Interview with Richard Arnold

 This is the first in a line of several articles involving the interview I had 

on Friday morning with none other than one of r.a.s's favorite black hats, 

Richard Arnold.  This article is simply a response to all the "how in the 

world did you manage THIS?" questions I've been getting, detailing how the 

meeting came about.  After this, I'll be posting the interview, in its 

entirety, in five parts (it's a bit LONG).  Finally, I'll post a separate 

article giving my impressions of the meeting, both general and specific.  Hope 

this is interesting and useful...



So how'd a nice Trek fan like me end up in a place like that?  Well, it's a 

bizarre story.

In somewhat rapid succession:  I received a surprise phone call from Tom 

Galloway, another Usenetter (mostly on rec.arts.comics) and fellow Peter David 

Character [TM], who was in the area.  We got together for dinner.  I then 

heard from him a few days later that he's spoken to a friend at UCLA the next 

day and that his friend was a friend of Richard Arnold, who'd seen most or all 

of the Usenet postings about him in the last year and was something other than 

pleased about them, and who was planning to post a rebuttal.  "Hmm," I 

thought, but not much more.

A few weeks later, this same friend-of-a-friend, Robert Hurt (not on Usenet, 

so you won't recognize the name) happened to run into me while I was doing 

some work down in the astronomy computer room.  (This is definitely the "truth 

is stranger than fiction" part of the show, folks.)  We talked for about 45 

minutes about Richard, pro and con.  It was polite and friendly, but I think 

we pretty much agreed to disagree.

The next day, Richard happened to call Robert.  (Another in the long line of 

coincidences...anyone who's told writers "never ask your audience to buy more 

than one coincidence" has never lived my life.  :-) )  Robert mentioned that 

we'd run into each other and spoken for a bit.  Richard promptly, through 

Robert, invited me to his office to discuss things.  

After a few hours of soul-searching ("Do I want to do this?  Can I do this?  

Can I be fair and diplomatic given everything I've heard and said?"--the final 

answers to these were "yes," "yes," and "I'll do my damnedest," respectively), 

and a few quick bits of consultation with friends and a relative or two [my 

brother and my wife, actually--the only two that would really give a damn], I 

decided to do so.  So, I set up the appointment, solicited questions on r.a.s 

(and by phone from a couple of non-net friends who I knew would want to ask 

things), and drove into Hollywood Friday morning.  (And promptly got involved 

in a minor car accident on the way HOME from Hollywood Friday afternoon, but 

that's a story I really don't feel like going into.)

Just goes to show that you never know what life will bring, doesn't it?  

But this has gone on far enough--it's time for the interview itself.  So, to 

quote Marty DiBergi, "But hey, enough of my yappin'!  Whaddya say!  Let's 

boogie!"

Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)

BITNET:  tlynch@citjuliet

INTERNET:  tlynch@juliet.caltech.edu

UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.caltech.edu@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...

 

This is part 4 of the interview with Richard Arnold.  Both this part and the 

next part deal with specific allegations made by authors against RA and RA's 

responses to them.  If you don't care, don't continue on.

Tim Lynch



TL:  Hmm.  Now, some specifics.  There've been a lot of...allegations made, 

by various parties, all over the place.  And, I thought, you'd want to put 

your own stamp--

RA:  Not my own stamp.  I can answer with the truth...because I know that an 

awful lot was going around.  Certainly the last few days, where I didn't show 

up at a convention in New York, because I was in Greece on holiday, and I 

didn't show up at the convention in Sacramento because I had never told Adam 

[Malin, of Creation] that I would...and I was supposedly going to be at both 

places.  But the rumors started to fly around that I'd been fired.  

TL:  Well, clearly _that_ one's not true, because we're here.

RA:  Right.  And then it exploded to "he _has_ been fired", and then suddenly 

people are planning parties and so on, which was very amusing to all of us 

here, because, I'm not the only person who reads this, there are other people 

here on the show who read the computer networks, and people were calling up 

and saying, "gee, it's too bad we're not going to be working with you any 

more."  It was like, "Oh, NOW what?", right.  We were even laughing about 

this.  These people were being very irresponsible--they never even bothered to 

call and check.  They just assumed, and said things in, in print form, if you 

will, in a public forum, that were terribly irresponsible...and all they had 

to do was to call and check.  And it's probably, the only reason that we're 

sitting here and talking right now, is that it was getting so out of hand that 

when people started getting on and said "no, I've just checked, in fact he 

isn't fired, I just spoke to him at the studio," rather than everybody saying 

"oh, we're wrong, oh how embarrassing," you know, "we shouldn't have said 

this," people then started coming on and saying "I betcha that must have 

inflated his already inflated ego, that all this happened," which again is 

assuming that I'm the bastard bad-guy that they've all believed I am all 

along, when none of these people know me.  And this is what really hurts, is 

other than Peter David, I haven't met any of these people.  And it's as bad as 

somebody, because they dislike the President for his politics, saying terrible 

things about how he is in bed with his wife.  That's getting beyond your 

disagreement politically, and, and...it's character assassination, and...with 

the President, that's probably illegal, because he's the only person you can't 

assassinate legally or whatever it is.  But I've been targeted for that for a 

long time, and basically ignored it, at the studio's suggestion, because it's 

probably better that people go after me than Gene anyway--he's got enough to 

deal with.  He has said that he has more trouble dealing with the publication 

of one book than 26 episodes of Star Trek a year.  And it shouldn't be that 

way.  It really shouldn't.  There should be a hell of a lot more cooperation 

at both ends.  But, we're _getting_ it now!  We're finally getting it--it's 

really starting to work out.  But the problem is that, for a couple of years 

there, it seemed that every book was a battle.  Not every book.  We have found 

that there are some very strong writers--not necessarily the best, or the most 

talented in the style of writing itself, but that can tell a Star Trek story 

well, and even though in talking with the writers on this show, their favorite 

books have not been my favorite books, but when we talk about which are the 

best Star Trek books we agree on that.  Which are the best written books, no, 

we don't agree on, because, as I've said, I'm not a writer--I don't 

know...character arc, I don't know...you know...setup and so on.  But I know 

when I'm reading something whether I'm picturing Star Trek in my head or if 

I'm watching something where I have absolutely no idea what it is.  Because 

our people aren't involved.  And that's where any writer coming in, or anybody 

reading the network and knows about how this show works, anybody coming in and 

starting to pitch a story to our staff here, will be cut off cold with the 

question, "I hear a lot about your characters, but what about our characters?  

This show is about our team."

TL:  Yes, Robert mentioned some of this to me.

RA:  Right, right.

TL:  Anyway, some of the allegations that have been...as you say...are...I 

guess a mixture of the political and the personal things, definitely things 

that have been specifically listing you rather than Gene.

RA:  Okay.

TL:  One of them, which, depending on how closely you've been reading the 

Usenet stuff you have no doubt seen, is the infamous "Robert Bruce Banner" 

pseudonym issue of the comic that Peter wrote after he left as regular writer. 

Now, at least according to what's been said, that issue had more violence in 

it than a storyline which had been allegedly rejected earlier as being too 

violent, and yet, this one passed through with virtually no changes.  On the 

face of it, at least, that doesn't sound good.  There may be more to it--

RA:  Violence at times in Star Trek is acceptable.  Look at "Conspiracy."  

Look at "The Best of Both Worlds."  If the story's well written.  But if it's 

for the sake of violence, no.  And, in going through those particular comics, 

the story is what's important, what it's saying, where it's taking you, is it 

necessary at all.  And at times, I have questioned the level of violence in 

something and Gene's said, "no, that's fine, let them have it," and at other 

times, as a writer himself, he can say "this isn't necessary here, and I want 

it cut out."  The pictorial violence was always a problem with the 

comics--that's being toned down, by the way.  When Worf hits somebody with a 

blow that in the art would _kill_ a human, with literally explosion lines 

all the way around, the person being lifted off the ground, their neck being 

twisted around backwards...that's unnecessary, and Worf would be in the brig 

if he behaved that way.  At times, the violence has been overboard, 

considering that Gene has always felt that the comic venue is one that 

children tend to get more involved in than they might with the show, for 

instance, even though the show is, you know, certainly available for anybody 

to watch. 

[phone break]

Gene maintains...and I know that adult collectors are the majority of the 

buyers of the comics, but Gene has maintained for a long time that it is not 

safe to assume that, that kids won't be picking those up, and Star Trek has 

never been about violence--in fact, it's the antithesis of that.  And, in 

order to...I'm trying to remember the way he put it...for _image_ reasons, he 

thinks that no version of Star Trek should be excessively violent.  And that's 

why he's never really allowed the phasers to be sold as...as weapons, as guns, 

for kids to play with--'cause he doesn't like the idea of kids running around 

shooting each other with phasers when they're _only_ a defensive 

weapon--they're not an offensive weapon.  And that's why he got particularly 

upset with FASA, because they were looking to build more and more and more 

battle scenarios into the role-playing game...they were looking for 

_enemies_...they were doing whole supplements strictly to build in another 

enemy to fight with, and that was _not_ what he wanted.  And when he got a 

fight from them on it, when--and, of course, at the same time the studio was 

fighting back against Gene as well--that was when he just drew the line, that 

he would not have Star Trek sold as a war game any longer.  Even though there 

are people that claim that when they play the game, they never "war" it, we've 

all seen examples at conventions, of people who maneuver it into battle 

scenarios, and on Star Trek, you lose if you fight, you don't win.  I mean, 

when you resort to that, you've lost.  You've lost the philosophy, you've lost 

the point.  So, violence is not story on Star Trek, and conflict does not have 

to resort to violence in order to tell a Star Trek story.  Again, anybody on 

the show can tell you that it's rarely necessary.

[phone break]

Yeah, I know at times we've said one thing, and at other times we seem to be 

saying another, but when somebody drags somebody in, a race for instance--this 

is a specific charge--when somebody drags a race in strictly to use them as 

an enemy, we say, you know, "don't drag in people that we've used in the past 

just for these purposes, be more creative!"  And then at other times, we say, 

"We've never heard of this race before, you're trying to turn them into a new 

major villain, we do not want new major villains, use someone established like 

the Klingons or Romulans.  So I know it sounds contradictory, but it's really 

not.  

[phone break]

TL:  Okay, there are also a couple of similar things.  It's also been alleged 

in a couple of forums that you've said, both in public at the odd convention, 

and privately to other writers such as Bill Mumy and people like that, that 

"Peter David is ruining Star Trek."  Well...first, have you ever actually said 

that?

RA:  No.  No.  

TL:  Okay.  Can you elaborate?

RA:  I'm sure that anything that I'm saying to you right now today, in fact, 

if handled by somebody with a "cause", could be turned against me.  Anytime 

anyone who's defending themselves from anything, depending on who's 

listening, you're gonna hear different things.  When talking with Bill Mumy, I 

called him up because we were having difficulties with the storyline that he 

was writing.  His number was right there, on the paper.  I called him up, 

reintroduced myself--we'd met before.  I assumed that he was very much in 

conjunction with Gene, on Gene's thoughts about what was going to make a 

strong story, and I just let him know that, that he really shouldn't let Peter 

try and direct the story too much, because we were having problems with David 

in other areas at that time, and that it was important to Gene--because I told 

Gene I was calling him--it was important to Gene that we keep the story "Star 

Trek meets Lost in Space", if you will, not "Lost in Space" with Star Trek 

sidelined.  What I didn't know, and found out later, was that Billy wanted to 

do a Lost in Space story, he didn't want to do Star Trek, but that there was 

no Lost in Space _venue_.  And Peter was only helping him, as far as I could 

see, make it enough Star Trek to suit Gene.  But it wasn't.  It was still very 

much Bill Mumy writing a Lost in Space story, and using the Star Trek venue to 

tell it--which is what Gene didn't want, it was the opposite of what he 

wanted.  Now, the more they pushed, the farther away they got, because Gene 

then said, "Okay.  We've got to have more involvement for our people, I do not 

want the robot to look like the robot, I don't want the ship to look like the 

ship, I don't want the characters to look like the characters," and even the 

references to the original series were removed.  And then, Peter made a 

mistake...and tried to--or it could have been Billy, I don't know--I like 

Billy, I have respect for Billy, I'm sorry that this whole thing happened--one 

of them decided, "let's have some fun, and use trick names that no one will 

get."  So the planet became Wirin, which is Irwin spelled sideways, 

right...this dying planet, if you will.  And Ozrro became the name of the 

father, which is Zorro spelled sideways, which is a nice little reference to 

Guy Williams.  And so on--these clever little things which several authors 

have, you know, stooped to, if you will, thinking they can slip things by us.  

And we had already been saying for a long time, "Please," to the comics, and 

more recently to the books as well, "no cute little references," you know, no 

joke references.  Let's not put our friends into these books.  Let's not put 

our friends into these comics.  Let's not have fun poking fun at people, or 

institutions or whatever, through this venue.  This is Star Trek, keep it Star 

Trek--don't use this as your personal...vendetta, if you will.  And if you 

recall, Peter David devoted the book to me, if you will, or...dedicated the 

book to me, saying "To Richard, the biggest windmill I've ever known."  I am 

not the monster that Quijote is fighting.  What David--Peter, sorry, I keep 

calling him David--what Peter David was fighting was far bigger than me.  I'm 

just an employee here.  What he was fighting was a man with 27 years invested 

in his vision, and he was fighting somebody who had never had anything to do 

with it, and who was trying to change it.  Star Trek is not...a joke.  And if 

you could have read the original versions of some of the things that were 

going to be coming out from Peter, through DC...it was very hurtful.  The 

planet that Kirk, Spock, and McCoy go to, having gone there once and now have 

returned, where it's like the planet is a convention now.  And people are 

selling Star Trek souvenirs everywhere they go, and they're saying "we didn't 

authorize this."  And Scotty is saying, "Seen it?  I'm judging the costume 

competition--have you seen the art show?"  And meanwhile Chekov runs by with a 

bunch of fat fans chasing him.  This is not funny.  They go into the art room, 

and they're standing by a portrait that is obviously the two of them in a 

sexual position, Kirk and Spock, and they're saying "oh, my God...it's 

us...and we're..."--now, you don't see it, you only see the back of it, and 

the commissioner of the planet or whomever they're talking with is absolutely 

mortified and says, "I'll have it removed immediately!"  And then in the 

rudest slap to Gene yet from Peter, he turns and says, "oh, no!  Don't do 

that!  We would never censor _anything_!  We believe in complete freedom of 

expression."  Now...that's not funny.  I hurt for Gene when I read that, and 

it hurt me to have to tell him what was going on, and that's when I think he 

had sunk to the lowest that he was going to sink...Peter, that is...because he 

was now getting personal.  And that's when...the war started.  I think that 

was really the first battle.  Up to then it had been minor skirmishes.  Now, 

Margaret's problems with _Probe_ are so massive that we don't have time to go 

into them...

--

Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)

BITNET:  tlynch@citjuliet

INTERNET:  tlynch@juliet.caltech.edu

UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.caltech.edu@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...

 

This is the fifth and final part of the interview with Richard Arnold, 

containing more allegations and responses with respect to Richard and several 

Trek authors.  A post containing impressions and commentary will follow.

Tim Lynch



TL:  Right.  Now...another...battle in the Peter war, I suppose...another 

thing that's been said is that you have, you know, again at the occasional 

convention and so forth, said to fans that you consider Peter's writing not to 

be Star Trek, and have suggested--at least the claims are that you have 

outright suggested that they not buy his work.

RA:  Never.

TL:  Okay.

RA:  Never.  Now, here's the thing--Peter's a very good writer.  I know that 

because he gave me a book called _Howling Mad_ which was very funny.  

TL:  Yes, I rather liked it.

RA:  But, he is _not_ a good Star Trek writer.  Not all the time--he's 

inconsistent.  When it's a story that works with his sense of humor, as in 

_Q-in-Law_, as in _Rock and a Hard Place_, fine.  But when he tries to change 

the universe in order to tell a story he wants to tell, as in _Vendetta_, then 

you've got a problem.  Because you can't always make it fit.  My God, do you 

know how many scripts we buy out of a thousand that come in?  Maybe six!

[knock on the door]

TL:  Okay...so...

RA:  So, I have never said that Peter David can't write.  I know he can 

write--he can write very well.  There was a scene at the end of _Rock and a 

Hard Place_ that literally moved me, and this was in the manuscript.  And--I 

believe it was David Stern, he's gonna kill me for saying this, who changed 

it.  It was a wonderful, moving scene.  What it said to me is that Peter's 

probably a dog person as opposed to a cat person, because of the scene at the 

end with Stone and this wolf-creature, whatever it was, at the very end...and 

it was such a powerful scene, and I think David changed it because...either he 

didn't understand it, or because he felt his way worked better.  And...I've 

often wondered if it was not the change of that scene in particular that set 

him off, because it wasn't us at all.  In fact, if I'd had any say in the 

matter, which believe me, I have never had, I would have said "Oh, for God's 

sakes, turn that back to the way it was."  He can write--but he...I think 

Peter's biggest problem has been...again, saying "Yes, Gene."  Sticking within 

the format.  Following the rules that any writer writing for the show has to 

follow.  Do not star your own characters.  Do not change anything about our 

characters, because then that changes it for everyone after that.  Do not 

attempt to overestablish background, because that's for us to fill in, at this 

end.  Tell a story that involves our people, and has a point to it, that tells 

a tale.  Howard Weinstein's become very good at that--he picks his issue, and 

wraps a Star Trek story around it.  That's what good writing is for Star Trek. 

You do your AIDS parable, you do your environmental parable, you do your story 

about prejudice, right--the original series and the new series have been very 

strong with that.  The original series, certainly, had some stronger writers 

right up front--it took us a long time to get very strong writers on this 

show, because of the problems that we discovered of people coming in, writing 

for a while, and then deciding that they were celebrity writers, or...I don't 

know exactly if that's the best way to describe it or not, but...people who 

from a couple of successes suddenly became too important and started breaking 

the rules on the show.  You can't do that...I mean, again, Gene wouldn't allow 

that.  So--good writers left the show in anger, because Gene was rewriting 

their stories, to again keep it within the format, and there've been a few 

who've been extremely public about that as well.  When people bring up the 

subject at conventions, absolutely I will defend my position, and I will 

defend Gene's position.  But I have never set out to attack any of these 

people, because I think it would very much have gotten back to me through my 

position here at the studio if I ever did anything like that.  They're very 

trusting--they know that I go to these conventions, it's not really part of my 

job.  It's actually a perk.  It's a wonderful benefit of this job, is that I 

get to go to all of these conventions, and when I am up there, and people ask 

me questions that are _very_ political...I will answer them as best I can, as 

honestly as I can.  And if I can't give them the answer I want, I'll 

apologize.  When people started confronting me about this issue about not 

having any homosexuals on Star Trek, I gave them the answer that I knew Gene 

would give, which is...if somebody said "why haven't we seen any homosexuals 

on Star Trek?", I would say, "what does one look like?"  And they would say, 

"well, you know what I mean," and I'd say "no, I don't know what you mean!  

What do you want, two men in bed together?  How do you want us to show that 

someone's homosexual?  We can't use any of the stereotypes, we can't have them 

sashaying down a corridor, we can't put pink triangles on them, we can't have 

them holding hands--we don't show the _heterosexual_ crewmembers holding hands 

walking down the corridors.  How do you want us to show it?  Why don't you ask 

a more intelligent question:  'When are we going to see a story which deals 

with the problems that the gay community faces today?'  Besides AIDS, right.  

Not just AIDS--there's still the inequality in the workplace, and housing and 

everything else, that still--even though it's now illegal, I believe, there's 

still a lot of problems that the gay community faces.  And they need a full 

story, a script.  And Gene has always said, "If a good script comes in, of 

course, we'll consider producing it."  But to just say, "show me a homosexual 

on Star Trek...", it's like the old joke, "'My mother made me a homosexual.'  

'Oh, great, if I give her the wool, will she make me one too?'"  Nobody can 

_make_ anybody anything that they don't choose.  Life is about choice.  And 

unfortunately, you cannot by looking at somebody see what their choices are, 

_unless_ we're talking stereotypes--if someone's wearing a yarmulke, you can 

probably guess he's Jewish.  If someone's wearing a giant cross, you can 

assume he's Catholic, but not necessarily--it could just be jewelry.  And 

political choices, and sexual choices, and so on--you cannot really, by just 

looking at someone--no one would have known that Sammy Davis Jr. was Jewish 

just by looking at him.  Rock Hudson shocked the world, this "manly man" 

confessed he was gay.  So, I answered that question as intelligently as I 

could, considering the parameters of the show, and I got attacked for it for 

six months in the gay press.  So, it's very hard to answer global questions, 

it really is--and I always say at the end of these answers, "I hope that 

answers your question--if it doesn't, I'm sorry," and I've frequently been 

told "it doesn't!"  And I say, "well, I'm sorry, but that's the only answer I 

cdan give you."  So, I'm sorry that Peter has made this personal.  I can't say 

that, that, that Margaret and I ever got along because I never met her.  And I 

know people who have met her and who have said that until you bring up this 

subject, she seems--I hate to use the word normal, but--she seems pretty 

normal.  But she's obviously got a bee under her bonnet, or a burr under her 

saddle, or whatever, on this whole subject, and it's because she doesn't 

understand what happened with her book at this end.  You have to read her 

six-page diatribe that's been published in various letterzines and around the 

computer networks as well...and her side of it is so different from the truth. 

It's interesting how she perceives what happened.  A lot of it really needs to 

be blamed on the Merchandising & Licensing division, and on Pocket Books, and 

the way the process works.  And Gene--yes, he had a lot of changes that he 

wanted made, but after a certain point, all he said for about a year was "No," 

period.  That's all his input was.  Everything else was the studio and Pocket 

Books insisting on continuing with this project, and the editors there 

suggesting these changes, making those changes, causing this rewrite and so 

on, with not one single directive from this end.  And she was not aware of 

that.  I think she assumed that--I mean, other than the comments that were 

made such as "this features characters from this author's previous books, and 

we do not want authors continuing their own characters through these novels, 

and therefore this is unacceptable."  We did not say, "take these out and it's 

acceptable," but see, at this point in time, this was the solution, was to 

throw bandages on a gaping wound.  And, unfortunately, the wound never 

heals--you have to go in and do surgery.  And eventually, Jeanne Dillard--I 

think everybody knows this now, because Margaret's being very public about 

it--who is a very good writer, was brought in, but again she only did 

patchwork where she was told to.  She was not given the case to handle 

herself; she was brought in as a consulting doctor and only worked on the 

things she was told to work on.  And there were still whole areas that needed 

to be healed, and that's why it is _still_ going through the rewrite process 

right now.  But, as David Stern can tell you, as anybody in Merchandising and 

Licensing can tell you, the meeting that took place recently at Gene's house, 

about this book, was definitely on the down side of the hill as far as the 

process of getting through this.  But the book is almost ready.

TL:  It will be coming out, then?

RA:  Oh, yeah!  I mean, it's just a matter of getting the last things changed. 

And I sat there listening, and I was very pleased, because David Stern was 

listening to what Gene was saying about what the problems were with the book.  

And, you know, I was certainly putting in my two cents, and where Gene 

disagreed with me, _believe me_, I got stomped on too--everybody gets stomped 

on.  He's very clear on what is right and what is wrong for Star Trek--and 

he's the only authority who has any right to say what is and what isn't right. 

I don't.  I can _guess_, and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I find out before 

the memo goes out.  So...that's about as much as I can say on the subject.  

Peter is not my enemy.  Ignorance is my enemy.  And, as long as there's this 

kind of rumor and innuendo and ignorance running around the computer networks, 

this is going to continue to be a problem.  But it's one I haven't addressed 

until now because...it's really been...pointless.  Because I'm sitting in an 

office here and these people are spread out all across the country, or the 

world, depending on which network it is, and they can't hear the tone of my 

voice.  They can't see the functionality of my position here.  They don't know 

how things work.  I mean, I can't invite everybody in to go through these 

sessions with Gene, to go sit and listen to see how it actually works.  It's 

my word against...and this is gonna sound bitter, but it's not...against the 

word of so-called Star Trek celebrities.  Because they have never written, as 

I said earlier, Star Trek--they have written for hire, books based on Star 

Trek.  

TL:  Okay...two more quick questions...or actually, one question and an offer, 

more or less.  The only other question I'm going to deal with as far as 

Peter's concerned is, there've also been tons of stories about exactly what 

happened surrounding the publication of _Vendetta_.  The...certainly the side 

that Peter seems to be presenting is that the manuscript sat in your 

briefcase, or on a desk somewhere, for six weeks and that nothing was said, 

and that eventually Licensing just sent back their own changes.

RA:  Every manuscript that comes into these offices goes to Gene.  It then 

eventually would come up here.  I would then go through it and make my notes.  

We would then have our meeting on it, and the process could never take more 

than two weeks because that's always the amount of time we were given.  Ten 

working days, to go through it and send it back.  Gene's problems with 

_Vendetta_ had been from the proposal stage, and it was "no...this book is not 

to be published.  This book does not tell a Star Trek story--a vengeance story 

is not a Star Trek story."  Okay.

TL:  Well...then, how was it published?  If Gene was that opposed to it, what 

happened?

RA:  This is one of those books that, as they say, slipped through the cracks, 

if you will, in this process of healing the relationship between Gene and the 

studio, and Gene and the publishers, and the studio and the publishers.  I 

mean, all this--we have a new president of that division, who was working very 

hard to see that all the parties involved started to work together in a more 

productive way.  And, we all knew this would be a long process, because 

some of these books go through a couple of _years_, in the process.  And 

because that was a giant novel, that was one of these ones that went through

for a very long process...and the answer to the very end on this was No.  This 

would have to be completely rewritten, and what we got from the studio was 

"well, there is no time," you know, "we promise this will never happen again, 

beg beg please please can we put it out with a disclaimer on it?"  And Gene at 

this point had already said, "I allowed a disclaimer _once_, and that was at 

my own generosity.  This was not to then become the routine, that every book, 

whether I hated it or not, whether I loved it or not, would just have a 

disclaimer on it so that you wouldn't have to deal with me."  Well, _Vendetta_ 

was just one of those books that went out with a disclaimer, because there 

was no time.  It was being printed "as we speak," you know, was basically

what we were being told.  Gene was very unhappy about that, but, he knows the 

business well enough to know that you can't say no to everything, especially 

when it's now gotten to the point where it's going to be very, very difficult. 

But, as I understand, that was the last one that was ever going to be allowed 

to come out that way.  Now, I've heard that David claimed that it was taken 

away from us, from _me_, and that it was allowed to go out, period.  Well, it 

was allowed to go out with a disclaimer because Gene said so.  He said, "okay, 

but this is the last time."  It's as simple as that.  Again, he couldn't 

possibly know what happened at this end, unless the publishers, Pocket Books, 

David Stern and Kevin Ryan, unless _they_ were told by the people who were at 

that meeting.  And believe me, the people who were in that meeting were the 

President of Marketing _worldwide_, the Manager, if you will, of 

Merchandising, and the President of Merchandising.  I mean, these were the big 

three, who came in to beg, to say "please", because obviously their division 

wants to see these things out on a regular basis for the income.  I'm not 

making them bad guys--I'm making them businesspeople.  These decisions are 

made for business, and they would have had a gap.  Now, there have been  

gaps lately, because Gene will not allow disclaimers any more.  And books, 

like _Probe_, have had to be rewritten.  And books will not go out with 

disclaimers any more, which means that...we're getting the cooperation from 

both Pocket Books and from the studio now, in that things _must_ be written to 

satisfy the format, or they won't go out.  And that is something that I would 

think the fans would be happy about.  I love reading some of the comments in 

the last few days that "it's only because of Richard's interference that books 

like such-and-such and such-and-such got out."  What's amazing is that those 

are books that we never touched.  Those are books that got out as the 

_authors_ wrote them.  I won't mention any names, because I don't want to hurt 

anybody.  It's not because that's what _we_ did to them, it's because we 

didn't do anything to them.  They got out that way because we hadn't touched 

them.  And yet the books that the fans jump up and down, and praise and cheer 

about how wonderful they are...they should have seen the original versions of 

them.  And yet, do the authors say "well, this really isn't entirely my 

story...the entire ending of this book was suggested to us through the Star 

Trek offices because the ending that we had for it didn't work, but, no, I'm 

happy to sign it for you and take all the royalties"--which we don't get a 

penny of.  That's painful, when you see--especially when I go to conventions 

and see onstage somebody going on and on about this wonderful book they've 

written, and I know damn well that half the suggestions came from Gene...that 

made it work in the Star Trek format.  And, again, any author's going to 

disavow that, too...they're going to completely disagree with it..."It was all 

my own idea, sure."  Harlan's taken the accolades for City for 25 years, and 

at the same time behind Gene's back bitched and complained about it.  He's 

perfectly happy to take the royalties...he's perfectly happy to be "the author 

of 'City on the Edge of Forever'"...and I love Harlan dearly, and if this ever 

gets back to him, believe me I'm going to get a phone call from him...'cause 

he and I have spoken many times over the years, and he has given me some very 

strong advice, about _this sort of thing_, not dealing with this sort of 

thing.  But at the same time, he's been very public too.  And Gene's kept his 

tongue all this time, because Gene knows that if you're going to continue to 

work with people that you've got to stay on good terms with them.  Now...this 

whole interview that we've just done...will not make me friends with the 

authors, believe me.  It's gonna feed the fire.  That's all.  But, for the 

innocent readers, such as yourself--and I never knew who you were, I just kept 

seeing your name with interesting comments--that don't know what's going on, 

they're finally hearing another side of the story.  I'm not saying that this 

is the _only_ side of the story; this is my side of the story.  They've heard 

the authors' side of the story.  And maybe they can sift through it, and see 

that it's a bigger picture than they know.  And it's not a pretty one, I'm 

afraid.  It's very unfortunate that this whole thing's been aired in public 

like this.  

[last question deleted, as it was a private one relayed by me from Jim 

Griffith, who's already been contacted.  If anything comes of it, Jim will no 

doubt let all of us know.  Jim, if you want the complete transcript of the 

answer rather than the short form I gave you, let me know.]

TL:  Okay.  Well...thanks for large amounts of your time.

RA:  Hey, no problem.  We handled the calls as they came in.

TL:  And I have no doubt that people will be following up, and trying to call 

you with followups.

--

Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)

BITNET:  tlynch@citjuliet

INTERNET:  tlynch@juliet.caltech.edu

UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.caltech.edu@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...