Interstat/Issues 111-120

From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search

Issue 111

Interstat 111 was published in January 1987 and contains 14 pages.
cover of issue #111, Merle Decker
  • contains no interior art
  • Kathy H wants to know: "HOW DID WE SURVIVE BEFORE VCRS and VHS TAPES?"
  • the editor congratulates Eddie Egan on his promotion, but mourns the fact he will no longer be the fannish bridge between Interstat and Paramount
  • Beth B was happy to see a female starship captain in the latest movie:
    I hope very much that Gene Roddenberry will use this opportunity to do some of the things 1960's TV censors would not allow him to do. Especially: have the crew 50% female, and have a woman commander. I would prefer a woman as captain of the new ship. It's about time (if you'll pardon the expression)! And I'm eager to see what other ideas GR will pursue, now that he is free of 60's censorship.
  • Susan Beth S writes of the movie:
    More, the characters were true and it was lovely to watch the "lesser" crewmembers escape the backstage shadows. And more, someone at Paramount has evidently taken our previous grumbling to heart and the WASPy Starfleet of the last film has been enriched, even fortified, with multi-racial (in both senses) crews. Even more, Amanda has been restored to her position in Spock's family. And still more, two of the most long-standing fan fiction traditions have been validated: a female starship captain and a 20th century woman traveling to the future to join Starfleet. And most important of all, Kirk is back to being the captain of the Enterprise with his loyal crew beside him so the universe can resume unfolding as it should. So why did I feel dissatisfied when the credits rolled? What more could this ungrateful wretch have expected? The answer is a present under all those layers of glorious wrappings. This movie is hollow: once you bite past the surface sweetness there's nothing to chew on. Not only was nothing new added, it seems the writers were willing to throw out even established concerns and themes in order to include all the jokes that occurred to them... I suppose the lack of depth could be an expected result of doing a comedy instead of a drama (how many fan essays and stories have grown out of "The Trouble With Tribbles" as compared with "Mirror, Mirror"?), but it's easier to accept that when the next "meal" will be along in a week. We need more than empty calories to survive a two year gap! What's that? You say the "Save the Whale" theme was supposed to supply the heart of the movie? Frankly, I was disappointed even by that. Was the message, stop slaughtering the whales because all species have the same inherent right to exist as ours? Was it, stop killing the whales because they are intelligent creatures? Was it, even, preserve the whale:; because they are part of the Earth's complex ecological web? Hell no. It was, save the whales because we might need them to save our own necks some day! Totally selfish, totally human centered. That, too, is a change for the worse from the series: then Captain Kirk valued the life of the Horta before he learned of the benefits man would derive from co-existence and mourned the extinction of the Salt Vampire's species even though it had killed some of his crew. No, that theme was expressed, more fully, more deeply, twenty years ago. The Voyage Homo glitters and goes down smoothly, but it leaves you hungry. My main fear is that: the financial and critical success of this film will seduce Paramount into turning the Star Trek movies into a series of comedies. If so, fandom may expire from malnutrition.
  • Melissa M comments on the movie:
    I was delighted to get the new INTERSTAT, and to see that nearly everyone loved ST IV as much as I do. It's a delightful movie, with a true ST message at its heart. I still think ST II is the best film, and ST III is my personal favorite, but I do love this movie, and I'm having a wonderful time watching it repeatedly, enjoying my ST high!
  • John L. W comments on the movie:
    After the opening music ended, I sat back to enjoy the movie. And I did — for about fifteen minutes. I was irritated that the probe was never sufficiently explained; it seemed only like a cheap plot device. I was also irritated by the presence of the black female starship captain; it's obvious that she was included just so the audience could say, "Wow, look how open-minded they are!" only for the character to be quickly shuffled off to no man's land. As I watched the probe stir up the atmosphere and vaporize the oceans, causing panic for billions of people, I wondered whether I was watching a 'light-heartd' Star Trek movie or a melodramatic disaster flick. It was the most danger Earth had to face in any Star Trek ever made, bar none. Nice intro for some real chuckles, eh? The special effects were way overdone in a vain attempt to let us know the Earth is in danger. But the effects are so much glitter. Stack them up against Decker's "They say there's no devil, Jim..." line from The Doomsday Machine* and the latter wins out easily. Special effects can only assist the story, they can not create it. Of course, when our gallant crew reached Earth, it was all fun and games. Well, fine, I said, I don't care. I'll just relax now and enjoy the light-hearted stuff. So much for that. I couldn't even chuckle at a single joke. The scenes seemed so contrived, totally based on situations. It's as if someone sat down and Said, "Wouldn't it be funny if we had Chekov ask about 'nuclear wessels'—and wait, let's throw in a cop, too. And let's have Spock jump in a tank and mind meld with a whale1 Wouldn't that be funny looking?" Yep, it was funny looking, but not funny. How many times does Chekov have to repeat "nuclear wessels" before they just cut the blasted scene and move on to the next one? And when I saw William Shatner atrociously overact during Spock's dip with the humpbacks, I wanted to leave the theater....The whole movie, in general, seems to have been made by a computer. "Let's have some disaster, some comedy, lots of SFX, a couple extra starships, some time travel, a new Enterprise, and a social statement. And let's cram it all into one movie!" The result looks like several Star Trek comic books glued together in a haphazard fashion. The script is totally forgettable. The acting seems uninspired; I see only a bunch of Star Trek actors playing with a camera. And Catherine Hicks; zipped from comedy to crying about whales so often, that her character lost all believability. I could go on and on, but I think I might be taking up too much space. So let me just end by saying that I look forward to ST V. In fact, I look forward to seeing ST-TMP again. At least the latter accomplished SOMETHING. But ST IV is simply a movie that should never have been made.
  • Douglas V N comments on the movie:
    As of this writing, I have seen STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME four times. I think that this movie is the one that we, as fans, have been waiting for all along. I think that the title was especially appropriate as I think that the crew and fans have finally come home. This movie is classic STAR TREK. LEONARD NIMOY HAS AGAIN DEMONSTRATED THAT HE IS A TERRIFIC DIRECTOR! He out did himself this time.
  • Shirley Maiewski writes:
    Many of you have written or called about seeing my picture in the NEWSWEEK story about Star Trek - thank you for your kind comments! I am delighted to have been asked to more or less represent fandom - even though, of course, I was misquoted and misplaced! *SIGH* Certainly makes you wonder about other news reports, doesn't it?… The interview lasted a half an hour and the photographer was here at my home for almost three hours, taking dozens of pictures. Shows you what goes into an article, doesn't it? Also as a result of that, I was interviewed 3 times on various radio stations and featured in the Sunday paper in nearby Springfield, Massachusetts. Each time I tried to be as dignified as 1 could, in order to give a good impression of fandom. Each of the radio people asked over and over what my favorite "collectable" of Star Trek was, as though that was the important thing! I told them all "Friends!" And that's the truth!!

Issue 112

Interstat 112 was published in February 1987 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #112, Fanti Dovener
  • contains no interior art
  • fans mainly comment on the movie: loved it, liked it, liked it/loved it with reservations, didn't like it
  • Heidi S writes a long, long letter about Leonard Nimoy
  • Anne B comments on Get a Life:
    The... sketch on Star Trek convention attendees was somewhat less hilarious, not because of his talent but because of the script, which was a uneasy mix of hyperbole, inside jokes, some genuine humor, and cruelty.
  • Joan V writes of a sneak peek:
    I have just read the best Star Trek pro novel ever written. You have not read it—yet—but I hope you will be able to, as soon as possible. The working title is YOUR ONLY JIG-MAKER by Pamela C. Dean. She is not well known in Star Trek fandom, but she is an active general sf fan. She has a master's degree in English, and she has shown she can publish commercial fiction in her two novels, THE SECRET COUNTRY and THE HIDDEN LAND, as well as in her short stories for the two LIAVEK anthologies. She is a long-time Star Trek fan; as far as I know, this is her first Star Trek story. JIG-MAKER is a sequel to "Requiem for Methuselah," which is far from my favorite episode. In fact, the manuscript was given to me by a second party (also a Star Trek fan) who knows I have not enjoyed any pro novel published thus far (except Jean Lorrah's) with an apologetic mumble on the order of, "Well, we know you don't see Star Trek the way the author does," but would I read it anyhow? I did read it anyhow, and sent the author seven pages of typewritten praise. To begin with, her characterization is superb. The story is told alternately from Kirk's, Spock's and McCoy's viewpoints. I have never seen such insightful, in-depth characterization, and character interaction, in a Star Trek pro novel. This applies not only to the major three characters, but to all the others as well. Uhura has an important role in the book, for instance. And the Klingons and Romulans are not neglected. The plot, which revolves around Flint's mysterious legacy, is well-crafted. The deductive work involved in unravelling all the threads is done with wit and style. There is suspense, humor, challenges to meet, puzzles to solve, complications to smooth out. Overall, I found this totally absorbing and totally delightful. This is top-notch writing; I only wish other Star Trek pro novels were as good. The reason why you may not see this for a while is that the current editor sent it back to the author for a rewrite. According to the author, he thought it was too long. He did specify that if the author could trim it, he will offer her a contract to publish on the revised story. The author is, at present, working on a book currently under contract to another publisher, so that her revision of JIG-MAKER has been delayed. I hope it is not too long delayed. When this is published, I think it will set a standard for the pro novels to follow. [1]
  • D. Booker comments on the topic of Star Trek as religion:
    This has been argued before from various points of view. Several studies, ranging from fanzine articles to books have analyzed the Christian symbolism, metaphor and philosophy in ST and generally exhausted the question I think. As for fandom itself as a religion, well, don't look now but some of the folks out there (and some in these hallowed pages too) seem to think that 1) the Trek universe and its characters are real, 2) Kirk and Co. are at least the apostles of a new way of living/experiencing the world, 3) there is a body of Scripture (the TV shows), Apocrypha {the Animated shows and movies), and learned and pious commentaries (the fanzines), 4) there are a variety of more or less heretical cults and schisms in Trek, i.e. K/S, hurt-comfort, get, lay, and Mary-Sue schools of fan fiction, the gamers, the professionally published novels and finally 5) various devils—Vonda McIntyre, Paramount and all its minions, the producers of various Trek souvenir items and so on. What explanation other than religious enthusiasm can be given for the sort of people who legally change their names to Vulcan formats, get their ears bobbed, get married in full regalia at a Con, or mortgage their own or others1 property to participate in Trek activities?
  • Joan V is excited to see Star Trek: TNG:
    Here is my opinion about STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION (or more precisely, my reaction to the fans who oppose the concept), for what it's worth: as far as I'm concerned, this is the best entertainment news I've heard since I came home from summer school in 1966 and my brother, Craig, said: "Hey, NBC is advertising a show called STAR TREK on their new fall schedule. It looks good. Let's watch it." Those fans who don't like the idea don't have to watch it. As for me, it does not matter to me how many Star Trek fans think the idea stinks. I_ approve of it, I've waited 20 years for it, I intend to watch it, and fortunately, it's going to happen no matter how many Star Trek fans protest. And if I'm the only fan in front of my TV set during the two-hour premiere, that's fine with me (though it's probably not fine with Paramount, whose executives, I think, hope for high ratings). However, I doubt if I'll be the only one watching; I suspect it may be one of the highest-rated syndicated programs ever. As I said, the rest of you can watch something else; I am going to sit back and watch MY Star Trek.
  • D. Booker comments on ST: TNG:
    I was overjoyed to hear about the new scries. I think it is a wonderful idea and has great possibilities in terms of bringing interesting and intelligent Science Fiction back to TV. Since the original announcement, there has been a rumour floating around Calgary that the idea has been scrapped due to the vociferous and loud objections of a few fans (like Rhodes, Breisinger & Co., I suppose). Let's get real for a minute, folks, OK? American commercial TV as a sacred trust? Don't make me laugh. TV is about making money, nothing else. If they happen to do some good work in terms of story development and interesting characterization, that's nothing but pure dumb luck. Lots of ensemble casts work well together; all that is needed is a little time and some actors and directors whose egos are not quite out of control—yet. The proposed title is not especially catchy, but so what? They'll probably change it six times before they get the show on the air anyway. I sincerely hope that they don't fall into the trap of using Captain Kirk's bastard granddaughter and Spock's adopted half-Romulan, half-Ghu-Knows-what son as main characters. Surely there are other people in the Federation who will by then have produced interesting and ambitious and productive offspring who will be yearning for a chance to go helling around space for fame and glory and a good time.
  • Tim F comments on ST: TNG:
    I find myself in agreement that, given a century of technological development, "Star Trek: the Next Generation" will bear precious little resemblance to the "Star Trek" we all know and love. With that in mind, I fail to see Paramount's logic in basing the new series in the 24th century rather than the "23rd. When rumors of a TV series circulated following the first movie, the logic to it was that they'd be able to use all the sets and models and costumes they'd made for the movie without having to start from scratch. In order to present a logical development from the era we are familiar with, "starting from scratch" is exactly what they'll have to do. I have a bad feeling the "Next Generation" is going to bite the big one unless they set it closer to the familiar "Trek" timeline. Think of it this way: would you want to watch a Sherlock Holmes TV show set in London 100 years after his death?

Issue 113

Interstat 113 was published in March 1987 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #113, Fran Dovener
  • contains no interior art
  • more opinions about the movie
  • the editor writes of Eddie Egan:
    Eddie is still out there, and, yes, he's still receiving INTERSTAT via his request--"Don't cut mc off!" As I said before, he cared about Star Trek and its fans, and we're not likely to find another quite like him in his field. This fan editor feels like she lost both arms and all ten toes with his move to 20th Century Fox. Egan generosity and time given to INTERSTAT knew no limits, and I can't begin to tell you how much his open support of this publication meant to me and my staff. --Ed.
  • Marcia G. W disagrees with Anne B's comments about Get a Life!:
    I disagree with your critique in I#112 of the convention sketch. I have been addicted to conventions since I discovered them in Atlanta while I was attending college (c. 1982). I thought the characterizations of the convention members were right on mark. There is always at least one question from the audience regarding some obscure beaming coordinates, or a safe combination, or some other minute detail of some episode. The script captured the stereotypical convention and fans, and I laughed until my sides ached.
  • Marcia G. W on the subject of ST: The Next Generation:
    Now who was it that said, "Young minds - fresh ideas. Be tolerant!" My philosophy right now is to wait and see. After all, this is what we've been clamoring for since 1969.
  • Karen F has a question about the movie:
    Did anyone wonder about the passengers on the bus when Spock neck-pinched the punk? Is this another indicator of our "primitive and paranoid culture?" Admittedly, I. too, cheered when the unpleasant and uncouth punk slumped over his silenced radio. But the passengers on the bus never seen •Vulcan neck pinch executed before. How do they know the guy isn't dead? After all, the difference between the neck pinch and tal-shaya is probably centimeters. Does the possibility that so obviously unpleasant a person may have been murdered not bother them?
  • Linda S is starting a "booth":
    I have noticed that we Klingon/knothead fans—all six of us—are in the same position that all of us ST fans
 were in many years ago; fumbling in the dark, thinking we're all alone until we find each other by accident. So, I am forming the Klingon Intelligence Service, a central information "booth" to help Klingonophiles get in touch with each other. If you would like me to list your club, your zine, or you, please let me know by June 1. Include your specific 'intra-Klingon' interests—movies, TV, John Ford's writings, Devra Langsam's writings, whatever—and anything else you feel like mentioning about yourself. Please inclose a SASE if you want a copy of the directory. I am picking up the tab for the directory itself this first time around. I will also accept listings from fans of other types of ST aliens, because I sympathize with your plight: we Klingonophiles may be forgotten, but you Romulan, Tellarite and Andorian fans are even 'forgotten-er!
  • Patty P discusses some symbolism:
    I'm a rather new Trekker, but how is it that everyone but me seems to have missed the startling phallic symbolism of the probe in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home? When I first
 saw it (the first of the seven times I've seen the film), I thought, "Ooof, they couldn't have done that in the sixties!" I don't think I have a dirty mind, but the casually vicious attempted rape/murder of the Earth, by an intelligence that not only isn't humanoid but which isn't even aware of humanity, gave me an inside-outside view of what it might be like for some of the "lesser" species of our planet (the whales, perhaps?) should our vaunted human intelligence, which is also often just about as indifferent, cause a "nuclear winter," or even a "nuclear autumn," The symbolism here is strong stuff! I haven't quite figured out how all this phallic symbolism/rape/rescue works out philosophically, but there's something there, all right! Anybody know whose idea the design of the probe was? And why the decision was to make it a headless, limbless trunk? And are there implications of creation or procreation in there somewhere? As a feminist, I see some parallels with procreation as destruction of the status quo to add something new (a child, or a species). Am I reaching? But why not some kind of destroyer rays from a cannon on the probe or whatever? Why this particular design?
  • Regina M addresses Linda S:
    In answer to your inquiry as to why everyone "assumes it's a great step forward for Spock to act more human," I present this answer: because he is_ half-human. I don't agree with those who try to make him completely human, but it is equally wrong for Spock to go marching around like he's a pure Vulcan. I suppose some can argue that being Vulcan or being human is a matter of philosophy and not genetics, but such realities as the pon farr and feeling emotions are going to be experienced by a hybrid like Spock, regardless of which side of the fence he prefers to be on. I personally think it is tragic that Spock spent the first 50 or so years of his life trying to be something he's not: pure Vulcan. And as boring a movie as ST:TMP was, I applaud it for showing Spock some of the benefits of his human characteristics—which are a part of him, regardless of how much he may wish they weren't. In ST:TW0K we see a Spock who has finally learned to integrate his two halves. He is still very much a Vulcan, but he allows his human side to breathe (e.g., giving Kirk a birthday present, speaking of friendship, closing his eyes when seeing Scotty's injured nephew, telling Kirk to "be careful," etc.). In the beginning of ST IV we see a Spock who has returned to behaving like a full Vulcan—not because of choice, but because his mind was retrained by Vulcans. Therefore, in ST IV, the audience and Spock's friends applaud him when he begins to act a little bit human, because he is re-learninq to express that part of him. Perhaps he even over-compensates a bit (Chekov must be saved because "It is the human thing to do"), but I think he'll have regained the proper balance between his two heritages by ST V.
  • Tess M. K addresses Kimberly J:
    I think you may have missed the point of Ruth Berman's remarks. In the episode to which she refers, the birth of a Christian-analog religion is seen as a sociological (if not actually evolutionary) advancement. The implication is that, as all cultures evolve, they will go through this phase of advancement. While I have no interest in deriding Christianity, I do think it both (Western) ethno-centric and religio-centric to imply that Christianity is the ultimate (or even a mandatory) step in the spiritual evolution of all cultures. I found it presumptuous that STAR TREK seemed to think it knew how the Divine would manifest itself on this planet, much less all other possible ones in the galaxy.
  • Claire G writes of seeing the movie in three different frame of minds:
    I am a one-time Star Trek fan who gafiated for several years, and then returned to fandom a few months
 ago. So I have a rather unique perspective on the movies, having seen each of them for the first time while I was not a fan. This includes ST IV; I went to see it on Thanksgiving Day because I wanted to be entertained on a holiday, not because I was a fan at the time. The reason that I'm writing this is because there have been several letters in your zine from people who didn't like this movie. I'm not talking about the nitpicking. That's part of the fun. I'm talking about the two or three fans who really didn't like this movie. I think my experience and the insights I gained from it may be helpful to them, and to any other readers who had similar reactions — to this or to any of the other ST films. The first time I went, on Thanksgiving, 1 had a wonderful time. I was not emotionally involved at all. At that stage, I remembered my years in fandom with wistful nostalgia, and the characters with temperate fondness. In that frame of mind. I was both entertained and amused. I thought the movie was "good." It achieved its purpose as far as I was concerned. And that was as far as it went. The Voyage Home was in no way responsible for my return to being an avid Star Trek fan. That started happening around Christmas, when I began to watch the TV episodes again. The time was right for me for a number of reasons -- just as the time was wrong for me when I gafiated… Suffice it to say that by the middle of January, I was on the greatest Star Trek high ever — watching the show every night, contacting friends in fandom that I hadn't written to for years, reading everything I could get my hands on, renting the first three movies and watching them over and over. The works. Needless to say. Kirk's line about being home again at the end of ST IV has a special meaning for me. Because that's where I am right now. It was in this mood that I went to see ST IV the second time. Super-sensitized is the word. Well, it was a total disaster. I came out miserably disappointed, wishing I had stayed away because I felt like I was losing it all. The whole thing, almost start to finish, seemed extremely contrived, unfunny, unsubtle, worse than a bad episode because I had come with such high expectations. Worst of all, I didn't get any resonances from the character relationships, which was of course the whole reason I went to see the movie at that time. It was as though I didn't know these people. I am primarily a Spock fan. I wrote a story about him called "Ni Var" that was published both fannishly and — in a heavily-edited version — professionally about a dozen years ago. The Spock I see in these movies seems only intermittently real to me, and I felt like they'd messed him up for good in ST IV. I also had other problems with this one, too numerous to detail here. The only thing in the whole movie that I still liked was "I'm from Iowa. I only work in outer space"—my second all-time favorite Kirk line after "It gives me emotional security." Then I started getting the zines I'd sent for in the mail (including INTERSTAT). And here were all these people writing in to say how much they loved this movie! I felt as though I were outside in the cold with my nose pressed against the window, and I didn't like that. So I decided that there must pressed against the window, and I didn't like that. So I decided that there must be something about the way I approached the movie as a fan that ruined it for me. At the time, I didn't know how right I was. I just hoped I was right. I decided — and here is the thing that I wanted to say to the people who had reactions similar to mine — that what I'd really wanted to see was the story as I would have written it, with all of my personal ideas of who the characters are and how they should relate to each other now that Spock is alive again. And that was dumb. I have read plenty of fan and pro Star Trek stories that were galaxies away from anything I might have written, and thoroughly enjoyed them anyway. If I liked the movie when I was not a fan. I told myself, there was no reason in the world that I should deprive myself of the pleasure of enjoying it even more as a fan. Anyway, last weekend I went to see it again, laughed all the way through it and was moved almost to tears at the end. (Oddly enough, in all the times I have watched the first three films on the VCR, Spock's death has only brought tears to my eyes once — the first time I saw it after my return to fandom. But I've had that response several times to the death of the Enterprise in ST III, just as I did to its rebirth last Sunday.) The Voyage Home is still not my cup of tea. There are a lot of things that I wish had been done differently. Yet it was as though I were watching a different film from the one I saw two months ago. Things that I remembered profoundly disliking simply did not happen the way I remembered them. Even the dialogue was not as I remembered it in a couple of cases. The point of all this is that what we take from Star Trek and make our own depends almost totally on what we bring to it. The more rigid our expectations, the more likely we are to be disappointed, especially with stories that arc created by non-fans — which these films are. I hate to think of other fans having the experience I did with ST IV, or with future movies. Or with past ones for that matter.

Issue 114

Interstat 114 was published in April 1987 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #114, Nan Lewis
  • contains no interior art
  • more fans complain about the production decisions made regarding the newly released VHS tape of "The Cage"
  • Melissa M encourages others to support her A Thousand Roses activity
  • Morjana Lee C writes a report of "Star Trek IV: Making Sequels Better," an extension course held on March 1987 at the the Directors Guild of America Theatre in Los Angeles, sponsored by UCLA's Department of Performing and Integrated Arts, course moderators were Harve Bennett and Ralph Winter
  • there is a personal statement from the Gang of Six regarding rebates on Courts of Honor
  • Mary F. G scolds John L. W regarding his dislike of the movie:
    I am all for minority rights, and thank goodness you are a member of a very small minority There are millions of us who loved ST IV. Your comments were not interesting, but insulting, and I am sure I won't be the only person who calls you on them. IDIC is a concept I approve of, but have you ever thought of joining another fandom and stop wasting your time with (in your opinion) such an OBVIOUS FAILURE as STAR TREK? Perhaps Dr. WHO or ROBOTECH could use you!!
  • Ann B compares the movies and the original episodes and upcoming new television show:
    While watching the reruns I often recall a major reason why, when ST first aired, I tuned in faithfully week after week, even when the series began to go downhill and disappointing episodes became more and more frequent: ST's versatility, its enormous capacity to surprise. You never knew, from one week to the next, just what you'd see—comedy, tragedy, adventure, drama, parable, or (as they used to say on Monty Python) "something completely different." (Spock's Brain?!) The diversity of 78 episodes can't possibly be matched in only four films, of course—but at least they're trying. As several fans have pointed out, we've had three movies dealing with serious, even tragic, themes; it was time for something on the lighter side... Finally: several issues back (I#95 to be exact), [Jan M] suggested kicking fandom to see if it would respond. Having read I#109 on down, my impression is that the announcement of a new ST series has done exactly that. It's good to see that most fans are open to the idea, and offering constructive suggestions, but we've been disappointed so often that I can also sympathize with those who oppose it. However, I'm not worried—the Great Bird's notion of TV science fiction is so far ahead of anyone else's that I'm sure he'll come up with something interesting, even if it isn't ST as we know it. And, considering how much ST has survived so far—cancellation, way-out zine stories, bad pro-novels, etc., etc.—I find it hard to believe that anything can threaten it, even a new series. ST is one tough concept; my interest in it survived for years on nothing but reruns and my own imagination.
  • Charles T Jr. has taken a look at the character line-up for TNG and has this to say:
    Why did Gene Roddenberry place the new series (STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION) a hundred and fifty years in the future (after the original 'five year mission'), and then make the character of its Captain as old as our present Captain Kirk? It's unbelievable! (And, he isn't even an American!) Since the syndication series is slated for a basically American audience, it seems (to me) that the lead character should be someone we can identify with. After looking over the series' characters, I would cast the Alaskan-born No. 1, a.k.a. William Ryker, as the Captain, Gene. And, if you insist on keeping the Parisian-born Julian Picard, make him the science officer, as well as more like Jacques Cousteau, less like Jean Paul Belmondo. and younger. Lt. Commander Data (how boring). A character that is obviously being added to allow for the use of showy f/x. Complaints about these sort of 'gimmicks' have been raised (by the fans) since ST:TMP, Gene. (Cast a new alien, not just another NOMAD.) The character of Security Chief Lt. Macha Hernandez reminds me of a similar character found in the movie ALIENS. (So much for originality.) A replacement is badly needed here. Lt. Deanna Troi is the psychologist (and I guess one of the doctors) on board this ship. The cast description also gives the indication that she is a new colonies-born human. (I like this character, Gene.) Lt. Geordi Laforge (how tacky). Casting black characters, and making them 'acceptable' (by giving them abilities beyond normal beings) is an old stereotype unworthy of STAR TREK. (Make him normal or blind, but not a 'freak', Gene.) And keep him in the cast. The last (and least) of the characters, are the Chief Medical Officer, Beverly Crusher (her description is so sexist, I refuse to repeat it. [2] Shame on you, Gene!). As to the continuing presence of a teenager (on board an exploratory space vessel—that's right, Trekkers, Beverly's daughter, Leslie, will also be on board this ship) , I thought this show was called STAR TREK, not the LOVE BOAT.

Issue 115

Interstat 115 was published in May 1987 and contains 14 pages.

cover of issue #115, Pat Horowitz
  • contains no interior art
  • Linda S is bothered by many things she has heard about TNG, but mainly the character of LaForge -- she writes that if Dr. McCoy could grow a new kidney for a character, why is LaForge still blind?:
    If Geordi's condition is so serious it's beyond the help the medical science, what is he doing in deep space? I have a very hard time with the idea of a severely, incurably handicapped person being posted to a unit such as the Enterprise which is likely to see combat. The article said the character was named, and by inference handicapped, in memory of the late convention habitue George LaForge, whose love of ST kept him alive several years longer than his doctors had expected. This is the kind of story that makes me proud to be a Star Trek fan, but an unbelievable character seems a poor memorial to a brave spirit. It were far better to dedicate him a serous episode dealing with the problems of the handicapped.
  • Tim F writes:
    Boy, I got INTERSTAT #113 and TREKLINK #8 both in the same day! What a haul! I promptly engorged myself In Star Trek for the evening. Something I've been noticing in the last few issues of INTERSTAT is a general disappointment In the behavior of Saavik in "Star Trek IV." Personally, I felt Robin Curtis' performance to be perfectly adequate and correct. Actually, most of the Vulcans that have been seen (Spock, Sarek, etc.) are those that have been around humans a lot and, therefore, have picked up various subtle human traits. If Saavik seemed distant in ST IV, maybe that's because most Vulcans really act that way. Or maybe her behavior was what she felt the typical Vulcan should be like, rather like that girl in Jean Lorrah's "Vulcan Academy Murders" who tried to be "more Vulcan than Vulcan." The "humanized" Vulcans most fans are used to may not be anything like your typical Vulcan on the street.
  • Jan M. M writes of what is the most satisfying Trek:
    Now that we have four movies (an embarrassment of riches), we seem to have a horse race. I was intrigued to note that in the last INTERSTAT, a lot of people mentioned TSFS as their favorite movie. Intrigued, because I found it to be the weakest link in the trilogy. While I won't deny that it had some of the best moments in Trek, I personally had little interest In Robin Curtis' Saavik, in David or in Kruge. So, for me, TSFS was both feast and famine, some sparkling Trek interspersed between some very tedious (albeit, technically necessary) footage that was only tangentially Trek. My personal favorite was TWOK. While it had a rotten overall philosophy ("the end justifies the means"), it was a rollicking adventure with enough plot twists to keep interest high. I also loved Kirstie Alley's Saavik—one look at her and you could see she spent some portion of her childhood skulking around corners and pulling phasers on imaginary Klingons—something I can empathize with, as I first saw Trek when I was about 12. I recently Watched ST:TMP again, and I was frankly surprised at how well the movie wears. As for TVH — well. It was a wonderful, pleasing confection of sugar and fresh whipped cream. What it may lack in nutritive value, it definitely makes up for with gustatory pleasure. Does an eclair really need any justification? All things considered, I don't think we've seen the quintessential ST movie. But, then again. I really don't believe there was a quintessential episode either. Looking back I have to say that my favorite ST experiences have been in zines.
  • Michele A comments on the movie:
    Lastly, I did a double (no, make that a triple) take to see Claire Gabriel's name in the last issue. Her response to ST IV after a recent return to fandom was both startling and poignant. I think her observations and responses say something real about ST:TVH, and that is, that this movie is not—whether one is a new, former, or here-for—the-duration fan—an emotionally involving one. It is instead a hilarious, clever, hip (there's that word again) version of Star Trek: fast-paced, funny, buoyant (let me get out my thesaurus), affectionate, irreverent, decidedly confident. If you are looking for character studies, forget it: try as he might, even McCoy can't play more than straight man to Spock's one liners, and the Kirk/Spock relationship is simply not an issue. The inclusion of the end scene in which people are throwing each other into the water and Spock is laughing (outtakes) proves that this film was made for fun/ laughs and not character verisimilitude. Yet while I am a fan who thrives on characterization, the lack thereof has not been a drawback for me, because what we do get from this film is such a damn good time! Besides, ST IV gives us fan writers a great opportunity to do what we do best: fill in the blanks (or as I prefer to think of it: connect the dots). Which brings me back to Claire's point that we get from Star Trek what we bring to it. In Star Trek: The Voyage Home, there is as much to bring to it as there is to take; perhaps that's always been the appeal and beauty of Star Trek.
  • Susan Beth S has a question:
    What is the significance of the Vulcan Hand Sign within the Star Trek universe? What does it mean? How did it develop? Please understand, I'm looking for an "internal" explanation. Leonard Nimoy has frequently explained how some gesture was demanded by the plot of "Amok Time" and that he derived it from a Jewish gesture of blessing — but that's the "external" answer. What explanation would Spock give? Is it simply the equivalent of a wave or does it carry more meaning? Is it used by all Vulcans --or only those who follow a particular philosophy? It's been suggested that the wave derived from showing that you aren't holding a weapon — what was the original purpose of the hand sign?

Issue 116

Interstat 116 was published in June 1987 and contains 26 pages.

cover of issue #116, Merle Decker
  • contains no interior art
  • cartoonist, Don Harden, leaves the staff, as does Michele Arvizu
  • the Gang of Six submits a long open letter explaining the progress they are making on Courts of Honor and they thank many, many people for their support, see Open Letter by the Gang of Six Regarding Courts of Honor
  • three fans write long reports of their fabulous experiences on a Star Trek Cruise, one in which there were sack races, George Takei wore a red foam lobster hat, and there was LOTS of food
  • Shirley J. F comments on Get a Life!:
    I thought Bill Shatner's skit on SNL was mildly amusing and I was not insulted by it (SNL treats all subjects that way, and Bill is a consummate actor—he'll play ANY role). I just want to say, I HAVE a life, and Star Trek has enriched it tremendously!
  • Janna S encourages some voting:
    Just want to ask everyone (if it's not too late) to please come out in support of the Surak Awards. I've participated from the outset, nominating and voting, and feel that the awards have been handled thoughtfully, carefully and fairly. Every category imaginable has been included (although letterzines were conspicuously left out—-guess a LoC is in order), even overseas categories, which has never before been the case with fan awards. Write for your ballots (or your nomination forms for next year) as soon as you can. We all know there are many fans deserving of the honors; let's make the Suraks an ongoing tradition.
  • Gulserene D addresses Charles T Jr.:
    Let me get this straight, [Charles T Jr.], You are a Star Trek fan, object strongly to sexism, and for all I know, worship Spock, and you can't identify with a FRENCHMAN?! (Unless, of course, he is quite properly relegated to the lower ranks, in which case you can find it in your heart to accommodate him, if he isn't too old.) ... Charles, I am truly not after you with a hatchet, but what makes you think that Gene Roddenberry is trying to make Lt. Geordi LaForge acceptable by giving him extra abilities? I am hampered by not having read the same article as you, but surely they didn't say so? Did you complain about Miranda in 'Is There in Truth No Beauty?' She was blind and enhanced too, though white, and I guess they figured if there are white blind people, there could be black blind people, and proceed from there?
  • Janna S's brain makes an sad correlation:
    One more observation about the film. Sixteen months ago had I seen the courtroom scene, I wouldn't have had too much trouble watching the Big E's demise again, but ever since the Challenger tragedy, I can't watch it—I still flinch. Perhaps I've been sensitized—I don't know—but my reaction is a physical one. There were beings aboard the Enterprise when she went down, too, or doesn't anyone remember that?
  • Cheryl writes:
    [Joan V] doesn't like the series' Kirk character, which I've been crazy about ever since 1/2 way through the first showing of Charlie X in '66—which was the first episode I saw. I remember sitting through the first movie wondering—along with where they had gotten such ugly uniforms and drab rust colored carpet for the Enterprise—where his charm had gone. Older is one thing—rudeness is another. Or maybe it's just leadership I like. I've finally had a chance recently to watch some Blake's 7 episodes and I find myself wondering what Kirk would do at various points in the action. After 20 years it's hard to find new heroes.
  • Shirley Maiewski comments about being misquoted:
    Fair warning, friends! NEVER TALK TO REPORTERS FROM THOSE CHEAP RAGS LIKE THE GLOBE magazine or the ENQUIRER! In fact, be careful with ALL reporters! I have just had a most embarrassing and upsetting experience with a reporter from the GLOBE and hope that those of you who know me and how I feel about STAR TREK and especially Gene Roddenberry will understand how I feel! For those of you who saw the article in the June 9th issue called "Fans
furious Kirk, Spock exterminated" written by Dave Thomas, please be assured that I was grossly misquoted! Yes, I talked to him on the phone, talked for over 15 minutes, during which time I told him how excited, interested and pleased I am that there will be a new Star Trek series on TV come Fall. He kept asking me things like, "Well, if after you see a couple of episodes, will you stop watching?" I said no, I would give it a real chance and expected to like what I saw. "Well, aren't there other fans who do not like the idea?" I said that was none of my affair, however most people I had talked to were as excited as I was. He kept trying to get me to say something negative and I will admit that I finally made a mistake: "I did hear about one fan who said the show should be called STAR FLEET in order to save confusion." So what does he quote me on? That one statement in all the 15 minutes we talked, and then incorrectly! I am NOT "Outraged that Roddenberry is dragging the beloved Star Trek name through the mud!" as he says, "because the new show will obviously be different from the original." It all makes me wonder what the others quoted really said! I am often contacted by reporters and others because the Star Trek Welcommittee is listed in a Directory of Organizations, with my name, address and phone number included, as a source of information about Star Trek. I always try my best to be positive, helpful and as informative as I can be. I have done radio broadcasts, a couple of TV appearances, been featured in NEWSWEEK and other publications, and usually it works out fine. But not this time! Drat! So, my dear friends in fandom, be careful. Try not to get into a mess like this one! I have written to Gene Roddenberry and apologized, even though it wasn't my fault! I also apologize to anyone else who thought I was out of line. If you ever see anything like that again, please write and get my side of the story! Thank you. If I can help it, it won't be necessary.
  • Nancy H ruminates on the the Vulcan hand sign:
    Here are some thoughts on the Vulcan hand sign for you. In the martial arts, an empty, open hand not only signifies a lack of a weapon, but also a lack of the intention to fight (parts of the body can be lethal weapons, too). Perhaps spreading the fingers symbolizes that the hand is of no use, as well. (You probably couldn't do a nerve pinch with your fingers spread like that.) I've been chocking my videotapes a bit, and it seems most of the instances of the salute have been done with the right hand, except those done by T'Pau, which were done left-handed. Either way, one shoulder is exposed, but the other hand is raised and could block an attack. So, although it shows good faith to raise an open hand, it doesn't leave the person entirely vulnerable (much as in the martial arts, where bowing is a gesture of respect but varies in degree of trust in performance, bow your head and drop your eyes, and you are very trusting). Regardless of its origin, no doubt it indicates respect and esteem. Sarek did not salute Spock upon boarding the Enterprise in "Journey to Babel," but Spock did make the sign to Kirk as his last act in TWOK.

Issue 117/118

Interstat 117/118 was published in July/August 1987 and contains 30 pages.

cover of issue #117/118, Mike Brown
  • contains no interior art
  • announcement of the first Star Trek Tie-in novel on audio cassette tape
  • some fans start a fund to help another fan, Kay B, with medical bills
  • the 1986 Surak Award and the 1987 Fan Q winners are announced
  • many, many fans respond negatively to Charles T. Jr.'s letter in a previous issue, most addressing his vehemence as well as his "Anglo-American supremacist attitude"
  • A.C. Crispin has an update about Time for Yesterday, see that page
  • Melissa M writes a con report for K.C. Con VI that is mostly about Harve Bennett and how wonderful he is, Teri Meyer also has a report of this con and it is Harve-centric
  • Allie W writes of pro books:
    I would also like to comment on the discussion about ST pro novels. Is they is or is they ain't Real Trek? I agree that some of them are awful (Marshak and Culbreath come to mind), but by and large I can accept and enjoy them for what they are to me: alternative views of a universe I know very well in my mind, but views which are sometimes quite different from my own. What could be more real than this divergence? Don't we each color and shape reality to fit our own needs? There is room in the universe for all of us, and room to avoid what particularly annoys or disturbs us, too. I am reminded of the old saying about sex, which can be applied to Trek: When it is good, it is very, very good, and when it is bad, it's not too bad!
  • Vel Jaeger disassociates herself from a fan club:
    There has been a matter that has weighed heavily on my heart for some time now, and I feel the need to make a public statement on the subject. It is with great regret that I have made the decision to allow my membership in the William Shatner Fellowship (WSF) to lapse. Although I've stuck with this organization from the very beginning, their purpose and mine have taken opposite directions. I could live with the increasing commercialization and declining newsletter quality — but the "Members Handbook" in the April SHATNER FILE is an intolerable and final insult. Were I to remain a member now would imply my acceptance of these rules and regulations. I've had my own "Code of Ethics" for quite a few years, and don't need to rely on anyone else's for a guide. Mine may be a bit archaic, but I sleep with a clear conscience. Friends I've made within WSF over the years will be able to read between these lines, and know that I will always remain a steadfast fan of William Shatner, as I have for nearly 30 years. And true friends will also know that my door is always open for a fellow fan, no matter what sort of membership card they carry. Under normal circumstances I would have simply dropped out, and let the matter pass. But I have been so visibly associated with WSF in years past (including being Regional Assistant for the Southwestern U.S.), that I fool it necessary to publicly disassociate myself from the organization. A true "fellowship" is based upon the sharing of interests — not a corporate structure, complete with CEO and Board of Directors. But even the shareholders of a corporation are occasionally given the opportunity to ratify policy — I fervently doubt that members of WSF would have approved the "handbook," had they been given the opportunity of choice. This may seem a tempest in a teapot, but sharing my interests with other fans has always been very important to me. More times than I care to count, fandom in some form or other has been my anchor to sanity — those who have stayed with me through the years and multiple moves involved in military life will remember this only too well. But I refuse to let failures overwhelm me — I already have "a life." There seems to be a limited shelf life for organized fan clubs on a national level; at some point the original goals are lost, and possessiveness and power plays take the place of communication with the rank and file. When all criticism is taken as attack, suggestions ignored, and those at the head of an organization distance themselves from their constituency — then it's time to part company. I'm not trying to provide a vendetta, nor advocate a boycott, and heaven knows I'm not about to organize a rival group. But I am certain that this letter will cause sides to be chosen, and have no doubt as to its reception from the WSF leadership. It's not that I don't care, rather the doors of friendship were closed long ago, and maintaining silence in the face of inequity no longer appeals to me.
  • Claire G has some recommendations:
    The best zine I have read since I came back is Kin of the Same Womb Born by Rosalie Blazej. She writes like a pro, and the premise is far, far off the beaten path. I recommend it strongly, especially to Spock-Chapel fans. And speaking of Leslie Fish, every Trek fan should make the effort to find a tape of ST songs called "Where No Man" It's wonderful. The last two offerings are particularly good: one simply beautiful and the other (a Fish) simply hilarious — guaranteed to crack you up when you remember it later in a meeting or on the bus. So approach with caution, but don't miss it.
  • Ruth B explains:
    I am amazed at the credibility given to the Globe article. Though articles in such papers, I believe, begin with a grain of truth, I always take such articles with a grain of salt. I received a call from the reporter one evening when I was in a hurry. He did tell me his name and who he was with (it didn't click or I probably wouldn't have talked to him) and that he had been given my name by [Joan V] because of a letter I had written in INTERSTAT protesting the new Star Trek series. I don't think he set out with any intent to misquote or distort anything. Besides, I'm not too good at articulating what I feel. I have nothing against this new series EXCEPT calling it Star Trek. To me, that's a misnomer. It has been stated by many people involved in Star Trek over the years that no one really knows what the magic of Star Trek is. Therefore, to mess with that 'formula' is dangerous. To me, the magic of Star Trek is Kirk, Spock, McCoy, et al. aboard the Enterprise. To other people, it's other things. I told him that books have been written on the subject and suggested he talk with someone like Harve Bennett.

Issue 119

Interstat 119 was published in September 1987 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #119, Fran Dovener
  • contains no interior art
  • this issue has the words for the poem, "Whales Weep Not" by D.H. Lawrence
  • several fans each write parts of a con report for Omacon VII
  • Bev C writes of TNG:
    The main topic of discussion, the new series: I must say that although I have some reservations
 about the characters as they have been described— not so much about individual characters as about the fact that as a whole they fall into conventional categories: the main characters are all white males, all the ethnic and female characters arc supporting, and too many of the women are described in the preliminary publicity materials in terms of their relationships to the male characters — I am looking forward to the show. I do like the idea of taking the concept of ST and putting it into a new setting, as I've always felt that ST was more than simply the relationship among the Big Three, important as that was. The presence of Dorothy Fontana on the show's staff is the most hopeful indication to me; she was probably the best writer on the old series and she was responsible for some of the most interesting background and character development.
  • Anne B comments on the the Vulcan gesture:
    I see the Vulcan Salute (1#115) as primarily a gesture of peace (my brother once called it the "Vulcan peace sign," comparing it to the old V-for-victory hand signal which acquired a new meaning in the 60's) and greeting, similar to the open hand raised with palm outward used by many Earth cultures. Another level of meaning—which it seems to share with other Vulcan hand gestures and symbols, such as Sarek and Amanda's finger-touch and T'Lar's headdress ornament—might be duality: mind/body, logic/emotion, male/female, or a general concept (similar to the Oriental yin/yang) that everything has its complementary opposite. If you want to get even more complicated, consider that most of these gestures involve two pairs of fingers, a "double duality" as it were. So maybe it's also an expression of IDIC: separated fingers for diversity, paired ones for combination.
  • Jacqueline Lichtenberg writes about the Vulcan Salute:
    about an internal explanation of the Vulcan salute. I wrote an essay at the behest of Michelle Malkin for her first trekzine, just after the show was cancelled, and that article later became part of the Kraith Universe and was reprinted in Kraith Collected Vol. I, I believe. (KC is still in print.) The article connected the gesture with the philosophy of Nome and five components of it, IDIC included, which have been established as roots of Vulcan philosophy on the air. It also connected the gesture to the meditative finger positions Spock uses, and to the Yoga practice of mudras - finger positions - and to the known elements of human nervous organization that connects internal "mood" to physical position - i.e. body language. It is a sf explanation of a ST postulate (invented from stagecraft, not sf premises) and from that postulate, almost everything else later established about Vulcan culture in Kraith is derived.
  • and because Jacqueline Lichtenberg can slip in some Kraith anywhere:
    To Mary Ann Drach and the Gang of Six, thank you for bringing us COURTS OF HONOR, even though it took up time that might have been spent on completing the Kraith main stories. I have CoH but have only been able to watch a non-K/S reader reading it. Judging from her reaction, it's got to be among the greats! I intend to review it somehow, somewhen. If non-K/S readers love it, it must be Literature!
  • Tammy W writes of K/S:
    In zines it works very well, but I do not think it will work well put into the movies. I do not think the general public could accept that kind of relationship for our two heroes, though it is logical.
  • Michele A has a scold:
    I read with great interest [Joan V's] letter in last issue as I was advised by her to watch for it. Of course, I also read [Ruth B's] letter in the same issue and Shirley Maiewski's in the previous issue—all regarding the infamous GLOBE article on fan reaction to Gene Roddenberry's new series. Yes, tabloids are horrible things—twisters of innocent words, cruel manipulators of fiction over fact. Never the less, there it was anyway: BIG as LIFE. And whose names were in the article? Not obscure fans from Podunk County USA, but three BIG NAME FANS. Yes, we were all gullible for believing exactly what we saw in print, but so were you for talking to any reporter you didn't know. I have been approached at conventions by TV reporters who wanted to interview me as a fan; I have always turned them down—flat. Not because I have no wish to promote Star Trek, but because I know I have to "live" in fandom and know the risks of making myself a fool in the public press by being misquoted. Your announcing to us that the readers should have known better is the pot calling the kettle black. Only Shirley Maiewski's letter did not ring of an arrogance borne of embarrassment, and I applaud both her humility and quick willingness to apologize. If your words were misquoted and manipulated (and to a degree that appears to be true) , then that is truly unfortunate. But it was your names specifically mentioned in the GLOBE, and you do admit to talking to them. That things turned out badly for you is unfortunate but hardly worthy of an indignant response.

Issue 120

Interstat 120 was published in October 1987 and contains 18 pages.

cover of issue #120
  • contains no interior art
  • a transcript of Harve Bennett's talk at K.C. Con
  • there is a letter from Harve Bennett addressed to Teri Meyer and Interstat readers and announces that the new movie will begin shooting in the fall of 1988 and be released June 1989
  • many fans write in and comment on TNG, and their responses are very similar to what fans in other letterzines report: Picard is sexy, too French, too short, too cerebral, not Kirk. Riker is boring and brash but handsome. Troi over-emotes, is annoying, and appears to have no real function. Yar is over-emotional, has temper problems, but is "least energetic". Crusher is not sufficiently portrayed and is an obvious love interest set-up for Picard. Data is very interesting. Everyone likes LaForge and Worf, and loved the cameo by Dr. McCoy. And nobody likes Wesley. Some people wanted to know why Q spoke King James English. There was too much sex, too many children on the ship, some fans enjoyed the hot bods and the jumpsuits they wore, others loathed the uniforms, the sets looked both good and bad, the plot felt recycled which was both fun and not...
  • Claire G addresses Tammy W regarding the Kirk/Spock relationship in the recent movie:
    K/S is not the issue here. To suggest that it is, simply obscures the real problem: The Voyage Home did not deal with the Kirk-Spock relationship AT ALL. It was a slick comedy with a worthwhile message and some neat special effects. But it wasn't really Star Trek except for the last scene. One of Harve Bennett's five endings, I presume. I'm referring here to the report of KC Con VI in the same issue as Michele's LoC. (Superb editing, Teri.) The incident where someone asked the speaker why Spock never did call Kirk 'Jim' exemplifies, I think, the point that both Michele and I are trying to make. "I will answer that question in two ways...." But he never answered it at all. Who said anything about endings? It would only have taken a few seconds, and if I didn't have to keep this to a page and a half, I could mention a couple obvious places for it. But as I wrote in the same issue as Michele's LoC, I had to look under the final credits to find anything even vaguely resembling what I was looking for, and I found it there only because I wanted to. It's not really there, and I know it isn't. For reasons too complicated to detail here, I don't believe the K/S premise. (I mention this only so that no one will further obscure the real issue by coming back and asking me if I'm "for" or "against.") But I do agree with the fan commenting in one of the Best of Trek volumes I read when I was catching up: "Fans want to see Spock loving the Captain." You bet. And vice-versa. Sturgeon knew how. Fontana knows too, or at least she did. Shatner and Nimoy knew how once, even without Sturgeon or Fontana to write it for them. But nobody seems to know how anymore.


  1. ^ This book was never published, at least in this form.
  2. ^ He is referring to "If it were not for her intelligence, personality, and beauty, and the fact that she has the natural walk of a striptease queen, Capt Picard might not have agreed to her request that [her child] observe bridge activities."