Ann Druyan on the Wonder Of

ann druyan on the wonder of

hen eight and a half million Americans tuned in to the television premiere of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey this spring, the words they heard were Windelibly associated with its on-screen host, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. But the writer of those words is the show’s creator, producer, and writer, Ann Druyan, who also cowrote the original Cosmos series, that Emmy-winning, Peabody-winning, broadcast-in-sixty-countries juggernaut that remains the most widely watched PBS series ever. The original show was, of course, Ann’s collabo- ration with her husband, the late, great Carl Sagan. Tyson and Druyan are Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, as was Sagan.

In July the new Cosmos led all nonfiction television series in receiving twelve Emmy Award nominations, in categories including Short-Format Nonfiction Pro- gram, Documentary or Nonfiction Series, Art Direction, Cinematography, and both Writing and Directing for Nonfiction Programming.

We begin this package about Cosmos with Ann Druyan’s answers to five questions posed to her by SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Editor Kendrick Frazier after the series concluded in June. Then we present a condensed version of an earlier interview about her experience with the first and the new Cosmos series by Josh Zepps for our Center for Inquiry’s Point of Inquiry podcast. (That full interview is online at http://www. pointofinquiry.org/ann_druyan_telling_the_story_of_the_cosmos//.)

Skeptical Inquirer | September/October 2014 35 Kendrick Frazier Asks Ann Druyan about the New Cosmos

Now that all episodes of tors ever imagined. The phe- until I told them I required Cosmos have been aired—to nomenal success of the show complete creative control and I have been what would seem to be great in most of the 181 countries the kind of budget that would delighted to success—how would you in which it has aired seems to make Cosmos the transporting describe the public response bear that out. The ratings in voyage it had to be. When they see that the you have seen so far? the majority of other countries balked at giving me control, voices that have been even better than the and enough money to produce reject science The response has affirmed stronger-than-expected ratings it, I said no. By this time I was the premise with which I here. Also, I expected that a working with Steve Soter, seem to be a began: The audience has a show that was uncompromis- Mitchell Cannold, and Neil. I tiny and rather longing, one that is terribly ing on evolution by natural know they must have thought I feeble minority under-served in popular cul- selection, climate change, and was nuts and that the chances ture, a hunger to feel a part other issues would ignite a of making the series on my on the extreme of something greater than vigorous reaction. I have been terms were tiny, but to their fringe. ourselves without resorting to delighted to see that the voices credit they hung in. Three self-deception. Science reveals that reject science seem to years into this quest, Neil that space and time are so be a tiny and rather feeble introduced me to Seth MacFar- much grander than our ances- minority on the extreme fringe. lane, the champion of Cosmos I don’t think any producer/ who had the clout to get it writer/director could hope for a made at Fox, in partnership better response to their series. with National Geographic. Fox The critics and the audience gave me the freedom I needed have fully embraced Cosmos. to protect the legacy of our original Cosmos and to take on As you just noted, you were the scientific issues that have very forthright in stating that been pretty much ignored on evolution and climate change, primetime commercial broad- for instance, are facts, and cast TV. It was worth waiting then clearly explaining how for. Steve and I sat in my we know that. What was the house in upstate New York for thinking that went in how to eleven grueling months writing deal with issues that in the the first drafts of the episodes. U.S. at least some consider He left the show two years ago culturally (if not scientifi- and I continued to write more cally) controversial? than twenty drafts of each one. Steve is an astronomer Seven years ago when I began but also an expert on global pitching the series to various Images © 2013 FOX BROADCASTING. BROADCASTING. FOX 2013 © Images warming and many, many networks, they all said “yes,” other things. We had collabo-

36 Volume 38 Issue 5 | Skeptical Inquirer rated with Carl on writing the room while he was being made original series. We were able to up. He would question a word work those seven-day weeks or two and we would discuss because we knew we had it. Sometimes he prevailed, been given the largest possible sometimes I did. They were platform to make the case for fun discussions. Neil is an the scientific perspective and outstandingly cool person, gra- possibly to awaken our fellow cious, brilliant, knowledgeable, citizens to realities some of fair, and kind. Minutes later, he them were trying hard to avoid. would be on set, reading tele- prompter or cue card, and he Neil had done science TV is so talented, you would swear shows before; you, Ann, that the words were coming had cowritten the previous out of his own head. Cosmos series. If there were differences among the two of Having gone through this you and (or) the visual pro- whole process making duction people in how best to Cosmos, what advice would achieve your common goals, you have for other scientists how did they get resolved? or science communicators who might consider taking

Well, as I noted, I was the on anything at all similar? BROADCASTING. FOX 2013 © Images decider. But I could hardly make a show about the sci- My advice would be: Stick to treatment, and it took seven entific method while making your principles. Give it every- years for Cosmos: A Space- My advice arguments from authority. thing you have. Do not get time Odyssey. I was deemed There was never any “because discouraged. Having been in ineducable by various sci- would be: I say so.” Neil read the early this business for thirty-five ence professors long ago. Stick to your drafts of the scripts and had years I can say that it’s always When we were wandering in principles. some comments—one-word a rollercoaster ride that takes the wilderness of those early changes here and there. We a good deal longer than you network prospects for this Give it every- discussed his preferences. would ever expect. It took Cosmos, one of them told me thing you have. Sometimes there was a word us seventeen years to bring that Steve and I were too old to write it and that they had Do not get like “beautiful,” which he Contact to the screen after doesn’t like to use. He caught Carl and I wrote the lengthy new young writers ready to discouraged. several scientific errors for which I’m extremely grateful. Most often it was a one-word change here or there. As I recall, the only complete sequence he had an issue with was our treatment of Voyager in episode thirteen. He didn’t see why it should be Voyager and not some more recent mission such as Cassini. I debated it with him, and I think I made an argument that was sufficiently strong and he was fine with it. When we were shooting, Neil would see some of the script for the first time in his dressing

Skeptical Inquirer | September/October 2014 37 I re-acquired my life will reflect the values at a continuing presence in the non Braga and I and the other the heart of Cosmos. series, but it had to be organic producers grappled with what the original and unforced. I receive more we would be seeing while master tape of Your opening episode ended requests for the rights to Pale Carl spoke. It wasn’t until very Carl’s voice, one with a generous and moving Blue Dot than any other single close to the end of production personal tribute by Neil to thing Carl wrote. Because it that I realized I wanted to that hasn’t been Carl Sagan. The end of your combines the scientific view see the Earth from Voyag- heard in almost final episode included an with its ethical implications so er’s point of view, steadily twenty years, equally moving recorded successfully, it had to be part diminishing until it became reading by Carl of a poetic of the series’ conclusion. Bran- that dot. Brannon said “that’s for episode passage from his A Pale Blue going to be a very long shot, thirteen. Dot. Was that an easy Annie.” But together, we and decision, or did it take a lot Rainer Gombos, our brilliant of thought and discussion? VFX supervisor, were finally able to get what we wanted. Before Steve and I started Incidentally, I re-acquired the writing, when I happened original master tape of Carl’s upon the page in Carl’s of- voice, one that hasn’t been fice daybook from 1975 with heard in almost twenty years, Neil’s name written in it, the take over. I knew that we for episode thirteen. One of the structure and language of knew what Cosmos was and many gratifications of making episode one and indeed the we just walked away. My ad- the series was how many peo- rough outline of the series vice is: If you have conviction, ple commented online that the seemed to form whole in my then don’t be turned around. Pale Blue Dot sequence was brain. I knew then how I would Would I do it again? I hope their favorite one in the new write it. I wanted Carl to be everything I do for the rest of series. ■

Neil de Grasse Tyson was away on a much-deserved vacation when we were preparing this issue, but we managed to catch up with him on his return in time for this quick comment about his Cosmos host experience: “I remain exhausted by the entire effort, but for all of us on the project it was a labor of love. I saw it and felt it from the runners and gaffers to the executive producers. We knew we were all part of something bigger than ourselves.” Images © 2013 FOX BROADCASTING. BROADCASTING. FOX 2013 © Images

38 Volume 38 Issue 5 | Skeptical Inquirer