APA Enterprise

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Title: APA Enterprise
Editor(s): Central Mailers:
Mark Ernst (#1-#19)
Susan Beth Schnitger with Mark as her co-CM (#20-#24)
Phyllis Langdon (#25)
Date(s): June 1981-June 1985
Frequency: bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October, December)
Medium: print
Fandom: Star Trek: TOS
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

APA Enterprise was the first Star Trek APA and was created by Mark Ernst in 1980.

Membership was limited to 25 members.

There were 25 issues between June 1981 and July 1985.

Back issues were available, which was a bit of a rarity with apazines.

This apazine had a bit of cross-pollination with the Canadian Trek apa; Final Frontier as they were active at the same time and some fans were members of both.


Central Mailers:

Included Newsletter

Some of the tribs by Eric Watts are reprints of the newsletter The United Federation of Trekkers (UFT)'s newsletter, Captain's Quarters. This inclusion was not very popular with fans:

I like these and would like to see them to continue, but since some members don1'hink they belong, my suggestion would be that you not receive page count credit for them. Or any member submitting non-original material, not exclusively intended for APA ENTERPRISE. [1]

By now you are aware that I'm not alone in my feelings towards your club zines, but even so I will defend your right to run them even if no one is all that enthused about it. Hell, you have to consider that by giving us these for free you supply us with no reason to join the UFT.[2]

From an Advertisement

"APA Enterprise is not a fanzine, but an APA to which members belong, not subscribe. It costs $2.00 to join --$3.00 initially to become a member with additional dues collected as needed to pay postage and other expenses. Membership is limited to 25, but we only have five currently. Minimum contributions of 5 pages each of these mailings are expected and 30 copies are required of each page, or printing is available at cost to member. Deadlines will fall in Feb, Apr, June, Aug, Oct, and Dec. The central theme, of course, is ST, but anything is accepted."[3]

The Sandra Muskan and Connie Drivin Controversy

The subject of censorship, including how it related to the Kirk/Spock premise (both in fanworks and discussion) was a frequent topic of conversation in this apazine. Some of it was very heated.

In summer 1984, an issue of the apazine (#19?) included a trib titled "To Summon the Past" by a newly-joined fan named "Sandra Muskan." Muskan's trib appears to be a Kirk/Spock story, one which appeared to be redacted/altered in some way by another fan.

Muskan wrote a letter of resignation in issue #20.

Some fans sprang to Muskan's defense and addressed this censorship. It also appears that this involved a specific long-time, out-spoken member named Bobbie Hawkins.

Muskan was not a real person. The whole Muskan trib turned out to be a prank and was a response to the censorship issue. It was perpetrated by the apazine's two captains.

While some fans didn't disagree with the topic of the prank, they did not like the way it was presented, calling it a cruel trick.

Bobbie Hawkins, who may have been one of the strongest dissenters, felt targeted. Hawkins sent an angry, strongly worded trib and resigned from the apazine's 21st issue in October 1994.

This was not the end, however, as another hoax was to be shortly discovered...

See more at The Sandra Muskan and Connie Drivin Controversy.

The End in 1985

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO APA ENTERPRISE? After four years and twenty-four thriving issues helmed by three competent central mailers, the healthy roster of some twenty members elected Phyllis D. Langdon of Pueblo, Colorado as its fourth Captain to lead the amateur press association into its fifth year, who in turn appointed Judy M. Korte of Denver, Colorado as her First Officer. The two new officers mailed the twenty-fifth issue of Apa Enterprise to the membership in July, 1985... ...and that's the last anyone that I know of has heard about Phyllis, Judy, or the apa. Several members of the apa are regular contributors to INTERSTAT: [Susan Beth S], [Ruth K] Lym, [Dawn L], and others. I've received absolutely nothing concerning the fate of Apa Enterprise in my own mail and am extremely surprised not to have seen any reaction from any of the other former members. I ask again, of anyone with any knowledge at all: Whatever happened to Apa Enterprise? To the zines that were sent for the August 30, 1985 deadline? To the $58.25 treasury entrusted to them? To the back issues and all other materials connected with the apa? [4]

Reactions and Reviews

With APAs now listed in Forum, a combination review/explanation might be in order... Each member produces X number of copies of their 'zine' or contribution for each mailing. All contributions are sent to the OE who collates together all of them and mails on complete set back to each member. The general effect is something like a group letter, and something like an exclusive letterzine with required participation... Anything and everything gets discussed in an APA, but they are generally built around a theme. 'APA Enterprise' is the newest of a very small number of Trek or Media APAs. Its Official Editor is Mark Ernst, and there are currently eleven members. They'd like twenty-five members. The current membership is an odd blend of Trek fen and comics-fen-into-Trek, and several interesting discussions are developing... 'APA Enterprise' has a curious way of reducing costs by selling back issues for a dollar. An APA is very hard to describe, as it's the combined personalities of many people. They can be especially useful to new fans. There is the benefit of 'writing' to a dozen people at once, as well as the discipline of the for! 'APA Enterprise' is considerably more structured than most APAs I've seen.[5]

Issue 1 (June 1981)

It was published in June 1981 and contains 26 pages. There were 9 tribs and 10 members.

Mark Ernst was the Central Mailer, Robert A. Rusk was the First Officer.

front cover of issue #1, Mark A. Ernst

It includes a form for the Fandom Directory: "I think you've all see it before but if you haven't, fill it out and mail it in. The listing is free."

It includes "The APA Enterprise Code," which is the rules and regulations, aka, the fine print.

It includes an essay by Patricia Hintz called "Hurt/Comfort" in Trek Fanlit.

This issue contains a long, thoughtful essay about Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

  • The Fate of the Phoenix #1 by Mark A. Ernst
  • Lemartian Clone #1 by Caro Hedge
  • Hydro-Zine #1 by Patricia Hintz
  • Ahn Woon #1 by Derek McCulloch
  • I'm an Apazine, Not an Engineer #1 by Chris Mortika
  • Deborah Rose (no trib, the editor gently scolds Rose for this)
  • Ditto in the Dark #1 (a "Woolly Rhinoceros Publication" #23) by Robert A. Rusk
  • There But For a Fortune #1 by Crystal Ann Taylor
  • It's Not My Fault #1 by Eric L. Watts

Issue 1 (June 1981): Excerpts from Comments

I have questions and curiosity, of course, about what kind of apa this will grow into, and who has signed up. Trek hasn't been known for its apas! And each apa has its own "feel". I'm hoping to find lots of fans here, Trek fans who will be interested in informal and informed discussion about the current issues in Trek fandom, as well as Trek and the future Trek.


My major hobby is fandom and its aspects. I like cons but have attended only one outside of Colorado because of chronic no-got-bucks. I like letter hacking but am currently suffering from a backlog of correspondence which I promise to get rid of the minute I'm out of the scholar factory for the summer.


I like trek fandom. It is teaching me to write. To edit. It is even the inspiration for my attempts at art. I've been wondering what I would do with all these scribbles that weren't suitable for submitting to a zine. Yep -- this is the place!


We have recently started getting Dr. Who. I like it! But the fan fic I read before I actually saw the show does not seem to capture the feel of the show. I can't tell if this is because of the differences in British and American styles, or if I just haven't read

the right fanfic.

To introduce myself, I started watching Trek back in the days when it was first aired and I was starting college, partially because I was an avid science fiction fan then and partially because Star Trek seemed to epitomize everything that we 'children of the '60's' were fighting for. If ever there was a show that represented us and everything we believed in and tried to bring about, it was this space program that showed us our true destiny. In fact, for a long time I had a very rosy picture of Star Trek fen, because it was inconceivable to me that anyone could love the show and not believe in its values. However, once I discovered fandom, I was quickly brought down to earth by the various factions, internal squabbling, and other things that showed that while many fen did believe in the ideals presented in Trek, there were also many fen who seemed capable of compartmentalizing Trek outside their real life. But then, that is another story. Suffice it to say that I lived on these rosy fringes for some time, knowing that somewhere out there was a fandom, even if I didn't quite know what that meant. Then one day, I discovered that people out there were actually writing Star Trek stories and the desperation to find fandom began. Since then, I have done quite a bit of writing for various fanzines, attended a good number of conventions, and met many wonderful people. And my life has never been quite the same as, it was, for which I'm quite grateful.

Before I get into what I wish to discuss, let me say that I loved the Star Trek movie. That is not to say it was without faults, but it was a beautiful, interesting, intriguing, and thought-provoking film that in many ways took us along paths I never thought Roddenberry would tread. For example, in terms of relationship, he in some respects did not expand on characterizations that I would have liked better explored, but in other ways, his characterizations went further than I ever expected.

However, the most frequent complaint of those who were disappointed in the movie concerned the V'ger plot and what they considered the similarities between it and certain serial episodes, namely "The Changeling." This narrow view rather surprised me, for while both the movie and the t.v. episode dealt with the same topic, machine intelligence vs. the mankind that created it, the differences between the two treatments were intriguing and shows a growth not only in Roddenberry, but in all of us in regards to our attitudes over machines and our roles with them. The most obvious difference is that Nomad postponed his programing 1n deference to his meeting with his creator while V'ger was searching for his creator to obtain something he lacked. And that in itself indicates a big difference in the Star Trek of the '60's vs. the '80's. The series reflected our paranoia that computers were going to take over, that they might be smarter, cleverer, and somehow more durable than we are, so that they would logic us right out of existence. Our only hope lay in the fact that they were relatively inflexible, that they could only deal with what they were programed for, and that in the end, man could still out-think the machine. But the end result was the destruction of the machine, for mechanical intelligence was too dangerous to allow.

The movie reflected an entirely different attitude. It said that mechanical intelligence could never replace man because man was a valuable commodity-- he possessed something that could never be programmed into a machine, a certain essence that allowed him a flexibility of thought and action. Man could experiment in a way a machine could not: with actions, thoughts, ideas, decisions. He was not bound to his education, to his programming. He could surpass it because he could dream, fantasize, hope. And from there, he had the drive to make the dream a reality.

In other words, the movie stressed co-existence -- that both types of intelligence had something to offer and that they could complement each other, much in the same way as the various races of the galaxy could. The universe would benefit from the uniqueness of each and neither could replace the other. And that certainly shows growth from the prior need of a decade: the need to destroy or be destroyed by what we had created.

It's not that I'm advocating computers and their like here, but Roddenberry posed many new questions that were never considered in the series.

[much more]

My favorite topic of discussion is about the relationships aboard the starship, but then, I'm willing to talk about anything.

Speaking of relationships, I'm curious as to how many of you out there watch HILL STREET BLUES? I have never been one to watch cop shows since I have an antipathy to them that also dates back to the 1960s, but this one is a gem. If any show can claim to be a descendant [of Star Trek], it is this one, for it has the most beautiful, caring relationships in a realistic setting that I have ever seen. And the relationships are real themselves, with a family of players that are as warm and appealing as Trek itself. The only thing I mourn about the show is that it has no Captain Kirk. Sigh!

Issue 2 (August 1981)

It was published in August 1981.

It has a red cover with black ink and the artist is Caro Hedge.

  • Captain's Log by Mark A. Ernst
  • Hydro-Zine #2 by Patricia Hintz
  • Command Crisis #2 by Eric Watts
  • But For a Fortune by Crystal Ann Taylor
  • The Fate of the Phoenix #2 by Mark A. Ernst
  • Lamartian Clone #2 by Caro Hedge
  • Captain's Quarters #11 by Eric Watts
  • I Am a Comic Book Collector #1 by H. Scott Jones
  • Ditto in the Dark #2 by Bob Rusk
  • Martian Chronical Publication #100 by Mark A. Ernst (A fan in issue #6 wrote: "This got heavily parodied in the last Final Frontier. I think maybe we got a bit carried away with it, and I'd. like to take the opportunity to mention that it was just intended as a dumb joke, and that it should not be taken seriously, and that there are no hard feelings. I have nothing against you or hundredth-issue zines, honest."
  • Lamartian Clone #2 by Caro Hedge

Issue 3 (October 1981)

It was published in October 1981 and has a color cover by Mark A. Ernst.

It contains "The Heart of a Vulcan," fiction by Christoper Mortika.

  • An Ode to the Canadian P.O by Derek McCullogh
  • Captain's Quarters #12, #13 by Eric Watts
  • More Hysteria from the Madness Known as Me by Eric Watts
  • Ahn Woon #2 and #3 by Derek McCulloch
  • There But For a Fortune #2 by Crystal Ann Taylor
  • Tribbleations #1 by Mark Ernst
  • I'm an Apazine, Not an Engineer #2 by Christopher Mortika
  • Lamartian Clone #2 and #3 by Caro Hedge
  • Command Crisis #3 by Eric Watts

Issue 4 (December 1981)

It was published in December 1981. The cover is by Mark Ernst.

  • Captain's Quarters #14, #15 by Eric Watts
  • Tribbleations #2 by Mark Ernst
  • Command Crisis by Eric Watts
  • But There For a Fortune #3 by Crystal Ann Taylor
  • Ditto in the Dark #3 by Bob Rusk

Issue 5 (February 1982)

It was published in February 1982. The covers are by Mark Ernst. A fan in "APA Enterprise" #6 says of the back cover: "It looks better when you hold it up to a mirror."

This issue contains 5 tribs.

  • Ahn Woon #4, #5 by Derek McCulloch
  • Command Crisis #5 by Eric Watts
  • Lamartian Clone #5 by Caro Hedge
  • Journey to Babble #2 by Bobbie Hawkins
  • Captain's Quarters #16 (and possibly #17) by Eric Watts
  • There But For a Fortune #4 by Crystal Ann Taylor

Issue 6 (April 1982)

It was published in April 1982 and contains 87 pages. Mark Ernst was the Central Mailer, there is no First Officer listed.

front cover, Bobbie Hawkins
back cover, Bobbie Hawkins

It contains 14 tribs by 11 tribbers (some fans have more than one trib). Four of the tribbers are new. Several of the tribs are hand-written.

It contains "The Great Marvel Star Trek Comic Book Review" by Derek McCulloch.

  • Captain's Log by Mark A. Ernst
  • What Have We All Been Wondering About Lately? by Able Littlejohn
  • Captain's Quarters #18, #19 by Eric L. Watts
  • Lamartian Clone #6 by Caro Hedge
  • Guardian of Forever #1 by Marcel Sebo
  • There But For Fortune #5 by Crystal Ann Taylor
  • Ahn Woon #6 by Derek McCulloch
  • Okay, Pilgrim, Listen Up and Listen Good by Mark A. Ernst
  • Journey to Babble #3 by Bobbie Hawkins
  • Communication Beacon #1 by Calvin K. Bobbitt
  • Hydrozine #3 by Patrica Hintz
  • Tribbleations #3 by Mark A. Ernst

Issue 6 (April 1982): Excerpts from Comments

I always thought Leia and Chewie would make an interesting pair, too. I suppose Lucas wouldn't be interested in my ideas about bondage and Darth, either...

Considering all the ideas he lifted from other sources, you'd think he'd be more tolerant of fanzines, eh? But Noooooooo!

About the question directed to you about K/S. I sat around thinking about it, and came up with this. If you take the following statements as sort of an equation...

That there is affection among friends. That the highest level of affection is love. That love is sometimes expressed physically. That Kirk and Spock are friends, and therefor it is possible (if generally unlikely) that they could, under certain circumstances, become lovers. I think the thrill of K/S is in creating possible circumstances. The K/S writing is very exacting and precise formula writing. Much of it does take place in alternate universes. Others take the hardest, but most fascinating route, of trying to construct this relationship in the most aired-like universe. I think that Spock having most of attention towards Kirk, whom he feared he had killed during the pon farr, is the most reasonable explanation I've heard for Spock transferring sexual focus to Kirk. Heard any other good 'ums?

Anywhoo, in our society, people do assume that love and sex follows a deep friendship. Got that question again last month from a curious, quite well-meaning. People not only ask us if we're gay, but they want to discuss it. It's almost as if they want to know why we're not gay, given that we are the best of friends and have set up a family in one location, rather than keeping individual residences. It's as if they think that if you stay each isolated a certain amount in your own place, your friendship will only go so far, but if you move in together, it must Mean Something.

I love [S] bunches and bunches and she's my "family" -- it's like being sisters. Why in the world people are so disappointed when it's not lovers continues to amaze me. It is one of the things that interest me in K/S, as authors go to great lengths to explain how two people with strong hetro orientation go from friends to lovers. It has to be a pretty odd situation to get those characters to change that drastically. It explains why K/S fiction gets really odd at times.


Regarding K/S, it can be argued that there is or is not a foundation in the show for the premise until the cows come home. It's a matter of interpretation. If you don't see a foundation for it, it doesn't mean that others don't see one clearly. How two people interpret the same data and get different results is something that is hard to argue. The success of a K/S story is judged by the same ruler as any other story. How do you judge the success of a story?

As to a valid reason why K/S should exist -- it exists because there are several hundred (to the best of my knowledge, all women) out there creating it, writing it, printing it. It exists because it allows narrower and wider definitions of characters. It is a valid alternate universe, as valid as any fan-created concept. I've thought it more reasonable than Kraith. I never could see a valid, logical reason for Kraith. The trek episodes are base for thousands of fan-created stories, all equally valid. None were aired, so none of them can be more true than another.

And although your assertion struck me as odd, I'm not making fun of you. I myself can think of one valid reason why someone would label 80-85% of them as perverted. And if that reason is the same as yours, I would definitely be interested in your non-perverted presentation.

Oh, and before I go any further, let me say that my comment about narrow- minded people was not in reference to you -- I don't know enough about your views to make that judgment. Disagreeing about K/S does not make one narrow-minded in itself, but believe me, this issue has brought the narrow-minded people in Trek out of the woodwork. I mean how would you define the broad-mindedness of someone who says, "I wouldn't let Kirk touch me if I knew his hands had been anywhere but where God intended them to be."? And that is a direct quote, from a letter I once received.

Actually, I do not wish to get involved in another K/S debate. We argued and argued about it in '76, in '77, in '78. And probably in '75, but I wasn't in fandom then to know about it. And then we had the big wait until the movie comes out. "Then you'll see. Roddenberry will put you in your places."

Well, it may surprise you that both the movie and Roddenberry's novelization are considered validation of the K/S premise by those who have believed in the possibility of the premise since the series. And I have personally known several people who have changed their minds since the movie and novel and who now see the possibility of Kirk and Spock being lovers whereas they once insisted no way. I have known other anti-K/Sers (quite vocal ones) who have since lost much of their interest in Trek because Roddenberry didn't squash it like they hoped. And I know others who were quite vocal before the movie that are now strangely silent on the subject.

And before you jump allover me, please note that nowhere in that paragraph did I say all people have changed their minds. I do know that many people still don't believe in it.

If there is one thing I have learned in all the years of debate on the subject is that argument changes no one's mind. You either see it or you don't. And the only way that the don'ts will change to do's is if they 'finally see it for themselves, in the episodes, in the movie, or in the novel.

Certainly the K/S that is written today will not change anyone's mind. It isn't trying to. It isn't meant to. The early K/S was heavily into justification, but nowadays it is only the occasional story that attempts to justify it. Most of the K/S writers today feel you either see it or you don't, so they don't bother trying to convert anyone -- they just write for the do's.

Hay I ask a question as to how much K/S you have read and what have you read? Have you read Thrust, Shelter/]]Poses]], [Gayle F], Jane Aumerle's [fiction], Nightvisions, Alternative, or my stuff? Or have you read Naked Times, Cheap Thrills, Out of Bounds, Companion, English K/S? Etc. Is there any of them that you consider valid?

As I said before, since I'm not really interested in debating the subject again, I would have just ignored your comment if you had said that K/S was inappropriate for Kirk and Spock or even that it was perverted. But what got my curiosity engaged was your non-perverted K/S assertion.

If you care to tell me why the K/S argument is particularly poignant for you, I may change my mind and debate the subject with you. But for now, you asked for one good reason why K/S should exist. OK, I'll give you one. I consider it a valid extrapolation within the context of the aired series, the movie, and the novel. As long as I can defend it based on all three, and I can, I consider it a valid possibility and worthy of exploration. Note, that this doesn't mean that I necessarily contend that they are lovers (or that they're not) -- only that there are valid reasons on which to say that they can be.

And that is reason enough for K/S to exist. However, I don't believe that is what you were looking for. Isn't what you're really asking for is examples? And due to my perverse devilish nature, I think I'll give you one. But first I'd like to say something. None of the K/S writers I know say that Kirk and Spock have to be lovers. That would be crazy since there's much that's beautiful about a non-sexual love that is as deep and intense as they share. (And if you don't think those two men love each other, you aren't watching the same Trek). All the stories do is extrapolate over different timelines--how the relationship could go. And I find it endlessly fascinating that the only people who are so certain they know how it goes are those who don't believe in the premise. Even Roddenberry has said that while he didn't design the original relationship that way, for three hundred years in the future, it's a valid possibility. And Nimoy has told us himself how irrational Spock is about Kirk when he said that he didn't think Spock would survive Kirk's death.

I don't care whether you like Shatner or not, you have no right to slander his character. On what do you base your description of him as a pompous ass? You're the one sounding like a pompous ass. In every encounter I've had with the man in person or on screen, I've seen a caring, concerned, and rather humble man. Oh, he has a good sense of his own capabilities and he's a shrewd fighter - with every intention of surviving, but a man who thinks of himself as a journey- man actor and not a star doesn't have an excessive opinion of himself. Have you ever talked to the man in a situation where you could truly gauge what he's like and what opinion he has of himself? You can't judge by what's done for survival in the business.

I've seen a man who's courageous and concerned enough to get up in front of a space oriented audience and speak up for satisfying the needs of Earth over that of space, when it could have been far more politic to say nothing. I've seen a man caring enough to get up in front of an audience in which you had indicated that they wouldn't see the Star Trek movie if Spock weren't in it and defend Nimoy's right not to be in it until his voice broke with emotion. And I've seen a man caring enough about his fans to practically promise them in print that he would go on playing Kirk and giving them what they wanted as long as he was able. The very fact that he thought it was necessary to say something on the subject shows that he's aware of the heartache that is going on in fandom now and that

he cares about it -- cares about it enough -- to try to relieve his fans' anxieties and reassure them, even if he can't do anything about the-art of fandom that is hurting most. --And I've seen a man who tries to deal even-handedly and justly with everyone--that if he can't do something for everyone, he tries not to do it for some. It doesn't always work; he sometimes gets mixed up in things he shouldn't but he tries. He may not always do or say what we want, but he tries to do what he thinks is right, whether it's going to be popular or not. And I admire him for it.

Whether Shatner has always acknowledged his Trek fans or not is pointless.

Who knows anyway how he felt? Maybe it took him a while to understand what a Trekfan was -- he freely admits he doesn't understand what motivates us. After all he played the role, he doesn't live it and it took a while before the impact of Trek made itself that public that he could realize it was different than the type of adulation any actor receives.

Lack of understanding is not a crime. Try to put aside your hostility for a moment and see it from his point of view. He doesn't think of himself as a hero; he thinks of himself as a journeyman actor who creates an aura of make-believe in which to entertain people, and hopefully, to leave them with something worthwhile to consider or experience. Kirk may have been a marvelous hero to play" and Trek might have been a valuable medium in which to say important things, but no matter how much any of the actors believed in the show, its cancellation told them they had failed. Failed to reach people. Failed to touch them. Failed to move them. Under those 'circumstances, the phenomena of Trek had to be very difficult to understand.

Shatner has always said that he didn't go to cons in the beginning because he didn't consider he could do anything for the money he was getting. And since he's the only one who comes prepared with a little something to present as entertainment on the belief that if you admire an actor, you are interested in seeing him ply his trade -- I believe him. I don't blame him for not being interested in question and answer sessions or that they are an exercise in triviality; I think they're stupid myself. I'd much rather see all the actors do what I enjoy them doing in the first place -- act in front of me, in person, and spontaneously. That is a real treat. Besides, to stand up in front of an audience of strangers where you have no idea what questions will be thrown at you is a terror that can only be understood if experienced.

Shatner isn't Kirk any more than Nimoy is Spock. Shatner and Nimoy are actors; Kirk and Spock are fictional characters who are as valuable or useless as our hopes, dreams, aspirations, and fantasies make them. If you can't separate the two, I feel sorry for you. If Kirk is never the hero of your stories in any way, shape, or form, then your stories must be strange indeed.

You do realize that Kirk is Spock's hero, don't you? That he admires Kirk and finds him worth enough to love? That was established from the beginning by Roddenberry and has been played out in every scene between the two of them.

Yes, many people think of K/S as an alternate universe but that's because they don't understand what an alternate universe is. What they are trying to say is that they don't consider that aired Kirk and Spock would even become lovers, but under different circumstances, they could be. That would fall under the guidelines of different time-lines. Like what happened in "Yesteryear."

To have an alternate universe, you must have a universe with different parameters -- not a different Kir and SPock within the same universe. The mirror universe is an alternate universe because its parameters are different than than ours. It's premises are different.


Most K/S stories are not written in alternate universes no matter what the authors say, because they don't create an alternate universe.

Eric, Eric, Eric...


There is something disturbing about your assertions that gay sex is ...inappropriate between Kirk and Spock" and that K/S stories "shouldn't be done". And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you also group all K/S writers into one group and then say that all members of this group had trashy writing styles? Hmmm, for someone who professes to be "pro-EVERBODY'S rights" you sure do come down hard on K/S writers/readers who are only amusing themselves and not doing anyone any harm. You were saying something about backward contradictions...

K/S Stories:

I haven't read much fanfic and haven't read any K/S stories. But I do beleive it fits into the Star Trek premise and is not contradictory to what was shown on the TV series or what Gene Roddenberry has said or written about Star Trek. To quote Gene from The Making of Star Trek:

Intolerance in the 23rd century? Improbable! If man survives that long, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear.
It's a manifestation of the greatness that God, or whatever it is, gave us. This infinite variation a and delight, this is part of the optimism we built into Star Trek.

This is undoubtedly an early version of the Vulcan philosophy/symbol of IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations). And while IDIC is generally thought to refer to the acceptance and nondiscrimination of alien life forms, I would like to think that it would also mean the acceptance of social, political and sexual preferences and morals.

Science fiction is, after all, an extrapolation of current events and customs. And if the gay rights movements follows in the paths of the blacks and women's movements a logical conclusion would be the acceptance of homosexuality in the 23rd century. History often flows in cycles, or swings like a pendulum,and by the 23rd century vie could be back in a sexually repressed society like the Victorian Age or experiencing even greater freedom than these post sexual revolution eighties.

So in writing fanfic you could describe a future in which a sexually liberated society was a positive or a negative thing, likewise a sexually repressed society could be a good or bad future. You could be saying to your readers that they should go to this because it's good or that they should avoid, this because it’s bad.

You could argue that since it wasn’t shown on the TV show it doesn’t exist in the Star Trek universe, and that would be a valid argument. But I would content that due to censorship they were severely limited in what they could portray. In the first pilot they couldn't even refer to Number One as frigid.

And in each episode you would continually meet new people or things that weren’t mentioned before (Kirk’s brother, Spock’s parents, the K-7 Space station, Cyrano Jones & Harry Mudd). So if the show had keep going no telling what characters or situations would have occurred.

Star Trek fandom mostly female? I guess so, it's always strange to me to reading a letter in INTERSTAT and be thinking in terms of a male writer and all of a sudden the writer will use the term "she" or "her". But I guess women have had that in the mass media all their lives.

Issue 7 (June 1982)

It was published in June 1982. It has a cover of Scotty created by Bobbie Hawkins.

Issue 8 (August 1982)

It was published in August 1982.

Issue 9 (October 1982)

It was published in October 1982.

Issue 10 (December 1982)

It was published in December 1982.

Issue 11 (February 1983)

It was published in February 1983.

Issue 12 (April 1983)

It was published in April 1983.

Issue 13 (June 1983)

It was published in June 1983.

Issue 14 (August 1983)

It was published in August 1983.

Issue 15 (October 1983)

It was published in October 1983.

Issue 16 (December 1983)

It was published in December 1983.

Issue 17 (February 1984)

It was published in February 1984.

Issue 18 (April 1984)

It was published in April 1984.

Issue 19 (June 1984)

It was published in June 1984. It has a front cover by Bobbie Hawkins.

It contains fiction by Judy and Phyllis called "New Life" and "USS Centour" by Judy and Phyllis.

Also fiction, "The Palindromian Syndrome, part one" fiction by Greta Ernst.

It contains the story "To Summon the Past" by Sandra Muskan, which features in a controversy starting in the next issue.

  • Captain's Log by Susan Beth
  • Farewell Andromeda #1 by Connie Drivin
  • The Briefing Room by Greta Ernset
  • Condition Green #9 by Dawn E. Law
  • I Lied by Able
  • Tales of Bilge Rat by Susan Beth
  • Illogical Press #3 by Cammie Royce
  • The Queen of Swords by Sally E. Aaron
  • Lym's Lines by Ruth Lym
  • Second Star to the Right #7 by Mark Ernst
  • Command Crisis by Eric Watts
  • Shev Aer Lo by Dorothy Dillon
  • Journey to Babble #11 by Bobbie Hawkins
  • Star Reacher by Mary Delcambre
  • Tribbleations #16 by Mark Ernst
  • Timechaser by Phyllis Langdon
  • Starchaser by Judy M. Korte
  • Log Entries #3 by Mark Ernst

Issue 20 (August 1984)

It was published in August 1984. It was issued in two volumes (209 pages) due to the number of pages. This means there are two "front" and two "back covers."

front cover of #20, part 1, Eric L. Watts
back cover of #20, part 2, Eric L. Watts
front cover of #20, part 2, Able
back cover of #20, part 2, Mark Ernst

This issue had an 83% participation rate.

The first one has front and back covers by Eric L. Watts. The second volume has a front cover by Able and a back cover by Mark Ernst.

from issue #20, "Sandra Muskan's" resignation letter

It appears that this is the first issue that is Captain'ed by Susan Beth with Mark as her assistant.

First part:

  • Captain's Log by Susan Beth
  • Second Star to the Right #8 by Mark Ernst
  • Jone's Tribble Farm #2 and #3 by Shelley Kay Jones
  • Frank's Farewell by L. Frank Trimnal
  • Letter of Resignation by Sandra Muskan
  • Star Reacher by Mary Delcambre
  • Condition Green #10 by Dawn E. Law
  • Shev Aer Lo by Dorothy Dillon
  • Lym's Lines by Ruth Kwitko Lym
  • Tales of a Bilge Rat #12 by Susan Beth
  • Illogical Press #4 by Cammie Royce
  • Tribbleations #17 by Mark Ernst
  • StarChaser by Judy M. Korte
  • TimeChaser by Phyllis D. Langdon
  • Communication Beacon #12 by Calvin K. Bobbitt
  • The Briefing Room by Greta J. Ernst
  • Journey to Babble #12 by Bobbie Hawkins
  • Command Crisis #20 by Eric Watts

Part two:

  • Kobayashi Maru #6 by Sim Parks
  • The Official APA Enterprise Name Directory by Able Littlejohn
  • Queen of Swords by Sally E. Aaron
  • Viewscreen 1 by Calvin K. Bobbitt
  • Congratulations Starlog by G.J. and M.A. Ernst
  • "New Life," by Judy M. Korte and Phyllis Langdon, "The Palindromian Syndrome, part two" by Greta Ernst, and "Theragin Again" and "Hope Lives On" and "My Mother Was a...." (fiction)
  • Kalifa #2 by Blackwolf
  • The Wrath of Craig by Mitchell B. Craig
  • Starshine, poem by Sally E. Aaron
  • The Palindromian Syndrome by Greta J. Ernst
  • McCoy's Identity Disk, article by Calvin K. Bobbitt
  • The Trouble with Dribbles by Phyllis Langdon
  • The Final Frontier, fiction by Ernst/Korte/Langdon
  • Where Magazine by Calvin K. Bobbitt
  • Atlanta Bumper Sticker by Calvin K. Bobbitt

Issue 21 (October 1984)

It was published in October 1984 and contains 116 pages. It had 72% participation.

front cover of issue #21, "McCoy" by Phyllis Langdon
back cover of issue #21, "Attack Tribbles" by Shelly Kay Jones

This issue played a prominent part in The Sandra Muskan and Connie Drivin Controversy.

It includes a National Air and Space Brochure.

This issue contains a LONG response to the essay, Fandom's Lost Idealism.

From Susan Beth, the Captain:

YOU may notice that something is missing from this issue: the ballot for my proposed amendment. This is because I have been convinced by sound arguments from several of our members that a minimum age requirement would be both useless and undesirable. Maturity cannot be gauged by age -- witness all the immature "adults" in the world. Therefore I withdraw my proposed amendment.

From Susan Beth:

It's hard to believe, but it is already time to ask for volunteers to run for CM for next year (issues 25-30). You can announce your candidacy in your own zine or else drop me a line and I'll put the information into the Captain's Log in issue 22. The ballots will go out in #23. the results will be announced in #24. and then #25 will mark the debut of our next Captain.

Let me encourage everyone to consider running for promotion: the job is not at all onerous (I would estimate that the duties take less than 8 hours per issue) and there ARE some perks that go with the center seat: YOU get to set the deadlines: YOU get to arrange the sines however you like: (and this is the one I've liked best) YOU get to read all the zines as they come in. instead of having to wait for the APA to arrive!

And all you have to do is collate the sines {it takes me about 90 minutes alone or half of that when I use slave labor), write up the table of contents (15 min.), figure out the financial report (45 minutes--5inee I usually have to do it twice — the second time to fix the errors I made the first time!), get copies of them made (you'll have to decide how long that'll take you), then bind the APA including your CL (30 minutes) and wrap and address the zines (2 hours). A fast trip to the Post Office and you're all done for the next two months!

Well, almost. The rest of the 8 or so hours gets used up in the intervening months -- such things as answering letters from prospective members, mailing off back issues, assuring anxious members that you did indeed mail them a copy, and so on.

Truly, there is nothing at all hard about the job. Don't you think two and a half stripes would become you?

Susan Beth also includes this line in her extensive notes: "Just checking to see if anyone actually reads these notes I dutifully plink out every couple of months. If you've gotten this far, work the phrase "but I still believe Galileo was wrong" into your next zine. Most natural usage wins a prize.)

  • Captain's Log by Susan Beth Schnitger
  • Kobayashi Maru #7 (Proteus #8) by Sim Parks
  • Illogical Press #5 by Cammie Royce
  • Lym's Lines by Ruth Kwitko Lym
  • Jones Tribble Farm #4 by Shelly Kay Jones
  • Tales of Bilge Rat #13 by Susan Beth Schnitger
  • Condition Green #11 by Dawn E. Law
  • Journal to Babble #13 by Bobbie Hawkins
  • Command Crisis #21 by Eric L. Watts
  • Trekbusters #1 (formally Bird of Prey) by Mitchell B. Craig
  • The Unicorn Express by Jeannette Maddox
  • Shev Aer Lo by Dorothy Dillon
  • The Queen of Swords by Sally E. Aaron
  • Star Reacher by Mary Delcambre
  • The One-Shot You Never Thought Would Happen!! by Eric/Sally/Sim/Kathy/Ruth
  • The Girls' Turn by Sally E. Aaron and Ruth Lym
  • Farewell to Andromeda #2 by Connie Drivin
  • Hellguard Lieutenant #10 by Gina L. Dartt
  • The Briefing Room by Greta J. Ernst
  • Tribbleations #18 by Mark A. Ernst
  • Communication's Beacon #12 by Calvin K. Bobbitt
  • a reprint of an extensive speech and question and answer given at a convention by Harve Bennett, submitted by Dorothy Dillon
  • The Soulbinder, fiction by Jeannette Maddox
  • three poems by Sally E. Aaron: "Instant Future," "Detritus," and "Comics Attraction"
  • a poem by Dawn Law, "Early Morning Musings" (reprinted from Parallax Ring )

Issue 21 (October 1984): Excerpts from Comments

Hello, Connie Drivin. Short, but sweet! Welcome aboard!

As regards David Gerrold — The Man Who Folded Himself is his book, right?? His characters, right?? Then he can do as he likes with them. It is when you play with someone else’s characters that you must play by their rules. I don't see Gerrold’s remarks being unIDIClike, after all, in the revised The World of Star Trek, he is talking not only of himself, his feelings, but also Gene Roddenberry’s! You can’t find any store of an authority than that! I might write a story with gay characters and sex scenes (but those only after consultation with a gay friend), but that does not make my disbelief in K/S hypocritical.

Friends, Vulcans, countrymen...lend me your ears! I come to bury Star Trek, not to praise it. And with that, welcome to the premiere issue of TREKBUSTERS (formerly titled Bird of Prey), the first in a series of terrorist fanzines conceived and executed by Mitchell B. Craig.... But enough of this gay banter - there are places to go and people to offend. As the major (and only, it seems) film critic in the heyday of "Captain's Quarters," it was my duty - and pleasure - to freely give my opinions of genre movies as I saw them. As you saw in the aptly-christened screed Wrath of Craig, I don't take too kindly to being fucked over. That same proud tradition holds true for this very zine. However, I do notice that within some of you are the seeds of godhood (except for you religious types - you have all the award you're gonna get). I'll do all I can to cajole those seeds into sprouting. Indeed, you nay not believe me as I say these words, some of you may become my dear friends. I'm always willing to listen to reasonable people. Providing, of course, you're reasonable to start with. And how will you know that I know you're reasonable? That's MY secret, he said with a sneer. But enough of me. Now you die!

I agree with the age statement if it will keep censorship from raising its nasty head in this apa.

Susan: Re: your amendment. No thanks. When things start going that far, it's time for me to bail out. What every happened to the good old fun of APAing?

Susan, I hope that you were joking new amendment regarding statement of age. To ask us to do that would be asking us to agree that we did not object to any material that might come through be sent to our mailbox. I would look on it as an open invitation, a lowering of my standards, to agree that this material had it's place in my house.

I do not like the idea of censorship. It goes against my grain. Harder still to take is a disemboweling of this nature. Please, in future, please censor completely or not at all. You may think it strange, but I feel as strongly about a mutilated work as I do a mutilated animal or human being. In all three cases, the object suffers, only in different fashion.

Ah, Able! I do not agree with your statements, but I will not deny your right to make them, or to hold the opinions behind them. And I hope you find it in your heart to stay. I don't believe anyone here would deliberately cause you pain. I know I wouldn't, please stay. As to your arguments: 1. Nothing you can say or do will "Smooth the rough waters of AE". Best not to waste energy trying. 2. The Bible, though much touted as the word of God, was written by men, and reflects more on the prejudices and dreams of it's writers than it does on God. At best, it is the word of God filtered through the minds of those men. Just as a translator will not always come up with an exact translation, so perhaps, is 'the Word' not exactly what it was originally intended to be. 3. 'Love thy neighbor as thyself? I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Not everyone likes, much less loves, what and who they are. I am constantly struggling with my own self opinion, constantly working to improve myself. But if I were to treat others as I do myself, life would be considerably colder.


If I seemed harsh or intent on hurting, chalk it up to human frailty. You attacked, I responded. I tried to temper my words, but it may not have worked. Rest assured. If I didn't care, I wouldn't bother.

Are you trying to say that lust is not an emotion, and that Vulcans can have sexual relations because of it without feeling shame, for that reason? Pardon me, while I have a brief spell of hysterical laughter. Obviously, sex is not unnatural for Vulcans,and we've seen their selection process. However, the only reason a Vulcan could give for having sex would be the continuation of the race, usually stimulated by Pon Farr. It would seem to me that any sexual relationship not expressly for procreation would lead to great guilt in such a society. Despite his supposed non-emotional nature, we've seen Spock run a gamut of emotions. Guilt, so far as I've seen, was not one of 'em.

Maybe it's the romantic in me, but I see Kirk and Spock, and the whole core group of Trek, as comrades, not lovers. They are people who care each other so deeply that they are willing to go to Hell and back. If necessary, for each other, lovers come and go, but a friendship so vast and deep as this is the stuff of legends, and can never truly die.


Oh. So I can't tell you I didn't see K/S in ST III? WRONGO. What I saw was a courageous band of friends, willing to put everything on the line for a friend. I saw a love far deeper than K/S. And more lasting.


THERE WAS NO K/S IN THIS MOVIE!!!! It's called "reaching," folks.

There's no secret to the reduction.... Simply turn the sheet sideways in the typewriter, so that you are typing across the length of it, not the width. Have the Xerox people reduce it by 74%. You take those copies and paste them up. You can get almost two of those reduced pages onto your final page. Then you take your final copy and use it as an original to Xerox your zine.

The 'ooh, ahh' syndrome, to which some of have fallen prey, is largely due to the fact that a lot of us don't have much experience with constructive criticism and are afraid to say the wrong thing. So, we say nothing at all. Still, we enjoy the work, and seek to encourage more.

It seems to me that destroying the Enterprise [in the recent Trek movie] is just the latest in a series of moves to divorce the series of movies from the TV series. The more cinematic approach was the first step, then the redesigned Klingons (who I absolutely hate!) and now the Enterprise being destroyed. It seems to me that they're trying to wean us from the series bit by bit.


Series Klingons were vicious and cruel on occasion, but had a certain nobility and even honesty. They were hostile, but they were consistent. Movie Klingons seem random, totally without honor, and irredeemably savage. If it were "real life," I'd given them their empire only a few more decades at the very best, before internal stress tears it apart.

Personally, I'm getting tired of the smear campaign you continued to wage against Frank this mailing. For one thing, the individuals involved already know of any pertinent information you would have on the subject. Second, your bitter feelings are well known, and I think preclude you from passing judgement. Third, attacking someone you know is no longer around to defend himself is in very poor taste. Let's refrain from muddying the waters further, shall we?

Of July 14th I turned 20. Yes, I have hit the big two zero. O.K. so I am not over the hill yet, but believe me I feel like I hit rock bottom.

The Topic I would like to get into more thoroughly is WHY THERE ISN'T ANY WOMAN IN THE SECURITY SECTION? This topic has been discussed "briefly, but not too many have replied. Now don't you think it's time we see some women in that part of the ship. Even the last ST movie there wasn't any women in the security section either. I don't know about you, but it disappoints me an awful lot. There's gotta be a good reason to this, so come on let's hear some input. O.K. now that I let out some steam I feel a hell of a lot better. But that has been hugging me for quite a long time. That feels real good.

Censorship. Mark did the right thing and he was in the right. There should be some censoring on some items. If we were all adults it probably wouldn't have hurt, but I am sure that the people we do have that are under the age 18 would probably be offended. I probably should have said under the age of 14. But you get the idea.

I recently realized that I say more about K/S in this APA than I do in the K/S APA!! When I started thinking about that fact, I began to be aware that I may have given some of you an unreal impression of myself. This is the truth folks: I love reading K/S. K/S is probably my favorite kind of Trek story to read. Also, when I write Trek (which is not too often anyway), I usually end up writing K/S. But. - and this is a big BUT - . I DON'T BELIEVE IN K/S!! Let me explain. The word “belief" implies an absolute “truth". And "truth" implies reality. And Trek is not REALITY, Trek is FANTASY!! I simply consider K/S to be a possibility - one of the infinite number of possibilities that exist when you are dealing with fictional characters. (Remember, Spock said, “There are always possibilities.") For all those of you who asked whether Roddenberry created Kirk and Spock as lovers (although nobody seems to ask whether Roddenberry created K and S to do all the things they do in other types of fan stories, so why ask his intentions about this one?), even the "Great Bird" (Roddenberry) admitted it was a possibility. If you look on page 146 of the Shatner biography, Shatner: Where No Man..., you will find this quote (in response to a question comparing Kirk and Spock's relationship with that of Alexander and Hephaistion).

”Yes," Gene says. "There's certainly some of that with -- certainly with love overtones. Deep love. The only difference being, the Greek ideal — we never suggested in the series -- physical love between the two. But it's the -- we certainly had the feeling the affection was sufficient for that, if that were the particular style in the 23rd Century.’ (He looks thoughtful.) 'That's very interesting, I never thought of that before.'"

In this quote, you can see that Roddenberry considers K/S a possibility, — not a certainty, not a probability, — just a possibility, just like all the other possibilities that exist for fictional characters. Roddenberry, at least, can tell the difference between reality and fantasy!

The point I am trying to make, is if this APA were composed completely of people who didn’t like or read or agree with K/S, that would be fine with me, as long as they all had the attitude of Eric, or Phyllis, who told me that she didn't agree with K/S, but “I respect your opinions". However, many of you (especially Mary and Able) are masking your bigotry towards gays by calling it a “dislike" of K/S. And that is what I object to. And that is why I so vehemently defend K/S, not because I think that K/S is the only way the story can go. For example, Saavik may or may not be Spock's daughter. Stories have been written both ways. We all read the ones we want to read and not the others and "believe" whichever we want to "believe". Our fantasies are our own. They are for us to enjoy. Fantasies have no validity or truth in and of themselves. Likewise, they can not be invalid or untruthful.

Some of you (maybe not bigots, I don’t know for sure) can’t seem to separate your evaluation of the quality of writing, from the subject matter of the piece. That is not good criticism. I love reading K/S. But I have read well written K/S and badly written K/S. I don’t agree with the idea that Spock would end up married to Christine, but I have read a very well written story with just that idea. Try to make your criticism of the writing independent of the premise and subject matter of the writing.

In reference to comments made by Mark, Dorothy, Eric, Dawn, Greta and others: Yes I do find K/S wherever I want to. That is part of the fun. But, no, I don't believe that the only person who is a "part of oneself" is one’s mate. I, too, have friends and family whom I love very dearly. Were I to look at ST III in a non-K/S way, I would find all the lines in the movie to be perfectly reasonable from that point of view also. So I agree with your interpretations of the movie, also. Basically, I gave you all my K/S interpretations to be provocative! I knew it would stir quite a few of you into reactions, and it did.

In summation: I can look at Trek many ways (K/S and non-K/S). But bigotry angers me and prompts me to fight back. Those of you who don't wish to talk about K/S; all you have to do is not respond to what I say about it. If you respond in a vehemently negative fashion, I will argue, as I have done in the past. I take vehement negativity as a sign of bigotry. Casual negativity, on the other hand, seems like a reasonable statement of preference to me. and will not generally rouse my ire.

Why do you think God gave humans sexual desires and sexuality? God made humans in his/her own image. What does that tell you. The most incredible miracle in the world, which is the birth of a new life, is the direct result of people expressing their sexuality with each other. If God created the world this way, what do you think s/he thinks (feels) about sex. It seems like a pretty positive endorsement to me. You seem to think that it is dirty. Sex does not "contaminate" (as you put it) people!

The whole first paragraph of your zine is weird and completely incomprehensible. Our country was not founded on religion, it was founded on religious freedom. That is an entirely different thing. It means one is free to adhere to one religion or another, or none and that the State is not free to impose it's religious ideology on the citizens of the country. Your comments to Able (and many of your other comments) sound pretty self-righteous to me. Isn’t self-righteousness a sin in your religion? Just asking.

What does abortion have to do with the bomb. You really are not making any sense. Also, I don't agree with your statement that WE (AE members or Star Trek fans) are a "breed set apart". Besides the fact that you and I both are fans of the same TV show, the only thing we have in common is that we are both female homo-sapians and that we are approximately the same age.

Susan, I agree completely with your proposed amendment. I put up with a lot of stuff in AE that I don't want to read, on a variety of topics that I am either not interested in, or object to. But I don't demand that they be censored, because I know that by not asking for them to be censored, the situation leaves me free to say whatever I want, too, even if someone (or someone in AE doesn't like what I say. Here is my statement, Susan. I certify that I am an adult and I agree to receive AE which may contain discussions of controversial ideas or scenes of explicit sexual details.

You are incorrect when you told Bobbie that the methods she described are pro methods, not fan. I have been buying fanzines (not pro-zines) since 1977. and I buy at least 10 or 15 a year, and I borrow and/or see many others that friends buy. It is true that at the beginning, when ST fanzines were first being produced, most of the zines used the methods that you described, but that slowly has changed to where I would say that 99% of the zines that I see are produced by the methods she described. It is easy enough to walk into a print shop in a large city and get anything you want offset printed, collated, and bound, at a fairly reasonable price if you have enough copies made up. I have several friends who are editors of fanzines. They all use the methods that Bobbie elaborated on, and all of them are doing this for fun and for the love of Trek. None of them intend to go into professional printing. It is true that some of the zines that have come out have good appearance and the contents are badly written or boring. And it is also true that there are ditto zines with spelling errors that have excellent contents (although that was more true in the past). But there are also many, many fanzines that have both good looks and excellent contents. And I would say, that usually, when an editor gets good writing to put in her zine, she wants to make it look nice too. so she usually takes a lot of care with the layout, spelling, and printing of the zine. As to the cost of zines today, I agree that they are steep. Sometimes, before I order a zine, I will try to find a friend of mine who has read it and whose opinion I respect and ask her about it, or better yet, borrow it from her to read first. Or I buy zines from editors whose previous zines I have enjoyed, or novels written by writers whose previous works I have enjoyed.

It was very thought provoking what you said in the first 5 paragraphs of your zine. I agree with the concept of IDIC, and I agree that it would be a dull and boring world if everyone agreed on everything. And I can accept the fact that others have different beliefs and attitudes than I have. However, what I can’t accept is other people whose beliefs include the belief that [ have no right to believe and act as [wish. When I get mad at other people here in the APA. it is usually for that reason. IDIC is a wonderful concept, but it is hard for us humans to live by. Re: your comments to Able. Everyone should be accepted or not on his/her own merits. The homosexual you know may very well be unlikable, and the Morman a wonderful person. That says nothing at all about homosexuals or Mormons.

I don't agree with your stand on censorship, as you can probably guess by what I have written about it in the APA. Please rethink the issue of censorship. You seem like a reasonable person. There are many ways that you can avoid reading what you don't want to read without taking away other people's choice as to whether or not they want to read it.

Mitchell, you appear to dislike everyone in this APA. If so, why did you join?

Sandra Muskin (Mark and Susan): Re censorship. I think you both know by this time how I feel about [censorship]. As to the joke, you both did a beautiful job. Diluting the whiteout and putting the same words in caps in your zine, Mark. And stapling the blank sheets in and then tearing them out, was a stroke of genius. Mark, I won’t apologize for what I said to you, because if you had truly done what I thought you had done, I would have meant every word. But it is nice to find out that you are not the person I thought you were.

Susan, it is nice to find out that my judgement of you wasn’t wrong after all. But you sure lied through your teeth when I called you up and screamed "How dare you!!!" over the phone. How could you keep the secret that long with me yelling and bitching at you over the phone?

To all of you who thought that the censorship was O.K., please rethink your position. I can think of some topics that I would rather not read in this APA also. If we all had our say in taking out what we didn’t like or found offensive, there would be precious little left to read in this APA. Susan would probably be able to send it to us in a number 10 envelope. Do you really want some one else to decide what you should or should not be reading? How do you know what kind of likes and dislikes and values "your censor" will have? Isn’t it just easier not to read what you don't want to read? We do it all the time in our lives. We change the channel when we don’t like what we are watching. We leave a discussion that we are not interested in. Would we tell the others that they can’t discuss whatever they are discussing, just because we don’t want to discuss it? In history, censorship has impeded progress and new discoveries. People must learn to make decisions for themselves. We don't want Big Brother coming into our lives, do we? America was founded on the concept of freedom and the concept that government is here to serve the people, not the people to serve the government as in other countries. Susan, I agree with you. "Responsibility and Freedom — both very Trekkish [and very American] ideals."

While perusing back issues of this apa I noted that I have,by referring to myself as a Trekkie relegated myself to a social status somewhat below that of a Denebian Slime Devil. Actually I'm a hybrid. What do you call a cross between a Trekkie and a Trekker?

Ruth, you're thinking about sending in a drawing of a naked man to see if it would get sensored [sic]? One vote from this DOB for a drawing of Kirk.

I've come to the conclusion that “believe" is the wrong word to use in relation to K/S. “Believe" implies a certainty, an absolute sureness in one final, right result, as in “I believe the sum of 2 plus 2 is 4 in bas 10." I don't believe in K/S in that sense: that Kirk and Spock positively were lovers during the TV series, or in the gap, or before, during or after the movies, or that that they will inevitably become lovers or so on. What I do believe is that they have great love for each other — mental, spiritual, whatever you'd care to call it — and that under certain circumstances they might become lovers physically. So that in some of the myriad parallel timelines, the what-if's created at every junction when a tossed coin comes down heads instead of tails or a man leaving his room turns right instead of left, Kirk and Spock have been or will become lovers. And in others, perhaps the vast majority if you will, they never have and never will. The fact that a given outcome is unlikely doesn't mean it can't be explored and that exploration enjoyed for its own sake.

Example? It's highly unlikely that the Mirror-Spock will be forced to flee into "our" universe as a result of a bungled attempt to summon the future in his own universe. But a story (indeed, many of them) could be built around that idea: How did it come about? What was he trying to do? What went wrong? What will he do now? How will the Spocks - deal with each other? What it he shaves off his beard and tries to replace our Spock? If those stories are well written they can be enjoyed -- without having to be "believed." And if you don't like that whole topic, if you find the idea of multiple universes intellectually unappealing or totally wrong because of its conflicts with your religious views, well then, you needn't read them. But the statement should be “I don’t like that them," not “That these is wrong.". As Ruth and others have pointed out, these are fictional characters we are dealing with. Since there is no objective reality there is no final TRUTH or FALSITY in zine stories. They are merely fantasies that either agree or conflict with your own views. And that is all that I ever plan to say on the subject of K/S in this forum.

Unless, of course, someone manages to thoroughly piss me off again. Let's face it. If a person announces that Theory A is utterly and obviously wrong and everyone who subscribes to it has less brains than your average artichoke, it's a nearly irresistible challenge to those who do subscribe to defend themselves and their views. Polite statements like “I don t believe in A“ or "I disagree with A," or even "I disapprove of A“ don't arouse the same type of response, because it is dear that the speaker knows he is only expressing his own opinions and that implies others are equally welcome to their own.

Welcome to AE, home of 4-star assholes, mentally unbalanced Trekkies, the intellectually crippled, fools, hide-bound intellects and jackals with pureed bat guano for brains. Did you join us, Mitchell, because you knew you'd fit right in?

Mitchell: Apparently you aren't much of a ST fan. That judging by your final statement. And I get the impression that you're not hear to become a member as much as to take your anger out on the members.

A general "thank you" and apology to all who were kind enough to welcome Sandra and who tried to offset the rotten treatment to which Mark and I subjected her by encouraging her to stay and continue writing. Everyone was so nice that at least half of her is sorry she doesn't really exist.

I have never been so impressed with a practical joke. I felt faintly ridiculous because that morning I had been thinking about the implications of the 'censorship' and feeling generally disturbed by it, and then to read...

Thanks, guys, your point of the who project was well made.

However, I am assuming that the proposal Susan made in her zine, that of [of censorship by] restricting AE to adults, is not made in fun. This proposal disturbs me, primarily because I was still sixteen when I joined AE. By the time the amendment is discussed, ballots cast, and the amendment becomes part of the code, I will have met the requirement of "I am over the age of eighteen and aware of the nature of the material contained herein, etc." My point is if this amendment had come up sooner I would have not been able to join or worse, would have had to resign from AE because of my age.

Bear with me as I share some statistics: in a current issue of Universal Translator, 21% of the Star Trek zines require an age statement, 19% of the American ST zines require age statements; 27% of the international ST fanzines require age statements, and 20% of the proposed zines require age statements. Is AE going to be added to that list?


Unfortunately, I have watched as fandom has made it increasingly difficult for younger people to join the ranks. By requiring an age statement, you are turning away those fans will maintain fandom in the future. I have been under the impression most became fans when they were adolescents but you are now denying the same opportunity to others.


I have never been too generous about letting my age be known, especially in the past. From my experience, the most prevalent discrimination in ST fandom is that of age.

On the other hand, I understand Susan's predicament. Naturally she does not wish to become the unfortunate victim of any lawsuits. I am only unhappy that an age statement is the only solution she sees available. I believe it would be just as easy to add an amendment to the code that states the AE is a ST apa where explicit themes were unacceptable. However, I do understand that type of amendment would require the Central Mailer to act as an editor... and we are back to square one.

I have stated my opposition to Susan's amendment and my reasons for it. It is unfortunate that I can find no other recourse for her to take.

Star Trek IS dead, but it did not die with the advent of the motion pictures. ST died with its cancellation after its third season. The arrival of the movies, after a decade, could not bring back the original Trek. Nearly everything about ST had changed. The actors were older, the uniforms had changed, the Enterprise was different, the bridge was no longer famililar, and it was TEN years later. Now it is 1984, and Star Trek created out of the eighties cannot be the same as the Star Trek created in the sixties.

A fact that you are all well familiar, ST was created during a time of war and despair. The series offered hope and that hope, as idealistic as it might have been, was what people needed at that time. Idealistic heroes who professed peace instead of war and hate. Realism was not important them... everyone had enough of reality. Reality meant only pain, loss, and a dismal future.

Take a leap into the present. There is no war -- at least none that directly affect the United States. There is a concern over possibility of nuclear war, but even that seems far away.


The need for an idealistic 'escape' has faded for most. Hence the press for realism in Trek. An appropriate example is David Gerrold's comments in his Starlog column prior to the opening of ST II that read to the effect that Trek fans must 'grow up' and face the reality of death and loss.

The present requires an abandonment of the immortal heroes, the indestructible Enterprise, the enchantment of space. These are not 'realistic' but death of a Vulcan, the death of the Enterprise, and the probably courtmartial of James Kirk are. Possibly the reason that general fandom hasn't realized the differences in Trek is that they have changed with the times.

We can never have back Star Trek -- not the original. I enjoyed the movies and applaud Harve Bennett's efforts. The movies are ST but we cannot expect to have back the idealistic, flawless dreams of the past. I treasure those dreams and the real essence of Trek is in the 79 episodes... not in the movies. We must accept Trek as it eists today as we cannot turn back the hands of time.

Able, it is difficult for me to imagine anyone as narrow-minded, prejudiced, and hypocritical as you are can profess to embrace the ideals of Star Trek (much less Christianity). You are an embarrassment to me as a Trek fan. I applaud Ruth's and Bobbie's comments to you in response to this thinly-veiled personal attack on me. They've said much more effectively than I could exactly what I feel. I hope you can live with yourself. You need all the pity you can get.

Susan, what a relief to turn to your zine after plowing through that last piece of shit. I laughed and cheered all the way through your disemboweling of Abie's "essay." Some of your arguments are weak, some conclusions are thin, but they are nevertheless well-presented. It's almost enough to make me become a K/Ser out of sheer spite. But no, I have to maintain my viewpoint against it - but I'll be damned if I'm gonna argue with you about it!

Gee golly gosh wow gee whiz, Cammie, I really had just so much fun reading all of these, like, really terrific mc's. Will you be spending more than fifteen minutes on your next zine?


All right - you, Susan, and all you other K/Sers have been irking the hell out of me for several issues over a tiny little thing. You all keep referring to "the K/S apa." "The K/S apa" this and "the K/Sapa" that, ad nauseum. What, pray tell, is the name of "the K/S apa?


Do you realize that if Kirk had blown up his own ship in a fanzine story (If? I'm sure it's been done somewhere.), fandom would have probably burned the entire press run of the zine? Kirk blow up the Enterprise? It's almost inconceivable -- yet there it was [in the movie].


Spiritual messages, undetectabie hurricanes, and psychics? No peace while abortions continue? There are hospitals for people like you, Mary.

Yes, many of my mc's have a "sharp edge," but it's up to each member to decide whether or not they've been "cut."

Reaching the conclusion that Gerrold's anti-K/S statements are hypocritical since he's written gay love scenes himself is a gross non-sequitur. I shouldn't have to point out to an intelligent person like yourself that anti-K/S is not necessarily anti-gay (despite the beliefs of SOME people in this apa). What doesn't hold water is the supposition that because K and S are fictional characters, anything anyone wants to do with them is fine, (Disregard the fact that all Trek fanfic is illegal anyway due to copyrights.) The important point is that they are someone else's established hetero sexual characters and drastically changing a fundamental character trait is an ethical crime against the character if not the creator. K/Sers even acknowledge this themselves by maintaining that "well, of course they were straight in the series - they didn't become lovers until after the series." That notion is laughable, anyway - it is extremely seldom that latent homosexuality waits until middle age to surface. Suppressed homosexuality not being allowed to surface is another thing entirely - that is not uncommon. But in the supposedly enlightened era of the 23rd century, there should be no need to suppress one's homosexuality; therefore, K and S coming out of their alleged closets after the series is even less likely, since both were shown to be heterosexual in the series. If they were gay, they would almost assuredly have dealt with and acknowledged it prior to the series era. Further invalidation of K/S!


Never one to let a hot topic drop, I believe the point in bringing up Miramanee's pregnancy was to show that Kirk, when deprived of his memory and functioning only on what his instincts told him was natural, became willingly involved in a heterosexual relationship. Any socially-influenced suppression of homosexuality in Kirk would have been removed along, with his memory and he would have been chasing after Chief Hung-Like-A-Horse instead of Miramanee. Since he was not, it is safe to assume that Kirk's natural orientation is heterosexual.


I have to accede your point about K/S being predominantly by women for women, but that still doesn't make the stories any more realistic in the eyes of a homosexual man. The only concession I can make about female K/S authors is that the only women who might possibly grasp the psychosexual ramifications of K/S would be lesbians. But your claim that my point doesn't hold water doesn't puncture the bucket, because it works both ways: a heterosexual woman has as much experience to draw from to write a homosexual love scene as a gay man who has never had sexual relations with a woman would have to write a heterosexual love scene. The mechanics involved are not all that difficult to grasp, but because men and women are different emotionally and gays and straights are even more so, believable portrayals of the emotions at work would be extremely difficult to achieve by a writer unfamiliar with them. The point of this is that yes, anyone could write a blunt fuck scene, but isn't K/S more accurately defined by the deep, mutual love K and S share for each other and the reasons why they physically express it to one another rather than merely seeing how deep Spock can prong his schlong? If so, then I reiterate that a heterosexual female cannot accurately relate the nature of such a relationship, because homosexuality is more than mere gender preference confusion, and any such attempt would be hollow guesswork and unrealistic - just as would be any straight sex scene a homosexual might write.

A problem with K/S, though, is that virtually none of its authors or audience realize that K/S lacks psychosexual authenticity. That is why I found the K/S I've read lacking in emotional intensity. The authors don't realize that a homosexual relationship is fundamentally different than a heterosexual one and K/S stories come off as empty as the jack-off stories in mags like Forum. This is only the opinion of someone who would know better, and I guess it's a facet that the intended audience - straight women - simply don't realize is missing, or worse yet, wouldn't even understand if it was included.

Re: Fandom's Lost Idealism. I can understand how you feel about the ideals of ST going down the tubes. However, I am one of the new fans. My interest was brought around by TWOK. I've only seen four of the original episodes that I can remember, and though I've read most of the original books, I've only read them quickly through once and not many of them stick out that much. Does this mean that I'm not a fan? I don't think so. If I weren't a fan, I wouldn't be here. I like ST for the characters mainly. The closeness they share. And for the possibilities that ST says we can gain for our future. I understand the ideas of IDIC, but I have only seen the represented briefly. Certainly not much in any of the newer books, (except maybe the Wounded Sky.) So I guess we look at ST from almost the same, but still differing angles. I emphasize the characters and emotions, where you

emphasize IDIC.

You're [sic] comment on Clint Eastwood's memorable line, "Go ahead. Make my day!" brings to mind a common Dirty Harry joke mingled with a little K/S. "Go ahead. Kirk. Make me gay!" (Sorry. That was in extremely poor taste.)

I'm not overly thrilled with starting this zine. In fact, it is somewhat of a chore. I'm so fed up with the way this apa is these days I've considered quitting. In part I am, as I'm cutting WAY back... I simply find it impossible to care anymore.

Case in point: someone, who doesn't deserve recognition, made the assinine statement about keeping opinions to myself. Well, if said person, or any other person who has no desire to read others' opinions, I have but one suggestion: QUIT. What the hell are you doing in fandom? You should be locked in a closet somewhere with a 24 hour recording of your own voice. [...]

Sandra Muskan was a hoax. I abhor censorship in any form, and leaving members out because of their age fits into that category. Everyone should take that into consideration, though. I don't think any central mailer should be responsible for YOUR words. I do think YOU should be responsible for your words. Thus, if you wish to run something -- particularly pornographic -- I think you should be held responsible for any repercussions, legal or otherwise.


Susan tells me Bobbie Hawkins quit. So I guess I'll skip all the things I had to say to her. Most of them might have caused more rifts anyways. I was, of course, looking forward to proposing an issue to please Bobbie in which no one would talk about anything that might be controversial to anyone -- hence 200 pages with NOTHING on them.


Gayle's K/S stories. First, your cridentials [sic] for her being a good writer make no argument at all. She has a masters in creative writing and has been told by two pros she's good. If that makes a writer, then about 90% of the writters [sic] I know in fandom should now be pros. Second, I showed one of the K/S stories to a friend who has a teaching degree in English. Subject matter aside, he would have given it an F just for the spelling and grammar errors. THAT is bad writing. The subject matter had nothing to do with it. Their, the argument all along has been that K/S isn't just sex between Kirk and Spock. So we asked that some good K/S be sent if there was any and what we got were FOUR stories that had abou [sic] FOUR lines that were not of a sexual nature. THAT blows the whole concept of the argument all to hell.


I'm resigning as First Officer. This is a three-fold reason. First and formost [sic] is a complete lack of TIME. I just don't have the time any longer. Second is a desire to sever all official ties with this apa. Under some of the current circumstances I don't think it is a good idea I remain in that type of a spot. Third is that I don't enjoy it any more. I've always said if there is no enjoyment involved and no way to change it then get out, so I am.

Issue 22 (December 1984)

It was published in December 1984 and contains 183 pages with a 81% participation.

front cover of issue #22 (part 1), Bobbie Hawkins
back cover of issue #22 (part 1), Dorothy Dillon
front cover of issue #22 (part 2), Phyllis D. Langdon
back cover of issue #22 (part 2), Shelly Jones

Greta Ernst has stepped up to temporarily serve as First Officer due to her brother, Mark, stepping down. Susan the Central Mailer gives her thanks.

It was issued in two volumes due to the number of pages. This means there are two "front" and two "back covers."

The first volume contains 82 pages, a front cover is by Bobbie Hawkins, and a back cover by Dorothy Dillon. The second volume contains 74 pages, a front cover by Phyllis D. Langdon and a back cover by Shelly Jones.

It has some long comments on the pro novel, Tears of the Singers.

From Susan, the Central Mailer:

Mark's zine hasn't come. I don't want to butt into someone else's affairs, but since he and Greta have already told some of our members about it I don't feel the rest of the crew should be left in the dark. In brief, the rumors are true: Yes, Mark was writing as Connie . Yes, Mark has resigned from AE. His farewell zine giving his reasons will probably be in #23.

I, for one, am sorry we are losing the man who created APA Enterprise and who has handled the lion's share of the work involved in getting the issues out, by serving as CM the first two years and as assistant CM for the year and a half since then. People who dream up projects are common. People who will work at making them reality are not.

  • Captain's Log by Susan Beth Schnitger
  • Lym's Lines by Ruth Kwitko Lym
  • Character Profile by Sim Parks (a fan's personas)
  • Illogical Press #6 by Cammie Royce
  • Shev Aer Lo by Dorothy Dillon
  • excerpts from The Gimlet Eye: Fanzines, a June 1979 article/essay by D. Keith Mano in the conservative magazine, "The National Review"
  • 1762! by Susan Beth Schnitger
  • Engineering Decks: Condition Green #12 by Dawn E. Law
  • Jones Tribble Farm #5 by Shelly Jones
  • Tales of a Bilge Rat #14 by Susan Beth Schnitger
  • Starchaser by Judy Korte
  • Timechaser by Phyllis D. Langdon
  • A Tribute to Robert Basehard: A Personal View
  • Beyond Antares #1 by Katherine M. Aaron
  • The Unicorn Express by Jeannette Maddox
  • fiction by Jeannette Maddox

The second volume contains 72 pages. The front cover is by Phyllis D. Langdon, the back by Shelly Jones.

  • U.S.S. Centour: The First Voyage, fiction by Langdon and Korte
  • Command Crisis #22 by Eric L. Watts
  • The Doomsday Trek Buster by Mitchell B. Craig
  • Kalifah #3 by Blackwolf/George Vincent
  • The Trouble With Dribbles, a parody play in script form by Langdon/Korte (object of the parody is David Gerrold's Trek episode "Trouble with Tribbles")
  • The Zine on the Edge of Forever #1 by Colin J. Krapp
  • Comics Pusher, poem by Eric L. Watts
  • Duanted Pervasion, fiction by Judy Korte and Phyllis Langdon
  • 2-Round Zine Auction (Lynda Carraher's zines), list was franked by Greta Ernst
  • The 1985 The Star Trek Historical Calendar by Calvin K. Bobbitt (this appears to have been an ad, one franked by Bobbitt)

Issue 22 (December 1984): Excerpts from Comments

I, myself, have never made a distinction between "Trekkie" and "Trekker." If someone says, "Oh, you're a Trekkie?" I say yes. If someone says, "Oh, you're a Trekker?" I would say yes also.

I called myself a Trekkie about 9 years ago, when a guy set me straight and differentiated between Trekkie and Trekker. As I see it, the difference is like those between Catholics and Protestants. Both are basically the same, just that the approach is different. A hybrid would most likely fall under the title of Trekkite.

I think people who make a big thing of distinctions among Trekkers and Trekkies and Trekkists are displaying snobbery. We are already a ghetto within a ghetto, with mundanes looking down on SF fans and general SF fans sneering at ST fans — do we really need a caste system? The only point of it seems to be to allow some of us (self-styled Trekkers) to feel superior to others (those awful Trekkies).

Bobbie Hawkins: As I have said to you over the phone, I am really sorry that you feel that way, and that you are leaving, I will miss your zine. It is one of my favorites.

Bobbie, I'd like to apologize for my remark concerning your story. That is not like me to be negative concerning someone's writing. I know how hard I work in creating something and believe in only encouraging other people when they have done the same. The original concepts for Trek had a lot to do with the 1960's. Being an ex-hippie I will always believe in love instead of war but I do also realize that those beliefs are a thing of the past. We must continue to change and evolve even if those changes are not for the better. So must our beloved Trek go... Of course, I think STIII could have showed a bunch of ex-hippies and they would have reacted the same way. If you like the series you can collect all 79 episodes but once you can watch them when you want to you find a lot of stuff dated. I would prefer to have life that way but realize if it's to be it must start within ourselves. If you think I approve of death of the Enterprise, you would be wrong but she is dead and nothing we can say can change that. We must live with it. Accept the bad with the good... The fact is, bad Trek is better than no Trek at all and I wouldn't consider Search of Spock bad Trek.

Re: David Gerrold. Don't give him the benefit of the doubt. It is not K/S that he abhors, it is gays. The reaction that he had to some K/S zines at a convention (I read a report on it by someone who was there) can only be called homophobic. He might say that this is changing someone else's established character, but no one complains about the fanzine stories that have Spock and Christine getting married, or those that have Jim and Uhura getting it on together, or any of the other stories that have the characters doing things that Gene Roddenberry never conceived of when he created them. Believe me when I say that most of the FERVENT anti-K/S is really anti-gay.


When he was at a convention, he made a spectacle of himself screaming and yelling about K/S and holding up a K/S fanzine illustrations and reading aloud from them to an audience that included children, even after he was repeatedly asked not to by many fans.

He thought that he was ridiculing K/S, when he was really ridiculing himself. As I have said before, many fan writers have written stories that "distort" (depending on your viewpoint of the original characters) the way you or I see the ST characters. There have been a lot of badly written fan stories out there (along with some very well written fan stories and some badly written pro-stories, along with the well written ones)). So we read them and stop in the middle, or put them away and warn our friends not to buy those zines, or auction them off, or sell them, or toss them in the garbage, or whatever. What we don't do is yell and rant and rave and scream for the authors to be drawn and quartered and call them names. These are the rantings of a lunatic. When this only happens for K/S stories, and not other story themes the premise of which the person doesn't agree with, we can only conclude that these are the rantings of a homophobic.

The main reason people disagreed with your opinions of K/S in ST: III was that you failed to clarify between your own interpretations and the actual intentions of the writers of the movie... When you acknowledged that ST was no written in the K/S context but you enjoyed making those interpretations yourself, it made an important distinction. Personally, I am not "anti-K/S." I see nothing wrong with making K/S interpretations from the movies/series as long as it is kept in mind that they were not originally WRITTEN as such. I think the basic misunderstanding (with the exceptions of those who protest against K/S on a moral basis) was the difference between personal interpretation (or creating alternate universe or alternate possibilities) and the actual intentions of the writers and creators of Star Trek.

I'm not against homosexuality. Of course I'm not for it. I don't care what anyone does in privacy as long as they don't care what I do. (And I do some bizarre things.) The story I told Able in #20 about the homosexual and the Mormon meant I don't feel people should be attacked because of their religion anymore than they should be attacked because of their homosexuality.

(Which means if the homosexuals and K/Ser's stay in this APA so should the religious fundamentalists.) True homosexuality is against their religion but I'm sure somethings I do are also. My friend (who is also a Mormon) is an avid pop drinker. (Strictly against his religion) Judgement isn't ours anymore than it's theirs.

I commented on IDIC in #20. If we as ST fans don't start living up to it how is it going to happen? I do like Susan's concept that we have friends because of our differences instead of despite them. That's what bothers me about this APA. I don't like the war that is going on and feel caught in the middle. I don't care if it's K/S or what it is. If we can't say something nice why say it? Sure you have to express your opinions. Ask me. I'm as opinionated as they come but personal attacks shouldn't be necessary.

I do feel that we should stay away from the K/S topic only because it tends to cause bad feelings to run throughout each APA. If we deal with topics like IDIC and what we can do to get to the time of ST then we deal with the positive as we all believe it. Some of us believe in K/S and some do not, yet if someone doesn't believe in IDIC and the concepts of ST we shouldn't be writing for this APA, should we?

Others decried the destruction of the Enterprise [in the Trek movie]. What should Kirk have done? What else could he do? She was dead in space, defenseless, and a possible target for Klingon capture Kirk would not let. what he loved most he sold for scrap by Starfleet, nor be claimed by his enemies, and in the end, it was he who brought about her death. Think of the cowboy who shoots his wounded stallion, rather than let it suffer. It also helped illustrate the fact that other AE members have rightly stated-- that the focus of STAR TREK is not the Enterprise, but the people aboard her. That could also be why as many people didn't like III as much as II, because whereas II was an action story, III was a people story. Yet in truth, both were equally STAR TREK„ Too many fans seem to have forgotten that the roots of STAR TREK are in people and their relationships. It's even amazing how the so-called K/s stories have evolved out of the misreading of these relationships.


I only object strongly to K/S when it starts into the homosexual angle - No, I'm not bigoted toward gays; I recently met and made friends with an incredibly fascinating Yale drama student who displayed his life as a work of art for six weeks, who is also gay. A great person, and I hope he does well in his further endeavors. Anyone in ST-APA can tell you about the jousting matches that Denise Wolff and I have been having since issue 3 or 4. In an X-Men series she is running, she chose to make the Angel gay. It didn't bother me that there was a homosexual in the story, only that she had taken an established heterosexual like Warren Worthington and made him gay because she wanted a gay X-Man and Nightcrawler already had a girlfriend (she forgot to notice that Angel did, too.)

Your reasoning seems to go, “Sex for reasons other than procreation would cause guilt. We did not see Spock exhibit guilt. Therefore Spock did not engage in non-procreational sex." I have doubts about both of those precises. 1) There are other logical reasons to engage in sex: To strengthen a intimate relationship by keeping the mate contented. To save your life if threatened by a rapist. To relieve natural biological urges — where's the logic in staying hot and horny if relief is possible? 2) We often saw Spock exhibit guilt. For example in Naked Times about his treatment of his mother and in This Side of Paradise for having struck Kirk. But by real objection is that conclusion cannot be drawn from those premises. Even if we grant you your assumptions, that Spock would feel guilty about a sexual relationship with Kirk and we never saw him display that guilt, that still proves nothing. All we saw were selected moments from the five year mission, a total of 70-odd hours out of 43,800, and Spock wasn't even on screen for all of then. That amounts to our having witnessed less than two tenths of one percent of his actions during that time span, which leaves him plenty of time to have engaged in sessions of brow-beating if he were so inclined. (I suggest you give up trying to prove that something could not have happened — check out the difficulties of proving a negative in a logic text.) I don't understand why considering Spock and Kirk to be only comrades rather than comrades and lovers is more romantic to you, but that doesn't matter. I accept that your interpretation of the ST episodes is just as valid for you as zine is for me.

...really - after that wonderful sense of finality you gave in that sentence - "and that is all I ever plan to say" - what's with this "unless" you've sneaked in? I couldn't help but to laugh out loud. Let's face it — K/S will always be a topic in this apa!

Harlan, I think this may be the place to put in a good word for him for all you people who have only heard stories about the "bad" things that he has done. I belong to the Harlan Ellison Record Collection, and the last record that I sent for, came in the mail (fourth class, as usual) broken. I immediately sent it back to the HERC address first class mail, along with a letter saying that I was anxious to play it and so could they send a replacement first class mail, and that I would be willing to pay the difference in postage. A couple of days later I came home from work and turned on my phone-answering machine. The familiar voice said, "This is for Ruth Lym. This is Harlan Ellison. We received your record today. Were very sorry it was broken in the mail. We are sending out another one to you immediately, first class mail, and there is no extra charge to you. We sorry it got broken. Hope you enjoy it." When the message started playing, I thought. "Which one of my friends is playing this trick on me?", but after the second sentence. I recognized Harlan's voice. Just a couple of days later, I received another, undamaged, record. Harlan had called me long distance from Los Angeles to tell me it was coming. And he must have had to consult information for my phone number. I thought that was a really nice gesture.

You may agree with my letter to INTERSTAT, but Sandra Necchi clearly did not. She wrote me a letter saying she could not understand my opinions and enclosed a copy of her article that Bobbie ran through her zine. I replied to her letter. I guess she does not want to continue the discussion as I have heard nothing more. You think maybe I offended her by saying that perhaps Trek fans should work with Star Trek rather than against it?

Doohan used the term "pregnant guppy" to describe the Excelsior? How things spread... the original inventor of that description was Shirley Maiewski of the Star Trek Welcommittee.

Regarding all the negativity in this apa: it cost us a prospective member. Probably more. I had a girl talked into joining whose poetry and stories are very good (at least in my opinion and that of the judges of three contests), but after reading a few issues she decided to join another apa where people were a little friendlier. So please everybody, couldn't we lighten up and be a little nicer to each other?

I'm beginning to be disturbed about St. Elsewhere. Agreed, all the characters have problems -- that's basic for a soap opera format -- but the crises the males face are people problems while the females have women problems. For example, the women get breast cancer but the men get hemorrhoids, the women get raped but the men agonize over mistaken diagnoses. Maybe I'm putting too much importance on it, but the basic picture seems to be the same old one: women as passive victims and men as doers.

I am disappointed with the Blish adaptations, but mainly because of their format. Crunching down five episodes into one book meant you got nothing but plot summaries. Foster's treatments of the cartoon episodes, even though he started from a such thinner base, are more satisfying, since he had the space to embellish and enrich. You don't have to agree with or accept as canon all he wrote, but at least you got something new for your money instead of dehydrated plot.

Have also read The Vulcan Academy Murders, which Jean Lorrah has just crammed full of references to her stories in the NTM universe. She said in a letter to Interstat that after she d finished the book they turned around and decided that future ST books should be half again as long. Do you suppose she brought all the NTM stuff in as last minute padding? And do you suppose anyone there at Pocket Books understood the references, say, such things as the battered brass headboard? I wonder.

Censorship. I will back down, but only to some degree. For example, I don't know mind reading sex scenes and explicit language when they are relevant to the story line, not severe S&M and that the author adds a footnote at the beginning. There is a difference between a good love scene which I enjoy) and hard core porn (which I can't tolerate). All I ask is that I don't want to be surprised.

Perhaps you'd like for zines to be rated... like movies? G, PG, PG-13, R, and X? How about I, for Insipid?

Since Susan has withdrawn the age proposal, the whole argument is moot, but had it gone to a vote, after reconsideration,! would have had to have gone against it despite what! said to the contrary last issue. While ! initially liked the idea of an all-adult apa, I eventual!y realized that age is not necessarily an important criterion for protecting ourselves against narrow-minded outrage. When we have grown adults with attitudes and opinions like Abie's and Mary's but teenagers whose maturity Is twice their age, an age would be no shield at all. I was 19 when I joined AE in 1981 and would not have liked being refused membership because I was under 21. I also think that an "adults only" label implies that "adult" material is not simply allowed, but outright encouraged, even to the point of that being the emphasis. That was certainly not the point of the legislation. We'd be asking for that which we do not necessarily want. While I have no objections against adult material, I don't want to be inundated in it, and if it comes down to a choice between outlawing a certain type of material or discriminating against Intelligent young people, I'll vote against the material. Censorship versus discrimination is what it comes down to. Perhaps a statement agreeing to receive controversial material could be issued with no mention of an age requirement at all.

I think that "maturity" happens at different ages for different people, but there are laws in every state which makes it a crime to sell or send certain types of things to people under a certain age (usually 18). I think that Susan was justifiable worried that someone's parents would see certain things in the APA, and she would end up being charged with "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" or some such thing. Unfortunately, she has some reason to worry, if we have very young people in the APA. I agree with Susan that stapling the pages together is a good alternative.

I don't believe in censorship, as I have said before. Also, I don't think that we have anyone in this APA who is under 18. Certainly, we don't have anyone who is under 14 (do we, captain?). Besides, it's not really age that makes maturity.

Issue 23 (February 1985)

It was published in February 1985 and contains 76 pages.

front cover of #23 by Phyllis D. Langdon
back cover of #23 by Shelly Jones
the financial report issued in #23

This issue contains an enclosure, the Kirk/Spock Questionnaire by Dorothy Laoang, submitted by Susan Beth Schnitger.

It had a 48% participation rate.

About voting on the next Central Mailer:

It's a difficult choice to make but I want to stress the importance of your voting. For the next year each of you will have to deal with the new CM and, more important, to a large degree the continued health of AE will be in that CM's hands. With three such worthy members in the running, it will probably he a tight race. Won't you feel a little silly if you don't send your ballot in and your favorite loses; out by just one vote?

  • Captain's Log by Susan Beth Schniger
  • Federation Security by Christine Hamilton
  • Tales of a Bilge Rat #15 by Susan Beth Schniger
  • Timechaser by Phyllis D. Langdon
  • Communication Beacon #13 by Calvin Bobbitt (This is the same trib as "Memory Alpha Publication" #17)
  • The U.S.S. Centour - The First Voyage by Phyllis D. Langdon and Judy Korte
  • It Happened One Night, a non-explicit Kirk/Spock, pon farr, cave story by Christine Hamilton
  • The Trouble With Dribbles, a satire in script form by Phyllis D. Langdon and Judy Korte ("as performed at the Pueblo S.T. Con on June 1, 1980")
  • Verti-Bird #1 by LaVern Loretz, Jr.
  • The Unicorn Express by Jeannette Maddox (includes part one of an untitled story)
  • Jones Tribble Farm by Shelly Jones
  • Command Crisis #23 by Eric L. Watts
  • The Queen of Swords by Sally E. Aaron
  • Beyond Antares #2 by Katherine M. Aaron
  • TOABR15: Part Two by Susan Beth Schniger
  • Kirk/Spock Questionnaire, franked by SBS
  • William Shatner/Paramount Salary Dispute, franked by SBS (This is an open letter to fans, as well as a survey by Ann E. Carver)

Issue 23 (February 1985): Excerpts from Comments

One of the items on the TOC is a K/S questionnaire which I am franking through. If you are willing to take the time to fill it out your help will be appreciated. As long as you are familiar with the basic premise (and given the running debate on the subject in this APA, how could you not be?) it doesn't matter whether you approve or disapprove of K/S: The people running the survey are trying to discover why people do/don't like the genre and what if any traits those who like/dislike it have in common. You don't need to sign it, and no individual’s answers will be revealed. The compiled results and any conclusions that the authors draw from them will be reported in the K/S APA and NTS (Not Tonight, Spock! -- a letterzine devoted to K/S) and maybe through here if interest is expressed.

About this age issue, I am glad it didn't pass, because I am a 15 year old high school sophomore. I really wasn't sure I was going to join this zine, 'cause you all seem to bicker and bitch at each other constantly. But I decided to join (no applause, just money!).

I write K/S, some of it quite graphic. I would never run it here, one doesn't rock an already tippsy boat. But that is the key. We are a team, a crew. We are supposed to help each other, constructive criticism is one thing. Outright hate is another. Yes, I know what your thinking, after what I said about Mark, how could I say things like this? Well, I really disagree with and really dislike Mark's attitude. I do hereby pledge I will attempt not to be so graphic in the future.

Re David Gerrold and his possible homophobia: Were you as surprised as I to read in Barbara's zine in the last K/S APA the flat statement that he was gay? In my next zine I asked her what she based that on — now I just have to wait another three months or so to get her answer! I love APAs, but sometimes the six months involved in the statement/query/response is mucho frustrating.

I agree that there is negativism in AE, but I'm fresh out of ideas for dealing with it. I've preached, and I've tried to set an example, but with zero impact. The problem is, no one sees his own comments as negative. You say get a little sharp now and then, and she writes with a pen dipped in acid but I just say what must be said with as much style as possible.

Thanks for running the excerpt from that article, and especially for telling us exactly where we could find it (I ran right out to the local library to read the whole thing.) It's always fascinating to read how an outsider (non-fan) views things Trekkish. I don't buy his Spock-as-ultimate-male theory — in fact. I've argued in the K/S APA that he has many "feminine” traits and is often used in fanzine stories to contrast with Kirk-as-Alpha-Male — but it was an intriguingly different personal response to Trek.

I think we've got a problem with definitions, here. In my book, the term K/S necessarily implies a homosexual relationship between them. There are other types of “relationship stories" which focus on the bond between them in a non-sexual sense, for example Hurt/Comfort or (along with McCoy) Triad, but asking for K/S without homosexuality is like asking for omelets without eggs.

Isn't it amazing how little controversy ST3 caused? After three years the arguments are still raging over whether Kirk should have stayed away from David and whether the radiation shield could possibly work and so forth. There just don't seem to be any similar debates on TSFS. The only ones I'm aware of — whether they will/won't/should/ shouldn't rebuild the Enterprise and will they/won't they court-martial Kirk and crew — are really speculations about the course ST4 should take. Why do you suppose this is? Was the movie so good, or so true to pre-established Trek that problems haven't arisen? Was the movie so bad, or so widely divergent that no one chooses to think about it any more than necessary? Or is it fandom that has changed?

I'm skipping an issue of mailing comments in order to reevaluate the worthiness to me of the time, effort, and cost of remaining a member of this apa. I think I've taken the events of the past several issues - namely, the expose of two fraudulent "members" - with a fairly good humor. What I have not taken well are the resulting losses and controversy left in their wake: at least three resignations to date as a direct result of these "jokes," and the feeling that we've lost touch with some vague, fleeting ideal that made us special.

The cover and last paragraph of my last zine treated the latest revelations with sarcasm and belied the true anger I felt. I thought that by this issue that anger would have gone away along with the hoax's perpetrator, but instead, it has turned into a vague contempt towards the entire apa, because underlying my sentiments of having been blatantly betrayed remains the original thorn in our collective lion's paw: admit it or not.

Star Trek has been muddied as the theme of this apa to the point where one would be hard-pressed to prove that this is a Star Trek apa by reading recent issues. (As you may recall, it was these charges that led to shouts of censorship which in turn led to the first hoax, ostensibly to prove some point.) We've been so busy arguing over what shouldn't be in the apa, we've no room left to include what should. I desire to belong to a Star Trek apa because I want to discuss Star Trek with other intelligent, rational. people, and AE almost no longer satisfies that desire. mature Which brings me to another and more critical gripe. The overall mentality of our membership appears to me to be one of increasing juvenility. This attitude may be influenced more by the absence of former members than by the presence of current ones, but the effect re mains the same: the calibre and quality of this apa have declined sharply. Gone are such essayists as Crystal, Caro, and Bobbie, thrashing over interpretations of Trek philosophies; now we have evangelists, Pythonists, and Dr. Who buffs who seem to regard Trek as one of numerous golly-gee-wow hobbies, none of which are taken seriously.

Freedom of speech and of press and the avoidance of censorship demand that these members be allowed to express themselves as they will, even if it means three unicorn cartoons for every Trek illo. I have defended those rights constantly. But this is also why I must now determine whether there is enough Trek left in AE — in substance as well as in spirit - for it to be worth it to me to remain, And I do mean in spirit. The first hoax was a violation of that spirit. The second hoax was strike two. The last straw was being blatantly lied to over the phone by our illustrious Captain when I called her about the Connie Driven mess. She told me she knew nothing about it.

Susan, you can explain and rationalize and defend all the reasons you may have had but you cannot ever change the single unalterable fact that you lied to me.

I've had my say for the time being. I think I've made my point. A serious self-analysis is in order - of the apa, and of ourselves.

This is the last issue of Queen of Swords. The latest hoax perpetrated on the membership of this APA has forced me to sit down and re-think the reasons I have belonged to this group since issue 8, and it seems that those reasons, for the most part, no longer exist.

Once upon a time, this was a Star Trek APA that was devoted to Trek, and there were very few incursions of other topics. The discussions were lively and extremely intelligent, and I felt like I was doing well to keep up with them. Now, Trek has almost become a sideline issue, with religion, Dr. Who (and I am a Whovian, don't get me wrong) and other things taking precedence. The members I used to work so hard to keep up with are all gone, for one reason or another, and I now feel as though I far outstrip the majority of the membership. There's no challenge in here anymore. Where has it all gone??

Now let's talk about the membership roster, and the names that have been there that have been no more than simply names. The first, "Sandra Muskan", while I did not like it, I could see the point behind it, but the second, Connie Drivin, was done in a spirit of pure malice and spite, with the intent of making fools of the membership, and this I will not stand for. Especially will I not stand for lies from anyone in any situation of leadership in any fan organisation I belong to. What am I talking about? Well, Judy called me and said that she had heard from Phyllis who had heard from Greta who had confessed her part of the hoax. Judy wanted to check with me about how many of the membership I could vouch for to see if there were any more false members. I vouched for as many as I could and proceeded to inform the Columbia contingent of the membership about the scandal. Eric, in an attempt to confirm or deny the rumour, called Captain Madame Susan. "No," she said, "I don't know anything about that." As it turned out, she had known about it from the beginning. This was the straw which broke the camel's back. Whatever happened to the little things in life, like honesty and integrity?? Well?? I'm sorry, but I will not put up with this.

Ruth, Judy, Phyllis, Shelley, I'm going to miss you, but I must go. Loss of quality and integrity are more than enough reason for me to leave. I wish you all the best.

Mark's an asshole.


As I read this through, I realize. I have put down Mark several times. And I would like to say, I feel he deserved it. This "Connie" incident, so soon after "Sandra" was a big mistake. He should learn the old proverb "look before you leap." By the way, I do completely agree with the massage put forth by "Sandra". Our forefathers busted their asses so that we may worship as we wish, retain rights, and say what we wish. We were beginning to bannish our own rights! Something HAD to be done.

The central mailer, Susan, addressed fans' comments about the second hoax, as well as her previous statements some fans felt to be dishonest, or at the very least disingenuous:


Sally and Eric raise three points which deserve prompt acknowledgement.

My role vis a vis Connie Driven: CD was placed on our wait list in issue #18. This was the last issue of Greta's term but Mark was actually handling the CM duties. When Mark delivered the membership records and back issues he told me that CD was his invention -- that he would be writing her zines and paying her share of the expenses. I agreed to allow "her" to remain a member so long as her occupying a slot would not prevent any real person from joining AE. During the course CD's membership, I treated her the same as everyone else: she had a separate minac record and postage account that was debited for 1/25th (or whatever) of the cost of each issue. When Mark resigned for both the regaining funds in each account were forfeited and used to offset some of our postage bill.

As for my denying knowledge of CD's non-existence in a phone call with Eric -- he and Sally are quite correct. That was a lie. At the time I considered myself bound by my promise to Mark that I would not reveal his secret. I admit I have many flaws (and patently lapses from truth are among them) but I have always placed great store in keeping commitments.


Probably the real answer is that I shouldn't have gotten myself into that position in the first place by letting Mark go ahead. Why did I? Because it honestly seemed like a harmless prank to me. It never even occurred to me that someone else would find it so horribly upsetting. Bobbie said she never could understand the practical joking type of mind. I do — I have one. I don't approve of cruel or dangerous jokes (like pulling a chair out from under someone) but I find hoaxes amusing (I chuckled when I read about those Italian art experts authenticating a stone face that a couple of school kids had roughed out in an afternoon and dropped into the river near a dredging project.) One commonly applied rule to determine behavior is to put yourself into the other's place. How would I feel if a member in the either APA I belong to turned out to be a phantom? It’s hard to say for sure before it happens, but I think it would depend on the zines themselves. If they'd been clever or humorous or thought-provoking, I think my reaction would be a wry chuckle and if they'd been dull or boring, I'd be annoyed at such a pointless prank. But either way, I very much doubt I d be really upset or bothered. I guess I just assumed everyone else would react like me — bad assumption, obviously.

It was never my intention to hurt, humiliate or upset any member of this APA, but I have done so. For that, I am sincerely sorry. The question is, what should I do about it now? I would resign immediately as CM, but given that the current Assistant CM also knew of the hoax and that in any case the selection of a new CM is already underway that would be an empty gesture. Shall I resign from AE completely? As you, the rest of the crew, are the offended party it should be your choice. If you want me out let me know. Tell me in a letter or your zine or include a note with your CM ballot. I'll abide by your decision.

Issue 24 (April 1985)

It was published in April 1985.

  • Verti-Bird #3 by Lavern Loretz, Jr.
  • Command Crisis #24 by Eric L. Watts
  • Engineering Decks #13 by Dawn E. Law
  • Illogical Press by Cammie
  • Tales of a Bilge Rat by Susan Beth
  • Captain's Log, Supplemental by Susan Beth
  • Starship Fantasy#1 by Kitty
  • Jone's Tribble Farm by Shelly Jones
  • The Briefing Room by Greta
  • Timechaser by Phyllis
  • Lym's Lines by Ruth
  • Shev Aer Lo by Dorothy
  • The Palindromian Syndrome by Greta
  • Command Crisis by Eric
  • Starchaser by Judy

Issue 25 (June 1985)

It was published in June 1985. It had 62% participation (21 tribs).

front cover of issue #25, Caro Hedge
back cover of issue #25, Shelly Jones

The new Central Mailer was Phyllis D. Langdon and the new First Officer was Judy M. Korte.

This issue contained 80 pages. Of those, 14 were reprints of newspaper comics such as Bloom County, Doonesbury. There is a reprinted set of letter exchanged between a fan and the U.S. post office about a Star Trek stamp (contrib: Viewscreen #2 (Memory Alpha #19, Extra Sensory Press #3 by Calvin K. Bobbitt), reprinted articles, zine ads, and occasional art. The apa's bylaws are printed in this issue.

While no one has officially resigned, two members were lost due to "failure to meet Minac," meaning they were not active enough in the apa.

The deadline for the next issue was August 30, 1985, but alas, there were no other issues created.

  • includes Pocket Book's Star Trek Pro Novel Guidelines (1985) and A.C. Crispin's written comments about writing Trek novels for money, see Some Notes on Writing for Publication
  • Captains Log by Phyllis D. Langdon
  • First Officer Reporting by Judy Korte
  • Ruth's Announcement by Ruth Lym
  • Trek Talk by Schnitger, Kitty Uhlman, and Loretz
  • Starship Fantasy #2 by Kitty Uhlman
  • Jones Tribble Farm #8 by Shelly Jones
  • Meanwhile in a Slightly Different Timeline, fiction by Susan Beth Scnitger
  • Verti-Bird #3 by Lavern Loretz, Jr.
  • Starship Fantasy: Marooned, part two, fiction by Kitty Uhlman
  • Shev Aer Lo by Dorothy Dillon
  • Engineering Decks #14 by Dawn E. Law
  • APA Allie by Sim Parks
  • Metrors [sic] and Comets #4 by Blackwolf
  • Communications Beacon #14
  • Beyond Antares #3 by Katherine Aaron
  • Keep On Trek Con '80 by Sim Parks (two-page satiric description of a convention)
  • Starchaser by Judy Korte
  • Final Frontier/U.S.S. Destiny, fiction by Judy Korte and Shelly Jones
  • Command Crisis #25 by Eric L. Watts
  • The Naked One-Shot by Aaron, Aaron, and Watts
  • Timechaser by Phyllis D. Langdon
  • The Naked One-Shot: How I Met George Takei and Lived to Talk About IT!!!!!! (about Takei in Columbia (?) on May 11, 1985)
  • flyer for a proposed zine called "APA Allie" for fans of Kirstie Allie/Saavik

Issue 25 (June 1985): Excerpts from Comments

I'm requesting that everyone welcome back Able Littlejohn. She is returning after correspondence between her and I. Able enjoys APA Enterprise and I see no reason for her not to be a part of it. Able is a good Christian. (You note that I said "good," not "perfect.") If every member is not a Christian, at least they do believe in IDIC and ST IDEALS and I'm sure we can count on Able being treated well.

I've been corresponding with [D W] who [B] suggested for membership. [D's] question was isn't fanzines and APA's an infringement on copywrights? [sic] My answer was "yes" but since fandom is responsible for a large majority of the audiences the studios and creators tend to over-look them. Anyone else have a better answer? Another answer?

I missed two mailings in a row? Well, I do have excuses and neither have anything to do with laziness. I missed mailing twenty-two because of high telephone bills. I upgraded my computer with a modem and when sort of crazy searching the country for computers to call. I had all intentions of being there for twenty-three and finished all my MC's two days after getting AE in the mail. Unfortunately, I stored all those MC's on a floppy and a ribbon for my printer was on back order in Illinois. Well, I'm here now, anyway, and will merge this attempted at an explanation with those stored MC's.

I want to mention my latest toy -- modem. The modem was the cheapest piece of hardware I have bought for my system and yet it has been the most fun. For those who own a computer, do yourself a favor and upgrade it with a modem. Get yourself a membership with Compuserve and tie in with the Star Trek forum (within the science fiction special interest group). It's a bit like attending a con within your home. The conferences are the best feature of the whole forum. I've only participated in those which involve Star Trek but one is held every Saturday. I have joined in on conferences with Diane Duane, David Gerrold, and a conference which was held with Majel Barret, Bjo Trimble, and George Takei.

The message section is somewhat like an apa. You leave message(s) to others, discussing what you like, and the next time you check in there will probably be a reply waiting for you. The current topics parallel what any other fans discuss (even K/S... and no one gets angry. Isn't that something?) If reading is your game you can download (transfer data from COMPUSERVE to your computer) a novel or part of a novel that some SF author is working on and wants an opinion. There is a section for amateurs and unpublished people too... electronic fanzine.

If you own a computer you can probably find a modem for under $100. A starter kit for COMPUSERVE can bought at a computer stores, although I bought mine at Waldenbooks. Once you are on the system. Just type HOM-29 at any prompt and that will get you to the forum. To contact me, all you have to do is either leave a message to me on the ST forum. My ID number is 74506,2574.

Okay, now that I have attempted to convert everyone to the ST forum, I'll try to find those two MC's I wrote two months ago...

Treat your apazines not as casual handwriting but a serious forum to intelligently and thoughtfully share your ideas about Star Trek and its universe. Offer up your BEST... If your free-time does not permit that, then skip that mailing. Take your time to think out your ideas or your replies in a debate.

If it helps, consider each of your zines as an effort to impress the hell out of the WORLD. Check the value of your words, the spelling in your paragraphs, and the appearance of your zine. Ask yourself if what you are writing will interest the membership as a whole. If it doesn't, rewrite it or delete it. Make that a conscious effort... and remember the reason you joined was STAR TREK.

As for the subject of the hoax... it bothered me but it did not upset me. As I recall, I never made a comment to "Connie" and only extended a comment to "Sandi." Okay, someone(s) made a mistake...fine, acknowledge and oppose it, but then DROP it. That's all it takes and I do think it is a shame that members are so violently upset that they feel they must forsake AE. Instead of being constructive about the mess, they are turning their backs on it... running away, if I may state it that way. Running away is not the solution and certainly is in contradiction of molding this world and its people into the Star Trek ideal. Run away... and you are running away from a small part of Star Trek -- that of co-existing with people.

Do you realize I wince every time I read your zine? It makes me realize how insignificant by system really is... I know I have spent $1000 on just hardware and all of it was the cheapest I could find.

Somehow, I didn't need "proof" that you existed (and if anyone questions my existence, just give me a call by voice or computer.

Mentions" of Star Trek are quite frequent in computer magazines. In fact. I think it was in POPULAR COMPUTING that there was even a interview with Gene Roddenberry involving Star Trek's computer, even heard that one of the first micros, the Altair, received its from the mention of the planet of that same name in the episode AMOK TIME.

Diane Duane is a subscriber to Compuserve and participates in the Star Trek forum. I have transcripts of a conference help with her on Saturday, March 2. She discusses her two Star Trek novels, My Enemy, My Ally and Wounded Sky, her present projects, ideas for other Star Trek novels, opinion of Otherworld and V, what Pocketbooks looks for in ST novel outlines, how she developed the Romulan language in My Enemy, My Ally, and a host of other subjects.


  1. ^ comments in "APA Enterprise" #6
  2. ^ comments in "APA Enterprise" #6
  3. ^ from Datazine #11
  4. ^ from Eric A. Stillwell in Interstat #106
  5. ^ from Datazine #15