Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Jenny's Episode Reviews: Space Fall
by Jenny Kaye 16 May '01

16 May '01

For my review of Space Fall, I am going to focus on the subtext relating to the characters of Leylan and Raiker, as they are the key to the whole story. I'm going to be making extensive use of script extracts, but for those of you who want a potted summary of the argument, skip down the page to my last two paragraphs. When we first see the flightdeck crew of the London it is apparent that they are fairly relaxed in each others company. After activating the hyperdrive Leylan says, "I though maintenance were supposed to have fixed that ID shift vibration." Raiker replies, "That's what they said." Leylan has evidently worked with Raiker before enough for them to be comfortable with each other. And: >LEYLAN: Still studying for your Commander's credentials, Artix? >ARTIX: Yes sir. I don't want to spend the rest of my life on old tubs >like... I... I mean... >[Leylan smiles] >LEYLAN: I know what you mean. >ARTIX: I'm sorry, sir. This extract tell us that Leylan is going to be doing this job now until he retires. He finds it all a bit boring and repetitive, but he's not resentful. He accepts his lot and shows no signs of jealousy towards Artix, who he appears to have an almost fatherly interest in, and wishes him well. I bet some of you are thinking, "What a nice chap Leylan is. Just a man doing his job like the rest of us." Leylan says he is going to is quarters and then adds: >LEYLAN: [To Raiker] And Mr. Raiker, give the prisoners the usual pep talk, >and assign them their duties. Again, evidence that Raiker is Leylan's usual Number One. >RAIKER: [Not entirely happy] My pleasure. Who does these transcripts? If you watch the episode (which I did before I went over to the script page) you'll see that Raiker is upbeat about it. It's something he "usually" does after all. So let's have that line again. >RAIKER: [Upbeat] My pleasure. See the difference? Raiker is a man who enjoys his work. He's not studying for any exams. He's not bored. He's happy with his lot in life. Soon you're going to find out why :-) Raiker and Leylan leave the flight deck and talk in the corridor. >LEYLAN: Oh, and, err, use the highest level of suppressants in the >prisoners' rations. I like 'em docile. >RAIKER: Yes, sir. It's isn't just that Leylan wants a quiet life (although this is the first suggestion that Leylan isn't that nice a guy). This is a convict ship containing highly dangerous prisoners. >LEYLAN: Err, Mr. Raiker? >RAIKER: Sir? >LEYLAN: There's a female prisoner on our manifest. >RAIKER: I've noticed that sir. >LEYLAN: Yes... well... err, be discreet. Leylan is saying here, I know what you are going to do to her. But don't tell me and I won't know. He is also marking out boundaries. "Be discreet." That means "keep me out of the loop". Raiker will cross that boundary later, and Leylan will come down on him like a tone of bricks. Also, when this conversation takes place they are on their own in a corridor with the door to the flightdeck closed. Leylan doesn't want other members, especially new boy Artix, to hear what's going on. Leylan and Raiker know each other very well, and they have a special understanding. >RAIKER: Yes, sir. He gets the hint about the girl. As a side point, female prisoners are rare. And you know why? It's because this is a convict ship taking some highly dangerous convicts to Cygnus Alpha. You don't get many women serial killers, rapists or paedophiles, do you? Raiker then goes off to do his pep talk. >RAIKER: [To prisoners] I'm Sub-commander Raiker, and I think there are a few >things you should know. He then gives a half smile. What he is basically saying is "I'm a hard bastard. You better be scared." >[Raiker walks down the rows of seats] >RAIKER: The voyage to Cygnus Alpha will take approximately eight months ship >time. At this point he notices Jenna. And starts looking at her as he walks down the isle. When he draws level with her, Jenna looks back. She's justifiably frightened. RAIKER: During this period, you will obey every order and instruction that is >given you. There is a punishment scale for infractions, which starts with >long periods of confinement in your launch seat and ends with the >Commander's right to order execution. If you have any complaints, I don't want to hear them. Understand >this clearly. You have no rights whatsoever. None. They are no longer citizens of the Federation. But basically the rules haven't changed much at all. The prison ship is no better than the Domed City we see in TWB, just on a smaller scale. We still have the two faced leader: Leylan/Glynd. We still have the ruthless security man: Tarrant/Raiker.We still have the useful innocent: Varon/Artix. We still have armed guards and the use of suppressant drugs. We still even have the ruling elite sanctioning a sex crime. The mental rape of the children in the Dome. Leyland's okay to Raiker over the future 'handling' of Jenna. RAIKER: This is the limit of your world from now on. It >has mess facilities, sleeping bays, recreation area. Sort out amongst >yourselves how you use it. There are other rules. But you'll find out what >they are when you break them. He isn't just saying "Watch your step." It's also calculated to intimidate. You don't know where the boundaries are. [The prisoners, apart from Blake, stand up and wander out into the other section.] Please note also that the doors are closed behind them. Blake is now alone with Raiker and the two guards. >RAIKER: [To Blake] What have we here? Not a troublemaker, I hope? The fact that Blake is restrained marks him out as potential trouble. Raiker will need to make a special impression on him. >BLAKE: I didn't hear an order. >RAIKER: You didn't hear an order, sir. ...SAY IT! Raiker explodes. He screams "SAY IT!" Then he's calm again. It's partly an act, but there is also an element of suppressed fury there. Raiker likes to be in control. >BLAKE: I didn't hear an order...sir. Blake is very measured in his response. Raiker is impressed by that. The man doesn't allow himself to be intimidated easily. >RAIKER: That's better. What's your name? >BLAKE: Blake. >RAIKER: So you're Blake. Raiker knows it's Blake. He's acting again. Blake is someone he would have been instructed to look out for. He also has been given the details of Blake's conviction. There's a reason for that. RAIKER: Well, made quite a name for yourself a few years >back. [He sits down.] Quite the celebrity. Something of a comedown for a >leader of men, isn't it? Molesting kids? That's a warning. >BLAKE: The charges were false. Blake is rattled. >RAIKER: [sarcastically] Oh yes, of course. Raiker is dismissive. He doesn't believe him. He knows prisoners lie about their convictions. RAIKER: Well, let me tell you something >Blake, as far as I am concerned, you are just another piece of cargo. >Remember that and you might just survive the journey. Do you understand? Raiker is saying here, "Give me any problems and I'll tell the others about your conviction." It's a strong hold over Blake. In a prison a sex offender is the lowest of the low. Why? There has to be someone on the bottom. Someone you can point to and say "I may have beaten up an old lady, and robbed her. She may have died alone and in terrible pain. But at least I didn't shag her" (this is why the administration picked *that* particular crime to pin on Blake). Pathetic, isn't it? This is a reflection of the same rule that exists today. However Blake will deal with this by not attempting any breakout for 4 months. By then everyone will trust him. And if his conviction is made public, no one will believe it. They know Blake. He's alright. >BLAKE: I understand... sir. He's hiding it, but Blake is frightened. >RAIKER: Good. You're learning. Raiker is smiling when he says that. He likes having power over people. A few minutes later and Raiker is making his moves on Jenna. >RAIKER: [To Jenna, putting his hand on her shoulder] Come with me. Here he's initiating physical contact. Not a good sign. >JENNA: [To Vila] Here goes. >[Raiker and Jenna walk to the other end of the room] >RAIKER: What's your name? >JENNA: Jenna Stannis. Raiker gives her a cruisy look. He is showing sexual interest. >RAIKER: Unfortunately, Jenna, there are no special facilities for female >prisoners. But if you should find things difficult, I might be able to >arrange something more comfortable. Raiker says all this in a gentle considerate, almost slightly embarrassed way. It's an act. He's probably used it before. Then Jenna gives Raiker a cruisy look back and says: >JENNA: That's very considerate of you. >RAIKER: Why make it hard on yourself? Raiker is smiling. He thinks he's made a conquest. After all, a woman prisoner is a perk of the job. >JENNA: Why indeed? >[Whispers something to Raiker] She stands back and smirks. >[Raiker slaps her across the face] I wonder what she said? My money is on "I'm a lesbian" :-) It gives a nice double meaning to Raiker's next line: >RAIKER: You'll come round! She isn't, by the way!(take note, some of you! :-)) She also actually wants him to slap her. It creates an "indiscreet" scene; it makes Raiker's intentions known to others; it gives her kudos with the other prisoners who will now think of her as the Girl Who Slapped the Subcommander; it makes it plain to anyone else who might want to try it on that Jenna's not standing for it. Raiker will have to move carefully now where Jenna is concerned. >RAIKER: I can be VERY persuasive! See? That suppressed fury again. >[Jenna walks back to Vila, Avon & Nova] >JENNA: That one's going to enjoy giving us a hard time. >VILA: And you've improved his mood no end! Why couldn't you be nice to him?! >JENNA: He's not my type. She's very wise. Firstly if she goes along with Raiker she will lose all sympathy with the other prisoners. She'll be alone. She will be seen as Subcommander Raiker's whore. They will resent her. They will believe that she is getting privileges that they are missing out on. She will be safe from them whilst on board ship, but once touchdown is achieved, and the prisoners disembark, some of them will take revenge by raping and killing her. Secondly, Raiker is a sadist who enjoys power over others. If Jenna had taken him up on his offer she would have faced 8 months of escalating sexual violence, and she'd have no one to turn to. When the ship is skirting the battle zone, this scene takes place. >LEYLAN: Damage? >DAINER: Three hull punctures, sir. All sealed and solid. >LEYLAN: OK. Carry on. [To Artix] What was the force? >ARTIX: Down to nine again. It's reducing. >LEYLAN: Not before time. Where's that echo? >ARTIX: It's practically on top of us! We're on a collision course! Raiker shouts: >RAIKER: Get those scans fixed! Come on! Move it! Leylan looks across at him. His face shows irritation. Leylan knows that Raiker is a man with a short fuse. But then he's known that for some time, and that's the price you pay for a man like Raiker, and it's a price worth paying. Raiker is Leylan's guard dog. He's brave, he likes power over others. He's also ruthless and high profile. Just the sort of person Laylan needs, because the true villain of the piece isn't Raiker, it's Laylan. Raiker is just his instrument. When Blake, Avon and Jenna get into the computer room Raiker says: RAIKER: Get up to the flight deck! Tell the old man what's happening! See? It's Laylan Raiker reports to. Nothing can happen on a small ship like this without the captain knowing (although remember, some things he can deny knowledge of). Raiker just does the Captain's dirty work. [LEYLAN: [To Artix] What the hell's going on! ARTIX: The prisoners have escaped, sir, and they've got hold of the computer. LEYLAN: What! Come on! Leylan is now going to intervene personally. Watch what he does: LEYLAN: [Into communicator] This is Commander Leylan. If you come out immediately and surrender yourselves, you will be treated leniently. If not, my men will blast their way in and you'll suffer the consequences. BLAKE: Those are your terms? LEYLAN: Yes. BLAKE: These are mine. You will hand over all your weapons to my men. Whilst we hold the computer, the ship is helpless. It will remain that way until you agree. You will then fly this ship to the nearest habitable planet where the prisoners will disembark. Any attempt by your men to break into this room and we'll destroy the computer. Totally. That's all. LEYLAN: Now Blake, Blake, listen to me very carefully. There is something large, travelling very near us, and we've been running blind. We may be on a collision course. You're putting everybody's life at risk! For Leylan to say this he obviously knows who Blake is. A leader. And a man who cares about the people he leads. BLAKE: Better make up your mind quickly then. Here we are seeing that nice reasonable Leylan again. It's a front, as before. [Blake cuts off communications.] [A prisoner moves towards the computer room. Dainer shoots him in the back.] LEYLAN: Dainer! [DAINER goes over to Leylan] DAINER: Sir? LEYLAN: He wasn't armed. DAINER: We were lucky. They couldn't find the armoury. We've got most of them back to their quarters, we're just mopping up now. LEYLAN: So I see, Dainer...! DAINER: Some of our men have been injured, sir. LEYLAN: And the prisoners? DAINER: We've killed six. LEYLAN: Six? DAINER: [Glancing at body] Seven. In the course of quelling a riot and protecting the ship, sir. LEYLAN: Very well. Carry on. DAINER: Thank you, sir. Leylan has just witnessed a guard shoot down an unarmed man. Dainer's defence is to say "some of our men have been injured." So what? Was that particular prisoner responsible? Then Dainer tells him that "in the course of quelling a riot and protecting the ship" they have killed seven prisoners. All unarmed. Leylan responds with "Very well. Carry on." Leylan doesn't care about the prisoners at all. To him their lives are worthless. Leylan doesn't care a jot what happens, as long as it doesn't happen in front of him. Also notice that Artix is present in this scene. Leylan especially wants to avoid all implication in front of him--the innocent kid--that there's dodgy dealings on board. The character is playing a double game. Raiker takes his cue: [Raiker walks over to Leylan] RAIKER: [To Leylan] I can get them out of there, sir. LEYLAN: How? RAIKER: I want a free hand to take whatever action I think necessary. Do I have your permission, sir? LEYLAN: [: [Less than enthusiastically] All right. Again this is the trouble with fan transcripts, they also write what they think they see (remember people: a fan transcript *isn't* an authoritative version-- take everything but the lines with a grain o f salt). Let's have the line again. LEYLAN: [Nods his head] All right. RAIKER: [To Dainer and some other guards] Come on! [Raiker & guards leave] Next time we hear from Raiker: [The communicator starts bleeping] >RAIKER: Blake? Blake... switch on your vision panel... Scanner thirty- four. >There's something I want you to see. >[Blake nods to Avon who adjusts a control.] >RAIKER: [On screen] You have a clear view of our little assembly, Blake? >BLAKE: We see you. >RAIKER: [On screen] Then lock off the scanner and keep watching. >RAIKER: I'm going to kill one of your friends every thirty seconds starting >now. I'll stop when you give yourselves up, or I run out of prisoners. >BLAKE: Raiker! Listen to me! Raiker, damn you, those men are unarmed! >RAIKER: The talking's over, Blake. >BLAKE: Let me talk to Leylan! Leylan is keeping well out of the way. Note also that Blake has apparently swallowed Leylan's "reasonable" act, at least partly. He still likes to assume the best about people he's dealing with. >[Raiker replaces the communicator, and cuts Blake off] >BLAKE: [Furious] Raiker! Raiker! [Defeated, to Avon] Open the door. >AVON: You're throwing away our only chance. >BLAKE: Open the door! >[Avon opens the door.] >LEYLAN: Hands on your heads. Stand where you are. >BLAKE: Raiker's switched off... Tell him we're coming out... And quickly! >[Leylan nods, and Artix runs off.] He's using Artix because he's an innocent. People will believe what he says. If any shit hits the fan Artix will be there to say, "Yes it was Mr Raiker who shot the prisoners. No, Captain Leylan wasn't there. I don't even think he knew what Raiker was doing." What an utter bastard Leylan is. >[Leylan, Teague and a guard enter. Teague unties Garton.] >[Artix bursts into the prison compartment and whispers to Raiker that the >holdouts have surrendered. Raiker starts for the exit, stops, and calmly >shoots another prisoner.] Now at first I thought he did it to spite Blake. But that isn't actually it at all. He does because he knows that if Blake has surrendered there is a strong chance that Leylan is in the computer room watching the screen. He's done it to implicate Leylan. If there is any comeback over this then Leylan can no longer say that he never saw Raiker kill a prisoner. This is giving Raiker more protection. >[Leylan sees what's happened on the screen and doesn't seem impressed.] As I've said above, it isn't a case of him not being impressed. It's a case of him not liking the fact that he is 'seen' to witness something he would prefer to have happened out of his sight. Artix isn't present however. >LEYLAN: Move it. >[Everyone slowly heads for the exit.] >BLAKE: Commander, your first officer is guilty of murder. I demand that this >incident is fully reported in your log. It isn't Raiker. It's Leylan. Again, he knows what Raiker is like. He's worked with him before. He also would have had a good idea of what Raiker was going to do, but he's again using Raiker as a decoy. Also note that Blake is still appealing to Leylan's decency, apparently not realising that this is a vain hope. >LEYLAN: Now don't tell me how to run my ship, Blake... Everything that >happens here is logged and filed with the Flight Authority and they'll take >whatever action they deem necessary. At this point he is lying. If what he said was true he wouldn't have given Raiker the all clear. Also Leylan's got to be careful now because Raiker has implicated him. Also notice that Artix is not present during this exchange. >[Raiker enters] >RAIKER: You could have won, Blake. All you needed was guts. >BLAKE: I'll settle for yours! >[He lunges for Raiker, but is pinned by two guards. Raiker punches him in >the chest.] Notice that Leylan doesn't say a word. Why bark when you've got a dog to do it for you? >RAIKER: Take them back. Put them in close confinement. Not the girl. She and >I have some unfinished business. [To Jenna] or did you think I'd forgotten? Raiker is acting like this because he's on a massive high. Killing a man can give you that feeling. Death can also give you the horn as well. Raiker also believes that he's got a hold over Leylan. Raiker's clear intent is to rape Jenna and he is making that known in front of Leylan, a number of guards and also Artix. Leylan's earlier command was "be discreet". It's a challenge to that. >LEYLAN: [Icily] Mister Raiker! Have you gone completely mad? >LEYLAN: (To guard) > Put her with the others. [To Artix] Mr. Artix, get a technical squad in >there. I want that computer fully functional in ten minutes. He's getting Artix out of the way. He doesn't want him to hear what he's going to say to Raiker. Arix is Leylan's alibi if anything goes wrong. Laylan will always present a good side to him. >[Artix dashes away] >LEYLAN: Mr. Raiker! This time you went too far. So similar things have happened before. LEYLAN: There'll be an official inquiry. He's lying. It's just a threat to put Raiker back on the leash. >RAIKER: Naturally, Sir. And I'm sure you'll confirm that I was acting with >your full authority. There were other officers present who heard you give me >permission to do what was necessary. Good move, Raiker. Clever boy! >LEYLAN: Everything that was said or done by everybody... including me... >will be in my report. >[Raiker doesn't look so confident] Again I don't agree with this comment. Raikers expression seems totally blank. Leylan is using this "report" to slap Raiker back into line. He won't really do the report of course, because that would expose Leylan to criticism (I'll be getting to what happens in Cygnus Alpha with that report in a minute or two). But he has to keep up the pretence. Therefore Blake, Jenna and Avon are kept alive as 'witnesses'. It's only a temporary measure though. Once the pissing contest is over, Blake, Jenna and Avon will be "discreetly" killed. The problem Leylan faces however is the fact that he can't be seen to be backing down to Raiker. This interestingly also shows how far Leylan is thinking ahead. Which of course has the added bonus of showing us how much he is aware of what is really going on aboard the London. This is the scene where they find the Liberator: >RAIKER: We could put on a boarding party. You know how much that ship would >be worth in prize money if we could get her to a Federation planet? Millions >of credits. Millions! Raiker is clearly appealing to Leylan's greed. >LEYLAN: Leave a skeleton crew on it. We could do that. >RAIKER: It's got to be worth a try! >LEYLAN: Yes it has. >[Walks over to communicator] >LEYLAN: Ahh, Section four? Stand by to run out a transfer tube. Wallace and >Teague? <Snip> >LEYLAN: Now, keep your communicators open at all times. I want a full report >of conditions inside that ship. If there is anyone alive over there, I want >you to make peaceful contact. Weapons are only to be used as defence. Leylan doesn't want to annoy the crew of a battle cruiser:-) >LEYLAN: Krell? Get kitted up and standby to give backup if it's needed. >[Teague's voice can be heard over the communicator] >TEAGUE: We're in some sort of a cylinder. Type of airlock, I think. It's >turning! It's fantastic, sir. I... I don't believe it! >LEYLAN: What is it? What's happening? >TEAGUE: Well, we've come out into what must be some sort of a flight deck I >think, but it's like nothing I've ever seen before. >LEYLAN: Well, describe it later. Now... now give me life support readout. >TEAGUE: Pressure normal... minimal radiation... breathable oxygen >atmosphere. >LEYLAN: Good, good. Now, is there anybody on board? >TEAGUE: Not that we've seen so far, but... I'm sorry? What was that? >LEYLAN: I didn't speak! >TEAGUE: [Hesitantly] Somebody did... somebody said something a... >[Massive hiss of static from the communicator] >LEYLAN: Teague! Report! Wallace! [To technician] Where the hell is that >backup man?! >[Krell enters] >KRELL: Ready sir. >LEYLAN: Right. Get across there as fast as you can. He's sending Krell to his death. But Leylan doesn't care. He's only interested in getting Liberator. >LEYLAN: Krell! Krell! Answer me! Krell! Now listen to me Krell... if I have >no signal from you within three minutes, I'm withdrawing the transfer tube. >Three minutes! >[Raiker reaches for Leylan] >RAIKER: Wait! We can't give up that easily. That ship's worth a fortune. >LEYLAN: Looks like I've already lost three men. I'm not risking any more of >my crew. Too many crew members dying reflects badly on Leylan. You can't avoid putting them into a report. Also if the crew are dying, then something must be on there killing them, and he doesn't want that getting on the London. >RAIKER: Then use prisoners. They've got nothing to lose. Use Blake and the >other two. Let them take the risks... why not? There is a long pause. >LEYLAN: We might save the other three. Lie of course; he believes they are dead. However there is something else going on here. This is a legitimate way of getting rid of the three 'witnesses' and he will not be seen to be directly backing down over the report he has told Raiker he intends to fill out. With the three 'witnesses' dead there isn't going to be a report. >RAIKER: Right. At least we'll have tried. Interesting response. For Raiker it means "at least we'll have tried" to get the ship. But he is also taking up Leylan's pretended concern about the three lost men. He is basically saying, "I'm back on side. I accept you're the boss". >LEYLAN: Right. Get them equipped and bring 'em down here... Blake, Jenna and Avon enter, followed by Raiker and a guard. >LEYLAN: I hope Mr. Raiker's made it clear to you that you can refuse to do >this. >BLAKE: Oh yes. He's also made it clear that summary execution's one of our >options. We chose the other. Raiker isn't the commander of the ship, and we have been told earlier that *only* the Commander has the right to order an official execution. Notice that Leylan doesn't contradict Raiker, however. He lets the threat stand. That's the stick. Now he gives them the carrot. >LEYLAN: Well if you're successful, I promise that I'll get your sentences >quashed. Is the Federation really going to quash Blake's sentence? No. Is Leylan, even ignoring the fact that he's hardly in a position to influence the Federation high court, really going to allow these three to go free and allow them to gad about telling everyone how Leylan was involved in the murder of prisoners? No. >AVON: And if we're not? >RAIKER: Then you'll have no more problems anyway. Basically the'll be dead. This confirms that Raiker believes the three men are really dead as well. >JENNA: What is it that we have to do? >LEYLAN: Find out what's happened to my men and see if it's safe to send a >boarding party across. >BLAKE: All right. >JENNA: I've had worse offers. She means Raiker. This is a snook at him. >LEYLAN: Good. >BLAKE: Do we get weapons? >RAIKER: I'll toss them into the airlock... once you're inside. >BLAKE: Very wise. >[Blake and Jenna walk up to the hatch and stand either side of it.] >BLAKE: [To Leylan] All right, open the hatch. >LEYLAN: Open hatch. >[Krell, foaming at the mouth, staggers out of the airlock. He tries to >strangle Raiker. Raiker eventually overpowers him.] >RAIKER: Get him out of here. >[Two guards drag off Krell] >JENNA: What do you suppose did that to him? >AVON: That's what we're supposed to find out. Execution may have some appeal >after all. >BLAKE: Let's go. Now this is interesting. Krell has obviously been sent mad. But does there worry Raiker and Leylan? No. If Krell is mad then what about the others? Answer: If they haven't returned by now then they are probably dead. They still send Blake, Avon and Jenna though. Like driving sheep across a minefield. Once they have boarded the ship Leylan calls: >LEYLAN: Blake. Are you all right? >BLAKE: Yes! We're all right. But we're still checking. >LEYLAN: Stay in contact, Blake. Notice that Leylan doesn't ask if the other two guards are alive. >RAIKER: [To a technician] Get me a survival unit. >[The technician leaves] >LEYLAN: What're you going to do? >RAIKER: They're still alive. I'm going to make sure they don't get any ideas >about staying over there. >LEYLAN: Raiker! Then a close up of Laylan's face. He is staring Raiker in the eyes. >RAIKER: Yes sir. Interesting exchange that. Leylan is saying "kill them." >RAIKER: I want a boarding crew kitted out and ready to follow me over. He's saying that because he doesn't want any witnesses when he kills the three prisoners. >[Technician nods.] >[Switch to Blake, trying to push/pull the hatch closed.] >[Switch to Raiker. He sees what Blake is trying to do. He fires. Blake falls >over, injured. Raiker takes aim and fires again.] This is wrong. Raiker fires and Blake falls to the ground to get out of firing rang banging his shoulder as he does so. The pain is from the fall not a shot. Now let's make a quick jump to the next episode. Cygnus Alpha. [Interior. Prison ship London, flight deck. Leylan is completing report. Artix enters.] LEYLAN: How long before we make planet fall, Mr. Artix? : I'll run a check. LEYLAN: Are the prisoners quiet? ARTIX: Yes, sir. (checks console) Forty eight minutes thirty seconds. We're dosing the air supply with suppressant vapour and they're under constant scan. Security have put on double guards and I've armed the crew as well, just as you've instructed. LEYLAN: All a bit late in the day, too. This is an implicit criticism of Raiker. In his mind Leylan is getting his story straight and apportioning blame to the dead man, who can't contradict his story. Also the last hour or so before prisoner disembarkation would the most tricky, because that's when prisoner stress levels are going to be at their highest. ARTIX: (operates visual screen so that Cygnus Alpha is visible) It doesn't look very hospitable, sir. LEYLAN: What? ARTIX: Cygnus Alpha. It doesn't look very hospitable, sir. Leylan doesn't comment on this, not even to say "yes" or "you've seen one prison planet, you've seen 'em 'all." He doesn't what to be seen by Artix to be expressing an opinion one way or the other about the prisoners' fate. LEYLAN: I want you to send this report. Beam it to the nearest Federation base for relay to Earth. ARTIX: It's not going to do much for my promotion prospects, sir. Notice here that he's making Artix complicit in what happened by getting *him* to send the report. LEYLAN: You can live down your part of it. You're young. [Artix hesitates] LEYLAN: Send it, Mr. Artix. Leyland's got no choice at this point. Guards have died. And Blake is now free. There is going to be some sort of enquiry. But notice the timing of making this report: [ARTIX puts the report on the computer] LEYLAN: (v.o. recording of report) This is Civil Administration Ship London in transit from Earth to Cygnus Alpha, transporting prisoners to the penal colony. We have sustained crew casualties during an attempted mutiny by prisoners. These events happened 4 months ago. He is sending the message now so that when Earth gets back to him he will be able to report that the mission is complete. The rest of the cargo is now on Cygnus Alpha. "The bad news is, we've had a mutiny. But the good news is, the mission was successful!" LEYLAN: Five dead, including Subcommander Raiker. Notice that he doesn't mention any of the prisoner deaths. There were seven. Those people are unimportant to Leylan. LAYLAN: Three prisoners escaped in a spacecraft of unknown origin. Prisoners Blake, Stannis, and Avon. The London is again under authorized control and proceeding to destination. Message ends. Retransmit to Earth on priority circuit. Confirm please. ARTIX: We have confirmation. Will they go after Blake? LEYLAN: They have no choice. ARTIX: They'll never find him out there. Laylan ignores him. You know why? It's because he's not keen on showing the inner workings of his mind. He just wants to come over as a plain straight forward man. He is in fact a devious bastard, as we've seen. ARTIX: (pause in a loud voice) I said, sir they'll never find him out there. Leylan is forced to answer. He can't upset Artix. He's going to need to rely on him to support his version of events if thing go badly. LEYLAN: They won't have too. He'll find them. That's why his report contains references to the Liberator and the missing prisoners. He's got no choice in the matter. He knows what Blake is going to do with the ship and so he can't not report it (otherwise, when Blake turns up on Earth with a big ship, he'll be in dock for withholding information as well as everything else). Plus it's a bit of help for the people who will have to deal with it: "Look out! He's got a spacecraft of unknown origin and he's not afraid to use it!" LEYLAN: We have ground zero contact. All off. ARTIX: All off, sir. LEYLAN: Right, disembark the prisoners, Mr. Artix. Maintain full security until they're in the holding bay. I'll program the computer for the return. We lift off in d plus thirty. ARTIX: Thirty minutes? (pause) Sir, we've been in space now for eight months. I wouldn't mind stretching my legs a little. What a question! This shows that this is Artix's first prison ship run. LEYLAN: Not on this planet, Mr. Artix. This shows that Leylan knows exactly how inhospitable a prison planet is. LEYLAN: Now get the prisoners off and let's go home. So to sum up, in Leylan and Raiker we get what looks like a straightforward comment on the banality of evil, which turns out to be something more complex. On the face of it, it looks like Leylan is just a good guy who's been worn down by too many years of doing a lousy, dead-end job (hence his interest in seeing Artix escape the same trap), and Raiker is a man who's turned nasty under the same circumstances. However, if you look at the episode you see that there's a lot more going on; Under his facade of semi-decency, Leylan has a cruel, indifferent, uncaring streak (his interest in Artix seems to be more along the lines of using him as a character witness later), which he expresses by allowing Raiker to run amok with official license. Raiker is even nastier than he first looks. He's not bitter because he hates his job; he's actually getting off on what he does. The only ray of hope on the whole ship is Artix. And given what he's just seen-- he doesn't seem to have worked out what's happened at this point, but if he carries on in this job he's going to either become subliminally conditioned to accept this sort of thing as normal, or else he'll notice something, in which case he's either going to turn to the bad, or he's going to, naively and idealistically, fight against corruption. And we've seen what happens in the Federation to people who do. As in the rest of the Federation, there is a pretence of fairness and good government on board the London. But as in the Federation, it's only a pretence. This subtext concerns just two one-off characters. Imagine the level of complexity that is going on between the regulars.This show has low production values, but the script intricacies are breathtaking. Where the scripts and characterisation is concerned Blake's 7 is a class act. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Nova (was Sentencing)
by Sally Manton 16 May '01

16 May '01

On Nova, Helen first wrote: <Now that you mention it, my best guess on Nova - the son of one of the dissidents in the slaughter Blake narrowly avoided.> then Leia suggested: <I always kind of thought Nova was probably a political troublemaker.> I like both of these ideas, a lot (and they could both be true, there could be a family history of troublemaking just like Ushton and Roj). Certainly beats my previous vague ideas that he was just a young small-time crook caught up at the fringes of something bigger and chosen to take the fall (but after all, he *is* natural-born cannon-fodder, isn't he?) _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Truth
by Ellynne G. 16 May '01

16 May '01

I was thinking of doing a looooong thing about the nature of truth but I think I'll let it go with three points. 1) The exact same story really can vary in meaning to different people. I've had to believe this ever since someone trying to prove this told a rather long joke. At the end, everyone laughed. When asked why they laughed, the men said it was because it was the milkman. The women said, "Because he's dead!" Please note, we were all present at the same time for the same joke telling. 2) If you really do believe there can only ever be one right interpretation, I can help. It's mine. There, doesn't that make life easier for you? 3) In keeping with the above, I'm sure we all agree the version of Hamlet with zombies was definitive, right? And, in case anyone has any doubts, let me point out that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern _are_ dead. Ellynne ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

1 0

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

16 May '01

Honey Bunny "Sally Manton" Wrote: > >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. 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). He was. Sally, have you ever *read* "Of Mice and Men"? 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. 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. 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? Any guesses? Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

3 2

RE: [B7L] Re: sentencing
by Jenny Kaye 16 May '01

16 May '01

Tavia wrote: > >Helen wrote about the Federation administration: > > >They fear political crimes so much they > > >would rather covertly slaughter large groups than try to brainwash > > >them. Why spend money brainwashing these people? It's only the leaders that need brainwashing and that's only so the Federation can use them as political pawns. This from a society that appears to have no official > > >death penalty (I may be wrong). The only reference we have to a death penalty in series 1 is in Breakdown, where Kayn, when talking about Gan's limiter, says, "A dangerous psychopath, certainly. Or would you prefer he'd been excecuted?" This certainly tells us that in Kayn's mind a limiter implant is an alternative to a death sentence, but it doesn't really tell us if the death penalty is officially active in the Federation. Unofficially of course, it's rife. > >Two possible exceptions: > > > >(1) Glynd, Morag and Havant discuss eliminating Blake rather than deporting > >him. The dialogue runs as below and one interpretation might suggest trial > >and execution for dissidence, though possibly a more likely one is another >'transporter accident'. > > > >HAVANT Can't he be eliminated? This is a doctor speaking BTW. So much for the Hippocratic oath. > >MORAG No, he's a symbol of opposition to the Administration. His death could be used by the dissidents. They need a hero. Alive or dead, Blake could be it. . Basically, they don't want a dead martyr. If she is talking about state execution then that's what they well get. If they are on about causing him to die in an "accident" that could be used against them as well. True, he would have been killed at the massacre, but then that was brought about by Dev Tarrant and he wants Blake dead because he can identify him. The fact that Tarrant also survived the massacre, but wasn't captured, would look deeply suspicious to Blake. Tarrant doesn't want him alive for personal reasons. He isn't politicial, he doesn't see in terms of prevarication. A pro keeps it simple. Kill Blake. End of problem. For him at anyrate! > >HAVANT Difficult. I suppose my department could infect him, > >some rapidly terminal disease. Would his natural death help? (Again, a doctor speaks.) > >GLYND I don't think so. (Too suspicious, see?) > >MORAG What we need is something to discredit him. And that's what they do. Look what happened to the "Glitter Gang" after Gary Glitter was convicted. Who would admit to being a fan of Glitter now? > >(2) Travis is sentenced to execution in a Federation military court in > >Trial. Not only would I argue that this counts as the death penalty > >existing under Federation law, It's a military court. As Par says, "Space Command look after their own." Military law is different to civilian law. but the wording of the sentence suggests > >that some non-military criminals were executed. No it doesn't. > >SAMOR We cannot find it in our hearts to absolve you in any way > >of the responsibility for these murders. The sentence of this tribunal is, > >therefore, that you should be stripped of all rank and privileges, > >that you be dishonourably dismissed the service, and that you then > >be executed for the common criminal you have shown yourself to be. > >Have you anything to say? What Samor is saying is this, "You, Travis, no longer have the right to wear that uniform, you are a common criminal, not a Space Commander. You are going to be stripped of your rank and privileges, and then we are going to kill you." Although if you want to split hairs, it can be argued that once he has been dishonourably dismissed from the service he technically is no longer in Space Command, in reality he is still subject to its legal rules. "You are now a common criminal, and under Military Law we are going to kill you." It does not follow that the same would be the case under civil law. Anyway, how do you define a "common criminal"? A house breaker? A bank robber? A fraudster? A murderer? Someone who steals the milk off your door step? It's too imprecise. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

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

Jump to page:

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