From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #71
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume99/71
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 71
Today's Topics:
[B7L] Black holes
Re: [B7L] Constructive Criticism (was re: Fannishness)
[B7L] buddlea
RE: [B7L] Constructive Criticism (was re: Fannishness)
Re: [B7L] Constructive Criticism (was re: Fannishness)
Re: [B7L] Fannishness
RE: [B7L] Fannishness
Re: [B7L] Flat Robin 31
Re: [B7L] OT, Fannishness
Re: [B7L] buddlea
Re: [B7L] Fannishness
Re: [B7L] Constructive Criticism (was re: Fannishness)
Re: [B7L] Constructive Criticism (was re: Fannishness)
re: [B7L] Fannishness
[B7L] Shakespeare and B7
Re:[B7L] Shakespeare and B7
Re: [B7L] Constructive Criticism (was re: Fannishness)
Re: [B7L] Fannishness
Re: [B7L] Fannishness
re: [B7L] Fannishness
Re: [B7L] Fannishness
Re: [B7L] Shakespeare and B7
Re: [B7L] Fannishness
Re: [B7L] Shakespeare and B7
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 07:42:19 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Black holes
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-0221064219-0b0Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
On Sat 20 Feb, Pherber@aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 2/16/99 9:48:25 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> > ijc@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk writes:
> >
> > << It's especially good on stellar end-states: all the stuff about
> > white dwarfs, black holes and neutron stars is pretty sound. >>
>
> >On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 12:34:02AM -0500, Pherber@aol.com wrote:
> > <<Yeah, well, up until they fly through the black holes.........<grin>>>
>
> In a message dated 2/17/99 1:54:49 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> kat@welkin.apana.org.au writes:
>
> << But the "black hole" in Dawn of the Gods wasn't a black hole anyway -
> it was an artificial gravity generator. >>
>
> True, but the one in Breakdown wasn't artificial, and they flew through *it*.
> Maybe the secret is in the application of silly special effects? Or maybe
> someone had just gotten a REALLY BIG blow dryer and wanted to try it out?
That wasn't a black hole. It was described as a gravitational vortex (whatever
one of those is) and it was red anyway.
If it had been a black hole, it would have looked very different and they'd
never have come out again.
Judith
--
http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7
Redemption 99 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention
26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Kent
http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 11:05:55 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Constructive Criticism (was re: Fannishness)
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-0221100555-965Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
On Sun 21 Feb, Neil Faulkner wrote:
> It isn't always like that. I've had some extremely helpful input from
> Judith P, Russ Massey and others over the years. And Judith isn't
> _obviously_ stupider than me... My general reaction to constructive
> criticism runs something like this:
That gave me a much needed laugh!
>
> On receiving it - 'The bastards. How dare they?'
> Two hours later - 'Okay, so they might have a point.'
> 24 hours later - 'Okay, so they _do_ have a point.'
> One week later - 'I really hate rewriting, but...'
I've been through that loop myself. I remember it well with Morgan. How dare
Neil suggest I abandon my beloved opening sequence! Some time later, I was
forced to admit that he was right.
>
> Mind you, nobody's yet managed to tell me how to construct a manageable
> plot. That's how most of my fanfic ends up unfinished.
You tend to ramble down interesting sidelines. That's your problem <grin>. I'd
suggest that you mapped out the plot in advance and stuck to it, but as I never
write novels that way myself, I can't sound very convincing. (Actually, I'm
trying that approach for the novel I'm working on currently. I dare say it'll
get altered as I make progress, but these is an outline structure) (Morgan had
a structure of sorts, but it was only a list of things that affected one another
- thus, 'the scene with Morgan in church has to come before the scene with the
bath, because I want the reader to buld up knowledge of the situation in a
certain way.) I also had a long list of facts that had to be included at some
point because they were essential to the back story.
I think the trick that works for me is to know clearly the difference between
plot and theme. Once I know the theme - and I'll know that within two chapters
or else the story won't be worth writing, then the plot will start working
itself into logical shape. Plot (in my work at least) has to reflect the theme.
The theme may remain invisible to some readers but it will still have great
impact on the way I write.
Themes are often difficult to put into words, but I'll try. The theme of
'Morgan' is how people cope with loneliness. The story/plot therefore had to
have several key elements that related to this. eg. Avon's amnesia, Morgan's
reluctance to talk about his past, Avon's flashbacks to his frineds, Morgan's
experince at the chip shop. These aren't directly plot related but have to be
worked into the plot and thus affect it.
The plot is about Avon arriving in an alien culture, trying to make sense of it
and then working out how to get back home. (beginning, middle, end)
Where theme and plot meet is when Avon is forced to understand himself through
another's eyes, where Avon is forced into dependency on Morgan both because
Morgan's guilt and loneliness make him the only person who will take Avon into
his house without asking awkward questions and because Morgan's resemblence to
Blake has to be a clue as to why Avon is 1984 in the first place.
The other way I construct plot is through what I call 'logical necessity'. eg.
Avon has no money. Morgan is extremely short of money. Therefore they have to
obtain money. Logically, if this was real life and they were real people, what
would they do? In fact, allowing them both to follow their own ways of trying
to get enough money to live on gave me most of the plot that I needed, and their
reactions to those events gave me an opportunity to work in virtually everything
else that I needed.
I think you work from logical necessity a lot (at least, that's how I see your
work). The problem you generally have is tying the pieces together afterwards.
A plot has to have an end, because this is fiction and not real life. Thus, it
can be necessary to compromise all the repercussions of events (and as you tend
to develop more characters as you go on, that inevitably leads to more events to
finalise) and conclude some in a less than realistic fashion or else make the
decision to excise a particular sub-plot totally.
Chopping a beloved sub-plot may be painful, but it may be the only to complete a
novel. Reducing the number of key characters might also help.
Judith
--
http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7
Redemption 99 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention
26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Kent
http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 10:36:54 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] buddlea
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-0221093654-06cRr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
My personal feeling about buddlea (as I wrote a story recently that had it in)
is that it turned out to be a useful plant when terraforming alien planets.
It's ability to thrive on bare, rocky ground and terribly poor soils means that
it's a good colonsier. Its seeds also distribute easily.
Of course, you have to introduce a suitable pollinator as well, but then that's
life.
I wonder how one would go about terraforming a planet. I haven't really the
faintest idea, but it seems pretty obvious that you'd need plants first. The
question is, can plants survive without oxygen? My distant biology suggests
that they use CO2 most of hte time and oxygen part of the time, though I can't
recall all te details.
Judith
--
http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7
Redemption 99 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention
26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Kent
http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 12:38:56 +0100
From: Jacqueline Thijsen <jacqueline.thijsen@cmg.nl>
To: lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: RE: [B7L] Constructive Criticism (was re: Fannishness)
Message-ID: <39DCDDFD014ED21185C300104BB3F99F10FB3B@NL-ARN-MAIL01>
Content-Type: text/plain
Neil wrote:
> My general reaction to constructive criticism runs something like this:
>
> On receiving it - 'The bastards. How dare they?'
> Two hours later - 'Okay, so they might have a point.'
> 24 hours later - 'Okay, so they _do_ have a point.'
> One week later - 'I really hate rewriting, but...'
>
This describes my reaction, too. The problem here is that I generally answer
any posting at once or not at all, which accounts for you being on the
receiving end of my wrathful sulk.
> Mind you, nobody's yet managed to tell me how to construct a manageable
> plot. That's how most of my fanfic ends up unfinished.
>
Plot? What's a plot? Do you have to have one of those in a story? Oh dear.
Penny, Avona: do we have a plot?
Jacqueline
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 12:34:24 +0000
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Constructive Criticism (was re: Fannishness)
Message-ID: <umoPfmAQ1$z2EwuQ@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <000a01be5d66$b788dd40$5c1eac3e@default>, Neil Faulkner
<N.Faulkner@tesco.net> writes
>On receiving it - 'The bastards. How dare they?'
>Two hours later - 'Okay, so they might have a point.'
>24 hours later - 'Okay, so they _do_ have a point.'
>One week later - 'I really hate rewriting, but...'
:-)
Know the feeling. Judith can tell you about the arguments we've had when
she's trashed one of my stories... Deservedly, I have to admit -
eventually.
But constructive criticism is useful. I've just been pulled up on
something that the beta-reader assumed was a plot device. In fact, it
wasn't - it was solidly based in fact. But it's not a widely known fact,
so if it looks like a plot device to the general reader, I'd better fix
it. I simply wouldn't have seen this myself.
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 05:09:50 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 list <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fannishness
Message-ID: <36D0059D.A39DC482@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jacqueline wrote:
> Anyway, besides rambling along, the point I'm trying to make is that I'm
> willing to learn.
>
I have always been given to understand that becoming a good writer
requires three things: The willingness to learn, the intelligence to
learn, and the courage to put your work out into the public. You appear
to have all three, and I have enjoyed your contributions (along with
everybody else's). I applaud you, and particularly admire your courage.
My own scribblings have been kept locked in the computer (no plotting
skills here.) Keep it up, please!
> The only shakespeare I know is one sonnet and Hamlet,
> because I saw the movie. As Alicia Silverstone so aptly put it: I know my
> Mel Gibson. (My favourite pick-up line: "Get thee to a nunnery". It had me
> in hysterics for half the day).
>
I take it that you're aware that 'nunnery' was Elizabethan slang for
brothel? ;-P
But seriously, if the Gibson Hamlet tickled your fancy at all,
Shakespeare makes a perfect companion interest for both writing and B7;
on the writing side, he really understood what makes people tick, and of
course his use of language is brilliant (I admit his plots are generally
awful, but he stole most of them), and he does his comic passages very
well indeed; and on the B7 side, not only have most of the principle
actors done Shakespeare, but the show as a whole can be viewed as a sort
of three-act Shakespearian-style tragedy with a twist-- two flawed
heroes instead of one, with the whole thing themed on trust and
commitment. Yes, I know I do go on, but Shakespeare was my great passion
until I stumbled across B7. I am in complete and total envy of those
lucky enough to have seen Paul Darrow on stage in the Scottish play.
If I can only tempt you by offering up a B7 connection, there is an
admittedly uneven version of Julius Caeser on film in which you can get
glimpses of two of our heroes, pre-B7: It stars Sir John Gielgud,
Charleton Heston, Jason Robards, Dame Diana Rigg, etc., and in the scene
of Mark Antony's big speech, there is a young Michael Keating trading
lines with Charleton Heston (he's also in another scene, but harder to
spot), and for the Tarrant Nostra, an earlier scene has a *very* young
(twelvish?) Steven Pacey playing a servant boy. Sweet enough to give you
a toothache, if you like that sort of thing.
Ah, well, I am easily amused. And if you already knew all this, I
apologize for rambling.
Mistral
--
"And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 14:44:02 +0100
From: Jacqueline Thijsen <jacqueline.thijsen@cmg.nl>
To: B7 list <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: RE: [B7L] Fannishness
Message-ID: <39DCDDFD014ED21185C300104BB3F99F10FB3C@NL-ARN-MAIL01>
Content-Type: text/plain
>(My favourite pick-up line: "Get thee to a nunnery". It had me
> > in hysterics for half the day).
> >
> I take it that you're aware that 'nunnery' was Elizabethan slang for
> brothel? ;-P
>
No, I didn't know that. I think the non-slang meaning is funnier in this
context. I mean, telling a girl who is making calf-eyes at you to go to a
brothel is just mean. Telling her to become a nun, well, I just couldn't
help imagining the reaction of most modern-day girls to that one.
As for the rest: I once bought 'the collected works of William Shakespeare'
once, when it was on sale. So far, I haven't gotten around to reading it,
but I intend to. And as for your Julius Ceasar tip: I've just found a store
here in Arnhem that sells lots of cult movies (they have 'soylent green',
'the day the earth stood still' and the original versions of 'invasion of
the body snatchers' and 'day of the triffids') I'll mostly be getting my B7
and DS9 -tapes from them, but I'll definately be keeping an eye out for the
Ceasar video.
Jacqueline
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 14:19:36 +0000
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Flat Robin 31
Message-ID: <JYVmAxA4XB02Ewwy@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <19990221004324.9276.qmail@hotmail.com>, Penny Dreadful
<pdreadful@hotmail.com> writes
>"Ooh, what a nice ring!" exclaimed Nanny Ogg, materializing out of the
>darkness at his side and seizing his left wrist in an iron grip.
>"Engaged, are we?"
The whole thing's had me ROFL, but this one really did have me literally
nearly falling off my chair laughing.
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 07:32:11 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 list <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] OT, Fannishness
Message-ID: <36D026FA.D2456288@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
I said:
> > I take it that you're aware that 'nunnery' was Elizabethan slang for
> > brothel? ;-P
Jacqueline said:
> No, I didn't know that. I think the non-slang meaning is funnier in this
> context. I mean, telling a girl who is making calf-eyes at you to go to a
> brothel is just mean. Telling her to become a nun, well, I just couldn't
> help imagining the reaction of most modern-day girls to that one.
Don't be too hard on poor Hamlet; he was being cruel to be kind. He knew that
he was about to embark on this plot of revenge, and didn't want her to be
caught in the crossfire, so to speak. He was trying to achieve a double
purpose: feigning madness, and killing her affections for him for her own
safety; so that whole passage is chock-full of crude double meanings and
not-so-thinly-veiled insults. Unhappily, it didn't work; he killed her father
by accident, and drove her mad. But then, that's the nature of Shakespeare's
tragedies; the protagonist destroys everything and everyone he loves, along
with himself. Sort of like Blake and Avon.
Be warned about the Julius Caesar; it has good scenes and awful scenes, and the
bits with Pacey and Keating are short; still, if you like star-gazing, it has
lots of famous actors, and Charleton Heston comes off pretty well.
At the risk of getting flamed off the list, I will offer one more Shakespearian
suggestion before returning to topics B7: while Hamlet is pretty universally
considered W.S.'s masterwork, if you prefer comedy to tragedy, Taming of the
Shrew is still the most popular of all the plays, with both genders, and by my
count has been filmed more than any of the other comedies. Some women nowadays
are offended by the *surface* theme, (wives should defer to their husbands in
the interests of peace), but if that doesn't bother you, or you can overlook
it, the play is very lively and rollicking and easy to follow, and it has
(IMHO) some of the best secondary characters in Shakespeare's work. The most
brilliant and breathtaking version that I have seen on film is the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation's presentation of the Stratford Festival Production,
starring Len Cariou and Sharry Flett, who are both very good, and it is worth
watching for the supporting character of Grumio alone. (Not, of course,
intending to offend anybody with this suggestion.)
Mistral
--
"And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 16:35:43 -0000
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] buddlea
Message-ID: <002601be5db8$5c307dc0$5019ac3e@default>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Judith wrote:
>My personal feeling about buddlea (as I wrote a story recently that had it
in)
>is that it turned out to be a useful plant when terraforming alien planets.
>It's ability to thrive on bare, rocky ground and terribly poor soils means
that
>it's a good colonsier. Its seeds also distribute easily.
Possibly. I would go for the cashcrop option myself, though what useful
ingredient might be extracted from buddleia is beyond me.
>I wonder how one would go about terraforming a planet. I haven't really
the
>faintest idea, but it seems pretty obvious that you'd need plants first.
The
>question is, can plants survive without oxygen? My distant biology
suggests
>that they use CO2 most of hte time and oxygen part of the time, though I
can't
>recall all te details.
Aha, something I do know a little bit about (for once). Plants use oxygen
for respiration just as we do - they take in O2 and breathe out CO2 (of
course it's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it).
This is the basic principle of respiration in most terran lifeforms, ie:
sugar and oxygen ---> CO2 and water plus energy
Plants also do the opposite, through photosynthesis:
CO2 and water plus energy (sunlight) ---> sugar and oxygen
Some of the sugar they make is consumed in respiration, but a lot more is
used for growth. Hence all the worry about tropical deforestation
disrupting the atmosphere - the rainforests, where plant growth is rapid and
profuse, are a vital carbon sink.
Means of terraforming a planet depend on the nature of the planet you want
to terraform. For one thing, you need sufficient gravity to hang onto free
oxygen (if gravity's too light, you won't get a breathable atmosphere).
Given that, there are several possibilities. Examples:
- if the atmosphere is rich in CO2 (like Venus), seed it with algae or
bacteria that will convert the CO2 to oxygen. There are lifeforms on Earth
that can withstand the very high temperatures/pressures (they're called
extremophiles) you would get on such a planet. Existing species might be
genetically modifiable for the task.
- cold, dry worlds like Mars could be adapted by sprinkling the
atmosphere with dark dust (to trap heat and raise the temperature) and
pulverising it with asteroids made of ice (to provide surface water, and
create craters deep enough to hold a denser atmosphere.
Terraforming is a long-term operation - centuries - though by the B7 era it
might be reduced to decades. It would also be extremely expensive, probably
more so than erecting sealed domes on the planet's surface. Only the need
for large scale colonisation would justify the investment.
Probably cheaper still would be the space habitat, like an O'Neill cylinder.
These are surprisingly rare in the series (Space City, XK-72) but I would
expect them to be very common in Federation space. The environment can be
tightly controlled and modified, far more so than could be done with a whole
planet. A cylinder 30km long and about 7 km in diameter would have an
internal surface area of 1,150 square km, and could easily house 100,000
people. Cram 'em in like sardines and it could house up to 5 million (this
compares to the population densities of present day Hong Kong and
Singapore), though such a colony would probably be dependent on imports for
food. The economics of such a colony could probably provide a fair number
of plot hooks. As could the society itself: small colonies could be snapped
up by minority racial or other groups in an attempt to create mini-utopias,
far more believable (IMO) than an entire bloody great (habitable) planet
with only a few thousand people on it.
The neglect of space colonies in series like B7 lies partly in the logistics
of TV production (cost of model work and special effects) but also in what
Isaac Asimov has apparently labelled 'planetary chauvinism' - the idea that
people will live on _planets_. Chances are suitable planets will be
extremely rare. Fanfic has certainly ignored the space colony idea - I
can't think of a single example off the top of my head, though doubtless
there are some.
(NB: Most of my info on this comes from 'The Science in Science Fiction',
edited by Peter Nicholls with contributions from Brian Stableford and the
mighty David Langford. Highly recommended.)
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 10:29:30 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fannishness
Message-ID: <36D0427A.7136@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Penny Dreadful wrote:
>
> Look! A Sarcastic-Bastard Trap, baited with finest cheese and beer by
> the litre!
>
> >(d) What is the most popular soap opera watched by Federation
> >citizens, assuming they have soap operas to watch.
>
> "Coronation Dome".
And I thought the answer would be Servalan's autobiography.
--Avona
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 10:49:26 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Constructive Criticism (was re: Fannishness)
Message-ID: <36D04727.3E88@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Julia Jones wrote:
>
> But constructive criticism is useful. I've just been pulled up on
> something that the beta-reader assumed was a plot device. In fact, it
> wasn't - it was solidly based in fact. But it's not a widely known fact,
> so if it looks like a plot device to the general reader, I'd better fix
> it. I simply wouldn't have seen this myself.
I know about _that_! I wrote a story once where the major point of it
was that the deaf girl who couldn't speak spells learned to channel her
magic abilities through dancing. I was absolutely slammed by Marion
Zimmer Bradley's Magazine editor for using something completely
unbelievable.
Funny, our deaf former Miss America danced for her part of the talent
competition-- but I guess fantasy editor's can't be expected to know
simple things about reality.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 11:08:49 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Constructive Criticism (was re: Fannishness)
Message-ID: <36D04BB1.2F26@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jacqueline Thijsen wrote:
>
> Neil wrote:
>
>
> > Mind you, nobody's yet managed to tell me how to construct a manageable
> > plot. That's how most of my fanfic ends up unfinished.
You could try Raymond Chandler's method (used only for first novels, to
get the hang of plotting). Pick out a novel that has a really good plot
(the rest of the writing can suck, mindyou, for this peurpose, and it
might be better for you if it did). Read it, making a summary of the
plot scene by scene. Build your own novel around this summary.
Of course, this is blatant plagarism, but it got him past the plot
hurdle the first time. Besides, if you're changing the genre while you
do it, it will help disguise the source. Of course, for fanfic, it may
be a very bad idea, because then neither the plot nor characters nor
setting are truely your own (though you could create original characters
in the B7 universe, Neil, which would satisfy your desire to explore.
Hunt for Red Pursuit Ship?)
> >
> Plot? What's a plot? Do you have to have one of those in a story? Oh dear.
> Penny, Avona: do we have a plot?
Yes. To date the plot has been: The crew of the Liberator discover the
Disc and Blake is talked into exploring. B, A, and C go down to the
planet and travel into town. Blake is pressed into service by Granny,
Avon goes for a drink and meets new people, Cally goes to the
university. Back on ship Death warns Vila that the sun is about to crash
into them; they dodge the sun only to be shot down by a very large
crossbow bolt, and the Liberator crashes into the bog--
well, I'll spare everyone the entire recap. The point is, things happen,
and becoome the plot (Which is how Chandler wrote his later novels). The
question is not, have we got a plot, but where is the plot going? We've
been discussing this a bit, off list and on, so that all of the writing
will continnue to help move everyone to the conclusion.
Do I have Arkaroo's permission to make one of the Andromedans very, very
dead?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 09:47:09 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 list <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: re: [B7L] Fannishness
Message-ID: <36D0469D.B1F75473@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Neil said:
> You can't write 'the' characters, only your own interpretation
> of them. This is what the scriptwriters themselves did, with consequent
> irregularities - by and large it worked, though, because the series does not
> delve too deeply into character, being primarily plot-oriented. Fanfic,
> OTOH, is frequently character-dominant, and the various interpretations of
> the characters show up more starkly.
>
Oh, dear. I fear I should have responded sooner, but I'm not sure where
to start. This is very interesting, especially seeing how much people
disagree about what they want to see (or write) in fanfic.
I'd really like some concrete examples from you about why you find the
show to be plot-oriented. I can't stop laughing, because I've always
considered B7 to be pretty much a plot-free zone, with the main emphasis
on characters, relationships, and philosophy. I don't mean laughing at
you, just laughing at how poles apart we see it; and since I've asked
for concrete examples, I'll give some for my side: 1) My best friend
loathes science-fiction; she won't read it, and makes disparaging
comments when her husband and I are watching it; but I showed her
'Volcano' and 'City at the Edge of the World' ( I think the series C eps
stand alone the most easily), and she liked it; she's looking forward to
seeing more of it, and her comment was basically 'Oh, I see, it's in a
science-fiction setting, but it's not really science-fiction, it's about
the relationships between the characters.' With no coaching from me. 2)
When it comes to writing, plot is my weakest suit; but by the first time
I saw series C, I could often predict whole episodes from just the first
scene or two, occasionally from just the title; so as bad as I am at
plotting, I just can't consider that they had much of a plot. 3) Bounty,
which as far as I can tell, has no plot at all, but has two very telling
bits of character/relationship illustration: the first, when Blake has
just smashed Sarkoff's record and is holding the butterfly case in a
threatening manner; that takes my breath every time, as it just
crystallizes all of the things that I dislike about Blake (not that I
dislike Blake: there are also plenty of things to like about him), and
second, when Vila is having difficulty removing Blake's collar, and he
and Avon are sniping at each other, he tells Avon "Shut up--please",
whereupon Avon turns back to the door he's opening and smiles to
himself-- that is series A and B Avon and Vila at their best. These tiny
moments are the things that make B7 a hit with me. OK, that's my view;
now show me some plot.
As for writing 'the' characters or not; an author has an implied
contract with the reader, which varies depending on the type of writing;
but it seems to me that the contract is a little more specific in
fanfic; that is to say, the reader should reasonably be able to expect
that the regular characters will be recognizable; and that their
behaviour will not be completely out of character (that is to say,
without a really good and plausible explanation, which of course would
render the behaviour *in* character). Of course, I mean something
approximating the consensus of what the intended audience sees as the
character, and one's intended audience need not be the entire group of
B7 fen. Similarly, staying in character doesn't have to mean not
stretching and experimenting. One of my favorite stories posted on the
'net is Crispin Bateman's 'In which Avon and Vila Find Something Special
and Servalan Tries to Steal It'. Even transformed into Pooh, Piglet,
Owl, and Christopher Robin, Avon, Vila, Orac and Blake are perfectly
recognizable; and the plus is, I've showed this story to friends who've
never seen B7, and they still found it accessible and amusing. It's
certainly not a slant I'd have ever thought of; and it's very skillfully
done, reading very much like a Pooh story.
I do agree that much fanfic comes across as too character-dominant;
which is to say, I think it tends to dip too deeply into characters'
heads, and often times with the wrong voice--a Cally that sounds more
like Jenna, an overly introspective Avon, a Vila who thinks like an
Alpha *without* a corresponding justification for it. Film avoids this
by using dialogue and action to show character, which it must do, as it
has the camera's-eye viewpoint, and not a narrator. IMHO, that is what
successful fanfic must do more of, showing as opposed to telling. And
then, of course, there is my personal pet peeve of fanfic-- stories that
blantantly insert an obvious author avatar as a major but completely
unengaging character, generally as a love interest for one of our
heroes. IMO (not so humble), these should come with a warning label-- I
am not a voyeur. I would not put my romantic fantasies in the public
eye, and I would prefer not to read anyone else's. (Not that I'm against
romance-- I don't mind couples made up of recognizable series
characters.) But I'm surprised that in all the back digests I've read,
this issue never comes up. Is nobody else annoyed by this? Or is there
some tacit agreement about which I'm unaware, either not to mention
this, or for everybody to tolerate this kind of story in order to have
his own tolerated? Hmm, I don't mean to yank anybody's chain, but this
puzzles me.
So please, Neil, when you have some time, not only would I like some
examples of where you see some strong plot in the show, but maybe also
some concrete, one sentence examples of the kinds of plots that you
would consider 'too fannish' and 'sufficiently exploratory'. I'll be
fascinated to see them (and anybody else's who wants to chime in).
Promising next time to be more succinct,
Mistral
--
"And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 13:50:46 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Shakespeare and B7
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-0221125046-566Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
On Sun 21 Feb, mistral@ptinet.net wrote:
> But seriously, if the Gibson Hamlet tickled your fancy at all,
> Shakespeare makes a perfect companion interest for both writing and B7;
> on the writing side, he really understood what makes people tick, and of
> course his use of language is brilliant (I admit his plots are generally
> awful, but he stole most of them), and he does his comic passages very
> well indeed; and on the B7 side, not only have most of the principle
> actors done Shakespeare, but the show as a whole can be viewed as a sort
> of three-act Shakespearian-style tragedy with a twist-- two flawed
> heroes instead of one, with the whole thing themed on trust and
> commitment. Yes, I know I do go on, but Shakespeare was my great passion
> until I stumbled across B7. I am in complete and total envy of those
> lucky enough to have seen Paul Darrow on stage in the Scottish play.
He was good, but not brilliant.
I curse having missed Gareth Thomas playing King Lear.
What I really really want to see would be Paul playing Iago to Gareth's Othello.
I think they would both do that brilliantly.
My second choice would be Gareth doing Lear again with Paul as Kent.
Judith
--
http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7
Redemption 99 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention
26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Kent
http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 12:14:51 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 list <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re:[B7L] Shakespeare and B7
Message-ID: <36D0693A.8F9CF630@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Me:
> I am in complete and total envy of those
> >lucky enough to have seen Paul Darrow on stage in the Scottish play.
>
Judith P:
> He was good, but not brilliant.
>
That would have been my guess, as I couldn't quite see the match-up.
Thanx for confirming it. Still, I have never seen either P.D. or that
particular play onstage, so I would have still enjoyed it a great deal.
> I curse having missed Gareth Thomas playing King Lear.
>
I don't remember hearing about that, but I certainly empathize.
> What I really really want to see would be Paul playing Iago to Gareth's Othello.
> I think they would both do that brilliantly.
>
I've seen this interesting idea posted as a suggestion on somebody's
website. Yours, perhaps? I hope you get your wish. Take me some photos
(better yet, a video).
My personal choice would be a younger P.D. doing series C Avon doing
Hamlet, and G.T. can be Laertes, and M.K. can be Horatio. Just to amuse
myself, I'll add Stephen Greif and Brian Croucher as Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern <eg>, and Orac as Polonius. The problem with Hamlet is the
usual one, though: by the time you're old enough to *understand* Hamlet,
you're arguably too old to *play* Hamlet. Perhaps we could develop an
anti-aging formula, and then we could have G.T. as Romeo, with P.D. as
Mercutio and Josette Simon as Juliet. Or perhaps you'd volunteer for
Juliet <veg>?
> My second choice would be Gareth doing Lear again with Paul as Kent.
>
I can see I'm going to be watching my King Lear tape tonight.
Actually, there is a wish that might be doable; I fancy an audiotape of
G.T. and P.D. reading the sonnets. Oh, those lovely voices! Just think
of Gareth doing "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit
impediments..." or "Let me confess that we two must be twain..." or Paul
doing "In faith, I do not love thee with mine eyes..." or (my personal
favorite) "Canst thou, O cruel! say I love thee not..." It could be a
fund-raiser for Horizon. (And it could include any of the actors, just
so long as there is plenty of Gareth and Paul; Stephen Greif has a
lovely voice; I bet Jan Chappell would be good, etc., etc.) Oh, Judith,
do say you'll suggest it. (I cannot believe I am suggesting this. I did
promise myself I would remain unobtrusive on this list for several
months at least. Obviously, I have failed miserably. Ah, me.)
Having way too much fun,
Mistral
--
"And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 19:39:22 -0000
From: "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Constructive Criticism (was re: Fannishness)
Message-ID: <00c201be5dd8$4a1ebc80$ca8edec2@pre-installedco>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Helen said -
>I was absolutely slammed by Marion
>Zimmer Bradley's Magazine editor for using something completely
>unbelievable.
The Internet is a weird and wonderful place. I just read almost exactly the
same comment 'I got rejected by MZB.. ' on another mailing list. There is a
kind of hidden tide in email that I haven't managed to get my head round
yet: 'enough of the psychic email already'
Perhaps I could be naughty enough to steal one little bit of that post on
that other list though:
>>I'm lead to believe that harsh rejections from MZB should be worn as a
badge of honour by writers. <<
They also suggest that if rejected by MZB one should try Raechel Henderson
at 'Jackhammer' though I have no idea what that is.
Hope it works out
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 19:46:16 -0000
From: "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
To: "B7 list" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fannishness
Message-ID: <00c301be5dd8$4c2eb0c0$ca8edec2@pre-installedco>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mistral, so wise and yet so foolishly fond of Taming of the Shrew, writes:
>stories that
>blantantly insert an obvious author avatar as a major but completely
>unengaging character, generally as a love interest for one of our
>heroes. IMO (not so humble), these should come with a warning label>
Yes, they have a name, they are called 'Mary Sue' stories (I'm really proud
that i know this, it's one of the first and only bits of fan jargon I
learned. Though for a while I thought it was Many Jane, I blush to admit)
>But I'm surprised that in all the back digests I've read,
>this issue never comes up. Is nobody else annoyed by this?
That's 'cos they use the jargon term so you missed it. Mary Sue is an even
more common topic on the companion list to this one, space city, which is
more about fanfic and relationships.
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 12:39:18 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 list <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fannishness
Message-ID: <36D06EF6.36896D67@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Alison:
> That's 'cos they use the jargon term so you missed it. Mary Sue is an even
> more common topic on the companion list to this one, space city, which is
> more about fanfic and relationships.
>
Thanx for clearing that up, I appreciate it. However, I've just realized
that you've used the words Mistral, wise, and foolishly in the same
sentence. I could construe that to your having called me sophomoric.
;-P
Nods,
Mistral
--
"And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 13:02:44 PST
From: "Penny Dreadful" <pdreadful@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: re: [B7L] Fannishness
Message-ID: <19990221210244.12170.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-type: text/plain
Mistral mused:
>And then, of course, there is my personal pet peeve of fanfic--
>stories that blantantly insert an obvious author avatar as a major >but
completely unengaging character, generally as a love interest
>for one of our heroes. IMO (not so humble), these should come with
>a warning label-- I am not a voyeur.
I believe this kind of character is what Those In The Know call a
"Mary-Sue" (I went an embarrassingly long time assuming there was some
notoriously bad/prolific fan-fiction author out there somewhere named
Mary-Sue Something). Why Mary-Sue and not Bobbie-Jean? No idea. But they
seem to be widely loathed. I get the impression that many fan-fiction
readers deem *any* original character with an active role in the plot a
"Mary-Sue", and therefore Eeeeevil. I can't say I agree with that but
then I have read very minimally in the genre.
-- Penny-Sue
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 13:58:20 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 list <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fannishness
Message-ID: <36D0817B.F3210EF5@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Penny Dreadful wrote:
> I get the impression that many fan-fiction
> readers deem *any* original character with an active role in the plot a
> "Mary-Sue", and therefore Eeeeevil. I can't say I agree with that but
> then I have read very minimally in the genre.
I wasn't referring to all original characters, Penny, but only those that
are transparent vehicles for wish fulfillment. Even when writing a
pre-existing character, all the writer's characters must originate inside
him, and so are avatars in a sense, but if I write myself, or some idealized
version of myself, into a plot, there is an increased danger of being so
attached to the character that I can't remain objective and let the
character serve the plot; and if I allow my character to become emotionally
entangled with a pre-existing character, there is the additional (and far
more potentially irritating to the reader) danger of coercing the
pre-existing character to act against the norm in order to serve my ego
instead of the plot; and this appears to me to happen quite a bit, which is
when it irritates me. The most common victim of this distortion appears to
be Avon--can you really imagine Tall, Dark, and Nasty turning into a puddle
of mush just because some woman throws herself into his arms (which I've
quite literally read--oops, wait, the mush part was metaphorical)? I can't
even imagine Vila behaving quite that stupidly--on a bad day, even. I *like*
original characters--when they serve the story. I just hope that if I ever
have occasion to write a fanfic with an original, major character, that
whoever betas it will wallop me upside the head if I violate my own
principles on this. Of course, if people want to write and read Mary-Sues,
they have that right; but I still wish they came with a warning label
(slash/het/mary-sue).
Obviously, this has been discussed before, and not having been aware of the
proper terminology, I missed it, so I'll shut up now. At any rate, I am the
one pontificating, and you are the one contributing to the delightful Flat
Robin-- so feel free to cheerfully ignore everything I just said-- I know
you will <g>.
(And BTW, I wish to thank everybody for being so kind as to make me feel
welcome here. I promise that 90% of the time, I will not be *deliberately*
offensive.)
Mistral
--
"And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 21:03:12 +0000
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: B7 list <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Shakespeare and B7
Message-ID: <ievMhLCQSH02Ew0d@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <36D0693A.8F9CF630@ptinet.net>, mistral@ptinet.net writes
>Actually, there is a wish that might be doable; I fancy an audiotape of
>G.T. and P.D. reading the sonnets. Oh, those lovely voices! Just think
>of Gareth doing "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit
>impediments..." or "Let me confess that we two must be twain..." or Paul
>doing "In faith, I do not love thee with mine eyes..." or (my personal
>favorite) "Canst thou, O cruel! say I love thee not..."
<quiet whimpering>
Now that *is* a nice idea. Wonder if anyone can be persuaded to take it
up?
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:05:52 +0100
From: "Hanneke" <yorick@tip.nl>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fannishness
Message-Id: <199902212207.XAA08517@triton.worldonline.nl>
Penny said:
> Mistral mused:
>
> >And then, of course, there is my personal pet peeve
of fanfic--
> >stories that blantantly insert an obvious author
avatar as a major >but
> completely unengaging character, generally as a love
interest
> >for one of our heroes. IMO (not so humble), these
should come with
> >a warning label-- I am not a voyeur.
>
> I believe this kind of character is what Those In
The Know call a
> "Mary-Sue" (I went an embarrassingly long time
assuming there was some
> notoriously bad/prolific fan-fiction author out
there somewhere named
> Mary-Sue Something). Why Mary-Sue and not
Bobbie-Jean? No idea.
Because the very first Mary Sue was written by a Mary
Sue Something, whose orginal character was also named
Mary Sue. Well, at least that's what they told me. :))
But they
> seem to be widely loathed. I get the impression that
many fan-fiction
> readers deem *any* original character with an active
role in the plot a
> "Mary-Sue", and therefore Eeeeevil. I can't say I
agree with that but
> then I have read very minimally in the genre.
Real Mary Sues are easy to recognize. They're *very*
pretty, *very* clever and extremely brave. In gen
stories they end up kissing Avon, in het stories they
end up in bed with Avon, and in slash stories they end
up in an Avon/Tarrant sandwich. :))))
Hanneke
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 14:12:31 PST
From: "Joanne MacQueen" <j_macqueen@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Shakespeare and B7
Message-ID: <19990221221231.1478.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-type: text/plain
Mistral wrote: >or Paul doing "In faith, I do not love thee with mine
>eyes..."
That would be torture, but not the kind Jacqueline was thinking of. Paul
reading that one, oh dear! <dissolving into puddle on floor noises>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #71
*************************************