Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Re: [B7L] Re: Subtext vs Character
by M 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

about Travis It occured to me, if Travis was too ingrained as a character to loose, rather than having a different actor with his own interpretation, why not create Travis's brother - same surname, the original died, brother blames Blake. You could then get rid of the arm and eye, which do not suit TravisII. I know it sounds a little soapie, but could possibly have worked??? M. _______________________________________________________ Get 100% private, FREE email for life from Excite UK Visit http://inbox.excite.co.uk/

2 1

Re: [B7L] liking 'character'
by Tavia Chalcraft 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

Kathryn wrote: >Don't put all the blame on fan writers. >Fan readers are just as much to blame. Agreed. I imagine the anti-Mary-Sue culture derives more from readers than writers. >And readers simply want to *read* about "no one else" but the main characters. >And I can understand the sentiment, really I can -- because the point of fanfic > is that one is using someone else's characters and setting, so if one isn't going >to use them, then why is one writing it? OCs: Because if one's interested in, say, Blake as a character, there's only a limited number of interactions one can get out of him with Avon, Jenna et al. Setting: Well the repressive Federation setting on Earth or other Inner Worlds is far more interesting (to me) than an alien spaceship with food synthesisers, a wardrobe room and a treasury. >And yes, there is a reaction against Mary-Sues (and by extension, all Original >Female Characters) -- but why shouldn't there be? They are*awful*. >Bad writing is bad writing, and reading someone else's wish-fullfilment >fantasy is going to be a bore whatever universe it's set in. I agree I have little wish to read other people's wish-fulfilment fantasies, but dooming all original characters because occasionally people choose to publish wish-fulfilment seems a little OTT ? Maybe I've been missing out, but I've never read a non-humorous overt Mary-Sue. The closest I've seen is where I guess Cally or Blake is being used as the authorial projection, and fewer people seem to complain about this. Tavia

3 2

Time Squad Remake?
by Dana Shilling 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

It's easy to forget exactly what the guys in capsule in Time Squad were trying to do-- according to Zen, their capsule contained brood units and genetic banks. Does this change our analysis of Deliverance? The Time Squad capsule was launched with landing instructions but no capacity to re-launch--i.e., on the same kind of errand as the Deliverance rocket. The Time Squad capsule is more rounded and less pointy, if it matters. And at the end of the episode Blake orders it dumped into space, with implied destruction of all its genetic material. In Time Squad, Blake and Jenna climb into the capsule without oxygen masks, although they know that life support in the capsule is inadequate. Blake ordered a rendezvous with the capsule although he didn't know who was in it or why--it could have been Hitler and Himmler, for all he knew. The main action of the episode involves blowing up a nuclear power plant, so there's a sort of poetic justice in most of the crew developing radiation sickness in Deliverance. in Deliverance, of course, they go to Cephlon to pick up Marryat (who is already dead) and Ensor Jr. (who is, to say the least, a lot of trouble in the short run)--without knowing who they are or what they're doing, and they go down to a planet they know to be dangerously radioactive without adequate protective equipment. Well, that's B7 all over innit--either ending up destroying things you tried to save or saving things you tried to destroy (Star One). My reading: at the script conference, someone suggests diffidently that it's too early to remake Time Squad, at which point the ever-popular "capture by primitives" and "worshipped as god" tropes are introduced. (I would not be surprised if a similar thought process influenced the script for the film version of Stargate.) -(Y) PS--Deliverance's first shot of fur-clad primitives reminds me of the old ad campaign for Blackglama mink coats: "What becomes a legend most?"

5 4

Re: etc Deliverance
by jan b 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

Re: Re: Re: Deliverance >If you can find me one piece of evidence for his embarrassment -- a line of >dialogue...< 'Lets not start that again.' 'err... (implied). Probably.' (Hastily) 'You're forgiven.' 'For a while, yes.' (smile). (I'm not a god, anyone would see it eventually, and she was no exception.) That's the way I see them, glad other people think the same (Harriet and others - sorry to jump in). Thanks, Fiona, for stepping in all that time ago. >>Avon: Let's not start that again. Bart: (very quick) I didn't do it.<< Has anyone ever done a B7/Simpsons crossover, by the way? _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

Re: [B7L] Subtext vs Character, or would Mr Humphries have pushed the right buttons?
by Natasa Tucev 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

Fiona wrote: >I'd agree mostly but take issue with the word "good." You can love your >family and not necessarily be good, or even ethical. Goebbels was a family >man. So I've heard, and I must admit it has always bothered me. 'Than one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.' Are you familiar with Lukacs' concept of abstract and concrete potentialities? Various thoughts and inclinations pass through your head, but in the end it's the concrete action in the real life situation that determines your character. Perhaps Goebbels's goodness is more in the domain of abstract potentialities - playing with his children, being tender to his wife, enjoying the role of 'good father and husband', while his concrete actions labelled him quite differently. Maybe he had an 'abstract potentiality' for being a good man, but in effect he wasn't. (I agree, this is not my discipline, and it's silly of me to make these assumptions.) >Anyway, Blake didn't know what information they had on his family. It was >that fact-- the mystery-- that ultimately lured him out. The mystery about his family. In his state of mind, it is doubtful whether he would decide to leave the dome for any other mystery which did not involve him emotionally to that extent. >Now you're missing the point. Of course Blake's family did not become bogus >when they died. But the point is, the people he believed in and for whom he >transgressed the law by leaving the dome were not in fact his family-- they >were a series of faked letters written by agents of the Federation in order >to convince him he still had a family. Would he have left the dome if he had >known they were dead? The real question is, would he have left the dome if he hadn't loved them? Of course he couldn't know they were dead. They were killed by the Federation and this fact was concealed from him. On the Liberator, it is not the fact that he loves his >family that saves him, but the fact that he knows what he was told about >them was a lie. By contrast, Jenna and Avon are trapped by their love for their families. I have a feeling that this statement of yours is purposefully vague. It was a lie that his family was alive. His feelings for them weren't a lie. He doesn't have to stop loving them to beat the trapping device on the Liberator. He just has to resist the delusion that they're alive. >No. What I'm saying is that, you appear to be saying that the Federation >attempts to destroy love. In a way, I think all totalitarian systems are trying to do this, perhaps indirectly, because your private loyalties compete with your loyalty to the state and the regime. What was it king Creont says in the 'Antigone'? 'If someone has a friend whom he suspects is plotting against the City, let him not tarry but report this friend immediately to the authorities.' Remember the kid-spies in '1984' who are encouraged to report close members of their families to the Thought Police if they say or do anything subversive? Why does the novel end with 'He loved Big Brother'? Remember the movie 'Killing Fields' in which a little girl is encouraged to erase mum and dad from the drawing on the blackboard which represents a family? I think that the Federation also tried to condition Blake to feel complete loyalty to the regime. They expected it would be stronger that any private loyalty he might have - but it wasn't. >But I'll stop it now, because I think we've reached the point at which we're >down to our respective theoretical stances, and I don't think we can >reconcile those. You have your discipline, I have mine <respectful g>. I return the same respectful g., and if you agree I suggest you conclude this discussion with your next post. Your understanding of culture(s) is professional and mine is far from that. Being a teacher of literature, I have scraps of knowledge in psychoanalysis, linguistics, philosophy, anthropology, etc., which I cunningly apply to literary analysis. I'm like that Fool in The Keeper, I know everything and nothing. >> You've forgotten that she also appears in Winston's dream, where Julia and >> Shakespeare also appear. Dreams, to quote Jung (him again!) can be >> compensatory to our conscious attitude, they can bring a one-sided state > >But in that case it's not the mother herself, it's what she symbolises for >Winston, because she's appearing in *his* subconscious. We are talking about a work of fiction. Winston's dream is fiction within fiction. Therefore I observe both the original Mrs. Smith, and the one in Wiston's dream, within the context of the novel, to find out what the author wants to say through her character. (I tend to agree with Neil in this respect. Although I admit that my fascination with Blake's character is something completely different.) >> I have to go, before my kids start >> eating marbles in the other room. > >Oh dear-- are they OK :)? Of course they are, thank you for asking. I was just joking. >I think the real comfort in *1984* lies in the glossary at the end, in which >Oceania is referred to in the past tense, reminding us that such regimes do >end, eventually. An interesting point, which I will certainly mention to my students. Bear in mind, however, that writing in the past tense is a well-established literary convention. N.

2 1

books for Oxfam
by Judith Proctor 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

I've just been asked (with regard to my appeal for people to bring second-hand books to Redemption for Oxfam) whether I want children's books as well. Absolutely! We sell loads of children's books. We sell the lot. Non-fiction, paperbacks (even Mills and Boon), serious books, silly books, new books, old books. (the only things we don't sell are damaged/dirty paperack novels) We sold 200 books in our shop in one week recently (not counting the children's books!). Last week we only sold 98 books because we'd no new stock to put out. If you want to help the survivors of the Indian earthquake, one easy way to do it is to root through your bookshelves and find books that you won't read again, but that somebody else might love. Take them to your local Oxfam shop, or leave them at my dealers table at Redemption (which can be easily spotted as there'll be a small pile of second-hand SF books being sold for Oxfam). Judith PS. If anyone wants any of the following books, get in touch (they're our current valuables which have had the prices checked) Thor Heyherdahl - American Indians in the Pacific 40 pounds (a thick scholarly text on the culture, carving, Easter Island statues, etc. Contains many interesting photos) No dust jacket (which makes it about 40 quid cheaper than a copy with a dust jacket!) The Anubis Slayings - first edition - lovely condition. 18 pounds. Carl Michael Bellman (genius of the Swedish rococco) Seventeen songs translated into English. collectors edition in slipcase - only a hundred printed. 40 pounds The Oxford book of Wild Flowers - 10 pounds - very good condition. We've also got a Biblical Concordence - by Alexander Cruden - printed 1817, quarter bound in leather (looks as though it belongs in the library of a stately home). A massive old volume which has yet to be priced. It would need some restoration as the cover has come free from the pages at the front, but is in reasonable condition apart from that. If anyone's interested, I can tell you the price when I know it. -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 - Fanzines for Blake's 7, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. (also non-Blake's 7 zines at http://www.knightwriter.org ) Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/

1 0

Re: [B7L] Patriarchy (Was: Deliverance)
by Tavia Chalcraft 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

Sally wrote (regarding Neil's comment): >Given that (if I understand you correctly, and BTW agree >with you if I have) B7 society is patriarchal) What's the evidence that B7 society is patriarchal? We encounter a fair few female persons of power within the Federation, apart from Servalan. Tavia

2 1

Re: [B7L] Subtext vs Character, or would Mr Humphries have pushed the right buttons?
by Natasa Tucev 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

Part two - I still owe some answers, and I didn't have enough time yesterday. Me: >>Not exactly. Winston fails as a human being even before he's arrested. Remember when he declares he is ready to do anything to bring down the Party - kill hundreds of innocent people, distribute habit-forming drugs, spread venereal diseases, throw acid in a child's face, if need be? He wants to fight the system, but the system has already transformed him and defeated him completely.<< Fiona: >I don't see this as giving up his humanity. Far from it. Oceania was created by human beings, and is maintained by human beings-- many of whom are probably quite decent sorts. Violence and hatred are human behaviour-- and are practiced/advocated by the resistance in Oceania as much as by the state.< A language problem perhaps. When I say 'failure in humanity' I'm refering to a set of moral values. Winston wants to destroy the Party because it is evil, corrupt and inhuman. His statement of what he is willing to do to destroy it demonstrates that he has also become evil, corrupt and inhuman. In this way the system has already defeated him. >What you seem to be doing is starting off arguing that there is some inner core of goodness to human beings which cannot be destroyed (but can be accessed through love, biological functions etc.)-- but then you go on to say that this core was extinguished in Winston Smith. You can't have it both ways, you know.< I'm arguing that there exist certain possibilities to resist ideology - some of them, as you say, are related to love and instincts, others to the faculties of reason, creativity and so on. I'm not claiming that everybody wants to resist ideology or manages to use these possibilities. I think, and I already said so, that people are often not even aware of what they ought to fight against. Winston accepted the concept of 'neccessery murder' and from then on he was no better than the system he sought to destroy. >Anyway, IIRC, the proles' expression of human heritage consists in quaffing beer, reading pornography and singing pop songs, and they have no knowledge of the past.< Then you don't RC. Proles are human in the way which seems no longer accessible to Winston. He is aware of that. Shortly before he is arrested, he watches a prole woman from his window, working and singing. She is old and her body is 'blown up to monstrous dimensions by child-bearing'. The words of the song are nonsense. Still, he is fascinated by the warmth of her voice and by her vitality. 'The woman down there had no mind, she had only strong arms, a warm heart and a fertile belly... People who had never learned to think but who were storing up in their hearts and bllies and muscles the power that would one day overturn the world... The proles... would stay alive against all the odds, like birds, passing on from body to body the vitality which the Party did not share and could not kill.' N.

3 3

Re: [B7L] IMIPAK
by M 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:41:24 -0500, Dana Shilling wrote: > Jacqui said: > > > The logical assumption is that what we saw was the prototype: if it had > been developed as an acutual weapon it would have 'dial a death' facilities. > Now, THAT's voice mail hell: Press 1 to exterminate the person > directly in front of you, Press 2 to exterminate the last five > people marked... > > -(Y) > Oh ye - oops I just pressed the wrong button!!!???? M. _______________________________________________________ Get 100% private, FREE email for life from Excite UK Visit http://inbox.excite.co.uk/

1 0

Re: [B7L] liking 'character'
by Harriet Monkhouse 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

Sally told Neil: >Blake is being fabulously unreasonable and >pig-headed, Vilakins is doing his kid-locked- >out-of-a-candy-store bit, and Avon's wearing > those boots ... > >How can you compete? Neil can rise to the challenge of fabulously pigheaded, surely! About the rest... hm... I have a sudden rather ridiculous vision of him donning red leather trousers to keep Sally's attention... Harriet

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