Tunneltalk/Issue v.2 n.3
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.2 n.3
Tunneltalk v.2 n.3 was published in May 1991 and contains 52 pages.
- this issue contains a filk "That's All I Ask of You" ("to the tune of" "That's All I Ask of You" from Phantom of the Opera) by Dot Sconzo
- comments on the zines Black Cover, and ... Shall Have No Dominion
- review of the zine Acquainted with the Night #1, see that page
- a comparison and review of the zines Thin Walls and Shall Have No Dominion #1, see those pages
- review of The Memory Flame #1 and #2, see that page
- con report for The International Beauty and the Beast Con
- the essay I believe there is a universal need for a happy ending.
v.2 n.3: Excerpts from the Letters
[Barbara S]:I'm afraid I do have one piece of slghtly disappointing news. As many of you know, Vicky and I, and our partner Marion, have been planning a multi-media convention in St. Louis this summer, which we recently turned into an all-B&TB con. However — given the other B&TB and related events already scheduled for this summer (South of Oz and Ron's appearance in Chicago two weeks before it), not to mention MasqueCon this fall — we discovered that most people had already made their travel plans and were not able to respond to our con as they might have liked.
At the same time, we are very proud of the con we had planned, and felt that it offered fans a wonderful weekend, so . . . the only logical alternative seemed to move the convention to a new date, next year. So far as we know, there is only one other major B&TB con next summer (TUNNELCon 2), so hopefully people will not have to make a choice, but will be able to plan ahead for both if they want to, or decide far in advance which con they will attend. Right now, we are looking at August as the time for our con, and we are hoping to offer the exact same lineup and events as we had planned for this year, if Jay, Ritch, Armin, Linda, and Shelly are willing and available. As always, we will let you know details here in TT as soon as we have them, and we hope that many of you will be there with us.
[Barbara S]: We're all anxious for real, substantive news [of Beauty and the Beast and future plans], and it just doesn't seem to be forthcoming. This is definitely the down-side of being a fan—we're always waiting, the fate of our beloved characters in the hands of others who don't seem to understand how we feel. I know that / feel discouraged sometimes, but that's the time when we need most to remember that we are the keepers of the dream, and that we are the only way it will survive. Vincent and Catherine's dream depends on us to survive. It doesn't matter if the movie is made and if so roaring (pardon the pun) success and the whole world suddenly decides that they love B&TB—we will still be the heart of the dream, the ones who kept it alive for others to discover. I think Lynette put it so well in her letter this issue—"eyes on the prize."
[Lynette C]:With the news of Ron Perlman's agreement to appear at South of Oz (lighting up phone lines across the country), it occurred to me belatedly that "classic" fans like me, who are now considering attending, may find themselves taken to task by others who very decidedly aren't. ... Or misunderstood by others, with whom we have in the past disagreed.
My life is so changed since Beauty and the Beast came into it. Before, as a recluse, I never had to think about peer pressure or "public opinion." But I worried about it all day yesterday. "Oh, great," I kept thinking. "Yet another way to divide the fandom!" The dilemma here would seem to be whether or not we ha ve the courage of our convictions. Or, failing that, the courage of other people's. The rumor (true or false) has been that South of Oz is a third-season convention. My feeling is that if I go, it won't be that way for long.
As for the contention that Ron Perlman is somehow betraying "classic" fans, or sanctioning the "enemy camp" by this "defection"... Mr. Perlman seems to be a man of dignity and intelligence. I trust in his integrity and that's a feeling which, frankly, I don't of ten experience. I'd be embarrassed to think he was aware of this infighting. I can't imagine that he'd lower himself to give one "side" or the other his blessing— or even that he's very much aware of the problem. And he shouldn't be. I believe strongly that our stars shouldn't be asked (or led) to take sides; that they should be made neither the pawns nor the issue of this division. If this happens, they will tire of us all very quickly.
Ron Perlman has maintained a discreet and classy distance from all of this, and I don't "boycott" him. Period.
And the "warfare" itself simply isn't all-important. To see it that way indicates a certain "tunnel-vision" (forgive me) and a smallness of spirit. I've said this before; if we aren't giving one another the feeling the show used to give us, then we've gotten off the track somehow, and someone's cheating us of the fun we should be having. Becoming too mired in rumors and warfare means forgetting the love (V&C's) and the dream that brought us together. I can't speak for anyone else, but for myself, I refuse to be distracted from that deliberate focus. Fandom is wonderful—most of it—but it came to me after the dream that changed my life. Everything else springs from there.
Everyone who knows me, knows I'm a bedrock "classic" fan. Certainly my zine Promises to Keep speaks for itself. In my universe, the third season didn't happen — not to Vincent and Catherine. (Unfortunately it still happened to me, but that's another story.) Yet I have friends — or at least friendly acquaintances — in both "camps." While I'm not open-minded about third season, I am open-minded about people and their views. I expect nothing less in return.
I will not be divided, diverted, classified or redefined at another's whim. As an adult, I won't be told where I can and cannot go, or what I should door feel or be once I get there. If I decide to go to a convention — this one or any other — it's done in support of the dream; past, present and future. I go to be with people who've proven, overall, to be caring, committed, funny and friendly — whether or not their politics agree precisely with my own. I always have a good time—and I try to make sure everyone around me has fun too.
But there's a more important practical consideration in all this. If "classic" and "third season" factions are determined to remain divided, then "classic" fans must maintain their visibility — and in the most positive (not negative) ways. We must maintain their visibility — and in the most positive (not negative) ways. We must continue to be represented at conventions. It's the only way to be heard. Boycotting has its uses, and I respect those who act on the courage of those convictions. Yet by our absence, we in effect relinquish such gatherings to the other "small but (equally) vocal" following. This means that our needs, with regard to the hoped-for movie, may not be heard, recognized, or ultimately, satisfied ... and we'd have no one to blame but ourselves. I refuse to be relegated to that sort of obscurity; I'm just not that kind of wallflower any more. More importantly, as a dreamer, I won't surrender the fate of Vincent and Catherine to others' perhaps-less-tender mercies.
This isn't about us. If s about them, remember? And it's about working together toward at least one common goal — a feature film.
Eyes on the prize, guys ... and less on each other. Eyes on the prize.
[Constantia]:I want to publicly extend my sincerest admiration and applause to Judith Ley Page for the courage and strength she displayed in her letter in TT Vol. 1 #12. Despite being deeply saddened by events portrayed in TLBL, she has actually sat down and searched for (and found much of) what is worthwhile in B&TB's third season. She is willing to admit the worth of the third season despite its sadness, and I think that's really great and admirable and refreshing, considering the number of letters I've read from people who refuse to give some 3rd season episodes even a first viewing.
Judith doesn't accuse the 3rd season writers of being sympathetic to the cruelty they portrayed, as some have done, and she does not dismiss the entire 3rd season as completely worthless because much of it was painful and sad.
A lot of valuable experiences in this world are painful to endure, and I think that for us, B&TB's 3rd season is one of them. Like so many fans, I look for more than just simple entertainment in B&TB. And while the first two seasons certainly did deliver more than simple diversion, for me it was the trilogy and the 3rd season which provided the deepest food for thought. Hooray for Judith for overcoming her fears and dipping into that dish! I think she is all the richer for embracing the joy and beauty of the first two seasons as well as learning from the darkness of the third.
[Constantia]:I'd like to respond to appeared in TT Vol. 2, #1, and was penned by [Gloria D]. First, I want to thank Gloria for ofering the first answer I've seen to my question about why anti-third season fans are writing to the Family Channel to keep the third season off the air, rather than simply not watching, and leaving the rest of us to our choice of viewing. Gloria responded that she thought the Family Channel would pass those letters on to Republic and/or Ron Koslow,and she was hoping that "somebody, somewhere, sometime" would "the the message!" Well, Gloria, to that I can't help but reply that you stand a better chance of these people getting your mesasge if you write directly to them instead of hoping the Family Channel will take the time out to forward your mail. Furthermore, such an approach would insure that the people concerned with the upcoming film would get your message WITHOUT your endangering my chances of watching all the episodes I'd like to see, or new fans' chance to see the 3rd season and make up their own minds about it, instead of relying on conflicting second-hand information from other fans.
All that aside, what really upset me a great deal about Gloria's letter was the following: "I avoid 3rd season zines ... and zines that mix the 3rd season with 'classic' B&TB, I'm not interested in that. If s all baloney anyway. (May they all go bankrupt!)" First, such casual and facile dismissal of others' work as "baloney" simply because if s not her taste is pretty callous and non-constructive. I'd like to quote Sharon Himmanen's letter in TTVol. 1, #11: "Name-calling like that has no place in this letterzine." But what REALLY made me see red was the parenthetical statement at the end of that quote from Gloria. My initial reaction was one of total outrage, and it is with great effort that I restrain myself from using rude words here; I am striving to remember what I've learned in the past through the pages of TT (remember Vera Walker?)...
Gloria is probably suffering through great grief, and please God, didn't realize the severity of her statement... wishing BANKRUPTCY on fellow fans simply because they are writing and printing stories she herself does not care to readl Gloria, one man's baloney is another man's smoked ham, and as long as no one is holding you at gunpoint and forcing you to read those zines, it seems rather uncharitable and unkind of you to wish such a terrible thing on fellow fans who are pu tting a lot of work into their stories and doing no one any harm! (I wouldn't even wish bankruptcy on the author of Black Cover; if that stuff floats her boat, great, so long as I don't have to read it!) PLEASE reconsider your words! Did you REALLY mean that?
[Constantia]: To [Theresa P], who also appeared in TT Vol. 2, #1: If you want to wear a button that says "Who says we have to give her a chance?" and don't want other fans to immediately assume that you're wearing an anti-Diana chip on your shoulder, you'd better be prepared to wear a copy of the first page of your letter pinned to your back by way of explanation. A button slogan is supposed to be a concise distillation of how you feel on a topic, and I think that a different slogan would be better to express the reasoning you laid out. Giving Diana "a chance" does not require the acceptance of a romance between her or anyone else and Vincent; sounds to me like you need a burton that reads "He'll never love another," or something like that.
[Kathie D]:For the last year I have read with interest the discussions, opinions, and feelings of fellow fans of the "third season." The split in fandom just before, during, and right after the third season saddened me. As time passed it appeared that the split had healed. Whether you liked the third season or hated it you were still considered a fellow fan. About six months ago I red something that made me realize that, unfortunately, there still appears to be intolerance within the fandom. Some fans were still lashing out against anything that had to do with the third season.
One of the fanzines I order on a regular basis is A Secret Place. When the flier for Volume 6 arrived it was very clearly stated that there was a three page Vincent/ Diana story. Since the zine is usually 150+ pages this story would be a very small part of the zine mainly about Vincent/Catherine. About six months ago I received my order of Volume 7. While reading the editors page I found out that about a dozen fans of Beauty and the Beast and A Secret Place had ripped the three page Vincent/ Diana story out of their copy of Volume 6, ripped the pages in to pieces and sent them to the editor. This act on their part both angered and saddened me.
Understand, I am not saying they don't have the right to dislike the third season because they do. Nor am I saying they don't have the right to tear the story out of their copy of the zine because they do. What I am saying is they DID NOT have the right to send it in pieces to the editor. If the flier had not warned of the inclusion of a Vincent/Diana story I might have agreed with their actions. But it did include the warning of a third season story. This gave these dozen or so fans the right to protest by not buying the zine.
To me, one of the essential elements of Beauty and the Beast was that it reminded me to be tolerant of those who might look or think differently than I do. These dozen or so fans showed a great deal of INTOLERANCE. Perhaps if they asked themselves how they would feel if someone did what they did they might realize how both intolerant and immature their behavior was.
I am not against expressing your opinion. Everyone has the right to. I'm against expressing your opinion in a way that hurts or is insulting. I was, also, not a lover of the third season. However, while i have the right to express this opinion, I do not have the moral right to express it in a way that is hurtful to another fan of the show.
Please, l appeal to all of you, show more tolerance of those FELLOW FANS who may not agree with you on the "third season" but are still just as much a fan as you are. Let us all remember all the elements that drew us to this show. Among these elements were love, tolerance, romance, acceptance, following your heart, and trying to live your dreams. Isn't it time to put our hurt, anger, and bitterness aside and band together in understanding and tolerance. For what ever reason we all love this show.
[A. 'Nea D]:I read with interest your three choices of where the show could go without Catherine, and I think you summed up the options pretty well, although "Vincent Dies of Grief" might also be added to the list. What spurred me to write was your next paragraph, the one saying that you felt the slogan "Who says we have to give her a chance?" was the logical summary of your opinion that Vincent can never love again, and asking where you could get a copy of it.
You point out that that particular motto has nothing to do with Diana per se. You're right, it doesn't. It has a much more obvious meaning, one deeper and uglier than any 12 episodes of a TV show.
"Who says we gotta give 'em a chance?' has been the rallying cry for outrages throughout history. It is the motive for the KKK hunting and hanging blacks. It was the justification for the Nazis gassing Jews. It is the sentiment spouted now, as pagans and gays find themselves physically attacked by people who don't believe in giving anyone who doesn't follow their beliefs a chance. "Who says we got to give 'em a chance?" is the naked face of bigotry, the beating heart of prejudice, the ultimate justification for intolerance.
I'm sure (if this letter is even printed at all) someone will jump in now and say that I am simply lashing out because you don't like the third season. I am not. This has nothing to do with the third season of B&TB, or any season of B&TB. That button doesn't have Beauty and the Beast written anywhere on it. People who see you wearing it, particularly people who don't know the show, won't think, "Oh, she doesn't like the third season." They'll think, "Oh, she must have a very closed mind, not to even give someone a chance." And then they'll wonder if they have to give YOU a chance. And that's not a rhetorical statement. Have you seen the articles on "political correctness?" There's a lot of people out there suddenly being muzzled because no one wants to give them the chance to speak.
You have the right to question the integrity of any love Vincent could have after Catherine. You have an equal right to wear buttons or use stickers that promote that opinion. I'm just asking you to think twice about using that one particular slogan. It means something completely different than what you think. (Ed: I don't want to disappoint you by not jumping in, so... I just want to ask you: Don't you think you're overreacting, just a little? Or even a lot? Let's not take ourselves too seriously here; we are talking about a television show and invented characters here, and to compare people's reactions to and feelings about a television show to unspeakably horrible real events like the the Holocaust is — to my mind — a gross trivialization of that event and one I find extremely offensive. Maybe you should stop and think about how this sounds. The KKK, Nazis, and other fascists do not wear buttons, as a rule, to advertise their viewpoints (their strength is in their pervasive subtlety and ability to blend in to "normal paths of life). To suggest that someone who wears a button stating "Who says we have to give her a chance?" — and most likely only wears it a convention, since that is where their message would be understood and appreciated/noted — is revealing the "naked face of bigotry," etc., seems a little much to me. [much snipped])
[Rosemarie H]: I experienced that there can be some danger of getting lost in the inner world, at least for some people (like me, for example). But if we let our inner lights shine through the walls around us (as all you people do who write LOCS and zines, who draw and share your art with others, who reach out for one another, who listen to others, or tell them what is in your heart) there is no danger of becoming self-absorbed, and our everyday lives will become brighter by sharing warmth and strength and honesty, as we have been taugh tby Vincent and Catherine (and many other characters of our show).
[Rosemarie H]: I must admit that I would be at a loss if I were asked about the problem of censorship. I am deeply convinced that true growth is only possible in freedom. But as I am a very vulnerable person myself I can understand that people who feel offended or even hurt by some fanzines feel compelled to protect others (as well as their own inner worlds). I don't know BC, but what I read about it... Well, one should not judge things he/she doesn't know. I learned from some fanzines I could manage to receive despite the great distance how different some authors see V&C's love, especially its physical expression. I was fortunate because almost everything I read was passionate, tender, and spiritual. I thought it would be impossible to see it in another way, but obviously ...
[Elizabeth H]:As for the Shall Have No Dominion/Next Waltz debate, I agree to certain extents with both Vittoria and Barbara. I ordered the first zine not realizing how Catherine was returning to Vincent, BUT I did find it extremely well-done. On the basis of Vittoria's LOC, I went ahead and ordered The Waltz as well. I'm the first to admit that this isn't my ultimate choice in the way in which I'd like to see Catherine come back. As for false advertising, the author did state that she did not rewrite third season and that the story was in keeping with Classic B&TB. Technically, it's true, but I know I didn't make the connection to "When the Bluebird Sings." At any rate, I did enjoy the story, and when I thought about it for a while, the notion that V&C's love was stronger than ANYTHING, even death, itself, was appealing.
The title for false advertising still remains with Black Cover as far as I'm concerned —- a "retelling of Beauty and the Beast, as one story was described, hardly prepares a reader for Catherine portrayed as a prostitute with Vincent as her trick. To be honest, I'm reluctant to order zines lately and wish that all editors would CLEARLY state EXACTLY what their zines contain. I NEVER again want to receive a zine that contains a story — unmentioned in the flyer — which has Vincent and Diana "involved" (I can't say the words ...) and THEN has Catherine return. Ick, Ick. Ick. I can't imagine what the purpose IS in writing something like this, but the author is entitled to do so and I am entitled to know BEFORE I spend my money.
[Sharon H]:It's obvious we are never going to agree on the issue of Catherine moving Below. I regard it as an empty gesture smacking of sexism, while you perceive it as a logical and natural progression of the relationship. Our difference stems primarily, I think, from one thing: what you see as humble and endearing in Vincent I see as obsequious and trite. I mostly disagree with the way he's written, and I'm sometimes disappointed over the fact that he could have been a more interesting and unique character than he turned out to be. I wish the writers had given him something other than platitudes to say, and that they had realized how ridiculous it was that Vincent never allowed Catherine to make her own decisions about their relationship.
I don't totally dislike Vincent. Physically, he is very attractive. Also, I have a certain intellectual curiosity about his origins. I've never regarded him as being human, since that would seem so boring. When he asks Father "Am I a man?" and Father replies 'Part of you is," I took Father to mean that behaviorally, and probably emotionally, Vincent is a man because he was raised with humans. I ever thought Father was suggesting that physically Vincent is half-human. Third, I truly respect and admire Catherine (even though she isn't real), and I figure if she loves him, he can't be all bad. I do just wish he had been better written. And I do think Father is to blame for a lot of Vincent's troubles (beyond the writing flaws). But it also does seem to me that Vincent places too much reverence on Father's words, which, tome, is somewhat unrealistic. Speaking of Father (a character whom, in retrospect, I'm beginning to think was not such a nice person or good parent), something occurred to me the other day. I find it interesting that he was accused of being a Communist by the HUAC, blacklisted, and then goes on to create what is, technically, a socialist society in the tunnels.
[Sharon H]: I totally disagree with you that the producers of B&TB aren't to blame for what happened. I think they are, for several reasons. Ron Koslow has said many times, particularly at a VQT convention, that he never had any trouble with CBS or felt that they excessively demanded certain things. This suggests one of two possibilities to me. One, Koslow totally agreed with what was being asked for (i.e. no kissing, no beast touching, etc). Several guests at conventions have suggested that this is the case. Or two, Ron Koslow is a man who lacks the integrity to stand up to the network and protect his show. Donald Bellisario did, and I truly admire and respect him for it, while I mourn our own misfortune in that arena. In either case, this, to me, puts the blame of what happened squarely on Koslow's shoulders. He is ultimately responsible for his own series.
[Sue K]:I agree with Barbara again on [Leslie H's] remarks on zine editors excluding Black Cover from advertisement (a moot point now, but let's pretend it isn't). I think that such zines should be included, with the understanding that some sort of warning of the controversial/adult nature of such a zine is clearly stated, and/or the editor makes clear that every potential buyer send a SASE for further information. It is then the responsibility of the author of said zine to make ABSOLUTELY CLEAR the contents of the zine if it goes beyond what is generally considered "adult fantasy" — i.e. something that includes strong elements of sexuality. I think most people will agree that Black Cover is a zine that goes well beyond what anyone would expect from something that calls itself merely "adult fantasy"—at least as established IN THIS FANDOM.
However — and I've said it before — even I would have to draw a line at certain things. If a zine ever appeared (God forbid) that included child pornography — well, I would definitely be for excluding that from advertisement. But, as I've also said before, that's MY line. For some that line is Vincent and Catherine in a sexual relation, for others Black Cover, for others (sadly) if s beyond mine entirely. We can only pray that such a situation never arises.
As for James Pirkola's letter — Barbara said it all. Mr. Pirkola, I know what fantasy is. (I've been reading SF and fantasy of all kinds since age 14.)That's why I choose what fantasy I want to embrace—and what I choose to reject. It's my decision. You publish what you want, and that's fine by me. I never had the least desire to buy Black Cover, and therefore was never in a position to review or protest it.
[Sue K]: I've heard personally of two high-profile individuals in this fandom who have claimed that Lynette and Kay "brought the C&D orders down on their own heads," and that this has nothing to do with the rest of us who produce creative B&TB works. I find this a very sad and disturbing attitude. It could have happened to anyone, folks. It could happen to any of us tomorrow.
[Sue K]: Recently, I entered into a professional arrangement with the author of a semi-professional publication called The Beauty and the Beast Companion to provide a cover painting of Vincent and Catherine for an updated version to be distributed by Random House. My personal dealings with the author were at all times cordial and pleasant, and at no time did I consider political "stance" in B&TB to be a relevant issue in terms of our professional relationship. This still holds true. However, it has been brought to my attention that one of the quarterly updates to the B&TB Companion, specifically the February issue, contains an editorial that is not only unprofessional in tone, but also criticizes and belittles fans of B&TB who hold views which I happen to share. To relate the contents of this editorial, which purports to analyze the split in fandom, is not necessary or desirable here; I'm sure it could be obtained in full else where. Suffice it to say that I wish, at this time, to fully disassociate myself from the contents of said-editorial or any future remarks of such a critical personal nature that may appear in future updates of the new B&TB Companion. Though I agreed to do the cover, my personal views are NOT represented by the contents or opinions of the author. Sadly, the author also sent personal letters of a somewhat vitriolic nature to friends of mine who took polite exception to some of his comments; in one such letter he opined that there were about 12 people in fandom whom he would not "allow" to buy his books. Also, I fear that by his own criteria, I would most likely be one of those unfortunate few.
[John William L]: Although I have long since wearied of the seemingly never-ending arguments which continue to go 'round & 'round over the perceived pros & cons of "classic" B&TB and Third Season (these are preferences, people, our points of view, not Holy Writs — can we please move on?), I am still compelled to respond to Gloria De Leon's LOC in the March'91 issue, which I personally found a bit disturbing, to say the least. Such anger, Gloria, which you state is growing worse, not better, seems to me unhealthy & out of proportion to the situation. You have a perfect right to your feelings & their appropriate expression in this zine (that is not what I'm responding to here), but to continue to harbor them & allow them to grow & fester within you will only damage yourself, not those towards whom you say they are directed. It is obvious, Gloria, that you've been deeply hurt, but I don't think it was by the producers of B&TB. I am saddened, & hope that by now you are feeling better. A couple of statements in your letter also have me confused. In one paragraph you say that you liked Diana from the moment you saw her. Then in the next you state that those who "profess" to like her over Catherine are from a group who originally didn't like Catherine, and these people wouldn't blink an eye if she (Diana) were killed under a subway train! Excuse me? Are you serious? As far as I'm concerned, nothing could be further from the truth! I loved and supported the character of Catherine AS MUCH as any of us (what was to dislike?), yet once the show took the turn it did, I also found there was space enough in my heart to like and accept Diana as well (I was very ready not to). I didn't have to "pretend" to like her at all, just as you don't have to pretend to prefer "classic" B&TB over Third Season. The Universe is big enough for ALL our points of view.
[John William L]: Although I realize I am probably in a distinct minority here, I would like to plug Ron Koslow's new series My Life and Times. I've seen two episodes so far and I'm hooked. It's about a man in the year 2035 recalling significant events in his past, and I've so far found within it many of the elements I loved in B&TB, particularly the episode "Jessie." Am I the only one who feels this way?
[Laura P]:I watched the second episode [of Ron Koslow's new series My Life and Times] last night. I missed the debut last week. I'm rather glad I did, as I'm feeling very betrayed. I never really blamed Ron Koslow or the writers for all the changes in Beauty and the Beast" -- I placed most of the blame on CBS, but now I can understand those who pointed fingers at Koslow and Co. The episode "Jessie" outraged me. Koslow took the liberty of using many recognizable elements from Beauty and the Beast. One in particular actually hurt to see. The basic story was Ben Miller's memories of meeting this woman he knew as Jessie. The initial meeting of the two used Father's first sight of Margaret. Ben and Jessie caught each other's eye as they passed in the street. When he went back to find her, she was gone. Sound familiar? This was the least offensive rehash. The next day Ben chances on her again when he sits down at a cafe and Jessie is on the other side of the glass partition. They spend a weekend together. If s the Fourth of July, and Jessie takes Ben to her grandmother's apartment to watch the fireworks. Now comes the thing that really hurt. This apartment had a balcony that looked a lot like Catherine's, and it looked out on a scene that looked like it came out of B&TB. There were sheer curtains that blew in the wind. I felt like Koslow was thumbing his nose at me and every B&TB fan. He could callously use Catherine's balcony like that!
[snipped, other perceived similarities between the two shows]
This is when I started swearing at the TV set. If Koslow had been in my living room, I'd have thrown something at him. By having Ben and Jessie share a dream of togetherness when it was impossible, I felt he mocked Vincent and Catherine's dream. Overall, I felt he trashed Beauty and the Beast with this one.
Perhaps others will feel differently. Perhaps Koslow actually means for My Life and Times to be an homage to B&TB. I couldn't see it that way. I feel he's either thumbing his nose at us and has no regard for our feelings, or he is a hack writer with nothing more original than what he gave us in Beauty and the Beast. Maybe if s a bit of both. But I'll not get suckered in again only to have my heart crushed. I won't watch this program again. It created the same kind of shock and pain I felt over 3rd season. Well, enough of this diatribe. I'm curious to how others have felt about this Koslow "creation." I'm sure it will ignite a lot of discussion.
[Laura P]: As to Pipeline and those who do or don't subscribe. I'm proud to say that I have never nor will ever subscribe to that publication. I have had occasion to read it and it never fails to antagonize me. Luckily, there are other sources of news and interviews, zine listings, and merchandise which don't include self-serving editor!
[Julie A. P]: I have no inclination, ever, to watch the so-called Third Season (I won't call it Beauty and the Beast now because it isn't), although, I wouldn't deny anyone else the opportunity, after all, everybody has the right to freedom of choice. I certainly wouldn't give anyone any names or labels either, although the same courtesy couldn't be respected by some people (Does the label "Naysayer" ring any bells to anyone!) What I will just say is that I hope Ron Koslow eventually will have the decency to undo — or somehow put to right — all the damage he and his merry band of men knowingly initiated to my beloved programme and reunite the lovers—so they are not lost forever — in the B&TB movie.
[Randie P]:I would like to direct this to the male B&TB fans. CBS wanted to bring more people to watch, so they thought they would dangle bait to help matters. Who were the major, important viewers? The fans, or someone else? Where did the strength lie with the Nielsens? It was the women who were the majority of viewers, but we were not strong enough. So who would be? It must be the male audience! What would draw mem to this show? I could see the executives of CBS sitting around a table clapping their hands together. "We need violence! Where do we begin? Get Catherine Chandler and give us TLBL." We do not have to go into those details again, we all know what happened in that. Well, men, did that give you a better enjoyment of our beloved show? What does CBS think our men, or the men we hope to have in our lives believe in? Is this what entertainment is? It is scary to think people do love, enjoy, and believe in this. Why can anyone not understand why we women love Vincent? He is everything we believe in. It is for the male audience that the consummation between Vincent and Catherine was done the way it was. (Why give them anything but roses and volcanos?) Did men who felt threatened by our love of Vincent want to see anything beautiful happen between this Man-Beast and a beautiful woman? It would hurt their ego. What was now important to ratings was, get to the "meat" of the show. One fan once called those of us who wanted to see something just a little more tender and visual happen between Vincent and Catherine "voyeurs." I did not want to see Vincent throw Catherine down on the ground and jump on her. But I thought there should have been a lot more dignity involved than Vincent looking at Catherine a little later and not even knowing her name. Was the road then being paved for the end?
Roseann S]:I strongly agree that it doesn't bother me that Vincent is not completely human (see also Sharon McCarthy's letter in #11). Whether you call it other world human-oid, throwback to prehistoric man, or animal makes no difference. Why are we so bothered by the term "animal"? We are all animals by nature, more intelligent perhaps, but considering the findings regarding dolphins and whales, perhaps not even that. It's not as if Vincent were a German Shepherd. He is an intelligent, compassionate, empathic being of a slightly different species, perhaps superior to humans. Maybe that's what bothers some people.
Perhaps the choice of the word "beast" is an unfortunate one that does drive some people away, but it only has that power if we give it an inhumane (rather than nonhuman) connotation. Anyone, even the most casual viewer who has watched a full episode, knows that Vincent isn't "that kind of beast."
Yes, [Rosemarie S], I agree. I have long believed that Koslow and the male writers saw Vincent as a nonhuman with some human characteristics, while the fans saw his humanness predominating over his nonhuman characteristics. That is why they were always reluctant to let the V/C relationship progress. They blamed it on the censors, but their internal censors were also at work.
[Sue K]: Regarding the hoped-for movie, I feel (believing as I do that no such movie will be made without Linda Hamilton) that we MUST have so we have acknowledgment of Season Three and resolve it — by whatever means necessary — in order to be free of the taint of sadness that still lingers.... I do feel Season Three must be addressed to heal the wounds it's left in so many of us, no matter how BRIEFLY addressed.
[Sylvia W-F]:I am blue. Why? You may well ask. Sometimes I feel so alone in my feelings about Beauty and the Beast (I need to spell it out — I need to feel close to the original feelings I had). No matter how many times I say, "I love this show, love these characters" — nothing can truly convey the depth of feeling I have and how wonderful it makes me feel when I watch the episodes. I hate the fact that I have to preface my comments with 'which' episodes or 'which' season. I hate that. I'm almost rendered speechless (and for me, that is impossible) by the thought (STILL!) that not every fan was pierced to the core by the (filmed only) death of Catherine. And that for a lot of fans, life went on. Over a year later and I still haven't come to 'terms' with what was shown in December of last year. I feel like I'm caught in a time-warp. I am one of the 'Catherine-prone' and 'Vincent-prone' AND Beauty and the Beast-prone, and I don't ever want to recover! So many people talk so eloquently about what they love about Beauty and the Beast — I tend to be redundant and I know it — but words totally fail me when it comes to explaining what Beauty and the Beast brought to my life.