Blakes7 September 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

56 participants
222 discussions

Site update!!!!!!!
by Minnie 27 Sep '01

27 Sep '01

Hi All Just a note to let you know that my site has just been updated and dusted off. There is a stack of new stuff, including many new pictures, a few new stories, some bear art (special thanks to Marian) and some fun stuff as well. Also my site has had a change so it should be more user friendly. If you have any Questions or nit pics (be nice <G>)Please let me know. Enjoy and most of all, have fun. :) Cheers. Min.xxx http://www.darksites.com/souls/horror/blakes7/index.html

1 0

Re: decentring morality
by Alison Page 27 Sep '01

27 Sep '01

Calle said - >>If you were to believe what the authors themselves say, nobody has ever written a novel because they wanted to make money, and nobody has ever been inspired into writing by Stephen King or Barbara Cartland. Almost invariably, they claim to want to say important things about the human condition and to have been inspired by James Joyce and Marcel Proust. << You know I've never met a writer who said anything like that. The most common motive I have heard is 'I want to make enough money from writing so that I can give up my other work/so that I never have to do a day job, because writing is what I like to do best.' >>Once we get telepathic scanners capable of looking back in time, *then* we can talk about the author's intentions. That seems rather austere. I think it is human nature to speculate about the motives and beliefs of other people, and not to simply limit ourselves to the things for which we have incontrovertible evidence. Of course some people may not enjoy such speculation, and obviously they do not need to participate in it, in any context. An example would be the argument that the complexity of Avon's characterization is due to the combined effect of many varied aims, on the part of different contributors, resulting in something richer than any one person could have devised alone. I don't see how one could have that discussion without speculation beyond the strict evidence of the work itself. And the result might be a new understanding of the creative process, or a resolution to try and work with other people in creating a script - or anything really might come from the thought. But it would be a shame to disallow the very thought itself. Alison ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************

1 0

Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Mac4781＠aol.com 27 Sep '01

27 Sep '01

Nina wrote: > Yes, from Sundance: > "You just keep thinking there, Butch - that's what you're good at." > (I *love* that movie!) Same here. Butch and Sundance are so much like Avon and Tarrant, the older "thinker" and the younger "action guy" with the flashy smile. Carol

1 0

Re: [B7L] RE: decentring morality
by Mac4781＠aol.com 27 Sep '01

27 Sep '01

Sally wrote: > Threats yes. Killing yes - which is why I'm not nearly as sure as some > people that Blake wouldn't have let Avon kill Shrinker (though *not* in the > way Avon did it). *Gratuitously* taunting a man who is about to die in a > particularly cruel manner (the fact that he's killed others notwithstanding) > for no earthly reason than to make the taunter feel superior and/or better > ... no way. There is absolutely nothing to support your claim that they were taunting Shrinker to make themselves feel superior or better. Tarrant and Dayna didn't have ego problems, and even Vila's Delta background hadn't beaten him down to where he needed to gain ego boosts by taunting a piece of slime like Shrinker. Their venting was a product of stress. They had had to maintain a two-minute alert for five days. They were worried about Avon during that time. They were probably also worried about themselves, parked in orbit over Earth, the seat of Federation power. Then they found Shrinker threatening Avon with a laser probe. I think they had a right to be upset. What I can't understand is why you feel a need to assign incredulously disbelieving and shabby motives to their behavior. > Neither with Kayn nor with Sarkoff is there any indication that Blake - who > understands creative coercion, true - is gloating over them (he comes closer > once or twice with Travis, but that's personal and *only* with Travis). Why is it that shabby, mean-spirited cruelty is excused--"that's personal and *only* Travis"--when Blake is the one doing it? There is no "closer" about his gloating over Travis. Just pulling lines from one ep, here's a clear-cut case of gratutitous gloating: "I should use the time to think of an excuse for your failure." "You don't matter enough to kill, Travis." Carol

1 0

AWG question
by Kathryn Andersen 27 Sep '01

27 Sep '01

Okay, this is Pat Nussman's fault... I think... I have been asked "Who are the Thane and Bruce?" as a result of the following section of the Lyst Culture Guide: Quote: -------------------- Not a terribly active group these days, but Pat Nussman founded "AWG" -- Avon Without Guilt. As in, yes, we *know* it's terribly common; we *know* that more discerning tastes move on from their first attraction to the Dark and Snarly One in favor of the more arcane delights of, oh, The Thane and Bruce; we *know* he has a less than stellar character. So what? We still love him, and we refuse to be guilty about it. -------------------- I do not know the answer. I disclaim -- I was merely quoting what the AWG representative, er, represented unto me... So, who are they? Kathryn Andersen -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Blake: You took a big risk there, Gan. Gan: I thought it might save time. Besides, I needed a pacemaker. Vila: Me, too. Implanted in me heart. (Blake's 7: Pressure Point [B5]) -- _--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen <kat(a)katspace.com> / \ | <http://www.katspace.com> \_.--.*/ | v | #include "standard/disclaimer.h" ------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe

6 8

re: decentring morality
by Alison Page 27 Sep '01

27 Sep '01

Iain said - >But you're not discussing authorial intention, as Terry Nation isn't the author. Yes, I should have said 'creator' . I think we had this discussion before, about the multiple creators of B7. Or, in fact, I should have been more careful in my hasty example. But my point is that we can talk about the people who made B7, and what their intentions were, if we want to, but that by allowing such discussion we aren't limited to it. Natasa's excellent example about the Viking warrior film being an example of a different type of discussion, which we wouldn't want to rule out either. Alison ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************

2 1

Re: decentring morality
by Alison Page 27 Sep '01

27 Sep '01

I very much like the writing of Thomas Hobbes, and I find him relevant to political discussions in general. I also think he is the philosopher who fits in best with the world of B7. I was reading the Leviathan online this morning, further to all the talk about decentring morality, and I came across a quote which I like a lot. Its relevant to something that comes up from time to time - Avon's reluctance to tell a downright lie. How can a person without a moral framework, with a strong sense of self-preservation, and in a state of war, nevertheless bind himself with such an obligation as truthfulness? "The force of words being too weak to hold men to the performance of their covenants, there are in man's nature but two imaginable helps to strengthen it. And those are either a fear of the consequence of breaking their word, or a glory or pride in appearing not to need to break it. This latter is a generosity too rarely found to be presumed on, especially in the pursuers of wealth, command, or sensual pleasure, which are the greatest part of mankind. ... That which gives to human actions the relish of justice is a certain nobleness or gallantness of courage, rarely found, by which a man scorns to be beholding for the contentment of his life to fraud, or breach of promise." Now obviously Avon did not 'scorn to be beholding to fraud', prior to the start of B7, as that's what he was in prison for. However I think we see this gallantry start to assert itself, in counterpoint to the general decay of morality that takes place over the four series. Then towards the end of S4, of course, it breaks down again, and he loses that nobility IMHO. Alison ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************

1 0

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

27 Sep '01

Una wrote: >Cally removes herself throughout this >episode. She has a real dilemma, and I think she's very conflicted >throughout. She struggles repeatedly to express to Avon that what he is >doing is murder, and thus wrong. But, I think she's finding it difficult >to resolve the issue, and that part of what's going on is trying to >justify to herself the fact that - by her inactivity - she is >effectively letting him go through with it. Bearing in mind her own >experience of people like Shrinker during S-L-D, I think part of her >thinks he's justified. The only internal resolution she can find is >removing herself from the action - just like Auron did. Great analysis of Cally's character, Una. Yes, I agree - one can also observe the process of 'decentring morality' inside her: starting with her initial rebellion against the passivity of her people and ending up with her own 'withdrawal'. I think at that point she is also worried about Avon in general, it's not just that one murder, she intuits the direction in which he's going and she feels unable to stop him. Unfortunately, speaking from my 'real life' experience, this is what many decent people do - they withdraw, feeling depressed and helpless, and allow evil things to happen. N.

1 0

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

27 Sep '01

Neil wrote: >Ahmad's relationship with Olga goes precisely nowhere While it is suggested that his relationship with a married woman at the beginning of the movie was much more meaningful. Love was central to his life then, and he was exiled because of it. Now that he's become a warrior, however, his relationship with a woman is just a brief respite between two battles. A kind of sneezing relief. > I think in that sense it's a very different kind >of decentred morality to that in B7 (struggling to get back on topic), since >in B7 there is a tacit awareness of being morally adrift, whereas in 13W it >is not acknowledged, or is indeed denied by clutching at feeble fatalistic >straws (there are several references to fate in the film, and the futility >of trying to avoid it). I believe this is a translation of the OE word 'weird', which at that time meant 'fate'. I haven't read anglo-saxon poetry since the University, but I recall that the notion of destiny was central to it. The ancient meaning of the word 'weird' is 'natural'. At the time when Beowulf was written, it has already acquired a negative connotation, as something you cannot avoid, something that gets you in the end. By the time Shakespeare wrote Macbeth, the meaning of 'weird' has become completely reversed, as in the 'weird sisters'. The history of this word is practically a nutshell history of our culture's attitude to nature. In Pratchett's Wyrd Sisters, however... no, I don't think I can interpret that on a serious note. N.

1 0

RE: [B7L] re: decentring morality
by jacquispeel＠netscape.net 27 Sep '01

27 Sep '01

Alison Page <alison_page(a)becta.org.uk> wrote: >Iain said - > >>But you're not discussing authorial intention, as Terry Nation isn't the >author. > >Yes, I should have said 'creator' . I think we had this discussion before, >about the multiple creators of B7. Or, in fact, I should have been more >careful in my hasty example. But my point is that we can talk about the >people who made B7, and what their intentions were, if we want to, but that >by allowing such discussion we aren't limited to it. Natasa's excellent >example about the Viking warrior film being an example of a different type >of discussion, which we wouldn't want to rule out either. > >Alison > There is a story about a certain author (perhaps Isaac Asimov, of himself) going to a lecture in which one of his stories is discussed and given an interpretation he did not mean. At the end he goes and protests and is told 'you are only the author.' 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

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
23
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 September 2001