Comlink/Issues 01-20

Issues 01-20 · Issues 21-30 · Issues 31-40 · Issues 41-50 · Issues 51-57

Issue 1

cover of issue #1, "Talosian" by Vel Jaeger

Comlink 1 debuted in May 1981 at MediaWest*Con. It contains 15 pages and has a cover ("Talosian") by Vel Jaeger.

• it contains an article titled "Daddy Dearest?" by Linda Deneroff in which she contends that Darth Vader is NOT Luke's father
• the editor writes of this first issue in the editorial of issue #50: "The debut of the first issue was at MediaWest*Con. At that time, it was printed in a booklet to distinguish it from the all-Star Wars letterzine, Alderaan, which co-edited with Jeff Johnston until I left to start 'Comlink.' This issue was 16 booklet-sized pages (8 standard 8 1/2 x 11 pages) and contained information on writing fanzine reviews, our editorial and a whopping three whole Letters of Comment!"

Issue 2

Comlink 2 was published in August 1981 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #2

The cover is a photograph of the Comlink editors, Allyson and Carol. This issue contains an article called "Gumby Con" by Cynthia Shannon.

Some of the LoCs are about Star Wars Letters.

Issue 3

Comlink 3 was published in October 1981 and contains 23 pages. It has a cover ("Hawk" from Buck Rogers) by Martynn. There are many LoCs about the Lucasfilm Controversy.

cover of issue #3, Martynn

• contains a review of Guardian #3, see that page
• contains a review of Kessel Run #1, see that page
• this issue has MUCH speculation about Vader as Luke's father, including fans who still doubt this is true

• from one of the editors:

  Hi again. I've been getting flooded with LoCs lately (*Gasp* Let me come up for air!) Thank you all for your wonderful response and support of COMLINK. Because this "problem" creates space limitations, I have some more editorial policy to make known. Allyson and I will allow discussions of the various topics (the Daddy Darth Debate, the Mutated Movie Mystery, etc.) to go on for three or four issues until, in our judgement, people are no longer bringing up new angles but simply rehashing what's been said before. Then we'll pull out the ol' blue pencil (or, in my case, the ol' red pen). We're doing this because we want to print every LoC we receive, at least in part; and to allow as wide a variety of topics-for-discussion as possible. Fair enough? On the present "hottest topic" of SW fandom — Lucasfilm's form letter on "X-rated" fanzine stories — I received a letter from Maureen Garrett of the SH Fan Club yesterday (September 1). She assured me that she and the legal department are working on simple guidelines and legal statements, and will try to get them to faneds within two weeks. If they don't make it in time to be published in this issue, they'll be in #4. Let us all hope that this time Lucasfilm treats us as adults and avid supporters/consumers of the SW Saga and its "secondary market," not as naughty children who need to be spanked. Now, I want to enter a plea to my fellow fans: Please don't react to this incident in a way that makes it seem we deserve to be treated as children. Use your heads, not your emotions, I beg. Let's remember the interest and respect Lucas and Co. have shown us until now, and not allow the present adversity, which will blow over eventually, to throw us off-balance. I've written a statement on my view of the censorship question; it's inserted elsewhere in this issue. (I've finally succumbed to the temptation to LoC in my own zine, sigh ... ) Allyson and I welcome and will print LoCs both agreeing with and disputing my opinion, as well as the others in this issue. A final plea: This topic has broken other media fandoms in to warring factions (I left ST fandom in part because the violent name-calling resulting from the K/S debates in letterzines disgusted me.) Let's not let it happen to SW fandom. Please respect each other's rights to their opinions. Well, SW fandom won't degenerate in COMLINK, anyway; our editorial polity is designed to prevent it. -- Carol

• from one of the editors:

  Just a couple of comments on this Lucasfilm business.... please, folks, let's not overreact. Before you start writing LoCs or other letters to Lucasfilm, make sure you have all the facts. Spreading rumors and the like can be just as damaging as Lucasfilm's ordering a cease and desist on every zine ed/publisher. And remember, the actions we take concerning all this business and things to come can and will effect those media fandoms here and yet to be discovered. I also hope that everyone reading this issue #3 won't limit their LoCs to just the Lucasfilm business because this issue is chock full of interesting things to comment on -- I hope you take the time... to write us a LoC because without you we can not exist.

• Vel Jaeger wrote about copyright, appreciation of fans, and Leia as a new breed of woman:

  Judith Gran's letter on the question of copyright and fan fiction was very timely. A friend who, though a pro writer, is new to fan writing, asked for information in this area. How easy it was for me to just send a copy of the letter, and a recommendation to read your ((Carol's)) article in Alderaan #10 as well.... I think it's fairly safe to assume that the producers have finally realized what an asset the active fans are, and what favorable publicity they get — not only to mention being free. I've been sending our own Trek newsletter to Paramount and have received nothing but positive responses. (Yeah, I know, the shock nearly did me in, too!) I started doing this about the time the new movie came out, this isn't just a recent idea. I agree totally with Maggie Nowakowska's assessment of Leia. The comparison with Elizabeth I is very apt — she's a ruler, and born to the task. I found it particularly admirable that she's not one to sit around and wait for a solution — though this was shown better in SW than in TESB. She's a lot more "refined" than Ripley in Alien, but they're both made of the same tough fiber. She rescues herself more often than not — she seems to be a better shot than Han, at times, too. I think she deserves an equal position with Han — as a hero, without any connotation of gender. Too bad there isn't an asexual term, as heroine in the traditional literary sense, certainly doesn't fit her. Words such as leader, ruler, etc., are far too lifeless — perhaps we should coin a new one, just for this new breed of woman.

• a plan would like some fannish tolerance:

  I have been reading in recent issues of Interstat about the "war" between Star Trek and various other fandoms, especially Star Wars. My question is simply: What's the big problem? I am a Star Trek fan who has dipped and will continue on occasion to dip into other fandoms (as I did with COMLINK). I've read 3 or S&H (Starsky and Hutch) zines: Crossfire and Zebra 3 vol.3, I enjoyed the most. I've read several SW stories in Warped Space, and even purchased Richard Robinson's World of Dark Shadows (which I watched as religiously as I did ST when I was but a lad of 12).... What each fan should strive for is a measure of tolerance toward the various other fandoms.

• the editor of Skywalker wrote:

  I'm grateful to Jani Hicks for codifying the types of writers/artists/editors who work in fanzines. My biggest problem on working on Skywalker is I can't tell one type from another. Perhaps if each person who submits something to me would identify her "type," so that I could respond accordingly ... but dream on. I'm a Type 2 editor, and I've been lucky that most of the people submitting to me have also been Type 2s. But if I don't get enough material I feel is right, I won't print [it]. I'm not just going to publish "the best I could get." An editor/publisher can no longer afford to be in it "for the fun" when a zine might cost $2,000-3,000 to print. And I'm definitely not in it solely for the ego-boo. By taking over a zine which has already won the Fan Q award, I'm almost guaranteeing I won't win it again. And that award actively works against my receiving good stories. Many authors, especially new authors, who have perfectly marvelous stories to tell, are afraid to submit them to Skywalker, because it's known as a "class" zine. I want to keep it well-respected, but I don't want to scare people away, either. I can't tell you how many letters I've received beginning: "I just got up my nerve to write to you and ask if you'd be willing to read my story ..." Nerve to write to me??? Heck, I've never edited a zine like this before. Bev richly deserved her Fan Q for Skywalker, but there are now many other high-quality SW zines available. A healthy competition and a healthy dose of ego are good for everyone, editors and writers alike. On the other hand, I've received samples from many talented artists who are eager and willing to illo stories. I've never heard of a fanzine editor having an excess of artists before. I really do need more stories so that I can put these people to work. And since Skywalker 6 won't be out for at least a year, I've also been recommending that artists contact other zines, too. I only hope they remember me when I do have an assignment.

• a fan writes of quality, why we write, and encouragement:

  I am hardly an expert or a long-time fan, but I would like to make a few comments on Jani Hicks ((C#2)), now that I've had some stories and articles accepted by various zines and am in the process of putting together the first issue of a zine of my own. Certainly all three of the motives she mentions play a part in my own, and I think most people's, fanac. It is partly for fun; NOBODY gets rich off zines; few people are held for ransom until they produce stories or art. If we didn't get some simple fun out of this hobby, why should we keep at it? I admit the pleasure of creating for and discussing with the fellow writers/fen (even if those things will never see print) is one of the most satisfying experiences I have ever discovered. To learn? Certain, again: I was lucky enough to be suckered in "discovered" by someone who I consider to be one of the finest editors in SW zinedom, Anne Elizabeth Zeek, who has taken vast pains to attempt to improve my fiction and to work with me on writing techniques. I think -- at least I hope -- she has some effect. There is no point in writing for other people unless you are willing to listen to feedback from those other people and work constantly to improve. The number of people who produce top-quality fiction and/or move on into pro publishing shows that there are fan writers who are at least as good as (and some, I think who are better than) many professional writers. They didn't get that way without learning from their zineds and fellow fen. And for the ego-boo? Well, sure — if everybody kept telling me to shut up and go away, I'd eventually shut up and go away. There's no point either in doing something you never get any positive recognition for doing. However, none of these reasons is the single reason, and for me, at least, there is neither any fun nor any ego-boo unless I feel that I am at least toying to produce a quality piece of work. As Jani says, "it's no ego-boo whatsoever to be accepted by a zine that prints anything" — or to put out a zine that accepts anything either. If you don't edit and you simply grind out pages, producing a zine is a useless activity and you can hardly get any editor's ego-boo in return. Nor will good writers want to be printed in the company of total incompetents who can't tell a plot flaw from a double negative. Print crud, and eventually all you will get is crud. But here we come to the Eternal Question of What is Crud? (And as for why most LoCs are positive, I admit I almost never write LoCs to a zine I didn't like; it seems uselessly antagonistic and a waste of time to write to tell some editor "Your zine stank" — that's the function of reviews. Lots I save for telling writers and editors I liked their work, with, perhaps, some mild constructive criticism). True, there are some stories/poems/artwork which are simply BAD, and, I think, most of us can recognize them. But also, Jani's, for example, is not mine: I have thought the stories in Twin Suns were, for the most part, well-written enough, and I will continue to buy Twin Suns for that reason. But not a one of the stories in Twin Suns I or II really excited me, gave me the kind of bone-deep shiver of delight, that I get from what I call a "really good story" (serious or humorous) like "The Devil and Deep Space" by Susan Matthews, or "Nothin' Left to Lose" by Maggie Nowakowska, or "Through the Eye of the Tiger" by Bonnie Reitz, or One Way Mirror by Barb Wenk. Does this mean Jani is not a good editor or a good writer? No. Does it mean that what she wants in fanfic is not what I want? In part, at least, yes. (And that was the main reason, too, why I didn't LoC Twin Suns.) I would describe most of the fiction in Twin Suns as "competent" (i.e., did not violate the basics of writing-craft) but "pedestrian" (not to my taste; not about things that interest me strongly.) So I think it is important to recognize that people may have honest difference of opinion over what is a good story, or, more important, what they want in a "good" story. Fanfic, particularly, deals in writers'/readers' fantasies, and unless the stories speak to those fantasies, they may be well-written, but they will not be what I want, what most fan readers want. In a zine. It is unfair for Jani to imply that a story is written for or printed for ego-boo which no matter how she tries to squirm out of it, also implies for a basically dishonest reason) because it disagrees with her criteria. Let us allow that readers may read, writers writer, artists draw because what they are doing speaks to a basic fantasy or psychological need, as well as because the work is "good" in terms of some abstract literary standard — and that there is a place for that in fanfic also. It is certainly fair to criticize fan stuff on the basis of literary quality, but let us also show a bit of charity toward the thing that brought every one of us into media in the first place: the desire to participate in that bright galaxy far away and long ago, and to interact with the characters we met there.

• comment by Susan Matthews, on the purposes of zines and zine writing:

  I like to talk, to present my interpretations of common subjects and discuss reactions. I think fan-lit makes an effective means of communication in this sense; and it's far from being a one-sided conversation, as anyone who has ever been inspired to rebut someone else's characterization of a character in an opposing story knows. Even as zines change and evolve, so one's motives for contributing to them. When I started contributing to zines my main motive was to get a copy of the zine so I could read other people's work. The deeper I got into zines — once I'd exhausted the material I'd written before I dared send any to zines, once I read and thought and was starting to write new stuff — I grew much more conscious of the opportunities the zines presented for beginning writers to actually learn about writing. I've had editors who printed what one sent as one sent it, editors who wanted to seriously discuss how to edit a manuscript with me, and editors in-between. Wow, I can value those editors who edit. Before, they would have probably scared me back into the privacy of personal writing forever. If it hadn't been for that very same Ellen Blair whose editorial policy Jani seems to disparage I quite probably would never have gotten past sending the occasional poem to Warped Space and R&R. I would therefore tend to consider the warm support Ellen gave me as a positive thing. I suppose it depends on whether the individual wishes I'd stop pretending I can write, or not. Anything worth doing Is worth doing well.

• comments on Han Solo, and feminism:

  Got C0MLIMK #2, and am still reading it. You've got real gold going there — intelligent discussions (for the most part), and sane people. It strikes me as odd that a few are ruminating ad nauseum about such details as what Han meant in his reply to Leia ("I know"), but I guess these are the little fascinations that make fandom what it is, and who am I (a peripheral SW fan) to judge? I still think that Lucas is paying mere lip-service to feminism in his female characters — when he gives them something truly central and important and unique to do, then I will be satisfied. For example: if "the other" is indeed a woman (or at least female) and has a central and dynamic role in the next SW flick, I will be delighted and take back everything I've said about Lucas' failures to date (well, his shortcoming & in this area, anyway). Yes, I suppose the Han-atics will skin me for not thinking much of the character or of Harrison Ford in the role (though I think he was marvelous in Frisco Kid) — the man has a good flare for comedy; reminds me of George Hamilton, who's stunk in most of his straight roles, but has found his true niche in Love At First Bite and Zorro, The Gay Blade). But I'm an open-minded cuss; nothing would please me more, in this case, than to be proven dead-wrong in the next SW film — have Han redeem himself as a person of moral substance, and have Harrison Ford chew the scenery with the verve of an Alec Guinness. Two more years is a long time to hold my breath, though, and I don't much expect to, sorry.

• from Bev Clark, comments about a zine that was still two years from publication:

  Skywalker 5, as many people have probably guessed, 1s running seriously behind schedule for a variety of reasons, not least being the work schedules of Maggie Kowakowska and myself (Skywalker 5 consists entirely of a novel by Maggie, by the way) and the recent loss of a volunteer typist. I don't see any way at the moment that the zine will be ready before late winter [1981]: as of today, the first draft of the novel isn't finished. I am working on it! It will see the light eventually, however. If anyone has a soft spot in her head heart and a Selectric or Selectric-like typewriter with a Prestige Pica typeball (and Courier Italic), I would really appreciate some typing help. You will have the satisfaction of getting to read part of Maggie's novel first, not to mention of helping to get Skywalker 5 out earlier, and you'll also get a comp copy of Skywalker 5.

• about the Star Wars letters:

  ... I've heard about the mess with Lucasfilm's nebulous little "no-no" letter. I just hope people don't try to force the issue (e.g., demand that Lucasfilm be specific-to-the-nth-degree, about what they mean by the PG rating), because that's a very sticky situation (you'll not even get 2 official movie censors to agree on their own rating systems, it's so subjective) and if the Lucasfilm people get peeved at being backed to a wall by the fans, I can see them just eliminating the whole problem by saying, "No fanzines at all, anymore, period." Which could have serious repercussions for other fandoms, as well. ((Amen, I don't think that fans realize the magnitude of the situation — what we do now may very well effect those fandoms in existence and those to come. This issue and our reaction should be seriously considered before things can get out of hand — AM))- People should use common sense and tread softly: Keep the sex-oriented stuff to themselves, for their private, small-group enjoyment and not publish in any form. Surely there are plenty of other interesting themes in the SW universe than who's lusting after whom. Gonads do not necessarily make the cosmos turn; ask any amoebae and they'll say it's fission! Seriously folks, I know that sounds autocratic, saying what people "should" do with their sexually-oriented material, and I share the writers' disgruntlement with having to relegate it to private distribution. It is most certainly a legitimate theme in any universe that has sexual reproduction, and it's virtually impossible to eliminate it completely from the lives, thoughts, and choices made by sexual beings (and I have no doubt that the SW characters, with the possible exception of the droids — and I'm not too sure about C3P0! — are sexual beings). But to have sexuality as the central theme of any story seems like asking for trouble, how, so I feel that "should not" must apply here in terms of each writer/editor's responsibility to the rest of fandom(s). Like it or not, each of us represents — in the non-fans' minds — the rest of fandom. Disconcerting thought, isn't it? (It goes both ways. The Softball jerks at MediaWest Con will forever represent Softball "fandom" and its drunken obnoxiousness for me. Not fair, as probably most of the Softball players in the hotel were not involved in the hullaballoo the pickled few created, but there is an almost irresistible human tendency ((and I suffer from it as much as the next person)) to generalize from a sample even as small as one, if it's noisy enough. This is why I wince at the thoughtlessness of such fen as the Duncans, Barbara Gordon ((who's currently discussing Trek versus media fandoms)), and Sonni Cooper ((did you know that, according to an article in an L.A. paper, she is "the voice of fandom" at least of Trek fandom? Now that worries me.)) ((Interesting ... I wonder if Bjo Trimble knows about Sonni being the "voice of Trek fandom"... but I digress, Sonni Cooper is either president or is connected with WISH the official fan club of William Shatner — AM)). foot-in-mouth disease of one of us inevitably affects how the mundane world perceives us as a whole.

• a fan comments on fair use:

  I was asked by one of the editors of
 this letterzine to look into the matter of "fair use" and copyright infringement because of recent developments concerning certain editors and zines involved in a dispute with Lucasfilm. Also I know that there are still many misconceptions concerning this matter and I hope that I can clear them up. According to what I read during my research, because we have created new adventures encompassing trademarked and copyrighted materials — characters, story lines, designs, et al, — we are not complying to the narrow band that "fair use" protects in this kind of case. Concerning the problem that occurred with certain zine "editors" and Lucasfllm, some people asked whether Lucas film has the rights to prosecute for infringement. Absolutely. The problem arose when a nice story was published concerning the characters of Han and Leia and a romantic encounter between Hoth and Bespin. What was written in the letters between editors and Lucasfllm is not important. The only thing that matters is that the many people said that no suit could be brought against anyone who published in fandom. Again, this is a misconception. Lucasfllm stated that it 1s infringement and wanted assurance that a story of the kind that was published would never be done so again. Because the Star Wars saga was made with a well-rounded audience in mind, because the story was, to them, not presentable to people who the original product was meant for, Lucasfllm felt that usage in context could threaten existing image of original product, and thus be harmful to the owner(s), it devalues property thus creating infringement. This is a prosecutable [sic] offense. "Fair use" is a very narrow band of protection. It does not apply 1n this case. Even though zines are non-profit, non-commercial enterprise, and we are not in competition with the original. Infringement still is applied because the way the rule is written. Since we have not actually copied parts of the original story, but taken the story, expanded, and speculated on characters and relationships to one another, we have created a new product, thus exceeding the boundaries of "fair use." It is still up to a judge, if this ever gets to court, but as stated before, it would be too costly and most unfavorable in public opinion if Lucasfilm ever tried to take this to court. Considering also that there is no precedent to a case like this. It is too early to tell. Let's hope that soon, Lucasfilm will make a policy statement as to what they feel is appropriate and what they feel is not. We as a group have been asking for guidelines? as to what they will allow for a long time. Let's hope that now this is over, they will do so.

• more on the Star Wars letters, this one from Carol Mularski:

  I must say something about this censorship charge which some fans are making against Lucasfilm Ltd. — It's a general statement, not to be considered a condemnation of "Slow Boat to Bespin" 1 & 2, neither of which I consider "X-rated." I know I'm on very shaky legal ground here (and, unfortunately, "legal" does not equal "ethical" in our system) but I feel that an author has the moral right to say what should or should not be done with his/her characters. As a writer, I know how I'd feel If someone took my characters and used them in stories without regard to my wishes. It would be like attacks on my children. (If I had children.) Some fans mention fair use. What about being "fair" to Mr. Lucas? If he asks us not to publish certain types of situations involving his characters, we owe him the creator of a fictional universe which has given us all literally years of enjoyment, the respect and consideration which we ourselves would appreciate if our positions were reversed. After standards are published, I certainly cannot consider 1t "censorship" if Lucasfilm finds it necessary to enforce them. It seems that many people need to learn the difference between censorship and protection of one's intellectual property from what amounts to vandalism. "Grab mentality" and the "anything goes" attitude are just as distasteful and extremist as literary suppression is.

Issue 4

cover of issue #4, Vel Jaeger

Comlink 4 was published in December 1981 and contains 19 pages. The cover is an Indiana Jones one by Vel Jaeger. It contains an article called "Secrets of the Flaming Sword: A Brief Introduction to the Jedi Lightsaber" by Dafydd Neal Dyar.

Issue 5

cover of issue #5, Vida Hull

Comlink 5 was published in February 1982 and contains 19 pages. The cover is "Infinite Diversity" by Vida Hull.

Issue 6

cover of issue #6, Pat O'Neill

Comlink 6 was published in April 1982. The cover is the cast of The Greatest American Hero by Pat O'Neill.

Issue 7

Comlink 7 was published in June 1982. The cover is "It's Not Easy Being Green" by Vida Hull. This issue contains an article called "On the Force of Nature" by Jim Hill.

Issue 8

Comlink 8 was published in August 1982. The cover is Grace Hill from Hill Street Blues by Vel Jaeger.

Issue 9

Comlink 9 was published in October 1982. The cover is the cast of Buck Rogers by Pat O'Neill. This issue contains a reprint of an article from Alderaan #15 called "Where the Boys Are" by Pat Nussman which explores the lack of men fen in SW fandom.

Issue 10

Comlink 10 was published in January 1983 and contains 10 pages. The cover is Quentin E. Deverill (Q.E.D.) by J.R. Dunster. It is the first issue done in the new larger format.

Issue 11/12

Comlink 11/12 was published in April 1983. The cover is "Fathers and Sons" by Bramwell. It contains an pre-Return of the Jedi Article article by Carol Mularski called "Rumors."

Issue 13/14

Comlink 13/14 was published in November 1983. The cover is "The Road Warrior" by J.R. Dunster.

• this issue has many post-Return of the Jedi LoCs
• an article by Linda DeLaurentis called "Lord of the Sith or Lord of the Rings."

• the editor notes that it was the first issue that was done on a computer:

  Up until then, I'd typed the issue on a correcting Selectric II; while this was better than using any other typewriter, you can't PAY me to go back to editing the letterzine on anything but a computer. Our computer in those days was an IBM with a whopping 256k of RAM, two 5 1/4" disk drives and a Diablo 620 printer using WordStar 3.31.

Issue 15

Comlink 15 was published in February 1984. The cover is of Modesty Blaise and Willie Garvin by Pat O'Neill. This issue contains a mini-article called "Modesty and Willie" by Allyson Dyar.

Issue 16

back cover of issue #16, Jim Hall

Comlink 16 was published in April 1984 and contains 12 pages. It has a back cover, Captain Harlock by Jim Hill, as well as an article by Jim.

• a fan writes of erotica in the Star Wars movies:

  I think some of the implications that could be drawn from this scene -- Leia in chains and collar and not much else at the mercy of Jabba and his court -- is much racier than anything I've seen in the fanzines. Lucas also seems fond of torture scenes, although this time it's droids that get it, with cute little droid screams thrown in, instead of our heroes. I would personally much rather read A Slow Boat to Bespin with scenes of loving sexual congress than one in which Leia gets gang-raped by stormtroopers, but it's much easier to WRITE about rape and exploitation than love and commitment. Even Lucas takes the easy way.

• a fan comments on the coming computer age and what it means for fandom:

  The arguments re media fandom versus dedicated SF and comics fandom seems a bit paltry in light of what we are discovering in the way of computer 'fanzines' -- Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) and Public Access Message Systems (PAMS) -- which has a decidedly fannish quality to them. They're very much where fandom used to be before all this fragmentation took place, although they are too categorized by the type of users who frequent them most. But there's a always a steady influx of new blood and new ideas as more and more new users 'log on.' This makes for some interesting and provocative exchanges of viewpoint and opinion. There are also a few jerks who grunge things up, but they can be dealt with summarily by the system operator or 'sysop,' the BBS/PAMS equivalent of the zined, by deleting offensive or abusive messages... My point is that a live-and-let-live attitude prevails among computerdom that the various fandoms would do well to emulate." The editor responds: "I do find some of the more undesirable aspects of Fandom creeping into computerdom. The majority of compufen do have a live-and-let-live attitude but there are a certain segment of compufen around here who seem to blame everything on the 'teenagers.'... I'm sure that in a few years, computerdom will be just as fragmented as Fandom is now.

• a fan asks:

  Have we settled the question of racism being the reason folks don't warm to Lando Calrissian?... I think Lucas is much more guilty of sexism than the fans of racism... Why are all the women in SW cardboard cutouts?

• a fan writes:

  It's a pity that SF fans disdain us for concentrating on making a zine look good. I've run mimeo fanzines (on blue paper!) and have done xerox and offset zines, and I prefer to do and read offset and/or xerox zines, which leaves me with media, I suppose. Considering that a media zine is connected to a visual media, is it so surprising we concentrate on the visual aspect of our zines. I like a zine I can read. I look for items in media zines that I don't find in SF zines, and I enjoy them both. Sounds like fandom is splintering even more.

• a fan writes of the creator and censorship:

  Fans who try to suppress certain types of literature make me ashamed of fandom. And the whole argument of doing what the creator wants and nothing else leaves me ill. The imagination being controlled because he [Lucas] perceives it as harmful? And if it does not effect the creator's product directly in concern to profits, then how is imagining Han/Leia/Luke as a threesome harmful? Especially when it is conceived with love, hope, and caring? (Alternate to Luke being Leia's sister or perhaps not... remember the Egyptians?)"

Issue 17/18

Comlink 17/18 was published in July 1984 and contains 20 pages.

front cover of issue #17/18

back cover of issue #17/18, "Tarzans" by Pat O'Neill

• a copy of a personal statement by Susan J. Bridges, editor of Universal Translator, which was published in numerous places

• Maggie Nowakowska writes a letter which generated a lot of commentary, see I am increasingly amazed by the scorn fans heap on Lucas' head for making money...

• a male fan apologizes, blames the coffee:

  First off, an apology to Michelle Malkin and everyone else for my letter of December 1983 in #13/14 in which I said that the Bismark-SW comparison would "only interest men." At the time I wrote that letter, I was somewhat tense and irritable. Now that I've given up drinking coffee, perhaps what follows is abetter LoC. Is Darth really Leia's father? Are Luke and Leia twins? Yes. Next question. Doesn't this go against the statement in the radio version that Leia is of "high birth"?? No, suppose the Princess of Alderaan fell in love with a handsome young Jedi warrior named Skywalker during the Clone Wars. The Jedi warrior goes off to battle and so we are not told what happens to turn him to the Dark Side. Unknown to him — or perhaps he knows but now just doesn't care — the Princess is pregnant with twins by him. After the birth, he either doesn't know or care about them and the Princess' husband accepts the female as his own. At an early age, Luke is hustled off to the brother of another Jedi, Obi-Wan, in order to protect him from his now-evil father Darth Vader. As further protection, neither Luke nor Leia are told who their real father is or that they have a twin sibling. All in all it was an excellent plot twist and a brilliant move; I loved it. I think a lot of the uproar is that it was so unexpected; fans like to think they know what's going to happen next when in fact this is George Lucas' story (with help) and he's done a good job of it.

• comments on Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom:

  You can't describe a Spielberg/Lucas film, you have to experience it! At the end of the film I found myself tiding to catch my breath. Iwas not only kept at the edge of my seat, but for some scenes, I think I was actually under it. My only complaint about the film is that I think that Spielberg got a little carried away with the "gross." A friend of mine said that she felt that Raiders was just as bad, but I feel that although some of the scenes in Raiders were "gory," the ones in Temple were "gross." It also seems to me that the ones in Raiders were spaced well enough apart to give you a rest in between, and were used mainly for shock value.

• about the Indiana Jones movie:

  I found Raiders II wanting ... what? Less gore, less insects, more characterization, more story.

• about the Trek movie:

  ... things I hated: the scene with McCoy in that "bar. Idiotic, unnecessary, silly. And that alien was too much a Star Wars-like creation. Dumb. Second, those Klingons! Give me a break! Ever since Mr Bennett took over, the ST universe has become one of simplistic good versus- evil stuff, with simple hatred, revenge, disgust at other aliens to hold it together. This is why I don't feel either TWOK or SFS captured the true essence of ST, that is, the joy and wonder of the universe, IDIC, and the sense of wonder of alien contact. In the series, the Klingons had their own dignity, their own believability, and intelligence. But these guys in SFS are stupid, comical, bestial (ugly is bad — that's what Bennett, et. al., want to show us) —definitely not Klingons. I refuse to accept these guys as the Klingons in "any" ST universe. But, there were a few instances where they were shown to have their own honor and point of view which should have been stressed more. I refer to that Klingon woman in the beginning and her scene with Kruge, and the references to the Federation as endangering the Klingons with this new weapon. I have no doubt that the Fed would use Genesis against them and the Romulans. The Feds are indeed a "gang of criminals" or whatever term Kruge used.

• about the Star Wars movie:

  Reading all the comments on Jedi (and the SW trilogy in general) has been fascinating — I haven't had a chance to ponder these things before; I've just been sitting back and enjoying three fine films, I will admit a certain amount of disappointment with the way everything seemed to resolve to all sweetness and light, and the Ewoks are rather too obviously cuted up to make a good marketing product. Other than those points, though, I find little complain about, especially if you think of Jedi as simply yet another possible alternate universe in the SW galaxy — perhaps slightly more authoritative than most, considering the source, but not necessarily of higher literary quality than many of the fannish versions.

• about the Star Wars movie:

  I did not like Darth's appearance when he took off the mask. His face just didn't look right for the part. Personally, I would have preferred the face behind the mask to turn out to be that of the man who did his voice ,but I suppose that would have opened anew racial can of worms.

• about the then-upcoming Star Wars movie:

  My Star Trek club (Allies for Star Trek) is going to be very busy in the next month, since we are assisting Paramount with the publicity campaign for ST:III. A couple of my friends have already seen the rough cut of the film, and I must warn you that something happens in it that many fans will be extremely upset over. I prefer to withhold judgment and see how the situation is handled first. I remember how a lot of fans went to ST:II determined to dislike it because they had heard Spock would be killed. They didn't care how tastefully it was done or what the circumstances were; they just objected to any sort of change. I keep an open mind, because I want to enjoy the move for what it is.

• about the Star Wars movie, pairings, and threesomes:

  My idea of the love relationship in the SW universe differs from most. I don't see Han and Leia in a nuclear-type, hierarchical, dependency, chaining set up, but in a much freer arrangement, providing even for sexual contact with others, including (for Leia) Luke. (Or, for you same-sex story fans, Han and Luke, but I have to tell you I can’t picture it.) I've always liked the idea of sharing relationships between the three, including maybe others we have or haven't met. I liked Leia and Luke together as much as Han and Leia. Still, I'm afraid that means little. I don't believe Luke's feelings for Leia can be just turned off like that. And I always thought Leia felt something for Luke so I don't think her feelings can be just computed out of the picture either. Which leads me to consider the possibility of less stringent social attitudes toward incest (and what if they're only half-siblings?) in the SW universe. I know that's not part of Lucas' plan, and he would be horrified (as I'm sure many of you are) at the thought. But like Elisa, I felt there was some real romantic possibilities between the two and while I now accept Lucas' decision that there is something genuinely special between Han and Leia (something I don't dislike, as Elisa does), I don't feel that necessarily precludes their interest and real, but perhaps lesser, feelings for others. Please don't hastily label this a "free for all." One of the things I like about creating an alien universe is questioning some of our basic beliefs, challenging social mores. And since morality is usually just "agreement" among a group of people (society) that is in constant flux, it can be intriguing to change it in the fiction we create. As to Han and Leia, I don't like restraining, constraining relationships, and I'd like both of them to remain as individuals who initiate and act on their own, perhaps grow in ways separate from each other as much as together. In essence, you can be quite flexible with their love. Remember that you're dealing in an alien universe. And if Lucas can't be original enough to make his universe distinctive, vital, convincing, three-dimensional and flexible, then don't let his limitations stop your imagination.

• regarding Lando Calrissian, regarding Leia Organa:

  I think fans who condemned him were not really thinking of his position. It's very easy to judge when the people in danger are those who you love. It's understandable, but not very fair. Also, your comment that Lucas' decision to have Leia as "the other" (you really don't like her very much do you?) was a result of "fan pressure" is very far-fetched. Don't overestimate the power of fans. Lucas pays practically no attention to us (if any at all). To claim that we have any influence over what he does with his story is just too naive. I know media fans love to think we have power but we don't ((oh, I don't know about that. I do think that we had something to do with getting Star Trek back — AM)). I think Leia as "the other" is great, although I resent her apparent demotion from a leader of the rebellion to "Han's broad." Nice chauvinist Lucas snafu there.

• regarding Leia:

  You bet George is sexist. I like Leia much better in ANH [A New Hope] but we're supposed to think she's improved in Jedi because she's mellowed out. You don't have to be a feminist to know what "mellowing out" of a woman means. Conformity strikes again. Fans have no excuse either. In the fanfic, sexism reigns there too vis-a-vis Leia.

• regarding Jabba:

  I think Jabba's enslavement of Leia and the other humanoid woman is about power, not sex. It harks back to the early SF pulps with their lurid covers of a BEM [bug-eyed monster] (apparently) about to molest an innocent young human woman. Of course, an alien is not going to have any real sexual desire for human beings. But a sharp observer, which Jabba has to be in his position, will undoubtedly notice that the best way to assert power over human beings and make them feel it is to dominate them in some fashion that has sexual overtones, to the human being. Jabba gets off on exercising power over the helpless; I'm sure that's what the droid torture sequence is supposed to show, too. What he probably enjoys is the humiliation of the humanoid females, specifically Leia, and the impotent anger of the humanoid males, specifically Han. The audience is uncomfortable or angry because we instinctively recognize what's going on: human dominance behavior, like that of other primates, has asexual component. (In "real life," a character like Jabba probably has equally appropriate ways of dominating members of other species.)It may be that SW represents George Lucas' adolescent power fantasy or whatever; whether that in itself makes it sexist is another question. Star Wars: A New Hope is the closest anyone, male or female, has ever come to representing my own personal adolescent fantasy, and I'm female. Admittedly my fantasy character was based on Lucky Starr and was always female, but other than that, the fantasies are similar.

• comparing Roddenberry and Lucas:

  As for the SW-ST controversy, I will say this — Lucas does not seem to care about the fans, just their money. I mean, do you see Lucas selling film clips and xeroxed scripts to the fans the way that Gene Roddenberry does? Lucas seems to be content in selling the rights to toy companies and letting it go at that. In 1978 or '79, Roddenberry sent out a letter to fanzines on the new Star Trek movie. Just a friendly, chatty letter to let fans know what was going on. Can you imagine Lucas doing that? As far as I know, they only letter of any kind Lucas has sent out to fanzines was that one threatening legal action against anyone printing the wrong kind of fiction. ((During the Empire production, I recall receiving many letters from Lucasfilm concerning the progress as well as information on the filming —AM)) Gee, thanks. Is it any wonder that there are several times as many ST zines as SW zines according to the Fandom Directory? ((It might have something to do with ST's 10-year head-start — Eds)) The SW films were as good, if not better, than the ST movies. But the attitude toward the fans by Lucasfilm is distinctly impersonal. The feeling one gets from Lucas is almost one of contempt as if the fans are a "necessary evil" that he has to put up with. Ten years from now, I can imagine Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford still being invited to Star Trek cons. But I can't imagine to Star Wars conventions. The grass roots spirit just isn't there.

• on fanzines and Hugos:

  SF fans too have been bitching about the fanzine Hugo for as long as I have known about SF fandom, mostly because the Hugo has regularly gone to some semi-prozines with large circulations. Fiction is not an issue among SF fans; SF fanzines don't contain fiction, except of the faanish (in-groupish) or dreadful variety. (One of the reasons SF fans disdain media fanzines is that ours do contain fiction, which means they are not true fanzines by SF standards.) As of this year, the fanzine Hugo has been split in two: semi-prozine — circulation over 1,000, paid advertising, profitable, paid contributors, or supplying part of the editor's living expenses — and fanzine. Some people don't like this, either, so it will be interesting to see what develops.

• one view of "The Right Stuff":

  As far as The Right Stuff is concerned, it isn't necessary to have read the book, but those of us who remember the Mercury program in progress probably get a lot more from the film that the viewers to whom Glenn is a politician who was an astronaut back in the dark ages. I do find the portrayal of the press and L.B. Johnson offensive (true, they had their negative aspects, but the film goes too far!), but overall I love it. [...] The Glenn segment is one of the loveliest visually, with the aborigines' fire sending clouds of sparks towards the stars as Cooper talks to Glenn in orbit, and the lights of Perth glowing below Glenn's window. I came out of the three hours and ten minutes feeling absolutely high, wanting to throw my head back and howl like Yeager after he broke the sound barrier early in the film. The whole film is full of wonderful moments — beautiful, funny, character-revealing, [and,] for us older viewers, nostalgia. I'm sorry it isn't doing as well as the hype Indicated it should. And don't be put off by the length —it just doesn't seem anywhere near three hours! I almost think I should break down and join LA Con so I can vote for The Right Stuff for a Hugo — yes, I'd consider giving it first place over ROTJ. Much as I love the SW saga, including ROTJ, TRS considered as a dramatic presentation is probably superior. I'd hate to see SW lose a Hugo now, but the disappointment would be eased if it lost to The Right Stuff.

• another view of "The Right Stuff":

  . I can't view this film with anything but contempt. It's such a macho pastiche of glorified, unconnected "scenes" and a celebration of blatant cold war attitudes and jingoism that it's impossible to watch it without a perpetual look of disgust. The only "good" things in it were the technically competent flight scenes. But so what? It was also pretty boring and sexist. Yuck!

• male and female writers and Randall Garrett and Stephen R. Donaldson:

  Concerning the debate on male versus female writers in quality of character developments I'll grant that, more often that not, I've seen greater insight into the intricacies of personality displayed by women writers, but I wouldn't want to generalize that to mean that women writers develop their characters better than men do. In fact, the best character development I've ever seen has been Stephen R. Donaldson's Thomas Covenant. Now there's a character you should do an article on ((any takers? — Eds)) (Of course, I also admire Donaldson's writing style — finally there's a writer who has a vocabulary of over 200 words! I admire a writer who can write with so much depth and complexity that I have to dive for a dictionary even on the third or fourth reading and yet am still totally enthralled by the plot and characters being presented.) Your mention of Lord Darcy inspired me to go back and reread the whole series once again — definitely good stuff. I wish I had the background in mystery stories to appreciate the probable parodies involved; from reading about Randall Garrett in the various story intros in The Best of Randall Garrett, I'm sure there are many. *Sigh*

• perceptions regarding costuming:

  why costuming isn't regarded as a legitimate expression of fannishness as far as (presumably) non-costume fen are concerned. My theory, based on a bit over 10 years in SF fandom, is that the antagonism is partly at least a matter of image. Any reporters/camera people covering a con for the mundane press zero in immediately on the costumes, present them as typical of a con (and generally comment snidely on the proceedings, but the costumes are what they love!) and reinforce the public image of "sci-fi fans" as a bunch of weirdos. Many SF fen want to get out of the longtime ghetto (which to a great extend was and is created by the SF community itself) and find the costumers a hindrance in gaining public acceptance. There’s also resentment of the relatively recent influx of con attendees whose experience with SF has been chiefly, if not exclusively, ST and possibly comics as opposed to books. Having felt this way myself to some extent, I can’t condemn it wholeheartedly. After all, con fandom has its traditions based on years of newcomers being introduced by other fen and quickly absorbed into the community with its common background in books. Then in come these kids who’ve grown up on TV, who don’t know anything about fandom except that they read about the con in the local paper or heard about it on TV, who very likely haven't read much SF except what relates to ST or whatever. They crowd the halls and the dealers’ room and the parties, manage to get served alcohol even though they’re underage (yes, this is partly a con responsibility!!!), and get the fen in trouble with the hotel by their harmless and not-so-harmless antics (physical damage, piling furniture in elevators — yes, I've seen it! — blaster battles in the halls that end up involving mundanes, and let's not forget the poor fan with a toy machine gun whose presence caused somebody to call the cops and resulted in a SWAT team descending on a con, a very few years ago). OK, most of this happened several years ago when the costumers were underage kids let loose for the weekend, and most of the troublemakers have either calmed down or stopped coming. But they were very visible when they started coming to cons, were very much resented, and the resentment remains even if the logical reasons for it have pretty much faded away. A lot of media fen, costumers and otherwise, are also SF fen; a lot of SF fen enjoy dressing up once in a while, and probably a lot more than will admit it enjoy seeing well-done costumes in the halls. But, a lot of SF fen do not like costumers, whether for image reasons, or because of bad memories over the last few years, or maybe because of some personal hangups of some kind. I know a few "antis" personally and won't bother trying to find out why they feel the way they do because from what little I've gotten out of them I figure I’d get nowhere fast. Closed minds, again, I'm afraid.

Issue 19/20

front cover of issue #19/20

back cover of issue #19/20, Cindy McAuliffe

Comlink 19/20 was published in September 1984 and contains 20 pages. It has a back cover called "Who?" by Cindy McAuliffe.

• from the editor:

  Greetings and welcome to COMLINK #19/20. I did mention in my last editorial that I had hoped this would be the last double issue but I was wrong, Again, the gremlins wore against us. Part of the reason why we ace so late is that the post office lost part of the corrections so I had to send them again to Regina who in turn had to make the corrections a n d then send the corrections back. This delay cost us three weeks. [...] Regina and I have decided that the massive amount of LoCs generated by you readers has forced a drastic decision. Rather than publish our normal single issue of 10-12 pages, COMLINKs such as 119/20 at 20-22 pages will be our normal, single issue. While we are increasing the number of pages of the single issue, we'd still appreciate LoCs to be no more than 4 double-spaced pages, (I refuse to publish a triple issue!

• there is a notice about a fan's passing:

  Beth Nugteren was killed In a car accident on September 14, 1984. She and three other people were the victims of drunk driving. Mary Bloemker is establishing a fund in Beth's memory, the proceeds of which will go to MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). Mary and Deb Walsh will also be doing a zine, the proceeds of which will also go to MADD... If you would like to help, donate money, or get more information about the fanzine, contact Mary Bloemker.

• comments on the new Indiana Jones movie:

  I understand but can not confirm this fact but Lucasfilm is reportedly a bit disappointed with the Indiana Jones box office. I'm not too surprised that IJ has fallen below Lucasfilm's expectations but then I didn't go back to see it again, did you?", the new Star Trek movie mainly, but also Ghostbusters, Gremlins, Romancing the Stone.

• comments on the new Indiana Jones movie:

  Neither George Lucas nor Steven Spielberg could ever be accused of having self-control. When these two overactive imaginations come together, the result is a good natured mess. A one-word description of Indy II might be "excessive." There is a surplus of almost everything -too much action, too much violence, too many cheap thrills. The plot is a weak, confusing hodge-podge of events strung together as an excuse for bigger stunts and more elaborate sets. In Raiders, we had a charismatic antagonist. Belloq, and everyone knew who the bad guys were (the Nazis). Indy II has no clear-cut villain; everybody seems to be against our hero. [...] One good reason to see this film, despite its ridiculous plot - impossible as it seems. Harrison Ford looks younger than he did in Raiders. Note especially that scene in the temple when he's stripped to the waist. Wow!

• comments on the new Indiana Jones movie:

  I loved Temple of Doom. If that makes me a racist or non-feminist or a lover of violence, I don't care. I'm tired of having to apologize for enjoying entertainment which is all it was meant to be. I don't have young children anymore that I have to "protect" from "unsuitable" movies (hooray!) and I'm happy with it. It was the violent reaction of the "real world" which surprised me. I can't wait to see what fandom's reaction is.

• about the new Trek movie:

  I saw Star Trek III and that one I enjoyed unreservedly. Although TWOK probably was the better movie in terms of plot and action, I liked III because of the characterization and interactions—just like the best of the fanzine stories and the old episodes themselves, In fact, I doubt that an audience member who wasn't at least casually familiar with the old TV series would have enjoyed ST III. Nimoy and Bennett made this one for the fans. Fortunately for their pocketbooks (and Paramount's) there are a lot of us out here!

• the recent Star Trek movie:

  Roddenberry is right. It's the best Star Trek yet made, because it's what he would have done with the series if he had had the money. Sure, the sets look fake and the lines are sometimes corny, but that's the way Star Trek has always been. It's part of the reason we love it. This film was made with us in mind; it has everything you'd expect to see in a ST episode. Robert Wise tried for a galactic extravaganza, while Nick Meyer gave us naval battles and Dickens quotes. Nimoy simply gives us the familiar characters and lets them tell the story. Nimoy's influence is pervasive; every frame of this film reflects his love and understanding of Star Trek. As a theatrical movie, it's seriously flawed. It has some things in common with The Empire Strikes Back (incidentally, my favorite of the SW films): its somber mood, its emphasis on characterization and mysticism, and especially its non-ending, which is its weakest point. It descends into schmaltz, with everyone standing around grinning, and it looks wrong besides, because all the minor characters are touching Spock while Kirk stands apart and isolated. The ending seems anticlimactic as well, since most of the film's action is scrunched up in its middle. Some critics labeled the movie dull and boring, but keep In mind that they had just viewed Indiana Jones, and after that, any other movie seems slow. When will critics learn not to compare ST to other SF block-busters. It's not Star Wars, nor has it ever tried to be. It remains true to itself, true to the vision Roddenberry began with twenty years ago. The plot is somewhere between a good fanzine story and the best of the TV episodes. On the surface, much of It might seem absurd, yet Harve Bennett handled It remarkably well considering the situation he was left with at the end of Wrath of Khan, and actually, the story contains far fewer plot-holes and inconsistencies than did WoK. [...] In all, Nimoy has given us an episode (notice I didn't say movie) that is completely sincere yet has the presence of mind to laugh at itself. I feel lucky for this chance to spend some more time in the universe I know and love. I've come home again. Never mind about the Enterprise — our friends will find away out of their predicament (it happens all the time in fanzines). Instead of griping about changes in the status quo, we should be celebrating our good fortune. Star Trek does live!

• fan power, fanwriting:

  One note on an editorial comment you made in a letter — something about the fans' role in getting Star Trek aired for a third season. The networks do seem to understand the massive mail approach, a very simple yes/no or whether a show should be played or not. But a show's content has never been affected perceptibly by fans' input. What the networks think the fans want may govern—but prevalent opinions among the statistically small slice of fandom that writes and reads the letterzines don't always match this. The huge public response to ANH meant Lucas did go on to make TESB and ROTJ—but it didn't prevent the latter from cutting back on the characterization and humanity that made TESB such a roaring success with SW fanwriters. All of which reduces, I say, shrugging, to the old axiom that if we really want good fiction, cinematic or otherwise, we'd have to do it ourselves. Which, I guess, is where fanwriting got started.

• regarding quoting, criticism, and IDIC:

  Michelle, I find it ironic that, while lambasting me for allegedly quoting your story out of context, you quote me out of context not once, but twice. I pride myself on precision of expression. And when responding to Bev Lorenstein's comment, I took great pains to point out that, as your editor on at least one story, she was doubtless aware of plot developments in the Aerie cycle that I had no way of knowing about. However, at the time I wrote the letter, the only two Aerie stories that had been made generally available were "Dust in the Wind" and "Relentless." From the latter of these, I made one quote which was almost verbatim and one which was verbatim. And I made no pretense whatsoever of "explaining" your universe in any way. The issue at stake was not a matter of interpretation, but a matter of fact. And the fact was that Bev made a comment based on material that had not been made available to fandom at large, and offered no clarification as to where and when the material had appeared or would appear. All I did was wonder out loud whence her information came. You see, I like the Aerie stories and would like to read all of them. I don't know of many authors who would get defensive about this. A few might find it flattering, even. When I elaborated upon a possible SF definition of "bestiality," I was careful to preface it with "for the sake of expediency." I had no — repeat, no — interest in lengthening an already overlong letter with a big harangue on Just What Bestiality Really Is and Where We Can Buy Some. (I figure there are already enough individual interpretations of the term to cancel each other out into the next century, anyway; and people will always feel free to pick whichever one best suits their purposes.) As I said, the letter was overlong, thus I didn't feel I had the space to write a term paper on the subject. I also harbor no illusion that the ideas of my associates or myself are either the best or the only ones to be had. (I did say, didn't I, that it all comes to value judgment in the end?) I had thought — nay, hoped -- that some sort of rational discussion on the subject of what constitutes pornography might evolve from this. And while the belligerence and deliberate obtuseness that was most in evidence was not what I would have asked for, after three years in fandom, I can't honestly say that it was any less than what I'd expected. ((I'm really not sure that discussing what is or isn't pornography/erotica is really within the scope of COMLINK — after all, if the Supreme Court can't decide what it is or isn't, I don't see that we'll be able to figure it out — AM)) Michelle, you're right — your universe, anyone's for that matter, doesn't require any justification. But by that same token, neither does the content or the particular phrasing of my comments or anyone else's. Regardless of what it "sounds to you as though" someone is saying, you might in the future grant others the courtesies you expect for yourself and check before you presume. That ubiquitous IDIC doesn't just apply to what any one person feels easy or comfortable or "with-it" accepting.

• comments on George Lucas:

  Concerning your comments on the caring attitude of the actors of Trek. I agree with the statement that they seem very caring and considerate of the fans. I think that has been a factor in the fan's future enjoyment of the series and movies. Their Involvement has kept many strong in Trek. I do think however that Lucas and Company have taken some action of their own on behalf of their fans, i.e.f Star Wars fan club, scripts, TV specials and even convention slide presentations. It's Interesting to note the Lucas people's enjoyment when teasing the fans while presenting the Jedi slide show at Chicago World Con or even Temple of Doom at Baycon. I think there Is a degree of give and take on both Trek and Star Wars. Another point is that the actors, Shatner & co., had three years plus devoted to the series (not counting the recent movies of course) while Hami11 and Ford have done three movies which require less time in personal involvement. And from what I understand, Harrison doesn't care much for the public exposure. I think in their individual universes they have each given much to fandom. I hope I'll never have to choose between the two.

• about George Lucas:

  It amazes me as well as her that so many fans are protesting George Lucas' financial success, and I don't understand it either. Perhaps it's an upsurge of the old chestnut that anything that makes a lot of money is a) a hack and b) greedy. Perhaps it's simple resentment, Perhaps it's resentment that GL is not abjectly grateful to fans and doesn't listen to what we want to him to do with his movies. (I seem to recall that both Gene Roddenberry and Leonard Nimoy had to suffer through similar attacks when they didn't do what fans wanted them to, and I've heard LN, at least, called money-hungry when he wanted some control over the way the character of Spock was marketed.) Perhaps it's "I didn't like this movie but it made alot of money, so obviously the person who made it is only interested in the money." Etc. At such time as GL shows signs of being a profligate, socially irresponsible big spender, then maybe I'll start complaining about his money. Judging from the evidence so far, I'd say that day will come when the sun goes supernova.

• about George Lucas:

  I do agree with you that fans do have an understand "of the power and potential inherent in Lucas story" but I don't know if one can truly judge if it is better or not. According to you it is, according to someone else, it may not be. It's all a matter of opinion. Lucas had his story to tell, fans in general have theirs. We tend to enjoy more in-depth characterizations, ideas, and plots because we are a creative lot with a need to write, read, draw, and explore things more deeply than how they are presented. Lucas has his original format and we get to elaborate and change it according to our own imaginations.

• comments about George Lucas:

  I know that George Lucas gives plenty of money to charity and he is building new studios to teach new, young cinema artists, but as far as the movie FANS are concerned, he could care less. Sure, he's allowed a SW Fan Club which may occasionally sell us such things as posters at premium prices but BIG DEAL! WE have have been paying who knows how many millions of dollars to see GL's movies over and over and over, yet he won't allow Star Wars at conventions, none of the stars of the movies have ever been to a convention as a guest speaker, GL has never been to a convention as a guest speaker, and an attempt was even made a few years ago to control the type of material we would be allowed to print in our fanzines! (an attempt that failed, by the way). Is this the thanks we fans get for giving him some of the money he uses for charities and studios? I will continue being a SW fan, writing SW stories, and reading and buying SW material, but I will continue to do so because of my interest in the SW universe, NOT its creator. I've thanked Mr Lucas enough times for having created this wonderful universe; I will not kiss his feet.

• comments on Lucas and fandom:

  I agree with you on everything you've said about Mr. Lucas, but all these facts that you cite have noting to do with his attitude toward fandom. I have no scorn for the money he makes. I don't even care. All I am saying is that he doesn't do as much for fans as the creator of Star Trek and there is a difference... This difference, I believe, can make or break a fandom. ST fandom has grown over the years due to respect between the fans and the show's creator. I'm not saying that ST fandom wouldn't still be here if Mr. Roddenberry despised us, but it wouldn't be the same, and ST fandom is appreciated. I've never heard ANY fan write or say disparaging remarks about Roddenberry. Respect breeds respect. It really is that simple.

• more about Lucas:

  Bravo to Maggie Nowakowska [#17/18] for her letter putting the "Is Lucas a Good Guy?" controversy in perspective. To support her argument further, has everyone seen the August '84 (I think) issue of Discover magazine? There was a four page article (the cover story) on the computer graphics, sound and editing advances being made at Skywalker Ranch. That's where the profits are going, that's what Hollywood could have been working on all these years but hasn't. Who really are the money grubbers? Really, folks, why take such pleasure in putting down a man—an artist—whose creations have made our lives more full and enjoyable? Don't some people have anything better to do? Writing LoCs takes precious time; that time could be spent more constructively.

• George Lucas and sexism:

  In regard to sexism — I agree with you that George Lucas is a sexist. But so are many other men! Consciously or unconsciously, society is in their favor. Hopefully, it will change to a 50/50 status in the future. But when discussing women and sexism toward themselves, it‘s a whole other “can of worms." It's a complex subject. When writing personal fantasy. I've noticed that women enjoy placing themselves In male roles (myself Included) more often than their own gender. I've asked myself why and I've come up with a few answers. To escape stereotyping of the "typical" female role expectations is one purpose but not my main reason. I find the sexual attraction and exploring love/relationships Is my main reason for enjoying stories about Kirk-Spock-Luke-Han-Lando-etc. The mystery of being the other half as well as desiring the other who is the object of my affection is my main reason for reading and writing, about the male species. And I would say the mystery of being the other even weighs more heavily than the attraction, when I think of a desire to write about men. But it is all tied up with self-identification. Whether my self identification stems from a truly unbiased basis (that it is the characteristics not the gender I identify with) or if my Identification stems from the men being easier to write about because I lack true confidence and self Importance is something I ask myself constantly. I'd like to think It's the former, not the latter. But It Is hard to tell. I'm poisoned just like any other woman when It comes to stereotyping. None of us are free of it. Some of us have less or more Ingrained Into our consciousness. Anyhoo, In conclusion, women In fandom are exploring their feelings, thoughts, and deeper emotions (subconscious) through personal fantasy. It Is their escapism and may be the only way for them to evolve past the cliched roles they are boxed into as well as the typical ugly stereotypes they use to write themselves Into. Of course, it could become an addiction and fandom may not be able to help someone past this point. We females will probably for a long time yet have to play, work, suffering-sacriflcial-lamb defined roles to contend with. But men have their own defined roles to contend with, too. Fandom keeps us all sane!

• request for feedback:

  I'd like to take this chance to make a personal request. Since Kessel Run #4 is the last issue of my SW zine. I would like to make up a collection of LoCs to send to the contributors. This idea has been used by Lisa Adolf of Carbonite Maneuver and Pat Nussman of Alderaani Imperative and I think it is a good one. Since putting out KR4 in May of this year, I have received many letters thanking me personally for putting out the zine. This is very nice for my ego and I appreciate it very much, but it doesn't do very much for the writers and artists whose work appeared in this last issue. So, please, any of you who have the time and energy to write a LoC on KR4, please do. This isn't for my own benefit, but for the writers and artists who would like to get some kind of feedback on their work. Thanks.

• fans and their pairing alliances:

  I enjoyed your several suggestions for various love relationships between the SW characters (Han/Leia. Luke/Leia. Han/Luke. Han/Luke/Leia.) but I can understand why some fans can't accept the relationship between Han and Leia as having any real depth. Many of these people froze their mindset at the end of A New Hope and any maturing that Han and/or Leia have done since then doesn't exist for them, They liked things the way they supposedly were back then so much that they simply refuse to accept any changes. Such an outlook usually leads to rapid boredom, and such people generally dropout of SW fandom very quickly.

• Lando Calrissian, racism, perception:

  I agree with you about Lando. The patriotism to the Alliance thing was what probably turned people off Lando. Yet, I cant help but think that it was supported by prejudiced viewpoints on the racial issue. I sometimes find it surprising that people can be biased toward two men as lovers (or two women) but I guess I shouldn't be. If people still cannot accept Lando as equal to the "white" guys, then how do they place men who dare to love other men in away they can only view as inappropriate? It's sickening to me that such a thing as this exists in fandom but fandom is no different from anywhere else in the end. Or is it?

• regarding the recent Star Wars movie novel adaptation:

  On to other things. Debbie Gilbert must have read a different Return of the Jedi novelization that the one I got. For the most part, I found to my dismay that James Kahn gave a whole new dimension to the term "hack." A few scenes were reasonably well-handled, but the overall impression was one of a series of breathless, overdone, and overwritten descriptions of the action onscreen, pasted together with execrable grammar and no taste. In short, the very worst kind of rip-off. I've thought for a long time that Don Glut deserved at least a little more credit than he's gotten (at least he knew enough to make his pronouns agree with their antecedents), and after reading the Wreck of Kahn, as it were. I'm really longing for the Good 'Ol Days of the TESB adaptation. (I guess a lot of my disgust with the ROTJ novel stems from an inability to understand why an author of Kahn's - ahem - caliber was given the assignment in the first place. Why not Joan Vinge, who did the children's storybook? Brian Daley, who has already created such an impressive body of work within the SW universe? Even A. D. Foster, who really is quite good at this sort of thing, after all? I've never had any major passion for the novelizations as such, but it's terribly disappointing to see such obviously damaged goods get under the wire when it didn't have to happen.)

• regarding the recent Star Trek movie novelization:

  The book -- quite disappointing. I feel Vonda McIntyre went beyond her bounds. If she chose to put so much of her own universe into the book why not include the character references of Sola, Treraain, Chang Gara, or Omni? I think her portrayal of the characters was inconsistent with that of the movie. Kirk and Saavik had both just lost their best friends. I doubt either of them would be in any mood for a physical relationship with the Marcus' when the pain of Spock's death was still so sharp. Vonda seemed to overlook much of the potential caring, compassion and willingness to sacrifice to help Spock. One example of this is when Sulu seemed to be willing to help Kirk claim the Enterprise more as a revenge against Starfleet for denying him the Excelsior than of restoring Spock or even for the point of helping along time friend Kirk. What do other fans think of Vonda's description of the characters? Some additional inconsistencies I felt were altered from the movie were the relationships between Kirk, Carol, and David Marcus. At the conclusion of Khan,. David admitted that he was proud of being Kirk's son. On stage 2 of the Genesis experiment, Carol seemed genuinely concerned with Kirk, asking him what he was feeling. Even her comments to David, earlier in the movie, depicted still-evident affection, "Never a boy scout." Yet, Vonda depicts Carol and David hating/fighting with Kirk. In the movie there seems to be a tenderness between David and Kirk, "Sorry I'm late." This can show a number of emotions: concern, apology and affection. In turn, David portrays his trust in his father, knowing that Kirk would eventually come. I would be very much interested in knowing how much of the book was Harve Bennett's and how much was Vonda's ideas? Some of the things I did enjoy by Vonda were some of her descriptions. She did a nice job in telling of the Enterprise's destruction. Also her Saavik was prepared to give more resistance against the Klingon death penalty than the movie's. I also enjoyed (somewhat) her explanation of the Klingon language. I do hope, however, that Paramount will give another experienced Star Trek writer a chance to do the novelization of IV.