Blakes7 March 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

96 participants
1067 discussions

Re: RE: Re: [B7L] zine editing
by Shane Little 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Annie wrote: > >Louise Rutter: > ><< People's beliefs as to where the right to privacy starts and finishes > >vary > >wildly. If you can accept the religious objections to homosexuality, why > >can't you accept the different standards that Ashton Press has from your > >own? Is it purely because of the less tactful way that Annie puts her case? > > >>> > >I wasn't aware I'd "put" my case any way at all, tactfully or otherwise. That's the first accurate statement I've seen from you in a long time. > >First off, I don't feel the need to defend or justify my fanzines and what > >they contain. Well, you can't defend the indefensible. Perhaps this also counts as another honest answer from you, Annie. They are written and illustrated by a huge range of fans > >(some issues had 40 or more contributors) stretching back close to 20 years > >in various fandoms. Yes, but you are the editor and publisher. You can't get away from the fact that you are the one ultimatly responsible for what goes into an Ashton Press publication. Furthermore, early issues of the adult zines featured > >no artwork whatsoever as a matter of policy other than the front covers. So they do feature artwork then. If > >anyone thinks any of those covers are "explicit" I'd have to say they > >simply have dirty minds. Unless you tell us or show us what those covers feature, we only have your word for it. Later issues began to feature some interior > >artwork, none of it that I can recall, I might add, drawn by Leah But was it explicit art? And if it was, did the actor object? And if he did, how did you respond? other > >than probably some CARTOONS. Cartoon can also be explicit. What kind of cartoons? Quite a lot of fans have enjoyed Leah's > >artwork and cartoons over the years and have been very happy that it has > >appeared at conventions, in fanzines, on our website and in professional > >publications such as Starlog. Leah is a good artist. I am sure that she has done work that a lot of fans find enjoyable. But you are still avoiding the question. If Leah's art has appeared in professional pubications such as Starlog, I bet they were just normal cartoons, and didn't feature material or themes that could get Starlog sued. > >The conversations about "why" Leah or I might want to be part of Blakes 7 > >fandom are extremely flattering, I must say. I had no idea that we were > >considered such an interesting subject of conversation. It's not *who* you are, but *what* you are doing that is getting so much attention. Don't confuse the two. And don't be flattered by it. Let's see. In the > >last 20 years we have collectively published dozens of fanzines, written > >well over 100 fan stories (many of which are available on our website > >nowadays), That's hardly unique. So have many other people. drawn artwork and cartoons (many of which I now publish to our > >website), I know, and that's part of the problem. > >helped run numerous conventions, Yes, I've been hearing about that. Scorpio, wasn't it? published photographs (many of > >which are also now available on our website)... and I think I can > >truthfully say that we have had fun doing it I'm sure you have. and, unless hundreds of people > >have been lying to me in letters and at conventions, we made a lot of fans > >happy over the years. I'm sure you did. But from what I've been hearing, you also made a lot of people very unhappy indeed. Shane Largo: Why do I feel as if I'm on trial here? Avon: Why do I feel that you should be? Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015

1 0

Re: [B7L] zine editing
by Shane Little 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Leah wrote: << People's beliefs as to where the right to privacy starts and finishes > >vary > > wildly. If you can accept the religious objections to homosexuality, why > > can't you accept the different standards that Ashton Press has from your > > own? Is it purely because of the less tactful way that Annie puts her > >case? > > > > >The most amusing part of all of this is that Ashton Press zines, like so > >many > >other B7 zines, is not the work of one writer. The vast majority of stories > >in Ashton Press zines are a collection of work submitted by many, many fans > >from all over the world, who have submitted that work to Annie and she > >edits > >and publishes it. Exactly. Annie is the editor and publisher. It is up to her what goes in and what is considered acceptable by Ashton Press. Thank you, Leah, for apportioning blame. Targeting one editor for such collections is simply > >attacking the messenger because you don't like what your neighbour is > >getting > >in the mail. No. As you've just pointed out it's attacking the editor and publisher for being so undiscerning. That is why in English law the publisher is sued for libel as well as the editor; they are responsible for publishing it. > > It's laughable. Ah, yes it is. Maybe if I put it in little words, it might > >sink > >in: Annie. Doesn't. Write. All. The. Slash. In. The. World. Following your example: No. But. She. Writes. Some. And. She. Is. The. Editor. And. Publisher. Of. Ashton. Press. Therefore. She. is. Responsible. for. What. Goes. into. Her. Publications. Got. It?. > >Fellow. B7. Fans. Do. Yes. But. There's. A. Difference. Between. Slash. Writers. Who. Respect. Other. People. And. Slash. Writers. Who. Don't. > >You. Aren't. Going. To. Stop. That. Phenomenon. No. > >Matter. How. Uncomfortable. It. Makes. You. Feel. No. But. I. Am. Going. To. Make. My. Voice. Heard. No. Matter. How. Uncomfortable. It. Makes. You. Feel. Shane. "You. Really. Are. Insane. Aren't. You?" --Avon Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015

1 0

RE: Re: [B7L] zine editing
by Shane Little 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Louise wrote: > >Shane wrote: > > > > >But if you wrote a slash story featuring Steve McQueen's character from > >The > > >Great Escape being raped and tortured by Nazi guards, and then drew some > > >lurid artwork to accompany it, you would have to be using Steve McQueen's > > >likeness, because he, after all, played the character (whatever his name > > >was -- Hilt, Hicks, something). If Steve McQueen then found out about the > > >artwork, and he then expressed to you that he found the pictures of what > >is > > >in effect identifiably him in such a situation grossly offensive, then it > > >would be rather unkind of you to ignore his pleas and instead continue to > >produce and > > >distribute said offensive artwork. > > >Personally I agree. Explicit artwork crosses my particular boundary for > >what is acceptable, but that varies > >for individuals. Attitudes as to what's acceptable may vary from person to person, but you still can't get away from the fact that if Actor X objects to such artwork featuring his likeness, and this is pointed out to the artist, then to ignore that protest is a very selfish and cynical thing to do. The way you phrased your original statement sounded as if > >you were saying some people might draw explicit art precisely _because_ it > >annoys the actors they dislike Yes, I believe that very possibly could be true. Why ignore their protests, otherwise? > >and that's where we disagree. Why do you disagree? > > >I don't think you can really separate actor and the characters they play > > >(Usually for many actors, just a variation on the same theme) anyway, > > >because, having never met Steve McQueen, we have no idea what he was > >really > > >like; therefore all we have to go by is what we see of his screen work. > >It's > > >interesting that neither you or I could recall the name of the character > >he > > >played in "The Great Escape," and that we refer to him as "Steve > >McQueen's > > >character" rather than by name or as "the blond American one with the > >nice > > >muscles." > > > >Annoying, isn't it? :-) Yes, but it also makes my point. > > > > >Many people have stated in the past that on meeting a particular actor > >they were > > >surprised by the fact that they were nothing at all like the character > >they > > >played on screen. The fact is people will see the two as the same > > >until more direct information (meeting the actor, say) comes about, and > >even > > >after that, the two images will coexist in the minds of many people. > > > >But why on earth should an actor be anything like the characters they play? Well, it depends on the actor in question. Roger Moore, for instance, is exactly the same in everything he appears in, and then when you see him in an interview, he's still exactly the same. A character actor like the late Patrick Troughton may look very different from one role to the next, but he is often still recognisable--and frankly unless you are drawing Patrick Troughton in a white wig, a false nose and a fake beard, he's still going to look like the actor Patrick Troughton. Ever been in a situation where you are watching TV and suddenly someone says, "Hey isn't that so and so out of thingamabob?" (and you say "shut up, I'm trying to watch this!" :-) ) > >I'm sure Gary Oldman is a good deal nicer in reality than most of his roles > >would imply :-) True, but let me give you another example of what I mean. Gary Oldman (an exceptional actor) is totally unrecognisable in Hannibal--but then he is under a load of prosthetics. An actor who plays a Dalek isn't going to be recognised in the street, and people aren't going to think he's going to exterminate them. However, an actor who plays a hardman in EastEnders may very well be attacked in a pub. People often blur actors with the characters they play, moreso in some cases than others, it's true, but it does happen. > >maybe I'm the odd one out for completely disassociating actor from character. I still find it hard to believe that the two can be dissociated. Cally will still look like Jan Chappel (even if she looks like Jan Chappel did in 1978 when wearing a Nylon tunic) no matter how you try and disassociate the two. The very fact that you said "Steve McQueen" played that guy in The Great Escape" proves my point, because the character was recognisable as having the likeness of Steve McQueen. Furthermore, we aren't just talking about yourself; other people also look at the same artwork, who may be less able than you to make the distinction. > > I have a slash mentality - I read and write the > >stuff in other fandoms. Yet despite 10 years in B7 fandom, including an > >early exposure to the concept of slash (indeed my original exposure to the > >concept of slash), I just do not see slash relationships in B7, even with > >people giving me all those examples of why they think it is there. Again, my point exactly. You accept that you do not see slash relationships in B7, but we've seen recently that sometimes people, for whatever reason, are capable of convincing themselves that slash relationships occur onscreen even. I'll give you another example. A friend of mine told me a sad story once. His girlfriend bought a Martin Bower teleport bracelet from Horizon a few years back. My friend told her the bracelet was not accurate to the ones that appear in the series. She said, 'they are, they were made and designed by Bower in the programme, and they are made by Bower for Horizon: QED, they are accurate.' 'No they are not,' he said, 'the pink plastic bit is the wrong shape, and it's the wrong colour--on yours it's orange; the paint job is wrong as well; the colour is too light--it's sort of gold on yours, which again is wrong.' She replied that he was wrong and she showed him a certificate of authenticity Bower had sent to her. 'Fair enough,' he said, 'but that just tells you that it is an authentic Bower product, not that it is accurate to the ones that appeared in the series.' She told him that she knew B7 and that to her mind they looked identical. So eventually they got out an episode and compared the on screen bracelets to the one she had. They were different in all the respects he had pointed out. 'Perhaps it's a third season one, then,' she said. They looked at a third season episode; the one she held in her hand was still inaccurate. Eventually they looked at 15 episodes, and on every occasion the one she had bought was different to the ones on screen. She had bought into the idea that the bracelet was accurate. But when confronted with the fact that it might not be, she fought very hard to make it _right_, but no matter how hard she fought, or how hard she wanted to believe, her faith in her bracelet could not change physical reality and make the two images fit. So yes, people do sometimes convince themselves that something is true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is. Exposure > >to slash hasn't altered my view of the characters in the slightest. Good! :) > > > > >If the admirable Julia Jones can see this, and has a no-explicit-artwork > > >policy for her slashzines, why doesn't Ashton Press do the same? Answer: > >They > > >don't give a toss what the actor feels. They have no respect at all for > > >these people. Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I am going to take > >this > > >as read. > > > >People's beliefs as to where the right to privacy starts and finishes vary > >wildly. But again if the actor objects, then they have to take that objection into consideration. If they have, and still produce the artwork, then I am going to ask why they have decided to ignore this person's wishes. If you can accept the religious objections to homosexuality, why > >can't you accept the different standards that Ashton Press has from your > >own? I don't accept the religious objections to homosexuality. I am an atheist. If a Christian tried to impose their beliefs on me I'd fight them. Similarly, however, I like B7; I am grateful to the actors, writers and directors of that programme for giving me so much viewing pleasure. If I see these people being abused by so called fans, then I am going to ask questions. If they don't answer, then I am going to draw my own conclusions. > >Is it purely because of the less tactful way that Annie puts her case? Annie never puts her case; she makes extreme and deliberately inflammatory statements. And whenever she argues a point she always twists the points being made by the other person. I think this is very suspicious behaviour. If she can't make a straight case then there are two possibilities, 1/ She hasn't got a case 2/ If she told us why she was doing it we would raise objections. Shane "Faith - defined as the capacity to believe what you know isn't true." --Blake Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015

1 0

Re: [B7L] zine editing (back to images again, I fear)
by Shane Little 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Tavia wrote: >Shane wrote: > >I don't think you can really separate actor and the characters they play > >(Usually for many actors, just a variation on the same theme) > >This might be true of some people, but I tend to see character and not >actor. Nonetheless, you can't really deny that Sir Ian McKellan playing Richard III is _Sir Ian McKellan_ playing Richard III, and isn't Sir John Gielgud playing Richard III or Basil Brush playing Richard III (or Paul Darrow in 'Timelash' :-) ), and if you draw a picture of any one of these it is the actor's likeness you are reproducing, cause the character doesn't have a likeness independent of the actor (well, Richard III may have been a historical figure, but IIRC he didn't look like how Willie Shakespeare described him). In the case of the B7 characters, to draw an image of the character is _by definition_ to draw a picture of the actor who portrayed them, regardless of whether that character resembles the actor in his offstage state or not. Shane "I don't take anything on trust." --Avon Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015

1 0

RE: A Meaty Subject (was Re: [B7L] "That" issue)
by Tavia 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Neil wrote: >In fact this is something I 've brought > into some of my fiction. > In Wit and Wisdom (Star 3) Travis has a meal of > vat-cultured beef and > veggies. A further elaboration might be to have it > such that 'real' meat > from living animals has acquired luxury status. I > can well imagine Servalan > extolling its superiority over the cultured stuff, > possibly even imputing it > with quasi-mystic powers. I seem to recall writing something of the sort -- based I think largely on the conversation about coffee in '1984'. To a large extent, of course, food snobbery along these lines already exists -- I'd guess organic or free-range foods are consumed as often because they're more expensive (and 'therefore' better) as for environmental or animal rights reasons. I don't see Servalan in those terms, though, except insofar as it would be a social necessity; for example, in 'Trial': Bercol: I wish I'd known that this was going to drag on so. I'd have brought my own chef. As I recall, Space Command's cuisine is appalling. Servalan: Pathetic! Tavia

1 0

Re: [B7L] zine editing
by Mac4781＠aol.com 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Myself/Shane: > >Well then, why don't you go conduct that investigation? And when you're > >ready to level specific charges, come back and tell us about it. > > Why don't you? You're closer than I am. But if you want some advice, you > could start by asking for their accounts to be made public... I wrote a note beside my computer that you would respond exactly as you did: "Why don't you investigate it?" The point I was making is that it is very easy to make insinuations of improper behavior. This lyst would be even more unpleasant than it has been of late if we all took to doing that. Given that you don't have any proof for your theory, and given that you aren't willing to do the investigation that *you* apparently think would give your theory credibility, your comments come across as nothing more than a vendetta by someone with a personal ax to grind. I've purchased Ashton Press zines. I've held them in my hands. I've seen how many pages they have. I know what type of binding they use. I recognize that some of the art work would involve extra reproduction costs. I've also done two B7 zines and 43 issues of the Tarrant APA, so I know what it costs to do fannish publications. There is no way Ashton Press can be making money. It would be easier to get rich going sofa to sofa and plucking out lost change. Both Annie and Leah do zines for the love of fandom. I appreciate their efforts. Carol Mc

4 3

RE: Re: [B7L] zine editing
by Ashton7＠aol.com 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Please accept my apologies for the double post. I wasn't trying to make the point twice. ;-) My server said the mail didn't go through but obviously it did! Annie

1 0

Re: [B7L] reasons
by Fiona Moore 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

>From: Lisa Williams <lcw(a)dallas.net> >>just that there *is* evidence from canon for the characters' sexual >>orientations, they're not just blank slates. > >Sure; I have no quarrel with that -- but they're not writ in stone, >either. Exactly how *do* you regard canon, then? I tend to regard canon as a very fixed thing: it's 52 episodes, and we have to take it as read, and that includes mistakes and lamentable casting decisions, etc. If Blake reveals in the series that he is 34 at the time of "Breakdown", I may go away and write a story saying that he's 55 at the same time-- but it's not going to fit the canon, however good a story it is. >I also note that different people received different impressions, >and the >whole lot could cite canon (generally along the lines of "He did >this, >which could mean that") in their favor. Not exactly. For instance the discussion about the scene in "Duel" where Blake and Avon cling to each other in an explosion and stay clung afterwards. Betty cited this as proof of homoeroticism, as they cling to each other for an unusually long time. "Gosh," thought I, "maybe she's right!" But then I went back and watched it, and found that there *was* a more obvious nonhomoerotic explanation (the danger of being hit again had not yet passed, as Jenna had not given the all-clear, and as soon as the all-clear was given Blake and Avon sprang apart). Just because you can cite canon for something doesn't mean the citation can withstand argument. >Only the "he did this" is >canon. Yes. But within that canon there is a definite visual grammar for showing sexual interest, which can be both inferred from scenes in which the dialogue says that sexual interest is meant to be shown and extrapolated from there onto other scenes without such dialogue (but in which there is a possibility of sexual interest). In the end, a lot of it came down to looking at instances in which this grammar is employed by the principals-- and the canonical "he did this" of showing sexual interest cropped up in a lot of opposite-sex cases but no same-sex ones for the principals. >What it means is personal interpretation. Um, no. It means visual, onscreen evidence for sexual interest, and when it is shown and when it is not shown. >There are people who can >see >possibilities for pairings (het or slash) which I find totally >unbelievable, and those who can't see the ones that I'm willing to >accept. "Possibility" and that other word you use, "potential," is a lot different from "canon." You could, for instance, say to me "it is entirely possible, Fiona, that you were born in Madagascar." "Rubbish," I would say, producing my birth certificate. "I was born in Toronto." "Ah," you would say, "but it's still *possible* that you were born in Madagascar, but your parents falsified your birth certificate." I'd be forced to admit the possibility (although why my parents would do a complicated thing like that is puzzling), but on the Occam's Razor front I'd probably take the balance of evidence as being for my being born in Toronto. Or, to get back to the slash front: as I said, yes, the slash interpretation can be made, has been made and will be made-- but retconning it back onto our screens is something else entirely. >When I see slash potential for a particular pair, it isn't something >I'm >inventing out of whole cloth and imposing on an unyielding >framework, No, but you're reacting to the canon as given within a particular way. There's a very interesting passage in Bacon-Smith where she describes an older fan introducing a new one to a TV series, with OF talking to NF, telling her how to interpret what's on the screen. Somebody else yesterday made the point about how reading a slash story changes how you view them afterwards, within the series as well as in fanfic. When people make an interpretation, they are doing it within a particular cultural framework, and according to the input they receive from other fans. If you made a slash reading, and your friends in fandom said "that's ridiculous" (as happens in DW fandom from time to time) you might find yourself rethinking it. We don't make our interpretations in a vacuum. >If I see it, it's because it's blatantly obvious to me, not because >I'm >making an effort to twist things. Never said you were, but I'm also saying, 1) there is canon, and 2) that your interpretation is made within a particular social context. There are cases where I can >*intellectually* understand how other people are arriving at a slash >interpretation, but I just don't *feel* it myself and hence don't >find it >believable -- and there are cases where it leaps up and hits me >right in >the face. Nor can I tell you exactly why, barring a few conditions >I've >managed to figure out. Either I see it, or I don't. I don't expect >other >people to regard things the same way I do, but I do expect them to >realize >that these are *fictional* characters and open to *multiple* But once again, as with the discussion earlier this month, it's all coming down to "feelings" and "notions." If you'd like to play the game with me, you yourself can try and come up with a hard-evidence example of same-sex sexual interest by one of the principal characters on B7. >interpretations, no single one of which is the One True Way. And it's entirely possible that my parents are ex-KGB agents who have been working for thirty-odd years to destroy any evidence that they were on Madagascar in the early seventies. But I'm inclined to doubt it. But to get totally off the slash topic, I've never liked the whole "there is no One True Way" phrase, I have to say. If the Allies, standing in liberated Belsen, had said "sure, the Germans killed off between six and ten million civillians in concentration camps, but it was entirely justified within their ideology, and because There Is No One True Way, we'll just let them get back to it," the world would be one denazification programme poorer. Or, would you say "[name of list member deleted] has just said some very offensive things about [name of other list member deleted] and made her very, very upset, but she doesn't have to apologise because There Is No One True Way?" IMO Do What Thou Wilt is *not* The Whole Of The Law, and some actions are more justifiable than others. 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

3 2

RE: Re: [B7L] zine editing
by Ashton7＠aol.com 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

In a message dated Thu, 29 Mar 2001 6:56:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, Louise Rutter <Louise.Rutter(a)btinternet.com> writes: << People's beliefs as to where the right to privacy starts and finishes vary wildly. If you can accept the religious objections to homosexuality, why can't you accept the different standards that Ashton Press has from your own? Is it purely because of the less tactful way that Annie puts her case? >>> I wasn't aware I'd "put" my case any way at all, tactfully or otherwise. First off, I don't feel the need to defend or justify my fanzines and what they contain. They are written and illustrated by a huge range of fans (some issues had 40 or more contributors) stretching back close to 20 years in various fandoms. Furthermore, early issues of the adult zines featured no artwork whatsoever as a matter of policy other than the front covers. If anyone thinks any of those covers are "explicit" I'd have to say they simply have dirty minds. Later issues began to feature some interior artwork, none of it that I can recall, I might add, drawn by Leah other than probably some CARTOONS. Quite a lot of fans have enjoyed Leah's artwork and cartoons over the years and have been very happy that it has appeared at conventions, in fanzines, on our website and in professional publications such as Starlog. The conversations about "why" Leah or I might want to be part of Blakes 7 fandom are extremely flattering, I must say. I had no idea that we were considered such an interesting subject of conversation. Let's see. In the last 20 years we have collectively published dozens of fanzines, written well over 100 fan stories (many of which are available on our website nowadays), drawn artwork and cartoons (many of which I now publish to our website), helped run numerous conventions, published photographs (many of which are also now available on our website)... and I think I can truthfully say that we have had fun doing it and, unless hundreds of people have been lying to me in letters and at conventions, we made a lot of fans happy over the years. That's really the only justification I need. Annie

1 0

RE: Re: [B7L] zine editing
by Ashton7＠aol.com 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

1 0

← Newer
1
...
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
...
107
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 March 2001