Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

None
by None 08 Mar '22

08 Mar '22

> > > They have a 'bible' of > > TREK continuity for the writers of the series; in fact, you can actually see > > this bible laid out in the form of a 'history timeline' at the STAR TREK > > EXPERIENCE attraction in the Las Vegas Hilton. [...] >>It's an incredible monument to a fandom. But I'd say, au contraire, it's an enjoyable corporate extension of a media property--it would be a monument to a fandom if it was in somebody's basement in Peoria and she spent 10 years putting it together, or whatever. I watched my first B7 tape because of Jenkins, and I still think he's right--fandom is the assertion that the real story of the show belongs to the people who love it, not the people who (by a mere technicality) happen to have a TV studio. -(Y)

1 0

None
by None 08 Mar '22

08 Mar '22

> > Oh, you mean in a wider context? Yes, imagination definitely necessary, and > I think a good dose of research doesn't come amiss either. I've never forgotten Katharine Hepburn in "Holiday" (a memorable but not subtle performance--sort of like Bayban the Butcher with cheekbones) saying that if her theoretical husband wanted to sell peanuts for a living, "Oh, how I'll believe in those peanuts." I think for me, a story works to the degree that the author really believes in...space battles, or Travis' bleak internal landscape, or how to set up a rebel base, or her favorite smarm pairing or...well, whatever. However, I'd say that research is less important than imaginative consistency. As Neil says, there are plenty of things that you'd never believe even though they really did happen--I think that a story works better if it's about things you believe even though they couldn't really happen. -(Y)

1 0

None
by None 08 Mar '22

08 Mar '22

Wasn't. Until I came to disillusion him at which point I became something else (Bloody Useless, presumably). His misperception of what I was can be taken as a representation of me at that time (though 17 years on I am still essentially Bloody Useless), and because it directly affected a decision he made, that representation was to all intents and purposes real (albeit wrong). He's not the only one to have operated from such assumptions either; men and women alike have made decisions based on the ideologically predetermined representations of what I am, and frequently come unstuck as a result. Sometimes it's annoying, more often it's rather entertaining. It gives me a larf, anyway. Bloody Useless Neil

1 0

None
by None 08 Mar '22

08 Mar '22

who you want to be. You are also what others expect of you. An amusing example that happened to me IRL: I was working on a nature reserve with one other warden, who happened to be female. A local farmer had kindly offered the local wildlife trust an old caravan to accomodate us poor shivering wardens, but needed help getting it to the reserve. A wheel needed changing, and the thing had to be tied up to the land rover for towing. Out of the two of us, he chose me to help him. His mistake. If he'd chosen the woman, she'd have pitched in eagerly and made herself useful. All I could do was stand there and watch, because I didn't have a clue what to do. Not that I minded, because I was being paid by the hour, and punching a hole in his chauvinistic thinking was satisfying in its own right.

1 0

None
by None 08 Mar '22

08 Mar '22

Roman. Mistral -- "Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!" --Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.

1 0

None
by None 08 Mar '22

08 Mar '22

small and unimportant things (my own interests and concerns included). The 'primary importance' of individual people can very easily simply disappear when you look at the world through such a wide-angled lens. Have you ever tried looking at people as *animals*? I don't mean to dehumanise them in any way, just to stop seeing the person for a moment, and see instead an individual of one particular offshoot of the evolutionary tree. People can look startlingly different if you get the right mind adjustment. > It seems to me that to talk about ideologies as if > they were something concrete, something "out there" independent of > individual humans is... strange. And rather dangerous. The sort of > logic that sets up governments to work "for the good of the State" while > losing sight of the fact that "the State" is simply composed of the > individual human beings who live there. You seem to be confusing ideology with political doctrine. Doctrine is largely overt, visible (in terms of government policy decisions etc) and unambiguous. Ideology - that tacit code of convention we all subscribe to - is largely invisible, and often very ambiguous. It's the unwritten rules buried deep in the heart of culture, the ones we obey without even realising that they are rules, albeit quite arbitrary in many cases. And in a way, it *is* independent of individual people. We, the individuals, dance along to its tune without even hearing the notes. That includes fictional characters, because the tune is still there, written in by the unwitting author. If we all hear pretty much the same tune, then we're all going to dance in pretty much the same way. Individuality diminishes. It can even disappear altogether. "The State" - or just society - is *not* simply composed of individuals. Once you start considering people collectively, they become something other than a collection of individuals. Many - perhaps most - people actually *want* to lose their individuality, at least temporarily, to become part of something that is larger and at least feels stronger. It can be quite exhilirating, even euphoric (I presume most of us have been there at some time or other, whether at a football match, a rock concert, or marching down a street waving banners. I can only lay claim to the last, and not for years now). But even outside these obvious and public moments, the collective nature of human beings exists, in abundance, and the individual again necessarily disappears, blending into the ranks of the masses. (FWIW, I don't think any of us are half as unique as we might like to think we are. Our individuality - or sense of it - comes from the combination of traits, attitudes, experiences and behaviour patterns that make us what we are. Since there are only so many traits and attitudes etc, any single one is going to be shared by an awful lot of people. A smaller - but still sizable - sample is going to share several if not many of the same traits etc as yourself. A few will be very similar on most important counts. A lot of particularities seem to be co-related, so if you have one there's a good chance you'll have one or more of the others that go with it. Trainspotters aren't collectively labelled geeky anoraks for nothing.) > That's the sort of association > that this "ideology vs characters" thing has for me, anyway. I regard > it as very important not to lose sight of the individual, and not to > forget that all people are different. They may be shaped by their > societies (something I would never dream of disputing) but they are not > merely representations of their society, but complex beings in their own > right. Yes, they are complex beings, but also (not 'merely', but also) representations of facets of society, and of ideological values and positions. You and I both are complex beings (though some might say that I am just a being, and even the being part is a matter for regret), but there is more to both of us than just that. Actually I would say that the representative dimension is all part of the complexity of being. Neil > > > I'm not surprised that this is muddled because it seems very hard to work > > through and get answers. I've spent the past couple of days trying to work > > out just how much importance I place on the characters, and why, or how, or > > where it's located, and I've yet to come up with any answers. > > Yes, I have much the same problem. Everything I've said about why I > *am* a character junky is accurate, I think, but every time I stop and > think about it a little more deeply, I realize that, well, it's a bit > more complex than *that*. > > > What I do think, and I'm quite aware that this might be nothing more than a > > reflection of my own prejudices, is that my distaste for character junkieism > > (as opposed to those who practice it) lies in what I perceive as a > > superficial appraisal of the series. There is an exagerrated awareness of > > differences between individuals, whereas I tend to look for similarities, > > which in turn leads to the social or, dare I say, the ideological. > > This probably has a great deal to do with what you value, and what you > find interesting. To me, people are far more interesting than > societies, and, in a sense, more important, because, after all, > societies are only the higher-order product of interactions between > individual humans. (Actually, I'm aware that that doesn't necessarily > follow. Yes, human beings are the higher-order product of interactions > between neurons, and I don't find neurons all that interesting. But, > unlike neurons, individual human beings are incredibly complex, and > thus, to me, incredibly interesting.) > > > There is > > also a focus on immediate impressions - what is said or done (or worn - now > > that is what I really do call superficial) - with an implied reluctance to > > look deeper than the cosmetic surface. > > That's very interesting to me, because it *is* very different from my > own view of things. Agreed that focusing on fashion is highly > superficial (though it can sometimes be fun!). But, to me, exploring > the characters' internal lives *is* to look deeper than the > superficial. To not simply accept the things that are said and done, > but to explore *why* this thing was said and that thing was done, and > what meaning those words and actions have for the people involved, > beyond their superficial part in the action-adventure plot. In fact, if > anything, I probably tend to see the background -- including many of the > sociological aspects -- as something superficial, something that only > takes on a real depth when you investigate the effect it has on the > lives of these individual people. > > The ideological dimension (if we want to call it that) may be more > *abstract*, in a way, than the character dimension, but it seems > mistaken to me to call it "deeper." How deep something is, in a context > like this, I think, depends a hell of a lot on just how deep you're > willing to *look* at it. > > > And that devotion to 'playing the > > game' - discounting the external contribution of the process of production > > (writers, directors, actors, budget etc). > > Me, I can slip back and forth between the two modes, as necessary (and > interesting), but, to me, "playing the game" is far more rewarding. > Possibly because it requires a real creative effort on the part of the > viewer. It's like a puzzle: can you make everything work together > consistently? And if you *can*, the result is a very rewarding > subcreated world (to borrow Tolkien's term). > > > Which is fine for threads that confine themselves within those limits, but > > not so fine when it gets dumped on threads that try to step out of those > > narrow parameters. > > Good point. This is certainly the sort of thread where the two > viewpoints can get quite tangled up. (I admit that I've had a bit of > difficultly, through parts of this discussion, deciding just which mode > I ought to be in at any given time.) > > > -- > Betty Ragan ** ragan(a)sdc.org ** http://www.sdc.org/~ragan/ > "The truth shall make ye fret." -- Terry Pratchett >

1 0

None
by None 08 Mar '22

08 Mar '22

indeed of a very primitive kind, unsullied by any problematic complications like cultural awareness, ideological consciousness or a sense of historicity. Meegat has a minor problem that needs sorting out, and since it permits Avon and his chums a chance to flaunt their technological knowhow (they come from civilisation, after all) this must obviously take precedence over other matter (like, say, rescuing Jenna). Fortunately it doesn't take too long, because decent chaps like these are hardly going to be flummoxed by a stack of antique hardware. The fact that it's hardware of any kind is way beyond Meegat's comprehension, because she's primitive, and primitive people have no concept for such things. Nor do they feel any compulsion to try and understand what's going on, even if it's intimately tied up with their entire purpose in life. And then it's off to rescue Jenna, or at least see if there's anything left of her (they could be cannibals, you know). Meanwhile, Blake and Cally are up against a genuinely serious adversary. This is Ensor, who is of a bit of a decent chap himself, just a bit misguided. But he's technologically savvy (insisting that the course to Aristo is confirmed by the ship's computer, putting the energiser on his gun to automatic) and hence a genuine threat. Cephlon's brutish thugs might go down with a single whack of a big stick (and they don't stand up too well to fisticuffs either), but Blake and Cally are essentially helpless against one of their own kind. Only the toll of his injuries saves them. What we have here, then, is a pernicious piece of colonialist nostalgia, wistfully dreaming of the good old days when the sun never set on the Empire. It is glib propaganda for armchair adventurers who need to be reassured that civilisation amounts to supremacy and that technological sophistication is the only kind worth a damn. Ultimately, it endorses a self-granted mandate to invade the lives of so-called inferior peoples, prove one's superiority and promptly walk out again without care or consideration for the consequences. If you enjoyed this episode, may I also recommend Triumph of the Will and Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom. They should be right up your street. * Whew. Didn't know I still had it in me... Neil

1 0

None
by None 08 Mar '22

08 Mar '22

'primitives' assume the more advanced civilization's people are gods. It's not quite as common - or simple - as it's usually made out. 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.

1 0

original crew of the Liberator
by jacquispeel＠netscape.net 19 Feb '02

19 Feb '02

The DSV's crew could be Altas and slaves but there would be occasions when crew members were out of direct contact with Zen (or its equivalents), and the slave Blake meets is certainly capable of independent mental activity. (I assume that the designation 'Deep Space Vessel indicates that it was a research vessel: Zen's statement that information must be acquired not given would be consistent with this. Was the 'image device' Zen used on the persons from the London a means of keeping revolting slaves away from the flight deck?) One issue that has to be considered is whether the System's space centre is the equivalent of a (Terran) dome or of Servalan's command base (in either case with the equivalent of Central Control integrated). It is clear from the way the Liberator 'fits into' the holding bay (including the access doors) DSVs date from at least the time the space structure was constructed (and there are at least two holding bays - as the other DSV was not previously seen when the Liberator arrived).

1 0

Re: [B7L] Review: Limbo - ooops
by Sally M 19 Feb '02

19 Feb '02

Sorry, sent to the wrong list :-) _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
552
Older →

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