I hope your first name isn't Tom. 
When was Richard Arnold in his 'prime'?
- Thread starter ronny
- Start date
You're getting technical over a print interview, the presentation of which was out of the interviewee's control.
At the risk of again being accused of always running to RA's defence, anyone being interviewed is at the mercy of the transcriber and the person assembling the article. If someone does make an error or two in an interview, it's always possible for the writer or editor to correct or shorten the transcript (even seeking confirmation with the interviewee to make the change). People can get nervous in an interview, or stumble over words, forget names, etc.
That the interviewer chose to leave the transcript as is, leaving in RA's self-correction, then all the subsequent errors, says just as much about the writer, doesn't it? Maybe Tim Lynch wanted people to read Richard's errors? In fact, going to look at the link now, it's not even an article. It is the raw, uncorrected transcript.
I've interviewed many celebs (and others) over the years. Interviewees make lots of errors in interviews. (And interviewers ask some stupid questions.) If I notice those errors during the interview I seek clarification with off-the-record corrections. If I realise the errors at the transcribing stage, or when editing, I again try to contact them to make the correction. Or I just leave out the sentence, or add something in square brackets. But my "hidden agenda" is probably different to another interviewer's.
Last edited:
Thank you, but I do have a degree in journalism. I have worked in media and print journalism. I have interviewed people. So the lesson is unnecessary.
Perhaps I did read too much into it, but I believe that tone does carry over in print even in something so "raw" as that interview.
Last edited:
Ian, I was a member of a small mailing list with Tim Lynch and a couple of dozen other people for a few years, and I have no qualms about standing up for his ethics. The interview is in the form of the raw, unedited transcript for a good reason: so no one could complain about what was edited out, what was changed, how it was slanted, etc. Richard Arnold did not participate online anywhere, and Tim Lynch was never less than honest about his own bias going into this, so he wanted the process to be as transparent as possible. This was about giving someone who had become controversial in fandom the chance to make his case. So, all that you can say from Tim's decision to leave that stuff in is that he wanted people to form their own opinions from as complete a record of the conversation as possible. That's a good thing.
I guess that depends on whether RA knew in advance that the entire transcript would be presented raw, and that no errors would be cleaned up. Such an interview is still open to interpretation without any body language or facial expressions (or with asides from the interviewer as to his interpretations of same).
I'm sure many interviewees would be on their best behaviour, and/or rather guarded, about everything they said if they new the interviewer wasn't planning on edited the work into something more concise.
But hey, I was cranky about many of the things RA was involved with when he was vetting the tie-ins. But I also wonder how much of 'a dick" I'd be (or would be perceived as being) if I'd been doing his job.
Paula Block manages to vet without pissing everybody or screwing them over, and she took over from him didn't she?
He knew he was being interviewed by a fan and that the interview was going onto usenet. He didn't think he was being interviewed for a cover story in Entertainment Weekly. He was working in the Star Trek office, and Tim was a fan. I doubt RA would have agreed to the interview if they hadn't hashed out the details of how it was going to be presented.
I've seen a lot of bestselling Trek novelists grumble and mutter about Richard Arnold. I haven't seen a single bad word about Paula Block. No doubt someone will suggest that that's because Arnold's not in a position to shoot down their proposals now, and she is, but people were in fact complaining about Arnold while he was still in power. I've yet to hear of anything like the Probe incident or the A Flag Full of Stars incident or the various PAD-related incidents happening on Paula's watch.
^ That's because Paula's always been from the camp of "Let's see if we can address whatever issues I might have, and move forward," rather than "This isn't a good Star Trek story, which should come as no surprise because you're not a real Star Trek writer." She's a fan, not only of Trek but also of the fiction, and my experiences with her have always been positive, even when she takes issue with something I've submitted. She treats people as professionals, not lesser-thans, which makes all the difference in the world so far as this type of relationship is concerned.
QFT. Paula doesn't get nearly enough credit for the job she does, and the genuine enthusiasm she brings to to it.
Readers of Star Trek Mag #15 (out Christmas time) will get an insight into Paula in an exclusive piece talking about her own Trek roots... One of the (many) great things about editing the mag has been finding out just how many of my "opposite numbers" in Trek publishing are fans, not simply people doing a job!
Paul
After reading that interview, at times Richard Arnold seems to confuse himself and Gene Roddenberry, as though they share the same brain patterns.
I love his necessary violence rant (I mean violence happens for a reason in Star Trek), the anti-fan rant, apparently forgetting his fan experience, except to use it as I have 25 years of fandom.
I, also, love the if-the-execs-used-me-then-Paramount-would-have-had-a-TV-network story.
He is very long-winded and a big self-promoter.
Just from listening to his answers, I would not have wanted to meet this man. According to him, he was one of the main driving forces in on-screen Trek, Trek Fiction, and Trek Comics, especially when he tried to be diplomatic about not liking Peter David. I can just see a blank face rolling his eyes when talking about how good a writer PAD is, but not a good Star Trek writer.
Bottom line, He needs a kick in the balls because you are not GENE RODDENBERRY!!
I love his necessary violence rant (I mean violence happens for a reason in Star Trek), the anti-fan rant, apparently forgetting his fan experience, except to use it as I have 25 years of fandom.
I, also, love the if-the-execs-used-me-then-Paramount-would-have-had-a-TV-network story.
He is very long-winded and a big self-promoter.
Just from listening to his answers, I would not have wanted to meet this man. According to him, he was one of the main driving forces in on-screen Trek, Trek Fiction, and Trek Comics, especially when he tried to be diplomatic about not liking Peter David. I can just see a blank face rolling his eyes when talking about how good a writer PAD is, but not a good Star Trek writer.
Bottom line, He needs a kick in the balls because you are not GENE RODDENBERRY!!
To some extent, in that interview, I can see where Arnold was coming from, but he was defining things in far too exclusionistic terms. I was struck by this statement:
I don't think the contributions of my fellow authors have "screwed up" anything for me as a writer. Okay, admittedly I don't always agree with every decision they may make, but for the most part I feel my work has been enriched by having others' ideas and characters to build on.
Basically Arnold's philosophy seemed to be that it all had to come from Gene and nobody else could make a valid contribution, that any attempt from anyone else to make a contribution was a rejection of Gene. I think that's overlooking the crucial contributions that people other than GR made to TOS and TNG -- people like Herb Solow, Gene Coon, John D. F. Black, Bob Justman, D. C. Fontana, David Gerrold, etc. The shows themselves weren't exclusively GR's work, but were collaborations among multiple creators. Of course, Roddenberry himself had a tendency to gloss that over and take credit for it all. And he did get pretty protective about his vision toward the end. But Arnold seems to have taken a pretty militant, fundamentalist approach to enforcing that vision.
I don't think the contributions of my fellow authors have "screwed up" anything for me as a writer. Okay, admittedly I don't always agree with every decision they may make, but for the most part I feel my work has been enriched by having others' ideas and characters to build on.
Basically Arnold's philosophy seemed to be that it all had to come from Gene and nobody else could make a valid contribution, that any attempt from anyone else to make a contribution was a rejection of Gene. I think that's overlooking the crucial contributions that people other than GR made to TOS and TNG -- people like Herb Solow, Gene Coon, John D. F. Black, Bob Justman, D. C. Fontana, David Gerrold, etc. The shows themselves weren't exclusively GR's work, but were collaborations among multiple creators. Of course, Roddenberry himself had a tendency to gloss that over and take credit for it all. And he did get pretty protective about his vision toward the end. But Arnold seems to have taken a pretty militant, fundamentalist approach to enforcing that vision.
What an utterly bizarre claim, considering there was no inter-novel continuity allowed during his reign. How does author A screw anything up for author B, if author B is prohibited from referencing A's book?
Paula's great! She always has great notes on projects, and I admire her for taking on ten years of SNW chores.
--Ted
What an utterly bizarre claim, considering there was no inter-novel continuity allowed during his reign. How does author A screw anything up for author B, if author B is prohibited from referencing A's book?
I'm sure he's referencing one of the first incidents that upset him (and supposedly Roddenberry).
Richard is one of those fans who follows the canon. He's never read the novels or comics for pleasure - possibly he tried some Bantams and Gold Keys in his early days and decided never to read/collect the tie-ins. Keep in mind that Susan Sackett was vetting the Bantam novels (and early Pockets) for Gene, and Richard mentions Susan ringing him with trivia questions.
From the early Usenet, Compuserve and GEnie days, I recall his annoyance with Diane Duane's take on Romulans. GR (& RA) supposedly got tired of fielding questions at conventions about why not all other sources were using the "Rihannsu" term.
The straw that broke his back (and gave him the hump?) was a convention flyer that claimed guest Diane Duane was "the creator of the Rihannsu". That happened before Richard was vetting the manuscripts, but it made him very angry, on GR's behalf. (I think he thought Diane Duane was promoting herself that way, but AFAIK, it was the con committee's wording on the flyer.) RA said it made GR angry, but since I never heard GR on stage, I don't know if he ever mentioned it to fans himself.
GR is on record as saying he regretted the emphasis on warship designs in the ST Tech Manual and the RPG products.
When TNG started, the convention questions became, "How come the Romulans in 'The Neutral Zone' episode didn't call themselves Rihannsu?" and "Where are the TNG UFP dreadnoughts? - and even "Didn't Konom beat Worf into Starfleet?" Not long after came that 1989 memo.
And there was limited novel continuity in those early days - it was usually only done by the authors who'd read other ST novels during their research, I guess. There was even limited book/comic continuity, thanks to the DC Comics editors. The ban on tie-in inter-continuity happened under Richard's reign.
I find humongous chunks of gold to be mined in the works of other Trek authors -- novelists and screenwriters. Sometimes the smallest of throwaway lines or descriptions can lead to other terrific works.
So ... thanks, everyone!
--Ted
After reading all this, I think the answer to the OP's question is never.
Arnold sounds like a complete goombah with the interpersonal skills of a rotting cabbage. I'm ashamed to think that he even had anything to do with Star Trek.
Here's to the future, with Paula Block at the helm, boldly weaving new threads into the richest tapestry in the galaxy.
Arnold sounds like a complete goombah with the interpersonal skills of a rotting cabbage. I'm ashamed to think that he even had anything to do with Star Trek.
Here's to the future, with Paula Block at the helm, boldly weaving new threads into the richest tapestry in the galaxy.
I think that's a grave insult to rotting cabbages everywhere.
