Frienz/Issues 35-36
| Related terms: | |
| See also: | Frienz |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
Frienz is a gen and non-explicit slash Starsky & Hutch letterzine.
They contain letters, want ads, con reports, clippings, flyers, and occasional fiction.
Issue 35 (March 1996)
Frienz 35 was published in March 1996 and contains 23 pages.
- TOTM: What if neither Starsky or Hutch decided to become cops? How else might they have met, worked together, and become friends?
- That Voice by K Hanna Korossy (also in Black Bean Soup)
- Honesty's the Best Policy, fiction by Courtney Grey
- Alison gives fans a sneak peak into the planning/making of the UK documentary series by Granada Television Channel 4 Television here about 1970s police series
Issue 35: Sample Fan Comments
About a fan's letter in the previous issue:
I was sorry to hear of [KHK's] experiences with some S&H fans. As she tells it, it sounds like the worst kind of intolerance, something I thought was long gone from this fandom. My hope is that she was just very unfortunate in meeting the people who treated her in this way, and that such people are, as I believe, in the minority. Which isn't to say it was any less unpleasant. But, [KHK], it was good to see you recognise the positive things about S&H fandom. The warmth and generosity extended to newcomers, and the close-knit, almost family feeling that has prevailed for so many years.
It is true that for along time 'slash' was predominant, and the fanfic certainly reflected that. Recently though, the balance has been redressed somewhat, and non-slash fans feel a little more comfortable in the present climate. In all walks of life we have to co-exist with people who hold different views to our own. I thought we'd learned to do that in this fandom, and hope I'm not wrong.
Regarding the closure of the lending library:
Commiserations on the demise of the Library. I'm sorry it had to happen, but support your stand entirely. You gave sufficient warning, and it was ignored. I suppose it's not Technology as such that is to blame, but, as ever, human failings, and yes. stupidity.
More on the closure of the lending library:
Well, I'm bummed beyond words over the library issue! I was going to get some old zines to read, guess I'll just have to imagine what the stories were like! What ever happened to that Privacy Act, huh? I've been around fandom long enough to know when someone says don't do it, you generally don't. Ah well...anyone got some old zines they'd like to loan me?
About the lending library closure:
I’d like to say how sorry I am that the Fanzine Library has gone out of business because of afew fans (or only one?) who couldn’t manage to mind their/her own business. I think it’s a sad commentary our current computer-based life that so many things are now out of our control. There’s no longer any such thing as being able to keep a secret. Somebody somewhere can find out anything at all about any of us if they know where to look. While that’s true for government agencies, banks/lenders, credit agencies, employers, etc., I like to think that those of us in fandom still retain some integrity and respect for our fellow beings. Obviously, I’m living in a dream world. The fan who took it upon herself to spread the word about the lending library on the ’Net, particularly after she had been asked not to, had no integrity, in my opinion. People who scan in whole zines without asking permission of the writers or publishers also have no integrity. We may not be able to do anything about those practices, or prevent them from happening again in the future, but it’s a destructive attitude that I loathe. Some people don’t understand the concept of courtesy, as in "May I steal your story/novel/zine and scan it onto the ’Net where anybody on earth, including minors, can print it out, and own it without paying you for all the months of hard work you did to produce it in the first place?" Makes my blood boil!
About the lending library closure, comments by Terri Beckett:
Not a good way to start a New Year, is it, when the great idea of the fan library has to be shelved because someone went public. I can understand why we have to be careful -- one of the problems with the Net is that there are no sureties, and no safeguards. However, when I started writing SH, and sending it over to U.S., I hadn't met any of the recipients face to face - -contact had been purely by letter. And naively I trusted in what those letters told me. Maybe that could be an answer -- the Library is too good an idea to die, but access can surely be restricted by some means? I wouldn't want any genuine fan to be deprived, nor, I am certain, would anyone else.
About the lending library:
News of the loss of the library must come as a disappointment to many people. But it's easy to sympathize/empathize with Barbara in the intrusive publicity thrust upon her without consent or consultation. Disturbing, worrying. The library was doing good work thanks to Linda for its inception and to Barbara for her time and her involvement. It was a great idea. Could there ever be any possibility of revival — could safeguards be devised? Facile optimism? - no sure way of preventing the unimaginative or the unscrupulous from simply disregarding POV and priorities other than their own here? So - must all stock be returned to donors or otherwise dispersed? One clings to the hope that one day there could be a way around this.
More on the lending library:
Final note regarding the former zine Lending Library: the person who runs the Zebrathree e-mail list, coincidentally a former Library member also, checked into the matter and assures me that the Library was not publicly mentioned on the list. She thinks what happened is that the guy who wrote me heard about it in "private" e-mail from someone else he met via that list.
This is some comfort; however, it still doesn't address my basic concern, which was, who is this guy and does he know about slash, etc.? Linda McGee and I discussed this further and agreed to accept this incident as a good, no-damage-done warning. If we’d kept the Library open, it was bound to happen for real sooner or later. Another former member has also spoken of the former Library listed in something like 'chain e-mail', which she said was distributed so indiscriminately that they couldn't trace it back to the source. This is not reassuring. So the upshot of it all is, apparently the Zebrathree list was not at fault here, but the Library will not be resurrected nevertheless.
Linda and I agree we have an obligation to protect not only ourselves, but also the writers and publishers of these older zines, most of which came out before the computer nets even existed.
For those who say S&H is a dead property and Spelling-Goldberg or whoever have nothing to gain from it any more, I would mention in passing that in the last month or so I have acquired two S&H shirts, both of which carry 1995 copyrights.
Dangers of the internet, a pre-Nipplegate, pre-Strikethrough moment:
I don't have first hand knowledge of problems with the Internet, but I heard that America Online, in response to the recent uproar from politicians about on-line pornography, shut down all the billboards and user names which had certain "offensive" words in them. Breast was one of them and all the breast cancer survivors who were linking up on America Online were hopping mad about it. Those boards were restored after much publicity.
Distress over perceived discrimination, comments by Terri Beckett:
I was distressed by [KHK's] letter. I had thought (hoped) that the current attitude in tolerance and open-mindedness, and fandom was one of those of us who liked slash or gen or, like me, enjoyed both, we happy to let others --- I am their preferences. I thought the bad old days were over, very sad indeed that I was wrong. [KHK], all I can suggest is that you ignore those who condescend, snub, or look down on you. Try not to let them hurt or upset you. The people who matter do none of those things.
About the zine: Above & Beyond:
The great news this month is that our zine. Above & Beyond, is DONE! Not that there was any. ahem, doubt, but I'm glad it's completed. See the ad (I hope) elsewhere in this issue for details. Ironically. I already had a comprehensive S&H guide in the works for inclusion in A&B several months before the topic came up in the last issue; apparently it was time for anew one to come out. Hope you enjoy, and let us know what you think!
Support for gen zines:
You are not the only S&H fan who isn't into S/H; I'm glad that your zine will be a gen zine and wouldn't have submitted something if it were slash. I hope that 'live and let live' is the watchword for this fandom I've so newly wandered into. I will only note that it strikes me as interesting that there is so much slash in fandom: S/H and Crockett/anyone, being examples from fandoms I'm familiar with. I also hope that you will do A & B II. but that's like asking a pregnant woman when she's going to have her next child, isn't it?
About some recent acafan books:
I just discovered a book recently that some seem to think old news and others have never heard of, but I was delighted with the find and I thought I'd share it. It's called Enterprising Women, and it's by Camille Bacon-Smith. In short, it's a mundane book about fandom -it even has a Suzan Lovett (ST) illo on the cover! But it covers S&H too. of course. Another similar book that's been brought to my attention is Henry Jenkins' Textual Poachers. Both look fascinating, and I can’t wait to getting into them.
Regarding slash, comments by [KHK]:
I also am sure that there are many well-written slash stories. That wasn't my point, though, Tabby. What I was trying to say was that psychologically, from a purely objective standpoint, such a relationship would not be healthy, no matter how fulfilling and idyllic it may be written in fanfic. Speaking of which, Linda, police regs discourage, if not outright forbid, lovers being partners, not gay lovers. The PD might be courting homosexuals (no pun intended), but they do not like romantically involved partners. It clouds judgement and thinking, and can impair the effectiveness of the team. There was even a whole TV series built on the premise that two married officers must keep their marriage secret in order to remain partners (MacGruder & Loud starring S&H guest star Kathryn Harrold). Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.
Also, Linda. I am bothered by your reference to “the only missing element." Since when is sex the only missing element in a close relationship? That doesn’t give humankind much credit, that a beautiful, intimate and loving relationship is missing something if it doesn't include sex. God forbid I go that route with all my closest friends! But perhaps you mean the physical, as opposed to sexual. Well, don’t they have that already? They are always keeping physical contact, more so than any other buddy duo I've ever seen. That was actually one of the things that attracted me to them in the first place. The physical need not include erotic or sexual, that’s just one of the forms it can take, and it’s all-too-often the lowest common denominator.
Okay, now that I’ve made myself intensely unpopular. I'd also like to add that I still maintain my lack of interest in censoring others' reading material. My initial reference to slash was part of a discourse on realism, and was objectively, not emotionally supported. What I felt about it personally had nothing to do with it. I'm sorry that has also become an issue as well, but please note that it was not I who made it so.
No way, no gay cops:
Part of my belief that S&H are not homosexual is based on what my police friends tell me now much less 20 years ago when homosexuals stayed in the closet or else. While there are laws to protect people from being fired for their sexual orientation, you can not legislate people's opinions. If a cop were openly homosexual 20 years ago, I don't think they would have lasted very long. I refer you to the movie Serpico. based on a true story. The cop nearly died because he was abandoned by his fellow officers. His crime? Informing on crooked cops, which is breaking the code of silence. Another still widely accepted part of the code, from everything I have been told, is that you are heterosexual. There are exceptions, especially in cities like San Francisco, with significant openly homosexual populations, but that is still the exception rather than accepted. I don't agree with that point of view, but it's still there in law enforcement.
Issue 36 (May 1996)
Frienz 36 was published in May 1996 and contains 28 pages.
- TOTM: Tell me something I don't know about the pilot episode, or episodes "Savage Sunday," "Texas Longhorn," "Death Ride" or "Snowstorm." "What do we find out about these strange looking cops?"
- there is a long description of seeing Paul Michael Glaser at a Pediatrics Aids Foundation auction/cocktail party; it is an excellent portrayal of a fan's enthusiasm, emotions, and feelings about simply being in the same room as one's idol
- a fan's memorial for Joan Hoyland who had passed away in March 1996
- long comments on Distant Shores, see that page
- "I'm not just a screeching-tire person": David Soul of 'Starsky & Hutch' would also like to be known as a singer and film producer" - reprinted article from TV Guide, August 13, 1977
- He Said, He Said; older link, fiction by K. Hanna Korossy (also in Black Bean Soup)
Issue 36: Sample Fan Comments
From the editor:
It's been an enjoyable 2 years since I started as Editor of FRIENZ, succeeding Pat Massie who began FRIENZ. I want to thank everyone who has contributed letters, stories, art, interesting info about the series, or PMG & DS etc. Together with all our readers: you all make each issue of FRIENZ POSSIBLE! Thank you all!
A fan has lost touch, but now is back:
I'm a fan from the 70's, who could never quite forget the cop show about the two guys that had that special relationship. I'm a Starsky fan and I kept up with Paul Michael Glaser for quite awhile, but started to lose touch when he went behind the camera. Every now and then. I'd think fondly of that wonderful show and wonder why it was never rerun here. Luckily my dream was realized when TNT started showing the series again (cut episodes and all) What I find amazing is that after all these years I still love it as much or even better! I have had lots of favorite TV shows throughout the years, but when I see them again I think-- "I used to like that....?" There's just something timeless about Starsky & Hutch. I really regret what I call "wasted years". If I had only known about Starsky & Hutch fandom back then, I'm sure I would have remained a fan throughout the "dry spell". I'm just happy to have found it now, and I treasure all the wonderful friends I've made.
From the long description of seeing Paul Michael Glaser in person:
The three of us moved to get a better view of him, and followed him with our eyes as he made his way to the auction area at the front of the room. Kathleen and I stood giggling, gasping and gushing like two schoolgirls, making very appreciative remarks, and commenting on Paul's every move. He still has that confident, sexy stride, and looks WONDERFUL!! He wore gray slacks, with a black shirt and blazer. His hair's growing out and has no hint of gray.... I kept thinking how MARVELOUS it'd be to run my fingers through it! He turned around twice, giving me a glimpse of his incredible, electric blue eyes. SIGH!!... Amazingly, I've remained calm, though driving home from the function, I'd ask, a la Hutch in 'Tap Dancing,' for someone to pinch me, and Kim, like Starsky, obliged. I still get goosebumps when I realize what happened. MY GOD!!!!
From a fan's description of the documentary, Without Walls: C4PD Starsky and Hutch:
In March, Channel Four screened the half-hour documentary on Starsky and Hutch, part of the "Without Walls" serial on Cop Shows. All four principals were interviewed, they came across as positive and happy to talk about those days I thought the documentary was excellent, with a perfect choice of clips to illustrate each aspect of the show. Questions about clothes and fashion notwithstanding, they really come alive when talking about The Relationship. Antonio speaks of "the humanity of these characters" while David clearly enunciates "the strength of the whole show lay in the fact that "Starsky loved Hutch and Hutch loved Starsky." He leaves a pause between each word; there is to be no misunderstanding. He explains that the "me and thee" of Ken and Dave has its roots in the relationship of David and Paul Michael and their professional attitudes to the television industry Paul says "Our chemistry was such that I didn't even have to look at Davey to know what he was doing".
The appeal of Hutch the sufferer:
You raise an interesting question regarding fan history's version of Hutch's childhood. I do agree that there's nothing in the episodes to prove an unhappy childhood, and as for the guilt complex, it is Hutch, after all, who tries to counsel (not very successfully) a guilt ridden Starsky in "Blindfold". But somehow, the idea of Hutch suffering every step of the way fascinates me and draws me to his character, and I can’t leave the idea alone.
Regarding the book, Textual Poachers:
hope you can get hold of TEXTUAL POACHERS. Having had a very small hand in it, I was fascinated to read the complete thing.
Permanent changes in fiction, and canon:
That’s an interesting point about the non-'happily ever after’ stories. Sometimes the quick fixes and happy endings are cop outs, especially with far reaching traumas such as rape or paralysis. But there's also a problem with pieces that permanently alter the S&H universe. Those stories can happen anytime along the tenure of S&H as cops, they have lo happen at the end (when and wherever that may be), because they affect anything that will follow. That's the dilemma of all death and permanent injury and future stories; unless done very carefully and very well, they’re hard to accept because they're so, well, permanent.
A fan thinks S&H fiction is very dark:
Downbeat as in, not the people or their personal experiences with fandom (though two more trouble-ridden stars you'd be hard-pressed to find), but at least the fanfic. I can speak out of long experience with many other fandoms -- S&H fanfic is in general the darkest I've ever read. Fatalistic, I guess, would be the proper word, h/c stories that always seem to end with well, "we got lucky this time, but what about the next?"... or visions like Teri White's alcoholic Hutch. I wish I knew why that was.
A fan, Terri Beckett, comments about a man (likely a reporter) emailed someone about fandom and slash:
... with reference to the e-mail fiasco, how the guy knew about slash? Well, it's hardly a secret in Trek fandom, after all, and it doesn't take much of a leap of the imagination to transfer the idea across. I don't know enough about Internet to suggest safeguards, but as I said in my last letter, in the beginning I sent a whole load of material to people I didn't know except from letters -- often just letters in the l/z. Naive, perhaps, but I trusted to their integrity. In most cases, I still do. I don't know half of the people who ordered the RED LIGHT trilogy, or the ones who are getting the THRESHING FLOOR pieces. LoCs are not compulsory. I have to trust them -- or just not share. And I want to share. Seems to me that retreating into our shell is a retrograde step, and, like Tabby, I am wondering if there could be safeguards. S&H fandom shouldn't be a secret society!
Terri Beckett wonders about putting together a zine of her, and Chris Power's, stories:
Interesting to see that an Alexis Rogers retrospective is on the cards. After fielding some enquiries [sic] about our o/p stories, Chris and I thought about doing a collection of our joint efforts, but even without the trilogy, this would be a mammoth enterprise. Nor do we have scanning facilities, alas. But if anyone out there would care to take on the job, please get in touch. Likewise if you'd just like to see a collection. If enough people were interested it might be worth the effort!
One fan's views of early episodes (and while she doesn't mention it, these views would have transferred over to fanfic writing):
In those early first-season episodes, there was a tendency - remarked on at the time by fans -- to see Hutch as the White Knight, with Starsky as his somewhat reluctant Squire. Whether or not it was the intention of the producers to project this image, is hard to say. There is some evidence for it -- Hutch, the hero, Starsky, the light relief. There was also, then, more emphasis on the action, and some gratuitous violence (toned down as the series progressed). In "Snowstorm," for instance, there is an aggressive feel to the whole episode, with nobody giving any quarter, yet it's also exhilarating and exciting, with nice touches of humour. S&H tend more to ride roughshod over everyone, regardless of the consequences. In comparison with later episodes, they appear immature.
Regarding power dynamics, and the differences among "obeying," "dependence," and "interdependence":
[B's] letter also invites our response to a very large and very important question. She quotes a statement from one of her correspondents, 'In a marriage the wife should obey and defer to her husband.' Well, if that's what the lady wants, she has free choice. But like [B], I also would 'respectfully but vehemently disagree'. For one adult, presumably in possession of her own faculties, her capacity for judgement, her intelligence, to accept obedience and deference as intrinsically due to another adult, seems to me a questionable undertaking. An intelligent woman couldn't do it? An intelligent man wouldn't need or want it.But each to her/his own. Just the way I see it. Marriage can be a great and enabling institution and men (like human beings generally) are a great invention. But obedience, deference, domination, upper hand, seem such sad and limiting bases for a good relationship. Compromise, as in any relationship, is always a factor. But to say - 'one or the other is usually dominant or getting the upper hand' is a long way from rational compromise. A two-way, enriching, equal relationship doesn't think in such terms. But maybe to some temperaments and situations, those concepts make an acceptable framework for a shared life To me, they say stultifying and sad. The picture which [B] has cited reminds me of that 17th century Miltonic set-up (in 'Paradise Lost/the Book of Genesis story) — 'He for God only, she for God in him.' Please — NO! But we make our own choices ...and if it works for you ... I know so many people for whom it would NOT work, who would see it as a reversal of potential enrichment.
[B] relates her question to SH. I'd see that as a complementary relationship, an interplay of human and professional strengths and weaknesses. They would have too much respect for each other and for themselves to think in terms of obedience or deference, etc. They're different - no problem. Sure, there are the put-downs, the disarrangements, the insults — the games they play. Both know what they're doing. They're realistic, experienced, adult enough, not to go for the sort of relationship which [B's] letter was quoting.
Partnership dynamics and comments by [KHK]:
Thanks for not mentioning my name, but I'll incriminate myself because what you said didn’t sound quite like what I meant. Yes, I still believe in that old adage of wives obeying their husbands, which is biblically based, if nothing else.But I also think this is possible without diminishing yourself or losing anything. I simply mean that no matter how well two people get along, sometimes, no matter how much they work things out, they still will not agree occasionally, and one will have to give. I don't mean about deep moral issues that mean going against the core of your beliefs, but the myriad daily, more minor decisions. If two people are completely unwilling to give in to the other on occasion (and sometimes the husband does give, out of love for his wife), you have two incompatible people. S&H, I think, work the same way, though there’s no ’designated head.’
Sometimes one is incapacitated and the other obviously must take over fully, but otherwise, their, as well as any other partnership, is a series of assertions or compromises - eating at Starsky’s greasy spoon instead of at some health food spot, taking the Ford one day instead of the Torino, backing up your partner even if you don't necessarily agree with him. Does that make any sense?
A fan suggests to another fan, [KHK], that perhaps she should use some different, less judgemental words:
Yes, I did understand the point you wanted to make in Frienz 34. My point was simply that, with concepts, priorities, values, so various among human beings, including SH fans, it seems, perhaps, less than constructive to label as ’unhealthy.'
Another fan addresses the anti-slash comments by [KHK] in the previous issue:
Given that you don’t ‘see’ the possibility of S&H as lovers and never will, and I do see the possibility and never won’t. I had intended to not respond to any comments of yours that involve discussion of this issue.But you specifically questioned my reference to sex as the only missing element in the SH relationship. It is the only missing element were they to form a monogamous lifetime commitment.
I think most of us dream of finding one person to share our lives with. Ideally, a ‘soul-mate.’ In most eases, a marriage partner, but -- where laws make marriage an impossibility -- a monogamous relationship, regardless. As I've said before, S&H are already best friends. The trust is there, the love is there, the common interests are there, the shared values and philosophy of life (as separate from cosmetic differences like tastes in food and cars) are already there, and the willingness to sacrifice and die for one another is there. When a person marries or makes a similar commitment, all the previous elements should be present. And in these circumstances, sex is usually an important component. There's ample evidence in the series that it would be for S&H. So when I said that sex is the only missing element, I was referring to what would be involved in this type of commitment.
Of course both parties have other friends and interests, but in a marriage, the marriage partner should be number one. If we accept S&H as real people and try to imagine what happens off-camera, as those in fandom do, we have three possibilities for their future: 1) they continue to be primarily committed to one another and continue a series of meaningless, or meaningful-but-ultimately-temporary encounters with women to satisfy their (well-established) need for sex: 2) one or both marry [a woman], which would necessarily reduce the work partner’s importance in his/their life; 3) they expand their partnership to include the sexual element. I personally prefer option #3.
You don't need to write in and tell me that you don't agree. I know you don't agree, and, whether you believe it or not, I have no interest in trying to change your mind. And you know I don’t agree with you. So let's just forego meaningless debate and practice a little of the tolerance you say you want from others, okay?
The fan, [KHK], who'd made anti-slash comments is, however, is happy to say "yay" to new fans who are "anti-slash", citing "diversity":
...thanks for the encouragement. As you say, perhaps balance was all that was missing, and with so many of the newer fans apparently non-slash, I think we're getting there. It's been a pleasure recently meeting so many of the brand new people through Caroline’s Black Bean Soup, who are so enthusiastic and eager to learn, and are bringing their own talents and viewpoints to fandom. Diversity at its truest and finest. As someone wrote to me recently, it's almost like the 'second generation of S&H fandom’. And it's exciting to see!
A fan implores others to put down the partisan flags:
Live and let live is two-way. Shouldn't be any problem? S&H fandom, just like the human race, is diverse - can be a very positive feature. I'd never want our fandom to become any sort of confrontational battle arena, echoing to rallying cries (such as one I recently read), exhorting fans to join in some fight against whatever evils some 'crusader' perceives as pernicious — to gather behind some battle banner in the cause of condemning someone else's POV. Right, — 'Live and let live.' Imaginations take off in all kinds of directions.' It may be misleading to equate any particular certainty with some universal, exclusive truth. SH fandom contains a wide variety of POV — of course, it does. Nothing could change that? Shouldn't be a problem.
A fan writes that she hasn't contributed to this letterzine in a long time because of bickering:
The fun that I had at SHareCon is what happens when fans get together and celebrate a likeness, if you will; something they have in common with others and wish to share their joy with like people. Something that seems to be missing in recent months in this newsletter.For the past six months, I have read nothing but bickering and bitterness between certain people regarding the slash and gen issue. While this may make for interesting, and possibly, intellectual conversation, the past few months have shown nothing of the sort. Yes, there are fans in Starsky & Hutch that are slash fans.
And yes, there are fans in Starsky & Hutch that are strictly gen. By now, we know who likes what and why. For those we don't know, they have remained silent, and that's all right, too. Your belief is your belief. No one is out to change your mind or the minds of others. It's just how they see things (gen or slash), and what they enjoy in the fandom. I respect the fact that people such as (insert name here if applicable) enjoy gen S&H, and others (insert name here if applicable) enjoy slash D&H.
What I don't respect is that when the opinions of "gen-ners" an/or "slash-ers" get in the way of others' enjoyment. Several people I've spoken with have either quit writing or ended their subscription because this debate is getting old and tiresome. As this debate is probably ongoing, do you think we could keep it out of Frienz since we all know where everyone stands? I, myself, don't wish to nick-pick, but I've been standing on the sidelines for too long deserve to have my say. There are so many other topics to discuss besides the rightness or wrongness of slash and/or gen.