Neil wrote:
A death is a death is a death. Who killed whom is immaterial. What makes Avon so special? What makes Blake so special? Avon killed plenty of other people through the course of the series. Come to think of it, so did Blake.
There is a difference, though, between killing someone who is an enemy and someone who is (or has been) your friend. Or comrade-in-arms, even, if you don't like to think of Avon and Blake as friends. Emotionally, there's a difference, and even someone who's fairly cold-blooded (as I think Avon generally is) about killing strangers and enemies is going to feel differently about killing someone with whom he's had a close relationship (whatever you percieve the nature of that relationship as being). Morally, you could argue that killing someone who is supposed to be your friend makes the action even worse: the crime of betrayal is added to the crime of murder. And Avon, in my reading of the character, is someone who is capable of carrying a lot of guilt over betrying someone or otherwise fatally letting them down (which seems to be the way he reacted to what he thought had happened with Anna).
Things fell apart in catastrophically short order, and someone previously assumed to be a friend or at least ally (for all the sardonic gibes previously aimed at him) suddenly appeared in the guise of an enemy who seemed incapable of offering a coherent explanation for himself. Avon was thrown onto the defensive, and with a gun forced into his hands by immediately preceding events it should come as no great surprise that he defended himself the way he did. It was a gut reaction permitted by circumstance and opportunity. Not, by any means, the only action he could have made, nor necessarily the best, but the imperative to act overrode consideration of other possibilities. The decision to shoot was, I think, both conscious and deliberate, but in his mind he was not shooting the Blake he had known in the past and had hoped to find again, but a stranger who had, albeit unwittingly, turned everything upside down amid chaotic and stressful circumstances.
I just wanted to say that, sentimental character-junkie that I am, this paragraph made me get all sniffly.
-- Betty Ragan ** bragan@nrao.edu ** http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~bragan Not speaking for my employers, officially or otherwise. "Seeing a rotten picture for the special effects is like eating a tough steak for the smothered onions..." -- Isaac Asimov
From: Betty Ragan bragan@aoc.nrao.edu
Neil wrote:
A death is a death is a death. Who killed whom is immaterial. What
makes
Avon so special? What makes Blake so special? Avon killed plenty of
other
people through the course of the series. Come to think of it, so did
Blake.
There is a difference, though, between killing someone who is an enemy and someone who is (or has been) your friend. Or comrade-in-arms, even, if you don't like to think of Avon and Blake as friends.
No. A death is a death is a death. If we ascribe particular importance to one killing in an environment when killing takes place on a regular basis (no episode can claim to be entirely deathless) then we diminish the significance of all the others. In effect, we end up condoning killing as a whole and condemning one particular killing. All of the regular characters have participated in violence, even Vila. To exonerate them from the act of killing, we would have to deny the actuality of the violence inherent in the premise of the series.
Emotionally, there's a difference, and even someone who's fairly cold-blooded (as I think Avon generally is) about killing strangers and enemies is going to feel differently about killing someone with whom he's had a close relationship (whatever you percieve the nature of that relationship as being).
I agree he's going to feel differently, however cold-blooded he might be or appear to be or try to appear to be, but that does not alter the moral significance of his action in relation to all the other killings that have preceded this particular instance.
Morally, you could argue that killing someone who is supposed to be your friend makes the action even worse: the crime of betrayal is added to the crime of murder.
It was, not, however, a voluntary betrayal, nor intended as betrayal, and was if anything a response to what Avon perceived as betrayal. By killing Blake, he was attempting to deny to himself the horror of being betrayed.
This is, of course, merely an explanation of what happened, and does not in any way exonerate Avon from his responsibility for killing Blake. He's the guilty party, no doubt about that. But then I have never seen Avon as a man who would deny responsibility for his actions, however much he might regret them.
And Avon, in my reading of the character, is someone who is capable of carrying a lot of guilt over betrying someone or otherwise fatally letting them down (which seems to be the way he reacted to what he thought had happened with Anna).
Whilst guilt is undoubtedly a natural response, I don't see Avon as considering it a healthy burden to carry. To claim guilt would be effectively selfish, to claim to be the only party with any measurable responsibility for everything that happened, when he was merely one player in a complex tragedy. Nor, however, do I see him as protesting a measure of innocence, as a hapless pawn of happenstance seeking to lay some or all of the blame elsewhere. That kind of recriminative attitude is not the kind of thing that Avon would want to sink to, though he may well be tempted. The only thing he can do is acknowledge his own actions and his personal regret for the consequences, which he will typically keep to himself but admit to if asked. He can live without Blake if he has to. He can carry on alongside Blake if it turns out that Blake has somehow survived.
He's intelligent enough to know that he made a terrible mistake, but also aware that a deed once done can neither be undone nor wished away. He knows full well that any account he might offer will attract blame from some quarter or other, but he's strong enough to withstand it for as long as he has to. He can hope that he might not make the same mistake all over again, but sufficiently self-aware to realise that under similarly stressful circumstances he might very well do so.
But the one thing he is not is a quitter.
Neil
--- Neil Faulkner wrote:
No. A death is a death is a death. If we ascribe particular importance to one killing in an environment when killing takes place on a regular basis (no episode can claim to be entirely deathless) then we diminish the significance of all the others. In effect, we end up condoning killing as a whole and condemning one particular killing. All of the regular characters have participated in violence, even Vila. To exonerate them from the act of killing, we would have to deny the actuality of the violence inherent in the premise of the series.
Hmmm. I'm really not sure about this. Undeniably all of the regular characters have killed people. Whether or not these killings should be condemned is rather more questionable. In Project Avalon, for example, if Avalon is not rescued then thousands of people will be murdered by the Federation. That might make Avalon's rescue with it's attendant deaths defensible. Or in Rescue the crew have a choice between killing Dorian or being turned into the creature in the cellar. Again, possibly defensible. Episodes, on the other hand, like Harvest of Kairos or Gold show the crew being prepared to kill others for their own personal profit - I don't think that the fact that the others are Federation Troopers makes this morally acceptable. (But the moral ambivalence of their actions makes for more interesting drama and is probably more "moral" than a portrayal in which the taking of life by the protagonists is invariably justified).
As far as Blake's death is concerned it is of importance to Avon and Vila, at least, because Blake was their friend. Psychologically it is more important to them (and by implication to the viewer) because of this. From a strict moral point of view the death of Blake is no more or less significant than, any other death, but within the context of the drama it is an event of the utmost significance. And the significance of any event lies within it's context.
Just my (probably wrong) opinion.
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
From: Stephen Date stephend999@yahoo.co.uk
No. A death is a death is a death. If we ascribe particular importance to one killing in an environment when killing takes place on a regular basis (no episode can claim to be entirely deathless) then we diminish the significance of all the others.
Hmmm. I'm really not sure about this. Undeniably all of the regular characters have killed people. Whether or not these killings should be condemned is rather more questionable.
Not quite what I meant. Violence - people killing people - is intrinsic to the premise of B7, and by and large it is rarely if ever questioned, at least by fans. Sometimes it's a tragedy, other times arranged as spectacle (Mori falling into a volcano, Dorian wasting away), most often little more than incidental. Sometimes it can even be light relief (Vila shooting a trooper in Games).
So how come Avon killing Blake is perceived as different, or at least more important, than all the other violent deaths that perforate the series? Because Blake is, well, Blake, of course. And Avon is obviously Avon. But if we dissociate ourselves from the emotional ties we have developed with these two characters, we might begin to see that who kills whom is considered more important than the fact that killing is taking place at all. This isn't a question of moral defensibility in any one instance, it reaches deeper, to the (dare I say) ideological foundations of B7 itself. Within the B7 universe, violence is a fact of life (as it is, all too often, in the real world), and is accepted as such by, presumably, most viewers. So I find it disturbing that so much attention, if not outrage, should be directed at just one of a vast catalogue of violent actions. What is more important - the act, or the actors?
Neil
--- Neil Faulkner N.Faulkner@tesco.net wrote:
So how come Avon killing Blake is perceived as different, or at least more important, than all the other violent deaths that perforate the series? Because Blake is, well, Blake, of course. And Avon is obviously Avon. But if we dissociate ourselves from the emotional ties we have developed with these two characters, we might begin to see that who kills whom is considered more important than the fact that killing is taking place at all.
This isn't a question of moral defensibility in any one instance, it reaches deeper, to the (dare I say) ideological foundations of B7 itself. Within the B7 universe, violence is a fact of life (as it is, all too often, in the real world), and is accepted as such by, presumably, most viewers. So I find it disturbing that so much attention, if not outrage, should be directed at just one of a vast catalogue of violent actions. What is more important - the act, or the actors?
I think you are raising a valid point. However it is part of the function of drama to get you to identify with the protagonists - if we weren't emotionally involved then Chris Boucher would not have been doing his job correctly.
There is a scene in the film Trainspotting where Renton steals a large amount of money from his associates after a drug deal that they have pulled off together. Now broadly speaking, I disapprove of both betrayal and the traffic in Class A substances. However on one level I wanted Renton to get away with it. I agree that the whole phenomenon is disturbing. And in a sense you are right - a death is a death is a death. But I think it is not wholly surprising that people care about Blake's death to the extent of wanting to bring him back to life in PGP fiction, in a way that they are not concerned about Section Leader Smith and Trooper Jones, who were unfortunate enough to be serving a tour of duty on Saurian Major when the nuclear reactor blew up.
I think that Orwell made a simillar point when he said that the genius of Edgar Allan Poe made him feel, when reading "The Tell Tale Heart" that, under the circumstances, he might have done the same thing himself. As you say, it is quite disturbing.
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 Faulkner wrote:
Not quite what I meant. Violence - people killing people - is intrinsic to the premise of B7, and by and large it is rarely if ever questioned, at least by fans. Sometimes it's a tragedy, other times arranged as spectacle (Mori falling into a volcano, Dorian wasting away), most often little more than incidental. Sometimes it can even be light relief (Vila shooting a trooper in Games).
Personally, I find that bit in "Shadow" where Avon is gunning down troopers, then smiles and says "Next!" to be a bit chilling. It's a much more disturbing line in its own way than "Stardrive"'s "Who?"
Stephen said:
Undeniably all of the regular characters have killed people. Whether or not these killings should be condemned is rather more questionable. In Project Avalon, for example, if Avalon is not rescued then thousands of people will be murdered by the Federation. That might make Avalon's rescue with it's attendant deaths defensible.
Actually I'm surprised they didn't program the android to wait ten minutes and then crush the virus capsule, for the likelihood of scooping up Servalan and Travis at the same time.
-(Y)
Betty said (I THINK it was her, not quoting, but apologies if misattributed):
And Avon, in my reading of the character, is someone who is capable of carrying a lot of guilt over betrying someone or otherwise fatally letting them down (which seems to be the way he reacted to what he thought had happened with Anna).
I think that for Avon there was a simple analogy: that Anna was someone whom he failed to save/loved/needed/suffered for/and killed when he learned the true state of events.
After that, he was conditioned to believe that that was exactly the sort of thing that happened to him. So when he failed to save Blake after Star One/loved/needed/and suffered for him...
-(Y)
-
Betty Ragan -
Betty Ragan -
Dana Shilling -
Neil Faulkner -
Stephen Date