On the Double

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Zine
Title: On the Double
Publisher: Pon Farr Press
Editor(s): Alexis Fegan Black (issues #1-#12), Ande H. (#13-#16) and Pat Diggs (#17-#34)
Type: adzine, letterzine
Date(s): 1986 to 1996
Medium: print
Fandom: Star Trek: TOS, The Professionals, & multimedia
Language: English
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.
ssues #1-#12

On the Double was a quarterly slash (mainly), gen, and het zine.

At first, "On the Double" was a letterzine as well as an adzine and offered listings for fanzines, memorabilia for sale and convention announcements across multiple fandoms. It started out as a K/S zine and around 1990, began to include The Professionals, as well as other fandoms.

In 1987, it ran the On the Double Interviews: Who Are We?, a series of bios written by various fan creators.

This zine was the successor to Not Tonight Spock!.

Several issues won a 1988 Surak Award.

From issue #34: "'On the Double' will be sent in a plain brown envelope four times a year."

In the April 1988 issue of Naked Times, the editor wrote that "On the Double" had about 175 subscribers, and that "in order to keep the newsletter going and make it a worthwhile time investment, we need to maintain a minimum of 200 subscribers."

For similar fanworks, see List of Letterzines.

Its Demise

The adzine flourished until about 1992. It was around then that fans stopped sending LoCs and zine reviews, and the zine became simply an adzine.

The editor started to complain about zineds not keeping their ads up-to-date.

The zine also began to be published more erratically, due to the usual reasons that long-running zines do: personal problems interfering with editing, fans becoming lackadaisical and taking information for granted, and with the case of "On the Double," the internet beginning to provide information that had only previously been in paper form. Once the adzine was being published later and later, the zine ads becoming less accurate, and it contained information for cons that had already happened, the zine lost its audience.

The last issue was possibly around May 1996. [1] A fan reported that Diggs sent out an issue in November 1996, along with a post card stating she'd been ill [2].

A Twinkle in the Editor's Eye

From the editorial of A Collection of Dreams (summer, 1986):

...I have decided to try a new K/S-oriented letterzine. I would like to try an approach somewhat different than NOT TONIGHT, SPOCK, though the fine quality of NTS makes it difficult not to adopt a few of their ideas. Since K/S fandom is growing, I've felt for a long time that we could use as many informative publications as are feasible. Tentatively, the title for this new zine is ON THE DOUBLE, and I'm currently accepting ads (free to fanzine editors) letters of comment on any K/S-related subject, and — especially - reviews of K/S fanzines. I am hoping that the readers will want to become involved in a publication like this, and that I'll hear from some of you with suggestions, letters and what-have-you. At this point, I am hoping to make ON THE DOUBLE a reader-participation zine, similar to an apa, but open to any K/S fan at any time. Current. listings of K/S zines will be included, as well as any items of interest the readers care to include. No pub date for the first issue yet, though SASES are being accepted and kept on file.

Descriptions

From an notice in Not Tonight, Spock! (soon to cease):

ON THE DOUBLE: new K/S letterzine in the works. We would like to do a K/S letterzine similar in format to INTERSTAT, though in a format where K/S fans can have their say without hostility from opposing viewpoints. (If the non-K/Sers want to do their own zine, fine, but ON THE DOUBLE will not print nasty letters stating & re-stating pro/con/arguments.) OTD will be similar to an apa, but open to all fans at any time. Also, OTD will print ads for any K/S publications, as well as reviews, comments, & discussions of any zine or K/S related topic. Ads, letters & SASEs now being accepted Tentative date for publication: Winter? [3]

a flyer printed in Naked Times #16

From a flyer in Naked Times #16 (September 1987):

Welcome to ON THE DOUBLE — the new K/S letter and ad zine! As of November 1, 1987, we will be celebrating our First Anniversary, and we ask you to climb aboard for our continuing voyages into the fascinating (sorry, Spock) universe of K/S fandom. ON THE DOUBLE includes ads for new and old K/S publications alike, as well as letters from fans on a variety of topics, reviews, news items on STAR TREK and K/S, and just about anything else we can get our hands on.

We invite zine eds to participate! Zine editors are urged to send in ads for K/S publications. Our only request is that each zine ad by typed, with a maximum of 3 typed lines per zine. We won't get into spacing and pitch requirements, nor will we kidnap your first born Vulcan son if you need more space from time to time. We do, however, reserve the right to edit any ads as necessary in order to fit our formatting requirements. But, for the most part, we're pretty easy to deal with. We do ask, also, that you send your ads ready to be typed since we're all new at this, and we simply don't have the time or the computerized intellect required to type ads presented in the form of flyers. So... if you do send flyers instead of typed ads, we wi11 kidnap your first-born Vulcan son and hold him for appropriate ransom.

We invite artists to participate! We need covers — preferably non-explicit covers, as ON THE DOUBLE will probably be mailed in a similar fashion to INTERSTAT, and the postal union doesn't have the funds required to replace letter carriers who drop dead of a heart attack! Since ON THE DOUBLE is normally mailed without an envelope (stapled shut, with appropriate stamps), we must insist that cover art does not reveal genitalia or other typically "embarrassing" body parts. Whenever possible, we ask artists to send good quality xeroxes of covers, as originals have a habit of getting lost or damaged, so... let us hear from you with any samples or ideas you may have!

We invite the readers to participate! Since OTD is a letter zine as well as an ad zine, we hope to hear from as many of you as possible on any K/S or STAR TREK related subject you care to discuss. We will probably have a "topic of the month" feature similar to the one in NOT TONIGHT, SPOCK, though we welcome letters on any topic at any time. Also, if you come across a news article which might be of interest to other fans, please send us a copy. (We're not the best at returning things and we admit it, so please send only disposable items whenever possible.) We don't guarantee that we'll be able to include all news items submitted, but we would definitely like to have them on hand for times when there is room to print them.

In addition to ads, letters and news, we will also be featuring regular columns and reviews of current or semi-current K/S publications. One column in particular which we believe you will find of interest is a sort-of "monthly appreciation" column in which one of our staff writers will choose and discuss a current K/S story which deserves special recognition. This will be in addition to reviews (which may be submitted by any of our readers.) We feel that the "monthly appreciation" column will hopefully help to fill a "gap" created by the various awards (such as the K/Star and the new Surak Awards). While these awards are a definite service to fandom, we at OTD also feel that a monthly appreciation column will allow more writers and more stories to be recognized on an informal basis. And, of course, the readers of OTD are encouraged to send in suggestions for stories which you feel deserve special recognition.

As for our publication schedule, we are publishing quarterly — November 1, February 1, May 1,and November 1 (again).

Again, we invite you to participate, and we're eagerly looking forward to another year of ON THE DOUBLE.

Other K/S Letterzines

Also see List of Letterzines.

Issue 1

On the Double 1 was published in November 1986 and contains 18 pages.

front cover of issue #1 by Dragon

Issue 2

cover of issue #2, Jackie Zoost

On the Double 2 was published in February 1987 and contains 27 pages. The cover is by Jackie Zoost.

  • the editor writes:
    In future issues, if letter writers want their addresses published, OTD will be happy to do so. But to avoid unpleasantries which might arise from doing the "wrong thing", I've decided to print only names and cities until future issues. When sending a letter for publication, please be sure to let me know that it is for publication, as well as letting me know whether or not you want your full address to appear in print. No "anonymous" letters will be accepted, though we will print your letter with a pseudonym provided the editor has some way of sending any response-mail to you at a working address. What we re trying to avoid is any potential nit-picking such as has appeared in other publications over the years, so... I hope everyone understands my stand on this. Thanks.

  • a fan writes:
    I'm finally getting around to writing about "On The Double". It's a fantastic idea and a much-needed publication. For instance, until I saw the listings in OTD, I didn't know there were any other K/S zines in the world. I have been buying NAKED TIMES since it was first published by Della. But, outside the old zines by Gerry Downes, [Gayle F] and Carol Hunterton, I was literally in the dark about the extent of the literature. Now that I know, I fully intend to remedy the dirty of such literature in my possession. What kind of K/S stories do I like? For instance, "The Lo'chin" by Ray Newton. Stories of the men's relationship in the working environment of the Enterprise and Starfleet with excursions to shore, leave planets. I'm not too crazy about the slave-type stories. I've never understood how an otherwise intelligent, caring individual could find the owning of another person by another person (even in an alternate universe) an attractive premise. Of course, I may be just a wee bit prejudiced. Most of these slave stories usually have Kirk as the slave. How about equal time? That is, if the subject is written about at all. I like sex (love) scenes very much, relating to the stories, providing there's no masochism or sadism. I like loving relationships. Neither am I too crazy about continuing series such as "Outworlds". It's a good series, but there's too much time between chapters to try and keep the string of the story intact.

  • a fan comments on gen fiction:
    Among the best Trek stories I've read have been K/S. This doesn't mean that 'straight' Trek isn't good, although the best among those also tend to be a little more mature (check out Jean Lorrah's Sarek/-Amanda universe if you haven't already). Most 'genzine' stories are very good. However, too many fall short because they lack the added dimension of sensuality. Many seem to fear putting any physical aspect into their plots, and therefore limit the interpersonal relationships of the characters. This 'physical aspect' I mention does not mean sex! Or even implied sex. And that seems to be the basic problem when one separates K/S from 'straight' Trek fiction. But that's a whole other can or worms that I won't discuss here.

  • an illustration of the minefield that zine reviews can be: a fan complains:
    Some of the reviews in OTD 1 weren't sufficiently informative. I was particularly impatient with the [Katherine J] review of FIRST TIME IV. She didn't want to give away plots, but there has to be a compromise between revealing all the endings and providing no information at all about the zine's content. Tell us something — such as this one is a Mirror a/u story that takes place on Andor, or that poem refers to a K/S love tryst in the Romulan Empire. It doesn't have to be more than one sentence, but I do want to know what sort of story the reviewer is talking about. You evidently published two reviews of THE PRICE OF FREEDOM because they expressed two different views of the novel, yet the second review by [Lydia H] was definitely more informative than the prior one by [Susan S]. If the [Susan S] review had been the only one published, I would have had no idea of what the novel is about. I would only know that [Susan S] thought highly of the artwork, which is scarcely as useful as being given some concept of the nature of the story. My point is not to pick on [Katherine J] or [Susan S], but to register my belief that all reviews ought to be as informative as possible.

Issue 3

On the Double 3 was published in May 1987 and contains 44 pages.

front cover of issue #3, Carol A. Pierce
  • the editor states her policy for printing reviews, some of which were discussed at a panel at 4-Play: pen names can be used but the writer must provide her or his legal name to the editor ("in the interest of the 'anonymous review syndrome"), reviewers must have a subscription to the zine ("Not because we plan on making a fortune from your $15.00 sub, but because we don't have the time or the inclination to track down folks who might be reviewing their own zines or having a close personal friend do it for them. This seemed to be a concern at the panel at 4-Play, and while this policy won't guarantee anything, we feel that it will make folks think twice about doing a hatchet name under one pen name and disappearing from the planet forever."), the editor reserves the right to reject reviews which she feels have the "tone of a hatchet job," the editor will not print reviews by anyone who had close working relationships with the zine, the editor will not print more than two reviews per zine
  • there is a submission request for a zine called A Natural Propensity, which ended up being published under a different title
  • the editor of In Triplicate defends at length the threesomes in her zine; one point she makes is that one has to get past thinking about DeForest Kelley and start thinking about McCoy, the character, and that she never writes "William Shatner" and "Leonard Nimoy", that the actors and the characters be kept apart in one's mind. She also comments that this zine sells out faster and gets more LoCs, the vast number of them positive, than any of her other zines
  • the two questions for discussion for issue four were asked: "1. What is STAR TREK? The characters? The ship? The stories and/or writing? What sets it apart from other t.v. shows? 2. What do you want from a K/S zine? We asked this question once before, but it was overshadowed by L.A. WEEKLY article. We feel it's a valid topic for discussion, so here it is again."
  • this issue has some question and answer bios by Chris Soto, see On the Double Interview with Chris Soto
  • a fan artist, [C S], comments about fan art and ability:
    I don't know what fans or writers do when they pick up a zine, but I tend to scan the artwork first. And as I leaf through the pages I'm constantly delighted at the variance in styles. As in all things there's the good, the bad and ugly (I know, some of that bad and ugly has been mine). But I always try to keep in mind that it takes all kinds... and it takes a certain courage to send off artwork to a zine, have it published and thus leave oneself open to criticism, especially the negative type. I remember reading a review on a zine where the reviewer tore into the artwork with a vengeance, calling it 'amateurish and inconsistent'. I felt like writing to that individual and saying: "Of course it's amateurish... all the artists are amateurs, baby. What did you expect? Normal Rockwell? And if fan artists were as perfect as you they'd all be doing book covers for Daw and Random House and making big bucks! Fortunately that negative attitude is very rare. And with K/S fans I've found them to be very kind and supportive of a fan artist's efforts... especially new artists. K/Sers may not all like every artist's work, but they understand that we can't all be the caliber of The Southern Cross and probably never will be. They they appreciate and encourage the fan artist's efforts. And I find that very comforting and reassuring.

  • a fan, [A F B], writes about her first reaction to K/S:
    I'm not sure what single element "attracted" me to K/S. The main thing I remember is coming to the conclusion that I'd been wrong about K/S. When I was first exposed to the premise I was, quite honestly, livid. "That's Kirk and Spock, for God's sake! There aren't even any bathrooms on the Enterprise, and Spock is a Vulcan! I mean, heroes don't fool around... do they?" Then, after I read my first K/S story, I was curious, wanted to read more, and eventually became hooked.

  • from the editor of Shades of Grey and In Triplicate writes about those zines' topics:
    I suppose it would be somewhat redundant for me to say that I think that K/S/Mc is more than acceptable. In fact, IN TRIPLICATE seemed like such a logical progression from ST III that it would have been difficult, if not impossible, not to write it (and I'm fairly sure my co-author, Natasha Solten feels the same way). It was an idea that grabbed us separately months before we ever sat down to discuss the idea let alone the novella. I find it extremely telling that IN TRIPLICATE is, without question, MKASHEF Enterprises' best selling zine to date! That includes the sales of 7 issues of AS I DO THEE. DATAZINE, who sells MKASHEF Enterprises' items at conventions in the East, also tells me that IN TRIPLICATE disappears off the table almost immediately, before nearly all other zines they carry, gen or K/S. To me, this indicates that there is a very large interest in the premise of K/S/Mc.

If LOCs are any indication of what people think of K/S/Mc, then I would have to say that 8 out of 10 people who order from MKASHEF not only accept K/S/Mc, but actively like it, at least in the form it took in IN TRIPLICATE. I've received more LOCs on IN TRIPLICATE than any other zine, and almost without exception, each LOC has asked when the sequel will be out (a subject I won't address at the moment!). It has received rave reviews from K/S readers as well as from people who don't regularly read K/S (to my utter shock). I have only received a handful of LOCs telling me they couldn't quite get to the relationship. Of course, this raises the question of whether it's the theme or the story itself that people seem to like so much, but, to my thinking, they would have to be accepting of the K/S/Mc theme to even consider the novella let alone rave about it.

Throughout the time since IN TRIPLICATE has been in print, I've run into one consistent comment; a lot of people can't seem to get past thinking of DeForest Kelley as McCoy. I've been asked repeatedly about this and my answer is always the same: when I'm writing McCoy (or Kirk or Spock for that matter), I do not see the actor. I no more write a McCoy who looks like De Kelley than write a Kirk who looks like William Shatner or a Spook who looks like Leonard Nimoy. Personally, I can't get to Shatner and Nimoy doing the things I write Kirk and Spook doing! — let alone adding De Kelley to the fray. I think it's a key point to accepting, and eventually enjoying, K/S/Mc that the actors and the characters he kept separate in one's mind.

While writing IN TRIPLICATE, the McCoy I pictured (and I think 'Tasha would agree with me) was the same age as Kirk and Spock, and in his own way, just as attractive. From the correspondence I've received, I've had to say that one of the biggest stumbling blocks for some people as far as K/S/Mc goes is the picture of De Kelley in their minds. I'd ask anyone who is considering giving K/S/Mc a try, that they try not to see the actor, but the character who is as deserving a being as Kirk and Spock...and as needy of love and tenderness, affection and attention. After all, as an acquaintance of mine said, "It's only fuckin' fantasy!" No matter how seriously you take your K/S (and I take mine pretty seriously), it's important to remember that it is only a possibility, only a fantasy, an extrapolation of STAR TREK. I'm not saying K/S/Mc is the 'wave of the future' or the only reality K/S can move into. What I am saying is that K/S/Mc is as valid as K/S.

Aside from all that, K/S/Mc or K/S/-fill-in-the-blank is an aside, a diversion from K/S. It's an experiment in stretching not only for the reader and writer, but for the characters as well. I'm not a believer in the theory that humans (or humanoids for that matter) are meant to be monogamous, nor do I feel that loving one person precludes loving another just as much, if perhaps in a different way. The possessiveness of many K/S stories (and the possessiveness of the fans) is something I feel is completely against IDIC and against the natures of the characters of Kirk and Spock. Both men are very compassionate beings. I don't believe that they would have any difficulty whatsoever in sharing their love with someone else they both love as well. So, I see no reason for us, as writers & readers, to have a problem with the premise.

And it's continuing in the form of SHADES OF GREY #2 which is very large and mostly K/S/Mc. I doubt seriously if K/S/Mc will ever take the place of K/S (and I wouldn't want it to!), but I do see a trend toward the acceptance of an expansion of the 'traditional' K/S situation, something I'm very glad to see.

  • a fan is pleased with reviews that have diverging opinions:
    Let me express approval for your policy of being willing to print reviews which express divergent opinions about particular zines. I think this is a good idea. People's tastes do vary, and a zine one person admires may turn out to be a zine that somebody else just can't stand. Early in my involvement with Trek fandom, I started reading INTERSTAT — and I was surprised by the wide range of opinions I found there. Most of those letters were about Trek movies or about pro novels; however, this diversity of viewpoints applies to fanzines, too. I think it's nice to have multiple perspectives represented in zine reviews, in OTD and elsewhere.

  • there are many fans' comments about what constitutes a good review; a fan, [F P] writes:
    ...for anyone actively involved with contributing to or editing zines, it can be difficult to do reviews under most circumstances. People like us may find it hard to summon up the necessary critical detachment because we know so many writers, artists and editors as personal friends or because we want to have amicable dealings with them in future — which can mean that we are wary about hurting their feelings in the present. For that reason people who are involved with zines may find it necessary, sometimes, to avoid writing reviews at all, leaving that service to the zine-reading public who are not editors or contributors. (We can always send LoCs).

  • there is much discussion about Reviewers Using Pseuds; one comment from [F P]:
    Yet aren't they (and aren't readers) entitled in fairness to know who reviewers actually are? Doesn't concealed-identity reviewing leave sort of a bad taste in the mind, like reading a poison-pen letter? When reviews are of unknown origin (whether they are positive or negative), it somehow bothers me. I never know if I can trust the unknown reviewer's critical judgment. If she/he is not willing to be honest about his/her identity, then maybe the sentiments expressed in its/their review are not necessarily very honest, either.

  • there is more talk of pseuds and the need for them:
    Also, it's interesting to note that a lot of newspaper & periodical articles have been appearing lately, articles which purport to "inform the public" about K/S. The "Sigh-Fi" article which we reprinted in OTD#1 is a prime example. No one asked [Gayle F] if she wanted her illustration to appear in a publication which is easily available to children. This was done without Gayle's permission, in the name of "journalistic freedom". Well... in my opinion, that "journalistic freedom" could also be made to extend to printing "excerpts" from stories and naming the author — such as what happened on a radio talk show in Australia. A portion of a K/S story was read over the air, and the interviewer named the author — who, at the time, was using her real name. After that, she quickly adopted a pseudonym for obvious reasons.

  • a fan, [A F B] ,discusses the reviews of a zine based on production and expectations:
    As for reviewing a zine as a "physical object", I have mixed feelings on this. When fandom first got going years ago, most zines were mimeographed; the artwork was sparse if it existed at all; and typos were more or less a part of the bargain if one wanted to read STAR TREK material other than what was sparsely available from the professional book publishers. Now, in the late 1980's, we've gotten understandably spoiled in this age of computerized word processing programs, laser printers and half-toned artwork. Perhaps we have a right to be spoiled, but when dealing with fandom publications, I'm not sure we have a right to base reviewing "standards" on the physical properties of a zine, nor do we have a right to expect a zine to be perfect-bound, book-bound, spiral-bound or typo-free. We don't even really have a right to expect professional-quality stories, for the simple reason that the majority of K/S writers are not professional writers and have no intention of becoming one. They [write] K/S, and are doing the best they can ~ with the help of editors, friends and so on.

  • about the feelings of an editor, artist, or writer, [A F B] writes:
    I realize this may be a controversial statement, but I personally feel that a lot of the reviews I've read don't belong in fandom whatsoever — not necessarily because of the content, but because of the "tone" of the reviewer. Professional writers writing in professional situations are paid to take a few punches with bad reviews. Fan writers and editors aren't paid to put up with it and, with very few exceptions, it makes me practically sick to see a really "bad" review, previewer makes no effort to point out the good points of the story/zine along the way... We're also in a small circle with a lot of sensitive individuals... I'm not saying that we must protect the writer s or editor's feelings to the exclusion of all else, but I do feel it's a point to be considered in this particular group (K/S fandom). I've seen a lot of good and potentially good writers get out of fandom altogether because of the blatant insensitivity of one reviewer's comments, and I think this is tragic for all of fandom. I'm also not saying that every review has to be positive ~ obviously not every review can be and still be honest. But I do feel that reviewers must strive to find a balance between the good and the bad" in any zine — particularly in fandom circles, which is what I mean when I state that our standards must be different than those employed by professional reviewers. Whether we know these editors/writers personally or not, they are still our 'friends' through the common bond of Star Trek and K/S.

  • a fan, [R M], has these comments on threesomes and pairing Spock with McCoy:
    Regarding the topic of the growing trend of K/S/Mc and S/Mc stories, I wasn't even aware of a "trend" in the latter case. The only S/Mc story I know of ~ thankfully - is the one (the title escapes me) that appeared in SHADES OF GREY. I found the story completely unbelievable. As for K/S/Mc, I thought the first few stories I read were an interesting diversion from the myriad of ho-hum K/S stories, but K/S/Mc stories are now more common than I am comfortable with. They have lost their uniqueness and I don't have any desire to read more of them. I now find it irritating when I come across one in a "K/S" zine. I have nothing against anyone- who chooses to read or write K/S/Mc or S/Mc, but I think those stories should be confined to their own zines. K/S fandom does not force its stories onto genzines, andK/S/Mcshould not be forced onto those of us who love & cherish K/S as a unique relationship unto itself... In short, all "/" relationships should not be assumed to appeal to those who have an interest in any one "/" relationship.

  • a fan, [JA B], writes of threesomes:
    Regardless of the fact that menage a trois does not appeal to me, I disagree strongly with a fan who wrote in a recent TREKLINK that these sort of stories be stopped. That's as bad as the virulent anti-K/Sers who, as Trekfans, are supposedly tolerant and subscribe to the principle of IDIC, nevertheless reacted like the worse bigots and would probably be horrified to hear themselves so labeled. One of the saddest comments was that of Ann Carver... in OTD#2 stating that the very talented Gerry Downes left fandom because of the hate mail she received after ALTERNATIVE. Because of my lack of interest in K/S/ stories, I would prefer that they be kept in separate zines. At the very least, an editor should make it clear that her K/S zine contains menage a trois stories. One in a zine is unlikely to deter me from buying it, but more probably would... So all you good writers out there, if menage a trois interests you, go for it! Who knows, I may yet become hooked. After all, I never expected to become an avid K/S fan, and being such does not preclude my enjoying a good friendship story

  • a fan, [A G], writes:
    I emphatically don't like the menage stories. I have always believed that Kirk and Spock have truly found in each other the love that makes them both complete. You could not add to something complete. The threesome stories are lacking in this love — they seem to be an exercise in sexual athletics at best.

  • the editor of Pon Farr Press writes that the Sigh-Fi article has actually had a positive influence on sales and reactions:
    As to how the L.A. WEEKLY article has affected PON FARR PRESS, I can only say at this point that zine sales and inquiries have increased dramatically. Since several of us here in Southern California do sci-fi conventions in the L.A. area, we have been asked, "Is this that stuff we read about in the paper?" Mostly, the reaction from the public is one of curiosity without hostility. Of course, there are the exceptions to that rule when one encounters an overly-zealous, morally self-righteous s.o.b. (for details, see the editorial, BANNED IN ANAHEIM, which appeared in NT#6;. Additionally, when we attended a convention in Denver (STAR CON) back in March of this year, we were exposed to several people who had read a similar- — though less "critical" — article which appeared in a Denver newspaper. Again, the reaction was one of curiosity mingled with a little disbelief. It's interesting to note that several of these newcomers are now ordering regularly — and some of them are men (yes, that is a rarity in K/S writers and readers alike). So, as to the reaction, it's been more positive than negative. It seems that the article merely "confirmed" what a lot of people had already thought of on their own. While I don't agree with the less than discretionary manner in which the L.A.WEEKLY article was done, it's primary impact seems to be that it's led a lot of new folks into K/S fandom.

  • a fan, [F J], comments on what she feels to be McCoy's asexuality:
    I find it very difficult to accept either menage stories or stories involving McCoy in any sort of a sexual combination. I like McCoy, but I just don't see him in any. sort of sexual set-up, whether homo or hetero, one to one monogamous or part of a trey. I suspect that it's "the old country doctor" image that's responsible for my view of McCoy as a totally non-sexual being... As for treys, one of the things I most like about K/S is that it's monogamous. Read a heterosexual adult zine and one gets the impression of characters with no sexual responsibility at all — and not even particularly discerning...

  • a fan, [JS S] writes about her introduction to K/S:
    It was at a con. I was once an innocent browsing through stacks of ST fanzines. A friend who was going through a nearby stack nudged me and handed me an open zine. There, in public, before God and everyone else, was a very explicit picture of male homosexual activity between two of my favorite ST characters. I was shocked speechless. What sick mind would do such a thing to Star Trek characters? I am not a youngster, and I certainly was aware that certain portions of the population are homosexual. I just had never thought very deeply about the subject before. Before that con was over, I returned several times to view that zine. I got over being shocked and began to be curious. I found, to my surprise, I wasn't offended after all... I didn't buy that zine, but I did continue to think about it long afterwards.

  • a fan, [S F], is unhappy with the threesome-bashing she's been reading:
    It bothers me most when I see the hostility this topic rouses is the narrowmindedness of those being so upset. The old, underlying response to K/S critics is still - applicable -- if you don't like it, don't read it, no one is forcing you too. Let those who want to write and read it do so. That, if I may be so bold as to bring back what appears to be a little used concept these days, is what IDIC is all about. IDIC, infinite diversity in infinite combinations.... By the time I wrote my K/S/Mc story... I had begun to sense changes in fandom, chief among them the diminishing influence of the concept of IDIC. This saddens me because it makes K/S fandom just like any other fandom. IDIC letterzines littered with disputes that are between only a few people and involve more than a little bitchiness, I've longed to invoke IDIC, to try and use it to make them stop so we can get on with more important issues, such as a discussion of who has the best ass or chest. But IDIC can't be called upon in. But IDIC can't be called upon in B/D fandom even if many came from K/S. It seems that IDIC can't even be invoked in its own universe.

  • part one of Regina Moore's "North American K/S Bibliography" (part two was in "On the Double" #4) (6 pages)
  • a review of Nome #9, see that page
  • a review of Daybreak, see that page
  • a review of Choices, see that page
  • a review of Necropolis, see that page
  • a review of As I Do Thee #6, see that page
  • a review of Naked Times #12, see that page

Issue 4

cover of issue #4, Carol A. Pierce

On the Double 4 was published in August 1987 and contains 40 pages. The front cover is by Carol A. Pierce.

  • the back page is a letter from "Pacific Whale Foundation" informing Leonard Nimoy that "the Leonard Nimoy Fan Club" has sponsored a humpback whale named "Spock" in his name:
    SPOCK was last seen by PWF researchers on January 24, 1987, two miles west of the Intercontinental Hotel in Wailea Maui (see enclosed map for exact location). At that time, SPOCK was with a pod comprised of one adult and one sub-adult whale. They were accompanied by a school of playful dolphins, one of whom was very attentive to SPOCK and stayed around his nose.

  • fan, [L F], writes:
    Regarding K/S/Mc, I was sitting and reading that classic zine THE PRICE AND THE PRIZE when I found a K/S/Mc story there. I was scarcely expecting one, but I was delighted. It was TAAZ AVINE by Syn Ferguson. Perhaps some readers would not define it as K/S/Mc, but since it involves the same basic concept that created the K/S/Mc relationship in IN TRIPLICATE I would be hard-put not to include TAAZ AVINE in that category. It shows that K/S/Mc used to be integrated into the rest of K/S without being given any special notice or singled out as different. No one thought that TAAZ AVINE was out of place in a K/S zine. I am willing to accept the fact that the situation has changed. But nevertheless I find this change saddening.

  • fan, [L F], writes:
    What do I want in a K/S zine? I want much the same as I want from any fiction. The first requirement is that stories should be as original as possible. Familiar formula stories bore me. Of course, it is possible to cleverly disguise a formula story with an unusual setting or other details so that I won't notice it. If a writer can trick me that way, I'm impressed. In addition to originality, I want to see good plotting without holes so large that you can drive a starship through them, deft characterization in which all the characters are portrayed believably, a writing style that pays attention to language, and I want stories to actually mean something. Now I realize that even in professional writing, it's rare to find something that has all these qualities. So what I want and what I expect are two different things. I am willing to forgive a great deal if a story is based on a truly startling concept, but I don't even expect originality from a K/S zine anymore. I used to be quite demanding about that, and gafiated from K/S from 5 years. No, now I am overjoyed when I find originality, but I don't expect it. What I do expect is that at least one story in the zine should be well plotted and have good characterization. If there isn't at least one such story, then I can't recommend the zine.

  • a fan, [S Z], weighs in on K/S/Mc stories:
    I'm a little late to join the fray on the menage topic, but will do so anyway. The first two stories I read of that nature were Donovan's IN DOUBT OF SUNRISE and Gayle's BETWEEN FRIENDS. IN DOUBT OF SUNRISE (as Alexis so aptly pointed out) was a one-time encounter triad and so it raised no hackles with me. When I went to read Gayle's BETWEEN FRIENDS, I wasn't sure I'd like it. But by the time I was done, I thought: How perfect — the STAR TREK Triad united in love and love-making. I think [Sharon F's] letter illustrates very well why McCoy is a logical addition to K/S. She traces the history that Kirk, Spock and McCoy share with one another to its inevitable conclusion. I found myself agreeing with virtually all that she said. That doesn't mean I'm about to replace all my K/S reading with K/S/Mc. I'm not. For one thing, there aren't that many menage zines to fill the gap, but I do enjoy those stories just as much as K/S ones. I also agree with everyone who wrote to say that menage stories should be in their own specialized zines. That way the customer knows what she's getting.

  • a fan, [N P], wants to know more:
    By the way, could you please manage to reprint the NAKED DOUBLES flyer. I have heard much about it (besides, no matter what it says, it won't change my mind about K/S).

The editor of "On the Double" responds to N P:

I don't have access to the NAKED DOUBLES flyer, and it's my personal opinion that things of this nature are best forgotten — in the trash can where they belong. The ND flyer was apparently written by someone who had become embittered and felt that taking a back-handed "slap" at almost every competent editor in fandom was the best way to show her displeasure. Suffice it to say, Nanette, that "you didn't miss anything" by not seeing the ND flyer.

  • a fan, [K H], writes:
    ...what do I want from a K/S zine; a meeting place; a forum; a place where we can discuss our ideas regarding K/S without having to worry about bad reactions, nasty letters & the like. For example, I read BROKEN IMAGES early this year AND WAS DELIGHTED!!! If I didn't have a friend close by who also enjoys K/S to talk to I probably would have just exploded from everything I have to rave about. If a group of people are going to discuss something honestly, you can't be pussy-footing around the subject and still accomplish anything. There are a good number of us "out there" and we need to find each other. (This would be especially true living in a small or rural area). I have been truly lucky in finding two new friends close by to share ideas with, and isn't that what STAR TREK and IDIC are all about — new friends & new ideas. I want to be able to discuss ideas within the K/S framework, not spend all my time defending the basic format. (Oops, looks like I got up on the soapbox again. Down girl!).

  • a fan, [Carole B], flounces and gafiates:
    Ann Carver is dead! As her alter-ego, I have quit fandom cold. This decision was reached with much regret and due to personal conflicts. All orders for ACT FIVE, SCENES 1 & 2 and FANTASIES that are still outstanding are being filled slowly but surely, by a friend (Helen Ashley). She has the masters and is printing a few at a time and sending them out in the order of oldest-first. As soon as current orders are filled, the masters will be destroyed. No further orders are being accepted. Helen also has the list of people who ordered copies and the copies themselves that have been completed. My zine collection has been sold to a pro dealer and as soon as the check clears (by the time this is in print, I expect), the copies will begin going out to the people who ordered them if complete. Partial orders will be sent along with a refund for any remaining uncompleted portions of the order. A complete refund will be sent to any whose orders were not worked on at all. Everyone who has any order outstanding with Ann will get either the zine(s), clone(s) or money. All correspondence is being returned to the sender by the P.O. All correspondence is being sent to Helen for processing. Helen is not a fan, and is doing this as a favor to me on her own time. She has sole control over who gets what and in what order. She knows no one fandom nor does she care to. This is not another fandom rip-off. Everyone will get their order settled one way or the other. NOTE: It has come to my attention that some people are sending inquiries to other fans about Ann. This is to state that NO other fan is involved in this, nor will any be able to contact me. The only way to prevent others from being unnecessarily hassled is to drop from fandom completely. Neither the editors of CALIFORNIA K/S, FIRST TIME, NAKED TIMES and ON THE DOUBLE, nor DARING ATTEMPT have any connection with Ann or me other than having printed Ann's stories and/or articles. They cannot contact me now, nor will they be able to in the future. They have no knowledge of the reasons behind this decision.

  • a fan, [N S], writes:
    Please let it be known that I, [N S], have never been or ever will be associated with Ann Carver/[Carole B]. Anything that has to do with Ann Carver/[Carole B] is solely her responsibility. In keeping with the belief of IDIC, I lent a helping hand. Unfortunately, I was just another poor soul to lend that helping hand to the wrong person.

  • zine eds Alexis Fegan Black and Dovya Blacque write a joint open letter regarding Ann Carver and her sudden, recent departure from fandom:
    It has come to our attention through several sources in fandom that our zines were being made available as copies through Ann Carver/[Carole B]. While it has been said that these copies are "single copies", we have spoken to other fans who have bought identical copies of our zines through Ann. While there is some debate over whether or not it is "kosher" to xerox out-of-print zines for friends, it is our strong opinion that the xeroxing and selling of in print zines is not only un-"kosher", but is also a slap in the face. When an editor has spent months doing a zine, or even years in some cases, it hardly seems fair that other fans simply start copying and selling the results of that labor for profit, particularly when the editor has made every attempt to keep her zines in print, even if in "copy" form. It is this type of activity which makes editors quit editing, and leaves the zine scalpers high and dry, too. Unfortunately, many fans are unaware that the zines they have been receiving are scalped. The way in which the lists were presented makes it seem that the fans are receiving one-time-only xeroxes which the scalper wishes to sell, often at a lower price than that of the original printing. The fans are unaware that they are paying for scalped zines which are being xeroxed on an assembly-line basis. We would like to make it known that the editors listed above keep all of their zines in print at all times. If you have ordered, or are considering ordering a so-called "copy that I've replaced with an original", please think twice. Remember that editors do fanzines for a labor of love, because they enjoy what they're doing, and because they want to see good stories in print. When someone comes along and starts basically stealing the results of that labor, the feeling an editor is left with is sickening at best. We do have authorized representatives who sell our zines at conventions. At this point, the only authorized representative for convention zine-selling is KathE & StevE Walker of DATAZINE. Any other dealer selling copies of any Pon Farr Press, Mkashef Enterprises, Merrymen Press or Daring Attempt publications is doing so under probably false pretenses. While it is possible for dealers to obtain legitimate copies of our zines by buying them at full price through the mail, then selling them for often a 300% mark-up, this is being done without our knowledge and without our consent (i.e., it has come to our attention that many of our publications were being sold on the East Coast Star Trek Cruise at prices nearing $35.00 per zine). Again, if you are considering buying xeroxed zines through the mail or at conventions, please give serious thought to the matter. It's one thing to buy something from a fan who's selling her/his collection, even if that collection is comprised of one-time xeroxed copies. (It's not nice to feel that in-print zines are being copied even for friends, but it's a whole lot better than finding out that in-print zines are being mass-produced and sold through the mail under the guise of being 'collections'.) It's another matter entirely to be unwittingly led into buying mass-produced xerox copies of zines which editors, writers and artists have labored long and hard to produce, only to have their work sold for profit by unscrupulous individuals. We regret the necessity to include a letter of this nature in OTD, but in light of recent events and information which has only recently come to our attention, we feel it is necessary to warn others against the possibility of purchasing zines under false pretenses.

  • a new fan, [N L], wants to know why fans squabble:
    What I'd like to do here is something you may not want to print, but I'll take a stab at it anyway. I'm wondering about some of the rumors that found their way back to me through a friend who attended Shore Leave (I wasn't able to attend because, again, of the limited student's budget)... Anyway, my question is this: Why does it seem to us new fans that there are always squabbles, arguments, full-fledged wars and other similar hassles always on the burner? The rumors I heard do not bear repeating, as I found them to be ridiculous, self-serving exaggerations of reality (if there is an underlying reality at all, that is). But what I want to know is why some fans would rather discuss one another than discussing STAR TREK, K/S, writing or other topics which have more long-term fulfillment? Maybe I'm just naive, but I came into fandom with the understanding that this is a place where we can come together with ideas, opinions, and what-have-you, and still find acceptance. What I'm finding is that there are several "factions" who have the attitude of: "I want you in my court. And to be there, you must subscribe only to my ideas". Or worse: "If you're friends with so-and-so, you must be really stupid". And, the always-faithful standby: "I used to be friends with Mary Jane, but then I heard she's into boiling babies over an open fire just for the fun of it". What's going on here? A friend of mine who has been kind enough to loan me several of her zines recently gave me copies of INTERSTAT dating back several years. I was downright appalled at the level of open hatred I found between the covers of that publication. I'm not blaming the editor for this, but are fans so potty that a simple difference of opinion or a disagreement over some point of conversation sends them scrambling for the tactical nuclear weapons? I ended up reading a few issues of INTERSTAT, then putting them down and going back to a copy of CALIFORNIA K/S that I'd had tucked away. I probably would have forgotten the whole thing if my friend hadn't returned from Shore Leave telling tales of the latest rivalry between this person and that person, and talking about how she was almost openly shunned by a few other fans because she didn't want to hear about it. Not having been there, I'm not aware of the full situation. But her reaction was one of hurt, surprise and disgust. From what she's told me, I don't blame her. Is this what fandom is? I realize you may not want to print this because it may not agree with the policy of OTD (no deliberate mud-slinging is how you put It, I believe). But I hope you'll at least abridge it down and let my make my point here. Maybe the people involved in these feuds just don't realize how they come across to new fans such as myself? This probably hasn't helped matters any, but I was compelled to at least try. Thanks for letting me have my say (edited or not!).

  • the editor of On the Double responds to N L:
    Believe me, Niki, I agree with you wholeheartedly -- and to prove it, I'm printing your letter in full, unabridged & unedited. And I thank you for having the nerve to say what a lot of people have been wanting to say for a long time. To me, fandom fights are vaguely akin to throwing stones in a glass house. If the first person is crazy enough to heave the first rock, that doesn't entitle anyone else in the house to pick up a boulder. Sooner or later, the house falls — probably crushing everyone inside. In the past, I'll admit that I've been involved in some differences of opinion with other fans. But lately, I've discovered that if either party (it doesn't matter which) just refuses to fight, then there's no fight. It's also nice to step back and ask, "Is this worth fighting about?" If indeed so-and-so were "boiling babies just for the fun of it", maybe it would be worth creating a fuss. But if it's a matter of differing opinions or a matter of "pride", what's the point? I've found that it's possible to disagree with someone or even to dislike someone without coming to blows (physical, verbal or written). And if it does come to blows, someone has to have the common sense to step back and offer an apology. A martial arts' Master I once studied with said: "It makes no sense to fight over the color of the sky, since the sky goes from blue to red to black on a daily basis. We simply see the colors through different eyes." It's taken me a long time to internalize exactly how that philosophy works, but it does work, and it can be applied to fandom as well as to two mythical warriors fighting to the death over the color of the sunset.

Issue 5

On the Double 5 was published in November 1987 and contains 36 pages.

cover of issue #5, Jackie Zoost
  • the topic of discussion for this issue is fannish reaction to Star Trek: The Next Generation
  • there is an interview with a male K/S fan named Bill S., see On the Double Interview with Bill S
  • a self-interview with fan, see On the Double Interview with Linda Frankel
  • a fan writes and wants to know if there has to be sex in a K/S story in order for it to be K/S
  • a fan writes in and comments on the RPS story in the zine Shadows in the Rain:
    The most disturbing thing about SHADOWS IN THE RAIN is that it encourages a basic tendency in fans to forget the separation between the character and the actor. I realize that this particular story emphasizes separation, yet at the same it undercuts our ability to keep Leonard Nimoy separate from Spock by bringing him into a K/S fantasy. If it is permissible to include Nimoy in a piece of K/S fiction, then why not Shatner? Why not both both of them together? In fact, what's to stop the next writer from coming up with a Shatner/Nimoy story, totally violating the separation between fantasy and reality in K/S? I think it is wrong to place either LN or WS in a K/S story in any capacity whatsoever. We may be sliding down a slippery slope here. There is a definite ethical distinction between fantasizing about fictional characters, and fantasizing about real people. The first is harmless, the second may be hurtful in many ways. I am truly sorry to have to bring any of this up, but it is important t o understand where SHADOWS IN THE RAIN could take us. It that direction lies a K/S that is neither moral nor sane.

  • this issue contains a complete, blow-by-blow transcription of every change in the first edition of Killing Time and the second one
  • a review of Charisma, see that page
  • a review of Shades of Grey #2, see that page
  • a review of Year of the Ram, see that page
  • a review of Naked Times #15, see that page
  • a review of When Fate Summons, see that page
  • a review of Daring Attempt #2, see that page
  • a review of Naked Times #9, see that page

Issue 6

On the Double 6 was published in February 1988 and contains 36 pages.

cover of issue #6, reprinted from Naked Times #16, Ann M. Crouch
  • this issue prints the 3-page 1987 Surak Awards ballot
  • there is a full-page flyer for IDICon #4
  • a fan reviews the story by Alexis Fegan Black, "Night of Mastery," from Naked Times #15
  • there is a very, very long article by Dovya Blacque called "Rejection: How to Give It, How to Take It." This essay sparked a panel a year later at Calicon. The last part:
    My main point in writing this is to let authors and editors alike be aware that some people out there are taking themselves a bit too seriously, taking their position as editor as that of ultimate authority, which may be the case with their own zine, but that's all. It seems that some editors are not taking any care with new writers, let alone established writers' feelings. But most editors are gentle, especially with new writers. Just don't let a bad apple ruin fandom for you. Writing for fanzines can be a fulfilling, exciting, enriching experience. It's a fairly safe place, give or take an editor or two, to learn the craft of writing, to improve and grow and to see the' changes in print It's very inspiring to see your name, or your pen name, in print. It's more encouraging than anything you can learn in a class room or from reading books or from listening to editors (including me!). So, I encourage all of you who are still writing those stories (K/S or not) in the dark with a flash light and locking them away in a drawer to submit them and not to be discouraged if you receive a bad rejection. After all, editors are only people and their opinions are only that; their opinions, no better or more valid than someone else's opinion.

  • the fan explains her rationale for describing some stories as K/S and not others:
    As the one who compiled the K/S bibliography published in past issues of OTD, I feel a responsibility to respond to [Jackie Z]'s question concerning the definition of "K/S". When putting together the bibliography, I had to ask myself the same questions and the answers weren't easy. For simplicity's sake, I, as stated in the introduction to the bibliography, included all stories that were printed in zines that called themselves "K/S", though an occasional story may not necessarily be of that genre. While considering stories from genzines and adult zines. I automatically included stories that had a sex scene (not necessarily explicit) between Kirk and Spock. I don't think that a mere sex scene is a true short story (with plot, theme, etc.), but I do think a sex scene between Kirk and Spock is "K/S"--simply because I interpret the "slash" as meaning "sex". When it came to stories that didn't have a sex scene, and weren't in a "K/S" zine, it was simply a matter of my own humble opinion as to whether the story was K/S or pre-K/S and should be included in the bibliography. Again, some were extremely difficult to categorize. I think all of us would agree that a story docs not have to have an "explicit, detailed sex scene" in order to be K/S. Most K/S zines contain a few stories without a sex scene. On the other hand, I wouldn't dare agree that K/S merely refers to Kirk and Spock being "in love with each other". I think many supposedly 'innocent' genzine stories would fall into the latter category, though the genzine writers and editors would probably deny it vehemently. I know that at one time the term "K/S" simply referred to the Kirk-Spock relationship anywhere from mere camaraderie to explicit sex, and included everything in between. I think there are some who still use that definition. But when I discovered fandom and zines a couple of years ago, it was my understanding that "slash" in any fandom referred to a sexual situation. In Starsky & Hutch fandom, for example, there is a distinct and necessary difference between "S&H" stories and "S/H" stories... I think there are some fans who would define most hurt-comfort stories as pre-K/S. I don't agree, as I don't believe the authors of such stories intend for there to be any sexual connotations, and I think the author's intent should be taken into consideration.

  • the author of Shadows in the Rain responds to an earlier letter:
    To begin with, I am [D B]. I wrote SITR under 'Arlan Symons' mainly because it was such a departure from my other work. I have done this before; written under pseudonyms because the style or theme in a story is notably different from the rest of my work. I'm saying this because I want it known that I did not use a pen name for SITR out of any embarrassment or concern for being 'found out'. I am very proud of SITR. I think it's my best piece of work to date. I must admit that I was somewhat surprised to find someone so adamantly opposed to SITR as, in my view, it is the gentlest of stories, expressing what I see as the core of not only K/S, but of STAR TREK... Saying that I've started K/S fandom on the road to 'immorality' and 'insanity' by writing a soft, loving, compassionate story is, to me, unbelievable. Right away, I think it is very obvious that [L F] and I have very different definitions of what is moral and what is sane and what is not either. For the record, I am an extremely moral person and I have it on excellent authority that I am perfectly sane. I don't feel I have slipped at all from these standards in writing SITR. If anything, I think I've exercised those very qualities -sanity and morality -- by showing compassion and gentleness and kindness in a genre (K/S) that often slips into sadism, slavery, barbarity, rape, not to mention the odd cannibalism or fist-fuck story. [L F's] worry that I have overstepped the bounds of reality and stepped into fantasy are beyond argument. I admit that she is very right in that statement. What K/S writer hasn't? I am not the one who ever printed "the actor's" possible name; [L F] put a name to him in her letter in OTD. Nowhere in SITR is "the actor" ever named. Invaded this actor's privacy? What privacy? He's a public figure, he's fair game... not that I've tried to 'get' him in any way. SITR was and is intended solely in a complimentary light, solely as a possible insight into the man's psyche. [L F] might say that no one has the right... to do this. But, as I have said, he is a public figure just like Frank Sinatra, Elvis, John Lennon, or Johnny Carson. In other words, he is fair game. As for [L F] wishing that no one paid any attention to SITR, as for her wish that it just disappear without comment, I take a personal slight (or maybe not so slight!) at her attitude. Just because something doesn't meet her standards it should be ignored? Fine place this world would be if it stuck to that kind of thinking... I find [L F's] attitude the sad thing about where K/S fandom seems to be going, not the fact that I wrote SITR. If we, as K/S fandom, start telling each other what we can and can't write, if we start making arbitrary rules about what is 'permissible' or 'right' and what is 'not permissible' or 'wrong*, then that's the shame, that's the direction of 'immorality and 'insanity', not only for fandom but for the world. Intolerance is the ugliest thing alive in the world. It saddens me greatly to see it so very alive and thriving in K/S fandom.

  • another fan scolds the fan named [L F] for "naming" the actor who was a character in Shadows in the Rain:
    ...You are the ONLY person who has named the DREADED name in print. Congratulations. If any harm could have been done, short of mailing the story to the said DREADED name, you've done it. For someone who has gone where no man, etc, and written a CANNIBAL?! story (yikes, what IS K/S coming to?), you certainly have your... ah... nerve? Who gives a flying fuck? The story is innovative, whatever your thoughts on the subject matter. No one disputes the writer's talents. It's certainly not the best nor near the worst writing in fandom. So why the fuss? You aren't trying to bring it to anyone's attention, are you? You really don't think that the DREADED name, even if he read the damn thing, would give a damn, do you? Really? I've heard [L N] asked about K/S. Whatever sells tickets is fine with him. And as your own writing ideas have been considered somewhat., bizarre (to be gently), and no one has climbed down your throat with spurs, why don't you lighten up, [L F]? Come off the ladder and smell the flowers. You're flailing in that tempestuous teapot all alone.

  • this issue has a very, very long Open Letter signed by Alexis Fegan Black, Dovya Blacque, Robin Hood and Wendy Rathbone. See An Open Letter to Fandom by Della Van Hise (1988). It warns fans of a fan who is selling zines at cons without permission, as well as "explaining" why some of these bootlegged zines are cheaper to buy than from the original publisher:
    At several recent conventions across the country, it has come to my attention that a certain dealer is making and selling bootleg xerox copies of fanzines which are still in print and available from the original editors and publishers. The dealer in question is [B V], who has absolutely NO authorization (nor has she ever asked for any) to reproduce many of zines she is selling at conventions. [B V] has apparently continued this practice despite the fact that she has been personally confronted and warned by many fanzine editors whose zines she was copying... There are, also, those rare times when unscrupulous dealers are able to sell illegally reproduced fanzines at a slightly cheaper price. And there are reasons for that — not the least of which is that these dealers didn't have to pay for the original printing, the cost of half-tones, plates, negatives, higher-grade paper, typewriter/computer supplies, graphic aids and the other materials which go into the original production of fanzines. These dealers are able to simply take the finished product in to their local copy shop, print 50 copies for a-little-bit-of-nothing, and then mark the price up to either higher or almost as high as an original copy (which, quite often, are still in print and available). It is, plain and simply, stealing — from you, from editors, and from the integrity of fandom. It is, as another letter-writer put it, "artistic rape". Please don't support this unscrupulous activity. Do your part to support the zine editors whose original blood, sweat and tears went into the production of the zine you love. Support the zine by purchasing it either from the original editor/publisher or from AUTHORIZED representatives.

  • there is a letter from [A C], a fan who very publicly gafiated in 1987 [4]; she answers, via the editor, that:
    I received a story and poem from [F P] for FANTASIES 2. When I decided not to print, her stuff was trashed, as it was a computer print-out. All computer & xerox submissions were trashed. The ONLY story that was offered to another editor was A DIFFERENT OBSESSION, as it was such an outstanding first effort by a new writer that I didn't want to see it lost or have her discouraged. Her permission was obtained, and Robin Hood printed it in FIRST TIME. None of the others were so memorable, and were not offered to other editors.

  • a fan comments on another fan's use of the word, "dyke," to describe Tasha Yar:
    Regarding [D B's] comments about Lieutenant Yar, I can only say that, as a personal friend of [D B], she has absolutely NO prejudice toward lesbians. Rather, I simply believe that there are several definitions of the word "dyke". After having this discussion with friends over a period of years, we basically came to the conclusion that a "lesbian" is a woman who is attracted to other women and/or is involved in a physical relationship with another woman. A "dyke", on the other hand, isn't always even a lesbian - i.e., a "dyke", by definition, is a woman who, through her dress, attitude and "vibes", portrays a macho-male image. Lieutenant Yar certainty seems to fit the latter definition. She is certainty not a lesbian (at least not that the viewers have been told), yet she puffs out her shoulders, lowers her voice three octaves, and reaches for the phaser at the first sign of trouble. From my personal viewpoint, I can't see why Paramount didn't simply use a man for that role, since that is what Yar is attempting to be. Now don't get me wrong! I'm as much a feminist as the next person -however, when a woman starts acting like a man in order to get her point across, that's every bit as unfeminist as if she were a sniffling twit. In other words, by portraying herself as a "man", Yar is essentially putting out the vibes that women are inferior and that, to get ahead in space, she must adopt male attitudes. That is how I would define "dyke". And if Paramount had really wanted a strong female character, why didn't they give us a woman as a starship captain instead of Charlie "Picard" Brown?

  • the editor of this zine has an essay called "A Dangerous Trend?" about what she sees as a new trend in zine eds offering cash prizes for material submitted to zines:
    In order for fandom to remain "amateur publishing", and therefore to remain acceptable in the eyes of Paramount... monetary payment can not be paid for works of STAR TREK fiction. This creates an immediate infringement upon the copyrights... So long as we remain "amateurs", Paramount tends to look the other way. But if we set this dangerous precedent and open ourselves up as "professionals", sooner of later the consequences will be grave... Additionally, writers can become alienated if they aren't paid for a story, and later find out that their b e s t friend was paid. All in all, I don't think fandom needs that type of attitude. If writers want to write for "cash awards" on a steady basis... then perhaps they should seek more traditionally professional realms for their work. Let's keep fandom as fandom. [5]

  • a review of As I Do Thee #8 and #9, see those pages
  • a review of Kontinuing Saga, see that page
  • a review of First Time #14, see that page
  • a review of Naked Times #17, see that page

Issue 7/8

cover of issue #7/8, Ann M. Crouch

On the Double 7/8 was published in May/Summer 1988 and contains 55 pages. The front cover is by Ann M. Crouch. It won a 1988 Surak Award.

  • it includes a 1987 Surak Award ballot, one which requested a dollar to be sent in with the completed ballot
  • there is no "Focus" column in this issue as the columnist is on vacation
  • Jacqueline Lichtenberg talks of her earlier glowing review of Courts of Honor, saying it gives her an inferiority complex as a writer. That, and it isn't superb K/S so much as it is: "... is first and foremost a magnificent novel, a piece of literature worthy of being leather bound and standing beside the all time classics of general fiction. Secondly, it's superb Trek. As science fiction, it's not so superb, but it's creditable. I've read worse from Hugo Winners. But it's not really K/S. It just assumes the K/S premise and incorporates those scenes where they naturally fall," and that she's tested it out on some "anti-K/S readers who love Trek and good literature both" and that they rave about it.
  • there is no "Who We Are" in this issue, but there is a "Where They are Now", "a series dealing with once-well-known fans (writers, artists, et al), who have disappeared from the K/S scene." The first subject is Leslie Fish. See Where Are They Now: Leslie Fish.
  • topics of discussion for next issue is "Is K/S dying? Why? Why not?" and "What story would you like to see written in K/S?"
  • In 1988, there was complaint about lack of submissions to zines: "I hear complaints from all over fandom that zines aren't getting enough submissions."
  • there is much discussion about whether editors should give reasons (detailed and otherwise) as to why they reject stories for zines,
  • a review from a fan who hates Star Trek: TNG and proceeds to go into detail as to why
  • some newspaper clippings about Star Trek: TNG
  • listings of available zines, including an ad for Jacqueline Lichtenberg's pro novel "Those of My Blood"
  • a fan has watched Star Trek: TNG and while has no real strong opinion about the show, notes: "I do have a charmingly perverse suggestion: Data and Wesley anyone?"
  • The editor says:
    The reason I have decided to do this as a double issue is two-fold. First, in order to be able to print the entire Surak Award Ballot and the list of names of people whose addresses are being sought by the Gang of Six (see OUT IN THE OPEN [LoC section] for more details), it was necessary to up the page count. In with that, Regina Moore's K/S bibliography update appears in this issue - which will hopefully serve as a help to fans both in recall ing what was published in connection to the Surak ballot, and to upgrade their own records/collections.

  • a fan writes:
    I would like to make a response to K.S. Langley's comments about K/S fiction being 'vulnerable to the threat of stagnation', etc. I have read a few similar remarks lately, and that the stories are old, too well-worn, used, etc. I don't agree at all.

  • a fan is horrified at the thought of:
    other actors playing Kirk and Spock? Never, never, never!!! Other actors playing other characters in ST, I don't care. But not Kirk, Spock or McCoy!" Another fan takes a different tactic on the same topic: "Other actors portraying Kirk and Spock? I not only see no harm in it, I'm in favor of it. Neither Shatner nor Nimoy are getting any younger, and my image of Kirk and Spock is of healthy, energetic, virile young males, not wrinkled and lethargic oldsters. I want to be able to retain that image even as I join the ranks of the wrinkled and lethargic myself.

  • fan comments on the lead story in Shadows in the Rain (RPS):
    I will not accede to [D B]'s statement that 'public figures are fair game'. The public part of their lives may be fair game (such as the acting career of an actor), but we have an ethical responsibility not to probe into their private lives... If an actor chooses to share his thoughts and feelings with us, that is one thing; but publishing an embroidered version of what he said as part of an erotic fantasy is quite another. I think that ethics need to be much more stringent when you're dealing with in dividuals who actually exist. Further, [D B]'s claim that 'no one knew the identity of the actor' in her story before I 'revealed' it is ingenuous. Even supposing readers were totally baffled as to whom he could possibly be after finishing the story, I doubt they were mystified after reading Charlie Powers' Focus column about "Shadows In The Rain". I find it difficult to believe that there is someone who reads this zine who doesn't know the identity of the author of I Am Not Spock'.

  • on the subject of profit, a well-known writer/artist/editor asks:
    On the issue that was raised about monetary payment for stories, etc., does anyone know what the exact legal position a fanzine is in this regard? I've heard from two different people that fanzines are 'legally amateur' as long as they run less than 10,000 copies and are not subject to copyright infringe ment. I would presume there is a similar small peanuts amateur status as far as payment to contributors is concerned, but I really have no idea.

  • a long, rambling letter from a zine editor/publisher concerning a vast, alarming list of why folks haven't gotten their zines yet, wrapping up with:
    I HAVE gone without food and rest to take care of fandom obligations, BUT I WILL NOT RISK MY JOB or the health of my family to meet YOUR DEMANDS. This is a HOBBY, to be done in my spare time only. Why? Because I can't afford to get fired. Can you?" and "Just like most everyone in fandom, I've been ripped off, too.

  • another fan starts a letter with:
    Hello [name of zine publisher, not the same one in comment above]: "Are you out there somewhere? and if you are... we have unfinished business, you and I. Herewith: In July of 1986 I sent you a check for $23.50 for [name of zine], which your flyer had indicated would be out for Shore Leave of that year. A few months later, not yet having received the zine, I wrote to inquire as to what was the problem. No answer. A couple of months later, I wrote again. Same reply. Then I wrote again and again and.... Well, you get the picture. So, to make a long story (2 years' worth) short, you never answered any of my queries...

  • a fan says she dropped her subscription to Interstat:
    because I could not stand the catty, nasty, personal and sometimes vicious attacks the fans made on each other over a difference of opinion. I would not wish to run into some of these people if my opinion differed, let alone if my blood were green or my ears pointed.

  • a well-known (but new at this point) writer asks:
    I have submitted to both K/S zines and genzines. On the whole, the K/S editors reply promptly to a submission, are helpful with any problems, discuss of ask permission for major editing changes, and my copy always arrives promptly after publishing. On the other hand, about 80% of my genzine submissions have been trouble. I have waited up to a year to hear about a submission, I'm not informed where my work will appear and my copies are slow in com ing, when they come at all. Imagine my surprise when I was advised by a friend she loved my work in such-and-such a zine when I didn't know it was going to appear there and had not been sent a copy. I find myself doing much less general STAR TREK writing and more K/S - not because the ideas are not there, but simply because I am treated better. I'm not saying I've never had problems with a K/S editor or have never been treated great by a genzine editor, but the ration is not 50/50.

  • Jacqueline Lichtenberg gives a LONG opinion of Year of the Ram and tosses out a plot bunny for other folks to run with:
    Suppose that ancient law and Vulcan physiology are such that the only option Spock has is to kill Kirk, but Kirk has the option of seducing Spock into raping him and thus breaking the Plak Tow at least sufficiently to allow a negotiated settlement.

  • Jacqueline Lichtenberg has a long letter commenting on rejected fan fic, LoCs and the difference between letterzines, review zines and LoCs:
    Lately, I've been hearing from established writers that Trekdom has lost the habit and art of the LoC... Faneds ceased publishing (Letters of Comment) Locs because zine prices skyrocketed, so LoC writers ceased writing them because there was no free copy to be won by doing a good job on a LoC, so new writers no longer had incisive reader commentary about published stories to study and learn writing from, faneds no longer had a running commentary on their own editorial practices to keep them polite in their rejections, and as a result the quality of zine submissions has fallen and zine eds are baffled and offended by that fall in quality. Meanwhile, to make matters worse, the upfront investment in publishing a zine is going up and up, and the zine buyers are totally spoiled by the number of professional-level writers working in the zines... Zine eds are trying to revive the vitality that we used to have in zine fandom, but which we lost when we lost the LoC column and the free-issue for a published LoC policy. With our feedback look cut like that, faneds are getting ulcers, writers are depressed, and the readers are starving for good reading. Letterzines and review zines don't do the job because the letter writer has to consider that many of the readers haven't read the stories being discussed. Letterzines and review-zines consist of people expressing their own opinions, usually without reference to what anyone else in the issue is saying, or to what was said in the previous issue. Perceptive and in-depth discussion of a work which all the readers of the zine have also read, argument over various points in the work, so that the LoC column reader can see all sides of the issue, is just missing.

  • a lengthy essay entitled: Flexibility in Editorial Guidelines: A Maverick's Approach by Linda Frankel: It starts with:
    It is now fairly typical to find that K/S zines have editorial Guidelines restricting the kind of material that they are willing to look at. This is not censorship. Censorship is an imposition by an authority, such as Paramount, which has the power to prevent the appearance of any stories of which it disapproves anywhere. An editor's guidelines apply only to her own zine. What one editor rejects, another editor may gladly accept. I respect editorial guidelines, even if I don't agree with them. Once I fully understand what it is that an editor does and doesn't want, a try to adhere to the editor's standards. I am sometimes mistaken in my conception of an editor's policy, so I get a rejection. No problem- I've been writing for ten years now, and that's the way the game is played.

  • there is an extensive K/S bibliography compiled by Regina Moore. It was also published in issues #3 and #4, and will have yearly updates
  • a lengthy essay by Dana Angerman titled: "Rejection: An Alternative to Give and Take
  • a lengthy essay by Alexis Fegan Black on what zine editors and readers are looking for and how to write a good story, see For the most part, K/S editors are looking for something "different."
  • a review of Consort #2, see that page
  • a review of Nome #10, see that page
  • a review of Matter/Antimatter #6, see that page
  • a review of Off Duty #1, see that page
  • a review of As I Do Thee #1, see that page
  • a review of California K/S Foreplay, see that page
  • want ads and forthcoming zines

Issue 9

On the Double 9 won a 1988 Surak Award. It was published November 1988 and contains 32 pages.

cover of issue #9, Vel Jaeger
  • the editors of the zine say that Pon Farr Press will not be attending Creation Con anymore as, while the con organizers will allow K/S to be sold there, it cannot be be seen in any way. The editors say there is little point to stand around a table that has nothing on it. They are continuing Koon-ut-Cali-Con instead
  • there is a long, long con report for Closet Con, see that page
  • the discussion topic for this issue: "Is K/S fandom/creativity dying"? Some fans think "yes" and cite the sameness of fiction and the perceived decline in LoCs, the latter which discourages authors. Some fans think "no," and say the fandom is too big, too important, and too beautiful to fail
  • a fan asks other fans to take risks with K/S:
    Put in some of the taboos such a 3-way relationships, death stories, alternate universes (but an original a/u, not the same old one), ending it with one or both of the characters in a relationship with someone other than each other. Instead of portraying the same old "they're not really gay, they're hetero men who just happen to like each other" relationships, why not portray them as gay men, perhaps in the tradition of Alexander and Hephaistion which I've seen in the British zines? Write and show other characters besides Kirk and Spock, in relationships (Chekov/Sulu or even *gasp* Uhura/Rand). In the tradition of IDIC, the possibilities are endless. This type of branching out, even with the "traditional" plots is what will keep K/S from dying; the same old plots told over and over will most certainly kill K/S.

  • a BNF, [C G], writes in about the quality of K/S fiction and her conflicted beliefs:
    Previous to a ten-year gafiate, I was a very active STAR TREK fan writer In the mid-seventies. If memory serves, there was no "K/S" in those days. Oh, there was, of course. But it wasn't called K/S. I don't think it was called anything In particular, but I could be wrong. Anyway, I wrote one. A friend talked me into it about a year after 'Ni Var' (STAR TREK: THE NEW VOYAGES), and I wrote the story as a present for her. I liked it, but she didn't. She wanted Kirk to be dominated by Spock, and neither of them was dominant In my story. We went round and round on It for months, all to no avail. Eventually, I tore up my copy because I realized that I had lost something very precious to me in writing that story, and I wanted to get it back. Then I gafiated (for unrelated reasons), so I didn't get it back for ten years. When I became a bom-again neo last year, I discovered K/S (as such) because I was continuously looking for a fix, and almost all the good fixes were K/S stories; by me, most of the other stuff wasn't worth reading. I'm still not a believer, and I don't think I ever was, really. For me, the Kirk/Spock relationship is absolutely unique, and their being lovers erodes that uniqueness and makes me feel homesick. But this doesn't prevent me from realizing that the best writing in TREK fandom today is K/S. Nor does it prevent me from enjoying almost any well-written fan story as long as the characters ring true, in whatever context. Paradoxically, this ringing true seems to happen more often for me in K/S stories than in anything else I can find: if they did, they would.

  • in the "Where Are They Now?" column, two fans are featured -- [P S] and [N L]: Regarding [P S]:
    This artist no longer participates in K/S for reasons of conscience. She believes that it would be wrong. In a letter, [P] told me that five years ago cancer was spreading throughout her body, and she was given six months to live. Then she re-discovered her Catholic faith. The strength of her befief enabled her to survive. Many people who have been struck with cancer have gone Into remission because of their strong commitment to religion. The phenomenon is widely documented. Truly heartfelt prayer can pull you through cancer. [P] remains committed to her religion. She deeply regrets her participation In K/S because of a fear that it encourages the sin of sodomy, and because she thinks that the reputations of both the actors and the characters have been ruined by it. It was the advent of the AIDS epidemic that convinced her that K/S was not only morally wrong, but destructive. She writes, "I realized that the only K/S situation I had not yet illustrated was one in which Kirk and Spock die from having infected each other with the virus. I was overwhelmed wtth guilt and dropped out of TREK permanently." ... [P] also prays. She pays for God's forgiveness and she prays for God's love,not only tor herself, but for all of us, too.

  • also from the "Where Are They Now? column, the fan [N L]:
    For [N], leaving K/S was a matter of priorities. Her life had begun to seem like a series of deadlines. Her family and friends were neglected, she no longer enjoyed her art work, and she didn't feel that she was particularly good at the explicit kind ol art that K/S editors wanted. [N] has always considered herself primarily a portrait artist. When other artists arose who could provide sexually explicit illos, requests for her work declined. "So I suppose K/S zines and I really left each other!" she summarized. [N] still reads K/S. She says that early K/S seemed "more vital and innovative.' Now the sex scenes are repetitive. Like Leslie Fish in my previous article, [N] finds that K/S is often boring. Even the emotional interplay is tired, as Kirk and Spock are continually having the same sorts of crises and misunderstandings in story after story. Other times, K/S stories depict sexual practices that [N] considers 'extreme.' She would like K/S writers and editors to find better ways to be original. [N] still believes in the K/S relationship, but she would prefer a great reliance on plot in K/S fiction. "Sex does not have to be the focal point of every story; a good plot line does." Sometimes she still finds gems in K/S zines. "It's a joy to discover some small jewel or a story or poem, a special illustration, something that touches the old heartstrings and brings very fond memories." [N] says that she still loves Trek, likes K/S, and will be a Spock fan forever. She still does occasional covers and may do more Trek art one day, but for how she is devoting herself to her job, her husband, her home, her five cats and church activities. This is quite enough to keep anybody busy. Nevertheless, she says that "even though Trek is no longer the center of my life, it has changed me in many ways and remains a very special part of my existence."

  • a fan writes about the lack of femmeslash in Star Trek:
    ... I have been asked by more than one person, "What about stories involving female slash?" Well... from what I've seen and heard, at least 90% of the K/S readers aren't interested. And without interest, there are no writers, artists, editors or publishers. Also, the reason for this, at least within the STAR TREK universe, would seem to be that there were no strongly suggested female pairs. I'm not sure that Uhura and Chapel ever said more than 20 words to one another throughout the series. Ditto for Rand and Uhura or Rand and Chapel. Sad though it may be, STAR TREK didn't lend itself to strong female characters back in the 60's. Additionally, within fandom itself, there seems to be very little interest in lesbian fiction using the STAR TREK characters.

  • the editor writes a long, long article entitled "Three Into Two Won't Go... Or Will It?" about threesomes in Star Trek. Some excerpts:
    ...K/S fans would appear on the surface to be liberal, broad-minded, un-prejudiced people. And yet, regardless of the fact that we have laid aside society's prejudice against homosexuality, regardless of the fact that we can see and accept and rejoice in the possibility of Kirk and Spock being lovers, there are some fans who simply can't get past the idea that our heroes must remain monogamous. Why?... Why are a large percentage of K/S fans insulted, offended and otherwise radical when a harmless little menage story appears in some zine?... The reaction of readers in a variety of news and letterzine publications has led me to the conclusion that perhaps some K/S fans can only accept a liberal stance to a certain point. In other words, we can accept a homosexual relationship in the broad sense of the word (yet many writers portray Kirk and/or Spock as two heterosexual men who just happen to fall in love)... Now lest someone somewhere misinterpret what I'm saying, I am not advocating that every K/S story, or even a large percentage of them should be menage-type material. I am merely saying that a little more tolerance - and a little more open-mindedness - might be appreciated by the writers who are daring to explore this touchy subject... All in all, I think that those fans who absolutely despise menage stories should examine their reasons for this reaction. If it is a dislike of the third party (McCoy, for example), then perhaps it's a simple judgment call of "I don't care for it because of who Kirk and Spock were with." But if we find that the gut-level reaction of, I hate it!" is not so easily explainable, perhaps it's time to reevaluate the values and morals that we have assigned to the characters of Kirk and Spock. In other words, if we find ourselves hating a menage story simply because it is a menage story, then perhaps the fault is not with the story, but within our own social/cultural belief system.

  • a review of First Time #18, see that page
  • a review of Speed of Light, see that page
  • a review of Daring Attempt #8
  • a review of Daring Attempt #9, see that page
  • a review of Naked Times #6, #18, and #19, see those pages
  • a review of As I Do Thee #11, see that page

Issue 10

cover of issue #10, Vel Jaeger

On the Double 10 was published in February 1989 and contains 32 pages.

  • a fan addresses the long essay about threesomes from the previous issue:
    You mentioned that K/S fans tend to be "liberal, broad-minded, unprejudiced" people. [A B], love is not liberal, broad-minded or unprejudiced. If you love someone, especially the marrying kind of love, then you are the most narrow-minded person around. Men and women both. Love is extremely selective, completely exclusive, terribly prejudiced and unremittingly biased. After all, that's what it's all about. We choose this person above all others, for whatever reasons. We make a clear distinction between this person and everybody else. We discriminate in favor of this person for our thoughts, desires and everything else. If this were not so... then we would not love him (or her). The protest against menage stories is a cry against the loss of this exclusiveness. And consequently, in our minds, a lessening of love. Whatever our other disagreements may be, all K/S fans are united on one point. Kirk and Spock are in love with each other. They desire each other above all others. Anyone who comes butting in on this relationship is going to arouse our ire. And any writer who casually slips another "lover" into a K/S scenario will not make too many friends. Let's face it, we haven't yet reached the point of being able to love and have sex with three or more people and still feel that the relationships are "special" for lack of a better word. I for one am glad of that. I guess I'm just a bigoted, biased, prejudiced and un-liberal female. But I must accept that I do think and feel as a female. And as such, I desire exclusiveness and selectivity in mv love relationships with others.

  • the author of the essay responds:
    As for your personal opinions, you're certainly entitled to them. However, when you state "We like to think Kirk and Spock are devoted to each other; we can't think that in menage situations" - hold it. Again, I think you're mistaking "sex" for a big, bad monster. Hell, it's a biological function, sometimes-but-not-always associated with love. To say that Kirk and/or Spock having sexual relations with another person automatically means they are no longer "devoted to one another" is ludicrous. The people I know aren't like a can of peas - you open them and they spoil. It seems that you're advocating possessiveness as opposed to "love" for Kirk and Spock. And if one or both parties feels they must "exclusively" possess the other, then the relationship is doomed. "If you love something set it free...." The person who would "hunt it down and kill it if it didn't return" is the person will be insecure and fearful in any relationship. The person who knows it will return because of love is the person sure to succeed in any relationship. Anyway, it's obvious we'll always disagree on this point I just felt compelled to respond to your comments, since I feel many of your assumptions may be based on anonymous statistics rather than on warm-blooded human (or alien) beings who are living the lifestyle you are so quick to condemn.

  • a fan comments on the lack of f/f, or the appeal of it, in Star Trek:
    ... there are already excellent Lesbian and bisexual characters in science fiction for those of us who thirst to see ourselves reflected in what we read. Books by Marion Zimmer Bradley, Vonda McIntyre and Elizabeth Lynn come immediately to mind. So there's little need to force the STAR TREK female characters into something they were clearly not meant to portray. But don't believe for a second that we're not reading K/S. You say that 99.9% of fen fast forward over the Lesbian scenes in erotic videos. That would mean about one in a thousand of us have interests along those lines. It isn't so, as I myself can count at least 10 Lesbian or bisexual women who read K/S, and I know there are more. And if there are much move 10,000 K/S fans out there, then that just means there are lots more of us as well. Don't jump to the conclusion that all fen are straight just because the ones you've met are. The truth is that those of us who want to read good Lesbian fiction go down to our local women's bookstores, where there's a sizeable collection, and buy it in book form. I for one would love to see some good women's erotica set in the STAR TREK universe, but I don't knock down the doors to find it because I can get it elsewhere. And K/S isn't anywhere else. To me, K/S is about archetypes, which in the best stories go beyond our culturally conditioned images of what women and men can be. The glory of K/S, and science fiction in general, is that we can use it to imagine a feminist future. Don't let our silence fool you.

  • a fan comments on the number of K/S fen:
    To my knowledge, there are probably about 500 active K/S fans in fandom today, and that's a generous estimate. On an average a K/S editor sells about 250 to 300 copies of a K/S zine within a year, and if you figure that several of those copies are read by more than one person....

  • a fan writes to say:
    've been in Darkover fandom (based on Marion Zimmer Bradley's books) for quite a few years, and I edit and publish a Darkover zine. I, and other Darkover zine publishers, will gladly accept male/male stories, male/female stones and even female/female stories as long as they are well-written. Darkover fans don't seem to be as concerned about the sex of the partners as they are about reading a good, gripping tale. There is a TREK genzine, DEMETER, which features both a heterosexual relationship and Lesbian relationships. Are K/S fans, even with their talk of IDIC, actually less tolerant than either gen TREK fans or Darkover fans?

  • a fan tells another one:
    I have heard of the infamous Clause 28 in Britain (which prohibits any government money from going to those who portray homosexuality as another lifestyle, rather than a "perversion"). I also notice with pleasure that British K/S fans are giving something back to the Gay community, in their donations to AIDS organizations. I know that some American K/S fans have individually given money and/or time to AIDS organizations, but I haven't heard of a Con which has done so. I think it would be nice for some of the American K/S cons to give donations to AIDS groups.

  • a fan comments on a three-year old review of her pro book, Killing Time:
    I know from experience that people will occasionally attempt to attack a writer's work through what I would consider a more personal attack. (i.en the "review" of KILLING TIME that appeared in the defunct publication, UNIVERSAL TRANSLATOR). I have since found out who wrote that review, and that it was intended as an attack against me rather than against the book itself. Apparently this person was going through some rough personal times and was lashing out at everybody who got in the way. I just happened to "get in the way" that time. And while I would have welcomed hearing this fan's comments to me, I wasn't interested in reading them under the guise of a review when her complaints were, in the end, entirely personal.

  • several zine eds warn others against a fan, [S V D], who has written, what they figure is about $2000 in bad checks for zines
  • it has a three-page 1988 Surak Awards ballot
  • a review of Alien Brothers, see that page
  • a review of Crossroads, see that page
  • a review of Sojourns, see that page
  • a review of Naked Times #20, see that page
  • a review of An Oath of Bondage, see that page
  • a review of First Time #20, see that page
  • a review of Within the Mirror, see that page

Issue 11

inside back cover of issue #11, C.A. Pierce
cover of issue #11, Vel Jaeger

On the Double 11 was published in May 1989 and contains 26 pages.

  • the "Where Are They Now?" column's subject this time is Carol Frisbie. In it, she says that "she still attends a few cons a year, remaining on the fringes of fandom. She has a an abiding love of Trek and Trek fandom was a really significant experience in her life, but she feels that she's said everything that she needed to say on the themes in Trek that interested her."
  • a fan is unhappy with the RPS in Sojourns:
    I believe very strongly that it's wrong to use living people in published fantasies of this kind. I said then that I was afraid that this was a slippery slope, and that Shatner/Nimoy might well appear next. SOJOURNS makes Shatner and Ninoy prior incarnations of Kirk and Spock. those particular souls represent an internal love legend. All the previous incarnations were deeply in love with one another. This implies that Shatner and Nimoy ought to be lovers in order to complete the destiny of 
these two souls. These are real human beings, folks. How would you like it if someone tried to dictate your karma? We've got to stop this. I don't care how well it's written. This kind of material is unethical and might eventually have serious repercussions.

  • a fan writes that:
    If Kirk and Spock were 'hard-wired' for supposedly 'male' traits of aggression, sexual pursuit, violence and so forth, then about 90% of the K/S stories cannot have happened. One of the virtues of K/S writing is showing that men CAN be tender and loving... K/S stories show that Kirk and Spock can do such 'female' things as keep house, play music, enjoy sunsets, be devoted to each other.

  • a fan comments on the zine, The LOC Connection:
    There are people out there who are easily offended, and I've no wish to make enemies. Cowardice? Or prudence? I'm not sure. I know that in Trek fandom, as in other groups, some people are looking for a grievance, and I don't want to give them one. The people who subscribe to TLC are in effect "asking for it", but it's sometimes astonishing what people will take exception to. Also, I don't see a big difference between using a pseudonym and writing anonymously. A difference, granted, but not a huge one. Having said that, I would add that it's not the anonymity, but the list of writers who subscribe, that makes TLC unique. I know people are looking for feedback makes it worth taking trouble with comments. And, of course, the insight on your own work is, invaluable.

  • a fan comments on f/f fiction:
    Some thoughts on the lack of interest In female slash noted in Alexis' most recent article (Three Into Two...1, OTD 9). The husband of a GB K/S writer once said to me that he didn't mind his wife writing about two men, but if she wrote about two women, then he would start to get worried. Could our apparent lack of interest In female relationships have anything to do with a wish not to probe that area of sexuality? Further to this, fans often say they admire K/S because of the equality between the characters. One of the main attractions of slash writing is surely the elimination of the inequality so often present in heterosexual relationships. If readers dismiss lesbian stories on a no-sexual-interest basis, it doesnt seem we are interested in equality or in exploring relationships. Why then K/S? For sexual titillation only?

  • a fan from England writes extensively about the restrictive laws in her country about the sending and receiving of "obscene" material through the mail:
    I am not a lawyer, have no legal connections and so I can only give you the facts as I understand them and as Reader X would encounter them. First and biggest hurdle Is the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876 (no that isn't a misprint, our law Is more than antiquated). This prohibits the import of indecent or obscene books. The word obscene for the purpose of the Act is taken to mean "repulsive, filthy, oath-some or lewd". (Yes, this is K/S we're talking about). What it means for mythical reader X is that H.M. Customs and Excise conduct random searches of the incoming post and confiscate anything they consider to come under the Act. You then receive a note from them saying they have the zine and unless you appeal they will destroy it within a specified time (usually 3 weeks). This has happened on a number of occasions with a number of zines. Ah yes, you ask, but what do HMC&E think is repulsive, etc...- Originally we all assumed that the artwork was the culprit, specifically the erect penis. So that we were all taken by surprise when a single issue of a mixed media zine fell foul. This had no art, and very little that was explicit. No one I know of has ever appealed, although one brave fan marched down to Customs and demanded to see the offending article before it was destroyed. "You don't want to see that. Madam,' said the red-faced official, heedless of the fact that she had ordered it in the first place. I believe she did actually get to see the zine before it vanished. Random search sometimes turns up only one copy of an import but occasionally a 'run' will be caught and as many as (I believe) 21 zines were once rounded up.

  • a review of The Voice #5, see that page
  • a review of Fetish, see that page
  • a review of Naked Times #21, see that page

Issue 12

On the Double 12 was published in August 1989 and contains 30 pages. It is the last issue published by Alexis Fegan Black.

cover of issue #12, artist is Ann M. Crouch. It is the reprinted cover of from Naked Times #17
  • the editor writes that this will be her last stint as this zine's editor as she would rather focus her energies on publishing and writing fiction:
    Many of you know Ande Hughes of GBH Productions for her work in Star Trek fandom as well as Blake's 7 fandom. And even though you might not recognize her name right off the bat, you've read and loved her stories for several years. Many of you also know her through Koon-ut-Calicon as The Main Weasel (without whom the convention committee would have gone stark raving nuts!). I've always known her as a good friend and fellow fan, and I'm sure her editing and publishing of On the Double will be excellent, efficient, and lots of fun for all concerned. Thanks, Ande and GBH Productions for taking on this time-consuming task.

  • the editor writes at GREAT length about her experiences in fandom, her impatience with fannish politics, the lack of sincere IDIC in fandom, the damage that fannish rumors cause, her explanations and bitterness over how some in fandom treated her when she was having real life troubles and couldn't get her zines published as promised, and how the good old days when everybody got along and were nice were way better than fandom now. An excerpt:
    Since this is the last issue of ON THE DOUBLE that I'll be editing, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few things that have been on my mind recently - things which, most likely, won't be very popular with a few folks. Then again, I didn't get into fandom for a popularity contest, so maybe my views will help someone out there know that they're not alone. Essentially, when I came into organized zine fandom back in 1978, I was the starry-eyed new kid on the block, with a lot of lofty ideals and what I hoped were a lot of new ideas. Of course, back then, all fanzine ideas were new ideas, so when I attended my first fan con (T'Con, in East Lansing, Michigan), I felt like a starved shark on a feeding frenzy of zines. It was there that I bought my copy of THRUST, and spent three wonderful days talking with' other fans, enjoying the companionship of others who felt as I did, and generally learning to believe in the concept of IDIC. We were all different, yet we were all the same - and something in that realization made me feel as if fandom was "home".... What all of the above is trying to say, I guess, is that, after several years of involvement in fandom, often enjoyable, often not-so-enjoyable, I've reached the conclusion that I don't really want to be associated with this type of activity. In the past, I have the impression that people have put more into my words/actions/stories/zines/newsletter than I ever intended. And it seems that, with the sharp intellect and wit of people in fandom in general, it's very easy for certain individuals to read far more between the lines than is there. I don't write between the lines. I write on them. Which brings me to the point. Due to the fact that my personal life and career are now taking more time than previously, my involvement in fandom will be limited to the production of my zines, filling orders for those zines, and to my association with the Koon-ut-CALICON committee. I really don't have the time or patience to get involved, either personally or through association, with the feuds, back-biting and rumors that seem to be running rampant in fandom these days. My primary enjoyment from fandom has always come from producing and reading fanzines, from writing, and from the friends I've made over the years. And just for the record, I'm not angry, I'm not depressed, and I'm not "upset" in any connotation of the word. I'm simply doing other things these days, and don't have the amount of time that I once had to spend on fannish endeavors. I still love the heart of fandom itself, and the people who make that heart beat. Unfortunately, it's the hardened arteries around that heart that have, in some ways, caused me to come to this decision.

  • the editor writes at great length about zine pirating, saying that her print run of Naked Times has dropped from 500 to 250 and a large part of this is the fault of those who xerox copies of it, or the stories from it, for their friends. An excerpt:
    This is something that's come to my attention over the years, and something I feel needs to be said regarding the xeroxing of zines... I have recently learned that this zine pirating has reallygotten out of hand, and it is one thing that will definitely kill zine fandom in short order... One thing we must urge zine editors to do is to either confiscate xeroxed zines at conventions, and/or to make it clear to the people running the convention that these pirates are essentially stealing right out in the open. Urge convention organizers not to sell tables to zine pirates. (For example, Koon-ut-CALICON will not sell tables to known zine pirates - for which we received a fair amount of flack last year. These people seem to think it's their right to buzzard their profits off the hard work of others - and they are the ones making K/S zines readily visible to Paramount and other powers-that-be, since many of them don't realize or don't care that children and/or religious fanatics are in the dealer's room. In the end, they don't care, since it's not their name or address listed on the publication). Another effective tactic to use on zine pirates who are openly selling an editor's zines at a convention is to simply station oneself near their table and inform all potential customers what's going on. It is a tricky position to be in, but it does work. And don't listen when the zine pirate tells you that she's "doing a service to fandom'1 by making copies or 'all these old zines'. In short, bullshit. The pirate is doing a service to himself/herself only, usually getting free or cheap xeroxing at work, then jacking the prices so high that it's often cheaper to get it from the original editor or from a friend, in the case of zincs that actually are out of print. Pirates are also fond of telling buyers that a zine out of print when, in reality, the editor keeps the back issues in print. This happened to me once, when I confronted a zine pirate in Los Angeles. Not knowing who I was, the pirate proceeded to tell me that the editor had left fandom, and that the only way to get these zines was through her. Needless to say when I told her who I was, she paled rather noticeably, then launched into her "I'm-doing-a-service-to-fandom" speech. In reality, most of the zine pirates have been confronted and warned in one fashion or another, and they know they are doing wrong. Editors alone can't stop them, since a lot of this pirating is done through the mail. In fact, there is one fan who continues to sell xeroxes of my back issues (and current issues, for that matter) through the mail despite repeated warnings. She literally pretends to not get it when I write and tell her in no uncertain terms to knock-it -the-hell-off. I've also heard the sad li'l speech about, I'm selling off my xeroxes since I've,been able to replace them with originals. In some cases, this might be true, but in most cases, most people don't have duplicate copies of "their old xeroxes". One fan made quite a nice living doing this until several of us caught onto the game. But the damage had already been done: she'd sold at least 10 copies of each issue of NAKED TIMES, not to mention what she'd done with other people's zines. Cute trick, huh?... So... in the long run, editors are doing their part to stop zine pirating, and it's up to the readers/buyers to do the rest. Don't buy from these people, because when it reaches the point that zines are costing the editor out-of-pocket money (i.e., the smaller the print run, the higher the cost-per-copy), there won't be any more zines. And the day is coming much quicker than most people might realize. So please... think about it.

  • the editor has a very lengthy letter on other unhappiness regarding the amateur nature of fanzines and how that means that fans have to wait a long time to receive them in the mail; the editor also complains about weird, picky LoCs. An excerpt:
    Another matter that keeps coming up between editors/writers is some of the really bizarre letters of comment. Most times, LoCs are welcomed with open arms. But there are a few people out there who keep writing LoCs which essentially talk about page, paragraph, line and word(s) where typos appeared. There are also those who think of a LoC as a critique on the physical appearance of the zine -i.e., borders, method of title (typewriter, press type, laser print). And though I'm always interested in hearing someone's views on the content and quality of stories, poetry and art, I find it peculiar when fans complain about borders (or lack thereof), graphics (or lack thereof) and other such things which, in the end, don't matter much, if at all. Fanzines, by their very definition, are fan-produced magazines. Each one is different, but all are amateur publications. (And if they're not amateur publications, then the editor is treading a very thin line with the holder of the legal copyright, such as Paramount). Personally, I remember being thrilled with some of those ancient, mimeographed zines such as NEXXUS. There were places where the print was faded, the ink had bled through to the other side, and so on. But my joy was in reading the zine itself, i It didn't mailer whether there were borders or not, whether the titles had been typed on, or if there were typos or mis-used words here and there (for example, "the" instead of "and"). The thrill was the zine itself, not how it looked, and I wouldn't have considered writing to the editor to tell her that page 13 was slightly askew on the page. As long as it was readable, it really didn't matter to me. Finally, I would just like to say that all the time I've spent in fandom, both as an editor, a writer and a reader of others' works, has been, for the most part, wonderful. If I have a few bad memories, they're basically overshadowed by the good memories. So I hope everyone will understand that I've aired these "gripes" in (he hopes of helping someone else who may be out there with the same feelings. I don't want to see fandom "fold up", so to speak, and" I'm afraid that, if certain things (such" as zine pirating, in-fighting, etc.) aren't recognized, that could easily happen. I just feel that would be a shame, since I'd like everyone else to get as much enjoyment from fandom as I've gotten over these years. I'll continue writing and publishing for as long as enough people want to read my work, and I hope that, in some way, I can give back the love and many kindnesses most of you have shown to me. Thanks for listening.

  • this issue reprints Editor (1988 New Yorker article about zines), an article in The New Yorker about Roberta Rogow, fanfiction, Grip, and slash -- in it, Roberta Rogow says that Spock Enslaved is an erotic zine:
    It's not really a slash book, but it's part of the same movement, which is threatening the whole zine universe. You see, in 1976, a story called Shelter was published in a zine called Warped Space... they're mostly about Spock seducing Captain Kirk—that's why they're called 'K/S,' or slash, zines. The slash books are basically harmless. People think that they're gay pornography, but they're not. They are written by women, for women. They're really Harlequin romances within the conventions of 'Star Trek.' Instead of having a name like Angelique, and a heaving bosom, the heroine just happens to be an admiral in Star Fleet. It's still the same girlish romantic fantasy. What the girls forget, though—and this drives me into ferocious arguments— is that Spock is sexually active only once every seven years. I've been arguing this one out for the last decade. That is clear—that is unmistakable. He maybe a gay Vulcan. He may be a straight Vulcan. I'm open-minded on that. But the one certain thing we know about all Vulcans' sex life is that they are sexually active once every seven years. When you ignore a rule like that, it seems to me you're not writing literature anymore.

  • a fan writes an essay about the fiction of Roberta Haga and discusses much of her fiction, some of which is The Giver Beware, Something Special, Into Love, Setting the Magic Free, ...And Mate in One, Bright Star, Heartlights (see those pages). The essay ends with:
    This doesn't mean that Roberta regards sex as unimportant, but she usually writes about sex in the context of a relationship to give it meaning. This is what I look for in K/S. I especially value Roberta's erotic writing when it is in the comedic vein, as seen above in my discussion of her sexual scenarios. Much K/S humor is obvious and clumsy, but Roberta has a light touch that I can appreciate. These stories are fun to read, and must have been lots of fun to write. We need more writers like Roberta. Her ingenuity and sensitivity place her in the forefront of current K/s writers.

  • a fan writes a "Where Are They Now" essay about Eileen Roy: she is more interested in MUNCLE fandom now and explains that it feels more current and not as much out of character, she also thinks that power dynamics in K/S writing has changed and now Spock is in the dominant position rather than in early K/S
  • this issue contains only a few fan letters -- they have the topics of: warning of a fan who wrote a bad check, sympathy regarding the description of UK laws as described in issue #11, a zine ed who is tired of fans ragging on her less-than-perfect zines, and a fan who says that when a zine sent to her was confiscated by UK Customs, she wasn't about to go to court to get it back



Issue 13

On the Double 13 was published in November 1989 and contains 51 pages. It is the first issue edited by Ande H.

With the change in management comes a change in content: the letterzine/adzine is now open to all adult and slash fandoms.

  • cover of issue #13, Leah Rosenthal

    cover of issue #13, Leah Rosenthal

  • a long, chatty editorial reviewing the zine's guidelines
  • a review of Act Five, Fantasies, see that page
  • a review by M. Fae Glasgow of "Mansex," a professionally published book of m/m fiction
  • an overview by M. Fae Glasgow of The Professionals's fandom
  • the rest of the zine is ads and flyers

Issue 14

On the Double 14 was published in March 1990.

Issue 15

On the Double 15 was published in June 1990.

  • cover of issue #15, photocopy

    cover of issue #15, photocopy

Issue 16

Issue 17

Issue 18

Issue 19

On the Double 19 was published in June 1991 and contains 40 pages.

cover of issue #19, Karen Eaton
open letter from issue #19
  • this issue has a review of Vagabonds, see that page
  • this issue has a review of Fever, see that page
  • this issue has an open letter to "All Fans of Star Trek" by "MCT Committee, W.S. Connection" which is a plea for money for a Star Trek star in front of Mann's Chinese Theatre, which was a promotional big deal for fans in the past, see image here
  • there is a long series of personal letters sent between Alexis Fegan Black and a Dutch fan named Lily, in which Lily complains about waiting two years for zines she has ordered from Pon Farr Press but not received, and from Black who complains that she has sent Lily at least one replacement zine but says those are probably getting confiscated by Customs; Black is also angry that she has learned a fan in Europe has been ordering zines, reporting a loss, and getting more zines for free. Black also explains she is slow in producing zines as she no longer uses a printer (due to a problem in 1982, which is an allusion to the problems with Naked Times #4/5), and relies instead on her own copy machine
  • the editor writes:
    Can you believe it is June already? I'm certainly having a hard time believing it. The year is half over and this is my third issue. I hope OTD is coming close to what you want in a listing zine. If it isn't. 111 never know if you don't tell me. So, let me know what you think. I really appreciate all the encouragement I've received so far. This thing is a lot of work, but it is also a lot of fun. There are a couple of items of business I'd like to address this issue.

  • the editor writes:
    The third item of business concerns the letter of complaint printed in the "Bulletin Board" section. I printed this letter because apparently that was the policy of the prior editor, and I have never stated my own policy about it. Also, this matter has gone on so long, I feel I owe it to Lily to print it. But, I also feel I owe the editor the chance to rebut. I told Lily I would contact the editor for her reply and she said she would still like her complaint printed, so I am doing so. After this, I would prefer not to handle this kind of situation, unless I get several letters about the same press. Hopefully, the editor and the customer can iron out their problems without OTD getting in the middle.

Issue 20

On the Double 20 was published in September 1991 and contains 41 pages.

cover of issue #20, Marilyn Cole

From the editorial:

Summer is almost over and fail is making its appearance. For this area, that means lots of fog, which I love. I was especially grateful for it after the heat and humidity of Chicago during Chicon V. (Though I must admit that there were some very beautiful days in Chicago , once a storm came and cleared the air.) I did see a few of you there and it was very nice to see some of you in person. I expect to meet more of you at Zebracon in October. I'm really looking forward to this one because I am already acquainted with at least half of the people who will be attending. I hope everyone is getting as excited as I am.

[snipped]

There are no reviews this issue because I did not receive any. I will try to mention publications of note next issue but I really did not have time to write anything this time. In any case, I would rather get reviews from you. So, please, if you have read something that gave you pleasure, let the rest of us know. Remember, you get a comp issue if your article is printed. Instead of a review, I am including a list of recommendations that was given out at one of the Worldcon panels. It might be of interest to those of you who are looking for reading material that is just a little different.

Again we have Marilyn Cole to thank for the beautiful cover. Bless her!

  • many ads
  • flyers for some cons
  • a flyer for fan campaign: Where No Gay Person Has Gone Before
  • some reading recommendations from a panel at Worldcon: Recommendations by members of Lambda Sci-Fi of science-fiction and fantasy books that deal positively with themes of alternative sexuality. Includes short descriptions and review.
    • Baudino, Gael. Gossamer Axe.
    • Baudino, Gael. Strands of Starlight.
    • Bradley, Marion Zimmer. The Heritage of Hastur.
    • Bradley, Marion Zimmer. The Shattered Chain. Thendara House. City of Sorcery.
    • Cooke, John Peyton. Out for Blood.
    • Decarnin, Camilla; Garber, Eric; and Paleo, Lyn (ed.) Worlds Apart: An Anthology of Lesbian and Gay Science Fiction and Fantasy.
    • Delany, Samuel R. Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand.
    • Dreher, Sarah. Gray Magic: A Stoner McTavish Mystery.
    • Edelman, Scott. The Gift.
    • Edmonson, Roger. Silverwolf.
    • Elliot, Jeffrey M. (ed.) Kindred Spirits.
    • Forrest, Katherine V. Daughters of a Coral Dawn.
    • Garber, Eric; and Paleo, Lyn (ed.) Uranian Worlds: A Guide to Alternative Sexuality in Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror.
    • Gearhart, Sally Miller. The Wander ground: Stories of the Hill.
    • Gerrold, David. The Man Who Folded Himself.
    • Johnson, Toby. Strange Matter.
    • Kushner, Ellen. Swordspoint.
    • Lackey, Mercedes. Magic's Pawn. Magic's Promise. Magic's Price. Knight of Ghosts & Shadows.
    • LeGuin, Ursula K. The Left Hand of Darkness.
    • McCaffrey, Anne. Dragonflighi. Dragon Quest. The White Dragon. Dragon's Dawn. Moreta.
    • Mclntyre, Vonda N. Starfarers.
    • Mc.Mahan, Jeffrey N. Vampires Anonymous.
    • Nader, George. Chrome.
    • Scott, Melissa. Mighty Good Road.
    • Weathers, Brenda. The House at Pelham Falls.
    • Wittig, Monique. Les Guerilleres.

A call to action for fans called: Tired of Creation "Cons":

In our opinion, Creation seems to be failing into a trend lately (even more so than usual, that is). As most of you already know, their conventions over the years have generated a lot of complaints regarding the coordination of the events, a general feeling of displeasure due to an atmosphere of greed, and, most importantly, the overall way they treat the fans. Well, those of you who attended the Los Angeles 25th Anniversary Star Trek "con", June 7-9, will know that Creation has sunk to new depths. The entire weekend was an ordeal of misleading information (such as selling other tickets when we were told the $143.00 preferred seating was the only way to get in Friday and Saturday), endless lines (one every single day, plus they habitually started it late & ended early), and a widespread feeling of being used. Add to that the fact of many not informed that cameras were not allowed in the Shrine auditorium until they were at the door with their tickets and cameras in hand.

But Creation isn't satisfied with just that. A contract with Paramount was recently finalized in which Creation has the exclusive rights to sell all Trek T-Shirts, posters and photos. How long this is for is unknown at this time, but it's almost certain that Creation will milk it for all it's worth. We've heard that they are also in the process of trying to get the Next Generation (and possibly the original as well) cast on contract so they will appear only at Creation conventions. And considering their past record Creation is not the kind of company we would want entrusted with this responsibility. From these points alone it doesn't look good at all...it will all only lead to us being charged more and more, and no doubt treated even worse. We've got a nagging suspicion that if something isn't done quickly rapid increases in prices will soon spiral out of reach for the average fan, next years tickets for the fifth anniversary of Star Trek: The Next Generation are being sold for $165.00. Well, it's high time to let them know how we, the fans who are keeping them in business, feel — that this kind of treatment won't be put up with anymore! Creation has gone from being "a convention by fans for fans" to just being a typical corporate venture with no room left for creativity or fun, just profit.

If you agree with the feelings expressed in this flyer then please pass the word along and write to the parties involved — every letter counts! Also, it might be a good idea to write both of the casts to let them know how we feel. And if you find yourself still needing to go to a Creation convention then please buy only general admission tickets rather than preferred seating. To make this work not only do we have to drown them with letters but also hit them where it hurts, their pocketbooksl! Please send your letters of comment to: Paramount Pictures and Creation Conventions [addresses included]

Another call to action, this one a form letter for fans to send to the Chairman of the Board of Paramount. The author is not credited, but could be Pat Diggs, the editor of On the Double:

Dear Mr. Chairman,

September 6, 1991 Is the twenty-fifth anniversary of Star Trek.

One of the most important aspect of the series Gene Roddenberry has created has been the vision that humanity will put aside its differences one day and live and work together In friendship and with love.

Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation have shown crew members, both men and women, of the U.S.S. Enterprise who are of different races, nationalities, and beliefs. However, in the quarter century Star Trek has 
existed, it has never shown an openly gay person.

The appearance of gay characters in Star Trek: The Next Generation is, I think, overdue. Mr. Roddenberry has said the worst possible thing that could happen to humanity is for all of us to look, act, and think alike. To include gay characters in Star Trek.is a decision which I feel would be true to this belief and to the vision which has made Star Trek a success.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you to urge Mr. Roddenberry to acknowledge that gay people are part of humanity by having Star Trek: The Next Generation include openly gay characters. Thank you.

Yours,

Issue 21

On the Double 21 was published in December 1991 and contains 35 pages.

front cover of issue #21, Maureen B


Issue 22

On the Double 22 was published in March 1992 and contains 44 pages.

The editor apologizes for this issue being very late. She also mentions that art on the cover is not what was originally intended; she lost that illustration. The editor thanks Marilyn Cole for the printed cover art and mentions it "was a picture she had given to me some time ago."

  • cover of issue #22

    cover of issue #22

Issue 23

On the Double 22 was published in June 1992 and contains 46 pages.

front cover of issue #22, S.A. Grogan, dated 1985, portrays Ray Doyle

The editor addresses a recent plagiarism incident and reprints a response letter by a fan

    • the editor's letter:
      Editor's note: Plagerism [sic] is not nice, people. In fandom, we sort of operate on the honor system. Sequels are often written by different authors, with the original author's permission. We also often have more than one version of the same story, again, with the original author's permission, or because the same plot was used by different people as an intellectual exercise, (or contest). But to take a story from one fandom and transfer it to another fandom, making only cosmetic changes and not even acknowledging the original author, never mind bothering to ask permission, is a very different matter. Unfortunately, this has happened very recently. At the very least, the person who took the story has lost all credibility as a innovator, which is very sad. Fortunately, two of the three people who were "robbed" chose to react with humor. (The original editor and publisher was not so amused.) In any case, the person who commissioned the original story asked me to print her letter and I decided that I would. It's only fair, especially since the writer who did the "borrowing" was contacted and feels that what she did was okay, and that she doesn't owe anyone any apology, including her editor, who was unaware that the story in her zine was not original.)

    • response letter:
      OPEN LETTER TO FANDOM: It was a dark and stormy night... well, since this is about writers who borrow from other writers, I thought I would borrow a little on my own. It was two weeks before MediaWest and all through the houses the fans were astirring, every one all. The zines were at printers, or editors were begging authors and artists to finish at last. The anxiety was building as I watched time slow down. First it was two weeks and four days, then two and three, then two and two. Drat, would the time never come. What was needed, I thought, was a diversion, something to keep the fans talking until the big day arrived. I pondered and pondered and came up with naught. But, this is fandom: it always finds a way to fill the void. My salvation came with a phone call - as is usually the case. (Pac Bell should write paeans of praise to the fannish rumor mill.) It seemed, god forbid, plagiarism had been discovered. Gasp! Gosh! Horrors! This was not your normal plot theft, however, this was grand theft story. Last year at MediaWest, Ellis Ward was acclaimed by one and ail for her story "Breaking Cover", (rightfully nominated this year for a Fan Q award), which was inspired by Suzan Lovett's "The Declassizing of Bodie", or better known as, "Have you seen Page 96A in Chalk and Cheese 8?" Anyway, what to my amused ears should arrive, but a tale of a story in First Time 31 by Kay Wells that was not just similar, but in which whole paragraphs had been copied verbatim. Now really, self, I said to myself - that isn't kosher and it isn't fair. Especially since I bought the picture and commissioned the story in the first place. I mean, after all, if you are going to steal, at least be subtle. Subtle is fun - blatant is stupid. What was Ellis Ward's reaction to all this? "I haven't had such a fun day in a long time. It made my day. All I could picture was Kay Wells retyping the story and going through her thesaurus to find different adjectives." I would like to thank Kay Wells, author(?) of "Cover Up", for giving us something to talk about and fill up these interminably long two weeks. On a personal note - Kay, I understand you are an artist as well. May I recommend Suzan Lovett as a role model. If you are going to copy, copy from the best. Sincerely, Kathy

Issue 24

On the Double 24 was published in September 1992 and contains 50 pages.

There are no open letters, zine reviews, or con reports. This issue consists of zine ads.

Issue 25

On the Double 25 was published in December 1992 and contains 50 pages.

The cover is by Karen Eaton, and features Bodie and Doyle from Pros. It contains only ads.

cover of issue #25, Karen Eaton


Issue 26

On the Double 26 was published in March 1993 and contains 50 pages.

The cover is by Phoenix, and features Doyle from Pros. It contains only ads.

cover of issue #26, Phoenix


Issue 27

On the Double 27 was published in June 1993 and contains 55 pages.

The cover features Kirk/Spock.

cover of issue #27, Marilyn Cole
  • The editor has two long comments, one about cons, and one about some frustrations regarding fans and zines.
  • the editor talks about cons:
    I did work my usual stint at Baycon, but I can't say that I enjoyed the convention since I was sick the entire time. I spent the whole time either in my hotel room in bed or behind the registration desk. This was certainly a convention I'll never forget, but not for the usual reasons. I had a lot more fun at Anime America. I was asked to manage the cashiering operation there and though I again spent most of the con behind the registration desk, I had a wonderful tune. There were anime fans from everywhere: the UK, Mexico, France, Germany, Canada, and especially Japan. Of course, most of the guest artists and producers came from there. I think pretty much every state in the union was represented as well, even Hawaii and Alaska, I got to be lazy and still see a lot of the programming since there were two in-house television channels devoted to the anime features. Found out how little of my Japanese lessons I've retained though. Many of the guests did not speak any English and I found that my lessons did not include convention vernacular. Sign language works pretty well though. Next event — Westercon. I know some of you will be there and hope you will say
 hello.

  • the editor talks about zineds keeping their ads up-to-date, and about zine piracy:
    I am now going to get on my soap box but unfortunately, most of the ones who should hear the tirade do not subscribe and so will be oblivious to my complaint. This issue is really going to be late. It was all ready to go when I received the zines a friend bought me at MediaWest. Fortunately, (or unfortunately, in terms of time wasted), while looking through the zines I saw ads from several of the editors reflecting changes that they had not communicated to me. Publications I was still showing as proposed were finished and available and there were address and price changes I was seeing for the first time. To some extent, I have always had to track down information, but in this case, the amount of changes to be made was really depressing. This is pretty discouraging. The entire purpose of this zine is defeated if the information is not current. When the editors cannot be bothered to keep the information up to date, I am not really doing the subscribers any favor by printing information that will only frustrate them. I don't have the time "or the money to contact editors individually each issue and ask them if the ads are still good. (In some cases, this doesn't work anyway because I don't get a reply when I send out the postcard.) So, I had two choices—get the zine out on time with inaccurate information, or fix the information and get it out late. Do you have any suggestions about how to handle this problem? If you do, I would love to hear them. You will see a letter from one of the zine publishers in this issue. I have seen similar letters from other publishers about the same subject--zine pirating. Let me know what you think about this, too. Well enough of that. Hope the rest of your summer is fun and that you are all enjoying all the good stuff that came out at MediaWest. Those of you who are going to Westercon, Worldcon, Zcon, and FrisCon, see you there.

Issue 28

Issue 28 was published in September 1993 and contains 59 pages. Cover art by Tammy Lomas.

cover issue #28 by Tammy Lomas
  • it contains no zine reviews, nor does in include any LoCs; it does, however, contain many, many zine ads
  • this issue has an Open Letter from a fan caught in the middle of other Open Letters, see Zine Piracy Letter to Candace Pulleine by Bill Hupe
  • this issue contains the Open Letter to Fanzine Readers, Contributors, and Publishers by Candace Pulleine, the chair of RevelCon. It was in response to the letters by Alexis Fegan Black and Bill Hupe. Her letter addressed several points, one of which that it was unfair and inaccurate of Black and Hupe to soley blame the attendees of RevelCon for the decline in the number of zines sold. It reads in part:
    There is nothing wrong with an anti-piracy campaign; we are all for it as we want zine publishing to continue, but if there is no proof to back up the sweeping statements, names (groups or individuals) should not be mentioned. We notice that only our group name has been referred to. We have become the example of the con where 'pirating going on there was phenomenal,' and therefore usable as a scapegoat, whether or not pirating zines is the normal for us, proven or otherwise. by using us in this campaign, fans will have a negative response to us, if they were not there or acquainted with us. Zine pirating is not done or condoned by the majority of the people grouped under the phrase 'fans at Revelcon' or REVELcon.' But by using us in the proximity to the phrases like 'the Kinko's crowd,' etc, the association, whether deserving or not, rubs off... The examples of where individuals are using REVELcon as a scapegoat keep being received. Is there no end to this smear campaign?

  • first side of the Pulleine letter, click to enlarge and read

    first side of the Pulleine letter, click to enlarge and read

  • second side of the Pulleine letter, click to enlarge and read

    second side of the Pulleine letter, click to enlarge and read

Issue 29

On the Double 29 was published in December 1993 and contains 60 pages.

cover of issue #29 -- a Pros cover by Karen Eaton

This issue contains a poem called "An Enterprising Christmas" printed on the last page. It appears to be a fanwork but is not credited in any way, nor is there any other information about it.

From the editor:

If you are holding this in your hand, I guess I actually got done. There were times when I seriously thought about finding someone to take it over, at least for this issue. The time between Thanksgiving and the week after New Year's to put it mildly, traumatic. [personal info snipped] I have all you fans to thank for my sanity, especially Sherry Zoeller, Marie Aranas, Joan Martin, and Kathy Snow. An your good wishes gave me a lot of positive energy and these ladies listened, (until I am sure they were heartily sick of hearing about it), gave me very broad shoulders to lean on, and were very sympathetic company. They will never know how much they helped. Sometimes the only medicine is a good friend. So, this is a very belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year but who says you can't get these wishes an year round. Again, I thank you all for your patience. I must have the best subscribers in the universe.

Before the crisis, I bad a very memorable time at Friscon. I'm sure Sherry, Kathy, and Sammy did too, since we got a flat tire when we left the con to go into the city for dinner. Good thing the weather wasn't too cold, (though my Southern California friends might not agree about that). All aside, Friscon was warm and lovely. It was as if you were at a big party at someone's house. This is definitely a warm, fuzzy convention.

Last issue I forgot to thank Marie for helping me get it out. I have a feeling she is going to help me with this one too, so I'll thank her in advance. Thanks to Karen Eaton for her wonderful cover. She never fails. See you all at Escapade. Take care until next time.

Issue 30

On the Double 30 was published in March/May 1994 (the date of 1995 on the cover is a typo) and contains 60 pages. The cover is of Spock and it is by Marilyn Cole.

cover of issue #30, Marilyn Cole

The editor apologizes for the lateness of this issue, citing personal family problems:

The next issue will be out in September. That will set the cycle correctly again.

[...]

You will notice that there are several new zines where you will have to SASE for the cost. That is because, as usual, many editors did not bother to tell me when proposed zines were finished and available. I had to find out "through the grapevine", so I know they are

out but 1 don't know what the editors are charging. (As I've said before, finding out about zines after I've already set the pages adds time to the zine but it is that or an on time zine with out of date ads.). But, it will be out. Pray that the post office does not raise their rates! If they do, I will have to add a dollar or two to the rates, but like last time, the new rates will apply when you renew. Thanks to Marilyn Cole for the cover art. What a sweetheart. Since cons are my "take a break" time, I still plan to see you at MediaWest. There are going to be many new things out there, so we can all plan to be very broke, but very happy. I hope you are all well, calm, and happy. See you in Michigan. Have a great summer.

Issue 31

cover of issue #31, Ray Doyle, by Courtney Gray

On the Double 31 was published in September 1994 and contains 70 pages. The editor apologizes for the "1995" on the cover of the previous issue; "Wonder what kind of a Freudian slip that was?"

This issue has a ballot for the 1994 STIFfies, plus a list of the 1993 winners.



Issue 32

On the Double 32 was published in December 1994 and contains 68 pages. The cover features Bodie and Doyle by K.S. Eaton from The Professionals. This issue contains many zine ads and con flyers, and one newspaper clipping about Star Trek.

cover of issue #32

From the editorial:

I will ask that you continue to mention OTD when ordering. Maybe that way the publishers will remember to update their ads. I'm still finding out about changes by accident, and not because the editors/publishers are remembering to update. You will see a lot of "SASE for prices" for that reason. Thanks to Karen Eaton for her uplifting holiday cover. (OK! I'm sorry and won't do it again.)



Issue 33

On the Double 33 was published in August 1995 and contains 75 pages. There are no letters or reviews, only ads and one Dilbert cartoon.

Issue 34

cover issue #34 by Suzan Lovett. This is a low resolution photocopy of the drawing which lacks most of the significant details. The artist gave permission for a photocopy of her art print Leather and Lace to be used on the cover. Years later an actual print of the illustration inspired przed to write Transfigurations.

On the Double 34 was published in 1996 (May? [6]) and contains 81 pages.

This last issue contains no LoCs, no zine reviews, just ads.

The editor wrote briefly of the future of the zine, and she gave no indication that this was the last issue, possibly because she did not realize it herself.

The front cover is by Suzan Lovett. The editor apologizes for some lateness which is due to some serious Real Life issues:

After next year, time to work on OTD won't be a problem, because all of this has caused me to decide to retire. All I can say is THANK YOU for your incredible patience. I did get a few letters implying that I was stealing their subscription money, but only from people who do not know me, and I can't really blame them.

  • a zine ed writes:
    In February 1995, Wendy Rathbone published a new K/S novel by Natasha Solten called THE PRINCE. She sold 10 copies at Escapade '95. In March 1995, MKASHEF acquired Wendy' s publication duties, this includes publication of THE PRINCE. The 10 copies sold were not perfect bound and had white covers; the version of THE PRINCE now available from MKASHEF is perfect bound and has an ivory cover. These are the only differences in the two versions. However, should anyone who would prefer the perfect bound version of THE PRINCE wish to do so, you may return your stapled copy to me and I will replace it with the perfect bound version. I did not sell the stapled copies and so am under no obligation to exchange them for the perfect bound version, but I have always stood behind the products I publish and don't want anyone thinking otherwise. Also, if you ever have a problem with a zine, please don't hesitate to contact the editor. Most of us don't bite, and those of us who do don't bite very hard! We're fans, too, not ogres sitting in our lairs waiting to kill zine readers! Most often, a letter of inquiry to the editor regarding your trouble can quickly resolve the problem. Not writing to an editor with a complaint and 'gossiping' instead is the root of why fandom has deteriorated. We don't talk to each other anymore, and I thing that's very sad. Spreading a complaint around fandom instead of trying to resolve it at the source only creates bad feelings which does no one any good at all. As the editor of MKASHEF Enterprises publications, I am always here for you.

References

  1. ^ Unconfirmed rumor: "Someone told me that On the Double folded, because one of the people running it (not Pat Diggs) ran off with its funds. Not sure if this is true or not, but that's what I've heard." -- Strange Bedfellows (APA) #16 (February 1997)
  2. ^ "No, ON THE DOUBLE has not fold ed. Pat Diggs mailed an issue in November with a note about her lengthy illness stop ping earlier mailings." -- Strange Bedfellows (APA) #17 (May 1997)
  3. ^ from Not Tonight, Spock! #14
  4. ^ see Datazine #47
  5. ^ While she doesn't name it, she is most likely referring to Alien Brothers.
  6. ^ "Does anyone know what's going on with Pat Diggs and her ON THE DOUBLE? The last issue (I saw] was in August, 1995. She mailed a postcard in March 1996 writing that the next issue would be in several months, but there's been nothing since then. She's not responding to letters." -- from a fan in Rallying Call #19 (October 1996)
Retrieved from "https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=On_the_Double&oldid=2697335"