From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #275 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: 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" ] Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love [ Natasa Tucev ] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 18:32:10 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "b7" 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 > 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: 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" To: 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 To: "Blake's 7 list" 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 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 / \ | \_.--.*/ | 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 To: "Blake's 7 list" 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 / \ | \_.--.*/ | 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" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Morrigan wrote: '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" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Alison wrote in reply to Natasha: Me three! (Yeah, like that's a surprise to anyone on the list). 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 ) 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 ... 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" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love] Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Jacqui wrote: 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 To: 'Lysator mailing list' 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.... 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 To: 'Lysator mailing list' 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" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Selfish? (was: Anna & the nature of love) Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Marian wrote re Blake: 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 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" To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Introduction Message-ID: 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" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Back on Animals again (Was Introduction) Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed After I managed eight (eight!!!) things I like about Animals, Una threw out the blatant bribe: '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" To: 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. 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" To: 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: > > 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 To: "'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 To: "'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." 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" 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 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" To: "b7" 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 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 To: Lysator List Subject: [B7L] Pressure Point Message-ID: 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 To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Hamlet & conversion site Message-ID: 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" To: 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 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 **************************************