Blakes7 February 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

80 participants
929 discussions

books for Oxfam
by Judith Proctor 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

I've just been asked (with regard to my appeal for people to bring second-hand books to Redemption for Oxfam) whether I want children's books as well. Absolutely! We sell loads of children's books. We sell the lot. Non-fiction, paperbacks (even Mills and Boon), serious books, silly books, new books, old books. (the only things we don't sell are damaged/dirty paperack novels) We sold 200 books in our shop in one week recently (not counting the children's books!). Last week we only sold 98 books because we'd no new stock to put out. If you want to help the survivors of the Indian earthquake, one easy way to do it is to root through your bookshelves and find books that you won't read again, but that somebody else might love. Take them to your local Oxfam shop, or leave them at my dealers table at Redemption (which can be easily spotted as there'll be a small pile of second-hand SF books being sold for Oxfam). Judith PS. If anyone wants any of the following books, get in touch (they're our current valuables which have had the prices checked) Thor Heyherdahl - American Indians in the Pacific 40 pounds (a thick scholarly text on the culture, carving, Easter Island statues, etc. Contains many interesting photos) No dust jacket (which makes it about 40 quid cheaper than a copy with a dust jacket!) The Anubis Slayings - first edition - lovely condition. 18 pounds. Carl Michael Bellman (genius of the Swedish rococco) Seventeen songs translated into English. collectors edition in slipcase - only a hundred printed. 40 pounds The Oxford book of Wild Flowers - 10 pounds - very good condition. We've also got a Biblical Concordence - by Alexander Cruden - printed 1817, quarter bound in leather (looks as though it belongs in the library of a stately home). A massive old volume which has yet to be priced. It would need some restoration as the cover has come free from the pages at the front, but is in reasonable condition apart from that. If anyone's interested, I can tell you the price when I know it. -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 - Fanzines for Blake's 7, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. (also non-Blake's 7 zines at http://www.knightwriter.org ) Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/

1 0

Re: [B7L] Patriarchy (Was: Deliverance)
by Tavia Chalcraft 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

Sally wrote (regarding Neil's comment): >Given that (if I understand you correctly, and BTW agree >with you if I have) B7 society is patriarchal) What's the evidence that B7 society is patriarchal? We encounter a fair few female persons of power within the Federation, apart from Servalan. Tavia

2 1

Re: [B7L] Subtext vs Character, or would Mr Humphries have pushed the right buttons?
by Natasa Tucev 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

Part two - I still owe some answers, and I didn't have enough time yesterday. Me: >>Not exactly. Winston fails as a human being even before he's arrested. Remember when he declares he is ready to do anything to bring down the Party - kill hundreds of innocent people, distribute habit-forming drugs, spread venereal diseases, throw acid in a child's face, if need be? He wants to fight the system, but the system has already transformed him and defeated him completely.<< Fiona: >I don't see this as giving up his humanity. Far from it. Oceania was created by human beings, and is maintained by human beings-- many of whom are probably quite decent sorts. Violence and hatred are human behaviour-- and are practiced/advocated by the resistance in Oceania as much as by the state.< A language problem perhaps. When I say 'failure in humanity' I'm refering to a set of moral values. Winston wants to destroy the Party because it is evil, corrupt and inhuman. His statement of what he is willing to do to destroy it demonstrates that he has also become evil, corrupt and inhuman. In this way the system has already defeated him. >What you seem to be doing is starting off arguing that there is some inner core of goodness to human beings which cannot be destroyed (but can be accessed through love, biological functions etc.)-- but then you go on to say that this core was extinguished in Winston Smith. You can't have it both ways, you know.< I'm arguing that there exist certain possibilities to resist ideology - some of them, as you say, are related to love and instincts, others to the faculties of reason, creativity and so on. I'm not claiming that everybody wants to resist ideology or manages to use these possibilities. I think, and I already said so, that people are often not even aware of what they ought to fight against. Winston accepted the concept of 'neccessery murder' and from then on he was no better than the system he sought to destroy. >Anyway, IIRC, the proles' expression of human heritage consists in quaffing beer, reading pornography and singing pop songs, and they have no knowledge of the past.< Then you don't RC. Proles are human in the way which seems no longer accessible to Winston. He is aware of that. Shortly before he is arrested, he watches a prole woman from his window, working and singing. She is old and her body is 'blown up to monstrous dimensions by child-bearing'. The words of the song are nonsense. Still, he is fascinated by the warmth of her voice and by her vitality. 'The woman down there had no mind, she had only strong arms, a warm heart and a fertile belly... People who had never learned to think but who were storing up in their hearts and bllies and muscles the power that would one day overturn the world... The proles... would stay alive against all the odds, like birds, passing on from body to body the vitality which the Party did not share and could not kill.' N.

3 3

Re: [B7L] IMIPAK
by M 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:41:24 -0500, Dana Shilling wrote: > Jacqui said: > > > The logical assumption is that what we saw was the prototype: if it had > been developed as an acutual weapon it would have 'dial a death' facilities. > Now, THAT's voice mail hell: Press 1 to exterminate the person > directly in front of you, Press 2 to exterminate the last five > people marked... > > -(Y) > Oh ye - oops I just pressed the wrong button!!!???? M. _______________________________________________________ Get 100% private, FREE email for life from Excite UK Visit http://inbox.excite.co.uk/

1 0

Re: [B7L] liking 'character'
by Harriet Monkhouse 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

Sally told Neil: >Blake is being fabulously unreasonable and >pig-headed, Vilakins is doing his kid-locked- >out-of-a-candy-store bit, and Avon's wearing > those boots ... > >How can you compete? Neil can rise to the challenge of fabulously pigheaded, surely! About the rest... hm... I have a sudden rather ridiculous vision of him donning red leather trousers to keep Sally's attention... Harriet

2 1

Re: Deliverance
by Helen Krummenacker 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

> and at the end, on board > the Liberator, he shows more concern for the rocket's future than hers. > Well... the rocket is full of very old machinery and potential life, but not *living* life. Unless everything works perfectly, the launch will do no good, and how (as someone else hinted at before) are the new people going to be raised to adulthood? This is definitely a case of gaping plot hole. Meeghat is, unless she's lying about 'others', part of a society. She looks to be about 30. There's no reason to think she won't survive for a good many more years among her people. OTOH, I can see this as a really good play to start yelling about misogynism. Because the script does seem to place potential life above the life of an individual woman. I would tend to shrug it off as shoddy writing if given no evidence to the contrary-- I try not to look for things to be angry about and only worry about *patterns* of sexism. (Thus my complaint that Cally should have been kept as a warrior and given leadership scripts, not relegated into mommy-mystic roles). But, if you look for hidden ideology, this does seem to be an anti-choice position built into the script. Meeghat doesn't ask to be rescued, but then, as a 'good religious woman', she would not put her health above the potential life entrust to her. Yet, even if this was an intentional pro-life ideology written into the script, I believe that people do have the right to express their viewpoints. Yes, it's annoying now that I've thought to look at it this way, but I appreciate science fiction for its potential to rephrase the topics of modern debates, and the fact that many people think it a shame that Meeghat's future was not explained shows that just rephrasing the debate does not necessarily change people's minds. I may not agree with Neil's ideology all of the time (the middle classes are necessary for successful revolutions if we go by history. When Proles take over governments without having previous democratic experience, we get mob rule and everyone who has shown talent and cleverness is persecuted by those seeking a lowest common denominator. After the mob have wiped out those who can create stability, a dictator steps in)-- but his posts are incredibly well-written, intelligent, and enjoyable. I bring this up to answer the question of why intelligent women can enjoy the episode Deliverance, without resorting to character elements.

4 5

Re: [B7L] liking 'character'
by Tavia Chalcraft 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

Penny wrote: >I find it hard to imagine how one would use emoticons in dialogue, though. >"Vila, you're an idiot, colon hyphen right round bracket," Avon said. I think the text equivalent would be 'Well, hurrah for us,' said Avon, heavy sarcasm evident in his tone. >(And, by the by, were any of said proofs connected to any paranoid types >whose pseudonyms mean "trashy Victorian literature"?) To be strictly truthful, I haven't a clue exactly what *he* was reading. *I* however was reading proofs by a paranoid type whose pseudonym ponces around with a certain line of TS Eliot dialogue. Neil wrote (regarding my suggestion of internet and e-mail usage influencing style): >It might be a contributory factor, but this style of writing seems to stretch >way back into the dawn of fanfic history (well, early Horizon zines anyway), >certainly way before internet use was commonplace (which has only >happened over the past five years or so). Internet usage might be recent, but I seem to recall overusing e-mail, a precursor to chatrooms and a certain bulletin board which shall be nameless way back in 1989 or so, and plenty of others were doing so many years earlier than I. (I learned to touch-type in order to be able to hold several simultaneous notify (chat) conversations and do some work.) >I think Betty's explanation is closer to the truth - >an attempt to recreate the tone of the series, >and especially the characters, as exactly as possible. >What someone recently described as 'reprographic mode'. I think it was me who described it as the 'reprographic mode', but I was deliberately quoting you, Neil. It's strange, most writers have a fair idea in their heads what their characters sound like and how they pronounce their lines, but they (we) don't seem to feel the necessity to point them quite so strongly when putting them in the mouths of original characters, despite the fact that nearly all readers will know what Blake or Avon sound like and their nat ural manner of delivering lines, while our own original characters don't start with that advantage. Tavia

3 2

Re: [B7L] OT: Penguins
by Deborah Day 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet, a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net --------------------------------------------------------------- >Since we're talking about penguins again, I thought that Una and Neil >would be interested in one of the sights on my day out today - the >penguin fence along the side of the road. Yes, really - the main highway >runs a few yards from the dunes and beach, and the penguin colonies in >said dunes don't have a very good grasp of the highway code. There was an article in the paper the other day saying that a baby penguin had been found outside McDonalds in Melbourne being very depressed. Apparently people take them home from the beach and then leave them in the town and they just can't cope with it. I wonder what it would have ordered? Debbie

1 0

Deliverance
by jan b 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

I'm a bit behind in my reading of the posts, but I'm going to post this anyway fwiw. Sorry if it's behind the times. Some thoughts. I've just rewatched Deliverance and enjoyed it a lot more than the last time, when I found I just wanted to sink through the sofa at the Avon-Meegat scenes - nngh! These are my thoughts: 1. Avon is the one identified by Meegat as 'Lord' simply because he is the one who speaks the Words of the Prophecy she has been waiting for - 'Who are you?'. Anyone might have said it, but Avon does. 2. Jenna is captured by the scavengers because a. Gan told her to wait, b. She agreed to wait, c. They were both stupid enough to separate. 3. They can be forgiven for doing such an incautious thing because a. The planet surface has lethal radiation and is unlikely to house threatening fauna, b. Zen had been able to identify no life signs. 4. The scavengers went for Jenna because a. Who in their right mind would attack Gan with just polystyrene rocks :-), and b. Yes, they may need a healthy female to join the tribe. 5. Jenna is not a feeble resourceless character. She frees herself from her restraints and is very unlucky to be spotted by one of the tribesmen as she exits the tent. If anything, Vila is the feeble one, since he makes enough fuss when captured to alert the whole tribe (and see below). The way I see the episode is as giving the writer, the viewers and the B7 crew a chance for amusement at Avon's expense. It's early in the series and we have all had the chance to see how seriously he takes himself. For once he finds himself in a situation where he just can't hide his discomfiture. And on the other hand, he plainly can't resist letting the flattery carry on for a bit - and the others can see this too. It does show his human side; his actions deflate his own action hero/clever clogs persona for a moment, and even Blake can't resist making him squirm with a bit of good natured sarcasm at the end. I don't think Terry Nation would be entirely unaware of a potential Freudian interpretation of the rocket, although I think he'd have let it ride as a bit of wry humour. His topmost thought would have been to flatter us by giving us the opportunity to think - _rockets_ that's _really_ old technology (letting us identify with Blake's crew in the XXXth century, not the unsophisticated people of the planet, and not 20th century TV viewers). In the late seventies, and especially in TV programmes, any sexist nuances (for better or worse) wouldn't have been taken as seriously as now, or even recognised for what they were, as I think has already been said. It's another opportunity for the writer to send Avon up. Regarding leaving Meegat and her people behind, I think strangely it's a sign of respect. It will be several lifetimes before the rocket reaches destination (500 years in fact), and the new people will be a different generation. Meegat's people are dying out, but they have fulfilled their life's mission. They presumably cannot reproduce (in sufficient numbers to remain viable - Meegat may well be one of the very few young people left - 'Our numbers grow smaller, more die'). It seems fitting for them to end their lives on the planet which bore their civilisation. Where else would they want to be? My impression was that they had some resistance to the radiation (living underground?), and would be able to live out their lives as they had done before. Moving to another planet would not prevent the people's death, because the damage was done to their race when the first bombs dropped centuries ago. Meegat's responsibilities as priestess are still to her people even now. It's unthinkable that she would leave them, or that they would leave the planet. I agree with someone else who said that Avon is gentle with Meegat, but not misogynistic or sexist. The gap between her society and his is so great that it would be largely irrelevant to try to explain to her that he is not a god. Her definition of a god is someone who appears as if by magic and can operate the technology and set off the rocket - which in fact does define Avon. It's to his credit that he doesn't try to explain, thus enabling her to retain her position and dignity by performing her role in accordance with her people's traditions. Admittedly she does go overboard when he appears <g>, but by all accounts they have waited several generations for this ('_all_ of my life, as those before me waited'), so she can justifiably feel pretty good to be 'the chosen one' herself - in a religious not any other way. I agree with Cheryl that Avon on the whole is anything but sexist in this episode. It's to all their credit that they go along with what she wants them to do - when Gan says 'We are just men from a spaceship', Vila adds 'with problems of our own' - this is the last thing they need at the moment. I don't agree that Meegat's people would have worked out how to operate the switches by now. There would have been religious restrictions on doing so, which would automatically temper any natural curiosity. And who's to say they would have been wrong; you would only get one chance to do it right, at the risk of destroying the future of the race. The only sexist attitude I can identify is Vila's 'You're enjoying this, aren't you?' Yes Meegat is attractive. Yes Vila is jealous of the attention Avon is getting, but IMO Avon behaves impeccably throughout - and there is attraction on both sides between him and Meegat, as shown by Jenna's reaction when she enters the room. Despite this, Avon _doesn't_ take his relationship with Meegat further because he is too aware of the fact that it would be taking advantage of her. More examples: Avon raises her from her knees not once, but twice. 'Forgive me' 'I forgive you' He does everything in his power to counter her subservience. I can see the same potential for sexism arising if roles were reversed, but would Jenna behave as respectfully if faced with a young attractive and unworldly priest before whom she is in a similar position of power? And what derisive/patronising asides would you get between her and Cally? I hope Jenna would behave as Avon has. This is a power thing, not a gender thing. Finally it's quite a poignant moment when Avon replies to Meegat 'That seems like a poor reward somehow.' (Can't believe I'm presenting him as self-deprecating but that's the way it reads. He's only my _second_ favourite character after all:-) It may be that he is all too aware of the fate that awaits her. This would make it into a very sombre tale; also very in keeping with Terry Nation's writing, especially in B7. IMO any misogynistic agenda would have been the last thing on his mind. Jan B Wendy: Let's face it, in most TV sci-fi, the default position for women is as helpless rescuee. Me: I'd say that's true for TV sci-fi in the sixties, seventies and early eighties (Tarzan and Jane scenarios?!), but less so now. And in B7 Vila was always more likely to sprain his ankle than the female characters :-) In this respect the series could be seen as ahead of its times. Jan B _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

8 14

Re: [B7L] re: Deliverance and Jan B
by Marian de Haan 11 Feb '01

11 Feb '01

Mistral wrote: >Marian de Haan wrote: >> A *Roman* nose? Roman noses are supposed to be hooked. Avon's is perfectly straight :-)<< > >>From some angles, it's remarkably crooked. Not that I'm calling it Roman. < Can you give examples? Marian

2 1

← Newer
1
...
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
...
93
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

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