Blakes7 March 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

96 participants
1067 discussions

Re: slash
by Steve Rogerson 06 Mar '01

06 Mar '01

Wilson Fisk said: "In order to build a case for a interpretation of a particular text you need to find evidence with which to support your case." Not necessarily. To write a fanfic story and still keep it within the boundaries of canon, all you have to do is make sure it doesn't contradict anything we see on screen. We are not looking to prove that they are homosexual or bisexual just that that possibility is not excluded. If not, then it is fair game for fanfic that stays within the boundaries of canon. Some people however have made interpretations of various scenes between Avon and Blake that suggest a possible sexual or potentially sexual relationship. This in their opinion adds strength to their stories. Just because your interpretation may be different, doesn't mean yours is right and theirs is wrong. Both can be viable interpretations of a scene. As an aside, there is no rule that fanfic has to stay within canon - there have been some excellent stories that have deliberately not done so, following "what if..." situations. However, some like to keep their stories within canon and therefore look for sometimes very slight clues to help them. There is nothing wrong with this. -- 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 3

Re: slash (still very long!)
by Betty Ragan 06 Mar '01

06 Mar '01

Again, those who don't wanna hear about this subject, abandon ship now! Fiona wrote: > And as someone else (Shane?) pointed out, there's a bit of a > difference between peeing and shagging, in terms of how you react to > someone afterwards, how you treat them, etc. This is, in fact, an excellent point, and it's the main reason why I, personally, don't think any of them (and Avon and Blake in particular) were actually sleeping together. To my perceptions, they don't really give off quite those kinds of vibes. Other people, however, seem to get different vibes, and, hey, who am I to claim that my own perceptions *must* be the right ones? I'm not the world's authority on people-reading. I *do* think that an unconsummated sexual tension is entirely possible, for several combinations of the characters. > 1) Carnell a bad guy? Maybe, but surely no worse than > Avon :)... He was working for the Federation, assisting Servalan in an attempt to gain a superweapon which she would surely use for no good. In terms of television dramatic convention, that makes him a bad guy (even if, like so many in the B7 universe, on both sides, he's really some indeterminate shade of grey.) > To take an example which you might know from elsewhere: the Doctor > Who story "Stones of Blood." This was definitely considered "family" > viewing, even more so than B7. Nowhere is it openly stated or shown > that the character of Vivien is a lesbian. Hmm. Apparently all of that went right over *my* head, too. :) > To my mind, to say that regardless of the intention of > the authors, actors etc., the character *was* gay, is > like saying that Jane Austen *was* a feminist, despite > the fact that she lived 150 years before any sort of > feminist movement existed. Seems to me that there's a *big* difference here. To say that Jane Austen was a feminist is to talk directly about the author, a real person who had real thoughts and did real things. To say that Blake and Avon are lovers, OTOH, is to talk about the *characters*. I realize that you may not see that as a major distinction, but to me -- and, I would suspect, to many others -- it's critical. I wouldn't presume to attempt to read the mind of Terry Nation or Chris Boucher or Jane Austen. But Avon is a fictional character. *He does not exist.* There *is* no objective truth about his sexuality, his childhood, or what he likes to eat for breakfast, except for what we actually see on the screen. I can say "Avon likes opera" or "Avon likes chocolate-chip-cookies" or "Avon likes <description of sexual practice deleted>," and that's every bit as reasonable as someone else saying he *doesn't* like those things. His off-screen life is as indeterminate as that of Schrodinger's cat. Nobody's ever going to unearth his diary or interview his descendents or whatever one might do for Jane Austen to prove to us that our assumptions about her are objectively untrue. Terry Nation, or Paul Darrow, or whoever, might tell us that they didn't intend Avon to be seen that way, or that they don't think of him that way, but none of *them* is Avon, either. Fictional characters, once created, can take on a life of their own in the minds of the reader/viewer. This is something the characters' creator has no control over, but, IMO, it generally means the creator has done something *good*. The fact that people are interested enough in these characters to speculate about them, that the characters feel this *real* to people, is a compliment to their creators, not an insult. IMHO. > Elsewhere, though, some people have been pointing out > that the series does have to be taken in the context > of the time and the circumstances of its creation in > order for any critique thereof to have relevance. Hmm. Agreed that this is the case if you're doing a "literary"-style critique. Which I think is a fine and interesting thing to do. It's not what fans are generally doing, however, when they speculate about what might be going on in the characters' lives. Usually that involves "playing the game" and treating the characters and the events of the show as if they "real." IMO this is *also* a fine and interesting thing to do. [talking about that scene from "The Web" here] > Blake replies, "I'm not surprised," without eye contact, in a tone > which is decidedly fed up and weary. Interestingly enough, I don't hear his tone there as "fed up and weary" at *all*. > It would actually have been *very* easy to play that scene as having > a gay subtext, by simple alterations of tone and expression: Blake: > (surprised and pleased): Why? Avon (wondering): Automatic reaction, > I'm as surprised as you are. Blake (loving, looking steadily into > Avon's eyes): I'm not surprised. Well, that scenario assumes Blake reciprocates Avon's interest, which I think is a very large assumption. :) But I agree that the scene wasn't *meant* to be played that way. I just don't think it matters all that much. > As it stands, though, while the scene you cite does > show a strong regard for Blake by Avon, there is no > suggestion that this regard is sexual. IMO, the scene > is a lot more interesting when you consider the > possible emotional complexities of a close Platonic > friendship between two such different individuals than > when one simply takes the easy way out by viewing it > as sexual. I agree that it's the emotional complexities that are what's really interesting here. I think most people who *do* see (or like to see) a sexual element to it *also* think that, though. Is seeing it as sexual really taking an "easy way out" or is it adding an extra level of complexity to an already complex relationship? Again, in my view, the emotional complexities are *there*. If one wants to see an additional sexual element overlaid on that, fine. It certainly doesn't make the emotional element *less* interesting, at least not as far as I'm concerned. > Good point, but that wasn't only what I meant by > "context." I was also referring to the intentions of > the writers when they sat down to write the scene, the > directors in filming it, etc. If you ignore these, > then you make absolutely *all* interpretations valid, > from the plausible (Avon saves Blake out of > instinct/respect/etc...) to the ridiculous (Avon saves > Blake cos Blake owes him £ from lunch/is his maternal > aunt's second cousin/etc....). :) I think that's setting up a false dichotomy, though. (Actually, no it's not, it's a different logical fallacy I can't remember the name of. I think.) Some of those interpretations obviously fit better with what's actually on the screen than others. I'm not saying that all intepretations are *equally* valid. Though, frankly, I could imagine a suitably talented writer managing to make the "maternal aunt's second cousin" idea convincing. :) > Actually, I was thinking of the scene in which Jenna informs Blake > that Tarkin (whom Blake knows to be her ex-lover) is dead, a death > she herself brought about. Blake cups the side of her face with his > hand, looks into her eyes and smiles at her, and says softly "Take > us out of here, Jenna." She returns the smile. I think the subtext > there is pretty darn clear :). Hmm. All I can say is I obviously missed *that* subtext, too. Or just didn't see it as being there. Will have to take a look at the episode and see what I think of it. > Yes, but there's more than just the kiss there. When > Inga first appears on screen, Jenna asks him who she > is. Blake says "She meant a lot to me once..." They > are cousins (a kin relationship which is distant > enough to make a sexual relationship possible), and > there doesn't seem to be any family rift; there is > thus a suggestion of possible romantic involvement, or > at least a "crush". At the end of the story he kisses > her-- fairly chastely; he holds her hand while saying > goodbye to Ashton; Jenna visibly bristles, and again > Blake does not seem unaware of her reaction. Agreed that *Jenna* interprets this as sexual, and that Blake seems to be aware of it. IMO, he seems to be more amused by it than anything (judging by the expression on his face), which might easily enough be attributable to him being aware of just how very unfounded that reaction is. Remind me later and I'll make that extensive "why I don't think Blake's connection with Inga was sexual" post. This one's long enough already. > Furthermore: If Blake was gay, surely Jenna would have > noticed in such a closed environment-- and wouldn't be > reacting in such a possessive way anytime a woman > appears interested in him. To say nothing of how it > would affected Jenna if Avon and Blake were in fact > having a sexual relationship... thwarted affection is > hard to hide. Now *this* is a good point. It's at least a reasonable piece of evidence (indirect evidence, but isn't it all?) that Blake wasn't actually sexually involved with anyone else in the crew. Although it's entirely possible, I think, that Blake *could* be gay (or bisexual) without Jenna realizing it if he never acted in a sexual way towards anyone one way or another. (Which I think is quite reasonable for Blake; he's very focused on his revolution, and might regard relationships to be an unneeded distraction.) [and talking about my perceptions of Tynus here] > Bit difficult to deal with this one, since you don't > specify a scene. Unfortunately, my meomory isn't quite good enough to say for certain exactly which of the scenes you mention and where in the scenes I saw this, and I don't have access to my videos right at the moment (and probably won't have time to look at them when I get home. Sigh). So I can't really hash out this example in detail (which I apologize for, since you obviously spent some time carefully considering it). I'm pretty sure I'm thinking of their first scene together, but I can't give you the exact context. > I could go on, but I think the point is made that the eye contact > between Avon and Tynus in "Killer" is threatening, not sexual. This is Avon we're talking about. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. :) Anyway, my main point was not to convince anybody that Avon and Tynus were ex-lovers or anything. Just to point out, once again, that individual perceptions as to just which things are seen as having sexual overtones varies greatly. *I* watched it. *I* saw it. I wouldn't expect that *you'd* see it, even if I were to point out where I saw it. <shrug> > > "Sarcophagus" can certainly be read that way, and for > > a long time I > > took it as pretty solid proof that Cally had *some* > > sort of romantic > > feelings for Avon, which is why the alien can't kill > > him. I still > > think that's likely, but I've since heard entirely > > plausible > > alternative explanations for what happens on screen. > > > > Such as, and from whom? I've been racking my brain, actually, trying to remember who it *was*. But someone posted an excellent alternative analysis of this episode on FC some time back (or maybe it was Space City then, I'm not sure). I don't remember all the details, unfortunately, and while I can look and see if I have a copy of the post (which I'm not at all sure I do), I couldn't quote it here without permission. (Maybe the poster in question is here and would be willing to come forward?, she asked hopefully.) But I remember finding it very convincing at the time. The basic theory, IIRC, was that the alien basically fed on emotions, and found Avon's emotional makeup very interesting indeed. So *that* was the reason she was interested in keeping him around in some other capacity than beaten-into-submission slave; it was more his mental/emotional texture she was interested in than anything sexual. And it was not that she was distracted by the kiss because she/Cally was sexually interested in Avon, but that, rather, the kiss served as a stimulus to get *Avon* riled up (and not necessarily due to any particularly romantic feelings for Cally), and turn Avon himself into a distraction for her while he stole her ring. (I'm probably explaining that badly and not remembering it well, either. But it was, IMHO, very cleverly thought out and fit perfectly well with the events on screen. I'm still not sure which version I prefer.) > To me, it's enough to know that Chris Boucher, Terry Nation, the > actors and the various directors didn't intend the characters to be > seen as gay to convince me they aren't. Whereas, for me, that doesn't even seem particularly relevant. Seems to me the main issue here is this "authorial intent" thing. And I don't think that's nearly as cut-and-dried an issue as you seem to be making it out. (Or probably, as much of one as *I* seem to be making it out, either. :)) > A parallell I would draw would be with another genre of fanfic in > which the familiar characters are put in historical/fantasy > settings: Blake as a gangland boss in Chicago in the 1930s, say, and > Avon as a corrupt bank clerk. Bit of a difference there, though. It's obvious -- *without* reference to authorial intent -- that Blake *isn't* a gangland boss in 1930's Chicago. That Blake might be gay is considerably more arguable. A better example would be... Oh, damn, it's hard to come up with one because I don't *know* the writers' stances on most of the really debateable stuff. Well, here's one: what about all those it-was-the-clone stories? As I understand it (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) the idea was always that it *was* Blake on GP. (Gareth Thomas certainly believed that Blake, the "real" Blake, was being killed off once and for all.) Personally, I think it was. But I know many others are completely convinced that that's not what happened, and I'm not going to say they're wrong to believe that, even though I disagree with it. > Well, partly it *is* because I feel that the vision of the people > who created the series should be respected, *when it comes to the > series itself* (as an exercise in fantasy, as I said, well, anything > goes! but not when it comes to the series). Of course, *any* speculation about the lives of the characters beyond what we see on the screen is an "exercise in fantasy," so I wonder if this isn't kind of a meaningless distinction. (I do think that saying something like "Terry Nation *was* deliberately putting gay subtext in his episodes, he just wouldn't admit it!" would be rather disturbing, unless there was some good evidence for it. But I see that as being a very different matter.) > Partly, also, cos I sometimes feel as if what the series actually > was about gets drowned in a sea of wildly speculative and IMO > shallow interpretations, I think "shallow," as a generalization, is a miscategorization. What do you think the series is actually about? :) > which again are often > not consumed as interpretations, but as "reality." Well, you know, at the end of the day, it *is* "just a TV show." And I think we all realize that! Um, insert usual disclaimers here. Not intending to shove any electrodes into anybody where they're not wanted. All opinions entirely my own. Void in Utah. -- 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

6 7

Re: Dressing
by Harriet Monkhouse 06 Mar '01

06 Mar '01

Leah replied to me: >>Mere modesty. They knew their skeletons were likely >> to be found by another door-opener in 35 generations >> and wanted to look their best. > >Just what I would be thinking of, after a wild session of hot Delta passion. Kerril's mother belonged to the "wear your best underwear in case you're knocked down and killed in a traffic accident" school. Kerril suddenly remembered this when she changed into the pale green number (and matching clean underwear). Jarriet

1 0

Re: [B7L] Defining canon
by Marian de Haan 06 Mar '01

06 Mar '01

Neil wrote: > Noncanon - 'Inga' was really Tarrant in disguise.< O, I'd love to read that story! Marian

2 1

Penguins
by Caveatemptor1＠aol.com 06 Mar '01

06 Mar '01

<< Iain << I'd perform a power spectrum analysis on the archives to find out, but I'm afraid I have a penguin to baste. >> Obviously you didn't see Futurama last night...when penguins attack!!! Courtney

4 3

Re: [B7L] Slash
by Ashton7＠aol.com 06 Mar '01

06 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/6/01 11:29:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, wilsonfisk2(a)yahoo.com writes: << Again you are misrepresenting what I said. I did not say that pornography had nothing to do with sex. That would be ridiculous, and I invite anyone to check back through what I've posted to acertain that that was not what I said. What I said was that they are seperate but connected. >> Yes, and Leah has repeatedly explained to you that the degree of connectivity between "sex" and "pornography" is different for every individual. That's what you seem to be having trouble grasping. For some people they *are* the same thing. For others they are not. For some people all sex is "pornographic". For some people no manner, shape or form of sex qualifies in their mind as "pornographic." That is why there is constant debate among humans as to what exactly qualifies as "pornographic." It is different things to different people. Annie

1 0

Re: Canon and Art (was Re: [B7L] Re: slash)
by Ashton7＠aol.com 06 Mar '01

06 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/6/01 4:23:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, una(a)qresearch.org.uk writes: << Well, that depends on your purpose. Writing fanfic, I feel able to keep or dump whatever I want and am more interested in reading/writing different perspectives on the characters (the writers' included). Similarly, finding out the different ways in which fans view the same show doesn't involve knowing the intention of the writers. >> Exactly. Who *cares* about the intention of the writers when writing your own unique creative piece of fan fiction? It is *irrelevant* what the intention of the original writers was at that point. I was once taken to task on a Forever Knight list during the discussion or a particular episode because "the writer of that episode" had told people that her original concept for the episode had been completely changed during its execution (by the director or editing or who knows what). Her original concept involved magic and the episode as aired didn't. So, my interpretations of what happened on the episode were called into suspect because they didn't match *what the writer had intended*. Well, who the hell cares at that point what the writer had intended? I didn't *see* what she had intended because it hadn't aired that way. Dont' get me wrong--I absolutely love hearing behind the scenes stories about my favorite shows, including what the writers intended. I just don't take those things to heart when it comes to what actually aired and I certainly don't worry about it if I'm going to write or read fan fiction. Annie

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: slash
by Ashton7＠aol.com 06 Mar '01

06 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/5/01 1:16:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, steve.rogerson(a)mcr1.poptel.org.uk writes: << Wilson Fisk said: "In order to build a case for a interpretation of a particular text you need to find evidence with which to support your case." >> I didn't know that we were in a court of law. I thought we were all fans of Blakes 7 and therefore allowed to have our own individual interpretations, likes and dislikes, and that we were simply having a discussion about same. Frankly, I have no interest in "building a case," "presenting evidence," etc. Fandom is supposed to be a hobby and fun, not a court case. I see enough of that in real life, thank you very much. Annie

1 0

Pacey website
by Mac4781＠aol.com 06 Mar '01

06 Mar '01

There have been some additions made to the site, including... Review of A FAMILY AFFAIR (with thanks to Nicola and Una) Picture of Steven and the rest of the cast of "Heart and Soul" (with thanks to Jennifer) Picture from THE WINSLOW BOY (a very young Steven in the title role; he's the boy in the far left of the picture) http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/turnpike/91/spbio.htm Carol Mc

1 0

Re: [B7L] Atomic war
by Mac4781＠aol.com 06 Mar '01

06 Mar '01

Harriere wrote: > OK, then. The England cricket team was touring Australia when the > Americans and Russians wiped each other out, and the Federation citizens > are descended from the players plus the Barmy Army. The Australians moved > somewhere else with better weather. I always suspected that Tarrant was a descendent of Angus Fraser. What's a "Barmy Army"? Carol Mc

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