Whoosh! Issue 51 - December 2000
Letters to the Editor

To write to the editor regarding your comments, observations, and questions about Whoosh!, send an e-mail to ktaborn@lightspeed.net and mark the subject "Letter to the Editor". All letters with the subject "Letter to the editor" are subject to publication and may be edited. Due to the volume received, some letters may not be answered individually or receipt acknowledged and may be published at the editor's discretion. Letters received after the 15th of the month may be reserved for a later issue.

50th Issue
No Rob, Subtext Did Not Ruin Xena
November Editorial
The Episode Guide
O'Connor is Just Killing Time
We Live to Serve
Maybe It's the Writing?
Maybe It's the Direction?
Maybe It's the Kissing?
XENA is Everywhere
Riding the Fantasy Wave
A Day in the Life of a Website Owner Contest

Letters To The Editor

50th Issue

From: Missy Good
Subject: congrats...
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000

...on your 50th issue!!!!!!!!

Whoosh Rocks.


From: Jack McClure
Subject: Issue # 50
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000

Congratulations on another great issue!

I fervently hope that Whoosh! will somehow continue to be the center of the Xenaverse in the show's afterlife, in whatever form that may be. The alternate thought of no Xena makes me feel like I have swallowed a black hole...

You do great work Ma'am!

Jack McClure

From: Nusi Dekker
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000
Subject: Bravo, Kym!!

You got the November issue out on time, with everything in it as far as I can see, and in beautiful shape. And you are still alive to post stuff! Amazing. I am totally impressed at your super-human accomplishment.

From: Batmorda
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000
Subject: Bravo, Kym!!

[T]his edition of Whoosh is something to be proud of...Good work Kymba & Company

From: JP
Subject: Voll WHOOSH!
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000

Whoosh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Du bist voll WHOOSH man

From: Robin Mitchell
Subject: I am CRAZY about your website
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000

You have a fantastic website which I visit OFTEN throughout my day. I am currently living in the U.S. (Chicago, IL) and anticipate your updates and info. You are all doing a terrific job. I just wanted to drop a note and thank you!!!!!!!!! This is the most comprehensive Xena website I have visited. I thought I was alone in my obsession with this show. Battle on Whoosh! (How nerdy am I?)

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000
Subject: Issue #50 WHOOSH!
From: Orrie

Hello! I've just dedicated an evening to reading the current issue of WHOOSH! Just wanted to say I thought it was excellent. I'm a two year old Xena fan and do very little communicating on the internet, but i do speak up when i believe someone deserves recognition for a job well done. Congratulations on your 50th issue and best wishes for the up and coming. Thank you for all your efforts!!!

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000
From: Virginia & Lourdes S.
Subject: Thank You

We just dropped by to say "THANK YOU" for keeping us well-informed with your Xena info, articles and episode guides. Thank you for all of your time and effort. More power to you and to the site!

Just us,
Virginia and Lourdes

Date: August 24, 2000
From: A Lady Who Watches Xena
Subject: Mailed letter

Thank you for your on line magazine "Whoosh". Thanks for all your hard work. Also the hard work of your staff.

"Xena" no matter what is enjoyable to watch. A bright spot in alot of shows that are all alike.

This troop of actresses and actors are so professional. Last season, Ms. O'Connor and Ms. Lawless looked a little worn out in a few episodes. But what performances! They are like "energizer bunnies".

Anyway, I look forward to seeing these fine entertainers in season six and in other fields of the entertainment industry.

Thank you again.

A Lady Who watches Xena
Columbus, Ohio

From: Bryony Weaver
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000
Subject: letter to the editor

I've only recently discovered 'Whoosh' online, although, being a paid up member of the Xena Fan Club, I've heard about it.

Just wanted to say what a brilliant site it is. It's chock full of more information than a speed-reader could get through in a month, if not more, and there's always something new to excite.

I love it - just one question: do you actually run courses??

Bryony Weaver

No Rob, Subtext Did Not Ruin Xena

Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000
From: Jeff Lundrigan
Subject: Lundrigan Vs. Tapert -- not at all

I feel I have to respond to Valerie Foster's article, "No Rob, Subtext Did Not Ruin Xena". In it, there is a section dedicated to, by and large agreeing with, an article I did for IGN Sci-Fi entitled, "He Said What About Subtext?" While I appreciate being agreed with as much as the next guy, I feel that in titling that section "Lundrigan vs. Tapert," Ms. Foster has misrepresented the character of the piece I wrote. Possibly this occurred because she either missed, or chose not to mention the salient point of my opening four paragraphs.

My article began by stating, "I started this by being angry at Rob Tapert." However, I then went on to explain that the comments I took exception to, which had been attributed to Tapert in a sidebar to an interview he gave in Official Xena Magazine #10, perhaps were not his own thoughts at all. In my introduction I speculated that in all likelihood he was caught between higher ups at Studios USA and Universal, and was, at worst, "parroting the company line."

I then went on to state that, "It's not like he's been an enemy of subtext over the years," citing examples and giving evidence in some detail to show that if anything, he's been an ardent supporter. This was a subject that had also come up when I interviewed Missy Good for IGN Sci-Fi some months before, and she, having met Tapert herself and worked with him (she had just completed her script for "Legacy" at the time), agreed wholeheartedly. It was for this reason, in fact, that his remarks in XOM #10 seemed so wildly out of character -- and got my ire up.

Even when I wrote "He Said What" I believed that Tapert had somehow been misquoted. Due to a simple lack of available information at the time however (and, I admit, a pressing deadline), I didn't feel comfortable stating this explicitly, but I did say that, "Tapert is a sharp guy, and I have trouble believing he could buy into this ill conceived logic himself." In fact, although I had little choice but to attribute the quotes to Tapert, I went out of my way to make sure none of my responses were aimed back at him, but rather at a nebulous "they." This "they," I hoped, would include the Studios USA executives I believe were the original source of the quotes, and the true target of my ire and arguments. I also took pains to avoid calling into question Tapert's character, his integrity, or his commitment to the show, all of which I believed in then, and continue to believe in now.

Of course, this doesn't mean I've agreed with every decision he demonstrably HAS made over the years regarding X:WP, or subtext -- if you read my episode reviews, you'll see there are many, many things I would have done differently, had I the chance. But the fact remains that he was the one who introduced subtext in the first place, and I believe he's stuck to his guns about it as best he felt he could at the time ever since. At the least he's kept the show going for a full 6 years, and 130+ episodes of any syndicated show is no small achievement.

And in watching season 6 so far, I can safely say I'm amazed at the way they've managed to turn things around since the disaster of season 5. I doubt that "subtext" could be any more out in the open than it has been since practically the first episode of the current season, and for 6 full episodes (so far) Tapert and company have finally reached some semblance of a consistent approach to it. For the first time in over a year I'm genuinely looking forward to each new episode, and in my opinion we have Tapert largely to thank for that.

Jeff Lundrigan
"The Xena Guy"
IGN Sci-Fi

Valerie Foster responds

Please be advised that all of the paragraph headers in that article were written by the Whoosh! editing staff. The "Lundrigan vs. Tapert" and other paragraph headings were not penned by myself and were added in, along with the accompanying photographs, after I had submitted the article. It was never my idea to even have paragraph headers in this particular article as I had done in the article that I wrote last year. I am responsible for the content of the article.

However, I do have to take responsibility for being knowledgeable of those headings prior to the article posting on the website. Whoosh! sent me a proposed final draft with the paragraph headings included and I did not request that any of the headings be deleted. I apologize for my error in judgment in that regard, but I do not feel that the content of my article (the "misleading" heading aside) in any way deviated from the overall message that you presented in your article on the SCIFI.IGN.com site. I hope that you will take the time to reread the article, ignoring the heading, and find what I truly meant to say in those words.

I have been following your commentaries on Xena: Warrior Princess for some time and agree with most of your critiques. I plan to continue reading what you have to say about the direction of the show in general and the episodes in particular. And I agree that the six season is looking very promising.

I am asking that if Kym Taborn is going to publish your letter in the next edition of Whoosh!, either as a letter to the editor or as some form of disclaimer, that she publish my response as well. I think it is only fair that I be given a voice to an obvious misunderstanding.

Thank you for your time,
Valerie A. Foster, Esq.

Kym Taborn responds

Editors will add subject headings where they are not provided by the author. I stand by this subject heading. I found the subject heading to highlight the topic of that section, which was Lundrigan's challenge of Tapert's assertion of how subtext affected XENA's ratings and overall popularity.

November Editorial

From: Matthew Humlie
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2000
Subject: Letter to the Editor

I recently read the editorial written by guest editor Debbie Cassetta, "Obsessive Fandom." I think it is a black mark on all fans when one fan takes their love for the show and its actors too far and begins to stalk the celebrities. We have all probably heard that Renee O'Connor got married last October. I was shocked when I read in the newspaper that Lucy Lawless attended the wedding under a threat on her life. It is horrible to think that she would have to think twice about attending the wedding of her good friend for fear that some obsessed, crazed fan would try to kill her! Good on her for being brave enough to attend despite the death threat, but it is still sad to know that she had to be accomponied by two bodygaurds and local police officers. This had to dampen her joy for the occasion. It is a sad world when fans cannot realize that celebrities are people too and deserve every right to happiness and privacy that they themselves recieve.

- Toto


From: Lesley Keech
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000
Subject: Your latest General News and Rumours (22nd Nov)

I was most surprised to see that your most recent update quoted a batch of news from "fandom.com" and was commented on in what seemed to me to be a very dismissive manner.

One, although the site you RIPPED OFF the news from is based on fandom.com, it does not reflect their views in any way. It is maintained by Cathy O'Grady, who has done an extremely good job in keeping us UK Xenites up to date on all things Xena. You should not have listed her news as coming from fandom itself.

Two, for a site that has lambasted others for using your material in the past, I think you have a nerve to use news from another site now and fail to fully credit the source. I'm sure you would not do this to someone like Mary D, so why are you doing it to Cath?

Three, just because the news hasn't come from YOUR sources, I fail to see why the sneering tone in dismissing the news is necessary. If you have more up to date news, why not quote that instead of taking info from someone else's web site and then calling it out of date and implying it's wishful thinking. There is NOTHING wrong with speculating on such matters - YOU do it all the time.

Yours sincerely,
Lesley Keech
aka Mitchy

The only snarky part in the post that I can see was my remark about fandom.com's latest obsession with sending cease and desist letters. I am not going to apologize for stating my opinion on their actions. I find the act to have been a badly thought out strategy and I will continue making fun of such bizarre acts. Fandom.com is a multi-million dollar commercial venture, I am just a website operator. I doubt my making fun of them is harming them in the least. And if it does harm them, then great! THAT'S THE POINT. You praise stuff you like, you criticize stuff you don't like. It's called exercising your freedom of speech.

Originally I was going to report the Raimi appearance information because it was traveling around the net but as I researched it, it appeared that Ted Raimi was being actually written out of episodes as opposed to being written in. I have not confirmed either side of the story yet but the vast majority of my other sources say that Raimi will probably not be appearing on XWP, at least not in this current filming schedule. I stated: " I have asked around and it appears that Ted Raimi had some sort of medium level medical problem which will not allow him to do any trans-Pacific flying any time soon. So Raimi apparently will not be in ANY episodes of XENA's 6th and final season." PLEASE note the use of the words "it appears" and "apparently". Those are words that one uses when they are not sure, but have a suspicion or educated guess.

I had suspicions as to the news released by fandom.com, so I stated what the news was about and then gave reasons why I thought that it might be incorrect, on both the Raimi appearance information AND the movie info. Explaining what the original source said is not "ripping off" news. It was properly cited. I gave the full url which linked to the original text on fandom.com. There was nowhere in the paragraph where I stated that the information was from me. I stated that it was off the fandom.com site and provided the url so that the readers could look at the original themselves. That is exactly what WHOOSH requests of people to do when refering to our materials and information that is clearly unique to our site. We ask them to say it is from WHOOSH and provide an url.

The page that I quoted from is an editorial on fandom.com. True, editorials are the opinions of their writers, but I was referring to who published the editorial. It would be like referring to an editorial in the newspaper or Time Magazine. It was properly cited as being from where it was from. Fandom.com is the publisher and so that is an adequate source, There is a disclaimer on the original page saying that the page is not associated with Studios USA. It does not mention that it has nothing to do with fandom.com (which would be strange since it is on the fandom.com website and I do not believe that fandom.com allows use of space on their domain to just anyone -- I suspect they have to comply to specific guidelines and probably even get paid for their services).

My comments were in no way meant to disparage Ms. O'Grady. I consider Ms. O'Grady a friend and she is on staff for WHOOSH. I do not see her as competition but as a colleague, and at this point her source of information could be just as wrong as mine, and the situation could literally change overnight. At the time I wrote my account, two writers of XENA had stated that they were specifically not directed to use Ted Raimi in their drafts. The shows seemed like the best candidates to use Raimi, so I extrapolated that PERHAPS Raimi would not be used after all. Then I heard about his mysterious illness, I put two and two together and conjectured that maybe Raimi would not be in the rest of the series at that time. If you do not like the arbitrary world of rumor deconstruction, then perhaps the news & rumor area of the WHOOSH episode guide is not for you.

Kym Taborn

The Episode Guide

From: Gina
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000
Subject: Letter to the Editor

Re: Praise for Shana

I have enjoyed all that the Whoosh site offers, especially the synopsis and comments of each episode. I am a Xena fan since season one. I have enjoyed reading new episode reviews by Shana. For one, Shana gives such a detailed review of the ep. I actually feel like I'm seeing it for myself. Secondly, its done with alot of humour, I've been just crackin' up reading these. Thank you Shana for breathing some life into these episode reviews, I always look forward to them.


O'Connor is Just Killing Time

From: Andrew Shaughnessy
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000
Subject: Letter to the Editor

My brother recently gave me a photocopy of a page taken from a UK daily newspaper in which readers offer answers to questions posed by other readers. The page heading was "Renee finds that TV's a serial killer", and the leading question was "Which actor or actress has been killed the most on television?". Richard Powell of Liverpool gave the following reply:

"A leading candidate for this dubious honour would be Renee O'Connor. Her character Gabrielle from the fantasy series Xena: Warrior Princess has died at least once every season. She has died by my count at least eight times on Xena, through plot devices such as astral plane deaths and time loops, and her other role as Hope has seen her die twice more. When Hope was played by a younger actress she was also killed at least once. Gabrielle's bad luck extends to the series Hercules, where a different version of Gabrielle was killed by an evil version of Xena. Ms. O'Connor has also experienced screen deaths in the TV movies The Flood and Follow the River, as well as a gruesome death scene in the 1989 cinema release Night Game."

Is this true? Is Renee the most-killed TV actress? Has Gabrielle died more deaths than anyone besides Kenny? I'd be interested to find out.

We Live to Serve

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000
From: Lauren Talley
Subject: question

Hello. I feel stupid for asking this, but what does "Vivimus ut serviamus" mean?

Kym Taborn responds:

It means "We Live to Serve", which has been WHOOSH's motto for a very very long time.

Table of Contents
Next Section

Return to Top Return to Index