Mistral said -
That's not a debate. It's a shouting match. I *like* debates; they grow
and develop and make one think new thoughts. Shouting matches are just loud and dull. So, I agree, let's not.
Can I just say I've enjoyed this whole to-and-fro, and while I don't really agree with Wendy about this, I think she's stuck to her guns in quite a good humoured way. I kind of thought it might get a bit fraught, but I think it's been OK.
I also think there are two different responses getting mixed up, which are 'Deliverance is not sexist' (with reasons etc...), and 'it is ridiculous to say that something is sexist'. And I don't want to confuse them because I don't think the second point is actually ridiculous, though I might disagree about the details of the first.
Alison
********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************
At 11:29 2-2-01 +0000, Alison Page wrote:
I also think there are two different responses getting mixed up, which are 'Deliverance is not sexist' (with reasons etc...), and 'it is ridiculous to say that something is sexist'. And I don't want to confuse them because I don't think the second point is actually ridiculous, though I might disagree about the details of the first.
Actually, what seems to have gotten several people (including myself) somewhat peeved is that Wendy seemed to be saying: "It is ridiculous to say that Deliverance is not sexist." Which strikes me as being somewhat ridiculous and patronizing to boot. So I'm going to assume she didn't mean it that way, but it certainly came across that way.
I also have some trouble with how she and Neil equal seeing Avon's good points to whitewashing Avon. To me (and to most of his fans, I suspect), he's interesting because of his particular mix of good and bad points. Without the bad points, he'd probably be as tiresomely good as Blake can be at times. Seeing Blake display some "bad" behavior sometimes comes as a definite relief to me.
Jacqueline
Deliverance et al
I think to some extent we do have to see the past as another country etc - and sometimes those creating a series (or any show in general) had to make do with what - and who - was available, and how much they could put into a 45-50 minute show. And compared with some of its contemporaries B7 did provide roles for women that were 'active' rather than 'passive.' Consider the women in the original Star Trek. OK it was created several years before, but they are far less 'involved' in the action than the dominant men. Or the near contemporary 'Dallas' - the women were (as far as I remember) adjuncts to their menfolk. Or consider Red Dwarf - no women at all. One could go through much of the various story telling forms of the past (including books, films and TV) and find things which are objectionable. Does anyone denigrate the Sherlock Holmes stories because he takes cocaine? The Iliad glorifies war and revenge - and there are many more examples.
B7 was a product of its time, and if in some parts there was an overtly or implicit sexist (or other negative) subtext on some occasions we just have to accept it. Meegat just happened to be in the right place at the right time (and shows her inherent good taste by selecting Avon for her purposes (g)), Jenna happened to be in the 'wrong place at the wrong time'. It appears that Meegat was updated about the status of Avon - and given Blake's character (as in the 'Mushrooms of Destiny' story - another episode where we do not know the ending) he would probably go out of his way to offer what help he could (if Meegat and the others wanted it).
One can enjoy B7 for what it offers - which includes the discussions about the 'moral dilemmas' and the effects of hindsight/changed perspectives.
It could be argued that for a series to be entirely PC (including for changed perceptions over time) would create something that was less than interesting.
__________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
--- Jacqueline Thijsen inquisitioner@wish.net wrote:
Actually, what seems to have gotten several people (including myself) somewhat peeved is that Wendy seemed to be saying: "It is ridiculous to say that Deliverance is not sexist."
What I meant to say was, it is ridiculous not to say that Deliverance doesn't, for whatever reason, contain sexist elements and themes. And that it strikes me as disturbing that a story which does contain such themes continually makes the top-ten lists of intelligent, aware, female fans.
I also have some trouble with how she and Neil equal seeing Avon's good points to whitewashing Avon.
Can't speak for Neil, but it's not the seeing of Avon's good points I object to. It is the fact that some people persist in seeing/portraying him as having no bad points.
Seeing Blake display some "bad" behavior
sometimes comes as a definite relief to me.
Funny you should say that, cause one other thing I see a lot which I don't like is people who can't see Blake as other than bad.
But that's a whole nother thread :-).
Wendy
__________________________________________________ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
At 12:39 2-2-01 -0800, Penberriss Wendy S. wrote:
--- Jacqueline Thijsen inquisitioner@wish.net wrote:
Actually, what seems to have gotten several people (including myself) somewhat peeved is that Wendy seemed to be saying: "It is ridiculous to say that Deliverance is not sexist."
What I meant to say was, it is ridiculous not to say that Deliverance doesn't, for whatever reason, contain sexist elements and themes. And that it strikes me as disturbing that a story which does contain such themes continually makes the top-ten lists of intelligent, aware, female fans.
And here you're doing it again, I'm afraid. You take it as given that Deliverance contains sexist themes, and measure the reactions of other fans by assuming that they must have seen those themes, too. Well, I haven't, or at least not in the way you seem to have done. The "relationship" between Meegat and Avon strikes me as amusing rather that sexist (I do love his expression at her worshipful attitude) and my reaction to the hairy barbarians is pretty much the same as Neil's. I just groan and wait for the good bits of the episode.
I also have some trouble with how she and Neil equal seeing Avon's good points to whitewashing Avon.
Can't speak for Neil, but it's not the seeing of Avon's good points I object to. It is the fact that some people persist in seeing/portraying him as having no bad points.
I've been on the lyst for almost three years now, and I don't remember ever seeing that portrayal. I've seen several people explaining specific bad behavior in a good way and in some cases I even agreed with them, but I don't think anyone on this lyst ever called Avon a saint. Well, not seriously, anyway. As a matter of fact, Neil called him a rat, and around the same time I called one of my pet rats after him. My other rat is called Vila and it lives up to its name by constantly trying to steal treats from Avon rather than getting one for itself.
Seeing Blake display some "bad" behavior
sometimes comes as a definite relief to me.
Funny you should say that, cause one other thing I see a lot which I don't like is people who can't see Blake as other than bad.
I haven't seen that, either. I have seen people point out that Blake had his ruthless side and some other bad points, too, but that's not the same as saying that he has no good points.
But that's a whole nother thread :-).
When has this ever stopped any of us? Lessee, Blake's bad points are his tendency towards ruthlessness (which I actually rather like at times) and his blatant disregard for the wishes of his crew when said wishes interfere with his plans to overthrow the Federation. His good points: well, can you think of anyone else who could hold that bunch together *and* get them to participate in such anti survival oriented pastimes as blowing up central control?
Anybody else wanna add anything to that? Or tell me that I'm out off my mind? The latter isn't necessary, BTW, I already know that.
Jacqueline
Jacqueline Thijsen wrote:
Can't speak for Neil, but it's not the seeing of Avon's good points I object to. It is the fact that some people persist in seeing/portraying him as having no bad points.
I've been on the lyst for almost three years now, and I don't remember ever seeing that portrayal. I've seen several people explaining specific bad behavior in a good way and in some cases I even agreed with them, but I don't think anyone on this lyst ever called Avon a saint.
Well, we did agree he's not a sunbeam. Possibly a Jesuit, though.
<shrug> I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that Avon has no flaws, or that Blake has no strengths. People simply don't always agree on what those respective flaws and strengths are.
Actually, IMHO most people have characteristics, and how they are applied turn those into flaws or strengths. Blake has focus. Sometimes it makes him a brilliant planner, other times it makes him bloody-minded. Avon is cautious. Sometimes it keeps him out of trouble, other times it keeps him from trusting when he should. And so on.
Anybody else wanna add anything to that? Or tell me that I'm out off my mind? The latter isn't necessary, BTW, I already know that.
I don't worry about your being out of your mind; it's when you start mucking about in mine that it gets a little scary.
Mistral
From: Jacqueline Thijsen inquisitioner@wish.net
And here you're doing it again, I'm afraid. You take it as given that Deliverance contains sexist themes, and measure the reactions of other
fans
by assuming that they must have seen those themes, too. Well, I haven't,
or
at least not in the way you seem to have done.
Er... hang on, are you trying to say that some people haven't noticed the *sexism*? The misogyny I can quibble over, but the sexism is so blatantly obvious it doesn't need querying.
The "relationship" between Meegat and Avon strikes me as amusing rather that sexist
But the sexism isn't Avon's, it's Terry Nation's. You know, the bloke what wrote the script.
(I do love his expression at her worshipful attitude)
Stop looking at the characters and consider the episode in terms of its ideological topography. It's a bloody great mountain of Victorian bourgeois complacency.
and my reaction to the hairy barbarians is pretty much the same as Neil's. I just groan and wait for
the
good bits of the episode.
But do you groan for the same reasons as I do?
Can't speak for Neil, but it's not the seeing of Avon's good points I object to. It is the fact that some people persist in seeing/portraying him as having no bad points.
I've been on the lyst for almost three years now, and I don't remember
ever
seeing that portrayal. I've seen several people explaining specific bad behavior in a good way and in some cases I even agreed with them, but I don't think anyone on this lyst ever called Avon a saint. Well, not seriously, anyway.
I too have yet to see anyone describe Avon as an out-and-out saint, but when I first entered the hallowed ranks of fandom (nearly ten years ago now) I was immediately struck by the massed ranks of Avon apologists on whom I will pass no comment as I have no wish to start a flame war.
Neil (currently rather angry)
Neil Faulkner wrote:
Er... hang on, are you trying to say that some people haven't noticed the *sexism*? The misogyny I can quibble over, but the sexism is so blatantly obvious it doesn't need querying.
Actually, you know, I always *saw* some sexism in "Deliverance" but figured it went the other way. You know, sort of a tweak on the male ego. How do you get a guy like Avon to do something Noble? All it takes is one beautiful, scantily-dressed woman fawning over him! Men, so easily led by the... er... ego. I'm not sure the idea that it was sexist in an anti-*female* way really did cross my mind until this discussion, to be perfectly honest. Quite what that says about me, I don't know.
At 04:44 3-2-01 +0000, Neil Faulkner wrote:
From: Jacqueline Thijsen inquisitioner@wish.net
And here you're doing it again, I'm afraid. You take it as given that Deliverance contains sexist themes, and measure the reactions of other
fans
by assuming that they must have seen those themes, too. Well, I haven't,
or
at least not in the way you seem to have done.
Er... hang on, are you trying to say that some people haven't noticed the *sexism*? The misogyny I can quibble over, but the sexism is so blatantly obvious it doesn't need querying.
I agree that it doesn't need querying, because I feel there's nothing there to query about. For me, there's just people in that ep doing their own thing, and the only ones trying to force women into a certain behavioral pattern are the hairy barbarians. Who try the same with the men, BTW.
The "relationship" between Meegat and Avon strikes me as amusing rather that sexist
But the sexism isn't Avon's, it's Terry Nation's. You know, the bloke what wrote the script.
Isaac Asimov once wrote about how some eager young student enthusiastically told him about all the wonderful symbolism that he'd found in the Foundation trilogy. Asimov told the student that he hadn't consciously put any of that symbolism in there. The student looked at him as if he'd just been told that the Earth was flat and asked "What's *that* got to do with anything?"
Anyhow, the bloke what wrote the script becomes just another viewer after the script has been put on tape. His opinions and prejudices count for no more than my own.
(I do love his expression at her worshipful attitude)
Stop looking at the characters and consider the episode in terms of its ideological topography. It's a bloody great mountain of Victorian bourgeois complacency.
Nope, I'm too busy admiring the characters. I like admiring the characters. Looking at societal implications is boooooring.
and my reaction to the hairy barbarians is pretty much the same as Neil's. I just groan and wait for
the
good bits of the episode.
But do you groan for the same reasons as I do?
I dunno, but I do groan. Mostly because I've seen so many of 'em before in both SF and action flicks and nobody ever managed to make 'em interesting. So I'd very much appreciate it if film makers could please retire them and replace them with good looking Greek gods and goddesses. They still wouldn't be interesting, but at least they'd be fun to look at.
I've been on the lyst for almost three years now, and I don't remember
ever
seeing that portrayal. I've seen several people explaining specific bad behavior in a good way and in some cases I even agreed with them, but I don't think anyone on this lyst ever called Avon a saint. Well, not seriously, anyway.
I too have yet to see anyone describe Avon as an out-and-out saint, but when I first entered the hallowed ranks of fandom (nearly ten years ago now) I was immediately struck by the massed ranks of Avon apologists on whom I will pass no comment as I have no wish to start a flame war.
Oh, c'mon, you know you really want to :-). Anyway, there are always several explanations for most kinds of behavior. I don't see why seeing some particular actions of Avon in a positive light suddenly turns one into an "Avon apologist", just like seeing some of those actions in a negative way does not necessarily turn one into an Avon basher.
Neil (currently rather angry)
There, there, (note the neat tie-in to the hurt-comfort thread), you can rage on about bourgeois idiots and I'll just keep admiring the characters. Especially the ones in tight leather trousers. Sexist, moi? Not at all, I admire men and women in tight leather trousers equally. <drool>
Jacqueline
From: Jacqueline Thijsen inquisitioner@wish.net
Isaac Asimov once wrote about how some eager young student
enthusiastically
told him about all the wonderful symbolism that he'd found in the Foundation trilogy. Asimov told the student that he hadn't consciously put any of that symbolism in there. The student looked at him as if he'd just been told that the Earth was flat and asked "What's *that* got to do with anything?"
Now that is odd, because the version I read of (written by Asimov himself) - or maybe this is another incident altogether - has Isaac A attending a lecture on one of his own stories (he didn't say which one). And afterwards he collared the lecturer, and something like the following exchange took place: Asimov: "None of that stuff you talked about was in that story." Lecturer: "Why do you think that?" Asimov: "Because I wrote it!" Lecturer: "What the hell makes you think *you* know what you're writing about?"
Anyhow, the bloke what wrote the script becomes just another viewer after the script has been put on tape. His opinions and prejudices count for no more than my own.
By that rationale a murderer becomes just another witness after the crime's been comitted. Try pulling that one in court.
Stop looking at the characters and consider the episode in terms of its ideological topography. It's a bloody great mountain of Victorian
bourgeois
complacency.
Nope, I'm too busy admiring the characters. I like admiring the
characters.
Looking at societal implications is boooooring.
Is it? Why? Since you presumably have some idea why the characters are more interesting or engaging than something that impacts on your every thought and word and deed, perhaps you might care to enlighten me.
If you can.
Neil
At 11:18 3-2-01 +0000, Neil Faulkner wrote:
Now that is odd, because the version I read of (written by Asimov himself) - or maybe this is another incident altogether - has Isaac A attending a lecture on one of his own stories (he didn't say which one).
That'll teach me to write something up from a memory that's several years old. Especially on this list. I'm pretty sure you've got it right. The point I was trying to make is still the same, though.
Anyhow, the bloke what wrote the script becomes just another viewer after the script has been put on tape. His opinions and prejudices count for no more than my own.
By that rationale a murderer becomes just another witness after the crime's been comitted. Try pulling that one in court.
Easy, m'lud. If said murder causes someone else to get a heart attack, which is a direct result that the murderer couldn't have foreseen, he isn't considered guilty of causing that heart attack (well, at least not in Holland, I've no idea how other judicial systems feel about this.) In the same way one can say that if Terry Nation rushed to deliver a sloppy script that he didn't intentionally put any sexism or whatever in, then you can't blame him for it if *you* happen to see that sexism in it. Terry's not responsible for your interpretation of his story. Only for the sloppiness of the script.
Stop looking at the characters and consider the episode in terms of its ideological topography. It's a bloody great mountain of Victorian
bourgeois
complacency.
Nope, I'm too busy admiring the characters. I like admiring the
characters.
Looking at societal implications is boooooring.
Is it? Why? Since you presumably have some idea why the characters are more interesting or engaging than something that impacts on your every thought and word and deed, perhaps you might care to enlighten me.
If you can.
Also easy: I have a low stress tolerance, so I'm lazy by nature. I handle my own life as best I can, donate a little to charity to get the feeling that I also do something for those who aren't as lucky as me and otherwise leave others alone as long as they leave me alone. That means that I yell at those who discriminate against me, personally. In all other cases I only lift a hand if the victim is obviously incapable of doing it for him/herself and I happen to be in a position to do something. If I'm not, I try not to think about it too much. Which is instrumental in keeping my blood pressure down and enables me to actually have a life. If I didn't do that, I'd spend most of my days in bed with the most godawful headaches. This isn't me exaggerating, I really have that kind of annoying constitution.
Anyway, to get back to the topic at hand, I have the same approach to TV shows. If too much about them bugs me, I stop watching. If I like the show, I sit back and enjoy the fun. Watching TV is relax time, not getting wound up time. So I concentrate on what I like, such as fun character interaction and good looks. Thinking about what the series says about society and getting worked up about it makes me tired and leads to headaches. I guess I was being somewhat flippant with the "booooring" bit, but that's what I was trying to say with it.
So, did this explain it for you, or do I have to bring in the penguins?
Jacqueline
From: Jacqueline Thijsen inquisitioner@wish.net
By that rationale a murderer becomes just another witness after the
crime's
been comitted. Try pulling that one in court.
Easy, m'lud. If said murder causes someone else to get a heart attack, which is a direct result that the murderer couldn't have foreseen, he
isn't
considered guilty of causing that heart attack (well, at least not in Holland, I've no idea how other judicial systems feel about this.) In the same way one can say that if Terry Nation rushed to deliver a sloppy
script
that he didn't intentionally put any sexism or whatever in, then you can't blame him for it if *you* happen to see that sexism in it. Terry's not responsible for your interpretation of his story. Only for the sloppiness of the script.
I think I was the one to point out that the sexism was not intentional (unlike Ben Steed's scripts), and I don't think he deserves to be put in the dock for it. (As at least one other person said, he was only a man of his times writing a script for those times. I'm not so sure myself, I think he was several decades behind the real world, and my suggestions of colonial nostalgia, though phrased somewhat flippantly, are IMO perfectly valid.)
I will say again, though, that this is not a case of the sexism (or any other less than savoury attitude) being there only if you happen to see it. It is there, full stop. Not seeing it doesn't make it go away, it only means you don't see it. If you don't see it, that can only be because either you can't (you don't recognise the cues) or you choose not to (for whatever reason).
Do the jokes in a parody disappear simply because you aren't familiar with the original?
Nope, I'm too busy admiring the characters. I like admiring the
characters.
Looking at societal implications is boooooring.
Is it? Why? Since you presumably have some idea why the characters are more interesting or engaging than something that impacts on your every thought and word and deed, perhaps you might care to enlighten me.
Anyway, to get back to the topic at hand, I have the same approach to TV shows. If too much about them bugs me, I stop watching. If I like the
show,
I sit back and enjoy the fun. Watching TV is relax time, not getting wound up time. So I concentrate on what I like, such as fun character
interaction
and good looks. Thinking about what the series says about society and getting worked up about it makes me tired and leads to headaches. I guess
I
was being somewhat flippant with the "booooring" bit, but that's what I
was
trying to say with it.
So you censor out the elements you don't like in order to enjoy the ones that appeal to you? Well, I can understand that, because I do it myself, in a way, albeit with manifest limitations of the process of production (dodgy special effects, bloopers, anomalies of continuity). But what I do is reconstruct such elements. If the pursuit ships wobble as they line up to attack, I see it, and then mentally reconstruct the scene so they don't wobble. I know why they were wobbling - limitations of budget and technique - and also that they are not supposed to. In the same way, teleport bracelets aren't supposed to hop from wrist to wrist, members of the public aren't supposed to be standing in the background etc. These are things that lie outside the intended reality of the narrative.
What you seem to be doing is rather different - you notice (consciously or otherwise) ideological elements that you don't like, and then (consciously or otherwise) dismiss them as unimportant or suppress their existence altogether, even though they lie *within* the narrative's intended reality (whether they are consciously put there by the writer or not). Meegat is *intended* to throw herself at Avon's feet, and Jenna is *intended* to be captured by hairy savages (who are likewise intended to be both hairy and savage).
Don't you think it is possible to enjoy a text whilst simultaneously being aware of its ideological limitations? I've been very critical of Tolkien a number of times on the Lyst, but I can still enjoy LotR. Last year I read a Frederick Forsyth thriller which had a number of very scathing (and rather ludicrous) comments to make on the peace movement, which I once belonged to, but that didn't stop me enjoying a thumping good read.
And you still haven't answered my question: Why the *characters*?
Neil
I'm curious -- it seems that some people think that because Avon solved one problem for Meegat he was under some moral obligation to discover if she had any other problems and offer to fix them, too.
Is this related to that supposed Chinese tradition that if you save someone's life, you are responsible for them from then on?
Because it seems backwards to me.
For example, I'm short. In grocery stores if the top shelf of items isn't full to the front edge I can't reach things stored there. When that happens I ask a taller nearby person to please get a box of whatever down for me. The person does so, I say thank you, and that's the end of it. I certainly don't expect this kind stranger to start asking me, Got any other problems? Is there anything else I can do for you? How's your house? Do you need to me move you to another state? or whatever. Why in the world should s/he? I asked for a specific type of help, s/he gave it to me. That puts me in his/her debt, not the other way round. (This type of debt being the sort you repay by helping someone else in some other situation, of course.)
An way, isn't that exactly the situation in this episode?
Meegat asked for Avon's help to do a specific thing. He did it as a favor to her. Therefore *she* was in debt to him. Why aren't we discussing what Meegat may or may not or should or should not have offered to do for Avon to repay him instead of reviling Avon for not volunteering to transport her and her tribe to another planet?
Susan Beth (susanbeth33@mindspring.com)
-
Alison Page -
Betty Ragan -
Jacqueline Thijsen -
jacquispeel＠netscape.net -
Mistral -
Neil Faulkner -
Penberriss Wendy S. -
Susan Beth