Stupid question re: John Ordover

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Simona Lewis

unread,
Dec 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/2/98
to
I have been following the discussions about the publishing of pro books. I
wonder why John Ordover lurks on this newsgroup. Just a stupid question.

Simona

JWinterCNA

unread,
Dec 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/2/98
to
>I have been following the discussions about the publishing of pro books. I
>wonder why John Ordover lurks on this newsgroup. Just a stupid question.

Not really a stupid question. I've often wondered that myself, since he seems
to manage to ignite the occasional flame war.

Originally, I assumed he was posting to keep fans informed of what's next at
Pocket Books and recruit for SNW. However, and I hate to say this in a public
forum, but he does tend to annoy people on the group when he can't handle his
critics.

In his defense, a certain nameless Trek author noted for bashing Roddenberry at
every turn once said some really nasty things about John in a convention
appearance, and afterwards. Given the source, I tend to think much more highly
of John for it, considering that this woman had the gall to tell me that men
cannot write strong female characters. My wife loudly objected.

So, John, you seem to get particularly incensed by any type of criticism on
this group, yet you have said you're not supposed to be reading here. What
gives?

J,
dispensing with the annoyingly long sig this time.

ORDOVER

unread,
Dec 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/3/98
to

I don't lurk here :) . While I do post here about Strange New Worlds and
related topics (and will of course check that thread from time to time, to
answer any questions), what I do on a regular basis is run an AltaVista search
on keywords that include "Star Trek" "books" "novels" and "Ordover." So when
my name is used, I'll know it, and can show up. Many fans are aware of this,
and will "shout out" for me on various topics.

So, for instance, when "John Ordover" was used as the subject of this thread,
it was flagged on my netsearch and brought me here.:)

As for handling my critics...

1) Someone who hasn't read the books in years is hardly qualfied to give a
worthwhile critical analysis of them.

2) Someone who claims to speak for "the fans" and to know what "the fans want"
is -always- going to be wrong (me included), because Star Trek fans are NOT a
monolithic group who have the same opinion on everything -- or -anything- for
that matter. Surely everyone reading this has seen enough Trek-related
arguments to know the truth of this. Something you -hate- may be someone
else's -favorite Trek thing-.

a) Example: I often get emails saying "Why do you keep publishing books by
<Author A> when all his/her books are so terrible?" The answer is, because
that author is many fan's -favorite- author, and I get other letters saying "I
don't like the rest of your books, but I buy everything by Author A, He/She's
amazing."

b) Example: I will often get a letter saying "Why did you bother publishing
book X? It's just another shoot-em-up, when what the fans really want are
character books." along with another letter on the same book that reads "Why
did you bother publishing book X? It's just another character book, when what
the fans really want are shoot-em-ups."

3) The best I can do is follow how the fans vote with their dollars. If they
don't like something, they won't buy it. If they do like something, they will
(and please spare me the response that the fans -other than you- are sheep who
will buy anything. That's not true, and insults other fans.)

a) Example: Those who do read the books have noted the recent trend toward
crossovers and mini-series. I've heard from some -- not all that many, but
some -- that they hate this trend. Fair enough. But the fans as a whole are
buying 5 to 8 times as many copies of each of the books in the mini-series and
trilogies as they are our singleton books. So clearly, that's the way to go to
please the greatest number of fans. That's my job, and really, the only
reasonable goal.

And that's where I stand.

John Ordover
Executive Editor
Star Trek Fiction
Pocket Books

For more Trek Book Info:
www.startrekbooks.com

Jon Andersen

unread,
Dec 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/3/98
to
ord...@aol.com (ORDOVER) writes:
> a) Example: Those who do read the books have noted the recent trend toward
>crossovers and mini-series. I've heard from some -- not all that many, but
>some -- that they hate this trend. Fair enough. But the fans as a whole are
>buying 5 to 8 times as many copies of each of the books in the mini-series and
>trilogies as they are our singleton books. So clearly, that's the way to go to
>please the greatest number of fans. That's my job, and really, the only
>reasonable goal.


Surely this is simply a factor, of people picking up a story and wanting to see how it ends?

build high for hap[piness

Jon

ORDOVER

unread,
Dec 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/3/98
to

Not at all -- Perhaps I wasn't clear: Let's compare the sales of a singleton
book and a book marked "BOOK ONE." If the singleton book sells "X" copies,
then the "book one of a series" book sells "5X." In other words, if a book is
part of series, it sells five times as many copies as if it isn't.

Where what you describe comes into play is on sales of the series books that
are in lines that don't normally sell that well. For instance, the DS9 books
in our Dominion War series are the best sellling DS9 novels to date, and the
first to make the times list.

Laura Jacquez Valentine

unread,
Dec 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/3/98
to

> From: ord...@aol.com (ORDOVER)
> Newsgroups: alt.startrek.creative
> Date: 3 Dec 1998 15:46:48 GMT
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>
>
> I don't lurk here :) . While I do post here about Strange New Worlds and
> related topics (and will of course check that thread from time to time, to
> answer any questions), what I do on a regular basis is run an AltaVista search
> on keywords that include "Star Trek" "books" "novels" and "Ordover." So when
> my name is used, I'll know it, and can show up. Many fans are aware of this,
> and will "shout out" for me on various topics.

Well, that's not quite as cool as grepping the newsfeed for your name.
You're no Kibo, that's for damn sure.

>
> So, for instance, when "John Ordover" was used as the subject of this thread,
> it was flagged on my netsearch and brought me here.:)
>
> As for handling my critics...
>
> 1) Someone who hasn't read the books in years is hardly qualfied to give a
> worthwhile critical analysis of them.

I just feel it's time to insert an opinion here.

I've hated every TOS novel since "Legacy" (#51?) except for "Vulcan's
Forge". Yay reading the first half in the bookstore before deciding
whether or not to buy.

>
> 2) Someone who claims to speak for "the fans" and to know what "the fans want"
> is -always- going to be wrong (me included), because Star Trek fans are NOT a
> monolithic group who have the same opinion on everything -- or -anything- for
> that matter. Surely everyone reading this has seen enough Trek-related
> arguments to know the truth of this. Something you -hate- may be someone
> else's -favorite Trek thing-.

You're a dam' liar, Ordover. Everyone knows that *I* speak for the
Great Monolith of Trek Fandom. And we demand Hot Vulcan Action. No,
get your mind out of the gutter, fer cryin' out loud. Everybody loves
Vulcans, right? And wants more Vulcans, right? Lots and lots more.

Actually, maybe that *is* just me...


> a) Example: I often get emails saying "Why do you keep publishing books by
> <Author A> when all his/her books are so terrible?" The answer is, because
> that author is many fan's -favorite- author, and I get other letters saying "I
> don't like the rest of your books, but I buy everything by Author A, He/She's
> amazing."
>
> b) Example: I will often get a letter saying "Why did you bother publishing
> book X? It's just another shoot-em-up, when what the fans really want are
> character books." along with another letter on the same book that reads "Why
> did you bother publishing book X? It's just another character book, when what
> the fans really want are shoot-em-ups."

Is this the red and blue thing again? Can't those people choose
different colors? Like mauve and chartreuse?

>
> 3) The best I can do is follow how the fans vote with their dollars. If they
> don't like something, they won't buy it. If they do like something, they will
> (and please spare me the response that the fans -other than you- are sheep who
> will buy anything. That's not true, and insults other fans.)


Baaaa!!!!
I'm only a sheep because I have a thing for Scotsmen, though. John, are
you a Scotsman?

> a) Example: Those who do read the books have noted the recent trend toward
> crossovers and mini-series. I've heard from some -- not all that many, but
> some -- that they hate this trend. Fair enough. But the fans as a whole are
> buying 5 to 8 times as many copies of each of the books in the mini-series and
> trilogies as they are our singleton books. So clearly, that's the way to go to
> please the greatest number of fans. That's my job, and really, the only
> reasonable goal.

Giving the largest group of people what they want is one thing,
disgruntling lots of other folks is another. (Well, maybe, sometimes,
they're the same thing.)

I, for one, hate series. I don't buy them in non-Star Trek novels (with
the notable exception of Lord of the Rings and The Collected Stories of
Theodore Sturgeon, now up to vol. 5), and I don't buy them in Trek
novels. Hate them. With a deep and consuming passion. If I ever host
a book-burning, all the fantasy series in the world are going into the
flames.

> And that's where I stand.

On your feet! And Flash Gordon was there in silver underwear...

--laura

laura jacquez valentine -+- http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~jacquez
"I'd give you a cherry if I knew someone around here who had one." --ME Curtin
"That's called 'bullshit'. It's a technical term I use a lot." --J. Randi

TOS Lover

unread,
Dec 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/3/98
to
You know, I don't think there are many sr editors that would check
threads on a newsgroup for any reason. Give John some credit for
taking time out of his schedule (Remember that backlog! :)) and
posting thoughtful responses like the one he did to JWinter.
I'm not saying I agree because I'd prefer every single book to be
TOS, but then I have this strange case of tunnel vision when it comes
to Trek.
So all we have to do is "shout out" and he'll come.hehe.
Cheers
K


On Wed, 02 Dec 1998 11:44:21 GMT, "Simona Lewis"
<sim...@netro.com.au> wrote:

>I have been following the discussions about the publishing of pro books. I
>wonder why John Ordover lurks on this newsgroup. Just a stupid question.
>

>Simona
>
>

Karen the TOS Lover
"Just tell me one thing. Are you English?"
"Why yes, as a matter of fact I am - Why,
don't you like the English?"

Laura Jacquez Valentine

unread,
Dec 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/3/98
to

Also, John, did you know that the X-Files folks are flaming you? Gotta
love Entertainment Weekly.

--laura


ORDOVER

unread,
Dec 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/3/98
to
Yes, but I don't have a responsibility to them -- and if they can't deal with
reality... :)

Laura Jacquez Valentine

unread,
Dec 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/3/98
to

> From: ord...@aol.com (ORDOVER)

>
> Yes, but I don't have a responsibility to them -- and if they can't deal with
> reality... :)
>

But John, the truth is out there, and you're *obviously* part of the
conspiracy...

Actually, in many ways, I'm surprised you bother at all, given the venom
that seems to get spewed your way on a regular basis. There seems to be
a hate on for you in more than one online community, which I find
excessive but not entirely unwarranted. You occasionally say things
that make people's heads explode, allowing their autonomous nervous
systems to take over and flame yo' ass. Perhaps the issue is one of
mixed signals...

Now, having defended your honor, insulted your honor, made silly posts
in response to you, and failed to complete a paper for a class, I hereby
reiterate that you're no Kibo and bid you good day.

(I wonder if Kibo will see this?)

--laura

laura jacquez valentine -+- http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~jacquez
"I'd give you a cherry if I knew someone around here who had one." --ME Curtin

Jesus is a meme.


Timothy Hood

unread,
Dec 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/3/98
to
Too bad that the DS9 aren't even original books, but rather novelizations of
episode that are really old by our reckoning! I would have liked to see
more behind the scenes stuff we didn't see on the show, or even a team up
novel with Sisko and crew on the Defiant fighting right along side the
Ent-E.
Timothy Hood
tim...@polarnet.com
www.ptialaska.net/~thood/

>what you describe comes into play is on sales of the series books that
>are in lines that don't normally sell that well. For instance, the DS9
books
>in our Dominion War series are the best sellling DS9 novels to date, and
the
>first to make the times list.
>

Ann Zewen

unread,
Dec 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/3/98
to

JWinterCNA wrote in message
<19981203221237...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
\>
>
>Didn't you know? The all-powerful THEY have our best interests at heart.
THEY
>killed Kennedy to pave the way for Nixon's rise to power, then undermined
>Tricky Dick's Presidency (all the while recruiting a future conservative
talk
>show host for more cultural enhancement - at least on the right. Now how
'bout
>a smart ass liberal to balance things out?), thus bring along Jerry Ford.
Why?
> Because otherwise, Chevy Chase would never hve become famous. Yes, the
>Clinton fiasco is yet another plan to eventually save the world thru
slapstick
>comic genius. So, John, does this also tie into that "American Pie" thread
>from awhile back, as well as the Gulf War? And you still haven't given us
that
>line-by-line annotated commentary on Genesis' "Supper's Ready" that I asked
for
>last summer.
>
>OK, when did I get way the hell off-topic?
>
>J, suffering Prozac withdrawal. (Just kidding!)


This is one of the best posts (stories aside) I've ever read on this
newsgroup. LOL. But you forgot to mention the Vernon Foster suicide, AIDS,
Princess Di's death and manipulation of the weather as further proof of this
vast global conspiracy. You're slipping, J. :-)


--
Ann
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." _ Dennis Miller


JWinterCNA

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
>> Yes, but I don't have a responsibility to them -- and if they can't deal
>with
>> reality... :)
>>
>
>But John, the truth is out there, and you're *obviously* part of the
>conspiracy...

Gui...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
In article <746vde$5ha$1...@news.ptialaska.net>,

"Timothy Hood" <tim...@polarnet.com> wrote:
> Too bad that the DS9 aren't even original books, but rather novelizations of
> episode that are really old by our reckoning! I would have liked to see
> more behind the scenes stuff we didn't see on the show, or even a team up
> novel with Sisko and crew on the Defiant fighting right along side the
> Ent-E.
> Timothy Hood
> tim...@polarnet.com
> www.ptialaska.net/~thood/


Well I will admit that the Ds9 books are not my favorites, even though the
show is. Not *all* the books are just novelizations of episodes, the three
no series DS9 books I have actually bought and read were not. (YES I do buy
them and have enjoyed all the series todate! Q:Ş)And of the Books I have read
(from the libary) I think only One was a episode novelization.

Just my 2 cents worth on that subject....

--
Guinan
*******
"Very Funny Scotty...
Now beam down my clothes..."

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Gui...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to

In article <19981203104648...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,


ord...@aol.com (ORDOVER) wrote:
> >I have been following the discussions about the publishing of pro books. I
> >wonder why John Ordover lurks on this newsgroup. Just a stupid question.
>

> Not really a stupid question. I've often wondered that myself, since he seems
> to manage to ignite the occasional flame war.
>
> Originally, I assumed he was posting to keep fans informed of what's next at
> Pocket Books and recruit for SNW. However, and I hate to say this in a public
> forum, but he does tend to annoy people on the group when he can't handle his
> critics.
>
> In his defense, a certain nameless Trek author noted for bashing Roddenberry
at
> every turn once said some really nasty things about John in a convention
> appearance, and afterwards. Given the source, I tend to think much more
highly
> of John for it, considering that this woman had the gall to tell me that men
> cannot write strong female characters. My wife loudly objected.
>
> So, John, you seem to get particularly incensed by any type of criticism on
> this group, yet you have said you're not supposed to be reading here. What
> gives?
>

> I don't lurk here :) . While I do post here about Strange New Worlds and
> related topics (and will of course check that thread from time to time, to
> answer any questions), what I do on a regular basis is run an AltaVista search
> on keywords that include "Star Trek" "books" "novels" and "Ordover." So when
> my name is used, I'll know it, and can show up. Many fans are aware of this,
> and will "shout out" for me on various topics.
>

Well I think its great that you take what interest you do of what is being
said in the newsgroups pertaining to yourself as well as the Star Trek
novels. Being a avid collector and reader of the Trek books, I like to know
if I have a question that you will see it and respond. Which you have in the
past and it was appreciated!

Guinan

Timothy Hood

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
Acrually, I meant the two from the Dominion War miniseries. But there are
definately some great DS9 books out there, like The Tempest, The Wrath of
the Prophets (with Ro!!), and of course the DS9 Invasion! book, oh hell, the
whole Invasion! series was the best!! Too bad the other miniseries weren't
as interesting and original as that one! (i.e. Day of Honor). I was just
saying that everyone allready knows the war arc from the Dominion War, now
it's a little old. Don't get me wrong, that was some of the best writing in
Star Trek, but I would have liked to see some original stories about that
period of the war. And like I said, a team-up with the Defiant and the
Ent-E would be the bomb! (hint, hint J. Ordover...)
Timothy Hood
tim...@polarnet.com
www.ptialaska.net/~thood/
"We've secretly replaced their dilithium with Folger's crystals..."

JWinterCNA

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
>This is one of the best posts (stories aside) I've ever read on this
>newsgroup. LOL. But you forgot to mention the Vernon Foster suicide, AIDS,
>Princess Di's death and manipulation of the weather as further proof of this
>vast global conspiracy. You're slipping, J. :-)

To address your points: The first two I can't comment on because I haven't
figured out how they tie into the OJ Trial (TM) and the framing of Pete Rose.

A drunken idiot in a Fiat that incompetent police cannot capture, nor a
thunderstorms at odd times of the year do not constitute a global conspiracy.

On the contrary, the all-powerful THEY have had to postpone wide-area
mind-control experiments on the general populace due to bad weather. (Methinks
northern Manitoba in December was really not a good time, nor was the night of
the final "Seinfeld".)

Instead, look for more obvious clues: The success of Pauly Shore, the failure
of the last Batman movie, Larry Flynt's return to Cincinnati.

And whar happened to Joyce DeWitt?


J Winter,
Backup FAQ Maintainer
Alliance author
Troll stalker
SPAM slayer
Subversive element of the radical centrist movement

JWinterCNA

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
>Well I think its great that you take what interest you do of what is being
>said in the newsgroups pertaining to yourself as well as the Star Trek
>novels.

Good point. John does interact a lot more than some of the other folks
affiliated with Trek. Then again, show me a producer, besides JMS, who thrives
on fan feedback to keep going, who actually has the time to make an appearance.
JMS is the exception because the fans are also a resource. Although Trek also
needs its fans, it's not quite the same as B5.

Ordover, OTOH, like him or hate him (and I do both at the same time <G>), does
interact.

Which, I guess, answers my first question.

Now, about that obscure Genesis tune from way back when...

DragonGrrl

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to ord...@aol.com
ORDOVER wrote:

> what I do on a regular basis is run an AltaVista search
> on keywords that include "Star Trek" "books" "novels" and "Ordover."
> So when
> my name is used, I'll know it, and can show up. Many fans are aware
> of this,
> and will "shout out" for me on various topics.

Sounds like the Bat Signal. "Quick, Robin! To the Bookmobile!" ;)

You made an excellent point. You are in this business to sell books.
It's quite possible that the *majority* of Trek fans today don't like
the same kinds of stories that they did ten or twenty years ago. It's
unfortunate for some of us die-hards that the majority has the final
say, but that's the nature of the business beast.

Star Trek has experienced an incredible boom in popularity over the past
ten years or so. Science fiction is cool now. But, in my own experience,
the vast majority of new fans are not the philosophical
character-analysing future-visionary fans of the seventies (a la "Star
Trek Lives!")-- they're people who just like a good space opera. TNG,
DS9, and VOY have drawn in a lot of fans that watch the show for space
battles, special effects, scary aliens, and action. Now, before anyone
hits the "reply and flame" button, I know that the later series have a
lot of serious visionary fans as well (there are a lot of them here in
a.s.c.), and I don't have anything against anyone who likes space
battles, either. I'm pointing this out because it means that if the
serious fans think the novels look like shoot-'em-ups in space, it's
because that's what's needed to please the *majority* of today's Star
Trek fans.

I think what people are feeling threatened about is the fact that Viacom
has been cracking down on Trek websites and unauthorized publications
(something Roddenberry said *specifically* not to do!). Given the
current situation with the writing of the episodes and novels, if we had
to stop writing fanfic, Star Trek as we know it would die. Those of us
old-style Trek fans who appreciate the show-- in all its incarnations--
for its morals, its characters, and its Utopian view of the future would
die out, and Star Trek would be just another space opera. The part of
Star Trek that has kept it alive for the past 32 years would be gone.

Finally able to put this thing into words,
--DragonGrrl


Ann Zewen

unread,
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to
DragonGrrl wrote:

>Star Trek has experienced an incredible boom in popularity over the past
>ten years or so. Science fiction is cool now. But, in my own experience,
>the vast majority of new fans are not the philosophical
>character-analysing future-visionary fans of the seventies (a la "Star
>Trek Lives!")-- they're people who just like a good space opera. TNG,
>DS9, and VOY have drawn in a lot of fans that watch the show for space
>battles, special effects, scary aliens, and action. Now, before anyone
>hits the "reply and flame" button, I know that the later series have a
>lot of serious visionary fans as well (there are a lot of them here in
>a.s.c.), and I don't have anything against anyone who likes space
>battles, either. I'm pointing this out because it means that if the
>serious fans think the novels look like shoot-'em-ups in space, it's
>because that's what's needed to please the *majority* of today's Star
>Trek fans.


This actually is an excellent analysis of the two separate segments of
fandom today. You can couch it in terms today's fan vs. the original Trek
fans and science fiction fans of the 1960s-70s. But I think you're better
off in characterizing it as philosophical vs. space opera fans. Again,
there's nothing wrong with space opera, and it actually *can* include
elements of philosophical science fiction, but we're talking primary focus
here. There *are* a lot more fans who entered fandom via the latter day
incarnations of Trek for the space battles and special effects than was the
case with TOS simply because those aspects of Trek are done so much better
now. In the days of TOS the special effects were admittedly cheezy, and
battle scenes were expensive and, therefore, few and far between. So the
emphasis had to be more on the philosophical side of science fiction -- as
well as on the morality plan aspect of the stories. At the same time that I
was watching TOS, I was reading Heinlien and Clarke and Asimov. A lot of
today's fans aren't reading non-media science fiction at all. And if they're
reading Trek books, then they're reading the pro novels because that's
exactly what they're into Trek for.

and then there's those of us you'll find at a.s.c. or writing for, editing
and publishing fanzines. Whether we're into TOS, TNG, DS9 or Voy (or any
combination thereof), we're still in it for the same reasons as the original
Trek fans got into TOS. We're all into the philosophy of Trek and the
character interactions and moral issues explored by Trek. Yes, we may like a
good battle scene occasionally, but that's not what we like best about Trek.

Unfortunately for us, instead of being the majority of a rather small fandom
(as was the case with TOS in the late '60s and '70s), we're now the minority
of a much larger fandom. We can still find what we want in Trek; we just
have to look harder for it, and then we take those kernels and build our own
stories around them -- voila! fan fiction.

>
>I think what people are feeling threatened about is the fact that Viacom
>has been cracking down on Trek websites and unauthorized publications
>(something Roddenberry said *specifically* not to do!). Given the
>current situation with the writing of the episodes and novels, if we had
>to stop writing fanfic, Star Trek as we know it would die. Those of us
>old-style Trek fans who appreciate the show-- in all its incarnations--
>for its morals, its characters, and its Utopian view of the future would
>die out, and Star Trek would be just another space opera. The part of
>Star Trek that has kept it alive for the past 32 years would be gone.
>


This is the only point on which I disagree, DragonGrrl. I don't think Star
Trek as we love it ever will die. It'll just mutate and move on to a new
form. We started with fanzines, mostly mimeographed and sold at minimal
cost. Then we progressed to more slickly produced fanzines that cost more to
produce. And then came the Internet and circulation of fanfiction via
newsgroups and individual website.

If the fanzines and websites ever are closed down, I predict that Trek
fandom and Trek fanfiction will continue to live, but in a new, underground
form fostered by the Internet. They might be able to close down the
newsgroups and websites (though I definitely hope that they won't), but
people will continue to write and circulate their stories (admittedly to a
much smaller audience than available through a.s.c.) via private e-mailing
among smaller groups. The friends and associates we've made through
newsgroups and fanzine publishing groups will continue to share and comment
on each other's stories but in a more private arena. Why? Because of that
intangible reason we write fan fiction that John Ordover simply can't seem
to understand -- because we love it and love to tell stories about it. It's
that simple, and that won't change even if we no longer have access to the
larger *markets* available via the Internet and open publication of
fanzines.

zoinky

unread,
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to

Ann Zewen <an...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<74bj2s$tn5$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>...>

>
> If the fanzines and websites ever are closed down, I predict that Trek
> fandom and Trek fanfiction will continue to live, but in a new,
underground
> form fostered by the Internet.


I have this horrid post apocalyptic vision of a time when the newsgroups
and the web pages have been shut down. When rabid P/C junkies prowl the
dark alleys of the Internet looking for their latest shipper fix. Desperate
women willing to do anything for just a little prose. My how the mighty
have fallen.

"Hey man, you got any P/C? I gotta have a story. The pro stuff just doesn't
fill my need. Gimme some romance. Gimme some angst. Gimme some hot sweaty
bodies controlled by some unknown alien force. I need the good stuff man. I
don't care if the spelling and punctuation aren't perfect. I don't care if
the author isn't up for a Pulitzer. I JUST WANT A STORY!"

Ahhhhh, I'm feeling much better now.

zoinky


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ann Zewen

unread,
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to
I wrote:

>>
>> If the fanzines and websites ever are closed down, I predict that Trek
>> fandom and Trek fanfiction will continue to live, but in a new,
>underground
>> form fostered by the Internet.
>

and zoinky replied

>
>I have this horrid post apocalyptic vision of a time when the newsgroups
>and the web pages have been shut down. When rabid P/C junkies prowl the
>dark alleys of the Internet looking for their latest shipper fix. Desperate
>women willing to do anything for just a little prose. My how the mighty
>have fallen.


*snip a very funny scene*

LOL, zoinky. I love it. But seriously, I don't think the search will be that
great. We all have friendships we've built up through our fan fiction
efforts, whether they're from posting online or fanzine publishing. Online,
you have groups of writers and beta readers (and some who do both) who are
constantly reading and commenting on each other's work, plus others who have
posted online comments on the works or emailed private comments. In
fanzines, you have groups of writers and editors and readers who buy the
fanzines. In both cases, you have email and/or snail mail addresses for both
contributors and readers. Those online would simply email back and forth
their stories. Those unfortunates who aren't would be exchanging either
printouts of their stories or, more likely, diskettes with stories on them.
What would end would be the open posting on the Internet and the advertized
mail-order sales and open sales at conventions of fanzines. That would
reduce the number of participants and (especially on the Internet) the
widespread circulation, but it wouldn't end fanfiction -- not for those who
truly love it.

Trillseekr

unread,
Dec 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/6/98
to

In article <01be206b$8ed0f140$LocalHost@default>, "zoinky" <kat...@flash.net>
writes:

>"Hey man, you got any P/C? I gotta have a story. The pro stuff just doesn't
>fill my need. Gimme some romance. Gimme some angst. Gimme some hot >sweaty
bodies controlled by some unknown alien force. I need the good stuff man. >I
don't care if the spelling and punctuation aren't perfect. I don't care if
>the author isn't up for a Pulitzer. I JUST WANT A STORY!"


Don't scare me like that! Those dratted Viacom PTB would probably have this
scenario taking place if they could.

"Trilly"

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages