James Franciscus as the blind detective Longstreet, followed at 10:00 p.m. by Arthur Hill as Owen Marshall, Counselor at Law. And on WKBS, the independent station in Philadelphia, it's a delightful episode of It Takes a Thief (9:00 p.m.), with a guest appearance by Fred Astaire as Alexander Mundy's father Alister. ► I always enjoyed the episodes with him. Finally, on Friday, it's Group W's Norman Corwin Presents (10:30 p.m., KYW). Corwin, one of the great writers from the Golden Age of Radio, hosted this half-hour anthology series during the 1971-72 season; tonight's episode, which he also wrote, is "Odyssey in Progress," a musical fantasy about a boy searching through space for his dead dog.

l  l  l

Let's see, what else have we got in the headlines? Richard K. Doan reports on the late-nite turmoil at CBS, where Merv Griffin wants out of his contract so he can return to syndication with Metromedia (where he'll be a daytime show in many markets). CBS will be happy to him go, but then who would replace him? There are rumors; Sonny and Cher (!) were a hit in their summer series, so they've been mentioned, as has Bill Cosby, but the suits don't think either of these choices would be the right one. As it turns out, they wound up replacing Merv with movies and reruns, and didn't dip their toes into the talk show wars until they gave Pat Sajak a shot in 1989. Just think, though, if either of those options had come to pass. I could see Cosby as a talk show host, but Sonny and Cher? Ah, for someone to write an alternative history on that.

The New York Teletype says that Burt Reynolds, who most recently appeared on the small screen in Dan August, is going to take a detour to star in the big-screen version of poet James Dickey's novel Deliverance, along with Jon Voight. I wonder how that'll turn out for Burt? In Hollywood, the talk is about ABC's upcoming telemovie ◄The Kolchak Tapes, currently filming in Las Vegas; it's a vampire epic starring Darren McGavin and Carol Lynley. I wonder if the network has any idea what a hit they'll have on their hands? There's also a report that Sterling Silliphant is working on a pilot for his old Route 66 star George Maharis. Needless to say. . .

Finally, Pat Morrow, this week's starlet, asked herself, following five years as Rita Jacks on Peyton Place, "What did I want to do with the rest of my life?" The answer, at least for the time being, go to law school. She's just finished her first year at Glendale College of Law; her goal is to "defend poor people—people who can't afford to pay the fees of lawyers like my father [a corporate lawyer]." Not like the law shows on television, though, because "these shows have very little reality and no resemblance to the truth about the law and how it operates—in or out of the courtroom." She's had it with acting—"Maybe for some women it would be a good life. Not for me. I'll never go back to television." Not, at least, until next year, when she reprises her role as Rita on Return to Peyton Place until 1974. She does graduate from Glendale, though. TV

If you enjoy the content here and want to support my broader creative work, please consider leaving a tip at my Ko-fi page. Any amount you contribute helps me continue writing, researching, and sharing these articles and projects. Thank you!

Around the dial

Lets start with some Twilight Zone, shall we? At The Twilight Zone Vortex, Brian reviews the final season  episode "Spur of the Moment," which also marked the final contribution to the series of writer Richard Matheson. Just saw this episode a couple of weeks ago myself.

From there, it's Comfort TV, where David reviews three hits from that much-maligned final season, as well as three misses. No, "Spur of the Moment" doesn't land on either list, though it does get a mention. But see if you agree with David's choices.

The "Patricia Hayes Season" continues at Cult TV Blog, where John views her performance in "And the Wall Came Tumbling Down" from Hammer House of Mystery and Suspense. If this doesn't make you want to watch the series, nothing will.

For some reason, Speed Racer completely escaped me when I was of cartoon age. (I wonder what I was watching instead?) I don't have to wonder about this piece by Paul at Drunk TV, though, and it's a terrific look back at the legendary cartoon.

At Cult TV Lounge, DforDoom looks at a miniseries I completely overlooked: The Dain Curse, a three-episode series from 1978 in which the great James Coburn plays Dashiell Hammett's private detective Hamilton Nash, aka The Continental Op.

This week, Martin Grams gives us a little TV Guide Trivia from 1959, featuring items from the wonderful TV Teletype, which is always a must-stop whenever I'm reading an old issue. Read it; you'll like it!

The 60th anniversary of The Monkees? Get outta here! But it's true, and I'm old. At A Shroud of Thoughts, Terence shares his thoughts on the anniversary, and they give us some memories well worth reliving.

I couldn't let the week pass without the latest A-Team review by Roger at The View from the Junkyard. This week, it's "Uncle Budkle-Up," and it's not a PSA for seat belts, but a story about toys being used to smuggle drugs.

Finally, I was speaking about miniseries earlier, and for a good reason: at this month's American TV series with Dan Schneider, we talk about the magnificent, if checkered, history of the miniseries, from Roots to Washington: Behind Closed Doors. Enjoy!  TV

If you enjoy the content here and want to support my broader creative work, please consider leaving a tip at my Ko-fi page. Any amount you contribute helps me continue writing, researching, and sharing these articles and projects. Thank you!

What I did on my summer vacation, or, this writing life

It's been said that Labor Day represents the end of summer. I've never been too crazy about that idea, because when I was a kid, the end of summer meant the beginning of the school year. Well, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.

But it hasn't exactly been a secret in these parts that I haven't been as present at It's About TV as I usually am. And it occurs to me that some of you might be wondering what's been going on. (Some of you, of course, probably don't care, but that's okay, because I don't care about what you're doing, either.) I tend not to talk about anything here that isn't television-related, so just because I know what I've been up to, that doesn't mean you know.

So: I've been busy. Very busy. I published my new novel, The Book of Revelations, in June. But if you think that was the end of the story, it was really more like the beginning. The months prior to publication were spent with editing, rewriting, design work, and pre-launch publicity. (One of the drawbacks to being an indie author is that you have to do it all yourself.) 

And when the book actually comes out, that's when it really starts to heat up. I've appeared on several podcasts, not only promoting Revelations, but talking about the writing life in general, specifically what it's like to write both fiction and non-fiction concurrently. (TL;DR: it ain't easy.) I have another podcast coming up next week, in fact, and hopefully more to come.

That's not to mention the book tour, which is also ongoing. One of the things I've most enjoyed in this whole process is setting up my table at book fairs and getting to talk with people who share a passion for books. They might buy my book (I sold 22 at a book fair in early August), or they might not (I sold three at Barnes & Noble, which was actually three more than I'd anticipated), but even if they're just curious, it is always a pleasure to meet with and talk to them. And, surprise, they don't bite! I wouldn't say that I've gotten adept at hawking my wares, but it's a hell of a lot more fun than it is selling them online or through social media, let me tell you. You can see the complete lineup of my in-person and podcast appearances here, and it changes constantly. There's also my new video series, The 90-Second Author, in which I talk about the ideas, inspirations, and creative decisions behind my fiction. It comes up every week on my social media platforms, and you can see them on my YouTube channel here.

(L-R) A reading at Hyde Brothers Bookstore; my sales table at a book fair; with Danny, the beloved stuffed monkey from The Book of Revelations.

And then there's the flip side of being a writer: writing. Just after Revelations came out, and while I was starting to book appearances, I also managed to begin writing my next book. And as of last week, I've completed the first draft, which comes in at about 73,000 words; the same basic length as Revelations. My new novel is entitled Five, and the title has nothing to do with the number of books I've written, nor does it refer to how many months it took to write. What does it mean? Well, you'll have to buy a copy to find out. Still, I can tell you that, like Revelations, it deals with tortured souls trying to find a way out of betrayal and grief; and while Revelations will always remain the book most dear to me, and the one I take the greatest pleasure in, I think Five's going to be pretty damn good, too, and I'm hoping to publish it in June of 2027, the same time period as when I published Revelations. 

There's a lot of work ahead for Five: editing, rewriting, more editing, more rewriting, design work, and pre-publicity. So that old adage about there being no rest for the wicked? Unfortunately, it's true. And yet I can't remember when I've enjoyed writing more. Not that I don't love writing about television; I do. But at the same time it's true that my passion, and my time, now rests more with my novels, and they are what I suspect will occupy most of my time for the rest of my writing life. Doesn't mean I'm leaving here, at least not for a while, but you might notice me talking about my novels more than I have in the past, even though they aren't about TV. 

In my writing life, there's one mistake that I've made that I can rectify here and now: I assumed that, because you come here for my television writing, you wouldn't be interested in my novels. That may, in fact, be true, but it is an offense to you for me to assume that, and going forward, I'm not going to make that mistake. You can always find out what's going on by visiting my author website, www.mitchellhadley.com, but from now on I'm going to be more generous with my time here as well.

Hard at work, or hardly working? 

So, you may wonder: what's next? Well, glad you asked that! The publishing company I own, Throckmorton Press, does publish authors other than myself, and I'm working with three new authors as we speak, in areas including fiction and poetry. That should either keep me out of trouble or get me in even more of it; we'll see which it is.

And that writing gig? Well, since I've retired, I've been writing my books (including Five) at the rate of one a year, which means it's not too early to start talking about 2028. Rumor has it that I've been outlining a story called Indifference, and I'm not indifferent to my feelings about it. Will it be the next book to see black ink on white paper? I can't say for sure, but a writer's got to write, doesn't he?  TV

If you enjoy the content here and want to support my broader creative work, please consider leaving a tip at my Ko-fi page. Any amount you contribute helps me continue writing, researching, and sharing these articles and projects. Thank you!