Blakes7 February 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

80 participants
929 discussions

Re: [B7L] Deliverance
by Sally Manton 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

Neil wrote: <Even if he does what he's told, but does it his way (because it's *his*) then that could be taken as a manifestation of sexism. But if she makes unreasonable demands on him *because* he's a man, then that is not sexism but a reaction to it.> Given that (if I understand you correctly, and BTW agree with you if I have) B7 society is patriarchal) does this mean that Servalan's prelediction for hitting on her subordinates like that pretty toyboy in SLD may be nasty but could not be called sexism? _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Subtext vs Character
by Sally Manton 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

Neil wrote: <Whereas to me, it referred to the imagery, and the imagery was that of a rocket being fired off by a man who happened to be Avon. That it *was* Avon is almost irrelevant, it's the imagery that matters.> Exactly my point. From your POV, of course I appeared to be hijacking the thread, but I wasn't, truly (well, not deliberately :). <True, we have the problem of differing viewpoints. But I notice that you refer to the subtext as 'perceived', implying that it is not really there.> Oh no, sorry, that's *not* what I meant by using that word, just trying (in my humble way) to accomodate the fact that some people in the discussion do see this *particular* subtext in this particular episode and, as you said, it is real to them and others like me do not see it (well, not here or in the same way). And some see it skewed one way and others skewed differently. And some see one particular subtext (or a whole range of interwoven ones) and others see a completely different set. Whole range of perspectives, each valid in its own way (yes, even the A-B one I'm deeply wedded to :-)) and I freely acknowledge that I could be the one in error. I do agree that it's easier to *remember* to put in something like 'perceived', or 'apparent' (and the all-important IMHO) when it's not a view one holds personally - if anyone feels I'm casting doubt on the validity of *their* views, I apologise. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Travis 1 vs 2.
by Nathan Hook 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

Personally I like Greif over Croucher. Two reasons. One I like Griefs voice better. I grabbed a sound file form a web site with grief announcing, 'Oh thats very amusing Blake, for a dead man.' The inflection in the voice is fantastic. His voice beats Crouchers hands down, Croucher always lacked that sense of authority and ruthlessness. Two: i think I got used to Greif, even though he only appeared in a few episodes. He was Travis. this is not intending to denigrade Croucher as an actor, however, i wonder if the roles had been reversed, would we have preferred Greif or Croucher? Pure conjecture. > >Now somebody mentioned the possibility of men of ordinary rank or background making the rank of Travis' - an officer. Did travis in other words? It's possible. However, if we look at army culture now and how it works, certainly in the UK and here in NZ, which is based on the same model, the average squaddie or grunt, is never going to make officer. Having some experience of and known many friends who were/are invlolved in the army as grunts or officers, the general concensus is; they(squaddies) neither have the inclination and ruthlessly, often don't have the brains. >Now this may sound extremely harsh, but a nz soldier earns about NZ $27 000, which is a pitance. I would want a lot more money if I was to be paid to be shot at.(the foods good though) privates, are shouted at, drilled and smacked about. this is done by lance corporals and corporals, who are only half a step up, or a step up from the privates. due to the general lack of intelligence amongst them and the fact they have "power" over other people, they rip into people. the saying goes, shit rolls down hill. in non - comissioned ranks this is certainly true. those with rank over inferiors are often overgrown bully boys who enjoy squashing people, just becuase it makes them feel good. Sometimes it serves a pupose and there are exceptions and exceptional people, however the officer ranks are a world apart from the non-commissioned ones. It is extremely difficult to move between the two. Indeed there is hatred from ordinary soldiers for officers. Officers are far better educated and! better treated than the ordinary soldier. There is a clear demarkation between ranks. In the Uk this is particularly noticable, as you listen to the speech of an officer as compared to a soldier of a non-commissioned rank. The speech thing is not so distinct in NZ, we're not separated by old ingrained class structures which seem to still exist in the UK, but you don't find non-commissioned personnel sitting in your military history papers at university. >A rather blunt assessment of army culture, but it's been this way for a very long time, and is very slow to change. >If we look at the structure of federation society, we know that people were ranked on intelligence. Villa supposedly hid his intelligence. Blake was an alpha grade and Tarrant attended the Federation Space Academy, which if we remember, was for talanted pilots and officers...that is if tarrant wasn't lying. listen to the voice, compared to villa. Essentially a class system. society may change with the advancement of technology, but human behaviour and motivations are the same. Hence shakespeare still relevant and popular as an observation on human behaviour. >Travis himself recognised a clear ranking system. 'I'm a field officer! Not one of your decorative staff men.' >Look at Parr in trial...clear difference in who had the rank and power. could you imagine Parr defending himself in a court marshal like travis did? >Servalan and her pilots in moloch. She ranked them far above Grosse and his rank and file rabble. >If the rest of Federation society was based on intellectual rank, then the armed services would most certainly have been. >Nayte. 'A lady of a "certain age", which means/ Certainly aged.'Byron. ------------------------------------------------------------ Free, BeOS-friendly email accounts: http://BeMail.org/ love and pixels .:. http://dieselsweeties.com/

2 1

liking 'character'
by Sally Manton 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

Alison wrote: <For the most part characters in fiction are a lot less complex than real characters. <snip> So, I often find ideas, milieux and plots more interesting than fictional characters, because I frequently think that fictional characters are simplistic, rigid, and implausible. They reflect the author's prejudices, and reinforce the readers'.> Interesting, but I'd definitely say that the same is true of "ideas, milieux and plots" in a lot of fiction. The average difference between real people and homo fictus is probably no greater than the difference between real life messiness and unfinishedness, and the constraints of an acceptable fictional plot., even a brilliant one. And <g> how *can* you claim that the ideas and themes of a story would *not* reflect the author's prejudices? I would've said that was the *most* likely place his own mindset would imprint, even more so than the characters he invents to illustrate those ideas. And Neil: <I think it was Steven Pacey, in some interview or other, who observed that ninety per cent of the lines for the regular cast could have been given to just about any of the characters.> <gurgle> Well, this could have been due to the fact that a lot of *his* ('specially in 3rd season) could have been handed round like a cheese platter ... yes, Tarrant is a fairly straightforward and standardised hero, Dayna and Soolin are underwritten, Jenna is a fairly standard bar-room-hostess type (hard as nails, heart of tarnished gold), Gan is a even more fairly standard Nice Guy. A lot of their lines *could* be switched, maybe, though they'd still need a fair tweaking to make them sound right (if anyone can imagine Dayna doing Gan's moral protests in Shadow with a straight face, or Jenna coming out with Tarrant's mini-sermons on crewmanship, said one is doing better than I am IMO). After all, see the number of complaints when Dayna - in Animals - *does* sound like she's been given Cally-lines. If they're interchangeable, how come we all notice the difference :-)? And it gets worse with the more intensely individual characters. If you try handing Vila's lines to Tarrant or Dayna, or Her Supremeness's lines to Meegat, 'tis a whole new ball game (and would be a *completely* different show, possible rather a fun one) wouldn't it? Of course, the same is true for real live people (everyone be honest, how much of what you've actually said so far today is *that* unique it couldn't have been duplicated by the person standing next to you on the street? Even setting aside the "Mornin'", "Coffee, anyone?" "Bloody awful weather, innit?" "Where in the world did I put the keys?", "Who the hell's got the ACME file now?" stuff. <Actually, you can have fun with this - take a script and swap lines about. It works most of the time.> Am trying to imagine 'Gambit' with Travis 1 ... no it *don't*, Neil :-) <I suppose the character junkies' retort would be that although you keep the same words, they get delivered in a completely different way.> No, the words have to be different, at least a bit. The more definite characters - Blake, Avon, Vila and Servalan - do IMO use the language in their own way. Try, for instance, any of Avon & Blake's sparring and switch them (that lovely opening scene in Redemption, for instance). Might work for you, but it doesn't for me. Avon is precisely perfect in his speech, Blake carelessly perfect. There is a difference. Then compare it with Avon's part in his and Tarrant's bland little spat in Sarcophagus; the difference in how he talks *to the other individual characters* is there as well. Also, as far as delivery goes, there's a significant difference between the way Avon talks in 2nd and 4th seasons - his voice is a lot more harsh and theatrical in the later episodes. But it still sounds like *Avon* (albeit an Avon after the rather heavy canonical dumping he received from Rumours to rescue). _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

3 3

liking 'character'
by Alison Page 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

Another complication is that there is a difference between liking stories based around 'character', and being particularly interested in human characters. After all one might be a mountain climber, but not care for mountaineering films. For the most part characters in fiction are a lot less complex than real characters. Also they don't generally put a bomb under your ideas in the way real people do. Put it like this. A racist person might see Hal Mellanby and think to him/her self 'ah, but in real life black people aren't clever enough to be top scientists - it's just BBC political correctness' (or whatever racist people think in the privacy of their own minds). But in real life if they are confronted with a black person who (say) explains quantum mechanics to them, they don't have this escape do they? Real life puts a bomb under preconceptions. The same with your ideas on sexism, love, self-sacrifice, totalitarianism etc. So, I often find ideas, milieux and plots more interesting than fictional characters, because I frequently think that fictional characters are simplistic, rigid, and implausible. They reflect the author's prejudices, and reinforce the readers'. Only if a character is very well done (or, I suppose, to be honest) reflects my particular prejudices and priorities, do I value that character very highly. The best character descriptions of all are those which make you recognise something in real life that you have never noticed before. But crikey, I think you almost need to be Jane Austen to pull that trick off again and again. 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 **********************************************************************

5 5

Re: ideology vs individuality
by Helen Krummenacker 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

> Have you ever tried looking at people as *animals*? I don't mean to > dehumanise them in any way, just to stop seeing the person for a moment, and > see instead an individual of one particular offshoot of the evolutionary > tree. People can look startlingly different if you get the right mind > adjustment Constantly. I frequently think about what evolutionary advantages their might be to some human traits, and what ones may just be there because they don't get in the way of survival. At the same time, I have never felt this impeded my ability to respect how individuals think and express themselves. Loaded with the burdens of language, culture, and genetic predispositions, people still attempt to form beliefs and explain why they believe them. > If we all hear pretty much the same tune, then we're all going to > dance in pretty much the same way. Individuality diminishes. It can even > disappear altogether. And yet... in a society where men are expected to take an active role and women to be more passive, David Jackson did not (or did not successfully) lobby for better lines and scripts for Gan. Meanwhile, Jacqueline Pierce expanded her part from the 4 episodes they were planning to have Servalan in, to the ongoing baddie. Plus, she talked them into giving her glamour costumes instead of military uniforms, and got lots of fabulous scenes. If J.P. had had different tastes, Servalan might have worn business atttire rather than evening gowns. Of course, the variations happen within a social framework, but a slow accumulation of individual choices can change social expectations. Even on a large scale, to look at what a *society* accepts, believes, etc, is to ignore the fact that societies change with time. You must use statistics and generalizations to say what a society is-- and there may be counterexamples within the group. In fact, a single person can have conflicting views on matters. And one of the most important differences between individuals is how they interpret and define words. I'm rapidly getting the feeling that Neil and I mean completely different things when we say someone 'represents' something. If I understand him, he is saying an outsider's interpretation of whaat I represent is part of who I am, whereas I define myself by what *I* believe I am and represent, and if someone else interprets me as something else, they are misunderstanding me and that is part of who they are, not who I am. I am a peaceloving cowboy-- it's not my fault if the Indian reaches for his rifle, and hopefully I can get him to understand this before he does something irreversable. It matters that the Liberator crew came to try to help Ensor Jr, not to try to harm the planet's occupants. It does matter that Avon took the time to figure out how to work the rocket controls-- whether he was doing it out of gratitude, kindness, or for his ego, it had more to do with him being a *person* than being a man.

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: Subtext vs Character
by Sally Manton 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

Neil wrote: <Takee very careful note, everyone, you might never see this again. I agree with Sally.> That's all right, everyone's allowed to once or twice a decade :-) Now if I can just convert the Tarrant Nostra ... <But some of us are thinking about the parameters, and stay out of threads where we feel we have no meaningful contribution to make. <snip> <Actually 'the post that started it all' accused the episode, not Avon, of misogyny. A classic case of imposing a CJ framework on a non-CJ thread, methinks.> Now this could illustrate the viewpoint problem here. The post that actually drew *me* into the thread wasn't Wendy's short opening one, but (and Wendy, I'm truly not trying to criticise you, I'm quoting this to try and make things clearer for non-CJs) went as follows : "After a bit of Freudian imagery of Avon firing off a big rocket and fertalising her race, he then leaves her to die of radiation poisoning on Cephlon, having taken away her reason for living! A case if wham, bang, thank you man. What a sexist pig!" To me, that *did* refer to Avon, I didn't mentally add the words "Terry Nation is!" to the end of the sentence. I did take it as character discussion, since it appeared to be a comment not on the episodic inferences, but on one character's own actions. So of course I treated it as as much a character thread as a subtext one, since the point I entered, and most of the posts I answered appeared - and still appears to me - to have derived at least partly *from* this comment which I saw as a judgment of the character, not the episode, and as based on a statement about his actions (that he left her to die) which I didn't agree was *fact* but rather supposition. Now of course, my reading could be because I am more interested in the characters than the writers, and therefore it's more in the way I read the post. I accept that. But it wasn't a *totally* unreasonable assumption, *me* thinks ... This business of staying out of threads is a bit of a hairy business therefore. It's easy for me to say "this thread's on the chemical properties of Aquitar, I'll just sit back and try and learn or even understand something". It's easy for you to say "Red leather trousers and Avon's state of mind at Terminal ... oh bloody hell, not again!" But when it's a thread combining [a] interpretation of a perceived subtext by one of the writers involved on the episode *and* [b] interpretation of what one or more of the characters *actually did or did not do* (remember, part of this discussion was a disagreement on the validity of individual interpretations of the part of the action not shown) it gets more complicated. Besides which, do admit, had all of us CJs not become involved over that little point, the thread wouldn't have been nearly as long or convoluted, and probably died a quiet death. As it is, my inbox is chockers every morning. *How* many posts has it spawned now? <And why are you telling your rats?> They listen so politely and never disagree ... _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

3 2

Re: Deliverance
by Helen Krummenacker 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

> THINK.... WHICH ARE YOU-- WOLF OR SHEEP? > > > Wendy > Now you're just insulting people. I doubt many of us have our whole lives wrapped up in waiting for a Messiah to save our people. Therefore, no Lord Avon could take away our reason for living. Besides, Blake's entire life is devoted to defeating the Federation. If Avon had won the fight while he was disappeared, would Avon have taken away his reason for living. You seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is blinded by Avon's appearence. That is really, truely insulting. You are being sexist in assuming that hormones are overpowering people's ability to reason. Okay, aside from Neil, we haven't heard too much from the men on the Lyst. This also seems to assume that Meeghat quietly curled up to die post-Deliverance. I don't assume she has been transported to another planet, but I do think, now that she doesn't have to tend the rocket-bunker, she has been able to move on to a *more* varied and interesting life among her people, where, as I have said before, she would be greatly respected for her part in fulfilling the prophecy. Once again, I see Wendy's assumption as being sexist, assuming Meeghat has no ability to adapt to change, and that her inability to launch a rocket and her belief in prophecy make her incompetent in all areas of life. Many modern people believe there will be a Messiah. Few of them are rocket scientists. Does this mean that they are stupid? No. Calle, Iain, anyone who known to be not Avon-biased? Please answer the following: Did Meeghat, in her circumstances, do the right thing by her standards by letting Avon in and persuading him to launch the rocket? Did Avon 'take everything away from her', or did they form a mutually beneficial arrangement, in which he took care of a task for her and she offered shelter to him and his companions?

3 2

Deliverance Is Not Sexist
by Penberriss Wendy S. 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

KNOCK KNOCK There's a handsome wolf at the door. Let him in and he will take away everything, including your reason for living, and then leave you to die. Deliverance is not sexist-- it is not imperialist-- it is not misogynistic-- it's a test. Only the victim will find excuses and fight to open the door and let the wolf in. Even when the truth is spelt out to them. THINK.... WHICH ARE YOU-- WOLF OR SHEEP? Wendy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

4 3

Re: [B7L] Re: Subtext vs Character
by J MacQueen 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

>From: Mistral <mistral(a)centurytel.net> >Um, I think I've posted about that repeatedly (to Joanne's occasional >dismay). <raises eyebrow> Indeed. I'd stick to discussing red leather trousers if I were you. It amuses Julia, and keeps me sane. Well, relatively... Regards Joanne _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

7 8

← Newer
1
...
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
...
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