Well, since Natasa has cited me as a part-time Marxist critic, I suppose I ought to rise to the challenge...
* The only thing missing from Deliverance is the pith helmets, because this episode is little more than a sad pastiche of Rider Haggard with pretensions to being science fiction. Our stalwart bunch of middle-class Home Counties adventurers find themselves ditched on a planet consigned to quaint notions of barbarism through the magically convenient means of 'a war' at some unspecified point in the past. Almost from the start we're told that whatever society there was has undergone a 'reversion to primitive', and it isn't long before we're comfortably assured that primitive means dangerous. The planet itself is dangerous, what with all that radioactivity.
Despite which, there are some local primitives still knocking around. First off, we have a bunch of men (plural), who are aggressive, inarticulate, and unaccountably hostile. What better excuse could you need for shooting them with impunity? Well, just in case, the script has one to offer - they like to steal our women. We don't see Jenna get abducted, but surely she wouldn't have gone off with them of her own accord? Heaven forbid! They don't actually do anything with her beyond sticking her in a tent, thus sparing all and sundry the anguish of singing Here Comes The Night.
As well as the men, we also have a Woman (singular), who is young, passive, demure, extremely well spoken and has somehow managed to keep all her teeth white. She instantly throws herself at the feet of our sturdy white giants and hails them as the saviours of her people, singling out Avon as 'Lord'. Vila and Gan presumably come from Another Place.
Neil Faulkner N.Faulkner@tesco.net wrote:
The only thing missing from Deliverance is the pith helmets, because this episode is little more than a sad pastiche of Rider Haggard with pretensions to being science fiction. Our stalwart bunch of middle-class Home Counties adventurers
Hang on a mo ! Call me wilfully obtuse, but I thought Haggard's heroes were English gentlemen, sharing the conventional values of their society, who sought to extend the Empire (most of the time). Whereas our lot are Desperado's on the run from the law and seeking to bring down their empire. If they come from the Home Counties than so did the Romans in I Claudius !
find themselves ditched on a planet consigned to quaint notions of barbarism through the magically convenient means of 'a war' at some unspecified point in the past.
I thought that this was an Awful Warning of the dangers of nuclear war, which was something of a concern in the 1970's (and probably should still be today)
Almost from the start we're told that whatever society there was has undergone a 'reversion to primitive', and it isn't long before we're comfortably assured that primitive means dangerous.
Doesn't it ? What was it Hobbes said about life in a state of nature ?
The planet itself is dangerous, what with all that radioactivity.
A well known legacy of nuclear war (see above)
Despite which, there are some local primitives still knocking around. First off, we have a bunch of men (plural), who are aggressive, inarticulate, and unaccountably hostile. What better excuse could you need for shooting them with impunity?
Plymouth Argyle fans obviously <veg> Seriously, on a planet like Cephlon, where resources are scant a bunch of new, well fed interlopers are not going to be greeted with open arms. I concede that the exclusive casting of men as the savages may owe more to 1970's casting policy than any considerations of anthropological exactitude.
Well, just in case, the script has one to offer - they like to steal our women. We don't see Jenna get abducted, but surely she wouldn't have gone off with them of her own accord? Heaven forbid! They don't actually do anything with her beyond sticking her in a tent, thus sparing all and sundry the anguish of singing Here Comes The Night.
Taking females as plunder is (I think) fairly well documented in tribal warfare. We are told that the fertility of the primitives is declining so a female would be a valued commodity.
As well as the men, we also have a Woman (singular), who is young, passive, demure, extremely well spoken and has somehow managed to keep all her teeth white.
Meegat is the official Messiah greeter. As such, presumably, she would be dressed ceremonially, behave reverently towards any newcomers who might be the Messiah and maintain reasonable standards of personal hygene. Again, I concede that realism on this last may have been sacrificed to considerations of taste in 1978.
She instantly throws herself at the feet of our sturdy white giants and hails them as the saviours of her people, singling out Avon as 'Lord'. Vila and Gan presumably come from Another Place.
Again there are precedents for this sort of thing in primitive societies on our own planet.
From this we can deduce that the representation of the sexes on Cephlon is indeed of a very primitive kind, unsullied by any problematic complications like cultural awareness, ideological consciousness or a sense of historicity.
I agree that all this is deplorable. However the Federation is deplorable and no-one has (yet) suggested that any of the writers on B7 were Facist sympathisers (with the exception of Tanith Lee, I seem to recall).
Meegat has a minor problem that needs sorting out, and since it permits Avon and his chums a chance to flaunt their technological knowhow (they come from civilisation, after all) this must obviously take precedence over other matter (like, say, rescuing Jenna).
As I recall they spend a few minutes in the control room then, prompted by Gan, Avon announces "We must find Jenna". Given that Meegat has just saved their lives a certain amount of polite interest in her predicament is not unwarranted.
Fortunately it doesn't take too long, because decent chaps like these are hardly going to be flummoxed by a stack of antique hardware.
I don't have a good answer to this bit. They work it all out way too quickly to be believable, given that none of them have any prior experience of this kind of kit.
The fact that it's hardware of any kind is way beyond Meegat's comprehension, because she's primitive, and primitive people have no concept for such things. Nor do they feel any compulsion to try and understand what's going on, even if it's intimately tied up with their entire purpose in life.
Again, primitive societies do have primitive belief systems. It is possible that the teaching of the sciences might have declined after a nuclear war. It is also possible that a society in decline might have accepted a passive fatalism as it's response to events. The historical parallel to this is the later Roman Empire, who's finest minds went into retreat from the world, just as the Empire's decline became terminal.
And then it's off to rescue Jenna, or at least see if there's anything left of her (they could be cannibals, you know).
That is why they went back down.
Meanwhile, Blake and Cally are up against a genuinely serious adversary. This is Ensor, who is of a bit of a decent chap himself, just a bit misguided. But he's technologically savvy (insisting that the course to Aristo is confirmed by the ship's computer, putting the energiser on his gun to automatic) and hence a genuine threat. Cephlon's brutish thugs might go down with a single whack of a big stick (and they don't stand up too well to fisticuffs either), but Blake and Cally are essentially helpless against one of their own kind. Only the toll of his injuries saves them.
Well, I think he was supposed to be clever (Ensor Snr praises his intelligence in Orac). Blake and Cally aren't helpless but a hostage situation with a gun held to someone's head is not the same as a fist fight with some undernourished tribesmen. Big sticks tend not to be terribly effective in these circumstances.
What we have here, then, is a pernicious piece of colonialist nostalgia, wistfully dreaming of the good old days when the sun never set on the Empire.
The Empire, in a brief cameo, is seen as a ruthless tyranny.
It is glib propaganda for armchair adventurers who need to be reassured that civilisation amounts to supremacy and that technological sophistication is the only kind worth a damn.
Two points. Firstly the Federation is (another) Awful warning against technological sophistication without morality. As the Federation are shown as being the baddies in all 52 episodes I think that we may discount this as being the message of "Deliverance". Secondly, the one character among the crew who could be accused of putting technological sophistication above any other value, is humanised by his encounter with Meegat, which would tend to point away from that direction.
Ultimately, it endorses a self-granted mandate to invade the lives of so-called inferior peoples, prove one's superiority and promptly walk out again without care or consideration for the consequences.
But Avon and co. don't invade Cephlon. They go down to pick up the survivors of the crash and get caught up in the situation down there and have to extricate themselves as best they can.
If you enjoyed this episode, may I also recommend Triumph of the Will and Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom. They should be right up your street.
Not, really my cup of tea thanks !
Whew. Didn't know I still had it in me...
I never doubted it for a moment.
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
Hang on a mo ! Call me wilfully obtuse, but I thought Haggard's heroes were English gentlemen, sharing the conventional values of their society, who sought to extend the Empire (most of the time).
Actually they were usually South Africans out for personal gain, but whatever.
Whereas our lot
are Desperado's on the run from the law and seeking to bring down their empire.
Yes, but as an anthropologist I'd like to point out that people tend to be informed by the values of the society in which they were raised. I'd like to recommend "The Handmaids Tale," which makes a good case for the rather sinister similarities between the hardcore left and the hardcore right.
isn't long before we're comfortably assured that primitive means dangerous.
Doesn't it ? What was it Hobbes said about life in a state of nature ?
No, it doesn't. The !Kung Bushmen of South Africa are not particularly dangerous unless you're an antelope, and one can say pretty similar things about the Inuit, the Semai Senoi of Malaysia, and a lot of others. Hobbes was a philosopher, not an anthropologist.
Taking females as plunder is (I think) fairly well documented in tribal warfare.
Actually, recent studies have suggested that it's been overreported; initially by colonial explorers looking for an excuse to take over the land from the locals (under the guise of protecting the poor innocent women), and later on by certain anthropologists with overly macho ideas about hunter-gatherers. It does tend to feature a lot in a certain sort of early European war saga, but again the current thinking is that this has less to do with reality and more to do with the ego of the writer :-).
fertility of the primitives is declining so a female would be a valued commodity.
Actually, that depends too. Witness female abandonment in parts of China; in a generation or two, their fertility will be seriously impaired by the excess of males, but this doesn't stop families abandoning surplus daughters in favour of sons.
She instantly throws herself at the feet of our sturdy white giants and hails them as the saviours of her people, singling out Avon as 'Lord'. Vila and Gan presumably come from Another Place.
Again there are precedents for this sort of thing in primitive societies on our own planet.
Only two documented ones (Montezuma and the Hawaiians), and even there there is room for dispute; in the Hawaiian case, certainly, it's heavily debated whether the locals meant what Cook thought they meant. There's a lot more precedent in Fifties pulp adventure films than in actual history :-).
From this we can deduce that the representation of the sexes on Cephlon is indeed of a very primitive kind, unsullied by any problematic complications like cultural awareness, ideological consciousness or a sense of historicity.
I agree that all this is deplorable.
I think Neil was being sarcastic.
Again, primitive societies do have primitive belief systems.
Which actually tend to be extremely complex, and not at all like the rather facile and fatuous one presented in Deliverance.
But Avon and co. don't invade Cephlon.
To pick up on Neil's Haggard metaphors, neither do Quatermain et al.-- they wander into Rhodesia (sic) in search of gold. Similarly, the colonialist endeavour had a lot less to do with invasions, and more to do with looking for resources of various sorts. In Canada, for instance, the French and English didn't come charging in, gun down the natives and take their land-- they sent in a few people to get involved in the fur trade, then a few more, then a few more. That doesn't make Deliverance any less colonialist.
If you enjoyed this episode, may I also recommend Triumph of the Will and Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom. They should be right up your street.
Not, really my cup of tea thanks !
Actually I enjoyed both, but probably not for the reasons Neil is suggesting...
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Fiona Moore nydersdyner@yahoo.co.uk wrote: >
Yes, but as an anthropologist I'd like to point out that people tend to be informed by the values of the society in which they were raised. I'd like to recommend "The Handmaids Tale," which makes a good case for the rather sinister similarities between the hardcore left and the hardcore right.
I am intrigued by this. I've read the Handmaids Tale a few times now and I don't see it myself. I'm not disagreeing with you but I'd be interested in how you come to this reading.
isn't long before we're comfortably assured that primitive means dangerous.
Doesn't it ? What was it Hobbes said about life in
a
state of nature ?
No, it doesn't. The !Kung Bushmen of South Africa are not particularly dangerous unless you're an antelope, and one can say pretty similar things about the Inuit, the Semai Senoi of Malaysia, and a lot of others. Hobbes was a philosopher, not an anthropologist.
Neither am I as is painfully obvious ! Let me reprhase what I said. Primitive (I use the word very loosely) societies can be dangerous. Life is often cheaper than in technological situations. It is not an illegitimate manouvre for a writer of science fiction to utilise such societies in his or her work as long as the device is not over exploited. (I concede that this last was not observed by the writers of B7.)
Taking females as plunder is (I think) fairly well documented in tribal warfare.
Actually, recent studies have suggested that it's been overreported; initially by colonial explorers looking for an excuse to take over the land from the locals (under the guise of protecting the poor innocent women), and later on by certain anthropologists with overly macho ideas about hunter-gatherers. It does tend to feature a lot in a certain sort of early European war saga, but again the current thinking is that this has less to do with reality and more to do with the ego of the writer :-).
I don't doubt it's been over reported, nor that it has been used for propaganda purposes. I would be surprised if it never happened though. It almost certainly happened in Antiquity.
fertility of the primitives is declining so a
female
would be a valued commodity.
Actually, that depends too. Witness female abandonment in parts of China; in a generation or two, their fertility will be seriously impaired by the excess of males, but this doesn't stop families abandoning surplus daughters in favour of sons.
I'd be very surprised if daughters don't suddenly shoot up in value when scarcity becomes acute. Given the lack of female primitives on Cephlon (!) it could of course be argued that a simillar policy had been applied there in the past.
She instantly throws herself at the feet of our sturdy white giants and hails them as the saviours of her people, singling out Avon as 'Lord'. Vila and Gan presumably come from Another Place.
Again there are precedents for this sort of thing
in
primitive societies on our own planet.
Only two documented ones (Montezuma and the Hawaiians), and even there there is room for dispute; in the Hawaiian case, certainly, it's heavily debated whether the locals meant what Cook thought they meant. There's a lot more precedent in Fifties pulp adventure films than in actual history :-).
I wouldn't expect it to be usual in human encounters and I think it is significant that in the one and a half documented examples the situation is one where two radically different cultures meet. I think that it is a tendency of the human mind to find supernatural explanations for things it does not understand. All I am arguing is that Meegat's reaction is neither implausible or unprecedented.
Again, primitive societies do have primitive
belief
systems.
Which actually tend to be extremely complex, and not at all like the rather facile and fatuous one presented in Deliverance.
I agree that the belief system seen in Deliverance does not have the complexity or the richness of a real set of mythological beliefs. On the other hand I suspect most religious or mythological belief systems would sound facile if they had to be put across in five minutes. The point I wanted to make was that it was not unreasonable for Meegat's civilisation to interpret the remnants of their science in religious terms. As I've said, cargo cults are well documented.
But Avon and co. don't invade Cephlon.
To pick up on Neil's Haggard metaphors, neither do Quatermain et al.-- they wander into Rhodesia (sic) in search of gold. Similarly, the colonialist endeavour had a lot less to do with invasions, and more to do with looking for resources of various sorts. In Canada, for instance, the French and English didn't come charging in, gun down the natives and take their land-- they sent in a few people to get involved in the fur trade, then a few more, then a few more. That doesn't make Deliverance any less colonialist.
It's an inexact parallel to put it mildly. Avon and co. don't exactly engage in a sustained campaign of commercial penetration. They go there to rescue two strangers and come back to rescue Jenna. At no point are they looking for resources.
If you enjoyed this episode, may I also
recommend
Triumph of the Will and Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom. They
should
be right up your street.
Not, really my cup of tea thanks !
Actually I enjoyed both, but probably not for the reasons Neil is suggesting...
Relieved to hear it :-)
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 Date wrote:
Let me reprhase what I said. Primitive (I use the word very loosely) societies can be dangerous. Life is often cheaper than in technological situations.
Stephen, could you clarify that point? You seem to be suggesting that technological advancement leads to or carries with it some degree of moral advancement.
Una
--- Una McCormack una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk wrote: > Stephen Date wrote:
Let me reprhase what I said. Primitive (I use the word very
loosely)
societies can be dangerous. Life is often cheaper
than
in technological situations.
Stephen, could you clarify that point? You seem to be suggesting that technological advancement leads to or carries with it some degree of moral advancement.
I think that it often does. There appears to be some kind of correlation between what Karl Popper described as The Open Society and the scientific method.
Broadly speaking, in closed societies knowledge is handed down by tradition which may not be criticised. In open societies, free discussion and rational thought is both accepted and encouraged. Obviously open societies are more conducive to the scientific method.
Of course there are a number of important caveats. Open societies can be prone to irrationalism on certain subjects. (Macarthyism in the US for example). Furthermore societies such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia combined scientific advance with Totalitarianism. The fact that both regimes were defeated in the sphere which they held to be their special excellence (War for the Nazi's; economics for the Soviets) is perhaps an indication that in the long run Totalitarianism is self defeating.
Definitions of the good society are notoriously problematic. Lord Macaulay made the rather prosaic suggestion that the mortality rate was probably the best index. On this heading the combination of science and democracy comes out top.
None of which is to say that technologically superiority equates to a right to invade and conquer.
Stephen.
P.S. Sorry this is Off Topic. Can anyone let me know how I get onto the spin list ?
____________________________________________________________ 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
----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Date stephend999@yahoo.co.uk To: Lysator blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 11:33 AM Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Deliverance - keg marxist take (OT)
--- Una McCormack una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk wrote: > Stephen Date wrote:
Let me reprhase what I said. Primitive (I use the word very
loosely)
societies can be dangerous. Life is often cheaper
than
in technological situations.
Stephen, could you clarify that point? You seem to be suggesting that technological advancement leads to or carries with it some degree of moral advancement.
I think that it often does.
Ahem. So we're somehow more moral than the Inuit, the Australian aborigines and the Zulu? Steven, you *know* where that line of thinking leads.
There appears to be some
kind of correlation between what Karl Popper described as The Open Society and the scientific method.
Broadly speaking, in closed societies knowledge is handed down by tradition which may not be criticised. In open societies, free discussion and rational thought is both accepted and encouraged.
Unfortunately, though, Popper was a sociologist and as such had very little contact with "primitive" societies. Most anthropological accounts suggest that in societies in which knowledge is handed down by tradition there is far more discussion and reinterpretation than Popper and his lot think-- check out Bronislaw Malinowski sometime, especially his book called (I think) "Magic, Science and Religion."
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Fiona Moore wrote:
There appears to be some
kind of correlation between what Karl Popper described as The Open Society and the scientific method.
Broadly speaking, in closed societies knowledge is handed down by tradition which may not be criticised. In open societies, free discussion and rational thought is both accepted and encouraged.
Unfortunately, though, Popper was a sociologist and as such had very little contact with "primitive" societies. Most anthropological accounts suggest that in societies in which knowledge is handed down by tradition there is far more discussion and reinterpretation than Popper and his lot think--
It was my impression that, when Popper was writing about closed societies, he had something considerably more contemporary in mind.
Iain
----- Original Message ----- From: Iain Coleman ijc@bas.ac.uk To: Lysator blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 4:05 PM Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Deliverance - keg marxist take (OT)
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Fiona Moore wrote:
There appears to be some
kind of correlation between what Karl Popper described as The Open Society and the scientific method.
Broadly speaking, in closed societies knowledge is handed down by tradition which may not be criticised. In open societies, free discussion and rational thought is both accepted and encouraged.
Unfortunately, though, Popper was a sociologist and as such had very
little
contact with "primitive" societies. Most anthropological accounts
suggest
that in societies in which knowledge is handed down by tradition there
is
far more discussion and reinterpretation than Popper and his lot think--
It was my impression that, when Popper was writing about closed societies, he had something considerably more contemporary in mind.
Erm, excuse me? I *was* talking about contemporary societies, or at least societies contemporary with Popper. Just because something's "primitive," doesn't mean it's historical.
Fiona (who frequently gets fed up with people who conflate anthropology with archaeology)
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Fiona Moore wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Iain Coleman ijc@bas.ac.uk
It was my impression that, when Popper was writing about closed societies, he had something considerably more contemporary in mind.
Erm, excuse me? I *was* talking about contemporary societies, or at least societies contemporary with Popper. Just because something's "primitive," doesn't mean it's historical.
I beg your pardon. However, I was referring to Communist Russia.
Iain
----- Original Message ----- From: Iain Coleman ijc@bas.ac.uk
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Fiona Moore wrote:
Erm, excuse me? I *was* talking about contemporary societies, or at
least
societies contemporary with Popper. Just because something's
"primitive,"
doesn't mean it's historical.
I beg your pardon. However, I was referring to Communist Russia.
Iain
But Steven brought up Popper in a discussion of primitive societies, with the evident implication that primitive societies tended to be "closed." My bad if I misread that.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Fiona Moore nydersdyner@yahoo.co.uk wrote: >
Ahem. So we're somehow more moral than the Inuit, the Australian aborigines and the Zulu? Steven, you *know* where that line of thinking leads.
I agree that terrible acts have been committed in the name of the alleged moral superiority of one culture to another. I agree that this was completely morally wrong. I agree that one should be cautious in offering cross-cultural judgements of the practices of one society to another. Unfortunately, not being a moral relativist, I think the values which are encouraged by the Open Societies to be preferable to pretty much any other values on offer and that there is a correlation between moral, scientific and political progress. (This does not preclude finding a way of reconciling the way of life peoples you have mentioned about with the democratic states in which they now live).
Unfortunately, though, Popper was a sociologist
He was a Philosopher.
and as such had very little contact with "primitive" societies. Most anthropological accounts suggest that in societies in which knowledge is handed down by tradition there is far more discussion and reinterpretation than Popper and his lot think--
To be quite fair to Popper he considered the conflict between Open and Closed societies to arise from internal tensions caused by attaining a certain degree of civilisation. (To follow up on Iain's comments he considers Plato, Hegel and Marx as the great enemies of the Open Society. Well no, he considered Marx and Plato great and Hegel as overrated !) So I don't think that he would have been surprised by this.
check out Bronislaw Malinowski sometime, especially his book called (I think) "Magic, Science and Religion."
Thanks for the tip. By the way, now I'm retiring from the "Is Deliverance Colonialist" stakes may I also salute you as a foeperson worthy of my e-mail.
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
----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Date stephend999@yahoo.co.uk
society to another. Unfortunately, not being a moral relativist, I think the values which are encouraged by the Open Societies to be preferable to pretty much any other values on offer and that there is a correlation between moral, scientific and political progress.
I'd never challenge your choice of moral system :), but I thought we'd pretty much done away with the notion of societies "progressing" in linear terms from an inferior state of being to a superior one? That strikes me as a very 18th-century-modernist way of thinking.
(This does not preclude finding a way of reconciling the way of life peoples you have mentioned about with the democratic states in which they now live).
Again, that's a bit Star Trek: "so long as you vote and pay your taxes and live in a house in a city, it's OK to dress up in feathers once in a while-- oh, and don't go chewing the peyote, that's a banned drug."
Unfortunately, though, Popper was a sociologist
He was a Philosopher.
< blushes> Sorry. I read him in an undergraduate sociology class.
To be quite fair to Popper he considered the conflict between Open and Closed societies to arise from internal tensions caused by attaining a certain degree of civilisation. (To follow up on Iain's comments he considers Plato, Hegel and Marx as the great enemies of the Open Society.
All of whom were staunchly modernist and advocates of linear progress, so that's kind of surprising.
Thanks for the tip. By the way, now I'm retiring from the "Is Deliverance Colonialist" stakes may I also salute you as a foeperson worthy of my e-mail.
<salutes back, raising laptop to forehead>
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Fiona Moore wrote:
I'd never challenge your choice of moral system :), but I thought we'd pretty much done away with the notion of societies "progressing" in linear terms from an inferior state of being to a superior one? That strikes me as a very 18th-century-modernist way of thinking.
And we've progressed beyond that?
To be quite fair to Popper he considered the conflict between Open and Closed societies to arise from internal tensions caused by attaining a certain degree of civilisation. (To follow up on Iain's comments he considers Plato, Hegel and Marx as the great enemies of the Open Society.
All of whom were staunchly modernist and advocates of linear progress, so that's kind of surprising.
The open/closed distinction, in Popper, is piecemeal, provisional progress on the one hand (which is the way science works) and grand, eternal schemes on the other.
Iain
Iain wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Fiona Moore wrote:
I'd never challenge your choice of moral system :), but I thought we'd pretty much done away with the notion of societies "progressing" in linear terms from an inferior state of being to a superior one? That strikes me as a very 18th-century-modernist way of thinking.
And we've progressed beyond that?
Some of us have regressed. Or at least tried to reformulate the question, depending on your point of view ;)
Una
----- Original Message ----- From: Iain Coleman ijc@bas.ac.uk To: Lysator blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 10:29 AM Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Deliverance - keg marxist take (OT)
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Fiona Moore wrote:
I'd never challenge your choice of moral system :), but I thought we'd pretty much done away with the notion of societies "progressing" in
linear
terms from an inferior state of being to a superior one? That strikes me
as
a very 18th-century-modernist way of thinking.
And we've progressed beyond that?
If you believe the postmodernists, yes.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Fiona Moore nydersdyner@yahoo.co.uk wrote: >
I'd never challenge your choice of moral system :), but I thought we'd pretty much done away with the notion of societies "progressing" in linear terms from an inferior state of being to a superior one? That strikes me as a very 18th-century-modernist way of thinking.
Depends I s'pose. If you accept that one sort of society is preferable to another, then to move from one state of society to another could legitimately called progress. I agree that it is more complicated than the linear view of progress that was current in C18/19.
Again, that's a bit Star Trek: "so long as you vote and pay your taxes and live in a house in a city, it's OK to dress up in feathers once in a while-- oh, and don't go chewing the peyote, that's a banned drug."
... and we'll tolerate you because we can use you as a tourist attraction. I agree it's not pretty. You can't undo the past, but I'd like to see a more intelligent and imaginative attitude to the future.
To be quite fair to Popper he considered the
conflict
between Open and Closed societies to arise from internal tensions caused by attaining a certain
degree
of civilisation. (To follow up on Iain's comments
he
considers Plato, Hegel and Marx as the great
enemies
of the Open Society.
All of whom were staunchly modernist and advocates of linear progress, so that's kind of surprising.
Well Plato argued for a totalitarian state in the Republic, Hegel argued that God had ordained Prussian militarism as the highest form of polity and Marx's vicar on earth, at the time he wrote, was Stalin. For Popper, a naive view of linear progress was what he called historicism and was the justification for Auschwitz and the Gulag - hence his concern.
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
Fiona Moore wrote:
Stephen Date wrote:
There appears to be some kind of correlation between what Karl Popper described as The Open Society and the scientific method.
Broadly speaking, in closed societies knowledge is handed down by tradition which may not be criticised. In open societies, free discussion and rational thought is both accepted and encouraged.
Unfortunately, though, Popper was a sociologist and as such had very little contact with "primitive" societies. Most anthropological accounts suggest that in societies in which knowledge is handed down by tradition there is far more discussion and reinterpretation than Popper and his lot think--
Sociology of science has changed radically since Popper was writing: there's a large body of ethnographic work which emphasizes the social practice of science and the way scientific method acts as a set of ideal principles than reflects day-to-day activity.
Loren Graham writes very interestingly about science in the former Soviet Union (which I'm assuming constitutes a closed society). He tracks the way in which science was abused under the Soviet system (the devastating effect of Lysenkoism on Soviet biology is a particular case he uses), but makes the general conclusion that Soviet science had a number of successes in many fields, and that science can be remarkably robust under stress. The correlation between the 'Open Society' and scientific method is not so straightforward: science is not necessarily a 'Western' activity.
Graham's work also raises some interesting questions about how scientific method might operate as a sort of counter-ethic within societies like the Soviet Union (like Catholicism did in Poland). What would also be interesting, and which I haven't seen, would be comparative ethnographic work which studied the way in which the principles of scientific method were referred to and made 'up front' in the everyday talk of scientists in different societies. Practical problems for such a clearly fruitful body of research might include: 1. the non-existence of the Soviet Union robs us of perhaps the most significant counter-example of science operating successfully under stress; 2. the reliability of information gained from ethnographic studies in situations where people are in fear of their lives if they talk too freely.
Actually, Fiona, have you seen any literature on the second of those?
Oh dear, B7 content... Well, I have no doubt that science would get on OK under the Federation. I wouldn't hold out much hope for sociology, however.
Una
----- Original Message ----- From: Una McCormack una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk To: Lysator blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 6:28 PM Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Deliverance - keg marxist take (OT)
science operating successfully under stress; 2. the reliability of
information gained from
ethnographic studies in situations where people are in fear of their lives
if they talk too
freely.
Actually, Fiona, have you seen any literature on the second of those?
Not really my field, but you could try reading an edited volume called "Anthropology under Fire," about anthropologists who do their fieldwork in totalitarian, war-torn or otherwise fraught situations. Also, look for articles by Frank Pieke-- he's a colleague who did his doctoral work on Tianamen Square.
Oh dear, B7 content... Well, I have no doubt that science would get on OK
under the Federation.
I wouldn't hold out much hope for sociology, however.
To judge by the social-Darwinist view of society put forward in "Terminal," I'd say all of the social sciences are pretty much up the creek in the Federation.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Me/Fiona:
Oh dear, B7 content... Well, I have no doubt that science would get on OK
under the Federation.
I wouldn't hold out much hope for sociology, however.
To judge by the social-Darwinist view of society put forward in "Terminal," I'd say all of the social sciences are pretty much up the creek in the Federation.
Not to mention the class gradings. I think bits of psychology would have done OK under the Federation, mostly the stuff related to interrogation techniques and controlling behaviour (although they do seem to do most of that with drugs).
Una
----- Original Message ----- From: Una McCormack una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk
To judge by the social-Darwinist view of society put forward in
"Terminal,"
I'd say all of the social sciences are pretty much up the creek in the Federation.
Not to mention the class gradings. I think bits of psychology would have
done OK
under the Federation, mostly the stuff related to interrogation techniques
and
controlling behaviour (although they do seem to do most of that with
drugs).
Much as it flourished in McCarthyite America.
Interestingly, anthropology actually did fairly well under the Soviet Union-- although mainly the bits concerned with ethnicity and the expression of identity (the Soviet regime having been, according to the anthropologists there with whom I have spoken, very interested in exploring the internal diversity of the Union).
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Una McCormack wrote:
Sociology of science has changed radically since Popper was writing: there's a large body of ethnographic work which emphasizes the social practice of science and the way scientific method acts as a set of ideal principles than reflects day-to-day activity.
In fairness to Popper, he was mainly concerned with the logical problem of how science can, in principle, make progress.
Loren Graham writes very interestingly about science in the former Soviet Union (which I'm assuming constitutes a closed society). He tracks the way in which science was abused under the Soviet system (the devastating effect of Lysenkoism on Soviet biology is a particular case he uses), but makes the general conclusion that Soviet science had a number of successes in many fields, and that science can be remarkably robust under stress. The correlation between the 'Open Society' and scientific method is not so straightforward: science is not necessarily a 'Western' activity.
I'd agree with all of that except the last clause. McDonald's hamburgers are an American product, even though they're sold in Moscow.
Graham's work also raises some interesting questions about how
scientific method might operate as a sort of counter-ethic within societies like the Soviet Union (like Catholicism did in Poland).
Throughout the Cold War, the scientific community regarded itself as an international brotherhood, working together without regard for politics, promoting freedom, understanding and peace. This point was made very forcefully by elderly guest speakers at a space science conference in Warsaw which I attended last year.
What
would also be interesting, and which I haven't seen, would be comparative ethnographic work which studied the way in which the principles of scientific method were referred to and made 'up front' in the everyday talk of scientists in different societies. Practical problems for such a clearly fruitful body of research might include: 1. the non-existence of the Soviet Union robs us of perhaps the most significant counter-example of science operating successfully under stress; 2. the reliability of information gained from ethnographic studies in situations where people are in fear of their lives if they talk too freely.
But problem 2 is solved by problem 1. Get some of the old geezers and ask them what it used to be like. Of course, you'll have to be quick: they're dropping like flies.
Oh dear, B7 content... Well, I have no doubt that science would get on
OK under the Federation. I wouldn't hold out much hope for sociology, however.
Military and space science would get on just dandy. However, like in the USSR, more ideologically loaded fields could well become the preserve of loyal ideologues, in which science is blocked or falsified.
Iain
Iain wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Una McCormack wrote:
Sociology of science has changed radically since Popper was writing: there's
a large body of
ethnographic work which emphasizes the social practice of science and the
way
scientific method acts as a set of ideal principles than reflects day-to-day
activity.
In fairness to Popper, he was mainly concerned with the logical problem of how science can, in principle, make progress.
Which is why he's pegged as a philosopher and not a sociologist, presumably.
Loren Graham writes very interestingly about science in the former Soviet
Union (which I'm
assuming constitutes a closed society). He tracks the way in which science
was abused under the
Soviet system (the devastating effect of Lysenkoism on Soviet biology is a
particular case he
uses), but makes the general conclusion that Soviet science had a number of
successes in many
fields, and that science can be remarkably robust under stress. The
correlation between the
'Open Society' and scientific method is not so straightforward: science is
not necessarily a
'Western' activity.
I'd agree with all of that except the last clause. McDonald's hamburgers are an American product, even though they're sold in Moscow.
You're going to have to explain that one to thicky Una, I'm afraid, Iain. I've not got your point.
Graham's work also raises some interesting questions about how
scientific method might operate as a sort of counter-ethic within societies like the Soviet Union (like Catholicism did in Poland).
Throughout the Cold War, the scientific community regarded itself as an international brotherhood, working together without regard for politics, promoting freedom, understanding and peace.
This is an interesting one. You could hear a similar case being made for continuing to play sport with South African teams during apartheid, yet that was generally dismissed as being not on. I wonder why the two examples operate differently.
What
would also be interesting, and which I haven't seen, would be comparative ethnographic work which studied the way in which the principles of scientific method were referred to and made 'up front' in the everyday talk of scientists in different societies. Practical problems for such a clearly fruitful body of research might include: 1. the non-existence of the Soviet Union robs us of perhaps the most significant counter-example of science operating successfully under stress; 2. the reliability of information gained from ethnographic studies in situations where people are in fear of their lives if they talk too freely.
But problem 2 is solved by problem 1. Get some of the old geezers and ask them what it used to be like. Of course, you'll have to be quick: they're dropping like flies.
Sadly, I imagine they'll be gone long before I get round to learning enough Russian to be able to talk to them meaningfully (current level of my Russian? I can say: 'I cannot speak Russian' (isn't that one of those paradox thingies?)). There'd also be some problems surrounding reporting behaviour so long after the fact, particularly with what I imagine would be such an emotionally charged subject. That'd be doing history rather than ethnography. Not that that's any reason not to do it.
Should we spin this?
Una
----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Date stephend999@yahoo.co.uk
recommend "The Handmaids Tale," which makes a good case for the rather sinister similarities between the hardcore left and the hardcore right.
I am intrigued by this. I've read the Handmaids Tale a few times now and I don't see it myself. I'm not disagreeing with you but I'd be interested in how you come to this reading.
OK. Through the flashback sequences to Offred's childhood and her indoctrination, we learn that her mother, the hardcore radical-feminist, actually had a very similar vision of utopia to that put forward by the hardcore radical Christians-- an image of women working together, away from the men, to develop a sisterhood for the raising of children, etc. Both sides also take similar stances on prostitution, adultery, etc. The indoctrination techniques in the story are actually startlingly similar to those used in feminist consciousness-raising groups as well. Basically one of the points Atwood seems to be making is that there are sinister similarities between the hardliners on both fronts, and raising the question of whether a feminist utopia would have been better than (or even different from) the Christian one shown in the book.
Neither am I as is painfully obvious ! Let me reprhase what I said. Primitive (I use the word very loosely) societies can be dangerous.
So can civilised ones. We take our lives in our hands any time we cross the street.
Life is often cheaper than in technological situations.
Erm, not true-- when you're in a tribe of thirty people in the Kalahari, it's a lot less easy to view your fellows' lives casually than when you live in a great big anonymous city.
t is not an illegitimate
manouvre for a writer of science fiction to utilise such societies in his or her work as long as the device is not over exploited.
Yes, but is it right for the writer to stereotype them? Contrast Chris Boucher's more mature take on a similar situation in the Doctor Who story "Face of Evil"
Taking females as plunder is (I think) fairly well documented in tribal warfare.
Actually, recent studies have suggested that it's been overreported; initially by colonial explorers looking for an excuse to take over the land from the locals (under the guise of protecting the poor innocent women), and later on by certain anthropologists with overly macho ideas about hunter-gatherers. It does tend to feature a lot in a certain sort of early European war saga, but again the current thinking is that this has less to do with reality and more to do with the ego of the writer :-).
I don't doubt it's been over reported, nor that it has been used for propaganda purposes. I would be surprised if it never happened though
Yes, but not often, and its continued appearance in pulp TV sci-fi propagates the notion that it was a common occurrance.
fertility of the primitives is declining so a
female
would be a valued commodity.
Actually, that depends too. Witness female abandonment in parts of China; in a generation or two, their fertility will be seriously impaired by the excess of males, but this doesn't stop families abandoning surplus daughters in favour of sons.
I'd be very surprised if daughters don't suddenly shoot up in value when scarcity becomes acute.
Yes, but to judge by what Elynne said elsewhere, it isn't always that pleasant for women when they do.
five minutes. The point I wanted to make was that it was not unreasonable for Meegat's civilisation to interpret the remnants of their science in religious terms. As I've said, cargo cults are well documented.
Yes, but remember, one of the reasons the cargo cults gained such sway in New Guinea etc. was because the colonialists made damn sure the locals didn't get much chance to find out how things really worked. Just because a society, or part of a society, initially treats science with religious awe doesn't mean they can't figure out how it works later on. Meegat continues to view technology with awe, even when she's had a pretty good look at how it works-- and as other people have said, it's a bit odd that nobody in her society thought of flicking a switch to see what happens.
To pick up on Neil's Haggard metaphors, neither do Quatermain et al.-- they wander into Rhodesia (sic) in search of gold. Similarly, the colonialist endeavour had a lot less to do with invasions, and more to do with looking for resources of various sorts. In Canada, for instance, the French and English didn't come charging in, gun down the natives and take their land-- they sent in a few people to get involved in the fur trade, then a few more, then a few more. That doesn't make Deliverance any less colonialist.
It's an inexact parallel to put it mildly. Avon and co. don't exactly engage in a sustained campaign of commercial penetration. They go there to rescue two strangers and come back to rescue Jenna. At no point are they looking for resources.
Neither were Alan Quatermain and company. They were looking either for a one-off shot at some treasure, a bit of excitement, or both.
It's a bit amazing that a story as pernicious as Deliverance has taken 23 years for it to be taken down.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Fiona Moore wrote:
Meegat continues to view technology with awe, even when she's had a pretty good look at how it works-- and as other people have said, it's a bit odd that nobody in her society thought of flicking a switch to see what happens.
And it's puzzled me when they've said it - flipping switches at random is begging for something to go wrong. These people didn't even have electricity; why wouldn't they view something as complex as a rocket launching with awe? I'm relatively certain that I couldn't walk into a deserted mission control and figure out how to launch a Saturn V without any instructions.
Mistral
Mistral said:
And it's puzzled me when they've said it - flipping switches at random is begging for something to go wrong. These people didn't even have electricity; why wouldn't they view something as complex as a rocket launching with awe?
I wouldn't be surprised if this were Mission Control #2--#1 went up spectacularly when an experimental scientist triggered the booby traps. However, in a sense the canonical crew is a kind of cargo cult--they go on worshiping their technology even though it fails over and over again. (Don't get me started on teleport bracelets....)
-(Y)
From: Stephen Date stephend999@yahoo.co.uk
Hang on a mo ! Call me wilfully obtuse, but I thought Haggard's heroes were English gentlemen, sharing the conventional values of their society, who sought to extend the Empire (most of the time). Whereas our lot are Desperado's on the run from the law and seeking to bring down their empire. If they come from the Home Counties than so did the Romans in I Claudius !
With the Federation effectively absent from this episode (except in the Servalan-Travis scenes, remote from all the action on Cephlon), our heroes effectively become the Establishment for the purposes of this episode.
They are not renegades in Deliverance, but explorers. And they go down to the planet with the conventional attitudes of their society largely intact.
Plymouth Argyle fans obviously <veg> Seriously, on a planet like Cephlon, where resources are scant a bunch of new, well fed interlopers are not going to be greeted with open arms. I concede that the exclusive casting of men as the savages may owe more to 1970's casting policy than any considerations of anthropological exactitude.
Taking females as plunder is (I think) fairly well documented in tribal warfare. We are told that the fertility of the primitives is declining so a female would be a valued commodity.
Again there are precedents for this sort of thing in primitive societies on our own planet.
Again, primitive societies do have primitive belief systems. It is possible that the teaching of the sciences might have declined after a nuclear war. It is also possible that a society in decline might have accepted a passive fatalism as it's response to events. The historical parallel to this is the later Roman Empire, who's finest minds went into retreat from the world, just as the Empire's decline became terminal.
etc etc
Nice try, but it's completely wrong to measure Deliverance up against historical reality or anthropological fact. The episode does not draw its imagery from reality, but from the reinterpretation of reality that was made in order to render the facts ideologically palatable. Deliverance is a ripping yarn in the Boys Own tradition, what with its savage natives, hostile landscape, meek little priestess (a noble savage?) etc. Quite possibly the kind of thing a young Terry Nation might have read.
Neil
--- Neil Faulkner N.Faulkner@tesco.net wrote: >
With the Federation effectively absent from this episode (except in the Servalan-Travis scenes, remote from all the action on Cephlon), our heroes effectively become the Establishment for the purposes of this episode.
Nice Try ! Unfortunately the action of this story occurs because of Servalan's desire to get Orac and her actions in placing a bomb on Ensor Jnr's ship. This leads the crew to go down to Cephlon to rescue any survivors. The entire episode is a result of Federation machinations.
They are not renegades in Deliverance, but explorers. And they go down to the planet with the conventional attitudes of their society largely intact.
These being the conventional attitudes that got them sent to Cygnus Alpha presumably ?
Nice try, but it's completely wrong to measure Deliverance up against historical reality or anthropological fact. The episode does not draw its imagery from reality, but from the reinterpretation of reality that was made in order to render the facts ideologically palatable.
How can you decide that Deliverance is a reinterpretation of reality if you have not first established what that reality is ?
Deliverance is a ripping yarn in the Boys Own tradition, what with its savage natives, hostile landscape, meek little priestess (a noble savage?) etc. Quite possibly the kind of thing a young Terry Nation might have read.
I agree, but I would humbly suggest that unlike those yarns it does not prosletyse for Imperial expansion, colonialism or the attitude that made those possible. Genre is not the same as ideology. Suggesting that Deliverance is the same as Allan Quartemain because they share narrative features in common is like suggesting that Iain M. Banks and Ken McLeod share the politics of, say, Robert Henlein because they all write science fiction.
JMO.
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
Neil said:
Deliverance is a ripping yarn in the Boys Own tradition, what with its savage natives, hostile landscape, meek little priestess (a noble savage?) etc.
This is from East Coker (hi, Tavia!) Each venture Is a new beginning, a raid on the inarticulate With shabby equipment always deteriorating In the general mess of imprecision of feeling
"A Raid on the Inarticulate" wouldn't be a bad subtitle for Deliverance and several other episodes.
I saw it quoted in John Naughton's fifth-grade-ignorant- about-science-friendly "A Brief History of the Future," about computers and the Internet. I just started it, so I don't know if he cites Orac as a predecessor of the Internet.
-(Y)
From: Stephen Date stephend999@yahoo.co.uk
--- Neil Faulkner N.Faulkner@tesco.net wrote: >
With the Federation effectively absent from this episode (except in the Servalan-Travis scenes, remote from all the action on Cephlon), our heroes effectively become the Establishment for the purposes of this episode.
Nice Try ! Unfortunately the action of this story occurs because of Servalan's desire to get Orac and her actions in placing a bomb on Ensor Jnr's ship. This leads the crew to go down to Cephlon to rescue any survivors. The entire episode is a result of Federation machinations.
Nice try yourself, but the Federation are not on Cephlon and the crew are not in direct conflict with them.
They are not renegades in Deliverance, but explorers. And they go down to the planet with the conventional attitudes of their society largely intact.
These being the conventional attitudes that got them sent to Cygnus Alpha presumably ?
At this point I start to think you really might be setting out to be wilfully obtuse. If you really need a real world parallel, try bearing in mind that the average East End gangster is at the staunchly conventional end of the ideological spectrum.
How can you decide that Deliverance is a reinterpretation of reality if you have not first established what that reality is ?
Ever more wilfully obtuse by the second. Deliverance is not a reinterpretation of reality, but a derivation of the reinterpretation. So it's the reinterpretation that it needs to be measured up against, first and foremost, to assess points of comparison with that reinterpretation.
Quite possibly the kind of thing a young Terry Nation might have read.
I agree, but I would humbly suggest that unlike those yarns it does not prosletyse for Imperial expansion, colonialism or the attitude that made those possible.
It doesn't have to.
Genre is not the same as ideology. Suggesting that Deliverance is the same as Allan Quartemain because they share narrative features in common is like suggesting that Iain M. Banks and Ken McLeod share the politics of, say, Robert Henlein because they all write science fiction.
Ideology is not the same as political doctrine. A Nazi and a Communist in 1930s Germany might be polarised in terms of doctrine, but that polarity emerges from a common ideology of the industrialised west. Ideology is the matrix in which doctrine is formulated.
Neil
JMO.
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
----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Date stephend999@yahoo.co.uk To: b7 blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 11:54 AM Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Deliverance - keg marxist take
--- Neil Faulkner N.Faulkner@tesco.net wrote: >
With the Federation effectively absent from this episode (except in the Servalan-Travis scenes, remote from all the action on Cephlon), our heroes effectively become the Establishment for the purposes of this episode.
Nice Try ! Unfortunately the action of this story occurs because of Servalan's desire to get Orac and her actions in placing a bomb on Ensor Jnr's ship. This leads the crew to go down to Cephlon to rescue any survivors. The entire episode is a result of Federation machinations.
That's fudging the point. For one thing, it wasn't through Servalan's machinations that they wound up there, it was through a mistake on Servalan's part. Anyway, Servalan and Travis weren't there; Avon and company *were.*
They are not renegades in Deliverance, but explorers. And they go down to the planet with the conventional attitudes of their society largely intact.
These being the conventional attitudes that got them sent to Cygnus Alpha presumably ?
Whether you're a criminal or a saint, you're part of society.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
The logical assumption is that what we saw was the prototype: if it had been developed as an acutual weapon it would have 'dial a death' facilities.
__________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
Jacqui said:
The logical assumption is that what we saw was the prototype: if it had
been developed as an acutual weapon it would have 'dial a death' facilities. Now, THAT's voice mail hell: Press 1 to exterminate the person directly in front of you, Press 2 to exterminate the last five people marked...
-(Y)
Dana Shilling wrote:
Now, THAT's voice mail hell: Press 1 to exterminate the person directly in front of you, Press 2 to exterminate the last five people marked...
And heaven help you if you hit "reply all" by mistake...
-
Betty Ragan -
Dana Shilling -
Fiona Moore -
Iain Coleman -
jacquispeel＠netscape.net -
Mistral -
Neil Faulkner -
Stephen Date -
Una McCormack