Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I wonder if the network knows how it will end or if they are going to
    wait and read their mail.  Definitely send that letter.
    
    					- Vick

	Maybe after dinner they will curl up on Abbie's couch
	and watch "Lair of the White Worm," which stars Amanda
	Donahoe, and rather steamily I might add, who portrays 
	CJ.

	I'm planning to write to the network and also to the
	LA Law writers, thanking them for their courage.

	Carla

If you want to write...

    David Kelly, Executive Producer, L.A. Law
    20th Century Fox Television
    Box 900
    Beverly Hills, CA 90213
 
(courtesy of GLAAD [Gay and Lesbian Association Against Defamation] via
sappho)

D!

I haven't seen the episodes because I don't watch LA Law (or much TV of
any sort) but from hearing/reading about it, I think it is *great*.

Pretty tame stuff, but more than they usually show on network television.
I have seen some reasonable portrayals of gay men - I have never seen *anything*
with Lesbians.  Anything that reduces Lesbian invisibility, especially that
does so in a good light, is fantastic.

D!

    I am afraid, because I do not remember if Abbey's husband
    is dead or not. (I don't think he his.)  He stole her son
    once, the way the prejudices run now, if she has the affair with CJ,
    he will probably be able to get his son through the courts.
    
    They have good material here for the trial, however, it would
    be hard to watch her have her child at risk.  I do not think
    that LA Law is strong enough yet to make the statement
    "Lesbians/Gays/Bisexuals can still be perfectly good parents."
    
    She is very apt to loose the case for her son... Interesting
    food for though I guess.  However, it would be sad.  She just
    got him back.
    
    Cindi

    Regarding seeing any shows,  there was one movie once...
    Someone might be able to help me with the name...
    
    Lynne Redgrave was in it as one of the partners...
    
    Custody of this woman's child came into question as well.
    
    Cindi

    
    
    Cindi,
    
    Being gay does is not enough justification to make a parent
    unfit.  Also, it could not be used due to the fact that it is
    clearly discrimination.  
    
    Michele

    I know that gay does not equal an unfit parent.
    You seem to know it as well.
    
    However, the courts today do not necesarily know this.
    
    The ones that have taken children from parents under
    the auspices of "imorality" when gay, lesbian, or bi parents
    were involved.  It is discrimination, however, it is also real.  
    
    As I said before, the issue is good fodder for the show,
    however, if LA Law goes anything like the real life courts,
    the character stands a good chance of loosing her kid.
    
    Sad, unfair, but true...
    Remember, Jim Crows were on the books for years.
    
    Cindi

    re .7
    
    Sexual orientation is not a protected right in all states.  Probably
    not in many.  Look how long it took to get the bill through in Mass.
    
    A Court would have a tough time basing a decision of unfitness soley on 
    the fact the mother is a lesbian, but, it would be foolish to think that it
    wouldn't play a part. And, you can bet that in real life, as well as on
    television, the lawyers would find a way to make it a factor.
    
    I too applaud LA Law for their willingness to break the taboos.
    
    Polly
         

    Last night A&E (Arts and Entertainment) carried a movie called
    "Oranges are not the only frut" (or some permutation of those words)
    about a lesbian who is badly treated by her Christian parents and
    church.
    
    I only saw the last 1/2 of it.  It may repeat (maybe weekend
    afternoon?)
    
    /s/ Jim Williams

Only three states have a gay rights law.

I am not sure if any of the three apply to parental custody.  (Massachusett's
law doesn't even apply to insurance and the like.)

D!

    
    
    Ah, yes, well, they can use the custody issue to end it tragically.
    It seems movies (TV, too?) only allow gay heroes if they die in the
    end or some other awful thing happens to them.  When was the last time
    you saw a movie with a les-bi-gay hero (or major character, hero might
    be asking too much) that ended happily for the les-bi-gay?
    
    guess my giddiness is turning to cynicism, but then I was pleasantly 
    surprised last night.  We were sitting there kinda half watching it,
    when the big scene happened.  It was funny, too, because after _the_
    kiss a while back, I kind of fantasized to Dale the scene they could use to
    bring them a little closer, and the actual scene was pretty close to
    my fantasy so that made it even more exciting and a little funny.  Does
    anyone else ever guess at the dialogue that's coming next in TV show
    (people hate it when I do it outloud along with or just before the
    actors, but I can't help it sometimes.)?  Maybe I should send Roseanne
    Barr my idea for a story where her sister Jackie comes out...
    
    Justine

I think there are four states now. Connecticut just passed
a gay rights law, though it hasn't gone into effect yet.

Kathy

    Justine,
    
    in re happy endings for a les-bi-gay character, it may not count in
    your book, but try Ethan of Athos (science fiction by Lois Bujold).
    
    Bonnie

    LA LAW is a show that we watch consistently.  I was very enthused about
    last night's show.  I like the way they are handling it.  It seems like
    a natural progression of their relationship.  
    
    I must admit that co-workers have told me that they feel uncomfortable
    about it.  (It made me want to use the "We're Here..."  cheer.)
    
    judy   

    Do you think it will be Abbey or CJ they will toss down
    the elevator shaft when the relationship is spent? I'd hate
    to see either of them go, but, once again, I do not trust
    LA Law to keep the long term relationship alive.  I kinda
    feel like it will be used, and then disgarded. Just my opinion.
    
    Cindi

    The last woman that was making a STRONG statement, they fired,
    and then gave her the shaft (the elevator shaft).  The rest of
    the women excepting CJ they have MARRIED or MADE PREGNANT throughout
    the show.  Grace was an exception... until this season.
    I have little faith that they will stray far from the "societal
    norm" on this.
    
    They may just be teasing.... Remember, she and Johnathan looked
    like they were going to be getting into it a time or too as well.
    So they already tried the mixed couple subject.  I think she's
    to be their "tabu" lady. 
    
    JMO-
    
    Cindi

Last night I heard an advertisement for a gay phone line on
a mainstream commercial radio station.  The woman said 
".. not one of those sleazy 900 numbers".  It mentioned
women who want to meet other women, men who want to meet
other men, and something about the gay lifestyle.  So
maybe society is getting a little used to it afterall.

Rich

    Until about a month ago, I was not a follower of L.A. LAW, and
    only started watching it when I was made aware that a favorite
    writer of mine, Alan Brennert, was writing for the show (and,
    it turns out, he's one of the current producers). In the time
    since, I've been heavily watching reruns on Lifetime and, in
    general, getting caught up with the show.
    
    It seems to me that L.A. LAW in general has gone a long way toward
    being sensitive and forward thinking in many areas, and so, while
    I was quite pleased with the step they took with Abby and CJ, it
    didn't really surprise me (since I'm only a recent convert to the
    show, I never saw the previous set-up scene in the earlier episode).
    
    But this last episode was wonderful for another aspect, and that
    was the case being worked on by Douglas, who was representing a
    transsexual who'd been fired from a highly paid modeling job when
    her "secret" became known. Douglas, not one of the most sensitive
    characters on television, was obviously put off by his client, and
    even thought of her as a "freak of nature", but still put on an
    excellent case for her, finishing off with a superb closing argument.
    And after the verdict came back, his comments to her showed that
    his feelings about transsexuals did a complete turnaround. I only
    hope that this case changed the attitudes of some of the audience
    in the same way.
    
    Hell, even *I* erased a bug in my programming. During the whole
    business, one of my thoughts was, "Too bad they didn't get a real
    transsexual to play the part."  My next thought was, "How do I know
    they *didn't*?"  One point for consciousness raising.
    
    What was sychronistically interesting was that the next afternoon,
    Lifetime showed the original pilot film for the series, in which
    another transsexual has a rather prominent part in the proceedings,
    and Douglas' original opinions about "them" were uttered. That these
    two episodes, from opposite ends of the series were shown within
    a day of each other and brought a closure to Douglas' change in
    attitude (for the better) was a wonderful fluke.
    
    --- jerry

The soap opera "All My Children" had a lesbian charachter a long time ago.
She was a therepist, and I was really impressed at how they portrayed her
as just a doctor, not a freak. I don't remember if she had a girlfriend
in the show or not, but I do remember that one of the main charachters
(female) in the show developed a crush on her. I don't remember what happened
to her. I seem to remeber that the actress left the soap to pursue a movie
carreer and the character moved away or something like that. Not a tragic
ending (except for the actress...I don't recall seeing her in anything after
that :-)

dee

    My personal name sums up how I feel about L.A. Law having CJ & Abby
    start dating!!! I think it's great and I'm glad that neither CJ nor Abby
    fit the stereotypical image of a woman-who-loves-women. I was kind of
    half watching it the other night not expecting them to get together
    and then when Abby asked CJ on a date I got all excited!!! I was 
    bouncing off the walls. I think the people who put L.A. Law together
    are terrific, courageous and deserve a lot of credit.
    
    I plan on writing them many letters and I hope everyone who likes it
    will *flood* them with mail. I do believe that the letters they get
    from fans/viewers do influence how the story will turn out. 
    
    Laurie

        Everyone seems to be assigning positive motives to the
        writers/producers of L.A. Law.  Remember topic 702?  How
        do you know they aren't trying to excite the men in their
        audience?
        
        Dan

    RE: -1
    
    Dan, when I first read your note I was really ticked. Now that I've
    calmed down a little I'm responding. 
    
    I think L.A. Law is one of the best written and acted shows on T.V.
    today.  There is so much junk on T.V. lately that I hardly ever watch
    it anymore. The writers have handled the g/b/l episodes with a lot of
    sensitivity and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were g/b/l
    themselves. I know from experience that its not easy to write about
    something you have little insight into. Most of the stuff I write
    nowadays (stories/screenplay) centers around g/b/l topics.
    I can write about g/b/l issues with a lot of sensitivity,depth and
    insight since I'm a homosexual myself.
    
    What I got out of topic 702 was the some men enjoy watching two women
    have sex together. It appears to me that the writers of L.A. Law are
    trying to show two women (CJ and Abby) who are embarking on a
    relationship. A relationship that involves more than just sex. It
    involves  friendship,sharing of feelings,caring,kindness, just like
    *real* woman-to-woman relationship do. Unfortunately, these aren't
    things I've seen a lot of men get too *excited* about. Unfortunate for
    the men and their partners who struggle for more than sex in their
    relationships. 
    
    So I hope a lot of men and women of all sexual orientation get real
    excited about CJ and Abby going into a relationship! I'm sure a lot of
    viewers will be real threatened with the fact of two women going into a
    relationship together. I bet Jesse Helms will be ready to explode. The
    whole idea of a woman not needing a man to satify her most intimate
    needs is very threatening for some folks. Women can form such strong
    bonds together and women lovers can form even stronger bonds. Some men
    struggle so to understand women. Women need not struggle so hard.
    Afterall, who could best understand a woman than a woman herself.
    
    Laurie

    re:.25
    
    	� It appears to me that the writers of L.A. Law are
    	trying to show two women [...] who are embarking on
    	a relationship [...] that involves more than just
    	sex. It involves friendship, sharing of feelings,
    	caring, kindness, just like *real* woman-to-woman
    	relationship do. �
    
    Exactly, which brings up a question for me. There's been some
    discussion of this episode on Usenet (in rec.arts.tv) and I've
    been arguing a certain point with other folks. Someone referred
    to Abby's asking CJ out to dinner as a "proposition", which I
    disagreed with. No one else seems to be on "my side", though.
    Everyone seems to consider it a proposition because Abby "knew
    that CJ was interested in her from the previous encounter". My
    reaction is, "So what? She just asked her out to dinner! In my
    book, that's a date, not a proposition."
    
    I dunno. Is it me?  Does it strike other people as being a
    proposition?
    
    --- jerry

	>Note 788.23 by VINO::LANGELO
                            
	>I think it's great and I'm glad that neither CJ nor Abby
    	>fit the stereotypical image of a woman-who-loves-women.
    
    	Excuse my lack of knowledge. How is that?
    
    
    PerS,
    
    

    I agree that they won't show these 2 making love and probably won't
    show them in bed together. To bad because they show straights in bed
    together and I even seem to remember a "bondage" scene a couple of
    seasons ago. As for not titillating men, I'm not so sure. A male friend
    called me to discuss some other issues and in passing, asked me if I'd
    watched the episode. I said yes and he asked me what I thought. I told
    him. I was excited and thrilled that the show would be willing to do
    this and also include transexuals in the same episode. he told me it
    was the most erotic episode of network episodic tv he had ever seen. 
    I replied that while it may have been erotic to him, that it wasn't
    what CJ and Abby were doing that was erotic to you, but your own
    imagination that was kicking into overdrive. Your just thinking of what
    goes on after the dinner and who said anything sexual was going to
    happen anyway. We argued a bit more about it and he sort of agreed with
    me and I admitted to getting that "old feeling" in the pit of my
    stomach to use a more polite term, when it happened. Knowing some of
    the Lesbian/Bisexual women in here can cause me to look at the reality
    of the situaton and not transfer it from reel to real life. It is only
    a TV show. It is also a TV show that is losing some of its major cast
    members. We all know that this is going to boost ratings like crazy and
    that is the bottom line for them, because that is the only way they
    will be renewed and keep earning a paycheck.
    
    Phil

	re: -d

>I don't see Abby's invitation as a proposition.  I can state from
>personal experience that having kissed a MOTSS on the mouth wasn't a
>sufficient motivation for propositioning hir.

	From a woman firmly entrenched in the women's community ...

	I do see Abby's invitation as a proposition, and I can also
	state, from personal experience, that having kissed a MOTSS
	on the mouth was a sufficient motiviation for propositioning
	her, so where does that leave us?

	Hoping Abby and CJ ignite the airwaves, and each other,

	Carla

    in re .29
    
    thanks Phil
    
    BJ

        re .25,
        
        Laurie, I'm sorry that you were ticked at my note. I
        don't watch L.A. Law.  I hope their followup does justify
        the cheers they are getting here for this episode.  But
        I'm cynical about TV and don't often think of it as a
        positive force.
        
        Dan

    
    I thought Abby's invitation was a little ambiguous (and I guessed CJ
    did, too, since she asked for clarification, "like a date?").
    
    I'm sure that chances are good that they'll wreck this, but I hope that
    at least we get to see some positive things in the portrayal of this
    relationship.  So far, I've been pleasantly surprised.
    
    I also doubt that we'll get to see steamy love scenes between them
    (like the ones they've shown of male/female couples), but it would
    be nice to see some romance (sweet talk, tender touching, etc.) and
    maybe even a little sexual tension.  I hope that men enjoy seeing
    their relationship develop, too.  Now if they show us a bedroom scene
    with one of them in spike heels and the other one strapping something
    on..., or if they invite that new guy in to watch, then I'll feel p*ssed 
    and like "lesbian" sex is being exploited for male pleasure.  
    
    Justine                            

    Uh, what's an MOTSS?
    
    Thanks,
    Karen.

From: [email protected] (Killer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: ABBY AND CJ BECOMES A MOOT POINT..STORYLINE DUMPED
Date: 1 May 91 16:14:50 GMT
 
    According to inside sources, due to pressure from advertisers, LA LAW
has scrapped plans to make anything out of the Abby and CJ situation that
began as a kiss earlier this season. Many major advertisers, fearing a load
of pressure(controversy, whatever) said that they would pull their ads if
the storyline continued. LA LAW never said where the storyline was originally
heading but rumour is that a few scenes in the last episode have been edited
and a few reshot. This thursday's episode was already "In the can" so this
will probably be the last we hear of it. If anyone would like the article
(printed verbatum) where this was mentioned, e-mail me and Ill send it.
 
poor Abby....cant ever catch a break !

From: [email protected] (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,soc.motts
Subject: Writing to the "L.A. Law" producers
Date: 1 May 91 23:28:06 GMT
 
[My apologies if I'm violating any nettiquette by cross-posting this
to soc.motts -- it seemed like an appropriate newsgroup.  Also folks,
if you follow-up to this, please choose your newgroups carefully.]
 
This was posted at the Northeastern University School of Law by a
fellow first-year student.  With her permission, I'm posting it to
the net.  All typos mine.
 
  -=-=-=-  cut here  -=-=-=-  cut here  -=-=-=-  cut here  -=-=-=-
 
      L.A. LAW FANS:
      
        If you support lesbian/gay visibility please
      write to the producers of L.A. Law and tell them
      you want to see the relationship between C.J. and
      Abby developed.  Every time a lesbian or gay
      relationship is portrayed on television,
      conservative groups force advertisers to demand
      that the producers abandon it.  Please write and
      tell them you support what they have done so far
      and hope they will continue it.  Thank you!
      
      [The address to write to is:]
 
           David Kelley
	   Twentieth Television, 20th Century Fox Studios
	   P.O. Box 900
	   Beverly Hills, CA 90213
 
  -=-=-=-  cut here  -=-=-=-  cut here  -=-=-=-  cut here  -=-=-=-
 
-- William December Starr <[email protected]>
    
    [I included the second of the two articles for informational purposes
    only, for anyone who wants to write concerning the situation. It's
    not intended as a solicitation. I am, however, intending to write.]

    If the producers and network let this story line die, I will not only
    give up on the show, I will stop buying anything from the advertisers,
    stop watching any show they advertise on, and stop watching NBC
    altogether. I am sending this notification to NBC, the advertisers, my
    local NBC affiliate, and the producers of this and any show that shares
    the same advertisers as LA Law.
    
    Phil Connell (A straight male who very much supports Gay Rights and the
    need for Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Gays to be portrayed honestly and
    openly in today's society) That will be how I sign it too.

    It was my fear that monetary pressures would force the show to
    skew the relationship and force unhappiness on the characters
    to fullfill the advertisers prejudices. 
    I guess that was not sufficient, and they took it one step further.
    
    Cindi

    
    whaddif they just portrayed them as they do the het love scenes...?
    
    would that be giving in too much to the strate myn who dominate tv 
    networks and who might desire titillation ... ?
    

    
    After last nights show, I think it's over for them.
    
    bonnie

What happened on last night's show?

Kathy

    
    i think last nights show lets them react to the audience feedback they
    expect.  after last night, their relationship could be developed any way.
    
    so, if anyone's inclined to write a note to them ...
    
    in a _realistic_ setting, i didn't think that last nights episode was
    so far off target. even if they intend to develop a romance between cj
    and abby.  
    
    abbys discomfort with cjs date was evident.  as was cjs discomfort
    about something being played out for curiositys sake.  shoot, they've
    only dated once or twice, right? (-;
    
    ~r
    
    

    
kathy,

   i'm afraid someone else might be able to give a better recap than i, but 
i'll try and convey what i saw:

   abby went to cjs office late in the afternoon. cj was dressed for an 
evening out. abby complimented her on her appearance. cj was rushed for 
this engagement. her date met her at the office door. it was evident that 
he was familar with cj on an intimate basis. abby looked uncomfortable. cj 
and date left.

   the next day, cj went to abbys office and commented that she felt abby 
had been avoiding her that day. abby said, yes i guess i was.  cj started 
to say "about last night ..." when abby broke in and said that wasn't her 
business. cj went on to explain that her date was a man that she had lived 
with a couple of yrs ago, and that she loved him.  she went on to say that 
they were just friends now.  abby mentioned that she felt jealous of him, 
and she was trying to understand her reaction.  as cj was leaving, abby 
said "how about dinner tomorrow night?". when cj said yes, where ... abby 
responded "your place".

   the next setting was post dinner at cjs. abby was thumbing through cjs 
photo album and they were both commenting on some of the pictures. 
embarrassed by one of the pix, cj took the album from abby. abby offered 
more wine which cj declined, saying she had already had enough.  a few 
moments of silence. then cj reached for abbys chin, turning her face towards 
abby. [i swear i thought there was going to be another kiss scene here 
folks(-;].  cj asked abby what she was so nervous about (?). abby said she 
felt she was "ready" for something to happen.  cj said nothing was going to 
happen. that abby had been acting kind of tense all evening, nervous giggling 
and such. she also said that abby hadn't shown her she could be a valued 
friend, much less more than that. cj told her to consider herself dumped, and 
relieved [of the tension]. cj didn't want to be the partner of someones 
curiousity.

Thanks Robin!

Kathy

    
    I understand people's upset at what LA Law had done, or stopped doing.
    
    However, this might not be all bad.  They portrayed one lesbian as
    an intelligent lawyer and another possible lesbian as the same.  In
    addition, they did it with one of the characters whom people like 
    most, Abby.  For conservative people, who found themselves cringing
    at the thought of a passionate, female-female kiss, this starts us 
    thinking.  The thought that respectable people might consider being 
    lesbian, is planted in our minds.  In addition, CJ's actions were 
    very responsible toward Abby.  Don't we heterosexual women know of 
    at least one man whom we wish had been so courteous with us when we
    were vulnerable?
    
    For myself, this episode started my brain thinking.  I think it
    will have done the same to other people too.  (background on me:
    the only exposure I've ever had to homosexual women is in this
    notes file and on TV.  The only exposure to homosexual men was
    my favorite cousin, at the time, who died of AIDS 3 years ago.)
    I think even if LA LAW stops this relationship, it's done alot
    for people's thinking.  If they went on, I don't know how myself and
    other people would feel.  (my friends outside of work have said the
    same.)
    
    Rachael
    

        re .43,
        
>> shoot, they've only dated once or twice, right? (-;
        
        Well, .44 didn't say anything about a U-Haul, so it must
        have been the first date. :-)
        
        Dan

A note a few back mentioned that "the decency in media folks" (or whoever)
had written presuring the producers/advertizers to drop this line of the story
I watched last night, I wonder if that last little vignette at CJ's wasn't
added after the letters started coming.

This does point out how dangerous it is to allow one special interest group
(maybe "the Bible Belt" in this case) to determine what others can and
cannot watch/read/listen to.

The ON/OFF button is on the individuals TV set. It is up to him/her to use it.

I especially object to a situation I know of where a group of folks all 
monitor different shows, if the one responsible for watching X sees something
"objectionable" he/she tells the rest and they *ALL* write protest letters.
this is one particular church, they are affiliated with other churches that do
the same thing so 1 viewer generates hundreds of letters with a few phone 
calls. I think it is reprehensible but it happens.

I am just sentimental enough to feel a "little squishy" when watching stories 
about people falling in love. This could have been a beautiful story, now 
we'll never know.
Amos

>This does point out how dangerous it is to allow one special interest group
>(maybe "the Bible Belt" in this case) to determine what others can and
>cannot watch/read/listen to.

	A special interest group didn't make the determination, the producer 
	did. Nothing wrong with folks making their opinions known, and
	nothing wrong with the owner of the show deciding what is best for
	the show, and using whatever input is available to make that
	decision.

						Tom_K

um... excuse me, but... "bible-belters" may be one special interest group, but
aren't the "sisters and friends of Sappho" (made-up-name) another, if they
organize a campaign of letter writing to influence a producer's decisions?

Don't get me wrong, if you want to organize and work to influence our society
then go for it.  That's the way things are supposed to work.  But some other
special interest group may not agree with you, as is their right.

I suspect that whichever group is squeakiest, or wields the most purchasing
power, will in the end have its views prevail. If you believe that the resulting
policy or system is unfair, then we have the legislature and the courts.

It ain't perfect, but it's all we got.

Sara

    
   Re: -2, I can't pass this one up without expressing my opinion.
    
    It is money that wields the most power, in particular the consumer's
    money.  It will not matter how many voices of dissent will be directed
    to the producer or the network if those voices do not represent the 
    mainstream money faction it (dissent) isn't going to accomplish much.  It 
    is MONEY that drives the actions of the networks who are financially 
    supported  by commercial advertisers who are in turn aiming their products 
    where the money is perceived to be.  Most times the producer isn't crazy 
    or brave enough to buck the tide, he like the network isn't willing to risk
    loss of revenue although there have been some exceptions.  So as long as the
    advertisers get the message from one special interest group with monetary 
    clout guess which "squeak" is going to get the oil.
    
     We can all voice our opinion to the networks but that isn't going to
    help....we need to flex our monetary muscles where it does the most
    good if we want to excerise some influence with what comes on the boob 
    tube.  It should be the advertisers that we drive home our emphasis for 
    cultural enrichment and freedom of expression.  They will listen even if
    it's to the not the mainstream talking especially if there are enough 
    people voicing their dissent.  The wallet is a very powerful tool....the 
    "bible belters" know how to use  this power quite well and have often
    in the past.  
    
    Personally, I hate the manipulation and don't watch much television but
    when I see programs like LA watered down to nothing I am reminded why I 
    gave it up.   
    
    Addie 
    
    

>      <<< Note 788.50 by BTOVT::THIGPEN_S "Trout Lillies in Abundance" >>>

>I suspect that whichever group is squeakiest, or wields the most purchasing
>power, will in the end have its views prevail. 

That is exactly what my concern is. it should not happen at all (see First
Amendment)

In a democracy of canibals 51% can vote to eat the other 49%.
In a constitutional republic 99% can*NOT* vote to eat 1%. That is what 
freedom means. 
Amos

Amos, you're right, in that definition of democracy.  But our system differs in
many ways from pure democracy.  One of those ways is the Bill of Rights, which
defines the rights of the people (collectively) and of persons -- so that no
matter what is the will of the majority, the individual's rights may not be
trampled.  

The First Amendment guarantees your right to speak, but does not compel people 
to listen or agree.  For that, you need to convince, which most often requires
persistence.  Good thing individuals are protected in the meantime!

It ain't perfect, but I'm not volunteering to move elsewhere.

    
    It saddens and enrages me that you can turn on the tube anytime of day
    and see rape, murder, drugs, and pretty racy love scenes between men
    and women, but ... a positive, respectful, caring romance cannot
    develop between two women without the advertisers getting nervous.
    Now if LA Law was sponsored by Tom's of Maine or sellers of tofu and
    futons, well, then they'd have a real fight on their hands.  I intend
    to write, but what am I gonna say... "I'll never eat at McDonald's
    or watch Tom Brokaw again..?"
    
    Justine
    
    ps  Good point, though, about what was shown being fairly positive.

    I think it is unlikely that they could modify the script of a show
    that aired so soon after the first episode, in response to letters.
    Shows like this are rehersed and taped several weeks before they are
    aired.  I would not be surprised if last night's episode was "in the
    can" long before last *week's* episode was shown.
    
    ----
    Last season Thirtysomething had an episode about two gay men who worked
    at the advertising agency.  Showed them in bed too.  Considerable flack
    afterwards as I recall.
    
    ----
    Myself, I don't watch LA Law, but I do love Northern Exposure.  This
    week's episode (which I only caught the beginning of, the rest of it
    is on a tape I haven't gotten to yet) is about what goes on when the
    town of Cicely celebrates Founder's Day.   Turns out the founders were
    these two lesbians who decided to settle in the area in the 19th
    century or something.  Cicely and Roslyn.  (The town is named after
    Cicely, and the saloon after Roslyn.)
    
    Chris (the disk jockey) described Roslyn as being kind of heavy-set
    and jowly, but "attractive in a Margaret-Thatcher sort of way."

I wasn't too pleased that one of the gay men on thirtysomething was recently
identified as being HIV+.  I suppose it's not an unrealistic scenario, but
it seemed to me like it helped reinforce the stereotype of AIDS being tied to
gay men, and vice versa.

    Sharon

	I'm choosing to look at the positive portrayal by LA Law;
	that not all lesbigays are out to hump everything they can 
	get their hands on, that it isn't just about sex, and that 
	not all attractions end up by the two people bonking each 
	other's brains out.  As seems to happen with the heteros 
	on the show.

	Carla

>    I think it is unlikely that they could modify the script of a show
>    that aired so soon after the first episode, in response to letters.

	But I suspect (prospective) advertisers have access to 
	scripts and/or completed episodes well before air dates,
	perhaps enough to allow minor edits.

	I personally thought Abbey would experiment with a relationship
	with CJ and decide it wasn't what she wanted. I am curious
	if this would have been an acceptable outcome for many of the
	people here (absent any rumor of outside pressure). 

	Despite LA Law's general tendency for left wing-nut story lines,
	it remains the only regularly scheduled "Big 3" network prime
	time programming I regularly watch.

						Tom_K

    Exactly, Carla. So why couldn't they continue the relationship with
    something along the lines of lets get to know each other better and
    find out what yours and mine feelings really are. Show a positive
    relationship for a change. Two people who are willing to work at a
    relationship before and after they become intimate. I really hated that
    "so consider yourself dumped and relieved" line. I like the one about
    your not honest enough to be a friend, let alone a lover, but they
    could have used it as a springboard to develop the relationship.
    
    I know I know. What would poor mainstream, nongay, middle America
    think. "Oh my God. They show female/male realtionships that always end
    up in the toilet (Except Ann and Stewart and their not real stable) and
    the female/female one works. We cant have this. Quick call the FCC.
    Call my lawyer. My church group needs some publicity. Let's stop this
    now" What a laugh.
    
    Justine, I'm going ahead with my letter as soon as get all the
    addresses. I'm also going to ask the producers if this was what they
    wanted to do all along. If so, I maight and probably will drop the
    show, but I won't boycott the sponsor. Besides, I prefer Burger King
    and Arby's to Mickey-D's and Peter Jennings to Tom Brokaw. :-)
    
    PJ

	PJ, what I mean is, maybe CJ isn't attracted to Abbey,
	and is letting it drop rather than taking advantage of
	her obvious willingness.  There are lots of reasons CJ
	might not want to help a straight woman come out of the 
	closet.  I know I can rattle off a dozen reasons why I 
	wouldn't.

	Gay men and women are usually portrayed as sex starved
	desperados, and CJ is bashing through that stereotype,
	so far.  I believe this is goodness.

	Naturally, I would love to see them sizzle together and
	make network herstory.  But rejection is reality, as is
	a lesbian/bisexual woman letting down a straight woman
	curious about what it'd be like, if ...

	At least CJ didn't dump Abbey for that gooby man she
	went out on a date with, which was my initial fear.

	I'm still going to write to David Kelley and ask that
	they not drop the subject of lesbianism.  I might even
	suggest they add me to the cast to portray CJ's new love
	interest.  =8-)

	Carla

    For those of you who like me are lazy about writing letters here's
    one that you can just extract out,buff up with your own personal
    touches and then mail off...
    
    
    
    {Insert your name and address}
    
David Kelley
Twentieth Television, 20th Century Fox Studios
P.O. Box 900
Beverly Hills, CA 90213
 

{Insert Date}

Dear Mr. Kelley:

I've been a fan of "L.A. Law" for many years now and have always felt that the
show was well put together. I'm very pleased to see the possibility of a
romance between CJ and Abby and hope you continue with this storyline. 
I'd love to see these two women enter into a relationship together.

The controversies homosexual and bisexual relationships on television stir
up just amazes me because so much of the population is not hetereosexual.
There are estimates that ten percent of the population is homosexual. I
won't be surprised if the number was greater than ten percent.
Unfortunately, many homosexuals and bisexuals have to keep their sexuality a
secret for fear of being discriminated against or physically and mentally
abused.  Having postive homosexual and bisexual role models on television
gives us visibility and let's the world know that we are also a big part of
society. 

Be bold, be brave and have CJ and Abby get into a caring and wonderful
relationship. There are many of us out here who will be cheering you on and 
many who will start to watch "L.A. Law" just because of this new romance!




Respectfully,

{insert your name here}

    The "lead time" for network television shows (from production to
    broadcast) is anywhere from three to eight weeks, depending on
    how easy or difficult the production is. However, there are
    certainly cases in which production is completed only days before
    broadcast. MOONLIGHTING was an infamous example.
    
    While this past week's L.A. LAW was almost certainly "in the can"
    weeks ago, there's absolutely no question that the producers could've
    re-shot and restructured any portion of it dealing with CJ and Abby
    in the wake of the previous week's episode.
    
    As for the advertisers seeing the episodes in advance, yes, I do
    believe that they do, though I don't believe that it's very far
    in advance.
    
    Also note that it was *not* due to pressure from any specialized
    groups or the public in general that was responsible for this
    retrenching. The advertisers wanted the storyline killed because
    they *feared* negative reaction.
    
    --- jerry

    
    Thanks Laurie, I am lazy.

    I'm somewhat lazy too, but I think I will compose my own letter. I
    would love to see the story line continue. Maybe Abby will grow more
    honest as a human being in CJ's eyes and she will try to start the
    relationship up. I won't say up again because it never really got
    started.
    
    Carla, go for it. How many votes for Carla as CJ's love interest.
    YYYYAAAAYYYYY. Ooopps maybe you don't want to leave the beautiful
    Northwest for LA yet. Seriously, what you said is the reason I'm
    hesitant about writing to them yet. If it was definitely an open and
    honest reason for not letting the relationship progress, then OK. But,
    if it was at the sponsor's and "middle America's" narrow mindedness,
    then I hit the mail box real quick. 
    
    I know they didn't have to reshoot the ending. THey may have even had
    more than one ending, just waiting for public and corporate reaction.
    It does seem a shame that they couldn't have let it go on a little
    farther.
    
    PJ

Well, I vote for CJ's next love to be Carla. (Will you send me an autograph?)

Another perfectly plausible story line might have been Abby having an affair
with CJ and then deciding she prefered men. For that matter, didn't CJ say she
was bisexual anyway and not lesbian? Or am I splitting hairs? But I suppose
being bisexual is even less accepted. Makes you too unpredictable. liesl

    
    Yes, CJ is bisexual.  
    
    I wrote a letter.  I said that I appreciated the CJ/Abby story line
    and that I'd heard they were considering ending it because of pressure
    from advertisers.  I said that I was tired of never seeing my
    experience reflected in the media and that this seemed to be a
    wonderful opportunity for LA Law to break new ground and keep the gay,
    lesbian, and bisexual members of their audience (and their supporters)
    watching eagerly.
    
    I also pointed out that it seemed outrageous that mainstream TV could
    show rape, murder, incest, drug use, gang violence, etc but not a 
    positive portrayal of a romance between 2 adult women.
    
    I hope lots of folks will write.  Thanks to whoever posted the address
    (I forget who it was now) - it definitely helped to push me over the edge 
    toward writing.
    
    Justine

    Well, not to press the point or be redundant...
    
    One of the LATE NIGHT type CABLE type movies would suggest that
    the actress that plays CJ, has played more explicit lesbian roles
    before.
    
    This is purely heresay, but my husband tends not to forget
    the women he sees in these things.
    
    Just an aside.
    
    Cindi

    
    cindi,
    
      while the movie title(s) escape me at the moment, it is true that the
    wmn who plays CJ has played other lesbian role(s).
    
    ~r

Oh, see Lair of the White Worm.  It is hysterical and (as I understand it,
haven't seen LA Law) stars the woman who plays CJ.

D!

    
    [thanks for the title, D!]
    
    re: cindi
    
     but i didn't think it was one that was shown on TV?

    I'm not sure and am probably wrong on this, but....
    I think the woman who plays CJ was the same woman who seduced and had
    an affair with Catharine Deneuve (sp?) in "Richard's Things". This is 
    about a woman, Deneuve, whose husband died while having an affair. She
    meets and confronts the woman, who seduces her over a few days. These
    two woman look somewhat alike, are both British, and have the same 1st
    name. I'm probably wrong. 
    
    PS. I own the movie if anyone would like to borrow it. It isn't
    explicit and in fact might only be rated PG by today's standards or
    maybe R like it is. There is no sex shown between the woman. Just
    before and after and the only nudity is one scene where the other
    woman, (CJ?) is shown with bare breasts and this is only in passing and
    not done to excite. I think it is a great movie. Very intense and
    sometimes very erotic. If anyone wants to see it, send me mail.
    
    PJ

    OK, I only have 1/2 the info here, cuz I wasn't really listening
    to the TV very well...I'll catch the commercial on the news in the 
    Morning, & put the rest of the details in then.
    
    An actress from L.A. Law will be interviewed on Good Day, a Boston
    Morning TV show, Wednesday (Tomorrow) the show is on channel 5 @ 9:00.
    
    I'll get her name & put it in tomorrow morning, but in case you want
    to set your VCR, I thought I'd mention it.
    
    'nite,
    
    Bon

    The actress who plays CJ is Amanda Donohoe. As mentioned before,
    she was in THE LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM, and she was also in THE
    RAINBOW, by the same director, Ken Russell (most of his films tend
    to get surreal and excessive, but they're also quite wonderful if
    you're in the right frame of mind).
    
    She was *not* in RICHARD'S THINGS, however.
    
    --- jerry

    Hi,
    
    Sorry this is so late, I've been really busy this morning...
    
    The actress being interviewed on GMA this AM is(was) Jill Eikenberry,
    of LA law. I don't know what role she plays on the show, since I
    only catch it now & then. I taped it, so if anyone would like to
    check it out, let me know.
    
    Bonnie

    Jill Eikenberry plays Anne Kelsey. Her appearance on GOOD DAY was
    largely a promo for a TV-movie that she's appearing in this coming
    Sunday and Monday.
    
    --- jerry

    I guess this show lives by the old adage, "Don't get mad, get even."
    
    One of the stories in this week's script had Leland arbitrating
    for a blues/gospel singer, "The Wompman", who was suing the owner
    of a ball team for breech of contract. Wompman had been hired to
    sing "The Star-Spangled Banner" at the first game of the season,
    but was fired because of objections to his rendition of the anthem.
    Since the game had been telecast by cable, Wompman felt that he
    lost a chance at major exposure, and this hurt his career.
    
    After much discussion, Leland had the Wompman sing it in one of
    the conference rooms, with all of the office folk listening. After
    he was done, everyone cheered and applauded. Later, Leland asked
    the owner, "What do you find offensive about it?" to which the
    owner replied, "Well, personally, *I* don't find it objectionable.
    It's the telecast sponsors' opinions I'm concerned with."
    
    "Well, what did *they* find objectionable?"
    
    "Nothing really, but they were afraid their potential consumers
    in the audience would be offended."
    
    Then Leland proceeds to give him a dressing down about the whole
    thing, talking about freedom of expression and so forth, and awards
    a healthy sum to the Wompman.
    
    I thought I was going to wet my pants all during this sequence.
    Gee, I can't *imagine* where they got the inspiration for this bit.
    
    --- jerry

    
    
    
    I'm glad I caught myself from reading .77 when I realized what it was.
    
    Jerry, the show was only on last night, and some people tape it...
    could you put a form feed next time before discussing episodes?
    
    Thanks.
    
    kath

spoiler....








I love it when the lawyer for the team says "But I have to think about
what the sponsors would think" and Leland says "You sound just like a 
network executive!!!"

Dead giveaway - you know Leland wouldn't have said that - the writers
stuck it in to make a point, send a message. Love it!!

D!

    In case anyone cares, I believe the Today Show is going to
    be interviewing various people connected with LA Law all
    this week, beginning tomorrow**.  Don't know what part
    of the show's two hours will contain the interviews, but
    in the past, the entertainment news was usually at the
    beginning of the last half hour of the program.
    
    **It's called "network self-promotion" (both shows are on NBC).
    
    Richard

    G'Day,
    
    	I can't say that I watch LA Law (I think I watched it once to see
    how 'Lori Partridge' went in a serious role :-) ) but I will probably
    watch it tonight as here in Sydney we get to see the episode that
    prompted this string.  I suppose our papers and radio etc will be full
    of all the complaining that the US went through - time will tell.
    
    David.
    

    re: .80
    
    The Today show aired the LA LAW 'interview' at 7:45 this morning. I am
    going to set my VCR to tape from 7:30 to 8:30 am tommorrow. Today's
    show had a few actors discuss thier characters. It was cute. Tommorrow
    they will show how some of the more famous scenes were shot. (I suspect
    giving Ros the shaft will be one)
    
    New noter
    Stephanie
    
    (I never miss LA LAW)

    
    
    
    RE: .82
    
    
    Today's bit did indeed have the "Roz gets the shaft" bit.
    
    But, even better, stay tuned for tomorrow when they will be talking to
    the "young and upcoming lawyers" on the show.....I wonder if they 
    will discuss the Abby/CJ storyline at all.  
    
    Hum....
    
    Anyway, tomorrow night is the end-of-season cliffhanger.  Susan Dey has
    decided not to leave the show, I'm wondering how they are going to
    bring her back in......
    
    kath

    
    
    
    
    Grace (Susan Dey) and Abby decide that they're really in love and will
    raise Abby's and Grace's (when she has it) children together.
    
    That way CJ will be free for Carla when she joins the show next season!
    
    :-)
    
    Justine
    

>    Grace (Susan Dey) and Abby decide that they're really in love 

Noooo!!!  I've had a crush on Susan Dey since back in her, er, regrettable
early carreer...

D!

    
    me, too.

    re:.84
    
    Too funny.   Good one!  :-)   
    
                                      L.J.
    

    Since Grace is still going to be forming a new law firm with Mickey
    and Victor, it's likely that she'll be appearing in court scenes,
    in some cases, quite likely as an adversarial counsel.
    
    --- jerry

    
    
    >Since Grace is still going to be forming a new law firm with Mickey
    >    and Victor,
    
    Are you sure?  From the interview with her it seemed that was not the
    case...rather, that she had a change of heart?
    
    Did anyone catch the interview with the CJ character this morning on
    the Today show?  I caught the VERY tail end of it, and missed most of
    the discussion about the CJ-Abby storyline.  Can someone summarize what
    her comments where?
    
    I know she said that it was "saddening" that society couldn't accept
    something so natural.
    
    kath

    Wait!  Did you say Victor?  What's he like?  I've been searching all
    my life for a Victor cast in a positive light.  Tell me he isn't a
    loathsome jerk.
    					- Vick

    A loathsome jerk?  Au contraire!  Victor is the main reason I
    occasionally watch the show.
                                     Sue
    (Personally, I think Victor is a good name; it's uncommon and to me
    suggests someone sort of mysterious.  You should try growing up with
    15 other Sue's in every grade... Sue A., Sue B., Sue C.  ...) 

    All right!  A good Victor!  I may have to start watching.  - Vick
    P.S.  Mysterious?  Moi?  This is too much for one day! :^)

Victor (Jimmy Smits) is great.  An incredibly talented lawyer, a general
nice guy, very attractive, and loyal to his background and heritage (he
doesn't try to hide or downplay the fact that he is hispanic.)

D!

    Tonight is the season finale for LA Law, Victor.  Jimmy Smits,
    who plays Victor Sifuentes, is leaving the show (with
    the possibility of guest shots in the future).  But you can
    watch the previous seasons' episodes on cable channel
    Lifetime, weeknights at 8 pm, Eastern time (I think that's
    the time, check your local guide).
    
    
    Richard

    Victor is a major hunk, intelligent, talented, very nice guy, and
    indeed loyal to his roots without keeping what he came to see as the
    damaging part of his roots.  He had been involved in gangs but left and
    went to college.  He is Hispanic, both in character and in real life.
    Although I think that in real life he is of Puerto Rican descent, not
    Mexican, as is the character.
    
    It's really quite funny because the character was brought into the firm
    as a basketball ringer.  In an early episode, the firm played
    basketball against a rival firm and were losing badly.  They hired
    Victor because he was tall and could play hoop.  They won the game with
    him on the team.  Then they were all surprized as heck when he turned
    out to be a good lawyer as well.  It was a nice little zap to
    prejudices and a good consciousness raiser.
    
    I adore Jimmy Smits the actor who plays Victor Sifuentes.
    
    I think the character is a good role model, although I must admit that
    when I think about him, role model is not the first thing that comes to
    mind.  Or even the second.  Except when I am trying to behave myself.

    OH, YA! Victor is one hunka-hunka burnin' love!! ;*) Surely a better
    man than Arnie!! I wish I was up on the current storyline, I used to
    watch every week, but I only get to see it every so often. I'll have
    to catch up by keeping tuned to Lifetime!! thanks for the tip!
    
    Bonnie

	I completely agree with Bonnie's assessment of Victor in 
	.96.  Hubba hubba.

	C.

    I do believe Jimmy Smits identifies as Hispanic, but I remember
    in an interview he said that his last name is Dutch, so
    there is perhaps a Dutch-South American colony connection
    in his background (was it Surinam that used to be Dutch Guyana (sp?)?
    
    Richard, way off the topic now!

    
    If they really do kill the Abby/CJ romance (of course, I have hope that
    my wonderful letter and others like it will help them see the light),
    I doubt I'll watch it as regularly as I have been.  I like that there
    are some strong women characters, but I'll be too angry to watch if
    they just sweep the woman-to-woman romance under the carpet or WORSE
    if they fix Abby and/or CJ up with some convenient men just to make
    everyone comfortable again.  I could live with Abby deciding not to
    explore her feelings for women, but I can't live with them acting
    like it never happened.
    
    Justine

Possible spoilers:

























Speaking of invisible women, a couple years ago, the was a woman that
Bennie was going to marry. But this past season, it seemed like
she had never existed. Did something happen in an episode I missed
to explain this?





















Also, Abby was made a partner in last night's episode.

					Tom_K

    There *is* a TV conference, with an LA Law note....but
    to answer here, since I too miss Amanda Plummer as Benny's
    girlfriend/fiancee, they were set to marry, but
    Benny decided against it at the last minute.  I think they
    decided not to see each other after that.
    
    Richard

    L.A. Law _has_ depicted a positive, albiet scant, portrait of a 
    lesbian relationship before, in 1987.  On last night's Lifetime
    re-run, Arnie has a sexy blonde English temporary secretary while 
    Roxanne is on jury duty, who he repeatedly tries to ask out.  She
    politely but firmly refuses repeatedly.  One evening he asks her
    for a drink, and she says Sam is taking her to a show.  He asks,
    "Who is this Sam person?  Are you serious?"  Yes.  "Married?"
    No.  "Engaged?"  No.  "Good, then I still have a chance."  She
    smiles, then Sam (a woman) arrives, kisses her cheek, and very
    affectionately walks with her to the elevator.  When they get
    inside, Sam strokes her cheek as they stand pressed together.

    Made my evening.  But then I'm easily pleased.

    Carla

    re:.102
    
    You forgot to mention that when Arnie says, "Then that means I
    still have a chance," she says, "None whatsoever."
    
    This reminds me of another recent show (unfortunately, not being
    renewed) called MY LIFE AND TIMES. The premise is that of an old
    man in the year 2035 reminiscing about certain parts of his life
    (most of them occurring in our present day). In one episode, he
    recalls his wedding, telling about it to his female attendent and
    another woman when they tell him that they're getting married. It
    makes one hopeful for the future.
    
    --- jerry

    This just in from the "National Enquirer", dated July 9, 1991. It's the
    latest dirt from L.A. Law. OK,OK so I read these trashy rags. I never
    used to believe anything I read in here until I read something which
    happened at Framingham State College, in Framingham, MA. A student had
    fallen from the7th floor, landed in a bush and *survived*. It was a
    true story (I was a student at this college when this incident happened)
    and it ended up in the "National Enquirer". So yah' never know. 
    
    The article has 3 pictures with it. One is just a picture of Michele
    (dull), another is from the scene where Abby and C.J. are kissing
    (hot!!) and another picture of  Amanda Donohoe with Sandra Bernhard
    (sizzling hot!!).

    With the latest dirt from Hollywood,
    Laurie

*******************************************************************
"'L.A. LAW' STAR QUITS - SHE WAS FORCED TO PLAY LESBIAN ROLE"

After shocking America with network TV's first lesbian kiss, Michele Greene 
has quit "L.A. LAW" because she refuses to be forced into playing a gay 
character on the show, reveal insiders.

The actress--who rose to stardom as straitlaced attorney Abby 
Perkins--insisted to "The Enquirer" that she's leaving the play different 
roles.

But Hollywood insiders say that the real reason Michele jumped ship from the 
hit TV show is that producers were planning a sizzling lesbian romance 
between Abby and new lawyer C.J. Lamb, played by actress Amanada Donohoe.

"The truth is that Michele is afraid to be typecast as an actress who plays 
gay characters," said an insider. "She had asked the producers to change 
the short line, but their minds were made up."

So Michele became the third star to leave the show at the end of this past 
season joining Jimmy Smits, who'll return part-time next season, and Harry 
Hamlin.

"When Michele quit, the producers were upset," said the insider. "They were 
willing to bend to some of her demands to keep her--but they wanted to keep 
the lesbian story line as well.  Under those circumstances, Michele was 
determined to leave.

"The producers are now negotiating with her to return next season for a few 
episodes to resolve the story line concerning Abby's fate."

The problems started for the actress last December when "L.A. LAW" execs 
suddenly decided to have Abby and C.J. kiss for a controversial episode.

"When Michele was given the script, she was blown away," said a source on 
the set. "She told the executive producer. 'I'm not sure if I can handle 
this! I'm not sure if America can handle this!"

Despite Michele's objections, the producer convinced her to do the kissing 
scene.  But she was so nervous about the actual kiss that she refused to 
rehearse it, say insiders.

And she insisted that the set be closed to all but essential crew members.

In an exclusive interview, Michele admitted to "The Enquirer", "When I 
first saw this kiss in the script, I wanted to know if the writers were 
doing it only to get ratings or for shock value.

"They just wanted to establish that C.J. was bisexual. And there was a
subsequent episode where Abby, questioning her sexuality, made a pass at
C.J. But my character was never bisexual or lesbian." 

Michele added that she thought "it would be crazy" to turn her character -- 
a very conservative Midwestern girl--into a lesbian.

But that's exactly what producers intended to do. "And that's the reason 
Michele bailed out," said the source on the set.

"After the lesbian story line 'L.A. Law' creator Steven Bochco planned to 
beef up the story even more for the 1991-92 season."

One of the things that turned Michele off was Bochco's idea to have Abby 
and C.J. move in together, then announce their romance to the rest of the 
firm, revealed an insider with the "L.A. Law" production company.

Michele was also worried that by playing Amanda's lover she would become 
too closely identified with the outrageous British actress, said the 
source.

Free-thinking Amanda has appeared nude in the film "Castaway" and was 
covered only in body paint and a sex device for a shocking scene from 
another movie,"The Lair of the White Worm".  She has also been publicly 
spotted holding hangs with Madonna's pal Sandra Bernhard.

"Michele may say otherwise, but she couldn't stomach some of the things 
Bochco was considering." declared the production company insider. "And she 
wanted to get off the show before the lesbian stuff got even hotter!"

--Alan Braham Smith and Lydia Encinas

TV stars like Michele Greene do not give interviews to rags like the
Enquirer, exclusive or otherwise.  The story is also self-contradictory:
first it says that Greene told the Enquirer she was leaving to play
other roles while insiders were reporting the "truth," then it says that
she told the Enquirer that she couldn't handle the lesbian plot.  Be
consistent in your lies, huh?  Celebrities don't even bother suing the
Enquirer or others of its ilk because to do so would dignify the rags.

The statement that Steven Bochco is responsible for part of the lesbian
storyline rings hollow - although Bochco and Terry Louise Fisher are
the creators of L.A. Law, both left the show some years back.  Fisher
left in anger, but Bochco left to pursue other possibilities.  His
departure was followed by the appearance of Doogie Howser, M.D., on the
air.

The Enquirer is like any other "newspaper" - it picks up wire service
stories such as the "student falls from 7th floor and lives" bit.  For
the Enquirer's purposes, these articles sell papers because they are
sensational, and they also lend the paper a credibility it otherwise
lacks.  I would not believe the Enquirer if they printed an article
saying my mother died in August of 1975 - she did, but I'd check the
vital statistics before I'd buy the story from the Enquirer.

-d

    
    
    Also, the C.J.-Abbey fling is over.  C.J. said she didn't want to be
    the objectification of Abbey's curiousity.
    

    re .106

    Come, now. If Dallas could resurrect Bobby Ewing by turning an
    entire year into a bad dream, then restarting a simple fling
    should be child's play.

    
    Yea, but by now the fling is yesterday's oatmeal.  Like, if they're
    gonna kill somebody else off the show, they can't have 'em fall down an
    elevator shaft.  It's already been done.
    

    Assuming the Enquirer story is wrong about Michele Greene leaving the
    show (but, uh... Laurie, could you hang on to those pictures? :-)
    I can see lots of room for following up on this story.  Shall we have a
    best scene contest or maybe use the chain novel approach and write a
    whole episode (or even a spinoff series :-) about Abby and CJ?  I'll
    start:

    Abby: (Knocks on the open door to CJ's office and walks in) Hi.
    CJ: (looks a little surprised but catches herself and smiles that smile
    of hers) Hi.
    Abby: Um...  (leans into the office a little more but still holding
    onto door) 
    CJ: Come in (walks toward Abby, who lets go of the door, and closes
    the door.  There's a little "tension" when CJ passes so close by Abby to 
    close the door.  CJ backs up a little and leans against her desk)
    Abby: I think I understand why you... rejected me that night at my
          house, but....  I can't stop thinking about you.
    CJ:  (softly, more vulnerable than we usually see her) I've been
         thinking a lot about you, too.
    Abby: (Smiles shyly, pleased and embarrassed, a little surprised)
          I'm still scared by all this.  I've never aknowledged these
          kinds of feelings for a woman before, but.. it was wrong for
          me to expect you to help me deal with my fear.
    CJ: (recovers composure) My, my, you have been thinking a lot about this
        haven't you?  
    Abby: Yes.  And reading, and I joined a discussion group over at the
          women's center.
    CJ: Oh, is Julia still there?
    Abby: Yes.  Were you and she...
    CJ: Lovers? (a little teasing, sensing Abby's discomfort with the word
        and the idea)
    Abby: Yes, lovers.
    CJ: No, Julia's lover, Clair, was a client of mine.  We sued her employer 
        for sexual harrassment.  I like them both a great deal, but we've lost 
        touch these last few years. It would be great to see them both again.
    Abby: Well, how about tomorrow night -- there's a coffee house.  Clair's
          going to read some of her poetry.
    CJ:  Sounds lovely.
    Abby: Great!
    CJ:  Are you busy tonight?
    Abby: Tonight?
    CJ: Yes, it's my turn to cook.  Why don't you come to my house for
        dinner tonight?  I'd really like to hear about all this exploring
        you've been doing, and it'll be hard to talk tomorrow night - 
        especially with all those women there that I haven't seen in
        a long while.
   Abby: I'd like that.
   CJ:  Will you have trouble finding a babysitter?
   Abby: No, my son's with my mother this week.
   CJ: OK, then.  I'll see you later.
   Abby: OK then...  (just then Ann knocks and comes in.  She doesn't overhear
         the conversation, but she definitely notices the strong vibes
         between Abby and CJ)
   Ann:  (Nervous and confused)  Oh, am I interrupting something?
   Abby: No, I was just leaving.  See you later, CJ.  (Ann looks out the
             door after Abby, then at CJ, still puzzled - end of scene)
    
                                                          
    =====================================================================
    
    Justine

    
    Justine, brava!  Send it to David Kelly!
    
    Carla (who was spellbound just _reading_ the scene!)
    

    
    Glad to hear it, Carla, because I was thinking that you could guest
    star as Clair (the poet and CJ's former client) -- that way you
    could flirt mercilessly with CJ :-)
    
    

    
    OOH, perfect!  A customized role for me!
    
    Thanks.  =8-)
    
    C.
    

    YES YES YES Carla on LA Law. I love it. Justine, the scene had me
    enthralled. Thst's the way people should appear. I have never seen
    anything that natural on TV and rarely in books in my life. I think
    youu ought to send it in. Maybe, continue it a little and make a whole
    story line around them. To be done over the whole season of course. 
    Fabulous stuff, my friend. You have quite a career here if you ever
    want to slow down on the music. Hey do both. I want to see writer:
    Justine Sullivan rolling across my TV screen thought. Imagine!
    Special guest star. Carla Blazek Writen by Justine Sullivan on the same
    credits. YYYYYAAAAAAHHHHHHOOOOOO Do it Do it.
    
    PJ who really should calm down a bit. BUT I DON"T WANT TO
    YYYYYEEEEHHAAAA Do it Do it Come on Do it. 

    RE: .109 (Justine)
    
    Great, Justine!!! Mail it into the studio!!! 
    
    If Michele Green does leave I hope they have CJ get involved with
    another woman. Of course, I'd love to see her get involved with Susan
    Dey (Grace on the show) but she's already married to Jimmy Smits
    (Sufentes on the show) so that's out. She could have an affair but
    that's not like her character, IMHO. They should just get Madonna on
    there for heaven's sake :-) They could have her playing herself. You
    know CJ has to defend her because Sean Penn is trying to sue her for
    something :-) The other night Indigo was auctioning off a giant MAdonna
    poster. All the women in the place went crazy when they announced the
    picture. Am I off the subject again? Probably...
    
    Laurie

    Grace married Victor?????   NO!!!  God, I was so horrified just to find
    out she had left Mike (even though I think Victor is wonderful and
    all...)  And, in the back of my mind, if she was going to leave Mike,
    then WHY NOT ME???
    
    D! long time fan of Susan Dey
    

    re:.115
    
    Yup, Grace married Victor. And no guys dressed in gorilla suits
    appeared to stop her.
    
    Them's the breaks.
    
    --- jerry

I received this response from L.A. Law regarding my letter about the "CJ
and Abby" storyline...It looked like a real live person signed it rather
than a computerized signing.

Laurie
************************************************************************

Dear Ms. Langelo:

Thank you so much for your enthusiastic response to our efforts.  More than 
ratings, it's letters like yours that tell us how we're doing with viewers. 
 I hope we continue to earn your support.

While we can't promise what will happen next season, we hope you will be 
with us in October to find out.

Sincerely,

David E. Kelley
Executive Producer

    
    I got the same letter.  At least we know they read our letters!
    
    Justine

    "They read" your letters?  "Someone" reads your letters.  I'd bet
    M Kelley gets a sheet with columns and numbers on it.
    
    Sorry for ratholing...
    
    ed