Blakes7 March 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

96 participants
1067 discussions

Re: [B7L] the politics of slash
by Tavia 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

Neil: >Pseudo-lesbian porn, made by men for a male audience, exists to do >more than merely titillate. It serves to distort, corrupt, contain, ridicule >and ultimately deny the reality of the single biggest challenge to patriarchal >hegemony. Lesbianism threatens a fundamental axiom of patriarchal ideology, >the dependence of women on men, and the pornographic depiction of >lesbianism deliberately seeks to subvert that threat by reconstructing it >within ideologically permissible limits. Homophobic? Not as such. >Heterosexist? Yes, very. Oppressive? Definitely. This all sounds very nice, but... A woman doesn't have to be lesbian not to depend on men. Surely dependence has a lot more to do with bank balances than sexual choices. Moreover, pornographic distorted depictions of lesbianism do nothing to contain the threat to patriarchy of real independent women, whether lesbian, bi or straight. (Always assuming one considers that western society constitutes a patriarchy.) >This is nothing less than subversive. Slash is political dynamite, and >my single biggest reservation about it is the cavalier way in which >its afficionados tend to handle explosives. This particular violence-averse slash aficionado would prefer to see it in terms of fluffy kittens... >But just as m-o porn seizes control of female sexuality >(straight or otherwise) for re-representation in the ideological >interests of its consumers, so slash does likewise with male sexuality. >Both are exercises in the creation of sexual myths with the end >purpose of obscuring rather than revealing sexual truths. One could say both are exercises pure and simple in, shall we say, giving the reader/viewer a good time. Tavia

3 2

Re: Hello Steve Rogerson
by Steve Rogerson 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

David Walsh said: "I saw you rushing through Waterloo this morning, my train was very late and I was running for the bus, otherwise I would have said Hello....." Hi David, sorry I missed you. Hear you are a guest at Eclectic. I'll see you there. -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent The 25th Anniversary Blake's 7 Convention The 10th Anniversary Babylon 5 Convention http://www.smof.com/redemption

1 0

Re: [B7L] reasons
by Shane Little 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

Lisa wrote: > >Shane Little wrote: > > > >>You did say you found the politics boring, and Neil is a very political > >>writer. > > > >I also said I don't care for PWPs, most of which I *also* find boring, as I > >do quite a bit of other fiction. And that when I'm reading for > >entertainment, I don't tend to read stuff that bores me. Why is this some > >sort of issue? It's not an issue as far as I'm concerned. You brought it up, and up until now you've been talking about the reading of slash in general, not your personal entertainment. > >You are not in a position to judge the quality of anyone else's wank. I could make a very bad joke at this point, if I wanted to. >And > >why *should* they have any further merit? Is this some sort of Puritan > >stricture that anything fun is bad unless you're also Learning Something > >Worthwhile? No, I'm just saying if you are going to have a wank, make it a good one. And if you can wank and "Learn Something Worthwhile" at the same time, then all the better. It's not as boring as it might sound-- some of the best fiction is both good entertainment _and_ full of literary merit. But, again, as I keep emphasising, this is only my opinion. >> I tend to regard PWPs as trivia and not pay much attention to them, unless they have something > >to recommend them other than descriptions of sex. So we're agreed then, PWPs are trivial. > > > >>The point is that something that's really not representative of B7 fanfic > >>as a whole seems to be becoming the dominant sort, and that's not allowing > >>much of a voice to the other sorts. > > > >I haven't seen any stats, so I don't know how slash compares with gen in > >terms of B7 fanfic output these days. However, I know there are some good > >gen writers out there who are still producing, and no one's trying to stop > >them and tell them to go write slash instead. If people are interested in > >writing gen, they will. If they're not, they won't. Fair enough, and as long as slash doesn't get blurred with the series I'm happy. > >>Politics is human relations writ large. > > > >Whereas what I'm interested in reading about is more human relations writ > >small (i.e., between specific individuals.) You can write it anyway you like, we are still talking about human relations. Where do you think the phrase "sexual politics" comes from? > >>If the relationships in slash aren't realistic, then it seems to me it's a > >>bad place to go looking for fiction about relationships. > > > >If they're not realistic (which is sometimes but not always the case), it > >might be a bad place to go looking for fiction about *realistic* > >relationships. Which I'm not, so the point is pretty much irrelevant. So basically then, you read slash for _unrealistic_ relationships? > >Stark realism is fairly low on my fiction-reading list in any case, But we weren't talking about stark realism, just about the story having a basis in some kind of canonical "reality" as a whole. Or in the reality of gay relationships-- correct me if I'm wrong but you're not talking about the "realistic" genre of slash here are you? > >and most of > >the characters about whom I'm reading fanfic weren't too realistic to start > >with. So you don't read fanfic about B7 characters. Why then are we having this conversation? > >Now, the relationships do have to be *believable*, in the context of > >the characters *as I see them* (please note pronoun and emphasis), for me > >to enjoy the story, but that's not quite the same thing as "realistic". I think I'm getting a little confused here. Let me get this straight, you like to read fanfic about unrealistic characters in unrealistic situations, but they have to be believable in the context of the characters as you see them. I feel dizzy. Does this mean then you only read fanfic that you write? > > > >>No, but they're not gay. > > > >Your personal interpretation of the characters has been duly noted. No, sorry, but that is not just my personal interpretation, and if you go back and read the Betty/Fiona debate a few weeks back you'll see what I mean. I've come to like and respect a lot of pro-slash people-- but trying to read it back onto the series is the fastest way to stop me taking what you have to say seriously. > > > >>A lot of slash I've seen has nothing to do with gay lifestyles at all, > >>just with titillation. > > > >Again, why is this a problem? It's not *meant* to be making statements > >about "gay lifestyles", so why would you expect it to? It's not pretending > >to be anything it isn't. And yes, some of it is indeed concerned primarily > >with titillation. Some of it isn't. So what? > > As long as you recognise that fact, there isn't a problem, but if you read my answer above you will see why it becomes a problem. By reading it back onto the series you are giving it a validity it does not deserve, or warrant. Also, how many people out there thought, until recently, that slash (and let's just for the moment concern ourselves with poorly researched, speed written shite) was a fair representation of what a gay relationship is all about (some don't, I know, and have spoken out, but are they everyone)? It's an interesting fact that until recently, a serious debate on the merits of slash was thought to be impossible. And it has not gone unnoticed that certain people on this lyst have been doing everything they can to knock this debate over into a personal slanging match. > >>Yes, true, but we're not talking about the deeper stuff. > > > >Well, maybe *you* aren't. Well are you? I haven't seem much evidence of it. > >I would say that you are making some very broad general judgements based on > >very limited knowledge and a narrow focus. No, I'm just answering your e-mails. You're being pro-active, I'm being re-active, it's really up to you to broaden the focus. You started this correspondence with me, after all. > >That does tend to lead to > >fallacious > >conclusions, or at least a biased outlook. I think you're being hard on yourself, but then I suppose you should know, so who am I to argue? > >>As I said, I've grown to respect many of the slash writers and readers on > >>this lyst-- but I have to admit that slash fandom's extreme wing strikes > >>me as nastier than gen fandom's extreme wing. > > > >A lot of slash fans have faced some *very* nasty, vicious, and repressive > >behaviour from anti-slashers with a thought-police agenda, in many fandoms > >and over a long period, Possibly so, but I had a conversation with someone the other day who was convinced that Bodie and Doyle from the Professionals were in fact gay characters, and that both actors were also closet homosexuals. If some fans believe that their favourite programme is being taken over and distorted into something that it was never intended to be, and has nothing at all to do with why they became fans, then I'm not really very surprised that they get a bit upset about it. Perhaps we should all be thankful that, with a few minor exceptions, B7 fandom is mature enough to have a reasoned debate on the subject. Again, though, it's interesting that in this latest discussion, the nastiest--and most censoring--attacks have come from the _pro_ slash side. I mean, it hasn't been an anti-slasher who's been saying "we can't discuss this" and "take it onto Freedom City," it's two of the pro-slashers. > >and some have developed a siege mentality and a > >tendency to lash back in anger. And some have developed a mentality that I would describe as highly aggressive and secretive. > >Personally, I regard that as unfortunate > >and counter-productive, but probably inevitable. It's counter-productive, yes, inevitable, not necessarily. >>Most anti-slash people don't read it, but we are aware of it and affected > >>by it. > > > >Being aware of and affected by other people's opinions and activities is a > >fact of life when living on the same planet with a whole lot of other > >people. Absolutely. > >Again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Then I will reiterate. It's no good Leah or Annie saying things like "if you don't like slash then ignore it", because you _can't _ ignore it. It's everywhere. Now, for whatever reason, slash has become a part of B7 fandom and it isn't going away. However, that doesn't mean that people who aren't in favour of slash are not allowed to express their opinions. It isn't just some of the anti-slashers who have a thought-police agenda either, some of the pro-slashers do as well. In fact I would even go so far as saying that these people are actually _anti-thought_. They don't what you to thinking about it, and they will do what they can to stop it being debated. Anyone out there care to speculate why? > >I don't > >think you're suggesting that people with different opinions should go crawl >into holes and pretend they don't exist, so you don't have to deal with > >being aware of them, No I'm not. That's Leah and Annie you're talking about there, that's what they appear to want. > > but I can't make out what you *are* suggesting. I am not suggesting anything, I am telling you that if you want to write, or read slash, then go ahead. Read and write as much slash as you like, but don't then try and tell me that Avon, Vila, Tarrant and all, were written and played as gay. They weren't. The writers say they weren't, the actors say they weren't, the grammar of the show says they weren't, the way the drama was constructed precludes any sexual relationship developing between the regular characters of _any_ persuasion. B7 was a family show that went out, for the most part, on Monday nights at around 7 o'clock. The programme was an action adventure series with, for the most part, good, strong memorable characters. It also possessed, thanks mainly to Chris Boucher, some very sophisticated concepts and story-lines. The one thing B7 wasn't however, was a gay soap opera. If it was, then I wouldn't be writing to you on this subject now, because if any of the regular characters had been written as gay, then everyone would know it. And do you know why? Because Chris Boucher would have made sure that it was known. If Avon had been written as gay then it would have been shown to us, the evidence would be there on the screen, with no equivocation. But it isn't. And no matter how many scenes people take and twist out of context, they are never going to change that fact. And while I'm at it, here's another fact that isn't going to be changed. The fact that drawing- for- distribution, explicit adult artwork of Actor X and Actor Y, in full knowledge that Actor X and Actor Y are distressed by such representations, is _wrong_. And I'd be extremely suspicious of anyone who does this, because IMO it shows a contempt for the actors who brought this great show and these great characters alive for us. It's a poor reward for the actors who, after all these years, are still willing to make themselves available to sign autographs for fans, pose for pictures and attend fan run events. It's a great big slap in the face, and unfortunately the "fans" responsible are either too blinkered or too selfish to stop and think what they are doing. And before anyone squawks, "It's only the character I am drawing, not the actor," I'll give you my answer now, "Grow up." And for anyone who says, "Other fandoms do it" I say, "If other fandoms killed themselves in a mass suicide pact, would you advocate that we also did the same?" B7 fans, I'll reiterate, seem to me for the most part to be more intelligent and mature than those in many other fandoms. Let's not change this. And finally, for those about to say, "I couldn't care less about the actors. I don't go to conventions to see guests, I don't collect autographs, I don't want any pictures," then I say to you, "You're not the only B7 fan in the world, so don't be selfish; try and show a bit of consideration for other people and they'll show consideration to you." And that's the Shane Little Slash Manifesto, in brief and summarised. > >Personally, I'd be glad to settle for peaceful co-existence. If that's true then don't reply to this e-mail. Shane "You're pathetic. I should leave you to rot. You want to live like slaves. Live or die at the whim of a madman, then fine. But you're not taking me down with you." --Blake Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015

2 1

Re: [B7L] the politics of slash
by Fiona Moore 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

>From: Tavia <tavia(a)btinternet.com> >Disagreeing with two such (metaphorical) heavy-weights, <taken by surprise> Oh! Thank you! > I fear I must be >barking up the wrong tree, but... I simply don't understand where this >*one-sided* dependence comes in. If two people of different genders have >sex together then why is it the *woman* who's suddenly dependent on the man >for satisfaction of sexual needs? She isn't, but IIRC it is in patriarchy's interests to control female sexuality, and so to perpetuate the myth that a woman needs a man (what I'm citing here is Mary Douglas' book *Purity and Danger* and Marilyn Strathern's article "Culture in a Netbag" --not to be overly intellectual but just so you know what's been influencing me :) ). >Surely the threat to patriarchy (assuming patriarchy exists in Western >society) is simply financially and sexually independent women, regardless >of orientation? Yes, agreed, but also feel that it's more complex than that. IMO a financially and sexually independent heterosexual woman, bi woman and lesbian are all threats to the patriarchy, but in rather different ways. The lesbian because she is demonstrably living without men; the heterosexual woman because she is demonstrating that it is possible to live within the heterosexual norm and still be independent, and the bisexual because she has the best of both, as it were :). I'd say all three are also affected by m-o "lesbian" porn as well, but in different ways. >Surely what male-oriented porn chooses to depict has no relevance >whatsoever to real-world women (who presumably don't on the whole choose to >consume it)? Well, I'd disagree with that rather, and actually because of something Kathryn and Shane both pointed out independently, which is that while neither of them consume slash, they're both a) aware that it exists and b) affected by its existence. As I said, I've encountered people of both genders whose stereotypes about lesbians were visibly informed by m-o porn, and this is at some point going to affect a lesbian, whether she consumes m-o porn (and some do, for whatever reason) or not. The images men see of women do, in my experience, affect how they respond to women-- note that I don't mean it's a one-to-one relationship (and also I'm not only talking about pornographic images), but that they can cause misjudgements and misapprehensions (incidentally, the reverse is also true, I've found-- some women can develop stereotypes about men and male sexuality based on the images they see of it). >Am I missing something? No. I thought you made a good point, which is why I'm debating it :). ObB7: harking back to the art thread, it's true that the Federation doesn't seem to make use of images for control in ways that you'd think they should. Monumental art, OK whatever, but it's surprising that we don't see more propaganda posters, comics, leaflets etc. like in *1984* and *Brazil,* if only in the Dome. 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

4 3

Re: [B7L] the politics of slash
by Fiona Moore 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

>From: "Alison Page" <alison(a)alisonpage.demon.co.uk> >I don't think this kind of horrible effect ever happens with slash though, >or with other explicit B7 material. I guess if slash did make a fan stalk an >actor that would be an equivalent type of thing. And that would be really >bad wouldn't it? I'm afraid I'm rather ignorant about whether this has ever >happened, but I've never come across anything like that. I haven't heard of any Mark Chapman-style stalking of the B7 actors :), but I have heard of a few cases of stalking which the actors found distressing if nothing else, and I've heard from a few independent sources about at least one of the B7 lead actors having been mailed slash art depicting himself and another of the actors, and also of him having been presented with some examples of these in autograph lines at cons. It sounds almost funny, writing it back-- except that it apparently wasn't funny for _him_, as he reportedly hit the roof. So in the case of consumers of slash art, anyway, there does seem to be a lunatic fringe. 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

2 1

Re: [B7L] Homophobia
by Shane Little 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

Annie wrote: >Of course, back then, it wasn't as > easy to photocopy things *and* we had to run off zines in 200-300 copies at a > time just to get a decent print price. So, anyone cutting in to your > potential sales could be potential cause for alarm. > > I considered publishing some "mixed" issues of my own zines, mostly from > urgings of people like Jane Carnall who objected to non-explicit stories > being relegated to adult zines simply because they featured homosexual > relationships. I happen to agree with her that it wasn't fair. But I also had > to look at how such a move would affect my sales. I was still operating, at > that time, under the rule of having to print a minimum print run of 200 > zines. If I mixed *gasp* slash stories in with the gen, even if they were > non-explicit, I ran the risk of missed sales. Not that the slash zines > didn't/don't sell well on their own. This decision of yours is interesting. From the sound of it, you're basically ghettoising _all_ stories about gay relationships into slash zines, and I would like to ask you why you do this. There were gay characters in the programme, so it can't be out of respect for the canon; since you yourself are involved in a same-sex relationship, it can't be out of a belief that all fiction involving gays should be kept on the X-rated shelf. Apparently it's just down to sales, and again I'd like more evidence that it _would_ harm sales-- the people who wouldn't buy the zine might be compensated for by the Jane Carnalls of the world: the people who don't object to fiction about gays, but do object to explicit sex. Of course, the end result is that people like me wind up convinced that the only gay-related fiction in B7 fandom is essentially pornographic/slash, because even if a zine has non-slash gay stories in there, it's all being marketed under the same label. This "sales" thing, though, bears closer inspection. You mention the word "sales" and "selling" quite a lot in there. Now I've asked you what your interest in B7 fandom is-- it doesn't seem to be the programme, since you don't get involved in the speculative threads on it; it can't be a fondness for the actors, for reasons mentioned in the thread on who produces and distributes explicit art; it doesn't seem to be the meeting of minds of fans of similar interests, since you don't seem to enjoy rational discussion about other people's activities and backgrounds. Could it be the profit motive dominates? Shane Largo: Why do I feel as if I'm on trial here? Avon: Why do I feel as if you should be? Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015

3 2

Re: [B7L] zine editing
by Tavia 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

Shane wrote (responding to Julia): >I was involved in the production of a number of Doctor Who zines in the mid >80's and early to mid nineties, so I have quite a bit of experience. So then you'll be aware how much sheer love goes into the making of them... >That wasn't the case with the zines I was involved with; in fact it was >impossible *not* to make a profit, which was a bit of a problem because >fanzines by their nature have to be non-profit making, or else you are >infringing copyright. I'd genuinely be interested to know how. Your sales must have been very large compared with the sales of B7 zines. >I'm sure that is your experience, but Ashton Press have their fingers in >many fandoms, not just B7. If Annie and Leah are that money-grubbing, why the hell are they bothering to produce B7 fanzines at all, one wonders? >Unfortunately, you also compromise yourself. Another problem which >I've experienced in my involvement with zine producing, >and I'm sure you have also, is that most fanfic is very >badly written :-). Not good when dealing with a controversial subject like >sexual politics. Hmm. I can honestly say that that has not been my experience. Mebbe I was just lucky, but I got submitted some real gems. Or mebbe I just have low standards. Who knows. Tavia ttba: http://www.viragene.com/

2 1

Re: [B7L] the politics of slash
by Tavia 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

Neil wrote: >Very true, and until recently the two were almost inextricably >interconnected, women offering their unpaid domestic labour (which largely >still goes unpaid) as well as their bodies in return for material security. I think we must have different ideas of the timescale implied by 'recently'. (I mean, we are at least notionally talking about a TV series first aired in 1978, so let's perhaps confine ourselves to this kind of timescale ?) >Patriarchal hegemony has been on the wane for barely a century and its >decline might yet prove to be no more than a blip. The reactionary backlash >has hardly disappeared - see ><http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_1245000/1245345. stm> >for its latest manifestation and the enthusiastic reception it's getting >from some quarters. As I said in a recent post, I lived in such a society for several years (as part of a fundamentalist Christian church). I've spoken about my experiences with numerous people (men and women, Christian and non-Christian) in the UK, and never met a single person who agreed that such a society was a good thing. (I don't know about other areas in the world.) >Male-oriented pornography perpetuates the myth that women exist for male >sexual satisfaction. Pseudo-lesbian imagery connives in this by turning >female sexual independence into nothing more than a peepshow for male >voyeurs. >The real truth is that patriarchy is actually the dependent one, dependent >on women's continued submission to its demands. That is what pornography is >intended to conceal. And therefore if *women* (who are not the target of male-oriented porn) refuse to submit to its demands then its power is lost. This is one of the reasons I personally tend to think that patriarchy -- in the developed world -- is on its last legs, if not actually dead. >Fluffy kittens don't explode. Well, not very often... I mean that I (as a slash reader and sometime writer) don't see slash as a particularly political statement. But this is, of course, a purely personal viewpoint. >Tanstaafl. I'm going to regret this, I know, but: what??? Tavia

2 1

On mixed zines (Was: [B7L] Homophobia)
by Tavia 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

Alison wrote some very nice things, for which, thanks, and also: >Unless Tavia I have missed something (in my incomplete reading) which means >this advice is misleading, and the horses will indeed be frightened? There are one or two stories (out of a total of 29) that might perhaps frighten nervous horses. However, there is also a subsidiary contents page at the back of the zine which clearly points out those stories that nervous horses and indeed readers might wish to avoid. The pricing is intentionally such that one could read only the gen material and still get reasonable value from the purchase. However, I am willing to break down the contents according to people's personal squick factors by private e-mail. Tavia ttba: http://www.viragene.com/

1 0

Hello Steve Rogerson
by David "Servalan" Walsh 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

Hey Steve, I saw you rushing through Waterloo this morning, my train was very late and I was running for the bus, otherwise I would have said Hello..... -- David "Servalan" Walsh The Alternative Servalan servalan(a)alternativeservalan.com

1 0

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 March 2001