From: Sally Manton smanton@hotmail.com
Neil wrote: <What I do think, and I'm quite aware that this might be nothing more than
a
reflection of my own prejudices, is that my distaste for character
junkieism
(as opposed to those who practice it) lies in what I perceive as a superficial appraisal of the series. There is an exagerrated awareness of differences between individuals, whereas I tend to look for similarities, which in turn leads to the social or, dare I say, the ideological.>
Certainly there's a balance to be struck between the two, since leaning
too
far in the direction of the social - *denying* their individuality in
favour
of ideological archtypes - would probably end up as superficial as
anything
a blind Avonite could manage.
Takee very careful note, everyone, you might never see this again.
I agree with Sally. An episode of dramatic fiction is first and foremost fiction, and to be fiction it needs ... wait for it ... *characters*.
But is extrapolating societal or ideological significance from what
actually
happens on screen *really* any deeper and more meaningful per se than extrapolating an individual's thoughts and emotions from the same
evidence?
Or is it just a larger screen? Both ways *do* use the same evidence -
"what
is said or done" - and both *try* to look deeper, but in different directions.
That is a fair point, and doesn't hold up to my accusations of superficiality (which were partly intentional, since I wanted to provoke people.) The larger (or rather wider) screen analogy is probably more apt.
I like to turn a microscope onto My Darling; you prefer a magnifying glass on the background.
Telescope, I think, especially with B7 because a lot of the background seems to be rather distant at times.
<Which is fine for threads that confine themselves within those limits,
but
not so fine when it gets dumped on threads that try to step out of those narrow parameters.>
Now is that fair? Most of us *aren't* specifically thinking about what particular parameters the thread or our answer comes under, just trying to add our pennysworth (even if inflated at the price) to a discussion we
find
interesting.
But some of us *are* thinking about the parameters, and stay out of threads where we feel we have no meaningful contribution to make.
And if we *do* think individual characterisation is central to the matter under discussion (as I still do with 'is Avon a sexist pig in Deliverance?' which *was* the post that started it all :-) not 'does Avon represent an chauvinist porcinery in general) then we are not going to approach it from an angle that seems less relevant. Maybe I'm wrong from a non-character-junkie's POV, but I do tend to see it from my own ...
Actually 'the post that started it all' accused the episode, not Avon, of misogyny. A classic case of imposing a CJ framework on a non-CJ thread, methinks.
<It comes across as deliberate sabotage sometimes.>
<sotto voce> Rats. He found out.
It was to obvious to overlook for ever.
And why are you telling your rats?
Neil