Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Sub Space 9203_C05
TEXT FROM PETER DAVID
From: Peter_A_David@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Message-ID: <47449@cup.portal.com>
References: <7550.28D90245@nisc.ieee.org>
What I find most interesting about this Richard Arnold business is all the
brouhaha that Tim Lynch's conclusions have aroused, and yet Richard's
remarks have, by and large, gone undiscussed.
Since Richard apparently now feels comfortable with discussing specific
Paramount inner workings on a public forum, then I can do no less.
1) ON being a hypocrite by not stating that my fight is with Gene and
not Richard--Quite the contrary. It is, in fact because Trek novelists think
so highly of Gene Roddenberry that we are convinced the pronouncements being
handed down are NOT from Gene. I, for one, have [no] trouble working within
Gene's universe. What I have trouble with are memos filled with contradic-
tory statements (such as that Kirk is no longer interested in relationships
with women), couched in insulting and demeaning terms that are at odds with
the gentlemanly demenaor with which GEne has usually been associated. And
tell me, Richard...is Gene's laywer removing yoiu from the approval loop
also really a quarrel with Gene? Is Gene's lawyer a hypocrite as well?
2) ON Gene's objections to VENDETTA that resulted in it carrying a disclaim-
er: This is a fascinating agglomeration of undocumented allegations and
distortions of the original proposal.
I have two official memos from the Trek office which directly contradict
each other. The first, dated 9/11/90, states several concerns of a
technical nature in regards to the original VENDETTA proposal, all of which
were easily fixed in a revised proposal. No mention there of problems with
crossed universes and such things. The memo was also reasonably phrased and
easy to deal with. The second memo, dated 9/25/90, suddenly stated that
the proposal contradicted everythying known about the Borg (it didn't) and
was unacceptable. Hence the eventual disclaimer.
Anyone who has read VENDETTA will know that the various so-called objection-
able elements that Richard cites--excess info on Guinan's background,
Wesley pursuing hormonal rushes in the direction of the Borg soldier--are
not present. Vengeance themes not acceptable, Richard? There goes
"Doomsday Machine" and "Obsession." Crossed universes? Kiss good-bye
to "Naked Now," "Sarek," and "Unification."
3) ON my being stunned since I must have been expecting Gene's office to
quash Q IN LAW--oddly, Richard fails to mention the 2/26/91 memo that
states "Peter David read a portion of (Q IN LAW) at a recent New York
convention, and it was clear that he has forced his peculiar sense of humor
into this novel as well. I will not have STAR TREK created as a joke,
either its characters or its format.) This memo was ostensibly from GEne--
but Gene was 3000 miles away when I did the reading (pages 103-105 and
120-124 of the published book.) Richard was at the convention, but he told
me at the time that he hadn't been present when I did the reading. But
he's since told others that he was. Whoops.
He also didn't mention the insuing two months during which Pocket Books
was stonewalled on getting Q IN LAW approved. "Fix it," Pocket was told,
although no specifics were given as to how. Finally I got a copy of the
ms to Majel Barrett, in hopes that she might be able to tell me where I had
gone wrong in the presentation of the characters in general and Lwaxana in
particular (much as Marina Sirtis had been most helpeful in pointers on
Deanna for "Rock and a Hard Place.") Ms. Barrett read it, told a number of
people (including Richard) how wonderful it was, and lo and behold the
manuscript was approved as is. So yes, I was stunned...but not for the
reasons Richard believes.
4) ON his assertion that I plant people with questions in audiences--
actually, people come to me and say, "Do you mind if I asked Richard about
such-and-such." And I always say the same thing: "Do what you want, it's
a free country. But I wouldn't advise it since he'll make you look foolish."
Which he generally does. His statements that my going on SeaTrek was
unadvertised does not take into account GEnie and Compuserv, where my
attendance was indeed advertised.
5) ON Richard being fired--just for the record, that didn't originate with
me. I suspect it had its basis in Richard's being taken oiut of the
approval loop.
6) On "Robert Bruce Banner" having no trouble getting a story approved--
Yes, sometimes violence is more appropriate than other times. Which does
nothing to answer the question of this rather remarkable coincidence.
7) Richard states that stating on the one hand, new races should be
created, and the on the other hand, that they shouldn't be created, is
not contradictory. Pardon me, Richard...yes it is.
8) On using names of real people in writing "Trek" novels and comics--
What a deplorable stunt. What would "Texas" Guinan, the famed prohibition
era saloon owner, say? Or, for that matter, how would Eugene Wesley
Roddenberry respond?
9) On his statement that he never said I'm ruining Star Trek and never
said people shouldn't buy my books--just for kicks, let's say Richard is
telling the truth. That means that Bill Mumy (not Billy) lied when he
told me that Richard said I was turning Trek into a Mad Magazine parody.
That means that the questioners at the February cretaion con were lying
when they asked me to comment on Richard's alleged statement of same at a
previous convention (hey, maybe Richard planted them!) . That means that
the audience memebers at SeaTrek were lying when they reported that
Richard stated anyone buying VENDETTA was "a traitor to Gene Roddenberry."
So many, many liars.
10) On stating that Richard signs Gene's memos--well, I know *I* never said
that. Written, yes, but not signed.
11) On the supposedly insulting "convention planet"--some other time I'll
post the sequence he's mentioning. But it was a two page bit out of a
48 page story, not--as he represents--the entire story. And it was damned
funny.
12) On my rudest slap at Gene yet--I did indeed write a speech for Kirk in
which he says that the Federation believes in freedom of expression.
Richard reads that as an insult to Gene. First, it's in the Bill of
Rights. Second, Picard says much the same thing in "The Drumhead," as
Tim Lynch notes. And third, the concept that expressing belief in free
speech is an insult to Gene Roddenberry, the man who gave us the the
spirit of brotherhood and freedom that *is* Star Trek, is a greater comment
on Arnold--sorry, RIchard--than anything else I could possibly say.
Oh...I do find it ironic that, in praising my friend Howie Weinstein,
Richard says "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..."
Uh, Richard? The AIDS parable, the environmental parable? Those were
mind. Issues 2 and 3 of the comic, and last year's annual.
So, to summarize: 1) Why is VENDETTA unacceptable when none of the
"objectionable" elements are present? 2) Why was Q IN LAW unacceptable
for so long and then suddenly, poof, it was acceptable? Could it be that,
all those months, Richard never really read it? Just rejected it?
3) Why would all those people lie about your badmouthing me? Is their
gripe really with Gene too? 4) Why is the mere *mention* of freedom of
expression an insult to Gene Roddenberry? 5) Why do you cite stories I
wrote as examples of good Trek writing, but say I'm "not a good Star Trek
writer"?
I am most appreciative of Richard wanting to set the record straight. I am
still waiting.
Peter David
PS--Same deal as with the interview. Anyone who wants to repro this can feel
free to do so.
