Wendy wrote (in two different posts):
You're following a discussion on, say, Travis 1/Travis 2, and suddenly
someone pops up under
the same header to talk about how much of each of them you can see through
their costumes?
I believe most people have bodies under their clothes. I may be wrong.
By the time I've read enough to know I should delete it, it's too late. It
seems like any subject can >be given a sexual or innuendo twist, which IMHO often means turning an intelligent subject into a >dirty joke.
Some people who are intelligent also have sex. I believe. Some of them even talk about it occasionally. I've always read the Lyst 'no sex' policy as suggesting that one should refrain from posting material that is explicit, and in particular, more explicit than the Blake's 7 series itself. What you're talking about doesn't sound to be so.
There's a reasonable amount of sexual innuendo in the series (Avon re Dayna in Aftermath, the human bonding ceremony in Ultraworld, lots of Vila's comments, Servalan and various assorted sidekicks &c &c).
You could think of it like going down the pub and starting out having intelligent conversations, which gradually get sillier as people get tired or merry.
around I've seen a whole lot of threads which start off intelligently
degenerating into talk about
whether Avon or Tarrant is sexier or descriptions of Steven Greif in black
leather.
It's hard to get away from the fact that some of the costumes appear to have been designed to look sexy.
It also seems like IMHO some people have become so wrapped up in fanfic
(not just the slash
stuff either) that they read it back intoparticular episodes too.
This is an interesting point. Certainly there are trends in fanfic that appear to be enshrined in custom from the earliest works, that have little (or disputed) basis in the series. I'd love to see more fanfiction that tried to break new ground. I'd even write some if I had the talent, ideas, time &c...
I'm not sure how much of what people see as H/C today was intended to be seen as such by the
writers-- *I* think very little. And I don't think it was ever intended to
be the focal point of the
episodes.
But that's what fanfiction's all about, filling out areas or ideas that aren't explored in detail in the series. Very little attempts to write extra episodes similar to those existing, though that is the motivation for some.
I imagine some of the episodes were written against tight deadlines and the writers had little time to explore the subtexts in what they were writing. (I seem to recall you arguing the precise opposite of this with respect to Deliverance, rockets, phallic symbols and the like. But I, for one, don't wish to get into that argument.)
Tavia http://www.viragene.com/
----- Original Message ----- From: Tavia Chalcraft tavia@btinternet.com
You could think of it like going down the pub and starting out having intelligent conversations, which gradually get sillier as people get tired or merry.
Now, what bothers me personally about serious (like Neil I'd avoid the word "intelligent") conversations going silly is that often it's not a natural progression, it's a hijacking. To give a (semi-)fictitious example, some people can be having a discussion on, say, themes of class struggle in "Weapon," and then somebody else, who hasn't participated at all up until this point, will launch in and say "Ooh, I think Carnell's accent is dead sexy! What's everyone else think?" And there's the whole prospect of further serious discussion gone to pot.
I'm not sure how much of what people see as H/C today was intended to be seen as such by the
writers-- *I* think very little. And I don't think it was ever intended
to
be the focal point of the
episodes.
But that's what fanfiction's all about, filling out areas or ideas that aren't explored in detail in the series.
Now I like that aspect of it. A lot. But I also like them to keep to the same sort of tone as the series. What grates on me is not, say, someone writing a story where the relationship between Avon and Blake is explored, it's when it's explored by having them make long impassioned emotional speeches while staring into each other's eyes. I'd have no objection to the relationship between Buffy and Angel being explored in this way, cos over the course of that series they *do* have impassioned emotional discussions while in a clinch. But not Blake and Avon.
I imagine some of the episodes were written against tight deadlines and
the
writers had little time to explore the subtexts in what they were writing. (I seem to recall you arguing the precise opposite of this with respect to Deliverance, rockets, phallic symbols and the like. But I, for one, don't wish to get into that argument.)
Dunno about her, but *I* was arguing precisely that-- that the subtext in Deliverance was there because the writer didn't sit down and think through what he was conveying.
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:
Now, what bothers me personally about serious (like Neil I'd avoid the word "intelligent") conversations going silly is that often it's not a natural progression, it's a hijacking. To give a (semi-)fictitious example, some people can be having a discussion on, say, themes of class struggle in "Weapon," and then somebody else, who hasn't participated at all up until this point, will launch in and say "Ooh, I think Carnell's accent is dead sexy! What's everyone else think?" And there's the whole prospect of further serious discussion gone to pot.
Why? "Thread hijacking" is a complaint I've seen other places as well, and it's just not something I really understand, so this is a completely serious question. IMO one of the great things about e-mail as a communications medium is its non-linear nature. If person A is talking about subject 1, and person B wants to develop that into a discussion of subject 2, and person C wants to jump in and make a point about subject 3... Well, it's entirely possible to have *both* conversations going on at the same time, and if person A isn't interested in subject 3, he can ignore it an concentrate on subject 2, or go back to subject 1. It's quite different from sitting around in the pub talking, in that respect. So I honestly, truly, don't understand why people get annoyed about it (well, except when the subject lines don't get changed, which I fully understand can be annoying). Somebody explain why it bothers people, please, so I know what I should avoid doing...
ObB7: Um... Do they have something like the internet in the Federation, do you think?
Una McCormack wrote:
Betty wrote:
ObB7: Um... Do they have something like the internet in the Federation, do you think?
It would be extremely tightly regulated and the content and access controlled. Don't want information getting out.
I would certainly think so. But I do wonder to what extent the Federation attempts to preserve an illusion that freedom of speech exists...
From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
Why? "Thread hijacking" is a complaint I've seen other places as well, and it's just not something I really understand, so this is a completely serious question.
To me, it is a very serious issue of Lyst etiquette. Maybe you've never been on the receiving end of it, because if you had you would know how infuriating it can get. You're really getting into the swing of the argument, checking your references, dredging through your brain for every last bit of evidence you can haul up to back your case, and then someone pounces in with a bit of completely inane trivia that sends the whole thread spiralling off in a new and wholly superficial direction. A bit like some prankster moving the cue ball just as you're lining up to pot the black. It is rude, it is selfish, it is inconsiderate, and if you don't like being treated that way, you shouldn't go doing the same to others.
People, please get it into your heads that for some of us these 'intellectual' debates are FUN. We really do enjoy them. We actually *like* getting worked up over abstruse points of argument, not to mention deepening and broadening our understanding of the issues arising from the debate. If it gets too 'heavy' for you, *please stay out*. Have your own kind of fun in your own playhouse, and leave us to enjoy ourselves in our own. The Lyst is big enough to accomodate all sides. Toes will inadvertently be stepped on, inevitably, but that's not the same as stomping on an intellectual foot with hob-nailed trivial boots.
I have nothing against silliness, inanity, smuttiness, frivolity, witterings, burblings and all the rest of it per se. They can be very entertaining to read and obviously they are fun for those people who, quite legitimately, indulge in such things. But we don't hijack your threads, so why should you do it to ours?
And if you're own idea of fun happens to be deliberately pissing people off for own shallow self-gratification, then all I can say is you're a right sad bastard and the Lyst would be better off without you. People like that are rarely welcome anywhere, and with good reason. But I don't seriously think that applies to anyone here, despite Penny's Declaration of Intent.
IMO one of the great things about e-mail as a communications medium is its non-linear nature. If person A is talking about subject 1, and person B wants to develop that into a discussion of subject 2, and person C wants to jump in and make a point about subject 3... Well, it's entirely possible to have *both* conversations going on at the same time, and if person A isn't interested in subject 3, he can ignore it an concentrate on subject 2, or go back to subject 1. It's quite different from sitting around in the pub talking, in that respect. So I honestly, truly, don't understand why people get annoyed about it (well, except when the subject lines don't get changed, which I fully understand can be annoying). Somebody explain why it bothers people, please, so I know what I should avoid doing...
Full marks, Betty, I think you've hit on a solution. If someone wants to take a serious thread in a silly direction, all they have to do is take the trouble to change the header. So when I see "Re [B7L]: Travis' knob (was Definition of Fascism)" then I can treat it as an entirely different thread, and contribute or ignore as I see fit.
Is that really too much to ask?
Neil
Neil Faulkner wrote:
To me, it is a very serious issue of Lyst etiquette. Maybe you've never been on the receiving end of it, because if you had you would know how infuriating it can get.
Just wanted to say, thanks, Neil, for the serious response to the serious question. I don't think I ever *have* experienced quite the sort of thing you're talking about, but I can now understand what it is that bothers you about it.
Full marks, Betty, I think you've hit on a solution. If someone wants to take a serious thread in a silly direction, all they have to do is take the trouble to change the header.
This seems simple enough to do.
Fiona said:
To give a (semi-)fictitious example, some people can be having a discussion on, say, themes of class struggle in "Weapon," and then somebody else, who hasn't participated at all up until this point, will launch in and say "Ooh, I think Carnell's accent is dead sexy! What's everyone else think?" And there's the whole prospect of
further
serious discussion gone to pot.
But why not just reply to the points raised in the last post actually about the class struggle?
Now I like that aspect of it. A lot. But I also like them to keep to the same sort of tone as the series.
I'd say that depends on your attitude toward the tone of the series.
What grates on me is not, say, someone writing a story where the relationship between Avon and Blake is explored, it's when it's explored by having them make long impassioned emotional speeches while staring into each other's eyes. I'd have no objection to
the
relationship between Buffy and Angel being explored in this way, cos over the course of that series they *do* have impassioned emotional discussions while in a clinch. But not Blake and Avon.
"Do I have a choice?" "Yes" "Then I agree." They really do spend a LOT of time much closer together than decorum would dictate.
-(Y)
At 03:55 PM 2/21/01 -0500, Dana Shilling wrote:
But why not just reply to the points raised in the last post actually about the class struggle?
Exactly. The whole concept of "thread-hijacking" seems to assume that Dave the D*ckhead has some sort of superpower that prevents Manny the Marxist and Lori the Libertarian from pressing "delete" (let alone "killfile") and continuing their discussion.
Maximum power! -- For A Dread Time, Call Penny: http://members.tripod.com/~Penny_Dreadful/
Penny said:
Exactly. The whole concept of "thread-hijacking" seems to assume that Dave the D*ckhead has some sort of superpower that prevents Manny the Marxist and Lori the Libertarian from pressing "delete" (let alone "killfile") and continuing their discussion.
Well, we were doing all right distributing the Pylene 50 antidote when we ran into a spot of trouble...
-(Y) or maybe, in this context, Dayna
----- Original Message ----- From: Dana Shilling dshilling@worldnet.att.net
To give a (semi-)fictitious example, some people can be having a discussion on, say, themes of class struggle in "Weapon," and then somebody else, who hasn't participated at all up
until
this point, will launch in and say "Ooh, I think Carnell's accent is
dead
sexy! What's everyone else think?" And there's the whole prospect of
further
serious discussion gone to pot.
But why not just reply to the points raised in the last post actually about the class struggle?
I think Neil answered that one better than I could. He's right, it *is* awfully offputting when you're gearing up for a rapier thrust to open a post which seems to be on the same topic but isn't. The reverse equivalent might be me going into a thread on red leather trousers and saying "That's intriguing. Have you considered deconstructing these trousers as a signifier of Lacanian potency, with regard to Derrida's belief that deconstruction cannot exist outside of the text?" A lot of people would flame me, and for good reason.
relationship between Buffy and Angel being explored in this way, cos
over
the course of that series they *do* have impassioned emotional
discussions
while in a clinch. But not Blake and Avon.
"Do I have a choice?" "Yes" "Then I agree." They really do spend a LOT of time much closer together than decorum would dictate.
This is a possibly delicate subject on which I am again going to risk offending people, but it's something about which I have a lot of suppressed feeling which it may be time to air. Deep breath, here goes.
1) I have a friend who is a gay man. He watches B7, and whenever he watches a TV show he watchs it with his gaydar at the ready :). I once asked him if he saw any of the gay subtext in B7 which many fans say they do. He replied that he detected no sexual tension *at all* between Blake and Avon. Now, before you say "but the actors weren't gay, so of course he didn't," this doesn't always read. Scott Fredericks is (I speak as one who has spent a full day taping with him) about as straight as they get-- and yet this same friend said he detected a sexual ambiguity in Carnell. Which, Mr Fredericks confirmed when asked, he had intended the character to have, and in fact gave "a look" to a male officer at the suggestion of George Spenton-Foster, who *was* gay (incidentally, I've heard other gay men say they had no problem seeing the attraction between the leads on Queer as Folk, even though all three IIRC were played by straight men).
2) This is not to say that there *aren't* gay subtexts on the show. Egrorian and Krantor (who incidentally reminds me of the flamboyantly bisexual Rafiq of "Gangsters") are at least bisexual; I've mentioned Carnell. Dorian, a character who liked to "indulge any taste... any sensation..." (and who was played by a gay man), gives Avon a decidedly cruisy look after making the above quote (and Avon replies "you really are insane, aren't you?" :)). In other series there are flagrant gay subtexts-- The Tomorrow People for one, and read my expose on certain episodes of Doctor Who, if you like, at http://redrival.com/nyder/whosqueer.html. But in all of those cases, those subtexts were put in there intentionally by the writer and/or director and/or actor (or fall under the category of accidental double-entendre). I've yet to see any evidence of that for Blake and Avon.
Now before people start up with the old "That's your interpretation, it's not mine," defense, I'd say that I wouldn't have a problem with this if it was simply put forward as fanon or wishful posthoc interpretation. There are, I'm sure, people who write slash while thinking "Of course, the two characters were *really* straight, but wouldn't it be nice...?" But in this case I took what you said to refer to them being "closer than decorum would dictate" as referring to the confines of the show. If I've misunderstood, I'm sorry and please take all these arguments as misdirected.
3) It *is* possible for two men to spend a lot of time together, and share a close friendship, without it being sexual. Albert Speer and Adolf Hitler, for instance. Lennon and McCartney. Morecambe and Wise. In a way, I'd argue that to explain the intriguing closeness of Blake and Avon simply through a sexual attraction is to ignore the other possibilities of human relationships, which are really quite fascinating for a student of human behaviour.
The Greeks believed in five kinds of love, and that the noblest was Agape, or self-sacrificing love. I tend to see Blake and Avon's love as being Agape, not Eros. And Chris Boucher has said this 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
At 10:11 PM 2/21/01 +0000, Fiona Moore wrote:
The reverse equivalent might be me going into a thread on red leather trousers and saying "That's intriguing. Have you considered deconstructing these trousers as a signifier of Lacanian potency, with regard to Derrida's belief that deconstruction cannot exist outside of the text?"
That'd be cool. So then maybe the Intellectual Giants go off on a pomo fashion tangent while the Nattering Nitwits continue trying to determine Avon's religion frame-by-frame...both directions (in my opinion) equally deserving of the header "Red Leather Trousers". Up with multipseudoculturalism!
A lot of people would flame me, and for good reason.
What is this good reason (assuming you don't have me killfiled yet, although I hope you do)? What do you consider the acceptable parameters of red trousers talk?
-- For A Dread Time, Call Penny: http://members.tripod.com/~Penny_Dreadful/
----- Original Message ----- From: Penny Dreadful pennydreadful@powersurfr.com
At 10:11 PM 2/21/01 +0000, Fiona Moore wrote:
The reverse equivalent might be me going into a thread on red leather trousers and saying "That's intriguing. Have you considered deconstructing these trousers as a
signifier
of Lacanian potency, with regard to Derrida's belief that deconstruction cannot exist outside of the text?"
That'd be cool. So then maybe the Intellectual Giants go off on a pomo fashion tangent while the Nattering Nitwits continue trying to determine Avon's religion frame-by-frame...both directions (in my opinion) equally deserving of the header "Red Leather Trousers". Up with
multipseudoculturalism!
Ah, but what happens when the question of Avon's religion starts to enter into the cultural trope of the elasticity of the trouser-flies? Postmodernists are totally stuck on religious and sexual imagery, you know...
A lot of people would flame me, and for good reason.
What is this good reason (assuming you don't have me killfiled yet, although I hope you do)?
Penny, I would never killfile the woman I love :).
What do you consider the acceptable parameters of red trousers talk?
I just meant that some people might not like to have their enjoyment of speculation on Avon's religion ruined by someone attempting a Foucauldian analysis thereof-- although perhaps they might be hurt by it, and then we could comfort them :)...
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
Tavia wrote:
Wendy wrote (in two different posts):
You're following a discussion on, say, Travis 1/Travis 2, and suddenly
someone pops up under
the same header to talk about how much of each of them you can see
through
their costumes?
I believe most people have bodies under their clothes. I may be wrong.
I'm positive they do... but I once saw someone on the Lyst referring to some bloke or other on the series wearing "trousers so tight you could tell his religion." Made *me* wince, that's for sure...
Some people who are intelligent also have sex. I believe.
Most of them don't have it in a place where 300 people can see...
Shane
"One day we're going to go into one of those black holes and never come out." "One day, Vila, we all do that."
-
Betty Ragan -
Dana Shilling -
Fiona Moore -
littles＠lycos.co.uk -
Neil Faulkner -
Penny Dreadful -
Tavia Chalcraft -
Una McCormack