Interstat/Issues 081-090

From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search

Issue 81

Interstat 81 was published in July 1984 and contains 26 pages.

cover of issue #81, Mike Brown
  • no interior art, photo of William Shatner by Jane Singer
  • there is a long account of Harve Bennett's appearance at Space Trek #3
  • while fans in the past had to wonder if there would be a new Trek movie in the future, the fans in this issue are already talking about the fourth movie as if it were a done deal
  • John L. W writes:
    First of all, I love the movie. And I love everything that happens in it (yes, even the destruction of the Enterprise and David's death. Come to think of it, especially David's death—sorry, Merritt). I think it is among the best three Star Treks of all time (this includes the episodes and novels). Leonard Nimoy's direction is superb. The final mindmeld is done with style and restraint. No "Spockenobis" here. If Spielberg or Lucas had made this film you can bet that they'd have angels, ghosts, lightning bolts and Ghu knows what all whirling around with a pounding Williams score in the background. Not here, though.
  • Susan Beth S also likes the movie, despite its "minor flaws," because the actors all look young and fit, everyone is in character, there is humor, and:
    And, best of all, we've got our Vulcan back. Okay, so he's got a few memory problems. But he's alive, a flesh and blood person not some spiritual eavesdropper as so many of us dreaded. The adventure can go on!
  • Kathy C mostly liked the movie:
    Yes, I was sorry to see the Enterprise destroyed. After three viewings, I still can't bear to look when the top blows off the primary hull, and I've cried more watching that beautiful ship begin to disintegrate than I did watching Spock die. But I'm not sorry its destruction was a part of the movie. The way the story was handled, it had credibility—it made me believe that yes, this was the only way survival could be achieved. More important, the loss of the Enterprise was not a meaningless sacri fice. Watching it, I felt as I believe I would if I were watching my own home go up in flames; but as I would be reminded in that situation also, human life is always more important. Some may feel that their emotions are being exploited once again. I disagree. Watching a Star Trek movie, I would rather experience such deep emotions, even tragic ones, than be totally unmoved. Most of the complaints that I have with this movie—yes, there are some—have to do with the scenes involving Saavik and David on Genesis. To make a long story short, for now, I found those segments to be slow-moving, disjointed, and prime hunting ground for scientific nitpicking. I was very disturbed by the way David was killed (blink and you'll miss it altogether). As for the new Saavik, I was not at all put off by her appearance, as I expected to be; and she certainly speaks Vulcan well... To me, Robin Curtis' portrayal was hollow—it lacked any sort of indication of what might lie beneath the surface. I think that somewhere between Spock's funeral and the Grissom, Saavik's katra got misplaced. But enough complaining for now. I found TWOK to be infinitely superior to ST: TMP, but TSFS is the first Trek movie I can really say I've fallen in love with. Harve Bennett, bravo!
  • Linda S comments on the movie, which she mostly liked:
    I am getting the impression that Bennett's movies are intended to be 'alternate- universe' affairs, in the sense that anyone outside the original series who starts doing a series of ST tales is described as the creator of an 'alternate universe.' This in turn frees me from the need to go bonkers trying to work through any contra dictions with the show that might appear; for instance, this time around I don't have to worry about explaining the absence of mindsifters and Sarek's wildly emotional behavior.... I thought ST III was very much a zine-type story rather than a series-type story. The basic plot. Kirk Chucks It All For Good To Save Spock, is very zine-ish. (I suppose they'll straighten it out in ST IV, but for now I believe Kirk is up to his brass in hot water.) And, of course. Being Marooned On A Godforsaken Planet While Stricken With Pon Farr is a time-honored zine predicament. This film was endearingly fannish. There was the sense of fun, and the sense of 'I like these characters so much I want to get away from the format a little and do some new things with them.'
  • Johanna C comments on the movie:
    Having suffered what I still consider a totally unnecessary cloud on my personal horizon for the last two years, I can't resist pointing out that Paramount et al. have had to go to a hell of a lot of effort to undo something they should have had the sense not to do in the first place. With that snottiness out of my system, however, I've got to admit I loved it. I'll probably even forgive them, once I've seen it again and again.
  • Margaret M. M writes of the movie:
    William Shatner was brilliant: a symphony of talent in perfect harmony with his character and the Star Trek universe we know and love. DeForest Kelley eclipses all of his previous performances except City on the Edge of Forever. The mind meld between Kirk and Sarek was exquisite. The crew of the Grissom was good, the officer whom Uhura maneuvered into the closet was cute. Robin Curtis was adequate, if one-dimensional as Saavik. David's death and the murder of the Enterprise were outrageous and despicable. Those acts were unnecessary, and inexcusable and catastrophic mistakes which will— and should—haunt Harve Bennett for the rest of his life. Though I respect Mr. Bennett for Wrath of Khan and his charming Salvage series, I yearn to dangle him over a pit of alligators, suspended by one of the thin threads of his pon farr sequence. "Gator Bait" Bennett purely chimes of poetic justice. And Kraith comes to life with the Vernal Virgins of Vulcan, tripping self consciously across our ken, daintily attired in gauzy diaphanous and chastely white nighties from Frederick's of Hollywood, with Lalique antennae crowning their heads. I felt Dame Judith's lipstick was too red—doesn't it strike anyone else as incon gruous that a green-blooded priestess would wear red lipstick? And the Oriental Vulcan with his gong was too "Rank" for my taste. Come now, I bet you didn't think we'd notice him, did you, Mr. Nimoy? And when will Paramount ever realize that Kor, Koloth and Kang are the real Klingons, and focus a disruptor beam on those impostors who wear fright wigs, fantasy fur eyebrows and wads of chewed bubblegum stuck to their frontal swimcaps.
  • Donna S acknowledges her feelings about the movie will probably change:
    I wanted to write down my feelings about this movie right away while they are the most genuine, coming from the heart rather than the head, so to speak. Undoubtedly, after seeing it 6 more times, reading the novel, and hearing critiques and arguments, some of these feelings are bound to change, but I want to get my two- cents worth in early, then sit back and watch the field-day beqin.
  • Bobbie H comments on the movie, and a feeling she has:
    Hey! Are there any other old fossils besides me still out there? That is to say, did the outcome of ST III make anyone else feel like a dinosaur? Perhaps I should qualify that... To me, the destruction of the Enterprise is Harve Bennett's own personal attempt to take us old, moldy, out dated monsters with our old, moldy, antiquated and unfashionable ideals by the shoulders and shake some sense into us. As I saw Enterprise floating across the screen in a billion zillion pieces it suddenly became quite clear to me that HB has always considered the hardcore Trek fan's approach to ST to be somewhat unsophisticated. He seems to be of the opinion that the original concept for Star Trek was basically a good one, but that its ideals were somewhat wishy-washy, or too heavily sugar-coated,orsocornyastobeunrealistic,or...SOMEthing. This can be evidenced as early as the second movie, when we find out via the always-having-cheated-death-before routine that not once during the whole of original Trek was the topic of death handled properly, or with any kind of seriousness. The worst part of all this is that if you were to pin me down (you'd have to catch me first), I would tell you—barely audibly, and through gritted teeth—that yes, actually, I liked the new movie. Even if the substance is missing, the form (for the most part) is there... But where are the themes of Star Trek that we once knew? Whatever happened to brotherhood and tolerance and chivalry? Where is the optimism and enthusiasm that ST once generated? With the destruction of the Enterprise we may now consider them to be officially extinct, I think. Apparently, the themes of death, revenge, insanity, and total destruction are much more in vogue these days. It seems to me to be a clear case where the dollars of the many outweigh the ideals of the few. It is unutterably sad because ultimately, Harve Bennett is quite correct. Not in his estimation of what Trek should be, but in his assessment of who his audience is. Of all the showings of ST III I have been to, 80-90% of all the people there were younger than I am, and I'm not even 30 yet. I call myself 'hardcore1 because I have been and always shall be a devotee of the original television series since it was first run, but most of the people who make up the audience of TSFS (excluding the old dinosaurs like myself) cannot even have been born or were only JUST born, when ST first aired- That's not to say that they can't be true fans, but I don't think many of them are. I mean, these people—nearly the entire audience—clapped and cheered uproariously when Kirk uttered that superlatively ghastly line, "I have HAD enough of YOU!!!" while repeatedly smashing his foot into Kruge's face. I don't dispute the fact that Kirk would have done that to save himself and Spock, but he would not have said something like that while doing it. No way. That's not Trek. That's something that belongs in a Dirty Harry movie. And yet people really seem to be eating it up. So you see, it is this which makes me feel that I am one of the last of a dying breed. And Harve Bennett, in no uncertain terms, has confirmed it. The death of the Enterprise makes the hardcore fan and his antediluvian ideals obsolete and marks the end of an era. On the other hand, the rise of the Excelsior signifies the "new wave of the future," and serves to usher in a whole new generation of fans complete with a whole new set of ideals. In other words. Star Trek is dead; long live Star Trek!
  • Susan K. J writes of the movie:
    ST III, a fan-fic fantasy come true. A strongly relational movie, its main theme is character, friendship and interaction, with just the right dosage of action, sci-fi and special effects added (and with a touch of humor that is downright admirable in such a profoundly dramatic story). Mr. Nimoy's directing is fine, though somewhat more TV-style and less professional than that of Nicholas Meyer. But the lion's share of credit should go to two people: Harve Bennett, for his understanding of, and commitment to the essence of Star Trek; and William Shatner, whose magnificent acting carries the movie, and proves again, through new emotional depths, just why he is still (—and ever shall be) "the Captain" and Star of Star Trek.
  • Sylvia K is not happy:
    They have destroyed our ship. Blown up the very heart and soul of Star Trek itself. Enterprise was our home, and home of her crew, she was the symbol of hope, a shining embodiment of the future. Now she is destroyed, to the last atom. Gone forever. And they promise us Star Trek IV, and we are supposed to wait for it eagerly. I feel as I do waiting at the dentist, waiting to see what terrible thing he will do to me next; it is for my own good, of course, because I was careless of a precious possession. And I was careless. Complacent. ST:THP was good. It was Star Trek. Not perfect, a bit long in spots, but Star Trek was back again. For ST II we would have another producer, but one with a good track record, who claimed to respect the product. The cast was behind the film. How could we go wrong? I heard they might kill Spock. A rumor, easily dismissed. No one could be that stupid, not even Paramount. You don't kill a major character. You don't tamper, permanently, with another man's creation. Besides, Leonard Nimoy would never agree Spock died. Then came ST III. Still with a first class producer who respected the product. Still with the cast behind it. And a rumor that the Enterprise would be destroyed. But no one could be that stupid, not even Paramount. You don't discard your base of operations. You don't destroy your central, unifying theme. You don't blow up that which symbolizes your product around the world. You don't, permanently, tamper with another man's creation. Not if you respect that creation. Besides, this time Leonard Nimoy was the director. He had control. He would never agree to it. He would save the Enterprise in fact, as Spock had done in fiction. He would insist on a rewrite. He would refuse to film the scene. And the Enterprise was destroyed. And Gene Roddenberry stood silently by, with never a word of protest, saying this was the best Star Trek movie ever, after his promise to us that he would stop any major alterations to his universe. What is next, I wonder, for ST IV?
  • Mary M. S is also not pleased:
    Having seen ST III only once so far, one big difference between it and ST II stands out. ST II was one small step in the right direction. ST III is one giant leap backward. If Trek is supposed to be Kirk's story, what is the matter with this man? Why is he so regressive? The series established that he has two sides. ST II exploited that dark side. Instead of learning from his mistakes, he's wallowing in them, making them worse. Perhaps it is the society he comes from! ST III gives us our first close look at Earth in the future. What is it, a vast landfill?... However, there is one character in ST III who resisted the tide of regression and took a large step in developing into a compassionate and courageous being. And that is Saavik. Some will say she found herself in a Mary Sue fantasy. Not so. She was not offering herself to Spock. That was a creature with no mind, no soul, and no memory...but with the biological urges of a Vulcan male. We saw her fear of him and we saw her overcome that fear. He could have killed her. Yet she went to him with no thought of her own safety. She was gentle with him. Saavik's action was both ethical and logical. Thanks, Robin Curtis, for a stellar performance. Where, though, does all of this leave Kirk? Stuck in the same miasmal mist? He blew it. ST II gave him a chance to learn that he is not protected by a vacuum that his actions do have consequences. ST III is the story of how he blew that chance. Yes, he cheated. This time he blew his opportunity to face death, and pulled off the ultimate cheat. Does he deserve to have his t' hy' la back? I don't think so. He has not earned it. And if future Treks are to succeed, down the road, there will be a higher price to pay. In the meantime, he does have another chance to prepare for what will come by observing the kind of person Saavik has become. Observe her, and learn! The universe has been more than generous with James Kirk. This constant cheating has got to stop!
  • Debbie G comments on the movie:
    Roddenberry is right about "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"; it's the best yet made, because it's what Gene would have done with the series had he 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 is the first film made with us in mind. It has all the things a fan expects to see in a Trek movie. Robert Wise tried for a galactic extravaganza, while Nick Meyer gave us naval battles and Dickens quotes. With Nimoy's direction, there is no pretense; he simply gives us the characters and lets them tell the story. Nimoy's hand is very much in evidence; every frame of this film reflects his love and understanding of Star Trek.... 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 welcome the chance to spend some more time in a universe we all know and love; I've come home again. Never mind about the Enterprise—our friends will find a way out of their predicament (it happens all the time in fanzines). Let's celebrate our good fortune, for Star Trek does live!
  • Jan M. M comments on the movie:
    When she was good - she was very, very good, and when she was bad - she was horrid...or to paraphrase Gerrold - why did I enjoy this movie 4 times and still walk out of the theatre with a bad taste in my mouth?... The "What have they done to my Trek department": Disposable characters - and aside from Kruge, I place the Grissom and David in this category. David only partly; his was the time honoured apple-cheeked-ensign demise. I'm not sure if it was the acting, direction or a fault in me, but I really felt little when he died and I did like the character. Did anyone care when Grissom died - and its crew? I didn't. I wasn't supposed to. Estaban was clearly a semi-competent throw-away. (Winfield had the same amount of screen time in ST II and I mourned for him - not only his sacri fice, but a very sympathetic character.) And Kruge. The Klingons were too campy - a fault that can be excused were I not uncomfortably aware that I was being manipulated. The payoff was Kruge's death as the audience cheered and screamed. What happened to the Trek tradition of the honorable enemy? This was Dirty Harry space opera at its worst. This stood directly opposite all that Trek stands for. Why couldn't the camp have been cut out and some effort to explore the different motivations and alien ways of the enemy be substituted? This was profoundly wrong!!!... Now for the positive- and quickly. I could write twice as much on that, but I'm sure we all agree: the performance by the cast were fabulous! Superior!! The chances that the "minor" characters finally had to strut their stuff - sensational, always to be treasured. I wish I had the time to praise each one individually as they deserve. In that, we are a fandom blessed. Mark Lenard, too, was magnificent! I was surprised in Tucson when his name was the one roundly applauded in the credits. His first entrance literally stopped the show. (Paramount-please bring him back in IV.) For that alone, the mistakes were allowable. A truly schizo experience. So very, very good and with such tragic flaws. The best Trek ever? Yes. But we can still do better. The heart of Trek is as much in its integral morality as it is in its characters. Let's try for both next time.
  • Joan V writes of the movie:
    Two years ago, I wrote in to say that I thought that ST II was the best ST ever. Now, after I've seen ST III, I still think ST II was the best ever. The first time I saw ST III, I was disappointed in it. However, with each successive viewing, it has begun to "grow" on me.... There is also no doubt that ST III has many flaws. To me, the most glaring of flaws is the young Spock. (It would've been more plausible to me to revive him at his current age.) Further, the "soulless" Spock should not have sufficient consciousness to do things like imitate Saavik*s gestures; indeed, throughout his "evolution" he should have been unresponsive, as he was when aboard the Klingon ship en route to Vulcan. Spock's first pon farr occurred when Spock was in his 30's; it should not have occurred when he was physically 15. Last, but not least, is the still unanswered question as to how Spock could transfer his katra to McCoy and yet have sufficient consciousness to fix the engines and talk to Kirk prior to his physical death... That's my greatest problem with ST III, but there are others as well.
  • Harriet S wrote:
    Everyone will have their say on ST:TSFS. Some, far more
 skilled at words than others, will approve or disapprove. Those
 who best express what they saw and felt in the movie will leave a
 far more accurate impression of it than I ever will. Critics will pan or rave, decisions on the next Trek movie will be made on the basis of box office and budget. Awards will or will not be given, and in the next two years, the rush will be forgotten in favor of the sequel. So, in my inarticulate, artless and graceless way, I want to speak only from the heart and not the intellect. ST:TSFS recaptured what I felt at the age of sixteen, when Trek was first aired. I'll admit that through the intervening years the dream had slipped, the feelings faded. But now that is back, strong and vibrant; a shining thing of the mind and heart that reminds me why I did believe in the future, why I've held on to that ideal all these years.

Issue 82

Interstat 82 was published in August 1984 and contains 22 pages.

cover of issue #82, Bob Peak, official Paramount artwork
  • there is no interior art
  • Carol C comments on the movie pro book novelization:
    I agree totally with you about McIntyre's horrendous novelizations. (Her Carol Marcus is a bitch, her Kirk a wimp, and I couldn't believe she has Chapel say she had gotten over her love for and was only "fond" of Spock! (It's ironic the best novelization is Roddenberry's ST:TMP considering the way the movie turned out.)
  • Laurie H comments on the movie:
    Count me among those who consider SEARCH the best Trek movie yet. The family feeling is back; as I watched this movie, I discovered anew my original love for Star Trek....My only major complaint about SEARCH concerns the ending: where was the rest of it?! I walked out of the Chicago premier in a state of intellectual and emotional coitus interruptus. What there was of the ending was good. But after following Kirk and the others through their escapades at Fleet Headquarters, through David's death and the destruction of our beloved Enterprise, through the fight scene and the fal tor pan, something more was called for.
  • Ann C comments on the movie:
    I cast my vote in favor of ST III, to me the best so far of the motion pictures. My reasons are different from those I have read so far, but I suspect there are others who feel as I do. I am not a SF fan. I do not read it, and see very little. I am a ST fan. While SF writers and critics have spent years explaining the ST phenomenon from their viewpoint as if it were the only possible one, I have been quietly savor ing what I consider to be ST's strongest suit—namely the characters and their interaction with each other—and applauding the fine cast who breathed life into them. While I am primarily a Nimoy/Spock fan, I have never seen him as a stand alone character. Spock needs Kirk to play off on, as Kirk does him. They are a set. Which is why I am so enamored of ST III. Finally the characters are the story. And didn't the cast do a fine job!... But please—let's forget the Saavik/Spock pon farr bit. Yuck! No kiddies. Paramount. I beg!
  • Karen H writes about the movie:
    It is very hard for me to be objective about Trek any longer. My feeling generally is that any Trek is better than none.... Has anyone else noticed that we are getting fewer and fewer women in Trek. We've lost Rand and Chapel, Saavik is still learning, which leaves only Uhura. She needs a part consistent with her importance as a surrogate for all us females in the audience - besides which, she looks great and certainly all the males in the audience would like to look some more.... Despite leaving a lot of room open for the future, I think the plot was essentially linear and too thin. It was well embellished but obvious. There were fewer real surprises than in TWOK. I don't even count the destruction of Enterprise as a surprise since the Publicity department went out of their way to make sure it was known in advance: all the trailers I saw showed her blowing up into tiny pieces. And of course, everyone expected Spock alive again. I had even decided about a year ago that David would be the sacrificial victim, since he had so many fans against him. That was a pity, since the character had a lot of room to grow. But he died showing clearly he was Kirk's son, which was good. I hope that improves his image with the fans - it certainly wasn't his fault he was born.
  • Rhea B comments:
    I like [Linda S's] idea that perhaps the Star Trek movies are in tended to be "alternate-universe" affairs. If we accept them as such, there should not be so many hurt feelings over each scene or characterization being out-of-sync with the fan's idea of what the tv series were. But do we want to cut down on the arguments and fights? I found [Bobbie H's] mention of the missing old themes of Star Trek something for serious thought. Star Trek has changed. The world today is different from the sixties. Perhaps we'll be back to the original themes in the twenty-third century.
  • Terry Sue S isn't happy about the portrayal of the Klingons:
    As much as I enjoyed the movie, and as grateful as I am to have Spock back again, there were just a couple of details I did not find too terribly terrific. Kruge, for instance, and his Klingon pals. Maybe it's just me, or maybe it was Christopher Lloyd's "Reverend Jim" voice that bothered me, but there was something I found rather disturbing about ruthless, cold-blooded killers played for laughs. "Hogan's Heroes" bumbling fool Nazis may have been comical on TV, but they weren't ever actually pictured murdering anyone. I believe one of the reasons I liked ST II so much was because I had at least a little respect for Khan. He was a formidable foe, superintelligent (mad as a hatter - true), but with his own peculiar warped sense of honor — a worthy adversary.
  • VIcki H has a reminder, as well as an appreciation:
    I have been a devoted Trekker since day one; however, I am new to mainstream fandom. As a neophyte I was disconcerted by some of the criticisms leveled at TSFS. We must remember however much we love Trek that it is a commercial entity and must appeal to a mass audience. As devoted as we are I doubt we could make a film made strictly to our own dictates profitable for Paramount, as it would probably be a little narrow for the masses. My reason for the last statement stems from the fact that in reading the last copy of INTERSTAT, we can't seem to agree on what constitutes good Trek even among ourselves... I do believe that Spock's eyebrows deserve an Academy Award. Lord, I do love that Vulcan.
  • Gloria-Ann R writes:
    At last a Trek movie that I can at least like. It's a grand combination of a relationship fanzine story and the original series Trek. It appeals to the emotions more than the mind. The story plot was simple enough, find Spock and make it an exciting search and rescue mission. Never any doubt that they would bring him back, but in what state, was the question. Finding him first as a boy was a bit of a shock; what if they had left him that way?! Sounds like it was written before Nimoy had said whether he'd play Spock again. I liked the new Saavik better than the first, and the idea of her bonding with the boy Spock during his first pon farr will be great meat for future fanzine stories and kinda works against the Kirk-Spock bonding.
  • Lisa W was supremely disappointed in the movie:
    Almost everything bothered me. Spock's death, so touching in the end of TWOK, seemed corny as recapped, out of context, in the beginning of ST III. The other tragedy of ST III, David's death, had no effect on me. My first reaction was, "Good, I never really liked that twit." My response to the first round of "You killed my son, you bastard" was amazement that Shatner's acting was even poorer in this movie than TWOK, and the second time I was bored enough to comment, "You already said that." I really wish that TWOK had been the last of ST. It would have been a fitting ending. Having failed that death with dignity, I still wish to see no more perversions of Trek on the movie screen. I feel I've become a Golden Age ST fan, telling all the young folks about how much better ST was in my day.
  • Megan R. J loved the movie:
    I have never written to you before, but I have been so moved by TSFS that I feel I must. What a remarkable story, and how powerfully acted it is! I have seen it twice already, and each time will be better than the last, I'm sure.
  • Dawn E. L comments on the movies and the expectations of fans:
    There are just a few reminders I would like to offer to those people who believe Star Trek is dead, are disappointed in The Search For Spock, or otherwise feel betrayed by this wonderful movie. Was it so long ago when ST fans clamored for the return of Star Trek? Now, in 1984, we have not one movie but three with a promise of a fourth. We hoped, initially, that all the actors would return to portray our favorite characters. Now, with the arrival of The Search For Spock we still have all the major characters and each, in the course of ST II and ST III, have been given their special moments on the screen. We hoped we would see future movies that would be true to the Star Trek episodes. In the course of three movies, we have seen Vulcan, the return of Sarek, and countless reminders from the episodes (tribbles, the countdown from LET THIS BE YOUR LAST BATTLEFIELD). Everyone wanted the movies to be a success both with us and with the general public as well. Our hopes were met with box office records set. The fans often complained that Paramount would not listen to their ideas and opinions. We believed that, as a whole, we knew the very essence of Trek and our ideas toward the future of Trek could prove valuable — if given the chance. Now, in the present, we are faced with a man who not only listens to the fans but takes the time to acknowledge our ideas and opinions.bHe even reads our conceptions of Star Trek in fanzines and applies them to his movies! There are some who complain that ST:TSFS is too much like a fanzine. Isn't that what was desired in the first place? Someone to listen to our ideas and perhaps make them come alive...?
  • Vel Jaeger comments on the movie:
    Some critics, thinking to be derogatory, say it's "just another TV episode," not realizing what high praise that interpretation is. For at last we have returned full force to the fundamentals of Trek: the people. Trek has always based itself upon the best and worst of the individual, whether Human, Vulcan, Klingon, etc.,that make up the richly multi-leveled universe of the 23rd century. Sacrifice and heroism, power-hunger and treachery, grief and joy — all are here, painted magnificently with all the fire of Renaissance masters — Michelangelo would have been proud.

Issue 83

Interstat 83 was published in September 1984 and contains 18 pages.

photos of the stars, including "Uncle Harve" from Space Trek, photos by Joyce DeBoard
cover of issue #83, Nan Lewis
art from issue #83, Vel Jaeger
art from issue #83, Teri Meyer
  • art by Vel Jaeger, Nan Lewis and Teri Myer, photos of Space Trek #3 by Joyce DeBoard
  • a fan misses Barbara G:
    Where's Barbara Gordon's letter by the way? I had expected to read her opinion on [the movie]. Whether positive or negative, they always cause controversy. I've sort of become used to them and was looking forward to debating with her (as long as they stick to the issue).
  • Carolyn Lee B brings in the idea of Star Trek and the military:
    Perhaps the greatest truth of the 20th century is that military answers to violent behavior in an era of sophisticated technology are suicidal. It has always seemed to me to be an inconsistency that Star Trek took place within a military setting, as different from the modern military as the Federation might be, when, by the time we reach that level of technology such a military will lave to have been supplanted by some better form of response to such groups as the Klingons and Romulans. It is only logical that other 'ultimate weapons' would have surfaced between the nuclear warhead and Genesis, and only by some freak of a lucky streak could they all have been neutralized in time to avoid galactic disaster. I was sorry to see David die, but his manner of death was the most consistent and illustrative end to his story about the taking over of scientific discoveries by the military. To me, the crew of the Enterprise took their first steps from a 20th century mentality to a future mentality in ST III. Kith the needs of the one finally outweighing the needs of the many and the ultimate civilization of thought represented by the sacrifice of the Enterprise, Kirk and his crew have truly-gone where no man has gone before. Of course, ST III is not a morality play about 20th century issues, but it is a story of the transformation of sentient life, and nothing could be more relevant to the ancestors of the band we left on Vulcan. I look forward to Star Trek IV.
  • Pat K comments on the movies:
    Yesterday Star Trek III: The Search for Spock finished its run here in Victoria. My initial reactions to the three ST films have all been quite different. ST:TMP was impressive and beautiful, its approach to the characters rather distant. ST:TW0K was witty, charming and intimate, an intriguing study of two leaders. ST:TSFS was a totally different experience again. On a ST level I enjoyed it very much, though not as much as ST:TW0K. But for me ST III transformed the intimacy of the previous film into claustrophobia. I had no sense of spatial depth, of physical detail, even though I know details were there. I think this is due to the techniques used by the filmmakers: an overuse of the close-ups, sparing use of medium and long shots to establish scene and character. I realize not many will agree with me but I feel on the level of filmmaking, the first two films made fuller and better use of the big screen than the present one.
  • Bev L writes of the movie:
    I am in love with The Search for Spock and I hope to remain this way until the next movie. I have some nitpickings but they are complaints that fade against the beauty of the perfect pacing, the beautiful camera shots, the fantastic acting, the very good and in depth characterization, the playful humor, and the heart-rending, but not overdone, scene of the Enterprise's demise.
  • B.L. B writes of the movie:
    I saw it twice in premiere and pre- premiere with a primarily fan audience and once in a theater of more sedate mundane types, and it held up well--and I saw more at each viewing. I went home the first night with mixed feelings, but when I saw it the next night, it was like seeing a different movie and I loved it. This may be a film that lias to be seen more than once, but I think rather it was opening night jitters for my friends and me, a sense of closure, of two years of hoping and waiting finally come to an end. The weight of expectation was heavy for this.
  • Timothy M. B writes about the movie and the possibility that fans need to "grow up":
    Certainly I have many qualms about Star Trek III. I share the feelings of many that Star Trek may be being brutalized for the popular taste. However, with Nimoy and Roddenberry closely involved, it seems that there is no one to blame except for our unrealistic expectations. If we look at each of these movies as another Star Trek episode instead of as a once-in-two-years spectacular, it becomesclear that the movies are fine. They have flaws, but what Star Trek episode, even the best, did not have major holes? And every episode conveyed a certain personality that was imprinted by those who were most closely involved at the time. Many of us despair of Fred Freiberger's third season, but there were episodes in the third sea son that I rank among the best in Star Trek. There is nothing unusual about saying "This is Harve Bennett's vision of Star Trek," because every Star Trek was someix)dy's very own special vision, and they were not all Gene Roddenberry's (love him though we may). Perhaps we are facing the time for all Star Trek Original Fans to grow up. Yes, you may write your very own stories with your very own personal view, but when they make movies it would be daft and impossible for them to make the movie correspond to what they thought was any kind of fan view of Star Trek. Certainly Gene Roddenberry did not say, "Well, fans of my new show wouldn't like a man with pointed ears (as NBC thought) so I won't include him." Gene made the show the way he thought best. How can we blame Harve for doing that very same thing?
  • Joan V wishes there'd have been more science and science fiction in the movie -- she also has hopes for the next movie:
    As for ST IV, I fear that the fan hunger for a court-martial is so great that it is useless to suggest an alternative, but I'll try. In the first place, I think a courtroom drama would be lengthy and boring. Despite the fan opinion expressed in I#82, I want an action/adventure story. I want Starfleet Command to weigh that Kirk and co. have returned a strategically important opposition vessel (the U.S. military would go wild for some Soviet equipment), I want the Vulcan hierarchy to say a word' in our crew's behalf, I want Starfleet to scrap the EXCELSIOR prototype and build Constitution III class spaceships, name the flagship ENTERPRISE, and'get the crew- back to the business of "going boldly where no one has gone before."
  • Pat K has questions about katra:
    The question I would like to ask is: In Vulcans, is the Katra incipient at birth, or with the initial workings of the brain, no matter how primitive the level? Much as the human concept of the soul being part and parcel of a person from conception or birth. If so, does Spock, after the refusion, have two Katras, with the former Spock's being dominant but having, nevertheless, to contend with the immature Genesis one--that one having had the most catastrophic physical experiences one can imagine? Because of those traumatic bursts of physical aging, there may well be no conscious memory of events and self on the Genesis planet. But I can't help but wonder what influence the subconscious of the Genesis Spock may have on the refused Spock.
  • Sandy H. W Q loves the movie, hates the movie novelization:
    Star Trek III was everything I hoped for and more. I only wish the movie was longer, so I immediately bought the novelization by V. McIntyre to fill in all the little details not covered by the movie. What a bitter disappointment, McIntyre completely disregarded the Star Trek II characterizations. Dr. Carol Marcus is unrecognizable, her son David's attitude unjustifiable. All our friends lost!
  • Mary Louise D hasn't seen the movie yet, but she writes that if the novel was anything like it, she'd never buy a ticket:
    Instead of the expected professionally written version of the script, Vonda McIntyre has produced the kind of novel zine editors receive from high school girls. Here is the fear/hatred of Kirk's masculinity that turns him into a lecherous tyrant and delights in abasing him, the depiction of adults with the emotional instability of adolescents.... Although Carol Marcus is not mentioned in the movie, I'm told; Ms. McIntyre has introduced her and a love affair with a youngster her son's age, and mentions David's approval of the relationship (there's lots of meat for a psychiatrist in those two!). This enforces my feeling that Carol is obsessed with dominating males, and her deliberate humiliation of Kirk (who is portrayed anyway as an insensitive clod) reinforces the impression. As for David, whose infantile and boorish behavior is at one point excused because he is "high" on the fumes of an evolved planet (there is no discernible difference at any other time, I can see), he shows the result of the damage a domineering mother can do--supposedly he is so brilliant that only he can recognize a dangerous element in the Genesis formula (although he certainly exhibits no other indication of brains at all), but he deliberately withholds revealing it for fear of upsetting his mommy and her team--an appalling lack of scientific integrity and responsibility. Though most of the sins are McIntyre's, Harve Bennett cannot escape his share of the blame for the immaturation of Star Trek, with his Hollywood Youth Cult outlook and simplistic stories.
  • Sharon F feels fans are insensitive about David Marcus:
    I'm surprised any of you could say David's death didn't bother you. Have you no feelings? Are none of you parents yourselves? All of you go crazy over the' loss of the Enterprise when she served her purpose. An object, not a life. Kirk's re action was fitting - he is sad to see it go. But his reaction to David's death is much more emotional as ours should be.

Issue 84

Interstat 84 was published in October 1984 and contains 26 pages.

official photos, "The young men who have portrayed Spock in the varying stages of his genesis."
cover of issue #84, Fanti Donever
inside back cover of issue #84, a fan-made poster commenting on Kirk's sure-to-be court martial in the 4th movie
  • includes no interior art
  • includes movie call sheets and photos from the set, as well as four photos of "The young men who portrayed Spock in various states of his genesis."
  • Karen A. B addresses Betsy L. B's statement from I#79, "Are all Spock fans Chapel haters"?:
    Not for a minute!!! As a writer/editor/publisher of Spock, Christine and Spock/Christine material, I believe I can safely say there are many fans of Star Trek who appreciate the character of Christine Chapel both as an individual and coupled with Spock. It is because of the shabby treatment (for the most part) on the series, and the paucity of information on her that Christine is such an interesting character with whom to work as a writer. I, myself, am along-standing fan of Spock (from the original run of the series), but also an avid Christine Chapel fan when she is presented as a mature, intelligent woman in fan fiction.
  • Harriet S comments of a fan survey:
    Concerning the questionnaire circulating in fandom: I have never seen a more fully thought-out, all-inclusive and professional questionnaire. This one covers aspects of Trek to determine what the fans want to see in
 movie #4. Fans have the opportunity to make choices on such questions as Kirk's
 love interest--yes? no? whom?, Spock's behavior—more emotional? less emotional? 
non-emotional?, the destiny of our guys--courtmarital? exile? fugitives?, the com
poser- -Horner? Goldsmith?, the costume designs the list seems endless, the compilation of results to be sent to Paramount. So why am I reacting so negatively to it? I guess because the questionnaire seemed more like a list of ingredients to make a successful #4 with. Indeed, the results of such a movie made by such a recipe could only be homogenized, all surface, "touch-all-the-bases-cover-none-in-depth" storyline, that would lack all the spice and lumps that only creativity can give it. I guess I'm hoping that Paramount doesn't use the survey results. You see, your Trek, and my Trek, and her Trek and his Trek aren't the same Trek, and I'd resent such a 'majority consensus' that might remove any chance that my Trek gets a minute here or there, too. And on the subject of 'majority'--is it possible that many fans did not get the questionnaire, therefore are not given voice? What of the closet fan who writes Paramount, but does not participate in fandom actively? Also, the questionnaire covered certain aspects of Trek that bore me witless, but also covered aspects that I find glorious. So if what I find boring is an important aspect to you and you didn't get a questionnaire, I'd have ended up making some sloppy choices for you. I believe in fan input, I think that input is heeded. I write Paramount as each of us does, taking the time and two dimes to comment on what is important to us as individuals. But, as it seems to me, all the survey results and letters are only half the partnership here, with Paramount. And it boils down to trust--a trust based on STrTSFS (which no fan I've heard from accepted 100% or rejected 1001)--and not on data base, no matter how carefully and skillfully prepared.
  • Laura L writes about the Naked Doubles flyer:
    Once again, I am compelled to write (how about a group telephone call to replace the next issue instead!!). This time about an incident that occurred at Shore Leave. An "anonymous" [1] flyer was distributed at Shore Leave, which tried to pair legitimate complaints of editors who absconded with fans money with personal vendettas against some editors & artists. There are two schools of thought on how to deal with this flyer - one is to ignore it & the second is to hit it head on & not sweep it under the proverbial rug. I am of the second opinion, as the flyer was publicly distributed. Many of us are familiar with certain problems in fandom, such as sending money for a zine & not getting it, & the recent abomination of "pre-production costs" & no refunds. Although these comments do ring true they should not be confused with the rest of the flyer which is composed of vicious lies spurred by jealous frustration. While criticism or comments of other artists, writers, & editors are a natural & healthy course in any group of people, anonymous digs with the objective to try to cause hurt or pain is despicable; it is unacceptable behavior!!! This anonymous flyer circulated at Shore Leave caused mirth & wonder at how someone could be so stupid to assume that her identity would go undiscovered. Who else could say "trust us to have absolutely no taste?" How much taste does the writer of the flyer have, in light of her tasteless endeavors that she tries to pass off as art. The anonymous author appears to take exception to editors not accepting her stories due to "only accepting stories from our dear friends..." Dear writer of the flyer, are you jealous of other people having friends? After picking myself up from the floor from laughter (I fell off the toilet--where else to read crap), the next paragraph sent me into hysterics. ...bad feelings and distrust in zine fandom, & we figure that this is the best, fastest way to do it " Well, "anonymous writer", you did not meet your objective, as no bad feelings & distrust were generated among those in the flyer & their friends. Instead, it created a feeling like pity one has for a mad dog, & a resolve not to let unacceptable behavior be ignored. [2]
  • Jennifer W also comments on the Naked Doubles flyer:
    Anyone who was at Shore Leave VI & saw the flyer titled NAKED DOUBLES has witnessed truly the most appalling display of vindictive, unscrupulous, infantile behavior ever seen in fandom. So far it seems there is is a state of apathy when dealing with the "author" & her craving for attention (most of which is negative-it takes a really sick person to enjoy causing negative feelings). This has given her carte blanche to promote feelings of ill will by slandering anyone she chooses, making false accusations regarding work for various zines & who it was assigned to; her alleged mistreatment represents a total misconception of reality. There are only two issues of any validity mentioned in this travesty. Most of us are familiar with these; "pre-production costs" and no refunds. Those who read this trash should not confuse these true issues with the fabric of malignant lies that composes the rest of it. I am usually indifferent when I'm the target of the demented ravings of a lunatic. Derogatory & inflammatory rhetoric such as hers deserves to be ignored. Frankly, I'm flattered to be included among such distinctive names as "Icky" & "Snotty" of "None", as well as my good friends “Scats,” “Slopiton,” “Barbed Lewis” of “Paddles & Bondage.” However, to permit this non-person to go unchallenged when she has the audacity to denigrate someone unable to defend themselves would compromise my personal ethics. Her insensitive allegations that others have acted dishonorably are not only erroneous but hypocritical. She expects (demands!!!) sympathy from others when she is faced with a crisis yet she can't conceive, let alone tolerate, the misfortune of others. No human being can predict the sudden occurance of calamity. Neither should they have to contend with petty and malicious mudslinging. Her immature response to the situation regarding [P T] and the two novels Command Decision and Mutual Benefit is an unjustified attack on her credibility. The non-person's remarks about Pam's integrity are completely unsubstantiated since she has had no monetary transactions for either novel. I am certain this non-person would have expected better treatment if she had suffered a similar crisis. I suspect this individual's actions & words are motivated by her inability to confront her own incompetence & vehement reluctance to accept criticism. She would better serve fandom & herself if she would devote time & energy to improving her attitude & relations with those she has to deal with rather than wasting it making libelous & slanderous accusations in the attempt to benefit herself... Courage is certainly something the author of this flyer knows nothing about. [3]
  • Toni C-P writes about The World of Star Trek and David Gerrold's comments in it:
    Now, I do thank whatever gods that be, for making me page through the book without buying it first. I, of course, zoomed to the part about Star Trek III and read it with building excitement, I noted, with interest, a small mention about K/S fans - of which I have been for many years - and decided to page back to DG's chapter on Star Trek fans. Well, everyone's entitled to his/her own stupid opinion, a friend of mine once told me, so I tried to remain calm when reading DG's bit on K/S fans and their 'mimeographed' zines, their 'unwelcome invasion' into fandom, and how we corrupt poor young fen who wander unexpectedly into cons where K/S material is sold. The parents of such fen, DG tells us, are so horrified by the material, that they drag PYF home. Well, being a mother - and you can take that any way you like - I thought to myself, "What if all the PYFs' moms & pops aren't so horrified by K/S? What if they had less narrow minds than DG? Is it possible that there are some parents out there who accept K/S as an alternative universe in fandom - and who don't rush home with poor little YF in tow to their Bibles and Jerry Falwell show at the mere mention of it?" And, would DG's "horrified parents" be just as upset by their PYF being exposed to heterosexual adult material featuring "our boys"? Well, anyhow, thoroughly disgusted by what I was reading, 1 thought to myself, "This shmuck's not gonna get my $9.00!" Who the hell is DG anyhow? So he did something in Trek once or twice. So he keeps hanging around Star Trek conventions to get his kicks. I don't need to spend my money on him. Well, that's when I did something I was proud of. I walked away from that book store without buying the book. Even though I wanted that info on Star Trek III, I figured two more weeks wasn't that long for me to wait to find out what happens. Besides, I'd rather spend my hard-earned money on something I know will be worth reading like, Nome, for instance.
  • D. Booker comments on The World of Star Trek and has some advice [for more on this topic, see Open Letter to K/S Fandom by David Gerrold:
    The following is the final paragraph of a letter I received from David Gerrold in response to a letter I had written to him concerning the revised edition of The Making of Star Trek [4]. (May
 I note that while completely courteous, the letter as a whole did not really respond to the points I had raised, which was rather disappointing to me.) Mr. Gerrold wrote: "...One last note: Because of the content of several recent letters (some of it related to K/S) I have asked to have my fan mail monitored and examined by appropriate legal agencies. K/S fans are welcome to continue writing to me, of course, but unfortunately, because of the actions of a few irresponsible individuals, all correspondence on this issue will have to be included and turned over. You are welcome to share this information with any K/S fans you know." So, here it is. I think Mr. Gerrold's attitude, as expressed in his book, is regrettable (and in the long run, probably self-defeating), out I find it truly distressing that some fans, in an excess of misguided enthusiasm, to put it no more harshly than that, have behaved in a way that has contributed to Mr. Gerrold having to take a step like this. K/S, like any other aspect of Star Trek, is no more than an idea, and a fairly trivial one at that. I think some fans would be well advised to give up their fannish activities if they cannot maintain a rational perspective on these matters. Their behavior serves only to damage the rest of fandom.
  • Debbie G complains about the novelization of the third movie, notably the authors inclusion of original characters:
    Two years ago, in my review of the "Wrath of Khan" novelization, I said that its only major flaw was Vonda McIntyre's self-indulgence. She spent far too much time developing characters who were only bit players in the movie. This I wouldn't have minded, had it not been at the expense of the major characters that the story was really about. What I could not forgive, however, was her inclusion of characters from her own books, such as Entropy Effect--characters who had absolutely no place in the ST II plotline. If you had not read her previous books, you probably would have said "Who the hell are these people?" But this did not detract from my enjoyment too much; overall, I enjoyed the book. And now comes the ST III novelization--nice and thick, almost 300 pages. "Great!" I thought, "Lots of juicy character development." And there was...but of her characters! "The flaw in the first book is magnified ten-fold here. There are three whole chapters before the events of the movie get started! Three superfluous aliens are bad enough, but we are also subjected to: the entire crew getting drunk over Spock's death, Carol Marcus acting like a pouting bitch whose motivations are never clear, and David and Saavik hopping into bed together! Give me a break! To the scenes that were my favorites in the film, McIntyre adds nothing; if anything, she detracts from the magic that the actors and director brought to those scenes. I was most disappointed with this book, and hope a new novelist is hired for ST IV.

Issue 85

Interstat 85 was published in November 1984 and contains 22 pages.

cover of issue #85, Ann Crouch
photo from issue #85, "We have indeed been a fandom blessed."
interior art from issue #85, Linda Slusher
  • some photos of the actors
  • "Harve Bennett & Company at UCLA," a report by Rhea B
  • art by Linda Slusher, Ann Crouch
  • Mary M. S has this to say about Kirk:
    in response to the many intelligent questions that have been put to me as to my negative reaction to Kirk in ST II and III, I'm going to have to say that it boils down to one thing. I no longer trust James T. Kirk... Kirk has changed drastically since the original series. But he hasn't grown, he's regressed. The thing that attracted me to him at first...his intellectual curiosity...has been replaced by a bitter cynicism. His attitude used to be a combination of "What do I, representing the UFP, have to offer to the life forms of this civilization?" and "What will they teach me?" Now it's all me, me, me. He has gone from being the ideal starship captain to becoming a tragic man out of sync with the universe he inhabits.
  • Stewart M. W writes of trying new things:
    I've long been vaguely aware that there was a comic book version of ST, in much the same way that I'm aware of trashy tabloids, Gothic romances, and K/S. One occasionally notices them, but I've never been moved to buy any. Not, that is, until an acquaintance with an inexplicable liking for all kinds of comic books convinced me to pick up DC Comics' new Star Trek title. I was amazed. Not merely amazed that it wasn't utter crap; amazed that it was excellent. The author, Mike Barr, is a genuine fan whose knowledge of Trek underlies every panel of each issue. He knows the details, and uses them whenever he can to add depth to his stories. His characterizations, especially, ring true — no card board comic book heroes, just our old friends.
  • Kay B writes about the dangers of "refusion":
    "Refusion" is not just opening Spock's head and dumping the memories back in! If you've read the "Kraith" series, or any of Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover novels, you're familiar with how intricate and dangerous mind joining is. And because it is totally mental activity, the scene with T'Lar was, necessarily, very static. What we don't see is the Vulcan master grasping, holding, sorting and sifting Spock's Katra from McCoy's mind, then slowly, carefully, feeding it into the "infant" Spock-twin. Wo aren't given a sense of how long the process takes, but even given the speed of Vulcan thought, I would say several hours at least! Don't worry, nobody was murdered! Why do you think Spock has to search to remember Jim's name?
  • Debbie G comments on two letters printed in the previous which addressed the Naked Doubles flyer:
    [Laura L] & [Jennifer W] (are you the same person?): Your letter disturbed me. Not because it was so bitter and vindictive that it virtually dripped poison, but because you rant and rave about generalities without mentioning specifics. I assume you wrote the letter as a warning to fandom, but how can we derive any benefit from it when we don't even know what you are talking about? Most of INTETSTAT's readers were not at Shore Leave and have not seen the flyer in question, and it is not clear from your letter precisely what the author of the flyer has done that was so terrible. Since no one else has commented on the incident, I take it that you were the only one adversely affected by this flyer. If so, the whole affair falls under the realm of "personal attacks," and you should vent your anger in private correspondence with Ms. Anonymous.
  • Harriet S comments on the Naked Doubles flyer:
    For those INTERSTAT readers who did not receive a copy, it can be summarized as a supposed satire on the state of zine publishing in fandom. The author took broad swipes at the intelligence, talent, education and skills of zine writers, artists, editors, publishers. Also, tho anthor thinly disguised the names of certain fans connected with zine publishing and took cheap shots at their work, personalities, preferences and reputations, mocking them directly. What I would like to point out is that malice masquerading as satire is still malice. Cowardice by anonymity is a hundred times worse than a simple lack of spine. Such "get even" tactics are usually the ploy of pre-pubescent children or adults who (by the unsupported nature of complaints) cannot rationally discover other solutions Now, though I can't credit the author of the flyer with good judgment, sound reasoning, courage or the maturity to know when his/her behavior is totally unacceptable, I can credit the author of this flyer with having spread enough slander to go around random twice. Most fans know that there have boon incidents where someone connected with a zine has taken the money and run. But the author makes it appear as though almost everyone connected with zines is greedy, snotty, uneducated, irresponsible and incompetent. That includes the readers of zines because they insist on buying them. I, for one, refuse to tolerate that slander. I know some of those targeted by the author, I've contributed to some of the zines and I also publish a zine. Zine publishing has always been a matter of amateur not professional work. Who on God's Green said otherwise? Some zines succeed more at certain aspects, others less. But if by malice the author intends to raise all zines to his/her subjective standards, he/she is working under some fairly odd rules. To the author of the flyer: Do you dare suggest that since zines do not meet your lofty standards you have the right to target slander under the guise of satire or even legitimate complaint? Yes, there arc people you have complaint with, who may have taken you (but not necessarily anyone else) for a ride, shunned you, rejected you or your work, or treated you unfairly. Why not take the complaint to them individually and rationally? Drop the anonymity bit, state your name and complaint, and familiarize yourself with fact, first, before trying to get even with anyone.
  • Tom L addresses a comment by Timothy B in a previous issue:
    As long as the "old" cast remains, Star Trek must evolve and, we hope, grow old gracefully with the characters. But I think [Mr. B], in urging original Trekkers to accept the changes in Trek, is ignoring something important. That is, those people, young and old, who are discovering Star Trek now. It is fine for us to accept the changes in Star Trek, but what about those who have yet to discover the magic of the original Star Trek? I want everyone to have this chance, and this will be the greatest tragedy if Star Trek is "brutalized for the public taste." Nothing could ever change the way I feel about the original Star Trek; I think most fans feel this way. But as for those people for whom Star Trek III is an introduction to Star Trek - well, I feel sorry for them. I can simply ignore Star Trek III (for the most part) if I choose, but to newcomers, ST III is Star Trek.
  • Jean Lorrah comments on the subject of taping fanzines for the handicapped, a subject that was brought up and I#80:
    Over the years, several fans and clubs have attempted projects to tape-record fanzines for the handicapped. Each
 project has eventually stuttered to a halt for lack of volunteers, interest, publicity, or whatever. Now, however, [Terry T] is conducting such a project. She has permission to have all my fanzines (the NTM series, EPILOGUE, and the SAREK COLLECTION) taped, and to make copies for handicapped fans. Since Terry is blind herself, she is unlikely to lose interest in the project. As to protocol, if fans simply follow the law on copyrighted material, no one should have any complaints. That is, if a fan wishes to play or lend a legitimately obtained tape to a friend, there is no violation of protocol or copyright. If a person not authorized to do so makes copies of the tapes and distributes them, that is improper. Let's not get into the old hassle about copyrights on material which already violates Paramount copyrights; we are discussing fan courtesy here. I have no objections to anyone lending copies of my fanzines to friends (this frequently leads to my receiving a letter saying, "I read a friend's copy of so-and-so and just had to have one of my own-payment enclosed"), so long as no one is making his/her own copies of them.

Issue 86

Interstat 86 was published in December 1984 and contains 18 pages.

inside art from issue #86, Vel Jaeger
cover of issue #86, Chris Grahl
  • interior art by Vel Jaeger (reprinted from Matter/Antimatter #5)
  • some photos of the stars at cons
  • the inside back page is a letter to Teri Meyer from Harve Bennett and contains general comments about the fourth Star Trek movie
  • Teresa L. C makes this comment:
    I have been concerned since the release of "The Search for Spock" with something I hear (or, at least, think I hear) almost everyone saying. That is, that Kirk gave up everything, his career, his ship, his son, and risked his life, all for Spock! Forgive me, but Spock was dead and Kirk had absolutely no idea that he would find a living body and not a corpse. I think a proper analysis is that Kirk gave up/risked all those things for McCoy, not Spock. Sure, he was ecstatic to find Spock alive, but he did all those things to save McCoy's sanity and bring Spock's family some peace of mind. I know the "Kirk/Spock relationship" fans among us would like to think Kirk would do all those things for Spock (and I'm sure he would if the opportunity arose) but "reality" is that in this particular movie, he did it for McCoy.
  • Melissa M comments on the pro novels:
    I think they've greatly improved over the last year or so. In that time, we've had Web of the Romulans, Yesterday's Son, The Wounded Sky, My Enemy, My Ally, The Final Reflection, and Tears of the Singers. All different, interesting, and good (IMHO). Before that time, I consider only 4 or 5 of all the pro novels published to be worth keeping. Of the last 2 movie novelizations, I liked ST II, but did not like ST III. The newest pro novel is Jean Lorrah's The Vulcan Academy Murders. I have all her fan fiction, and have enjoyed most of it, so perhaps my expectations were too high, but I found this novel somewhat disappointing. To begin with, I guessed the murderer's identity on page 20, only a few pages after this person's introduction into the novel. And while I do read murder mysteries for enjoyment, I almost never succeed in guessing the murderer's identity! I was interested in the many ways in which Jean put all sorts of things from her fan stories into this novel. But overall, I simply didn't find it a: involving as I had hoped. Maybe the sequel will be better.
  • Joan V comments on the new pro book:
    I said that I hoped that one of these days, someone would come up with a good ST pro novel. I'm pleased to say that I have finally found one. it's THE VULCAN ACADEMY MURDERS by Jean Lorrah. After 14 years of reading ST novels that have ranged from merely dull to inexcusably outrageous, it's about time we fans got quality ST writing in a pro novel. THE VULCAN ACADEMY MURDERS features good storytelling, a cohesive plot and accurate characterization while sticking to established Trek. The existence of this novel refutes those who say that the reason there has been no good pro Trek fiction of comparable quality to good fan fiction up to now is because pro authors can't make permanent changes in the characters' lives, or use explicit sex, or write alternate universes. THE VULCAN ACADEMY MURDERS has none of these, and is good writing. It is also important to note what THE VULCAN ACADEMY MURDERS does not have. It does not have runaway nonsense or pseudo-philosophy, it does not stretch the boundaries of SP into the realm of the fantastic, it is not dry or mechanical, and it docs not try to pour the characters into super-mortal molds. I will mention one minor quibble and say that on p. 3, I think that Scotty's dialogue is far too melodramatic. This, however, is far outweighed by the many good items. T'Pau, in particular, is believably characterized. This is the first pro novel I can recommend to other fans, and I hope to see more pro novels of this caliber in the future.
  • Vel Jaeger comments about the Naked Doubles flyer in a letter that was also printed in Universal Translator #25 and Datazine #33:
    To those who fear for my utter devastation as a result of the infamous Naked Doubles Flyer distributed at Shore Leave... not to worry! Not only have I taken it in stride (I've been slimed by far bigger fish and survived to tell the tale), but am actually quite flattered to be included among many I consider to be the creme de la creme of hard-working zine editors and artists. If one must suffer slander, it's nice to be in such good company. Besides, several of us slimees have already wreaked vengeance at WorldCon in LA... It was completely unconscionable, but oh! What fun. Our thanks to the author for providing us with the motive for such childish behavior.
  • Steve Barnes is feeling friskily optimistic regarding some new technology:
    I'd like to ask something of INTERSTAT readers. I now have a VHS video recorder and since we do not receive Star Trek on our local stations here, I would appreciate it if someone would tape the episodes for me. I will provide the tapes and a list of the desired episodes. I would like them to be of good quality with no commercials. So, let me hear from you out there in fandomland. It would be very much appreciated. Also, I would like to know if there is anyone who has taped GENESIS II, PLANET EARTH, SPECTRE, or other GR projects. I am interested, too, in getting a copy of the ST animated series. I can do the same as the above—provide a tape, or if it is easier, I could make a copy for myself and return your tapes as soon as I am finished.
  • Linda S has a horta metaphor:
    I suspect that the degeneration in Kirk is because of the degeneration of our culture, where 'greed, selfishness, and prejudice' are 'socially acceptable.' (Thanks for the excellent capsule description of our society's degeneration, Mary Lou.) This is the society in which Harve Bennett had to sell lots of tickets; the 60's Kirk, who roamed the galaxy spreading compassion and understanding and cooperation, would go over like a lead balloon. Let's just hope they don't do a remake of 'Devil in the Dark.' I can just imagine the new Kirk kicking the 'murderous' mother horta off a cliff.
  • Tony L. W comments on Trek being bigger than the actors:
    I say that Star Trek is bigger than the actors, bigger than the special effects, yes, bigger than the Big E. Star Trek is based on ideals and morals and tells us of a future; it might have the same kind of people, many of the same problems, but it also has hope. In this vein, let me say that I wish the best of luck to Harve Bennett and Leonard Nimoy—a fabulous Star Trek adventure can be produced, without Bill Shatner or without the Big E. Here's to Star Trek IV!
  • From Suzan Lovett in a letter that was printed in the December 1984 issue of Interstat -- the editor of that letterzine comments that this "letter is several months old and its delay in being published is completely my fault. My apologies to all those involved.":
    To whom it may concern: I'm aware that there are a lot of question about the availability date of Syn Ferguson's novel "Courts of Honor." As I have been identified with the venture in the capacity of illustrator for almost two years now, I thought it best to clarify my position in the matter. I was offered to illo the novel in the Summer of 1982. After some re-evaluations, the deadline was set for the Spring of 1983 by the writer. I would get the completed text by early Spring, devote a month to the illos, and be done, since my schedule does not permit me to do fan work in summers. By June of 1983, I had received one-third of the novel and had finished eleven illos. The rest was promised by September, and later the deadline was changed to the Christmas of 1983, by which time two-thirds of the novel was in my hands and the illo number had reached twenty-one. [personal stuff redacted] I notified Syn that the completed novel had to be in the mail by the end of March, so I could have April to work on it before I started to pack out in May. I received one-hundred-plus pages within that time limit, with, I was told, fifty to seventy more pages to come. The illos done to date by me number twenty-eight. My own deadline is past and I have not received the end of the text. It is my decision that the illos done so far will stay with the novel only if I an given the chance to finish what I began. I do not yet know if Syn has opted to keep me on as the illustrator. If she has, the earliest I will be available is September of 1984 which I realize is another considerable delay. If Syn returns my illos, I do not know what she will choose to do from then on and what, if anything, it will mean in terms of finalizing COH. The reason for this clarification is, obviously, not altruistic, but a desire not to have my withdrawal be seen as the only cause for further delays. I'd like to think I've established a reputation for reliability among various writers and editors in one fandom, and I'd like to keep it. The only portion of the responsibility I will accept is whatever delay is caused by my insistence that it will be all or nothing. For that, I apologize to the waiting readers, but I cannot explain further, except to say that the reasons are personal and should remain between those immediately involved. [5]
  • Cynthia M. M, a fan who attended one of Gene Roddenberry's talks (this one on an Air Force base in Germany) writes of a more innocent time:
    After his presentation, Roddenberry took questions from the audience. The questions reminded us of the naivete that most of us had when we first started. This was before (for us) K/S, alternate universes, and other such things. We were content to examine and discuss what was given. (This is not to detract from these later developments. We were simply more innocent then.) We hesitate to think of what these "virginal" Trekfans would make of some of the current 'zine stories. Perhaps we should reflect on how the way we view ST has changed since we first became involved with it. On an informative side, we asked Mr. Roddenberry how he felt the trend and the feel of the ST movies compared to that of the series. He responded that he thought the movies tended to emphasize "shoot-em up" storylines and special effects at the expense of the characters and thought-provoking messages. He also commented on the next Trek movie, voicing the hope (shared by some fans) that the storyline not delve into the dullness of a courtmartial. But in general, he seemed pleased with the way the current ST movies have been handled. He didn't like the destruction of the Enterprise, however (and neither did we).
  • Patricia R has done some homework and thinking:
    [Joan V] had mentioned about the varying skin tones of Vulcans in her I#85 letter, pg. 10; I have yet to see a Vulcan with a truly green skin tone. In "The Making of Star Trek" on pg. 229, it states that Spock's blood has traces of copper and nickel, giving his blood the green color. In the episode "Obsession," McCoy mentions about Spock's blood being copper-based. If that being the case, his skin would not be green, possibly yellowish or orangish. I had gotten a book from the library titled "Food and Nutrition." While reading the book, I came across an article titled "Green Medicine." It states that magnesium is the basic mineral of chlorophyll, as is iron of hemoglobin, giving plants their green color.

Issue 87

Interstat 87 was published in January 1985 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #87, Fanti Dovener
  • Leslie D. M addresses the topic of recording fanfic for others:
    I am not a lawyer but I have done a little reading concerning copyright laws due to a few of my other interests. As I understand the copyright laws, the reproduction of copyrighted material in any manner, including audio recordings, without the copyright owner's permission is piracy. Only common sense and one's own conscience can dictate between "friendly sharing" and piracy.
  • Barbara J writes about the subject of David Gerrold and his remarks in The World of Star Trek:
    I'm glad you mentioned how bitter and poisonous those letters were. Letters of that nature only prove that there is more than one poisonous and bitter person in the world. Something I can do without. I understand that David Gerrold is being harassed because of the opinions he expressed in TWOST. Harassing a person will not change their opinion. If anything, it will only enforce it. David Gerrold believes that K/S relationships are harmful to Star Trek. He obviously loves ST, a bond I trust we all share, and we have all profited from his love. I for one loved The Trouble With Tribbles, and his novel TGWP. I hope he continues to work on behalf of ST. If you believed something was harming that which you love, you'd speak up against it. I can't hold that against DG. However, I don't think DG has the right to dictate to others how they devote their love for ST. In my opinion K/S material denies the characterizations. Kirk has always been a ladies man. Spock is only sexually aroused once every seven years. If he were all love-sick and moony he wouldn't be Spock. If we love Kirk and Spock for who they are, why change them??? Besides, I thought ST was a voyage through outer space, or an exploration of the human soul, not a trip through the bedroom. Let's get back to the sixties ethics for Star Trek's sake!
  • Joan V writes about her appreciation for Trek, and about why it's good to find fault:
    I don't think it ungrateful to say that there are parts of the movies that I personally dislike. I'm glad that ST came back in animated, then in movie, form. I'm pleased that there's a fourth movie in progress. I will go see it hopefully. On the other hand, I don't think there's anything wrong with stating that the movies aren't perfect (not even ST II was, though I'd give it 92 points out of a possible 100), and making suggestions as to what I'd wish—and do not wish—to see in a movie, particularly since the current management seems willing to listen to fan feedback.
  • Ann C writes a letter of appreciation and addresses the current topic of William Shatner's salary demands for the fourth movie:
    It is most gratifying to learn that ST and ST fandom is in such good hands. I hope and pray that the dispute between Mr. Shatner and Paramount will be settled soon and to both parties satisfaction. And I am confident that fandom will continue to use a positive approach when dealing publicly with this latest obstacle. We have weathered many storms over the past 15 years, and we can do so now.

Issue 88

Interstat 88 was published in February 1985 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #88, M.S. Murdock
  • a cartoon by Don Harden, no other interior art
  • there is a filk by Thorn
  • this issue has a letter, dated January 28, 1985, from Harve Bennett which states:
    To all my INTERSTAT friends: 1. Shatner is set. 2. Nimoy is set. 3. The Great Bird returns. 4. We are beginning the final work on story. 5. We plan to use all the STAR TREK regulars. 6. I'll be there too. And that's the news that is. All previous rumors and hysteria are to be disregarded. And thanks to all our friends who had the patience to let events take their course. See you at STAR TREK IV, Harve Bennett.
  • Betsy L. B counsels fans to have patience:
    As far as "Courts of Honor" goes, last I heard at the BSTA's BASH in November, from One Who Knows, it is progressing as fast as the very talented author can and as the creative process allows. All monies are safe and are being held, records are being kept, and barraging Syn with nasty letters is not helping get the zine out. She's doing the best she can, and the zine promises to be worth the wait. COH is no hoax. It is somewhere on the way toward completion, a very long novel. Nobody is going to be cheated. It will be done and I, for one, am willing to wait. Believe me, the author is taking no trips to Bermuda on anybody's deposits or payments! She has kept at it despite several personal reversals (which all eds and authors seem to have been having this season). Nuff said.
  • Harriet S questions a recent questionnaire:
    Re: the questionnaire mailed to me on Bill Shatner's salary bid. In the cover letter to the questionnaire, it is explained that It will not be shared with Harve Bennett, William Shatner... nor any of the cast and crew. I have to question this 'selective availability' of fan opinion. It seems inordinately unfair to cast, crew and the fans, themselves. Such vital information can hardly be a "private matter" between any one person and fans. I've never doubted that any studio. Paramount included, is rife with pecking orders, politics and prerogatives. Instinct then, tells me to suspect this use of an "insider" would be resented, could only further antagonize and disrupt the negotiations with Shatner and further delay the production of ST IV. I wonder at the negative phrasing of not only the cover letter, but the questionnaire itself. I would suggest that if fans are to be polled, far more objectivity in preparing such a poll should be used. In this case, only one question needed to be asked: "Do you support William Shatner?" Opinions, stated as questions such as is Bill Shatner trading on his fan loyalty, and phrases such as Shatner being "dead wrong" are highly subjective and may even tilt opinion in one direction or another.
  • Harriet S comments about the recent topic of whether or not Shatner was going to be in the fourth Trek movie:
    There is already a division in fandom concerning Shatner. It is, at this time, a kindling thing that could blaze soon enough. And as to ST IV without Kirk? Sorry, but this Sarek fan would not bother to see such a film, because I feel that without all the characters you can't call it Trek. I felt this way during the Nimoy/Spock situation and have felt that way since 1967. Star Trek is the crew, to my way of thinking, and the crew is a Trek that has kept up with the (forgive me this) maturation of the fans. I'm not about to settle for a juvenile substitute nor am I willing to settle for a movie where any pivotal character is mentioned in memory and not visible in fact. You mention a new direction for Star Trek without Kirk. But Star Trek was done with Kirk and some of what you and I and thousands of fans learned from the episodes was learned through the Kirk character. How you count Shatner's value as an actor is a matter of personal tastes. But you've got to separate the value of Kirk as a key figure in the Trek epic, from your value of Shatner. And, by the by, Paramount is hardly poor for being inefficient. I think that at least some of the executives have begun to understand that Star Trek profits come from fans, not the general audience. If Paramount loses Shatner, they lose at least a sizable block of income from the Trek movies, and if they lose income then they would be inefficient to continue making Trek movies. Fans support the Trek movies. However, fans lose less if Paramount won't make the movies, because fans will simply revert back to the '70s, keeping Trek alive through conventions, clubs, 'zines, art and communication among ourselves. In essence, Trek can and will continue even without Paramount's participation, but not continue without the crew, all of it, including Kirk.
  • Jennifer F also comments on the recent fan survey:
    I would like to discuss a questionnaire currently being circulated, entitled "William Shatner/Paramount
 Salary Dispute." The questions concern fans' attitudes toward William Shatner and his ST4 salary negotiations. It asks that answers be sent via Ann Carver to Gene Roddenberry so he may have "confidential" fan input to present to Paramount as a "private matter" without "making waves." The form letter asks that all answers and any additional comments be signed: "name and address must be given. Anonymous letters mean nothing." First point: the letter requests a signature — and is itself unsigned. Second: it doesn't appear to have occurred to the anonymous writer that the work contract of William Shatner, or anyone else connected with Star Trek, is none of our business. Third: the writer of this letter is asking that Gene Roddenberry be funneled information that is "private" and not to be made known to WS, Leonard Nimoy, or HB, i.e., kept secret. Distorted? Possibly. Fourth: the questionnaire asks if fans would support ST without Kirk and/or Shatner, whether or not fans think Shatner is "trading his fans' loyalty for dollars," and if fans think he is 'dead wrong.' I do not recall that such a questionnaire was circulated during the brouhaha prior to ST II. I do not recall that Gene Roddenberry agitated for Trek without Spock. Why should I consider it more acceptable for anyone to agitate against William Shatner than against Leonard Nimoy? I do not. And I am insulted at the suggestion. Not to mention disappointed that Gene Roddenberry or anyone connected with him, would attempt to undermine any of the Trek actors in this way. I thought we were more honorable than that.
  • Michele A is very unhappy with the portrayal of Kirk in the movies:
    James T. Kirk has always been my hero. Not the perfect being, but a character with fire and smarts and luck and guts. A born leader. Maybe the red shirts in the series didn't know if they'd ever return home from a tour on the Enterprise, but they all knew they were in for one hell of an adventure. I wonder now if any but his closest friends would follow Kirk into space. After viewing the three Star Trek movies through the years, I cannot help but observe that throughout these films the character of Captain James Kirk has definitely and surprisingly eroded into something much less than glorious. In Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Kirk's character is pushy and arrogant, a man who would take another man's ship for personal reasons. He is a slipshod commander, making a decision then rescinding it in the next breath; a man who doesn't know the mechanical workings of his own ship; and a man who constantly has to look over his shoulder for advice. In other words, Kirk pushes his way onboard the Enterprise, then ends up playing second-fiddle and second guesser to just about everyone else of command rank. In The Wrath of Khan, we soon learn that Kirk is unhappy and disappointed, in the throes of a midlife crisis at whose core is—is that all?—age. He is a man whose major concerns are for lost youth. He mopes around, depressed over a birthday. Then while in command of the Enterprise, Admiral Kirk makes a near fatal tactical error upon first meeting the Reliant immediately after being warned by one of his junior officers. Later we see him powerless to help his friend who has single-handedly saved the entire ship. During the final scene with David, Kirk is lonely, sad, without confidence, a man who can't even read his antique book because his glasses (symbol of old age) are broken. In The Search for Spock, we are again treated to a Kirk who is a maverick, a risk taker, but one who is ultimately unable to save his ship as he has always been able to do before. In this film, after the death of his son, he is soon reduced to a murderous rage. "I am sick and tired of you!" replaces "We will not kill today." He is a man without the options of nobility, so that the killing of a Klingon exemplifies his personal power and the destruction of his ship reflects his powers of command. It is obvious that while many individual sequences still portray Kirk as the figurehead of the Star Trek group, cumulatively, I'm afraid, they depict James Kirk as overly concerned with middle age, hesitant, without personal stability, lonely and even pathetic. It is that cumulative impression of which I speak: James Kirk as loser.... I can't help but wonder if much within these three films—with their themes of old age, impotence and death—aren't merely the present concerns of middle-aged men who have lost sight of the ideals and joy of living that exemplify star Trek? Understand, I do not advocate that the character of Kirk should not mature or grow; but that he is no longer heroic bothers me very much, that his lack of heroism seems deliberately written into these films makes me fearful. More than anything, I want to see the return of Captain James Kirk: vibrant, brilliant and heroic, not hesitant and second-rate- I dearly hope that in ST IV, the spellbinding speechmaker, the decisive commander, the compelling lover and the galactic hero that was James T. Kirk will live again.
  • Bev C comments about some legal speculation:
    ...maybe the Enterprise was destroyed because Paramount had no legal protection (i.e., copyright or trademark) for its use. I did know that the first season of ST was never copyrighted, though I had heard that the second season was. (According to Craig Miller, former fan liaison of Lucasfilm and co-chair of several ST/film cons in the early 70's, as well as of last year's Worldcon, this is one reason Paramount has never tried hard to exert any control over ST fanzines — their legal ground is shaky because of that uncopyrighted first season.) The issue would be, I suppose, whether Paramount was later able to trademark or copyright things associated with ST. That is, was the Enterprise legally unprotected?

Issue 89

Interstat 89 was published in March 1985 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #89, Merle Decker
  • a cartoon by Don Harden, no other interior art
  • a fan responds to an earlier comment about how TPTB should hire fans as consultants: "Harve Bennett is fortunate in having dozens of fan advisors. He reads INTERSTAT."
  • Linda G writes: "Sometimes I wonder if INTERSTAT will ever run out of con troversy. I hope not!"
  • M. Garrett writes: "Thanks to Mr. Bennett's letter of January 28th, fans can stop their bickering."
  • Cathie R writes:
    I certainly hope that Harve Bennett is still reading this publication because I agree with [Michele A] in her letter in I#88. If not, would someone please call it to his attention.
  • Ann C has some comments about her survey, William Shatner/Paramount Salary Dispute, see that page
  • Leslie D. M has an apology:
    I would like to apologize to the readers of INTERSTAT. The portion of my letter which Teri kindly published was inexcusably vicious and offensive. My only defense is that I rarely write letters and I tend to forget that vocal inflections — mentally applied inflections, as well — disappear once the words have been put to paper. So my statements of opinion, points of disagreement and questions of inquiry ended up reading like whining, personal attacks and sarcasm. I hope that everyone was able to understand the opinions and ideas I was trying to express without taking offense at the poor manner in which I expressed them. But to anyone and everyone who may have been offended, please accept my apology.
  • Ann C is trying to get the bloopers on a VHS tape:
    I have a project going if you feel like taking pen in hand. WS was on Foul-ups, Bleeps, and Blunders last September with some of the ST bloopers. Since this is the first time they have ever been shown outside of cons, the actors' previous objections to them must have been withdrawn. I'm trying to get Paramount to make a deal with GR (who owns the bloopers from all three seasons) and put them on video cassette for sale to the fans. I think fans who don't even own a VCR would buy them just to own them. And it would be very profitable for Paramount and GR.
  • A.C. Crispin writes of her next pro book (one that, in the end, won't be published for over three years):
    TIME FOR YESTERDAY, the sequel to YESTERDAY'S SON. The proposal I submitted passed muster at Pocket, and is now under re view by Paramount. Karen Haas, the new Star Trek editor at Pocket, liked it very much. She is quite nice and seems very conscientious in her approach. For any fen who are typing away on the ultimate Trek novel, she says she would prefer three chapters and synopsis submissions for consideration, rather than entire ms. (As usual, Trek ms. keep pouring in from all sides, and response time will continue to beslow. I gather she spent the first two months in the job just digging out from under a staggering backload of submissions that had accumulated.) I'm very excited about TIME FOR YESTERDAY, and feel it will be a much better book than YS — after all, YS was the first story I ever attempted, and after five books, my writing has matured considerably. I offer fair warning, however, to those who disliked YS to please save their money. Seven years of writing may have smoothed my style, but my basic perceptions of the Star Trek characters, my sense of humor, and what I like to see in Star Trek stories — adventure, emotional involvement between the characters, and verisimilitude with the aired Trek universe — remain unchanged from YS to now. Briefly, readers who liked YS will probably enjoy TIME. Those who didn't, won't. I can't say much about the storyline itself except that it takes place for Zar some twenty years after his return to Sarpeidon. Less time has passed for the Enterprise characters. (Time is, like all things, relative!) This book will be considerably longer than YS, more somber in theme, and will feature a woman in one of the leading roles in addition to several new characters, plus a return appearance of an old favorite.
  • Debbie G writes of heroism and addresses Michele A:
    You summed it up very well when you said that Kirk is no longer a hero. If this was deliberate on the part of the writers, I think they were trying to make him more contemporary by reducing his pomposity and increasing his vulnerability, so that the audience might more readily identify with him. And they did, for he is now a twentieth-century man with twentieth-century problems. But he is not Kirk. His heroism was what made him popular in the first place; today's audiences need someone they can look up to, not someone they can point to and say, Hey, he's just like me. Because Star Trek was larger than life, it could be viewed as allegory. Now it can only be viewed as soap opera.
  • Helen M. V comments on David Gerrold's actions as some sort of Star Trek spokesperson:
    In reply to [Barbara J] issue #87: I don't know about David Gerrold being harassed for his remarks in TWOST,
 but I would like to point out that the gentleman is not all sweetness and light. Yes, I too enjoyed The Trouble With Tribbles though I thought The Galactic Whirlpool was poor - but what does that prove? I am uneasy at Mr. Gerrold's use of his privileged position as an apparent spokesman for Trek to express his personal opinions. In England last year I was in a position to experience his behaviour first hand (and second hand via the comments of several friends, but I don't want to quote heresay), as Mr. Gerrold was the guest at UFP Con, Birmingham, in May. He was either asked or volunteered to conduct the auction - some of the proceeds of which as you all probably know go to the Con charity. Now, I don't know how you envisage an auctioneer's job but I would not have thought that it was his prerogative to deride or insult both buyer and seller. Allowing for the fact that the seller puts a zine in hoping - or in the case of a rare zine, expecting - to get a good price. and also allowing for the fact that a proportion of the profits made goes to the Con charity, I would have thought that the auctioneer was honour bound to do everything in his power to encourage bidding. Not so. Picking up a copy of Thrust, Mr. Gerrold announced that 'this sort of thing' made him very angry. Good selling point. Derisive readings followed. Now perhaps K/Sers should have thicker skins and should be prepared to stand up for what they believe in, but I'm not sure what the young children in the front row made of the goings on, nor of the front cover which was brandished for all to see. At any event, Thrust went for well below its potential price. (I know because I was prepared to bid up to 20 [pounds] but gave up at 3 [pounds]. The zine finally went for 1!.) Even if you think that is no more than Thrust deserved, what of the later fates of Precessional and Sun and Shadow (neither noted for their pornographic content, I'm sure you'll agree)? Using the same technique as for Thrust, Mr. Gerrold implied that these, too, were K/S zines, thereby not only displaying his ignorance but also, presumably, his contempt for fanzines in general as he quite obviously had no idea of their content or quality. Well, he failed to sell Precessional; I can only imagine that any prospective buyers were too shy or embarrassed to bid. At any rate, it is significant that the zine sold for 10 [pounds] at a later, more sympathetic auction. As Barbara says in her balanced and thoughtful letter, no one has the right to dictate to others how they devote their love for ST. She is entitled to her opinion and I am entitled to mine, within fandom, neither is dogma, and our 'ambassadors' would do well to remember that.

Issue 90

Interstat 90 was published in April 1985 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #90, Mike Brown
  • there is no interior art
  • Joan V comments on some recent comments:
    I strongly disagree with the opinions, expressed in the last few issues of INTERSTAT, that the Kirk of the movies is
 a "loser," and that the Kirk characterization should go back to what it was in the series. I am not a Kirk or Shatner fan (nor am I a fan of any actor or character in particular), but I am convinced that Kirk's characterization has been greatly enhanced by the movies. In my opinion, reversing Kirk's character so that it would be the same as it was in the series would be a giant step backward, and I hope the idea is not even considered. In I#89, one fan said, "Today's audiences need someone they can look up to; not someone they can point to and say, Hey, he's just like me." In my opinion, that is only half right. I feel it is important for the audience to look up to someone of whom they can say, "Hey, this person is just like me." In other words, I think it very important for fictional and real-life heroes to have characteristics people can identify with because I feel that it is important to communicate this message: that if this person who is just like me can do heroic things, why, I can do heroic things, too. While I am aware that some people feel that any hero who makes a mistake is no longer heroic, I think this is an immature attitude, and should in no way be catered to.
  • Jan M. M writes of Kirk:
    I am one of those who watched the show from the first broadcast),I did not like Kirk. The first episode that I ever watched was Balance of Terror, and young liberal that I was, I became an instant Spock fan... My early years as a Trek fan were spent hoping that Shatner would get struck by a stray shuttle leaving Spock in permanent command. It was through fanzines that I began to appreciate the inter-connected depen dence of the big three, and it was through a few zines (most notably Sahaj and House of Mirrored Faces) that I began to like Kirk. Fanzines, and age, made me appreciate Kirk as part of a whole and as an interesting character in his own right. That set me up for seeing Shatner play the role again in the movies. One of the biggest surprises of the first and second movies was that I really liked Kirk! I don't feel that Kirk has become less heroic, only more human, fighting greater odds in a more complex universe - and occasionally himself. In fact, of all of the Trek regulars, I'd say that Kirk has shown the most realistic growth. It's true that he is grappling with questions that he has not yet answered, but in doing what he does in each of the movies, you can find a logical progression of growth. (Would the Kirk in ST:TMP have been able to do what Kirk managed in the third movie? I don't think so.)
  • Ginzie, who borrowed some issues of Interstat from a friend, writes:
    If the letters I read are an indication of "fans," then I must assume the word really is the shortened version of fanatic.... Of the writing and acting [in Star Trek], much has already been said, so I shall not expand on that too much except to say not many actors can keep an audience's attention for 20 years, especially now when the attention span is limited. But William Shatner has certainly done that, and one is continually observing subtleties, body language and gestures overlooked by the sheer power the man projects...he doesn't always make it, but he is never, ever boring! All the cast did an excellent job of creating interesting, believable and likable people for the beautifully designed Enterprise. Put all this together with an endless variety of film photography... (when was the last time you saw such an array of closeup shots)...and let master film editors do their thing and you have a unique work of art...the MONA LISA of television..-the mystery...the wonder...the beauty. And then I read your little publication and felt...almost dirty. It was as though someone had taken a knife to a well-executed painting. Why all this bickering, speculation and downright cruelty? One letter laughed at Mr. Shatner's acting... another attacked reminded me of GR's prophetic line from "Menagerie".. ."Do they FEEL with me too?" Are their lives so empty of creative endeavor that the only way to get gratification is to try and tear down the efforts of others?... I also sense from the letters a feeling of power. It was said that HB reads the publication...and it seems many are trying to inflict their own narrow views on him as a means of transferring their limited imaginations into a reality...and if he did in fact heed the plethora of suggestions, it would be a sad film indeed.
  • Eric A. S writes:
    I dropped out of fandom after resigning from STARFLEET in November of 1983. Until then I had served as founder and president of that organization. I do not regret the accomplishments that were attained during my administration, but I do regret having experienced the emotional barbarism of some Star Trek fans, some of whom are the most hateful humans I have ever encountered in my life. I know animals that make better company.
  • Eric A. S writes of Courts of Honor, and practices some "emotional barbarism" of his own by outing someone's legal name and address:
    To Anyone Who Has Ordered COURTS OF HONOR: Don't hold your breath. Susan Lovett (I#86) is correct in everything she says, even that the zine will be well worth the wait, especially if you're a K/S fan, but I personally do not believe the finished product will ever see the light of day. I have seen parts of the text, and the story is excellent. I'm not even a zine reader, and certainly not a K/S fan. I've also had the pleasure of seeing Susan's illos and they are absolutely beautiful. She should withdraw them and make them available to the fans via another source. They are too beautiful to withhold. As for the publication itself, well...Syn received at least 500 orders (and probably many more) at $15.00 each. That comes to a mere $7,500. For those of you concerned, please contact Syn directly. Judy Miller (who once took orders for COH) has had nothing to do with the project for nearly two years and has never made a dime's profit or even compensation from the project. Syn is solely responsible for the publication delays. So write her directly… [legal name and address redacted]. In closing, let me say something about unconditional love. To love something unconditionally means to love it with its faults. I LOVE STAR TREK. I wish we all did. It would make us all better people.
  • Melissa M writes of Courts of Honor, and other late zines:
    Thanks to [Mary Ann D] and [Betsy B] for reassurances about COURTS OF HONOR. I've never doubted that it would be finished eventually (as I have doubted some zine eds!), but Syn's had my money for almost 2 years, so while I do sympathize with all her problems, I doubt if I'll "find it in my heart" to pay more. At least she's not going to make the additional payment a requirement if you want the zine, as friends tell me Della Van Hise has done, with a similarly extremely late zine. One thing does worry me—I hear very occasional reports, such as these, that COURTS OF HONOR is on its way to completion, but I never hear anything about BEFORE THE GLORY, which I also ordered from Syn nearly 2 years ago, and which was then scheduled to be completed July 1983. I received a form letter in the summer of 1983, which said that BTG was being typed, and was half finished; that only illos and Syn's Tarsus IV story were lacking. I'm just as anxious to read that one as I am COURTS OF HONOR, so I hope it is being worked on, too. May I suggest to all zine eds who are late for whatever reason: why not put updates in DATAZINE and UT periodically—every 6 months would be reasonable, I think. Just a short note to let everyone know you're still working on it would be all that is necessary to calm most of us. We're not out to get you, we're just tired of waiting, and anxious to read your creation!
  • Debbie M addresses Betsy B:
    In your review of The Vulcan Academy Murders (I#88), which I loved, you stated "there was something for every group in fandom..." including K/Sers. Did we read the same book? Where (page # please) was there any evidence of a K/S relationship? I'm not cutting down K/Sers, I would just like to know where they are getting the proof to support their theory.
  • Harriet S comments on David Gerrold's recent actions at UFP Con at the zine auction:
    Helen Vivers: In defense of Laurie Huff's PRECESSIONAL,I found nothing even vaguely pornographic. Having listened to Laurie and known her for a while before she wrote that novel, I could hardly class her as someone who writes porn. Her novel was not only interesting and well done, she even forecast the destruction of Enterprise (her image in PRECESSIONAL was strikingly similar to the one in ST III), David Gerrold's status in Trek fandom comes with the responsibilities of understanding the Trek concept IDIC and doing his best to support it. Despite any personal opinion of K/S, he presumes too much on fandom to dictate what is or is not 'proper' Star Trek material and should remember that as a 'public' Trek participant, it is best to remain as unbiased as possible.


  1. The flyer's creator , [H S], is/was an open secret in fandom.
  2. also printed in Not Tonight, Spock! #5
  3. also printed in Not Tonight, Spock! #5
  4. This fan is incorrect regarding the title of the book - it is The World of Star Trek
  5. from Interstat #86