Blakes7 March 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

96 participants
1067 discussions

Re: [B7L] The Gospel
by Fiona Moore 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

----- Original Message ----- From: Mistral <mistral(a)centurytel.net> >> Actually to me it sounds ironic. Wendy expressed a view of Deliverance quite >> different from the Gospel According to Lysator, and, good heavens, she got >> attacked for it. So did Neil, Dana and I for agreeing with her. Under those >> circumstances, I'd be a bit bitter too... > >Well, this just proves how differently people can see things. You and >Neil got _disagreed_ with. _Debated_. (Can't recall about Dana, but I'd >be surprised to find anybody attacked her.) Sometimes you both got >agreed with, even by those of us who don't agree with the basic premise >- I could have 'me tooed' large chunks of Neil's posts, but he'd already >said it better than I could have, so why bother? We got disagreed with and debated, true, but sometimes the disagreeing got more than a little heated. I also found it kind of insulting when, after constructing a carefully thought-out argument with examples from the episode (and I'd watched it specially for that purpose), some people came on to say "Oh, that's just your *opinion,*" which made me wonder why I'd bothered to find all those supporting examples. . ISTM the only thing that's > been clearly demonstrated is that we all have different ideas of what > constitutes good debate etiquette - there is no Gospel According to > Lysator. I wasn't actually referring to debate ettiquette when I spoke of the Gospel. I mean that there are certain opinons which appear to be taken as the "mainstream opinion" on the Lyst. For instance: -Deliverance is a great story and shows Avon in his best light [I think this one's changed status now, but for a long time this was held to be true] -Avon and Blake are in love, or at least in lust, with each other -Same goes for Avon and Servalan -Blake is a noble idealist whose singlemindedness frequently blinds him to other people's needs, making him cold and insensitive -H/C fiction is a great way of exploring the more intimate side of a character, and neither it nor slash particularly offend anyone -Women find brooding, soulful-eyed men inherently sexy -The female characters on B7 are all positive role models (etc....) Now, every fandom has its version of this (for DW fans it seems to be things like: "Genesis of the Daleks, The Curse of Fenric etc. were great, The Daemons is shite... Colin Baker's Doctor was shite and Tom Baker's bloody brilliant... the TARDIS is a living entity..."). I am also not saying that there isn't some justification in-series or in fandom for any of these opinions (Blake *can* be seen as a driven man, e.g.), or that dissenting opinions are automatically squashed (I regularly note that I don't happen to find brooding men attractive, and nobody has suggested that I'm misguided thus far :)). However, dissenting opinions *are* automatically assumed to be the "minority opinion" which isn't always true (as we've seen in the case of the Deliverance thread, in which a *lot* of people outed themselves as dislikers of Deliverance). My point is that all of these things *could be* the subject for debate, but they're *not* debated, and when you do, it stirs up hornets' nests. Or becomes a non-starter. About a year ago I tried raising the "Blake is a noble idealist..." bit, and got a bit of decent debate out of it, followed by several posts reading "Oh, you'll never change my opinion of Blake! He's my fave..." (which falls kind of close to what I was talking about on the thread-hijacking thread). Similarly, I've heard from other people that when a line in "Mark of Kane" suggested (didn't state, just *suggested,* since there's no reason to assume Tando was telling the truth) that Gan might have had a dark and evil side, a lot of people reacted with shock, dismay and denials in the letters-of-comment in Horizon instead of discussing the evidence pro and con. Again, this happens in other fandoms too (a gentle and well-spoken Old Oxonian friend of mine got savaged online last year for suggesting, with evidence, that Genesis of the Daleks was two episodes too long). It also happens professionally (I regularly take stick in departmental seminars for suggesting that Levi-Strauss was not the recipient of some sort of divine revelation). So maybe it's part of human nature-- but part of *my* nature is to treat any sacred cow (sorry Neil) with suspicion. Fiona The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

6 5

Re: [B7L] Birds and Bees
by Deborah Day 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet, a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net --------------------------------------------------------------- Though my guesstimate would be that haploids >> would >> naturally be smaller (dunno why), this could no doubt be got round >> by >But what about other haploid types? Several types of plants first >reproduce asexually through spores or such to create a haploid type that >can have a radically different form, which then creates the pollen or >whatever for sexual reproduction. As far as I remember from Biology, ferns such as bracken are the haploid type, and they are great big strong things. The diploid stage of ferns is a tiny insignificant thing about an inch across. Of course, humans also have a haploid stage - its called sperm and eggs, but they don't have such an independent life as the ferns do. Debbie (A-level biology) (and imperfect memory)

1 0

RE: [B7L] Kathryn's convention report/slash
by Louise Rutter 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

In a message dated 8/3/01 9:41:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, maya(a)multiweb.nl writes: << The recent discussion about slash has left me rather bemused about the blatant disregard for canon and the writers' intent expressed by some lystmembers. In writing B7 fanfiction, we are in effect hijacking characters created by others. It's something I, for one, am acutely aware of, and it makes me feel obliged to keep to the canon, out of respect for the show's creators. As I writer, I'd hate it if someone would take the characters from my books and distort them to the point where they would become unrecognisable to me. And it would hurt even more if they then went on to claim that their version was the way I had really intended the characters to be, and kept ignoring my denials. >> I think I would be inclined to draw a distinction here between TV and books, in that the author of a book has almost complete control over "their" universe - OK, the editor will alter some things, but the charcters and broad plot are still going to be entirely the author's creation. In a TV series like B7, however, there is no ultimate figure of control. Terry Nation willingly handed his charcters over to script editor, actors and other writers who then placed their own interpretations on top of his own. Gareth Thomas and Chris Boucher from the start cheerfully subverted Terry Nation's idea of Robin Hood in space to a much darker, morally ambiguous story. Since so many different people with differing interpretations worked on B7, at what point do the characters become unrecognisable to whom? Fanfic is only doing what all the different B7 writers have already done by putting your own interpretation into the show. What did Terry Nation or the actors think of Tanith Lee's scripts, for instance? Certainly there are some fans here on this list who feel Sarcophagus and Sand violated the B7 universe. I think I would be much more reluctant to write novel-based fanfic than I am to borrow TV programmes, purely because of the differing degrees of authorial control. Louise

1 0

Re: Re [B7L] Random Killfiling
by littles＠lycos.co.uk 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

Leah wrote: > In a message dated 3/8/01 7:53:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, > littles(a)lycos.co.uk writes: > > << Leah wrote: > In a message dated 3/8/01 8:27:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, > Shame writes:<< > > >Evidently you can't spell. Or else that was a Freudian slip.< > > It was a typo. But if the shoe fits, by all means... Well, you wear it then. > > >>Vague threats? It was a statement.<< > > Whatever you intended, it was a moot point. Some of the most skilled slash > artists was chosen by some of the actors to illustrate their books, video > cover art, Videos? Books? You suggesting the actors are all in the porn trade? Get a grip. > >> What are you on about? A few people have mentioned a dispute in the early > nineties in which slash artwork played a big role. But I don't care about > that. I wasn't even _in_ fandom then; why should I? As usual, Leah, you've > misunderstood completely.<< > > So very typical of you, Shane. If you've never been affected by something, > and have little or no actual knowledge of the facts concerning the issue, you > "don't care." That's called deliberately flaunting your ignorance. No, that's called not getting involved in a discussion which involves things which I don't know about. Oh, I've heard stories of course, but all they say to me is that there's two sides to the dispute... so I'm leaving any discussion of that fight to the people who were there. >The topic > here was the reprehensible presence of adult fan art, I never said "reprehensible." But that's another good word. Glad to see you've taken Kingpin's advice and gotten out your dictionary. > either from my pen or > anywhere on the Ashton Press website. The answer is that there never were any > repercussions from adult fanfic or fan art, That wasn't what I've heard (ask yourself why Horizon and Avon Club don't carry or even advertise slash at all), but then, once again, repercussions were never at issue here. Leah, you really should start _reading_ these e-mails. > and no dire warnings from you or > anyone else will bring about a sense of trepidation. Dire warnings? From whom, pray? All I said was "I'd be careful if I were you." Which can have any number of meanings. If you choose to take it that way, then fine. >In short, you're wasting > your time, and probably annoying some of the many fans present who do write, > read or otherwise enjoy adult fanfic and art. Well, I'm annoying _you_, certainly. But you brought it up. > >> The explicit artwork to which I was referring was at > http://hometown.aol.com/pelkiepet/socomfort.htm. I would assume that the > zine itself contains somewhat more of same, would you care to confirm or > deny this?<< > > BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You actually think these pictures are 'explicit'? Well, I've seen much worse in the real world, but it's B7 fandom that's at issue here, not porn in general. > Everyone, > PLEASE, I beg of you to go immediately to the above-referenced site and > witness the horrible depravity Well, at least you admit it. >of the pictures present, including the mock > cover of the B7 "lurid romance novel" that everyone was having so much fun > with on this list, a couple of years ago. That would be the cover illo of Vila, Blake and Avon in bed together, would it? > And while you're there, make sure > you see all the horrible references to MORE pornographic illustrations by me, > blatantly stated on that web page! Thanks for bringing that up. I didn't. >Cover the eyes of the young-uns! Lock up > the horses! Oh my God, it's...it's...depravity! ROTFL! If it involves young'uns, horses, and you laughing, I'd say that's accurate... > >>Were the actors aware of > > all of it? Why yes, they were.<< > > >Why bring the actors into it? I didn't mention them, and you should maybe > take a look at Archive Message #44056 on the subject. But since you do > mention them, in the past two weeks, > several people, both pro and anti slash, have spoken out on the Lyst about > how they personally, or people they know, find such artwork distasteful, or > about why such pictures can be upsetting, or even damaging, to the actors, > their families and their careers (e.g. Julia in #44065, 2001-02-28 23:05, > Neil in #44228, 2001-03-01 22:40).<< > > Distaste is not a basis for censorship. It's a motivation for avoidance of > that which one finds distasteful. It's not a question of censorship, is it? It's a question of common courtesy, and of taking people's personal feelings into account. > If they don't want to look at slash art or > fiction, then they won't buy it or visit sites that feature it. End of > conflict. Why did they feel obliged to speak up about it then? I doubt either Neil or Julia can be accused of prudery. > As for damage to the actor's careers, well my oh my, you haven't > visited the sites of some other fandoms lately, have you? That's your excuse, is it? Somebody else is doing it so therefore it's justified? But that's beside the point. Other fandoms are not at issue here. B7 fandom _is_. Keep to the topic. > Adult fanfic is > actually the norm, rather than the exception. For whom? > And some of the actors we are > discussing have done far more damage to their own careers with poor decisions > and behavior than any run of a fanzine could ever have dreamed of. You really do hate them, don't you? Why do you keep making personal attacks on the actors, especially after Steve asked everyone to leave them out of it? > They > didn't need any help at all. No need to feel you've been appointed the > official protector. Never said I felt that way, and I'm not trying to protect anyone. I'm just asking why your publisher's site shows pictures of B7 actors in compromising positions, without asking their permission. And why not? Afraid they might not give it? > "Those who choose to ignore history are doomed to repeat it." Oh, coming from you, that's _rich_. Shane "You really are insane, aren't you?" --Avon

1 0

Re: Re [B7L] Random Killfiling
by littles＠lycos.co.uk 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

Leah wrote: > And Shane wrote: > > << < Frankly, Leah, at this point you're just shit-disturbing. You can > killfile > me if you like, but if you can judge a man by the quality of his enemies, > well, I've had a look around Ashton Press' website and I've rung up some of > my slash-reading friends, and I'd consider it an honour to be killfiled by a > purveyor of sexually explicit fan art, which uses the likenesses of the > principal B7 actors without their permission, with evidently no thought for > the distress which it might cause them.<< > > If I wasn't laughing before, I am now. So am I. Are you aware that you've just answered the same post twice? > I invite anyone on this list to > actually 'look' at the Ashton Press website, and find any sexually explicit > fan art or slash fiction. The first thing you'll notice is Annie's statement > that there will *be* no adult or slash fiction posted on her website, and > there never has been. Never said there was. It's for sale, though, isn't it? And as for the illustrations, well, I doubt Avon, Blake and Vila are in bed together to keep warm. >And at least make up some slash-reading friends who > sound realistic, Shane. In the 30 years that I have been in media fandom, I > have drawn literally hundreds of illos and cartoons...and never once have I > drawn genitalia. Sorry, but did I say I was referring to _your_ artwork? And as for genitalia, the representation of genitals is not all it takes to make a picture sexually explicit. And, if you'll reread the paragraph above (misrepresenting people again, Leah. Oh dear...) you'll note that I said the word "purveyor." Get out the dictionary again, and find out what that means. You work for Ashton Press, don't you? >This makes me, perhaps, the tamest of any B7 fan artist to > be published in adult zines. For someone who's tame, you're doing a lot of snarling. >As bombast Damn good word, that. > goes, No, I'm staying. > this deserves some kind of > booby prize. "Booby"'s got two meanings in Britain. The other one is of a spoilt, crying child. > Ooh! I said the word 'booby'! Call the actors! Why do you keep on bringing the actors into the discussion? You're obsessed. Shane "You really are insane, aren't you?" --Avon

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: slash
by littles＠lycos.co.uk 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

Annie wrote: > And adding in my own personal comment, the conflict(s) are coming in (imo) > when people who look at it via Approach #1 continue to insist that folks who > prefer Approach #2 comply with *their* methods. Although I don't mind being > asked to participate in Approach #1, if my response is "I'm not interested" I > don't expect to be belittled, told I'm copping out, told I don't have "proof" > and various and sundry other insulting things. Since you've killfiled Fiona, Annie, and therefore missed half the argument, you really don't know where the other side is coming from. But of course, since you've killfiled me, you're not going to get this message either, are you? Shane "You really are insane, aren't you?"-- Avon

1 0

Re: Re [B7L] Random Killfiling
by Mac4781＠aol.com 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

Leah wrote: > PLEASE, I beg of you to go immediately to the above-referenced site and > witness the horrible depravity of the pictures present, including the mock > cover of the B7 "lurid romance novel" that everyone was having so much fun > with on this list, a couple of years ago <G> I didn't know those pieces were on the website. They are lovely. Though I must say that my favorite Rosenthal cover is on Southern Comfort 9.5. It's a picture that's worth 10,000,000 words (those extra zeroes are deliberate). The triangles in the background provide a perfect setting for the triangle in the foreground. Carol Mc

1 0

Re: Channel 4
by Steve Rogerson 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

Una said in response to Neil: >> Because you're really Carol Vorderman in disguise? > >Take it back, damn you. Can I have two from the top row and four from anywhere else, please, Una? -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption: The Blake's 7 and Babylon 5 convention 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption

4 5

Re: [B7L] Modes of engagement/slash
by Tavia 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

Betty: >Here's a question, posed in all seriousness. If someone were >to make a post saying "I think Avon likes ballroom dancing," >would people feel the need to challenge that statement for >support from canon? That would depend entirely on which list/Lyst it were posted on. I seem to recall a long thread on FC regarding which sports which characters might be into, with no discussion but a lot of shared laughter. Can't see that happening here, sadly. Tavia

2 1

Re: [B7L] Birds and Bees
by Tavia 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

Ellynne: >The problem with this (as it relates to humans) is that >most cases of a single chromosome lead to fatal or >severely damaging defects and deformities. Don't forget the Auronar have already sussed human cloning, which implies a fairly advanced degree of knowing-what-they're-doingness. Gene expression patterns are very dependent on precise extracellular milieu (both chemicals and physical contacts). >I think single X's are survivable but severe. Yes. XO is female but sterile. >Y's sans X are invariably fatal). This makes sense given >that the Y chromosome is shorter than the X, so the >normal gene balance can't take place. I did briefly wonder whether this might be why all the clones we see are female. But surely one could engineer an X-primed chromosome which both contained all the essential genes on X *and* switched to male patterning. Tavia

1 0

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 March 2001