Blakes7 February 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

80 participants
929 discussions

Re: [B7L] Was it something I said :-)
by Tavia Chalcraft 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

Neil counted: >compared with me (98 posts), Dana (69), Tavia (44), Sally (68), Helen (66) and Fiona (70) Blimey. Apologies for my verbosity... And welcome Cheryl. Tavia (who often feels that people ignore her posts, but now realises why...)

1 0

Re: fannishness and more to previous post
by Louise Rutter 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

Yipes,previous post sent in error in unfinished state. And no, it wasn't a deliberate ploy to increase the number of posts :-) In the Stargate case, I'm watching more for the actor than the character, though the character is fun. The only series where I actively prefer occasional characters to the regulars would be Xena and Hercules, especially Hercules. Autolycus and Ares are guaranteed to liven up any episode - I'm also fond of Aphrodite. But then I prefer the humorous eps of those series to the serious ones. I probably wouldn't watch the series if I didn't like the regular cast at all, but then I wouldn't have got as far as the eps where the fun guys first showed up, would I? So it's probably a self-fulfilling thingie that fans don't watch a series purely for the occasional cast. Louise

1 0

RE: [B7L] fannishness
by Louise Rutter 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 04:52:02AM +0000, Sally Manton wrote: > Is there anyone out there who *does* watch B7 or another show at least > partly (and large-part, please) for one of the minor characters, with little > interest in the majors? Well I'm paying a lot more attention to Stargate now to make sure I don't miss Peter Wingfield's eps. Otherwise, it's a show I only watch if I don't have anything better to do....Does that count? Louise

1 0

Re: fandom
by Helen Krummenacker 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

> It was tactful of Neil not to mention: > (n) Fan has crush, perhaps slightly embarrassing crush for being on > the "wrong" person--i.e., second leads seem to have more fen than > leads, even though you're "supposed" to root for the lead. > > -(Y) Interesting you should mention that. Is it common among fandom to prefer the supporting cast? I know I prefer Giles and Xander to Angel or Riley; Willow to Buffy. Blake's 7 did the unprecendented thing of removing Blake-- would Avon be nearly as popular in fandom if he'd led from the beginning? I doubt it. Is it because we, being imaginative, individualists, didn't 'fit in' when we were young and like characters who seem a little awkward sometimes? Or is it that writers inadvertantly make main characters too self-centered?

4 3

Sally's Terminology
by olddays＠idirect.com 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

Hi, all. <<My Darling (singular) - Avon. He is *slightly* ahead of Blake in my affections, though I adore them both. Don't worry, there *will* be plenty of nice, wallowy Avon-threads for you to enjoy (and Other people to groan about).>> I'd just about gathered as much, that My Darling stands for Avon. :) <<My Darlings (plural) - Avon and Blake. The main raison d'etre for Blake's 7, yes, all four seasons and fifty-two shows :-) though Vilakins is nice to have around as well.>> I was kind of wondering if it was A. & B., or both plus Vila. Thanks for clarifying. <<My Favourite Autocrat aka Fearless Leader - Blake (who, for a sincere-at-heart democrat, if *very good* at getting his own way and *very bad* at taking orders from anyone at all, even at gunpoint).>> You've certainly got him nailed! <snicker> <<My Favourite Gnome - Jarriere.>> Not Vila? <innocent look> <<Our Heroes - the entire crew, yes even the ones I don't like.>> There are crew members you don't like? <gasp of surprise> <<Doing The Right Thing - Something that always makes Avon's temper get decidedly worse.>> Makes it all the more fun to watch! :) <<Suffering Beautifully - Avon's major reason for being.>> Not his intellect? Tsk, tsk, so frivolous! So shallow! <g> <<IMO - I am about to write something that will annoy someone. IMHO - I am about to write something that will *really* annoy someone. IHMO*only* - I am about to write something about Tarrant.>> Ooooooooooooooooooooooo... thanks! I've been wrong about these short forms for years, then! <g> (For any newcomers, usually means In My Opinion, In My Humble Opinion, and, well, you can guess the last one, surely. :) ) Anna - not Simpson, not Grant, just little ol' me, delurking again. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail2Web - Check your email from the web at http://www.mail2web.com/ .

3 2

Re: [B7L] fannishness
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/17/01 2:11:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner(a)tesco.net writes: << What about all those people who never become fans of anything? Presumably they see at least something of the shows that generate fandoms, but presumably not in any way that leads them on to become 'real' fans.<< I'm assuming that you mean people who never become fans of anything 'in particular'. If they weren't fans of anything at all, they would be mundanes, not fans. It's long been recognized in the SF community (apart from just 'media' SF fandom) that there are all different degrees of fannishness, and they've even designated names for some of those degrees. For example, a fan who isn't particularly devoted to any one author, universe or show but simply hangs around because he loves the milieu of fandom and fans itself is called a "ffan". Don't ask me how it's pronounced! >> Yes, but are they on their own enough? One of my all-time favourite series, A Very Peculiar Practice, had excellent writing, captivating characters and very well defined relationships between them. Fannish potential next to zero. (Maybe someone has gone and written the further adventures of Bobby Buzzard, but it's not like there's a thriving and visible VPP fandom presence.)<< Some shows are great, but just don't generate a fandom. Some shows generate a fandom, but don't compel much in the way of fanfic. Some shows are fan favorites and generate tons of fanfic. And there are even some shows where the show itself is oddly detached from its active fandom and fanfic (ie: PROFESSIONALS). I don't know what makes that rainbow, but I don't know if there would be any point to bottling it if one were to figure out the colors. Here in the US, the producers wouldn't buy it. They don't want to produce what we want. They want us to like what they produce. And the 'we' they want is a specific desirable demographic that will go out and buy the Mountain Dew, Pringles Chips, 1-800 dialing and Tostitos they push during every commercial. The crowd that has disposible income and no bills to pay yet, no family to save for, no resposibilities. >> None of which I've seen, one of which I've never even heard of. Still, that's my fault for not having a telly. (But of the two I know a little about, Stargate and Buffy, I know I would never make an effort to watch them even if I had the opportunity.)<< Ah, Neil; you truly are in an unusual and rare fannish category--a media fan with vey restricted media input. >> Ah, so there *is* a tension. I pull my theory back from the tubes. You might not find it hard to 'ignore elements of the plot' (which by your own admission don't 'make sense'), but they still need to be ignored, marginalised, supressed, or somehow prevented from interfering with the elements that you do like. If you couldn't do that, then maybe you would be pushed away from the show, too far away to relate to it fannishly. I'm still hypothesising, I freely admit, but that does seem to be what is happening here.<< You seem to be smooshing together 'tension' generated by plot and character elements, and 'discomfort' generated by errors in the internal logic of a show. I maintain that fan devotees of a particular show go into denial of those errors of logic and don't think about them again, all of their attention devoted to the stuff they love: delicious character conflict; chemistry; plot twists and irony; continuity and internal logic within the show; humor and pathos; hurt and comfort etc. etc. They aren't held spellbound as fans by dissatisfaction that a mask is never sufficient to really hide the identity of a superhero, or that starships couldn't possibly be designed 'that way', or that the character was holding a book in one shot, and the book was across the room a moment later. At least, if I interpret your proposed theory correctly, that is... >> A possible list of (provisional) qualities that might be inherent in a show likely to induce fannish response (I supose almost any show might generate a fannish response in somebody somewhere, but some seem to do so more than others): (1) the need for an active suspension of disbelief (pre-requisite of all SF and fantasy shows). This widens the potential range of plot possibilities, not all of which are going to be realised by the show as broadcast.<< Yes, by all means...*deliberately generated* suspension of disbelief. >>(2) episodic structure, a succession of closed stories (though not necessarily without a broader story arc to hold the series together). This creates interstices between broadcast episodes which can be seized upon as missing moments requiring elaboration (unlike say the continuity of most soap operas).<< Yep. There *has* to be some continuity. The one thing the STAR TREK producers did take to heart was that the continuity and consistency through the TREK universe was very near and dear to the fan's heart. They have a 'bible' of TREK continuity for the writers of the series; in fact, you can actually see this bible laid out in the form of a 'history timeline' at the STAR TREK EXPERIENCE attraction in the Las Vegas Hilton. It's fantastic, and flanking it is a continuous display case, many yards long, filled with actual costumes and other 'artifacts' from the corresponding part of the timeline as you pass. It's an incredible monument to a fandom. >>(3) multiple authorship, different writers responsible for different episodes, and their individual authorship recognisable for the episodes they write (eg the differences between a Chris Boucher ep and a Ben Steed one). This might invite fannish intervention because it gives the impression that anyone can 'have a go' and write their own contribution.<< Good point. I suppose realistic lives often have that element of randomness about them that might suggest multiple authorship; maybe the original inspiration for the notion that there is a pantheon of gods out there, not just one orchestrating everything! >>(4) exagerrated character definition (I would say that all the regulars in B7 and Trek can be considered 'exagerrated', whereas in Who they're little more than puppets danced around by the 'Idea as Hero' plot) to clarify the nature of the antagonisms between them. This also gives viewers a clear handle on which to base their response to any particular character, and might also act to suppress either ambivalence and/or disinterest. (Though it's perfectly legitimate to argue that a show full of uninteresting characters is a pretty crap show.)<< Well, some folks like crap, ya never know. But the differences you mention automatically generate chemistry and conflict, the meat and potatoes of really intense fandom. Add elements like interesting and/or attractive protagonists, unexpected plot elements and irony, angst and development within the arc of the series, and you might have a nice fannish show simmering...what you referred to as synergy, Neil. Anyone have more to add to this recipe?

5 7

6 hour warning!
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

The latest round of B7 (and other fandom) fanzines and goodies from the Ashton Press archives is about to roll off. To take advantage of a quick bargain, check it out: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1409607037 Good luck!

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: fandom
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/18/01 8:10:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, Ashton7(a)aol.com writes: << Er, the Celts fought absolutely naked.>> So when do we get *that* series? Huh? Huh? Leah

1 0

Re: [B7L] fannishness
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

Leah: >> It's all about Sex.<< Neil: >Never heard of it. There ain't no such thing.< Somebody wanna explain the birds, the bees and 'hide the banana' to our esteemed listmate? It wasn't my strongest subject in parochial school. Leah

1 0

Who becomes fans (was Re: [B7L] fannishness)
by Susan Beth 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

(Sorry for the duplicate, Neil! I always screw up with Lysator. ) I'm splitting my reply into two messages, because I think there are at least two quite separate topics under discussion. Neil Faulkner wrote: >What about all those people who never become fans of anything? Presumably >they see at least something of the shows that generate fandoms, but >presumably not in any way that leads them on to become 'real' fans. Do you remember all the interminable MB discussions? And how amazed everyone was to find the 'normal' distribution skewed wildly towards the I's? Suppose *everyone* has an inborn drive to belong, to be a part of larger groups, to socialize with other people. (Which I'd say is really true.) Suppose *some* people are limited in their taste/capacity for that interaction; they *do* want and need it, but they need to be able to control and limit it. Have it when they have the energy to deal with it, be able to withdraw from it when they can't. Have it with people who are more like them than a random assortment of humanity. Have it with the attention not centered on them or the others, but focused on a topic of mutual interest. Wouldn't you say fandom is an ideal source of sociability for people like that? Fans being relatively scarce on the ground, the distance is built in. You have to make the effort to go to the pub meeting or convention when you want the companionship, and there's little 'danger' of it pounding on your door and demanding you be social when you'd rather not. Most of the means of conversation have built in time lags, so there aren't hurt feelings if you don't reply to Mary at THAT INSTANT instead letting it go until after work tomorrow when you feel more chatty. And so on. Introvert heaven. In contrast, those who are up for social interactions virtually all the time, the ones who find them energizing instead of draining, probably see those 'features' of fandoms as 'bugs.' What a hassle to have to hunt down the scarce fellow fan instead of simply chatting with your neighbors! How unbearable to have a conversation when you have to wait days for the other person to say anything so you can go on to finish your point. And so Extroverts gravitate into different kinds of activities, specifically ones in which you interact in the flesh, where f2f meetings are the default. They join the Lions club/Veterans Club/Garden Club, they join bowling/soccer/baseball leagues, they hold regular potluck suppers with the neighbors, they are the regulars at the local watering hole. IOW, I don't really think there's all that much difference in how fans and non-fans see the shows themselves. The difference is that some Introverts discover that fandom suits them as a way of socializing while Extroverts mainly satisfy that urge in other ways. Susan Beth (susanbeth33(a)mindspring.com)

1 0

← Newer
1
...
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
...
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