||Uncharted Content from the Final Frontier - Since 1999
(Interview conducted via email between mid-1999 and November 2001)
Star Trek fans best know Shane Johnson for his many contributions to Star Trek technical lore.
Johnson's most well-known Star Trek publication is
Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise. Published in 1986, this book provides
its readers with a fascinating tour of Starfleet's most famous starship, as seen
in the first three Star Trek feature films.
In Worlds of the Federation, Johnson shed light on planets whose inhabitants
were either members, allies, or enemies of the United Federation of Planets. Each planet's
pages are accompanied by images of that world's dominant species.
Johnson's Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Journal gives a technical primer
to the amazing gadgets and starships of the 24th century. In many ways, the ST:TNGTJ is a
Next Generation version of Mr Scott's Guide.
Shane Johnson's science-fiction technical know-how has not been limited to Star Trek. He has created blueprints to science-fiction media staples ranging from the Millennium Falcon to the Jupiter 2. Johnson's most well known recent technical work was the Star Wars Technical Journal, which was published both as a three-volume trade paperback, and in hardcover form.
Shane has more recently lent his talents to the world of novels. The Last Guardian
was published in February 2001, and his next novel is scheduled for release in summer 2002.
Please tell me about yourself.
I was born in Dallas, Texas in the late 1950s, and grew up with the wondrous NASA
lunar program of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo days. What a time that was. I
built plastic spacecraft models and looked to the astronauts as heroes, and shared
the wonder of those first steps out into space. I feel for anyone who was not
there to witness firsthand Neil Armstrong's first steps onto the lunar surface -
you missed so much.
When did you become a Star Trek fan?
I watched regularly from about mid-season of NBC's first year of the show, but to be honest, I preferred Lost in Space at the time (hey, I was a kid -- although I still think the first black and white season of LIS is VERY cool). I really became a fan of ST around 1972 or 1973, which was also about the time the first conventions began to spring up. I tell you -- back then I lived and breathed that show. I was a SERIOUS fan.
Most of your contributions to Star Trek have been in the form of blueprints
and technical journals. How did you become interested in the technology of
I suppose it attracted me because it had such a unique look and they used such great sound effects. The engines sounded so powerful, and the phasers so intense. Everything seemed so functional, and in some cases was both unconventional and very, very cool. I STILL think the classic Phaser II pistol is the best looking weapon ever used in any version of ST.
How did you become interested in technical drawing? Have you made technical
drawings in arenas outside of science fiction?
I'm pretty much self-taught. My father was an architect, and I just kind of grew up around it. I never went to drafting school or anything like that, but I did work for a time as a lease space draftsman for the Tandy Corporation.
As for ST drawing in particular, I got into it because I had fallen in love with Franz Joseph's work. He gave the Trek universe an underlying technical reality it had never had before, and made it seem REAL. At the time, I envisaged that dozens of draftsmen, hunched over their tables, had created the blueprints and technical orders Ballantine published - it never occurred to me that one very talented man had done it all. Wow.
Do you prefer manual drafting, or computer-assisted drafting (CAD)? Why?
I'm something of an old school draftsman, so I think I'll always prefer the good old T-square, triangle and rapidograph method. For me, there's just something about having a clean sheet of vellum spread before you that makes the drafting table preferable. However, more recently I have grown fond of computer drafting as well, using such programs as Canvas and Illustrator. All of the books I have produced were done at the drawing table, and submitted camera-ready - generally, all the publisher had to do was drop in the photos I had chosen and go to press.
In both the Star Fleet Uniform Recognition Manual and
Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, you list Walter Koenig
(Star Trek's Pavel Chekov) on the
credits pages. How well do you know Mr. Koenig? How did he help you with
Walt and I became friends back in the very early 1980s. He's a terrific guy, and
I have enjoyed my friendship with him greatly. While I have been to his house on
the few occasions that I have been in Los Angeles, I don't travel a lot so
I don't usually see him unless he happens to be in my area doing a convention or
something. Our careers don't intersect very often, but we do keep in touch by
mail and telephone, and exchange Christmas cards once a year.
Walt was kind enough to give me some early, pre-publication
commentary on the earliest of my ST books,
including the two you mentioned. During the production of
Mr. Scott's Guide, he also put me in touch with
Jimmy Doohan, who offered his support and encouragement. Jimmy is a great fellow,
and he once told me that he has autographed many, many copies of the book at
the various conventions he has attended.
Some of your earlier contributions to SF include interior and exterior
blueprints to Lost In Space's Jupiter 2, and Star Wars' Millennium Falcon. Those who study the filming miniatures and the interior sets of those two
spacecraft come to realize that, were those spaceships to be built
real-size, it would be difficult if not impossible to fit all of their rooms
inside. How did you take this into account in your blueprints?
Impossible, absolutely. Both those ships (as with most) were designed to
look cool on camera, not to stand up to a pair of calipers, and neither will
hold the interior it is portrayed to have. Generally, one can avoid most of
the conflicts by showing plan views only, and not section elevations -- it
seems that most of the problems in ships like those arise vertically, not
horizontally. Therefore, the interiors of both the J2
in my LIS Volume 1 blueprint set and the
Falcon in the
SW Technical Journal are shown in plan view only.
How did you go about making Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise?
I proposed a blueprint set of the movie Enterprise
to Pocket Books in 1985, since nothing like FJ's great
Booklet of General Plans had been done for the new
ship. It was obvious that the two ships were different enough that new drawings
were warranted -- I imagined that the only remaining piece of the old 1701 still
aboard was a matching nut and bolt, set against velvet in a shadow box on the
wall of Scotty's quarters. So, I did a few sample drawings and sent them to Pocket,
and they counter-proposed a book format project instead.
Originally, the book was to have been 160 pages in length
and would have included full fold-out deck plans. However, a couple of months into
the project, Pocket became unsure of the project (their only other
ST trade paperbacks, which were released at the
time of the first film, had sold very poorly), so they cut back the book length in
order to drop the cover price. A couple of the authors of those earlier books told
me by phone to be sure to get up front whatever money I wanted out of the deal,
because, in their opinions, there sure wouldn't be sufficient sales to prompt
Well, here it is almost thirteen years after the book's
publication, and I've only recently received my first royalty statement without a
check in it. The first printing of the book went from 30,000 copies to 60,000
before it was ever released (due to advance sales), and continued to do well for
a long time. I am very grateful for that.
What references did you use in making Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise?
Slides, photos and set drawings provided by Paramount's art department, primarily.
In addition to these, I used photos I took on the sets (more on that below),
magazines and videotape of the films.
Have you ever visited any of the Star Trek sets?
If so, do they hold up as well in person as they do on screen? What is your
favorite set, and why? Your least favorite set, and why?
The short deadline I had for Mr. Scott's Guide
demanded that I gather material faster than Paramount could provide it, which
meant I had to go out to California and collect some data myself. Ralph Winter,
the producer of ST IV, was kind enough to allow
me the opportunity, and so it was with great anticipation that I first walked
onto Stage Nine (the Enterprise sets) in August
of 1986. At that time, filming on ST IV had
just been completed and the sets were sitting in limbo, between films. I had
the whole soundstage to myself for three full hours on a Monday morning - I was
the only one in there, wandering the sets and taking measurements to supplement
the set drawings I'd been given. Basically, they locked me in, telling me to
pick up the soundstage phone and tell Security when I needed out.
It was a bit eerie - I felt rather like Kirk must have in
"The Mark of Gideon." There I was, walking the halls of the mighty starship
Enterprise, and it was so quiet.
Only the transporter room set was fully intact, and
appeared as it had been seen on film. I was able to stand both in the operator's
booth and on the platform, where (thanks to a tripod and a twenty-foot cable
release) I was able to get a photo of myself standing there, ready to beam down.
I suppose it was my favorite of the standing sets, because being in there was
most like being aboard an actual "starship." I took the photo on page 68 of
Mr. Scott's Guide myself. As far as I know, I'm
the only person to have documented those sets with a stereo camera.
The bridge had been modified into the white-and-chrome
1701-A form it knew for about five seconds at the end of
ST IV, but only partially -- the entire front
half of the set, which was not shown in that scene, had remained gray and was
marred with sprayed-on burn marks as was seen in
ST II and III.
The crew chairs were missing, for someone had vandalized them with a knife a
few weeks earlier and they were away being re-upholstered. Also, it tickled
me that the outer side of one of the turbo-elevator doors (the side of the
door that would have been visible from inside the turbolift) featured a big
"Valvoline" sticker, apparently placed there by a member of the production crew.
Sickbay had been redressed into the bar/lounge seen in
ST III (where McCoy tries to hire a ship to take
him to Genesis), and was still in that form when I saw it. The beds had been
replaced with booth seating and tables, and the nurse's station had become a
One neat little detail that escaped detection by the
cameras during the making of ST:TMP involved a
section of the Sickbay set. A silver and blue medical storage unit, seen
briefly in the background during the scene in which Kirk, Spock and Decker
discuss the Ilia probe situation, featured labels warning that it held culture
samples of "Andromeda Strain." That, of course, was another of Robert Wise's
films, and the set piece was a subtle homage to him.
Kirk's quarters was a mess. Stripped of its
furniture and half remodeled and repainted, they had been in the process of
redressing it into an earthly apartment for the Catherine Hicks character in
ST IV. However, the scene was cut before
being shot, so the redress halted. I did get to see the corner booth/table
unit that always had been in Kirk's quarters but was never seen on film
(it appears on the floorplan in MSG), and it had a clear plexiglas tabletop
and snazzy upholstery. That same corner of the room is seen in
ST II, where the set had been redressed into
Spock's quarters, but for that film the booth/table had been replaced with Spock's
The corridors were floored with large sheets of the
same resin grid material used for the transporter pads, only painted black.
The plywood under the corridor flooring creaked when you walked down them,
which sometimes made it hard to imagine one was aboard a vessel in space.
There was a door along the corridor which had no set
behind it, though one had originally been planned. It was to have led to
a briefing room set, but because the first film ran so badly overbudget the
room was never built. The briefing room scene was re-written for an
"officer's lounge," and a set was created somewhat hastily using existing
"rec deck" components.
The elevator and corridor doors (which operated on a
window curtain pulley system) were made of aluminum-faced foamcore, and were
very lightweight. Had an actor leaned on one, I imagine he'd have destroyed
it. The main elevator interior set was a wheeled unit that sat separate from
the other sets, and seemed to have the name of just about every grip who had
ever worked on the films spray-painted on its outer plywood surfaces.
Engineering was a huge set, and a very tricky one.
It was a forced perspective set in two directions, which could only be properly
viewed from two camera positions. Viewed from the upper balcony level, a huge
backdrop painting that was stretched beneath the vertical intermix shaft created
the illusion that the shaft and its surrounding balconies continued downward
for many levels. Then, looking back along the horizontal shaft, an illusion of
distance was created by having the shaft itself ever-decrease in diameter, with
an upward-sloping floor and narrowing walls and ceiling. Another very large
painting was rolled against the rear end of the set. Smaller and smaller extras
were posted along the length of the shaft, ending with children near the back.
And at the rear end, the intermix was only about a foot in diameter. Cool,
huh? Unfortunately, the engineering room set largely had been filled with
furniture removed from the redressed sickbay, to get it out of the way -- all
the beds, examining tables, wall units and whatever were piled all over in there.
Other backdrop paintings had been used to make the
corridors look longer than they actually were. It's interesting to note that
there were walls behind the walls of the corridors - these had been built for
Star Trek Phase II and were finished, and
looked very much like those we had seen in the original series. The new,
angled walls had been built inside them.
Also stored on the soundstage were other elements used
in the making of some of the films. The full-sized travel pod was there, as was
the drydock model used in ST:TMP. Sections of
Kirk's apartment from ST II, including the San
Francisco backdrop, were stacked against one wall. Another interesting item,
resting in a corner, was a large, airbrushed model of the planet Jupiter - this
had been used for a couple of the first film's Enterprise
Actually, that was not the first time I had been on a
Star Trek set. Back in June of 1979, my
wife and I were invited by Susan Sackett, Gene Roddenberry's assistant, to visit
the ST sets during shooting. I had met Susan
through an art contest she had held via the Lincoln Enterprises-produced
Star Trek newsletter. They were filming the
Klingon bridge sequence the day we were there, and those scenes were the last
part of ST:TMP to be shot. The set was impressive,
despite the fact that my wife kept catching her heels in the grid flooring. We
met Mark Lenard and his Klingon crew, and even joined them for lunch in the
commissary. It was hilarious - here these imposing, usually menacing Klingons
were, eating their meat loaf and green beans and applesauce, their glued-on facial
hair constantly getting in the way. A few, frustrated at having hair in each bite,
began to pull off their beards in clumps, while makeup people hovered over them
saying, "No, no! Stop! Don't do that!"
Fans of Star Trek technology often debate over
whether or not Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise
should be considered "canon," since material from series such as
Star Trek: The Next Generation contradict
parts of the book. If you ignore Star Trek
television episodes and feature films produced after 1986, when your book was
published, Scott's Guide seems accurate on every
point. How would you judge the technical accuracy of
Scott's Guide, and what is your take on the issue
of Star Trek "canon?"
Paramount's standards concerning "canonicity" have changed a few times since then.
When I began to write the book, I was told by the studio that "if it's on-screen or
licensed, it's official. If it's fan-produced or unlicensed, it is unofficial and
not to be used as a reference." I don't think they actually used the word
"canon," but their meaning was clear. They asked me to maintain continuity with the
Spaceflight Chronology (published in 1980) and with
the FASA materials, both licensed, and I did so to the best of my ability. The
original series and the films done to that time
(ST I-IV) took precedence as references, so the only
cases in which I did not follow the lead of the prior licensed materials were
those where there was conflict with what had been on-screen. There were very
few such cases, I recall.
I encountered a few things in the films themselves that
just could not work as depicted, and had to be changed for the sake of logical
continuity. The outer configuration of the turbo-elevator cars is one example -
on the cargo deck in ST:TMP, the elevator car
visible through the translucent carrier tube is clearly some 12-15 feet in
height, with very rounded top and bottom surfaces, like a Contac capsule.
That simply won't work, for such a car could never move sideways through the
nine-foot decks of the ship's primary hull.
The studio's current definition of canon is "anything
that has appeared on-screen." This, despite the discrepancies between series,
and between films. I'd say it's pretty much become a pick-and-choose situation.
Personally, I think of myself as something of a
Star Trek purist, assuming there can be
such a thing. I consider only the original series, the animated series,
and the brilliant ST:TMP Director's Edition to
be pure canon, along with a very few publications such as the wonderful
Star Trek Maps. For me, it is these properties
that most purely constitute Star Trek.
Mike Okuda has stated in his Star Trek Chronology
that it is really up to each fan to decide what is "canon" and what isn't,
based upon personal enjoyment, and I think he's right about that.
Perhaps the most controversial part of
Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise is the
section on the second starship
Enterprise, NCC-1701-A, which made its
debut at the end of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
In that section, you describe the Enterprise-A
as having transwarp drive. Pages 122 and 123 also show what appear to be
actual bridge graphics, drawn by Michael Okuda, that suggest that the
Enterprise-A does indeed possess transwarp
drive. Page 115 of the book features a close-up photograph of that
bridge's auxiliary systems monitoring station, located immediately behind
the captain's chair. The graphics of that station to appear to jibe with
those shown elsewhere in your book. The upper left of the four rectangular
graphics seems to match the "TRANSWARP SUBSYS" graphic on page 122. Sometime
between 1989 and 1992, I clipped from an issue of
Starlog magazine a letter written by Richard
Arnold, who at the time was a Star Trek
Research Consultant working at Paramount Pictures. In that letter, Arnold
Shane Johnson changed
Michael Okuda's graphics to suit himself in
Scott's Guide to the Enterprise. There were
never any graphics in Star Trek IV or
V that stated "transwarp" anything.
The page 115 photo, and all other photo references
available to me, lack the resolution to verify whether or not the original
bridge graphic mentions transwarp drive. Did the
Star Trek IV bridge graphics actually mention
transwarp drive, or were they changed for the book, as Richard Arnold
claims? (Of course, the controversy became moot in
Star Trek V, which featured a new bridge set,
and references only to regular warp drive. I just want to know if the
people behind Star Trek IV intended for the
Enterprise-A to have transwarp drive.)
The graphics were altered for the book, but NOT as Richard Arnold claims.
Mike Okuda served as a technical consultant for the
book in its later stages, at a time just after the filming of
ST IV had been concluded. It had been he
who had created the bridge displays and panel graphics for the ship seen
at the end of the film, and those elements had been his first on-screen
foray into Star Trek graphic design.
Mike then went on to do the excellent work for which he became best known,
that seen in ST:TNG
and the projects that followed.
In ST III,
"transwarp drive" clearly had been stated as being the wave of the
future, and I wanted to take whatever precautions I could against
Mr. Scott's Guide being made obsolete by
the content of later films. ST IV
had not yet been released, but the publisher had asked that I address
the new 1701-A at the end of the book in order to create a marketing
So, as I was finalizing the appendix of the
book (the section that dealt with the new
Enterprise), I contacted Mike by phone
and asked whether or not the new ship was transwarp. He told me they
hadn't really thought about it, since the ship had appeared only briefly
on screen and the issue had not been touched upon in the script.
Mr. Scott's Guide needed to address
the matter, so I then asked if he thought I should go ahead and
designate the ship as such, given the dialogue in
ST III. Doing so seemed logical to
both of us, so the decision to depict 1701-A as a transwarp ship was
made at that time, by mutual consent. I believe we made the right call,
given the information available to us. Ultimately, we both knew,
Paramount would have the final say -- and should the studio request
a change to the contrary, I could make the alteration before the book
went to press.
I therefore took Mike's bridge display graphics
and dropped in the "transwarp" line where appropriate, and he wrote
the textual descriptions that were to be printed beneath each piece of
artwork. Due to the book's imminent deadline, those descriptions were
submitted directly to Pocket Books and not to me, so the way Mike
wrote and delivered them is the way they were printed. I modified the
art, and he wrote the text. And since Paramount's legal department
fully approved the book before publication, the transwarp designation
for the 1701-A was "official" at the time.
Why do you think that Star Trek
producers decided not to equip spaceships of the 24th century with
transwarp drive, when that propulsion system, developed in the 23rd
century, is supposed to be more advanced than "regular" warp drive?
(It seems that much of Star Trek's
technological history has been rewritten multiple times over the years.
Examples include the introduction of a "warp core" and the impulse
deflection crystal for the Star Trek
movies, and the subsequent disappearance of the impulse deflection
crystal for TNG-era starships.)
I think it pretty much boils down to the fact that the
Excelsior design was not well received by the fans.
Terms such as "pregnant guppy" were fairly prevalent after the release of
ST III, and Paramount - who had hoped to use
the Excelsior class as the new
ST IV - backed away from the idea. The
word "transwarp" invoked images of the discarded vessel, and so the baby was
thrown out with the bath water -- the whole concept was orphaned.
One of your more recent Star Trek
technical publications is the
Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Journal,
which was published by Starlog. How did you go about making this volume?
Norm Jacobs at Starlog was looking to publish such a project, and Mike
Kott of the Intergalactic Trading Company suggested to him during a
Trek convention that I might be the one
to do it. I had worked with Mike in the past, and he was well familiar with
my work. So, I got a call from Jacobs, asking if I would be interested, and
I said yes. At that time, the
ST:TNG Technical Manual
by Mike Okuda and Rick Sternbach was in the making, so I warned Jacobs that
we needed to make sure that we did not in any way step on the toes of that
I wrote my Technical Journal
to compliment the more extensive work by Okuda and Sternbach, and instead of
focusing on the Enterprise itself I chose to
cover a wider range of tech, including Klingons, Romulans, etc. I was largely
pleased with the way it turned out, though I would have liked to have had
better reference materials than were available to me.
What references did you use in making the ST:TNG Technical Journal?
Whatever I could find. Most of my references were provided by Starlog, which
had obtained them from the studio. Due to new policies and their accompanying
red tape, I was not allowed to contact Paramount directly, which slowed the
process considerably and kept me from getting everything I would have liked.
The ST:TNG Technical Journal is reminiscent in
both content and appearance to Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise.
Did you at one point plan to make a Next Generation
version of Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, perhaps a
"Mr. La Forge's Guide?"
I proposed just such a book, back around 1989. Pocket Books was not interested at the
time, but they did eventually publish the Okuda/Sternbach book.
Perhaps your most popular recent work is the three-volume
Star Wars Technical Journal, which was also
published as a hardcover. How did you go about making these?
Those too were contracted by Starlog, and I wrote them as a work-for-hire. I pretty
much did them as I had done all of my previous projects - researching what I could
and filling the gaps where necessary. Actually, when they first called and asked
if I would do them, I asked, "are you sure you mean
Star WARS? Not Trek?"
At the time, SW was almost a dead property,
with no current merchandising or other real exposure to speak of, so it turns
out that Starlog was ahead of the curve on that one.
I want to acknowledge the great job Dave Hutchison
of Starlog did in editing the Technical Journals.
He was a very talented man, who did a marvelous job bringing them all together.
Sadly, he passed away recently, and I miss working with him a great deal.
What references did you use in making the
SW Technical Journal?
Widescreen tapes of the three films, primarily, in addition to which Lucasfilm
provided a wealth of photo references and production blueprints. I also looked
to prior publications such as
A Guide to the Star Wars Universe and even
storybooks, finding references wherever I could. I try to keep my "gap-filling"
to a minimum, but sometimes it can't be helped.
Have you ever encountered, shall we say, overzealous fans or critics of your
Oh, sure. There are always those who have their own ideas about how everything
should be, and these folks get frustrated when you disagree with them. A few
have given me a particularly hard time over one thing I've written or another, but
you just have to learn to appreciate their enthusiasm and move on.
How often, in your technical works, do you have to fill in gaps left by the
shows and movies that feature the objects that your books describe? For
example, the Star Wars movies did not show every
room of the Millennium Falcon, so you had to invent
the unseen areas of the Falcon when you made a
drawing of that ship's interior. What considerations do you make, when
filling in the gaps, to keep your innovations faithful to the source
You just have to do your best to stay within the implied guidelines of
a given "universe," and go from there. The job is a combination of knitting
established material together with one's own conjecture. It can be quite a
challenge to take a handful of sets and production sketches and add to them
in order to flesh out a plausible starship interior. Sometimes it's fairly
easy and sometimes it's more difficult, especially if one is forced to fill
those gaps alone without the input of anyone connected with the production,
as was the case with my Star Wars books.
Unlike a lot of similar publications out there, none of mine were produced
by committee, so I'm pretty much responsible for their content. I'm
grateful to have had the speculative input of such folks as Mike
Okuda and Andy Probert, and the books are better for their having been involved.
Ultimately, however, the content decisions are mine -- I'm the one who signed
the contracts, and I'm the one who has to see to it that the finished books
are true to the visions of Star Trek or
Star Wars or whatever. I edit and refine as
deadlines allow, but still there remain things in all of my publications that
I'd now change if I could. In writing these kinds of books you just have to
remember that you did the best job you could at the time, given the resources
and time restraints you had to work with.
I understand you're working on an original novel. Can you tell us anything
It's called The Last Guardian
and it was published in February, 2001 by Random House/WaterBrook Press.
It's a Christian adventure novel, something of a
"Stephen King-meets-Indiana Jones-meets-Twilight Zone-meets-Book of
Revelation" kind of thing. Hard to describe. The book has done very well and
has received great reviews, and has a unique and dramatic history which is
described in the novel's opening Author's Note.
I've also now completed a novel entitled
ICE, which will be in stores next summer. It's
the story of a fictitious Apollo 19 mission to the lunar south pole, which
dramatically takes a rather hard left about halfway through. Not your usual
space story. Apollo 12 moonwalker and accomplished artist Alan Bean
is doing the cover for it, which thrills me to no end.
The next book will be a novel called
Chayatocha, a thriller/horror story
set in the 1850s, on the Oregon Trail.
How does writing a novel about a fictional world differ from creating
technical drawings about a fictional world?
Well, for one thing you aren't limited to someone else's vision of how things
should be. You can't really compare writing fiction to doing something like
Mr. Scott's Guide, since it really is an
apples-and-oranges kind of thing, but there are a few distinctions. One
nice thing is that I hold the copyright, not a movie studio.
Writing and drawing are two completely different
things, like trying to compare the works of Mark Twain and Picasso. Fiction
is a whole new ball game, and can't be created with a t-square. It is very
fluid. I have to become each character as I go along, responding to each
new plot element as they would, letting them tell me what their reactions
and dialogue should be. It's fascinating work, and I enjoy it greatly.
Did you do any sketches to help you visualize the characters, settings, or
events in your novel?
If there were one question you'd like to ask Gene Roddenberry, what would it
be? If there were one question you'd like to ask the folks at Paramount,
what would it be?
Well, as for Gene, that would be personal and I'll reserve that for myself.
Concerning Paramount, I suppose it would be, "Why the effort to forget or
supplant the original series, the show that prompted the entire
Star Trek phenomenon?" I'm a great fan
of the original, and I have not been happy with the way the current
"powers that be" have taken such a revisionist stance with the universe the
classic series created.
Is there anything you'd like to say to
Star Trek fans, about the
Star Trek series or films, your works,
fandom, or just general comments?
Don't forget the original series, or dismiss it as obsolete. You owe it everything.
Thank you all for your kind words concerning my work. I hope my love of
Star Trek shows on every page.
And on a vastly larger scale, know that there IS a God, and that He knows your
name and has stood at your side every moment, and that He has a unique plan for
Interview copyright 2001 by Greg Tyler and Shane Johnson.
by Greg Tyler unless otherwise noted. This web site
is a fan-produced, not-for-profit endeavor. Use of other parties' copyrighted
works is done either with permission or under the terms of Fair Use. Works
owned by other parties will be removed at the request of the copyright holder.
Opinions expressed by interviewees are their own, and they do not necessarily
represent the opinions of the authors of this web site. The authors of this web site cannot
always verify and are not responsible for the accuracy of claims made by interviewees.