From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #146
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume99/146
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 146
Today's Topics:
Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant?
Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant?
[B7L] More web-page reorg
Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers)
Re: Fwd: [B7L] Re: Food aboard the Liberatot
[B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers)
[B7L] The Keeper and controlling Star One
Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers)
[B7L] Volunteers wanted
Re: [B7L] Servalan not killing Avon
[B7L] Star One
[B7L] re: Star One
Fwd: [B7L] re: Blake after Star One
Re: [B7L] Scripts (was Man of Iron)
Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers)
Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant?
Re: [B7l]: Food aboard the Liberator
Re: [B7L] The Keeper and controlling Star One
Re: [B7L] Servalan not killing Avon
Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers)
Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 15:04:26 +0100
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant?
Message-ID: <000401be8f84$ff928500$cd4a8cd4@default>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ellynne wrote:
>I don't see Cally bumping off rivals, especially after her earlier anger
>at the crew's mistreatment of Shrinker. Besides, she's quite capable of
>bumping off people on her own. But that begs the question why _Cally_
>didn't try to shoot Anna when she saw her reaching for her gun. If she
>wasn't setting up Avon to kill Anna (which I don't think was her style)
>then what _was_ she doing?
Warning Avon, probably. I don't really see her shooting Anna unless Anna
had pulled the gun on her.
My own theory is that she suddenly saw a really nasty big hairy spider
scuttling over her boot, and called for Avon to dispose of it as she always
did when she found a spider in the bath on the Liberator, and he just
misconstrued it all.
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:57:10 +0100
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant?
Message-ID: <000301be8f84$fecaa120$cd4a8cd4@default>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-7"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mistral wrote:
+AD4-Have just gone back and run this in slow-motion to be sure+ADs-
+AD4-when Cally gives her warning, we are looking at Avon's
+AD4-face+ADs- but when the shot cuts out to Avon and Anna, Anna
+AD4-is definitely going for her gun, bringing it out and up to firing
+AD4-position.
Which suggests that it was Cally's shout that impelled Anna to draw, which
has always been my impression. But I don't think we can be sure that she
was planning to draw before Cally shouted.
+AD4- She definitely goes for her gun +ACo-before+ACo- Avon reaches
+AD4-for his. Avon's just faster, is all. And neither seems to be in
+AD4-doubt that the other would have fired:
+AD4- Anna: I always knew when you found out, you'd kill me.
+AD4- Avon: Unless you killed me first.
Anna is certainly in no doubt, but that doesn't mean Avon's the same. After
all, she knows he's still alive, he believes that she is dead. So Anna's
been in a position to consider what might happen if and when they remeet,
while Avon's had no reason to consider the possibility. What Avon is doing
in this exchange is finishing her line off for her. (What a wonderful
bloke - first he plugs her in the gut, then he steals half her dialogue.)
Is Avon genuinely faster, or did Anna stall? (I think Lorna Heilbron has
suggested that she might have done.) So I think her motive was to pull a
gun on Avon, yes, but not necessarily to shoot him. Which further suggests
that she wasn't expecting him to shoot back.
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 11:30:00 +1000 (EST)
From: kat@welkin.apana.org.au (Kathryn Andersen)
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se (Blake's 7 list)
Subject: [B7L] More web-page reorg
Message-Id: <m10bDk8-000TbVC@welkin.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text
Another re-organisation of web-space, this time of my
Geocities web page
<http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/4246>
All the convention reports have been moved to
<http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/4246/events/>
That includes my Deliverance report and so on.
The Babylon 5 page has been moved to
<http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/4246/b5/index.htm>
The Refractions On The Net page has been moved to
<http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/4246/fiction/index.htm>
Tha'a'a't's all folks.
--
_--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana.org.au>
/ \ | http://home.connexus.net.au/~kat
\_.--.*/ | #include "standard/disclaimer.h"
v |
------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere
Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 06:52:53 +1000
From: Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana.org.au>
To: "Blake's 7 list" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers)
Message-ID: <19990426065253.A494@welkin.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, Apr 25, 1999 at 12:32:00AM -0700, Sally Manton wrote:
> Neil wrote:
>
> >So I don't think we can deduce from this dialogue that Avon does
> >hate Blake (which as someone pointed out was Blake's suggestion anyway,
> >and one that Avon pointedly refused to be drawn on).
>
> Because he doesn't. He never hated Blake. He dislikes the fact that he
> is letting Blake run his life, a fact that grates against his independence
> and his survival instincts (watching Blake's back is *not* the galaxy's
> safest place to be), and he loathes the Cause (by this stage with a
> vengeance). If he had hated Blake, he would have said so clearly and
> loudly (and long before this point <g>).
>
> I don't think Blake believes it either - or not for more than
> twenty minutes. He gets hurt, but by the time of the 'mine field' bit,
> they're back to normal - for *them* this bit is remarkably relaxed and
> friendly. (Sally's Rule One of Blake's 7 - Blake and Avon Actually Like
> Each Other. Just Don't Ask Either of Them Why.)
I've been thinking about Blake's "You really do hate me" statement,
and I started wondering if Blake was being emotionally manipulative at
that point; hurt, he makes an exaggerated statement that he doesn't
quite believe, in order to force Avon to contradict it and reassure
him that, no, Avon doesn't hate Blake. But Avon doesn't fall for it.
It puzzled me for a long time as to why Blake could be so stupid as to
think that Avon hated him when it's obvious that he doesn't. But I
think the above explanation solves the problem. Blake only
half-believed that Avon hated him. But he wanted reassurance.
Which Avon refuses to give, because Blake, in his eyes, is behaving
stupidly. Or childishly.
Kathryn A.
--
_--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana.org.au>
/ \ | http://home.connexus.net.au/~kat
\_.--.*/ | #include "standard/disclaimer.h"
v |
------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere
Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 20:49:33 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
From: Una McCormack <umm10@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: Fwd: [B7L] Re: Food aboard the Liberatot
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.10.9904222047110.83-100000@pc165.jims.cam.ac.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mistral said:
>Personally, however, one would hope that in all those centuries mankind
>could come up with a better approach to dental hygiene than the
>inconvenience and and messiness of brushing one's teeth.
Falsies.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 02:31:24 PDT
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers)
Message-ID: <19990426093128.25396.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-type: text/plain
Mistral writes:
<FWIW, I am quite sure that Avon sees the consequences, but he
questions whether or not *Blake* sees them. Avon is surely aware of
the cyclic nature of history, that governments rise and fall, and
either collapse under their own weight or are overthrown by angry
citizens. In either case, they are replaced by some other government,
which, while possibly different in structure, eventually deteriorates
and repeats the same pattern.>
Sorry, I don't know that there's any proof that Avon is aware of
anything of the sort, or that, if he ever was aware of it, it
interested him to the point of *thinking* about it. In fact, I'd say
Blake was far more likely to have thought about that one, as he shows
some interest in military and political history throughout the first
two seasons, and (to my knowledge) Avon shows somewhere round about -
none. What Avon *knows* is that destroying Star One will have the
consequence he *wants*, that is cripple the Federation enough to give
Blake's Cause some chance, give Blake the chance to go back to Earth
to take that chance, and give him his anomalous IT. And (the way he
feels at this minute) the consequences to the rest of the human race
be damned.
As to whether Blake's thought about it, I believe he has, since before
Pressure Point. And he decided long ago that destroying something
utterly evil was worth the price. That is *my* interpretation of his
words "We have to win. It's the only way I can be sure that I was
right." Right in *that* decision, right everything he's done since,
right in all the destruction and violence, right in fighting at all.
Right in believing that what he was fighting *was* that evil. Because
if they don't win, then he might as well not have bothered from the
start. And Cally (whose shining moment this is *not*) misunderstands
and thinks it's something to do with his ego.
<Blake is about to get thousands (or possibly millions) of people
killed, simply so that some other people can have slightly more
freedom of choice for a few generations, before it starts all over
again.>
I don't believe it *is* millions, for a start. Cally says "many, many
people..." which can be interpreted however you like, but if it *was*
millions, she'd put it a bit more strongly (like - erm - "millions").
And I disagree with *slightly*. From the evidence of the first two
seasons, the amount of freedom the average person had was pretty well
none (the drug treatment in The Way Back was likely to be used
elsewhere - quite possible very widely elsewhere - and you don't keep
a large instrument of oppression like Space Command unless you need
it. And - back to the "many, many" - many many people are dying
anyway, or caught in a living death). Blake makes it clear that he
wants *real* freedom - that he knows he can't deliver it himself
doesn't negate what he is trying to achieve, to give people a chance.
While Star One is there, as he believes, there *is* no chance.
I guess it depends on whether or not you accept that freedom is worth
the price. As a beneficiary of the wading-in-blood known as World War
II, I would like to think I would believe it so.
<We don't even have any evidence that the majority of people would
support this kind of violent revolution; the majority of people might
truly consider Blake a terrorist if they realized what he was about to
unleash.>
We have no proof they wouldn't support it, either (especially once
they got the drugs out of their system). What we have proof of is that
a lot of people *do* admire and follow the Liberator's progress, that
Space Command and the political powers-that-be do believe he has a
dangerous level of popular support (Seek-Locate-Destroy and Pressure
Point indicate this). We can't assume that the Federation has much if
any willingly given support outside the military. The evidence in the
series is actually the other way - that the Federation had to clamp
down hard on dissidents, and on information about Blake's successes,
because they were afraid of the popular support he would inspire.
As to whether or not people would support him in the face of this
upheaval over Star One's destruction - well, was it supposed to be any
less when they were going to destroy the same computer centre on Earth
(Pressure Point)? Neither Cally nor Avon had any reservations then -
Cally was as gung ho as the best of them, and Avon clearly believes
that, after the computers are destroyed and the rebels have a chance,
*Blake* is the only one who will have the popular support to defeat
the Federation. He doesn't think popular opinion would turn on Blake
then, so why should it do so later?
<Avon would therefore consider Blake's rebellion both pointless and
stupid; but being the ultimate individualist that he is, also would
consider that Blake had a right to lead anybody who wanted to follow
him, and they had a right to follow, no matter how idiotic Avon
personally thinks that might be. Avon simply doesn't want to be caught
in the crossfire.>
IMO Avon thinks Blake can't win. He doesn't think what he's trying for
is pointless, stupid or wrong, just that it can't be done. I don't
think he changes his mind about this as they're going into Star One,
he thinks that (with Star One gone) the chances are better, but he
still believes it will fail in the end. And yes, he doesn't want to
get caught in the crossfire.
<He's quite serious in the speech above, about Blake's fanaticism,
about wading "in blood up to your armpits"; he echoes this speech in
'Blake': "and he will fight to the last drop of *their* blood". Avon
realizes that no matter what he does, he can't avert this bloodbath
that Blake is bent on precipitating;>
Again, why should he be worrying about averting it now, when he was
all for it before? (He does have an alternative this time, of course -
from the Keeper - controlling Star One and taking over the Federation.
But Blake [surprise!!] rejects the danger of that much corrupting
power, and Avon gives in without an argument, indicating he wasn't
really taken with the idea. At least, not without Blake. Power never
was one of his interests.)
Avon doesn't give a damn about the bloodbath. He wouldn't stand in its
way if he could. He is sincerely saying "I don't care *what* happens,
*who* gets killed (except me - oh, and when push comes to shove down
there, you <g>) just as long as *I* get shot of this whole thing." (I
love Avon dearly, but I cannot understand how this speech can turned
into one of his more outstanding humanitarian moments. Quite the
reverse IM-extremely-HO)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 02:43:56 PDT
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] The Keeper and controlling Star One
Message-ID: <19990426094401.92611.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-type: text/plain
While discussing Star One, I dropped in a bit about Avon's suggestion
- in the Keeper - that they could control Star One and the Federation.
As follows:
AVON: If you find the brain print, and consequently the location of
Star One, what then?
BLAKE: Finish what we started.
AVON: Destroy it?
BLAKE: Of course. And the entire Federation with it. Does that bother
you suddenly?
AVON: Star One is the automatic computer control center for the
entire Federation.
BLAKE: Get to the point, Avon.
AVON: That is the point. Through Star One we could control
everything. The Federation could belong to us.
Now I tend to avoid this episode (my least favourite of the first two
seasons) but I got to thinking a little about this bit, because it is
an interesting suggestion to come from Avon, who IMO is about as
politically-minded and power-hungry as one of his beloved computer
chips. And he hardly seems much interested in it - it's clear from the
text that he hasn't suggested it before, and he drops it very readily
at Blake's rejection. So why does he make it at all? (I'm asking - I
really have no idea what's going on in his complicated mind at this
moment).
After all, in the next episode, he's insisting that he wants to be
free of Blake/'it'/everything. Helping Blake to *take over* the
Federation instead of bringing it down is hardly his ticket out.
Secondly, given the almighty explosions he and Blake are going to
give us later in this episode and in the next - "wading in blood" etc,
got a way with words, Avon has - it seems to say something about the
way he still sees Blake. Avon isn't stupid - when he says "we could
control everything" he's perfectly aware of who controls "us". As he
goes on "Blake is afraid that power would corrupt him." The power
would be in Blake's hands, because he can control the rest of them. So
does Avon believe that that sort of immense power *would* be safe in
Blake's hands - that he couldn't be corrupted? Or doesn't he care?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 02:35:50 PDT
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers)
Message-ID: <19990426093550.10557.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-type: text/plain
To my :
< (Well, he *thinks* he wants out. Then he can't find Blake afterwards
and can't keep his side of the bargain. And the Federation (Servalan)
won't let him out anyway. And he doesn't like it one bit.
Helllloooooo, Terminal.) >
Neil asked:
<What bargain? To take Blake back to Earth to lead the rabble to
victory? Surely rendered void in the aftermath of the Andromedan
invasion.>
Probably in Blake's mind. Avon tends at times to have (IMO) a less
reasonable viewpoint. I have said it before - for such a brilliant,
coldly rational man, he does tend to display a streak of purest
illogic on occasion (like the way he's willing to risk his life for a
crew member one week, and deliberately endanger the same person the
next). He gave his word - whether or not there's going to be a rabble
to lead anywhere (Rumours indicates there was), he would want to at
least feel that he's *tried* to keep it. At least to the point of
finding Blake and asking what *he* wanted to do next. Which to me
explains in part why he keeps looking for Blake (he doesn't waste much
time searching for Jenna, after all - what, one question each for Orac
and Zen? and that's it)
(The other reason being - warning Neil, sentimental softy stuff again
- he likes Blake. He likes very few people, very few even of the crews
he lives and works with and cares about in his way. But he does like
Blake, more than any of the others except (maybe) Vila. They're
friends, he wants to know the man's all right. Avon and Jenna learned
to co-exist, they were only friend-ish, and that in their good
moments.)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 03:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Peter Borg <peter_borg@yahoo.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Volunteers wanted
Message-ID: <19990426101020.7953.rocketmail@web604.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
No detailed technical knowledge is required for
this....!
I need a volunteer/volunteers to manage the Blake's 7
webring at www.blakes7.org - you get complete autonomy
to manage it as you see fit as long as I don't get any
complaints!
There's also an associated project that goes alongside
this which volunteers may be interested in.
More details to volunteers!
Peter.
===
--
Peter Borg
peter_borg@yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 03:55:49 PDT
From: "Stephen Date" <stephendate@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Servalan not killing Avon
Message-ID: <19990426105555.61705.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-type: text/plain
Penny Dreadful wrote:
>Stephen Date wrote:
>
>>Servalan is an amoral sociopath whose only redeeming feature is her
>>fashion sense.
>
>Which remains a fine soundbite regardless of its veracity.
Thank you Penny, I have always regarded cheap populism as being my
strong suit.
>There is no mention of "sociopathy" in my one and only Psychology
reference
>book -- but the way they bandy the term about in popular media I find
>highly suspect. According to their criteria, one can define pretty
much
>everyone one doesn't get along with as a sociopath.
I agree that as a meaningful term it is fast going the same way as
psychopath. In defence I plead that I got the term from a book by an
ex-FBI type who used to hunt serial killers. Also, Hannibal Lecter is
diagnosed as a sociopath (incorrectly, judging from Mistral's post).
There are obvious points of comparison between Lecter and Servalan.
They are both highly intelligent and charming with no regard for
others. Admittedly, Servalan does not share Lecter's distressing
dietary habits (Although, Bercol wishes he'd brought his own chef
when he visits her....).
>I stand by my original diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality
Disorder as
>Servalan's basic defect. It explains numerous apparent
inconsistencies in
>her behaviour. And her fashion sense as well.
>
>--Doctor P. Dreadful
This sounds reasonable to me. I must say I am glad someone else
thinks there's something wrong with her. After all, there seems to be
a consensus that Travis was a few pursuit ships short of a flotilla
for wanting to wipe out homo sapiens to get at Blake. Servalan
actually wipes out the Auronar to get the Liberator. Mad, bad and
dangerous to know seems a good description of them both.
Stephen.
P.S. I notice from my borrowed copy of the programme guide that the
People's Choice as script writer for the telemovie describes our Avon
as "basically a psychopath". Oh dear!
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 05:29:06 PDT
From: "Stephen Date" <stephendate@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Star One
Message-ID: <19990426122911.92137.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-type: text/plain
Having read Sally's post I must say I agree with her entirely. Blake
knows what he is doing. With Star One gone "Blake's rabble get
freedom of choice". They may make bad choices, that is not the point.
Freedom means one can live on ones own terms, not those of other
people.
That is why IMO Blake rejects the "use Orac to take over Star One"
scenario. He does not want to replace a bad dictatorship with a good
one. He wishes to destroy the dictatorship totally.
Personally I find this neither objectionable or unrealistic. And I am
unable to condemn Blake as a fanatic for fighting for the basic
freedoms I take for granted. To go where I like, say what I like,
believe what I think true and not what the Government says I should
believe. Nor do I think that Avon's objections come from a wider
knowledge of the cyclical theories of history, for one thing theories
of history are just that, theories. (Not very scientific theories at
that) More seriously, I don't think that the overthrow of a
totalitarian dictatorship is some kind of blood thirsty irrelevance.
Like Sally, I consider myself to be a beneficiary of the allied
victory in WWII. Granted - the perfect state is a dream of
philosophers. But as Orwell pointed out whilst all revolutions are
failures they are not all the same failure. Not being able to create
a perfect world is no reason not to try to create a better world.
Vive l'anarchie
Stephen.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 05:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Peter Borg <peter_borg@yahoo.com>
To: blake7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] re: Star One
Message-ID: <19990426125639.29698.rocketmail@web606.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Couple of other things. If Travis had not made his
deal with the Andromedans, they could have just shut
the minefields down.
How did the first lot of Andromedans get there? Must
have taken them a while to go the roundabout route.
And how did they find Travis?
If the Andromedan thing wasn't a problem, Blake's task
would have been extremely easy.
We see Blake empire-building on GP - why did it take
him so long to achieve this? It this testament to the
huge role which the power of the Liberator played?
Peter.
===
--
Peter Borg
peter_borg@yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 06:19:41 PDT
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blake7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Fwd: [B7L] re: Blake after Star One
Message-ID: <19990426131944.66029.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-type: text/plain
Peter asked:
<We see Blake empire-building on GP - why did it take him so long to
achieve this? It this testament to the huge role which the power of
the Liberator played?>
We have no idea *what* he was doing in between Star One and GP.He
could have spent some time recovering from his injuries, then got
involved in one or several other rebel groups. He could even (now I
haven't seen Rumours for some years, so this could be *way* off
target, let me own gently if it is) have been making his own way back
to Earth and got near before/during/after Sula's coup and got caught
up in the backlash...obviously he got hurt again, both physically and
in spirit (as poor Tarrant found out the hard way). All this could
have taken a lot of time. And - without the safety of the Liberator -
he was far more vulnerable, so would have been more inclined to keep a
low profile.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 06:44:42 PDT
From: "Stephen Date" <stephendate@hotmail.com>
To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Scripts (was Man of Iron)
Message-ID: <19990426134444.3321.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-type: text/plain
Ellyne G. wrote
>Mine too. In an almost completely unrelated tangent, someone
recently
>pointed out that Sarcophagus was a little unusual for a Lee title,
that
>they usually have a little more of a twist or double meaning, so I
looked
>up the root of sarcophagus. Don't ask me where the Greeks were
coming
>from when they made this the term for "large coffin," but it means
>flesh-eating. I guess that could refer to the alien and her
interest in
>Cally.
>
>OTOH, it turns out sarcasm is a related word (Greek for "to bite the
lips
>in rage," according to the dictionary [and I ask myself, what kind of
>culture needed to invent specific words for this kind of thing?]), so
>maybe she was thinking of the sarcastic, snarly one or just the show
in
>general.
>>
Your first theory is correct, I think, as Cally was, in a way, being
consumed. On the other hand B7 tended towards one word titles so
someone might have just put a line through the witty and erudite
working title and wrote "Sarcophagus".
Incidentally I await your analysis of the title of "Sand" with eager
anticipation.
Stephen.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 06:47:27 -0700
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers)
Message-ID: <37246E6F.260EC0B1@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sally Manton wrote:
> Mistral writes:
> <FWIW, I am quite sure that Avon sees the consequences, but he
> questions whether or not *Blake* sees them. Avon is surely aware of
> the cyclic nature of history,
<snip>
Sally:
> Sorry, I don't know that there's any proof that Avon is aware of
> anything of the sort, or that, if he ever was aware of it, it
> interested him to the point of *thinking* about it.
Avon is intelligent, well educated, and believes 'all knowledge is
valuable'; and the cyclic nature of history is one of that subject's
basics. He'd have to be a fool to have forgotten it; and he and
Blake have probably discussed that very subject.
> As to whether Blake's thought about it, I believe he has, since before
> Pressure Point. And he decided long ago that destroying something
> utterly evil was worth the price. That is *my* interpretation of his
> words "We have to win. It's the only way I can be sure that I was
> right." Right in *that* decision, right everything he's done since,
> right in all the destruction and violence, right in fighting at all.
> Right in believing that what he was fighting *was* that evil. Because
> if they don't win, then he might as well not have bothered from the
> start. And Cally (whose shining moment this is *not*) misunderstands
> and thinks it's something to do with his ego.
Yes, Blake's thought about it; that's not, IMHO, the same thing
as seeing (really grasping) the consequences. I'm with Cally here.
It is completely egotistical for Blake to believe that he has the
right to decide to spend all those lives for *his* idea of freedom.
I'm not, generally speaking, in favor of rebellion, but even in a
case that I would be, I don't think that five people are enough
to make that decision. I certainly think her questioning Blake's
motives and thought processes is reasonable, even though she's
likely to agree with him after questioning them.
<snip>
> I guess it depends on whether or not you accept that freedom is worth
> the price. As a beneficiary of the wading-in-blood known as World War
> II, I would like to think I would believe it so.
Exactly. And however many people die, and whatever the
relative degree of freedom involved, there are going to be
people for and against. Each person has a different idea of
what they would die for, and a different idea of what freedom
really means. I would sacrifice my life, I think, for my SO. I
would not, however, give it up voluntarily simply to retain my
nationality. Some people would die before accepting almost
any infringement of their freedom; others would even accept
slavery in order to stay alive, believing that while you are
alive, you still have a chance of something better. IMHO, Avon
*might* be one of the latter, much as he'd hate slavery; he's
certainly willing to go to great lengths to stay alive; also
IMHO, he'd *certainly* resent anyone deciding *for* him
how much or little freedom to trade his life for. Thus, he'd
not think highly of someone who assumed the right to make
such a decision for others, or of those who followed such a
person. Blake is willing to make those decisions; Avon has
questioned and argued with him repeatedly about it, and
equally shown contempt of those who'd follow him. (And, BTW,
WWII was not a rebellion, it was a concerted defense against
a genocidal aggressor.)
> As to whether or not people would support him in the face of this
> upheaval over Star One's destruction - well, was it supposed to be any
> less when they were going to destroy the same computer centre on Earth
> (Pressure Point)? Neither Cally nor Avon had any reservations then -
> Cally was as gung ho as the best of them, and Avon clearly believes
> that, after the computers are destroyed and the rebels have a chance,
> *Blake* is the only one who will have the popular support to defeat
> the Federation. He doesn't think popular opinion would turn on Blake
> then, so why should it do so later?
Possibly because there's been hard evidence in the
interim of just how much destruction and havoc is
actually going to be caused by the destruction of
Star One.
> <He's quite serious in the speech above, about Blake's fanaticism,
> about wading "in blood up to your armpits"; he echoes this speech in
> 'Blake': "and he will fight to the last drop of *their* blood". Avon
> realizes that no matter what he does, he can't avert this bloodbath
> that Blake is bent on precipitating;>
>
> Again, why should he be worrying about averting it now, when he was
> all for it before?
Must disagree here (are you surprised <g>); he was *never*
for it; he was just interested in staying alive and staying on
Liberator till he could get control of it (apart from having
become rather comfy there, sort of like a home and family).
He participated in order to protect himself and keep his
claim to Liberator valid.
> Avon doesn't give a damn about the bloodbath. He wouldn't stand in its
> way if he could. He is sincerely saying "I don't care *what* happens,
> *who* gets killed (except me - oh, and when push comes to shove down
> there, you <g>) just as long as *I* get shot of this whole thing."
For the most part I agree; you have, I think, misunderstood
what I said. He thinks Blake has a right to lead any sheep
who will follow him; his interest in averting the bloodbath
has all along been to protect his own skin.
> (I
> love Avon dearly, but I cannot understand how this speech can turned
> into one of his more outstanding humanitarian moments. Quite the
> reverse IM-extremely-HO)
Interestingly enough, however, I know somebody who
drew the conclusion on the first viewing that Avon was
the one who had the far more admirable position; like me,
however, she doesn't believe either in revolutions or
in making decisions about *other* people's lives, or
letting them make decisions about hers. It really does
depend on whether you find Blake's ideals or Avon's
ideals more appealing; and Avon *does* have ideals,
although it might not look it to a person more inclined
to put the group above the individual, as Blake is. Avon
is an individualist; he wants to determine his own future;
he's willing to let other people do the same, as long as
they don't interfere with *his* freedom. Individualism
and 'groupism' are polar opposites, and admittedly
there are fewer individualists, and fewer now than
formerly; it doesn't necessarily follow that individualists
are amoral bastards; they just try to mind their own
business in the hopes that others will show them the
same respect.
IMHO, that is *almost* as big a part of the conflict
between Blake and Avon as the idealist-rationalist
difference; in part because the concepts are related.
FWIW, and that ain't much <g>,
Mistral
--
"And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 04:03:12 -0700
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant?
Message-ID: <372447EF.CF3AD7BF@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Neil Faulkner wrote:
> >Mistral wrote:
> >Have just gone back and run this in slow-motion to be sure;
> >when Cally gives her warning, we are looking at Avon's
> >face; but when the shot cuts out to Avon and Anna, Anna
> >definitely going for her gun, bringing it out and up to firing
> >position.
>
> Which suggests that it was Cally's shout that impelled Anna to draw, which
> has always been my impression. But I don't think we can be sure that she
> was planning to draw before Cally shouted.
I'll concede that's remotely possible, but it's too big a
stretch for me to find it believable. That's not Cally's style;
apart from which, Anna's gun is concealed in her pocket
(which is, inconveniently, well down the leg of her trousers),
while Avon's is in a holster ready to be drawn. To me, it
simply looks as if she's having difficulty getting her gun out,
and Cally's taken advantage of that difficulty.
> >She definitely goes for her gun *before* Avon reaches
> >for his. Avon's just faster, is all. And neither seems to be in
> >doubt that the other would have fired:
> > Anna: I always knew when you found out, you'd kill me.
> > Avon: Unless you killed me first.
>
> Anna is certainly in no doubt, but that doesn't mean Avon's the same. After
> all, she knows he's still alive, he believes that she is dead. So Anna's
> been in a position to consider what might happen if and when they remeet,
> while Avon's had no reason to consider the possibility. What Avon is doing
> in this exchange is finishing her line off for her. (What a wonderful
> bloke - first he plugs her in the gut, then he steals half her dialogue.)
Finishing her line I'll agree to; but he's not disputing it, which
I think he would if it were not so. She continues on to say,
"We were well matched." I suspect Bartolomew knew her
target pretty well.
> Is Avon genuinely faster, or did Anna stall? (I think Lorna Heilbron has
> suggested that she might have done.) So I think her motive was to pull a
> gun on Avon, yes, but not necessarily to shoot him. Which further suggests
> that she wasn't expecting him to shoot back.
I don't think she was stalling; it's the pocket/holster difference.
Apart from which, the real problem I see with either her
stalling or holding a gun on him is that it completely contradicts
the idea that she's smart enough to be Federation Central
Security's top agent. For starters, it means she doesn't know
the first rule of firearms: never point a gun at a man unless
you're willing to kill him. (Lorna Heilbron may have had to
stall to get the shot right, but if you're going to accept her
motivations for Anna, you'll have to accept PD's motivations
for Avon, JC's for Cally, etc. <g>)
Or else it suggests that she can't think clearly under pressure,
or when emotionally involved with the person; but she was
emotionally involved with him before, and managed to keep
her head well enough to get out of the situation with both of
them alive and free, and as you point out, she's had time to
think about how she ought to handle it if they met again. So I
don't find that believable either.
IMO, her best bet for both of them to come out alive here
was to calmly tell him the *whole* truth and ask for his
forgiveness, or at least his understanding; and *never ever*
present any threat, since he was clearly in an agitated state.
That's the best way to handle somebody like Avon, who's
more comfortable with rational argument than emotional
appeals. He would have listened; and Bartolomew should have
known it. (He even heard Shrinker out.) If Anna'd done that
she might have lived; if Blake had understood that, he'd have
quite possibly survived Gauda Prime; at least it wouldn't
have been Avon that shot him.
Anna either loved Avon or she didn't; and she either
understood him well enough to predict his behaviour
or she didn't. (Yes both are continuums; I'm referring
to to whether or not she could predict his reaction to
the situation they were faced with.)
So we have A) love + understand; B) love + misunderstand;
C) not love + understand; D) not love + misunderstand. Now
I'm going to say that in cases C and D, then killing him is
definitely the only smart option; he's too dangerous to leave
alive; and she's already been standing there telling him lies,
and he's in the process of figuring that out; in which case
she pulls the gun to kill him. However, based on the fact that
she let him escape the trap, plus she spends her dying breath
calling him 'my love', I'll say she did love him.
In case B, I find this completely unbelievable, as it means that
she's not clever enough to be Bartolomew, nor to have fooled
him in the first place. My personal opinion is that she's far
more devious and skilled in manipulation than he is. He's really
rather straightforward. But case B is the only case where I
could buy her thinking that she could gain anything by holding
him at gunpoint; however for the above reasons, I disregard it.
Which leaves case A, she loved him and understood him; in
fact understood him quite well, due to their past relationship
and the research that she surely must have done on him in
order to set that situation up. Which would mean that she'd
know that once she'd pulled a gun on him, he'd never trust
her again, nor forgive her; which would further mean that
she'd have to kill him. IMHO that's the choice she made;
which means she wasn't willing to take the risks inherent
in asking for his understanding; so she's putting her own
life ahead of both his life and their love. <sigh> Not terribly
romantic of me, I know, but it's the only scenario I find
remotely believable (although I'm willing to listen to
suggestions).
I did read a suggestion once that she was committing
suicide by forcing him to kill her, rather than have the
memory of their love ruined, or some such; but that
doesn't work for me, as it's completely selfish on her
part, leaving him with ruined memories *plus* guilt; if
she's that selfish, then she'd never commit suicide to
keep some vision of love alive. I mean, where's the
point? She's dead and he's destroyed. It doesn't work.
Since this means her choices really boil down to
throwing herself on his mercy or killing him, I think her
deciding to pull her gun and having difficulty getting it
out of her pocket is a lot easier to swallow than Cally
shouting a warning of some non-existent threat (which
we're never given any reason to believe; there's nothing
to set it up.) Even given the admittedly inconsistent
writing for Cally, there's really nothing to hint that she's
either that easily spooked or that vindictive.
What'cha think?
Mistral
--
"And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 08:48:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Susan.Moore@uni.edu
To: BLAKES7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7l]: Food aboard the Liberator
Message-id: <01JAHEASM8MQ8XKCCS@uni.edu>
Mistral said:
>Personally, however, one would hope that in all those centuries mankind
>could come up with a better approach to dental hygiene than the
>inconvenience and and messiness of brushing one's teeth.
Sure they did. Nanobots. There are specially programmed nanobots in every
food they eat. The bots programming kicks in when they are damped with saliva.
They then go through the mouth, cleaning up everything that isn't human tissue
or tooth enamel (or if you've got braces or other orthadontia (sp?), you've got
to eat the food specially made for brace wearers). Once their work is done,
the bots go down the esophagus and are dissolved in the gastric juices.
Very neat and no hideous foaming.
Susan M.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 06:59:53 -0700
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] The Keeper and controlling Star One
Message-ID: <37247158.317A219E@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sally Manton wrote:
> While discussing Star One, I dropped in a bit about Avon's suggestion
> - in the Keeper - that they could control Star One and the Federation.
>
<snip>
> And he hardly seems much interested in it - it's clear from the
> text that he hasn't suggested it before, and he drops it very readily
> at Blake's rejection. So why does he make it at all? (I'm asking - I
> really have no idea what's going on in his complicated mind at this
> moment).
My humble suggestion -- perhaps he thought it might be saferand less messy
than wading in blood -- and while Blake was
controlling Star One, Avon could play with the Liberator.
Just a thought.
Grins,
Mistral
--
"And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 18:52:24 +0100
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Servalan not killing Avon
Message-ID: <ebjXSMAYfKJ3Ewvn@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <19990426105555.61705.qmail@hotmail.com>, Stephen Date
<stephendate@hotmail.com> writes
>P.S. I notice from my borrowed copy of the programme guide that the
>People's Choice as script writer for the telemovie describes our Avon
>as "basically a psychopath". Oh dear!
That's one area where I disagree with the People's Choice, but on the
other hand I don't actually see much evidence of said opinion on screen.
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 06:01:29 +0100
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers)
Message-ID: <000401be9039$688d9f40$4e408cd4@default>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-7"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Kathryn wrote:
+AD4-I've been thinking about Blake's +ACI-You really do hate me+ACI- statement,
+AD4-and I started wondering if Blake was being emotionally manipulative at
+AD4-that point+ADs- hurt, he makes an exaggerated statement that he doesn't
+AD4-quite believe, in order to force Avon to contradict it and reassure
+AD4-him that, no, Avon doesn't hate Blake. But Avon doesn't fall for it.
If Blake is deliberately being manipulative, I doubt if it's reassurance
he's after. More likely he wants Avon to make a public declaration (what
with everyone else being there), one way or the other.
If Avon says 'No, I don't really hate you' then Blake has won, because Avon
has effectively defused the strength of his own vituperative rhetoric. If
Avon says 'Well yes, actually I do hate your f---ing guts', then the rest of
the crew are forced to take sides, and since they've followed Blake this far
then chances are they'll stick with him - so Blake wins either way.
Blake doesn't need reassuring by this stage.
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 20:09:36 PDT
From: "Joanne MacQueen" <j_macqueen@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant?
Message-ID: <19990427030936.94629.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-type: text/plain
Neil wrote:
>My own theory is that she suddenly saw a really nasty big hairy spider
>scuttling over her boot,
Spider? Maybe. Cockroach, more likely. They're reputed to be able to survive anything. Well, as a species... And what is more likely (no one say "rats") to run over your boot in a darkened cellar?
So much for probing analysis <grin>
Regards
Joanne
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #146
**************************************