Tunneltalk/Issue v.1 n.6
Tunneltalk is a Beauty and the Beast (TV) letterzine edited by Barbara Storey, Victoria Clark and Sharon Himmanen.
There were 17 issues.
This zine began after the letterzine Passages ended.
From the August 1991 issue: "This publication is intended as an outlet for fans; it will not be sent to either Witt-Thomas or Republic, or anyone else connected with the show, so don't be afraid to say your piece."
v.1 n.6
Tunneltalk v.1 n.6 was published in August 1990 and contains 50 pages.
- contains a poem: William's Winterfest MULSE VINUM, by Ritch Brinkley (AKA "Sweet William, the Malmsey Man") that was read at Tunnelcon by the actor
- some comments about The Lifeline Letter, see that page
- some descriptions of Tunnelcon, see that page
- review of Black Cover, see that page
- review of Between Two Worlds #2, see that page
- review of Beauty and the Yeast, see that page
- review of The Absurd Season, see that page
- review of Wildheart, see that page
- review of Within the Silver Mirror, see that page
- a fan's essay (imbedded in a letter) about Diana Bennett, see Diana moved me ''powerfully"
v.1 n.6: Excerpts from the Letters
[Barbara S]:The next issue (#7) will have a zine listing again, and it promises to be a huge one; there were more new zines at TUNNELCON than I think any of us expected — I brought home about forty zines myself! The overwhelming majority of them were concerned with Vincent and Catherine—what many people refer to as "Classic" B&TB—not third season, except where it was being rewritten or explored down other avenues. I heard of only two zines that dealt with a romance between Vincent and Diana, and another one or two that simply had stories that involved Diana. We'd like to remind people that, with so much out there, it is more important than ever to remember to send a SASE for a flier first if you have any doubt as to the zine's content (I made my way around the dealers' room asking certain questions — to do with my own likes and dislikes — before I laid any money down.) And I'm not just referring to whether you want to read about Catherine or Diana—there's the issue of sexual content (see [Arwen B's] review in this issue of Black Cover).
I also received a letter recently from [Sue W], who was very disturbed about a zine called "... Shall Have No Dominion." In this zine, Vincent and Catherine are together, but Catherine is not alive, or even miraculously restored tolife, but a "ghost," as in Kristopher Gentian. Sue found this premise very upsetting, and would rather not have spent her money on this zine; other people have expressed the same sentiment. TT— as a monthly publication with limited time and space — can't give detailed descriptions of zines' contents; it's just not possible. And we are not ourselves always familiar with the contents of the zines we advertise (the above-mentioned zine being an example). Sending a SASE to the editor and requesting specific information about the zine is the only way to get that kind of information right now. But there are a couple of projects in the works that may be of great help to zine-buyers in the future. Lisa J. Patnaude is preparing "THE BEAUTY AND THE BEAST FICTIONZINE CATALOG," which will give full info on zines, including storyline descriptions. She expects it to be ready by the end of the year, and you can send a SASE for info to her at [address redacted]. Marie Bushman [address redacted] is also planning a Fanzine Directory that will offer the same information, plus info about B&TB merchandise, T-shirts, jewelry, etc. SASE her for more info. Hopefully, these two publications will provide the assistance B&TB zine-buyers need.
[Barbara S]:Some people continue to wonder about The Family Channel's plans for B&TB this fall (they begin airing episodes Friday, Sept. 21,8-10 PM). Certainly they've been giving out some strange information. In a recent letter to a fan who had written deploring the sadistic violence of the third season and asking how it could be consistent with TFC's agenda of "family viewing," Janet Mosier {Public Liaison Coordinator for TFC) replied with the following: "Every show aired on The Family Channel is edited carefully to make certain that it is in line with our traditional values, and suitable for family entertaining. In one episode (of B&TB) where the two main characters had relations outside of marriage, we intend to rewrite it so that they will be married before they consummate their relationship." Ms. Mosier said something similar in a phone conversation to another fan, but was very vague about how this would be accomplished, and finally suggested that we would just have to watch to see what happened.
Now, I'm sure that many of us would love to see that scene — but the next thought for me would be: "Where are they going to get this footage?" I would be willing to bet the farm that nothing like a wedding was ever shot, so how are they going to accomplish this? It may be a ploy to keep us glued to the TV set in the hopes of lost footage, but I'm not advising anyone to hold their breath. Very, very odd. I personally find it disturbing that TFC answered a letter asking how unacceptable violence would be handled for family viewing with the promise that premarital sex would be banished from our screens. That wasn't the question! It looks like TFC, with all its claims of commitment to family values, holds no different standards than much of the rest of our society — sex is sinful, bad, something to be punished for, but the humiliation, torture, and murder of women is of little concern to them. Why did I expect any thing different?
[Barbara S]:I did want to comment on one or two letters in this issue. To Constantia/[Mary D]/[Mollie T]: in reference to the third paragraph of your letter, your unhappiness about [Vera W's] comments in TT#5 about Diana's appearance, our motives in printing them, etc. Quite frankly, your lack of objectivity where Diana is concerned is so striking that I'm not sure my comments will have any impact, but I will ask this question anyway—who's bias is really showing here, ours or yours? You have already decided how Vicky, Sharon, and I will react in any situation that involves a comparison between Catherine and Diana, and "tend to doubt" that we can be fair-minded. If you had waited before sending in this evaluation of our ethics, you might have read Barbara Brown's letter in this issue and realized that you were wrong. But neither Vera's nor Barbara's opinion of the physical appearances of Diana and Catherine (both the first of their kind that we have received) is the point here. Vicky, Sharon, and I do not agree with either opinion, nor do we feel that denigrating anyone's physical appearance is constructive, necessary, or even interesting. But we understand that they are not talking about the actresses, simply giving voice to their frustrations and disappointments in the characters.
You claim later on in your letter to understand why people have resented Diana's touching Catherine's things, now knowing "enough not to react as if these complaints are seriously against Diana — they are expressions of grief for Catherine." It seems to us as if your understanding is incomplete; otherwise you would understand that that same motivation is behind Vera's comment, and another kind of "grief" — the loss of Vincent due to cancellation — is behind Barbara's. And at the end of your letter, you state that "anyone who refuses to even consider the validity and value of Diana as a character hasn't been watching (B&TB)." Try again to understand that, for many of us, the question is not Diana herself, but any character who would take Catherine's place. For many of us, B&TB was about two people, involved in a larger-than-life, mythic love, and to see one of those people moved so easily toward another attachment (when such a relationship had never been the norm in his life, but the exception) reduced him from mythic stature to just another guy with a line. "If you die, so will I." Oh, really?
The third season turns the first two into a bad joke for me — so I choose to reject its validity. You seem to be saying that I don't understand the true spirit of B&TB, because I don't agree with your perceptions of and your focus on the third season, and Diana in particular. I would never say that to you — no matter what you believeor have been told. But your statement reveals no less of a bias than you have accused us of. The fact is that we are ail biased; what we need to do is learn how to acknowledge and allow the expression of other biases than our own without telling fellow fans that they don't truly understand B&TB. It is just that sort of inability or unwillingness to understand each other's point of view that has caused so much trouble in fandom — isn't it time we stopped?
[Constantia, Mary D, and Mollie T]:It is infuriating to read letters in TT and elsewhere whining about Diana's casual (frequently referred to as "sloppy") mode of dress, her unglamorous digs ('ramshackle loft"), and her tendency to wear her hair in a comfortable and practical style rather than a style which would be more becoming. She needs to be made more "presentable" in order to be made "worthy" of Vincent This is obviously the voice of people unable to find a serious valid reason to dislike the character, but determined to find a flaw or make them up. Are these valid criteria for judging anyone? Is that where B&TB taught us to put our priorities)—a person's appearance and address? We hope not! (Heavens, our hero wears vests of converted mattress padding, lives in the sewers, and looks like a wild animal!) These are really petty complaints and cheap shots from people with closed minds.
The worst complaint came from Vera Walker in the July issue of TT. Vera stated of Diana: "She looks like a rat." Let's face it, anything you say about Diana's appearance applies to Jo Anderson. It's not as if she wore heavy makeup like Ron Perlman. We would say allowing that statement to go to print violates TTs professed editorial policy of not printing "out and out nastiness." Would that statement have been allowed to go to print if it had been made in reference to Catherine (and hence, Linda Hamilton)? We tend to doubt it. TT editors, it looks like your bias is affecting areas it shouldn't be allowed to.
[snipped]
We spied a few people wearing at TunnelCon. The button read, "Who says we have to give her a chance?" The answer is Vincent. His very existence has said we have to give everyone a chance, ever since the pilot, and anyone who refuses to even consider the validity and value of Diana as a character hasn't been watching.
[Barbara B]:I think I will need to have Vincent protect me after most of you read my letter. Some B&TB fans don't like anyone who disagrees with them. I love Vincent—as a matter of fact, every time one of those soft, slow, romantic songs comes on the radio I think of Vincent, but let me say this about the show.
1. I didn't like Catherine or Diana. Seems their face was always on the TV set instead of Vincent. In other words, I'd rather look at Vincent for an hour than some woman. To me, Cathy always dressed nice, but good grief, didn't she believe in doing something with that hair? She always seemed on the verge of tears, like she couldn't control her life for one moment. She was a wimp as far as I'm concerned. She looked a lot like a Basset Hound dog I once had — those big sad eyes as if they were saying "What do I do now?" Granted she might have seemed like the type that most men like. Weak and needing their constant protection — but even some one like Vincent needs a woman who once in a while can handle a problem! Diana acted like she wasn't too sure of her lines half the time. Vincent acted like "Oh, so you're here," kind of like who cares. I was very disappointed in the series when Diana showed up. OK, OK, Beast needs his beauty — but what's wrong with a dark-haired, dark-eyed girl? I'm sick of how you have to be a blond or redheaded heroine in these shows.
2. I wished I had Cathy's strength. She's tormented, kept locked away, emotionally abused, gives birth, gets a fatal dose of drugs, climbs stairs to a roof to find someone, then dies talking. Must have been one heck of a strong woman! 3. With all the money that they spent on the show for special effects (gossipcolumns in Hollywood said at times it was one million) why couldn't they get a more interesting looking baby. Now grant it — he's cute. But aren't babies all cute at that age. Look at Alien Nation's baby. Surely they could have given us a smaller version of Vincent. I thought the father's genes dominate how a child looks. If they had to go for a human baby at least he could of given a small growl when Vincent held him (with help from audio production of course).
4. The only time I really got excited is when Vincent went wild and turned into the beast. His soft and gentle ways were endearing — but I like him better angry. I have a few off-the-wall questions. If anyone can answer them I'd appreciate it.
[snipped]
Also, why did everyone, including Vincent, dress like they were from another century? I know Vincent couldn't wear a three piece suit, but what about a t-shirt and jeans. I thought they wore second hand clothes from helpers above. I know some could sew and knit things, but everything looked like it was from another century.
[snipped]
Wait, what's that sound I hear? Is it thousands of blood pressures rising because of my letter? Excuse me -- I've got to tap out a message to Vincent on the pipes: V-I-N-C-E-N-T H-E-L-P!
[Sylvia W-F]: I, too, received a letter from the BEAUTY AND THE BEAST LIFELINE. I, however, agreed with almost ALL of the flyer I don't think those people who put out the flyer misunderstood anything. I think they got it all right! I do not WANT or LIKE to be called names because I have a different opinion or an unpopular opinion! In the most recent issue of another letterzine, one editor (not from the zine) still persisted in calling certain types of fans "nay-sayers." It is utterly ridiculous, and I wish we could just stop! Name-calling causes bad feelings and resentment. I'm surprised that the so-called "leaders" in fandom haven't come out and said, WE MUST ALL STOP CALLING EACH OTHER NAMES AND STOP BEING INTOLERANT OF EACH OTHER'S OPINIONS. Obviously, this has not happened yet, considering that editorial. You wrote "I'm not really angry towards you, because I feel you wrote as a result of an honest misunderstanding on your part, one that I hope you may one day recognize as such." Personally, I find it rather presumptuous to assume someone has made a mistake and that, hopefully, one day, they will come to their senses! I didn't misunderstand the statements that came out in certain editorials saying that I was a "darksider" and "not a true fan" if I didn't support the third season! MORE to the point, why should anyone be angry with me for my point of view? I'm not intolerant of people who LOVED the third season—I wish the courtesy was reciprocated. If we (the fans) think another group of fans is wrong, MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST KEEP THAT TO OURSELVES'. Maybe that way, we (collectively) won't perpetuate all the bad feelings out there. Hey, it's just a thought!
[Andrea A]:Would Jane Eyre's stature diminish, for example, if Jane decided in the last scene that she and Edward Rochester had shared something wonderful, but that she really didn't want to be married to a blind man and decided, instead, to accept St. John Rivers offer?
From my perspective, the third season of Beauty and the Beast failed to follow the themes it had so carefully articulated during the first two years. Enduring love was ignored as the stage was set for Diana to replace Catherine in the Tunnels and in Vincent's heart. The words "forever" and "always" that the writers had consistently stressed suddenly seemed to become time-limited; love was now finite; this world had become the measure of all existence. When "the walls between the worlds grow thin" there would be no crossing over, not even for those who shared a bond "stronger than friendship or love."
It was as though Cinderella's coach had crashed on the way to the ball and another worthy scullery maid hastened in to take her place in Prince Charming's arms. The Lord had to have a living, breathing Lady at his side. Catherine was relegated to the status of a plaster saint — cold, distant and dead.
Of course Linda Hamilton's departure had an effect on how the story evolved, but that in itself should not have been an insurmountable obstacle. Her character could have been continued through flashbacks, overlay photography, voice dubbing or a myriad of other technical devices. Catherine's death did not have to be her end. Like Cathy and Heathcliffe in Wuthering Heights, or the lovers in the movie Somewhere in Time, Catherine and Vincent could have eventually lived "happily ever after" somewhere beyond time, beyond the stars.
Interestingly, it was my husband Michael who pointed out that replacing the character of Catherine was in a way quite sexist. It implied that heroines are interchangeable — any pretty face will do — and this is most certainly not what the series had been about.
[Joan R]:I have yet to see my first LOC in print, due to a mix-up in my order which I hope will be resolved soon, but I am willing to try again since I need this kind of forum to send and receive feedback on B&TB. First, I am stunned at the unrest and bickering among members in the fandom over season 3. Some of the things I've read and heard are appalling in the way fans are treating one another and some of the cast. So what some of us appreciated S3 and some did not. It's fine to view our differences and opinions because that's communication. But why the rudeness and name-calling (a fan said Diana/Jo Anderson looked like a rat!) Don't these people realize that this fandom is all we have to keep our dream alive and we must remain united and organized. I watched two cast members of Star Trek on E.T. recently talking (proudly) about how Star Trek has world wide conventions still, more than twenty years after the show was canceled. That shows a fandom strong and united. For me Catherine's death would be minimal compared to the death of this fandom. I have all 56 episodes taped and for me all of the magic, love and caring is present, although on different levels, in each season not only with Vincent and Catherine but with the relationships of many others above and below. Also, I have become a fanzine devotee and though I'm about to go broke with my enthusiasm, I consider the premise of B&TB to be the "spiritual" side of my life so it's money well spent. Hope to see this letter in print. Be well and prosper.
[Barbara G]:It didn't take the Third Season to divide us. To some, the Second Season Trilogy was a horrible, cruel betrayal of everything the show stood for, while to others it was the culmination. There was no use arguing the point, since the opposing sides were looking at many different shows, all named Beauty and the Beast. This whole tendency was exacerbated by the baggage we brought to the Third Season — the cancellation, the rescheduling, the rumors, the fears, the months of waiting, anger, hope, suspense, dread and resentment. By the time the show came on, it was virtually impossible to watch it with an open mind. I don't know when or if the time will ever come that we can.
B&TB could be perceived so differently because of its unique richness and complexity. These were at once its greatest strength and greatest weakness. They both made the show and doomed it. By the end, B&TB had become a Rorschach Test — a mirror for the viewers' own minds. Did it get that way by accident or design? Both, I think.
B&TB began with a premise much like that of Scarecrow and Mrs. King. She gets in trouble and he rescues her. But then, uniquely among television shows, it began to examine its premise. What actually would happen to the humanity of someone as overwhelmingly sensitive as Vincent who was forced to fight and kill over and over again? He would breakdown, that's what, like a soldier who's seen too many battles. He would grow horrified at his own capacity for violence. He might even go over the edge. It was clear from "The Outsiders" and "The Hollow Men" that the producers had decided to explore these possibilities.
But once they committed to looking so deep into Vincent, they were bound to do the same for Catherine. In reality, assistant D.A.'s live far less risky lives than hers. What then? Had she been reckless? Had she deliberately put herself in danger, knowing he would come to her? Why didn't she qui her job when she saw what was happening to him? Was she blind? Or did she do it for the thrill, because she shared those moments of self-loss with him? Were those moments her substitute—their substitute—for orgasm? Were the two of them, perversely, through mutual choice, making war not love?
These are absurd questions, unanswerable questions. Much of Catherine's behavior (and Vincent's too) had been premise-based, not character-based. She had to be rescued all the time because the format demanded it, not because either of them was supposed to be emotionally disturbed. But the characters of B&TB refused to remain confined within the premise. They came to life and took over. They demanded to be perceived and treated as real. It was right out of Pirandello — fictional characters insisting on taking over — except that Pirandello planned his plays that way, and it is safe to say that Ron Koslow had nothing like the Trilogy in mind when he wrote the B&TB pilot.
Once the characters broke free of the premise, then Pandora's Box was opened. And once all the absurd, profound, terrifying and unanswerable questions fell out, there was no way to put them back, close down the lid, and go back to the early days of formulaic romance and innocence.
[Lynette C]:With regard to the third season, I have only this to say. Those drastic alterations were mandated by a real-world pregnancy and by the network's bizarre demands and restrictions. Therefore, they were not creative changes, but bureaucratic ones (and since when do we allow bureaucrats to control our dreams?). As such, then, the third season simply does not have the artistic merit of the show's original concept. This is a point no one's ever mentioned, but I feel it's important.
Things are getting pretty hectic here now, as we get ready for TUNNELCon, and I don't know if this will reach you before you leave; but a couple of things happened last night that I wanted to talk about. First,I heard from oneof the people on the convention committee. A very pleasant person; but one of the first things she said was that "they" were afraid there'd be trouble in Las Vegas. "Trouble," I asked. "What kind of trouble?" "Oh, you know," she said. "From the people who didn't like the third season." I quickly (and pleasantly) informed her that I was one of those; but that I couldn't imagine me or any of my friends causing a problem. "I know every group has a lunatic fringe," I said, "but this is still the nicest bunch of people I've ever fallen in with, and I think we can all agree to disagree gracefully." She mentioned some details of third-season episodes (determined to go into particulars); but I made it clear, still cheerfully, that there were some things we weren't going to agree on. She said, "Well, the people who didn't like it should've just turned it off." Why? It was my show too; I loved it too. I could no more have casually turned my back on it than on a family member. It was important to me. We ended the call on a friendly note, but this morning I found that it's disturbed me more than I thought.
[snipped]
Last night, I was shown a videotape of convention appearances by some of the series' stars. One, beloved by us all, had (he announced) been informed of the newly-divided fandom by the editor mentioned above. He'd apparently been told that a terrible bunch of third-season "dissenters' were cracking the fandom in twain.
We did not. Third season did.
The changes made were, as I've said before, bureaucratic rather than artistic ones; and mandated by the network. I understand the feelings of actors and others striving, behind the scenes, to maintain the quality they'd always given us; they worked as hard as they ever had, to bring us those third-season episodes. That viewpoint is even more understandable with the realization that some of those most closely involved with production, ever watched the finished product regularly as we did. Some objectivity is therefore lacking. (And I confess to a little of that same shortcoming.) Perhaps only by sitting down to watch all the episodes through, first to last, will they begin to realize how deeply their creation affected us, here on the receiving end; and why we were so shaken by third-season changes. There were basic philosophical reversals involved.
We've lately been told (as if we didn't already know it) that in life, people die and "tragedies happen." That's true—and I'm not saying that Catherine needn't have "died." But this wasn't life; it was a fairy tale. And when did you ever hear of a fairy tale without a happy ending? Never, that's when. It simply did not have to be as inexorably ruthless and grim as it was.
And in the vocabulary I must sue to define my existence and the way I try to live my life, words like "forever," "never" and "always" mean something. I can't change that in myself; or become someone who finds loves, and dreams, as interchangeable as socks. And I thought fans were the people who could understand that.
Like the rest of you, I worked hard to help ensure the series' return. I had faith despite the rumored changes. I wanted to love the third season, and I tried to love it; but it just didn't love us back.
The first two season of B&TB beckoned us into a wonderful world we could all share; a magical place full of love and light and infinite possibilities. I accepted that invitation, at my own risk. The third season was—for whatever reasons—bitter and destructive to almost every special aspect of the tunnel-world. Now, I'm a writer and an artist, and a dreamer. I live in my dreams, and I make no apology for that. Throughout my life, in times of trouble I always found dreams a safe refuge. And I think that I've been angry because nobody has ever been able to reach in and hurt me there before ... until now.
[Iris B]:I think that part of what caused World War Beast is that many people just hadn't realized that other fans could feel differently than they did about Season 3.. .and still really love Season's 1 and 2.
I was thrilled to see [Sue K's] LOC in TUNNELTALK Issue 4. I think she does a wonderful job of putting her point of view into words and defending other people's right to have a different point of view.
There was a great deal about Season 3 I loved, and to Sue it was a nightmare... but I get more out of reading her LOCs than from many written by other fans of Season 3. She helps me understand more about what I enjoy in B&TB, and also helps me understand people who don't feel as I do.
[snipped] One effect of my reading LOCs like Sue's is that I've come to think of Season 3 as something that is only a transition to C's return. When I read fiction that is based on Season 3, I just see it as something written about that middle period when C. was away, or as part of a dream, or whatever is necessary to bring C. back.
Yet, when I first watched the Season 3 movie, I was bored by the amount of time the writers took to move C. out of the picture. But while watching it, I decided other fans might need longer than I did to get used to V. without C. I'd done my mourning for her during the hiatus, and I was waiting for the story to start moving again.
Over the next few weeks I began getting letterzines that let me know there were many people who reacted very differently than I had, and differently than anything I'd imagined. But now I understand many of the reasons for those differences .. . because of LOCs like Sue's, Joan's and Rosemarie's.