Blakes7 March 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

96 participants
1067 discussions

Lament
by Marian de Haan 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

When I first came upon this list, I thought O great, here's a group of people who don't take themselves so terribly serious, who can poke fun at their obsession. (Like I always considered "Beautiful suffering to be meant as a joke. I mean, we *know* there's nothing beautiful about suffering, it's just that some actors manage to look good while portraying it.) It was that balance between serious threads and the light-hearted, funny or irreverent messages that made me feel so at home here. But now the lyst seems to have gone exclusively serious. Am I the only one missing the humorous threads? Marian

4 3

Lament
by Caveatemptor1＠aol.com 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

<< Marian wrote: << It was that balance between serious threads and the light-hearted, funny or irreverent messages that made me feel so at home here. But now the lyst seems to have gone exclusively serious. Am I the only one missing the humorous threads? >> Isn't that funny... I was just thinking this myself. It's this intermixability (there's a word for you, Lisa) that makes the lyst such a joy to be part of. BTW, in my last post on canon, I forgot to mention that I firmly maintain Servalan had no intension of shooting Avon in RoD. Though, of course, that's not canon. :) Courtney

1 0

Re: Re [B7L] PWP (porn? what porn?)
by Tavia 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

Ellynne wrote: >Second, there are ranges of personal experience that are >difficult to bring into any online discussion but that, >nevertheless, have had a major impact in my attitudes >(there are porn junkies in the neighborhood who will >spend hours at the local library looking at the stuff >on the internet, and a friend was threatened by one). >Statistically and scientifically questionable, but >personal experiences often are. On the level of personal experiences, I'm quite prepared to stand up and be counted as a long-term (>decade) porn user -- at least if you count written-word-only stuff, particularly of the amateur variety. I've noticed little change in my attitudes over the decade I've used porn compared with the previous 4 or 5 years when I was both adult and non-porn-using. If anything, my real-life activities have been more 'conventional', though I'd put that down to rapidly encroaching middle age coupled with rapidly expanding waistline... I'm not really into child abuse, serial killing, crimes against women.... &c &c Tavia

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Slash
by Julia Jones 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

In message <20010305140406.33925.qmail(a)web13101.mail.yahoo.com>, Wilson Fisk <wilsonfisk2(a)yahoo.com> writes > >--- Julia Jones <julia.lysator(a)jajones.demon.co.uk> > >> There's no evidence that there are no gay >> relationships within canon. >> Therefore depicting gay relationships is not against >> canon. > >So, by that logic.. > >"There's no evidence that Samor wasn't Egorian's >brother within canon. Therefore depicting Samor as >Egorian's brother is not against canon." No, it isn't, and I've just tagged that as a story idea. I could do with a few ideas for gen stories, and having a look at the forces within the Federation social structure that might make one brother corrupt and other an honourable man could be interesting. Neil, I may want to bounce this one off you at some point, you're a lot better at social background than I am. (Note: this was a private email to me, but since there's an apology later in the download for sending private rather than list answers, I'm assuming it was intended for the list.) -- Julia Jones

1 0

Science Fiction and Political Reality (Long - was Brit-char-speak)
by Sestina94＠aol.com 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

Neil, Leah and Anyone Else whose interested, Just got into this thread about the supposed Britishness of the Federation pretty late. I may agree to some extent with Leah that B7 is intended to show a picture of a future world that is not a representation of a specific nationality at all. Still, I think I read in Neil's comments that even in doing this, one still infuses a lot of what one (or what Terry Nation) knows -- i.e., 20th century British Culture -- into the mix. So what you have then is an attempt to chart a world of fantasy but one's imagination it seems is not totally limitless, but is in fact limited to the mundane reality of the world you have actually experienced. So even if you make up a future world that is totally different from the world you live in, it is still an anti-model of your real world -- so the reality as we know it always at some level serves as a kind of template to our construction of the imaginary, whether in a positive or negative since. For example, as an American (I hate that term yank, btw) B7 is inescapably marked as British because everyone in the universe speaks British English. This of course is real world constraint given the BBC's limited budget and resources, but still the mode of expressing thought is inescapably 20th century British -- as it must be in order to appeal to 20th century British viewers. The real world of 20th century Britain further shapes the show in the surprising lack of cultural diversity in the actors as well -- It seems the only people of color I remember seeing in the show other than Dayna and Hal "My name is Superfly" Mellanby, are some Black guys in the fourth season ep "Warlord" and man, I think the person who costumed the Space Rats, outfitted these dudes as well. Which means that they seemed to be someone's imagination of "far-outness" that was limited really to the costumers real life understanding (or misunderstanding) of punk or alternative youth culture. So there aren't a lot of people of color in the universe during the New Calendar. This seems to be somewhat more reflective of modern British society's numbers of nonwhites overall which I think (please someone correct me here) is lower than in the States. Star Trek then is a reflection of American reality and the early impulses toward diversity -- witness Uhura and George Takkei -- though a lot of the world domination/NATO stuff gets thrown in the mix -- which is why the flight deck of the ship looks like a mini-UN -- led by of course the American Space Cowboy Captain Kirk. And the first interracial kiss on American TV I've heard was between Kirk and Uhura at a time when race, particularly the issue of integration of African-Americans in Society, was a big deal. But one should argue, Dayna has it all over Uhura in terms of characterization because she was a major character in B7 who got to do lots of vital things plot wise (I mean, Dayna got to BLOW STUFF UP!) whereas Uhura was just monitoring comm channels in pretty short skirts. Finally, where I see the real world 20th century Britishness intruding in B7 occurs I think in the very changing depiction of Roj Blake not as a valorized and sympathetic "freedom fighter" as was strongly marked at the beginning of the show, but more and more as a kind of fanatical "terrorist" especially in series 2 where he seems to be a bit more drawn more like an anarchist of some sort. To some extent, I think the ambiguity in Blake's characterization here is wonderful -- the shades of gray as to what Blake is fighting for. It's such shades of ambiguity and complexity that so hooked me on the show in the first place. But I have always got the feeling that Boucher, Nation and company (though perhaps I need to distinguish them better than I'm doing) seemed a trifle bit uneasy with a show valorizing a figure whose only means of fighting politically is to destroy key aspects of the state apparatus, in a culture that is so marked by such real world "terrorism". I mean, does anyone else get the sense that real life British society's situation with say the IRA and other groups fighting the British State posed a problem for Boucher and Nation in terms of how to handle Blake's character? Really, I've always felt that they took the easy way out by marking Blake so strongly as a fanatic by the time Pressure Point and Star One rolls around, Then, B7 as a popular show on the BBC, couldn't possibly be considered "political" in the sense of condoning so-called "terrorist" actions against the British State. In raising the gray area of Blake's commitment and fanaticism, I think Nation and Boucher were trying very hard to make viewers NOT read the Terran Federation as a metaphor of 20th Century British Society -- for to do so would implicitly condone and legitimate the actions of those so-called "terroristic" groups who were in armed struggle against it. Hence, I think we get a pronounced marking of Blake's ego investment in the cause in the ep "Pressure Point" where he says "we did it; I did it" (So much for collectivity here) as well as his similar remark to Cally in "Star One" where he says that not to blow up Star One would then mean that everything he's done was just meaningless acts of terrorism. (Again, I think he speaks in terms of I and not we) And, well, the truth of the matter is, Blake doesn't blow up Star One -- he leaves it intact so as to help the forces of humanity fight off the Andromedan invasion. (A big aside here: This move, for any of you American lefties out there, seems to echo the old Communist Party USA's late 1930's and early 1940's "popular front against fascism" in which the American Communists -- who were the only real organized force actively fighting white racism on the streets as well as in the courts -- actively supported American National interests during the war and even adopted patriotic rhetoric. In supporting the American Capitalist State, the so-called "left" effectively abandoned any notion of "proletarian internationalism" or World-Wide transnational resistance against such capitalist states. Their anti-racist activities curtailed and the American "radical left" has never ever recovered from this adopted Nationalism. ) But still, if we are take Blake's remark to Cally seriously, in terms of the logic of the show, Blake didn't blow up Star One, so it seems at some level that all of his actions of armed struggle against the state (i.e., blowing up stuff) does amount to little more than isolated acts of "terrorism." This is something I disagree with (yes, I did argue for Blake as Freedom Fighter during the recent Redemption panel) but I think Boucher and Nation (one day I really will learn to distinguish them better than I'm doing here) have loaded the dice, so to speak, so the 20th century British Public, will read Blake in just this way and simultaneously see real life potential counterparts of Blake as terrorists as well. Or phrased another way, we as the audience here in this reading are not reading British Society as being incipiently fascist a la the Federation. Let me say that I think there's a lot of play in how people read and extrapolate from fiction to reality such that while I see Boucher and Nation loading the dice to make Blake less of a valorized character by making him look like more of a "terrorist," (always a negative term), I think many people (myself included) find enough internal evidence in the show to read against this loading of the dice. (Again, this degree of complexity in the show is what has made me such a fan for so long.) And I'm sure lots of people have come up with analogs of the Federation's practices in both British and American society. Still, to return to the original point of this post, I am very interested in the ways in which the real world context cannot help but shape, limit, color, bound, etc., a fictional construct even when as science fiction, that construct seems to have implicit license to go beyond the means of the limitations of contemporary thought into a realm of complete fantasy. My point here is that even with sci-fi, one can never indulge in pure fantasy as that fantasy always bears some relation to the real world context in which it was conceived, Further thoughts, corrections, emendations, disagreements are welcome, especially as I don't own a TV set and haven't seen either B7 or Star Trek for ages. Pat C. (Wow! I really did post something serious on Lysator.....Hijackers Welcome!)

6 6

Canon
by Caveatemptor1＠aol.com 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

<< Cheryl wrote: << Avon loves Anna is canon, Blake loves Avon or vice versa is not...not in any sense, sexual or otherwise. >> << Mistral wrote: << Well, no, IMO that doesn't work, either. Take just one of your examples - Avon loves Anna. It's not canonical in the sense that we are ever told it explicitly. We _infer_ it from Avon's behaviour - at least some of us do. Some may not. >> I remember being very surprised when I first heard the alternatives put forth that Avon didn't really love Anna. I believe the most popular arguement was that Avon felt compelled to avenge Anna's death and suffer five days of torture to get to her killer, not because he loved her but because he felt he owed a debt. He believed she died to save him and he was compelled to clean the slate. I'm not saying this as well as those who put forth this interpretation, but it's pretty much the point. Though I have to say I don't agree with it. When I watch RoD, my interpretation is that Avon was in love with Anna. And that he believed in her and trusted her; otherwise, her betrayal would not be quite so tragic or devastating. And I see this as the beginning of Avon's decline in season 4. Like Cheryl, when I first started watching B7 I thought it was accepted canon that Avon loved Anna. Then I started seeing fanfic and lyst posts with alternatives. Even though this is almost a cliche now, I still find it amazing how ten people can watch the same ep of B7 and come away with ten totally different interpretations. I love it!! :) Courtney

1 0

Re: [B7L] Chocolate Mousse
by Ellynne G. 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 15:44:08 -0000 "heather wheeler" <hev(a)wheelers00.freeserve.co.uk> writes: > Just wanted to get a post that didn't say slash or porn! And to say > that > every time I watch a B7 video I have to eat chocolate mousse at the > same > time. It makes up for the lack of sex scenes. > Chocolate mousse is good - but you have to eat ice cream during Gambit. Getting back to another dessert thread, jokes about the cook book aside, I wouldn't be surprised if Cally was one of those people who loses her appetite while overly stressed or depressed. Then again, I remember a story with a comic scene between a guy and his health food nut girlfriend where they finally have a big fight in a grocery store and he gets her to eat a twinkie. I actually can imagine that with Cally. 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.

1 0

Re: Re [B7L] PWP (porn? what porn?)
by Tavia 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

Mistral wrote: >The question then that this leads me to ask ... is this: since we >do know that visual stimuli can affect the brain (as strobe lights >an epileptic), and since we do know that sexual arousal has a >definite effect on (or really occurs in) the brain, do we actually >know that viewing titillating material _doesn't_ cause these >addictive-type changes in brain chemistry? There is such a >thing as sex addiction, after all. I'm certain someone must >have done some studies on the subject of the effects on the >brain of viewing sexually explicit material; is anyone aware >of such? Point taken, and no, I'm not aware of any research on this subject. However, traditionally physically-addictive substances (eg nicotine) exert their effects, as far as I know, on a very high proportion of those individuals who sample them. The point I was originally trying to make (and clearly failing dismally) is that visual pornography only exerts an addictive effect (which I would claim is akin to emotional addiction or habituation, rather than physical addiction, but admit I don't have any evidence to back this point up) on those who *respond positively* to it. Those who have no response or who respond negatively are not going to become habituated to such material. I guess it would be pretty hard to do a study to find out what proportion of people fall into each of the three categories. Tavia

3 2

Chocolate Mousse
by heather wheeler 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

Just wanted to get a post that didn't say slash or porn! And to say that every time I watch a B7 video I have to eat chocolate mousse at the same time. It makes up for the lack of sex scenes. Hev

1 0

Re: [B7L] re: slash
by Tavia 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

Alison wrote: >What's happening is that some people (mainly women) >enjoy writing erotica about men having relations with each other. >They prefer that erotica to be grounded to some extent in >characterisations that have existence outside of the particular >piece of erotic writing itself. Perhaps for two contrasting reasons- >women (it appears) find stuff more erotic when it has some back-story and >characterisation- as fans they want to explore the characters they like, >and do so through eroticisation I think additionally there's also an awful lot of self-projection going on. If I wonder (fictionally) what it was like on the _Liberator_, I would tend to place myself in that circumstance and try to imagine how I'd behave. Hence my sexual mores -- as well as many of my other views -- will tend to get interposed onto the B7 characters, especially where there's little or conflicting evidence on the point in the series. So, for example, 'my Avon' likes espresso coffee because I'm addicted to espresso coffee. OK, so this might be bad writing, but it's the only writing of which I'm capable.... I'd tend to think of something being 'canonically compatible' if it isn't directly contradicted by canon. So Avon liking espresso coffee is fine (IMO), as there's little or no evidence as to his tastes in hot drinks. Avon being soppy about black-and-white kittens, another Tavian trait, *isn't* fine (IMO), because it would seem outside his canonically established character. But you're free to take or leave my views on Avon's coffee habits, just as you're free to take or leave writers' views on the crew's sexual habits. After all, it's all just fiction, goddamnit... 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