"Mulder and Scully can't get together. Look at what happened to
'Moonlighting.'"

It's possible that no two statements in the English language can raise an
intelligent Shipper's ire quite like the ones above. We have heard them
countless times in chat rooms, on bulletin boards, on newsgroups -- and
each time we have to make a choice: enlighten the purveyors of this
misguided theory, or ignore them and try to keep our blood pressure at
normal levels. And yet, despite attempts to dispute this theory, the
fallacious argument continues. So here, once and for all, is a definitive
treatise: Why the "Moonlighting" Argument is a Fallacy. (1)

Something to be kept in mind while reading this argument is that I was,
at the time, a huge "Moonlighting" fan. Obsessive to the extreme. (2)
I =know= the show. I =love= the show. And maybe in a weird way that's
what helps me to see the whole argument more clearly.

First and foremost we must deal with the most obvious and crucial reason
this argument doesn't hold water:

The consummation of David Addison and Maddie Hayes' relationship
did not bring about the ruin of "Moonlighting."

Allow me to elaborate. Those of you who actually watched "Moonlighting,"
cast your mind back to those fun-filled, "Big 80s" times. Remember the
episode "I am Curious...Maddie?" You know, THE episode? It was fabulous,
wasn't it? I'll never again hear The Rhonettes' "Be My Baby" without
remembering that episode fondly. The rest of that season was also a lot of fun
as David and Maddie tried to deal with their confusing emotions. (Remember
when they got it on in the car in the episode "To Heiress Human"?) It was
during the following two seasons that the show began to fail. And here's why:
they kept David and Maddie APART. Remember Brooke Adams? Maddie's
ridiculous marriage to Walter Bishop? The whole "Who's the father of Maddie's
baby" storyline? (3) These were lame and awkward plot devices to prevent
David and Maddie from continuing their tempestuous relationship. Remember
how dull those episodes were? It was because Bruce Willis and Cybill Shepherd
didn't have any scenes together, not because they were together and being "mushy"
or "romantic."

Another reason "Moonlighting" failed: Bruce Willis, Cybill Shepherd, and
Glenn Gordon Caron all hated each other and by the final seasons hated the
show. Remember Cybill threatening to sue Glenn Caron for sexual harassment?
The much-publicized behind the scenes fighting between Cybill and Bruce?
These people did not want to be around each other, and had no interest in
furthering the good of the show. And you know what? It showed up in the
end product. Viewers could tell. Remember all those episodes in the final
season that were all about Herbert Viola and Agnes Dipesto instead of David
and Maddie? (4) Passing the buck to these minor characters was not only a
yawn fest, but an insult to the viewers who were tuning in to see Bruce Willis
and Cybill Shepherd.

In short: lousy writing, backstage clashes, and keeping the characters =apart,=
repeat, =apart,= is what killed "Moonlighting." Not David and Maddie "getting
together." They never got together! Having sex in two episodes does not
constitute together by any stretch of the imagination. (5)

Another show that fell prey to this syndrome was "Remington Steele." By the
end of the show the convoluted silly attempts to still keep the characters apart
(remember Jack Scalia?) resulted in alienation of viewers. "Scarecrow and Mrs.
King" and "Who's the Boss?" committed the similar crime of waiting =too= long
for the characters to get together, and as a result, people stopped watching. (6)
From what I hear from fans, "The Nanny" is beginning to fall prey to this as
well. (7)

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that David and Maddie's "getting together"
was what ruined the show, even though it wasn't. Let's just say it for the hell of it.

It still doesn't work.

Reason Number One: Mulder and Scully's Relationship is Not the Only
Plot/Purpose of "The X-Files." Think about "Moonlighting." The entire raison
d'etre of that show was the flirtation between David and Maddie. (Not that
there's anything wrong with that! ) The public knew it. The press
knew it. The stars knew it. (Remember when they'd break the fourth
wall and answer viewer mail about David and Maddie's sexual tension? (8))
Mulder and Scully's relationship is just one facet of the multi-layered show,
"The X-Files." Their relationship could shift, yet the rest of the show -- the
mythology, the solving crimes of a paranormal nature -- would remain unchanged.
The driving force of the show would remain intact in the hands of any competent
writer. (9) (There are even fanfic stories which illustrate this fact perfectly. (10))
Tied in with this is a fact that truly makes a comparison of these two shoes
illogical: "Moonlighting" was first and foremost a comedy. A show about sexual
tension second. Only as a third priority was it truly a drama. "The X-Files" is
first and foremost a drama. Apples and oranges? Perhaps.

Reason Number Two: And I owe this one to Paula Graves (11) for pointing it
out so eloquently to me: The Primary Tension Between Mulder and Scully is Not
a Sexual Tension, But Rather One of Intuition vs. Science. Why did David and
Maddie bicker? Because of repressed sexual desire. Why do Mulder and Scully
argue? Because of diametrical beliefs. Were Mulder and Scully to become
romantically involved, that primary conflict would not suddenly disappear.
They'd be having the same conversation over an autopsy as they do now. Do you
honestly think that Dana Scully would, after a good night of sex, turn into a
simpering damsel batting her eyelashes at Mulder and agreeing to any of his
cockamamie theories without proof? The very idea is an insult to the writers
and to the actors. Mulder and Scully are intelligent adults who are not ruled
by their hormones.

Which brings us to Reason Number Three: Mulder and Scully are Professional,
Well-Developed Characters. Many professionals who work together are also
romantically involved, and it doesn't interfere with the job at hand. I personally
know husband-and-wife teams who run businesses together with no difficulty.
How? Because they are mature and professional people who realize there is an
appropriate time and place for everything. David and Maddie were not very
professional (was solving crimes a life's work for either one of them? No.),
and certainly weren't mature! On the other hand, Mulder
and Scully are complex, well-drawn characters, who would be able to handle
the responsibility of a personal and working relationship.

Reason Number Four: Mulder and Scully Already Love Each Other. If you
are a NoRomo you may only see it as a platonic love, but the fact is that these
characters do love each other, and as partners, would gladly put their lives on
the line for each other (and have done so more than once). How could this
relationship possibly be intensified by sleeping together? The emotional
commitment is already there, and =that's= what determines the intensity of a
relationship, isn't it? To bring David and Maddie into this, did we ever feel
any true love between them? Would Maddie lay her life down for David, or
vice versa? No. While David and Maddie's relationship was fun and
wonderful for what it was, it's nonetheless a completely different kind
of relationship than Mulder and Scully's.

Reason Number Five: We're Not Asking For Much. Let's face it, those of
us who wanted Dave and Maddie to get together pretty much wanted all sex,
all the time. After all, what else was there? Complex, mind-engaging mysteries?
Hah! With Mulder and Scully, all we're asking for is a simple acknowledgment
of romantic love. It could be covered in five minutes, and then we move on for
the rest of the season. We're not asking for candlelight dinners or mushy pillow
talk. We know the characters better than that. The assumption that if Mulder
and Scully were to become involved that the show would suddenly feature
nothing but our two favorite federal agents engaging in baby talk and scheduling
romantic assignations merely insults the intelligence and capabilities of the
writing staff. (12)

Reason Number Six: It Can Work, or, It's All in the Writing. "Hart to Hart."
"Lois & Clark" (which failed due to poor writing, not due to their relationship).
"Hill Street Blues." "L.A. Law." "NYPD Blue." "Silk Stalkings." These all
feature(d) couples who got together (or who were already together) and
still maintained a working relationship, without affecting the quality of
the show. More importantly, the focus of the show, the main conflict,
the driving plot, was not detracted from or ignored by these relationships.
As someone who both writes and professionally edits others' writing, I
find it an insult to imply that it simply can't be done. Good writing can
do just about anything.

And before I start to hear this particular "But...," let me stop you right now:

Why "Cheers" is Not a Valid Secondary Argument

Did you actually watch the entire run of "Cheers?" Not only did I watch it the
first time, but my local WB channel ran it at 11:30 PM every weeknight this
year, and since it was on immediately after Seinfeld (another addiction of mine),
I usually watched it. After Sam and Diane "got together," you know what?
The show was still funny. In fact, some of the funniest punchlines of the show
were related to Sam and Diane's relationship. I'm not sure why people say
"Cheers" went downhill. Clouded hindsight? The show was still just as popular,
still won Emmys. Maybe later, after they =broke Sam and Diane up,= and we
had the whole Frasier storyline (which we should all be thankful for now since
it resulted in a great spin-off show ), the convoluted machinations to keep
Sam and Diane separated may have resulted in some writing that was substandard
for "Cheers" (which was still pretty good!). Again, this was a show that insisted
on keeping the characters apart when the audience wanted them together.
Also, what other plot was there on "Cheers" to begin with? Norm and Cliff
sitting at the end of the bar week after week does not a dramatic conflict make.
So again, "Cheers," like "Moonlighting," like "Scarecrow and Mrs. King," like
"Remington Steele," is an irrelevant argument. Also, as we all know, "Cheers"
was a sitcom, and "The X-Files" is a drama. Apples and oranges!

In short, if you want to argue against Mulder and Scully becoming involved in
a romantic relationship, be my guest. You are entitled to your opinion, just as
I am entitled to mine. But please, please: use an argument that makes sense,
that can be considered and evaluated on logical and reasonable terms. Don't
bluster about "Moonlighting" just because you can't think of any other reason
to support your opinion. Because all you're doing is proving that you don't
have a leg to stand on. Not even a peg leg. (13)

Notes:
1. A fallacy is defined by Webster's as "a false or mistaken idea" or "false or
illogical reasoning."
2. If you need further proof, I actually had a T-shirt made up that said, "Does
felt feel? Do dice die?" while a friend got the corresponding shirt, "Do bears
bear? Do bees be?" That obsessed.
3. Damn that Mark Harmon!
4. Or have you, like me, attempted to block them from your memory?
5. I'm pretty sure it was two episodes. I'm going by memory, here.
6. And wouldn't Sliders have been better if Quinn and Wade had gotten together,
so we wouldn't have been subjected to Chicks of the Week (COWs) or Maggie
"Maggot" Beckett?
7. Actually, only about two people have told me this, so it's not a very scientific
conclusion, just an observation.
8. Then the two of them made out on screen, just to taunt us.
9. No, John Shiban doesn't count.
10. Jennifer Lyons' stuff is an excellent example. See "Too Close" or the Jason
vampire stories.
11. First told to me in an AOL Relationship Chat sometime in early 1997.
12. Again, John Shiban is of course excluded from this category, since as far as
I'm concerned he is not a writer, just a talentless toady.
13. Yes, this is a Quagmire reference.