From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #98 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/98 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 98 Today's Topics: Re: [B7L] Assassin Re: [B7L] Assassin Re: [Fwd: [B7L] Too much Adrenalin and Soma?] Re: Blake-Avon-Tarrant (was Re: [B7L] Assassin) Re: [B7L] Cult TV guests Re: [B7L] Vila and Es Re: [B7L] Assassin [B7L] The Logic of Empire Re: [B7L] Fannishness and Cliches Re: [Fwd: [B7L] Too much Adrenalin and Soma?] [B7L] Cult TV guests Re: [B7L] Assassin [B7L] Re: Blake-Avon-Tarrant Re: [B7L] Assassin Re: [B7L] Re: Blake-Avon-Tarrant [B7L] teleportation Re: [B7L] The Logic of Empire Re: [B7L] B7 at NASFIC Re: [B7L] teleportation [B7L] post-Assassin plotline Re: [B7L] Re: Blake-Avon-Tarrant ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 14:45:23 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Assassin Message-ID: <00ee01be6d60$ccc67a00$50418cd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Una wrote: >And yet I find the whole of the first season *excruciating* in terms of >low budget. The whole feel of it is wonky, knocked-together sets. Horrid. >The 4th season just feels a bit garish here and there, and all the female >make-up is a bit Bananarama, but there you go. (Thoughts of Robert de Niro waiting through the Cruel Summer of B7...) The look of the first three seasons doesn't really bother me at all. The cheapness shows, certainly, but it also lent the series an air of austerity, which I definitely liked. The 4th season, on the other hand, generally comes across as gaudy. There's a vaguely menacing darkness hanging over the first three seasons which all but disappears in the bright and shiny 4th. All that tinsel turned the characters into cheap plastic fairies stuck on an artificial Christmas tree. (No, I don't like the 4th season too much). > >I find 70s low budget much more horrible than 80s low budget - almost >certainly because I associate the 70s with being brown and being >depressing / without electricity, and the 80s as being a lot more cheerful >all round, if a little manic because you were living in fear of a nuclear >holocaust. And I like Peter Davison 'Dr Who' more than Tom Baker for the >same reason. The 70s _were_ brown and depressing, but I'd rather have that than the closed-minded false cheeriness of the 80s. Too many people smiling too broadly at nothing worth smiling at. >>(there is such a thing as real slavery - it deserves better treatment >>than this). > >But you could say that about *so many* things in B7 - genetic engineering >and cloning, and modifying individuals to turn them into mutoids... They may have been treated casually, but not disparagingly. The three examples you cite were not, at the time, part of the real world (the third still isn't, thankfully), but merely conceptual. It's a common (and often quite effective) device in SF to treat the conceptual as a commonplace, or the marvellous as mundane. Slavery, on the other hand, is not a mere concept, but has a historical reality behind it. >>Stardrive was written by James Follett, who also wrote Dawn of the Gods, >>which I consider _the_ worst B7 episode ever, so bad I eventually decided >>to refuse to recognise it as canon. > >I'd love to hear why you came to this conclusion, Neil! (Sorry if you've >explained before - it probably came through while I was away.) I've got a number of reasons for junking it (not a decision I took lightly, I hasten to add). Firstly, it's just plain silly. Secondly it tosses in a Big Concept (the origin of the Auronar and the seeding of other planets by an ancient extra-terrestrial civilisation) which does not mesh with anything else in the series. Thirdly, Follett might know his O-level physics, but he hasn't got much grip on biology, especially evolution. Fourthly, as I said in another post, it doesn't feel like a B7 episode, but the exploitation of B7 to peddle the author's pet SF project. Fifthly, said project is hardly new and original in concept. Sixthly, and here I admit I'm getting ultra-partisan, the whole thing reeks of Von Danikenism, and shooting's way too good for pseudo-scientific charlatans like him. Wissenschaft Uber Alles Neil ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 14:49:16 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Assassin Message-ID: <00ef01be6d60$d04f52a0$50418cd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mistral wrote: >Neil Faulkner wrote: >> The whole slave trader thing is camped up into an >> embarrassing farce (there is such a thing as real slavery - it deserves >> better treatment than this). >This is a serious question and deserves a serious answer. IMO, the world is >a brutal place to live, and we all experience some truly nasty things over a >lifetime. You laugh, you cry, or you shut down. I'm trying very hard to >learn to laugh. I don't laugh a specific, realistically depicted acts of aggression >against *anybody*, but I have no compunctions about laughing at obvious >comedic fakes. >Also, since I don't see B7 as SF (it fails the test that I have been taught >-- the plot must grow out of the technology, not be transplantable to another >culture), but rather as swashbuckling in space, the slavers don't hit a >jarring note with me, as they are rather a swashbuckling staple (cliché), and I see >the whole episode as camp. Thinking about this post over a very boring 12-hour shift, I came up with this great idea for an episode. The Scorpio goes to this planet ruled by a bunch of ludicrous military types who all wear outrageous uniforms - they strut around like peacocks in their shiny knee-length boots, baggy breeches, huge peaked caps with polished brims, lots of medals and stuff. And they share this planet with a race of aliens (who of course don't look like aliens at all), and they've decided to get rid of these aliens by (and here's the really funny bit) herding them into concrete blockhouses and choking them with poison gas. Wot a larf, eh? Anyway, Avon and Tarrant teleport down and find Servalan there, and she convinces the peacocks that Avon's really an alien (lots of angsty shots of beaten-up Avon suffering beautifully in the chalk pit with all the aliens lounging around waiting to be gassed). Meanwhile Tarrant gets handed over to the evil Dr Von Mangler who wants a guinea pig for his new artificial testosterone, but the sight of his helpless suffering once he's been injected only wins the heart of the evil doctor's beautiful daughter who smuggles him out through a convenient secret passage. Dayna and Soolin come down, shoot a few peacocks, rescue Avon, untie the ropes on the remaining ungassed aliens who then topple the evil regime with a few polystyrene rocks. Avon then breaks into the evil scientist's laboratory only to find that Servalan has fled with whatever widget he'd come all this way to get, but aforementioned beautiful daughter admits she sabotaged it earlier so it will never work. Evil scientist then vengefully kills beautiful daughter before Tarrant can save her, Avon stops Tarrant killing evil scientist, saying the aliens will do a better job of it, and everyone goes home. All just a harmless jolly romp, and anyone who suggests otherwise is obviously a killjoy with no sense of fun. More seriously, I have very deep reservations about 'obvious comedic fakes'. To me they reek of contempt for the reality from which they are drawn - real lives and real histories are trivialised. It might be fun, but I don't think it's harmless. This is not to say that a comedic vein can't be fruitfully mined from the brutal reality. I gather some Italian director has recently made a highly rated comedy set in a Nazi concentration camp. >> It might not be 'playing the game' to cite external factors when slating an >> episode, but when there is insufficient incitement to suspend your >> disbelief, you're just left feeling that you're watching a cheapskate >> production cobbled together by people who know next to bugger all about >> science fiction. Or assassination. Or youth culture. >Possibly a cultural gap here. Forgive me for being honest when I say that >this is, in my experience *only*, pretty much the American attitude about nearly >all BBC sci-fi. Outside of a small group of Dr. Who and Red Dwarf fans I know, >I'm fairly regularly ridiculed for liking British TV. I say "I was watching Dr. >Who" and my friend says "Oh, isn't that the one with the bubble-wrap monster?" That attitude certainly exists over here in the UK, though Dr Who has the advantage of being a National Institution. I remember the first time I clapped eyes on the Liberator in the - well, not flesh as such (in the plastic?) - it was at a model engineering exhibition in the early 1980s. There I was, gawping in awe, when two blokes walked past behind me. 'There's the ship from Blakes 7,' said one. 'Load of crap, that was.' >Suspension of >disbelief is pretty much an act of will; you either want to badly enough or you don't. For me, at any rate, it's not just a question of wanting to, the subject itself (book, film, whatever) has got to justify my making the effort. Which to me means it's got to take itself seriously, know what it's doing and why, and do it properly. Scripts like Assassin and Stardrive don't take B7 seriously enough, the writers didn't consider what they were writing about, and the treatment suffered accordingly. >I think most writers would not be pleased by readers throwing out whole chapters of their >novels. An important observation, and very true. But B7 was not a novel by a single author, it was more like an anthology. Some episodes (not all) can be painlessly excised without damaging the body of the whole. In the case of Dawn, junking it probably does B7 more good than harm. I feel pretty sure that Follett was merely using B7 as a vehicle for what should have been a stand-alone SF plot - writing it for B7 was opportunism on his part. Dawn does nothing for B7 beyond opening a quite unnecessary can of worms that never gets addressed again, not even in Follett's other episode. As an aside on this, it's interesting to note how some of the continuity is actually the work of single writers. All references to adrenalin and soma are, I believe, in Allan Prior episodes (Horizon, Volcano, Animals). There's also Chris Boucher's euphemistic use of the word 'slime'. The only reference to events in Sarcophagus seems to be in Sand - both by Tanith Lee. Allan Prior (again) also used much shorter detector ranges than other writers (hundreds rather than millions of spacials). There might be others. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 19:38:40 +1100 From: Kathryn Andersen To: "Blake's 7 list" Subject: Re: [Fwd: [B7L] Too much Adrenalin and Soma?] Message-ID: <19990313193840.A1885@welkin.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 08:23:07PM -0800, mistral@ptinet.net wrote: > >From Avona (if this works, cause I've never done it before). So now I'm confused as to whether it was Mistral or Avona that wrote what was below... > > > Do we accord the same certainty of canonical inclusion to all the > > > television production? Would anyone say a later season would be less > > > authoritative tan an early one? What if "Blake" was revealed to be a > > > dream? Would anyone be happy with such a cheap overturning of such a > > > story? If it's on the screen, its canon. Even the fourth series. > > Ick. I'm happiest with the stun-gun theory, which at least has > > canonical precedent. Agreed. > Okay, how horrible is this, then-- I hate 'it was just a dream' stories > in general _but_ > [story idea snipped] If you can do just as good or a better job than "The Mind of Man is a Double-Edged Sword" then it will be a great story. I can reiterate my previous post about cliche's... this *is* an idea that has been done before, not exactly the same way, but similarly. So, I can't judge this story on its idea. Full stop. We can only know how good the story will be if it gets finished. (darn, Kathryn is wearing her editorial hat. Won't it come off?) Friendly scientist joins the crew? Let's see, there's Hugh, in "Jabberwocky", and what's-her-name in "Hellhound"... I wrote a friendly psychotherapist once, but she wasn't crazy enough to join up with a bunch of rebels getting shot at constantly - she went off and made a new life for herself after her job was done. But I can certainly see the temptation of lovely delicious scenes that simply demand to be written. Write them. But be true to the characters while you're doing so. K. Avonsen -- _--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen / \ | http://home.connexus.net.au/~kat \_.--.*/ | #include "standard/disclaimer.h" v | ------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 08:27:49 EST From: Mac4781@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Blake-Avon-Tarrant (was Re: [B7L] Assassin) Message-ID: <7068e19a.36ea67d5@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Mistral wrote: > but having read your > post I > really think that the big differences are mostly semantics. That happens. :) > Regarding what I posited of Tarrant's thoughts on GP, I was thinking out > loud, > really just playing around; In that respect, it can be fun. And I'm not even opposed to suspending belief in that direction for the possible length of a fan story or two. Talented writers have persuaded me to suspend my personal canon time and time again. And I've been known to suspend my own canon for the length of a story or a music vid or twelve. > just a teeeeeeeeeeeeny bit of yours for my Blake-Avon. I shan't ask for an > equal > share because I know you're so much more experienced than I am... Whatsay? > You're > watching the first two series anyway..... We'll do it in little > bits.... The B-A relationship is an essential part of the early seasons and something I plan to study anyway. But I can't promise any new thoughts on the subject until I've watched all the episodes, or even after I've watched all the eps. I've only watched The Way Back so far. > 1) > Looking full at the person and seeing all their strengths and weaknesses. 2) > Admiring or being drawn to that person despite their weaknesses. 3) Making a > decision that this person is worthy of your trust and your loyalty; worthy, > in > fact, to be followed. 4) Finally making a decision that that loyalty is > absolute. I don't think we need a word. I think it's even better broken down per above. It allows the various elements of a relationship to be better defined. But some refining might be needed. (1) looks good to me. I have problems with part of your definition of (2) (and it's probably another case of personal semantics): "being drawn." That smacks of what makes me cringe: that charisma is captivating someone to the point where his/her reason is suppressed. If you don't mind, I'll change (2) to "admire and respect." Also, because of the way I view Avon, I need to break (3) down into two separate categories: (3a) person is worthy of trust and loyalty and (3b) worthy, in fact, to be followed. As for (4), I don't really see that as a follower stage unless we're getting into what leaves me uncomfortable, which is "blind loyalty." A follower always has to maintain a part of himself/herself that will continuously evaluate his/her leader, even if he has absolute trust in that leader. Because a good follower has to be able to contribute an independent perspective to be fully useful to his leader. If by "loyalty is absolute" you mean a total commitment to being on that person's side, then it's something that I see as independent of the follower-leadership development. Using that definition, Tarrant was totally loyal to Avon long before he was a comfortable follower. Maybe you need to define how you regard the term before we can discuss it. > And I see Avon going through all 4 stages re Blake by 'Terminal'; and > possibly > Tarrant getting to stage 3 re Avon by 'Blake'. And this is where we differ. I never see Avon reaching 3b, whereas I see follower Tarrant reaching stage 3b by "Games." This could be an interesting exercise to ponder for all of the crew dynamics, but I'll just stick to B-A, T-A here. I think both Avon and Tarrant were aware of the strengths and weaknesses of Blake-Avon. And that they came to admire and respect their leaders, flaws and all. Since we're in agreement up to here, I won't try to elaborate. I think it's also pretty clear that Avon and Tarrant found Blake and Avon to be worthy of their trust and loyalty. And I think that it helped that trust and loyalty were two-way streets, running both from follower to leader and from leader to follower. When you are each willing to put your life in the other's hands (to be rescued or not), you are indicating a strong degree of trust and loyalty. Mind you, I don't think either Blake or Tarrant initially fully trusted Avon in that regard (even if Blake claimed he had in his STAR ONE speech), and Avon would have considered them wise to be wary. It would probably enhance his trust in them. So we get to (3b). Tarrant seemed to have decided Avon was worthy of being followed. He fell quite comfortably into the role of second-in-command during fourth series. And again, here, I also see this as a two-way street. The more Avon trusted Tarrant and was willing to consult and/or listen to him, the more likely Tarrant would regard Avon as a worthy leader. The more you respect each other, the better the working relationship is going to be. Now for Avon-Blake. I didn't see any indication that Avon ever became an easy follower of Blake. His very serious statement at STAR ONE--"I need to be free"--suggested a person who wasn't emotionally capable of following Blake (or probably anyone) to the degree that a revolutionary leader needs to be followed. Avon admired, respected, trusted Blake, but Avon is not a follower. And his capacity for following someone whose decisions he frequently disagreed with had been stretched to the max. For his own peace of mind, he needed to be separated from that follower responsibility. If, as you might be suggesting, somewhere between STAR ONE and TERMINAL Avon decided he could become Blake's loyal follower, then I think he was fooling himself. He might want to think that--because leading is also counter to Avon's basic nature--but I think he'd soon see the error of his ways if he had been reunited with Blake and once more in the follower position. He'd then realize it was only that the grass had looked greener on the other side of the fence. And for all the stresses of leadership that Avon was under, I thought he adjusted to it rather better than he adjusted to being a follower. His plans for the Warlord alliance showed someone who would have been comfortable in leadership of that group. Under less inevitably tragic circumstances--as in put in a position where they had a chance to win or put in a position where leadership didn't equate with violence--I think Avon might have emerged as a competent (if never entirely comfortable in the role) leader. > Nor, in fact, do I see it as a weakness; on the contrary, I see the ability > to > make that decision and commitment -- and keep it -- a sign of strength. I'm > thinking of knights, of samurai, of holy men --- I believe, in fact, that > being a > good follower requires more from a person than being a good leader. Call me > crazy. I think this might get into where personal tastes direct our individual perspectives of the series. Do we like the Avon on the screen or do we want to change him? I like the Avon we saw on screen. We saw a man who was stubborn, independent, pragmatic and tortured. Tortured because "winning is the only safety" meant he had to work as part of a team in order to survive, though it went against his basic nature. An Avon who became Blake's second in command the way Tarrant became Avon's second in command would be a very different Avon. In essence it would make him more like Tarrant. And while that suits Tarrant's essential nature, it would mean twisting Avon's essential nature (like changing a character for the purposes of plot, instead of making the plot consistent with the character). Also, as much as I enjoy Tarrant, it's more fun (for me) to have characters who are different than characters who are the same. I guess that's also why Avon as an idealist is equally unappealing to me. That's Blake's role. Or Vila as an Alpha. We have enough Alphas glutting the landscape. I like each of the characters because they are such unique individuals. It makes the dynamics incredibly exciting. Carol Mc ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 17:01:24 -0000 From: "Dangermouse" To: "Steve Rogerson" , "Lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Cult TV guests Message-Id: <199903131710.RAA07951@gnasher.sol.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > For those interested, the guests so far announced for Cult TV in Weston > super Mare in September are: > > Peter Davison > Simon MacCorkindale, > Michael Sheard, > Frazer Hines I'll most likely be popping along as well, but not as a guest (just accompanying Ambassador Mollari...) > They are hoping for more guests (even possibly a B7 one), though I think > Michael Sheard did appear in a B7 episode. He was Klegg in Powerplay -- "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: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 14:37:38 EST From: Pherber@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Vila and Es Message-ID: <40c05681.36eabe82@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/12/99 4:13:36 AM Mountain Standard Time, umm10@hermes.cam.ac.uk writes: > Are all the Vila fans round here extraverts? Not all - I'm an introvert and I find him quite endearing. Extraverts interest me, because I don't understand them. Nina ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 14:36:41 EST From: Mac4781@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Assassin Message-ID: <45e081af.36eabe49@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sally wrote: > Actually, that’s always been a point where I’m both annoyed with > Tarrant, and sort of agree with him (which annoys me more). Tarrant > seems to me to be trying to make Avon be the sort of strong leader he’s > comfortable with, and either can’t/won’t (I’m inclined to the latter) > see that with Avon it’s going to be more difficult than that. Yes, it > *might* be better for them all if Avon was that sort of leader, but he > isn’t and doesn’t see for one minute why he should have to do anything > Tarrant’s way. (Only Blake ever really knew how to make Avon do things > he didn’t want to do.) So Tarrant is pushing (and lets face his, his > interpersonal skills aren’t any better at this stage than Avon’s, so he > is fairly obnoxious about it). I agree that Tarrant has a set idea in his head of what a leader should be. And Avon doesn't fit that bill. But I never see him as pushing Avon into fitting the mold. (Not sure how you got that out of the "Sarcophagus" rant?) And to Tarrant's credit, he is flexible enough that he accepts Avon's style of leadership once Avon starts behaving like a leader. Tarrant's main frustration was that Avon didn't want to be leader or follower during early third season. > personalities...(straightforward Tarrant hadn't yet realized that Avon > was seldom straightforward...> > > Yes, it did rather take him a while to suss that one out, didn’t it? He's very young and he's led a sheltered life in the military. :) > I disagree here. Avon’s arguments were usually less "we shouldn’t do > this" as "Blake, I agree we’ll do it, but would you mind being a LITTLE > more careful with my life, thank you????" I think we're talking about the same thing here. What I interpret as "we shouldn't do this" is probably what you interpret as "I'll go, but let's make it less risky." I was thinking about this last night (along with other B7 matters). It occurred to me that Avon's first-second season pattern was very much like his early third season pattern. Avon was willing to do things, but he wanted it clear that he wasn't responsible if anything went wrong. So he had to make his obligatory speech about the risks/the stupidity of the venture. If he was just intent on protecting himself, he could have refused to participate. Also, he was known to mention risks even when he wasn't the one taking them. So I'm wondering if this wasn't more prompted by care for others than concern for himself. Perhaps he knew (maybe only subconsciously) that he'd feel awful if something happened to someone else on a mission and he wanted to diminish the responsibility he'd feel in that case. He's warned them it would be dangerous. I'm not really sure about that, but it's something else I'll be watching for as I review eps. Another thing I'm not sure about is how this fits in with Avon when he does take over as leader and he's definitely the one responsible. That's one of the attractions of B7; it's complex enough to always afford food for thought. > And to be fair, he did have an alternative the whole time - ditch the > revolution and let’s get rich. Problem was, when he COULD do that, as in > Horizon, he had to give it away for pesky last-minute heroics. I'm not sure his alternative was exactly "ditch the revolution and let's get rich." What Avon really wanted riches for was the freedom he thought would come with riches. The longer he was a big-name fugitive, the harder that became. A nobody can disappear into peaceful obscurity much more easily than a somebody. > Are we so sure he does? But yes, Avon doesn’t care WHO approves of him > or not. I'll go along with that specification. It's a good one. And it follows as well for what I was trying to say. Avon wasn't rescuing Blake or any of them to gain outside approval. He was doing it for himself. Carol Mc ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 15:17:29 EST From: Sestina2@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] The Logic of Empire Message-ID: Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi all, On the SC list, we were recently discussing the first B7 ep "The Way Back." I was wondering if anyone on that list or on the B7 list would be interested in talking about the recent radio play _The Logic of Empire_? Certainly, it makes us rethink what was going on in the series as a whole and in first ep in particular. Anyone interested? I know that we probably run into the risk of spoiling the play for those who haven't heard it yet, so perhaps our posts could be marked "spoiler" as appropriate so that we don't rob anyone of the joy of discovering yet another addition to the B7 saga as it were. And of course our discussion could also encompass other aspects like Paul and Jacqueline's performances, the mystery of who survived Guada Prime and how as hinted at in the radio play, and the vision of Avon put forth so many years after the trauma of "Blake". Anyone interested? Anyone want to start the ball rolling by just giving their general impression of the radio play (likes, dislikes, whatever)? Ses ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 11:25:54 +1000 From: "Afenech" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Fannishness and Cliches Message-Id: <00323125619001@domain1.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Very likely it is, as Kathryn says, the listing to be found on Sue Clerc's web-page - Sue though has moved - new URL is: http//pages.cthome.net/blakes7/ Pat F ________ > On Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 08:13:41AM -0500, Bizarro7@aol.com wrote: > > Does anyone have the web address of that list someone compiled a few years > > ago, that listed every common cliche that had cropped up in B7 fanlit, over > > the past 20 years? I distinctly remember it and remember finding it enjoyable > > and informative. > > I *think* it's on Sue Clerc's site. > http://www.bgsu.edu/~sclerc/Blakes7.html > > -- > _--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen > / \ | http://home.connexus.net.au/~kat > \_.--.*/ | #include "standard/disclaimer.h" > v | > ------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere > Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 17:04:28 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 list Subject: Re: [Fwd: [B7L] Too much Adrenalin and Soma?] Message-ID: <36EB0B1B.55B1107B@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kathryn Andersen wrote: > So now I'm confused as to whether it was Mistral or Avona that wrote > what was below... The story idea that went to the list was Avona's, and I was just forwarding it. (I'm much too shy to share a story idea in public.) I did send a post to say that, but for some reason a lot of posts seem to be missing going both directions between me and the list, ergo if there's anything anyone expected me to reply to the last couple of days and I haven't, I probably didn't see it. (So yes, Judith, it was all attachment.) Mistral -- "And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:58:10 EST From: NetSurfCK@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Cult TV guests Message-ID: <5aa7be4.36eb17b2@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit << steve.rogerson@MCR1.poptel.org.uk writes: For those interested, the guests so far announced for Cult TV in Weston super Mare in September are: Peter Davison Simon MacCorkindale, Michael Sheard, Frazer Hines >> The name Simon MacCorkindale is sooooo familiar, but it's driving me crazy that I can't place him. Can someone please help? Who is he?? Thanks, Cynthia ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 01:41:11 EST From: Pherber@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Assassin Message-ID: Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/13/99 12:40:10 PM Mountain Standard Time, Mac4781@aol.com writes: > It occurred to me that Avon's first-second season pattern was very > much like his early third season pattern. Avon was willing to do things, > but he wanted it clear that he wasn't responsible if anything went wrong. So he > had to make his obligatory speech about the risks/the stupidity of the > venture. If he was just intent on protecting himself, he could have refused > to participate. Also, he was known to mention risks even when he wasn't the > one taking them. So I'm wondering if this wasn't more prompted by care for > others than concern for himself. Perhaps he knew (maybe only subconsciously) > that he'd feel awful if something happened to someone else on a mission and > he wanted to diminish the responsibility he'd feel in that case. He's warned > them it would be dangerous. I think you have a very good point here. I'm not as convinced as you are that he really *cared* for the others in a strongly emotional sense, but they were his comrades and, to some degree, his friends. Since others among them were so predisposed to taking what he considered unnecessary risks, I think he viewed himself as the voice of reason in the group and somewhat obligated to point out what he viewed as foolishness. Once he had accepted the group as a whole, being somewhat protective of them was a natural extension of protecting himself, i.e., he was safer when the others were around to help defend the group. Not to mention getting the occasional opportunity to say "I told you so"... Nina ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 01:41:07 EST From: Pherber@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: Blake-Avon-Tarrant Message-ID: <22b67011.36eb5a03@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/12/99 11:46:46 PM Mountain Standard Time, mistral@ptinet.net writes: > The first thing I'd like to do is find a better term than hero-worship. Help > me out now. The definition of the term I'm looking for has, in fact, *nothing* > of blindness about it. What I am looking for encompasses the following stages: > 1) Looking full at the person and seeing all their strengths and weaknesses. > 2) Admiring or being drawn to that person despite their weaknesses. > 3) Making a decision that this person is worthy of your trust and your loyalty; worthy, > in fact, to be followed. > 4) Finally making a decision that that loyalty is absolute. > (snip) How about...allegiance? For me, anyway, that connotes a *conscious* acceptance of the other party's worthiness, and of the obligations that it may impose upon the follower. > Nor, in fact, do I see it as a weakness; on the contrary, I see the ability > to make that decision and commitment -- and keep it -- a sign of strength. Agreed. Although I would never expect either Avon or Tarrant to forbear from commenting on their respective leaders' misjudgements . Another thought: Perhaps it takes Tarrant less time to accept Avon's leadership because of his military background. A clearly delineated chain of command is normal to him, whereas Avon is more of a loner and individualist. Fun discussion...I haven't spent so much time with my nose in a thesaurus in ages! Nina ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 01:41:14 EST From: Pherber@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Assassin Message-ID: <19ad08e8.36eb5a0a@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/11/99 11:32:01 PM Mountain Standard Time, mistral@ptinet.net writes: > Avon did not want to admire Blake, but found that eventually not only did he > admire Blake, but trusted Blake and wanted Blake's approval, a pattern I see > being repeated with Avon-Tarrant. Agreed. Somehow, Blake seems to successfully appeal to some deeply buried corner of Avon's psyche. In a way, Blake is sort of Avon's Jungian Shadow - an expression of the things that Avon has mostly deeply repressed in himself. Consciously, it's impossible for him to admit his admiration for Blake, but his subconscious knows and acts upon that admiration and desire for approval. Tarrant's eventual acceptance of Avon is not as convoluted, since Tarrant isn't as emotionally damaged as Avon is, but in the end I think it's just as touching. Nina ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 23:09:58 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Blake-Avon-Tarrant Message-ID: <19990314070959.13704.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain From Nina: Also, Tarrant *wants* a leader (he's just not at all sure for a long time that the one he's got is going to agree to lead); Avon does *not*. Blake had a lot more work to do getting Avon to 'continue to follow' and he never agreed to be 'led' ("It's not quite the same thing.") Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 22:12:26 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: [B7L] teleportation Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII I've just written this as part of a story I'm working on. Does it make sense? I've tried to take into account all references made to teleportation during the seres. Avon stood, one hand resting casually on Orac's casing. "The project is headed by Zephaniah Probert. Probert worked on the original Aquitar project on Earth and appears to have come into posession of a Liberator teleport bracelet at some point." "That's nothing unusual," Vila interrupted. "We left them lying around like confetti. Bet Servalan had at least half a dozen." "What is unusual is that Probert seems to have been able to recognise the key difference between the Liberator system and the approach used by the Aquitar Project." Avon paused expectantly. "Go on," Tarrant demanded, "ask him; he'll only sulk otherwise." Dayna grinned obligingly. "All right, I'll buy it. What was the key difference?" "The Aquitar Project, as its name implies, utilised the properties of aquitar to transmit matter as energy. However, they never succeeded in teleporting living creatures. To teleport life, you have to maintain continuity of the psyche or to put it in simpler terms, the mind of the person being teleported must be involved in the teleportation process. Fortunately, the minimal psychic powers of the average human brain can be augmented via a suitable co-radiating crystal such as dynamon." 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: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 21:57:43 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] The Logic of Empire Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Sat 13 Mar, Sestina2@aol.com wrote: > Hi all, > > On the SC list, we were recently discussing the first B7 ep "The Way > Back." I was wondering if anyone on that list or on the B7 list would be > interested in talking about the recent radio play _The Logic of Empire_? > Certainly, it makes us rethink what was going on in the series as a whole and > in first ep in particular. Anyone interested? It wasn't a radio play. Although the Logic of Empire was better written and better directed than The Sevenfold Crown, it was not a BBC production. As it happens, I love the production qualties, but I wasn't so keen on the plot. The writing was excellent, especially the dialogue, and the story would have been great for a one-off. However, when producing a set of stories that are intended to work together in the same universe and that some people are going to regard as having some claim to being canonical, then I would have gone for a very different type of story. Paul Darrow was far more in character in TLOE than in T7FC - the result of being directed by a fan. Jackie Pearce's voice was in better form too. I believe Alan and his assocaites did something to the sound balance to compensate for the fact that her voice was damaged due to strain at some point in the past. > > I know that we probably run into the risk of spoiling the play for those > who haven't heard it yet, so perhaps our posts could be marked "spoiler" as > appropriate so that we don't rob anyone of the joy of discovering yet another > addition to the B7 saga as it were. And of course our discussion could also > encompass other aspects like Paul and Jacqueline's performances, the mystery > of who survived Guada Prime and how as hinted at in the radio play, and the > vision of Avon put forth so many years after the trauma of "Blake". The Gauda Prime part of the plot is far too convoluted. Most people I spoke to with regard to TLOE had no idea of how Avon survived Gauda Prime. From speaking to Alan, I know exactly what he intended, but it is simply too buried within the story for the average fan to be able to work it out. Most listeners just ignore that bit and get on with enjoying the rest of the story. > > Anyone interested? Anyone want to start the ball rolling by just giving > their general impression of the radio play (likes, dislikes, whatever)? My opinion of T7FC is that it was a load of **** Unfortunately, I don't feel masochistic enough today to listen to it again to recall why. I rewatched 'Stardrive' instead. It was less painful. 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, 14 Mar 1999 00:54:40 -0800 From: Tramila To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] B7 at NASFIC Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990314005440.00841c20@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Tramila wrote, in part: > >> >> What do you expect! I'm an extrovert! >> > >Oh! You want to run and hide, huh? I can make you moo ve >quickly, then! Moo, moo, moo, moo, moo said the cow. :) for at least a few Ekkkkkkk!!!!!!!!!!!!s> Ekkkkkkkkkk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've been on the list for a very long time and no one knows!!!! Ekkk! Ekkkk!!! Ekkkkk!!!!!! No fair!!!! You didn't sign your name!!!! >> Tramila >> --------- > >Someone who wonders if anyone else on the list knows of Tra's >aversion to cows. What aversion to "C" words are you talking about? I don't have an aversion to "C" words. No way. Tramila grabs bell. "See. No "C" words here. Tramila, a Farris Channel from Zeor. --------- Charter Member and Pres. of V.I.C.E. Vila's Intimately Corruptible Element Am I corruptible? Of course I am! and loving it!!! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 01:13:35 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] teleportation Message-ID: <19990314091335.19590.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain Judith asks: >I've just written this as part of a story I'm working on. > >Does it make sense? I've tried to take into account all references made to >teleportation during the seres. It makes enough sense to me that I'd accept it and keep going. And it's nice and short (I find it's only with long-winded, let's-cover-every-possible-angle exposition that I start picking holes). I like it. Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 10:04:16 GMT From: kminne@camtech.net.au (Ken Minne) To: Subject: [B7L] post-Assassin plotline Message-ID: <36eb017c.1455577@mail.camtech.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Good day all, Delurking again now all this discussion of Assasin has come up, I want to ask something about the end of this ep. How and when does Servalan learn that the Cancer plot has failed? IIRC Servalan's ship blows up Cancer's ship, and she congratulates her captain and expresses regret that Tarrant and Avon are no more. It seems we missed a great scene or two when she does realise that they have survived. Servalan does not express any surprise at finding them alive in Games. Have I missed something about this? Thanks, Catch you later, Walter Minne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 03:54:34 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 list Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Blake-Avon-Tarrant Message-ID: <36EBA379.88A728C@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pherber@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/12/99 11:46:46 PM Mountain Standard Time, > mistral@ptinet.net writes: > > > The first thing I'd like to do is find a better term than hero-worship. > How about...allegiance? For me, anyway, that connotes a *conscious* > acceptance of the other party's worthiness, and of the obligations that it may > impose upon the follower. Yes, Nina, this is a very good word, and I did think about it. The *only* problem I have is that our modern idea of allegiance (also fealty) is a bit less potent than what I really mean. The older understanding of it will do nicely. I still prefer devotion myself; but I'm rather afraid that will tend to be interpreted as blindness, whereas I am really talking about an absolute commitment to loyalty based on a conscious choice. I guess I'm going to go with Carol's suggestion to stict to the separate issues instead of using a shorthand word; more verbiage, aaaaugh. > > Nor, in fact, do I see it as a weakness; on the contrary, I see the ability > > to make that decision and commitment -- and keep it -- a sign of strength. > > Agreed. Although I would never expect either Avon or Tarrant to forbear from > commenting on their respective leaders' misjudgements . I agree, and would never intentionally imply otherwise :) > Another thought: Perhaps it takes Tarrant less time to accept Avon's > leadership because of his military background. A clearly delineated chain of > command is normal to him, whereas Avon is more of a loner and individualist. Yes, I meant to get to this eventually. Once Tarrant arrives the whole situation becomes more chain-of-command. Blake's crew is more like -- hmmm -- a gang? I do not *ever* see Avon as Blake's second-in-command. He's not interested in that. I see Avon as developing a personal loyalty to Blake based on respect and trust for Blake, never any particular interest in Blake's cause. Once the Liberator is lost, he realizes he's really never going to be free as long as the Federation exists; he's stuck with the rebellion, but I don't think he likes it. TTFN, Mistral -- "In the end, winning is the only safety."--Avon -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #98 *************************************