SFX Magazine, JMS and Double Standards
Paul Harper
In the Paul Cornell page this time around, referring to a JMS piece at
the Gallifrey con in LA (quote) : "A guy near the front asked a fanboy
question, something very sad but within the realms of the reasonable.
JMS answered with a little sigh. Then he turned to the rest of the
crown and made the universal gesture of "wanker", a toss of the hand
that sent the audience, including the poor guy, in to ecstasy".
He then goes on to recycle old critisisms of B5 and JMS that we've all
seen many, many times before. Finally, on the same page, and by the
same author, we have the following requests: (quote again) : "Have you
ever copped off in costume? I want to hear who with, when and how. And
if SFX can legally print the photos, we will. Been to the bathroom
with an SF celebrity? Details please. Do you own telefantasu Pets?
We'll print the photos of Judge Fish and Londo the Hamster. Do you
write Slash Fiction? We'll print credited snippets from your
homoerotic telefantasy romance without comment (or payment)" (end
quote).
To me it seems clear why Paul Cornell is so sensitive about JMS'
"wanker" gesture - he has clearly been the recipient of many in his
lifetime - a process that judging by this column is unlikely to stop
at any time soon.
Curiously, the letters page in the same issue does pretty much what
Cornell objected to. Phil Packer from Borehamwood wrote in suggesting
a harmles little game called "six degrees of SF separation" where you
start with two words or phrases both within the realm of SF but on the
surface unralated. You then need to start building linke between them
so they connect. SFX's considered response to this harmless little bit
of fun? (quote) : "...try this one: Piss and Off. Stephen".
Well - good to see they didn't actually call Mr. Packaer a "wanker" -
just told him to piss off. Well that's OK then.
Would it be remis of me to describe the issue, the magazine and the
staff "wankers"? I believe not.
(ps SFX - this posting may not in any way be reproduced in print, so
don't even bother thinking about it.)
Cheers,
Paul.
(c) Paul Harper, 1999
--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
ICQ Number: 45462113
Jms at B5
gesture reported is not designated as one that calls the person asking the
question a "wanker," at least not in this country, though it may be in the UK.
It's more meant here as indicating that the person talking doesn't have a clue
and is just jerking around with the answer.
Though it's a moot point, since SFX is a fairly useless publication on just
about every imaginable front. Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so
little, with so much, for so long.
Wankers.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
Maybe now they aren't <that> good. Most of their crimes are those of
self-indulgence, and self-congratulation.
But it has to be remembered that:
o They supported and popularised B5 from the onset.
o They had the brilliant John Grant as a contributor.
o They have Dave Langford nth-time Hugo winner.
o They cover a wide cross-section of "the scene".
o Their paperback and hardback reviews have generally been very good.
--
Mark Bertenshaw
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991122011451...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
Jms at B5
>self-indulgence, and self-congratulation.
Having been a journalist myself, I also kind of have a problem with an editor
of a publication using that publication as a tool in a fanboy vendetta. But
that's just me, I'm whacky that way.
Tom Holt
The message <81f5am$ne3$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net>
from "Mark Alexander Bertenshaw" <Mark.Be...@virgin.net>
contains these words:
> o They supported and popularised B5 from the onset.
See this month's issue...
> o They had the brilliant John Grant as a contributor.
And then they fired him...
> o Their paperback and hardback reviews have generally been very good.
Well, the Star Trek novel reviews are always stunningly,
outstandingly brilliant...
Paul Harper
>But it has to be remembered that:
>
>o They supported and popularised B5 from the onset.
For the first 3 seasons or so. 'till they started hanging out with certain
disreputable con organisers and started spreading half-truths and indulging
themselves in fantasy-reporting. And the last 2 years don't even bear
thinking about since they've been on their anti-JMS parade.
>o They had the brilliant John Grant as a contributor.
Who is where in the magazine now?
>o They have Dave Langford nth-time Hugo winner.
The only sane voice in a wilderness of ineptitude. I just wish he'd write
in Dreamwatch.
>o They cover a wide cross-section of "the scene".
No they don't. They cover parts of it. The parts that are easy to report
on, or the parts with big tits. The difficult stuff they either avoid, or
get the readers to do (vis. this month's "do it yourself Terry Pratchett
interview").
>o Their paperback and hardback reviews have generally been very good.
Disagree. Any magazine that spends significant space praising "The Reality
Disfunction" in the basis on the weight and length of the book is more than
a little suspect.
All IMHO, of course <g>
Paul.
--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
" . . . SFX is a fairly useless publication on just
about every imaginable front. Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so
little, with so much, for so long." JMS.
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991124005759...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
> >Maybe now they aren't <that> good. Most of their crimes are those of
> >self-indulgence, and self-congratulation.
>
> Having been a journalist myself, I also kind of have a problem with an
editor
> of a publication using that publication as a tool in a fanboy vendetta.
But
> that's just me, I'm whacky that way.
>
Vendetta? Dare I ask what initiated this? And are you implying that all
the anti-B5 and anti-JMS articles are the enaction of this vendetta?
Personally, I have always wondered about the change of heart that SFX took.
It seems to me that it must have occurred in the Wolf 359 convention in
Blackpool. If you remember, the coverage of that event was highly promoted
and reported in the magazine, and if I'm not mistaken, you were given two
awards by SFX at the con. Then a couple of months later, I heard about your
criticisms of the organiser. And with Ms. Christian's departure from the
series, this is where relations seemed to break down.
Does this seem a fair summary?
--
Mark Bertenshaw
Brian Watson
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw wrote:
Check out deja.news for this. There was a lot of misrepresentation on the part
of the Wolf 359 folks when it came to where some funds where going, and if I
recall correctly, some guests were not even PAID after showing up.
Alison Hopkins
Brian Watson wrote in message <383DC80F...@cris.com>...
I think you'll find that the criticisms existed prior to that particular
Wolf. Also, it's still never been resolved as to whether all the money
raised at the charity auction - at lwast 20K pounds - ever got to the
charity. The actors' payment thing refers to VOR, I believe.
Ali
Paul Harper
>Personally, I have always wondered about the change of heart that SFX took.
>It seems to me that it must have occurred in the Wolf 359 convention in
>Blackpool. If you remember, the coverage of that event was highly promoted
>and reported in the magazine, and if I'm not mistaken, you were given two
>awards by SFX at the con. Then a couple of months later, I heard about your
>criticisms of the organiser. And with Ms. Christian's departure from the
>series, this is where relations seemed to break down.
>
>Does this seem a fair summary?
The awards were given by the *readers* of SFX. Not the magazine itself.
As for the rest, as usual, it's a lot more complicated than that. My
understanding of it is this (if anyone knows differently, or knows more,
please feel free to correct any misunderstanding on my part) :
The "problem" actually stems from a certain con organiser - part (and only
*part*) of the Wolf organisation. Way back when B5 was young, said
organiser started importing US taped copies of B5 episodes and started
showing them at public meetings. This is illegal here in the UK for both
copyright and certification reasons, and quiet words were had between the
B5 production office and this individual, who basically said he's stop the
practice.
He didn't. He carried on, just tried to be more sneaky about it. Since he's
not the sharpest pencil in the drawer, he failed miserably in his attempts
at subterfuge, and was taken to task once again, and issued assurances that
it wouldn't happen again. This is the reason Warner's despatches F.A.C.T.
people to conventions in the UK to make sure no Warner's stuff is shown.
Say thanks to this guy anyone who's ever been disapointed that there's no
B5 or Crusade shown at B5 cons over here.
Then came the first of the Blackpool cons, and questions arose concerning
the ultimate destination of money donated for charity. Assurances were
given that all was above board, and there were no issues. Stars were
photographed handing over cheques to Great Ormond Street children's
hospital etc. and all seemed well.
Another Blackpool con was set up, and the organisers promised that the
accounts would be made available at the end of the con to JMS and other
guests. Once again, questions arose over the charity auction funds. JMS and
others asked to see the promised accounts, which were not (and never have
been) forthcoming. This was the con where the Claudia Christian bombshell
hit, and JMS' notes for a lot of season 5 were destroyed by the hotel he
was staying at, so he understandably wasn't in the best of moods for
dealing with corruption issues.
Then came the Warner Bros. debacle over the public showing of "In The
Beginning" at the Warner's West End cinema. Warner's in their infinite
wisdom decided to use the Wolf organisation to contact fans who might want
to attend this event, which was a promotion for the forthcoming UK video
release of the TV movie. Unfortunately, it was decided to charge for the
tickets, which is against all sorts of US Actors Guild rules ("cinematic
presentation" or somesuch). So once again, Wolf is in the middle of a
controversy concerning cash and its ultimate destination. JMS stepped in,
and as a direct result of his intervention, fans were given refunds and the
event became what it was always supposed to be - a free one as a "thank
you" to the UK fans for their long-time support of the show.
Then comes the VOR con in the States, run by the same organiser, but
totally independent of Wolf. The budgeted 5,000 attendees turned out to be
around 1,500 for a wide variety of reasons - location and cost being the
main two. Given that the majority of the B5 cast were attending, the end
result was that some 90% of the speakers ended up either not getting paid
in full, or not getting paid at all. Nothing. Zip. In short, because of the
ineptitude of the organisers of VOR, most of the B5 cast were not paid what
they'd been promised. Quite why this failure was *their* fault, I have
never understood. As is his wont, JMS spoke up for the short-changed
actors, and was vociferous in his demands that they be paid what they'd
been promised.
Now in the middle of all of this, sits SFX magazine. Run by people who are
also not the sharpest pencils in the drawer, and who get taken in hook line
and sinker by the organiser's line that he's being victimised by these
nasty people (JMS in particular, but also the UK B5 group) and how unfair
it all is. They start to use this organiser and his lackeys as their main
story feed for B5 and JMS items. As a consequence, accuracy falls straight
through the floor, as does SFX's small remaining credibility with B5 fans.
SFX despatches an "independent journalist" to uncover the fuss over the In
The Beginning showing, and produces an article that manages to slate JMS
and the UK group without actually having dug *too* hard into the underlying
bad feeling. That a rabid defence of the organiser was posted to the UK
newsgroup a few months afterwards from the same PC used by the journalist
rather laid low any claim to impartiality from that quarter. She has denied
posting the message, but the computer's IP address is fixed, so it must
have been someone else using her PC then.
Around this point in time, the B5 production office decide they've had
enough of the stuff put out by SFX, and cut them off from any and all
communication. No press releases, promotional material, set visits, photos,
nothing. SFX comes to rely more and more on their "unofficial" sources of
information with an additional drop in quality.
SFX have never got over the fact that it seems to have been easy for the B5
production office to "cut them off", and this has coloured their reporting
ever since - despite the fact that they now seem to have severed their own
relationship with the con organiser. I don't know why they've done this. I
am curious, however!
I *think* this covers most of the events, in roughly the right order. I
have deliberately missed a few items out that are not directly relevant to
the JMS / SFX debate, but this is the broad overview from my perspective.
As I said at the top - feel free to correct any mistakes or omissions I've
made here.
Cheers,
Paul.
(c) Paul Harper 1999 - This article may not be reproduced in any form
without the author's permission. Permission is granted to the "JMS Digest"
organisation.
Jms at B5
Re: your synopsis.
Marry me.
Michael Ross
... vast and timeless snip
I'd say Paul has it spot on, certainly pretty much matches my
recollection of the bits I was involved in.
Mike
Rangers Catering Corps - 'We boil for the One, we fry for the One'
Gharlane of Eddore
Concerning Paul's cogent and objective history of the U.K. debacle(s),
In <19991127233413...@ng-fo1.aol.com>
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) writes:
>
> Paul...
>
> Re: your synopsis.
>
> Marry me.
>
Note that when this is reported in "SFX," the story will most likely
have metamorphosed into something like
"STRACZYNSKI COMES OUT OF CLOSET, HITS ON MALE FAN."
And they'll mis-spell "Straczynski" and get Paul's name wrong to boot.
Paul Harper
>Marry me.
With *these* hips? <g>
Paul.
Alison Hopkins
Jms at B5 wrote in message <19991127233413...@ng-fo1.aol.com>...
>Paul...
>
>Re: your synopsis.
>
>Marry me.
>
>
You'd end up with twins. With no hair! :)
Ali
Paul Harper
wrote:
>You'd end up with twins. With no hair! :)
OI!!!
I'll have you know that of my six kids, only one has little hair.
... and since she's only 8 months old, she has a good excuse. <g>
Paul.
Robbie
Alison Hopkins wandered over to the network, logged on to
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated on their newsserver and typed the
following...
>Jms at B5 wrote in message <19991127233413...@ng-fo1.aol.com>...
>>Paul...
>>Re: your synopsis.
>>Marry me.
>> jms
>You'd end up with twins. With no hair! :)
he's had a lot more than twins <G> - although twins have proved popular
with a certain fan run uk organization.
robbie
--
rob...@arakeen.demon.co.uk <*> rob...@arrakis.nu
want to know about uk.*? try http://www.usenet.org.uk
ukvoting webpages http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/
Alison Hopkins
Paul Harper wrote in message <384253b...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>On 27 Nov 1999 21:46:31 -0700, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>
>>Marry me.
>
>With *these* hips? <g>
>
Ever heard of childbearing hips?
Ali
Alison Hopkins
Paul Harper wrote in message <38426ce9...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>On 28 Nov 1999 10:40:41 -0700, "Alison Hopkins" <fn...@dial.pipex.com>
>wrote:
>
>>You'd end up with twins. With no hair! :)
>
Frightening gene mix, isn't it, dear!
>
>I'll have you know that of my six kids, only one has little hair.
>
>... and since she's only 8 months old, she has a good excuse. <g>
>
<snigger> OK, I'll allow you that.
Ali
norv...@sirius.com
(Gharlane of Eddore) wrote:
> Concerning Paul's cogent and objective history of the U.K. debacle(s),
> In <19991127233413...@ng-fo1.aol.com>
> jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) writes:
>> Re: your synopsis.
>> Marry me.
>
> have metamorphosed into something like
> "STRACZYNSKI COMES OUT OF CLOSET, HITS ON MALE FAN."
> And they'll mis-spell "Straczynski" and get Paul's name wrong to boot.
<giggle> <snort> Oh, forget the propriety... BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!
What I found truly ironic about the Paul Cornell SFX article quoted by
Paul Harper is that if Cornell is at all the way he used to be when he was
a "Doctor Who" fanboy, he's gay-friendly -- so it was just a bit bizarre
to have him sneering at fans who write gay fanfic. (Not to mention that
everything he wrote about B5 fans could go every bit as well for DW fans,
but it's apparently okay for Who-fans to be that way.)
Oh, fannish politics are *so* fun... :-p
Alison Hopkins
Robbie wrote in message
<3r834s4uq1rcvq434...@news.arrakeen.arrakis.nu>...
>In <81rlpa$em5$1...@lure.pipex.net> sent on 28 Nov 1999 10:40:41 -0700,
>Alison Hopkins wandered over to the network, logged on to
>rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated on their newsserver and typed the
>following...
>
>>Jms at B5 wrote in message
<19991127233413...@ng-fo1.aol.com>...
>>>Re: your synopsis.
>>>Marry me.
>>You'd end up with twins. With no hair! :)
>with a certain fan run uk organization.
>
Hey, I'm not documenting *all* his offspring, damnit..... :)
Ali
robbie irvine
message in rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated that I am replying to:
>>o Their paperback and hardback reviews have generally been very good.
>Disagree. Any magazine that spends significant space praising "The Reality
>Disfunction" in the basis on the weight and length of the book is more than
>a little suspect.
and only covering the *very* popular releases because they are by well
known authors. there is more to fantasy/sf than pratchet et al (not
that I've got anything against pterry - he writes a decent book and is
willing to come online like joe)
>All IMHO, of course <g>
I think a better indication would be how many people bought it every
month three years ago and how many buy it now.
But then I normally buy dreamwatch if anything now.
robbie
--
rob...@arrakis.nu <*> rob...@arakeen.demon.co.uk
want to know about uk.* ? try www.usenet.org.uk
ukvoting webpages http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/
Martin Hardgrave
<pa...@harper.net> writes
>Then came the Warner Bros. debacle over the public showing of "In The
>Beginning" at the Warner's West End cinema. Warner's in their infinite
>wisdom decided to use the Wolf organisation to contact fans who might want
>to attend this event, which was a promotion for the forthcoming UK video
>release of the TV movie. Unfortunately, it was decided to charge for the
>tickets, which is against all sorts of US Actors Guild rules ("cinematic
>presentation" or somesuch). So once again, Wolf is in the middle of a
>controversy concerning cash and its ultimate destination.
Just to make it explicit, it was decided by Warner's to charge for
tickets.
--
Martin Hardgrave
Tom Holt
The message <dvt44sods9n0vp220...@news.arrakeen.arrakis.nu>
from robbie irvine <rob...@arrakis.nu> contains these words:
> >>o Their paperback and hardback reviews have generally been very good.
> >Disagree. Any magazine that spends significant space praising "The Reality
> >Disfunction" in the basis on the weight and length of the book is more than
> >a little suspect.
> and only covering the *very* popular releases because they are by well
> known authors.
Not so; SFX reviews pretty well everything in the genre, including
most first novels from the mainstream publishers and a fair number of
small press releases as well (eg in this month's issue; "The Doctor's
Affect" [sic] from FX Fanzines; "Visitants" from "Bloodaxe Books"
[no, I'm not making this up]; "Digital Leatherette" from Codex) Last
year, the editor's choice for Book of the Year was a fantasy novel by
a previously unpublished author ('Colours In The Steel' by K J
Parker). Whatever reservations you may have about the quality of the
reviews, you can't fault them for coverage.
> I think a better indication would be how many people bought it every
> month three years ago and how many buy it now.
I think the circulation figures have been rising steadily for some time.
Brian Watson
> In article <38405b81....@news.demon.co.uk>, Paul Harper
> <pa...@harper.net> writes
> >Then came the Warner Bros. debacle over the public showing of "In The
> >Beginning" at the Warner's West End cinema. Warner's in their infinite
> >wisdom decided to use the Wolf organisation to contact fans who might want
> >to attend this event, which was a promotion for the forthcoming UK video
> >release of the TV movie. Unfortunately, it was decided to charge for the
> >tickets, which is against all sorts of US Actors Guild rules ("cinematic
> >presentation" or somesuch). So once again, Wolf is in the middle of a
> >controversy concerning cash and its ultimate destination.
>
> Just to make it explicit, it was decided by Warner's to charge for
> tickets.
Are you CERTAIN of this? My recollection is that those at the con (what an
appropriate name) decided to try to charge for the showing against Warner
Brothers and JMS's wishes. Considering that JMS seemed to agree with the
original poster, with marriage proposal and all, I don't think he'd have missed
such a major aspect of the carnival of snaffus.
Alison Hopkins
Martin Hardgrave wrote in message ...
>>Beginning" at the Warner's West End cinema. Warner's in their infinite
>>wisdom decided to use the Wolf organisation to contact fans who might want
>>to attend this event, which was a promotion for the forthcoming UK video
>>release of the TV movie. Unfortunately, it was decided to charge for the
>>tickets, which is against all sorts of US Actors Guild rules ("cinematic
>>presentation" or somesuch). So once again, Wolf is in the middle of a
>>controversy concerning cash and its ultimate destination.
>
>tickets.
With, iiirc, Wolf getting a handling fee.
Ali
John W. Kennedy
> Just to make it explicit, it was decided by Warner's to charge for
> tickets.
Just to put it a tad further, it was decided by yobs at Warner UK, who
hadn't bothered to check with or inform the parent company. (And when I
say "yobs", I mean it; British screen unions are even tighter with
rights than the US ones are, so they had plenty of reason to know that
it was a mistake not to clear it.)
I don't think it was ever made clear who was at fault when JMS checked
Warner (US) and was told that no charge was being made, which resulted
in JMS being put into a false position.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Christian Smith
>On 27 Nov 1999 21:46:31 -0700, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>
>>Marry me.
>
>With *these* hips? <g>
>
Yeah. You'd look a sight in the white dress.
Mind you after six kids a *white* dress is probably pushing it.
Perhaps red leather instead??
<g>
Christian
"Every new beginning is some other beginnings end..."
ICQ 45494039
(E_Mail: Remove "NOSPAM" from e-mail address when replying)
Alison Hopkins
Christian Smith wrote in message <38465eb9...@news.tesco.net>...
>Previously...On Melrose Place.... pa...@harper.net (Paul Harper) wrote
>
>>On 27 Nov 1999 21:46:31 -0700, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>>
>>>Marry me.
>>
>>With *these* hips? <g>
>>
>
>Yeah. You'd look a sight in the white dress.
>Mind you after six kids a *white* dress is probably pushing it.
>Perhaps red leather instead??
><g>
>
And Chris de Burgh is in a corner throwing up... :)
Ali
Paul Harper
>Perhaps red leather instead??
Grey, dahlinks, grey!!
Like Wonx's T-Shirt says "We are Grey. We stand between the bar and the
screen". Killer caption that!!
Paul.
Paul Harper
wrote:
>And Chris de Burgh is in a corner throwing up... :)
... be the most tuneful thing *he's* done in a long time ...
Paul.
The Nuclear Marine
Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> Paul...
>
> Re: your synopsis.
>
> Marry me.
>
> jms
>
Joe, if you were married to Paul, we would all be worried.
nuke catting out of sight of the bbs, pcbh, b13 and thd.
=======================
Smile, you're being posted on the internet
Robbie
-0700, Paul Harper wandered over to the network, logged on to
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated on their newsserver and typed the
following...
>chri...@tesco.net (Christian Smith) said :
>>Perhaps red leather instead??
>Grey, dahlinks, grey!!
>Like Wonx's T-Shirt says "We are Grey. We stand between the bar and the
>screen". Killer caption that!!
screen and the bar
but thank you... I aim to please with captions <G>
robbie - available for advertising and T-shirt slogans
Christian Smith
>>chri...@tesco.net (Christian Smith) said :
>>>Perhaps red leather instead??
>>Grey, dahlinks, grey!!
>>Like Wonx's T-Shirt says "We are Grey. We stand between the bar and the
>>screen". Killer caption that!!
>
>screen and the bar
>
>but thank you... I aim to please with captions <G>
That's it. Put him right Robbie.
Mind you Paul's getting to that sorta age now where things get a
little confused.
Gotta admit though it makes him a great friend- helps you forget your
problems <g>
;-))