Neil wrote: <And you still haven't answered my question: Why the *characters*?>
That's probably tougher to explain than it should be, actually. I know that of the other TV shows that I'd call my favourites, characters actually *aren't* in the central place they take in B7; important, yes, but I wouldn't call myself a 'character junkie' for them (OTOH, I don't love them the way I love B7. Go figure). And it's not all the characters, either (as you may have noticed :-)) but about half the regulars and a goodly sprinkling of the guests; like them as I do, were this Tarrant's 7 - or Gan's or Cally's - you would definitely *not* have to put up with my burblings.
There's other things I love - the brilliant mixture of doom&gloom and sharp, ironic humour, the cleverness of the dialogue, the lunatic elements (like the Wardrobe and Treasure Rooms), *some* of the politics ... have to admit that a lot of the background slides straight over me (I've been trawling the archives recently, and it's amazing how little sense I make of the discussions on how Orac and tarrial cells actually work, or what a spatial actually is, or technical aspects of the Liberator <g> but then I'm a real-life Luddite, let alone an SF one).
All I know is that these 'people' do strike a chord in me, far moreso than anything else in or about the show. The characters *are* the interesting stuff. Well, that and what they're wearing this ep ...
Yes, I know this is no answer at all. Perhaps if anyone else wants to throw some ideas in ... not so much why this character or that (especially Snarly), but why characters at all?
It was *meant*, after all, just to be action-adventure ...
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Sally Manton wrote:
Yes, I know this is no answer at all. Perhaps if anyone else wants to throw some ideas in ... not so much why this character or that (especially Snarly), but why characters at all?
Well, not to open up another M****-B***** discussion or anything, but my suspicion is that it does have a great deal to do with the personality of the viewer. In my case, I know I tend to be a character junkie, and I tend to be especially fascinated by the most complex characters, and by characters who are slightly damaged in some way (which explains "why _Blake's 7_?"). In my case, I think it's that I'm very interested in *people*: how their minds work, what makes them tick, how predictable or unpredictable they are, how they interact with each other and their environment, etc. I am, however, *also* an extreme introvert who does not get close to real people easily (and, in most cases, doesn't necessarily *want* to do so, because it requires a huge emotional investment), and who has a very, very strong sense of other people's privacy. 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.
It was *meant*, after all, just to be action-adventure ...
Yes, but fortunately it transcended that, or I don't think most of us would still be watching it twenty years later...
Sally asked:
not so much why this character or that (especially
Snarly), but why characters at all?
Well, I'd say they came up with some sketches for interesting characters (to be filled in in performance) and had a "life's a bitch, then you die" perspective that refreshingly contrasts with the generally upbeat nature of television--but then they ran out of innovation and hauled every scifi cliche out of the locker.
-(Y)
In message 3A7D993D.199D5442@sdc.org, Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org writes
Well, not to open up another M****-B***** discussion or anything, but my suspicion is that it does have a great deal to do with the personality of the viewer.
Bugger not opening up that can of worms. It's too useful when we do want to discuss personality, since it has that very useful I-E distinction. Hands up all the I, and in particular INTx, types on the list who are character junkies. Me for a start, even if I enjoy geeking plot and physics as well.
----- Original Message ----- From: Julia Jones julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk Cc: B7 Lyst blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 3:04 AM Subject: Re: [B7L] characters vs interesting stuff
Hands up all the I, and in particular INTx, types on the list who are character junkies. Me for a start,
I think plot and character are totally inseparable, myself.
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
Julia wrote:
In message 3A7D993D.199D5442@sdc.org, Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org writes
Well, not to open up another M****-B***** discussion or anything, but my suspicion is that it does have a great deal to do with the personality of the viewer.
Bugger not opening up that can of worms. It's too useful when we do want to discuss personality, since it has that very useful I-E distinction. Hands up all the I, and in particular INTx, types on the list who are character junkies. Me for a start, even if I enjoy geeking plot and physics as well.
Well, this INFx type is a character junkie too. But not so much the plot and physics side.
Una
----- Original Message ----- From: Una McCormack una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk
Hands up all the I, and in particular INTx, types on the list who are character junkies. Me for a start, even if I enjoy geeking plot and physics as well.
Well, this INFx type is a character junkie too. But not so much the plot
and physics side.
Really?! Admittedly I don't write fiction, but I'm curious as to how you can do a character story without a plot. 'Splain zis to me...
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 asked:
Really?! Admittedly I don't write fiction, but I'm curious as to how you
can
do a character story without a plot. 'Splain zis to me...
Well, a PWP obviously hasn't got a plot, and a good one would definitely count as a character story. And even in the realm of cleanliness, a story could focus on characters' differing backgrounds, intentions, reactions rather than events. Nova and I have been debating the differences in how Blake and Avon would give LOCs, for instance. If somebody threw in the rest of the crew and wrote it up, it would be a character story but plotless.
-(Y)
Fiona wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Una McCormack una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk
Hands up all the I, and in particular INTx, types on the list who are character junkies. Me for a start, even if I enjoy geeking plot and physics as well.
Well, this INFx type is a character junkie too. But not so much the plot
and physics side.
Really?! Admittedly I don't write fiction, but I'm curious as to how you can do a character story without a plot. 'Splain zis to me...
Plot is the annoying stuff you have to manufacture in order to get characters from interesting ethical dilemma 1 to interesting ethical dilemma 2.
Una
At 02:04 PM 2/5/01 +1100, Julia Jones wrote:
Hands up all the I, and in particular INTx, types on the list who are character junkies. Me for a start, even if I enjoy geeking plot and physics as well.
Well on the free online tests I max out the "I" and get pretty high on the "N" and the "T" too, and...I don't know. I suspect I am, yet I find it hard to imagine that I would be interested in the characters if they were all (for instance) in a soap opera, doing boring soap opera things. But if they had been, maybe I would have been. Maybe they'd have forced me to re-evaluate my condemnation of the soap opera genre, just as "Dogma" forced me to re-evaluate my rabid hatred of Chris Rock. I guess we'll never know.
As for B7 physics, well now that just makes my head hurt. Quick, someone comfort me. -- For A Dread Time, Call Penny: http://members.tripod.com/~Penny_Dreadful/
From: Julia Jones julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk
Hands up all the I, and in particular INTx, types on the list who are character junkies. Me for a start, even if I enjoy geeking plot and physics as well.
I am probably an INTx and my non-qualifications as a character junkie are pretty well established.
So there's that theory screwed.
Neil (who would actually expect xSFx types to be those most interested in character, but doesn't particularly care if he's wrong)
In message 00e101c0901f$9b4eea00$e535fea9@neilfaulkner, Neil Faulkner N.Faulkner@tesco.net writes
From: Julia Jones julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk
Hands up all the I, and in particular INTx, types on the list who are character junkies. Me for a start, even if I enjoy geeking plot and physics as well.
I am probably an INTx and my non-qualifications as a character junkie are pretty well established.
So there's that theory screwed.
Well, it was partly to pull your leg...
More seriously, I'm interested in whether there's a bias, I don't expect there to be a 1-1 correlation.
Julia Jones wrote:
In message 3A7D993D.199D5442@sdc.org, Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org writes
Well, not to open up another M****-B***** discussion or anything, but my suspicion is that it does have a great deal to do with the personality of the viewer.
Bugger not opening up that can of worms. It's too useful when we do want to discuss personality, since it has that very useful I-E distinction.
<g> I'm more fond of the T-F meself. Also the P-J.
Hands up all the I, and in particular INTx, types on the list who are character junkies. Me for a start, even if I enjoy geeking plot and physics as well.
Character interactions is in the top three attractors for this INTx, for very similar reasons to what Betty has listed (though I will indeed poke about in real people's heads - prior to B7, I hadn't seen any TV characters as interesting as real people).
Also, I like puzzles of all kinds - wordplay, jigsaws, logics, mysteries, etc., and there's no better puzzle than what makes people behave the way they do. The great thing about the B7 characters is their level of complexity they display, in part because they're just consistent enough to be recognizable, but still have the capacity to surprise with their variation, just like real people. The characters in most other TVSF are IMO not nearly as fleshed out.
My Kiersey books are packed away, but I vaguely recall something about either NTs or INTs enjoying studying personality theory etc., because of course it helps explain the other types (of which there are so many more people). And people-watching appeals IMO to the love of complex systems, as well.
Of course it can't be entirely type-related because there's no accounting for Neil; in light of recent discussions, I'm not sure I dare speculate whether it has anything to do with gender-related differences in brain structure and neurochemistry. ;-P Have we got any other NT males willing to weigh in on the poll?
Mistral
Mistral wrote:
Also, I like puzzles of all kinds - wordplay, jigsaws, logics, mysteries, etc., and there's no better puzzle than what makes people behave the way they do.
[snip]
My Kiersey books are packed away, but I vaguely recall something about either NTs or INTs enjoying studying personality theory etc., because of course it helps explain the other types (of which there are so many more people). And people-watching appeals IMO to the love of complex systems, as well.
This NF doesn't see people as puzzles, of course. People are interesting because they present another world-view for you to enter, experience and understand. Which is probably why I write mostly in the first-person.
Una
Una McCormack wrote:
This NF doesn't see people as puzzles, of course. People are interesting because they present another world-view for you to enter, experience and understand. Which is probably why I write mostly in the first-person.
Aha! And this N who sits squarely on the F-T border (at least, judging by the on-line versions of the test I've taken) sees people as *both* puzzles and as world-views to enter... Interesting...
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Mistral wrote:
Of course it can't be entirely type-related because there's no accounting for Neil; in light of recent discussions, I'm not sure I dare speculate whether it has anything to do with gender-related differences in brain structure and neurochemistry. ;-P Have we got any other NT males willing to weigh in on the poll?
I'm male (I just checked), as INT as they come, and I'm certainly not a character junkie. My appreciation of B7 is broadly similar to Neil's, in that I'm interested in the show's interaction with prevailing cultural norms and the vagaries of production. I don't place much emphasis on the show's political stance, though, and my taste in women is clearly far less healthy.
I'd be surprised if this maps particularly well to MB typology.
Iain
In message Pine.OSF.3.96.1010206170755.15500B-100000@bscomp, Iain Coleman ijc@bas.ac.uk writes
I'd be surprised if this maps particularly well to MB typology.
Ah yes, I was wondering if the male representative of the INT physicist faction had anything to say:-)
In message 3A7FC594.BBCD023B@centurytel.net, Mistral mistral@centurytel.net writes
Julia Jones wrote:
In message 3A7D993D.199D5442@sdc.org, Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org writes
Well, not to open up another M****-B***** discussion or anything, but my suspicion is that it does have a great deal to do with the personality of the viewer.
Bugger not opening up that can of worms. It's too useful when we do want to discuss personality, since it has that very useful I-E distinction.
<g> I'm more fond of the T-F meself. Also the P-J.
I find the I-E particularly useful because it helps in explaining something about myself and a lot of other Is I know - which is that many of us score as extroverts on the more usual definitions, and behave that way, thus leading to bewilderment on the part of others when we turn anti-social. That bit at kiersey.com about an I enjoying a party for an hour and then wanting to go home, *now*, is spot-on for me.
Julia Jones wrote:
I find the I-E particularly useful because it helps in explaining something about myself and a lot of other Is I know - which is that many of us score as extroverts on the more usual definitions, and behave that way, thus leading to bewilderment on the part of others when we turn anti-social. That bit at kiersey.com about an I enjoying a party for an hour and then wanting to go home, *now*, is spot-on for me.
I can relate - I have 'on' and 'off' personae that I've begun to think of as Tigger and Eeyore. But my introversion has always been apparent; it's the T-F modified by P that I needed a real explanation for - I was always getting criticized for my apparent lack of warmth, or getting accused of lying when I was being completely truthful, because I don't give off the same visual cues that most people do. [I identify very strongly with Avon's comments in Duel about not having to prove one cares.] Now that I understand that the icy exterior is rare but _normal_, I feel much less defensive about it (which has rather paradoxically lessened the problem). [And yes, it's the reason I wig out when somebody suggests that Avon's reserve is a result of damage. Ptui!!] So we both got clarity, but about different issues - Myers-Briggs is so useful, innit?
Maybe the reason that Blake was a more effective leader than Avon is because he understood type theory? <g>
Mistral
-
Betty Ragan -
Dana Shilling -
Fiona Moore -
Iain Coleman -
Julia Jones -
Mistral -
Neil Faulkner -
Penny Dreadful -
Sally Manton -
Una McCormack