entkayjay wrote:Was there any discussion of the Editor's comment in Issue 1 that Trek zines held the "dubious" honor of inventing the term "slash"? That's... a backhanded compliment. Ish. Nice 'zine. But that kind of colors my opinion of it.
ETA: To head off any wank, I looked closer and you are the editor, so apologies for not doing my homework. 
I'm not wanting to sound like I'm attacking you, I'm not. That phrase just jumped out at me, though, and while I assume that it was unintentional (and wording that reference to please everyone is just about impossible, I understand!), I'd like some clarification if you are willing to give it?
An editorial is the personal commentary of the editor - me - and as such could be a personal view on anything from what I had for breakfast to the current economic situation in SE Asia! In this thread my personal opinions are material only in regards to how they affect the editorial direction of the zine.
In that first editorial I wanted to cover a lot of ground and part of that was a potted history of fanzines. That Star Trek fandom was the wellspring of slash is a FACT. Is it something to be proud of? Some, and obviously you are amongst them, would say yes other would disagree - I used dubious in the sense that it was questionable as regards to whether this was an honour or not..
Do I write or read slash? No, but neither do I read or enjoy the thinly veiled racist militarism that often hides behind space opera. So, how do my personal opinions affect the editorial direction of the zine?
They don't.
Submissions are judged on many things, some are lethal failings such as spelling and grammar, others are value judgements - is it good fiction? - and one is the rating, it has to be R or lower. The exact wording, and we debated this, is...
Our focus is on people. We call it Personal Logs for two reasons: firstly because fan fiction is a very personal interaction between the author and their passion and secondly because we are interested in people. What we want are personal dramas played out against the backdrop of the the Star Trek universe and what that might tell us about the human condition. What we don't want is space opera where the cardboard cutout characters play second-fiddle to bigger and uglier villains, more violent battles and whizz-bang technobabble.
...
It must be good fiction. Characters need to have a motivation for their actions (especially canon characters) and without it the works stop being fan fiction and become fan fantasy. Because this is Personal Logs, it is a given that some stories will deal with interpersonal relationships. Gratuitous scenes of sex and violence are just that – gratuitous – and have no place in Personal Logs. But affection, romance, moderate physical contact and generally described violence are often a large part of good storytelling and are encouraged.
Good characterizations are always welcome, regardless of the characters' sexuality. But the writer will need to make a strong case for any radical departures from canon. This is true, not only of canon characters' sexuality and relationships, but also their behavior, personalities, appearances, etc. Turning Scotty into an Eskimo is going to require a lot of explanation and altered backstory – possibly too much for Personal Logs. The hill is steep but not impossible.
I can tell you that we have already accepted a powerful examination of Reed's relationship with Hayes and a hurt/comfort piece centred on Archer and Trip. If you've got any questions about the 'zine fire away but I think it would not be appropriate for me to discuss personal opinions which have no bearing on whether a piece will be accepted or not.
Its got to be age appropriate, its got to be well edited and its got to be good fiction.
Cheers
K
PS - Forgot to mention that the final line up of this issue will be debated by the current contributors so it won't just be up to me.
