Blakes7 March 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

96 participants
1067 discussions

Thania
by Andrew Williams 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

Una McCormack wrote: >> Tavia wrote: >> Inga has to be the least sexy woman of the four seasons, >> so I don't think that can be it. > > Oh, Major 'Where's My Clearasil and Pantene' Thania, surely! Thania never bothered me before, but now when I see her all I can think of is "Greasy greasy spot spot" (some name-calling by Queenie in Blackadder). Thanks, people!

2 1

Re: [B7L] egads...off topic...we have rain!
by J MacQueen 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

>From: "Nathan Hook" <nhook(a)bemail.org> >My favourite sketch would have to be his interview with allan bond, who >just can't recall, and the transport minister with regards to the oil >tanker with a missing bow. >line runs...'senator collins, why did the front fall off?' >well a "wave" hit it. >'A wave hit it?' >A wave hit the ship! >'Is that unusual? >ooh yeah, at sea? Chance in a million. Then he goes on to talk about how it has to be towed out of the environment, and Bryan Dawe is trying to get him to see that to do that would entail towing it into another environment, but he just can't see that. Maybe he's Jarriere's ancestor. As for the rain, it's everywhere so far as the Tasman is concerned, but I am glad that it is going somewhere it's needed. Pity it looks like northern New South Wales is about to flood yet again. Regards Joanne _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Slash
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/7/01 1:35:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, wilsonfisk2(a)yahoo.com writes: <<There was a cerain element of semantic trickery and equivocation contained within your posts in this thread.<< If that's how you justify your error in stating that sex and pornography are not the same thing, rather than 'the sexual act and pornography are not the same thing,' whatever makes you feel better about it. For the record, however, the person who makes the unclear statement and then defends it to death is the one who is manipulating semantics, not anyone struggling to figure out what it is that you actually meant. >>I think it was fairly clear form the initial point.<< Obviously not, since a debate ensued over the misstatement. Why would I bother with the obvious, if the correct intent had been stated? >>The single word 'sex' is used frequently as a standard euphamism for what you have term "the performance of the act of sex"<< Yes, and it's also used universally to refer to gender, and to anything with sexual content. Just as the word 'violence' encompasses a wide range of activities and meanings, and we do not automatically assume it means "the act of violence." >>And as for "cohort" altho' Mr. Faulkner has shown, in the course of these debates, that he is an intelligent, open-minded person with a skill for making a valid argument, I have never met nor spoken to him. More's the pity.<< Look up 'cohort' in the dictionary. By no definition does the term demand that you have met or spoken to your cohort 'in person'. >> Well, I'll certainly take credit for some clarity,<< >I wouldn't.< Really? I believe I just demonstrated another clarification, immediately above. Leah

3 3

Re: [B7L] Modes of engagement
by Tavia 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

Kingpin wrote: >I think you're being disengenuous Annie. >All that's been said is that an opinion on 'art' >(using the term in its loosest sense, 'art as artifice') >needs to be backed up. Fan discussions, as >discusiions of artifacts are closer to Lit. Crit >than any other form of expression, hence >the falling back on the rules/ideology >of criticism as providing a framework. This feels unduly restrictive to me. Those of us without any lit crit background might feel more comfortable operating without the rules/ideology of literary criticism. It doesn't necessarily mean we're stupid. Surely we can all co-exist on the same Lyst? >Make a point, then back it up. It's called conversation. No, that's called discussion or even debate. If someone posts pure opinion, unbacked up with fact or argument, then everyone else is entitled to ignore them. Tavia

2 1

Re: [B7L] Kathryn's convention report/slash
by Tavia 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

Calle wrote: >The way we were taught, all works are supposed >to stand by themselves. When evaluating a literary >creation, you look only at the creation itself. You >disregard when it was created, you disregard who >created it, you disregard why it was created; you >just look at the creation as it appears before you. >No more, and no less[1]. I've been thinking some more about the value of context-dependent vs context-independent interpretations of bits of art. Bear in mind I'm not coming at this with any formal training or knowledge whatsoever. In general I think I disagree with Calle's idea that art must only be studied out of context. Thinking in terms of music, for example, some pieces speak to modern audiences despite having been written many centuries ago, and seem to have a degree of 'device independence'. Bach Preludes and Fugues can be meaningfully performed on a modern concert grand, despite the fact that such didn't exist in the time they were written. However, and this is the big caveat, it would be foolish to play them on a modern piano without realising that they were originally written for the harpsichord or clavichord -- the former of which at least has almost no volume control and no ability to sustain notes without restriking. I'm not saying that one should take these things as rules when playing on an instrument that has superior properties to the harpsichord, just that it would be a naive performer -- or listener -- who did not at least give the matter a passing thought before deciding to ignore it. Similarly, one might like to give thought to whether DH Lawrence was constrained by social mores -- or a reasonable fear of prosecution -- when writing sex scenes before consigning his entire output to the bin because of the 'throbbing towers' style therein. I guess what I'm saying is (1) great pieces of art in whatever medium will transcend their context; but (2) where there are obvious external influences on the art form inherent in the environment in which they were produced, it would be foolish to ignore them. Tavia

1 0

Re: [B7L] Shakespeare (was Canon and Art)
by Ellynne G. 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:59:39 +0100 "Marian de Haan" <maya(a)multiweb.nl> writes: > Iain Coleman wrote: > >I wonder If this has anything to do with Shakespeare having been an > actor? > Stage directions are beloved of writers, loathed or ignored by > actors.< > > Or, considering he wrote such a lot, maybe it was lack of time: > "What do you > want, a rewrite and stage directions on this one, or the next play?" > (Like, > to bring this back to B7, Terry Nation's "Do you want a rewrite or > the next > episode?") Wasn't he also the director and owner of the theatre he worked in? Ellynne ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

2 1

Re: [B7L] Slash and Random Killfiling
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/7/01 1:39:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, wilsonfisk2(a)yahoo.com writes: << Looks to me as if all she's done is make a wise > value judgement. Glad to see > it's had the desired frustration effect.<< >That, I think, is the first unequivocally, outwardly nasty post in this debate so far. < Thanks for reinforcing the above further! Very gratifying. Leah

2 1

Re: [B7L] Slash
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/7/01 1:46:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, wilsonfisk2(a)yahoo.com writes: << Oh, I have not come 'round. As you very well know. You have admitted that what I said was true, and that you knew all along what I was saying. What's more I think it was only my insistence on repeatedly replying and referring back to the actual wording of my/our posts that forced you to admit that. >> Face it. You didn't say what you meant. No amount of backpedalling, spelling or grammatical corrections or twisted logic will change the facts. What you finally admitted, not I, was your specific intent in the use of a generalized term. <<No, er it isn't. In fact your previosu assertation that I had to 'learn that others do not draw the line in the same place you do' indicates explictly that you knew I was using the word 'sex' to mean 'the act of sex', as you recognise the two seperate items between which lines could be drawn yourself.<< Not at all. The line-drawing analogy refers to the generalized term 'sex', as you put forth without any clarification. As I made abundantly clear in our original discussion, just as one person will regard any reference to matters of a sexual nature as embarrassing and pornographic (ie: an unveiled woman in a middle-eastern country), another person won't regard something as pornographic until he or she sees a woman taking off her bikini top at a public beach. If you were referring to the ACT of sex by the repeated use of only the word "sex", you would have said so, at least once. As it stands, it was eventually left up to *me* to figure out and clarify that you were actually referring to the ACT of sex all along. Leah

2 1

egads...off topic...we have rain!
by Nathan Hook 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

Rain! Rain! Here in welly. ahhhhh. the plants will be pleased...speaking of plants I saw an old episode of Dr Who on Prime Tv the other day. one of the characters turned into a giant plant, the name of which escapes me. related to blakes7? oh indeed, the persons name was keelar...which has a space princess roy kinear ring to it. speaking of dear old roy, I love his rolly polly character's, if you're watching Gold, look for the double exposure of him when soolin and avon teleport down to the processing plant behind him. I always get a giggle out of this, BBC special effects at their budgetry best. Una describes welly, it is indeed a beautiful place. One of the best things about the history dept at Victoria university there, was that it used to be situated on the nth floor of the library. which was the top floor. not a big building but since it's elevation was well above sea level yet still only a few minutes away form the shore line technically, a fantastic view. One room up there which was my favourite for tutorials had panaramic views. a beautiful sight was watching the ferries leave on a calm day across smooth water blue sky above. the bugger add. reminds me of the absolutely brilliant series from ozzie 'The games' with John Clark. John Clark is New Zealand's and australia's funniest and most intelligent comedian. the games was such a great parody on sydneys olympic woes, love it. he cut his teeth in NZ with Fred Dagg, a farming character and I recommend his cd's. he moved to oz and has done some brilliant comedy taking the piss out of australian politicians and generally making exceptional observations on australian culture. My favourite sketch would have to be his interview with allan bond, who just can't recall, and the transport minister with regards to the oil tanker with a missing bow. line runs...'senator collins, why did the front fall off?' well a "wave" hit it. 'A wave hit it?' A wave hit the ship! 'Is that unusual? ooh yeah, at sea? Chance in a million. and...'what sort of standards are these oil tankers built too? Well very rigorous maritime engineering standards. 'and what are these?' Well the front's not 'sposed to fall off for a start. 'and what else?' well there are regulations governing what sort of materials they can be made of. 'What materials?' Well cardboards out. 'And?' No cardboard derivatives. 'Like paper?' No paper... No string, no sellotape. 'Rubber?' No. rubbers out. um they've gotta have a steering wheel, there's a minmum crew requirement. 'whats te minimum crew?' oh...one I spose. Nathan. A 'strange coincidence', to use a phrase/ By which such things are settled nowadays. Byron. ------------------------------------------------------------ Free, BeOS-friendly email accounts: http://BeMail.org/ Peep! .:. http://twinfusion.com/comic/peep/ .:. An Epic Webcomic

1 0

Re: [B7L] Kathryn's convention report/slash
by Marian de Haan 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

Calle Dybedahl wrote: >Avoid becoming a professional writer;, I will - it doesn't pay enough :-) >Before I turned to the dark side and became a sysadmin, I studied literature at university for three years. One of the very first things we were taught, in the very first course of the first term, was that the author's opinion of a work and/or intent behind it is utterly irrelevant.< Glad I never went to university, if this is the kind of attitude that is taught :-) Sorry, but to me this comes over as disrespect to the creator. >snipped long argument< Point taken, but *to me* it still feels callous to dismiss canon and the intent of the creators. Note, I'm not saying that anyone else should feel this way - I never expect others to agree with me - I'm just giving *my* opinion. I'm aware that, not having been to university, I can't argue as well as most lystmembers, but that won't keep me from trying. :-) >The slash interpretation can be made. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of fanzines as evidence of that.< Obviously they fulfil a deeply felt need :-) >The non-slash interpretation can also be made. There are just as much evidence for that.< A lot more, IMO. >Arguing that the slash interpretation can't be made or shouldn't be made is utterly pointless.< Absolutely. >So many people, many of them entirely independent of each other, have come up with the slash interpretation that we can say that it is, undeniably, one valid interpretation of Blake's 7.< Well, to me Fiona's arguments for it not being canon were pretty convincing. But it certainly is an *interpretation* of canon. >Trying to argue it out of existence will achieve absolutely nothing except a lot of bad feelings and ill will.< I never presumed to do that, perish the thought! If it came over that way, I apologise sincerely. My only aim was to bring up one aspect which I felt had been neglected in the debate, namely the fact that in writing fanfiction, we are hijacking characters that other people created. How people deal with that, is of course entirely up to them. Marian

1 0

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