ComLoC

From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search
Zine
Title: ComLoC
Publisher: Piri Press Publishers
Editor(s): Chuck Raue & Carl Lamb, for other editors see below
Type: letterzine
Date(s): December 1976 - July 1979
Frequency:
Medium: print
Fandom: Space: 1999
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

ComLoC is a Space 1999 letterzine published out of Mobile, Alabama. It was created by Chuck Raue (deceased), one of the founder of the The International Space: 1999 Alliance and edited by Raue and Carl Lamb. All known issues have been scanned in here.

From a January 1977 ad: "ComLoc is a Space: 1999 discussion fanzine featuring letters of comment from fans discussing various topics relating to the science fiction series Space: 1999. The first issue will be out in late November and is available for 24¢ or two 13¢ postage stamps. Besides letters there are fanzine reviews and a free ad section in each issue. Space: 1999 is a new & innovative science fiction television show that is now drawing its own fan following. ComLoc is a zine which gives these fans a place to express their feelings about the show and a place to openly talk with others. [1]

An eBay seller in 2010 described it as: "An open forum discussion 'zine in which fans of the show would submit letters talking about different aspects of Space: 1999 and debate topics from one issue to the next as well as comments on new episodes as they were being aired. Also featured a review section of other fanzines, 1999 fandom news."

By the time the zine ceased publication in 1979, there were 1,100 subscribers.

Issue 1

cover issue #1

ComLoC 1 was published in December 1976 and contains 12 pages. Cover: 'Victor Bergman' by Marty Siegrist. Contributing commentary in this issue: Burt Libe, Patti Cullen, George Perkins, Christine McWilliams, Vivian Stanley, Pam Beckett, Mona Delitsky, Carl Lamb.

It has been scanned online here.

The cover is printed offset, the interior pages are photocopied.

  • this issue contains a review of Alpha Newsletter #5, see that page
  • this issue contains a review of Cosmoconnection #1, see that page
  • this issue contains a review of "Afterwords" #3, a professional publication (this issue spotlights Space: 1999)
  • the first letterzine is one filled with disgruntlement:
    Space: 1999 fandom has not matured to Star Trek levels. Main reason is almost total lack of info about the show: episode titles, episode synopses, cast characters and actors, and order of show/episode release (to name a few subjects). Also ITC (Independent Television Corporation) seems to show little concern for promoting fan contact with the studios directly in England, apparently caring less about fan feedback. In fact, ITC (Newark) ungraciously ripped off my SASE (enclosed with my request for the London studio address) --- not even having the courtesy to answer. And if they don't care, maybe we shouldn't care. If they say to hell with us, maybe we should say to hell with them.... Episodes are difficult to remember (poor editing;. They're not run that often. Newspaper reviews read consistently bad (except for the lavish set expense/creativity). Our own KRON-TV (channel 4) bumped the show twice in a row (new season) for "specials". Show airs 7:00 P.K. Saturdays (if and when it airs at all) the most difficult time for even my viewing habits and schedules. Same time slot is bad for others too. Perhaps KRON-TV is trying to tell us something? Bad editing and bad scripting seem to be the two worst problems. Most first-season plots required painstaking labor to follow. Some didn't make sense. Most had weak plotting — especially with the formidable villains who met their doom in incredibly dumb-ass contrivances. Love failed to make itself known. Cold, unfeeling motions churned the cast through their hum-drum actions. Landau and Bain came across as disjointed entities rather than strong driving character forces. Both partners of this man-and-wife team are professionals' professionals in every sense of the acting game. Both did great work in Mission: Impossible. How does one tell such seasoned professionals their perfunctory Space: 1999 efforts don't wash? Why do such seasoned professionals turn in banal renditions when they should know better? Many such questions remain unanswered. And unless such questions are answered Space: 1999 faces impending doom and deservedly so.... I might christen [sic] Space: 1999 as an exercise in how to derive the worst performances from the most talented people. How is this possible? This opens a Pandora's box of new anti-art concepts. I might suggest some behind-the-scenes producers, directors, writers, and film editors get off their fat one track tails and start thinking. Good science fiction tells stories about people. Good science fiction flows smoothly. Good science fiction creates Powerful drama. If they start thinking good science fiction, maybe they'll start producing good science fiction.
  • another fan writes of her slow conversion:
    Well, I watched a few more times — sometimes under duress when I was babysitting. I came to like Victor Bergman and I thought that the Eagles were neat, but I joined the majority of Trekfen and condemned the show. I was not impressed with the special effects (as I have said elsewhere) because I knew they were all modified from the Anderson's earlier marionette programs. By comparison I liked UFO more than Space. Then I saw the episode "Earthbound". No, no, it wasn't like "HALLELUJAH* discovery of Star Trek, but I liked it. The storyline was good. The aliens were friendly. Simmonds was a perfect villian. I approved of the whole thing. But then I saw a repeat of "Dragon's Domain" and I lost the good feeling. I gave 1999 up as hopeless. Ah, but then I went to August Party and met Kick Tate — that was hallelujah time! What many people didn't know was that the first season of Space had been filmed two years before it was shown on American TV. And that extensive changes were made on the basis of criticism received from viewers. I saw the uncut version of "The Metamorph" and throughly enjoyed it. I met the members of the "99/UFO club. I was almost a convert.
  • the new character of Maya is not a popular one:
    Of all the multitudes of changes for the better in the second year of Space: 1999, one sticks out as being totally an opposite change for the worse. I speak of Maya of course. Her outward appearance as an alien (not as a female — she scores an A+ on that count) is stupid. Why the crazy makeup on her cheeks? And why the Spock-like eyebrows — she isn't even Vulcan! Luckily Frieberger or whomever Maya's creator was, didn't give her pointed ears as well! Emotionally Maya just hasn't had time to be explained on the air. Her mind seems to work like a computer (being able to navigate an eagle in "Brian the Brain"), but she also seems to contain compassion and emotion. The two may look together, but intelligence of a high degree is usually associated with a stoic outward appearance, as far as I can tell. The biggest piece of insanity, in creating Maya was her strange "molecular transformation" ability. Why wasn't Maya's father capable of it? (In other words, why didn't he change into a bird and fly out ?f the fire, before his planet exploded?) But why molecular transformation anyway? It is impossible.... Why does Space: 1999 seem to be always stuck with stupid inaccuracies in its super sets, super character ideas, and super universe?... Okay, Space: 1999 -- you're fantasy, but since Star Trek, you're the only science fiction show worth watching!
  • more on the character Maya:
    Maya has excellent possibilities,but certainly not with her present unrestrained powers of chameleon-changes (which [border] on the ludicrous unbelievable, whimsy/fantasy) and the reckless way she employs them. My, how could I ever fantasize sleeping with such a lovely lady for fear of waiting up beside a black panther bright and early next morn? What-a-way-to-go does not apply here! Hell, this is no woman, this is a terror I don't see how anyone could consider Maya a "female Spock". Many enraptured female Trekkies could spend hours fantasizing sexual relations with Spock. Could males visualize such relations with Maya? Now I couldn't imagine a harsher turnoff to even the most macho of males. Maya's problem: her powers. Solution: Maya must lose her powers. The fact that she once had them will generate several interesting episodes and subplots about her adjustment to normal "human" life. Being more human (even with severely limited powers) will make her believable. And please give Maya normal-hair eyebrows in the present styling/shape. Get rid of that ridiculous witches peak/sidebrn darkening: subtle accentuation of highly-dimpled cheeks will more than suffice. Offer her present costume to Mae West and give Maya a sharp, stylish uniform. Present hairstyles, less brambles and bobbles, is very attractive. Use whatever additional makeup improvements necessary to enhance (not destroy) Cathy Schell's potentially stunning allure. What little comes through of her talent, beauty, and charisma moves me deeply. I know she can turn Maya into the most wonderful esteemed goddess given half a chance.
  • a fan writes:
    Personally, I can't see any major (or minor for that matter.) flaws in [the show's new episodes]. True, Bergman isn't there but Maya makes things interesting. As a Star Trekker too, I find it a little easier to understand than Star Trek, and that the Alphans relate to each other in a more human manner.
  • a fan writes:
    This past summer I attended a fan convention called August Party. I got to meet Nick Tate (Alan Carter) and got his autograph. He did a talk on Space and was a judge on the costume contest. He seemed highly impressed with our devotion, enthusiasm, and creative reactions to Star Trek. He said that he never knew anything like this existed. He wore his old uniform and even had a commlock and stun gun when he gave his talk. We also got to see a premiere of Space: 1999 Year II, that introduced Maya. I have been watching the show every Saturday night now. I am very impressed with the improvements such as the developing of the characters, giving them more emotion, and changes in the uniforms, sets, etc. I just wish they would ditch the pyro-technics (too fake), get better guest stars that know the difference between acting and over-acting, get less outrageous costumes and make-up for the aliens, and try to get even better (mere realistic or believable) scripts.
  • a fan wants other fans to give the show a chance:
    ... people couldn't relate to the characters on Alpha, or they didn't care enough about them. This was usually because people might watch one episode of 1999 comparing it to Star Trek every minute and then reject the whole thing outright. It's sad because there? were really so many good episodes that do hold up scientifically, or presented fascinating conjecture into phenomena not yet fully understood in physics (e.g. black holes, etc), or developed the characters alot. People were not analyzing objectively. They compared it to Star Trek the whole time and didn't let it stand on its own. (Many Trekkies ware threatened by a new science fiction show on TV and harbored prejudice is definitely not a part of the Star Trek philosophy.) I didn't feel I knew Captain Kirk or Doctor McCoy at all after watching one episode of Star Trek either.
  • a fan who says he is a fan of the first season, not the second, writes:
    "Space: 1999: The ultimate adventure series" so read the adverts. It was one of the major turn-offs for myself, and others. Before '99 had even started, I was dead-set against it. "The show to capture the hearts of 'Trekkies'" it was said. To a hardcore 'Trekker' this was blasphemy. I had made up my mind that '99 was going to be a bomb before I had seen it. Then, when '99 started here in Mobile in January, I decided to tape the first episodes for posterity. I could always listen to it later, when I wanted a good laugh. This didn't turn out to be the case. I was hooked the instant "Breakaway" started. From that moment on, I knew that I was destined to become involved in '99 fandom as soon as it cropped up. Well, I became involved, and I'm where I am now.

Reactions and Reviews: Issue 1

If you’re a S:1999 fan and want to read what could develop into a greater letterzine, get this. Comloc #1 contains analysis, questions, news, reviews, free adds – all within a friendly mimeod atmosphere. This first issue is from December of last year and contains many comments on how the letterwriters became interested in the show, met the actors, etc. It is sure to blossom into an interesting zine of probe and comment, if Chuck can get enough people interested. Comloc also printed reviews of S:1999 zines (which I never knew existed); this should be a great help to those of you out there who possess the same frantic energy concerning S:1999 as we do for Trek. Good cover by Siegrist adds the class that mimeo zines are often looking for. [2]

Issue 2

cover issue #2

ComLoC 2 was published in March 1977 and contains 20 pages. Cover: "Maya" by Carl Lamb.

Contributing commentary in this issue: * Kathy Stear, Richard Robinson, Pam Beckett, Patti Cullen, Virginia Walker, Ted Hruschak, Mona Delitsky, Kathi Lynn Higley, Gerry Anderson.

It has been scanned online here.

  • this issue contains a reprint of a letter written by Gerry Anderson to a fan on March 7, 1977
  • the editor tells fans that the show has been canceled and urges them to write letters to the network; he has many details and hints on how to write such letters, illustrating what fans had learned when they had been instructed to write similar letters to Star Trek executives
  • this issue has many fans debating which season of the show was better: season 1 or season 2
  • this issue has a review of Cosmoconnection #2, see that page
  • this issue has a review of Alpha Newsletter #6, see that page
  • this issue has a review of The Loner, see that page
  • a fan writes:
    This is directed at all those people who wrote nasty bits of stuff in ComLoC #1. IF YA DON'T LIKE IT WHY DO YOU WATCH IT??? My god, people, it can't' be THAT bad! And exactly is wrong with Maya's appearance? I know at least five other people in my family, one of which is my little brother, who is totally crazy about her and likes the make-up she has. I mean, she supposed to be an alien right? And she did get rid of that dress she was wearing in "The Metamorph", although I did notice she wore it again later, at the dinner party in "The Taybor". But now, consider the flaws with the Star Trek series too. NO series is perfect. If it was who would watch it??? I certainly wouldn't! And, Mr. [name redacted], if you didn't have your mind in the gutter, you wouldn't have to worry about waking up next to a panther. If you married an alien like her, just think of the interesting life you'd have.
  • a fan writes about Space:1999 as unexplored territory:
    I am not much of a Space: 1999 fan since my loyalties currently lie towards ST fandom and my tastes lie toward literary science fiction and not televised SF. I must say however, that I really did enjoy the first issue of ComLoC. It was entertaining and informative. Perhaps the most interesting feature of the zine is the way in which the fans are able to criticize Space: 1999. Many of the people in that first issue of ComLoC would very openly come out to attack or defend whatever particular shows or scenes they were particularly moved by. It was all very open and spontaneous, I don't think you can find a lot of that in discussions about Star Trek, for example. Star Trek fandom has already developed a set of standards saying "this episode is a classic example of ST at its best," and "this episode has nothing to offer," etc. A lot of the opinions have been tossed around for so long about ST that most of the original 79 episodes have been analysed to death. The refreshing thing about Space: 1999 is that there are no set biases at this point. No one has gotten together to rank the episodes from best to worst, and the fans who speak out for or against a particular episode don't have to worry about attacking a show that all of the other fans have come to accept as a classic, simply because no one has set up standards yet. I like that. It gives everyone a fair chance to say what they want to.
  • a fan says "no threat to Trek":
    I have never seen Maya, except in photographs. Of course her makeup looks stupid, especially her eyebrows. I am a trekker by heart, but I wish all the other Trek fans would shut up their talk about Maya's eyebrows being a "Spock" rip-off. Where is it written that only Vulcan's can have pointed eyebrows. Get off it, guys! In my opinion. Space is terrible when compared with Trek, but judged alone it is mediocre. (with the exception of "Earthbound". To me that rated as the most fantastic single episode to hit the TV medium.) I think the thing that harms Space the most is the attitude of the Trek fen...most Trek fen, that is. This is the most ridiculous belief there is, because Space is not threat to ST, and visa versa.
  • a fan says SF are smarter than non-SF fans:
    No, I do not find Space easier to understand than Trek. Space is (or was in the first season) for an intelligent audience, and sometimes their plots (stupid as they may be) required some thought. Whereas Trek required very little intelligence .". .sometimes to the point of being simple. So, Trek naturally appealed to more people...because most people could at least understand some of it. Yet some of Space is above the intelligence of the average American...but just right for the average SF fan, because SF fans are smarter people than non-SF fans, because they read more and watch things besides re-runs of "Gunsmoke", "The Beverly Hillbillies", etc.
  • a fan writes of the Spockies and of knowing characters:
    I agree that the Alphans might relate to each other better than the Enterprise crewmembers. At times it seemed as though only the senior officers deserved friendship. Kirk was so stuck up at times it was absurd. As for [name redacted's] comments about not knowing Kirk or McCoy at all after one episode...granted..yet it is only fair for me to say that after one entire season of Space that I felt that I knew very little about Koenig, Helena, etc. That is not a remark from a trekker, but from a viewer. This thing about the greatness of the almighty Alan is somewhat reminiscent of love-sick Spockkies. But my, oh my...how could all these die-hard Trek-hating Space fans have something in common with Trek? It must be yet another inconsistency in Space... But even with all my gripes about Space, why-oh-why do I miss it so much? It must be yet another inconsistency in my idealistic trekker mind....
  • a fan writes of fan types, and of organization:
    There are probably as many different kinds of '99 fans as there are Trek fans. The serious ones who will write good stories, try to improve on the show's faults, sincerely try to keep the show in production and fandom active. And there are fans whose interest are directed more to the stars, or the technical aspects. There are some who fall between those categories. The main problem with '99 fandom is that it is not as organized as trekdom.
  • a fan is curious:
    Since Trekkers find "trekkie" a derogatory word, I wonder what would be the Spacer equivalent -- "Lunie?"
  • a fan writes of IDIC:
    In my own little circle, I was aware of who is and who isn't a Spacefan, but I was frankly delighted to find out that five out of the nine contributors to ComLoc #1 were members of my club for Nichelle Nichols and/or Fuhura subscribers. I think that Trekfans who are also Spacefans tend to keep quieter than they might -- simply because there IS a rabid anti-Space Trekfandom element. *sigh* -- what, may I ask, happened to the concept of the IDIC? Really folks; if we Trekfans who've kept Trekdom and its accompanying concept of the IDIC alive since 1969 can't manage to live up to the concept of IDIC, then what on Earth fives us the right to expect anyone else to live up to that ideal?? To be rabidly anti-ANYthing is unworthy of a Trekfan.

Reactions and Reviews: Issue 2

No slur on ye olde trekfen, but dammit, one of the writers in this zine is right. ST fans DO get a little set in their ways a bit about the quality of particular episodes of ST (not that I'm saying trekfen are not critical, just a little stubborn here and there). In this unusual zine, Space: 1999 fans write in to speak their piece about anything and everything they do/don't like about that show, and believe me, they don't pull any punches! My favorite letter was the one from Pam Beckett (alias "motormouth") — she was absolutely hilarious! Unfortunately, a page was left out of my copy, so I don't know how she ended the letter. There were nine letters from the fans and one from Gerry Anderson, one of the producers. All were extremely well written and very readable. The letters were followed by reviews of three Space! 1999 publications —v ery well done by Chuck Raue. And ad section of sorts trailed after the reviews. A letter/blurb about the cancellation of the show and a call for a mail campaign to get it back on ended the zine. There was no artwork within the zine except for a poorly mimeographed picture-drawing (you know the type — copy a scene from a photo/filmclip and send it in as art), but there was a bold (and simple) ink drawing of Maya on the cover of the zine. It was rendered by one called "Cal", who I think is Carl Lamb...am I right? All in all, a zine in an unusual format definitely worth looking into! LAYOUT: 3 CONTENT: 5 OVERALL: 8 [3]

Issue 3

cover of issue #3

ComLoC 3 was published in June 1977 and contains 22 pages. Edited by Chuck Raue & Pam Beckett. Cover: 'The Many Faces of Nick Tate' by Kathi Lynn Higley.

Contributing commentary in this issue: J. L. Shevlowitz, Ted Hruschak, Sandi Neechi, Ingrid Maack, Pam Beckett, Rose Stanley, Donna Lotze, Lisa Putman, Mona Delitsky, Kathy Stear, Phyl Proctor, Eileen Skidmore, Tom Chafin.

It has been scanned online here.

  • a fan scolds:
    I AM TOTALLY ASHAMED to be associated with the bunch of you if you continue in this manner. We are all talking about the same show! Why can't you look at individual programs and say, "I like that one," instead of saying, "I hate Year II" or "I hate Year II"? AND QUIT USING INSULTS ON ON THE CHARACTERS THEMSELVES!!!!!! Wouldn't you feel ashamed if you did a television series and all some of the fans did was insult the character you tried to make your own like there is no tomorrow? How would you feel if Martin Landau, Barbara Bain, or even Barry Morse, Tony Anholt, and Catherine Schell were reading over your shoulder what you have been writing? How would you feel if you were them?
  • a fan says the character of Maya needs no rationalization:
    That does it! I vowed on my mother's grave (so what if she ain't dead yet!) that if I saw one more letter in ComLoC that insinuated that A) Maya shouldn't have her molecular transformation powers and B) shouldn't look as she does I would write and defend her right to both the above characteristics. So here I an writing to defend Maya's unalienable right to be alien! I really can't come down tooooo heavily on either Kathy Stear's or Richard Robinson's comments on the makeup used on [name redacted] to make her look alien in ComLoC #2. Matter of fact, this letter is being directed more at the criticisms of [two names redacted] in ComLoC #1 but you might say that Kathy's —- "Even with all the junk they have on her (Maya) to make her look alien, she's a real charmer..." and Richard's — "Of course her makeup looks stupid...especially her eyebrows..." were the last straw. This old Irish/Portugese temper of mine can't take much more! Ok, you guys! Just who are you to question Maya's appearance, huh? Or her powers? Do I hear anyone out there questioning the validity of Spock's physical appearance and stoic mannerisms? No, indeedy! Insted fanzine after fanzine is being published rationalizing Spock and, through him, all Vulcans' the reason for their biological differences to humans, their appearance, their behavior, all of it being explained in highly technical and intelligent articles in fanzine after fanzine. So what gives about Maya? Why can't she have arched eyebrows formed by balls of "fur" or a brown coloration to her cheekbones and ears (although I've noticed in later episodes an absence of the brown on her cheekbones and ears Perhaps Ms. Schell had an allergy to the makeup and had to cease having her ears painted?) or a widow's peak? She's an alien and needs to appear so (although my one complaint with Maya is her too-obvious British attitude but that's unavoidable since Ms. Schell is British, I guess'.). Admittedly there has been no on-the-air explanation for why Maya looks and acts as she does or even where or why she has that power of hers (missed "The Metamorph". Perhaps it was explained there?) But were there ever such explanations for why Spock looked as he did? Think about it gang! If memory serves me correctly mention was made on occasion about his telepathy, his greater strength, his non-emotion and adherence to logic but where was it explained how he and his race came to have pointed ears on the actual show? Nowhere, that's where!... Which brings me to the subject of Space: 1999 as mainly heavy on the fiction and light on the science. Couldn't the same be said for Star Trek? It too featured many improbable situations and creatures but who are we to say what is improbable? We relate to Space: 1999 and Star Trek only as twentieth-century people. How do we knew what fantastic beings and worlds the future will hold? At any rate, before ya tag 1999 as fantasy and little else try to remember where it is occurring and when before you condemn it, ok?
  • a fan explains why he watches the show despite his long letter complaining about the science inaccuracies:
    After all this, why do I even bother watching the show? I watch for the simple reason that this is one of the few cases where the series is greater than the sum of the episodes. The who has the potential to be greater than Star Trek. In every respect, hands down. And that's from a die-hard ST fan.... Another thing I like about this show, it's a team effort. In ST, by the second season, almost every episode centered around Kirk, Spock, or McCoy. Sure, they're the stars, getting paid more, let'em earn it. But the show became predictable and suffered. In '99, it's almost like a repertoire company. Everyone gets a real good show, often several.
  • a fan finds the show's cancellation a relief:
    It's strange, but I'm already beginning to look upon 1999 as some
thing from the past to be treasured. For me, anyway, the show has been
all but dead from "The Metamorph" on. Half of me is glad that this torn-
apart-and-reassembled patchwork is out of its misery, and half of me
 wants to put the Year 1 episodes on a pedestal and leave Year 2, as Doug
 Roberts (Paul Newman) puts it in "The Towering Infernal", as a "sort of
 shrine to all the bullshit in the world." When I think of how far down 
the show has come from two years ago, when it was brought forth with
great ballyhoo and awaited with anticipation.. .aargh! But I know I would
not want the show to go on in a Year 2 vein. At least now, half the
 episodes are Year 1 style and half Year 2 style. Can you imagine going 
on in a Year 2 vein for another four years or so? We'd never live it
 down. I know that during Year 1 it was at least respectable to talk
 about Space: 1999 to non-science fiction fans, but after Year 2, if you 
mention 1999, all you seem to get is a queer look or the question, "You
 watch that_____?" So maybe it's good it's over. It was hurting us.
  • a fan is a fan of a character:
    I may as wall stay on the subject of Maya. She is the best thing that ever happened to Space. I think the fact that as an alien — with her molecular change ability—she becomes the Alphan's science officer interesting. Even though she is a new character, she is one of the best developed (this 13 helped by the superb acting of Catherine Schell). Maya has shown every trait: courage, loyalty, emotions, and humor. Wish the writers would wake up and work on the other main characters now!
  • a fan is puzzled by a character:
    Would somebody please explain to me why Alan Carter is so popular? Granted, he's one of the few good characterizations left! But all he does is fly eagles and occasionally jump on bad guys. What's so great about that? Do the female members of the audience find him terribly sexy, or what? Somebody explain it to me. I've never seen viewers go so inexplicably bonkers before.
  • a "non-SF fan" is puzzled by a letter in an earlier issue:
    He also said "how could all these die-hard, Trek-hating Space fans have something in common with Trek?" First of all, I know nothing of the love-sick Spokkies but I think Alan is the greatest character there is and if that means I have something in common with Trek, that's fine with me but I see no other parallels. Secondly, where did you hear that Space fans hate Trek? I always thought it was the other way around. Trek fans hate Space: 1999. I've never heard of any 1999 fans hating Trek! I don't hate Trek and if we could get it here in Dryden, I'd watch it regularly.
  • a fan writes:
    About the missing links between the season, I know the perfect place to find them. Deborah Walsh's zine Catch the Final Sunrise! promises to do the job of tying the seasons together fantastically. Try it, you might like it!
  • a fan takes another to task:
    I come to the ultimate conclusion that you would prefer "aliens" to be human to be acceptable to your taste. I refer specifically to Maya's so called unbelievability, her "assinine makeup", her "powers" (originating from "comicbookville", I believe?) and Spock's "mindreading and pon farr stuff". Take all this away and what do you have? Right, people basically like us. I like to think that an extraterrestrial would have developed differently than us, at least in some way. It's this difference that makes the characters of Maya and Spock interesting. I can only feel sorry for you if you can't accept "alien" aliens.
  • a ST fan writes:
    First of all, I am a Trekker (NOT a Trekkie! Ghu how I hate that term!) and an ardent SF fan and fantasy fan. But I'm not a strong '99 fan. I thought you people should know all that. Onward ho... In 1975 when I first heard about a new SF series coming to the tube, I was ecstatic! Finally, some smart bigwig got the brains to do an SF series (I'd seen "The Starlost" and, even tho my foolishly naive mind enjoyed it, I was still disappointed with it). When the first episode was aired at last, my expectations did not suffer. Sure, they were dented in a few places, but I did enjoy the show. The acting did need (and still does) help and so~did the scientific aspects (!) but the episodes had meaning. There wasn't too much emotion on the part of the characters but this was compensated for by the overall plots, ((An aside: tho a lot of the episodes were silly, most of them were handled so well I could overlook the inanities)) My respect for Gerry and Sylvia Anderson was great indeed, and when I had first heard that they were to be in charge... One thing that struck me immediately, however, about Space: 1999 was the overall ominous, depressing, air of doom; even the music! I liked the seriousness which it had but there's a difference between serious and grim. That was the only major flaw I found (there were a few minor points) with '99 and I was overjoyed when 1 learned it would be back for a 2nd season. I also learned improvements were to be made and I became even more hopeful. I realized the Anderson's were trying to improve their product even tho it had met with a good amount of success. HOWEVER, the Bombshell came when I heard that the new addition to the staff was going to be and WHO would be in charge of the improvements! FRED PREIBSRGER! That, to me, was more ominous than all of '99's first season! 1 felt as if Gerry Anderson had gone mad; Because of this pseudo-SF-producer, Star Trek reached such indignities that I never thought possible. And now Space: 1999 would suffer. God help us all!
  • a fan writes of the need for fanfic:
    [Name redacted] mentions some '99 fen doing fiction. YES, YES, by all means!!! There are some hopeless flaws with Second Season. And it makes me very sad cause '99 has the greatest potential to be a sensational show! I had such great hopes for it in Season One and I've become so disappointed. Fanfic could do a lot of good — we could get some really great zines going. I see by the zine review section that there are a few around already. I hope there'll be a Season Three and that ABC picks it up. By the way, ABC was the only network of the Big Three who mentioned that it was the Star Trek fen who wrote in to name the shuttle the Enterprise. ABC seems to be the best bet. I hope Spacedom survives even if there isn't a 3rd season. We could get some great fanfic going.
  • more on fandom's power:
    Well, second season has come and gone. And we fans are left with our memories and reruns—if we're lucky. But, happily, as long as there are devoted fans, Space: 1999 need not go the way of most of its TV counterparts — that is to say, into oblivion. I'm really very encouraged to see a growing Spacei 1999 fandom with the resultant clubs and fanzines. Everyone's favorite characters will continue to occupy the moonbase experiencing danger, romance, adventure, or comic situations as long as some fan is willing to write those stories. It's sort of comforting to know that Space: 1999 need not disappear or that certain familiar Alphans need not die (or whatever) if the writers don't wish it.
  • more on conflict:
    But anyway, I wanted to say that I have come to believe that the time has come for unity between first and second season fans. We are still being attacked from all sides by the narrowminded, hypocritical Trekkies (and with their philosophy of "tolerance" - what liars and fools they've turned out to be. I still like Trek, but most Trekkies make ae sick) and the press is also ignorant. I think the problem boils down to the same problem that ST's "The Menagerie" had: Space: 1999 (especially Year 1) is simply too cerebral, too intelligent for most people who watch television. Most viewers cannot see beyond what is obviously in front of them. People are too busy nitpicking at the fact that the Alphans were calling it a "black sun" instead of a "black hole" (how the hell does anybody know what they are going to call it in 22 years, anyway? The name could change to black sun or anything else for that matter.
  • a fan writes about IDIC:
    Oh, yes, this whole Space:1999 movement in Trekdom lakes me sick and ashamed to be a Trekker! Ditto on [name redacted's] remarks concerning the IDIC in ish #2. What are we? People who like high ideals but don't practice them? That is the ultimate in hypocrisy'. And as for this Anti-Trek movement in Spacedom, it's even worse than what the Trekkers are trying to do because you're behaving just like the people who are putting you down, your counterparts in Trekdom. Two wrongs do not make a right. There is absolutely NO excuse for such childish behavior! One can disagree but one has no right to belittle another's opinions. And it makes Trekkers who are also Spacers, afraid to admit it! C'mon, we all believe in the same thing, a better future for Mankind whose ultimate destiny is to reach the stars and to meet his brothers in space. But we can't truly believe in such goals if we ourselves refuse to put trivial differences aside.
  • more on IDIC:
    I AM A TREKFAN AND A SPACEFAN AND I'M PROUD OF IT!! I YELL MY VOICE ALL OVER THE PLACE BUT NOBODY SEEMS TO HEAR ME! I have, in some cases, been shunned by both Trek and Space fans because I like both of them but I try not to let that interfere with my fandom. IDIC (Infinite Diversit through Infinite Combination) has always been with us except it was never really express until ST came along. Trekfans are just having trouble realizeing that other SF can be on TV without competing with ST.

Issue 4

cover issue #4

ComLoC 4' was published in October 1977 and contains 27 pages. It was edited by Chuck Raue & Pam Beckett. Cover: 'Space:1999 Collage' by James D Denney

Contributing commentary in this issue: Judy Shevlowitz, Ted Hruschak, Kathy Stear, Anthony Allen, Jeff Jones, Vivian Stanley, Patti Cullen, Ingrid Maack, John Canfield, Chuck Raue, Burke Wiggins, Kathi Lynn Higley, Richard Robinson, Matt Butts, Debbie Walsh, Mona Delitsky.

It has been scanned online here.

  • a fan writes:
    ComLoC is IMPROVING. One was promising, two interesting, three is fascinating and I expect the progression to continue. I like the informal, conversational atmosphere of the whole thing and the people here really have something to say. Great. Almost like mailing comments on an APAzine, actually, much to and fro discussion....
  • a fan speculates on the feud among fans:
    answer. As some folks have said, anyone who is attached to a particular show or character is going to feel threatened by anything coming along that is remotely similar. Many trekkies felt that the advent of 1999 would spoil the chances of Trek revival, 1999ers feel threatened by Trek because 1999 is constantly being denigrated in comparison with Trek (mostly by trekkies). (Trekkies were not entirely to blame for being predisposed to disliking 1999, because advance publicity for 1999 billed it as "the new replacement for Trek" and other similar nonsense) is right away we have two sets of enemy forces. But there's more to it than feeling threatened in some way, I think the cause for such outright hostility is that the fen who are strictly loyal to one show are not SF fans. They enjoy the show because of one or more of the main characters, or because they like the particular format or gadgets or something. I've heard quite a few trekkies say that they don't like SF in general, they just like Trek itself, and I think that's at least part of the difficulty between the various fandoms. The folks who are intrigued by speculative fiction in general are already aware of the vast number of universes, cultures, ideas, mores, timelines, and aliens that are possible, so they're not as likely to be rigid and inflexible in their views and phobias... as those who haven't had a similar background. Thus, the folk who are into Trek because it's good TV science fiction tend to be more tolerant (if not downright enthusiastic) about 1999. And vice-versa -- there are starting to be a few intolerant people in 1999. (The trekkies who whisper IDIC as they condemn 1999 strike me in much the same way as the Christians who preached tolerance as they charged off on the Crusades and instituted the Spanish Inquisition, the idea is great, but it kinds gets lost in the shuffle.) Then, too, there's the element of feeling downtrodden and under-doggish. Trekkies are looked down upon by mainstream SF fandom, 1999ers similarly treated, and there's a feeling of safety and pride in banding together and looking down on everyone else --- the herd instinct.
  • a fan is a fan of Maya:
    [Name redacted] is right on for defending Maya. Her coming into the series, pointed eyebrows and all, and right off becoming science officer was suspiciously reminiscent or Trek (Spocko, right?), particularly coming on the heels of the announcement that the Bane of Trek, Freiberger, was the "new blood" promised us by ITC. Aaarrgghh. However, I like the character of Maya, portrayed well by Catherine Schell.
  • a fan cries foul:
    Having read ComLoC #2 and #3 several times each, one thing seems to me to be very apparent. This poor show, literally defenseless against critical people taking target practice at it, is suffering from an epidemic of nitpicking. Things that in Star Trek were taken for granted or talked about with reverence are held against "99 as being inane, or stupid, or crummy. That's hardly fair.
  • a fan asks for tolerance:
    In my opinion, the conflict between series one and series two fans shows a great lack of maturity. When the show first came on, I tried watching it, but couldn't even force myself to finish watching a single episode and finally gave up. When series two came out, I decided to give it another chance. Lo and behold, I liked the show. I went back and watched the series one reruns when they were shown. I found that there were things I liked about both seasons and things I disliked about both seasons. Each has its own merits. If the series is picked up, I sincerely hope that the producers are smart enough to combine the best of both series. If they did that, they'd wind up with a bigger hit than they'd know what to do with.
  • a fan (who, because of he is a "prospective TV writer and has a natural affinity for arousing controversy" and says he is this "magazine's answer to Harlan Ellison") takes on the fans who took issue with his letter in the previous issue:
    You panned me, mocked me, even plagarized me -- and I was ready to return in kind. Then you would re-pan me, and I would re-pan you, and you would re-pan me, and ... well you get the idea. Listen, that's not what this magazine is about! If it's going to become a bloody battlefield, we might as well change the name to "GettySburG" If I were to go along with the flow, we'd be spending this entire magazine crapping about each others' previous letters, and not writing anything new. Besides which, where do you all get off using personal insults on others' tastes? You supposedly mature readers are supposed to present your own views and shut up, not comment on the view of others. Have you seen authors in a journal insulting each others' articles? Naturally not. Yet [many] of you are wasting time and space by doing just that. I suggest you say what you have to say on "Space:1999" and don't comment on anybody's else's letter. If this situation doesn't change, it will mean the end of the an intelligent letterzine like "ComLoC"... because there'll be so much infighting that the intelligence will be crowded out.
  • a fan postulates, after a long lecture on symbolism and stuff, that:
    Having different people come up with different theories on the meaning of a film makes it much more interesting and it also tells the viewer something about himself, about what made him interpret the film that way. The only way vagueness and symbolism can become dull in a movie is if you the view are too lazy and unimaginative to come up with your own interpretation. And that's your fault, not the producers'.
  • a fan writes:
    Greetings Alphans! I'm a Trekker and an Alphan as well as a general SF fan. Hey, how about Alphies as another titled for us? Aa for this feuding — you silly galactic kangaroos, or as Space Ghost would say, Kangaloids. Well, Maya shouldn't look that way huh? Her makeup looks atupid, huh? Compared to what? As for her abilities being a "cop-out" or "Comicsbookville"...I think her abilities enhance crisis situations as well as compliment an already refreshing character. I'm very aure there were a few giggles when Spock was first seen; his pinch and mind meld could be considered "Comicsbookville" as well. You Earth chauvinists — cracking on dear Maya—for shame!! I ought to get Blackula to bite you in the clavicle!... Seriously now. The focus of '99 or any other piece of SF art should be the art itself and not how cute Spock's ears are, how attractive you think Maya's makeup is, or wishing to one day fire Alan's stun gun (sorry, Pam!) (ED NOTE: no problem, my friend). There is more to science fiction than just Gene Roddenberry's or Gerry Anderson's universes. Why are some of you Spacers so belligerent? Look, whether it's SF or whatever all dramas have their drawbacks. If it's on television and by chance happens to be science fiction, it could drive you space happy if you're the producer, Now Trek happens to be an awesome phenomenon and a legend -- as '99 is becoming. But neither Trek or '99 is the pinnacle of science fiction achievement. Remember, Trekkers — SF was originally written for the masses just like 'Time Tunnel", "The Invaders", and just like the current "Star Wars". SF has proven itself a valid subculture. But is Trekdom to be considered seriously a single, solid, consistent subculture or is it more of an obsession or a fetish? The way you Spacers bicker...if you angry Alphans are representative of Spacedom...hey, should we even try to organize under our interest in '99? There's a difference between a viable, healthy subculture and just the illusion of one. '99 and Trek were only televisions series. Television is the medium which conveys it to you. Television has a way of bringing an artificial intimacy and friendship where none ever was. Characterization serves the purpose of telling the story.... The thing of import for Trekkers and/or '99er's is that we share the joy and beauty of these pieces of art and other SF. Of possibly greater import is that we share deep friendship that has been opened up for so many of us, for so many of us who hungered to reach out to created a people hood. In and through fandom many people have found countless treasures to enrich their lives: friendship, books, ideas, and even new outlooks. I see Trek's great subvocal message as one of great optimism -- there will be a future and a grand one at that. '99's message is that even if the moon does get out of Earth's orbit and hurled into outer space, there can be love, equality, and joy -- when all else seems to work against you. Do we really have to knock the moo nout of orbit to get the drift of the message of Space:1999? Nah, I hope not! Everybody is a a star -- twinkle, twinkle baby! And my love to you all.
  • a fan writes of speculation:
    ...this is the kind of thing that kept trekdom going fro so long... fans filling in the gaps. If we can write stories for all the '99 fanzines and read 'em and like 'em (or dislike 'em) we can discuss them in these hallowed pages and see some real action. If '99 is going to keep alive through its fans, it'll get awfully boring very quickly if we spend all our time over arguing over favorite stars and favorite years.
  • regarding "feuding":
    I really can't find any harm in our feuding the privacy of our own little letterzine. But I think it's great that we're willing to forget our differences in order to reach a desired goal. I just wish the world's governments could learn to do the same. Really, kids, so long as no blood is shed and we can air our differences good-naturedly and non-abusively, I can't see why we can't continue to differ. I mean, if we all start agreeing on everything not only would it be against human nature but ComLoC would be one dull 'zine! I do promise, however, that should I ever meet a Space fan in the flesh who differs with me I won't brawl with him/her in public but will embrace them as a brother and take them to a quiet corner and then punch them out!
  • there is some discussion over what Space:1999 fans should be called, with one fan writing:
    I believe a good point was made when it was said that we Space fans need a common title. I'm rather partial to "SPACEr", myself. But I'll key you in on a little secret... Were you aware that the more discriminating Trekkies and/or Trekkers refer to themselves as Trek-fen (fen being the plural of fan)? "Tis true, for Trekkle has come to mean a type of gum-chewing groupie fan who isn't interested in the cerebral aspects of the show but would prefer to faint at the feet of Shatner or Nimoy. Trekker has come to be associated (at least in my mind) with the hardcore dissecters of the who who analyse every aspect of the show and argue amongst themselves about everything. There's no intermediate title for the fan who like a mule is neither one nor the other but a combination of the two.... I guess in the case of the Space fans finding a title for themselves, we should learn something from the Trek-fen and determine which will be our "groupie" title, which our "cerebral" title, and which our "mule" title...

Issue 5

cover issue #5

ComLoC 5 was published in March 1978 and edited by Chuck Raue & Pam Beckett. Cover: Maya/Catherine Schell by M. J. Fisher. Contributing commentary in this issue:

It has been scanned online here.

  • a review of Moonbeam #1/2, see that page
  • a review of Cosmoconnection #3, see that page
  • a review of Catch the Final Sunrise!, see that page
  • this issue has a reprint of a letter by Michael Butterworth about the book adaptations
  • a fan describes her trip to visit the Space:1999 set in England in August 1977, a full report is in her zine Cosmoconnection
  • a fan writes a long letter saying she found no name calling in issue #3, and that ComLoC is not a "scientific journal" but a letterzine and that by definition, fans respond to each other's letters and views
  • artist M.J. Fisher writes about this issue's cover:
    As a bit of something different, I would like to explain a bit of the work that went into the cover artwork of Maya/Cathy Schell. Moat artists in fandom are really just illustrators. They copy a scene or a character and put it down on paper without much thought for doing anything really artistic. The drawings, that I do however, are intended to say something about myself, and about my feelings toward the subject matter. I have my own philosophy about Maya, which I have tried to interject, symbolically, in the cover illo. To me, Maya is a blend of opposites. She can be both woman or animal. At times she is a serious professional, or else just "one of the guys." She is practical and delicate, yet she can also be understanding and compassionate. To illustrate this symbolically I have placed Maya's part or the portrait in a superimposed position over the sea of serenity and the sea of tranquility, on the moon behind her. Maya's serenity and tranquility are, for me, her most impressive features of all. To the lower right on the moon, where the sea of nectar should be is the Yin-Yang symbol disguised as a crater. This is an ancient oriental symbol of two opposites bound together in a circle; furthermore, the circle is the universal symbol for unity, a whole. The portrait of Cathy Schell extends out of the center of the illustration and into the "reality" of the page. This represents that she extends beyond the character. The moon, as a motif, serves multiple functions. First. It is an appropriate backdrop. Secondly, the noon is ann ancient symbol for woman or femininity. In numerology the moon is the planetary symbol of the number 2, and another symbol of that number is the Yin-Yang design. In Astrology, the moon is the planet for Cancer and signifies changeability, yet of an understandable and controllable nature, and this certainly applies to Maya. Lunarians are receptive, and adaptive to almost any circumstance. The fact that I used two portraits also relates back to the numerological significance. In all, I have tried to make my artwork more than just a picture, it is a statement. I try to make it worthwhile to stare a bit longer to puzzle out tho hidden meaning, that just don't exist in a plain illo. If my artwork can do more than just capture a likeness then I have accomplished my goal in drawing it in the first place.

Issue 6

cover of issue #6 -- "Mentor" by Kathi Lynn Higley. A fan in the next issue of "ComLoc" writes: "The cover of ComLoC #6 was fabulous. The yellow cover gave the issue a high quality look."
details about an upcoming con

ComLoC 6 was published in May 1978 and contains 10 pages. Edited by Chuck Raue & Pam Beckett. Cover: "Mentor" by Kathi Lynn Higley.

Contributing commentary in this issue: David Anderson, John Hedstrom, Mona Delitsky Bobbie Smith, Donna Lotze, Jolinda A. Mattison, Virginia Walker, Susann Molnar, and James M Hebert.

It has been scanned online here.

  • a fan writes at great length about the show Quark
  • a fan urges others to write their congressmen about the "desire to see our civilization to expand off-planet," the expanded space program and supporting the funding of the Satellite Solar Power Station (SSPS) prototype, the restoration of all funds for Space Shuttle Program, and funding for a permanent space station
  • this issue has a "1999 con" update which has a lot of details about logistics and money: "This financial report is printed to satisfy a number of people who seem to doubt our intentions for doing this convention."
  • the editor writes of lateness, and his mom:
    Well, so it's been more than a month since the last issue... the reason this issue is a bit off schedule is the fact that ComLoC #5 got caught at the printers and took a little longer in printing than I expected. Another problem arose when I gave my Mom 60 issues to stamp end mail for me. I gave her the issues and that afternoon when she got home and I asked "How much to I owe you for the stamps?" Her reply was "What stamps?" Talk about a bad way to start off a week. Anyway, as far as I can tell everyone got their issues and no one has yet mentioned that it came postage due (maybe the post office made a good mistake for once). However, if any of you got #5 with postage due let me know and you may have an upcoming issue for 35 cents instead of 50 cents.
  • a former editor writes of her mom who had recently passed away:
    I'd like to tell you a story about the strongest science fiction fan I've ever known. To begin with, she lived in the tine when science fiction was rapidly becoming science fact. Some of the events that happened in her lifetime were the Russian Sputnik, the first man in space, the first moon landing, the first space lab, some of the things invented were the atom bomb, television, the laser...and TV dinners. This in itself did not make her unique what did was the way in which she accepted each happening...with wonderment and optimism. For someone not of 'our generation", for someone labeled as "the establishment", she was the youngest-thinking person I've ever known. At times she was freer with her thinking than I. Each new concept presented to her was judged solely on its merits, not on whether it was "conventional" or "unconventional", "practical" or "impractical". And when she accepted something as good, she became its most forceful spokesperson. Getting down to the subject that most concerns us, she loved Space: 1999. And Star Trek. And Planet of the Apes, movies and series. And Time Tunnel, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Starlost, Twilight Zone, Night Gallery, UFO, Thriller, Land of the Giants...and every other sf series/TV movie you can name. When watching an episode of one of the above, she'd totally lose herself in the magic being spun... though during commercials she might inundate me with questions of "How did they...", "What does that..,", and "Do you think..." She was not the type of person to passively watch television. Another aspect of her that I admired (and that unfortunately an not able to emulate) was that she liked each show for itself and never compared them. The Star Trek/Space: 1999 "feud" completely baffled her. She just couldn't understand why everyone didn't see how different each one was...and how fine each was. In my life she supported me one hundred per cent in ay fandom activities. She'd take the phone off the hook when 1 was taping, by my Starlog when she saw it first, file my mail, give me ideas for stories and listen endlessly to my woes when my feelings were hurt by an unkind remark made about '99. More personally, she understood my love for Nick...and before hi, for Keir Dullea, Roddy McDowell, James Darrin, and David Hedison. Not only could she empathize, but she also defended mo against my friends and her friends who wanted to know "just why does Pam spend so much time in her room and isn't it time she grew up". She could defend me because in her heart she was right there with me....I guess what all of this bolls down to is that in her I had a friend who shared both my hopes for the future and impatiences with the present. In her I could study a person who was constantly questioning, exploring, demanding, accepting. In her I found the friend who took me for what I was, challenged me to become what she thought I could be, but stood with me as I grew. In her I saw the most unprejudiced science fiction fan I've ever met. And I consider myself both fortunate that I could call this friend
 "Mother".
  • a fan writes of her pleasure at a lack of conflict:
    I was glad to see that there were virtually no Year One vs Year Two arguements [sic] in ComLoC #5. The "Fued" [sic] is like the antagonism that's been brewing in Trekfandom for the past eight years over its third season (I have to admit that some of my favorite episodes came out of that third season!).
  • a fan proposes a fan project: rewriting the problematic episodes:
    All too often they copped out in a script. [lists many episodes] I think it would be fun to rewrite some of these "Almost there" episodes... Maybe some of the real turkeys could be made palatable. Is anybody out there game? (No fair making Alan Carter the star of them all, sorry!) I will if you will. Then we could publish then as a fanzine series, in order, perhaps with connecting "bridges" between episodes the way there were in some of the books. We should use the books, too, but where the screened version differs distinctly (such as the book's "Luton" with different characters) we should take the screen version as the starting point. We could even plug in the gaps between seasons 1 and 2 with other stories. I think sone already exist. Is anybody interested? Writers could pick out episodes they'd like to work on, artists could volunteer episodes they'd like to illo.... I will be willing to publish, if there's enough interest. What say??? I have most of the episodes on tape and can run off cassettes for those who need them you provide the cassette and postage. How about it? Anybody interested??
  • a fan is unhappy with some promotional fannish plans:
    I have noticed — per both [name redacted's] letter in ComLoC #5 and an ad in a back issue of Duckworth's Eagle 1 -- that there is a campaign to promote only Year Two in the effort to obtain a Year Three. I am asking — why must we consider only Year Two? Is it because that is more what the decision makers at ABC would like? I feel that this is a very unfortunate trend. For one thing I personally an a Year One fan and hate to see the good aspects of that year totally lost. There is another reason that may make more sense in general. I've gotten a very distinct impression from all I have read in news
papers and other sources that Year Two, as contrasted to Year One,
 proved to be a big disappointment to a wide range of viewers. The
 implication was that the ratings dropped significantly — which led to
 the refusal of enough TV stations to renew that the cancellation re
sulted. Correct me if I am mistaken, but that has been my definite 
impression to now. I do know that this reaction was true for many
 fans in the local area — they were excited with Year One, though they
 could see faults, but simply quit watching after seeing a few of the
 Year Two shows. Anyway, I very strongly feel that we should not just sell for Year Two and only Year Two. Let us, rather, continue the constructive dialogue that [name redacted] asks for and use it in providing constructive fan input as to what would really work in a Year Three. We should be able to get some opinions on what was generally felt to be good in both years — and what needed changing — and on what would have been a good addition.

Issue 7

cover issue #7 -- cover by Joni Wagner
sample pages from issue #7, includes a piece of art by Joni Wagner. Aside from some small spot illos, there were two full-page illos in the letterzine series. The illo portrays "Maya."

ComLoC 7 was published in June 1978 and contains 25 pages. It was edited by Chuck Raue & Pam Beckett. Cover: Helena Russell by Joni Wagner.

Contributing commentary in this issue: Rose Marie Badgett, David Barnes, Jeff Booker, Matthew P Butts, Todd Ellsworth, Dean Godin, James M Hebert, Virginia Walker, Adriana Gomez, David Hirsch, Mary Bloemker, Mike Hooker, Lloyd R. Jones, Terry Lemons, Chuck Raue, J. L. Shevlowitz, J. David Lubitsch, Bobbie M Smith, Deborah M. Walsh, Sandra Necchi, Steve Eramo, Maggie Brookline, Liz Therkildsen, Kathi Lynn Higley.

It has been scanned online pdf here.

  • contains a review of Alpha Chronicle #5, see that page
  • contains a review of The Loner, see that page
  • contains a review of Fesarius, see that page
  • many fans write of their opinions of Fred Freiberger; most of them negative
  • a fan writes of fandom:
    I'm a little "off" ST fandom right now. It's becoming very bitter, unfriendly, divisive, and people seem to be going out of their way to hurt one another. I don't like that. Now that Paramount has been "brought to its knees," Trekfen seem to have nothing uniting them in a common aim anymore, and they're turning on one another. I'm very sad -- I'd usually thought (been dumb enough to thing?) that Trekfans were united by GR's vision. Because that's what grabbed me about ST. *sigh*
  • a fan writes of the psychology of control and compares it to Star Trek, a show where the characters chose space travel:
    The Alphans are completely unprepared, unable to exert any control over their future. What a frightening thing! Do you blame them for being jumpy?... The average individual today (and 1999 is only 21 years off) if put in that position, would probably be thoroughly terrified of confronting [the] unknown... Remember, ST takes place 200 years from now. We've had 200 years to mature in outlook.... The Enterprise crew has far more cosmopolitan outlooks. Hey, look at the changes that have taken place in the last 200 years! Who would like to try and explain, believably, television and men on the moon to George Washington? There is a whale of a difference! There will likely be just as much in the next 200 years! I don't feel it's at all reasonable or unlikely for the Alphans to think, feel, and react very differently from the Enterprise crew. I would expect similar behavior if the Alphans all happened to be SF lovers! (Chuckle -- can you picture this?..... "Alpha status report: The entire staff of Alpha has crowded into rec room 3 for a mini-con. Fanzines are being mimeographed in Prof. Bergman's lab and Trek episodes are running uncut on the main screen...
  • a fan is a fan of argumentative letters:
    The controversy raging over "personal insults" on other letter writers is ridiculous. A magazine like ComLoC thrives on letters of this type. Healthy verbal arguments. It stirs the blood. I'm sure everyone can take a few bumps here and there (I know I have) given in true fan enthusiasm. Really, I have yet to see any real nasty name calling, and I believe if differences come up, then express them. It livens up the reading.
  • a fan counts up the dead:
    About the subject of deaths on Alpha? First of all, I would hate to die on that base. They have quite effectively shown that a death has virtually no effect whatsoever and worse yet, no one seems to care if a couple of people croak in an episode. How long would it take to include something along the line of, "He was the best Hydroponics engineer. Now we have to train someone else."? It might take all of two seconds to show that a death actually has some effect of the rest of the people, show a little human concern on their part. Is that really too much to ask? If the base started out with 311 people, it is quite literally impossible to have 297 at the beginning of the second season, no matter what Helena said. That is, unless there were a lot of births we were never told about. The following is a listing of the first season deaths from the episodes I have seen... [list of 27 deaths included]
  • a fan is glad to be in the loop:
    Thanks to a friend who moved to Boston, I've been keeping up with all the discussions going on in ComLoC. Now, I'm not a religious man, but each time I pick up a new issue, I feel like I'm reading a new scroll to the New Testament. Or is it the Bible according to Anderson?
  • a fan writes:
    How strange it is to see your own letter in print for the first time. Made me hope I didn't say anything too incredibly dumb.
  • a fan gives some tips to Space:1999 fans about discussing the show with a Trek fan:
    More likely than not, the poor little Trekkie who has by now been completely blown away by your dazzling display of confidence in the face of his ignorant remark will fall back on the almost as invertible, "Well, the whole show's a rip-off of Trek." Instead of launching into a long discussion pointing out the glaring idiocy of that statement, another pitying gaze, and a quiet suggestion for the Trekkie to watch the classic SF movie "Forbidden Planet," and then come back and say in all honesty and truthfulness that Trek wasn't a rip-off of that movie, will usually stop him right there in his sneakers. The point being that Trek wasn't a rip-off of "Forbidden Planet," although the similarities are unmistakeable -- even if Gene Roddenberry admitted that "Forbidden Planet" influenced Trek to a great extent. "Influenced" is the key word -- "Forbidden Planet" influenced Trek as much as Trek's popularity influenced the decision to air "1999." And you many quote this fact -- "1999" was on the drawing board long before the popularity of Trek became known nationwide -- worldwide, even. It was the sudden surge of popularity and the attention it received from media that got "1999" off the drawing board. I'd like to make it very clear right now that I am not drawing comparisons between Trek and "1999". I an providing the means by which the person faced with a nerd who insists upon drawing comparisons can defend himself without coming to physical blows. The best defense is a good offense — and "1999" fandom is not going to make itself a strong, viable voice if it insists on meeting every criticism in high, whining tones, "nyah, nyah, "1999" la better than, better than, better than..." I cannot repeat this often enough — most Trek fans are mature individuals. To lump them all together is prejudice and bigotry, and I think this country has had for enough of that. I have had every kind of derogatory remark directed towards me by unthinking Trekkers who are under the mistaken impression that by deriding me, they are striking a blow for Trek's supremacy, and I know for a fact that they are a small minority. I have yet to be cowed by any of the remarks, as none of them has yet stood up to simple fact. Most Trek fans accept, and I feel that all 1999 fans should accept as well. Unfortunately, more and more of them seem to be living by the "fight fire with fire" precept, and they're becoming no better than the unthinking Trekkies.

Reactions and Reviews: Issue 7

ComLoc contains quite a lot of material – 25 pages of text in reduced form. For any Space: 1999 fan, there should be something inside of interest. David Barnes has a discussion of the time dilation effect compared with earth and the moon and how time has passed on each since separation. There is a defense of Barbara Bain’s acting ability by Kathi Lynn Higley, more year-one-versus-year-two conflict by various people, and J.L. Shevlowitz does some calculations on the number of people killed off in the first season, and the discrepancies thereof. Co-editor Chuck Raue has a very convincing letter concerning why Maya’s powers should be reduced or eliminated. Other equally interesting letters pack this issue, with a section of review and dealers in the back. ComLoc is getting progressively better, and it seems that although the fans have in the past devoted a great deal of time to petty arguments, it looks like they are through that now. If you are not a ’99 fan, get a copy of ComLoc. The dignity and seriousness with which the ’99 fans conduct themselves will make a convert out of you, even if the show never did. [4]


Issue 8

cover issue #8
sample pages from issue #8, the second full-page illo in the letterzine series -- this one is the inside back cover, the artist is Kathi Lynn Higley

ComLoC 8 was published in July 1979 and contains 20 pages. It was edited by Chuck Raue. Cover: John & Helena by Kathi Lynn Higley.

Contributing commentary in this issue: Susan Molnar, Sandra Necchi, Terry Lemons, Steve Griffin, Donna Lotze, Judy Moore, Chris Landry, Jeff Trowbridge, Mare Fitzgerald, Patti Cullen-Heyes, James M Hebert, Judy Shevlowitz.

It has been scanned online here; Archive.

  • the editor apologizes for this issue being more than a year late, cites many reasons
  • a fan comments on the character of Maya, a popular topic:
    I do not believe Maya Co be a direct rip-off of Spock. Neither the Vulcans nor the Romulans have the patent on upswept eyebrows. Slanted eyebrows on aliens have been around since the dawn of SF. However, I certainly believe Freiberger took the IDEA of a resident alien from ST. Fred, in his incredible unoriginality, felt that since the resident alien idea worked so well on Trek, then why not on '99? Further, he wanted an alien with super-powers, highly intelligent, superior to humans, like Spock. And also, it can be argued, like a hundred other alien characters in SF books/movies/programs. Fred doesn't know SF. He made a mess of the third season of ST. He has no business producing SF (or any show, I feel). Many of his changes in '99 seemed unnecessary to me (Anderson could have improved the show himself). But I'll give him credit for creating Maya, I like her. She's warm, sensitive, and it was a stroke of genius to cast Catherine Schell. She brings life and what possible characterization she can to Maya, what with the absurd uses the writers made of her. It really irks me, this misuse of Maya. Here is a tremendous treasure trove of fabulous scripts and scenes all rolled into one package and what do they do? They make her constantly change into ludicrous monsters that are called "animals" and have her respond to requested information, like a machine. The frustration Ms. Schell must've felt at this wasteful use of her extra-ordinary talents! Makes one chew the sheets at night!

References

  1. from The Clipper Trade Ship #13
  2. from The Halkan Council #25
  3. from a review in The Clipper Trade Ship #17, (the scale: Layout is from 1-5, Overall Effect is from 1-10)
  4. from Spectrum #39