From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #94 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/94 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 94 Today's Topics: Re: [B7L] On Matters PD Re: [B7L] Why Avon changed Re: [B7L] Redemption Re: Evil Characters (was Re: [B7L] A site of possible interest) [B7L] Top 10 Re: Evil Characters (was Re: [B7L] A site of possible interest) Re: [B7L] Redemption [B7L] Re: Cyteen Re: [B7L] Re: Why Avon changed [B7L] Are B7 fans Animals? (was Re: [B7L] Why Avon changed) Re: [B7L] Dream writers/directors/guest stars for B7 Re: [B7L] On Matters PD Re: [B7L] Redemption [B7L] Re: Dream writers/Change of career Re: [B7L] top ten requests Re: [B7L] Dream writers/directors/guest stars for B7 Re: [B7L]Fannishness [B7L] top ten requests and PBS Re: [B7L] Are B7 fans Animals? (was Re: [B7L] Why Avon changed) [B7L] Fw: B7 top ten ranking Re: [B7L]Fannishness Re: [B7L] Are B7 fans Animals? (was Re: [B7L] Why Avon changed) Re: [B7L]Fannishness Re: [B7L] Re: Why Avon changed [B7L] Travis tape Re: [B7L] Myers Briggs Re: [B7L] Are B7 fans Animals? (was Re: [B7L] Why Avon changed) RE: [B7L] Are B7 fans Animals? (was Re: [B7L] Why Avon changed) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 20:25:00 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] On Matters PD Message-ID: <36E4948D.5602@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My own short take, on the previous questions. I think there is more of Paul Darrow in Avon, or Avon in Paul Darrow, than he neccessarily wants anyone to believe. I have wondered sometimes if his totally off-base comments about Avon during interviews aren't his way of blustering for Avon. Just as Avon talks about killing his freiends and doesn't (deliberately) do it; Paul makes him out to be Dirty Harry, John Wayne/ tough guy of the month. The vulnerability shows though, when he actually gets into the character and reacts as the character. Then again, I don't see Avon as a bashful nerd. Paul and Michael together are SO much like Avon and Vila on a buddy trip. Paul constantly picks on Michael, telling all the most embarrassing stories about him... and Michael _enjoys_ it! Paul also has a way with his own sardonic comments to the audience (who lap it up!) I've never seen any actors more in character when they were out of character. The book is poorly written in terms of artistic prose. But it's a page-turner. I think people are put off, as well, by some of the very graphic violence. But the villian Axel Reiss is an interesting bit of unpleasentness, and the High Council types remind the reader that Servalan is a product of her environment... the deep corruption of the rich. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 02:47:55 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Why Avon changed Message-ID: <004701be69d7$670ddf00$71498cd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vick wrote: I'm sorry, but I find this statement extremely objectionable. I think it's your use of the word 'reduce' - the inferiority implicitly attributed to non-human species epitomises the humanocentric arrogance that has buggered up this planet over the millennia. Like it or not, we _are_ animals. What makes us unique is our ability to be aware that we are animals. By knowing what makes us tick, we can decide whether or not to strike the hour. That said, drawing up models of human social behaviour from other species, even other primates, is a distinctly dodgy business. People have this annoying habit of picking the examples they like. I'm a bit confused over this testosterone issue anyway (now, now, don't snicker). I swear I heard it on Radio 4 that male aggression is actually linked to testosterone _deficiency_, and it's the men with tons of the stuff sloshing through their veins who are best equipped to keep their aggressive impulses under control. However, I'm prepared to be corrected on that, preferably by Someone Who Knows. Any biochemists out there? Neil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 02:15:47 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Redemption Message-ID: <004501be69d7$65b68c60$71498cd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Judith, in her con report, mentioned - >The filkers with 'Don't follow him. Have me.' This was brilliant - both funny and clever. I think the lyrics ought to be posted up somewhere for all to see. Here, perhaps? Neil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:41:07 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: Evil Characters (was Re: [B7L] A site of possible interest) Message-ID: <004301be69d7$622db3c0$71498cd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kathryn wrote: >The thing that gets me about the portrayal of "baddies" on TV, in >books (particularly standard generic fantasy) is that they're usually >portrayed as evil-because-they're-evil. Because. Full stop. What >nonsense! Yes and no. In High Fantasy, done properly, the story becomes an allegory of the dual nature of the human spirit etc. Tolkien's Morgoth/Sauron and Stephen Donaldson's Lord Foul make satisfying incarnations of the dark side of the soul, I think. In somewhat lower grades of High Fantasy (David Eddings, perhaps, and the awful Dragonlance sagas) this lofty concept has been simplified into a straightforward Good Guys vs Bad Guys slugfest - all moralising with no moral insight. I think it was Ursula LeGuin who suggested that Frodo/Bilbo/Gollum should be considered as a single macro-character, with the Frodo/Gollum strand of LotR bringing the global scope of the War of the Ring down to human proportions (or something). Similarly Lord Foul is the flipside of Thomas Covenant (himself no saint). In such stories, the villain is an external manifestation of the internal evil lurking within the protagonists. In lower grade fantasy, Evil is more or less completely externalised, something to be obliterated rather than brought under control. Either way, this is all very clear cut compared to the real world where everything is far more ambiguous. Exactly who are the bad guys in the disputes over the Gulf, Palestine, Ulster or lots of bananas? Science fiction, with its pretensions to realism, has a harder time getting away with the straightforward dualism of High Fantasy (Star Wars manages it by being high-tech fantasy rather than 'proper' SF). The moral realism implied in B7 raises the question: Is the Federation intrinsically 'evil'? That is, do they do the nasty things they do because they're nasty people, or are they nasty people because of the nasty things they do? Some fans - and some of the scriptwriters - treat the Federation as standard Evil Guys (this would seem to have been Terry Nation's intent. He was after all the man who described his own Genesis of the Daleks as 'a new style of morality play'.). Others - Chris Boucher especially - introduced levels of ambiguity which seem to confuse a few fans, though most appear to consider it one of the strengths of the series. I think when Blake comes in for a lot of flak, the people who try to do him down are sometimes scapegoating for the way B7 dilutes the moral simplicity that tends to be prevalent in fantasy fiction. I suppose it all comes down to whether you see B7 primarily as fantasy or SF. >Take Hitler, the oft-paraded example of Ultimate Evil in our society. The way Hitler has been demonised by the western world has turned him into a hero in some corners of the world. They love him because we hate him. Idi Amin idolised Hitler and was planning to erect a statue of him. (Alongside a statue of his other idol, Queen Victoria..) Quite apart from all that, the Evil Overlord site is brilliantly funny. Murray told me about it at Redemption and I checked it out soon after I got home. It went a long way towards lifting post-con blues. A shame they aren't taking more suggestions at the moment, as they seem to have missed out an important one: 'My Legions of Terror will be forbidden to carry pictures of their girlfriends, wives, daughters or any other attractive female friend or relative whilst stationed on boring guard duty.' Neil ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 19:19:58 PST From: "Todd Girdler" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Top 10 Message-ID: <19990309031959.19404.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain Fools. B7 isnt at number one for a very good reason. It cannot compete with Doctor Who, which resides at number 2, nor can it compete with Yes Minister at number one :) ><"> Todd Girdler ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 21:43:19 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: lysator Subject: Re: Evil Characters (was Re: [B7L] A site of possible interest) Message-ID: <36E4A6E7.5C63@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil Faulkner wrote: > o > described his own Genesis of the Daleks as 'a new style of morality play'.). > Others - Chris Boucher especially - introduced levels of ambiguity which > seem to confuse a few fans, though most appear to consider it one of the > strengths of the series. I think when Blake comes in for a lot of flak, the > people who try to do him down are sometimes scapegoating for the way B7 > dilutes the moral simplicity that tends to be prevalent in fantasy fiction. Agreed. The clash between Avon and Blake headed for Star One is one of my favorite moments of the series. Avon is concerned with the practical realities. If you eliminate the computer, innocent people will die (and we see proof of this at the beginning of the episode). If you tear down an empire, how do you restore order. Throughout history, democracy needs a foundation before being established-- people unused to self-rule are not very good at keeping it. Anarchy leads to dictatorships The Federation is not Sauron; killing it doesn't make the bad stuff go away. Blake was no fool and must have known this. I hope he had a plan for afters... but if he did, he was keeping it a secret from everyone. This is the sort of thing that has us Other Rebels worried... > > I suppose it all comes down to whether you see B7 primarily as fantasy or > SF. SF. And I want the Federation to be treated as an economic/political/cultural entity. Not an Evil Overlord. --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 00:18:02 EST From: Pherber@aol.com To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Redemption Message-ID: <4a85222a.36e4af0a@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/8/99 12:12:41 PM Mountain Standard Time, calle@lysator.liu.se writes: > If you ask me, it's more of the sort of marriage that should be buried > in an unmarked grave with a stake through its heart. Just give a week or two. Maybe they'll both get each other. Nina ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 99 06:21:00 GMT From: s.thompson8@genie.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: Cyteen Message-Id: <199903090635.GAA00358@rock103.genie.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jonathan Coupe mentioned C. J. Cherryh's =Cyteen= as a somewhat B7-ish book. I think a number of her books have a slightly B7-ish flavor, and I really wonder whether she's a closet B7 fan, or whether it's just a case of great minds in the same tracks. I just finished one of her more recent books, =Finity's End=, and it occurred to me that her Merchanter society might be an interesting model for the Free Traders that Jenna comes from or at least is associated with (given that we don't know whether she was born a citizen of Earth, or became one). Most of the action in this book takes place on a single large spaceship, where room locations are indicated by a combination of letter (for the deck) and number. I couldn't help but notice that when the young hero is called to the office of the Captain, on p. 274, the location he is told to report to is B7! Coincidence? Maybe, but I wonder. Sarah T. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 19:13:11 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Why Avon changed Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Mon 08 Mar, VJC wrote: >To paraphrase the DWAS Tardis 35 years in telefantasy, Avon unlike other SF >heroes didn't have numerous love interests ('cept possibly Orac! Oh, and >Servalan) this is why I personally find it ridiculous that so many fan writers >characterise him as being into S+M. I see no reason why number of lovers should necessarily correlate with an interest in S+M. It's perfectly possible in a monogamous relationship. > Other than the kissing in spite, the only reference to this would come in the > much later (and fanfic influenced) T7FC by Barry Letts, and the less said > about that the better. Codswallop! If Barry Letts hadn't even watched more than a handful of episodes, then I find it impossible to believe that he'd read fanfic as well. More likely is the simple fact that the two episodes Brian Lighthill directed were Gold and Orbit. Gold had very intense Avon-Servalan interaction and Orbit has that rather nasty reltionship between Egrorian and Pindar. He simply took what he was familiar with and got Barry to write more of it. I'll agree with you that T7FC was rubbish. 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: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 00:38:29 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 list Subject: [B7L] Are B7 fans Animals? (was Re: [B7L] Why Avon changed) Message-ID: <36E4DE04.5684361C@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vick wrote: > have to reduce humans to the level of animals.> Neil wrote: > I'm sorry, but I find this statement extremely objectionable. I think it's > your use of the word 'reduce' - the inferiority implicitly attributed to > non-human species epitomises the humanocentric arrogance that has buggered > up this planet over the millennia. Like it or not, we _are_ animals. What > makes us unique is our ability to be aware that we are animals. By knowing > what makes us tick, we can decide whether or not to strike the hour. Oh, dear. I tried and tried to give this one a pass, I really did..... First off, let me say that I don't mean anything here to be offensive, but I'm not the most articulate person on this list and this particular discussion doesn't seem to lend itself to smileys. I apologize in advance. Neil, am I supposed to infer from this that you wouldn't feel 'reduced' if your ability to write fiction were suddenly taken away? But I seem to recall a discussion marked 'fannishness' two or three weeks ago in which you made a very impassioned case for using 'canon' as a springboard for 'explorative fiction'? Show me the (non-human) animal that can write any kind of fiction, let alone 'explorative', let alone mount an impassioned defense of same? Take away my ability to write fiction and you diminish me. Take away my ability to have this discussion and you diminish me. Take away my ability to use the internet to have this discussion and you diminish me. Take away my calculus, my love of Shakespeare, my admittedly limited fashion sense, my ability to cook a burger, reduce my IQ by 20 or 30 points, take my ability to appreciate Blakes 7 -- you've diminished me. You've also made me less human, and more animal. Think of all the things you would lose if you were some other kind of primate, and then tell me honestly that you *don't* prefer being a man. If you can honestly say that, then maybe it's time you gave up writing, as it's so uniquely human. I'm sorry, Neil, but I think you've just disproved your own point and proved Vick's. It's our self-awareness, our ability for higher abstract reasoning, our creativity and our love of beauty that separates us from the (non-human) animals. And it's completely illogical and disingenuous to suggest that it's somehow either foolish or immoral not to prefer being what you in fact are; else why be it? Else where would be the drive to improve yourself to be the best self you can be, if being certain things is not preferable to being other things? I would hope that all of us could someday like who we are the best out of all the galaxy. When someone does not like being himself, psychologists use words like 'dysfunctional'. And I think Vick was quite clear that she was expressing her own opinion. She did call it 'another angle to think about'. Why should her expressing her opinion, IMHO clearly labeled as such, be more offensive than your comment about 'humanocentric arrogance', not clearly labeled as opinion, but which is also obviously such? In *my* opinion, what you said is far more offensive and inflammatory than anything she said. If *you* want to consider yourself an animal, feel free by all means -- but please don't insist that Vick or I or anybody else join you. Clearly we all have different philosophies here. Maybe we should check them at the keyboard, unless they relate *directly* to B7? Now if you really want to discuss 'Animals' -- it seems to me that Dayna was far more concerned about the use of humans for parts than the use of any 'other' animals -- what do you think? Mistral -- "It's not often one comes across a philosophical flea." -- Avon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 01:02:16 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 list Subject: Re: [B7L] Dream writers/directors/guest stars for B7 Message-ID: <36E4E397.ADD80E72@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stephen Date wrote: > - oh and I > have this insane idea of Morgan Freeman as Blake and Diana Rigg as > Servalan. Actually, when I read the suggestion of Diana Rigg, I got this flash of her as sort of an 'elder stateswoman' of the Federation -- powerful and deadly but not evil -- frustrating Servalan's attempts to work herself back up the power structure and outplaying Servalan at her own game. Eventually Dame Rigg's character dies of natural causes, leaving Servalan disconcerted by the knowledge that it is indeed possible for her to be thwarted, making her slightly less sure of herself and a little more desperate -- and therefore more dangerous. it would be glorious! Mistral -- "And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 01:52:35 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 list Subject: Re: [B7L] On Matters PD Message-ID: <36E4EF62.63E8667C@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Judith Proctor wrote: > Paul himself always comes across to me as polite and courteous. Which is pretty > good of him since he knows I'm a dyed in the wool Gareth fan and a slash writer > to boot. (He doesn't like slash fiction) > > I don't drool over Paul, but I always think of him as a gentleman. I'm glad to hear that he is a gentleman and treats you well, Judith. With all your work for 'the cause', as it were, he should. But I confess that although I'm not surprised that he doesn't care for slash, I'm intrigued by the fact that he's obviously made this known at some point. Has anybody heard him say why? Is it a moral objection, or does he take it personally in some way since Avon seems to so frequently be one of the involved parties, or what? Inquiring minds want to know! (Well, this inquiring mind, anyway.) I'm not wanting to open up the whole slash discussion, you understand, just wanting to understand what PD's view is. Waiting with a worm on my tongue (baited breath---urrkk!) Mistral -- "And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 11:28:45 -0000 From: "Dangermouse" To: "Judith Proctor" , "Lysator List" Subject: Re: [B7L] Redemption Message-Id: <199903091133.LAA16508@gnasher.sol.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Does anyone have a good photo of Servalan and Londo Mollari together? > > I feel this marriage needs recording for posterity and I'd love a picture that I > could scan for the web page. Londo has some, and AIUI plans to mail you one or two anyway. -- "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: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 08:00:36 -0500 From: Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:blakes7@lysator.liu.se" Subject: [B7L] Re: Dream writers/Change of career Message-ID: <199903090801_MC2-6D47-D5EB@compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mistral suggested, for Number Two: >Oh please, not Jackie. She's a marvelous actress, but I just >can't imagine her and Paul on screen together without some - >how shall I say- erotic? undertones, which *really* don't >belong in The Prisoner. Gareth would be nice. Or Stephen >Greif. Maybe Patrick Stewart? Oh, let's go for broke -- Derek Jacobi! There was a shortish pastiche of The Prisoner on TV a few years ago (with Jools Holland being transported to the village) in which Stephen Fry played No. 2, and was really so good that I'd like him to be given a chance to do it properly. Harriet ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 05:42:25 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 list Subject: Re: [B7L] top ten requests Message-ID: <36E52540.C718066A@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joanne MacQueen wrote: > >From: mistral@ptinet.net > I don't suppose the > BBC >would let the British fans raise part of the cost? A big > undertaking, I >know, > > I'm surprised I haven't heard a cry of horror from the Britons on the > list at this suggestion. The British taxpayer, like the Australian > taxpayer where the ABC/SBS* is concerned, funds the BBC. While I'm sure > that noble broadcaster would be happy for extra funding, no one would > care much for the means. Who wants to pay twice for something they > should only have to pay for once? Actually, until recently, PBS was heavily subsidized by our government; this is being quickly phased out, and I for one am glad of it. I would rather pay a larger price for something that I really want than have everybody's money collected to pay for things that only the majority want -- probably due to the fact that I am generally found to be aligned with a minority viewpoint. Like Jenna, I am a 'Free Trader'. But even when PBS was heavily subsidized, it still also depended in large part on corporate sponsors and the contributions of individual viewers, raised in semi-annual pledge drives; so I suppose in that sense Americans are used to paying for our PBS twice. Thrice, if you consider that many of us live in areas where reception is difficult or impossible without a satellite or cable hookup. I view that more as paying for it in two or three installments, as opposed to paying for it twice. Making voluntary contributions to our local PBS station is how we 'vote' for the programs we want to have carried -- and this apparently makes PBS much more responsive to us than the BBC and ABC are to their viewers. In fact, it's the only reason that people like me =ever= get to view Dr. Who, Blakes 7, Star Cops, Red Dwarf, or any other British shows. None of our commercial networks would show them, because there isn't enough demand to draw in advertisers to pay for them. If only 1-2% of my local station's British sci-fi viewers send in a check, for about $50 each, we get a whole year of Dr. Who, and whatever else they buy to go with it (this year Star Cops, Black Adder, Chalk). That much money wouldn't even buy a fan two Dr. Who or Blakes 7 videos over here. I'll gladly pay PBS to show it, *twice* if necessary. And I'll set my VCR :) Mistral -- "And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 23:22:08 +0900 From: Kiersten Boughen To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Dream writers/directors/guest stars for B7 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990309232208.007d57c0@senet.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:19 PM 8/03/99 PST, Joanne MacQueen wrote: >Philip Quast? That's an interesting idea. (No, I mean it.) Again, the >same degree of cold, purposefulness and all of the doubts as well. Avon >has Anna's betrayal, Piers has one of the leeches making him confront >the reasons for his vocation. Yes, it might work well, if you could get >past the sex symbol aspect of the character - Quast isn't as obviously >attractive as Darrow. Some of us would be more interested in that >than others! Or alternatively, get Quast to sing the part. I had a friend in high school who would rush home to see 'Playschool' just to see Philip Quast singing 'Bananas in Pyjamas'. She thought he was incredibly sexy (for his vocal abilities anyway). Kiersten ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 06:35:47 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 list Subject: Re: [B7L]Fannishness Message-ID: <36E531C2.333736F1@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Julie Horner wrote: > Sally said: > > character with an active role in the plot a "Mary-Sue", and therefore > Eeeeevil.> > > >Probably not if Avon then shoots her...and ENJOYS it. > > Or what about if she was a close female relative, e.g. mother, > sister, daughter - would that still count as a Mary-Sue? Okay, now, I'm =very= interested in how people feel about this last bit - being as one of the reasons I was so disturbed by the Mary-Sues in the first place was that I was working on a story in which one of the narrators was Avon's daughter, commenting after the fact; but I wasn't thinking of her as myself, and running across the Mary-Sue made me rather horrified that a reader might be inclined to think that, as of necessity I had written her in first person. Anyway, I've waited a week now for somebody to respond to Julie's post; isn't anybody going to voice an opinion? Mistral -- "The test [of a trap] is not whether you are suspicious, but whether you are caught."--Avon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 09:35:43 EST From: Tigerm1019@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] top ten requests and PBS Message-ID: Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-03-09 08:42:08 EST, Mistral wrote: << Making voluntary contributions to our local PBS station is how we 'vote' for the programs we want to have carried -- and this apparently makes PBS much more responsive to us than the BBC and ABC are to their viewers. In fact, it's the only reason that people like me =ever= get to view Dr. Who, Blakes 7, Star Cops, Red Dwarf, or any other British shows. None of our commercial networks would show them, because there isn't enough demand to draw in advertisers to pay for them.>> This depends on the PBS station and its management to some extent. The stations where I live tends to go more for the comedies and drama rather than SF. It took years of begging to get my local PBS station to show Dr. Who and Blakes 7. When they finally did get the shows, they aired them at very inconvenient times (10 pm on weeknights for Dr. Who, not good for a high school kid who had to get up the next morning and the family didn't have a vcr at the time. B7 was on at 11 pm on Sunday.) When the station cancelled Dr. Who on the grounds that it was too expensive, it ended up losing half its operating budget. Many other shows had to be cancelled as a result. SF fans had been carrying that station for something like ten years at that point. I don't call that being responsive to the viewers. Many Dr. Who fans in my area of the country have not forgiven PBS for that. << If only 1-2% of my local station's British sci-fi viewers send in a check, for about $50 each, we get a whole year of Dr. Who, and whatever else they buy to go with it (this year Star Cops, Black Adder, Chalk). That much money wouldn't even buy a fan two Dr. Who or Blakes 7 videos over here. I'll gladly pay PBS to show it, *twice* if necessary. >> On the other hand, if you buy the videos, you aren't at the mercy of the whims of a station that cancels your favorite shows after you've pledged your money. You can watch them whenever you like, as often as you like and you don't run the risk of your money being used for things other than what it was pledged for. Tiger M ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 08:50:57 From: Penny Dreadful To: B7 list Subject: Re: [B7L] Are B7 fans Animals? (was Re: [B7L] Why Avon changed) Message-Id: <3.0.6.16.19990309085057.2b1f82f4@mail.geocities.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Vick wrote: > >> > have to reduce humans to the level of animals.> Which I found cliched, but inoffensively meaningless. Mistral, on the other hand, said: >Neil, am I supposed to infer from this that you wouldn't feel 'reduced' if your >ability to write fiction were suddenly taken away? And a skunk would feel 'reduced' if its ability to squirt stink were taken away (purely arbitrary example, Neil, I swear, I've never read your fiction!). There's an ability humans lack. >...reduce my IQ by 20 or 30 points, take my ability to appreciate Blakes 7 >-- you've diminished me. You've also made me less human, and more animal. Um...do you *really* mean to say that the 'stupider' one is the less *human* one is? (I'm talking about the IQ reference, not the B7-appreciation reference) >Think of all the things you would lose if you were some other kind of primate, >and then tell me honestly that you *don't* prefer being a man... I am a woman, and I prefer being a woman. If I were a man, I'm pretty sure I'd prefer being a man. Diminishment is necessarily change, but change is not necessarily diminishment. >Clearly we all have different philosophies here. Maybe we >should check them at the keyboard, unless they relate *directly* to B7? Heh-heh. Nice try. --Penny "Jockulo Homo" Dreadful ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 15:07:33 -0000 From: "Alison Page" To: "lysator" Subject: [B7L] Fw: B7 top ten ranking Message-ID: <001e01be6a3e$b4683f40$ca8edec2@pre-installedco> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I asked the fellow who told me B7 was number-3 requested repeat where he got his information from. People might be interested in his answer >My source is perhaps an unconventional one. It came from the PC leisure >magazine PC FORMAT, issue 79, February 1998. It features an interview (4 >page) with Paul Darrow where he talks about B7, the new radio episode (is it >any good? I haven't heard it) his stage roles and a game which he has been >involved in called The Eye. >The article was written by Jim McCauley, If you have heard of the PC game, >Quake, regular readers of the magazine will know that he likes to call >himself Travis when he plays it, and he's a bit good at it too, by all >accounts. Alison ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 09:20:41 From: Penny Dreadful To: B7 list Subject: Re: [B7L]Fannishness Message-Id: <3.0.6.16.19990309092041.2ab70ab6@mail.geocities.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Mistral mused: >...and running across the Mary-Sue made me rather horrified >that a reader might be inclined to think that, as of necessity I had >written her in first person. > >Anyway, I've waited a week now for somebody to respond to Julie's post; >isn't anybody going to voice an opinion? I'm not in a position to answer, but I second your curiosity. I've read at least one (editorial?/polemic?) which certainly gave credence to your fear. Made *me* paranoid for sure -- not that I could care less if people don't share my artistic vision (or reasonable facsimile thereof), but I wouldn't like them to think I was *deliberately* insulting or tricking them. -- Penny-Sue and Dreadful too ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 08:13:04 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 list Subject: Re: [B7L] Are B7 fans Animals? (was Re: [B7L] Why Avon changed) Message-ID: <36E5488F.5B94601C@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Penny Dreadful wrote: > Mistral, on the other hand, said: > > >Neil, am I supposed to infer from this that you wouldn't feel 'reduced' if > your > >ability to write fiction were suddenly taken away? > > And a skunk would feel 'reduced' if its ability to squirt stink were taken > away (purely arbitrary example, Neil, I swear, I've never read your > fiction!). There's an ability humans lack. Yes, Penny, but I for one, would prefer the ability to write to the ability to squirt stink. I would indeed feel diminished if asked to make that trade, wouldn't you? > >...reduce my IQ by 20 or 30 points, take my ability to appreciate Blakes 7 > >-- you've diminished me. You've also made me less human, and more animal. > > Um...do you *really* mean to say that the 'stupider' one is the less > *human* one is? > (I'm talking about the IQ reference, not the B7-appreciation reference) Now you're the one being disingenuous. Human IQs are higher than the IQs of (non-human) animals -- if only because of the types of intelligence they measure. Again, not a trade I'd care to make. > >Think of all the things you would lose if you were some other kind of > primate, > >and then tell me honestly that you *don't* prefer being a man... > > I am a woman, and I prefer being a woman. If I were a man, I'm pretty sure > I'd prefer being a man. Diminishment is necessarily change, but change is > not necessarily diminishment. Well, yes, if you read my next paragraph, you must realize that this is what I meant, although I've apparently left out a sentence. I also prefer being a woman; I used the word man to Neil because I understand him to be male (although it's true I still often use man in the generic sense to mean human). However, I do think, given the enjoyment people on this list seem to get from the exercise of their mental faculties, that few if any of us would actually *prefer* to be skunks, chimpanzees, opossums, whatever. In any case, we didn't get a choice in the matter, and it only makes sense, mental-healthwise at least, to prefer to be what you are. Being careful to say here that I do not presume to be speaking for Vick, I was only objecting to what certainly seems to me to be pointless railing against a person who *apparently* considers it advantageous to be human. I also consider it advantageous to be human; and I resent what seems to be Neil's implication that that somehow makes me eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil. Evil is a pointless concept if you consider us all animals, anyway. And I'm also really tired of people being attacked for spurious, throwaway remarks that have nothing to do with the point of their posts. It seems to be on the increase, the last few months. I'd really rather read more Flat Robin, which I thought had been settled it was going to be finished (hint, hint)? Mistral -- "I don't mind playing games, but I do object when the opposition makes up the rules and decides to be the referee as well."--Avon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 08:16:18 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 list Subject: Re: [B7L]Fannishness Message-ID: <36E54951.DB9AFDF5@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Penny Dreadful wrote: > -- not that I could care less if people don't share my > artistic vision (or reasonable facsimile thereof), but I wouldn't like them to > think I was *deliberately* insulting or tricking them. Tee, hee. I'd certainly feel better if I could convince myself that this applied to your re:animals post, as well ;) Regards, Mistral -- "And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 10:03:15 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 list Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Why Avon changed Message-ID: <36E56263.C39F8808@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alison Page wrote: > Pat said - > > >One would expect the Extraverts to blather on at length and the > >Introverts to toss a pithy remark and run. (Much like Blake does, > >delivering long, rabble-rousing litanies to all. Much as Avon does, > >flinging at Blake a few words that speak volumes, and then exiting to > >hide.) > Hmmm. I think immature extroverts tend to witter on at great length (yes, I > know I do it from time to time :-) until they learn that it shuts other > people up, so it's counter-productive. In this respect is Blake immature? > Does he really talk a whole lot more than Avon? Even as a fan preferring the rational to the idealist, I would in no way think of Blake as less mature than Avon. Also, I think the difference in their conversational styles is more to be noticed in the ways and reasons they converse, as opposed to the actual amount of talking they do. When Avon *initiates* a conversation (as opposed to reacting to Blake or someone else), it *usually* seems to be either to request or impart information. It's fairly rare for him to just want to chat. Blake, on the other hand, often starts conversations either to persuade people to do what he wants, or just to share his thoughts with others - to chat. You don't see Avon throwing an idea out for group discussion, as Blake often does. I think the difference here on this list is that introverts are frequently more comfortable expressing themselves on paper, where they can develop their ideas without distraction, than they are discussing them verbally in a group situation, and so tend to take more advantage of the opportunities offered by this particular forum, whereas extroverts find it easier just to have a face-to-face conversation, and so don't make as much of an effort to communicate in print. I'm definitely an introvert, and can talk to almost anybody, face-to-face and one-on-one, but I tend to completely 'disappear' in a group, whereas my extrovert friends seem to thrive in group situations. Just IMHO, Mistral -- "And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 14:45:57 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: [B7L] Travis tape Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Alan Stevens says that he's found a fault on a few copies of his Travis: the Final Act tape. If you bought a copy from him at Redemption and the B side is wrong, please get in touch with him or me. 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: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 10:38:20 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 list Subject: Re: [B7L] Myers Briggs Message-ID: <36E56A9C.F6162974@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit VulcanXYZ@aol.com wrote: > "I took [the test] and am an INFP. The test was a lot of fun. Thanks. > > Now...does this mean I have a personality like Cally's? > > And Avona replied: > "I see her as an INFJ. My husband is definitely an INFP.> I've been meaning to reply to this post for some time... to me Cally is so clearly INFJ; she has all of the characteristics, and while they did soften her up a bit from her original demeanour, I don't see her as ever having any trouble making decisions, or giving up her desire to shape the world into what she would conceive of as a better place -- both J traits. > I guess I just WISH I were like her. She always > acts with high ideals and is obviously very sincere and straightforward in her > actions I certainly hope that high ideals and sincere and straightforward behaviour are not limited to one temperament. That would be a sad world, indeed. If you admire Cally (or anybody else, for that matter), I for one say go ahead and emulate her! > -- not like Blake who has hidden agendas and is happy to manipulate > whoever to get what he "thinks" is right. This is true or Avon would have had > the same problem with her that he had with Blake. One tiny quibble, here. I've almost always seen Blake listed ENFJ, with which I agree. This gives the exact same NF/NT conflicts between Avon-Blake and Avon-Cally, and I perceive the exact same problems -- Avon and Cally rarely agree on whether or not to get involved in a situation -- think of 'Children of Auron', as one example, or 'Rumors', or his comment to her in 'Weapon': "Auron may be different, Cally, but on Earth it is considered ill-mannered to kill your friends while committing suicide." I see the same conflict of values; I think the difference is that the conflict between Avon-Cally is softened by the male-female dynamic, and Avon's basic gentlemanliness, whereas the conflict with Blake-Avon is exacerbated by their constant alpha-male power struggle and Avon's insecurity. Just a thought :) Mistral -- "And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 20:57:04 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Are B7 fans Animals? (was Re: [B7L] Why Avon changed) Message-ID: <005f01be6a6f$9163bf20$b21cac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'll try to make myself clearer on this one... Mistral wrote: >Take away my ability to write fiction and you diminish me. Take away my ability >to have this discussion and you diminish me. Take away my ability to use the >internet to have this discussion and you diminish me. Take away my calculus, my >love of Shakespeare, my admittedly limited fashion sense, my ability to cook a >burger, reduce my IQ by 20 or 30 points, take my ability to appreciate Blakes 7 >-- you've diminished me. You've also made me less human, and more animal. I'm sorry you thought I was trying to rob you of any of these faculties. I wasn't. I think we're approaching this from two completely different angles. You're focussing on the differences between us and other animals - intellect, self-awareness, self-expression etc. I was looking more to the similarities - anatomical, biochemical, genetic. If you take them as your foundation, then we are, as I said, just another species of animal. In terms of skeletal arrangement, for example, there's not a lot of difference between a human being and a rabbit - it's the same bones in the same places. Human beings and rabbits share the same internal organs, the same cell structure, the same respiratory biochemistry. That, to me, is more significant than the fact that rabbits don't write/read books and human beings don't eat their own faeces. Humans are certainly a unique species in many respects, but I don't think that makes us any more 'special' and certainly not 'better' - except in our own minds, which is what I meant by 'humanocentric arrogance'. We're just different, that's all. To you, 'animal' seems to mean 'subhuman'. To me, when differentiating between human and non-human animals, 'animal' simply means 'non-human'. I would say that to be 'less human' is _not_ to be 'more animal', because we are all already every bit as animal as we could ever be. Even when we're writing books, engaged in intellectual discussion, appreciating Shakespeare, whatever. Such capabilities are simply our area of specialty, our equivalent to a gibbon's brachiation or a bird's power of flight. Otherwise we eat, breathe, excrete and procreate just like any other form of life, and these processes are perfectly normal and healthy and - procreation aside - essential for our survival as individuals. > And it's completely illogical and disingenuous to suggest that it's >somehow either foolish or immoral not to prefer being what you in fact are; else >why be it? I don't recall suggesting this at all, nor is it the kind of thing I'm likely to advocate. You're reading far more into my post than I ever intended. >When someone does not like being himself, psychologists use words like >'dysfunctional'. As an animal of the human variety, I will choose to be amused by this rather than offended. At least a _philosophical_ flea can't be described as pusillanimous. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 22:10:46 +0100 From: Jacqueline Thijsen To: B7 list Subject: RE: [B7L] Are B7 fans Animals? (was Re: [B7L] Why Avon changed) Message-ID: <39DCDDFD014ED21185C300104BB3F99F10FB5F@NL-ARN-MAIL01> Content-Type: text/plain Mistral wrote: > Being careful to say here that I do not presume to be speaking for Vick, I > was > only objecting to what certainly seems to me to be pointless railing > against a person who *apparently* considers it advantageous to be human. I > also consider it advantageous to be human; and I resent what seems to be > Neil's implication that that somehow makes me eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil. Evil is > a pointless concept if you consider us all animals, anyway. > I don't think Neil implied that this way of thinking is evil. He only objected to the word 'diminished'. I've read your answer and what I see in it is that you like who you are and would like to stay the same. I can certainly relate to that, but I don't see how being compared to an animal would take anything away from what you are anymore than being compared to a human who has completely different talents than you happen to have. Would you feel diminished by having your behaviour compared to that of someone who doesn't like reading or writing, but who is very good at other things? Jacqueline -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #94 *************************************