From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #280
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume00/280
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 00 : Issue 280
Today's Topics:
Re: [B7L] Avon (was: Rumours of Deat [ B7Morrigan@aol.com ]
[B7L] Gareth in Hamlet [ Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.com ]
Re: [B7L] Re: the old Star One argum [ "Christine+Steve" <cgorman@idirect. ]
Re: [B7L] Fantasy [ "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com ]
Re: [B7L] Fantasy [ Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana. ]
[B7L] Re: Fantasy & SF viewpoints [ Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net> ]
Re: [Re: [B7L]RE: Blakes 7 Movie] [ Jacqui Speel <jacquispeel@netscape. ]
[B7L] Re: Mary Ridge [ JEB31538@cs.com ]
Re: [B7L] Avon (was: Rumours of Deat [ "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com ]
Re [B7L] Fantasy, SF and all that st [ "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.n ]
Re: [B7L] Re: Fantasy & SF viewpoint [ "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.n ]
Re: [B7L] Re: Fantasy & SF viewpoint [ Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana. ]
Re: [B7L] Fantasy [ "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com> ]
Re: [B7L] Re: Fantasy & SF viewpoint [ "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com> ]
Re: [B7L] Fantasy [ Natasa Tucev <tucev@tesla.rcub.bg.a ]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:14:01 EDT
From: B7Morrigan@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Avon (was: Rumours of Death question)
Message-ID: <9c.7e9a602.270f7069@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 10/6/00 10:40:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
mistral@centurytel.net writes:
> Dana Shilling wrote re Avon:
>
> > Well, I'm pretty sure that he's an excellent cook but the kind who leaves
> > the kitchen in ruins and expects someone else to clean up.
>
> Well, maybe if it's Vila's turn to clean up...
>
> I always think of him as a very good but not gourmet cook; but
> that really annoying type who cleans up as he goes, so thoroughly
> that you can't tell he's been using the kitchen, even while he's
> still cooking! (I hate those people! Fnarr, fnarr.)
I've always loved a piece from one of Dana's stories about Avon's cooking
ability:
"as Vila said, it was and wasn't surprising how good a meal Avon could turn
out with unpromising ingredients. In a way you'd expect him to be a good
cook, good at anything that can be broken down into a series of steps and
learned. Good at anything that you could be better than other people at. He
always seemed to be working out of an encyclopedia with a few dozen more
volumes than anyone else's."
Seems a perfect description to me.
Morrigan
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 15:30:50 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.com>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Cc: Freedom City <freedom-city@blakes-7.org>
Subject: [B7L] Gareth in Hamlet
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-1006143050-d63Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
I've just been watching my Hamlet video.
It's longer than I'd expected which was a pleasant surprise. From hearing
Gareth talking about it, I'd expected more of an edited highlights version of
the play, but in fact, though this is trimmed down, it still runs for nearly two
hours.
It's a mixed bag. Most of the acting is good, some of it is excellent. The
scenery could be better, but then this isn't a Hollywood production - it's aimed
mainly at the school's market and bearing that level of budget in mind, it
doesn't do too badly at all. The echoey wooden floor in the palace was a bit
disconcerting, but you got used to it.
The picture quality varies too. Some of the indoor scenes are a little bit
grainy and I didn't like the way they did the ghost at all.
However, onto the good bits. Will Houston as Hamlet was superb and held the
entire thing together so that you forgot the sets (could have used him on
Blake's 7...). He was obsessed, insane, indecisive, and demanded that you watch
him.
Gareth made a scheming, evil Claudius, but one who also genuinely loves his wife
Gertrude. Gareth's skill lies in conveying a lot with a little, and it comes
over very well here.
The third strongest member of the cast is Jason Harris as Horatio (slash fans
will probably love his final scene with Hamlet), though Christopher Timothy
makes an entertaining gravedigger.
The weakest character for me was Ophelia. Lucy Cockram failed to convince.
The dialogue was clearly-spoken by all the cast. I don't know how close to the
original text it was or what bits were edited out, but there was almost nothing
that I failed to understand because of archaic language. The only time I missed
anything was to due the heavy overlay of church bells on the opening scene (the
bells carried on much longer than was necessary to remind us that Claudius was
marrying his brother's widow before said brother was two months in his grave.)
Some of the religious sensibilities of the period were nicely conveyed. I
particularly liked the scene where Hamlet decided not to kill Claudius while
Claudius is praying, as his soul would go to heaven and not to hell. Yet, with
true irony, we know from Claudius's own words that he does not believe God has
forgiven him for his crime.
Although the play has less than perfect production standards, I enjoyed it
greatly and will certainly be watching my tape again. It's well worth the money
and I recommed it for the performances of Will Houston and Gareth Thomas
Judith
PS. I'd swear the pearl went 'clunk' instead of 'splash' when dropped into the
wine goblet <grin>.
PPS. You can order the tape from Horizon and get a slight discount (though
you'll have to wait until they put the bulk order in) or you can buy it direct
by creit card for 14.99 inlcuding postage by phoning Cromwell 01789 292779.
They'll mail overseas, but that costs a few pounds extra.
--
http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 - Fanzines for Blake's 7, B7 Filk songs,
pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth
Thomas, etc. (also non-Blake's 7 zines at http://www.knightwriter.org )
Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 16:15:12 -0400
From: "Christine+Steve" <cgorman@idirect.com>
To: "B7 Mailing List" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: the old Star One argument
Message-ID: <002301c02fd2$36405fc0$e7139ad8@cgorman>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> From: Katie:
> Honestly, I think he really thought it'd be worth it - that the, um,
> spiritual worth of freedom was more important than the loss of life. He
> stonewalls everyone but Cally on the issue, but it's obviously something
> he's thought about and resolved. (And I think it's awfully interesting
that
> he actually *does* open to Cally a bit; that's rare, for him to be as open
> as he was with her in that moment.)
On a similar note, I was watching Countdown earlier, where Blake begins his
second campaign against Star One and I thought the crew's reaction to him
looking for Provine didn't fit with their characters, especially Avon. Avon
asks what they are doing orbiting Albian and Blake casually announces that
he's looking for Provine, who served on Central Control and may know its new
location.
Given the deadly results of their first raid on Central Control and then
Avon's numerous statements about Blake getting them all killed, I would have
expected at least some opposition to his continued search for Control. But
they just carry on preparing for teleport. It sounded like Blake had spent
some time doing more research on Control and directed the Liberator to this
planet without explaning anything to the other crew members. Again,
something Avon is never particularly happy about.
Didn't seem to fit that well to me. Apart from that, its still a great
episode.
Steve Dobson.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 20:18:46 GMT
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-ID: <LAW-F199GCEeqDN3pxf0000ccad@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Mistral wrote:
<I'd just like to point out that I've been determinedly quiet this week,
despite having been given plenty of fodder by Sally and Julia. ;-)>
That's awfully noble (if somewhat un-B7-ish) of you, dear (give me some
credit though, I may not have been quiet, but I did make earnest attempts to
Change the Subject.)
Trying to recall a time - any time - when one of Our Heroes ignored the
opportunity to argue ...
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 08:22:53 +1100
From: Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana.org.au>
To: "Blake's 7 list" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-ID: <20001007082253.A7453@welkin.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 06:10:49AM -0700, mistral@centurytel.net wrote:
>
> Alison Page wrote:
>
> > Natasa said -
> >
> > >>Man today is an extremely isolated and lonely creature - and it is to a
> > great extent due to science and rational thinking that he is no longer
> > capable of connecting himself to any larger whole, be it God, Universe,
> > Nature, or, for that matter, the rest of human kind. Science denies that man
> > can achieve 'mystical union' with any of these entities, and so opens a huge
> > emotional gap between 'I' and 'not I', without offering any alternative to
> > fill it with. <<
> >
> > I really don't see this at all. The point of science is to find out what is
> > really going on (I'm pretty cynical about how far modern science has got
> > down this road, but that is at least the point). Either human beings really
> > are linked with the rest of the Universe, or they are not. I happen to
> > believe they are, but the argument works either way. If your (I mean one's)
> > spirituality is true then the pursuit of truth can't obscure it. If your
> > spirituality is false, then you'd better find out as quick as possible,
> > because it is too important to piss about with.
>
> Oh, very well said. I agree 98%; however one should be aware of the
> basic assumption that underlies your argument - that science has the
> capability to investigate everything that exists; that the physical world
> is the total sum of existence. I believe there's something more. The gap
> that Natasa mentions isn't caused by science; it's caused by the notion
> that science and faith have to be at odds. To make that assumption is
> to cut the legs off both faith and science - particularly science, which
> relies on having a minimum of unprovable presuppositions for its success.
(sorry for not snipping, but mucho good thing said)
> [And let me drop in here since I've mislaid the original post - I can't
> agree that isolation and individualism are the same thing; a healthy
> respect for individualism IMO fosters connection, not isolation.]
Um, I agree with most of what's been said here, even when the above
appear to be disagreeing....
I agree with Natasa about the individual to some extent, from this
point of view -- individualism has robbed us of *community*. Or maybe
it's the industrial revolution and big cities that have robbed us of
community. There's just oneself and one's immediate family -- no
extended family, no "village community" (except in small towns); how
many people know their neighbours in a big city? (And even in
churches, which one might think were little mini-communities, in most
(but not all) cases, they're just club meetings, where people come
from somewhere else by car, and then go back there when the weekly
meet is over). There is a general selfishness -- no sense of duty, no
obligation to anyone other than self -- no connection, no union.
(And, yes, there are obvious exceptions.)
Science "denies that one can achieve a mystical union" because science
is limited in what it can encompass, what it can investigate. Science
can only look at the natural world, not the supernatural world. It
*has* to deny the supernatural, that is its nature. Therefore, at one
and the same time, it is trying "to find out what's really going on"
and is completely incapable of finding out what is really going on.
Science is limited in what it can find out. Science builds a model of
the world, but it is a model based on only what can be observed, on
what can be observed to have a pattern. The mistake, therefore, is to
declare that what can be observed by science, is the only thing that
exists -- in other words, Materialism (in its philisophical sense).
It is Materialism that denies the possibility of mystical union --
Science is merely its measuring rod.
"if your spirituality is true, then the pursuit of truth can't obscure
it" Absolutely. No one should ever fear truth, not even the truths
of science. Science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God; it
is a question outside its capacity. Let us pursue truth --- including
the truth brought to us by science -- with everything that we have,
and not fear for our faith, which needs to be in harmony with truth
otherwise it is false.
"To make the assumption that science and faith have to be at odds is
to cut the legs off both faith and science" -- what a wonderful way of
putting it!
All things start with faith -- as Mistral says, science has to start
with certain assumptions, otherwise it can't start at all.
"Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert
that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all."
-- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
And those of faith who assume that science is at odds with faith have
made an equally stupid error: if you are a theist, then how can one
think that modeling the created world (which is what science does)
denies that there is a Creator? True science (as distinct from
philosophy disguised as science) can only model what *is*, and what
is, is true, and what is true is not to be feared.
> > And - I guess - this is the problem for much of fantasy literature for me.
> > It just seems to have given up. As if to say 'well, reality has no holiness,
> > so I will withdraw to a world that has a pretend holiness in it'. Whereas
> > SF, at its best, encourages the real awe that we feel for the real universe.
> > I may never be able to travel faster than light to the edge of the galaxy,
> > but the edge of the galaxy really is there, and it is probably more strange
> > and lonely than I can imagine.
>
> Hm. I'd have said SF has given up, and it's fantasy that encourages
> a sense of wonder. Or, more particularly I'd say that SF _tends_ to
> the view that physical reality is all there is, and fantasy _tends_ to
> the view that there is something more. Since I do believe that the
> physical world is just an overlay on top of a deeper Reality, fantasy
> strikes me more as an attempt to pierce the veil rather than to deny
> the integrity ('holiness') of reality. Or, SF as analysis, fantasy as
> synthesis. Or mind vs. spirit; or the external world vs. the internal.
Oh, yes!
> Perhaps that the sense of wonder in SF comes from the portrayal
> of individuals as tiny and insignificant against the panoramic backdrop
> of time and space, whereas the wonder in fantasy comes from the
> portrayal of the individual as of supreme importance. I don't find those
> to be mutually exclusive, but paradoxically simultaneous truths.
I agree.
> I wonder if that explains why I prefer science-fantasy to both fantasy
> and SF? There's something to puzzle over :)
Both SF and Fantasy are capable of bringing us a Sense of Wonder.
But the vast majority of both do neither, simply because of Sturgeon's
Law. It takes talent to bring wonder.
It seems like we are giving many roles to our SF&F:
1. A Sense of Wonder.
2. As myth which supports the status-quo.
3. As myth which explores/redefines what is, where we are, current
society; and wonders where we should be.
4. Something which subverts and protests against the status quo.
And these roles overlap somewhat, too.
So, to bring this back on topic, what role does B7 play?
I can't really say that is has a Sense of Wonder. Dodgy SFX doesn't
really make the grade. (2001, on the other hand...)
Is B7 subversive? Quite probably. Neil? Do you think B7 is
subversive?
I don't think we can say that it supports the status-quo, in that it
portrays rebels against an oppressive government, which can hardly be
said to be a conservative stance. But it's also subversive in another
way, because the American myth of Rebels Against An Oppressive
Government (which you must admit is deep in the American psyche,
considering its origins as a nation) is that The Rebels Always Win.
(His strength was as the strength of ten, because his heart was pure.)
Wheras the message of B7, if there is one, is that the Rebels Always
Lose, but you have to Keep Fighting Anyway. Subversive against easy
answers of both stripes.
Kathryn Andersen
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing, and fools hate knowledge?"
Proverbs 1:22
--
_--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen <kat@foobox.net>
/ \ | <http://www.foobox.net/~kat>
\_.--.*/ | <http://angelcities.com/members/rubykat>
v | #include "standard/disclaimer.h"
------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere
Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 14:11:22 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Re: Fantasy & SF viewpoints
Message-ID: <39DE3FF9.18BE@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> But if we take the backbone of modern fantasy, what do we find?
Well, Tolkien goes back a ways. Modern literature in a literary sense...
but in a pop-culture sense, let's look at what current writers are
turning out.
Pratchett gives us Fantasy laden with addled professorial wizards, chaos
theory and the trouser legs of time, a film-noir style policeman who
hates kings even more than he hates the plutocratic style of the city's
dispersed power, and withces who risk their lives to keep a girl from
being swallowed by a Story. He specializes in dumping the conventions of
fantasy on their heads-- and as a result is much more of a bestseller
than those authors who churn out more stuff where barbarians, wizards
and princesses walk through the same old roles.
In "The Princess Bride", Buttercup and Wesley are sweethearts who fight
the political machine in the name of true love (and by extention,
individual freedom-- he's a pirate, she's legally obliged to marry the
prince at his command but won't). It also contains a vengeance story--
remember, in those vengeance traditionally brings tragedy, but in the
movie, at least, it looks like Iniego gets to move on to a post-vendetta
career, taking over as pirate king. (Since when IS that an occupation
for good guys?)
Even Disney's Beauty and the Beast, has of course it's roots in
tradition with the Beast being a prince and Belle being a dutiful
daughter. OTOH, it is one of the rare storylines in past or present to
allow *intellectualism* to be the defining characteristic of the
heroine, or be the basis for love. Given the anti-intellectual
sentiments of most pop culture, this strikes me as challenging the
status quo.
Tanith Lee did a story once... SF, but with more of a fantasy feel, I
think called "Fleur de Fir" (or something like that) It starts out
rather like a traditional, good people in the city vs bad vamppires
outside. But we learn gradually of how corrupt and evil the ruling elite
of the humans are, and the servant girl rescues a captured vampire and
they become friends... dying together in cold and starvation rather than
breaking the bond of friendship they have formed. Grim but definitely a
story of individuality vs. cultural norms.
Even that mainstay of status quo fantasy, the roleplaying game Dungeons
and Dragons, is made to be flexible. True, the rules as written follow
the most mindless tradition of the heroic swordsman saving the people
from maruading monsters. But everything is flexible, and even the
published games have expanded the world view. In the Ravenloft series
(fantasy meets Gothic horror), nothing is as it seems; the gamers must
solve mysteries to find out the *real* source of evil; mindless hack n'
slash antics will eventually turn the gamers into creatures of evil
themselves. Both regulation mudules and fan-publications have given
options where good and evil may be reversed. And then there's the
player's favorite alignment-- chaotic nuetral, a favorite for those who
want to throw away the status quo altogether. Since everything comes
down to the gamemaster's discretion, it's as reactionary or
revolutionary as the group playing.
Harry Potter deals with racism and human rights, a government that can't
be trusted (the Ministry has railroaded innocents through trials and
uses soul-eating monsters as guardians), corruption and bribery, and a
web of deceipt that makes it impossible to know the full truth about
anyone.
I don't think it's possible to classify a genre based on the foundations
of it.
Furthermore, one has to look at old fantasy in terms of it's time. Could
the elf-dwarf friendship in the Lord of the Rings be seen as a metaphor
for a cross-racial friendship? If so, we should think of the period in
which it was written and recognize it aas a revolutionary concept. Then
the men had a King, but the Hobbits lived in a democracy with an elected
mayor. Since the Hobbits represent the common man of England, it could
be seen as pro-democratic.
------------------------------
Date: 6 Oct 00 15:03:33 PDT
From: Jacqui Speel <jacquispeel@netscape.net>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [Re: [B7L]RE: Blakes 7 Movie]
Message-ID: <20001006220333.6537.qmail@www0y.netaddress.usa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
And what about the remake series: but it would have to be a 'reinterpret'=
to
work properly (as with the two Richard III films)
"Minnie" <minnie@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
Ellynne wrote:
>Can't complain. That's why I gave B7 a chance (hey, I love it now, but,=
>at the time, I had the alarm going off, saying, "Cheap sets! Scary bad
>70's fashions! Characters standing around ignoring the noisy guy sneakin=
g
>up on them!" and so on.).
Thats partly why I love B7. <G>
I just get the feeling we will feel cheated or worse, the movie will st=
ink
and I cant talk for anyone else but that sort of thing kinda puts me off =
the
original movie/show a little. :( On the other hand, it might be some sor=
t
of closure or an explination re the final episode.
Fingies xst. :)
Min.xxx
____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://home=
=2Enetscape.com/webmail
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 21:32:22 EDT
From: JEB31538@cs.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Re: Mary Ridge
Message-ID: <27.bce7bc8.270fd726@cs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Judith,
Thanks for telling us that Joe Nazarro had added a tribute to Mary Ridge on
your website. I had already seen your tribute and wouldn't have thought to
have looked at it again without you letting us know something had been added.
I thoroughly enjoyed listening to Mary of the Together Again tape she was on.
I'm glad she was one of the guests in that series.
Joyce
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:39:00 GMT
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Avon (was: Rumours of Death question)
Message-ID: <LAW-F123p7vXee4fDGC0000c855@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Dana wrote:
<Well, I'm pretty sure that he's an excellent cook but the kind who leaves
the kitchen in ruins and expects someone else to clean up.>
<gurgle> whereas I've got him pegged as someone with very little interest in
food, and with almost non-existent experience, interest or skill in cooking
- the sort who, if Zen wasn't there to reconsititute the concentrates for
them, would simply eat whatever first came to hand and didn't need any
preparation. And is more than capable of completely forgetting a meal or two
when he's working, for that matter.
Vila I can see as reasonably non-disastrous in whatever sort of kitchen the
future holds, and I'm convinced he has a veeerrry sweet tooth (and likes
cheap candy). Gan could probably manage good plain cookery of the kind we're
taught in schools :-); Jenna lives on diet shakes and polystyrene cakes
anyway; Cally has Auron taste buds, so anything's possible. Blake quite
possibly knows how to do the bush tucker bit (one can imagine him killing
and gutting the local giant-icky-grub-thingies, then getting rather tetchy
when his loyal crew all refuse point-blank to touch, let alone eat, them)
and could translate that into basic food preparation, but somehow he doesn't
strike me as the foodie type either.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 03:17:34 +0100
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re [B7L] Fantasy, SF and all that stuff
Message-ID: <00e801c0300d$06dc8fc0$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Some great input on this thread.
Alison said:
<And - I guess - this is the problem for much of fantasy literature for me.
It just seems to have given up. As if to say 'well, reality has no holiness,
so I will withdraw to a world that has a pretend holiness in it'. >
I think the real quest is for social and moral simplicity, an escape from
the corresponding complexities of the real world, though it does imply a
corresponding simplicity in 'holiness', reducing it to a manageable scale.
I don't like this kind of escapism because it encourages a belief in equally
simple certainties. Certainties like, say, "All Jews are evil." (What else
is fascism but a desire to create a simple social order that echoes a
glorified past?). Certainly not all fantasy falls into this trap, just as
not all SF escapes it.
<Whereas SF, at its best, encourages the real awe that we feel for the real
universe.>
Yes, and I think that sense of awe comes an awareness of a complexity that
we can never hope to fully comprehend. You can have that in fantasy too -
Tolkien counterbalances the social and moral simplicities of LotR with
historical and cultural depth, and the sheer level of detail is pretty
awesome in itself.
Mistral:
<I'd have said SF has given up, and it's fantasy that encourages a sense of
wonder. Or, more particularly I'd say that SF _tends_ to the view that
physical reality is all there is, and fantasy _tends_ to the view that there
is something more. Since I do believe that the physical world is just an
overlay on top of a deeper Reality, fantasy strikes me more as an attempt to
pierce the veil rather than to deny the integrity ('holiness') of reality. >
I'd rather say that SF tends to the view that physical reality is all there
needs to be, and you can get more than enough sense of wonder from that.
Fantasy reflects a need for something more. Is that because there is
genuinely something missing? Or because the real world has not been
appropriately viewed, comprehended and appreciated?
Whether or not there is a 'Deeper Reality' in a mystical sense I can't and
don't presume to say, but I don't believe in one. (Whaddayamean, you
guessed?) A wider reality is something else altogether.
<Or, SF as analysis, fantasy as synthesis. Or mind vs. spirit; or the
external world vs. the internal.>
It has been my experience that the scientifically minded tend to relate
themselves to the world, whereas the spiritually minded tend to relate the
world to themselves.
<Perhaps that the sense of wonder in SF comes from the portrayal of
individuals as tiny and insignificant against the panoramic backdrop of time
and space, whereas the wonder in fantasy comes from the portrayal of the
individual as of supreme importance. I don't find those to be mutually
exclusive, but paradoxically simultaneous truths.>
I'd broadly agree with the differences in approach, but I do find them
mutually exclusive. Tininess and (maybe) insignificance are objectively
measurable qualities, but importance (supreme or otherwise) is not. Nothing
is important until someone decides that it is. Something tiny remains tiny
no matter who drools over it. Importance is not a truth, merely a matter of
opinion.
Kathryn:
<I agree with Natasa about the individual to some extent, from this point of
view -- individualism has robbed us of *community*. Or maybe it's the
industrial revolution and big cities that have robbed us of community. >
I wouldn't argue with that, comrade. The Industrial Revolution and the big
cities have pushed us towards individualism, technological progress has
merely facilitated its realisation. (Okay, there were plenty of big cities
before the IR. From what I've read of them, they were still less
communitarian than the surrounding countryside, and they only held about
10-20 per cent max of the population anyway. Society as a whole was still
community based.)
<There is a general selfishness -- no sense of duty, no obligation to anyone
other than self -- no connection, no union.>
Probably what underlies most - perhaps even all - modern fiction, or is at
least an element discernible within it. But SF tends to be more concerned
with how we cope with that absence of connection, or just hypothesises over
where progressive alienation might take us. Whereas Fantasy concocts worlds
where it isn't absent. (Though the Conanesque barbarian romps go another
way, by effectively denying that there might be anything to connect with.)
Fantasy - another shot of opium for the people. Not that a lot of them
don't need one.
<Science "denies that one can achieve a mystical union" because science is
limited in what it can encompass, what it can investigate. Science can only
look at the natural world, not the supernatural world. It *has* to deny the
supernatural, that is its nature. >
That I have to disagree with. Science rejects unqualified belief in the
supernatural, not the supernatural itself. It is a goal of science to bring
the supernatural within the bounds of the natural (or to expand the bounds
of the natural to encompass the supernatural, whichever seems more
appropriate to the truth), to explain the inexplicable and understand the
incomprehensible. As good scientists (not that all scientists are good
ones, of course), they cannot deliver a final verdict: either the
supernatural is something natural that hasn't been explained yet (and might
never be), or it doesn't exist at all, but personal opinions aside it would
be rash to say which.
<The mistake, therefore, is to declare that what can be observed by science,
is the only thing that exists >
I'd agree that that's a mistake. Otherwise there was no such thing as
radioactivity until the Curies discovered it.
<So, to bring this back on topic, what role does B7 play? I can't really
say that is has a Sense of Wonder. Dodgy SFX doesn't really make the grade.
(2001, on the other hand...) Is B7 subversive? Quite probably. Neil? Do
you think B7 is subversive?>
In terms of its rebellion theme, I would say no. It's not so much 'common
people versus the establishment' as common people *as the establishment*
seeking to vindicate their privileged position by appointing themselves the
champions of a cause they've invented for themselves.
Of course, in the series the Federation was real enough, and Blake had good
reasons to fight it. But what - not who - is Blake, and what are the
Federation? Blake is an Alpha, at the top of the social pile. The
Federation, like the Daleks, are just Bad Dudes who do Awful Things. Blake
fights them, so he's the Good Guy. We're on his side, so we're good guys
too. We're against the Federation.
What Federation? There is no Federation out there. It only exists in our
heads, to assure us that we're on the side of the angels.
I don't see anything particularly subversive about middle class angst.
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 04:15:15 +0100
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Fantasy & SF viewpoints
Message-ID: <00e901c0300d$0a5dc740$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
I think some of us might disagree with what counts as 'subversive'
literature...
> Pratchett ... specializes in dumping the conventions of
> fantasy on their heads-- and as a result is much more of a bestseller
> than those authors who churn out more stuff where barbarians, wizards
> and princesses walk through the same old roles.
As I've already said, I consider Pratchett primarily a humourist rather than
a fantasist, but his love of the genre and awareness of its shortcomings is
undeniable. His lampoons can be deliciously sharp.
> In "The Princess Bride", Buttercup and Wesley are sweethearts who fight
> the political machine in the name of true love
The very idea of 'true love' is about as reactionary as any I can think of.
> (and by extention,
> individual freedom-- he's a pirate, she's legally obliged to marry the
> prince at his command but won't).
So promoting the idea of freedom of the individual in a culture which prides
itself on the freedom of the individual is a radical piece of extreme
seditiousness?
> It also contains a vengeance story--
> remember, in those vengeance traditionally brings tragedy, but in the
> movie, at least, it looks like Iniego gets to move on to a post-vendetta
> career, taking over as pirate king. (Since when IS that an occupation
> for good guys?)
Ask Robin Hood.
> Even Disney's Beauty and the Beast, has of course it's roots in
> tradition with the Beast being a prince and Belle being a dutiful
> daughter. OTOH, it is one of the rare storylines in past or present to
> allow *intellectualism* to be the defining characteristic of the
> heroine, or be the basis for love. Given the anti-intellectual
> sentiments of most pop culture, this strikes me as challenging the
> status quo.
Compare with Angela Carter's version where the heroine escapes the prison
Beauty to enjoy the freedom of Beastliness.
> Tanith Lee did a story once... SF, but with more of a fantasy feel, I
> think called "Fleur de Fir" (or something like that) It starts out
> rather like a traditional, good people in the city vs bad vamppires
> outside. But we learn gradually of how corrupt and evil the ruling elite
> of the humans are, and the servant girl rescues a captured vampire and
> they become friends... dying together in cold and starvation rather than
> breaking the bond of friendship they have formed. Grim but definitely a
> story of individuality vs. cultural norms.
Sounds like standard middle class guilt to me.
> Even that mainstay of status quo fantasy, the roleplaying game Dungeons
> and Dragons, is made to be flexible. True, the rules as written follow
> the most mindless tradition of the heroic swordsman saving the people
> from maruading monsters.
At the risk of being ultra-picky, I'd say that that was not written into the
rules themselves, though it's certainly the ethos of the original game for
which the rules were developed.
> But everything is flexible, and even the
> published games have expanded the world view. In the Ravenloft series
> (fantasy meets Gothic horror), nothing is as it seems; the gamers must
> solve mysteries to find out the *real* source of evil; mindless hack n'
> slash antics will eventually turn the gamers into creatures of evil
> themselves. Both regulation mudules and fan-publications have given
> options where good and evil may be reversed.
How about chucking them altogether?
> And then there's the
> player's favorite alignment-- chaotic nuetral, a favorite for those who
> want to throw away the status quo altogether.
CN is the cop-out alignment. We used to call it CGFF - Couldn't Give a
Flying ... er .... Fudgecake.
> Since everything comes
> down to the gamemaster's discretion, it's as reactionary or
> revolutionary as the group playing.
That is certainly true.
> Harry Potter deals with racism and human rights, a government that can't
> be trusted (the Ministry has railroaded innocents through trials and
> uses soul-eating monsters as guardians), corruption and bribery, and a
> web of deceipt that makes it impossible to know the full truth about
> anyone.
I haven't read Rowling, but I gather Potter arose from her frustration at
the British class system and especially the way it treats single parents
like herself. Still, nothing wrong with a bit of satire.
> Furthermore, one has to look at old fantasy in terms of it's time. Could
> the elf-dwarf friendship in the Lord of the Rings be seen as a metaphor
> for a cross-racial friendship? If so, we should think of the period in
> which it was written and recognize it aas a revolutionary concept.
Or tall kaffer and short kaffer are united under the leadership of the
enlightened Big White Bwana. (I don't seriously mean that; it's just
another possible way of interpreting the cited example. I know Tolkien was
born in either South Africa or Namibia but I've no idea what influence that
had on him. I do distinctly recall, however, that all the blacks in LotR
were working for Sauron.)
> Then
> the men had a King, but the Hobbits lived in a democracy with an elected
> mayor. Since the Hobbits represent the common man of England, it could
> be seen as pro-democratic.
<Choke splutter gurgle!!> Are you *serious*? Tolkien's 'common man of
England' lived in Mordor. The orcs are the masses, the subhuman cultureless
riff-raff who threaten the complacent comfort of that placid stockbroker
belt called the Shire. The hobbits are not democrats - their 'mayor' is a
token, a functionless figurehead to personify their own sense of
self-importance. Tolkien's hobbits are the voice of suburbia, smug in their
belief that their uncritical conservatism somehow makes them apolitical.
Their cheery ballads are the Kylie Minogue of a morally bankrupt apology for
a culture. They live in holes, and enter head first like the ostriches they
are. Why, even their
<thunk>
We apologise for the sudden interruption to this rant. Normal service will
be resumed as soon as we've repaired the soap box. In the meantime, here's
some music:
"There is an inn, a merry old inn..."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:34:56 +1100
From: Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana.org.au>
To: "Blake's 7 list" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Fantasy & SF viewpoints
Message-ID: <20001007153456.B8780@welkin.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:15:15AM +0100, Neil Faulkner wrote:
> So promoting the idea of freedom of the individual in a culture which prides
> itself on the freedom of the individual is a radical piece of extreme
> seditiousness?
So what *would* be seditious, then? Individualism isn't seditious,
but community-ism would be conservative, so what's left?
I'm suddenly reminded of the neo-Victorians in The Diamond Age.
--
_--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen <kat@foobox.net>
/ \ | <http://www.foobox.net/~kat>
\_.--.*/ | <http://angelcities.com/members/rubykat>
v | #include "standard/disclaimer.h"
------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere
Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 00:27:55 -0600
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-ID: <20001007.002757.-88753.1.rilliara@juno.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Sat, 7 Oct 2000 03:26:11 +0100 "Dan Griffiths"
<diomedes@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >Then there's Ovid's Metamorphosis which got him exiled from Rome
> because
> >of its subversive elements.
> >
> I don't want to hit the list with this (yay fifth legion lurkers),
> but
> didn't Ovid say in the Tristia that he was exiled for an opus and an
> error?
> Is there any real evidence that, although subversive, the
> Metamorphoses was
> the error in question?
>
I'll be honest. I don't know. I know I had a mythology professor who
could list various ways in which Metamorphoses could have been expected
to have offended Caesar and he certainly left me with the impression it
was the reason for his exile, but that could have been a misunderstanding
on my part - or just a strongly felt opinion on his.
Ellynne
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 00:24:43 -0600
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Fantasy & SF viewpoints
Message-ID: <20001007.002757.-88753.0.rilliara@juno.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This started out as a point by point rebuttal/argument/nickpick for the
heck of it of Neil's comments on fantasy, but it was getting too long (I
may want to write a novel someday, but this wasn't what I had in mind).
Instead, I'm just going to focus on Helen's observation that the
Elf-Dwarf friendship had interracial connotations that were pretty
radical at the time and Neil (less than seriously) pointing out how it
could be put into a more derogatory context and go from there.
One thing about stories is how the function in context. Didn't I bring
up Shakespeare in the Bush once before? An anthropologist wound up
telling members of an AFrican tribe the story of Hamlet only to have them
explain to her what it _really_ meant (for starters, they had no cultural
concept of ghosts, men were supposed to marry their brother's widow,
brothers became chief ahead of sons, the term for scholar could also mean
witch, Polonius' death fit their notions of accidental death [with
Polonius at fault] and you could only go crazy or drown if a witch had
put a spell on you). They also said it was a good story, by the way.
But the point is they rewrote it to fit their needs.
I know a version of Goldilocks where Goldilocks was an obnoxious gang
member. There's a Cinderella where the whole point is that love isn't
based on how well dressed (or good smelling) the right person is. Several
of my favorite versions of Beauty and the Beast emphasize Beauty as the
smart one who, in going in her father's place, is shown more as taking up
the responsibilities her elderly father can no longer manage (i.e., a
_son's_ usual role). THere's the old standby example that a Jewish joke
told by a Rabbi has a completely different meaning than the same joke
told by a neo-nazi.
Hence, I don't think you can really say that a story - or story type -
can only be used one way. It adapts to the teller.
Now, a lot of SF is one big cliche. A lot of just about everything is.
A lot of it is also unthought out cliches (I somehow don't think the
writers sat down and considered the cultural message of Buck Rogers).
But consider what small differences do.
Star Wars: Small band of rebels fight against evil, overwhelmingly big,
galactic government.
Blakes 7: Small band of rebels fight against evil, overwhelmingly big,
galactic government.
That said, I have to admit (in direct contradiction of earlier
statements, I know) I like fantasy because, in an era where most fiction
seems to be going out of its way to be amoral, fantasy most often isn't.
In an era where a lot of fiction has protaganists focused on surviving,
fantasy is focused on doing things for or against the well being of
others. It also usually believes the protaganist can do something to
harm or benefit on a large scale.
True, fantasy doesn't _have_ to be that way. I can name fantasy novels
that really, really don't. But that and the element of wonder is what
attracts me to it.
Ellynne
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 11:17:31 +0200
From: Natasa Tucev <tucev@tesla.rcub.bg.ac.yu>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-Id: <200010070917.LAA25178@Tesla.rcub.bg.ac.yu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Alison wrote:
>
>I really don't see this at all. The point of science is to find out what is
>really going on (I'm pretty cynical about how far modern science has got
>down this road, but that is at least the point).
To find out what's going on - where? Inside or outside? If I'm a member of a
primitive pagan tribe who believes that the Sun God rises up every morning
to keep me warm and protect me, it is a statement which tends to explain to
me not only Nature, but also my place in it and my own emotions. Then a
scientist comes and tells me, 'Oh no, it's just a star with nuclear
reactions on the surface.' This is of course true as far as material reality
is concerned, but what happens to my inner being? (Of course I can always
boil the scientist with some potatoes and go on worshiping my Sun God). By
providing an answer which is satisfactory only to our intellect, and what's
much worse, by leading us to believe that it is only our intellect which
needs to be satisfied, science dissociates us from the world. The problem is
that we need statements which do not only explain to us the material
reality, but also our response to it, our psyche, and the connection between
these. Science cannot provide such statements, literature can. Not by being
a branch of science, as Neil would have it, but by being Something
Completely Different. Even by writing a novel about a University Professor
who commits adultery and his daughter who gets raped in a backwater town.
Which for some people is either too disturbing to read, or else they don't
want to bother and think where all the emptiness and violence stem from.
Natasa
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #280
**************************************