From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #243
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume00/243
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 243
Today's Topics:
Re: [B7L] In Praise of Dark and Dysf [ Jacqueline Thijsen <inquisitioner@w ]
Re: [B7L] Re:recasting [ mistral@ptinet.net ]
Re: [B7L] recasting (was Coltrane) [ mistral@ptinet.net ]
Re: [B7L] Re: Sally's request [ "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com ]
Re: [B7L] In Praise of Dark and Dysf [ "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com ]
Re: [B7L] Why Not Blake II? [ mistral@ptinet.net ]
Re: [B7L] Why Not Blake II? [ "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com ]
Re: [B7L] In Praise of Dark and Dysf [ mistral@ptinet.net ]
Re: [B7L] info request [ "Minnie" <minnie@picknowl.com.au> ]
[B7L] Blakes motives [ "Jessica Taylor" <morgaine54@hotmai ]
Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7 II? [ Iain Coleman <ijc@bas.ac.uk> ]
Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7 II? [ Iain Coleman <ijc@bas.ac.uk> ]
J or P revisited (was Re: [B7L] Why [ mistral@ptinet.net ]
Re: [B7L] Why Not Blake II? [ Mac4781@aol.com ]
Re: [B7L] Re:recasting [ "Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet ]
Re: [B7L] Why Not Blake II? [ "Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet ]
Re: J or P revisited (was Re: [B7L] [ "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.de ]
Re: [B7L] Why Not Blake II? [ "Doraleen McArthur" <d.mcarthur@wor ]
Re: [B7L] Five minutes after _Voice [ "Doraleen McArthur" <d.mcarthur@wor ]
RE: [B7L] recasting (was Coltrane) [ Louise Rutter <Louise.Rutter@btinte ]
Re: [B7L] In Praise of Dark and Dysf [ Ika <blake@gaudaprime.co.uk> ]
Re: [B7L] Re:recasting [ Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demo ]
Re: [B7L] Re:recasting [ Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demo ]
Re: [B7L] Why Not Blake II? [ "J MacQueen" <j_macqueen@hotmail.co ]
Re: [B7L] In Praise of Dark and Dysf [ Betty Ragan <ragan@sdc.org> ]
Re: [B7L] In Praise of Dark and Dysf [ Betty Ragan <ragan@sdc.org> ]
Re: [B7L] Orac the Great (was Why No [ Betty Ragan <ragan@sdc.org> ]
Re: [B7L] Why Not Blake II? [ "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com> ]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 07:46:25 +0200
From: Jacqueline Thijsen <inquisitioner@wish.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] In Praise of Dark and Dysfunctional ... (was: Why
Not Blake II?)
Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000828074359.00a88e90@pop3.wish.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 01:15 28-8-00, Neil Faulkner wrote:
>Said Sally, re Avon
> > There's that rather singular but unshakeable brand of honesty, which
>insists
> > that he will not (knowingly) lie to himself or about himself
>
>So when he told Tarrant that his name was Shevron and Dayna was his wife, he
>really believed he'd got hitched and signed the deed poll whilst teleporting
>back up to the Liberator? No lies about himself there, then.
I think that should be qualified: he wouldn't mind lying to someone he
intends to kill or otherwise get rid of, but I think he'd have more trouble
with lying to someone he intends to work with or (perish the thought) even
cares about.
Jacqueline
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 17:19:16 -0700
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re:recasting
Message-ID: <39A9B003.C8DF4793@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Steve Rogerson wrote:
> Steve Kilbane said: "Anyone reckon Anthony Stewart Head could do Blake?"
>
> Only if Sarah Michelle Gellar could do Jenna and Alyson Hannigan as
> Cally.
Ack! Only if you write Cally as altWillow. I've no desire to watch Aly
mope around the flight deck and spout stupid, meaningless 'proverbs'
for the better part of three seasons. She'd be great as the Cally of
'Time Squad', however. Or (beating the dead horse) a female Avon ;-)
ASH could do either Blake or Avon; but I'd like to see him as Travis.
Mistral
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
--Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 19:44:04 -0700
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] recasting (was Coltrane)
Message-ID: <39A9D1F3.42ADF684@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Helen wrote:
> James Marston (Spike) isn't really a Cockney; he's from Modesto. To my
> ear he deos the accent rather well, but I suppose you Brits can tell me
> if it's totally hokey to your ears. Anyone fancy him making a Vila who's
> pretty scrumpcious?
Great minds, Helen. I think you were signed off last year when I
suggested this very thing. Perfect Vila. Different, but perfect.
Mistral
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
--Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 08:40:53 GMT
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Sally's request
Message-ID: <LAW-F455ANH2cv0aGlt0000078a@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Helen K wrote:
[b] Vila's first driv- errr, flying lesson;
(in script form)
Avon> Ouch!
Vila> Sorry about that, Avon.
etc ...
<grin> and lots of fun it was too (I must try this more often, the results
are great). Thanks heaps for this, Helen.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 08:43:47 GMT
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] In Praise of Dark and Dysfunctional ...
Message-ID: <LAW-F121XpvTjtPUNWY0000071a@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Betty wrote:
<"Honesty" is not quite the word I would use. If anything, it seems to me
that the way he warns people off is somewhat *dishonest*: IMHO he (probably
quite deliberately) exaggerates his own bad qualities, his dangerousness, in
order to keep people at a distance. As for lying to himself... I keep
waffling back and forth on this issue.>
As I said, I don't believe he *knowingly* lies about himself to them. Avon
thinks the absolute worst possible of just about everyone in sight, and that
includes himself. After all, he knows his own darker side very well; he does
believe that he'll use them for his own ends (a belief shown to be well
founded once he takes charge, even with Cally and Vila). The "I am a selfish
bastard and not to be trusted" routine *is* at least a true part, a very
important part, of his nature *as he sees it*.
"I do not need anyone at all" is interesting, because IMHO it *is* proof of
this refusal to lie to himself. Avon spends all that time quizzing Orac -
and it's fairly obvious, to me at least, that Orac is not telling him
anything he can't work out for himself - in order to prove to himself, on
good hard (if somewhat technical) grounds that he *honestly* doesn't need
the others. As he doesn't, not to simply survive. What it does come down to,
of course, is asking *yourself* the right questions as well as Orac <g> ...
<In Avon's belief, the worst possible sin is to betray someone who trusts
and cares for you, and that is the one thing he *will not* do.>
Actually, the line that gets me in Rumours is the simple "you weren't even
real." Not that she betrayed him, not even that she lied to him ... but she
*was* a lie.
< (After all, he's quite willing to *deceive* the people he cares about, if
it will help to protect them. "Hostage" being the obvious case in point.)>
This, like that blatant fibbing at the end of Gambit, isn't lying about
himself, but about what he's *done*. And <gurgle> you will notice in both
cases that he is endearingly clumsy at it (even if obsessed, Blake couldn't
*possibly* have missed it in Gambit!!!!!!) In Hostage, Avon does not lie
about what he's done, he just doesn't mention that he's done it (not all
that difficult, since none of the others have any conceivable to think of it
and therefore ask him.) And when Cally does prod, he doesn't prevaricate or
deny that something's wrong, he simply (and veeerrrry pointedly) changes the
subject.
And Neil wrote:
<So when he told Tarrant that his name was Shevron and Dayna was his wife,
he really believed he'd got hitched and signed the deed poll whilst
teleporting back up to the Liberator? No lies about himself there, then.>
Do not be so danged literal, man. Okay, okay, so I should have qualified it
to lying about himself to the people in his life (mutter grumble, lovely
flow of rose-coloured eloquent gush, and people have to spoil it by pointing
out the potholes).
Of course he fibbed *there* (though not very well - even at gunpoint, he
still ain't good at it), but there is a slight difference in lying about
your morality and motives to your own people and concealing your
highly-saleable identity from the completely unknown (but possibly
avaricious and unquestionably hostile) stranger with the enemy uniform and
the gun. I'll admit, even My Darling has enough sense to bend his own rules
when telling the truth if it kills him *would* kill him.
(PPS - I liked Kathryn's suggestion of the word 'integrity'. For all his bad
points, it does fit him beautifully IMO.)
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 01:36:26 -0700
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Why Not Blake II?
Message-ID: <39AA2489.EDAA5960@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Carol Mc wrote:
> Mistral wrote:
>
> > If you'll note in the passage you've quoted, I've put 'best' in quotes,
> > and the parenthetical (as he sees it). I was trying to distance myself
> > from the opinion; it's (IMO) *Blake's* view, not mine.
>
> So Blake didn't think Avon was at his best? That was the part that was very
> confusing. At one point you said Blake accepted Avon for what he was, then
> below that you said he was trying to persuade Avon to be his best. Those
> statements appear to contradict each other. Let me pull up the quotes from
> your earlier post.
>
> > Actually, you can boil that down to three things: (1) intelligent and/or
> > mentally stimulating; (2) trustworthy; (3) likes Avon just the way he
> > is. Blake has pretty much everything enumerated in the previous
> > paragraph,
>
> <snipping>
>
> > All this while Blake keeps prodding Avon, trying to bring Avon around
> > to the cause, to be his 'best' self (as Blake sees it);
>
> That seems to suggest that Blake doesn't like Avon just the way he is.
Only if one insists on having an overly simplistic view of humans and
their relationships. I'm trying to draw a distinction between accepting
someone's basic nature, and thinking that 100% of his behaviour is
as effective as it could be. Blake accepts Avon's basic nature, and
recognizes the strengths of that nature; and when he wants something
from Avon, has the wisdom and sensitivity to give reasons that *Avon*
will find valid (i.e. logic and loyalty) rather than insisting, as most
people would, that reasons that are good enough for Blake (common
good, etc.) should necessarily be good enough for Avon.
What you're suggesting makes it sound as if you think in order to like
someone just as they are, you have to remain unaware of their flaws,
or their differences from oneself. I don't think you can actually be
said to like someone if you are unaware of their flaws, and I don't
think you can be said to be a true friend if you don't encourage their
growth.
Hm. Try this analogy. Avon is a musician in a world full of painters.
All his life, people have tried to *make* him paint pictures, because
normal people don't play music, they paint. He stumbles into Blake's
colony of artist-rebels, all of whom are painting pictures of rebellion.
Blake says, 'Join the rebellion!' Avon says, 'I won't. I won't paint any
stupid pictures of your stupid rebellion.' All the other artists crowd
around and say things like: 'Why won't you paint for the rebellion?',
'You are so cold, don't you care about anything?', 'Painting is good
for you!', 'Must be something wrong with him if he won't paint!'
Blake on the other hand, thinks that it would be good for both Avon
and the rebellion if Avon got involved; and with his usual attention to
detail, has noticed the guitar slung on Avon's back. 'Well,' he says,
'will you write a theme song for the rebellion, then?'
'Uh...' says Avon. He really doesn't know what to think. It must
be a trick. Practically nobody listens to his songs; and nobody's
ever asked him to *write* them one before. 'Well... okay.' So
Avon settles in to the colony, writing rousing rebel tunes. He's
still sensitive to the most oblique allusion that he ought to take
up painting, and he thinks the rebellion is utter stupidity; but so
far, Blake asks him for songs, not paintings; maybe Blake's not
such a bad guy, after all.
In this case, Blake has done what Blake sees as 'bringing out
Avon's best' (since Blake thinks everyone should contribute)
without changing Avon's nature (from musician to painter.)
> If your Avon is emotionally moved by Blake, Blake's persuasion, Blake's
> cause, and if he misses that "great big bleeding heart," then your Avon is
> far more "wonderful, good, noble" than my Avon.
<g> Okay.... I genuinely *don't* see where you got this, it's exactly
the opposite of what I've been trying to convey. My Avon thinks the
cause is stupid, thinks Blake's great big bleeding heart is a liability to
both Blake *and* his cause, and bristles at the merest breath of any
sort of emotional persuasion. But he is touched, at a very deep level
that only reveals itself in a quiet and unspoken personal loyalty, by
Blake's *consistency of character*, and by his acceptance and liking
of Avon for who he is (as per above.)
Now, I don't expect you to agree - our Avons are too different; but
I hope at least I've been clearer this time.
Cheers,
Mistral
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
--Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:13:22 GMT
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Why Not Blake II?
Message-ID: <LAW-F1559g4pXX50yki0000081e@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Mistral wrote:
<I'm trying to draw a distinction between accepting someone's basic nature,
and thinking that 100% of his behaviour is as effective as it could be.>
IMHO, (yes, maybe I should stop putting the 'H' in <g>) a good example comes
very early, in Time Squad, *with* that piece of calculated trust Blake
displays in placing his life in Avon's hands (and not all that long after
he's risked setting the man against him by the take-over-command bluff on
the flight deck). The integrity and the seeds of loyalty that makes the
trust possible *is* part of Avon's nature, but up till now he's had precious
little cause to show or use it, and the others have had even less reason to
suspect it's there (Cygnus Alpha, anyone?).
By this action, Blake doesn't change, or try to change, anything fundamental
about Avon - he just gives fair notice that he knows the trustworthiness is
there, is a part of Avon, and can be called upon when needed. And he does it
in an understated, pragmatic way that doesn't get Avon's goat as lofty
declarations about trust and loyalty would at this prickly stage.
Blake does accept Avon's basic nature - the bad and the good - and draws on
the good (okay, and the incorrigibly criminal when needed - he's an
idealist, but definitely not a saint <g>) .
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:57:44 -0700
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] In Praise of Dark and Dysfunctional ... (was: Why Not Blake II?)
Message-ID: <39AA3798.74C76BEE@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Neil Faulkner wrote:
> Lying *to* himself is another matter. I think that what Avon wants above
> all else is certainty. Unfortunately, one thing he would swiftly become
> certain of is that there are rather broad swathes of life where one cannot
> be certain.
Got up today and found Neil playing in a character thread. After I
checked to make sure the world wasn't ending, I really enjoyed this
post.
Mistral
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
--Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:25:36 +0930
From: "Minnie" <minnie@picknowl.com.au>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] info request
Message-ID: <000301c010df$60d69180$a1c326cb@marina>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Neil wrote:
>
>I'm not sure any reference was given by one of the crew. Scorpio was
>reported to leave Bucol-2 (in Animals) at TD 12, but that reference comes
>from a Federation officer reporting to Servalan.
>
>Stardrive gives the speed of the initial space chopper attack (witnessed by
>the Scorpio crew) as Standard By 12.6, but Atlan and Plaxton cited
>theoretical speeds of Time Distort 12 and 15. But Stardrive is a Follett
>episode, and as such need not be taken seriously.
Thanks to Neil and everyone else who answered this question. I have worked
out that I can put anything I like and it will sound like I know what im
talking about <VBG>
Im going to go with Time distort 10 then, thats fast and thats what im
after. Anything to out run the federation.
Cheers. Min.xxx (who thinks that no matter what the speed, Scorpio could
out stroll them <VBG>)
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 22:06:49 EST
From: "Jessica Taylor" <morgaine54@hotmail.com>
To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Blakes motives
Message-ID: <F333qtQvAauNjVuMhvq00000b42@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
(Tried to send this last night but it doesn't seem to have workd, sorry if
you've already got it.)
Sally responded to me:
>Errr ... sorry and all that, exactly how would getting killed on Albian
>along with Avon have accomplished that? How would it have helped the cause?
>Or stranding himself (*without* thinking to check surface conditions,
>possible danger etc or leaving himself an escape route) on Zil's planet?
I remember reading somewhere (possibly in the Lysator archives) someone
suggestng that the reason Blake didn't get out when he and Vila had the
chance was because he was keeping the teleport free for Avon and Del Grant
to get out as quickly as possible. Considering that the bomb wasn't actually
meant to blow the planet up but pump out some sort of radiation to poison
everyone the only two people who would certainly be killed as soon as it
went off were Avon and Del, it was the most logical thing to do. This seems
reasonable but I agree that Trial is a little harder to explain, I suppose
someone could say that Blake couldn't deal with what had happened on Earth
and was basically running away from or it could be said that that was Blake
manipulating the crew so that they would stay with him, but no, I don't
believe that either.
>Blake is not stupid. If he dies, the Liberator will probably cease to be as
>effective a force for the cause (in fact, the desultory and muffled
>muddle-and-go-nowhere of early 3rd season shows that, without his guiding
>hand, it does precisely that. It's really only Servalan's determined
>pursuit
>that keeps them fighting *at all*.)
Agreed.
So repeatedly risking his own
>life,
>especially when he knows the others would not blame him if he didn't (as in
>SLD) is actually *harmful* to the cause.
Not necessarily if he thought he could get them both out alive it may have
seemed worth the risk for the sake of keeping a full crew complement.
>I've said it before, Blake's a driven man, and I do think his cause is *as*
>important to him as his people (he will not give up the Liberator to the
>federation - that would be a crime against humanity). But again, if the
>cause overrode the people, he *would* have tried harder to keep Avon in
>Breakdown - he knows he has the influence, he knows he has the manipulative
>skills, and he knows Avon is valuable. But Avon's free (or as free as Blake
>can make it) choice comes first - "if he stays, it's got to be for his own
>reasons", not Blake's.
Can't remember Breakdown too well so if I've got something muddled up I
apologise in advance. If Blake had tried to force Avon to stay on the ship
he knew very well it would simply make Avon even more determined to leave.
Blake certainly isn't stupid he knows Avon needs to feel that he has control
before he'll ake a decision so he gave Avon his space.
>I think Blake was stating the absolute truth when he gave Cally the reason
>he went back for her on Centero. "Too many of my *friends* are already
>dead,
>Cally. I can't afford to lose another one."
Yeah, you could be right.
Best wishes,
Jessica.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:42:50 +0100 (BST)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@bas.ac.uk>
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7 II?
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000826133901.1895B-100000@bsauasc>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Dana Shilling wrote:
>
> > (Thinking about Avon interviewing potential flatmates. Ouch.)
> I think I saw that movie already--it's called "Shallow Grave."
Speaking of 'Shallow Grave', Christopher Ecclestone for Blake,
anybody? Think about it, it might just work.
Mind you, with Robbie Coltrane as Avon we might as well just call it
'Cracker' and have done with it. Indeed, I have a notion that simply
transposing the entire cast of Cracker would work disturbingly well.
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:37:23 +0100 (BST)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@bas.ac.uk>
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7 II?
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000826133629.1895A-100000@bsauasc>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 mistral@ptinet.net wrote:
>
> (Mind you, if Avon is as actor-proof as Iain says then I want Keanu.)
I said _actor_ proof.
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 04:48:41 -0700
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: J or P revisited (was Re: [B7L] Why Not Blake II?)
Message-ID: <39AA5198.617F8E95@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Kathryn Andersen wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2000 at 08:32:32AM -0700, mistral@ptinet.net wrote:
> >
> > learns fairly early on to try to change Avon's *mind*, not his heart.
> > There is some emotional leakage due to Blake's nature, but it's
> > mostly incidental - his appeals to Avon quickly become based on
> > logic; and the consequence is that he reaches Avon's heart as well.
> > [The reason for this is easiest explained by type theory: as an INTP,
> > feeling is Avon's *last* (4th) function; under stress he will reject it,
> > which means that an emotional appeal from someone who claims
> > to be a friend is the *least* likely way to persuade him - it will
> > IMO be viewed as emotional blackmail; it would either have the
> > opposite effect and/or damage the friendship. However, Blakes
> > discretion in this will earn Avon's appreciation.]
>
> Even if Avon is INTJ rather than INTP (I am still not convinced that
> he's INTP, though he might be) then he's still likely to object to
> emotional appeals as emotional blackmail and manipulation; the logical
> intellectual appeal is still the one most likely to succeed.
>
> For an INTP, Thinking is the first function, iNtuition is the second;
> for an INTJ, iNtuition is the first function, Thinking is the second;
> so both types have a high regard for logic.
Aw, I didn't really mean to open up the J/P debate again; it's just
so difficult to explain why I think certain things about Avon and
A-B without resorting to type theory; sort of like I suppose it's
difficult to discuss OOP without using the vocabulary, once you're
used to the vocabulary.<g>
Okay, IMHO you've used what is essentially the right piece
of data, but overlooked the deeper implications of same. He is, as
Helen says in another post, very borderline, and presents himself
as certainly more J than I do; but people can and do learn to use
a range of behaviours in appropriate circumstances, especially by
the time they are Avon's age in the show. I suspect he presents
as J as he does because he needed to develop those behaviours
to get along in his society, at his job, etc. But by the time one
reaches midlife, one is fairly adept at the first and second function,
and starting to develop the use of the third. My contention is that
the most accurate way to type someone who is borderline on J/P,
is by deciding which is his *fourth* function (the opposite of the
first), because it is far easier to do accurately. (However, if you're
going to try to decide between T and N, I'll point out that Avon
says in 'Mission to Destiny' that he doesn't trust intuition - doesn't
sound very INTJ to me.)
The fourth function is (1) developed late in life (*after* the point
at which we see Avon); (2) the one we're worst at; (3) the one
that we will reject under stress. So: INTJ - N, T, F, S - the fourth
function is sensing and INTP - T, N, S, F - the fourth function is
feeling. So the question becomes, which is Avon worse at, sensing
or feeling? Which does Avon reject under stress, sensing or feeling?
I think the answer is very clear. Avon doesn't want to deal with
feelings - his own, or anybody else's. It's been mentioned before by
someone(?) on the lyst the way in which he goes cold and analytical
in a crisis - not normal for most people, but normal for short-term
stress in an INTP, shutting off feeling until the crisis is over. Under
long-term stress, when the feeling cannot be shut off, he extraverts
it - another INTP characteristic. I can probably list dozens of examples
from canon where Avon rejects feelings or fails to cope with them
appropriately; show me a correspondingly large number of times
that he rejects or retreats from or mishandles sensing, and I'll be
forced to reconsider my position. Really I will ;-)
> Of course, we could simply put this subtle debate down to this: both
> Mistral and I identify with Avon. She's an INTP, so she thinks Avon
> is an INTP. I'm an INTJ, so I think Avon's an INTJ.
Hee. Except that *isn't* why I think Avon's an INTP (though
it's probably why I'm *glad* he's an INTP). I used to think he
was an INTJ. It was reading INTJ Lisa Williams's assertion
that Avon is an INTP masquerading as an INTJ, and the
subsequent discussion (on Sue Clerc's site, IIRC), that made
me change my mind. I think that particular read of Avon makes
a lot of his motives and behaviours transparent; reading him as
an INTJ doesn't. For example, his stress pattern in S3 and S4;
I'd have to say he was cracking up as an INTJ, but as an INTP,
those behaviours look like fairly normal patterns for long-term
stress. And the behaviour in Rumors and Terminal strikes me
as relatively normal for an INTP; lots of us are obsessive; but
it doesn't strike me as very INTJ.
I think Avon's hard to type if you just look at J/P, but the more
I learn about function preferences, the more certain I am that
P is the 'correct' choice.
> Or we could throw our hands up in the air and say that the writers
> didn't know type theory. (grin)
Hey, neither do most parents, but they still manage to produce
perfectly typed children. <g> Seriously, the better a character
is written (as in realistically) the more he'll be typeable. The
fact that we can narrow it as much as we do indicates how
well Avon is drawn. A real person would, IMO, be just as
difficult to type, if you couldn't ask him questions about himself.
Just IMHO,
Mistral
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
--Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 08:48:17 EDT
From: Mac4781@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Why Not Blake II?
Message-ID: <7a.988da10.26dbb991@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mistral wrote:
> What you're suggesting makes it sound as if you think in order to like
> someone just as they are, you have to remain unaware of their flaws,
> or their differences from oneself. I don't think you can actually be
> said to like someone if you are unaware of their flaws,
I don't think Avon was hiding his flaws under a bushel barrel. <g> I think
everyone was aware of them. There are days I'm amazed that anyone liked him.
But like him they did, flaws and all, and despite his best efforts to push
them away.
> and I don't
> think you can be said to be a true friend if you don't encourage their
> growth.
Ahhh, there's encouraging growth and encouraging growth. I suppose it
depends on how one categorizes encouraging Avon to be part of the rebellion.
I don't see that as encouraging growth.
> Hm. Try this analogy.
I honestly don't see how that analogy relates. There isn't a world full of
rebels telling Avon to join the rebellion or calling Avon cold and uncaring
if he doesn't join the rebellion. There's just Blake. And of course he uses
persuasions that will work as opposed to persuasions that won't work. He
doesn't use those persuasions because he cares about Avon. He doesn't use
them because he wants to encourage Avon's growth. He uses them because he
wants Avon's cooperation and that's the best way to obtain it. Blake isn't
stupid. Nor is he terribly concerned about Avon or Avon's feelings. He
doesn't care that Avon is cold and uncaring as long as he gets the job done.
Blake is focused on a greater goal. I don't blame Blake for his using
whatever means are at his disposal to gain Avon's cooperation. I'd do the
same in his shoes. This is a business to Blake.
I don't know where you came up with the theory that Blake had Avon's growth
in mind when he co-opted him into the rebellion. If Blake is as honest and
intelligent as I think he is, he knows that the rebellion isn't going to
bring out the "best" in Avon, or in anyone. It's not only a dangerous place
to be, it's a place that demands moral corruption and sacrifice of integrity
if you want to succeed. You have to be open to dancing with the devil to win
rebellions. It doesn't make for better. That's one of the fascinating
aspects of Blake's 7; though their goals may be noble, our heroes are a bunch
of terrorists, capable of cruel, evil and thuggish behavior.
> 'So
> Avon settles in to the colony, writing rousing rebel tunes. He's
> still sensitive to the most oblique allusion that he ought to take
> up painting, and he thinks the rebellion is utter stupidity; but so
> far, Blake asks him for songs, not paintings; maybe Blake's not
> such a bad guy, after all.
As you say below this quote, our views of Avon are quite different, so this
part isn't going to work me. It's not an Avon I recognize.
> In this case, Blake has done what Blake sees as 'bringing out
> Avon's best' (since Blake thinks everyone should contribute)
> without changing Avon's nature (from musician to painter.)
I don't think Avon saw it as bringing out his best. And I hope that Blake
didn't see it as "bringing out Avon's best." I wouldn't much like a Blake
who thought that. He'd be blind to the harsh realities of the rebellion
business.
> <g> Okay.... I genuinely *don't* see where you got this, it's exactly
> the opposite of what I've been trying to convey.
That's fair enough, because I genuinely *didn't* see where you got the
impression that I think Avon is good and noble and wonderful. I don't think
he's as uncaring as he would like people to think, but he's certainly capable
of harsh behavior.
> My Avon thinks the
> cause is stupid, thinks Blake's great big bleeding heart is a liability to
> both Blake *and* his cause, and bristles at the merest breath of any
> sort of emotional persuasion. But he is touched, at a very deep level
> that only reveals itself in a quiet and unspoken personal loyalty, by
> Blake's *consistency of character*, and by his acceptance and liking
> of Avon for who he is (as per above.)
My Avon thinks the Cause is a goal that involves more liabilities than
rewards. He thinks Blake's heart is a liability to himself (Avon), and
doesn't care that it is a liability to Blake except that Blake is involving
him in his schemes. If Blake wants to go out and get himself killed, that's
Blake business. That Blake might also go out and get Avon killed makes it
Avon's business. And Avon feels he then has a right to object to Blake's
foolish plans. My Avon is not touched by acceptance and liking and doesn't
care whether Blake likes or accepts him. He does appreciate that Blake has
the intelligence to value his skills. My Avon appears, to me, to be a colder
Avon than your Avon. And I'm not saying cold is bad; I think it's great.
> Now, I don't expect you to agree - our Avons are too different; but
> I hope at least I've been clearer this time.
Clearer, yes, but obviously our logic meters are as different as our opinions
of Avon.
Thanks for the expanded explanations. I appreciate your time.
Carol Mc
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 09:50:54 -0400
From: "Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet.att.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re:recasting
Message-ID: <00cf01c010f8$4c4b21e0$51614e0c@dshilling>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Steve Rogerson said:
> Steve Kilbane said: "Anyone reckon Anthony Stewart Head could do Blake?"
>
> Only if Sarah Michelle Gellar could do Jenna and Alyson Hannigan as
> Cally.
You forgot Nicholas Brendon as Vila.
-(Y)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 09:59:14 -0400
From: "Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet.att.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Why Not Blake II?
Message-ID: <00d101c010f8$54696120$51614e0c@dshilling>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: J MacQueen
> > > I met it on the shore over Ensor's place
>
> This was intended for the first line of the Orac/Lola filk. Now it strikes
> me that something to the tune of Da Doo Ron Ron might also be started like
> this.
Oooh--we're blowing up so fine
Oooh--Orac's got Film at Nine
Da Doo Roj Roj Roj....
-(Y)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:18:24 +0100
From: "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
To: "B7 List" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: J or P revisited (was Re: [B7L] Why Not Blake II?)
Message-ID: <009b01c010fb$17ecbb40$ca8edec2@pre-installedco>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mistral said -
>I think Avon's hard to type if you just look at J/P, but the more
>I learn about function preferences, the more certain I am that
>P is the 'correct' choice.
It's complicated by the way introverted people hide their deepest
enthusiasm. Without resorting to the letters, which get on people's nerves,
I'd say the question is between two types of person:
- is Avon, like say Einstein, presenting a fairly careless, laid back,
exterior while underneath being very intellectually rigourous and intolerant
of uncertainty ('God does not play dice'): On the list Mistral and Neil
being of this type for example. (I am talking about INTP)
- is Avon, like say Isaac Newton, presenting a fairly controlled exterior,
and banging on about rationality, while underneath being fascinated by
uncertainty and creativity ('I have been playing with pebbles on the beach
while before me lies a great uncharted ocean'). A big swathe of the list
being of this type. (I'm talking about INTJ )
>the better a character
>is written (as in realistically) the more he'll be typeable.
I do agree with this a lot. For example doctors will diagnose the illnesses
and disabilities people suffered from, from portraits painted long before
the diseases were identified. Because the artist is good he captures the
syndrome accurately without knowing it.
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 23:27:07 -0400
From: "Doraleen McArthur" <d.mcarthur@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Blake's 7 list" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Why Not Blake II?
Message-ID: <000201c0110c$8179d960$4df35a0c@oemcomputer>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Kathryn said:
> For an INTP, Thinking is the first function, iNtuition is the second;
> for an INTJ, iNtuition is the first function, Thinking is the second;
> so both types have a high regard for logic.
>
> Of course, we could simply put this subtle debate down to this: both
> Mistral and I identify with Avon. She's an INTP, so she thinks Avon
> is an INTP. I'm an INTJ, so I think Avon's an INTJ.
>
> Or we could throw our hands up in the air and say that the writers
> didn't know type theory. (grin)
Oh, but where's the fun in that?
If you want to get out into the more specific (and thus probably less
legit) parts of type theory, trying to choose between those two is trying to
choose between someone whose outside is brainstorming Ne or
conclusion-based-on-logic Te. I really think Avon's much more the latter.
--Katie
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 23:29:18 -0400
From: "Doraleen McArthur" <d.mcarthur@worldnet.att.net>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Five minutes after _Voice from the Past_...
Message-ID: <000301c0110c$854efd40$4df35a0c@oemcomputer>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Predatrix <predatrix@ntlworld.com>
Subject: [B7L] Five minutes after _Voice from the Past_...
Well, Sally, I dunno about 24 hours. I can do five minutes, though.
[snippet] [snipped]
LOL! I liked it...
--Katie
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 17:56:31 +-100
From: Louise Rutter <Louise.Rutter@btinternet.com>
To: 'B7 Lysator' <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: RE: [B7L] recasting (was Coltrane)
Message-ID: <01C01119.4DB472E0@host62-7-63-60.btinternet.com>
Tom and I were discussing recasting last night and came up with Michelle
Yeoh as Dayna. Carrie Ann Moss could do Soolin or Jenna equally well -
she's the only non-blonde I can picture as Soolin.
Louise
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:01:33 GMT
From: Ika <blake@gaudaprime.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] In Praise of Dark and Dysfunctional ...
Message-Id: <200008281901.UAA17712@smtp.uk2net.com>
Sally wrote:
>
> (PPS - I liked Kathryn's suggestion of the word 'integrity'. For all his bad
> points, it does fit him beautifully IMO.)
>
And it comes from the Latin "integer", ie "untouched", which has the *perfect*
connotations (sniffle)
Love,
Ika
----------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using http://uk2.net
NEWS - CHEAPEST DEDICATED SERVERS IN THE WORLD - 29/month
UK's FREE Domains, FREE Dialup, FREE Webdesign, FREE email
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 21:52:47 +0200
From: Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
To: steve.rogerson@journalist.co.uk
Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re:recasting
Message-Id: <200008282052.VAA17970@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Steve Kilbane said: "Anyone reckon Anthony Stewart Head could do Blake?"
>
> Only if Sarah Michelle Gellar could do Jenna and Alyson Hannigan as
> Cally.
No, wait: SMG as Servie. Charisma Carpenter as Jenna, and Emma Caufield
as as Cally.
steve
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 19:48:50 +0200
From: Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
To: "Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re:recasting
Message-Id: <200008281848.TAA15290@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Dana writes:
> You forgot Nicholas Brendon as Vila.
True (although too young). But I think he could also do
Avaon or Travis, considering how menacing he managed to
be as a hyena.
steve, who wants to see Brendon play Menacing more.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 07:28:56 EST
From: "J MacQueen" <j_macqueen@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Why Not Blake II?
Message-ID: <F190yCKDkb9pPFR6sKB0000129d@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>From: "Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet.att.net>
>Da Doo Roj Roj Roj....
Now that I've managed not to distribute chocolate milk all over the desk,
thank you for that! <desperate mental attempts to resist further filking, at
least for today...>
Regards
Joanne
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 17:16:44 -0600
From: Betty Ragan <ragan@sdc.org>
To: B7 Lyst <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] In Praise of Dark and Dysfunctional ...
Message-ID: <39AAF2DC.DD7D9DF@sdc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Kathryn Andersen wrote:
> I think the word you're searching for is "integrity", which covers
> both "honesty" and "loyalty".
Hmm. I don't know that that quite gets at the exact concept I was
flailing after, either, but it *is* a surprisingly apt word for Avon.
--
Betty Ragan ** ragan@sdc.org ** http://www.sdc.org/~ragan/
"Imposing Latin rules on English structure is a little
like trying to play baseball in ice skates." -- Bill Bryson
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 17:31:29 -0600
From: Betty Ragan <ragan@sdc.org>
To: B7 Lyst <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] In Praise of Dark and Dysfunctional ...
Message-ID: <39AAF651.8852C08E@sdc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Responding to me, Sally Manton wrote:
> <In Avon's belief, the worst possible sin is to betray someone who trusts
> and cares for you, and that is the one thing he *will not* do.>
>
> Actually, the line that gets me in Rumours is the simple "you weren't even
> real." Not that she betrayed him, not even that she lied to him ... but she
> *was* a lie.
Ooh, yes. Not just that she'd deceived him, but the fact that *he'd*
actually been living a lie...
This seems to be one of the major recurring themes of the show,
actually: Reality May Not Be What You Think It Is. Love it.
> This, like that blatant fibbing at the end of Gambit, isn't lying about
> himself, but about what he's *done*. And <gurgle> you will notice in both
> cases that he is endearingly clumsy at it (even if obsessed, Blake couldn't
> *possibly* have missed it in Gambit!!!!!!) In Hostage, Avon does not lie
> about what he's done, he just doesn't mention that he's done it (not all
> that difficult, since none of the others have any conceivable to think of it
> and therefore ask him.) And when Cally does prod, he doesn't prevaricate or
> deny that something's wrong, he simply (and veeerrrry pointedly) changes the
> subject.
Avon doesn't actually lie much directly, true. I don't see that as
having a great deal to do with him placing some innate value on honesty,
though, if only because he's quite excellent at lying by omission. I
see Avon's attitude towards lying as being very much like my own: Lying
to people who trust and depend on you in ways that will make them feel
betrayed if they ever found out (whether you think they will or not), is
*bad*. Otherwise, lying in general is morally acceptable, but can
create problems in practice. The best way to deceive and mislead is
tell the truth, carefully edited or carefully slanted with just the
right words. It's easier to do, you don't have to worry about being a
bad liar, and it's *much* easier to keep track of what you've told
people.
--
Betty Ragan ** ragan@sdc.org ** http://www.sdc.org/~ragan/
"Imposing Latin rules on English structure is a little
like trying to play baseball in ice skates." -- Bill Bryson
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 18:21:54 -0600
From: Betty Ragan <ragan@sdc.org>
To: B7 Lyst <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Orac the Great (was Why Not Blake II?)
Message-ID: <39AB0222.6BE86DD3@sdc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
J MacQueen wrote:
> >From: Betty Ragan <ragan@sdc.org>
> >But I *like* this! Come on, get started. *Pleeeeease*?
>
> You may be sorry...
I'm not! I'm not! :)
--
Betty Ragan ** ragan@sdc.org ** http://www.sdc.org/~ragan/
"Imposing Latin rules on English structure is a little
like trying to play baseball in ice skates." -- Bill Bryson
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 18:32:51 -0600
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Why Not Blake II?
Message-ID: <20000828.183257.-448287.0.rilliara@juno.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
All right, this is mildly scary. I was just reading an article on who's
been cast in the new Harry Potter movie. A couple names were mentioned
earlier on the lyst for B7.
Alan Rickman is in negotiations to play the most Avonish character in HP,
Snape.
Robbie Coltrane has been cast to play the least Avonish character
(although the only so far to use any Avon dialogue), Hagrid.
Oh, and Maggie Smith is playing Pr. McGonagall and Richard Harris is in
negotiations for Dumbledore.
Oh, and having recently seen X-Men, I'm trying to figure out how Patrick
Stewart could play Avon with Ian McKellen as Blake. Also, how to explain
Avon having a son from Australia....
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.
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #243
**************************************