On the Double
|Title:||On the Double|
|Publisher:||Pon Farr Press|
|Editor(s):||Alexis Fegan Black (issues #1-#12), Ande H. (#13-#16) and Pat Diggs (#17-#34)|
|Date(s):||1986 to 1996|
|Fandom:||Star Trek: TOS, The Professionals, & multimedia|
|Click here for related articles on Fanlore.|
At first, it was a letterzine as well as an adzine and offered listings for fanzines, memorabilia for sale and convention announcements across multiple fandoms. Somewhere around issue #28 or before, the letters and zine reviews stopped, and the zine became simply an adzine.
This zine was the successor to Not Tonight Spock!.
Several issues won a 1988 Surak Award.
From issue #34: "'On the Double' will be sent in a plain brown envelope four times a year."
In the April 1988 issue of Naked Times, the editor wrote that "On the Double" had about 175 subscribers, and that "in order to keep the newsletter going and make it a worthwhile time investment, we need to maintain a minimum of 200 subscribers."
For similar fanworks, see List of Letterzines.
DescriptionFrom an notice in Not Tonight, Spock! (soon to cease):
ON THE DOUBLE: new K/S letterzine in the works. We would like to do a K/S letterzine similar in format to INTERSTAT, though in a format where K/S fans can have their say without hostility from opposing viewpoints. (If the non-K/Sers want to do their own zine, fine, but ON THE DOUBLE will not print nasty letters stating & re-stating pro/con/arguments.) OTD will be similar to an apa, but open to all fans at any time. Also, OTD will print ads for any K/S publications, as well as reviews, comments, & discussions of any zine or K/S related topic. Ads, letters & SASEs now being accepted Tentative date for publication: Winter? 
Other K/S Letterzines
- Not Tonight Spock! (June 1984-February1987)
- On the Double (November 1986-January 1996)
- The LOC Connection (January 1989-December 1993)
- Come Together (January 1994-August 1996)
- The K/S Press (September 1996-present day)
Also see List of Letterzines.
On the Double 1 was published in November 1986 and contains 18 pages.
- there are no Locs, as this was the first issue
- a review of "Lost in Forever" in Act Five #2
- a review Command Decision, see that page
- two reviews of The Price of Freedom, see that page
- a review of Daring Attempt #4, see that page
- a review of First Time #4, see that page
- a review of Courts of Honor, see that page
- a review of The Sound of Rain, see that page
- a review of As I Do Thee #5, see that page
- a review of Naked Times #11, see that page
- a review of A Collection of Dreams, see that page
On the Double 2 was published in February 1987. It has a cover by Jackie Zoost.
- this issue has a column about early K/S zines by Ann Carver
- comments by Robin Hood on the Sigh-Fi
- other unknown content
On the Double 3 was published in May 1987 and contains 44 pages.
- the editor states her policy for printing reviews, some of which were discussed at a panel at 4-Play: pen names can be used but the writer must provide her or his legal name to the editor ("in the interest of the 'anonymous review syndrome"), reviewers must have a subscription to the zine ("Not because we plan on making a fortune from your $15.00 sub, but because we don't have the time or the inclination to track down folks who might be reviewing their own zines or having a close personal friend do it for them. This seemed to be a concern at the panel at 4-Play, and while this policy won't guarantee anything, we feel that it will make folks think twice about doing a hatchet name under one pen name and disappearing from the planet forever."), the editor reserves the right to reject reviews which she feels have the "tone of a hatchet job," the editor will not print reviews by anyone who had close working relationships with the zine, the editor will not print more than two reviews per zine
- there is a submission request for a zine called A Natural Propensity, which ended up being published under a different title
- the editor of In Triplicate defends at length the threesomes in her zine; one point she makes is that one has to get past thinking about DeForest Kelley and start thinking about McCoy, the character, and that she never writes "William Shatner" and "Leonard Nimoy", that the actors and the characters be kept apart in one's mind. She also comments that this zine sells out faster and gets more LoCs, the vast number of them positive, than any of her other zines
- the two questions for discussion for issue four were asked: "1. What is STAR TREK? The characters? The ship? The stories and/or writing? What sets it apart from other t.v. shows? 2. What do you want from a K/S zine? We asked this question once before, but it was overshadowed by the L.A. WEEKLY article. We feel it's a valid topic for discussion, so here it is again."
- this issue has some question and answer bios by Chris Soto]], see On the Double Interview with Chris Soto
- a fan artist, [C S], comments about fan art and ability: I don't know what fans or writers do when they pick up a zine, but I tend to scan the artwork first. And as I leaf through the pages I'm constantly delighted at the variance in styles. As in all things there's the good, the bad and ugly (I know, some of that bad and ugly has been mine). But I always try to keep in mind that it takes all kinds... and it takes a certain courage to send off artwork to a zine, have it published and thus leave oneself open to criticism, especially the negative type. I remember reading a review on a zine where the reviewer tore into the artwork with a vengeance, calling it 'amateurish and inconsistent'. I felt like writing to that individual and saying: "Of course it's amateurish... all the artists are amateurs, baby. What did you expect? Normal Rockwell? And if fan artists were as perfect as you they'd all be doing book covers for Daw and Random House and making big bucks! Fortunately that negative attitude is very rare. And with K/S fans I've found them to be very kind and supportive of a fan artist's efforts... especially new artists. K/Sers may not all like every artist's work, but they understand that we can't all be the caliber of The Southern Cross and probably never will be. They they appreciate and encourate the fan artist's efforts. And I find that very comforting and reassuring.
- a fan, [A F B], writes about her first reaction to K/S: I'm not sure what single element "attracted" me to K/S. The main thing I remember is coming to the conclusion that I'd been wrong about K/S. When I was first exposed to the premise I was, quite honestly, livid. "That's Kirk and Spock, for God's sake! There aren't even any bathrooms on the Enterprise, and Spock is a Vulcan! I mean, heroes don't fool around... do they?" Then, after I read my first K/S story, I was curious, wanted to read more, and eventually became hooked.
- a fan is pleased with reviews that have diverging opinions: Let me express approval for your policy of being willing to print reviews which express divergent opinions about particular zines. I think this is a good idea. People's tastes do vary, and a zine one person admires may turn out to be a zine that somebody else just can't stand. Early in my involvement with Trek fandom, I started reading INTERSTAT — and I was surprised by the wide range of opinions I found there. Most of those letters were about Trek movies or about pro novels; however, this diversity of viewpoints applies to fanzines, too. I think it's nice to have multiple perspectives represented in zine reviews, in OTD and elsewhere.
- there are many fans' comments about what constitutes a good review; a fan, [F P] writes: ...for anyone actively involved with contributing to or editing zines, it can be difficult to do reviews under most circumstances. People like us may find it hard to summon up the necessary critical detachment because we know so many writers, artists and editors as personal friends or because we want to have amicable dealings with them in future — which can mean that we are wary about hurting their feelings in the present. For that reason people who are involved with zines may find it necessary, sometimes, to avoid writing reviews at all, leaving that service to the zine-reading public who are not editors or contributors. (We can always send LoCs).
- there is much discussion about Reviewers Using Pseuds; one comment from [F P]: Yet aren't they (and aren't readers) entitled in fairness to know who reviewers actually are? Doesn't concealed-identity reviewing leave sort of a bad taste in the mind, like reading a poison-pen letter? When reviews are of unknown origin (whether they are positive or negative), it somehow bothers me. I never know if I can trust the unknown reviewer's critical judgment. If she/he is not willing to be honest about his/her identity, then maybe the sentiments expressed in its/their review are not necessarily very honest, either.
- there is more talk of pseuds and the need for them: Also, it's interesting to note that a lot of newspaper & periodical articles have been appearing lately, articles which purport to "inform the public" about K/S. The "Sigh-Fi" article which we reprinted in OTD#1 is a prime example. No one asked [Gayle F] if she wanted her illustration to appear in a publication which is easily available to children. This was done without Gayle's permission, in the name of "journalistic freedom". Well... in my opinion, that "journalistic freedom" could also be made to extend to printing "excerpts" from stories and naming the author — such as what happened on a radio talk show in Australia. A portion of a K/S story was read over the air, and the interviewer named the author — who, at the time, was using her real name. After that, she quickly adopted a pseudonym for obvious reasons.
- a fan, [A F B] ,discusses the reviews of a zine based on production and expectations: As for reviewing a zine as a "physical object", I have mixed feelings on this. When fandom first got going years ago, most zines were mimeographed; the artwork was sparse if it existed at all; and typos were more or less a part of the bargain if one wanted to read STAR TREK material other than what was sparsely available from the professional book publishers. Now, in the late 1980's, we've gotten understandably spoiled in this age of computerized word processing programs, laser printers and half-toned artwork. Perhaps we have a right to be spoiled, but when dealing with fandom publications, I'm not sure we have a right to base reviewing "standards" on the physical properties of a zine, nor do we have a right to expect a zine to be perfect-bound, book-bound, spiral-bound or typo-free. We don't even really have a right to expect professional-quality stories, for the simple reason that the majority of K/S writers are not professional writers and have no intention of becoming one. They K/S, and are doing the best they can ~ with the help of editors, friends and so on.
- about the feelings of an editor, artist, or writer, [A F B] writes: I realize this may be a controversial statement, but I personally feel that a lot of the reviews I've read don't belong in fandom whatsoever — not necessarily because of the content, but because of the "tone" of the reviewer. Professional writers writing in professional situations are paid to take a few punches with bad reviews. Fan writers and editors aren't paid to put up with it and, with very few exceptions, it makes me practically sick to see a really "bad" review, previewer makes no effort to point out the good points of the story/zine along the way... We're also in a small circle with a lot of sensitive individuals... I'm not saying that we must protect the writer s or editor's feelings to the exclusion of all else, but I do feel it's a point to be considered in this particular group (K/S fandom). I've seen a lot of good and potentially good writers get out of fandom altogether because of the blatant insensitivity of one reviewer's comments, and I think this is tragic for all of fandom. I'm also not saying that every review has to be positive ~ obviously not every review can be and still be honest. But I do feel that reviewers must strive to find a balance between the good and the bad" in any zine — particularly in fandom circles, which is what I mean when I state that our standards must be different than those employed by professional reviewers. Whether we know these editors/writers personally or not, they are still our 'friends' through the common bond of Star Trek and K/S.
- a fan, [R M], has these comments on threesomes and pairing Spock with McCoy: Regarding the topic of the growing trend of K/S/Mc and S/Mc stories, I wasn't even aware of a "trend" in the latter case. The only S/Mc story I know of ~ thankfully - is the one (the title escapes me) that appeared in SHADES OF GREY. I found the story completely unbelievable. As for K/S/Mc, I thought the first few stories I read were an interesting diversion from the myriad of ho-hum K/S stories, but K/S/Mc stories are now more common than I am comfortable with. They have lost their uniqueness and I don't have any desire to read more of them. I now find it irritating when I come across one in a "K/S" zine. I have nothing against anyone- who chooses to read or write K/S/Mc or S/Mc, but I think those stories should be confined to their own zines. K/S fandom does not force its stories onto genzines, andK/S/Mcshould not be forced onto those of us who love & cherish K/S as a unique relationship unto itself... In short, all "/" relationships should not be assumed to appeal to those who have an interest in any one "/" relationship.
- a fan, [JA B], writes of threesomes: Regardless of the fact that menage a trois does not appeal to me, I disagree strongly with a fan who wrote in a recent TREKLINK that these sort of stories be stopped. That's as bad as the virulent anti-K/Sers who, as Trekfans, are supposedly tolerant and subscribe to the principle of IDIC, nevertheless reacted like the worse bigots and would probably be horrified to hear themselves so labeled. One of the saddest comments was that of Ann Carver... in OTD#2 stating that the very talented Gerry Downes left fandom because of the hate mail she received after ALTERNATIVE. Because of my lack of interest in K/S/? stories, I would prefer that they be kept in separate zines. At the very least, an editor should make it clear that her K/S zine contains menage a trois stories. One in a zine is unlikely to deter me from buying it, but more probably would... So all you good writers out there, if menage a trois interests you, go for it! Who knows, I may yet become hooked. After all, I never expected to become an avid K/S fan, and being such does not preclude my enjoying a good friendship story
- a fan, [A G], writes: I emphatically don't like the menage stories. I have always believed that Kirk and Spock have truly found in each other the love that makes them both complete. You could not add to something complete. The threesome stories are lacking in this love—they seem to be an exercise in sexual athletics at best.
- the editor of Pon Farr Press writes that the Sigh-Fi article has actually had a positive influence on sales and reactions: As to how the L.A. WEEKLY article has affected PON FARR PRESS, I can only say at this point that zine sales and inquiries have increased dramatically. Since several of us here in Southern California do sci-fi conventions in the L.A. area, we have been asked, "Is this that stuff we read about in the paper?" Mostly, the reaction from the public is one of curiosity without hostility. Of course, there are the exceptions to that rule when one encounters an overly-zealous, morally self-righteous s.o.b. (for details, see the editorial, BANNED IN ANAHEIM, which appeared in NT#6;. Additionally, when we attended a convention in Denver (STAR CON) back in March of this year, we were exposed to several people who had read a similar- — though less "critical" — article which appeared in a Denver newspaper. Again, the reaction was one of curiosity mingled with a little disbelief. It's interesting to note that several of these newcomers are now ordering regularly — and some of them are men (yes, that is a rarity in K/S writers and readers alike). So, as to the reaction, it's been more positive than negative. It seems that the article merely "confirmed" what a lot of people had already thought of on their own. While I don't agree with the less than discretionary manner in which the L.A.WEEKLY article was done, it's primary impact seems to be that it's led a lot of new folks into K/S fandom.
- a fan, [F J], comments on what she feels to be McCoy's asexuality: I find it very difficult to accept either menage stories or stories involving McCoy in any sort of a sexual combination. I like McCoy, but I just don't see him in any. sort of sexual set-up, whether homo or hetero, one to one monogamous or part of a trey. I suspect that it's "the old country doctor" image that's responsible for my view of McCoy as a totally non-sexual being... As for treys, one of the things I most like about K/S is that it's monogamous. Read a heterosexual adult zine and one gets the impression of characters with no sexual responsibility at all — and not even particularly discerning...
- a fan, [JS S] writes about her introduction to K/S: It was at a con. I was once an innocent browsing through stacks of ST fanzines. A friend who was going through a nearby stack nudged me and handed me an open zine. There, in public, before God and everyone else, was a very explicit picture of male homosexual activity between two of my favorite ST characters. I was shocked speechless. What sick mind would do such a thing to Star Trek characters? I am not a youngster, and I certainly was aware that certain portions of the population are homosexual. I just had never thought very deeply about the subject before. Before that con was over, I returned several times to view that zine. I got over being shocked and began to be curious. I found, to my surprise, I wasn't offended after all... I didn't buy that zine, but I did continue to think about it long afterwards.
- a fan, [S F], is unhappy with the threesome-bashing she's been reading: It bothers me most when I see the hostility this topic rouses is the narrowmindedness of those being so upset. The old, underlying response to K/S critics is still - applicable -- if you don't like it, don't read it, no one is forcing you too. Let those who want to write and read it do so. That, if I may be so bold as to bring back what appears to be a little used concept these days, is what IDIC is all about. IDIC, infinite diversity in infinite combinations.... By the time I wrote my K/S/Mc story... I had begun to sense changes in fandom, chief among them the diminishing influence of the concept of IDIC. This saddens me because it makes K/S fandom just like any other fandom. IDIC letterzines littered with disputes that are between only a few people and involve more than a little bitchiness, I've longed to invoke IDIC, to try and use it to make them stop so we can get on with more important issues, such as a discussion of who has the best ass or chest. But IDIC can't be called upon in. But IDIC can't be called upon in B/D fandom even if many came from K/S. It seems that IDIC can't even be invoked in its own universe.
- a review of Nome #9, see that page
- a review of Daybreak, see that page
- a review of Choices, see that page
- a review of Necropolis, see that page
- a review of As I Do Thee #6, see that page
- a review of Naked Times #12, see that page
On the Double 4 was published in August 1987.
On the Double 5 was published in November 1987 and contains 36 pages.
- the topic of discussion for this issue is fannish reaction to Star Trek: The Next Generation
- there is an interview with a male K/S fan named Bill S., see On the Double Interview with Bill S
- a self-interview with fan, see On the Double Interview with Linda Frankel
- a fan writes and wants to know if there has to be sex in a K/S story in order for it to be K/S
- a fan writes in and comments on the RPS story in the zine Shadows in the Rain: The most disturbing thing about SHADOWS IN THE RAIN is that it encourages a basic tendency in fans to forget the separation between the character and the actor. I realize that this particular story emphasizes separation, yet at the same it undercuts our ability to keep Leonard Nimoy separate from Spock by bringing him into a K/S fantasy. If it is permissible to include Nimoy in a piece of K/S fiction, then why not Shatner? Why not both both of them together? In fact, what's to stop the next writer from coming up with a Shatner/Nimoy story, totally violating the separation between fantasy and reality in K/S? I think it is wrong to place either LN or WS in a K/S story in any capacity whatsoever. We may be sliding down a slippery slope here. There is a definite ethical distinction between fantasizing about fictional characters, and fantasizing about real people. The first is harmless, the second may be hurtful in many ways. I am truly sorry to have to bring any of this up, but it is important t o understand where SHADOWS IN THE RAIN could take us. It that direction lies a K/S that is neither moral nor sane.
- this issue contains a complete, blow-by-blow transcription of every change in the first edition of Killing Time and the second one
- a review of Charisma, see that page
- a review of Shades of Grey #2, see that page
- a review of Year of the Ram, see that page
- a review of Naked Times #15, see that page
- a review of When Fate Summons, see that page
- a review of Daring Attempt #2, see that page
- a review of Naked Times #9, see that page
On the Double 6 was published in February 1988 and contains 36 pages.
- this issue prints the 3-page 1987 Surak Awards ballot
- there is a full-page flyer for IDICon #4
- a fan reviews the story by Alexis Fegan Black, "Night of Mastery," from Naked Times #15
- there is a very, very long article by Dovya Blacque called "Rejection: How to Give It, How to Take It." The last part: My main point in writing this is to let authors and editors alike be aware that some people out there are taking themselves a bit too seriously, taking their position as editor as that of ultimate authority, which may be the case with their own zine, but that's all. It seems that some editors are not taking any care with new writers, let alone established writers' feelings. But most editors are gentie, especially with new writers. Just don't let a bad apple ruin fandom for you. Writing for fanzines can be a fulfilling, exciting, enriching experience. It's a fairly safe place, give or take an editor or two, to learn the craft of writing, to improve and grow and to see the' changes in print It's very inspiring to see your name, or your pen name, in print. It's more encouraging than anything you can learn in a class room or from reading books or from listening to editors (including me!). So, I encourage all of you who are still writing those stories (K/S or not) in the dark with a flash light and locking them away in a drawer to submit them and not to be discouraged if you receive a bad rejection. After all, editors are only people and their opinions are only that; their opinions, no better or more valid than someone else's opinion.
- the fan explains her rationale for describing some stories as K/S and not others: As the one who compiled the K/S bibliography published in past issues of OTD, I feel a responsibility to respond to [Jackie Z]'s question concerning the definition of "K/S". When putting together the bibliography, I had to ask myself the same questions and the answers weren't easy. For simplicity's sake, I, as stated in the introduction to the bibliography, included all stories that were printed in zines that called themselves "K/S", though an occasional story may not necessarily be of that genre. While considering stories from genzines and adult zines. I automatically included stories that had a sex scene (not necessarily explicit) between Kirk and Spock. I don't think that a mere sex scene is a true short story (with plot, theme, etc.), but I do think a sex scene between Kirk and Spock js "K/S"--simply because I interpret the "slash" as meaning "sex". When it came to stories that didn't have a sex scene, and weren't in a "K/S" zine, it was simply a matter of my own humble opinion as to whether the story was K/S or pre-K/S and should be included in the bibliography. Again, some were extremely difficult to categorize. I think all of us would agree that a story docs not have to have an "explicit, detailed sex scene" in order to be K/S. Most K/S zines contain a few stories without a sex scene. On the other hand, I wouldn't dare agree that K/S merely refers to Kirk and Spock being "in love with each other". I think many supposedly 'innocent' genzine stories would fall into the latter category, though the genzine writers and editors would probably deny it vehemently. I know that at one time the term "K/S" simply referred to the Kirk-Spock relationship anywhere from mere camaraderie to explicit sex, and included everything in between. I think there are some who still use that definition. But when I discovered fandom and zines a couple of years ago, it was my understanding that "slash" in any fandom referred to a sexual situation. In Starsky & Hutch fandom, for example, there is a distinct and necessary difference between "S&H" stories and "S/H" stories... I think there are some fans who would define most hurt-comfort stories as pre-K/S. I don't agree, as I don't believe the authors of such stories intend for there to be any sexual connotations, and I think the author's intent should be taken into consideration.
- the author of Shadows in the Rain responds to an earlier letter: To begin with, I am [D B]. I wrote SITR under 'Arlan Symons' mainly because it was such a departure from my other work. I have done this before; written under pseudonyms because the style or theme in a story is notably different from the rest of my work. I'm saying this because I want it known that I did not use a pen name for SITR out of any embarrassment or concern for being 'found out'. I am very proud of SITR. I think it's my best piece of work to date. I must admit that I was somewhat surprised to find someone so adamantly opposed to SITR as, in my view, it is the gentlest of stories, expressing what I see as the core of not only K/S, but of STAR TREK... Saying that I've started K/S fandom on the road to 'immorality' and 'insanity' by writing a soft, loving, compassionate story is, to me, unbelievable. Right away, I think it is very obvious that [L F] and I have very different definitions of what is moral and what is sane and what is not either. For the record, I am an extremely moral person and I have it on excellent authority that I am perfectly sane. I don't feel I have slipped at all from these standards in writing SITR. If anything, I think I've exercised those very qualities -sanity and morality -- by showing compassion and gentleness and kindness in a genre (K/S) that often slips into sadism, slavery, barbarity, rape, not to mention the odd cannibalism or fist-fuck story. [L F's] worry that I have overstepped the bounds of reality and stepped into fantasy are beyond argument. I admit that she is very right in that statement. What K/S writer hasn't? I am not the one who ever printed "the actor's" possible name; [L F] put a name to him in her letter in OTD. Nowhere in SITR is "the actor" ever named. Invaded this actor's privacy? What privacy? He's a public figure, he's fair game... not that I've tried to 'get' him in any way. SITR was and is intended solely in a complimentary light, solely as a possible insight into the man's psyche. [L F] might say that no one has the right... to do this. But, as I have said, he is a public figure just like Frank Sinatra, Elvis, John Lennon, or Johnny Carson. In other words, he is fair game. As for [L F] wishing that no one paid any attention to SITR, as for her wish that it just disappear without comment, I take a personal slight (or maybe not so slight!) at her attitude. Just because something doesn't meet her standards it should be ignored? Fine place this world would be if it stuck to that kind of thinking... I find [L F's] attitude the sad thing about where K/S fandom seems to be going, not the fact that I wrote SITR. If we, as K/S fandom, start telling each other what we can and can't write, if we start making arbitrary rules about what is 'permissible' or 'right' and what is 'not permissible' or 'wrong*, then that's the shame, that's the direction of 'immorality and 'insanity', not only for fandom but for the world. Intolerance is the ugliest thing alive in the world. It saddens me greatly to see it so very alive and thriving in K/S fandom.
- another fan scolds the fan named [L F] for "naming" the actor who was a character in Shadows in the Rain: ...You are the ONLY person who has named the DREADED name in print. Congratulations. If any harm could have been done, short of mailing the story to the said DREADED name, you've done it. For someone who has gone where no man, etc, and written a CANNIBAL?! story (yikes, what IS K/S coming to?), you certainly have your... ah... nerve? Who gives a flying fuck? The story is innovative, whatever your thoughts on the subject matter. No one disputes the writer's talents. It's certainly not the best nor near the worst writing in fandom. So why the fuss? You aren't trying to bring it to anyone's attention, are you? You really don't think that the DREADED name, even if he read the damn thing, would give a damn, do you? Really? I've heard [L N] asked about K/S. Whatever sells tickets is fine with him. And as your own writing ideas have been considered somewhat., bizarre (to be gently), and no one has climbed down your throat with spurs, why don't you lighten up, [L F]? Come off the ladder and smell the flowers. You're flailing in that tempestuous teapot all alone.
- this issue has a very, very long Open Letter signed by Alexis Fegan Black, Dovya Blacque, Robin Hood, and Wendy Rathbone that warns fans of a fan who is selling zines at cons without permission, as well as "explaining" why some of these bootlegged zines are cheaper to buy than from the original publisher: At several recent conventions across the country, it has come to my attention that a certain dealer is making and selling bootleg xerox copies of fanzines which are still in print and available from the original editors and publishers. The dealer in question is [B V], who has absolutely NO authorization (nor has she ever asked for any) to reproduce many of zines she is selling at conventions. [B V] has apparently continued this practice despite the fact that she has been personally confronted and warned by many fanzine editors whose zines she was copying... There are, also, those rare times when unscrupulous dealers are able to sell illegally reproduced fanzines at a slightly cheaper price. And there are reasons for that — not the least of which is that these dealers didn't have to pay for the original printing, the cost of half-tones, plates, negatives, higher-grade paper, typewriter/computer supplies, graphic aids and the other materials which go into the original production of fanzines. These dealers are able to simply take the finished product in to their local copy shop, print 50 copies for a-little-bit-of-nothing, and then mark the price up to either higher or almost as high as an original copy (which, quite often, are still in print and available). It is, plain and simply, stealing — from you, from editors, and from the integrity of fandom. It is, as another letter-writer put it, "artistic rape". Please don't support this unscrupulous activity. Do your part to support the zine editors whose original blood, sweat and tears went into the production of the zine you love. Support the zine by purchasing it either from the original editor/publisher or from AUTHORIZED representatives.
- there is a letter from [A C], a fan who very publicly gafiated in 1987 ; she answers, via the editor, that: I received a story and poem from [F P] for FANTASIES 2. When I decided not to print, her stuff was trashed, as it was a computer print-out. All computer & xerox submissions were trashed. The ONLY story that was offered to another editor was A DIFFERENT OBSESSION, as it was such an outstanding first effort by a new writer that I didn't want to see it lost or have her discouraged. Her permission was obtained, and Robin Hood printed it in FIRST TIME. None of the others were so memorable, and were not offered to other editors.
- a fan comments on another fan's use of the word, "dyke," to describe Tasha Yar: Regarding [D B's] comments about Lieutenant Yar, I can only say that, as a personal friend of [D B], she has absolutely NO prejudice toward lesbians. Rather, I simply believe that there are several definitions of the word "dyke". After having this discussion with friends over a period of years, we basically came to the conclusion that a "lesbian" is a woman who is attracted to other women and/or is involved in a physical relationship with another woman. A "dyke", on the other hand, isn't always even a lesbian - i.e., a "dyke", by definition, is a woman who, through her dress, attitude and "vibes", portrays a macho-male image. Lieutenant Yar certainty seems to fit the latter definition. She is certainty not a lesbian (at least not that the viewers have been told), yet she puffs out her shoulders, lowers her voice three octaves, and reaches for the phaser at the first sign of trouble. From my personal viewpoint, I can't see why Paramount didn't simply use a man for that role, since that is what Yar is attempting to be. Now don't get me wrong! I'm as much a feminist as the next person -however, when a woman starts acting like a man in order to get her point across, that's every bit as unfeminist as if she were a sniffling twit. In other words, by portraying herself as a "man", Yar is essentially putting out the vibes that women are inferior and that, to get ahead in space, she must adopt male attitudes. That is how I would define "dyke". And if Paramount had really wanted a strong female character, why didn't they give us a woman as a starship captain instead of Charlie "Picard" Brown?
- the editor of this zine has an essay called "A Dangerous Trend" about what she sees as a new trend in zine eds offering cash prizes for material submitted to zines: In order for fandom to remain "amateur publishing", and therefore to remain acceptable in the eyes of Paramount... monetary payment can not be paid for works of STAR TREK fiction. This creates an immediate infringement upon the copyrights... So long as we remain "amateurs", Paramount tends to look the other way. But if we set this dangerous precedent and open ourselves up as "professionals", sooner of later the consequences will be grave... Additionally, writers can become alienated if they aren't paid for a story, and later find out that their b e s t friend was paid. All in all, I don't think fandom needs that type of attitude. If writers want to write for "cash awards" on a steady basis... then perhaps they should seek more traditionally professional realms for their work. Let's keep fandom as fandom. 
- a review of As I Do Thee #8 and #9, see those pages
- a review of Kontinuing Saga, see that page
- a review of First Time #14, see that page
- a review of Naked Times #17, see that page
- it includes a 1987 Surak Award ballot, one which requested a dollar to be sent in with the completed ballot
- there is no "Focus" column in this issue as the columnist is on vacation
- Jacqueline Lichtenberg talks of her earlier glowing review of Courts of Honor, saying it gives her an inferiority complex as a writer. That, and it isn't superb K/S so much as it is: "... is first and foremost a magnificent novel, a piece of literature worthy of being leather bound and standing beside the all time classics of general fiction. Secondly, it's superb Trek. As science fiction, it's not so superb, but it's creditable. I've read worse from Hugo Winners. But it's not really K/S. It just assumes the K/S premise and incorporates those scenes where they naturally fall," and that she's tested it out on some "anti-K/S readers who love Trek and good literature both" and that they rave about it.
- a fan bio of Leslie Fish and update on what she's doing now. A few tidbits: She notes that much K/S has become very boring and writers, and fans, need to be more accepting of adventuresome writing. Fish talks about Star Trek: TNG "Roddenberry's women and children are idiots" like they were in TOS, and that the character of Tasha Yar isn't macho enough: "If you're that much of a hysteric your buddies would frag you... I'd like to see a female security chief who acts like one." Fish also complains about current K/S: She "speaks disapprovingly of the Harlequin Romance mentality that characterizes much of K/S. Since Harlequin Romances know nothing of the sexual psychology of men they are extremely unrealistic. They are also dishonest because they refuse to recognize that their heroines are primarily feeling lust. Too many young women are brouqht up with the rnyth that sexual desire is 'love at first siqht', Leslie complains, and this is reflected in K/S."
- there is no "Who We Are" in this issue, but there is a "Where They are Now", "a series dealing with once-well-known fans (writers, artists, et al), who have disappeared from the K/S scene." The first subject is Leslie Fish.
- topics of discussion for next issue is "Is K/S dying? Why? Why not?" and "What story would you like to see written in K/S?"
- In 1988, there was complaint about lack of submissions to zines: "I hear complaints from all over fandom that zines aren't getting enough submissions."
- there is much discussion about whether editors should give reasons (detailed and otherwise) as to why they reject stories for zines, with most
- a review from a fan who hates Star Trek: TNG and proceeds to go into detail as to why
- some newspaper clippings about Star Trek: TNG
- listings of available zines, including an ad for Jacqueline Lichtenberg's pro novel "Those of My Blood"
- a fan has watched Star Trek: TNG and while has no real strong opinion about the show, notes: "I do have a charmingly perverse suggestion: Data and Wesley anyone?"
- The editor says: The reason I have decided to do this as a double issue is two-fold. First, in order to be able to print the entire Surak Award Ballot and the list of names of people whose addresses are being sought by the Gang of Six (see OUT IN THE OPEN [LoC section] for more details), it was necessary to up the page count. In with that, Regina Moore's K/S bibliography update appears in this issue - which will hopefully serve as a help to fans both in recall ing what was published in connection to the Surak ballot, and to upgrade their own records/collections.
- a fan writes: I would like to make a response to K.S. Langley's comments about K/S fiction being 'vulnerable to the threat of stagnation', etc. I have read a few similar remarks lately, and that the stories are old, too well-worn, used, etc. I don't agree at all.
- a fan is horrified at the thought of: other actors playing Kirk and Spock? Never, never, never!!! Other actors playing other characters in ST, I don't care. But not Kirk, Spock or McCoy!" Another fan takes a different tactic on the same topic: "Other actors portraying Kirk and Spock? I not only see no harm in it, I'm in favor of it. Neither Shatner nor Nimoy are getting any younger, and my image of Kirk and Spock is of healthy, energetic, virile young males, not wrinkled and lethargic oldsters. I want to be able to retain that image even as I join the ranks of the wrinkled and lethargic myself.
- fan comments on the lead story in Shadows in the Rain (RPS): I will not accede to [D B]'s statement that 'public figures are fair game'. The public part of their lives may be fair game (such as the acting career of an actor), but we have an ethical responsibility not to probe into their private lives... If an actor chooses to share his thoughts and feelings with us, that is one thing; but publishing an embroidered version of what he said as part of an erotic fantasy is quite another. I think that ethics need to be much more stringent when you're dealing with in dividuals who actually exist. Further, [D B]'s claim that 'no one knew the identity of the actor' in her story before I 'revealed' it is ingenuous. Even supposing readers were totally baffled as to whom he could possibly be after finishing the story, I doubt they were mystified after reading Charlie Powers' Focus column about "Shadows In The Rain". I find it difficult to believe that there is someone who reads this zine who doesn't know the identity of the author of I Am Not Spock'.
- on the subject of profit, a well-known writer/artist/editor asks: On the issue that was raised about monetary payment for stories, etc., does anyone know what the exact legal position a fanzine is in this regard? I've heard from 2 different people that two different people that fanzines are 'legally amateur' as long as they run less than 10,000 copies and are not subject to copyright infringe ment. I would presume there is a similar small peanuts amateur status as far as payment to contributors is concerned, but I really have no idea.
- a long, rambling letter from a zine editor/publisher concerning a vast, alarming list of why folks haven't gotten their zines yet, wrapping up with: I HAVE gone without food and rest to take care of fandom obligations, BUT I WILL NOT RISK MY JOB or the health of my family to meet YOUR DEMANDS. This is a HOBBY, to be done in my spare time only. Why? Because I can't afford to get fired. Can you?" and "Just like most everyone in fandom, I've been ripped off, too.
- another fan starts a letter with: Hello [name of zine publisher, not the same one in comment above]: "Are you out there somewhere? and if you are... we have unfinished business, you and I. Herewith: In July of 1986 I sent you a check for $23.50 for [name of zine], which your flyer had indicated would be out for Shore Leave of that year. A few months later, not yet having received the zine, I wrote to inquire as to what was the problem. No answer. A couple of months later, I wrote again. Same reply. Then I wrote again and again and.... Well, you get the picture. So, to make a long story (2 years' worth) short, you never answered any of my queries...
- a fan says she dropped her subscription to Interstat: because I could not stand the catty, nasty, personal and sometimes vicious attacks the fans made on each other over a difference of opinion. I would not wish to run into some of these people if my opinion differed, let alone if my blood were green or my ears pointed.
- a well-known (but new at this point) writer asks: I have submitted to both K/S zines and genzines. On the whole, the K/S editors reply promptly to a submission, are helpful with any problems, discuss of ask permission for major editing changes, and my copy always arrives promptly after publishing. On the other hand, about 80% of my genzine submissions have been trouble. I have waited up to a year to hear about a submission, I'm not informed where my work will appear and my copies are slow in com ing, when they come at all. Imagine my surprise when I was advised by a friend she loved my work in such-and-such a zine when I didn't know it was going to appear there and had not been sent a copy. I find myself doing much less general STAR TREK writing and more K/S - not because the ideas are not there, but simply because I am treated better. I'm not saying I've never had problems with a K/S editor or have never been treated great by a genzine editor, but the ration is not 50/50.
- Jacqueline Lichtenberg gives a short opinion of Year of the Ram and tosses out a plot bunny for other folks to run with: Suppose that ancient law and Vulcan physiology are such that the only option Spock has is to kill Kirk, but Kirk has the option of seducing Spock into raping him and thus breaking the Plak Tow at least sufficiently to allow a negotiated settlement.
- Jacqueline Lichtenberg has a long letter commenting on rejected fan fic, LoCs and the difference between letterzines, review zines and LoCs: Lately, I've been hearing from established writers that Trekdom has lost the habit and art of the LoC... Faneds ceased publishing (Letters of Comment) Locs because zine prices skyrocketed, so LoC writers ceased writing them because there was no free copy to be won by doing a good job on a LoC, so new writers no longer had incisive reader commentary about published stories to study and learn writing from, faneds no longer had a running commentary on their own editorial practices to keep them polite in their rejections, and as a result the quality of zine submissions has fallen and zine eds are baffled and offended by that fall in quality. Meanwhile, to make matters worse, the upfront investment in publishing a zine is going up and up, and the zine buyers are totally spoiled by the number of professional-level writers working in the zines... Zine eds are trying to revive the vitality that we used to have in zine fandom, but which we lost when we lost the LoC column and the free-issue for a published LoC policy. With our feedback look cut like that, faneds are getting ulcers, writers are depressed, and the readers are starving for good reading. Letterzines and review zines don't do the job because the letter writer has to consider that many of the readers haven't read the stories being discussed. Letterzines and review-zines consist of people expressing their own opinions, usually without reference to what anyone else in the issue is saying, or to what was said in the previous issue. Perceptive and in-depth discussion of a work which all the readers of the zine have also read, argument over various points in the work, so that the LoC column reader can see all sides of the issue, is just missing.
- a lengthy essay entitled: FLEXIBILITY IN EDITORIAL GUIDELINES, A MAVERICK'S APPROACH: It starts with: It is now fairly typical to find that K/S zines have editorial Guidelines restricting the kind of material that they are willing to look at. This is not censorship. Censorship is an imposition by an authority, such as Paramount, which has the power to prevent the appearance of any stories of which it disapproves anywhere. An editor's guidelines apply only to her own zine. What one editor rejects, another editor may gladly accept. I respect editorial guidelines, even if I don't agree with them. Once I fully understand what it is that an editor does and doesn't want, a try to adhere to the editor's standards. I am sometimes mistaken in my conception of an editor's policy, so I get a rejection. No problem- I've been writing for ten years now, and that's the way the game is played.
- there is an extensive K/S bibliography compiled by Regina Moore. It was also published in issues #3 and #4, and will have yearly updates
- a lengthy essay by Dana Angerman titled: "REJECTION - An Alternative to Give and Take"
- a lengthy essay by Alexis Fagen Black on what zine editors and readers are looking for and how to write a good story
- a review of Consort #2, see that page
- a review of Nome #10, see that page
- a review of Matter/Antimatter #6, see that page
- a review of Off Duty #1, see that page
- a review of As I Do Thee #1, see that page
- a review of California K/S Foreplay, see that page
- want ads and forthcoming zines
On the Double 9 won a 1988 Surak Award. It was published November 1988 and contains 32 pages.
- the editors of the zine say that Pon Farr Press will not be attending Creation Con anymore as, while the con organizers will allow K/S to be sold there, it cannot be be seen in any way. The editors say there is little point to stand around a table that has nothing on it. They are continuing Koon-ut-Cali-Con instead
- there is a long, long con report for Closet Con, see that page
- the discussion topic for this issue: "Is K/S fandom/creativity dying"? Some fans think "yes" and cite the sameness of fiction and the perceived decline in LoCs, the latter which discourages authors. Some fans think "no," and say the fandom is too big, too important, and too beautiful to fail
- a fan asks other fans to take risks with K/S: Put in some of the taboos such a 3-way relationships, death stories, alternate universes (but an original a/u, not the same old one), ending it with one or both of the characters in a relationship with someone other than each other. Instead of portraying the same old "they're not really gay, they're hetero men who just happen to like each other" relationships, why not portray them as gay men, perhaps in the tradition of Alexander and Hephaistion which I've seen in the British zines? Write and show other characters besides Kirk and Spock, in relationships (Chekov/Sulu or even *gasp* Uhura/Rand). In the tradition of IDIC, the possibilities are endless. This type of branching out, even with the "traditional" plots is what will keep K/S from dying; the same old plots told over and over will most certainly kill K/S.
- a BNF, [C G], writes in about the quality of K/S fiction and her conflicted beliefs: Previous to a ten-year gafiate, I was a very active STAR TREK fan writer In the mid-seventies. If memory serves, there was no "K/S" in those days. Oh, there was, of course. But it wasn't called K/S. I don't think it was called anything In particular, but I could be wrong. Anyway, I wrote one. A friend talked me into it about a year after 'Ni Var' (STAR TREK: THE NEW VOYAGES), and I wrote the story as a present for her. I liked it, but she didn't. She wanted Kirk to be dominated by Spock, and neither of them was dominant In my story. We went round and round on It for months, all to no avail. Eventually, I tore up my copy because I realized that I had lost something very precious to me in writing that story, and I wanted to get it back. Then I gafiated (for unrelated reasons), so I didn't get it back for ten years. When I became a bom-again neo last year, I discovered K/S (as such) because I was continuously looking for a fix, and almost all the good fixes were K/S stories; by me, most of the other stuff wasn't worth reading. I'm still not a believer, and I don't think I ever was, really. For me, the Kirk/Spock relationship is absolutely unique, and their being lovers erodes that uniqueness and makes me feel homesick. But this doesn't prevent me from realizing that the best writing in TREK fandom today is K/S. Nor does it prevent me from enjoying almost any well-written fan story as long as the characters ring true, in whatever context. Paradoxically, this ringing true seems to happen more often for me in K/S stories than in anything else I can find: if they did, they would.
- in the "Where Are They Now?" column, two fans are featured -- [P S] and [N L]: Regarding [P S]: This artist no longer participates in K/S for reasons of conscience. She believes that it would be wrong. In a letter, [P] told me that five years ago cancer was spreading throughout her body, and she was given six months to live. Then she re-discovered her Catholic faith. The strength of her befief enabled her to survive. Many people who have been struck with cancer have gone Into remission because of their strong commitment to religion. The phenomenon is widely documented. Truly heartfelt prayer can pull you through cancer. [P] remains committed to her religion. She deeply regrets her participation In K/S because of a fear that it encourages the sin of sodomy, and because she thinks that the reputations of both the actors and the characters have been ruined by it. It was the advent of the AIDS epidemic that convinced her that K/S was not only morally wrong, but destructive. She writes, "I realized that the only K/S situation I had not yet illustrated was one in which Kirk and Spock die from having infected each other with the virus. I was overwhelmed wtth guilt and dropped out of TREK permanently." ... [P] also prays. She pays for God's forgiveness and she prays for God's love,not only tor herself, but for all of us, too.
- also from the "Where Are They Now? column, the fan [N L]: For [N], leaving K/S was a matter of priorities. Her life had begun to seem like a series of deadlines. Her family and friends were neglected, she no longer enjoyed her art work, and she didn't feel that she was particularly good at the explicit kind ol art that K/S editors wanted. [N] has always considered herself primarily a portrait artist. When other artists arose who could provide sexually explicit illos, requests for her work declined. "So I suppose K/S zines and I really left each other!" she summarized. [N] still reads K/S. She says that early K/S seemed "more vital and innovative.' Now the sex scenes are repetitive. Like Leslie Fish in my previous article, [N] finds that K/S is often boring. Even the emotional interplay is tired, as Kirk and Spock are continually having the same sorts of crises and misunderstandings in story after story. Other times, K/S stories depict sexual practices that [N] considers 'extreme.' She would like K/S writers and editors to find better ways to be original. [N] still believes in the K/S relationship, but she would prefer a great reliance on plot in K/S fiction. "Sex does not have to be the focal point of every story; a good plot line does." Sometimes she still finds gems in K/S zines. "It's a joy to discover some small jewel or a story or poem, a special illustration, something that touches the old heartstrings and brings very fond memories." [N] says that she still loves Trek, likes K/S, and will be a Spock fan forever. She still does occasional covers and may do more Trek art one day, but for how she is devoting herself to her job, her husband, her home, her five cats and church activities. This is quite enough to keep anybody busy. Nevertheless, she says that "even though Trek is no longer the center of my life, it has changed me in many ways and remains a very special part of my existence."
- a fan writes about the lack of femmeslash in Star Trek: ... I have been asked by more than one person, "What about stories involving female slash?" Well... from what I've seen and heard, at least 90% of the K/S readers aren't interested. And without interest, there are no writers, artists, editors or publishers. Also, the reason for this, at least within the STAR TREK universe, would seem to be that there were no strongly suggested female pairs. I'm not sure that Uhura and Chapel ever said more than 20 words to one another throughout the series. Ditto for Rand and Uhura or Rand and Chapel. Sad though it may be, STAR TREK didn't lend itself to strong female characters back in the 60's. Additionally, within fandom itself, there seems to be very little interest in lesbian fiction using the STAR TREK characters.
- the editor writes a long, long article entitled "Three Into Two Won't Go... Or Will It?" about threesomes in Star Trek. Some excerpts: ...K/S fans would appear on the surface to be liberal, broad-minded, un-prejudiced people. And yet, regardless of the fact that we have laid aside society's prejudice against homosexuality, regardless of the fact that we can see and accept and rejoice in the possibility of Kirk and Spock being lovers, there are some fans who simply can't get past the idea that our heroes must remain monogamous. Why?... Why are a large percentage of K/S fans insulted, offended and otherwise radical when a harmless little menage story appears in some zine?... The reaction of readers in a variety of news and letterzine publications has led me to the conclusion that perhaps some K/S fans can only accept a liberal stance to a certain point. In other words, we can accept a homosexual relationship in the broad sense of the word (yet many writers portray Kirk and/or Spock as two heterosexual men who just happen to fall in love)... Now lest someone somewhere misinterpret what I'm saying, I am not advocating that every K/S story, or even a large percentage of them should be menage-type material. I am merely saying that a little more tolerance - and a little more open-mindedness - might be appreciated by the writers who are daring to explore this touchy subject... All in all, I think that those fans who absolutely despise menage stories should examine their reasons for this reaction. If it is a dislike of the third party (McCoy, for example), then perhaps it's a simple judgment call of "I don't care for it because of who Kirk and Spock were with." But if we find that the gut-level reaction of, I hate it!" is not so easily explainable, perhaps it's time to reevaluate the values and morals that we have assigned to the characters of Kirk and Spock. In other words, if we find ourselves hating a menage story simply because it is a menage story, then perhaps the fault is not with the story, but within our own social/cultural belief system.
- a review of First Time #18, see that page
- a review of Speed of Light, see that page
- a review of Daring Attempt #8
- a review of Daring Attempt #9, see that page
- a review of Naked Times #6, #18, and #19, see those pages
- a review of As I Do Thee #11, see that page
On the Double 10 was published in February 1989 and contains 32 pages.
- a fan addresses the long essay about threesomes from the previous issue: You mentioned that K/S fans tend to be "liberal, broad-minded, unprejudiced" people. [A B], love is not liberal, broad-minded or unprejudiced. If you love someone, especially the marrying kind of love, then you are the most narrow-minded person around. Men and women both. Love is extremely selective, completely exclusive, terribly prejudiced and unremittingly biased. After all, that's what it's all about. We choose this person above all others, for whatever reasons. We make a clear distinction between this person and everybody else. We discriminate in favor of this person for our thoughts, desires and everything else. If this were not so... then we would not love him (or her). The protest against menage stories is a cry against the loss of this exclusiveness. And consequently, in our minds, a lessening of love. Whatever our other disagreements may be, all K/S fans are united on one point. Kirk and Spock are in love with each other. They desire each other above all others. Anyone who comes butting in on this relationship is going to arouse our ire. And any writer who casually slips another "lover" into a K/S scenario will not make too many friends. Let's face it, we haven't yet reached the point of being able to love and have sex with three or more people and still feel that the relationships are "special" for lack of a better word. I for one am glad of that. I guess I'm just a bigoted, biased, prejudiced and un-liberal female. But I must accept that I do think and feel as a female. And as such, I desire exclusiveness and selectivity in mv love relationships with others.
- the author of the essay responds: As for your personal opinions, you're certainly entitled to them. However, when you state "We like to think Kirk and Spock are devoted to each other; we can't think that in menage situations" - hold it. Again, I think you're mistaking "sex" for a big, bad monster. Hell, it's a biological function, sometimes-but-not-always associated with love. To say that Kirk and/or Spock having sexual relations with another person automatically means they are no longer "devoted to one another" is ludicrous. The people I know aren't like a can of peas - you open them and they spoil. It seems that you're advocating possessiveness as opposed to "love" for Kirk and Spock. And if one or both parties feels they must "exclusively" possess the other, then the relationship is doomed. "If you love something set it free...." The person who would "hunt it down and kill it if it didn't return" is the person will be insecure and fearful in any relationship. The person who knows it will return because of love is the person sure to succeed in any relationship. Anyway, it's obvious we'll always disagree on this point I just felt compelled to respond to your comments, since I feel many of your assumptions may be based on anonymous statistics rather than on warm-blooded human (or alien) beings who are living the lifestyle you are so quick to condemn.
- a fan comments on the lack of f/f, or the appeal of it, in Star Trek: ... there are already excellent Lesbian and bisexual characters in science fiction for those of us who thirst to see ourselves reflected in what we read. Books by Marion Zimmer Bradley, Vonda Mclntyre and Elizabeth Lynn come immediately to mind. So there's little need to force the STAR TREK female characters into something they were clearly not meant to portray. But don't believe for a second that we're not reading K/S. You say that 99.9% of fen fast forward over the Lesbian scenes in erotic videos. That would mean about one in a thousand of us have interests along those lines. It isn't so, as I myself can count at least 10 Lesbian or bisexual women who read K/S, and I know there are more. And if there are much move 10,000 K/S fans out there, then that just means there are lots more of us as well. Don't jump to the conclusion that all fen are straight just because the ones you've met are. The truth is that those of us who want to read good Lesbian fiction go down to our local women's bookstores, where there's a sizeable collection, and buy it in book form. I for one would love to see some good women's erotica set in the STAR TREK universe, but I don't knock down the doors to find it because I can get it elsewhere. And K/S isn't anywhere else. To me, K/S is about archetypes, which in the best stories go beyond our culturally conditioned images of what women and men can be. The glory of K/S, and science fiction in general, is that we can use it to imagine a feminist future. Don't let our silence fool you.
- a fan comments on the number of K/S fen: To my knowledge, there are probably about 500 active K/S fans in fandom today, and that's a generous estimate. On an average a K/S editor sells about 250 to 300 copies of a K/S zine within a year, and if you figure that several of those copies are read by more than one person....
- a fan writes to say: 've been in Darkover fandom (based on Marion Zimmer Bradley's books) for quite a few years, and I edit and publish a Darkover zine. I, and other Darkover zine publishers, will gladly accept male/male stories, male/female stones and even female/female stories as long as they are well-written. Darkover fans don't seem to be as concerned about the sex of the partners as they are about reading a good, gripping tale. There is a TREK genzine, DEMETER, which features both a heterosexual relationship and Lesbian relationships. Are K/S fans, even with their talk of IDIC, actually less tolerant than either gen TREK fans or Darkover fans?
- a fan tells another one: I have heard of the infamous Clause 28 in Britain (which prohibits any government money from going to those who portray homosexuality as another lifestyle, rather than a "perversion"). I also notice with pleasure that British K/S fans are giving something back to the Gay community, in their donations to AIDS organizations. I know that some American K/S fans have individually given money and/or time to AIDS organizations, but I haven't heard of a Con which has done so. I think it would be nice for some of the American K/S cons to give donations to AIDS groups.
- a fan comments on a three-year old review of her pro book, Killing Time: I know from experience that people will occasionally attempt to attack a writer's work through what I would consider a more personal attack. (i.en the "review" of KILLING TIME that appeared in the defunct publication, UNIVERSAL TRANSLATOR). I have since found out who wrote that review, and that it was intended as an attack against me rather than against the book itself. Apparently this person was going through some rough personal times and was lashing out at everybody who got in the way. I just happened to "get in the way" that time. And while I would have welcomed hearing this fan's comments to me, I wasn't interested in reading them under the guise of a review when her complaints were, in the end, entirely personal.
- several zine eds warn others against a fan, [S V D], who has written, what they figure is about $2000 in bad checks for zines
- it has a three-page 1988 Surak Awards ballot
- a review of Alien Brothers, see that page
- a review of Crossroads, see that page
- a review of Sojourns, see that page
- a review of Naked Times #20, see that page
- a review of An Oath of Bondage, see that page
- a review of First Time #20, see that page
- a review of Within the Mirror, see that page
On the Double 11 was published in May 1989 and contains 26 pages.
- the "Where Are They Now?" column's subject this time is Carol Frisbie. In it, she says that "she still attends a few cons a year, remaining on the fringes of fandom. She has a an abiding love of Trek and Trek fandom was a really significant experience in her life, but she feels that she's said everything that she needed to say on the themes in Trek that interested her."
- a fan is unhappy with the RPS in Sojourns: I believe very strongly that it's wrong to use living people in published fantasies of this kind. I said then that I was afraid that this was a slippery slope, and that Shatner/Nimoy might well appear next. SOJOURNS makes Shatner and Ninoy prior incarnations of Kirk and Spock. those particular souls represent an internal love legend. All the previous incarnations were deeply in love with one another. This implies that Shatner and Nimoy ought to be lovers in order to complete the destiny of these two souls. These are real human beings, folks. How would you like it if someone tried to dictate your karma? We've got to stop this. I don't care how well it's written. This kind of material is unethical and might eventually have serious repercussions.
- a fan writes that: If Kirk and Spock were 'hard-wired' for supposedly 'male' traits of aggression, sexual pursuit, violence and so forth, then about 90% of the K/S stories cannot have happened. One of the virtues of K/S writing is showing that men CAN be tender and loving... K/S stories show that Kirk and Spock can do such 'female' things as keep house, play music, enjoy sunsets, be devoted to each other.
- a fan comments on the zine, The LOC Connection: There are people out there who are easily offended, and I've no wish to make enemies. Cowardice? Or prudence? I'm not sure. I know that in Trek fandom, as in other groups, some people are looking for a grievance, and I don't want to give them one. The people who subscribe to TLC are in effect "asking for it", but it's sometimes astonishing what people will take exception to. Also, I don't see a big difference between using a pseudonym and writing anonymously. A difference, granted, but not a huge one. Having said that, I would add that it's not the anonymity, but the list of writers who subscribe, that makes TLC unique. I know people are looking for feedback makes it worth taking trouble with comments. And, of course, the insight on your own work is, invaluable.
- a fan comments on f/f fiction: Some thoughts on the lack of interest In female slash noted in Alexis' most recent article (Three Into Two...1, OTD 9). The husband of a GB K/S writer once said to me that he didn't mind his wife writing about two men, but if she wrote about two women, then he would start to get worried. Could our apparent lack of interest In female relationships have anything to do with a wish not to probe that area of sexuality? Further to this, fans often say they admire K/S because of the equality between the characters. One of the main attractions of slash writing is surely the elimination of the inequality so often present in heterosexual relationships. If readers dismiss lesbian stories on a no-sexual-interest basis, it doesnt seem we are interested in equality or in exploring relationships. Why then K/S? For sexual titillation only?
- a fan from England writes extensively about the restrictive laws in her country about the sending and receiving of "obscene" material through the mail: I am not a lawyer, have no legal connections and so I can only give you the facts as I understand them and as Reader X would encounter them. First and biggest hurdle Is the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876 (no that isn't a misprint, our law Is more than antiquated). This prohibits the import of indecent or obscene books. The word obscene for the purpose of the Act is taken to mean "repulsive, filthy, oath-some or lewd". (Yes, this is K/S we're talking about). What it means for mythical reader X is that H.M. Customs and Excise conduct random searches of the incoming post and confiscate anything they consider to come under the Act. You then receive a note from them saying they have the zine and unless you appeal they will destroy it within a specified time (usually 3 weeks). This has happened on a number of occasions with a number of zines. Ah yes, you ask, but what do HMC&E think is repulsive, etc...- Originally we all assumed that the artwork was the culprit, specifically the erect penis. So that we were all taken by surprise when a single issue of a mixed media zine fell foul. This had no art, and very little that was explicit. No one I know of has ever appealed, although one brave fan marched down to Customs and demanded to see the offending article before it was destroyed. "You don't want to see that. Madam,' said the red-faced official, heedless of the fact that she had ordered it in the first place. I believe she did actually get to see the zine before it vanished. Random search sometimes turns up only one copy of an import but occasionally a 'run' will be caught and as many as (I believe) 21 zines were once rounded up.
- a review of The Voice #5, see that page
- a review of Fetish, see that page
- a review of Naked Times #21, see that page
On the Double 13 was published in November 1989.
On the Double 14 was published in March 1990.
cover of issue #14, by Phoenix
On the Double 15 was published in June 1990.
On the Double 21
- Blake's 7
- other unknown content
On the Double 22 was published in March 1992 and contains 44 pages.
On the Double 24 was published in September 1992 (even though the editor asks for ads to reach her by August) and contains 50 pages. This issue contains zine ads, a few con flyers, and one zine review for Fever #2]]
cover of issue #24 by Maureen B
Issue 28 was published in September 1993 and contains 59 pages. Cover art by Tammy Lomas.
- it contains no zine reviews, nor does in include any LoCs; it does, however, contain many, many zine ads
- this issue has an Open Letter from a fan caught in the middle of other Open Letters, see Zine Piracy Letter to Candace Pulleine by Bill Hupe
- this issue contains the Open Letter to Fanzine Readers, Contributors, and Publishers by Candace Pulleine, the chair of RevelCon. It was in response to the letters by Alexis Fegan Black and Bill Hupe. Her letter addressed several points, one of which that it was unfair and inaccurate of Black and Hupe to soley blame the attendees of RevelCon for the decline in the number of zines sold. It reads in part: There is nothing wrong with an anti-piracy campaign; we are all for it as we want zine publishing to continue, but if there is no proof to back up the sweeping statements, names (groups or individuals) should not be mentioned. We notice that only our group name has been referred to. We have become the example of the con where 'pirating going on there was phenomenal,' and therefore usable as a scapegoat, whether or not pirating zines is the normal for us, proven or otherwise. by using us in this campaign, fans will have a negative response to us, if they were not there or acquainted with us. Zine pirating is not done or condoned by the majority of the people grouped under the phrase 'fans at Revelcon' or REVELcon.' But by using us in the proximity to the phrases like 'the Kinko's crowd,' etc, the association, whether deserving or not, rubs off... The examples of where individuals are using REVELcon as a scapegoat keep being received. Is there no end to this smear campaign?
cover issue #28 by Tammy Lomas
On the Double 32 was published in December 1994 and contains 68 pages. The cover features Bodie and Doyle by K.S. Eaton from The Professionals. This issue contains many zine ads and con flyers, and one newspaper clipping about Star Trek.
I will ask that you continue to mention OTD when ordering. Maybe that way the publishers will remember to update their ads. I'm still finding out about changes by accident, and not because the editors/publishers are remembering to update. You will see a lot of "SASE for prices" for that reason. Thanks to Karen Eaton for her uplifting holiday cover. (OK! I'm sorry and won't do it again.)
On the Double 33 was published in 1995 and contains 75 pages. There are no letters or reviews, only ads and one Dilbert cartoon.
cover issue #33 by Courtney Gray
On the Double 34 was published in (Jan?) 1996 and contains 81 pages. This last issue contains no LoCs, no zine reviews, just ads.The front cover is by Suzan Lovett. The editor apologizes for some lateness which is due to some Real Life issues:
All I can say is THANK YOu for your incredible patience. I did get a few letters implying that I was stealing their subscription money, but only from people who do not know me, and I can't really blame them.
- a zine ed writes: In February 1995, Wendy Rathbone published a new K/S novel by Natasha Solten called THE PRINCE. She sold 10 copies at Escapade '95. In March 1995, MKASHEF acquired Wendy' s publication duties, this includes publication of THE PRINCE. The 10 copies sold were not perfect bound and had white covers; the version of THE PRINCE now available from MKASHEF is perfect bound and has an ivory cover. These are the only differences in the two versions. However, should anyone who would prefer the perfect bound version of THE PRINCE wish to do so, you may return your stapled copy to me and I will replace it with the perfect bound version. I did not sell the stapled copies and so am under no obligation to exchange them for the perfect bound version, but I have always stood behind the products I publish and don't want anyone thinking otherwise. Also, if you ever have a problem with a zine, please don't hesitate to contact the editor. Most of us don't bite, and those of us who do don't bite very hard! We're fans, too, not ogres sitting in our lairs waiting to kill zine readers! Most often, a letter of inquiry to the editor regarding your trouble can quickly resolve the problem. Not writing to an editor with a complaint and 'gossiping' instead is the root of why fandom has deteriorated. We don't talk to each other anymore, and I thing that's very sad. Spreading a complaint around fandom instead of trying to resolve it at the source only creates bad feelings which does no one any good at all. As the editor of MKASHEF Enterprises publications, I am always here for you.