Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Re: Re: [B7L] reasons
by Fiona Moore 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

>From: Lisa Williams <lcw(a)dallas.net> >Fiona Moore wrote: > >>Exactly how *do* you regard canon, then? > >I regard it as what we literally saw and heard on the show itself. >Explanations of *why* so-and-so did such-and-such, what he was >thinking or >feeling, are interpretation, not canon. But by that analysis, you're removing the explanations within the show itself. We see Avon in prison at the beginning of RoD, for instance. Later on we learn why he is in prison; we also get some idea of what he was feeling at the time. Would you then say that the only thing you'd accept as canon is the image of Avon in prison, with no explanation? >>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. > >Well, if you came up with some reason for him to have *said* that >he's 34, >it would fit the canon because it would not contradict what happened >on the >show No, to use Neil's terminology, it would be subcanonical. Canon is what happens on the show; subcanon is an intepretation not stated in the show but which would not contradict it, noncanon is something which goes against the canon. The argument here is not about "fitting" or "not fitting," or what sort of clever explanation one can come up with, but about what *is* on the screen. -- Blake said that he's 34. If you wrote a story where he >actually >*said*, at that point, that he was 55, then *that* would contradict >canon >and would hence be striking out into AU territory. Agreed. Which is exactly my problem with slash. No visual evidence to support the characters' homo- or bisexuality occurs on the screen (see below for more, and why it is not inconceivable that, had the creators wished the characters to be seen as such, it could have been portrayed), therefore, to claim that it is present is to contradict canon. >>Just because you can cite canon for something doesn't mean the >>citation >>can withstand argument. > >And coming up with an alternate explanation which you find more >convincing >doesn't mean that someone else's is invalid, either. Yours may not >be more >convincing to everyone, and it's still an *explanation* -- an >interpretation. I'm afraid I have to point out that there *is* actually a difference between "explanation" and "interpretation." To wit: "Avon allowed himself to be captured so as to locate Shrinker" is an explanation. "Avon felt terribly nervous throughout the whole interrogation process" is an interpretation. And interpretations vary between individuals. Some >will be >convincing to many more people than others, but there isn't a vote >to >determine one "correct" interpretation to which everyone is >obligated to >subscribe. No matter how much you support your own version, no >matter how >obviously "right" it seems to you, other people are *still* going to >receive different impressions. Shane's right, you know, you *are* sounding like Annie. I feel no particular feelings as to the rightness or wrongness of the principal characters being heterosexual; had they in fact shown homosexual interest onscreen, I would be overjoyed (while positive portrayals of gays do occur in 1970s media, one or two more wouldn't have hurt). But in terms of what is there on our screens, I am forced to admit that it isn't there. >>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 > >"Inferred from." "Extrapolated." These are what I mean by personal >interpretation. Well, they may be what *you* mean by them, but they actually have a specific usage in literary/media studies. In a visual medium like television or theatre, there exist certain dramatic conventions for letting the audience know what the character is supposed to be thinking and feeling without actually resorting to a soliloquy. If you watch a lot of silent films, for instance, you may notice a kind of stereotyped arm-flung-over-face gesture which actors make. This gesture occurs only in scenes where one character is being menaced or threatened by another one. Hence, it has gone down in (been extrapolated into) the visual language of the silent film as a way of conveying fear of attack. This is an inference from the context of the gestures, which consequently is generally accepted as part of the "grammar" of the silent film; you are unlikely to find a book out there entitled "A Viewer's Guide To Silent Film Gestures," but an audience of the time would have understood what was meant by it, as film-studies audiences still do today. Let's take my "cruisy look" example again. There are scenes-- I can cite them again if you like, but see especially "Breakdown"-- in which the dialogue demonstrates that there is sexual interest between a pair of characters. In those scenes these characters give each other a certain look, running their eyes quickly down the other one's body; this look frequently occurs in scenes in which sexual interest has already been established through dialogue and other physical cues. There are, additionally, two or three other scenes in which nothing is actually *said* to establish sexual interest, but in which the look is there. Now, given that previously that look has only occurred in scenes in which there is an already established sexual interest (it has not, for instance, also occurred in scenes in which there is an established hatred between the characters, which might cause one to question the earlier inference as to the meaning of the gesture), then that look is meant to indicate sexual interest in the three other examples too. No interpretation required; simply looking at what sort of conventionalised gestures exist onscreen to represent sexual interest and when these occur. >>"Possibility" and that other word you use, "potential," is a lot >>different >>from "canon." > >Well, of course -- I was talking about what's being portrayed in >fanfic, >not about canon. I'm sorry that wasn't clear. Fanfic is an >extrapolation >from canon, and hence is concerned, by nature, with interpretations, >possibilities and potentials *based* on canon. Forgive me, then, because what I was referring to was my and Betty's discussion about whether or not there was any canonical basis for assuming the principal characters to be homo- or bisexual. And I'm sorry, but *you* referred to it first. As I said in that discussion, in fanfic anything can happen. Blake can be a 1930s mobster; Avon can become a Mormon. Which is why I prefer to keep the discussion off fanfic. >>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. > >I don't think I understand the phrase "retconning it back onto our >screens". Clarify, please? Claiming that the characters are gay or bisexual within the series itself, on the basis of the fact that some fanfic out there portrays them as such. >>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. > >Irrelevant, in my case, both as concerns B7 and my slash perceptions >generally. I saw B7 years before I had any contact with other fans, >and >more years before I knew there was such a thing as slash fanfic for >it -- >by which time my own perceptions, which were based on my watching >the show, >all by my lonesome, were long since established. And as far as >seeing slash >elsewhere, I've been doing that virtually all my life (I can trace >it back >to age 5, which is about as early as I have coherent memories to >draw >from), I'm impressed that you knew what homosexuality was at age 5, I have to say. But the interpretations we make at 5 are not the same ones we make at 25. >and it wasn't until a few years ago that I had any idea other >people >did, too. That's around three decades of my forming very strong >slash-type >impressions, without any other fans telling me what to think. It's remarkable that you've managed to avoid any contact with fandom for thirty-odd years... But now that you've found it, you *have* found support for the expression of your views from fellow fans, that is the point. Supposing you had formed these strong impressions on your own, and become convinced by them. And then when you went into fandom, and when you expressed these views, your newfound friends reacted with scorn and ridicule. This wouldn't change your views necessarily, but it would mean that you would keep them to yourself. But just because you're not the only one to make an interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it has a factual basis. Quite a number of cultures independently concluded that the sun went around the Earth, after all. >>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. > >I agree with both of those points -- though it sounded from the >preceding >paragraph like you might be making some mistaken assumptions about >my own >social context. Um, no. You're a fan (an American one to judge by your e-mail address); you have been on this lyst for at least as long as I have; you have contact with other fandoms (judging by a quick look at your websites); you are posting your messages to Lysator as a whole. From which I was inferring that your expression of your views was affected by your presence in fandom, which I would find it difficult to believe was not the case, even if you were not introduced to B7 in the same way as Bacon-Smith's informant. >Your interpretation, too, is made within *your* >social >context. Which appears to be the same one as yours, with one or two small differences (I live in the UK and am active in Doctor Who fandom rather than Manga fandom when I'm not on the lyst). B7 fandom, in short. >>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. > >I don't understand at all what you're getting at here. There are >lots of >moments which strike me as slashy (forgive the shorthand), which >probably >*wouldn't* strike you that way, and which *canonically* consisted >of, e.g., >two characters looking at each other. But how, that is the point? How? Is the look hostile? Cruisy? In what other contexts do looks like that one occur-- when two characters are about to fight, or to make love? I'm not talking here about what "strikes" someone one way or the other; I'm talking about how the look compares to other looks in the series, and what we know about its intent from the dialogue and activity that surrounds it. >Most, if not all, of them have >undoubtedly been cited in the course of previous discussions. Very probably, which makes me wonder why you want to rehash it all here. I >don't know >what you mean by a "hard-evidence example"; if you're asking for a >mad, >passionate clinch between two same-sex characters, we both know >there >wasn't such a thing in the series, so why ask? I am looking for an example of a gesture of sexual interest between same-sex characters, analogous to the opposite-sex gestures of sexual interest cited above in the "Breakdown" case for Jenna and Dr Renor, or elsewhere, those between Vila and Kerril, or Avon and Anna. Now, such gestures of sexual interest *do* occur between same-sex characters within the series: for instance, Carnell and the staff officer, or Krantor and Toise. But they are not made by any of the principals, either to each other or to a one-off character. > What is the object of >this >"game"? To find visual or dialogic evidence from canon of a homosexual interest on the part of the principal characters of B7. > I'm missing something here, and I have an uneasy feeling >you're >assuming that I'm making some kind of claim that I'm *not* making... >(I'm >afraid Harriet may be quite right about alien mindsets.) And therefore, because you can't see my point of view, my argument isn't worth listening to? My comment was stating, very clearly and >specifically, >that fictional characters will be interpreted in different ways by >different people, with no one interpretation being the single >"correct" >one. But that isn't actually what you said. You said, and I quote, "there is no One True Way." Hence my reaction, which would have been different had you said the line above. > I believe taking it completely out of context to imply an >"anything >goes" attitude toward human actions, with gratuitous dragging in of >a Nazi >reference, I mentioned Nazis, as I frequently do, not particularly because I want to imply Ultimate Evil (and I think it's quite possible to argue that Good and Evil are not absolute concepts) or make an unassailable argument, but because I am currently up to my eyes in historical works on the Nazi period. If I were writing a paper on the Sudan, I could have brought that in as an example and the comparison would still read. The reference was not gratuitous; in fact, as someone who has studied Germany for over four years now, and who has family members who escaped Nazi persecution by the skin of their teeth, I find it a bit offensive to suggest that I'd simply bring them in to score a cheap point. >Well, I guess that's that, then. Thread over, thanks for playing. I've been trying to stay civil, but frankly I don't much like being patronised. 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

5 5

Re: canon
by Steve Rogerson 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Fiona said: "In the case of Doctor Who, for instance, the original series was produced by the BBC, as was a spinoff story. These are generally accepted as canon. However, there are also a number of spoofs, parodies and sendups, ranging from "Curse of the Fatal Death" through to sketches by Lenny Henry and the League of Gentlemen. These were also produced by the BBC, and yet anybody attempting to claim them as canon would be laughed off the stage." Don't you believe it. Dr Who magazine ran a debate in its letters column about whether Curse of the Fatal Death and the crossover one with Eastenders should be regarded as canon, and it has been seriously debated at Dr Who conventions. Fiona said: "I'm still interested to know what was said to make them canon, other than their being made by the BBC (see above for why this need not count)." That was it really. The over-riding argument that makes them canon is that they are official BBC Blake's 7 productions broadcast over the BBC network. I see on a later post that Una claims the Curse of the Fatal Death to be canon - doesn't that mean we have now run oput of doctors. -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent The 25th Anniversary Blake's 7 Convention The 10th Anniversary Babylon 5 Convention http://www.smof.com/redemption

1 0

Re: [B7L] canon
by Tavia 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Fiona wrote: >We all love Blakes' 7, but Blakes' 7 at any cost >is not a price worth paying. Having been to the B7 movie discussion at Redemption (which was separate from the radio plays discussion), where a show of hands revealed that the proposed film would be considered canon -- independent of any consideration of merit -- I must admit to a sense of extreme disappointment. B7 fans are, on the whole, an intelligent and independent lot; surely we can do better than simply accepting any old rubbish that the BBC, or some other agency, throws at us in the name of Blake's 7 ? Tavia

1 0

MJTV
by Judith Proctor 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Mark Thompson asked me to inquire if anyone is interested in a video called 'Travelwise' which features Nicholas Courtney and Peter Miles. He produced it for the schools market if I recall correctly, but has a few copies left over. They're 19.99 pounds and you can contact him mark(a)ghostlands.demon.co.uk or me if you want a copy. Soliders of Love is now up to part 7. I'm still doing the try and see if you like it offer. You can buy any one CD (I suggest the first as the story will make better sense, but it doesn't have to be - number 4 is my personal favourite) and I'll refund your money, minus a pound for postage if you don't like the humour and return it undamaged. If you enjoy bad puns and smutty jokes, then it may well be your cup of tea. (I've enjoyed them all, and not just because of the B7 cast members in it). I've only had to refund one CD so far... You can order Soldiers of Love from http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 There's reviews of most of the series on the site (I've been too sore to type a proper review of number 7) Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 - Fanzines for Blake's 7, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. (also non-Blake's 7 zines at http://www.knightwriter.org ) Redemption '03 21-23 Feb 2003 http://www.smof.com/redemption/

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: canon
by Fiona Moore 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

>From: "Una McCormack" <una(a)qresearch.org.uk> >To: <blakes7(a)lists.lysator.liu.se> >Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: canon >Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 21:20:03 +0100 > >Fiona wrote: > > > I'm still interested to know what was said to make them canon, other than > > their being made by the BBC (see above for why this need not count). > >IIRC, it was more to do with them being *transmitted* by the BBC (hence my query >about the bit in the transmission in 'Warlord' where the sound went down). My Lenny Henry/Doctor Who counterargument still stands though-- I think that DWM once had a go at arguing for the canonicity of the spoofs and sendups, but it rapidly degenerated into spoof itself (although this wasn't that unusual for the editorial team of the time). I honestly find it very hard to believe that people would think that two minutes of Warlord were not canon simply because the sound went down, and that the studio sounds accidentally heard during transmission now *are* canon (that well-known B7 villainess, Ethyl the Tea Lady :)... )... but you were there, and I wasn't... Hang on, though. During "Lost in Space," a portion of "Logic of Empire" was transmitted over the BBC. So therefore, Logic of Empire (or parts of it at least) are now canon! Great! That's more like it! >'The Curse of Fatal Death' *is* canon. Is not <pouts> :)! Although it *would* be awfully nice to see the Doctor being played by Joanna Lumley sometime... n.t.m. Richard E. Grant... and Rowan Atkinson... 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

1 0

Re: canon
by Fiona Moore 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

>From: Steve Rogerson <steve.rogerson(a)mcr1.poptel.org.uk> >I agree almost totally with Fiona's comments on the radio shows, Thank you :). >however, being >badly written and acted does not influence whether they are canon or not, This is true, but my opinion wasn't particularly based on bad writing or acting :). It does have to be said, however, that for something to be accepted as canon, the overall quality should match up with the original. "Bad" stories within the series itself are nonetheless better described as variable; I regard Voice from the Past as having an incredibly poor script and a laughable costume for Travis (sorry, Harriet-- no offense meant), but still it is filmed on the same set as other episodes within that series; it uses the design conventions of the show as a whole; and the actors (whatever one may feel about their abilities) are all accredited and trained proffessionals. Had "Voice from the Past" been filmed using a Handycam [forgive the anachronism] in a parking lot using the producer's mates in the supporting roles (while Countdown and Gambit are filmed in the manner we recall from the series), then one could make a case for excluding it from canon, even within the series. In terms of their imagery (marketplaces and purple robots), quality (doubling up the actors as extras) and general production values, the plays do not match up with the rest of the series. Furthermore, there is the point of outright contradiction. Discontinuity is one thing--arguably, it is no more ridiculous for the Federation troopers to develop a nickname unused before or since, or Avon to develop a seedy past, than for Dayna to suddenly play the harp for a single episode only. However, if a story were to be written, set between "Stardrive" and "Animals," in which Dayna dies, it would be impossible to claim it as canon; the same would hold true for a first-series story in which the Federation had teleports in all their ships, or in which Travis receives a genetically-engineered replacement hand. In the plays, not only is the sudden physical transformation of Dayna and Soolin (to say nothing of Avon becoming a Hercules) for two stories only completely inexplicable, but the Scorpio suddenly develops the capacity to go into hyperspace. So what? you say. Perhaps they never had occasion to use it elsewhere in series 4. Possibly, but it would have come in fairly useful in a number of episodes, and it is therefore surprising that it remains unused. In short, discontinuity is one thing, but flat contradiction of what comes afterwards is another. There is also the point that simply because something is produced by the BBC, it is not therefore canon. In the case of Doctor Who, for instance, the original series was produced by the BBC, as was a spinoff story. These are generally accepted as canon. However, there are also a number of spoofs, parodies and sendups, ranging from "Curse of the Fatal Death" through to sketches by Lenny Henry and the League of Gentlemen. These were also produced by the BBC, and yet anybody attempting to claim them as canon would be laughed off the stage. Similarly, were Victoria Wood or French and Saunders to do a B7 sketch, I doubt anybody would particularly regard it as canon, simply because it was produced by the BBC. Perhaps the radio plays are simply a pair of parodies :)? Finally, it's a minor point, but several of the principal actors involved in the production, not to mention several of the people involved in the production of the original series-- including Vere Lorrimer, producer on the fourth series and therefore probably the best placed to comment, have all criticised the Letts/Lighthill radio plays with greater and lesser degrees of politeness. Inasmuch as their opinion counts for anything, the radio plays are best forgotten. >The discussion at Redemption asked the question if the radio plays were canon or >bull. A clear majority regarded them as both, in other words they were canon >despite not being very good and having a number of flaws and discontinuities. I'm still interested to know what was said to make them canon, other than their being made by the BBC (see above for why this need not count). Fiona The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Utterly noncanonical at http://nyder.r67.net _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [B7L] Homophobia
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/25/01 4:09:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, Ashton7(a)aol.com writes: << Exactly. It is an insult and I certainly took it that way. Calling slash "character assassination" is also more likely to be perceived as an insult than an opening to a discussion. And then folks wonder why lists like Freedom City have to exist and why there can't be open discussion among fans about slash. Personally, I don't give a flying flip if someone else doesn't like slash, whatever their reasons. It's not like anyone is forcing you to read said "character assassination" against your will. If you don't like it, don't read it. Problem solved. >> What has me scratching my head is the sheer intensity of the emotion against slash in B7 by those who find it morally negative. For those who base their belief system on the bible, Jesus said much more about adultery and fornication in general than he ever expressed about homosexuality. Where are the comments of disgust about Avon clearly having an affair with a married woman? He wasn't exactly under the influence of sand. I get the odd feeling that there is no outrage or discomfort over this part of his history because it's heterosexual in nature. Western society's phobia with same-sex encounters still draws a disproportionate reaction. Leah

5 4

Re: [B7L] Re: Unlikely lust objects
by Fiona Moore 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

>From: Murray <mjsmith(a)tcd.ie> > >What about the Vampire Willow-- that seemed to be a big hint, esp. when > >Angel pointed out that people's personalities don't change when they become > >vampires (contrary to what Xander thought). > >Well, Buffy said in the relevant episode that a vampire's personality had >'nothing' to do with the person it was. Angel replied 'Well, actually...' >before being stoped by her from going further. My own take on the exchange >is that a vampire's personality has _something_ to do with the human whose >body it uses; but it still isn't the human. But still, certain aspects of the human linger, and why shouldn't this include the orientation? We don't know what Angel was going to say, or why she stopped him (possibly he was about to say something about orientation?) Furthermore, the fact that he did say something also seems to be a writerly hint. If Vampire Willow was meant to be totally divorced from our Willow, then why did Angel leave room for doubt-- and why did he leave room for doubt on the sexual-orientation front as opposed to any other? >Obviously, the vampire has the memories of the human, looks like and acts >like the human, and can pass itself off as that man or woman; but that >doesn't mean that it subscribes to that person's code of conduct. "Code of conduct" is IMO a different thing to sexual orientation. >It >appears that _all_ vampires deliberately went out of their way to mock the >ethics of the humans who supplied their bodies, including their sexual >ethics. Due to this, and being immortal, my opinion is that _all_ vampires >get up to all kinds of sexual behaviour, including bisexuality. I don't particularly know the Buffy canon well, but where do Angel and Spike get up to bisexuality (OUTSIDE of some viewers' slash zines-- down guys :)!)? But what we've seen of the vampires we know before and after seems to suggest that there's some link between the two lives, and not just a tenuous or mocking one either. Angel, for instance, is recognisably the same person before, after, after getting his soul back, and when briefly human in Angel S1. Angel went back to kill his father, whom he hated in his former life; if there had been no connection between Angel before and after, why would he have bothered to take the trouble (or if he had wanted to mock the earlier Angel, why not spare the man he hated)? Similarly the vampire Willow and Xander were both visibly Willow and Xander in other ways-- Vampire Willow still used Willow's quirky speech tags, for instance, and in the episode where VW winds up in the real universe, her attitude to the football jock is the same as our Willow's-- VW is just rather more uninhibited about displaying it :). Also, VW and VXander were together, as they were at the time in the real universe, suggesting that at least some of VW's sexual tastes stay the same. Why shouldn't bisexuality be one of those things? >The vampire that looked like Willow might be bisexual; but that didn't mean >that Willow Rosenberg was bisexual, any more that the vampire's torture and >murder of people meant that Willow was a torturer and a murderer. Ah, but IMO people, even the best people, have the potential to become torturers and murderers under the right circumstances; sorry to keep banging on about Nazis (I'm currently reading a lot about them) but quite a lot of people who were perfectly decent under other circumstances committed horrible acts under Hitler. The AU depicted was sufficiently horrible that *Buffy* had become amoral; why not Willow as well? Now, not to imply that torture and bisexuality are in any way related :)-- but if the AU was less inhibited about bisexuality than ours, VW might have discovered her bisexuality earlier than our Willow. 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 Louise Rutter 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Shane wrote: >What "love" can there be in >drawing someone you dislike? But then, if you are drawing someone you >dislike in a situation you know "that certain someone" would find grossly >distasteful, well, "love" is one thing we are certainly not talking about.. >What if you then go on to distribute these images? What do we have then? If >it's not for money, and it's not for love, what does that leave? Malicious >glee perhaps, hatred even, revenge, possibly. I think you're being a little harsh here. People are perfectly capable of separating an actor from the characters played by that actor. I can watch The Great Escape and like the Steve McQueen character despite the fact that I probably wouldn't have liked Steve McQueen at all, had I met him, because of his tendency towards domestic violence. I have no problem understanding how someone could love a charcater and dislike the actor who created that character. Louise

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Unlikely lust objects
by Fiona Moore 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

>From: Murray <mjsmith(a)tcd.ie> >The problem is that I didn't see anything like that happening regarding >this aspect of Willow. For example, there wasn't any evidence that she had >fantasies involving or was attracted to members of her own gender, or that >she felt 'unlike' other girls. What about the Vampire Willow-- that seemed to be a big hint, esp. when Angel pointed out that people's personalities don't change when they become vampires (contrary to what Xander thought). >Sadly, I have to conclude that this aspect of Willow was introduced in >order to boost the ratings. If not, I feel that a better job would have >been made of it. Dunno about that. My experience of American television has suggested to me that they have to be more circumspect than most of the rest of the world with regard to how they present homosexuality-- I mean, Babylon-5 caught flak for having what has to have been the most understated lesbian scene in history. Even after they come out, Willow and Tara barely even hold hands, after all. So I suspect that there wasn't much scope for the writers to do a whole blown-out and properly dealt-with lesbian storyline; they had rather to keep it at a level which would keep the network happy. I don't get the impression Buffy particularly *needs* a ratings boost, to be honest. 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 3

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