Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

09 Mar '01

Betty and Annie: >>(Gawd, I hope at least some of that makes sense. It's >>*really* difficult to put this stuff into words.) >I think you did great, Betty. I also think >you've hit the nail squarely on the head. I agree, though I'd posit that some people can cheerfully function using either approach and can be interested in the results of discussions using either approach. And Annie: >...the conflict(s) are coming in (imo) when people who look at it via >Approach #1 continue to insist that folks who prefer Approach #2 >comply with *their* methods. Although I don't mind being asked to >participate in Approach #1, if my response is "I'm not interested" >I don't expect to be belittled, told I'm copping out, told I don't have >"proof" and various and sundry other insulting things. Tolerance seems to be a useful word here. Tavia

2 1

A week (or two) in review
by B7Morrigan＠aol.com 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

I trundle off to Redemption happy as a lark tho I knew I'd have no email for 2 weeks and what happens? A prolific spree of posting previously unseen and positively unimagined. I've spent the last week digging out (using a friend's PC periodically as I'm still not home). I know I've read over 1000 emails this week. I'm sure at various points my mailbox was full and some probably bounced - sorry Calle and Tiger. There is no way in hell I'll be able (or even want) to respond to everything that's gone on. From my perspective it seems that some of my fellow list mates have attended the Kerr Avon School of Diplomacy and several have graduated with high honors. I don't want to stir the pot so just a few random thoughts. I really enjoyed the posts from Fiona and Betty, an example of a well-reasoned and productive exchange from two people with different perspectives but mutual respect. I am also relieved that the serious posters did not take their exchanges off to another list. I find the intellectual stimulation of reading and occasionally participating in such exchanges to be a large part of why I participate in fandom. I recall someone (sorry, but I don't remember who it was) posting that s/he disliked having their interpretation of a character dismissed as "merely" individual interpretation. I think there is a point that has been overlooked in the discussions. We, each of us, bring to fandom our own individual experiences, including childhood, education, religious beliefs (or not), political beliefs, philosophical beliefs, sexual orientation, preferences in art, music, literature, etc. I am not arguing that the characters, the series, or canon is therefore relativistic. A word was said, an action happened or it did not. My point, and I do have one, is that it behooves each of us to be aware of differing perspectives, the different lenses through which each of us views B7. That is why I find it so useful for list participants to provide examples that support their theory or interpretation. I don't believe anyone is implying a value judgment based on a person's ability to provide hard evidence or use lit crit presentation but it certainly provides support for your claim and enables someone with a different background to see what may not otherwise be seen. Personally I find that it is very easy to have one's perspective shifted by large consumption of fanfic. Going back and watching the tapes after several months of zine consumption can be unnerving. I owe Neil an apology. Yes, I know, I too am somewhat shocked by this admission. While I was at the con, I heard a little about the thread hijacking debate and I brought Neil to task for using the phrase "hijacking." I realise that the phrase is common net usage but it carries with it a connotation of deliberate intent. When I actually read Neil's original post on this theme, I found that he never used the phrase. In fact, I found his initial request to be simply that: a request. Yes, I know it got ugly after a few hundred posts and some absolutely evil things were said (Penny, I hope you've rejoined, I love your perspective and I'd miss you terribly). In reflecting on Neil's original request, I found it simply asking for courtesy. If you were in the middle of discussing something you considered of keen interest, would you appreciate an interruption that was out of context and tone? Without getting into theology, do unto others, etc. Really not such a radical request from my perspective and certainly, I don't see it as quashing participation or an attempt to control. If this were Freedom City, I'd ask Steve and Paula to write a clever story summing up the uproar. It's amazing how something can presented in fiction in a way that allows the reader to see a wider perspective, or at perhaps something other than one's own. If you haven't seen Steve and Paula's zine, I encourage you to buy one. It's a steal at the price and IMHO, it's worth that and more, especially for the illos which are in the style of Matt Groening. (Life in Hell does have a certain symmetry with B7 after all). I encourage those of you (Neil, Fiona, and others) who are not on Freedom City to subscribe on at least a trial basis. It's not as if all we do is chat about sex and slash. It would be fun to see the Slash debate argued without fear of offending those who are observing. In fact there are a couple of questions that I'd like to raise within the Slash debate, but plan to do so on FC. All opinions above are my own. I don't claim to speak for anyone other than me and I am not defending Neil simply because I once proposed to him (there's a waiting line - Imagine! I'm second, behind Una, so no line jumping from any of you) Morrigan who hasn't vanished off the face of the earth but is *still* moving. However, I do have fanfic appearing in Star Four, Forbidden Star Three, TTBA, and in some upcoming zines (Val&Linda, Neil) so everyone should buy those zines too!

1 0

Just testing
by Jacqueline Thijsen 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

I went to another provider, and now I want to see if the new address and the new filter that's supposed to put the message in the right mailbox are working. Jacqueline

1 0

Re: [B7L] Modes of engagement/slash
by Tavia 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

Neil: >Which strikes deep into the real heart of the whole great slash debate. >It's about sex. People (for whatever deranged and unfathomable reason) >care more about that than they do when it comes to preferred styles of >dancing. (I would personally say that Avon Doesn't Dance. But not >because he *can't*, you understand...) Fans construct their own ideals >of the characters, develop an emotional investment in them, and assign >greater or lesser priority to each aspect of that ideal. Sexual orientation >tends to be near the top of the priority list. Dance floor expertise tends >not to. (Although we might imagine a hypothetical fan who might >argue passionately that his or her - though probably her - Avon is a >ballroom dancer and not give a squit about who he sleeps with, it's >unlikely.) Personally, I have a great deal more emotional investment in 'my' Avon's musical taste than his taste in sexual partners. I can believe him with (in alphabetical order) Blake, Cally, Jenna, Tarrant, Servalan, Vila, or for that matter, xyz sexworker at abc space-port, or being 100% faithful to Anna; but in all cases he likes Bach. >That's what it all comes down to - emotional investment. >Fans talk about 'my Avon' or 'my Cally' in explicitly >proprietorial ways. Everyone I've ever heard use it does it to distinguish their personal character, the one they write about or draw, from the series (canonical) version. Tavia

1 0

Re: [B7L] Kathryn's convention report/slash
by Tavia 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

Neil (cutting lots of interesting stuff): >What Calle means is forget that the film was *made* in 1943, >that it came from a Hollywood studio, starred whoever, was >directed by Michael Curtiz etc. I'm still not sure I agree with the approach. F'rinstance, I've seen quite a few 'art' films which interviews with the directors revealed were made on stupidly low budgets and in consequence got shot in black and white, *purely* for cheapness of film and ease of editing (I wish I could think of some examples but I've thrown away all my film reviews). The results can be quite startling when you're not used to seeing b+w films in the modern idiom. It would be tempting for an unknowing critic to make out all sorts of artistic reasons for the lack of colour... >Which leads to the question of where meaning actually >resides. In the author? No, because authorial meaning >is inevitably altered in the act of authorship. In the reader? >No again, because no two readers can be guaranteed to >extract the same meaning. In the text itself? Not even there, >because its extraction depends on an ideal noise-free reader, >who can't possibly exist. Clearly there is no absolute 'meaning'. >Actually I find it very easy to put high literature and popular literature. >Why shouldn't you be able to interpret a M&B in the same way you >would, say, a Bronte novel? They've both got plot, characters, setting >and areas of emphasis. There's a reasonable amount of fairly learned crit (well it fooled me, anyway) of LotR, which is certainly more popular than 'high'. >Some subgenres of fanfic are wide open to that kind of treatment. I'm guessing here, but I suspect one problem with studying fanfic in this way is that writers, not unnaturally, feel threatened by the view that their creations might not be high quality. Actually, as I've said before, I think an awful lot of B7 fanfiction is exceptionally high quality. Recent high-intensity exposure to amateur non-fanfiction writing has only increased my appreciation of the fanfic. Tavia

2 1

Plea to Leah and Shane
by Susan Beth 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

It seems to me that you two are having a 'conversation' that no one else has contributed to or chimed in on for at least a dozen exchanges. That being so, couldn't you conduct it just as well by private e-mail? It's just that the Lyst has been overwhelmingly busy lately, and I think the rest of us have already had ample opportunity to assess the arguments and style of debate of both sides. Susan Beth (susanbeth33(a)mindspring.com)

2 1

Re: [B7L] Kathryn's convention report/slash
by J MacQueen 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

>From: "Marian de Haan" <maya(a)multiweb.nl> >Glad I never went to university, if this is the kind of attitude that is >taught :-) Sorry, but to me this comes over as disrespect to the creator. There was a recent interview with Felix Williamson, who is starring in one of his father's plays at the moment. He told the reporter a story about his brother, who had to study a David Williamson play for a high school exam. So his brother asks their father about the usual things that come up in such exams, and included them in his answers. He ended up with the lowest mark in the class. It may be disrespectful. Sadly, it may be very true with many writers. Regards Joanne _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

Re: [B7L] RoD
by littles＠lycos.co.uk 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

Mistral said: > None of the above are canonical proof of that. I'm not even entirely > sure that I'd use any of them for evidence as to why _I_ believe that > Avon loved Anna, as they're too easy to counter. For example, Dayna's > comment, "You killed someone he loved." That she _said_ it is canon; > that we take it as evidence that Avon loved Anna requires that we > _assume_ (i.e. interpret) that (1) she was being honest, and (2) that > she knew what she was talking about. Here's where authorial intent comes in. Remember this is a drama series. So if a character says that Anna was someone Avon loved, this is meant to be a big flag to the audience that Avon loved Anna. Even if this is contradicted later in the story-- because the presence of the initial remark is meant to be a hint as to how the relationship should be read at that point by the audience. And anyway, Avon goes to great lengths, including subjecting himself to Federation torture, in order to revenge himself on the man he thinks killed her; in Countdown, his feelings convinced Del Grant that he loved her; his reaction in RoD when he learns she has betrayed him is profoundly shocked; she calls him "my love." All of which is going a little far for someone who was a nodding acquaintance, or even just a casual shag. Shane "Avon, you were my only friend..." --Blake

2 1

haploids
by Alison Page 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

Hey! don't know if anyone remembers but about a month ago I was struck by how the discussion about phallic rockets and dissemination was prefigured in a James Tiptree Jnr's short story 'A momentary taste of being' (I think that's the title). Well there's one on Haploid aliens too, it's appropriately called 'Your Haploid Heart' and I think it's pretty cool. 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] Re: Random Killfiling
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/9/01 4:01:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, littles(a)lycos.co.uk writes: << Since you've killfiled Fiona, Annie, and therefore missed half the argument, you really don't know where the other side is coming from. But of course, since you've killfiled me, you're not going to get this message either, are you? >> Please, I entreaty you to keep repeating this! Apart from the daily chuckle the repetition provides, the obsession reinforces exactly how effective the measure was, on Annie's part. It's rather like watching a moth bang itself repeatedly against a light bulb. >>So am I. Are you aware that you've just answered the same post twice?<< Of course! There was so very much wrong with the statement that I was responding to, that I needed to deal with each aspect separately. I'm most impressed by your achievements in the area, Shane. As I've said before, when it's this easy, it's fun. >>Never said there was. It's for sale, though, isn't it? And as for the illustrations, well, I doubt Avon, Blake and Vila are in bed together to keep warm.<< Your very words were "explicit". You leapt on top of the one page you could find in an enormous website that contained any discussion of an adult fanzine at all, and, unable to produce anything more shocking than this mild little sleep-in, you hoped everyone would simply take your word for it and assume you were referring to pictures I must have done of the B7 principles, doing the nasty. When it turns out that there was nothing of the kind, suddenly your story changes (again) to 'implied' explicitness. Hardly something to call out the hounds about, I fear. >>Sorry, but did I say I was referring to _your_ artwork? And as for genitalia, the representation of genitals is not all it takes to make a picture sexually explicit.<< Yes, your attack was specifically directed toward me, in this discussion. Let's not be silly and backpedal in that direction, shall we? And as for the rest of your comment, if you really believe this, than you will never be happy on this list, I'm afraid. Everything is going to imply explicitness, at one time or another for you. My advice is to avoid the internet altogether to avoid being offended by explicit implied content. >>And, if you'll reread the paragraph above (misrepresenting people again, Leah. Oh dear...) you'll note that I said the word "purveyor." Get out the dictionary again, and find out what that means. You work for Ashton Press, don't you?<< Nope. I have had my own press (PONCHO PRESS) for close to 25 years, now, in which I've produced ten issues of WIDE OPEN SPACES, ECHO 1, THE BIZARRO ZINE and other fanzines, and thank you very much for allowing me one more opportunity to 'purvey' that plug here on the list. Yesssss! >>For someone who's tame, you're doing a lot of snarling.<< If snarling bothers you, turn off B7. Avon must disturb you at times. >>Booby"'s got two meanings in Britain. The other one is of a spoilt, crying child.<< That would explain why I've never heard of it, but you're very familiar with this alternate definition. >>Why do you keep on bringing the actors into the discussion? You're obsessed.<< Where went all that dire discussion of the possibility that actor's careers might be ruined and they would be horrified by all this 'explicit' depiction of them by fan artists and writers in general? If someone is offended by what they regard as pornography, then it makes no sense whatsoever for them to look at it. Stop worrying about what other people are doing in bed. You'll be a lot happier, as an individual list member. >>Videos? Books? You suggesting the actors are all in the porn trade? Get a grip.<< My, you *are* confused, aren't you? I'm sure you regard the artwork of Suzie Lovett as 'explicit', by the standards you've put on my own paltry piece on the Ashton Press website. And yet Sheelagh Wells and Gareth Thomas had no problem, commissioning Suzie to do the cover of the MASQUERADE video that Sheelagh produced a few years back. In fact, they had no problem with me doing a cartoon for the end credits, either. Are you going to accuse them of purveying porn, somehow? And as for Mr. Darrow, he cheerfully had Karen River do the cover for AVON: A TERRIBLE ASPECT in the paperback edition. Karen's illustrations have appeared in adult fanzines. Obviously, none of this shook these B7 personalities to their foundations. Speak from knowledge, Shane. >>No, that's called not getting involved in a discussion which involves things which I don't know about.<< It hasn't seemed to stop you before, as this particular thread demonstrates. >>That wasn't what I've heard (ask yourself why Horizon and Avon Club don't carry or even advertise slash at all), but then, once again, repercussions were never at issue here. Leah, you really should start _reading_ these e-mails<< Oh, I do! I do. I've meant to ask you about that, Shane. Weren't you the one who was castigating Diane Geis here, just a while back, about all the terrible *censorship* she was imposing on her little HORIZON empire? Exactly what side of this issue are you on this week? I think we need a score card now. >>Dire warnings? From whom, pray? All I said was "I'd be careful if I were you." Which can have any number of meanings. If you choose to take it that way, then fine.<< Oh no, no-one would *ever* take the phrase "I'd be careful if I were you", used in the context that you did, as any kind of a threat, would they? ROTFL!!! Listen, you really need to step back out of this and regain some perspective. Take some deep breaths. Let it go. Find something else to obsess about. Because slash and adult matter is not going to go away from fandom, because you don't like it...this week. Leah

1 0

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