Avon, We Love You... Well Maybe We Do!

Meta
Title:	Avon, We Love You... Well Maybe We Do!
Creator:	Anne Kevill
Date(s):	April 1984
Medium:	print
Fandom:	Blake's 7
Topic:
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Avon, We Love You... Well Maybe We Do! is a 1984 Blake's 7 essay by Anne Kevill.

It was published in Avon Club Newsletter #16.

This essay was written in response to a review of a play starring Paul Darrow that was printed in the previous newsletter. In that review, a fan wrote about her complicated feelings about seeing Darrow in another role other than Kerr Avon.

The editor of Avon Club Newsletter printed this essay with the knowledge that it may be controversial, and quoted the essay's author's comment that she "enjoyed putting the cat among the pigeons."

Some Topics Discussed in the Essay

• being a fan of a character, not an actor
• Paul Darrow is a working actor, and has had some very crummy roles
• Kerr Avon is actually a pretty unlikable person, yet we are attracted to him for these very reasons
• women spend too much time trying to reform men
• Avon is at least more interesting than Roj Blake who is "infinitely kinder, ultimately nobler, and endlessly long-suffering milksop"

From the Essay

I'm no stranger to the process of taking a liking to an actor and scanning the cast lists of the weeks television programmes to ensure that I don't miss anything that they do. Live professional theatre being temporarily a dead duck in the town in which I live means that the T.V. is the only place that I can expect to see my favourite actors at the moment, I see them in a variety of roles and I don't mind if one month they are in the BBC Television Shakespeare and another time appear as a petty criminal in the same channel's "Juliet Bravo". I simply enjoy their appearances as good performances from competent craftsmen who make their living from pretending to be different people, and making those other people come alive for the viewer.

Paul Darrow is an exception. I do mind seeing him as someone other than Avon, because for me that is who he is. Put more simply, I am, if you like, more a fan of the character than the actor, and I think that this is the case with the majority of the fans, or at least the female ones. Before you all rush to protest, ask yourselves the key question - "Did we notice Paul Darrow before he burst onto our screens as Avon?" Because after all, he didn't arrive there fresh out of Drama School, did he?

He was around long before "Blake's Seven" was thought of; out there somewhere, making a living from his profession and most of us didn't ever know him. [...] It was Avon that brought Paul public recognition, Avon that caught out imagination, and it is Avon, not Paul, that we are really fans of.

So far, so good. Avon has become our fantasy, and we call ourselves fans of Paul because we have identified him almost completely with the character: so much so that when we realise that the two are not one and the same, then we suffer a minor mental dislocation like Ms Holt's "mental full stop" on her visit to the theatre. Yet what, you might ask, is so wrong with that, so wrong indeed that I initially described these thoughts of mine as disturbing?

Well, quite a lot actually. Try looking closely and objectively at this character we all admire and, if we are honest enough to admit it, desire. Kerr Avon is a criminal, a thief, to be precise. He believes, insofar as he believes in anything at all, only in his own survival. To ensure that continued survival he becomes a cynical and amoral terrorist. He uses blackmail to achieve his ends; he is adept at the double cross; and he has no scruples about murder. Now tell me, in the name of all that makes sense, what is attractive about a person like that?

If you reply "absolutely nothing" to that question then well done. Ten out of ten for perspicacity. So now tell me why in that case we are all so keen on the guy? Apart that is from the reasonably good looks, the beautiful eyes and the rather spectacular voice? Because, after all the debits, I don’t think that a few merely physical attributes on the credit side really bring down the scales in Avon's favour.

Part of the reason is that deep down we admire his brute force. Avon is the modern equivalent of the sheik who throws delicate young girls over his saddle in all those corny old movies and rides off with them into the desert where they are subjected to a fate worse than death - and enjoy it! In an age when we are trying to establish that there is nothing laudable about men using their superior strength to gain whatever they want, be it power, money or sex, Avon’s strong appeal to the deep instincts within us which respond to a man throwing his weight around I, for one, find deeply disturbing. It makes a mockery of the progress we have supposedly made since the first caveman went out to bash a rock over the head of the woman he wanted in order to drag her, unresisting, back to his own cave.

There are those who would argue that these unattractive aspects of Avon’s personality should be ignored, or at least excused. The argument runs that Avon is not like that really; underneath he is the archetypal English hero. They consider that it is the circumstance of the two betrayals, first by Anna Grant, and later by Blake himself that have made Avon what he appears to be. If only one person could be found that Avon would trust, and who would not subsequently be led to betray him, then the damage would be undone, and the knight could stand forward in all his shining armour.

Rubbish! It is a seductive theory, particularly for women who seem to be born with a crusading zeal to improve mankind in general, and their own men in particular. Literature, and even more sadly, life, are full of unhappy women who have fallen for this attractive lie; that they can turn an utter louse into someone to be proud of, simply through the power of their own love for, and trust in the said louse. It simply cannot be done, for the very good reason that those with no feelings of their own (whatever the reason for this emotional lack) do not care tuppence for the feelings of others. To be frank, an Avon living in Britain in the 1980s would be more likely than not to end up in Broadmoor, where that nebulous entity, the ’’community" would be very relieved to see him. Ms. Holt is right when she describes Avon as "someone apart". This is an emotively accurate description of the insane; not without good reason are psychiatrists sometimes still known as alienists.

So to sum up our "hero". An unpleasantly macho criminal, certainly abnormal and probably on the far side of the line which divides the sane from the insane; a ruthless man dedicated to no-one but himself; a man who does not shrink from the thought of murdering another who calls him friend to ensure his own survival. When we see this clearly how can we, in our own enlightened times, contemplate him with anything other than revulsion and horror? There is no way we can continue to find him worthy of respect, there is nothing in him for us to admire, no possibility that he should still attract us so powerfully.

And yet...and yet...while fully admitting the truth of the above, which of us, given the choice, could ever bring ourselves to turn our backs on Avon in order to throw in our lots with the infinitely kinder, ultimately nobler, and endlessly long-suffering milksop that was Blake?

Fan Comments

Avon Club Newsletter #17 has so many replies to Anne Kevill's essay that some were not printed due to space:

As you can imagine we've been swamped with replies to Anne Kevill’s article in the last n/l and it would have been impossible to have included them all in this n/l. Therefore apologies must go to Katy Dean, Jo Forrest, Charlotte Walton, Angela Kerr, Stella Hender, Fran Ward, Carolina Gibson, Jacqueline Rachel, Liz McCarthy and to everyone who sent in articles on the subject and we’ve been unable to include. Thanks to you all.

Replies that were printed were by Susan Chadwick, Rosie Peck, Judith M. Seaman, Jo Simmonds, Judith M. Rolls, Susan Allmark, Ros Williams, Peter Hall, and Alison Wilkinson.

Having just finished my fourth page of argument, it suddenly occurred to me that I had been very cleverly drawn into this highly inflammable issue. I found myself having to justify why I should admire this, in Anne’s words, "unpleasantly macho criminal." If this article was to arouse us from our unquestioned loyalty then it had the desired effect, the words leapt from the page like a three minute warning.

I began to wonder by mid-afternoon if in fact I was normal!I, but after due deliberation I concluded I was, because I, and I suspect many members of this Club can, and do, draw the line between reality and fiction. It saddens me to think, and countless critics bear this out, that we should have the need to analyse and justify everything we watch and enjoy. To me, T.V. Radio and the Theatre are forms of enjoyment, they are magic places where I can go to escape the mayhem we live in today. I don’t want to be told that watching Chauvinistic psychopaths like Avon are bad for me, or that getting one over on Servalan is in some way degrading to the Feminist movement or women in general. This I can get from numerous magazines and endless topical reviews. Avon I suspect brought out the Hr or Ms Hyde in all of us.

It is unfair to say too that Paul Darrow is Avon or vice versa. Scott, Eric and Carker all bear this out, as do fine radio series such as The Silver Sky and Not a Penny More.

I do concede that a majority of fans were introduced to Paul via Avon, but isn't this the case with so many well known names? Eastwood for instance 'the man with no name'. Sellers as the bumbling 'Inspector C', both established actors before their own particular 'character' gave them 'immortality'. Having seen Paul in live theatre and having met, if only very briefly, he is as far removed from Avon as I am Miss World!

In wrapping this up I think we must thank Avon, for allowing us the insight to the man who created him. If for all the wrong reasons people went to the theatre expecting to see Avon and saw instead a fine actor at work, then so be it. Avon's loss became Paul's gain.

It was a good article, well written and debated, but there is a dividing line. Avon will survive for as long as Clubs like this exist, Paul Darrow will survive for as long as good acting is appreciated. -- Susan Chadwick

Here in Australia we unfortunately don't get to see many British shows, as the American series are more popular in most cases. However, we have been privileged over the years to see the following Paul Darrow series and appearances: Dr. Who, Churchill's People, The Flaxton Boys, Drake's Venture, Whodunnit, Yes Honestly, Within these Walls, When the Boat Comes In, Penmarric, Prometheus, Hammer House of Horror, The Legend of Robin Hood and, of course, Blake's 7.

As an aspiring actress who is still learning the trade (so to speak) and who never misses a good movie or performance, I soon discovered that I could learn a great deal from Nr. Darrow as an actor. I confess that Hr. Darrow is not the only actor that I go out of my way to watch. However he, as an actor, is very different from any other I've ever seen. He is a one and only.

So, I have great admiration for Mr. Darrow as an actor and, of course, would dearly love to work with him on a production. As an amateur actress I believe that Hr. Darrow' portrayal of Avon was a triumph in performance and total dedication and we as fans have been privileged to view this. "Will the real Paul Darrow please stand up!" is not so much a request to Hr. Darrow, but a request to ourselves. There will never be another character like Avon and there will also never be another actor like Paul Darrow. -- Rosie Peck

Well done Anne Kevill. Your article really made me think what a cruel, rotten and nasty character that revolting Kerr Avon was. How could I possibly have been taken in by him for a moment? How could I possibly have ignored that other, far nobler character, Blake? I wonder...?

Yes, I wonder? Maybe we ought to take a good look, not only at Avon but also at anyone we would compare him with. For some reason it is always Blake who is held up as the pattern card of virtue against Avon, so let us consider Blake. Who, or what, was this paragon?

Blake was the one thing that Avon himself certainly wasn*t, a terrorist. He used violence in the pursuit of his political ends. This violence was designed to create havoc and destruction and to encourage the Federation to retaliate in kind, always one of the major aims of the terrorist. Blake showed very little real concern for any non-combatants who might get into the firing line, but of course it is easy to ignore them when your attacks are by air-strike and bombing and your own escape route is secure. The cumulation of this aspect of Blake's character has to be the planned attack on Star One when Blake was quite prepared to sacrifice millions of innocent lives in order to justify his other killings! Only a psychopath could seriously contemplate that particular justification.

Blake is also renowned for his moral principles. This seems a little strange considering some of the things his moral principles seemed to allow. He was quite prepared, in SHADOW, to associate with the Terra Nostra, quite one of the nastiest criminal bodies around and he didn't appear to see anything incongruous in the idea. Later in that episode he committed genocide against a race of alien beings who had just helped him to regain his ship, obviously gratitude isn't one of his finer points. Blake*s moral principles were at their best when it came to his feud with Travis. Travis was a mass murderer but, despite getting the upper hand in more episodes than I can safely remember, Blake always refused to kill him. Of course there was always a reason:- "It would bring me down to your level”, "I know I can beat him”, "Our quarrel is with the Federation, not you." Am I the only one to suspect that there might have been another reason? Travis was rather more of a Federation thug than most, as is proved by the fact that he was tried and condemned by the Federation. Travis could be relied on to pursue his anti-Blake campaign with the maximum amount of destruction to everyone else, as he did in PROJECT AVALON. Blake could then come round behind him, commiserate with the survivors, and recruit them into the Cause... Travis was Blake's justification for fighting the Federation.

Blake's other great virtue was, of course, his loyalty and commitment to his crew. I rather lost faith in this after he had failed to check that Cally had returned in SEEK-LOCATE-DESTROY, loyalty and commitment should include taking the trouble to do a little addition. Blake did however have the old heroic conviction that to risk 5 lives to save one was good business and was inclined to practise it without asking. His actual concern for those of his followers who suffered in his cause always seemed to vary according to how many other people might have noticed. He became wildly emotional over Gan but apparently instantly forgot poor Nova who was trapped in the side of the London during that botched escape attempt in SPACEFALL. Apart from this he showed no inclination to discuss his plans or intentions with any of the crew and indulged in what seemed to be a childish vendetta against Avon. In particular he made it very clear to anyone that he didn't trust Avon, which can't have given Avon any great encouragement to trust Blake in return.

This would seem to make Blake a conscienceless terrorist, a murderer, and a very unreliable... associate? Perhaps we'd better have a closer look at Avon?

What is Avon? A criminal, yes, insane, probably. And, whatever else, he is not just a layer of dirty paint over a suit of shining armour. Avon is all that is bad in that character, but also something else. There are two distinct and necessary sides to Avon, if you remove one you will cripple the whole man; it is never wise to tamper with what makes a man himself, each side strengthens the other. So what else is Avon?

A ruthless man dedicated to no one but himself1... As he was in MISSION TO DESTINY when he helped to uncover a murderer aboard the Ortega for no possible gain to himself? If he had been interested in gain he should have offered to join Sara. Or DELIVERANCE when he launched the ship that saved Meegat’s race. He gained nothing by that, all the help she could give him had already been given. BREAKDOWN when he exposed his own possible hiding place because it was the only chance of aid for Gan. Then later, when he had been offered sanctuary and money for what he could give them, he still returned to the Liberator, to warn Blake so that the others could get away, and to ensure that Kayn did carry out the operation. For some reason he sacrificed everything. Or COUNTDOWN, when Avon defused the bomb to save the planet Albion, or DEATHWATCH when he foiled Servalan to prevent war between Teal and Vandor.

Avon would have killed Vila, the most likely obvious alternative being that they both would have died. In TRIAL he managed to restructure the teleport to rescue Blake at the eleventh hour, when not rescuing him would have given Avon what he wanted and no one could really have blamed him. In TERMINAL he went to try to rescue Blake, and when he was caught he tried to sacrifice himself to allow the others to get away; and it was Vila he told to take the Liberator and leave him.

Obviously we need to compare these two rather carefully before we make any rash decisions. Blake’s murderous destruction in TIME SOUAD, SEEK-LOCATE-DESTROY, MISSION TO DESTINY, SHADOW, TRIAL, COUNTDOWN and STAR ONE against Avon’s constructive efforts in DELIVERANCE, BREAKDOWN, COUNTDOWN, CHILDREN OF AURON, DEATHWATCH and WARLORD.

Avon would use blackmail where Blake preferred direct threats of violence, like the smashing of Sarkoff’s records in BOUNTY. Avon was honest about what he was and what he was prepared to do, while Blake could change totally between two episodes (in KILLER he said he would not be responsible for millions of deaths... in STAR ONE he was quite prepared to cause them).

I do_ admire Avon, for his honesty, for his strength of character that enabled him to take those moral decisions and abide by the results without any attempt to talk his way out, and for the compassion that launched the ship for Meegat.

Perhaps I have thrown in my lot with the infinitely kinder, ultimately nobler and far more long-suffering character of the two. -- Judith M. Seaman

How can we contemplate him with anything other than revulsion and horror? Anne Kevill asks us.

I can sympathise with her dilemma, I think I see shades of fainthearted feminism in her article. As a fearless (if somewhat backsliding) feminist let me say, quite simply we can admire, respect, desire him because our sexuality has not caught up with our politics yet. There are numerous arguments for not perpetuating sexist myths in the media, but a fan-club newsletter is hardly the place to air them. So I'll confine myself to responding to Anne's questions.

So we never noticed Paul Darrow for the fifteen or so years before he did Blake's 7, so what? Of course it was Avon, not Paul that made us weak at the knees, but Avon isn't real. Paul took the script and with his craft made him appear real. No matter how much Avon captivates me I try not to forget that Paul was responsible for him, and having conceded his artistry I anticipate further creations. That is why I don't mind seeing him in other roles. Even if he doesn't fire my imagination every time, his performance is always at the very least, competent.

Paul speaks frequently about the loyalty of his fans, considering the slick, tough world in which he works, he is to be applauded for his loyalty to them. I can't see that he has anything to gain by investing energy and interest in people still obsessed with a character he finished with professionally four years ago. If he now has a hoard of devoted fans that follow his career with interest then that is a bonus for him (and one he deserves). As to the moral question of why someone as unsavoury as Avon should be so compelling.

I can only answer for myself. I suspect my reasons are not so different from anyone else. Anne's partly right, Avon does pull at deep, unconscious instincts. Carried from times a barefoot and pregnant woman needed a strong, ruthless man to increase the chance of her survival and the survival of her offspring. But it is also a response to the society taught sex roles we were all brought up with. No amount of political education can erase completely the emotional rules we were taught about our destined role in life. So those of us that can't afford twenty years in psychoanalysis have the choice of repression, (a rocky road) sublimation (slightly less hazardous) or fantasy. As long as you are controlling the fantasy, not the fantasy controlling you, fantasy is safe, harms no—one and does the fantasiser nothing but good. It does not require the restraints we practise in our workaday lives as conscientious, honest citizens. We can allow our antisocial, angry, destructive, amoral impulses vent, harmlessly. That is why Avon is so compelling, he can exorcise our hatreds and consume our passions. The Avon that Paul so skillfully presented us with was detached and aloof, he stood slightly apart from the rest of the world (galaxy?). Paul gave him enough 'reality' to be viable but refrained from imposing on Avon any of his own more human personality. He left plenty of room for Avon to be a lot of different things to a lot of different people, and I think he enjoyed Avon as much as any of us.

I get quite upset when I read stories in which Avon is won over, cries, crumbles, behaves with gratuitous kindness or turns over a new leaf. That is not 'my' Avon. I like Avon always to be ambiguous, so that my interpretations will fit easily with the writers storyline. One of the reasons B7 was so popular was the fact it left us to draw our own moral conclusions. I don't have to worry about him being a criminal or a psychopath, because it isn't real. Anne is right 'someone apart' can be a description of insanity, but by the same token the ability to separate reality from fantasy is a definition of sanity.

Lest this article should seem too critical of Anne, I'd like to finish by saying her article is the most thought provoking thing I've ever read in a mountain of Blake's 7 related material. It's nice to discover we have intelligence as well as enthusiasm. -- Jo Simmonds

I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority, but I actually do remember Paul Darrow pre-B7! I think, with all due respect, that Ms Kevin's got it wrong. It takes a part like Avon to catch the imagination, and once has the attention he's been trying to get, an actor can go on to prove what a good/bad/indifferent actor he is.

I'm not saying that B7 was the break for Paul Darrow, only the man himself can decide that, but it sure didn't do him any harm. Or did it? I have to admit to being annoyed when theatre posters scream credits to boost ticket sales - still, I have too many friends in the theatre to think it could be done without. Who remembers the posters for 'Mister Fothergill...' or 'Terra Nova' or 'Don't Start...?' It doesn't do an actor any harm to be recognised for a role, not, at any rate, until that role eclipses the others.

What's with this "and we call ourselves fans of Paul because we have identified him almost completely with the character?" I don't know about everyone else, but I don't shell out for theatre tickets, or grovel to any 'useful' friends to see a play if I can sit at home and see the character I really want to see on TV or video. I didn't go to any of the above-mentioned plays to see Kerr Avon, I went out of curiosity, to admire a skilled craftsman creating magic. Believe it or not, that's what an awful lot of punters go to see, no matter who is in the cast. However, there's nothing sadder than someone going to a play, or turning on a TV programme to see a character alien to the surroundings presented. I really can't agree with Ms Kevill when she states that 'we', and that's all of us, have not the intelligence to keep the actor and the character separate. I'm a great Kerr Avon fan, I freely admit it, to the point of obsession, but that doesn't stop me being a fan of Paul Darrow, which surprisingly enough, isn't the same thing. (Case in point: a friend of mine, rabid theatre goer, loved 'Terra Nova' to the point of accompanying me to 'Don't Start..', but won't watch B7 until the demise of Avon. Kerr Avon she cannot stand, but Paul himself is another matter entirely.) So I think the 'key question' is not 'Did we notice Paul Darrow before he burst onto our screens as Avon?' But is more 'Have we noticed Paul Darrow since he burst onto our screens as Avon?' It seems to me that the persona and skill of the actor himself have been somewhat ignored. In short, I'm trying to say that surely there's life both before and after Kerr Avon? Surely it's not a cardinal sin to go to a theatre out of fondness for a bloke who kept us all entertained for so long? With a fifth series less and less likely isn't it time we all withdrew into our separate and/or shared circles and left everyone else alone? I've often been surprised when meeting other Avon/B7 fans at the amazing determination to keep B7 alive. Nothing wrong with that, I'm all for it, but what really worries me is the way that they won't let other people forget it. Now I'm not saying that everyone ever involved with B7 wants to forget it, but isn't it about time that the actors, all of them, were credited for something else?

One minor point about Avon's sanity or lack of it, and committing him to Broadmoor when he turns up in '84. Paul said it himself far better than I ever could: "You have to put him in the circumstances that the programme presents, he's living in an extraordinary situation and you've got to be an extraordinary person to be able to cope." -- Judith M. Rolls

From Ms. Kevill's interesting if not extremely controversial article, it would seem to emphasise, or rather make a sweeping generalization, that we are really only in love with the character of 'Avon', and not with the actor himself. I would call myself a fan of Paul Darrow; appreciating his unique acting qualities, of Avon; acknowledging the time/effort/dedication required to portray such a man, and of B7. Paul as far as some people are concerned was a nonentity before B7, but I remember him well as the notorious Sheriff of Nottingham in 'Robin Hood'. Surely one cannot make the claim that I was in love with the Sheriff; I despised the part, and this should be attributed to Paul's acting, which brought the character to life.

No, Ms. Kevill there are acute differences between a fan of the character and of the actor, "struggling manfully with some pretty ghastly parts..." as you so correctly stated. But, and this point is of great importance, the role of Avon may have brought public recognition to Paul Darrow, but it is he who made the part. He alone assumed the identity of the character, and gave it his own trademark - perfection stamped all over it!

In conclusion, I would like to pose a final question; what would Avon be without Paul Darrow ? -- Susan Allmark

My first thought on reading Anne Kevin's article was that Mr. Darrow's career is clearly at an end, so far as she is concerned. He was nothing before Avon and can be nothing since. Whilst I see the point of her argument that we may not have known of Paul Darrow before 'Avon' (though I distinctly remember him as the Sheriff of Nottingham, I did not recall his name specifically), I must say that I could produce the same argument relating to very many actors. They live their lives without me and then, all of a sudden, they find a part which has that extra 'something' and I feel as though I've been hit over the head with the proverbial blunt instrument.

If I had intensely disliked "Drake's Venture","Penmarric" (such as we saw of him), and "Dombey & Son", I might (perhaps) agree with Anne. However, I enjoyed all of these even if criticism were applicable of the story. "Drake's Venture" was a sheer delight as it is a period of history most appealing to me, "Penmarric" was a tolerable story, and "Dombey" was beautifully produced even if the story itself is somewhat ludicrous. Did I see Carker as Avon? Not really, until that scene when Edith resented the fascinating Carker's embrace. Then I said to myself: I've had enough of this idiocy; Dickens was obviously somewhat confused. But we all know that Dicken's ideas of women were totally illogical and impractical, so I tried not to be too much affected by the incident.

I would dearly like to see Paul Darrow in some more television drama. We, like Anne, have little easy access to live theatre, except for local groups, and it is difficult to reach Bristol in time for performances as we have young children. Perhaps if he could manage to produce some exceedingly crass performances, I might then come to Anne's point of view, but I cannot help but think that she would not wish that fate on him any more than I do. Yes, I understand entirely what Anne means when she says that we are to a degree fans of Avon and not of the actor, but I have sought to avoid that attitude entirely. The Adventure Game showed us a very different man to the brilliant computer genius, did it not? Here was a normal man struggling with the lunacies of Arg! In that delightful episode of the B7 4th series dominated by a nasty crustacean, I invariably race to the telly when my son's playing of the videotape reaches the scene on the beach when a pleasantly spoken gentleman arrives to ask for help. "Maybe," I say to my son, "that's what h_e really sounds like!" It is one of my favourite scenes. Now then, to Avon's behaviour as a terrorist. Let's return to the very early days.

Avon has been convicted of attempted embezzlement and has suffered a quite appalling sentence for this none-too-appalling crime. Of course it is possible that he went around murdering all and sundry to obtain the codes and so on that he needed, but that is questionable, for even if he were not a bank employee he could probably obtain them fairly easily. We know from an early episode that he and Blake worked on a particular project which related to teleportation, so one must assume that he wasn't a bank official, and therefore his access to bank records would have been more difficult; on the other hand, the highly computerised banking system would doubtless be accessible to a genius! Come what may, it's difficult to see that Avon is regarded as a violent man in any way when he boards the London. The man the crew would fear far more would be the freedom fighter, Blake, who would certainly be expected to kill in order to achieve his ends, and his very humanity was partly his downfall.

We know that Avon is determined to survive and in that respect he has some psychopathic tendencies. He is amoral in that non-criminals regard any criminal as amoral. In my opinion, he never kills unnecessarily and I believe that he has scruples relating to murder, although he doesn't take kindly to anyone who threatens his own life. You may say, oh that's shocking, but I must say I wouldn't take kindly to anyone who threatened my own life! I may not set out to murder the assailant, but that would be because I live in a civilised society and also I'd naturally be afraid of the reactions from others, such as the police! Avon doesn't live in a civilised society by my standards and furthermore he has a criminal mentality, thus is not likely to respect the Law unduly except when it suits him. He is a brave man who feels he must fight his own battles

"We admire his brute force," Anne says, and "Avon is the modern equivalent of the sheik..." etc. No. Avon is both subtle and gallant. He doesn't always act thus and he lives in a truly equal society, but the gallantry is always there. His temperament and the course of his life have together made him very cynical, but beneath it all there is a man whom I find more human than the moralistic and sometimes vacillating Blake. I couldn't ever imagine Avon abducting an unwilling woman and proceeding to enforce that fate worse than death. I go so far as to say that I do not believe Avon would even think of behaving in this uncivilised fashion.; he would be - not horrified, as he is cynical and a man of the world - but simply incapable of such behaviour.

We should ignore "these unattractive aspects of Avon's personality" and "he is the archetypal English hero", in reality. First, I don't agree that he is so very objectionable; secondly, he isn't that type of hero at all, nor does he want to be. I think scriptwriters - including the script editor - have gained great delight from forcing the most appalling decisions on to Avon and then indicating, through his 'resentful' crew, that he is totally unprincipled. When said resentful crew have survived a sudden and unwelcome death (Stardrive) or have made a hash-up of Avon's plans (Headhunter), I can only say that my sympathies are entirely with him, and offer one's heartfelt thanks to Hr. Darrow for managing, somehow, to marry some extraordinarily illogical behaviour into Avon's cool logicality.

All this stuff about Anna and betrayal drives me to screaming boredom. Anna Grant was a brief and unfortunate interlude. She betrayed a man who had not set out to hurt her in any way unless you feel that robbing a bank as wealthy as the Federation Bank must be, would injure her personally. She is a spy and we must immediately loathe her. I felt that the part was badly miscast, that the actress was not in any way the type of woman who could have seduced Avon and I also feel that he would never have been so devastated by her perfidy as many fan writers like to make out. It presents a lovely story, this idea that Avon's 'sole' venture into romantic, unselfish love, was a disaster and he must spend the rest of his life venting his bitter resentment on everyone he meets. But I find this idea utterly ludicrous! Come on, let's be practical about this. How many men do you know in this parlous state? How many who waited until past the age of 30 before falling in love, then, after being jilted, carried on just like Dickens' Miss Havisham? How unutterably childish! What woman would want such a half-wit? The kind of man who likes women, as Avon does and frequently proves it, doesn't run away from them just because of one sad love affair. There are all kinds of betrayal and surely it would be worse to be betrayed by someone who had once really loved you than by someone who had never loved you and had, indeed, set out to seduce you specifically so as to betray you? I cannot conceive that any man of Avon's nature would waste more than a very brief period mourning Anna. Things could have been far worse even than they were - for a start, she could have genuinely loved him and been tortured to death on his account as he originally believed. Now isn't that something quite appalling to live with. Instead, he finds that she was a thoroughly nasty piece of work and he need no longer see her death on his conscience.

As to whether Avon would end up in Broadmoor - never! He isn't violent by nature, merely practical given his dreadful life -that very life which Blake (who is responsible for so much of what Avon becomes in Series 4) forced upon him. I think Avon was indeed a born criminal, but that doesn't mean he was so totally unprincipled that we must regard him as an appalling danger to society or criminally insane. Avon is very sensible and logical and if he lived now, he'd be a top-line swindler/embezzler of the type that the police wouldn't catch. Even if they did eventually manage to pin some crime on him, it wouldn't be violent and its nature would - like tax fraud - be the kind that people regard with a kind of awe in spite of all the moral objections to such an attitude.

Whether Avon killed Blake in order to ensure his own survival, that is making an assumption, Anne, without proper evidence. Blake has been behaving very oddly throughout the episode. Avon is distressed and afraid of Blake, convinced that Blake is out to cause him harm. So if you ware faced by someone who you considered, for whatever reason, was out to kill you, are you going to stand there and let him do it?

I feel Anne's particular arguments were excessive and express so many of the highly romantic attitudes floating around the fan clubs. Put yourself in Avon's place before you criticise him. Clearly Anne has thought on this deeply and is entitled to her opinions, but I see it very differently and wish my own views to be expressed al

Do we 'love' Avon? I think we shouldn't, but we do. Why? Because he isn't as appalling as the scriptwriters want us to think, and Paul Darrow knows it! And since Paul Darrow knows it, he expresses his view to us very clearly When it really comes down to it - all fictional characters - indeed all people - are coloured in your eyes by what you hold as values. It may please you to denigrate or to applaud and can you really say how much is what that person is and how much what you want them to be, go or bad? How often do you colour them with your own inhibitions? -- Ros Williams

I think it unfair to ask who of us had heard of Paul Darrow before B7, as I'm sure most people hadn't. But what does this prove? Absolutely nothing. Everybody has to start somewhere, and to me at least it makes no difference if he is fresh out of drama school or has been waiting a few years for his 'break'. Certainly Avon brought Paul public recognition, and it was Avon who caught our imagination, but it was Paul who gave us Avon in the first place.

Ms. Kevill adds that she has only ever seen Mr. Harrow on T.V., which is unfortunate because she can't appreciate then his fine performances in roles as far removed from Avon as it's possible to get. He is able to bring any character to life and make the audience, be it television or theatre feel some emotion towards that 'person'. Thus proving that no matter the character, it's the actor we appreciate. For example, does anyone think Avon could have been more successful or achieved such a devoted following played by another actor? This proves to me at least that although we agree that Avon is Paul's finest performance, we are, or should be, fans of the man firstly and then his characters be they Avon or any other.

I don't think I can comment on whether anybody is only an Avon fan because of Hr. Darrows looks etc., except to say they aren't the reason I'm such a fan! -- Peter Hall

While I don't necessarily disagree with Anne Kevill's analysis of Avon's character, it was, as she describes it "a few merely physical attributes" that first brought Paul Darrow to my attention! I freely admit that I'd not noticed him pre-B7, I even admit to missing early episodes. Noticing Paul at all was sheer chance, when I stumped into the living room one evening to tell the children, glued to the set, to "turn it down a bit!" - And there was this fascinating person on the screen. I watched to the end to find out who he was, still clutching a pan of some exotic sauce or something I'd been preparing! I was smitten! An Avon fan!

However, having been lucky enough to see Paul Darrow at the theatre, on stage an I was greatly impressed by his great skill as an actor (which 1 think is even mo apparent when you see him live, and in an entirely different role from what you expect) and his friendliness and kindness when waylaid by fans!

I'll never tire of watching Avon, who is after all, and I quote from the local paper's theatre critic, "almost (ALMOST?) a cult figure," but I do think of myself now as a fan of Paul Darrow, and look forward, eagerly, to seeing him both on stage and T.V. in more new and exciting roles. -- Alison Wilkerson