LettersJonathan Burt I thought FHE #2 was an excellent effort, ranking with Star Begotten as the most enjoyable fanzine about, and far above DWB's glossy pretentiousness and CT's newslessness! The articles were well thought out and very witty, especially the brilliant Dapol one - it confirmed my fears about the toys. I thought that nearly £40 for a few plastic bits and pieces - which included the Doctor's greatest enemy, Mel - was ranking only with £65 for the video of the first two Star Trek Next Generation episodes! I felt the remark about apathy was pretty accurate on the letters page - I'm amid A-levels and still writing to fanzines. Apathetic fandom can be visualised as being synonymous in the section of the plethora of Doctor Who fans, as old P+J might say. Talking of whom, I agree with the adjective "leathery". Very good descriptive word, especially after reading the ridiculous interview in DWM! I must say I agreed with practically everything Ian Levy said on 'Rani: it was possibly even worse than The Twin Dilemma. However, I must state that the Tetraps do not deserve the description "not too bad", because they were atrocious. Because of their appearance - pot-bellied men in bloody stupid costumes - and the general twee twaddle we got last season, I know now fans who have packed it all in and moved on to new pastures. Not even offers of Talons of Weng-Chiang or Deadly Assassin can arouse them from their state of confused despair and reorientation. So I have a lot of reasons to hate Season 24, although to be fair, 'Bannermen was worse than 'Rani - that bloody awful music was too much - and Dragonfire was the best story of a thoroughly bad lot. At least it had a decent plotline and acting (except for Bonnie - why did she decide to make "acting" her career?), and a brilliant villain. Pity you decided not to review it. I would give it a DWB-style rating of circa 60-70%. Let's hope S25 will be a bit more like that: less of the Tetraps, Bulb Flashing Monsters, Bannermen and Keff McCulloch, and more of the Kanes of this world. Personally I think you did Andrew Day a great service. I too used to like JN-T until I got most of the old stuff, and I now realise what sheer dross he does serve up. I seem to have a morbid fascination with comparing 'Rani to Underworld or Power of Kroll - it's surprising just how much better the Baker efforts are, despite their appalling (and rightly appalling) reputation in fan circles. I shall pass over the Mawdryn article as being pointless and overtly complex (ie. impossible to understand). I have tried my best! The so-called "terribly pompous pseudo-intellectual article" was a real bonus; thoroughly enjoyable and learned and absorbing. Probably the best article I've read all year, in fact, on these heavy topics (I'm tackling 'The Unfolding Text' now!). The other articles were less good - I've always hated Star Trek and the idea of making Doctor Who into Light Entertainment, so I was naturally repulsed by the article. I've never been to a convention, and I'm certainly not paying £30 to go to see videos I could watch in my own sitting room or to mix with the elitist and sycophantic lique of the DWAS, so the convention article didn't mean much. (But this is exactly what the article was saying - PanoptiCon must be improved!) As for the Seeds review, good, I agreed. Finally, "Absolutely Immune" - crap. It really let the otherwise brilliant issue down, so I'm glad you apologised for its inclusion! So overall, a good zine. However, your "appreciative" stance at times seemed
to wear a bit thin - Dapol, S24 - but I can quite understand that it was impossible to
praise the standard anyway! But constructivism was kept in a number of excellent articles
which, as I have already said, ranked the excellence of the new Star Begotten issues. What can I say? Talk about quantum leaps, FHE 2 was incredibly impressive! Waves of warm nostalgia swept over me as I handled it - this was like a return to the good ol' days of Cloister Bell, Shada, etc. Really, it was brilliant. Specifics: cover art excellent (despite the barf-green card). Your Dapol article and the JNT Companion Creator thing out-Star Begottened Star Begotten in the deadpan humour stakes (quivering in hysterics on the floor took my mind of the sad absence of Dr Oh-No). I couldn't spot too many typos in my efforts, just lots of sarky comments from you. Incidentally, when I wrote "Volta" in the Gothic thing, I meant, of course, "Galvani". Never mind, I don't suppose the airheads who'll be reading(?) it will notice. (I doubt it - the airhead who edited it didn't.) The piece by Andrew Day was interesting - oh, to be young! Good to see that not all the Youth of Today are tasteless clods. Now then, pages 23-25 ... Is it a printed circuit? Is it a Tube map? God knows, but it looks lovely and I'm sure the Tate will snap it up. I'd go along with most of what you said in your DW/Star Dreck/Red Dwarf article: I've nothing against DW being played for laughs, so long as it is funny! We need stuff like The Gunfighters, or that hilarious parody of the Tegan- 5th Doc relationship. Why didn't you own up to writing that? It was a scream! (I assume it was a joke! "He held her tight and that was enough ... her eyes, so wide and innocent ... 'Don't ask me that,' he said in a hushed whisper ..." Dear, oh dear!) What else? Ah yes, Richard's Follycon review. "Filking"? "Traditional Viking songs"? "Letting others physically support you"?? Just what goes on at these events? It all sounds most interesting. I don't suppose the grey men who run PanoptiCon will dare to "change a successful formula", but I suppose one could always liven things up on one's own initiative! The Panopti- Con crew's problem is that they limit themselves by treating the attendees purely as a passive audience, nothing more. Anyway, all in all one of the best zines I've ever read (I kid you not). I'd certainly pay 75p for it. Nicholas Laister I really enjoyed issue two of FHE. But was it worth the wait? Yes, it most definitely was. A zine is always interesting to read when the articles are detailed and well thought out, even if I didn't necessarily agree with what was written ... The tone of the whole magazine was mainly pessimistic and largely anti-JNT. Now, don't get me wrong; no one was happier than myself at the news of JNT's impending departure, but don't you think maybe you went a little too far? I'll start with the Season 24 reviews. The Time and the Rani review was well written and, like a good politician, Ian Levy got his point of view over very well (much of which I agree with). But I felt that the review was slanted more as an attack on JNT than on the particular story (I don't know how many times the name "JNT" came up in the article). The Paradise Towers review was better, again well written and this time giving the story a fair analysis. But I think Ian missed the point of this story. I don't think that the tired/ standard/ stale concept of "vicious urban anarchy, presided over by a brutally authoritarian government" was the main theme. I think that, like Philip Martin before him, Stephen Wyatt tackled and commented on an important issue of today; this time modern architecture. It wasn't just "a few digs" at the problem, but a whole four episodes that showed us what could happen if architecture continues in the way that it is at the moment (ie. not building to a human scale, a problem that Prince Charles brought home to everyone by his outspoken criticisms in 1987). Every aspect, not only of the design, but of the organisation of Paradise Towers served to highlight this problem, although the "lacklustre" production and level of humour did lessen the impact of this message somewhat. I then ask myself: what was the point of the next article ("It was great when it all began")? Surely it was just another dig at JNT? Some sweeping comments took things a little too far (eg. "The Baker years, in my view, did not have the same quality as the early years, and began to become a little stale ..."). How could he make such comments with his only reference being the BBC videos? What was interesting in this article was reading his views on past stories, but that is where I think he should have left it. The past material he had to go on was not sufficient to comment to the extent he did on present Dr Who. "Gothic Art" was a very thought-provoking article (pushing aside the obvious anti-JNT overtones that reared their heads again). Ian compared the concepts and characters of Doctor Who with classic "Gothic" novels very well. I think that your fanzine works best with this type of article as it gives the reader something to get their teeth into. My advice to you would be to commission more articles of this type as they go very well with the style of zine you are producing, and FHE will then fit even better into a void which has recently been opening in fan material lately: a lack of quality articles. It was nice to see a radical viewpoint exposed in the "Science Fiction Double Feature." "Unconventional Conventionalists" was a little bit too long. Some good points were made, let's hope someone connected with the organisation of PanoptiCon was reading. (It was the length it was because I had already completed the rest of the zine, and we needed a page count divisible by four!) I enjoyed the Seeds of Doom review and agreed with most of the things that were said, though I did think that Ian pushed the cop-out ending aside a little (especially after all he said earlier about Time and Paradise). Again, I must say this type of in-depth appreciative article is where FHE works best. The layout of the zine was superb, and I hope the next issue is the same. I will end with that eternal clichE (and Ian will probably criticise me for using such a tired phrase!) - I can't wait for issue three! Ian Berriman Thought I'd just say Five Hundred Eyes 2 is BRILLIANT, even if I haven't yet read half of it ... well, I half read it. Trouble is, I liked Season 24 so I sort of read the criticisms (heard most of them several times) with eyes glazed over. But we don't have to argue about it, do we? Good... A couple of things I have to say. Firstly, I think there are advantages in having a "pasted up" layout as well as there are advantages in typeset. The trouble with paste-up is it takes more time, costs a bomb on Letraset, and the typeface isn't as good. The advantage is it doesn't look as boring - no offence, but Five Hundred Eyes' format of pages and pages of blank text can be visually unappealing. That's not a big problem, but I think it is a slight disadvantage, you can't muck about with the layout so much and slap cartoons and things here, there and everywhere. I hate padding - I'm always complaining to the Private Who ed about it - but I also dislike sterile text pages. Basically the traditional way looks more casual and friendly - and less professional, which can be an advantage. It makes it easier to contribute ... This could be a load of rubbish I'm talking, but hopefully it does make some sort of sense to you. (The reason for the "pages and pages of blank text" was simply a lack of any submitted artwork. Hopefully this issue looks a little "friendlier".) Second comment is that there are two bits of Five Hundred Eyes I love and which I'm determined to try and steal for Cybermag! The first is the weird block graph things you have - "Let's do the Timewarp" and the back page, for example. They're great. The other bit I like is so obvious I wonder why I don't do it - the "dialogue excerpt" things in Ian's reviews, which are very entertaining. By the way, I think Ian is a brilliant writer - it's like seeing Dave Miller's art, I always think "I wish I could draw like that". With parts of his reviews I start thinking "I wish I could write like that". Five Hundred Eyes' reviews make mine look cliched and sketchy by comparison. The only complaint I could make is that sometimes Ian makes too many references to other genres, to poetry, to the price of bananas in Morocco, etc., and occasionally his reviews get a bit bogged down with sesquipedalian words and overt verbosity - but come to think of it, that's not a complaint, that's one of the things I like! Your reviews are brilliant and I'm quite jealous. Keep it up. Next your article written by, erm ... forgot his name ... Andrew Day, that's it. I just thought I'd point out that I've seen plenty of videos of past years, dozens, and I love them. And I also like today's programme and will continue to watch it, support it and video it! There are others too who think this. I think basically I'm one of those who likes anything with police boxes in it - I've yet to see any Doctor Who story I didn't really enjoy, including my shaky copy of Destiny, and Time and the Rani 1, and Trial 14, and even (to a certain extent) Mark of the Rani (why don't people criticise that more than other Baker stories? It's one of the worst, I think). I must say the smile on my face faded slightly whilst reading Five Hundred Eyes because of the JNT-hate beginning to creep in. I'm not saying don't criticise, I just don't like the sort of "enraged" criticism which leads to swear words and slagging being put in. I think Ian Levy's Paradise Towers review was actually pretty good, even though I thought it was a good script. (Note: script, not direction, costumes, etc.) So keep it at about that level and whatever you do, don't let the zine degenerate into just 40 pages of JNT-hate like Star Begotten or DWB because you'd spoil it. Anyway, he's going now, so why bother? Look forward, not back. Don't know why I'm saying this actually, as I don't think you are the "ranting, raving, foaming at the mouth" type ... Patrick White Oh dear, it really is a shame to see a good fanzine go the way of all organic matter (down the tubes), especially one with such a good first edition. I can imagine how the decision of what to put in it went; was it something like this ...?
Or something close to that! The other pieces I found were quite interesting and I especially enjoyed the Seeds of Doom review (a true classic). Once again I enjoyed the tiny bit about ST:TNG, but the Mawdryn Undead bit I thought was totally pointless, as was the convention review (just another excuse for slagging something off). The article by Andrew Day would have been good if he could have avoided the slagging off (again) of everything concerned with the programme today; no doubt he was under orders from someone. Just one point about FHE: is I. Levy any relation to G. Levy of DWB fame? If so may I congratulate him on capturing his relative's utter pointlessness. Jane Evans Many thanks for sending Five Hundred Eyes issue two. I enjoyed reading it a great deal and really appreciated the fact that it arrived within days of my order (are you sending your envelopes by time warp postage?). (Astute readers will have noticed that such speed was not a feature of this issue's delivery. Sorry.) Special congratulations to the author of 'Take My Advice' for being sufficiently plucky and magnanimous to confess his folly so openly. The result is a highly amusing article so wittily put together that it had me laughing out loud throughout. (It even amused my husband greatly, and he is not a particular devotee of Dr Who.) I think all readers should be grateful for this timely and needful cautionary tale. The 'Companion Creator' article also had me in peals of laughter, as it applies so appropriately to Peri, Ace and above all Mel. However, I feel it is unjust to label it as a technique specific to JNT. Doesn't anyone remember Dodo from the 1960s? (You may well not, she was pretty forgettable.) Also, in my opinion, JNT has been responsible for some companions who would rank among the best. I would list Tegan, Nyssa and Turlough here. Also Adric was given the dignity of a rounded (if unsympathetic) character, and a meaningful and realistic exit from the series, and even Peri had a good entrance explanation, though I admit we never learned more about her character than she was American and had a morbid fear of rabies. Only with Mel and Ace has the spectre of the ludicrous exit/entrance ploy and the complete absence of personality become such an obvious problem. I can only hope that next season's scripts will give Ace a chance to go beyond this bad start and perhaps Mel will be left as the only out and out "clanger". I must add that I particularly enjoyed the articles referring back to the golden days ('It was great when it all began', 'Gothic Art', 'One from the Vaults'). Such articles are the springboard for hours of enjoyment as they send me rushing back to the Target novels with a fresh interest and a new perspective. Similarly I forsee hours of fresh delving into Mawdryn Undead. My only disappointment was the absence of the Delta and Dragonfire reviews, as the other two current series reviews were so thorough and detailed they left me wishing for more. However, this is a minor criticism in comparison with the plus points. Jon Fraser It's very gratifying, citizen, when you receive through the post a fanzine that is worth its price and actually exceptionally good. From the cover to the ultimate page, FHE shone with clarity, quality and good sense. In fact it is the greatest fa... I think I had better interrupt myself there before I do a Melvyn Ferris. But it is all true, I honestly think that FHE is a fanzine of great wonderfulness. Why this is I'm not totally sure. Certainly the excellent printing and fine layout are a part of it. As is the general quality of the articles and features. And a definite plus is the ... (desperately tries to think of a suitable superlative) ... er ... really rungy attitude. It isn't very cross and heated, but part despairing, part amused and part constructed (I think). This is very good. If a non Who-fan (civilian) were to pick up FHE, I'm sure he would respect the normal fan much more than if he picked up DWB or CT. Then again perhaps he wouldn't. The cover is great, though a bit unrealistic - I don't think I've ever seen the 7th Doctor look thoughtful and serious! The letters page was nice and clear. I don't know when Nick wrote his letter but it has definitely been said in Star Begotten itself that part one of the OV of Death to the Daleks was a 525 conversion. On to the articles (and why not?). From what I've seen of the Dapol figures I'd tend to agree with you. I haven't seen any in the shops yet, but then I haven't been looking for them. I'd imagine that they would look pretty silly. It's a strange time to bring them out really, people who buy little figures are usually in it for the violence; eg. all-action adventures between He-Man and Skeletor, ingenious strategic battles with the chaps from Action Force, not let's trip over and dance with Mel and the Doc! I'd have thought that the little figures would be far more suited to the Bakers' and Davison's eras. Today we should be having the Sylvester McCoy funny face book or courses on how to roll your r's. The only "figure" that fits into the category of a Good Idea is K9 - unfortunately he is 6-7 years too late. An eight year-old then would be now be fifteen. Finx: as young children can't possibly remember K9, they must be aiming at the parents who have/had a soft spot for that loveable automaton. Hmmm. The companion creator was fine and splendid. It reminded me how sorry I feel for Pease Pottage. Obviously JNT had some bad experience there and decided to wreak his revenge. I've heard that estate agents can't get anyone to buy a house in the town expect parents with little girls at stage school. Ian Levy's reviews are completely agreeable with. Especially the Time and the Rani. Never in the field of human television has so little been watched by so few and cost so much. One fab SFX does not make a story, not two even, if you're listening JNT. I can't add much to what Ian said on TATR except perhaps to mention that P&J have oft been quoted saying that they always research their "scientific" ideas and it is all possible. The quote of some length shows this to be raw drivel. Oh yes, I must also say that I agree with Ian about Sylvester McCoy. He seems only capable of playing a shallow clown-type figure. In everything I have seen him in he is the same. Even the Frank Langella/Trevor Eve Dracula film of 1979, McCoy is always the comic relief. He is s'posed to be tres good in Pied Piper - I wish this would show on the screen. I wasn't that keen on the Tetraps' appearance; their faces looked far too rigid, as did their tongues. My views on Paradise Towers vary more with Ian's (you don't mind if I call Ian Ian, do you?) than TATR. Overall I'd say that I dislike it a touch more, the whole thing could have so obviously been excellent if done seriously. The Rezzies were too cuddly (perhaps that's not quite the right word, but it will do). I know that they were supposed to have a respectable front and a terrible secret that they really didn"t want to know about, but I'm sure that they should not have looked as they did. More like a normal old person would have been best. Why were the Kangs so healthy if there was a desperate food shortage? That swimming pool thing, those cleaners, that montser in the cellar!!! Anyway, it was still my 2nd favourite (if that's the word) of the season. Dragonfire won. How can anybody say that the Tom Baker years did not have the same quality as their predecessors? The highest standard ever was reached with (all together now) the Hinchcliffe years. Okay, the Baker era then declined, but it is foolish to dismiss the whole lot in one go. And I wouldn't say that Season 11 was very good - as much, if not more, of a drop in quality as S15 and S16. The Hinchcliffe years are the best, and anyone who says otherwise please tell me why. I think Andrew Day is overdoing it a bit when he says that episode one of Death to the Daleks has the same build-up as episode one of Web of Fear. I think I'll miss out the timelines bit as I thought I understood Mawdryn Undead until I saw those diagrams! I think I'll also skip the Gothic bit as it has too many literaturial (!?) references and if I disagree with any of it it would be too complicated to unravel an explanation of what this sentence is going on about. Star Trek: The Next Generation is taken seriously and people are trying to make it realistic. DW doesn't seem to have either of those. I have seen Encounter at Farpoint, not overly impressed with the story or Marina Sirtificate, but it was the pilot. Perhaps it gets better like Red Dwarf and Star Cops. Doyanose? (Indeed I do, and indeed it does. And although it is taken more seriously than Doctor Who, there's still a hell of a lot of humour in there.) I don't think Moonlighting in space is a good idea, as Moonlighting seems to either take itself too seriously or talks to the camera (which would totally destroy any possible belief in aliens/baddies/planets). A better series for it to emulate is Doctor Who. Doctor Who was a drama series based on a mysterious central character and his time travel machine, but it was full of humour in a non-degrading unpathetic manner. From what I've been able to gather lots of people watched it and it was very popular, even respected. The humour came from the interaction of the characters or genuine wit, rather than the comic set pieces and one liners we know and loathe today. Erm, what else? To start with, Seeds of Doom is not a real cheapy. On my copy, the Antarctic sets look pretty good (but then it's not that good a copy). The sets are a bit sparse, but that is a deliberate policy move by Hinchcliffe (see some interview somewhere) to use money wisely, eg. exterior shooting, cars and aliens, etc. The room sets are not unbelievable like certain seasons I could mention, and that is all that matters, unless there is some specific point in the plot. I agree with the rest of the stuff, so I don't know why I'm complaining really. I seem to be saying really a lot today. Finally the fiction was a bit of a laugh, but that's all. We all know that ............ and ............ shorter skirts in Season 21. Melvyn Ferris ... obviously I enjoyed issue two and very much appreciated the editorial style of the zine - ie. anti JNT's later stories without being rabidly so - with some nice intelligent articles leavened with some great humour. The Dapol article was a great example of this humour, very funny in its savaging of one of the more useless pieces of merchandise to come our way in recent years, and there's been quite some competition for the most crap Who rip-off in the last couple of years, as manufacturers try to jump on the bandwagon before the show finally goes down the plughole. The Companion Creator was also very funny and finally solved the puzzle of how the 'character' of Melanie "Puke" Bush was created. Ian Levy's two S24 reviews were surprisingly good as I wasn't expecting too much from reviews about one of the worst seasons ever. The Bakers' conception of science is beyond a joke by now and I hate the way they dump a fragment of scientific fact like the greenhouse effect into the midst of a compost heap of meaningless jargon like "Helium 2" (if this is meant to be an isotope then surely it should be Helium 5 or something; an isotope, after all, has a higher atomic mass number than the original substance which I think in Helium's case is 4), "Primate Cortexes" (WHAT?!?) or such ridiculous concepts as "chronons" (I'm sure quantum physicists would be interested to learn that time is a simple particulate phenomenon) or the planet Lakertya somehow becoming a great brain. Anyway, why did the Rani need the Brain in the first place? She's a Time Lord isn't she and they're supposed to be the experts! All in all Rani reminds me of E.E. Doc Smith without the charm. As for Paradise Towers, it was my favourite of the season, the best of a bad bunch, but plagued with bad acting (Richard Briers, arggh!!), bad directing, etc. I would say more, but what's the point? We "nostalgia freaks" have got a new convert in Andrew Day, whose article gives the lie to the "memory clouds" argument. Maybe we should try and convert the rest of the DWASies with mass screenings of Hinchcliffe classics - bag I'd be one of the stewards! Moving on we find the Timelines articles which was a little (!) confusing for my brain. Am I right in thinking there were two homing beacons? Wouldn't it have been easier just to say that? Oh well! (No, there was only the one homing beacon, it's just that it followed the same space-time path twice! Perhaps I should've put two arrows on the diagram, but maybe that would've confused matters even more, if such a thing be possible.) Ian Levy's Gothic Art piece was my favourite article of the issue, being an entertaining analysis of the ways the Gothic genre has been used in Doctor Who, ranging from the glorious full-blooded stories of the Hinchcliffe era, and such stories as Androzani, to the limp parodies such as Dragonfire. The arguments for the chaos v. harmony theme, the brief look at possession, the eloquent argument for the use of full-blooded melodrama and the archetypal sympathetic monster/villain/tragic hero were intelligent without being incomprehensible. The Seeds of Doom review was also very good; oh for a story with a tenth of the quality today! The ST:TNG review (all right, comparison with S24) raised an interesting concept for the future of Who - "Doctor Moonlighting" huh? The difference is that Moonlighting is funny and it makes you care about the characters and it can be very moving. Personally I would love to see Who developing along the lines of Swamp Thing or Hellblazer, no not the demons and earth elementals, but producing horror/sf for the nineties. But if this is not to be then give us characters we can care about, after all pathos is a big part of classic comedy, eg. Hancock, Steptoe and Son, or even Ever Decreasing Circles, and make it bloody funny! Richard Gibbs' ideas for changing Who conventions were very interesting, though from what I've heard about DWAS cons I doubt they'll entertain such radical suggestions as timetabling or (shock! horror!) producing alternative choices. Finally, the story was quite moving, definitely a two-hankie job. Ever thought of ghosting for Barbara Cartland? (Writing, not haunting. I don't know though ...) Stephen O'Brien Well then, what can I say? I loved issue two (to misquote Edward Lord, FHE 2 letters page). Visually it is very satisfying, with, perhaps, only a lack of artwork and photos letting it down. Having said that, however, the contents were quite superb - Ian Levy's reviews were excellent: good, well written, constructive criticism which mirrored my own personal views on the unfortunate productions. However, I did like Delta ... Andrew Day's little piece (if you'll excuse the phrasing) was entertaining. Andrew - no, let's call him Andy, it's so much more informal - has an enthusiastic writing style that's very ahead of his age group (if I don't sound too patronising). The only thing is that he likes Revenge of the Cybermen ... Anyway, enough of this frivolity. Tracing the Timelines was an entertaining space filler. Hold on, I'm just re-reading it ... maybe it's not so hot. Ah well. Onto Gothic Art. It seems that Ian Levy (any relation to ...?) (NO!) used to read Skaro, as the whole article reeked of the aforementioned zine. In a case like this it's all too simple to dismiss it as pretentious or pseudo-intellectual, but this article rose above those two definitions and was extremely intelligent, even if Ian is a bit of a show-off, what with his 'I, Claudius' quotes and the like. Richard Gibbs' Unconventional Conventionalists I enjoyed immensely, probably due to the fact that it didn't just concentrate on DW (well, who wants to nowadays?). Oh yes, your SF Double Feature was excellent. I like Star Trek, and indeed ST:TNG, and although I oddly think of myself as a Dr Who fan more than a Star Trek fan, it can be argued that only a handful of DW stories (mostly Hinchcliffe) come close to the best of ST. Oh lord, I've broken a taboo there. Sorry all you narrow-minded people. All in all (what an original thing to say), one of the best zines around and worth double the price we're paying for it. It took me an hour to read, which is an awful lot compared to two Bath-based zines called ********** **** and ******* which are £1.30 for a measly 24-30 pages of regurgitated information. Oh yes, page 42 was my favourite page. |