Do we
need Avon to not have committed this crime so much, we try to absolve him?
For me, killing Blake is one step too far (the same if Avon had killed Vila). Without extenuating circumstances, this is just more than I can take from him
Yet, many watchers feel that Blake's indirect replies and refusal to follow orders, combined with Tarrant's announcement that Blake had sold them out, were extenuating circumstances.
But, I think it's also more than he can take as a character. An Avon who has knowingly killed Blake has destroyed something essential about himself. Whatever Blake symbolized to him - hope, idealism, selflessness - and whatever part of him (however grudgingly) connected to that is dead.
This is closer to home for me. It isn't that we need Avon not to be guilty. (Mistakes happen) It's that Avon wouldn't accept the mistake. To continue the story, we tend to need Blake to survive, or the mistake to be less terrible. Although, I myself would like any PGP to start with Avon's mental state thereafter, and deal with the question of what it would take to get him to be, well, human again.
It isn't my place to point this out really, but apparently the way the list is set up a reply all will send a post to the original poster as well as to the list in general. Be sure to check the send to line and remove the address for the original poster so that a second copy doesn't come through. I'm enjoying all the posts about Redemption and wish I could have been there. Sounds like a good time.
From: Helen Krummenacker avona@jps.net
But, I think it's also more than he can take as a character. An Avon who has knowingly killed Blake has destroyed something essential about himself. Whatever Blake symbolized to him - hope, idealism, selflessness - and whatever part of him (however grudgingly) connected to that is dead.
This is closer to home for me. It isn't that we need Avon not to be guilty. (Mistakes happen) It's that Avon wouldn't accept the mistake. To continue the story, we tend to need Blake to survive, or the mistake to be less terrible. Although, I myself would like any PGP to start with Avon's mental state thereafter, and deal with the question of what it would take to get him to be, well, human again.
Who says he isn't still human? At Redemption 99 there was a panel on weaponry in science fiction which I hosted with Steve Kilbane, and Steve can correct me if my memory's severely astray, and at one point it suddenly sunk into me that I was listening to some guy in the audience who was effectively admitting that he had machine-gunned defenceless prisoners in the heat of battle. He didn't seem any less human for it. I think it's easy to overestimate just how easily people can come to terms with some of the things they've done, often things far worse than Avon ever did. Some cope better than others, obviously, and some not at all, but by and large we're pretty resilient machines. (It is, conversely, equally easy to underestimate the impact that such things can have on an individual.)
If killing Blake left Avon somehow inhuman or less than human, then he was probably that way beforehand, and I don't see much evidence for that. Certainly no unambiguous evidence.
What is 'human' anyway?
Neil
Neil wrote:
At Redemption 99 there was a panel on weaponry in science fiction which I hosted with Steve Kilbane, and Steve can correct me if my memory's severely astray, and at one point it suddenly sunk into me that I was listening to some guy in the audience who was effectively admitting that he had machine-gunned defenceless prisoners in the heat of battle.
Can't corroborate that one, I'm afraid, because the whole of that panel's discussion was wiped away by the rest of the con [including, probably, the cabaret. ] I *do* remember someone making the declaration, in a by-our-product kinda way:
"Carpet bombing, as recommended by the US Military,"
but then rest? Complete blank. Including whatever it was I said.
steve
[ Calle: I'm sorting out the moderation thing; thanks ]
-
Helen Krummenacker -
huh -
Neil Faulkner -
Steve Kilbane