NEW STATEMENT: Where's the Fire?
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | NEW STATEMENT: Where's the Fire? |
| Creator: | Leigh Arnold |
| Date(s): | November 1988 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | Blake's 7 |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
NEW STATEMENT: Where's the Fire? is a very early 1989 open letter by Leigh Arnold.
It was printed in Arnold's zine, Magnificent Seven #7 which has a copyright date of November 1988. This zine also contains a reprint of Press Release to Fan Clubs, Fanzine Publishers, Fan Artists, and Fans (dated early January 2, 1989), which means Arnold's essay appears to have been tucked some issues mailed in 1989.
The reason it is called a "new" statement is because the zine has another open letter called Statement: regarding the issue of bootlegging and cloning zines.
This open letter was also reprinted without crediting the author in Magnificent Tails #2 in February 1989.
Much (all?) of this essay was also included in The Federation Archives (Second Addendum) in March 1989.
Some Topics Discussed
- The Blake's 7 Wars
- fandom and profit
- the pro-cons being planned by Terry Nation and Paul Darrow
- well-behaved fans follow the rules
- Paul Darrow and Terry Nation are fans' friends
- greed and jealousy ruin things for other fans
- Paul Darrow, Terry Nation, and Michael Keating have a right to tell some fans who are unkind to stop using their characters in fanworks
- addresses the late 1988 open letter, Name Withheld By Request
The Open Letter
From the Essay
I had sat down and written a friend overseas about the so-called 'controversy' sweeping American B7 fandom, when I realised — there was no problem! Look at it. The hysterical original statements claimed that there would be control of the fandom, control of zines, of cons, of art. That just ain't happening. And it's not because 'Anonymous' and her hysterical friend jumped up to 'protect' us and save us. It hasn't happened because it was never going to happen.
At the time when I first received the statements, I assumed some points were gross exaggerations of some simple facts. That turned out to be true. I thought some other points were outright lies. That also turned out to be true. There are some facts which have remained fixed (although the pro-tour, still in its planning stages, is naturally subject to change) yet 'Anonymous' and her friend have misconstrued those facts from the beginning, and any attempt at clarification is called 'changing the tune'.
There was a claim, for example, that the pro-cons would be held in cities and at times to rival local fan-run cons. The locations of those cities depends on what the fans there themselves want. That has always been true. There was only city actually under discussion, however, where there is no regular B7 fan-run con, and where the fans were eager to be involved. That city was San Diego, and it was curiously not mentioned in the statements. Why? Perhaps because 'Anonymous' couldn't get anyone to panic over a con held in San Diego. Perhaps 'Anonymous' didn't have her facts at all straight. Or just perhaps 'Anonymous' was flat out lying in order to raise a lynch mob against Paul Darrow. If this one basic fact has been twisted, how much of any of her statement can one take as true? Very little.
There was a claim of art control, that certain artists would pay a 50% commission to join the pro con. The fact is that in addition, mark that. In addition to the usual art shows and auctions and the usual fees, some artists would he COMMISSIONED to do special art promoting the con (ie, t-shirts, mugs ... the sort of thing you see at any fan-con), for 50% of the profits. 'Anonymous' pulled two words out — 'commission' and '50%' — and tried to make that sound like control.
And then there's zine control, and I'm certain 'Anonymous' and her friends will make a big issue of this. A few writers and zine editors have already voluntarily blacklisted themselves. One admits so in the Federation Archives Addendum. Terry Nation didn't do that. Paul Darrow didn't do that. Janet Darrow didn't do that. They did it to themselves. Why? They like martyrdom, I suppose. I dunno. I do know that slash is not the issue but merely part of the problem 'Anonymous' and her friends are creating. At RevelCon in San Diego, we had a slash panel, and Terry Nation presided. We discussed the issue maturely and rationally. We didn't seek his approval and he didn't seek excuses. The panel broke up with UNDERSTANDING on all sides. Almost all problems can be cleared up in a rational, mature DISCUSSION.
I'm sure this will come up, so ... is it zine control if Terry Nation or Paul Darrow ask 'Anonymous' and her two friends to no longer use them or their creations in their zines? That depends if you think that after maligning Terry Nation and Paul Darrow, hurting him and his wife, and distressing many fans as well, one still has a 'right' to their faces and creations. Attorneys for Michael Keating and Paul Darrow have issued a cease and desist, that 'Anonymous' and her two friends are no longer allowed to use their images in anything, and I've no doubt that 'Anonymous' will start screaming that they are attempting 'control'. I think that a person would have a great, deal of gall to attempt any gain (be it monetary, fame, prestige, popularity or anything) from someone they've spent a great deal of effort to malign and hurt. Don't forget, it's Terry Nation's characters and universe, and I think he's been incredibly generous with it. It's his right to put a halt to anything that hurts him, however. Instead, he supports the fandom. But you can't ask him to support, people who hurt him, his creation, and his friends.
The biggest question I had to answer my overseas friend was: Why? Well, Paul Darrow and Terry Nation asked Laurie Cohen, because of her experience in setting up cons, to organise the pro-tour, and not 'Anonymous'. 'Anonymous', by her own admission in the Federation Archives Addendum, admits that Laurie Cohen asked her to be involved, and that she refuses to participate if Laurie Cohen is going to be 'in charge'. Think about it.
All this so-called controversy is because one woman got jealous. 'Anonymous', being who she is, went on the attack. If she couldn't have the pro-con, no one could. And she doesn't stop. If she can't have this fandom, no one else can. And she blackmails us further. She'll take the only real contribution she has to this fandom, her zines, and go home (this threat before the cease and desist order). Her friends will blacklist themselves and somehow it's the Darrows' fault.
No, the only issue is that instead of airing her grievances in private to the Darrows and rationally talking it through with them, she viciously attacked them in public and involved, and disrupted, the entire fandom, and in doing so, hurt two of the most caring people I know. I can't find any issues of control for the explained reasons. I see no 'sides' in this matter. There is right and there is wrong. Hurting people is wrong. Deliberately and cruelly hurting good people in one's envy is terrible. 'Anonymous' and her friends owe a lot of people some major apologies.
To me, the most horrible — and the most beautiful — thing happening, that has been caused by this woman, is the reaction of the fans. Those who swallow the allegations that there is a problem (especially of control) are risking ulcers for nothing. But the hundreds of fans who have shown Paul and Janet their support and love, and who have stood up against this nonsense, will have created a stronger fandom in the end.
Blake's Seven fandom is, to my limited experience, unique. I can't, think of another fandom where the actors have the care and concern for the fandom that the Darrows do. I've thought all along that we're very lucky to have such genuinely nice human beings so accessible to their fans. I now think we're doubly lucky that they, and Terry Nation, care so much. A lot of strong bonds are being forged here, not the least of which are the bonds between the actors, the creator and amongst the fans. I’m glad to still be a part of it all. Hang in there, folks, because I do believe we'll survive, intact.