From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #12
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume00/12
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------"
To: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
Reply-To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
------------------------------
Content-Type: text/plain
blakes7-d Digest Volume 00 : Issue 12
Today's Topics:
Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Re: [B7L] Too quiet
[B7L] Star One
[B7L] Orbit
[B7L] Star One
[B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V00 #11
Re: [B7L] Mission to Destiny
[B7L] Heroes and Brains
Re: [B7L] Many many people...
[B7L] Strangerers
Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Re: [B7L] GSP and Oppression
Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Re: [B7L] Mission to Destiny
Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Re: [B7L] Too quiet
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:14:42 PST
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Message-ID: <20000115011442.92206.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Mistral wrote:
<Whereas I get fed up with people insisting that disagreeing
with Blake's (or anyone's) actions is bashing him.>
Actually, Mistral, I (and I suspect Julia and Neil) never
thought that disagreeing with Blake's actions was bashing
him (we think it's wrong in this case, of course <g>). I have
never thought you were bashing him because you thought he was
wrong to do what he did. It's just that a hell of a lot of
critical posts on this point (in the archives as well) *do*
misquote Cally as if "huge numbers", "millions", "billions",
etc is canon. It's so often "Blake is willing to kill all
the people he's claiming to free" instead of "Blake is willing
to sacrifice a number that I'm assuming is very large and
I'm assuming will be mostly decent well-meaning civilians".
*That's* what grates.
My assumption - based on my reading of Pressure Point, The
Keeper and Star One, and looking at the scraps of evidence
after the War - is that the number *is* quite large, but
no larger than the combined death toll/living-death toll
from continued Federation rule (based on the evidence we
have *of* Federation rule - see Judith's list), the
difference being he is taking the blood on his own hands.
But it is an assumption, because really, the only rather
weak evidence we have is that vague phrase of Cally's -
"many, many people," Avon's prediction in Pressure Point of
what will happen, and Blake's own violent reaction in Killer
to the possible death of millions (which is suggestive in his
wording, but even more dubious evidence, since the two
cases - uncontrolled plague benefiting themselves only vs
the destruction of a military target benefiting...well,
again we don't know the numbers, but IMO large numbers of
oppressed people - are completely different.)
<'The end justifies the means' is just a cop-out for those
who don't have the patience or the backbone or the intelligence
to persevere against the odds, without caving in to the
temptation to take the easier, less ethical path.>
We also saw how well the ethical path worked, didn't we? The
Way Back, Bounty again (Sarkoff's own case) and especially
Voice From The Past being rather pointed examples.
Mind you, I don't think Blake was ever really *contented* with
the 'destroy Star One' plan himself - he just couldn't see any alternative
other than give up and let everyone go to
Federated hell (and he *is* fairly dispassionate about
violence. Like Avon, he is quite ready to kill when he thinks
it justified). He's also not too happy with what he's planning
in Shadow (comes across as defensive, a sign of his own
reservations) but at this stage he must have been researching
Control, and the effects of destroying it. Perhaps he saw the
Terra Nostra plan as the (slightly) lesser of two evils? Then
there *is* Voice - yes, he's under the influence as it were,
but there's a rather wistful note in his "Our first real chance.
And, one free of violence and bloodshed." And we know how that
turned out...
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:18:11 PST
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Message-ID: <20000115011811.27683.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
After I wrote:
<Star One is still sending out commands, they're just scrambled,
and it's killing 'many, many people' by its continued existence.>
Mistral wrote:
<If that is true (and the only deaths we actually know of are
on the Nova Queen) it is because of the Andromedan interference,
not the Federation.>
Agreed, and I worded this badly. But the point was that the
examples we see at the beginning of Star One are no evidence
of what will happen when Star One goes down, because they are
being *caused* by Star One. (I actually got sidetracked by
the thought of how bloody stupid the whole idea of a control
base no one can get to to repair *is*.)
Me:
<And these examples indicate that, when Star One goes
feral, individual worlds *cannot* override the lethal
instructions (which makes sense, since it's an instrument of oppression).>
Mistral:
<Eh??? There is not one example of Star One being used as
an instrument of oppression; in fact, it's quite clear it
can't be done. <snip> I seriously doubt that if your
government found a way to give you a perfect climate
and eliminate traffic accidents, you'd find it oppressive.>
And if that was all Star One was doing, they wouldn't have
had to hide it. The whole *point* is that it is so much more
than that - it's been made clear from the start of the
Control/Star One arc. As Blake says: "a computer complex
to monitor information: political, civil, military -
everything. That computer is the nerve center of ALL
Federation activity." Travis, The Keeper: "It is the key
to our very lives." And Durkim: "Our unbeatable control
and coordination centre." The fact that no one can get to
it to fix it doesn't mean it still isn't that nerve centre,
that it doesn't enforce control as it was designed to do.
After all, if it wasn't useful to Federation control,
why the hell would they hide it, or anyone try to destroy it?
Me:
<Star One as a working Federation weapon kills;>
Mistral:
<Proof? You haven't given any.>
<puzzled look> As we're told more than once that it's part
(a very important part) of the military and security
command and control structure, I didn't think proof of
this was necessary...
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:20:03 PST
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Message-ID: <20000115012003.53129.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Neil and me and Neil:
Saddo Avon-groupie apologists will believe any old tripe if
it gets Old Studsy off the hook.>
<Well, of *course*...if we wanted to be fair and reasonable
and objective, we'd be fans of Gan. Or football commentators.>
<You can be a fan of football commentators if you really want
to, see if I care.>
Nononono....Being unfair and unreasonable and unobjective and
a fan of the Bad-Tempered (But Adorable) One is much more fun.
And easier on the eyes, too.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 21:02:52 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Star One
Message-ID: <387FF16C.6384@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Star One is destroyed in the war, and there is no evidence later in the
> series that millions of people died - rather, that the Federation lost
> control, and that largely the result of losing most of its battle fleet.
> --
> Julia Jones
Hmmm... this has me thinking. We've often heard comments on the fact
that the Federation *retained* control over much of it's territory in
spite of the destruction of Star One *and* the decimation of it's fleet
in the war.
What if the destruction of Star One had ended up having the opposite
effect of the intended one? Enough chaos ensued that, rather than
weakening the Federation for overthrow by groups such as those led by
Avalon or Kashabi, the people, frightened by the loss of controlled
climates, reliable transportation and communication, and such, ended up
backing the existing government because they wanted the emergencies
dealt with?
The alternative, of course, which is what I think Julia and others
suggest indirectly, is that Star One's destructiion is more like the Y2K
bug. A lot was expected, but not much happened.
--Avona
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 21:13:04 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Orbit
Message-ID: <387FF3D0.765F@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Julia Jones wrote, re Orbit:
>
> > Hey! *This* saddo Avon groupie thinks he would so have done it, once
> > he'd been given the idea. If he knew where Vila was, then why the hell
> > didn't he haul him out to help dump the neutron matter?
> >
> > Anyway, I thought the whole point of that episode was the lovely, lovely
> > angst of watching Avon deciding to kill his best mate. Sort of spoils it
> > if he wasn't really trying.
>
> I'd like to second this, if I may. And the thing that makes it twice as
> nice is that Avon's come to the point where he didn't even think of
> it himself; I suspect it was in there under the surface and he was
> repressing it like crazy-- until Orac took that option away.
>
> Mistral
What I want to know is, are there any "saddo Avon fans", at least on
this list, who say Avon *wasn't* trying to find Vila? Perhaps I was
misinterpreted when I stated that his wierd tone of voice indicated he
was shutting off part of himself in order to do it-- but I know Vila
would've been out that airlock had A) Avon found him and B) not found
the heavy stuff first.
--Avona
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 21:37:11 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Star One
Message-ID: <387FF977.902@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> What interests me is the way Star One is quoted, but not Pressure Point.
> It will somehow kill fewer people if the control system is located on
> Earth when it's destroyed?
> --
None of us saw the *sort* of control the central computer was used for
(traffic control, weather control) until after Pressure Point, during
the Star One episode. So we didn't have any idea what there might be to
object to. We assumed, on the basis of trusting Blake, that he was
choosing a military target rather than what might be no more than a
thing for building order out of chaos.
There is a possibilty Star One was used as an instrumentof opression.
But that hasn't been proven, and when we learned more about it, some of
us came to doubt that was it's purpose.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 21:50:27 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V00 #11
Message-ID: <387FFC93.7ECE@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> I like Moorcock.
>
> Neil
I don't.
I may have to completely give up my claims to being a cynic. Not that I
don't agree with him on some of his points. But I wish the Eternal Hero
would be Eternally placed in suspended animation and sent on a
completely uneventful journey through the depths of space.
--Avona
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 15:02:08 EST
From: "Joanne MacQueen" <j_macqueen@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Mission to Destiny
Message-ID: <20000115040208.96856.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>From: mistral@ptinet.net
>Ditto. I fail to see how the Federation could cause Destiny's star
>to be lacking in certain wavelengths of light. (OTOH, a good
>writer might make me believe they took advantage of that lack
>to engineer a lovely fungus-- but no, I don't "really" believe it.)
Well, they did engineer lovely fungi, if Project Avalon is any indication,
but it was meant to be applied externally rather than terrestrially, if you
like. Unless anyone wants to speculate that the Project Avalon nasty fungus
thingy was a later attempt that didn't escape into the wild?
Regards
Joanne
(this is Saturday afternoon here, and I've had my six impossible things
before breakfast practice, before anyone asks...)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 22:35:58 -0700
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Heroes and Brains
Message-ID: <20000114.223606.8670.1.Rilliara@juno.com>
Was watching a rerun of some old kid's show the other day. The cast was
made up of one of those assorted groups, heroic leader, vain female,
spineless male follower, the dog, and the brain (baby sister of heroic
leader). Got to thinking, in American shows, the brainy character is
usually emasculated, one way or another. There's the elderly scientist,
the genius kid, the wimpy nerd who wouldn't notice a crisis (much less do
anything about it) without the the hero's help, etc. As a general rule,
they are NOT the hero. OK, there's Spock, but he started out as a
sidekick who didn't want command and wouldn't think of noticing the women
around him happened to be female more than once every seven years
(improved scripting in this area, I understand, was fan driven).
I can see how this would be an American phenomena. Various aspects of our
history have left less than perfect respect for intellectuals (hard
hitting facts of frontier life emphasized the directly practical, many
early settlers came from places where education was a mark of gentry or
aristocracy, a less than popular group here).
OTOH, Avon may have started out as a similar character. He was an
associate of the hero, not the hero. He also lacked the motivation and
drive to go after the Federation (which, in the first year, was not much
of a morally ambiguous goal). Then there's Dr. Who. He did start out as
the elderly scientist, after all complete with pretty, young
granddaughter.
So, was Avon a hero (or anti-hero) in the making from day one or was he
another case of the fans seeing something good and pushing it? And would
he have worked better with a vain female, a spineless sidekick (male),
and a . . . . Oops. He had those, didn't he? Does Orac count as a dog?
At least he didn't have a baby sister working the computer.
Ellynne
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 22:17:36 -0700
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Message-ID: <20000114.223606.8670.0.Rilliara@juno.com>
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:14:42 PST "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
writes:
> I have
>never thought you were bashing him because you thought he was
>wrong to do what he did. It's just that a hell of a lot of
>critical posts on this point (in the archives as well) *do*
>misquote Cally as if "huge numbers", "millions", "billions",
>etc is canon. It's so often "Blake is willing to kill all
>the people he's claiming to free" instead of "Blake is willing
>to sacrifice a number that I'm assuming is very large and
>I'm assuming will be mostly decent well-meaning civilians".
>*That's* what grates.
While I agree large number of well-meaning civilians is heavily implied,
I never feel like I have enough information to make an argument. It's
like the WW II bomb argument. To me, the critical element is the bombing
of civilian targets. _With the information they had then_, the people
making the decision could be justified in seeing dropping the bomb as
simply a more efficient, more psychologically devestating form of bombing
_civilian_ targets. The long term effects of radiation and the nightmare
possibilities of nuclear war weren't things they had information on. In
that context, the question was whether destroying a _civilian_ target was
justified. If it was, then I'd say the decision to drop the bomb was in
keeping with it. If it wasn't, more than the two bombs dropped on Japan
has to be reconsidered.
My gut reaction is that civilian targets aren't legitimate targets in a
war. But would the allies have won WW II if that had been their attitude?
Does the fact the Axis started bombing civilians first change the
situation and, if so, is it the sole determining factor? Unfortunately,
while I can come up with the questions, the answers ellude me.
Which is like Star One. I can think of situations where I think
destroying Star One was justified. I can think of one's where it wasn't.
There are others where I think it would be a judgement call or where it
might have been justified but not the way Blake intended to do it. It
drives me nuts having insufficient data (please, don't follow that up
with a Star Trek joke).
As to Neil's argument about the end justifying the means, that was just
to provoke response, right? In everything, cost is a factor (especially,
IMHO, if you're going to stick someone else with the bill [even more if
it may be costing their life]). Then there's also the question of whether
it's money you have a right to spend. I'll give Blake a lot of credit,
but not carte blanche.
Ellynne
>My assumption - based on my reading of Pressure Point, The
>Keeper and Star One, and looking at the scraps of evidence
>after the War - is that the number *is* quite large, but
>no larger than the combined death toll/living-death toll
>from continued Federation rule (based on the evidence we
>have *of* Federation rule - see Judith's list), the
>difference being he is taking the blood on his own hands.
>But it is an assumption, because really, the only rather
>weak evidence we have is that vague phrase of Cally's -
>"many, many people," Avon's prediction in Pressure Point of
>what will happen, and Blake's own violent reaction in Killer
>to the possible death of millions (which is suggestive in his
>wording, but even more dubious evidence, since the two
>cases - uncontrolled plague benefiting themselves only vs
>the destruction of a military target benefiting...well,
>again we don't know the numbers, but IMO large numbers of
>oppressed people - are completely different.)
>
><'The end justifies the means' is just a cop-out for those
>who don't have the patience or the backbone or the intelligence
>to persevere against the odds, without caving in to the
>temptation to take the easier, less ethical path.>
>
>We also saw how well the ethical path worked, didn't we? The
>Way Back, Bounty again (Sarkoff's own case) and especially
>Voice From The Past being rather pointed examples.
>
>Mind you, I don't think Blake was ever really *contented* with
>the 'destroy Star One' plan himself - he just couldn't see any
>alternative
>other than give up and let everyone go to
>Federated hell (and he *is* fairly dispassionate about
>violence. Like Avon, he is quite ready to kill when he thinks
>it justified). He's also not too happy with what he's planning
>in Shadow (comes across as defensive, a sign of his own
>reservations) but at this stage he must have been researching
>Control, and the effects of destroying it. Perhaps he saw the
>Terra Nostra plan as the (slightly) lesser of two evils? Then
>there *is* Voice - yes, he's under the influence as it were,
>but there's a rather wistful note in his "Our first real chance.
>And, one free of violence and bloodshed." And we know how that
>turned out...
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 09:31:27 +0000
From: Steve Rogerson <steve.rogerson@mcr1.poptel.org.uk>
To: Lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Strangerers
Message-ID: <38803E4F.2F01AEF6@mcr1.poptel.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The Strangerers (that new thing with Paul and Gareth in) now has a web
site. Sadly it fives you sweet FA in info (apart from how long before it
starts), but if you want to see it, it's at:
http://www.sky.co.uk/strangerers
--
cheers
Steve Rogerson
http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson
"In my world, there are people in chains and you can ride them like
ponies"
The alternative Willow, Buffy the Vampire Slayer
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 00:07:17 +0000
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: b7 <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Message-ID: <1AK+bCB1o7f4EwWd@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <008b01bf5edf$c4be7f80$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>, Neil Faulkner
<N.Faulkner@tesco.net> writes
>Star One (getting back on topic at last) is hard to square with real world
>correlatives since - being TV drama - the dice are more loaded than they
>normally are in real life. Blake, at any rate, believes that the only truly
>effective way of destroying the Federation is to destroy Control, and not
>even Avon disagrees with him on that point (he certainly doesn't offer any
>alternative strategy). Avon merely queries the need to destroy the
>Federation at all (not in itself an unreasonable query). But Blake is bent
>on destruction rather than appropriation (also not unreasonable). He has
>committed himself to the ends, which in turn binds him to what appears to be
>the only effective means.
And Blake has very good reason to believe that it is the only effective
means. He's been down the pacifist protest route, and found that all it
gets you is summary execution if you're lucky, and being turned into a
programmed zombie if you're not.
This is a government that drugs its citizenry into acquiescence; that
ruthlessly stifles any dissent that gets past the drugs, so much so that
those attending a non-violent meeting are gunned down when they try to
surrender to troops who attack the meeting; that frames a man who
*might* be beginning to recall inconvenient memories, and props up that
falsified case by implanting three children with memories of being
sexually assaulted; that plants solium bombs to try and ensure that
worlds make no move to freedom however much their citizens might want
it.
Blake thinks that this is wrong, and that people should be given the
freedom to choose, freedom they simply do not have. How does he know
that the majority of the people would agree with his course of action?
He doesn't. He *does* know that the administration is so terrified of
facing that question themselves that they deprive as many people as
possible of the opportunity to make that choice, which is somewhat
suggestive of what answer the administration thinks it would get. I
suppose he could always try asking the Federation rulers nicely to hold
elections to see which form of government the people want.
Blake is quite right in one thing. If they hold back at Star One, then
why did they bother with all the rest of the killing and destruction? If
Star One is wrong, why is the rest of it right?
There is no easy answer to this moral dilemma. As Neil has pointed out,
it was deliberately set up that way by the writers.
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:22:51 -0000
From: "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Message-ID: <009501bf5f42$9d1bfa80$ca8edec2@pre-installedco>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Neil quoted Michael Moorcock
>"The laboured irony, as it were, of the pulp hero or heroine, this deadly
>levity in the face of genuine experience, which serves not to point up the
>dramatic effect of the narrative, but to reduce it - and to make the
>experience described comfortingly 'unreal' - is the trick of the worst kind
>of an escapist author who pretends to be writing about fundamental truths
>and
>is in fact telling fundamental lies."
Yes, what a brilliant quote, that's exactly right. I hate that fastidious
cringing away from reality.
I am reminded of one of the basic tropes of fantasy fiction - the camp
overnight on the trail. I hardly ever read one of those without getting
annoyed. One of the worst aspects of 'LotR' is unreality of these camps
(given their frequency). I recommend 'Against a Dark Background' by Iain M
Banks for an alternative view. Basically the protagonists set off across
wild country and find it is almost impossible to kill enough meat to stave
off starvation, that it is freezing cold and wet, and that any injuries fail
to heal and hold them up really badly.
I also recommend that TV series I mentioned before 'extreme survival' for
what it is really like to camp out night after night, and try and get hold
of enough food and water to live. I mean for someone who is not a native to
the area with long-learned local knowledge.
Anyway I have been thinking about two eps of B7 (Blake and Duel) where they
camp in the woods overnight
I don't think they are *too* bad. A one-night camp is after all quite a
different prospect from trying to survive for weeks. I do find Blake's camp
on Gauda Prime a little bit too comfy and neat, and well provided with game,
but Vila and his female chums are suitably useless at getting by. And 'Duel'
is very uncomfortable for all concerned.
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 22:59:09 -0000
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Message-ID: <000801bf5f47$0041eb20$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Julia wrote:
> What interests me is the way Star One is quoted, but not Pressure Point.
> It will somehow kill fewer people if the control system is located on
> Earth when it's destroyed?
A fair point. However, the Earth mission was sprung on the crew at the last
minute, and the practicalities rather shunted aside all the moral agonising.
Hence it didn't get a mention in the episode. But by the time they're
approaching Star One, they've had weeks if not months to think about what
they're planning to do, hence it comes up for discussion, and hence it's the
episode that fans turn to when they themselves want to discuss the moral
dimensions.
Also, the arguments for or against destroying Control on Earth would be
pretty much the same as those for or against destroying Star One, so citing
one more or less implies citing the other. Star One has become the default
episode out of the two, probably because (a) it's a rivetting denouement to
the season, not tucked away in the first half, (b) it's got quotes to deploy
in an argument, like thirty thousand million squillion people suddenly
dropping dead if Blake so much as looks at the place, and (c) it's by Chris
Boucher and therefore better than anything Terry Nation could write.
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 23:51:45 -0000
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] GSP and Oppression
Message-ID: <000901bf5f47$012b60c0$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Julia wrote:
> We're being offered a means of decreasing traffic accidents in the UK.
> Well, not offered, it's going to be imposed if Teflon Tony gets his way.
> Enforce speed limits by putting a system into all new cars, whereby the
> same technology used for those nifty little gadgets that tell you where
> you are to within a hundred metres is used to tell where a car is and
> what speed it's doing.
And I think it's a wonderful idea, but then I'm a cyclist who risks life and
limb everytime I pedal to work. If they fitted these things on bikes to see
who cycled down pedestrian-only footpaths, I'd be one of the first to
scream.
>Wonderful for fighting crime, as
> well. All those people who do the wrong things, think the wrong way, now
> you can track their movements at the press of a button. The pilot scheme
> might even be online in time for the twenty year anniversary of 1984.
Another way of fighting crime is to put up video cameras in public places to
monitor who goes where. Like in that opening shot of 'The Way Back' that
shows us how nasty and oppressive the Federation is. You don't see anything
like that in your local shopping centre, do you? In a free society like
ours, nobody would stand for such a thing.
The GSP thing can be taken even further - fit everyone with a locator chip
(they can be injected under the skin), so our kind protectors can tell where
anyone is, at any time. No longer need the innocent be bullied by surly
policemen asking them to relate their entire movements through the second
week of September three years ago, because they can tell you exactly where
you went ("Admit it, sonny, you did enter Sainsbury's at 1438 on the 12th.
And you were in there for 27 minutes and 18.69 seconds. Exactly when a
packet of Polo mints was lifted from checkout number four.")
Joking aside (because if you don't laugh you're doomed to cry), if this can
be done if not now then in the very near future, why didn't the Federation
do it? The answer, of course, is that the concept was probably near
inconceivable 23 years ago, and even if Terry Nation did think about it, it
could have seriously scuppered the very first episode.
What this raises is an issue that bothers me from time to time - how do we
cope with the futuristic aspects of B7 that have become reality (or near
reality) in the real world? Other examples (and just the ones I'm aware
of):
- cloning (Weapon), feasible now, albeit after a fashion. There is at least
evidence in the series that restrictions on genetic engineering are legal
rather than practical.
- sensory data transmission (the Deathwatch sensormesh), tipped to appear
within decades rather than centuries. Optic nerve input from a cat has
already been relayed to a monitor in all its fuzzy glory.
- stun lasers (Project Avalon), available now, but since the beams carry an
electric charge to zap muscles they're probably not very useful for knocking
innocent cups over.
- holographic conferencing - not actually in the series, but it should have
been because we've got it here and now. Last week a class of students was
given a maths lesson by a life-size hologram of a teacher several miles
away. Rather wipes out the need for all those governors to go to Atlay,
dunnit? Or for Bercol/ Rontane/ Joban to drop in on Servalan.
- Subneutronic overlap shift - what Zerok can do to gold, I myself can do to
veggieburgers. Turn them black, that is. And my socks have perfected
teleportation. Well, one in every pair seems to have...
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:05:09 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Message-ID: <38806274.5714BDDB@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Judith Proctor wrote:
> > Eh??? There is not one example of Star One being used as an
> > instrument of oppression; in fact, it's quite clear it can't be done.
> > There is no way for the powers that be in the Federation to give
> > any orders to Star One at all. They don't know where it is, they
> > can't fix it-- they have no control.
>
> Just because they don't know where it is, doesn't mean that they can't relay
> orders to it.
<snip several workable possibilities>
I don't think there's any evidence to support that, though, and
it seems unreasonable that they would take such pains to
secure it against physical attack and leave it vulnerable to a
pirated signal; furthermore, if they had contrived to be able to
send instructions, they would have surely included a set of
fail-safes: abort, shutdown, autodestruct, none of which we see
being attempted.
> > I seriously doubt that if your government found a way to give
> > you a perfect climate and eliminate traffic accidents, you'd
> > find it oppressive.
>
> Unless they then said "pay us quadruple taxes and do everything else we say, or
> your perfect climate will become hurricanes." Climate control makes oppression
> a doddle - bit like a solium device, only more expensive to set up.
Yes, of course I considered that, but again, if they can't send
it controls, which I don't see as feasible, they can't do it. Again,
there is no evidence it was used in such a manner, or even
threatened with--nobody ever mentions such a use; there are
no mentions of rebels attacking weather control satellites, etc.
OTOH, Sally has reminded me of some dialogue I'd forgotten,
so I'll have to rescind my objection to her calling it an 'instrument
of oppression.'
> > But the point (to me, anyway) isn't the body count. It's
> > whether Blake has the authority to make the decision to
> > deliberately sacrifice non-combatants to win his victory.
> > In my book, he doesn't.
>
> But then it is difficult to poll people at large when you have no access to the
> media and there is no mechanism for recording their votes in any case. (I think
> the alphas may have had some voting rights, but the labour grades certainly did
> not)
>
> He had no way to gain such authority - nobody did.
Well, the polling is your idea; I've never suggested it. I think that
you're probably right, he can't get such authority. But your take
seems to be, since he can't get authority, he should do it anyway.
My take is, since he can't get authority, he shouldn't do it. He
ought to take a deep breath and try another method that doesn't
overstep his authority. And another, and another, and another,
if necessary. Yes, I realize it's more difficult, takes longer, and
people will suffer under Federation rule in the meantime. But
Blake won't have paid for his dream of freedom with lives that
aren't his to spend.
> I find I always come back to the same question because one can only look at
> these things in comparison to the real world. Do you feel the deaths in the
> American civil war were justified?
Well, I'll answer these Judith, but I must tell you up front that to
me, there is an enormous difference between a war and a rebellion,
so this is really comparing apples and oranges.
> The south (as I understand it) was within its rights to seceed. (thus one could
> argue that the war was fought without 'authority' on the part of the North.)
> However, the war ended slavery in America.
It's a fiction of popular culture, and even taught in some schools,
that the American Civil War was about slavery. It wasn't. It was
about economic issues. Slavery was used as a red herring to turn
it into a sort of 'holy war'--a false justification for an unjust war.
Slavery was on its way to an end *without* the war.
Do I think the North had the authority to order its own citizens
to war? Yes. Do I think the men who made the decision to do
so made a moral decision? No. Did the US government have
legitimate authority over the South? No. The South had every
right to secede (and I'm a northerner, if you're wondering).
> Civilians died in that war - I'm sure you can think of better examples than I
> can - Atlanta comes instantly to mind. Sherman's march to the sea.
>
> Non-combatants were deliberately sacrificed. Does that mean the war should not
> have been fought?
I cannot answer these specifically--you certainly know more
about this than I do, history really isn't my field. I can only
address civilian deaths in wars and rebellions.
Collateral civilian damage is sometimes unavoidable. But we
often tend to forget that when two countries fight, *all* the
citizens of both countries are at war, even though they may
choose to use armies.
Blake, OTOH, isn't in the position of a head of government
contemplating a military action against a warring nation with
possible collateral damage. Blake is a self-declared rebel,
with no authority over civilians, contemplating an action where
the *primary* damage will be civilian--any other scenario
isn't reasonable--the very civilians he claims to be fighting for.
So what Blake is doing is *assuming* the authority to trade
some of those civilians' lives for the betterment of other civilians'
lives. Lives vs. quality of life, with Blake making the decisions.
Those sorts of rights are vested in legitimate governments, but
Blake isn't one; and until he can get himself one, he only has a
right to spend the lives of people who've ceded him that right.
> I won't give an answer, but I do think that a generation of living in peace with
> the horrific memory of WW2 in a previous generation has led us to an unrealistic
> desire that all wars should be won without anyone getting killed.
Ah. You think I'm objecting to the fact of people dying? I'm not.
The problem is which people. The problem is Blake deciding at
what point someone else's life is miserable enough to be worthless
except as casualties in his war for freedom.
Let me ask you one, that's closer to how I see Blake's position:
The vast majority of American colonists were not in favor of
the American revolutionary war. Do you think it was all right
for the relatively small bunch of rebels to force rebellion on the
majority? And do you think it would have been all right for
General Washington to turn his artillery on, say, the population
of Massachusetts, in order to weaken the British?
I'm afraid I can't agree that rebel leaders, however righteous
their causes may be, have the same range of options open to
them that legitimate governments do, with regard to civilian
populations.
Just IMHO,
Mistral
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
--Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:11:29 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Message-ID: <387FAD20.70A1CB7@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Julia Jones wrote:
> Oh look, I agree with Mistral on at least one thing tonight:-)
<pout> Dear me, Julia, how dull ;-)
Mistral
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
--Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:24:01 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Mission to Destiny
Message-ID: <388066E0.4CF894F9@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Neil Faulkner wrote:
> Mistral (oh grud, she's back!) wrote:
If ever I would leave you... da da da dee dee dum dum...
Nope. Can't do it. You need a good excuse to be cranky.
> (Totally off-topic trivia quiz: which total
> has-been of a band used this sad practice to get a title for one of their
> more desultory albums?)
Hmm. I'm ashamed to say I don't know. Unless it's punk.
I don't know anything about punk. Do tell.
Mistral
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
--Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:47:09 -0000
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Message-ID: <16b901bf5f56$c5c06610$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Alison wrote:
> Neil quoted Michael Moorcock
>
> >"The laboured irony, as it were, of the pulp hero or heroine, this deadly
> >levity in the face of genuine experience, which serves not to point up
the
> >dramatic effect of the narrative, but to reduce it - and to make the
> >experience described comfortingly 'unreal' - is the trick of the worst
kind
> >of an escapist author who pretends to be writing about fundamental truths
and
> >is in fact telling fundamental lies."
>
> Yes, what a brilliant quote, that's exactly right. I hate that fastidious
> cringing away from reality.
>
> I am reminded of one of the basic tropes of fantasy fiction - the camp
> overnight on the trail. I hardly ever read one of those without getting
> annoyed. One of the worst aspects of 'LotR' is unreality of these camps
> (given their frequency). I recommend 'Against a Dark Background' by Iain M
> Banks for an alternative view. Basically the protagonists set off across
> wild country and find it is almost impossible to kill enough meat to stave
> off starvation, that it is freezing cold and wet, and that any injuries
fail
> to heal and hold them up really badly.
>
> I also recommend that TV series I mentioned before 'extreme survival' for
> what it is really like to camp out night after night, and try and get hold
> of enough food and water to live. I mean for someone who is not a native
to
> the area with long-learned local knowledge.
Argh, you can't expect to say something about LOTR and not have me leap in
mindlessly to defend it, can you?
I could give you the really anal answer and expound at length about the
various stages of the journey, but that would be tedious. So my answer boils
down to two things:
1. If I wanted to read about surviving in the wild, I'd read survival books,
not fantasy.
2. If there wasn't a book setting up the tropes in the first place, how
would we be able to enjoy all the brilliantly subversive and original
'trope-shattering' novels when they emerged?
Incidentally, rereading the chapters surrounding Frodo and Sam's journey
into Mordor and bearing in mind that it comes out of Tolkien's experiences
in the trenches during WW1 makes it seem, I think, neither fastidious nor
escapist nor comforting.
Anyway, I just can't fault Tolkien (tho' I can most other fantasy lit) so
any response will be met in a mature and considered fashion with me holding
up my hand, making it look like a mouth and going, 'Nya nya nya'.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:50:47 -0000
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: "B7 List" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Message-ID: <16ce01bf5f57$26902e80$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mistral:
> I'm afraid I can't agree that rebel leaders, however righteous
> their causes may be, have the same range of options open to
> them that legitimate governments do, with regard to civilian
> populations.
What about rebel leaders with overwhelming popular support? I'm thinking of
Ireland after 1916 here.
Una
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #12
*************************************