Mixed Doubles (Starsky and Hutch/Professionals zine)

You may be looking for the Australian multi-fandom zine called Mixed Doubles.

Zine
Title:	Mixed Doubles
Publisher:	Carla A. Salveta out of Scotland/A Teddy Bear Press Production
Editor(s):	Carla A. Salveta and Linda Watt
Type:	letterzine
Date(s):	1984-1989
Frequency:
Medium:	print
Size:	digest sized
Fandom:	Starsky and Hutch & The Professionals
Language:	English
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Mixed Doubles is a slash and gen British Professionals & Starsky & Hutch letterzine which was produced from 1984 to 1989.

Issues contained letters, fiction and poetry, newspaper articles and ads from fans buying and selling fanzines and other items.

While the letterzine included both fandoms, the focus, especially in the later years, was The Professionals.

In addition to regular letterzines issues, special editions or supplements were printed which only contained clippings about the actors of the two TV shows in later endeavors; Martin Shaw in Are You Lonesome Tonight?, and Lewis Collins in various theater productions are some examples.

There are sixteen regular issues. Some of the issues (all?) had a supplement.

Carla Salveta started "Mixed Doubles" shortly before the Starsky & Hutch letterzine APB folded.

For other Starsky and Hutch, and Professionals, letterzines, see List of Letterzines.

Issue 1

Mixed Doubles 1 was published in June 1984 and contains 27 pages.

cover of issue #1, B&D by David Bowden, S&H by Sandi Chapman

sample page from issue #1

It's possible that this issue originally contained the story "Operation Impossible" by Brian Clemens as per comments from Cold Fish and Stale Chips #8, but if it was, it was a supplement. It is not listed in the table of contents.

• Editorial (1)
• Your Letters (3)
• Here for You, poem by Abby (possibly the "Abbey" from the previous issue) (16)
• Speaker's Corner (17)
• Two and Two Make..., fiction by Fiona Rule (19)
• Scenes from the Cutting Room Floor (22)
• Lyric Page (23)
• Trading Post (24)
• Centrefold by Lyndy Harding

Issue 2

Mixed Doubles 2 was published in September 1984 and contains 48 pages.

cover of issue #2

sample letter from issue #2

• Editorial (1)
• Your Letters (3)
• Artwork: Starsky by Sandi Chapman (7)
• Lyric Page (32)
• Bits 'N Pieces (34)
• Niagara Blues, fiction by Eros (36)
• Speaker's Corner (42)
• Listen to Me, poem by Abbey (44)
• Trading Post (45)

Issue 3

Mixed Doubles 3

• contains the story "Operation Impossible"
• other unknown content

Issue 4

Mixed Doubles 4 was published in February 1985 and contains 56 pages.

cover of issue #4, Maria A.

sample letter from issue #4

• Editorial (1)
• Your Letters (3)
• It Was A Dark and Stormy Night, fiction by Eros (34)
• Survivor, poem by Jean Chabot (42)
• Speaker's Corner (43)
• Love's Labor Lost, fiction by Eros (48)
• Trading Post (51)
• For My Friend, poem by Jenna Bruce (back cover)
• a four page supplement with pictures and captions

Issue 5

Mixed Doubles 5 was published in April 1985 and contains 50 pages, plus a supplement.

cover of issue #5, Maria A.

sample letter from issue #5

The cover is by Marie A.

• Editorial (1)
• Your Letters (3)
• Bits 'N' Pieces (25)
• An In Depth Look At... (31)
• The Faces of Strangers, fiction by Eros (40)
• Speaker's Cornter (43)
• Trading Post (48)
• After Midnight, poem by Sue-Anne Hartwick (back cover)
• Photostory Supplement by Trevor J. Wayne

Issue 6

cover of issue #6

Mixed Doubles 6 was printed July 1985 and contains 45 pages.

• Editorial (1)
• Your Letters (3)
• Bit 'N' Pieces (some news clippings) (32)
• The Morning After, fiction by Eros (part 5 of the Niagara Blues universe, a SH and BD crossover) (Professionals) (34)
• Roses, poem by Sue-Anne Hartwick (Professionals) (39)
• Trading Post (40)
• a fan writes that both she, and Cowley, feel Bodie to be the more "child like, less adult" member of the duo
• fans unanimously agree that Starsky is the one that suffers most beautifully
• about dismissing uncomfortable canon:

  I agree with you about not being able to ignore certain episodes and 'pretend they 'never happened'. Just because you may not happen to like that episode. That goes for S&H, too. You'd be amazed at how many people adamantly ignore STARSKY VS HUTCH, preferring to say it never happened - because, after all, 'OUR' S&H Just don't fight that way. I hate that episode, too, but it DID happen - being a firm believer in S/H, I have a very strong theory as to WHY that particular episode happened. All throughout 4th season, there was a very strong underlying current of tension and strain between the guys that HAD to be resolved - eventually. Kira was just the catalyst for the blowup that resulted due to the REAL problems between S&H. But that's another story...

• about a moment of betrayal in Starsky & Htuch:

  I'm thinking of is from THE SNITCH - when Starsky agrees to 'turn over' their snitch to the powers-that-be. The look that Hutch shot him was very full of hurt, and betrayal - shaken faith, badly so. Of course, later on it was all right, when Starsky threw away HIS badge, too - letting Hutch know he was STILL with him, throughout it all. And, after all, Starsk had to be feeling just a little guilty - for Lionel's death. If he'd stayed with the man <as his job dictated> instead of running outside to see if Hutch was dead, or alive.

• on touching:

  Yes, Starsky and Hutch touch, but for me it looks forced. I've come to the conclusion that for me their timing is wrong - the contact is either too long or, in the one episode where it nearly worked (I don't know the episode titles, sorry) it was just a fraction of a second too short to be completely effective. I stress that this is for me.

• slash as reality?:

  Granted security checkups etc, but if any department can overlook promiscuous heterosexuality I don't see why they shouldn't overlook discreet permanent-partner homosexuality, which is in fact less blackmail-worthy material. But anyway, the point of most '/' stories is two basically heterosexual men who become gay for each other but for nobody else, after they've been checked out by whatever department they work for. Besides, surely the fun of fiction is that it doesn't have to be 100% factually accurate - 'in another universe...' I don't have to believe in the '/' premise to enjoy the story provided it's well written and that while I'm reading it I can suspend disbelief.

• on practical jokes:

  Trust - if I was Starsky, I wouldn't be able to trust Hutch. I couldn't trust anyone who played the sort of hurtful practical jokes that Hutch pulls at Starsky's expense. An American friend pointed out to me recently that American males seem to find it acceptable to play jokes that embarrass or humiliate their friends - sorry, I can understand shows of affection through insults but not through deliberately embarrassing. And Bodie and Doyle , whatever else they do or say don't deliberately set out to embarrass or humiliate each other.

• a fan points out what she feels to be a difference in British and American television characterizations:

  Bodie's prejudice in (KLANSMAN). It shocked me, too, more for the fact that it was shown rather than that it existed. It did make him much more realistic, although I was glad to see him become more open-minded at the end. US TV would never show a serious lead character with such a prejudice, even in to show him growing and changing, for fear of causing an uproar.

• about trust between the respective partners:

  I can see how you see S&H as more trusting - but as I have pointed out before S&H had known each other for several years before first season - B&D were relatively new to each other. If we had seen S&H faced with such a crisis early in their relationship, I'm not so sure they would have acted any differently.

• on the difference between Captain Dobey and George Cowley:

  The relationship between them and Dobey is way out of line for reality, of course. Bad-mouthing their Captain the way they do would have earned them enough black-marks to blot out Greater Los Angeles. B&D may never trust Cowley the way S&H trust Dobey - but they sure as hell show him some respect.

• regarding slash:

  Have you noticed that the people who object strongly to the '/' premise are the first to 'see' it in perfectly innocent items? In view of the perennial paranoia regarding '/' fanfic of any genre, I find it confusing that it's often seen where we, the writers, don't intend it. Actually, I find it best to Keep a straight face and admit nothing. Or deny nothing. Take the Fifth. After all, those who interpret scenes literally probably believe that one about the gay rats.

• a fan dips a toe into the water on the other side:

  To be honest, I have been reading some '/' material lately, and I do find a certain kind of perverse pleasure from it, but all I have to do is look at a picture of Bodie & Doyle or watch an episode and I say 'No Way I.' But I do enjoy reading it, if it is well written. A friend of mine says she imagines the '/' in an alternate universe. Yes, I can accept it as that. I guess that makes me a 'semi-slash.'

• a fan wishes to bury a hatchet with another and states:

  I think one thing we have all over looked with Bodie and Doyle, is that on one fact '/' and straight can agree, Bodie and Doyle do love each other, we only seem to get into trouble when ue discuss how they would express that love and what form it would take.

• regarding whether homosexual partners would be tolerated:

  The first whiff of anything irregular and the would have been out. All this business of George patting them on the hands and giving his blessing is crap. As if he'd risk his organisation so that two agents could play slap and tickle in the rest room between frenzied bouts of violence! HA!!!

• she reads it but doesn't agree with it, or apparently like it:

  Since I do not consider '/' a valid premise for B&D or S&H (although I concede there could be a possibility with S&H) all my comments are directed towards aired relationships. Laying my cards on the table, folks, I don't consider any '/' premise valid where it is foisted onto an established heterosexual couple, be they male or female. (I'm dreading a '/' Cagney and Lacey, but since the fandom is predominantly female I can't see it.) You want to give me a planned shift from straight to gay (as in the Vas & Jon series) and I'll agree all the way. That's not to say I won't discuss it, or find it offensive (in the sense that it is about homosexuality, that is.) I read '/' fiction, and for the most part find it pretty terrible. Hardly any of it is well written, or convincing. Most of it is just an excuse for fantasy wish fulfillment and a string of torrid sex scenes -- which make me wonder whether the writers know any thing about homosexuality. It's all so romantic. Yuk. Chris Power is the only person I've yet to read who comes anywhere close.

Reactions and Reviews: Issue 6

For years after reading Niagara Blues (subtitled 'a bedroom farce in 5 acts') I kept extra copies around so I could immediately mail one to anyone who admitted in my hearing that they hadn't yet read it. Brilliant farce of Starsky/Hutch interacting with Bodie/Doyle. (Beautiful scene of one character doing it in the dark, without speaking, running hands through curly hair, running hands over the heart surgery scars, and not realizing that it wasn't his partner...)

Wow -- this may be the story that made me the fiction pusher than I am today. I loved this story, and made a bunch of copies (at work -- starting another long tradition), and would give copies of it to every fan I knew that was even a little interested in either Pros or Starsky & Hutch (geez, it may have also started my interest in crossovers!)

Ten+ years later I don't like it as much as I remember liking it, but it's still a clever and funny bedroom farce, and I still recommend it.

Issue 7

Mixed Doubles 7 was published September 1985 and contains 40 pages.

front cover of issue #7, Marie A.

The editor of this letterzine commented: "I really like the Bodie illo this time round. It also looks good on my wall as it balances up with a Doyle drawing you did earlier. I promise to try and include the illo of the two of them together next time round."

The front cover is by Marie A., the back cover is blank.

Editorial staff: Carla Salveta and Linda Watt.

This issue contains many photos of Martin Shaw and his sixteen-year old son, Luke.

The editor states she only received three letters for this issue.

From the editorial:

I have just acquired a new daisywheel printer and a new word processing package and this is the end result. I hope you are as pleased with the new look of MIXED DOUBLES as I am.

[...]

I'm hoping to make a S&H get together in London in October and have justified it (to myself) by combining it with seeing 'Are You Lonesome Tonight' - I'll let you know what I think of it.

The editor, who also runs the letterzine, APB, admits to getting the two mixed up at times:

Yeah I'll admit that sometimes MD appears where APB should and vice versa - the excuse, well I use the disc copy of the previous issue as a starting point for the next issue and as MD and APB alternate I have been known to miss changing the initials - another 'hazard' of word processors.

• Editorial (1)
• Your Letters (4)
• Speakers Corner: Panto Adventure by Joan S. (17)
  • a report/description of seeing Lewis Collins in the panto, "Cinderella," in Plymouth in January 1985, also of meeting him personally (which was a perk arranged for for members of his fan club and explained in that club's newsletter), see this an excerpt from this fan's experience below
  • a report/description of several visits to see Lewis Collins local in a local theatre production as Robin in the Babes in the Wood panto in December and January 1984, "Each time I went to the theatre, I went round to the stage door, Lewis was sitting in this little office, and we had to just pass our programmes, photos, autograph books, or what ever through, for him to sign," She also met Collins backstage in his dressing room. This fan has a bit of trouble on her last visit: "I almost didn't make it to the last night, as on my way home, from our family shop, I got caught up in the football crowds, who were smashing windows and fighting, and the police were chasing them, with shields and truncheons, it really was awful. I almost got trampled in the crush, but I did get there, and went to the stage door, for the last time. [...] When I got home, I thought over how nice the experience had been - looking forward to going to the Panto, then enjoying the show, then talking to Lewis a few minutes, then going home and looking forward to the next Monday, and here I was, with nothing to look forward too, as I don't ever seem to go out evenings. I did get invited out after all the next Monday [...] I had to go; but it wasn't as exciting as my recent evenings - it was a TUPPERWARE party."

• Bits N' Pieces, a review by May Jones of Martin Shaw in Are You Lonesome Tonight? (24)
• To Bodie - From Doyle, poem by Sue-Anne Hartwick (35)
• Trading Post (36)

[Joan's description of meeting Lewis Collins at a panto]: I went up to the bar, but as there was quite a crowd, I waited for most of them to go, then I went forward and said hello to Lewis. I showed him my membership card to his fan club and he wrote 'nice to meet you' on it and we talked for a while. I asked if I could take his photo, and he said "No problem, but let's wait till the crowd thins out", so we talked again. He said his fan club had over 8,000 members now, some just for 1 year to see what it was like, but also many old faithful fans. The girls who ran it were getting very over-worked and did I have any good ideas on running a fan club. Then I went to take his photo and the flash didn't work; I tried again, but it still didn't work, then Lewis had a fiddle with the camera, but couldn't get it to work - so I got my instant print camera out. I warned him I would have to take 3 or 4 photos, in the hope of getting one good one, as I cut left ears off and/or right shoulders, or tops of heads. So I took one, and he said he thought he had blinked, so we put the photo on the bar, to develop and sure enough he had. So I took another, and a laugh went round the room, as he had turned his head slightly and was poking his tongue out at someone - I can see where a person is through a wide view finder, but can't see any faces, so hadn't noticed what he was doing. Then he said we would have one taken together, and although I said I didn't like my photo taken, he insisted. Someone took a picture just as I turned slightly, I was making a funny face, and the dark shades of my glasses weren't down properly, so we had another one taken. I was smiling but Lewis was saying "Wait until we are ready" and the photo was taken as he said wait; so he looked rather stern, so I like the one where he is smiling, the best. Someone asked if they could use my camera, and I said yes, so Lewis and I talked some more - he held my hand while we talked; he really was so easy to talk with, like an old friend. He said he knew we had met before and he had been trying to think where it was and he thought it had been at one of his discos (which he had once or twice a year for his club members). I said I was too old for discos, I was more the afternoon tea dance, with the Palm Court orchestra type. He had a good laugh and said his dad always went, he had turned 70 and always enjoyed the evening, and he made me promise to go to the one in March. I said I would try and get a ticket but they were probably all gone by now, but he said I had to go. My camera finally came back and it was empty, so Lewis asked if anyone else had an instant print camera. Someone did, so I finally got a picture of him leaning on the bar.

I thought I had better go, I didn't want to, but knew I had to leave sometime, so put my cameras away and photos, got my coat on, which Lewis helped me with - he did the buttons up and as he did the top one up I made an exaggerated 'arghh' and he undid it again. I put out my hand and said goodbye - he took my hand in both his hands and smiled so lovingly. He said it had been very nice meeting me, he would see me at the disco in March, and I said how pleased I was to have got to Plymouth and it has been a lovely evening, at the Panto and then meeting him. As I turned away he put his hands on my shoulders and turned me towards him and said this is the way friends say goodbye - he kissed me. I heard a cheer run round the room, although it seemed to be a long way away. I then turned and asked the man behind the bar if he could phone for a taxi for me, I think my voice was more or less normal, as I felt rather full of mixed feelings. I was happy, embarrassed, tired and I don't know what else.

[...]

I thought what a nice man Lewis was, how good he had been in the Panto, and how pleasant he had been letting me take the photos, and talking for such a long time. Yes, it really had been a lovely day. [Later], I wrote for a ticket for the disco, but heard a month later that it was being postponed as Lewis had an unexpected, important commitment that week, to do with his career, so it was to be held at a later date, when he could attend. Unfortunately the fan club closed some time later, so I never did get to a disco.

Going through a video-watching phase (Karen, dear heart, you have seen that one...) with my antipodean friend is not conducive to coherent thinking. I start getting 'glasered' around the eyes, if you get my drift.

I think your problem with the 'touching' in S&H is purely a Brit mind-set - since contact between males is still essentially rare, we are far more sensitive to it on screen. I personally never found anything wrong with it, and in fact it was one of the things that got me hooked on the show, as I'm sure I've said before. And in a perfect world, I grant you, no one should cast stones at permanent-partner homosexuality, particularly when the 'straights' are bed-hopping like butterflies. However, in today's social climate, that isn't so. I understand that promiscuous heterosexual behaviour is also frowned upon by the Powers-that-be, by the way - to please the security-conscious in HM Government, it is as well to stick to the missionary position with the lights out. Sexual peccadillos are a no-no. I do agree that one doesn't have to agree with the '/' premise to enjoy a story - but sadly, so much of '/' is badly-written to the point of being nauseating - and then I find it impossible to suspend my disbelief!

To be fair, all I can say about your novella is that I enjoyed it, and I'm very picky indeed. I could almost wish that I could devour every kind of fiction with the same indiscriminate palate that I possessed in the olden days of my entry into S&H fandom, when if it was S&H I read it all with unsated hunger - but I seem to have developed a critical eye somewhere along the way...

Which is not to say I disliked NIAGARA BLUES, because I did like it, in parts - for its lightness, its implausibility, and its sense of fun. I can have too much of the 'payne & aguny' fiction - and the romantic gunk - and this sort of thing restores my faith in fanfic. We all tend to take ourselves and our writing a tad too seriously at times, after all. The occasional banana-skin slip-up is good for our karma!

I enjoyed Niagara Blues. I found it very tongue in cheek and I could quite happily see the characters as written, but then I'm always convinced of the validity of a given situation/character by a good writer.

About, NIAGARA BLUES - sorry, but I just didn't like the conclusion. Up to the last chapter, I really was enjoying it, too, but the 'resolution' just fell flat for me. Doyle just didn't seem in character, somehow. Guilt-tripping Ray ("he'd blame himself for the invention of gunpower," as Bodie has said) taking it all so casually. And, as for Starsky -- we all know what a possessive, little bastard he is. I think he probably would've killed Ray - maybe even HUTCH, too, although he tends to forgive Hutch for everything. As far as that goes, I see all FOUR guys as being extremely possessive and jealous of each other, and I can't believe this whole 'situation' would be so quickly and easily resolved, over breakfast. I just didn't like the way it was done. It was handled almost as though the whole thing was a JOKE. And Ray seemed very much as if he didn't care if he lost Bodie, or not (the way this story was set up, I can't even believe B&D even WERE lovers - here, they really don't even seem to like each other very much! Unless it was just for the sex).

Great issue last time, as always - especially loved the MS supplement. Pity the 'Elvis' thing wasn't a movie, and not just a play, so we could all see it - oh well. Onwards...

As far as 'straight' B&D fanfic goes - I can recommend the story DEAD BLUFF from the MEDIA RARE zine. It's about 60 pages long, and besides being a good 'action' story, B&D are right in character, and they play off each other exactly as they did in the better episodes of the show - and we get to see Bodie as the 'hero', and what he goes through to rescue Doyle from a sadistic madman. I don't own the zine myself, but a friend made a copy of the story for me - I think it was the major story in the zine. Anyway, I'm really looking forward to the MIXED DOUBLES II zine, too - for Karen's novella [Seven Nights In Bangkok]! I love B/D, and prefer the B/D relationship, but 'straight' B&D stuff is so hard to come by, I grab it up every chance I get!

Have just been perusing Terri's copy of MD6. An excellent read, as per usual. Has anyone noticed what an intelligent bunch we all are? And how, on the whole, we can put forward differing opinions without an automatic assumption that it's a personal attack? Looks like we have a reasonable IDIC going on here. Long may it reign!

I have a great deal of difficulty with your statement. 'Surely the fun of fan fiction is that it doesn't have to be 100% factually accurate.' If you're not going to bother to be accurate, why bother at all? I would say that lack of accuracy and believability is one of the major problems in bad fanfic. Just because fanfic is derivative, rather than original is no excuse for ignoring the basic rules of writing. To me, it is a part of artistic integrity to make sure that what I write is as factually accurate as possible. How can you say to yourself 'this is only fanfic, it doesn't matter?' Surely this is an insult not only to yourself, but to your reader and the subject you write about? What 'other universe' do you mean? These programmes are set in our universe. Organizations like CI5 would not allow practising homosexuality to continue once it had been discovered within the department. It is far too politically sensitive - as you must know from recently publicized events in this country. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the facts where alternate universe theories are accepted. We're writing contemporary fiction set in this universe.

And we, as fanfic writers, aren't writing fantasies

What do you mean, Bodie and Doyle don't deliberately set out to embarrass/humiliate each other? What about the first season episode (title escapes me) where Doyle deliberately calls Bodie's girlfriend by the wrong name? And HIJACK, where Bodie does a joke sick call, forcing Doyle to dump his girlfriend? And while I agree that it seems a poor way of showing affection, since males in our society are so often denied 'legitimate' channels through which to demonstrate affection, it is often the only way. It seems crazy to us, but then we're female.

If you were Starsky, you wouldn't be able to trust Hutch? Granted, Hutch CAN be a bastard at times, and his 'practical jokes' seem a bit excessive - but, really, you couldn't trust a guy who's risked his life for you, countless times - who's often disregarded his own life, in order to protect yours? How about what Hutch did for Starsky in SHOOTOUT? COFFIN - BLOODBATH? And not just physical protectiveness and caring, but so much emotional/psychological support and 'hurting' too numerous to mention - you still couldn't trust a guy like that? Hmmmm...

And, as far as Bodie & Doyle not 'deliberately setting out to embarrass or humiliate each other' - really? What do you call that scene at the beginning of one of the early episodes (I forget which) where Bodie deliberately set Doyle up to look like a fool in front of that girl in the gym? (the one doing the judo flips). Bodie knew what was going to happen to Doyle - there was potential for physical injury to Doyle, too - that wasn't 'hurtful'? How about Doyle's fondness for bursting in on Bodie (in the privacy of Bodie's own home) when Bodie is 'entertaining' in bed? That's not 'embarrassing' or 'humiliating'? Another good example is the glee Doyle always seems to show whenever Bodie embarrasses himself in the face of authority. I think it was in HEROES when Bodie was making disparaging remarks about Cowley over the R/T, not realizing that Cowley could hear him. Doyle initially tried to warn Bodie, but it didn't seem as though he tried very hard - he was clearly enjoying himself. We've seen Bodie stand Doyle up for a double date (FALL GIRL) - Doyle sticks Bodie with the bar bill in HUNTER/HUNTED - and I've only seen 26 of the episodes in the series! For all I know, these guys might've done even worse to each other! See what I mean? I could probably go on nit-picking for hours, but all I'm saying is - let's be fair, and realistic. Starsky & Hutch love each other - Bodie & Doyle love each other - but they can also be bastards to each other, too! This is what makes them HUMAN.

[An observation], we seem to have a bit of an imbalance in our letters, with more B&D than S&H. I know, I know, I'm just as guilty. I wonder why? Is it because S&H fandom has been going longer? Or that for many, B&D is fresher in memory than S&H, as in my case? And what can we do about it - or do we not care?

Issue 8

Mixed Doubles 8.

Issue 9

Mixed Doubles 9 was published July 1986 and contains 45 pages. Front cover: Bodie and Doyle by David Bowden, Starsky & Hutch by Sandi Chapman.

back and front covers of issue #9, David Bowden and Sandi Chapman

supplement for issue #9

• Editorial (1)
• Your Letters (2)
• Film Review of Whiskey Galore (21)
• Poetry: Until by Sue-Anne Hartwick (Pros) (23)
• Fiction: Treat for Treat by Paddie Bryce (Starsky & Hutch) (24)
• Fiction: Never-Ending Game by Paddie Bryce (Starsky & Hutch) (26)
• Poetry: Innocent Victim by Sammie (Pros) (31)
• Report: Hot Shot Wellie Thrower by Kathy Hills (article written about Lewis Collins attending a village competition) (32)
• Trading Post (38)
• Bits 'N' Pieces (this is the news clipping supplement)
• the TOTM is "What were they like in 1972?"
• there is much fannish discussion on the differences and similarities between the two shows, specifically how Captain Dobey and George Cowley compare, the likenesses between B&D and S&H...
• one fan writes about how Bodie & Starsky and Hutch & Doyle are like each other:

  I can't discuss Hutch terribly well, but I see several possibilities for Doyle seeming so vulnerable yet well able to cope with the world which might apply to Hutch, too. For one thing, Ray sees the world as it is while still not forgetting how he would like it to be. He seems to be an idealist, yet he's very realistic about it at the same time. I don't think the world is capable of surprising him very often, and it's easier to cope with a thing that's understood and expected. On the other hand there's Bodie who keeps reaching out to people only to be disappointed by them - except for Doyle. No wonder Ray is the most precious thing in Bodie's life. I think Ray's environment was tough earlier in his life than was Bodie's, and it made him vary worldly-wise end able to cope more easily with the nasty little surprises life dumps on us all now and then. I don't know a thing about the given early lives of S&H, so it will be up to you SH fans to tell me if that's all nonsense if applied to them.

• another opinion:

  ... underneath it all, Hutch and Doyle are actually more able to cope with things, even though on the surface they 'appear to be more vulnerable'. Well, in my opinion, they appear to he more vulnerable because they are really more vulnerable! Take a look at Hutch, for starters. I don't think he ever had any 'street smarts' at all - it was something he acquired solely on the job, and largely due to Starsky. Hutch's propensity for 'guilt' is well-known - he seems very much to be the 'humanitarian' of the pair, the one who has the outwardly greater 'sensitivity', the one who cares more about the 'world' as a whole, rather than his own immediate survival. Isn't he the one who seems to attract most of the 'losers'? (Most of his 'girlfriends' - people like Luke Huntley, etc). Even his ex-wife! I think Doyle parallels a lot of these traits, too - he, too, has a large capacity for guilt (even Bodie has observed that about his partner);Doyle, too, is much more the 'humanitarian' of the pair...

• regarding a trend:

  One of the things I did like about The Professionals was that neither of the main characters was divorced, with messy complications like children and ex wives hanging around. British TV seemed to go through a period, maybe 15 years ago, when every single hero of a series was divorced. Of course, most of them were cops, and it's supposed to be a tough life but surely all cops' marriages don't end in divorce?

• a fan comments on how her letters are different when they are typed on a computer:

  When I have to type my letter myself onto the computer, they're short. When I scribble it down leaving Linda to decipher my handwriting it's much longer as I can write as fast as I think, but can only type about a l/3rd of that speed.

• a letterzine leaning?:

  I thought, reading some beck Issues of MIXED DOUBLES, that there seemed to be a definite bias towards the Profs series. And while I'm a fan, and have been for years, Starsky and Hutch are my firm favourites, and I'd like to join In with the S&H enthusiasts as there is no longer a Britiah letterzine solely for them around.

• the differences between Pros and S&H:

  It was very interesting listening to people comparing the two shows - though I find it difficult to make intelligent comparisions myself. I know that I find the Profs episodes on the whole more believable, better written and better produced, though not necessarily better acted - Bodie, on occasion, especially during the first season, could be dreodfully wooden, (ie JUNGLE ENDS where he says "I really loved that girl" - Aaargh). But there is a lovely warmth about the feeling between Starsky and Hutch that I find sadly lacking between Bodie and Doyle. So I can forgive the few bad scripts, the, at times, week plotting and dreadful continuity, for the sheer pleasure of watching the love between those guys. Even the antagonism between them, as in S vs. H, is enjoyable because the love is still there and that's why they're tearing each other apart. Of course my favourite episodes ere COFFIN and SHOUTOUT; but the last four shows of the fourth season culminating in the marvellous SWEET REVENGE have to be among the most satisfying they ever made.

• regarding slash:

  Regarding the '/' premise, I can't see it at all in the Professionals - I'd like to, I've looked for it, but, sadly, no. It doesn't work. And when I first watched S&H, I didn't see it during the aired series; quite frankly, it never occurred to me, sweet little innocent thing that I am. It was when I started reading the fan fiction that I thought, "Crikey!" Took me by surprise, but I loved the idea.

Issue 10

back and front covers of issue #10, David Bowden and Sandi Chapman

inside art from issue #10, Debbie Sontag

Mixed Doubles 10 was published October 1986 and contains 42 pages. Front cover: Bodie and Doyle by David Bowden, Starsky & Hutch by Sandi Chapman. Additional artwork by Debbie Sontag and June Bushell.

• Editorial (1)
• Your Letters (4)
• Poetry: Masquerade by Sue-Anne Hartwick (Pros) (23)
• Speakers Corner (24)
• Fiction: An English Garden by Eros (Pros/Starsky & Hutch) (26)
• The Complete Professionals (review) (33)
• Trading Post (36)
• Bits 'N' Pieces (this is the news clipping supplement)
• the TOTM: "We saw how Starsky and Doyle bear up under the strain of being accused of killing people in... episodes, how would Hutch and Bodie react under similar circumstance?"
• this issue has much discussion about who's more of a "toucher" and each characters propensity for feeling guilt
• a fan asks:

  Has anyone else ever thought it's strange that Ray is the acknowledged "humanitarian" of the pair — the one who agonizes over everything, and everybody, and feels responsible for same, and suffers massive "guilt trips" — and yet, DODIE is the "toucher" of the two? Mr "Look out for 1?" Why do you suppose that is? With S&H, HUTCH was the "humanitarian," and he was the one always first to reach out to "victims" in need, etc- The only one Starsk ever seemed to reach out freely to was Hutch) Well, let me see — maybe I've just answered my own question, right? On The Professionals, whenever Bodie "reaches out" to anyone, (other than one of his "birds"), it's always Ray. Whether you believe in B/D or not, you can't deny that Bodie had his hands on Doyle an incredibly frequent number of times. Ray was never much of a "toucher", but I never saw him seem upset at Bodie's contact with him...

• about guilt, a common comment:

  Hutch is more likely to have guilt feelings over things that are not really his fault at all. In a clear-cut, no choice situation such as this, he would so upset about what happened, but he'd handle it more calmly and dispassionately than Starsky did.

• more about guilt:

  I can't agree about Hutch's vulnerability. I think he (and Doyle) suffer guilt trips, because they feel they should he guilty about what they have to do. Also the 'guilt trips' appear to ease their conscience and then they get on with life. Bodie (and perhaps Starsky) hide everything deeper. They are the ones who are over controlled when it comes to their emotions - almost like Spock. I'd watch out for Bodie, one day everything is going to come apart and everyone within reach had better beware! Bodie and Starsky are sensitive - they just don't make a song and dance about it whereas Doyle and Hutch let everyone know when they're hurt or upset.

• a fan writes of the SH episode, "Pariah":

  If Hutch had shot Lonny, I think he may well have taken temporary leave and then sent in his resignation - which would have forestalled Prudholm's efforts; yet at the same time, I can see him acting in the same way as Starsky. Bodie, on the other hand would not have shown any of the emotion Doyle did, He said (in HEROES, I think) "The difference is, Doyle, I don't enjoy it" in reference to killing people, he would hove rationalised it as an accident, the way he did to try and get Doyle out of his depression. Although Bodie wouldn't show his feelings, I believe he would he deeply disturbed. Deliberately killing someone because they pose a threat or you have a reason is one thing, that situation is another. It wouldn't surprise me that Bodie was plagued by nightmares, not the occasional one that the other would have after a bad incident but consistent, bad nightmares, because he never (rarely?) consciously rationalises what he does.

• a fan has this suggestion:

  Any chance of doing a discussion on a piece of fan fiction every issue? That's one of the facets of Torino Times, the British S&H letterzine, which I particularly enjoy. I haven't read nearly as much B&D as S&H and would be most interested to read all about the zines, past and present, and what people thought of them. [The editor interjects: I certainly hope people will discuss their favourite stories/zines, but unlike S&H fandom where most people have read all the zines around, even the older ones, because of the way Professionals stories are distributed, I doubt you would find as many people who had read a particular story, so trying to pick ones everyone had read would be nigh on impossible!]

• a bit on The Magic Circle:

  Just a word to say how interesting I found your remarks about Bodie and Starsky keeping their partners 'sane'. This is especially true of Hutch. I should have thought he was a prime candidate for a nervous breakdown over the ills of the worlds if he didn't have Starsk to keep him on balance. On the surface, Bodie appears the one in the Profs partnership to keep Doyle steady, but I don't know...remembering WILD JUSTICE, Bodie came pretty near to cracking up himself there for a while. There's a lot hidden in Bodie's depths underneath that veneer of arrogance and self-confidence.

• about the differences between US and UK stories:

  ... the concept of 'first time' B/D stories and the differences between these and equivalent S/H stories. The bulk of such stories... do not put Bodie and Doyle through the guilt and agonising that Starsky and Hutch went through in the beginning. [Name redacted] speculates that fandom itself has matured to the point where the writers just get into the sex without the hangups. She considers that the characters' attitudes differ in that (Bodie and Doyle have a more 'down to earth' approach to sex than S&H. Maybe they're more willing to risk everything - the partnership and friendship - to odd another dimension to the relationship, to gain a lover. What say the writers out there! Does the situation in the US and Britain differ significantly? For example, would [whoever made the first approach] consider the whole situation in more depth, before making that approach because of the attitude to 'gays' in the Secret Service of which CI5 must be considered a part going by episodes like Operation Susie, or Spy Probe? What is the American view of gays in the police force especially in more 'progressive places like LA? A second scenario could be that B&D know they have a limited time with CIS - high mortality rates and no reason to keep on older agents. A few might stay on for training [eg Brian Hacklin and Barry Martin] but we saw relatively few older men. S&H, on the other hand, expected to spend their working life with the Department [or so I would assume, despite the 'badge' scene in Targets] and no doubt expected promotion. Would their lifestyle have curtailed such a future, therefore the agonising over taking that first step, continued even after they had become lovers?

• about alternate universes in both fandoms:

  I'm also interested in the fact that I have seen a number of 'Alternate Universe' B&D stories as well as many historical and fantasy, but can only remember seeing 1 historical and 1 fantasy S&M. Are there any logical reasons for that? Unlike Trek which lends itself to 'alternate universe', stories set in current times are more difficult. On the other hand , I've seen fewer stories about B&D's lives pre-CI5 than S&H ones either set pre-Metro or stories which incorporated flashbacks or memories of early life. Does anyone think there is any correlation between the format of stories and the difference in styles, ie because S&H stories were written (almost entirely) for publishing in zines, stories were unlikely to be historical or fantasy but liked to explore previous history and guilt trips etc; the reverse being true of BAD written on the whole not for publication per se?

Issue 11

back and front covers of issue #11, David Bowden and Sandi Chapman

inside art from issue #11, Dani Lane

Mixed Doubles 11 was published March 1987 and contains 42 pages. Front cover: Bodie and Doyle by David Bowden, Starsky & Hutch by Sandi Chapman. Additional artwork by Dani Lane.

• Editorial (1)
• Your Letters (4)
• Poetry: Married by Sue-Anne Hartwick (Pros) (16)
• My Bodie and I Alive by Martin Shaw (17) (article which appeared in THE MAIL ON SUNDAY'S Colour Supplement YOU, September 21, 1986)
• Poetry: Bodie on the Moor by Jay Trent (20)
• Speaker's Corner ("A Confession of Sort" -- an essay about meeting the actors, and how awful the fans were in Stockport, and "An American Point of View" -- an essay about meeting Lewis Collins, "How Lewis Collins Reacts to His Fans," and "How I Was Converted to Professionals Fandom" -- meeting Lewis Collins) (22)
• Trading Post (36)
• Bits 'N' Pieces (this is the news clipping supplement)
• the TOTM: "Come up with a realistic 'alternative' universe for one of each pairing, in one of the each pairing must be the screen Bodie/Doyle/Starsky/Hutch but the other half is somebody different - what would he be?"
• the editors note that their subscription/rate of purchase is 65
• the editors plea for more contributions as they've been sparse
• the editors write that this letterzine was started as a Pros and SH letterzine, but folks seem to be more and more interested in the actors themselves and that they will accommodate this drift
• from the editor:

  I would however like people to let me know if they are happy... as there is no point in me putting out MD if no-one will buy it. MD has been losing a little money with each issue - I am prepared to keep it going only if there is interest. If the number of buyers falls below 60 it would not be worth keeping on. I used to put out an S&H l/z but in the last months before I stopped putting it out, the number of readers fell drastically. Whether this was because of better S&H l/z's in circulation or because no-one liked what I was putting out I'm not sure, but I'd rather stop now than keep fighting to put it out - so please let me know. To the best of my knowledge there is only one other Professionals l/z and that is '/'. Much as I enjoy '/' (and I do) I feel there is a need for a predominantly (though not exclusively) 'straight' l/z, and I hope there is a place for MD.

• a fan writes:

  As for TOTM, the LAPD attitude toward gays is that a few 45 rounds through the head and gut will redeem most flaming queens nicely. There are no gay cops. There are gays and there are cops. There are no gay cops. Get it? Seriously, most police forces are homophobic as hell, and LA has always been a very intolerant, inflexible and bigoted department even among their peers. There are still, now even as we speak, an incredible under representation of women, blacks and latinos on the force, and this in the face of more than a few lawsuits designed to force active recruitment, there are no, I repeat, no gay cops.

• regarding the popularity of certain genres in both fandoms:

  Why are there more fantasy and historicals among Pros stories? Because Brits are weird? No? Well, actually, and this is just off the cuff but it sounds good, I think that the writers in fandoms try one thing, wear it out and then go on to try something new even as the fandoms they happen to be in change with the seasons. In other words, a writer who started out writing and/or reading Trek relationship stories (where the relationship was friendship) may have been ready to try a little warmer 'friendship' just about the time she got into S&H, worn out many of the possibilities of that and been ready to try fantasy or alternate world stories by the time she got into B&D. Most of us did start out in other fandoms before Pros, didn't we? And the newbies who come in just in time for this phase just got swept along with the tide? Does that sound plausible? I know the '/' got started earlier and earlier with each fandom I entered — Pros was this first one I knew, though, that started out slash... As for the question of the "alternate universe" or fantasy stories, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that many of us have just "skipped" the "straight" stage of the B&D relationship, unlike with S&H. For years, all you ever saw were "Straight" S&H zines (in my own case, I wrote S&H "straight" for five years before I progressed to the stage in which they became lovers), but with B&D, most of us just "jumped right in" and started writing them as lovers! Seeing as how so many of us DID start out at the "advanced" level of their relationship, I think we then looked for even more "creative" things to do with the characters, and so the fantasy and "alternate universe" stories began. Not that I don't think there's not a lot to explore in B&D's relationship and life together as lovers still, but the "side-trips" into fantasy keep your interest and creativity fresh, I think.

• about first time stories in both fandoms:

  It probably does have alot to do with the "maturity" of the writers involved; a lot of us have gone through all that traumatic "first-time" stuff with S&H, and by the time we got to B/D, we were just simply tired of it all! And then, too, I think a lot of it has to do with the differences in the characters themselves. I admit that I haven't read all that many B/D circuit stories, so I can't really speak about the frequency or intensity of the "first-time agonizing" that may go on there; however, in most of the B/D zines to date, it seems a large number of the stories DO have them going through all sorts of hell as they both decide whether or no they should take "the plunge". At least, a great deal of the stories in DISCOVERED ON A ROOFTOP, TEO TORRIATTE, and IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST have a lot of "first-time anguishing" in them. Look at the reasons in most of these stories, though—almost universally, if either Bodie or Doyle is reluctant or frightened at all to reveal his feelings to his mate, it's usually because of fear of a loss of independence, or because one or the other of them has never "really" been in love before, so they have no experience of what they truly ARE feeling. That's the impression I always get, anyway. Whereas, with S&H, THEIR hesitance usually stems from one or the other of them being horrified that they've turned gay! I don't know why, but in the majority of S/H I've read, both guys have always been "straight", and only just happened to fall in love with each other—neither of them ever had fallen in love with another guy before. While, with B&D, for some reason or another, most of us who write stories have quite happily accepted that one or both guys are gay, and always have been, or at least "bi". Again, don't ask me why, but for those of us who believe in B/D, this just seems "natural" for the lads.

• pairings of a different sort:

  I always thought Ray and Starsk would be wonderful together (which is why I've written two rather long "alternative universe" stories to that effect, and may do a third one — in some ways at least, Ray is very much like Hutch, Starsky is very much like Bodie. I guess you could make the same argument for the Bodie/Hutch teaming, but I haven't explored that yet.

Issue 12

back and front covers of issue #12, David Bowden and Sandi Chapman

Mixed Doubles 12 was published June 1987 and contains 45 pages. Front cover: Bodie and Doyle by David Bowden, Starsky & Hutch by Sandi Chapman.

• Editorial(1)
• Transatlantic Exchange (a proposed section to explain different terms and vocab) (2)
• Poetry: Blue Eyes by Sue-Anne Hartwick (3)
• Your Letters (4)
• Fiction: Lost and Found by Pat Charles (Starsky & Hutch) (first published in Torino Times #6) (26)
• Martin Speaks Out by Martin Shaw (32)
• Speakers Corner (38)
• Trading Post (41)
• Bits 'N' Pieces (this is the news clippings supplement)
• the TOTM: "As they get older, S&H and B&D would change. Assuming that they stayed with Metro/CI5 would their jobs remain the same, would they drive the same type of cars, dress the same and would they retain the same lifestyle?"
• the editor, who was worried that interest in the letterzine was drying up, says she is now optimistic and plans to continue it another year -- it will, however, become quarterly: June, September, December and March
• a fan explains her fannish drift:

  Many writers do start out writing in one fandom and develop at different stages as they go to the next. Usually they have better writing skills and go beyond the hurt/comfort syndrome. (All pain and suffering — no story or plot, no motivations that make sense, etc. In other words, reality flys out the window!) I left K/S fandom for different reasons but I sure didn't miss it's fiction very much. S/H doesn't often 'grab me' either and I think it's because there is an awful lot more of h/c than in B/D. At least, when Bodie or Doyle get hurt and comforted there is a sound basis for it as well as being contained in a for h/c is 100% better reading. I really prefer '/' Professionals writings. There are only a handful of 'straight' stories I can say rate very high in my top '100'; maybe not even that many.

• about background and demonstrative touching and tension:

  I think the background information we have on B/D changes our image of their sexuality. Where there is less, there is the ability to create one's own viewpoint. (And with the 'murky' side of the mercenary's lifestyle, well...) Do Starsky and Hutch have a background to indicate their experience or viewpoints on sex? I'm asking because I don't know. I agree with you about S&H showing more physical expression because they are just naturally more demonstrative. I personally find S&H somewhat boring because of it, I like the undercurrent tension with B&D, better, more exciting, I think.

• speculating on the future:

  As for what both sets of partners would do as they got older, but still stayed with the LAPD and CI5. Well, I know this has been written about before, but S&H would probably become Lieutenants, at least—I'm not sure how much higher they'd actually go than that—I can't actually see either of them in any kind of an "administration" position, since they both hate the "paper-work" side of it so much; then again, since they WOULD change as they got older, who can tell, especially after the damage done to Starsky in SWEET REVENGE? Starsk would need more education in order to go for any kind of a "higher position" in the department, but he could do it. If they both didn't go for some kind of an "administrative" position, then I can see them working in Child Welfare, or something, the way that lady did in CRYING CHILD. Or they might work in drug abuse, or whatever. As for how they'd dress, cars they'd drive, and lifestyles—who knows! S&H were all ready changing a lot by 4th season, as if they were "switching roles" with each other — who knows how far that might've continued? In my own "universe", they're "married lovers", and I don't ever see that changing for them. They're "faithful" to each other, they don't live a "gay" lifestyle, they don't "cruise", or anything.

• as lovers, could they stay together on the job?:

  Some stories - INJURED INNOCENTS comes immediately to mind - hove introduced plausible ways of allowing B&D. anyway, to be lovers but to remain with CI5. To a certain extent MURDER ON SAN CARMELITAS does the same for Starsky & Hutch. I have to see them as lovers and so in my own mind I can justify their lifestyle being accepted.

Issue 13

back and front covers of issue #13, David Bowden and Sandi Chapman

inside art from issue #13, Debbie Sontag

Mixed Doubles 13 was published September 1987 and contains 42 pages. Front cover: Bodie and Doyle by David Bowden, Starsky & Hutch by Sandi Chapman with additional artwork by Debbie Sontag.

• Editorial (1)
• Your Letters (4)
• Poetry: It Must be Love by Elaine Leeks (Pros) (17)
• Why I've Stopped Hitting Women by David Soul (an article from Woman's Own magazine August 15, 1987) (18)
• Carly's Web - A Review by Darien Duck (25)
• Fiction: The Bunny's Tale by Eros (Pros) (27)
• Transatlantic Exchange (33)
• Poetry: Music by Sue-Anne Hartwick (35)
• Poetry: Fair Warning by Elaine Leeks (35)
• Trading Post (36)
• Bits 'N' Pieces (news clippings supplement)
• the TOTM: "What do you think are the most significant memories (good or bad) that Starsky & Hutch, and Bodie & Doyle have from their time with Metro/Cl5? It can be an incident referred to in the series or something you think happened, the consequences which appeared in the aired series."
• the editor comments that the questionnaire regarding future letterzine content (which must have been sent out with the last issue) had a poor response rate
• the editor is puzzled why the number of subscribers has dropped -- at the peak there were 100 subs, issue #11 had 60, #12 had 50 and this "issue has dropped even lower"
• about crossovers:

  I don't read S&H or S/H material, but in the PR stuff I've read I've noticed a tendency that concerns me as a PR fan. I've read a lot of crossover stories between PR ond other story lines - such as PR/UNCLE, PR/S&H, PR/Mission Impossible, PR/New Avengers to note a few. In almost every story so far, The Professionals has come off second rate. To name one instance, there was a CI5/UNCLE story where the villain/assassin looked like Illya. Through the whole story they had Solo and Illya saying how good CI5 and B&D were. Then at the end they had Doyle acting like an inexperienced rookie, in a manner that could have cost Illya his life. That's only one instance. In other, in NIAGARA BLUES Bodie and Starsky had a friendly battle before having sex to see who was to be 'top' man. And Starsky won? Aw, come on now. Much as I love Starsky, I don't believe he could take Bodie, especially considering the prize, for one thing cops, even S&H would not be in the condition of a C15 agent. Another, I find it difficult to picture Bodie, ex mercenary, ex para, ex SAS, being taken in that kind of battle.

• about kidfic and mpreg:

  I've read quite a few stories lately, in several fandoms, both '/' and straight, which revolve around the male couple acquiring or producing offspring. Poor James T comes off worst, several times undergoing a sex-change (temporary, usually.) The most usual source, however, is for them to bring up one partner's child by one of their women, or a variation on the adoption/foundling theme. I am not convinced that men like B&D would feel a desperate need for children - in fact, given their precarious life styles, I think they'd go out of their way to avoid having them. And if you admit a '/' relationship, well, I don't know about in the States, but in Britain a gay couple would find Authority heavily weighted against then if they attempted to bring up a child. Even today Society in general would react with horror...

Issue 14

back and front covers of issue #14, David Bowden and Sandi Chapman

art from issue #14, Elaine Leeke

Mixed Doubles 14 was published December 1987 and contains 45 pages. Front cover: Bodie and Doyle by David Bowden, Starsky & Hutch by Sandi Chapman with additional artwork by Elaine Leeke.

• Editorial (1)
• Your Letters (3)
• Fiction: Me and My Santa by Pat Charles (Starsky & Hutch) (33)
• Trading Post (41)
• Bits 'N' Pieces (news cuttings supplement)
• there is a mention that The Who Do We Trust Times has just ceased publication
• the TOTM: "Do you think that any of the four characters need to have a 'normal' relationship, ie wife and kids, and if so why. Do you see any of them being prepared to have that type of life and also have a relationship with their partner."
• the editor says a record number of letters were received, so much that she had to leave her own out
• the editor also comments on the tone of letters: We want to:

  remind people that letters are not censored, and to date, all letters received have been printed, but we have noticed that a slight 'bitchiness' is beginning to creep in from some writers - please, this trend has finished more letterzines than anything else. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and you're not going to change other people's minds by going on ad nauseum.

• on kidfic:

  I suppose that this all might boil down to what we'd like to see in a show or in fanfiction. I have two children of my own, so I never fantasize about them. Any mother can tell you that kids can be a real drag and you really wouldn't want to inflict Bodie or Hutch with them. And any time you add characters to a given premise, you change it. It can't be helped. (I think a notable exception to this is the story BLOOD TIES, if only because it was so moving and didn't saddle Bodie with a child. Even if the child had lived, I didn't get the impression that Bodie would have stayed in America or taken his new 'family' back to England with him.) Besides, I like my men rough and ready and unencumbered.

• a fan comments on greener grass:

  ...since I am married and have two kids, I would rather read and watch shows about people who are not. Does it work in reverse? Do you single gals like to marry the guys off or give them children? Do you like to have them make a physical and emotional commitment to women or each other in order to 'settle' them down? It's like the saying goes...The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. In most '/' fiction I read, I sense this overwhelming desire to have the guys settle down into a cozy, monogamous relationship. 1 can understand this, if only from the point of view that since I live a cozy, monogamous relationship, I find the dangerous, one-night-stand or the violent, on-the-edge encounter much more intriguing.

• a fan comments on Pros slash:

  Doyle becomes so stereotyped as the 'tiny dainty fragile' creature that you want to barf. Bodie, on the other hand, isn't turned into that but becomes Spock during pon farr! (Only he's not logical about any of it.) He's constantly raping the poor virgin Doyle, who of course loves the first brutal assault and begs for more, when in reality he should be screaming in pain, beating off Bodie and running for the door (if he can). Many of the people who are writing slash don't know the first thing they're writing about; they should consult "The Joy of Gay Sex" to see what really can be done. B&D entangle themselves in positions that only a snake could manage. There are over 900 '/' stories circulating through the world's postal systems, and only about 5% of them are worth investing the time to read them. The other 95% lack coherent plots, have B&D so unrecognisable, or the dialogue is acutely embarrassing to read ... it makes the Barbara Cartland romance books look like Pulitzer Prize material.

• a fan writes:

  I will admit that I do read '/' - I'll read almost anything in the hopes of finding something good. I use the lending library, along with several other sources, but I only xerox the stories which (a) contain a good plot, (b) the characters are not badly distorted, and (c) are unique. Some are hysterically funny, others realistic. To sum it up, I don't mind people talking or writing '/', but I don't like people shoving it down my throat and saying 'this is what the show is all about' because it's not. I've run into that attitude and it's discouraging to see some fans so adamantly zealous that it spoils the fun of fandom... I have no complaint with people writing slash. I just wish they'd write good slash!

• two fans write a letter together and say:

  We enjoy watching the horrid copies of the Professionals we have on videotape, and just wish that fan fiction could be more like what we saw on the screen.

• regarding why the episodes "The Fix" and "Klansman" were banned in England:

  The only reason I can see for THE FIX and KLANSMAN being banned is that the British much have a very low tolerance for faults in their leading men. KLANSMAN was (I would guess) a very topical subject to delve into in England and perhaps the censors would let it slip by if all the KKK were portrayed as ignorant black-haters, but this excellent episode dared to show that Bodie, our hero, our patriotic law enforcement agent, was prejudiced... thereby stating that it is a disease that permeates even the best of our society. No natter what his excuse or how it had its origins (which, thankfully, the writers also felt were irrelevant), he was suddenly imperfect! This is very telling since in other episodes, Bodie is allowed to show many other less-than-desirable traits, (eg, his attitude toward what constitutes a 'nice' woman in OLD DOG and his amoral view on dum-dums in MIXED DOUBLES.) Was there alot of racial unrest in England at that line or what? Would any episode of the Pros that dealt with race differences have been treated the same way?

• about the future:

  If we were talking about the 'straight' setting, sad to say I don't see B&D staying together very long if they weren't partners anymore; and, if one or both of them did eventually get married (if they were no longer in CI5), I think they'd completely drift apart. Of course, in my own 'personal universe,' I don't have that problem - my S&H are lovers, and my B&D are lovers, and that's all the 'family' either set of partners ever needs. In the '/' setting, even if S&H were no longer cops, they'd still be together - regardless if they were even working together anymore, or not. Same for B&D. As lovers, they'd stay together whether they were in CI5 or not. I guess the 'conclusion' I just came to is that, in a 'straight' setting, I see S&H's relationship not changing, even if one or both of them were married; with B&D, nothing would ever be the same for them again, friendship or partnership-wise. Think I'll stick with '/'!

• this issue has a long, agitated, and hostile review of Straight Shooting, see that page

Issue 15/16

back and front covers of issue #15/16, David Bowden and Sandi Chapman

inside art by Anja Gruber

inside art by Anja Gruber

Mixed Doubles 15/16 was published June 1989 and contains 61 pages. Front cover: Bodie and Doyle by David Bowden, Starsky & Hutch by Sandi Chapman with additional artwork by Anja Gruber and Alberto Liserio. It was the last issue.

• Editorial (1
• Your Letters (4)
• Poem: Mutual Discoveries by Diana Romero (Pros) (26)
• Poem: Ghosts by Sue-Anne Hartwick (Pros) (27)
• Fiction: The Not So Professionals by MAD Magazine (a reprint from the magazine) (28)
• Bits 'N' Pieces (35)
• Poem: Bodie by Elaine Leek (36)
• Poem: Doyle by Elaine Leek (38
• Poem: Words by Sandra J. Ferriday (39)
• Fiction: Payback by Karla Simon (40)
• Poem: A Fighting Chance by Elaine Leek (Starsky & Hutch) (47)
• Scorpio Con - A personal View by Carla Salveta (48)
• Poem: A World Gone Wild by Diana Romero (51)
• Poem: Angel Light by Diana Romero (Starsky & Hutch) (53)
• Trading Post (54)
• Poem: Enough by Diana Romero (Pros) (69)
• there are a number of comments about the letter by [S-A H] regarding the zine Straight Shooting
• the TOTM: "The series' show Bodie, and imply that Starsky had military backgrounds. The implication is that Doyle and Hutch did not. Would it have changed the characters significantly if Hutch and Doyle had been military and Starsky and Bodie had not, or would they have essentially remained the same?"
• the editor explains why she is ceasing publication:

  I like being involved in Professionals and Starsky & Hutch fandom and have enjoyed putting out MIXED DOUBLES, but the pressures of putting out a letterzine, even on a quarterly basis, have become more and more onerous. Although MD has only had 14 issues to date, it has spanned almost 5 years and because of the falling number of subscribers has become a harder task with each issue and recent issues have had to be produced some distance away in order to keep costs down. The final deathblow however, was that the letters received were becoming more and more offensive to a greater number of readers, to the point where people were no longer willing to contribute and were not happy about subscribing to future issues if the trend continued. I'm not prepared to start censoring letters because if I do, then I may as well write them all myself. There is at least one letter in this issue which, I've no doubt, will offend a number of people. I didn't find the letter particularly pleasant or constructive myself but the writer felt that she had the right to 'answer' previous letters and as she had taken the trouble to write, I felt there was little else I could do.

• [S-A H] writes another letter (also very vitriolic), one that takes an earlier letter to task; she defends the quality of writing in slash fanfic:

  I found some of your remarks concerning slash to be...' fascinating' , but unfortunately, not even approaching any 'Spock-like' logic. Number One: Your sweeping generalization (which was totally untrue) that 'Many of the people who are writing slash don't know the first thing they're writing about. I see you mentioned The Joy of Gay Sex. May I assume that YOU have read it, and are therefor an expert in various positions and such? I can tell you that many of us who do write slash also have friends who are gay, and are involved in one way or another in the gay community. I think it's safe to say we know a lot more about the subject then you do. As far as 'positions' go, when I really want a good laugh, I'll read a Mary Sue story from Pro's fandom. Talk about unrealistic and ridiculous: EVERY single one of these lovely 'heroines' always has an orgasm! (Are we allowed to say that word here? GASP!) Not only that, but an amazingly large number of these 'Heroines' are blushing virgins who don't know the slightest thing about what to do with a man: considering the number of virgins that turn up in these stories, you'd expect there'd be blood that first time, but there never is. Oust one of the many things I hate about 'Mary Sue' is that ALL the little 'details' are conveniently never mentioned, and the entire sexual act itself is so romanticized as to make ME 'want to barf! Our heroes NEVER get carried away in the heat of passion with these delicate little creatures; never once does any women's breast get bitten; no woman ever complains afterwards of a sore back, or of being so sore the next day she can hardly sit or walk. The sheer MESS of sex is always totally glossed over: at least the '/' stories are realistic! As a good friend of mine described it, the writers of Mary Sue stories are doing it out of 'juvie wish fulfillment.' I couldn't improve on that description. If I didn't know that a lot of these women were married with kids, I'd swear they WERE teeny-boppers who'd never been with a man before! Their stories make Barbara Cartland look like Jackie Collins. I personally find Mary Sue stories VERY embarrassing. Think about it, these people are putting down on paper for all to read THEIR personal fantasies about what they'd like to do with one or both of the guys! As I said last time, I have my own fantasies, but I'll be damned if I'm sharing them with anybody else, especially strangers.

• a fan comments:

  I will be sorry if this is the list issue of to but as I recognise many names of people who get MD in Beauty and the Beast fandom, which is a show I love end am now getting involved with. I hope we will be able to keep in touch through this fandom if not through Professionals fandom.

• another fan writes about slash as a sort-of Mary Sue:

  I write slash because when I imagine myself in a fictional universe, it is as one of the heroes, not as one of the heroes' girlfriends. Given that fact, writing the hero (me) as romantically and sexually involved with a woman is boring at best end more than slightly perverse at worst. Myself, I've read many perfectly straight Mary Sue stories that were as badly written as the worst slash. It's all in the type of poison you prefer.

• the state of letterzines:

  Although zines in both fandoms seem, particularly at the moment, to be in a healthy state, the same cannot be said of the letterzines. There are three S&H publications about, including the letterzine FRIENZ, the newssheet SNITCH and the fiction zine THE FIX. Pros fandom is sparser only having the letter/fiction zine HATSTAND EXPRESS. I understand however, that THE is also facing problems because of rising costs and falling subscriptions and may become a story zine only (as THE FIX does in S&H fandom.)

• a fan writes and pokes a little fun at herself:

  I have been re-reading [Mixed Doubles] from the first issue, because I have suddenly become a "born-again Professionals fan', if there is such as thing! Anyway, I couldn't believe I had written such dumb letters!"

The Supplements

Supplement 6

Issue 6 was printed in July 1985 and contains 16 pages of news articles.

Supplement 8

Issue 8 was published in September 1985 and contains 16 pages of news articles. At the back of the issue the editor apologized saying:

Some of the articles are extremely distasteful to my mind, but they are included so that fans, especially those overseas, can see the kind of press Lewis [Collins] has been getting in this country lately. The cuttings on both the front and back covers were sent in by J.S. as were the ones scattered throughout which are in German, but as [n]either Joan nor I speak German we don't really know what they are about.'

Supplement 9

Issue 9 was published in July 1986 and contains 10 pages of news articles.

Supplement 10

Issue 10 was published in October 1986 and contains 16 pages of news articles.

Supplement 11

Issue 11 was published in March 1987 and contains 20 pages of news articles.

Supplement 12

Issue 12 was published in June 1987 and contains 15 pages of news articles.

cover of Supplement #12

Supplement 13

Issue 13 was published in September 1987 and contains 10 pages of news articles.

Supplement 14

Issue 14 was published in December 1987 and contains 16 pages of news articles.

Supplement 15/16

Issue 15/16 was published in June 1989 and contains 24 pages of news articles.