Harriet, this was very interesting:
>Sudden thought, vaguely associated with Star One: the Right Thing, even
>when it's Wrong. viz it's better for him to attempt to do something,
>even if he has to get his hands dirty, than to make such a fuss about
>dirty hands that nothing gets done at all.
>
>Possibly not connected - catching up on the weekend's newspapers, I came
>across a quote from an essay by Harold Pinter on Shakespeare, which
>apparently likens the plays to an open wound (not quite clear how):
>"Shakespeare amputates, deadens, aggravates at will, within the limits
>of a particular piece, but he will not pronounce judgment or cure."
>
>I've not really got my head round what he's saying yet, but the last
>line struck a chord. An awful lot of drama seems designed to pronounce
>judgment or cure.
When I read this, I first thought about Heaney (who indeed has a play
entitled "The Cure at Troy", although I don't think he actually claims to
have found "the cure".) There is a curious passage in his Nobel Prize speech:
"I remember shocking myself with a thought I had about that friend who was
imprisoned in the seventies upon suspicion of having been involved with a
political murder: I shocked myself by thinking that even if he were guilty,
he might still perhaps be helping the future to be born, breaking the
repressive forms and liberating new potential in the only way that worked,
that is to say the violent way - which therefore became, by extension, the
right way. It was like a moment of exposure to interstellar cold, a reminder
of the scary element, both inner and outer, in which human beings must
envisage and conduct their lives. But it was only a moment."
Is it justifiable to commit something you deem morally wrong if it's going
to have positive consequences, if you are "helping the future to be born"? A
dangerous train of thought, potentially advocating terrorism and fanaticism.
(And to be fair to Heaney, he discards it right away, in the next sentence.)
I'm not saying it justifies Blake, either, but perhaps it explains his frame
of mind at the moment he decides to destroy Star One.
I think that, actually, Blake feels he has dirtied his hands even before
Star One. He doesn't feel at ease about the violence he has commited, and
perhaps he thinks, if he finally manages to bring down the Federation by
blowing up Control, it will in a way redeem all his actions up to that
point. It will give some meaning to all the killing and destruction. This is
how I interpret his (much criticised) sentence, "I have to be sure that I'm
right." Blake has never been sure that he's right to kill.
I don't agree with Pinter that Shakespeare hasn't offered any "cure" in his
plays. You may want to read Ted Hughes's study, "Shakespeare and the Goddess
of Complete Being", which proposes a different outlook.
I don't think I can connect this to B7, though. The Goddess as a
cultural/literary archetype doesn't really feature there, especially not in
her healing, creative aspect (unless it's Cally). She only appears, if at
all, in her destructive aspect, as the Goddess of Strife, the Death-Crone,
in creatures such as Servalan or Giroc, void of all the milk of human kindness.
N.