Without wishing to get into specifics and end up being slammed for attacking another publication (which is not my point), I want to note a singular peculiarity that I find in the world of fandom...I happened to be reading a genre mag the other day and came across a letter to the editor that was praising the magazine. The praise took the form of being so delighted to be reading a publication which "has no personal or political agenda." Now, I'm hard-pressed to accept the existence of a publication so faceless that it has no personal agenda, but leave that to one side for the moment. As I read further into the magazine, I encountered reviews and articles that would include the concept that this or that movie wasn't very good, but was worth watching simply because of the looks of this or that "hot" actress. Similarly, there was a review of a book that expressed disgust with writers mentioning gay subtexts. But this isn't an agenda...However, if I write a review that says (for example) that DARK CITY isn't very good, but that you get to see Rufus Sewell's naked backside (not that I would, since that's hardly a barometer of the quality of a film for me), it would suddenly become an agenda. Or if we reviewed a book and commented that it deliberately obscured any mention of gay subtext, it would become part of an agenda. So what I'm inescapably concluding is that it becomes an agenda the moment it's not heterosexual. If it is heterosexual, it's not an agenda... Maybe it's just me, but I see a double-standard at work here.