From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #43
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume99/43
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 43
Today's Topics:
Re: [B7L] Avon, Spock and Alienation
Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Re: [B7L] In defence of Sarcophagus
Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
[B7L] fanzine sale
[B7L] Not entirely OT: Julia Ecklar
Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
[B7L] Avon club news
Re: Re:[B7L]Locations where 'Guards !Guards!' is being performed
Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Re: [B7L] F and SF
[B7L] Pages Bar on Saturday
Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
[B7L]Wimbledon
Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:50:33 -0000
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Avon, Spock and Alienation
Message-ID: <006701be48c4$552301a0$141aac3e@default>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Gail wrote:
>Rob wrote that " Sympathy, loneliness, chronic despair" were essential
>ingredients of Sarcophagus, and, as many have now agreed, of B7 in general.
Maybe, but I don't think they were meant to be. It just sort of happened.
The question is, why should close on a dozen different script-writers,
working on their scripts independently, collectively develop this unstated
theme? I'm not sure it was what Terry Nation had in mind, so maybe it was
Chris Boucher who drew out the alienation thread? He did produce
harder-edged scripts, after all - more genuinely cynical than Nation's.
>Spock is another character that suffers from this, and I think that is one
>reason why he is so tremendously popular, even today. Being a "half-breed"
of
>two such different cultures was a constant conflict for him, the battle
>between emotions and logic.
So popular that subsequent Trek productions have had to have their token
Spock (Data, Odo, that holographic quack in Voyager - they aren't genuine
characters, just ingredients in a formula).
>I've had the idea the other day that Spock and Avon suffered from the same
>thing, alienation and loneliness, but Spock was headed toward "redemption,"
>the resolution of this conflict and wholeness of person, while Avon was
headed
>toward destruction and fragmentation of personality, complete isolation,
and,
>basically, "hell." What do the rest of you think of that?
I think it might be truer to say that Spock sought to overcome or transcend
his loneliness whereas Avon was more concerned with simply coping with it.
The Spock approach seeks to alter reality, if not actually deny it, whilst
the Avon strategy seeks to come to terms with it. I think this reflects a
wider difference between the two series, in that Trek frantically tries to
deny the possibility of failure whereas B7 phlegmatically acknowledges that
success is far from guaranteed. It may or may not be coincidental that B7
was British and Trek was American.
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:38:32 -0000
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Message-ID: <006801be48c4$55d27b80$141aac3e@default>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Cf. 'Dune' (the book! Not the movie!) which
>appears to be Fantasy but is in fact science fiction of the most
>obsessive-compulsive variety -- that is, every apparently magical aspect
>of Herbert's future universe is explicated in scientific terms. No
>matter how unfeasible they are, the point is that the effort was made to
>show how that future could be extrapolated from Now.
I never took Dune to be fantasy at all - the obsessive-compulsiveness lay in
the society that Herbert envisioned, in its determination to mystify (and
hence conceal) the processes by which it operated.
>
>The main difference between Fantasy and SF is presentation, particularly
>on TV where a *lot* of shorthand/symbolism has to be used.
Disagree - there is a fundamental philosophical difference between the two,
the magical vs the material. It's when the two are confused that we get
techno-worship hybrids like Star Wars. That tends to happen when purported
SF is written by people who know sod all about science (people like Terry
Nation, for instance). F and SF do share a lot of common ground (overt
didacticism, for example) but they are still ultimately divided by their
presumption of what _cannot_ happen (Fantasy) and what _could_ happen (SF) -
or what _could have_ happened if we're talking about alternative histories
(Pavane, Warlord of the Air etc).
> To my mind a vehicle that moves faster than the speed of light is far less
feasible
>than a flying carpet is.
Ii wouldn't put money on either. But the flying carpet is a denial of
reality (at least, provable reality) for its own sake, whereas the FTL
spaceship is a circumvention of reality (again, only as far as is accepted
as proven) as a means to an end, namely getting to otherwise unreachable
stars (which do exist, even though the planets orbitting them might not).
And the spaceship, as a product of technological progress (whether merely
implied or explicated through doubletalk) represents an extension of our
current _understanding_ of the universe, whereas the flying carpet
represents an extension of the universe itself.
But B7 starts out claiming to be science
>fiction, and thereafter we expect all of its plot contrivances, however
>fantastic, to broadly adhere to the conventions of SF. For instance, the
>alien-ghosts in 'Duel' are at least on a par with the ghost-alien in
>'Sarcophagus' in terms of their powers, but they give us a typical Star
>Trek spiel to explain themselves, so we permit them to be SF.
B7 _is_ science fiction, and therefore some level of explanation is
mandatory. The most consistently cited 'best episodes' - such as Rumours,
Terminal, Star One, Blake - are firmly rooted in the SF idiom rather than
the Fantasy idiom. Duel's flimsy rationalisation is all part of a clumsy
rehash of a very old plot, and works less well as SF than the Fredric
March/Trek versions with its gratuitous mysticisation. Needless to say it's
one of my least favourite episodes, and shoulders my hunch that Terry Nation
may have enjoyed SF but didn't come terribly close to understanding it.
Do cyberducks dream of electric worms?
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:27:31 -0000
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] In defence of Sarcophagus
Message-ID: <006601be48c4$52bf2100$141aac3e@default>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Murray wrote:
> I've been very interested in the many opinions about 'Sarcophagus',
>and was intrigued to read that many people found the fantasy elements to be
>a turn-off. For my part, I found them quite appropriate to the story of a
>being from a society far in advance of any human one. Arthur C. Clarke said
>that any sufficiently advanced technology was 'indistinguishable from
>magic'; so the showing of it in fantasy type terms was, I thought, very
>good. In the 'Star Wars' films, for example, while the plot has a great
>deal to do with it, many of the things in it are seen by us in fantast
>terms. For example, a lightsaber is a variety of magic sword, while the
>Emperor, due to his appearance and powers, is an evil wizard.
>
I think SW is better regarded as Conanesque swords'n'sorcery dressed up as
SF. It eschews moral ambiguity in favour of a simplistic distinction
between Good and Evil and its presentation of a universe where Good is
predestined to win in the end (or is is that whoever wins is inevitably
Good?). Sarcophagus is at an altogether more mature level; the crew are not
defined as Good, nor is the alien automatically definable as Evil simply
through being inimicable. Her motives might be selfish
(self-preservation/resurrection via Cally, enslavement of the rest of the
crew) but this is not the crude Evil-for-its-own-sake of Darth Vader and his
chums (the SW Empire is bad because it acts bad, and it acts bad because it
_is_ bad - not unlike the Federation in many respects...)
What I like about Sarcophagus is that although there is a fantasy gloss
pervading the whole episode, Tanith Lee has cleverly rigged it so there is a
way out for more rationalising minds. The alien's dependence on her ring
allows technology to be cited as the source of her powers (she explicitly
mentions the kind of advanced tech that AC Clarke was talking about). It
can _appear_ that the crew's encounter with the sarcophagus was fated, and
they were 'chosen' (did she actually use that word? I think she did but
can't quite recall) to fulfil their predestined roles as her menials, but
one could equally well dismiss this as merely being her interpretation of
the situation, and she was deliberately squeezing the crew into the roles
she wanted them to fulfil.
In short, Sarcophagus lets you have it either way - it can be mystical
fantasy, or rationalised as more conventional SF for the skeptically minded.
That's just one of the things that makes the episode such a class bit of
scripting (I'm a skeptic and proud of it, and Sarc is one of my favourite
episodes).
SW strives to be as unambiguous as possible without pinning labels on
everyone's back. Sarcophagus is riddled with ambiguity, both moral and
metaphysical. SW is swords'n'sorcery fantasy masquerading as SF.
Sarcophagus isn't masquerading as anything, if anything it's inviting us to
consider the masquerades we ourselves might be living by, whether we're
mystically or rationally inclined. Or something.
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:06:56 -0600
From: Lisa Williams <lcw@dallas.net>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Message-Id: <199901260102.TAA02858@mail.dallas.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Neil Faulkner wrote:
>Duel's flimsy rationalisation is all part of a clumsy rehash of a very old
>plot, and works less well as SF than the Fredric March/Trek versions with
>its gratuitous mysticisation.
I believe that would be Frederick Brown, if you're referring to the author
of the 1944 short story "Arena" which was the basis for the ST episode of
the same name. (I think Fredric March was an actor...and not on ST.)
Of course, B7's "Duel" is much closer to the ST version than to the Brown
one, gratuitous mysticising or no. ST altered the ending in a way which
changed the entire meaning of the story, and B7 followed the ST ending, not
the Brown one.
- Lisa
_____________________________________________________________
Lisa Williams: lcw@dallas.net or lwilliams@rsc.raytheon.com
Lisa's Video Frame Capture Library: http://lcw.simplenet.com/
New Riders of the Golden Age: http://www.warhorse.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:51:18 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Message-ID: <36AD1F97.1DDC@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
My two cents... I enjoy science fiction, and to an extent, I enjoy
fantasy. I find fantasy at it's most enjoyable when it creates a solid
'reality' of magic. Not powers and spells derived at random, but
issueing from the notion that there are systems to magic as there are of
science. For an example of this, read "The Compleate Enchanter"
collections by Fletcher Pratt and L. Sprague De Camp.
Just as the best scince fiction is true to science fiction inasmuch as
is feasible (i.e., interplanetary travel is a must for many stories, and
therefore we allow hyperspace, FTL or jumpgates to exist), much of the
best fantasy is scientific in certain aspects.
However, while most writing that doesn't care about creating a system
for how things work is crap, there are probably stories good enough to
be forgiven anyway.
Also, while Star Wars has many gaping holes in it (like the lack of any
actual usefulness to the Stormtroopers armor), it does have some system
to it. You can use technology, or you can use the "Force". Although the
Force is 'mystic', it is the... excess energy of life forces, if I
understand correctly. It takes discipline to focus ones mental powers to
use this Force. There is a system to it. No, they don't go into great
detail and flsh it out, but this is a movie-- they wouldn't tell you how
FTL is managed in most movies, either.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 22:12:29, -0500
From: BCJC37A@prodigy.com ( ROSANNE POSTELNEK)
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se, space-city@world.std.com
Subject: [B7L] fanzine sale
Message-Id: <199901260312.WAA15232@mime4.prodigy.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Prodigy Mail: Personal Message 01/25/1999
Hi
Thought I'd pass this along. I can recommend them. I've both bought
and sold zines from them.
Rosie
NTERNET FANZINE SALE
For media fans who want to buy fanzines or memorabilia or have
fanzines
they want to sell:
Several Unlimited, a Houston-based media fanclub, is managing the
Orphan Zine
sale at Revelcon (Houston, Texas) on March 19-21, 1999. And following
last
years immense success, we are once again running an Internet Zine
Sale right
after Revelcon (April 1-30).
This is an excellent opportunity for all media fans (TV shows, movies,
pulps,
etc.) to buy and sell fanzines over the Internet. Last year, many
fans were
thrilled to discover fanzines, tapes, etc. that are very hard to find
anywhere
else. We concentrate on media fanzines (both new and used), but also
handle TV
or movie-related books, photos, tapes, and other memorabilia.
If you are interested in buying or selling fanzines (from the A-Team
to the X-
Files) through the Internet Fanzine Sale, please check our website
site
(http://members.aol.com/erikaf/su/ ) for further information. (We
link to
Revelcon's website.)
Our deadline for receiving items is March 5, 1999, so don't delay!
Or e-mail us at:
Carolyn O'Neal 72677.2443@Compuserve.com
Jamie Ritchey jritrph@aol.com
Several Unlimited severalhou@aol.com
Yours truly,
Doris Beetem
President, Several Unlimited
Please forward this announcement to your fannish friends or post
on
appropriate newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 14:09:36 +1100
From: "Afenech" <Fenech@onaustralia.com.au>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Not entirely OT: Julia Ecklar
Message-Id: <03255845360095@domain4.bigpond.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Carol McC said:
> My favorite book of Tanith Lee's is THE SILVER METAL LOVER. Julia
>Ecklar has a beautiful SML filk, "Silver," on her Divine Intervention
tape. I >don't know if that's still available.
It is still possible to buy two tapes full of Julia Ecklar's beautiful
voice and lyrics from a company in America which sells music produced by
filkers - cant remember what its called - Judith do you know? - but you
can find it easily enough with an Internet search on Julia Ecklar - I'd do
it -smile- but the home Internet connection (am home as its a holiday here
in Oz) was designed specifically to test the patience of Job and is beyond
mine! If anyone wants to knwo and cant find it email me off list and I
will look at work tomorrow where the connection is *infinitely* faster.
And I agree with Susan B. there are many songs on the tapes which are most
B7ish - of course this has been noticed and some have already been used by
those making the music videos - 'Lullaby for a weary world' is as poignant
a look at Blake as you are ever likely to see. Another one is 'Crimson &
crystal' - which is, sort of, a personification of death - and in B7
terms is set about images from 'Sarcophagus' - another I like is 'Burnish
me bright' a song about loneliness and alienation - I think - and no
prizes for guessing who the music video focuses on -smile- and
'Survivor's song' - *very* B7 - which talks of souls screaming in silent
agony and has lyrics like:
'Tell me in a year or more,
there'll be something worth living for,
there'll be nothing worth living for,
so tell me how to go on.'
just one of the sequences which can very easily be set to images from any
episode.
That I am fond of Julia Ecklar and her music is somewhat of an
understaement -smile- she is a writer and her song lyrics are wonderful!
And to think I would never have heard of her but for being enchanted by
her songs used on the music videos - I knew there was some reason I like
them so much, well other than the hours of the hours of repetition of the
best moments of B7 -smile-
Not so OT after all -smile- good!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 03:48:31 -0000
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Message-ID: <001201be48de$dab22480$791aac3e@default>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lisa wrote:
>I believe that would be Frederick Brown, if you're referring to the author
>of the 1944 short story "Arena" which was the basis for the ST episode of
>the same name. (I think Fredric March was an actor...and not on ST.)
Damn damn... I'm _always_ getting these two muddled. Yup, Fredric March
was indeed an actor, and still might be for all I know. I believe he played
the Hairy One in an early Hollywood foray into werewolf territory. Or it
may have been Jeckyll and Hyde.
>
>Of course, B7's "Duel" is much closer to the ST version than to the Brown
>one, gratuitous mysticising or no. ST altered the ending in a way which
>changed the entire meaning of the story, and B7 followed the ST ending, not
>the Brown one.
It's years since I read the Brown story. I read somewhere that he filched
the idea from some ancient Greek play - anyone know how that ended if he
did? It's beginning to look as if Duel was a more or less direct lift from
the Trek episode - maybe it was a hastily designed filler as Terry Nation
started to run out of creative steam. (Not that you could blame him if so -
13 episodes is a _lot_)
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 22:50:02 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Avon club news
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-0125215002-0b0Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
The following came fron the Avon club today
AVON : THE PAUL DARROW SOCIETY
LATEST NEWS - 25TH JANUARY 1999
A new magazine will be out next week, and it covers such things as CD's,
videos, films and TV. Called 'HEAT' - Issue No 1 will have an article about
Paul - under TV Icons.
I've been told there are now approx 180 sites on the web that mention Paul
Darrow! Check them out!
Paul will definitely NOT be appearing in Guards, Guards on the 28th January,
1999.
AVON - PAUL DARROW SOCIETY AUCTION
As the BBC have cancelled the broadcast of the second Blake's 7 radio play
'THE SYNDETON EXPERIMENT' (which should have originally gone out on the 19th
December 1998) until May 1999 (or thereabouts), we are unable to release the
script that Paul used for that programme and kindly donated to the Club, until
after the play has been broadcast. Therefore, it has been decided to continue
with the Auction until such times as 'THE SYNDETON EXPERIMENT' is transmitted,
thereby not
treading on anyone's toes.... or falling foul of copyright!!
The current bid for Paul's script is �60.00 (US$102... if you win the bid and
are paying by US cheque please add $8.00 to cover bank charges). Anyone
wishing to add this original piece to their Paul Darrow/Avon collection can
bid by contacting me via normal post, (Ann Bown, 37A Byfleet Avenue, Old
Basing, Basingstoke, Hampshire, RG24 7HR England.) FAX me on (44) 01256
814727 or E-Mail : Avonpds@aol.com OR Annbown@aol.com
For full details see page 15 of the current newsletter or contact me at one of
the above.
ANN
--
http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7
Redemption 99 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention
26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Kent
http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:14:06 -0000
From: "Josh Tildesley" <josht@rpf.co.uk>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Re:[B7L]Locations where 'Guards !Guards!' is being performed
Message-ID: <007601be4914$9c037b40$95b4cdc2@josh-s-pc>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----Original Message-----
From: Julie Horner
Date: 25 January 1999 14:15
Subject: Re:[B7L]Locations where 'Guards !Guards!' is being performed
***SNIP***
>22ND FEB 1999 - DARLINGTON, THE CIVIC (01325 486555)
***SNIP***
>I think Darlington is your closest. It's only about an hour or so up the
>A1 isn't it?
Hmm... right.
Well thanks, Julie. Your help is appreciated.
Could anyone tell me if there is a safe place to park near the theatre?
Josh.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:22:16 -0000
From: "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Message-ID: <00a001be4920$7fc74720$ca8edec2@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The difference between fantasy and science fiction is something I have
thought about a lot. Mainly because I love science fiction (the modern
stuff) and I *hate* fantasy. I often wonder why.
After I have read a fantasy (rare) I feel that my mind has contracted, but
when I read SF I feel that my mind has expanded. I don't just mean in
technical knowledge - you rarely learn anything that new in an SF book. I
think it is because the author has tried to engage with something outside
him/her self and report back on what happened. It often seems to me that a
fantasy writer is engaging entirely within him/herself, with her own private
err..fantasy. The book is then read by people who share the same private
fantasy, and it all seems very enclosed and claustrophobic.
There are a very few fantasy writers who actually do seem to connect with
something outside themselves. Alan Garner and Ursula Le Guin are the only
two I can think of. And from them I get the same expansive, dangerous
feeling I do from modern SF.
On the whole media Sf like B7 is skating on thin ice, because they don't
have time to join the dots to make it proper SF. I suppose I give B7 the
benefit of the doubt on this, which I wouldn't if they were all wearing
swords and fighting orcs :-)
As I write this I know I am in a minority, and there are probably more
fantasy than Sf fans on this list. Reading back, this post also seems rather
abrupt. So - go easy on me fellas it's just a point of view.
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 06:25:53 -0600
From: Lisa Williams <lcw@dallas.net>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] F and SF
Message-Id: <199901261222.GAA29136@mail.dallas.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Neil Faulkner wrote:
>It's years since I read the Brown story. I read somewhere that he filched
>the idea from some ancient Greek play - anyone know how that ended if he
>did?
I hadn't heard that, though it's certainly possible -- the story could
transplant easily. If so, I would bet that the Greek ending was the same as
Brown's; the ST version would have been a bit out of place in ancient Greek
entertainment.
(For those who haven't read Brown's story: it's very similar to ST's
"Arena", with the Intrepid Earthman and the Evil Enemy straying into the
territory of the WayAdvanced Beings, who set the two of them to fight each
other on a barren planet, promising to wipe out the entire side of the
loser. The Evil Enemy in the story is an amoeboid creature, not reptiloid
like the Gorn, and the Intrepid Earthman's booby trap is different, but the
idea is the same. Except that in the Brown version, when the Intrepid
Earthman gets the upper hand he proceeds to kill the Evil Enemy dead as a
side of beef, whereupon the WayAdvanced Beings pat him on the head and
obligingly destroy Evil Enemy's entire spacefleet.)
>It's beginning to look as if Duel was a more or less direct lift from the
>Trek episode
It was certainly awfully close to it. (I've heard it denied that there was
actually any connection between the two, but I find that hard to believe.)
The business of having Intrepid Earthman's companions back on the ship
watching and commenting on the battle appeared in ST and B7, but not Brown
-- in the short story, the Earthman was on a one-man fighter ship in the
Earth fleet, and no one even knew he'd been gone. He was zapped back into
his ship just in time to hear his compatriots on the radio commenting to
the effect of: "Dang! Didja see that? Whole enemy fleet just blew up! Gee,
I wonder what happened?"
- Lisa
_____________________________________________________________
Lisa Williams: lcw@dallas.net or lwilliams@rsc.raytheon.com
Lisa's Video Frame Capture Library: http://lcw.simplenet.com/
New Riders of the Golden Age: http://www.warhorse.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 13:42:28 +0100
From: Steve Rogerson <steve.rogerson@MCR1.poptel.org.uk>
To: Space City <space-city@world.std.com>, Lysator <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Pages Bar on Saturday
Message-ID: <36ADB832.1AA85C11@mcr1.poptel.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
There's about half a dozen so far who have said they are coming to the
drink at Pages Bar in London this Saturday (30 January). If anyone else
is coming, please let me know and we'll watch out for you. I'll probably
get there about 5.30pm.
Pages Bar is on Page Street, London SW1P. Nearest tubes are Pimlico and
Westminster and railway stations Charing Cross, Victoria and Waterloo
are not far away. The No 88 bus, which you can pick up near Piccadilly
Circus, goes right past the door. The C10 bus also goes past the door
and you can get that at Victoria.
--
cheers
Steve Rogerson
Redemption 99: The Blakes 7 and Babylon 5 convention
26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Ashford, Kent
http://www.smof.com/redemption/
"Get in there you big furry oaf, I don't care what you smell"
Star Wars
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 14:34:12 -0000
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Message-ID: <001201be4939$43e99e60$c817ac3e@default>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Alison wrote:
>The difference between fantasy and science fiction is something I have
>thought about a lot. Mainly because I love science fiction (the modern
>stuff) and I *hate* fantasy. I often wonder why.
Me too. I think it might have something to do with the way Fantasy is
character-centric, whereas SF tends more to be socio-centric. At the risk
of grossly over-generalising...
Fantasy:
- tends to focus more on the experiences and reactions of individuals in a
fantastic world.
- operates more on a micro-social level, where relationships between
individuals are emphasised.
- regards the world as something to be experienced.
SF:
- tends to focus more on the world itself, with characters acting as an
interface between reader/writer and the imagined world.
- operates more on a macro-social level, being more concerned with
relationships between the individual and society.
- regards the world as something to be interpreted.
>On the whole media Sf like B7 is skating on thin ice, because they don't
>have time to join the dots to make it proper SF. I suppose I give B7 the
>benefit of the doubt on this, which I wouldn't if they were all wearing
>swords and fighting orcs :-)
It doesn't help that F and SF cannot always be clearly distinguished and
many (most?) people tend not to make the effort anyway. Nor does it help
that B7 (at least) was written largely by television writers dabbling in
science fiction, not science fiction writers venturing into television.
Tanith Lee is an exception - she does know the difference between the two
(F/SF) which is probably why Sarcophagus manages to work as either genre.
F and SF are directed towards two different mindsets, which might be broadly
termed introspective and extrospective respectively. (I should point out
there that I'm not trying to suggest that either one is somehow 'better'
than the other. Each has its strengths and drawbacks. Most people can
utilise both modes anyway, albeit in varying proportions). B7, I feel,
actually does a rather good job of balancing the two, though different fans
seize on one or the other as the most 'important'. Some (like me) lean more
towards the extrospective, while others (perhaps the majority) lean more the
other way. The tendency then is for the science-fictional elements to be
lumped under the broader heading of the fantastic, and receive less in the
way of critical appraisal whilst the fans concentrate on the characters.
This is developed in extremis in adult/slash fanfic where the outside world
is all but entirely marginalised in favour of character relationships.
Which, now I come to think about it, is probably why I don't like slash.
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 15:10:58 -0000
From: "Julie Horner" <julie.horner@lincolnsoftware.com>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L]Wimbledon
Message-ID: <01be493e$1414f3b0$170201c0@pc23.Fishnet>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Is anyone else out there going on the Horizon outing
to see "Guards! Guards!" in Wimbledon on Tuesday 9th Feb?
Julie Horner
------------------------------
Date: 26 Jan 1999 16:19:45 +0100
From: Calle Dybedahl <calle@lysator.liu.se>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Message-ID: <usiuduawoe.fsf@sara.lysator.liu.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
"Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk> writes:
> The difference between fantasy and science fiction is something I
> have thought about a lot.
Not just you. I spent roughly half of 1995 thinking (and writing)
about it. Defining SF is *hard*.
Any reasonable definition will sooner or later have to admit that
there is no firm border between SF and fantasy (or SF/F and
mainstream), but that they are continuums. If you imagine "pure SF" as
one pole and "pure fantasy" as another, most works will be spread
fairly evenly in between.
The british critic (and writer) Brian Aldiss call the different
extremes the "Thinking Pole" and the "Dreaming Pole", and I think that
catches the difference in attitude much better than "SF" and "fantasy"
does. Some fantasy can be very close to the Thinking Pole (that of
Cherryh or LeGuin, for example) and some SF is very close to the
Dreaming Pole (Piers Anthony).
As a series of 52 more-or-less different works, B7 doesn't stay in one
single position on this scale. It wanders around, sometimes quite a
bit. "The Way Back" is quite close to the Thinking Pole while
"Sarcophagus" (like most of Lee's works) is closer to the Dreaming
Pole. But they are both SF, since they use the SF clich�-set.
> Mainly because I love science fiction (the modern stuff) and I
> *hate* fantasy. I often wonder why.
Have you read any *good* fantasy? I'd recommend:
"The Paladin" by C. J. Cherryh
"Death's Master" by Tanith Lee
"King of Morning, Queen of Day" by Ian McDonald
"The King of Elfland's Daughter" by Lord Dunsany
"Small Gods" by Terry Pratchett
Most fantasy (notably, nearly all mass-market-popular fantasy) is
simply wish-fulfillment fantasies, filling roughly the same role as
Harlequin romances.
> And from them I get the same expansive, dangerous feeling I do from
> modern SF.
With what definition of "modern"? Generally speaking, what was
published in the 60s was *far* more dangerous than what is published today.
--
Calle Dybedahl, Vasav. 82, S-177 52 Jaerfaella,SWEDEN | calle@lysator.liu.se
Mediocre minds think alike.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:46:49 PST
From: "Stephen Date" <stephendate@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Message-ID: <19990126164659.16686.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Calle wrote
>Defining SF is *hard*.
>
>Any reasonable definition will sooner or later have to admit that
>there is no firm border between SF and fantasy (or SF/F and
>mainstream), but that they are continuums. If you imagine "pure SF" as
>one pole and "pure fantasy" as another, most works will be spread
>fairly evenly in between.
I think this is pretty true. After all, if SF writers really understood
FTL drives they'd be physicists, not SF writers. And the continuing
popularity of psi powers in SF despite the best efforts of CSICOP
indicates that no-one really wants the known scientific facts to get in
the way of a good read/ film/ evening in front of the telly.
>The british critic (and writer) Brian Aldiss call the different
>extremes the "Thinking Pole" and the "Dreaming Pole", and I think that
>catches the difference in attitude much better than "SF" and "fantasy"
>does. Some fantasy can be very close to the Thinking Pole (that of
>Cherryh or LeGuin, for example) and some SF is very close to the
>Dreaming Pole (Piers Anthony).
This is a useful definition. Incidentally, I remember CS Lewis wrote
somewhere that SF fans tend to divide into two rough groups. Those who
are interested in SF because they are interested in technology and those
who are more interested in the mythic aspects - strange planets, alien
life forms and so on. Lewis fell into the second category and cheerfully
admitted that whilst devising a space craft for his first SF novel he
found it a lot easier to use Angels to transport his hero to Venus for
the second novel so he could get on with describing the fauna and flora.
Obviously this sort of thing drives some people up the wall !
>As a series of 52 more-or-less different works, B7 doesn't stay in one
>single position on this scale. It wanders around, sometimes quite a
>bit. "The Way Back" is quite close to the Thinking Pole while
>"Sarcophagus" (like most of Lee's works) is closer to the Dreaming
>Pole. But they are both SF, since they use the SF cliche-set.
Again, I concur.
>Most fantasy (notably, nearly all mass-market-popular fantasy) is
>simply wish-fulfillment fantasies, filling roughly the same role as
>Harlequin romances.
This is the most depressing aspect of the whole affair. I have tended to
avoid fantasy, as a rule, since I was 16 (except the stuff by Michael
Moorcock) on just those grounds. I have always felt, however that it
should be possible to write good fantasy however. After all, B7 and B5
took most of the standard SF cliches and turned them into something
special. There's no reason why, say, a fantasy saga couldn't deal
intelligently with the politics of the ancient city state or the decline
of feudalism. I even saw an episode of Xena recently that dealt
intelligently with the dehumanising effect of war. So, I shall look out
for the books on your list next time I visit the library.
Stephen Date.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:19:06 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Message-ID: <36AE0719.4707@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Alison Page wrote:
>
(snipping most)
> As I write this I know I am in a minority, and there are probably more
> fantasy than Sf fans on this list. Reading back, this post also seems rather
> abrupt. So - go easy on me fellas it's just a point of view.
More fantasy than SF fans on a Blake's 7 list? I wouldn't think so.
Mind, it may depend on how you define the terms; Blake's 7 is a space
opera that rarely uses anything like hard SF and occaisionally has a
mystic edge. If you classify it as fantasy therefore (which I wouldn't
because there is even lessmagic (none) than there is hard science)--
then there might be more fantasy fans here.
Yet my guess would be that for every book my Tolkien, the average B7 fan
has three or more books by Asimov.And are more likely not to miss an
episode of B5 as compared to Xena.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:49:07 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Message-ID: <36AE0D34.69B5@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Wow! Calle's post about the "thinking pole" vs. "dreaming pole" and
other comments about intro- vs extroverted perspectives really clarified
things for me. In my previous comments of F & SF, I said that I do like
some fantasy, if there is a systematic approach to the fantastic
elements. That would make in fall into the category of extroverted. It
is not merely, "what if there was magic?" in a wish fulfillment sense,
but rather, poses and answers questions as to "how and why". It is the
thinker's fantasy, rather than the dreamer's fantasy.
By the same token, I haven't liked much of what I've seen of Phillip K.
Dick, because far too many of the stories I've read of his are about
people's internal worlds and fantasies, and not enough about real
interactions. (I read a god-awful story by him that semi-ended with the
people who'd been going through all this desperate stirife awakening--
their ship was crippled and they were doing an interactive
virtual-rality type thing to try to keep them sane until help arrived,
if ever. However, knowlege of their situation was creeping in and
turning their simulations nightmarish, and it was obviously only a
matter of time before the psuedo-murders in the simulations started
taking place in real life). Chilling thought, I'll grant. But
::screaming:: "It was all a dream!" Grrr...
I am much more likely, overall, to set down a fantasy book without
finishing it, if it doesn't grab me within a few pages. I avoid the
wish-fulfillment style. I like fantasy if it makes me think, whether
it's about systems of psuedophysics, sociology, philosophy, or natural
history. In fact, I've been working on a fantasy world with stolen B7
characters in it-- and the invention of better weoponry & technology is
important, and there will be hints of an evolutionary system I've been
working on. In fact, the 'magic' of the world is ultimately derived from
a combination of natural forces and an alien technology that arrived in
the earliest stages of the world's evolution.
By the same token, I find certain branchs of SF, and _not_ the 'space
opera' type, to be dreamer's ground. I have given up in disgust trying
to sell stories to magazines that prefer not to bother with anything I
would call a plot. Things need to happen outside the range of the main
character's thoughts and emotions.
Well, that was way more than 2 cents worth. I'll get off my soap box
now.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 19:20:55 +0000 (GMT)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
To: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
Cc: lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.990126185408.26009E-100000@bsauasc>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Helen Krummenacker wrote:
> Wow! Calle's post about the "thinking pole" vs. "dreaming pole" and
> other comments about intro- vs extroverted perspectives really clarified
> things for me. In my previous comments of F & SF, I said that I do like
> some fantasy, if there is a systematic approach to the fantastic
> elements. That would make in fall into the category of extroverted. It
> is not merely, "what if there was magic?" in a wish fulfillment sense,
> but rather, poses and answers questions as to "how and why". It is the
> thinker's fantasy, rather than the dreamer's fantasy.
>
I surprise myself by how little I really care about that. As long as
there's at least some veneer of internal consistency (and sometimes not
even then) I'm much more concerned by real, believable characters than by
the structures of their world.
> By the same token, I haven't liked much of what I've seen of Phillip K.
> Dick, because far too many of the stories I've read of his are about
> people's internal worlds and fantasies, and not enough about real
> interactions. (I read a god-awful story by him that semi-ended with the
> people who'd been going through all this desperate stirife awakening--
> their ship was crippled and they were doing an interactive
> virtual-rality type thing to try to keep them sane until help arrived,
> if ever. However, knowlege of their situation was creeping in and
> turning their simulations nightmarish, and it was obviously only a
> matter of time before the psuedo-murders in the simulations started
> taking place in real life). Chilling thought, I'll grant. But
> ::screaming:: "It was all a dream!" Grrr...
In defence of Dick (I have a feeling I am going to end up being called
Iain the Dick-Defender):
I was thinking about Philip K Dick today, in connection with this thread.
I think what separates his work from dreamy fantasy is the urgency of his
philosophical and religious stances. It's not so much "what if there were
these guys having a shared delusion", or even "what if what we call
reality was just a shared delusion" - it's "hey guys, I think maybe
what we call reality is _in fact_ a shared delusion".
Dick had some driving issues concerning the nature of reality and of
authentic humanity: it wasn't just yarn-spinning. Another aspect of his
work is the desperately tragic way our relationships can be screwed up
through people having vastly different takes on the world: much of the
tripped-out hallucinatory stuff serves to illuminate these aspects of
how the characters relate. Dick's characters (and arguably ourselves) live
in very different worlds which only make fleeting, ambiguous contact.
Plus, of course, I am strongly biased in his favour by the fact that he
wrote the only book that has ever made me cry.
>
> I am much more likely, overall, to set down a fantasy book without
> finishing it, if it doesn't grab me within a few pages. I avoid the
> wish-fulfillment style. I like fantasy if it makes me think, whether
> it's about systems of psuedophysics, sociology, philosophy, or natural
> history.
Here we differ vastly. Both in fantasy and science fiction, if a large
part of the work is concerned with worldbuilding, scientific
extrapolation, alternate ecologies or whatever, I rapidly become irritated
as it tends to be done with too little competence, too much worthiness, or
both.
Mind you, I don't think anything I like could really be classed as
wish-fulfillment. Dick, Ballard, Moorcock, Vonnegut - you get the idea.
> By the same token, I find certain branchs of SF, and _not_ the 'space
> opera' type, to be dreamer's ground. I have given up in disgust trying
> to sell stories to magazines that prefer not to bother with anything I
> would call a plot. Things need to happen outside the range of the main
> character's thoughts and emotions.
I suspect our bookshelves have very little in common. Maybe part of it is
my theatrical bias: it's the thoughts, actions and relationships of the
characters that matter to me, all the rest is just scenery. And therefore
optional.
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 19:43:02 +0100
From: Murray Smith <mjsmith@tcd.ie>
To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Message-Id: <l03110704b2d3bbbdfb13@[134.226.96.44]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Calle,
I was _very_ interested in your point about there being 'no firm
boarder' between fantasy and science fiction. My remarks on 'Sarchophagus'
have certainly provoked an interesting discussion. Your list of 'good'
fantasy books you'd recommend is a good one:
>"The Paladin" by C. J. Cherryh
>"Death's Master" by Tanith Lee
>"King of Morning, Queen of Day" by Ian McDonald
>"The King of Elfland's Daughter" by Lord Dunsany
>"Small Gods" by Terry Pratchett
but I was wondering why you haven't included J.R.R.Tolkien's "The Lord of
the Rings".
Yours,
Murray
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:00:14 +0100
From: Murray Smith <mjsmith@tcd.ie>
To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] F and SF (Re: Sarcophagus)
Message-Id: <l03110705b2d3bd625e0c@[134.226.96.44]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I was very interested in Neil's remarks that
>B7 _is_ science fiction, and therefore some level of explanation is
>mandatory. The most consistently cited 'best episodes' - such as Rumours,
>Terminal, Star One, Blake - are firmly rooted in the SF idiom rather than
>the Fantasy idiom. Duel's flimsy rationalisation is all part of a clumsy
>rehash of a very old plot, and works less well as SF than the Fredric
>March/Trek versions with its gratuitous mysticisation. Needless to say it's
>one of my least favourite episodes, and shoulders my hunch that Terry Nation
>may have enjoyed SF but didn't come terribly close to understanding it.
In 'Sarcophagus' an explanation _was_ of the alien's powers was given. She
herself said that her people boosted their natural abilities by means of
'high technology'. So the objects brought on board, including the ring, are
pieces of technology, although far in advance of anything the B7 crew can
concieve of. I was quite prepared to accept her explanation, not needing
any of the dreadful technobabble found in 'Star Trek: The Next Generation'.
What this epiosde tells us is that, whatever our level of
technology, we are still human beings, with consequences both good and bad.
Even if our technology is perfect, we are not; so we are still vulnerable
to external and internal forces. The alien is from what appears to be a
humanoid society with certain similarities to our own. She used Cally's
emotional vulnerability due to the near destruction of her people to use
her body as a blueprint and take over the ship. This reliance on Cally,
however, was the alien's undoing, the Auron not being a piece of technology
that could be used at will, but a person with emotions, one of which was
loyalty to her crewmates. Avon was able to use this loyalty against the
alien, leading to her eventual defeat.
Murray
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #43
*************************************