Blakes7 February 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

80 participants
929 discussions

Re: Wendy
by Helen Krummenacker 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

> I was > more blunt than this on the Deliverance thread, and > people didn't accuse me > of attacking Mistral personally! > No because when you said you "didn't understand how intelligent women could like Deliverance", it came across as insulting every female who had already stated why they liked it... either you didn't understand their posts, and as you are rather articulate, it seems unlikely; or you meant you considered no female who disagreed with you to be intelligent. (BTW, why only 'intelligent females'? Do you consider tolerence of sexism to be a sign of stupidity in females but normal in males?) > > The first post, which > I quoted in full above, said "non-dominant men" were > better than "egotistical men" which suggested to me > that you saw men who were not non-dominant as > egotistical. Guess we both misunderstood what the > other meant. I see dominant people, male or female as egotistical. I have a slight egotisitcal streak myself, as do many of my friends-- but if a person, male or female, pushes their egotism to levels high enough that they push to dominate a relationship, I find them annoying. I do not like anyone to try to dominate me, and usually walk away from such a situation.

1 0

Disagreements and h/c (was Re:Sally-speak)
by Betty Ragan 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Responding to me, Wendy wrote: > > that's not the impression you mean to convey, you > > should think seriously about the means by which you express > > yourself. > > Point taken. I hope you're not taking this post personally :). No. (And, to be honest, for some reason I tend to get much more upset on other people's behalf than I do on my own, anyway.) At any rate, now that an apology has been made, I shall back off. > And you've just proved that I *haven't* made it impossible to disagree with > me on that point. You just did, by arguing that h/c is not necessarily > sadistic. > > But that "not all of it" does suggest to me that you'd acknowledge > that *some* is... Certainly. There's a vast diversity in fanfic, and you can find just about anything in it somewhere. And there certainly *is* fanfic that involves honest-to-god S&M. But I don't think that *that* is appropriate to discuss here, particularly. > That is, if you want to debate the point with me :) I think it's an interesting and perfectly valid point to discuss, if it can be kept on a level of open and civil discourse. Appending your next post here... > OK, I promised myself I'd stop responding, but I feel > I should clarify my position, which I'll try to do as > neutrally as I can, and apologies in advance if I > upset you by this, Betty. No, I am not remotely upset by this. And I do quite sincerely appreciate both the change in tone and the clarification. > My understanding of the concept of "Suffering > Beautifully" was that a character is physically or > emotionally hurt, and that this pain makes him more > attractive in the eyes of the reader and/or writer. > Which seems to me have a sadistic twist to it, even if > there's not actual S/M sex. I'd say that this is an accurate description, but that the "sadistic twist" conclusion does not necessarily follow. "Sadism," I believe, means enjoying inflicting pain on others (whether in a sexual context or otherwise). I think, for those who enjoy watching a character "suffering beautifully" the attraction is usually not in the infliction of pain, itself (which can often be rather unpleasant to watch or read about), but in the way he *behaves* under physical or emotional pain, the way he handles it, the way he responds to it. I suspect this varies a lot from person to person, and I don't pretend to speak for any particular individual, but I think one thing that appeals to people about Avon, in particular, is the dignity with which he bears up under pain, as well as the very human vulerability he shows only under extreme stress. It's something that has a lot more to do with the *character* than with the *pain*, if that makes any sense. In the case of "hurt/comfort," the emphasis, most usually, is more on the *comfort* than on the *hurt*. Indeed, instead of a sadistic desire to *inflict* pain, it's entirely possible, I think, to regard h/c fic as a manifestation of the desire to comfort those in pain. -- 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: fandom
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/20/01 5:05:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner(a)tesco.net writes: << But I think he goes even further, pointing out that fans themselves defend themselves in the very same way, by referring to the really obsessive geeks that they don't want to be associated with. This actually encourages the popular media view of fans as obsessive geeks by perpetuating the myth of some kind of Ultimate Geek who is out there, somewhere, and fans end up collaborating with the construction of this aprocyphal figure who has come to misrepresent them. >> Well actually, this is one of the many mistakes in Jenkins' work. Although many fans find themselves uncomfortable around geekfans who haunt every convention and immerse themselves too deeply in the characters they adore, the media seek out these fans with rubber pointed ears, one hundred buttons on their jackets and elaborate costumes. Why? Because TV is a visual medium, and when they send someone to cover a convention, they need to point the camera at something that will epitomize and perpetuate the popular mundane view of the media fan. That isn't the majority of attendees, wandering around in ordinary garb and tee shirts. That's visually boring, and doesn't fit the reporter or camera crew's idea of a "trekkie" or media fan. So they hunt down the guy with bottle-thick glasses and a buck teeth and a klingon head appliance and focus on him, not the visually average folks. When the news coverage of the con is aired, complete with focus on this character as somehow *representing* the fans, the visually average fan develops an embarassment that leads to resentment and avoidance at future events. Also, these same fans just plain don't like the visual representation of a more 'out of control', extreme version of their own community. Leah

2 1

Re: tactics
by Helen Krummenacker 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

> Despite > being braver, better drilled and better motivated (take the legendary story > where Cetsewayo marched a unit of troops off a cliff, then invited the > British commander to match that). > In my book, that basically qualifies them as 'stupider'. Why waste men simply to show off their willingness to die? Then you have fewer people to actually fight with. I'll bet the British commander did no such thing.

3 2

ADMIN: An extremely late reminder
by Calle Dybedahl 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Stop using the pre-1995 address for the list, will you? I thought I had removed the forwarding from blake7 to blakes7(a)lysator.liu.se back in '96, but apparently I forgot to. It turns out surprisingly many of you still use it (including some who subscribed several years after 1995!). If you insist on using the old address, the newest listbot will stick your posting in the "To be approved by a human being" pile, which means that it won't actually reach the list until next week some time when I get back from Redemption. -- Calle Dybedahl, Vasav. 82, S-177 52 Jaerfaella,SWEDEN | calle(a)lysator.liu.se This posting is protected by a Whizzo Brand Fnord Filter (TM).

2 1

February
by Deborah Day 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet, a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net --------------------------------------------------------------- Have we passed the all time record for posts in one month yet? (it even inspired me to post a few). Debbie.

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: fandom
by Tavia Chalcraft 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Betty wrote: >... ordinary people wanting to define their own passive consumption >of television (something like five hours a day for the average American, >I think!) as "normal," even though most people have the feeling, deep >down, that there may well be something vaguely wrong with staring >passively at the tube like that for large chunks of time. But if you >can point to someone whose TV-watching behavior is really unsual, >it can make your own habits seem "normal" by comparison, and >therefore,somehow, OK. "Yeah, sure, I watch a lot of TV, but >at least I'm not like *those* people! They're obsessive!" This is precisely the attitude I'd like to avoid by emphasising the *positive* aspects of fandom (eg sociability, creativity, active vs passive) rather than comparing it with other pursuits which are supposedly worse. As with most things it's the *degree* that's important. There's nothing wrong, for example, with liking watching or playing football, but someone who follows say Manchester United round the country, can name their teams and record over the past 20 years, and feels that physical aggression is a warranted response towards the followers of other teams is unlikely to win my approval. The same could be said for many things. Tavia http://www.viragene.com/

2 1

Re: [B7L] Flashing blade song [was Re: fandom and fannishness]
by Deborah Day 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet, a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net --------------------------------------------------------------- Wasn't there a rather jolly scheming Cardinal who'd fit into the Federation, though? Jarriet So, they have finally decided on Jarriet. I like it. Debbie

1 0

RE: [B7L] Re: fandom
by Louise Rutter 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Me then Fiona: >> Helen wrote: >Actually, *Fiona* wrote: Ah, sorry - so many emails lately, I'm easily confused :-( >Perhaps if you'd watched a bit more of the series? When I said I watched DW to a fannish degree, I meant that I've seen every episode currently known to exist (this is where I really come out of hiding and declare my sadness to the list), though some of them very poor quality I have to admit....and I'm not just talking about the plots :-( And I've heard most of the rest on audio. >Romana II and Leela both >could hold their own against the aliens without screaming, Tegan gunned down >Cybermen in Earthshock; Ace, the companion of the late 80s, wielded a >baseball bat and frequently distressed the Doctor with her violent approach >to aliens-- and even in the very second story, screened in 1963, the female >companions stoically insist on accompanying an otherwise all-male >Dalek-hunting expedition. Leela was fantastic, despite the costume :-) Unfortunately even the Romanas demonstrated stupidity under attack on more than an acceptable number of occasions. Nyssa, supposedly a competent scientist from a technologically extremely advanced civilisation, could have had her lines exchanged with Tegan's 90% of the time. Though of course the same could be said of Cally and Jenna in some B7 episodes. Ace was a good character when she wasn't getting right up my nose, which basically means her later stories when she shows a little maturity. >the mid-70s brought us some of the >most morally complex stories ("Genesis of the Daleks," "Face of Evil,") and >characters (Taren Capel, the baddie of "Robots of Death," to name but one), >and in the later part of the series, there are some quite biting stories by >Philip Martin and Ian Briggs standing out. Furthermore, I have never seen >Robert Holmes, Chris Boucher (See, B7 content here!), or Douglas Adams, all >of whom wrote prolifically for the series, turn out a less-than-quality >script. Unsurprisingly, you basically just listed my favourite stories :-) I always feel Androzani deserves a special mention here. >(I've always found the Cybermen's quest for survival at all costs >rather tragic, myself, to say nothing of less morally wrong "baddies" like >the Silurians, who simply want their home back). I love the concept of the Silurians in their first story, with the usual mix of good and bad guys in both camps. It's a pity that by the time of Warriors of the Deep they'd basically been relegated to generic monsters with only passing mentions to their motivations and no sign of the compromise-friendly individuals we met earlier (Silurians, Sea Devils, I tend to think of them interchangeably in this story). >>the >> Doctor the guy in the right who saves the planet. >Not Colin Baker's. Or Sylvester McCoy's. Colin Baker ties for my favourite doctor with Peter Davidson (and I grew up with Tom Baker before anyone tries to explain it away that way) :-) I like Colin Baker because his Doctor has lots of flaws, Peter Davidson because of the number of times the Doctor actually fails to save the day or at least only partially succeeds (again a special mention for Androzani here - I love that the Doctor's only aim is to get himself and Peri out of the middle of a war zone _not_ trying to interfere with the political goings on). >>It's fun to watch for 25 >> minutes, but what's to discuss? >Um-- have you *seen* the number of mailing lists for DW out there :)? Some >people have a few ideas... So I gather :-) But in the end the series just didn't grab me that way. I know there's good stuff in there (another reason for my enormous ever-growing video collection), but the wheat to chaff ratio just struck me as being unbearably low - whereas I'm hard pressed to find a B7 episode I can't say _something_ good about (DotG possibly excepted), I find myself unable to justify the existence of, say, The Space Museum, Carnival of Monsters, The Creature from the Pit or Delta and the Bannermen. To think we kept those and lost The Massacre (sigh). Louise

2 1

Sally's posts...
by Predatrix 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

...are generally entertaining, and I thought I'd better say so right now :-) And it's not *just* because she's about to buy my 'zine, and frequently agrees with me on many issues, because I like Neil's postings as well, and he frequently doesn't, he just writes well. (Yes, I know I have a cheek, after berating a dear friend not to bite troll-bait) Cheers, Pred'x (...who was going to write 'Wendy, you have delighted us long enough', but who is instead going to point out that she is quite sanguine about the fact that Neil is not going to buy her 'zine and she is going to buy his--it's a matter of subcultures...)

3 2

← Newer
1
...
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
...
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