Peter David and the Star Trek comic (IMPORTANT NEWS)
Chris Andersen (The Dangerous Guy)
>
>Now, Richard was confronted about Peter's departure over Thanksgiving weekend
>at the NYC Creation con by one Jon Lane, who asked first exactly what the
>problem was Richard had with Peter, and second why Paramount is insisting on
>telling DC how to write comic books when DC doesn't tell Paramount how to make
>films or television. Richard's responses, predictably, were "First, it is not
>so much my problem with Peter David as Gene Roddenberry's problem with Peter
>David...", and "Simple. We own Star Trek. Next question."
I hate to say it Tim but I agree with him. They do own Star Trek and as owners
of it they have the last say in what can be done with it. What they say may
be stupid but that is their perogitive. Part of the deal you make when you
decide to work on another persons property is that the owner of the property
always has the last say in what is done with it. You may think that it is
stupid and what they want will destroy it but again, that's their perogitive.
Frankly I don't think anyone who does work-for-hire has much room for complaint
when it comes to how the creative process is controlled by an outside source.
The minute you decide to let an outside source control it you lose most of
your "right" to write the story the way you want it.
This may mean that good property (Star Trek, Superman, Batman, etc.) may be
destroyed by the buttheads execs who think they can write the story better
then you can but again (repeate after me) that's their perogitive.
I don't know how Peter feels about all this since we are only getting this
information second and third hand from you but *if* he doesn't feel he is
being treated fairly in this matter then he doesn't have much ground for
complaint. "Fairness" and "Work-For-Hire" are not friends with each other.
It is possible to do "Work-For-Hire" and be treated fairly, for the moment.
But you are always vulnerable to changes in management. There is absolutely
no promise of fairness (other then is explicity detailed in your contract)
when you do this kind of work. To expect it (and I'm not saying Peter did) is
to be naive at best.
It's a shame that Peter has had to leave Star Trek. I never read his stories
in the book but I understand that he does love the characters and what can
be done with them. It is unfortunate that he can't do what he would like to
do (and what his fans would like him to do) with the property but that's the
facts of life.
--
Chris Andersen (..!uunet!sequent!toontown!chris)
"Life: live it or live with it!" -- Firesign Theater
Pete Hoch
> About three weeks ago, Peter David left the TOS comic. For good.
Can someone tell me what the last issue number is so I can stop getting
the TOS comic after it is printed?
Thanks,
Pete Hoch
Chris Andersen (The Dangerous Guy)
>
>>Enforcing
>>and maintaining the integrity of the product is not necessarily stifling
>>the creativity of the writers, especially if they are any good at what they
>>do.
>
>It is when it's taken to the extremes that it's been taken to
I agree with you. There is such a thing as too much control. I question
the wisdom of Paramount and Richard Arnold (if the story I hear is correct)
in being so restrictive with their property. But I don't question their
right to restrict it as they see fit. Even if that inevitably destroys
Star Trek.
These really are two seperate issues.
>I've said this before, and I'll say this again--if you hire a writer to write
>something, you must learn to live with the possibility that said writer won't
>have exactly the same philosophy/mindset that you do. If you want a clone
>who'll blindly follow orders, get a ghostwriter--but if you hire a writer,
>expecting him to write only what YOU want is unrealistic and occasionally
>downright unethical.
They have to live with that possibility. But that doesn't mean they have to
live with the writer. If they don't like him they can get rid of him (barring
certain clauses in his contract).
It is unrealistic to expect a writer to have the same vision as you and a good
editor/publisher knows how to work with their writers so that your vision and
theirs meshes into a cohesive whole. Unfortunately not all editors/publishers
are capable of that and they usually end up isolating themselves from the
most talented writers (case in point is DC with respect to Swamp Thing).
When that happens the property becomes a creative wasteland, loses its
following, and eventually ceases publication.
It's a shame when a once good title or series falls on its face, but it
happens. It's not the end of the world. There will be other good stories to
tell. You can still look back with good memories of runs that pleased you
in the past. Current and future performance does not have to lessen one bit
your enjoyment of what it used to be (case in point again is Swamp Thing).
>Since the discussion is centering far more on Trek than on Peter at this
>point...followups to rec.arts.startrek alone.
Actually I think this discussion has many applications to comics since much of
it is still in the work-for-hire mold.
Jeff Sicherman
>
> Has anybody thought about, that maybe it's not the philosophies of its
>creators that is important, but the philosophies of Star Trek?! Yes, they
>are two different philosophies. Back in the 60s, one man's ideals (the creator)
>was enough to jump-start this thing, but now, it has attained a level on a
>higher plane than those that live in the 20th Century. Simply put, no one man
>has the absolute correct way of doing something. It is the accumulation of all
>of the periphery writers that give IDIC its real meaning! This is something
>that the powers-that-be forget. Sure, it's their 'game', they make the rules,
>but they have a responsibility to Star Trek and to the fans of which they are
>not fulfilling. Instead of having creative control over Star Trek, they are
>smothering it. The makers of Trek are not selfishly defending their product,
>they are selfishly defending their paychecks. They believe that the fans will
Interesting concept: as soon as we figure out how to give Star Trek a 'life'
and mind of its own to actually implemenet this philosophy, we're all set.
Maybe one of you out there can conjure an android and inclucate it into it.
Until then we're stuck with human beings, opinionated and stubborn, guiding
and enforcing it.
As far as paychecks go, from everything that I've (non-Data) heard and read
their paychecks dont need a lot of protection. Maybe a truss to protect them
from strain while hauling the loot to the bank. I don't think you can really
separate the 'integrity of the product' from the finances in any meaningful
way unless you want to measure integrity by a 'starving artist' standard. If
you're jealous of the success, stop buying product, watching shows and movies,
and going to conventions, etc. That will put a stop to it eventually. Oh well,
at least will still have r.a.s.
>gobble up any old thing that is thrown out. Unfortunately this is true, but
>still, the Star Trek fan is the most 'nitpickingest' fan ever created. Yet,
>Richard Arnold et al haven't learned this yet. What happens to the 'rules'
>after GR, RA, etc. have died? Guess what, the new person in charge will put
>his philosophies into Star Trek and ignore those Star Trek philosophies that
>are already there!
>
Probably, the future of ST will be partially in the hands of Luxwana Troi,
so to speak. Whether that's you fondest desire our worst nightmare, well,
that's life and law.
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Allen P Jr Haughay
The situation with Peter David leaving the TOS comics raises some interesting
topics regarding ownership of a property such as Star Trek.
I would rather not comment on the actual circumstance of his departure, as
I am loathe to speculate on hearsay. Perhaps someday at a convention, Peter
David himself will talk about this situation.
The fact of the matter regarding creative control is that Rodenberry and the
powers that be at the Star Trek Office OWN Star Trek. Period. They have
their own agenda regarding the attitudes, philsophies and ideals of their
characters and their universe. If a writer chooses to step into this
universe and tell a tale, he has got to play by their rules. Enforcing
and maintaining the integrity of the product is not necessarily stifling
the creativity of the writers, especially if they are any good at what they
do. Alas, the writing talents of many of the people writing periphery materials
for Trek is mediocre at best. The people who own Trek and maintain its
integrity are not squelching the creativity of other contributors. They are
merely assuring that what goes out with the Star Trek name fits in with the
philosophies of its creators.
I am not a particularly big fan of Peter David's work. It's a shame that he
is not doing the Star Trek comic, as writing Trek seems to be something that
he does love to do. But the fans, and the writers have got to realize that
they do not own the story. I know there will be the inevitable "Star Trek
wouldn't be around if it weren't for us fans!" cry. The makers of Trek
should selfishly defend their product. If the writers of periphery
materials don't want to play by the rules, then they can opt for the route
Peter David has taken. I sincerely doubt that the makers of Trek would
discourage good ideas about the directions their characters and situations
should be taken, so long as those ideas fit in with their framework.
Judging by the tone in previous postings by a great many people in this
file, my oppinions are not going to be very popular. Please direct any
of your comments on this posting HERE to this newsgroup. Flames,etc. are
welcome, but if they are sent to me via mail, I will not bother to read
them. I'm trying to get a public discussion going, after all.
Skip Haughay
Timothy W. Lynch
rec.arts.startrek, but the issue is one that should concern any who've been
reading the Star Trek comic, or who read/have read anything by Peter David...
hence my crossposting. It won't happen again, I promise.)
To all interested parties:
Longtime readers of r.a.s. will have noticed that in the past couple of weeks,
I've been (1) a little more short-tempered than usual, and (2) very down on
what I consider Gene Roddenberry's closed-minded attitude about "HIS" Star
Trek. While there have been many reasons for the former, including just the
typical first-year grad student stress, there is one reason closely connected
to the latter issue. I shall elaborate.
About three weeks ago, Peter David left the TOS comic. For good.
His reasons, as explained to me, were the following:
Richard Arnold's been breathing down his back for months if not years, but DC
and licensing have managed to keep RA somewhat tamed for a while. Unfortunate-
ly, RA managed to wait them out--and went after Peter with both barrels.
To be more specific, he shitcanned both of the stories Peter had planned beyond
the recently-completed "Worthy" storyline. The first, a first-contact story,
was dismissed as being "too violent"--in other words, it had one fistfight that
took up a whole two pages (gasp!). The second, a "lengthy time-travel story"
in Peter's words, was knocked down because Richard claimed it was "too non-
linear, and would only confuse the fans". (The latter is extremely close to an
exact quote...it may actually be exact, but I'm not sure.) Peter stood his
ground, claiming that if Richard was maintaining the readership was too daft to
understand anything not spelled out for them, that he was leaving. Richard
canned the story, and Peter walked (meaning that except for a few things here
and there which were approved before this event, he's gone for good).
_This_, to my mind, is an unacceptable abuse of power.
Now, Richard was confronted about Peter's departure over Thanksgiving weekend
at the NYC Creation con by one Jon Lane, who asked first exactly what the
problem was Richard had with Peter, and second why Paramount is insisting on
telling DC how to write comic books when DC doesn't tell Paramount how to make
films or television. Richard's responses, predictably, were "First, it is not
so much my problem with Peter David as Gene Roddenberry's problem with Peter
David...", and "Simple. We own Star Trek. Next question." He did amplify the
first answer, claiming that Gene feels Peter's writing is intended to make us
laugh AT the characters rather than WITH them, something which I believe is
both acceptable (if it were correct in the first place) and a just plain wrong
assertion.
(I've also been told that Richard's first disclaimer is inaccurate at best--he
apparently talked to Bill Mumy, who co-wrote with Peter for three months, and
went on for twenty minutes about how Peter was "uncooperative" and "single-
handedly ruining Star Trek". This isn't someone just lip-synching Gene,
folks--this is a personal grudge.)
Why am I telling you all this? Why am I spilling my guts to the net at large?
Because I need your help.
I'm calling here and now for letters to Bob Greenberger, editor of the Star
Trek comic, and one who tried his damnedest to keep Peter around and Richard
away.
I don't want an attack--what I think is in order is a rather strong request
that the details surrounding Peter's departure be made public. If the readers
know precisely why Peter was forced off the book (he "voluntarily" left only in
the strictest literal sense, I think you'd agree), it might be that much more
difficult to ever repeat.
It's too late for us to save Peter--he's gone from the book. But, at best,
a series of letters from across the country would make it that much harder for
Richard to ever pull this kind of crap again; and at worst, Bob won't do it,
but he _will_ know just how many people care, and will have some ammunition
next time he confronts Richard about something.
I hope I find some support here. I know there are a reasonable number of
netters who read and enjoy Peter's work on the TOS comic. I imagine there are
also a great many people beyond that who don't read the TOS comic, but have
read Peter's work (either in Marvel's INCREDIBLE HULK comic or in his two TNG
novels, or elsewhere) and respect him for that. And I hope that even some of
those of you who've never read Peter David's work or who've read and disliked
it at least object to this blatant misuse of authority on Richard Arnold's
part. Please help.
So in brief, here's the idea:
Write to: Bob Greenberger
DC Comics, Inc.
666 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10103
1) _Don't_ attack him for Peter's departure. It's not his fault, and he's done
everything he can.
2) _Do_ ask that the truth be told. It's the least we can expect.
3) If possible, try not to mention me or Usenet. The campaign might have more
effect if it seems to be hordes of independent letters, rather than
"Tim Lynch and 500 people he knows".
4) And also if possible, let me know after you've mailed off a letter. I'd
like to keep a head count.
Thank you all for your attention. I wish you well.
Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
Why are there so many songs about rainbows, and what's on the other side?
R.I.P. Jim Henson, 1936-1990; we shall never see your like again.
Antonio Romero
>Instead of having creative control over Star Trek, they are
>smothering it. The makers of Trek are not selfishly defending their product,
>they are selfishly defending their paychecks. They believe that the fans will
If this were the case, why wouldn't they have shipped Peter David's comic
story? Think about what you're saying...
Again, I don't know much about the history of fandom's conflict with the
current "creative" team on Trek-related materials... Maybe crap is being
shipped and good stories squelched for no particular "good" reason.
I'm just asking that you think through what you're saying rather than
posting in anger.
-Antonio Romero rom...@arisia.xerox.com
Michael Rawdon
In <1990Dec7.0...@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>About three weeks ago, Peter David left the TOS comic. For good.
>His reasons, as explained to me, were the following:
[Reasons deleted; if anyone hasn't memorized them by now, go back and read
the article.]
>_This_, to my mind, is an unacceptable abuse of power.
Unacceptable? Hm... that seems a bit strong to my mind. It certainly does
overstep the bounds of what I consider common courtesy, though.
>Now, Richard was confronted about Peter's departure over Thanksgiving weekend
>at the NYC Creation con by one Jon Lane, who asked first exactly what the
>problem was Richard had with Peter, and second why Paramount is insisting on
>telling DC how to write comic books when DC doesn't tell Paramount how to make
>films or television. Richard's responses, predictably, were "First, it is not
>so much my problem with Peter David as Gene Roddenberry's problem with Peter
>David...", and "Simple. We own Star Trek. Next question."
Well, I find his second answer reasonable. At least he's truthful in that
respect...
> He did amplify the
>first answer, claiming that Gene feels Peter's writing is intended to make us
>laugh AT the characters rather than WITH them, something which I believe is
>both acceptable (if it were correct in the first place) and a just plain wrong
>assertion.
I don't entirely understand what you're saying here, but I disagree that it's
a "wrong" assertion. I stopped reading the Star Trek comic for precisely
that reason: I felt that the characters were being made fun of and not
appropriately so.
>(I've also been told that Richard's first disclaimer is inaccurate at best--he
>apparently talked to Bill Mumy, who co-wrote with Peter for three months, and
>went on for twenty minutes about how Peter was "uncooperative" and "single-
>handedly ruining Star Trek". This isn't someone just lip-synching Gene,
>folks--this is a personal grudge.)
Well, I certainly don't feel that he is or was "single-handedly ruining Star
Trek". He and Paramount and the novelists and whoever else can do whatever
they want with Trek, but it's not going to affect what to me is really Star
Trek, that is, the body of work that was broadcast between 1966 and 1969
on TV. That work is complete, and unalterable.
>I'm calling here and now for letters to Bob Greenberger, editor of the Star
>Trek comic, and one who tried his damnedest to keep Peter around and Richard
>away.
>It's too late for us to save Peter--he's gone from the book. But, at best,
>a series of letters from across the country would make it that much harder for
>Richard to ever pull this kind of crap again; and at worst, Bob won't do it,
>but he _will_ know just how many people care, and will have some ammunition
>next time he confronts Richard about something.
I'll consider it, despite the fact that I rarely if ever adopt "causes"
(for various reasons). However, it's difficult for me to muster the
enthusiasm because I haven't really been "in" to the Star Trek comic in
well over four years.
(I know I'm going to get dissected for that.)
Another reason for my hesitancy is that the bottom line is that Star Trek
IS the property of Paramount, or, more precisely, control over future Star
Trek-related productions is the property of Paramount. The single best
way to display anger about actions such as Arnold's in this case is to
simply abstain from contributing to the income generated by Star Trek. A
letter-writing campaign is powerful only in that it can demonstrate under
what sorts of circumstances the public will or will not contribute to Star
Trek's money-making ability. Now, if Paramount decides that following
Arnold's advice is worth more to them than the money made by the comic book,
well, then a letter-writing campaign complaining about the comic isn't going
to be especially useful.
--
Michael Rawdon
Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu | Knowledge may be power, but
Usenet: rex!rawdon.uucp | withholding knowledge can be a
Bitnet: CS6FECU@TCSVM | dangerous thing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions mine, typos and grammar errors someone else's.
Michael Rawdon
> Has anybody thought about, that maybe it's not the philosophies of its
>creators that is important, but the philosophies of Star Trek?! Yes, they
>are two different philosophies. Back in the 60s, one man's ideals (the creator)
>was enough to jump-start this thing, but now, it has attained a level on a
>higher plane than those that live in the 20th Century.
Huh? Considering some of the drek that's been produced since the '60s, it
sure doesn't seem to me like it's gone to any higher planes...
> Simply put, no one man
>has the absolute correct way of doing something.
Yes, but it is the right of the owner of a creative work to decide in what
direction he wishes to take that creative work. I believe this is a moral
right, as well as a legal one. If you disagree with what Paramount is
doing, you must convince them that you are right and that they are wrong.
> It is the accumulation of all
>of the periphery writers that give IDIC its real meaning! This is something
>that the powers-that-be forget. Sure, it's their 'game', they make the rules,
>but they have a responsibility to Star Trek and to the fans of which they are
>not fulfilling.
I don't believe they have any rights to the fans, nor we to them. As far as
I'm concerned, they've fulfilled any responsibilities to me they could ever
possibly have simply by producting TOS and TWOK. Everything (well, almost
everything) since 1982 has been denoument, in my opinion.
> Instead of having creative control over Star Trek, they are
>smothering it.
I dunno. "The Ultimate Computer" and TWOK were still pretty damn good
stories the last time I watched them (last summer).
> The makers of Trek are not selfishly defending their product,
>they are selfishly defending their paychecks. They believe that the fans will
>gobble up any old thing that is thrown out. Unfortunately this is true, but
>still, the Star Trek fan is the most 'nitpickingest' fan ever created. Yet,
>Richard Arnold et al haven't learned this yet. What happens to the 'rules'
>after GR, RA, etc. have died? Guess what, the new person in charge will put
>his philosophies into Star Trek and ignore those Star Trek philosophies that
>are already there!
And if the fans don't like it, they won't watch it. I see nothing wrong
with this.
Paramount has no obligation to turn out quality material, and we have no
obligation to support it. If the fans continue to buy and watch drek, then
we have only ourselves to blame if Paramount continues to churn out more
drek.
Ryan Mathews
>The fact of the matter regarding creative control is that Rodenberry and the
>powers that be at the Star Trek Office OWN Star Trek. Period. They have
>their own agenda regarding the attitudes, philsophies and ideals of their
>characters and their universe. If a writer chooses to step into this
>universe and tell a tale, he has got to play by their rules.
But it's the rules we're complaining about. If the rules are truly as
restrictive as Peter says, then something needs to be done. The Trek
comic has been actively smothered since DC negotiated the new contract.
>I am not a particularly big fan of Peter David's work.
I am. As far as I am concerned, "You're Dead, Jim" from DC's first
series was one of the best stories using the TOS characters I have
ever seen, including all the episodes. It was because of his work on
Star Trek that I became a fan of his.
>But the fans, and the writers have got to realize that
>they do not own the story.
Not legally speaking, but we certainly do morally. What kept the
series going for 20 years when no new "product" was being produced?
We've had this discussion before, you and I. You seem to believe that
Paramount has no obligation to its fans whatsoever. I disagree.
Certainly there's no signed contract with the fans, but when this
comes out, I can't help but feel used.
>I sincerely doubt that the makers of Trek would
>discourage good ideas about the directions their characters and situations
>should be taken, so long as those ideas fit in with their framework.
But my point is that the framework itself squelches a lot of very good
ideas. When Sulu is not allowed to have a Caitian fall for him
(because the animated series never existed), but they can invent a new
race and that's all right, there is something seriously wrong with
their so-called "framework".
It disgusts me to no end that the great talent of Peter David will be
replaced on that comic, most likely with a "good little soldier" who
will follow orders and make the series as boring and as idealistic as
that tyrant Roddenberry wants.
I don't know if I'll get around to writing a letter (I'll try to find
the time), but I certainly will not support this kind of behavior by
buying the comic.
---------- Ryan Mathews
--
Internet : mat...@cs.buffalo.edu
Bitnet : mathews@sunybcs
UUCP : {apple,cornell,decwrl,harvard,rutgers,talcott,ucbvax,uunet}!
cs.buffalo.edu!mathews
Timothy W. Lynch
Lots of stuff...but Ryan's pretty much said the same things I would say in
response, so I won't respond to most. However...
>I would rather not comment on the actual circumstance of his departure, as
>I am loathe to speculate on hearsay. Perhaps someday at a convention, Peter
>David himself will talk about this situation.
I should have made this clear in the original post.
THIS IS NOT HEARSAY!
The statements I made in the post were based on letters sent to me BY PETER
DAVID...and thus are about as non-hearsay as they can be.
Peter has said to me that he won't initiate discussion about this subject on
this or any other net (too much like sour grapes), but if asked by anyone he
will respond truthfully.
And I wouldn't expect Peter to be at any con where Richard is for quite a
long time..not that I can blame him.
I've seen your opinions on Mr. Roddenberry & co. before, and I'm not going to
try to dispute them, though I doubt I'll ever understand or agree with them.
I just wanted to clear up your allegation that my call to arms was based on
hearsay when it is, in point of fact, based on solid evidence. If you don't
believe me, mail Peter and ask him.
Actually, I guess I'll go on with some of this.
>Enforcing
>and maintaining the integrity of the product is not necessarily stifling
>the creativity of the writers, especially if they are any good at what they
>do.
It is when it's taken to the extremes that it's been taken to--and I find it
difficult to hear justifications for Richard saying that "no, such-and-such
would be too hard a story for you to write" to someone when he has no way to
measure that person's qualifications.
>Alas, the writing talents of many of the people writing periphery materials
>for Trek is mediocre at best.
Agreed. However, that's not what's being controlled either--as evidenced by
the fact that so much of what's coming out is still crap. In fact, most of
the _better_ novels came out well before Paramount imposed its current set of
"standards" and appointed Richard Arnold Head Cop, in my opinion.
Richard is making sweeping statements about something he doesn't seem to have
any means of understanding. I've often wondered if he even reads the stuff he
tries to control.
>The people who own Trek and maintain its
>integrity are not squelching the creativity of other contributors. They are
>merely assuring that what goes out with the Star Trek name fits in with the
>philosophies of its creators.
I've said this before, and I'll say this again--if you hire a writer to write
something, you must learn to live with the possibility that said writer won't
have exactly the same philosophy/mindset that you do. If you want a clone
who'll blindly follow orders, get a ghostwriter--but if you hire a writer,
expecting him to write only what YOU want is unrealistic and occasionally
downright unethical.
End of sermon.
>Judging by the tone in previous postings by a great many people in this
>file, my oppinions are not going to be very popular. Please direct any
>of your comments on this posting HERE to this newsgroup. Flames,etc. are
>welcome, but if they are sent to me via mail, I will not bother to read
>them. I'm trying to get a public discussion going, after all.
This isn't a flame--just a rebuttal (and a clarification on one incorrect
point). I do disagree with you quite strongly, and I personally hope that
most of the people reading this do as well--not because I want the strength
of numbers, but because I truly want this letter campaign to have some
measurable effect.
Since the discussion is centering far more on Trek than on Peter at this
point...followups to rec.arts.startrek alone.
Tim Lynch
Net Activist
Write those letters today!
Chester Cuaresma
you know that novel "A Rock and a Hard Place?" I really enjoyed that
book, and was surprised to find out that the book was based on a script
that he wrote for TNG. However, it was rejected, and Peter was told
that they weren't interested in seeing any of his material ever again.
What a shock...
I feel that the guidelines that Gene, Richard, Paramount, etc., puts
on the writers is too restrictive. Some of the best writing on Trek
has been done without these guidelines (fanzines, books, comic books).
Not all of TNG is bad...but the new crew needs to be shook up more
(something that the Stone character would of done, had the script
made it to tv).
I don't know what writing a letter will do...I doubt it will even
phase Gene, Richard, Paramount at all. I know that Bob is an editor
at DC, but what's the point? He'll listen, but since Paramount
owns Trek, what can he do? I know it sounds negative, but it's just
how I feel. If writing this letter will loosen up the writing guide-
lines on all Trek material, then I will write it, otherwise...
Gene has said when the Next Generation goes to movies, and if there
is still any interest in Trek, that a new Generation will appear on
tv. He also said that this time, he will let the "younger" generation
run it. Maybe people like Peter should step in here...
For your information, Peter is writing a new book, which should be
available in 1991. What do you call a story about Lwaxana Troi
meeting the mischievous Q? How about "Q and Order"....
I can't wait...
--
###############################################################################
# Chet (Cheesehead) Cuaresma #
# ch...@uop.edu (209) 957-8865 Disclaimer is on strike #
###############################################################################
Mark A. Lindsay
This is a sad day for the TOS comic. Peter David has managed, IMHO,
to do the best job I've seen on a Trek comic. Peter had a sense of humor
that was more prevalent than other comics and shows and such, but ut never
got to the point of being upsurd. Having a sense of humor is a good thing
to have as long as the stories do not become written around them. Justice
League is a prime example of this. I bought it for its first year becuase
it was funny, but the stories were good. Eventually, the stories were set
up AROUND the humor instead of the the humor around the story. That is
when I gave up on the book. Peter kept the proper balance. The stories
were never completely overwhelmed by his humor, the humor was part of it.
The TNG comic has never been very good, and I don't buy it as often as I used
to. Depending on the writer, TOS may go from a monthly buy to the occasional
buy book.
G-oddenberry has once again used his iron fist around Trek to kill
what was quality work. Trek doesn't need blind lackeys to survive, it needs
talented visionaries. G-oddenberry, by keeping his vision and his vision
only in Trek, is smothering it. I hope not to death.
Peter, I assume you are following this thread. I wish you better
luck on the next book you start to write. Your work will be sorely missed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you doubt me?
I doubt any god who inflicts pain for his own pleasure.
-- "God" & McCoy, "The Final Frontier," stardate 8451.1.
Engineering Computer Network --------------- ma...@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
Mark A. Lindsay
University of Oklahoma --------------- Veritas Omnia Vincit
Chris Wayne
>
>The situation with Peter David leaving the TOS comics raises some interesting
>topics regarding ownership of a property such as Star Trek.
>
>merely assuring that what goes out with the Star Trek name fits in with the
>philosophies of its creators.
>
>I am not a particularly big fan of Peter David's work. It's a shame that he
>is not doing the Star Trek comic, as writing Trek seems to be something that
>he does love to do. But the fans, and the writers have got to realize that
>they do not own the story. I know there will be the inevitable "Star Trek
>wouldn't be around if it weren't for us fans!" cry. The makers of Trek
>should selfishly defend their product. If the writers of periphery
>materials don't want to play by the rules, then they can opt for the route
>Peter David has taken. I sincerely doubt that the makers of Trek would
>discourage good ideas about the directions their characters and situations
>should be taken, so long as those ideas fit in with their framework.
Has anybody thought about, that maybe it's not the philosophies of its
creators that is important, but the philosophies of Star Trek?! Yes, they
are two different philosophies. Back in the 60s, one man's ideals (the creator)
was enough to jump-start this thing, but now, it has attained a level on a
higher plane than those that live in the 20th Century. Simply put, no one man
has the absolute correct way of doing something. It is the accumulation of all
of the periphery writers that give IDIC its real meaning! This is something
that the powers-that-be forget. Sure, it's their 'game', they make the rules,
but they have a responsibility to Star Trek and to the fans of which they are
not fulfilling. Instead of having creative control over Star Trek, they are
smothering it. The makers of Trek are not selfishly defending their product,
they are selfishly defending their paychecks. They believe that the fans will
gobble up any old thing that is thrown out. Unfortunately this is true, but
still, the Star Trek fan is the most 'nitpickingest' fan ever created. Yet,
Richard Arnold et al haven't learned this yet. What happens to the 'rules'
after GR, RA, etc. have died? Guess what, the new person in charge will put
his philosophies into Star Trek and ignore those Star Trek philosophies that
are already there!
--
Chris Wayne @ UNM | "THE CAST AND CREW OF STAR TREK WISH TO DEDICATE
cwa...@hydra.unm.edu | THIS FILM TO THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE SPACESHIP
--------aka--------------+ CHALLENGER. THEIR COURAGEOUS SPIRIT SHALL LIVE
Don Quixote of RAS \ ON TO THE 23RD CENTURY AND BEYOND."
Michael Rawdon
>raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>In <1990Dec7.0...@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>_This_, to my mind, is an unacceptable abuse of power.
>>Unacceptable? Hm... that seems a bit strong to my mind. It certainly does
>>overstep the bounds of what I consider common courtesy, though.
>"Unacceptable" seems just fine to me--you're far more forgiving of Richard
>than I've been for years.
>Take careful note of what Richard did--he didn't say "you're off the book".
>He didn't insist that Peter was crossing the lines. What he did was to put
>more and more obstacles in the way of Peter writing a single coherent
>sentence, until finally the bullshit outweighed any potential benefits.
If Richard Arnold is authorized by Paramount to do this, then the only
problem I have with it is that it's a slimy thing to do. However, the only
real thing it inspires me to do is what I've long since done: Stop reading
the comic.
>>> He did amplify the
>>>first answer, claiming that Gene feels Peter's writing is intended to make us
>>>laugh AT the characters rather than WITH them, something which I believe is
>>>both acceptable (if it were correct in the first place) and a just plain
>>>wrong assertion.
>>but I disagree that it's
>>a "wrong" assertion. I stopped reading the Star Trek comic for precisely
>>that reason: I felt that the characters were being made fun of and not
>>appropriately so.
>That's your right, and I have no problems accepting that. What I do have
>problems with is Richard claiming that because HE felt that way, _everyone_
>was going to stop reading it, essentially.
Like I said, it's a slimy thing to do. But he's within his rights to do so,
unless he's NOT empowered by Paramount to act this way.
>>Another reason for my hesitancy is that the bottom line is that Star Trek
>>IS the property of Paramount, or, more precisely, control over future Star
>>Trek-related productions is the property of Paramount. The single best
>>way to display anger about actions such as Arnold's in this case is to
>>simply abstain from contributing to the income generated by Star Trek. A
>>letter-writing campaign is powerful only in that it can demonstrate under
>>what sorts of circumstances the public will or will not contribute to Star
>>Trek's money-making ability. Now, if Paramount decides that following
>>Arnold's advice is worth more to them than the money made by the comic book,
>>well, then a letter-writing campaign complaining about the comic isn't going
>>to be especially useful.
>This is true. However, letters can have power given the right circumstances.
>I've heard from Peter that Bob already got my letter (in which I told him that
>due to all of this, I was leaving the book...and I told him _precisely_ why),
>and is planning to brandish it in front of Paranoiamount licensing, saying
>"Look--Richard's stupid stunts are COSTING PARAMOUNT MONEY." If enough of
>_those_ type of letters come in, there might be a positive change coming out.
>Certainly, we won't make matters any worse.
True. However, it's a bit hypocritical of me, who hasn't cared for the Trek
comic for the last four years or so, to write a letter saying that I'm not
reading the book because of Richard Arnold when in fact I'm not reading the
book because I haven't enjoyed it for a long time.
Chris Wayne
>Again, I don't know much about the history of fandom's conflict with the
>current "creative" team on Trek-related materials... Maybe crap is being
>shipped and good stories squelched for no particular "good" reason.
>I'm just asking that you think through what you're saying rather than
>posting in anger.
Yes, this is in anger, but with years and years of careful thought
and observation!
Timothy W. Lynch
>May as well begin at the beginning...
At least _somebody_ is...
>In <1990Dec7.0...@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>About three weeks ago, Peter David left the TOS comic. For good.
[...]
>>_This_, to my mind, is an unacceptable abuse of power.
>Unacceptable? Hm... that seems a bit strong to my mind. It certainly does
>overstep the bounds of what I consider common courtesy, though.
"Unacceptable" seems just fine to me--you're far more forgiving of Richard
than I've been for years.
Take careful note of what Richard did--he didn't say "you're off the book".
He didn't insist that Peter was crossing the lines. What he did was to put
more and more obstacles in the way of Peter writing a single coherent
sentence, until finally the bullshit outweighed any potential benefits.
>>Richard's responses, predictably, were "First, it is not
>>so much my problem with Peter David as Gene Roddenberry's problem with Peter
>>David...", and "Simple. We own Star Trek. Next question."
>Well, I find his second answer reasonable. At least he's truthful in that
>respect...
Being truthful about being a prick does not in my view justify the behavior in
the first place. I admit that this wasn't quite your point, but I definitely
don't see either answer as much more than a "we did it because we can and we
want to", which is more a dodge than an answer.
>> He did amplify the
>>first answer, claiming that Gene feels Peter's writing is intended to make us
>>laugh AT the characters rather than WITH them, something which I believe is
>>both acceptable (if it were correct in the first place) and a just plain
>>wrong assertion.
>I don't entirely understand what you're saying here,
I knew the phrasing was awkward when I wrote it. Better phrased, I think this
accusation is
(1) wrong, and even if it were _right_,
(2) I see nothing problematic about it.
>but I disagree that it's
>a "wrong" assertion. I stopped reading the Star Trek comic for precisely
>that reason: I felt that the characters were being made fun of and not
>appropriately so.
That's your right, and I have no problems accepting that. What I do have
problems with is Richard claiming that because HE felt that way, _everyone_
was going to stop reading it, essentially.
>>I'm calling here and now for letters to Bob Greenberger, editor of the Star
>>Trek comic, and one who tried his damnedest to keep Peter around and Richard
>>away.
>>It's too late for us to save Peter--he's gone from the book. But, at best,
>>a series of letters from across the country would make it that much harder
>>for Richard to ever pull this kind of crap again; and at worst, Bob won't do
>>it, but he _will_ know just how many people care, and will have some
>>ammunition next time he confronts Richard about something.
>I'll consider it, despite the fact that I rarely if ever adopt "causes"
>(for various reasons).
I don't all that often either--but when someone whose writing I enjoy &
respect, and someone whom I've corresponded with for years is unfairly treated,
suddenly it becomes a _lot_ easier to adopt a "cause".
>However, it's difficult for me to muster the
>enthusiasm because I haven't really been "in" to the Star Trek comic in
>well over four years.
>(I know I'm going to get dissected for that.)
Nope, not really--you, at least, are keeping the thread in the same area where
it began, rather than shifting it to your own pet topic.
>Another reason for my hesitancy is that the bottom line is that Star Trek
>IS the property of Paramount, or, more precisely, control over future Star
>Trek-related productions is the property of Paramount. The single best
>way to display anger about actions such as Arnold's in this case is to
>simply abstain from contributing to the income generated by Star Trek. A
>letter-writing campaign is powerful only in that it can demonstrate under
>what sorts of circumstances the public will or will not contribute to Star
>Trek's money-making ability. Now, if Paramount decides that following
>Arnold's advice is worth more to them than the money made by the comic book,
>well, then a letter-writing campaign complaining about the comic isn't going
>to be especially useful.
This is true. However, letters can have power given the right circumstances.
I've heard from Peter that Bob already got my letter (in which I told him that
due to all of this, I was leaving the book...and I told him _precisely_ why),
and is planning to brandish it in front of Paranoiamount licensing, saying
"Look--Richard's stupid stunts are COSTING PARAMOUNT MONEY." If enough of
_those_ type of letters come in, there might be a positive change coming out.
Certainly, we won't make matters any worse.
You're right in that P'mount may simply think "well, RA is more valuable to us
than the comic"--Lord knows why they would think such a thing, but they may.
However, since as far as I'm concerned the comic is dead anyway, I personally
don't care--and I don't think it's likely anyway.
Tim Lynch
Net Activist
Keep those cards and letters coming!
Timothy W. Lynch
>tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>
>>Now, Richard was confronted about Peter's departure over Thanksgiving weekend
>>at the NYC Creation con by one Jon Lane, who asked first exactly what the
>>problem was Richard had with Peter, and second why Paramount is insisting on
>>telling DC how to write comic books when DC doesn't tell Paramount how to
>>make
>>films or television. Richard's responses, predictably, were "First, it is not
>>so much my problem with Peter David as Gene Roddenberry's problem with Peter
>>David...", and "Simple. We own Star Trek. Next question."
>I hate to say it Tim but I agree with him.
[...]
Fine, go right ahead. I don't--and all I'm trying to do is get DC Comics to
publish details of what happened so that the readership can decide for itself.
If you read the comic (which you don't) and agreed with Richard's move, then
you'd read the details and say "fine". Had I not known about this, I would
read the details and immediately quit the book (which I've already done).
That's all I'm asking.
>I don't know how Peter feels about all this since we are only getting this
>information second and third hand from you but *if* he doesn't feel he is
>being treated fairly in this matter then he doesn't have much ground for
>complaint. "Fairness" and "Work-For-Hire" are not friends with each other.
>It is possible to do "Work-For-Hire" and be treated fairly, for the moment.
>But you are always vulnerable to changes in management. There is absolutely
>no promise of fairness (other then is explicity detailed in your contract)
>when you do this kind of work. To expect it (and I'm not saying Peter did) is
>to be naive at best.
One small point--"changes in management" were not a difficulty here--inconsis-
tent rules from *one single person* were. And consistent rules, I think, are
something any writer should be able to expect.
Tim Lynch
Net Activist
Get those cards and letters in today!
Timothy W. Lynch
>In <1990Dec8.2...@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>Take careful note of what Richard did--he didn't say "you're off the book".
>>He didn't insist that Peter was crossing the lines. What he did was to put
>>more and more obstacles in the way of Peter writing a single coherent
>>sentence, until finally the bullshit outweighed any potential benefits.
>If Richard Arnold is authorized by Paramount to do this, then the only
>problem I have with it is that it's a slimy thing to do. However, the only
>real thing it inspires me to do is what I've long since done: Stop reading
>the comic.
It's certainly done that for me--and the main thing I've been calling for is
for DC to give their readers the facts so anyone else who would share those
feelings can act accordingly. It's sad how many posters seem to have lost
sight of exactly why I posted in the first place...
>>That's your right, and I have no problems accepting that. What I do have
>>problems with is Richard claiming that because HE felt that way, _everyone_
>>was going to stop reading it, essentially.
>Like I said, it's a slimy thing to do. But he's within his rights to do so,
>unless he's NOT empowered by Paramount to act this way.
I have a problem believing that acting in a slimy way is within anyone's
rights, ever. My view (probably overoptimistic, I grant) is that your rights
to behave in a certain way end when the behavior turns malicious.
>True. However, it's a bit hypocritical of me, who hasn't cared for the Trek
>comic for the last four years or so, to write a letter saying that I'm not
>reading the book because of Richard Arnold when in fact I'm not reading the
>book because I haven't enjoyed it for a long time.
Then don't say you're not reading the book 'cos of RA. If you think that
Richard did something slimy, just say that. Bob will listen, believe me.
And since this part is now clearly into Trek and not DC (really), followups to
r.a.s. alone. (I'm doing my best, guys!)
Michael Rawdon
>One small point--"changes in management" were not a difficulty here--inconsis-
>tent rules from *one single person* were. And consistent rules, I think, are
>something any writer should be able to expect.
Only if his contract says so. If it didn't say so, then why should one
have a right to expect consistent rules?
Timothy W. Lynch
>It is unrealistic to expect a writer to have the same vision as you and a good
>editor/publisher knows how to work with their writers so that your vision and
>theirs meshes into a cohesive whole. Unfortunately not all editors/publishers
>are capable of that and they usually end up isolating themselves from the
>most talented writers (case in point is DC with respect to Swamp Thing).
>When that happens the property becomes a creative wasteland, loses its
>following, and eventually ceases publication.
You're missing my point--had Bob Greenberger, Peter's ex-editor, done this, I
don't think I would have all that many grounds for complaining beyond the
"you don't know what you're talking about" complaint. Bob was doing his best
to help keep the stories "integrated into a cohesive whole", but when the
rules for joining change every twenty minutes, that's not real workable, is
it?
>It's a shame when a once good title or series falls on its face, but it
>happens. It's not the end of the world. There will be other good stories to
>tell. You can still look back with good memories of runs that pleased you
>in the past. Current and future performance does not have to lessen one bit
>your enjoyment of what it used to be (case in point again is Swamp Thing).
Agreed. I'm just trying to make sure that future writers (whom I doubt I'll
ever read) don't have to deal with the same idiocy.
Tim Lynch
Net Activist
Send those cards and letters today!
Timothy W. Lynch
>In <1990Dec9.2...@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>One small point--"changes in management" were not a difficulty here--
>>inconsistent rules from *one single person* were. And consistent rules, I
>>think, are something any writer should be able to expect.
>Only if his contract says so. If it didn't say so, then why should one
>have a right to expect consistent rules?
You'd prefer arbitrary rules? I think saying "you can do X" one day and then
saying "why did you do X? That's not allowed!" the next day is lacking common
decency, to say the least.
Michael Rawdon
No, no, you're missing my point. But if you really want to know...
What *I* would do would be to examine the terms of the contract (both my own
and DC's license for the Trek comic) and find out whether or not the
contracts guarantee consistency or not, and, if they do not, decline to
work on the book. (I suppose if I were feeling particularly optimistic or
stubborn I might give it a go nonetheless, but if things didn't work out,
well, I'd have only myself to blame.)
My point is: If it was in the contract that Paramount could do things like
that, then I don't think they're lacking in common decency if they follow
through on what the contract says. Now, I think they'd be fooling themselves
if they expect anyone with a grain of sense (much less creativity) to
actually work under such guidelines, but their stupidity is not my problem.
Timothy W. Lynch
>In <1990Dec10.0...@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>>Only if his contract says so. If it didn't say so, then why should one
>>>have a right to expect consistent rules?
>>You'd prefer arbitrary rules? I think saying "you can do X" one day and then
>>saying "why did you do X? That's not allowed!" the next day is lacking
>>common decency, to say the least.
>No, no, you're missing my point. But if you really want to know...
>What *I* would do would be to examine the terms of the contract (both my own
>and DC's license for the Trek comic) and find out whether or not the
>contracts guarantee consistency or not, and, if they do not, decline to
>work on the book. (I suppose if I were feeling particularly optimistic or
>stubborn I might give it a go nonetheless, but if things didn't work out,
>well, I'd have only myself to blame.)
>My point is: If it was in the contract that Paramount could do things like
>that, then I don't think they're lacking in common decency if they follow
>through on what the contract says. Now, I think they'd be fooling themselves
>if they expect anyone with a grain of sense (much less creativity) to
>actually work under such guidelines, but their stupidity is not my problem.
You seem insistent that if it didn't say that Peter was protected in ways
X, Y, and Z in the contract, then we can't blame them for screwing him over in
ways directly contradicting X,Y,Z...even when those things make up what most
people, yourself included in prior posts, have considered common courtesy.
If the way P'mount does business is slimy enough to be that literal, then they
deserve far more than the letter campaign I've called for. I think Shakespeare
had it right--"kill all the lawyers" indeed...
Aaron
>>>Now, if Paramount decides that following
>>>Arnold's advice is worth more to them than the money made by the comic book,
>>>well, then a letter-writing campaign complaining about the comic isn't going
>>>to be especially useful.
>
stop at just the book, but extend such a campaign to *EVERY* facet of Trek.
>
>>Tim Lynch writes:
>>"Look--Richard's stupid stunts are COSTING PARAMOUNT MONEY." If enough of
>>_those_ type of letters come in, there might be a positive change coming out.
>>Certainly, we won't make matters any worse.
>
itself losing money because of problem/person, but has it made clear that as
soon as the problem is gone the money starts flowing, than P'mount *WILL* get
rid of that problem/person.
>
>True. However, it's a bit hypocritical of me, who hasn't cared for the Trek
>comic for the last four years or so, to write a letter saying that I'm not
>reading the book because of Richard Arnold when in fact I'm not reading the
>book because I haven't enjoyed it for a long time.
This is not a personal attack, as I consider Mike a friend. But folks, this is
apathy. The problem has gotten focus because of the problem with the comic,
but it is by no means limited *TO* the comic. Consider it the *principle* of
the matter, if you must. But don't simply sit on your hands thinking it doesn't
affect you because you don't read the comic. You see the problem, I know you
do; and that is reason enough to write in your support, whether you read the
comics, books, watch the show, etc. It has to start somewhere . . .
--
Success to you, and mnhei'sahe!
Stanley of Essex (NCC-1727)
________________________________________________________________
< "Whose voice was that?" asked Alvin. "God's, of course," >
< said Arthur Stuart. "Good imitation," said Alvin. He was >
< being funny. "Sure is," said Arthur Stuart. He wasn't. >
<________________________________________________________________>
< These are my opinions, and mine alone. Why would >
< anyone else want them? PS-I believe in heat sinks. >
<________________________________________________________________>
Subrata Sircar
>discourage good ideas about the directions their characters and situations
>should be taken, so long as those ideas fit in with their framework.
This is the rub. It seems that the makers of Trek DO discourage "good ideas"
about their characters, BECAUSE they don't fit with their framework - and that
framework seems to consist of Thou Shalt Not Deal With Secondary Characters,
Nor Shalt Thou Write Stories That Have Sad Endings, Nor Shalt Thou Have
Permanent Changes To Our Main Characters.
That leaves out a great deal, doesn't it? This is the main reason I'm
considering not reading the books any longer, except that occasionally someone
writes a novel that is better than the next because it bends some of these
guidelines.
I agree that Gene Rodenberry can do whatever he wants with Star Trek and his
characters. I just don't like what he's doing.
Subrata Sircar | sksi...@phoenix.princeton.edu |Prophet& SPAMIT Charter Member
"Take your dying with some seriousness, however. Laughing on the way to your
execution is not generally understood by less advanced life forms, and they'll
call you crazy." - "Messiah's Handbook: Reminders for the Advanced Soul"
The Napoleon of Crime
know about it...]
Only two comments: I imagine that if I gave myself the time to get
frustrated about it, I could write a diatribe against
Paramount and/or Richard Arnold. (I would hesitate on the
latter, simply because I don't know the facts of the
matter first-hand.) But any number of corporate acts
over the last year could foster something similar, usually
for better reasons. I can spend the week angry, or I can
spend it constructively. (Oooh, a Moral for the Net!)
Second point: I will be damn sorry to see Peter leave
the book. Notwithstanding the ~300% improvement of
HULK over the last year, TREK has always been the arena
where his writing worked best; and the Trek characters
were never better served by a writer than they were
by Peter. Outside of the tale co-authored by Billy Mumy,
the book has been a constant pleasure to me, and the
Trial of Kirk one of best enjoyable stories to come out
in comix last year.
It's a book I'm going to miss. 'Nuff said.
"I believe in the the wisdom of the man who saved
my life. I believe that rules are excellent
guidelines, but that man must must be allowed to
interpret them, or he is not a man. My people are
not as advanced as yours, but the truth of my
words is plain. If you do not see it... then
perhaps you are not as advanced as you think you
are."
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET: mori...@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, microsoft, hplsla, uiucuxc}!fluke!moriarty
CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind...
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>