From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #280 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume00/280 Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------" To: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se Reply-To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se ------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain blakes7-d Digest Volume 00 : Issue 280 Today's Topics: Re: [B7L] Avon (was: Rumours of Deat [ B7Morrigan@aol.com ] [B7L] Gareth in Hamlet [ Judith Proctor ] Re: [Re: [B7L]RE: Blakes 7 Movie] [ Jacqui Speel ] Re: [B7L] Re: Fantasy & SF viewpoint [ "Ellynne G." ] Re: [B7L] Fantasy [ Natasa Tucev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/6/00 10:40:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mistral@centurytel.net writes: > Dana Shilling wrote re Avon: > > > Well, I'm pretty sure that he's an excellent cook but the kind who leaves > > the kitchen in ruins and expects someone else to clean up. > > Well, maybe if it's Vila's turn to clean up... > > I always think of him as a very good but not gourmet cook; but > that really annoying type who cleans up as he goes, so thoroughly > that you can't tell he's been using the kitchen, even while he's > still cooking! (I hate those people! Fnarr, fnarr.) I've always loved a piece from one of Dana's stories about Avon's cooking ability: "as Vila said, it was and wasn't surprising how good a meal Avon could turn out with unpromising ingredients. In a way you'd expect him to be a good cook, good at anything that can be broken down into a series of steps and learned. Good at anything that you could be better than other people at. He always seemed to be working out of an encyclopedia with a few dozen more volumes than anyone else's." Seems a perfect description to me. Morrigan Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 15:30:50 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Cc: Freedom City Subject: [B7L] Gareth in Hamlet Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII I've just been watching my Hamlet video. It's longer than I'd expected which was a pleasant surprise. From hearing Gareth talking about it, I'd expected more of an edited highlights version of the play, but in fact, though this is trimmed down, it still runs for nearly two hours. It's a mixed bag. Most of the acting is good, some of it is excellent. The scenery could be better, but then this isn't a Hollywood production - it's aimed mainly at the school's market and bearing that level of budget in mind, it doesn't do too badly at all. The echoey wooden floor in the palace was a bit disconcerting, but you got used to it. The picture quality varies too. Some of the indoor scenes are a little bit grainy and I didn't like the way they did the ghost at all. However, onto the good bits. Will Houston as Hamlet was superb and held the entire thing together so that you forgot the sets (could have used him on Blake's 7...). He was obsessed, insane, indecisive, and demanded that you watch him. Gareth made a scheming, evil Claudius, but one who also genuinely loves his wife Gertrude. Gareth's skill lies in conveying a lot with a little, and it comes over very well here. The third strongest member of the cast is Jason Harris as Horatio (slash fans will probably love his final scene with Hamlet), though Christopher Timothy makes an entertaining gravedigger. The weakest character for me was Ophelia. Lucy Cockram failed to convince. The dialogue was clearly-spoken by all the cast. I don't know how close to the original text it was or what bits were edited out, but there was almost nothing that I failed to understand because of archaic language. The only time I missed anything was to due the heavy overlay of church bells on the opening scene (the bells carried on much longer than was necessary to remind us that Claudius was marrying his brother's widow before said brother was two months in his grave.) Some of the religious sensibilities of the period were nicely conveyed. I particularly liked the scene where Hamlet decided not to kill Claudius while Claudius is praying, as his soul would go to heaven and not to hell. Yet, with true irony, we know from Claudius's own words that he does not believe God has forgiven him for his crime. Although the play has less than perfect production standards, I enjoyed it greatly and will certainly be watching my tape again. It's well worth the money and I recommed it for the performances of Will Houston and Gareth Thomas Judith PS. I'd swear the pearl went 'clunk' instead of 'splash' when dropped into the wine goblet . PPS. You can order the tape from Horizon and get a slight discount (though you'll have to wait until they put the bulk order in) or you can buy it direct by creit card for 14.99 inlcuding postage by phoning Cromwell 01789 292779. They'll mail overseas, but that costs a few pounds extra. -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 - Fanzines for Blake's 7, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. (also non-Blake's 7 zines at http://www.knightwriter.org ) Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 16:15:12 -0400 From: "Christine+Steve" To: "B7 Mailing List" Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: the old Star One argument Message-ID: <002301c02fd2$36405fc0$e7139ad8@cgorman> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Katie: > Honestly, I think he really thought it'd be worth it - that the, um, > spiritual worth of freedom was more important than the loss of life. He > stonewalls everyone but Cally on the issue, but it's obviously something > he's thought about and resolved. (And I think it's awfully interesting that > he actually *does* open to Cally a bit; that's rare, for him to be as open > as he was with her in that moment.) On a similar note, I was watching Countdown earlier, where Blake begins his second campaign against Star One and I thought the crew's reaction to him looking for Provine didn't fit with their characters, especially Avon. Avon asks what they are doing orbiting Albian and Blake casually announces that he's looking for Provine, who served on Central Control and may know its new location. Given the deadly results of their first raid on Central Control and then Avon's numerous statements about Blake getting them all killed, I would have expected at least some opposition to his continued search for Control. But they just carry on preparing for teleport. It sounded like Blake had spent some time doing more research on Control and directed the Liberator to this planet without explaning anything to the other crew members. Again, something Avon is never particularly happy about. Didn't seem to fit that well to me. Apart from that, its still a great episode. Steve Dobson. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 20:18:46 GMT From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mistral wrote: That's awfully noble (if somewhat un-B7-ish) of you, dear (give me some credit though, I may not have been quiet, but I did make earnest attempts to Change the Subject.) Trying to recall a time - any time - when one of Our Heroes ignored the opportunity to argue ... _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 08:22:53 +1100 From: Kathryn Andersen To: "Blake's 7 list" Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy Message-ID: <20001007082253.A7453@welkin.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 06:10:49AM -0700, mistral@centurytel.net wrote: > > Alison Page wrote: > > > Natasa said - > > > > >>Man today is an extremely isolated and lonely creature - and it is to a > > great extent due to science and rational thinking that he is no longer > > capable of connecting himself to any larger whole, be it God, Universe, > > Nature, or, for that matter, the rest of human kind. Science denies that man > > can achieve 'mystical union' with any of these entities, and so opens a huge > > emotional gap between 'I' and 'not I', without offering any alternative to > > fill it with. << > > > > I really don't see this at all. The point of science is to find out what is > > really going on (I'm pretty cynical about how far modern science has got > > down this road, but that is at least the point). Either human beings really > > are linked with the rest of the Universe, or they are not. I happen to > > believe they are, but the argument works either way. If your (I mean one's) > > spirituality is true then the pursuit of truth can't obscure it. If your > > spirituality is false, then you'd better find out as quick as possible, > > because it is too important to piss about with. > > Oh, very well said. I agree 98%; however one should be aware of the > basic assumption that underlies your argument - that science has the > capability to investigate everything that exists; that the physical world > is the total sum of existence. I believe there's something more. The gap > that Natasa mentions isn't caused by science; it's caused by the notion > that science and faith have to be at odds. To make that assumption is > to cut the legs off both faith and science - particularly science, which > relies on having a minimum of unprovable presuppositions for its success. (sorry for not snipping, but mucho good thing said) > [And let me drop in here since I've mislaid the original post - I can't > agree that isolation and individualism are the same thing; a healthy > respect for individualism IMO fosters connection, not isolation.] Um, I agree with most of what's been said here, even when the above appear to be disagreeing.... I agree with Natasa about the individual to some extent, from this point of view -- individualism has robbed us of *community*. Or maybe it's the industrial revolution and big cities that have robbed us of community. There's just oneself and one's immediate family -- no extended family, no "village community" (except in small towns); how many people know their neighbours in a big city? (And even in churches, which one might think were little mini-communities, in most (but not all) cases, they're just club meetings, where people come from somewhere else by car, and then go back there when the weekly meet is over). There is a general selfishness -- no sense of duty, no obligation to anyone other than self -- no connection, no union. (And, yes, there are obvious exceptions.) Science "denies that one can achieve a mystical union" because science is limited in what it can encompass, what it can investigate. Science can only look at the natural world, not the supernatural world. It *has* to deny the supernatural, that is its nature. Therefore, at one and the same time, it is trying "to find out what's really going on" and is completely incapable of finding out what is really going on. Science is limited in what it can find out. Science builds a model of the world, but it is a model based on only what can be observed, on what can be observed to have a pattern. The mistake, therefore, is to declare that what can be observed by science, is the only thing that exists -- in other words, Materialism (in its philisophical sense). It is Materialism that denies the possibility of mystical union -- Science is merely its measuring rod. "if your spirituality is true, then the pursuit of truth can't obscure it" Absolutely. No one should ever fear truth, not even the truths of science. Science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God; it is a question outside its capacity. Let us pursue truth --- including the truth brought to us by science -- with everything that we have, and not fear for our faith, which needs to be in harmony with truth otherwise it is false. "To make the assumption that science and faith have to be at odds is to cut the legs off both faith and science" -- what a wonderful way of putting it! All things start with faith -- as Mistral says, science has to start with certain assumptions, otherwise it can't start at all. "Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all." -- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy And those of faith who assume that science is at odds with faith have made an equally stupid error: if you are a theist, then how can one think that modeling the created world (which is what science does) denies that there is a Creator? True science (as distinct from philosophy disguised as science) can only model what *is*, and what is, is true, and what is true is not to be feared. > > And - I guess - this is the problem for much of fantasy literature for me. > > It just seems to have given up. As if to say 'well, reality has no holiness, > > so I will withdraw to a world that has a pretend holiness in it'. Whereas > > SF, at its best, encourages the real awe that we feel for the real universe. > > I may never be able to travel faster than light to the edge of the galaxy, > > but the edge of the galaxy really is there, and it is probably more strange > > and lonely than I can imagine. > > Hm. I'd have said SF has given up, and it's fantasy that encourages > a sense of wonder. Or, more particularly I'd say that SF _tends_ to > the view that physical reality is all there is, and fantasy _tends_ to > the view that there is something more. Since I do believe that the > physical world is just an overlay on top of a deeper Reality, fantasy > strikes me more as an attempt to pierce the veil rather than to deny > the integrity ('holiness') of reality. Or, SF as analysis, fantasy as > synthesis. Or mind vs. spirit; or the external world vs. the internal. Oh, yes! > Perhaps that the sense of wonder in SF comes from the portrayal > of individuals as tiny and insignificant against the panoramic backdrop > of time and space, whereas the wonder in fantasy comes from the > portrayal of the individual as of supreme importance. I don't find those > to be mutually exclusive, but paradoxically simultaneous truths. I agree. > I wonder if that explains why I prefer science-fantasy to both fantasy > and SF? There's something to puzzle over :) Both SF and Fantasy are capable of bringing us a Sense of Wonder. But the vast majority of both do neither, simply because of Sturgeon's Law. It takes talent to bring wonder. It seems like we are giving many roles to our SF&F: 1. A Sense of Wonder. 2. As myth which supports the status-quo. 3. As myth which explores/redefines what is, where we are, current society; and wonders where we should be. 4. Something which subverts and protests against the status quo. And these roles overlap somewhat, too. So, to bring this back on topic, what role does B7 play? I can't really say that is has a Sense of Wonder. Dodgy SFX doesn't really make the grade. (2001, on the other hand...) Is B7 subversive? Quite probably. Neil? Do you think B7 is subversive? I don't think we can say that it supports the status-quo, in that it portrays rebels against an oppressive government, which can hardly be said to be a conservative stance. But it's also subversive in another way, because the American myth of Rebels Against An Oppressive Government (which you must admit is deep in the American psyche, considering its origins as a nation) is that The Rebels Always Win. (His strength was as the strength of ten, because his heart was pure.) Wheras the message of B7, if there is one, is that the Rebels Always Lose, but you have to Keep Fighting Anyway. Subversive against easy answers of both stripes. Kathryn Andersen -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing, and fools hate knowledge?" Proverbs 1:22 -- _--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen / \ | \_.--.*/ | v | #include "standard/disclaimer.h" ------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 14:11:22 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: Fantasy & SF viewpoints Message-ID: <39DE3FF9.18BE@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > But if we take the backbone of modern fantasy, what do we find? Well, Tolkien goes back a ways. Modern literature in a literary sense... but in a pop-culture sense, let's look at what current writers are turning out. Pratchett gives us Fantasy laden with addled professorial wizards, chaos theory and the trouser legs of time, a film-noir style policeman who hates kings even more than he hates the plutocratic style of the city's dispersed power, and withces who risk their lives to keep a girl from being swallowed by a Story. He specializes in dumping the conventions of fantasy on their heads-- and as a result is much more of a bestseller than those authors who churn out more stuff where barbarians, wizards and princesses walk through the same old roles. In "The Princess Bride", Buttercup and Wesley are sweethearts who fight the political machine in the name of true love (and by extention, individual freedom-- he's a pirate, she's legally obliged to marry the prince at his command but won't). It also contains a vengeance story-- remember, in those vengeance traditionally brings tragedy, but in the movie, at least, it looks like Iniego gets to move on to a post-vendetta career, taking over as pirate king. (Since when IS that an occupation for good guys?) Even Disney's Beauty and the Beast, has of course it's roots in tradition with the Beast being a prince and Belle being a dutiful daughter. OTOH, it is one of the rare storylines in past or present to allow *intellectualism* to be the defining characteristic of the heroine, or be the basis for love. Given the anti-intellectual sentiments of most pop culture, this strikes me as challenging the status quo. Tanith Lee did a story once... SF, but with more of a fantasy feel, I think called "Fleur de Fir" (or something like that) It starts out rather like a traditional, good people in the city vs bad vamppires outside. But we learn gradually of how corrupt and evil the ruling elite of the humans are, and the servant girl rescues a captured vampire and they become friends... dying together in cold and starvation rather than breaking the bond of friendship they have formed. Grim but definitely a story of individuality vs. cultural norms. Even that mainstay of status quo fantasy, the roleplaying game Dungeons and Dragons, is made to be flexible. True, the rules as written follow the most mindless tradition of the heroic swordsman saving the people from maruading monsters. But everything is flexible, and even the published games have expanded the world view. In the Ravenloft series (fantasy meets Gothic horror), nothing is as it seems; the gamers must solve mysteries to find out the *real* source of evil; mindless hack n' slash antics will eventually turn the gamers into creatures of evil themselves. Both regulation mudules and fan-publications have given options where good and evil may be reversed. And then there's the player's favorite alignment-- chaotic nuetral, a favorite for those who want to throw away the status quo altogether. Since everything comes down to the gamemaster's discretion, it's as reactionary or revolutionary as the group playing. Harry Potter deals with racism and human rights, a government that can't be trusted (the Ministry has railroaded innocents through trials and uses soul-eating monsters as guardians), corruption and bribery, and a web of deceipt that makes it impossible to know the full truth about anyone. I don't think it's possible to classify a genre based on the foundations of it. Furthermore, one has to look at old fantasy in terms of it's time. Could the elf-dwarf friendship in the Lord of the Rings be seen as a metaphor for a cross-racial friendship? If so, we should think of the period in which it was written and recognize it aas a revolutionary concept. Then the men had a King, but the Hobbits lived in a democracy with an elected mayor. Since the Hobbits represent the common man of England, it could be seen as pro-democratic. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 00 15:03:33 PDT From: Jacqui Speel To: Subject: Re: [Re: [B7L]RE: Blakes 7 Movie] Message-ID: <20001006220333.6537.qmail@www0y.netaddress.usa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable And what about the remake series: but it would have to be a 'reinterpret'= to work properly (as with the two Richard III films) "Minnie" wrote: Ellynne wrote: >Can't complain. That's why I gave B7 a chance (hey, I love it now, but,= >at the time, I had the alarm going off, saying, "Cheap sets! Scary bad >70's fashions! Characters standing around ignoring the noisy guy sneakin= g >up on them!" and so on.). Thats partly why I love B7. I just get the feeling we will feel cheated or worse, the movie will st= ink and I cant talk for anyone else but that sort of thing kinda puts me off = the original movie/show a little. :( On the other hand, it might be some sor= t of closure or an explination re the final episode. Fingies xst. :) Min.xxx ____________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://home= =2Enetscape.com/webmail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 21:32:22 EDT From: JEB31538@cs.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: Mary Ridge Message-ID: <27.bce7bc8.270fd726@cs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Judith, Thanks for telling us that Joe Nazarro had added a tribute to Mary Ridge on your website. I had already seen your tribute and wouldn't have thought to have looked at it again without you letting us know something had been added. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to Mary of the Together Again tape she was on. I'm glad she was one of the guests in that series. Joyce ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:39:00 GMT From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Avon (was: Rumours of Death question) Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Dana wrote: whereas I've got him pegged as someone with very little interest in food, and with almost non-existent experience, interest or skill in cooking - the sort who, if Zen wasn't there to reconsititute the concentrates for them, would simply eat whatever first came to hand and didn't need any preparation. And is more than capable of completely forgetting a meal or two when he's working, for that matter. Vila I can see as reasonably non-disastrous in whatever sort of kitchen the future holds, and I'm convinced he has a veeerrry sweet tooth (and likes cheap candy). Gan could probably manage good plain cookery of the kind we're taught in schools :-); Jenna lives on diet shakes and polystyrene cakes anyway; Cally has Auron taste buds, so anything's possible. Blake quite possibly knows how to do the bush tucker bit (one can imagine him killing and gutting the local giant-icky-grub-thingies, then getting rather tetchy when his loyal crew all refuse point-blank to touch, let alone eat, them) and could translate that into basic food preparation, but somehow he doesn't strike me as the foodie type either. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 03:17:34 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "b7" Subject: Re [B7L] Fantasy, SF and all that stuff Message-ID: <00e801c0300d$06dc8fc0$e535fea9@neilfaulkner> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Some great input on this thread. Alison said: I think the real quest is for social and moral simplicity, an escape from the corresponding complexities of the real world, though it does imply a corresponding simplicity in 'holiness', reducing it to a manageable scale. I don't like this kind of escapism because it encourages a belief in equally simple certainties. Certainties like, say, "All Jews are evil." (What else is fascism but a desire to create a simple social order that echoes a glorified past?). Certainly not all fantasy falls into this trap, just as not all SF escapes it. Yes, and I think that sense of awe comes an awareness of a complexity that we can never hope to fully comprehend. You can have that in fantasy too - Tolkien counterbalances the social and moral simplicities of LotR with historical and cultural depth, and the sheer level of detail is pretty awesome in itself. Mistral: I'd rather say that SF tends to the view that physical reality is all there needs to be, and you can get more than enough sense of wonder from that. Fantasy reflects a need for something more. Is that because there is genuinely something missing? Or because the real world has not been appropriately viewed, comprehended and appreciated? Whether or not there is a 'Deeper Reality' in a mystical sense I can't and don't presume to say, but I don't believe in one. (Whaddayamean, you guessed?) A wider reality is something else altogether. It has been my experience that the scientifically minded tend to relate themselves to the world, whereas the spiritually minded tend to relate the world to themselves. I'd broadly agree with the differences in approach, but I do find them mutually exclusive. Tininess and (maybe) insignificance are objectively measurable qualities, but importance (supreme or otherwise) is not. Nothing is important until someone decides that it is. Something tiny remains tiny no matter who drools over it. Importance is not a truth, merely a matter of opinion. Kathryn: I wouldn't argue with that, comrade. The Industrial Revolution and the big cities have pushed us towards individualism, technological progress has merely facilitated its realisation. (Okay, there were plenty of big cities before the IR. From what I've read of them, they were still less communitarian than the surrounding countryside, and they only held about 10-20 per cent max of the population anyway. Society as a whole was still community based.) Probably what underlies most - perhaps even all - modern fiction, or is at least an element discernible within it. But SF tends to be more concerned with how we cope with that absence of connection, or just hypothesises over where progressive alienation might take us. Whereas Fantasy concocts worlds where it isn't absent. (Though the Conanesque barbarian romps go another way, by effectively denying that there might be anything to connect with.) Fantasy - another shot of opium for the people. Not that a lot of them don't need one. That I have to disagree with. Science rejects unqualified belief in the supernatural, not the supernatural itself. It is a goal of science to bring the supernatural within the bounds of the natural (or to expand the bounds of the natural to encompass the supernatural, whichever seems more appropriate to the truth), to explain the inexplicable and understand the incomprehensible. As good scientists (not that all scientists are good ones, of course), they cannot deliver a final verdict: either the supernatural is something natural that hasn't been explained yet (and might never be), or it doesn't exist at all, but personal opinions aside it would be rash to say which. I'd agree that that's a mistake. Otherwise there was no such thing as radioactivity until the Curies discovered it. In terms of its rebellion theme, I would say no. It's not so much 'common people versus the establishment' as common people *as the establishment* seeking to vindicate their privileged position by appointing themselves the champions of a cause they've invented for themselves. Of course, in the series the Federation was real enough, and Blake had good reasons to fight it. But what - not who - is Blake, and what are the Federation? Blake is an Alpha, at the top of the social pile. The Federation, like the Daleks, are just Bad Dudes who do Awful Things. Blake fights them, so he's the Good Guy. We're on his side, so we're good guys too. We're against the Federation. What Federation? There is no Federation out there. It only exists in our heads, to assure us that we're on the side of the angels. I don't see anything particularly subversive about middle class angst. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 04:15:15 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Fantasy & SF viewpoints Message-ID: <00e901c0300d$0a5dc740$e535fea9@neilfaulkner> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Helen Krummenacker I think some of us might disagree with what counts as 'subversive' literature... > Pratchett ... specializes in dumping the conventions of > fantasy on their heads-- and as a result is much more of a bestseller > than those authors who churn out more stuff where barbarians, wizards > and princesses walk through the same old roles. As I've already said, I consider Pratchett primarily a humourist rather than a fantasist, but his love of the genre and awareness of its shortcomings is undeniable. His lampoons can be deliciously sharp. > In "The Princess Bride", Buttercup and Wesley are sweethearts who fight > the political machine in the name of true love The very idea of 'true love' is about as reactionary as any I can think of. > (and by extention, > individual freedom-- he's a pirate, she's legally obliged to marry the > prince at his command but won't). So promoting the idea of freedom of the individual in a culture which prides itself on the freedom of the individual is a radical piece of extreme seditiousness? > It also contains a vengeance story-- > remember, in those vengeance traditionally brings tragedy, but in the > movie, at least, it looks like Iniego gets to move on to a post-vendetta > career, taking over as pirate king. (Since when IS that an occupation > for good guys?) Ask Robin Hood. > Even Disney's Beauty and the Beast, has of course it's roots in > tradition with the Beast being a prince and Belle being a dutiful > daughter. OTOH, it is one of the rare storylines in past or present to > allow *intellectualism* to be the defining characteristic of the > heroine, or be the basis for love. Given the anti-intellectual > sentiments of most pop culture, this strikes me as challenging the > status quo. Compare with Angela Carter's version where the heroine escapes the prison Beauty to enjoy the freedom of Beastliness. > Tanith Lee did a story once... SF, but with more of a fantasy feel, I > think called "Fleur de Fir" (or something like that) It starts out > rather like a traditional, good people in the city vs bad vamppires > outside. But we learn gradually of how corrupt and evil the ruling elite > of the humans are, and the servant girl rescues a captured vampire and > they become friends... dying together in cold and starvation rather than > breaking the bond of friendship they have formed. Grim but definitely a > story of individuality vs. cultural norms. Sounds like standard middle class guilt to me. > Even that mainstay of status quo fantasy, the roleplaying game Dungeons > and Dragons, is made to be flexible. True, the rules as written follow > the most mindless tradition of the heroic swordsman saving the people > from maruading monsters. At the risk of being ultra-picky, I'd say that that was not written into the rules themselves, though it's certainly the ethos of the original game for which the rules were developed. > But everything is flexible, and even the > published games have expanded the world view. In the Ravenloft series > (fantasy meets Gothic horror), nothing is as it seems; the gamers must > solve mysteries to find out the *real* source of evil; mindless hack n' > slash antics will eventually turn the gamers into creatures of evil > themselves. Both regulation mudules and fan-publications have given > options where good and evil may be reversed. How about chucking them altogether? > And then there's the > player's favorite alignment-- chaotic nuetral, a favorite for those who > want to throw away the status quo altogether. CN is the cop-out alignment. We used to call it CGFF - Couldn't Give a Flying ... er .... Fudgecake. > Since everything comes > down to the gamemaster's discretion, it's as reactionary or > revolutionary as the group playing. That is certainly true. > Harry Potter deals with racism and human rights, a government that can't > be trusted (the Ministry has railroaded innocents through trials and > uses soul-eating monsters as guardians), corruption and bribery, and a > web of deceipt that makes it impossible to know the full truth about > anyone. I haven't read Rowling, but I gather Potter arose from her frustration at the British class system and especially the way it treats single parents like herself. Still, nothing wrong with a bit of satire. > Furthermore, one has to look at old fantasy in terms of it's time. Could > the elf-dwarf friendship in the Lord of the Rings be seen as a metaphor > for a cross-racial friendship? If so, we should think of the period in > which it was written and recognize it aas a revolutionary concept. Or tall kaffer and short kaffer are united under the leadership of the enlightened Big White Bwana. (I don't seriously mean that; it's just another possible way of interpreting the cited example. I know Tolkien was born in either South Africa or Namibia but I've no idea what influence that had on him. I do distinctly recall, however, that all the blacks in LotR were working for Sauron.) > Then > the men had a King, but the Hobbits lived in a democracy with an elected > mayor. Since the Hobbits represent the common man of England, it could > be seen as pro-democratic. Are you *serious*? Tolkien's 'common man of England' lived in Mordor. The orcs are the masses, the subhuman cultureless riff-raff who threaten the complacent comfort of that placid stockbroker belt called the Shire. The hobbits are not democrats - their 'mayor' is a token, a functionless figurehead to personify their own sense of self-importance. Tolkien's hobbits are the voice of suburbia, smug in their belief that their uncritical conservatism somehow makes them apolitical. Their cheery ballads are the Kylie Minogue of a morally bankrupt apology for a culture. They live in holes, and enter head first like the ostriches they are. Why, even their We apologise for the sudden interruption to this rant. Normal service will be resumed as soon as we've repaired the soap box. In the meantime, here's some music: "There is an inn, a merry old inn..." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:34:56 +1100 From: Kathryn Andersen To: "Blake's 7 list" Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Fantasy & SF viewpoints Message-ID: <20001007153456.B8780@welkin.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:15:15AM +0100, Neil Faulkner wrote: > So promoting the idea of freedom of the individual in a culture which prides > itself on the freedom of the individual is a radical piece of extreme > seditiousness? So what *would* be seditious, then? Individualism isn't seditious, but community-ism would be conservative, so what's left? I'm suddenly reminded of the neo-Victorians in The Diamond Age. -- _--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen / \ | \_.--.*/ | v | #include "standard/disclaimer.h" ------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 00:27:55 -0600 From: "Ellynne G." To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy Message-ID: <20001007.002757.-88753.1.rilliara@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 7 Oct 2000 03:26:11 +0100 "Dan Griffiths" writes: > > > >Then there's Ovid's Metamorphosis which got him exiled from Rome > because > >of its subversive elements. > > > I don't want to hit the list with this (yay fifth legion lurkers), > but > didn't Ovid say in the Tristia that he was exiled for an opus and an > error? > Is there any real evidence that, although subversive, the > Metamorphoses was > the error in question? > I'll be honest. I don't know. I know I had a mythology professor who could list various ways in which Metamorphoses could have been expected to have offended Caesar and he certainly left me with the impression it was the reason for his exile, but that could have been a misunderstanding on my part - or just a strongly felt opinion on his. Ellynne ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 00:24:43 -0600 From: "Ellynne G." To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Fantasy & SF viewpoints Message-ID: <20001007.002757.-88753.0.rilliara@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This started out as a point by point rebuttal/argument/nickpick for the heck of it of Neil's comments on fantasy, but it was getting too long (I may want to write a novel someday, but this wasn't what I had in mind). Instead, I'm just going to focus on Helen's observation that the Elf-Dwarf friendship had interracial connotations that were pretty radical at the time and Neil (less than seriously) pointing out how it could be put into a more derogatory context and go from there. One thing about stories is how the function in context. Didn't I bring up Shakespeare in the Bush once before? An anthropologist wound up telling members of an AFrican tribe the story of Hamlet only to have them explain to her what it _really_ meant (for starters, they had no cultural concept of ghosts, men were supposed to marry their brother's widow, brothers became chief ahead of sons, the term for scholar could also mean witch, Polonius' death fit their notions of accidental death [with Polonius at fault] and you could only go crazy or drown if a witch had put a spell on you). They also said it was a good story, by the way. But the point is they rewrote it to fit their needs. I know a version of Goldilocks where Goldilocks was an obnoxious gang member. There's a Cinderella where the whole point is that love isn't based on how well dressed (or good smelling) the right person is. Several of my favorite versions of Beauty and the Beast emphasize Beauty as the smart one who, in going in her father's place, is shown more as taking up the responsibilities her elderly father can no longer manage (i.e., a _son's_ usual role). THere's the old standby example that a Jewish joke told by a Rabbi has a completely different meaning than the same joke told by a neo-nazi. Hence, I don't think you can really say that a story - or story type - can only be used one way. It adapts to the teller. Now, a lot of SF is one big cliche. A lot of just about everything is. A lot of it is also unthought out cliches (I somehow don't think the writers sat down and considered the cultural message of Buck Rogers). But consider what small differences do. Star Wars: Small band of rebels fight against evil, overwhelmingly big, galactic government. Blakes 7: Small band of rebels fight against evil, overwhelmingly big, galactic government. That said, I have to admit (in direct contradiction of earlier statements, I know) I like fantasy because, in an era where most fiction seems to be going out of its way to be amoral, fantasy most often isn't. In an era where a lot of fiction has protaganists focused on surviving, fantasy is focused on doing things for or against the well being of others. It also usually believes the protaganist can do something to harm or benefit on a large scale. True, fantasy doesn't _have_ to be that way. I can name fantasy novels that really, really don't. But that and the element of wonder is what attracts me to it. Ellynne ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 11:17:31 +0200 From: Natasa Tucev To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy Message-Id: <200010070917.LAA25178@Tesla.rcub.bg.ac.yu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Alison wrote: > >I really don't see this at all. The point of science is to find out what is >really going on (I'm pretty cynical about how far modern science has got >down this road, but that is at least the point). To find out what's going on - where? Inside or outside? If I'm a member of a primitive pagan tribe who believes that the Sun God rises up every morning to keep me warm and protect me, it is a statement which tends to explain to me not only Nature, but also my place in it and my own emotions. Then a scientist comes and tells me, 'Oh no, it's just a star with nuclear reactions on the surface.' This is of course true as far as material reality is concerned, but what happens to my inner being? (Of course I can always boil the scientist with some potatoes and go on worshiping my Sun God). By providing an answer which is satisfactory only to our intellect, and what's much worse, by leading us to believe that it is only our intellect which needs to be satisfied, science dissociates us from the world. The problem is that we need statements which do not only explain to us the material reality, but also our response to it, our psyche, and the connection between these. Science cannot provide such statements, literature can. Not by being a branch of science, as Neil would have it, but by being Something Completely Different. Even by writing a novel about a University Professor who commits adultery and his daughter who gets raped in a backwater town. Which for some people is either too disturbing to read, or else they don't want to bother and think where all the emptiness and violence stem from. Natasa -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #280 **************************************