Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Re: [B7L] liking 'character'
by Natasa Tucev 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

Neil wrote: >What grates me most in fanfic dialogue is the way many writers try to >capture the exact phrasing of lines with lots of superfluous italics and >'...'s (forgotten the technical term for them), together with a liberal >peppering of adverbs. This may have something to do with the fact that writers of fanfic are 'translating' the stories about Our Heroes from one genre to another, from teleplay to prose. A play (in its written form) consists of nothing but dialogue and stage directions. The actors' performance may help us feel there's more to read between the lines. I've done a lot of translating from English to my language and I know that the constructions of the original language often sneak into translation and make it sound 'unnatural'. Sometimes when I read fanfic I also feel the effects of 'translating'. The emphasis is on dialougue, there are, as you've noticed, 'stage directions' of how to phrase the lines, lots of details on what facial expression each of the characters should show while speaking, how and where he or she moves, etc. IOW, I think many writers imagine they're creating a 'TV episode', not writing a story. Many writers are skillful in imitating the 'spoken voice' of the main characters, both in terms of the patterns of speech and in terms of what sort of statements we expect them to make. Much greater problem, however, is to present their 'inner voice'. There we move from the realm of imitating the series into the realm of interpretation. For instance, Blake's inner voice might display more uncertainty, Avon's more warmth, Vila's more intelligence, than their 'outer voices' - depending on the author's interpretation of their characters. I think this is where a number of authors fail. They hope that, if their characters speak the given lines in a certain way, accompanied with certain bodily movements, this will produce the same effect as in a screened episode, with all the implicit depth. It is difficult to adapt to a different genre. A short story has its own advantages over a play, which ought to be used, but are often neglected. Stream-of-consciousness, the moments when a character is alone and does nothing much in the outer world, but very much happens within. Not to mention the other elements - I was just concerned with the characters here. N.

2 1

RE: [B7L] Re: Patriarchy (was Deliverance)
by Louise Rutter 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

Sarah Thompson wrote: >I would also like to point out in our defense that there has been vast >improvement in this regard over the past eight years, under the Clinton >administration, which IMO is precisely why the Republicans hate Clinton with >such a crazed passion that they have to make up wild lies about him, such as >we've recently heard from Ellynne (more about that, with suitable B7 >references, later). Compare Bush Jr.'s cabinet to Bush Sr.'s and you see >the difference that Clinton made-- today the Republicans have to put in far >more token blacks and token women to try to give the impression that they're >not biased . What a fascinating argument. So any people from minority groups in a Democratic government are obviously there because the Democrats are enlightened people, while any in a Republican government must be there as tokens to make the Republicans electable. It's always good to know that voters have open minds and will vote on merit. Louise

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Fanfic
by Tavia Chalcraft 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

Helen wrote: >Keeping in mind that not being able to use more than one of the main >cast, there could easily be stories about Jarriere, Carnell, or Kasabi? You perhaps need to define main cast carefully. Where do Servalan, Travis, Orac, Zen, Slave stand? Zen could be considered one of the main cast, but there's a lot more fanfic extant about Orac. Those interested in Servalan have certainly been known to complain of the lack of interesting fiction involving her. Another thing that might be interesting would be to have a story mainly about original characters (or series one-offs), but allow a brief cameo from the whole crew. >I'm sure if people are willing to write for it, someone will >be willing to read it. Who's game? As I've said, me for one. I think this is a great idea. Tavia

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Patriarchy (was Deliverance)
by Ellynne G. 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:55:56 -0800 "Sarah Thompson" <sthompson162 Ooh! A response at last! And just when I had told myself it was time to go back to being a good, nonpolitical, B7 only, avoid-the-current-references-[especially-conservative-issues-ones], little girl! > > I would also like to point out in our defense that there has been > vast > improvement in this regard over the past eight years, under the > Clinton > administration, which IMO is precisely why the Republicans hate > Clinton with > such a crazed passion that they have to make up wild lies about him, > such as > we've recently heard from Ellynne And fighting words! A statement that cries out so loudly for response, I can't justify _not_ answering! Oh, frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! Be still my beating heart!!! I have to admit right off, one of the reasons I usually know better than to get off on certain topics (anyone who disagrees on whether I know better may be right, but I will cling to the idea) is because I can't avoid discussing them without becoming overly sarcastic. Besides, I don't think this is what anyone's reading the lyst for. I apologize. That said . . . . Sarah, Sarah, Sarah, lies are things that are _not true_. In B7, this would be like the charges Blake was convicted under. OTOH, things that are _true_ that you do not _consider important_ or that you think _aren't worthy of notice_ are _not_ lies - at least, not in the dictionary of those of us who don't have to ask the judge what "is" means. So, Travis massacring thousands of civilians was inconvenient but true. Servalan murdering people for personal convenience was, in her opinion, also unimportant, but true. See the difference? It's funny you should bring up things like "crazed passion" and "wild lies." I love it. How very Federationish of you. Let's not admit the faintest possibility that I or anyone else with a different opinion than yours or the administration might be an intelligent, rational human being. After all, if I had to defend Clinton (or Servalan, or Travis, or anyone else like that), I would do everything I could to keep the facts out of it, too. Let's look at the rape charge. Did he do it? Maybe, maybe not. You're probably getting ready to cite the false charges against Blake. But there's a difference. Like many such cases, it comes down to his word against hers. Now, while Hillary seems to believe republicans have the power to implant false memories in thousands of people (even Clinton's own secretary), this is a technology which seems limited to SF shows at this point. So, let's look at him and her. Him: A guy his supporters admit will lie with cold blooded premeditation while under oath if the truth looks bad. In their defense, they often accompany this with such bold additions as "Duh!" or the more articulate "Everybody does it." Her: Someone they haven't been able to come up with an explanation why she would lie. She actually supports his party and all that. Hmm, I suppose I can see why Clinton's defenders think anyone who doesn't like him _must_ by lying. After all, if they themselves would lie about anyone they don't like, by shouldn't everyone else? Oh, but let's not get into the perjury thing, since Clinton finally admitted it (three years of denial [and how many taxpayer dollars spent proving it?] later). What else might I dislike him for? How about (since I've lived in the far east) China? Clinton accepted illegal campaign contributions. This is on the list of _known_ facts, a point no longer in debate. And, to give the man credit, once he was bought, he stayed bought (which puts him ahead of Servalan - but maybe the Chinese kept tapes). Not only that, he has sat back and ignored numerous human rights violations (forced abortions, infanticide, massacres in Tibet, etc.) and violations of our own national security. Oh, and let's not forget his outrage over the wrongful case against a certain Los Alamos worker, an outrage that came the day after a judge ordered the man released. Up until then, Clinton seemed to want to get the guy nailed (I _think_ because dear Mr. Equality thought it would be easier to blame an ethnic Chinese, but I may be doing him an injustice. He may have sincerely felt the man was the best scapegoat regardless of ethnic background). But how about Taiwan? I knew a girl from Taiwan who said, "Our president says we should help protect Americans." Then she paused and looked at me earnestly, "So, what can I do to protect you?" Clinton sold her out. He doesn't care about her. If China were to annex Taiwan, if she were to fall under a regime that would _force_ her to abort any children it deems unnecessary, he wouldn't care. If she were to become one of the many women sold into the back country as either a wife or prostitute, he wouldn't care. If her family was deemed 'politically incorrect' and she was sent to a reeducation camp or simply killed, he wouldn't care. Yes, I'm making the obvious B7 reference of Maryatt's wife and children. Clinton says he cares about the environment. Does he? The first National Monument he created was in Utah, the only state where he came in third. It bought him votes in southern California. Did he really care about the environment in southern California? That same week, there were major protests as an area of virgin redwood forest was cut down. Clinton did nothing about that and said nothing about that Here's the kicker. I actually have some sympathy for the Grand Staircase - but not the way he did it. I have these funny ideas about _democracy_ and the voice of the people that Clinton has always found outre. The fact that Clinton (oh, darn, here's that word again) lied when asked if he was planning to do anything like this a few days before he announced it (something his aids later [and in complete contradiction of the public record] referred to as fully discussing the details with representatives from that state for over a month [man, if I could have gotten away with this kind of thing on _my_ history tests . . .). If it had been done with even a pretense of respect for the people whose lives it effected, I might support it. Of course, it also would have been nice if Clinton and co. had bothered to look at any maps of the area so that they hadn't listed some people's driveways as public lands that couldn't be driven on or come to the interesting conclusion working oil wells were undeveloped territory, but he did stop poor ranchers from using land they had made use of for over a hundred years, so let's give him credit. Right, let's think of Horizon. Remember, it is the duty of the more enlightened to rescue the land from the poor savages who can't make proper use of it. Oh, you'll say, but the Federation's version of enlightenment involved killing off the natives in droves to mine radioactive materials. Funny you should mention that. Unfortunately, southern Californians have not managed to get upset over this, but Utah is one of the nation's top dumping grounds for toxic waste. Has Clinton done anything about it? No. Uranium processing plants that didn't even bother to put up a 'No Swimming' sign by the water hole they dumped their waste in before letting children who played in the area die of cancer? Not interested. The thousands of people who died of cancer from nuclear testing? Or cleaning up the land in areas where (if you don't care about the people) endangered turtles and other animals live? What about other, more current military 'accidents' involving the release of poisonous chemicals and other toxins? Nothing. Unless you count his efforts to reroute military jobs to states that _voted_ for him. When congress finally voted to give small compensations to a small number of downwinders meeting very narrow definitions, did he do anything to help make the funds available? I need to answer this one? Hint: Remember the 100 million credits Servalan offered to pay for Orac? Oh, and just to point out that Clinton, true to form, is an equal opportunity callous pig, let me add that the people with the highest death rate who get lumped in with the downwinders in laws and studies are the predominantly Navajo miners who worked in guess what kind of mines? Let's get this straight. Clinton has _never_ done anything that endangers votes or campaign contributions. He has lived and died by the poll. What gets me is that I used to make sarcastic statements like "these people would support him even if he" [fill in the blank], that I thought were hyperbole. They he did. And they did. I feel like Vila saying Servalan's idea of a fair fight is shooting a blind man in the back. Oh, yeah. She did that. I thought I was safe when I said he'd sell out his own mother for a five point lead in the polls. I mean, she was dead, so how could he? Less than two weeks later, Hillary was explaining to the nation how all Billy's problems are his mother's fault but they're working on them. Well, I suppose Servalan blamed all the Federation's problems on the past administration. And it wouldn't surprise if her parents were wacko. And dead. Actually, in Clinton's case, I can believe it. An unstable childhood marked by frequent parental turnover along with some other problems, it sounds like he was in a prime environment to become one of those people with a major need to _look_ good to others, to earn the surface approval of lots of people you would cheerfully stab in the back. Oh, and as to Sarah's insinuation of racial prejudice. I will be generous and compare her to Avon. I think one of the reasons Avon so frequently put Jenna's support of Blake down to her _personal_ liking of him was precisely because he had a certain grudging respect for her opinions. To put it down to something rational wouldn't have let him dismiss it they way he could dismiss Gan's or Vila's opinions. What can I say? The circular reasoning here seem's irrefutable. People who dislike Clinton must be bigots. I dislike him, ergo . . . . Shall I refer to American Indian relatives (by marriage, by step-relations, or even [oh, yeah] by blood)? How about the African American ones? Is Hispanic OK? What about Japanese? Should a relative of mine have attended a church that was bombed because of certain prejudices in that area? Do I have to have ancestors who fled an area because of the government having, oh, let's say, signed an order for their, what do you call it, _extermination_ if I want to be listened to? Sarah, how do you know I don't? And, if all the above were true, why wouldn't I despise a man who was always willing to sell out any group he didn't need to advance his own cause? OK, impassioned rant is over. I apologize again. I promise to be better for at least a whole week. Assuming I don't see a post I _really_ have to answer. Perhaps I _should_ be a little less judgemental of those with socially unacceptable behaviors, given my own very evident weakness. My thanks in advance to everyone still speaking to me after this is posted. Ellynne ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

1 0

Re: Deliverance, Gender and Technology Re: the idea that technology, as personified by Avon in Deliverance, is a masculine quality: but what about the scenes with Vila and the huntresses in "Powerplay," and of course the infamous "Power"? In both of those episodes we see a male/female social split, but with the women associated with the technological side.
by Helen Krummenacker 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

> Maybe the reason she looks so > happy to see Avon is that now that the Messiah has arrived, she will soon be > off the hook of obligation and can go and do whatever else she may have had > in mind-- marrying her true love, perhaps In that case, I would *hope* she'd have tactfully wriggled her hand free from the Messiah's. > > Re: the idea that technology, as personified by Avon in Deliverance, is a > masculine quality: but what about the scenes with Vila and the huntresses > in "Powerplay," and of course the infamous "Power"? In both of those > episodes we see a male/female social split, but with the women associated > with the technological side. Well, traditionally our pro-technology culture has associated technology with men. Boys play with trucks, girls play with dolls. Boys get toy chem labs and erector sets complete with motor, and get to take shop classes. Girls get paint sets and make-up kits and take arts or home ec. Women score lower on math tests but are better than men at reading emotional displays. Many people who feel technology without philosphy is ruining the planet like to embrace goddess-worship as part of their world view, which suggests even most rebels against society are buying into the technical/man-- emotional/woman dichotomy of the mainstream culture. (This ties in with the thread about how even rebelling from the culture, we a shaped by it). However, the Ben Steed theory is apparantly that civilization saps from men that which makes them manly, and technology, therefore, is a woman's thing. I have no idea why Powerplay is the way it is, other than 1. would Vila have gone with strangers he's being warned against if they weren't very pretty young women? and 2. maybe the author was conscienciously trying to avoid being considered sexist, since Deliverance has delivered such an attack on Nation's subconscious.

1 0

Re: Torture
by Sarah Thompson 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

This is an old thread, I know, but I'm catching up on a lot of older posts. I think that there are multiple answers to the question of why Avon is such a popular subject for hurt-comfort stories. It's certainly been a prominent theme throughout the entire history of B7 fanfic; when I was cataloguing zine contents I found that the very first B7 zines ever published, back in 1978, already included get-Avon stories. One reason that I don't think anyone suggested, and that applies especially to the early material, is that in some ways it is suggested by the show itself and by Avon's initial role as "hero's sidekick." One of the functions of the sidekick is to be injured or put in jeopardy and be succored or rescued by the hero. Examples that come to mind are "The Web" and "Hostage." When the hero himself is in trouble, e.g. Blake being tortured in "Cygnus Alpha," he's more often expected to rescue himself. Sidekicks are often the geeky, nerdy, hyper-intellectual type, since those qualities are interesting to viewers but not acceptable in a conventional hero. IMO the fannish tendency to torture geeks is an accidental result of this situation. Of course, the roles get all confused in the later seasons, when the nerdly sidekick becomes the hero; but then that sort of flouting of expectations is a big part of what makes B7 so special. Another reason is that many female fans like to hurt the male character they find most attractive. I think the reason for this is explained in one of my favorite books, Michael Malone's =Heroes of Eros=, which is about Hollywood stars but can certainly apply to British television as well. Malone says: "In the fiction of romantic films, something always shifts the weight away from male supremacy in sex. Something is done to reduce the traditional advantages of sex role our society grants to men." (p. 11) <various examples of wounded heroes deleted> "By so handicapping the male half of the couple, movies tilt the sexual scale into a momentary equilibrium between the male and female." (p. 12) Since Avon is the most widely admired, he is the most likely to be hurt in fan fiction. There need not even be an overt romantic element within the story, given the romance between the author and her character in the meta-universe. A third reason, as one person already pointed out (sorry-- I can't remember who it was), is that Avon =does= suffer beautifully; you just can't discount that as a factor in why Avon, more than any of the others, is The Man We Love to Hurt (as the eloquent Barbara Tennison once put it). Or, to give an external reason, one of Paul Darrow's special strengths as an actor is that he does "pain" very convincingly and somehow manages to go on looking good while he does it. Strictly speaking, this is not very realistic, since most people look awful when they're seriously hurt or upset; but when he does it, it's convincing and effective. And I think Mr. D. knows very well that he's good at that. To my mind the most interesting thing about =Avon: A Terrible Aspect= was that Avon got beaten up so much in it. I just bet that as he wrote the book, PD was imagining himself acting out the role, and so he put in plenty of what he knew he'd be good at. Avon also gets beaten up in the "Man of Iron" script, and there is a scene of Servalan gloating over him that I would dearly have loved to see acted out. Hey, if he does it himself, no wonder fans do it so much! Sarah T.

2 1

OT: Penguins
by Julia Jones 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

Since we're talking about penguins again, I thought that Una and Neil would be interested in one of the sights on my day out today - the penguin fence along the side of the road. Yes, really - the main highway runs a few yards from the dunes and beach, and the penguin colonies in said dunes don't have a very good grasp of the highway code. -- Julia Jones "Never mind about Lara. The Tomb Raider games are the only games where I've shot someone because they were getting in the way of the scenery." Terry Pratchett talking in afp

3 4

Re: [B7L] Re: Fanfic
by Sally Manton 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

Neil wrote: <I got the idea for this one after reading a story that had an all-female society put Avon in a cage and use him as a stud. I couldn't help thinking that putting Avon in a cage was the author's real reason for inventing this scenario, but maybe I was just being unfairly cynical.> Ermmm ... no, actually I don't think you were :-) _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Deliverance
by Natasa Tucev 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

Re the question of whether 'Avon left Meegat to die'. I'm not sure whether my hunch is right, but somehow the whole concept of 'rescuing' a native out of his original habitat and indigenous culture 'because it's so primitive and dangerous', strikes me as imperialistic and prejudiced in itself. N.

1 0

Re: Subtext vs Character
by Betty Ragan 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

Well, here's where I get to see whether I set things up properly to let me post from my work account... Neil wrote: > True. What I meant was, ignore the characters as characters, but > don't ignore them as representations of an ideological position. > See them for *what* they stand for, rather than *who* they are. No, thanks. The whole idea of viewing people not as individual people but as representations of some ideological abstraction is, frankly, pretty repugnant to me (and that's true, if perhaps slightly less so, even in the case of fictional people). Avon is Avon and Meegat is Meegat. They're *characters*, not simply representations of ideological positions, and, IMO, to treat them otherwise is to do them -- and the entire series -- a grave disservice. If they *were* just cardboard mouthpieces for ideological positions, I wouldn't be watching the series. (OK, OK, Meegat is arguably rather cardboard, but IMHO, whether you attribute it to Terry Nation, to the director, or to the actress, she comes across as having far more dignity and individuality than she seems to be getting credit for.) You can argue that the fact that the educated, "civilized" male character is cast in this role and the female, "primitive" character in that one is significant, and you undoubtedly have a point there (although I wouldn't take it nearly as far as some people seem to be inclined to). But the details of Avon's *individual* personality, I think, are every bit as relevant to how the situation plays itself out, and to ignore them is to ignore a significant facet of the episode. The scripts, after all, aren't written for generic, faceless ideological mouthpieces, they're written for specific, established characters, and that *has* to shape the story, subtext and all. (It would have been very interesting, I think, to see how "Deliverance" would have gone with Blake in Avon's place. I suspect it would have played *very* differently.) -- 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

13 42

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