Interstat/Issues 091-100

Issues 001-010 · Issues 011-020 · Issues 021-030 · Issues 031-040 · Issues 041-050 · Issues 051-060 · Issues 061-070 · Issues 071-080 · Issues 081-090 · Issues 091-100 · Issues 101-110 · Issues 111-120 · Issues 121-152

Issue 91

Interstat 91 was published in May 1985 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #91, Nan Lewis

• contains a cartoon by Don Harden, no interior art

• Linda S emphasizes with Syn Ferguson:

  As I sit here looking at six projects-in-progress, not to mention a novel that has dragged on so long I'm thinking of calling it Klingone With The Wind, I feel much sympathy for you as you struggle with your 500-page Frankenstein.

• Kathy C asks fans to give the movies the same realities as zines:

  Many fan stories have dealt with similar themes—Kirk for once unable to pull off a miracle to save his ship and/or crew; Kirk forced to build a new life out side of the Enterprise and Starfleet; Kirk pushed to the edge and coping. If we find value in using fanzines to break out of the mold of the episodes and explore new themes, why not explore them in the ST movies as well?

• Linda S addresses Michele A and takes on the issue of Kirk and heroism:

  I appreciate all support on the issue of the new Kirk's...er ...less than charming personality, particularly from someone as eloquent and persuasive as yourself, since I am aware that I may well be dismissed as merely a disgruntled Kling-symp. I am also aware that it is not Harve Bennett's responsibility to gruntle me, and, although his honest and kindly efforts to do so were much appreciated, I still have to part company with him on this issue; I still remain a disgruntled Kirk-symp. The annoying thing is that even if Harve Bennett agrees with us—which, for all I know, he may—it'll make no difference, because tickets must be sold, here in the '80's, so, instead of your hero and mine, the White Knight of Star-fleet, we must have instead a ronin of and for the Me Generation. Our 180° cultural flipflop in the last 20 years is reflected in an interesting way by comparing the series with the Bennett films. In ST II, Kirk, deliberately and with deliberate, sadistic glee, lures the psychotic Khan into a battle to the death. Compare this with the old Kirk's strong yet compassionate handling of the equally murderous Garth. Khan, who's not so lucky as Garth, must be destroyed; it never occurs to anyone to try to trap him into surrendering for treatment. Moving up to ST III, contrasts really get interesting. We have a woman who sacrifices her life for her people; we have a man who busts his butt trying to save the universe, or at least his people's corner of it, from the ultimate weapon, and these are the villains!

• Randall L has some advice for this letterzine's editor, and renews his sub:

  After a great deal of consideration, I am opting to renew my subscription to INTERSTAT. After reviewing my LoCs over
 the past year, I am aware of a trend that I see has developed in your editorial policy, mainly the censoring of comments that you: 1) disagree with, 2) are afraid will hurt the feelings of: a) a star, b) a production team member, 3) know to be false. Now this is your right as an editor, however, it is pretty damn frustrating as a LoCer. Now it seems that Sandra Necchi is starting her own letterzine. And from what I gather, her reasons for doing this are the same as I have just cited. I do not agree with most of Sandra's comments in INTERSTAT (her views on Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan alone annoy the hell out of me!). But the fact that two people from such differing points-of-view agree about the current editorial policies of your letterzine indicates to me that there may indeed be a problem you need to address. And soon. I realize that you're liable to take all of this personally (it'd be almost impossible not to), but I urge you to regain and reestablish your objectivity and editorial integrity by self-examination and correction of the obvious problems I listed earlier.

• the editor replies to Randall L's comment above:

  Editor's reply: INTERSTAT editorial policies are not in need of modification, and my rights as an editor, the same. For fan opinion I may disagree with or comments that may offend studio personnel, see issues #1 through #90. The only trend I've noticed is that certain letter-writers who make frequent use of INTERSTAT's limited space complain the most. A suggestion, Randy: Mind your own store and concentrate your efforts on fan operations in Atlanta, not Omaha. If that's too difficult, then back up your serious allegation that your LoCs have been censored. They have not and I will openly debate you in INTERSTAT on the subject. Go ahead. Randy, make my day. A message to INTERSTAT readership: The Sandra Necchi incident that Randy speaks of in his LoC comes from her March, 1984 submission to INTERSTAT which I refused to print (4/4/84). Much has been written and published on the matter, but unfortunately some key facts were excluded when the editorial decision was made public in the K/S APA (6/84) and UNIVERSAL TRANSLATOR (10/84 1) that I agreed to edit and run the LoC in INTERSTAT (4/20/84), but Ms. Necchi, having a change of heart, never called or re-submitted (the letter was quickly revised and sent elsewhere), and 2) taking on new coordinates, she set sail for Paramount Pictures and took her original letter and protests to one of the subjects of her LoC who officed there. Concerned over the inaccuracies the LoC held, that individual sent official word (7/24/84) that she had been misinformed and her words—printed in a public forum—might only serve to spread a belief that would do harm rather than good. After correcting the facts and steering Ms. Necchi on the right course, permission was given to her to share said facts with others ("I've have no objection to your using the facts in this letter") and she was asked to keep the identity of the letter-writer confidential. (She did neither, and yes, APA readers, you were had.) I am sorry that Sandra failed to include—for APA readers and UNIVERSAL TRANSLATOR readers and God-knows-who-else— this information, and sorrier, still, that the numerous falsehoods written about INTERSTAT were allowed into print. The alleged restriction of 'ideas' was never a factor in the letter not seeing print. Nevertheless, I wish Ms. Necchi the best of luck with her "No-Censorship" letterzine and promised policy of an open-forum-without-personal-attacks. She will need it. she will also need the skill and patience required in dealing with the space limitations inherent to such a vehicle. It can be pretty damn frustrating for the editor, too.

• Linda S addresses Ginzie regarding the subject of pseudonyms and criticism:

  You could have mentioned me by name if you wished; I stand behind what I say, which is why I never use a pseudonym. Shatner usually turns in an excellent performance, which, unfortunately, makes the occasional lapse like the 'Klingon bastard' repetitions all the more glaring. I must say an unthinking, worshipful attitude such as yours has always set my teeth on edge. ST deserves better than that. ST deserves to be thought about. Would you have us be blind, deaf, unthinking supplicants groveling in mindless gratitude at the altar of ST? We wouldn't criticize and comment and nitpick if we didn't care. And, as a writer myself, I can say that having people be interested enough in your effort to criticize, comment, and yes, even nitpick is the highest compliment. Why should Harve Bennett be deprived of that pleasure?

• Karen B. B also addresses Ginzie:

  Thank you for gracing the pages of our 'little' publication with your enlightening letter. It is
 so rare to find a person of true renaissance abilities. Not only are you a connoisseur of the visual arts, but also music/ drama critic and expert in production matters and its many intricacies. How degrading it must have felt to see your pseudonym within the pages of a fan" publication that made you feel 'almost dirty.' The sacrifice was certainly one of overwhelming proportions to one of your professional stature. The deprecatory fashion in which you presented your statements places you among those you meant to denigrate. INTERSTAT has long needed one of such professional impartiality to adjudicate, thank you for filling that need. The next time you wish to expound on your sensitive and meaningful observations or create empty allegories, why not spare our 'little' publication and do it in a medium that doesn't make you feel...'dirty.'

• Gennie S addresses Ginzie:

  Thank you, Ginzie, for such a beautiful, uplifting letter! I feel the same way about Star Trek the series, and Star Trek the movies. I have felt depressed at a lot of the harsh criticisms I've read. I love Kruge's pet, for instance, as well as the monster microbes by Spock's photon tube coffin.

• Randall L comments on new fans and what he feels to be an attitude:

  I'd like to address the issue of the apparent hostility in the neo-fans. These people, who have become fans in the past few years, are some of the most hostile I've ever encountered. I've had a number of bad encounters with these people lately, both at cons and in zine mail orders. At cons, they're pushy, obnoxious (even more than I ever could be!), and just plain rude. In mail orders, their impatience knows no limits. One woman from the Northwest ordered a few issues of STARDATE. One week later, she wrote me demanding that I send her the zines, or else she would take the matter to UNIVERSAL TRANSLATOR and DATAZINE. This is admittedly an extreme example, but I would like to hear from anyone else who has noticed this trend.

• A.C. Crispin addresses Jean Lorrah, one fan-writer-turned-pro to another, and Crispin offers to be a mediatory:

  Jean, I enjoyed THE VULCAN ACADEMY MURDERS very much, although I, too, figured out who dun it on page 20. The hint you gave on the page by having Sarek see the computer tie-in to the hospital was too obvious, and I know you regard Sarek as the sexiest hunk of Vulcan in the known and unknown cosmos, so it was easy to tumble that his little blonde assistant wanted him, too. But the humor, the characteriza tions, the rest of the book, were very true to Trek, and I liked them a lot. (Having done two conventions with Mark Lenard, by the way, I have to tell you that Sarek's charm and virility is not just fine acting — Mark is really a terrific guy! If you haven't done a con with him, consider doing so.) While in New York last month I met Karen Haas, the new Star Trek editor at Pocket. She's really terrific, very committed, obviously a hard worker. We discussed TIME over lunch, as well as the future of the Trek novels, and the direction she'd like to see them take. If anyone who is seriously working on a Trek ms.f or submission to Pocket wants to write me (enclose SASE), I'll pass along the guidelines she mentioned as to what kinds of stories she's seeking for publication.

• D. Booker comments on Kirk:

  Yep—Kirk was the galactic golden boy for 79 episodes, in spite of a rather pronounced degree of emotional immaturity. And now he's falling apart. Not surprising, considering that Murphy's Law operates on people as well as events. To assume that one individual always will be able to solve any problem, no matter how bizarre, personal, or whatever, is just courting disappointment. Little tin gods always rust out. What makes for interesting literature is how they cope with their rust.

• Rocco G writes of his experiences with the fan club, Starfleet:

  I WAS a member of your STARFLEET organization. I joined (July '82) after its appearance in Starlog mgazine. I formed a starship chapter but I did not get much support) I didn't even get all of the issues of the STARFLEET Communique promised. I wrote and wrote, but no response, then finally a form letter stating STARFLEET was "restructuring" and to please wait for the Communiques. Time passed and nothing. Soon I had to start refunding (June *83) some of the membership dues (out of my own pocket, I might add) due to the fact that we were a chartered high school club, too. Making matters worse, some disgruntled members found that the "exclusive" club newsletter, the Communique, was being sold through TREK publications. More time passed and the high school days were over. It was then that I got a letter from the "restructured" STARFLEET (Feburary '84) stating that they can not be held responsible for the failures of the former administration, but feel free to join again. (At a higher price, I might add.) I gave up on STARFLEET. But that all ended well over a year ago and for the most part, I and others, had forgotten about you and STARFLEET quite willingly. Now to read a letter from you about the "emotional barbarism" of fans, the "hateful humans"...are you trying to say that none of the bitterness was deserved? I (and others) took a lot of heat because of your organization's failure, we never complained, we only asked for what was promised but was not received. We asked for an explanation but never got one. Can you please give one now?

• Mary Ann D addresses Eric A. S's letter in an earlier issue regarding Courts of Honor which comments on a number of issues, including the trivial shot that Syn Ferguson's legal name has a small pun with the initials "K" and "S":

  Fact: COH will be published by the end of the summer, if not before, and will be mailed as quickly as Syn can do the binding. The color covers, familiar to purchasers of the poster, have long since been printed. Fact: Although it would be nice if everyone who pre-ordered make3 up the difference between the original price and the final one, no one will be compelled to do so. And it was I, not Syn, who suggested raising the price of COH: It is now at least three times longer than Syn originally intended, and printing and mailing costs continue to soar. Hence, it is clearly irrelevant how many pre-orders have come in, so long as everyone whose check has been cashed receives COH. I, personally, find a figure of 500 ridiculous. Has any fanzine ever received that many? And speaking of irrelevancies, it would be a truly astonishing time-warp if Syn Ferguson's parents had had K/S in mind when they signed her birth certificate. Eric's connection of Syn's real Christian names with K/S is as puerile as children's taunts on a playground. Failing to make his case in any other way, he descends to a cheap shot so transparent it's almost embarrassing. Because he couldn't get a rise out of Syn with local trouble-making, he appears to be using the pages of INTERSTAT to escalate his war-game and dupe its readers into playing the game with him. Alas, his obvious hope that COH will never be published is in vain, and its publication will, of course, prove his veracity or lack thereof. Or mine.

• Kathleen Shelley L also addresses Eric A. S:

  I've seen the final camera-ready copy for 75% of Courts of Honor, and the edited copy for all but the last two chapters, I have no crystal ball, but common sense tells me that so many honest and hardworking people have put their talents and their expectations into COH that the project is not likely to be dropped. I measure breath-holding time in seconds, so I'm not holding mine, either, but I do confidently expect to see it printed, bound, and distributed. I'm annoyed by Eric's publication of Syn Ferguson's mundane name, as opposed to the nom de plume she chose for herself. It was a piece of gratuitous bitchery worthy of the television Erica. Perhaps he should consider that many fans, writers, artists and even editors engage in occupations sensitive to public image. To allow my mundane name (the one I'm signing above) to be used in a K/S publication would have serious economic consequences for me, for example. I'm glad Eric doesn't know any of the pen names I use to write about the presumed sex lives of polymicronuclear leukocytes (the microphage). Just for fun, couldn't all of us with initials KS, or even SK, please stand and wave to Eric?

• Joan V writes about criticism and the difference of opinion and Interstat:

  I am distressed to see, in the past few issues of INTERSTAT a number of fans saying or implying that they don't want to see anyone taking issue with anything in Star Trek. One fan implied that "objective, analytical criticism" (which I always thought was a virtue) is undesirable- Another lists "speculation" among the items that make her feel "almost dirty." I've found the speculative opinions in INTERSTAT among its more interesting items. Certainly, rudeness is unacceptable. But I cannot see anything evil in pointing out that something is lacking—in one fan's opinion—with the plotting or characterization or anything else in Star Trek if it is done courteously. Reading a variety of opinions —whether I personally agree with them or not—is one reason I subscribe to INTERSTAT.

Issue 92

Interstat 92 was published in June 1985 and contains 22 pages.

cover of issue #92, Fanti Dovener

• there is no interior art
• has a Kor (Klingon) cover by Fanti Dovener, she dedicates to to Fern and Carol
• a fan responds to a new subscriber's complaint about fans arguing with each other: "Those who bellow 'IDIC!' loudest in public are often those who displaythe crudest understanding of the concept...IDIC...is not a delicate, hothouse, faraway philosophical idea. It's a tough, adaptable, demanding, way of living one's life. IDIC, when confined to a television or movie screen or to the printed page, is a very pretty thing. IDIC in everyday life isn't quite so attractive; it's often aggravating as hell and ugly as sin... [reading Interstat, I] began to realize that what I was witnessing—the blood feuds, the elite alliances, the extravagant praise and vitriolic condemnations—was IDIC in action. Within the pages of Interstat...within ST fandom itself...IDIC works. Oh it creaks and groans and more often than not seems past the point of total disintegration...but it does, somehow, hold together."

Issue 93

Interstat 93 was published in July 1985 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #93, Mike Brown

• it contains no interior art

Issue 94

Interstat 94 was published in August 1985 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #94, Chris Grahl

• there is no interior art and one cartoon by Don Harden

Issue 95

Interstat 95 was published in September 1985 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #95, M.S. Murdock

• there is no inside art
• photos by Eddie Egan, Joyce DeBoard and Linda Lakin of KC Con, Nimoy, Doohan

Issue 96

Interstat 96 was published in October 1985 and contains 14 pages.

cover of issue #96, Merle Decker

• photos of Roddenberry, Takei, Kelley, Bennett by Val Jaeger, no inside art

Issue 97

Interstat 97 was published in November 1985 and contains 14 pages.

front cover of #97, Mike Brown.

• it contains no interior art

Issue 98

Interstat 98 was published in December 1985, postmarked January 1986 and contains

cover of issue #98, Nan Lewis

inside art from issue #98, Vel Jaeger

• art by Nan Lewis, Heather Firth and Vel Jaeger

Issue 99

Interstat 99 was published in January 1986, postmarked February 1986 and contains 14 pages.

cover of issue #99, Fran Dovener

• there is no interior art
• from Boldly Writing: "Every couple of pages, Teri inserted a quotation from someone commenting on the Challenger space shuttle accident. Three letters in this issue addressed the accident; six letters in issue 100 mentioned it, and five letters in issue 101."

Issue 100

Interstat 100 was published in February 1986 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #100, Chris Grahl

• there is no interior art