Sally wrote:
Threats yes. Killing yes - which is why I'm not nearly as sure as some people that Blake wouldn't have let Avon kill Shrinker (though *not* in
the
way Avon did it). *Gratuitously* taunting a man who is about to die in a particularly cruel manner (the fact that he's killed others
notwithstanding)
for no earthly reason than to make the taunter feel superior and/or better ... no way.
There is absolutely nothing to support your claim that they were taunting Shrinker to make themselves feel superior or better. Tarrant and Dayna didn't have ego problems, and even Vila's Delta background hadn't beaten him down to where he needed to gain ego boosts by taunting a piece of slime like Shrinker.
Their venting was a product of stress. They had had to maintain a two-minute alert for five days. They were worried about Avon during that time. They were probably also worried about themselves, parked in orbit over Earth, the seat of Federation power. Then they found Shrinker threatening Avon with a laser probe. I think they had a right to be upset.
What I can't understand is why you feel a need to assign incredulously disbelieving and shabby motives to their behavior.
Neither with Kayn nor with Sarkoff is there any indication that Blake - who understands creative coercion, true - is gloating over them (he comes
closer
once or twice with Travis, but that's personal and *only* with Travis).
Why is it that shabby, mean-spirited cruelty is excused--"that's personal and *only* Travis"--when Blake is the one doing it? There is no "closer" about his gloating over Travis. Just pulling lines from one ep, here's a clear-cut case of gratutitous gloating:
"I should use the time to think of an excuse for your failure." "You don't matter enough to kill, Travis."
Carol