Although we only realized it in retrospect, these are actually Gary's last articles before his ouster -- after these we get a couple years of ominous silence, followed by a (per Gary, heavily redacted) "farewell" column in #122 (June 1987), and then nothing at all until the WotC era where he was brought back for a reminiscence column that ran for several years -- from #267 (Jan 2000) to #320 (June 2004), with a few gaps.Dragon Issue 103: November 1985
From the sorceror's scroll: Now UA is out, it's time for your esteemed writers here at TSR to start seriously considering a second edition. Of course, it will take us several years to figure out exactly what to change and how, and write it up properly, based upon the feedback of our gentle readers, so do not worry. Your views will be crucial in its shaping, and you will receive plenty of warning as to its release, so you can prepare your campaigns accordingly. Let me elucidate as too the current plans. Assassins go byebye (my oh my). Bards become an ordinary class again. Mystic, savant and jester to be introduced as new official classes. Classes from UA and OA to be put in the players handbook. Deities to be more powerful and less firmly defined. More difference between clerics based upon god worshipped. Legends & Lore to be considered one of the corebooks. Now, how do we do this without making the books too damn big for casual players? As ever, this is very interesting, particularly when you compare it with what actually happened. Some of this came to pass, some didn't, and some retained the basic intention, but the details got changed along the way. Definitely one for the historical perspective files and citing in flame wars and wikipedia. Also interesting to note that the 2nd edition would probably have been out a year or two sooner, had the crisis of leadership not happened. The massive gaps between the early editions may not have been entirely intentional.
Arcana update, part 1: Errata, errata. Serve it up on a platter. Use it to make the next printing better. Yes, not only was it flimsily made, UA was an exceedingly errata-ridden book, and it seems that TSR's Loyal Readers wasted no time in sending letters to the company pointing this out, with various degrees of added vitriol. So we have four pages of various clarifications and corrections. Somewhere between amusing and tiresome to read in retrospect, this was of course Serious Business at the time. Question is, is this extra publicity for the book a good or bad thing? I'm betting bad. It'd certainly weaken my trust in a company, finding out they'd produced shoddy goods. As ever, the opinions of anyone who was there at the time on this matter would be very welcome.