Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Re: [B7L] fannishness
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/17/01 2:11:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner(a)tesco.net writes: << What about all those people who never become fans of anything? Presumably they see at least something of the shows that generate fandoms, but presumably not in any way that leads them on to become 'real' fans.<< I'm assuming that you mean people who never become fans of anything 'in particular'. If they weren't fans of anything at all, they would be mundanes, not fans. It's long been recognized in the SF community (apart from just 'media' SF fandom) that there are all different degrees of fannishness, and they've even designated names for some of those degrees. For example, a fan who isn't particularly devoted to any one author, universe or show but simply hangs around because he loves the milieu of fandom and fans itself is called a "ffan". Don't ask me how it's pronounced! >> Yes, but are they on their own enough? One of my all-time favourite series, A Very Peculiar Practice, had excellent writing, captivating characters and very well defined relationships between them. Fannish potential next to zero. (Maybe someone has gone and written the further adventures of Bobby Buzzard, but it's not like there's a thriving and visible VPP fandom presence.)<< Some shows are great, but just don't generate a fandom. Some shows generate a fandom, but don't compel much in the way of fanfic. Some shows are fan favorites and generate tons of fanfic. And there are even some shows where the show itself is oddly detached from its active fandom and fanfic (ie: PROFESSIONALS). I don't know what makes that rainbow, but I don't know if there would be any point to bottling it if one were to figure out the colors. Here in the US, the producers wouldn't buy it. They don't want to produce what we want. They want us to like what they produce. And the 'we' they want is a specific desirable demographic that will go out and buy the Mountain Dew, Pringles Chips, 1-800 dialing and Tostitos they push during every commercial. The crowd that has disposible income and no bills to pay yet, no family to save for, no resposibilities. >> None of which I've seen, one of which I've never even heard of. Still, that's my fault for not having a telly. (But of the two I know a little about, Stargate and Buffy, I know I would never make an effort to watch them even if I had the opportunity.)<< Ah, Neil; you truly are in an unusual and rare fannish category--a media fan with vey restricted media input. >> Ah, so there *is* a tension. I pull my theory back from the tubes. You might not find it hard to 'ignore elements of the plot' (which by your own admission don't 'make sense'), but they still need to be ignored, marginalised, supressed, or somehow prevented from interfering with the elements that you do like. If you couldn't do that, then maybe you would be pushed away from the show, too far away to relate to it fannishly. I'm still hypothesising, I freely admit, but that does seem to be what is happening here.<< You seem to be smooshing together 'tension' generated by plot and character elements, and 'discomfort' generated by errors in the internal logic of a show. I maintain that fan devotees of a particular show go into denial of those errors of logic and don't think about them again, all of their attention devoted to the stuff they love: delicious character conflict; chemistry; plot twists and irony; continuity and internal logic within the show; humor and pathos; hurt and comfort etc. etc. They aren't held spellbound as fans by dissatisfaction that a mask is never sufficient to really hide the identity of a superhero, or that starships couldn't possibly be designed 'that way', or that the character was holding a book in one shot, and the book was across the room a moment later. At least, if I interpret your proposed theory correctly, that is... >> A possible list of (provisional) qualities that might be inherent in a show likely to induce fannish response (I supose almost any show might generate a fannish response in somebody somewhere, but some seem to do so more than others): (1) the need for an active suspension of disbelief (pre-requisite of all SF and fantasy shows). This widens the potential range of plot possibilities, not all of which are going to be realised by the show as broadcast.<< Yes, by all means...*deliberately generated* suspension of disbelief. >>(2) episodic structure, a succession of closed stories (though not necessarily without a broader story arc to hold the series together). This creates interstices between broadcast episodes which can be seized upon as missing moments requiring elaboration (unlike say the continuity of most soap operas).<< Yep. There *has* to be some continuity. The one thing the STAR TREK producers did take to heart was that the continuity and consistency through the TREK universe was very near and dear to the fan's heart. They have a 'bible' of TREK continuity for the writers of the series; in fact, you can actually see this bible laid out in the form of a 'history timeline' at the STAR TREK EXPERIENCE attraction in the Las Vegas Hilton. It's fantastic, and flanking it is a continuous display case, many yards long, filled with actual costumes and other 'artifacts' from the corresponding part of the timeline as you pass. It's an incredible monument to a fandom. >>(3) multiple authorship, different writers responsible for different episodes, and their individual authorship recognisable for the episodes they write (eg the differences between a Chris Boucher ep and a Ben Steed one). This might invite fannish intervention because it gives the impression that anyone can 'have a go' and write their own contribution.<< Good point. I suppose realistic lives often have that element of randomness about them that might suggest multiple authorship; maybe the original inspiration for the notion that there is a pantheon of gods out there, not just one orchestrating everything! >>(4) exagerrated character definition (I would say that all the regulars in B7 and Trek can be considered 'exagerrated', whereas in Who they're little more than puppets danced around by the 'Idea as Hero' plot) to clarify the nature of the antagonisms between them. This also gives viewers a clear handle on which to base their response to any particular character, and might also act to suppress either ambivalence and/or disinterest. (Though it's perfectly legitimate to argue that a show full of uninteresting characters is a pretty crap show.)<< Well, some folks like crap, ya never know. But the differences you mention automatically generate chemistry and conflict, the meat and potatoes of really intense fandom. Add elements like interesting and/or attractive protagonists, unexpected plot elements and irony, angst and development within the arc of the series, and you might have a nice fannish show simmering...what you referred to as synergy, Neil. Anyone have more to add to this recipe?

5 7

6 hour warning!
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

The latest round of B7 (and other fandom) fanzines and goodies from the Ashton Press archives is about to roll off. To take advantage of a quick bargain, check it out: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1409607037 Good luck!

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: fandom
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/18/01 8:10:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, Ashton7(a)aol.com writes: << Er, the Celts fought absolutely naked.>> So when do we get *that* series? Huh? Huh? Leah

1 0

Re: [B7L] fannishness
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

Leah: >> It's all about Sex.<< Neil: >Never heard of it. There ain't no such thing.< Somebody wanna explain the birds, the bees and 'hide the banana' to our esteemed listmate? It wasn't my strongest subject in parochial school. Leah

1 0

Who becomes fans (was Re: [B7L] fannishness)
by Susan Beth 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

(Sorry for the duplicate, Neil! I always screw up with Lysator. ) I'm splitting my reply into two messages, because I think there are at least two quite separate topics under discussion. Neil Faulkner wrote: >What about all those people who never become fans of anything? Presumably >they see at least something of the shows that generate fandoms, but >presumably not in any way that leads them on to become 'real' fans. Do you remember all the interminable MB discussions? And how amazed everyone was to find the 'normal' distribution skewed wildly towards the I's? Suppose *everyone* has an inborn drive to belong, to be a part of larger groups, to socialize with other people. (Which I'd say is really true.) Suppose *some* people are limited in their taste/capacity for that interaction; they *do* want and need it, but they need to be able to control and limit it. Have it when they have the energy to deal with it, be able to withdraw from it when they can't. Have it with people who are more like them than a random assortment of humanity. Have it with the attention not centered on them or the others, but focused on a topic of mutual interest. Wouldn't you say fandom is an ideal source of sociability for people like that? Fans being relatively scarce on the ground, the distance is built in. You have to make the effort to go to the pub meeting or convention when you want the companionship, and there's little 'danger' of it pounding on your door and demanding you be social when you'd rather not. Most of the means of conversation have built in time lags, so there aren't hurt feelings if you don't reply to Mary at THAT INSTANT instead letting it go until after work tomorrow when you feel more chatty. And so on. Introvert heaven. In contrast, those who are up for social interactions virtually all the time, the ones who find them energizing instead of draining, probably see those 'features' of fandoms as 'bugs.' What a hassle to have to hunt down the scarce fellow fan instead of simply chatting with your neighbors! How unbearable to have a conversation when you have to wait days for the other person to say anything so you can go on to finish your point. And so Extroverts gravitate into different kinds of activities, specifically ones in which you interact in the flesh, where f2f meetings are the default. They join the Lions club/Veterans Club/Garden Club, they join bowling/soccer/baseball leagues, they hold regular potluck suppers with the neighbors, they are the regulars at the local watering hole. IOW, I don't really think there's all that much difference in how fans and non-fans see the shows themselves. The difference is that some Introverts discover that fandom suits them as a way of socializing while Extroverts mainly satisfy that urge in other ways. Susan Beth (susanbeth33(a)mindspring.com)

1 0

Starfleet Ball pix
by Steve Rogerson 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

Pictures from Starfleet Ball are now up on my web site, including a few of Paul Darrow and Jacqueline Pearce. -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption: The Blake's 7 and Babylon 5 convention 23-25 February 2001, Ashford, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption

1 0

Re: [B7L] Was it something I said :-)
by Sally Manton 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

Neil wrote: <I've just resorted my inbox to make a quick count - you have posted 5 times this month prior to this (not entirely unjustified) complaint, compared with me (98 posts), Dana (69), Tavia (44), Sally (68), Helen (66) and Fiona (70 - grud on a greenie, I beat her!),> 68??? Ouch. No wonder my virtual throat is sore. I just checked on Calle's web page, so far this month we've had 953 posts this month ... _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

4 5

Re: [B7L] fannishness
by Mac4781＠aol.com 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

Sally wrote: > I think it's a fair one, though. There's the Tarrant Nostra - would their > members go on record as having an interest in 'Interesting and/or attractive > protagonists', even though Toothy is neither central nor second lead? (well, > not IMHO - for 3rd/4th season, Vila is). Then there's the Servie fans ... It depends on what you mean by second lead. If it's by the credits, didn't Jenna get second billing at least some of the time in the early seasons? If it's by screen time/number of lines, I have to think Tarrant will squeeze ahead of Vila. He had major roles in episodes more often than Vila (who was often back home on teleport duty). But neither of those is how I judge second lead, it's by position in the pecking order. And that's quite clearly Tarrant in 3rd/4th seasons, except for the times in early third season when he was first in the pecking order (while Avon was trying to remain apart from any pecking order). Vila was more often--to drag a term from GALAXY QUEST--comic relief. Though happily B7 was never so simplistic as to have caricatures. So while Vila was frequently comic relief, he also got to play competent and heroic on occasion. One of the reasons B7 has such staying power (for me) is because its dynamics were intriguingly different from your average band of action/adventure heroes. Cheryl, I'm sorry you felt unwelcome. When new people introduce themselves, there generally are at least a few members who have time to jump in and say hello (and that varies depending on posters' individual time demands at the moment). Unfortunately, you slipped through the cracks. I hope you'll get a lot of enjoyment from the list. Carol Mc

1 0

Was it something I said :-)
by Cheryl _ 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

Okay, here goes and I promise, this will be the final word from me on this and then I think I'll just do as Neil suggested and sit back for a while - it will give me a chance to get over the whole embarrassing episode and everyone else a break from what must surely by now be fast becoming a boring topic. I had no idea, that my post would generate such a response - tell you what I did expect - one or two people, telling me to do just what I said they should have done (towards the end of my post) :-) As I have already explained - I got it wrong - and I have apologised for this, I really don't know what else to say.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Patriarchy (Was: Deliverance)
by Tavia Chalcraft 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

Fiona: >although Servalan may be President, all of her rivals, >staff and subordinates (with a single exception) do appear >to be male. Off the top of my head, women in reasonably senior positions in Federation Civil Admin or military include Major Thania, Governor LeGrande, Kasabi, the Arbiter and Alta Morag in The Way Back. Two additional potential biasing factors suggest that there may be a greater proportion of woman than this might suggest: (1) We mainly see (the military) Space Command not the Earth (civil) equivalent; there may well be more woman in the civil administration compared with military, there may also be more women on Earth cf on space station (2) Servalan may gather men around her as subordinates, for whatever reason (liking pretty ones or feeling more comfortable around men?); furthermore, the politcos we see visit S may have been chosen to be ones she would listen to as equals or superiors, again potentially biasing by gender Tavia

6 8

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