It seems that the trend in fandom is to believe the first shocking thing we hear from the first "politically correct" mouth we hear it from.

Open Letter
Title:	It seems that the trend in fandom is to believe the first shocking thing we hear from the first "politically correct" mouth we hear it from.
From:	Beth Blighton
Addressed To:	Beauty and the Beast fans
Date(s):	April 1991
Medium:	print
Fandom:	Beauty and the Beast (TV)
Topic:
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

It seems that the trend in fandom is to believe the first shocking thing we hear from the first "politically correct" mouth we hear it from. is a statement in a very long letter by Beth Blighton.

It was printed in Once Upon a Time...Is Now #31.

The topic was sexually explicit fanworks (including the very controversial zine Black Cover) and fan censorship.

Some Context: Outside, and Self-Censorship Issues

The Beauty and the Beast (TV) fandom had many gen zines, fade-to-black het zines, and sexually explicit het zines. It had NO slash zines and, in fact, the topic was barely, barely mentioned, much less discussed. So, while it pushed the boundaries of what was on the screen in some ways, fans were not tolerant of exploring other views.

Fans also had a long history, and discussed at GREAT length, the topic of Vincent Wells' genetic make-up, origins, and "otherness": was he a beast with human qualities, or a human with beast qualities. This topic was important for many reason, only one of which was the tension among fans, the show's writers, and the networks about whether the relationship between Catherine Chandler and the beast could/should be consummated, or was this bestiality? See more on this topic at Vincent: The Beast.

Another discussion that was playing out at the time of the zine Black Cover and "acceptability," was the Family Channel's shenanigans regarding airing re-runs of the show, and that network's aggressive editing of the show to make it "family friendly." This was a topic that most fans railed against, and another backdrop of censorship. See more on this topic at Beauty and the Beast and the Family Channel Controversies.

Some Topics Discussed

• the Beauty and the Beast (TV) zine Black Cover
• censorship of fanworks
• explicit sex and violence in fanworks
• warnings and labels for zines

The Essay

I am writing in response to the letter by [Leslie H] that appeared in OUT...IN's issue #29. While I feel that her letter seems to be asking for some sort of response from me in particular, I hope that she will understand that I mean her no ill-will. I don't wish to offend Leslie but I feel there are some of her points I must dispute.

First and foremost, my most overpowering impression was that it really might have been a better idea if she had actually READ the 'zine she was condemning instead of relying on the highly agitated and biased opinions of a total stranger. I would have had a whole lot more respect for her concerns if they had at least been truly INFORMED concerns.

It seems that the trend in fandom is to believe the first shocking thing we hear from the first "politically correct" mouth we hear it from. Looking into a rumor or a statement further would be too much like doubting the word of "one of our own". And if that one person might be wrong in this instance, then it might cast a shadow over their entire position. And in a fandom that's reduced itself to the ideas of you're either absolutely, righteously correct or you're damned to complete wrongness I guess there's not much room left for mercy or tolerance or even plain common sense.

I'm not saying that Leslie made these statements maliciously. She really might hate "Black Cover" if she were ever to read it. What I am saying is that there is an entire climate that is pervading this fandom that is setting up a house of cards built on intolerance that will sooner or later cause the whole works to crumble.

It is my personal opinion that [Arwin B's] "review" of "Black Cover" (which started this whole controversy) was motivated more by her personal disagreements with it's author than with anything the 'zine might have portrayed. I, like Jeanne, happen to know the author, and I feel that the personal attacks that were included in that "critique" were totally uncalled for. I don't consider a 'zine review to be the proper place to make judgement on an author's "pitiful feelings of worthlessness", especially when the reviewer had once been on close enough terms with the author to be privy to very personal details of her private life. But then I guess there is no real way to control such displays of vindictiveness as long as there is an audience willing to listen and believe.

The hit and miss accuracy of most of that review leads me to question whether [Ms. B] actually read the 'zine either. It's been awhile since I've read it but I don't recall there being any scene in which Vincent abuses Diana in any way. And as for "B.C." being "Slash"? I bow to the expertise of others on this score. (You see, this type of 'zine does not appeal to me so I simply don't buy. them.) It is my understanding that "Slash" means explicit, homosexual and/or lesbian sex scenes between two main, established characters, such as Kirk/Spock or Han Solo/Luke Skywalker. I have never heard that the definition includes even author-invented secondary characters who were bisexually involved. Granted, there is a decidedly controversial menage a trois in one of the stories, but that didn't strike me as being the purpose of the entire 'zine.

And as for "B.C." being an "S&M" 'zine? This is a new category to me. Yes, there are some fairly violent moments in B.C. , but only in one story does that violence extend into a sexual context. It occurs in a story where Vincent is being victimized. And after having read a good many 'zines in this fandom, I'm quite frankly surprised that this objection is being made now.

Let me get out my calculator... I can't begin to count how many vicious rapes our 'zine's Catherines have endured. "Heartsounds III" has a pretty nasty rape scene , in "Tunnels of Love II" Catherine is being forcibly felt up and practically raped right on top of the crumpled puddle that used to be Joe. I would conservatively estimate Catherine's 'zine rape count to be over a dozen. Rather curious treatment for a character we profess to love. In "Ray of Hope" Vincent is tied down and forcibly raped by some teenaged porno star. Can someone please explain to me this fascination with rape? I know I've missed a few here.

There seems to be an endless litany of slappings, punchings, torture and humiliations. No story seems complete unless a concussion and some puking occurs. There seems to be a morbidness in some of this fan fiction that completely baffles me. And yet I see no objection to these lovely hurt/comfort spectaculars. I’m sorry, maybe I'm old fashioned, but stories that require either Vincent or Catherine to be beaten, mauled and damned near killed just so we can see a warm, fuzzy scenario that describes every last detail of the ensuing medical procedures and intricate accounts of the "Bash-ees" anatomy, seems the tiniest bit repressed and creepy to me. Vomiting blood and rectal thermometers are not my idea of romantic, but do you see me out there trying to get these 'zines removed from the ad pages?

Which brings me to my next point. What is offensive is very much in the eye of the beholder. The only place I know of that monitors its ads is Helper's Network, which accepts no ads for "adult" fiction of any kind. This is something they have always done. There is no panel committee deciding which sex scenes are acceptable for family viewing and which are not, there is just a rule of no explicit sex at all. I am also fairly certain that there have been a good many 'zines that slipped through anyway. So much for that perfect plan.

In essence, by asking the editors to monitor their ads, you are asking them for a babysitting service. I do not feel it is an editors job to sit and read every 'zine she advertises. It's not practical and they wouldn't do it anyway. There's still such a thing as "Buyer Beware" in this country. Anyone who would buy a 'zine, especially from someone they've never purchased from before, without ever having sent for the flyer that describes it in detail, is most certainly setting themselves up for disappointment. And say Jeanne (or any of the others) did begin to do your shopping for you... by whose standards do we base our judgements? You're the only one who can decide what is acceptable for you. One person's heartfelt love scene is another's pornography. One person's hurt/comfort is another person's S&M.

Please don't expect this fandom to "make a stand for decency and common sense". There's been precious little of that going on for a very long time now. If you want to make that stand, let it begin with you, don't expect others to make it for you. DON'T BUY THE 'ZINE. DON’T SUPPORT IT. But DON'T tread on the rights of somebody else to find a good place to stand.

But just for argument's sake, let's say we do remove "B.C." because it's '"zine review" offended you. Well... very explicit sex might offend FAN X down the street. Better remove ads for "A Secret Place", "Castles in the Air", "Tunnels of Love", "All That Lights Upon Us" and "One Day a Rapture", too. But now it seems that FAN Y had decided that the "true spirit" of B&B would never have allowed Vincent and Catherine to make love at all. Well, there go the ads for "Destiny III & IV" and "Tunnels II", the entire "Overtures" series and yes... "Bondstories". (And just about every other damned 'zine out there.) But let us not forget the needs of FAN Z who thinks that any physical relationship at all between V&C, which would include hand holding, hugging and (blah, yech!) kissing would be like condoning bestiality! (Then I guess we run into the minds that run CBS and the Family Channel, but then that's another whole letter.)

But do you see my point? I don't believe it is the place of letterzine editors to get out their Ouija boards and decide which of the 'zines they are advertising might get somebody's knickers in a twist. That's the job of the buying public. I personally find a lot of the "Beast Abuse" that goes on in some 'zines to be pretty damned close to being sado-masochistic. But my answer to that dilemma is not to ask a handful of editors to keep me blissfully ignorant by denying me the one avenue I might have to finding out more about a product before I buy it. No, I think I'll stick with sending in my S.A.S.E.'s and making informed choices.

So, I guess the answer to your question Leslie would be yes, I would object to “Black Cover” being suddenly dropped from the ad lists, because today it could be the author of "B.C." who is being persecuted, but tomorrow it could be me for drawing a picture someone objects to. And the day after that, it could be you Leslie, for writing down an idea somebody doesn't like. It's just a real dangerous precedent to set. You should really think twice before setting the dominos a tumbling when you have no guarantee that yours might not be the next chip to fall.

No, maybe all this tempest in a teapot isn't a matter of life and death or of right and wrong. But I do think it's a matter of how many of your freedoms you are willing to just give away. As a matter of fact, about now, maybe those freedoms are a matter of life and death.

Fan Comments

Beth Blighton's essay on censorship was an interesting addition to the usual letters. I find myself in agreement with 99% of it; any person involved in the arts is all too aware of the issue of censorship. I do, however, feel that while it is NO ONE'S right to prevent the publication of controversial material, be it professional or fannish, it is everyone's right to react, positively or negatively, to anything put out for public consumption, provided said reaction is constructive. Abuse has no place in criticism --but if I feel the need to boycott an item or a publisher, I will feel no qualms about doing so, or clearly (and politely) expressing my reasons I am under no obligation to purchase or contribute to publications that do not meet my own personal standards, or follow my own system of beliefs. I will never tell someone else what they may or may not choose to publish, draw, or say, for neither I nor anyone else has that right. Instead, I will vote with my pocketbook; I will put my money where my mouth is. Which is exactly how it should be. Let censorship be an individual matter, and that alone.

Beth Blighton's wonderful LOC in Issue 8]]. The issue of censorship and intolerance in this country could indeed become the "racism" of the 1990s, and may already be such. As a man who happens to be gay, I find it saddening to live in a society that, for the most part, equates "different" with "bad" or "evil." I am outraged when I realize that some people/organizations believe that my very existence is a mistake, "phase," perversion, or "sin." I am more than my sexual orientation (which I had nothing to do with choosing, in case some people still don't understand that -- nobody "made" me this way!), just as Vincent is more, much more than a half-man/half-beast. I'm sure we've dealt with very similar personal "demons!" It might've been interesting to see how the show dealt with that issue! Thank you Beth, and TT, for creating a space open and safe enough in which such issues could be addressed — I had no idea I'd be "coming out" here when I started this letter! (If there are any other "club members" out there reading this who might be interested in corresponding, I'd love to hear from you.)

I hold no brief for censorship in any form. I support Robert Mapplethorpe's right to make his photographs and I support Dennis Barrie's right to exhibit them.

Beth, however, does not seem to realize that the National Endowment for the Arts is, in itself, a form of censorship. Yes, the NEA sponsors many "dance troupes and community theaters around the country." But there are many, perhaps more, that are denied a government subsidy. Some art is deemed worthy of support, preservation, performance, exhibition or whatever. Some is not. "(And just who will be the genius who decides . . .)"?

Anyone who believes that "covering your body with baked beans" is art, is welcome to his belief. Further, he is welcome to practice it. I draw the line, however, at requiring the taxpayers to buy his baked beans. One man's art is another man's obscenity.

"I, for one, do not need anyone telling me what is right and proper entertainment for me or my family." Substitute the word "art" for "entertainment." I don't need the NEA to spend my money for me. I support the work of artists whose work pleases me by buying it, and, in one case, by marrying the artist. I have no reason to believe that the government is any wiser than I am and more than a few reasons to believe that it is not.

[snipped]

Beth thinks that "If we lose the NEA... galleries will close, artists of all types will not be able to find work. If we limit the NEA, then we will also limit the creativity of artists; each new idea will then be judged not on it's (sic) merits of originality and validity, but by someone else's moral and sexual standards."

Somehow I doubt it. I don't really expect Beth to stop producing her drawings because of the lack of a grant from the NEA. I don't expect Kathy Cox to close down Destiny Press because the NEA goes out of business. Will Cynthia Hatch cease writing and publishing because there was to support her?

Most artists must create as a sideline and work at a mundane job to pay the bills. A very few become so good at what they do that they can support themselves as artists. Quality will survive, schlock will not. Art comes from the heart, not from government subsidies .

I would like to make a rather passionate plea to the editors of [Tunneltalk] and all other letterzines and fanzine reviews. There exists a zine that should not be included, and I think even Beth Blighton would not label its exclusion as "censorship." I hope this letter is foredoomed to automatic reject, flowing so closely behind Beth's eloquent speech for freedom of expression, and certainly intends no offense against her. This fanzine is Black Cover, appropriately named and undignified by an author's name or address. I freely admit, I've only read a review of it, by another person who managed to force herself through it and immediately issued a warning to other fans. I'm grateful to her, but I think it should be taken one step further.

This zine apparently belongs to the "S&M" genre, as its focus on sex and violence, and B&TB is simply being used as an interesting new arena of expansion. I have no idea how popular it is, but I can be pretty confident that it would be of interest to only a tiny fraction of B&TB fandom. Most of us have more respect for the show than to want to see it treated in such a manner. To me, it is jarringly discordant to see BC listed with such sincere, loving efforts as Kaleidoscope, Destiny, and my own Bondstories. Not only does this listing give BC the same free advertising as all the rest, it gives this kind of "literature" the same implicit acceptance. Yes, I know about the disclaimers and the "write for flyers first" cautions: I just don't believe it belongs there in the first place.

"How does a simple "Thank you, but we're not going to carry this ad," constitute censorship? To me, that says we don't think our listing is the appropriate place for this ad—well within an editor's prerogative. How much courage does it take to make a stand for decency and common sense? I'm sure the ACLU won't descend on us, and I bet the BC authors won't make a fuss either—they'd have to reveal themselves. If we don't take a stand now, what happens when this zine spawns sequels? Let me guess: Vincent has "ulterior motives" for bringing lost, helpless children to the tunnels, or—there's more to Father and Vincent's relationship than we would have dreamed. Will that finally do it? Or not even then?

Would the silent majority of fans really object to the exclusion of this ONE ad? Remember—even gallery owners unashamedly segregate some artwork from the main showing, depending on its controversial nature. It's there, but not automatically included in the main tour. Would it be a crime to expect S & M devotees to look for their literature elsewhere? How do other editors feel about being associated with this kind of writing? I apologize ahead of time if this starts some kind of disproportionate debate over censorship: to me the issue is very simple, and could have been avoided completely with a polite letter of rejection. Perhaps I'm more sensitive to the subject since Bl- is so close to Bo- alphabetically, and every time I see my ad, I see this other one. But it is just as valid an issue as any other in fandom. Thanks for your consideration.

[Arwen B, the fan who wrote the original review in "Tunneltalk"]: 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.

I thought Beth Blighton was right on the money for most of her LOC, especially the 'hurt/comfort' theory. How many zines have I read where either Vincent or Catherine is in the greatest peril (and this can and usually does include everything from 'emotional' to 'physical') before they are allowed their 'happy ending'? I really must object though to her opening comments re: the review that was written about "Black Cover" and more specifically, the personal (and seemingly hurtful) comments about the reviewer. I read the review. I found it to be unbiased, well-thought out and intelligent.

Obviously, Beth did not. That's okay. What seems to me to be not okay is the personal attack that Beth launched in her LOC. I only met the reviewer after the review had come out. She was articulate, intelligent and passionate about B&B. Outspoken - YES. Vindictive - NO. As for Beth's comment, ...instead of relying on the highly agitated and biased opinions of a total stranger. (the highlighting is mine). I don't know about the 'highly agitated' part, but all opinions are biased. They're our opinions. If the review had been a ranting, raving diatribe about what a piece of the zine was, I probably would have taken a much harder look at the review/reviewer. However, for me, it was not a drooling, snarling indictment - it was a well-written critique. One last comment on this issue (I can hear the sighs now). I don't call anyone a liar, whether they deserve it or not. I wish that kind of courtesy were more ingrained in this fandom, but from some of the letters I've seen, obviously that's not the case, yet.

Well, maybe someday...