From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #146 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/146 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 146 Today's Topics: Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant? Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant? [B7L] More web-page reorg Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Re: Fwd: [B7L] Re: Food aboard the Liberatot [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) [B7L] The Keeper and controlling Star One Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) [B7L] Volunteers wanted Re: [B7L] Servalan not killing Avon [B7L] Star One [B7L] re: Star One Fwd: [B7L] re: Blake after Star One Re: [B7L] Scripts (was Man of Iron) Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant? Re: [B7l]: Food aboard the Liberator Re: [B7L] The Keeper and controlling Star One Re: [B7L] Servalan not killing Avon Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 15:04:26 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant? Message-ID: <000401be8f84$ff928500$cd4a8cd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ellynne wrote: >I don't see Cally bumping off rivals, especially after her earlier anger >at the crew's mistreatment of Shrinker. Besides, she's quite capable of >bumping off people on her own. But that begs the question why _Cally_ >didn't try to shoot Anna when she saw her reaching for her gun. If she >wasn't setting up Avon to kill Anna (which I don't think was her style) >then what _was_ she doing? Warning Avon, probably. I don't really see her shooting Anna unless Anna had pulled the gun on her. My own theory is that she suddenly saw a really nasty big hairy spider scuttling over her boot, and called for Avon to dispose of it as she always did when she found a spider in the bath on the Liberator, and he just misconstrued it all. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:57:10 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant? Message-ID: <000301be8f84$fecaa120$cd4a8cd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mistral wrote: +AD4-Have just gone back and run this in slow-motion to be sure+ADs- +AD4-when Cally gives her warning, we are looking at Avon's +AD4-face+ADs- but when the shot cuts out to Avon and Anna, Anna +AD4-is definitely going for her gun, bringing it out and up to firing +AD4-position. Which suggests that it was Cally's shout that impelled Anna to draw, which has always been my impression. But I don't think we can be sure that she was planning to draw before Cally shouted. +AD4- She definitely goes for her gun +ACo-before+ACo- Avon reaches +AD4-for his. Avon's just faster, is all. And neither seems to be in +AD4-doubt that the other would have fired: +AD4- Anna: I always knew when you found out, you'd kill me. +AD4- Avon: Unless you killed me first. Anna is certainly in no doubt, but that doesn't mean Avon's the same. After all, she knows he's still alive, he believes that she is dead. So Anna's been in a position to consider what might happen if and when they remeet, while Avon's had no reason to consider the possibility. What Avon is doing in this exchange is finishing her line off for her. (What a wonderful bloke - first he plugs her in the gut, then he steals half her dialogue.) Is Avon genuinely faster, or did Anna stall? (I think Lorna Heilbron has suggested that she might have done.) So I think her motive was to pull a gun on Avon, yes, but not necessarily to shoot him. Which further suggests that she wasn't expecting him to shoot back. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 11:30:00 +1000 (EST) From: kat@welkin.apana.org.au (Kathryn Andersen) To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se (Blake's 7 list) Subject: [B7L] More web-page reorg Message-Id: Content-Type: text Another re-organisation of web-space, this time of my Geocities web page All the convention reports have been moved to That includes my Deliverance report and so on. The Babylon 5 page has been moved to The Refractions On The Net page has been moved to Tha'a'a't's all folks. -- _--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen / \ | http://home.connexus.net.au/~kat \_.--.*/ | #include "standard/disclaimer.h" v | ------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 06:52:53 +1000 From: Kathryn Andersen To: "Blake's 7 list" Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Message-ID: <19990426065253.A494@welkin.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sun, Apr 25, 1999 at 12:32:00AM -0700, Sally Manton wrote: > Neil wrote: > > >So I don't think we can deduce from this dialogue that Avon does > >hate Blake (which as someone pointed out was Blake's suggestion anyway, > >and one that Avon pointedly refused to be drawn on). > > Because he doesn't. He never hated Blake. He dislikes the fact that he > is letting Blake run his life, a fact that grates against his independence > and his survival instincts (watching Blake's back is *not* the galaxy's > safest place to be), and he loathes the Cause (by this stage with a > vengeance). If he had hated Blake, he would have said so clearly and > loudly (and long before this point ). > > I don't think Blake believes it either - or not for more than > twenty minutes. He gets hurt, but by the time of the 'mine field' bit, > they're back to normal - for *them* this bit is remarkably relaxed and > friendly. (Sally's Rule One of Blake's 7 - Blake and Avon Actually Like > Each Other. Just Don't Ask Either of Them Why.) I've been thinking about Blake's "You really do hate me" statement, and I started wondering if Blake was being emotionally manipulative at that point; hurt, he makes an exaggerated statement that he doesn't quite believe, in order to force Avon to contradict it and reassure him that, no, Avon doesn't hate Blake. But Avon doesn't fall for it. It puzzled me for a long time as to why Blake could be so stupid as to think that Avon hated him when it's obvious that he doesn't. But I think the above explanation solves the problem. Blake only half-believed that Avon hated him. But he wanted reassurance. Which Avon refuses to give, because Blake, in his eyes, is behaving stupidly. Or childishly. Kathryn A. -- _--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen / \ | http://home.connexus.net.au/~kat \_.--.*/ | #include "standard/disclaimer.h" v | ------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 20:49:33 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time) From: Una McCormack To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Fwd: [B7L] Re: Food aboard the Liberatot Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Mistral said: >Personally, however, one would hope that in all those centuries mankind >could come up with a better approach to dental hygiene than the >inconvenience and and messiness of brushing one's teeth. Falsies. Una ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 02:31:24 PDT From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Message-ID: <19990426093128.25396.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain Mistral writes: Sorry, I don't know that there's any proof that Avon is aware of anything of the sort, or that, if he ever was aware of it, it interested him to the point of *thinking* about it. In fact, I'd say Blake was far more likely to have thought about that one, as he shows some interest in military and political history throughout the first two seasons, and (to my knowledge) Avon shows somewhere round about - none. What Avon *knows* is that destroying Star One will have the consequence he *wants*, that is cripple the Federation enough to give Blake's Cause some chance, give Blake the chance to go back to Earth to take that chance, and give him his anomalous IT. And (the way he feels at this minute) the consequences to the rest of the human race be damned. As to whether Blake's thought about it, I believe he has, since before Pressure Point. And he decided long ago that destroying something utterly evil was worth the price. That is *my* interpretation of his words "We have to win. It's the only way I can be sure that I was right." Right in *that* decision, right everything he's done since, right in all the destruction and violence, right in fighting at all. Right in believing that what he was fighting *was* that evil. Because if they don't win, then he might as well not have bothered from the start. And Cally (whose shining moment this is *not*) misunderstands and thinks it's something to do with his ego. I don't believe it *is* millions, for a start. Cally says "many, many people..." which can be interpreted however you like, but if it *was* millions, she'd put it a bit more strongly (like - erm - "millions"). And I disagree with *slightly*. From the evidence of the first two seasons, the amount of freedom the average person had was pretty well none (the drug treatment in The Way Back was likely to be used elsewhere - quite possible very widely elsewhere - and you don't keep a large instrument of oppression like Space Command unless you need it. And - back to the "many, many" - many many people are dying anyway, or caught in a living death). Blake makes it clear that he wants *real* freedom - that he knows he can't deliver it himself doesn't negate what he is trying to achieve, to give people a chance. While Star One is there, as he believes, there *is* no chance. I guess it depends on whether or not you accept that freedom is worth the price. As a beneficiary of the wading-in-blood known as World War II, I would like to think I would believe it so. We have no proof they wouldn't support it, either (especially once they got the drugs out of their system). What we have proof of is that a lot of people *do* admire and follow the Liberator's progress, that Space Command and the political powers-that-be do believe he has a dangerous level of popular support (Seek-Locate-Destroy and Pressure Point indicate this). We can't assume that the Federation has much if any willingly given support outside the military. The evidence in the series is actually the other way - that the Federation had to clamp down hard on dissidents, and on information about Blake's successes, because they were afraid of the popular support he would inspire. As to whether or not people would support him in the face of this upheaval over Star One's destruction - well, was it supposed to be any less when they were going to destroy the same computer centre on Earth (Pressure Point)? Neither Cally nor Avon had any reservations then - Cally was as gung ho as the best of them, and Avon clearly believes that, after the computers are destroyed and the rebels have a chance, *Blake* is the only one who will have the popular support to defeat the Federation. He doesn't think popular opinion would turn on Blake then, so why should it do so later? IMO Avon thinks Blake can't win. He doesn't think what he's trying for is pointless, stupid or wrong, just that it can't be done. I don't think he changes his mind about this as they're going into Star One, he thinks that (with Star One gone) the chances are better, but he still believes it will fail in the end. And yes, he doesn't want to get caught in the crossfire. Again, why should he be worrying about averting it now, when he was all for it before? (He does have an alternative this time, of course - from the Keeper - controlling Star One and taking over the Federation. But Blake [surprise!!] rejects the danger of that much corrupting power, and Avon gives in without an argument, indicating he wasn't really taken with the idea. At least, not without Blake. Power never was one of his interests.) Avon doesn't give a damn about the bloodbath. He wouldn't stand in its way if he could. He is sincerely saying "I don't care *what* happens, *who* gets killed (except me - oh, and when push comes to shove down there, you ) just as long as *I* get shot of this whole thing." (I love Avon dearly, but I cannot understand how this speech can turned into one of his more outstanding humanitarian moments. Quite the reverse IM-extremely-HO) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 02:43:56 PDT From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] The Keeper and controlling Star One Message-ID: <19990426094401.92611.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain While discussing Star One, I dropped in a bit about Avon's suggestion - in the Keeper - that they could control Star One and the Federation. As follows: AVON: If you find the brain print, and consequently the location of Star One, what then? BLAKE: Finish what we started. AVON: Destroy it? BLAKE: Of course. And the entire Federation with it. Does that bother you suddenly? AVON: Star One is the automatic computer control center for the entire Federation. BLAKE: Get to the point, Avon. AVON: That is the point. Through Star One we could control everything. The Federation could belong to us. Now I tend to avoid this episode (my least favourite of the first two seasons) but I got to thinking a little about this bit, because it is an interesting suggestion to come from Avon, who IMO is about as politically-minded and power-hungry as one of his beloved computer chips. And he hardly seems much interested in it - it's clear from the text that he hasn't suggested it before, and he drops it very readily at Blake's rejection. So why does he make it at all? (I'm asking - I really have no idea what's going on in his complicated mind at this moment). After all, in the next episode, he's insisting that he wants to be free of Blake/'it'/everything. Helping Blake to *take over* the Federation instead of bringing it down is hardly his ticket out. Secondly, given the almighty explosions he and Blake are going to give us later in this episode and in the next - "wading in blood" etc, got a way with words, Avon has - it seems to say something about the way he still sees Blake. Avon isn't stupid - when he says "we could control everything" he's perfectly aware of who controls "us". As he goes on "Blake is afraid that power would corrupt him." The power would be in Blake's hands, because he can control the rest of them. So does Avon believe that that sort of immense power *would* be safe in Blake's hands - that he couldn't be corrupted? Or doesn't he care? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 02:35:50 PDT From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Message-ID: <19990426093550.10557.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain To my : < (Well, he *thinks* he wants out. Then he can't find Blake afterwards and can't keep his side of the bargain. And the Federation (Servalan) won't let him out anyway. And he doesn't like it one bit. Helllloooooo, Terminal.) > Neil asked: Probably in Blake's mind. Avon tends at times to have (IMO) a less reasonable viewpoint. I have said it before - for such a brilliant, coldly rational man, he does tend to display a streak of purest illogic on occasion (like the way he's willing to risk his life for a crew member one week, and deliberately endanger the same person the next). He gave his word - whether or not there's going to be a rabble to lead anywhere (Rumours indicates there was), he would want to at least feel that he's *tried* to keep it. At least to the point of finding Blake and asking what *he* wanted to do next. Which to me explains in part why he keeps looking for Blake (he doesn't waste much time searching for Jenna, after all - what, one question each for Orac and Zen? and that's it) (The other reason being - warning Neil, sentimental softy stuff again - he likes Blake. He likes very few people, very few even of the crews he lives and works with and cares about in his way. But he does like Blake, more than any of the others except (maybe) Vila. They're friends, he wants to know the man's all right. Avon and Jenna learned to co-exist, they were only friend-ish, and that in their good moments.) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 03:10:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Peter Borg To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Volunteers wanted Message-ID: <19990426101020.7953.rocketmail@web604.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii No detailed technical knowledge is required for this....! I need a volunteer/volunteers to manage the Blake's 7 webring at www.blakes7.org - you get complete autonomy to manage it as you see fit as long as I don't get any complaints! There's also an associated project that goes alongside this which volunteers may be interested in. More details to volunteers! Peter. === -- Peter Borg peter_borg@yahoo.com _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 03:55:49 PDT From: "Stephen Date" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Servalan not killing Avon Message-ID: <19990426105555.61705.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain Penny Dreadful wrote: >Stephen Date wrote: > >>Servalan is an amoral sociopath whose only redeeming feature is her >>fashion sense. > >Which remains a fine soundbite regardless of its veracity. Thank you Penny, I have always regarded cheap populism as being my strong suit. >There is no mention of "sociopathy" in my one and only Psychology reference >book -- but the way they bandy the term about in popular media I find >highly suspect. According to their criteria, one can define pretty much >everyone one doesn't get along with as a sociopath. I agree that as a meaningful term it is fast going the same way as psychopath. In defence I plead that I got the term from a book by an ex-FBI type who used to hunt serial killers. Also, Hannibal Lecter is diagnosed as a sociopath (incorrectly, judging from Mistral's post). There are obvious points of comparison between Lecter and Servalan. They are both highly intelligent and charming with no regard for others. Admittedly, Servalan does not share Lecter's distressing dietary habits (Although, Bercol wishes he'd brought his own chef when he visits her....). >I stand by my original diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder as >Servalan's basic defect. It explains numerous apparent inconsistencies in >her behaviour. And her fashion sense as well. > >--Doctor P. Dreadful This sounds reasonable to me. I must say I am glad someone else thinks there's something wrong with her. After all, there seems to be a consensus that Travis was a few pursuit ships short of a flotilla for wanting to wipe out homo sapiens to get at Blake. Servalan actually wipes out the Auronar to get the Liberator. Mad, bad and dangerous to know seems a good description of them both. Stephen. P.S. I notice from my borrowed copy of the programme guide that the People's Choice as script writer for the telemovie describes our Avon as "basically a psychopath". Oh dear! ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 05:29:06 PDT From: "Stephen Date" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Star One Message-ID: <19990426122911.92137.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain Having read Sally's post I must say I agree with her entirely. Blake knows what he is doing. With Star One gone "Blake's rabble get freedom of choice". They may make bad choices, that is not the point. Freedom means one can live on ones own terms, not those of other people. That is why IMO Blake rejects the "use Orac to take over Star One" scenario. He does not want to replace a bad dictatorship with a good one. He wishes to destroy the dictatorship totally. Personally I find this neither objectionable or unrealistic. And I am unable to condemn Blake as a fanatic for fighting for the basic freedoms I take for granted. To go where I like, say what I like, believe what I think true and not what the Government says I should believe. Nor do I think that Avon's objections come from a wider knowledge of the cyclical theories of history, for one thing theories of history are just that, theories. (Not very scientific theories at that) More seriously, I don't think that the overthrow of a totalitarian dictatorship is some kind of blood thirsty irrelevance. Like Sally, I consider myself to be a beneficiary of the allied victory in WWII. Granted - the perfect state is a dream of philosophers. But as Orwell pointed out whilst all revolutions are failures they are not all the same failure. Not being able to create a perfect world is no reason not to try to create a better world. Vive l'anarchie Stephen. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 05:56:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Peter Borg To: blake7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] re: Star One Message-ID: <19990426125639.29698.rocketmail@web606.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Couple of other things. If Travis had not made his deal with the Andromedans, they could have just shut the minefields down. How did the first lot of Andromedans get there? Must have taken them a while to go the roundabout route. And how did they find Travis? If the Andromedan thing wasn't a problem, Blake's task would have been extremely easy. We see Blake empire-building on GP - why did it take him so long to achieve this? It this testament to the huge role which the power of the Liberator played? Peter. === -- Peter Borg peter_borg@yahoo.com _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 06:19:41 PDT From: "Sally Manton" To: blake7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Fwd: [B7L] re: Blake after Star One Message-ID: <19990426131944.66029.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain Peter asked: We have no idea *what* he was doing in between Star One and GP.He could have spent some time recovering from his injuries, then got involved in one or several other rebel groups. He could even (now I haven't seen Rumours for some years, so this could be *way* off target, let me own gently if it is) have been making his own way back to Earth and got near before/during/after Sula's coup and got caught up in the backlash...obviously he got hurt again, both physically and in spirit (as poor Tarrant found out the hard way). All this could have taken a lot of time. And - without the safety of the Liberator - he was far more vulnerable, so would have been more inclined to keep a low profile. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 06:44:42 PDT From: "Stephen Date" To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Scripts (was Man of Iron) Message-ID: <19990426134444.3321.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain Ellyne G. wrote >Mine too. In an almost completely unrelated tangent, someone recently >pointed out that Sarcophagus was a little unusual for a Lee title, that >they usually have a little more of a twist or double meaning, so I looked >up the root of sarcophagus. Don't ask me where the Greeks were coming >from when they made this the term for "large coffin," but it means >flesh-eating. I guess that could refer to the alien and her interest in >Cally. > >OTOH, it turns out sarcasm is a related word (Greek for "to bite the lips >in rage," according to the dictionary [and I ask myself, what kind of >culture needed to invent specific words for this kind of thing?]), so >maybe she was thinking of the sarcastic, snarly one or just the show in >general. >> Your first theory is correct, I think, as Cally was, in a way, being consumed. On the other hand B7 tended towards one word titles so someone might have just put a line through the witty and erudite working title and wrote "Sarcophagus". Incidentally I await your analysis of the title of "Sand" with eager anticipation. Stephen. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 06:47:27 -0700 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Message-ID: <37246E6F.260EC0B1@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sally Manton wrote: > Mistral writes: > questions whether or not *Blake* sees them. Avon is surely aware of > the cyclic nature of history, Sally: > Sorry, I don't know that there's any proof that Avon is aware of > anything of the sort, or that, if he ever was aware of it, it > interested him to the point of *thinking* about it. Avon is intelligent, well educated, and believes 'all knowledge is valuable'; and the cyclic nature of history is one of that subject's basics. He'd have to be a fool to have forgotten it; and he and Blake have probably discussed that very subject. > As to whether Blake's thought about it, I believe he has, since before > Pressure Point. And he decided long ago that destroying something > utterly evil was worth the price. That is *my* interpretation of his > words "We have to win. It's the only way I can be sure that I was > right." Right in *that* decision, right everything he's done since, > right in all the destruction and violence, right in fighting at all. > Right in believing that what he was fighting *was* that evil. Because > if they don't win, then he might as well not have bothered from the > start. And Cally (whose shining moment this is *not*) misunderstands > and thinks it's something to do with his ego. Yes, Blake's thought about it; that's not, IMHO, the same thing as seeing (really grasping) the consequences. I'm with Cally here. It is completely egotistical for Blake to believe that he has the right to decide to spend all those lives for *his* idea of freedom. I'm not, generally speaking, in favor of rebellion, but even in a case that I would be, I don't think that five people are enough to make that decision. I certainly think her questioning Blake's motives and thought processes is reasonable, even though she's likely to agree with him after questioning them. > I guess it depends on whether or not you accept that freedom is worth > the price. As a beneficiary of the wading-in-blood known as World War > II, I would like to think I would believe it so. Exactly. And however many people die, and whatever the relative degree of freedom involved, there are going to be people for and against. Each person has a different idea of what they would die for, and a different idea of what freedom really means. I would sacrifice my life, I think, for my SO. I would not, however, give it up voluntarily simply to retain my nationality. Some people would die before accepting almost any infringement of their freedom; others would even accept slavery in order to stay alive, believing that while you are alive, you still have a chance of something better. IMHO, Avon *might* be one of the latter, much as he'd hate slavery; he's certainly willing to go to great lengths to stay alive; also IMHO, he'd *certainly* resent anyone deciding *for* him how much or little freedom to trade his life for. Thus, he'd not think highly of someone who assumed the right to make such a decision for others, or of those who followed such a person. Blake is willing to make those decisions; Avon has questioned and argued with him repeatedly about it, and equally shown contempt of those who'd follow him. (And, BTW, WWII was not a rebellion, it was a concerted defense against a genocidal aggressor.) > As to whether or not people would support him in the face of this > upheaval over Star One's destruction - well, was it supposed to be any > less when they were going to destroy the same computer centre on Earth > (Pressure Point)? Neither Cally nor Avon had any reservations then - > Cally was as gung ho as the best of them, and Avon clearly believes > that, after the computers are destroyed and the rebels have a chance, > *Blake* is the only one who will have the popular support to defeat > the Federation. He doesn't think popular opinion would turn on Blake > then, so why should it do so later? Possibly because there's been hard evidence in the interim of just how much destruction and havoc is actually going to be caused by the destruction of Star One. > about wading "in blood up to your armpits"; he echoes this speech in > 'Blake': "and he will fight to the last drop of *their* blood". Avon > realizes that no matter what he does, he can't avert this bloodbath > that Blake is bent on precipitating;> > > Again, why should he be worrying about averting it now, when he was > all for it before? Must disagree here (are you surprised ); he was *never* for it; he was just interested in staying alive and staying on Liberator till he could get control of it (apart from having become rather comfy there, sort of like a home and family). He participated in order to protect himself and keep his claim to Liberator valid. > Avon doesn't give a damn about the bloodbath. He wouldn't stand in its > way if he could. He is sincerely saying "I don't care *what* happens, > *who* gets killed (except me - oh, and when push comes to shove down > there, you ) just as long as *I* get shot of this whole thing." For the most part I agree; you have, I think, misunderstood what I said. He thinks Blake has a right to lead any sheep who will follow him; his interest in averting the bloodbath has all along been to protect his own skin. > (I > love Avon dearly, but I cannot understand how this speech can turned > into one of his more outstanding humanitarian moments. Quite the > reverse IM-extremely-HO) Interestingly enough, however, I know somebody who drew the conclusion on the first viewing that Avon was the one who had the far more admirable position; like me, however, she doesn't believe either in revolutions or in making decisions about *other* people's lives, or letting them make decisions about hers. It really does depend on whether you find Blake's ideals or Avon's ideals more appealing; and Avon *does* have ideals, although it might not look it to a person more inclined to put the group above the individual, as Blake is. Avon is an individualist; he wants to determine his own future; he's willing to let other people do the same, as long as they don't interfere with *his* freedom. Individualism and 'groupism' are polar opposites, and admittedly there are fewer individualists, and fewer now than formerly; it doesn't necessarily follow that individualists are amoral bastards; they just try to mind their own business in the hopes that others will show them the same respect. IMHO, that is *almost* as big a part of the conflict between Blake and Avon as the idealist-rationalist difference; in part because the concepts are related. FWIW, and that ain't much , Mistral -- "And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 04:03:12 -0700 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant? Message-ID: <372447EF.CF3AD7BF@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil Faulkner wrote: > >Mistral wrote: > >Have just gone back and run this in slow-motion to be sure; > >when Cally gives her warning, we are looking at Avon's > >face; but when the shot cuts out to Avon and Anna, Anna > >definitely going for her gun, bringing it out and up to firing > >position. > > Which suggests that it was Cally's shout that impelled Anna to draw, which > has always been my impression. But I don't think we can be sure that she > was planning to draw before Cally shouted. I'll concede that's remotely possible, but it's too big a stretch for me to find it believable. That's not Cally's style; apart from which, Anna's gun is concealed in her pocket (which is, inconveniently, well down the leg of her trousers), while Avon's is in a holster ready to be drawn. To me, it simply looks as if she's having difficulty getting her gun out, and Cally's taken advantage of that difficulty. > >She definitely goes for her gun *before* Avon reaches > >for his. Avon's just faster, is all. And neither seems to be in > >doubt that the other would have fired: > > Anna: I always knew when you found out, you'd kill me. > > Avon: Unless you killed me first. > > Anna is certainly in no doubt, but that doesn't mean Avon's the same. After > all, she knows he's still alive, he believes that she is dead. So Anna's > been in a position to consider what might happen if and when they remeet, > while Avon's had no reason to consider the possibility. What Avon is doing > in this exchange is finishing her line off for her. (What a wonderful > bloke - first he plugs her in the gut, then he steals half her dialogue.) Finishing her line I'll agree to; but he's not disputing it, which I think he would if it were not so. She continues on to say, "We were well matched." I suspect Bartolomew knew her target pretty well. > Is Avon genuinely faster, or did Anna stall? (I think Lorna Heilbron has > suggested that she might have done.) So I think her motive was to pull a > gun on Avon, yes, but not necessarily to shoot him. Which further suggests > that she wasn't expecting him to shoot back. I don't think she was stalling; it's the pocket/holster difference. Apart from which, the real problem I see with either her stalling or holding a gun on him is that it completely contradicts the idea that she's smart enough to be Federation Central Security's top agent. For starters, it means she doesn't know the first rule of firearms: never point a gun at a man unless you're willing to kill him. (Lorna Heilbron may have had to stall to get the shot right, but if you're going to accept her motivations for Anna, you'll have to accept PD's motivations for Avon, JC's for Cally, etc. ) Or else it suggests that she can't think clearly under pressure, or when emotionally involved with the person; but she was emotionally involved with him before, and managed to keep her head well enough to get out of the situation with both of them alive and free, and as you point out, she's had time to think about how she ought to handle it if they met again. So I don't find that believable either. IMO, her best bet for both of them to come out alive here was to calmly tell him the *whole* truth and ask for his forgiveness, or at least his understanding; and *never ever* present any threat, since he was clearly in an agitated state. That's the best way to handle somebody like Avon, who's more comfortable with rational argument than emotional appeals. He would have listened; and Bartolomew should have known it. (He even heard Shrinker out.) If Anna'd done that she might have lived; if Blake had understood that, he'd have quite possibly survived Gauda Prime; at least it wouldn't have been Avon that shot him. Anna either loved Avon or she didn't; and she either understood him well enough to predict his behaviour or she didn't. (Yes both are continuums; I'm referring to to whether or not she could predict his reaction to the situation they were faced with.) So we have A) love + understand; B) love + misunderstand; C) not love + understand; D) not love + misunderstand. Now I'm going to say that in cases C and D, then killing him is definitely the only smart option; he's too dangerous to leave alive; and she's already been standing there telling him lies, and he's in the process of figuring that out; in which case she pulls the gun to kill him. However, based on the fact that she let him escape the trap, plus she spends her dying breath calling him 'my love', I'll say she did love him. In case B, I find this completely unbelievable, as it means that she's not clever enough to be Bartolomew, nor to have fooled him in the first place. My personal opinion is that she's far more devious and skilled in manipulation than he is. He's really rather straightforward. But case B is the only case where I could buy her thinking that she could gain anything by holding him at gunpoint; however for the above reasons, I disregard it. Which leaves case A, she loved him and understood him; in fact understood him quite well, due to their past relationship and the research that she surely must have done on him in order to set that situation up. Which would mean that she'd know that once she'd pulled a gun on him, he'd never trust her again, nor forgive her; which would further mean that she'd have to kill him. IMHO that's the choice she made; which means she wasn't willing to take the risks inherent in asking for his understanding; so she's putting her own life ahead of both his life and their love. Not terribly romantic of me, I know, but it's the only scenario I find remotely believable (although I'm willing to listen to suggestions). I did read a suggestion once that she was committing suicide by forcing him to kill her, rather than have the memory of their love ruined, or some such; but that doesn't work for me, as it's completely selfish on her part, leaving him with ruined memories *plus* guilt; if she's that selfish, then she'd never commit suicide to keep some vision of love alive. I mean, where's the point? She's dead and he's destroyed. It doesn't work. Since this means her choices really boil down to throwing herself on his mercy or killing him, I think her deciding to pull her gun and having difficulty getting it out of her pocket is a lot easier to swallow than Cally shouting a warning of some non-existent threat (which we're never given any reason to believe; there's nothing to set it up.) Even given the admittedly inconsistent writing for Cally, there's really nothing to hint that she's either that easily spooked or that vindictive. What'cha think? Mistral -- "And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 08:48:42 -0500 (CDT) From: Susan.Moore@uni.edu To: BLAKES7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7l]: Food aboard the Liberator Message-id: <01JAHEASM8MQ8XKCCS@uni.edu> Mistral said: >Personally, however, one would hope that in all those centuries mankind >could come up with a better approach to dental hygiene than the >inconvenience and and messiness of brushing one's teeth. Sure they did. Nanobots. There are specially programmed nanobots in every food they eat. The bots programming kicks in when they are damped with saliva. They then go through the mouth, cleaning up everything that isn't human tissue or tooth enamel (or if you've got braces or other orthadontia (sp?), you've got to eat the food specially made for brace wearers). Once their work is done, the bots go down the esophagus and are dissolved in the gastric juices. Very neat and no hideous foaming. Susan M. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 06:59:53 -0700 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] The Keeper and controlling Star One Message-ID: <37247158.317A219E@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sally Manton wrote: > While discussing Star One, I dropped in a bit about Avon's suggestion > - in the Keeper - that they could control Star One and the Federation. > > And he hardly seems much interested in it - it's clear from the > text that he hasn't suggested it before, and he drops it very readily > at Blake's rejection. So why does he make it at all? (I'm asking - I > really have no idea what's going on in his complicated mind at this > moment). My humble suggestion -- perhaps he thought it might be saferand less messy than wading in blood -- and while Blake was controlling Star One, Avon could play with the Liberator. Just a thought. Grins, Mistral -- "And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 18:52:24 +0100 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Servalan not killing Avon Message-ID: In message <19990426105555.61705.qmail@hotmail.com>, Stephen Date writes >P.S. I notice from my borrowed copy of the programme guide that the >People's Choice as script writer for the telemovie describes our Avon >as "basically a psychopath". Oh dear! That's one area where I disagree with the People's Choice, but on the other hand I don't actually see much evidence of said opinion on screen. -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 06:01:29 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Message-ID: <000401be9039$688d9f40$4e408cd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kathryn wrote: +AD4-I've been thinking about Blake's +ACI-You really do hate me+ACI- statement, +AD4-and I started wondering if Blake was being emotionally manipulative at +AD4-that point+ADs- hurt, he makes an exaggerated statement that he doesn't +AD4-quite believe, in order to force Avon to contradict it and reassure +AD4-him that, no, Avon doesn't hate Blake. But Avon doesn't fall for it. If Blake is deliberately being manipulative, I doubt if it's reassurance he's after. More likely he wants Avon to make a public declaration (what with everyone else being there), one way or the other. If Avon says 'No, I don't really hate you' then Blake has won, because Avon has effectively defused the strength of his own vituperative rhetoric. If Avon says 'Well yes, actually I do hate your f---ing guts', then the rest of the crew are forced to take sides, and since they've followed Blake this far then chances are they'll stick with him - so Blake wins either way. Blake doesn't need reassuring by this stage. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 20:09:36 PDT From: "Joanne MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant? Message-ID: <19990427030936.94629.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain Neil wrote: >My own theory is that she suddenly saw a really nasty big hairy spider >scuttling over her boot, Spider? Maybe. Cockroach, more likely. They're reputed to be able to survive anything. Well, as a species... And what is more likely (no one say "rats") to run over your boot in a darkened cellar? So much for probing analysis Regards Joanne ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #146 **************************************