Neil wrote:
From: Penberriss Wendy S. penberriss@yahoo.com
Recently I have watched the episode Deliverance and was surprised to see how sexist it was! Worse than Power, even! What do other people think?
I think the difference between the two is that Deliverance, whilst betraying the sexist mindset of its author, is not actively promoting a misogynistic agenda, whereas Power is.
Ah - but is that more insidious?
Una
From: una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk
Neil wrote:
I think the difference between the two is that Deliverance, whilst
betraying
the sexist mindset of its author, is not actively promoting a
misogynistic
agenda, whereas Power is.
Ah - but is that more insidious?
Quite possibly, actually. I don't think I'd have considered the putative issues in Deliverance if Wendy hadn't raised them. In Power, OTOH, they're so glaringly obvious you couldn't ignore them if you tried.
One reference Wendy made I found quite interesting: 'Yes but in the end the author didn't chose Jenna, he chose Avon to perform the act. And not necessarily Avon either. In the original draft it was Blake.'
I didn't know that. It sheds some light on the evolution of the script. Bearing in mind that Nation was groaning under his rather rash comitment to write all 13 episodes of the first season, he was probably by this stage struggling for plots. With a vague idea about a story dealing with the responsibilities of power, he concocts a scenario in which Blake is hailed as a god. And then has the (rather neat) idea of putting Avon in that position. I don't know what the time pressures were, but probably pretty tight by this stage (the later scripts were coming in woefully under time, with Boucher having to pad them out to length), which might explain a lot about Deliverance - having got the basic idea, Nation dashed it off in a hurry without paying too much attention to the plot holes (which I still consider the weakest element in this episode) or the subtextual baggage.
No doubt Wendy will at this point leap up and accuse me of apologising for Nation. I'm not - I'm just trying to find an explanation. This is a very shoddy bit of scripting which, as I said in an earlier post, betrays the sexist mindset of its author. (The same author who later gave us Kasabi, but admittedly also wimpy Veron and a couple of slinky Hi-Tek bounty hunters.)
Wendy's argument seems to hinge on the phallic nature of the rocket. I still don't buy it. The use of stock footage as a budget control measure is backed up elsewhere in the series (eg the night-time runway sequence in Redemption) and also in Dr Who's Genesis of the Daleks (more or less contemporaneous with early B7) when they might even have used exactly the same bit of footage (I don't have a video so I can't check).
'what we have here isn't just a spaceship taking off, it's a man firing off his rocket in order to provide a woman with children'
No, actually. Firstly, if it's anyone's rocket, it's hers, not his. Secondly, he's not providing her with children, he's sending them away (okay, okay, so he's sending them somewhere where they can live and grow and all that shit). And they are not hers anyway. A fine nuance of interpretation, maybe, but the accusations of misogyny are resting on some pretty fine nuances themselves.
Wendy again: 'But what it is saying about the characters isn't particlarly plesant and the subliminal message the episode is giving out is very dark indeed.'
I think it's clear by now that the subliminal message of the text is so subliminal that most people haven't even noticed it before (though as Una points out, that might only make it more insidious). OTOH, most people seem to agree that the whole Meegat arrangement is 'silly'. Which as an indictment of sexism is pretty accurate - sexism *is* silly, and those who endorse it only stand to make fools of themselves.
As for the characters being unpleasant, I'm all for it. I don't want them to be nicey-nice squeaky clean heroes, I want them to show that they have it in them to be complete bastards from time to time. If that entails them being sexist (or racist, ageist, or speciesist - and Avon makes a speciesist remark in Project Avalon) then fine. Let them be so. We all have our prejudices, so should they.
Wendy (quoted yet again in a post ostensibly replying to Una): 'The mortality rate following the Liberator is pritty phenominal. As for people left behind to a terrible fate ,it has happened before,look at every other single prisoner who came to Cygnus Alpha on the London, for example.'
Quite. So why not add Meegat to the list?
Having said that, Meegat's fate is a serious omission from the script. It might have been written in and then cut for timing reasons, though I suspect this is unlikely. More probable is that Meegat is simply dumped - by Nation - after she has fulfilled her useful role within the story. Which might appear to support Wendy's case were it not for: the prisoners on Cygnus Alpha (male) ; the Decimas (alien) ; Avalon's rebels (all male, as far as was seen) ; and the slaves on Spaceworld (again, all male as far as we know. In this instance, of course, Liberator couldn't afford to hang around and ask). A distinct male bias there, though it might be noted that they are groups of unnamed people, not named individuals with a prior major role in the relevant episode. The closest to a second Meegat in a Nation episode is Veron in Pressure Point, who is given the choice and elects to stay (in the middle of the Forbidden Zone).
On that evidence, you could probably tilt it either way you want to say that abandoning Meegat on the grounds of her being female is or is not a significant consideration. I personally think it more likely she disappeared because she had done her part as a supporting character, regardless of gender. Still sloppy writing, though.
I think what this thread has really highlighted is the difficulty of separating the subtext of an episode (which seems to be Wendy's primary concern) from the scripted specificities of the episode itself. Some people have confined themselves to a strictly internal position, others have considered external factors related to the episode's mode of production, and some have gone beyond to the ideological landscape in which the script was developed. I'm not sure it's possible to talk about any one of those without considering the impact of the others.
Damn good thread, though.
Neil
--- Neil Faulkner N.Faulkner@tesco.net wrote:
No doubt Wendy will at this point leap up and accuse me of apologising for Nation.
No, I'm not-- I think you're right on all points so far :-).
betrays the
sexist mindset of its author. (The same author who later gave us Kasabi, but admittedly also wimpy Veron and a couple of slinky Hi-Tek bounty hunters.)
Yeah. I mean, I'm not trying to knock nation in *general*-- he put forward some pretty sharp scripts, and gave us the ur-bitch Servalan--it's just that for this one, I really wonder what he was doing.
Wendy's argument seems to hinge on the phallic nature of the rocket.
Not totally :-).
still don't buy it. The use of stock footage as a budget control measure is backed up elsewhere in the series (eg the night-time runway sequence in Redemption) and also in Dr Who's Genesis of the Daleks (more or less contemporaneous with early B7) when they might even have used exactly the same bit of footage (I don't have a video so I can't check).
No, in *Genesis* that one wasn't stock footage, it was a camera travelling down the side of the rocket set with a bit of dry ice and a flare out. Again, the script specified "rocket," and in this case it specified a rocket because Genesis was an allegory of WWII.
'what we have here isn't just a spaceship taking off, it's a man firing off his rocket in order to provide a woman with children'
No, actually. Firstly, if it's anyone's rocket, it's hers, not his.
No, it's not hers, it's one she's looking after. Anyway, even if it is hers, it obviously takes a man to push the right buttons.
Secondly, he's not providing her with children, he's sending them away (okay, okay, so he's sending them somewhere where they can live and grow and all that shit). And they are not hers anyway
If we've already agreed that the rocket is a metaphor, than the children thing can be a metaphor too, can't it? Just as he doesn't *actually* have sex with her, he perpetuates her race in some other way, so he doesn't have to *actually* get her pregnant for the equation of male action --> female perpetuation of species to read.
She waits, virginal, dressed in diaphanous robes, for this bloke to come along and fulfil her. What part of this *isn't* a sexual metaphor?
I think it's clear by now that the subliminal message of the text is so subliminal that most people haven't even noticed it before (though as Una points out, that might only make it more insidious).
I agree, and especially with Una's point-- but why *is* it that people miss out on this subliminal message? Perhaps because these messages are so accepted in our culture that we don't question them.
OTOH, most people seem to agree that the whole Meegat arrangement is 'silly'. Which as an indictment of sexism is pretty accurate - sexism *is* silly, and those who endorse it only stand to make fools of themselves.
Isn't it devaluing a fairly insidious form of prejudice to dismiss it as simply "silly"?
As for the characters being unpleasant, I'm all for it. I don't want them to be nicey-nice squeaky clean heroes, I want them to show that they have it in them to be complete bastards from time to time.
I agree *totally*! Which is why I've found some of the arguments on the lyst in defense of "Deliverance" kind of offensive-- there is this thread of "Oh, Avon is a *nice* guy really, he *really* wanted to save Meegat, he really did Meegat a favour by not being brutal to her..." Give me a break. Why must some people justify Avon's every action, and whitewash his nastier side? Avon's my favourite character, but not because I think he's a nice guy. I think he's a bastard, but he's a very *interesting* bastard.
being sexist (or racist, ageist, or speciesist - and Avon makes a speciesist remark in Project Avalon) then fine. Let them be so
Yes, but again, that's not so much the problem. The character of Avon has been placed into a situation which is *inherently* sexist, and any action he could possibly take would have a sexist tone to it. And it would have been exactly the same if it had been Blake, or Gan, or Vila (although not Jenna or Cally :-)...).
Wendy (quoted yet again in a post ostensibly replying to Una): 'The mortality rate following the Liberator is pritty phenominal. As for people left behind to a terrible fate ,it has happened before,look at every other single prisoner who came to Cygnus Alpha on the London, for example.'
Quite. So why not add Meegat to the list?
Why not, indeed? As a plot point I have no problem with Meegat dying-- I have a problem with people who want to gloss this over and pretend she was given a choice. , Also with Nation writing her not as a character but as a plot device.
this is unlikely. More probable is that Meegat is simply dumped - by Nation - after she has fulfilled her useful role within the story. Which might appear to support Wendy's case were it not for: the prisoners on Cygnus Alpha (male) ; the Decimas (alien) ; Avalon's rebels (all male, as far as was seen) ; and the slaves on Spaceworld (again, all male as far as we know.
Yes, but I'm not talking about those stories. I'm talking about Deliverance. You can't justify Avon's actions in one story by referring to his/the crew's action in others, some of which are aslo incidentally by completely different authors. Anyway, when the series was broadcast, the audience would mostly have been seeing episodes in isolation, they wouldn't have been thinking in terms of previous or future episodes.
Interestingly, later on this problem seems to have been recognised by a scrpt editor, because they do start to provide reasons, however flimsy sometimes, as to why this week's guest actor couldn't join the crew.
role in the relevant episode. The closest to a second Meegat in a Nation episode is Veron in Pressure Point, who is given the choice and elects to stay (in the middle of the Forbidden Zone).
I'd say not. Firstly, Veron is a child and therefore can be excused for acting as she does-- Meegat should be old enough to know better. Secondly, Blake doesn't treat her as a child; he respects her opinions and does give her a choice, and allows her to live by that choice. And although Veron betrayed them at first, he recognised and respected the circumstances behind that action.
On that evidence, you could probably tilt it either way you want to say that abandoning Meegat on the grounds of her being female
I didn't say that she was abandoned *because* she was female. Just that she was abandoned in a way which strikes me as particularly misogynist.
disappeared because she had done her part as a supporting character, regardless of gender. Still sloppy writing, though.
Agreed. The least he could have done, is to insert a line to the effect of "So Meegat and her people decided to stay, then?" They did something similar in Children of Auron after all, quickly wrapping up what had happened to the survivors.
developed. I'm not sure it's possible to talk about any one of those without considering the impact of the others.
Fair enough -- but by the same logic we should be considering the episode only within the context of the episode (and, in some cases, of the rest of the series), not by what some fans have later imagined in their own minds to fill the plot holes for themselves to make them feel better, and/or to whitewash Avon.
Wendy
__________________________________________________ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
From: Penberriss Wendy S. penberriss@yahoo.com
--- Neil Faulkner N.Faulkner@tesco.net wrote:
No, actually. Firstly, if it's anyone's rocket, it's hers, not his.
No, it's not hers, it's one she's looking after.
It's definitely not Avon's, though.
Anyway, even if it is hers, it obviously takes a man to push the right buttons.
It takes *someone* to push the right buttons. And since the episode seems to have been devised to get initially Blake - then later changed to Avon - to confront the responsibilities of godlike status, that someone is going to have to be a man.
Secondly, he's not providing her with children, he's sending them away (okay, okay, so he's sending them somewhere where they can live and grow and all that shit). And they are not hers anyway
If we've already agreed that the rocket is a metaphor,
Which we haven't. I'm still unconvinced. I can see how it might be taken as a metaphor, but that doesn't mean it was intended as one (consciously or otherwise).
than the children thing can be a metaphor too, can't it? Just as he doesn't *actually* have sex with her, he perpetuates her race in some other way, so he doesn't have to *actually* get her pregnant for the equation of male action --> female perpetuation of species to read.
Depends on how you read it. Perpetuation of the species is via the brood units on the rocket, not through Meegat (who is effectively placed in the position of non-contributive onlooker). If we're going to use sexual metaphors, it might be more accurate to say that she just stands there and watches Avon have one off the wrist.
She waits, virginal, dressed in diaphanous robes, for this bloke to come along and fulfil her. What part of this *isn't* a sexual metaphor?
For someone who (rightly, IMO) criticises people for inventing details unsupported by the canon, I'm not sure how you can assert that Meegat is virginal. And earlier you complained about Avon robbing her of her reason for existing, and now suddenly he is fulfilling her.
That she waits for deliverance can be attributed to Terry Nation, who wrote the script. The diaphanous robes came from the costume department. Costume designer for this episode was apparently ... Rupert Jarvis (a man). Well, well, well. We can only speculate on how different a Barbara Lane/June Hudson design might have been.
I think it's clear by now that the subliminal message of the text is so subliminal that most people haven't even noticed it before (though as Una points out, that might only make it more insidious).
I agree, and especially with Una's point-- but why *is* it that people miss out on this subliminal message? Perhaps because these messages are so accepted in our culture that we don't question them.
I would agree with that actually, which is why arguments like yours can be so valuable. However, the subliminal message here is almost certainly subliminal within the writer's mind too. Nation is not on a soapbox, he's just cranking out a script to meet the deadline. This doesn't exculpate the sexism in Deliverance, but it does clear Nation of deliberately promoting a sexist agenda (suggesting that he was doing so might well have alarmed him, FWIG he was a generally well-meaning bloke. Unfortunately we're no longer in a position to be able to ask him).
Isn't it devaluing a fairly insidious form of prejudice to dismiss it as simply "silly"?
Ridicule can actually be a pretty effective tactic. I've seen it shut up racists, sexists and homophobes.
there is this thread of "Oh, Avon is a *nice* guy really, he *really* wanted to save Meegat, he really did Meegat a favour by not being brutal to her..." Give me a break. Why must some people justify Avon's every action, and whitewash his nastier side?
I often wonder about that. And why Blake gets villified solely on his more questionable actions, with his better points being ignored.
this is unlikely. More probable is that Meegat is simply dumped - by Nation - after she has fulfilled her useful role within the story. Which might appear to support Wendy's case were it not for: the prisoners on Cygnus Alpha (male) ; the Decimas (alien) ; Avalon's rebels (all male, as far as was seen) ; and the slaves on Spaceworld (again, all male as far as we know.
Yes, but I'm not talking about those stories. I'm talking about Deliverance. You can't justify Avon's actions in one story by referring to his/the crew's action in others, some of which are aslo incidentally by completely different authors.
No, I restricted my list to episodes accredited to Nation.
I didn't say that she was abandoned *because* she was female. Just that she was abandoned in a way which strikes me as particularly misogynist.
I think it's your assertions of misogyny that I find particularly difficult to accomodate. Misogyny is a *hatred* of women. Deliverance, as a script, is dimissive of Meegat, and disrespectful to Meegat, but dismissiveness and disrespect do not amount to hatred. In fact, they suggest a lack of consideration, whereas hatred requires a hefty wodge of consideration. It takes effort to hate, more effort than Nation expended on this miserable script.
The least he could have done, is to insert a line to the effect of "So Meegat and her people decided to stay, then?" They did something similar in Children of Auron after all, quickly wrapping up what had happened to the survivors.
Which all points to Deliverance being a rushed effort, too rushed to consider the implications of its own subtext.
Neil
----- Original Message ----- From: Neil Faulkner N.Faulkner@tesco.net
The least he could have done, is to insert a line to the effect of "So Meegat and her people decided to stay, then?" They did something similar in Children of Auron after all, quickly wrapping up what had happened to the survivors.
Which all points to Deliverance being a rushed effort, too rushed to consider the implications of its own subtext.
Perhaps the tag line mentioning what happened to Meegat and her people was cut, leaving purely just another confrontational scene between Blake and Avon?
Jakx
Neil wrote:
The diaphanous robes came from the costume department. Costume designer for this episode was apparently ... Rupert Jarvis (a man).
Well,
well, well. We can only speculate on how different a Barbara Lane/June Hudson design might have been.
She would have been Michelin Meegat. Failing that, she would have been squished into some lycra and had a curtain draped over her.
Una
--- Neil Faulkner N.Faulkner@tesco.net wrote:
No, actually. Firstly, if it's anyone's rocket, it's hers, not his.
No, it's not hers, it's one she's looking after.
It's definitely not Avon's, though.
Yes, but it's him who activates it, isn't it?
Anyway, even if it is hers, it obviously takes a
man
to push the right buttons.
It takes *someone* to push the right buttons. And since the episode seems to have been devised to get initially Blake - then later changed to Avon - to confront the responsibilities of godlike status, that someone is going to have to be a man.
If it was Blake in the original, then the bit about responsibilities and learning leadership skills would be less of an issue, cause he's already the leader. This only becomes a major point when it's somebody who's challenging Blake's leadership role.
If we've already agreed that the rocket is a
metaphor,
Which we haven't. I'm still unconvinced. I can see how it might be taken as a metaphor, but that doesn't mean it was intended as one (consciously or otherwise).
Well, I can't convince you :-). All I can do is restate that, if you have a phallic object being activated to perpetuate the race, then a careful writer would be thinking about the implications (although your point that the script was rushed is fair enough).
Depends on how you read it. Perpetuation of the species is via the brood units on the rocket, not through Meegat (who is effectively placed in the position of non-contributive onlooker). If we're going to use sexual metaphors, it might be more accurate to say that she just stands there and watches Avon have one off the wrist.
Fair enough :). But it doesn't totally read. If he just did that, there would be no benefit to her species, would there? Perhaps it's a metaphor for artificial insemination, or sperm donation... :-).
She waits, virginal, dressed in diaphanous robes,
for
this bloke to come along and fulfil her. What part
of
this *isn't* a sexual metaphor?
For someone who (rightly, IMO) criticises people for inventing details unsupported by the canon, I'm not sure how you can assert that Meegat is virginal.
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.
And earlier you complained about Avon
robbing her of her reason for existing, and now suddenly he is fulfilling her.
I'm not sure I said that. I said he did what she wanted him to do, but then left her to die. I haven't challenged any of the people who say "But it was what she wanted, wasn't it?" (although the number of times *that* phrase has been used to defend sexual misbehaviour...), I've just said it was a bit irresponsible of him not to look her up later. AND THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT HE DID. Full stop.
That she waits for deliverance can be attributed to Terry Nation, who wrote the script. The diaphanous robes came from the costume department. Costume designer for this episode was apparently ... Rupert Jarvis (a man). Well, well, well.
The costume department would just have been picking up on the script.
I think it's clear by now that the subliminal message of the text is so subliminal that most people haven't even noticed
it
before (though as Una points out, that might only make it more
insidious).
I agree, and especially with Una's point-- but why *is* it that people miss out on this subliminal message? Perhaps because these messages are so accepted in our culture that we don't question
them.
I would agree with that actually, which is why arguments like yours can be so valuable. However, the subliminal message here is almost certainly subliminal within the writer's mind too. Nation is not on a soapbox, he's just cranking out a script to meet the deadline. This doesn't exculpate the sexism in Deliverance, but it does clear Nation of deliberately promoting a sexist agenda (suggesting that he was doing so might well have alarmed him, FWIG he was a generally well-meaning bloke. Unfortunately we're no longer in a position to be able to ask him).
Sorry to quote all that back, but I think it was relevant :-). And I agree with your argument. Nation was not deliberately promoting a sexist agenda-- but the fact that the sexist message was invidious in the mind of a nice, well-meaning bloke like Terry Nation, suggests we should all perhaps think a bit about our opinions...
Isn't it devaluing a fairly insidious form of prejudice to dismiss it as simply "silly"?
Ridicule can actually be a pretty effective tactic. I've seen it shut up racists, sexists and homophobes.
Ridicule, yes, but not outright dismissal. Is homophobia silly then?
her..." Give me a break. Why must some people
justify
Avon's every action, and whitewash his nastier
side?
I often wonder about that. And why Blake gets villified solely on his more questionable actions, with his better points being ignored.
Well said! I agree totally!
Yes, but I'm not talking about those stories. I'm talking about Deliverance. You can't justify
Avon's
actions in one story by referring to his/the
crew's
action in others, some of which are aslo
incidentally
by completely different authors.
No, I restricted my list to episodes accredited to Nation.
Sorry-- wasn't paying attention :-). But we're still not talking about those stories.
I didn't say that she was abandoned *because* she
was
female. Just that she was abandoned in a way which strikes me as particularly misogynist.
I think it's your assertions of misogyny that I find particularly difficult to accomodate. Misogyny is a *hatred* of women. Deliverance, as a script, is dimissive of Meegat, and disrespectful to Meegat, but dismissiveness and disrespect do not amount to hatred. In fact, they suggest a lack of consideration, whereas hatred requires a hefty wodge of consideration. It takes effort to hate, more effort than Nation expended on this miserable script.
OK, fair enough point. But as Una says, isn't that a bit worse in some ways than out and out hatred?
The least he could have done, is to insert a line to the effect of "So Meegat and her people decided to stay, then?" They did something similar
in
Children of Auron after all, quickly wrapping up
what
had happened to the survivors.
Which all points to Deliverance being a rushed effort, too rushed to consider the implications of its own subtext.
Fair enough. But what I'd like to know then, is why a story with a rushed script, a cliched story and a number of gaping plot holes, keeps making people's top ten lists?
Wendy.
__________________________________________________ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
At 05:48 PM 2/1/01 -0800, Penberriss Wendy S. wrote:
But what I'd like to know then, is why a story with a rushed script, a cliched story and a number of gaping plot holes, keeps making people's top ten lists?
Possibly because said list-makers want to *be* Meegat. A clear case of Great Big Rocket envy. (;-p) -- "This is the kind of conversation that can only end in a gunshot."
Replying to Wendy and Neil:
No, actually. Firstly, if it's anyone's rocket, it's hers, not his.
No, it's not hers, it's one she's looking after.
Possession is nine-tenths of the law...
Anyway, even if it is hers, it obviously takes a
man
to push the right buttons.
It takes *someone* to push the right buttons.
It certainly could have been Jenna. Wouldn't have been Servalan though...she's not much on altruism and she might have broken a nail.
If it was Blake in the original, then the bit about responsibilities and learning leadership skills would be less of an issue, cause he's already the leader.
"How do you demonstrate the death of a friend to a man who hasn't got one?"?
Depends on how you read it. Perpetuation of the species is via the brood units on the rocket, not through Meegat (who is effectively placed in the position of non-contributive onlooker). If we're going to use sexual metaphors, it might be more accurate to say that she just stands there and watches Avon have one off the wrist.
That's Entertainment!
She waits, virginal, dressed in diaphanous robes,
for
this bloke to come along and fulfil her. What part
of
this *isn't* a sexual metaphor?
Too bad she couldn't borrow Kerrill's gunfighter suit.
I often wonder about that. And why Blake gets villified solely on his more questionable actions, with his better points being ignored.
One interpretation of S4: Vila gets Blakeified... -(Y)
From: Penberriss Wendy S. penberriss@yahoo.com
--- Neil Faulkner N.Faulkner@tesco.net wrote:
No, it's not hers, it's one she's looking after.
It's definitely not Avon's, though.
Yes, but it's him who activates it, isn't it?
So the poor girl's got a vibrator and doesn't know how to use it? This is getting kinkier by the minute...
It takes *someone* to push the right buttons. And since the episode seems to have been devised to get initially Blake - then later changed to Avon - to confront the responsibilities of godlike status, that someone is going to have to be a man.
If it was Blake in the original, then the bit about responsibilities and learning leadership skills would be less of an issue, cause he's already the leader. This only becomes a major point when it's somebody who's challenging Blake's leadership role.
That does not answer my point that the script demands that the button-pushing role must be filled by a man because it was conceived and written for one of two male characters. It is not "Who shall I have to push this button?" but "What shall I have this man do?"
And I really can't see any obvious sexual symbolism in pushing a button. Going around prodding women strikes me as an excellent way of getting one's faced slapped (or indeed beaten to a senseless pulp, since most of the women I know could do that with both hands tied behind their backs. Even Una could do it, or at least make a mess of my kneecaps.)
All I can do is restate that, if you have a phallic object being activated to perpetuate the race, then a careful writer would be thinking about the implications (although your point that the script was rushed is fair enough).
Okay, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the rocket is a PO. So what? Where does its symbolic importance lie? What are these implications that a careful writer should be thinking about? And how the hell is a representation of the standard means for the intromission of sperm in itself misogynistic?
If we're going to use sexual metaphors, it might be more accurate to say that she just stands there and watches Avon have one off the wrist.
Fair enough :). But it doesn't totally read. If he just did that, there would be no benefit to her species, would there? Perhaps it's a metaphor for artificial insemination, or sperm donation... :-).
I might agree with you if you suggested it's a metaphor for the episode being a bunch of wank.
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've often wondered: if virgins are innocent, what are non-virgins guilty of? (This is known as a non-sequiteur, a cunning ploy to conceal the fact that I can't think of anything to answer your last point.)
I've just said it was a bit irresponsible of him not to look her up later. AND THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT HE DID. Full stop.
I agree with you on that point. If we assume that Avon offering to take her up to the Liberator is sufficiently plot-significant to warrant inclusion (whether she accepts or not), its omission counts as sufficient evidence that no such offer was made.
The costume department would just have been picking up on the script.
Probably, but not definitely.
the fact that the sexist message was invidious in the mind of a nice, well-meaning bloke like Terry Nation, suggests we should all perhaps think a bit about our opinions...
A healthy attitude I can't argue with.
Isn't it devaluing a fairly insidious form of prejudice to dismiss it as simply "silly"?
Ridicule can actually be a pretty effective tactic. I've seen it shut up racists, sexists and homophobes.
Ridicule, yes, but not outright dismissal. Is homophobia silly then?
Yup. Very.
Yes, but I'm not talking about those stories. I'm talking about
Deliverance. You can't justify Avon's
actions in one story by referring to his/the crew's action in others,
some of which are aslo incidentally
by completely different authors.
No, I restricted my list to episodes accredited to Nation.
Sorry-- wasn't paying attention :-). But we're still not talking about those stories.
You might not be (because they scupper your theories, perhaps?), but I am, because I don't think we should take Deliverance solely in isolation, but consider it within the wider context of other Nation eps and indeed the series as a whole.
Deliverance, as a script, is dimissive of Meegat, and disrespectful to Meegat, but dismissiveness and disrespect do not amount to hatred. In fact, they suggest a lack of consideration, whereas hatred requires a hefty wodge of consideration. It takes effort to hate, more effort than Nation expended on this miserable script.
OK, fair enough point. But as Una says, isn't that a bit worse in some ways than out and out hatred?
Having been both dismissed and hated at various times, I know which I prefer. People who dismiss you don't have it in for you, people who hate you do. Which would you rather be up against?
But what I'd like to know then, is why a story with a rushed script, a cliched story and a number of gaping plot holes, keeps making people's top ten lists?
Because some people confine their focus of attention to the regular characters (or just a selection of them, maybe even just one) and define the significance of any action or interaction with reference to those characters and *nothing else*.
They know who they are.
Neil
-
Dana Shilling -
Jakx -
Neil Faulkner -
Penberriss Wendy S. -
Penny Dreadful -
Una McCormack -
una＠q-research.connectfree.co.uk