Stephen wrote: <What amuses me about the little mutual deprecation society Avon and Part of the problem here - of Boucher's darker view of Blake and of people who try to do right - is that, while he only *wrote* 4 episodes with Blake in them, three of them are among the very very best in the series (and would be my choice *for* the best) - Shadow, Star One and Blake. The impact of these three tends to cast a greater shadow (pun not intended) than the actual wordage would justify.
Notwithstanding that Chris Boucher is God <g> he's by no means a perfect one, and in his own way is as conventional as Terry Nation. The difference is in the conventions he follows - the (then new, by now a tad cliched) ones that the good guys are just as bad as the villains, there's no really any such thing as a hero, morality is *always* suspect and it's all doomed anyway. Life's a bitch and then you die.
Boucher was very good at shades of muck, but what he *wasn't* good at - and tended to avoid - was actually writing about genuinely good people (this is not unusual, they are actually much much harder to write well). If you look at the episodes he wrote, there really are only three characters at the most whom I would call essentially good (by which I dont mean wholly). Hanna, the drug addict in Shadow. Rashell in Weapon (who I think is poorly written but well acted). Max in Deathwatch. The rest are all tending *very* much to the middling to bad range, or moral voids like Clonemaster Fen (or maybe not; for all the lofty words, what she has done is made a clone of a man - without his knowledge or agreement - for the use and abuse of his enemies. Hardly moral). Of the crew, only Gan comes out clean (and he just wasn't interested in Gan). Cally is self-rightous (Star One) and holier-than-thou (RoD), and Tarrant swings from a standard and quite appealing hero (Deathwatch) to a *complete* and remarkably stupid bastard (City) according to the needs of the story.
He does wriggle out of trying to get inside Blake's head and give any idea of *why* Blake acts as he does, which would IMO enrich the moral complexity and alleviate the rather one-sidedness of both Shadow and Star One. He thought of, and thought he was writing, Avon as a psychopath. And the only member of the crew he *invented* was a woman who killed for money and didn't show any positive human qualities till near the end of the series.
To be blunt, I don't think Boucher *was* interested in ambiguity (as it by definition must include the shades of light as well as dark) so much as the more dramatic qualities of the darker side. A Blake's 7 - and a Blake - that was wholly his creation would have been no more rounded and complex than one that was entirely Terry Nation's. It's the tension arising from his darker overlay *onto* Nation's lighter, more 'heroic' origins that overcomes the cliches of both and gives B7 its unique flavour.
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
--- Sally wrote:
Notwithstanding that Chris Boucher is God <g> he's by no means a perfect one, and in his own way is as conventional as Terry Nation. The difference is in the conventions he follows - the (then new, by now a tad cliched) ones that the good guys are just as bad as the villains, there's no really any such thing as a hero, morality is *always* suspect and it's all doomed anyway. Life's a bitch and then you die.
I agree, cynicism can be as dull as idealism. But Boucher was quite capable of writing feelgood pieces like City with it's OTT villain, Vila being brave(ish) and getting the girl. As well as episodes like Rumours
or Blake.
Boucher was very good at shades of muck, but what he *wasn't* good at - and tended to avoid - was actually writing about genuinely good people (this is not unusual, they are actually much much harder to write well). If you look at the episodes he wrote, there really are only three characters at the most whom I would call essentially good (by which I dont mean wholly). Hanna, the drug addict in Shadow. Rashell in Weapon (who I think is poorly written but well acted). Max in Deathwatch.
What about Bek ? Or Zil, who risks her life to protect a child ? Or Norl in City ? Klyn ? Deva ? Hob ? None of us is wholly good (he said in an uncharacteristic outbreak of Augustinian theology) but I think that none of the characters I've cited were exactly card carrying members of the dark side.
The rest are all tending *very* much to the middling to bad range, or moral voids like Clonemaster Fen (or maybe not; for all the lofty words, what she has done is made a clone of a man - without his knowledge or agreement - for the use and abuse of his enemies. Hardly moral).
Ah, I thought the whole Clonemaster thing was quite clever. Fen is obliged to aid the Federation, and I suspect that she know darn well that any breach of treaty will lead to the General Pinochet Battle Fleet visiting the planet for a goodwill visit. However within the letter of the agreement she inculcates a reverence for the rule of life into the clone which leads to Servalan's plans being scuppered. Actually Weapon is about the little people outwitting the big guys. Boucher was cynical but he was essentially on the side of the angels. (Hence the celestial choir <g>)
Of the crew, only Gan comes out clean (and he just wasn't interested in Gan). Cally is self-rightous (Star One) and holier-than-thou (RoD),
Have to disagree with you about Cally. I think Boucher casts her as the conscience of the group so she gets to ask all the awkward questions like "have we the right to cause all these deaths" and "who died and made Avon the Angel of Retribution". Personally I don't see her as being self-righteous at all but as I think you once pointed out we were all issued with slightly different versions of the tapes.
and Tarrant swings from a standard and quite appealing hero (Deathwatch) to a *complete* and remarkably stupid bastard (City) according to the needs of the story.
Can't disagree with you there. Tarrant's morals and intelligence tend to fluctuate with the needs of the episode's writers. One of the few bits I dislike about Deathwatch is that Tarrant who has stabbed a man in the back in Powerplay suddenly gets qualms about shooting a robot in the back in Deathwatch.
He does wriggle out of trying to get inside Blake's head and give any idea of *why* Blake acts as he does, which would IMO enrich the moral complexity and alleviate the rather one-sidedness of both Shadow and Star One.
I think that Blake's apologia can be found in Trial. "we've gone too far to turn back". The struggle has become it's own justification.
He thought of, and thought he was writing, Avon as a psychopath. And the only member of the crew he *invented* was a woman who killed for money and didn't show any positive human qualities till near the end of the series.
If Boucher is God then I can only suggest that his followers hunt down all copies of that statement and burn it in order that his imperfections be not exposed to the profane gaze of the heathen ! As far as Soolin's concerned she's the one who objects to Avon using Dayna and Vila as bait in Stardrive and IMO comes across as being quite sympathetic in Headhunter, sympathises with Neebrox in Assassin and objects to Keillers cold blooded murder in Gold. As hired killers go I think she's really quite sweet. And as the initial premise of B7 was "The Dirty Dozen in Space" I think that a hired gun was an entirely appropriate addition to the Crew.
To be blunt, I don't think Boucher *was* interested in ambiguity (as it by definition must include the shades of light as well as dark) so much as the more dramatic qualities of the darker side. A Blake's 7 - and a Blake - that was wholly his creation would have been no more rounded and complex than one that was entirely Terry Nation's. It's the tension arising from his darker overlay *onto* Nation's lighter, more 'heroic' origins that overcomes the cliches of both and gives B7 its unique flavour.
I agree with the second half of that statement. I think that it was the Boucher/ Nation combination that made B7 what it was. But I think it is too easy to cast Boucher as the anti-Nation, as it were.
Stephen.
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
Stephen said (apropos of Sally's wonderful post about Chris Boucher's weltsanschauung): and then you die.
Have to disagree with you about Cally. I think Boucher casts her as the conscience of the group so she gets to ask all the awkward questions like "have we the right to cause all these deaths" and "who died and made Avon the Angel of Retribution".
Bad question, since on the evidence then available the answer is "Anna Grant."
I think that Blake's apologia can be found in Trial. "we've gone too far to turn back". The struggle has become it's own justification.
But "I am steeped in blood so far/That to retreat were as tedious as going o'er" is a quote from Macbeth, who is definitely a bad guy.
-(Y)
Dana Shilling wrote:
I think that Blake's apologia can be found in Trial. "we've gone too far to turn back". The struggle has become it's own justification.
But "I am steeped in blood so far/That to retreat were as tedious as going o'er" is a quote from Macbeth, who is definitely a bad guy.
Bad guy? Tragic hero. Which can equally apply to Blake, though Macbeth achieved his political goals with less carnage.
Interesting. I had never considered Avon's 'wade in blood' speech as a reference to Macbeth before. Thank you, Dana.
Mistral
Mistral said, of Macbeth:
Bad guy? Tragic hero. Which can equally apply to Blake, though Macbeth achieved his political goals with less carnage.
Bad guy who behaves understandably, exercising drives that all of us can feel. Tragic heroes may be "Bellona's bridegroom," cleaving public enemies through from the nave to the chaps. They don't kill anointed kings who are their relatives when hospitality obligates them to protect their guests.
In terms of audience reception, TN, CB et. al. expected the audience to deplore the Federation and understand the compromises and sacrifices involved in trying to overthrow it, whereas Shakespeare expected the audience to sympathize with Macbeth in his surrender to coruption, but to deplore not only his means but his objective.
Mind you, on the SHAKSPER list there's an ongoing thread about whether Claudius is a tragic hero.
-(Y)
-
Dana Shilling -
Mistral -
Sally Manton -
Stephen Date