The Clipper Trade Ship/Issues 31-40

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Clipper Trade Ship · Issues 1-10 · Issues 11-20 · Issues 21-30 · Issues 31-40 · Issues 41-50 · Issues 51-60 · Issues 61-70 · Issues 71-79

Issue 31

front cover of issue #31, Frank Panucchi
back cover of issue #31

The Clipper Trade Ship 31 was published in January 1981 and contains 36 pages.

300 issues were printed.

Artists: Frank Panucci, John P. Alexander, Joy Ashenfelder, Dorothy Bradley, Carrie Dougherty, Mike Chiccielli, Melody Rondeau, Jim Rondeau.

Letters to the editor included several long remarks about the Moral Majority, a subject brought up in the previous issue. One fan included a screed against President Jimmy Carter and his "buck teeth" and sunny personality, another fan said the Moral Majority was doing good work to rid the world of smut and bathroom/bedroom humor and to make the planet safe, another fan said she thought the Moral Majority was a hoax.

From the editorial:

Rumors are flying again about the possibility of the return of Star Trek as either a weekly series or a series of telemovies (thanks to what Gene Roddenberry has been recently telling college crowds). Having experienced this whole runaround once before in the ten years betwixt the TV show's demise and the one year ago release of the Star Trek movie, we're not going to be optimistic. The question we need to ask ourselves is do we really want a new ST series, or should we leave "legends" alone? Would there be enough viewership to keep such a series on the air? Would we be assured of a product lovingly produced with the same taste of wonder? And what of the actors? Do they want to be trapped into the weekly series grind again?

Of course, one could conceive of Trek without Kirk, Spock, and/or McCoy et al. Perhaps if a series could be developed using the "lesser" characters of the series...? ("Bridge to sickbay. Dr. Chapel? This is Captain Chekov. Is First Officer Riley down there...?") The likelihood of Trek returning as even a direct takeoff from the movie seems dim. But to have a logical spinoff of some sort? There is a letter campaign to Paramount going on right now to prove that enough interest still exists to a return of Trek in one form or another. You're invited to get your 20 cents worth in by writing directly to Gary Nardino (President of Paramount TV), 5451 Marathon, Hollywood, CA 90028.

[...]

In case any if you are wondering, we're jointly writing the editorial this time. Part
 of the reason is because Jim has nothing to say, but Melody can say that better, and much
 longer, too. However, that's where Jim comes in, making Melody's saying of nothing half as
 long as it was. That, folks, is what teamwork and editing is all about. Maybe by next issue,
 we'll have separate thoughts again. (Alas, it'll be the same old typewriter with its bad
 small 'o', capital C, and [messed up] apostrophe.) Until then enjoy?

  • inside page from issue #31

    inside page from issue #31

  • inside page from issue #31

    inside page from issue #31

Reactions and Reviews: Issue 31

This is a small, quarterly fanzine devoted to Star Trek, science fiction, fantasy, and film. This particular issue contains Star Trek, Society for Creative Anachronism, Man from Atlantis, and Christmas material. The non-ST material was neither lengthy nor distinguished, so I will skip over it and go straight to the ST material. TCTS No. 31 contains three ST stories and two ST articles, all short.

The best story is "Deneva Darkness" by Beth Carlson. It is an excellent post OPERATION ANNIHILATE story emphasizing the Chapel/Spock relationship. It's nice to see Chapel as a competent professional instead of a love-sick twit.

"A Peter Potter People Interview" by Sandy Hall is also an interesting piece in its own right. This interview parody investigates why a perfectly normal and intelligent young woman can watch Star Trek without becoming a rabid Trekkie.

The third piece, "A Day is a Day is a Day" by Richard G. Pollet is a typical Christmas on the Enterprise story.

For me, the highlights of the 'zine were the fact articles. Part one of Tim Farley's "Star Trek's Broadcast History" will fascinate the historians and trivia buffs. However, "Unshot" alone is worth the price of the zine. This article presents the first drafts of the scripts for two episodes, "OBSESSION" and "SPOCK'S BRAIN". You think those episodes were bad — you should see the first drafts.

The zine also has an ad section called The Cargo Hold, which contains ads for all kinds of strange stuff. For example, it contains 'wanted'/and 'for sale' 'ads for film clips from STAR TREK and many other sf/fantasy/horror films and TV series. There are also ads for DARK SHADOWS fanzines and fan clubs for Ann-Margret and David Hedison (VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA). [1]

I enjoyed the front cover. It looks like Yoda is thinking "Amateurs". The artwork throughout the zine is very nice. The back cover was only acceptable, nothing more, in my opinion. I especially enjoyed the monster illo on page 9, though. It really went well with Shirley Meech's kute poem koncerning Karl Kolchak.

"A Peter Potter People Interview" was quite an enjoyable statement with which I agree. Trekkies, even Trekkers, are not very tolerant of non-fans at times, as I've noticed with some of my friends on campus. I think part of the problem stems from a fandom-wide persecution complex. I personally don't have this problem, thank God, but unfortunately, a lot of fen do. And there's a lot of tension between ST fen and s-f fans that also adds to the problem. It's just amazing to me sometimes, that ST fen are the ones who cannot understand IDIC and what it means.

Dian Hardison's 'article' was rather enjoyable. Judging from her past work as well as this one, she has got the characters down pat. Pity that the series was squelched and cancelled. Good poem, I think. I'm tone-deaf as far as poetry goes, but I thought I liked it.

...And a final note, they (fandom) is liable to kill you for suggesting that ST need not be made again with all the old people and producer. I personally believe that Gene Roddenberry is spreading a bunch of B.S. to cover for himself. He took credit for the whole movie until some fans rejected it. Now he says it's all Trumbull and Wise's fault... [2]

... feature of writing was excellent this time. Wouldn't it be fun to see that sequence with Chapel and the blind Spock with spilled "protein shake" all over him and the bed and floor dramatized on the screen? What a picture! — "Snandreas' fault"? GOoool — P-P-P interview=cute. And there's a truth to it. What prejudice does to us.

"Mysterious Merman" - another pleasant insight into Mark Harris. "A Day is a Day ... " This is a real demonstration of IDIC in action. I think Chapel's love has really given her insight and compassion, and she passes it on to us. Love and compassion, that's where it's at. — "ST's Broadcast History"--—unusual article. Is there any aspect of ST that's left unexplored? I doubt it. But someone will discover it if there is any remaining by this date. Of course there's the movie to dissect, but it's a bit of a surprise to find a trivia article on the old series. The remaining parts of the series should be likewise interesting, Unshot — very good. I do enjoy these 'alternate' versions of ST — and others, but mainly ST shows, and wonder why and how they evolved certain ideas into what became the aired version—not always for the better. Seems I've read so many references to McCoy's 'beads, rattles, and feathers' and whatnot by Spock that were eliminated by air-time. It's a pity. I think the nearest thing that actually got aired to McCoy's primitive medical methods was an accusation of 'trial and error' (in "I, Mudd" I believe) and perhaps some others elsewhere (I'm beginning to forget). But those real juicy barbs concerning witch doctor comparisons were unfortunately cut from earlier versions and drafts... [3]

I enjoyed the story by Richard Pollet. It is nice to see Chris Chapel portrayed as something other than a love-sick pea-brain. Also the other interactions between characters was fun. I would have loved to have seen the look on the Vulcans' faces when the Christmas tree appeared in their living room. Just the thought produces a smile.

The 'Unshot' feature was good; I'm looking forward to the next ones. Now we know that it was not Gene L. Coon's fault that 'Spock's Brain' came out so badly. It did have promise.

I really missed the reviews; they're so helpful when ordering zines.

Dian Hardison's poem was beautiful. The sensitivity was lovely, and I found myself reading it over and over just to enjoy the feel and the sound of it.

Last but not least, 'The Fourth Elfl Tale' was great. Wherever did you get a name like Quasimodo Guttersnort BeBasement III??? What a name! And the description was even better! U.L. Tied Chair? The wicked witch of the North by Northwest?? It was funny all of the way through, but the biggest laugh had to be Melody's Santa going 'Hoe, Hoe, Hoe!' near the end. [4]

I have enclosed a check for $5.25 to renew my subs to TCTS, and an ad for THE CARGO HOLD. Please run it as soon as possible.

It was my little note which you based your 10/80 editorial. I want you to know that I highly resent the inferences you made in that editorial. It is you who does not understand IDIC, and who does not practice it. No longer will I tolerate people who accuse me (and other ST fans) of not practicing IDIC, just because we like ST more than other media — a simple matter of taste. No longer am I going to tolerate material in poor taste which is intended to trash ST. I have an excellent sense of humor, but it is certainly not stimulated by some of the drek you have published. To satirize something, you must understand it first, and I think that that is beyond the mental capacity of some of the people who write that stuff. Why do you publish it??? You certainly can't be that hard up for material!

I cannot understand the paranoia of media-fans toward ST fans. Can you believe that we don't give a damn WHAT you like? That, believe it or not, the fact you are a Danny Kaye fan doesn't effect us in the slightest? Why don't you give us the same courtesy?

Other fandoms are of no interest to us. We do not view them with any kind of hostility. We just don't care.

Are you implying that there is some kind of infection on the West Coast that causes multi-media-ism?

Can you believe that we don't give a damn WHAT direction the West Coast goes, or the Midwest, or anywhere else for that matter?

I have many other interests besides Star Trek; I do not expect anyone else to share all these interests with me. Why do you expect all of us to like all media, no matter how unintelligent and generally horrible? I would not expect you to share my interest in Medieval music, viola da gamba playing, mineral collecting, etc., etc., but I don't expect to have people to trash my activities, or write phony "humor" about them. Most people have more sense than to trash what other people love, but I guess the multi-media fans are unique in that respect. They think they can get away with it, because if the ST fan protests, the ST fan will be accused of not practising IDIC!!! Sincerely, Barbara P. Gordon [5]

[one of the editors, Jim Rondeau, responded]: ... How do you define IDIC? Using phrases like 'no longer will I tolerate people who...' and 'we just don't care' how does that fit in? How did you become #1 spokesperson for Star Trek fandom? If you don't give a damn WHAT I like, what the heck are you doing subscribing to TCTS if I'm printing stuff that I like????? Especially if it's not 100% serious Star Trek? What do you mean by "phony humor'? what have I printed that trashes Star Trek? Yes, we are hard up for material, but if a story is not acceptable, it's not used. True, I do not put Star Trek up on a pedestal, but it is my most-favorite visual-media program, movie, or whatever — if you discount the short-lived parody of Star Trek, namely Quark — which would have never been without Star Trek. If I had the time I would be writing Star Trek stories (unless your definition of Star Trek means that such stories must include Kirk, Spock, and McCoy in each). I am least providing the space for those who do have the time. As you can see, too few people are taking this opportunity. That you think that I don't understand IDIC, don't practice it, am not a Star Trek fan is your opinion. I have stated mine. Opinion. Not Gospel Truth. It has been said by a professional writer (who shall remain nameless) that not everyone is entitled to an opinion. I do not believe that. I may not agree with yours, but that hardly makes you intolerable to me. I will suggest you be a little more constructive in your criticism — but that's right: you don't care. Whatever happened to those three little words: "Let me help." [6]

Issue 32

The Clipper Trade Ship 32 was published in April 1981 and contains 32 pages.

There were 300 issues printed.

front cover of issue #32, Melody Rondeau
back cover of issue #32, G. Hof

Artists: Melody Rondeau, Terry Lipanovich, Gennie Summers, John P. Alexander, Carrie Daugherty, Cynthia Case, Bill Anderson, G. Hof, Frank Panucci, Peggy Hogan, Sandy Robnett, Vel Jaeger, Susan Landerman.

This editorial is a long one. The first part of it deals with the difficulties in continuing with creating this zine: money, time, lack of material, and finally, a letter the editors received from a contributor in the last issue (Beth Carlson) that felt like a demoralizing blow. The long, detailed letter was polite but very pointed regarding the unauthorized changes the editors had made to her story. The editors printed the letter in full and asked their readers what they should do. Some excerpts:

Typically, the last issue fell together in the last two weeks before the deadline (there's that word again), thanks to some very nice contributions at that time. We rushed to get TCTS 31 completed, and taken to the printer at the time. We were very pleased with the job we had done, and thought it to be one of our better issues. It was mailed out, and one of the first letters we got back was from one of the issue's contributors, Beth Carlson ("Deneva Darkness"):

Dear Friends, Please remember that greeting; I plan to use it again at the end of this letter. I am a little disgruntled, but not hot under the collar. First of all, let me thank you for two changes of wording that definitely improved my work. ("Glass container" and "When may I be released.") Also thanks for leaving Spock's one contraction. Now to the mean and nasty stuff. Well, maybe not mean and nasty; maybe just a little harrumph-y. There are several places where your changes, though small, changed the emotional timbre of the scene or dialogue. Specifically:
[much snipped]
I really feel that the quality of what hit the zine in print was a lesser quality than what I gave to you. That hurts. I would like, if someone reads my story and says 'that needs help' or 'that author may be good someday if she learns sentence structure', for it to be because of errors I really made, and not because of interpreting problems between my page and their eyes.
Your letter said, and I quote, 'She says the only editing needed is in Spock's dialogue—changing "don't's" to "do not's" and the like.' I can not fault you for typing errors, but I feel that I should have been notified (in time to pull it, if it was important enough to me) before you deleted that few lines. That's just an ethics itch. I guess I should have asked what 'and the like' meant.
As I said before the real problem was the typing errors and the little things here and there that were changed. I did offer to do revisions if you needed it. I even think I enclosed my phone number for tight schedule problems.
I would ask that you proof read better to catch the really bad sounding things such as I have pointed out. I am admittedly a little gun-shy about submitting anything else to TCTS at this point.
Try to be understanding, this is my craft. I have worked on it a long time. For the most part I do it well. Stories that hit print are an author's calling card, a bit of ourselves opened to the world. That's not always a comfortable feeling, and even less so when you feel that there is something between you and that audience you are trying to reach. I'm sure you know the feeling.
So now, friends, (yesterday, when I first got the zine, I was feeling thoroughly neurotic, but have mellowed since) you may be asking yourselves if you haven't tossed this yet and are still with me 'Just what does this lady want?'
That's a reasonable enough question. I mean, I've thanked you on one hand for changing two things, and lambasted you for others. How can an editor ever know what's going on in a writer's head? Ah, who knows?? That's probably why you're the editor. You figure it out. It seems a never winning proposition.
Hope this hasn't left you with a raging urge to kill, a gaping hole in the side, or a nervous twitch. But then, on second thought, I hope you don't just yawn or shrug it either. Merry Christmas, Beth Carlson

She has every right to be boiling under the collar. We are guilty of destroying her story, both unintentionally and intentionally, and there is no way we can make it up to her or you, the readers. Had we at least proof-read her story we might have caught many of the blunders. But no, we slammed it out as quick
ly as we could. The areas we differed in char
acter interpretation we should have either let
her explain her position or let her do minor rewrite. But no, we made quick changes, just so we could include her story in that issue. We are guilty, and we sincerely apologize to her.

When we first read her letter, our first reaction was terrible dismay. We knew we blew it, and cursed ourselves and our stupid deadlines for doing this to her. We asked ourselves what we could do about it. The first answer was to immediately discontinue TCTS — a quick death, the coward's way out. Instead, we settled on telling you what happened, thus letting you — the reader, the subscriber, the contributor decide TCTS's fate, giving support or not.

Sloth is one of the so-called seven deadly sins„ With respects to TCTS, this makes the thirty-second issue we've "deaded," In keeping a quarterly schedule, we simply don't spend the right amount of time with each issue. It shows— gads, how it shows — especially in the typing.

Jim never learned how to type (and did 27 issues without Melody's help), and Melody forgets to attempt to proofread what she types. And, alas, Beth's story got more than its fair share of typographical errors. Even if it were free of typos, we are still guilty of tampering. "The Deadline" was not the only rationalization used; there was also editing. We take our duties as editors very seriously, probably more seriously than most fanzine editors, and in this particular case we apparently overstepped the bounds of fan editing within reason. Yes, in the past seven years we have, in the addition of being the watchdogs over grammar and punctuation, changed a word or line here, deleted a paragraph there — what we thought were minor changes for the better that we considered in our right to make. The definition of 'edit' in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary includes "to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose."

Yet we are wrong. We've gone beyond what a fanzine editor should do. We are at the mercy of you contributors, not the other way around. If this was a prozine and we were paying for stories, perhaps we'd be buying the right to edit as we see fit. But we are only the editors of a fanzine, and we have offended a contributor, Beth. Beth has every right to be mad at us. We're mad at us.

(We do appreciate Beth for letting us know the errors of our ways in a manner most un-fanlike — she has done so intelligently, without malice or threat of bodily harm—something we've never seen in fandom before. Very refreshing.)

In the future — if there is a future—we will strive to work more closely with contributors, but still we will take our work seriously. If problems can't be resolved by the time an issue goes to print, then that story won't be in that issue. Deadlines, as we indicated pages ago, may be ignored sometimes, as the need arises, especially if we have no acceptable stories ready by a proposed printing date.

  • inside page from issue #32

    inside page from issue #32

  • inside page from issue #32

    inside page from issue #32

Reactions and Reviews: Issue 32

As you've probably noticed from my script lists, I'm a STAR TREK fan. (I'm also a number of other things, including a despier of the pigeon-holing of people according to a single characteristic — ST fan, specific profession, sex, country of origin, whatever.) For some combination of personal reasons, of all the other media productions I've enjoyed, the only one that's struck me deeply enough to sustain an intensity of interest has been ST. Simple as that. If SW does that for someone else, fine for them.

What does offend me is a person who seems to think he/she has some right to control what
 my interests are. This isn't purely a ST-vs-media problem; I've seen it in ST vs SF, K/S vs 
non-K/S, Kraith vs non-Kraith, Fortunately, most fans I've met have had enough sense and
 spirit of IDIC to know the difference between having an opinion and trying to force that opin
ion on everyone within vocal range. But the ones who don't know the difference between a dis
cussion and a lecture, or who can't tolerate anyone whose opinions are not identical to their
own, do bother me.

I do have one problem with media fans who are zine editors. Many of them seem to have started out as ST fans/editors and, as their interests expanded to other shows/movies, they included SW, ESB, GALACTICA and others in their zines. Many of these are excellent zines, ones which I want to buy and own. But money and shelf space are both finite, and zines aren't cheap. I find that, as a ST fan, I now have to first investigate to see how much ST there really is in that zine. (and how much ESB, or whatever I'll wind up paying for), and then decide whether it's worth it to me pay for what may be a fair percentage of things I don't want. Why can't other fandoms, either individually or en masse, support zines of their own? (That's only partially a whine, it's also a real question.)

As for the Gordon/Rondeau debate...You asked for comments, you're getting a comment. From the tone and wording of the letters in TCTS #32, I think you're both wallowing in the mud. I honestly did not find either the letter or the response worth publication, A point can be made without indulging in Debate by Tantrum. You each had some valid points hidden under the muck, but I had to force myself to wade through looking for them. What ever did happen to "Let me help..." Or IDIC? Or logical, rational argument?

With regard to your reaction (in the editorial) to Beth Carlson's letter...I don't happen to think that the appropriate reaction to a problem is to drop dead. Isn't it better to learn from one's mistakes, and take pains not to repeat them in the future—perhaps setting an example in the process?

I'm not sure I agree with you also about the purpose of a fanzine editor. It seems to me that an editor should be trying to produce the best zine he/she possibly can — including appropriate (as defined by the editor) editing. HOWEVER, it should be the author's choice as to whether his/her story should be printed in that form. Should a story be edited and printed without the author seeing an edited copy first?

I'm not an author. I know better than to even presume I might someday be an author. However, I'm deeply offended that, in praising the moderateness of Beth's letter, you tossed in the comment "in a manner most un-fanlike... intelligently, without malice or threat of bodily harm." I'm offended as a fan; I'm offended as a friend/acquaintance/correspondent of several authors. If this is what you honestly think of fans, then perhaps it is time to pack it in. It also smears your previous contributors with a rather broad and unpleasant brush; I'm sure you owe at least some of them an apology. Do you want to continue publishing TCTS? Or are you continuing to do so out of inertia, or a sense of obligation? From the Carlson and Gordon matters, you give the impression of rather wishing to be out of it all, of just wanting an unobligated hour with just nothing to do but sit with your feet up, of being quite thoroughly sick of the problems, whatever problems those might be. (Pride be damned) would the world really disintegrate if you took a vacation, and skipped an issue? Especially if you let people know about it in the previous issue? If you came back to TCTS refreshed, wouldn't we all be better off?) Whatever you decide, I wish you the best of luck. Take care. [7]

[reply from one of the editors, Melody]: Our remark that cast a negative light on fandom came of many negative reactions toward us and others by fans who either cannot or will not tolerate another opinion or belief. Some have gone so far as to threaten physical violence should certain persons appear at the same convention. Certainly not all fans are this way. I've met some very fine folic in fandom and that is probably the only reason I haven't opted to get out. Fandom is a microcosm of society with both good and bad elements, unfortunately we just seem to run into a large share of "bad apples". Our remark has been colored, perhaps unjustly, by the impression mainstream fandom has left on us. Sour grapes? Maybe. --- Melody) [8]

Now, that letter from the person who did not like a previous "Captain's Cabin" editorial, and your reply...will you guys quit yelling at each other, for heaven's sake?! As I said, I am a neo, and this is the first time I've come across an argument like this in a zine I have heard about them. I don't like to think that things like this go on in fandom, but apparently they do. I know a fanzine is a great place to air differences, but I do wish you
 didn't have to be so mean to each other maybe that's the wrong word... Undiplomatic? [9]

Gennie Summers mentions the Moral Majority in the light that "Somebody has to do something about the smut and pornography that has entrenched itself in TV programming..." Smut? Pornography? God, where??? Name me two or three specific examples (and they'd better be good! Perhaps Ms, Summers would prefer a return to the moral standards of the original Star Trek, when even the most hardened scientist and you don't get much harder than Spock would be embarrassed by the topic of sex, and the word itself would be replaced by "biological function" (By Any Other Name).

I wasn't aware that "bathroom humor" was being forced on the public, as Summers says; perhaps I'm more fortunate than he in that my television's power switch isn't welded in the ON position.

(If Ms. Summers, or anyone, were to ask me if there has been a show which seriously offended me, I'd say yes: Hill Street Blues. I tried 1 1/2 shows before giving up. Officially sanctioned illegal weapons, incredibly stupid male chauvinists, a maniacal detective who bites his suspects, a general attitude of not caring.. .there was more than enough to get me to turn off the set. It is mj understanding that the show will probably not be back next season. America has rejected it and turning it off. Which is as it should be.)

Frankly, I an not concerned for those programs meant for sniggering imbeciles. They will be with us as long as television programs for the lowest common denominator, and so long there are enough sniggering imbeciles to make it commercially feasible. I am concerned with what would happen should the Moral Majority get its hands on such items as I, Claudius, or Monty Python. Battlestar Galactica — bad as it was—presented a possible extra-terrestrial origin for life on Earth. (For that matter, I have a friend who is a great-and-true Christian who doesn't believe in science fiction as a genre. She believes Christ will be returning relatively soon, bringing the day of judgement and the end of the world as we know it. Therefore, long-term speculation on the future is illogical. Is she right?) Maude has had an abortion. Lou Grant has dealt with stories favorable to the Hari Krishnas and homosexuals. How would the Moral Majority deal with shows like these? To this end, let me quote Peggy Charren, co-
founder and president of Action For Children's Television:"There is; the fact that censor
ship and that is what this movement is about, regardless of what they're calling it rarely stops when it should. You end up with a political censorship that is much worse than rotten programing." [10]

Issue 33/34

The Clipper Trade Ship 33/34 was published in October 1981 and contains 73 pages. 300 copies were printed.

front cover of issue #33/34 by Signe Landon
back cover of #33/34, Signe Landon

The art is by Bill Anderson, Joy Ashenfelder, Cynthia Case, Anne Crouch, Steven K. Dixon, Tim Farley, Doug Herring, Pegasus Hogan, Shona Jackson, Vel Jaeger, Susan Landerman, Signe Landon, Frank Panucci, Richard Pollet, Melody Rondeau, Gennie Summers, J. Alan Tyler, Yves.

The editorial:

"It's dead, Jim" is not the case. Despite last issue's unintentionally inferred demise of THE CLIPPER TRADE SHIP (TCTS, for those of you who delight in acronyms), the next two issues now appear before your eyes as a double issue, which is a nifty way for us to catch up on a "missed" deadline.

Approximately 95% of this issue was typed and edited by Melody, not so much as Jim was scared to death of sticking both feet into his mouth again, but because Melody happened to be out of school during the summer months and needed something for the basis of her term paper, "How I Misspent My Summer Vacation." All kidding aside, if it weren't for her, this issue might not have been completed for another six months.

As for next issue, if it is not ready by Christmas of this year, most likely you will be spared (temporarily) the obligatory Elfl tale. At least we are committed to another issue, if not two, as we are currently serializing James Ellison's novel, The Book of Comrack.

And speaking of the future, now that we've been married for over a year (isn't that six years, Melody — or an eternity? No, Jim, just one year), we're getting a glimmer as to which direction we want to head into. With luck, Melody will be starting a two year program in animation next month; animation has always been her career goal, Jim is looking into turning his book and film clip selling hobby into a real licensed business. All we need to do is be careful we don't turn our back on TCTS. Wish us luck, please.

By now you've all heard about James Doohan's heart attack; Leonard Nimoy's videotaping
of his "Vincent" play for PBS; William Shatner signing for a non-Roddenbery, possibly non-
Trek Star Trek, to be produced by the producer of the Six Million Dollar Man; LucasFilm's 
sueing fan writers and editors of pornographic Star Wars fiction [11]; and TCTS not even making onto the final Hugo award voting ballot, even though it was nominated for best fanzine. So we
 won't mention it.

  • inside page from issue #33/34

    inside page from issue #33/34

  • inside page from issue #33/34

    inside page from issue #33/34

Reactions and Reviews: Issue 33/34

TCTS 33/34 was highly enjoyable as usual. Seems all your LoCs agree pretty much on the issues...I too an tempted to holler "enough of these silly debates!" — some of them seem to have degenerated into sniping — but if you don't let people argue, they get frustrated.

TCTS seems to be the only zine where totally unrelated little drawings can creep in anywhere, purely for the enjoyment of looking at them. I'm no artist, but I like to look.

Bill Kropfhauser's "The Price of Difference" was an interesting bit of speculation. Very realistic. The same sort of problem spies and counterspies have no doubt wrestled with for years.

"Digsnort the Basic?" Some of you people are strange. "A Tribble in Time" — another variation on the change-in-the-time-stream theme. Dingbats on the Enterprise. I love it. "Well Put" was this by any chance a relative of "Vader of the Lost Ark" (Warped Space 46)? They tie together fiendishly well...

"The Book of Camrack" intimidated me when I first saw how long it was Turned out to be very enjoyable reading. Pretty good science fiction. Looking forward to seeing how it turns out.

The verses were excellent — you could "get into" them. So much poetry these days is either rocky or insubstantial... The Filksongs made my day. Try to explain filksinging to a mundane! At least some of the people in my office had seen TESB and could figure these out.

"Star Trek Coordinates" looks accurate to me. They use the same sort of system in submarine navigation. I've often wondered why somebody doesn't scrap the lousy 350° system in favor of a logical base 10. [12]

On the subject of smut and pron on TV, it would be useless to give specific examples, as what would be offensive to one person might not be to someone less sensitive.

The old argument that one can turn the set off does not protect the young and impressionable. It is not a question of whether or not to have rules against the airing of objectionable material, but where to draw the line.

Everyone agrees that TV programing sinks to the lowest "common denominator" of intelligence, which is bad enough, but it also tends to do likewise in morality, which is a real concern to people of higher moral standards.

As for science fiction and the soon return of Christ, not all "great and true" Christians feel that it is illogical. Not all SF deals with "long term speculation on the future" anyway. I have a tape made from a broadcast of a Missionary radio station which proposed science fiction as a medium to present gospel themes. On of the skits was a teaser based on Star Trek!

If homosexuals, Hari Krishnas, et. al. are presented favorably, are there programs where the opposite views are given, or do we get only one side of the picture? The same goes for abortions, extramarital sex and the like. These things are always presented as the norm, giving us the impression that they are normal and acceptable.

The cry of censorship, of the denial of 1st Amendment rights, charges of forcing unilateral views on the public, of making "hit lists", and so forth are misnomers and scare tactics coined by the opposition of conservative groups to alarm and garner hatred. Moral Majority and other concerned organizations, are not against women's rights. They do not believe that ERA is the way to achieve them, which is quite different. And it depends upon what rights homosexuals are demanding. They are not against birth control per se. They are pro-life, which is the other side of the abortion coin. Does the unborn child not have rights? To accuse these people of raising a lot of money and manpower and being dedicated to defeating a candidate they oppose is the pot calling the kettle black.

The liberal churches and many other left wing groups do that with a vengeance and aren't always ethical about it, either. The Salvation Army recently withdrew from the World Council of Churches because of their contributions of money to communist-backed guerrillas in Africa. The NCC (Rational Council of Churches), maintains two buildings in Washington DC from whence they lobby and work for causes they espouse by informing our lawmakers.

Yes, listen to Jerry Falwell and the others, and get their views first hand, don't take the distorted reports of their adversaries as the gospel truth. [13]

I have to say a few words about the Moral Majority, Yes, they are full of stupid ideas which intelligent people would not espouse; so was the Third Reich! Let's not mince words here — the MM'ers are nothing less than fascists. They want to force their ideas on everyone in this country, and with the support of little old ladies in Omaha who give nearly their entire incomes to tele-evangelists, they have the bucks and the connections to do it. Sure most of what's on TV is dreck but what happened to the off switch? I rarely watch TV now except for a few jewels , like WKKP, MASH, LOU GRANT; news shows and of course reruns of stuff.) With the increasing number of satellite, cable, public-access and church-owned stations, the super-religious have plenty of opportunity to produce/promote/broadcast/watch the "moral" shows they want. But don't restrict free TV — which is a limited natural resource, from doing what it wants. THERE ARE OTHER OTHER OUTLETS.

More Importantly, we need to stop arguing and get in, the way of the MM's efforts to rule America. The group doesn't represent as many people as its leaders say it does, but it still has power — and misplaced power is as dangerous as hell!

[...]

Well, enough of that for now but I must say that discussions like this are useful to ST fandom. Many fans are blind to the political realities of the world around them and need to be awakened. Let's get moving out there! [14]

Issue 35/36

The Clipper Trade Ship 35/36 was published in January 1982 and contains 60 pages. 300 copies were printed.

front cover of issue #35/36, Shona Jackson
back cover of issue #35/36, Stephen K. Dixon

The art is by Frank Panucci, John Alexander, Joy Ashenfelder, Cynthia Case, Gennie Summers, J. Alan Tyler, Carrie Daughtry, Terri Lipanovich, Richard Pollet, Vel Jaeger, Karla Jarrett, Shona Jackson, Melody Rondeau, Stephen K. Dixon, Richard Arnold, Pegasus Holden, Susan Landerman, John Frame.

From the editorial:

If — and remember now, we're saying if — it is Leonard Nimoy who doesn't want to play Spock until he is old and grey, and wants out of the character in a final way, do the fans have a right to deny him that? Sean Connery doesn't want to "be known only for James Bond and isn't; and since Star Trek fans would consider it sacrilegious for another actor to play Spock, what else can the producers do? To leave Spock alive, but "elsewhere" would bring a lot of tension and pressure in the long run, especially to Mr. Nimoy. Star Trek became a veritable Pandora's Box for them, even while it was still in first run. They may consider Star Trek as a headache. And how does one get rid of such a "headache"? The answer is not simple. What they — and we — don't need are those few violent fans who are sending nasty and threatening letters to Paramount, Roddenberry, and the actors. Rumors are running wild, tempers are flaring, and if we're real lucky, someone won't get hurt. All the people and companies involved could probably stand a little compassion and understanding, and most of all, support. Those few negative fans are hurting this project. If you're the type who likes to write letters to Paramount and the actors, sharpen your pencils and buzz off a few paragraphs of encouragement. Regardless, whether you are a vocal or nonvocal fan, please be sure of your facts before being so quick to condemn of commend. We admit these past two paragraphs are based on rumor and hearsay, and we may be making a big deal out of nothing, but at least we're trying to be honest and have an open mind (well, at least we think we are).

We have just finished watching the conclusion of the 18th season of Dr. Who, being so fortunate as to have a TV station broadcasting the 12th through 18th seasons over nearly a year's time, five times a week. (For those of you who are not familiar with Dr. Who, please see the letters section.) This longest running science fiction show (in Britain, of course) begins its 19th season in January with a new actor as the lead character (the fifth actor to play the Doctor). There are doubts as to whether the new actor will last, and we Americans may not see him at all, as we only get the seasons with the fourth actor in syndication. For a brief while, nearly a decade ago we were treated to two seasons of the third actor to play the Doctor, Jon Pertwee, but for most fans, the fourth actor, Tom Baker, is the only man for the role. Hopefully, the new actor, Peter Davidson, will make it. It's a fun show. Especially when science fiction and fantasy on the television is so bleak this year. We have a slightly revitalized Mork and Mindy, the wasted Mr. Merlin, the often ignored Fantasy Island, the "newcomer" Greatest American Hero, and the yet-to-be-seen Powers of David Star. What have we missed? The Dark Room (as a Twilight Zone clone)? Even Saturday mornings are dull. We mention the current season briefly just so those of us who reread this column years from now can say, "Gee, I remember that show and that one, but those...?"

  • inside page from issue #35/36

    inside page from issue #35/36

  • inside page from issue #35/36

    inside page from issue #35/36

Reactions and Reviews: Issue 35/36

I liked everything except The Book of Camrack because I haven't read it and anything that long is a novel to me and I read around it maybe later in '82...

I really liked Return and the Elfl and the unicorn by Shona Jackson. Even the ads in the Cargo Hold were compelling....

I don't know if Paramount would allow the 'death' of Spock in the new film, but that possibility would certainly be another layer of dust on Trek fandom. It has been almost 16 years since Sept. 8, 1966 and the time is catching up with us fen. [15]

It is really sad to read such hateful usage from a fellow fan. To compare godly Christian people who love to Nazi Fascists is unbecoming to say the very least.

The porno-lovers can also get their kicks from cable TV, so that argument does not hold. Let's not pollute free TV with material that is offensive to a significant section of the public.

Television programming has improved in this respect this season, find a number of programs that I can watch with my elderly mother, who is more sensitive than I. I believe the efforts of Conservative groups are quite an extent responsible.

TV programs are written by only a few people, mostly in Hollywood, who are not representative of grassroots America. Organizations such as the National Federation for Decency have helped viewers to see that their voices can be effective in affecting change. For years Christian conservatives have feared the liberal modernistic (and apostate) churches, the socialists and Communists, and now that they are finally expressing their views and calling for a return to decency and godliness, the shoe is on the other foot, and it seems to be pinching somewhat, judging from all the howling being heard. [16]

Issue 37/38

The Clipper Trade Ship 37/38 was published in April 1982 and contains 64 pages.

front cover of issue #37/38
back cover of issue #37/38, Susan Landerman

300 copies were printed.

The art is by J. Alan Tyler, Susan Landerman, Joy Ashenfelder, Lisa Scott, Cynthia Case, L. Cranston, Jerry Collins, Frank Panucci, Pegasus Hogan, Gennie Summers, Richard Pollet, Gloria-Ann Rovelstad, and Melody Rondeau.

From an ad:

Another double issue issue! 37/38 asks the musical question: can the Blues Brothers find happiness aboard the Enterprise? David Gordon & Micheal B. Smith provide the answers, while back on Earth in the not-so-distant future Dian Hardison treats us to a view of the "War Games". Also in this issue are more Empire-inspired filksongs, a letter column, fanzine reviews by Dixie G. Owen, an ad section & the usual drivel! Rounding out the issue is another installment of "Unshot" which begins to explore the vast wastes of Television spawned SF by the success of "The Fugitive" and the third installment of James Ellison's original fantasy novel "The Book of Camrock". All this plus the fantastic artwork of Frank Panucci, J. Allan Tyler, Gennie Summers, Lisa Scott, Susan Landeman, just to name a few.

From the editorial:

First off, we'd like to apologize to Bernita Stark for not crediting her penmanship of two of the filksongs presented last issue: "Earth's Battle Song" and "Han Solo's Love Song " We're afraid that's another thing we're tad about — miscrediting one piece about every other issue. Usually this occurs with artwork. Any artwork coming in now we're trying to label the ownership thereof immediately on its back, but we still have a few pieces in our file we're simply not sure of. So please let us know when we've trod upon your ego.

[...]

By the time you read this, it will probably be too late for any of you to make it to the Fantasy Worlds Festival April 16-18 at the Oakland Travelodge, 150 Hegen-berger road, Oakland, CA (if you hadn't heard about it already and planned to go). C.J. Cherryh is the pro guest of honor. The price is a bit steep for a smallish convention — $20 in advance (available from the FRIENDS OF DARKOVER, Box 72, Berkeley, CA 94701), $25 at the door. Apparently they weren't too happy with Melody winning best humor in their art show the past two years, so in order to disqualify her this year, they made her artist guest of honor, Jim isn't too pleased at being referred to as Mr. Melody Rondeau ('Hey, you' was perfectly acceptable).

  • inside page from issue #37/38

    inside page from issue #37/38

  • inside page from issue #37/38

    inside page from issue #37/38

Reactions and Reviews: Issue 37/38

I predicted when I saw my letter in issue 35/36 that you would not hold by your promise to keep the letter column apolitical. I was right, but I suspect you won't want to print this letter. I knew that Ms. Summers, being an old "friend of the zine", would get somewhat preferential treatment. Oh, Hell. I suppose it's Just as well — TC1S has perhaps already become too much of an Interstat when it used to be just a fun little zine. As for it "not and never" being a political forum — I disagree. It already is, like or not. I suppose it will be nice to get back to the old ways.

However, I wish you would pass on these comments to Gennie Summers. I did not, nor have I ever, resorted to name-calling in a letter discussion. My comparison of the M.M. to fascists la a valid one based on the policies and methods which have traditionally become associated with fascist regimes and the appearance of these same in the M.M.'s efforts.

I repeat that the television spectrum is a limited, national resource, which is not renewable or extendable. Thus, it should, be regulated, but not restricted. Sure, Hollywood writers are not 'average Americans' in general, but these programs would not be on if nobody watched them. What happened to the alleged Republican interest in free competition in industry? What happened to the ON/OFF switch on the TV. Use your of speech to inform the networks that you don't like what they're showing, by all means! But do not form a lobby group which uses shady financial wheeler-dealers behind the scenes; regularly over-rates itself in terms of following (refusing to document the same) to get others to listen to it; and uses underhanded scare tactics to force off the air something just a few over-zealous ministers do not like. And, by all means, do not prey upon the blind religious faith of millions of Americans to maneuver them into believing some idea (whatever its merit) because it is allegedly 'God's Word". This is contrary to the spirit of free discussion and compromise that makes our country great. And this is what the M.M. has done, and this is why I do not like it; I consider it a threat to traditional American freedom.

And Gennie Simmers accuses me of name-calling when she labels people who do not agree with the M.M. as "Liberals. ..socialists and Communists." She is using McCarthy-like rhetoric to force people to believe in the M.M. (as the M.M. has done also) by implying that its retractors are 'un-American." And she yells when I draw a valid parallel between the M.M. and fascists. I, for one, do not fall into the trap of calling anything I find undesirable "Communist."

[...]

As for the editor's paragraph after Ms. Summers' latest letter, well, I think you are being totally unfair and biased toward Ms. Summers' ideas. Ms. Summers needed no defense against 'implications made against her.' I attacked the M.M., not her. If you will re-read my letter you will see that. I have been 'civil about (my) disagreement, so that 
comment was not necessary on this one. And finally, 'both parties' have
 not had their say. I'm not going to ask you to print another letter from 
me, but I don't see how one person can have an LoC in issue after issue 
on the same subject, and another person have one LoC (which is then
 attacked with no opportunity for public defense) and this is called 'both 
sides having their say.' You have made it more than obvious that you agree
 with Ms. Summers why don't you just come out and say it?

I respect your decision to move TCT's letter column away from political discussion. However it was you who allowed it to get that way in the first place and now you slap a lid on it all-of-a-sudden, just after allowing a long-time contributor to have the last word. (And it sounded a hell of a lot like a long NYAH!!! to me) Somehow this doesn't seem quite fair, but that's the way it is.

[...]

I hope you will take this letter in the spirit in which it is intended — that of helpful criticism. Again, I repeat that I never intentionally slur another person or their ideas. If it sounds that way, then I made an error in word choice.

Good luck in establishing a consistent letter policy and sticking with it. I hope that TCTC's letter column will continue to be an enjoyable and productive part of the zine as whole, and that correspondents will make every effort to respect the "differing opinions of of their fellow fans. [17]

[reply from one of the editors]: I hereby publicly apologise to Tim for misinterperting his remarks. As to where the letter column was halted, I arbitrarily choose a point where I felt it had gone on long enough and yes, the fault is mine for letting it develop so far. I can only say that any past decisions I made were colored by my inexperience as an editor and I intend to use my perogative as an editor in a much stricter seise. Hindsight is easy. But I believe we can all profit from our mistakes. I would like to suggest that next issues letter column be devoted in part to personal views of STII—THE WRATH OF KHAN and the other summer movies we've been treated to. -- Melody) [18]

Issue 39/40

The Clipper Trade Ship 39/40 was published in October 1983 and contains 76 pages.

From a fan in issue #46: "That has got to be the best Trek cover I have ever seen. I fell in love with it immediately. Three cheers for Signe Landon!!!"
back cover of issue #39/40, Michael B. Smith

300 copies were printed.

The art is by Michael B. Smith, Signe Landon, Jerry Collins, Lisa Scott, Doug Herring, Pegasus Hogan, Richard Arnold, Susan Landerman, Cheri Tripp, Frank Panucci, Richard Pollet, Jim Price, Gloria-Ann Rovelstad, Richard Parks, Mary Bohdanowicz, Jim Stetson, Matthew Kohn, Elaine Gregory, J. Alan Tyler, Gennie Summers, Carrie Daughtry, Melody Rondeau.

From the editorial:

Yes, it's true! Your ship has come into port at last. This is the last of the planned double issues of THE CLIPPER TRADE SHIP (TCTS), covering the numbers 39 and 40. You might call it late, but we simply call it cheating — "two" issues in six months, instead of one issue in three months.

As this issue is being mailed out, the movie STAR TREK II — THE WRATH OF KHAN will be all hut gone from theatres around the country. We, of course, liked it, despite the questions it raised and the things it did to the Star Trek universe. Although the film has been out several months, we have heard very little fan comment. Is fandom in a state of shock? Or is everyone more ecstatic over E.T., and joining a new fan bandwagon (fanwagon)? We would like to hear your feelings on WRATH OF KHAN. Hopefully we can get a discussion going in the letter column.

Before the movie came out there was all the brouhaha about Spock dies/Spock doesn't die/fans will boycott the movie if Spock dies/Spock dies but will be in the next movie (ST III: The Search for ' Spock) and many more contradictory rumors. After the movie's release fandom got quiet, and we don't know why. We thought that despite Spock's "death" the movie was good enough to give fandom a shot in the arm, but if anything's materialized, we've missed it.

Here's something else to consider. Most fans didn't care much for the first movie, primarily because it seemed like a rehash of two episodes, "The Changeling" and Doomsday Machine." The second movie wasn't all that original. Besides being a sequel to "Space Seed," it borrowed heavily on "Balance of Terror" (dueling spaceships, including blind fighting in a gaseous environment) and "The Menagerie" (Capt. Pike nearly fatally wounded from radiation saving cadets in a starship mishap; and Spock, who would risk his career for Pike would do the same thing as his father-figure).

Have you asked yourself these questions: What did Spock want McCoy to remember in the brief mindmeld? What would the genesis effect have on Spock's body? If no living matter was the criteria for the genesis experiment, what effect would all that genetic matter from Khan's people at the center of the explosion have on the phenomena's outcome? Why was there a non-laboratory rat running loose on the space station? (The rats of Khan!) At least Vonda McIntyre's novelization of the movie gives us more details in Savik's Vulcan/Romulan background, and Peter Preston being Scotty's nephew.

  • inside page from issue #39/40

    inside page from issue #39/40

  • inside page from issue #39/40

    inside page from issue #39/40

Reactions and Reviews: Issue 39/40

The cover this issue is gorgeous, with its painstaking detail lovingly applied by Sig
ne Landon, the Master Artist. Spock does turn up in the most unlikely universes, doesn't
he? The back cover is a real riot! It's one of those "Why didn't I think of that" jokes, a
 real winner. Looks as if Melody was inspired by Dragonriders of Pern, and she drew a darling 
Pernese girl with a firelizard. (Just what I've been thinking of doing, having finished the 
Harper Hall Trilogy recently.) I like Peggy Hogan's cantina musician, with its simple, clean
lines. Susan Landerman's three pieces are all good. I
 like her "devil goat", and Yada Fett; real cute ideas, but 
I especially like the neat style she used on her super-
people. I'm a stickler for neat, clean lines. Pannuci's cat-woman is no glamor girl, but realistically done,,
What's this. Melody? A bee-lady? Name's Honey, of 
course. .. Richard Parks has a beautifully detailed and
 neat rendition of Alien. It is all too easy to 
scribble. I find myself doing it in spite of my
 dislike of it, but it's better to take one's time
 and make each line meaningful. Mary Bohdanowicz's
 fine lined lady on horseback is a fitting illo at
the end of CARMACK. Jim Stetson's "Evolution" is
 an amusing and well-executed page, which would make
an interesting wall poster, and his inside back-
cover of the fairy-atop-the-cat is so beauti
fully realistic, where has this guy been hiding? A good likeness of Harry Mudd by Elaine Gregory. And Dixon's Enterprise rounds out the art I found most commentable up to the filksongs. I especially liked the Vulcan fan, because of the contrasting dark and light. She stands out so well. Carrie Daugherty's Dr. Who is quite good, but I have a feeling it suffered much in the reduction. Oh, so there you are, Yoda! On page 62 to accompany a SW filk, how appropriate!

Fictionwise, I really enjoyed "The Book of Camrack", and this 
final installment is a fitting conclusion. I feared that there 
would be a lot of gratuitous bloodshed, but the final battle be
tween Jof and the Leader even terminated with both alive. I do
 wish James Ellison success in the professional world, if that 
is his choice. I like his style and his imagination and
 his care with detail. Hope he'll send some more fiction 
to TCTS. "The Sins of The Fathers" was the first M'Ress 
love story I've read, I think. It was good, made her 
seem much more real than an animated cartoon character. 
I found "The Lie" and "Dr. Who and The Twenty-five Doc
tors" amusing, but not so much as some of Knova's other ef
forts. Nevertheless, he is promising humorist, and I hope he'll 
keep contributing. Filksongs seem to have become a permanent 
part of TCTS, (I hope). A nice variety this time. I relate 
most to "If I Were A Rich Fan" having very often nurded [sic] the same sentiments too often! Seems a variety of folks are getting into the act you're going to have enough to put out a TCTS Filksong Book quite soon. [19]

Hooray for mother TCTS! Hooray for the last of the double issues! (Those six months waits were killing me.) And hooray for the end of the socio-politico-religious debates in the letter column. Those who wish to continue such debates are cordially invited to run up their phone bills with each other (shades of E.T.) A well-reasoned debate takes a good deal of explanation and discussion and fanzines are too short to play host to a subject that could easily fill the Library of Congress. I appreciate your giving Tim Farley the opportunity of equal speech, and I found his arguments logical and polite, but I agree that we've seen enough. [20]

Variety has always been one of TCTS's strongest points, and it shows to good effect here. Too many zines have so many of the same kinds of stories that when you're finished with the zine you can't remember one from the other. Stories based on minor characters, and stories based on entirely original characters, are always a pleasant change.

"Sins Of The Fathers" provided a lot of interesting background detail, obviously the result of a lot of thought.
 There were places were some of
 the detail could have been cut
 with no loss to the story, but
 not many. I don't believe that even T'Marr would know something about the transporter that Scotty and Spock didn't, but that's a nitpick easily explained away.

"When It Rains" was very effective.

Poems: I find myself fonder of the satirical verses than the serious, but that's just 
a quirk, I guess. The serious stuff was good too. Poetry is damn hard to do without sound
ing like a Hallmark card. Filksongs, of course, are an artform unto themselves one that continually frustrates me, because none of the mundanes I am daily surrounded by can appreciate them.

I always wondered if the Vulcans had children's fables...

"The Book Of Camrack" ended satisfyingly, just the way it ought to. It seemed a lot of hoorah to go through just to have a fight between two hi-tech super-heroes, but of course the legends must be served. The anachronistic side-comments were the most entertaining. The male-female relationships, which seemed cursory and incidental to the story anyway, were the least. I stick by my earlier advice: find a mean copy editor (is there any other kind?) and sell It.

I've seen a lot of stories on the same theme as "Never Too Old" before. 
It could be that Pollet was too intent on keeping "John Smith's" abilities
 secret until the last to fully explore the inherent possibilities. He did 
quite well with the kid mugger.

"Evolution" left out a couple of possibilities: Denebian slime devils, Ceti eels, trash-masher scrods, etc....

"Trial Encounter" would have been excellent if it had been a lit
tle more thoroughly worked out. The idea was good (one step beyond
the Maru sequence in WOK) but the simulation presented with no one aware but the Captain, and with live weapons systems is feasible.

"Doctor Who and The Twenty-Five Doctors" heh!

I have said nothing about the art because I know nothing about art; it was all clever and enjoyable, but beyond that I am not competent to say anything.

And as usual, your "Cargo Hold" and zine reviews were interesting and useful. [21]

References

  1. ^ from TREKisM #17
  2. ^ from an LoC in "The Clipper Trade Ship" #32
  3. ^ from an LoC in "The Clipper Trade Ship" #32
  4. ^ from an LoC in "The Clipper Trade Ship" #32
  5. ^ from an LoC in "The Clipper Trade Ship" #32
  6. ^ from an LoC in "The Clipper Trade Ship" #32
  7. ^ from an LoC in "The Clipper Trade Ship" #33/34
  8. ^ from an LoC in "The Clipper Trade Ship" #33/34
  9. ^ from an LoC in "The Clipper Trade Ship" #33/34
  10. ^ from an LoC in "The Clipper Trade Ship" #33/34
  11. ^ a reference to The Star Wars Letter, though NO writers or editors were sued.
  12. ^ from and LoC in "The Clipper Trade Ship" #35/36
  13. ^ from and LoC in "The Clipper Trade Ship" #35/36
  14. ^ from and LoC in "The Clipper Trade Ship" #35/36
  15. ^ from an LoC in "The Clipper Trade Ship" #37/38
  16. ^ from an LoC in "The Clipper Trade Ship" #37/38
  17. ^ from an LoC by Tim Farley in "The Clipper Trade Ship" #39/40
  18. ^ from "The Clipper Trade Ship" #39/40
  19. ^ from an LoC in "The Clipper Trade Ship" #41/42
  20. ^ from an LoC in "The Clipper Trade Ship" #41/42
  21. ^ from an LoC in "The Clipper Trade Ship" #41/42
Retrieved from "https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clipper_Trade_Ship/Issues_31-40&oldid=2652756"