The Letter That Interstat Wouldn't Print

Open Letter
Title:	The Letter That Interstat Wouldn't Print
From:	Sandra Necchi
Addressed To:	Star Trek fans in the letterzine Interstat
Date(s):	March 1, 1984
Medium:	print
Fandom:	Star Trek: TOS
Topic:
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

The Letter That Interstat Wouldn't Print is a 1984 letter by Sandra Necchi. It was submitted to Interstat, but the editor (Terri Meyer) refused to print it.

The letter was distributed by a fan (JG) in K/S & K.S. (Kindred Spirits) #9 in July 1984, and possibly other places.

At least one fan was perplexed as to why the letter was seen as an attack on Roddenberry:

Thanks for including that bit about Sandra Necchi/Teri Meyer. I read her (Sandi's) letter three times and still can't figure out why Teri took such great and vehement exception to it. I guess you just can never tell what is going to set some people off.

Some Context

Necchi's letter was in response to the very heated arguments in Interstat regarding fan opinion about the second Star Trek movie, The Wrath of Khan, and the upcoming movie, The Search for Spock. Fan allegiances were mixed in support of TPTB's (mainly Harve Bennett) upcoming commercial endeavor, as well as his (and other official Trek creators) presence in Interstat itself.

Fans had a lot to protect as they discussed the now-franchise, and having TPTB watching and reading their comments caused a lot of fans to couch their opinions, and in many cases, get scolded for speaking their mind. This was something that caused a great deal of conflict regarding censorship, honest opinion, accusations of "kissing ass," the power and powerlessness of fans, and all-around fan dynamics.

The Barbara that is refereed to below was a very controversial fan named Barbara P. Gordon, a fan whose strong opinions were often valid, but usually expressed in offensive and abrasive ways.

Some Topics Discussed in the Original Letter

• BNFs protecting their interests regarding relationships with TPTB; Meyer was very aware that many of the show's producers read Interstat, and she didn't want to lose their interest and her access to them due to other fans' critical opinions
• the pitting of Harve Bennett against Gene Roddenberry, and the convoluted "protection" some fans felt for these two men
• the powerlessness that many fans felt as they were used commercially
• the loss of what some fans felt to be the resistant and creative stance of fans long ago, their dissatisfaction with modern dull fans who were grateful for crumbs
• censorship
• fan intolerance of negative and spirited opinion
• fandom as a toxic culture of nice
• fannish desperation for more Trek makes fandom stupid and not critical enough
• the importance to some fans to be "well-behaved" and compliant
• the production, and sale, of an "unauthorized" script for Star Trek: The Search for Spock sold at one or more conventions, and the controversy this set off among fans

Some Topics Discussed in the Responses

• personal letters and permissions: was the letter to Interstat "public" (fans agreed that it was), and was it appropriate to print Meyer's response (fan's opinions were varied)
• the role of a letterzine that claimed to speak for all fans, and the responsibility of the editor in that letterzine
• was the hard work a fan did a "free pass" for other things?
• was the editor of a highly visible letterzine a "public figure," and therefore the rules were different than for average fans?
• if Meyer's letter had had a different tone, would that have made a difference regarding its inclusion in "Kindred Spirits"

Excerpts

Dear Interstat: I'm getting a little tired of INTERSTAT's new identity as the Anti-Barbara Gordon Club. I know I'm risking censure, but I'm actually going to challenge some of the presumptions underlying the attacks on Ms. Gordon. Heaven forbid, I'm going to partially side with her.

It used to be that ST fans were distrustful of all the executives and studios and other top brass in Hollywood. Way back in '73 when I first entered fandom, I was impressed by how militant and resistant to authority fans were, and had been during the show's run. The only people we trusted were the show's creator (remember him?), its stars and perhaps its production crew. That was then.

But it seems the conservative shift in the country has hit fandom as well. Now, we're not supposed to try to find out about any ST films before they're released, we're not supposed to "make trouble," we're not supposed to complain. During the run of the show, fans would try their best to find out about upcoming scripts for new episodes. Now, we're supposed to passively accept any information the studio deigns to hand out to us. The new philosophy is "leave it to the big guys. They know what they're doing. Don't ask or complain." The old philosophy rightly assumed that whatever good came on the screen was there in spite of the studio machinery, not because of it.

So what happened? Well, first, Gene Roddenberry has been unceremoniously abandoned and forgotten. In the initial stages of this ST-as-theatrical-film stuff (which began in 1973) there was universal agreement among fans that we wouldn't accept anything without Roddenberry. Now, no one cares about what he's doing, or even raises a timid hand to ask why Bennett et. al, have seen fit to exclude him completely from the films. His name on the credits means nothing more than a curt nod in the direction of the man to whom they owe their current project, not that they recognize that. But fans couldn't care less about GR now.

Who do they care about? Why, Mr. Harve Bennett, the man responsible for some of the worst television fare ever produced. When you compare the level of creativity and ideas in the productions of both men, GR wins hands down. In TWOK, neither Bennett nor Meyer, could capture the philosophy in the ST universe. There is no IDIC, no enlightened idealism. It's just a story about vengeance with a soap opera thrown in for emotional manipulation. TWOK is filled with pedestrian psychoanalytic nonsense with none of the sophistication found in the series. Now I don't HATE the film as Gordon does. I do enjoy it whenever I watch it. But I take it for what it is -- lightweight drama with a very pretentious attempt at profundity and "universal truths." That's the best word for TWOK — pretentious. The villains in ST were never one-dimensional, inhuman monsters. Khan himself in "Space Seed" was a very complex character. Bennett's villain in TWOK and, judging from Eddie Egan's synopsis last issue, the Klingons in ST III are just simplistic bad guys. That's not STAR TREK.

After 18 years of shouting "IDIC" to each other, we praise a film that has none of it, and call it "the best of TREK." And someone who agrees with me is GR himself, judging from his comments about the film.

I think the basic reason for all this is desperation for new TREK, so that our objectivity is lost and we readily can't judge any film rationally. Some of us can, because while we're in the theatre (much like RETURN OF THE JEDI) we enjoy ourselves like everyone else. It's when we get out of the theatre and start thinking, that we realize what we just saw was a poor imitation of the STAR TREK universe. While there may be flaws in GR's productions, all of them are creative, intelligent and sophisticated and thought-provoking. But he doesn't have a successful track record. Only ST ever got off the ground. GR has no power or influence. Bennett does. It used to be that fandom sided, with the powerless. Now we favor the slick producers and execs. So the hell with Roddenberry. "He's a nothing, he doesn't matter. Let's all jump on the Bennett band wagon, wag our tails obediently, drooling at the few scraps he and Paramount throw at us, and bow to their authority and power, and never, never dare to try to find out what they're doing with the show we've come to love.

Well my friends, that's not the ST fandom I've been "raised in" (from the age of 13 to today), and it's not me. You see, I too bought that outline at a con and any of you naive enough to believe Bennett and Paramount don't know anything about it should see me about a bridge I'd like to sell. What exactly is wrong about buying it? Is it wrong when we go to a con to see preview slides of the film that a con committee got a hold of? Is it wrong when Teri prints photos from the film? If I want to find out the story for ST III (and I WISH they would change that horrendous title, "The Search for Spock") and I see a script outline written by the film's producer for sale for $5.00, I'm not going to pass up the chance to see what kind of ideas are floating around in the hallowed halls of Paramount studios. They have all the power — they can do anything they please with ST. I'm just a fan with no influence, with no ulterior motives or a vested interest, who loves and cares about STAR TREK. All I can do is search for what bits of information I hear and see. I want to know, if only for curiosity's sake. And that's mostly why I bought the outline — curiosity. But no matter how much the script has been changed (and Eddie Egan's synopsis does not contradict with its basic thrust, unless you consider changing Romulans to Klingons a major change, which I don't), the mere fact that Bennett could've come up with it in the first place is a testament to his lack of creativity and lack of understanding of ST. And this is what you're all ignoring. You condemn Gordon for buying the outline and judging the film from it. The first is ludicrous. The second is partially valid since you can never judge a film before you see it, let alone from a bare outline (not even a first draft script.) But you can judge the caliber of the creativity and. thought processes going on within the writer/producer/whatever from a basic outline. And judging from i'his one, there's a great deal to be wary about. The only small hope I have is Nimoy as director. He at least understands ST.

You all condemn Gordon, while refusing to confront the fact that Bennet did indeed write it. Okay, so what if it's comnletely changed? That's not the issue. The issue is the outline and who wrote it. It's very bad, and Bennett wrote it.

It is understandable if you're alienated from Gordon because of the way she argues. But don't attack her because she rocks the boat. Maybe I've been in fandom too long. I've seen LoC's in ST, SW and SF fandom that are far worse than Gordon's, and with much less interesting things to say.

I don't understand why she's been singled out. I guess I should be flogged, but I do find Gordon's points interesting, and some of them are valid. I just ignore the other stuff. I don't know why heated, aggressive debates scares and offends some fans. I like opinionated people (as long as they're not too arrogant about it.) They make life interesting. They make you think, teach you, chum your emotions around, disturb your complacency. I don't believe in arguing with personal attacks or over-emotion because it tends to overshadow the points you're trying to make. But why get so upset if it happens? Ignore it, like I do, and just pay attention to the issues being discussed. I've been called names and attacked, and I just shrug my shoulders and reply rationally. It's a great way to trip them up. And I really don't condemn them for doing it because I know how commitment to something makes a person go over board sometimes. So what? Really, I don't see why Gordon's aggressive arguments and unpopular opinions should deserve such overreaction. And that's really what it comes down to — her unpopular opinions. I doubt anyone would attack her if she loved Bennett and TWOK. Let her say what she wants, and instead of dismissing it, consider the issues she is raising. If not, then you're guilty of what you say she is guilty of — attacking the person, not the argument.

[unrelated topics snipped]

Teri Meyer's Response

The fan who dispersed the letter also sent a copy of Teri Meyer's letter in response.

In that letter, Meyer stated that Necchi could be as critical as possible but Meyer would not allow her to do it "at Gene Roddenbery's expense," especially by casting Roddenberry in a weak and disgraced light, that it was bad enough "when the Coopers and Trimbles out there so vigorously promoted Harve Bennett at the expense of Gene Roddenberry" but when a fan, in attempting to put down one producer, did the same thing at the expense of Roddenberry, it was time to put an end to it.

Meyer also pointed out that the very people today Gene Roddenberry worked and communicated with on the studio lot also read Interstat. Meyer ended with stating that no other publication would print Necchi's letter, to not write another one to her, and that she hoped Necchi would understand.

Other Fan Responses

[From Barbara P. Gordon]:

Sandra used so many buzzwords and reverse buzzwords, combined with an assertive delivery, that her letter was practically designed to be rejected. It is too bad that it was. Why doesn't she send it & Teri's reply, to the new comment-zine: STAR TREK FORUM c/o Tim Farley, Georgia Tech Box... Part of Sandra's purpose, I know, was to make a statement about the practice of diffusing (and defusing) the essence of B. Gordon's opinions by attacking B. Gordon herself rather than attacking (answering) her opinions, as so many, including Teri, do in Interstat. But in doing so, Sandra fell into the trap itself; she became the "defender" of B. Gordon. Had her letter been published in Interstat, it would have been assumed, and indeed stated, that she was B. Gordon's friend, confidante, and partisan. To Teri, and to the vast majority of readers, the points she actually tried to make in her letter would be misunderstood, discredited, or ignored — because of her being "in B. Gordon's camp". To actually try to make any kind of point in INTERSTAT is an extremely frustrating experience. The only way is by being vocal, definite, and assertive, there by jarring people up a little, making them take notice. And then, as has happened in Sandra's case, my case, and Judith's too, probably, if you become successful, Meyer will certainly muzzle you. Especially lately, she is obviously so defensive and unsure of her own "faith" with regard to Bennett's Blunders and Paramount's Pap, that she'll do anything to defend that Faith — including letter mutilation under the guise of editing, and outright censorship.

[snipped]

The last issue of INTERSTAT was unusually intelligent, I was delighted to see. And I attribute it at least somewhat to my influence. It would-seem that fans are possibly beginning to understand the value of being critically, thoughtfully intelligent and don't just automatically swallow all the pap that Paramount produces. Hurrah!!

[Sandra Necchi, the original letter writer]:

One question (just curious) — why did you refer to yourself in the third person, [Barbara P. Gordon], when discussing my LoC to INTERSTAT?

I wrote that thing in one hour and did very little polishing. I just sat down one day, wrote what I felt, and mailed it out. I didn't really take any great care with it. But you're right, had it been printed, I would have been lumped into the same camp with that "terrible Barbara Gordon," even tho I've never met you in my life. They would have thought I was your personal friend. 1 was shocked when I received Teri's letter. I knew she wouldn't like it, but I had no idea what my words would do to her. She's obviously pretty insecure about her position with the stars at Paramount. I had no idea she would so easily compromise her integrity just to prevent offending GR (if that was indeed the reason she didn't print the LoC—I'm not convinced it is.) Since GR has seen the LoC, and she knows it, I wonder what her rationalization would be now.

Questions Regarding Permissions and "Personal Letters"

From SBS:

At first I felt squeamish about commenting on an exchange of letters between two other people, as if I were sneaking around spying on someone else's affairs and stealing their letters open. I suppose it doesn't apply as such to Sandra's letter, since the fact that she sent it to Interstat shows she has expressing those ideas for public consumption and comment, but Teri's letter seemed to have been addressed to Sandra personally, as a private correspondence, and I felt uncomfortably like an eavesdropper. Then I realized how silly I was being: you must have gotten permission from both of them before you published their letters. From things you said in your letters to me I know you would feel that to do otherwise would be a breach of trust and good manners. Since you have already experienced having a private letter made public against your intentions, with all the attendant hurt, annoyance and upset, there's no way you would do the same to anyone else.

As to Sandra's letter — I found it interesting. I'd go into detail on it, except that I think you are asking me to consent on whether it should have been printed and not on its content as such. Hell, it's always fun to second guess other people's decisions — the combination of lack of time constraints and the perfect vision hindsight lends lakes for a nearly irresistible temptation (too strong for me, anyway.) Bottom line; If it had been up to me, would I have published Sandra's letter? Yes. And no.

Yes. because I thought it was interesting (and it would have made a nice change from all those pro and con Welcomittee letters). I think the main reason for Teri's refusal to publish is revealed in her choice of the term "insensitivity". You may feel that she is too sensitive, that her job as editor should preclude such nice care for the feelings of Roddenberry, but I am sure you'll agree that even if it is a flaw it is a long way from being the worst one a person or an editor can have. Myself, I am more hardhearted. As a professional Roddenberry and Bennett, Shatner, Nimoy, and anyone else in the cast and crew you'd care to mention has displayed his work for our enjoyment and criticism and I'm sure he's prepared to receive some complaints along with the praise. (Hmm, maybe it is a closer call at that, since Sandra's negative comments on Gene do seem to relate to his business situation/difficulties rather than the quality of productions, which is sort of like criticizing Shatner's persona life instead of his acting.)

And no, because I am unwilling to devote the time, attention and care that something like Interstat demands. If it had been up to me, not only would Sandra's letter not have been printed, but neither would ANY of the hundreds (thousands?) that have been over the past seven years. Just the thought of the hours o typing, reading, layout, paperwork, running back and forth from the printer, etc. makes me tired — I honestly don't know now [Teri Meyer] has managed to do it so well — especially an top of raising a family and holding down a full-time job. Of course as an editor/another/employee yourself you appreciate the difficulties such more than I.

If you are expecting some final judgement from me on her performance as an editor, well, here goes: she isn't infallible. But then no one on this planet is (excepting the pope, I hear).

[JG]: No, I did not get Teri Meyer's permission before printing her rejection letter to Sandra Necchi (you didn't really think I'd asked her, did you?). There was no need to, since the letter was not "private correspondence." It was written in Teri's capacity as editor of INTERSTAT, not in her capacity as a private person. Since I wouldn't regard a rejection letter I'd received from Pocket Books or REDBOOK as "private correspondence," nor hesitate to publish it in the apa if I thought it would interest readers, I saw no need to treat Teri's letter differently. Letters written in the course of business are necessarily "on the record"; they are subject to discovery, subpoena, audit, and to being read by everyone on the premises from the file clerk to the president. Not only was Teri's letter written in her editorial capacity, it was also a policy statement. I can discern no reason for an editor to expect such a letter to be kept "private and confidential." Letters written in the course of business are reprinted in fan and pro zines all the time; see, for example, Maureen Garrett's letters to individual zine editors. The fact that Maureen Garrett is an individual and that she is writing to individuals doesn't make her letters "private correspondence." The reason her letters are open to scrutiny is that she is writing, not as Maureen Garrett the private person, but as Maureen Garrett the fan liaison for Lucasfilm.

The only thing that was "personal" about Teri Meyer's letter to Sandi was its nasty, personal tone. Is it possible that is the source of your feeling that you were "eavesdropping" when you read it? Teri chose to write her rejection letter as a personal attack. But the fact that the letter wasn't businesslike, and that it wasn't written with the courtesy we ordinarily expect of the editor of a widely-distributed publication, doesn't make it "private correspondence." I suppose I could write all my business letters as personal attacks: -- "Our firm will NOT take your case, and frankly, I don't think there is any lawyer in the country who would" -- but that wouldn't make them "private correspondence."

I don't see what the fact that Teri does a lot of work publishing INTERSTAT, still less the fact that you are not willing to publish a letterzine, or that have children and a job, has to do with whether it was proper of Teri to censor Sandi's letter. Are you suggesting that the more who do work an editor does, the more it is OK for her to be rude and arbitrary with contributors, or to turn a letterzine, a self-described forum for fan opinion, into a vehicle for her own personal agenda? Or are you merely trying to appeal to our sympathy ("maybe Teri flubbed up, but it's because she's so busy"). In either case, those "justifications" have nothing to do with Teri's refusal to print Sandra's letter. It takes just as much time to type up a letter you agree with as to type up a letter you don't agree with. It takes just as much time to write a polite rejection letter as to write a nasty one (less, in fact). I also note that Teri has a big staff of people who help her put out INTERSTAT every month, and I question how fair it is to them for her to use the letterzine to grind her own axes, or even if they know she is doing that.

No, I don't think it was sensitivity to Roddenberry's feelings that prompted Teri's response. Sandra's letter was written in strong support of Roddenberry. She did not criticize Roddenberry -- she criticized those fans who've in effect abandoned him -- that is, who've abandoned all the ideals and values he stands for -- because of their own perception that he is "not important" compared to Harve Bennett. (If you've been reading the same INTERSTAT I have, you may recall letters printed there which said exactly that.)

I suspect that it is because Teri Meyer is one of those fans that she reacted so strongly to Sandra's letter. If, as [C H] suggested, she is in it for the ego-boo, the closeness to the stars, then clearly Bennett is "it" and must be championed at all costs. But Roddenberry is still in STAR TREK and still has ego-boo to dispense. For someone who wants to bask in both Bennett's and Roddenberry's glory, the existence of conflict between the two of them (and I'm talking about creative conflict here, not personal conflict -- no, not all conflict is personal) is likely to create severe cognitive dissonance. Thus, as Barbara commented, Teri will not recognize or acknowledge any disagreement between Roddenberry and Bennett because she can't. If she tried, her circuits probably would short out like those androids on Harry Mudd's planet.

I wonder if the difference between us is that you consider INTERSTAT (or any other zine?) as nothing more than an extension of its editor's personality.

Comment by Necchi (original letter writer):

To address your comments re my censored LoC to INTERSTAT: Teri's rejection letter to me was not a personal communication. When you send in a story or poem to a zine editor, and that zined rejects your submission, that is an official communication written in the "public" role of that zine's editor/publisher. The reason Teri's letter sounded personal was due to her inability to be civil. That's her doing. But that letter is as public as a Letter to the Editor. There were subsequent communications between Teri and myself on the matter, parts of which I wish I could also publish, but those are indeed personal. I would need her permission.

You also seem to skirt the issue of censorship. Bottom line: is it right for ANY letterzine editor to censor a submission because she doesn't agree with it, or because (in the editor's estimation) it will offend some Hollywood personage? That is the issue at hand. And you don't have to try to guess Teri's reasons — she states them quite clearly in her letter. My LoC was a defense of GR and the only portion of it that could possibly be construed as a negative statement against him was my argument that GR has little influence in Hollywood. I don't see that being such a horrendous statement that it should be censored, but Teri could simply have edited that one line out. Isn't this what an editor is supposed to do?? The basic thrust of the LoC would have remained essentially the same.

Teri had three issues before the film came out to edit it (or send me the LoC back so Icould edit it). She also had the same amount of time to publish [JG's] LoC. Revising it herself would have been objectionable as well, but at least it would have shown some slight responsibility on her part toward printing all opinions she receives. I had to write her three times to get the LoC back. By the time she finally sent it, the film had already come out, and she could use the excuse of "discussion on the third film taking precedence." Teri has also had another letter of mine (on another subject entirely) on her desk for a year now. She said she would print it. She hasn't. Which leads me to believe that I am now completely barred from INTERSTAT, since not even that mild, inoffensive LoC on zine reviewing can seem to find its way in the zine. Yet she does find the time to print letters from people who get published in the zine constantly, often with very boring LoCs.

Your admiration for Teri stems from the incredible job she does of getting out a monthly publication in such quality packaging. Fair enough. But what does that have to do with her editorial policy? Several governments put out nice looking publications that are cheap and frequent and that censor thoughts at the drop of a comma. And Teri does have a large staff. The issue isn't the physical production. What about the content? Whether Teri is infallible or not isn't the point. No editor is. But a letterzine editor owes something to her subscribers/readers that a regular editor of a fanzine doesn't: a fair, consistent, unbiased policy. Teri does not provide this. Whether she puts out a nice-looking product while holding down a family and job is beside the point.

[snipped]

As [CH] says, Teri's priorities lie with the big guys at Paramount. She has no compunction against printing vicious personal attacks against fans (lines like "She's so full of manure.") But say one tiny little thing against the big guys, then she gets nervous. As for defending Barbara Gordon, I don't see why anyone who is by so many people would object to my public defense of her arguments. I've often disagreed with the tone in some of her letters, but I've often disagreed with the tone In many others, including my own. I wrote that letter because I was sick and tired of the disgusting attacks against Gordon, and their frequency, and Teri's apparent glee in printing them. Everyone engaged in the old ad hominem type of arguing, attacking the person, and not the position. The issues Gordon raised were quite sound. My LoC was much more than "I agree with Barbara" response. Gordon's points were becoming obscured and all I wanted to do was discuss the things she was bringing up.

You may also be interested to know that I sent a copy of my censored LoC to GR, along with a long cover letter. I asked him to simply tell me if publication of the LoC would, as Teri claimed, hurt or offend him. (I also objected to Teri's presumption in protecting, and speaking for GR.). He wrote back with a wonderful, detailed, two-page letter and unfortunately I can't divulge what he said. He asked for confidentiality. But I can say that I wonder how Teri rationalized to herself some of the things he said in there. You see, he sent a copy of the letter to her as well. And I wonder now what would be her excuse against printing the LoC, besides the discussion on the film.

[snipped]

Can't [Teri Meyer] read?? My letter was a defense of GR, and she twists it into an attack. Truly weird thought processes. I don't demand people agree. I demand they hear me out, or give me the opportunity to be heard. And Teri's last paragraph does indeed make it a challenge. Anyone who wants to print both letters, please do so. You don't even have to send me a contributor's copy! Teri has a monopoly on widely distributed ST fan discussion, and people should know about her arbitrary, biased mentality which spills over directly into her zine's policies. People need to know!

My last issue of Interest came with a hand-written, stapled-on little note from Teri M. informing me that she did not appreciate my printing her personal letter to people in "my zine," and how would I like it if she did that to me? (Hey, I think I just did it again!) I wrote her back and tried to explain what the apa was, that I didn't actually print her letter, and that it wasn't like we were running off hundreds of copies and selling them to anyone who wanted one. I was just wondering how everyone else felt about this. Personally, I didn't think anything of it... it never even occurred to me to think that someone might consider it to be a misdeed.

From SBS:

"Teri's rejection letter to (you) was not a personal communication.' Since [JG] also says so, and she's a lawyer and should know, I accept that printing Teri's letter was not legally wrong. It still doesn't seem (to me) to be fair to take a letter written to one person and print it without the writer's permission, and especially to do it in a place where the writer won't see it and be able to respond.

[snipped]

As for your question, do I think an editor should refuse to print a letter because she doesn't agree with it or because she thinks it will offend some Hollywood personage? No. But I don't think that is what has happened here. I recognized your letter was in support of GR — I'm sure Teri did, too — but even so, printing things like "He's a nothing, he doesn't matter" in a publication that Teri says is read by the people he must deal with at Paramount is probably not a very good way to 'support" him. She said it would hurt him, not offend him, whether emotionally or in a business sense, and that is why she didn't print your letter. I agree her rejection letter was vehement instead of cool and impartial, and I think that was a mistake on her part. But haven't you ever written a letter in the heat of your first reaction, and mailed it off without giving yourself time to reflect? I have.

Also, would you really have preferred her to just cut out the sentences she objected to? I would have found that worse than not printing the letter at all — and it would certainly have left her open to charges that she was "distorting" your opinions. Much better that you be the one to re-write and re-submit. if you wanted to, I don't understand why you had to get the first letter back before you could revise it — don't you automatically keep copies of any letters you write for publication? Just in case the original is lost in the mail, and so you can compare what sees print with what you wrote? Maybe In abnormally distrustful.

It does raise another point, though, of a legal nature. Do people have a right to demand that a publisher, or, for that matter, a private individual, return a letter sent to them? It seems to ie that just by mailing it to them you are making then a gift of the letter —t he actual paper and ink, I mean, not the ideas expressed in it.

From LF:

I think that it's up to the individual who ran the zine, in this case, [JG], to at least let someone know if you're running writing by another fan whether it's personal or impersonal. That's only common courtesy. If it does contain personal information about said individual's life or some such. it's a violation of privacy not to get previous permission. But in no case is it the CM's duty to deal with this. The CM is not responsible for the content of any apa zine. I believe that [JG] should have informed Teri in advance of publication at the very least. IMAO (In My Arrogant Opinion) By all means explain to Teri what an apa is. No sense in making the muddle any worse than it is. I loathe fan politics.

From CD:

As to Teri's letter. I found myself agreeing with your explanation for printing it - it was in her role as editor, and I can see that it may not be private correspondence. But reading it left a bad taste in my mouth all the same. I think it would have been more courteous for you to have gotten (or at least asked for) her permission before printing it, and if we are not going to be cooi't,eous with one another, then what is the point? And I don't think running to Gene Roddenberry to complain about Teri was necessary. It was not kind.

From JG:

Teri herself has printed portions of David Gerrold's letters to various fans in recent issues of INTERSTAT. If she considers her business correspondence indistinguishable from her personal correspondence, perhaps she should tell us that or at least mark her letters "personal and confidential."

General Comments

The letter Interstat wouldn't print. Good Lord. But I am not surprised. Teri is concerned with only one thing. The reason she puts out Interstat is the ego-boo, the closeness to the stars and producers. I could go into great detail about the time she called and for TWO hours she tried to get me to withdraw/change a letter she felt would offend Susan Sackett (the chain letter she was pushing), and, by association, Gene R. I didn't. She ran it under protest. Out I'd done everything according to her own guidelines, including sending a copy to Susan Sackett. My name has been mud in her book ever since. I see she has progressed, with this letter, to the place where she has no qualms about rejecting a letter she doesn't agree with.

And where is that woman's mind? Doesn't Sandra's letter support GR? So what doss she see insulting about it? I've read many worse letters in Interstat that this, in the days I still got it. I don't agree with all the things Sandra says, but she should have the right to her say. Teri not only denies this right—she does it in a very nasty, belittling way. Her last paragraph-- how many places in fandom do you think we could get these two items printed? Almost makes it a challenge, doesn't it?

Your letter concerning the changing emphasis was thought-provoking. I wonder whether many of us who were first drawn to Trek by Roddenberry's vision of the world as it could be in the future, have become so absorbed by the relationship aspect of the movies (& zine stories) that either we haven't noticed the idealism has gone, or we assume it's still there, but not emphasized.

I would like to rise in defense of Teri Meyer. I have enjoyed reading her letterzine for some time, and, although I would prefer that she not censor letters, I recognize the pight of any editor to debide what should be published, and to base the decision on anything in cluding whim. An editor is not a slave to the reader. Part of the reason for freedom of the press is to allow any editor to print what he or she may choose, with the readers deciding whether they want to read. The computer may make it even easier to publish electronically, and may eliminate the power an editor now has, since anyone could Just type away, press a button, and that thought would be flashed around the world. On the other hand, this may make editors even more important in sorting out the good from the rubbish. Now, however, we must grant Teri and her ilk the right to decide. After all, they're taking the risks, they're putting in the work, and I think we're rather presumptuous to be expecting them to print anything and everything we write.

(On the other hand, she never censored anything I wrote, so I may be biased.)