Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Re: [B7L] surveillance cameras
by J MacQueen 03 Apr '01

03 Apr '01

>From: "Una McCormack" <una(a)qresearch.org.uk> >I guess, in the whole identity card question, I'm firmly on the side of >'Yes, I >know it would make life easier for the bureaucrats if I carried one - >that's why >I won't carry one.' I see what you mean. But it's also a question how you balance a quiet life for the bureaucrats with a quiet life for yourself. I've never learnt to drive, and drivers' licences seem to be a sort of de facto identity card for many purposes. This causes wear and tear on tempers, including mine, whenever there's a situation where I need to prove my identity. There are alternative methods, of course, but no two methods seem to carry the same weight at the same two places. This is the difficulty - we need something with the advantages to ourselves, but with disadvantage to bureaucrats and data harvesters, of an identity card. Which, as you can imagine, is too difficult, because that which is an advantage to us is also an advantage to those we'd rather not have knowing much about us. Regards Joanne _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: Perceptions (was Re: [B7L] Lost in France ...)
by Fiona Moore 03 Apr '01

03 Apr '01

>From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner(a)tesco.net> > > To snip an absolutely magnificent post down to its conclusion: > >Aww, Fiona <blush> Wouldn't have said it if I didn't think it. As a fan, I'm not oblivious >to these deficiencies, but I'm also hard pressed to pin down the >counterbalancing merits. Deep characterisation? Hardly - most of the >characters are cyphers, two-dimensional at best (and yes, I am talking about >the likes of Blake and Avon here). Scientific accuracy? Don't make me >laugh. Social or political realism? No, please, really, *don't* make me >laugh. Taut, gripping plots? Credible visions of the future? What has >something like B7 got to offer? I think you answered your own question in part, when you referred to the fact that we're operating within the conventions of TVSF. Often B7 seems to be viewed in comparison with other programmes: people say "it's cheaper than ST:TNG, but with stronger women and harder-hitting themes." Or else "it's similar to Survivors, but with more of an edge." Or (quoting myself the other night when watching DS9) "Crikey, why doesn't anyone write scripts like Chris Boucher's anymore?!?" Within the conventions of TVSF, B7 does stand out in a number of ways that might be lost on the outsider (just as *Der Mude Tod* is a radical film in many ways lost on people who aren't into expressionist film). >source series itself adopts a position of 'mature naivety', recreating the >state of the empty child-mind waiting to be filled with knowledge of the >world, *whilst simultaneously* preserving a prior but knowingly incomplete >experience of that world. I agree with you about the source series, at least, to some extent. The best radical work, not just SF, often does strip down a problem to its bare essentials and deal with it in that stylised way. This isn't just naivete I think: William Blake and Robert Frost both wrote very stripped-down poetry, and I don't think you could call "Fire and Ice" naive: rather, deceptively simple. Fritz Lang's "Mabuse" films are often dismissed by their critics as sheer gangster-film schlock-- but the message behind them incurred a ban by the Nazi party as soon as they came to power. In sci-fi, "The Time Machine" was dismissed by many as sheer fantasy (and Wells IIRC preferred his contemporary-set novel "Kipps" to any of his SF), but it contains a subtle polemicism Wells never again equalled even in his tracts for the Fabian society. And to return to B7, I would also argue less for naivete than for the power of deliberate stylisation. It may be naive to strip a fascist society down to one woman and a handful of guards-- and yet in a way this is also the most powerful part of it, as we are lulled into a false sense of thinking that if Servalan is removed, the Federation will fall--but when she is removed, nothing changes. A sobering thought for those of us who thought that voting Labour would stop the privatisation juggernaut. The underlying Federation society is totally vague: we don't know if Servalan is running a dictatorship or a democracy--but that last possibility should give us pause, rather than set us dismissing the politics as naive. So I would say not so much deliberate naivete as deceptive simplicity, and actually I'd probably say the same about the punk lyrics you quoted too. >The boundary between the childlike and the childish can be a narrow one, >which might account for why something like B7, both canon and fanfic, can >often veer towards the juvenile if not the infantile. Hm. I'd agree with you about individual moments of the canon--the Vila scenes in Ultraworld, for instance-- but I'm not so sure about things as a whole. When I think "juvenile" in SF, I think of things like "The Tomorrow People," aimed totally at children with no pretense at anything else, or the faux-educational message of some of early Doctor Who's worse efforts. B7 has its silly moments, but I've never seen it being patronising or faux-educational. If we ask a simple > question like 'Why?' we might find ourselves answering with an equally > simple answer, like: 'The Jews'. And end up heading down an essentially > childish path of uniforms, banners, parades and rallies, assured in the > knowledge that no one will laugh at us because no one will dare. But if we > can retain our pre-knowledge of the world as it is whilst simultaneously > re-envisaging the world afresh, we might not fall into that trap. I've been coming to the conclusion lately that it's not following the banner that's the problem. Initially, large numbers of Germans (Italians, Spanish...) did *not* in fact follow the banners: what they did was more disturbing. They said "Oh, that lot over there, with the banners, the parades and the rallies-- they're just a radical fringe. Ignore them and they'll go away." Even under the Nazis, the majority of Germans were neither monsters nor mindless automatons-- they were people like you and me, who simply said "Well, they're in power, not much I can do but keep out of trouble." In occupied Hungary, by contrast, a concerted resistance effort was made and the oppressor held back to an incredible degree. I don't need, I think to quote back Paster Niedermoller (a Lippstadt man, hooray)'s famous statement to the effect that "first they came for the Jews; I was silent, I was not a Jew..." It is this essentially *adult* behaviour that is more dangerous, I think, than the childish behaviour you describe. >Fandom, like SF, like punk, like radical politics, strips reality down to >its bare essentials and asks fundamental questions. That, I think, is the >root of its appeal. That the answers are not always adequate underlies much >of the deficiencies of all four. Perhaps I've just been disillusioned by recent events on the lyst, but Neil-- *how* does fandom in and of itself strip reality down to its bare essentials and ask fundamental questions? Jenkins' assertion that fans are a bunch of heroic resistors of social convention has always sat ill with me, especially given that he is ultimately forced to admit that the fans he studies are usually very much *within* social convention. And I think, were you to go out and ask a group of B7 fans why they're in fandom, 9/10ths of them would say "To have fun, now hand me back my Scorpio clip-gun, I'm late for the masquerade." Individual fanfic stories and audios make one think, it's true, but those describe the activities of individuals--because a group has a few radicals, that doesn't necessarily mean membership therein is a radical act. While the show, as I said, frequently seems to me to be more clever than its surface would suggest, membership in B7 fandom in and of itself in no wise strikes me as a radical act. Membership in B5 fandom... now that's a radical act. Radicals should always champion lost causes :). Fiona The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Personal and political at http://nyder.r67.net _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

D ot G - second thoughts
by Alison Page 03 Apr '01

03 Apr '01

I said - > Hey I like that bit! By my standards it's sparkling repartee. And then I thought, perhaps you dislike it Neil because it is insulting to disabled people? I didn't mean to overlook such a thing, but I never thought of it, I just thought how clever Tarrant was being. 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

Nonfic on the Lyst
by Fiona Moore 03 Apr '01

03 Apr '01

I've had an idea, which I wanted to put to the Lyst to see if other people thought it was a good one. I belong to a Doctor Who mailing list called "Jade Pagoda," dedicated to the BBC and Virgin Doctor Who novels. They have a practice they call "Book of the Month," which means that every month, the person running the thread names a book, and everyone who wants to participate reads it, and then posts their comments, reviews, mad ideas etc. After the last day of the month, no more posts on that particular topic can be sent in. It occurred to me that something similar could be done on Lysator with the B7 episodes. Say every month we pick a B7 episode, and people who feel like talking about it, do. People don't have to go away and watch it, just read the script or make a few comments on what they remember about it or whatever, but it provides a common discussion point and B7-related activity for the Lyst. At the end of the month, we move on to the next one. In addition, it could provide a useful source of episode reviews and essays for people's zines and websites. If a month is too long, we could always make it a weekly or fortnightly thing (I suggested a month because that seems to be the time limit that works best for JP). Maybe you all think this is an oppressive idea, or whatever, but it would give those of us who don't write fanfic, or who do but also like talking about the programme, something to do. Fiona The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane 52 months is a long time at http://nyder.r67.net _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [B7L] More thoughts on Mellanby
by Fiona Moore 02 Apr '01

02 Apr '01

>From: "Marian de Haan" <maya(a)multiweb.nl> >Fiona wrote: > >True, but what happens is, he comes in and finds Mellanby dead, and upon >ascertaining that this is so, his first response is to shout "Orac!"-- he >seems more concerned about getting Orac back than taken aback at Mellanby's >death.< > >Considering that Orac is his only means of getting back to Liberator, Avon's >priorities here don't strike me as out of character. He must be kicking >himself for having let Orac out of his sight. :-) It's still a bit self-centred of him, and if he did like the fellow, it's a bit strange-- I mean, he just says "Servalan. Orac!" Not "Mellanby! Servalan! Orac!" Which still suggests to me that his death affected him no more than death usually does (i.e. not at all). >It's him leaving Orac for >Servalan to grab in the first place that I find hard to credit. To be fair, she wouldn't have had a go at all if Mellanby (or Dayna?) hadn't left the gun lying around in the first place. > >His one comment on Mellanby is "He got away from here after all"-- >which is a little bit sarcastic under the circumstances (frankly, I'm >surprised Dayna didn't clock him one for that).< > >I didn't interpret that as sarcasm but as a clumsy consolation attempt. :-) Perhaps not sarcastic, but still, it's an odd thing to say when someone you like dies. It's also a line that needs unpacking. If Mellanby had been fretting in exile, longing to get off Sarran, the line would have made a lot of sense: in death, Mellanby finally escapes his exile--and in that sense, his words might be a comfort to Dayna (although a consolation attempt is rather out of character for Avon-- and Avon's never clumsy, he's always very precise). However, Mellanby, even when he finds out he is free to go, doesn't seem to be in a hurry to leave, and says he'd like to stay for a while even if he goes later-- he isn't longing to get away. But if Avon has picked up to some extent on Mellanby's hypocrisy, it does make sense-- Mellanby, running away from his past, has effectively trapped *himself* on Sarran, reliving the past over and over in his undersea base, but failing to learn any lessons from it. In that sense, Avon's words can be taken to suggest that Mellanby's death has finally broken this cycle: Mellanby "gets away," not from Sarran, but from his own hypocrisy and guilt, killed by his own weapon. Additionally, it is worth noting how Mellanby's death happens: at the hands of the Federation, in the person of Servalan. The Federation let him go from Earth; now, when they return, they end his exile on Sarran in another way. The only way for Mellanby to ultimately escape the Federation is for them to kill him. >Avon's in a hurry to go after Servalan, but seems not to want to leave Dayna >behind. Does he feel responsible for her out of guilt because he didn't >prevent Servalan from killing her father? I kind of doubt it, knowing Avon :). Dayna expresses anger and rage at Servalan and wants to kill her-- I think it's more likely that Avon, as always, is pursuing his own agenda (getting Orac back) and if Dayna wants to come along for her own reasons (revenge) then fair enough. And after all, Dayna knows the territory, and he doesn't, so it makes perfect sense to bring her along. Fiona The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Vengeance is mine, saith http://nyder.r67.net _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

free lunches and offlist posting
by Tavia 02 Apr '01

02 Apr '01

Neil: >It's a moot point whether it was my fault for not checking >who that particular email was addressed to, or hers for >not removing the [B7L] from the subject header, but I >assumed it was a Lyst post and replied accordingly. Oooh, you do know what the FC punishment for such offences is..... Tavia

1 0

Re: [B7L] free lunches and offlist posting
by Neil Faulkner 02 Apr '01

02 Apr '01

From: Deborah Day <d.day(a)thefreeinternet.co.uk> > I think a perhaps little confusion has arisen between tanj (from Ringworld > etc) and tanstaafl as they are a little similar. There ain't no justice. Yes, as I pointed out a couple of days ago in reply to Sandra. You won't have seen Sandra's post, as it wasn't sent to the Lyst. It's a moot point whether it was my fault for not checking who that particular email was addressed to, or hers for not removing the [B7L] from the subject header, but I assumed it was a Lyst post and replied accordingly. Fortunately this led to nothing more than me making a public admission of my own ignorance, but I can imagine circumstances in which something altogether more embarrassing might have leaked. I know a lot of offlist discussion goes on between certain Lysters, including a fair amount of backbiting in the current climate, so perhaps those who care to indulge in that sort of thing might like to make sure that their offlist posts are clearly marked as such. Or maybe not, as I wouldn't mind something juicy plopping into my inbox:) Neil (I suppose it's only fitting that this public statement about private posting should have accidentally first been sent privately to Deborah, subject header and all.)

1 0

Re: [B7L] leaving the lyst
by Shane Little 02 Apr '01

02 Apr '01

Calle wrote: >Shane Little writes: > > > > I don't know about emma, but it appears that the reason why Kathryn > > > left was because of Annie and Leah's totally unprovoked and quite > > > shocking attack on her Christian beliefs. > > >Don't put words in her mouth. Kathryn had been on this list since the > >beginning, and she's taken far worse attacks on her beliefs than that. > >This is what she actually wrote: > > > ># Now it isn't bullies driving me away, but simply the general > ># snarkiness of far too many people, for far too long. > > > >(Entire post is in > >http://tezcatlipoca.algonet.se/cgi-bin/getbyid.pl?id=45974 if you want > >to check for yourself) I believe you. > >That "general snarkiness" most definitely includes you, Shane. Could > >you *please* drop this debate now, before you manage to empty the list > >completely? Well done, Calle. I'm leaving this lyst. You will never hear from me again. Some of you will be pleased. Some of you will say, "thank God he's gone. Things will be so much better now." Others may think, "That's a pity. A lot of what he said was true. I wish I had stood up and said something. Oh well, too late now I suppose." It is too late. People on this lyst have failed to stand up for too long. And now the battle is over and they've lost.We've all lost. And that is why I am leaving Blake's 7 fandom. We've lost because we have allowed B7 to be hijacked, and turned into a homogenised hamburger. We have lost because certain very selfish people have no respect for the actors involved, who have supported fandom for over twenty years. These people are being grossly exploited, and none of you care. We have all lost because we have allowed Annie and Leah, two very powerful fans, to bully us into submission. We know what they are like, but we have failed to stand up to them. And the result? People on this lyst don't talk about B7 anymore, they talk about themselves. They talk about sex. B7 fans have talked about sex for so long now they have mapped it back onto the series. Sex was always a small part of B7. Not any more. All you now see is sex. And a twisted version of sex at that. It's a homophobic kind of sex. It's a kind that demeans gays. And it's only function is to titillate straight women. Women who think that Meegat is a good role model for them to follow. People who have read so much porn that they can now only see relationships in terms of domination and submission. Slash has become B7, and B7 has been distorted out of shape to make it fit this totally alien interpretation. Everything has its place. Even slash. But B7 fandom has gone the same way as some other fandoms. It has become a show about slash. B7 had a lot of interesting things to say. Not any more. Whatever B7 had to say has been submerged beneath a tide of puerile sexual fantasy. I am a recent member to this lyst. When I joined I was very disturbed by what I saw. Perhaps people who have been here a long time don't see it anymore, or are trying to ignore what's going on here, because they want to keep the peace. What I saw made me very sad indeed. Yesterday I read a post about a newbe fan who was sat down in front of the TV and told what they should be seeing. That is appalling. That image demeans all of us. B7 fandom has become the Federation. No, worse than that, it has become George Orwell's 1984. A story about the distortion of reality. Those who control the present, control the past, and so also control the future. During the humiliation and brainwashing of Winston Smith, O'Brian holds up three fingers and tells him he is holding up four. He tells him that the people Winston though existed didn't exist at all, in fact had never existed. He is told that if O'Brian so wished, he could defy gravity and float above the ground. The reason he doesn't? Because he chooses not to! In the end Winston Smith is destroyed. He believes everything O'Brian tells him. He has learned to "love" him and the state he represents. In these last few weeks I have seen reality turned on its head. "If I perceive something to be true, it must be true." Sorry, you are wrong. It just means you're self-deluded, or worse, just plain mad. What happens if you challenge this mindset? People sulk, they stamp their feet, they run away, they twist your words. They say, "the characters weren't very realistic anyway," they say, "the programme was silly" they say, "the acting was bad", they say, "it looked cheap." They attack the programme they profess to love, to justify an interpretation which at best is totally without merit, and at worst is totally perverted and demeaning, to the show, to the actors, to the writers, to yourselves. I don't care how powerful somebody is, or how much they've allegedly done for fandom, or how many of their zines you've bought. If they're hurting actors and belittling the beliefs and sexual identities of fellow fans, not to mention the programme itself, then their behaviour is totally unacceptable, and no amount of cons organised can change that. On Ashton Press' welcoming page, there is a picture of two idealised, well-fed wolves. I wonder what poor old Wendy would have made of that... Calle, you are welcome to your lyst. If I were you, I'd press a few buttons and wipe the whole rotten thing out. Shane "The mad and the very powerful have one thing in common. They twist the facts to fit the theory. That's all very well, until you become one of those facts." -- The Doctor Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015

5 5

re: food snobbery ?
by Roger the Shrubber 02 Apr '01

02 Apr '01

Re Trial - Jacqui wrote - And in one conclave to elect a Pope the only two cardinals who did not succumb to food poisoning had brought their own cooks - one preferred the food of his own country and I forget the other's reason. Would this apply here? ********************* I don't recall them mentioning food poisoning, it could have been as simple as preferring a higher standard of food than Space Command was likely to provide, even for VIP's. <imagines Sir Humphrey eating at McDonalds...> I think in this ep, considering Servalan was almost beside herself trying to keep things above board, that murdering 2 weak-kneed political opponents at this time might have been too unsubtle even for her. darren r Ebook - "How To Start Your Own Internet Bookshop" For info, send blank email to bookshop(a)fastfacts.net ------------------------------------------------------------- Opportunity Knocks Bookshop http://www.abebooks.com/home/POWERPLAY/

3 2

Re: [B7L] Re: Ethics and Hal Mellanby
by Marian de Haan 02 Apr '01

02 Apr '01

Harriet Monkhouse wrote: >It's possible that Mellanby had some contact with the Sarrans when he arrived, and that relations broke down later. This could be any reason from "Mellanby is horrified to find that they kill unwanted baby girls, so rescues one and then withdraws into his ship" to "Mellanby kidnaps a baby girl to provide a companion for his daughter, and is forced to withdraw before the Sarrans can take revenge". Or something completely unrelated to baby girls.< Like Dayna starting to use the Sarrans for target practising. Marian

1 0

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