From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #291
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume99/291
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 99 : Issue 291
Today's Topics:
Re: [B7L] Lightergate
Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288
Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy
Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience
Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288
Re: [B7L] Horizon
Re: [B7L] Lightergate
Re: [B7L] Horizon
Re: [B7L] Horizon
Re: [B7L] Horizon
Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy
Re: [B7L] Spatials, speed and relativity
RE: [B7L]Re: New Horizon Policy
Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy
[B7L] All Change
Re: [B7L]Re: New Horizon Policy
Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288
Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #289
[B7L] Blake's 7 episode squash ladder.
[B7L] Ecclecticon
Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy
Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes...
[B7L] 'The Clearing' review
Re: [B7L] Lightergate
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:35:41 -0700
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Lightergate
Message-ID: <3803C5CC.B373B449@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Neil Faulkner wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
> >Horizon is therefore very accountable to its membership. If I like the
> >service Horizon provides, I pay my dues and receive the service. If I
> didn't
> >like it, I would go elsewhere. You didn't like it and left. Fine.
>
> I think you misunderstand what I mean by accountability. As a member, what
> influence do you exert on club policy? None. What influence do you have on
> the composition of the club committee? None. What influence do you have on
> what is and is not acceptable material for club publications? None.
>
> Now, if you do not want any such influence, then fine. But suppose you do?
> Your voice will only be listened to if the committee agree with what you
> say. A committee you have had no opportunity to elect or approve.
Just because you want something doesn't mean you have a right
to it. Andrew is completely correct. Horizon doesn't have to be all
things to all fans. Neither does it have to be a democracy, which it
obviously isn't; and since it doesn't hold elections, it equally obviously
doesn't pretend to be.
My opinion of Horizon has always been that it's selling sanitized PR
pabulum (which is still frequently useful); but it's got no obligation to
do otherwise. No point whining about it.
Mistral
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
--Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:04:01 -0700
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288
Message-ID: <38042EDF.42E12C03@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Avona wrote:
> >
> > > OK, 'authority', n. 1. The right *or power* to act, command, enforce laws,
> > > exact obedience, determine, or judge.
> >
> > I do think that power in this case must be meant as granted
> > power, rather than the power of force; otherwise that would
> > imply that any group who can seize control of a government
> > would have the authority to do so, and you return to the idea
> > of 'might makes right', where no government is illegitimate,
> > because the ability to take power is its own justification.
> >
> Entering this discussion...
> "Exacting obedience" doesn't sound like *granted* power, does it?
> Admittedly, it *could* refer to the legitimate authority of police to
> enforce laws within a democratic community, but by no means do I see
> this definition as being limited to legitimate authority. The very
> phrase 'legitimate authority', implies that is can be legitimate, as
> granted by the will of the people, or illegitimate, as forced upon the
> people.
Ah, yes. But please note that I did not use the phrase 'legitimate
authority', but 'legitimate government'. Different thing entirely.
I think there is another way for authority to be granted, besides
being granted by the 'subject', for lack of a better word, and that
is by position. A parent has authority over a child; that authority
is inherent in the position of parenthood, not granted by the child,
and not the parent's right by the ability to force the child.
> --Avona, who can split hairs with the best of 'em.
Yes ;-)
Mistral
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
--Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:52:39 -0700
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy
Message-ID: <38042C36.67B17DEE@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sarah Thompson wrote:
> About the proposed Horizon policy-- I would have no problem with a
> flat ban on all erotic material in Horizon publications and
> advertisements. Indeed, I think that is the most appropriate
> policy for an official fan club with strong ties to the actors and
> other personnel from the original show. But I object STRONGLY to
> Horizon publishing its own erotic zine, while denouncing all others
> (many of which are far better written, BTW) as "fan porn." This is
> at best hypocritical;
That's very reasonable, and makes perfect sense to me.
> and if the thinking behind it is that
> heterosexual erotica is acceptable while homosexual erotica is not,
> then it is also homophobic and, by the standards of many of us,
> morally reprehensible.
This, however I have a problem with, on a couple of counts.
Trying to choose my words carefully, because I don't want to
offend anyone; and yet I know I'm going to fail miserably, so I
apologize in advance to anyone I inadvertently hurt.
Homophobic is an awfully inflammatory word to throw around
in a discussion like this. It's true there are many people who
can be accurately called homophobic; they look at a sexual
orientation they don't like, feel fear, and call the whole person
evil. I don't have any idea whether this applies to Diane Gies
and/or any other Horizon committee members.
There are other people who believe homosexual *behaviour*
is morally reprehensible, to use your phrase, but it doesn't
stop them treating homosexuals with respect and courtesy,
or even having friendships with them. You wouldn't call a
person who thinks stealing is morally reprehensible a
kleptophobic. I don't like theft, but I'm actually rather fond
of Vila.
I'd ask you to consider that diversity and tolerance must cut
both ways, or they are meaningless. Insisting that people who
find a particular behaviour immoral should actively support it
is *equally as narrow-minded and self-righteous* as those people
trying to force others to live by their rules in eliminating that
behaviour. While several people here have spoken up and said
that although they dislike explicit erotica, they support others'
right to publish it, you surely wouldn't expect those same people
to publish it themselves? It is not, in fact, inconceivable that
there might exist someone who was *not* homophobic but did
not wish to produce slash.
In my humble opinion, throwing around the word homophobia
indiscriminately simply exacerbates the problem by attacking
a fairly large percent of the population who would be willing
to live and let live if others would do the same.
I don't, in fact, approve of Diane Gies' policies or methods;
but if, as seems the case, she and the Horizon board are not
obligated to consult or please the members with regard to
policy, then there is no reason they cannot choose to please
the 'anti-' rather than the 'pro-' slash fans.
I apologize again if I've upset anyone.
Mistral
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
--Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:35:09 -0700
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience
Message-ID: <3804362B.CE96E5B1@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Una McCormack wrote:
> Mistral wrote:
<snip>
> > <vbg> Er, the status quo in society is just about the *last* thing
> > I'd *ever* base a moral judgment on. Unless I've misunderstood
> > what you're saying?
>
> What, then, is the basis of your claim that the bully down the street has no
> authority to coerce you?
Because the bully down the street is *not* 1) God 2) head of family
3) the government 4) employer, which are the only authorities I
personally recognize. The bully down the street is on an equal
level with me except by force, which I don't consider a basis
for authority.
> > I don't think legality and authority
> > are the same, either. If they were, then Blake could have no
> > authority on the Liberator, because he's there illegally in the first
> > place.
>
> Unless the System have very precise laws concerning the rights of salvage
> teams - in which case he *does* have the weight of law behind him! Of
> course, this is fallacious, since we know that the System try to take the
> Liberator back! But that's an issue of ownership rather than authority.
> Blake has authority on the Liberator because no-one seriously attempts to
> usurp that authority. And I shouldn't imagine that the society on the
> Liberator was run according to Federation law...
My point exactly! I wasn't even thinking about the fact that
the System had a claim on Liberator. If authority and legality
are equivalent, then Blake has no authority on Liberator
because he is an *illegally* escaped *Federation* convict,
and has no permission from his *legal* government to be on
Liberator, let alone to be the authority on it. Blake removed
*himself* from the authority of the Federation, in other
words, took back his grant of authority.
> > The definition you quoted talked about the right to command as
> > well as the ability. Surely you don't mean the ability to conquer
> > people gives one the right to do so?
>
> But, again, that's bringing in the *morality* of the issue! I've not said
> that at all! The ability to conquer people *can* give you authority over
> them should you choose to exercise it. Whether they *want* that authority,
> or consider that authority unacceptable is an entirely different matter!
Surely it was the definition that brought the morality in, by
including the word 'right'. If you want me to acknowledge the
existence of 'power' in the definition, surely you must
acknowledge that as well? ;-)
> > <g> You see, now I am confused; as if we've swapped sides.
>
> Ah - you're foolishly assuming my arguments are internally consistent ;)
Hmm. I'm not the only one with that problem, then. :-)
> > Perhaps the problem is that I am associating authority with
> > legitimacy and you are associating it with control?
>
> I think that's fair or, at least, I'm associating it with power. But then,
> as I think I've probably made clear, I think that equating authority
> primarily with legitimacy doesn't capture some of the issues surrounding
> claims and challenges to authority.
You're right, power is a much better word. But I'm firmly of the
opinion that nobody can make you do anything. We choose the
most desirable or least repellent of the available options.
<snip>
> I have the distinct impression that I'm
> arguing myself round in circles, but it's all very interesting, so who
> cares?!?
<chortle> That makes two of us !!! ;-)
Mistral
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
--Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:02:01 +0100
From: Una McCormack <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288
Message-ID: <38044A89.14972CB2@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
mistral@ptinet.net wrote:
> Ah, yes. But please note that I did not use the phrase 'legitimate
> authority', but 'legitimate government'. Different thing entirely.
Indeed. 'Government' is the operationalization of authority.
> I think there is another way for authority to be granted, besides
> being granted by the 'subject', for lack of a better word, and that
> is by position. A parent has authority over a child; that authority
> is inherent in the position of parenthood, not granted by the child,
> and not the parent's right by the ability to force the child.
Yes, that's a sort of 'natural law' justification of authority (I think
I mentioned them in my last post).
Una
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:52:28 +0100
From: Una McCormack <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon
Message-ID: <3804484C.A3FCE975@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Iain Coleman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Neil Faulkner wrote:
>
> > One problem with the Lightergate post
>
> While I broadly agree with what you have to say on this matter, I'm afraid
> giving a political scandal a snappy name ending in "-gate" is a shooting
> offence. Sorry.
Miserable sod. I thought it was funny.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:19:30 +0100
From: Una McCormack <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Lightergate
Message-ID: <38044EA2.667E0264@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
mistral@ptinet.net wrote:
> Just because you want something doesn't mean you have a right
> to it. Andrew is completely correct. Horizon doesn't have to be all
> things to all fans. Neither does it have to be a democracy, which it
> obviously isn't; and since it doesn't hold elections, it equally obviously
> doesn't pretend to be.
I wonder, however, if Horizon is registered as a non-profit making
organization, and whether there are legal requirements for such an
organization which have to be fulfilled. I don't know: a. whether
Horizon is an NPO or b. whether NPOs are regulated by law.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:25:50 +0100
From: Una McCormack <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon
Message-ID: <3804501E.BAADCE0F@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Neil Faulkner wrote:
>
> Iain wrote:
> >While I broadly agree with what you have to say on this matter, I'm afraid
> >giving a political scandal a snappy name ending in "-gate" is a shooting
> >offence. Sorry.
>
> Can't you make it a flogging offence. Please, Iain. Pretty please. With
> sugar on top...
Neil! This is the wrong list for that sort of thing!
Una
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:42:19 +0100 (BST)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
To: lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.991013104125.25935A-100000@bsauasb>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Una McCormack wrote:
> Iain Coleman wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Neil Faulkner wrote:
> >
> > > One problem with the Lightergate post
> >
> > While I broadly agree with what you have to say on this matter, I'm afraid
> > giving a political scandal a snappy name ending in "-gate" is a shooting
> > offence. Sorry.
>
> Miserable sod. I thought it was funny.
>
Ah, but as you well know, Una, I was born a Grumpy Old Bastard.
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:44:48 +0100 (BST)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
To: lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.991013104304.25935B-100000@bsauasb>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Neil Faulkner wrote:
> Iain wrote:
> >While I broadly agree with what you have to say on this matter, I'm afraid
> >giving a political scandal a snappy name ending in "-gate" is a shooting
> >offence. Sorry.
>
> Can't you make it a flogging offence. Please, Iain. Pretty please. With
> sugar on top...
Oh, all right, then, since you ask so nicely. The classic
cat-o'-nine-tails, or the stern Jesuit ferule?
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:15:51 +0100
From: "David A McIntee" <master@allisurvey.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <s.thompson8@genie.com>, <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy
Message-Id: <E11bLVQ-0002aV-00.1999-10-13-11-19-37@mail4.svr.pol.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
----------
> From: s.thompson8@genie.com
> I believe there was actually a court case in the U.S. some years
> ago, involving the attempted closing of a bookstore, in which the
> judge ruled that it was not reasonable to restrict the reading
> matter of the adult community to material suitable for children,
> simply because some parents could not be bothered to monitor their
> children's reading.
I wish somebody would tell the BBFC and David Alton that...
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:25:27 +0100 (BST)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
To: lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Spatials, speed and relativity
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.991013110943.25935D-100000@bsauasb>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Alison Page wrote:
> Iain said -
>
> >This is because the previous theory became established by testing against
> >observation, and so must still be valid at the level of accuracy at which
> >it passed the test.
>
>
> OK, clearly Newton was observing things that we can readily observe
> ourselves. So, we aren't going to find a theory that overturns that aspect
> of Newtonian physics - there isn't going to be a theory that says 'gravity
> switches off at night' or anything like that. So if that's what people
> mean - no problem.
That's basically it. We're really talking about limiting cases, which is a
mathematical concept, and it can be a bit tricky to express it accurately
without any maths.
>
> But the physics of the future needn't be constrained to use the same terms
> as Newton, or indeed Einstein or any one. There might be completely new
> terms which I wouldn't like to guess at, which explain the same observations
> better than talking about 'gravity' and 'mass' and 'distance' and so on.
>
> That's what I mean by not building on - I mean not being limited by. Certain
> terms in physics have remained constant since it really got going, and they
> have been OK. But better ones might be invented.
>
What tends to happen is that the names remain pretty much the same, but
the underlying ideas and the mathematical structures are radically
changed. For instance, "gravity" in Newtonian mechanics is a force which
acts instantaneously between two objects arbitrarily far apart. In General
Relativity (GR), "gravity" is a short-hand word for the curvature of
space-time, and doesn't involve any idea of a force at all. If you
calculate the motion of a free object in GR, and take the mathematical
limit where the curvature becomes very small, the resulting equation is
the same as the one you would get from Newtonian mechanics. All the
phyisical and mathematical ideas are radically different, though: it's
just handy to use the word "gravity" in both cases.
In short, what you say is absolutely right, and in fact this has already
happened.
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:58:01 -0500
From: Susan Moore <susan.moore@uni.edu>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: RE: [B7L]Re: New Horizon Policy
Message-id: <38048FE9.5B1EE881@uni.edu>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>> From: s.thompson8@genie.com
>> I believe there was actually a court case in the U.S. some years
>> ago, involving the attempted closing of a bookstore, in which the
>> judge ruled that it was not reasonable to restrict the reading
>> matter of the adult community to material suitable for children,
>> simply because some parents could not be bothered to monitor their
>> children's reading.
To which David replied:
> I wish somebody would tell the BBFC and David Alton that...
This doesn't mean that there aren't people who still try to restrict the
reading matter of the adult community to material suitable for children.
There will always be people who try to limit other's accessibility to
materials that they themselves find distressing, unpleasant, or morally
reprehensible. Once thing that those who try to limit access find
happening is that as soon as they say something shouldn't be read,
viewed, or listened to, demand for that item goes up.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that demend for "The Tin Drum" has gone
up since the "raid" in Oklahoma City.
Susan M.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:21:05 +0100
From: "Deborah Day" <d.day@ukgateway.net>
To: "blakes7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy
Message-ID: <00aa01bf1596$f3894300$4683bc3e@oemcomputer>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>But if Diane is gearing up for an ugly fan war like the one ten years ago
> (and some of her comments sound an awful lot like the same things
> she said back then), and if "Danni's" leak can head it off, then in
> my moral calculus it balances out and it's probably a good thing
> that the message was posted here.
I was away from fandom at this time - what did I miss? I have heard
occasional veiled references to a split of some sort but have absolutely no
idea what about - could someone enlighten me briefly, please?
Debbie Day
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:50:15 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Freedom City <freedom-city@blakes-7.org>
cc: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] All Change
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-1013075015-3cbRr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
sorry, I should have said before.
Yes, I will be taking copies of the play to sell at Ecclecticon
Judith
--
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.nas.com/~lknight )
Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:51:50 +0100
From: "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L]Re: New Horizon Policy
Message-ID: <00eb01bf159e$441053c0$ca8edec2@pre-installedco>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>I wouldn't be surprised to find that demend for "The Tin Drum" has gone
>up since the "raid" in Oklahoma City.
>
>Susan M.
>
Blast this is off topic .. but - say what? someone objected to 'the Tin
Drum'? That's an intensely moral book and film.
I suppose this should be on the spin list.
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 07:53:30 +0100
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288
Message-ID: <000201bf15a8$8cddd320$fd408cd4@default>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Avona wrote
>Rather than seeking out 'what
>are the community standards' in B7 fandom, or their own club, one woman
>in a key position wants to get her friends to decide with her what the
>standards should be-- and she specifically states she will not seek
>input from certain people (in one case, she thinks the mention of it
>would shock the person-- in the case of the other two, my impression was
>'Let's not talk to them, because they will disagree.')
That was my impression too, but we can't overlook the possibility that
'Andy' and 'Alan', whoever they may be, have simply made it plain in the
past that they don't want to be dragged into this issue.
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:18:38 +0100
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #289
Message-ID: <000301bf15a8$8e245ce0$fd408cd4@default>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Avona wrote:
>I once received a very nasty letter for a story I wrote, before it was
>published, from a volunteer working on the fanzine.
When the Dangerous Visions anthology first appeared (1967?) editor Harlan
Ellison received a number of pieces of hate mail. One correspondent
denounced him as a Viet Cong sympathiser or something (I seem to have
mislaid my reprint which contained extracts from this letter in the
editorial). She ended with the assertion that 'Science Fiction should be
beautiful'. Perhaps this indicates Gies' position - she believes that B7
fanfic should be 'beautiful', with nothing ugly, sordid, sleazy or otherwise
offensive to conservative middle-class sensibilities. (But if so, she
applies this standard largely to B7 fic alone, since one of the first things
I saw when I first went to her house was a stack of Viz comics. I don't
somehow see the Fat Slags or Johnny Fartpants falling within many people's
definition of 'beautiful'.)
It's also worth considering that the visions of DV were, as Ellison
admitted, dangerous only within the SF community. All of the 'dangerous'
themes in the anthology, such as incest or drug use (a P K Dick story
written under the influence of marijuana) had long been tackled by
mainstream literature. Thirty years on, Dangerous Visions reads about as
dangerous as a senile arthritic guinea pig with its teeth pulled.
Since B7 clearly owes more to the so-called Golden Age of SF than the New
Wave, it unsurprisingly embodies the entrenched conservatism of that Golden
Age. And some people (not just Gies, by any means) seem to want to
perpetuate that conservatism within fanfic, to the exclusion of all other
possibilities.
Neil
>Acceptable and unacceptable are VERY subjective. Never assume works you
>consider to be in good taste won't be on somebody's banned list.
>
>--Avona
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:04:36 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Kai V Karmanheimo <karmanhe@cc.helsinki.fi>
To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Blake's 7 episode squash ladder.
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.991013225743.4709B-100000@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Hello
As a "newbie", I would certainly like to see how people rate
different episodes. Here are some of the pairs I picked :
1. Horizon over Deliverance. Horizon is one of my favourites, with no
sore spots but with a lot of prize material, including :
- the post-colonial, the British-in-India references with Ro and the
Kommissar
- the scenes in the teleport section when they argue who should go down or
should no one go
- Avon's dialogue with Orac/himself and his whole to-go-or-not-to-go
contemplation
- the fact that for once almost the whole crew get their hands dirty by
doing some honest work
In contrast, Deliverance is a mediocre work, with very little to
distinguish itself. Avon's temporary apotheosis, the brief flicker of
humanity in Travis' one yellow eye and the fact that Gan gets a couple of
good lines here are not enough to make up for the fact that the Jenna&the
Apemen plot is trite (note how it's almost always the women who
get captured, overpowered, mind snatched or tortured) and the rest of it
is mainly about setting the stage for Orac.
2. Trial over Weapon. Trial is a prime example of how a B7 episode can
successfully have several subplots running concurrently and then be able
to tie (or slam) them neatly together at the end. There is so much crammed
into 50 minutes, and still it holds together and runs smoothly. Blake's
guilt trip and the shift in the Blake-Avon power balance are well done, as
is the political stuff with the rivalry between Space Command and the
political leadership, and of course Par is another good example of the
"little people" who add spice to many episodes, in this case giving your
average jarhead trooper a face and a bit of personality (as well as a hint
of the future : "Space Command runs the Federation.") Furthermore, Zil is
one of the more successfully realised of B7's many bargain-basement
aliens. In a way Trial covers the show's whole thematic spectrum. Weapon,
while not bad, to me has always been one of those episodes with lots of
interesting ideas promising something that never really materialises.
Plenty of talk and build-up, but the ending seems artificial and
disappointing.
3. The Web over The Way Back. Both of these episodes have quite cliched
plots, but I think The Web makes for more interesting watching. The Web is
a well-done space opera bit, which gets a good start and just keeps on
going. The first half is especially well-paced. On the planet things get
more problematic, especially when Blake has to be explained what is going
on, but it doesn't become overbearing. A lot of cliches and the moral
points are half-baked, but there is something elegantly atmospheric about
the scenes on the planet and the laboratory (of course the laboratory
looks cheap, but then what in B7 doesn't?), and the scene where Blake and
Avon trade remarks while the Decimas decimate the whole place is
surprisingly vicious.
The Way Back is an important episode for background information, but
otherwise I find it dull, with the tired one-rebel-against-the-Big-Brother
angle only hinting at the possibilities the show would eventually explore.
The first part with Blake's sudden recollection seems particularly clumsy,
though the scenes in the holding cells (before and after the trial) are
quite good. I can appreciate The Way Back as the first act of a
four-episode continuum which establishes the main characters and the basic
patterns the show follows (at least to Pressure Point), but on its own
right I don't find it as enjoyable as The Web.
Kai Karmanheimo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:06:07 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
cc: Freedom City <freedom-city@blakes-7.org>
Subject: [B7L] Ecclecticon
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-1013200607-f3aRr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
It now looks as though 'The Quibell Abduction' will be ready for Ecclecticon. I
recieved the cover art yesterday and it looks wonderful - Cally the Auron
warrior.
This is a genzine and in my opinion is the best Cally story ever written.
By the time I've packed 'All Change', 'The Quibell Abduction' and 'Pressure
Point' (Neil says he's sending me some copies) I will have very little suitcase
space left. If there are any other zines that you particularly want it would be
wise to tell me beforehand.
Judith
--
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.nas.com/~lknight )
Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 20:52:52 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-1013195252-cc7Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
On Wed 13 Oct, Deborah Day wrote:
> >But if Diane is gearing up for an ugly fan war like the one ten years ago
> > (and some of her comments sound an awful lot like the same things
> > she said back then), and if "Danni's" leak can head it off, then in
> > my moral calculus it balances out and it's probably a good thing
> > that the message was posted here.
>
> I was away from fandom at this time - what did I miss? I have heard
> occasional veiled references to a split of some sort but have absolutely no
> idea what about - could someone enlighten me briefly, please?
Ignorance is bliss. Trust me. All things considered you really don't want to
know. Let's just say that people got hurt and leave it at that. (I wasn't even
in fandom at the time, but I inadvertantly got caught in the backwash a few
years later.)
One reason this debate is being conducted with politeness and careful
consideration of other people's opinions is because nobody wants the kind of
nastiness that can occurr when people start getting too hot under the collar.
I'm deliberately trying to stay out of the discussion (or at least on the
fringes) because I feel that I've said what I needed to say in my own defence,
but I'd like to thank everyone who has commented (whatever their opinion) for
keeping the debate as an intelligent discussion and avoiding personal comments
about anyone involved.
Judith
--
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.nas.com/~lknight )
Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:11:15 -0700
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes...
Message-ID: <3804F572.B4435DB2@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Andrew Ellis wrote:
> Can I suggest my game again. A Blakes 7 episode squash ladder. Here is a
> random order of episodes.
Sounds fun. You might want to revise the list, I notice you've got
Duel and Aftermath listed twice, so I'm not sure where to argue
them at.
I'll pick something I expect to be relatively non-controversial and say:
Shadow should be above
Bounty
Bounty is lots of fun, but Shadow has *more* going for it: interesting
guest characters, murky Federation socio-politics, a good part for
Gan, a good part for Cally, Blake on a rampage, an interdimensional
alien invasion, sharp dialogue (a Boucher script!), all of the characters
get fairly equal treatment, good Avon-Jenna, some of the better
costumes, a good part for Zen, cute little plastic cacti (as opposed to
Boris or decimas), frying eyeballs, and the plain man's guide to
alien invasions. In short, there is so much packed into this 48 minutes
that it's nothing less than a feast. Strand me on a desert island with
*one* episode, and it's likely to be the one I'd pick.
Grins,
Mistral
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
--Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:39:03 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
cc: Freedom City <freedom-city@blakes-7.org>
Subject: [B7L] 'The Clearing' review
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-1013213903-f37Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
The Clearing
Theatre review by Judith Proctor (this review currently lacks the names of the
cast - owing to a printing problem, the theatre was out of programmes! Thus I
can't credit those of the cast who really deserve it)
Isn't it wonderful to be married to a man who understands my occasional desire
to dash off to the other end of the country to go and see Gareth Thomas on
stage?
Courtesy of Richard looking after the children, a handful of air miles and
accomodation offered by Julia's aunt, I made my way from Dorset to Edinburgh...
I made it to Edinburgh airport, was met by the aunt (who turned out to be a
lovely person) and we met up with Julia a little later. We'd been planning to
explore Edinburgh, but Julia had hurt her neck, so we postponed that until
Sunday.
The play itself was very interesting. It focuses on Robert Preston (an
Englishman) and his Irish wife, Maddy. They live in Ireland at the time of
Cromwell. A passionate and deeply devoted couple, they provide a strong
contrast with Solomon and Susannah. Solomon, played by Gareth Thomas, is an
older, quieter Englishman who has lived in Ireland for a large part of his life.
His wife seems soulless and domineering; their relationship far less meaningful
than that of Robert and Maddy. Yet as time passes, we come to understand that
Susannah is far more human than she seems and that her love for her husband is
no less than Maddy's.
As Cromwell's new laws are revealed, it becomes apparent that everyone is under
threat. Thirty years ago, Solomon fought for the king. That is enough to make
him lose his land under the laws Cromwell is now introducing. Robert has
married an Irish girl - that makes him suspect in spite of his support for
Cromwell.
Maddy's beloved childhood friend Cullane is in danger and her loyalty is
suddenly split between her husband and her friend.
The strains start to show on everyone and some terrible choices have to be made.
The final resolution of all the events is certainly dramatic, but I won't spoil
the story by giving away the ending here. Let's just say that it provoked lots
of discussion in the bar afterwards and Julia and I were still debating the
characters' actions a day later. We're not quite sure that we agree with the
playwright, but it was certainly thought-provoking.
The set got mixed reactions too. I didn't like it - it looks rather like a
timber stockade and the centre area is indoors or outdoors depending on the
particular scene. Jo (one of the Scottish fans) liked it a lot though. Julia
(who has Irish blood) says that the stockade represents the 'Pale' - the border
fence between the different parts of Ireland at that time.
The acting was of a high standard with particular honours going to the actress
playing Maddy. She was required to cover a wide range of emotions and was
always believable. The weakest member of the cast played Cullane. I wasn't
always convinced by her and felt that she might not have been the right person
for the part. I got the impression from the play that Cullane was supposed to
be a rather magical, mystical sort of person and she came across as far too
earthy. I might be wrong though.
Gareth was good and got a reasonable amount of stage time. He even appears in a
nightgown at one point. This wasn't nearly such a challenging part as Danforth
in 'The Crucible' though. (His portrayal of Danforth is something that will
stay with me for a long time.) He has a long pony-tail to match the style of
the period. Solomon is actually criticised for his long hair and his beard.
After the play, Julia, myself and a group of Scottish fans went to the theatre
bar where we'd arranged to meet Gareth. Gareth ruined his reputation as a heavy
drinker by drinking only diet coke. (he was driving afterwards) He'd been
working very hard for the last couple of weeks, working in Peebles recording the
Hamlet video (he's playing Claudius and said he'd really enjoyed getting his
teeth into a Shakespearean villain) during the day and then travelling to
Glasgow to do the play in the evening. The recording is finished now. I'll
have to look out for it when it becomes available.
There was a brief moment of panic when it was reported that one of the cast's
car had been clamped. It cost 125 pounds to get it released! Luckily, Gareth's
car turned out to be okay. The cast had a whip round to pay the fine. As
Gareth said, that's theatre for you. 125 quid is half a week's wage for an
actor. Makes you think.
Would I recommend the play? Yes. It's hard hitting. As Gareth said, 'it
starts bleak and gets bleaker', but there are moments of humour and it involves
you. The end of the first act got a loud gasp from the audience. It draws you
in and makes you care about these people and what happens to them. That's the
mark of a good play.
'The Clearing' runs at the Royal Lyceum (which incidentally is a beautiful
building well worth looking at) until 23 October. I think there's then a week's
break before it moves to Liverpool.
And if you should see it in Edinburgh, take some time to go and see the National
Gallery. Julia and I went on Sunday (it's free to get in) and ended up skipping
lunch so that we could see as much as possible before I had to leave for the
airport. There's some absolutely wonderful art there and we only saw a fraction
of what there was.
--
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.nas.com/~lknight )
Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:32:32 EST
From: "Joanne MacQueen" <j_macqueen@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Lightergate
Message-ID: <19991013223232.43486.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>From: mistral@ptinet.net
>Horizon doesn't have to be all things to all fans.
Good thing too, in a way. Just as it is (from the impressions I'm getting),
one feels like quoting Colonel Bloodnock - "Gad, it must be hell in there."
Sorry for giving in to temptation <smile>
Regards
Joanne
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #291
**************************************