Blakes7 September 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

56 participants
222 discussions

Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Ellynne G. 28 Sep '01

28 Sep '01

OK, going to unload my views on interpretation and stuff. The importance of the creator(s) intent varies. Examples: 1) Doesn't matter at all - In folklore, for example, it doesn't mean anything. In some of the older versions of Beauty and the Beast, Beauty is an extremely passive character. Yet she becomes an extremely assertive character in many of the more modern versions without any serious alterations to the text. The question in folklore is what a story means to the culture, not what it meant in another culture or at some different point in time. This is why, for example, many people feel the debate about how Davy Crocket died at the Alamo isn't about historical detail but about having heroes or people to look up to. 2) Sort of matters Then, there are plays. Plays always require some level of interpretation and, to the extent that it doesn't require the actors to make hash of the script, it's perfectly reasonable to have interpretations that the original author may not have ever thought of. Take the story about Avon and Servalan in Aftermath - the words were in the script but the actions they added weren't. So I'm told. 3) But there are limits But, any particular production exists in a narrower field. I may not _like_ Freudian Hamlet, but I can't see Olivier's version without admitting that's where it was coming from. So, for example, while I suppose I could argue whether or not the B7 scripts could be rewritten in a way that would allow for cheery song and dance numbers to be inserted without violating the integrity of the scripts, I admit they'd be completely out of place in B7 as it was actually performed (could and would being different words, please note). Although, some things just aren't worth the trouble. There's just no way to resolve Klingon brith/death ratios as implied in the series with both the culture and the Klingons continuing to be a military threat (I'm sure you all wanted to know that). Back to the point, which is that, while there may be a lot that's open to debate, but let's be realistic here. Whew. Onto unconscious. Since I know I unconsciously put things into stories I write that I often don't see until I've at least finished a rough draft, I know it happens. themes, meanings, yadda, yadda. Some of this is just mental baggage, like when I realized a bit I put in a story was a nightmarish rendering of a kindergarten activity (you had to be there). Hey, other authors do it, too. Honest. B7, for example, was written during a time when people were very cynical about government and the military. Star Trek, OTOH, was written when they were less so. I think it's safe to say that this shows without it necessarily reflecting _deliberate_ intent by the creators (at least of Trek). So, if I accept the premise of the lack of center in B7, I probably wouldn't accept that it was _conscious_, given what I know about how it was written (by different authors sometimes working under heavy time constraints). However, I could accept it as _unconscious_, that the creators latched onto a feeling of bleakness and cynicism that this played into. That is, it felt 'right' without their necessarily analyzing why or deliberately trying to create a particular image. OTOH, there are premises that I'm pretty sure weren't, intentionally or otherwise, a part of B7 that I would still consider legitimate if I put them to a particular use. For me with B7, there are two possible uses. 1) Reinterpretation - that means things like 'How I would have done RoD.' 2) Fanfic. So, for example, I'm pretty sure no one involved in the show meant to go with the Feminist interpretation of Power in which the Hommiks are actually the more egalitarian society and the Seska were a minority ruling group who, before being overthrown, particularly exploited and abused the unimplanted women in their society; but it's the interpretaion I go with because the only other way to deal with Power invloves purging all evidence that it ever existed from the face of the Earth which, besides being impratical, seems to violate a few freedom of speech ideas that, as a sometimes writer, I actually do support. Oh, and there's also a possible third - 3) Whoa. Deep insight. What an interesting way of viewing that. 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/web/.

1 0

Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by J MacQueen 28 Sep '01

28 Sep '01

>From: <Mac4781(a)aol.com> > > His face is firty, I've been trying to resist asking just how old the rest of him is at this point. Haven't succeeded, have I? Regards Jo (aren't typos wonderful?!?) _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

1 0

Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Mac4781＠aol.com 28 Sep '01

28 Sep '01

Sally asked: > But - on the point of authorial intention again - *was* the fact that it was > his eye even in the script?

2 1

RE: Re: Interpretation (was Re: [B7L] Re: decentring morality)
by jacquispeel＠netscape.net 28 Sep '01

28 Sep '01

Harriet Monkhouse <hflysator(a)jarriere.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Kathryn wrote: >>Like arguing that Deliverance is sexist because a rocket is a phallic >>symbol. I think one reason why the argument about that was so much at >>cross-purposes was that one lot were thinking "but it wasn't *intended* to >>be sexist" and another party was thinking "intent is irrelevant, the >>only meaning is what I see to be there". > >And I think, well, that's one of a number of possible meanings, but not >the first one that occurs to me. >-- >Harriet I sometimes see Assassain as having 'sexist' overtones - Servalan's remark about simpering Piri being a credit to the female sex (rearranging quote), & there is a remark by Neebrox etc Jacqui __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/

2 1

Re: Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Sally Manton 28 Sep '01

28 Sep '01

Una wrote: <I'm anxious to know the deeper meaning of Michelin Man attire.> Robert Holmes had a serious meringue addiction at the time. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

1 0

Re: decentring morality
by Natasa Tucev 27 Sep '01

27 Sep '01

Ellynne wrote: <The thing about B7 is that there are so many things that I'm sure no one consciously put in (and, some would argue, that aren't present outside of the minds of some of the viewers), yet they're _there_. Maybe it's because some things feel right to writers, actors, whoever, even when they aren't _consciously_ created.> Well, literary criticism tends to be rather heedless of the author's conscious intentions. The usual procedure is to apply one or more of the existing critical approaches and see how much meaning a text yields when examined from that aspect. A good work of art should be able to snap the umbilical cord binding it to its author and exist in its own right. There is an adage that we would be quite dissappointed if Shakespeare could now explain to us what Hamlet was all about. I'm not sure one can analyse a TV show the same way, although I usually do. Some time ago I saw the 13th Warrior and thought it was offensively patriarchal in its subtext. At the end of the film, the hero played by Banderas says that he is grateful to Norsemen because they have taught him how to sevre properly his God the Father. In the course of the film it is revealed that the best way to serve the Father is to sneak into the Earth's womb and kill the Mother. Mother-worship, which is essentialy Nature-worship, is presented in the film as something totally unnatural: the devotees eat human flesh and live by night. At the beginning, Banderas is exiled from one patriarchal community because he is also, in a way, a worshipper of the Goddess, a poet and a lover. But then the Norsemen come to sort him out and make a 'man' out of him. I'm quite certain the authors never had any conscious intention to convey these ideas - they just set out to make a good action movie - but the cultural archetypes spoke for themselves. The film duly represents the cultural attitude towards the feminine. N.

9 13

Re: [B7L] Re: decentring morality
by Natasa Tucev 27 Sep '01

27 Sep '01

Calle wrote: >A lot of silly things are done in LitCrit Absolutely agreed. >(and is it even possible to >use Freud and *not* be silly? Some works are suitable for such an analysis, some are not. For instance, practically everybody agrees now that the central relationship in D.H.Lawrence's 'Sons and Lovers' is best understood in terms of Freudian Oedipus complex. The same Freudian theory is also helpful in understanding Hamlet, although it cannot provide all the answers. I really resent it, however, when Freud is used to accuse an author of some hidden sexual anomalies. N.

1 0

Re: Blake's eye
by Helen Krummenacker 27 Sep '01

27 Sep '01

Sally said: But - on the point of authorial intention again - *was* the fact that it was his eye even in the script? Or did it just say 'Blake is scarred' and the makeup people got to work out what would look most effective and work best? After all, a *lot* of what seems deep and meaningful can turn out to be simply what came of budgetary/time/realities of TV production pressures instead :-) Anyone got the script? That itself only tells what the writer was thinking.The director or makeup designer could have thought, "Wouldn't it be interesting if the scar reminds people of Travis's disfigurement". Takes more than the script to put in all the symbolism and meaning into a play or television show.

1 0

Starfleet Ball
by Steve Rogerson 27 Sep '01

27 Sep '01

I've just heard that Starfleet Ball next year is very close to selling out of hotel rooms. Sates are 8-10 February 2002 in Bournemouth and Jan Chappel and Sally Knyvette are among the guests. More at: http://www.sfball.com -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent Celebrating 25 years of Blake's 7 and 10 years of Babylon 5 http://www.smof.com/redemption

1 0

Fwd: Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Sally Manton 27 Sep '01

27 Sep '01

Una wrote: <I didn't notice until people on this list said it that Blake's injured eye can mean 1. a loss of clear moral vision and 2. a blurring of the lines between him and Travis.> But - on the point of authorial intention again - *was* the fact that it was his eye even in the script? Or did it just say 'Blake is scarred' and the makeup people got to work out what would look most effective and work best? After all, a *lot* of what seems deep and meaningful can turn out to be simply what came of budgetary/time/realities of TV production pressures instead :-) Anyone got the script? _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

3 2

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
23
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

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 September 2001