You know, I'm feeling in a bit of a bind about discussing this subject. On the one hand, we've been told in no uncertain terms that some people on this list don't want to see discussions about slash, and since there's a separate list for people who *are* interested in discussing it, I'm inclined to respect that and not bring it up here. On the other hand, there are people (like Fiona, apparently) who *are* interested in discussing the topic here, and who post things that make me really want to respond with my own two cents. So I'm going to do so. Those who Really Don't Want To Hear About It can delete, and once again, in my own defense, hey, *I* didn't bring the subject up.
Right. Fiona wrote:
Now there's where I would disagree with you, I'm afraid. There is some evidence for heterosexual relationships/feelings/leanings between some of the principal characters on B7. There is no evidence of homosexual ones for these characters.
Actually, I *don't* see much evidence of heterosexual relationships between the principal characters at *all*. Let's see what we've actually got, here: 1) the obvious sexual tension between Avon & Servalan, 2) the fling between Tarrant and Servalan in "Sand," 3) Dayna kissing Avon in "Aftermath," and 4) Vila's occasional and apparently not-too-serious attempts at pickup lines directed at his female crewmates. That's *it*. Based strictly on what's on-screen, these people for the most part just aren't involved with each other sexually at *all*. But, as someone (Dana?) pointed out, there's a lot of stuff that we don't get to see on-screen. We don't get to see them using the bathroom, either, but presumably they do it. Personally, I doubt any of the main characters were sleeping with each other, though some possibilities strike me as much more plausible than others. But there's very little to rule out any speculation one cares to make, really.
Now, this can't be because of homophobia or of the filmic conventions of the 1970s (the decade, may I remind you, that brought us "Gangsters" and "The Naked Civil Servant," both programmes with strong gay characters if not leads), as the same team have no problem whatsoever with portraying Carnell, Egrorian and Krantor as bisexual. Therefore, it would have to be because these feelings simply *are not there.*
Note, however, that Carnell, Egrorian and Krantor are all, in some fashion or another, *bad guys*. Also that any homosexual elements to those characters are very subtle and non-explicit. And I'm not familiar with the two other shows you mention. Were they considered "family viewing" the way B7 was? Truth is, it seems to me that the simple assertion that there would have been no barrier whatsoever to having openly gay regular characters on B7 is somewhat... naive. If that's what you're actually asserting. Homosexuality is *still* kind of a touchy issue, and was much more so back in the 1970's. Unless there was a much bigger difference between the UK and the US in this respect than I'm aware of (which is possible).
In various interviews over the years Chris Boucher, Terry Nation, Paul Darrow, Gareth Thomas etc. have been asked whether any of the characters were intended at *any* point to show homosexual leanings. They have all denied it.
I do agree that, if there was a subtext in the series, it was almost certainly unintentional.
In other words, to say that these characters were gay or bisexual is to say that the series' creator, script editor and principal actors have no say in their own series. In which case we may as well give up viewing the series entirely.
But I strongly disagree here. Why should we give up viewing the series just because we find it possible to see things in it that the creators didn't intentionally include? If that were the case for everything, a hell of a lot of literary critics would be out of a job. I'm not one of those who believes that the authors' intent is always utterly irrelevant and should never even be considered, but I do think that what was in the creators' minds doesn't really matter a *whole* lot in this context. What matters is what's actually on the screen. (The way I see it, once you've finished a creative work, in any medium, it needs to speak for itself. If it says things to people that you didn't necessarily intend it to, well, then, you can consider it a failure or you can consider it a success beyond what you expected, but standing up and shouting "No, that's not what I meant by it; you're reading it wrong!" isn't a particularly appropriate reaction, even when it's understandable. Not that, as far as I know, anybody involved with B7 has actually done that. Not on their own behalf, anyway. :))
I would challenge you to find a single scene in, for instance, Series 1, which supports this interpretation. Any of the scenes which are commonly held up as showing "gay subtext" can only be interpreted as such when divorced entirely from their contexts.
Aw, but Series 2 has better examples. :) But, OK, let's explore an example from Series 1. One scene from that season that's often regarded as being very "slashy" is the bomb scene from "The Web." You know the one: Avon pushes Blake away from the bomb, they land in a tangled heap on the floor and have that great (IMHO) exchange about "instinctive reactions." Actually, I think this is a really good example with which to illustrate the difference in mindset between the slash-minded viewer and the non-slash-minded viewer. To begin with, probably a major reason why this scene gets singled out is because there's lots of physical contact. They land on the floor, they lie there in close contact for a while after the explosion, and there's a point where, IIRC, Avon sort of touches Blake's hand.
Now, the non-slash-minded viewer can (quite reasonably) say that to look on that contact as sexual only makes sense if you take it completely out of context. Yeah, so they're lying together in a tangle on the floor. They've just been thrown by an explosion, for cyring out loud! It's not surprising that they don't get up again right away, either; they're probably feeling pretty dazed. (I think, Fiona, that this is probably the sort of thing you meant about interpreting things divorced from their contexts. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that.)
The slash-minded viewer, however, isn't *disregarding* that context at all; she's merely interpreting it differently. In a slashy reading of that scene, Avon saves Blake from the bomb (at some risk to himself, in fact) precisely *because* he loves and cares about Blake, and then perhaps takes advantage of the circumstances to remain in physical proximity to Blake for a few moments longer than necessary *because* Blake's peril has aroused feelings in him. And the rather unconvincing (at least to many) nature of his protests about why he did it only serve to underline the idea that something signifigant is going on here that Avon doesn't neccessarily want to admit to. Again, that's not really *ingoring* the context, it's re-interpreting it.
(For the record, my own opinion is that that scene is a great early example of the developing *emotional* attatchment between the two, but not necessarily one that is in any way sexual. I do, however, find the slashy reading much more plausible than one that takes Avon's "instinctive reaction" line at face value.)
Erm, I think both "Bounty" and "Hostage" would suggest certain leanings towards the heterosexual :).
What, specifically, are you thinking of with respect to "Bounty"? Tyce? I see considerable attraction for Blake on her part, but no real evidence of reciprocation. And I see nothing sexual about the kiss he gives Inga at *all*. I see it as being entirely, well... cousinly. (I could, in fact, make a long and detailed argument as to why I think Blake's feelings for Inga were almost certainly non-sexual, if you really want... :))
Fiona responding to Steve Rogerson here:
We know Avon is attracted to women, but that doesn't mean he isn't also attracted to men.
Again, we see no evidence of this. As a contrast: Carnell flirts outrageously with Servalan, but then also flirts with her aide.
Interestingly enough, Carnell's behavior never struck me that way at all...
Avon frequently shows signs of attraction to women; nowhere does he show similar feelings towards a man.
Of course, there's an interesting open question here of just how acceptable it is in Federation society to show feelings of attraction towards the same sex. If there's a major taboo against the latter, he might well be less inclined to show it, even if he feels it. Highly speculative, of course, but what's wrong with speculation?
Furthermore, in "Rescue," we get the scene where Dorian gives Avon a decidedly "cruisy" look, after making a remark about his fondness for indulging any pleasure, to which Avon responds with "you really are insane, aren't you?" A perfect opportunity for Avon to show his colours-- and what he shows is quite the opposite.
Although, truly, there are lots of other really good reasons at this point for judging Dorian to be insane. :)
Actually, I find these examples interesting, because, to me, Carnell and Dorian's supposed flirtatious behaviors seem a *lot* less obvious to me than the significant looks Avon gets from Tynus (and which, interestingly, he gives right back). Even when I'm *trying* to watch "Killer" with my mind out of the gutter (and I can so get my mind out of the gutter, really! :)), I can't escape the impression that Tynus *is*, at the very least, interested in Avon, and that Avon, at the very least, knows it and is quite happy to use it. YMMV, of course.
The same as said for Avon can also be said for Gan, Tarrant and Vila.
All of whom actually make declarations at various times in the series supporting their heterosexuality. Now, some people have argued that this doesn't mean they aren't hiding their gay feelings under a heterosexual veneer.
Personally, I really *can't* see it for Tarrant and Vila, and would be very dubious about Gan. The possibility that Avon might be bisexual, however, doesn't jar with my own sense of the character at all. And I agree with Steve: we don't know *anything* about Blake's sexual proclivities whatsoever.
Cally... well, during and after the events of "Children of Auron" and "Sarcophagus" she seems to feel some attraction towards Avon (and in fact the alien possessing her in the latter directly states that Cally has feelings for Avon),
"Sarcophagus" can certainly be read that way, and for a long time I took it as pretty solid proof that Cally had *some* sort of romantic feelings for Avon, which is why the alien can't kill him. I still think that's likely, but I've since heard entirely plausible alternative explanations for what happens on screen. So that, too, is ambiguous.
and it's worth bearing in mind that "Animals" was originally written for her.
Except that it wasn't done, so it isn't canon.
But there is no evidence the other way. And where there's some evidence for one way, and no evidence for the other way, this would rather suggest that the character's preferences lie in the former direction. A negative doesn't make a positive.
But, in many cases, the evidence is really very thin, either way. (And, to quote an old saying, "abscence of evidence isn't evidence of abscence.")
Anyway, we're not talking about scientific proof, here, or a court of law. There's no "burden of proof" involved. Anything not explicitly ruled out is possible. And the way I see it, anything that's possible is fair game!
Thing is, there is a bit of a line between "taking the show into places never explored on TV" and sheer exercises of imagination. Which again, are fine-- as exercises of imagination.
But that's all fan fiction really *is*, anyway.
To take a nonsexual example: if you're going to write a B7 story in the style of a "Carry On" film, this can be a quite clever and fun thing to read. If, however, you start insisting that the series on which the story was based was a camp comedy, then I think not only the point, but the whole effectiveness of the story, have been lost.
Well, I'm not familiar with the "Carry On" films, but I think B7 occasionally verged on camp comedy, notably in "Gambit." :) But never mind that, I think I get your point here. If I understand it correctly, what you're objecting to is people insisting that they see slashy subtexts in the show itself (as opposed to putting those elements into fanfic all by themselves, conjured out of whole cloth). Is that right? I'm not sure why that really bothers you, though, unless you're feeling that said people are trying to force *you* to accept that intepretation. Or unless you feel offended on behalf of the series' creators that their intentions are being ignored.
It *is* possible to see those subtexts, though, and I don't think there's really any more or less evidence, say, for A/B than there is for A/C. Besides which, surely people read in all kinds of *other* subtexts that weren't necessarily deliberately put there by the writers. (I like to view the series as a Shakespearean-style tragedy, with Avon as a classic Tragic Hero. I kind of doubt that was deliberately intended, though. Does that make it wrong of me to see it that way? I don't believe so.) Besides, this being a TV series, you also have to deal with the fact that there wasn't necessarily one unified vision behind it. I'm sure Terry Nation saw things a little differently from Chris Boucher who saw things a little differently than all the other writers and directors and actors. And Paul Darrow's Avon is *waaaay* different than most fans' perception of Avon. But Darrow, in a sense, did create Avon. Does that mean we should all stop interpreting the character for ourselves and take the version in A:ATA as gospel? <Shudder>
OK, I'll shut up now. I've rambled on more than long enough. This wasn't even meant to be a defense of slash as such, really. Just yet another reiteration of "there are many different and entirely valid ways to look at B7."
Disclaimer: It occurs to me that some of what I've said above might be taken as me having appointed myself to speak for all slash fans. (As if all slash fans even agree with each other!) Believe me, that's *not* my intention, and I'm not claiming to speak for anybody in particular here. Often not even myself. :) I'd throw in some more grovelling about how I really don't intend to offend anybody, but my brain's starting to get muzzy...
-- 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