--- Natasa wrote:

I can't remember anything naughty Blake did in Bounty - apart from breaking Sarkoff's records. Could you remind me?

Actually it was Blake trashing Sarkoff's record collection that I had in mind. I know that, in the scheme of things, it's fairly minor. I know that it emphasises the difference between Blake and the Federation (People are more important than things). I know that it's for Sarkoff's own good and for the good of the people of Lindor. On the other hand, what right has Blake to invade Sarkoff's life, force him to go with him with the intent of dropping him back into political life on Lindor ? People forcing other people to do things for their own good worry me. Which brings me to your next point.

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.

Blake ultimately is a politician. He wishes to overthrow one polity and replace it with another. I don't think that this is a bad thing. I don't think that we are ever in any doubt that Blake is a more sympathetic character than Travis. Personally I'm not in any doubt that Blake is essentially right in his opposition to the Federation. I think it is apparent that the Federation cannot be overthrown peacefully and that violence is therefore the only alternative to acquiesence in tyranny. Personally, I think that Blake was entirely justified in his decision to blow up Star One. But I think it is entirely legitimate that the issue is left open ended, that the demerits of Blake's case are put before us. That revolutionary politicians are treated with the same scepticism as the establishment. That we remember Nietzche's adage that "he who fights monsters should beware of turning into a monster and that he who stares into the abyss should remember that the abyss also stares into him".

Yes, I know, there is a danger that this scepticism can slide into a quietism which supports the status quo no matter how awful it is. I think that if Boucher was advocating this I would be concerned. But it is noticable that in Shadow Blake destroys the Federation's drug plant. In Trial the decision is made to continue the struggle, in Star One Jenna (who is quite sceptical about Blake) ends the discussion by saying "We finish what we started". And having had Blake shoot Tando in the back, Boucher makes sure we know that Tando had it coming. Boucher seems concerned, not to attack the idea of the fight against the Federation itself, rather I think he is raising questions about the methods used in revolutionary struggles and about what Orwell described as the impossibility of combining power with righteousness. I think Boucher is on Blake's side even if his support is, what else, somewhat ambiguous at times.

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