web hosting short URLs photo sharing

With reference to the book as a collection of articles, License Denied is a fine compilation of some of the best fanzine writing of the last 20 years. A shame that Virgin made the book slightly outsize in a blatant effort to justify bumping the price up to #6.99, but still well worth the outlay: this anthology will be dipped into far more often than a typical Who novel.

My concern in this article is not with the collected content, though, but the lengthy editorial from Paul Cornell, and specifically his comments on fandom.

At one point Paul proclaims that "Fandom is almost entirely queer", later qualifying that by adding "Whenever I say in print that all Who is gay, I always get angry letters from some Local Group or other saying 'well, none of us are!' (I can imagine the meetings where they ask around. it must be a bit like The Crucible.) Let's be more precise then. The VAST MAJORITY of INTERESTING WHO is gay. " (Cornell's emphasis.)

On first reading, this statement angered me on two counts. First, for the use of sexual orientation (of whatever description) as being a guide as to whether someone is 'interesting' (and therefore, presumably, of any consequence or worth) and second, for the presumption that any Local Group disputing his hypothesis is ergo a witch- hunting group of homophobes.

Now I cannot speak for fandom as a whole, only that part which I know, aka The Unwilling Warriors and Great Parrot of Hades productions. Of this contingent, I know that at least one ex-member was gay, but to my limited knowledge (and, contrary to another of Paul's implications, I have no wish to pry further or censure) none of the current membership fall into that category. Conversely, and again with only limited knowledge, I hope and believe that any homophobia within the group is exceptional rather than a consensus, especially given that ,as Paul rightly states, gay fandom has inarguably contributed greatly to Who culture over the last ten years or so. I would not argue with Paul were he simply stating that the influence of gay fandom was significantly above the social norm, at least as far as commercial output is concerned. Where I do take offence is that he goes on to interpret this significance with an exclusive, almost judgmental attitude. At first sight, it seems like a bad case of reverse homophobia, which would be a pity for such a PC guy (pun intended.)

Stepping back though, I can begin to understand why Paul should make this claim (assuming that he is not simply being provocative for the sake of it (which would perhaps not be TOTALLY out of character...) As I have outlined above, he is, at least in part, correct; as far as Who's commercial output (New Adventures etcetera) is concerned, there is undoubtedly a very large gay contingent. The character of Bernice Summerfield, in the top three of every companions list produced since her creation, has been almost entirely shaped by gay males (The Divine Kate Orman aside), not least Cornell himself. Since this is the area of fandom that Paul knows best, it is perhaps a natural extension to conclude that the rest of fandom may have a similar makeup. Again, substitute 'published' for 'interesting' in Paul's statement and I really have no quarrel.

But, just as I cannot speak for fandom beyond my own experience, it ill-behoves Paul to do so, especially from such a privileged position. just because we are not exposed to such publicity, it does not mean that the rest of us have nothing of value to contribute. And maybe Paul should stop imagining what meetings of those Local groups who have written to him are like, and actually go to one: you never know, Paul, you may even find it is possible to have a group of Doctor Who fans in a room who are neither openly gay or slavering Neanderthals (well, not unless Mark S or Nicola B are on screen, anyway.)

At root though, I am on somewhat shaky ground arguing with Paul even here. Not because he is right - I stand by all that I have stated above - but because Paul is doing nothing more than carrying to a logical conclusion an argument I myself espoused in a previousOut of Time, in seeking to provide an exclusive definition of fandom. the only difference is that, as someone influenced more than anything by The Divine Kate Orman, my definition was political rather than sexual. I am sure that Paul would view my exclusion of those outside a loosely-formed liberal-left wing Consensus as a given; he has just gone one stage further. I would certainly say that was a stage too far, but it all amounts to onion rings. At the centre we have Paul, Gareth, Matthew and the rest of the New-Who 'mafia', who may well be almost exclusively gay, as well as being left-leaning humanists and Bloody Good Blokes. Then there are the rest of us: liberal, leftist to varying slight degrees, but outside the Inner Circle both practically and sexually. finally, the outer layers consist of the generally-agreed definition of Old Fandom that I excluded in my article: the Tories, the Pertwee / UNIT fans and those who still do not believe that Who reached a zenith rather than a nadir during the Graham Williams years. As I have done here, they too will argue that their voice is valid. Like me, they will be right. Still, again like me, they are still excluded, to a degree. And that degree is just a little bit greater.

In the end, I suppose what I am calling for is tolerance, almost in contrast to my article last year. Bizarrely though, I still stand b~ my original argument: there does need to be a homogenous core at the centre of fandom if it is to survive as a true subculture, not just a set of disparate, disappearing fan groups. We just need to accept that, just as Bulis and Peel somehow retain places in the action roster, the UNIT groupie, like those of us who unaccountably prefer the charms of Nicola B to Paul C, will always be around. I don't have to agree with the former, or Paul with the latter, but both groups still exist, and still deserve a voice.

After all this, I can only close by reiterating that License Denied itself is still a damned good anthology, and borders on the essential for those without complete collections of Skaro and Matrix. John Binns' article on Season 23 is worth the money alone.