Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Fw: [B7L] Chemistry
by littles＠lycos.co.uk 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

Sally Wrote: > Also it's a matter of chemistry, which each viewer sees for themselves Explain to me what sort of chemistry there could be between two straight actors playing two straight men. The > fact that Fiona's friend is gay doesn't mean has some sort of chemistry > compass for all such on-screen relationships, But perhaps he's got more field experience in these things. As have I :). >even as I (being hetero) have > one for pairings such as Avon and Servalan, where many many others see it - > including the actors involved - and I don't. Passionate kiss in Aftermath... passionate kiss in Deathwatch... but both between Avon and Servalan. No heavy snogs for Avon and Blake that I can recall. Unless you know better? Shane "Who *are* you?" --Avon

1 0

Re: [B7L] Avon's signature
by Ashton7＠aol.com 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/23/01 2:51:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, sjk3(a)cornell.edu writes: << I have a copy of "Kill the Dead" signed by Paul Darrow as Parl Dro (not that you can tell the difference). He was about to sign it when I commented how much his signature looked like the character's name, and he responded with "I'll have to sign it that way, won't I?" >> Come to think of it, I also have a copy of "Kill the Dead" signed by Paul Darrow. Although I don't think he did it on *purpose*, it also looks like he signed it Parl Dro. That's sort of the normal state of his signature, isn't it? So, here's a question for you: if his "normal" signature as Paul Darrow looks like Parl Dro... when he went to sign it Parl Dro on *purpose*, did it come out looking like "Paul Darrow"? LOL. Annie

2 1

Re: [B7L] Avon's signature
by Ashton7＠aol.com 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/23/01 7:39:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, awilliams(a)daikin.com.au writes: << Also, does anyone know if any of the other actors have provided signatures for their characters? >> BTW, Andrew, I meant to say that I will check my autograph books to see if I do have any signed this way. Annie

1 0

Re: [B7L] The Gospel
by Ashton7＠aol.com 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/23/01 2:44:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, ragan(a)sdc.org writes: << Fiona Moore wrote: > I wasn't actually referring to debate ettiquette when I spoke of the Gospel. > I mean that there are certain opinons which appear to be taken as the > "mainstream opinion" on the Lyst. For instance: These really surprise me, because I don't agree with most of them, and I *certainly* didn't think most of them were "mainstream opinion." >> Since I am most definitely pagan, I tend to find myself in opposition to anything calling itself "Gospel." ;-) Annie

1 0

Re: [B7L] The Gospel
by Ashton7＠aol.com 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/23/01 12:10:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, Mac4781(a)aol.com writes: << And that's precisely why I post more to FC than to the lyst. Because I don't want to have to worry about offending those whose tastes might differ from mine. >> Someone please tell me how to subscribe to FC. I don't want to have to worry about offending so many people, either. Annie

1 0

Fanfic vs literature (Was Re: [B7L] Sally-speak)
by Tavia Chalcraft 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

Shane wrote: >Bit of a difference between Henry James and Joe Fanwriter. I've not yet read fanfiction that's as good in my opinion as the authors I consider great in literature (though I'm hoping!). But I've certainly read quite a lot (and published some in TTBA) that's way better than the average novels published in the past 5 years or so. Just because it's fanfiction doesn't automatically make it substandard (think of Wide Sargasso Sea). Just because it's amateur doesn't mean it's substandard (many 'great' authors don't/didn't make a living out of writing). The answer to bad fanfiction (and there's certainly some of that around) is to write or encourage others to write better fanfiction, not to assume that the whole genre isn't worth reading and, moreover, to proselytise your rather negative view. Tavia http://www.viragene.com/

2 1

Re: [B7L] The Gospel
by Mac4781＠aol.com 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

Dana (quoting Fiona): > > -H/C fiction is a great way of exploring the more intimate side of a > > character, and neither it nor slash particularly offend anyone > FC exists precisely because slash offends many people--I don't think > anyone on Lysator (whether s/he personally likes slash) would deny > the potential for offense. H/c is less controversial but again I don't think > it is universally valued And that's precisely why I post more to FC than to the lyst. Because I don't want to have to worry about offending those whose tastes might differ from mine. Carol Mc

1 0

Brit-Char-Speak
by Dana Shilling 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

This comes from an article by Mimi Kramer in The New York Press ("Unstressed Syllables," February 21 p. 22). It's about Jim Dale's recording of the Harry Potter books, but I think it has some interesting implications for some of our threads. "The recordings are revelatory--albeit in a small way, and mostly of things having to do with English and non-English values. Examples: Scars in the Potter books (even "psychic" ones) are essentially something to jest at; they're either useful or funny, but you might not be assured of this without hearing the stoic solemnity with which Dale introduces a description of some of the pains of a "wizarding" childhood [...] This is a fundamentally English attitude toward suffering. ALso integral to the books but fundamentally un- English is the notion of self-determination, that who you are should be a function of what you do and say.

1 0

Re: The Romance of Hijacking (was Re: [B7L] Sally-speak)
by Fiona Moore 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

----- Original Message ----- From: Mistral <mistral(a)centurytel.net> > Fiona Moore wrote: > > > I think Neil answered that one better than I could. He's right, it *is* > > awfully offputting when you're gearing up for a rapier thrust to open a post > > which seems to be on the same topic but isn't. The reverse equivalent might > > be me going into a thread on red leather trousers and saying "That's > > intriguing. Have you considered deconstructing these trousers as a signifier > > of Lacanian potency, with regard to Derrida's belief that deconstruction > > cannot exist outside of the text?" A lot of people would flame me, and for > > good reason. > > <g> Are you _sure_ a lot of people would flame you? 'Cause I can't > imagine that. I think it might actually be amusing in itself, besides > spawning a serious discussion. Perhaps not flame, but they might respond with bafflement :). Or reply to the effect of, "what the bloody blue blazes does Derrida have to do with Avon's religion?" It's a bit interesting that it never *does* seem to go silly-to-serious. > Tossing a bit of whimsy into a serious thread strikes me as a perfectly > natural thing to do - I am never more serious than when I'm joking. > Humour can be both a way to make a point, and to defuse tension; it's > long been a technique in both debate and education for those reasons. That, though, is on-topic humour. E.g. Una's response to Shane's "trousers" post, which, though humourous, makes the point that Una a) thinks this morality is Victorian, b) thinks Shane is making a fuss over nothing (although I may have interpreted her wrong). This *does* make an educational point. But, to take Neil's fictitious example, suddenly talking about Travis' knob in the middle of a discussion on The Definition of Fascism doesn't really add much to the discussion. > However, I do wish that headers would be changed when they've wandered > away from the topic - I don't do it very often, because I'm generally > not sure what the new topic is, and the few times I've done it, the > thread has either died or instantly mutated into something else, so > changing the subject didn't do much good. I'm afraid we're all a bit guilty of this-- guess we should take more care. > > The Greeks believed in five kinds of love, and that the noblest was Agape, > > or self-sacrificing love. I tend to see Blake and Avon's love as being > > Agape, not Eros. And Chris Boucher has said this as well. > > Looks more like Phileo with hints of Agape to me - you really cannot > have 'Blake' if it's Agape; and while I personally can't see it as Eros, > I can see how somebody who wanted to see Eros could read it as Phileo > tinged with Eros. Au contraire, I see "Blake" as a good example of Agape. Avon, after all, sacrifices his ship, his base, his position and his crew's lives for Blake, and, whether he himself dies or not at the end, he certainly shows himself willing to die on Blake's corpse. In earlier parts of the series (e.g. Terminal) Avon shows himself similarly willing to give up everything for the sake of a slim chance of finding Blake. For Blake's part, he is willing, in "Blake" to trust Avon despite the fact that his faith in human nature has taken a visible pounding, and in "Star One" he says that he has always trusted Avon, both of which suggest a sacrifical love (since Avon's behaviour thus far hasn't always suggested it's healthy to trust him); Avon, for his part, turns around and takes on the entire alien fleet on the strength of that. I can see Phileo elements in their relationship, it's true, but I can only see Eros inasmuch as Freud argued that any close emotional relationship has an erotic component-- which I think is debatable. 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

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: in calm discussion (was Deliverance)
by Fiona Moore 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

----- Original Message ----- From: Helen Krummenacker <avona(a)jps.net> To: <blakes7(a)lists.lysator.liu.se> I said: > > But would you, if it had gone that way? Neil has made several rational, > > intelligent posts lately on the subject of why he considers H/C to resemble > > S/M. Very few people have actually posted in to say "OK, Neil, I see your > > point," or "OK, Neil, but you're overlooking..." > > Actually, I haven't said "Neil, yyou have a point", because I'm a > non-reader of H/C who started with the assumption it was a sort of S/M. > Since those who enjoy it have said it isn't, I've been trying to grasp > where the actual, primary appeal lies to them. Since I started out in > accord with those thinking it was S/M, I am more interested in > stretching my mind understand why it is not. Since the people who like > H/C have not said insulting things about those who aren't readers and > writers of it, I have listened to them with a more open mind than I > would if they were rude. Hm, debatable point... I actually saw a lot of the people who like h/c being at least as rude to Wendy as she was to them (you can argue that they were provoked, but I've said earlier that this doesn't excuse it to my mind). I also, as I said, saw a lot of people who liked h/c launcing into the discussion with categorical denials ("H/C is NOT S/M! BAD FIONA! BAD NEIL! NEVER SAY THIS IS SO!") or false analogies (Hamlet? Beautiful suffering? Can be played that way, but Hamlet can be played *any* way imaginable... bitter and unlikable... cold and rational... round the twist...). Which has, actually, made me even *less* kindly disposed to h/c as a genre than before. And anyway, if it *is* S/M, what of it? I'm given to understand that S/M is considered an acceptable form of sexual expression these days... that is, if the erotica shelf in the Oxford Waterstones is anything to go by... I'm a little surprised that no one has come in to say "Yes, it's S/M, and I *like* it!" 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

2 1

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