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@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
From: Betty Ragan bragan@aoc.nrao.edu
Serious point desreving a serious answer.
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).
I could understand such repugnance if I were advocating seeing people *only* as such representations. But I'm not (though I suppose I may have given the impression that I was). People - real or fictional - are still people. But they are *also* representations of ideological positions whether you like it or not. I am, you are, and so is everyone else. (Which position they represent at any given time is variable, and generally several such positions will be occupied at any particular moment.) It's inescapable, like the force of gravity or the need to breathe. I would argue that in order to see a person more fully, you have to include the ideological dimension, because that is part of his or her being as a person in society.
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.
Au contraire. *Not* treating them otherwise is doing a grave disservice to the writers, without whom there would be no B7 at all. And the writers are real people (except the dead ones, but they were presumably real at the time), unlike the fictional characters they write about.
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.
Nevertheless, those specific established characters are acting as ideological mouthpieces, even though they may not have been written as such. Even if the subtext is changed by their actions, it is merely changed to a different subtext.
(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.)
But may very well have said pretty much the same things in a different way. If Blake's behaviour in Horizon (the communal eating scene) is anything to go by, it would have said exactly the same things in an even more obvious way.
People are people, but people are not just people. To see them only as people is getting close to what *I* would consider repugnant.
Neil
Betty said:
The scripts, after all, aren't written for generic, faceless ideological mouthpieces, they're written for specific, established characters
Except that apparently this one WAS written for Blake; Travis' scripts were written for Stephen Greif and in many cases delivered by Brian Croucher; and Animals was supposed to be about Cally's backstory, not Dayna's.
-(Y)
Dana Shilling wrote:
Betty said:
The scripts, after all, aren't written for generic, faceless ideological mouthpieces, they're written for specific, established characters
Except that apparently this one WAS written for Blake; Travis' scripts were written for Stephen Greif and in many cases delivered by Brian Croucher; and Animals was supposed to be about Cally's backstory, not Dayna's.
Well, yes. But IMO, this one was very well adapted for Avon (presumably by Chris Boucher?), and "Animals" didn't work in large part precisely *because* it didn't fit with Dayna in Cally's role (sorry, Una!). And the mismatch between Grief's portrayal and Croucher's portrayal of the same character is why I strongly prefer the original Travis (sorry, Penny!). In other words, when the characters' individual personalities *aren't* taken into account in the writing of a script, the result is usually a bad script.
I'm still mulling over Neil's responses to this post of mine, btw. I must say, Neil's worldview appears to be quite alien to mine, and thus, while interesting, rather difficult to respond to. I think the main source of the difference in viewpoint, actually, may be that I don't regard "ideology" as representing anything *real*. Ideology just consists of ideas in people's heads. And those ideas can be very powerful, true, but they spring from people, not the other way around. But, like I said, I'm still mulling...
At 11:56 AM 2/6/01 -0700, Betty Ragan wrote:
..."Animals" didn't work in large part precisely *because* it didn't fit with Dayna in Cally's role (sorry, Una!). And the mismatch between Grief's portrayal and Croucher's portrayal of the same character is why I strongly prefer the original Travis (sorry, Penny!).
"I really admire what you're doing, Mr. Durden."
All right, Una, what say we do to Betty what Alison's femininjas did to Norman Mailer... -- "Tyler and Marla are never in the same room. I never see them together. Still, you never see me and Zsa Zsa Gabor together, and this doesn't mean we're the same person."
Penny wrote:
At 11:56 AM 2/6/01 -0700, Betty Ragan wrote:
..."Animals" didn't work in large part precisely *because* it didn't fit with Dayna in Cally's role (sorry, Una!). And the mismatch between Grief's portrayal and Croucher's portrayal of the same character is why I strongly prefer the original Travis (sorry, Penny!).
"I really admire what you're doing, Mr. Durden."
All right, Una, what say we do to Betty what Alison's femininjas did to Norman Mailer...
Only if I get to play with those nunchuks she mentioned.
Una
Penny Dreadful wrote:
All right, Una, what say we do to Betty what Alison's femininjas did to Norman Mailer...
Wait, don't I have a Get Out of Karaoke Free card still lying around here somewhere?
At 06:12 PM 2/6/01 -0700, Betty Ragan wrote:
Wait, don't I have a Get Out of Karaoke Free card still lying around here somewhere?
But that was another List, and besides, it didn't take Una into account. Nunchuks ahoy! -- "These must be T.V. potatoes." --The Inn Chef
At 01:45 7-2-01 -0700, Penny Dreadful wrote:
At 06:12 PM 2/6/01 -0700, Betty Ragan wrote:
Wait, don't I have a Get Out of Karaoke Free card still lying around here somewhere?
You obviously didn't look at the fine print, which is easily readable if you put it under a microscope with a magnification of about 100. I would like to refer you to the part where it reads: "This card can be revoked by any member of FINALACT whenever the circumstances warrant it."
That last bit means "when we bloody well feel like it."
But that was another List, and besides, it didn't take Una into account.
There's no accounting for Una...
Nunchuks ahoy!
What, we suddenly have Nunchuks as well? Damn, now I'll have to start training with those, too. There's only so many hours in a day, you know.
Jacqueline
"Una" == Una McCormack una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk writes:
Jacqueline wrote:
There's no accounting for Una...
Oi! I *am* listening, you know!
Well then, feel free to do all the accounting you feel like.
Responding to me, Penny Dreadful wrote:
Wait, don't I have a Get Out of Karaoke Free card still lying around here somewhere?
But that was another List, and besides, it didn't take Una into account. Nunchuks ahoy!
Aaargh! Um, will it help if I say that I really liked Croucher in "Trial"? And, um, "Animals" was, um... well, not nearly as bad as "Harvest of Kairos"? :)
At 10:39 AM 2/7/01 -0700, Betty Ragan wrote:
Aaargh! Um, will it help if I say that I really liked Croucher in "Trial"?
No. You have to say you really liked him in "Hostage". And you have to say it like you mean it. And then you have to write "I WILL NOT PROVOKE THE WRATH OF F.I.N.A.L.A.C.T." a hundred times on the blackboard. And don't try to pull any of that "use the musical-score-line-drawing-thing to write five lines simultaneously" business either--Jacqueline's got an itchy Karaoke finger. -- For A Dread Time, Call Penny: http://members.tripod.com/~Penny_Dreadful/
Penny Dreadful wrote:
Aaargh! Um, will it help if I say that I really liked Croucher in "Trial"?
No. You have to say you really liked him in "Hostage". And you have to say it like you mean it.
Er. Um. Er. Well, he was better in "Hostage" than in "Weapon"...
And then you have to write "I WILL NOT PROVOKE THE WRATH OF F.I.N.A.L.A.C.T." a hundred times on the blackboard. And don't try to pull any of that "use the musical-score-line-drawing-thing to write five lines simultaneously" business either--Jacqueline's got an itchy Karaoke finger.
Do I have to put in all the periods between the letters?
At 03:24 PM 2/7/01 -0700, Betty Ragan wrote:
Er. Um. Er. Well, he was better in "Hostage" than in "Weapon"...
I'll give you full points for diplomacy. The initial hesitation diminishes the illusion of sincerity somewhat, though.
Do I have to put in all the periods between the letters?
If you'll look closer, you'll observe that they're actually blood fingerprints. Eight hundred of them, mind, so be sure and pace yourself. -- "This is the kind of conversation that can only end in a gunshot."
----- Original Message ----- From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org To: B7 Lyst blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 6:56 PM Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Subtext vs Character
Dana Shilling wrote:
Betty said:
The scripts, after all, aren't written for generic, faceless ideological mouthpieces, they're written for specific, established characters
Except that apparently this one WAS written for Blake; Travis' scripts were written for Stephen Greif and in many cases delivered by Brian Croucher;
But from Hostage on, they were written for Brian Croucher. Anyway, I don't see why having different actors in the same role should be a problem: look at Hamlet, for heaven's sake. Or a bit closer to home, what about Doctor Who? Most of the scripts were written for generic-Doctor-and-companion, and the individual quirks were put in by the script editor and the actors.
Anyway, in the Travis case it's the same character-- bit of a difference between a script written for a particular character being played by a different actor than the one the writer expected, and a script originally written for Blake being adapted to be for Avon.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:16:32PM -0000, Fiona Moore wrote:
But from Hostage on, they were written for Brian Croucher. Anyway, I don't see why having different actors in the same role should be a problem: look at Hamlet, for heaven's sake. Or a bit closer to home, what about Doctor Who? Most of the scripts were written for generic-Doctor-and-companion, and the individual quirks were put in by the script editor and the actors.
Anyway, in the Travis case it's the same character-- bit of a difference between a script written for a particular character being played by a different actor than the one the writer expected, and a script originally written for Blake being adapted to be for Avon.
The problem is, Travis I and Travis II are too different. Yes, it is possible for the same character to be played by more than one actor successfully (and I don't just mean different productions of the same play). A good example of this is Stargate the movie as compared to Stargate SG-1 the series; the character of Daniel Jackson was played by James Spader in the movie and Michael Shanks in the series, and the "join" is seamless; they feel like the same character. The other character that appeared in both was Colonel Jack O'Neill, played by Kurt Russell in the movie and Richard Dean Anderson in the series. They are notably different; the Kurt Russell character is cold and burnt out, while the Richard Dean Anderson character is emotive and sarcastic. One *can* explain the difference by saying that O'Neill in the movie was still devastated by the death of his son, and the "real" O'Neill is the one we see in the series.
But Travis has no excuse... unless you blame the retraining therapists for turning a cold, sharp, snooty Alpha into a thuggy Beta who worked his way up the ranks. They are two completely different people.
Kathryn Andersen -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "You better listen to me. I'll tell him you were in here. I'll tell him it's all a plot. You're just using him to get that open. Yes. You know how he'd react to that, don't you? You don't mean that really is what's going on? That'd make you crazier than him." -- Vila to Norl (Blake's 7: City at the Edge of the World [C6])
----- Original Message ----- From: Kathryn Andersen kat@foobox.net
The problem is, Travis I and Travis II are too different. Yes, it is possible for the same character to be played by more than one actor successfully (and I don't just mean different productions of the same play). A good example of this is Stargate the movie as compared to Stargate SG-1 the series; the character of Daniel Jackson was played by James Spader in the movie and Michael Shanks in the series, and the "join" is seamless; they feel like the same character. The other character that appeared in both was Colonel Jack O'Neill, played by Kurt Russell in the movie and Richard Dean Anderson in the series. They are notably different; the Kurt Russell character is cold and burnt out, while the Richard Dean Anderson character is emotive and sarcastic. One *can* explain the difference by saying that O'Neill in the movie was still devastated by the death of his son, and the "real" O'Neill is the one we see in the series.
But Travis has no excuse... unless you blame the retraining therapists for turning a cold, sharp, snooty Alpha into a thuggy Beta who worked his way up the ranks. They are two completely different people.
Actually, Alan Stevens reminded me the other day that Chris Boucher was actually midway through "Trial" when the changeover came-- my bad :).
But, that aside, I still don't see it. I've seen "Julius Caesar" played totally straight by BBC actors dressed as ancient Roman aristocrats, and I've seen it played by an alternative theatre company who portrayed all the charactes as working-class Chicago mobsters. The interpretations of both companies were different, but one can't say that Marc Antony is a completely different character in both circumstances.
I also find your interpretation of Travis II a bit disturbing. So just because he has a regional accent, he's automatically a thug who has worked his way up through the ranks? How do you know that that isn't what officers sound like in the future?
On "Travis: the Final Act," (<gratuitous plug> still available for sale on Judith's website (though stocks are low)!</gratuitous plug>), Chris Boucher says that he saw Travis as someone who worked his way up through the ranks... but the implication there is that he saw *both* Travises that way.
I'll leave it to Penny to address your use of the term "thuggy." :).
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Fiona replying to Kathryn:
I also find your interpretation of Travis II a bit disturbing. So just because he has a regional accent, he's automatically a thug who has worked his way up through the ranks? How do you know that that isn't what officers sound like in the future?
Nobody mentioned his accent; your own assumptions are disturbing you. The Travii _behave_ differently. (I attribute this to emotional trauma, and have no difficulty seeing them as the same character.)
Mistral
----- Original Message ----- From: Mistral mistral@centurytel.net To: B7L blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 6:19 AM Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Subtext vs Character
Fiona replying to Kathryn:
I also find your interpretation of Travis II a bit disturbing. So just because he has a regional accent, he's automatically a thug who has
worked
his way up through the ranks? How do you know that that isn't what
officers
sound like in the future?
Nobody mentioned his accent; your own assumptions are disturbing you.
True, nobody mentioned his accent *directly*; I was picking up on the fact that Kathryn said that Travis II was a thug of a lower social class than Travis I. Since I don't think she could have read those differences in from the change in waist size (or from the change in behaviour; Travis I is just as menacing as Travis II), the only reason for inferring it as far as I can see is that Brian Croucher has a marked East End accent, and Stephen Greif doesn't.
If Chris Boucher always saw Travis as someone who had worked his way up from the ranks, then Stephen Greif may have been playing him as a man who had disguised his origins and changed his accent, while Brian Croucher was playing him as someone who had stayed true to his origins and taken stick for it.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Fiona Moore wrote:
Nobody mentioned his accent; your own assumptions are disturbing you.
True, nobody mentioned his accent *directly*; I was picking up on the fact that Kathryn said that Travis II was a thug of a lower social class than Travis I. Since I don't think she could have read those differences in from the change in waist size (or from the change in behaviour; Travis I is just as menacing as Travis II), the only reason for inferring it as far as I can see is that Brian Croucher has a marked East End accent, and Stephen Greif doesn't.
I wouldn't know an East End accent if it had me in a chokehold. I can tell they have different accents, but being an American, I don't have any of the social reference points to make it into a class association. I can still see what's being referred to. Travis I is IMO for the most part arrogant, self-contained, and focused, while Travis II is resentful, petulant, and obsessed. I tend to see them as a continuum, with hints of Travis II in Travis I; but someone else might easily read those as the reactions of someone who started within the power structure as opposed to someone who had to fight his way into it.
Mistral
--- Mistral mistral@centurytel.net wrote:
I wouldn't know an East End accent if it had me in a chokehold. I can tell they have different accents, but being an American, I don't have any of the social reference points to make it into a class association. I can still see what's being referred to. Travis I is IMO for the most part arrogant, self-contained, and focused, while Travis II is resentful, petulant, and obsessed. I tend to see them as a continuum, with hints of Travis II in Travis I; but someone else might easily read those as the reactions of someone who started within the power structure as opposed to someone who had to fight his way into it.
I guess my own take on this is that Grief plays Travis in SLD almost as a wicked squire (the accent, combined with the way he sneers at everyone). In his early episodes he's much more autonomous and self confident. In season 2 he's the man who is used to do the establishment's dirty work and then discarded - The East End accent is oddly appropriate, especially when he is making his speech in Trial. But you're right, Travis' behaviour is a continuum. His hysteria at the end of SLD, when Blake and Cally teleport out, prefigures his madness in Star One. I think that the key to Travis is that he is a conservative who has discovered the extent of the corruption of the established order - There are passages in Neil's "Wit and Wisdom of the Dead" that read like Alan Massie's Tiberius - whether his initial loyalty to that order comes from being born to it or working his way up the ranks is secondary to this. I prefer the second interpretation, but it is just a personal preference.
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Date stephend999@yahoo.co.uk
Travis' behaviour is a continuum. His hysteria at the end of SLD, when Blake and Cally teleport out, prefigures his madness in Star One.
Interesting! I never saw it like that, but now you mention it...
I think that the
key to Travis is that he is a conservative who has discovered the extent of the corruption of the established order
In "Travis: The Final Act" Chris Boucher says he doesn't think Travis would have thought about whether the system was good or evil until after he was betrayed by it, at which point everything in it was evil to him.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
I'm still mulling over Neil's responses to this post of mine, btw. I must say, Neil's worldview appears to be quite alien to mine, and thus, while interesting, rather difficult to respond to. I think the main source of the difference in viewpoint, actually, may be that I don't regard "ideology" as representing anything *real*. Ideology just consists of ideas in people's heads. And those ideas can be very powerful, true, but they spring from people, not the other way around. But, like I said, I'm still mulling...
Well, if my worldview is alien to yours, then maybe yours is to mine:). Which is why I asked "Why characters?" in the first place.
This paragraph seems rather muddled. Ideology might not be 'real', but then an awful lot of things aren't. A decision to sit down and watch, say, Deliverance isn't 'real' either, and neither is a speculation on how Blake would have reacted to Meegat. But speculations never stopped a character junkie!
I'm not surprised that this is muddled because it seems very hard to work through and get answers. I've spent the past couple of days trying to work out just how much importance I place on the characters, and why, or how, or where it's located, and I've yet to come up with any answers.
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. 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. And that devotion to 'playing the game' - discounting the external contribution of the process of production (writers, directors, actors, budget etc).
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.
It comes across as deliberate sabotage sometimes.
Neil
At 21:25 7-2-01 +0000, Neil Faulkner wrote:
And that devotion to 'playing the game' - discounting the external contribution of the process of production (writers, directors, actors, budget etc).
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.
Whoa, IIRC, the first protests appeared after it was stated that it was weird how "intelligent women" could possibly like Deliverance because it's so sexist. That's pretty much a direct challenge on this list. I don't see how you can call that "dumping our limits on threads." What I was saying pretty much amounted to: I don't see what you're seeing and I don't see how my pov is any less valid than your pov.
It comes across as deliberate sabotage sometimes.
Nah, we just like to piss you off.
BTW, I have not yet answered your last question, but several others have stated the way I feel pretty well. I don't really hold with ideologies, other than "as long as you don't hurt anyone, do as you bloody well please." I tend to look at people's actions and how they work out, rather than at their reasons. Which is another, and not all that shallow, reason for focusing on characters. When I see Deliverance, I see Avon being on his best behavior when he's with Meegat. As a matter of fact, he's behaving far better than I would have. Which teaches me just a little more about how to be diplomatic. You may have noticed that I'm not very good at that particular skill.
Jacqueline
Neil Faulkner wrote:
From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
I'm still mulling over Neil's responses to this post of mine, btw. I must say, Neil's worldview appears to be quite alien to mine, and thus, while interesting, rather difficult to respond to. I think the main source of the difference in viewpoint, actually, may be that I don't regard "ideology" as representing anything *real*. Ideology just consists of ideas in people's heads. And those ideas can be very powerful, true, but they spring from people, not the other way around. But, like I said, I'm still mulling...
Well, if my worldview is alien to yours, then maybe yours is to mine:). Which is why I asked "Why characters?" in the first place.
This paragraph seems rather muddled.
Well, that doesn't surprise me. I've been mildly ill lately, and I'm afraid my thinking is even fuzzier than usual. :)
Ideology might not be 'real', but then an awful lot of things aren't. A decision to sit down and watch, say, Deliverance isn't 'real' either, and neither is a speculation on how Blake would have reacted to Meegat. But speculations never stopped a character junkie!
No, no, speculations are fine by me. I'm still not entirely sure how to express my own viewpoint properly, actually, but I certainly don't intend to convey the idea that just because something isn't "real" (whatever that means) that it's meaningless or useless. I think it's more that, from my point-of-view, it's *individual people* who are of primary importance. It seems to me that to talk about ideologies as if they were something concrete, something "out there" independent of individual humans is... strange. And rather dangerous. The sort of logic that sets up governments to work "for the good of the State" while losing sight of the fact that "the State" is simply composed of the individual human beings who live there. That's the sort of association that this "ideology vs characters" thing has for me, anyway. I regard it as very important not to lose sight of the individual, and not to forget that all people are different. They may be shaped by their societies (something I would never dream of disputing) but they are not merely representations of their society, but complex beings in their own right.
I'm not surprised that this is muddled because it seems very hard to work through and get answers. I've spent the past couple of days trying to work out just how much importance I place on the characters, and why, or how, or where it's located, and I've yet to come up with any answers.
Yes, I have much the same problem. Everything I've said about why I *am* a character junky is accurate, I think, but every time I stop and think about it a little more deeply, I realize that, well, it's a bit more complex than *that*.
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.
This probably has a great deal to do with what you value, and what you find interesting. To me, people are far more interesting than societies, and, in a sense, more important, because, after all, societies are only the higher-order product of interactions between individual humans. (Actually, I'm aware that that doesn't necessarily follow. Yes, human beings are the higher-order product of interactions between neurons, and I don't find neurons all that interesting. But, unlike neurons, individual human beings are incredibly complex, and thus, to me, incredibly interesting.)
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.
That's very interesting to me, because it *is* very different from my own view of things. Agreed that focusing on fashion is highly superficial (though it can sometimes be fun!). But, to me, exploring the characters' internal lives *is* to look deeper than the superficial. To not simply accept the things that are said and done, but to explore *why* this thing was said and that thing was done, and what meaning those words and actions have for the people involved, beyond their superficial part in the action-adventure plot. In fact, if anything, I probably tend to see the background -- including many of the sociological aspects -- as something superficial, something that only takes on a real depth when you investigate the effect it has on the lives of these individual people.
The ideological dimension (if we want to call it that) may be more *abstract*, in a way, than the character dimension, but it seems mistaken to me to call it "deeper." How deep something is, in a context like this, I think, depends a hell of a lot on just how deep you're willing to *look* at it.
And that devotion to 'playing the game' - discounting the external contribution of the process of production (writers, directors, actors, budget etc).
Me, I can slip back and forth between the two modes, as necessary (and interesting), but, to me, "playing the game" is far more rewarding. Possibly because it requires a real creative effort on the part of the viewer. It's like a puzzle: can you make everything work together consistently? And if you *can*, the result is a very rewarding subcreated world (to borrow Tolkien's term).
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.
Good point. This is certainly the sort of thread where the two viewpoints can get quite tangled up. (I admit that I've had a bit of difficultly, through parts of this discussion, deciding just which mode I ought to be in at any given time.)
From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
Neil Faulkner wrote:
<big snip>
No, no, speculations are fine by me. I'm still not entirely sure how to express my own viewpoint properly, actually, but I certainly don't intend to convey the idea that just because something isn't "real" (whatever that means) that it's meaningless or useless. I think it's more that, from my point-of-view, it's *individual people* who are of primary importance.
That's the kind of attitude I tend to file under 'anthropocentricity', but it would be futile to single you out as a practitioner of this heinous practice since I seem to be in the very very small minority that considers it heinous in the first place.
Maybe it's because I'm a birder (who also knows a lot of wild plants, quite a few insects, various bits of marine life and other wildlifey things). Maybe that cultivates a different attitude towards people, both singly and collectively. I can effortlessly regard the entire human race as just another species, and not necessarily the one with the most going for it.
Responding to me, Neil Faulkner wrote:
No, no, speculations are fine by me. I'm still not entirely sure how to express my own viewpoint properly, actually, but I certainly don't intend to convey the idea that just because something isn't "real" (whatever that means) that it's meaningless or useless. I think it's more that, from my point-of-view, it's *individual people* who are of primary importance.
That's the kind of attitude I tend to file under 'anthropocentricity', but it would be futile to single you out as a practitioner of this heinous practice since I seem to be in the very very small minority that considers it heinous in the first place.
Hmm. Perhaps. I don't know, I certainly don't regard human beings as the center of the universe, and there are plenty of things that I find interesting that have nothing to do with humans at all (astronomy, for example). But we're talking about sociology and ideology here, and those are *human* things. And when we're talking about human things, I do believe it's important not to lose sight of the existence and importance of the individual.
From that perspective, human interests and human concerns can become very small and unimportant things (my own interests and concerns included). The 'primary importance' of individual people can very easily simply disappear when you look at the world through such a wide-angled lens.
Oh, I regard human interests (mine included) as pretty darned unimportant in the cosmic scheme of things. But they're *interesting*. Humans *interest* me. And our concerns are important to us. Certainly understanding how other humans beings tick is important to me in my own life. (More important, I would argue, on a practical day-to-day basis than higher-order sociological issues.)
Have you ever tried looking at people as *animals*?
Oh, absolutely. But I regard the individual as primary with a lot of animals, too. Just ask my cats!
I don't mean to dehumanise them in any way, just to stop seeing the person for a moment, and see instead an individual of one particular offshoot of the evolutionary tree.
You don't need to step aside from the person and lose sight of the individual to be aware of that person as a product of evolution. (Actually, evolutionary psychology is a field that interests me greatly, in my dabbling-layman sort of way.)
It seems to me that to talk about ideologies as if they were something concrete, something "out there" independent of individual humans is... strange. And rather dangerous. The sort of logic that sets up governments to work "for the good of the State" while losing sight of the fact that "the State" is simply composed of the individual human beings who live there.
You seem to be confusing ideology with political doctrine. Doctrine is largely overt, visible (in terms of government policy decisions etc) and unambiguous. Ideology - that tacit code of convention we all subscribe to - is largely invisible, and often very ambiguous.
Well, I was aware that I was making something of a jump there, yes. Your definition of ideology is a little different than the one I was thinking of, though, so thanks for clarifying it.
"The State" - or just society - is *not* simply composed of individuals. Once you start considering people collectively, they become something other than a collection of individuals. Many - perhaps most - people actually *want* to lose their individuality, at least temporarily, to become part of something that is larger and at least feels stronger.
Maybe it's just that, IMHO, this is generally a bad thing. I admit that one of the reasons I, personally, tend to keep the focus on individual humans is because I value individuality over conformity, and I *want* to keep the focus on individuals. I don't want to cultivate the attitude that leads to that sort of group behavior.
It can be quite exhilirating, even euphoric (I presume most of us have been there at some time or other, whether at a football match, a rock concert, or marching down a street waving banners. I can only lay claim to the last, and not for years now).
You know, I can't honestly recall a single time when I actually *felt* this. I've been to rock concerts, but was always extremely conscious of my individuality within the crowd.
(FWIW, I don't think any of us are half as unique as we might like to think we are. Our individuality - or sense of it - comes from the combination of traits, attitudes, experiences and behaviour patterns that make us what we are. Since there are only so many traits and attitudes etc, any single one is going to be shared by an awful lot of people. A smaller - but still sizable - sample is going to share several if not many of the same traits etc as yourself. A few will be very similar on most important counts. A lot of particularities seem to be co-related, so if you have one there's a good chance you'll have one or more of the others that go with it. Trainspotters aren't collectively labelled geeky anoraks for nothing.)
I agree with this, actually. But just because we share large bundles of traits in common with lots of other people (which is, actually, quite comforting -- I'd be depressed if I were the only B7 fan in the world), does not mean we are not all unique. Our environments, our life experiences, etc., all shape us, just as our inborn personality traits do. When you get down to the *details*, all of us are different. Me, I'm particularly interested in those details, and I think that's a perfectly valid thing to be interested it. You're not, fair enough.
Yes, they are complex beings, but also (not 'merely', but also) representations of facets of society, and of ideological values and positions. You and I both are complex beings (though some might say that I am just a being, and even the being part is a matter for regret), but there is more to both of us than just that.
Again, I agree with that. I think our difference here is simply one of emphaisis.
From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
Responding to me, Neil Faulkner wrote:
That's the kind of attitude I tend to file under 'anthropocentricity',
but
it would be futile to single you out as a practitioner of this heinous practice since I seem to be in the very very small minority that
considers
it heinous in the first place.
Hmm. Perhaps. I don't know, I certainly don't regard human beings as the center of the universe, and there are plenty of things that I find interesting that have nothing to do with humans at all (astronomy, for example).
Erm, you were the one who said <quote>it's *individual people* who are of primary importance </quote>
But we're talking about sociology and ideology here, and those are *human* things. And when we're talking about human things, I do believe it's important not to lose sight of the existence and importance of the individual.
Ah, but why? Could it be something to do with the importance you place in your own individuality?
(That is a straight, honest question, incidentally, not a sarcy gibe. I don't consider myself terribly important, despite the excessive number of posts I write on my night off, which makes me wonder: Do I consider myself unimportant because of the worldview that I hold, or do I hold that worldview because I consider myself unimportant? However, that worldview relegates the answer itself to the realms of the unimportant so the question needn't really be asked in the first place.)
Have you ever tried looking at people as *animals*?
Oh, absolutely. But I regard the individual as primary with a lot of animals, too. Just ask my cats!
Yeah, I was meaning to ask you. You seem to have a ginger female. That's unusual, isn't it?
You don't need to step aside from the person and lose sight of the individual to be aware of that person as a product of evolution. (Actually, evolutionary psychology is a field that interests me greatly, in my dabbling-layman sort of way.)
Layman? Lay*man*??? Layperson, surely...
Maybe it's just that, IMHO, this [voluntary surrendur of individual
identity within a group] is generally a bad thing. I admit that
one of the reasons I, personally, tend to keep the focus on individual humans is because I value individuality over conformity, and I *want* to keep the focus on individuals. I don't want to cultivate the attitude that leads to that sort of group behavior.
Neither do I actually, I find it very threatening. To the point where I've been unable to listen to live concert recordings (of rock bands. I have no such problem with live recordings of punk bands, for some strange reason). And I suppose I too value individuality over conformity. But conformity exists, and no amount of preference will make it go away.
(FWIW, I don't think any of us are half as unique as we might like to
think
we are.
I agree with this, actually. But just because we share large bundles of traits in common with lots of other people <snip> When you get down to the
*details*, all of us are different. Me,
I'm particularly interested in those details, and I think that's a perfectly valid thing to be interested it. You're not, fair enough.
Less interested, yes. I suppose you could say I can't see the trees for the wood. Whereas the CJs can't see the wood for the trees.
Ideally, I suppose, you should be able to see both, since you can't fully appreciate one without seeing the other.
Neil
Neil Faulkner wrote:
Hmm. Perhaps. I don't know, I certainly don't regard human beings as the center of the universe, and there are plenty of things that I find interesting that have nothing to do with humans at all (astronomy, for example).
Erm, you were the one who said <quote>it's *individual people* who are of primary importance </quote>
Ah. I meant in this particular context, not in any and all contexts. We were talking about human societies, not cosmology.
But we're talking about sociology and ideology here, and those are *human* things. And when we're talking about human things, I do believe it's important not to lose sight of the existence and importance of the individual.
Ah, but why? Could it be something to do with the importance you place in your own individuality?
(That is a straight, honest question, incidentally, not a sarcy gibe.
To give a straight, honest answer: yes, of course it does. My *own* ideological stance (or whatever word you want to use for it) places a great deal of value on individualism. And I'm no less immune to bias than anyone else.
I don't consider myself terribly important, despite the excessive number of posts I write on my night off, which makes me wonder: Do I consider myself unimportant because of the worldview that I hold, or do I hold that worldview because I consider myself unimportant?
This is pretty interesting to me, actually, because I *don't* consider myself important in, like I said, the cosmic scheme of things. (It's interesting to find myself on the other end of this argument, actually, because I remember having a discussion with a friend about moral stances not all that long ago, in which my argument was, basically, that the reason I don't base my own morality on selfish what's-good-for-me reasons is that I'm not any more important than anybody else. He didn't think that made a great deal of sense. :))
Oh, absolutely. But I regard the individual as primary with a lot of animals, too. Just ask my cats!
Yeah, I was meaning to ask you. You seem to have a ginger female. That's unusual, isn't it?
She's actually sort of a tan color, which is not something I've seen all that often. I'm not sure what the genetics of that are.
You don't need to step aside from the person and lose sight of the individual to be aware of that person as a product of evolution. (Actually, evolutionary psychology is a field that interests me greatly, in my dabbling-layman sort of way.)
Layman? Lay*man*??? Layperson, surely...
Surely not. Constructions like "layperson" annoy me, actually, but, tempting as it is, I'll avoid expanding on that particular rant. It's even *more* off topic than the rest of this stuff.
Neither do I actually, I find it [voluntary surrendur of individual identity within a group] very threatening. To the point where I've been unable to listen to live concert recordings (of rock bands. I have no such problem with live recordings of punk bands, for some strange reason). And I suppose I too value individuality over conformity. But conformity exists, and no amount of preference will make it go away.
You know, the farther I go along this thread, the more uncertain I am just where it is that we diagree. :)
I agree with this, actually. But just because we share large bundles of traits in common with lots of other people <snip> When you get down to the *details*, all of us are different. Me, I'm particularly interested in those details, and I think that's a perfectly valid thing to be interested it. You're not, fair enough.
Less interested, yes. I suppose you could say I can't see the trees for the wood. Whereas the CJs can't see the wood for the trees.
Sounds like a fair assessment to me.
From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
You know, the farther I go along this thread, the more uncertain I am just where it is that we diagree. :)
I'm beginning to wonder that too.
We have seen the enemy, and s/he is us.
Neil
Neil Faulkner wrote:
From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
You know, the farther I go along this thread, the more uncertain I am just where it is that we diagree. :)
I'm beginning to wonder that too.
Actually, having thought about it some more, I don't think it was you I really disagreed with in the first place. It was Wendy. I think perhaps I shall stop now. :)
----- Original Message ----- From: Neil Faulkner N.Faulkner@tesco.net
Oh, absolutely. But I regard the individual as primary with a lot of animals, too. Just ask my cats!
Yeah, I was meaning to ask you. You seem to have a ginger female. That's unusual, isn't it?
About 80% of gingers are male, apparently. I know cos my parents have a ginger female as well.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Fiona wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Neil Faulkner N.Faulkner@tesco.net
Oh, absolutely. But I regard the individual as primary with a lot of animals, too. Just ask my cats!
Yeah, I was meaning to ask you. You seem to have a ginger female. That's unusual, isn't it?
About 80% of gingers are male, apparently. I know cos my parents have a ginger female as well.
In our family it's two ginger females to one male.
Oh - *cats*! Sorry!
Una
From: Una McCormack una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk
In our family it's two ginger females to one male.
Oh - *cats*! Sorry!
A patently transparent lie, McCormack. Everyone knows there is no such thing as a ginger penguin.
Neil
Neil:
From: Una McCormack una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk
In our family it's two ginger females to one male.
Oh - *cats*! Sorry!
A patently transparent lie, McCormack. Everyone knows there is no such thing as a ginger penguin.
St Helens has a lot of pollution. You'd be amazed at the genetic mutations that emerge.
Una
From: Una McCormack una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk
St Helens has a lot of pollution. You'd be amazed at the genetic mutations
that
emerge.
Britney Spears comes from St Helens?
Neil
Neil wrote:
From: Una McCormack una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk
St Helens has a lot of pollution. You'd be amazed at the genetic mutations
that
emerge.
Britney Spears comes from St Helens?
She's not classy enough to come from St Helens.
Una
Oh, absolutely. But I regard the individual as primary with a lot of animals, too. Just ask my cats!
Yeah, I was meaning to ask you. You seem to have a ginger
female. That's
unusual, isn't it?
About 80% of gingers are male, apparently. I know cos my parents have a ginger female as well.
Do male torties (Yank: calicos) exist or is that an unbreakable genetic wossname?
Cheers, Pred'x
From: Predatrix predatrix@ntlworld.com
Do male torties (Yank: calicos) exist or is that an unbreakable genetic wossname?
As I was taught at school, gingers are overwhelmingly male and the few ginger females are sterile. Tortoiseshell males are even rarer and also sterile. Something to do with recessive alleles or something.
ObB7: Krantor's cat can breed. Unless it's been snipped, of course.
Was it meant to be a Blofeld reference?
Neil
Neil Faulkner wrote:
As I was taught at school, gingers are overwhelmingly male and the few ginger females are sterile.
Well, mine certainly is. The vet made sure of that. :)
-
Betty Ragan -
Betty Ragan -
Calle Dybedahl -
Dana Shilling -
Fiona Moore -
Jacqueline Thijsen -
Kathryn Andersen -
Mistral -
Neil Faulkner -
Penny Dreadful -
Predatrix -
Stephen Date -
Una McCormack