Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

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

23 Feb '01

From: Mistral <mistral(a)centurytel.net> > Fiona Moore wrote: > >> 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. Neither can I, actually. I would expect a remark to go ignored. You might get more mileage out of starting a new thread, along the lines of "All this talk about red leather trousers makes me wonder...", though I doubt it. > 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. As I hope I've made clear enough by now, I can't argue with this. It's turning the thread *into* whimsy that gets me heated. Neil

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: Brit-char-speak
by Ashton7＠aol.com 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/22/01 4:43:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner(a)tesco.net writes: << You know far more about fanfic than I ever will: do you see any evidence of US shows being 'Britannicised'? And if so, does it bother you? >> No, why should it? People write what they want to write. That's what fan fiction is basically about in the first place. They write what they are motivated to write. The only thing that I ever find jarring is British spelling... and I find that jarring even when it's fan fiction about a British show, simply because some of the words are spelled differently and it's like a bump in the road. It doesn't bother me, though. If I see British spelling in a story, I assume the writer was British (or European). Annie

1 0

Re: [B7L] Sally-speak
by Natasa Tucev 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

Sally, I'm too busy these days to even read the Lyst, let alone send my comments, but I feel obliged to respond to your post. I've joined only three or four months ago, so my impressions are still vague. Still, FWIW, I think you are one of the kindest, friendliest persons on this list. I enjoy reading your posts and find them witty and charming and I also think you are a very talented writer. You've a strong personality and you probably don't need this 'mental hug', but I send it to you anyway. As for the desire to write stories in which someone gets hurt (and I'm not immune to this, either) - I guess the shrinks would label it as a kind of regression, but I really don't think it should upset anyone. I'd rather say it's a case of our own neurosis curing us, a way to let off some steam. If you (I mean 'anyone') can find a way of presenting your private chimeras to the world without the world flinching, then good for you. Those who preach strict morality are much more likely to butcher someone in real life than those who try to come to terms with their irrational self. It is an important aspect of creative writing which should be recognized. Writing is self-healing, among other things. This goes for me too. I will not glorify such stories, but I will not condemn them, either. (BTW,in the long history of Shakespeare criticism, I can't recall a single critic who accused Shakespeare for making Hamlet suffer so much. For centuries the audience has experienced aesthetic pleasure in his suffering, and some would probably call it beautiful.) N.

5 6

Re: [B7L] Wendy-speak
by Mac4781＠aol.com 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

Fiona wrote: > Actually I didn't see too many people delurking. Carol, perhaps. Having once been one of the gabbiest members of the lyst, I was surprised to see me listed as delurker. But I suppose that's true based on my past year's rate of posting. I tend to post more to Freedom City these days. I'm active on the lyst in spurts. Carol Mc

1 0

hurt/comfort (was Sally-speak)
by Mac4781＠aol.com 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

Shane wrote: > Slash, hurt/comfort... whatever. Rewrite the sentence to read "...between > fan hurt-comfort fiction and Eng. Lit." and you still get the idea. Anyway, > we're still talking about what appears to be a transatlantic imposition on a > British series, which has been retconned back into the series itself. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. This h/c thread seems to be splitting off in many directions at once. It sounds like something I'd probably disagree with, but I don't want to assume that without more information. Are you objecting to the existence of slash and h/c? Are you objecting to Americans participating in a fandom that revolves around a series that originated in Britain? One of the reasons I've not wanted to participate in an h/c discussion is because I've been through these discussions before and never seen anything productive come out of them. While I have seen negatives: in that the discussions tend to stray to the judgmental. It's either something people enjoy or they don't. I don't have any desire to convert anyone to h/c fandom (and if I did, I'd send them a list of h/c stories to read rather than try to convert them through discussion of the subject). I don't care if others regard h/c to be S/M or thinly disguised slash or whatever. I like it and that's enough for me. Carol Mc

1 0

Re: [B7L] Wendy-speak/hijacking
by Mac4781＠aol.com 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

I sent a post on this yesterday but it was bounced back to me with a "permanent fatal error" messages attached to it. Assuming that means what I think it means, I'll repeat myself here. Annie wrote: > I, for one, don't believe that it is > possible to "own" a thread of conversation on a mailing list. Once you put > it > out there for public consumption, you really can't impose your own rules > regarding who can and can't respond and the tone that they must take. I agree with everything Annie has been saying on the subject. If "thread hijacking" is an important issue to some list members, the solution would be to set up a separate list. Something like the "spin list." Set up a list for serious-only discussions. Move threads over there when you want to avoid frivolous commentary. I've a couple of other lyst posts from yesterday that are still in limbo. If they don't turn up soon, I'll resend them. Carol Mc

1 0

Re: [B7L] Wendy's complaint (was Sally-speak)
by Mac4781＠aol.com 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

Mistral wrote: > As for attacking Wendy - no, I don't think so, either. It looked more to > me like people reacting to what they perceived as an attack from her. > The topic and her position on it were not the problem; it was the > sarcasm, insults, and slurs. To some of us, they were obvious; another > group have said they didn't see it at all. ISTM the only thing that's > been clearly demonstrated is that we all have different ideas of what > constitutes good debate etiquette - there is no Gospel According to > Lysator. I think there are double standards, whether we'd like to admit to them or not. I've seen posts as blunt as Wendy's go through without raising outcries because they were made by "insiders" or because they toed the party line. I don't want to pull up those posts and point fingers, but I'll go to the archives and grab up a couple that I remember from the past month or so if anyone feels that is necessary. Carol Mc

1 0

Re: [B7L] Wendy-speak/hijacking
by Ashton7＠aol.com 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/22/01 4:45:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner(a)tesco.net writes: << If anything, it's the funsters (who I do not consider nitwits, whatever Penny might say) who are the egotistical ones, because they seem to assume the right to jump in on any conversation and make it their own with scant regard for those who are trying to enjoy themselves in their own fashion. >> I'm sorry, Neil, but we're obviously never going to come to an agreement on this issue, because your idea of what an internet mail list *is* is obviously so completely different from mine. I, for one, don't believe that it is possible to "own" a thread of conversation on a mailing list. Once you put it out there for public consumption, you really can't impose your own rules regarding who can and can't respond and the tone that they must take. Yes, you personally might find it annoying if someone finds humor in the conversation, but sorry. It's a public list and those who chose to "trivialize" things, as you put it, have just as much right to respond to a public posting as anyone else. That's the way I see it. And, yes, I do think it is a matter of ego and, even more than that, a matter of wanting to control what people do and think. Unless you are the moderator of a particular list, you do not have that control over who and what gets posted. Annie

1 0

Wendy-speak
by Caveatemptor1＠aol.com 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

<<Fiona wrote: << Actually to me it sounds ironic. Wendy expressed a view of Deliverance quite different from the Gospel According to Lysator, and, good heavens, she got attacked for it. So did Neil, Dana and I for agreeing with her. Under those circumstances, I'd be a bit bitter too... >> Well, now, in fairness to those who are accused of "attacking" Wendy, I think it should be pointed out that the Deliverance thread was a lively, interesting, and congenial debate (in fact, one of the best we've had in some time). It wasn't til Wendy became insulting (beginning with the "Wolf at your door" message) that there began to be a certain amount of resentment at her insistence that if we couldn't see sexism in "Deliverance" we must be stupid. <<Fiona wrote: << Now, what bothers me personally about serious (like Neil I'd avoid the word "intelligent") conversations going silly is that often it's not a natural progression, it's a hijacking. To give a (semi) fictitious example, some people can be having a discussion on, say, themes of class struggle in "Weapon," and then somebody else, who hasn't participated at all up until this point, will launch in and say "Ooh, I think Carnell's accent is dea sexy! What's everyone else think?" And there's the whole prospect of further serious discussion gone to pot. >> Yes...it's true threads get hijacked. But that's just a fact of life on the lyst (on any list). But there is an easy solution...hijack it back. That's what debate is - give & take, back & forth. I've been on this list a lot of years now and it still amazes me that these kind of confrontations still pop up. I must say, though, that the Wendy thingy is not nearly as stinging is the SuperStud thingy. << Fiona wrote: << The astonishing thing about the Deliverance thread for me was seeing people who don't normally participate in the "serious" discussions take up cudgels. >> Hmmm, which people would that be? From my experience on this list, those members who post regularly post on all variances of threads. I'm really not sure what you mean by your comments above. Are you saying those who normally lurk came out to protest being insulted? Courtney

2 1

Re: [B7L] Thread hijacking (was Re: Sally-speak)
by Ashton7＠aol.com 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/22/01 4:44:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner(a)tesco.net writes: << Actually I have no problem with this per se, since a valid point is a valid point regardless of the terms in which it's couched. However, such posts are likely to be character-oriented, and as such pull a non-character oriented thread off-track. >> Well, once again, you're trying to impose *your* idea of the direction a conversation should take upon a whole list of people. I don't know how many people are on this list these days... it used to be a few hundred. It would be an exercise in futility to assume that you could possibly control the flow of conversation amongst that many people. And, frankly, you don't have a right to. If you want to have *private* conversations "over in the corner", then why are you posting them on a huge mailing list? Annie

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