Stephen wrote:
>> Someone on the
>> Lyst suggested the name of the episode, apart from
>> the drug, also alludes to
>> the Terra Nostra being the Federation's 'shadow'.
>
><bows modestly>
Oops, sorry, Stephen, I forgot it was you. At any rate, I thought it was a
very shrewd observation.
>I think that Blake's darker side had been hinted at
>earlier in Mission to Destiny, Breakdown and Bounty
>for example.
I can't remember anything naughty Blake did in Bounty - apart from breaking
Sarkoff's records. Could you remind me?
>I think Boucher is more
>detached from Blake. Nation's Blake is a bit like the
>wartime view of Churchill - shown fighting for freedom
>in a heroic light. Boucher's version is more like
>Churchill as shown by modern historians - yes he was a
>good guy but he could be ruthless, nasty and just
>plain wrong on occasions. So I think that Boucher is a
>revisionist, subverting the orthodox view
I'm all for subversion - but what do you get when you subvert the idea that
people should oppose totalitarianism and big, powerful states which tend to
control the world? I view B7 as a subversive discourse in itself.
Practically all of the pop-culture heroes of today are law abiders, police
officers, star fleet officers, army officers, always upholding status quo.
On the other hand, B7 confronts us with a world order which is fundamentally
wrong and which *has* to be opposed. I don't think you can compare this to
Churchill - he also defended status quo against the bad guys. Even Robin
Hood doesn't jeopardize the given order, since he just opposes the usurper
of the throne, not the concept of the throne in itself. The idea behind B7
is much more radical. No, I don't think it was a good idea to subvert Blake
and everything he stands for.
N.