From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #295
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume99/295
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 295
Today's Topics:
Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes...
Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #291
Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes...
Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience
Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288
[B7L] On "bad" episodes...
[B7L] On "bad" episodes...
Re: [B7L] Horizon hub of fandom?
[B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #294
[B7L] Fandom... online vs in person
Re: [B7L] Horizon hub of fandom?
Re: [B7L] Horizon hub of fandom?
Re: [B7L] The Way Back and understanding freedom.
Re: [B7L] Horizon hub of fandom?
[B7L] Authority and Obedience
Re: [B7L] Authority and Obedience
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 09:25:29 +0100
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes...
Message-ID: <004201bf17b0$069d0560$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Neil wrote:
> Whereas in Animals you get some really slinky cool-looking mutoids and ...
> erm ... well, er ... Oh yes - some astroturf, right at the very end.
This
> makes the episode a definite must for all lovers of artificial outdoor
> playing surfaces. Una's right, Animals has been unfairly disparaged for
far
> too long. Synthetic grass lovers of the world arise.
Well, for those of us with hayfever, this is a very serious point. The
outdoors is just plain nasty and horrid. Long may I live in built-up areas
covered in tarmac.
> Duel is one of the few episodes where Animals actually has the edge, IMO.
Result! <punches air>
Una
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:00:23 +0100
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #291
Message-ID: <009701bf17bd$45022710$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Helen Krummenacker wrote:
> Seems the more we look into authority, the broader the definition seems
> to become. It includes many definitions; but I am not convinced it
> excludes legal power.
No, I would have said legal authority was one example of authority.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:03:25 +0100
From: "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
To: <blake7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes...
Message-ID: <001401bf17bd$cd563520$ca8edec2@pre-installedco>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Andrew, can you show us the current state of the 'squash ladder'? I think
this is a great game, but I'm losing track.
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:13:52 +0100
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: "B7 List" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience
Message-ID: <00a601bf17bf$2aa804f0$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mistral wrote:
>Una wrote:
>
> > 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.
OK, so you recognize divine authority, the authority of parents, some form
of legal authority, and authority based on someone's ability to sack you.
> The bully down the street is on an equal
> level with me except by force, which I don't consider a basis for
authority.
Whereas I would argue that force *can* (and is) a form of authority (e.g.
Pakistan), just not one that I think is a good or just one.
Re: Blake's authority on the Liberator
> 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,
Which I don't think I've argued.
> 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.
Hang on, there are two different questions here - Blake's right of ownership
over the Liberator, and his authority to issue commands and have them obeyed
by the rest of the crew.
> > > 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? ;-)
Yes, I've not denied at any point that the law can be a source of authority,
and indeed is often the preferred one - except in cases like the Federation
(ObB7!). And I would argue that our judgements as to what constitutes
acceptable or unacceptable authority are *essentially* to do with morality
and justice.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:35:43 +0100
From: Ruth Saunders <lexin@redrose76.freeserve.co.uk>
To: "Blake's 7 List" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288
Message-ID: <380854FF.5142B92A@redrose76.freeserve.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Susan Beth wrote:
> My impression (totally based on tidbits here and there, I've never had any
> direct contact) is that Horizon is very strongly an actor-oriented fan
> club. With lots of coverage of what the actors are doing now, and a strong
> emphasis on Cons with actors as the GOHs.
I think that's a pretty fair assessment of Horizon's coverage of events
when I was a member, but that was some time ago now, and others would
probably disagree with me.
> Me, either. And, in truth, I enjoy "fan based" cons much more than ones
> that center on "listen to the actors speak." Do the English even do
> non-actor Cons? I never seem to hear about any. (No, wait, I think I
> heard once about a "slash" con, that is fans only.)
I think that's a bit unfair on the British cons; the B7 cons I recall
have had actor guests, but the guests haven't, for many (most?) fans,
been the be-all and end-all of the con. In the last few years there has
always been at least as much emphasis on fannish activity as on wheeling
out a guest on the hour every hour. As far as I recall this was less so
in the early days of fan-run cons - Space City (the con) did seem to
have a dearth of other things to do, but that could be just my faulty
memory because it was nearly ten years ago now and I did only go to
either one or two of them.
Guests are of massive importance for a few people, I admit there are
fans for whom the non-appearance of an actor guest is a major disaster,
but these are a very tiny minority, in my experience less than 1% of the
attending membership. The others, if they're told a guest has cancelled,
shrug gently and get on with the real reason they've come to the con -
to meet their friends and talk in a B7 related atmosphere.
That's how it should be, IMO. My philosophy of cons is that they are run
for the fans, by fans - though occasionally fans of other shows <grin>.
They should provide an atmosphere conducive to B7 related fun. Or even
non-B7 related fun. A guest really helps to sell registrations, but I
don't think they're strictly necessary for a convention to go well.
The slash con you mention was for slash writers and readers, and if its
the one I'm thinking of it was multimedia, so it wasn't just B7.
Obviously an actor guest or anyone directly connected with a show would
be totally out of place and quite unnecessary. There's no *real* reason
why a B7 con shouldn't decide to go for the no guests option as well,
but selling the registrations might prove a problem initially. However,
it shouldn't be insurmountable.
--
Ruth S.
lexin@redrose76.freeserve.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 04:54:32 PDT
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] On "bad" episodes...
Message-ID: <19991016115433.44439.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Susan Beth wrote:
<Duel is better than Animals, because almost everything in the universe is.>
and Neil replied:
<But in Duel you also get...<snipping rather a daunting list of
Duel drawbacks, not one of which I can deny :-(>
But I'd probably go with Susan Beth. Duel is a good episode for character
junkies like - erm - me (somehow, I don't think this is
an argument that will appeal to Neil <g>). You get a decent fight/battle of
wits (Travis out-calculating Blake, but Blake
throwing in the wild card of ramming him); Blake admitting that
the number of people involved in their fight *probably* wouldn't
deter him, and suggesting to Travis that they could refuse to
fight just because the Mystic Types say they have to; the line
about throwing nuts <g> and Avon's rather gorgeous, almost
indulgent smile at the moment when he *knows* Blake is not going
to kill Travis. And the utterly-them-all-over exchange:
BLAKE: Have you got any better ideas?
AVON: As a matter of fact, no I haven't.
BLAKE: Does that mean you agree?
AVON: Do I have a choice?
BLAKE: Yes.
AVON: Then I agree.
I can't actually say that Animals *is* worse, since I haven't
bought that one yet, and it still refuses to rise from the black
hole of my memory (funny, I remember Stardrive, and it gives me
no pleasure. But somehow, the thoroughness with which I've wiped
the memory of Animals is not encouraging). But when I do get it,
I'll keep an eye out for the Astroturf.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 04:59:21 PDT
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] On "bad" episodes...
Message-ID: <19991016115923.95113.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Okay, I'll be in on this. And Kai took three goes, so I will too...
1] Mistral moved Shadow above Bounty - I'll moved it up again
above Children of Auron (and Rescue. And Mission to...oh, I'd shoot
it straight up to the top, but I think that's against the rules). Shadow had
wonderful crackling dialogue, good stuff for *everyone* (even Gan and
Cally), great crew interaction (and splendid snarling from both Blake and
Avon), dubious morality, and good guests (especially the villains). Everyone
*looks* so gorgeous (except
Cally, and she's better than normal), and Avon especially gets some
wonderful lines ("I'm sorry I missed that. It's the kind of natural
stupidity no amount of training could ever hope to match.").
Children of Auron is well, all right...but the guests are a dreary lot,
Servie's 'anguish' at the end is as affecting as a damp rag,
the shots of the foetuses and the sick are both revolting and unbelievable
and the last bit is wince-worthy.
2] Pressure Point above Orac. For Kasabi, for that beautiful, quiet little
talk on the flight deck, for the mine field scene, for the
way you *know* something is going to go wrong (and what it's going
to do to Blake), for the church ruins (making a change from quarries
- I like ruins), for Gan (no, he wasn't the world's greatest actor, but I
liked him anyway), for Blake going down on his knees and Avon going with
him. For the way it twisted everything (from here on in, Our Heroes could
too fail. Hideously.) Orac's got Ensor, Travis I,
and the flying thing (which Blake *should* have taken back to the Liberator
like he said). And it's quite enjoyable. It's a good episode, but Pressure
Point is a great one IMHO.
3] Star One over The Keeper. Shape-shifting aliens (who turn into
green glug) versus hairy barbarians is one thing, but Star One has
the Very Last Flight Deck Fight (the 'wading in blood' speech); a moral
question that fans can argue endlessly about; Blake again
giving lip to Ugly Authority (see also Redemption <g>); Vila's
"let's run for it" and Jenna's decision to warn Servalan and
every single second of the end ("His name was Blake"; "Is Travis dead?" "He
is now. Are you?"; "Avon, for what it is worth, I have always trusted
you..."; "Avon, this is stupid!" "When did that ever stop us?" And that
frisson as he says "Fire...") Nothing to beat
it until the *other* end two years later...
The Keeper has Jenna batting her eyelids at a barbarian (and perfecting her
quick-change-while-being-teleported trick), Vila
in a sillier get-up than the bug costumes, and more (and more
widespread) eye-rolling than Duel. Its few good points (Avon
admitting that he 'killed' Travis *for Blake* and Blake not in
the least bit mollified; Jenna and Servie snapping at each other) don't add
up to enough to make me un-loathe it.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 12:03:39 -0400
From: Meredith Dixon <dixonm@access.mountain.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon hub of fandom?
Message-ID: <6YYIOG+Fx6Ie8Ciuw7i4se8gJg5j@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Neil wrote:
>I can't argue with that. Dare I suggest, however, that your experience of
>fandom might be unrepresentative? (Not invalid, just untypical.)
Certainly you may suggest it, but, should you do so, I would have
to observe that, in my own experience, you were mistaken.
I have, naturally enough, encountered a fair number of people
over the years who participate in fandom just as I do -- just as
you have apparently encountered a fair number of people just like
yourself.
>It has been, as you yourself seem to say, almost entirely online (as necessitated
>by your relative geographical isolation),
No. Not unless you only mean B7 fandom. I started participating
in fandom in 1974, well before it was possible to do so online.
But it has almost always been by letters (whether snail-mailed,
or sent over the Net).
I've only been involved in a face-to-face group once; that was a
four-person Star Trek club which had maybe three meetings before
disbanding.
I went to a few Star Trek minicons in high school and to a few
smallish SF cons in college. I've only been to one con since my
health went to hell in a handbasket in the late '80s, and that
was much more to meet online friends than for the sake of going
to a con as such.
>and has been so for a relatively long time.
This one you've lost me on. A long time compared to *what*?
> I'm trying to evaluate Horizon's position and importance within
> a global context of fandom, which will not necessarily correlate
>with all individual perspectives.
As Una said, you can't do that just by judging how many people
in the world are online. You'd need to determine how many B7
fans there were in the world. Then you'd need to try to
determine how many of those fans interacted with other fans
chiefly through Horizon-sponsored events. (Hint: Horizon's
membership list is *not* a reliable indicator of how many B7 fans
there may be in the world, especially not for this purpose.)
>British fandom at the centre of worldwide fandom - there are a number of
>reasons why I believe this to be so.
>(b) British fans have closer connections with the cast (and
>production crew). This has important implications for the convention scene....
>(c) Britain is a small country. Your friend in Iowa is a thousand miles from you,
>but no two fans in Britain are going to be half as far apart....
>That makes it much, much easier to promote awareness of B7 and fandom, for
>fans to meet socially...
Both of these two arguments depend on the assumption that
offline, face-to-face, activity is the only, or at least the
best, way for fans to meet. I refuse to grant that assumption.
I "meet socially" with my friend from Iowa every week on a BBS;
we've chatted at least weekly for years.
>It is, I would venture, far more tightly knit and cohesive than anywhere else in the world.
Depends on your definition. I was rather attached to Space
City.
>It can look primarily to national rather than regional media networks (TV, radio, press)
> so there is an easier dissemination of information and a broader common awareness of
>what's happening nationally.
*blinks* If your national networks ever say anything about B7,
you're one up on us. If you mean general, non-fannish news,
well, we have nationwide media too. In point of fact, as far
asTV is concerned, nationwide media are all I've got; I'm in the
mountains and I can't get any local stations. I get most of
my news online, though.
>Now, cons may not be 'the first or even the second thing' you think of in
>terms of fandom, but couldn't that be because guestcon opportunities don't
>come your way too often? If they did, might cons not be higher up on your
>agenda?
*musingly* Hard to say, since I haven't had the opportunity,
but even if there were guestcons right down the road and if I
were physically up to attending them, I don't *think* they'd be
all that important to me. I'm interested in Blake, not Gareth
Thomas. And, in any case, the fact that Horizon has great cons
3000 miles away isn't of much importance to me here.
>> It simply hasn't occurred to me to try to find people offline,
>>in my neighborhood or even within driving distance, who might be
>>interested in B7. There's so much less likelihood of finding
>>anyone than there is online, and if I did find people then we'd
>>have to make arrangements to meet offline, which would be
>>difficult and time-consuming.
>
>Which suggests that if you weren't online, then being a fan, and maintaining
>an interest in fandom, would be very troublesome for you. Possibly to the
>extent that you wouldn't be a fan at all. If the internet went down
>tomorrow, for good, you'd be stranded.
*snorts* The hell I would. You did notice that I said I joined
Trek fandom in the mid-'70s, didn't you? If the Internet went
down tomorrow, I'd go back to writing snail-mail letters, just as
I did then.
> Touting online fandom as the only kind that counts is bordering on the elitist and arrogant - it's
>effectively writing off those who for whatever reasons can't or won't get
>online, not just denying them a voice but denying them the right to have a
>voice. (Not, may I stress, that I think you -are- in any way taking such a
>dismissive attitude, but there is an inherent danger in anyone assuming that
>their own personal experience is the norm. My own included.)
*nods* Touting offline fandom as the only kind that counts (for
instance, describing online fandom as "a ghetto," or saying, " I
stand by assertion that offline fandom is currently still the
norm ") is bordering on the elitist and arrogant.
It's effectively writing off those who for whatever reasons can't
or won't meet offline, not just denying them a voice, but denying
them the right to have a voice. And it *does* seem to me that
you are taking such a dismissive attitude.
>In short, I would say that as I see it British fandom is probably different
>from that elsewhere. Not 'better' or 'worse', just different.
I won't argue with that. It does sound different.
>But the difference is important because British fandom is large, relatively well
>organised, and on the home ground of the source material (ie B7 itself).
None of those things make it central to worldwide fandom, though,
except, arguably, the bit about its being on the home ground of
the source material.
> It was only through Horizon that I came to be aware of all these zine things, and to make contact with other
>fans
Then I can see why you think Horizon is so important, especially
since you went on to work for them. But the fact that Horizon
was, and perhaps is, important to you doesn't mean that Horizon
was, or is, important to everyone. I think ISCABBS was a pretty
important part of the online landscape in the mid-1990's -- and
I'm not wholly deluding myself; we got mentioned as an online
resource in a couple of major resource guides. I was a Sysop
there and threw most of my energy into it from 1994 to 1997. Of
course I think it was important. I'd be surprised, though, if
anyone reading this (but me) had ever had an account on ISCABBS.
And I certainly wouldn't call it "the hub of the Internet" or
even "the hub of Internet BBSing". The first, largest and best
DOC-type Internet BBS, yes (DOC is a particular Citadel variant)
but no more than that.
I will grant that Horizon is, at present, quite important to
that percentage of British B7 fandom which likes to go to
conventions. But it's a long way from there to "Horizon is the
hub of worldwide B7 fandom."
--
Meredith Dixon <dixonm@access.mountain.net>
Check out *Raven Days*, for victims and survivors of bullying.
And for those who want to help.
http://web.mountain.net/~dixonm/raven.html
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:09:07 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #294
Message-ID: <3808B132.4788@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 1700 is more
> than six times bigger than 300.
(referring to membership)
No, it isn't. 6x 300= 1800; 1800>1700.
Just to be annoyingly precise.
--Avona
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:32:53 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Fandom... online vs in person
Message-ID: <3808B61D.3937@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Regarding the discussion of whether online fandom, or club fandom is
more 'typical'... I think that may very well depend upon what country
(and location) you are in.
In England, (which for this reason, I am willing to concede as 'the hub
of fandom') millions of people have seen the show. When repeats are
shown, they are shown on a nationwide level. The actors from the show
are viewable in other shows, or on stage, easily.
In America, most people have never even heard of it-- including many
people who consider themselves fans of science fiction. When the series
is shown, it is show on local PBS stations that have a viewing/reception
range of less that a hundred miles. The actors of the show are willing
to come to conventions, but it is rare that enough interest and
organization can be managed to bring them out. Fans have to be content
with pulling out their episode guides when they are watching tapes of
other shows and saying, "Didn't the guy with the sunglasses have a
familiar voice?"
In America, I think fans probably use the Internet more than they try to
form clubs. Of the other B7 fans I still know and am in touch with (very
few), none of them enjoy the sort of in-depth discussion I can have with
you. As far as the arguements go about how many people 'don't have
computers, have never seen the Internet' or whatever, here in the
States, I doubt that anyone who likes this kind of show hasn't tried the
Net. Libraries and many businesses offer Internet access, Web TV, and
phone converters make it possible to use the Net without a computer--
and yet, a computer costs so much less than anything else at all
valuable, and the cost of an ISP is less than cable TV. 80% of the world
may not have used the Net, but America is hardly represented by those
figures. Online fandom is, I think fairly typical of the States,
although I believe there is a club in Southern California. That's about
800 miles away from me.
Dormice in America will surf the web for sites that offer pretty
pictures of the cast, stories to read, etc. I don't remeber the exact #s
expressed, but in looking at slash percentages, some here tallied up,
first, the numbers of hits they got on B7 pages in general. Huge.
Overall, I'd say I agree with Neil, but I wanted to bring up someother
points and express an overseas viewpoint.
--Avona
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 12:38:49 -0600
From: kmwilcox@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (K. Michael Wilcox)
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon hub of fandom?
Message-Id: <199910161738.TAA14863@samantha.lysator.liu.se>
Meredith Dixon wrote:
> I think ISCABBS was a pretty
> important part of the online landscape in the mid-1990's -- and
> I'm not wholly deluding myself; we got mentioned as an online
> resource in a couple of major resource guides. I was a Sysop
> there and threw most of my energy into it from 1994 to 1997. Of
> course I think it was important. I'd be surprised, though, if
> anyone reading this (but me) had ever had an account on ISCABBS.
Be surprised. I was on there from 1991 until sometime in 1993.
K. M. Wilcox
My user number was somewhere in the low 1400's, I think.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 14:47:03 -0500
From: Lisa Williams <lcw@dallas.net>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon hub of fandom?
Message-Id: <4.1.19991016141817.00c99180@mail.dallas.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Neil Faulkner wrote:
>That may well be true for you, but how representative is that? (Isn't it
>something like 80 per cent of the world's population have never even heard a
>dial tone, let alone peeked at a web page?
That is hardly relevent to the issue. It would make more sense to find out
what percentage of Western media fans, or of B7 fans, have online access,
and that's going to be a substantial block now and growing steadily.
>Now, cons may not be 'the first or even the second thing' you think of in
>terms of fandom, but couldn't that be because guestcon opportunities don't
>come your way too often? If they did, might cons not be higher up on your
>agenda?
In my own case, definitely not. I simply couldn't care less about guests at
cons. I am not interested in seeing the actors (or other production
personnel); I appreciate the work they did on the show and wish them well,
but they hold no fascination for me in themselves. I don't go to cons
myself because they don't offer much that would incline me to go, certainly
not enough to offset everything about them which I *don't* like. I've been
to a few in the past, and they're just not for me.
>If the internet went down tomorrow, for good, you'd be stranded. British
>fandom could soldier on without too much trouble.
I've got news for you, Neil: fandom on this side of the pond got along just
fine before the Internet came along, geographical spread notwithstanding.
(I refer you to Trek fandom, for instance, which was rampant and
flourishing from the late '60s on.) Even B7 fandom established a beachhead
over here when Internet access was still too scarce to be the primary means
of contact. (I picked up on it in '85, and while I was online then, not too
many folks were in the population at large.) Yes, we've grown rather
spoiled by the speed and ease of communication these days, but fans kept in
touch with each other before email and they could do it again.
- Lisa
--
_____________________________________________________________
Lisa Williams: lcw@dallas.net or lwilliams@raytheon.com
Lisa's Video Frame Capture Library: http://lcw.simplenet.com/
From Eroica With Love: http://eroica.simplenet.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 00:50:52 +0100
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] The Way Back and understanding freedom.
Message-ID: <018e01bf1831$4ac7b790$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Kai wrote:
> I had gathered from isolated comments that The Way Back is generally
> revered
Interestingly, this wasn't always the case. 'The Way Back' used to be
dismissed as not really a proper episode because it didn't have Avon in it.
> Things get more interesting later when more colours are introduced to the
> palette, when the simple line of good and bad is blurred.
Oh yes, that's certainly a fair point - the greyish morality of B7 is one of
its more interesting aspects.
> In Space Fall
> already we get the two conflicting views of freedom : Avon's (he who
> manages to grab it, shall have freedom - and the hell with the rest of
> 'em) and Blake's (freedom for all - whether they like it or not). Further
> down the road we start wondering whether the human price of fighting is
> too great, whether it's just to satisfy one man's ego.
But it does seem part of the point that you know how bad it is on Earth, and
that Blake starts to make a slide towards being as bad.
> And we get to see
> Federation as something more than a monolithic abomination with one
> sneering villain and an army of faceless troopers : other resistors, those
> attempting to stay neutral, lackeys and sympathisers - and some just doing
> their work (Grenlee and Forres, for example). Not just cardboard
> characters blasting away other cardboard characters with mindless
> monotony. To me, THAT has lot to do with making the show interesting.
D'you know, I tend never to think in terms of both sides being as neutral as
each other, but as being, in the end, as *bad* (or at least as compromised)
as each other.
> Oh yes, I like that final line too, and the way it isdelivered. Not proud,
> not boastful, not melodramatic, just firm and decisive, elegant in
> simplicity : "No, I'm coming back." A stated fact, a purpose gained.
>
> And you know what? I believe him.
Ah - that's only coz you've seen 'Pressure Point' ;)
Really interesting post, Kai. Thanks.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 02:41:36 +0100
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon hub of fandom?
Message-ID: <006a01bf1842$6d2654c0$a01eac3e@default>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Meredith wrote:
>Neil wrote:
>>I can't argue with that. Dare I suggest, however, that your experience of
>>fandom might be unrepresentative? (Not invalid, just untypical.)
>
>Certainly you may suggest it, but, should you do so, I would have
>to observe that, in my own experience, you were mistaken.
>I have, naturally enough, encountered a fair number of people
>over the years who participate in fandom just as I do -- just as
>you have apparently encountered a fair number of people just like
>yourself.
Ah, now if you took it that I was trying to imply that your experience was
unique, then I apologise. That wasn't my intention. I should also have
made it clear that I was primarily referring to your description of the way
you experience fandom now, rather than in the past. Of course you're not
the only one. I would suspect that the way you interact with fandom today
is possibly more typical for fans outside the UK.
>>It has been, as you yourself seem to say, almost entirely online (as
necessitated
>>by your relative geographical isolation),
>
>No. Not unless you only mean B7 fandom.
Which I did, actually.
>>and has been so for a relatively long time.
>
>This one you've lost me on. A long time compared to *what*?
In terms of the amount of time online fandom has been viable. You seem to
have been in there from a relatively early stage (mid-80s, you say).
>> I'm trying to evaluate Horizon's position and importance within
>> a global context of fandom, which will not necessarily correlate
>>with all individual perspectives.
>
>You'd need to determine how many B7
>fans there were in the world. Then you'd need to try to
>determine how many of those fans interacted with other fans
>chiefly through Horizon-sponsored events. (Hint: Horizon's
>membership list is *not* a reliable indicator of how many B7 fans
>there may be in the world, especially not for this purpose.)
That's what it comes down to - statistical data. Ideally we need to know
how many fans there are worldwide, broken down nation by nation, and also
how many are on/offline. And how many belong to which club or mailing list.
We're unlikely to get hold of such information, though.
Another problem is how you define a 'fan' in the first place, and this can
be a problem since levels of fannish activity are likely, I think, to vary
geographically. I have already suggested that a mythical 'typical fan'
outside the UK is probably more actively involved than her/is UK
counterpart. What about someone who simply buys a couple of videos, joins
Horizon after seeing their address on the sleeve, and then receives their
newsletter and does -nothing else- - is s/he a 'real fan'? I suspect that
such people are proportionally more significant in the UK, because access to
that level of fandom appears to be so much easier. And if they join a club,
they become countable, whereas if they don't they remain invisible, since
they're not going to do anything which brings them to wider fannish
attention.
>>British fandom at the centre of worldwide fandom - there are a number of
>>reasons why I believe this to be so.
>
>>(b) British fans have closer connections with the cast (and
>>production crew). This has important implications for the convention
scene....
>
>>(c) Britain is a small country. Your friend in Iowa is a thousand miles
from you,
>>but no two fans in Britain are going to be half as far apart....
>>That makes it much, much easier to promote awareness of B7 and fandom, for
>>fans to meet socially...
>
>Both of these two arguments depend on the assumption that
>offline, face-to-face, activity is the only, or at least the
>best, way for fans to meet. I refuse to grant that assumption.
>I "meet socially" with my friend from Iowa every week on a BBS;
>we've chatted at least weekly for years.
No, it's not the only way, and better/worse does not enter it into it, IMO.
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was trying to suggest that. I
wasn't.
>>It can look primarily to national rather than regional media networks (TV,
radio, press)
>> so there is an easier dissemination of information and a broader common
awareness of
>>what's happening nationally.
>
>*blinks* If your national networks ever say anything about B7,
>you're one up on us.
Then in that respect at least, we are one up on you. But only very very
occasionally. However, national networks can mention B7 because it does
occupy a corner - albeit a tiny one - of the British cultural psyche. Most
people over 30 at least know about it, even if they haven't seen it. I
doubt if that's true in the US and probably most other places. I can
mention it at work and people know what I'm talking about ('Oh yeah, Blake's
Seven, I used to watch that when I was a kid') though they don't actually
know much about the show (like who Avon was and other trivia).
>>Which suggests that if you weren't online, then being a fan, and
maintaining
>>an interest in fandom, would be very troublesome for you. Possibly to the
>>extent that you wouldn't be a fan at all. If the internet went down
>>tomorrow, for good, you'd be stranded.
>
>*snorts* The hell I would. You did notice that I said I joined
>Trek fandom in the mid-'70s, didn't you? If the Internet went
>down tomorrow, I'd go back to writing snail-mail letters, just as
>I did then.
Well, I was being a bit t-in-c there.
>*nods* Touting offline fandom as the only kind that counts (for
>instance, describing online fandom as "a ghetto," or saying, " I
>stand by assertion that offline fandom is currently still the
>norm ") is bordering on the elitist and arrogant.
>
>It's effectively writing off those who for whatever reasons can't
>or won't meet offline, not just denying them a voice, but denying
>them the right to have a voice. And it *does* seem to me that
>you are taking such a dismissive attitude.
By describing online fandom as a 'ghetto' I was not in any way attempting to
be dismissive, so I'm sorry if you misinterpreted it that way. I'm not
trying to tout offline fandom as 'the only way that counts', but as the way
that a majority of fans interact with fandom - if they are indeed a
majority, though I suspect they are.
How can I be taking a dismissive attitude to online fandom when it is my
principal means of interacting with fandom? I go to one con a year at most,
and make the occasional phone call to Judith P. I get a few letters from
offline fans (usually on the lines of 'Did you get my submission for your
zine?'). Otherwise I'm stuck with the Lyst. The Lyst is overwhelmingly
dominant in my personal experience of fandom. That doesn't mean it is
overwhelmingly dominant in fandom as a whole.
>>In short, I would say that as I see it British fandom is probably
different
>>from that elsewhere. Not 'better' or 'worse', just different.
>
>I won't argue with that. It does sound different.
>
>>But the difference is important because British fandom is large,
relatively well
>>organised, and on the home ground of the source material (ie B7 itself).
>
>None of those things make it central to worldwide fandom, though,
>except, arguably, the bit about its being on the home ground of
>the source material.
There might be some confusion here over what I mean by 'central'. Central
simply through being British - no. Central in terms of numbers and relative
density - yes. Therefore any organisation that can exert an influence on UK
fandom is going to be important.
When I describe Horizon as the hub of fandom, I don't mean that fandom is at
Horizon's beck and call. Not even UK fandom is in that unenviable state.
But Horizon dominates UK fandom simply through being the prime source of
news and information (not just about the cast), the principle access point
to fandom, and - for the offline majority at any rate - the principle means
through which fans can connect with each other. Fandom elsewhere in the
world is more like autonomous satellites - Horizon's actual influence on
them is minimal, if not non-existent. But none of them - at least as far as
I know - can reach, inform (or misinform, for that matter) and influence as
many people as Horizon can.
>
>> It was only through Horizon that I came to be aware of all these zine
things, and to make contact with other
>>fans
>
>Then I can see why you think Horizon is so important, especially
>since you went on to work for them. But the fact that Horizon
>was, and perhaps is, important to you doesn't mean that Horizon
>was, or is, important to everyone.
Not everyone, of course. But their vigorous approach to recruiting (through
video sleeves, commercial merchandise, at book signings etc) means that many
people enter fandom through the club. I am not one of a few in that
respect, I am one of many.
The following might be tedious, but it's a summary of membership information
released by Horizon itself which I think both indicates the size of UK
fandom and the way in which it might differ from elsewhere in the world.
It's actually quite interesting in some ways, even if it is a bit out of
date.
I've tracked down two sets of membership stats, from 1989 (before the videos
went through their first release) and 1992 (when the videos were coming out
every other month with Horizon's addie on the sleeve). The two sets don't
compare directly on all points, but there are some discernible differences.
In 1989 (for which no membership total is given) 68 per cent of members were
female and 32 per cent male. By 1992, out of 1050 members, 57 per cent were
male (and among UK members, that shot up to 66 per cent). 79 per cent of
overseas members were female.
Age on joining the club: This is given as a percentage for 1989 and actual
numbers for 1992, and in the latter case is again broken down into
UK/overseas (but not male/female). In both cases the 21-30 age group is
dominant (37 per cent and 36 per cent respectively), but the 16-20 group
goes up from 21 per cent (1989) to 24 per cent (1992) whilst the 31-40 group
goes down from 20 per cent (1989) to 14 per cent (1992). 40-plus is also
down but not by so much.
In 1989, 54 per cent of the members were UK, 46 per cent overseas. In 1992,
over 80 per cent were UK. Two thirds of os members were in the US (about
140, compared to about 400 in 1988). The 1992 stats also offer a UK/os
breakdown by age group - for the 16-20 age group, this is a 16:1 ratio (239
UK, 15 os) but for higher age groups (30 and above) it dwindles to never
more than 2:1 and sometimes the os outranks the UK. Therefore British fans
were joining younger.
(Source: Horizon Newsletter #22, June 1989, Horizon Newsletter #28, May
1992)
My own interpretation (as suggested, though not proven, by the stats) is
that the bi-monthly video releases brought in a large influx of younger
fans, those who watched it first time round on BBC1 but were too young to
know what fandom was, let alone get involved in it. And most, but not all,
of these were male. And where did all these newcomers find out about
Horizon? On the back of the video sleeves, I should imagine. Just as I
did. Because Horizon has the clout to advertise itself in this way, and
thus dramatically (though hardly intentionally) shift the age/sex balance of
its membership - and hence of fandom as a whole.
Hang on, I've found some more - #29, December 1992. Where did you hear
about Horizon?
BBC videos - 441 / prozines - 165 (5 titles cited, 96 from TV Zone) /
conventions - 95 / Tony Attwod's Programme Guide - 85 / friends - 78 / Comet
miniatures Liberator (Horizon flyer enclosed) - 75 / B7 Marvel Monthly - 65
/ Jonathan Ross Show (featuring Gareth Thomas, Michael Keating and a certain
Diane Gies) - 43 / Other B7 clubs - 40
Note the colossal impact of the videos. I think the above shows that
Horizon can access a wide fan base through commercial merchandise, whether
directly B7-related or not, and most of this is UK-based or UK only. The
low figure for other B7 clubs suggests that most UK fans who join a club
start with Horizon and then maybe move on to others, not the other way
round. The bush telegraph is certainly at work and not unimportant
(probably more important for introducing new people to B7 itself, rather
than the Horizon club, and this might or might not be more significant
overseas than in the UK).
Of course, this says nothing about those fans, UK or otherwise, who elect
not to join Horizon or never hear about it.
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 12:04:08 +1000
From: Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana.org.au>
To: "Blake's 7 list" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Authority and Obedience
Message-ID: <19991017120408.A3469@welkin.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Seeing as I was the one who originally brought this up, and that the
discussion seems to have wandered off into the directions of legality,
morality, bullying and legitimacy, let me think about this again.
My original statement was, more or less, that Authority is given by
obedience, and gave Blake's authority on the Liberator as an example.
And no, I didn't mean Blake's ownership of the Liberator by salvage
rights or anything like that, I meant the fact that Avon and Jenna,
and later the others, obeyed him simply because they chose to.
Then folk started talking about totalitarian governments and dictators
and bullies, how they don't have real authority, that they take it,
people don't give it to them. I beg to differ. People still give it
to them. The reasons that people may choose to obey may be pretty
horrible ones, like fear of being shot, tortured or simply beaten up,
but the choice is still there.
I assert this because of another example in Blake's 7. Avon's
example, again. An example of where he did *not* give someone
authority over him.
"You claim you can kill me. You'd better get on with it.
Make me die. There's nothing else you can make me do."
-- Kerr Avon to the alien (Blake's 7: Sarcophagus [C9])
There's nothing else you can make me do. I love that line. I love
it a whole lot.
See, there it looked possible that the only choice was between
obedience and death, or, at least, between obedience and a whole lot
of pain. But when it came down to it, the only thing that the Alien
could *make* Avon do, was die - and of course, she couldn't even do
that. Avon asserted his free will - whatever he did was his own
choice. When people say "I had no choice" what the case really is, is
that the alternative was so unacceptable and abhorrent (or perhaps
merely uncomfortable) that they chose the lesser of the evils before
them. But they still had a choice.
Deva: Do I have a choice?
Blake: Oh, there's always a choice, Deva.
(Blake's 7: Blake [D13])
"Give me liberty or give me death" isn't just a fancy slogan. For
some people that is the only choice they have, and sometimes they
choose death.
I have a little badge which has this saying on it: "The fear of death
is the beginning of slavery".
People choose to obey, and by obeying, give those whom they obey
authority over them. Obeying a bully means that one chooses to obey
rather than be beaten up - but that doesn't mean that one had no
choice. Before action, there comes will; before will there comes
thought.
Of course, then obedience can become a habit, and it usually is.
Maybe that's what authority is - the *habit* of obedience.
Kathryn Andersen
P.S. I love this list. We talk about such interesting things! 8-)
--
_--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana.org.au>
/ \ | http://home.connexus.net.au/~kat
\_.--.*/ | #include "standard/disclaimer.h"
v |
------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere
Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 21:58:07 -0500
From: "huh" <huh@ccm.net>
To: "Blake's 7 list" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Authority and Obedience
Message-ID: <01c901bf184b$a275b4a0$4464e0d1@huh>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
----- Original Message -----
From: Kathryn Andersen
To: Blake's 7 list
My original statement was, more or less, that Authority is given by
obedience, and gave Blake's authority on the Liberator as an example.
And no, I didn't mean Blake's ownership of the Liberator by salvage
rights or anything like that, I meant the fact that Avon and Jenna,
and later the others, obeyed him simply because they chose to.
I can understand Jenna, Gan, Vila and Cally following Blake but I still
can't understand why Avon ever did. I thought his plan to return to Earth
with a new identity and scam credits to start a new life seemed perfectly
reasonable and feasible - can't imagine why he stayed on. In the last two
seasons as it becomes a "safety in winning" philosophy I can understand why
it continued, but I just can't wrap my mind around why he didn't exit in
the very beginning. Has that been talked to death on-list and what did
people say?
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #295
**************************************