Blakes7 February 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

80 participants
929 discussions

Re: [B7L] Re: Books and Movies
by Sally Manton 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

Dana wrote: <And I didn't think she was reading, it looked to me like a magnifier that you would use to do needlepoint or some kind of fine handwork.> Oh I *like* that, because I can see *my* being interesting in something beautiful and fiddly like lacemaking ... _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Another new zine at Redemption
by Deborah Day 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet, a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net --------------------------------------------------------------- > >My favourite ever by Chris was a John Cooper Clark version of Orbit. Is it >in here Chris? I guess JCC is slightly obscure, but I thought it was spot >on. I wish you could be persuaded to do a live version at Redemption. Or >perhaps we should get one of the Mancunians on the list to do it in the >appropriate drawl. > >'My mate went a hunting >he was norra man to cross >I hid in the shuttle >he didn't give a toss' > Utterly brilliant - surely the great JCC isn't obscure though? He's been well enough known to do a series of adverts on the radio for the Grauniad recently. I can just hear him saying that poem. I always thought he was more Burnley than Manchester but maybe its just the adenoids talking ... More please Chris. Debbie

1 0

Re: [B7L] Thread hijacking
by Susan Beth 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

Fiona Moore wrote: > >Similarly, I don't necessarily find Avon Lust >inappropriate for discussion on Lysator (I should hope >not, since I've been carrying on the slash thread >:)...), just not always to my taste, or the taste of >others. However, nobody has suggested that people who >wish to carry on with these uninterrupted are fascist >old stick-in-the-muds out to ruin everyone's fun. Excuse me, perhaps my copies of relevant messages got lost in cyberspace, but don't you suppose that the reason no one had suggested anything about those people is because they *don't exist*? Because NO ONE complained about serious comments "interrupting" humorous threads. NO ONE claimed humorous threads were so delicate that they withered and died if anyone dared make a serious side point. NO ONE has said that those who can't add to the joke should just butt out or change the subject line or leave us alone or made any other comment to imply that those serious posts would be anything other than welcome. All of the attempts to control the posting behavior of other people have come from those trying to 'protect' their serious threads. The "You'd flame us if we did it to you" defense was not a report of it having happened (and I sincerely doubt it ever has) but merely a prediction by one of the "leave our serious threads alone" members. Note that all the responses to that post from the other side were of the "Are you kidding?" and other "no, we wouldn't" flavors. >The point I wanted to make in my response to Annie >might be better expressed as: "Why should it be more >appropriate to carry on with an Avon Lust thread >uninterrupted than to carry on with a Serious thread >uninterrupted?" Both have their place, and *that* is >what I want recognised. I just want equal rights for >academics... :) It wouldn't be "more appropriate"....But no one except your side has ever suggested that an Avon Lust or any other light hearted thread SHOULD be uninterrupted. The pro-humor side utterly and honestly don't mind. Go ahead, respond to the next post about Avon's red leather trousers with a discussion of the morality of breeding animals to slaughter them. Debate the chemistry of the dyes that would produce that particular shade of read. Give us a comparison of the development of tanning techniques from six different civilizations. Speculate on the continued existence of sweat shots in the garment industry, and whether mutoids or deltas occupy them. It won't bother us a bit. If what you say is interesting, we may join in and create a sidethread. If it's boring, we'll hit delete. If it's ridiculous, well, it will give us something new to joke about. Why can't the 'serious thread' people react the same way? This 'reciprocal desire' on the part of those who indulge in humorous thread to have those thread left untainted simply doesn't exist. It's a straw man invented or imagined by those who want their serious thread unsullied. What we (the joking rabble) have been saying all along is that EVERY MEMBER of the list has a right to reply to EVERY POST on the list in the manner s/he sees fit, so long as they abide by the rules Calle laid out in the FAQ. There's no need to ask for "equal rights for academics" -- you already have it. Susan Beth (susanbeth33(a)mindspring.com)

2 1

Re: [B7L] Thread hijacking
by Mac4781＠aol.com 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

Fiona wrote: > The point I wanted to make in my response to Annie > might be better expressed as: "Why should it be more > appropriate to carry on with an Avon Lust thread > uninterrupted than to carry on with a Serious thread > uninterrupted?" Both have their place, and *that* is > what I want recognised. I just want equal rights for > academics... :) Maybe I'm missing something, which is quite possible, especially since I'm not an Avon Luster... But I've not seen Avon Lusters request that other fans not interrupt their threads. They may not like it. It may annoy them. They may even grumble about folks who pop in with disparaging comments. But I've not seen them suggest interruptions aren't permissible. But I have seen the serious-posters suggest that interruptions aren't permissible. Or if one is going to interrupt, they've asked fans to change the heading. Which transfers a burden to other fans. A burden that to my mind interrupts the spontaneity of the lyst. It means whenever I'm going to respond to a thread I'd have to (a) take time to decide whether my comments might be construed as "hijacking" and (b) come up with a different subject header if I decided it might be hijacking. If I had to add those extra chores, slight as they may be, to the process, I'd do less posting. And I can't help but wonder if other fen would do less posting. I think we'd miss a lot of humorous zingers that often provide a great deal of brightness to my day. The other solution--the one I suggested--is to set up a serious spin list. That puts the burden on the fans who want the serious threads, as opposed to putting the burden on everyone else. It's such a simple solution, I'm not sure why it's been met with a thud of silence from the serious supporters. When the slash issue was a bone of contention, that's exactly what Susan Beth (we cant thank her enough) did. She set up a private corner where slash fans/character junkies could burble away. Let me conclude by saying that I have sympathy with the serious posters' plight. I've made my share of well-researched (to my mind), detailed posts that have not received the serious responses I hoped. But some of the "trivial" responses to my scholarly treatises were absolutely wonderful in their own right. And I'm glad I didn't miss them. That's what a list is all about. Sometimes being disappointed and sometimes getting unexpected treasures. Carol Mc

2 1

WARNING: Discussion about slash (was Re: The Gospel)
by Betty Ragan 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

Responding to me, Fiona wrote: > > My personal opinion is that both h/c and slash are > > *valid* ways of exploring the characters > > This is a genuine and serious question, I am *not* taking the mick-- how is > it valid to the character to read in a relationship which most people seem > to agree isn't there-- including the people who write those stories? I mean, > I personally can see it as a fun thing to do for a bit of fantasy, but I > don't see the character-exploration bit. OK. I think this is a perfectly reasonable question, but it's one that I see as having a rather complicated answer, so I'm afraid this is going to be kind of a long post. WARNING: I am going to talk about slash here. (I assume that it's slash you're referring to above, Fiona, not h/c, which, as several people have said, isn't at all the same thing.) I am going to do so *only* because I was asked a serious and reasonable question about it by someone who (as far as I know) is not on the Other List. I am going to try to be as neutral and non-inflammatory as I possibly can; believe me, I have *no* desire to offend anybody. For anyone who dislikes reading about this topic at all, I urge you to please hit "delete" or scroll down your digest to the next post now. I'd also like to make it very clear that all of the below is *very* much IMHO, that I am aware that others (including people who read and/or write slash) have different opinions, and different interpretations of the B7 canon. (For instance, there certainly are people who *do* see a slash relationship between Avon and Blake in what's on the screen, certainly much more than I do. I don't claim to speak for them or for anybody but myself.) I also should amend my wording from the previous post, I should have said that I think slash *can be* a valid way of exploring the characters. Sometimes it is simply "a fun thing to do for a bit of fantasy," and sometimes it's done badly and thus isn't a valid example of anything much besides bad fanfic. :) Also, I'm going to pretty much confine myself to talking about A/B slash, mainly because that's what I'm most familiar with. Right. All that having been said, here's my take on why slash *can* be a valid mechanism for exploring the characters, IMHO: To begin with, I, personally, do not think that the canon actually points to there being a homosexual relationship between the characters. I *also* think, however, that there's nothing in the canon to rule out the possibility. And there are certain things that, if one is so inclined (and your friend's "gaydar" notwithstanding), can be read as suggestive, at the very least, of a certain degree of sexual tension (particularly on Avon's part). Again, while I don't think canon actively supports the possibility, I don't think it rules it out, either. I don't even think it's terribly implausible. Which makes it, IMO, as reasonable a thing to speculate on as any other possibility which is left open by the canon. A good comparison, actually, would be the one you brought up about "The Mark of Kane"'s take on Gan. There's nothing in canon that actually indicates that Gan was a serial killer before he got the implant, but there's nothing (in my interpretation) that rules it out, either, and there *are* things you can point to as possibly being suggestive of it, if you're inclined to see them that way. It's a possibility that some people (including me) are bound to find disturbing, but IMO it's a valid speculation that can open up some interesting new perspectives on the character. I see slash very much the same way. Assuming, for the sake of the story, that there *is* a sexual element to the relationship can allow the writer (and the reader) to explore character possibilities that wouldn't necessarily come up in a gen story, or to explore them in different ways than a gen story might. For example, a slash writer might be interested in issues of control and dominance in the Avon-Blake relationship, and choose to explore this by looking at who is in control in the bedroom. Depending on what approach the author takes, the sex might serve as a metaphor for their larger relationship, it might serve as a deliberate contrast to their behavior on the flight deck (possibly exploring *why* they behave the way they do there), or it might be the means by which they resolve the control issues they have with each other. That's just one example. Other writers might choose to explore other aspects of the relationship (and frequently do). Personally, while I generally regard slash stories as AU, I think they can be *very* interesting and (please excuse the pun!) fruitful "what if" exercises. There have certainly been slash stories which made me think very hard about my own take on the characters and on their relationship. Does that make sense to you, Fiona? I could go on, but I don't want to belabor the issue too much if I've already managed to make my own POV clear. -- Betty Ragan ** bragan(a)nrao.edu ** http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~bragan Not speaking for my employers, officially or otherwise. "Seeing a rotten picture for the special effects is like eating a tough steak for the smothered onions..." -- Isaac Asimov

3 2

Re: [B7L] Re: Books and Movies
by Mac4781＠aol.com 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

Dana wrote: > I think it's an interesting commentary that > one can watch all 52 episodes without being > able to say for sure what they use for books > --I think the typical fanfic solution is to > refer to "book placques" and/or "datacubes." > We know from canon that there are Walkman- > like objects for playing music. I've always considered the device we see Cally use in DEATH-WATCH to be the canonical book reader. It's when the others are at the convention and she's alone on Liberator, sitting on the flight deck reading from a device. The rehearsal script confirms that it was intended to be a book reader: "Cally is relaxing with a book-screen, or whatever seems appropriate to her." Carol Mc

2 1

Thread hijacking
by Caveatemptor1＠aol.com 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

<< Fiona wrote: << Or, to sum it up, I have nothing against people talking about Avon Lust on Lysator (as I said before, I tend not to read these threads except by accident or if they're funny), but by the same token, if I want to say "Look, was that comment in the best of taste?" I don't want to be accused of running the Ministry of Truth. >> I've been on this list a number of years now and (of course) others have been on longer than me. I don't think anyone will disagree that AVON LUST has been and still is a major part of the B7 fandom and isn't likely to go away. To the best of my knowledge it has always been an acceptable topic of discussion on lysator. What one person considers poor taste, another doesn't. But unless the comments are sexually explicit or definitely belong on FC, it's my opinion no one has the right to question whether it should be allowed. Just ignore it. Hopefully, we'll all remember to change subject headers suitably in the future. I stayed out of the Deliverance debate in the beginning because...I know me. I so totally disagreed with some comments and was so offended by other comments that I started wondering by what right they were posting this stuff. Then I realized, they had every right to post their opinion without me telling them I was offended or that it shouldn't be allowed. Courtney Off to ponder an interesting idea Peter gave me about Tarriel cells.

2 1

Re: [B7L] Pardon my ignorance, but...
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/23/01 5:20:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, sweigman(a)world.std.com writes: << In following the h/c/S&M discussion, I've encountered the following 3 expressions: "gay-dar", "S&M-dar", "lesbian-dar." I know what gay, lesbian and S&M mean--but what, pray tell, is "dar"? >> Some folks claim (either humorously or otherwise) that they can detect whether or not an individual is gay. They refer to this ability as their "gay-dar", short for gay-radar. By extension, S&M-dar would be short for S&M radar and lesbian-dar short for lesbian radar. The last two are new to me, but logical. Now excuse me...my breakfast-dar just went off. Leah

2 1

Re: [B7L] Thread hijacking (was Re: Sally-speak)
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/23/01 4:17:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, nydersdyner(a)yahoo.co.uk writes: << rom: Fiona Moore <nydersdyner(a)yahoo.co.uk> > > frankly, you don't have a > > right to. If you want to have *private* > > conversations "over in the corner", > > then why are you posting them on a huge mailing > > list? <drily> By the same token, then, one might ask why people post lecherous remarks about Avon... >> Nuh-uh. What was proposed was that anyone wishing to hold *their own* relatively private side-discussion take it elsewhere to keep others from intruding. What you implied was that anyone wishing to hold forth on a topic that *someone else* considers inappropriate take it elsewhere. One is a voluntary desire by those conducting the thread. The other is a wish for a thread to go elsewhere, by an outsider to the thread. Big difference. Leah

2 1

Re: Fw: [B7L] Chemistry
by Mac4781＠aol.com 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

Sally wrote: > As anyone on FC will confirm, I'm actually of the opinion that the entire > crew were celibate for the entire 4 years (with the exceptions of Vila in > 'City' and Tarrant in 'Sand'). As the resident "Tarrant watcher," I would like to add that everything suggests he also got nookie in "Warlord." Sneaking in an aside, Marian, thanks for the reminder about the book viewer in "Sarcophagus." I thought there was another reference (besides Death-Watch) but my memory wouldn't call it up. Carol Mc

1 0

← Newer
1
...
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
...
93
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Blakes7 February 2001