From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #279
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume00/279
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 279

Today's Topics:
  Re: [B7L] Fantasy                     [ "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.n ]
  Turambar [was Re: [B7L] Re: Fantasy,  [ Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@comp ]
  Re: [B7L] Something else about Star   [ "Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet ]
  Re: [B7L] Something else about Star   [ "Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet ]
  Re: [B7L] Something else about Star   [ "Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet ]
  [B7L] Cult TV                         [ Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.com ]
  [B7L] Something else about Star One   [ Jacqui Speel <jacquispeel@netscape. ]
  Re: [Re: [B7L] Something else about   [ Jacqui Speel <jacquispeel@netscape. ]
  Re: [B7L]RE: Blake's 7 Movie          [ "Minnie" <minnie@picknowl.com.au> ]
  Re: [B7L] Fantasy                     [ Natasa Tucev <tucev@tesla.rcub.bg.a ]
  Re: [B7L] Fantasy                     [ Natasa Tucev <tucev@tesla.rcub.bg.a ]
  Re: [B7L] Another Zenith              [ Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.com ]
  Re: [B7L] Fantasy                     [ Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones. ]
  Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love   [ Natasa Tucev <tucev@tesla.rcub.bg.a ]
  Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love   [ "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com ]
  Re: [B7L] Fantasy                     [ Alison Page <alison_page@becta.org. ]
  Re: Re: [B7L] Fantasy                 [ una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk ]
  Re: [Re: [B7L] Something else about   [ Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.com ]
  [B7L] Mary Ridge                      [ Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.com ]
  Re: [B7L] Another Zenith              [ "Minnie" <minnie@picknowl.com.au> ]
  Re: [B7L] Fantasy                     [ mistral@centurytel.net ]
  Re: [B7L] Something else about Star   [ Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@comp ]
  Re: [B7L] Avon (was: Rumours of Deat  [ mistral@centurytel.net ]
  [B7L] Re: Servalan's appointment      [ Murray <mjsmith@tcd.ie> ]
  [B7L] Star One (was Anna & the natur  [ "Marian de Haan" <maya@multiweb.nl> ]
  Re: [B7L] Re: the old Star One argum  [ "Doraleen McArthur" <d.mcarthur@wor ]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 19:11:28 +0100
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-ID: <000501c02ef7$d82cfa40$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

From: Ellynne G. <rilliara@juno.com>
> > > Every culture, or every society, lives by certain myths. These
> > myths, as
> > you
> > > say, serve to maintain the status quo.
> >
> Thinking of Euripides using the myth of Medea to question the position of
> women in his society and the underlying assumption of Greek superiority.
>
> Come to think of it, he did the same thing with Trojan Women, criticizing
> the government and its war.
<and other examples>
> Fantasy has been used to explore all the biggies.  It asks all the who
> are we? what are we doing here? type questions (and comes up with some
> very interesting answers).

Fair point, but there have always been maverick writers using the mythic
forms of their times as raw material for their irony, satire and subversion.
SF hardly blazed a trail there, nor has it come to hold a monopoly on that
kind of writing.

But if we take the backbone of modern fantasy, what do we find?  Tolkien:
reactionary.  Eddings: reactionary.  Raymond E Feist: reactionary.
Donaldson: reactionary.  Gemmel: ultra-reactionary and proud of it.  John
Norman: hardly an enlightened liberal there.  'Come with us, O readers, to a
world where ... men are mighty, women are beautiful, problems are simple,
and life is adventurous, and nobody has ever heard of inflation!' (L Sprague
deCamp, another reactionary).

There are exceptions - Fritz Leiber is a possible contender, ditto LeGuin,
Alan Garner and Pratchett (though I tend to see him primarily as a humorist
rather than a fantasist).  Top of the roll must be Moorcock, whose writing
might not be the best in the world but is more ambitious and more daring
when it comes to creating a fantasy for the times in which it was written.

Neil

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:50:32 -0400
From: Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:blakes7@lysator.liu.se" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Turambar [was Re: [B7L] Re: Fantasy, satire and princess
  brides]
Message-ID: <200010051350_MC2-B5D4-7A99@compuserve.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	 charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline

Una and Joanne discussed Neil's reaction to Turin Turambar:
>>Wasn't quite grim enough for you, was it, Neil?
>
>Probably not enough in the way of penguins, either.

Easy, replace the dragon with a giant penguin.

Harriet

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:05:35 -0400
From: "Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet.att.net>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Something else about Star One (as the old Star One argument)
Message-ID: <006301c02ef8$4fb987e0$0c604e0c@dshilling>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sally said:

> There's the fact that some brainless PWB decided that its location should
be
> so secret that they can't even get to it when it starts playing up?
Considering the fact that I can't keep the computer that I depend on for
business
up and running for six months at a time...
Travis
> says this was done thirty years ago ... Judith, I know you have argued
> (quite convincingly) that he was lying, that it was only a few years ago.
It would still be moronic, whenever they did it

>He then goes on to say "I realized
> that Servalan would never believe that I hadn't scanned the brain prints."
>
> Indicating that [a] Servalan was in power at the time (bang goes the
thrity
> years unless she has a hell of a plastic surgeon)
Well, she might--anyway, it's perfectly plausible to say something like
"My parents told me they mortgaged the house, but I don't believe them" of
an event decades in the past.

-(Y)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:10:32 -0400
From: "Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet.att.net>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Something else about Star One (as the old Star One argument)
Message-ID: <006401c02ef8$519ec2a0$0c604e0c@dshilling>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Penny said:
> Docholli was too drunk to put his coat on, even with assistance. I say he
> was filling in the blanks in his memory with plausible-sounding bull as he
> went along. They're lucky he told them to go to Goth, and not "Planet
> Progrock".
Actually if they'd been REALLY lucky he would have sent them off
to Planet Progrock, where they would have had a nice time and managed
a few rounds of golf, then tried all the planets that sounded sort of like
Progrock, then given it up as a bad job, put the Liberator up on eBay,
divvied up the proceeds and the treasure, and gone their separate ways.

-(Y)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:13:52 -0400
From: "Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet.att.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Something else about Star One 
Message-ID: <006501c02ef8$531005e0$0c604e0c@dshilling>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Alison said:
> But I am wondering if in the B7 universe the whole idea of physical
> continuity of personal identity is somewhat different than our own.
'Travis'
> is the most obvious example. It seems that in this future people are happy
> to attribute identity to persons that we would call distinct. Whereas
> Servalan seems confident that she can be taken to be a new person, without
> any effort to change her physical appearance. So, something rather strange
> is going on.

Dread Pirate Servalan, anyone?

> I also wonder about the way the same few characters are constantly meeting
> up, in this vast galaxy.
Out of all the gin joints, in all the planets in the galaxy...

-(Y)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 08:07:32 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.com>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Cult TV
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-1005070732-b49Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

>From Cult TV
> 
> CULT TV GUEST ANNOUNCEMENT 4th OCTOBER 2000 
> 
> Cult TV Productions regret to announce that Robert Llewellyn and Patrick
> McGoohan are no longer able to attend this year's Cult TV Festival due to take
> place from the 27 - 30 October 2000 at Barton Hall, Torquay, Devon, UK.
> 
> Both guests are unable to attend due to work commitments and Cult TV would
> like to thank them for their considerable assistance and commitment to the
> event during the year.
> 
> On a more positive note, Cult TV are pleased to announce that MARK EDEN also
> intends to join  the Festival. In an extensive career Mark has appeared in
> shows such the original Live version of "Quatermass and The Pit", "The Saint",
> "The Prisoner", "The Avengers", "Cribb" and is best known to UK viewers as
> Alan Bradley in Coronation Street. 

STEPHEN GREIF and GARETH THOMAS are still okay at this point.

Shame about Patrick McGoohan - I don't go much for actor guests, but his
involvement with The Prisoner was on many levels.

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:  5 Oct 00 14:36:25 PDT
From: Jacqui Speel <jacquispeel@netscape.net>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Something else about Star One (as the old Star One argument)]
Message-ID: <20001005213625.15763.qmail@ww183.netaddress.usa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

There would have to be some way of getting in touch 'Fred is dead: send
replacement' or 'Send Chateau Rothschild nor cheapo plonk on the next sup=
ply
ship' etc =

"Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sally said:

> There's the fact that some brainless PWB decided that its location shou=
ld
be
> so secret that they can't even get to it when it starts playing up?
Considering the fact that I can't keep the computer that I depend on for
business
up and running for six months at a time...
Travis
> says this was done thirty years ago ... Judith, I know you have argued
> (quite convincingly) that he was lying, that it was only a few years ag=
o.
It would still be moronic, whenever they did it

>He then goes on to say "I realized
> that Servalan would never believe that I hadn't scanned the brain print=
s."
>
> Indicating that [a] Servalan was in power at the time (bang goes the
thrity
> years unless she has a hell of a plastic surgeon)
Well, she might--anyway, it's perfectly plausible to say something like
"My parents told me they mortgaged the house, but I don't believe them" o=
f
an event decades in the past.

-(Y)



____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://home=
=2Enetscape.com/webmail

------------------------------

Date:  5 Oct 00 14:39:56 PDT
From: Jacqui Speel <jacquispeel@netscape.net>
To: "blakes7@lysator.liu.se" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [Re: [B7L] Something else about Star One ]
Message-ID: <20001005213956.10484.qmail@www0n.netaddress.usa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This might link up with'The City and the Stars' (Diasper etc) Arthur C Cl=
arke
(reappear in a new body, delete 'unwanted memories, etc)

Alison Page <alison_page@becta.org.uk> wrote:
Sally said - =


>>Servalan was in power at the time (bang goes the thirty years unless sh=
e
has a hell of a plastic surgeon) and she either thought up or agreed to t=
he
total blackout of information. Including from herself. Anyone else find t=
his
very hard to equate with her Supremeness as we know her? <<
Good point, but I quite like trying to wrench everything into some kind o=
f
sense.
Now you could do it fairly straightforwardly - just say 'Oh, well they ha=
ve
some kind of genetic refreshment system that slows down aging, and everyo=
ne
is much older than they look'. This isn't too implausible: if any one of =
us
(apart from the youngest people on this list) went back to the middle age=
s,
we would be thought to be younger than we actually are, because of modern=

medicine and nutrition and so-on.
But I am wondering if in the B7 universe the whole idea of physical
continuity of personal identity is somewhat different than our own. 'Trav=
is'
is the most obvious example. It seems that in this future people are happ=
y
to attribute identity to persons that we would call distinct. Whereas
Servalan seems confident that she can be taken to be a new person, withou=
t
any effort to change her physical appearance. So, something rather strang=
e
is going on.
Perhaps the genetic renewal is somewhat radical. Perhaps it almost becomi=
ng
a new person. Or perhaps old minds are transferred to new bodies, as a
matter of course among the highest class. Then the loss of knowledge of s=
tar
one could have been built into the renewal system - you get a nice new bo=
dy,
but you forget everything that the rulers want you to forget.
I also wonder about the way the same few characters are constantly meetin=
g
up, in this vast galaxy. Perhaps the population of the human race is
actually pretty small. One dome per world, a few independent stations, a =
few
tribal societies. The total population of the galaxy is less than that of=

modern London, and they all live a very long time. Is there any reason th=
at
the events of B7 couldn't stretch over decades?
Alison









____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://home=
=2Enetscape.com/webmail

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 08:19:29 +0930
From: "Minnie" <minnie@picknowl.com.au>
To: "Kathryn Andersen" <kat@welkin.apana.org.au>,
	"Blake's 7 list" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L]RE:  Blake's 7 Movie
Message-ID: <000e01c02f1e$879531c0$cfc326cb@marina>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kathryn wrote:

>Thank God for The Matrix, which actually started using ultra SFX to
>*mean* something more than just a gosh-wow factor.


I totally agree. :)

Min.xxx  (whos seen that about 20 times now.)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 02:19:42 +0200
From: Natasa Tucev <tucev@tesla.rcub.bg.ac.yu>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-Id: <200010060019.CAA04364@Tesla.rcub.bg.ac.yu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Kathryn wrote:

>> I still maintain that the eye
>> injury in 'Blake' IS very telling and should be considered as a symbol.
>
>I definitely agree with this.  Even if it's only supposed to be a
>symbol of how like Travis Blake has become, he has become his own
>nemesis.  In the B7 terms, it is a symbol of obsession.
> 

Let me just add, it probbably also suggests limited or distorted vision -
figuratively speaking.

What do you think has caused the change in Blake? And how is it connected to
the 'overwhelming question' of Star One?

Natasa

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 02:19:58 +0200
From: Natasa Tucev <tucev@tesla.rcub.bg.ac.yu>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-Id: <200010060019.CAA04382@Tesla.rcub.bg.ac.yu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Neil wrote:

>I think the Industrial Revolution functions as a watershed between Fantasy
>and SF because that was the moment when the individual began to disappear.

Quite the contrary, I think the great problem of modern humanity is extreme
individualism. Man today is an extremely isolated and lonely creature - and
it is to a great extent due to science and rational thinking that he is no
longer capable of connecting himself to any larger whole, be it God,
Universe, Nature, or, for that matter, the rest of human kind. Science
denies that man can achieve 'mystical union' with any of these entities, and
so opens a huge emotional gap beween 'I' and 'not I', without offering any
alternative to fill it with. It is generally believed that literature,
regardless of the genre, can try and fill this gap through its use of
imagination.


>> However, all good literature
>> (including both SF and F) tends to be subversive, either by questioning
>the
>> validity of these mythical patterns, or by reaching for alternative
>> traditions, with alternative myths, in order to find a standpoint from
which
>> the dominant culture could be observed, judged and perhaps revised.

>How much fantasy really does this?  Surely it's SF, as a literary mimic of
>the scientific process, that at least aspires to that level of objectivity,
>even if it fails to get there more often than not.


You should bear in mind that science has its own myth, which is the myth of
progress - the idea that we are slowly but surely conquering nature,
overcoming biological limitations and irrational impulses, exploring and
discovering more and more about Life, Universe and Everything. Literature
can also debunk this myth by demonstrating how easily we fall prey to
exactly these forces we claim to have conquered. This is wonderfully summed
up in Golding's Lord of the Flies, when Piggy says, 'This world is
scientific. As soon as the war is over we'll travel to Mars.' OK, maybe you
wouldn't call this a real fantasy novel (Golding calls it a fable), but
there are others in the same vein. And the myth of scientific progress is of
course absolutely ridiculed in B7, where science is used to brainwash
people, create all sorts of poisons, plagues and radiation devices, not to
mention mutoids...

Natasa vs. Science

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 21:55:58 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.com>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Another Zenith
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-1005205558-ab5Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

On Thu 05 Oct, Jacqueline Thijsen wrote:
> No I haven't heard of one. But I want one. Badly.
> 
> So how are the sales for the first Zenith coming along? 

Well, Zenith beats sales of B7 fiction hands down, thus proving that there is
certainly a demand for it.

>Have they gotten  anywhere near the point where we can expect Zenith 2 within
>our lifetimes? 

Time will tell - it's not been in print very long yet.  It sells to shops and by
mail order and at conventions.  I'd say the odds of another issue look
reasonable, but that it's too soon to tell for certain.  Given that people spent
their own money on printing it, I imagine that all costs will need to be covered
before another issue is risked.

> And will the second Zenith have *that* picture of Brian Croucher as a 
> centerfold?

I doubt it <grin>, but I'm sure there'll be enjoyable photos of someone else.

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: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 07:45:32 +0100
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-ID: <wjNc9IAMUX35EwQu@jajones.demon.co.uk>

In message <200010060019.CAA04382@Tesla.rcub.bg.ac.yu>, Natasa Tucev
<tucev@tesla.rcub.bg.ac.yu> writes
>You should bear in mind that science has its own myth, which is the myth of
>progress - the idea that we are slowly but surely conquering nature,
>overcoming biological limitations and irrational impulses, exploring and
>discovering more and more about Life, Universe and Everything.

All I can say is that you have a very peculiar idea of modern science.
-- 
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
        The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 08:42:00 +0200
From: Natasa Tucev <tucev@tesla.rcub.bg.ac.yu>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love
Message-Id: <200010060642.IAA16650@Tesla.rcub.bg.ac.yu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Neil wrote about Blake:
>
>At that particular point (only episode 2, remember) there's no reason to
>suspect that he's even heard of Kasabi and Avalon, or any other notable
>rebel.  Even if he has met them in the past, chances are he can't remember
>doing so.  While on Cygnus Alpha he will find people who know him and might
>be prepared to follow him (they're not exactly going to love the Federation,
>are they?), or who will at least be grateful for a chance to get off the
>planet (a pleasure resort it ain't, after all).  All he has to do then is
>weed out the promising recruits, dump the rest, and use what he's got as a
>foundation on which to build a real fighting force.  So his fellow convicts
>on the London are the nearest and most obvious place to go for the people
>he's going to need to fight for his cause.
>

1. Are you sure it's the nearest place? Raiker says that the voyage there
takes 8 months. Blake's riot takes place after 4 months. This leaves 4 more
months to get to Cygnus Alpha.

2. Why doesn't Blake just go straight to Saurian Major to look for crew
members? He knows there's a rebellion going on, and he doesn't know about
the poison from the sky.

3. Look at the amount of bracelets on Vargas's desk. Does Blake need so many
crew members? And why is he so desperate when Vargas starts breaking them?
Why doesn't he keep bluffing until there're just two or three left?

I think this scene is parallel to the one in Space Fall when Raiker is
killing prisoners. Blake can't bluff then, either. Could be that he actually
cares for these people.

Natasa

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 08:10:41 GMT
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Anna & the nature of love
Message-ID: <LAW-F249KUpa35ounxA0000cb01@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

Natasa wrote:
<Why doesn't Blake just go straight to Saurian Major to look for crew 
members? He knows there's a rebellion going on, and he doesn't know about 
the poison from the sky.>

That's a very good point, and one I never thought of ... thank you!



_________________________________________________________________________
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, 6 Oct 2000 10:08:03 +0100 
From: Alison Page <alison_page@becta.org.uk>
To: "'blakes7@lysator.liu.se'" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-ID: <21B0197931E1D211A26E0008C79F6C4AB0C7BD@BRAMLEY>
Content-Type: text/plain

Natasa said - 

>>Man today is an extremely isolated and lonely creature - and it is to a
great extent due to science and rational thinking that he is no longer
capable of connecting himself to any larger whole, be it God, Universe,
Nature, or, for that matter, the rest of human kind. Science denies that man
can achieve 'mystical union' with any of these entities, and so opens a huge
emotional gap between 'I' and 'not I', without offering any alternative to
fill it with. <<

I really don't see this at all. The point of science is to find out what is
really going on (I'm pretty cynical about how far modern science has got
down this road, but that is at least the point). Either human beings really
are linked with the rest of the Universe, or they are not. I happen to
believe they are, but the argument works either way. If your (I mean one's)
spirituality is true then the pursuit of truth can't obscure it. If your
spirituality is false, then you'd better find out as quick as possible,
because it is too important to piss about with.

And - I guess - this is the problem for much of fantasy literature for me.
It just seems to have given up. As if to say 'well, reality has no holiness,
so I will withdraw to a world that has a pretend holiness in it'. Whereas
SF, at its best, encourages the real awe that we feel for the real universe.
I may never be able to travel faster than light to the edge of the galaxy,
but the edge of the galaxy really is there, and it is probably more strange
and lonely than I can imagine.

I guess we are agreed though that novels about university professors
committing adultery, and rich women with Aga's taking their labradors for a
walk, are excruciating crud that should be wiped off the face of the earth.

Alison

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:33 +0100
From: una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-Id: <E13hUpB-0002Zr-00@ns0.connectfree.co.uk>
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Content-type: text/plain

I'm going to skip the science debate since we've done it before (just 
imagine, if someone starts the justifications for rebellion thread we can 
have all three of our main debates running at the same time! A sort of 
Lyst Olympics. Who, I wonder, would be the Steve Redgrave?).

Alison wrote:

>And - I guess - this is the problem for much of fantasy literature for me.
>It just seems to have given up. As if to say 'well, reality has no 
holiness,
>so I will withdraw to a world that has a pretend holiness in it'. Whereas
>SF, at its best, encourages the real awe that we feel for the real 
universe.
>I may never be able to travel faster than light to the edge of the galaxy,
>but the edge of the galaxy really is there, and it is probably more 
strange
>and lonely than I can imagine.

I don't read much SF or fantasy, but I think your point is spot on, 
Alison. Having said that, when I read Tolkien, I do experience that kind 
of awe which you describe, in part because it never ceases to amaze me 
that one man could create so much. But entering Middle Earth never seems 
like a withdrawal from reality for me, since the stories seem to be about 
loss, and death, and regret, and the passage of time. But you're right, so 
much other fantasy is just a pale copy of this. 


>I guess we are agreed though that novels about university professors
>committing adultery, and rich women with Aga's taking their labradors for 
a
>walk, are excruciating crud that should be wiped off the face of the 
earth.

<shocked and confused face> But, Alison, these are the spritual truths to 
which I aspire!


Una

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 07:37:57 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.com>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [Re: [B7L] Something else about Star One ]
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-1006063757-256Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Alison Page <alison_page@becta.org.uk> wrote: Sally said - 
> 
> >>Servalan was in power at the time (bang goes the thirty years unless she
> has a hell of a plastic surgeon) and she either thought up or agreed to the
> total blackout of information. Including from herself. Anyone else find this
> very hard to equate with her Supremeness as we know her? <<

There's an implication in Seek Locate Destroy (I think that's the episode) where
it's implied that Servalan has only recently been appointed to her post.  The
discussion about who sponsored her appointment.

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: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:01:24 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.com>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Mary Ridge
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-1006100124-480Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Joe Nazarro has written a little bit about Mary Ridge for the website - not
about her work as a director - but a few memories that gave me a feel of her as
a real and delightful person.

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: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 20:43:45 +0930
From: "Minnie" <minnie@picknowl.com.au>
To: "Lysator List" <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Another Zenith
Message-ID: <001e01c02f86$7f2c32a0$51c326cb@marina>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Judith wrote.
>Time will tell - it's not been in print very long yet.  It sells to shops
and by
>mail order and at conventions.  I'd say the odds of another issue look
>reasonable, but that it's too soon to tell for certain.  Given that people
spent
>their own money on printing it, I imagine that all costs will need to be
covered
>before another issue is risked.

Me puts up both hands for one. <G>


>I doubt it <grin>, but I'm sure there'll be enjoyable photos of someone
else.


Brain in overdrive. <VBEG>


Min.xxx

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 06:10:49 -0700
From: mistral@centurytel.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fantasy
Message-ID: <39DDCF58.298B172@centurytel.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Alison Page wrote:

> Natasa said -
>
> >>Man today is an extremely isolated and lonely creature - and it is to a
> great extent due to science and rational thinking that he is no longer
> capable of connecting himself to any larger whole, be it God, Universe,
> Nature, or, for that matter, the rest of human kind. Science denies that man
> can achieve 'mystical union' with any of these entities, and so opens a huge
> emotional gap between 'I' and 'not I', without offering any alternative to
> fill it with. <<
>
> I really don't see this at all. The point of science is to find out what is
> really going on (I'm pretty cynical about how far modern science has got
> down this road, but that is at least the point). Either human beings really
> are linked with the rest of the Universe, or they are not. I happen to
> believe they are, but the argument works either way. If your (I mean one's)
> spirituality is true then the pursuit of truth can't obscure it. If your
> spirituality is false, then you'd better find out as quick as possible,
> because it is too important to piss about with.

Oh, very well said. I agree 98%; however one should be aware of the
basic assumption that underlies your argument - that science has the
capability to investigate everything that exists; that the physical world
is the total sum of existence. I believe there's something more. The gap
that Natasa mentions isn't caused by science; it's caused by the notion
that science and faith have to be at odds. To make that assumption is
to cut the legs off both faith and science - particularly science, which
relies on having a minimum of unprovable presuppositions for its success.

[And let me drop in here since I've mislaid the original post - I can't
agree that isolation and individualism are the same thing; a healthy
respect for individualism IMO fosters connection, not isolation.]

> And - I guess - this is the problem for much of fantasy literature for me.
> It just seems to have given up. As if to say 'well, reality has no holiness,
> so I will withdraw to a world that has a pretend holiness in it'. Whereas
> SF, at its best, encourages the real awe that we feel for the real universe.
> I may never be able to travel faster than light to the edge of the galaxy,
> but the edge of the galaxy really is there, and it is probably more strange
> and lonely than I can imagine.

Hm. I'd have said SF has given up, and it's fantasy that encourages
a sense of wonder. Or, more particularly I'd say that SF _tends_ to
the view that physical reality is all there is, and fantasy _tends_ to
the view that there is something more. Since I do believe that the
physical world is just an overlay on top of a deeper Reality, fantasy
strikes me more as an attempt to pierce the veil rather than to deny
the integrity ('holiness') of reality. Or, SF as analysis, fantasy as
synthesis. Or mind vs. spirit; or the external world vs. the internal.

Perhaps that the sense of wonder in SF comes from the portrayal
of individuals as tiny and insignificant against the panoramic backdrop
of time and space, whereas the wonder in fantasy comes from the
portrayal of the individual as of supreme importance. I don't find those
to be mutually exclusive, but paradoxically simultaneous truths.

I wonder if that explains why I prefer science-fantasy to both fantasy
and SF? There's something to puzzle over :)

> I guess we are agreed though that novels about university professors
> committing adultery, and rich women with Aga's taking their labradors for a
> walk, are excruciating crud that should be wiped off the face of the earth.

Well, certainly. Reading about the humdrum does nothing but waste
one's life.

Elsewhere, Una wrote:

> I'm going to skip the science debate since we've done it before (just
> imagine, if someone starts the justifications for rebellion thread we can
> have all three of our main debates running at the same time!

I'd just like to point out that I've been determinedly quiet this week,
despite having been given plenty of fodder by Sally and Julia. ;-)

Mistral
--
Avon:  Logic says we're dead.
Blake:  Logic has never explained what dead means.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 09:43:32 -0400
From: Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:blakes7@lysator.liu.se" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Something else about Star One
Message-ID: <200010060943_MC2-B5F3-ACAC@compuserve.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	 charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline

Sally put forward interesting theory:
>He then goes on to say "I realized that Servalan would =

>never believe that I hadn't scanned the brain prints."
>
>Indicating that [a] Servalan was in power at the time (bang =

>goes the thrity years unless she has a hell of a plastic surgeon) =

>and [b] she either thought up or agreed to the total blackout =

>of information. Including from herself.
>
>Anyone else find this very hard to equate with her Supremeness =

>as we know her? Anyone able to tell me where I've got it wrong?

Hadn't thought about this (and my belief is that Servalan is a pretty
recent arrival on the power scene, oh damn, I never finished writing that=

piece for Vickie last year), but perhaps Docholli is thinking that his
scanning the brain prints was part of Servalan's plan all along;
officially, no one knows where Star One is, unofficially, she was intendi=
ng
to extract the information from Docholli.

Harriet

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 07:39:35 -0700
From: mistral@centurytel.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Avon (was: Rumours of Death question)
Message-ID: <39DDE426.66BD16D1@centurytel.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dana Shilling wrote re Avon:

> Well, I'm pretty sure that he's an excellent cook but the kind who leaves
> the kitchen in ruins and expects someone else to clean up.

Well, maybe if it's Vila's turn to clean up...

I always think of him as a very good but not gourmet cook; but
that really annoying type who cleans up as he goes, so thoroughly
that you can't tell he's been using the kitchen, even while he's
still cooking! (I hate those people! Fnarr, fnarr.)

Mistral

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:21:15 +0000
From: Murray <mjsmith@tcd.ie>
To: Lysator <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Re: Servalan's appointment
Message-Id: <l03110701b603a971f1db@[134.226.96.44]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Judith,

>There's an implication in Seek Locate Destroy (I think that's the episode)
>where
>it's implied that Servalan has only recently been appointed to her post.  The
>discussion about who sponsored her appointment.

The episode is 'Hostage', where Counsellor Joban tells Servalan that he may
have made a mistake in supporting her appointment. This sparks off a
wonderful exchange:

JOBAN:		I supported your appointment. Perhaps I was wrong.

SERVALAN:	Perhaps you were. There's a first time for everything, Joabn.

JOBAN:		I've always admired your willingness to take risks.

SERVALAN:	Calculated risks.

JOBAN:		I add up to a dangerous enemy.

SERVALAN:	Ummmmm. So do I, Counsellor.

JOBAN:		The Council ask 'Where is Blake's head?' And we have no answer.

SERVALAN:	You shall have it.

JOBAN:		The answer, or his head?

SERVALAN:	Both.

JOBAN:		Good. I would not like to think I might have been wrong in
my
		choice.

The problem is that no time scale regarding Servalan's appointment is ever
alluded to in any of the episodes. While, considering her age, it is
reasonable to assume that she was not been Supreme Commander long before
'Seek-Locate- Destroy', there is no _actual_ evidence for this.


Murray

------------------------------

Date:   Fri, 6 Oct 2000 19:34:44 +0200
From: "Marian de Haan" <maya@multiweb.nl>
To: <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Star One (was Anna & the nature of love)
Message-ID: <000d01c02fbb$e358a080$d5ee72c3@marian-de-haan.multiweb.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

While trying to send this message two days ago, I seem to have managed to
get myself unsubscribed.  Now I've resusbscribed and will try again.
Therefore sorry for this late reaction.

Sally wrote:
>No, the point would seem that some of us believe that Blake was trying (and
very well might have succeeded) to save many *more* people than he would
have killed. Some others believe that he'd kill half the galaxy for the sake
of his own ego and a handful of freed survivors.<

Blake's lame excuse in Star One of having to continue the fight because he
has to be right seems totally out of character to me.
I suppose Chris Boucher wrote it like this to present Blake as an obsessed
fanatic, but in a way it is negating Blake's Cause.

His aim is to rid the galaxy of a thoroughly evil regime.  Therefore the
Federation's atrocities like
- planting false images about abuse in the minds of innocent children
- massacring dissidents
- ruthless colonisation (Horizon)
- attempted genocide (Countdown)
should have been mentioned, if only to remind the viewers of what the fight
is all about.

IMHO it would have been more in Blake's nature to answer Cally's
many-many-deaths remark with something like: "Yes, I know, but if we don't
crush the Federation now we have the chance, many more people will continue
to die under its boot.  I don't want to take the responsibility for that,
Cally."

By bringing Blake's just fight down to an ego-trip, Boucher has lead us by
the nose.  And we've all fallen for it :-)

Marian

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 22:22:22 -0400
From: "Doraleen McArthur" <d.mcarthur@worldnet.att.net>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: the old Star One argument
Message-ID: <000201c02fbe$434bb2a0$6cf25a0c@oemcomputer>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
> It doesn't have to be millions killed in order to be horrific. Blake is,
> I suppose, believing in a best case scenario in which  replacement
> governements spring up almost overnight. Where different groups work
> together to ensure that commerce resumes almost immediately to get
> supplies where they are most needed. Where those who grew rich and fat
> under the Federation are stripped of power-- rather than using their
> accumulated power to grow more powerful. He's an idealist, and his hope
> gave fire to the people who *might* be able to make a difference.
> I, however, lean towards worst case scenarios when I make decisions...
> tends to make me indecisive, compared to Blake. But general anarchy
> would not be part of any plan I'd make to build a better government.

    Honestly, I think he really thought it'd be worth it - that the, um,
spiritual worth of freedom was more important than the loss of life.  He
stonewalls everyone but Cally on the issue, but it's obviously something
he's thought about and resolved.  (And I think it's awfully interesting that
he actually *does* open to Cally a bit; that's rare, for him to be as open
as he was with her in that moment.)

--Katie

--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #279
**************************************