Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Re: [B7L] Subtext vs Character, or would Mr Humphries have pushed the right buttons?
by Natasa Tucev 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

Fiona wrote: >> whole book by L. Trilling, 'Beyond Culture' > >To which I would counter R. Jenkins, "Social Identity." What is it about? >> One can also reach beyond culture by resorting to one's innermost core, >> instincts and feelings, or to the simple biological facts of life: your >body >> is not a product of your society, and it is also you. > >Yes, but for how long? What you're saying is that it's only possible to >resist culture by withdrawing totally from it. Which is a fair point, but I >think it also makes it clear that as human beings we are irrevocably linked >with our cultures. A quote from Trilling: 'We reflect that somewhere in the child, somewhere in the adult, there is a hard, irreducible, stubborn core of biological urgency, and biological necessity, and biological *reason*, that culture cannot reach and that reserves the right, which sooner or later it will excercise, to judge the culture and resist and revise it.' This doesn't sound like a withdrawal tactic to me. >> (A good example of this is Orwell's W.Smith, who cannot compare his >wretched >> living conditions with anything different in his experience, but feels in >> his bones and his stomach that everything around him is wrong.) > >But again, this decision and feeling is not outside his society. Smith has >not personally experienced anything different, but other parts of the book >suggest that he would have had at least casual contact with ideas about >other ways of being, through his parents or through old people like the >prole man in the pub. Indeed, to have contact with 'ideas about other ways of being' is another option cited by Trilling, which I've also mentioned. It enables an individual to view his/her culture from another standpoint - by comparing it with other traditions or other cultures. Winston's mother conveys a very important notion in the book. The governing ideology of Winston's world claims that one's greatest loyalties should lie with the state, Party and Big Brother. Winston's mother was able to resist this system, not because she was well educated in history or politics, but because she gave supremacy to her private loyalties - her family and children. This is a very primitive, un-intellectual notion, but it actually implies a way to remain human. In one of the first scenes in the novel, Winston watches a movie in which a mother tries to protect her son from a bomb by embracing him. Love cannot protect one from physical harm, but it makes all the difference. Winston is, however, incapable of resisting his culture by resorting to this same instinctive, emotional core of his being, because the inhuman society in which he lives has conditioned him too thoroughly: when, after a bombing, he sees a human hand in the street, he simply kicks it aside. Hey, Orwell is a part of the curriculum, so I'm *very* prepared - this List still doesn't match my students in asking tricky questions! (Er, I cannot find a B7 point here, unless someone wants to apply the hand symbolism to Travis...) N.

1 0

Re: the patriarchy
by Helen Krummenacker 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

> Is Blake's cause thus a disguised attempt to legitimize and restore > patriarchal authority? Discuss. > > > Una > Cally-as-warrior, in her first depiction, was going to try to singlehandedly destroy a complex staffed basically by the male Federation troopers. Vila, in City, unites with a woman to fight Babin, a perfectly macho man. Macho men are hardly portrayed sympathetically in the 'hairy barbarian' storylines. Avon, as a thin, quiet, intellectual, is in the 'effeminate' role according to past cultural biases. He is often referred to on this list as a Geek, which has only been considered a good thing for one decade. Tarrant is perhaps the most 'masculine' figure, yet he is also frequently abrasive and the crew does not choose him to lead them. Blake has no love interest ever mentioned, alone of all the men. He does not seek to take power when he overthrows the Federation, but rather wishes worlds to have independent rule. He works with Avalon and Le Grande. I think Blake's 7 consicously tries to *not* be a sexist, patriarchal show, although it is difficult. Should a show be written with no vilianesses? Do that, and you show no strong women in antagonistic roles, and the Federation becomes in itself a sexist organization. Shold a show never put the female protagonists in danger? Do that and there's a problem with predictablilty as well as believability. Of course, Cally and Jenna should have had better roles with more leadership. Dayna should have had a dramatic, solo death as her desire to kill Servalan pushed her beyond the bounds of sense. Soolin might have not rejoined the other rebels on Guada Prime and had a spin-off series of her own. That's what I'd do to get rid of the bias that was inherent in the series-- the main one being that the nice girls let the boys be leader instead of pushing their own agendas.

1 0

Re: why characters
by Helen Krummenacker 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

> All of which adds up to not feeling free to poke around in the > psyches of real people. Fictional characters, on the other hand, are > fair game. You can stare at them, dissect them, poke and prod them, > gossip about them... All utterly guilt-free! I, personally, find that > completely impossible to resist, and, for *me*, that's the answer to > "why characters?" I have absolutely no idea how common or unusual I am > in that respect. Well, Betty, I don't think I could put it any better myself. I would also say that I find the Blake's 7 characters a bit better to rummage in the minds of than many series; they seem more realistic than, say, the Star Trek: TNG characters. Aside from Blake's 7, B5, and Buffy, I mostly stick to written fiction for insight on mental workings.

1 0

Re: Re [B7L] Deliverance - keg marxist take
by Ellynne G. 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:54:09 -0000 "Fiona Moore" <nydersdyner(a)yahoo.co.uk> writes: > Yes, but as an anthropologist I'd like to point out that people tend > to be > informed by the values of the society in which they were raised. I'd > like to > recommend "The Handmaids Tale," which makes a good case for the > rather > sinister similarities between the hardcore left and the hardcore > right. Uh, oh. Can I safely admit to hating "The Handmaid's Tale"? I thought it resorted to straw man arguments and largely failed to deal with the question of how that society _should_ have dealt with danger of extermination due to radically dropping fertility rates (the scenario given was counterproductive [and it's likelyhood struck me as extremely questionable (Hey, we're in danger of dying out! Let's fix it by putting the few women able to have children under so much stress no one should expect them to be able to have any!)]). > > > fertility of the primitives is declining so a female > > would be a valued commodity. > > Actually, that depends too. Witness female abandonment in parts of > China; in > a generation or two, their fertility will be seriously impaired by > the > excess of males, but this doesn't stop families abandoning surplus > daughters > in favour of sons. Two points. Incidents of North American Indians kidnaping settlers seem to have risen in direct response to higher death rates (more from disease, at that point, than warfare). Who was taken, why, and how they were incorporated into the group varied from tribe to tribe. But, of adults, more women seem to have chosen _not_ to return than men (although, this may represent women who wound up in Quebec due to French-Indian alliances). Second point. China has only begun to feel the crunch of its one child policy. The results aren't pretty (side issue of irritation with Bujold [one of my favorite authors] for ignoring the dark side of high percentage male populations). Women being sold (against their will) as either wives or prostitutes is on the rise. Also, it should be noted that this is an artificially induced imbalance which gives families the choice of preserving the family (through the male line) or (as they see it) sacrificing the family's existance for the good of society (not a defense, merely context [which should also be weighed against women, who kept a first born daughter, being forced to have abortions if they try again ('abortion' sometimes meaning killing a newborn, illegal infant) and the frightening fact that female children placed in orphanges are known to be greatly loved by their parents - the fact the child wound up there alive usually represents incredible risks on the part of one or both parents]). > > Again, primitive societies do have primitive belief > > systems. > > Which actually tend to be extremely complex, I so agree. and not at all like the > rather > facile and fatuous one presented in Deliverance. Well, we only see one rather limited aspect of it, but you have a point. > >In Canada, for instance, the French > and > English didn't come charging in, gun down the natives and take their > land-- > they sent in a few people to get involved in the fur trade, then a > few more, > then a few more. That doesn't make Deliverance any less colonialist. Uh, but there is a reason so many Indians in the U.S. opted to move to Canada having to do with better treatment and greater likelyhood of having certian basic rights respected. Whatever Avon's shortcomings as a god figure (don't get me started), he did what Meegat wanted and, genetically at least, saved her people (I only hope a good training program was included in that ship). 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.

2 1

Re: [B7L] Gareth in the news
by J MacQueen 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

>From: Mac4781(a)aol.com >There's a review of the Brunton production of HAMLET that fans of Gareth >should especially appreciate. Go to the Edinburgh Evening News >site--http://www.edinburghnews.com/ --and do a search for "Hamlet." Thanks for that, Carol. I'm glad the reviewer thought well of Gareth. Could've done without the caption for the accompanying picture, though... Regards Joanne _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Torture
by B7Morrigan＠aol.com 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

I wrote: > >As I perceive it, the real focus in h-c is upon the relationship(s) > >between the other character(s) and the one who is hurt. Any > >marked change or growth occurs in the comforter's perspective > >of the one who is hurt. Tavia: > This is certainly one way of playing it, and it's what comes through in > those h/c stories of yours that I've read. However, as I recall from > discussions on TOL relating to your 'The Bargaining Chip', that wasn't the > way most B7 fans/writers understood the genre. "Bargaining Chip" most certainly emphasized that aspect of h-c but I've found it throughout fanfiction, both B7 and otherwise. I could probably provide examples if I gave this some time but off the top of my head, Sheila Paulson's work comes to mind as an example. > >By forcing the comforter (and sometimes other background characters) > >to reflect upon the character who has been hurt, ... > >In other words, h-c can be a bit of a soapbox for the author. > > This confused me... Why should anyone need to postulate injury to climb up > on a soapbox...? I might be misunderstanding but I don't see the need to > stab X in the lung to get Y to appreciate them. Tried and tested > substitutes short of lung-stabbing include X threatening to disappear (to > satellites) &c.... The injury and threat to the character's well-being elicits a protective reaction not found in the substitutes you cite. This emotional response is stronger than that elicited by X *choosing* to leave. Any appreciation by Y of X's sterling qualities and abilities is somewhat offset by the fact that X is either threatening to leave, has chosen to do so, or is otherwise consciously deciding something other than what Y would like. Y's own self-protective barriers would guard against that reaction. Can an author get Y to appreciate X without putting X in peril? Of course, but it's less direct and more difficult. Morrigan

1 0

Gareth in the news
by Mac4781＠aol.com 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

There's a review of the Brunton production of HAMLET that fans of Gareth should especially appreciate. Go to the Edinburgh Evening News site--http://www.edinburghnews.com/--and do a search for "Hamlet." Carol Mc

1 0

Re: [B7L] Torture
by Tavia Chalcraft 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

Morrigan wrote: >As I perceive it, the real focus in h-c is upon the relationship(s) >between the other character(s) and the one who is hurt. Any >marked change or growth occurs in the comforter's perspective >of the one who is hurt. This is certainly one way of playing it, and it's what comes through in those h/c stories of yours that I've read. However, as I recall from discussions on TOL relating to your 'The Bargaining Chip', that wasn't the way most B7 fans/writers understood the genre. >By forcing the comforter (and sometimes other background characters) >to reflect upon the character who has been hurt, ... >In other words, h-c can be a bit of a soapbox for the author. This confused me... Why should anyone need to postulate injury to climb up on a soapbox...? I might be misunderstanding but I don't see the need to stab X in the lung to get Y to appreciate them. Tried and tested substitutes short of lung-stabbing include X threatening to disappear (to satellites) &c.... Tavia

1 0

Re: Deliverance (Meeghat)
by Helen Krummenacker 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

> > > I meant that, standing there in those robes acting all > > innocent, she's got Judaeo-Christian symbolism for > > "virginal" written all over her. Her actual state of > > virginity is a moot point. > I never thoguht about her sexual status at all. Tell me, would anyone think the episode was less misogynistic if, instead of acting innocent, Meeghat wiggled up to Avon, winked, told him she was wearing a thong and asked him if he was the lord come to help perpetuate her species? Okay, I think not. I think in that case, we would be agreeing on the rocket metaphor. So it's a *good* thing she wasn't sexualized, right? (I don't see the robes and her lack of sexual interest in any of the men to suggest "virginal" but I'm not a Christian)

2 1

Re: [B7L] Subtext vs Character, or would Mr Humphries have pushed the right buttons?
by Natasa Tucev 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

Neil wrote: > >> I said >> before, I do think having *Avon* in the role subverts it quite nicely > >No. He might subvert our expectations of the way in which the power >relation is expressed, but he does not subvert the power relation itself. >He can't, any more than the cowboy can stop being a cowboy and become an >indian. He is trapped there. As are we all. This is not true. We are not irrevocably trapped within our social and cultural roles. One's whole being is not contained within one's culture. A whole book by L. Trilling, 'Beyond Culture' is dedicated to this question and it proves very convincingly that there is a residue of personality, however small, over which general culture doesn't hold sway, and which provides a standpoint for resisting this culture. This may be expressed in one's interest in other cultures, other traditions, whose set of societal or moral values is different and can be used for making subversive comparisons. One can also reach beyond culture by resorting to one's innermost core, instincts and feelings, or to the simple biological facts of life: your body is not a product of your society, and it is also you. (A good example of this is Orwell's W.Smith, who cannot compare his wretched living conditions with anything different in his experience, but feels in his bones and his stomach that everything around him is wrong.) > >A lot depends on how much importance you place on the differences. The >differences emerge from the particularities of the characters. The >similarities are rooted in something deeper and wider - ideology. If you >want to study the characters, then yes, you look at the differences. If >your attention is focussed on ideological values embedded within a text (eg, >to assess it in terms of its didacticism) , you turn to the common ground >and ignore the differences. They're too distracting. I disagree again. If you're looking for ideological values within the text you cannot ignore the characters. A lot of what an author is consciously or unconsciously trying to tell us is conveyed through his characters. A character may be a typical representative of a certain class or society if it suits the author's intentions. It is also possible that an author believes he has created a very unique character, but that said character is still stereotypical, because the author is not aware of his own ideological limitations. Some characters, however, are truly unique, and cannot be reduced to their (or the author's) social and class background. Stephen Dedalus is not just another middle-class Irishman who lives in Dublin at the turn of the century. He is a very unique person who rebels against a whole range of social and religious dogmas. If you miss the peculiarities of his character, you miss just about everything the author is trying to tell you. Likewise, Roj Blake is not just another alpha-grade engineer or whatever. The author uses his character to express a certain set of values and ideas - the invincibility of human spirit, humane attitudes, 'dreams worth having'. Didacticism or the author's world-view are also expressed through characters and their clashes and differences. N.

8 7

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