Blakes7 September 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

56 participants
222 discussions

Re: Re: FW: [B7L] Alma Mater
by Natasa Tucev 27 Sep '01

27 Sep '01

Sally wrote: ><Hence, on the 'material' level, B7 could use a regular doctor character to >heal all the battle wounds. On the 'symbolical' level, however, there's no >need for a doctor becuase Dr Blake tends to 'cure' the society in a bit more >drastic way.> > >OTOH, they could use one for *him* - physically (being the hero, he gets >dumped on rather more than the rest) or metaphorically as he is IMO clearly >reaching the limits of his strength, and while Cally may be able to stand in >for the former, none of the crew he has *can* fill the latter role. I have a feeling Blake is a very difficult patient - remember his reaction in Horizon when Cally tells him he's ill, or the way he behaves at the end of Star One. After all, a doctor is also a kind of authority, and I can't imagine Blake *obeying*, not even when it's for his own good. It must be awfully difficult to convince him he ought to stay in bed, take his medicines, do what the doctor says... As for psychological problems, he acts in accordance with the overall stoical atmosphere of B7 and tends to work them out by himself. Significantly, when he almost gets killed in Trial because of this, he says, 'Next time I want to think, I'll do it in my cabin.' Note that he doesn't say, 'next time I'll confide in my friends'. Also, as you've once noticed, he must have gone through an extremely difficult period in those early episodes, when his memories started coming back to him, and he was trying to put the pieces of his former life together and deal with the painful emotions this caused. And yet there's no evidence in the series of him trying to share this burden with Jenna or anyone else. Actually I have a feeling that most of them (if not all of them) didn't even know about his brainwashing treatment - it seems the first time he mentions it is SLD. Even then it's just a short phrase, 'Oh, they did a memory erase on me.' It's not easy for him to talk about that, but OTOH, there's no trace of self-pity in his voice and he doesn't ask for sympathy. N.

1 0

Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Pherber＠aol.com 27 Sep '01

27 Sep '01

In a message dated 09/26/2001 3:15:46 PM Mountain Daylight Time, smanton(a)hotmail.com writes: > "I should stick to action, Blake. That’s what you’re good at." - isn't that > paraphrased from somewhere (could be Butch Cassidy, but I'm not sure). Yes, from Sundance: "You just keep thinking there, Butch - that's what you're good at." (I *love* that movie!) Nina

1 0

decentring morality
by Natasa Tucev 27 Sep '01

27 Sep '01

Some time ago (I'm trying to catch up, as always) Alison posted some interesting observations on the existance or lack of moral centre in B7. It occured to me that 'decentring' is one of the crucial motifs in B7. To begin with, the centre of evil is not where Blake expects it to be, but somewhere else - Central Control has been removed to an unknown location. Almost observing the little Derridian paradox, 'the totality has its centre elsewhere; the centre is not the centre.' By implication, the evil is not *just* where we expect it to be: we have to abandon the original simplified dichotomy (Blake & rebellion = good, the Federation = bad) and replace it by something much more complex and disturbing. The evil is also the 'unseen other' of Our Heroes, present even in the more virtuous of the lot: in Jenna's wavering about the treasure room, in Gan's destructive madness, in Blake's fatal obsession. Blake, on the other hand, remains the moral centre of the story, although this notion is also challenged and subverted throughout S2. When he's gone in S3, 'decentring' morality becomes even more obvious. Paul Darrow mentions in an interview that he was told by the writers, 'We think now that Blake's gone you ought to be a little more moral', which he obviously refused. In the Programme Guide, Tony Attwood observes about Cally, 'she often took a strong moral line with the crew, particularly after the disappearance of Blake.' Cally is, however, very often removed from the centre of action. Her exchange with Tarrant re Shrinker is a graphic example. Think what Blake would do in a similar situation - probably rush in like a bulldozer and physically prevent the others from mistreating a prisoner. Blake symbolized the powerful presence of morality in one's consciousness; Cally is that same morality reduced to a little voice at the back of one's mind - which, it turns out, is quite easy to ignore. This episode is disturbing on a larger scale, too, as we learn that the rebellion also used Shrinker's services to interrogate prisoners. Cally's death cry for Blake is perhaps her last attempt to invoke this absent principle of humanity and goodness. By finding Blake eventually, Avon finds his lost moral centre only to destroy it for good. Blake's own morality is made questionable by this final episode, too - by his inability to tell friend from foe, to tell who's Federation and who isn't, which, in a way, implies that he has lost his clear insight into the nature of good and evil. B7 obviously toys with the 'uncertainty principle', probably not because of any conscoius interaction with deconstructionism, but simply because they both reflect our age. N.

3 2

Re: [B7L] RE: decentring morality
by Sally Manton 27 Sep '01

27 Sep '01

Jackie wrote: <We already know Blake is capable of issuing threats in his own right. He threatened a surgeon into operating on Gan.> Threats yes. Killing yes - which is why I'm not nearly as sure as some people that Blake wouldn't have let Avon kill Shrinker (though *not* in the way Avon did it). *Gratuitously* taunting a man who is about to die in a particularly cruel manner (the fact that he's killed others notwithstanding) for no earthly reason than to make the taunter feel superior and/or better ... no way. As I said in the earlier post, there's that taint of shabby, mean-spirited cruelty that makes this scene peculiarly ugly, no matter how much Shrinker (BTW, does anyone else *really* find that name distractingly stupid?) deserves it. And that shabbiness is completely alien to Blake's brand of ruthlessness - his sins, like his virtues, are writ large (what *is* that Shakepearean quote about doing nothing mean? I'm at work and my Shakespeare - and my memory - aren't.) Neither with Kayn nor with Sarkoff is there any indication that Blake - who understands creative coercion, true - is gloating over them (he comes closer once or twice with Travis, but that's personal and *only* with Travis). In fact, that wonderful last little bit in the teleport: Blake's utterly bland "is there any way we can thank you?" and Kayn's disgruntled "you could try to get yourselves caught" make me wish kayn had survived to tangle with them again :-) <Would Blake have used a different approach if Kayn had been less of an antagonistic personality, and simply refused to operate as . . .a good loyal Fed citizen should?> Blake would have used whatever method would work on the individual he was dealing with :-) _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

1 0

RE: decentring morality
by Jackie Taylor 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

Carol wrote: > "Mistreating a prisoner?" I'm always astounded when that bit of > name calling > in RUMOURS is presented as something so very nasty that it would > have been > unconscionable to allow it to continue. Given the far more > serious crimes > the rebels were guilty of, name calling ranks a mere "naughty" on my evil > scale. > > As for Blake rushing in to stop it, I don't think the man who blew up the > ship docking with the Ortega has any room to criticize. > We already know Blake is capable of issuing threats in his own right. He threatened a surgeon into operating on Gan. Would Blake have used a different approach if Kayn had been less of an antagonistic personality, and simply refused to operate as . . .a good loyal Fed citizen should? Thing is, we, the audience, want Blake to prevail and for Gan to live, and so we back his infliction of terror on a "guest" who's suddenly become the Fed Bad Guy. Doesn't make it right, though, and I still don't have a clue as to what Blake could have done differently. . . Jackie

1 0

B7 v Star Trek
by Steve Rogerson 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

Harriet quoted the Guardian's TV Guide from 1980 (coo, I'm impressed) as saying B7 maybe was popular becuase it "lacked the moral pretension of Star Trek". I've always enjoyed the idea that Terry Nation devised B7 as being in the same universe as Star Trek and that the Federation in both was the same, but the Star Trek version was as written by the Federation whereas the B7 version was as seen by the ordinary beings. They are both enormous Earth based federations that claim to unite large numbers of planets with diverse beings and cultures. The difference is in how they united them. A clue is the B7 Federation symbol, which is uncannily like the Star Trek one turned on its side. -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent Celebrating 25 years of Blake's 7 and 10 years of Babylon 5 http://www.smof.com/redemption

3 2

Fwd: Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Sally Manton 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

Una wrote: <I can't resist chipping in in support of Cally, and that scene. I've blathered on many, many times about how that scene utterly grabbed me as a kid. I think Cally is brilliant in that scene - hits them with the truth and it *bites*. It's effective as well, isn't it? They *do* stop mistreating Shrinker (well, until Avon murders him).> True, but it's also notable that Cally can only influence the small, shabby cruelty on the side of the whole affair (BTW, there are several examples in S3 of this mean-spirited gloating over a 'weaker' person, a small but definite taint - anyone think that was also deliberate?) whereas she is unable to have any influence over the larger crime. And now that I think of it, that might be a pattern throughout, *not* just in S3 - Cally sometimes queried the morality of the others (Breakdown and Star One come to mind) but I don't recall many examples of her being able *to* influence the final decision for good or bad (yes, yes, I know, trying to deflect My Heroes is sometimes like trying to stop a lava flow with a toy spade). Cally *may* be conflicted, but she possibly also realises that she isn't strong enough to make the difference on her own. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

1 0

Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Sally Manton 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

Neil wrote: <I couldn't help but notice Eli Wallach's line, "Sooner or later, you must answer for every good deed." Presumably this is where Chris Boucher got Avon's "No good deed goes unpunished" in Rescue. Does anyone know which other movies he lifted quotes from?> "I should stick to action, Blake. Thats what youre good at." - isn't that paraphrased from somewhere (could be Butch Cassidy, but I'm not sure). _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

1 0

RE: Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by jacquispeel＠netscape.net 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

"Dana Shilling" <dshilling(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >Alison said: >> > >> > I was thinking of the elegance and symmetry of the structure of B7, >> how >> > situations are set up, and then inverted. >Sort of like data mining using one's old scripts. > >Una said: >> I never see this sort of thing. I didn't notice until people on this >> list said it that Blake's injured eye can mean 1. a loss of clear moral >> vision and 2. a blurring of the lines between him and Travis. >Also, loss or trauma to the eye is a very common fear (and so is >damage to the appearance) so it's a short-cut way of getting viewers >to identify with Blake having suffered. > It is also pointed out 'somewhere' (I forget where) that the first image of Blake is from the left side. Jacqui __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/

1 0

Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Natasa Tucev 26 Sep '01

26 Sep '01

I wrote: <Well, literary criticism tends to be rather heedless of the author's conscious intentions. The usual procedure is to apply one or more of the existing critical approaches and see how much meaning a text yields when examined from that aspect. A good work of art should be able to snap the umbilical cord binding it to its author and exist in its own right.> and Kathryne replied: <Which is why I've never had much respect for Literary Criticism.> Well, you obviously have more respect for it than I do. You write it with capital letters. <What you're saying here seems to be that Literary Criticism wishes that works of art didn't have authors at all, or that who wrote it is irrelevant.> No, what I'm saying is that it's irrelevant whether a certain idea entered a work of art consciously or unconsciously. To demonstrate that it's there I don't need the author's approval. All I need is to find enough evidence in the text. For instance, I advanced the theory that there is a tendency towards decentring morality, or good and evil, in B7, and I've supported it by finding consistency in some events and scenes in the series. If someone wanted to dispute my theory, he/she would also have to do it by quoting the series, not by quoting Nation's interviews. I used the example of the 13th Warrior to show that there can even be a great discrepancy between the author's conscious and unconscious intentions. On the conscious level, it's a good action movie; on the subconscious level, it reveals irrational animosity towards the Earth Mother and everything she stands for. The collective unconscious which permeates the 13th Warrior could be the same collective unconscious responsible, for instance, for the reckless exploitation of the Amazon woods. Do you need another example? I refer you to an excellent 'marxist' analysis of 'Deliverance' Neil wrote last winter (I hope Neil doesn't mind my taking the liberty): the way it reveals imperialist nostalgia by showing how the Liberator 'chaps' deal with the hairy primitives and help an ignorant native solve a technical problem, for which they're justly respected as gods. It is a layer of meaning which the authors probably weren't aware of when they created the episode, yet it's doubtlessly there. You see, creative writing is dangerous. Everything you say can be used against you. Compare it to dreaming: a dreamer doesn't have any impact on the meaning and message his dream conveys; yet it is his. When he wakes up, however, his interpretation of the dream is as valid as mine. His explanation of the dream may be helpful, but it can also be misleading. Consider this extract on Avon from an interview with Vere Lorimer: 'Unlike Blake, he was a man who would do nothing unless he felt there was something in it for him... Avon was forced into following Blake's path of attacking the Federation, due merely to circumstances beyond his control... the only reason for him promising Blake that he would fight Andromedan invasion force was not because he had a sudden attack of moral conscience, but he had no other option.' This is an author's interpretation of his 'dream'; most of us, I believe, wouldn't agree with it. Don't you think our interpretation is as valid as his? (Of course the dream analogy doesn't hold water completely. The creative impulse has to be consciously processed. But a good writer is in touch with his unconscious and creates a unified work of art; a bad one just tends to ride on the general current without really knowing what motivates him.) <I lost all respect for Literary Criticism when I saw someone try to apply Freud to a work (in the name of Literary Criticism), and claim that it meant something.> You mean like that phallic rocket? Applying Freud's theories in literary analysis is a legitimate procedure. Although personally I prefer Jung. N.

2 1

← Newer
1
...
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
...
23
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 September 2001