Right of Statement

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Zine
Title: Right of Statement
Publisher: "An Isis/Yggdrisil Press Publication"
Editor(s): Patrica C. Nolan and Anne Elizabeth Zeek (#1), Anne Elizabeth Zeek (#2, #3)
Type: letterzine
Date(s): 1978-1979
Frequency:
Medium: print
Fandom: Star Trek: TOS
Language: English
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Right of Statement is a gen Star Trek: TOS letterzine of reviews and letters.

The first issue was published by Patricia C. Nolan and Anne Elizabeth Zeek.

Nolan handed over the reins to Zeek after the first issue.

flyer printed in Falcon's Flight #4

There were three issues.

The ad in The Trek Fan's Handbook calls it a "genzine for purists."

This letterzine is a contemporary to Interstat in that "Right of Statement" began shortly after Interstat. Unlike the long-running "Interstat," there were only three issues of "Right of Statement."

Another contemporary letterzine, one that was just as short-lived, was Atavachron .

A fan writes a very short review of "Right of Statement" #3 in Scuttlebutt #14 and wonders if it will be a successor to that zine.

Issue 1

Right of Statement 1 was published in July 1978 and contains 30 pages.

front cover of issue #1
back cover of issue #1, Amy Harlib

The small illos are by Kathy Carlson, Amy Harlib, Jeanne Matthews, Carolynn Ruth, Virginia Lee Smith, and A.E. Zeek.

Some topics discussed in this issue: Nimoy and Spock and the upcoming movie, fandom and community, a con report for Puget Sound Star Trekkers Science Fiction and Star Trek Convention #3, Close Encounters of the Third Kind (was Roy Neery a relative of Kirk?), Space: 1999 and those Star Trek fans who disregard it.

This issue has an essay by Jean Lorrah called How about a discussion of one of everybody's favorite topics: money?.

This issue has a review by Frances Zawacky of The Price of the Phoenix, see that page.

From Pat Nolan:

I hope you win enjoy reading this first issue of RIGHT of STATEMENT as much as we enjoyed putting it together.

Unfortunately, I regret to announce that I will no longer be involved in this worthy project.I found in recent months that editing my own zine as well as being involved in writing a TREK novel and several other projects has left me no time for RIGHT of STATEMENT. In addition, as far as travel time is concerned, Staten Island might as well be on the Moon. Sorry. it would be easier to get to the Moon from the Bronx than to get to Staten Island.

Anne Elizabeth will be keeping RIGHT of STATEMENT on her own, and I wish her good luck.

Sayonara, and I'll see you orbiting the FARTHEST STAR.

From Zeek:

Gentle homs, femmes, and beings:

I do not live on the moon. Indeed, I'd scarcely compare a lovely, leisurely ferry ride ~ complete with cooling ocean breezes — to a hot, cramped arbiter having only recycled canned air. Besides, whatever happened to the pioneer spirit that made this country great?

Aside from that, I have very little to add to what Pat said above. Welcome to RIGHT of STATEMENT. We hope you enjoy it. Remember, though,its success will depend on how Involved you want to become. So please, keep those letters, reviews, con reports, and guest columns coming this way,

y'hear now?

From Matt Butts:

There seems to be a very unsportsmanlike trend among STAR TREK fans which is not only prejudiced, but downright stupid. I refer to the constantly snobbish attitude that the fans have taken to the SPACE; 1999 TV series.

More than just a few STAR TREK zines have taken a hypercritical stand on SPACE: 1999, mostly with half-baked accusations such as "There is no story!" (the stories are not only much more involved than STAR TREK, they are often times very enlightening and thought-provoking), "It's scientifically inaccurate!"(quod erat demonstratum — science has yet to prove them wrong), "You can't understand the characters!" (this one is most often made after only two or three episodes. Characterization takes time), and our all-time favorite, "It's just a take-off on STAR TREK." (STAR TREK and SPACE: 1999 are science fiction shows. That is where the similarity ends).

Why do STAR TREK fans — most of them, at least dislike SPACE; 1999? The answer is quite simple: prejudice. These fans (are you one of them?) are so stuck on STAR TREK they refuse to accept another science fiction show. There must be at least 25 sitcoms on TV these days, and even more soap operas. They can all co-exist... why In the name of Gene Roddenberry can't two science fiction shows co-exist?

I like SPACE:1999. I like STAR TREK. ST has been infinitely more successful — but give SPACE:1999 a few years to prove itself. It already has a strong and thriving fandom. It's cathching up. Forget STAR TREK for an hour next time you have a chance to view an episode of SPACE: 1999. You might just learn to appreciate it for what it is: good televised science fiction.

From Linda Deneroff:

Grrr. Those are teeth grinding in frustration. The most controversial subjects in Trek fandom have been hacked to death. I'm sick of K/S, yes or no. It's nobody's business but my own what I care to read or write or print, and it's none of my business what the hell you do or don't. And it may be bigoted of me, but I don't like people who try to interfere.

What else is controversial? STAR WARS vs. STAR TREK? I love them both, as I love SF in general. I don't make value judgements between or amongst things I love; 1 love them for what they are (Is that controversial, Anne, Pat? I doubt it. It's simply a statement of what I feel).

I'm afraid you've caught me in a placid mood, or at least not a controversial one. Get me in an argument next time, tape it, and I'll transcribe it for you.

From Diane Tessman:

Can anyone offer an explanation, according to aired ST, of how humankind first made contact with other intelligent life-forms In the galaxy? Historical detail is are not my forte, so perhaps some Spocks out there have the answer?

If there Is no account of the first encounter, I have formulated one based on CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, obviously, Roy Neary is Captain Kirk's great, great, etc., etc., grandfather.. The clues are undeniable: they both come from the Midwest; they both have silly, vulnerable, yet noble characteristics; they even look alike, except that Kirk is more magnificent.

[...]

CLOSE ENCOUNTERS is beautiful because it takes the greatest step toward realization of the ST future, contact with extraterrestrials. In this version of the contact they come to us. Perhaps It Is we who will go to them. The space shuttle and other space plans are certainly the beginnings of the ST future, also.

However, Earthers have far to go in reaching into distant space and making the contact first, it is probably more logical that other worlders, if only several hundred more years advanced, would reach us first, perhaps through means not yet dreamed of by mankind. And it would seem that the time to reach humanity would be as we looked toward space for answers to our numerous crises on Earth. It does make sense that the first alien contact of the ST universe came about in much the same way as the ENCOUNTERS contact.

I feel that Spielberg had the wonder of ST very much In mind when he made CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. In a few hundred years, where will Roy Neary's descendants be? Why, captaining starshlps, of course.

From Sally McIntyre:

Any adult fans who are interested in any aspects of Romulans, and who would like to have a penpal to bounce ideas off can write to me at this address. It doesn't matter to me what particular aspect you want to discuss (the RomComs and their aides, Balance of Terror, The Enterprise Incident, speculatlon, fan fiction, bedtime stories, the Romulan mind, culture, legends, history, politics, relationships between the Romulans and the Vulcans, etc. I'll try very hard to answer all adults who write.

From Jenny Ferris:

I am relatively new to Fandom (the capital F kind) — only been buying zines and such for a couple years, and am just now getting into pubbing myself. But in the short two years I’ve been around, I’ve grown to value Fandom very much. I’ve met some terrific people, made good friends and hope to make many more — and I don’t want to lose this good thing I’ve found. It’s opened up so many new worlds to me — no play on words intended.

Let’s keep this good thing. As maddening as Paramount’s vacillating can be — it doesn’t really matter. The internal storms that shake fandom (K/S, for one example) can be weathered with love — these differences can be cherished, nu? And Kirk/Spock, In any permutation,

is one thing I wanted to mention. Nimoy may well not be in the movie. If he isn’t, I’ll be very sorry, but I’ll still see the movie many times. Spock won’t have disappeared just because the character is not brought back, he’s too real. We can even, if we choose, ignore selective information presented in the new movie/whatever. Who says we can’t? We can continue to enjoy and love any and all of them, however we choose to do that. STAR TREK is ours, really. It was a gift given to us, and we can continue to celebrate it, and ourselves, and our visions, as long as we want! "They can't take that away from me..."

From Elizabeth Carrie:

I recently read I AM NOT SPOCK, by Leonard Nimoy. It had a definite effect on me, and by the end of the book I had been convinced. Indeed, he is not Spock. (I think it was his passion for photography that did it. It's such a human way to be.)

Don't get me wrong — I love Spock. I think I could love Mr. N. as a person, "fully fleshed,” but I’ll never know. I don’t know the whole ”him”, and I never will. But I love the ”him” which made Spock loveable. Spock... ah! He’s part of me; he showed me the Vulcan in me.

[...]

So you can see STAR TREK, and Spock, are rooted parts of me, integrated into my being so that, should the whole world suddenly forget, they will live on in me. Understand that it is from respectful love, not anger, that I say this:

I wish Leonard Nimoy hadn’t signed [onto the movie, after a lot of drama]. I wish, in fact, that they would shelve the whole project. Indefinitely. From all I’ve read, the Powers That Be took what should have been a relatively simple task (recreating an already existing world) and did everything in their power to complicate It (starting with hiring people who had no experience with STAR TREK. I ask you — is there reason to this, taking two English-based writers with no exposure to ST and giving them the job of script writing? It would be different if STAR TREK were an unknown quantity. Then they could get away with it. But there are millions of experts on ST, all of whom want the best — in a recognizable framework.) The most disgusting aspect of this whole mess is the Power's presumption that any ignorant pro writer has to be better than a quality fan writer.

You explain it. Their logic defies me.

It is this kind of thinking which has permeated the entire ST project. And the foundation of all the problems lies in one simple fact: when ST was on, the Powers didn't need escape into the well-ordered, peaceful sanity of the Enterprise world. And because they didn't, they couldn't understand why anyone would, so they did their best to ax it — until they thought they'd put an end to it.

But the Powers were wrong, and STAR TREK lives because we still need that sanity, to keep our own sanity. They still don't need it, but they see a money maker (supply and demand), so everyone's going to get into the act. But everyone! That's the problem. STAR TREK should be the exclusive property of friends and family — and the "sudden-wealth" distant cousins, popping out of nowhere to grab "their share" should be forced away.

The Powers won't be forced though. And with their foolish suggestions and thoughtless procrastinations, they are ruining a project born out of love. The end result would have to be disaster. When it comes right down to a yes or a no, I say no. I can't live with "anything, just so STAR TREK Is filmed again." There was too much of that during the third year ST was on.

Give me the zines. At least with the fans you get the characters you know, and stories of real quality. There's even trouble getting quality In pro published books. And let's face it — the movie will probably never become a fact, so I have nothing to complain about.

  • from issue #1

  • from issue #1

  • from issue #1

  • from issue #1

Issue 2

Right of Statement 2 was published September 15, 1978 and contains 38 pages.

front cover of issue #2
front cover of issue #2, artist is Amy Harlib

It contains eight letters of comment, and four WAHF.

The illos are by Kathy Carlson, Amy Harlib, Jeanne Matthews, Richard Olsen, Carolynn Ruth, Virginia Lee Smith, and Anne Elizabeth Zeek.

The topics discussed in this issue: zine production (mimeo vs offset), zine costs and value, zines and copyright, hopes for the upcoming movie: Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the state of fandom, and many comments about The Schuster Conventions.

This issue contains an essay by Jean Lorrah called Copyright: at the moment we are stuck with what the Library of Congress says.

From Anne Elizabeth Zeek:

Gentle homs, femmes, and beings:

From the initial response to the first issue of RIGHT OF STATEMENT, it would appear that you are pleased with, and approve of, the format: the variety of topics, the general content, the art, the graphics, the physical layout, etc. I thank you for your comments. Remember, your critical response is the only way I can tell if I am "reaching" you. So ALL comments -- the favorable, and the not-so-favorable -- will be read and given due consideration here. So keep LOCing, y'hear?

By the way, that goes, for other publications, as well. A little secret: editors, authors, and artists become quite easily addicted to, and overly dependent on, a drug known as ego-boo (fannish shorthand for "ego-boost," the heady lift that occurs when there is an interaction with an appreciative audience). Our source for this as - yet legal drug? Your LOCs, your Letters of Comment. So please, support your local ego-boo addict: write a LOC today!

You will notice there is no price listing on the front-sheet of this issue of ROS. That is because, effective immediately, there is a price change being instituted. RIGHT OF STATEMENT #1 cost me about 45.6 cents per copy to print; it.cost me 41.0 cents per copy to mail. At a fixed subscription rate of $2.00 for six issues, I would soon be eligible for bankruptcy proceedings. And, while I will be able to recoup part of this loss if I have an additional print run, that does not really help me with, the high cost of the initial print-run -- or the high cost of postage/handling.

So-o-o, ROS will cost 50 cents per single issue copy by hand in the future. Mail rates for single copies will be 75 cents. Six issue subscriptions to ROS will cost $2.00 plus $1.50 postage. All current subscriptions will of course, be honored at the old rate — but any donation to the Post Awful fund would be most gratefully received! Meanwhile, rest assured that I will do my best to keep production price down, and quality up, on this and all other ISIS/YGGDRISIL PRESS publications.

From Diane Tessman:

In answer to Elizabeth Carrie's LOC, I think we all have a feeling of painful anticipation and sweet torment over the forthcoming movie. The past few years have been a comedy of errors re the revival of ST (comedic if it weren't Our precious STAR TREK they were playing with). Often, it has seemed as if the Enterprise were caught in the most hopeless web of all—far worse than any alien intelligence has ever snagged her in.

"We do not know our own hearts until another has revealed his to us." Thanks for reminding me of that, Elizabeth. It is a quote we Trekkers may understand better than any other group on Earth. However, it is not Spock who has shown me his heart... in my case, it is Kirk. His honesty, openness, humor, his great ability to mean more to me than I can put into words. Almost every member of fandom has her Spock, her Kirk, her McCoy, her Uhura to thank (I say "her" because we all see them a shade differently... has something to do with IDIC, I suspect), but since I have my Kirk, I'm now preparing to give a (short!) speech on our hopes for the movie.

Yes, it's a gamble, but at long last we've got the best in the business (Robert Wise is no one to sneeze at, folks...just catch the last few minutes of WEST SIDE STORY. And we all know the talents of Roddenberry, Shatner, ]]Nimoy]]...)! Why else are we "out here"? We've got to forge ahead! Sure, one can sit in a secure corner with zines, reading the kind of zines which one individually loves (we are highly specialized fans!), I do it myself. As Elizabeth said, it keeps me sane and safe (for a few precious hours) from the mundane, downright STUPID world outside. Is this, then, all there is to be of STAR TREK? If it were, I would accept it and love it still, and devote my time and money to it.

However, here before us is a chance the Enterprise will truly fly again, silver and free, with her crew intact (and I am certainly glad that our actors are making a bit of bread out of their dynamic characterizations at long last).

Even more... it should be as much of a step for humanity as the moon landing. Look at the impact of the 79 TV episodes! They have made some of humanity realize that our future as a race lies in the stars! They have made some of humanity realize that we must respect life-forms other than man! Yes, we Trekkers are gentle, future-oriented thinkers anyway, but I for one don't know how far I could have come without TREK.

Of course, the movie may fail. It may not show anybody anything. Nimoy may not find any other facets of Spock to let us glimpse. Shatner may not find any more human warmth to convey in Kirk. Kelley may not find one more ounce of the good old country doctor in Bones.

Do you really believe these things????? As Jenny Ferris said, we can individually reject any part of the movie that isn't "right" for us, and we can still pursue our beautiful world of fandom and zines. However, I, for one, can't wait until the movie boldly goes, exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilizations... urn, sorry... Got carried away!

Maybe, just maybe, those damn Powers can be overcome for once. It's well worth the try!

From Roberta Rogow:

You ask for a Right of Statement, you got one! I am taking to the typewriter at the request of Leslie Fish, who is occupied in finishing The Weight, and a couple stories, and her and my mutual Andorian novel. She is as disturbed as I am over something that really is getting out of hand.

I refer to the current disenchantment and semi-boycott of pro-Cons run by Tristar, otherwise known as April Promotions or, let's face it, Mr. John Townsley. People are spreading malicious rumors involving bankruptcy, or insults to TREK stars, or worse. My own technique for dealing with these rumors is quite simple: I ASK the man. May I now state the following:

John Townsley is NOT going bankrupt. He did NOT write insulting or snide letters to certain STAR TREK actors, nor did he refuse to pay the requisite fees. He is NOT cancelling Phillycon [1], he is postponing it until STAR TREK II filming is over, and the people he was scheduled to have as speakers can tell us what we REALLY want to know about the film.

Before you start crying "scab", I may add that I am NOT on the April Promotions payroll, not in the least. I am NOT paid money for singing at Tristar cons (although I do get a free ticket and table to sell my stuff) and I have as many beefs as any one else about a certain printing job Mr. T. did for me. But I dislike seeing someone who is performing an important function in fandom getting the shaft for no good reason. (I'm sure you can find some more accurate evils to heap upon the man.)

Let's face it -- you don't get new people into fandom unless they know it's there, and a lot of people DON'T know fandom exists unless they run into it at a good-sized Con, to which they were lured with the promise of seeing Big Bill Shatner in person. Case in Point: Leslie Fish (that's where SHE comes into this act). Leslie didn't get into Fandom until the Lisa Boynton DisasterCon in Chicago in 1975 -- simply because he wasn't running around in Fannish circles at the time. For that matter, I was totally unaware that Fandom was out there until I got into the New York Star Trek Cons through a librarian friend who happened to be on the Con Committee. As people gafiate (through disenchantment or sheer pressure from work, family, etc.) new people HAVE to take their place, otherwise Fandom dies.

The only way you can get large numbers of people into a STAR TREK Con is by having a "show", which means that you have to be able to rent a large hotel, in an easily accessible part of town; you have to have an organization to run the thing, end you have to have money to put out in bonds, deposits, etc. The halcyon days of the New York Con Committee are long gone, and a big Pro Con takes a lot of all the above, plus an indefinable something known as seichel -- know-how, experience, etc. After running cons for two years in several cities, Tristar is learning.

According to Fish, Mr. Townsley's reputation in the Midwest is that of someone who gives value for value -- you want a show, you got it. He also provides plenty of fannish programming for those who want it: panels on Welcommittee, or fanzines, or filk-songs, or what-have-you. He's been getting more fans involved (for the basest of reasons -- we don't charge that much) but the result is that Neos get to see what fun fans have, and this makes them want to get more involved.

Which brings me back to my basic premise. Whether or not someone chooses to attend a Con is his/her own business. There are numerous factors involved. However, deliberately panning a Con in advance, simply because it is run by Tristar, is, in my opinion, a mistake.

There is no other way for a lot of people to get together (again, Leslie Fish told me that she could never have come to Hew York for a smaller Con, simply because of the expenses. By singing at STAR TREK World Expo in February 1978, she got people interested enough to buy her records; thus, a lotta people got to know about Leslie Fish, Townsley got a new fanstar. Fish got some money, and everyone was happy.). The Neos see the BNFS, and the fanzines, and they want to write or draw, or just take part -- and fandom is revitalized.

OK, I'm a cock-eyed optimist, and sure, there're a lot of people who have gripes! But in the long-run, I think the Tristar Cons are the best Pro Cons around--until someone else can do better. And I, for one, will continue to support them.

Is that enough of a Statement? See you at STAR TREK America, courtesy of Tristar!!!

From Carole Crater:

This is a note of complaint and/or inquiry for John Townsley, the guiding light behind the Tristar STAR TREK conventions. So John dear, what, oh what, has happened to those once thick, detailed, interesting, highly illustrated program books that we were once given upon registration at your various cons. The offerings you have been producing and issuing under the guise of "program' books" have become increasingly poor in page count and content.

They have become become downright pitiful. With each succeeding (1976 onward) convention the program books you have produced have diminished from program "books" to program "pamphlets" to what we finally found at the STAR TREK Atlanta Convention — program "pages". Where are those lovely program books we once brought home so proudly? Can we truly consider them a remnant of yesteryear?

Several of us "malcontents" have already mentioned the sorry state of your program books to one or two of your workers at the Atlanta Convention. We received sympathy (no tea, though) and little else. Come September and the STAR TREK America Convention in New York, and we shall see what good our little gripes have done. We shall see whether the program books have improved.

Why have I been harping on the subject of program books? For several reasons. In the first place, these program books were advertised from the first Townsley TREK Con as a uniform series of souvenir booklets -- potential collectors' items. Also, however, there is a further, underlying reason. The disintegration of the Tristar program book lets has become symptomatic of a general air of ennui that has begun to cling to the big Pro Cons.

While on the subject of conventions, Mr. Townsley, what say you to the possibility of having a few sprinklings of the "little people" at your conventions? We all love Shatner, Nimoy, DeKelly, and the rest of the regular crew, and we certainly want you to continue to have them at your conventions as frequently as possible, but we would also love to see those people who only appeared once or twice on the show... people like Jason Evers, Jane Wyatt, Robert Brown, Kathy Browne, Mark Lenard, Kim Darby, Kathryn Hays, William Campbell, Roger Carmel, Barbara Anderson, Sabrina Schrif, Leslie Parrish, Joan Collins, Diana Muldaur, Joanne Linville, Micheal Ansara, etc.

These people added a great deal to the overall popularity and effect of the show, so why not invite them, as well as the major stars? I know from conversations with other people that they feel as I do, and would also love to meet these unsung "guest star" heroes and heroines. At least make the attempt and send out your invitations. You might be pleasantly surprised to see how many of these people would be interested in attending a convention.

And you might also be surprised at the face-lift such a move would give to the Tristar STAR TREK Conventions. Ask anyone who went to the 1976 Bicentennial Con — one of the highlights of the Convention was getting to see and meet such people as Stanley Adams, Susan Oliver, and Kathryn Hays. How about a return to that kind of a Convention??? You know the kind -- one where there's something going every minute; major programming, alternate programming, fan programming, full-scale film programming (like, all day for those not interested in the other scheduled convention events), and such old stand-bys as the Hucksters Room, the art show, any special exhibits that might be set up, and the special evening highlights the Masquerade contest, the Grand Ball, etc.

[snipped]

Mr. Townsley, you were on the right trek once. Would it be too much of a miracle to ask for a return to the program books and Con programming of yesteryear?

From G.M. Carr:

ROS#1 contains so many comment-worthy points, I don't know where to start.

"Lessa of Pern" said - (and I agree with her strongly) that new editors should seriously think about mimeoing their zines. True, one has to work harder to insure good results, and it is cheaper. Beautifully produced mags that cost from $6.00 to $8.00 may be justified because they cost the publisher so much to produce, but honestly, they are very seldom worth it compared to what that same amount of money would buy on the professional market. At that price the prospective buyer pauses..."Do I really want this fanzine — no matter how highly praised — or should I buy that Classic I've always wanted?" Frequently, too, they settle for two cheaper zines instead... thus inferior work gets greater coverage, while the,high-priced zine passing from hand to hand is more honored by lip service than by actual cash returns.

[much snipped about zine trading, taking a tax deductions for business losses and zine production...]

From Elizabeth Carrie:

Oh, Matt...what can I say? You're going to think I'm prejudiced. There's a difference, however, between facing the truth and defending a side. You see, when SPACE: 1999 was promoted I was very, pleased. I enjoy SF, and I would settle for any decent SF program. I even watched most of the shows, hoping (ever hoping) they would get better. The key was the writers' inability to put a finish to any of the stories. They just sort of...petered out. And when they added Maya (she of the wartbrows, and obviously their attempt at a Spock of their own), I watched, hoping still. But they did nothing with the characters -- except on rare occasions. (I did notice that the best stories did not have Bain or Landau in them. I think the show would have been better with all unknowns.) I watched until I could watch no more. Consistently, opportunities to examine the characters were passed by, resulting in cardboard characters no one could care deeply about.

The worst offense, though, was the flagrant disregard for common sense. Moonbase Alpha was destroyed time and again, only to be miraculously restored at the end; people died, only they never really did; and nothing was ever explained. Add to this that the stories were never really long enough to fill the hour (once Maya turned into a beast long enough to save someone. She had no other purpose than that; it was added because Maya was the gimmick in the show. Made me sick.) While STAR TREK suffered from the same afflictions, it managed to create people we learned to love. The most SPACE: 1999 did was irritate. It was not good televised SF. It wasn't even good television. And, if I may say so, neither will be BATTLESTAR: GALACTICA.

From Elizabeth Carrie:

I just recently got the opportunity to see STAR WARS. I read the book last year, though. It is an excellent story, and I recommend everyone get a copy and read. I urge this even more if you've seen the movie and have enjoyed it tremendously. The book is better than the movie. I was glad I got to see the movie, but only for a 'visual aid'. The book has it all, including scenes cut from the movie, but otherwise follows the story exactly. It was written by George Lucas, who seems to have a flair for clear, enjoyable writing. It makes sense when the movie does not; I found the movie too jumpy, with cuts too quick to give the viewer's mind time to adjust. The drama was lessened in the movie for that same reason. You just couldn't savor the dramatic moments in the movie like you could in the book, where time was yours, and not subject to a schedule of shows. I can see why people have seen this movie so many times -- it would take several showings to bring the story clear in the viewer's mind. Please — read the book. You won't be sorry. (You could still see the movie again -- you might even enjoy it more!).

[see this fan's comments regarding Splinter of the Mind's Eye.

From Karen Fleming:

What's this business about ST fans not liking SPACE: 1999? I've never seen it, because it has never been shown here. But if it is like the other "SF" series that have been on, I probably would not watch it. They don't appeal to me, and I resent be told that I'm prejudiced if I don't like other SF shows. I like what I like and that's that. I don't have to answer to anyone else for my preferences in programing any more than anyone else has to answer to me for their preferences.

Also from Karen Fleming:

I would like to say something about Jean Lorrah's comments in ROS #1. I like Jean. She seems like a very nice lady. But her comment, "As you know, a fanzine editor wants to make a small profit on his current zine in order to invest it in his next zine," ranks, in my mind, with my father-in-law's comment, "of course, you're paying yourself back for your time?" Hah! I can't "pay myself back for my time." That would be making a profit, and if I'm doing that I should be paying royalties, plus income tax, etc. That would be damn near pro-publishing!

I resent hearing that zine editors are "making a small profit" for any reason. Hell, a profit is a profit. There's no such thing as a semi-non-profitzine! I resent paying for part of the zine editor's next project. I resent paying for part of the ed's con expenses! So sorry, Jean, and you other editors who are "making a small profit", I have no sympathy for your tax problems.

I will state here and now that any zine I print has been, is, or will be totally non-profit. My readers do not pay for the next issue, for postage or phone costs expended, nor anything else only vaguely related to the rag they hold in their hands. I did my first zine back in the bad old days when a zine editor's only financial goal was to break even and I believe in that way of doing it.

And since I'm on the subject of resentments, I resent the high cost of so many of the zines that are being produced today. I will not buy any zine now that I'm not almost absolutely sure I will enjoy; I can't afford to. I realize that most of the problem of costs is because of offset printing cost increases. But, as someone once said, 90% of anything is crap. Or, if we speak a bit more moderately, 90% of anything is mediocrity. And that definitely applies to zines. What I resent in zines is that you pay m high price for mediocrity these days. I don't mind an expensive zine if I've gotten my money's worth in good material. But such is not the case with most zines.

And I wouldn't mind lesser quality in less expensive zines. After all, we are amateurs and can't be expected to put out pro quality work. But some editors are charging pro quality prices! And most of the time the material the print doesn't deserve the high prices they must charge be cause the zine is offset.

[snipped]

So why don't more zine editors use mimeo? Well, I have an opinion that some will consider rather harsh: laziness. The modern electric mimeo can do just about "everything but put on the coffee" -- as one of my correspondents put it. With one of these mechanical marvels there isn't a lot more work than with just taking the pages to a printer. But the editor must have a decent machine and must know how to use it properly — and most editors seem too lazy to try.

[snipped]

Yes, some zines deserve offset printing -- the art zines. But those are damn few. Every time you pick up a mimeo zine be thankful the editor had your pocketbook in mind and gave you the best product possible for the least amount of money. Most of us have to pinch pennies. Can we continue to pay a high price for mediocrity?

From Frances Zawacky:

Jean Lorrah's article with advice to zine editors was particularly interesting. I feel very few editors think about, much less realize, some of the "problems" that can arise when one ventures into amateur publications. Jean did an excellent job of pointing out some of these "pitfalls".

I'd like to comment on the expensiveness of zine collecting nowadays. It is rare in this day and age to buy a zine for less than $4.00 -- one of the more expensive is $7.50. Considering that a paperback book (true, most don't deal with STAR TREK; but still -- ) is, at most, $2,50, I wonder if editors shouldn't take the initiative in attempting to keep costs down. I know that in many cases it is the printing costs that are the villains, but whatever happened to good old mimeo?

RIGHT OF STATEMENT was mimeo and was, for the most part, clear and legible. But, alas, mimeo is an art -- and a lost one, it seems. Is it the time it takes to learn to do it properly? Is it the fact that most zine editors are very busy people and it's easier to send a zine to the printer? Is it the fact that fen have come to expect offset since the outset of INTERPHASE?

I don't put out a zine myself -- I only buy. And because I buy, I wonder if editors, due to prices, actually lose the readership of younger fen. I know I have thought nothing of dropping $40.00 to $60.00 at a good zine con. But I've got a full-time job and can afford to indulge my habit. Many fen can't!

  • from issue #2, Jean Lorrah's article (page 1)

  • from issue #2, Jean Lorrah's article (page 2)

  • from issue #2, Jean Lorrah's article (page 3)

  • from issue #2, Jean Lorrah's article (page 4)

Issue 3

Right of Statement 3 was published in July 1979 and contains 19 pages. It may have the official numeration of #3/4 due to its being so late in publication.

front page of issue #3

This issue has discussion about The Schuster Cons, mimeo vs offset zines, fandom and profit, Space:1999 and Battlestar Galactica, copyright and zines, dealing with the IRS and your fanworks as a hobby/business.

It also has an essay by Jean Stevenson about the Star Trek for-profit, pro books. See Let's calculate the 'score' for Bantam and see if they can be said to have 'won' the Fizzbin game so far..

Also, Jean Lorrah explained at great length her attempts to get some of her zines (NTM Collected and Epilogue) copyrighted by the Library of Congress, and she writes of what she has discovered about getting Star Trek fanzines considered for the Library of Congress' service of recording materials for the blind and handicapped, the "talking books program"

From Sally A. Syrjala, comments on Kirk breaking the Prime Directive several times:

Wasn't Kirk merely carrying on the doctrine we taught at Nuremberg?, A person must question and must be responsible for their own actions. Life is the element that has the most worth and that is the element that must be protected andfoughtfor. If Kirk were merely a good soldier carrying out orders/directives, why type of Federation would he represent?

From G.M Carr:

I was struck by Jean Stevenson's passionate defense of 'The Displaced' as a good story in itself even though it technically comes into the category of Lt. Mary Sue. I, too, believe it is possible to enjoy a story and to find a well-written, fully-fleshed Lt. Mary Sue worthy of standing right up there along with the rest of the good stories of Treklit. Thanks, Jean, for saying so.

From G.M. Carr:

I agree with Elizabeth Carrie about Space:1999. It just doesn't have what it takes... I've seen ST re-runs over and over again with deep satisfaction, but when they started showing re-runs of Space: 1999, I just couldn't sit through it even once again! It is empty -- as she says, they did nothing with the characters, and were so illogical with their plots, it was not even entertaining — just irritating at the missed opportunities.

On the other hand, I am a bit more hopeful about Battlestar Galactica. I doubt it will ever be as good at holding the viewers as ST, but I'd place it better than half way between ST and 1999. It is a pity they were so determined to peg it as a Space Western that they hired one of the topmost Westerners in the business as the chief character. However, his acting is adequate and, given

time, he might even overcome his tendency to act like a Wagonmaster instead of a Space Admiral. But the first rerun will tell whether BC makes it or not... If it can hold the viewer, and contain something new to be discovered at each viewing, I'd say it has at least a chance of being as good as Star Wars and well up there with Star Trek. So far, it seems to me its main flaw is that it has to leave out so much that the action is jumpy and a bit hard to follow. A little more explanation and interaction between the characters and a bit less of the spectacular explosions would perhaps help. We'll have to wait and see.

From Elizabeth Carrie:

I don't like another Lost in Space: 1999 with people out in space, wandering around, looking for a home so they can leave space. Why oh why did it have to be such a premise? Couldn't they, like those in Star Wars, have stayed in their own territory and fought the "forces of Evil" instead of running away, to Earth, no less?

And that brings me to sf shows in general. Remember My Favorite Martian, Lost in Space, Space:1999"! Add BG to the list and what do they all have in common? No one is where they want to be. My favorite Martian crashed on Earth, but wanted to return home; the Robinson family was originally headed for Alpha Centauri, but ended up off course and kept searching for a way home; Moonbase Alpha was accidentally blasted out of Earth's orbit, and the Alphans were ready to leave at a moment's notice, providing they passed the right planet (funny the moon never got caught in the gravitational pull of any planetary body); and now "the Battlestar Galactica leads a ragtag group of ships to a shining new home — Earth".

You see? No one wanted to be there. That's what made Star Trek different. Everyone on the Enterprise wants to be there; no one's lost; they know where they are and where they're going; they stay home. It gives a feeling of stability missing in most sf shows.

From Lori Chapek-Carleton:

I found the novelization of Star Wars to be a pale, stale, occasionally ludicrous piece of writing. I suspect it was ghosted by Alan Dean Foster. The movie, on the other hand, was exciting, and I've lost count of how many times I've seen it -- not in order to undersatnd it, but in order to enjoy each familiar bit afresh.

I must admit, though, that on each new viewing, I have picked up something I didn't notice the time before. The only thing about the book that stands out in my mind is the line about Luke suddenly remembering a dog he had once owned -- fer ghod's sake, a dog is an Earth creature! — and I thought that Star Wars happened "long ago in a galaxy far, far away..." -Sigh. My comment above about Alan Dean Foster isn't meant as a slight on his writing abilities. Unlike Splinter of the Mind's Eye, which I was sorely disappointed with, Foster's Star Trek adaptations rank far above Blish's, to my way of thinking, and his original works are largely interesting. I highly recommend With Friends Like These..., a collection of short stories that makes for a few hours' worth of fun reading.

From Frances Ford:

Comments in both Right of Statement and Interstat indicate a disturbing current trend of vicious treatment of fans by fans. In Interstat, people sometimes resort to name-calling rather than debating the issues. Reports of incidents at cons involving extremely rude behavior of fans, as well as Roberta Rogow's comments regarding fans spreading false rumors about a well-known con organizer, show that something unpleasant is happening to fandom. Disagreements are issues are to be expected. Star Trek thrives on controversy. Verbal assaults perpetrated by fans against other fans -- that I don't understand. Can these be the same fans of whom, according to David Gerrold's The World of Star Trek, a regular attendant of cons, said, "The pople are a much gentler breed of fan -- and polite!"" I expect vicious backbiting from people not exposed to the IDIC concept. Perhaps mean behavior is due to a fandom-wide epidemic of pon farr. What else could account for such irritability?

From Jeff Wilcox:

One of the most important subjects discussed in the letters [in the last issue] was the problem of rising prices in fanzines. I agree that one way to hold them down is by sticking to mimeo printing, but how about another. For a fewy ears now, Amateur Press Associations have been around. A number of ROS's readers would know the pros and cons of the subject more than myself since I found out what APAs are only a short time ago, but the idea sounds good enough to be used more widely. Agreed, since APAs don't exchange hard cash for a writer/artist/creator member's efforts, just the efforts of the other members, this would leave those persons producing longer pieces, like novels, out in the cold. But with short stories, articles, etc., this should not only make getting fan material cheaper, but will allow the average fan a creative outlet without having to feel the need to make it fill 50 or 60 page fanzines.

From Sharon Emily:

May I use your publication to make an announcement?

It has been proved beyond all doubt that a party or parties unknown have been tampering with my mail for the past several weeks. A formal investigation has now been initiated.

Anyone who has ordered anything from me since about the first of July and has not received what they ordered can assume 1) Their order and payment did not reach me. or 2) I sent the material ordered, but it did not reach their address. Anyone who has sent checks to me that have not turned up in their bank statements during the period of time indicated are advised to stop payment immediately and send out new ones if they wish. Those who have had their checks returned but haven't received their materials are advised to contact me to see if I received the checks, or if some "funny business" has been going on...i.e. forgery.

I know for a fact that the checks and money orders I did receive during this period were those that had been tucked Inside a SASE and couldn't be seen or felt from outside... "Crud" and personal letters have made it through to my mailbox, of course, but nothing of value has made it for a period of at least two months...with one exception. It was impossible to tell from the outside that it was some thing of value. Those who have sent artwork, stories, fanzines, etc., and haven't received acknowledgement now know why. I didn't get the items — someone or something else did.

I am greatly sorry for the inconvenience that this state of affairs may have been causing you. Hopefully, the "problem" will soon be taken care of.

From Roberta Rogow:

I got my Right of Statement, and it looks very good. And it's brought up a lot of stuff that's been bugging me for a long time. For one thing, all tax difficulties aside, what is there about the making of profit that is intrinsically wrong? A lot people seem regard anyone who takes even 25 cents off the top of a price of a fanzine a Robber Baron. What with the rising costs of postage, plus the costs of paper and printing, putting out a 'zine would be strictly for rich kids if the readers were not asked to take on some o the burden of paying for the 'rag'.

Well, you say, what about buying a mimeo? And where, pray tell, does one put the beast? Not all of us live in huge Victorian houses with basements, attics, and spare rooms. I know that if I were to place a mimeo in my 4-room apartment, my husband, my kids, and I would have to leave it. Nor do all Trekkers have access to office or school duplicating equipment. This leaves us at the mercies of the local printer, who tends to charge more and more for the simplest procedures. There are assorted hidden expenditures, like tables at cons, and postage, which is usually counted into the price eventually set for the 'zine. The point is that very few people these days are in a position to give away their time and effort, even for the love of Trek, without expecting a small return on the investment. Since this small return is usually ploughed back into the 'zine in the form of postage or printing or advertising, and since this hardly goes to support the 'zine editor in luxury, but only permits said ed to continue to publish, I think the quibbling is sanctimonious and not very reasonable.

Pro-publishers are in the business of publishing on a grand scale, and they stay in business because they charge an amount that will let them continue to publish. There is nothing wrong with fan publishers doing the same. Especially fan publishers who must also support a family, pay college tuition, and meet assorted other expenses.

"The electric mimeo" — says Ms. Fleming. And who can afford the outlay, and where do you put it? "The local printer"-- says I. Dicker,if you can; pay if you must, and charge a minimum for the 'zine. As for the quality — that's up to the buyer, no one forces anyone to buy any thing. If you feel a' zine is crap, then don't buy it. Read the reviews, ask your friends, and then buy the 'zines. With so many fanzines proliferating like Tribbles, there is something for everyone, and surely something for Karen.

I try to cut corners where I can -- but I have to charge enough for my 'zine to pay the printer, and to have enough left over to cover the deposit on the next ish -- and that makes me a Capitalist, I guess.

From Johanna Cantor:

May I add a factor to the analysis of why editors use offset rather than mimeo? It's called time. Like most of us, I'm a working girl. I'm also lucky enough to have a family which has to be fed and watered and a house which I try to pick up often enough that we don't have to kick a path to the door. In other words, the amount of time I have available for Yeoman Press is finite. In fact, I have a simple alternative: 1) professional printing and collating, or 2) no zine. I do agree with [name redacted] that zineds should try to keep costs down... but mimeo is not the be all and end all.

I also disagree with taking refuge behind the "amateur" label. If a zined is taking money, that’s business. Think of it from the reader's standpoint. If the reader has paid for a zine, whether 50 cents or $20, s/he is entitled to get that zine. "I'm not a professional" does not release the zined from the responsibility of either filling that order or returning that money-. Most of us find that making an operating profit not only helps future projects, but is necessary for properly fulfilling present obligations. I'm not paying myself back for my time either (in fact, that’s an understatement). But Yeoman Press is still "in business" -— because, and only because, of a financial "cushion" provided by an operating profit.

[snipped]

On copyright — I dislike disagreeing with my friend and respected partner in public, but as Jean Lorrah points out, her conversation with Jodi Rush Sigmon of the copyright office is only J.R. Sigmon’s opinion. There are many opinions, and that will continue to be the case until the new copyright law is interpreted in the courts -- a process that will take years.

From Linda Deneroff:

So Karen Fleming thinks all zines should be non-profit and then proceeds to expound on what she considers non-profit. Sorry Karen, but as an editor, if I call Washington State from New York City, that's a zine expense if the call is to discuss a story in the works. That is estimated into the cost of a zine. If other zine editors discounted the cost of postage, phone calls, secretarial supplies and the price of tables at a con (or, for that matter, con expenses for a con I wouldn't go to if I wasn't selling a zine), the editor would go broke very quickly... Non-profit in my books means making the zine pay for itself so I don't have to pay for anything out of my own pocket. To carry Karen's ideas of non-profit to an extreme, she would pay for the zine out of her own pocket and not charge the reader anything. And she would soon find herself with a zine, but no place to live or work. Just to reiterate, making a zine pay for itself is not making a profit.

As for buying every zine in sight — That's not even worthy of comment. Back when zines were under two dollars an issue I still could not afford every zine; my income was much smaller then. It is up to every buyer to be discerning about what they read. In my case, I tend to look for familiar names. If a new writer appears amidst the more familiar names, that's great - particularly if the newcomer is a good writer. But I admit, I probably miss a few good people because I never could afford to buy every zine. (Since I help out the Welcommittee with the updates to the Directory, I know how many new zines come out each month.)

Also from Lori Chapek-Carleton:

Re the mimeo/offset debate: have people considered the fact that some 'zine-editors may not have the room to store a mimeo, and the boxes of paper that mimeoing also entails?' Not to mention the drums of ink and whatever other supplies one would need. A large institution like M.S.U. is not fond of students asking to use its equipment, either. Personally, it makes very little difference to me how a 'zine is produced, as long as it is readable. I enjoy the flashier 'zines as well as the next person, but will buy a quality 'zine no matter what its cost, as long as the subject matter interests me. If I'm disappointed with a 'zine, I try to sell it, or donate it some auction or another. I am disappointed, however, to buy an offset zine that is sloppily produced. Like Sharon Ferraro, I resent paying good money for ignorance, and would recommend that editors considering offset learn the ins and outs thoroughly before going ahead. I confess that I started Warped Space without having first seem more than one fanzine, Babel. I quite frankly did not know the difference between mimeo and offset, or what those terms meant, and I'm still learning today! The first 21 issues of Warped Space are largely an embarrassment to me today, from a visual point of view. I tried mimeo with the first issue of The Fanzine Review 'Zine, and found that for me, mimeo is much too inconvenient to use, and the savings are negligible.

From Jean Lorrah:

Many fen live in places like Murray, Kentucky -- not large metropolitan areas. Sears sells only hand-crank mimeos, and even those run somewhere around $800.00. The nearest place I could buy a mimeo that does "everything but put on the coffee" is Paducah--65 miles away. I would have to make a trip to Paducah each time I needed supplies. Two trips—one to drop It off and one to pick it up--each time it broke down. Furthermore, such a machine costs about $2000! So to go to mimeo I would have to plunk that down on top of supplies—and then hand-collate! So unless the would-be zine editor has access to a church or school mimeo, or is a whiz-bang mechanic who can keep a cranky used one going, how can a new editor afford to go to mimeo? All the people who keep telling us how cheap mimeo is bought their machines years ago, and haven't looked at a catalogue lately.

From Jean Lorrah:

I never expect my zines to pay my con expenses—but I do expect them to pay their own! That is, they don't pay for my bed or meals, but they do

pay for their own table [at a con]. That is only common sense. If it makes you feel good to lose money, Karen, more power to you. Each person has the right to do what makes her feel good. But going a dollar or two over breaking even on expenses, after giving hours, days, weeks, and years of lovingly- spent time to fandom can hardly be considered cheating the fans.

From Lori-Chapek Carleton:

I'd like nothing better than to open a print/mimeo shop of my own, as I like playing with that sort of machinery. Don't be surprised if I someday do just that!

From Kathy Resch:

I notice a lot of comments about the high price of zines, one of them verging on hostility. I don't know anyone who makes a profit on these, even the higher-priced ones...a zine editor should make a little money from one zine to help defray the costs of the next zine is hardly out of line... Such things as postage costs -- particularly in the shipping of artwork in a way that the Post Awful will do the least amount of damage -- flyer costs, and just answering inquiries sent by people who do not know what a SASE is, is not a negligible amount of money. If followed strictly, this leaves zine publishing to those of upper incomes -- and do we really need to make this into an upper-class hobby? Agreed, lower-income people cannot purchase expensive zines. But there is another alternative to the hassle of a mimeograph (and mimeograph, if my experience with it is typical, is a royal pain in the ass) which I think should be seriously considered. It's a format which I've used quite successfully - 50% reduced photo offset in a digest-sized zine. Yes, there are people who object to this -- small print and awkward size seem to be the main complaint. I sincerely hope that these are not the same people complaining about high zine prices -- it's either one or the other, loves. Or mimeo. But you simply can't have a zine of the quality of Interphase, Warped Space or Stardate: Unknown, to name a few, without paying the printer. With the digest-sized zine, you get four pages for the price of two. And the savings in postage is considerable if you used third class mail. I was (before the latest postal increase) able to print a 60-70 page zine with a circulation of about 250, and have the issue, including postage, sell for $1.50... Of course, this format is not suited to an art-orientated zine.

[snipped]

I dislike the statement that zine editors who don't use mimeo are lazy. I haven't seen any of the newer machines; they may well be the mechanical marvels they're stated to be—but actually purchasing one would be a strain on anyone's financial resources, and finding a used machine Is not always possible, particularly if a person does not live in an urban area. As 1 did not, until 3 year ago. And as for laziness...is there any rule that zine editors must sacrifice all their spare time to a hobby? Wouldn't that time be better spent in proper editing, and if the editor is a writer/artist, in those pursuits?

Reduced offset has worked well for me. It might be something for other editors to keep in mind.

From Judith Gran:

On the subject of who pays for the expenses, direct and indirect, of publishing a fanzine, it's important to ex amine the questions o.f principle raised by G.M. Carr's suggestion that zineds write off their expenses as business losses. Hopefully, the zined could then pass on his/ her tax savings to the zine reader, and this would keep down zine costs. But whether or not this this happens, using a zine as a tax write-off is, in effect, forcing Uncle Sam to subsidize the zine. This may bother some people. It doesn't bother me. Government subsidy of the arts, via a method which encourages independence, pluralism, and diversity, is fine as far as I'm concerned. But some may feel differently, so it's best to consider all . the possible political/social/economic/moral issues that might be involved.

Incidentally, if you should sell your zine collection or art collection for more than you paid for it, you are supposed to pay a capital gains tax on the difference. You may ask, does the IRS really check on these things? Jean Lorrah is correct in pointing out that it is the extra in flux of several thousand dollars into the bank account of a person who's filed a tax return that is likely to be most visible.

From Linda Deneroff:

As a former assistant to the New York Star Trek Conventions (the "Committee Cons") and as an active member in both science fiction and Star Trek convention fandom, I really must say "for shame, Roberta”. Having been to the February 1978 and September 1978 Townsley Trek conventions, I must say that I spent more money for admission and got less value for my money than at any other convention I have ever attended (except for one "pro" con in New Jersey that shall go unnamed and unmourned) [2]. This is particularly true for the one this past September. Now admittedly my membership was paid for by the people I was working for, and my partner was selling our fanzine at a table we purchased in the fanzine room, but $15 or $20- dollars for a three-day convention (actually only 2½) whose two main guests were Jimmy and Walter (who appeared for only approximately an hour each day) is a bit much. Scheduled guest, Mr Shatner, never showed, and although a sign was posted, there was no reduction in the price of admission, regardless the fact that Mr Townsley did not have to pay Mr Shatner for a non-appearance. All other programming was fan programming, and not much of that either. I don't think anyone got their money's worth.

So what value am I getting from Mr Townsley? None. For one-third to one-fourth the price of a Townsley Trek, I can go to a T'Con or Sekwester'Con, have the time of my life, meet new people and just plain enjoy myself. (And before you argue that there aren't many of them around, what's to stop other fen from running small regionals in the tradition of small regional sf conventions? I'd love to see more August Partys and the like!) I don't need to meet George or Jimmy or Walter or Bill for the umpteenth time. As for the new fans- - there were plenty at those smaller conventions too. And they probably had a better time than the neos at a Townsley Trek.

One reason I work for my friends at a Townsley Trek (be sides the fact that I like to) is that I do not enjoy his conventions. If I weren't working, I would simply not attend any function I had to pay to get into (and by the way, it was rumored that one did not have to pay to get into the fanzine room, the only place I spent any appreciable time in besides the dealers' room where I was working!), and would just attend the parties at night, I am opposed to anyone paying $15 or $20 just to see one's friends.

A pox on Mr Townsley and his conventions.

From Jenny Ferris:

Roberta Rogow has done fandom a service, I think, in upholding the Townsley cons. I've never been to one, so am only speaking theoretically, but I've heard a lot about the Townsley cons, and the great majority of comments were negative. Many objections said, "big-con impersonality, rip-off,"etc. -- well, the man is trying to make money. So what? I don't be grudge that...the cons do provide a chance for neos to find fandom, and 'old' friends to get together -- and for them, well, once you're in fandom and know the people, what dues it matter, if the con is commercial? The cons are the people, and those people you care about will be the same at a big pro-con or a small intimate fan-con.

So let's not knock Townsley too much — at least until we can provide a better service than he gives.

In the same vein, neither do I object when the stars try to promote their own books, records, etc., and thus try to make money "off us". (Nobody's compelling us to buy.) This is a business to them, folks. If they find,within themselves, a fondness for their fans, and the Trek experience itself, why, that's wonderful. But it is still a job. They are not necessarily Trekkers themselves, just because they've helped create or present our dream. I don't resent that! They are men and women with their own lives to live and their own priorities. Any affection they have for us is the frosting on the cake. Now it happens that I'm very fond of frosting -- but hell, either way, I've got my cake.

From Frances Zawacky:

Thank you also for your comments on my sacrosanct integrity as a reviewer. I know that they were meant to apply to all reviewers and reviews that you publish. It's nice to see the sentiments in print, however, I would like to think that all editors felt the same way. It's an old argument, but editors can get a little heavy-handed and authors can get a little stubborn when it comes to changes in a story. To the editors: at least try to keep the author's original style. I have seen 'zines where all the stories look like they were written by the same hand. To the authors: a request that you change a word,'or a statement that your ending needs work (with suggestions) is not an attack on your "baby". It is a contribution to the growth of your "child". To the editors: try to be constructive, not destructive, in your criticisms. Remember, this is someone else's creation... To the authors: don't be afraid of rewrites; more often than not, they improve the story. Everyone: remember, it's a dialogue, not a war.

  • from issue #3, Matthews

  • from issue #3, Cheryl Newsome

  • from issue #3, Matthews

  • from issue #3, W.H. (Winston Howlett?)

References

  1. ^ This is a reference to the con that was planned for July 4-6, 1980, Philadelphia, that did not take place.
  2. ^ This was possibly Creation Con.
Retrieved from "https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=Right_of_Statement&oldid=2478127"