Subject: Re: ny times article
From: fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Oceanstar)
Date: 1991-05-07, 10:51
Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks

c'est la guerre, etc etc 
Expires: 
References: <1991May5.004546.4643@panix.uucp>
Sender: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: na
Organization: Citizens Opposing the Offing of Peaks
Keywords: slimed again by the mass media

Danny Lieberman writes:
> >just a few minutes ago I skimmed over the article in Sunday's NY TIMES'
> >Arts & Leisure section, about Twin Peaks & COOP... there was no mention
> >at all of alt.tv.twin-peaks... i thought i would see Fiona's name but
> >perhaps I missed it.  Will get a copy later this eve anyway.

An extremely close (with magnifying glass) reading of William Grimes'
_NYT_ article did indeed reveal that he had spoken to me and had read
my article in the _Gazette_ on alt.tv.t-p, but I guess he had no space
to explain about USENET and all that.  I guess all those professors of
communication theory--not to mention the King and Queen of Spain!--were
more important than us peons.  :-) :-)  No biggie.  

On a more substantive note, what did y'all think of his notion that
TV series should become shorter--not run for so many seasons--in order
to maintain a higher aesthetic standard?  I must admit, the prospect of
"Twin Peaks" succumbing to what was called "the Norman Lear syndrome"--
endless spin-offs, endless attempts to milk more money from a dying cow,
is quite dismal.

I'll tell you what I really objected to, in that article.  It was the
strong statement that Peakheads are elitists--that our interest in the
series wanes in direct proportion to how many others are getting
involved, that if it's not "hip" to a small select in-crowd, then we,
like the avant-garde art scene in NYC, will decamp for unsullied
pastures.  Yuk.  Didn't y'all find that comment offensive?

But.  Again:  NO BIGGIE.

--Fiona O.