Q: You have taken yourself out of the limelight and not exposed yourself to the public for some years. Why did you decide to come forward at this time? How do you expect to handle the onslaught of demands for interviews and public appearances this will ignite?
    A: I thought it would be fitting to do an interview with someone in Denver since “Battlefield Earth” begins there.
    On the anticipated demands, I prefer to continue my writing.
    Q: What are you celebrating with publication of “Battlefield Earth”?
    A: Fifty wonderful years with the writing profession. Besides being something that was fun for myself, it was a way to thank the profession and my friends.
    It's the 50-year golden anniversary of my wedding to the Muse.
    Q: Why did you choose Denver and the Rocky Mountains as a central setting for “Battlefield Earth”? What time have you spent here in the past or in connection with writing the book?
    A: If I were to tell the role that Denver and the Rockies play in the plot, I would give away too much of the story. Let's just say that the location is vital to the story.
    I have spent many a happy day in Denver and in Colorado. I was in Denver even before the ski crowd discovered it.
    So it was a pleasure to return to Denver for the purpose of “Battlefield Earth.”
Q: In the novel, Denver is destroyed. Are you trying to tell the residents of Denver something?
    A: In “Battlefield Earth,” much more than Denver has been destroyed. That is part of the plight that the ragged remnants of humanity face after 100 years of alien domination.
    Entire cities are nothing more than abandoned wastelands crumbling before the weather like the pyramids of Egypt today — relics of another civilization — while tiny bands of humans huddle in the mountains.
    But the reader will discover that Denver also holds the key to the overthrow of the aliens who have dominated the planet for 1,000 years ...
    But let's not give away too much of the plot!
    You're a fine one to ask why anyone would choose Denver and the Rocky Mountains as a setting. It's beautiful and dramatic. And I had to have a character from a rugged, outdoorsy-type environment with a personality that best fits a Coloradan.
    As to a message for the residents of Denver, it's just this: ‘Whatever happens, you can win.’
    Q: What made you return to science fiction writing after all these years?
    A: There are some activities that are simply so much fun that one can't give them up. Writing is that for me. I love every opportunity to write.
    Many young writers are told to write in order to learn how to write. That is good advice. I used to find any excuse to write because I loved to do it. If I didn't have a typewriter, I wrote in longhand.
    So when my 50th anniversary as a professional writer came around. I decided to celebrate it by doing it. It was like a present to myself, so to speak.
    I chose science fiction because there is great versatility in this genre. (A writer must pick his medium as carefully as a painter must pick his brush and colors.) Besides, science fiction is no longer the stepchild of literature. Star Wars” created an entirely new following and now “E.T.” has proven that the genre has much wider appeal than was ever imagined.
    Plus, look at the best-seller lists and you will see the pattern repeating. Science fiction and space travel is dominant.
    “Battlefield Earth” is science fiction but it is also adventure. It is a statement about the human condition and the human spirit. That story could not have been told in any other genre.
    I might add that James Michener's “Space” is a novel that would have been called “science fiction” just a few years ago.

L. Ron Hubbard as a youthful aviator in Washington about 1931. He was a barnstormer.

    Q: You have devoted the last 30 years of your life to the development of Dianetics and Scientology. Does this book signify a new direction for you?
    A: The development of Dianetics and Scientology was something that simply had to be done. I had been working on the basic ideas long before the first book appeared in 1950. Then, that book was not even a change of direction as much as it was simply making my actual direction and interests known.
    The fiction that I wrote served as a means to generate the income so that I would be free to travel and research and write some more.
    The future is more writing. I have another book already in the wings and I am writing some more music to expand the concept that was started with the album I just finished — “Space Jazz.” It is the sound track for the book “Battlefield Earth.”
When you say “sound track,” people think of the sound track of a movie. The concept has not been associated with a book. So what was done with “Space Jazz” was introduce a new concept — book sound tracks.
    The idea is really no different than for a movie. The music reflects scenes or characters. The difference is that the songs were written to stand on their own. This is usually done only with the music for the opening credits of a movie because the rest of the time you are watching and not really listening. So the music is secondary.
    With the sound track for a book, you get to hear the music for the first time and let each song be a song. If you. have read the book, it enhances the song. But it is not really necessary.
    Also, we moved from depending on standard instruments to using a computer which can take any natural sound and play it as rhythm or melody. The sound is transferred to a keyboard and you can simply play any sound you record. You can also invert it, blend it into other sounds and mix it any way you want.
    It creates an entirely new range of music and thus it will create new musicians, for it takes a real musician to master a computer musical instrument.
    Q: What, really, was that period now described as “the golden age of science fiction?”
    A: There have been articles and books on the subject and you will get many different answers.
    Those of us who were there writing during that period have a unique viewpoint because we were there. “Golden age” was a later characterization. At the time, it meant simply an explosion of interest and opportunities.
    What is happening today is quite similar and it is happening not only with movies but with books. Look at the best-seller lists.
    Q: How has science fiction changed since you were active in the field 50 years ago? What major changes have you seen in science fiction as it has evolved, particularly contrasting the science fiction of the ’50s with the science fiction of the ’80s?
    A: Science fiction has waxed between technology and people. Stories have been either about the latest gimmick or about people.
    In 1938, I was asked by the top brass of Street and Smith Publishing Company to write science fiction stories for their new magazine, Astounding Science Fiction. In those days a request from Street and Smith was not to be taken lightly. Nevertheless, I complained that I wrote about people, not machines — which was the vogue. They said that was just what they wanted and to go ahead. I did.
    Until then, SF was virtually nothing but hyper-space drives and time machines and various mechanical gimmicks. The human element was secondary. For me, the human element and human potential was always primary.
    People are simply more fun than machines.
    Look at the biggest box office smash in history — “E.T.” It is about people — and I include E.T. in that category. The technology is not only secondary but a threat — the looming technology that comes in to capture E.T.
    I think that is perhaps the greatest shift in science fiction.
    In “Battlefield Earth,” there is an advanced technology but it is the technology of the aliens who have conquered Earth and virtually wiped out humanity. Pitted against this is the Human Spirit.
    I don't think I would be giving anything away to say that the Human Spirit prevails.
    Q: Have you stayed in touch with your fellow science fiction writers or the era?
    A: Those of us from that era have a peculiar and particular bond that goes beyond anything any of us may do. It is a delight for me to keep in touch with my old friends.
    Q: How do you assess the current public view of science fiction as contrasted with the ’50s? The ’60s and the ’70s?
    A: With the advance of technology (such as the computer), science fiction is not all that much fiction. And it is certainly no longer a fad.
    One may not be too wrong saying that today science fiction is actually the most popular genre going.
    It is certainly more popular than it has ever been before.
    Q: What direction do you see science fiction going now? Is the trend toward epics and battle stories such as “Star Wars”?
    A: You must remember that science fiction is simply a method or a means of telling the story. Regardless of the genre (science fiction, western, spy, romance), you will find that people like a story that is both real and has a purpose. It has to say something or achieve something.
    There is always an element that promotes your valueless or no-hope society, but compare their success with stories like “Star Wars” or “E.T.”
The movie “E.T.” was certainly not an “epic” in the sense of scope or size. But it was meaningful.
    Science fiction points a direction because it does advocate a future. It is about Man and his Future.
    When the machine was king in the 19th century, man had hope but he also had fears — and rightfully so. He hoped that the machine would bring about improvements but at the same time he feared the result.
    Thus what we face today with innovations like the computer and the laser are the same classical problems: Will man be able to control his creations?
    In “Battlefield Earth,” I present a situation where mankind has almost been wiped from the face of the Earth by advanced technology and is now imprisoned not so much by the aliens who dominate the planet but by superstition. Man has dwindled to the point where the few surviving tribes — hiding like frightened animals — have actually forgotten about the aliens and have taken to superstition instead.
    Thus they were first trapped by their own ideas.
    When the hero, Jonnie Goodboy Tyler, decides to leave the mountain sanctuary of his dying tribe, he is first of all breaking free of superstition.
    Again, look at the story in “E.T.”
It is also a story of superstition and fear and how it is overcome — by children.
    Q: What role did science fiction writers and their readers have in the development of space technology and travel — and public acceptance of it and its funding — in the 1950s and 1960s? What role does it play today in future commitment to space exploration, colonization, exploitation?
    A: If you will go back through those old, gaudy pulp magazines that were being ridiculed and confiscated by irate teachers, you will find a lot of articles on space technology scattered amongst the fiction. That was because there was no other outlet for such vision.
    Some who wrote for the pulps were called “just science fiction writers.” But history has proven that they were the ones who brought about the future — not the naysayers.
    We knew then that Man would travel to the stars and we know it still.
    There are still those who cannot create a vision for the future and they, as before, still click their tongues to make a living and they will, again, be forgotten simply because they cannot create — they can only criticize.
    Q: Why do you think the science fiction magazines that flourished in the ’50s have declined in popularity, while paperback books have boomed?
    A: I can't say that they did. If they did, it was only a change of format.

Hubbard as a writer in New York City, about 1935. He's celebrating 50 years in the profession.

    Q: How would you assess the broader audience science fiction has today? Years ago, science fiction was considered as something for children which was not “serious” literature. Its popularity today knows no age boundaries. Is this indicative of an escapist attitude by readers? Or a look to the future and what we could be?
    A: The future is the only frontier without limit and the frontier that we will all enter and cross no matter what we do.
    Science fiction is and always has been the literature about the frontier.
    Science fiction appeals to every age group because it is about the future and the human potential.
    Q: One of the reviews of your new book referred to a new audience of science fiction fans discovering the old master. Whom do you hope to reach with your latest work?
    A: I wrote “Battlefield Earth” for those who enjoy adventure, the will to survive and the basic spirit of the individual against impossible odds.
    Q: How do you draw from your past track in creating character and plot? Is this the place from which science fiction comes in general, whether the writers know it or not?
    A: Experience helps any writer or anyone who wants to write.
    I traveled through the Far East and sailed the high seas and did a few loops in some bi-winged planes and gliders in my day and drew upon these for stories, I also did a lot of research for other stories.
    But what is more important is the ability to see what is in front of you. Plus you have to have the ability to assume the viewpoint of your reader.
    For example, in “Battlefield Earth,” the reader looks through the eyes of the hero and through the eyes of the alien. This is done by describing how each person would describe the scene and objects. It gives the reader a feeling of what it would be like to assume that viewpoint. The reader at first does not recognize the object either but should be able to do so as the description continues. But, in the process, the reader can experience the same mystery as the character in the story.
    That is the ability to see what is in front of you and the ability to assume another viewpoint.
    It is a good exercise for writers.
    So experience is helpful but you need much more.
    Q: Imaginative bits of engineering included in the long-ago science fiction novels and stories are now a reality. Is the science fiction of today the technology of tomorrow? Are today's science fiction writers looking as far ahead of the present as they did in the past in terms of innovative gadgetry and technology?
    A: During that period that we now call “the golden age,” there was a tremendous intimacy between writers and the rocket boys. Quite often, we couldn't tell who was who because those who worked in labs would write stories and writers went and worked in labs.
    On more than one occasion you would hear about a writer who was kicking around a plot with a scientist only to find a few weeks later that his story is being considered seriously and some mathematician is trying to work it out.
    So more often than we will ever know, the innovations and ideas were sparked by this symbiotic relationship.
    Part of the reason was that both groups were visionaries and both were outcasts. Today, science fiction is topping the best-seller lists and the box office and the space program is fact.
    Now that writers and musicians can play with computers it is hard to imagine what new areas they will be able to open.
    Q: Are there any new science fiction plots left?
    A: As long as there are writers, there will be plots. And as long as there are people who enjoy a great story, there will be writers.
    Q: What does science fiction writing do for L. Ron Hubbard personally?
    A: I can answer that better if you don't restrict it to just one genre.
    Writing offers creation, expression and the ultimate ability to communicate, whether you write poetry or a novel.
    Science fiction is just one means or method of doing that.
    With writing, you must take an idea and turn it into little black marks on a sheet of white paper so that someone will look at it and lift those little black marks off the page and form the idea of the author.
    In short, it boils down to communication.
    Q: How would L. Ron Hubbard describe himself as a writer?
    A: I don't know if I can take it any further than that.
    I've always had the ability to put an idea down on the page. I don't really outline. I just write.
    I think if I wanted to be characterized in a certain way as a writer, I would ask that it be that I am a writer who loves to write.
    That is not as axiomatic as it may sound. There are a lot of writers who don't like to write and some who even hate it but are still called “writers” because they make a living at it — the 9 to 5 type, so to speak.
    But it has never been that way with me. I don't watch the clock when I write. In fact, I've gone days without sleep just because I was enjoying myself so much I just plain forgot.
    How could one forget to sleep?
    Well, just imagine doing something that is more exciting than anything you have ever done and see if you worry or think about a “coffee break” or what time it is.
    That's what I mean by my being a writer who loves to write.
    There's really no other way to say it.
    Q: What did you first want to achieve as a writer? Why did you stop writing science fiction? What was the first thing you wrote?
    A: I was writing for years before I sold my first story and turned professional. The first story wasn't fiction, either. It was about my aerial experiences in the East and Midwest.
    I was going to school in Washington, D.C., and had a chance to do some barnstorming. Well, which would you rather do? Besides, there was a short break in the studies. So I took off.
    Then I went into gliders and some stunt flying and found that a magazine wanted to print a story.
    That's when I turned professional.
    I mention this because I was already a writer. I just wasn't making a living at it. When I found that I could, that I could be paid to do what I loved to do most, I turned professional.
    It allowed me more time to write, research and travel.
    My writing was interrupted only once — during the Second World War when even letters home were a problem. But that experience taught me much about people. When I came out of the war, I tossed off a few stories but the die had been cast as certainly as when I had turned pro. I was working on other ideas then, from what I had seen and learned.
    I believe the first article I sold was “Tailwind Willies” for the Sportsman Pilot.
    The first thing I wrote can't be distinguished because I was writing from the time I could write. It would be like asking a runner when it was he started to run.
    Q: Was there a time as a child when you realized you were different, more perceptive, having a different view of the world?
    A: If you think about it, this happens to practically every person early in their life.
    There was probably a moment or a period of time when you looked around and realized you were an individual.
    Then what happened?
    You asserted it and were slapped down for it and were told to conform and agree and the individuality began to sink until it disappeared.
    A child is an incredible being because he has not been enturbulated or upset by the world around him. And so a child will search and inquire. But, most of all, he can play.
    When I realized that I was an individual and had my own viewpoint, I realized what many others realize about themselves. The difference, perhaps, was that I did not give it up.
    Q: How do you work? Do you dictate or pound your fiction out on your old typewriter? Do you keep any set schedule when doing a book? Do you work from detailed character sketches and plot outlines or do you wing it? Have your working methods changed over the years?
    A: My goodness, but that covers a lot!
    What I write determines how I do it. Sometimes I type, sometimes I write longhand and sometimes I dictate.
    “Battlefield Earth” was typed on a manual. The length was about 3,000 pages.
    Each day before I went to bed I would sketch out the plot (that I would cover the next day. Plus I would list out anything else that I wanted to accomplish.
    I do set and follow a schedule when I want to get certain things done in a day — like exercise, if only a walk.
    So I generally lay out what I want to accomplish for the day, the week, the month and then I do it. I would say this is perhaps my primary development since those early days in getting organized. It has allowed me to get more accomplished to lay out a schedule and then do it.
    Q: Do you think a writer should write to entertain his readers or use his writing to convey a hidden significance or social commentary?
    A: It depends on whether he is writing fiction or a political speech. On the other hand, it is hard to tell the difference between the two.

L. Ron Hubbard in the Navy in 1944. “Security” regulations prohibited his writing, he said.

    Q: What is your favorite work of fiction by any writer? What is your favorite work of your own?
    A: I would hate to choose a favorite work of fiction of anyone — including myself.
    You didn't ask about non-fiction so I'll offer that I've always enjoyed Bolitho's “Twelve Against The Gods.” His introduction is especially good.
    Q: What are you working on now? What will your next book be?
    A: My next book is actually a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor or satire. I leave it to the reader to describe it.
    With it will be more music. I like the combination.
    I've also been working on a screenplay but it is a bit premature to discuss that one right now.
    I've also been doing some photography with some new equipment I got for Christmas.
    Q: Old Doc Methusela is a perfect setup for a sequel. Is this a possibility?
    A: I really hadn't thought of it before and don't know what the Doc would say to being dusted off. I know his four-armed sidekick Hippocrates wouldn't mind if the Doc didn't mind.
    So thanks for the suggestion.
    I'll make a cuff-note of it.
    Q: You have been described as a hack writer or a pulp writer. Please comment.
    A: I've actually never been so described. In fact, I can't remember anybody using the words. I was called an “adventure writer” or a “detective writer” or “you-name-it,” depending on which editor was featuring my cover story that week. It was not until just before the war that I was also being called a “science fiction” writer.
    Q: Prolific writers like yourself and Isaac Asimov are sometimes criticized for being “too prolific.” Please comment.
    A: This is true for many writers. They can simply produce more than the market can bear.
    That was one of the advantages of having pen names. I had so many pen names I forgot them. They were used to get around editors who wanted “new names.” So you would make up a new name and send him your story and he would buy it — quite often not even knowing it was one of his own boys.
    I remember once how an editor met me in his office and waved a manuscript in my face exclaiming how he had found a “new name” and how this “new name” was better than me.
    That's right. It was one of my manuscripts sent in under a pen name.
    I didn't have the heart to tell him.
    The problem still faces the successful writer. And many writers still solve it in the same way.
    Q: What do you think about writers who take years to write a single book?
    A: I really don't think many do. They might research something for years, but I can't figure out how somebody could keep a plot in his head that long.
    Some people try to equate quality with slowness. If an athlete did that he would lose every game.
    Q: What advice do you have for budding writers?
    A: Write and write and write and write. And then when you finish, write some more.
    It may not be original advice, but it is still quite true. You learn to write by writing.
    Don't try to learn how to write in order to write. I've seen a lot of great writers killed off when they decided they wanted to learn how to write.
    Just take an idea and go with it. You may find a story that pulls you along. The story takes off on its own. It sounds silly but it happens. You have this character walking down the street and you are all ready for him to get into a taxi but he walks right on and turns into a movie theatre. Whoa! What is this? Well, follow him and see what happens.
    The main thing is to write and learn the business of writing — that tough market you have to live with.
    Q: What were your impressions of Hollywood as a screenwriter? How did that phase of your career come about? Are there plans to make a movie of “Battlefield Earth”?
    A: Any writer loves glamour-town. I used to sit in my penthouse on Sunset Boulevard and write stories for New York and then go to my office in the studio and have my secretary tell everybody I was in conference while I caught up on my sleep because they couldn't believe anybody could write 136 scenes a day and the Screen Writers Guild would have killed me. Their quota was eight. I commuted between New York and Hollywood with large amounts of time off for the wide open spaces. But I loved Hollywood — still do. Who doesn't?
    I've recently written three screenplays and some interest has also been expressed in “Battlefield Earth” so I suppose I'll be right back in Hollywood one of these days and probably on location in the Denver area for “Battlefield Earth” when they film it.
    Q: How long did it take to write “Battlefield Earth”? Where did you come up with the basic plot?
    A: It was one of those plots that I had kept around for awhile and had never bothered to put down on paper. So I decided to use it for my Golden Anniversary novel.
    It took me a few months to write it.
    Q: What is the message you hoped to convey in “Battlefield Earth”?
    A: That man can survive. That is the story.
    You see, we have prepared for war with virtually everyone on this planet; but we've never prepared for war with aliens.
    So I took this idea and wrote a story of mankind regaining its pride and its integrity after a thousand years of alien domination.
    We think nothing of going into an area and taking out minerals at the expense of the plant and animal life. So what would it be like if an advanced race of aliens viewed the entire planet of Earth in the same way?
    Now the prospect of something like this actually happening has always been laughed off as “fiction.” But so has everything else SF writers took up — television, the atomic bomb, space travel — you name it.
    An analogy might be if someone had tried to warn the American Indians that this white race would come in with sticks that blew fire and that could wipe out the great buffalo herds. The Indians would have laughed at him.
    Am I saying an alien invasion is possible?
    I am saying that the reader should decide.
    I just wrote the story.
    Regardless, it is the story of how mankind could survive, and why.
    Q: The novel projects the idea of a possible future in which mankind has been virtually destroyed. Were you trying to tell your readers something about the future or were you simply using this as a vehicle for writing an entertaining book?
    A: That is for the reader to decide.
    The main point is that there is something about the human spirit that, when tapped, is greater than any technology or adversity. It is just more evident on an interstellar scale.
    Q: Where did the idea of having a sound track for the book come from? Who is collaborating on this project?
    A: I got the idea in order to launch computer music with real artists.
    I have lots of friends in the music industry and they thought it would be a great idea, so I wrote the songs and music and they put them on a computer.
    You know, of course, that the album “Space Jazz” on the Applause Records label is now in the stores. It features Nicky Hopkins, Stanley Clarke, Chick Corea, Gayle Moran and the Golden Era Musicians. They tell me it's getting rave reviews and the first music store reports are that it is selling very well.
    Q: Sound tracks of movies seem to become popular because fans associate certain music with the action and actors they saw on the screen. Do you think the concept of having a sound track for a book before a movie is released will be successful?
    A: I think you are quite right in why most sound tracks are popular.
    Go listen to a musical sound track of a movie you have not seen and see what you think of it. Chances are it won't make any sense at all. The reason is that the music is seldom written to stand on its own. (The musical play is sometimes the opposite — the action is scripted around the music.)
    I wanted to create some music that could be enjoyed without having read the book, yet which reflects action or moods or characters in the book.
    I believe it will catch on for other books in the future.
    Right now there are radio ads for books that sound as if they are ads for a movie — complete with music.
    But why should the music be wasted on just an ad?
    I think there will come a time when we will have a best-selling theme from a book just as we have them for movies.
    It gives a new market for the music industry and for musicians.
    Meanwhile, I'll be going ahead with more. The music for the next book is being worked on right now.
    Q: Do you think computer music is a general future trend for music?
    A: Yes, definitely, but it is mot what many people think of when they think of “computer music.” It is not a series of beeps and hums.
    It is going to create new musical scales and sounds while giving us everyday sounds as music. A musician can now do with sound what the photographer has been able to achieve with sight.
    It will also create new musicians and new art.
    Q: Do you think conventional instruments like the guitar, saxophone and piano will become things of the past? Will they be viewed in the future as the lute and harpsichord are today?
    A: It isn't the instrument, it's the artist. Anybody who can play standard instruments can also play computers. The point is not the instrument — it's the artist. Give him new sound, and he can make new vibes.
    The computer is less limited than standard instruments and you'll probably see the same guys on the same stages in a few years playing computers.
    They picked up electric guitars, didn't they? And now listen to any rock group and you hear all sorts of weird wah-wahs and strange sounds. And if they can make them better with computers, they will.
    Q: Do you think books will become a relic of the past? Will writers?
    A: Books, too, will change. You will be able to carry your own pocket computer library. Later, the computer will be able to “talk” to you and “read” to you.
    Writers will have to keep up with these changes, for there will always be writers as there will always be artists and musicians.
    Q: How did your involvement in Scientology and Dianetics and the public controversy over it affect L. Ron Hubbard as a writer?
    A: The only thing that ever affected me as a writer was the U.S. Navy when their “security” regulations prohibited writing. I was quiet for about two years before I couldn't take it any more and went and took it out on a typewriter and, wearing a Stetson hat in the middle of a battle theatre, wrote a costume historical novel of 60,000 words which has never seen the light of day. Its title was “Stormalong” and the only thing ever salvaged from it was the character by that name in “Battlefield Earth.”
Was it rejected? No, I sold 93.4% of everything I ever wrote — first draft, first submission, check by return mail and often Western Union messenger.
    But what about the novel? Well, if fish can read, they probably have enjoyed it.

L. Ron Hubbard in 1974. His newest book, ‘‘Battlefield Earth,” has Denver as a main setting.

    Q: Part of your legend is the story of a speech you allegedly gave to a bunch of science fiction writers where you supposedly told them if they really wanted to make money they should start a religion. What's the true story surrounding this frequently spun tale?
    A: I'm afraid you've gotten me confused with another writer — George Orwell, author of “1984,” “Animal Farm.” It was he that made that remark in 1938.
    I've got a reverse one for you. The other day I heard whole passages from Scientology materials being attributed to Buddha!
    Q: Scientology has been described as the science fiction religion. What do you think about that?
    A: I've never heard it said that it was a science fiction religion but if anybody called it so, what is more interesting than the future of people!
    Q: What role did your background as a science fiction writer play in the development of Dianetics and Scientology?
    A: As before, I would prefer to turn that back into “writer” rather than restricting it to one genre.
    Asking what role my background in one field has to do with what appears as a disrelated field reminds me of the plight of an old friend of mine — Bucky Fuller. Today, the man is recognized as a genius. But it was only a few years ago that his critics tried to assert he had absolutely no credentials for what he was doing and claiming.
    They were right. He had none. Bucky was probably the most unqualified person you could find and that is exactly why he succeeded — he didn't listen.
    Today his creations stand as his monuments while the man continues to work. Meanwhile, his critics who lived on his name are relegated to obscurity.
    Every person should be a Buckminister Fuller and disregard those who claim you need a certificate to be creative.
    Had I listened to “Authority,” I would never have written or traveled or done anything.
    Now don't get me wrong. I am not talking about anarchy. I am talking about the worship of Authority. Authority exists where reason fails.
    Q: What was your reaction when you first heard what some of the Scientology organizations were up to which led to the court cases? When did you find out? What did you do?
    A: I learned about it like everyone else — after the fact — and could only shake my head in dismay.
    Since I had not set foot in a church and since I had resigned my positions in 1966 and turned the direction of the organizations over to various boards and bodies, they had to learn on their own how to handle the growth. It is one thing to step into a fully established organization. It is quite another to step into one that is expanding by leaps and bounds with membership and staff doubling and trebling every time you look.
    Scientology organizations have a unique ability — the ability to correct themselves and change. This is actually a rare ability in organizations.
    I was never involved in any of the incidents to which you refer and even the government and courts recognized the fact and actually my name has never come up in connection with it beyond a passing mention that I “founded” the church. Whatever they did, if they did it, was in violation of any policy I ever wrote while Executive Director, years ago, and I think all those people have been removed, as I understand that there is an entirely new hierarchy in the church.
    The continued popularity of Dianetics and Scientology indicates that the changes effected these past years have been wise and viable.
    Q: When you wrote Dianetics in 1950, did you ever have the idea that your brainchild would evolve into what it has today? Dianetics began as a do-it-yourself mental health science which was touted as something you could do in your own living room. Did you consider then the possibility of building it into a highly organized network of churches, missions and Dianetics centers?
    A: The popularity of “Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health” has never stopped. It was a best seller in 1950 and 30 years later it is doing it still.
    After the book was published, I was simply continuing with plans long since made for an expedition to the Dodecanese Islands in the Mediterranean. A group formed a foundation and requested that I help it get started. And it wasn't until 1967 that I was able to go on that expedition.
    A thing most people don't know is that it was Scientologists who elected that it be a church and so it became. I actually never founded it, although they call me the Founder because I founded the subject, not the organizations. Because I like to help people, I helped them all I could, up until 1966, when I resigned. I still research in this field and still write books about it. I still get mail bags full of letters every week. They are actually doing great and I wish them well.
    Q: Why have you not set foot in a church since the mid-'60s? Why don't you appear at Scientology congresses or events?
    A: When I stepped down from my position and turned the direction of the church over to others in 1966, I decided that the best way to help effect this change was to also step back and research and write. Plus, I wanted to find time for some other activities.
    You see, the viability of any idea is not if its creator or originator can make it work but if he or she can get others to make it work. The fact that Dianetics and Scientology have continued to prosper is proof of their viability.
    Q: Where are you living or spending most of your time now? What do you think of the reputation you have garnered for being as reclusive as Howard Hughes?
    A: Do I have that reputation? I don't think so.
    I used to get hit for being too gregarious. I wish people would make up their minds.
    Q: Your works in Scientology and Dianetics make frequent reference to the effects of radiation on the body and the dangers of nuclear war. As you know, there now is a resurgence of opposition to nuclear arms which differs from past public demonstrations in that a larger number of physicians, scientists and other public figures have joined the public outcry. It's not just a bunch of hippie protesters any more. Are you encouraged by this? What do you predict?
    A: I was concerned about the development of nuclear weapons as soon as they were announced because Man has never demonstrated the sanity to warrant confidence.
    When the weapon was a club or spear, the effect was only in the vicinity of the warrior.
    When gunpowder was introduced, the sphere of effect widened with greater space.
    With nuclear weapons, the effect is not simply one of greater space. The effect extends in time — radiation passed on to generations yet unborn.
    Efforts to limit or cut back on such weapons are always applauded but the problem is more basic than that.
    The problem is that Man does not understand the basis of war or even how to handle insanity.
    We have made it this far.
    I hope we will make it all the way.
    Q: How would you describe yourself as a man? How would you describe the accomplishments of your life? What do you consider the greatest accomplishment of your life? What would you like to be remembered for?
    A: I think one of the most vital measurements of a person's life is the number of friends he or she has. And when you count them up, don't forget to count yourself.
    There are famous people we all admire for their discovery or creation or invention or achievement. But when we look into their lives we find they were usually lonely and had few friends.
    Thus we admire their achievement but not their life.
    A person with many friends has achieved a great deal.
    My own life has been rich with friends in many, many lands. From the old Blackfoot Indian who told me stories in Montana when I was but a lad to the men I trained in the Second World War to those I worked with on the “Space Jazz” music album, these are the wealth of my life.
    Making a friend is an incredible contribution to not only yourself and your friend but to the entire world. Never sell it short.
    A man is as rich as he has friends.
    I wouldn't try to single out any event in my life as my “great accomplishment.” I know what has been satisfying and gratifying.
    Accomplishment is measured by the achievement of one's intention and achievement gives the individual a feeling of personal worth and value.
    Get a person to believe they have worth and you will see them come alive because most people today have become convinced that their lives are worthless or without purpose. Give a person purpose and worth and you give them life and future.
    I learned this early when I was traveling through the Far East. Here I was in the land of Great Wisdom, or so I had been told by the “experts” in school. But when I looked for myself, I saw more than total poverty. I saw lack of individual worth and value. Life was worse than cheap. It was valueless and it showed.
    So I began to search and read even more.
    In 1938, I found that life had one common purpose — to survive. No matter what life was doing, it was seeking to survive.
    I applied this to human behavior and discovered that crazy or sane, rich or poor, cultured or primitive, everything that a person did was from a desire to survive.
    My next problem was why it was that people undertook anti-survival actions. The resolution of that problem gave the book “Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.”
From that point, the resolution of other problems and paradoxes continued.
    If you begin with the view that Man is nothing but a hunk of mud or meat, you end with complexities and failures. But if you begin with the view that Man is a being with purpose and worth and that there is such a thing as an individual seeking to survive and enhance the survival of others, you have a chance.
    Even then, what was missing was why things went wrong with people.
    The other thing I found was that only the individuals can correct it. It can't be done with drugs or surgery when you are addressing the individual spirit.
    I suppose what I did was invert or overturn a lot of “expert” ideas. For example, people are walking around looking for answers. They don't realize they have plenty of answers. They just haven't gotten the right question.
    If this seems terribly simple, you are right.
    Man thrives on complexity and thinks that if he can only add one more piece of complexity he will have it all solved.
    That is a trap.
    He has been going in the wrong direction and the proof of it is the state of society — from the predominance of drugs to his arsenal of atomic weapons. He never knew the source of aberration.
    Man was thrown into this game called “life” and never given the rules. What you see around you today is the result.
    When you understand the source of aberration, when you understand the game, when you can regain your worth and purpose, you have gained more than the world, you have gained the stars and beyond.