Blakes7 March 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

96 participants
1067 discussions

Re: Re [B7L] PWP (porn? what porn?)
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/1/01 10:51:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner(a)tesco.net writes: << I can't even recall any nude art depicting two characters doing so much as look at each other. On the other hand, I can understand that some of the more extreme work might be very carefully circulated around a just as carefully chosen clique. Perhaps the likes of me have been deliberately sheltered from what may offend or may be misused to attack its afficionados. So my question is: Does such art exist? A straight yes or no will suffice, though any further comments on quantity, style, subject matter, availability etc would be appreciated. >> About the only example that stayed in my memory was the remarkably graphic and amazingly physiologically accurate illustration that appeared in FORBIDDEN ZONE #2 (if I'm remembering the correct issue). It featured my very first exposure to the number "69" that had nothing to do with mathematics. I believe anything else that appeared before or since pales by comparison. Leah

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: in calm discussion (was Deliverance)
by Mac4781＠aol.com 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

In a message dated 03/01/2001 8:16:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner(a)tesco.net writes: > Your turn:) No thanks. The past couple of weeks have been wearing. I'm ready to return to the simple pleasures of B7. Where's that costume thread when I need it? Carol Mc

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: in calm discussion (was Deliverance)
by Mac4781＠aol.com 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

In a message dated 03/01/2001 8:16:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner(a)tesco.net writes: > Your turn:) No thanks. I can speak adequately for myself. And will do so whenever a thread catches my interest. I'm on this lyst and on FC to enjoy B7. And I'm going to try not to be diverted from that philosophy again. Carol Mc

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: in calm discussion (was Deliverance)
by Mac4781＠aol.com 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

Fiona wrote: > Minor point of order here. I'm decidedly not unfamiliar with H/C, and > neither are most of the rest of the anti-faction (see Neil's long list of > examples). I've read quite a few stories in the genre, although I wouldn't > call myself "into" it (just that frankly you can't *avoid* it if you're into > reading fanfic) I'm not sure what the distinction is here, but I suspect it is whether one "gets" h/c or doesn't get "h/c." For the most part, and there are always exceptions, the theories put forth by non h/cers are so outside my interpretation of the genre that I don't see any points for discussion. There's also, and it's been well demonstrated during the current discussion, a vocal minority who are offended by h/c and/or who look down on h/c. It's not an atmosphere that would encourage me to discuss the subject. I'm in fandom for fun. > Fair point :). However, while I'm not a parent, I am an anthropologist. As > part of my professional activities, I go to groups of people of which I am > not a member, and study them as an outsider. Fair enough, but what if the groups of people don't want to be studied? The reason I produced the post you are quoting is because you said: > I > also, as I said, saw a lot of people who liked h/c launcing into the > discussion with categorical denials ("H/C is NOT S/M! BAD FIONA! BAD NEIL! > NEVER SAY THIS IS SO!") or false analogies (Hamlet? Beautiful suffering? Can > be played that way, but Hamlet can be played *any* way imaginable... bitter > and unlikable... cold and rational... round the twist...). Which has, > actually, made me even *less* kindly disposed to h/c as a genre than before. The point I was trying to make was that h/cers tend to go on the defensive because there have been attacks on the genre in the past. So their answers might be abrupt, simply because they don't want to get into deeper discussions. The subject tends to get controversial, and they are probably in fandom as much for the fun of it as I am. Those brief answers just might indicate they don't want to be studied. Or as Sally very aptly put it-- "I start feeling uncomfortable, a little like a lab rat who hasn't been asked before the electrodes go in." Your post quoted above wouldn't make h/cers more inclined to discuss the genre. As the posts by h/cers made you "*less* kindly disposed to h/c," your post made it likely that I'd never want to discuss the subject with you. While you probably don't intend it to come across that way, you are giving every impression of someone who has already made up her mind. Which doesn't leave much room for discussion. > however, it is generally > agreed (including by the people I study) that an outsider to the culture can > provide valuable insights into the culture which the insider lacks, simply > by virtue of being an outsider. I would never deny that possibility. I've gained valuable insight on many subjects that way. But while it's possible, it isn't guaranteed. Just because someone is an outsider doesn't guarantee they are making a valid point. > I've also had a certain amount of psychological training, which is where I > was coming from when I said I saw sadomasochistic elements in H/C. I've had a certain amount of exposure to various disciplines in the field of psychology myself, which is neither here nor there. I don't deny that you see what you see (whether it comes from psychological training or simply comes from personal opinion). As I said in an earlier post, I don't mind if any fan wants to think that h/c is S/M or that h/c is thinly disguised slash or anything else. I'm not out to defend the genre. I'm not out to convert anyone to the genre. I'm not out to explain the genre to outsiders. No matter how well put your theory is, no matter what scholarly background you can call up in support of your theory, you are going to have to put forth something that tickles the interest of h/cers to get them to discuss h/c with you. Calling it S/M doesn't appear to have worked. Maybe nothing will. Maybe h/cers don't want to be laboratory rats. > First of all, Tavia's post didn't convince everyone. Then it didn't convince everyone. I have no problem with that. > For my part, because I'm trying to understand. Well, maybe you'll find some h/c fans who want to discuss it with you. If some do, I'd suggest you at least give some consideration to the possibility that they know what they're talking about. Even if they are unobjective insiders. Carol Mc

3 2

Re: Out of the frying pan (was Re: [B7L] Horizon and Redemption)
by M 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

I keep thinking a certain Scottish-y character might be > rather fond of them, though I don't think they'd be much good > batter-fried. > > Mistral you wanna bet, I've heard of battered Mars bars, and been told they're quite good, never had the nerve myself. B7 content, well I'm almost up to date and am keeping right out of 'the debate', I'm new (ish) - don't know the situation and think perhaps it should be off-lyst. I agree with what Heather said, I myself almost unsubscribed when I read these. M. _______________________________________________________ Get 100% private, FREE email for life from Excite UK Visit http://inbox.excite.co.uk/

1 0

Re: [B7L] Alternative Lyst Universes (was Horizon and Redemption)
by J MacQueen 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

>From: Iain Coleman <ijc(a)bas.ac.uk> >Ah, but my Cunning Plan revolves around the fact that much of the >pro-Pertwee, anti-McCoy brigade is virulently homophobic. Ah, Blackadder, I must apologise for not seeing it was a cunning plan. It wasn't singing "Cunning plans are here again", you see <grin> Regards Joanne McBaldrick _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: Re [B7L] PWP (porn? what porn?)
by Tavia 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

Neil asked: >I doubt if any kind of unanimous verdict can be reached on this >one, but we can at least - if we choose - declare where we >stand and why. A complex issue. Freedom of speech and expression is near the top of my personal list of axioms, which dictates my support of pretty much all fan art -- as well as of (visual) pornography in general, despite personally considering the latter unpleasant and/or degrading. I wasn't therefore joking when I expressed the view that people had the right to produce erotic material relating to myself, though in practice I don't doubt that I'd find it embarrassing broadly in proportion to the realism employed. Speaking as an editor, my policy specifically excludes any art not suitable for general audiences. Many of the B7 characters are depicted on screen and in authorised publicity photographs in ways I'd call sexualised -- certainly Jenna, Avon, Servalan, Dayna, and probably Cally too (I'm thinking here mainly of clothing that could be said to show off their bodies). Both Paul Darrow and Jacqueline Pearce have expressed on the whole positive opinions about being sex symbols in interviews I've heard or seen transcripts of, but I don't know about the others. Taking the example of PD, as I've seen more art depicting Avon than anyone else. To my mind, it's a little hypocritical of PD to enjoy sex symbol status while getting upset about fans depicting him (in words or pictures) in sex symbol-appropriate fashions. Actually, I seem to recall (I can't bear to re-read) that PD's own 'Avon: A Terrible Aspect' presented sexually explicit scenes. Most, if not all, of the pictures I can recall do not employ any kind of realism in depicting his body (I'd extrapolate from silhouettes a relatively fat stomach and disproportionately thin legs). I truly can't see that the depiction of Avon in low circulation fan-distributed media has any real effect on PD's career (though I don't doubt that type-casting has affected him). In fact, as he still gains income from B7-related appearances, it could be argued that it's enhanced it. I guess where I'd personally draw the line would be regarding people who confuse the fictional Avon with the real-life Paul Darrow, and who act in ways towards the actor in person that he considers offensive. My personal guess would be that this was rather rare, considering the number of people who found the character attractive, and also that it would be independent of any fan-related erotica involving Avon. Tavia

1 0

re Creation and Art
by kalazar 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

The Creation cons here in Pasadena, Ca always have a large art section. Kalazar -- Taxation WITH representation isn't so hot, either!

1 0

Alternative Lyst Universes (was Horizon and Redemption)
by J MacQueen 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

>From: Iain Coleman <ijc(a)bas.ac.uk> >Christ, give me a proper challenge. I mean, all you'd need would be a post >analysing why Pertwee was gayer than McCoy. You wouldn't even need that. The names alone seem to operate as red rags. Regards Joanne _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

James Schmitz Story
by Anna Sawitzky 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

Fiona wrote: > The possibility of the clone meeting Avon PGP could be > interesting though, given that the clone would not > know him (there's a James Schmitz story from the > fifties which briefly goes into the situation of a > clone created to be the exact duplicate of someone... > but who, once she is no longer needed in this way, > goes off and has a life of her own which is quite > different from her original's). What's the story called? Thanks in advance. > Fiona Anna

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