And now, be prepared for something I've never done in print: BLOWN MY STACK!
| Open Letter | |
|---|---|
| Title: | And now, be prepared for something I've never done in print: BLOWN MY STACK! |
| From: | Trisha Kehoe |
| Addressed To: | Beauty and the Beast fans |
| Date(s): | June 1994 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | Beauty and the Beast (TV) |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
And now, be prepared for something I've never done in print: BLOWN MY STACK! is the first line of a 1994 open letter by Beauty and the Beast (TV) fan, Trisha Kehoe.
It was printed in the ninth issue of Kehoe's Vincent's World series.
The topic is two reviews of Kehoe's zines by Nan Dibble that were printed in the Summer 1993 issue of the print version of Qfer, the widely-read, fandom review zine.
Some Topics Discussed
- the wording and content of reviews for Walk the World for Me and White Cover
- Kehoe felt Dibble had given away plot point and had used disparaging language about Kehoe's sexually explicit stories
- complaints about other fans' vague, flowery language to describe body parts
- reviews such as this, Kehoe felt, damaged fandom
- Kehoe asked fans to contact Dibble and offer opinions which supported her stories: "If you want to add your voice to the others that have already written to Nan (and some have even sent me copies of their letters and postcards) her address is: Therion Press [address redacted here]."
- Kehoe suggested to fans that if they did not support her stories, that perhaps she wouldn't write anymore
- there is some white knighting in Kehoe's statements that she was upset on the behalf of other fans
- Kehoe wrote that Qfer was biased, and that Dibble wrote better reviews for zines that were created by her friends
- Kehoe told fans to not send her zines to Dibble's Qfer and Helper's Network US, and that if reviews of her zines appeared there, it was without Kehoe's consent
Some Context
Kehoe's zine, White Cover, was created in response to the controversial zine, Black Cover, a zine that many fans felt crossed too many boundaries regarding sexual content and characterizations. The creators of "Black Cover" railed against being told what they could write and couldn't write. The discussion around "Black Cover" touched off a long discussion about censorship in fandom.
While Black Cover is not mentioned in this open letter, Kehoe's comments about "each one of us has a right to like what we please, read what we want, and work in our chosen style, or lack of it, where applicable, leaving it to the reader to make their choices among the many fanzines available, including ours" are of interest.
From the Open Letter
And now, be prepared for something I've never done in print: BLOWN MY STACK!
[...]
I usually don't allow myself to GET angry - it's just not my 'thing' - but this mad I've never been before, nor this troubled about what this type of rating system can do to fandom and to writers in general.
I've always tried to take a '[live] and let live' attitude with everyone involved in fandom, including other writers and artists, thinking that each one of us has a right to like what we please, read what we want, and work in our chosen style, or lack of it, where applicable, leaving it to the reader to make their choices among the many fanzines available, including ours. But, when I'm attacked instead of reviewed, the all bets are off. It's very hard to 'live and let live' when you feel that your trust has been betrayed, as well as ill-used.
In the latest 'Q-fer', in both the review of "White Cover" and "Walk the World for Me", both published by this press, storylines were given away beyond what would be considered by most as a 'reasonable critique', some stories and artwork snidely commented on, etc. At this, I indeed took great offense. So, readers, I'm putting each of you on the 'hot seat'. If any of you have read either of the aforementioned books or any of our previous books and enjoyed them, I'd appreciate it very much if you'd take a moment and make your voice count. If you think that White Cover and Novel 7 were as well done as other zines you've read of an R-rated nature, please consider dropping a line to Nan and telling her just that. If you don't agree, but think instead that either of the books wasn't 'up to snuff', then please write and tell me!
The writers involved in delivering Vincent's World books to you depend on your support more than you might realize. The Q-fer review was disheartening, to me most of all, so it's up to you now. Do we continue this series or do we call it a day? If we're not doing a good job, if we're not 'growing', perhaps it's time to close both this sequence of books and 'our' tunnels. Only you can tell me, only you can help us to continue here - if that's what you what us to do. Now, the ball is in your court.
On a personal note: I've written to Nan Dibble giving her my views on this matter, wherein she called, apologized, defended her position, and then offered to rethink it, which she's done to a degree. On her own, for I did not ask her to do it, she's modified her review of White Cover, but that didn't remove the sting of what she'd written in the original critique [in Qfer]. Please note that the underscoring is mine:
- WHITE COVER: "This zine is mostly a collection of miscellaneous sex stories, often with very little content beyond that. If sexual encounter with body parts fully described is a major part of your definition of romance , you'll enjoy this zine."
- WALK THE WORLD FOR ME: "The book is readable and full of events, punctuated by both sensuality and explicit and highly detailed sex . Surprisingly restrained art, including relatively little (but some) graphic frontal nudity."
In defense of our books:
Point 1: There are over 14 stories and/or vignettes in White Cover, and seven with absolutely no sex at all, so how can they be 'mostly' sex stories , or am I missing something here?
Point 2: I'm fed up to *@*&&!! EARS with the words "body parts" as employed by this reviewer. Yes, I call a toe a toe, a nose a nose and penis a penis. That's what I was brought up to believe these BODY PARTS were supposed to be called! (Come on, Nan Dibble, should I instead call a penis a PEE-PEE or a NOODLE?
An R rating means that you might read words or scenes that you personally don't like, but you not caring for them doesn't make them wrong - or dirty.)
[...]
Catherine is a female - she has breasts, not orbs, not silky globes - breasts! Vincent is male - he has a penis and he uses it to, among other things, make love to Catherine. Many writers , and I don't mean to offend any of them, and I apologize beforehand if I do, use such terminology as 'growing need ' , 'throbbing shaft' or even 'banner of ecstasy', to describe Vincent's... shall we say . . . anatomy. All well and good - that's their choice . But as I've said many times, it's not mine. I write about Vincent as I see him, and to me he has a penis or to put it more delicately, a pha11us.-Semantics? Yeah, sure it is. Half a dozen of one, six of another, so to speak. To each his or her 'own', as the expression goes. That's why I rate the books R; to tell you, the reader, exactly what to expect.
Well, in seventeen books and novels in three years, we haven't lost many of you, so I guess you've either accepted my style - or lack of it in some cases, or maybe you've just smiled or giggled and gotten on with the story!
Point 3: In the last four years, I've read many R rated books that have been reviewed in the Q-fer. In some instances, the stories were called "sensual" instead of "sex stories". How come, if they both dealt with the same thing in the same manner, the wording is different in these reviews, notably mine? And why is some artwork called "tastefully erotic" in other zines, and work in ours deemed "body parts" or "explicit"? What makes the difference in wording? (Things that make you go hmmm?) Could it be whether or not the writer or artist involved is a personal friend of the reviewer? No, that can't be!
The Q-fer is supposedly unbiased. Yeah, right. (the Q-fer is as unbiased as I am thin) My folks didn't raise a stupid kid, and I'm sure yours didn't either, huh?
Last and final Point: Re: Nan's comment: "if sexual encounter with body parts fully described is a major part of your definition of romance, you'll enjoy this zine". To me, this is a quite obvious slap in the face to everyone of YOU. In her comment, YOUR taste, YOUR choices, and YOUR values are questioned. As far as I'm concerned, nobody, including Nan Dibble, has the right to do that. Just because she doesn't care for something, doesn't give her the right to 'trash it'.
Think about it. Wars have been fought for less. Free choice is a fundamental part of the Bill of Rights. The phrase above impugns your choices and that's not only unfair, it's not unbiased, now is it? Don't give up your right to choose for yourself, okay?
And, please note: No more of Vincent's World Press books, novels or anything else, will be reviewed in the Q-fer with my consent. If they are, it's against my express wishes. Please do not send our books to Helpers Network.
I don't want to remove anyone from our mailing list, but I feel that strongly about this matter. Thanks for understanding.
Okay, I'm off of my soapbox. Sorry if I bent your ears some, but we've worked so hard here, ya know? It hurts to read stuff that not only attacks a person's writing, but makes snide remarks about it, too. Yes, my Irish is up. I'm really angry, folks, and as a co-writer said while ducking a copy of the Q-fer that went sailing across the room, "Whoa! A mad Trisha ain't something I want to deal with!"
So, along with many other writers in fandom, I've taken a stand against these sort of reviews. Someone has to. To use a line from a movie called "Network": "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"