Anatomy of a Letterzine/Official Rebuttals and Responses

Many individual fans commented on Anatomy of a Letterzine and their comments are on that page.

The comments below are official rebuttals and responses made by fans directly involved in the controversy: Teri Meyer (editor of Interstat), Sandra Necchi (editor of Power of Speech), and Karen R. (a lengthy rebuttal published in Interstat).

Anatomy of a Letterzine/Official Rebuttals and Responses

Karen R's Letter

In April 1988, a fan (Karen R) wrote a long rebuttal to "Anatomy of a Letterzine" which was printed in Interstat #126. She included many excerpts from the original letter.

Some excerpts from Karen R's letter:

A great furor has been generated recently by a review entitled "Anatomy of a Letterzine" which appeared in Orion 25 and Power of Speech #3, and which bears close examination.

In the first paragraph, the reader is warned: "...do not remove the staple that holds the pages of INTERSTAT together...for to do otherwise would be to unleash hissing, spitting, growling, barking, and snapping such as no fan has ever encountered before." Yet no concrete evidence is given to back up this statement. It continues: "Were you so bold as to actually thumb through the thing, you would meet with the gnashing of teeth, the raking of claws, and the lashing of tongues—not to mention the back-biting, mud- slinging—and all of this interspersed with the all too familiar strains of the well-known Bennettian chant "We are a fandom blessed..." There is no evidence given of what constitutes this "gnashing of teeth, raking of claws." What is lacking is an indication of which issues, and how many, constituted the reviewer's sample, and of how many letters in each issue were read. Out of that sample of n letters, how many fit the reviewer's definition of the above terms? How does the reviewer define what constitutes "back-biting" and "mud-slinging"? There is given no objective measure by which the reader of this review can judge the accuracy of the charges being made.

Is it so far fetched to believe that Star Trek fandom is blessed? We've had twenty years of enjoyment and fellowship, continuing showings of the original tv series on countless television channels, four movies with number 5 in the works, even an entirely new tv series, books, professional and amateur publications of all sorts to indulge in...does this not constitute blessing, no matter how one may feel about Mr. Bennett or anyone else in fandom including those who make unsubstantiated charges about other fans?

The second paragraph continues, "INTERSTAT is a letterzine with a problem. Even the writer/readership itself constantly bemoans this fact, as is evident in the continuous complaining in the letters to INTERSTAT about the hostile atmosphere of the zine, and in the many threats and announcements proclaiming the non-renewals of subscriptions because of said hostility. Even those who do decide to renew, do so only after prolonged and profound public deliberation; ultimately, what you wind up with is just a little bit of TREK with your crapola." Again, no concrete evidence is given.

The second paragraph ends with: "In my humble opinion, INTERSTAT's main failing is that its '(devotion) to fan comment, analysis and reaction' is merely a secondary consideration in comparison to its primary function of its devotion to retaining the attention of the higher-ups, and one such personage in particular—Mr. Harve Bennett." Again, where is the evidence to back up this charge? Out of the sample of n letters, how many even mentioned Mr. Bennett, much less clamored for his attention? Does making a suggestion regarding what one would like to see, even just wishful thinking on paper, constitute trying to get Mr. Bennett's attention? Or is the reviewer, disgruntled and disaffected herself, merely seeing toadies under every bed because she is passing every letter through an extremely thick filter of her own devising? In the third paragraph, "The knowledge that 'HB' will be watching casts a new light on the subject, and the subscriber's (sic] letters, which once might have started out as an attempt to reach out to new fans and perhaps to talk a little TREK, suddenly take on a very personal and very immediate importance as each tries to impart his or her own personal vision of the essence of True TREK to one in a position of power. It then becomes of paramount (was this an intended pun?) importance that these personal visions not be marred or sullied in any way, for the eyes of HB. In this context, any opinion contrary to an author's own personal conception of TREK is taken as a personal attack, and by the same token, if an author wants his/her own beliefs to stand, it often becomes necessary to tear down those of others. Gone is the forum type of atmosphere one would assume of something called a letterzine' is trying to attain. Gone is any give-and-take of opinions, any exchange of ideas; the atmosphere of INTERSTAT is quite unmistakably that of a competition. The goal is, I think, for each participant to try to get his/her particular vision to be the one HB selects and possibly incorporates into future TREK projects, and the rules are simple: anything goes." Again, there is nothing objective offered to back up these charges. The reviewer decries the LoCer's imparting "his or her own personal vision of the essence of True TREK...' Is there an objective standard by which such can be measured, or is it not the beauty of Star Trek that there are so many depths and levels to it that you can find a variety of interpretations and visions? It seems to me that is what has kept it going so strong for so long. In any medium of human exchange it is inevitable that there will be some less than civil utterances. Out of the sample of n letters, how many fit this category, reviewer? What, again, are the definitions under which you are operating? Has every issue of INTERSTAT for the past ten-plus years been that way? Is there a trend that you see? What evidence, in terms of percentage of negative letters out of total letters, do you offer to support your view?

And [the fourth] paragraph continues: "If, in the course of writing a letter to INTERSTAT, you have the audacity to take exception to any of Bennett's tenets— however politely, articulately, or even eloquently and logically it may be done—the Bennett Trektines in residence there will have had enough of you in real short order, and you will be kicked repeatedly in the face until you fall off the cliff into the molten lava below (allegorically speaking, that is.)" The reviewer declines, of course, to enumerate these supposed "tenets,' nor docs she give any concrete examples.. .again. Back to the sample of n letters, reviewer. How many of this sample (1) enumerate any of the alleged "tenets," (2) contradict them, and in what way, and (3) contain the attacks you state such contradiction will draw? Not only does the reviewer insult the reader's intelligence by not providing any concrete examples by which the reader may judge for himself or herself, she also insults the reader's intelligence by adding the parenthetical expression to explain to the dumb reader that her reference to being "kicked repeatedly in the face until you fall off the cliff into the molten lava below" is not meant literally.

Paragraph 5 begins: "Because I believe that any reviewer who finds everything wrong and nothing at all right with a piece of work hasn't looked long or hard enough" then goes on to praise the art and columns (which are deserving). But I still contend the reviewer has not "looked long or hard enough" at the letters and has not backed up her charges with concrete evidence which can be judged by the readers of the review. Rather, she has smeared us all.

If she has a problem with a particular LoCer or group of LoCers in INTERSTAT, the honorable thing to do would be to write a LoC herself, under her own name, as I understand "Kristen Brady" is a pseudonym, and state her position without resorting to the type of unsubstantiated charges contained in her review. She has attacked the LoCers of INTERSTAT, all of us, tarring us all with the same brush, yet will not face us directly and explain why she has said these things about us. And, by the way, [Karen R] is my real name.

The Editor of "Interstat" Comments on Karen B's Rebuttal of "Anatomy of a Letterzine"

In April 1988 in Interstat #126, Teri Meyer addressed Karen R's comments, and added some of her own regarding Randy L., editor of the other zine that had printed the original open letter.

Some excerpts:

Readers interested in obtaining a copy of the review in its entirety may SASE me and I will send it to you. As Karen pointed out so eloquently, "Brady" didn't look long or hard enough at INTERSTAT,nor did she want anyone else to. Her review closed with these words of warning: "—But even so, just remember that the bottom line regarding INTERSTAT is this: don't remove the staple." I disagreed, and the following personal statement was submitted for print in DATAZINE: "With regards to the "Kristen Brady" review of INTERSTAT, a few comments of importance: This cutting review and the untruths stated therein were published by longtime INTERSTAT critics Sandra Necchi (POWER OF SPEECH #3, published out of Philadelphia) and Randy Landers (ORION #25, published out of Lansing,Michigan). The author of the review understandably hid behind a pseudonym, and each time one of the above zines was sold, her vindictive pen presented a malicious and inaccurate picture of INTERSTAT and its talented letter-writers. Star Trek fans who purchased POS #3 and ORION #25—particularly those just discovering fandom—should be aware of the fact that this review is grossly misleading. Indeed, potential readers can "remove the staple that holds the pages of INTERSTAT together" and enjoy fandom's longest-running monthly Star Trek publication. INTERSTAT recently celebrated its10th year in print, and we cordially invite you to participate within its pages—with fandom's finest letter-writers."

And for these pages a few comments to [Randy L], who writes tasteless and erroneous statements about this editor to INTERSTAT letter-writers: I suggest, [Mr. L], that you submit for print in INTERSTAT (word for word) your distorted facts, misquotes, and personal observations detrimental to my character. Why mail the above only to INTERSTAT LoCers who commented in print on the "Brady" review? Why not enlighten all of INTERSTAT's readers? And why send copies of these stinging letters to "Kristen Brady" and Bill Hupe— and not me?

Sandra Necchi's Letter

first page of Sandra's letter

second page of Sandra's letter

In May/June 1988, Sandra Necchi, the editor of Power of Speech, wrote this letter to Teri Meyer and Interstat. Across the top of the letter, she wrote: "THIS ENTIRE LETTER IS MEANT AS BOTH A PUBLIC AND PRIVATE REPSONSE -- in other words, you can publish it -- altho you won't."

Some excerpts:

I gafiated from fandom more than a year before I put out the third (and last) issue of POWER OF SPEECH, which contained the review of INTERSTAT by "Kristen Brady."

Like I said, I really couldn't care less about fandom's petty wranglings but I've been told by some of my old fannish friends that I should at least put something on record. It seems important to them. I don't know why since you have no interest in presenting the full range of views in fandom and never have. You're playing at taking the "moral high ground," quite a feat for someone who has a reputation for censorship while accusing people of being afraid to speak up.

My reasons for printing Brady's review of INTERSTAT were pure and simple—it was a good, honest piece, putting forth complaints about you and your zine that I had always heard people verbalize for years, but that no one ever had the courage to put into print.... That's the trouble with fandom—in print, fans have to "make nice nice" and hide what they really feel, and almost no zine editor has the courage to rock the boat. In such a repressive atmosphere, people are hurt and no one ever finds out about it. I refer to the prevailing consequence of this— censorship, which you well know is the source of my grievance against you. It is also Brady's, Landers'... oh, I could name at least 8 people without even thinking about it. The level of censorship in fandom is reprehensible—that was why I decided to launch POWER OF SPEECH, as an alternative, especially to your narrow publication which had silenced far too many people already. Iwantedtoofferfansaforumwheretheycouldbe truly honest about their opinions, and where no high-handed editor would get in their way. My only guideline dealt with the use of real personal attacks, and even then something would have to be pretty bad for me to consider sending it back to the author for revision. not even outright censorship. I also wanted to offer a zine that did not have a biased editorial position by not maintaining a chummy relationship with the higher-ups, and that did not worship at Harve Bennett's feet.

Brady pointed out some classic complaints about INTERSTAT. Only one of them proved to be dated, and even the reason for that is quite insidious. INTERSTAT used to be known for its extreme backbiting and verbal abuse (over some incredibly inane issues)— from what I can tell that's no longer true. When Brady wrote the article, it still was a particular characteristic of your zine, but by the time it reached print things had become more civilized. But some of those arguments were not always about petty issues—some were genuine and serious disagreements between people who were nonconformists and who brought up serious and hard questions, versus those who were content with the status quo. And it was the latter who were the most vicious when their safe little world was disturbed. The result? Naturally, many people left the zine—people with a lot of intelligent, interesting things to say, but who were obviously not welcomed. And then of course, coupled with that, these writers would have to deal with your arbitrary censorship of their words, demonstrating editorial bias against those writers you obviously disagreed with. So INTERSTAT certainly has quieted down, and it's gotten terribly boring as a result.

Finally, Teri, your hypocrisy simply amazes me. You snidely attack Brady for submitting her article to a lot of different zines—but that's merely what a minority voice has got to do in fandom. There's virtually no one out there who has the courage to print controversy (something fans are deathly afraid of), so of course she had to try everyone possible. That's just being a smart writer. You really expect me and your other victims of censorship to believe that you would have printed her article if she had submitted it to you? Please, Teri—this is reality here. Are you being disingenuous or deliberately lying, putting yourself forth as an editor with integrity? I don't even believe you'll print my letter. I know very well you'll let stand your snide accusations against me, Brady, Randall, et. al., leaving your readers to think that we indeed had no courage to speak out in our own defense. You have silenced people before, and you'll do it again. And if you do print this letter, I'm sure you'll leave out crucial sections (not minor ones in terms of importance), and not for lack of space.

One last thing—a friend told me I should disclaim the possibility that I am really Kristen Brady. I am not her. You can just tell from the two different writing styles. I never had the time nor the interest to put the time into writing a review of INTERSTAT. I have never written with a pseudonym, though I understand why Brady did it. Anyone with a really controversial thing to say in fandom has done it or at least considered it. I will not reveal Brady's identity as long as she wants it secret. It's her choice.

Teri Meyer's Response to Sandra Necchi's Letter

Teri Meyer wrote a response to Sandra Necchi's letter in the same issue of Interstat in which it was printed (May/June 1988, #127/128).

Some excerpts:

Frankly, I am not a bit impressed by someone who boldly charges "We have only your past record as proof" and doesn't state what that record is or who "we" are. Neither am I impressed by Sandra's pernicious statement "You don't want your readers to know what you've done in the past," when it's obvious she's the one who doesn't. An important rule of good journalism is: substantiate thy charges with thy facts or look like an ass. While Sandra chooses to use "easy and safe" methods to make her points, this editor chooses Montgomery Scott's: "Let's see if they got the belly for it."

(A) She is intimidated by the existence of 126 issues of INTERSTAT and the "full range of views" therein, i.e. the editor's "past record" and "proof."

(B) She couldn't conjure up 8 "people"...I mean 8 "writers"...correction, 8 "censored victims" if her life depended on it—and is embarrassed.

(C) She cries "What's the use?" because it's easier to cry than to admit she's never submitted her "grievance" to INTERSTAT.

(D) She tosses the word "courage" around like McEnroe does tennis rackets but shows none herself (see A through C—particularly C).

(E) She refuses to admit that my so-called "reputation for censorship" is indigenous to her little group—The Brady Bunch.

(F) She is still sadly confused as to which is more unsettling: a "hostile" INTERSTAT or a "boring" INTERSTAT.

(G) She states she had only one guideline dealing with personal attacks— "not even outright censorship"—but meant to say: Sandra edits; Teri censors.

(H) She informs readers they will be lied to again, but can't inform them when and how they were before.

(I) She claims the "nonconformists" fled INTERSTAT because they were not welcome—by whom she's not saying.

(J) She says we can stay in our mundane little world and dismiss those who dissent—from what she's not saying either.

(K) She points out there are a 'few, good' people still with INTERSTAT, but wisely leaves them and the 'many, bad' unnamed. She, too, is a "smart writer."

(L) INTERSTAT's track record is her greatest enemy and she has difficulty absorbing the fate of her own letterzine.

Answer: All of the above.

Noted also with interest was Sandra's lofty spiel about her letterzine: "I wanted to offer fans a forum where they could be truly honest about their opinions, and where no high-handed editor would get in the way." In POWER OF SPEECH #1, editor Sandra—who'd promised "Absolutely NO CENSORSHIP will be employed"—educated her readers on how to write a LoC and behave themselves. Re: the topic of slash fandoms, she instructed, "If you have an innate prejudice against this kind of fiction, then you can do one of two things. You can ignore the discussion and stick to things you enjoy. Or, you can be reasonable, hold your temper in, think carefully about your words and respond." On the subject of proper debating techniques, readers were lectured, "The trick is to keep that emotion in check, to channel it into writing good, coherent, interesting, direct, but reasonable letters. There i£ a way to strike a balance." That's right, boys and girls, the trick was to be reasonable and "make nice, nice" so editor Sandra's boat wouldn't get too rocked and you wouldn't get too "edited." What a crock.

Even more crock, Sandra's declaration in her LoC that the "Brady" review was a "good, honest" piece which said things about me and my zine others didn't have the "courage" to publish. Poppycock. First of all, the review was not about me; my name and editorial practices are not mentioned. Second, the review was poorly written, offensive, and anything but an "honest" critique of INTERSTAT and its letter-writers. Third, I see no courage in "Kristen Brady" having written it. I see no courage in Sandra Necchi having published it. It does not take courage to attack other fen from behind a cowardly pseudonym; neither does it take courage for an editor to publish said attacks in the final issue of her letterzine, with a loud disclaimer to boot. And the biggest crock, Sandra's timid mention of her "grievance" against me. Knock off the performance, Sandra. This isn't POWER OF SPEECH; this is INTERSTAT—reality—where your kind of vague innuendo and broad generalizations are quickly identified and labeled rubbish. If you are going to gripe to INTERSTAT readers that you have a "grievance of censorship," then tell them what it is—and I don't mean through one of your pals—I mean you.

Letter to "Kristen Brady" by Teri Meyer

In a June 1988 letter in Interstat #127/128, Teri Meyer wrote an open letter to Kristen Brady.

Dear "Kristen," I regret that removing INTERSTAT's staple has brought you such unhappiness. Therefore, I am returning your most recent subscription renewal. It is my sincerest hope this will alleviate any discomfort felt by you and give you peace of mind. As an editor who has published your letters over the years, I was surprised to learn, via your mouthpiece, you hold a "grievance of censorship" against me. If your 'past record' is any indication, however, this editor and her readership will not be made privy to the reason, and that, too, is something I regret. In addition, I think it is important that you and your clique know where the staff of INTERSTAT stands regarding Harve Bennett's gracious participation within these pages. Without a doubt we are appreciative of the time and consideration he has given to INTERSTAT, and we are honored that this publication is one of a number of vehicles through which he personally communicates to Star Trek fandom. Regrettable, then, is your perception that his kind of openness has no place in a forum dedicated to communication. In closing, I wish to express again what a privilege it has been to publish INTERSTAT's LoCers. So many of the letters thoughtfully penned by them have shown a great deal of class and intelligence, and more importantly, integrity. Concerning the latter, I am sorry I can't say the same for you. Regards, Teri Meyer/INTERSTAT. P.S. Should "courage" happen along and bump into you, please feel free to submit a letter of comment to INTERSTAT—under your real name. Contrary to a statement published in another misleading review of INTERSTAT by one known as T'Yenta, this publication cheerfully accepts contributions from non-subscribers.