Blakes7 April 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

70 participants
295 discussions

Re: [B7L] Mission to Destiny
by Tavia 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

Neil wrote: >Maybe, but I enjoyed it:) What precisely did you enjoy? Because I really didn't (I was onto my second double by the middle just trying to keep awake [that's espresso, damn you]) -- and I enjoy detective fiction a lot more than, say, adventure stuff. I'm not trying, btw, to rubbish Nation's contribution to B7... As I said at the outset, I could hardly be said to be against competent hack writing.... And Nation wrote around half my favourite episodes. Tavia

1 0

Nexus address change
by Steve Rogerson 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

For those thinking of booking for Nexus, the address has changed to: Nexus SF Conventions Holly Cottage 64 The Batch Farmborough Bath BA2 0AJ United Kingdom -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent The 25th Anniversary Blake's 7 Convention The 10th Anniversary Babylon 5 Convention http://www.smof.com/redemption

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Ethics and Hal Mellanby
by Jenny Kaye 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

Harriere wrote >Jenny replied to me: > >>He relates the prophecy to the new aliens, arriving in the aftermath of > >>the Galactic War. > > > >But doesn't he go on to say something like "hunt the strangers down and > >kill > >them?" > >Yes - but in the context he appears to mean the strangers who have just >arrived, ie Captain Yates and the other bloke (and, later, Avon). But he does use this on all of them, doesn't he? >But my point was that he *hadn't* got rid of the Mellanbys and, although >they had killed some of the locals, they hadn't actually destroyed their >society yet. Doesn't mean they won't :-)-- and it's useful that they haven't because it keeps the threat still potential. The Sarran do see a connection between the newcomers and the Mellanbys anyway, and when they find the hatch they do try to break in. > >>(It's interesting that we *never* see the prophecy fulfilled - > >>traditionally, these things do come to pass > > > >Really? ISTM the best prophecies are the ones that *never* get fulfilled, > >so > >that people are always waiting for something that never comes. > >Certainly, but I meant that traditionally, if we're told about a >prophecy during a story, we get to see it worked out during the story. But this is Blake's 7, so it could be a bit of cynical political realism? But in the cases where we see a prophecy worked out in a story, it's usually because the prophecy's central to the plot-- here it's just peripheral, isn't it? > >>, so perhaps Servalan decided > >>to launch a revenge attack to teach them how to be polite to visiting > >>dignitaries.) > > > >Think she'd bother? > >If she had nothing better to do. Servalan is not one of those people >who only kills when it is strictly necessary. She likes it. But once she got back she'd've had a whole ton of supporters of the last President to kill :-)-- and there's not much of the Federation left to carry out her orders at this point. > >>I'm sure the Sarrans would always have been very wary of alien arrivals, > >>but that doesn't mean they couldn't have had preliminary negotiations > >>when Hal arrived (and if that was 20 years ago, he might have negotiated > >>with Chel's predecessor). > > > >They don't negotiate with the people out of the capsules. > >This is true, but doesn't immediately prove what tactics an earlier >ruler might have adopted 20 years earlier when the first aliens arrived. If they have a prophecy though, they're not that likely to ignore it or bend it. Especially if it looks like it deals with the destruction of the tribe-- a leader who ignored that would lose popular support if nothing else. >I am inclined to think that the Sarrans' experiences with the Mellanbys >have made them more hostile to aliens Probably the prophecy made them hostile to Mellanby, which made Mellanby hostile to them, which made them not likely to ignore the prophecy. >(though not sufficiently to launch >an all-out effort to destroy the original arrivals - 20 years, and >Lauren's slip-up is the first chance they've had?), Remember though that the Mellanbys have the technology. >but Chel >specifically states that today is *the day*. Probably the firework >display caused by the battle fits the prophecy better than Mellanby's >ship landing safely. Yes but there's no reason he couldn't say that Mellanby was the vanguard-- or that "the day" is open to interpretation. Like the Christian groups who predicted the end of the world for 1900 and then revised the date upwards when it didn't happen. > >The Mellanbys have the advantage in terms of technology. The Sarrans > >couldn't find the escape hatch, either. > >My statement above - they only need to get lucky once, as they do with >Lauren, and if they were really concentrating on the effort, they >shouldn't have had to wait for 20 years. Maybe the Mellanbys have been being clever for 20 years and only slip up now. Also the Sarrans may be making more of a concerted effort now that the day of prophecy has finally arrived. > >>Checking the script again, Dayna says the Sarrans were a problem when > >>her father first arrived, but now leave them alone. This could > >>undermine my thesis, but I'm still prepared to argue for (a) preliminary > >>negotiation (b) breakdown (c) intense skirmishing (d) stalemate (e) > >>leaving each other alone, as Sarrans decide there's no immediate sign of > >>their world being destroyed. > > > >But then, why didn't Dayna say "Father said we got along well with them > >when > >we first arrived, but now they just attack us?" And why do the > >Mellanbies > >treat them like animals to be conditioned or killed? > >I think most of Dayna's explanations can be read as summaries of longer >explanations not required by the situation. Avon needs only to know >what sort of threat the Sarrans pose; she reassures him, while >mentioning that they were a problem in the past. This is a script though, not real life. If they give an explanation in the script we can assume that it stands unless something happens later to contradict it. And the alternative line I gave is pretty brief too I think. This may help to >impress him ("They're really very dangerous, but we're so powerful we >can shrug them off") and perhaps also to justify her violence towards >them ("This is the only language they understand, and it keeps us >safe."). Her account isn't inconsistent with (a) Mellanby attempting to >negotiate for a week or two, then fighting them off for several months/a >couple of years. Or (b) starting off with the fight, then establishing >an uneasy truce. Not inconsistent maybe but why create such a complicated backstory and then not use it? That's why I prefer to take what Dayna says as read. >Incidentally, I take it that the Sarrans are nomads, and don't live next >to the Mellanbys all the time I didn't think they lived next to them at all but I thought they came down from somewhere else-- just over those bluffs maybe? (otherwise I can't see how Hal managed to >sink a spaceship and construct tunnels to dry land without being >noticed). I think he was noticed but they were too scared to come near. >So as well as Chel being a different generation from the >Sarrans Hal first met, he could be from a different tribe. I think you're saying maybe there's more than one tribe of Sarrans, and Mellanby encountered one and fell out with them and Lauren was from there, and then there's this other one (led by Chel) who are fighting the Mellanbys now. But then, why would *two* tribes have a grudge against them? And why do we need to postulate that he fell out with the first tribe at all? And how would Chel know Lauren and why would he say "Welcome back to your people?" It seems too complicated. > This would >also make it less easy to extrapolate the behaviour of any given Sarran >from what he does. But we don't need to know the behaviour of any given Sarran. Just Chel. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Travis on trial
by Fiona Moore 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

> >From: "Dana Shilling" <dshilling(a)worldnet.att.net> > >To: "nublake" <blakes7(a)lists.lysator.liu.se> > >Subject: Re: [B7L] Travis on trial > >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 01:36:27 -0400 > > > >Jacqui said: > > > Is the argument Travis uses at his trial it a 'far more sophisticated' > >version of Par's 'only obeying orders' or is it something else? His > >justification and the response could be used in a discussion of political > >theory/military studies. > >I'd call it naive--he should know that the essence of being the > "government" > >is > >that you get to decide what is "warfare" and what is an "atrocity" as well > >as > >deciding what's a crime and what isn't. "A dog's obeyed in office" > >(Shakespeare > >definitely, King Lear I think.) Actually, I don't recall that line being in Lear, anybody else know? As for the question, I really don't think Travis *could* be that naive. He's an experienced solider, and cannot be unaware that "warfare" in the Federation involves mass murder of civilians. Travis was not following orders; he was obeying a social norm, and as such his actions are not naive in that he knows exactly what he is doing and that in the Federation, a soldier does these things. Furthermore, Travis is not unaware that he is being put on trial not because he committed mass murder of a civilian population, but because Servalan, for her own very good reasons, wants him dead. Travis' court-martial is a total sham. Being the sort of man he is, Travis is not prepared to go quietly, he intends to expose them for what they are: Hypocrites and fools. Travis is the hero of "Trial," not because he's suddenly become good, but because the Federation is so evil they make him look like a babe in arms, and this is essentially what his defense suggests: as a soldier, he has to do evil things, but he has done nothing to compare with what Servalan and the others behind desks have done. As I said in my earlier post, the Travis case is dealt with much better than I can do in Alan Stevens and Jim Smiths' respective articles in Zenith, and in the brilliant audiotape, Travis: The Final Act (all current copies signed by Peter Miles and Brian Croucher)-- both available from Judith Proctor's website (Plug, plug). Fiona The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Death throes, nothing more at http://nyder.r67.net _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [B7L] Mission to Destiny (was Terry Nation as Writer)
by Fiona Moore 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

>From: Tavia <tavia(a)btinternet.com> >Fiona: > >Maybe that's what RONTANE could stand for. > >Redheads Objecting to Negative Typecasting of > >Auburn Nutted Ectresses (*almost* works...) > >Hmm. RONTANA. Sounds like a Doctor Who companion. Appropriate? I think Una's "Entertainers" works, that way we could include the men. Unless you think it sounds too much like a euphemism. > >That having been said, I absolutely *loathe* Mission to Destiny :). > >However, we can have a look at it if you like... > >Me too...but then I thought much the same 'bout 'Deliverance'. Perhaps we >should adopt it as the Lyst 'ep of the week' -- it must have *some* hidden >depths? Hm... let's try it out. One possible interesting hidden depth is actually the theme of the simple explanation being the best. Throughout the story, Cally and the crew keep trying to come up with convoluted explanations for everything which occurs, but the correct explanation, as presented by Avon, turns out to be actually quite simple. For instance, the story begins with the crew puzzling over how Rafford could have been killed and the ship sabotaged. When Dortmunn and a life rocket go missing, they concoct a convoluted explanation that Dortmunn killed Rafford, sabotaged the ship and fled-- this despite the fact that the neutrotope is still in the safe and Dortmunn did not have any reason to sabotage the ship or bear a grudge against Rafford, and in any case the ship is miles away from a habitable planet, so taking the life-rocket is a dangerous risk. The crew still seem to accept this despite the obvious holes, as does Cally-- but Avon does not think this is the answer and in the end he is right; the murder was an accident and the launched ship a decoy. Once this is proven, Grovane suggests that a stowaway did it. Again, there is no evidence for this, and as Avon points out it would be difficult to hide away for the whole duration of the voyage. However, everyone else takes it seriously enough to send out search parties. Avon's simpler explanation-- that it's a crewmember-- turns out to be correct. Later on, Cally and Grovane come up with a variety of convoluted explanations for why Sonheim could have murdered Mandrian, but in the end Avon's simple explanation-- he didn't, he was framed-- is the right one. Similarly, the justly derided "54124" scenes. Cally and the crew puzzle over the meaning. Is it a "Call sign, transmission frequency, navigation index"? No, as Avon points out-- in a panic situation, a dying man thinks only of the familiar, and so, it's a name. Finally, this theme is pointed up by two quotes, one early on in the story: Vila: I can always sense danger Gan: Yes, even when there isn't any. And later on, the following: Cally: The answer is here. If only we could see it. So in other words, "Mission to Destiny" is a story which does have a message under the facile surface, and that message is: Occam's Razor. When faced with a mystery, it's the simple explanation, the one that's staring you in the face, that usually does the trick; the convoluted one is likely to send you running around in circles and concocting danger where there is none. Fiona The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary RONTANE Ginger females rule at http://nyder.r67.net _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Grovelling Apology
by Stephen Date 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

Dear All, Sorry, my last post should have ended up on the spin list. My apologies for any confusion caused. Ob.B7 I bet this sort of thing never happened to Orac ! Stephen. ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: sex and evangelism
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

In a message dated 4/4/01 2:06:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sthompson162(a)mindspring.com writes: << However did it get promoted from a minor prohibition that many Christians feel does not apply to them anyway, to something worse than the activities prohibited in the Ten Commandments??? And do the people who believe that also keep the kosher dietary laws? >> That's an easy one. The latest worldwide figures have shown that about 40% of all married men commit adultery during the course of their lives. By the claims of the church itself, only 2% of the population is gay (the gays themselves claim a figure closer to 10%). An aggressive attack by the Church on adultery, on a level and intensity reserved for homosexuality, would alienate a much larger proportion of their membership, so the truly vehement campaign is reserved for the minority they see as more vulnerable and expendible. Jesus spoke out repeatedly against adultery, and with great conviction. There are no documented words by Jesus on the topic of homosexuality. Not one. Leah

3 2

Interpretation (Tarrant Nostra)
by Andrew Williams 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

Carol wrote: >Sorry, Andrew, my post should have carried a ;-). I wasn't serious. Oh, I know that - nor was I. But it still beats me how some (other) people manage to use that one little bit to say Tarrant is illiterate. I'm sure we see him reading from computer screens on Scorpio. >The Tarrant as >a sopron carrying bald dwarf was also clever and appreciated. I think that if ever there was a B7 fairy tale, it should begin "Once upon a time there was a bald dwarf named Orac...."

1 0

Re: [B7L] Interpretation (Tarrant Nostra)
by Mac4781＠aol.com 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

Andrew wrote: > That was in defence of Tarrant - how can anyone say he is illiterate > based on one line in DotG? Sorry, Andrew, my post should have carried a ;-). I wasn't serious. I thought the "proof reader" reference in Chronicles was cute. The Tarrant as a sopron carrying bald dwarf was also clever and appreciated. Carol Mc

1 0

Terry Nation as Writer
by Tavia 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

Fiona: >Maybe that's what RONTANE could stand for. >Redheads Objecting to Negative Typecasting of >Auburn Nutted Ectresses (*almost* works...) Hmm. RONTANA. Sounds like a Doctor Who companion. Appropriate? >That having been said, I absolutely *loathe* Mission to Destiny :). >However, we can have a look at it if you like... Me too...but then I thought much the same 'bout 'Deliverance'. Perhaps we should adopt it as the Lyst 'ep of the week' -- it must have *some* hidden depths? Tavia

2 1

← Newer
1
...
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
...
30
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Blakes7 April 2001