Richard Arnold: Commentary, Opinions, and Evidence

[Timothy W. Lynch]

This article is the concluding piece related to the Richard Arnold interview.
It contains my own impressions of the interview, the man himself, and
discussion both general and specific of the issues and allegations raised
herein (with some facts, and a whole bunch of opinions). Once again, those
not interested in the matter probably shouldn't stick around for this.
And due to propagation delays, this article may be reaching you before the
interview itself does. I urge you not to read this until you have read the
interview. I promised to quote Richard as accurately as possible, to the
extent of tape-recording all ~80 minutes of interview (after interruptions,
phone calls, knocks on the door, etc., have been edited out), and I would
rather that people not hear my opinions on the subject until they have already
read the interview and sorted out their own thoughts on the matter.

Tim Lynch

Hmm. Now, the question: What did I think came out of this meeting?
Well, I suspect Richard's not going to like the answer.

First of all, while the interview itself was very congenial and civil, the
atmosphere, I'm afraid, didn't quite seem so. The impressions I was getting
from Richard were not so much "here, let me see if I can explain X", so much
as "I'm going to like you, because I think you could be very useful to me."
It is, I believe, fairly likely that this meeting came about in the first
place because Richard was hoping to exert a little damage control over his
image. And if the interview manages to convince some people that he's not a
bad guy, more power to him. I cannot, in all honesty, claim to be so
convinced.

One thing I can say about this that is positive wrt Richard: I came out of
the interview believing that he sincerely believes he is only doing what is
best for Gene Roddenberry and for Star Trek. I believe that conviction to be
in error--if that many fans and that many authors are that angry, the net
effect can hardly be beneficial--but I believe it to be a sincerely held one.
I owe him that much forgiveness.

Now, to some of the statements made in the interview itself. I must say,
truthfully, that I do not agree with Richard's assertion that Peter David,
Brad Ferguson, Margaret Wander Bonanno, etc., are deliberately making Richard
the target of their attacks despite knowing that Gene is the cause of their
problems, wishing to avoid looking like hypocrites. I have no proof save my
own reasoning, which goes as follows:
=========================================================
**Given the authors' statements, and Richard's assertion to the contrary, one
of them has to be lying. (Well, I suppose it's possible that both sides are
lying, but let's put that aside for the moment.) Now, precisely who has the
most to gain by misrepresenting the situation?

**If the authors are telling the truth, then Richard is wielding de facto
authority that he himself claims he doesn't and shouldn't have. It is
therefore in Richard's best interests to deny this is the case.

**If, on the other hand, Richard is telling the truth, then Peter, Margaret,
and all the others are deliberately hounding an innocent man. Now, it makes
no sense that this should be the case--because if their problems really ARE
with Gene, and they know this, then they have no _reason_ to want to force
Richard from his position, because the orders would still be coming from Gene
and nothing would improve for them.

**So, to suggest that the authors are deliberately targeting someone for their
attacks that they know not to be at fault implies that said authors are not
only petty and vindictive, but that they're also rather stupid. Under the
right circumstances, and with the right inducements, I might be able to be
made to believe one of those two at any given time--but not both.

**Thus, it would seem that, although some statements made by the authors could
certainly be presented from a viewpoint that puts them in the best possible
light, there is at least some substance to their claims.
=======================================================================

Now to some even more specific charges and countercharges.

1) Richard claims that he has nothing personal against Peter David; Peter
claims otherwise. I cannot prove either side of it, but one particular thing
that I happened to notice in Richard's office before the interview began may
have some bearing. Richard has a bookshelf with all the TNG novels on it, in
order. Now, I couldn't see the first five or six novels, because there was a
picture or something in the way, but after those five or six, every novel was
there--with two exceptions. [There weren't gaps for these two books; they
simply weren't there.] Those two exceptions were: _Rock and a Hard Place_,
by Peter David; and _Vendetta_, also by Peter David.

Now, this may mean nothing at all. However, it may mean more than that.

2) Richard claims that Peter is deliberately planting people in audiences to
ask leading questions. He may believe that to be the case, and that may well
BE the case; but at least in the example he quotes, I seriously doubt it.
Among other things, the question, as Richard pointed out, was a fairly inept
one; and if the person had really been a plant, he/she would have been given a
far better question to ask. Peter's not stupid; he's not going to suggest a
question that can be shot down that easily.

Many of the allegations are ones I cannot comment on one way or the
other--I've been assured by Peter, for example, that many of Richard's claims
are false, but with no evidence apart from the claims of one of the
principals, I don't think I can make any sort of real claim. *However*, there
are a few assertions Richard makes which I can make very strong comments on.

You see, I decided to conduct a little followup research today (Monday). To
that end, I called up the Merchandising and Licensing office at Paramount,
where I spoke to someone whose name is being withheld by request. The
Licensing office, I believe, is probably a fairly impartial source; unlike
both Peter and Richard, they have no particular "light" they'd like the issues
to be seen in, since no one's claiming they're at fault for much of anything.
They're also the middlemen, more or less; they serve as a liaison between the
Star Trek offices and the licensees (e.g. DC Comics and Pocket Books). Thus,
I expected I could get something approaching "the real story" from them, and
see how well it corresponded to both the authors' version and Richard's
version of various events.

The answers I got were frightening. Almost to a word, they agreed
near-perfectly with the authors' assertions and allegations where any evidence
existed at all. For example [and for the record, I did not record these
conversations; it was over the phone, and it's impolite if not blatantly
illegal to tape things like that, so this is from memory and a few hastily
written notes]:

--Richard claims that he has no authority and never did. From a strict
standpoint, that is correct; Gene had to sign all the memos that Richard typed
up, and there's no evidence (and, indeed, no assertions that I know of) that
anyone but Gene signed them. However, Gene _doesn't read_ all the novels and
the comics and the etc. that come into the Star Trek offices: he *can't*,
there isn't enough time. So all Gene knows about the novels is what Richard
tells him, and so, since Richard controls Gene's flow of information, he had
_de facto_ authority. (Note the word "HAD" there; I'll get back to that.)

--Richard claims that the publication of _Vendetta_ happened against Gene's
will, and only because the President of Licensing and a few others came into
Gene's office and begged Gene to let it go through. According to the
Licensing office, that is "a complete load of bull". No meeting ever took
place; what happened is that after the manuscript had been sent up to Richard
for several weeks, and no response was forthcoming, Licensing got tired of
waiting, sent out their own changes, slapped on a disclaimer, and sent the
book through. In other words, Peter's story of events is absolutely correct,
and Richard's is absolutely false.

[In a similar vein...while I didn't have time to ask Richard about another
book, _Ghost-Walker_, similar things occurred there, according to Licensing.
The story I'd been told was that after multiple brusque rejections, Licensing
called up Gene himself and asked Gene to read it over the weekend. Gene did
so, and came back with a list of very minor changes and the opinion that apart
from that, this was one of the better Trek novels he'd read in recent times.
If Richard's assertion that Gene reads all the novels and often disputes
Richard's suggestions were correct, that scenario could not possibly take
place. Licensing confirmed that it took place, exactly as stated above.]

--The Licensing office also provided another piece of evidence that the
opinions given in the memos are not identical to Gene's in every detail. In
recent months, Pocket Books had been getting an average of roughly 2 out of
every 10 proposals approved when submitted through normal, memo-like channels.
In a recent meeting between Dave Stern, Kevin Ryan, and Gene [and perhaps
Richard, although it wasn't specified and I didn't ask], an average of 8 out
of 10 proposals were approved--many of them proposals that were 100% identical
to proposals rejected in a previous memo.

--Licensing also pointed out to me that Gene is often taking the heat for
these restrictions, when in the experience of the person I spoke to, Gene was
always very kind, very understanding, and always looking for a way to make a
story work rather than flatly denying it, whenever he dealt directly with
licensed materials. The only thing Gene can be legitimately accused of in
this issue, Licensing said, is something of a poor choice in assistants.

--Finally, Richard asserted in his recent rebuttal to the net that he was
still involved with Merchandising and Licensing. This is true, but gives a
false impression that nothing has changed. Licensing described the change to
me as follows:
=============================================================================
Until recently, Richard looked over the novels, comics, proposals,
etc., for Gene, wrote up a memo and gave it to Gene, who would change whatever
he felt needed to be changed. (However, as I pointed out earlier, Gene had
not at this point read the items being discussed, so he didn't have much of a
frame of reference to change things.) The memo would then go out to
Licensing, and things would proceed from there to Pocket, or to DC, or
wherever it was headed.

More recently, Gene, for whatever reasons (I've been told some
privately, but I didn't check them with Licensing, who by the way asked me to
mention that although Gene is ill, he is _vastly_ improved from his condition
of a few weeks ago and is proceeding nicely with therapy), removed Richard
from the loop. Richard was allowed to give no input.

After Richard spoke with Gene's attorney, that has since changed. The
current conditions: Richard again is reading the manuscripts. He is allowed
to make comments _only of a technical nature_--is this spelt correctly, do
Klingons eat Wheaties, etc. He is NOT allowed to make editorial comments on
the appropriateness or the quality of the work. And, furthermore, after the
memo has been signed by Gene, it goes, not to licensing, but to Gene's
attorney, who must make sure it conforms to the rules stated above. THEN it
goes to Licensing, and so on ahead.
=============================================================================

I believe that's about all I have to say. (I may think of other things as the
days go by, or as more facts come my way; if so, rest assured you'll know.)
Followups, general commentary, and rebuttal are of course completely welcome.

One final thing, however, which I direct to Richard [whom I'm sure will
eventually see this, just as he sees all other Usenet posts about him]:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thank you for your interest in this interview, and I appreciate that you
want to protect your image. However, in light of what I have been told by
Licensing, a neutral party, and in light of my own reasoning in other matters,
I cannot help but feel as though I was not being told the truth.

I find this upsetting. You had the chance to tell the truth, and present your
positions in the best possible light to boot. I have made every effort to
keep my own feelings as much out of this as possible, sticking only to my
reasoning and to independently confirmed facts; and you can be assured that
had you described events to me in ways that matched what I was told by
Licensing, I would have confirmed your honesty and would have had no
objections to you putting yourself in as good a light as possible.

You did not do this, even knowing full well that these facts could be checked,
and that your words were going to be reprinted in full on a worldwide computer
network (and others; I fully invite denizens of Compuserve, GEnie, BIX, and so
forth to use both the interview and this subsequent commentary on their own
networks, so long as the copyright notice is kept intact). I do not
understand your subsequent decisions to lie to me.

In short, I was willing to disseminate your words, and have kept that promise;
you have responded by using this "rope" to tie a noose, insert your head, and
grin. I take no responsibility for events that come of this interview.

I urge you, in light of this: Take a good, long look at what has been
happening over the last several years. Look at the documentary and
statistical evidence against your claim that you're only a mouthpiece for
Gene. Look at the negative effect in fan opinion towards Star Trek, and
towards *GENE*, that your actions are having. Ask yourself, honestly, if this
is what you want to be happening. I hope that in the final analysis, your
answer will be "no."

Sincerely yours,

Tim Lynch
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
"With the first link, a chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first
thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
--
Copyright 1991, Timothy W. Lynch. All rights reserved, but feel free to ask...

[Robert W. Spiker]

I've read all 1000+ lines with fascination, but I'm still confused on
one point in particular. Hopefully someone can clear this up for me
or (alternatively) tell me I haven't lost my mind:

Concerning the licensing of the Star Trek universe to the comics and
book publishers, Richard Arnold says:

-----------------
[...] Novelists are not used to being rewritten. Another
comment that I think is very essential that gets out is that Peter David, and
Margaret Wander Bonanno, and Diane Duane, and everybody else that's involved
in all of this, have never written for Star Trek. I'll take that back--Diane
Duane had a story that came from one of her previous novels, that she and
another writer, who was a writer in Hollywood and therefore they were able to
get it in, bought by the show, then rewritten, changed dramatically, which she
bitches about at conventions, and then that became "Where No One Has Gone
Before." She's the only one with a legitimate connection. None of the rest
have ever written for Star Trek. And they, they should not call themselves
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Star Trek writers because they're not. They are writers of fiction based on
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Star Trek for licensees, not for Paramount. And, I think I described it best
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
in a recent letter when I said that Margaret Wander Bonanno--this is because
somebody was writing in because of everything _she's_ been sending out--I said
that Margaret Wander Bonanno has never written for Star Trek. At best, she
has been a writer for hire for a publishing division, Pocket Books, of a
publishing company, Simon & Schuster, that is owned by a parent corporation,
Paramount Communications, that owns the studio, Paramount Pictures
Incorporated, that makes the series Star Trek. That is as close as she has
ever been.

[^^^^^ is emphasis added by me.]
---------------

I have included much of Arnold's statements around those I consider of
interest to insure that I have not taken them out of context. But if
he says that Peter David and all the other novel and comic writers are
not writing for Star Trek or Paramount, why can he say what goes and
does not go in the novels? By his own statements they aren't Star
Trek, so why should all the novels and stuff go to him and/or Gene for
editing? Obviously someone writing for the TV show would need to
have the script edited, but since Arnold said (concerning books and
comics):

-------------
[...] ...they're just, you know, kinda fun to keep you occupied between
episodes and between movies, whatever...but he does not want that to be
considered to be sources of information for writers, working on this show, he
doesn't want it to be considered part of the canon by anybody working on any
other projects. In other words, don't use other merchandise to base your
merchandise on, use my Star Trek if you're going to call it Star Trek
merchandise.
-------------

i.e., they're not canon, then extras that the writer felt were important
such as 'Rihannsu' or tying in the planet-killer to the Borg, should
not come under his perview. If at some later time we learn on TV that
the planet-killer was really made by the Iconians, that wouldn't diminish
_Vendetta_ or any of the other novels one bit.

Or is this the point that people like Tim and Peter have been raising
all this time? If that is the case (I probably haven't paid attention
to most of this debate), then I would certainly agree with Tim that
Richard Arnold did not clear up the issues that needed clearing, and
something is still fishy down there. I really think I need this
cleared up-- is he contradicting himself, or am I reading something
different into his statements than what other people are reading?

Many thanks to Tim for conducting the interview and transcribing 80
minutes/1000+ lines of one of the most informative and informational
posts to come this way.
--
Robert W. Spiker | It is truly written that a man has five times as |
Department of Astronomy | many fingers as ears, but only twice as many ears |
University of Virginia | as noses. +---------------------------------------+
Charlottesville VA 22903 +-----------+ rw...@virginia.edu

[Timothy W. Lynch]

rw...@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Robert W. Spiker) writes:

>I've read all 1000+ lines with fascination, but I'm still confused on
>one point in particular. Hopefully someone can clear this up for me
>or (alternatively) tell me I haven't lost my mind:

>Concerning the licensing of the Star Trek universe to the comics and
>book publishers, Richard Arnold says:

[paraphrased for brevity: novels aren't Trek fact, they're Trek fiction. I
apologize for removing the context; reference Robert's article prior to this
if you want to see it, or the interview itself if you want it in full]

>I have included much of Arnold's statements around those I consider of
>interest to insure that I have not taken them out of context. But if
>he says that Peter David and all the other novel and comic writers are
>not writing for Star Trek or Paramount, why can he say what goes and
>does not go in the novels? By his own statements they aren't Star
>Trek, so why should all the novels and stuff go to him and/or Gene for
>editing?

[...]

>i.e., they're not canon, then extras that the writer felt were important
>such as 'Rihannsu' or tying in the planet-killer to the Borg, should
>not come under his perview. If at some later time we learn on TV that
>the planet-killer was really made by the Iconians, that wouldn't diminish
>_Vendetta_ or any of the other novels one bit.

>Or is this the point that people like Tim and Peter have been raising
>all this time?

I can't speak for anyone but myself here, but...no, not really. The point
you raise is certainly a philosophical objection that I have to the policy,
regardless of where it's coming from, but it's not the main crux of my
objections. (I seem to recall other r.a.s'ers arguing strongly for this,
however; no doubt they'll pipe in sometime soon.)

My objections were more to what I perceived to be authority wielded by
people who shouldn't possess it, i.e. Richard. If the rules above are
actually Gene's, then I can grumble, but I can't say I'd have huge ethical
objections. However, I think subsequent calls to Licensing, etc., have helped
to demonstrate that they are in all probability _not_ rules laid down by
Gene, but rules laid down by Richard. And in *that* case, I don't believe
they should exist at all.

>Many thanks to Tim for conducting the interview and transcribing 80
>minutes/1000+ lines of one of the most informative and informational
>posts to come this way.

Thanks very much for your kind words, Robert. I'm glad the interview was
useful to as many people as it was.

Tim Lynch
Net Muckraker

[Jeff Sicherman]

In article <1991Sep10.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>This article is the concluding piece related to the Richard Arnold interview.
>It contains my own impressions of the interview, the man himself, and
>discussion both general and specific of the issues and allegations raised
>herein (with some facts, and a whole bunch of opinions). Once again, those
>not interested in the matter probably shouldn't stick around for this.
>And due to propagation delays, this article may be reaching you before the
>interview itself does. I urge you not to read this until you have read the
>interview. I promised to quote Richard as accurately as possible, to the
>extent of tape-recording all ~80 minutes of interview (after interruptions,
>phone calls, knocks on the door, etc., have been edited out), and I would
>rather that people not hear my opinions on the subject until they have already
>read the interview and sorted out their own thoughts on the matter.

While Mr Lynch's efforts are appreciated I doubt this has really resolved
anything because he clearly, by his past and present statements, did not enter
this endeavor as an impartial reporter and his following statements and in
particular the conclusions reveal his bias and preconceptions. While I have
no doubt whatsoever that Mr Lynch has quoted Richard Arnold coreectly and
probably completely as possible, there is no evidence that anything that is
presented here or in the transcripts of the interview are *fact*. They are
all merely claims by one interested party or another about what may or may
not have happened.

I have never met *any* of the parties involved, never knew anything of or
about any of them until I started reading r.a.s., have never read any of the
novels, much less the ones at issue here and in the interview, and will
probably keep that record intact. I have had a few email exchanges with Mr
Lynch, mostly in response to my indirect comments about obsessional review(er)s
and strongly suspect I will engender another one as a result of this posting.
hence, I have and admit somewhat of a bias; Mr Lynch failed to deal with his
and hence his objectivity and conclusions must be viewed in that light.

>Hmm. Now, the question: What did I think came out of this meeting?
>Well, I suspect Richard's not going to like the answer.

If he knows your history and connections, I suspect he might have expected
it but just hoped for the best anyway. When you're an established lightening
rod for criticism, there's nothing much you can do about it; just ask Dan
Quayle.

>
>First of all, while the interview itself was very congenial and civil, the
>atmosphere, I'm afraid, didn't quite seem so. The impressions I was getting
>from Richard were not so much "here, let me see if I can explain X", so much
>as "I'm going to like you, because I think you could be very useful to me."
>It is, I believe, fairly likely that this meeting came about in the first
>place because Richard was hoping to exert a little damage control over his
>image. And if the interview manages to convince some people that he's not a
>bad guy, more power to him. I cannot, in all honesty, claim to be so
>convinced.

Oh, you mean he had a reason and an agenda for consenting to the interview ?
And you didn't have one for conducting it ? Why is this an accusation and why
should it be evidence of lack of sincerity. He has a point-of-view and a right
to defend it has strenuously as I have heard you defend yours.

>
>One thing I can say about this that is positive wrt Richard: I came out of
>the interview believing that he sincerely believes he is only doing what is
>best for Gene Roddenberry and for Star Trek. I believe that conviction to be
>in error--if that many fans and that many authors are that angry, the net
>effect can hardly be beneficial--but I believe it to be a sincerely held one.
>I owe him that much forgiveness.

Oh good for you; I'm sure he'll sleep much better now. But really, I think
the interview revealed quite explicitly what the perspective is on fandom in
general and the networks in partcular: they are an infinitesimal blip on the
big screen of the cash cows: the syndicated series and the motion pictures
and are of financial interest mostly, and most importantly, to the licensees
and not Paramount and Roddenberry specificly and directly. Moreover, much of
their activity is fueled by self-serving and self-appointed parties. This is
not wrong, but it's just indication that there are no pure, innocent,
good-guys in this ST world: just a bunch of people, each with their own agenda.

>
>Now, to some of the statements made in the interview itself. I must say,
>truthfully, that I do not agree with Richard's assertion that Peter David,
>Brad Ferguson, Margaret Wander Bonanno, etc., are deliberately making Richard
>the target of their attacks despite knowing that Gene is the cause of their
>problems, wishing to avoid looking like hypocrites. I have no proof save my
>own reasoning, which goes as follows:

Whatever, the validity of the reasoning, Mr Lynch is sorely in need of
real facts; he has only the claims and assertions of the interested parties
which he is free to pick and choose among.

>=========================================================
>**Given the authors' statements, and Richard's assertion to the contrary, one
>of them has to be lying. (Well, I suppose it's possible that both sides are
>lying, but let's put that aside for the moment.) Now, precisely who has the
>most to gain by misrepresenting the situation?

Why put it aside ? And why assume that anyone is consciously lying. They may
all just have a limited prespective from limited knowledge of all the events
and have drawn their own self-serving conclusions and extrapolations from them.
It seems they each/all might have something to gain, ego-wise, from a
misrepresentation.

>
>**If the authors are telling the truth, then Richard is wielding de facto
>authority that he himself claims he doesn't and shouldn't have. It is
>therefore in Richard's best interests to deny this is the case.
>
>**If, on the other hand, Richard is telling the truth, then Peter, Margaret,
>and all the others are deliberately hounding an innocent man. Now, it makes
>no sense that this should be the case--because if their problems really ARE
>with Gene, and they know this, then they have no _reason_ to want to force
>Richard from his position, because the orders would still be coming from Gene
>and nothing would improve for them.

And it can't possibly be that these potentially temperamental artistic people
(characterization warning) are all letting of emotional steam and seeking to
justify there position and actions. Since when should anyone be expected to act
in a cool, emotionless manner when their egos are at stake. They people aren't
Vulcans, they just write about them :-)

>
>**So, to suggest that the authors are deliberately targeting someone for their
>attacks that they know not to be at fault implies that said authors are not
>only petty and vindictive, but that they're also rather stupid. Under the
>right circumstances, and with the right inducements, I might be able to be
>made to believe one of those two at any given time--but not both.

If they are all frustrated anough by essentially the same situation which
they don't like, it's quite likely and possible that they might behave in a
similar fashion and pick the target which is most likely to have the lowest
risk since to target Gene himself would be suicidal in terms of the likelihood
for future reconciliation; you don't kill the king you kill his henchmen and
claim you were doing it for the good of the kingdom.

>
>**Thus, it would seem that, although some statements made by the authors could
>certainly be presented from a viewpoint that puts them in the best possible
>light, there is at least some substance to their claims.

And there is no substance to Mr Arnolds ? How does this leave things any more
clear than before ?

>=======================================================================
>
>Now to some even more specific charges and countercharges.
>
>1) Richard claims that he has nothing personal against Peter David; Peter
>claims otherwise. I cannot prove either side of it, but one particular thing
>that I happened to notice in Richard's office before the interview began may
>have some bearing. Richard has a bookshelf with all the TNG novels on it, in
>order. Now, I couldn't see the first five or six novels, because there was a
>picture or something in the way, but after those five or six, every novel was
>there--with two exceptions. [There weren't gaps for these two books; they
>simply weren't there.] Those two exceptions were: _Rock and a Hard Place_,
>by Peter David; and _Vendetta_, also by Peter David.
>
>Now, this may mean nothing at all. However, it may mean more than that.

Ah, the conspiracy theory. Take an unexplained fact and make it the basis
of a rumor and plot. maybe someone else borrowed them to read, maybe Richard
has them elsewhere and is rereading them himself; maybe he sent them to
Peter David to be autographed in blood ... Just another innuendo so far.

>
>2) Richard claims that Peter is deliberately planting people in audiences to
>ask leading questions. He may believe that to be the case, and that may well
>BE the case; but at least in the example he quotes, I seriously doubt it.
>Among other things, the question, as Richard pointed out, was a fairly inept
>one; and if the person had really been a plant, he/she would have been given a
>far better question to ask. Peter's not stupid; he's not going to suggest a
>question that can be shot down that easily.

Maybe it's neither: maybe the inept question/er/s are just loyal defenders
and true believers of Mr David who can't come up with anything better to say.
On the other hand, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that somebody
isn't out to get you.

>
>Many of the allegations are ones I cannot comment on one way or the
>other--I've been assured by Peter, for example, that many of Richard's claims
>are false, but with no evidence apart from the claims of one of the
>principals, I don't think I can make any sort of real claim. *However*, there
>are a few assertions Richard makes which I can make very strong comments on.

Why is it each time you finally admit you haven't the facts, you end up
doubting Arnold and believing David ?

>
>You see, I decided to conduct a little followup research today (Monday). To
>that end, I called up the Merchandising and Licensing office at Paramount,
>where I spoke to someone whose name is being withheld by request. The
>Licensing office, I believe, is probably a fairly impartial source; unlike
>both Peter and Richard, they have no particular "light" they'd like the issues
>to be seen in, since no one's claiming they're at fault for much of anything.
>They're also the middlemen, more or less; they serve as a liaison between the
>Star Trek offices and the licensees (e.g. DC Comics and Pocket Books). Thus,
>I expected I could get something approaching "the real story" from them, and
>see how well it corresponded to both the authors' version and Richard's
>version of various events.

Why should we believe an unattributed source in the Licensing office ?
How do we (or you) know this person doesnt have their own problems and
biases with respect to Mr Arnold, Roddenberry, or any number of other
people. Would they have been so impartial in your ears if they had backed
ARnold's version of things to the hilt; or would you have been raising
arguments about the logic of their claims because they conflicted with
Peter David's ? On a purely practical matter, let's face it, their
responsibility is to maintain good relations with the licenseees: no
licensees and no products, no revenue and no jobs. Both Arnold and
Roddenberry are potential and real impediments to maximizing those
factors and I doubt they have any interest in maintaining the conceptual
integrity of ST; their job is the financial enhancement of $T for Paramount.

>
>The answers I got were frightening. Almost to a word, they agreed
>near-perfectly with the authors' assertions and allegations where any evidence
>existed at all. For example [and for the record, I did not record these
>conversations; it was over the phone, and it's impolite if not blatantly
>illegal to tape things like that, so this is from memory and a few hastily
>written notes]:

How convenient; it's not impolite or illegal if you ask first. Did you
ask ?

>
>--Richard claims that he has no authority and never did. From a strict
>standpoint, that is correct; Gene had to sign all the memos that Richard typed
>up, and there's no evidence (and, indeed, no assertions that I know of) that
>anyone but Gene signed them. However, Gene _doesn't read_ all the novels and
>the comics and the etc. that come into the Star Trek offices: he *can't*,
>there isn't enough time. So all Gene knows about the novels is what Richard
>tells him, and so, since Richard controls Gene's flow of information, he had
>_de facto_ authority. (Note the word "HAD" there; I'll get back to that.)

before you make this claim, you have to prove that there were no other
paths (especially of appeal) for information to come to Roddenberry. Otherwise
there is no authority, only influence at most. And you aure make him out
to be an idiot, being led around by Arnold and not knowing or realizing it.
It's truly amzing what a Svengali Arnold is and how Gene Roddenberry managed
to get where he is before Richard Arnold came along to guide things.

>
>--Richard claims that the publication of _Vendetta_ happened against Gene's
>will, and only because the President of Licensing and a few others came into
>Gene's office and begged Gene to let it go through. According to the
>Licensing office, that is "a complete load of bull". No meeting ever took
>place; what happened is that after the manuscript had been sent up to Richard
>for several weeks, and no response was forthcoming, Licensing got tired of
>waiting, sent out their own changes, slapped on a disclaimer, and sent the
>book through. In other words, Peter's story of events is absolutely correct,
>and Richard's is absolutely false.

Nope, according to *one unidentified person in Licensing who may or may not
have the whole and/or true story* that is what happended. Hence *we* are no
closer to knowing the facts of the matter than before; only the story *you*
choose to believe. Authority seems to rest, in your ears, with those who
confirm your preferences.

>
>[In a similar vein...while I didn't have time to ask Richard about another
>book, _Ghost-Walker_, similar things occurred there, according to Licensing.
>The story I'd been told was that after multiple brusque rejections, Licensing
>called up Gene himself and asked Gene to read it over the weekend. Gene did
>so, and came back with a list of very minor changes and the opinion that apart
>from that, this was one of the better Trek novels he'd read in recent times.
>If Richard's assertion that Gene reads all the novels and often disputes
>Richard's suggestions were correct, that scenario could not possibly take
>place. Licensing confirmed that it took place, exactly as stated above.]

You have consistently and now formally elevated this source into the offical
position and spokesperson for Licensing, apprarently, and all by yourself. In
any case, it's possible the truth lies somewhere in between, Roddenberry might
skim or review material and still rely on notes or recommendations from Arnold
who has time to deal with the material in depth. When another party asks for
a more personal, in-depth evaluation he might then do so to resolve the dispute
aming underlings. There is no reason he has to either agree with or reject
Arnold's advice automatically either initially or in the final result.

>
>--The Licensing office also provided another piece of evidence that the
>opinions given in the memos are not identical to Gene's in every detail. In
>recent months, Pocket Books had been getting an average of roughly 2 out of
>every 10 proposals approved when submitted through normal, memo-like channels.
>In a recent meeting between Dave Stern, Kevin Ryan, and Gene [and perhaps
>Richard, although it wasn't specified and I didn't ask], an average of 8 out
>of 10 proposals were approved--many of them proposals that were 100% identical
>to proposals rejected in a previous memo.

This is hearsay again but even assuming it's true, it's not clear what a
rejection or an approval is in these contexts. There may be an exchange of
memos before final approval on a matter whereas many things can be dealt
with an finalized in a single meeting when the parties are working on a
face-to-face basis. This drastically affects the approval progress statistics
but not necessarily the overall end rate.

>
>--Licensing also pointed out to me that Gene is often taking the heat for
>these restrictions, when in the experience of the person I spoke to, Gene was
>always very kind, very understanding, and always looking for a way to make a
>story work rather than flatly denying it, whenever he dealt directly with
>licensed materials. The only thing Gene can be legitimately accused of in
>this issue, Licensing said, is something of a poor choice in assistants.

There is also the good cop/bad cop scenario, or the Bush/Sununu one. The
underling takes the heat for the negative bad stuff while the boss is able
to sit above the petty fray and look sweet and nice. I dont know if this
is the case but neither do you know exactly what is the relationship
between all the parties, you only assume what fits your preferences.

OK, and someone checks Sununu's travel arrangements. In any organization,
political grease that makes the organization run smoother and look better is
important, not necessarily what is 'right' or 'wrong', whatever those mean in
this kind of scenario. If Richard Arnold was a source of conflct or bad press,
deserved or not, it could have been decided to reduce that issue was most
important to ST, Paramount, and Gener Roddenberry, rather than defend any
particular underling from the slings and arrows of outraged fans. If there
was a problem with licensing between the keepers of the flame and the
collectors for the cash box, than a lawyer is used to formalize and lubricate
the relationship. In your eyes this makes for all kinds of sinister
machinations about the evil Richard Arnold; in others' it just noraml
bureaucratic politics at work.

>
>I believe that's about all I have to say. (I may think of other things as the
>days go by, or as more facts come my way; if so, rest assured you'll know.)
>Followups, general commentary, and rebuttal are of course completely welcome.

That's nice to hear but I will wait and see how 'welcome' they are treated.

>
>One final thing, however, which I direct to Richard [whom I'm sure will
>eventually see this, just as he sees all other Usenet posts about him]:
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I thank you for your interest in this interview, and I appreciate that you
>want to protect your image. However, in light of what I have been told by
>Licensing, a neutral party, and in light of my own reasoning in other matters,
>I cannot help but feel as though I was not being told the truth.

No neutral party, no firm facts, a biased observer; it's not surprising
that your 'logic' came up stacked against believing Mr Arnold's version
of things. Not that that makes them correct, it's just that yours aren't
any more so.

>
>I find this upsetting. You had the chance to tell the truth, and present your
>positions in the best possible light to boot. I have made every effort to
>keep my own feelings as much out of this as possible, sticking only to my
>reasoning and to independently confirmed facts; and you can be assured that
>had you described events to me in ways that matched what I was told by
>Licensing, I would have confirmed your honesty and would have had no
>objections to you putting yourself in as good a light as possible.

Talk about presenting oneself in the best possible light !!!

>
>You did not do this, even knowing full well that these facts could be checked,
>and that your words were going to be reprinted in full on a worldwide computer
>network (and others; I fully invite denizens of Compuserve, GEnie, BIX, and so
>forth to use both the interview and this subsequent commentary on their own
>networks, so long as the copyright notice is kept intact). I do not
>understand your subsequent decisions to lie to me.
>
>In short, I was willing to disseminate your words, and have kept that promise;
>you have responded by using this "rope" to tie a noose, insert your head, and
>grin. I take no responsibility for events that come of this interview.

How melodromatic ! Why don't you turn this into a script and submit it.

>
>I urge you, in light of this: Take a good, long look at what has been
>happening over the last several years. Look at the documentary and
>statistical evidence against your claim that you're only a mouthpiece for
>Gene. Look at the negative effect in fan opinion towards Star Trek, and
>towards *GENE*, that your actions are having. Ask yourself, honestly, if this
>is what you want to be happening. I hope that in the final analysis, your
>answer will be "no."
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Tim Lynch

Investigator
Prosecutor
Judge
Jury

[Dan Hartung]

tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

[stuff deleted, i.e. interview]

First, let me thank you, Tim, for a very informative interview. I feel
you conducted it fairly and I found Richard's point of view of the
inner workings of "The Star Trek Franchise" to be extremely interesting.

To respond in general:

Why does anyone conduct an interview? To get their story across. Thus
of course RA was self-serving, but so would be anyone else, e.g. Peter
David. I truly think you (and anyone else) are going overboard in
attributing Machiavellian motives to this man. Occam's Razor says that
the simplest explanation is to be preferred. In the case of novel
authors, it's simplest to say that they had a disagreement with the
Executive Producer's office, for whom the front man is RA, and that
quite naturally they don't really like each other that much. I personally
see no 'vendetta' or need to determine who's lying or whatever.

As for the assertion you make that RA is "wielding authority" that he
"shouldn't" be, this I do not get. Roddenberry is old, recently ill,
and simply can't personally read EVERYTHING. To say that RA does that
and reports back to GR indicates to me that GR trusts RA's judgement
implicitly, and feels that he knows Star Trek and Gene's vision well
enough to do this job. It's rampant speculation to claim that RA
is somehow "protecting" GR. If he were dramatically changing what
the TV show, the movies, or the novels represent Star Trek to be,
I think GR would notice and would get rid of him.

Your going to "Marketing & Licensing" and getting somebody to (anonymousely)
slash into RA does nothing for me. To my mind, you underrepresented
their role to make this office seem "impartial", which it isn't. It
has a desire to make a good bottom line like any other department, and
even if they only serve as a funnel, to get rejection after rejection
of what looks popular and profitable (e.g. Phaser Water Guns!) would
certainly bias their opinion.

Basically, before you can convince me that RA is abusing his authority,
you must convince me that he has that authority to abuse. And you must
do that before you can convince me that he's somehow hurting Star Trek
in the process.

>The answers I got were frightening.

What, exactly, frightens you? That RA is somehow injecting his ideas
into the approval process? That this is different from "your" Star
Trek? I think the success of the show speaks for itself. It may not
be perfect, but it's a damn sight closer than anything else out there
claiming to be sf. In short, whatever they're doing, they seem to
be doing right, and most amazingly, this is holding true to Gene
Roddenberry's original vision.

I find it positively delightfl that there is literally "too much" Star
Trek for one man to handle (ie GR). By this point ST has a foothold
in every corner of Paramount -- TV, Movies, M&L, you name it. With this
kind of momentum it is sure to survive. What I find more frightening
than anythng you've mentioned is the situation that existed in the 1970s:
Star Trek was a forgotten child, and ten years of constant effort was
the only thing that got it going again, due to Corporate Ignorance
of the highest order. What I find frightening is that this should
happen again -- no Star Trek of any kind.

>there isn't enough time. So all Gene knows about the novels is what Richard
>tells him, and so, since Richard controls Gene's flow of information, he had
>_de facto_ authority. (Note the word "HAD" there; I'll get back to that.)

...again, this shows Gene's *TRUST* of Richard. And I trust Gene to
have the final word on Star Trek, even if I disagree with some of that
very personal vision.

>In other words, Peter's story of events is absolutely correct,
>and Richard's is absolutely false.

Remember, these folks have their own axe to grind....

You say to RA:

>I cannot help but feel as though I was not being told the truth.

"The Truth" ... ah, would that such a thing existed. Alas, there
are only our own separate versions of how things happen, and they
will never completely agree.

>I urge you, in light of this: Take a good, long look at what has been
>happening over the last several years. Look at the documentary and
>statistical evidence against your claim that you're only a mouthpiece for
>Gene. Look at the negative effect in fan opinion towards Star Trek, and
>towards *GENE*, that your actions are having. Ask yourself, honestly, if this
>is what you want to be happening. I hope that in the final analysis, your
>answer will be "no."

"fan opinion" is not the monolithic thing you would have it be, nor
is it half as important as you would like it. RA made the very effective
point that they're in business to sell a tv show, not to produce
million-dollar-plus boondoggles that only the fans love.

In the end, I have to say, yes, *I* would like it if we could have
Star Trek novels that are each author's personal vision of what Trek
is and could be (much like "The Best of Trek"), but I have no major
quarrel with the reasoning Arnold gives for disallowing the kinds of
storylines that they do. "This is Trek" they say, and they have the
right to say it. It's the frustrating result of Star Trek's own
success ... which I'm sure we all are in favor of.

--
"In taking a state, the conqueror must arrange | Dan Hartung
to commit all his cruelties at once .... Whoever | dhar...@chinet.chi.il.us
acts otherwise, either through timidity or bad | Birch Grove Software
counsel, must always stand with knife in hand." -- Machiavelli

[Timothy W. Lynch]

sich...@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>In article <1991Sep10.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

[some of the intro to my followup piece deleted for brevity]

>>I urge you not to read this until you have read the
>>interview. I promised to quote Richard as accurately as possible, to the
>>extent of tape-recording all ~80 minutes of interview (after interruptions,
>>phone calls, knocks on the door, etc., have been edited out), and I would
>>rather that people not hear my opinions on the subject until they have
>>already read the interview and sorted out their own thoughts on the matter.

I leave the above present in the hopes that it will be noted.

> While Mr Lynch's efforts are appreciated I doubt this has really resolved
>anything because he clearly, by his past and present statements, did not enter
>this endeavor as an impartial reporter and his following statements and in
>particular the conclusions reveal his bias and preconceptions.

Perhaps so. If, having read the interview, you feel that the questions
themselves showed bias, please inform me; I tried my absolute best to keep
them neutral. I will answer your objections to my conclusions to the best of
my ability.

(As for past statements...they are, by their nature, in the past. I'm not the
same person I was twelve months ago, any more than anyone else is.)

>While I have
>no doubt whatsoever that Mr Lynch has quoted Richard Arnold coreectly and
>probably completely as possible, there is no evidence that anything that is
>presented here or in the transcripts of the interview are *fact*. They are
>all merely claims by one interested party or another about what may or may
>not have happened.

To a certain extent, this cannot be disputed. My assumption that the person
I spoke to in Licensing was both knowledgeable and disinterested was clearly
marked as an assumption. If you choose to believe that my source in Licensing
was simply trying to shoot Richard down, then it's only natural that you'll
believe my argument falls apart. Based on knowledge surrounding the person
I spoke to (which, due to confidentiality, I cannot reveal; I realize this
will only make you claim more strenuously that I'm somehow being fraudulent,
but I'd like to retain the trust of people I speak to), however, I have no
doubts whatsoever as to the person's ability to have known this, and their
neutrality.

>I have had a few email exchanges with Mr
>Lynch, mostly in response to my indirect comments about obsessional
>review(er)s and strongly suspect I will engender another one as a result of
>this posting.

No. You raise a number of valid questions here that should be discussed in
public; hence, I'll keep it there for the time being.

>hence, I have and admit somewhat of a bias; Mr Lynch failed to deal with his
>and hence his objectivity and conclusions must be viewed in that light.

This is a valid argument. I believe that I kept my own personal feelings out
of this matter as much as possible immediately before, during, and immediately
after the interview occurred last week. If you do not believe I tried hard
enough, or do not believe I succeeded, I have no way to answer your objections.

>>It is, I believe, fairly likely that this meeting came about in the first
>>place because Richard was hoping to exert a little damage control over his
>>image. And if the interview manages to convince some people that he's not a
>>bad guy, more power to him. I cannot, in all honesty, claim to be so
>>convinced.

> Oh, you mean he had a reason and an agenda for consenting to the interview ?
>And you didn't have one for conducting it ?

Not a conscious one, no, beyond hearing the other side of the story. Jeff, I
must, regrettably, ask why you're taking me to task for listening to the other
side of the story when in past situations you've taken me to task for NOT doing
so.

And it should also be noted that although I may have had a subconscious
"agenda" for conducting this interview, I did not go out of my way to bring
this about. Richard did.

>Why is this an accusation and why
>should it be evidence of lack of sincerity. He has a point-of-view and a right
>to defend it has strenuously as I have heard you defend yours.

False friendship (which my statement about "I like you because I think I can
use you") is in my own mindset evidence of lack of sincerity, no matter who
I'm dealing with or in what context. And you're perfectly right in saying that
Richard has a right to defend his point of view. I did not deny that. I
believe, however, that there is a difference between putting the facts in the
best light and stating things which run contrary to the facts. (I know, you
don't believe the statements from Licensing can be considered fact. That's
a point of contention we won't be able to settle.)

>>One thing I can say about this that is positive wrt Richard: I came out of
>>the interview believing that he sincerely believes he is only doing what is
>>best for Gene Roddenberry and for Star Trek. I believe that conviction to be
>>in error--if that many fans and that many authors are that angry, the net
>>effect can hardly be beneficial--but I believe it to be a sincerely held one.
>>I owe him that much forgiveness.

> Oh good for you; I'm sure he'll sleep much better now.

[Mild annoyance ahead]

So...let's see. You object when I claim Richard's doing wrong, you object
that I'm not being neutral, but you also object when I state that I was
*wrong* about him in at least one instance, and publicly admit it. Exactly
what must I do to make you happy, sir?

[Mild annoyance off]

>>Now, to some of the statements made in the interview itself. I must say,
>>truthfully, that I do not agree with Richard's assertion that Peter David,
>>Brad Ferguson, Margaret Wander Bonanno, etc., are deliberately making Richard
>>the target of their attacks despite knowing that Gene is the cause of their
>>problems, wishing to avoid looking like hypocrites. I have no proof save my
>>own reasoning, which goes as follows:

> Whatever, the validity of the reasoning, Mr Lynch is sorely in need of
>real facts; he has only the claims and assertions of the interested parties
>which he is free to pick and choose among.

Accepted. But if you accept the reasoning as valid, I do not see how bias can
be claimed. If you can show someplace in this chain of reasoning where I
allowed my personal feelings to overwhelm logic, please show them to me.

>>**Given the authors' statements, and Richard's assertion to the contrary, one
>>of them has to be lying. (Well, I suppose it's possible that both sides are
>>lying, but let's put that aside for the moment.) Now, precisely who has the
>>most to gain by misrepresenting the situation?

> Why put it aside ?

Because I don't consider it likely; and if it happens to be true, we're
absolutely back at square one.

>And why assume that anyone is consciously lying.

This, however, is a very good point. I withdraw any implication that in this
particular case, either side was consciously lying.

>>**If, on the other hand, Richard is telling the truth, then Peter, Margaret,
>>and all the others are deliberately hounding an innocent man. Now, it makes
>>no sense that this should be the case--because if their problems really ARE
>>with Gene, and they know this, then they have no _reason_ to want to force
>>Richard from his position, because the orders would still be coming from Gene
>>and nothing would improve for them.

>And it can't possibly be that these potentially temperamental artistic people
>(characterization warning) are all letting of emotional steam and seeking to
>justify there position and actions. Since when should anyone be expected to
>act in a cool, emotionless manner when their egos are at stake.

Cool and emotionless? Certainly not--and if you've ever seen Peter, Margaret,
etc., you'd know that they generally do _not_ discuss Richard in such a
manner.

However, they are presumably _thinking_, _rational_ beings, and I find it
completely implausible that not one of them, but ALL of them, have decided to
target an innocent man and NOT realized that it would do them no good in the
long run. That implies a level of idiocy far above normal specifications.

>>**Thus, it would seem that, although some statements made by the authors
>>could certainly be presented from a viewpoint that puts them in the best
>>possible light, there is at least some substance to their claims.

>And there is no substance to Mr Arnolds ? How does this leave things any more
>clear than before ?

Because Richard made a flat assertion which, by the chain of reasoning
outlined above, does not hold together logically. He may certainly not be
consciously lying (and I again withdraw my claim that he is doing so), but
at the very least, he's fooling himself into believing this.

[my example about novels in RA's office deleted; go back to either of the two
referenced articles to see it]

> Ah, the conspiracy theory. Take an unexplained fact and make it the basis
>of a rumor and plot.

I suggested there _may_ be something to it. Nothing more. I readily admit
that this is the weakest part of anything I've said here.

>>2) Richard claims that Peter is deliberately planting people in audiences to
>>ask leading questions. He may believe that to be the case, and that may well
>>BE the case; but at least in the example he quotes, I seriously doubt it.
>>Among other things, the question, as Richard pointed out, was a fairly inept
>>one; and if the person had really been a plant, he/she would have been given
>>a far better question to ask. Peter's not stupid; he's not going to suggest
>>a question that can be shot down that easily.

> Maybe it's neither: maybe the inept question/er/s are just loyal defenders
>and true believers of Mr David who can't come up with anything better to say.

I believe that this fits in perfectly with what I suggested above; that some
or all of the people asking questions are not plants, but merely people who
want to ask questions on the subject and happen not to ask good ones.

>>Many of the allegations are ones I cannot comment on one way or the
>>other--I've been assured by Peter, for example, that many of Richard's claims
>>are false, but with no evidence apart from the claims of one of the
>>principals, I don't think I can make any sort of real claim. *However*,
>>there are a few assertions Richard makes which I can make very strong
>>comments on.

> Why is it each time you finally admit you haven't the facts, you end up
>doubting Arnold and believing David ?

I did not say above that I believed either one in many of the assertions and
counter-assertions I've been told. I said that since all I've been told is
information given by one of the principals, I cannot make any firm statement
one way or the other. The assertions which I can comment on, that I refer to
above, are ones which I checked with Licensing, which source I again
absolutely vouch for.

> Why should we believe an unattributed source in the Licensing office ?

Why should you believe "a top-level White House aide" quoted in a newspaper?
Same questions apply.

Again, I cannot divulge the identity of my source in Licensing; I was
specifically asked not to. Nor, for obvious reasons, can I discuss his/her
position in the office, since it's a trivial task to get the name from there.
All I can say is that based on my and others' knowledge of this person's
identity, it is the least impeachable source of any I have _ever_ quoted
anywhere on this topic in the past twelve months.

And I also would like to point out that _anyone_ reading this can do
precisely what I did insofar as Licensing is concerned. Their number's
listed; just call Paramount Pictures and ask for Merchandising and Licensing.
Once there, I can't guarantee you'd speak to the same person I did, but if you
simply say you're interested in hearing a different viewpoint regarding
various Star Trek licensed materials and persons involved in same, they will
in all likelihood answer you. (I made no pretense in said phone call to be
anything other than an interested fan, so any one of you can do the same.)

>How do we (or you) know this person doesnt have their own problems and
>biases with respect to Mr Arnold, Roddenberry, or any number of other
>people.

I do not, absolutely. But while stretching the truth is entirely possible,
I see no reason why Licensing should tell me outright falsehoods; and if
Licensing said, with respect to _Vendetta_, that the meeting Richard refers
to in his interview simply _did not exist_, then I believe that cannot be
legitimately questioned.

>Would they have been so impartial in your ears if they had backed
>ARnold's version of things to the hilt; or would you have been raising
>arguments about the logic of their claims because they conflicted with
>Peter David's ?

The former. On my honor. If they had said "yes, the President of Licensing
went over to talk to Gene about _Vendetta_", I'd have publicized it and
publicly wondered why on earth Peter David was telling outright lies. But
they didn't say that.

>On a purely practical matter, let's face it, their
>responsibility is to maintain good relations with the licenseees: no
>licensees and no products, no revenue and no jobs.

By the same argument, their responsibility is to remain on good terms with
the Star Trek offices: no help from the offices, no contracts, no licensees,
no products, no revenue, and no jobs.

It goes both ways; and that's why I considered them a more neutral source
than either Peter or Richard.

>Both Arnold and
>Roddenberry are potential and real impediments to maximizing those
>factors and I doubt they have any interest in maintaining the conceptual
>integrity of ST;

You don't believe Richard or Gene have any interest in the conceptual integrity
of Trek? Hmm. Sounds like you've just called Richard a liar yourself; Richard
repeatedly claims otherwise (and I happen to believe him there).

>>The answers I got were frightening. Almost to a word, they agreed
>>near-perfectly with the authors' assertions and allegations where any
>>evidence
>>existed at all. For example [and for the record, I did not record these
>>conversations; it was over the phone, and it's impolite if not blatantly
>>illegal to tape things like that, so this is from memory and a few hastily
>>written notes]:

> How convenient; it's not impolite or illegal if you ask first. Did you
>ask ?

No. Nor did I have any means for recording the call in any case, so the
question is moot.

>>--Richard claims that he has no authority and never did. From a strict
>>standpoint, that is correct; Gene had to sign all the memos that Richard
>>typed up, and there's no evidence (and, indeed, no assertions that I know of)
>>that anyone but Gene signed them. However, Gene _doesn't read_ all the novels
>>and the comics and the etc. that come into the Star Trek offices: he *can't*,
>>there isn't enough time. So all Gene knows about the novels is what Richard
>>tells him, and so, since Richard controls Gene's flow of information, he had
>>_de facto_ authority. (Note the word "HAD" there; I'll get back to that.)

> before you make this claim,

I am not the one making said claim here; the above is a close paraphrase from
Licensing.

>you have to prove that there were no other
>paths (especially of appeal) for information to come to Roddenberry.

Clearly there _was_ a path of _appeal_, given the evidence cited about _Ghost-
Walker_. But in the normal day-to-day operations, Licensing made no mention
of any other path of information to Gene with respect to licensed materials;
and I asked.

>Otherwise
>there is no authority, only influence at most. And you aure make him out
>to be an idiot, being led around by Arnold and not knowing or realizing it.

Not an idiot; merely preoccupied with many other matters and ill health.
Star Trek is now such a huge product that Gene simply cannot do everything
himself; that's almost indisputable. It simply appears from the facts at
hand that he's placing responsibility in the wrong person, in this case.
(I have heard no such complaints ever raised about Susan Sackett, who's been
involved with Gene even longer; or Michael Piller, who basically runs TNG.
None.)

>>--Richard claims that the publication of _Vendetta_ happened against Gene's
>>will, and only because the President of Licensing and a few others came into
>>Gene's office and begged Gene to let it go through. According to the
>>Licensing office, that is "a complete load of bull". No meeting ever took
>>place; what happened is that after the manuscript had been sent up to Richard
>>for several weeks, and no response was forthcoming, Licensing got tired of
>>waiting, sent out their own changes, slapped on a disclaimer, and sent the
>>book through. In other words, Peter's story of events is absolutely correct,
>>and Richard's is absolutely false.

> Nope, according to *one unidentified person in Licensing who may or may not
>have the whole and/or true story* that is what happended.

The person does. I cannot prove it, owing to confidentiality; but he/she,
based on his/her position, had the complete story.

>Hence *we* are no
>closer to knowing the facts of the matter than before; only the story *you*
>choose to believe. Authority seems to rest, in your ears, with those who
>confirm your preferences.

No; with those who are in my opinion closer to neutral than any other source.
Can you seriously claim that the Licensing Office _at Paramount Pictures_ is
going to go out of their way to ruin a fellow employee in favor of a few
authors who aren't nearly as well known? That makes no sense, friend.

>>[In a similar vein...while I didn't have time to ask Richard about another
>>book, _Ghost-Walker_, similar things occurred there, according to Licensing.
>>The story I'd been told was that after multiple brusque rejections, Licensing
>>called up Gene himself and asked Gene to read it over the weekend. Gene did
>>so, and came back with a list of very minor changes and the opinion that
>>apart from that, this was one of the better Trek novels he'd read in recent
>>times.
>>If Richard's assertion that Gene reads all the novels and often disputes
>>Richard's suggestions were correct, that scenario could not possibly take
>>place. Licensing confirmed that it took place, exactly as stated above.]

> You have consistently and now formally elevated this source into the offical
>position and spokesperson for Licensing, apprarently, and all by yourself.

And it's merited.

>In
>any case, it's possible the truth lies somewhere in between, Roddenberry might
>skim or review material and still rely on notes or recommendations from Arnold
>who has time to deal with the material in depth. When another party asks for
>a more personal, in-depth evaluation he might then do so to resolve the
>dispute aming underlings. There is no reason he has to either agree with or
>reject Arnold's advice automatically either initially or in the final result.

That last statement is certainly true; but how is he going to determine what
advice to accept or reject, if all he knows about a particular novel is what's
being told to him by Richard? (And again, that is Licensing's word on the
situation.)

>>--Licensing also pointed out to me that Gene is often taking the heat for
>>these restrictions, when in the experience of the person I spoke to, Gene was
>>always very kind, very understanding, and always looking for a way to make a
>>story work rather than flatly denying it, whenever he dealt directly with
>>licensed materials. The only thing Gene can be legitimately accused of in
>>this issue, Licensing said, is something of a poor choice in assistants.

> There is also the good cop/bad cop scenario, or the Bush/Sununu one.

Er...so putting Richard in Sununu's shoes is supposed to _help_ his image?
:-)

>The
>underling takes the heat for the negative bad stuff while the boss is able
>to sit above the petty fray and look sweet and nice. I dont know if this
>is the case but neither do you know exactly what is the relationship
>between all the parties, you only assume what fits your preferences.

I only _assume_ what I have been _told_ by parties I believe to be honest and
knowledgeable, Jeff. You've accused me of bias; I'm afraid I have to suggest
that you're doing precisely the same thing.

>>I believe that's about all I have to say. (I may think of other things as the
>>days go by, or as more facts come my way; if so, rest assured you'll know.)
>>Followups, general commentary, and rebuttal are of course completely welcome.

> That's nice to hear but I will wait and see how 'welcome' they are treated.

You raised many valid points, Jeff, and ones that are very worthy of both
discussion and clarification on my part. Yes, in fact, this was welcome
(although given our past encounters, I must suspect that you didn't intend it
to be such).

>>However, in light of what I have been told by
>>Licensing, a neutral party, and in light of my own reasoning in other
>>matters, I cannot help but feel as though I was not being told the truth.

> No neutral party,

As close as anyone is _ever_ likely to be.

>no firm facts, a biased observer; it's not surprising
>that your 'logic' came up stacked against believing Mr Arnold's version
>of things. Not that that makes them correct, it's just that yours aren't
>any more so.

My views; no. The information I got from Licensing; yes. If you want to call
my source at Licensing a liar, or to claim that I deliberately misinterpreted
said spokesbeing's words, I cannot respond.

(Incidentally, it's worth noting that Richard, on many different occasions,
both in the interview and in his rebuttal to the net, prefaced statements with
"as Merchandising and Licensing can tell you". Well, I asked Merchandising and
Licensing to tell me; and they told me something different. What am I to make
of that?)

>> Tim Lynch

> Investigator

Yes.

> Prosecutor

In past...and in part, at present.

> Judge
> Jury

No. Either implies authority and power I don't possess.

Thank you for your response, Jeff. I cannot say that I considered it in
good faith, based on your past attacks on me, but it raised valid points.

[Jeff Sicherman]

Oh well, here I am responding to a response to my response. That habit which
Imost accuse Mr Lynch of being obsessional about. Well, I never said that I
wasn't a hypocrite.

I have tried to keep the quoted material to first and second order stuff
to keep volume down; I expect there may be some loss of context. On the
other hand, not a lot of you will be awake at the end anyway ...

In article <1991Sep11....@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>sich...@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>In article <1991Sep10.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>

[ deleted some preliminaries ]

>> While Mr Lynch's efforts are appreciated I doubt this has really resolved
>>anything because he clearly, by his past and present statements, did not enter
>>this endeavor as an impartial reporter and his following statements and in
>>particular the conclusions reveal his bias and preconceptions.
>
>Perhaps so. If, having read the interview, you feel that the questions
>themselves showed bias, please inform me; I tried my absolute best to keep
>them neutral. I will answer your objections to my conclusions to the best of
>my ability.

Didnt find much bias in the questioning. On the other hand, as another
responder pointed out, it wasn't very challenging either. It would have been
better if you had questioned the responses more, either then or later. That
would have made the interview more confrontational, however, and much less
pleasant. Of course Mr Arnold invited it so ... It does seem rather unfair
to attribute an unnamed sourse with no proff of veracity or accuracy as the
final authority without giving Mr Arnold a chance to respond before you
draw conclusions and question his veracity.

>
>(As for past statements...they are, by their nature, in the past. I'm not the
>same person I was twelve months ago, any more than anyone else is.)
>

On the other hand, you're hardly a completely different person either,
unless you're related to Shirley McLaine.

>>While I have
>>no doubt whatsoever that Mr Lynch has quoted Richard Arnold coreectly and
>>probably completely as possible, there is no evidence that anything that is
>>presented here or in the transcripts of the interview are *fact*. They are
>>all merely claims by one interested party or another about what may or may
>>not have happened.
>
>To a certain extent, this cannot be disputed. My assumption that the person
>I spoke to in Licensing was both knowledgeable and disinterested was clearly
>marked as an assumption. If you choose to believe that my source in Licensing
>was simply trying to shoot Richard down, then it's only natural that you'll
>believe my argument falls apart. Based on knowledge surrounding the person
>I spoke to (which, due to confidentiality, I cannot reveal; I realize this
>will only make you claim more strenuously that I'm somehow being fraudulent,
>but I'd like to retain the trust of people I speak to), however, I have no
>doubts whatsoever as to the person's ability to have known this, and their
>neutrality.

The crux of the matter about your conclusions. We are expected to take your
opinions about this persons credulity and consider his/her statements as fact.
Sorry, s/he is just another point-of-view with another limited set of facts
and observations and another set of interests and preferences and biases. I
dont think for a moment that *you* are being fraudulent, or even doubt there
is any reason or possibility of this unnamed source as being so. I just think
that there is probably too much unjustified trust their story without any
corroboration and penalty for perjury and a failure to consider the potential
imperfections of this persons possessions of fact.

>
>>I have had a few email exchanges with Mr
>>Lynch, mostly in response to my indirect comments about obsessional
>>review(er)s and strongly suspect I will engender another one as a result of
>>this posting.
>
>No. You raise a number of valid questions here that should be discussed in
>public; hence, I'll keep it there for the time being.
>

The restraint is admired and unexpected and probably undeserved.

>>hence, I have and admit somewhat of a bias; Mr Lynch failed to deal with his
>>and hence his objectivity and conclusions must be viewed in that light.
>
>This is a valid argument. I believe that I kept my own personal feelings out
>of this matter as much as possible immediately before, during, and immediately
>after the interview occurred last week. If you do not believe I tried hard
>enough, or do not believe I succeeded, I have no way to answer your objections.
>

I agree that you kept your bias largely out of the interview. It mainly
surfaced when you made the decision as to who and what to believe afterward
without questioning and following up with all parties and verifying
*everyones's* accuracy.

>
>> Oh, you mean he had a reason and an agenda for consenting to the interview ?
>>And you didn't have one for conducting it ?
>
>Not a conscious one, no, beyond hearing the other side of the story. Jeff, I
>must, regrettably, ask why you're taking me to task for listening to the other
>side of the story when in past situations you've taken me to task for NOT doing
>so.

I am not taking you to task for listening to both sides. I just dont accept
that you entered this endeavor as a totally disinterested observor and that
your readiness to accept the 'facts' from Licensing without challenge or
response (from Arnold) betrays your bias; you accepted them so readily
because they fit your sympathies and preconceptions.

>
>And it should also be noted that although I may have had a subconscious
>"agenda" for conducting this interview, I did not go out of my way to bring
>this about. Richard did.

This is true, though you made an effort to avail yourself of the opportunity.
On the other hand, your previous attacks on him were not exactly casual and
incidental either; why should his defense be anything less ?

>
>>Why is this an accusation and why
>>should it be evidence of lack of sincerity. He has a point-of-view and a right
>>to defend it has strenuously as I have heard you defend yours.
>
>False friendship (which my statement about "I like you because I think I can
>use you") is in my own mindset evidence of lack of sincerity, no matter who
>I'm dealing with or in what context. And you're perfectly right in saying that
>Richard has a right to defend his point of view. I did not deny that. I
>believe, however, that there is a difference between putting the facts in the
>best light and stating things which run contrary to the facts. (I know, you
>don't believe the statements from Licensing can be considered fact. That's
>a point of contention we won't be able to settle.)

I don't see evidence of friendship on his part. Extreme pleasantry in the
face of a past-proven hostile party at best. But then guys in these kind of
jobs are schooled and practiced in the smooth attitude even in the face of
past enemies; it's part of the business because the money talks loudest.
maybe two-faced perhaps but not entirely different from your presentation
in view of your past history on the subject matter: you both just chose to
but past hearsay and positions aside for the moment and for the sake of a
non-hostile exchange.

>> Oh good for you; I'm sure he'll sleep much better now.
>
>[Mild annoyance ahead]
>
>So...let's see. You object when I claim Richard's doing wrong, you object
>that I'm not being neutral, but you also object when I state that I was
>*wrong* about him in at least one instance, and publicly admit it. Exactly
>what must I do to make you happy, sir?
>
>[Mild annoyance off]

Nothing I suspect (my bias again). But it seemed a case of being damned by
faint praise.

>> Whatever, the validity of the reasoning, Mr Lynch is sorely in need of
>>real facts; he has only the claims and assertions of the interested parties
>>which he is free to pick and choose among.
>
>Accepted. But if you accept the reasoning as valid, I do not see how bias can
>be claimed. If you can show someplace in this chain of reasoning where I
>allowed my personal feelings to overwhelm logic, please show them to me.
>

Your bias didnt surface in your logic, it manifested itself in the choice of
what to accept and present as the axioms for you logic. You selected among the
various stories and parties surveyed and picked your preferred 'facts'.

[ deleted discussion about lying potential since we seem to agree ]

>>>**If, on the other hand, Richard is telling the truth, then Peter, Margaret,
>>>and all the others are deliberately hounding an innocent man. Now, it makes
>>>no sense that this should be the case--because if their problems really ARE
>>>with Gene, and they know this, then they have no _reason_ to want to force
>>>Richard from his position, because the orders would still be coming from Gene
>>>and nothing would improve for them.
>
>>And it can't possibly be that these potentially temperamental artistic people
>>(characterization warning) are all letting of emotional steam and seeking to
>>justify there position and actions. Since when should anyone be expected to
>>act in a cool, emotionless manner when their egos are at stake.
>
>Cool and emotionless? Certainly not--and if you've ever seen Peter, Margaret,
>etc., you'd know that they generally do _not_ discuss Richard in such a
>manner.

Guess I should have issued a sarcasm warning but I generally consider them
redundant for my postings ]

>
>However, they are presumably _thinking_, _rational_ beings, and I find it
>completely implausible that not one of them, but ALL of them, have decided to
>target an innocent man and NOT realized that it would do them no good in the
>long run. That implies a level of idiocy far above normal specifications.
>

They may have reached the point where they believed there was nothing to lose
anymore and that emotional satisfaction, of whatever productivity, was the only
thing left to be gotten out of the matter. Or maybe they just have a shorter
fuse than others involved in the process and do not deal in that long a run.

>>>**Thus, it would seem that, although some statements made by the authors
>>>could certainly be presented from a viewpoint that puts them in the best
>>>possible light, there is at least some substance to their claims.
>
>>And there is no substance to Mr Arnolds ? How does this leave things any more
>>clear than before ?
>
>Because Richard made a flat assertion which, by the chain of reasoning
>outlined above, does not hold together logically. He may certainly not be
>consciously lying (and I again withdraw my claim that he is doing so), but
>at the very least, he's fooling himself into believing this.

We are back at the point of not being able to ascertain fact independent
of what Mr Lynch considers an unimpeachable source: Licensing. Best leave it
at this and just consider it an unresolvable matter.

>
>[my example about novels in RA's office deleted; go back to either of the two
>referenced articles to see it]
>
>> Ah, the conspiracy theory. Take an unexplained fact and make it the basis
>>of a rumor and plot.
>
>I suggested there _may_ be something to it. Nothing more. I readily admit
>that this is the weakest part of anything I've said here.
>

How modest :-) But its inclusion does indicate a certain readiness to admit
the weakest of negatives and speculation about Mr Arnold.

[ deleted item about planted questioners since we seem to agree there's
plenty of room for misunderstanding and suspicion on both Arnold's and Peter's
side ]

>>>Many of the allegations are ones I cannot comment on one way or the
>>>other--I've been assured by Peter, for example, that many of Richard's claims
>>>are false, but with no evidence apart from the claims of one of the
>>>principals, I don't think I can make any sort of real claim. *However*,
>>>there are a few assertions Richard makes which I can make very strong
>>>comments on.
>
>> Why is it each time you finally admit you haven't the facts, you end up
>>doubting Arnold and believing David ?
>
>I did not say above that I believed either one in many of the assertions and
>counter-assertions I've been told. I said that since all I've been told is
>information given by one of the principals, I cannot make any firm statement
>one way or the other. The assertions which I can comment on, that I refer to
>above, are ones which I checked with Licensing, which source I again
>absolutely vouch for.
>

Again. You vouch for their believability, not their accuracy. Not at all
the same thing.

>> Why should we believe an unattributed source in the Licensing office ?
>
>Why should you believe "a top-level White House aide" quoted in a newspaper?
>Same questions apply.

I don't as a rule. I assume *everyone* has an axe to grind; I grind my own
quite frequently. The question is why do you believe them so unquestioningly
and why should we accpet your belief as proof of anything (referring to the
licensing office here, not top-level White House aides; I don't expect that
anyone, even Tim, believes *them*). On the other hand, this whole thing is
getting kind of existential. To inject a little *real* ST back into this
thing, I quote (parphrase?) Spock [sorry dont remember the episode, Tim will
have to fill it in in his *next* response ]: "On the contrary, I do trust you,
but only so far" (wasn't it the episode where the Enterprise goes back in
time'and inadvertently gets seen as a UFO and has to capture the pilot of a
scout plane? )

>
>Again, I cannot divulge the identity of my source in Licensing; I was
>specifically asked not to. Nor, for obvious reasons, can I discuss his/her
>position in the office, since it's a trivial task to get the name from there.
>All I can say is that based on my and others' knowledge of this person's
>identity, it is the least impeachable source of any I have _ever_ quoted
>anywhere on this topic in the past twelve months.

[ Sarcasm alert ]

Oh gee, well this ought to be enough for me or gosh just anybody.
Give me a break, I watched the Watergate and Iran-Contra hearings
and heard some really sincere people with 'obviously' no reason to
lie or mislead *anyone*. And you expect me to take this anonymous
(to us) stuff at face value ...

{ Sarcasm toned down; I never turn it off ]

>
>And I also would like to point out that _anyone_ reading this can do
>precisely what I did insofar as Licensing is concerned. Their number's
>listed; just call Paramount Pictures and ask for Merchandising and Licensing.
>Once there, I can't guarantee you'd speak to the same person I did, but if you
>simply say you're interested in hearing a different viewpoint regarding
>various Star Trek licensed materials and persons involved in same, they will
>in all likelihood answer you. (I made no pretense in said phone call to be
>anything other than an interested fan, so any one of you can do the same.)
>

Well for you conspiracy buffs, here's another question. Why would anyone
in such a position or place speak to an arbitrary caller with such candidness
about internal company matters *unless* one had an axe to grind with one or
more of the participants. In the jobs where I come from, one does not discuss
internal, proprietary matters as a matter of policy and the violations of such
policy come when someone has a personal or political motive for getting at the
target of the (mis)information.

>>How do we (or you) know this person doesnt have their own problems and
>>biases with respect to Mr Arnold, Roddenberry, or any number of other
>>people.
>
>I do not, absolutely. But while stretching the truth is entirely possible,
>I see no reason why Licensing should tell me outright falsehoods; and if
>Licensing said, with respect to _Vendetta_, that the meeting Richard refers
>to in his interview simply _did not exist_, then I believe that cannot be
>legitimately questioned.

Sigh. Would you like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn ?

>
>>Would they have been so impartial in your ears if they had backed
>>ARnold's version of things to the hilt; or would you have been raising
>>arguments about the logic of their claims because they conflicted with
>>Peter David's ?
>
>The former. On my honor. If they had said "yes, the President of Licensing
>went over to talk to Gene about _Vendetta_", I'd have publicized it and
>publicly wondered why on earth Peter David was telling outright lies. But
>they didn't say that.
>

Motives aside. How do you know that your source is even in possession of
the whole and complete truth. I have had my share of bosses that saw fit not
to tell me everything, especially about matters and meetings with people from
outside our department and outside my need to know.

>>On a purely practical matter, let's face it, their
>>responsibility is to maintain good relations with the licenseees: no
>>licensees and no products, no revenue and no jobs.
>
>By the same argument, their responsibility is to remain on good terms with
>the Star Trek offices: no help from the offices, no contracts, no licensees,
>no products, no revenue, and no jobs.

well yes, but who really has the final authority ? And who pays the bills
and salaries for Licensing ? *not* GR and RA.

>
>It goes both ways; and that's why I considered them a more neutral source
>than either Peter or Richard.

ore neutral, not absolutely neutral and not necessarily in possession of
all the facts on all matters at question.

>
>>Both Arnold and
>>Roddenberry are potential and real impediments to maximizing those
>>factors and I doubt they have any interest in maintaining the conceptual
>>integrity of ST;
>
>You don't believe Richard or Gene have any interest in the conceptual integrity
>of Trek? Hmm. Sounds like you've just called Richard a liar yourself; Richard
>repeatedly claims otherwise (and I happen to believe him there).

MY faulty syntax here; I meant They to refer to Licensing in the context of
the whole statement, not to GR and RA who obviously *do* have that mission.

[ dropped the issue of recording the Licensing exchange; no reason to
disbelieve Mr Lynchs recounting of the information given to him ]

I beleive, perhaps incorrectly, that the complainst about Richard ARnold
predate Mr Roddenberry'srecent ill health so we must discount this argument
somewhat. It's also not obvious to anyone here what he does spend his time
on and what he considers a most important expenditure of said time. It's
entirely reasonable to assume, since (as RA says; or do you discount this
too?) that the shows and movies are the real source of money, fans (as
distinct from fanatics), and the ultimate fate of ST and Gene Roddenberry's
reputation, that he sees it as a more important and productive consumer of
his attention and the other licensing matters as peanuts, noise, and sources
of more potential problems than they're worth and appealing to a very small
part of the audience. hence he delegates it to someone he considers competent
to handle it most of the time and only (sees the need to) get involved to
resolve the disputes among the various parties when they reach a certain level
of noise and annoyance.

As to complaints about any other people in the prouduction end, well as
RA points out, only the real die-hard fans care about the licensed stuff
for the most part and they are a tiny fraction of the audience. Plus, the
responsibility for the on-screen stuff is diffused among many organizations
and people so there's no clear target (other than GR himself) for anyone
to focus an attack on like there is with the licensed material.

>
>>>--Richard claims that the publication of _Vendetta_ happened against Gene's
>>>will, and only because the President of Licensing and a few others came into
>>>Gene's office and begged Gene to let it go through. According to the
>>>Licensing office, that is "a complete load of bull". No meeting ever took
>>>place; what happened is that after the manuscript had been sent up to Richard
>>>for several weeks, and no response was forthcoming, Licensing got tired of
>>>waiting, sent out their own changes, slapped on a disclaimer, and sent the
>>>book through. In other words, Peter's story of events is absolutely correct,
>>>and Richard's is absolutely false.
>
>> Nope, according to *one unidentified person in Licensing who may or may not
>>have the whole and/or true story* that is what happended.
>
>The person does. I cannot prove it, owing to confidentiality; but he/she,
>based on his/her position, had the complete story.

hearsay.

>
>>Hence *we* are no
>>closer to knowing the facts of the matter than before; only the story *you*
>>choose to believe. Authority seems to rest, in your ears, with those who
>>confirm your preferences.
>
>No; with those who are in my opinion closer to neutral than any other source.
>Can you seriously claim that the Licensing Office _at Paramount Pictures_ is
>going to go out of their way to ruin a fellow employee in favor of a few
>authors who aren't nearly as well known? That makes no sense, friend.
>

Wait a second, who's employee is RA and who does he really report to ?
And if you dont believe there can be intracompany backbiting and battles
over turf and personality you live in a stranger and more utopian organization
than I have ever been in. Make as lot of *potential* sense to me; as I said
before, there is a natural battle for turf and authority over their
respective roles in the licensing activity; plenty of room for disagreement and
worse conflicts resulting from that.

>>>[In a similar vein...while I didn't have time to ask Richard about another
>>>book, _Ghost-Walker_, similar things occurred there, according to Licensing.
>>>The story I'd been told was that after multiple brusque rejections, Licensing
>>>called up Gene himself and asked Gene to read it over the weekend. Gene did
>>>so, and came back with a list of very minor changes and the opinion that
>>>apart from that, this was one of the better Trek novels he'd read in recent
>>>times.
>>>If Richard's assertion that Gene reads all the novels and often disputes
>>>Richard's suggestions were correct, that scenario could not possibly take
>>>place. Licensing confirmed that it took place, exactly as stated above.]
>
>> You have consistently and now formally elevated this source into the offical
>>position and spokesperson for Licensing, apprarently, and all by yourself.
>
>And it's merited.
>

How about two bridges ?

>>In
>>any case, it's possible the truth lies somewhere in between, Roddenberry might
>>skim or review material and still rely on notes or recommendations from Arnold
>>who has time to deal with the material in depth. When another party asks for
>>a more personal, in-depth evaluation he might then do so to resolve the
>>dispute aming underlings. There is no reason he has to either agree with or
>>reject Arnold's advice automatically either initially or in the final result.
>
>That last statement is certainly true; but how is he going to determine what
>advice to accept or reject, if all he knows about a particular novel is what's
>being told to him by Richard? (And again, that is Licensing's word on the
>situation.)

See previous arguments about what's worthy of his (GR's) time and attention.
You havent really resolved anything; the fact remains it's perfectly possible
for Gr to have input on everything without going into great depth on any of
these relatively unimportant matters until it's politically necessary. Sorry,
but delegation is the name of the game when time is in limited supply. The
fact is RA's still there so he's obviously doing the job that is expected
of him or GR or Paramount certainly would have enough authority and reason
to remove him if he weren't.

>
>>>--Licensing also pointed out to me that Gene is often taking the heat for
>>>these restrictions, when in the experience of the person I spoke to, Gene was
>>>always very kind, very understanding, and always looking for a way to make a
>>>story work rather than flatly denying it, whenever he dealt directly with
>>>licensed materials. The only thing Gene can be legitimately accused of in
>>>this issue, Licensing said, is something of a poor choice in assistants.
>
>> There is also the good cop/bad cop scenario, or the Bush/Sununu one.
>
>Er...so putting Richard in Sununu's shoes is supposed to _help_ his image?
>:-)
>

Not necessarily, but it's just to point out that those higher up can be
perfectly satisfied with what he's doing and quite content to let *him* take
the heat and attention for the negatives and distract attention from other
matters. Especially as it gives those annoying fan(atics) some focus for
their otherwise overindulged attention to ST matters.

>>The
>>underling takes the heat for the negative bad stuff while the boss is able
>>to sit above the petty fray and look sweet and nice. I dont know if this
>>is the case but neither do you know exactly what is the relationship
>>between all the parties, you only assume what fits your preferences.
>
>I only _assume_ what I have been _told_ by parties I believe to be honest and
>knowledgeable, Jeff. You've accused me of bias; I'm afraid I have to suggest
>that you're doing precisely the same thing.
>

Of course, but I admit mine. I just dont have it towards the parties that
are the subject of this Geraldo Rivera-esque investigation. Or, conversely,
I consider them all potential sources of half-, un-, or mis-truths and that
there is no way for you, me, or anyone else outside of the processes to
really sort them out with the access and resources available. Therefore, the
rational (logical?) thing to do is believe nobody since there's nothing that
we can really do no matter who we believe anyway; except perhaps spread
innuendo and accusations.

>>>I believe that's about all I have to say. (I may think of other things as the
>>>days go by, or as more facts come my way; if so, rest assured you'll know.)
>>>Followups, general commentary, and rebuttal are of course completely welcome.
>
>> That's nice to hear but I will wait and see how 'welcome' they are treated.
>
>You raised many valid points, Jeff, and ones that are very worthy of both
>discussion and clarification on my part. Yes, in fact, this was welcome
>(although given our past encounters, I must suspect that you didn't intend it
>to be such).

I must admit I am surprised if not shgocked at the mildness of the response.
I guess married life has really settled you down; or redirected your hormones
or something :-)

>
>>>However, in light of what I have been told by
>>>Licensing, a neutral party, and in light of my own reasoning in other
>>>matters, I cannot help but feel as though I was not being told the truth.
>
>> No neutral party,
>
>As close as anyone is _ever_ likely to be.

maybe, but doubtful to my cynical mind. Ther may be no such entity.

>
>>no firm facts, a biased observer; it's not surprising
>>that your 'logic' came up stacked against believing Mr Arnold's version
>>of things. Not that that makes them correct, it's just that yours aren't
>>any more so.
>
>My views; no. The information I got from Licensing; yes. If you want to call
>my source at Licensing a liar, or to claim that I deliberately misinterpreted
>said spokesbeing's words, I cannot respond.

It's all hearsay and unverifiable. Everybody can be honest and incomplete or
wrong and there's no reason to really choose any one over the other excpet for
personal preference and consistency with preconceptions.

>
>(Incidentally, it's worth noting that Richard, on many different occasions,
>both in the interview and in his rebuttal to the net, prefaced statements with
>"as Merchandising and Licensing can tell you". Well, I asked Merchandising and
>Licensing to tell me; and they told me something different. What am I to make
>of that?)

How do you, we, or anybody know that your source is an official spokesperson
for Licensing or that such a person would tell the whole, accurate truth or
even be in possession of it ? And why would Mr Arnold make such statements if
he knew them to be false and then invite you to check up on them with Licensing
if he knew or expected them to be challenged or contradicted on a factual basis
or is foolishness and stupidity another attribute you are prepared to ascribe
to him ? it's equally believable that he saw them as true and that Licensing
has knowledge that is otherwise but is no less true *and* complete or that
someone there is lying. What effort did you make to verify *their* story ?
I'm sorry, but this is not a true reporters process, you stopped when you
got the story you preferred, not the one you could verify.

>Thank you for your response, Jeff. I cannot say that I considered it in
>good faith, based on your past attacks on me, but it raised valid points.
>

probably the best that I can manage, given my biases and limitations.

[Timothy W. Lynch]

sich...@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

I will attempt to keep quoted context to the minimum necessary; this *is*
getting rather lengthy.

[attributions: odd numbers of >'s are Jeff, even are me]

> Didnt find much bias in the questioning. On the other hand, as another
>responder pointed out, it wasn't very challenging either.

It was very deliberately designed to be so. I didn't go in there to get
anybody angry or to look like Sam Donaldson; I went in to hear another side of
the story. Calling Licensing was an afterthought three days later.

>It does seem rather unfair
>to attribute an unnamed sourse with no proff of veracity or accuracy as the
>final authority without giving Mr Arnold a chance to respond before you
>draw conclusions and question his veracity.

Richard knows how to get in touch both with the net and with me. If he wants
to refute these statements from Licensing, he can do it publicly, or he can
call me and tell me, and I will faithfully quote him.

[on the person I spoke to in Licensing as a valid source]

> The crux of the matter about your conclusions.

It most certainly is.

>We are expected to take your
>opinions about this persons credulity and consider his/her statements as fact.

Not as fact...but as the statements of someone who has, almost by definition,
*far*, *far* less of any axe to grind than either Richard or Peter, both of
whose views have been presented over the months in this forum. Based on my
knowledge of the source, yes, I do consider him/her virtually unimpeachable,
and in a position to have all the facts anyone but Gene or his attorney could
have. (No, I didn't speak to them. You want I should try? :-) )

I believe the rest of this zillion-line exchange is basically little details
stemming from this basic problem...and as such, I'm not certain there's any
reason to continue with it. I consider the source to be a far closer
approximation to the reality of the events taking place than either Peter or
Richard, and fully expected when I called up to get a story that matched each
version in some aspects but not others. To discover that Licensing's state-
ments matched those made by the authors in nearly _every_ detail, and Richard's
in few if any, was one of the bigger shocks I've had in quite some time.

You have cast doubts on the ability of my source to be accurate. I respect
that. I do not agree with it. Those reading my prior statements and this
exchange will have to make up their own mind. (However, I'd again like to
point out that both Licensing and Richard Arnold have listed numbers in the
Paramount directory; it's not difficult to speak with either party, and
then anyone who calls will perhaps have a slightly better means of making up
their own mind.)

> I am not taking you to task for listening to both sides. I just dont accept
>that you entered this endeavor as a totally disinterested observor

Disinterested? Absolutely not! One doesn't spend three hours sitting in a
man's office with a tape recorder unless one is interested in what that
person has to say, certainly.

>>Because Richard made a flat assertion which, by the chain of reasoning
>>outlined above, does not hold together logically. He may certainly not be
>>consciously lying (and I again withdraw my claim that he is doing so), but
>>at the very least, he's fooling himself into believing this.

> We are back at the point of not being able to ascertain fact independent
>of what Mr Lynch considers an unimpeachable source: Licensing. Best leave it
>at this and just consider it an unresolvable matter.

In this case, actually, Licensing isn't involved at all. I have only my own
reasoning to back this part up.

>>> Why is it each time you finally admit you haven't the facts, you end up
>>>doubting Arnold and believing David ?
>>
>>I did not say above that I believed either one in many of the assertions and
>>counter-assertions I've been told. I said that since all I've been told is
>>information given by one of the principals, I cannot make any firm statement
>>one way or the other. The assertions which I can comment on, that I refer to
>>above, are ones which I checked with Licensing, which source I again
>>absolutely vouch for.
>>
> Again. You vouch for their believability, not their accuracy. Not at all
>the same thing.

I vouch for both said source's ability to have access to the facts, and
lack of an axe to grind.

>>Again, I cannot divulge the identity of my source in Licensing; I was
>>specifically asked not to. Nor, for obvious reasons, can I discuss his/her
>>position in the office, since it's a trivial task to get the name from there.
>>All I can say is that based on my and others' knowledge of this person's
>>identity, it is the least impeachable source of any I have _ever_ quoted
>>anywhere on this topic in the past twelve months.

> [ Sarcasm alert ]

> Oh gee, well this ought to be enough for me or gosh just anybody.
>Give me a break, I watched the Watergate and Iran-Contra hearings
>and heard some really sincere people with 'obviously' no reason to
>lie or mislead *anyone*.

Not any of the hearings I've seen. Those testifying were under direct
questioning about _their own involvement_. My source in Licensing wasn't
being so questioned.

> Well for you conspiracy buffs, here's another question. Why would anyone
>in such a position or place speak to an arbitrary caller with such candidness
>about internal company matters *unless* one had an axe to grind with one or
>more of the participants.

Because they are internal company matters that deal with fans' interest in the
products they sell, perhaps. I am currently boycotting any novel which I
know to have gone through normal Paramount channels; had Licensing told me
that this wasn't the case, I'd have changed that.

>>>On a purely practical matter, let's face it, their
>>>responsibility is to maintain good relations with the licenseees: no
>>>licensees and no products, no revenue and no jobs.
>>
>>By the same argument, their responsibility is to remain on good terms with
>>the Star Trek offices: no help from the offices, no contracts, no licensees,
>>no products, no revenue, and no jobs.

> well yes, but who really has the final authority ? And who pays the bills
>and salaries for Licensing ? *not* GR and RA.

The final authority for what in particular? No, GR and RA certainly don't
pay the salaries for Licensing, but neither do the licensees, so I don't see
that bias can be claimed for Licensing sources.

>>It goes both ways; and that's why I considered them a more neutral source
>>than either Peter or Richard.

>More neutral, not absolutely neutral and not necessarily in possession of

>all the facts on all matters at question.

Absolutely neutral doesn't exist. I have tried to get as many viewpoints
as possible, and I believe Licensing to be the best word of the three that
have been presented in any great detail. Make of it what you will.

> I beleive, perhaps incorrectly, that the complainst about Richard ARnold
>predate Mr Roddenberry'srecent ill health so we must discount this argument
>somewhat.

Correct; his illness has merely intensified his lack of involvement with the
novels, not created it.

>It's also not obvious to anyone here what he does spend his time
>on and what he considers a most important expenditure of said time. It's
>entirely reasonable to assume, since (as RA says; or do you discount this
>too?) that the shows and movies are the real source of money,

I have no doubt that they are most of the money.

>fans (as
>distinct from fanatics), and the ultimate fate of ST and Gene Roddenberry's
>reputation, that he sees it as a more important and productive consumer of
>his attention and the other licensing matters as peanuts, noise, and sources
>of more potential problems than they're worth and appealing to a very small
>part of the audience.

All completely plausible; I don't doubt this is the case.

>hence he delegates it to someone he considers competent
>to handle it most of the time and only (sees the need to) get involved to
>resolve the disputes among the various parties when they reach a certain level
>of noise and annoyance.

Right. I fail to see how this differs from the situation I have mentioned.
Lest you forget, Richard has claimed something very different; in the
interview, he states several times that Gene reads and commments on *every*
manuscript that comes in. Even before Licensing told me differently, I
didn't think that made any sense, given Gene's other duties.

> hearsay.

Correct. That doesn't make it necessarily false, or even inadmissible; Usenet
is hardly a court of law. (I'm not claiming he's _legally_ a problem; I'm
leaving impending legal action against RA to decide that.)

[Authority rests with...]

>>No; with those who are in my opinion closer to neutral than any other source.
>>Can you seriously claim that the Licensing Office _at Paramount Pictures_ is
>>going to go out of their way to ruin a fellow employee in favor of a few
>>authors who aren't nearly as well known? That makes no sense, friend.
>>
> Wait a second, who's employee is RA and who does he really report to ?

RA is an employee of Paramount Pictures; he reports to Gene. Thus, he and
those in Licensing share the ultimate source of their paychecks (though not
immediate superiors).

>You havent really resolved anything;

I don't recall claiming otherwise, to be honest. I certainly _believe_
the information I got from Licensing to be valid, but I don't expect anything
to be resolved one way or the other until Gene personally makes some sort of
statement [which is unlikely ever to occur], if then.

>the fact remains it's perfectly possible
>for Gr to have input on everything without going into great depth on any of
>these relatively unimportant matters until it's politically necessary.

Yes, it is. That's also in direct contradiction to Richard's claims.

>Sorry,
>but delegation is the name of the game when time is in limited supply. The
>fact is RA's still there so he's obviously doing the job that is expected
>of him or GR or Paramount certainly would have enough authority and reason
>to remove him if he weren't.

*If they realized it*, yes, they certainly would. It is my belief that Gene
doesn't realize what actions are being taken in his name. If and when he
ever does, we may find out something more tangible, especially if he ever
finds out about the growing backlash in fan circles against RA.

>I consider them all potential sources of half-, un-, or mis-truths and that
>there is no way for you, me, or anyone else outside of the processes to
>really sort them out with the access and resources available.

Not completely, no. That's true.

>Therefore, the
>rational (logical?) thing to do is believe nobody since there's nothing that
>we can really do no matter who we believe anyway; except perhaps spread
>innuendo and accusations.

In other words, we don't know anything, so we shouldn't discuss it or try to
find out more? I cannot accept that. If it weren't for the discussion of
these issues that had taken place several months ago, the interview itself
would never have taken place.

>>(Incidentally, it's worth noting that Richard, on many different occasions,
>>both in the interview and in his rebuttal to the net, prefaced statements
>>with "as Merchandising and Licensing can tell you". Well, I asked
>>Merchandising and Licensing to tell me; and they told me something different.
>>What am I to make of that?)

> How do you, we, or anybody know that your source is an official spokesperson
>for Licensing or that such a person would tell the whole, accurate truth or
>even be in possession of it ?

I doubt Licensing _has_ "official" spokespeople.

>And why would Mr Arnold make such statements if
>he knew them to be false and then invite you to check up on them with
>Licensing if he knew or expected them to be challenged or contradicted on a
>factual basis

I am as completely in the dark about this as you are.

>I'm sorry, but this is not a true reporters process, you stopped when you
>got the story you preferred, not the one you could verify.

If you can suggest other sources I might want to check with, I'll try my
best to verify it. (I did call other parties to check my source's
trustworthiness, but as you have said, have no way to check his/her accuracy.)

I think we two have basically covered all the ground we're going to in any
productive manner. Jeff, if you wish to continue this, I request that it
be continued in email.

Tim Lynch
Net Muckraker

[Rick Shepherd]

In <1991Sep11.0...@chinet.chi.il.us> dhar...@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:

I deleted most of it, but everyone should go back and read the original by Dan.

>"fan opinion" is not the monolithic thing you would have it be, nor
>is it half as important as you would like it. RA made the very effective
>point that they're in business to sell a tv show, not to produce
>million-dollar-plus boondoggles that only the fans love.

>In the end, I have to say, yes, *I* would like it if we could have
>Star Trek novels that are each author's personal vision of what Trek
>is and could be (much like "The Best of Trek"), but I have no major
>quarrel with the reasoning Arnold gives for disallowing the kinds of
>storylines that they do. "This is Trek" they say, and they have the
>right to say it. It's the frustrating result of Star Trek's own
>success ... which I'm sure we all are in favor of.

>--
>"In taking a state, the conqueror must arrange | Dan Hartung
>to commit all his cruelties at once .... Whoever | dhar...@chinet.chi.il.us
>acts otherwise, either through timidity or bad | Birch Grove Software
>counsel, must always stand with knife in hand." -- Machiavelli

You know, not just the above statement, but the whole article by Dan was very
refreshing to read in that he did not appear to have any personal stake in it,
so was not overly emotional. Nice to see something on the subject that is done
in a non flammatory mode, and designed to calm rather than incite.

Much as I would like to see novels done differently, they are within their
rights. In fact, in the threads here about the novels, many people have
complained about the lack of consistency, etc. (myself included) and ironically,
that is exactly what RA and GR are trying to accomplish.

Any way, I am not trying to berate anyone. I would like to encourage all of us
to cut EVERYONE some slack on this matter. (GR, RA, TL, PAD, etc.)

Remember the episode where Riker was accused of murder? Everyone *thought*
they were telling the truth! Yet they all disagreed! Perhaps we have this
here as well. And if not? Why bother promoting bad feelings about it in a
public forum? Instead, try communicating politely and in private either with
someone who is part of the problem or part of the solution, and leave everyone
else out of it.

I, for one, am going to follow my own advice here. This is the first, last,
and only POST I will do about this topic.

BTW, Tim, this is not to say that I disapprove of your doing the interview
and posting it. People were interested in it, requested it, etc. I just mean
to say that for me personally, I am not going to get involved in it in a way
that I think is inappropriate, and would recommend other 'spectators' to do
the same.

My best to all of you!

Rick
--
|Rick D. Shepherd |S.S. Freedom SSEDF project| "Fool me once, shame |
|PRC c/o Bldg 977 |Office = 1-713-282-6443 |on you. Fool me twice,|
|1150 Gemini |Lockheed ph sys=8-283-6443| prepare for doom!" |
|Houston TX 77058 |Home = 1-713-388-2907 | Klingon Proverb |

[A Rae]

tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

[large knife applied]

>It was very deliberately designed to be so. I didn't go in there to get
>anybody angry or to look like Sam Donaldson; I went in to hear another side of
>the story. Calling Licensing was an afterthought three days later.

[even bigger knife applied...]

Ummm... Sorry for my lack of knowledge (being British and all that) but
is Sam Donaldson the reporter who had a habit a yelling loudly at
innapropriate moments towards people who did not want to be asked
questions, thus putting in the position of having to answer so as not to
give the appearance of having "no comment"? I have vague memories of
Hunter S Thompson describing him yelling "What will next year be like?"
at Reagan just after Irangate or something...

Thanks to Tim for the interview, although it is biased. (Not by you,
Tim, I hasten to add). Tim did the right thing by basically transcribing
the interview verbatim off tape, and commenting seperately. However, it
is being read in a "hostile" atmosphere, and is biased by our own
expectations. We've all heard the wrangling over the past months, and
there have been very few pro-Arnold voices. It would be nice to have an
interview on the flipside of this debate, perhaps with Peter David, and
have some unbiased non-Trek people weigh them up. However, no one
outside Trekdom would probably be interested, and would just tell us to
"Get a life". Sigh.

I've read and enjoyed Peter's work - yes, he mucks about with canon a
bit (makes him a bit of a loose canon on deck I suppose - sorry), but
his books/comics have been some of the most enjoyable stuff I've read.
I'm sorry that this situation has arisen, and personalities have crashed
together so dramatically, not only with Peter but with other writers.
Some of what Richard said is probably sound, however. I write
occasionally (not professionally, thank heavens) and I know that if I'm
given a comment or a rewrite that I feel is inappropriate or just plain
wrong, I can get very angry. Often to the point where I lose all sense
of reason as to my story/article. I once sneaked around and deliberately
corrupted the disk with the changed version on it, and did it so late
that they had to use the earlier version (which was all I had backed
up... yeah, right).

I'm not saying that happened in this case - in fact, with three or more
writers complaining I find it unlikely - but Richard Arnold was correct
about writers being "difficult".

I'm rambling a little. I hope all the writers involved keep writing, if
not Trek then something. There is little enough talent in this world.

--
Angus G Rae ("Cathy" VoiceMail) | JANET: a...@uk.ac.ed.castle
c/o Archie Howitt, Room 1508, | ARPA: a...@castle.ed.ac.uk
JCMB, King's Buildings, | "There is no childhood's end..."
Edinburgh |

[G. Host]

Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
Keywords:

> Article <rdshepherd.684688262@node_e88a> From: rdshe...@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (Rick Shepherd)

> In <1991Sep11.0...@chinet.chi.il.us> dhar...@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:

> I deleted most of it, but everyone should go back and read the original by Dan.

> Much as I would like to see novels done differently, they are within their

> rights. In fact, in the threads here about the novels, many people have
> complained about the lack of consistency, etc. (myself included) and ironically,
> that is exactly what RA and GR are trying to accomplish.

I think Richard Arnold is right.
I *NEVER* though I would say this.

About his article and Mr. Lynch's response calling him a liar.
I would not be suprised that if a court would consider to libel or slander
if Mr. Arnold choose to proecute it. Of course he wont because of the bad
publicity it would generate.

> Any way, I am not trying to berate anyone. I would like to encourage all of us
> to cut EVERYONE some slack on this matter. (GR, RA, TL, PAD, etc.)

> Remember the episode where Riker was accused of murder? Everyone *thought*
> they were telling the truth! Yet they all disagreed! Perhaps we have this
> here as well. And if not? Why bother promoting bad feelings about it in a
> public forum? Instead, try communicating politely and in private either with
> someone who is part of the problem or part of the solution, and leave everyone
> else out of it.

> I, for one, am going to follow my own advice here. This is the first, last,
> and only POST I will do about this topic.

I agree. I have had Mr. Arnold's name in my Kill file and only took it
out to read the interview. I would not even had known about it but
for the posting in rec.arts.sf.startrek.info.

> and only POST I will do about this topic.

I agree. Even when people are reasonable
It just shows you why that Picard's positions don't always work;
some people are unreasonable.

> BTW, Tim, this is not to say that I disapprove of your doing the interview
> and posting it. People were interested in it, requested it, etc. I just mean
> to say that for me personally, I am not going to get involved in it in a way
> that I think is inappropriate, and would recommend other 'spectators' to do
> the same.

I agree whole hartedly!

I know why so many novels were bothering me - well written but
they did not seem to be in the same Universe as Trek.
I have seen the in-jokes and in-insults and ignored them.
Next time I find an in-insult I will take the author off my
reading list - not just for trek but all books.

Too often the books are the author's digressions into their characters;
I realize Start Trek is a medium in which authors get recognized but
they should write the Star Trek Characters not their own characters or
themselves in a STAR TREK world (If they want me to pay for it).
--
Glenn Host - Senior Systems Analyst (gh...@ra.nrl.navy.mil)
NRL Code 5800, 4555 Overlook Ave.; Washington, DC 20375 (202) 767-2046
12307 Tigers Eye Court ; Reston, VA 22091 (703) 620-1141

[John A. Burns]

sich...@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

> Well, the problem I have with this defense is that you claim that you went
>in to hear his side of the story (which sounds sort of personal on your part)
>but then proceded to contact other parties and in fact act like a reporter by
>publishing things in a public forum. I think this justifies holding you to a
>standard of practice which such a person would exercise (though we cant enforce
>it of course) by cross-checking and giving people an opportunity to respond.

BS. A reporter is expected to write complete and objective stories because
it his professional obligation. Mr. Lynch has given us both information and
opinion because he thought we would be interested, not because it's his job.
He gave us a pretty complete description of the interview. He also looked
into Mr. Arnold's claims and disputed them, giving a fair description of
his sources, and warning us which part of his report (trustworthiness of
Licensing source, logical conclusions) was his opinion. I wouldn't take
everything everyone said at face value, but there's enough attribution to
take it seriously (especially as Mr. Lynch has put his credibility on the
line by reporting verifiable facts).

If you think that reporters for the New York Times accomplish any more
fairness than that you are extremely naive. Remember the smear article
on the woman who alleges that William Kennedy Smith raped her?
--
John A. Burns (bu...@thurifer.harvard.edu)

[Jeff Sicherman]

*my* last posting on the matter, since this makes us even (including Mr
Lynch's original commentary) and I hate not getting in the last word.

In article <1991Sep12....@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
[attributions: odd numbers of >'s are Tim, even are me]

>
>> Didnt find much bias in the questioning. On the other hand, as another
>>responder pointed out, it wasn't very challenging either.
>
>It was very deliberately designed to be so. I didn't go in there to get
>anybody angry or to look like Sam Donaldson; I went in to hear another side of
>the story. Calling Licensing was an afterthought three days later.
>
>>It does seem rather unfair
>>to attribute an unnamed sourse with no proff of veracity or accuracy as the
>>final authority without giving Mr Arnold a chance to respond before you
>>draw conclusions and question his veracity.
>
>Richard knows how to get in touch both with the net and with me. If he wants
>to refute these statements from Licensing, he can do it publicly, or he can
>call me and tell me, and I will faithfully quote him.

Well, the problem I have with this defense is that you claim that you went

in to hear his side of the story (which sounds sort of personal on your part)
but then proceded to contact other parties and in fact act like a reporter by
publishing things in a public forum. I think this justifies holding you to a
standard of practice which such a person would exercise (though we cant enforce
it of course) by cross-checking and giving people an opportunity to respond.

You sure dont pass up any opportunity to defend and respond to your statements;
why should RA have to take the initiative when *you* are the publisher ?

This seems like a reasonable defense of your source but it's all based on
your assumptions and 'logic' (which has no relation to facts; one can
construct logical scenarios on faulty assumptions and misrepresentations).
If you are going to present this person as a factual source, you have the
ethical obligation to check his/her story just like you checked others and
to give those accussed/challenged/contradicted the opportunity to defend
and respond. Instead, you cop out and tell us to make our own phone calls.
Really; if you're going to play reporter or muckraker or whatever, at least
do it right and completely; I think you're capable of it it maybe just the
motivation si lacking for some reason.

>> I am not taking you to task for listening to both sides. I just dont accept
>>that you entered this endeavor as a totally disinterested observor
>
>Disinterested? Absolutely not! One doesn't spend three hours sitting in a
>man's office with a tape recorder unless one is interested in what that
>person has to say, certainly.

Hey Tim, get a dictionary ! Don't always assume you know what
someone else is saying because your obviously higher intellect (being at
Caltech) tells you so. DISinterested means impartial, not lacking in
interest - that is UNinterested.

[ deleted repeat of Mr Lynch's defense of Licensing's veracity which
has been hashed over enough; remains a question of his confidence and
lack (maybe impossibility) of proof ]

>> [ Sarcasm alert ]
>
>> Oh gee, well this ought to be enough for me or gosh just anybody.
>>Give me a break, I watched the Watergate and Iran-Contra hearings
>>and heard some really sincere people with 'obviously' no reason to
>>lie or mislead *anyone*.
>
>Not any of the hearings I've seen. Those testifying were under direct
>questioning about _their own involvement_. My source in Licensing wasn't
>being so questioned.
>

Maybe they *should* have, As it is, you don't know if they had an axe
to grind over some past disagreements with RA (which 'sound' likely to have
occured). That is why you really *should* have checked whether there was
another side to the possibility of such with RA instead of just taking it
as the final word.

>> Well for you conspiracy buffs, here's another question. Why would anyone
>>in such a position or place speak to an arbitrary caller with such candidness
>>about internal company matters *unless* one had an axe to grind with one or
>>more of the participants.
>
>Because they are internal company matters that deal with fans' interest in the
>products they sell, perhaps. I am currently boycotting any novel which I
>know to have gone through normal Paramount channels; had Licensing told me
>that this wasn't the case, I'd have changed that.
>

Oh, weell gosh, I'm sure they were really concerned when they heard that
Tim Lynch was boycotting. Come on Tim, you're begging the question while
responding; why would/should this person have talked to you about internal
company business unless they had a motive; one which is unstated and may
or may not have credibility implications.

>>>>On a purely practical matter, let's face it, their
>>>>responsibility is to maintain good relations with the licenseees: no
>>>>licensees and no products, no revenue and no jobs.
>>>
>>>By the same argument, their responsibility is to remain on good terms with
>>>the Star Trek offices: no help from the offices, no contracts, no licensees,
>>>no products, no revenue, and no jobs.
>
>> well yes, but who really has the final authority ? And who pays the bills
>>and salaries for Licensing ? *not* GR and RA.
>
>The final authority for what in particular? No, GR and RA certainly don't
>pay the salaries for Licensing, but neither do the licensees, so I don't see
>that bias can be claimed for Licensing sources.

It would seem that they are a facilitator and lobby for the licensees from
the available information on the structure. They surely do not have the role
of restrictor or naysayer; that seems to rest with the RA and GR side of things
Hence, Licensing's size, power, money, and influence rest with maximizing
(within limits) the number of licensees and helping them to get their products
approved. That tells us who their sympathies are most likely to lie with and
whom their potential antagonists are. It does not prove that there is any real
conflict based upon these loyalties but where they are likely to fall if there
are such conflicts. You seem unwilling to examine the possibilities very far.

[ deleted more tit-for-tat on licensing, yawn ]

Read and comment does not indicate degree of either. He can examine only
those parts that are brought to his attention and get a broad overview without
violating the letter of RA's claims about the process. This may make RA a
little vague and disingenuous but that's par for the industry and he may have
some justification for confidentiality.

>
>> hearsay.
>
>Correct. That doesn't make it necessarily false, or even inadmissible; Usenet
>is hardly a court of law. (I'm not claiming he's _legally_ a problem; I'm
>leaving impending legal action against RA to decide that.)

Yeah, but you lack of impartiality shows through when you accept such without
checking and allowing rebuttal. And dont make sly remarks about 'impending
legal action' without at least characterizing it; a traffic ticket is also
'impending legal action'. That's a disgusting tactic.

>
>[Authority rests with...]
>
>>>No; with those who are in my opinion closer to neutral than any other source.
>>>Can you seriously claim that the Licensing Office _at Paramount Pictures_ is
>>>going to go out of their way to ruin a fellow employee in favor of a few
>>>authors who aren't nearly as well known? That makes no sense, friend.
>>>
>> Wait a second, who's employee is RA and who does he really report to ?
>
>RA is an employee of Paramount Pictures; he reports to Gene. Thus, he and
>those in Licensing share the ultimate source of their paychecks (though not
>immediate superiors).

Thanks for the clarification; but you do realize that this is no way
excludes thee possibility of competing goals and responsibilities and
rivalries over them or even just plain old personality conflicts (We do
know what those are, don't we ?)

>
>>the fact remains it's perfectly possible
>>for Gr to have input on everything without going into great depth on any of
>>these relatively unimportant matters until it's politically necessary.
>
>Yes, it is. That's also in direct contradiction to Richard's claims.
>
>>Sorry,
>>but delegation is the name of the game when time is in limited supply. The
>>fact is RA's still there so he's obviously doing the job that is expected
>>of him or GR or Paramount certainly would have enough authority and reason
>>to remove him if he weren't.
>
>*If they realized it*, yes, they certainly would. It is my belief that Gene
>doesn't realize what actions are being taken in his name. If and when he
>ever does, we may find out something more tangible, especially if he ever
>finds out about the growing backlash in fan circles against RA.
>

I'm really incredulous at the lack of intellectual respect that you have
for Gene Roddenberry. How many people does that attitude extend to (besides
me) or is it just general ? You don't think that he has enough potential
sources of information on such matters ? That RA holds him in a Svengali
like grip which only Tim Lynch and assorted other self-appointed St protectors
manage to see through ? I'm sorry, but I just can't but these theories and
assumptions. GR is experienced enough in the ways of Hollywood and its
denizens and hangers-on to be taken in so easily and has fought too long and
hard for his products to give up control to anyone he doesnt have confidence
in. I think that you are the real innocent party and the manipulated one here
Tim and you just won't admit it to yourself.

>>I consider them all potential sources of half-, un-, or mis-truths and that
>>there is no way for you, me, or anyone else outside of the processes to
>>really sort them out with the access and resources available.
>
>Not completely, no. That's true.
>
>>Therefore, the
>>rational (logical?) thing to do is believe nobody since there's nothing that
>>we can really do no matter who we believe anyway; except perhaps spread
>>innuendo and accusations.
>
>In other words, we don't know anything, so we shouldn't discuss it or try to
>find out more? I cannot accept that. If it weren't for the discussion of
>these issues that had taken place several months ago, the interview itself
>would never have taken place.

I would never suggest any such thing. Pissing against the wind would be
a hundred times more productive than such a suggestion. What we shouldn't do
is go and make a very restricted investigation of the heart of the matter
and then set ourselves up as an authority and accuser based upon the
collected statements of both participants and unidentified sources.

>
>>>(Incidentally, it's worth noting that Richard, on many different occasions,
>>>both in the interview and in his rebuttal to the net, prefaced statements
>>>with "as Merchandising and Licensing can tell you". Well, I asked
>>>Merchandising and Licensing to tell me; and they told me something different.
>>>What am I to make of that?)
>
>> How do you, we, or anybody know that your source is an official spokesperson
>>for Licensing or that such a person would tell the whole, accurate truth or
>>even be in possession of it ?
>
>I doubt Licensing _has_ "official" spokespeople.

Your doubts are not material and begs the question and doesnt tell us the
needed information about the source. Yes, I know, it's confidential. It's thus
also as suspect as any other.

>
>>And why would Mr Arnold make such statements if
>>he knew them to be false and then invite you to check up on them with
>>Licensing if he knew or expected them to be challenged or contradicted on a
>>factual basis
>
>I am as completely in the dark about this as you are.

You're begging the question *again*. At least one explanation which may or
may not be true is that he knows or feels his statements to be true and
expects that an honest and in-the-know licensing dept would verify them.
Since you made no revealed effort to verify that your source satisfied these
qualifications but 'reasoned' that they should and made no attempt to see
with RA if someone there might have had a motive to mislead or to lack
specific, accurate information in some cases, you have totally ignored a
possible scenario. Perhaps *we* should assume, without proof or verification
or rebuttal that you chose not to because it wouldn't fit your expectations
and assumptions ?

>
>>I'm sorry, but this is not a true reporters process, you stopped when you
>>got the story you preferred, not the one you could verify.
>
>If you can suggest other sources I might want to check with, I'll try my
>best to verify it. (I did call other parties to check my source's
>trustworthiness, but as you have said, have no way to check his/her accuracy.)
>

AT least give RA another say in his defense; at *your* initiation since
you are the accuser and/or the defender of such.

>I think we two have basically covered all the ground we're going to in any
>productive manner. Jeff, if you wish to continue this, I request that it
>be continued in email.

I will if you will.

[Timothy W. Lynch]

a...@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Rae) writes:
>tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

>>It was very deliberately designed to be so. I didn't go in there to get
>>anybody angry or to look like Sam Donaldson; I went in to hear another side
>>of the story. Calling Licensing was an afterthought three days later.

>Ummm... Sorry for my lack of knowledge (being British and all that) but

>is Sam Donaldson the reporter who had a habit a yelling loudly at
>innapropriate moments towards people who did not want to be asked
>questions, thus putting in the position of having to answer so as not to
>give the appearance of having "no comment"? I have vague memories of
>Hunter S Thompson describing him yelling "What will next year be like?"
>at Reagan just after Irangate or something...

I'm not sure about the specific events you refer to, but I think you've
got the gist of Sam Donaldson down, yes. :-)

>It would be nice to have an
>interview on the flipside of this debate, perhaps with Peter David, and

That's a thought. Of course, he's probably reading this, so he can chime in
anytime. (Of course, if he wants to have some sort of interview similar to
this one, I see no reason to deny it. It'll have to be someone else, though;
a drive into Hollywood is a lot less expensive than a flight back to New
York. :-) )

>have some unbiased non-Trek people weigh them up. However, no one
>outside Trekdom would probably be interested, and would just tell us to
>"Get a life". Sigh.

Yeah. That is rather likely.

Tim Lynch

[Jim Griffith]

gh...@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host) writes:

>About his article and Mr. Lynch's response calling him a liar.
>I would not be suprised that if a court would consider to libel or slander
>if Mr. Arnold choose to proecute it. Of course he wont because of the bad
>publicity it would generate.

I would be surprised. My understanding of libel is that if Tim can show that
he had a strong reason to believe that what he wrote was true, whether or
not it actually is true, then he's not guilty of libel. Since Tim obviously
believes it to be true, it's not libel, whether or not Tim is right.

The courts would likely consider USENET a "published media", which would
mean libel, not slander.

Jim

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Griffith /--OO--\ | Two great powers are on our side: the power of
grif...@dweeb.fx.com | Love and the power of Arithmetic. These two are
BEWARE BATS WITHOUT NOSES! | stronger than anything else in the world.

[David Mears]

> / tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) / 4:30 pm Sep 12, 1991 /

>
> a...@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Rae) writes:
>
> >It would be nice to have an
> >interview on the flipside of this debate, perhaps with Peter David, and
>
> That's a thought. Of course, he's probably reading this, so he can
> chime in anytime. (Of course, if he wants to have some sort of
> interview similar to this one, I see no reason to deny it. It'll have
> to be someone else, though; a drive into Hollywood is a lot less
> expensive than a flight back to New York. :-) )
>

> Tim Lynch

At this point, I think the only followup interview that would shed more
light than heat would be one with the Bird himself, Gene R. Somehow, I
doubt if anyone would be able to get in to see him and do it.

David B. Mears
Hewlett-Packard
Cupertino CA
hplabs!hpda!mears
me...@hpinddf.cup.hp.com

[Anne H. Pfohl]

Tim,

I can't thank you enough for sharing all of this information with us on the
net. It has been fascinating and very informative.

At one point in the interview, I couldn't tell if Richard was talking about
Bonnano or Jean Lorrah? Is there a rpoblem with Jean Lorrah's books? I
haven't read _Metamorphosis_ yet - was there a beef with that one? If there
was, I can't understand it, any more than I can understand the problems he
had with _Vendetta_. Why is it that the books and writers _I_ think are
absolutely the best give Richard so much trouble? Another thing that makes
me go "Hmmmmmm..." Aren't Lorrah's and David's books some of the most
popular? And what about Barbara Hambly?

In article <1991Sep10.0...@cco.caltech.edu>, tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes...

>
>First of all, while the interview itself was very congenial and civil, the
>atmosphere, I'm afraid, didn't quite seem so. The impressions I was getting
>from Richard were not so much "here, let me see if I can explain X", so much
>as "I'm going to like you, because I think you could be very useful to me."
>It is, I believe, fairly likely that this meeting came about in the first
>place because Richard was hoping to exert a little damage control over his
>image.

If that were true, it would certainly shoot apart a lot of what he said about
fandom. That was a spooky section, I thought. I very definately got the
feeling that he wanted to really distance himself from his roots - fandom -
and make it clear that "we" are not paid employees of Star Trek - we
influence nothing. Reading that from what he said so soon after reading what
he said about how Harve Bennett treated him was pretty ironic. I hate it
when people forget their roots...

Instead of saying "Hey, I'm here, I was a fan too, still am, let's keep
talking and working together" he seems determined to point out that he is
part of an elite set now, and fans are not as important as they think they
are, in the vast scheme of things. Why spend so much time talking with Tim
Lynch, then? :)

Well, there's a lot more to be said, but I want to read on and see what
others have to say too...

Anne
University at Buffalo Medical School - Office of Information Systems
======================================================================
*** Disclaimer...
*** These thoughts belong to -mi
-mi -mi
-mi -mi
mi -mi. Ahem. La la la...
*** Sounds like a personal problem to mi... ***
======================================================================
ois...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu | One more false move and I'll... I'll...
ois...@mednet.bitnet | sing a high C!
pf...@eng.buffalo.edu | - Dangerous Diva

[Jeff Sicherman]

Oh boy, errr girl, someone to disagree with besides Tim ...

In article <17SEP199...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu> ois...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Anne H. Pfohl) writes:
>
>Tim,
>
>I can't thank you enough for sharing all of this information with us on the
>net. It has been fascinating and very informative.
>
>At one point in the interview, I couldn't tell if Richard was talking about
>Bonnano or Jean Lorrah? Is there a rpoblem with Jean Lorrah's books? I
>haven't read _Metamorphosis_ yet - was there a beef with that one? If there
>was, I can't understand it, any more than I can understand the problems he
>had with _Vendetta_. Why is it that the books and writers _I_ think are
>absolutely the best give Richard so much trouble? Another thing that makes
>me go "Hmmmmmm..." Aren't Lorrah's and David's books some of the most
>popular? And what about Barbara Hambly?

It's not clear that Mr Arnold ever implied the story authors weren't talented
or that the stories weren't good, even 'the best'. The claim is essentially
that they don't conform to the limits, both expressed and implied, that the
characters and history (the canon, if you will) of Star trek is not to be
twisted beyond what those with the authority (to decide such matters) consider
appropriate; both for the best interests of the series, movies, etc. and
because they have a proprietary interest in those choices. Indeed, those
tales that may be the most appealing to you and others may be so because they
are the most imaginative and perhaps depart from the normal course of ST
stories; that may also be what makes them the most troublesome for their
priorities.

>
>In article <1991Sep10.0...@cco.caltech.edu>, tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes...
>>
>>First of all, while the interview itself was very congenial and civil, the
>>atmosphere, I'm afraid, didn't quite seem so. The impressions I was getting
>>from Richard were not so much "here, let me see if I can explain X", so much
>>as "I'm going to like you, because I think you could be very useful to me."
>>It is, I believe, fairly likely that this meeting came about in the first
>>place because Richard was hoping to exert a little damage control over his
>>image.

It would have been nice if Tim could have documented what led him to this
conclusion. As it is, we have only his gut feel, which is what led him in
part to accept Licensing's version of things. (is that horse dead yet?) And
of course the last comment isn't a *little* self-righteous because we all know
that Tim *never* defends himself or his opinions when given the opportunity.

>
>If that were true, it would certainly shoot apart a lot of what he said about
>fandom. That was a spooky section, I thought. I very definately got the
>feeling that he wanted to really distance himself from his roots - fandom -
>and make it clear that "we" are not paid employees of Star Trek - we
>influence nothing. Reading that from what he said so soon after reading what
>he said about how Harve Bennett treated him was pretty ironic. I hate it
>when people forget their roots...

Since when does (this tiny fraction of) fandom have to think the same
(as you do). Why must his roots be the same as yours. What evidence is
there that he tried to influence the course of things, as such, until
given the responsibility and authority to do so.

>
>Instead of saying "Hey, I'm here, I was a fan too, still am, let's keep
>talking and working together" he seems determined to point out that he is
>part of an elite set now, and fans are not as important as they think they
>are, in the vast scheme of things. Why spend so much time talking with Tim
>Lynch, then? :)

On the other hand, maybe he's just relating reality and you (and Tim and
others) just have a difficult time accepting the insignificance of our
individual and/or collective opinions here on the net. You can call it
elite if you like, but it's also a fact that there is a responsibility
to implement a policy that others with the authority have dictated is
in the best interests of the product *and* those that own it, whether
you agree or like it or not.

>
>Well, there's a lot more to be said, but I want to read on and see what
>others have to say too...
>

I find that hard to believe, *I'm* almost tired of listening to myself.

[Brad Gibson]

In article <1991Sep18....@beach.csulb.edu> sich...@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>
> Oh boy, errr girl, someone to disagree with besides Tim ...
>
>In article <17SEP199...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu> ois...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Anne H. Pfohl) writes:
>>
>>Tim,
>>
>>I can't thank you enough for sharing all of this information with us on the
>>net. It has been fascinating and very informative.
>>

... much stuff deleted ...

>>
>>Well, there's a lot more to be said, but I want to read on and see what
>>others have to say too...
>>
>
> I find that hard to believe, *I'm* almost tired of listening to myself.

I could have sworn Jeff that you stated last week that you had said all you
were going to about the subject and you would not post another one relating
to the RA interview... yet here you are again!

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad K. Gibson INTERNET: gib...@geop.ubc.ca
Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy BITNET: user...@ubcmtsg.bitnet
#129-2219 Main Mall
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
V6T 1Z4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Gym Z. Quirk]

In article <1991Sep18....@bnr.ca> jim...@bnr.ca (Jim Dean) writes:
>R.A.'s problems with Vendetta seemed to be fairly obvious. One of the things
>I liked about Vendetta is that it tied TOS and TNG together in a direct way.
>For example, the Doomsday Machine (from the TOS episode of the same name)
>was built to use against the Borg (a TNG creation). I liked it, but Gene
>(and thus by extension, R.A.) doesn't want the two series linked. It also
>makes it difficult for, say, a TNG episode to use the Doomsday Machine in
>a different way, with perhaps a different origin. They feel that they, and
>not "some writer", should be the only ones allowed to fill in Star Trek
>history.

Of course...if and/or when they *do* decide to use Doomsday machine,
they will probably employ "some writer" to do it. (Of course, the
Bird and R'nold get editorial powers over it, but is it *really* that
much of a difference?)

Again. What we're seeing is a clamp-down of control by TPTB, and the
natural resistance to it from those who--'til now--had much more
freedom in that arena.

What I personally would like to see is TPTB allowing more freedom for
the various writers. After all. It's a little late to try to impose
continuity on Trek. ;-)

>Jim Dean Bell-Northern Research, Ltd |"Dear God, Please give

--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) tko...@triton.unm.edu
Veteran of the "Grand sf-lovers fiasco" of July '91-???.
-= Insert witty quote here =-

[Jim Dean]

SMALL SPOILERS IF YOU HAVEN'T READ "VENDETTA" or "METMORPHOSIS"

In article <17SEP199...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu> ois...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Anne H. Pfohl) writes:
>

>Tim,
>
>I can't thank you enough for sharing all of this information with us on the
>net. It has been fascinating and very informative.
>

I share this opinion, up to the point that the interview was fascinating
and informative, but I felt that the addition of Tim's comments in the
follow-up post were a little mean. After all, the guy was doing us all
a favour by talking to us and letting the conversation get back to the net.

>At one point in the interview, I couldn't tell if Richard was talking about
>Bonnano or Jean Lorrah? Is there a rpoblem with Jean Lorrah's books? I
>haven't read _Metamorphosis_ yet - was there a beef with that one? If there
>was, I can't understand it, any more than I can understand the problems he
>had with _Vendetta_.

R.A.'s problems with Vendetta seemed to be fairly obvious. One of the things

I liked about Vendetta is that it tied TOS and TNG together in a direct way.
For example, the Doomsday Machine (from the TOS episode of the same name)
was built to use against the Borg (a TNG creation). I liked it, but Gene
(and thus by extension, R.A.) doesn't want the two series linked. It also
makes it difficult for, say, a TNG episode to use the Doomsday Machine in
a different way, with perhaps a different origin. They feel that they, and
not "some writer", should be the only ones allowed to fill in Star Trek
history.

The problem with Metamorphosis is that it is a "Data-turns-human" story.
(Don't flame me for spoilers--its an old book and I think that much is
said on the back cover anyway). Gene has said that he simply does not want
any such stories. Because of that, I read the book expecting to hate it,
and I didn't.

>Why is it that the books and writers _I_ think are
>absolutely the best give Richard so much trouble? Another thing that makes
>me go "Hmmmmmm..." Aren't Lorrah's and David's books some of the most
>popular? And what about Barbara Hambly?

All I can say is that I liked both books, but I understand Gene's (and
R.A.'s) objections to them.
--

Jim Dean Bell-Northern Research, Ltd |"Dear God, Please give

President, National Capital Baseball League | a bald guy a break."
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada "We play hardball!" | -- Homer Simpson
Internet: jim...@bnr.ca Ph: (613)763-2135 Fax: (613)763-7241

[Stephen Dennison]

In article <11b...@lynx.unm.edu>, tko...@triton.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk) writes...

>What I personally would like to see is TPTB allowing more freedom for
>the various writers.

I agree and this is my *only* real gripe with *either* Roddenberry or
Arnold. Vendetta is fun, very entertaining, and would have been lessened
IMHO if the changes that I assume were necessary were imposed. If the books
are canon, then keep a clamp on the writers. If they're *not*, then to hell
with it, let anything go.

>After all. It's a little late to try to impose continuity on Trek. ;-)

Not as long as they have the Time Travel angle to work with. Hell, it's
still the middle of last week where *I'm* posting from ...

>Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) tko...@triton.unm.edu
> Veteran of the "Grand sf-lovers fiasco" of July '91-???.
> -= Insert witty quote here =-

Stephen
(Nothin' left but my .sig. Hit `n' to skip it!)

"I recognized the fields where I once played. Had to stop in my
tracks for fear, of walking on the mines I'd laid."

-- Sting

[The Napoleon of Crime]

[I'll keep this brief; thanks to Tim for transcribing the original
interview]

After skimming through these articles, a brief observation -- one without
any corresponding spur to action, because:

a) There's nothing I can do about the situation (not to mention that I
desire to fry bigger fish.)

b) Richard Arnold's viewpoint, that Trek == Gene ~= Paramount licensing,
seems ingrained; trying to convert a devout Christian to existentialism
is neither fun nor particularly productive.

My only comment is that Richard's belief that Star Trek only exists within
the boundaries of what Gene says it is, is wrong. Legally, it is (probably)
true. But Star Trek is about a group of fictional characters (two groups of
characters, I guess), and popular fictional characters tend to pick the
locks of their creators' works and escape into the damndest places. (Some
good, some not; some better than the original works, some not.)

It's in the nature of storytelling, and folklore: a fictional character
comes along, and becomes popular, and then more stories are told about him
or her. Licensing the character may keep the new stories of the character
out of print, or off the various screens, but it can't stop the stories from
being thought up, or written down. There are 60 zillion kids (and not a few
adults) out there these days, daydreaming up adventures with Kirk and Spock
and McCoy and Picard and blah blah blah, and some of it may get down on
paper. Those are "Star Trek writers", too; maybe not good ones, maybe not
sophisticated ones, maybe not within a parsec of Trek continuity; but they
are by-God writers, and all the corporate lawyers in America lined up
nose-to-ass (a natural position) can't stop it.

In the end, the stories win. For all I know, there could have been a
Grendel, Inc. or Mike Fink Ltd. in the past; but they've gone the way of all
mortal things. Gene Roddenberry will eventually die; Richard Arnold will
die; Paramount Pictures, Inc. (A Division of Gulf-Western) will eventually
die, God willing. The stories will live on, and the characters will live
on, and they'll change and bend to the times and the imaginer, whether Gene
likes it or not.

And that, my friends, is the Big Picture.

"Coming up: Tape delay highlights from Beating a
Dead Horse!"
-- Scott Forbes

Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET: mori...@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP: {uunet, uw-beaver, sun, microsoft, hplsla}!fluke!moriarty
CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind...
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>

[Andrew Hackard]

OK, OK, this has gone just about far enough.

sich...@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
> Oh boy, errr girl, someone to disagree with besides Tim ...

Well, at least now we're certain of your priorities.

>ois...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Anne H. Pfohl) writes:

>>[questions about authors of ST novels deleted]

>The claim is essentially
>that they don't conform to the limits, both expressed and implied, that the
>characters and history (the canon, if you will) of Star trek is not to be
>twisted beyond what those with the authority (to decide such matters) consider
>appropriate;

Once more, this time with phrasing. I think you might actually have the
glimmer of a point here, but I can't tell through all the verbiage.

>both for the best interests of the series, movies, etc. and
>because they have a proprietary interest in those choices. Indeed, those
>tales that may be the most appealing to you and others may be so because they
>are the most imaginative and perhaps depart from the normal course of ST
>stories; that may also be what makes them the most troublesome for their
>priorities.

On the contrary, the novels that are most entertaining for ME are the
ones which capture the characters perfectly (or at least closely) in
situations which, for one reason or another, could not be filmed, due
to limited effects budgets, sex, or whatever. I doubt that GR has ever
shied away from showing sex as a normal part of human life, even in the
23rd/24th century, but (to grab the most recent example) he could never
get away with showing a naked slave girl in Wesley's quarters. (For
starters, Wil would probably blush too much. :) This does not, IMO, make
it a non-Trek story; it merely makes it a Trek story on paper, not
film. I grant that GR has the right, within reason, to make sure that
what is published _under the Star Trek name_ fits his conception of
the universe; I'm certain a whole lot of dreck has been filtered out
that way. I just don't think that Gene has the right to say, "I didn't
think of it, so you can't use it." Nor do I for one minute claim
that that is what he is doing; it *does*, however, seem to be what you
would have him do.

>>tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes...

>>>[Tim's assessment of the atmosphere deleted]

> It would have been nice if Tim could have documented what led him to this
>conclusion.

Let's see--slowly, with small words. HE WAS THERE.

You keep asserting that we have only Tim's word on this, and that
therefore it shouldn't be considered, QED. I would submit that I
would accept Tim's judgments over lots of other people's; he has shown
himself in the past to be a reliable observer who is able to consider
the finer points of a situation. Yes, of course I'm talking about
the reviews. You got a problem with that?

>As it is, we have only his gut feel, which is what led him in
>part to accept Licensing's version of things. (is that horse dead yet?)

Alas, no, although if we judge by its rider, it's well on the way to
vampirism.

>And
>of course the last comment isn't a *little* self-righteous because we all know
>that Tim *never* defends himself or his opinions when given the opportunity.

No, Tim just doesn't see the point in wasting his time either proving
his points or saying, "It's my opinion; take it or not, but it isn't going
to change" in the face of obstructive obstinancy such as yours.

[comments about fandom deleted, as I'm not qualified to address them]

>>Instead of saying "Hey, I'm here, I was a fan too, still am, let's keep
>>talking and working together" he seems determined to point out that he is
>>part of an elite set now, and fans are not as important as they think they
>>are, in the vast scheme of things. Why spend so much time talking with Tim
>>Lynch, then? :)
> On the other hand, maybe he's just relating reality and you (and Tim and
>others) just have a difficult time accepting the insignificance of our
>individual and/or collective opinions here on the net. You can call it
>elite if you like, but it's also a fact that there is a responsibility
>to implement a policy that others with the authority have dictated is
>in the best interests of the product *and* those that own it, whether
>you agree or like it or not.

That isn't her point. Her (and Tim's) point is that RA could say
precisely the same things without being as (apparently; I've never
spoken to or heard him) rude as he (apparently) is. Again, all we
have is Tim's word on it...on the other hand, there is an 80-minute
tape out there that could easily give us tone of voice, at least.

>>Well, there's a lot more to be said, but I want to read on and see what
>>others have to say too...
> I find that hard to believe, *I'm* almost tired of listening to myself.

Well, at least we agree there.

--Andrew "Actually, that IS a banana, but it
an...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu sure is great to see you anyway."

Disclaimer:Given X, where X is a member of the set of my opinions, it is
not the case that X must be a member of the set of the opinions
of any given Y, such that Y != me.

[Timothy W. Lynch]

jim...@bnr.ca (Jim Dean) writes:

[warning: minor spoilers ahead for _Vendetta_]

>In article <17SEP199...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu> ois...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Anne H. Pfohl) writes:
>>
>>I can't thank you enough for sharing all of this information with us on the
>>net. It has been fascinating and very informative.
>>
>I share this opinion, up to the point that the interview was fascinating
>and informative, but I felt that the addition of Tim's comments in the
>follow-up post were a little mean.

I felt that I should comment on the interview itself a bit...and I certainly
wasn't going to "taint" the interview itself by including my comments _within_
the interview. Considering that the interview was very deliberately solicited
to discuss various items that had brought a lot of negative feeling towards
Richard here and in other places, I thought a little discussion about whether
said feelings have/had changed was definitely in order. (And, of course, the
fact that I didn't feel I'd been told the truth is not one that could have
been said any other way, pure and simple.)

What would you have preferred, Jim? That we all smile meekly, say "yes,
Richard, thank you for enlightening us," and go back to other things? I'm
sorry, but I don't work that way.

>After all, the guy was doing us all
>a favour by talking to us and letting the conversation get back to the net.

Let's not forget that this particular "favour" was one that Richard very
deliberately went out of his way to set up. I didn't ask him to talk to me;
he asked me to come in and talk to him.

Now, the meat of why you may feel this way is right here...

>R.A.'s problems with Vendetta seemed to be fairly obvious. One of the things
>I liked about Vendetta is that it tied TOS and TNG together in a direct way.
>For example, the Doomsday Machine (from the TOS episode of the same name)
>was built to use against the Borg (a TNG creation). I liked it, but Gene
>(and thus by extension, R.A.) doesn't want the two series linked.

-----------------------------

You're taking Richard's statements at face value; that *Gene* didn't like
_Vendetta_, and Richard was only the mouthpiece. That claim is, at the very
least, substantially disputed by Licensing's subsequent statements. (I
can't speak to how the memos worked. Perhaps Peter can quote a few.)

Jim--are you aware of any statements *Gene* has made concerning _Vendetta_,
pro or con? I'm not.

If you believe that Richard is only a mouthpiece for Gene, then of course
you're going to think that he's being hounded and that people are being "mean"
to him. I respect that--but I've yet to see anything that makes me believe
it.

[Timothy W. Lynch]

an...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:

A generally good article, methinks, but one point I think he missed...

>sich...@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>ois...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Anne H. Pfohl) writes:

>>>he seems determined to point out that he is
>>>part of an elite set now, and fans are not as important as they think they
>>>are, in the vast scheme of things. Why spend so much time talking with Tim
>>>Lynch, then? :)

>> On the other hand, maybe he's just relating reality and you (and Tim and
>>others) just have a difficult time accepting the insignificance of our
>>individual and/or collective opinions here on the net. You can call it
>>elite if you like, but it's also a fact that there is a responsibility
>>to implement a policy that others with the authority have dictated is
>>in the best interests of the product *and* those that own it, whether
>>you agree or like it or not.

>That isn't her point. Her (and Tim's) point is that RA could say
>precisely the same things without being as (apparently; I've never
>spoken to or heard him) rude as he (apparently) is. Again, all we
>have is Tim's word on it...on the other hand, there is an 80-minute
>tape out there that could easily give us tone of voice, at least.

While I think you're right here, I think that's not what Anne was trying to
say. As I read it, I think she was saying "if the fans are _that_ insignifi-
cant in the grand scheme of things, and Usenet is insignificant in relation to
fandom, then why on Earth would Richard take hours of his time to try to
"set the record straight" with anyone representing said network?" (I hope
that's more along the lines of your point, Anne.)

Now, I'll readily admit that the "active" fans are probably a very vast
minority of the watchers of the _series_, but I'd wager, given sales figures,
that they're a much much larger fraction of the users/readers of the licensed
products. And as such, if enough people get annoyed, the licensees could be
in biiig trouble. (One would hope not--I don't personally believe DC or Pocket
should take much of the blame.)

Tim Lynch

[Jeff Sicherman]

In article <1991Sep20.1...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

[ ... ]

>Now, I'll readily admit that the "active" fans are probably a very vast
>minority of the watchers of the _series_, but I'd wager, given sales figures,
>that they're a much much larger fraction of the users/readers of the licensed
>products. And as such, if enough people get annoyed, the licensees could be
>in biiig trouble. (One would hope not--I don't personally believe DC or Pocket
>should take much of the blame.)

So what. Given a choice between the economic benefits of the show and movies
and those from the licensed goods, I'm pretty sure they would let the licensed
stuff go without much of a whimper, If it really came to that. Therefore, the
needs of the theartical products drive the whole process and those are what
the producers and creative control types say they are regardless of who on
the licensed side agrees or not.