From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #292 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/292 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 292 Today's Topics: [B7L] [Ruth Saunders ] Horizon policy Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288 Re: [B7L] Blake's 7 episode squash ladder. [B7L] My New Policy On Ultraworld Re: [B7L] Blake's 7 episode squash ladder. [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Re: [B7L] My New Policy On Ultraworld Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288 Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 1999 06:14:29 +0200 From: Calle Dybedahl To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] [Ruth Saunders ] Horizon policy Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Multipart_Thu_Oct_14_06:14:29_1999-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --Multipart_Thu_Oct_14_06:14:29_1999-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Another one that ended up in the spam trap. -- Calle Dybedahl, Vasav. 82, S-177 52 Jaerfaella,SWEDEN | calle@lysator.liu.se Hello? Brain? What do we want for breakfast? --Multipart_Thu_Oct_14_06:14:29_1999-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:37:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3804FB3F.E5977B17@redrose76.freeserve.co.uk> From: Ruth Saunders Organization: Red Rose MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Blake's 7 List" Subject: Horizon policy References: <3800ABEB.93CD46CB@redrose76.freeserve.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi! to everyone who will remember me from my days in active B7 fandom. I've rejoined the list (at least temporarily) because someone forwarded Diane's letter to me feeling that as a B7 fan, slash fan, zine dealer and conrunner, I'd be interested in seeing it. I've been following the debate through the archive, so though I've read a lot of what's already been said, though I have a few comments to add. > recently I've been more and more unhappy about how easy > it is to find fan-porn on the internet, & how easy it is to stumble over > adult zines at guest-conventions. These are actually two completely different topics, rather unfairly strung together. The first relates to a wider social debate about internet freedom of speech and control or censorship issues and policing of such within an international age with a gender boundary free regime, and the second point relates to fan guest-convention practices that, obviously, depend upon the fan convention organizer and their own policies. I'll come to the implications of that later. > B7 was always a PG show and whilst I've no objection to fans wanting to > write adult stuff and sell it to other consenting adults in private, I > don't think the vast industry in fan-porn is healthy. Two things here. To say slash is a 'vast industry' is untrue in my opinion, at least in Blake's 7 is concerned. A quick search on All the Web , IMO one of the best search engines, for "Blake's 7" throws up over 11,000 pages. That's a lot of pages for a small fandom, B7 fandom should be proud! A search for "Blake's 7" and "slash" throws up 470 pages. That's around 4.2% slash pages among the mainstream. Hardly a 'vast industry', unless Diane's looking at slash pages that are not B7, in which case she needs to be clearer. There are also several pages giving links for various kinds of fanfiction on the net, if you go to one of these and look up Blake's 7, you'll find that B7 is hardly the fandom with the largest exposure on the net, slash or gen. There are more B7 slash stories in zines than on the net, but even that isn't a 'vast industry' compared with the amount of gen about, or even compared with the amount of slash - and fanfiction generally - in other fandoms, for instance the grandaddy of all fandoms, original Trek. TOS also has a large amount of slash, probably in the same proportion as B7. > It is promoted as > a mainstream interest and as something new fans should be told about as > soon as they are told about 'regular' stuff, It's also studied as part of media studies classes in some places (like MIT, hardly some hole-in-corner college!) I recommend the work of Henry Jenkins he studies fandom, and is very interesting on the whole phenomenon of fannish interaction, including but not exclusively slash fandom. You don't need to go to a con to find out about slash. These days, you could pick up a book about fandom off the shelves of your local bookshop. /irony mode/ See that horse galloping over the hills? It's time to lock the stable door! /irony mode off/ > The idea of our own Ultra 1 was to have adult stories, with non-PG rated > sex scenes as part of a proper dramatic story (plus humorous little > romps) > but some of what's out there is so far removed from anything resembling > B7 as we > know it that I don't believe it should be so easily accessible. Quite apart from the "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" language, what is being advocated here is censorship. Even if I were a non-slasher I couldn't support it, and I take heart from the fact that people on the list who are non-slashers don't. Thank you. We're being asked here to accept Diane's ideas of what is and isn't 'real' or 'acceptable' Blake's 7. There are some stories out there, slash and gen, which don't accord with my ideas about the characters, but I accept that they're someone's. I know, too, that my ideas sometimes don't chime with other people's, but I think there's room in a fandom for all shades and points of view. I remember also an old friend putting forward the view that actually there's little to choose between slash and gen, it's all pastiche at best and breach of copyright at worst. He didn't agree with fanfiction of any shape or form, he said it was *all* theft. I confess it was a new idea to me. The only time I've ever heard of anyone getting a "cease and desist" notice about fanfiction on a website and in zines (it wasn't B7, but another fandom) the C&D notice was directed at the publisher of all stories on the site and in the zines she sold, *all* of which were gen. Where holders of copyrights get difficult, they don't seem to differentiate between the two. > Therefore, I would > like to implement a new advertising policy which would broadly encompass > the following points: > Advertising of fanzine Dealers in Orac's Oddments. Up till now we've > been advertising, for free, stuff sold by any club member, whilst asking > them to reciprocally advertise us. We have no way of knowing whether > these people DO advertise us and I've discovered for sure that Judith > Proctor certainly doesn't in any of her printed literature though she > does on her website. This is totally unfair, and actually untrue. Judith doesn't put the flyer in her zines any more as part of the text (though I think she did at one time) but she does include one with orders, and possibly with her catalogue too, it's been a long time since I sent for one. I think that's reciprocal enough, it would be for me. I don't think she'd waste a flyer on someone she knew was already a Horizon member, either. > The new policy would be that free for sale ads would only cover 'one > off' sales (selling off a collection, or one item) rather than for > people who trade as fan or pro dealers. We could then have an > advertising fee for any dealers still wanting to advertise up to a > maximum of xxxx words [snip] > Further, they would be required to sign something to confirm that they > did not produce, or agent for others, any B7 fan fiction containing > 'adult' artwork. If they want to sell adult fiction, that's up to them, > but the majority of the cast hate the idea of explicit artwork and so do > I, as you all know. Horizon can of course refuse what advertising it chooses (indeed they have the freedom they have so thoughtfully allowed others!) but I'm a bit concerned about the 'something' that advertisers are going to be expected to sign. What 'something'? And who signs it? The dealer? Would someone acting on their behalf be enough (for instance in the case of someone who has left the country)? What about families selling the belongings of someone who has died and who don't know or care what is in the zines? What action do Horizon propose to take if their stipulations prove not to be adhered to? If they're only accepting one-offs from some people, the sanction would surely not in these cases be to refuse further ads - but there would surely have to be a sanction of some kind? In the case of other advertisers, how do they propose to enforce their rules? Read all the zines before they're sold? That would involve the Horizon committee in a *lot* of unnecessary work! All this needs to be considered before the 'policy' comes into practice. There is a basic clarification needed here: who is injured and who benefits are the first questions to be asked in any arbitration. If any legal or civil case were ever to come to court, this would be the first point to be considered. > Conventions - I don't believe that guests and adult artwork mix. I'd agree with that. More for my peace of mind than the guests' they are after all grownups, but *I'd* be embarrassed to have them see it. However, if they do catch sight of something they don't like they are hardly little children, conventions cannot be responsible for everything someone who is after all an adult might see and be offended by. They are not the ITC or the BBFC. > I don't > want Horizon to advertise any convention that has a B7 guest unless they > confirm in writing that there will be a ban on dealers selling adult B7 > fiction with explicit art content [snipped] > will be hidden away behind and anyone wanting to view it will have > to ask for it, rather than having it in a box on the table marked > 'adult' - thus creating a knowledge that such things exist in the person > passing > by. Lots of questions here because as it stands, this 'policy' is almost laughable. Presumably "adult B7 fiction with explicit art content" includes zines with pictures on the inside, not just on the outside. How is this to be enforced? Is someone from Horizon going to check through the entire contents of every zine dealer table at every con they advertise? Or are they going to picket the ops room of a convention until the convention organizers do this? Heavens, I don't look through the contents of my own stock, and I'm a zine dealer - and though most zines say if they're slash on the title page not absolutely every one does. Another question: would the ban apply to non-B7 slash zines? That's far from clear, and they too can have 'questionable' covers. Surely these would be nearly as bad for the unwary actor with a sensitive disposition? What if a zine dealer didn't obey the rules, was asked to leave and wanted their table money back to go quietly? Would the convention have to pay and deprive the charity, or would Horizon stump up the cash, as its their policy? Again, who benefits? I have to say, convention organizers have more important things to do with their time than policing the contents of the dealers room. When I was running a convention I wouldn't (and come to think of it didn't) appreciate it when some person rushed up to me to tell me that one of the zines in the dealer room had a picture of a bum in it. At any stage of conrunning my reaction would be (and was): "Big deal. Get a life." Added to which, if Diane wishes to protect the innocent from the /ironic mode on/ Evil That is Slash /end ironic mode/ surely the best thing is that if these supposed innocents are warned and can avoid it? Poison bottles are clearly labelled 'poison' to protect the unwary. Those allergic to peanuts now have labels on products to warn them that the enclosed product "may have peanuts in it," but they don't demand - and don't have the right to demand - that all products containing peanuts are banned from the shelves. Likewise, the Spider House at London Zoo is labelled "Spider House" in big letters so that arachnophobics won't walk in without knowing what they are letting themselves in for, and the arachnophobics aren't picketing the zoo demanding that the Spider House be closed down. The principle of 'caveat lector' applies here. I don't demand that smoking is banned in public places, though I'm allergic to cigarette smoke and I have very little control over where people do it. > If they don't have a B7 guest, fine, > let them do what they like. That's fine and big...though the wording doesn't exactly Win Friends and Influence People. But...what about cons where a B7 guest wasn't expected and turns up at the last minute? Say Horizon were at A Random Con - who hadn't advertised a B7 guest - but at the last minute Mr. B7 Actor accepted an invitation to attend? I'm not entirely putting this forward as an unlikely event, I was at a Trek con at the Adelphi in Liverpool a good few years ago when Michael Keating came in and bought a registration. If this policy is approved and that happened again, would any Horizon committee members be obliged to ask the con - who would be following their own agreed policy - ask for slash to be removed from the dealers room? I can't imagine that would go down well with a concom! Would they carry con reports if it wasn't? Current conventions with B7 guests seem to be managing quite well with limited advertising from Horizon, I know that the conventions I was involved with had a comparatively small number of registrations from direct advertising in the Horizon newsletter. I know this, I'm not just supposing it, because I did registrations. However, that wasn't the case though with the first B7 con I was involved with, that one was heavily reliant on them for registrations - but we were *not* a Horizon con. We were entitled to make our own policy with regard to slash - and smoking - and guest invitations - and all the other things that cons have to think about. We took that entitlement very seriously, and though I can't speak for every member of all the committees I've been involved with, I for one didn't take kindly to someone external to our committee trying to make our policies for us. I know some or most of the others agreed with me. Should another new con committee step forward, with Horizon's blackmail held over them (I know this is strong language, I'm using it advisedly) they wouldn't have the luxury of thinking through the issues for themselves. I think they'd be the poorer for it. > Those of you who were with me at Cult TV 2 > weeks ago will know how upset I was to find that Judith Proctor was > blatantly selling such stuff, including a quite disgusting zine with > graphic sexual artwork, from her table top, whilst sitting selling > photos & together again tapes next to Paul at his autograph session This sounds as if Judith was selling slash from a table where Paul could see it. I don't believe that this was the case, and I'm told by people who were at Cult TV that it was categorically *not* the case. > Websites - from Horizon's links section, you only effectively > need to do 3 quick 'clicks' through Proctor's site to get into reading > X-rated excerpts from zines on her own site. This sounds as if Judith has X rated stuff on her web site. As I know, she moved heaven and earth to find bits of one particular story that were clean enough to put on a website - and I've looked at Judith's site and couldn't find anything that would be considered rude. And I don't think it's what Diane meant, it's just poor phrasing. She's allowing her dislike of Judith to take her to extremes. I have to say, I found this aspect of her letter - the real venom she has for Judith - most disquieting. As someone said to me: "I do not know Judith particularly well, but having seen her at several conventions I have noted the following as undeniable facts - This is a woman who is always sociable and pleasant, and ready to share her enthusiasm for B7 with all comers, irrespective of colour/creed/shape/size/opinions/etc." > It's one thing > for people to go and buy these zines, where they have to make some > effort and conscious decision to buy, but if it's just sitting there on > the internet, I think this is awful and there seems to be so much of it. As someone has already said on the list, this doesn't address the problem of the person looking for slash and not finding it. Often I've had new slash fans say, "Where has this *been* all my life?" It occurs to me that surely the disclaimer the BBC site has that they don't have any control over the content of sites they link to would be adequate warning? It seems to be the standard wording on company and government sites. > Proctor's site links to several others which have the most unbelievably > disgusting porn stories, without even any warnings in some cases Not in my experience, I haven't seen any which don't have warnings. > (though > others say "Hey, if you're not over 18, go away now" which is really > going to deter the average 13/14 year old playing with dad's computer, > isn't it?) Caveat lector applies here. All the site owner *can* do is warn, or in extreme cases have a password - I know one site that does this - which people have to ask for. But I'm not sure that Diane would agree that this is enough even, because the site owner can't really check all applications for the password. > I'll leave Edna out of it as she doesn't have any > idea this even exists and at 70+ years I don't think she needs to. It may surprise people to discover that some of my oldest friends in slash fandom are just that - elderly. One beloved old friend, an ex teacher, is 75. There are others. And my slash friends also include several mother and daughters. > Obviously Andy and Alan won't be asked!! Why not? I feel like others that if a committee is making a decision those considered too old - or too male - should not be excluded. I know, however, that Horizon isn't exactly what one might call democratic. It isn't true, though, that large organizations can't consult their membership. Trade Unions in the UK seem to manage OK, I should know, the first thing I did tonight, after getting home and making myself a drink, was to complete a ballot paper from my Union asking me if I was prepared to go on strike! -- 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 --Multipart_Thu_Oct_14_06:14:29_1999-1-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:48:05 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288 Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Wed 13 Oct, Neil Faulkner wrote: > Avona wrote > >Rather than seeking out 'what > >are the community standards' in B7 fandom, or their own club, one woman > >in a key position wants to get her friends to decide with her what the > >standards should be-- and she specifically states she will not seek > >input from certain people (in one case, she thinks the mention of it > >would shock the person-- in the case of the other two, my impression was > >'Let's not talk to them, because they will disagree.') > > That was my impression too, but we can't overlook the possibility that > 'Andy' and 'Alan', whoever they may be, have simply made it plain in the > past that they don't want to be dragged into this issue. Looking at the back page of Horizon 39, I find Andy Hopkinson - magazine design and layout, and Alan Stevens - magazine features editor. I liked issue 39 - I seem to recall that I said various nice things here when it came out. It was nice to be able to say something complimentary about Horizon for once. I think Andy was responsible for organising the costume exhibition at Deliverance. (Actually, that was something else that I liked, there were some wonderful costumes there. I still remember the fancy stones on Coser's outfit.) I've had brief contact with Alan, because I agent the 'Logic of empire' tapes. I don't think he'd faint at the mere mention of slash, but then again, it's not something that tends to come up in everyday conversation. Judith -- 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: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 10:09:19 +0100 From: Una McCormack To: Lysator Subject: Re: [B7L] Blake's 7 episode squash ladder. Message-ID: <38059DBF.3740F351@q-research.connectfree.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kai V Karmanheimo wrote: > 3. The Web over The Way Back. Both of these episodes have quite cliched > plots, but I think The Web makes for more interesting watching. Phew! I'd have to disagree here! 'The Way Back' is one of my favourite 50 mins of television. It's claustrophobic and, in its cheapness, somehow extremely stylish. The shots of the dome are just gorgeous and evocative, as are the pictures of earth and the moon from the London. Blake's story is moving and tragic; the twist of setting him up for another crime is such a good one, which I still think is clever, even though I know the story so well. The scenes following his original arrest and torture, then of his later breakdown are brutal and effective. Love it. 'The Web' - pah. Boring, silly, cheap. Hate it. I found your comments really interesting, Kai. Thanks for posting them - even if I don't agree ;) Una ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:12:28 +0100 From: Una McCormack To: Lysator Subject: [B7L] My New Policy On Ultraworld Message-ID: <3805AC8C.C15C2346@q-research.connectfree.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Lyst, I would like to announce my new policy on 'Ultraworld'. I would like to bar any further mention of this episode from the Lyst, and to work towards its erasure from the B7 canon. Here are my reasons. I'm sure you'll agree that they're sound. For many years now, this episode has been troubling me. What I chiefly find problematic about it is the misuse of humour. For many decades now, British culture has been dedicated to the steady pursuit of irony. Look at Python, Black Adder, and all those Seventies sitcoms we love so much. All ironic to the core. Irony is the heart and soul of our great nation. Yet look at 'Ultraworld'. Riddles. Limericks. Cheap shots. This episode is a travesty of all that has made our nation great. For that reason alone, 'Ultraworld' should be removed from our collective fan consciousness. There are other reasons. For example, Orac is reduced to nothing more than a 'straight man'. This is completely out of character, and hence non-canonical. I'm sure you'll agree that chirpy rejoinders are nothing like the tetchy computer we all know and love, and hence 'Ultraworld' has no place in any discussion of 'Blake's 7'. But perhaps what I find so offensive about 'Ultraworld' is that it is resolutely U-rated. For God's sake, was B7 some sort of *family show*? This sort of thing is a national disgrace, as I am sure any right-minded person would agree. May I suggest, then, a complete ban on any discussion of the episode 'Ultraworld'? The less we talk about it, the more quickly we will be able to forget about it. Any convention showing 'Ultraworld' in the video room will be boycotted. In addition, we should all submit our video copies of the episode for burning. Of course, this means that those of us who have been buying the sell-throughs will also lose 'Sarcophagus', but I'm sure you will all agree that this is a small price to pay for eradicating the poison that is 'Ultraworld'. Finally, in order to ensure that this ban is all-encompassing, can I request that nobody uses any words that begin with a capital 'U'. Una - Oh bugger! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 04:06:50 PDT From: "Hellen Paskaleva" To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Blake's 7 episode squash ladder. Message-ID: <19991014110651.80058.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Kai wrote: >3. The Web over The Way Back. Both of these episodes have quite cliched >plots, but I think The Web makes for more interesting watching. Don’t touch my “Way Back”! Don’ even dare! ;-) But seriously. You’ve most probably heard about that long lasting discussion “terrorist or freedom fighter”. Means, many people are not sure where exactly lies the boundary line between the unjustified terrorist acts against legally elected government, on one hand and the civic resistance against oppressive rullers, on the other. “The Way Back” was meaned to give the answer to this question. Getting into Blake’s shoes, you could *feel* the hopelessness and banishment surrounding you closely. You could feel that even the breathe you take is chained with chemicals, meaned to bury your free will… And the vision of that domes! Walls are almost falling over you… One has two paths to choose – either to accept all that and his one-ness to be dissolved into mindless crowd *or* to start fighting – probably without any chance for success, but keeping his human dignity. I do not say, that “The Way Back” is the best attempt to explain that claustrophobic feeling, which engulfes the people in the Federation. I *do* say, that it is an *relatively* good one. A worth one. With very strong Blake’s appearance, BTW – he raised from being piece of the mindless crowd to the proud “I am coming back!” (which is my strongest line from whole the series). And one more, private, observation: the Scandinavian countries are spoken to be amongst the countries with most highly developed democracies in the world (reffering to the UNO annual reports). And peoples there are amongst those, who faces biggest difficulties to understand the whole idea of non-freedom. The negative reviews re. sci-fi films or books, describing the idea of non-freedom usually comes from the Scandinavian countries (as far as I can judge, of course). And, vice versa, such films and books are usually warmly welcomed in the former communist countries. Hellen, the Bulgarian P.S. And not even a trace of Avon in TWB. Good episode, indeed. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 99 11:04:00 GMT From: s.thompson8@genie.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Message-Id: <199910141110.LAA00109@rock103.genie.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Mistral said, in reply to me: >I'd ask you to consider that diversity and tolerance must cut >both ways, or they are meaningless. Insisting that people who >find a particular behaviour immoral should actively support it >is *equally as narrow-minded and self-righteous* as those people >trying to force others to live by their rules in eliminating that >behaviour. While several people here have spoken up and said >that although they dislike explicit erotica, they support others' >right to publish it, you surely wouldn't expect those same people >to publish it themselves? It is not, in fact, inconceivable that >there might exist someone who was *not* homophobic but did >not wish to produce slash. Mistral, I think you misunderstood my post rather badly. Please reread the section that you yourself just quoted. I am most certainly not saying that Horizon (or anyone else) should publish slash whether they like it or not. In fact, ironically enough, I had a private discussion a few years ago with an irate slash fan in which I vigorously defended their right not to. There is no earthly reason for anyone to do any kind of fan activity that they disapprove of or don't enjoy, as I have said over and over in various contexts. (You might, for instance, look at the quote from me in the Generic Slash Defense Form Letter on the Lysator web site.) What I =am= saying is that Horizon has no business complaining about "fan porn" if they are producing any kind of erotica themselves. They should either stop publishing adult material, or stop harassing the other people besides themselves who do, or both. (IOW, I am saying that they should publish less erotica, not more, and I can't understand how you managed to get it backwards.) Personally, I see no great difference between het smut and slash. I'm not sure what the exact rationale is for declaring that =Ultra= is jolly fun, but anything else of a similar nature is nasty porn. If it is in fact a matter of the sexual preferences displayed by the characters within the stories-- and please note that once again I am saying =if=, since I have no way of knowing what the reason is unless and until it is explained-- then I will continue to maintain that this attitude is homophobic. Of course, it could be something completely different. A cynical person might wonder whether all this fuss is nothing but commercial competitiveness between zine publishers. Possibly the reason for banning all other erotic zines at Deliverance was simply to improve sales of Horizon's own "fan porn" zine by removing possible competition. If anyone from Horizon cares to fess up and admit that that was indeed the case, or to offer some other plausible explanation that hasn't occurred to me, then I will humbly apologise for suggesting homophobia as a possible motivation. I do think that the bizarre personal spite directed at Judith Proctor is most likely due to the simple fact that she publishes more and better zines (most of them gen) than Horizon does. Sarah T. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:13:08 +0100 From: Judith Rolls To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:04 14/10/99 , s.thompson8@genie.com wrote: (snip) >Personally, I see no great difference between het smut and slash. > I'm not sure what the exact rationale is for declaring that =Ultra= > is jolly fun, but anything else of a similar nature is nasty porn. > If it is in fact a matter of the sexual preferences displayed by > the characters within the stories-- and please note that once again > I am saying =if=, since I have no way of knowing what the reason is > unless and until it is explained-- then I will continue to maintain > that this attitude is homophobic. > >Of course, it could be something completely different. A cynical > person might wonder whether all this fuss is nothing but commercial > competitiveness between zine publishers. Possibly the reason for > banning all other erotic zines at Deliverance was simply to improve > sales of Horizon's own "fan porn" zine by removing possible > competition. If anyone from Horizon cares to fess up and admit > that that was indeed the case, or to offer some other plausible > explanation that hasn't occurred to me, then I will humbly > apologise for suggesting homophobia as a possible motivation. I stated at the beginning of this debate that despite being one of the recipients of the original email I had no intention of getting involved in a public shouting match, and I still feel the same. However, I feel it necessary at this point to categorically state that in my experience, homophobia simply isn't at the root of any antipathy Diane (and thus, Horizon) may have towards slash. Diane's objections to slash are well-known to everyone, and none of them are based on the alleged homophobia she has been unfairly accused of by some people. Judith http://home.clara.net/jager/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:21:09 -0700 From: Catharine Roussel To: Lysator B7 list Subject: Re: [B7L] My New Policy On Ultraworld Message-ID: <3805F4E5.64D5@telusplanet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mercy! Thanks for the morning smile, Una Catharine -- Catharine Roussel croussel@telusplanet.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 07:52:53 PDT From: "William Merlock" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288 Message-ID: <19991014145254.90702.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >Once again, we see a struggle between a group of elite secretive >decision makers who claim to be acting for the general good vs. those >who want the general group as a whole to have a voice in the policies >they live by. > >--Avona, who wonders if she should take up manifesto writing for Blake. Assuming that I've interpreted this correctly, that the behavior of the Horizon club leadership is being linked to that of the Federation, I'd just like to point out the tremendous difference between the two: Horizon club members who don't like the policy can leave, an option not particularly available to Federation citizens. In other words, Horizon has Authority only over those who wish to belong to the club or to use its services. Bill ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:02:51 PDT From: "William Merlock" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Message-ID: <19991014150253.20911.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mistral, You have put my own feelings into words far more eloquently that I could ever have hoped to. Bill >From: mistral@ptinet.net >Reply-To: mistral@ptinet.net >To: B7 List >Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy >Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:52:39 -0700 > > > >Sarah Thompson wrote: > > > About the proposed Horizon policy-- I would have no problem with a > > flat ban on all erotic material in Horizon publications and > > advertisements. Indeed, I think that is the most appropriate > > policy for an official fan club with strong ties to the actors and > > other personnel from the original show. But I object STRONGLY to > > Horizon publishing its own erotic zine, while denouncing all others > > (many of which are far better written, BTW) as "fan porn." This is > > at best hypocritical; > >That's very reasonable, and makes perfect sense to me. > > > and 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. > >This, however I have a problem with, on a couple of counts. >Trying to choose my words carefully, because I don't want to >offend anyone; and yet I know I'm going to fail miserably, so I >apologize in advance to anyone I inadvertently hurt. > >Homophobic is an awfully inflammatory word to throw around >in a discussion like this. It's true there are many people who >can be accurately called homophobic; they look at a sexual >orientation they don't like, feel fear, and call the whole person >evil. I don't have any idea whether this applies to Diane Gies >and/or any other Horizon committee members. > >There are other people who believe homosexual *behaviour* >is morally reprehensible, to use your phrase, but it doesn't >stop them treating homosexuals with respect and courtesy, >or even having friendships with them. You wouldn't call a >person who thinks stealing is morally reprehensible a >kleptophobic. I don't like theft, but I'm actually rather fond >of Vila. > >I'd ask you to consider that diversity and tolerance must cut >both ways, or they are meaningless. Insisting that people who >find a particular behaviour immoral should actively support it >is *equally as narrow-minded and self-righteous* as those people >trying to force others to live by their rules in eliminating that >behaviour. While several people here have spoken up and said >that although they dislike explicit erotica, they support others' >right to publish it, you surely wouldn't expect those same people >to publish it themselves? It is not, in fact, inconceivable that >there might exist someone who was *not* homophobic but did >not wish to produce slash. > >In my humble opinion, throwing around the word homophobia >indiscriminately simply exacerbates the problem by attacking >a fairly large percent of the population who would be willing >to live and let live if others would do the same. > >I don't, in fact, approve of Diane Gies' policies or methods; >but if, as seems the case, she and the Horizon board are not >obligated to consult or please the members with regard to >policy, then there is no reason they cannot choose to please >the 'anti-' rather than the 'pro-' slash fans. > >I apologize again if I've upset anyone. > >Mistral >-- >"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!" > --Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D. > > > > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #292 **************************************