From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #300 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume00/300 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 300 Today's Topics: Re: [B7L] Is Avon dysfunctional? (wa [ Mac4781@aol.com ] [B7L] Blake's 7 on DVD [ Judith Proctor ] Re: [B7L] Is Avon dysfunctional? (wa [ Betty Ragan ] Re: [B7L] Is Avon dysfunctional? (wa [ Betty Ragan ] Re: [B7L] Avon as loner? (was Dorian [ Betty Ragan ] Re: [B7L] Is Avon dysfunctional? (wa [ "Dana Shilling" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Betty wrote: > Like going to the grocery store and fogetting to buy what you came for, > hmm? I do that all the time. :) Yep. :) > Although I > think my assessment of the risks involved in that plan is probably > higher than yours. It seems to me that there are a *lot* of ways it > could have gone horribly wrong. I agree a lot could have gone wrong. And I think Avon was aware of that and willing to take the risks. I just don't find that disturbing. Let me put it this way, Blake was willing to risk his life for a goal that was very important to him. Avon was willing to risk his life for a goal that was very important to him. Two men, two different goals, both willing to take high risks. > Oh, yes, exactly. But I still think that if it were Blake, it would > have been different. He *doesn't* expect that sort of thing from > Blake. IMHO. You keep saying that, but he believes Blake betrayed him so easily, it just doesn't add up. And why would Avon put Blake on that type of pedestal? He recognizes Blake to be a fallible human being. Blake might be the shipmate Avon is least likely to trust for two reasons: (a) Blake has shown he's capable of going to extreme lengths to get what he wants and (b) Blake is vulnerable to mind manipulation. If it came down to the Cause or Avon, Avon knows which Blake would choose. Avon and Blake are two strong, complex characters. But what you're telling me about them seems to suggest a heroine worshipping the male lead in a romance novel, where characters are simpler and gentler. > [Shrug] As I know I've said before, it seems to me the only explanation > that makes any sense at all of many of his actions. Like the way he's > constantly putting himself in danger for Blake... Avon is constantly putting himself in danger for his other shipmates as well. We've been through this before. If it appears he does it more for Blake, it's because Blake is more often in trouble. In fourth series Avon takes the most risks for Tarrant. Because Tarrant is the one who gets in trouble the most often. Not because Tarrant is more important to him than Vila, Dayna or Soolin. > Yes, I think this is a good point. If you accept premise A ("Avon cared > deeply about Blake"), you're sort of forced into premise B ("Avon had > emotional problems that would let him accept that he cared deeply about > Blake"). Of course, if you *reject* premise A, you then have to find > some premise C to explain why, if he *doesn't* care about Blake, he > nevertheless does everything for Blake that he does. Because Avon was loyal to his shipmates. Because Avon accepts that he should do his share of the work if he's accepting a share of the safety and protection that being part of a team provides. It's pretty straightforward. And it allows canon to stand without turning Avon into someone in need of therapy. >Or to put it another way I've seen various > premise C's: "Avon really is an idealist, deep down, and *wants* to help > Blake destroy the Federation" Don't see that either. > or "Avon really does have a noble, caring > streak and would do the same for any of them." Avon doesn't have a noble, caring streak, but he is a decent human being. He would and does risk his life for people he cares about. Not just for Blake. Why do you think he risks his life for the others? Carol Mc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:09:47 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Cc: Freedom City Subject: [B7L] Blake's 7 on DVD Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Why not send an e-mail to Fabulous Films telling them how pleased we are that they're planning to release Blake's 7 on DVD? Because I don't know about you, but I'm jumping up and down in delight! You might also want to add a *friendly* request saying that you hope they'll clean up the prints so that the picture quality is better than the video. Tell them that we don't want Star Wars type extra digital footage or anything that would cost a fortune, just our beloved original series in the best possible condition. And some cast interviews would be nice... (and maybe that brief scene that got lost in Rescue - I think there's a missing moment of Vila with a bottle and one where Soolin sneaks away.) The e-mail address is info@fabulousfilms.co.uk (and thanks to Robert Windle for suggesting this - he says if B7 DVDs can be done to the quality of the fothcoming Robots of Death, then it would be really great, and I agree.) 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: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:40:05 EDT From: Mac4781@aol.com To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: freedom-city@blakes-7.org Subject: Re: [B7L] Blake's 7 on DVD Message-ID: <4e.cb682aa.2729e295@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Judith wrote: > You might also want to add a *friendly* request saying that you hope they'll > clean up the prints so that the picture quality is better than the video. > The e-mail address is info@fabulousfilms.co.uk > > (and thanks to Robert Windle for suggesting this - Thanks for the suggestion and for the email address. Yanks might also write and ask about B7 DVDs that are compatible with our technology. I think we're region 1, but I'm not positive about that. Carol Mc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 20:52:13 +0100 From: "Una McCormack" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Avon as loner? (was Dorian and Avon and *is* long ...) Message-ID: <022901c03f86$53480410$0d01a8c0@codex> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Katie wrote: > From: Sally Manton > > > Katie wrote: > > > Grand Rewatching!)> > > > > - which means you get Animals next, lucky you ... :-) > > Oh no, I did that one the same day. Og's got a heck of a head on him > there. I enjoyed that. Una ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 20:49:07 GMT From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Headhunter (was Re: Avon as loner?) Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Katie wrote re Animals: Hey Una, you may have another convert ... Yep. Extremely silly but lots of fun, and Vena is one of the few people that Avon takes a *liking* to IMO ... I like Headhunter. And like the next one - Assassin - even more, even if Avon (and Soolin) not shooting Piri in three seconds flat is another one of those 'suspension of disbelief goes twang' moments. It's a good 'Our Heroes Behaving Badly' episode, which I always enjoy (see Horizon :-)). _________________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 20:52:13 GMT From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Is Avon dysfunctional? (was Re: Avon as loner?) Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Carol wrote: Given the bludgeoning they gave him in Rumours on this point (at that stage he didn't have a *clue*, he really did think they'd back off and let him have his revenge in privacy, silly him), he'd have to be blind to the point of stupidity not to realise that. But he *still* doesn't understand them at all, since he doesn't realise that they aren't going to listen to him anyway. I sometimes think that part of the problem is that he keeps waiting for these people to act like his beloved computers - that is, *rationally* - and until the arrival of Soolin, there's really not one person on the ship who does that (not even himself, but he chooses not to think about that too hard :-) Now Betty: Agreed, but for another reason ... they all know what the Federation can do to people's minds (Blake, Vila). *We* know even more (remember that machine that Avalon was hooked up to)? It just takes one person to recognise Avon and they're *all* in real trouble ... I agree, this is not a certainty (and a gaping plot hole, moreover) as it appears that very little firm information about Blake's and/or Avon's crew ever got to the Minor Powers-That-Be. But this *is* the Security section and Avon has been a prisoner before - what if they're weren't too stupid to double-check his finger-prints or retina scan or the futuristic equivalent??? And there's the over-riding importance of the timing as well - what if the ship's discovered (they're orbiting Earth - the centre of the Federation*) and they have to run just when he needs then? What if they're attacked en masse? What if he breaks? It's actually a very shonky plan, though if the peripheral organisation (the transmitter bit, for instance) is quite clever. And it's not just his own life that's at stake here, but the ship and the rest of them for the memory of a long-dead woman. It's very Avon-ish (as I've said before, dead Anna means more than live Cally, or live all four of them) but the whole thing does emphasise the murkier aspects of My Darling's character ... (So does the fact that he's prepared to release Servalan - in effect to help her against the revolt he can see going on around them - to get the piece of information he wants for his private revenge. Interesing ...) Back to Betty: <[Shrug] As I know I've said before, it seems to me the only explanation that makes any sense at all of many of his actions. Like the way he's constantly putting himself in danger for Blake...> I will say it again (no matter who doesn't want to hear it again) ... he has given his alleigance to the point he will die for the man (Hostage), carry out the suicidal defence of the galaxy for the man (Star One), kill another crew member (Tarrant, Terminal) or let said other crew members be shot in front of him for the man (Tarrant and probably Cally, Terminal). One has to be grateful it is a once-off (or twice-off, with Anna) thing, because a character who was prepared to go to such lengths for every member of his crew would be somewhat nauseating and quite intolerable for me (I do not like plaster saints, no matter how leather-n-studded they come). It also appears that, while in 3rd season he rejects the idea that the Liberator is still Blakes (Moloch), he still thinks of them all as 'Blake's people' - when too tired and hurt to equivocate, he *agrees* that he is Blake's (Rumours). Small point, but nice. see above. If Avon does have a noble, caring streak, he's managed to isolate and deep-freeze it somewhere in space where it won't bother him ... I've read some of these. *This is also a problem with Pressure Point, but at least Blake isn't asking Jenna to swan around the seat of power for *days*. And BTW, why in both episodes was it the *pilot* who went down, for goodness sake? Shouldn't she/he have been glued to the flight deck in case of trouble??? Oh well, if one had problems with plot holes one would watch ... would watch ... a nice documentary, perhaps? _________________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:18:54 +0100 From: "Emma Peel" To: Subject: [B7L] Avon and Marriage Message-ID: <002f01c0405b$beed53c0$8939883e@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Penny asked:- > >Emma: He might go for her. She had money. > > Isn't that happy news, Mrs. Peel? Or is "marriage" not what you are gunning > for? I'm happy to live 'over the brush' for a man with the right assets - do you think he managed to take any of the Liberator strong room goodies with him? High kicks in slinky frock - 'On Vern, dear, the sand makes him, quite tempremental But diamonds are a girls best friend His scowls may be grand, but they won't pay the rental on a D.S.V. (or buy B7 on D.V.D.) Love grows cold When your thermal suit gets old And we all lose our charms in the end But Zen's secret treasures Will keep giving pleasure Diamond's are a girl's best friend (I don't mean Feldons!), Diamonds are a girl's best friend.' Emma. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Oct 00 14:07:52 PDT From: Jacqui Speel To: Helen Krummenacker , blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [[B7L] Re: bookworms] Message-ID: <20001026210752.1989.qmail@www0s.netaddress.usa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Helen Krummenacker wrote: > From: = > Jacqui Speel > Add Sherlock Holmes to Avon's list > = Yes, considering a Sherlockian friend pointed out the finger-steepling mannerism in "Mission To Destiny" indicating Avon was *deliberately* playing at Sherlock Holmes. If Avon is Sherlock Holmes who are Watson, and Lestrade (Vila would be ru= nning the lookouts Avon/Sherlock has on the streets) ____________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://home= =2Enetscape.com/webmail ------------------------------ Date: 26 Oct 00 14:09:08 PDT From: Jacqui Speel To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [[B7L] Re:if Shakespeare wrote Blakes 7] Message-ID: <20001026210908.23009.qmail@wwcst269.netaddress.usa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Servalan as Lady Macbeth? Helen Krummenacker wrote: > = > One wonders what Shakespeare would have done with Avon, especially if h= e > knew he had to take Servalan being queen into account. . . . > = Avon would be another Iago,and Blake probably really would have been a pedophile. After all, Shakespeare couldn't risk Elizabeth thinking Servie was meant to be an unflattering metaphor for *her*. So the Supreme Commander would be the defender of the Federation, etc, etc. ____________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://home= =2Enetscape.com/webmail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:31:49 +1000 From: Andrew Williams To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Deja Vu Message-ID: <4103E830BB67D211877400A0247B635E34E204@dialup49.actonline.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Which young actor played a Federation soldier in B7 and then went on to play a moustached CID officer? Of course, you're meant to say Kevin Lloyd ('Tosh' Lines in The Bill), but I'm actually thinking of David Haig. It only dawned on me yesterday that Section Leader Forress ("Every part a moving part") in Rumours went on to play DI Derek Grim ("I don't want any fannying about!") in "The Thin Blue Line" with Rowan Atkinson. Of course, after thinking "I wonder if that was him" it took me an incredible amount of time trying to find the cast list for either show. I finally found details of "The Thin Blue Line" on the net, but had to wait until I got home to check about Forress. Attwood came in handy for a change! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:22:45 EDT From: Mac4781@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Is Avon dysfunctional? (was Re: Avon as loner?) Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sally wrote: > I will say it again (no matter who doesn't want to hear it again) ... he has > given his alleigance to the point he will die for the man When did he give this allegiance and why? > given his alleigance to the point he will die for the man (Hostage), Erp, that's a bit dramatic. There's no evidence to suggest that Avon thought he was going to die when he went down to Exbar. And there's the little matter of his phoning in certain information. > carry > out the suicidal defence of the galaxy for the man (Star One), Avon has a personal stake in this one. If the Andromedans succeed, he'll be one of the losers. Even if Blake hadn't asked, I can't see Avon passing on this. Nor can I see Jenna or Cally passing. > kill another > crew member (Tarrant, Terminal) Since he didn't kill him, this is just supposition. I don't believe Avon would have pulled the trigger any more than Tarrant would have pulled the trigger when he held the gun on Vila in MOLOCH. While Cally and Tarrant initially think Avon's threat was serious, they change their minds pretty quickly. Tarrant makes a joke about Avon's threat to shoot them if they follow him to Terminal. Neither Cally or Tarrant are worried. I think he and Cally were probably kicking themselves for allowing Avon to bluff them. > or let said other crew members be shot in > front of him for the man (Tarrant and probably Cally, Terminal). This one didn't even come close to happening. If Avon was so protective of Blake, why did he leave him without back up or access to the teleport in GAMBIT? > One has to > be grateful it is a once-off (or twice-off, with Anna) thing, because a > character who was prepared to go to such lengths for every member of his > crew When, except in ORBIT, did Avon leave a shipmate in a hazardous situation? Carol Mc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 00:02:07 GMT From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Avon as loner? (was Dorian and Avon and *is* long ...) Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed After I wrote: Carol wrote: Carol dear, you never *agree* with my "whys" when I give them it's a gradual process (there are faint signs of it if you're looking - and I am - right back in 1st season). "Leave me, watch yourself." Depends on how serious you think he was at that minute - I think he was (to coin a phrase) dead serious. And yes, it's "a bit dramatic" but then My Darling's good at dramatic (and dead serious) gestures (what else *is* Rumours, adter all?) I can. He's got the fastest ship in the galaxy, lots of space to hide in and enough food to last a thousand or so years - he doesn't *need* the rest of the galaxy and he knows it. And he doesn't give a damn about them anyway (Killer). Again, different Avons (we each vastly prefer our own, but what's wrong with that?) 'Tis pure supposition that he wouldn't have, either. Tarrant was bright enough to stand very, very still and not push it. So we all go with what we see, and I *do* think he was a hairsbreath from shooting at that whispered, venomous "you least of all", and both Tarrant (from the shell-shocked look on his face) and Cally did believe it (and Cally at least knows him well enough to judge). So they all fell back and did *not* push the matter of his endangering the Liberator (and them all), because they did believe trying to override him could get them killed. The second time in the teleport was a bluff, true, since everything was back on track as far as he was concerned. It felt like a bluff, and the others reacted accordingly. But they were very wary, making absolutely sure he wouldn't see them following him - in case the bluff turned real again IMO. Tarrant wouldn't have pulled the trigger in Moloch, true (and god only knows what he thought he was doing pulling the gun), but Avon is *not* Tarrant. Tarrant had Servalan's gun at his head, and was told to contact the Liberator *and Avon tried to stop him*. Given that *I* don't see him thinking "she won't do it", it's enough proof for me. _________________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:00:37 EDT From: Mac4781@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Avon as loner? (was Dorian and Avon and *is* long ...) Message-ID: <58.27023c3.272a2db5@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sally wrote: > Carol dear, you never *agree* with my "whys" when I give them Sally dear, I've never asked you this particular question before. If you don't think you'll persuade me, regardless that it is a new question, think of it as persuading undecided voters. :) I don't expect to change your mind either, but I'm happy to have the opportunity to present evidence to support my theories. > "Leave me, watch yourself." Depends on how serious you think he was at that That's not dying for Blake. It's typical pragmatic Avon. If one person is mobile and can get away, he tells him to get away. Just as he told Liberator to leave in Terminal. If someone else had been there other than Blake, what do you think Avon would have said? > I can. He's got the fastest ship in the galaxy, lots of space to hide in and > enough food to last a thousand or so years - he doesn't *need* the rest of > the galaxy and he knows it. And he doesn't give a damn about them anyway > (Killer). Again, different Avons (we each vastly prefer our own, but what's > wrong with that?) Definitely different Avons. I have no problem that you prefer a different Avon, but I do admit to curiosity about how different your Avon is. I have a lot of trouble believing that someone who is the bastard you describe in regard to almost the entire universe becomes a veritable saint when it comes to Blake. Again, I ask why? Why would a man who is so indifferent to his fellow human beings change so drastically when it comes to Blake? And also again, why would a man so dedicated to Blake leave him without backup or teleport in GAMBIT? Nor did you answer another of my questions, when did Avon leave any shipmate in a hazardous situation? If you don't have answers to those questions and/or don't care about those questions--you just want to enjoy your Avon as you see him--that's fine. Just tell me. I enjoy discussing the characters and what makes them tick. But I need canonical facts to do that. I'm not interested in "he is; he isn't." Carol Mc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:24:47 -0600 From: Penny Dreadful To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Avon and Marriage Message-Id: <4.1.20001026192053.0094c650@mail.powersurfr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:18 PM 10/27/00 +0100, Emma Peel wrote: >Love grows cold >When your thermal suit gets old >And we all lose our charms in the end > >But Zen's secret treasures >Will keep giving pleasure >Diamond's are a girl's best friend Ahahahaha! Mrs. Peel, you take the cake. -- For A Dread Time, Call Penny: http://members.tripod.com/~Penny_Dreadful/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:09:13 -0600 From: Betty Ragan To: B7 Lyst Subject: Re: [B7L] Is Avon dysfunctional? (was Re: Avon as loner?) (getting even longer) Message-ID: <39F8F1D9.6D8DC55D@sdc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Responding to me, Carol Mc wote: > > Oh, yes, exactly. But I still think that if it were Blake, it would > > have been different. He *doesn't* expect that sort of thing from > > Blake. IMHO. > You keep saying that, but he believes Blake betrayed him so easily, it just > doesn't add up. Well, I don't think it was a *rational* response, but I find it an easy one to understand, nevertheless. I've tried to explain why I see it that way; maybe I just haven't done a very good job of it, or maybe it's just a major difference in how our minds work. But, let me try again. Here's the way I see it: 1) Avon trusted Blake, probably more than anybody else in the world. But 2) Trust is difficult for Avon even under the best circumstances, and Anna proved to him that even the people he trusted most in all the world *could* betray him. 3) Betrayal from the people we most trust and care about hurts far, far worse than betrayal from anybody else. The result of points 1 through 3 is that, when Blake appears to have betrayed him in the tracking gallery, he is *just* capable of believing it, and it's like his worst nightmare coming true... all over again. Which is why he responds violently, emotionally, and irrationally. (And the fact that, IMO, much of his self-image is based on being an intelligent, pragmatic guy who doesn't let himself be weakened by trust or sentiment doesn't help, either... Once again, he's forced to "recognize the fool," and that's *gotta* hurt.) Now, you might not agree that that's what's happening, but surely the psychology doesn't seem all *that* bizarre, does it? > And why would Avon put Blake on that type of pedestal? He > recognizes Blake to be a fallible human being. Oh, he *certainly* recognizes that Blake is fallible. And he points it out often enough! But Blake is nevertheless something special (IMHO, and, I believe, in Avon's, not that you'd get him to admit it). He's that Honest Man that Avon didn't believe existed. He's not corrupt and self-serving like the rest of that dysfunctional universe. And yet he's not naive and stupid, the way Avon sees so much of the rest of the universe (and particularly idealistic types) as being. > Blake might be the shipmate > Avon is least likely to trust for two reasons: (a) Blake has shown he's > capable of going to extreme lengths to get what he wants But he also goes to those same extreme lengths for his people. He expects them to risk their lives beside his, yes, but he will risk his life *for* them, as well. > and (b) Blake is vulnerable to mind manipulation. Now, that's a more interesting point. But they did supposedly manage to get all of the residual programming out of him in "Voice." Sure, he's vulnerable to having it done again, but so is *everybody* (well, except maybe Vila). > If it came down to the Cause or Avon, Avon > knows which Blake would choose. That's true, but Avon knows exactly where he stands, there. (He may not *like* it, but he knows it.) I think (and I think Avon probably does as well), that if it came down to a choice between Avon and the Cause, Blake would do everything he possibly could find a third option. And, being Blake, he'd probably succeed... Anyway, in "Blake," it looks like he's sold out not just Avon, but Avon *and* the Cause, which is even more shocking. > Avon and Blake are two strong, complex characters. But what you're telling > me about them seems to suggest a heroine worshipping the male lead in a > romance novel, where characters are simpler and gentler. Oh, gawd no! "Simple" and "gentle" are the *last* two words I would ever use to describe either of them! They're fantastically complex people; in fact, Avon is IMO perhaps the *most* complex and layered character I've seen in media SF. I think Avon's emotions towards Blake are *very* complicated and conflicted, and not at all gentle. (The phrase "love-hate relationship" doens't *quite* capture it, I think, but at least conveys some of the flavor.) I certainly don't think Avon "worships" Blake. Blecch. Oddly enough, the impression that I've gotten of *your* Avon seems far too simple and gentle to me. > Avon is constantly putting himself in danger for his other shipmates > as well. We've been through this before. If it appears he does it > more for Blake, it's because Blake is more often in trouble. In > fourth series Avon takes the most risks for Tarrant. Because > Tarrant is the one who gets in trouble the most often. Not > because Tarrant is more important to him than Vila, Dayna or > Soolin. Yes, we have been through it before... And I'm quite sure we're not going to agree about it now! I see a difference between the risks he takes for Blake and the risks he takes for the others: the former seem (often) to be more extreme, less rational, and more emotional. You don't see that. Once again, it's a difference of intepretation... > > Yes, I think this is a good point. If you accept premise A ("Avon cared > > deeply about Blake"), you're sort of forced into premise B ("Avon had > > emotional problems that would let him accept that he cared deeply about > > Blake"). Of course, if you *reject* premise A, you then have to find > > some premise C to explain why, if he *doesn't* care about Blake, he > > nevertheless does everything for Blake that he does. > > Because Avon was loyal to his shipmates. Because Avon accepts that > he should do his share of the work if he's accepting a share of the > safety and protection that being part of a team provides. It's > pretty straightforward. And it allows canon to stand without > turning Avon into someone in need of therapy. But "safety and protection" are the *last* things the Liberator affords him! Running around blowing up Federation installations every week when he could find himself some neutral planet to hide on? Doesn't sound like the safe & sane choice to *me*. IMO there is no rational reason why he should choose to stay and fight Blake's battles for him. Which just leaves emotional reasons... And *that* allows canon to stand without turning Avon into an idiot... :) > > Or to put it another way I've seen various > > premise C's: "Avon really is an idealist, deep down, and *wants* to help > > Blake destroy the Federation" > Don't see that either. I *have* seen it used in fanfic more than once, though. > > or "Avon really does have a noble, caring > > streak and would do the same for any of them." > > Avon doesn't have a noble, caring streak, but he is a decent human > being. He would and does risk his life for people he cares about. > Not just for Blake. Why do you think he risks his life for the > others? Because they are useful to him, because he feels a measure of responsibility towards them, and because they're the only thing resembling friends he's got. But I *still* see a difference between the lengths he's prepared to go to for the rest of them and the lengths he's prepared to go to for Blake. Or Anna, of course. Here's an interesting question: Do you think Avon would have undergone five days of torture to get revenge on Tarrant's killer? Soolin's? He certainly doesn't do anything like that for Gan's killer, or Cally's. Some people mean more to him than others... -- Betty Ragan ** ragan@sdc.org ** http://www.sdc.org/~ragan/ "The Himalayas are quite tall at this time of the year." -- Vila Restal, promoting Earth tourism, _Blake's 7_ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:11:20 -0600 From: Betty Ragan To: B7 Lyst Subject: Re: [B7L] Is Avon dysfunctional? (was Re: Avon as loner?) Message-ID: <39F8F258.3761163F@sdc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sally Manton wrote: > Now Betty: > Avon did in "Rumours" as extreme. Disturbingly so.> > Agreed, but for another reason ... they all know what the Federation can do > to people's minds (Blake, Vila). *We* know even more (remember that machine > that Avalon was hooked up to)? It just takes one person to recognise Avon > and they're *all* in real trouble ... Yes, this is a large part of what I had in mind, actually... > And there's the over-riding importance of the timing as well - what if the > ship's discovered (they're orbiting Earth - the centre of the Federation*) > and they have to run just when he needs then? What if they're attacked en > masse? What if he breaks? And it's not just that... Even if nothing goes wrong, there's an inevitable time delay between when the signal cuts out and when the others can show up. It's very short, admittedly... But in that short amount of time, Avon comes very close to losing his eyes. And it could equally well have been his life. > One has to > be grateful it is a once-off (or twice-off, with Anna) thing, because a > character who was prepared to go to such lengths for every member of his > crew would be somewhat nauseating and quite intolerable for me (I do not > like plaster saints, no matter how leather-n-studded they come). Amen to that! -- Betty Ragan ** ragan@sdc.org ** http://www.sdc.org/~ragan/ "The Himalayas are quite tall at this time of the year." -- Vila Restal, promoting Earth tourism, _Blake's 7_ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:22:19 -0600 From: Betty Ragan To: B7 Lyst Subject: Re: [B7L] Is Avon dysfunctional? (was Re: Avon as loner?) Message-ID: <39F8F4EB.9F5BDA2B@sdc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Responding to Sally, Carol wrote: > > I will say it again (no matter who doesn't want to hear it again) > > ... he has given his alleigance to the point he will die for the > > man > > When did he give this allegiance and why? Ah, that's the $64,000 question. I've already given some idea of *my* take on the "why," I think (although probably pretty sketchily). As for the "when," I'd say: gradually, and with considerable reluctance, but nevertheless quite early on. > > given his alleigance to the point he will die for the man (Hostage), > > Erp, that's a bit dramatic. There's no evidence to suggest that Avon > thought he was going to die when he went down to Exbar. It was a distinct possibility, though. And he definitely thought it likely that he was going to die at Terminal. > And there's the little matter of his phoning in certain information. Which, IMO, was an incredibly risky and irrational thing to do. > > carry > > out the suicidal defence of the galaxy for the man (Star One), > > Avon has a personal stake in this one. If the Andromedans succeed, he'll be > one of the losers. Even if Blake hadn't asked, I can't see Avon passing on > this. Nor can I see Jenna or Cally passing. I can't see Jenna or Cally passing, no. I can't see *Avon* agreeing to it without being pushed, though. How is Avon one of the losers if the Andromedans come in and destroy the Federation? The Federation were Avon's enemies, anyway. Will flying around on the Liberator in a galaxy inhabited by hostile Andromedans be any worse than doing so in a galaxy inhabited by hostile humans? And why should he risk his life protecting a galaxy full of people who never did anything for him, anyway? > > kill another crew member (Tarrant, Terminal) > > Since he didn't kill him, this is just supposition. I don't believe Avon > would have pulled the trigger I think he very well might have, but, you're right, we'll never really know. > While Cally and Tarrant > initially think Avon's threat was serious, they change their minds pretty > quickly. Tarrant makes a joke about Avon's threat to shoot them if they > follow him to Terminal. Neither Cally or Tarrant are worried. Hmm. It seemed like a very *nervous* sort of joke to me... > If Avon was so protective of Blake, why did he leave him without back up or > access to the teleport in GAMBIT? He has a truly touching amount of faith in Orac, and was counting on the plastic box to be able to teleport them out if they really needed it. I don't think he really thought he was putting Blake and co. at any greatly increased risk, actually. > When, except in ORBIT, did Avon leave a shipmate in a hazardous situation? Well, if it had been up to him, he would have turned back in "Breakdown" once he realized the true extent of the danger, and let Gan die. Just off the top of my head... -- Betty Ragan ** ragan@sdc.org ** http://www.sdc.org/~ragan/ "The Himalayas are quite tall at this time of the year." -- Vila Restal, promoting Earth tourism, _Blake's 7_ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:35:14 -0600 From: Betty Ragan To: B7 Lyst Subject: Re: [B7L] Avon as loner? (was Dorian and Avon and *is* long ...) Message-ID: <39F8F7F2.B29BF184@sdc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here I am, jumping in between Carol and Sally yet again, but, hey, my Avon and Sally's Avon are practically identical... :) Carol wrote: > Sally dear, I've never asked you this particular question before. If you > don't think you'll persuade me, regardless that it is a new question, think > of it as persuading undecided voters. :) Assuming there's any still reading this. :) > Definitely different Avons. I have no problem that you prefer a different > Avon, but I do admit to curiosity about how different your Avon is. I have a > lot of trouble believing that someone who is the bastard you describe in > regard to almost the entire universe becomes a veritable saint when it comes > to Blake. "A veritable saint?" [Snort] No, I certainly don't think he was *that*. He was frequently nastier to Blake than to anyone else. He made Blake's life even more difficult than Blake himself did. He *killed* Blake, fer cryin' out loud! Avon was never, and in no way a saint to *anybody*. But, IMO, he did care about Blake. A lot. Enough to make him do ill-advised, irrational, risky things for him. Yes, that seems a bit contradictory. I *said* I thought he was an extremely complex person... > Again, I ask why? Why would a man who is so indifferent to his > fellow human beings change so drastically when it comes to Blake? There's really two questions here, I think. "Why would a man who is so indifferent to most of his fellow human beings feel so drastically different when it comes to one particular human being?" and "Why Blake?" I'm not entirely sure which one you're asking, and they're both pretty complicated questions... > I enjoy discussing the characters and what makes them tick. But I > need canonical facts to do that. I'm not interested in "he is; he isn't." Unfortunately, canonical facts only take you so far... If you want to go any farther, you need to come up with a theory based on those canonical facts, and it's the realm of theory that we've gotten into now... -- Betty Ragan ** ragan@sdc.org ** http://www.sdc.org/~ragan/ "The Himalayas are quite tall at this time of the year." -- Vila Restal, promoting Earth tourism, _Blake's 7_ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 00:35:17 -0400 From: "Dana Shilling" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Is Avon dysfunctional? (was Re: Avon as loner?) (getting even longer) Message-ID: <00e401c03fd3$5a3efa60$20684e0c@dshilling> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Replying to Betty and Carol: > > Anna refused to talk. Or so her brother believed. From "Countdown": > > "They kept her under interrogation for nearly a week. They tried > > everything but she never broke. If she had spoken, told them what they > > wanted to know, she'd be alive now." Presumably "what they wanted to > > know" was Avon's whereabouts, or possibly details about his plans. Actually I think what they wanted to know was where the money was. > > Seriously, Orac told Avon that Blake was a bounty hunter. Blake looked like > a rough and tumble bounty hunter. That's the type of betrayal Avon would > perceive he's encountering: Blake as a bounty hunter. Bounty hunters don't > normally have a base and large staffs. That overhead would kill their profit > margin. Unless of course it was amazon.com's latest business model. -(Y) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 00:40:39 -0400 From: "Dana Shilling" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Avon as loner? Message-ID: <00e501c03fd3$5c2d5ce0$20684e0c@dshilling> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Katie said in reply to Natasa: > > "Oh no, you never did." At the end he chose *not* to quit in the manner > of his death. Probably enjoyed the absurdity of it all... The unique quality of B7 is its endless parade of rock-and-hard-place choices. If, for the sake of the argument, Avon had accepted the intention of Blake's explanation rather than its text, and told him, "Love, I've come through all the fires of Hell to be with you again," then he would have spent his last 13 seconds of life much happier (or 50% happier, 50% furious at Blake for making it so difficult) his life expectancy wouldn't have been any greater--they all would have died anyway. -(Y) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 00:44:55 -0400 From: "Dana Shilling" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Richard III and all that Message-ID: <00e601c03fd3$5d957860$20684e0c@dshilling> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Natasa suggested an Avon/Del Grant rather than Hamlet/Laertes graveside punch-up. Well, depressed chap who spent a lot of time in graduate school, loads of black gear...And really, everything Avon ever says is a soliloquy, because no one ever pays a blind bit of attention. However, on a more symbolic level, Hamlet = Blake, born to set right the times out of joint, Claudius = Servalan, killer and usurper. -(Y) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 00:59:23 -0400 From: "Dana Shilling" To: "B7 Lyst" Subject: Re: [B7L] Is Avon dysfunctional? (was Re: Avon as loner?) (getting even longer) Message-ID: <00e701c03fd3$5ef46c20$20684e0c@dshilling> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Betty said: > [Shrug] As I know I've said before, it seems to me the only explanation > that makes any sense at all of many of his actions. Like the way he's > constantly putting himself in danger for Blake... "Falling in love again... What am I to do? Never wanted to. Can't help it." > > Yes, I think this is a good point. If you accept premise A ("Avon cared > deeply about Blake"), you're sort of forced into premise B ("Avon had > emotional problems that would let him accept that he cared deeply about > Blake Typo (Freudian slip?) s/b "Avon had emotional problems that would NOT let him accept..." unless My Client agrees with me that attachment to Blake is a sign of poor judgment or worse. Don't forget Duel: Avon as shop steward of the Blokes' Union--why do you have to be irrational to prove you care, or have to prove it at all? And at least some of the discussants here are let's-talk-about-it Americans and not stiff-upper-lip Brits. -(Y) -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #300 **************************************