From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #275
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume00/275
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 00 : Issue 275
Today's Topics:
Re: [B7L] Fantasy [ "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.n ]
Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love [ B7Morrigan@aol.com ]
Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love [ "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.de ]
Re: [B7L] Re: Fantasy, satire and pr [ Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana. ]
Re: [B7L] Fantasy [ Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana. ]
Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love [ "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com ]
Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love [ "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com ]
Re: [Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of [ "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com ]
Re: [B7L] Fantasy [ Tavia Chalcraft <tavia@btinternet.c ]
Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love [ Tavia Chalcraft <tavia@btinternet.c ]
[B7L] Selfish? (was: Anna & the natu [ "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com ]
Re: [B7L] Introduction [ "Jessica Taylor" <morgaine54@hotmai ]
[B7L] Back on Animals again (Was Int [ "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com ]
Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love [ "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.con ]
Re: [B7L] Back on Animals again (Was [ "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.con ]
FW: [[B7L] Terminal and endings] [ Alison Page <alison_page@becta.org. ]
[B7L] the nature of love [ Alison Page <alison_page@becta.org. ]
Re: [B7L] Introduction [ "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com> ]
Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love [ Natasa Tucev <tucev@tesla.rcub.bg.a ]
Re: [B7L] Introduction [ "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.n ]
[B7L] Pressure Point [ Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.com ]
Re: [B7L] Re: Hamlet & conversion si [ Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.com ]
Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love [ "Marian de Haan" <maya@multiweb.nl> ]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 18:32:10 +0100
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-ID: <009e01c02bd9$03c65100$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Natasa Tucev <tucev@tesla.rcub.bg.ac.yu>
> 1. Actually, B7 has a lot of elements which belong to the realm of
> fantasy/myths/archetypes. I've written a silly essay about some of them.
If it's the one on Judith's site then I've read it. I didn't think it was
that silly, though it presupposes that some of the cited elements were
deliberately put there for the proposed reasons (which of course they may
have been).
eg: "One of them is the recurrent image of Blake taking wound in his
arm/shoulder/hand ("Space Fall", "The Web", "Duel", "Project Avalon"...).
Symbolically, he reaches for something he cannot achieve, a process which
will eventually destroy him."
Or maybe arm wounds are just easier on make-up and pose fewer plot problems.
> I'll just add another one to the list: the fact that the Federation is not
> unlike some mythical monsters.
Long ago, in the days of the Horizon letterzine, I made a comparison between
B7 and some of the staples of epic (or 'high') fantasy. I also said that,
IMO, SF should try to avoid this approach. You lose too much of the
psychological complexity (of individuals) and social complexity (of the
world they live in) if you reduce the characters to symbolic archetypes.
Also, High Fantasy is a close companion to myth, which functions to reaffirm
the prevailing values of the status quo. SF, as the literary branch of
science, seeks to question such values, to test them against reality and
where necessary debunk them.
Rather than see SF done as High Fantasy, I would rather see 'low' fantasy,
adopting a similar approach to that of SF - inverting, subverting and
debunking the tropes of the genre. Something like Tolkien meets James Bond
via Quentin Tarantino.
> 2. A good fantasy film - how about 'Willow'? Does anyone else on this list
> like it?
Hated it. Far too twee and cosy (and too many American accents). The fact
that we've not been blessed with Willow II: The Leprechauns Strikes Back
suggests to me that the genre doesn't have much box office potential.
> 3. Has anybody tried inventing a computer font which would use runes
instead
> of letters? It wouldn't be very practical though.
I've got several, including (possibly) genuine 8th Century Anglo-Saxon and
two forms of Tolkien elven script. I can't remember exactly I got them, but
I stumbled across them whilst surfing through various rolegaming sites. Try
running 'fonts' or 'fantasy fonts' through a search engine - there are a lot
of fantasy, SF and historical fonts available for free download, and they
tend to inhabit the same websites.
Neil
>
> Natasa
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 14:25:58 EDT
From: B7Morrigan@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love
Message-ID: <f.9fd362e.2708dbb6@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 10/1/00 12:26:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
tucev@tesla.rcub.bg.ac.yu writes:
> I'm not entirely in favour of this concept, but I've used it here because
> the theory that Blake is incapable of love due to his devotion to the Cause
> really makes me angry. It is contradictory in itself. I cannot remember
that
> Blake has done anything selfish throughout the series. Correct me if I'm
> wrong. I also think the script writers (most of them) make it clear that he
> is much more driven by the love for mankind than by the hatred for the
> Federation. This is more than obvious when he puts a plague warning into
> Fosforon's orbit, rather than to use this opportunity to kill Servalan (as
> 'somebody else' suggests they should do).
Yet "Star One" seems a rather large contridiction to this theory, a
willingness to kill millions of people to destroy the Federation.
Morrigan
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 20:46:15 +0100
From: "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love
Message-ID: <007a01c02be0$938c7ba0$ca8edec2@pre-installedco>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Natasa
>(There. I've introduced some poetry to the list.)
And very welcome too - thanks very much. I like your defence of Blake too -
of course devotion to humanity does not render a person incapable of love. A
point very well made.
>The tiny minority who are
>truly loving and lovable, for Eliot, are those who are willing to sacrifice
>their personal interests (or even their lives) for some common good, for
the
>benefit of mankind. If this definition is applicable to anyone in B7, it is
>certainly not Avon.
But, but... Avon actually *does* sacrifice his life for the rest of
humankind. Or at least, it is only chance that he lives beyond the act (in
Star One). To me that is the most important dynamic of the first two series.
Avon comes to realise that there is nothing better to do than to sacrifice
himself for the human race. And yet he doesn't become any softer as a
result - if anything the reverse.
I'm not somebody who thinks Avon is a particularly loveable person, but I do
think he is prepared to fight to the death by that point. I'll quote some
poetry back at you (Yeats)
'Those that I kill I do not hate
Those that I save I do not love'
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 06:33:53 +1100
From: Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana.org.au>
To: "Blake's 7 list" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Fantasy, satire and princess brides and Ring Lords
Message-ID: <20001002063353.F8802@welkin.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 10:11:39PM -0600, Ellynne G. wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 18:27:05 -0400 DDJ <frazzled@keystonenet.com> writes:
> >
> > Thought of this thread today, while reading an article titled "Dr
> > Seuss and
> > Dr Einstein: Children's Books and Scientific Imagination," which
> > essentially argues that children's fantasy and picture books can
> > develop
> > the right mindset for science. [snip]
> >
> > That, in turn, left me wondering which category Blake and Avon
> > would've fit.
> >
> Blake openly read all that stuff and went on at great length how it was
> so much better than certain government approved reading lists.
>
> Avon read everything he could get his hands on, too, but he said it was
> to help him understand such hopelessly warped mentalities as the people
> who actually _enjoyed_ reading it.
Yeah, that was what he *said*, but he actually enjoyed it himself.
Well, he enjoyed some of them.
Kathryn Andersen
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Blake: The others have decided to go with me.
Avon: I thought they would. Not very bright, but loyal.
(Blake's 7: Pressure Point [B5])
--
_--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen <kat@foobox.net>
/ \ | <http://www.foobox.net/~kat>
\_.--.*/ | <http://angelcities.com/members/rubykat>
v | #include "standard/disclaimer.h"
------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere
Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 06:41:40 +1100
From: Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana.org.au>
To: "Blake's 7 list" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-ID: <20001002064140.G8802@welkin.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 06:32:10PM +0100, Neil Faulkner wrote:
> Long ago, in the days of the Horizon letterzine, I made a comparison between
> B7 and some of the staples of epic (or 'high') fantasy. I also said that,
> IMO, SF should try to avoid this approach. You lose too much of the
> psychological complexity (of individuals) and social complexity (of the
> world they live in) if you reduce the characters to symbolic archetypes.
> Also, High Fantasy is a close companion to myth, which functions to reaffirm
> the prevailing values of the status quo. SF, as the literary branch of
> science, seeks to question such values, to test them against reality and
> where necessary debunk them.
I disagree. I think I'm more inclined to Alexi and Cory Panshin's
school of thought, that SF *is* modern myth, reflecting our questions
and values and trying to make sense of the universe. (Myth in its
most mythic sense, the quest for self-understanding, not the opression
of the status quo). (Go off and read "The World Beyond The Hill")
The other thing is, anything that *reduces* something to its
archetypes, reduces it, full stop. The reason we like Avon, even
though he could be considered an archetype (the Byronic anti-hero)
is because he is more than just a cliche. Same with Blake (perhaps
even more so). And so on.
> Rather than see SF done as High Fantasy, I would rather see 'low' fantasy,
> adopting a similar approach to that of SF - inverting, subverting and
> debunking the tropes of the genre. Something like Tolkien meets James Bond
> via Quentin Tarantino.
Yeah, well we know how much you like grim and mayhem, Neil. (-8
Kathryn Andersen
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Avon: First sign of trouble, we get out, right?
Jenna: Goes without saying.
Avon: I only wish it did. (Blake's 7: Bounty [A11])
--
_--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen <kat@foobox.net>
/ \ | <http://www.foobox.net/~kat>
\_.--.*/ | <http://angelcities.com/members/rubykat>
v | #include "standard/disclaimer.h"
------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere
Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 20:43:25 GMT
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love
Message-ID: <LAW-F116PrPrvCWO6hm0000819b@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Morrigan wrote:
<Yet "Star One" seems a rather large contridiction to this theory, a
willingness to kill millions of people to destroy the Federation.>
<determined to be good, I am not not not going to start that one again>
'Tisn't, 'tisnt, 'tisnt, 'tisnt, 'tisnt, 'tisnt, 'tisnt, 'tisnt.
Right, now I've got that reasoned argument off my chest ... you can see the
archives for everything I've said (and more than everyone probably wanted to
hear) on the subject of 'many many' DOES NOT equal millions'.
Sally's Fifth Rule - Blake Is Right About Star One - and Avon Knows That,
Too. (Sooner or later if I keep repeating them, someone will pay attention
to the rules :-))
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 21:11:49 GMT
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love
Message-ID: <LAW-F41r2UAaTzvb5YI0000719d@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Alison wrote in reply to Natasha:
<I like your defence of Blake too - of course devotion to humanity does not
render a person incapable of love. A point very well made.>
Me three! (Yeah, like that's a surprise to anyone on the list).
<But, but... Avon actually *does* sacrifice his life for the rest of
humankind. Or at least, it is only chance that he lives beyond the act (in
Star One). To me that is the most important dynamic of the first two series.
Avon comes to realise that there is nothing better to do than to sacrifice
himself for the human race.>
Errr ... don't quite see it that way. Avon takes on the defence of the
galaxy because Blake wants it done, IMO. Don't forget, it's not *that* long
since Killer, the end of which is very relevant to Star One.
What's interesting (to me at least <g>) about the end of Killer is that both
men act totally instinctively, basically without even thinking. Avon simply
sees the plague as a way to kill his one, individual enemy - Blake, in the
same instant, sees the possible result for the rest of the galaxy (and
please note in THIS argument they do too use the word 'millions' that comes
up so much in That Other Argument. Please also note *who* uses it :-)).
Avon, for someone who doesn't give a damn about people in general, does
relate intensely when he does. His reaction at the end of both episodes is
totally one-on-one personal IMO - loathing for Servalan in Killer,
whatever-it-is-we-don't-agree-he-feels-for-Blake in Star One.
Kairos/Terminal and surrendering the Liberator is another example. In
Kairos, he's prepared to give up the Liberator to Seravaln to save himself
and his crew. In Terminal, he's prepared to see himself, Blake, Cally and
Tarrant dead first. No difference what it would mean to the rest of the
galaxy, but all the difference in the world in who *he* thinks he'll have to
face with the knowledge he's done it ...
<I'm not somebody who thinks Avon is a particularly loveable person,>
And yet he is able to inspire a startling depth of - well, *something* like
loyalty - in people, even those he quite often treats like dirt. That scene
in Rumours "we've decided we care about you" ... the three of the (Dayna,
Tarrant and Cally ) may be screamingly smug and patronising, but the
sentiment appears to be true for just everyone except maybe Jenna ...
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 21:31:21 GMT
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love]
Message-ID: <LAW-F5z6QEy0Dll7fnp00006460@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Jacqui wrote:
<What about Avon's comment in Duel about not having to 'show' one cares>
<grin> I really really love that line - to quote it in full ...
"I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational in
order to prove that you care, or, indeed, why it should be necessary to
prove it at all."
This is notwithstanding the joyous fact that he's been acting decidedly
irrationally (by his own standards) since Time Squad if not since
*Spacefall*.
The operative word is 'prove'. He's not actually trying to *prove* anything
(witness how bad tempered he gets when anyone actually notices him Doing the
Right Thing). It is - as I said - purest instinct, even stronger than the
instinct for self-preservation.
The only time 'proving' came into the equation is in Rumours, where he seems
to be trying to prove something - god only knows what, I'd damn sure Avon
doesn't - to *himself*.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:32:16 +0100
From: Tavia Chalcraft <tavia@btinternet.com>
To: 'Lysator mailing list' <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-ID: <01C02C08.39228CE0.tavia@btinternet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Neil wrote:
>Rather than see SF done as High Fantasy, I would rather see 'low' fantasy,
adopting a similar approach to that of SF - inverting, subverting and
debunking the >tropes of the genre. Something like Tolkien meets James Bond
via Quentin Tarantino.
Ooh. What I good idea. Wish I'd thought of that.... <maniacal giggling>
Tavia
--When the fire and the rose are one
http://www.viragene.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:40:35 +0100
From: Tavia Chalcraft <tavia@btinternet.com>
To: 'Lysator mailing list' <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love
Message-ID: <01C02C09.61EA80A0.tavia@btinternet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Natasa quoted:
>Are contented with the morning that separates
>And with the evening that brings together
>For casual talk before the fire
>Two people who know they do not understand each other,
>Breeding children whom they do not understand
>And who will never understand them.
Wow. Yet another Blake's Seven fan who loves TS Eliot. This is getting to be quite a trend.
Tavia
--When the fire and the rose are one
http://www.viragene.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 23:46:24 GMT
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Selfish? (was: Anna & the nature of love)
Message-ID: <LAW-F104pcQIONzADZB000087d4@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Marian wrote re Blake:
<Well, IMHO the way he claims Liberator for his fight, with total disregard
to the wishes of Jenna and Avon, might be considered a bit selfish from
their viewpoint :-)>
Now play fair. He did make it perfectly clear that was exactly and precisely
what he intended to do, but the beginning of Time Squad makes it equally
clear that there *was a discussion* between the five of them, and that it
was agreed that Fighting For Freedom was the agenda.
Of course <grin> it's also clear that full and frank discussion before every
step of said FFF was also decided on, and Blake then calmly, blatantly and
quite beeyootifully ignores *that* part of the agreement. 'Tis wrong of him
(though I loooovvve it) but one can understand why - even at this early
stage, it is clear that [a] any democracy with Avon and Vila as equal voters
is going to get precisely nowhere and not very fast (see early season 3 for
proof) and [b] he's going to win the round-table discussions *anyway* (as he
promptly proves whenever they do have one :-)) ...
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 13:35:34 EST
From: "Jessica Taylor" <morgaine54@hotmail.com>
To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Introduction
Message-ID: <F112bUcOV1EetVoMDrx0000a31e@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>However, you're making the classic error of assuming Cally died, a point
>for which there is debatable evidence at best.
>
>Ellynne
Would you mind expanding on that point a little?
Jessica
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 09:24:22 GMT
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Back on Animals again (Was Introduction)
Message-ID: <LAW-F11AauNjVuMhvqg00008371@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
After I managed eight (eight!!!) things I like about Animals, Una threw out
the blatant bribe:
<You manage ten, and you get your own very special page on my Animals
website.>
'Twasn't easy, let me *tell* you ... one had to grasp at straws (or dead
trees, of which there were rather a lot on screen.
I thought of mentioning that Tarrant looks pretty good (well, no one else
does, not even My Darling's at his best and he's wearing my unfavourite
leather-n-studs look). Del's hair's just at the good point in between the
shorn-ewe-lamb of Terminal and the perambulating mop of Warlord/Blake, I do
like the clean lines of that jacket, and he gets to show off his teeth in
several 'where-are-the-sunnies' smiles. But then if you actually *look* at
the boy in this one, there's something odd about *the trousers* and the way
he is *always always* standing with his legs apart ... is the seam cut too
close or something? I don't know, and I'm not sure I want to ...
And speaking of My Darling, how many kilos of sour persimmons did *he* eat
before this episode? I know this is probably his emotional nadir in the 4th
season freeze, and I deeply empathise with the trauma I *insist* he's
feeling over Rumours/Terminal/Rescue, but he's supposed to look wan and cold
and fascinatingly distant and hurting inside-ish and ... (sorry, sorry, the
hc part of me broke out for a minute). Not stone-faced and grouchy.
Anyway, soldiering on ...
9. I was interested (well, mildly diverted) by the - errr - unique
interior-design-of-an-official-spaceship to look like a cheap casino (that
light fitting ...) to go with Servalan's aura of decay. From that all-white
office at Space Command, and her Presidential Palace in Rumours, she's
fallen a looooonng way.
10....
10....
10. Got it. 'Animals' does NOT have Space Rats, Brian the Spider, Moloch,
talking heads in bottles, Piri, those lesser (and appallingly acted)
Warlords, Brian Blessed, buddleia, cockroach capes and manic Matador
jackets, mummies with false eyes, giant brains, Bananas in Pajamas or one
word by Ben Steed.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:35:34 +0100
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love
Message-ID: <02da01c02c54$2b94c920$0d01a8c0@codex>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Natasa wrote:
> (There. I've introduced some poetry to the list.) The tiny minority who
are
> truly loving and lovable, for Eliot, are those who are willing to
sacrifice
> their personal interests (or even their lives) for some common good, for
the
> benefit of mankind. If this definition is applicable to anyone in B7, it
is
> certainly not Avon.
Fascinating stuff, Natasa, thank you. But I see your TS, and raise you a
George, on Dorothea Casaubon:
'Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, thought they were not
widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the
strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on earth. But
the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for
the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and
that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half
owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in
unvisited tombs.'
What I think I'm saying is that TS is wrong. So there, TS. <g> Dorothea
sacrifices purity of purpose, but that does not mean that she does not do
good, or loves. Umm, not sure I have a B7 point here. I don't think it
applies to anyone in B7.
> I'm not entirely in favour of this concept, but I've used it here because
> the theory that Blake is incapable of love due to his devotion to the
Cause
> really makes me angry. It is contradictory in itself.
I don't think that Blake's devotion to the Cause *made* him incapable of
love; I do believe that (eventually) the Cause filled an emotional gap in
Blake's life. Whether he was like this *before* the mind-mangling, I just
don't know. I guess I'm looking at his personal history rather than
thinking he fulfils an archetype.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:46:58 +0100
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Back on Animals again (Was Introduction)
Message-ID: <031401c02c55$bdae1a40$0d01a8c0@codex>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sally wrote:
> After I managed eight (eight!!!) things I like about Animals, Una threw
out
> the blatant bribe:
>
> <You manage ten, and you get your own very special page on my Animals
> website.>
I knew you wouldn't be able to resist it.
> 9. I was interested (well, mildly diverted) by the - errr - unique
> interior-design-of-an-official-spaceship to look like a cheap casino
(that
> light fitting ...) to go with Servalan's aura of decay.
It's almost like they spent no money on it.
> 10. Got it. 'Animals' does NOT have Space Rats, Brian the Spider, Moloch,
> talking heads in bottles, Piri, those lesser (and appallingly acted)
> Warlords, Brian Blessed, buddleia, cockroach capes and manic Matador
> jackets, mummies with false eyes, giant brains, Bananas in Pajamas or one
> word by Ben Steed.
Brava!
Una
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 11:34:06 +0100
From: Alison Page <alison_page@becta.org.uk>
To: "'blakes7@lysator.liu.se'" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: FW: [[B7L] Terminal and endings]
Message-ID: <21B0197931E1D211A26E0008C79F6C4AB0C793@BRAMLEY>
Content-Type: text/plain
I am forwarding this for list newbie Jacqui Speel
> (I am a new member, so 'don't know' how to send round the group)
>
> Try the 1931 film version of The Threepenny Opera - the German version is
> better - 'Blake's Seven' set in the Victorian era with no Blake -
> everybody is
> corrupt.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
> http://home.netscape.com/webmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 12:51:27 +0100
From: Alison Page <alison_page@becta.org.uk>
To: "'blakes7@lysator.liu.se'" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] the nature of love
Message-ID: <21B0197931E1D211A26E0008C79F6C4AB0C795@BRAMLEY>
Content-Type: text/plain
Sally said -
>>Avon takes on the defence of the galaxy because Blake wants it done, IMO.
And that is the great divide in a nutshell. Some come down on one side and
some on the other. I don't think the evidence is more compelling for my view
(certainly there are good arguments to be had on both sides) I choose it
because it satisfies me more.
For me it is a great truism that to be completely rational you have to
realise there are some points where reason is insufficient, and to be
completely self-interested you have to locate value outside of yourself.
Avon pushes reason and selfishness as far as they go, and so they reverse on
him. That is more interesting to me than to attribute it to Avon's regard
for Blake. So I say 'Avon is fascinated by Blake because of the ideas' and
not vice-versa. Just because that makes it more fun (for me).
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:26:30 -0600
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Introduction
Message-ID: <20001002.090224.-89047.0.rilliara@juno.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 13:35:34 EST "Jessica Taylor"
<morgaine54@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >However, you're making the classic error of assuming Cally died, a
> point
> >for which there is debatable evidence at best.
> >
> >Ellynne
>
>
> Would you mind expanding on that point a little?
>
Skipping issues like wish fulfillment and denial, which have _nothing_ to
do with my perfectly _logical_ conclusions, let's just look at the
evidence.
1) First and foremost, what's the main evidence that Cally's dead? That
Avon saw her body. Putting aside lighting conditions and the fact that I
didn't see any flashlights, let's remember that we're talking the same
man who saw Blake and possibly a Teddy bear a little while before this.
We have no reason to believe he took a nap before going out and checking
the bomb rigged ship, which means he may have been without sleep for up
to three, maybe even four days (for all his precautions, he certainly
didn't think of the ship being rigged with bombs that would set off bombs
at the base until it had already happened, so we aren't talking top notch
mental performance). People that sleep deprived can start seeing a _lot_
more than dead bodies that aren't there.
2) So, a few bombs went off, so what? So long as the bombs, like most
Federation weapons, were set to 'miss' I don't see this as a major
obstical.
3) Cally's last words: "Blake" just doesn't do it for me. Why shout
that, of all things? It makes sense if she _thought_ she'd seen Blake
but, unlike Avon, Cally is not overly obsessed in this direction and had
been thinking of bombs, Vila, and possibly Tarrant, maybe even Orac or
Avon, and very probably survival just seconds before. Why, suddenly and
without context, say "Blake"?
Even if you go with the idea of a dying person seeing other dead people,
we know Blake's not dead (and spirit visions are more a Voyager thing,
anyhow).
So, if she's somehow in contact with Blake (unlikely), it's a live Blake.
If she suddenly _thinks_ she sees Blake or (more likely) has suddenly
found out something about Blake which is worth passing on at this time,
we can assume all is _not_ what it seems.
4) The extremely convenient destruction of the planet.
Hey, if you don't want people to hang around and double check things,
this is one way to do it (overkillish enough that I wonder if it wasn't
just this section that to pieces).
5) UNRESOLVED PLOT ISSUES!!!
Look, Hamlet does NOT begin with the prince getting the lowdown on the
rottenness of Denmark only to have him trip, break his neck, and join his
father in spectral analysis (so to speak). Star Wars does NOT end with
the Millennium Falcon taking a wrong turn and spending the rest of the
movie looking for a gas station. Unlike real life, characters in fiction
do NOT die with their plot lines feeling this way.
The Cally and Avon thing has been developed enough at this point that
SOME greater resolution (good or bad, depending on your views) is
required. It's left unresolved.
Cally is one of the last Aurons and definitely the one to inherit any
redress issues. This is left unresolved.
More than a few aliens have developed an interest in her (and a grudge
against her friends) that she should not be written out without SOME
attention paid to these details. These are also the kind of people who
might have the resources to convince Avon he'd seen a body when he
hadn't, which raises possibilities.
Others are that Avon made a mistake when he thought she was dead (assume
either diminished capacity due to sleep deprivation and stress or that
what looks like dead on a human may not be dead on an Auron [or the fact
that it wouldn't be the first time in history someone was mistakenly
thought to be dead (this is why being buried alive used to be a major
fear for a lot of people)]).
However, I did put a post a while back (veeerrrrryyyy long) in which I
kind of summed up an idea I had (which still fights me about being
written, so a summary might be all I ever do). It's kind of my Unified
DotG-ChoA-Any other Auron significant stuff Theorem.
Essentially (flakey as this may sound) it says the Thaarn was being
punished in a nasty way by his own people and needed to steal a new body.
For a variety of reasons, he settled on Avon's. This led to capturing
Cally and setting up an otherwise highly improbable 4th season
culminating in Blake's death, therebye getting Avon in a highly
vulnerable condition where the Thaarn could move in and kick him out.
Ellynne
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:12:52 +0200
From: Natasa Tucev <tucev@tesla.rcub.bg.ac.yu>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love
Message-Id: <200010021612.SAA12584@Tesla.rcub.bg.ac.yu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Marian wrote:
>>the theory that Blake is incapable of love due to his devotion to the Cause
>really makes me angry. It is contradictory in itself. I cannot remember that
>Blake has done anything selfish throughout the series. Correct me if I'm
>wrong.<
>
>Well, IMHO the way he claims Liberator for his fight, with total disregard
>to the wishes of Jenna and Avon, might be considered a bit selfish from
>their viewpoint :-)
I don't think this makes him selfish, I'd rather say he holds in check the
selfish impulses of others. Jenna, for instance, being an adventurous
free-trader, would probably use the Liberator to boldly go where no one has
gone before and try to make some profit along the way. 'We've got a ship,'
she says, 'and we can go anywhere we want.' To which Blake replies, 'Follow
the London to Cygnus Alpha. Then we can free the rest of the prisoners.' In
other words, we cannot go wherever we want. There are some people who need
our help. So we can only go in one direction.
Natasa
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 07:28:14 +0100
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Introduction
Message-ID: <000201c02c97$00624d20$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jessica Taylor <morgaine54@hotmail.com>
Replying to Ellynne
> >However, you're making the classic error of assuming Cally died, a point
> >for which there is debatable evidence at best.
>
> Would you mind expanding on that point a little?
We never saw her corpse, and only Avon went back in, so we've only got
Avon's word for it that she died.
I tend to think that he went back down, found Cally, who gave him a rocket
along the lines of "Okay, Dogbreath, you've ballsed it up once too often.
From now on I go it alone."
How she survived the earthquakes, lava flows etc and got off planet is a bit
of a poser, though.
I keep meaning to write it into a story but probably never will.
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 11:57:18 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.com>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Pressure Point
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-1002105718-c72Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Neil's just sent me the masters of Stadler Link and Pressure Point.
As they've always been staple bound in the past, I may well contunie to do them
that way. If people would prefer a fastback binding, let me know (probably add
about 90p to the cost). Neil uses pretty large margins, so you're unlikely to
lose and text either way.
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.knightwriter.org )
Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:30:25 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.com>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Hamlet & conversion site
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-1002093025-06cRr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
On Sat 30 Sep, JEB31538@cs.com wrote:
>
> If you want a wonderful picture of Gareth as Claudius in Hamlet, go to
> Judith Proctor's site and check it out.
> http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7/index.html
> You find it by going to Gareth Thomas and scrolling down. I normally just
> pick up the chronological list of all activites and it's near the bottom of
> that section. It doesn't take all that long for it to load.
Depends on your download speed. I'd be more inclined to go for one of the
subsets such as 'film work' or work after 1998 or something like that if you
only want the Hamlet picture.
I tend to be a bit paranoid about large files and the full Gareth file has an
awful lot of stuff in it. I remember one fan with a slow link saying it took
her about 20 mins and I'd hate to inflict that on anyone unless they wanted the
entire thing.
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.knightwriter.org )
Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:35:15 +0200
From: "Marian de Haan" <maya@multiweb.nl>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love
Message-ID: <002401c02c9f$84dbe680$83ed72c3@marian-de-haan.multiweb.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To my:
>>Well, IMHO the way he claims Liberator for his fight, with total disregard
to the wishes of Jenna and Avon, might be considered a bit selfish from
their viewpoint :-)<<
Natasa replied:
>I don't think this makes him selfish, I'd rather say he holds in check the
selfish impulses of others. Jenna, for instance, being an adventurous
free-trader, would probably use the Liberator to boldly go where no one has
gone before and try to make some profit along the way. 'We've got a ship,'
she says, 'and we can go anywhere we want.' To which Blake replies, 'Follow
the London to Cygnus Alpha. Then we can free the rest of the prisoners.' In
other words, we cannot go wherever we want. There are some people who need
our help. So we can only go in one direction.<
By his own words, he's going to Cygnus Alpha because he needs a crew, not
because the prisoners might need his help. Sounds a bit selfish to me :-)
Actually, I don't see what's wrong with Blake being capable of the
occasional selfish deed. It's very human, and I prefer him to be human
rather than a saint. For me part of B7's attraction is that the hero is not
presented as a flawless, noble knight in shining armour.
I maintain that his taking command of Liberator can be considered selfish
from where Jenna and Avon stand. Fighting the Federation isn't in their
best interest. Both of them would have been better off with having
abandoned him on Cygnus Alpha.
I always feel sorry for Jenna because her loyalty to Blake seems to be
poorly rewarded.
I feel less sorry for Avon because it seems to me - minority of one, I know
:-) - that he's far less loath to fight the Federation than he pretends.
After all, he does have a score to settle with the Federation because of
Anna's death. With revenge on the man who tortured her to death not yet
feasible, he might well settle for going along with Blake.
Of course he'd rather die than admit this even to himself :-) His
justification - to himself, he doesn't take the trouble to justify himself
to anybody else - may be something like: "Well, it might be
interesting/amusing to see what Blake can achieve, so let's stay around for
a while and find out."
Sally wrote:
>Now play fair. He did make it perfectly clear that was exactly and
precisely what he intended to do, but the beginning of Time Squad makes it
equally clear that there *was a discussion* between the five of them, and
that it was agreed that Fighting For Freedom was the agenda.<
Oh, How I'd love to have been present at that discussion :-) But it's not
clear that they agreed to fight for freedom, only that nothing would be
decided without a thorough discussion.
>Of course <grin> it's also clear that full and frank discussion before
every step of said FFF was also decided on, and Blake then calmly, blatantly
and quite beeyootifully ignores *that* part of the agreement.<
Blatantly disregarding the wishes and welfare of the others (freedom
fighting does not make for a safe and long life). I'm always surprised that
at that point Avon doesn't say: "Okay, Blake, you can drop me off at KX
72."
Ironically, if Avon had opted out at that point, Blake would have been
killed by Cally's bomb in the next episode :-)
Marian
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #275
**************************************