Tunneltalk/Issue v.2 n.2
Tunneltalk is a Beauty and the Beast (TV) letterzine edited by Barbara Storey, Victoria Clark and Sharon Himmanen.
There were 17 issues.
This zine began after the letterzine Passages ended.
From the August 1991 issue: "This publication is intended as an outlet for fans; it will not be sent to either Witt-Thomas or Republic, or anyone else connected with the show, so don't be afraid to say your piece."
v.2 n.2
Tunneltalk v.2 n.2 was published in April 1991 and contains 44 pages.
- this issue contained an extensive flyer for a proposed second Fan-Out (a con sponsored by two of this letterzine's editors) that had originally been planned as multi-media, but was now had a 100% Beauty and the Beast focus with the title "A Midsummer's Night Dream." See Fan-Out page for more.
- this issue has a con report for Fan-Out, see that page
- this issue has the short fiction by Helen Commodore called "Traditions"
v.2 n.2: Excerpts from the Letters
[Barbara S]: I have recently heard that an anonymous letter is allegedly being circulated (I have not seen this letter, nor actually heard of or from anyone who received it) which says, in effect, that Ron Perlman is not really going to appear at South of Oz, and that any true fan of B&TB would only attend our FAN-OUT convention in St. Louis. First of all, it has been confirmed that Ron will be at South of Oz, through his manager. There is no reason to doubt that. Secondly, I am of the opinion that an anonymous letter is one of the most cowardly acts possible, no matter what its intentions, and I would ask that if this letter actually exists, if someone is doing this because they think they are helping me, they are not, and I would like them to stop. I have made my feelings about South of Oz quite clear, I think, and I will not be attending it. However, I still believe — as I always have — in freedom of speech and movement, and in the basic intelligence of fans in general. We each must make up our own minds about any issue in fandom, and neither coercion nor emotional manipulation of fellow fans is acceptable to me. I keep hoping that we will be able to move past this kind of nonsense someday, and learn to keep our "eyes on the prize... and less on each other."
[Arwen B]: I believe you are in error in stating that Vincent did not desire Catherine. Please rewatch the pilot, paying particular attention to the way he reacts when she embraces him at her basement entrance. His expression, breathing, and posture strongly convey ecstasy, rapture, pleasure and pain mingling. Platonic friendships do wot stir that depth of passion. As to not being a "true" fan if we don't love all of an actor's work—what an insult to the man. An actor (as any artist) constantly strives to perfect his mastery of the craft, works hard to make each role richer and deeper than the last. To say that he just has to show up in anything to win approval is to denigrate his effort. It's like saying to an actress; "Don't bother to learn your lines, honey, I'm just here to watch your tits jiggle."
[Arwen B]: I read Beth Blighton's essay with great interest. I'd be a whole lot more impressed by it if Beth hadn't tried to pressure an editor into censoring my review of Black Cover. Perhaps she should reread that very good warning and vow to practice what she preaches.
[Arwen B]: As to Vincent being worth any sacrifice — well let's just put the shoe on the other foot, shall we? (just to avoid sexism.) If Vincent REALLY loved Catherine, why didn't he let Peter Alcott and her arrange for some discreet plastic surgery and dental work? (Don't throw things yet — hear me out!) If he got his teeth and claws clipped, his hair cut, and his nose bobbed he could experience "Above" and really share Catherine's life! If he shouldn't be expected to distort his whole life to "prove" his love for her, then neither should she.
[Kathryn C]: Vincent also needed to be defined, once and for all as something other than a man/beast. That would have helped Vincent with his personal doubts and given Catherine's uncertainties a rest. For myself, I never saw Vincent as anything but human, even in his rages. I thought of Vincent as a throwback to an ancient Scandinavian berserker warrior, capable of working himself into a fury in order to kill, but suffering afterwards for it. (I would like to know why the writers insisted on putting Vincent in situations where, in order to save Catherine, he had to kill someone. I know that I wanted to see Vincent in more situations where he could use his intelligence to rescue Catherine or others that he loved.) Human beings are, after all, capable of some fantastic things — good as well as bad—including empathy, kindness, and creativity. I think we're always underestimating ourselves. So why not call Vincent human? But I do wish the writers had simplified things. They could have made Vincent an alien, if they didn't want to make him human. People seem to have fewer hang-ups about aliens than they do about animals. Certainly, a love affair with an alien should have caused less trouble with the censors. What does anyone else think?
[Kathryn C]: To treat Season 3 as a dream would be the simplest solution. We could all start over, plug up the holes and fix the problems — in the show and in fandom — and get things right this rime, it would require organization and careful planning, but I see it as possible. The sticking point would be to ask what the writers and producers are willing to do, and although I remain hopeful, I have heard nothing definite. I would gladly write to Ron Koslow if it would do any good, but I'm not sure where he stands on the issue of returning to a story he helped trash. Does anyone have a clue?
[Joan C]:I wish that what I had to say, next, was on as cheerful a note as the convention. We all know that there is a rift in fandom. It began in December of 1989, with the beginning of the third season, and has grown to enormous proportions since then. Put simply, I don't believe this rift will ever heal itself. What we have instead arc two separate and distinct fandoms; "Classic" and "Third Season," and in my mind "never the twain shall meet." What I would like to see happen now is for the two fandoms to coexist in peace, without constant competition (and angry words, and mudslinging, and lambasting) from one another. I believe the key here is the word "separate."
In the future, I would like to see all zines, conventions, newsletters, letterzines, etc. announce their intent of being either "Classic-" or "Third Season"-oriented. I believe this would help to minimize the problem. It is hard to receive so many fliers for literature in the mail which advertise a mixture of all three seasons. Most people simply don't want a mixture of all three seasons. If they do, they could easily purchase both types of zines. And if you or I want to go to a convention, the first thing we do, nowadays is check out the hosts and the fandom guest list, to see how many are either classic or third season personalities.
You may disagree with me, Barbara, Sharon, and Vicky, but I believe even letterzines should be either/or. I've just read too many LOCs that tend to get too personal, and hurtful things are said on both sides. I know that this amounts essentially to US and THEM, but until the hostilities die down on both sides, I can't think of a better way. (I'm sorry, Joan, but I can't think of a worse way to deal with a fellow human being than to say, "You stay on your side of the fence and I'll stay on mine and that way we don't ever have to deal with each other." Yes, people from both persuasions have been hurt/angry/attacked/slandered and God knows what else, and the idea of separating us sounds tempting, but to me, that's giving upon the bask goodness of human nature that I still believe 99% of us possess. We must all be ready, willing, and able to express our own opinions and to allow the expression of other's opinions—otherwise, how can we call ourselves adults, let alone human beings? True, it's not always done gently in this fandom, but part of the human condition is being hurt, hurting others, forgiving, and asking to be forgiven. And another part is caring. Can't we all do that for each other, instead of giving up? —Barbara)
There is one other type of fiction zine that deserves mentioning. These are the "alternate" third season zines. These, I believe, should be included under classic if they bring back Catherine, even if they follow the third season very closely. Thanks for letting me have my say.
[Joan C]:In her letter, Sharon states with emphasis, "I could NEVER accept lovemaking between V&C unless V is human." I guess, in keeping with Sharon's point of view, when Dr. Peter Alcott receives the news that Vincent's blood sample is definitely not human, Catherine should turn to Vincent and say something to the effect of, "I'm sorry, Vincent, but due to the fact that you are genetically on a par with Rin Tin Tin, this relationship can progress no further. I'm afraid if you need love, you will have to find it with someone of your own kind (species). You might try the Bronx Zoo."
What Sharon is forgetting is that WHATEVER Vincent may be (and he truly doesn't know what he is), he is—most assuredly and above all else — A SENTIENT BEING. ("I think, therefore I am.") Not only is Vincent capable of thought, but he has a conscience, and is capable of deep feelings, including those of love. If I remember correctly, there is a STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION episode that delves into Data's right to be treated with dignity, and respect, as are other thinking, feeling, intelligent beings. In fact, his sentience is proven, in part, by the fact that he had an intimate relationship with a female crew member—a human being.
Sharon has said that if Vincent were not all human (and he isn't), then loving him would be a perversion. Sadly, Vincent himself agrees with Sharon's assessment. He believes that he is less than human (a beast, an animal), and definitely not deserving of love (remember "A Fair and Perfect Knight").
This brings me to the other letter in TT Vol.1 #11 that I wanted to respond to. [Valerie W], I agree with you almost 100%! The only sentence I disagree with — "He doesn't have a real sense of his own worth, as a human being." — involves your choice of words more than anything else. I would simply replace the term "human being" with "person." No one can deny that Vincent is a person, just as Spock and Data from STAR TREK are people. In my mind, all three are MORE than human, as opposed to less. However, Spock and Data have a much clearer sense of their own worth (perhaps because they know about their origins) than does Vincent.
[snipped]
(Joan — I'm afraid there is a hole in this line of reasoning concerning "human being" versus "person," since the dictionary definition of human reads "a man" and the dictionary definition of person reads "a human being." Since they both mean the same thing, I'm not sure what you're get ling at, Vincent is obviously not strictly homo sapiens, but, yes, he is sentient. I don't feel the need to carry the discussion much further than that, other than to speculate, for curiosity's sake, on his actual parentage. It's who he is that counts to me, not what he is. Also, Spock was definitely NEVER a person with a sense of his own worth (at least not until one or two of the movies). That was his biggest demon and the chief instrument of his self-torture — that he was never fully Vulcan or human, and he suffered greatly because of that insecurity. The similarities in that area between Spock and Vincent were what attracted me to Vincent in the first place, but I would be hard put to say which of the two was the more neurotic! — Barbara)
[Ellie J]: Constantia said that she realized that she "should make greater allowances than I had.. . thought necessary for statements made by people suffering under the burden of grief over the death of a fictional character." I appreciate the sentiment, but object to the way it's put. Consider, Constantia, how you, and all of the others who can't understand why some of us feel such deep grief over the death of a "fictional character," would feel if Vincent had been captured and killed off with no human dignity by Edward Hughes, the anthropologist in "Nor Iron Bars A Cage." This scenario would be no less dignified than was Catherine's death. Then, after Vincent had been disposed of, they brought on Chewbacca, the Wookie from Star Wars as a replacement? I mean, he's kind, loyal and protective of his friends, right? Of course, that would be intolerable. I know that. Vincent is not dispensable. Well, neither is Catherine Chandler.
[Ellie J]:The only canon that I had heard of up to now is the literary canon -— the body of works which are "important/worth while" reading. Critics are the ones who choose what is canon aren't critics, basically, fans? The critics not only CHOOSE what is canon, but they sometimes ALTER an author's finished work — as some fans are doing by bringing Catherine back. As an example I'd like to cite one of fandom's most famous literary works, also in the literary canon: Great Expectations, "After seeing the first 'unhappy' ending in proof, Dickens wrote another (more hopeful ending] and authorized ONLY it. Later editors have published the first version as having more aesthetic integrity, but Dickens never authorized it." Many of us who read the Starlog articles know that Ron Koslow and George Martin intended quite a different S3 than the one filmed. Yes, they've only authorized the one filmed, but we as fans, and critics, are in good company when we choose the B&TB ending that we feel has more aesthetic integrity.
[Ellie J]:Whether Vincent is man, beast or something in-between? I think it was Mark Twain who said that man is set apart from beasts because he is the only animal who can feel embarrassment. Vincent definitely fits into that category. I agree with you that Vincent is not a beast — not half-lion or whatever — maybe an alien, but I think that mostly he is a magical/ mythical being (remember what Kristopher says about him — "What storybook did he walk out of?").... His origins have no explanation; at least, not an earthly one. Perhaps he was "sent" (please don't ask by whom — I don't know) to ensure the success of the Tunnel world sanctuary, to help guide Mouse, to inspire Father, to help Catherine realize her potential... look at "Remember Love," and how their world would have been, if he had not existed. Saying that Vincent is half-lion is too simplistic. If Vincent is not human, it's because he's more than human, not less.
[Ellie J]:I wanted to throttle Father when he tells Vincent that part of him is a man. When I first began watching the show Father was right up there as a favorite character (I yearned for just such a father), but the more episodes I see, the more I realize that he is not the perfect father that I thought him to be: he was horrible to Devin, and he's much of the reason why Vincent is so tormented. For example, I can't quite understand why Father sent Lisa away. For her protection? Did he really think Vincent would hurt her again? For Vincent's protection? If so, by guarding his son against teenage heartache, he caused years of self-doubt and agony. The situation called for communication, not the secretiveness and shame with which Father seems to have handled it.
[Sue K]: I hadn't realized how much I truly relied on TT to keep me in touch with fandom as a whole — how much I looked forward to it — until three months had passed without it.Though I write to many individual fans, TT provides a service that cannot easily be replaced. I'm glad to see that things are back on track.
[Sue K]: At this point in time, I am looking forward to attending the International B&TB Convention in New York this May — in fact, by the time this LOC is printed, it may have already happened. I look forward to seeing many friends, some of whom I've never met, and to exhibiting and hopefully selling a number of pieces of original artwork. For various reasons, this is the only B&TB convention I am definitely planning to attend this year, though things may change later on. With any luck, next year will bring a consolidation of efforts behind one convention that can represent everyone, with a balanced guest list and neutral viewpoint. Thank you, Barbara, for expressing so well my reason for not attending "South of Oz." It is not an easy topic to discuss, as it is easy to sound accusing and mean-spirited. But I'm afraid, and many of my friends, reached the same conclusion about the "official" fan-run convention of 1991, quite independently of any rumors.
[Sue K]: How have others recovered from "Season Three Depression." Well, what worked for me was talking about it — endlessly, at times — with like-minded friends, writing LOCs for letterzines, and drawing Catherine so many rimes that it was no longer possible for me to think of her as anything but alive and well. Though I was told several times in letterzines that I and my friends should shut up and stop belaboring the point, I found that that was the ONLY way to work through my powerful feelings about Season Three, and led to my ultimate rejection of it.
[Sue K]:The big "to-do" lately has been the reaction to Black Cover, both in this and in other letterzines. I have not read the zine (nor do I intend to), but I've heard enough about it, in detail, that I feel I can speak on this topic. On the one hand, I believe it is the right of the author and publisher of this zine to produce it. No matter how much I may dislike the topics presented (and, I assure you, I do), I have no right to tell this individual what she may or may not write and publish. Provided she is not breaking any laws, my only influence on her decision to publish must be my willingness or unwillingness to buy the product.
This is where there's a lot of confusion rampant in this fandom. Censorship comes from the word "censor," defined as "a person authorized to examine letters, books, films, etc. and remove or ban anything regarded as harmful. To subject to such examination or removal." Have we such an individual in our fandom, who is set up to ban materials? We do not. ) The choice of an individual to purchase or NOT to purchase a product is NOT CENSORSHIP. My refusal to buy a specific item, and my explanation of reasons for this decision, does not mean I have any power to ban the product. It means that I am taking advantage of my freedom in this society to support what l choose to support, to buy what l choose to buy, and let the laws of supply and demand take their course. If I refuse to buy zine "A" and write to theauthors to explain my reasons, I am not committing "censorship." Censorship is some individual or body who HAS THE POWER to actively prevent something from being written, published or distributed. If a zine doesn't sell, don't blame me. Take a look at what you're writing, and wonder why it isn't popular. Then make your own decision about whether or not to proceed. Ultimately, in fandom, it is the choice of the producer alone; no potential audience or consumer can prevent publication. When I read editorials saying "I will not be censored" in response to criticism (admittedly sometimes quite rude), if s really beside the point. In fandom, the censorship is self-censorship only. No one else has that power.
[Sue K]: I share John's dislike of censorship in general. Yet, even I have my "point of no return" — including sexual violence against women and child pornography. I would cheerfully ban both with no regrets. But that's my cut-off point. (Everyone's is different, which is why censorship is dangerous. WHO will decide what is okay, what is not?) I have no problem with gay-related materials or lifestyles—one of my dearest friends is lesbian, and two of my favorite co-workers were gay men. (That old cliche— right? But true). However, I know well that there are elements of this fandom, as well as society in general, that regard such "aberrations" with horror. Because we all feel so differently, ifs hard to impose standards of morality beyond the basics most of us agree on (murder, rape, etc.). Whew, this is too complicated to discuss here.
[Sue K]: The topic of Vincent's humanity. As I said last time, his being not entirely human is not an issue or concern for me, but clearly it is for others. I don't think any of us REALLY believes Vincent is "part animal." Some of us may choose to see him as something "other," or "otherworldly," or simply mysterious,butIdon'tthinkalot of us think of him as literally carrying lion genes. However, even if he did, I would never see it as "bestiality" for Catherine and Vincent to have sexual relations. It just wouldn't bother me. Regardless of Vincent's genes, his intellect and soul are "human." His being 100% human is not an issue for me at all.
[Sue K]:I figured I'd write once more to TT to address one of the specific controversial issues floating around in fandom. Speaking frankly on this issue is a bit risky, but I think the time has come.
This issue is "South of Oz." Rumors and counter-rumors fly hither and thither about whether "South of Oz" is, or is not, a "Third Season Convention." As one of those who has deliberately chosen not to attend the convention, for reasons that have nothing to do with my financial situation (and quite in spite of Ron Perlman's appearance), I'd like to give my point of view about this.
No "rumor" convinced me one way or another. I made up my own mind. (It doesn't take any fan leader to get me to have an opinion, believe me.) Hooked at the fan guest list, and saw the names of several individuals who had many times stated, publicly, definite viewpoints about Season Three and those fans who "dared" not to support it — i.e., a preference for the former and contempt for the latter. This is not my imagination,asrve seen these words of condemnation in print. When "South of Oz" chose these specific guests at the expense of any to balance out the viewpoint, it gave me the feeling that this convention supported views and attitudes I could not agree with. Whether or not anyone associated with "South of Oz" loved Season Three wasn't ever the issue for me; what WAS the issue was that most of the fan guests had gone on record belittling those, such as myself, who could not support Season Three — we, the so-called "traitors" and "nay-sayers" of fandom. While I saw a guest list that very firmly supported this point of view — accept or be labeled "traitor" — I saw no guests who represented the point of view of fans who prefer B&TB in its "classic" form. Let's face it—this fandom is divided. NO amount of wishful thinking will change that. But the way to get fandom back together is NOT to have a con and and invite guests only of one viewpoint, ignoring anyone of the opposing viewpoint. Someone recently said to me that they thought it would be impossible from now on to have a convention that was NOT swinging one way or another "Classic" or 'Third Season/accept all." That may be true. But it certainly can't be achieved if no attempt is made to balance the guest list, and absolutely no acknowledgement is made of the problem to begin with.
I bear no ill will towards the planners and organizers of "South of Oz," but I would ask them to really consider WHY people are unhappy with matters. If "South of Oz" is truly impartial, the guest list should reflect this. It does not. I speak not only for myself, but many friends who feel exactly as I do. I think our concerns are valid. Even if "South of Oz" gets more people than any other convention this year, there will still be many of us who will not attend for the reasons I've stated. I don't believe "South of Oz" is intended as a "Third Season Con" in programming or content, but I do believe that the choice of fan guests represents an emphasis and viewpoint I cannot support.
It would be really nice if all wounds would heal of their own accord. But if you don't acknowledge that a wound is there, it can fester and become something much more serious. If anyone has any doubts about the anger still generated in this fandom, I recommend a glance at the Feb./March 1991 issue of Pipeline. To pretend a given problem is merely the result of "rumor mongering" by some hateful group of fans, or some kind of smear campaign targeted against one point of view, is dangerously simplistic. By covering up the real problem, things don't improve; the problem just gets worse. Everyone wants to believe that people in this fandom are universally kind and acknowledge that than to pretend that everything is "sweetness and light."
A friend of mine, who likes some elements of "Classic" and "Third Season" B&TB said: "There will always be that chasm in B&TB fandom. It will never go away. I think by now people know what they want to see and gravitate towards those who believe the same. I don't consider this a bad thing." Nor do I but for any fan event, club or publication that hopes to have all views represented, an across-the-board balance of guests, officers, representatives and/or viewpoints MUST be present.
[Rita P]:As many of you may know, I'm firmly in the classic B&TB camp. I refused to even view the 3 previously unseen episodes shown by CBS over the summer. I had no desire to put myself through the pain and frustration one more time. In fact, although I've been devouring the classic zines (so many zines—so little money), I haven't even dragged out my classic tapes or watched much of the Family Channel episodes. Yet if the powers-that-be would choose to put out anything of classic B&TB: tapes, books, etc., I would still avidly buy them. By the way, I also refused to buy TLBL and the 91 calendar. I can't believe that Republic, CarolCo, Koslow, etc, with the volume of mail they receive from the fans, cannot understand what will and will not sell, yet on this they seem to be myopic: If, as rumored, they might decide to combine a classic episode with a third-season episode on tape, I'd probably take one of 2 options. Either refusing to buy it, or take the chance of taking the tape apart, snipping out the offending third season episode, and mailing it back to Republic. At least for the first tape I'd probably use the second option, but if they continue to combine classic and third season, then I'd once more vote with my wallet.
As to the movie, I have to agree with Elaine Landman's letter; if they choose to continue the third season storyline or dwell too heavily on third season, even if they return Catherine, they are putting themselves at great risk of another failure. And if they fail this time, it could very well be another twenty years before we see B&TB again. {And if that happens, like Dark Shadows, we'll be seeing other actors playing the parts.) I firmly believe, just like the disputed Nielsens, the viewpoints of this fandom represent multi-millions who tuned into B&TB worldwide but are not actively involved in fandom. If at least 50% are classic fans and will accept nothing else (I believe the figure is really closer to 70 or 80%), why would any moviemaker want to cut their potential audience by at least half? And just like Ghost, Dirty Dancing, Pretty Woman, Batman, and the Star Trek movies, a lot of revenue will come from repeat business, tape, soundtrack and book sales. In my mind, Vincent and Catherine are identified with the series by the general public (just like Kirk, Spock and McCoy in the original Star Trek), And 46 hours of V&C vs 10 hours of Diana being repeated over the years will only reinforce this. I also found it interesting to hear from some new fans in the recent TTs who have found the show through the Family Channel. Since the Family Channel has apparently decided not to air third season, it makes you wonder how many new viewers have tuned in and know very little of what occurred third season.
Until they, as Ron so aptly put it, "reunite the lovers," I firmly believe they have screwed themselves out of a lot of potential B&TB revenue. There is a market for original novels, calendars, tapes, etc., but not as long as the storyline remains in a state of highly disliked limbo. They need to go back to the innocence and hope of the first season, when they were at their zenith, and try to recreate the magic and fantasy once more. If Republic were smart—and up till now I hope someone has been keeping sharp objects and loaded guns away from the decision-makers — they would bury the third season episodes until the movie came out, and do a lot of damage - control with the fans, hinting that the lovers will be reunited. Heck, if it went big screen, we nutty fans would probably pay good money just to see the trailers.
If they are going to pursue the "cease and desist" orders, they are only illustrating that they don't understand that whatever the fans are putting out is filling a vacuum they created with third season, or failed to fill by making serious, concerted merchandising efforts. Of course, now they can never hope to make everyone happy; the best they can hope for is to get as many of the original and new viewers into a theater or in front of their small screen as possible.
[Rita P]: By the way—I enjoyed Dark Shadows, and I never saw the original. I think as far as courage to portray passion between a human woman and man who is not quite human, we were definitely on the wrong network. It was great to see former B&TB writers Linda Campanelli and Shelly Moore listed as executive story editors. They are two big reasons I'm tuned in. It only confirms that these ladies know how to write and know their audience. (Amen to that! -B.) I know DS has little hope of making the fall schedule, another victim of the "Friday abyss." It's interesting to note that Quantum Leap couldn't even do as good as B&TB in our old time slot, and now once more on Wednesday's it's winning its time period and was renewed. I admire the stance Bellisario took with NBC to get QL moved. Also, l admire the fact that neither Bellisario nor NBC seemed to panic and demand a drastic retooling of QL with more action, violence, body counts, etc. QL remains a light-hearted drama that leaves the viewer with hope and good feelings each week. Just what BA&T once provided. I'll always consider what happened to B&TB a sellout by the producers of the show and of the fans. And yes, I'm another fan who has no faith in Ron Koslow producing it I know if he's of a mind he could write and produce a masterpiece. But anyone who can make the statement that TLBL "stood on its own up there.. . with some of the great events of television" has me wondering if he understands what we saw in the show, or is he still on his own dark-vision-quest? I'm glad Alex Gansa confirmed about TLBL what many of us suspected the night we saw. Much of it was a reflection of their anger at Linda. Nota very noble human emotion. How can Koslow delude himself that a "payback" was a great media event?
[Rita P]:We certainly know the good and great things B&TB inspired in all of us. I'm not saying the dark side of B&TB will inspire us to commit murder, but some moments at the end of second season and much of third season I found deeply disturbing. The message to women; don't bother trying to rise above being a victim, for you will always be a victim to evil men. The violence of words provoking Vincent to commit seeming parricide, and the police officer Diana to commit cold-blooded murder. Perhaps I'll be forever tilting at windmills, but I held this show to a high standard,and the above is certainly another big reason I remain bitter about how a network and its own creator allowed it to be degraded and debased. I don't define my heroines, and companions to my heroes, the same way as Howard Gordon. "By killing this guy, it certainly made her a worthy prospective lover for Vincent. Her kind of no-shit attitude and incredible pragmatism defined her character in a way. It was a kind of deepening that we needed to make her a worthy companion." Gee, Howard, what happened to goodness, compassion, warmth, loyalty, courage arid a love and bond that was eternal?
Forgive the vitriol; because I've been so busy I haven't had the time to write any letterzines lately, so it has been building again to the point where I had to turn it loose, beast-out so to speak. For this fan, the bitterness over what was done to B&TB and to the fans will remain until the "lovers are reunited."
[Sharon W]:Which brings me to Diana. I read something in a letterzine about the Creation Con in Sacramento last November. They were having a slide show and Jo Anderson's face came on; everyone booed. Then they asked, "If Diana was in a storyline where Vincent and Catherine's relationship had never been intruded upon, would you like her?" Well, the overall consensus was "Yes, sure, but not when they're trying to shove her down our throats as a replacement for Catherine."
That's how I felt. I was fortunate enough to have the entire third season in my hands as I wrote The Shadow Knight. I was going to end it before Catherine's rescue, because I thought that the arc would end with that... I really did, foolish moi! I kept thinking Vincent would find out she was really alive, but unobtainable or something. Then came "Reckoning" and "Legacies"; no more arc, no attempt to bring Catherine back, and I dove into the last story in TSK, which, for me, brought her back. I cannot conceive of even watching third season unless I knew in my own mind that Catherine lived.
Well, having this mind-set, I could enjoy playing with the Diana character. After all, isn't she the ultimate "Mary Sue" character? She's there to help our hero find his baby, to save his life, and — I thought — to bring Catherine back. She's us, our surrogate, solving all the problems. (In case anyone is unfamiliar with the term, "Mary-Sue" is a genre of story long used in STAR TREK fandom; it denotes a female character (A direct cover for the wish-fulfillment of the author, who is almost always super-intelligent and capable, but also super-feminine and beautiful, who helps the hero save the day/saves the hero, and thereby earns his undying gratitude, admiration, respect, and love/lust. It has been suggested before in these pages, by Diane Davis, that this is exactly what the writers might have had in mind — to create a character that would —supposedly— appeal to us because we could imagine ourselves to be her more easily than we could Catherine. Guess again, guys. I've also been a long-time sympathizer with the ravages of testosterone poisoning, Sharon; they really ought to have a telethon for the poor things! - Barbara) Then the writers did the unthinkable — there's that testosterone poisoning at work again. They decided that Catherine was really dead, and Vincent would form a bond with Diana! I mean, it was right there in the first draft of the script, and as I read it, I felt as if someone had slimed me. What kind of eternal romance ends in tragedy so that one of the lovers can go off and have another eternal romance?
Now, if Vincent were real, and this woman had gone to all this trouble and risk to save him and his son, he would certainly be grateful, and probably, being the big-hearted guy he is, he would care for her, but love? Only as a friend. I'm sorry, I simply cannot stomach the idea of Vincent being "in love" with anyone but Catherine. I know that there are people out there who feel exactly the opposite, and I feel that their opinions are just as valid as mine, as long as they don't try to force-feed them to me. I think that's what the whole problem with fandom has been. People don't feel validated unless everyone sees things their way. Unfortunately this very immature reaction to disagreement has lead to back-stabbing, rumors about fans by fans, and some rather strange pieces in print as people try to vindicate their point of view.
People shouldn't have to defend themselves like this. It's not a war. We have really no control over what Koslow has decided to do with the movie. If you feel strongly, write the man a short, honest, kind letter. His address is no secret. It's: Ron Koslow, c/o Sea Change Productions, ABC Television, 2020 Avenue of the Stars, Fifth Floor, Century City, CA, 90067.
Please, don't write 'hate mail.' It will just get trashed and turn him off from reading the constructive mail. Give the guy a break (he is a sufferer of what I hope was only temporary testosterone poisoning, after all). (I agree, Sharon, absolutely—there is no reason for anyone to write hate mail, ever. I don't like what Koslow has done, and I don't trust him, but I'll never get him to even consider my point of view if l abuse him. Calm, rational reasoning is the only way to get a point across. -Barbara)
We must nurture and protect the men in our midst (like Ron Perlman, Armin Shimerman, Ritch Brinkley — you get the picture — who do not suffer from the terrible TP plague, and let them know that we are out here, too. Not only them, but husbands, boyfriends, brothers, fathers, grandfathers, and may be even the kid next door who has shown dedicated interest in B&TB. Reinforce that positive behavior, bake a cake, give 'em a wink, whatever, let them know you appreciate their approach to the opposite sex in general and to the show's "kinder, gentler" episodes in particular.