Blakes7 May 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

84 participants
897 discussions

Re: [B7L] Isn't it Slave's turn for the spotlight ... or something?
by Jenny Kaye 16 May '01

16 May '01

Stephen Date wrote: >--- Jenny Kaye wrote: > > > > Honey Bunny "Sally Manton" Wrote: > >For someone who claims to be a disinterested seeker of >truth in the company of headless chickens you seem to >have an inordinate fondness for name calling. Never claimed to be disinterested. Anyway, what's wrong with "Honey Bunny"? How is it worse than "My Darling"? > > > >At the risk of flogging what is unquestionably > > now a dead horse, > > > > This horse is very much alive and about to bite you > > on the arse. > >Death throes, nothing more. And look at what happened to the man who said that. And to the man he was saying it about... > > we might > > > >let the last word go to ... > > > > > > > >Terry Nation. > > > > > > > >"Gan, the big guy, was the physical presence and > > great physical strength, > > > >but the gentle baby of the piece, based a little > > on Lenny from 'Of Mice > > and > > > >Men''." (Blake's 7: The Inside Story). > > > > > > Lenny is the mentally retarded giant with enormous > > strength, who is > > continually killing pets and small animals by > > accident, unable to understand > > what he is doing. He crushes a man's hand in a rage, > > and, in the climax of > > the book, when a woman gets into a sexual clinch > > with him, he strangles her > > and hides the body in a desperate panic-- knowing > > that he has done wrong but > > being unable to stop himself. > >A somewhat inaccurate and sensationalist retelling. >Lenny crushes the man's hand because he has the mind >of a child in the body of a giant. According to the chapter synopsis at: http://www.isk-tv.no/~gmdata/teachers/english/novels/micemen/micemen.htm "Curley beats on Lennie until George tells Lennie to "get him." Lennie crushes Curley's hand. Slim orders Curley to say it was a machine accident" In other words, Lenny was provoked. Interesting too that he is acting on orders from somebody else. Much like Gan can kill when he has the permission of the group he's with. >He kills the woman >by accident for the same reason. They are not in a >sexual clinch. To quote the same site, a resource site for English students: "Lennie begins to get excited as he pets her hair. This may be due to the fact that she is very pretty, and though Lennie may not understand it, he is attracted to her. In addition, he always tends to get excited when petting things, such as with the mice, the dog, and the red dress in Weed. She complains he is petting to hard, but he doesnt stop right away. She gets angry, and Lennie gets scared, holding onto to her because that is always his reaction when he is scared (the red dress, Curleys fist). She gets scared too, fearing he will rape her or kill her, though Lennie has no intention of doing either. Lennie accidentally breaks her neck, killing her, as he tries to stop her from screaming." If you think he crushed a man's hand for the same reason as he killed his wife-- then there's a sadomasochistic gay subtext to the novel that I doubt Steinbeck would have recognised. >The story is a tragedy of plans which >go awry "The best laid plans of mice and men go aft >agley" (I'm quoting from memory). So is Gan's. >Not a psychological >thriller with Lenny as a rural version of the Boston >strangler. No, it wasn't. But it was a story about a strong and mentally disturbed man who could not stop himself from killing. > > If this is who Nation > > has based Gan on... I > > think you need to rethink your fanon. And I need to > > rethink my earlier > > statement that Nation never suggested that Gan was a > > murdering psychopath. > > He has, but he's playing the double game still. > >Two points - firstly Nation described Gan as being >"based a little on Lenny". Not as being just like >Lenny. No. As you point out, Lenny was not a psychopath. But the point is, Lenny killed animals and people, and couldn't stop himself. So, for other reasons, did Gan (though we don't know aobut him killing any animals). In that, Gan is a little like Lenny. The quality Nation points to are Lenny's >strength and gentleness, qualities Gan shares. No. First he says: was the physical presence and > > great physical strength, > > > >but the gentle baby of the piece, *then* he says: based a little > > on Lenny from 'Of Mice > > and > > > >Men'' He doesn't say "Lenny is gentle and strong, so is Gan"; he says "Gan is strong and gentle," then he says "he's based a little on Lenny." No connection there. >If >Lenny and Gan bore a greater resemblance however, this >would not make Gan a psychopathic killer. No, in fact the opposite. And isn't the comparison interesting? He doesn't compare him with the retarded giant in "The Sound and the Fury" does he? Or with Little John? Or any other kindly and slow characters in fiction? No, he compares him to the one with a manslaughter record. And the one who in the end is shot by his friend and guardian. >Lenny is a >sympathetic character, a victim of fate. Gan is sympathetic too. That's the point. > > Either Nation and Boucher are just > > playing a game with us, or it was all leading up to > > something. If it was > > leading up to something, what was it? and why didn't > > it happen? > > >The one discussion on the subject I recall reading - I >think it was the book Sally cites (I'm sorry, >lightweight that I am I was reading it in Forbidden >Planet !) - suggests that the production team decided >to kill one crew member off in season 2 and decided >that Gan was the best choice as there wasn't a lot >else they could do with his character. This would seem >to indicate that the production team saw Gan as being >a gentle giant. If there had been a Boston Strangler >sub-plot to be unfolded then obviously they could have >done rather more with him. But they couldn't very well do a Boston Strangler story (although I think the comparison you're looking for is Pennies From Heaven, actually) in a 1978 hard-sci-fi show going out before the watershed, could they? No wonder Gan wound up a fifth wheel. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

Re: [B7L] the limits of parody
by Jenny Kaye 16 May '01

16 May '01

Iain Coleman wrote:< > >On Tue, 15 May 2001, Jenny Kaye wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Iain Coleman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alison Page wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is > > > > > > > >truth held? > > > > > > > > > > > > In the text. > > > > > > > > > > > > What does 'truth' mean when we are talking about a work of > > > > > > > >fiction? > > > > > > > > > > > > In the text. > > > > > > > > > >This seems terribly naive. (c.f. 'The UNIT Dating Problem' in Dr > >Who.) > > > > > > Bollocks to the unit dating problem. B7 series one was written by and > > > scriptedited by the same two people. The UNIT dating problem came about > > > because > > > Super Fan Ian Levine, who was acting as unofficial historian at the time > >for > > > Dr Who, didn't know his arse from his elbow. > > > >It is the most glaring example of the kind of problems that inevitably > >arise in this context. That's true. But Doctor Who ran for 26 years, with a whole load of different producers and script editors. B7 only for 4 years, with 2 producers and 1 script editor. So there's less margin for error. > >Actually, there are three main problems: > > > >1) Self-consistency. With the best will in the world, it is > >near-impossible to create an entirely self-consistent TV drama series. > >Even in what might seem the ideal case, where one guy is in charge of the > >entire production, problems crop up. That's true. Problems do crop up. See series two of B7 for a good example. These can be due to constraints of > >time and budget, the contributions of directors, actors, and FX designers, Public climate on violence as well. > >or simply the writer deciding to change the direction of the show after it > >has begun. That happens a few times on B7 as well. Even 'Babylon 5' has elements which are extremely difficult to > >reconcile A programme inspired by The Prisoner and B7. -- why should it be surprising that the same is true of the less > >intensively-planned, more hastily-written 'Blake's 7'? Less intensively-planned? Don't you believe it. Hastily-written? Don't confuse haste with sloppiness. > >2) The nature of performed text. Even if we manage an entirely > >unproblematic text, what the audience has access to is the _performed_ > >text. All performance of a text is an act of textual interpretation > >(Hornby, 'Text into Performance'). To a degree. There are limits. If Darrow one day turned up and said, "I want to play the scene where I kill Pella in the style of an Indian bus conductor." He would be told politely to "sod off". Why? Because it would not fit with the rest of the episode, or the series for that matter. It would be extremely strange to assume > >that all directors and all actors are going to come up with the same > >interpretations. They aren't, look at Brian Croucher and Stephen Greif. Inevitably, inconsistencies will arise between episodes, > >either because different directors and actors are involved, or because > >their interpretations change as the series goes on. That's true. But the original author's intention will still be there on some level. > >3) Multiple valid interpretations. As a rule of thumb, the better the > >text, the more valid interpretations it can sustain. Within logical bounds. The history of > >Shakespeare in performance is an excellent illustration of this point. To > >pick an example which I was discussing with Rob of this very list: > > > >Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, > >Creeps in this petty pace from day to day > >To the last syllable of recorded time, > >And all our yesterdays have lighted fools > >The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! > >Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player > >That struts and frets his hour upon the stage > >And then is heard no more: it is a tale > >Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, > >Signifying nothing. > > > >Now, this piece can be performed infinitely many ways, with radically > >different interpretations. No one is definitive, all illuminate some > >aspect of the central, inexpressible human truth that Shakespeare has > >placed at the crisis point of his play. That's true. Shakespeare was a genius. It can be interpreted many ways because it is meant to be. But any interpretation will have to fit with the rest of the play, and it will have to be a "truthful" interpretation. If I were to say that in the above text extract the character is talking about a banana, you would quite rightly say, "What the bloody hell is she talking about?" Well, that's what's happening to B7. > >None of these problems mean we must simply throw up our hands and admit > >defeat. That's true. > >Some interpretations are better than others, That's true. and the best > >interpretations have an 'aha!' quality that comes from pulling > >previously disconnected elements together into a coherent whole. That's true. But what if it is not a case of disconnected elements, but an overlooked pattern? However, > >there is still room for honest and good-natured disagreement about > >interpretations. That's true, but as good as B7 can be, it isn't Shakespeare. Consider, for example, the vast literature on the > >motivation of Iago -- all of it noticeably civilised in tone. Iago is an immensely fascinating character. But if I told you that in my fanon, Iago was a tree, you'd say I was mad. You have to understand a text before you can send it up, or comment on it, or lampoon it. Most people on this Lyst know nothing about B7 at all. Oh, they can quote the lines and remember the episode titles. But actually understand it? I see very little proof of that. > > > You're the guy who pointed out that "the death of Anna" scene in ROD > >could > > > have been done a lot more realistically, aren't you? You're a smart guy, > >but > > > you've missed something. The reason it was done that way, was because > >the > > > story was going out before the nine o'clock watershed. If you are going > >to > > > have a story which ends with a man brutally gunning down his ex- > >girlfriend > > > in that timeslot, then you are going to have to tone it down somewhat, > >or > > > risk Mary Whitehouse blocking the switchboards again. > > > >I think you are quite radically misunderstanding my point. You think so? > >It was shit acting, simple as that. Oh dear, a rational email has now descended into name calling. A pity. (I could discuss the technical problem with the > >performance more deeply, but I'm sure I've done so in previous posts). The > >emotional realism so lacking in that scene is present in other scenes in > >'Blake's 7', and even in 'Dr Who': the timeslot is not the problem. It has everything to do with that time slot. The emotional realism is toned down, because if it were played for real it would frighten its audience half to death. Darrow is a fairly mannered actor anyway. He plays the scene in a very stylised and mannered way. Both of them do. But if the director didn't want them to do that, she wouldn't have let it through. You do say that emotional realism is not an unusual thing in B7 so why is this scene an exception? Why wasn't Darrow getting direction? Another example. Look at Darrow's studio fight with Bayban. Not very good, is it? Now look at Darrow's fight with the Sarrans on that beach. Much better. You know why? They had more time and a stuntman was involved. Don't slag an actor off just because he's doing what he's been told to do. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

3 2

Blake (was: Re: Limiters in general)
by Sally Manton 16 May '01

16 May '01

Tried to send this this morning, but Hotmail was playing up ... then thought of a couple of changes :-) After I wrote: <anyone who kills dispassionately (like Blake, for instance) would have no trouble circumventing it :-)> Dana wrote: <I wouldn't say that Blake is dispassionate about killing, more that any killing he does is part of a plan involving rational objectives about which he feels strong emotion.> He can, however, divorce his emotions (not his sense of morality, a different thing) from the act itself, seeing it *purely* as a weapon and therefore able to weigh the pros and cons more objectively than most people could. He doesn't by any means do it lightly, but he can do it, once he believes the killing is necessary (the Ortega, among other cases). He makes his decision quickly and cleanly, and doesn't agonise, before or after. Blake doesn't lash out *physically* in anger (verbally, he can dismember with the best of them) because he does have that ability to divorce the action from the emotion. One of my own personal fanonical rules - "Blake Would Never, Ever, Ever so much as Raise a Hand to Avon. And Avon Knows It," - was a straight reaction to a string of fanfic where Blake was portrayed as endlessly losing his temper and beating up on Avon, because I simply don't see him ever doing that to *any* of his crewmates (this is, of course, with the important exceptions of [a] self-defence (Breakdown) and [a] if he did come to the decision that it *was necessary* (for the safety of the rest, perhaps), he would (I'm firmly of the opinion that he'd have made the same decision Avon did at the end of Stardrive). <Some of Blake's extreme grief in "Trial" is caused by the loss of any crew member -> Yes, he is hurt by Cally's 'death' in SLD as well. What's also interesting is that at this stage - following at least two massacres he's witnessed, and the number of his friends/family he's lost, he still hasn't hardened to the deaths of people he cares about in the way that many of the others do, despite his ability to divorce his emotions from his own killing; he doesn't slam down the walls the way they all do over Cally, for instance. He's a wonderfully complex individual. Which of course begs the question touched on above ... turning the end of 'Blake' around, if one of his own had betrayed him and he *did* decide he had to kill them - how would he react? <but a lot of it is due to Blake's respect and liking for Gan as an individual.> Both Shadow and Pressure Point, and the tone his arguments with the man in both, show a lot of respect for Gan's sense and the reservations about the path Blake has chosen. Not that that *stops* Blake doing what he's set his formidable will to, but then whatever did :-)? _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Debate and Dead Horses
by Leia Fee 16 May '01

16 May '01

Jenny wrote... >>I'm not making this up you know. This is no self deluding "IMO" bullshit.. and smilar... <sigh> I've seen so many of these type of posts since I starting reading this list, which isn't really that long and I'm sorry to add another one but... I watch Blake's 7 for fun. I discuss, debate, argue about it for fun. Bickering with you about Gan is no longer fun for me. I know your opinion, you know mine. Neither one of us is going to change the other's mind. The tone of your posts sets my teeth on edge. I chat about this stuff to relax not get stressed. I therefore will not be responding further to your posts on this subject. No doubt you will take that as my conceding to your opinion. Do as you will. Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking my bat home or resorting to killfiles or storming off the lyst. Some of your points I found interesting but I can't be bothered dealing with your superior, condescending tone. I hope that this subject is just a particular bee in your bonnet and will be interested to hear your opinions on other subjects as they arise. Leia

1 0

Re: [B7L] the limits of parody
by Jenny Kaye 16 May '01

16 May '01

Tavia wrote: >Jenny wrote: > >Suicide is painless :-). > >No it isn't. > >Neither is it a good subject for jokes. It's not a joke, it's a song title. Ever seen "MASH"? Jenny (now go away! I'm writing a review here!) _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Sentencing
by Leia Fee 16 May '01

16 May '01

Helen wrote... >Yes. In his [Vila's] case, the system appeared to be working more or less justly. >After all, he couldn't stand the idea of life without theivery even if >it included safety and a woman who loved him. So he seems pretty much >beyond redemption. I agree. Vila is certainly an incorrigable thief. Pretty harmless compared to come off the criminals shipped off to Cygnus Alpha but I can see where the Federation would be at a loss what else to do with him. Helen wrote... >the first step for nonviolent, nonpolitical crimes would be take them into custody and try >to revise their minds to become law abiding citizens. It might even be possible to >do this much without a trial Possible. Havant tells Blake he's disturbed when he's messing with his mind. If they defined criminal beahviour as evidence for mental illness they probably could 'treat' it without the persons consent or without a trial. We have compulsory treatment orders for mental illness even here and now. Vila talks about being in custody pretty young though, 14 I think is mentioned. Is their PR good enough to pass off conditioning a child? I think maybe he was locked up in whatever the Federation equivalent of juvenile detention is and they didn't 'adjust' him until he was caught as an adult and when that didn't work locked him up again. Or maybe the conditioning took place while he was actually serving a jail sentence. Or maybe jail or mental adjustement are both options available to a judge and it depended on the exact circustances, temper of the judge and so forth.# It's one of the things in B7 I'd liked to have heard more about. Leia

1 0

Nova (was Sentencing)
by Leia Fee 16 May '01

16 May '01

I always kind of thought Nova was probably a political troublemaker. His willingess to join Blake, his eagerness to volunteer for a dangerous part in the escape attempt, his youth and apparent innocence. They just look like the makings of an idealist who got caught. Leia

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: Limiters in general
by Jenny Kaye 16 May '01

16 May '01

Steve Kilbane wrote: > > > This would explain why he's able to indulge in > > > >some self-defensive actions in 'Deliverance' (and possibly 'Cygnus > > > >Alpha' as well), because he isn't experiencing sufficient rage to > > > >trigger the limiter. > > > > > > Then what would be the point of giving him a limiter at all? > > > >In a sane society, there would be reason; it would mean that anything > >he does is done while in control. Diminished responsibility or > >temporary insanity wouldn't be valid defenses. So he'd bear the > >full consequences of his actions. > > > >But this is the Federation, so that doesn't count here. :-) Oh dear. The Federation isn't insane. How long do you think it would last if it were? The Federation stands for order, not chaos. Never confuse corrupt with insane. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

Sentencing
by Leia Fee 16 May '01

16 May '01

I said >Now I'm wondering what determines whether a convicted criminal gets >their >mind messed with or gets locked up. Age? The Federation didn't seem to >have any qualms about messing with the kids memories to get them to >incriminate Blake. then Julia said... >Here it isn't the Federation, but corrupt Federation officials at the >highest levels - not the same thing. What goes on behind closed doors is >not necessarily what is allowed under official policy. Vila's >psychiatric treatment seems to me to be an official part of the penal >system, and attempt to reform him so that he is A Good Citizen, what was >done to falsify a case against Blake was not part of the official >system. Accepted. Faulty argument on my part. I think maybe they would be more inclined to try to reform young offendors with more traditional methods of correction - better PR. >And once you've been cured of your unfortunate mental illness, you'll be >terribly grateful to the state for your medical treatment. I can see them being very keen to publicise how remorseful and grateful they reformed criminals are actually. Leia

1 0

Re: [B7L] We can't *all* be geniuses
by Steve Kilbane 16 May '01

16 May '01

Me, then Jenny: > > >And as I've stated elsewhere, this is not guaranteed. > > But it can't be ruled out either. Agreed. It's a possibility. It's also *less* likely as a possibility than possibility that it causing random failures. So don't treat it as an immutable fact. > You don't know what > > >it's doing; > > I think I've got a good idea of what the authors intended should be going > on. So? You can think that. You don't know. > you only know that at some point in the past, it started to > > >malfunction. From then on, to the point where an expert in the field > > >declares > > >that it's fixed, all bets are off. > > An expert who declares Gan a psychopath. Irrevelant to the reliability of the limiter, before he fixes it. All you *can* say, reliably, is that > > >you can't trust what's going on in there, because there's an unknown > factor > > >that *might* be influencing things in an unpredictable manner. > > That's absolutely right. But only right in the sense in which it relates to > that particular episode. Only in the sense that you can't reliably infer anything from Gan's behaviour during the majority of that episode. So let's discount it as a episode contributing towards or against any theory about Gan's character, shall we? steve

1 0

← Newer
1
...
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
...
90
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Blakes7 May 2001