Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Re: trolls?
by Helen Krummenacker 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

> >> Funny how it's only the people who don't agree with what I say who > >> call me a troll. > > > >(dryly) Well, I'd hardly expect *anyone* to be called a troll by > >people who *agreed* with them. > > > I don't mind being called a troll - my husband usually refers to me as the > young dragon, so troll would be pretty polite. > > Debbie. And I wouldn't object to being Billy Goat Gruff. Helen

1 0

Re: fandom
by Helen Krummenacker 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

> "You're a right something, that's for sure. Why don't you do what everyone > else does and write a PGP novel..." > > Neil > Would this luverly dialogue vignette be considered AU fiction? ::chuckling quietly with tears of joy in my eyes:: Helen

1 0

Help (was Sally-speak)
by Marian de Haan 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Kathryn Andersen wrote: >By all means, make Avon break a leg and suffer, but if you're going to BUARA then warn me so I can get far, far away.< What exactly is to BUARA? I'm now wondering whether I've been inadvertently BUARAing in my stories and if so, whether that's a bad thing :-) Marian

1 0

Re: Excalibur, Blake's 7, and Zulus
by Helen Krummenacker 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

> For one thing, I like violent movies (as opposed to IRL). And Uther's rape > of Igrayne is part of the legend, therefore it has to be there. The focus > of pre-Raphaelite art on the non-violent subjects can be construed as a > romantic gloss on what was, after all, a violent time. You termed the film Pre-Raphaelite... I just felt that was a mislabelling. I only watched Excalibur once, and it was when I was twelve. I only remember the parts I disliked; I'm sure it has charms I didn't appreciate. I know the Middle Ages were violent and nasty (the combination of sex and violence were what I disliked, also realistic but artists can choose to imply rather than show) I liked Blake breaking the guy's neck; he was in a bad situation and it was required. I prefer Cally-the-guerilla to Cally-the-maternal. I liked Avon's wade-in-blood speech because it underlined that revolutions aren't clean. OTOH, we see Avon, in RoD, at the end of the 5 days torture. We don't actually have to sit through what puts him in that state. I agree with your point that *realistic* depictions of violence *can* remind people why violence is bad. Provided they empathize with the victim rather than the viscious, at which point you get desensitization. > Why waste men > > simply to show off their willingness to die? Then you have fewer people > > to actually fight with. I'll bet the British commander did no such > > thing. > > > Well, he didn't, of course, because he couldn't. And he lost serious face > as a result. So there was nothing stupid about Cetsewayo's little demo - > for a handful of men he could amply afford, he soundly humiliated an > arrogant colonial power. I rather think their families may have had some feelings about whether that handful of men could be afforded. So, humiliating an enemy is good enough reason to kill your followers? I'm afraid I cannot think that way. But then, I'm very tired and should probably be napping instead of posting right now. Wish me luck, friends, tomorrow I find out whether, after days of getting exhausted sitting in a confy chair writing to my friends, I have the strength to get through a day at the office.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Sally's posts...
by Deborah Day 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet, a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net --------------------------------------------------------------- >> Funny how it's only the people who don't agree with what I say who >> call me a troll. > >(dryly) Well, I'd hardly expect *anyone* to be called a troll by >people who *agreed* with them. I don't mind being called a troll - my husband usually refers to me as the young dragon, so troll would be pretty polite. Debbie.

2 1

Re: Wendy
by Helen Krummenacker 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

> I was > more blunt than this on the Deliverance thread, and > people didn't accuse me > of attacking Mistral personally! > No because when you said you "didn't understand how intelligent women could like Deliverance", it came across as insulting every female who had already stated why they liked it... either you didn't understand their posts, and as you are rather articulate, it seems unlikely; or you meant you considered no female who disagreed with you to be intelligent. (BTW, why only 'intelligent females'? Do you consider tolerence of sexism to be a sign of stupidity in females but normal in males?) > > The first post, which > I quoted in full above, said "non-dominant men" were > better than "egotistical men" which suggested to me > that you saw men who were not non-dominant as > egotistical. Guess we both misunderstood what the > other meant. I see dominant people, male or female as egotistical. I have a slight egotisitcal streak myself, as do many of my friends-- but if a person, male or female, pushes their egotism to levels high enough that they push to dominate a relationship, I find them annoying. I do not like anyone to try to dominate me, and usually walk away from such a situation.

1 0

Disagreements and h/c (was Re:Sally-speak)
by Betty Ragan 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Responding to me, Wendy wrote: > > that's not the impression you mean to convey, you > > should think seriously about the means by which you express > > yourself. > > Point taken. I hope you're not taking this post personally :). No. (And, to be honest, for some reason I tend to get much more upset on other people's behalf than I do on my own, anyway.) At any rate, now that an apology has been made, I shall back off. > And you've just proved that I *haven't* made it impossible to disagree with > me on that point. You just did, by arguing that h/c is not necessarily > sadistic. > > But that "not all of it" does suggest to me that you'd acknowledge > that *some* is... Certainly. There's a vast diversity in fanfic, and you can find just about anything in it somewhere. And there certainly *is* fanfic that involves honest-to-god S&M. But I don't think that *that* is appropriate to discuss here, particularly. > That is, if you want to debate the point with me :) I think it's an interesting and perfectly valid point to discuss, if it can be kept on a level of open and civil discourse. Appending your next post here... > OK, I promised myself I'd stop responding, but I feel > I should clarify my position, which I'll try to do as > neutrally as I can, and apologies in advance if I > upset you by this, Betty. No, I am not remotely upset by this. And I do quite sincerely appreciate both the change in tone and the clarification. > My understanding of the concept of "Suffering > Beautifully" was that a character is physically or > emotionally hurt, and that this pain makes him more > attractive in the eyes of the reader and/or writer. > Which seems to me have a sadistic twist to it, even if > there's not actual S/M sex. I'd say that this is an accurate description, but that the "sadistic twist" conclusion does not necessarily follow. "Sadism," I believe, means enjoying inflicting pain on others (whether in a sexual context or otherwise). I think, for those who enjoy watching a character "suffering beautifully" the attraction is usually not in the infliction of pain, itself (which can often be rather unpleasant to watch or read about), but in the way he *behaves* under physical or emotional pain, the way he handles it, the way he responds to it. I suspect this varies a lot from person to person, and I don't pretend to speak for any particular individual, but I think one thing that appeals to people about Avon, in particular, is the dignity with which he bears up under pain, as well as the very human vulerability he shows only under extreme stress. It's something that has a lot more to do with the *character* than with the *pain*, if that makes any sense. In the case of "hurt/comfort," the emphasis, most usually, is more on the *comfort* than on the *hurt*. Indeed, instead of a sadistic desire to *inflict* pain, it's entirely possible, I think, to regard h/c fic as a manifestation of the desire to comfort those in pain. -- Betty Ragan ** bragan(a)nrao.edu ** http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~bragan Not speaking for my employers, officially or otherwise. "Seeing a rotten picture for the special effects is like eating a tough steak for the smothered onions..." -- Isaac Asimov

3 2

Re: [B7L] Re: fandom
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/20/01 5:05:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner(a)tesco.net writes: << But I think he goes even further, pointing out that fans themselves defend themselves in the very same way, by referring to the really obsessive geeks that they don't want to be associated with. This actually encourages the popular media view of fans as obsessive geeks by perpetuating the myth of some kind of Ultimate Geek who is out there, somewhere, and fans end up collaborating with the construction of this aprocyphal figure who has come to misrepresent them. >> Well actually, this is one of the many mistakes in Jenkins' work. Although many fans find themselves uncomfortable around geekfans who haunt every convention and immerse themselves too deeply in the characters they adore, the media seek out these fans with rubber pointed ears, one hundred buttons on their jackets and elaborate costumes. Why? Because TV is a visual medium, and when they send someone to cover a convention, they need to point the camera at something that will epitomize and perpetuate the popular mundane view of the media fan. That isn't the majority of attendees, wandering around in ordinary garb and tee shirts. That's visually boring, and doesn't fit the reporter or camera crew's idea of a "trekkie" or media fan. So they hunt down the guy with bottle-thick glasses and a buck teeth and a klingon head appliance and focus on him, not the visually average folks. When the news coverage of the con is aired, complete with focus on this character as somehow *representing* the fans, the visually average fan develops an embarassment that leads to resentment and avoidance at future events. Also, these same fans just plain don't like the visual representation of a more 'out of control', extreme version of their own community. Leah

2 1

Re: tactics
by Helen Krummenacker 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

> Despite > being braver, better drilled and better motivated (take the legendary story > where Cetsewayo marched a unit of troops off a cliff, then invited the > British commander to match that). > In my book, that basically qualifies them as 'stupider'. Why waste men simply to show off their willingness to die? Then you have fewer people to actually fight with. I'll bet the British commander did no such thing.

3 2

ADMIN: An extremely late reminder
by Calle Dybedahl 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Stop using the pre-1995 address for the list, will you? I thought I had removed the forwarding from blake7 to blakes7(a)lysator.liu.se back in '96, but apparently I forgot to. It turns out surprisingly many of you still use it (including some who subscribed several years after 1995!). If you insist on using the old address, the newest listbot will stick your posting in the "To be approved by a human being" pile, which means that it won't actually reach the list until next week some time when I get back from Redemption. -- Calle Dybedahl, Vasav. 82, S-177 52 Jaerfaella,SWEDEN | calle(a)lysator.liu.se This posting is protected by a Whizzo Brand Fnord Filter (TM).

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