Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Avon, sexism and the whole kit and caboodle
by Cheryl _ 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

I have been reading a large number of an even larger number of posts and I have been interested in the varying opinions of the writers. Due to the fact that I have at times found myself floundering in a sea of terms, expressions and quotes to which I am largely unfamiliar(not being an idiot but perhaps not as well read in the field of philosophy and politics as others on this list may be)I have sometimes had to sign out as a headache often approaches after a while :-) I nonetheless do understand the bulk of the arguments and would finally like to add my own thoughts to these. If you are interested - please read on. I would like to clarify now, that I understand that these are my own opinions and hope this will be okay, so I don't have to keep inserting (IMO). Re: Character Vs Interesting stuff - let me start off by admitting that I am a character junkie - I love the characters - they are essential to the enjoyment and/or interest of a show. Plot is important I will not deny that, however; it is only important if the accompanying dialogue is well expressed - it is the characters themselves who stress the importance of the plot and it is in viewing their actions and reactions that we the viewer become enmeshed in the whole experience. Re: Deliverance, I have already posted on this once but I would like to add a few things: 'Isms' are a part of our society - we see an 'ism' in everything - I can't believe the stress we place on every single action that man takes and when I say man, I refer to mankind collectively as in male and female persons. I am female of man - I see no need to change the term man to person. I am very comfortable with being a woman and I might add a particularly strong woman at that and I am not intimidated by the role that men play in society - I can be very angry by obvious sexist actions and statements but I'll be damned if I'm going to spend my precious years on this planet looking for them. Deliverance is simply a pleasant little story whereupon a technologically advanced male and his male comrades are saved from probable death by a lone female of a dying static society and in gratitude, help her to launch a rocket containing the genetic stock of her people, hopefully to somewhere where their race can continue its survival. Anything else, such as Meegat's need to prostrate herself at Avon's feet etc can be taken anyway you want - I choose to see the reverence in her actions - if others choose to see sexism, fine...but life really is too short. Re: Liking 'Characters' I would like to make a point on the issue of 'what is more important, the words or their delivery' comment and the subsequent responses. Words are basically a means of communication - for those on this planet who do not use words then sounds/signals are the means of communication and to make a point these sounds/signals are stressed in many different ways to send a message. I don't understand any other animal speak except human so I will forgo the other examples - however; if morse code consisted of simply one tone we wouldn't get very far in communication - the same applies for words - they are a handy tool but just that - a tool - to get a message across we use this tool in our delivery and it is to the delivery that we understand and respond. A classic example is the internet - I have found when I have typed something in response to something and I am being(or at least attempting) to be humorous or feeling lighthearted/happy, I feel the need to put a smiling face down as sometimes statements can be terribly ambiguous - however; were I to respond in person, then the recipient of my humour etc, would be able to tell by my tone and facial expressions that I was responding in a light hearted manner, and therefore, hopefully not take offence. Re: Avon apologists - I guess, I slot into that category and for what it's worth - I truly find reasons behind alot of his actions and statements that seem plausible to me. To be honest, if I couldn't, I wouldn't like him - on the surface he is not a likeable character - I guess what we Avon fans see is somewhere just below the surface - something we found and admired in those few brief moments when we saw the mask removed. I guess that's it for now - hopefully no offence was taken as none was intended. Cheryl. _____________________________________________________________________________ http://entertainment.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Entertainment - Feeling a little bored? Need some entertainment?

1 0

Redemption disco theme
by Steve Rogerson 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

Ooops, sorry, we forgot to mention in the Redemption progress reports that we are doing a glam rock and Rocky Horror theme for the disco again on Saturday, so don't forget to bring appropriate costumes. We will also be showing the Rocky Horror video on Sunday evening. -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson "In my world, there are people in chains and you can ride them like ponies" The alternative Willow, Buffy the Vampire Slayer

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Subtext vs Character
by Sally Manton 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

Neil wrote: <What I do think, and I'm quite aware that this might be nothing more than a reflection of my own prejudices, is that my distaste for character junkieism (as opposed to those who practice it) lies in what I perceive as a superficial appraisal of the series. There is an exagerrated awareness of differences between individuals, whereas I tend to look for similarities, which in turn leads to the social or, dare I say, the ideological.> Certainly there's a balance to be struck between the two, since leaning too far in the direction of the social - *denying* their individuality in favour of ideological archtypes - would probably end up as superficial as anything a blind Avonite could manage. Not that I'm saying that's what you're doing, but what we have - what we *all* have - is different perceptions of where the balance lies for ourselves. I'm not sure that this is so much a matter of prejudice as merely personal taste. After all, there's also those who spend time and many words in making sense of the physics - the hardware aspect - of the show, which is also a part of the background but which I am *not* much interested in per se (tying the Federation to historical parallels in totalitarian dictatorship, yes. Tying the FTL capabilities of the Liberator to real physics, not really. But that's just me). Do more people lean to the individual rather than the overview? I'm not that sure, going by what I read on this list (on the other list, oh yes :-)). Going over the recent years' archives, there's actually a goodly mixture of *all* types of threads and POVs within the threads (see the dreaded Star One discussions for almost the whole range). Maybe it's just that some of us character junkies burble more ... <There is also a focus on immediate impressions - what is said or done (or worn - now that is what I really do call superficial) - with an implied reluctance to look deeper than the cosmetic surface.> Oh but Neil, and here I am working out a theory of how the changes in Avon's attire over time can represent his relative emotional state :-) But is extrapolating societal or ideological significance from what actually happens on screen *really* any deeper and more meaningful per se than extrapolating an individual's thoughts and emotions from the same evidence? Or is it just a larger screen? Both ways *do* use the same evidence - "what is said or done" - and both *try* to look deeper, but in different directions. I like to turn a microscope onto My Darling; you prefer a magnifying glass on the background. <And that devotion to 'playing the game' - discounting the external contribution of the process of production (writers, directors, actors, budget etc).> Is okay by me as long *as* we all remember it's a game. Then again, so might be second-guessing the people involved in the production. <Which is fine for threads that confine themselves within those limits, but not so fine when it gets dumped on threads that try to step out of those narrow parameters.> Now is that fair? Most of us *aren't* specifically thinking about what particular parameters the thread or our answer comes under, just trying to add our pennysworth (even if inflated at the price) to a discussion we find interesting. And if we *do* think individual characterisation is central to the matter under discussion (as I still do with 'is Avon a sexist pig in Deliverance?' which *was* the post that started it all :-) not 'does Avon represent an chauvinist porcinery in general) then we are not going to approach it from an angle that seems less relevant. Maybe I'm wrong from a non-character-junkie's POV, but I do tend to see it from my own ... <It comes across as deliberate sabotage sometimes.> <sotto voce> Rats. He found out. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

6 7

Sexism and individuality (Was probably Deliverance at one point)
by Tavia Chalcraft 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

Neil retailed an anecdote of his youth (sorry lost original message) about someone who mistook him on basis of perceived gender for a car mechanic, and implied (I think) that this person's eventual assessment of him as 'bloody useless' became in some fashion part of his 17-years-ago self. I find this extremely odd. I work a lot via telephone and e-mail with men of (self-)perceived high status who often choose to treat me like a secretary. These days I find this rather amusing, and certainly do not feel it reflects on me in the slightest. If people choose to misassess other people on the basis of gender, appearance, job title or whatever, this has no effect whatsoever on the misassessed person (though clearly it reflects on the assessor). Um... surely? Tavia

1 0

Re: [B7L] liking 'character'
by Sally Manton 10 Feb '01

10 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.> I have this sad but seemingly ineradicable fondess for dashes ... _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Deliverance
by Sally Manton 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

Neil wrote: <Even if he does what he's told, but does it his way (because it's *his*) then that could be taken as a manifestation of sexism. But if she makes unreasonable demands on him *because* he's a man, then that is not sexism but a reaction to it.> Given that (if I understand you correctly, and BTW agree with you if I have) B7 society is patriarchal) does this mean that Servalan's prelediction for hitting on her subordinates like that pretty toyboy in SLD may be nasty but could not be called sexism? _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Subtext vs Character
by Sally Manton 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

Neil wrote: <Whereas to me, it referred to the imagery, and the imagery was that of a rocket being fired off by a man who happened to be Avon. That it *was* Avon is almost irrelevant, it's the imagery that matters.> Exactly my point. From your POV, of course I appeared to be hijacking the thread, but I wasn't, truly (well, not deliberately :). <True, we have the problem of differing viewpoints. But I notice that you refer to the subtext as 'perceived', implying that it is not really there.> Oh no, sorry, that's *not* what I meant by using that word, just trying (in my humble way) to accomodate the fact that some people in the discussion do see this *particular* subtext in this particular episode and, as you said, it is real to them and others like me do not see it (well, not here or in the same way). And some see it skewed one way and others skewed differently. And some see one particular subtext (or a whole range of interwoven ones) and others see a completely different set. Whole range of perspectives, each valid in its own way (yes, even the A-B one I'm deeply wedded to :-)) and I freely acknowledge that I could be the one in error. I do agree that it's easier to *remember* to put in something like 'perceived', or 'apparent' (and the all-important IMHO) when it's not a view one holds personally - if anyone feels I'm casting doubt on the validity of *their* views, I apologise. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Travis 1 vs 2.
by Nathan Hook 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

Personally I like Greif over Croucher. Two reasons. One I like Griefs voice better. I grabbed a sound file form a web site with grief announcing, 'Oh thats very amusing Blake, for a dead man.' The inflection in the voice is fantastic. His voice beats Crouchers hands down, Croucher always lacked that sense of authority and ruthlessness. Two: i think I got used to Greif, even though he only appeared in a few episodes. He was Travis. this is not intending to denigrade Croucher as an actor, however, i wonder if the roles had been reversed, would we have preferred Greif or Croucher? Pure conjecture. > >Now somebody mentioned the possibility of men of ordinary rank or background making the rank of Travis' - an officer. Did travis in other words? It's possible. However, if we look at army culture now and how it works, certainly in the UK and here in NZ, which is based on the same model, the average squaddie or grunt, is never going to make officer. Having some experience of and known many friends who were/are invlolved in the army as grunts or officers, the general concensus is; they(squaddies) neither have the inclination and ruthlessly, often don't have the brains. >Now this may sound extremely harsh, but a nz soldier earns about NZ $27 000, which is a pitance. I would want a lot more money if I was to be paid to be shot at.(the foods good though) privates, are shouted at, drilled and smacked about. this is done by lance corporals and corporals, who are only half a step up, or a step up from the privates. due to the general lack of intelligence amongst them and the fact they have "power" over other people, they rip into people. the saying goes, shit rolls down hill. in non - comissioned ranks this is certainly true. those with rank over inferiors are often overgrown bully boys who enjoy squashing people, just becuase it makes them feel good. Sometimes it serves a pupose and there are exceptions and exceptional people, however the officer ranks are a world apart from the non-commissioned ones. It is extremely difficult to move between the two. Indeed there is hatred from ordinary soldiers for officers. Officers are far better educated and! better treated than the ordinary soldier. There is a clear demarkation between ranks. In the Uk this is particularly noticable, as you listen to the speech of an officer as compared to a soldier of a non-commissioned rank. The speech thing is not so distinct in NZ, we're not separated by old ingrained class structures which seem to still exist in the UK, but you don't find non-commissioned personnel sitting in your military history papers at university. >A rather blunt assessment of army culture, but it's been this way for a very long time, and is very slow to change. >If we look at the structure of federation society, we know that people were ranked on intelligence. Villa supposedly hid his intelligence. Blake was an alpha grade and Tarrant attended the Federation Space Academy, which if we remember, was for talanted pilots and officers...that is if tarrant wasn't lying. listen to the voice, compared to villa. Essentially a class system. society may change with the advancement of technology, but human behaviour and motivations are the same. Hence shakespeare still relevant and popular as an observation on human behaviour. >Travis himself recognised a clear ranking system. 'I'm a field officer! Not one of your decorative staff men.' >Look at Parr in trial...clear difference in who had the rank and power. could you imagine Parr defending himself in a court marshal like travis did? >Servalan and her pilots in moloch. She ranked them far above Grosse and his rank and file rabble. >If the rest of Federation society was based on intellectual rank, then the armed services would most certainly have been. >Nayte. 'A lady of a "certain age", which means/ Certainly aged.'Byron. ------------------------------------------------------------ Free, BeOS-friendly email accounts: http://BeMail.org/ love and pixels .:. http://dieselsweeties.com/

2 1

liking 'character'
by Sally Manton 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

Alison wrote: <For the most part characters in fiction are a lot less complex than real characters. <snip> So, I often find ideas, milieux and plots more interesting than fictional characters, because I frequently think that fictional characters are simplistic, rigid, and implausible. They reflect the author's prejudices, and reinforce the readers'.> Interesting, but I'd definitely say that the same is true of "ideas, milieux and plots" in a lot of fiction. The average difference between real people and homo fictus is probably no greater than the difference between real life messiness and unfinishedness, and the constraints of an acceptable fictional plot., even a brilliant one. And <g> how *can* you claim that the ideas and themes of a story would *not* reflect the author's prejudices? I would've said that was the *most* likely place his own mindset would imprint, even more so than the characters he invents to illustrate those ideas. And Neil: <I think it was Steven Pacey, in some interview or other, who observed that ninety per cent of the lines for the regular cast could have been given to just about any of the characters.> <gurgle> Well, this could have been due to the fact that a lot of *his* ('specially in 3rd season) could have been handed round like a cheese platter ... yes, Tarrant is a fairly straightforward and standardised hero, Dayna and Soolin are underwritten, Jenna is a fairly standard bar-room-hostess type (hard as nails, heart of tarnished gold), Gan is a even more fairly standard Nice Guy. A lot of their lines *could* be switched, maybe, though they'd still need a fair tweaking to make them sound right (if anyone can imagine Dayna doing Gan's moral protests in Shadow with a straight face, or Jenna coming out with Tarrant's mini-sermons on crewmanship, said one is doing better than I am IMO). After all, see the number of complaints when Dayna - in Animals - *does* sound like she's been given Cally-lines. If they're interchangeable, how come we all notice the difference :-)? And it gets worse with the more intensely individual characters. If you try handing Vila's lines to Tarrant or Dayna, or Her Supremeness's lines to Meegat, 'tis a whole new ball game (and would be a *completely* different show, possible rather a fun one) wouldn't it? Of course, the same is true for real live people (everyone be honest, how much of what you've actually said so far today is *that* unique it couldn't have been duplicated by the person standing next to you on the street? Even setting aside the "Mornin'", "Coffee, anyone?" "Bloody awful weather, innit?" "Where in the world did I put the keys?", "Who the hell's got the ACME file now?" stuff. <Actually, you can have fun with this - take a script and swap lines about. It works most of the time.> Am trying to imagine 'Gambit' with Travis 1 ... no it *don't*, Neil :-) <I suppose the character junkies' retort would be that although you keep the same words, they get delivered in a completely different way.> No, the words have to be different, at least a bit. The more definite characters - Blake, Avon, Vila and Servalan - do IMO use the language in their own way. Try, for instance, any of Avon & Blake's sparring and switch them (that lovely opening scene in Redemption, for instance). Might work for you, but it doesn't for me. Avon is precisely perfect in his speech, Blake carelessly perfect. There is a difference. Then compare it with Avon's part in his and Tarrant's bland little spat in Sarcophagus; the difference in how he talks *to the other individual characters* is there as well. Also, as far as delivery goes, there's a significant difference between the way Avon talks in 2nd and 4th seasons - his voice is a lot more harsh and theatrical in the later episodes. But it still sounds like *Avon* (albeit an Avon after the rather heavy canonical dumping he received from Rumours to rescue). _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

3 3

liking 'character'
by Alison Page 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

Another complication is that there is a difference between liking stories based around 'character', and being particularly interested in human characters. After all one might be a mountain climber, but not care for mountaineering films. For the most part characters in fiction are a lot less complex than real characters. Also they don't generally put a bomb under your ideas in the way real people do. Put it like this. A racist person might see Hal Mellanby and think to him/her self 'ah, but in real life black people aren't clever enough to be top scientists - it's just BBC political correctness' (or whatever racist people think in the privacy of their own minds). But in real life if they are confronted with a black person who (say) explains quantum mechanics to them, they don't have this escape do they? Real life puts a bomb under preconceptions. The same with your ideas on sexism, love, self-sacrifice, totalitarianism etc. So, I often find ideas, milieux and plots more interesting than fictional characters, because I frequently think that fictional characters are simplistic, rigid, and implausible. They reflect the author's prejudices, and reinforce the readers'. Only if a character is very well done (or, I suppose, to be honest) reflects my particular prejudices and priorities, do I value that character very highly. The best character descriptions of all are those which make you recognise something in real life that you have never noticed before. But crikey, I think you almost need to be Jane Austen to pull that trick off again and again. Alison ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************

5 5

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