Blakes7 February 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

80 participants
929 discussions

Re: fandom
by Helen Krummenacker 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

> << Reason 5 mundanes don't get into fandom-- when you describe anything we > do, it tends to sound extremely pathetic. It's knowing the fans that > makes it all worth while. >> > > About as pathetic as grown men and women wandering around hitting a tiny ball > with a stick (golf) or chasing a slightly bigger ball around a concrete > "court" (tennis) or rolling a great big heavy ball down a wooden corridor > (bowling) or chasing a little ball up and down a field (football). Just about > *any* hobby can sound pathetic to those who aren't interested in it. Some > people like to catalog insects (B7 reference! <g>) and others like to catalog > things in their favorite tv show. Where's the difference? > > Annie I don't believe there is one, except fandom can be done on the cheap, and I don't believe golf can. I think watching sports is silly (there's no plot! no characterization!) and playing them, good simply for the exercise. When *I* hear about Neil cataloguing birds in the background, I think "Wow, what an exceptional way of combining two hobbies, and what a lovely shortcut for anyone who needs that reference material." But I can also step into the shoes of someone who's not that interested and see how they would think, "Wow, what an incredible waste of time!" I know I shouldn't spend a much time as I have been lately with the list-- I have artwork deadlines to meet. (3 competitive shows; 2 solo shows, and a Con by May!) But sitting here is keeping me put while I'm sick, so it has its practical advantages. :)

1 0

Re: Sally's Posts
by Betty Ragan 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

Wendy wrote: > There's a lot of people who have delighted *me* long enough, but I'm > not going to suggest that *they* should be excluded from the list or > ignored.... No, you seem, instead, to be hoping that if you're nasty enough to them they'll either be overwhelmed by your force of personality and miraculously start agreeing with you, or be cowed enough to just shut up and go away. (I tried to bite my tongue. I did. I hate flamewars, and I'm going to hate myself for hitting "send," but, dammit... I happen to like and respect the people you're aiming your vitriol at, and I don't *want* them to be cowed into shutting up and going away!) -- Betty Ragan ** bragan(a)nrao.edu ** http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~bragan Not speaking for my employers, officially or otherwise. "Seeing a rotten picture for the special effects is like eating a tough steak for the smothered onions..." -- Isaac Asimov

2 1

Re: Sally-speak
by Penberriss Wendy S. 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

>Responding to Wendy, Neil wrote: > >> > I prefer to think of myself not as a shit-stirrer but >> > as a crap-defuser. >> >> Very noble, very idealistic, but above all very futile. You're not going to >> change anyone's perceptions of anything by forcing your own on them. Rather >> you're going to get them digging their heels in. > >Indeed. There is nothing remotely as effective at >getting me to >ignore your posts, dismiss your opinions, and >reinforce my commitment >to my own position as taking that kind of >insulting "anybody who agree >with me is not only wrong but disgusting and stupid >and evil" tone. As I've just said to Neil, I didn't say that. You can post what you like. I'm posting what I like. I don't necessarily want you to agree with me, I just want people to THINK about what gets said. And if I have to offend a few people to get them to think about why they consider their opinions to be the right ones, then offend them I shall. >After all, if >you don't respect my opinions, why should I respect >yours? But whenever I post, there are only one or two people who do actually answer my posts rationally. Everyone else just screams and rants. That's no way to get me to respect *your* opinions! >> On the other hand, you can leave the women alone and have them >> unrealistically impervious to any kind of injury whatsoever. It's >> one of those charming double binds that us writers have to struggle >> with. > >Personally, I *much* prefer to see women and men >treated equally in >this way. Reading a piece of fiction where I felt >the author was >deliberately being "nicer" to the women because they >were women would >annoy me intensely But take any piece of hurt-comfort fiction at random, switch the sex of the character (e.g. make it Cally not Avon) read it through and see how it sounds. It's not the violence, it's the sadism I don't like. (and note: I said *I* don't like. If you like sadism, that's up to you). Wendy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

1 0

Re: fandom
by Helen Krummenacker 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

> My usual retort to those who classify > fandom with trainspotting (ie most of my acquaintance) is that nearly > everyone watches television (some fans less than average), non-fans are > content to sit and watch, while fans try to participate in social and/or > creative ways. > > Tavia Well, put, Tavia! I only watch 3 shows on TV these days, only 2 of which are genre. But I have boxes of videotapes of anime, British comedy, musicals, fav movies and SF. Of which I rewatch maybe 2-3 hours of a week. My currently active fandoms are Blake's 7, which I have stuck in fandom of because I am fascinated by the viewpoints on the list, and Harry Potter, where I have been developing Snape in fanfic and participated in an online version of Hogwarts where I get to relive my glory days of being one of the best students in the school. :)

1 0

Re: suffering
by Helen Krummenacker 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

> >If somebody wrote about one of the girls > >being sadistically tortured, there'd be an outcry. > > Well, apart from *three* torture scenes involving women I can think of in > the series offhand (Cally in SLD, Jenna in Horizon, Kasabi in PP), not to > mention that wall scene (RoD), there's an awful lot of fic involving > Servalan torture. May I add, Dayna, Animals; not to mention Dayna's sister in Aftermath.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Sally-speak (was: Was it something I said :-)
by Marian de Haan 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

Sally wrote re Tarrant: >I've also seldom liked fanfic versions, which seem to swing between Bitchy-Superjock-from-Hell (and not even good bitchiness, though he *has* a neat way with a verbal stiletto when he likes) and Sir-Galahad-in-Space, so sweet and virtuous and dutiful and noble and squeaky-clean that he makes my teeth ache (yes, there are similar version of both Avon and even Vila. *They* make my teeth ache as well).< And mine. The same goes for the sugary sweet version of Blake. Marian

2 1

Re: 'Vilakins'
by Helen Krummenacker 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

> > though Vilakins is nice to > > have around as well. > > Vilakins?! Why is it that every man who isn't dominant > has to be seen as some kind of puppy dog? > Because a real woman wants one under her Christmas tree, to cuddle as the years go on as he treats her with utter devotion? Although I don't see Vila as being that loyal. I *like* non-dominant men. Better listeners, more respectful, more supportive, not only compared to egotistical men, but also compared to many females. IRL, most of us would probably want to accidently forget to teleport back up any of the men except Gan. Vila would be okay if he'd lay off making passes.

2 1

Re: Avalon
by Helen Krummenacker 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

> [...]And, after that, she just never got the notice she deserved. > > And whatever she did, they probably assigned to some bloke > in Cadre #4 anyway. Got attributed to Blake, actually. Didn't Servalan go on a rant about how every act of insurrection and even mere happenstance troubles the Federation had got attributed to him?

1 0

RE: [B7L] Re: fandom
by Louise Rutter 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

Helen wrote: > Which brings me to the point that I know quite a few women who do > actually watch (etc.) Doctor Who to a degree that I would consider fannish, > but who don't get involved in organised fandom because they feel a bit > excluded by the overwhelmingly male-centred character thereof. While I've watched DW certainly to a fannish degree, the series just never inspired me to get involved in organised fandom. I attended the Who's 7 conventions to meet teh people I knew from B7 fandom and wouldn't attend a pure DW convention. That has nothing to do with the fact that the Doctor is male,or that the fandom is male-dominated (I get the impression) and not even anything to do with the fact that most of the female characters were incapable of picking up a heavy object and bashing the alien over the head with it, but just stood in a corner screaming. Doctor Who just didn't interest me enough to want to get involved and debate it. With a few notable exceptions, the morality is clear-cut black and white, the aliens evil killers with no conscience and no motivation other than to rule for the sake of it, the Doctor the guy in the right who saves the planet. It's fun to watch for 25 minutes, but what's to discuss? Louise

2 1

Re: Sally-speak
by Betty Ragan 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

Responding to Wendy, Neil wrote: > > I prefer to think of myself not as a shit-stirrer but > > as a crap-defuser. > > Very noble, very idealistic, but above all very futile. You're not going to > change anyone's perceptions of anything by forcing your own on them. Rather > you're going to get them digging their heels in. Indeed. There is nothing remotely as effective at getting me to ignore your posts, dismiss your opinions, and reinforce my commitment to my own position as taking that kind of insulting "anybody who agree with me is not only wrong but disgusting and stupid and evil" tone. By contrast, there are those, on this list and elsewhere, with whom I violently disagree, but whose posts are so well-thought-out and reasonable that they cause me to seriously re-think my own position. Gratuitous nastiness is never going to acheive the kind of results you can get from a willingness to talk to the other person as if you actually respect them as an intelligent human being. After all, if you don't respect my opinions, why should I respect yours? > On the other hand, you can leave the women alone and have them > unrealistically impervious to any kind of injury whatsoever. It's > one of those charming double binds that us writers have to struggle > with. Personally, I *much* prefer to see women and men treated equally in this way. Reading a piece of fiction where I felt the author was deliberately being "nicer" to the women because they were women would annoy me intensely. Both because that *is*, in my view, sexist, and also because, more likely than not, the result will be an inferior piece of fiction. (Hmm. I seem to be feeling unusually contentious today...) -- Betty Ragan ** bragan(a)nrao.edu ** http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~bragan Not speaking for my employers, officially or otherwise. "Seeing a rotten picture for the special effects is like eating a tough steak for the smothered onions..." -- Isaac Asimov

1 0

← Newer
1
...
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
...
93
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Blakes7 February 2001