Interstat/Issues 101-110

Issues 001-010 · Issues 011-020 · Issues 021-030 · Issues 031-040 · Issues 041-050 · Issues 051-060 · Issues 061-070 · Issues 071-080 · Issues 081-090 · Issues 091-100 · Issues 101-110 · Issues 111-120 · Issues 121-130 · Issues 131-140 · Issues 141-152

Issue 101

Interstat 101 was published in March 1986 and contains 14 pages.

cover of issue #101, M.S. Murdock

• contains no interior art

• Sheryl H writes of zine quality, and some history,

  I must agree that some of the zines being produced these days are rather shabby
 when it comes to quality of production and readability; but, I must disagree that this is only a present day phenomenon. Although I was not fortunate enough to have been in on the very beginning of ST fandom and the early zines, I have been able to look at and read quite a few of the early zines through the providence of zine sales. I have found in both instances, present and past, that there are some very excellent zines (quality production wise) and some very poor zines. I think it all has to do with the area the editor/publisher lives in (and subsequently her access to quality printing methods) and the personal funds that he/she has to expend on the project (for I think we all know that the prices we pay for a zine rarely covers the total expenses). Sometimes I will find myself purchasing a zine, even though I know it has a poor track record concerning quality of production, simply because I know its content to be consistently good to excellent (although I deeply appreciate a zine that is visually impressive, it's the content that ranks highest with me — and to get both is a savored treat). When it comes to reduction in zines, I'm all for it — the more the better (it means you get more for less cost and less postage). Having said this, I realize that reduction is extremely hard for some fellow fans to read — and so understand their wish that extreme reduction not be used.

• Douglas V N has some hopes for the Trek movie future:

  Isn't it about time STAR TREK got a new cast?? As we saw in "The Menagerie, it is possible to do STAR TREK without William Shatner. It just isn't very realistic to me in having Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov still together after 15 years. "The Menagerie" showed how radically starship crews change in a decade. Captain Pike had his turn. Kirk has had his. We are ready to see someone new take the center seat. A captain who is 90% middle-aged just doesn't cut it. Also, I am quite tired of remakes (ST:TMP), and sequels (ST:TWOK) to old episodes as well as sequels to sequels (ST:TSFS). I would like to see STAR TREK head in a new direction. I would like to see STAR TREK go back to its beginnings and start over again. Let's do STAR TREK with an approach to new concepts!!! Let's have future movies being a complete adventure, telling the whole story and stop these sequels.

• Cathy B also has some suggestions for the next movie:

  All I ask for in ST XV is an ending. Please, Harve Bennett, I know you can do it! Oh, and if the 30-year old female is for the Admiral, how about a 30-year old male for Uhura? it seems fair to me. How about a woman for Bones or Sulu? Poor Sulu has never had a woman. I can see the title, STAR TREK IV: THE SEARCH FOR SEX.

• Morjana Lee C is happy with her Star Trek VCR tapes:

  An interesting aspect of the trailers, is that in some of them, they contain scenes that were apparently edited out of the episodes before being aired (i.e.: "Shore Leave"—it shows Don Juan grabbing for Yeoman Barrows in her "princess" outfit from behind the tree, and in "Galileo Seven," the dialogue between Kirk and Ferris, where Kirk announces, "Then, they are already dead," and in "This Side of Paradise," a brief clip of Spock and Leila walking into/alongside/across? a stream. Then, there are the scenes that are in the aired episode, but shown from a different camera angle in the trailers! (i.e.: "Operation Annihilate," when Spock leaves the test chamber, in the episode it's the camera looking into the test chamber, in the trailer, the camera is looking out from the room, so you can see the reaction on Kirk's and McCoy's faces. Also, I believe in "City on the Edge...," there is a different camera angle, or more of a close-up of Kirk, as Edith is hit by the truck. As far as I can tell, the colors and the sound are fantastic on the videos. But then I live in a fuzzy reception area, 30 I've been watching snowy, scratchy Star Trek episodes for fourteen years. Our local station edits out almost six minutes of air time from each episode to add more commercials, and it's been wonderful seeing the scenes I knew were there, but haven't seen in almost 20 years. A shock is seeing a scene you don't remember seeing from 20 years ago.

• Debbie G derides Trekkies:

  I especially agreed with Ann Crispin's assessment of why we don't have the emotional need for Trek that we used to. There will always be a place in my heart for Trek, but my life does not center around it. Change is essential in order to grow as a person. I, too, have seen those poor souls who seem to be caught in a Sixties time-warp (they are "Trekkies" in the true sense of the term).

• Regina M writes of Killing Time and fandom:

  In I#98, [Arden L] wrote that "the plot was hardly original; it contained every convention ever conjured up in fanzine writing," Having read a large number of zines the past six months, I can't disagree with you. However. when I read the novel back in June, I had never seen a fanzine, and felt the story was very fresh and original. In fact, it was — and still is — my favorite of the pro novels. I don't think Pocket Books would be publishing ST novels if they thought the only people who buy them are fanzine readers. There are a lot of "non-fandom" Trek fans out there who's only tie to the show "beyond the screen" are the pro novels. My point is, I think it was unfair to criticize the novel for being similar to a zine story. Granted, Arden was writing a letter that was being read only by other fanzine readers, but I think those who have been in fandom a long time forget there are a lot of people who love Star Trek, but know nothing of clubs, zines, conventions, etc. (Of course, some choose not to get involved. But there are others who are not active in fandom because they simply don't know how to get into it. I had a tough time learning how to obtain fanzines. The information simply isn't accessible to the general public.) The "personal" flavor of Killing Time, and the more open affection between Kirk and Spock, was new to me at the time I read it. I enjoyed it a great deal, and I'm sure many other non-zine readers have similar feelings. [Cheryl B] wrote of some of the changes in Killing Time in the second printing. I believe her letter gives the impression that mere sentences were cut here and there. That Is the case through most of the book, but chapter fourteen was slaughtered! There are over five hundred words deleted from this chapter, which I'm sure most will agree — whether or not they liked the book— that it was a critical chapter in the story. I can't help but imagine the scenario five or ten years from now: People who loved ST VI or VII, or who just discovered the series reruns, decide to collect the usual books and memorabilia. They get wind of the book that was "pulled off the shelves because it contained questionable material." Of course, these new fans will feel they must obtain a copy of this forbidden work. They finally do, and pay a collector's price for it. Then they sit down to read all the questionable parts, and are deeply disappointed to find that these parts really aren't "questionable" at all! I find this scenario humorous, sad, and inevitable. 4. Obviously, I'm not happy with the original version being pulled from
the shelves, but I'll take that up with Pocket Books. I offer the following advice for those who have not read the book, or only read the second printing: If you are a person who is warmed by the affection between Kirk and Spock, do yourself a favor and try to obtain the first printing. Otherwise, stick with the edited version. You won't be missing out on ouch, except the intensity of the confusion felt by both Kirk and Spock in chapter 14.

• Anne B writes of Kirk's character:

  On Jim Kirk's moral character (or lack thereof): having missed the start of the debate I can't be sure, but get the impression that some people are less angry with Kirk than with Paramount. In the TV series, they feel. Kirk was a knight in shining armor. He did noble battle with villains who were often just as noble, and in many cases - once the opposing parties had a chance to sit down and talk - turned out not to be villains at all. But in ST II and III, he appears to be more fallible, more cynical, even morally wrong at times - while the bad guys seem to have become totally evil. Kirk has been reduced from a hero doing chivalrous combat with people who resemble Milton's Satan to a mere mortal engaged in no-holds-barred wrestling with Snidely Whiplash types. Well, to be quite honest, when the series first aired I admired Kirk, but I was never really quite sure if I liked him all that much. Too often, I thought, he behaved like a cartoon super-hero, and a long-winded one at that. Therefore, although watching the shows again has taught me to appreciate the "younger" Kirk more, I find him more human, more real, and definitely more likable, as he is in the movies. Yes, he did mess things up, by underestimating Khan - but he also went all-out to bring Spock back. As for the villains - well, unfortunately, truly evil people do exist in the real world also. One of the weaknesses of the 1960's philosophy which helped to inspire ST was its inability to recognize that there are indeed persons (Pol Pot, for instance) who cannot be reached through "negotiation" - no matter how sincere the effort. And, whatever his motives, it can't be denied that Kirk did try to reason with both Khan and Kruge. Thus the debate seems to boil down to the question of whether the ST universe is the embodiment of an ideal, or a real place where people have high ideals but don't always live up to them. To me all the evidence points to the latter - and I prefer it that way.

• Ruth Berman writes of fandom:

  Regarding Ann C. Crispin's letter on "what happened to fandom — where are our Jackie Lichtenbergs and Jean Lorrahs," I don't think it's really an answer to say that they've moved on to other interests, because the question seems intended rather to ask, "Where are newer, similarly promising fans?" I think the answer is that they're here, but that it takes time to develop the promised skills — and time beyond that for readers to realize who's doing it. I think I'd disagree with her comment that it is a pity when fans don't eventually move out of fandom (or at least become much less active). It's certainly true that people ought to have more than one interest, and that developing new ones is likely to mean cutting back on old ones, but it doesn't need to mean dropping the old ones, and even becoming less active can still leave room for a good deal of activity. The over-thirty fans she meets who seem to her too Involved with ST and lacking in other creative outlets may indeed be as they seem — but it could also be that they have a good many outlets she just doesn't happen to know about (after all, she's meeting them in the context of ST fandom, and the context limits what sides of their personalities are going to be shown). Actually, I think for most fans it's more common to find that activity in a fandom helps develop creative outlets than that It serves as an excuse for limiting them.

Issue 102

Interstat 102 was published in April 1986 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #102, Merle Decker

• contains no interior art
• there are several responses to the Open Letter by Helena Seabright Regarding "Alien Brothers", see that page
• Vel Jaeger, "the California artist" referenced in Helana Seabright's open letter included one of her own in this issue, see Open Letter by Vel Jaeger Regarding "Alien Brothers"
• Della Van Hise wrote an open letter regarding her pro novel, see Open Letter by Della Van Hise Regarding "Killing Time"
• Dixie Owens writes of a visit to the set of Star Trek IV on April 21. The participants in this visit were Teri Meyer, Dixie Owen, Alice Greene, Helen Molloy (the William Shatner fan club president at the time), and Joan Verba
• Midge C writes of being a neofan:

  To Ann C. Crispin and the rest of the debaters: "Where are our Jackies and Jeans?" I admit it, I am a struggling new writer, one among countless others. To us, "Jackiedom" and "Jeandom" are the high and exalted status we are trying to attain. Ideally, if we have or can acquire the talent and the motivation, we should be able to reach that status on our own merit. But let's face it. Star Trek is now BIG BUSINESS, and the competition among ST writers is tough and severe -- and in some cases, vicious. Point of personal experience: When my co-author and I had finished our (at that time) latest work, I hopefully sent it off to one of the more famous established Star Trek writers (not Ann, God forbid!). In our bumbling innocence, influenced as we both are by the love which ST means to us, I asked this famous writer for advice. Apparently, there is some kind of Neutral Zone between those who have "made it" and those who haven't, for I was fired upon! Our story was ignored, returned unread. Instead, I was told that my letter-writing style was unpleasantly reminiscent of the style of another famous writer, that my co-author and I were crass newbies, and that when we had accomplished as much as that other author, we would be entitled to be obnoxious in our own style and to leave his alone, and "beat it kid, you bother me." I guess I shouldn't have called her by first name. Apparently, this warfare is not confined to Star Trek fandom and fiction, but is a failing of science fiction as a whole. I invite all readers of INTERSTAT to read Isaac Asimov's editorial on the same topic, from his February '86 issue of IASFM, I quote in part: "...Can we remember that we're all in this together? That those in front pave the way for those behind?...

• Larry N smells some hypocrisy:

  What's this? What's this? We may finally get a tape of THE CAGE? Heavens! But I was disappointed to see GR talking about it not all being available in color anymore, like an old Dr. Who serial...you mean the one he's been showing "privately" at the cons he's attended all this time haven't been all in color—or even all in B&W?

• Ann Carver takes on Helena Seabright:

  I must voice my personal objections to her treatment of Vivian Gates in her letter. Evidently Ms. Seabright is unaware that the submission and acceptance of a story, poem, or piece of art for inclusion in a zine does not transfer title to that work to the editor of said zine! Until the very minute the zine is placed in the hands of the printer, title to the piece remains in the hands of the contributor, and its title reverts to the contributor after the zine is in print. Only if a piece of work is commissioned (paid for either in cash or trade), usually done for art, is the title to said piece transferred to the editor. Since Ms. Gates withdrew her story last October, long before the zine was to be printed, Ms. Seabright has no right to use it. The artists and writers who contribute to our zines, do so for love of ST since a contrib copy of a zine is very little recompense for all the effort put into the story, poem, or piece of art. Artists are luckier than the writers since they have the opportunity to later sell their work. But writers are doing us a big favor by contributing. As both a writer and editor, I can speak from both sides of the fence. Long hours are spent laboring over a piece of fiction or art, sometimes months, with only gratitude as return. Without the generosity of the writers and artists, we editors would end up writing the whole thing ourselves, a thought which brings shudders even to contemplate! Ms. Gates had the right to withdraw her story and Ms. Seabright has no bitch coming. Now, as to Ms. Seabright's divulgence of Ms. Gates' true name, Ms. Seabright has broken one of the cardinal rules of zine editing and publishing. Fan writers use pen names for a variety of reasons, both personal and professional. Nor is the use of a pen name limited to those who write K/S. Many gen writers do so also. Because editors must deal with the person with regard to editing, corrections, and various letters and phone conversations, means that we must know the person's true name. We are trusted, therefore obligated by that trust, to keep the name a secret unless given permission to reveal it. The unauthorized revelation of a pen name is one of the lowest things an editor can do, regardless of her/his personal dealings with the writer. By the revelation in this letterzine of Ms. Gates' true name, Ms. Seabright has proven herself to be completely untrustworthy. A pen name is never revealed, no matter what the reason!

• Lynda C:

  ...you [Helena Seabright] committed a grave breach of etiquette by linking the pseudonym of a Trek writer with her "real” name. That, far more than any question of who you are or what your intent is or was, tells me and should tell others that they enter into an association with you at their own risk. As long as there have been writers, there have been pseudonyms. And there are as many reasons for creating a pseudonym as there are writers who use one. The reason is not important. Respecting the writer's right to confidentiality is. Unless an individual is penning libelous statements, or attempting to obtain money, goods, services, or information fraudulently, no one but the pseudonym's holder has the right to release information about his or her "real" identity.

• Barbara G S explains her Interstat hiatus:

  It's been a long time since I've written to INTERSTAT, but I got caught up in dating someone and ended up marrying him. This is all very fine and wonderful, however, my beloved doesn't understand Star Trek, which is going to take even more time to get straightened out. How could someone enjoy Dr. Who, but not Trek? Thank goodness for IDIC. I enclose my renewal!

• Joan Verba wrote:

  My favorite live-action episode is "Journey to Babel," though I would rate "City on the Edge of Forever" as the best. The worst all-time episode, in my opinion, is "Spock's Brain," which I think is so far-and-away the worst that no other episode, no matter how bad, even comes close. When I first saw it on September 20, 1968, I wrote a letter to the Star Trek offices complaining about it (I mean, I wrote and asked for another season for THIS?). It is an interesting coincidence that in answer, I got a letter signed by Gene Roddenberry and typed by fellow Minnesotan Ruth Berman, who worked in the Star Trek offices at the time. (I met Ruth for the first time after Star Trek was cancelled, and discovered the initials on the letter were hers some years after that.)

• Linda S writes of appreciation for the TPTB:

  On the eve of ST's 20th anniversary, I think it might be nice if we ziners all wrote Gene Roddenberry and thanked him for his tolerance through the years. He has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't care what nutty thing I do with his creation. Star Trek, and I think it's damn nice of him. As any Star Wars fan could tell you, the pros are under no legal or moral obligation to give us carte blanche. It's their material, and they don't have to give us any leeway at all. Those of you who have boned up on the intricacies of copyright law, please don't bother explaining 'fair use' and all that to me. I am not interested in who would have the better case in Paramount Studios vs. Mary Sue Zine-ed. My interest is in showing proper appreciation for the virtual certainty that such a case would never be filed in Roddenberry's lifetime. (A related point is that, with rare exceptions, the winner in an American legal battle is the side with the most time and money to pursue the case, so even if the zine editor did have the better case, she would probably lose to G + W.) My thank-you letter is going into the mail today. How about yours? Those of you playing with Harve Bennett's characters might want to drop him a note too; I can testify from personal experience that he is as accommodating as Roddenberry.

• Mark B writes of ownership:

  Looking over the back issues from the last year or so, I've found all of the letters informative and/or entertaining. One thing does bother me, though: many fans have an apparent urge to start a letter campaign to Paramount whenever they don't like the latest story rumor, or hear that their favorite actor/actress from the series has not been signed for the next film. I think that what Eddie Egan said about some fans in The Making of Star Trek II is sadly true: ""…the odd thing is that they think they own Star Trek. They think that since they saved the series from being cancelled, it then became theirs; that they can dictate whatever they want."" I find this kind of fan thinking to be selfish and unrealistic. Star Trek is once again at full sail, with intelligent, creative people at the helm who are eager to stay true to Gene Roddenberry's original vision. Asking for anything more is only nit-picking.

• Carol A. P addresses statements made by A.C. Crispin:

  I would like to address Ms. Crispin's public remarks in issue #100 of INTERSTAT. Since Ms. Crispin took it upon herself to publicly speak for all mortals over 30, who enjoy writing Trek, I feel it important to address her publicly. I find her condescending subjective remarks highly presumptuous, pretentious, and insulting. Trek did not attract me for negative personal reasons. It attracted me because it is worthwhile, uplifting and inspiring. Her comments not only insult Trek fans, they insult Trek, The implication was that only an arrested person would be involved in it, and to the exclusion of anything else. Why should a well-adjusted life, and writing in the Trek universe, be mutually exclusive? I also take issue with her comments implying that there are no "good" Trek writers around, and, in particular, take issue with what she states to be the reason. We can see for ourselves that there are good writers in the Trek universe, but remarks such as hers do not encourage them to try harder. Ms. Crispin implied that "they" (the good writers of yesterday) have matured and moved on to better things; more adult things. This implies that there was only one small elite group of good writers in fandom, and since "they" have now moved on the rest of us are left with nothing. Also, to make veiled negative statements about another professional, under the pretense of "...professional and ethical" reasons, is not honorable. Last, it would be less presumptuous and pretentious to allow the author of the book in question to tell any "truth" there is to tell about its publication process.

Issue 103

Interstat 103 was issued in May 1986 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #103, Mike Brown

• there are a number of comments regarding Open Letter by Della Van Hise Regarding "Killing Time", see that page
• there are some comments about the pro novel Killing Time, see that page
• contains one full-page cartoon by Don Harden
• there is a letter from Bibi Besch that says she regrets not being in Star Trek III and IV, and that she wished the character of Carol Marcus would return

• A.C. Crispin writes about her comments regarding Killing Time:

  I never made any "veiled negative comments" about the quality of KILLING TIME. I made no comment, for precisely the reason stated. Whether it's in front of con audiences, or in INTERSTAT, I don't comment on the other pro Trek novels. (I believe I may have said I enjoyed THE VULCAN ACADEMY MURDERS, because Jean is a personal friend and "enjoy" is a pretty inoffensive term.) I don't comment not because I don't necessarily like them, but because I don't think it's right to do so in a public forum. I generally keep my opinions, both positive and negative, to myself, unless I'm speaking directly to the writer involved. I want to publicly apologize to Della Van Hise. I didn't realize you were an INTERSTAT reader, or I would have kept silent. The version of the KT story I recounted was told to me by Karen Haas, and, as you say, was apparently correct as to the bare facts. But you are right, of course — I shouldn't have theorized as to your motives, thoughts, or actions. The only reason I said anything was to make the point that your book had not been subject to censoring by Paramount after it had already been published. What happened was obviously just one of those things, and I reiterate my sincerest apologies and wish you the best of luck with further books, in or out of the Trek universe. I hope we meet someday, so I can beg your forgiveness in person.

• A. Losin writes of Australian fandom:

  Australian fandom has really and truly fractionated since the advent of the "Star Wars" movies. Once, books were one's introduction to science fiction. My Grandmother gave me G.R. Burroughs' "The Warlord of Mars" when I was six-years old and I've never been the same since. I now have too many books, not enough book shelves and a growing collection of videos... Aussie fans are pretty much either into how things are done, or the characters and their shows. Or they state loudly and in print that they're not media fans (and yet know too much about the shows not to have watched them) , and abuse other fans who openly admit to watching and, gasp, horror, to liking certain shows. Sad, I think. There's enough strife in the world without fandom creating more. I try to stay out of fan feuds. However, even this stance backfires: fans come and cry on my shoulder; so I must be tactfully sympathetic or I'll lose their friendship. Gaaaaa!

• Mary F. G writes of Killing Time:

  I have seen and read a lot of comments about KILLING TIME and I want to say at the start, I liked it. It was interesting. Ms. Van Hise is a talented writer and I look forward to future offerings. I really wonder why everyone seems to jump on the "Get Della" band wagon. What is their motive? I really believe that the attitude of those critics are reading much more into her book than is there. I speak of the first printing that was pulled off, re-edited and reprinted. With no background other than the movies and the series to go on, I can imagine what people are thinking. They wonder what all the shouting is about. Those of us who have read Ms. Van Hise's non-pro novels and stories should not read into the book more than is there. I can't find anything offensive about it. If one reads more than is there into the novels, why hasn't someone made a comment on the two heroines in DWELLERS IN THE CRUCIBLE. They are much like Kirk and Spock, they are of different origins, but their friendship is just as intense as our heroes. It could also be interpreted in the same way as Kirk's and Spock's seems to be. Is the reason, perhaps, that Ms. Bonanno hasn't ever wrote one of THOSE novels before her book was published? I think this homophobia is nonsense. Where will it lead? Or has it already led to censorship? Will we live to see the day that our heroes can no longer speak of their friendship, or even touch? Will the words love and friendship no longer be part of future projects of Star Trek? These concepts and feelings were there in all the movies and the series. Why has all of a sudden this beautiful friendship become something dirty? This love and friendship has expressed itself in many ways. Wasn't that what Star Trek: The Search for Spock was all about? What Kirk and the others would do, what they would give up for their friend? In the series, didn't Kirk take a chance of wrecking his own career to save Spock's life? Did not Spock even endanger the Enterprise to save Kirk's life? Is that not love and a spirit of self-sacrifice that led to Spock giving up his life for his friends, including Kirk? What has happened to change all of that? All I ask is that we not let our imaginations run away with us and read something into books and novels that isn't there. Let our heroes acknowledge their friendship, yes, their love for each other. I think the world needs more love and friendship. The spirit of self-sacrifice is sadly lacking today. Will Love and friendship go the same way? I say it will if every time our heroes touch each other or speak of friendship the audiences go into mass hysteria. This is not a pro or con K/S letter; it is a pro Love and Friendship letter. If anything changes this basic concept of Star Trek, then we will all be the losers.

• Joan V responds to another fan's comment regarding Eddie Egan's remarks in "The Making of Star Trek #2":

  I truly cannot see the harm in fans reacting to the latest news or rumor about Star Trek. Although I admit
 that it seems at times that fans get carried away over minor issues, and though I realize that we don't "own" Star Trek, on the other hand, we do have a genuine stake in it in that ST wouldn't be profitable for Paramount if we didn't spend the money for their products. If I were in charge of sales of a multi-million dollar project, I sure as heck would want to know what my potential buyers were thinking. It costs the staff nothing but a few minutes of their time to look over fan opinion, and they are under no obligation to do as the fans say, and the fans might have an idea worth using (ideas cannot be copyrighted and can be used by anyone). In fact, some fan ideas have been incorporated into Star Trek. The appearance of the sehlat in "Yesteryear" came from a fan article. And Star Trek III—my strongest first impression of ST III was that someone in charge had read INTERSTAT. One of my published suggestions—to my surprise—was in there, as was one of Ruth Berman's, and I had the impression about half a dozen others' ideas had been used as well. In Star Trek IV, I understand there will be "lots of aliens," obviously in response to all those fans who clamored for more, and there is another character in ST IV who represents a concept fans have been requesting for years. So why shouldn't fans make suggestions and react to proposals? If I chime in with the others that I hope Saavik isn't pregnant, maybe my suggestion will be heeded, and maybe it won't, but there's no harm in asking, is there?

• A.C. Crispin has a follow-up to an earlier letter she wrote:

  My goodness, what a nest of bees I seem to have raised! perhaps this had better be my last letter to INTERSTAT. I have no desire to get myself in trouble with people that I like, enjoy meeting, and regard as a stellar source of information about what's happening in the Trekfen cosmos. And I don't care to get involved with any of the personal feuds aired in public pages, so I'll just address a few comments in rebuttal, then crawl away into the outer darkness, okay? Firstly, a word of explanation to [Carol P]. I did not intend to be condescending, presumptuous, pretentious, or any of the other things she called me. I never implied there are no "good" Trek writers around (where was I supposed to have said that?). I know many good Trek writers, both fan and pro. I read some of the pro novels, when I have time. I read some fanzines, when I have time. I like some of what I read, but not all. What's so unusual about that? Obviously there are many good Trek authors out there. If I didn't think it was possible to write good Star Trek stories I wouldn't spend so much time trying to do it myself. However, I do believe that Sturgeon's Law applies just as much to ST writing as it does to any other kind of writing. Obviously, Carol, you've been lucky enough to never have met the kind of fans I was referring to in my letter. These people are the ones with the glassy eyes, who buttonhole writers, editors (both pro and fanzine), plus anyone else who will listen and talk about their ideas for (mostly unwritten or unpublished) Star Trek, Star Wars, etc., stories. They live, breathe, eat and sleep their fantasy worlds. Many, sadly, are handicapped in some way. Most are defensive to the point of rudeness about their fan talent, whether it is writing, art, singing, you have it. The ones who are writers will thrust stories at pro authors, with a demand (I am not kidding!) that the pro read their work. If I sound jaundiced about my experiences with this kind of fan, so be it. I've learned a couple of polite techniques to keep from being backed into corners by these people, and I use them whenever possible- Otherwise, these people wind up inviting themselves to dinner with me, ask for my home address {so they can come visit on their vacation!), and give me their ms. to read. (And if I say anything but ecstatic, laudatory things about it. The Great Bird help me!) As you can tell, I've been burned more than once by these people. On the other hand, INTERSTAT readers who have met me at conventions will testify that I am generally pleasant to speak with, polite, shake hands, smile and so forth. I really enjoy 90% of the fans I meet. It's just that fringe element that makes me cautious. And it's the same story for every other writer I've talked to.

Issue 104

Interstat 104 was published in June 1986 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #104, Fanti Dovener

• contains no interior art
• Dixie Owen writes that Paramount was working with networks about "new episodes"
• there is a long letter from Ruth Berman that discusses various plot topics in the movies, and in the series
• there is a long, long account by Morjana Lee C of Mark Lenard's appearance at the Official Starlog Festival, held in conjunction with Creation Con in San Francisco
• Joan M was disappointed by a failure to show accurate science:

  ... for the record, it has been stated what
 Genesis did and why it failed. In STAR TREK III, the line "instead of a dead moon, a living, breathing planet now exists" states clearly that the Genesis torpedo did not create a planet from gas, but transformed the planetoid the Regula I science station orbited when the shock wave from the blast hit it. It is equally clear that the experiment failed from the use of "protomatter" which is apparently made up of atoms with an extra subatomic particle, more or less, which could foul up any system. I point this out because STAR TREK III was ruined for me by the presence of too many glaring scientific blunders for me to overlook. In the accumulation of meaningless fluff in ST III, I beg to be allowed to cling to those few bits which actually made some sense—such as the two small considerations mentioned above.

• Sylvia K reports she has heard news that the new Trek movie involves whales and time travel:

  It is a message film. Nimoy also says that Spock, while still not himself after the resurrection, will 'evolve into a three-dimensional character this time.' That sounds as if Nimoy doesn't think Spock has ever been three-dimensional before, including in the TV series. But there is hope: 'According to Nimoy, Roddenberry said: "It looks so good it scares me."' Well, it looks so bad it scares me.

• Ann C addresses an earlier letter by A.C. Crispin:

  I agree with you about the rudeness of some fans at cons. I have worked cons for years locally and have been to some of the larger ones. The fans you speak of, those who are 'handicapped' (I wish there was a better word) do tend to be overenthusiastic. Although Ann didn't mention it, most of them I've had dealings with seem to be mentally handicapped. While I feel sad that Star Trek is their only outlet, I am pleased that they find something to relate to in a world that is all too cruel and unforgiving of those who are not what society considers normal. Their enthusiasm for ST and all things connected with it can be refreshing to see. We tend to become jaded as we mature in fandom. I do get aggravated at times, as I'm sure we all do. Especially when the media always seem to seek them out as 'typical' ST fans. But I always stop and remind myself that there but for the grace of God go I. When I think of all the weird things in this world that those folks could pick to fantasize about, and dream of, I think they are very lucky to have ST. So I grit my teeth, smile sweetly, and listen. It does me no harm, and I hope does them some good. Even for those of us who have a life outside ST (I know I have a life outside Trek, it's there somewhere, hidden under the zines, and correspondence. and video tapes!) a good gab session of Trek talk is refreshing and enjoyable. How much more so must it be to one who has little else. And when they're rude or pushy, I remember that they're essentially children, no matter what the chronological age, and act accordingly. God love them for their unabashed love of Trek, and for their undying enthusiasm. I realize a pro writer must be hassled more than us common folk, and it has to be a real pain to have to try to extricate oneself from some, and I sympathize with the problem. It is difficult to do without hurting feelings. All I can say is that I hope Ann doesn't desert all of us because of this problem. And, please do continue to write to INTERSTAT. Your letters are always enjoyable and thought-provoking. I hope the sequel to YESTERDAY'S SON will be out soon. It's one of the few pro Trek books I have enjoyed.

• Joan V has started a scrapbook:

  In 1979, I bought a very large scrapbook in which to place my news clippings (reviews and such) relating to ST:TMP. Those filled about 20% of the scrapbook by mid-1980. At that time, I thought it possible that the rest of the scrapbook would remain forever blank (though I hoped not). I can now report that thanks to ST II, III, and IV, I am almost out of pages and will soon have to buy a new scrapbook. (I'm delighted to find lots and lots of advance information on ST IV, by the way.) I intend to buy a large one. I expect that it, too, will be filled eventually.

• Ann C is unhappy about the way the media portrays fans, and she has some issues with Spock's ears:

  Even ET [Entertainment Tonight] has done it to us this time. Sigh. They showed the Costume Call at Creation Con in Anaheim this June as though that was the way all ST fans go around dressed all the time. And that awful wedding! Gad! What makes it even worse for me is that those were Houston folk who tied the knot in ST getup. Whenever I am asked from now on what the difference is between Trekkies and Trekkers, I'll have a perfect answer. Ah well, back to square one... please put the long ears back on Spock. These short ears that he wore in ST III made him look like a Vulcan female. They were no different than those worn by Saavik or even the Vulcan child on Genesis, except that they were worn by an adult and had to fit an adult ear. Arc you trying to make our Vulcan a transsexual? Will you change his name to T'Spock? Shame. A Vulcan male should have ears that look masculine. He should not look dainty! Spock had the proper ears in ST:TMP and in ST II- What happened? Is there a shortage of (pardon the pun) appliance rubber in Hollywood? Or did the ear tips get sacrificed to buy a new switch on the Bird of Prey?… Holy Moly! [DWELLERS IN THE CRUCIBLE] makes KILLING TIME seem tame in comparison. Just because a writer has written one of THOSE novels doesn't mean he/she can't write straight Trek. I found KILLING TIME to be a good novel and I enjoyed it. Wish I could say the same about them all.

Issue 105

Interstat 105 was published in July 1986 and contains 14 pages.

cover of issue #105, Nan Lewis

• contains no interior art

• Jane L writes of easy access to Trek:

  Can you stand one more letter on the subject of complacency? It is my own experience that complacency is the direct result of easy availability. I have been a ST fan for nearly 20 years and remember clearly how difficult it was for me to see or read any ST during a long period in the early 1970's. I was anything but complacent then. After the local station started re-showing the episodes, the movies were released, the bookstores openly displayed the pro fiction, and I had several friends who were at least interested in ST, I became very complacent. It was very comfortable knowing that ST in many forms was available. The only major break in that comfortable feeling was in the months before ST:TW0K was released

• Ruth A. B writes of a new Trek series:

  I usually write to INTERSTAT only if I'm excited about something or mad about something; this time, I'm...disturbed. It has to do with the 'news1 of a new Star Trek series. Anyone feel like they're in a time warp? A totally new Star Trek series about some other Starfleet ship, some other crew, would be okay. Itfd be okay. I just wouldn't be interested in it. To me, the magic of Trek is in the interaction of the characters we know, as portrayed by the actors we know. Therefore, I also have major problems with the roles being recast. (Maybe when I'm a little old lady, I'll be ready.)

• Linda S is hopeful for the future:

  Like you, I would like to see more women in higher ranks in Starfleet. Today women are jockeying jets for the Navy, commanding Coast Guard cutters (and would continue to serve aboard ship in wartime combat situations, if any ever arose), and assuming other military roles of increasing responsibility and authority. So, surely in the next 300 years, advances will be made which will place a woman on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and, eventually, Starfleet Command. There's no reason there cannot be a female starship captain—one reason why "Turnabout Intruder," for all its stellar performances by William Shatner and Sandra Smith, is a nominee for my 'turkey list,' for its sexist exclusion of women from command.

• the editor, Teri Meyer, writes:

  TO OUR BEAUTIFUL READERSHIP: Our thanks, again, for your continuing support and congratulations. You have made us feel special in that publishing 100 issues was something worthy of your time and high praise. It is we, the staff of INTERSTAT, who owe a great debt to you. Over the years, when INTERSTAT's credibility and its editor's integrity have been attacked, you have given to us, without pause, your unqualified love and support. You have done so by honoring these pages with thoughtful and intelligent participation, as well as expressing your faith in this vehicle as an honest and fair forum. My staff and I thank you and appreciate you and love you too. We are a publication blessed. — Teri

Issue 106

Interstat 106 was published in August 1986 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #106, Fran Dovener

• Terry R asks for help and support in putting together a program book for some Trekruises
• contains no interior art
• there is much discussion, as there has been in other issues, about the possibility of Saavik's pregnancy
• Jan M. M has this opinion about the recent pro books:

  Let s see - a few words about the last couple of ST books. past year or so, the books are that is. There are still some bought the books knowing that I'd Now I expect, and usually get, Has anyone noticed that in the getting better? On the whole, dogs, but it used to be that I hate them - but hoping that they might be decent, a decent read.

• Dana A writes of the role of Star Trek in her life:

  The point I see being overlooked is this: it's the PEOPLE that are important, not the sets. Not the costumes or the story line that had to be altered so the money men would cough up the bucks to get it on the screen. It's the struggle of the oh-so-human (or, so-Vulcan) fragile, fallible, imperfect beings trying to carry out a task that's pretty damn formidable; keeping the galaxy spinning smoothly and in one piece, and still having to deal with their own mortality, morality, values, fears, dreams, et al., ad infinitum. That's what we care about, what we have to protect and preserve—to develop, and carry to its ultimate (whatever that is) potential. That potential is unlimited, and infinite in its diversity. I am an extremely well-adjusted adult being with an almost irreverent attitude toward all things socially acceptable. I am involved in Trekdom and fanzines, not because I cannot find a me-shaped niche in reality, but because at times, I don't particularly want to. Let's face it, folks; the 'powers that be' for the most part, are actively engaged in trying to trash the planet, with little or no regard for what you or I think about it. Trek provides a place where the considerations of economics , detente and power-struggles, although present, take a backseat to the intricacies of people struggling to understand and appreciate one another. And THAT'S what will keep the galaxy in one piece, kids. Look up, raise your eyes and focus on the enduring aspects of our own Trek (our very own) universe. We can make it what we want it to be, everything it should be. Interpretation is just that—and everyone has a right to their own, on whatever level they feel comfortable with. Disagreement with it is expected, but condemnation is dishonorable in that no mortal being can sit in judgment over the thoughts and feelings of another with impunity. It fairly reeks of hypocrisy. The road to the top always starts from the bottom. Ideas have to evolve and expand, just like life. The creative and talented writers and editors of Trekdom do themselves (and Trek, itself) an injustice by disregarding its tenet of IDIC, and diving into the sea of triviality to rend each other into little pieces. Don't continue to waste your creative energy to tear apart what you—what we—have built.

• Lynda C writes of zines and Fan Qs:

  As many of you may know, the "winner" in best ST fanzine and best ST poet categories was "no award." As Joan Verba explained in TREKLINK 5, "no award won not because fans failed to vote, but because a large number of fans selected 'no award' on their ballot. As I understand it, 'no award' means 'I do not think any of the nominees are worthy enough to win; I would rather see no one win this award than any nominee1." And, according to an article written for TREKLINK by Media*West's Kim Dyer, "if the guidelines (recently adopted) for keeping a category were in force last year, there would have been no Star Trek categories." I will admit that I don't read many fanzines any more. Lack of time, increasingly expensive zines, and a personal perception of decline in quality are some of the reasons. (Before you leap for your typewriter, let me point At any rate...even when I was reading zines quite extensively, I seldom thought of the Fan Q awards during the course of the year. By the time nominations opened up on January 1, it would have been a major undertaking to sit down and list the outstanding material I could recall, dig up the zine to confirm it had been published in the prior year, and so forth. In a decade of active ST fan participation, I think I've made two nominations. I was three or four years into fandom before I ever heard about the award… Why doesn't each zine editor include in each zine sold — either bound into the zine in such a way that it can be removed without damaging the other pages, or included in the envelope when zines are mailed ~ a single sheet explaining the Fan Q and including a model nomination form? Why don't dealers who have zine tables at cons provide a supply of such sheets? Yes, the zine reader would still have to sit down in January and decide what publication(s) were outstanding. But wouldn't s/he be likely, immediately after reading a really well-crafted piece, to go ahead and fill out a nomination form if one was handy? I would. How about it, editors and dealers? You already spend a certain amount of time and money in promoting your products. What's another five bucks (or whatever) per zine run to help promote the zine through the Fan Q?

• Linda G was pleased with a letter in a previous issue:

  In response to your plea for letters, I thought I'd throw one in since I haven't for some time. First, I'd like to say "Thanks" to Ann Crispin for her letter a while back. I've been to my share of cons, belonged to and helped start ST clubs, written stories and edited fanzines, and faithfully go to the movies, watch reruns, and look out for any ST news in the papers. Yet...I'm married (to a total non-ST person), have a 3 1/2-year old daughter, have my own executive recruiting business (in banking, of all mundane things!), and do part-time catering when time allows. It didn't "use to be that way." When I was in college and getting depressed over men or school or whatever, ST was my lifeline. I lived and breathed it, and it helped me, and I didn't want to be involved in much else. I still love ST, and I always will. I'm writing a post-ST III novel I hope to have finished before IV. I still keep in touch with ST friends and make new ones. But I do feel sorry for people for whom ST is all. Too much of anything is unhealthy.

• R. Arthur P writes:

  In my opinion, killing Spock off was a big mistake, destroying the Enterprise was a bigger mistake, and bringing Spock back from the dead was the biggest mistake to date. However, what the characters did in these circumstances does not bother me at all.

• Eric L. W wants to know about the fate of an APA:

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

Issue 107

Interstat 107 was published in September 1986 and contains 14 pages.

cover of issue #107

• contains no interior art
• Lucille S is unhappy about the lateness of the recent Interstat: "I don't like reading about things that happened months before... Get help."
• there is a long letter from Eric A. S which disagrees with Joan V's interpretation of the Genesis planet and the videotape
• there is a long, scientific letter from Joan V about the Genesis planet
• Jani F is thrilled that the cassette recorder, and the interviews of DeForest Kelley and Gene Roddenberry contained within, that she lost at a recent con in Anaheim has been returned to her

• Linda G writes of patience:

  Recently, a good friend of mine, who also happens to be a 'zine editor, told me about some troubles he'd been having with people who ordered. It seems that if the "zines didn't appear within a week, he was guilty of mail fraud. Speaking as someone who has some experience ordering (and waiting for) fanzines, I'd like to address the question of amateur publishing. Of course all of this is my own attitude and opinion. When I ordered my first zine in 1976, I think it took about six weeks to arrive. It was a gift from Heaven. I ordered many more, sent the checks and tried hard to forget I had ordered them. They all arrived, most after about the same five/six weeks. I know how hard it is to wait for a 'zine. But I also know that so many people write, print and publish as a hobby (i.e. something that does not pay the rent). I've seen my friend go through moving (difficult enough without a SASE file), postal increases, emotional and physical upheavals, having his printer re-neg on him, just to mention a few things. In spite of this, he's managed to put out 23 issues of a fanzine, plus several novels. OK - so some people had to wait. Ever mailed in a coupon refund or a rebate? Six to eight weeks is standard, and these folks are pro's! Perhaps our society that caters so much to instant gratification has filtered over into fandom, too. Unfortunately, things that are good usually take time. Folks, if you feel you've waited too long, write a letter and ask what's wrong, politely!

Issue 108

Interstat 108 was published in October 1986 and contains 14 pages.

cover of issue #108, M.S. Murdock

• contains a illustration by Joni Wagner
• each issue had a leaflet stapled to the front which read: "Eddie Owen reports that Paramount will produce a new Star Trek series, with a possible airdate as early as fall of 1987. Tentative title is 'Star Trek: The Next Generation... ' Gene Roddenberry will be executive producer."
• there is a long letter by Karen R about moral absolutes
• Shirley Maiewski writes about her dislike of a term used a lot by Linda S, "Dirty Jim" (a reference to Dirty Harry):

  Recently, a good friend of mine, who also happens to be a 'zine editor, told me about some troubles he'd been having with people who ordered. It seems that if the "zines didn't appear within a week, he was guilty of mail fraud. Speaking as someone who has some experience ordering (and waiting for) fanzines, I'd like to address the question of amateur publishing. Of course all of this is my own attitude and opinion. When I ordered my first zine in 1976, I think it took about six weeks to arrive. It was a gift from Heaven. I ordered many more, sent the checks and tried hard to forget I had ordered them. They all arrived, most after about the same five/six weeks. I know how hard it is to wait for a 'zine. But I also know that so many people write, print and publish as a hobby (i.e. something that does not pay the rent). I've seen my friend go through moving (difficult enough without a SASE file), postal increases, emotional and physical upheavals, having his printer re-neg on him, just to mention a few things. In spite of this, he's managed to put out 23 issues of a fanzine, plus several novels. OK - so some people had to wait. Ever mailed in a coupon refund or a rebate? Six to eight weeks is standard, and these folks are pro's! Perhaps our society that caters so much to instant gratification has filtered over into fandom, too. Unfortunately, things that are good usually take time. Folks, if you feel you've waited too long, write a letter and ask what's wrong, politely!

• Linda H writes:

  I always like to see someone else take Star Trek seriously besides me, and if it is outside fandom, all the better. Recently, I discovered two scholarly books that concern themselves, at least in part, with Star Trek (I have the good fortune of being employed at a college library). One deals with American popular culture [American Monomyth] and the other with feminist issues, and I must say it has been fascinating delving into them.... My second find was a collection of feminist essays called Magic Mommas, Trembling Sisters, Puritans and Perverts by Joanna Russ. In it is an essay entitled, "Pornography by women, for women, with love." In the opening paragraphs, she discusses the title and says something like, "Now that I've got your attention, let me tell you about Star Trek." She proceeds to take a look at the K/S literature and comes up with a decidedly "thumbs up" verdict. I'd like to point out that I had never read any K/S when I read this essay, and I wasn't sure how I felt about it except that it seemed a rather alien concept to me. Reading this essay, however, gave me a way of approaching K/S, and it provided me with a background which allowed me to enjoy the K/S I finally did read. I think the most interesting premise of the essay was that, although Kirk and Spock are both male, the stories are really not about male love. They resemble love and sex from a female point of view rather than a male one (a main example used is that in traditional male-female relations, women wait and men act. In many K/S stories, neither of these men act; they wait, and hem and haw and wonder if what they are doing is right). Other pluses: androgyny—Kirk and Spock are equals and take on equally both male & female roles in love; the celebration of male beauty, as Russ puts it. We (female) readers get loving descriptions of two terrific male bodies. The author's conclusion is that K/S is not pornography in the popular sense, which defines pornography as disgusting and degrading. K/S, seen in the light of Russ' article, is sexual fantasy of a sophisticated nature. It's not about S & M, even though violence is often done to the characters. It's about a satisfying love between the ultimate equals, the kind of love rarely found in reality. Well, I'm sorry if I've bored anybody who's been through all this before, from religion to K/S and back again, but talking about things like this is what makes being a fan fun and special for me. And isn't sharing what being a fan is all about?

• Kimberly J comments about "g":

  I would like to comment on something that's been bothering the hell out of me 'scuse the French), and that's the capitalization problem a couple of ST pro novelists seem to have. The writers in question capitalize the first letter of their own names, but don't see fit to capitalize the word God. Now granted, they may not believe in a Supreme Being. That is their right and privilege, and it would be their right and privilege to trivialize Deity IF THEY WERE WRITING IN THEIR OWN UNIVERSE. They are not. Maybe Judeo-Christian religiosity will disappear in the future, but I saw someone praying on Star Trek, and I've heard them speak of the immortal soul. If these authors want to belittle God, fine, but they cannot make pantheists out of Star Trek characters. What makes the characters so wonderful is their obvious belief in something GREATER than themselves. Whatever these writers call it, they have no right to make it lower case. When I see something like 'McCoy said, "Oh, my gods", I want to throw the book out the window! If they can't capitalize it, they shouldn't use it at all. Enough already! Son Worshiper, signing off.

• [The Gang of Six]] writes:

  Dear Friend of Star Trek: In March, we learned that Syn Ferguson was bankrupt and unable to continue distribution of COURTS OF HONOR. Many who ordered this zine have not received It. Several of us who have read COURTS OF HONOR believe it is an outstanding work, and we want It to be available to fandom. To that end, we have formed a committee to publish COH. Since March, we have been working toward the most equitable means of accomplishing this goal. It has become clear that fund-raising efforts will not pay for the printing bill, let alone for collating, binding, and shipping, In addition, after contact with many who have already ordered the zine or are interested in ordering it, we have become aware that the majority of you simply wish to see the novel in print as soon as possible. We have therefore concluded that the only viable way to make COH available Is to charge everyone the same set price of $20.00, no matter what the status of any previous orders. This price includes postage. The price will be the same by mail or by hand. There is no incentive to wait to buy the zine at a con for a lower price. To put it plainly, we must have pre-orders to go to press at all. If there are not enough of them, COH will not be printed and we will refund all monies promptly.

Issue 109

Interstat 109 was published in November 1986 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #109, Karen A. Bates

• there is a full page flyer for the Surak Award

• contains no interior art
• Karen R comments on rumors of the new Trek show on television:

  I've heard that "Star Trek: The Next Generation" will take place about 100 years after the voyages of the Enterprise. OK, so that's how they'll handle the "new crew" issue, eh? [Douglas Van N] and other young pups, you'll get your wish. I hope that having will be at least as pleasing a thing as wanting! Don't write us 'oldsters' off completely yet, Doug! There s more than one dance in this old dame yet! My greatest concern re: the new series is the actors portraying the new crew. We need another crop who will forge that 'family feeling,' actors who also have some talent and ability! There are too many on tv today who haven't had the stage experience and training that forms a true pro -- they are being asked to become part of a legend; the fans will be WATCHING them, and not just on tv. I hope that whoever is picked will have the stamina, the grace, and the courage to be a part of this legend, and that they will be (to use an old fashioned term) circumspect in their private lives. We don't need any person who is dumb enough to pull a stupid stunt that would reflect badly on the whole concept of Star Trek—like using drugs! There will be children (like mine) watching, who are aware of what Star Trek already has meant to their parents, and who stand ready to give this new crew the same loyalty and admiration we've given the original crew. Star Trek has stood for all that is positive, for the achievement of one's best potential. This, like marriage, should be entered into carefully. Playing a major role in a Star Trek tv series is a sacred trust—like it or not.

• Ruth A. B writes of the new Trek:

  Never did I think that I would be rebelling against more Trek! But, I am — against STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION. It's bad enough that Paramount thinks different actors can portray the characters we know and love, but to think that even the characters themselves can be replaced is doubly insulting. Evidently, Paramount thinks that we will accept anything labeled STAR TREK. (I guess that's logical considering how we buy the pro novels even though the general quality is so poor.) Someday, down the road, when the actors we know are no longer able to play the parts, then I can see a new STAR TREK series—staring Kirk, Spock, McCoy, et al. — but not some other crew, and on the Enterprise? Horrifying thought. It's fine that Paramount intends to do another science fiction series by Mr. Roddenberry — but PLEASE, just don't call it STAR TREK.

• Susan Beth S comments on the new Trek:

  The official Paramount announcement of the new series was especially heart-stopping: How many times did rumor say it was a sure thing? How many times did the mirage vanish? It's a good thing we Trekkers are a hardy lot, else we'd have expired from chronic disappointment a decade ago. And, in light of the many less than complimentary things we've said in INTERSTAT about the intelligence, morals and descent of Paramount employees, maybe we ought to acknowledge in writing that they've done the right thing this time. We simply can't have the original crew. We wouldn't accept new actors in the old roles. A third possibility, anchoring the new series with a promoted "second tier" from the original would cause massive continuity and scheduling problems with the continuing (forever I hope!) series of theatrical movies. A new crew on a new ship but sailing through the same well-beloved "Star Trek Universe" and with Gene Roddenberry aboard to make sure the ideals and attitude of hope live on — truly the best solution possible. Please, before you attack me for espousing heretical ideas: I, too, am one of those "dinosaurs" who has followed Trek faithfully for twenty years, so of course, I know that the original cast on the original Enterprise would be better. This is real life, though, which as usual means that the best possible solution is impossible. Happy as I am about the new series though (did you ever know a fan without a "though" and a "however" and a "but" or two?), there are a couple of things I hope they reconsider. Firstly, the proposed title "Star Trek: The Next Generation" strikes me as ghastly and awkward and too soap-opera-ish to bear. It conjures up images of Captain Daughter-of-Kirk valiantly fighting with Commander-Son-of-Spock-and-the-Romulan-Commander while Mister-Nephew-of-Scott moans about the engines. If there are legal problems that prohibit the use of "Star Trek," how about a simple, dignified "Star Trek 2"? Or maybe "Starfleet"? The second point is that "century after the time of Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise" business. We all have experience with how fast a technological society changes. In my basement is a machine that weighs better than twenty pounds and takes up half a desktop. It's a marvelous thing: you can actually add, subtract, multiply or divide eight digit numbers on it merely by moving pointers up and down slides and then cranking a handle for a few minutes. It was state-of-the-art in its time, and that time was less than 30 years ago! The engineers and scientists of Star Trek's time are at least as ingenious as those of today, and have the added advantage of cross-pollination with other technological civilizations (remember the Romulan cloaking device?) and the clues to be found in rubble from vanished civilizations (remember the Fabrini? the Guardian of Forever? Losira's people?). If we give the Star Trek universe a century of unobserved development, won't the result be changes so great as to wipe out most of the things we're familiar with? If Daystrom could come so close to true artificial intelligence back then, it should certainly have been achieved within the century. Give the transporter a little more power and control and you can simply beam directly from planet to planet (remember Gary Seven?) and there goes the whole idea of the ship as needed transportation. How many years of research do you suppose it would take to discover a method of instantaneous communication? Once the "several week" delay of subspace radio vanishes, so does much of the independent authority that made a starship captain the master of his situation… It's right to separate the new series from the old, but use space, not time: surely the Milky Way is a big enough place that two starships can patrol concurrently without running across each other's ion trails TOO frequently. And keeping the series to the same "time" as the movies would allow using some of the same minor characters which would quietly reinforce the reality of the universe. Why shouldn't Captain Presently Unnamed's orders be signed by the same Admiral as Kirk's are? And characters that turn out well but don't fit into future movie plots needn't vanish utterly: how about letting Mr. Adventure out of the closet? This letter is already much too long, but while I'm handing out unasked advice: keep in mind all the trouble the scriptwriters had trying to think up a new way to place the Enterprise's (dramatically) unneeded 400-odd crew members hors de combat each week. Maybe the new series should center on a much smaller class of ship. And finally, the previous caviling aside, I AM very much excited by the idea of the new series and will greet its premiere with enthusiasm and running VCR. I hope all Trekkers will be able to look beyond what it isn't to appreciate what it is. "Fresh ideas. Be tolerant."

• Tim B writes of the new Trek:

  I am of the opinion that the series should be set in the current time frame, give or take 15-20 years. I would like to see a familiar universe to the one that the Great Birdcreated over 22 years ago. I am afraid that the technology to be envisioned in a series set in the 24th century will look too hokey for today's television audience. Just imagine where we are, 1906, and where we were 100 years ago, 1886. The amount of change is mind-boggling to say the least. The only thing I personally can say is if this is the case, I hope we get all the answers to what happened in the interim. I also feel that a tremendous amount of money could be saved by utilizing and redressing the current sets.

• Ann C writes of the new Trek:

  I can put it into one word. NO!! On a personal level, I will not watch a ST without the regular, original cast in starring roles. Not even as a cameo appearance. It simply isn't ST. Perhaps in fifty or sixty years, when all the original cast are gone, and most of the first generation fans, it might work. But not now. If ST was an ensemble production as Hill Street Blues is, it might work. But the series became the adventures of Kirk and Spock, and to a lesser extent, McCoy. And in answer to those who say, 'Well, MASH did it!', true, but MASH never lost the star, Alan Alda. If he had left the series, it would have lost its continuity. The time for a renewed TV series was ten years ago, when we were all trying desperately to convince Paramount to do it. They are again trying to jump on the profit bandwagon ten years after the parade is over. It is like trying to remake a classic motion picture. Can you imagine Gone With The Wind without Clark Gable? They (filmmakers) tried with King Solomon's Mines and Casablanca, and failed miserably. There is and never will be a substitute for an original. Any replacement will always be compared to the original. There is also a real and present danger to the films. If the TV series is successful, it may cause those 'civilians' who are not in fandom but who go to the films, to stop. Why pay money to see what they can see on TV for free? If the series fails, it may also cause a backlash at the box office. I hope those of you who really want another TV Star Trek and don't care who's in it will get what you want. For me, I will not watch it, not once, not ever. If there is nothing of interest on opposite it, I will pop one of the original episode videos into the VCR and enjoy MY Star Trek!

• Jan M. M addresses Kimberly J's letter in the previous issue:

  A mite picky aren't we? While I do hold with your basic proposition that sin is a matter of deed rather than thought, I find it troubling that you would extend it to simple exercises of punctuation and characterization. Because one or more ST characters prayed in some fashion, does not mean that all such characters believe in a (singular case) power greater than themselves - they may well be pantheists!! That fact aside, the difference between capital and lower case can be the difference between characters, moods and an event. For example, were the catsup bottle on the counter fall and.empty its contents on my new white pants, I would tend towards a few vulgarities and perhaps an "ohmigod!" Were the catsup to spontaneously reform in a mass, levitate and return to the container, that would definitely elicit an "Oh my God." Forgive me my testiness, but what I read in your comment is "Oh MY God," which is all very well and good. Please recognize the fact that the rest of us may choose to believe that the ST cast worships someone else, someone who doesn't downgrade for penmanship or punish the errors of the typesetter.

• Janna S writes of plagiarism:

  Now, in my last letter I commented on the reason I buy fanzines: they present me with Trek in new and different forms. Recently I had a rather unsettling experience with a fanzine and I felt a need to share it and maybe provoke some thought. At one of the big conventions this summer, I purchased a beautiful edition of a fairly well-known Trek fanzine. After the con was over, I went home and read it from cover to cover. I was thrilled — for the most part — to find that my money was well-spent on a zine that was obviously the product of a great deal of time, energy and love. But there was one detail that marred that impression. There in the heart of the zine was a story, the title and premise of which had obviously been lifted from a pro science fiction novel (not a Trek pro novel). The story was also obviously not meant to be a cross-universe tale. Now I know it's been said that science fiction and Star Trek fandoms are clearly two separate entities, however there are those of us in Trek fandom (I'm sure, in fact, many of us) who read not just Trek but mainstream SF as well. It is therefore insulting to the reader to find a fanzine author trying to pass off his/her work as totally original when, in reality, plagiarism has taken place. Not only is it insulting to the reader and the pro author — no matter how lovingly the lifting was done — it is presumptuous at best. Before I sat down and wrote this letter, I tried to consider each aspect of this issue carefully. I'm sure people will think "Let's be serious. How many plots are there really? Unintentional plagiarism happens all the time." Except that, as I said, the title and premise were lifted as well as several distinguishing details from the novel in question. The next question that crosses the mind is, "Well, how is the zine-ed supposed to know?" My answer is, it's not the zine-ed's responsibility. It's the fan author's responsibility. If a fan author is intent on writing a story based on any novel with references so obvious that the source is unmistakable, he/she should acknowledge the original work. After all, the pro-novelist already thought up the title, premise and technology; all the zine author does in a case like this is pop in the Trek characters, when one considers the brain power, sweat and writer's cramp that goes into the forging of an original story, the possibility of someone else lifting the work and calling it his/her own is infuriating. I didn't write all of this to 'expose' a fan author, hence no names have been mentioned. 'Exposure' will not benefit anyone.

• Kimberly J writes:

  Trekkie religion? My love for Star Trek and my love for Jesus have been at war for seven years. I've only recently been able to reconcile the two, after years of letting one or the other rule absolutely. This reconciliation has done much to enrich me personally. Don't scoff too fast. Faith in anything is a gift.

Issue 110

Interstat 110 was published in December 1986 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #110, Mike Brown

• contains no interior art
• there is much talk about the new movie; Megan. R. J writes:

  Our fandom's blessings runneth over, indeed! Even the whales must be echoing the joy! From the moving dedication to the final frame of our beloved ship and crew back intact, balanced and more a unity than ever before, ST:TVH is a glorious film! Most outstanding of all was the subtlety of Leonard Nimoy's portrayal of Spock. The mixture of innocence, bewilderment, and compassion is extraordinary, and Mr. Nimoy's grasp of character interrelationships is inspiredl William Shatner's sense of comic timing is wondrous, and De Kelley is so hilarious in his scenes! All of the cast members in top form — it is a film with rare nuance.

• Lynda C comments on the movie:

  OKAY, GANG — get out your Rid-X and your fine tooth combs and start picking nits. I don't care. You have my permission (indeed, my blessing) to spend the next two years arguing over: a) why Saavik stayed on Vulcan; b) the familiarity of the alien-probe-menacino-Earth-because-we-can't-communicate-with-it conflict; c) whether or not somebody would have bumped Into 'Bounty's' shield while she was grounded in Golden Gate Park; d) the Spock-to-whale mind meld; e) the impossible O.R. technique in Chekov's "surgery" sequence; f) the "deus ex machina" plot resolution; g) the absence of AWOL charges filed against Kirk & Co.; h) the Great Vulcan Ear Debate; i) the question of why Majel Barrett got full billing for a 3-second, one-line appearance; and j-z) anything else your fertile imaginations can come up with. For myself, I'm just going to enjoy "The Voyage Home" a couple of times a week as long as it's in the theaters, and keep myself chuckling with reminiscences until the video version comes out… "The Voyage Home" was not perfect. (Perfection is a quality reserved to the gods .. and godly, this bunch ain't!) But it did fulfill the primary function of any movie — to entertain, to amuse, to engage one's attention and affect one's emotions. Anyone who wants to deny that should be sentenced to two hours of watching the V'ger flyby from "ST:TMP," which did none of the above.

• Marcia G. W comments on the movie:

  Bravo, cast! Bravo, Mr. Nimoy and Mr. Bennett! Bravo to anyone associated with ST:TVH! Throughout
 my first viewing today, I was a ball of nerves as the plot unfolded. I rejoiced over the reality of a new movie; I ached over the desperate plight of Earth and of the whales; I pondered the story; I laughed; and I loved every minute of it - from the opening dedication to the Challenger crew to the final credits. As always, through the second showing, I gleaned more detail and fell more in love with TVH with each passing scene, as I did with TWOK and TSFS. We, the fans, needed this movie. It was so light-hearted and humorous at times, but yet it held a very poignant and needed message. I admit that I was apprehensive about a "save the whale" plot when I first learned of it, but I could not imagine a more moving and delightful storyline. We have watched our old friends (and I mean this in the very best, most kindly sense) suffer gut-wrenching death and destruction in the last two films. ST:TVH cuts through to the very essence and appeal of Star Trek: hope for the future.

• Nora L. J comments on the movie:

  Wow.. .Wow.. . I First of all, I am proud to announce that the nationwide single theatre ticket sale record for opening day of ST IV is held by our own Arbor Cinema 4 here in Austin, with 70 mm screen and THX sound! Our evening news anchors on the NBC and CBS affiliates are signing off with the Vulcan salute and "Live Long and Prosper"! I am delirious with joy! Wow! …After 3 viewings, I think I can say that I absolutely love the film! I find the pacing just perfect, the alliance between the characters radiant, and the approach to our Star Trek universe refreshingly familiar!

• Sylvia K comments on the movie:

  To everyone who tried to reassure me after the Lovell article: You were right. I was wrong. I should have had faith. They pulled it off I The latest Star Trek movie has avoided all the awfulness the Lovell article told us of, and is really good. ... [many nitpicks snipped]... And Kirk pulls the worst goof of all. How can he take Gillian with them? Just because she says she has no one now, doesn't mean she never will. She could be his great-grandmother for all ho knows. She's young. She could still marry. And her argument about the whales needing tier is so much jive. The UFP is a big place; I'm sure there are some biologists who could fake it. It's not as if the whales will survive very long, now that their chief function is over. The ocean will certainly have changed in 300 years, and I don't think you can make a viable gene pool for repopulation from two whales and their one offspring. (Incest, anyone?) I cannot believe this is the same crew that went through 'Tomorrow is Yesterday' and 'City on the Edge of Forever.' But I also don't think anyone in the general audience will notice these things, and probably not even the general fan. The overall feel of the movie is very good. There are so many good lines and humorous touches. Those are what you come out of the movie remembering.

• Tess M. K comments on the movie:

  I just saw STAR TREK IV and I wish I were writing you a glowing letter about it. Yes, it is funny. Sort of like a jiggle-free THREE'S COMPANY is funny, or an issue-free GOLDEN GIRLS is funny. But is that STAR TREK? After seeing ST IV, I give my blessing to Shatner for ST V. He couldn't do a worse job. The ST that I fell for was an action-adventure format with strong character interaction, which still managed to address important questions and introduce intriguing ideas within that format. And those are exactly the things lacking in ST IV, almost word for word. The film is about a crew of people who go back in time in order to save an entire planet. Yet we are never clearly shown exactly why or how the probe threatening that planet is dangerous. We are never allowed to see the exact effects of the probe, aside from the sheet of water standing in mid-air—and I don't see why that is particularly hazardous by itself. Almost all the scenes in the original script that showed the panic and hysteria and disaster were cut. I was never convinced chat there was any danger. And neither were Kirk and crew—or at least you wouldn't think so from their behavior. They treat the rescue mission like a picnic in Golden Gate Park, having a jolly old time, scarcely mentioning the seriousness of their mission. All they needed was a frisby [sic]. So much for plot. So much for action-adventure stories. The film also lacked any central theme, mission, important question or concept—unless you regard "Save the whales" as a message of cosmic seriousness. (Before all the whale fans attack me, let me just say that not only were Gracie and George the most endearing characters in the film, but I do think saving them is important. But should it be the only thing approaching an important idea in a ST film?) Most puzzling of all, I didn't see the usual chemistry between the characters that has been such a delight in all the other ST shows, cartoons, films... The plot is non-existent, the action disjointed, the inconsistencies and contradictions disturbing. Too much of the action seems to be there not so much to further the plot as to set up a punchline. When I think of this film, two words come to mind. The first is "funny. The second is "vapid."

• Harriet S comments on the movie:

  Thoughts fly faster than sparrows before the storm! Where to begin? How to stay coherent when commenting on Star Trek IV? "Journey Home"? You bettcha it was! And so worth the wait! A simple story told straightforward, with dialogue that was sure-footed even when it was utterly hilarious! Everything that is Trek is included; the future and the past, the adventure, the interplay of the characters, the friendships and the selflessness, the message and the hope. And the writing! Here I air my bias, but what a team Bennett and Meyer make! Yes, I know two other writers were involved, but there is too much history with Trek in the dialogue for the end script to have been done by outsiders. I'm more aware of Bennett's writing style than Meyer's, so all I can say is what a wonderfully funny and gentle way to deliver so important a message! I just knew I couldn't write this without babbling, without a hundred exclamation points and run-on sentences! But, it's so great to be this enthused, this happy about a movie after I've seen it. Clearer comments will happen after the sixth or seventh viewing.

• Linda S likes Kirk in the new movie:

  He's grown balls! I was delighted. No whimpering, no whining; he was acting a heck of a lot like Our Captain. This time around, I liked him. Makes me regret croaking him in a zine story I shipped out a while back. I suppose he'll forgive me—In his circles, death seems to be merely a temporary inconvenience.

• Linda S comments on the new movie:

  The jingoism was minimal—thank you, writers!!--but what there was sets a bad precedent. Why does everyone—writers, characters, director—assume it's a great step forward for Spock to act more human? I'm surprised all the extraterrestrials in the audience didn't demand their money back I also wonder how this will play in Tokyo, since…. ST tends to equate "human" with "American." How about a little more of that Infinite Diversity that's been preached for the last 20 years?

• Beth B comments on the upcoming new series, Star Trek: TNG:

  Regarding the new TV series, I understand that it is not possible to use the entire original cast, since Shatner and Nimoy are not willing to return to weekly Star Trek. I also understand that if the supporting actors were used, it would be hard to fit them into the movies, plotwise. Therefore, although I wish that it were possible to use the original actors, I accept that it is not realistic. What seems possible to me, though, is to bring back some of the many beloved guest stars from the original series. How about bringing back Harry Mudd, Kang, and the female Romulan commander, to name just a few? And if Sarek is not going to be in the next movie, it would be great to see him in the new TV series.

• Regina M comments on the upcoming new series:

  I wish them well. I also think they have a shot at success as long as they don't try to copy the original characters. (In fact, I hope there aren't any Vulcans in the new series. But other aliens, preferably more than one, would be interesting.) I am concerned about the show taking place only 100 years or so in the future. Considering the Vulcan life span, Spock, Saavik, and even Sarek could still be around. That idea makes me uncomfortable. I'd prefer to see the new series stay completely away from the original characters, except to perhaps mention some of their accomplishments in a historical context.

• Gennie S comments on a rumor:

  I am somewhat distressed by the news, or rumors, that Mr. Shatner wants an "all new cast" for the next movie.
 I've tried to reason around that an "all new cast" BESIDES the originals, our dear old friends, perhaps? I can hardly believe that they will not be in it. He knows we fans want them as long as they can breathe!

• Karen R also comments on the same rumor:

  Re: all the brouhaha about the rumor that Shatner wants to ditch the regular cast in favor of new faces.
 I am convinced the source of the rumor, unintentionally on the part of the author, is DeForest Kelley's poem "The Dream Goes On," an unfinished version of which was read at a convention (I don't remember which one—a friend of mine who attended a few told me, and sent me a copy of both the unfinished and finished versions) this past summer. This is an extension of his "The Great Bird's Dream" and was meant only to tease lovingly those connected with Star Trek over the years. There's not a malicious bone in Mr. Kelley's body, I'm sure, and it's merely a few fans who have taken this so seriously and started the rumor;… Either that or some people just don't listen carefully and repeat such things out of context. Remember the old game "Gossip"? Frankly, I think Mr. Shatner is a lot smarter than to replace the people he's been working with for twenty years.

• Kay B addresses JoAnne S about that rumor:

  Why in heaven's name would you want to remain in WSF when you have such negative and bitter feelings toward William Shatner? Beyond simply raising that question, however, your letter in I#108 disturbs me. According to the Official Star Trek Fan Club, in their newsletter number 52, they know nothing of Mr. Shatner's having made any public statement about doing away with the original cast, and we don't actually know what, if anything, he said on the subject. It's very possible that all this is only rumor based on some kind of misunderstanding. But, even if he did make a suggestion to replace the old characters, he is entitled to his opinion. Obviously you do not agree with the concept, but you have not attacked the concept; you have attacked Mr. Shatner. You have implied that he is plotting to eliminate everyone but himself from the cast, and you have ridiculed his avid interest in saddlebred horses.

• Regina M addresses fans about another's comments regarding that rumor:

  I think you were a bit too hard on [JoAnne S] and her comments about William Shatner and ST V. For one thing, I felt her remarks were humorous as well as honest and I'm a Saddlebred admirer as well as a Shatner fan and WSF member. For another thing, being a fan of someone or something does not mean you must look upon them with blind adoration. We readers of INTERSTAT are all fans of Star Trek and —- to various degrees -— the people behind it; yet look at all the bitching and moaning that goes on. Fans have a right to be honest about their feelings.

• Kimberly J responds to her earlier letter about some pro book authors not capitalizing "god," and apparently to letters she may have personally received:

  Fellow fans, if you put me (or anyone) down for what you perceive to be the narrowness of my beliefs, then you are no better than the religious bigots you so vigorously vilify. Some Christians love Jesus as deeply as Trekkers love Star Trek, and react to the things of God the same way Trekkers react to their love. I'm so glad I'm able to mesh my passions and make for myself one hell of an interesting life. In any case, I retrace my statement and my complaint about God In the lower case. For just a moment I forgot something very important: MY God is so big that nothing can make her small, so great he doesn't need me to defend him. So why do it? It gives me emotionally security.