HIGHLA-L Digest - 17 Jul 2001 (#2001-207)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:00:01 -0400
There are 11 messages totalling 695 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. More about Slash. Same Sex warning
2. If you don't like it... (3)
3. Morality (3)
4. Fandom (was: CAH and the down-slide of HL)
5. Peter Wingfield Appearances
6. OT Inquiry: The other British Peter W.
7. bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:04:13 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za>
Subject: Re: More about Slash. Same Sex warning
Wendy wrote:
>*You* might not get offended..but I'm willing to bet someone would <g>
>The discussion so far has been mostly civil, why spoil it now ?
Well, okay, send it to me offlist. Just remember I know where you
live. <g>
>... I don't see Duncan suddenly looking across a crowded room and realizing
>that he loves Methos so much that only a physical expression of that love
>will do.
Um, neither do I. There needs to be some, you know, *plot* and
*exposition* and some clue as to why this would happen. If all a
story contained was the above, then it's just a PWP.
>>Wendy, you evil woman you!! <g>
>You loved it..admit it!
Actually... no. If it had a context (i.e. a larger, longer story),
then I probably would have. But isolated scenes don't do much for me.
I'd nag you to write one, but why torture myself with the impossible?
>Why is it that, when a female writer creates a male/female relationship,
>it's assumed that the writer wishes to be the woman in the story - and
>that is considered a bad thing. But if a man writes a male/female
>relationship, it is *not* assumed he wants to be the man in the story- or
>if he *does* , that it's OK?
I think it is okay in both cases. But there are (or were; I still tend
to cling to fanfic definitions from a few years back) specific
definitions as to what constitutes a Mary Sue and what doesn't. Mary
Sue is usually some perfect female who saves everyone and gets to bed
one of the main characters (or at least gets some sort of wish-fulfillment
going on). Let's see if I can think of a Star Trek example... okay.
Riker or Picard aren't Mary Sues (or the male equivalent) because they
have flaws, they deal in their own realities in a relatively realistic
way. Wesley Crusher is a Mary Sue - not only is he named after his
creator (Eugene Wesley Roddenberry), but he is the epitome of a teen
Trek fan's fantasy: if you become precocious enough, you too can serve
as a starship crewmember at age 14.
So according to that definition, I do not see how a story with two guys
in it can be a Mary Sue. I'm NOT putting myself into the story, not
even by proxy.
>(All lesbian writers of m/m slash are hereby exempted from this portrayal
>of female fanfic writers <eg>)
Okay, so lesbians don't get accused of writing Mary Sues when writing
m/m slash? A person has to be *straight* to be accused of it? And how
do you know which is which, Wendy??
>...many slash writers have real difficultly writing two men "together" and
>*not* having one of the males suddenly sound like....Mary Sue. (And I know
>gay men in relationships and they don't sound like the slash versions of
>Duncan and Methos either)
I think you have just read the wrong stories. I always get my stories
beta-read by one of long-suffering gay friends.
>>Not more arousing... I just find the slash dynamic more interesting.
>Are you sure? (see the next bit below)
Absofragginglutely, dammit. <g>
>I doubt that you *do* actually skim over the sex scenes. I suspect you
>*think* you skim over them. I bet you have them all memorized <eg>
>The titillation of reading something "naughty" heightens the fun for you.
>In fact..it may well be the *only* fun for you...since you say that
>without the sex scenes you won't read it
I think I would know whether I skim them or read them. I want the sex
scenes to be there... otherwise, the story is just a gen story in
disguise. But I don't have to read it - it must just be there. But a
dislike PWPs. There's no deeper context. I go through story archives
and only read stories longer than 30K. Because you *need* the deeper
context. And I'd argue that you also need the sex scenes. There must
be a balance - but I'd rather read one long story with a kiss or
grope somewhere than a short story that's all sex.
>And this brings me to one of my several slash theories <g> That it is,
>at its core, all about the sex. Some women find male on male sex exciting.
>(There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.)
So why are we discussing this, then? :)
>Of course, someone who comes to slash without the pre-existing predilection
>for male/male sex is going to end up looking more at the plot and less at
>the sex...and wondering how the hell the writer ever imagined those two
characters would wind up in bed. In other words..you read the story to get
>to the sex scene..I read the story not caring if there even is a sex scene.
>I'm plot driven..you're goal driven. I want a fanfic to be true to the
>characterization I saw on TV and to have a great plot....you just want
>the fanfic to reasonably carry the characters into bed. <eg>
Hmm... there is some logic in that theory. But now we could start
arguing over what constitutes a "plot". In other terms, does every
story have to have some sort of Highlander-ish gimmick in order to
be considered a real story? I'd argue no. To me, Duncan and Methos
(or pick any two male characters except my Richie) figuring out how
they feel is enough of a plot. I don't need an evil Immortal to
suddenly jump in the middle and threaten one of them. I don't need
to have some mysterious person from the ROG's past to show up and
tell us more about what he did in the past. Who cares? I want to
read about the *now*.
>(We all know that South African school teachers are all repressed sex
>maniacs.)
And food-a-holics. You have never in your life seen people eat until
you've seen teachers on the last day of the term. <g>
- Marina.
\\ "Cast your eyes on the ocean; cast your soul ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//to the sea. When the dark night seems endless,|| R I C H I E >> \\
\\ please remember me." - Loreena McKennitt ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//===Marina Bailey===fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za===|| \\
\\============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie=============//
"I'd rather be watching 'The Sentinel'... no, 'Highlander'... wait,
'Stargate SG-1' is on... Oh, hell, make it all and make it so!"
- Tarryn, who apparently didn't notice that Peter Wingfield was in
all those shows. :)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:18:02 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: If you don't like it...
Well, some corrections - particularly on the preconceived ideas about
Europe.
> << >I think labels and warning and disclaimers are all very nice. But you
can
> >slap a warning label on a video of some guy torturing a woman to death
> >while raping her..and I still won't 100% agree that it needs to exist.
>
> Ah--here we get into another area, violence. We live in a society where
> sexual content is actually regarded as more obscene than extreme violence,
> particularly against women.
Er. Really? Sexual content seems to have become MORE tolerable in recent
years. I'd say films that rated an X or 18 certificate for nudity and sexual
situations a decade or so ago would probably get by with a lower
certificate now. I seem to remember Porky's was an X here all those years
ago. It's content is probably less offensive than Dude, Where's My
Prophylactic (15).
Violent Hollywood movies continue. Often it's sloppy, derivative stuff and
highly over-rated. But if you are solely talking violence against women
then I'd say we (as an audience) tolerate it less than ever before.
Hollywood can be a soulless beast, but while a flash of breasts is now
considered relatively harmless, the rape/abuse of a woman is still a
horrible situation. I see over a hundred films a year and though I'd agree
that women's roles still seem limited (sometimes there for decoration rather
than plot value) I see no evidence that they are abused on screen to any
greater extent than 20 years ago. Women don't have a fair time in Hollywood,
but that doesn't equate with an increase in violence towards them. Indeed if
a film touches on a controversial area, there seems to be more care taken
with it. Not perfect, I grant you, but not getting worse.
> Parents don't get up in arms and lead righteous
> campaigns against all those horror movies directed toward teens, where
women
> are inevitably the principal victims. Not a peep.
Maybe not in the States, but you might not be aware of the general opinions
held about those films outside the US. Pretty lousy box-office, highly
critical reviews and low respect all over the UK for a start. And if
violence of any kind (surreal or not) is directed towards minors, there's
often a massive public outcry. In the wake of the horrendous Jamie Bulger
case, many people called for the banning of several so-called video-nasties
vaguely linked to the case (though let it be noted that the police officer
in charge stated that if you did that, you might as well ban The Railway
Children because the body was found near a railway track). Never
underestimate the power of the UK moral majority and the Daily Mail.
> But have graphic sex
> scene in that same film, and that's entirely different! This goes back to
the
> religious base of Western society, where the primary guide book was loaded
> with unbelievable violence (even in the name of God), but sex had long ago
> been deemed an original sin and the rules were dictated by Saint
Augustine.
Well, as with the thread about Biblical interpretations, it's equally
dangerous to pull out a lone historical fact to support a modern situation.
I doubt some members of the BBFC (British Board of Film Certification) has
even heard of St Augustine. However, though taste and tolerance is changing,
they remain relatively strict on both sex and violence - VERY restrictive if
both are concerned together. Sex is considered a necessary part of life.
Extreme violence is not. Extreme violence against women even less so.
> It's not quite the same in Europe, where they still blank out violence on
> American TV show imports (including HL), but sex between consenting adults
is
> okay.
You really couldn't be more wrong here. Actually while Europe has a perhaps
more enlightened - or at least stark - view of sexual content, I wouldn't
agree that we have a lower tolerance of violence. As a rule, programmes are
only trimmed of material considered too violent by the time-slot in which
they are placed. So, yes, on the occasions that Buffy and Angel went out
very early evening (stupid scheduling and highly criticised by anyone with a
brain-cell) there were huge amounts cut out. But this isn't usual and I'm
not aware of a single frame has been taken out of most material that goes
out after the 9:00pm watershed. In fact, I'd hasten to think we actually get
to see more explicit material in every sense. Certainly any 9:00pm showing
of Highlander went out intact (One exception being in a scene where martial
arts nunchukas (sp?) were used. As these are currently outlawed here, that
scene MAY have been trimmed).
Everyone who has visited me from the States has noted that UK television is
more tolerant in almost every respect (except in combing sex and violence
together). I doubt programmes ranging from Fawlty Towers to Queer as Folk
could ever have been made in the US at the original time, given their non-PC
attitudes) We make product and place it in the schedules according to
content. Our soaps seem to address more problems than most US soaps (which
from an outsider's view seem glossy escapism) and with more down-to-Earth
facts and earthy consequences...rather than quick morality lessons, but they
do so in a way responsible for the time they go out in the schedules.
I wouldn't dream of considering myself an expert on US tv schedules and
welcome any comment on the limits of my experience there, but as for UK
codes and practise, I think I have a pretty good working knowledge.
John
Parental Discretion Advised.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:21:20 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za>
Subject: Re: Morality
>It is really not an "either/or" situation. Form criticism and all good
>contemporary biblical studies indicate that the type of literature being
>written -- and the bible is filled with many different types --at times
>allegorical legends, at times poems, at times geneologies, all different
>"forms" -- will determine just what type of interpretation can be given to
>the text. One simply cannot read the first three chapters of Genesis, the
>Song of Songs and the Book of Acts with the same set of "glasses" without
>doing violence to both the literature and the theological meaning.
And then of course people do argue over how to interpret each type.
I have a great book on the topic called _How to read the Bible for
all its worth_... after reading it, I wondered how anyone could read
and understand the Bible without knowing about the different types
of literature, etc. :)
And then you get things like, small kids can't really understand
apocalyptic literature. So we tend not to frighten them with
Revelation at a young age. When I taught Bible Education at school
(yes, we have prayer in schools too) we would do mainly the
narrative parts of the Bible with the kids (i.e. the "stories", such
as David and Goliath, Moses, etc) because that what was they could
understand at that age.
Even for non-Christians, I think the Bible would make fascinating
study.
- Marina. (Way off topic.) (I know.)
\\ "Cast your eyes on the ocean; cast your soul ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//to the sea. When the dark night seems endless,|| R I C H I E >> \\
\\ please remember me." - Loreena McKennitt ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//===Marina Bailey===fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za===|| \\
\\============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie=============//
"I'd rather be watching 'The Sentinel'... no, 'Highlander'... wait,
'Stargate SG-1' is on... Oh, hell, make it all and make it so!"
- Tarryn, who apparently didn't notice that Peter Wingfield was in
all those shows. :)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:41:31 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: If you don't like it...
I said:
><I think labels and warning and disclaimers are all very nice. But you
>can slap a warning label on a video of some guy torturing a woman to death
>>while raping her..and I still won't 100% agree that it needs to exist.
Leah replies:
>Ah--here we get into another area, violence. We live in a society where
>sexual content is actually regarded as more obscene than extreme violence,
>particularly against women. Parents don't get up in arms and lead righteous
>campaigns against all those horror movies directed toward teens, where
>women are inevitably the principal victims. Not a peep. But have a graphic sex
>scene in that same film, and that's entirely different!
There is graphic sex..there is extreme violence...and then there is graphic sex *with* violence. On a general level (disregarding the age of the viewer) , I have no issue with graphic sex in movies. I have no problem with extreme violence. I do object to graphic sex with violence because I ...well..I just do. If anything is pornographic, that is.
When it comes to children and teens watching movies/TV, I think there are some parents who object to extreme violence (against women *or* men) as vehemently as they object to graphic sex. I hate those movies that involve little more than chasing and and killing teen girls in horrible ways. I hate those movies that involve little more than one excuse after another to get the actresses to drop their clothes and straddle some guy.(Why do the men never get naked?) And then there are those movies that have both! Hurrah for modern film-making.
OTOH, if I had to chose...I would prefer my teen see "Halloween X" than "American Pie V". ..because, overall, I think the odds of "Halloween" encouraging him to accept as "fun" chainsaw attacks on teenaged girls are a lot less than the odds of "American Pie" encouraging him to accept as "fun" jumping the bones of the pretty blonde girl in science class.(This would assume that I believe that people's actions and attitudes are shaped in any significant way by what they watch as entertainment .... which I don't.) Further, I would worry less about "horror" movies than I would about "realistic" movies where the plots involve guns and drugs and sex all mixed together
To bring this back to Highlander <eg>, I didn't have any issue with my children watching *most* Highlander episodes. The fact the people got their heads chopped off didn't bother me since it was tastefully, almost beautifully, done (which would bother some people who don't feel violence shown be shown as "beautiful") and because the actual beheadings were off camera (no spurting blood, few tumbling heads). I did not worry that my children would see beheading as a viable dispute settlement devise. I preferred that my young children *not* see the few graphic sex scenes (although I appreciated the scenes very much) *not* because I see sex as sinful or ugly or unclean...but because I found it much harder to explain the ins and outs ( so to speak) of TV sex to young children than to explain the concept of TV violence to them. They could understand that cutting people's heads off was wrong - period. They weren't at an age where they could understand that some sex is appropriate, s!
!
ome isn't, depending on a hundred variables.. they were at an age where they knew that some things were supposed to be done in private and some weren't. The whole discussion is very muddy and difficult while one is also trying to watch the damn TV <eg> The only episode of HL that I actually turned off (and left off) because my son (then age 7) was in the room was "For Evil's Sake" with the scalper- because it entailed "real" violence against women.
>This goes back to
>the religious base of Western society, where the primary guide book was loaded
>with unbelievable violence (even in the name of God), but sex had long ago
>been deemed an original sin and the rules were dictated by Saint Augustine.
While I won't disagree that our strict "Puritan" background - coupled with our "frontier" history - makes many Americans more squeamish about sex than violence, lots of people who don't see sex as "sinful" or something to be ashamed of also don't think that graphic depictions of sex on TV, at an hour when lots of kids may be watching, is a good thing. It's a lot easier to explain to kids that they should *never* pick up a gun in anger despite what they see on TV, than to explain that sex is good and wonderful and something they will definitely do someday - but just not with the 15 year old baby sitter ..or in a car wash..or with 100 guys before they're 21 or..whatever one's standards are in these matters. OTOH, sex on TV can be a good way to discuss the issue with older kids..to use it as a learning tool .(Nothing kills a teen's titillation by TV sex faster than having Mom start a "teaching" discussion about it.)
>It's not quite the same in Europe, where they still blank out violence on
>American TV show imports (including HL), but sex between consenting adults
>is okay.
If it is the fault of Western religious tradition ( which I don't deny) ...why isn't Europe in the same "boat"?
Wendy(I know..I know..Europeans are just so much more advanced than we are<snort>)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 12:23:03 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Fandom (was: CAH and the down-slide of HL)
At 05:04 PM 07/17/2001 +0200, Marina Bailey wrote:
>I don't think it's coincidence at all. Radical changes affect people in
>this way. And each party has to be right - which is why you get people
>forming into these camps. It's sad, but it happens all the time. And I
>think it's really the rule rather than the exception.
I agree. I think it's just human nature.
> >To bring this back into the more general...I also think that HL
> >itself started sliding downwards after that arc.
>
>And this is just MNSHO - I think the character of Methos contributed
>to that. Because TPTB created this amazingly cool character and
>wanted to do stories about *him* even though the show was about
>*Duncan*. There was bound to be some muddied water.
Yep! Because of the nature of this cool new character, the creativity of
the writer's just kinda naturally came out with stuff about him, rather
than stuff about Duncan. But they understood that the show was about
Duncan and they had to write about Duncan, but the writing suffered because
their creative juices were flowing in another direction. Gee I hope that
makes sense.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:47:13 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za>
Subject: Re: If you don't like it...
Wendy wrote:
>When it comes to children and teens watching movies/TV, I think there
>are some parents who object to extreme violence (against women *or* men)
>as vehemently as they object to graphic sex.
I remember reading about a study done in - I think it was Israel - on
the attitudes of parents to the TV their children watch. They found
that the kids in Israel had a far better grasp of the fact that it was
a TV show and not real, therefore they did not try to emulate what
they saw. And this was due to the fact that in Israel, parents watched
the TV shows *with* their kids, so they were on hand to explain what
was going on. They did not use the TV as a babysitter to keep the kids
out of their hair like so many parents in the Western world.
I think a lot of parents these days don't even know *what* their kids
watch, and it would certainly not occur to them to sit down with the
kids and explain anything that came up.
There's another school of thought on the matter of sex. Young children
aren't genital-fixated the way people who've passed puberty are (I do
not mean obsessed - they don't think of their genitals in a sexual way),
and according to this school of thought, it's best to explain sex to them
when they are young and don't think of it as titillating. So when they
see sex on TV it doesn't seem illicit and exciting and something they'd
like to be doing, it's just another plot device. They end up being
better informed, and with a healthier, and thus safer attitude. Or so
goes this theory.
I am not sure on how accurate that theory is, but I have noticed that
the first one - if the parent explains it, the child is less likely to
take what's on TV as the gospel truth - has a lot of merit. As Wendy
writes:
>Nothing kills a teen's titillation by TV sex faster than having Mom
>start a "teaching" discussion about it.
Yeah. When myself and my brother were young our parents would let us
watch anything we liked, but they would sit there with us and explain
each and every thing in detail. So whether a show was for kids or
rated (in those days) 2-18, it was pretty much all the same to us -
not real. And we gained a lot of useful info at the same time.
(So when I was crying after seeing ArcA, my mother got very upset with
me. "I've told you all your life it's not real! Why the hell are you
crying?!" <g>)
>The only episode of HL that I actually turned off (and left off) because
>my son (then age 7) was in the room was "For Evil's Sake" with the
>scalper- because it entailed "real" violence against women.
Do you think it would have been possible to let him watch it with you,
then explain that the kind of violence shown there was not acceptable?
Or was he still too young? I have noticed that young kids do not grasp
abstract concepts too well.
I have to say, though, that I am often shocked at some of the stuff
kids watch. And their parents don't disabuse them of the notion that
it's real, either! The kids in our school somehow got the idea into
their heads that pikachu (sp?) was real, and lurked in the girls'
bathroom. They would not go in there alone, and they kept coming up
and saying they were sure he was in there! I just wanted to bang my
head against the board. It didn't make any difference that the bloody
thing was a cartoon. They had no concept of fiction versus reality.
I think some of them are convinced that Immortals really exist after
seeing "Homeland" during the Highlander theme. It made no difference
that I said it was fictional. I honestly think it's the fault of the
parents for not bothering to point out the difference between fantasy
and reality from the minute the kid starts watching TV.
- Marina. (Time for The West Wing.) (Goodie.)
\\ "Cast your eyes on the ocean; cast your soul ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//to the sea. When the dark night seems endless,|| R I C H I E >> \\
\\ please remember me." - Loreena McKennitt ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//===Marina Bailey===fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za===|| \\
\\============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie=============//
"I'd rather be watching 'The Sentinel'... no, 'Highlander'... wait,
'Stargate SG-1' is on... Oh, hell, make it all and make it so!"
- Tarryn, who apparently didn't notice that Peter Wingfield was in
all those shows. :)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:48:26 -0700
From: "M. Vrzoc" <A_Boleyn@excite.com>
Subject: Peter Wingfield Appearances
> "I'd rather be watching 'The Sentinel'... no, 'Highlander'... wait,
> 'Stargate SG-1' is on... Oh, hell, make it all and make it so!"
> - Tarryn, who apparently didn't notice that Peter Wingfield was in
> all those shows. :)
You also missed his appearance on the Chris Izack (sp?) show as a debonair
auctioneer with longer hair and very nice suit. It was on Much More Music in
the ep where Chris has a stalker and is trying to buy a famous guitar
although he's too cheap to pay very much for it.
M. Vrzoc
A_Boleyn@excite.com
_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:54:13 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: Morality
I'll reply to most of this in p-mail. However since John did post this to
the list, albeit accidently, there is one area I need to clarify on
list. I can even tie it back into HL. :-)
I said:
> > Intent is more important then action? What counts is that you mean
> > well? That's a really scary philosophy.
To which John replied:
>Is it? I find it quite comforting and I find most people feel the same way.
<snip>
>I try and do my best and then do it for the best of reasons. If that's not
>enough then sod it, I tried. I do what I can and when I can - according to
>the personal moral code I strive to follow, and whether one eternal
>afterlife will accept me or not is actually the least thing on my mind when
>I make my decision. I'm not buying my way into heaven, I'm acting the best
>way I can and I'll let the rest take care of itself. In my book INTENT is
>paramount and I jusge or act accordingly.
My apologies if you felt insulted or attacked John. That was not my
intention. :-) I erred by saying either to much or to little on this
subject. If I was going to comment at all I should have provided a fuller
explanation rather than a quickly tossed off comment. No offense intended
to anyone.
While I lack your professional facility with words, please allow me to
attempt to explain my thoughts.
Good intentions alone are not sufficient, and often cause more harm then
good. This is frequently due to the Law of Unintended Consequences. I
don't mean to suggest that intent is not important, but that it is not
enough simply to mean well. Nor do good intentions do not justify immoral
acts. Perhaps I can clarify this by providing examples.
US alcohol prohibition was promoted by people with the best of
intentions. The Unintended Consequences included an Increase in alcohol
consumption, and the rise of organized crime in the US. The harmful
consequences of their good intentions are still being felt in the US.
A more current example; the evil of slavery is alive and well in the a few
countries today. Some good people with the very best of intentions are
collecting money to buy slaves and free them. Slavery is vile, and these
are good people who mean well. The unintended but foreseeable results of
their purchases is a boom in the slave market. Prices are up and the
number of innocents kidnapped and sold has increased. Good intentions
alone are not sufficient, and actions have consequences.
Let me preface this next by stating I'm not comparing anyone on this list
to the Nazis. I'm simply illustrating a point.
The point; good intentions do not justify immoral acts. Some of Hitler's
henchmen acted on what they felt were good intentions, the purification of
their nation's blood, when they carried out a program of genocide.
There have always been, and are today, those who felt the end justifies the
means. "We had to destroy the village to save it." "We have to imprison
them to save them from themselves." Having good intentions does not
justify immoral acts. Duncan recognized this in "Valkyrie". Ingrid's
intentions were good; stopping a dangerous racists before he became too
powerful. That did not justify the immoral act of blowing up a hall full
of people, including innocents. (Told you I'd tie it back into Highlander
<g>)
Going back to my poorly stated original comments:
> > Intent is more important then action? What counts is that you mean
> > well? That's a really scary philosophy.
Yes, I phrased that badly. Is my meaning clearer, and perhaps less
offensive, now John?
Pat L.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:11:13 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Morality
Ok...happy to take this to private e-mail, but allow me to clear up one
thing myself before doing so.
I wasn't at all offended by your post. I just don't agree with all of it.
Happy to disagree :)
Basically I agree that immoral acts cannot ALWAYS be justified by saying
there were good intentions behind them, but I think it may be affected if
someone was 'acting immorally', rather than commiting an immoral act. (ie:
intention/pre-meditation) A thin distinction I'll grant you, but one
nonetheless.
I now return you to your normal debates.
:)
John
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:19:04 -0500
From: Jen <Data@cyberg8t.com>
Subject: OT Inquiry: The other British Peter W.
Rather recently (within the last three or four months) I have became a
major fan of Babylon 5 as well as the spin-off Crusade. On Crusade,
there is an actor by the name of Peter Woodward. This actor has become
one of my fav actors. I was curious, are any of you fans of Peter
Woodward?
Jen
Lurker Girl
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:55:58 -1000
From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
me before, replying to Pat's query--
> >People who deal in bootleg tapes (either end of the transaction) are
> >breaking the law. The fact it's done a lot doesn't change anything.
Pat--
> That's pretty much what the expected answer, but you'd didn't answer the
> key question.
Gee, once again, I dropped the ball. Yet, I NEVER got an answer back from
Jo (even after I provided her the text) as to exactly what language in the
Fair Use clause she thinks shelters fanfic. Carmel never clarified her
meaning in using the word "decadent" in talking about sex between 2 men,
Lynn never explained why she assumed Val Pelka being upset about slash was
due to his religious beliefs, Marina never apologized for grossly misstating
my views, & on & on & on. Basically, NO ONE has come up w/ any reason that
distributing fanfic isn't illegal or immoral, other than the fact they like
doing it, of course. That's what I wanted an answer to, but....
> You've been very vocal about your views of fanfic. Why
> aren't those who decry fanfic as violation of copyright also vocal about
> this common practice?
Because copying tapes hasn't been the topic at hand???
As I said earlier, copying video tapes or taping stuff off TV & then
distributing the videos is illegal. And of course, people do it a lot, in
fandom. (Because they like doing it, obviously.) So what? You seem to be
saying THAT makes fanfic OK, & I can't see that. 2 wrongs are just 2
wrongs. Throw Lorenzo Lamas (really hard against something sharp, please)
into the discussion--3 wrongs. People not trimming excess stuff out of
their email replies--4 wrongs. Fat-free mayo--5 wrongs. So?
> Of course sharing of video tapes is ubiquitous and
> commonly accepted. Fanfic, on the other hand, is not ubiquitous and has
all
> those wonderful sexual propriety questions attached to divide opinion.
Actually, fanfic on the Internet today IS ubiquitous, & only slash probably
has the "wonderful sexual propriety questions attached" that you mention, so
your argument falls even further short.
Lots of HL lists, boards, etc. are swarming w/ offers & requests about
taping AP's _The Breed_ this week & sending the tapes far & wide. (I hope
the various world-wide postal services are prepared for the deluge.)
Personally, I subbed to Starz for the month; for $10, I'll see the movie w/o
a qualm. (And I learned something, too--Starz shows sucky movies. Which
doesn't make me sanguine about _The Breed_.)
How about if I looked through my collection of Impact mags & scanned all of
John's HL articles, then printed them out on a color printer--then sold
really lovely copied sets on EBAY? Or passed them around in trade? Even
completely for free? That's illegal (no matter how much fun I was having
doing it). So is distributing copied tapes. So is distributing fanfic.
So?
> Fanfic doesn't complete with any DPP product,
> including the official novels.
Sure it does--as I recall, Marina, for one, has said here she ONLY reads
fanfic; if fanfic weren't available on the net, maybe she'd buy something
from DPP.
Nina
geiger@maui.net
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 17 Jul 2001 (#2001-207)
************************************************