From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #12 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume00/12 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 12 Today's Topics: Re: [B7L] Many many people... Re: [B7L] Too quiet Re: [B7L] Too quiet [B7L] Star One [B7L] Orbit [B7L] Star One [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V00 #11 Re: [B7L] Mission to Destiny [B7L] Heroes and Brains Re: [B7L] Many many people... [B7L] Strangerers Re: [B7L] Many many people... Re: [B7L] Many many people... Re: [B7L] Many many people... Re: [B7L] GSP and Oppression Re: [B7L] Too quiet Re: [B7L] Too quiet Re: [B7L] Mission to Destiny Re: [B7L] Many many people... Re: [B7L] Too quiet ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:14:42 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people... Message-ID: <20000115011442.92206.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mistral wrote: Actually, Mistral, I (and I suspect Julia and Neil) never thought that disagreeing with Blake's actions was bashing him (we think it's wrong in this case, of course ). I have never thought you were bashing him because you thought he was wrong to do what he did. It's just that a hell of a lot of critical posts on this point (in the archives as well) *do* misquote Cally as if "huge numbers", "millions", "billions", etc is canon. It's so often "Blake is willing to kill all the people he's claiming to free" instead of "Blake is willing to sacrifice a number that I'm assuming is very large and I'm assuming will be mostly decent well-meaning civilians". *That's* what grates. My assumption - based on my reading of Pressure Point, The Keeper and Star One, and looking at the scraps of evidence after the War - is that the number *is* quite large, but no larger than the combined death toll/living-death toll from continued Federation rule (based on the evidence we have *of* Federation rule - see Judith's list), the difference being he is taking the blood on his own hands. But it is an assumption, because really, the only rather weak evidence we have is that vague phrase of Cally's - "many, many people," Avon's prediction in Pressure Point of what will happen, and Blake's own violent reaction in Killer to the possible death of millions (which is suggestive in his wording, but even more dubious evidence, since the two cases - uncontrolled plague benefiting themselves only vs the destruction of a military target benefiting...well, again we don't know the numbers, but IMO large numbers of oppressed people - are completely different.) <'The end justifies the means' is just a cop-out for those who don't have the patience or the backbone or the intelligence to persevere against the odds, without caving in to the temptation to take the easier, less ethical path.> We also saw how well the ethical path worked, didn't we? The Way Back, Bounty again (Sarkoff's own case) and especially Voice From The Past being rather pointed examples. Mind you, I don't think Blake was ever really *contented* with the 'destroy Star One' plan himself - he just couldn't see any alternative other than give up and let everyone go to Federated hell (and he *is* fairly dispassionate about violence. Like Avon, he is quite ready to kill when he thinks it justified). He's also not too happy with what he's planning in Shadow (comes across as defensive, a sign of his own reservations) but at this stage he must have been researching Control, and the effects of destroying it. Perhaps he saw the Terra Nostra plan as the (slightly) lesser of two evils? Then there *is* Voice - yes, he's under the influence as it were, but there's a rather wistful note in his "Our first real chance. And, one free of violence and bloodshed." And we know how that turned out... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:18:11 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet Message-ID: <20000115011811.27683.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed After I wrote: Mistral wrote: Agreed, and I worded this badly. But the point was that the examples we see at the beginning of Star One are no evidence of what will happen when Star One goes down, because they are being *caused* by Star One. (I actually got sidetracked by the thought of how bloody stupid the whole idea of a control base no one can get to to repair *is*.) Me: Mistral: I seriously doubt that if your government found a way to give you a perfect climate and eliminate traffic accidents, you'd find it oppressive.> And if that was all Star One was doing, they wouldn't have had to hide it. The whole *point* is that it is so much more than that - it's been made clear from the start of the Control/Star One arc. As Blake says: "a computer complex to monitor information: political, civil, military - everything. That computer is the nerve center of ALL Federation activity." Travis, The Keeper: "It is the key to our very lives." And Durkim: "Our unbeatable control and coordination centre." The fact that no one can get to it to fix it doesn't mean it still isn't that nerve centre, that it doesn't enforce control as it was designed to do. After all, if it wasn't useful to Federation control, why the hell would they hide it, or anyone try to destroy it? Me: Mistral: As we're told more than once that it's part (a very important part) of the military and security command and control structure, I didn't think proof of this was necessary... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:20:03 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet Message-ID: <20000115012003.53129.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Neil and me and Neil: Saddo Avon-groupie apologists will believe any old tripe if it gets Old Studsy off the hook.> Nononono....Being unfair and unreasonable and unobjective and a fan of the Bad-Tempered (But Adorable) One is much more fun. And easier on the eyes, too. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 21:02:52 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Star One Message-ID: <387FF16C.6384@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Star One is destroyed in the war, and there is no evidence later in the > series that millions of people died - rather, that the Federation lost > control, and that largely the result of losing most of its battle fleet. > -- > Julia Jones Hmmm... this has me thinking. We've often heard comments on the fact that the Federation *retained* control over much of it's territory in spite of the destruction of Star One *and* the decimation of it's fleet in the war. What if the destruction of Star One had ended up having the opposite effect of the intended one? Enough chaos ensued that, rather than weakening the Federation for overthrow by groups such as those led by Avalon or Kashabi, the people, frightened by the loss of controlled climates, reliable transportation and communication, and such, ended up backing the existing government because they wanted the emergencies dealt with? The alternative, of course, which is what I think Julia and others suggest indirectly, is that Star One's destructiion is more like the Y2K bug. A lot was expected, but not much happened. --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 21:13:04 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Orbit Message-ID: <387FF3D0.765F@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Julia Jones wrote, re Orbit: > > > Hey! *This* saddo Avon groupie thinks he would so have done it, once > > he'd been given the idea. If he knew where Vila was, then why the hell > > didn't he haul him out to help dump the neutron matter? > > > > Anyway, I thought the whole point of that episode was the lovely, lovely > > angst of watching Avon deciding to kill his best mate. Sort of spoils it > > if he wasn't really trying. > > I'd like to second this, if I may. And the thing that makes it twice as > nice is that Avon's come to the point where he didn't even think of > it himself; I suspect it was in there under the surface and he was > repressing it like crazy-- until Orac took that option away. > > Mistral What I want to know is, are there any "saddo Avon fans", at least on this list, who say Avon *wasn't* trying to find Vila? Perhaps I was misinterpreted when I stated that his wierd tone of voice indicated he was shutting off part of himself in order to do it-- but I know Vila would've been out that airlock had A) Avon found him and B) not found the heavy stuff first. --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 21:37:11 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Star One Message-ID: <387FF977.902@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > What interests me is the way Star One is quoted, but not Pressure Point. > It will somehow kill fewer people if the control system is located on > Earth when it's destroyed? > -- None of us saw the *sort* of control the central computer was used for (traffic control, weather control) until after Pressure Point, during the Star One episode. So we didn't have any idea what there might be to object to. We assumed, on the basis of trusting Blake, that he was choosing a military target rather than what might be no more than a thing for building order out of chaos. There is a possibilty Star One was used as an instrumentof opression. But that hasn't been proven, and when we learned more about it, some of us came to doubt that was it's purpose. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 21:50:27 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V00 #11 Message-ID: <387FFC93.7ECE@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I like Moorcock. > > Neil I don't. I may have to completely give up my claims to being a cynic. Not that I don't agree with him on some of his points. But I wish the Eternal Hero would be Eternally placed in suspended animation and sent on a completely uneventful journey through the depths of space. --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 15:02:08 EST From: "Joanne MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Mission to Destiny Message-ID: <20000115040208.96856.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: mistral@ptinet.net >Ditto. I fail to see how the Federation could cause Destiny's star >to be lacking in certain wavelengths of light. (OTOH, a good >writer might make me believe they took advantage of that lack >to engineer a lovely fungus-- but no, I don't "really" believe it.) Well, they did engineer lovely fungi, if Project Avalon is any indication, but it was meant to be applied externally rather than terrestrially, if you like. Unless anyone wants to speculate that the Project Avalon nasty fungus thingy was a later attempt that didn't escape into the wild? Regards Joanne (this is Saturday afternoon here, and I've had my six impossible things before breakfast practice, before anyone asks...) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 22:35:58 -0700 From: "Ellynne G." To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Heroes and Brains Message-ID: <20000114.223606.8670.1.Rilliara@juno.com> Was watching a rerun of some old kid's show the other day. The cast was made up of one of those assorted groups, heroic leader, vain female, spineless male follower, the dog, and the brain (baby sister of heroic leader). Got to thinking, in American shows, the brainy character is usually emasculated, one way or another. There's the elderly scientist, the genius kid, the wimpy nerd who wouldn't notice a crisis (much less do anything about it) without the the hero's help, etc. As a general rule, they are NOT the hero. OK, there's Spock, but he started out as a sidekick who didn't want command and wouldn't think of noticing the women around him happened to be female more than once every seven years (improved scripting in this area, I understand, was fan driven). I can see how this would be an American phenomena. Various aspects of our history have left less than perfect respect for intellectuals (hard hitting facts of frontier life emphasized the directly practical, many early settlers came from places where education was a mark of gentry or aristocracy, a less than popular group here). OTOH, Avon may have started out as a similar character. He was an associate of the hero, not the hero. He also lacked the motivation and drive to go after the Federation (which, in the first year, was not much of a morally ambiguous goal). Then there's Dr. Who. He did start out as the elderly scientist, after all complete with pretty, young granddaughter. So, was Avon a hero (or anti-hero) in the making from day one or was he another case of the fans seeing something good and pushing it? And would he have worked better with a vain female, a spineless sidekick (male), and a . . . . Oops. He had those, didn't he? Does Orac count as a dog? At least he didn't have a baby sister working the computer. 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: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 22:17:36 -0700 From: "Ellynne G." To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people... Message-ID: <20000114.223606.8670.0.Rilliara@juno.com> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:14:42 PST "Sally Manton" writes: > I have >never thought you were bashing him because you thought he was >wrong to do what he did. It's just that a hell of a lot of >critical posts on this point (in the archives as well) *do* >misquote Cally as if "huge numbers", "millions", "billions", >etc is canon. It's so often "Blake is willing to kill all >the people he's claiming to free" instead of "Blake is willing >to sacrifice a number that I'm assuming is very large and >I'm assuming will be mostly decent well-meaning civilians". >*That's* what grates. While I agree large number of well-meaning civilians is heavily implied, I never feel like I have enough information to make an argument. It's like the WW II bomb argument. To me, the critical element is the bombing of civilian targets. _With the information they had then_, the people making the decision could be justified in seeing dropping the bomb as simply a more efficient, more psychologically devestating form of bombing _civilian_ targets. The long term effects of radiation and the nightmare possibilities of nuclear war weren't things they had information on. In that context, the question was whether destroying a _civilian_ target was justified. If it was, then I'd say the decision to drop the bomb was in keeping with it. If it wasn't, more than the two bombs dropped on Japan has to be reconsidered. My gut reaction is that civilian targets aren't legitimate targets in a war. But would the allies have won WW II if that had been their attitude? Does the fact the Axis started bombing civilians first change the situation and, if so, is it the sole determining factor? Unfortunately, while I can come up with the questions, the answers ellude me. Which is like Star One. I can think of situations where I think destroying Star One was justified. I can think of one's where it wasn't. There are others where I think it would be a judgement call or where it might have been justified but not the way Blake intended to do it. It drives me nuts having insufficient data (please, don't follow that up with a Star Trek joke). As to Neil's argument about the end justifying the means, that was just to provoke response, right? In everything, cost is a factor (especially, IMHO, if you're going to stick someone else with the bill [even more if it may be costing their life]). Then there's also the question of whether it's money you have a right to spend. I'll give Blake a lot of credit, but not carte blanche. Ellynne >My assumption - based on my reading of Pressure Point, The >Keeper and Star One, and looking at the scraps of evidence >after the War - is that the number *is* quite large, but >no larger than the combined death toll/living-death toll >from continued Federation rule (based on the evidence we >have *of* Federation rule - see Judith's list), the >difference being he is taking the blood on his own hands. >But it is an assumption, because really, the only rather >weak evidence we have is that vague phrase of Cally's - >"many, many people," Avon's prediction in Pressure Point of >what will happen, and Blake's own violent reaction in Killer >to the possible death of millions (which is suggestive in his >wording, but even more dubious evidence, since the two >cases - uncontrolled plague benefiting themselves only vs >the destruction of a military target benefiting...well, >again we don't know the numbers, but IMO large numbers of >oppressed people - are completely different.) > ><'The end justifies the means' is just a cop-out for those >who don't have the patience or the backbone or the intelligence >to persevere against the odds, without caving in to the >temptation to take the easier, less ethical path.> > >We also saw how well the ethical path worked, didn't we? The >Way Back, Bounty again (Sarkoff's own case) and especially >Voice From The Past being rather pointed examples. > >Mind you, I don't think Blake was ever really *contented* with >the 'destroy Star One' plan himself - he just couldn't see any >alternative >other than give up and let everyone go to >Federated hell (and he *is* fairly dispassionate about >violence. Like Avon, he is quite ready to kill when he thinks >it justified). He's also not too happy with what he's planning >in Shadow (comes across as defensive, a sign of his own >reservations) but at this stage he must have been researching >Control, and the effects of destroying it. Perhaps he saw the >Terra Nostra plan as the (slightly) lesser of two evils? Then >there *is* Voice - yes, he's under the influence as it were, >but there's a rather wistful note in his "Our first real chance. >And, one free of violence and bloodshed." And we know how that >turned out... > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > ________________________________________________________________ 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: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 09:31:27 +0000 From: Steve Rogerson To: Lysator Subject: [B7L] Strangerers Message-ID: <38803E4F.2F01AEF6@mcr1.poptel.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Strangerers (that new thing with Paul and Gareth in) now has a web site. Sadly it fives you sweet FA in info (apart from how long before it starts), but if you want to see it, it's at: http://www.sky.co.uk/strangerers -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson "In my world, there are people in chains and you can ride them like ponies" The alternative Willow, Buffy the Vampire Slayer ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 00:07:17 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: b7 Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people... Message-ID: <1AK+bCB1o7f4EwWd@jajones.demon.co.uk> In message <008b01bf5edf$c4be7f80$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>, Neil Faulkner writes >Star One (getting back on topic at last) is hard to square with real world >correlatives since - being TV drama - the dice are more loaded than they >normally are in real life. Blake, at any rate, believes that the only truly >effective way of destroying the Federation is to destroy Control, and not >even Avon disagrees with him on that point (he certainly doesn't offer any >alternative strategy). Avon merely queries the need to destroy the >Federation at all (not in itself an unreasonable query). But Blake is bent >on destruction rather than appropriation (also not unreasonable). He has >committed himself to the ends, which in turn binds him to what appears to be >the only effective means. And Blake has very good reason to believe that it is the only effective means. He's been down the pacifist protest route, and found that all it gets you is summary execution if you're lucky, and being turned into a programmed zombie if you're not. This is a government that drugs its citizenry into acquiescence; that ruthlessly stifles any dissent that gets past the drugs, so much so that those attending a non-violent meeting are gunned down when they try to surrender to troops who attack the meeting; that frames a man who *might* be beginning to recall inconvenient memories, and props up that falsified case by implanting three children with memories of being sexually assaulted; that plants solium bombs to try and ensure that worlds make no move to freedom however much their citizens might want it. Blake thinks that this is wrong, and that people should be given the freedom to choose, freedom they simply do not have. How does he know that the majority of the people would agree with his course of action? He doesn't. He *does* know that the administration is so terrified of facing that question themselves that they deprive as many people as possible of the opportunity to make that choice, which is somewhat suggestive of what answer the administration thinks it would get. I suppose he could always try asking the Federation rulers nicely to hold elections to see which form of government the people want. Blake is quite right in one thing. If they hold back at Star One, then why did they bother with all the rest of the killing and destruction? If Star One is wrong, why is the rest of it right? There is no easy answer to this moral dilemma. As Neil has pointed out, it was deliberately set up that way by the writers. -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:22:51 -0000 From: "Alison Page" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people... Message-ID: <009501bf5f42$9d1bfa80$ca8edec2@pre-installedco> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil quoted Michael Moorcock >"The laboured irony, as it were, of the pulp hero or heroine, this deadly >levity in the face of genuine experience, which serves not to point up the >dramatic effect of the narrative, but to reduce it - and to make the >experience described comfortingly 'unreal' - is the trick of the worst kind >of an escapist author who pretends to be writing about fundamental truths >and >is in fact telling fundamental lies." Yes, what a brilliant quote, that's exactly right. I hate that fastidious cringing away from reality. I am reminded of one of the basic tropes of fantasy fiction - the camp overnight on the trail. I hardly ever read one of those without getting annoyed. One of the worst aspects of 'LotR' is unreality of these camps (given their frequency). I recommend 'Against a Dark Background' by Iain M Banks for an alternative view. Basically the protagonists set off across wild country and find it is almost impossible to kill enough meat to stave off starvation, that it is freezing cold and wet, and that any injuries fail to heal and hold them up really badly. I also recommend that TV series I mentioned before 'extreme survival' for what it is really like to camp out night after night, and try and get hold of enough food and water to live. I mean for someone who is not a native to the area with long-learned local knowledge. Anyway I have been thinking about two eps of B7 (Blake and Duel) where they camp in the woods overnight I don't think they are *too* bad. A one-night camp is after all quite a different prospect from trying to survive for weeks. I do find Blake's camp on Gauda Prime a little bit too comfy and neat, and well provided with game, but Vila and his female chums are suitably useless at getting by. And 'Duel' is very uncomfortable for all concerned. Alison ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 22:59:09 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people... Message-ID: <000801bf5f47$0041eb20$e535fea9@neilfaulkner> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Julia wrote: > What interests me is the way Star One is quoted, but not Pressure Point. > It will somehow kill fewer people if the control system is located on > Earth when it's destroyed? A fair point. However, the Earth mission was sprung on the crew at the last minute, and the practicalities rather shunted aside all the moral agonising. Hence it didn't get a mention in the episode. But by the time they're approaching Star One, they've had weeks if not months to think about what they're planning to do, hence it comes up for discussion, and hence it's the episode that fans turn to when they themselves want to discuss the moral dimensions. Also, the arguments for or against destroying Control on Earth would be pretty much the same as those for or against destroying Star One, so citing one more or less implies citing the other. Star One has become the default episode out of the two, probably because (a) it's a rivetting denouement to the season, not tucked away in the first half, (b) it's got quotes to deploy in an argument, like thirty thousand million squillion people suddenly dropping dead if Blake so much as looks at the place, and (c) it's by Chris Boucher and therefore better than anything Terry Nation could write. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 23:51:45 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] GSP and Oppression Message-ID: <000901bf5f47$012b60c0$e535fea9@neilfaulkner> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Julia wrote: > We're being offered a means of decreasing traffic accidents in the UK. > Well, not offered, it's going to be imposed if Teflon Tony gets his way. > Enforce speed limits by putting a system into all new cars, whereby the > same technology used for those nifty little gadgets that tell you where > you are to within a hundred metres is used to tell where a car is and > what speed it's doing. And I think it's a wonderful idea, but then I'm a cyclist who risks life and limb everytime I pedal to work. If they fitted these things on bikes to see who cycled down pedestrian-only footpaths, I'd be one of the first to scream. >Wonderful for fighting crime, as > well. All those people who do the wrong things, think the wrong way, now > you can track their movements at the press of a button. The pilot scheme > might even be online in time for the twenty year anniversary of 1984. Another way of fighting crime is to put up video cameras in public places to monitor who goes where. Like in that opening shot of 'The Way Back' that shows us how nasty and oppressive the Federation is. You don't see anything like that in your local shopping centre, do you? In a free society like ours, nobody would stand for such a thing. The GSP thing can be taken even further - fit everyone with a locator chip (they can be injected under the skin), so our kind protectors can tell where anyone is, at any time. No longer need the innocent be bullied by surly policemen asking them to relate their entire movements through the second week of September three years ago, because they can tell you exactly where you went ("Admit it, sonny, you did enter Sainsbury's at 1438 on the 12th. And you were in there for 27 minutes and 18.69 seconds. Exactly when a packet of Polo mints was lifted from checkout number four.") Joking aside (because if you don't laugh you're doomed to cry), if this can be done if not now then in the very near future, why didn't the Federation do it? The answer, of course, is that the concept was probably near inconceivable 23 years ago, and even if Terry Nation did think about it, it could have seriously scuppered the very first episode. What this raises is an issue that bothers me from time to time - how do we cope with the futuristic aspects of B7 that have become reality (or near reality) in the real world? Other examples (and just the ones I'm aware of): - cloning (Weapon), feasible now, albeit after a fashion. There is at least evidence in the series that restrictions on genetic engineering are legal rather than practical. - sensory data transmission (the Deathwatch sensormesh), tipped to appear within decades rather than centuries. Optic nerve input from a cat has already been relayed to a monitor in all its fuzzy glory. - stun lasers (Project Avalon), available now, but since the beams carry an electric charge to zap muscles they're probably not very useful for knocking innocent cups over. - holographic conferencing - not actually in the series, but it should have been because we've got it here and now. Last week a class of students was given a maths lesson by a life-size hologram of a teacher several miles away. Rather wipes out the need for all those governors to go to Atlay, dunnit? Or for Bercol/ Rontane/ Joban to drop in on Servalan. - Subneutronic overlap shift - what Zerok can do to gold, I myself can do to veggieburgers. Turn them black, that is. And my socks have perfected teleportation. Well, one in every pair seems to have... Neil ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:05:09 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet Message-ID: <38806274.5714BDDB@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Judith Proctor wrote: > > Eh??? There is not one example of Star One being used as an > > instrument of oppression; in fact, it's quite clear it can't be done. > > There is no way for the powers that be in the Federation to give > > any orders to Star One at all. They don't know where it is, they > > can't fix it-- they have no control. > > Just because they don't know where it is, doesn't mean that they can't relay > orders to it. I don't think there's any evidence to support that, though, and it seems unreasonable that they would take such pains to secure it against physical attack and leave it vulnerable to a pirated signal; furthermore, if they had contrived to be able to send instructions, they would have surely included a set of fail-safes: abort, shutdown, autodestruct, none of which we see being attempted. > > I seriously doubt that if your government found a way to give > > you a perfect climate and eliminate traffic accidents, you'd > > find it oppressive. > > Unless they then said "pay us quadruple taxes and do everything else we say, or > your perfect climate will become hurricanes." Climate control makes oppression > a doddle - bit like a solium device, only more expensive to set up. Yes, of course I considered that, but again, if they can't send it controls, which I don't see as feasible, they can't do it. Again, there is no evidence it was used in such a manner, or even threatened with--nobody ever mentions such a use; there are no mentions of rebels attacking weather control satellites, etc. OTOH, Sally has reminded me of some dialogue I'd forgotten, so I'll have to rescind my objection to her calling it an 'instrument of oppression.' > > But the point (to me, anyway) isn't the body count. It's > > whether Blake has the authority to make the decision to > > deliberately sacrifice non-combatants to win his victory. > > In my book, he doesn't. > > But then it is difficult to poll people at large when you have no access to the > media and there is no mechanism for recording their votes in any case. (I think > the alphas may have had some voting rights, but the labour grades certainly did > not) > > He had no way to gain such authority - nobody did. Well, the polling is your idea; I've never suggested it. I think that you're probably right, he can't get such authority. But your take seems to be, since he can't get authority, he should do it anyway. My take is, since he can't get authority, he shouldn't do it. He ought to take a deep breath and try another method that doesn't overstep his authority. And another, and another, and another, if necessary. Yes, I realize it's more difficult, takes longer, and people will suffer under Federation rule in the meantime. But Blake won't have paid for his dream of freedom with lives that aren't his to spend. > I find I always come back to the same question because one can only look at > these things in comparison to the real world. Do you feel the deaths in the > American civil war were justified? Well, I'll answer these Judith, but I must tell you up front that to me, there is an enormous difference between a war and a rebellion, so this is really comparing apples and oranges. > The south (as I understand it) was within its rights to seceed. (thus one could > argue that the war was fought without 'authority' on the part of the North.) > However, the war ended slavery in America. It's a fiction of popular culture, and even taught in some schools, that the American Civil War was about slavery. It wasn't. It was about economic issues. Slavery was used as a red herring to turn it into a sort of 'holy war'--a false justification for an unjust war. Slavery was on its way to an end *without* the war. Do I think the North had the authority to order its own citizens to war? Yes. Do I think the men who made the decision to do so made a moral decision? No. Did the US government have legitimate authority over the South? No. The South had every right to secede (and I'm a northerner, if you're wondering). > Civilians died in that war - I'm sure you can think of better examples than I > can - Atlanta comes instantly to mind. Sherman's march to the sea. > > Non-combatants were deliberately sacrificed. Does that mean the war should not > have been fought? I cannot answer these specifically--you certainly know more about this than I do, history really isn't my field. I can only address civilian deaths in wars and rebellions. Collateral civilian damage is sometimes unavoidable. But we often tend to forget that when two countries fight, *all* the citizens of both countries are at war, even though they may choose to use armies. Blake, OTOH, isn't in the position of a head of government contemplating a military action against a warring nation with possible collateral damage. Blake is a self-declared rebel, with no authority over civilians, contemplating an action where the *primary* damage will be civilian--any other scenario isn't reasonable--the very civilians he claims to be fighting for. So what Blake is doing is *assuming* the authority to trade some of those civilians' lives for the betterment of other civilians' lives. Lives vs. quality of life, with Blake making the decisions. Those sorts of rights are vested in legitimate governments, but Blake isn't one; and until he can get himself one, he only has a right to spend the lives of people who've ceded him that right. > I won't give an answer, but I do think that a generation of living in peace with > the horrific memory of WW2 in a previous generation has led us to an unrealistic > desire that all wars should be won without anyone getting killed. Ah. You think I'm objecting to the fact of people dying? I'm not. The problem is which people. The problem is Blake deciding at what point someone else's life is miserable enough to be worthless except as casualties in his war for freedom. Let me ask you one, that's closer to how I see Blake's position: The vast majority of American colonists were not in favor of the American revolutionary war. Do you think it was all right for the relatively small bunch of rebels to force rebellion on the majority? And do you think it would have been all right for General Washington to turn his artillery on, say, the population of Massachusetts, in order to weaken the British? I'm afraid I can't agree that rebel leaders, however righteous their causes may be, have the same range of options open to them that legitimate governments do, with regard to civilian populations. Just IMHO, Mistral -- "Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!" --Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:11:29 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet Message-ID: <387FAD20.70A1CB7@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Julia Jones wrote: > Oh look, I agree with Mistral on at least one thing tonight:-) Dear me, Julia, how dull ;-) Mistral -- "Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!" --Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:24:01 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Mission to Destiny Message-ID: <388066E0.4CF894F9@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil Faulkner wrote: > Mistral (oh grud, she's back!) wrote: If ever I would leave you... da da da dee dee dum dum... Nope. Can't do it. You need a good excuse to be cranky. > (Totally off-topic trivia quiz: which total > has-been of a band used this sad practice to get a title for one of their > more desultory albums?) Hmm. I'm ashamed to say I don't know. Unless it's punk. I don't know anything about punk. Do tell. Mistral -- "Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!" --Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:47:09 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people... Message-ID: <16b901bf5f56$c5c06610$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alison wrote: > Neil quoted Michael Moorcock > > >"The laboured irony, as it were, of the pulp hero or heroine, this deadly > >levity in the face of genuine experience, which serves not to point up the > >dramatic effect of the narrative, but to reduce it - and to make the > >experience described comfortingly 'unreal' - is the trick of the worst kind > >of an escapist author who pretends to be writing about fundamental truths and > >is in fact telling fundamental lies." > > Yes, what a brilliant quote, that's exactly right. I hate that fastidious > cringing away from reality. > > I am reminded of one of the basic tropes of fantasy fiction - the camp > overnight on the trail. I hardly ever read one of those without getting > annoyed. One of the worst aspects of 'LotR' is unreality of these camps > (given their frequency). I recommend 'Against a Dark Background' by Iain M > Banks for an alternative view. Basically the protagonists set off across > wild country and find it is almost impossible to kill enough meat to stave > off starvation, that it is freezing cold and wet, and that any injuries fail > to heal and hold them up really badly. > > I also recommend that TV series I mentioned before 'extreme survival' for > what it is really like to camp out night after night, and try and get hold > of enough food and water to live. I mean for someone who is not a native to > the area with long-learned local knowledge. Argh, you can't expect to say something about LOTR and not have me leap in mindlessly to defend it, can you? I could give you the really anal answer and expound at length about the various stages of the journey, but that would be tedious. So my answer boils down to two things: 1. If I wanted to read about surviving in the wild, I'd read survival books, not fantasy. 2. If there wasn't a book setting up the tropes in the first place, how would we be able to enjoy all the brilliantly subversive and original 'trope-shattering' novels when they emerged? Incidentally, rereading the chapters surrounding Frodo and Sam's journey into Mordor and bearing in mind that it comes out of Tolkien's experiences in the trenches during WW1 makes it seem, I think, neither fastidious nor escapist nor comforting. Anyway, I just can't fault Tolkien (tho' I can most other fantasy lit) so any response will be met in a mature and considered fashion with me holding up my hand, making it look like a mouth and going, 'Nya nya nya'. Una ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:50:47 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: "B7 List" Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet Message-ID: <16ce01bf5f57$26902e80$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mistral: > I'm afraid I can't agree that rebel leaders, however righteous > their causes may be, have the same range of options open to > them that legitimate governments do, with regard to civilian > populations. What about rebel leaders with overwhelming popular support? I'm thinking of Ireland after 1916 here. Una -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #12 *************************************