From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #321 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/321 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 99 : Issue 321 Today's Topics: Re: [B7L] Re: Why Dystopia? Re: [B7L] dystopias Re: [B7L] dystopias Re: [B7L] dystopias Re [B7L] Whence Herculanium? [B7L] Cally-related. Re: [B7L] Cally-related. [B7L] Post-con blues [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #319 [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #319 [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #319 [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #320 [B7L] Last Lines game [B7L] the Federation Re: [B7L] dystopias Re: DS9 (was Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #315) Re: DS9 (was Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #315) Re: [B7L] the Federation [B7L] Re: Cally Re: [B7L] dystopias Re: [B7L] Cally-related. Re: [B7L] Re: Cally-related. [B7L] Soldiers of Love pt 3 [B7L] the Federation ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:44:54 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Why Dystopia? Message-ID: <0b9501bf2fa1$e5930180$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Yoona wrote: You're not *that* far from Cambridge, Neil. There's more than an outside chance that you might meet me face-to-face again at some point... > >> though quite who Una Palomablanca was I wouldn't > >> like to guess. > > > >D'you know, it's about 20 years since I last heard that joke. > > About time it was dusted off, then. You'll be dusting off Mrs Slocombe's pussy next. > >During the > >1970s, it was made so much that I was forced to start murdering people who > >cracked it (I was a precocious and bad-tempered 7 year-old.) > > Ah, la plus ca change... :P > I won't tell you what I was called at school. Oh go on. Whisper. Promise I won't tell. Una ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:02:54 -0700 From: "Ellynne G." To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] dystopias Message-ID: <19991115.130255.10014.0.Rilliara@juno.com> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:22:30 -0000 "Una McCormack" writes: >Alison wrote: > >That argument seems to me to fall into a trap of saying, 'Well, that's >how >people behaved in (some sort of) 'pre-modern' society, so that *must* >constitute our 'natural' behaviour.' No, _not_ natural, simply common and often with lots of records to suggest how a culture acted or adapted over long periods of time. And then there are the ways different groups use different adaptations for the same situation (the common storyline with people living on desert worlds or regions all developing stereotypical Arab cultures, for example, doesn't hold up when compared to a few dozen other cultures that also lived in desert regions). The point is cynicism was not a survival trait for most people in most of these situations. The immediate negative consequences of excess distrust were too obvious and were culturally reinforced. Knowing an oath would be kept was vital _for survival_ to many of these people. Oathbreaking could be punished by death in some societies. In others, it led to the oathbreaker being kicked out of his community. It was something that couldn't be tolerated. On the other hand, there are cultures that consider showing respect tons more important than keeping a promise. Hence, making a promise you have no intention of keeping is all right _if you did it to avoid showing disrespect_. However, both groups of people _know_ the rules. Cynicism is the belief people will either violate these cultural ideas of right and wrong whenever it works in their favor or that these rules serve no greater purpose and certainly don't serve the individual considering breaking them. I'd say much of modern society encourages cynicism, but I'm still against it. I've known too many people who would always go the extra mile--and then some--for others to not believe the world was a better place for them being in it, a claim I have never heard cynics make for themselves. I'm not convinced. Also, I >*don't* live >in a society where I have to rely on people in my family, tribe or >village - >so those survival techniques aren't appropriate to me anyway. What I meant was that, while the immediate consequences aren't there, it doesn't mean there aren't long term ones. >Cynicism doesn't strike me as a particularly effective strategy in the >'modern' era, either, leading, as it does, to depression, nihilism, >and an >overwhelming sense of pointlessness. On a good day. It's just that in >our >society we have more time to brood about it, rather than worrying >where the >next meal is coming from. > Yeah, those consequences. >> I think the values which we are taught as children don't make any >kind of >> sense, and the result is that thoughtful people tend to get as far >as >'moral >> rules are rubbish' and leave it at that. > >Or take the time to reconstruct their own personal creed based on e.g. >humanism, liberalism or some sort of bastardized psychoanalytic >theory. > Suddenly, I get the feeling I had a different upbringing than some people. Granted, there were a lot of things I thought at age five I know realize were flawed, but so was my understanding of math. After getting addition and subtraction down, I really wondered why I had to spend another 11 years studying the same stuff. I realized I was wrong, but 1 + 1 still equals 2. Things I thought were set in stone in kindergarten have changed, but it doesn't mean the basic principles don't work. Ellynne ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 12:31:36 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] dystopias Message-ID: <19991115203137.95347.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Una wrote: He would, he would...but does anyone agree that he'd also be disconcerted (not to say disgruntled) if Blake *gave up* said pieties? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:01:42 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] dystopias Message-ID: <0c3101bf2fac$a0a93f70$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ellynne wrote: > However, both groups of people _know_ the rules. Cynicism is the belief > people will either violate these cultural ideas of right and wrong > whenever it works in their favor or that these rules serve no greater > purpose and certainly don't serve the individual considering breaking > them. > > I'd say much of modern society encourages cynicism, but I'm still > against it. I've known too many people who would always go the extra > mile--and then some--for others to not believe the world was a better > place for them being in it, a claim I have never heard cynics make for > themselves. I appear to have acquired the reputation of some sort of arch-cynic in all this - not entirely sure why. I don't pursue cynicism as some sort of personal creed and I don't think anyone would *enjoy* being a cynic. I don't believe that I am a bad person because I am, on occasion, a mistrustful one. I think I agree with your first definition of cynicism, but not with your second one. > > I'm not convinced. Also, I *don't* live > >in a society where I have to rely on people in my family, tribe or village - > >so those survival techniques aren't appropriate to me anyway. > > What I meant was that, while the immediate consequences aren't there, it > doesn't mean there aren't long term ones. > > >Cynicism doesn't strike me as a particularly effective strategy in the > >'modern' era, either, leading, as it does, to depression, nihilism, and an > >overwhelming sense of pointlessness. On a good day. It's just that in our > >society we have more time to brood about it, rather than worrying where the > >next meal is coming from. > > > Yeah, those consequences. :) > >> I think the values which we are taught as children don't make any kind of > >> sense, and the result is that thoughtful people tend to get as far as'moral > >> rules are rubbish' and leave it at that. > > > >Or take the time to reconstruct their own personal creed based on e.g. > >humanism, liberalism or some sort of bastardized psychoanalytic > >theory. > > > Suddenly, I get the feeling I had a different upbringing than some > people. Granted, there were a lot of things I thought at age five I know > realize were flawed, but so was my understanding of math. After getting > addition and subtraction down, I really wondered why I had to spend > another 11 years studying the same stuff. I realized I was wrong, but 1 > + 1 still equals 2. Things I thought were set in stone in kindergarten > have changed, but it doesn't mean the basic principles don't work. When I was 5, I was taught that I would go to hell if I was naughty and that I had a guardian angel sitting on my shoulder keeping an account of my sins. I was also taught to respect other people, their property, their opinions, and to be true to my own goals and personality in life. Some of this was bollocks, some of this wasn't. Recognizing the difference is impossible for a 5 year old. Sifting the crap and keeping the nuggets of gold appeared to me to be the process of progressing toward maturity. I appear to be getting rather depressed today and personalizing a lot more of these posts than I actually think is intended by anyone. Apologies to all and sundry. I'm now bowing out of this one and going off for my tea. Una ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:43:12 EST From: "Joanne MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re [B7L] Whence Herculanium? Message-ID: <19991115214312.22817.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: Judith Proctor > > Of course. There's nothing to have stopped, say, Chris Boucher, thinking > > "That's an interesting name, sounds like a metal", and there you are... >Oy! Don't blame that one on Chris. James Follett was reponsible for 'Dawn >of >the Gods'. Well, I'm not blaming Chris Boucher for the episode And I wasn't blaming him for the name of the metal, either, just chucking a few possibilities around. ( Sorry, I'm filking again. Bad habit.) Given that Follett was also responsible for Stardrive, I'd be suitably grateful if Boucher had named herculanium. Then again, the script editor could have been salvaging one of the few good bits in Follett's script, I don't know. Regards Joanne Well, there's nothing so rum it might not be true. --William Herrick Macaulay ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:06:41 -0000 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: Subject: [B7L] Cally-related. Message-ID: <007801bf2fb5$ea7fe6e0$92628cd4@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kai, Hellen and Sally have been discussing Cally. >I have to refer here to my personal >experience again. Several years ago the communists still ruled my country, >....... That is, because the communist system is rotten in >it's very base. And it could not be repaired, only overthrown... As well as >the Federation was. Q.E.D. ;-) Hellen, I'll have to bow to your experience as to whether the communist system is rotten (or at least your local implementation). I have Chinese friends on both sides of the fence, and no real personal experience. But....back to Blakes 7........ OK there are corrupt people in the Federation, and the leaders of the Teranostra have infiltrated the government (not known to rank and file members like Vila). But does that in iteslf mean that the whole of the Federation is corrupt. As our current leader in the UK has stated, "The Establishment" has too much control here. But, if "The Establishment" is not government, then it is the wider community of administrators, civil servants, the leaders of trade associations and the wealthy/influential. So...., either a system is corrupt because the head is corrupt (in which case you just cut of the head), or it is corrupt because the wider body of the administration is fundamentally corrupt. If the later case, then it seems to me that the only difference between a "good" regime and a "bad" regime is the level of corruption that the populace are willing to accept. And the level of "acceptable corruption" is of course a variable depending on standard of living, and, if you have just won a revolution/war or not. So really, is the Federation any different to, say, (just for example), the British Empire in Victorian times. And if not, what has really changed in the mechanism of home government over the last centuary ? > There are, sometimes, decisions like this, which you _have_ >to take the responsibility for, at all costs. Point taken. And Blake THOUGHT that he had taken the right decision. He began to doubt it at one point though, hence the quote about needing to prove that he was right, that the killing was justified etc. But it does not matter if he was right or wrong, finding that out (and for me, we never do) is part of the story, part of the appeal. If the Fedeartion was so Black, and the Crew so White, the series would have been so much flatter. Sally >The problem is that Cally *doesn't* IMO grow into her changes of >attitude - she stays static, then lurches into them all of a >sudden I have actually seen this happen in real life, people support you one minute and not the next. In my experience, this can sometimes be motivated by 1) boredom, or 2) hidden agenda's, or by 3) beliefs of futility. 1) Cally may have held her views for a long time, but just could not be bothered to voice them until some other influence has caused her to sit up and examine the issue (the writer needs her to). 2) She might have wanted to go to the Earth system for her own reasons, and destruction of control went broadly along with her more immediate and over riding ends (the writer might forget in the excitement). Or (3), Cally may have thought that there is no way they could destroy control on Earth, so there is no point in arguing about it, but when it looked like they were going to assault an un gaurded and isolated planet and actually achieve the goal, it becomes an all important issue (if there is no apparent opposition, the writer needs some in the group). So without watching the episodes in detail to see if this holds up, her changing moral stance does not cause me a problem (or it does if its down to the writers not actively realising all of this). Of course, Cally's changing moral stance also coincides (approximately) with Blake's temporary loss of faith in himself. So the glorious revolution may have, at that time, lost some of its gloss for Cally, allowing her to actually question the validity of individual actions, rather than blindly accepting that the ends justify the means. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:05:04 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Cally-related. Message-ID: <0d1d01bf2fbe$0ea02050$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Andrew wrote: > As our current leader in the UK has stated, "The > Establishment" has too much control here. As our current leader of the opposition in the UK replied: 'This is a man educated at public school and Oxford with a majority of almost 200 in the House of Commons. Who does he think *is* the Establishment?' Una ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:34:54 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Post-con blues Message-ID: In message <199911151350.NAA08059@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>, Steve Kilbane writes >> Oh my aching head. I don't drink, so why do cons give me a hangover? > >Because you're so busy doing con things that your normal food, drink 'n' >sleep routine is utterly disrupted. So you're more dehydrated than normal >for the time of day, and tired. Some of us also had jet lag to contend with, of course. However, I felt fairly rotten first thing Monday morning after the con, but perked up enough to thoroughly enjoy the "Five do New York" with which some of us amused ourselves after we'd been cruelly abandoned by our American playmates. -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:56:50 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #319 Message-ID: <3830F223.1139@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > One > > alien wandered into Ten Forward, the Enterprise bar, and his worldview > > collapsed, leading to suicide. Now, can you honestly see anyone on B7 > > doing this? Other than Vila, if he found himself trapped in a universe > > where they don't serve liquor? > > Which means that he might just do this in SN:TNG, since they serve synthetic > alcohol there. > > Susan M. I think Vila would set up a still and go into business. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:00:18 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #319 Message-ID: <3830F2F3.F21@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > Which is an interesting question about the Trek Federation - what sort > > of a law system would they have which fairly reflects the excessive > > tolerance of their culture? > > Obligatory psychotherapy for those whose opinions and behaviour don't line > up with the great fluffy consensus. > > > Una Bringing us back to Blake getting brainwashed. I always wanted to see a dimensional twist send the Liberator and the Enterprise to the same place. The Enterprize identifies itself as a Federation vessel, and gets blown up very quickly by the alarmed rebels. --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:05:37 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #319 Message-ID: <3830F431.3A8B@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Re: Janeway-- if the show had been decent, I might have liked her. I thought the actress was good. But the scripts HURT! I'd rather watch the movies they make fun of on MST3k without the bots. At least they are meant to be fun.Voyager seems to take itself way too seriously. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:16:00 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #320 Message-ID: <3830F6A1.123F@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Any how, some people seem to regard cynicism as a virtue. Like Avon. > > Ellynne Sometimes, and sometimes he makes a virtue out of what he regards as a necessity. He does think rather highly of Blake. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:24:02 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Last Lines game Message-ID: <3830F883.39B5@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rescue: Vila> Say, didn't Dorian's ladyfriend used to be a Mutoid? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:12:02 +0000 (GMT) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: [B7L] the Federation Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Mon 15 Nov, Andrew Ellis wrote: > If the later case, then it seems to me that the only difference between a > "good" regime and a "bad" regime is the level of corruption that the populace > are willing to accept. And the level of "acceptable corruption" is of course a > variable depending on standard of living, and, if you have just won a > revolution/war or not. So really, is the Federation any different to, say, > (just for example), the British Empire in Victorian times. And if not, what > has really changed in the mechanism of home government over the last centuary > ? The British Empire was far from perfect, but I think even the Victorians didn't stoop as low as drugging entire populations in cities, massacring half the population of a planet and deporting the rest, or making an entire world live with the knowledge that every single one of them would die if there was a revolution. That's just part of it. Check out my web site for a fuller list of Federation atrocities and which episodes I'm citing. Becuase the killing was off-screen (BBC budget and watershed as well) I think it is often overlooked. Stalin would have run pretty even with the Federation,but I don't think the Victorians abused their own people to that extent. It was once said of Ghandi that passive resistance wouldn't have worked against anyone except the British. India gained its independence. Foster tried passive resistance - he got shot. Come to think of it, Blake tried it too. BLAKE: Of course I did. Travis was already there. He'd been hiding in that basement for more than two days. We made no attempt to resist arrest. There was no point, we had no chance. I said to Travis, "We will offer no resistance." And he just stared at me. And then he ordered his men to open fire. 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.nas.com/~lknight ) Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:40:06 PST From: "Rob Clother" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] dystopias Message-ID: <19991116104006.10082.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >That argument seems to me to fall into a trap of saying, 'Well, that's how >people behaved in (some sort of) 'pre-modern' society, so that *must* >constitute our 'natural' behaviour.' I've heard an awful lot of people speculate on what our "natural" behaviour is, was, or should be. But I've never heard anyone even attempt to define exactly what they mean by "natural". To me, it usually sounds like "the way *I* think people should be". >It's just that in our society we have more time to brood about it, rather >than worrying where the next meal is coming from. In "The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee", Jared Diamond claims that hunter-gatherer socities would work, on average, 20-hour weeks. He based his assumption on the societies he lived and worked with in Papua New Guinea. Ever heard that niggling little voice saying, "You're in the wrong business, Mate"? >>I think the values which we are taught as children don't make any kind of >>sense, and the result is that thoughtful people tend to get as far as >>'moral rules are rubbish' and leave it at that. > >Or take the time to reconstruct their own personal creed based on e.g. >humanism, liberalism or some sort of bastardized psychoanalytic theory. I have to admit, given the choice of (1) writing my own personal moral code, based on my life's experiences and the teachings of the people I respect most, and (2) having my morals dictated to me by some dogmatic tract, I would choose the former over the latter. Up to a point, I suppose. I mean, I wouldn't want every man and his dog writing their own moral code with respect to murdering Rob Clother. To name but one example. >>What I like about the 7 is that they don't subscribe to crappy pieties, >>but they do have loyalty and compassion and courage, which (IMHO) are the >>real virtues. > >However, I suspect that Avon would accuse Blake of subscribing to crappy >pieties. I don't think it would be so much subscribing to crappy pieties, as dreaming impossible dreams -- and living by the results. My contribution to the ST/B7 War is the observation that the Trek "goodies" never questioned themselves, or what they were doing. Partly because of the differences between Avon's outlook and Blake's, the question "why" was bandied around a great deal in B7. Nothing should ever be so sacred that it is adhered to unquestioningly. Cheers, -- Rob ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 06:19:02 -0500 From: Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:blakes7@lysator.liu.se" Subject: Re: DS9 (was Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #315) Message-ID: <199911160619_MC2-8D37-BB0A@compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Joanne wrote: >Because there's only one Michael Murray, right Harriet? Actually, there's the other one who chaired the Test and County Cricket Board's Structure Working Party which recommended playing all Championship games over four days, at about the same time as GBH, which I found very funny though no one else seemed to get the joke (despite commentary by Christopher Martin-Jenkins cropping up in the final episode)... Didn't you love the scene where Robert Lindsay is trying to seduce Lindsay Duncan in the middle of a Dr Who con? Harriet ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:44:09 +0000 From: Una McCormack To: "INTERNET:blakes7@lysator.liu.se" Subject: Re: DS9 (was Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #315) Message-ID: <383197E9.6F20B9A1@q-research.connectfree.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Harriet Monkhouse wrote: > Didn't you love the scene where Robert Lindsay is trying to seduce Lindsay > Duncan in the middle of a Dr Who con? It was better watching it as an extra. Una ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:43:05 +0000 From: Una McCormack To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] the Federation Message-ID: <383197A9.CA4CB3F4@q-research.connectfree.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Judith Proctor wrote: > It was once said of Ghandi that passive resistance wouldn't have worked against > anyone except the British. India gained its independence. Hmm. I would probably put India's independence down to the fact that Britain could no longer sustain an Empire after the War than to passive resistance on the part of Gandhi's party. Not-so passive resistance did pretty well securing an Irish Free State. One could argue that neither strategy worked so well given the fact that both countries ended up partitioned. Or not, depending which side of the argument you're on. Una ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:46:15 GMT From: benmtt@cwcom.net To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: Cally Message-id: <3831a677.137c.0@cwcom.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sally wrote: >I can see what you're saying, but I still think revenge had a >great deal to do with Cally's behaviour on Saurian Major (the >wording is important - not 'my death will have meaning" but >"companions for..." she wants blood). I think it's a bit more involved than that. Perhaps she wants to atone for her "failure" (surviving while her Saurian Major colleagues all died?), but most of all she wants to avoid dying "alone and silent". The desire for revenge may be a contributing factor but it isn't the beginning and end of her behaviour, in stark contrast to Avon's plain revenge for revenge's sake and self-deluded notion of himself as an "executioner" and self-appointed righter of wrongs in "Rumours". >Yes, by Children of Auron time, she's changed her mind >about the worth of revenge. I agree with your hot on >revenge and other violent action has understandably >lost its taste for her.> But there is *no* excuse, given her >own earlier feelings, for her to be so holier-than-thou about >it. Is she being "holier-than-thou"? For a start, Cally is an alien, and thus presumably has a value system that may not necessarily equate with our own. Cally has never struck me as being given to sententious sneering at the behaviour of others, rather she merely exercises her perfect right to express an alternative viewpoint according to her own specific (cultural?) beliefs. If you want to see some real sanctimoniously pious behaviour, look no further than Blake himself. Way back in "The Way Back", he makes the sweeping statement "There can be no justification for deliberate murder". A few episodes later, he's blowing up communication centres full of (conscripted?) Federation personnel and casually rigging charges to entry hatches to wipe out the neutrotope buyers in "Mission To Destiny." >"It doesn't achieve anything?" How would she know? > But as the subsequent chain of events showed, she was quite right. It didn't achieve anything. It only served to make Avon even more screwed up than he was before. I think the pointlessness of revenge is a layered theme of "Rumours". I also loved Cally's line "It's contagious, isn't it?", giving Tarrant, Dayna and Vila a lot of their own hypocrisy to chew on. >It's fairly obvious she at least knows *nothing* >of Avon's reasons or feelings, in fact she knows >nothing at all (to be fair, IMO he only told Tarrant >and Vila what he had to to get them to do what he wanted. >Cally wouldn't have been so manipulable, so he left her >out of it). How can she pronounce such a sweeping judgement >without making the slightest attempt to understand? I don't think Cally's anywhere near as ignorant as you seem to make out. Check out "Hostage" - she seems to suss out Avon's guilty behaviour pretty fast. ><2. The Changing Seasons of Cally >computerised function in over 200 worlds, many which are probably >completely dependant of them, could well mean a death toll of millions> > >[1] See my other post - yes, "many many people" were going to die. >But how many is many is another question. I still think millions >is a gross exaggeration. And I'm absolutely sure Cally doesn't >mean millions (or she'd have used a less vague term, like - maybe? >- "millions".) But be that as it may... A bit of straw-clutching going on here? Given Star One's (admittedly, largely implied) status, it's perfectly logical to assume (with or without the benefit of statistics) that its destruction would have dramatic repercussions not just for the Federation but also on the people, whose freedom Cally has been fighting for for quite some time. It's perfectly understandable that she might want to take a step back and think carefully about the consequences of her actions, and all the more credit to her for having the courage to do so. (Not that Blake lacked courage either). >[2] Cally was perfectly happy to destroy the same computer complex >when she thought it was on Earth. She's perfectly happy right the >way through to end of The Keeper (she doesn't have any interest in >Avon's desultory 'let's use it'. There is no indication that they >had any more information about the results of loss of Star One than >of Control. *If* she thought millions would die, why not speak up >then? Why the *sudden* attack of collywobbles? There is a rather obvious possibility. Cally was gung ho along with Blake to destroy Control ("We must take this chance!") and also suggested a raid on the Federation Weapons Defence Centre ("Weapon"). *And then Gan is killed." I dare say that the loss of a colleague whom she has worked alongside for a long period of time might have been a teensy weensy bit traumatic. Gan's death certainly led Blake to (temporarily) question his motivations, so why not Cally? In "Trial", someone (sorry, but I haven't watched it for a while) made the point that they had built up an image of being invulnerable (or words to the same effect) and Cally says, almost to herself, as though she is thinking aloud: "We were even starting to believe it ourselves." I don't believe that having the guts to take a long, hard look at yourself, to seriously examine your own values and agendas, and then possibly having a change of attitude makes one self-righteous or a hypocrite of any kind. >The problem is that Cally *doesn't* IMO grow into her changes of >attitude - she stays static, then lurches into them all of a >sudden when the writer needs her to. And there's no sense of "I >was wrong, I've changed my mind, I'm nor so sure". Which seems to be typical of episodic television in general, with leads such as Blake and Avon getting the lions' share of the "character development" with the others making do with the occasional tokenist scrap. The hint of Gan's willingness to sacrifice himself in "Bounty" leading to his "I'm not worth dying for" in "Pressure Point" was probably by accident rather than design. Again, this is nothing to hold against Cally's character specifically. Basically, I like pretty much all the characters for their good mix of positive and negative qualities, which only adds more to the richness of the show overall. Maybe Cally is a self-righteous, intolerant hypocrite, but to quote the lady herself, "Nobody's perfect." Ben M. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:46:57 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] dystopias Message-ID: In message <19991115203137.95347.qmail@hotmail.com>, Sally Manton writes >Una wrote: > >pieties.> > >He would, he would...but does anyone agree that he'd also be disconcerted >(not to say disgruntled) if Blake *gave up* said >pieties? > Yes. I'd go into greater detail, but I'm still not with it (thank god this software has a spellchecker, my typing's dreadful at the moment). -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:57:03 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] Cally-related. Message-ID: <000a01bf3067$fa580360$941dac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sally wrote: >[2] Cally was perfectly happy to destroy the same computer complex >when she thought it was on Earth. She's perfectly happy right the >way through to end of The Keeper (she doesn't have any interest in >Avon's desultory 'let's use it'. There is no indication that they >had any more information about the results of loss of Star One than >of Control. *If* she thought millions would die, why not speak up >then? Why the *sudden* attack of collywobbles? She's as enthusiastic as ever once she's down on the surface of Star One itself, so I suspect her little ''Are we fanatics?'' bit was her expressing doubts she's had all along. This is crunch time, after all. Like all good rebels (Blake included) her conviction is not blindly absolute - if anything, it becomes even stronger through being called into question now and again. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:22:26 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Cally-related. Message-ID: <000b01bf3068$02ebc0c0$941dac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hellen wrote (in excellent continuation of Kai's equally excellent post): >She >could not match herself, she could not identify herself with actions like >abducting gems ("Harvest of Kairos") or torturing people ("Rumours of >Death"). I don't think it's the actions that bother her so much as the motives, the blatant self-interest behind the crew's activities with no 'higher' purpose. I've long thought that the effective disappearance of the Federation at this time (temporary though it ultimately was) left Cally drifting. Therefore she retreated to the moral high ground and started polishing her halo. >Probably this internal conflict of her's - between that newly re-written >aims of the crew and her persistent beliefs - has made her so unsteady and, >consequently, helpless against external mental influences, which has >happened to her most often than ever in season III. I like that idea. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:42:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List cc: Freedom City Subject: [B7L] Soldiers of Love pt 3 Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII I now have Soldiers of Love pt 3 in stock (as well as parts 1, 2 of course) Gareth Thomas, Michael Keating and Jan Chappell can be heard on this one. I'll post a review once I've listened to it myself (just arrived in this morning's post). I expect it will be the usual camp humour and comic book style villains. I certainly hope so! Cost from me is 10 pounds including postage (Eur 10.50, USA 11 or $19 cash, Aus/NZ 11.25). cheques payable to Judith Proctor, 28 Diprose Rd, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne, Dorset, BH21 3QY 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.nas.com/~lknight ) Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:33:35 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] the Federation Message-ID: <19991116203336.52520.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Andrew Ellis wrote: I agree with Judith here. Our Heroes may come in shades of grey (that's one of the things we like about them), but I see the Federation is almost entirely black - evil on the scale of Nazism or Stalinism (and do read Judith's list - it is pretty impressive evidence thereof). What fascinates me *is* the fact that these flawed and fallible and not-meant-to-be-heroic ('where are all the good guys?' 'You could be looking at them.' 'What a depressing thought') human beings* can fight against something so utterly evil, and, if they don't win, put up a damned good fight... There isn't black and white in B7, but there is grey, black and blacker-than-black. The Powers-that-Be, for me, come under the latter heading (definitely led by Servalan, for all her surface glamour). * Okay, except maybe for Tarrant. And Dayna. Maybe. The rest - not even my Beloved Leader - are anything *but* natural hero material (And then there's Vila...) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #321 **************************************