So many topics in the past few months require perspective I see lacking.

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Meta
Title: So many topics in the past few months require perspective I see lacking.
Creator: Susan Stephenson
Date(s): November 1981
Medium: print
Fandom: Star Trek: TOS
Topic:
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

So many topics in the past few months require perspective I see lacking. is the first line of a long, long 1981 letter by Susan Stephenson that was printed in Interstat #48.

Stephenson was the co-runner of William Shatner Fan Fellowship, a fan club that folded three months later.

The letter rankled many fans, who in turn, sent letters to subsequent issues of Interstat.

Some Topics Discussed

The Letter

So many topics in the past few months require perspective I see lacking.

The Chain Letter (I#44) was a dumb mistake hardly worthy of the fuss. Crites and Hedge reveal fandom's misconceptions by writing, "because Ms. Sackett holds a very high and respected position in the official Star Trek organisation." WRONG. The current ST project is headed by Harve Bennett as Executive Producer and Bob Sallin as Line Producer. THAT is the "official Star Trek organization." Susan Sackett is not a part of that organization; neither, for that matter, is Gene Roddenberry. Susan works for Gene, and Gene has his own projects. GR's consulting on Trek is a sideline to his real job of being a producer of other things. As GR's assistant, Susan's involvement with the present Trek project is limited to typing any memos Gene sends Harve.

The huffy replies from Edwards and Keenan (I#45) to Cooper's letter (I#44) on the realities of Hollywood illustrated Sonni's point beautifully. Poor Jackie trys [sic] so hard to refute those points [1], yet must resort to calling the WISH newletters "unrealistic." (Strange. If she found fault with our newsletter, why do I have to read INTERSTAT to learn this?) Jackie's snipe at WISH doesn't weigh much next to the compliments we've received from Hollywood professionals on our efforts to educate fans how and why the business operates as it does.

Hollywood is very much a "but what's he doing now" business. GR "needs a change" because far too many people in the industry associate him only with ST. Top producers are associated with numbers of successes. On that scale in Hollywood GR is still pretty small potatoes. Blind loyalty will not change that fact. Only GR can do that, demonstrating the skills we all know he possesses by bringing new series and/or films through production to release and commercial acceptance. The "sort of success" GR needs is any recognized as such by the industry in which he has chosen to make his living.

The reality, dear Jackie, is that you've placed Gene on a pedestal and sit at the bottom tilting away at anyone who dares suggest his feet bear any trace of clay. Ignoring the "Omega Glory"s or "Pretty Maids in a Row" of his career won't make then go away. Witness the problems of ST-TMP. Sorry, kid, but the function of the producer is to keep things in line and on budget. When things go awry, for whatever reason, it all falls back on the producer, the "captain" of the project. To expect Paramount to involve GR heavily (Keenan I#45) just because he originally created the series 14 years ago is fantasy. Landers' "Goddenberry" line (I#46) was right on the mark in describing the way too many fans have created an image no one, even Gene Roddenberry, can live up to.

Nowakowska's comments (I#46) on Spock's future or lack of same make a great deal of sense, revealing both her own maturity as a fan and a true respect for Leonard Nimoy. Quite a contrast to attitudes so common in the next issue.

I haven't talked with Leonard, but if it is indeed true he wants Spock dead, perhaps he has his reasons. Am I the only one who remembers that "We made you and we can break you" campaign to which Leonard was subjected last time around? If Spock simply rides off into a Trekkish sunset, wouldn't Leonard be subjected to further fan pressure should some future ST project get the nod? Leonard takes his craft very seriously; maybe he's just plain tired of thoughtless fans, old enough to know better, showing up at VINCENT as Romulans, etc. as occurred in San Francisco. Compared to the Spock character, everyone else in the cast is a piker when it comes to attracting kooks and nuts. Dealing - with that on a daily basis is very draining for anyone.

Regardless of how important a part Spock played in Leonard's career, it IS Leonard's career. It's his right to choose the direction of that career.

The only thing any actor owes his fans is to give the best possible performance. Everything else is a bonus. It is no more appropriate for ST fandom to command Leonard "you can't do that" than it is for anyone else to dictate another's life. STfen, especially in Leonard's case, have become extremely demanding and proprietary. Perhaps those chickens have come to roost.

Because her own fannish interests haven't received the attention she deems appropriate, Ingrid Cross has chosen to call Harve Bennett a liar. The fact she didn't use that word is immaterial. Such rudeness was as uncalled for as the remark that anyone accepting Harve's word was "a lamb."

Harve Bennett's reputation happens to include honesty and integrity in a business not always noted for those qualities. Why do fans expect him to say any more about the current ST project than Paramount or industry standards allow? This is a new ball game.

McCoy fans are being manipulated only by the paranoia of Ingrid Cross, Joyce Tullock, Lorraine Beatty and Tess Thomas as expressed in their flyers and letters. No matter what anyone says, they cling to their "McCoy has little time left" campaign religiously. Sonni has a script, but they wouldn't take her word that McCoy is not only in it, but vital to the storyline. Now they won't even take the word of Harve Bennett who, after all, only happens to be the guy running the show!

That their carrying on has came to Harve's attention was obvious from his comment at the WS Weekend, "...and then the McCoy fans got hysterical." Both Harve and Bob read INTERSTAT, so Cross and Tullock have once again attracted attention; however, that's not the way to win friends and influence producers, gang! Fortunately for De, who might very well have been hurt by this were ST being produced by someone else, Harve is committed to doing what he feels is best for Trek as a whole by scripting a good story which involves every member of the old cast.

The man Cross "wants to hear things from" is not in the position of giving out information on this project. Sorry, my dear, but only the producer of a project has the right to discuss it. That's a Paramount (and industry) standard GR ought to be well aware of by now as he took exactly the same stand when making ST-TMP. If the word isn't from Paramount or Harve, it isn't official!

So on to Zuk's rebuttal to the "Public Image" article in the WISH newsletter. Bev's cover letter to us made it clear she felt Sonni was attacking fandom as a whole and was both insensitive to, and unfamiliar with, fandom of any kind. Unfortunately, Bev foams on with little connection to the original article.

The article was specifically referring to ST/SF fans as is common in usage among fen. Why bring sports fans into the discussion? Their bottle throwing, etc., has given them their own PR problems.

Sonni's experience with fans may well go back to before Bev was born. As a professional actress Sonni has done children's theater, repertory, Yiddish theater, off-Broadway, Broadway, TV (both series and one-shot), commercials, documentaries and movies. (Her first movie was filmed the year before I was born, and I'm 34!) One cannot avoid contact with fans when one has been in the business that long. Combined with her experience attending local cons. World cons, fan cons, pro cons, cons on both coasts, ST cons, media cons, writers' cons, successful cons and unsuccessful cons, and the experience of working as a con business manager (over 12,000 attendees) and numbers of cons running the celebrity suite and/or celebrity coordination, I think it must be conceded Sonni knows quite a bit about fans and fandom.

ST/SF fans have gotten bad publicity. IT'S OFTEN THEIR OWN FAULT. The damage done to hotels in the L.A. area is real. It has resulted in many hotels refusing to book ST/SF cons. After two such experiences (Equicon and Phantasmicon) in the few months since opening, you can add the Sheraton La Reina to that number. Beyond the physical damage, hotels report guests being scared by costumed con-goers waving weapons in all parts of the hotel and at all hours. Fun is fun, but a little responsibility and consideration for others hardly seems too much to ask of adults and near-adults.

Case in point: Westercon at the Sheraton Palace hotel in San Francisco. Seems a guy taking a shortcut through the hotel was grabbed by a role-playing group in one of the main corridors, handcuffed, and stuffed into a telephone booth where he was held prisoner. By the time the man was rescued by a combination of hotel security and members of the con committee, he was nearly hysterical with anger and fear. Westercon came razor close to being shut down. He was talking lawyers, kidnapping charges and damage suits against both the con and the hotel. Members of the con committee eventually managed to calm the man and the legal hassles were averted, but why should this incident ever have taken place?

It doesn't matter whether Reagan or Joe Stalin is in the White House. The Westercon incident occurred over 2 years ago. If the majority of fans continue to tolerate or overlook the thoughtless, destructive behavior of a few, then the public image of fans can only become worse.

Fan Comments

A number of fans wrote responses to Susan Stephenson's letter in various issues of Interstat.

Michele Arvizu's letter is one example of the anger and the jockeying for position with and about TPTB:

Susan Stephenson once again has left me flabergasted at the arrogant tone coming from her letter. Wielding her mighty sword from the tippy-top of Mt. Paramount (does anyone know just how she got herself up there?), Susan once again speaks for those people she has no business speaking for and continues to insist that only she can "educate" all of us dumb fans that Harve Bennett is now top dog and that Gene Roddenberry is "small potatoes." Obviously, this woman will stop at nothing to make her point, even if it's at the expense of others. To be blunt, I and others that I know are tired of being educated by Susan and those affiliated with WISH that making movies is a business that we can't and don't quite understand. We are tired of the condescending attitude which is forced at us in each and every letter and newsletter. We are tired of hearing that because Gene Roddenberry is not producing the new ST-II that we fans must choose between GR and Harve Bennett, and that if we're smart we'll choose the latter. Granted, many fans may be unfamiliar with the Hollywood scene (frankly, the more I know, the less I want to know), but I doubt WISH members subscribe to The Center Seat for a quick course in how the industry works. I've been a Shatner fan since before Star Trek (I'll die one I guess), but as a former WISH member, my advice to Susan and the WISH staff is to give your readers what they really want — more Bill Shatner and less of you.

"I haven't talked with Leonard," nor will Susan probably ever. What I find hard to believe is that she does not once rally behind Spock, doesn't even men tion him. For Susan to imply that a few "kooks and nuts" are forcing Leonard Nimoy to destroy Spock is pure idiocy. We're not dealing with "kooks and nuts" here, but with a man with a very short memory. Yes, it's quite apparent that, as Susan says, LN has "his reasons." But that some people showed up to a Vincent performance dressed as Romulans is not a good enough reason, Susan. They showed up, didn't they? And if it's all so "draining" on LN, the prospect of having Spock dead or "lost" is already beginning to be a little draining on me, most members of fandom and GR, to name a few. Wouldn't it be nice if Susan would tell Leonard (next time she talks to him, that is) to bug out of the entire project and give us all some peace.

Susan's sudden compassion and admiration for LN (no such courtesy is extended to Gene Roddenberry) looks suspiciously like an attempt to please The Mountain (Harve Bennett, this year).

As a Star Trek supporter, Susan has enjoyed many courtesies extended to fans by the Roddenberry office in the past. Sometime after she was invited to participate in the rec-room scene in ST:TMP, she reported (I#26) that the high point of a Roddenberry lecture she attended was for her to go backstage and personally thank GR for "his thoughtfulness in making it possible for at least some of us fen to be in The Movie." I don't understand how, just two years later, Susan has the nerve to put down a man who allowed her the honor of setting one foot on a Star Trek set. Her incredible about-face and snide remarks on the functions of a producer completely contradict those she expressed about GR in I#37. Perhaps short memories are the norm these days; nevertheless, I'd like to refresh Susan's. In I#6, she quotes Denny Young from the previous issue, so she must have, at the time, identified with these words: "The measure of a true friend is not in what he does; rather out of respect, what he refrains from doing." That's quite good advice — but only for others, I suspect.

Susan's depressing letter first belittles Jackie Edwards for merely being a Gene Roddenberry fan, then attacks Ingrid Cross's efforts on behalf of Dr. McCoy, labeling Ingrid's valid concerns as "paranoia". How can letters to Paramount regarding the desire to see DeForest Kelley recreate his role of Leonard McCoy possibly do anyone, especially Mr. Kelley, any harm? In fact, Susan's reckless promotion of Harve Bennett (why doesn't she act the Hollywood pro she pretends to be?) to the point of quoting him incorrectly and out of context will not reflect well on Trek's new producer, a man who, from what I could tell, is extremely capable, intelligent, affable, and shrewd. I, for one, have absolutely no beefs with Mr. Bennett's interpretation of Star Trek—except when it comes to including Spock's death (or McCoy's either) in the next movie. Susan, unwittingly, drives a wedge between Mr. Bennett and the McCoy segment of fandom, like all her other wedges, that is purely political, unnecessary and destructive. Believe it or not, Susan, HB can take good care of himself, without you.

Furthermore, to state that Gene Roddenberry and Susan Sackett are not part of the "official ST organization" is offensive, condescending and patently ludicrous. If GR's fifteen years of participation in ST projects doesn't qualify him as "official", then how can HB's mere six months possibly do so? GR has not only created, but produced and written (episodes, the novelization and the making of ST:TMP, plus) and nutured Star Trek. Susan Sackett, who was administrative assistant on ST:TMP, has written books based on ST, while working beside Mr. Roddenberry for the last seven years. Who is Susan Stephenson kidding? We fans have not seen one minute of Star Trek produced by Harve Bennett, while we have seen and read hours and hours and pages and pages produced by GR — yet, somehow for Susan, GR is still not "official". By God, he's official enough for me! And that rude remark aimed at Susan Sackett was uncalled for and obnoxious (seems to be the word of the hour, doesn't it?). There is little point in commenting on the rest of Susan's letter, as the conventions she speaks of are few and far between and the biographical background on Sonni Cooper is past history and boring at best. Perhaps it would do Susan well to stick to her fanclub duties at the base of that mountain and forget what ever aspirations she has of influencing producers and fandom with her self-glorifying rhetoric. Susan and those who share her careless attitude are harmful to Star Trek, harmful to fandom, harmful to all of us who truly want to see Star Trekc ontinue. And lastly, Susan, please allow GR and HB the dignity of working out their own problems in Hollywood—backstage where they belong.

[...]

I still operate under the naive (perhaps) impression that INTERSTAT readers and letter-writers are people who carry a great love of Star Trek in their hearts—not people jockeying for position next to the latest Hollywood producer, nor people in love with the sight of their names in print, nor people using fandom as a forum from which to manipulate others. [2]

Tess L. Thompson also had issues with some fans telling other fans how to interact with TPTB and fandom:

In response to Susan Stephenson's letter in issue #48, I'm confused. What's happening here? Suddenly, fandom seems to have sprouted some self-made leaders who are laying down rules of conduct and thought! Who are these people who see fit to make these rules? Sonni Cooper's resume was nice, but I didn't see any mention of fandom-related activities before WISH, professional or otherwise, other than coordinating celebrity appearances at cons. Also, who is [Susan S]? Why does she deem it necessary to attack those fans who are in friendly disagreement with the powers-that-be? [3]

Jackie Edwards addressed Susan Stephenson:

I have told you, Susan, over the phone that I found your newsletter, The Center Seat, and Sonni's letter in I#44, condescending. You disagreed and that was that. In INTERSTAT, I was merely expressing an opinion about the WISH newsletter and GR's work—isn't that the purpose of INTERSTAT? But while we're on the subject, let me give you some examples from I#48 of what I consider to be condescending: "Poor Jackie"; "Dear Jackie"; "Sorry, kid"; "Sorry, my dear". And in the WISH newsletters: "Kiddo"; "Kiddies"; and "Read the club's rules and procedures sheet until you understand it." That, to me, is insulting to the reader. Also, telling those who wrote to you as hopeful penpals that they should take their problems to a local mental health clinic seemed unnecessarily cruel. [4]

Sue Keenan also disliked another fan's attitude:

Move over, Moses. Make room for the new prophet from Campbell, handing down the laws to those beneath her. Susan Stephenson (I#48) has gone to great lengths to tell us what is and is not acceptable within Star Trek fandom, and the bothersome part is that she's making it sound official. Well, she is on the WISH staff, but does not speak in any official capacity for Bennett, Roddenberry, Nimoy, Kelley or Paramount. That should be made clear since she goes on to insult the "kooks and nuts" that support Spock, and the "manipulated" McCoy fans.... Your letter sounds like you're asking fandom to choose between Roddenberry and Bennett, declare for one or the other. Why should we? Why give up the talents of one when we can enjoy and support the works of both? What confuses me is the way you have abandoned GR, a man you once held great admiration for (I#12,16,26,37). Why bolster Harve Bennett at Roddenberry's expense? Mr.Bennett doesn't need this kind of support and I doubt if he wants it. And if GR as consultant, isn't a member of the ST team, what is he? Your letter could be wrongfully interpreted as an official statement, by an official, through a non-official, that an ex-official, isn't official anymore.... What disturbes me most about your letter was the over-all tone. Suddenly, people who were once close to you have become "Edwards and Keenan", and then there's Zuk, Tullock, Cross, Crites and Hedge, as opposed to Harve, Bob, De, Leonard,Gene and Susan. We have first names too, and you know me a lot better than you know them. Maybe you and Sonni are pros (after all, WISH is a professional club), and want to hitch your wagon to a rising star. But remember, the rest of us are fans and don't have to go with the flow. Even if it means maintaining our loyalties to a semi-retired actor and a writer/producer who may be "small potatoes", but quality through and through.[5]

Jeanie H didn't appreciate the "pep talk":

And as for the Sonni Cooper history lesson, I joined WISH because of William Shatner, a man I respect and admire, not because Cooper was in a movie before you were born. I have never doubted her ability to do her job. William Shatner wouldn't have sanctioned the fellowship if he didn't have confidence in her ability. But I don't see that she is any more an authority on fans than anyone else.... Do we really need a pep talk to remind us to be good little fans? [6]

Marian Kelley addressed Susan Stephenson:

Susan: remember the times we sat together chortling over letters to be written in one campaign or another? Remember the letter-writing crusade you headed to oust two ladies who were published in Trek and Bantam Books? Remember the letters (multiple copies) you solicited from this same Jackie Edwards and Sue Keenan and many others to urge Shatner to start up a new fan club? I could go on but to do so would prove embarrassing. My point is this: why do you claim letter-writing poses threats now? The people who were targets then certainly felt the brunt of sharpened pens and there was no quarter given. To the fans directing their letters to the studio and to Harve Bennett this is their way of expressing honest and angry opinions. To merely state that they are causing great harm is not enough. that is simply the reply of those who are feeling the impact of those letters. Information, candid, and forthright, as to why those letters are harmful is what will matter. And, out of curiosity, may I ask just how you have been privy to those letters? Has either Bennett or Paramount been divulging their contents to the WISH staff? One wonders about such things from your letter. I also can recall when your opinion of Sue Sackett was a great deal more kind, when you actively sought her acquaintance because it was a way to meet Gene Roddenberry. Remember when the gesture by him to allow fans to be in ST:TMP, and you were selected, was the high point of your year? Can it be that with familiarity comes contempt?...or is it simply that one of the other adages in Glitter Gulch has become important to you -- "Don't rub shoulders with someone who isn't IN, it might rub off on you."... I feel badly to be writing this letter, badly because you seem to have for gotten your own beginnings in Trekdom. You have always been known as a letter writer, par excellence, and some of those you have attacked have maintained dis creet and loyal silence in the past. They don't deserve to have their wrists slapped because you want to make a point. Fans have supported Trek for fifteen years and done it well, or else Paramount wouldn't be even considering this current Trek project, would they? Making money is their concern, and while I am delighted by the quality of people around Bennett, the silence about certain aspects of the script are disheartening. Information is badly needed, and not the kind that scolds and alienates loyal and intelligent fans by attacking that loyalty and intelligence.[7]

Beverly Zuk, one of the fans targeted by name, wrote I'd like to comment, yet again, on fans and their relation to the stars., an excerpt:

... as Sue so adroitly pointed out, I foam. The question under discussion is, after all, THOSE NASTY FANS. Or in Sue's thrilling condemnation: "If the majority of fans continue to tolerate or overlook the thoughtless, destructive behavior of a few, then the public image of fans can only become worse."

Boy, just shows how wrong a gal can be! Here I thought I was going to cons to have a good time, and all the while it was because I wanted to tolerate thoughtlessness.

But seriously, let's consider: Semantics. The word fan is being made to cover an awful lot of territory these days. It's applied to card-carrying members of the William Shatner Fan Fellowship, as well as those who don't know what "tush" means. It can be applied to those who'd hock their first born for the price of a zine, to those who'd think twice before coughing up four bucks to see ST:TMP. And here I'm limiting myself to just one segment of a larger fandom (Science Fiction) (Media), which is, in turn, one of many fandoms.

That's only part one of the semantics problem. When the media gets on their 'all fans are demons and/or crazy cultists' they don't bother to say: "All Jody Foster fans [8] are blankity, blankity, blankity." They say ALL fans. [9]

Comments from Joyce Tullon about Susan Stephenson, Sonni Cooper, and WISH, citing the newsletter's lack of correct information regarding DeForest Kelley's presence in the next movie:

"Seek the Truth and the Truth will set you free." Translated into the colloquial; "The jig is up."

To Susan Stephenson: Evidently you will not rest until someone offers you the "uncomfortable facts" concerning why some individuals in fandom refuse to completely believe any information which is provided by Sonni Cooper and the supposed WISH/Bennett coalition. Now, no one wants to hurt anyone — but you insist that you deserve an explanation. and in a way, I guess you do. You asked for it, here it is: As any professional would tell you, the writing business depends heavily on something called "credibility". You tell us (in INTERSTAT #50) that WISH works in close cooperation with Harve Bennett and Bill Shatner and that your day by day association with them provides you with the best and truest informa tion concerning Star Trek matters. If this is so, then we all have cause to worry. In INTERSTAT #43 WISH announced that DeForest Kelley had "definitely" signed for the new movie. That issue was published in April. As you know, that report was wrong, and Mr. Kelley was not signed by Paramount until six months later.

(And, if you will remember, we of the McCoy campaign halted our efforts on the basis of that first, incorrect report. See? We did believe you!) Now here's the point: It should not have been that difficult for WISH to have obtained the correct information about whether or not Mr. Kelley had actually signed for the film. It should have been a rather routine, small matter for the supposedly professional likes of WISH. Why then, between the "four" of you, couldn't you get the straight dope? Goodness, you could have called Mr. Kelley's agent, or you could have asked Mr. Kelley, or if you're too shy for that, you could have asked Walter Koenig — that's what the fans did. (And what a shock it was for all of us to discover that WISH wasin error.)

The cold, "uncomfortable" fact is that in botching such an easily verified news item, WISH destroyed its credibility as a reliable source of information. A reporter, to be taken seriously, must get his news straight. He must build a reputation for doing so. He must earn his readers' trust. This is where the present WISH officials have failed. You tell us that your association with Mr.Bennett and company assures you of having "The Truth". Well? What are we supposed to believe? What are we supposed to think? Do you understand the implications of what you've said? Add everything up, and one can only conclude that it is you who have made Mr. Bennett out to be a liar. I, for one, am offended. I have great respect for Mr. Bennett. I can't for one moment believe that he gave such false information to WISH. (He did not—Ed.) Therefore, I must conclude that Sonni Cooper got the information elsewhere, that her source was certainly not reliable, and that she is evidently not as "on top of things" as many of us would like to believe. I submit that Mr. Bennett and Mr. Shatner have become unfortunate victims in your attempt to regain lost credibility. At present it appears as though that credibility has been irretrievably lost, but perhaps something could be salvaged if you would cease your demands that fandom accept unquestioningly the edicts of WISH. I assure you that the fans are quite aware that no one has the complete "Truth" where Star Trek is concerned. Not WISH, not the McCoy or Spock campaign people, not Gene Roddenberry — not even Harve Bennett. [10]

Comments by Randall Landers:

I'm afraid, madam, that you will cause the destruction of WSFF. You abuse too many people in your letters, and don't think people don't associate your opinions with those of the organization. Subconsciously, or consciously, they will, but that won't matter. You are still one of the upper hierarchy of WSFF, and so your actions will be viewed as endorsed by WSFF and by William Shatner himself. And if you say, well it won't matter, then I ask, is WSFF losing its memberships? A letter in Forum suggests that to be true. Then examine your actions, your patronizations in The Center Seat and the like, and see if you're the cause.[11]

From Jackie Edwards:

I, personally, resent being accused of blind adulation. As for a scorecard, I gave you one. Are you bleating about financial success while I am merely expressing personal enjoyment? Try reading the comments of others before offering up your own in rebuttle [sic]. It is not a turn of events for me to state that I am fond of Roddenberry's work...I've been doing it for years... the change here is that you are no longer praising, but rather belittling in what you have to say. Roddenberry is and always has been a friend to fandom; whether personally known or not, and it is unreal of you to think fandom would not spring to the defense of a friend. It was interesting, however,to read that you still admire this "plaster saint" because he is a "very human person." Though "he's done some lousy stuff" and "when it comes to flaws, he's got some beauts." I don't recall anyone saying that he couldn't be human. I am assuming that you refer to letters printed in INTERSTAT. If you refer to fandom as a whole, let me remind you that all professional people who are admired have the extremists...Shatner has them, Nimoy has them, and if Bennett creates a good Star Trek and develops a following in fandom, he will have them. Why dwell on it? Let us enjoy the man's works without making us out to be imbeciles unworthy of the space our comments are printed on. [12]

From Jan M. Mike: Sue Stephenson: Spare us your patronizing, please. If we are to believe Paramount and previous officials what we witnessed before was the resurrection. Pardon us when we don't dance for joy like simpletons because now you've promised the second coming. If Ingrid had her doubts it is because Paramount in the past has scarcely proven themselves a paragon of honesty, quality or creativity. Their credibility ain't too high and your condescension is nauseating. [13] }}

References

  1. ^ "Reality, ah yes, let us address ourselves to reality. Ms. Cooper says that it is difficult for someone like her to read the "unrealistic exercises" that fans go through. Has anyone read the WISH newsletters? If I were to pluck what I considered an "unrealistic exercise" from Star Trek fandom, it would be reading the William Shatner Fan Fellowship newsletter. The Center Seat. - from Jackie Edwards in a letter to Interstat #45 (July 1981)
  2. ^ from Interstat #49 (November 1981)
  3. ^ from Interstat #49 (November 1981)
  4. ^ from Interstat #49 (November 1981)
  5. ^ from Interstat #49 (November 1981)
  6. ^ from Interstat #49 (November 1981)
  7. ^ from Interstat #49 (November 1981)
  8. ^ This is a reference to the John Hinckley Jr. incident that had taken place earlier that year.
  9. ^ from Interstat #50 (December 1981)
  10. ^ from Interstat #51 (January 1982)
  11. ^ from Interstat #51 (January 1982)
  12. ^ from Interstat #51 (January 1982)
  13. ^ from Interstat #51 (January 1982)
Retrieved from "https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=So_many_topics_in_the_past_few_months_require_perspective_I_see_lacking.&oldid=2513357"