Some time ago, Dana suggested a parallel between Hamlet-Claudius and
Blake-Travis dynamics.
When asked why Hamlet refrains from killing his uncle, I usually resort to
the explanation Nietzsche gave in 'The Birth of Tragedy'. Nietzsche compares
Hamlet to 'Dionysian' heroes who do not act because they have realized the
complexity of the world, seen beyond the idealistic half which the culture
normally perceives. Initially Hamlet is a 'happy prince' within a perfectly
functioning patriarchal structure. His father, likened to Jove, Apollo,
Hercules, is the epitome of all the virtues valued by this structure; his
mother likewise performs dutifully all functions assigned to her within the
structure. Then Claudius, likened to Satire, bursts upon the scene. Hamlet
has to deal with much more than just a single villainy committed by a single
villain - he has to deal with his own realization that there are human
actions prompted by dark, instinctive urges beyond rational control. Women
are especially 'dangerous' and unreliable in this respect: Hamlet is shocked
by the fact that his mother can have fun indiscriminately with Apollos and
Satires alike. To conclude, Hamlet delays his revenge because his world has
been irrevocably changed and he knows that killing one man won't restore his
lost innocence or bring back his 'paradise lost'. Finally he decides to act
because he accepts it is his human duty, a part of his destiny. 'Readiness
is all.'
With Blake, the situation is somewhat different. I don't think he's ever had
any illusions regarding the Federation (except while he was brainwashed) or
the Universe he lives in, but he may have had some regarding his own soul.
Blake has lost the 'innocence' of his soul after his capture and the death
of his family and friends - when his initial, altruistic and rather abstract
motives for fighting against the Federation were joined by other, private
and not so impeccable ones. Blake is not a completely 'healthy' hero
fighting an evil opponent: all the while he has to grapple with his own dark
urges, most of all with his desire to indulge in personal revenge.
Like Hamlet, Blake knows that killing one villain won't change or annihilate
this deeply disturbing experience of the self, help him get rid of the
'Travis' part of his own psyche. Hamlet is shocked by his revelation that
the world is an unweeded garden; Blake is, I think, more disturbed by
discovering this garden within his own soul. Realizing they cannot go back
to the original state of innocence, they both proceed to do what they
consider their human duty.
Some more traditional interpretations of Hamlet also emphasize the religious
aspect of his dilemma, the fact that the vengeance in Shakespeare's time was
considered a deadly sin (since God said, 'Vengeance is mine'), and the
avenger was condemned to Hell. Given that all sorts of religion were banned
within the Federation, I wonder if Blake's refusal to kill Travis could also
be related with some remnant of those forgotten teachings. We know that
Blake was interested in history and it's possible that he also studied
various ethical systems of the past, trying to establish the principles upon
which post-Federation world might be organised. His own feeling of morality
is often at odds with his age, and although I like to think it is innate, it
may have been acquired by studying as well.
I agree with what Ellynne said about Avon's part in this matter. Avon can
'solve Blake's problem for him', as he says in the Keeper, unlike Blake, he
can kill Travis in a cold and impersonal manner ('I'm the one with brains
and no heart', as he says to Travis in Star One). It's not until S3 and
Shrinker that we get to see Avon dealing with the issue of personal revenge.
His animosity towards Servalan, I suppose, also becomes more personal after
he gets the Terminal disease.
N.