Blakes7 February 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

80 participants
929 discussions

Re: [B7L] Re: Brit-char-speak
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/22/01 5:35:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, ijc(a)bas.ac.uk writes: << > the Declaration of Independence and the American flag. If anyone can point to > something distinctly British within the entire run of the B7 series, it'll be > news to me; I've never noticed. 'Horizon'. >> Sorry. I don't get you. I've watched this episode many times since the early 1980's and never saw anything that struck me as British. Can you be more specific? (And if you have to be more specific, than it might have been in the eye of the beholder.) Leah

2 1

Re: [B7L] Rumours of Death - the rewrite
by Mac4781＠aol.com 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

Harriet, I've not yet commented on: > "Rumours of Death" > by Harriet Monkhouse Yet another brilliant segment in the "Adventures of Jarriere." I hope these are going up on a web archive. > [As he huddles on the cellar floor, suffering in an entirely realistic and > totally unaesthetic manner, Avon is inclined to concur.] LOL! This was my favorite line. Carol Mc

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Brit-char-speak
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/22/01 2:07:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, una(a)q-research.connectfree.co.uk writes: << > If anyone can point to > something distinctly British within the entire run of the B7 series, it'll be > news to me; I've never noticed. The way it shifts between film and videotape. >> You know, you're absolutely right. British shows sometimes use film for outdoor shots, video for indoor shots as a regular technique. This is so rare on American TV as to be almost non-existent (generally, a series is either video or it's film. The *only* time you'll see video appear in a filmed episode is when the script calls for the character to appear in news footage, or to deliberately convey that the character is being seen through a video camera). But this is external, a peculiarity of cinematography in the UK; it doesn't really convey anything British about the *content* of the plot, or the characters within that filming. Oddly, whenever I point out the film/video changeover to Annie on a British show, she says she can't tell the difference. Leah

2 1

H/C (was in clam discussion)
by Betty Ragan 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

Ellynne wrote: Actually, Ellynne wrote a *lot* of very interesting stuff, and I'm tempted to quote the whole post, but I'll refrain. (Heck, this post ended up being long enough, anyway!) > The interesting thing about the h/c thread is that I feel like I keep > jumping back and forth on it. Sometimes, I'm sure it's a genre I like. > Other times, I'd say not. Part of it, certainly, is that I'm reading > descriptions that don't seem to quite match with what I was thinking of. > I'm still trying to decide if this is because I'm reading an analysis by > someone who may not like it or whether I'm the one who's confused. Actually, I think the possible source of the confusion is suddenly pretty clear to me, but let's see if I can put it into words adequately. The thing is, it seems to me that h/c, like anything else, can be done well or it can be done badly. And whether a given story is done well or badly is a pretty subjective thing, and is going to depend not just on one's personal tastes, but also on one's view of the characters. After all, badly done characterization tends to make for a pretty bad story, but what one person sees as bad characterization may be entirely acceptable to someone else. Anyway, it seems to me that a lot of people are saying "I don't like h/c" or "I don't like character-junkie stories" or "I don't like slash" because they equate those things with bad characterization (usualy of the overly touchy-feely variety). But, really, in any of those (very ill-defined, IMO) subgenres, lots of different takes on the characterization are possible: some good, some bad, and some whose percieved quality is going to depend *very* strongly on how well it lines up with the reader's individual take on the characters. The example of the Avon-and-the-seeing-eye-dog story you mentioned (and which I haven't read, either) is a good one. It's a concept that could be done badly (possibly *very* badly: now I'm imagining Avon making a tearful speech about how much he loves his sweet little doggy and finding myself overcome with the urge to hurl), or it could be done well and in-character. (I can, for instance, imagine Avon loudly complaining to all and sundry about what a stupid, smelly, useless animal this is, but still being very kind to the dog, especially when nobody's looking. Heck, I think he sometimes does that with *Blake*. :)) I think a *big* part of the problem is that, face it, this sort of thing is much, much easier to do badly than to do well, particularly if the reader's tolerance for the "schmaltzy" stuff is very low. So somebody sees enough examples of it done badly and concludes that, inevitably, it all must be like that. But it *is* possible to explore the characters' relationships and emotions and all that other stuff that Avon would dismiss contemptuously as "sentiment" without making the characters *themselves* uncharacteristically "sentimental." Just because it often *is* done badly doesn't mean it can't be done well. (In fact, you could say the same for fanfic in general, really.) Actually, another concrete example might help here... Coincidentally, I happen to have just finished reading a couple of stories in Sheila Paulson's "Jabberwocky" series, and although it wouldn't have occured to me to think of it in these terms if we hadn't been having his discussion here, the second story ("Mind-Rape") is a pretty classic h/c scenario, really. (Warning, mild spoilers for this story follow!) The setup is that Blake's been telepathically attacked, and he's in a coma while his consciousness is sort of locked away in a mental void like the one Cally was trapped in in "Shadow." Medical opinion says it might help if those Blake cares about sit and talk to him and try to reach him, to provide his unconscious mind with some incentive to come back from this state of telepathic isolation. So Avon sits by his bedside and holds his hand and talks to him. Now, the thing is, this could easily -- *very* easily -- have turned into a positively wince-inducing piece of sentimental schmaltz. It's disturbingly easy to imagine that, at this point, we could have gotten Avon weeping at Blake's bedside and wailing "Oh, Blake, don't leave me! I never had the chance to tell you how much you meant to me!" or some equally un-Avonic kind of thing. Sheila, bless her, does *not* do this. (Actually, Sheila Paulson's writing is really interesting to me in this respect, because she tends to go a bit more into the "let's have the characters open up a little, because things would be *so* much better if they'd just let down their guard a bit and talk to each other" kind of thing than I am usually comfortable with. But she makes it work for me (the majority of the time, anyway), precisely because she knows just how to avoid taking it too far.) Anyway, the Avon in the story feels *extremely* uncomfortable doing this, but reassures himself that, well, there's a good, practical, medical reason for it. And most of the things he says to Blake are couched in a sort of affectionately sarcastic tone that seemed very familiar and in-character to me. Finally, and with some degree of difficulty and reluctance, he tells Blake, "You matter. Come back." And that *works* for me very, very well. Because this *is* our reticent, unentimental Avon, those three syllables -- "You matter" -- are more effective and impactful than the teary speech would have been. That's how I like to see this sort of thing done, and it certainly *is* doable. It just ain't easy. > Someone else tell me if this means I like h/c or not. I'd say it means that you like h/c if it's done well, according to your definition of "well." And I'd say the same was true for me. -- 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

1 0

Re: The journey of the London ; long argument in favour of eight months.
by seven＠gaudaprime.com 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

(snipped number and itinerary of prison transports) Jacqui >> And could the 'missing four months' on the Liberator be accounted for by the incident with negative hyperspace? Neil > I see the 'missing four months' simply as a script anomaly (and a careless Nationism). I tend to think that Blake's bid for freedom was made pretty much towards the end of the voyage. David You possibly got this impression that Blake's bid for freedom occurred near the end of the voyage from two places from Space Fall Raiker: I can get them out of there, sir. ... I want a free hand to take whatever action I think necessary. Do I have your permission, sir? Leylan: All right. Raiker: Come on. Jenna: What do you think they will do? Blake: Their time is running out. Jenna: So is ours. David The idea that their time was running out can suggest this event occurred towards the end of their voyage, but Blake might simply have meant their air supply is getting low, or the as yet unidentified Liberator will threaten the London, or the space battle that holed the London might engulf them again, or such like. Blake: Follow the London to Cygnus Alpha. Then we can free the rest of the prisoners. David Since the London takes another four months (so some say) and since the Liberator followed the London, they both must arrive in another four months. But this cannot be (from your next statement below) so the second lot of four months must therefore be an anomaly. Neil > Very little time seems to pass between boarding the Liberator and reaching Cygnus Alpha. In fact, right at the very last minute, since we first see the London arrive over the planet, *then* cut to Blake et al exploring the ship they have *only just* acquired. It might be that a day or two has passed since Jenna pulled the Liberator away from the London, but even this seems a bit generous. David Only a little amount of time did pass on the Liberator. It is, as you imply, only hours ship-time between the Liberator's exit from the London and the establishment of orbit 1,000 spatials above the surface of Cygnus Alpha. Artix, on the other hand, is tired. Leylan is tired but regretful too. These two have travelled longer. Neil > Jenna sends the ship hurtling through 'negative hyperspace' after the London is spotted over Cygnus Alpha but before the prison ship makes a landing. Liberator reaches the planet while the London is still on the surface (and is still in orbit when the London takes off, though London fails to notice Liberator). David There were several witnesses to that region of space: The London's scans were working, Artix looked out the window, The eagle-eyed devotee spotted London but not Liberator. When Liberator was in orbit, Vargas saw it plainly enough. The Liberator couldn't have been there. from Cygnus Alpha Artix: [looking at Cygnus Alpha] It doesn't look very hospitable, sir. ... Cygnus Alpha. It doesn't look very hospitable, sir. David The planet was dark blue planet amid dark background. Compare this with the background behind the Liberator immediately after the following scene Artix: We have confirmation. Will they go after Blake? Leylan: They have no choice. Artix: They'll never find him out there. I said, sir they'll never find him out there. Leylan: They won't have too. He'll find them. [Scene switches to Liberator in flight] David There are two large-ish planets at the lower left and a smaller planet at the top. There is also a star giving off a warm brightness. The contrast between Liberator's background and Cygnus Alpha's background is shown in order to indicate that Liberator and London were not in the same general area. Neil > So assuming we see events in the order that they actually happen, the negative hyperspace trip can't have delayed Liberator's arrival by more than a few hours at most. David The assumption of seeing events in order may be seen to be incorrect if the difference between Leylan's two reports is considered. Leylan's Flash-Back Leylan's Report:- He sat pensively as his report was emailed: This is Civil Administration Ship 'London' in transit from Earth to Cygnus Alpha transporting prisoners to the penal colony. We have sustained crew Blake & Jenna, also pensive, casualties during an stalked along a corridor. attempted mutiny by Jenna warned Blake, who spun prisoners: Five dead, around and fired at Raiker. including Sub-Commander Raiker & Artix took cover, Raiker. as did Blake & Jenna. Three prisoners Blake eased out from under escaped in a cover to look. in a spacecraft Raiker fired at Blake, missed. of unknown origin: Prisoners Blake and Jenna were called Blake, Stannis into the computer room by Avon. & Avon. The London is again under authorised control & proceeding to destination. Message ends. Retransmit to Earth on priority circuit. Confirm please. Artix: We have confirmation. Will they go after Blake? David Leylan's body language while his report was being emailed is that of one having a flash-back. The flash-back was in Black & White and referred to events in the past. (Some say the recent past, I say four months past.) Blake, Jenna, & Avon on Liberator Leylan's Memorised Report: We have sustained crew casualties during an attempted mutiny by prisoners: Five dead, including Sub-Commander Raiker. Three prisoners escaped in a spacecraft of unknown origin: Blake is walking Prisoners Blake, into teleport bay, Jenna is handling Stannis, teleport bracelet, Avon is placing weapon and Avon. onto the teleport console. Blake: Avon, what do you think? David Leylan's second flash-back - while the report is recurring in his memory - is in colour. The intention of the programme editor is that whereas Leylan's first flash-back referred to past events, his second flash-back referred to present events (which he, Leylan, doesn't know, but the viewer knows). In this way did the programme editor handle the passage of time in the second lot of four months. What was four months on the London was four hours on the Liberator. Neil > In other words, the 8 months cited early in Spacefall and the 4 months mentioned later on are incompatible. One or the other is probably wrong. (snipped Raiker's eight months v. Blake's four months) David The eight months are mentioned a second time Leylan: We have ground zero contact. All off. Artix: All off, sir. Leylan: Right, disembark the prisoners, Mr. Artix. Maintain full security until they are in the holding bay. I will program the computer for the return. We lift off in d plus thirty. Artix: Thirty minutes? Sir, we have been in space now for eight months. I wouldn't mind stretching my legs a little. Leylan: Not on this planet, Mr. Artix. Now get the prisoners off and let's go home. Artix: Yes, sir. Neil > All in all, a very tricky anomaly to explain. David That there might be a time-difference between any two ships travelling at different speeds is given by Raiker from Space Fall Raiker: The voyage to Cygnus Alpha will take approximately eight months ship time. During this period, you will obey every order and instruction that is given you. DC, who answers Jacqui in the affirmative

1 0

12 hour warning...
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

The latest round of B7 zines and items at the Ashton Press eBay auction is about to roll off. Grab a last peek and a possible bargain at: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/ashton7/ Good luck!

1 0

Re: What makes a good story?
by Betty Ragan 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

Annie wrote: > This is one reason I > attempted to point out that "h/c" is indeed a misnomer and can encompass a > huge range of stories. I absolutely agree with this. In fact, in a way, it feels a little odd to me to be discussing "h/c" at all (let alone defending it!), because I really don't tend to mentally categorize stories that way. In fact, more than once, I've looked at an indexed description of a story (e.g. on Judith's Library, or on some of the zine reviews on her website), seen it labelled "h/c, and done a bit of a mental doubletake. "H/c? It is? Oh, well, yeah, I suppose it is." Unless a particular story is a *really* obvious h/c cliche, the phrase "hurt/comfort" is unlikely to actually cross my mind while I'm reading. I was thinking maybe that was just me... > What's important is the "angst" level. Yes, that *is* a categorization that I actually use. Of course, "angst" basically implies *emotional* distress, as opposed to physical, whereas the "hurt" part of "hurt/comfort" could be either. But, then, I'm not interested in reading about physical hurt for its own sake. It's the emotional aspects that are interesting to me. > Without some degree of > emotional involvement with characters, I'm not interested in a tv show, a > movie or a book. I *can* be, if there's a really good plot, or really clever humor, or really nifty ideas. But it's much harder to suck me into something without good characters, and stories (in whatever medium) without interesting, involving characterization tend to be pretty forgettable for me. But there I am, plugging my own electrodes in again. :) -- 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

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: in calm discussion (was Deliverance)
by Ellynne G. 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:50:52 +0000 (GMT) =?iso-8859-1?q?Fiona=20Moore?= > Oh, guys, this HURTS. This really, bloody hurts. You > may feel like a lab rat, but to be honest, I feel like > someone who has spoken up in favour of animal > experimentation and come home to find my car burnt > down and my house smashed up by animal rights > activists If it makes you feel better, I don't feel like a lab rat (not about this. Now, if we talk about bank and credit card companies selling customer information to who knows what companies, or that clothes store where, honestly, the clerks don't know how to operate the machinery without loading in private phone numbers, that's another story. However, that's people who 1) Don't ask permission, and 2) Don't tell me who or what they're giving the information to but I'm pretty sure it's not someone with my best interests at heart). The interesting thing about the h/c thread is that I feel like I keep jumping back and forth on it. Sometimes, I'm sure it's a genre I like. Other times, I'd say not. Part of it, certainly, is that I'm reading descriptions that don't seem to quite match with what I was thinking of. I'm still trying to decide if this is because I'm reading an analysis by someone who may not like it or whether I'm the one who's confused. Cause enough to get defensive. However, getting back to the h/c discussion, I'm also wondering if this doesn't tie into something I've noticed about romance novels. I'm not into romance novels as such. Every once in a while, I look through one or even deliberately try to read one (note, we are just ending the SF&F publishing dry spell between December and March, and not a moment too soon). However, I dislike different types for different reasons. Regencies (and other 'tame' romances): too sweet and too predicatable. By predicatable, I mean that the couple has met and we know everything we need to about them within the first ten pages. The next two hundred pages are about them trying not to catch on to the inevitable. By too sweet, the myopia that seems to block out everything but the relationship as the story goes along is a bit much for me. Other: Got talked into reading what I was told was one of The Greats (the little blurp about copies sold would seem to support that). The hero's idea of a great pick up line would be the sort of thing to cause me to pull out the mace, call the police, get a restraining order, and check with a lawyer about the chances of getting the guy committed to a place for the violently insane. However, I'm an absolute sucker for stories _with_ a romance in them. When it isn't presented as the sole purpose of the book and when the characters are allowed to notice the other things going on in the world around them (even to the grand extent of frequently acting just as they would even if the significant other weren't there or weren't significant), I'm into it. I love it, I drool, I buy multiple copies and give them to friends, I even spend significant time whining if a perceived romance doesn't pan out (hence, my undying distress over Cally and Avon). It's complete, unrestrained, schmaltz city (a space station I can just imagine Vila doing anything to _avoid_ visiting, ditto Avon and Blake [but, as Jenna's the pilot, their votes may not count]). The point being, if someone described romance and I had no preconceived idea of the genre, I might say, "Oh, yes, love it." Which doesn't mean I don't like h/c. I'm just beginning to suspect there's a bunch of h/c I don't like. For example, before hearing some of the examples, I might have described one scene in Kriegspielen as mild h/c before this discussion (sorry, Neil). To very much oversimplify, Cally gets into a threatening situation and Avon shows up in the nick of time. Part of it's just Avon being Avon but, I thought (see what different readers do to a scene?) part of it was Avon being somewhat more aware of Cally and more interested in her well being than he might be of certain other people. OTOH, I have read a couple stories with h/c themes where I was thinking, "Oh, no, I don't _know_ this character." So, although I haven't read it, assuming Avon was blinded in a way that didn't sound to much like a plot device, I could see him realizing he would need to work with the dog that came along. Anyone who works with a seeing eye dog knows you'd better have a good relationship with it - and dogs don't understand the cold shoulder as token of emotionally distant friendship routine. He'd _have_ to show some affection and it would _have_ to be sincere. Besides, dogs don't talk or spill secrets. I could see this. But if he got all teary (and it wasn't _very_ well handled), no, that's not Avon. Whatever lack of chemistry there may have been, the whole Anna thing strongly suggests Avon is better at admitting some concern for someone he's lost or is in danger of losing. So, to some extent, I would have said RoD had some h/c themes, too. And I started work on a story where Avon is the sole survivor of GP, living in self-imposed exile on a very unpleasant planet where even his worst enemies wouldn't look for him, it's that bad. He's in better condition than a lot of the other people there. Then, he comes across another one of the refugee types there, a borderline catatonic survivor of the worst the Federation (or other parties) can dish out, Cally. In character? I thought so. H/c? Probably. But there was another side to it. Skipping any feelings he may have had for Cally, Avon's a sort of living dead man at the beginning of this story. He's failed. He got everyone who relied on him, who _trusted_ him, killed. Everything he based his self-image was also destroyed - and there's no way to make it right. Till one of the crew shows up alive. But no schmaltz - or none of what I call schmaltz. As for the s/m element, I don't know. I certainly don't see myself as liking it. Maybe (getting back to romance novels) this is like those gothics of the past century where sex could only be brought up if it was made completely clear the heroine was threatened by it. Skipping the negative effect many people feel this genre had on society, it should be clear this is a _sub_genre of romance (still going on today). To judge all romances by them (whether you like them or not) would be inaccurate. Someone else tell me if this means I like h/c or not. Or am I just getting really defensive having realized some people hold it in low esteem? Ellynne ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

2 1

What makes a good story?
by Ashton7＠aol.com 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/26/01 6:07:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, tavia(a)btinternet.com writes: << It seems to me that if one can accurately pigeonhole a piece of fiction into something relatively tightly defined, such as h/c, then the story must be unoriginal. Or, to put it another way, if I like a story, then I tend to like it for what is different from other stories that I've read, not what is similar (or identical). >> You're absolutely right, Tavia. I couldn't agree more. This is one reason I attempted to point out that "h/c" is indeed a misnomer and can encompass a huge range of stories. What's important is the "angst" level. The emotional hook that the reader feels to keep reading to find out what ultimately happens to the characters you've become emotionally invested in. This was also why I, early on, pointed out that Orson Scott Card, a multiple Hugo winner, says that in order to write a good story you must find the character who "hurts the most" and then HURT HIM SOME MORE. Without some degree of emotional involvement with characters, I'm not interested in a tv show, a movie or a book. Annie

2 1

Re: [B7L] Hurt/Comfort and all that
by Ashton7＠aol.com 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

Please folks! There is no need to CC me (and others) when you reply to the list. I'm getting almost every response to one of my messages twice or three times. Thanks. Annie

1 0

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
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