From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V98 #102 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume98/102 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 98 : Issue 102 Today's Topics: Re: [B7L] brazilian GP [B7L] On the espidoe 'Power' (long) Re: [B7L] Deliverance report (2/2) Re: [B7L] Deliverance report (2/2) [B7L] Re: Message to Pat Fenech Re: [B7L] On the espidoe 'Power' (long) [B7L] Elements Re: [B7L] Deliverance - ConCom View Re: [B7L] Deliverance report (2/2) Re: [B7L] Deliverance report (2/2) [B7L] Reply: Julia Jones re. DELIVERANCE Re: [B7L] Deliverance report (2/2) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 15:33:23 +0100 From: "Julie Horner" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] brazilian GP Message-Id: <199804051432.QAA06710@samantha.lysator.liu.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > From: Roger The Shrubber > > > > The Maclaren pit crew at the Brazilian Formula One GP looked startlingly > > like Federation troopers ! > > > > Which got me thinking .... > > > > I'd want either Tarrant or Dayna as driver - they'd > > either smash the car or win the race ! > > Surely Jenna is the obvious choice with her combination of skill and > experience. > > > Naturally Orac would compute the fuel- stops , tyre -wear etc. You'd also > > have to use him to interfere with the other teams telemetry ! > > > No Orac would consider this event beneath his dignity and would not be > interested in the material gains. Avon is the obvious choice for all the > complicated, technical stuff. But I don't really think he would stoop to > cheating. > > Why am I answereing this? I hate motor racing.... > > Julie Horner ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 16:49:06 +0100 From: Russ Massey To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] On the espidoe 'Power' (long) Message-ID: Here's another sweepi er... culling from the great early issues of Altazine, transcribed at the author's request. The usual caveats apply. Don't strip the names of the authors from the article and don't reproduce for profit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ON THE EPISODE 'POWER' By Judith Proctor (originally published in Altazine#2) Comments in square brackets are by editor Neil Faulkner (This is a repeat of an e-mail posting, but I think it's worth a wider circulation. [It is also an amalgam of two lengthy pieces that I've tried to mesh together as unclumsily as possible]) 'Power' is frequently cited as a pet hate episode and with some good reason. However, it occasionally strikes me that the Hommik and Seska culture was not all that it appeared to be on the surface. The scene that comes to my mind is when GunnSar is sitting down with his embroidery and talking with Nina. She tells him that Pella has escaped and that she has alerted security. GunnSar accepts that without question. Interesting, because Nina was once a leader of the Seska and he might reasonably have expected that she would help them. GunnSar is extremely rude to Nina in public (calls her a snivelling sack of offal at one point and is obviously going to hit her), but in private he seems to show her a lot of respect. I take this private relationship as the reason why Nina chose to remain with GunnSar when she could have escaped. Nina is middle-aged, at least forty, maybe more (she was a Seska leader twenty years ago). As Hommik leader, GunnSar could have had a younger, prettier woman if he wanted to. He doesn't. Again, this suggests more to their relationship than him pushing her around in public. It's worth noting that GunnSar's insult/attack on Nina is in response to Avon's remark expressing surprise that GunnSar doesn't know anything about computers. In essence GunnSar is embarrassed, and both changes the subjects and vents his feelings in one move. It may not have been typical behaviour for him, as I doubt many people were going to irritate him in the way that Avon did. (I'm not justifying gunnsar's behaviour, merely pointing it out in the context of his relationship with Nina that it may not reflect their everyday relationship.) Most of the Hommiks would have shared Gunnsar's blind spot on computers. He was probably aware that some aspects of their culture were technically forbidden, but also aware that they made life more comfortable. [Cato's remarks to Avon suggest otherwise.] Nina calls GunnSar her husband. Not master, husband. We're dealing with a male-dominated culture, but not one that reduces women to total slavery. She weeps when he dies. I see their private relationship as that of a long married couple. They probably had several children, and I think they loved one another. That's why Nina said twice that she was now a woman, not a Seska. It wasn't a case of being raped instantly converts you into a pliant, willing sex slave. I think it was a case of a relationship building up over time (its origins might have been nasty, but we have no evidence one way or the other to show how Hommiks treated newly captured Seska after they removed the Dynamon crystals). There's more to sex than being 'a woman' [But not more to being 'a woman' than sex?]. A large proportion of the human race find themselves trapped in a long term relationship with a member of the opposite sex. Is it so surprising that Nina should? Nina was there when Pella was born and she remembers Kate as a child. At the time of the video-clip that Tarrant looks at, the Seska procreation vaults were attacked and the seminal stocks contaminated. There were 52 children at that time, and that was 20 years ago. From that time onwards, there were presumably no more children born to the Seska, and indeed the three Seska we see are all adults. It seems reasonable to assume that Kate and Pella were among the last children born to the Seska. Kate can't be much over twenty. GunnSar looked stupid, but I wonder if her used Nina's advice to help him rule the Hommiks. After all, they seemed to be doing all right for themselves. Let's take another look at her. She swore over gunnsar's body that the tribe would leave this accursed place. I don't think she was a woman who made statements lightly. Remember that she had been a Seska leader in the war. She must have felt that she had a chance of doing what she did. Did she feel that she could lead the Hommiks? I think perhaps she did. Even in male- dominated cultures it is not unknown for the widow of a powerful man to rise to power after his death. I'm sure you can all think of real world examples. Where did Nina intend to take them? There seem to be two basic options: the Seska lifestyle of technology, or the lifestyle that the original Hommik leaders had intended which rejected technology and required them to start again from scratch. My feeling, which I have admittedly very little evidence for, is that she intended the Hommik way. Did she succeed? Perhaps she did. The only evidence we have available is that from 'Headhunter'. The hydro-electric power station that Tarrant and Dayna visited was abandoned but still functional. We know that the Hommiks were still using electric power. Where did it come from? An HEP station is easier to maintain than most when civilisation collapses. You don't run out of fuel. Maybe that's where Cato got the power to keep the computers functioning. I can imagine that he knew enough to keep the station working. [Cato did in fact make an explicit reference to solar power.] If Nina did move the Hommiks to another place, that would explain why the power station was now abandoned. Of course, there is always the possibility that it was a Seska installation, although in their weakened state it is a moot point as to whether they could have defended it. It seems more likely that in their later years they were dependant on Dorian for fuel as well as nutrients. Pella claimed to Avon that daughters born to captured Seska were left to die on the hillsides and that when the Seska found them they took them in. This sounds impressive, and is a strong point against the Hommiks, but is it true? I believe there are several points to suggest that Pella was in fact lying or at least exaggerating the truth. 1) Female infanticide has existed historically, and in China in the present day. It usually occurs when a society has very limited resources (such as desert nomads) or when the law restricts parents to one child. In short, when people can only have a very small number of children, they are likely to opt for a son. This does not mean that 100% of girl babies are abandoned. (Incidentally, how many people knew that Mohammed expressly forbade the killing of girl babies among Muslims, and when writing the Koran gave women a fixed right to inherit at a time when married European women couldn't even own property in their own right. People often think of Islam as a culture that suppressed women, but you can make a surprising case for calling Mohammed an early feminist! (No I'm not a Muslim, but I have studied the historical culture a little.)) 2) Kate didn't escape when she could have. If I were a woman who had forcibly had her female children killed and watched others go through the same for half the children they had given birth to, I could not have stayed and I don't think Kate would have either. Even supposing that I was so madly in love with GunnSar as to have stayed, I would not have let the others be captured. [I'm not sure or not as to whether or not you've got Kate muddled up with Nina here.] 3) Men have feelings too. Not all fathers would be willing to abandon a child, regardless of rules/culture. 4) Common sense. Without women there is no next generation. Once the Seska stopped reproducing (and before that if the Hommiks didn't capture enough to keep their own numbers up) they would realise the need for women of their own. 5) This is the killer... there were no young Seska. I've already shown that Pella and Kate had to be among the last of the Seska born from the procreation vaults. If the Seska had been collecting abandoned babies since this time, where were they? If this were true there had to be younger Seska than Kate. So in summation, I think it possible that the Hommiks occasionally practised female infanticide, especially at times of famine or resource shortage. I do not think that they ever practised it universally. Pella exaggerated to try and gain Avon's sympathy. The Seska were a totally female culture, but the Hommiks were a *male- dominated* culture. There is more evidence to suggest that the Hommiks were not 100% male chauvinist. Dayna challenged GunnSar to a fight for the leadership. He laughed at her, but he also accepted the challenge and it was treated seriously enough by the rest of the tribe to be fought on the challenge ground. The implications are two-fold. Firstly women didn't have zero status or he wouldn't have accepted the challenge. I can't see GunnSar claiming her on his kill list if it brought him no status at all. If she was viewed as no threat at all, he would have been laughed at for accepting the challenge. Dayna won, and the others encouraged her to get the hell out of there. Quite possibly a very sensible act on their part, but it means we don't know how the Hommiks would have reacted. They might have killed her in fury over GunnSar's death, but there is the outside chance that they would have accepted her as leader in his stead. If they rejected her, would it have been rejection because she was a woman, or because she wasn't a member of the tribe? I think I actually prefer GunnSar to Avon in this particular episode (who's going to shoot me down in flames for that? Avon tries to establish his 'nice to women' credentials early in the episode by stopping GunnSar when he is about to hit Nina. From then on, GunnSar never tries to justify himself with claptrap about the man's strength being superior. GunnSar is a product of his culture and not a particularly bad specimen (I still love the fact that he does his own sewing ). It is possible that Pella was more bigoted than any of the Hommiks. I always remember the scene where she makes Avon's crossbow go off and kill a Hommik. Power is a naff episode, and will always be a naff episode, but it could have been even worse than it was. My own interpretation is that it was not so much a war of the sexes (that was Avon's interpretation), but war between a group of women who chose to lead a highly technological life and the rest of society (both men and women) who chose to return to a more primitive lifestyle. One thing that this episode explains perfectly is why Avon was nuts for most of the 4th season. It come from being knocked over the head three times! OVERTLY MARXIST EDITOR'S RESPONSE It just so happened that I received this LOC just a few days after reading Joanna Russ' essay *Amor Vincit Foeminam: The Battle of the Sexes in Science Fiction* (reprinted in *To Write Like a Woman: Essays in Feminism and Science Fiction*, Indiana University Press 1995). My thanks to Jan, who might not be a B7 fan but has the most interesting bookshelves of any friend I've had. In this essay Russ discusses six examples of sex war in SF, all but one of them (that written by a woman, 'James Tiptree Jr') echoing *Power* very strongly. The parallels are quite strong: - a repressive but incompetent matriarchy is challenged and toppled by a single super-male. He is usually a victim of the oppressive regime, or a leader amongst an exiled male society. In *Power*, being an episode in a long-running series, the super-male must be an outsider (Avon) in order to qualify as a B7 episode. It is therefore his strength, not a Hommik's, that must prove to be stronger than Pella's. - the defeat of matriarchy is represented by the subjugation (usually through rape) of one woman from the dominant regime. She is invariably young. *Power* is slightly different in that it presents the doomed matriarchy in its final death throes. The subjugated woman - Nina - appears as a *fait accompli*, an argument that can pass unchallenged because it has been already won. - the subjugated woman is frequently the only woman encountered within the male society. All others (which are often alluded to or implied) are ignores. References to, or examples of, child-rearing are absent. This is why we only see Nina among the Hommiks, and no children, only GunnSar and other Hommiks. These stories, like *Power*, are nothing more than a reactionary affirmation of traditional patriarchal values which simultaneously idolise and repress women. Your discussion above lists a lot of the give-aways, but I would say you've drastically misinterpreted them: - GunnSar and his embroidery. This might suggest that GunnSar is not dependant on Nina, since he can cope for himself in her absence - anything she does is for his convenience. - Nina might once have been a Seska leader, but she is now a subordinated woman. GunnSar can trust her because he has no reason not to. Nina has Seen The Light, and that's why she stays with him. - GunnSar is ride to Nina in public to affirm his ownership of her and especially his dominance over her. To show respect 0r - Ghod forbid - love for her in public would weaken his claim to possession. - 'Husband' can be very nicely equated with 'master' in some minds. - She weeps when he dies. She is emotionally dependant on him. For 'emotionally dependant' read all other kinds of dependence as well. - Their relationship is like that of a long-married couple - an affirmation of traditional relationship values, equivalent to patriarchal domination of women. - Women vs. Seska: this implies that Seska are not 'real' (i.e., submissive) women. - You see the removal of the dynamon crystals as symbolic of rape, I prefer to see it as more symbolic of castration. Seska are not 'real' women because they are independent (of men) and powerful in their own right. They emulate men, and that is not permissible because it usurps man's monopoly on power. - against your arguments about the non-practice of infanticide, I'd say you're committing a fatal flaw here. The situation we see on screen is symbolic, its symbols constructed to be read. The kind of holes in the argument you've constructed here are the ignored consequences of the written scenario. There were no young Seska because young Seska would have compromised the message - men are allowed to subjugate women, but not to abuse children. - Seska society exclusively female, Hommik society integrated. Another common theme described in Joanna Russ' essay is that women are often envisaged as doing without men, but men are reluctant to live without women. What you might call Praying Mantis Syndrome, a male fear of being superfluous. - Hommik technology: what does it actually represent? I think linking technology with the Seska is a false equation. The Hommik technology is a legacy of the old civilisation, the 'lost power of the ancients' guarded by an occult priesthood. Cato, not Nina, is the power behind the throne, and Cato is a man. The technology, therefore, is male power. As a further dimension to this issue it is worth noting the implications of Pella's conversation with Vila, that the Seska *came* to Xenon, probably (though not explicitly) after the collapse of the pre-Hommik civilisation. In other words, the Seska adopted or brought with them the trappings of technology - to which they were not entitled, since possessing them violated the Hommik priesthood's right of ownership. An unacceptable mimicry of male power. What *Power* is really about is a fear of women. The Seska are arrogant, independent women. Their long, flowing skirts wrap them in a mystique of untamed sexuality. The fact that they live without any need of men suggests that they might be Lesbians - the ultimate repudiation of male dominance. They have mysterious, supernatural powers of the *mind* (translated into telekinesis for the sake of science fiction). Rather than usurp the trappings of male power (for which they are anatomically unequipped), they have assumed their own, which must be forcibly removed from them (the equivalent of castration). They then cease to be Seska, instead becoming Women - submissive wives who can be trusted and respected because they have been robbed of any independence. Basically, the Seskas are the evil forces of Feminism. They are led by Pella, who cynically and secretly manipulates the others, disposing of them (shooting Kate) when her sinister plots are uncovered. The manipulated Seska are thus poor, innocent, deluded souls ripe for enlightenment by the Hommiks. The independence of the Seska is illusionary - they depend on the Hommiks to supply them with new recruits and on a man - Dorian - to keep their hydroponic dome functioning. They have no real right to their trappings of power. We see no younger Seska because they would carry a politically emotional charge, and that is something that you simply don't lay on children. The Seska we see must be young but adult. They must also be good looking, and of a sexually active age (i.e. fertile) - desirable breeding property, in other words. An older Seska would not be sexually desirable, and her age would give some validity to Seskahood. Older women in a patriarchal society function as advisors and councillors, but their subordination to their men makes them a resource to be tapped, not a power to be respected. And what about the Hommiks? Their culture is tribal (and the uppity Seska are not a tribe, oh gracious me no). Dominance within the tribe is achieved by combat (because all Real Men love a scrap). Might makes right. The Seska, on the other hand, use their *minds* to function co-operatively. Dayna would not have defeated GunnSar on her own, the episode makes that quite clear. Pella and Kate had to intervene. A fairly obvious moral there, I think: don't let women get together. Turn them into Wives and keep them apart. As to why we never saw how the Hommiks would have reacted to Dayna's victory, or where Nina led the survivors (if indeed she did come to lead) - there are good external reasons for that. Hommiks and Seska alike had to be removed to make the episode self-contained (and make Chris Boucher's life easier). The practicalities of series production meant that Dayna could not become leader of the Hommiks, even if Ben Steed was prepared to countenance the possibility (which I suspect he might not have been). *Power* IS about a war of the sexes, not a conflict between high-tech and primitive lifestyles. These, again, are *symbolic* - Hommik culture is essentially not primitive, but traditional. Their technology is an ancient ('god- given') legacy. Seskas are technological because they are modern, new, counter-traditional, and have seized the reins of technological power to which they have no right (they lost the war, after all). *Power* is the open manifesto of the reactionary anti-intellectual attitudes Ben Steed implies in his earlier episodes (Jarvik's domination of Servalan - notice how he has to die so as not to usurp her position, since that would bugger up series continuity - or the way the women of Sardos are reduced to being sexual consumables). To say it's a naff episode is something of an understatement. Still, jolly readers, that's just *my* interpretation. Maybe you agree more with Judith. Maybe you think we've both got it all wrong. Maybe you're wishing we'd both just shut up and talk about something more interesting. Either way, why not let us know. -- transcribed by Russ Massey ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 19:49:41 +0100 From: "Diva" To: "Judith Proctor" , "Lysator List" Subject: Re: [B7L] Deliverance report (2/2) Message-ID: <01bd60c3$9cc3aa80$51ecb094@diva> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> I happen to know that one reason some events ran late was because the >> kind-hearted guests were anxious to ensure that everyone got an autograph, a >> smile or a picture. >So run the fancy dress without celebrity judges. Judge it with a fan panel or >by audience applause. So suggest that at the time, not a week afterwards. >That is totally uncalled for. For one thing, Kathryn is one of the most moral >people I know (she's a pracricing Christian and lives by her beliefs). She >would not alter her opinion of something one iota to suit any interest of mine. If Kathryn chooses to title her email as a "report" rather than as a personal opinion then I think people have the right to know of any vested interests. They can then make up their own minds as to relevance. As to Kathryn's Christian virtues, how is that relevant to Deliverance or B7? I don't care if she's the Virgin Mary, if she chooses to indulge in character assaination she must expect the usual consequences. Flames make fire. >Two, I've already stated publically on this list that I don't expect Redemption >to be perfect. Well I would like to know please: did you ask anyone involved with Deliverance if you could namecheck their con in your publicity? I bet I can guess. >Fourthly, Kathryn has no connection with Redemption, apart from having kindly >designed the t-shirts for us. And, presumably, made sure that she cleared her use of someone else's intellectual property? Only JM Straczynski and his lawyers are less than keen on illegal use of his material, even to the extent of banning one individual from selling home-made caricature birthday cards. Since these people are VERY internet aware, I hope you are taking care. While I think the design was a good idea (see - I can be nice!) they may not. So in all seriousness, I hope you've "checked your six". >She lives, as she pointed out, in Australia. >It's highly unlikely that she will even come to Redemption, let alone be able to >help with it. As she's so full of bright ideas I would hope she'll be offering those to you in email form. >Kathryn was willing to sign her name to what she said. Well, some people have no shame. >Are you going to do so >or do you prefer to criticise her anonymously? I don't know how familiar you are with normal net practice but lots of people use a "net name", one reason being to avoid getting "personal attention" from mad people. That being the case, why would I choose to give my name to you? As we are now off-topic, please address any future mail to me personally so we don't take up other people's time. Except, of course, that I'm sure we'd all be interested in a public statement on your use of the Deliverance name in your con publicity for Redemption. I'll await that with interest, Diva@tn.prestel.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 19:17:50 +0100 From: "Diva" To: "Kathryn Andersen" , "Blake's 7 list" Subject: Re: [B7L] Deliverance report (2/2) Message-ID: <01bd60bf$2488b140$51ecb094@diva> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >"11 pages of non-stop griping" just because I was almost the only one who >dared say anything critical. Geeze. Of course you can be critical - but if you're going to dish it out you should be able to take it which you evidently can't. > This con had the worst of both >worlds. And a number of the problems that they had were >*preventable*. >As for offering to help, like really I could do >anything all the way from Australia? Help with the events I >criticised? As if I could actually organise the Art Show or the Fancy >Dress having come in from overseas? Don't be ridiculous. Kathryn, you could have helped when you got to the con. I didn't know you were from Australia, but then hey, if you can email this list, couldn't you have emailed the organisers and said "how about a category for black & white art in the art show" or whatever. My point was that if you see something going wrong at a fan-run charity event and you can see what should be done, a decent person HELPS rather than just standing back and griping. > I did more >than most people - I actually contributed to the entertainment. I'll leave those who saw it to judge the value of that. Although the phrase "buttock-clenchingly embarrassing" should just about cover it, along with "self-indulgent". Diane earned it? But didn't >Judith Rolls and Judith Smith earn it *just as much*? Yes, as my very next line made clear. But your 11 pages of self-importance suggest you should be the last person to accuse anyone else of egotism. If you really think they earned it, why did your review fail to thank them? After all, you've said you enjoyed yourself, but it seems you just can't be gracious about it. >Your vitriol >in this respect just makes you look spiteful. If there are lessons to >be learned from Deliverance's mistakes, Judith is quite capable of >learning them for herself, and doesn't need me kibbitzing to enable >her to try to run a good con. Kathryn I have no cause to be spiteful to you but your review made me angry that people had worked so hard for ingrates like you. And I don't think my remark was "uncalled for" ; the honest reviewer declares her interests. >"After Deliverance comes Redemption" - well, it does, doesn't it? >In more ways than one. It is, after all, the next Blake's 7 con after >Deliverance, and in the Blake's 7 episode order, Redemption comes >after Deliverance too. (Though for that logic, there should be a con >in between called "Orac"...) Again, you are carefully distorting my point which was that you are using other people's work to publicize your own event. >For many people who had nothing to compare it with, Deliverance was >the best of all possible cons. For me, it wasn't - except for the >people that went there. The only reason that people were there - the only reason you've been going to cons for 10 years - is that people put in the work to let you do that. I went to a professional con (Wolf 359) last year and they treated people like dirt. People were screaming about it for weeks, and I think they had the right. But fan-run cons are not about lining pockets, they are about people getting together. Of course 'm not going to claim that everything was perfect, merely that if you didn't like the way it was run at a fan-run event you had numerous opportunities to help. I think this is going a little off-topic, so I suggest if you have anything else to say you send it to me personally rather than the list as I don't see why everyone else should be bored with it. Unless, of course, you prefer to treat this as another opportunity to exercise your ego? Diva@tn.prestel.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 15:04:05 -0400 From: Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@compuserve.com> To: "Blake's 7 (Lysator)" Subject: [B7L] Re: Message to Pat Fenech Message-ID: <199804051504_MC2-390B-8370@compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Narrelle - Pat rang me on Sunday afternoon from Newcastle (where she had seen Guards! Guards! for the fourth time). She's thrilled to hear that you've been shortlisted for Witching Ways; she says it's wonderful, she's really pleased, and she hopes it actually wins, because it's a really good novel. Harriet ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 12:15:00 -0800 From: Helen Krummenacker To: Russ Massey CC: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] On the espidoe 'Power' (long) Message-ID: <3527E644.5D0A@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm not going to quote the originals, but this is in response to a discussion of the episode "Power". Frankly, I don't think we were supposed to approve of either society. They were caught in a self-destructive cycle of hate, instead of going outside their preconcieved notions of male/female. Perhaps the reason Avon was able to basically defeat _both_ cultures is that his own is slightly more enlightened. He is proud of his mental strength and resorts to physical violence only when forced to. Both cultures forced him to defend himself and his friends from them. One was a group of savages similar to the Goths, the other group had members as sexist as any male group could ever have been. Rooting for Avon to resist the power of the evil Seskas (and not all of them were evil), is no different from rooting for Dayna against sexist male Federation officers. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 21:21:48 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: [B7L] Elements Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Elements is the fifth in Sheelagh Well's series of interview tapes and has much to reccomend it. The cover photo is lovely. For heads set against a starry background. Gareth looks lovely, Paul looks sexy, Jackie looks great and it was nice to see what David Maloney looks like. (I recognised him instantly by his voice at Deliverance. I heard a voice sounding just like the one on the tape, turned round and there he was, looking just like he photo. Shows that the sound reproduction is good too ) Joe Nazzaro is an ideal interviewer: he knows what questions are likely to lead his guests down interesting tracks and once they are started on reminiscences, he sits back without interrrupting and lets them tell their story. The first side faetures Paul Darrow, Gareth Thomas, David Maloney and Judith Smith (and Sheelagh Wells of course). I found that David was probably the best contributor here, having many new things to say on how they attempted to save money on the show and the problems that were caused by not having the scripts in advance to help them estimate the costs. There were several new Vere Lorrimer stories which I won't repeat here (go and buy the tape!) David also commented on his dislike of 'magic' in Blake's 7 and how they had tried to keep it firmly rooted in science, rather than fantasy. (I agree wholeheartedly with that aim.) Judith Smith had some interesting comments to add on occasion. Her and David's contributions to this tape make me feel that it might be interesting to hear more of the behind the scenes people talking, although I would always want a few of the cast members in the mix. One comment of Paul's that I particularly liked was about how Avon's character changed over time. He wasn't very happy with the script for 'Aftermath' which had Avon preventing Dayna from killing an injured Sarran. I always thought this was out of character. I say this about every tape in this series, but I'll say it again. The atmosphere was great. I could listen to these tapes once to hear all the anecdotes, but in actuality I listen to them several times and come back to them again after time has passed. I feel as though I'm with a group of people I know and that they are just chatting around me. It's friendly and relaxing. The second side of the tape features, by popular request, Jacqueline Pearce talking to Paul Darrow. A combination that many of us were hoping for. They both talked of the pleasure they had doing 'The Sevenfold Crown' (though I'd swear Jackie was thinking of 'Logic of Empire' with regard to one particular comment about the passage of time for the characters). Performing on radio has its own quirks which they mentioned. The talk then moved onto the relationship between Avon and Servalan during the original series. A topic close to my heart! Jackie talked about Servalan's wardrobe and her development as a character. She also disclosed Servalan's thoughts about Tarrant after 'Sand'. Both Paul and Jackie discussed what a 5th season of Blake's 7 might have contained. Some fun ideas there, including one that reminded me a lot of the plot of 'Nova' (fanzine, available from Horizon). All in all, I recommend this tape highly, especially if you want to hear Paul and Jackie together. It's available from Sheelagh Wells and from Horizon. I don't know the price, but I expect you'll find it on Horizon's web page. I'll put Sheelagh's price on my page when I know it. Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Redemption 99 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention 26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 20:14:36 +0100 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Deliverance - ConCom View Message-ID: In message <3.0.2.32.19980405122428.00691f58@clara.net>, JMR writes While I have my fair share of complaints about Deliverance, I'm quite willing to back Judith up on the following two points: > >Those attending the con. will have noticed that we had 12 hand-held radios >and a base-station to facilitate the passage of information, and those who >were either passing through Ops, or who were near those radios without >headsets would have been aware of the continual traffic of information >going between ConCom and staff. Almost non-stop radio traffic during some parts of the day. The radio system did much to prevent the whole thing from falling into a colossal heap. > We were aware of this, and were >desperately trying to resolve it. Those attendees who had problems with >their room cards refusing to "swipe" will know that the hotel's computer >had a habit of cancelling access cards at unexpected moments, meaning that >a new card had to be obtained and encoded from Reception. I believe that >this was the case with Sheelagh's workshop. Several of us who stayed on Thursday night found our cards wouldn't work after checkout time on Friday morning, even though we were booked until Sunday or Monday. I know from comments I overheard around Reception that this continued to be a problem throughout the weekend. > *However*: >The staff of "Deliverance", Ops Managers, Events Managers, Stewards etc., >all worked like SLAVES over the weekend, and so, thanks given to them at >the closing ceremony was well-deserved. I know for a fact that the Stewards >WERE thanked, because I, myself, thanked them in the list of staff that I >had drawn up to read. I know I was tired by the Closing Ceremony, but I didn't hear any mention of the stewards other than thanking the Head Steward. Not quite the same thing. -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 20:14:07 +0100 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Deliverance report (2/2) Message-ID: <8AMfhLA$f9J1EwTp@jajones.demon.co.uk> In message <19980405141736.65509@welkin.apana.org.au>, Kathryn Andersen writes >On Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 12:12:10AM +0100, Diva wrote: >> >> In her report >> >> >Deliverance 1998 >> >27th-29th March 1998 >> >> Kathryn Andersen writes: >> >> "It's fen that make fandom go around, never forget it". >> >> Well I'd never have guessed it from her mean-spirited review of the >> Deliverance convention. 11 pages of non-stop griping because - horror of >> horrors - she had to fill in TWO forms for the art show, and other such >> world-shaking stuff. There's so much I disagree with in her review that I'll >> have to summarize, but some things should be said: > >"11 pages of non-stop griping" just because I was almost the only one who >dared say anything critical. Geeze. > As it happens, there is a reply to Kathryn's original post sitting in mu pending tray. It is sitting there because it makes Kathryn's post look like sweetness and light by comparison, and I'm not releasing it for public consumption until I'm certain the venom is motivated purely by my low opinion of the way Deliverance was run, and not influenced by the fact that I'm not feeling very well at the moment. Skipping the detail - I know that even when I feel better, I'm going to quite agree with Kathryn's description of Deliverance as "officious inefficiency". And yes, I did offer to help beforehand - I was one of the stewards that nobody bothered to mention in the closing ceremony, one of the stewards who paid full price for the con but got to see very little of it. Yes, I'm comparing it with other fan-run cons for charity - I haven't been to many cons, but they've all been fan-run for charity. I've never seen one that was such a shambles as this. Some of it was down to being over-ambitious, for which people can't be blamed, given the occasion, some of it was "act of god" (keycards springs to mind), but some of it I can't see any reason for other than sheer incompetance. I don't know what went wrong, because many of the people involved were also involved in running another con I've been to, which is one of the benchmarks I'm using for how a con *should* go. Oh, and just before Diva repeats the allegations that anyone who criticises Deliverance must be trying to do it down for the benefit of another con - yes, I know two of the Redemption con committee, even if Deliverance was the first time I'd met one of them outside the B7 mailing lists. That doesn't mean that I'd lie on their behalf, even if I was idiotic enough to think that criticising one con was a good way to get people to go to another. I enjoyed the con, most of the time. I enjoyed seeing my friends, I enjoyed seeing the guests, when I managed to do so. I'm glad ConCom managed to get so many of them together. I'm sure they've worked extremely hard over the last year, and I, quite frankly, would not do it myself. Jolly fine show, and all that. That does not negate the fact that from my perspective, and in my limited experience of cons, rather more things went seriously wrong than is usual. Kathryn has not just whinged, but has given quite specific examples of how things went wrong, and in some cases suggested how it could have been better. That's going to be painful for ConCom to read, more painful than they deserve, but *it* *might* *help* *make* *the* *next* *one* *better*. Pure bitching might have deserved Diva's response, constructive criticism does not. -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 22:30:12 +0100 From: "Diva" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Deliverance report (2/2) Message-ID: <01bd60da$046c8600$71e9b094@diva> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, harsh criticism but tempered with more good sense than Kathryn cared to apply. However, criticism is not really constructive coming *after* the con. Anyone can be wise after the event. The reason I was annoyed with what Kathryn said was that I felt that she chose not to help and then criticise afterwards - not at all constructive in my book. I agree with you on one point - I too would never want to try and run an event like that - especially now I've seen just how hurtful people can be. And I thought B7 fans might be a bit more tolerant than "mundanes". I guess I'm just naive in thinking that anyone might show a little appreciation to the people who put in so much work so we could all enjoy a chance to get together. I only just joined this mailing list, and I'm genuinely shocked that people can be so ungrateful and cruel. Shocked, and as you can see from my posts, angry. If that's Kathryn's version of Christianity she's reading a different Bible from me. Well, that's between her and her God. I'm afraid I won't be around to read your review if you choose to post it, but please remember that the Concom may well be. Diva@tn.prestel.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 22:50:55 +0100 From: JMR To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Reply: Julia Jones re. DELIVERANCE Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980405225055.0069ffe4@clara.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Julia Jones writes: >I was one of >the stewards that nobody bothered to mention in the closing ceremony, >one of the stewards who paid full price for the con but got to see very >little of it. At the closing ceremony, I read all the thank-yous from a pre-prepared list to avoid the unfortunate incident that occured at one of the Who's 7 conventions when we failed to thank someone who had worked especially hard. I still have this list in my possession, and can categorically state that "and all the stewards" was on it. Since I read this list, word-for-word, I have to say, that I think it unlikely that "no-one bothered to mention" the stewards. I suppose we can only wait for the convention video to prove this one way or another. However, since I began my con-running career, more years ago than I care to remember, as a steward, I am very well aware of how hard they work, and am the least likely person not to thank them. If I am proved wrong when the video appears, I am quite willing to make a public apology. >Yes, I'm comparing it with other fan-run cons for charity >- I haven't been to many cons, but they've all been fan-run for charity. >I've never seen one that was such a shambles as this. Some of it was >down to being over-ambitious, for which people can't be blamed, given >the occasion, some of it was "act of god" (keycards springs to mind), >but some of it I can't see any reason for other than sheer incompetance. >I don't know what went wrong, because many of the people involved were >also involved in running another con I've been to, which is one of the >benchmarks I'm using for how a con *should* go. > It would really help me to provide answers to "what went wrong" if you could state specifics, as both Judith and Kathryn have done. Statements such as "such a shambles" and "sheer incompetence" can only be justified when they are being used to illustrate some factual incident. What, in your opinion, and without reiterating the points raised by Judith and Kathryn, were the things that went so wrong? Perhaps when I know, I can explain, apologise or justify. >Kathryn has not just whinged, but has given quite specific examples of >how things went wrong, and in some cases suggested how it could have >been better. That's going to be painful for ConCom to read, more painful >than they deserve, but *it* *might* *help* *make* *the* *next* *one* >*better*. Pure bitching might have deserved Diva's response, >constructive criticism does not. > Assuredly. We all learn from our mistakes. I'm all in favour of specific examples. "Deliverance", in my opinion, was very little different in infrastructure, pandemonium and general hysteria to any of the other B7 cons I have run. The problems were larger, because the con was larger, and therefore, problems that may not have been evident at smaller cons were more easily spotted at "Deliverance". I can assure you that none of the W7 cons ran without their fair share of problems, and yet, at both W7 and at "Deliverance", most people seem to have had a damned good weekend. I remain interested to hear anyone's comments and criticisms, but, as I have said, specific examples are easier to examine than sweeping statements. Can I also say that "Diva" was not only present at "Deliverance", but also worked exceptionally hard for the convention all weekend, and so, perhaps, is justified in having a personal interest in negative and unhelpful criticism that she deems inappropriate and excessive. Judith J.M. Rolls jager@clara.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 08:17:26 +1000 From: Kathryn Andersen To: "Blake's 7 list" Subject: Re: [B7L] Deliverance report (2/2) Message-ID: <19980406081726.46970@welkin.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 07:17:50PM +0100, Diva wrote: > I think this is going a little off-topic, so I suggest if you have anything > else to say you send it to me personally rather than the list as I don't see > why everyone else should be bored with it. That is probably the only sensible thing Diva has said so far. I am not going to say *one more word* on this topic. Diva's insults no longer deserve to be dignified with a reply. I think the only thing that Diva would be satisfied with is my corpse staked out on Sarran, with Judith's right next to it. The last thing I want is to have a long-drawn-out public flame-war about this. Defending my criticsisms is just emphasising the negative aspects of a con that 99% of us actually did enjoy. Kathryn Andersen -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "Let a man meet a she-bear robbed of her cubs, rather than a fool in his folly." Proverbs 17:12 -- _--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen / \ | http://connexus.apana.org.au/~kat \_.--.*/ | #include "std/disclaimer.h" v | ------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V98 Issue #102 **************************************