--- Mistral mistral@centurytel.net wrote:
With as much snipping for length as I thought possible while retaining context and attempting to avoid misrepresenting either party.
Me too. :)
That is, of course, your interpretation of Avon; mine is very different. I do not see him as wanting the position of leader (rather, merely wanting _not_ to be a follower)
Yes, but in "Pressure point" he strikes a deal with Blake to take over Liberator once Blake has returned to Earth to lead the masses to victory etc. This is directly referred to again in Star One. There are also a number of references after "Deliverance" that Avon makes to wanting to take over Liberator. I can hear you saying right now, "Oh, that doesn't mean he wants to be a leader, just that he wants the ship." OK, so how does he expect to run a big ship like that all on his lonesome (and Vila in Star One makes it clear that the crew are part of the bargain struck), and why, when Blake is finally gone, doesn't he just let Captain Tarrant take charge and either go off to do his own thing or stuck around and baited him from the sidelines?
Avon may be mocked, but Meegat is objectified.
Your use of the term is meaningless. None of the characters treat her as an object;
No, they treat her as a means to an end. A woman deluded into thinking Avon is God, a delusion which they can easily exploit to get what they want.
and the author gives her far more dimension than he gives the male savages.
Not that that's saying much :-).
I don't hear any of the men on the
lyst yelling 'savage males - male bashing!' (They probably wouldn't dare.)
Yes--come on, boys, why *haven't* you been saying that? It is just as bad a stereotype to show males as rough, tough and brainless thugs who'd as soon kidnap a woman as look at her. Or, wait, could it be that these actions are maybe seen in this culture as macho? Kind of positive even? How many action-movie heroes does that above sentence describe?
something for Blake to get really upset about, and Jenna was seen to be more than just a friend to
Blake.
Okay, here we come to an example of the real problem with this whole discussion. There is _no_ objective, factual material in the show that indicates that Jenna and Blake were more than friends.
True-- but there are hints. Far more hints, in fact, than suggest that Avon and Blake were more than just good friends-- and this doesn't seem to stop some people writing stories (and in some cases believing it to be true, possibly?) suggesting that this was the case.
In fact, your entire argument rests on _your interpretation_ of the material - which is okay! - except that you seem to want to present it as fact, while denying others the right to interpret the available material in another way.
No. I presented my opinion, which I backed up using facts from the story. Other people presented their opinions, which they similarly backed up with facts from the story. I then responded in kind by pointing out what I saw as the holes in their arguments, just as they had done for mine. This is NOT denying people's right to interpret the material in their own way; it's just saying that I see certian problems in their reasoning on SOME of the points.
This is what's called a debate.
For example, Freudian interpretation is not inherent fact;
Never said it was :-).
or that
matter, IIUC, Freud has fallen well out of favour in the professional psych community.
But the last time I looked, not out of favour in literary criticism.
A rocket does not _equal_ a
phallus.
It doesn't. It *symbolises* it. I never said the rocket *was* a phallus, just that I found the *symbols* in the story a bit dubious.
Symbols can
sometimes illustrate reality; they do not ever define it.
But this isn't *reality*. It's a *story.* For instance, in the novel Jane Eyre, IIRC there is a storm at one point when the main character is having an emotional crisis. The parallels between crisis and storm are obvious, and because it's a novel, the author can get away with having a storm raging outside while the character is having a crisis.
Similarly, in Deliverance, you have a plot which is about a woman desiring children, which a man comes along and gives her (and I agree that this can be a positive image!) which is then mirrored in the imagery of the buttons being pressed and the seed-bearing rocket firing. Nation has used symbolism before, why not here?
I don't think that Deliverance needs an excuse. As I've pointed out, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a weaker female character and a stronger male character 25% of the time - it doesn't happen in B7 nearly that often. I simply don't feel offended or threatened by occasional non-heroic portrayals of women. If you do, that's your prerogative, but please don't insist that the rest of us must.
I don't. But it goes beyond "occasional non-heroic portrayals." Let's face it, in most TV sci-fi, the default position for women is as helpless rescuee. B7 is better than most for showing women in other roles-- but it's substantially more than 25% of the time that a woman needs rescuing by a man, even in B7.
I also think it's pretty absurd to complain about Meegat, when third/fourth series Servalan is IMO the most blatantly misogynistic portrayal of a female I have ever seen in an SF series regular. She is (IMHO) an evil, sadistic, overly sexualized, emasculating bitch-queen whose sanity is questionable - a classic expression of male fantasies/fears; and to see intelligent women embracing her as a strong, admirable portrayal of womanhood - well, it's odd, to say the least.
But Servalan is not portrayed as being evil and power-seeking *because she's a woman,* she is portrayed as being evil and power-seeking because she's a megalomaniac. Nowhere in series 4 does anybody, IIRC, suggest that women in power are overly sexualised, emasculating bitches-- just that Servalan is, cause she's mad.
But yes, I'd agree that it could be a bit dubious to see her as a strong, admirable woman... but since I've been accused repeatedly of not listening to other people's opinions, I'm not going to bother to answer. The rest of you can debate that one.
See my above comment re Freud. A cigar is almost always just a cigar.
See my above comment re Bronte. A storm in that case isn't just a storm.
And don't be disingenuous; stock footage was cheaper than model work, which would have been a concern, particularly in the first season.
But the script specifies a rocket.
But the job isn't entrusted to her, it's entrusted
to
*Avon*!
No, Avon's job isn't possible without Meegat; she's the one entrusted with relaying the wishes of her people to the rocket-launcher - whether that were Avon, Jenna, or someone else. This isn't a case of Avon marginalizing Meegat, or Terry Nation marginalizing Meegat; it's a case of _you_ marginalizing Meegat.
Oh yes? But where in the script is it said that Avon's job isn't possible without Meegat. When she is saying "You've come to save us, My Lord!" does he, or anyone else, ever stop and say "Hang on, you're role is just as important?" No, they just treat her role as being a messenger one and Avon as being the central figure.
If I'm seeing Meegat as marginalised-- and read some of the other answers, I'm not the only one-- that means there's some potential in the script for her to be seen that way.
Beside the point. The point is, the author made
that
particular character female.
25% rule. Nation could have flipped a coin, for all you know.
But do you really, honestly, think he did? Do you really think he considered a potential alternative scenario in which some bloke opens the door and says "You have come, my lord!" and drops at Avon's feet? As Neil (I think) says, he was just going for the cliche of 1000 other SF and adventure films/shows, of the beautiful alien priestess waiting for a male saviour.
It is just
as sexist to insist that all female characters be strong/admirable/whatever-you-like, as to insist that none of them be.
I'm not suggesting they all should be. Just that they should be more than ciphers.
Message truncated by Yahoo, so sorry if I've missed some of the more major points after this. But, as for your question of why I asked for people's opinions if I had such strong views about the episode: well, for one thing I wanted to see if my views were shared or whether I was just barking up the wrong tree. And while you disagree (and no, whatever you say I have no problem with that), there does seem to have been room for a lot of debate here. For another thing: I will repeat. This is a *debate.* In a debate, people take positions and defend them.
W.
__________________________________________________ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/