From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #136 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/136 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 136 Today's Topics: Re: [B7L] web chat Re: [B7L] B7 telemovie Re: [B7L] Re: B7 telemovie Re: [B7L] Telemovie Re: [B7L] Servalan not killing Avon (fwd) [B7L] Syndeton Experiment [B7L] Avon's promises Re: [B7L] Bullies, was PiC Rant Re: [B7L] Telemovie Re: [B7L] Bullies, was PiC Rant [B7L] Re:Telemovie Re: PiC Rant (was Re: [B7L] Sleazy Vila) Re: [B7L] Re: B7 telemovie Re: [B7L] Bullies, was PiC Rant Re: PiC Rant (was Re: [B7L] Sleazy Vila) [B7L] Avon & Rubbish (was Re: PiC Rant) Re: [B7L] web chat [B7L] Telemovie Re: BACs (was Re: [B7L] Worst Openings) Re: [B7L] Re: B7 telemovie Re: BACs (was Re: [B7L] Worst Openings) Re: BACs (was Re: [B7L] Worst Openings) RE: [B7L] Bullies, was PiC Rant [B7L] Coleridge on Avon? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 04:53:05 -0700 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] web chat Message-ID: <3719C7A0.B184F701@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Judith Proctor wrote: > Having now seen the original text of the web chat, I can see one point where > things may have been slightly mis-quoted. > It's a moot point as to whether Paul's term 'really really hard' includes > sadism/joy of killing people or not, but it doesn't necessarily do so. Sorry if I'm the one you think's been misleading, Judith. What I said is 'it looks as if...'; and what followed on was my impression based on a combination of A) reading the backchat, which certainly doesn't match the things that Harriet says she brought up, so it certainly appears edited; in fact there's one thing that I'm fairly sure I saw there the first time I looked that isn't there now, so unless my memory's playing tricks (which of course it might be) it's been edited more than once; B) things that you and others have said occur in TSC and TSE, for example, the idea that Avon enjoys inflicting pain, which obviously got through any checks on those occasions; and C) quite a bit of stuff that I have read here and elsewhere about PD's impression of Avon differing from the fans', and about the content of Avon: A Terrible Aspect (which is still sitting on my coffee table unread, as I'm not certain I shall enjoy it.) I didn't mean to imply that I was quoting directly; but I didn't think, and still don't, that I was making any enormous leaps, logically speaking. And, knowing how PR doublespeak works, it's not a big stretch to say that Lighthill's comment: > Harriet, I think it's quite possible that Avon does enjoy > > killing people. > is quite easily interpreted as Lighthill trying to say that he *does* think Avon enjoys killing people, without starting an argument when he's trying to drum up support for the movie. Sheer politics. > PPS. I agree that the B7 shouldn't be fossilised, one of the series's strengths > was that characters did change and develop over time, but I do feel that the > future should be a logical development of the past. To do that, you have to be > familiar with the past. Right. Which Lighthill's not concerned with, particularly if he's giving more weight to PD's interpretation of Avon (*whatever* that may be) than Nation's and Boucher's. IMHO, Mistral -- "And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 13:16:59 +0100 From: "Dangermouse" To: "Julie Horner" , Subject: Re: [B7L] B7 telemovie Message-Id: <199904181218.NAA16959@gnasher.sol.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ---------- > From: Julie Horner > >Sadly neither Paul nor Barry Letts qualify! > > So far I don't recall seeing any mention of who *is* actually writing it, > there was no indication in the chat the other day. Some people seem to be > leaping to the conclusion that it is Darrow and / or Letts and pre-judging > it on that basis. Maybe we should wait until more details are revealed. Never said either of them were writing it. But since Lighthill seems to be mates with Barry, and still hired him after the unanimously negative response to TSC; and since he admits to having discussed the (lack of) "development" of Avon's character, it seems reasonable to assume that one or both of them will at least have a say in the script. And frankly, even if not, Lighthill has proven himself to be unable to spot a good story either. -- "When two hunters go after the same prey they usually end up shooting each other in the back - and we don't want to shoot each other in the back, do we?" http://members.aol.com/vulcancafe ------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 13:18:17 +0100 From: "Dangermouse" To: "Harriet Monkhouse" <101637.2064@compuserve.com>, "INTERNET:blakes7@lysator.liu.se" Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: B7 telemovie Message-Id: <199904181218.NAA16965@gnasher.sol.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ---------- > From: Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@compuserve.com> > I agree entirely with Sally (and mostly with Judith). The 52 are canon; I > enjoy fanfic, I won't actually object to the BBC trying to compete with it, > but, like Vince and Stuart say, "PAUL McGANN DOESN'T COUNT." Actually he does. Why d'you think there's a whole series of BBC books and audios with him? -- "When two hunters go after the same prey they usually end up shooting each other in the back - and we don't want to shoot each other in the back, do we?" http://members.aol.com/vulcancafe ------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 13:19:39 +0100 From: "Dangermouse" To: "Judith Proctor" , "Lysator List" Subject: Re: [B7L] Telemovie Message-Id: <199904181218.NAA16969@gnasher.sol.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ---------- > From: Judith Proctor > Show me a good scriptwriter and I'll give you a positive reaction to raise the > roof. I wonder how one goes about getting that job... I've done Who and Trek, and fancy I have more B7 understanding than Barry or Brian... -- "When two hunters go after the same prey they usually end up shooting each other in the back - and we don't want to shoot each other in the back, do we?" http://members.aol.com/vulcancafe ------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 11:45:13 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Servalan not killing Avon (fwd) Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Mistral asked me to forward her part of this to the list as she sent it to me by accident. On Sun 18 Apr, mistral@ptinet.net wrote: > > > Judith Proctor wrote: > > > > > Re Man of Iron, Judith Proctor wrote: > > > > > > > > > Besides, Servalan would > > > > > have killed him when she had the chance. > > > > > > > > Are you sure? She had several chances to kill him that > > > > she didn't take. > > > > > > Tell me one and I'll tell you why she didn't. > > I shall take that as you saying you're sure. It *was* a > question, not a challenge. I, OTOH, am *not* sure. While I > agree with you about 'Kairos' and 'Aftermath', I'm not a bit > happy with Servalan's lack of perception in Terminal; it would > have been easy to kill them after getting control of Liberator; > I can think of several ways, even with Liberator crippled, the > most obvious by using a remote switch to blow the charges > immediately, instead of waiting for the rebels to set them off. > She was toying with them, more fun for her but not very > clever, evil-overlord-wise. Ah , she always *tried* to kill him. I didn't say she always used the most effective method. > > Tanja's already mentioned what I think is the best example, > 'Rumors'. I never believed the story about sending them a > corpse, I think she wanted him to live. Whether because she > wanted to continue their games, whether out of gratitude for > being rescued, whether because she thought she could seduce > him to her side with Anna's memory destroyed, whether she > already had the plot in 'Terminal' well under way, or whether > she realized that she understood him better than she under- > stood Tarrant and had a better chance of getting Liberator > with Avon in charge, I don't know; but I don't think that she > particularly wanted to gloat over anybody left on the ship at > this point; so there was no reason for her to have him put on > the bracelet if she really wanted to kill him. She should have > just pulled the trigger. But sending a corpse back to Liberator would show the others that he was dead and thus demoralise them. Judith: > > I think Servalan's feelings were fairly ambivalent at that point. She felt se > > ought to kill him, and was going through the motions, but after he'd gone, she > > gives a little half-smile as if to say that part of her is glad he got away. > > Agreed. I just happen to think that she was ambivalent from > 'Aftermath' all the way to the end. Otherwise, she could have > killed them in 'Gold', by setting a trap for them after the > exchange. 'Gold' was an odd sort of truce between them. An unspoken deal. "I won't try and kill you directly if you don't try and kill me directly, but anything else is fair game." Mind you, as they could teleport back to Scorpio which could outrun her ship, a trap would have been difficult to set up well in any case. the rendezvous point was chosen to make ambush difficult. > She could have easily killed them all in 'Orbit' (kill Avon and Vila, plug the > tachyon funnel back in, destroy Scorpio. The weapons scan only kept out the > weapons Egrorian wanted kept out; there's no reason he couldn't have had some > of his own.) Egroian was playing his own games. She was forced to play along with him to some extent. Whether he would have let her bring along weapons or use any of his is unknown. It's weak, but then I forgive that story an awful lot of very contrived plot because it led upto such an excellent scene in hte shuttle. Actually, I think that may be one reason why the radio plays get so much flack. On screen, the visual action can often carry you past points of weak plotting. ON radio, as you're having to concentrate harder, good characterisation and good plot become even more critical. That's where the Horizon audio tapes have always stood strong, because the characterisation is very good in those. (The Logic of Empire has some weaknesses, but the characterisation helps carry it through as the action does in a TV story.) > > Continual ambivalence is about the only reasonable explanation that I can find > for Servalan's not being successful in so many of her attempts to kill Avon -- > as if she was giving him a chance, in some twisted personal version of fair > play. Frankly, I think *I* could have killed him, and I'm not nearly as clever > as she is. I think anybody on this list could have. It's a lot easier > (logistically speaking) to take advantage of repeated opportunities to kill > someone and get it right once than it is to thwart repeated attempts by > someone who is determined to kill you. Tell you what . Go and buy a copy of 'Nova' form Horizon. It's my gen Avon/Servalan novel. It has ambivalent Servalan by the bucketload. > > Since I want to stay inside canon, instead of saying it's because Paul > Darrow's name was first in the credits, and the scriptwriting is a little > fuzzy in these areas, I think it's more reasonable (for me, anyway) to think > that perhaps she didn't want to kill him all *that* badly. That's what I call in game/out game solutions and I do that all the time. IN game, she has a touch of ambivalence, especially after 'Aftermath' and thus will always convince herself that she is trying to kill him, but will inevitably choose a method that offers a remote chance of escape if the dice roll his way. Out game, Avon needs to survive for the next episode. I think that was one reason Chris Boucher disliked having Serbvalan in too many sories, because the continual escapes got harder and harder to believe withot it making Servalan into a villain too stupid to be credible. (I do find the radio plays are painting her as megalomanic rather than intelligent.) Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Fanzines for Blake's 7 and many other fandoms, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 11:25:22 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: [B7L] Syndeton Experiment Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Sun 18 Apr, Afenech wrote: > The film if it eventuates will be, so it appears, produced by Brian > Lighthill who had an opportunity to show if he had any interest in > what the fans thought of what he was producing and has shown he has > none. That's not entirely fair. It's evident from The Syndeton Experiment that some fan comments after The Sevenfold Crown *have* been taken on board. There are several things that were wrong with the first that were corrected or improved in the second. eg. Vila now gets thoroughly drunk. It wasn't brilliant, but it was probably no worse than say, 'Headhunter'. I think it's at least worth listening to. It isn't quite the painful experinece that The Sevenfold Crown was. Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Fanzines for Blake's 7 and many other fandoms, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 13:12:16 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: [B7L] Avon's promises Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Thanks to all who contributed their thoughts on this subject. You've had a definite impact on the development of the story. One of Mistral's comments was particularly useful. In reply to one particular question, I often write stories with no certain knowledge of how they are going to end. I throw the characters into a difficult situation and try to let the story develop organically. It's useful in some ways, because if I reach a point where a character's action feels wrong, then I simply alter the story and go with the flow. For instance, I'd planned a particular scene between Avon and Blake, and Blake effectively turned around to me and said 'No way, Jose'. Interestingly enough, the story usually develops central themes and key points out of the character decisions themselves. Where this writing technique becomes incredibly difficult is when you need to write a story of exact length. I'm also writing one of those at the moment and finding that I have to approach it in a totally different way and pre-generate the key plot points. I find it much harder, but I intend to persevere. Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Fanzines for Blake's 7 and many other fandoms, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 06:33:55 -0700 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Bullies, was PiC Rant Message-ID: <3719DF40.7F9349C8@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tiger M wrote: > I disagree. Vila seemed to get over any real fear of Tarrant after City at > the Edge of the World. In Moloch, Vila knew Tarrant wouldn't kill him. When > Tarrant pulled a gun on him, he was hurt and disappointed, but not afraid. I have seen people say this before; I totally disagree (what else is new ); Vila is just so totally peeved at Tarrant's treatment of both himself and Doran that he basically doesn't care enough to be afraid; he realizes that it's pointless for Tarrant to kill him, and that Tarrant will realize it too. > The other thing I noticed that many fans seem to miss is that neither Vila > nor Tarrant hold any grudges over either incident. Vila doesn't hold grudges; and even though I think Tarrant is sometimes unreasonable, even he's not unreasonable enough to hold a grudge when he's the one in the wrong. I, for one, think that his behaviour in 'Moloch' is as bad as his behaviour in 'City'. > Vila sure seemed to be wary of Avon in Terminal, I can't imagine what you mean here, unless you're talking about when Avon's pointing a gun at Tarrant on the flight deck; I don't think he showed more than the normal, reasonable amount of caution that I would use if one of my friends suddenly pulled a gun on another one. And if you knew my friends, you'd know that I am not using hyperbole here. > and he actually saved > Tarrant's life in Rescue. He wouldn't have saved someone he genuinely > feared. Yes, I think that he had stopped fearing Tarrant by fourth series. I never said otherwise. > Through the rest of the fourth series I noticed that Tarrant was the > one who actually listened to what Vila had to say and took the time to answer > his questions, no matter how silly. Conversely, Vila seemed to become > increasingly wary of Avon, How interesting that you see it that way ; I remember Vila complaining repeatedly to Avon that Tarrant couldn't be trusted (Traitor and Orbit spring to mind); and I don't see any indications apart from 'Orbit' that Vila ever considered Avon a threat to him personally, although of course he was aware of the rising stress level. > until the Orbit shuttle incident put the final > nail in the coffin. Vila would never trust Avon again after that. He knew > Avon would kill any of them if it served his purpose. I've seen this said before too, and again, I have to disagree :) I think they all knew that Avon would sacrifice them to survive, if necessary; Vila just happens to be the one who had to look it in the eye. But Vila, as I said before, doesn't hold grudges; and I think he understood Avon, and accepted him for who he was many years before. I don't see an enormous difference in Vila's attitude toward Avon in the two episodes after 'Orbit'; in fact, they're back doing that sibling bickering again at the beginning of 'Blake'. > I think it's another case of Avon being patted on the head for behavior that > Blake or Tarrant would be crucified for. **Absolutely not**. I thought I'd made it quite clear what I consider bullying and what I don't. I don't consider simple verbal savagery bullying. I consider threats bullying. Avon limits himself to the former; Tarrant indulges in the latter. The events in 'Orbit' had nothing to do with threats and coercion. And I'd cut Blake quite a bit of slack in this area, since at least he believes that his crusade overrides almost every other consideration; Tarrant doesn't even have that excuse. Apart from which, when Blake is on a rampage, he snarls at everybody, including the women; Tarrant only bullies Vila. Perhaps I'm viewing it as a matter of consistency; for example, I am not afraid of people, either on the list or IRL, who are consistently nasty; whereas if someone who is usually friendly is a little less effusive one day, I start to wonder if I've done something offensive, even though it might be simply they have a toothache or something. Avon's always nasty on the outside; so it doesn't bother me as long as he's consistent; Blake and Tarrant have different standards, so when they do something that seems out of line, it's irritating, even if it's something that wouldn't draw my notice if Avon did it. (Meaning no offense to the Tarrant Nostra, all the characters have their flaws, I just don't see bullying as one of Avon's, but by *my* definition Tarrant does it. I have no desire to find a giraffe's head in my bed tonight. ) IMHO, Mistral -- "There's always an argument."--Avon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 14:47:59 +0100 From: "Alison Page" To: "Lysator List" Subject: Re: [B7L] Telemovie Message-ID: <001001be89a2$3dd614a0$ca8edec2@pre-installedco> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dangermouse, you shouldn't be waiting on permission, and getting frustrated. You should work as fast as you can now to get a script down - or at least a complete treatment - and you should submit it to absolutely everyone who might be involved, plus you should send it to your agent with a covering note explaining what you have heard, because he/she might not know about developments. The only thing you have got to lose is the time you will spend on the treatment. OK the chances are they won't just adopt your script and say 'Oh, yes, we'll do this one instead' but they will be aware of you then, they might involve you in rewrites etc - you know how that works - and they might bear you in mind if the film is a success and they want to do more. Otherwise they aren't going to know you from the other people who have worked on Trek and Who. I also would extend this advice to anyone on the list who has got a clue about writing scripts. Do it now. I'm only saying all this because I know what it's like, fuming and not doing anything. Perhaps everyone who writes is a bit sulky about going and getting work. I have a really bad fault of expecting people to come to me - which is fine when they do - but the people around me are always telling me to be more proactive. So, I expect none of this is a new thought, but sometimes it needs an outsider to say - get on with it. Alison ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 10:40:34 EDT From: Mac4781@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Bullies, was PiC Rant Message-ID: <465b28eb.244b48e2@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't have a lot of free time at the moment, and I've pretty much said what I have to say on the "Tarrant is a bully" subject in the past. So I'll try to stick to things that I've not repeated on numerous prior occasions. Mistral wrote: > How interesting that you see it that way ; I remember Vila > complaining repeatedly to Avon that Tarrant couldn't be trusted > (Traitor and Orbit spring to mind); I think it's important to put these incidents into context. In both cases Vila was complaining about Tarrant because he was afraid. Not afraid of Tarrant but afraid of the situation. In TRAITOR Vila wanted to scoot away from Helotrix as quickly as possible. In Orbit Vila was trying to persuade Avon to send him back to Scorpio (where Vila would be safer). I think it is more a case of why Vila was complaining than what he was complaining about. He was reaching for the closest excuse to enhance his own personal safety. It really hadn't anything to do with Tarrant. > I don't see an enormous difference in Vila's > attitude toward Avon in the two episodes after 'Orbit'; in fact, > they're back doing that sibling bickering again at the beginning > of 'Blake'. I saw a definite change in Vila's tone in the beginning of BLAKE. There was an edge of challenge and a harshness when he talked to Avon. I think what is most telling in BLAKE is Vila's questioning Avon about "Where's Tarrant?" To me that seems clearly a case where Vila is remembering ORBIT, thinks Avon has deemed another shipmate to be expendable, and is peeved about it. For Vila to challenge Avon in that manner seems to suggest that his attitude has undergone a significant change. He's sending Avon a message that Vila doesn't intend to let down his guard around him again. > **Absolutely not**. I thought I'd made it quite clear what I > consider bullying and what I don't. I don't consider simple > verbal savagery bullying. I consider threats bullying. Avon > limits himself to the former; Tarrant indulges in the latter. Given your threat of "bully," wouldn't Avon's behavior in "Terminal" qualify him as a bully, both when he stuck the gun in Tarrant's belly and when he threatened to kill anyone who followed him? Mind you, by my definition of bully (the person making the threats has to be willing to carry out the threats) neither Tarrant nor Avon is a bully. But it seems, to me, that if Tarrant's threats make him a bully, then Avon's threats make him one. > And I'd cut Blake quite a bit of slack in this area, > since at least he believes that his crusade overrides almost > every other consideration; Tarrant doesn't even have that > excuse. Tarrant wasn't threatening Vila for the fun of it. In CITY Tarrant's goal was to get needed crystals for the weaponry systems. In MOLOCH Tarrant's goal was to complete the mission, as in to find out what Servalan was up to on Sardos. Both goals were meant to benefit the crew. And Tarrant believes the overall good of the crew is important. If Blake's crusade is an excuse for his behavior, why isn't Tarrant's goal equally valid? > Apart from which, when Blake is on a rampage, > he snarls at everybody, including the women; Tarrant > only bullies Vila. Actually, the first person Tarrant threatens is Avon in DAWN. I'd say he's an equal opportunity snarler when the situation calls for it. None of the Alpha males would win any congeniality contests. Carol Mc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:46:48 +1000 From: Sarah Berry To: Lysator List Subject: [B7L] Re:Telemovie Message-ID: <3719F058.27CFDAED@connexus.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Julie Horner: > For years people have moaned that the shows are never repeated >on mainstream TV. If someone is finally trying to give us some >new stuff and the fans turn round and say "Ugh! What a terrible >idea"... Love to see a telelmovie. A good telmovie. Maybe the concern comes with some justification (based on the sketchy info): the writer could be bad. The 'professional' books and tapes have not met the standard of many fan productions. And I'm not even going to get into the canon (all/some professional?)/non-canon (all fan?) concept bec it really doesn't matter to me - you use what you like. Sarah Berry. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:54:20 +1000 From: Sarah Berry To: Lysator List Subject: Re: PiC Rant (was Re: [B7L] Sleazy Vila) Message-ID: <3719F21C.109FEAA0@connexus.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alison: > The men feminists don't like are the weak (*) ones who can't >compete with other men so turn on women and children instead. >I wouldn't put Avon in this category. Yer reckon? Probably some people/feminists would think that way, unlikely to be so absolute. I don't think I agree. I can say there's a wide wide difference between what I can find attractive in a man/Avon from a distance and in terms of living day to day with him/Avon. Would Avon take out the rubbish every Wednesday evening, without fail, without reminding/nagging and without requiring ricdiculuous quantities of praise? Yeah, yeah, I know he'd just incinerate it with a single shot from a clip gun without budging from his armchair - but you know what I mean. Sarah Berry. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 10:40:08 +0100 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: B7 telemovie Message-ID: In message <19990418012612.79439.qmail@hotmail.com>, Sally Manton writes >Ahh. Harriet. As far as I am concerned Avon *shot* Blake. No one >checked for a pulse. No one checked if he was breathing. (They did >have their minds on other things, like getting shot themselves.) >No one saw what happened next.) No one checked Gareth Thomas's contract:-) -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 09:16:55 -0700 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Bullies, was PiC Rant Message-ID: <371A0574.8FF37B2C@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Carol wrote: > I don't have a lot of free time at the moment, and I've pretty much said what > I have to say on the "Tarrant is a bully" subject in the past. So I'll try > to stick to things that I've not repeated on numerous prior occasions. Yes. I wish to be clear that I was not trying to trash Tarrant; this started out as whether or not Avon is a bully, and I was trying to explain how *I* define bullying. On to stuff we haven't discussed: > > **Absolutely not**. I thought I'd made it quite clear what I > > consider bullying and what I don't. I don't consider simple > > verbal savagery bullying. I consider threats bullying. Avon > > limits himself to the former; Tarrant indulges in the latter. > > Given your threat of "bully," wouldn't Avon's behavior in "Terminal" qualify > him as a bully, both when he stuck the gun in Tarrant's belly and when he > threatened to kill anyone who followed him? In the latter case, no, since it was in fact to protect them. The justifiable bullying defense, a relative of justifiable homicide ;) In the first case, possibly; it depends on how you view a couple of things; if it was to set up the later threat, then it too was for their protection; otherwise, by my definition as coercion by threat, what do you suppose Avon was trying to coerce Tarrant to do? (I mentioned the coercion part in my post, but a little later than the part you quoted.) Avon had a lock-out on Zen, so Tarrant couldn't have changed the course; but he had just, if I recall correctly, made what could easily be construed as a threatening move towards Avon, and Tarrant's bigger, younger, faster than Avon is; I *could* look at this as self-defense. Actually, I just construe it as Avon being short-tempered from lack of sleep, and ending the argument in the quickest easiest way; although, like Cally and Tarrant, I believe him quite capable of actually pulling the trigger. > Mind you, by my definition of bully (the person making the threats has to be > willing to carry out the threats) neither Tarrant nor Avon is a bully. But > it seems, to me, that if Tarrant's threats make him a bully, then Avon's > threats make him one. So it's definitions again, because I think if you convince the person threatened that you're going to do it, you don't have to be willing to go through with it. If a man tells his wife that he's going to kill her if she leaves him, and says it in such a way that she believes it, then in my book he's a bully, whether he'd actually do it or not (to put what I'm saying in another context). And Tarrant uses coercion by threat on Vila, whereas I don't necessarily see the coercion half with Avon. > And Tarrant believes > the overall good of the crew is important. If Blake's crusade is an excuse > for his behavior, why isn't Tarrant's goal equally valid? Perhaps it's because Vila chose to stay with Blake, realizing that Blake was, effectively, calling the shots, even though it was ostensibly a democracy. Vila never agreed, AFAIK, either directly or tacitly, to take orders from Tarrant. And personally, I don't think Tarrant had any business deciding what was for the good of the crew. As far as I'm concerned, Tarrant was there on sufferance from Avon; Avon's deal with Blake made Liberator Avon's ship. > > Apart from which, when Blake is on a rampage, > > he snarls at everybody, including the women; Tarrant > > only bullies Vila. > > Actually, the first person Tarrant threatens is Avon in DAWN. If you're referring to his "Some day, Avon, I may have to kill you", yes, he threatens Avon, but no coercion is involved, so that's not, by my definition, bullying; it's just a threat. So I'll stand by my statement that he only bullies Vila. I've just had a thought: perhaps it would be an even better explanation of my attitude to say that bullying is to coerce a *weaker* person by threat; which might explain why I'm not so bothered by the gun in 'Terminal', as I don't see Tarrant as a significantly weaker person than Avon. Grins, Mistral -- "You can push people too far."--Kerril ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 17:15:48 +0100 From: "Alison Page" To: "Lysator List" Subject: Re: PiC Rant (was Re: [B7L] Sleazy Vila) Message-ID: <002a01be89b6$de119520$ca8edec2@pre-installedco> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm working today to make up for taking a holiday, and that's why I'm posting so much. I hope people don't mind me pursuing this This is me and Sarah Berry: >> The men feminists don't like are the weak (*) ones who can't >>compete with other men so turn on women and children instead. > >Yer reckon? Probably some people/feminists would think that way, unlikely to be >so absolute. I don't think I agree. you must mean that this requirement isn't enough. I guess in a personal respect, no, it isn't enough. I mean I wouldn't choose a man as a partner just because he wasn't a bully. But we were discussing 'what feminists want', not 'what Alison wants' :-) What I'm describing is a minimum standard that I take for acceptable male behaviour. Not that I am brave enough to always confront unacceptable behaviour. I'm saying 'if I could wave a magic feminist wand' (ha ha) and change the world, I'd change the bullies so that they didn't bully any more. > >Would Avon take out the rubbish every Wednesday evening, without fail, without >reminding/nagging and without requiring ridiculous quantities of praise? This is a great question. I think Avon is exactly the sort of man who would take out the rubbish (take equal turns with the cleaning and cooking etc.) because he is fastidious, competent, and used to looking after himself. But what do other people think? Alison ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 09:40:25 -0700 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: [B7L] Avon & Rubbish (was Re: PiC Rant) Message-ID: <371A0AF8.19758122@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't think this sent properly; apologies if it goes through twice. Alison Page wrote: > This is a great question. I think Avon is exactly the sort of man > who would take out the rubbish (take equal turns with the cleaning and > cooking etc.) because he is fastidious, competent, and used to looking after > himself. > > But what do other people think? Avon would invent an automatic rubbish disposal system, so that neither he nor his significant other would have to be bothered by anything so mundane. Mistral -- "And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 15:43:49 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] web chat Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Sun 18 Apr, mistral@ptinet.net wrote: > > It's a moot point as to whether Paul's term 'really really hard' includes > > sadism/joy of killing people or not, but it doesn't necessarily do so. > > Sorry if I'm the one you think's been misleading, Judith. What I said is > 'it looks as if...'; and what followed on was my impression based on a > combination of A) reading the backchat, which certainly doesn't match > the things that Harriet says she brought up, so it certainly appears > edited; I noticed that. Mind you, they may just have included questions that were actually answered. (But then I don't know if Harriet's other comments were replied to or not) > in fact there's one thing that I'm fairly sure I saw there the first time I > looked that isn't there now, so unless my memory's playing tricks (which of > course it might be) it's been edited more than once; B) things that you and > others have said occur in TSC and TSE, for example, the idea that Avon enjoys > inflicting pain, which obviously got through any checks on those occasions; > and C) quite a bit of stuff that I have read here and elsewhere about PD's > impression of Avon differing from the fans', I recall someone citing Paul's reaction to watching 'Rumours of Death' at a convention and saying something to the effect of 'what a wimp' about Avon. I think his favourite episode is 'Power' . (No, I'm not joking) >and about the content of Avon: A Terrible Aspect (which is still sitting on my >coffee table unread, as I'm not certain I shall enjoy it.) Well, I enjoyed the first chapter, but wasn't much taken by the rest. I think my favourite line (IIRC Avon's dad was on a moon of Saturan at the time, in the open air, and looking up at the moons of the moon) was to the effect of 'you look lovely by the light of one moon, you'll look even lovelier by the light of seven'. I'm not sure whether it was the breathable atmosphere or the idea that you could get decent illumination from a small orbiting rock at that distance from the sun that I found more entertaining. However, if you don't read it with great expectations, then you may find occasional moments of entertainment. Just don't think of it as being a B7 novel, and then the continuity problems won't worry you. Besides I stopped feeling guilty about writing sex in fanfic after reading AATA. > I didn't mean to imply that I was quoting directly; but I didn't think, and > still don't, that I was making any enormous leaps, logically speaking. And, > knowing how PR doublespeak works, it's not a big stretch to say that > Lighthill's comment: > > > > Harriet, I think it's quite possible that Avon does enjoy > > > killing people. > > > is quite easily interpreted as Lighthill trying to say that he *does* > think Avon enjoys killing people, without starting an argument when > he's trying to drum up support for the movie. Sheer politics. You could easily be right, but I still don't want to take his word for what Paul says (even when it does fit the likely scenario). > > > PPS. I agree that the B7 shouldn't be fossilised, one of the series's strengths > > was that characters did change and develop over time, but I do feel that the > > future should be a logical development of the past. To do that, you have to be > > familiar with the past. > > Right. Which Lighthill's not concerned with, particularly if he's > giving more weight to PD's interpretation of Avon (*whatever* > that may be) than Nation's and Boucher's. Hear hear. Terry, sadly, isn't around to comment any more, but if you ever want to read some excellent comments by Chris Boucher then read the bit in the back of the Programme Guide. That's the Avon I know and love. Chris Boucher: "I mistrust clear black and whites." "The line between freedom fighter and terrorist is a fairly thin one." "Inside every cynic there's an idealist desperately yearning to be let out." Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Fanzines for Blake's 7 and many other fandoms, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 19:13:41 +0500 From: Jem Dixon To: Lysator List Subject: [B7L] Telemovie Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain Since there's been some discussion of the relationship between Avon, Vila and Tarrant, I thought I'd better mention what Brian Lighthill thinks on the subject. "It was not just the science fiction element that appealed to me about Blake's 7 ... but the verbal interplay of these specific characters which I found so much fun;..... the mistrust Vila has of Avon; and of course poor Tarrant - much put upon by all!.. (Edited from the cover blurb of TSE CD) Is it just me - but is he getting Tarrant and Vila confused? BL then goes on to say, "I hope you like it as much as the first one. And who knows...?" It seems it would have been difficult for us to like it less than the TSC. I agree that it will be the writing that makes or breaks the telemovie. The only other thing I'd like to add is that if it is PGP, then they should stick to what Chris Boucher said at the end of the fourth series - see who signs up before writing who survives. If, for example, Glynis Barber and Josette Simon can't or won't sign up, then let Soolin and Dayna RIP. No offence to Paula Wilcox and Angela Bruce, but I think it would be better that way. The alternative being a complete re-casting, with cameos by old cast members. Anyway that's just MHO. Jem -- Being paranoid is one thing that gets easier when everything's against you. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 14:52:27 EDT From: AChevron@aol.com To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: BACs (was Re: [B7L] Worst Openings) Message-ID: <9af51677.244b83eb@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-04-08 12:02:04 EDT, you write: << Piss christ is an example of conceptual art - in other words it represents an idea rather than primarily expressing an emotion. I personally don't much like conceptual art, I think it's too cold and clever-clever. But anyway it seems to me that the concept expressed by 'piss christ' is quite a good one. The idea it expresses is that everything in the universe is holy, not just the airy fairy bits, and that you can't artificially split off aspects of the human body and label them as 'dirty' or 'evil'. >> this is a topic begging to go to the spin list, but I'll make a couple of statements on this list. Like Alison, I am no Christian. Unlike her, however, I fail to see the "holyness" of expression in "Piss Christ." I believe that it is unambigious about its statement, however some people like to read clever meaning into things. The use of body waste poured onto a person is almost universally an insult, and by placing an object of reverence in such a medium, the artist is making his distain of Christianity quite clear. I can't see anything in this piece of "art" to make Alison's point. but then again, as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the above is just my not-so-humble opinion. But it's a sad artist who has to resort to such shock tactics if he is indeed making some deep statement, rather than something more...subtle. Ah well....... D. Rose ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 18:44:40 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: B7 telemovie Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Sun 18 Apr, Julia Jones wrote: > In message <19990418012612.79439.qmail@hotmail.com>, Sally Manton > writes > >Ahh. Harriet. As far as I am concerned Avon *shot* Blake. No one > >checked for a pulse. No one checked if he was breathing. (They did > >have their minds on other things, like getting shot themselves.) > >No one saw what happened next.) > > No one checked Gareth Thomas's contract:-) Gareth's contract doesn't exist with the B7 universe . Someone once said that a good trauma team could easily have saved Blake. Far be it from me to argue. I've resurrected him often enough. And when I don't use Blake himself, there's always the clone who is quite a good character in his own right. Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Fanzines for Blake's 7 and many other fandoms, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 15:05:23 -0600 From: Penny Dreadful To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: BACs (was Re: [B7L] Worst Openings) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990418150523.007a9a90@mail.geocities.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:52 PM 4/18/99 EDT, AChevron@aol.com wrote: >But it's a sad artist who has to >resort to such shock tactics if he is indeed making some deep statement, >rather than something more...subtle. Beauty's in the eye of the beholder, n'est-ce pas? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 15:14:05 -0600 From: Penny Dreadful To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: BACs (was Re: [B7L] Worst Openings) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990418151405.007a3440@mail.geocities.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:05 PM 4/18/99 -0600, Penny Dreadful wrote: >Beauty's in the eye of the beholder, n'est-ce pas? Trying to be terse because so OT, it comes out a total non sequitur I see. I meant...oh, heck, okay, Spin it shall be. Where I can use as many words as I want to fail to make a point. Hah. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 23:34:12 +0200 From: Jacqueline Thijsen To: B7 List Subject: RE: [B7L] Bullies, was PiC Rant Message-ID: <39DCDDFD014ED21185C300104BB3F99F10FBA1@NL-ARN-MAIL01> Content-Type: text/plain I saw an episode of The Pretender today, in which Miss Parker tells someone: "Broots may be an idiot, but he's my idiot. Nobody gets to threaten him but me." Do other Pretender fans on this list also think that Miss Parker is very much like Avon, and Broots like Vila? Jacqueline ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 14:42:27 -0700 From: "Ann Basart" To: "Blake's7" Subject: [B7L] Coleridge on Avon? Message-Id: <199904182143.OAA28366@oberon.dnai.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Some time ago I asked the list: . . . Which brings us back to the question, “is Avon mad (or a bit mad) in season 4?” On rewatching the whole of B7, I think he was — or gave a convincing imitation. (Actor’s decision? Directors’? Built into the script? Only in my mind?) This should be easier to answer than the same question asked of Hamlet. But now I'm not so sure. I came across the following quote today -- Coleridge's observation on Hamlet's feigned madness; it seems to apply equally well to Avon: "O that subtle trick to pretend the acting only when we are very near being what we act." Ann abasart@dnai.com -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #136 **************************************