Blakes7 March 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

96 participants
1067 discussions

Cricket Reality [was Re: [B7L] Science Fiction and Political Reality]
by Harriet Monkhouse 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

Kat W wrote: >She reasoned that she'd become the best and >most accurate spin bowler (?) No, no, Dayna's a fast bowler - almost as fast as Soolin. Vila and Cally are the spinners, remember? I must write up the match, I must write up the match. Harriere

1 0

dought...
by Nathan Hook 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

there's drought just about everywhere Una, except in the west coast of the sth island. The nth island hasn't faired too well. especially here in the wellington region, where we 've had one third of the usual rainfall. it's been an extreme fire hazard and water restrictions have been implemented. the hills are brown and occassionally dotted with fires and helicoptors and people frantically putting them out. whilst watching the grandprix of all tings the other day, an enormous fire erupted suspiciously on a large hill near by. wellington has some rugged geography wghich doesn't help. I recall an american exchange student who used to get sick where ever you took him, he wasn't used to all the hills, he considered them mountains. I'm on ahill so high, I can see the sth island on a clear day, even though i'm in a wellington suburb...pituresque. some people build their houses in almost inaccessible spots too. you'll see whole kitchens whizzing by on a helicopter during construction. Yes I could imagine the Federation having a low toleration of unproductive citizens with psychiatric illness. then again the complexity of the drugs they had, may have had a cure for many of our common conditions - perhaps. given the number of psychopathic killers like crimo's around they may have had other uses for them. I spose they could have been shipped off to a frontier world like marriots family members. You wonder about downs syndrome, or other forms of intellectuall disability too. 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

2 1

PWP (porn? what porn?) )
by Marian de Haan 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

Have been delaying my reply until I could think of a suitable B7 reference. Steve Kilblane wrote: >Abstinence can be as bad as indulgence, if taken to extremes.< You mean there are degrees in abstinence? :-) To me it seems very much a case of yes or no, like you can't be a little bit pregnant. IMO the phrase "not behaving in a natural fashion" seems ill chosen. It reminds me of the argument that, since nature shaped men and women differently, that must mean that same gender sex is unnatural behaviour. Reason to use that phrase with caution, I'd say. (Unless Leah agrees with that argument. :-) ) >Apply common sense to your own situation.< What is common sense to one person may appear totally lunatic to another. :-) Ob. B7: What kind of contraceptives would be used in the Federation? I would assume that by that time something will have been invented to give women total protection but can easily be turned off when a woman wants to become pregnant. Unless all reproduction is done in test tubes. Servalan seems not to worry about getting pregnant in her dallying with Jarvik and Tarrant. Nor does Kerril, but when you're about to die the possibility of becoming pregnant is probably not the first of your worries. Would Liberator's medical unit have contained contraceptives? (Or is this something for the other list?) Marian

2 1

old B7 music video query
by David Henderson 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

Hi Catherine, You may want to contact Judith at her site; http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Also will forward your request onto the blakes7(a)lysator.liu.se mail list to see if the many members can help. later daveH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ The following was taken from the aus.sf news group....... >I obtained as part of a swap, some videos with Blake 7 eps recorded on >them > >On some spare space at the end, is a collage of key scenes from >throughout the series, set to a background of, mostly, folk music > >The collage is in about 8 segments, totalling some 38 minutes > >It's apparently been FAN produced on low tech equipment, but given >those limitations, I'd say it's pretty bloody well done > >I'm interested in WHERE and WHEN, and WHAT, group of fans made up this >collage. I'd guess most likely a bunch of Pommie fans in England. But >Aust and NZ also had a small hardcore of loyal fans, so maybe > >If anyone has any info, then please email me directly, as I've been >having unreliable ng access > >You may forward this message onto other individuals or ngs that you >think are appropriate > >Catherine xena(a)agn.net.au >Catherine Jemma >Outback Western Australia

1 0

Re: [B7L] Thatcher v Servalan
by Frances Bishop 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

>Tavia (who wonders sometimes if she's the only UK citizen who's never >seen >an episode of EastEnders...) Relax, you're not alone! (I've never seen Brookside either) Cheers F

1 0

Re: [B7L] Proof and possibility
by Tavia 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

Neil wrote, responding to Betty: >Speaking only for myself, that's not really my position. All I expect, and >I don't think it's too much to ask or unreasonable to ask, is that anyone >who speculates on some aspect of the show, whether its the sexual >orientation of Blake and Avon or what Justin meant by a war being a bit of >cock-up, should offer some reason why they think their opinion carries some >weight. Which you do yourself when you have to, BTW. >The 'litcrit' mode comes more easily to some than it does to others. I >don't think it's anything to do with litcrit per se, which I've had no >grounding in apart from some background reading. It's more an academic >mode, likely to be adopted by someone who's been through further education >of whatever kind (in my case, environmental science). There is a reason for >its particular style - it makes it possible to express complex concepts >briefly and accurately. I don't think it's particularly impenetrable, >though it does sound more detached and impersonal (and hence possibly aloof, >which may be misread as being supercilious) than a chatty colloquial style >(which is more appropriate to some threads anyway). I'm not convinced there's any connection with further education, Neil. A high proportion of the active members of this Lyst appear to have gone through some form of this particular mill, and everyone posts differently. Despite further education, I personally still find lit crit approaches to material that I enjoy deeply scarey. There are several ways of engaging with any art form, some direct/visceral/emotional, some intellectual. (The Rite of Spring is one of my favourite pieces of music, but I engage with it entirely on the former level.) If a group of people engage with the same art form, then they can also undergo social interactions that may loosely relate to the art form in question (going to hear a particular performance of the Rite), but more often don't (going down the pub). The original intent of the author(s)/creator(s) of the art form is often to obtain the visceral/emotional response from the audience, not to generate intellectual discussions many years downstream. Tavia (who's a fond advocate of the delete button)

1 0

Re: [B7L] Slash
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/7/01 6:16:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner(a)tesco.net writes: << I'm disappointed, Rosenthal. Until now I've considered you a worthy bit of oppo, but resorting to the next step up from the 'takes one to know one' line is really scraping the barrel.<< Go back to your psychology texts. Scraping the bottom of the barrel in a debate, by definition, will always include resorting to ad hominem personal insults. Game, set and match. And now, in the interests of not cluttering up this mailing list by prolonging my amusement and everyone else's boredom, I will discontinue my involvement in this thread. The main purpose is, of course, to demonstrate that some of us have the quality of self control that does not demand any sort of attention, even if it's of the negative sort. You may of course continue to rail on the topic to your heart's content, and damn me with lovely, multi-syllabic words. I will not engage any further. *Yawn* Leah

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: slash
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/7/01 1:58:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, wilsonfisk2(a)yahoo.com writes: <<Very well. Paul Darrow's attitude to slash is well known, and has caused the poor man no end of trouble with those who just won't let it go. Chris Boucher has rubbished the idea publically and Gareth Thomas doesn't think that Blake and Avon were lovers. They have all said that they never intended such an interpretaion to be taken from thier text. >> So...according to this logic, no activity may take place in fandom that is discounted or disapproved of by one of the actors or production crew? I think that idea is both absurd and very, very late in the day. If we were, as fans, to go only by Paul Darrow's vision of Kerr Avon, all of fan fiction would sound exactly like A TERRIBLE ASPECT. Excuse me while write about bloody rape, popping a few eyeballs in my pocket and moving a galaxy or two around. Leah

1 0

Re [B7L] Slash and Random Killfiling
by littles＠lycos.co.uk 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

Leah wrote: > In a message dated 3/6/01 6:47:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, > littles(a)lycos.co.uk writes: > > << That post was made by Fiona Moore. Just goes to show, Annie, that when you > killfile people indiscriminately, you miss the argument. >> > > 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. Once again, Leah, you seem to be missing the point. Somebody a while ago raised the question of, ~"how do we know what Chris Boucher's intention was with regard to B/A?"~ (those are quasiquotes, Leah, indicating a paraphrased statement). Fiona, in the post I quoted, answered it with an extensive quotation from an interview with the great Chris, demonstrating that B/A slash goes completely against his intentions for the characters. Annie, about a week later, has the following exchange with Kingpin (which I quote in full, in the interests of not misrepresenting her words): << > We are not looking to prove that they are > homosexual or bisexual just that > that possibility is not excluded. Kingpin: << It is not specifically excluded, but that is becase the thought of this interpretation never crossed anyone's mind. >> Annie: <And you know this... how? Unless you can claim to be the director, the editor, the actors, and the writers all rolled up into one, you have nothing to base this statement upon. Certainly nothing to make a "case" with.> If she hadn't killfiled Fiona, she'd know. Frankly, Leah, at this point you're just shit-disturbing. You can killfile me if you like, but if you can judge a man by the quality of his enemies, well, I've had a look around Ashton Press' website and I've rung up some of my slash-reading friends, and I'd consider it an honour to be killfiled by a purveyor of sexually explicit fan art, which uses the likenesses of the principal B7 actors without their permission, with evidently no thought for the distress which it might cause them. I'd be careful if I were you. Shane (I'd never killfile anyone. But then, I'm willing to have my opinions challenged). "Avon, you were my only friend..." --Blake

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: slash
by littles＠lycos.co.uk 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

Posting mainly to get this off my chest, and in case anyone's still interested. Anyone who wants to can cc this to Annie, as she won't get it. Annie said: > In a message dated 3/7/01 1:58:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, > wilsonfisk2(a)yahoo.com writes: > > << Hang on. In the space of a few days you've gone from > arguing that the intentions of the authors/actors are > irrelevant (dead author theory) or at the very least > concurring with the views of those who do, to > demanding I provide evidence that the cast/crew didn't > intend it?>>> > > I made no such demand, because, as you've pointed out, I don't really give a > fig what the "intent" of any of those people was. I see the show as I see it. > I was responding to your contention that you seemed to somehow "know" that > intent. I'd assume that Kingpin has read the same magazines that the rest of us have, some of which do tell us what the author's intent was. From the horse's mouth, usually. But if you don't care what the intent of the author, etc., was, why bring it up at all? > > <<< Very well. Paul Darrow's attitude to slash is well > known, and has caused the poor man no end of trouble > with those who just won't let it go. Chris Boucher has > rubbished the idea publically and Gareth Thomas > doesn't think that Blake and Avon were lovers. They > have all said that they never intended such an > interpretaion to be taken from thier text. > OK? >> > > No, not okay. As I very succinctly pointed out, unless you know the intent of > the director (of every episode), the actors, the editors, and every single > writer, you can't speak for what the "intent" of the show was. Oh, now, to quote Neil Faulkner, you're just talking bollocks here. You evidently have no idea how a television programme is put together. Firstly, if you argue that the intent of every director/writer/whatever was different, then the argument that Avon was gay falls apart completely, because then you can't argue for a single unified thread throughout the programme, and you have to take every single episode totally without reference to any other. Secondly, the presence of many contributors makes for a unified vision. If, to take a hypothetical example, a single director said "I want Avon to play this as if he was Norwegian," then Paul Darrow would say "hang about, nobody told _me_ Avon was Norwegian, and I haven't played him as Norwegian at all before in the series." Chris Boucher, as script editor, would say to the director, "Look, stop insisting on the funny accent, the script does not indicate that Avon is Norwegian and anyway that contradicts the previous episodes." If it's early enough in the series, Terry Nation might weigh in and say "I created the character and the character is not Norwegian." The producer, David Maloney, would say to the director, "you're sacked." Etc. What you get on a TV show is a system of checks and balances; a team of people all working towards the same end. If one member of the team starts to deviate from this end, the others usually bring him back to it. Therefore there is no need to know what _all_ the production people, actors etc. think to know what the intent of the series was. And, FWIW, most if not all of the directors, writers, script editors, effects people etc. have been interviewed at one point or another in connection with the series. None of them that I know of (if you know otherwise, please tell me) have said that Blake and/or Avon were meant to be gay or bi. Not insignificant. A television > show is not the work of any single individual. It is the work and effort of > many, including many behind-the-scenes crew that I didn't even mention. The > end result is often (perhaps even usually) quite different that what the > writer originally envisioned. A script is admittedly the skeleton which is fleshed out by other people involved. However, if a script suggested something as far out of line with the rest of the series' creators' intent as, say, that Avon and Blake were gay, then it would either be heavily altered or rejected outright by the script editor. As for your suggestion that the scene-shifters, costume designers etc. are the people behind the intention of the series... well, that's so ludicrous as to defy belief. "Avon and Blake were gay-- the tea-lady says so!" Honestly. > I would be very interested, btw, to know the "no end of trouble" that Paul > Darrow has experienced from the existence of slash stories and fanzines, > other than the trouble he has made for himself. For instance, have slash B7 > fanzines stopped Paul Darrow from getting further jobs in the acting > community? Have they caused him to be recognized on the street as a > homosexual? In what way have they impacted his day to day life, especially > since they depict a character he played over 20 years ago on a TV show? While I think it's a bit low to bring the actors into it, it is on record that the knowledge that his character is depicted in slash fiction, and particularly explicit artwork, has caused Mr Darrow and his wife considerable emotional distress. Isn't this "no end of trouble?" Isn't this something that impacts on his life? Anyway, the show has been repeated since (most recently, last year on BBC2) and Mr Darrow does attend conventions full of people who _do_ care about the character he played 20 years ago. The presence of slash in this community impacts on Mr Darrow's life every time he attends a convention. Whether or not it has affected his career, only he can say. Shane "Avon, you were my only friend..." --Blake

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