Blakes7 March 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

96 participants
1067 discussions

Re: [B7L] Re: Use of image
by Shane Little 18 Mar '01

18 Mar '01

Leah wrote: > Most actors and actresses nowadays are aware of the existence of both adult > hetero and slash art and fanfic on the web (as well as elsewhere). But we don't know how many do in the B7 case-- also we don't know quite how much they know about what goes on in them. > They > generally ignore it as part of the down side of celebrity. So we're agreed, it's a down side. >For one thing, > celebrity itself is an adaptation of the human process for selecting a mate, … [View More]> albeit an unattainable one. When one falls in love with a celebrity, the > chemical process of 'love' has been triggered toward an individual one wants > to mate and bond with for purposes of procreation. Excuse me, I may not have a degree in biology but as a gay man I find this statement frightening. Fanfic, fan art or any > other sort of fantasy that satisfies that unattainable bond is inevitable, So what you're saying is you're catering to a market, providing a service? Cars need petrol, houses need insulation, people need pornography, is that it? OK, now this is a genuine and serious question. If slash fiction is meant to satisfy the unrequited procreative urges of female fans with regard to male actors, why does it revolve around male/male couplings? > No one seems to be immune, whether we label it something harmless like a > 'crush' or worry that it's reached a dangerous obsession. If it has reached dangerous levels, though, surely there's a problem. This is why we have limits, censor boards, warnings and sex-addiction support groups-- because unrequited lust can turn dangerous, and there needs to be ways of recognising this and heading it off before someone or several someones get hurt. > Isn't anyone here aware of 'boy-band' fanfic on the web? Thousands of teens, > unable to realistically have a relationship with the boy groups they idolize, > are writing and posting adult fanfic and slash about groups like N' Synch and > the others. Bit of a difference between a teenager with a teenage crush and a long-term fan who has been obsessing about an individual for decades. >The groups are well aware of it, and seem to use it as a guage of > their popularity. Nice to know that the exploitation is mutual. But as I said to huh, there's a difference between a boyband member with mansions, millions and security guards, and a jobbing actor with a wife and a dog and a semi-detatched house. Shane "The host stirs..." --Zil Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015 [View Less]

1 0

Re: Journalist at conventions
by Steve Rogerson 18 Mar '01

18 Mar '01

Shane said: "When a convention comes to town, particularly a large one, the local paper at least usually sends someone out to cover it. I'm sure we've all seen the articles: "Sci-Fi Maniacs Converge on Manchester," coupled with photograph of person in poorly-made Klingon costume. Also, these journalists usually like to make fans look as weird and pathetic as possible in order to sell papers." A gross over generalisation and not my experience for the two cons I've been involed in running. At … [View More]

3 2

Re: FC: Tripod
by Ashton7＠aol.com 18 Mar '01

18 Mar '01

This just in <g>: Dozens of sites on Tripod devoted to Webtv help have been summarily shut down. Most of those were tutorial in nature,nothing that should have violated TOS. In one case, someone had his site shut down and he emailed Tripod,begging for an explaination. Tripod sent rude email back,saying they did not have to explain themselves. However,4-5 days after having his site shut down,he got an email of apology from Tripod,saying they had made a mistake and he was welcome to … [View More]

1 0

Re: [B7L] A Sterile Federation
by Tavia 18 Mar '01

18 Mar '01

Annie: >I wonder if the suppressants wouldn't have cut down on the >number of births? Either from people being too drugged to >care about sex or else just the drugs themselves affecting >reproduction. Certainly the current generation of happy pills have severe negative effects on the sex drive. Tavia

6 9

Re: Avon's gardening diary
by kevs McCully 18 Mar '01

18 Mar '01

>Servalan: Misltetoe <snipp-o> Also believed in some quarters to have been used to drug sacrificial victims of ancient druids, not to mention _white_ berries). In Celtic magic, its berries represent semen. Thought you should know that :-) For Servalan, i suggest the Australian Giant Stinging Tree. See http://lamington.nrsm.uq.edu.au/docs/Plant/Gst.htm for info. (i looked it up, sad eh?) kevs ===== "Under an Aussie sky..." http://www.southernsky.fsnet.co.uk "afterglow", http://… [View More]

1 0

Tripod
by Ashton7＠aol.com 18 Mar '01

18 Mar '01

Apparently Tripod is removing MORE than just fan pages. Someone mentioned on another list losing "3D Model" pages. I don't think anyone knows quite yet what is triggering these removals. If you have a Tripod page, better safe than sorry. I'd move it! Annie

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Use of image
by Shane Little 18 Mar '01

18 Mar '01

huh wrote: > I'd be entirely surprised if any of the main actors failed to know slash > existed- and of course slash has been covered in the press as well. Leaving aside that there's a difference between knowing something exists and having it brought to your attention, we don't _know_ if they know that slash exists. We know two of the main actors do-- their names have been mentioned on this lyst in connection with this fact (also that neither of them are happy about it, particularly the … [View More]artwork). As for the others, well, how do we know that they know? > > As I said, they don't need to. Journalists need to sell papers, and so > regardless of whether or not the site does show anything factual, they'll > write it up. > > What I was responding to was your statement that there were people who > were unable to tell the difference. Well, there are, and hopefully they are a minority. But you still haven't answered my other statement, about the journalists, who as I said don't have to be credulous-- they will deliberately misinterpret stuff if they think it will get them a good story. > If a journalist did find a fan site with slash art, chances are the headline > would read NUDE PICTURES OF [ACTOR X] SHOCKER, and the fact that these were > faked up or sketched will be buried somewhere in the fine print. This _did_ > actually happen at least once, with Doctor Who and the Sun newspaper. > > It happens all the time- and they don't need to go to a con or look for > slash art sites to do it. My point exactly. Now add slash art sites to the mix and what do you get? It's treading on thin ice, is what it is. > But again, how many gullible people are unaware that photos can be faked > and that sensationalist headlines are just that. Even people who read the > tabloids know they are trash- they just enjoy reading them. Oh, we know this for a fact, do we? Never underestimate the gullibility of the public or the power of the press (Or the fact that there's tabloids and tabloids. The National Inquirer may be visibly rubbish, but something like the Sun or the Mail people do read and in many cases believe). How many times have you read an article in _any_ paper, and because you have inside knowledge of what's being written about, you have been able to say "Oh, they've got that totally wrong"-- but then read an article on the next page about an issue which you know nothing about, and not been able to tell whether it was a lie or the truth? There are more than a few people out there who are falsely convinced that Britain is about to be overrun by asylum-seekers simply because the Daily Express says so. > > Don't you think it's just a tiny bit fascist to say that someone is "too > stupid to live"? > > Not at all. Do you read the Darwin Awards? People who aren't able to sort > things intelligently get to wind up in the newspapers strangely dead or > maimed. This is of course a great boon to the gene pool if they make their > fatal mistake before reproducing. And I'm sure that's a great consolation to their friends and relatives. But. Supposing you have a university professor with multiple degrees, awards and qualifications. He goes for a walk in a field; a storm comes up and he carelessly takes shelter under a tree and is struck by lightening. Is he too stupid to live? Is his removal from the gene pool a great boon? This sort of social darwinist thinking has been tried before, you know. > > And what I'm saying is, there doesn't have to be confusion as to the > actors being involved in fan art for a fan, a spouse or, worst of all, a > journalist, to assume that the actors give their tacit approval to this sort > of thing. > > So naturally actors give tacit approval for faked sex photos, drug photos, > fabrication of alien sex slaves or whatever as well. Stranger things have happened. What about the case of Tommy Lee and Pamela Anderson and the allegedly "unauthorised" footage (which it turned out they'd released themselves)? > reasonable. Should it be necessary prominent persons do in fact challenge > all of the above in courts and get damages. Do you know how long, how costly and how destructive a libel case can be, especially in Great Britain? It's a bit much to expect of an actor who spends half his time working a second job. They do not feel that most of > the time it is necessary however as they rightly assume most people aren't > confused about what "weird" fans might be dreaming and acting upon and > what the prominent person is up to. Firstly, how do you know what's in the mind of the actors? Secondly, need I point out that you're playing straight into the stereotype here of the mad fan who can't tell reality from fiction or right from wrong. We're talking here about perfectly intelligent and sane people, who despite this can't seem to realise that actors are also human beings. > (the ones that are smart > enough to survive) There's that social darwinist thing again. will figure out that this is in fact something my own > brain dreamed up and that Reagan didn't approve nor pose for said stories. > I give people a little more credit and assume that they know actors or > prominent persons do not give tacit approval for all sorts of things. Again, there's a big difference between the ex-President of the United States and a jobbing actor from Luton. But what you seem to be saying here is "Oh, I know the actors don't approve, and I'm going to go ahead and do it anyway." That's terribly kind and courteous of you. > I have yet to hear of actors deciding they want nothing to do with fans > based on the existence of adult artwork. Didn't somebody mention a big bust-up over it about ten years back? > The main actors regularly attend cons knowing that such things > exist. Most purveyors of such merchandise don't display it in an obvious > way to bring it to their attention. Which is true, but once again, the Internet makes the whole question of whether or not something is prominently displayed irrelevant-- see what Mistral said about the Buffy the Vampire Slayer mailing list. As for actors not attending conventions-- this doesn't change the fact that we're dependent on their goodwill for con appearances. For the moment, they're willing to show a good deal of restraint and patience, but we know that at least two of them have expressed reservations about the artwork even in its current restricted circulation. If more and more of it gets about, or it becomes more available, they might well change their minds. > > Not everybody does even so little, as I'm sure you know. We've all heard > stories, I'm sure, about people who actually send slash art to actors to > sign. > > And the actors can trash it or right a sharp letter protesting and not > signing or whatever they think is appropriate. But why should they have to do this at all? Plus it makes the rest of us look bad to them. > Considering that actors are frequently considered sex objects I don't see > that B7 actors have any special rights in this area. No, you're right. Courtesy should be extended to actors _in general_. >Considering that many > people who aren't prominent persons are seen only as a sex object, I can't > get any more upset about actors than anyone else. It's a question of choice. If an actor chooses to appear nude, or in a sex scene, or whatever, that's his choice, and he goes into that role knowing how he is going to be seen by the audience. However, fan art is different-- the actor doesn't know/approve of its existence, and was never asked whether he wanted there to be material out there showing him in this way-- and even if he protests, usually he is ignored. > At least the sex object > in fan art is entirely fictional. But using the likeness of a real person. > > And we should go on allowing this? Just because everybody else is selfish > it doesn't mean _you_ should be selfish too. > > But I can be selfish if I want to, same as anyone. I don't need to measure > up to anyone else's standards or morals. "Noe man is an Iland, complete in himself..." If you're going to live in a community, you can't live totally selfishly, ignoring the needs and wishes of other people. If when other people get upset by your behaviour, you just say "I'm all right Jack, I don't care about you," that's not going to go over too well. > I get a wee bit nervous when > someone else starts worrying about allowing this or that. You just stated above that all stupid people don't deserve to live. Surely that amounts to not allowing other people to be stupid? I happen to be a > vegetarian human rights activist but aside from trying to point out the > problems of objectifying persons or groups I pretty much am a firm believer > of not letting others dictate their own worldview onto others. But you yourself have been saying in these last few posts that if you want to buy slash art you don't care that this might impinge on other people's enjoyment of fandom. Isn't that dictating your own worldview onto other people? > > Not so sure about that. Leaving aside the cases of slash art going out > using actors' real names and not the characters', the separation between an > actors' image and that of a character is a very slim one indeed. > > But this is not a "slash art" phenomenon. I see no reason to single out > "adult" art , its creators and consumers . The persons who are unable to > separate an actor from a role will have that difficulty whether they draw > pictures, dress up as a character and act weirdly or make harrassing phone > calls. I don't see that this small group of individuals implies that most > people of average intelligence can't sort out the fact that actors are not > the characters they portray and that art is created out of someone's head > and that it doesn't require the tacit consent of the person portrayed or > their actual presence. Again, this boils down to actors saying that they don't want their images exploited in this way, and an unfortunate minority of fans saying that they don't give a damn what the actors want, it gives them pleasure and so they're going to do it. > As it is, though, it's pretty easy to draw a visual link between the actor > and the character, and to confuse the two. > > Amazingly enough, I don't know anyone who does this. I think you do. If I were to show you a picture of Paul Darrow in costume as Avon and said "That's Avon, isn't it?" you would say yes. If I were to show you a picture of my sister dressed as Avon and say to you "That's Avon, isn't it?" You would say "No it isn't, that's a picture of your sister in an Avon costume." If the actor's image weren't linked to the character, then it would be just as easy for my sister to be seen as Avon as for Paul Darrow. > I don't really feel an obligation to censor something because they > aren't capable of understanding it. This has nothing to do with censorship, and everything to do with showing restraint and courtesy for others. >Might as well get rid of plays and > television altogether, since obviously there are these people who can't > figure it out and attack actors in pubs. That's attacking the wrong part of the problem. A more sensible solution is to make it unacceptable for people to attack actors in pubs. > > Not true. Actors' families, their friends, their co-workers, journalists, > agents... also, in the Internet age, anti-slash fans who innocently type > "[Actor X] pictures" into a search engine and click on the first site they > see... > > I maintain it is a little more difficult to do this than one thinks. I think Mistral has answered this one much better than I could. > and not many of them feature art. How strange is it to type in Servalan > and pull up a picture of one of the male fans dressed up like her (usually > rather fetchingly, I might add)? Surely that might offend the actress or her > friends or family or be interpretted as tacit approval? Beside the point. We know that male fans do dress up in B7 drag; we also know that the actors know about this and that none, to my knowledge, have complained about this. They have judged costume competitions and been interviewed by male fans in B7 drag (hi David-- very nice you looked too!). We also know, however, that of the actors who have said that they know about slash art, none of them have approved of it. So there's a bit of a difference. > A lot of fan behavior is itself invasive and odd and objectifying. But there is a matter of degree here. It may be invasive to ask for an autograph, but there's a difference in the degree of invasiveness between asking for an autograph, following the actor into the gents' to ask for an autograph, and drawing a picture of him in flagrante delicto. And also, different actors have different tolerance levels even to simple things like autograph seeking-- some like it, others get upset and rude when recognised in the street. > Most of the posters who posted in reply to Shane's e-mail have expressed > thoughts in a far more enlightening way than I care to. I am not > interested in arguing the morality of adult artwork . You could have fooled me. > > the fact that it is there in the zine and unchallenged _would_ suggest > to> > readers that Actor X had approved or consented to their presence > there. > > > > Every time I read it all I can think of is that it's time to bring on the > Clorox if the gene pool has degenerated to the point that more than a tiny, > naive or unintelligent portion of the population would believe this. Oh yes. As you suggest, let's kill them all! Bring on the gas ovens! >When I started reading zines last year it never occurred to me to > think that the actors had any input into the stories or that they approved > or consented. Again, you're acknowledging that they wouldn't approve or like it. Websites in most fandoms actually say something like > copyright belongs to such and such and I'm just taking these characters out > and playing with them. Ironic, this statement of yours. Right before it in my mailbox there's a post from Carol and Gordon warning about Tripod taking down fan sites regardless of content. Now, why would they do this? The fact that this is an across-the-board removal suggests that they're concerned about breaches of copyright and they don't want to be sued. We in B7 fandom have been very lucky in that the BBC, the Nation estate and the actors are aware of fan activities and have allowed them to continue without challenge. But if we push this tolerance too far, they could quite easily take us out without any problem. And no matter how much you protest about freedom of speech and censorship, you won't have any say in it. At all. Shane "The host stirs..." --Zil Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015 [View Less]

1 0

Re: [B7L] Lyst Culture Guide (take 4) and lost causes
by Marian de Haan 18 Mar '01

18 Mar '01

Kathryn's introduction seems an excellent idea. We're fireproof but our culture may give an unsuspecting newbie a nasty shock. I suggest putting in a link to the Lyst archives and advising newbies to do some reading there to get a "feel" of the Lyst. Ellynne G. wrote: >Also, although I'm less vocal about it, Una has Animals and I seem to have Dawn of the Gods.< I have Volcano :-) Maybe we should form a group, the Discerning Few or something like that? :-) Marian

5 4

Re: Re: [B7L] Re: Journalist at conventions
by Fiona Moore 18 Mar '01

18 Mar '01

> >From: "Shane Little" <littles(a)angelfire.com> >> But one nasty example of > >journalists purposely taking the piss is a BBC Radio programme from about > >five years back called "The Enthusiasts," which turned up at Doctor Who > >convention Hah, and did anybody catch that programme on the Beeb a couple of years back where they showed a couple getting married dressed as the Doctor and Romana, with all of their friends in sci-fi costume? You can guess that … [View More]

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Use of image
by Shane Little 18 Mar '01

18 Mar '01

huh wrote: > > > the fact that it is there in the zine and unchallenged _would_ suggest to > > readers that Actor X had approved or consented to their presence there. > > You're joking, right? I mean, you HAVE to be kidding. The teeny tiny minority > of fans who might even conceivably believe this really must be too stupid to > live First, who says we're talking about fans? I could have meant agents, or journalists, or interested third parties. Secondly, remember a … [View More]while back a few people on this lyst (including myself) assumed that Gareth Thomas was cool with adult art because he appeared at Redemption, and he turned out to have some real problems with it. > > Look, if Sally Knyvette gets a bit upset about a few pictures of her taken > > on a bad hair day, what's she going to do if she finds someone selling a > > picture of her doing the nasty with Gareth Thomas? > > Stop appearing at cons. shrug. My enjoyment of B7 and zines would remain > undiminished in any case. Some of us _do_ like going to cons though, and some of us _do_ like seeing/meeting the actors. Zines isn't the only way to enjoy fandom. > My enjoyment of B7 has nothing at all to do with > conventions (and if it did would have nothing at all to do with guest actors). That's your feelings. You don't speak for everyone, in fandom or on the lyst. Anyway, it's because of the actors that you have the show in the first place-- doesn't that entitle them to a bit of courtesy? > Anyone who doesn't wish to be exposed to nastiness from journalists, fans and > critics shouldn't be an actor. Oh, now really. Are actors not also human beings? Don't they have a right to privacy? These aren't Hollywood stars who thrive on publicity, you know, they're just jobbing actors who, when not working, work in offices, building-sites and schools. Many have partners and kids who are not actors or production people and don't need to be exposed to nastiness. Common courtesy's not a great deal to ask, and that means not treating people like objects for our own selfish pleasure. > I'm not saying one needs to deliberately > provoke actors, but if adult zines containing artwork are kept out of general > view In this age of pictures on the Internet, that's a bit hard to do. > particularly of B7 actors who Lord knows are not my idea of fabulous naked, Seen any of those pictures ;-)? They're pretty idealised. > but > fans shouldn't be banned from creating it. There's a difference between banning people and pointing out that what they're doing hurts the feelings of another human being. Shane "What did you do in your spare time?" --Avon Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015 [View Less]

4 4

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 March 2001