Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

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

27 Sep '01

"Dana Shilling" <dshilling(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >Alison said: >> > >> > I was thinking of the elegance and symmetry of the structure of B7, >> how >> > situations are set up, and then inverted. >Sort of like data mining using one's old scripts. > >Una said: >> I never see this sort of thing. 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. >Also, loss or trauma to the eye is a very common fear (and so is >damage to the appearance) so it's a short-cut way of getting viewers >to identify with Blake having suffered. > It is also pointed out 'somewhere' (I forget where) that the first image of Blake is from the left side. 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/

1 0

Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Natasa Tucev 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

I wrote: <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.> and Kathryne replied: <Which is why I've never had much respect for Literary Criticism.> Well, you obviously have more respect for it than I do. You write it with capital letters. <What you're saying here seems to be that Literary Criticism wishes that works of art didn't have authors at all, or that who wrote it is irrelevant.> No, what I'm saying is that it's irrelevant whether a certain idea entered a work of art consciously or unconsciously. To demonstrate that it's there I don't need the author's approval. All I need is to find enough evidence in the text. For instance, I advanced the theory that there is a tendency towards decentring morality, or good and evil, in B7, and I've supported it by finding consistency in some events and scenes in the series. If someone wanted to dispute my theory, he/she would also have to do it by quoting the series, not by quoting Nation's interviews. I used the example of the 13th Warrior to show that there can even be a great discrepancy between the author's conscious and unconscious intentions. On the conscious level, it's a good action movie; on the subconscious level, it reveals irrational animosity towards the Earth Mother and everything she stands for. The collective unconscious which permeates the 13th Warrior could be the same collective unconscious responsible, for instance, for the reckless exploitation of the Amazon woods. Do you need another example? I refer you to an excellent 'marxist' analysis of 'Deliverance' Neil wrote last winter (I hope Neil doesn't mind my taking the liberty): the way it reveals imperialist nostalgia by showing how the Liberator 'chaps' deal with the hairy primitives and help an ignorant native solve a technical problem, for which they're justly respected as gods. It is a layer of meaning which the authors probably weren't aware of when they created the episode, yet it's doubtlessly there. You see, creative writing is dangerous. Everything you say can be used against you. Compare it to dreaming: a dreamer doesn't have any impact on the meaning and message his dream conveys; yet it is his. When he wakes up, however, his interpretation of the dream is as valid as mine. His explanation of the dream may be helpful, but it can also be misleading. Consider this extract on Avon from an interview with Vere Lorimer: 'Unlike Blake, he was a man who would do nothing unless he felt there was something in it for him... Avon was forced into following Blake's path of attacking the Federation, due merely to circumstances beyond his control... the only reason for him promising Blake that he would fight Andromedan invasion force was not because he had a sudden attack of moral conscience, but he had no other option.' This is an author's interpretation of his 'dream'; most of us, I believe, wouldn't agree with it. Don't you think our interpretation is as valid as his? (Of course the dream analogy doesn't hold water completely. The creative impulse has to be consciously processed. But a good writer is in touch with his unconscious and creates a unified work of art; a bad one just tends to ride on the general current without really knowing what motivates him.) <I lost all respect for Literary Criticism when I saw someone try to apply Freud to a work (in the name of Literary Criticism), and claim that it meant something.> You mean like that phallic rocket? Applying Freud's theories in literary analysis is a legitimate procedure. Although personally I prefer Jung. N.

2 1

Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Alison Page 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

Una said - >>I don't think there's that much to wonder about on that score <g> 'Not at all' I think! What I was originally thinking of was the formalism, rather than the particular moral (or other) message conveyed by that formalism. However, because what everyone had to say on the other subject was so interesting, I didn't press the point. I was thinking of the elegance and symmetry of the structure of B7, how situations are set up, and then inverted. Let me just take one, comparatively minor example, which is Jenna being invited to take the Liberator and run, at the start of her journey (Cygnus Alpha) and at the end of it (Star One), and refusing each time, with that refusal having a different meaning. If that was the only example it wouldn't exactly tip the scales, but we can uncover so many of a similar kind, in each character's arc and in the multiple arcs of the different stories and the joint story. I think that people do impose elegance and symmetry on artifacts of all kinds, above and beyond the demands of practicality. One question is are the fans imposing the symmetry, or was part of that work done for them in advance? I would say the latter. But I enjoy the elegance in either case. >> It's not just reflecting the age, I don't think, because you wouldn't find it in >>any other show of the time. >I can think of one or two. Where do you see this kind of presentation of morality in contemporary shows? I think I find it everywhere because it's what I'm interested in. I meant conveyance of morality through this particular metaphor, I think. Anyway, it doesn't really matter what I actually meant, and to be honest I don't remember. A concept as broad as 'morality'? - yes, of course it's found elsewhere A particular moral theme? - It would be interesting to consider which shows were most similar to B7, then and now. I know one you'll mention. A convoluted structure intended to convey a subversive morality? - I would say pretty rare, but I'm prepared to be convinced. 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 **********************************************************************

6 5

Re: decentering moraltiy
by Helen Krummenacker 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

Susan Beth pointed out the practical reasoning that might be behind Blake's eye injury... but it was *still* on the same side of the face as Travis's. This is one of those instances where intent is possible, plausible, but also explainable by other means (once you have it to an eye injury, the chances are 50-50, and if it had BEEN the other eye, the fans would talk about 'mirror images' and how Travis was blind to good and maybe Blake has gotten a bit blind to evil in individuals).

1 0

Re: Interpreting
by Helen Krummenacker 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

I seem to find myself 100% in agreement with Kathryn Anderson on Literary Criticism. I've done it to pass English classes; take the idea and interpret the story in terms of it. It's an interesting game or exercise, but when one deliberately attemtps to read something in to a story, one is finding what one seeks. I've just thought about some of the books I've intended to write in terms of how they'd be analyized by someone who wanted to make a point or pass an essay, and I'm horrified. In telling a story of male bonding and coming of age, I could be labelled a mysogynist. In writing a story about a twin brother and sister's seperate journeys to break the Evil Overlord's hold on their family, I may be tapping the Jungian idea of anima/animus (which is fine by me, I do like the idea) or I haven't (Fruedian) resolved my attraction to my own brother. Ick. Why should someone who doesn't know me pass judgement on my family life. Another story, a love story is set partly back in in medival England and partly in modern day. Christianity is therefore referenced in the story, but if one were to start analyzing it in Christian terms, well, I'm not Christian and if someone wants to compare the girl to the Virgin Mary it's somethinghappening in their head, definitely not mine. As an author, I think my intent ought to count for something-- not that there aren't points to the theoretical critiquess mentioned above. If I get back to the coming of age story, I may need to add a better female character (what am I thinking now? I was going to add the Susan Calvinish figure in just another few chapters). *sigh* It's hard enough to write a story without wondering what a critic will turn it into.

1 0

RE: medical, was [B7L] Alma Mater
by jacquispeel＠netscape.net 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

"Ellynne G." <rilliara(a)juno.com> wrote: > > >On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:08:24 -0600 Betty Ragan <ragan(a)sdc.org> writes: >> Sally Manton wrote: >> >> > Also BTW, that rather unnerves me when Blake, in Orac, suggests >> that they do >> > the operation on Ensor. Sure, he doesn't have any choice at that >> stage, but >> > the idea of Our Heroes messing around with scalpels is a tad >> worrying. >> >> I imagine that that would probably be a *much* simpler and more >> routine >> operation than repairing the limiter, though. > >Well, just because they'd sent one of the Federation's best surgeon's >before doesn't mean that it wasn't a flip it open, take out the old >batteries, toss in the new ones kind of device. They probably just >needed a doctor to do it or it wasn't covered by warranty. > >Ellynne > But why did the Ensors leave it to the last minute - why not go chasing the required parts somewhat earlier. The impression given is that Aristo was 'out of the way' rather than 'third bus stop after back of the beyond' (g). 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

testing, testing...
by Julia Jones 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

Sorry folks, but I'm on a sircam fishing trip. I keep getting 200 kb emails to message-IDs I've posted here. Demon need a nice fresh example before they can swat him... -- Julia Jones "We are flamethrower of borg: you will be incinerated." - ppint on afp, about afp

1 0

Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Mac4781＠aol.com 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

I didn't have time to chime in on this before, but since Una kindly quoted it again. :) Natasa wrote: > Cally is, however, very often removed from the centre of action. Her > exchange with Tarrant re Shrinker is a graphic example. Think what Blake > would do in a similar situation - probably rush in like a bulldozer and > physically prevent the others from mistreating a prisoner. Blake symbolized > the powerful presence of morality in one's consciousness; "Mistreating a prisoner?" I'm always astounded when that bit of name calling in RUMOURS is presented as something so very nasty that it would have been unconscionable to allow it to continue. Given the far more serious crimes the rebels were guilty of, name calling ranks a mere "naughty" on my evil scale. As for Blake rushing in to stop it, I don't think the man who blew up the ship docking with the Ortega has any room to criticize. I would presume that most opponents of the rebels would choose "name calling" over "sticks and stones" any day. Carol

1 0

Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Alison Page 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

This is a very interesting chain of thought, Natasa. >Paul Darrow mentions >in an interview that he was told by the writers, 'We think now that Blake's >gone you ought to be a little more moral', which he obviously refused. LOL >B7 obviously toys with the 'uncertainty principle', probably not >because of any conscious interaction with deconstructionism, but simply >because they both reflect our age. I sometimes wonder to what extent the formal convolutions of B7, the kind of thing you mention in this post, were thought through at all, by anyone. It's not just reflecting the age, I don't think, because you wouldn't find it in any other show of the time. But I'm not suggesting anybody put it there on purpose either. Alison

3 2

re: decentring morality
by Alison Page 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

Kathryn urged that we should continue to consider the role of the author DDJ replied - >> But this suggests that what the author intended the work to mean is the only possible meaning << It doesn't though does it? It simply means that we are free to discuss anything that interests us. The orthodoxy that the creator's intention has no provenance in the discussion of a work grew up in reaction to the somewhat philistine idea that only the creator's intention could be considered the 'truth' about a work. But like any orthodoxy it has become a strait-jacket., and should be cast off forthwith :-) >>I believe it was Katherine Paterson who mentioned that it wasn't until she was asked about the plot of one of her later works (#9 or #10 or thereabouts) that she suddenly realized she'd been writing the same core story time and again, even though the individual settings and circumstances varied widely. << A very interesting example, but one we would be prevented from discussing if we followed the prohibition on linking works with their authors. My reaction to the petty prohibitions of academics is 'I don't care'. 'Terry Nation intended Horizon as a critical commentary on British imperialism.' 'Literary criticism says we aren't allowed to discuss authorial intention' 'I don't care' 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

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