From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #26 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume00/26 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 26 Today's Topics: [B7L] B7 related Western (fwd) [B7L] Re: Fan Types [B7L] Was Blake motivated by personal vendetta? [B7L] Re: Fan Q eligibles Re: [B7L] Was Blake motivated by personal vendetta? [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One - well, I didn't mean to ramble) [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Two) [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) [B7L] Re:Avon&the masses (was history) Re: [B7L] Was Blake motivated by personal vendetta? [B7L] The Hilarious Vila [B7L] Pages Bar drink [B7L] Toying with Travis Re: [B7L] Was Blake motivated by personal vendetta? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 21:02:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List cc: Freedom City Subject: [B7L] B7 related Western (fwd) Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 - Fanzines for Blake's 7, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. (also non-Blake's 7 zines at http://www.nas.com/~lknight ) Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 00:01:07 -0000 From: Gillian Taylor To: Judith@Blakes-7.demon.co.uk Subject: Strange B7 related fiction A long time ago, in a galaxy not very far away, Paul Darrow once said that he'd like to be in a Westerm. Now I don't make movies, but I do happen to write Western novels; and I've been a B7 fan since 1978.(my God, I feel old). "Darrow's Law" is by Gillian F Taylor (me) and was published by Robert Hale last year 1999. Robert Hale westerns are intended for libraries, so anyone interested should ask theirs to get it, but any good bookshop should be able to order a copy. (9.99, hardback) The story is about a sheriff (Darrow) and his deputy (Keating) who have a relationship not unlike that of a certain embezzler and thief. The western characters aren't identical to the SF ones, but certainly close enough to entertain fans. Their troubles really start when a rich, beautful woman arrives in town with the intention of gaining complete power... If anyone wishes to check my style before buying or borrowing the book, I had a short Avon/Vila story published in the last Horizon fictionzine. The story is Long Odds. I hope you and others enjoy reading Darrow's Law as much as I enjoyed writing it. Direct feedback from anyone who does read it would be welcome, so feel free to mail me about this if you wish. Keep up the good work generally Love Gillian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:06:38 -0800 From: Susie Wright To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: Fan Types Message-ID: <3890C16E.200B8300@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil, What about data/media collectors - which category is that? (You were describing Mad Hatters and Dormice...) BTW, I'm enjoying the various tangents into history. Susie ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 17:22:09 -0500 (EST) From: Sondra Sweigman To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Was Blake motivated by personal vendetta? Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Not in my book he wasn't. As Mistral says, a lot depends on how we interpret tone of voice, emphasis of words, etc (and I obviously interpret them differently than she does). But I think we can be more objective in assessing whether Blake cares about those who aren't useful to his cause, and I'd maintain that the evidence shows that he does: (1) He shows concern for the Decimas in "The Web" and for Zil in "Trial" (and they're not even human). (2) He goes to the aid of unknown persons in apparent distress in "Time Squad" and "Mission to Destiny" without knowing how or if they'll fit into his rebellion. (3) When he sends people down to look for crash survivors on Cephlon in "Deliverance", he doesn't yet know that they will end up rescuing someone who will lead them to Orac. (4) In "Killer" he even warns Federation personnel about potential danger from the derelict ship and then tries to help Bellfriar find a cure for the plague. As for the slave who dies in "Redemption", my recollection is that the man urged Blake to leave him behind to hold off any pursuers. Sondra ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 00:17:19 -0800 From: "Sarah Thompson" To: Cc: , , "Susan Batho" , Subject: [B7L] Re: Fan Q eligibles Message-ID: <000501bf6971$07909500$c4d88ad1@y1i7s9> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Observant readers-- thank you!-- pointed out some problems in the lists. First of all, "Under Control," by Steve Rogerson, should definitely be on the slash list, not the gen list. (At 5 pp., it's a "short story" for Stiffie purposes.) Even though it is mostly a Gan/Servalan het adult story, there is also a bit of Gan/Travis slash that I had forgotten about. Sorry! The other question is whether or not "Haunted," by Nicky Barnard, in =Pressure Point=, is really slash or gen; someone who wants to nominate the story for an award considers it to be gen. This was hard to decide, and in fact I counted it as gen (albeit with some misgivings) in my original zine listings. But for Fan Q purposes, the definitions (as given on the nomination form) are as follows: Gen (non-slash, whether adult or not) Slash (same-sex physical relationship, not necessarily explicit) "Haunted" deals with a physical relationship between Blake and an original male character, although it is not at all explicit and the story is a very serious (and very good) one. So... it seems to me that it clearly fits the "slash" definition as given. Please let me know if you spot any other problems. Sarah T. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:44:35 +1100 From: Kathryn Andersen To: "Blake's 7 list" Subject: Re: [B7L] Was Blake motivated by personal vendetta? Message-ID: <20000128184435.A9323@welkin.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 05:22:09PM -0500, Sondra Sweigman wrote: > Not in my book he wasn't. As Mistral says, a lot depends on how > we interpret tone of voice, emphasis of words, etc (and I obviously > interpret them differently than she does). But I think we can be more > objective in assessing whether Blake cares about those who aren't useful > to his cause, and I'd maintain that the evidence shows that he does: Another one that always struck me. That scene in Horizon, where the prisoners are all scrabbling for the food. Then Selma comes and gets her share, then they start scrabbling again, only Blake (armed with nothing but charisma) stops them makes them take their portions fairly, one at a time. He's just a democrat at heart. -- _--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen / \ | http://home.connexus.net.au/~kat \_.--.*/ | #include "standard/disclaimer.h" v | ------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 02:16:52 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One - well, I didn't mean to ramble) Message-ID: <20000128101652.33619.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Warning - long and involved and unabashedly biased... Mistral wrote: I agree that he feels it more his cause than that of the group as a whole, but (apart from his arrogance, something I personally would never deny) that's only common sense - he isn't blind, he can *see* the enthusiasm with which the Fight for Freedom inspires the theif, the pilot and the computer expert, the way they have taken it to heart and made it their own . Saying "we" all the time might have earned him some rather pointed looks and even more pointed comments about assuming what *they* intend or think...Gan may be willing, but wouldn't have started fighting without Blake's drive (and quite possibly wouldn't have kept it up against his less enthused compatriots). That leaves Cally. Would have been nice if he'd always said "Cally and I and sometimes Gan" instead of "I" but life's too short (especially in his line of work ) for that sort of verbal nitpicking. It is, in the final and very real sense, his fight (something *they* all tend to remind him of by pointedly leaving the toughies to him - Jenna especially is good at this) more than theirs. As Avon (with his 'Blake's rabble') affirms. We have disagreed about that Star One statement - that one is actually, for me, the least egoistical of this lot, and is actually about responsibility. No matter that they are adults, have free choice, fought with him of that free choice etc, in the end they were there and doing it because he asked it of them, if he hadn't been there, *only* Cally would have been a rebel (and none of them would've made it onto the Liberator safely anyhow), and if all the blood on their hands was from senseless destruction - from the beginning - then he bears the central responsibility. To pretend otherwise would be sheer moral cowardice. They are all, after all, as good at lumping that responsibility on his head as he is at taking it (Gan's death being a case in point. Yes, it was primarily Blake's overpersuading himself and them, but they agreed that the decision about odds was to be his, and held him to it - first Gan and then Avon and Vila knew the odds had shortened, but went along with it anyway.) *That* is a perfectly human and natural reaction. I've no doubt there is an element of personal hatred born of massive pain, and a desire for some expiation on behalf of himself and the people he loved, in him. Wanting revenge is again something Our Heroes are rather good at (Avon's whole Rumours thing and "I need to kill her myself" of Servalan, Gan killing the trooper who killed his woman, Cally's "companions for my death", Dayna and Soolin...). And Blake's been hurt worst of the lot IMO; given the sheer brutality and horror of what has been done to him, he'd have to be a machine not to feel that way. It doesn't mean that any other emotions he feels are any less real. And anyone - at all - who in that position could maintain emotionless dispassion I would view with both skepticism and a fair measure of distaste. (I dislike emotional plaster saints.) Don't agree at all, at all. It's natural to feel more immediate, visceral emotion when people you know and love are brutalised - that doesn't make concern on behalf of the 'people he doesn't even know' any less genuine. We don't know much about his contacts with the rest of the rebellion - we *do* know he has contacts, as Avalon knew how to get in touch with him, and he knew how to reach Kasabi (and said contacts in both cases would probably have involved intermediaries within resistance movements and a great amount of care and suspicion and connecting with one person/group after another... you don't just put out a bradcast "one Earth resistance group needed, please contact Orac 991"). Cally's one line in Bounty - "is it as we were told?" - indocates another connection we don't know about. Again, what he's doing for Avalon - ferrying her from one planet to another - strikes me as just the sort of non-exciting but practical stuff (ferrying materials, people, information) that quite possibly filled in the large gaps between episodes. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 02:18:12 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Two) Message-ID: <20000128101812.44452.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mistral goes on: Actually, although I think he's wrong (it's part of Being The Hero - Avon and Tarrant do it just as stupidly, and we have to find reasons) I can see motivation. For the most part, he's quite dispassionate about violence - he will kill, with neither satisfaction nor remorse, when he thinks the cost is justified (his cold-blooded streak is even colder than Avon's IMO) but he doesn't kill where he sees no need. Blake hates and despises Travis, true, and is *totally* contemptuous of Servalan (Avalon). He'd have killed either in an instance to save one of his crew, the Liberator, or other innocent people. But most of the times he has the drop on them...he's won the round, and there *is* no immediate benefit (yes, down the track at Star One there would have been. Foresight is a wonderful thing, but I didn't claim it as one of his virtues.) Neither of them are of real importance any more than the person of the President is - if he killed them, they'd be replaced and the Federation and the fight would go on unchecked. And in Travis' case, as he infers in Duel, the replacement might have been someone Blake *couldn't* beat. And - also from Duel - he would enjoy killing them. He doesn't trust himself all that much - and he won't kill someone for pleasure. In Gambit (where I think he makes the biggest mistake not killing Travis) his contempt for the man does bring an element of cruelty with it. But the fact remains: he will and does kill faceless Federation apparatniks if he feels he has to (whether you think he's fighting a war, I've little doubt that he does, and that is what war is) but he won't kill unless he has a reason *he* thinks is good (we don't have to agree with him, but who's to say who's right? Me?) I doubt it. Didn't at the end of Terminal, where she was *the President*. And remember, the current President wants rid of her anyway, so would undoubtedly have good ideas on who could step into her over-high-heeled shoes. She's a cog - an important and decorative but quite replaceable one (and *I* think her knowledge of that is one of the factors leading to her coup.) Agreed as far as the crew and general practice goes (though not when they're threatened, when emotion tends to take over), and he never denied it, or forced them to stay. Anyone who wanted could have left (probably taking a hefty share of the treasure room funds with them.) Yes, Gan and Jenna are of the opinion that there's nowhere safe to go (Breakdown would indicate that they're wrong - there are places if they cared to look). *But*...you're forgetting one small and very very important fact (one I doubt Blake ever forgot). There's only one of him, for goodness sake. There are *four* of them (five, with Cally). He actually *cannot* force them to either do as he says or leave. They could decide to turn the Liberator into a flying Pleasure Palace, go in for Kairos-style piracy or sell the ship to the highest bidder - *if* they chose to defy his self-imposed authority. They choose not to. You mention later the business in Time Squad - his rather (IMHO) wonderful bluff to take over command of the ship ("anybody could opt out at any time"). What comes over for me is two facts - [a] they *have* had at least one discussion and (from what both Blake and Avon said) agreed that fighting the Federation was on, subject to a full discussion of every point therein, and [b] Blake hasn't taken this long to work out that with *this* lot, especially Avon and Vila, that ain't gonna work, nothing would *ever* get done (see early Series 3 for proof ). So he basically risks his claim to control of the ship in that one sentence. Because it would have taken just one "why should we?" and - well, what could he have done? His control was always dependent of their acquiescence. Yes, Avon and all. Once he has that command, of course, it's fairly clear from Weapon, from the start of Pressure Point, and from what Vila says in Voice that the discussions did take place - that he did explain things, and welcome input and discussion. Oh come on, he says this after they try to *make* him give the madman the Liberator. He's just been tortured for refusing to do that, and they're treating him like a leper - Arco actually attacks him when he refuses. Sure, I can see why they do it, but he's absolutely right - they *are* pathetic. I won't go one-on-one with the rest of your examples, because they're all of a piece to me - a mixture of arrogance and extreme pragmatism. Not particularly nice, but Blake is *not* a nice man (he's good. Not nice. Nice is Inga and Governer Le Wassername.) He's arrogant and ruthless and temperamental and wounded and emotional and driven by his hatred of the evil that is the Federation and his desire to see that evil destroyed, but he's also trying do do some good for as many people as he can with precious few real resources - a fancy ship, two computers and five decidedly ill-assorted don't-wannabe revolutionaries. Nice methods would simply get him squashed flat by Episode Six. A vendetta? Nope. The disarming regularity the way his cause keeps taking second place whenever 'someone he doesn't even know' needs his help (Mission to Destiny, Deliverance, Killer, and the way, in Countdown, he's all ready to go off with Avon to disarm the bomb and Avon has to remind *him* about Provine and what they came for. I love that bit) is proof that his political agenda does *not* blind him to individuals in need. Travis and Avon - the two people who to my mind actually know him best - both get it right, Travis about his loyalty, and Avon about his "great big bleeding heart"...and the blood is genuine. Which brings us to...(next post ) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 02:19:27 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Message-ID: <20000128101927.28686.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mistral again: This is actually out of character for him (see in Part One - also The Web and his concern for the Decimas), so I had a think about it. This time, it's a pragmatic decision. After all, how much time do you (or might he) think that might take? They've done an unspecified amount of damage to the System's control centre, but they have not the faintest idea of what the System is, how big, how powerful, how much time and effort is involved. My guess is quite a lot... he can't just barrel in and expect it all to fall over in a couple of weeks or even months. I don't know if he does consider it - I doubt that he would for long. He's already taken on a large portion of the galaxy's power base, but even he might baulk at fighting two wars at once with the resources at his command (remember, one of Hitler's mistakes was opening up World War II onto two fronts. And Hitler had a much bigger and more enthusiastic army than Blake does.) Hey, he's got an ego, but it's not *that* big... Three planets controlled by a vast computer of which he knows *absolutely nothing*. Note what he says in Pressure Point - that he researched Control *for a year* (half a year *with* Orac, which indicates Orac isn't the 'punch this button for all the answers' we sometimes think) before deciding to take it on. And they know nothing about how the System operates, where the main complex is, what its defences are, any possible resisters who might help them get that information, or even if there are any resisters at all...how much research would have been necessary? Lots. Maybe it would be easier, but almost certainly doing any good at all would have been hard and very slow work. Basically, IMO, he *would* have had to give up the fight against the Federation - for an unspecified but probably lengthy period of time - to take on the System. This was not a case where he could help one group while still carrying on the fight against the other. One or the other battle *had* to take priority, and people suffer. And, for reasons that we've gone over many times and no-I-will-not go over them again :-) , his decision was that the Federation was the greatest evil in his galaxy and had to be given priority. <*Note:* None of this qualifies as *proof* that Blake's motivations are more personal than altruistic. But taken all together, it strikes *me* as a pattern.> And strikes me as a different pattern, one of ego (and name one of Our Heroes without one. Okay, Gan. Name Two - Cally? Okay, *three* and don't try to sneak Avon in there), ruthlessness and extreme pragmatism. There's a personal element, but the altruism is genuine, and demonstrated quite convincingly for me again and again. Ain't B7 grand??? Finally, after I wrote: ).> Mistral wrote: You honestly believe it's more ethical for Avon to want to sacrifice people to his own narrow self-interests, than for Blake to want to do it to try and make life bearable/better/even possible for the majority (and maybe save other lives as well, since the Federation were doing quite a good job of massacring the innocent)? Interesting idea... Personally, I'd like my death to have a smidge more meaning than "it will make the Snarly One I don't even know happier"...Avon is too making a decision on behalf of those people all right - that they and what they want/feel/etc are of absolutely no importance whatsoever. That's My Darling for you. Going on the examples I gave you, I don't agree *at all* that Avon minds his own business except when it suits him to do so, but since you've read them and disagree, we'll have to leave it there. My view is, Avon does precisely what he wants, quite blatantly interfering in other people's lives or ignoring their rights if it suits him. Blake does precisely what he thinks best, also interfering if he thinks it necessary. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 02:21:07 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re:Avon&the masses (was history) Message-ID: <20000128102107.21237.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Ellynne G. wrote re Avon's reluctance to save Auron unless absolutely forced to: Mistral wrote: Oh good, I also agree with Mistral on something. This is very much how I see it. There's also the extreme lack of anything for him to *do* in early Series 3 except think, and obviously thinking about the last few months led to... Agreed, but that wasn't his main reason for objecting, but special pleading IMO. After all, he was fairly sure (also IMO) that Terminal was a trap - hence his extraordinary precautions for the others - but instead of a whole planet of people he couldn't care less about (and who were genuinely dying), it was baited with just one person. And he couldn't get there fast enough. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 02:49:18 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Was Blake motivated by personal vendetta? Message-ID: <20000128104918.34659.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Kathryn wrote: albeit a distinctly autocratic one on his own ship... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 17:31:04 +0000 From: Steve Rogerson To: Lysator , Freedom City Subject: [B7L] The Hilarious Vila Message-ID: <3891D254.EC96A375@mcr1.poptel.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This announcement appeared in the classifieds in the February issue of SFX: "I want to start up a fan club for Blake's 7 star Michael Keating (the hilarious Vila). If you wnat to contribute to a monthly newsletter, let me know. Phone Mark Fatheringaye on 0171 366 7424" Overseas peeps note the number is +44 171 366 7424 -- 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: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 19:35:16 +0000 From: Steve Rogerson To: Lysator , Freedom City Subject: [B7L] Pages Bar drink Message-ID: <3891EF6C.B7213271@mcr1.poptel.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is your two weeks out reminder that a number of fans from both lists are meeting up for a drink at Pages Bar, London's sci-fi bar, on Saturday 12 February. The bar opens at 5pm, I'll be getting there about 5.30pm and others as the evening goes on. Email me to let me know who's coming and what time you are getting there. Some of us are talking about meeting earlier in Chinatown for a meal first. If anyone fancies that, then drop me an email and I'll send you the details. Pages Bar is on Page Street, London SW1P. Nearest tubes are Pimlico and Westminster and railway stations Charing Cross, Victoria and Waterloo are not far away. The No 88 bus, which you can pick up near Piccadilly Circus, goes right past the door. The C10 bus also goes past the door and you can get that at Victoria. -- 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: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 22:42:38 +0200 (EET) From: Kai V Karmanheimo To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Toying with Travis Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hello again! Mistral's comment about Blake letting Travis escape inspired these thoughts: Blake's stubborn and continued refusal to kill Travis even when the man is practically presented him on a silver platter and an apple in his mouth is one element that I wish the writers had thought out more carefully. I think the ultimate reason is in the way the show was organised. Since Travis had to be there in "Star One", he couldn't be killed anymore than he could be allowed to succeed in killing Blake. This presented the problem of defusing Travis's schemes and still letting him go free, back to his copy of "101 Fiendishly Cunning Schemes to Capture Runaway Rebels (with illustrations)". Unfortunately the way they frequently make Blake let him go is clumsy and Blake's justifications hold less and less water as the series goes on. I can accept Blake's justifications in "Seek-Locate-Destroy" and "Duel". In the latter case, I think the biggest part in his decision was played by the suspicion that Giroc and Sinofar might not let them go if he made raw steak out of Travis with his stake. With "Project Avalon", it is possible that the Avalon android wasn't triggered by anything that Travis did, but instead was programmed to drop the phial after certain amount of time had elapsed (Blake said it would "crush" the phial, not drop it, though I guess with a nice hard floor underfoot dropping it would be just as reliable way to shatter it). A charming memento for those left behind (and left dead) when they teleport, but getting out alive and with Avalon was the main concern here, so not killing Travis and Servalan is justifiable (anyway, I don't see Blake having the assassin-mentality to do something like this). However, when it comes to "Orac", "Hostage" and "Gambit, the credibility of "let the Federation deal with their own scum" is stretched a bit thin. Especially after Travis becomes fugitive himself, there's no real tactical reason to spare his life; on the contrary, leaving him alive now presents a double threat, as the Federation is still sending its own troops after the Liberator crew. Just bashing Travis's ego and not the man himself is just going to make him more cross and dangerous. Considering that Blake claims to understand Travis's thinking, his judgement is way off in "Gambit" if he really thinks that Travis is so crushed by his failure that killing him would be a mere stroke of mercy. It's just another example of how the good guys must keep their moral high ground and so can't shoot the baddies in cold blood when they are helpless and pose no immediate threat (perhaps if Blake had first said, "Now this is going to hurt me more than you, Travis..."). Once the bad guy has shot you up and is about to play the opening bars of "Hi-ho, to Kill the Human Race I Go" (in C# minor), *then* it's okay to shoot him - in the back, no less. That's the bad thing about being the hero's personal nemesis: once he decides to quit, you're immediately made redundant. And the bad guys never have time for a proper pension planning... Kai ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 21:13:32 -0000 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Was Blake motivated by personal vendetta? Message-ID: <005501bf69d8$248aecc0$358701d5@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My answer is ..... Yes, but so what. -----Original Message----- From: Sondra Sweigman > But I think we can be more >objective in assessing whether Blake cares about those who aren't useful >to his cause, and I'd maintain that the evidence shows that he does: >(1) He shows concern for the Decimas in "The Web" and for Zil in "Trial" >(2) He goes to the aid of unknown persons in apparent distress in "Time >Squad" and "Mission to Destiny" without knowing how or if they'll fit into >his rebellion. >(3) When he sends people down to look for crash survivors on Cephlon in >"Deliverance >(4) In "Killer" he even warns Federation personnel about potential danger Can't fault these arguments. When the opportunity presents itself to him, Blake take the shows his humanity (or alienanity (?) in the case of Decimas etc). But when it comes to going out of his way to do something. Like destroy Star One. Its to prove that HE was right. His motivation for fighting the Federation ARE personal., based on personal grudges and personal experiences. Of course, as I'm sure (hope ?)our historians will point out, many of the great revolutions of the past were perpetrated by people who had been personally disadvantaged by whatever they are fighting against. In fact, its hard to see how somebody could see a fight of that magnitude through unless there was a personal element to it. So there isn't necessarily actually anything wrong with having a personal agenda as well as a justifiable political agenda (which is a whole topic in itself). The trouble arises if the two are not well aligned and actions are carried out solely for personal revenge that damage the overall aims of the cause itself. I think the crew respect this need in Blake, after all, with the possible exception of Vila (a career thief) most of them have their own personal reasons for hating the Federation (in addition to most of them being convicted) Blake - Being Framed, Brainwashed, loss of family...... Jenna, Gan - Rape of people close to them (I think) ..... Avon - Loss of Anna..... Vila - ? Cally - Carrying on rebellion after loss of all comrades..... [ Dayna - Exile, Death of father....... Soolin - Murder of family....... Tarrant - Whatever made him leave space command to become a mercenary....... ] So when Blake proposes actions against the Federation that have a degree of personal motivation, they go along with it. After all who cares how and why you decide to do the right thing, provided you do the right thing. Andrew -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #26 *************************************