From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #294 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/294 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 294 Today's Topics: Re: [B7L] Lightergate Re [B7L] Lightergate Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Re: Re [B7L] Lightergate Re: [B7L] Sorry I'm always making so many posts in a row... [B7L] Last batch on eBay auction for a while... Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy [B7L] Pat Thomas Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288 Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy [B7L] The Way Back and understanding freedom. Re: [B7L] Horizon policy Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288 Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... Hubs of Fandom (Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288) Re: [B7L] Horizon hub of fandom? Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... Re: [B7L] Horizon hub of fandom? Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:36:21 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Lightergate Message-ID: <018301bf16f1$21ed6a40$3c15ac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ruth rote: >Neil Faulkner wrote: >> The kindof conflation I was thinking of was >> the deliberate injection of certain aspects of an actor into his/er >> character (eg; suggestions that Blake was Welsh simply because Gareth Thomas >> is). I think this is a slippery road to walk down - somewhere along the >> line a piece of B/A slash could end up as Darrow/Thomas slash, > >I've had this put to me as a Reason Why Slash Ought to Be Banned. I'm >not saying that you're claiming this, because I know you're not. Good, coz I'm not. Though I do not in any way endorse writing in such a conflationary way, should it ever happen. >I have to say that I've never come across such a piece of fiction. I >would think, in ten years of being a slash fan, if such stories were >prevalent, (or even existed) I'd have read *one* somewhere. I know some >non-slash fans claim to have seen stories along these lines, but I >confess I haven't. Not ever. Besides, in my experience, very few slash >fans are great actor fans. You say you've never seen one, others say they have. So perhaps it depends on the mind reading the story? I'm not saying flat out that you're wrong, but could it be that as a self-confessed slash fan you might be reading in a different way to a non-slasher, or an anti-slasher? And if so, whose interpretation is the correct one, assuming there is a 'correct' one? FWIW, I don't think I've ever read a conflationary slash/adult story either. I've read a few where Blake and Avon were altered to the point of being unrecognisable as those characters, but not in such a way that they were morphed into GT and PD. They were just a pair of total strangers bumbling around with familiar names that didn't belong to them. I have suspected a measure of conflation in some genfic, though. Notably Bizarro, but Judith P did point out to me that Bizarro's editorials state that the similarities between character and actor were coincidental and were not realised by the authors until -after- the stories were written. There remains the danger of conflation in the mind of the reader as opposed to the author, but can authors really be responsible for the way their work is (mis)interpreted? Unless they're rotten writers, of course. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:48:48 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re [B7L] Lightergate Message-ID: <018401bf16f1$2344bce0$3c15ac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All this discussion of Horizon's attitude to slash reminds me of a B7 story I once read, long before I knew what slash was. It was one where Vila was captured by Servalan and programmed to fall in love with Avon. Nothing graphic happened, beyond Vila giving Avon a kiss on the lips and being rebuffed for his pains, but I guess you could call it a slash story of sorts. It's called 'Fruits of the Moon Tree' by Judith Seaman. You can find it in Horizon 12. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:32:36 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Message-ID: <018601bf16f1$24c6c900$3c15ac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sarah wrote: >Personally, I see no great difference between het smut and slash. And I'm not entirely happy about the division between gen and adult. It implies that all gen is guaranteed to be inoffensive, which needn't be the case. I've written gen that some people might consider quite unsuitable for younger readers (largely on account of the naughty language in it) and might well offend some adults looking for a 'cosy' read. And how do you classify a story like Nickey Barnard's - excellent, IMO - 'Haunted' (in Pressure Point ) which includes unambiguously sexual elements (male prostitution and a homosexual Blake) but no prolonged or graphic sex scenes? I call it a gen story, but others might disagree, and some of them might well take offence at it on the basis that it was slash. 'Adult' is a misnomer, though one that fanfic has inherited rather than contrived for itself. Some so-called adult material is actually pretty infantile, in concept rather than content. Some gen, OTOH, can be clearly pitched at adults, or at least readers with adult minds (not necessarily the same thing...). 'Erotica' is a more useful label (or 'smut', if you prefer, or even 'porn', though erotic fanfic largely falls well outside my own definition of pornography) but even then there are still stories that do not fit easily into that particular pigeonhole. I read a story once (in a slashzine, forget the name of both story and zine) which basically just involved Blake and Avon discussing the possibility of having a physical relationship and ultimately deciding not to. That was it - just talk, not even a peck on the cheek. Is that slash? Is it even 'adult'? There is no rigid divide between gen and 'adult', and though it may be convenient to use the terms for reference purposes, it obscures the status of some material that is not readily classifiable. The Lightergate proposals, however, do seem to be assuming such a simplistic and artificial divide, whereas the reality of what's out there makes a mockery of the whole Gen vs Adult debate. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:17:41 +0100 From: "Una McCormack" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Lightergate Message-ID: <04a701bf16f6$8613be70$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil wrote: > All this discussion of Horizon's attitude to slash reminds me of a B7 story > I once read, long before I knew what slash was. It was one where Vila was > captured by Servalan and programmed to fall in love with Avon. Nothing > graphic happened, beyond Vila giving Avon a kiss on the lips and being > rebuffed for his pains, but I guess you could call it a slash story of > sorts. > > It's called 'Fruits of the Moon Tree' by Judith Seaman. You can find it in > Horizon 12. Ooh, yes. I liked that story. Una ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 12:04:02 +0100 From: "Una McCormack" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Sorry I'm always making so many posts in a row... Message-ID: <04d401bf16fd$30948540$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Helen Krummenacker wrote: > I know for a fact that since Mayor Guilliano has been suing the Brooklyn > Museum and denying them funding over their controversial exhibit, travel > agents have been getting calls to have the museum including in the > packages tourists are buying for New York. "No publicity is bad > publicity". Oh yes, the Damien Hirst exhibition. I recall an interview with Hirst recently in which he was rubbing his hands together in glee at all the publicity. Una ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:14:00 EDT From: Bizarro7@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se, freedom-city@blakes-7.org Subject: [B7L] Last batch on eBay auction for a while... Message-ID: <0.6036bd59.25386678@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The latest items on eBay, B7 or otherwise, have been posted. Check them out! After this batch, there will be a hiatus while we journey to the UK for WOLF 359 con to see Adrian Paul and the rest, and then we'll be back with lots more goodies. Good luck: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/ashton7/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:42:26 +0100 From: Ruth Saunders To: "Blake's 7 List" Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Message-ID: <3806CCD2.3771640C@redrose76.freeserve.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sarah T. wrote: > if the thinking behind it is > >that heterosexual erotica is acceptable while homosexual erotica > >is not, then it is also homophobic and, by the standards of many > >of us, morally reprehensible. > Seems to me > that I am saying almost the exact opposite-- that they should not > publish any erotica at all, at least not if they are going to > attack other people for doing the same. That is what you wrote and what I understood from it, and I'm as puzzled as you why it should have been interpreted differently. Apropos of which, the new policy as stated does rather smack of "what I look at is art, what my friends like is erotica, but strangers read porn". I imagine that's not what was intended. The new Horizon policy as stated is also unworkable because it isn't really clear about what's acceptable and what isn't - the "eye of the beholder" in this case just won't do. -- Ruth S. lexin@redrose76.freeserve.co.uk Red Rose Convention (multi-media slash convention) 4-6 August 2000, Telford. Webpage: http://members.aol.com/hbrown9628/britslash.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 18:06:27 +0100 From: "Deborah Day" To: "blakes7" Subject: [B7L] Pat Thomas Message-ID: <000301bf172f$b9a58f00$1d86bc3e@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Apropos of nothing, does anybody know what happened to Pat Thomas? When I first joined Horizon, she was the president and the meetings were held in her flat by Turnham Green station. I know that she moved to Wales and then back to America, but is she still active in fandom? I think she was also a fan of Gerry Anderson. Not that she would remember me, I suppose, but I had some good times round there. Debbie Day ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 13:19:36 -0400 From: Meredith Dixon To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill Merlock wrote: >>Assuming that I've interpreted this correctly, that the behavior of the >>Horizon club leadership is being linked to that of the Federation, and Neil Faulkner answered: >Horizon/Federation? I don't recall anyone making such a frivolous >suggestion. Well, I did, actually, though I intended it as sarcasm. I was responding to Neil's statement that Horizon was the hub of B7 fandom; I said that Horizon was so far from being the hub of the B7 fandom I knew that it "didn't even make my star charts," and, thinking on logically from that phrase, I said, "Of course, maybe it's a sort of fannish Star One." I think Neil and I are looking at this from such utterly different perspectives that it is difficult to find common ground. In his answer to my post, Neil described online fandom as a ghetto (his stated reasoning was that not all fans are online) and claimed that Horizon was the hub of British fandom and that British fandom was the hub of worldwide fandom, presumably since B7 was a British show. Neil seems to consider online fandom a peripheral thing, something of minimal importance to the offline world which Horizon chiefly serves. I've spent as much of my time online as I could since the mid-80's. I signed John Perry Barlow's Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace a few years back, and I meant every word of it. For me, it's the non-online world that is at the periphery of the world I live in. If Horizon serves those fans who are not online, then that's great, but -- from my perspective, again -- it's a niche market. A shrinking niche market, at that. Hardly central. As for the bit about British fandom being the center of worldwide fandom -- well, I'll resist the temptation to elaborate on my initial gut reaction ("Wow, I can see why they dumped the tea in Boston Harbor....") and instead try to figure out where Neil is coming from here too. I suppose, if you consider fandom to consist chiefly of cons, then a case could be made for British B7 fandom being central. Presumably British B7 conventions have more opportunities to attract guests from the show than B7 conventions elsewhere in the world. Cons are not, however, the first or even the second thing I think of when I think "fandom" Neil wrote: >not everyone has a local group of fans to meet up with (I don't know > of any other active fans in my neck of the woods, >namely east Kent). I only know of one other fan in my *state*, and I've never contacted her. (Harriet Monkhouse was kind enough to mention her to me once, but I've never followed up on the suggestion.) In any case, she's several hours' drive from me, so meeting offline would be difficult. My friend who introduced me to B7 lives in Iowa, about a thousand miles away from me. I went to Iowa once, six or seven years *after* she lent me the B7 tapes. That's the only time we've ever met in person. But we've been friends for well over a decade now. It simply hasn't occurred to me to try to find people offline, in my neighborhood or even within driving distance, who might be interested in B7. There's so much less likelihood of finding anyone than there is online, and if I did find people then we'd have to make arrangements to meet offline, which would be difficult and time-consuming. > Horizon has a virtual monopoly on organised fandom, at >least in the UK and immediate periphery. No, it doesn't. It's true that the B7 list is run from Sweden, but surely someone in England could start up a list tomorrow if they wanted to. But, again, I guess Neil means "organized fandom offline". Even so, what he says seems strange. My only experience with offline fandom was my involvement with Star Trek and Sime/Gen, in the 1970s, but in none of those fandoms did one single organization dominate things to the extent that Neil says Horizon does. Even Sime/Gen fandom, which began with one zine, Ambrov Zeor, quickly grew to two and then three very different zines. But there are many zines for B7, and Horizon doesn't seem to have much to do with most of them -- in fact, part of the complaint here seems to be that Horizon wants even less to do with them than it has has had in the past. As far as I can see, Neil seems to be genuinely afraid that if Horizon doesn't advertise a zine no one will realize that it exists. This seems improbable. To the best of my recollection, I didn't discover Star Trek fandom through an organization; I bought some overpriced reprints of decade-old fanfic from some catalog or other that I'd picked up at the local hobby (and gaming) shop, and then (being 13 and having a lot of time on my hands) I wrote to everyone listed in the zine at the addresses given, which were of course long outdated. Several of them actually got the mail and took time to respond, including current flyers, and I was fairly launched. Surely this sort of thing happens with B7 fandom too? -- Meredith Dixon Check out *Raven Days*, for victims and survivors of bullying. And for those who want to help. http://web.mountain.net/~dixonm/raven.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:17:59 +1000 From: Kathryn Andersen To: "Blake's 7 list" Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Message-ID: <19991015201759.A22381@welkin.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 10:40:48AM +0100, Una McCormack wrote: > Since we have been given assurances that Diane is not homophobic, will we > now also be given an explanation for her vindictiveness towards Judith? By whom? Only Diane knows for sure. And maybe she wouldn't conciously admit her motives, even to herself. (shrug) We can guess and speculate and suspect, but we'll never know. -- _--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen / \ | http://home.connexus.net.au/~kat \_.--.*/ | #include "standard/disclaimer.h" v | ------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:37:25 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Thu 14 Oct, mistral@ptinet.net wrote: > Furthermore, it occurs to me that I haven't said elsewhere that I > consider the attack on Judith P. to be mean-spirited and unwarranted. > I support Judith's right to write, publish, and sell whatever is allowed > by freedom of speech. Diane Gies could (and should) have made > all her points without ever mentioning Judith directly or indirectly. Thank you for that, and to everyone else who has made similar comments, both on and off-list. Judith PS. Can I please add a general rider. What applies to me should also apply to Diane. We should stick to the issues and try not to attack individuals. -- 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.nas.com/~lknight ) Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 00:34:54 +0300 (EET DST) From: Kai V Karmanheimo To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] The Way Back and understanding freedom. Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hello again I had gathered from isolated comments that The Way Back is generally revered while The Web is sneered at, so that was one reason why I chose this particularly pair over a couple of others. I don't see them as being poles apart in quality, more like occupying adjacent latitudes somewhere near the equator. Nice to see how the same things affected other people. I do like the way Blake is set up (a sexual smear has always been a reliable way of discrediting a political enemy, a good one from Terry Nation) and the scenes of Blake in the holding cell are effective (as is so often the case with B7, great acting is what makes the scene come alive), with the image of Blake prowling in the monitor while his captors review their options being a striking juxtaposition. In these scenes there is a genuine sense of claustrophobia and panic. Oh yes, the domes are a good touch and the departing shot from London too. I am not saying this is a bad episode, it just doesn't move me like some of the others. As for Hellen's observation on Scandinavians giving bad reviews to science fiction works dealing with oppression : I can only speak for myself, of course, not for the other 23 million people living in this corner of the globe. Granted, the kind of culture and society you grow up in shapes your thinking, but even though I was deprived of healthy totalitarian indoctrination in my youth, I do believe I can still appreciate the meaning of personal freedom. Freedom vs oppression is a standard theme explored by science fiction since its beginning, with results that range from profound to ridiculous. I have read and watched examples of both. The bad ones had problems with characterisation, plotting, writing/direction etc., not necessary with the ideology they were pushing. Sure, certain themes appeal to me more immediately than others, but I rate a work as a whole, not just by the banner it is flying. The fact that a sci-fi book, film or tv-series deals with the oppression of freedom does not in any way diminish the value of that work in my eyes, but neither does it pavlov me into salivating blind approval. The question is how the idea is used, how the whole thing hangs together. There are a million ways to botch up the greatest ideas, and simply having characters yell "Give me liberty or give me death" doesn't make for good science fiction. As for Blake's 7, I don't think The Way Back handles the one-man's-terrorist-is-another-man's-freedom-fighter theme all that well, nor that it was meant to do so. Things are just too simple from the beginning : the Federation is evil, it will murder, it will torture, it will lie to keep its power - all this is quickly made clear. There isn't any real moral conflict, our sympathies are with Blake, all possibility of non-armed response is ruled out, the hero's actions are justified by the adversary's complete lack of humanity. It's good old rebel-rousing : fight the power to survive. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing new about it either. Things get more interesting later when more colours are introduced to the palette, when the simple line of good and bad is blurred. In Space Fall already we get the two conflicting views of freedom : Avon's (he who manages to grab it, shall have freedom - and the hell with the rest of 'em) and Blake's (freedom for all - whether they like it or not). Further down the road we start wondering whether the human price of fighting is too great, whether it's just to satisfy one man's ego. And we get to see Federation as something more than a monolithic abomination with one sneering villain and an army of faceless troopers : other resistors, those attempting to stay neutral, lackeys and sympathisers - and some just doing their work (Grenlee and Forres, for example). Not just cardboard characters blasting away other cardboard characters with mindless monotony. To me, THAT has lot to do with making the show interesting. Oh yes, I like that final line too, and the way it isdelivered. Not proud, not boastful, not melodramatic, just firm and decisive, elegant in simplicity : "No, I'm coming back." A stated fact, a purpose gained. And you know what? I believe him. Kai Karmanheimo ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:51:00 PDT From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon policy Message-ID: <19991014215101.87478.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed FWIW, I think the Horizon committee should reassess their priorities. What other people are reading is not really any of their business - serving their members (including those overseas BTW) is. I wasn't surprised to hear numbers are dropping. Having joined last year, received [a] one magazine [b] one short note basically saying 'service will be resumed...whenever' and [c] no reply to my query after ten months, I've decided the price for overseas fans is rather exorbitant for what we get. Their merchandising service is good and prompt, yes. I'm buying the videos from them - and Diane Gies runs this, I think - and am impressed with the speed with which they are sent. But I've given up on membership simply because I got nothing from it. *That* should be the committee's main concern. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:48:21 -0400 From: Susan Beth To: blake7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288 Message-Id: <3.0.4.32.19991015204821.006f9c34@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Meredith Dixon wrote: >I think Neil and I are looking at this from such utterly >different perspectives that it is difficult to find common >ground. I think so, too. It may be due to *how* we found ourselves in fandom. Like you, I came into it "long distance." It was snail mail at first, with APA and mail-ordered zines and such, followed -- and pretty much supplanted -- by email activity. (This was trek fandom, btw, I shifted over to B7 later, but the pattern remained the same.) My guess (I'm sure Neil will correct me if wrong) is that Neil started out on a more "person to person" level, with mail (and later email) being an add-on to convention going and club meetings and such. I think there's a tendency for everyone to generalize from their own experiences. So there are you and I seeing Horizon as a British club, of relatively little importance to fans outside that country, while to Neil its the Club Among Club, and Clubs are the Center of Fandom, and therefore Horizon is the Hub of Fandom. > If Horizon serves those fans who are not >online, then that's great, but -- from my perspective, again -- >it's a niche market. A shrinking niche market, at that. Hardly >central. My impression (totally based on tidbits here and there, I've never had any direct contact) is that Horizon is very strongly an actor-oriented fan club. With lots of coverage of what the actors are doing now, and a strong emphasis on Cons with actors as the GOHs. Since the actors themselves aren't my major interest -- I"m much more interested in the "internal" world of B7 and the characters -- I've always supposed Horizon didn't have much to offer me. I see other evidence of basic differences between British and American fan activity, too. For example, it seems like they put a great deal of effort into getting together in person and doing things -- whether pub get togethers, trekking to a quarry to "play" in an authentic setting, or getting up groups to attend plays one actor or another is in. In American B7 fandom, I know of *one* small group that gets together in person semi-regularly, and that's it. The closest case otherwise is that a group of us B7 fans make a point of meeting up at Eclecticon once a year. Maybe this is because A) the actors are indeed doing things over there and B) the distances involved aren't as great. If Paul Darrow were starring in a play only a few hundred miles away, would I make a trip to see it? If ten other fans I "knew" through the list lived in Boston, would I attend a bar get-together? If some scenes had been shot at the other end of the state, would I eventually make a pilgrimage there? Probably, I guess.... but none of those are true (at least so far) so I don't think in terms of those activities. For me, the heart and soul of fandom is A) discussion and B) fanfic. >As for the bit about British fandom being the center of worldwide >fandom -- well, I'll resist the temptation to elaborate on my >initial gut reaction ("Wow, I can see why they dumped the tea in >Boston Harbor....") You tell him. > Cons are not, however, the first or even the second thing >I think of when I think "fandom" Me, either. And, in truth, I enjoy "fan based" cons much more than ones that center on "listen to the actors speak." Do the English even do non-actor Cons? I never seem to hear about any. (No, wait, I think I heard once about a "slash" con, that is fans only.) > It simply hasn't occurred to me to try to find people offline, >in my neighborhood or even within driving distance, who might be >interested in B7. There's so much less likelihood of finding >anyone than there is online, and if I did find people then we'd >have to make arrangements to meet offline, which would be >difficult and time-consuming. Exactly. (Sorry for doing so much me-tooing, but....) In my case, getting together in RL would involve major hassles and planning. Transportation difficulties, health problems, and getting someone to fill in for my caretaker duties, especially. On-line fandom, by contrast, can be fitted in when I have spare time and energy and requires nothing more onerous than flicking on my computer. It's especially delightful for someone with sleep problems like me: how, in Real Life, would I find someone to chat about B7 with when I wake up at 3 a.m. and can't go back to sleep? >if they wanted to. But, again, I guess Neil means "organized >fandom offline". That organized bit...is that another symptom of the internet? The primacy of the individual, I mean. We don't have to get together with the geographically close fans and compromise on what to do. Whatever our niche interest -- fanfic writing, filking, costuming, model building -- the internet means we can *virtually* get together with those who share our particular niche and do exactly what we're interested in. Susan Beth (susanbeth33@mindspring.com) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:46:34 -0400 From: Susan Beth To: blake7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... Message-Id: <3.0.4.32.19991015204634.006f9c34@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Andrew Ellis wrote: >Can I suggest my game again. A Blakes 7 episode squash ladder. Here is a >random order of episodes. Please pick on an adjacent pair, and argue why > >Animals >Duel Duel is better than Animals, because almost everything in the universe is. Oh, you want specific points. Okay, in Duel you get insight into Travis, learn most of everything we get to know about mutoids, and get Avon to sideways admit he cares about Blake and Jenna. In Animals you get Og. And Justin. Need I say more? Susan Beth (susanbeth33@mindspring.com) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 09:22:58 +1000 From: Kathryn Andersen To: "Blake's 7 list" Subject: Hubs of Fandom (Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288) Message-ID: <19991016092258.A24157@welkin.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 01:19:36PM -0400, Meredith Dixon wrote: > I think Neil and I are looking at this from such utterly > different perspectives that it is difficult to find common > ground. In his answer to my post, Neil described online > fandom as a ghetto (his stated reasoning was that not all fans > are online) and claimed that Horizon was the hub of British > fandom and that British fandom was the hub of worldwide fandom, > presumably since B7 was a British show. > > Neil seems to consider online fandom a peripheral thing, > something of minimal importance to the offline world which > Horizon chiefly serves. I've spent as much of my time online as > I could since the mid-80's. I signed John Perry Barlow's > Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace a few years back, > and I meant every word of it. > > For me, it's the non-online world that is at the periphery of the > world I live in. If Horizon serves those fans who are not > online, then that's great, but -- from my perspective, again -- > it's a niche market. A shrinking niche market, at that. Hardly > central. I think Neil is right, though. The cold, hard, numbers support his statement. Horizon has 1700 members. The Lyst has 300. 1700 is more than six times bigger than 300. Therefore, it is bigger and more important. Sheer numbers. Just because *we* happen to spend our time here, doesn't magically make us more numerous. I discovered fandom through a common interest in Narnia, with someone who took me to my first con and showed me my first zine. But, yes, I discovered the wider world of fandom through zines (in this case borrowed ones) and writing (snail) to zineds. The word-of-mouth way, so to speak. But note, that depends on mutual advertising of different zines in the backs of other zines, as a way of finding them. But in the UK, Horizon has lots of publicity, much more so than any Blake's 7 club I can think of anywhere else in the world. So for UK fen, Horizon tends to be their gateway into fandom, rather than word-of-mouth. As such, it has a great deal of influence. -- _--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen / \ | http://home.connexus.net.au/~kat \_.--.*/ | #include "standard/disclaimer.h" v | ------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:34:53 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon hub of fandom? Message-ID: <042d01bf177e$eb5e30c0$ef17ac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit An excellent post from Meredith, re the importance of Horizon. >I think Neil and I are looking at this from such utterly >different perspectives that it is difficult to find common >ground. I can't argue with that. Dare I suggest, however, that your experience of fandom might be unrepresentative? (Not invalid, just untypical.) It has been, as you yourself seem to say, almost entirely online (as necessitated by your relative geographical isolation), and has been so for a relatively long time. >In his answer to my post, Neil described online >fandom as a ghetto (his stated reasoning was that not all fans >are online) I would go further and posit that online fandom is still only available to a minority. I don't have figures to quote, though. But Horizon's membership is approaching six times that of the Lyst so there is a strong indication that online fandom is the province of a minority. >and claimed that Horizon was the hub of British >fandom and that British fandom was the hub of worldwide fandom, >presumably since B7 was a British show. Please be assured that I'm not trying to wave a Union Jack around! B7 Is British; Hands Off? No, not really. >For me, it's the non-online world that is at the periphery of the >world I live in. That may well be true for you, but how representative is that? (Isn't it something like 80 per cent of the world's population have never even heard a dial tone, let alone peeked at a web page? Check out the information rich/information poor divide at http://news.bbc.co.uk ). I'm trying to evaluate Horizon's position and importance within a global context of fandom, which will not necessarily correlate with all individual perspectives. >As for the bit about British fandom being the center of worldwide >fandom -- well, I'll resist the temptation to elaborate on my >initial gut reaction ("Wow, I can see why they dumped the tea in >Boston Harbor....") and instead try to figure out where Neil is >coming from here too. British fandom at the centre of worldwide fandom - there are a number of reasons why I believe this to be so. (a) B7 was made in Britain, for a British audience, and will therefore connect with the British mindset more readily than it will with others. Actually a minor point, I think, since B7 is clearly not mystically inaccessible to the rest of the world, but I think it should be borne in mind. (b) The cast were, unsurprisingly, Brits, and most still live and work in Britain, therefore British fans have closer connections with the cast (and production crew). This has important implications for the convention scene. Now, cons may not be 'the first or even the second thing' you think of in terms of fandom, but couldn't that be because guestcon opportunities don't come your way too often? If they did, might cons not be higher up on your agenda? (c) I think this one's very important - Britain is a small country. Your friend in Iowa is a thousand miles from you, but no two fans in Britain are going to be half as far apart. Over ten per cent of the British population (and presumably a similar proportion of fans?) live in one city, with the country's next largest city less than an hour's train journey away (not that I'm aware of any fans living in Birmingham but there must be some, surely). That makes it much, much easier to promote awareness of B7 and fandom, for fans to meet socially (like the pubmeets Steve Rogerson advertises on this Lyst), and to follow members of the cast around the country. The small size of the country, the density of the population, and the relative ease of travel (don't snigger, you lot, it's true) have an enormous impact on the character of British fandom. It is, I would venture, far more tightly knit and cohesive than anywhere else in the world. It can look primarily to national rather than regional media networks (TV, radio, press) so there is an easier dissemination of information and a broader common awareness of what's happening nationally. (This impact of Britain's size has been noted in other regards, such as the emergence and propagation of musical fashions. Punk rock, for example, swept the whole country almost overnight after languishing in a backstreet corner of New York for several years. America is generally regarded as a hard market for a British band to crack, not least because the US is so damn -big-.) > It simply hasn't occurred to me to try to find people offline, >in my neighborhood or even within driving distance, who might be >interested in B7. There's so much less likelihood of finding >anyone than there is online, and if I did find people then we'd >have to make arrangements to meet offline, which would be >difficult and time-consuming. Which suggests that if you weren't online, then being a fan, and maintaining an interest in fandom, would be very troublesome for you. Possibly to the extent that you wouldn't be a fan at all. If the internet went down tomorrow, for good, you'd be stranded. British fandom could soldier on without too much trouble. > >> Horizon has a virtual monopoly on organised fandom, at >>least in the UK and immediate periphery. > >No, it doesn't. It's true that the B7 list is run from Sweden, >but surely someone in England could start up a list tomorrow >if they wanted to. But, again, I guess Neil means "organized >fandom offline". Yes, and I stand by assertion that offline fandom is currently still the norm (unless, of course, someone coughs up the numbers to prove me wrong). Access to the net might be in the process of changing things, but the change is far from complete. Way back in AltaZine #0 (January 1996, a whole four years ago nearly) I commented on the prospect of fandom being stratified into haves and have-nots on the basis of access to technology (and in them days, I was a have-not) which was in turn related to affluence and - in some cases - technofear. I think that's still applicable - the price of getting online might be falling, but it's still not in everyone's reach, and there are still plenty of people out there who are flat-out terrified of going anywhere near a computer (I know several). Touting online fandom as the only kind that counts is bordering on the elitist and arrogant - it's effectively writing off those who for whatever reasons can't or won't get online, not just denying them a voice but denying them the right to have a voice. (Not, may I stress, that I think you -are- in any way taking such a dismissive attitude, but there is an inherent danger in anyone assuming that their own personal experience is the norm. My own included.) I also suspect that, just as the character of fandom can vary nationally, so too there is a difference between online and offline fandom. Offline fandom more readily accomodates Dormice (to use my own expression), who arguably -need- a central, organised facility like Horizon in order to pursue their own style of fandom. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't nearly so many Dormice in America or Australia because fans are so much more widely scattered there. To be a fan outside the UK probably demands a higher level of personal comitment, and this will inevitably impact on the nature of fandom in those countries and the perspectives of those who are involved there. In Britain, however, there is less of an imperative to be online, and so offline fandom stands to be that much more significant. In short, I would say that as I see it British fandom is probably different from that elsewhere. Not 'better' or 'worse', just different. But the difference is important because British fandom is large, relatively well organised, and on the home ground of the source material (ie B7 itself). >As far as I can see, Neil seems to be genuinely afraid that if >Horizon doesn't advertise a zine no one will realize that it >exists. This seems improbable. Agreed. There will always be channels of communication through which people can discover the existence of a particular zine. But since you've offered some of your own personal experiences of fandom, why not let me reciprocate. I first started writing fanfic (bloody awful though it was) before the 4th Season was even broadcast. For all I knew, I was the only person in the whole world writing B7 fiction. I had no contact with other fans, I didn't even know there were any. Things went on like that for years, until the BBC started releasing the videos, and after a while the sleeves started advertising this club called Horizon. It was only through Horizon that I came to be aware of all these zine things, and to make contact with other fans (oh, that fateful day when I got a letter out of the blue from one Judith Proctor). Without Horizon, I wouldn't be writing this now. Something else to blame Gies for, eh? Neil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:29:58 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Message-ID: <042c01bf177e$ea733480$ef17ac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ruth Saunders wrote: >The fact that someone in the story simply is gay is hardly a reason to >keep the kiddiwinks away from the zine, whatever the label on the zine >might say. OTOH, the fact that there's no sex but there is a >particularly gory fight scene or a long drawn out death might be a >reason to give it a PG rating. At least, IMO. The whole idea of zine ratings is further confused by the way traditional goalposts seem to be moving. When I was nobbut a wee lad, full frontal nudity and the Dreaded F-word were X-certificate stuff. Now you can find both in a 12-rated movie (specifically, Titanic). Gay awareness and gay tolerance among the general public seem to have mushroomed in recent years, and that too has implications for what might be considered suitable for a 'gen' zine. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 05:06:56 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... Message-ID: <000201bf179d$ede0cbe0$3a19ac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Susan Beth wrote: >Duel is better than Animals, because almost everything in the universe is. > >Oh, you want specific points. Okay, in Duel you get insight into Travis, >learn most of everything we get to know about mutoids, and get Avon to >sideways admit he cares about Blake and Jenna. > >In Animals you get Og. And Justin. Need I say more? But in Duel you also get a plot ripped off from Star Trek/Frederick Brown/wherever it originally came from. You get a couple of mythy women with awesome pyschic powers and no explanation for how they got them or why they happen to look so utterly human. You get references to stasis technology with no further elaboration in that episode or anywhere else in the series. You get some trite dialogue about Avon being a machine. And a crude moral message rammed down your throat at the end. And a silly rubber bat. And a very terrestrial-looking forest on a planet that's supposed to be in another galaxy altogether. And monsters howling in the woods. And a mutoid whinging about not getting enough blood and Jenna victimised into a potential blood source. Whereas in Animals you get some really slinky cool-looking mutoids and ... erm ... well, er ... Oh yes - some astroturf, right at the very end. This makes the episode a definite must for all lovers of artificial outdoor playing surfaces. Una's right, Animals has been unfairly disparaged for far too long. Synthetic grass lovers of the world arise. Duel is one of the few episodes where Animals actually has the edge, IMO. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 09:23:18 +0100 From: "Una McCormack" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon hub of fandom? Message-ID: <004101bf17b0$06320e90$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil wrote in reply to Meredith: > >For me, it's the non-online world that is at the periphery of the > >world I live in. > > That may well be true for you, but how representative is that? (Isn't it > something like 80 per cent of the world's population have never even heard a > dial tone, let alone peeked at a web page? But 80% of the world's population is unlikely to have heard of B7, if not more. That's not an argument, I'm afraid, Neil. Una ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 09:16:08 +0100 From: "Una McCormack" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... Message-ID: <004001bf17b0$05d7e0a0$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Susan Beth wrote: > Andrew Ellis wrote: > >Can I suggest my game again. A Blakes 7 episode squash ladder. Here is a > >random order of episodes. Please pick on an adjacent pair, and argue why > > >Animals > >Duel > > Duel is better than Animals, because almost everything in the universe is. Growl! Hiss! Argle! Una -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #294 **************************************