Again, those who don't wanna hear about this subject, abandon ship now!
Fiona wrote:
And as someone else (Shane?) pointed out, there's a bit of a difference between peeing and shagging, in terms of how you react to someone afterwards, how you treat them, etc.
This is, in fact, an excellent point, and it's the main reason why I, personally, don't think any of them (and Avon and Blake in particular) were actually sleeping together. To my perceptions, they don't really give off quite those kinds of vibes. Other people, however, seem to get different vibes, and, hey, who am I to claim that my own perceptions *must* be the right ones? I'm not the world's authority on people-reading. I *do* think that an unconsummated sexual tension is entirely possible, for several combinations of the characters.
- Carnell a bad guy? Maybe, but surely no worse than
Avon :)...
He was working for the Federation, assisting Servalan in an attempt to gain a superweapon which she would surely use for no good. In terms of television dramatic convention, that makes him a bad guy (even if, like so many in the B7 universe, on both sides, he's really some indeterminate shade of grey.)
To take an example which you might know from elsewhere: the Doctor Who story "Stones of Blood." This was definitely considered "family" viewing, even more so than B7. Nowhere is it openly stated or shown that the character of Vivien is a lesbian.
Hmm. Apparently all of that went right over *my* head, too. :)
To my mind, to say that regardless of the intention of the authors, actors etc., the character *was* gay, is like saying that Jane Austen *was* a feminist, despite the fact that she lived 150 years before any sort of feminist movement existed.
Seems to me that there's a *big* difference here. To say that Jane Austen was a feminist is to talk directly about the author, a real person who had real thoughts and did real things. To say that Blake and Avon are lovers, OTOH, is to talk about the *characters*. I realize that you may not see that as a major distinction, but to me -- and, I would suspect, to many others -- it's critical. I wouldn't presume to attempt to read the mind of Terry Nation or Chris Boucher or Jane Austen. But Avon is a fictional character. *He does not exist.* There *is* no objective truth about his sexuality, his childhood, or what he likes to eat for breakfast, except for what we actually see on the screen. I can say "Avon likes opera" or "Avon likes chocolate-chip-cookies" or "Avon likes <description of sexual practice deleted>," and that's every bit as reasonable as someone else saying he *doesn't* like those things. His off-screen life is as indeterminate as that of Schrodinger's cat. Nobody's ever going to unearth his diary or interview his descendents or whatever one might do for Jane Austen to prove to us that our assumptions about her are objectively untrue. Terry Nation, or Paul Darrow, or whoever, might tell us that they didn't intend Avon to be seen that way, or that they don't think of him that way, but none of *them* is Avon, either.
Fictional characters, once created, can take on a life of their own in the minds of the reader/viewer. This is something the characters' creator has no control over, but, IMO, it generally means the creator has done something *good*. The fact that people are interested enough in these characters to speculate about them, that the characters feel this *real* to people, is a compliment to their creators, not an insult. IMHO.
Elsewhere, though, some people have been pointing out that the series does have to be taken in the context of the time and the circumstances of its creation in order for any critique thereof to have relevance.
Hmm. Agreed that this is the case if you're doing a "literary"-style critique. Which I think is a fine and interesting thing to do. It's not what fans are generally doing, however, when they speculate about what might be going on in the characters' lives. Usually that involves "playing the game" and treating the characters and the events of the show as if they "real." IMO this is *also* a fine and interesting thing to do.
[talking about that scene from "The Web" here]
Blake replies, "I'm not surprised," without eye contact, in a tone which is decidedly fed up and weary.
Interestingly enough, I don't hear his tone there as "fed up and weary" at *all*.
It would actually have been *very* easy to play that scene as having a gay subtext, by simple alterations of tone and expression: Blake: (surprised and pleased): Why? Avon (wondering): Automatic reaction, I'm as surprised as you are. Blake (loving, looking steadily into Avon's eyes): I'm not surprised.
Well, that scenario assumes Blake reciprocates Avon's interest, which I think is a very large assumption. :) But I agree that the scene wasn't *meant* to be played that way. I just don't think it matters all that much.
As it stands, though, while the scene you cite does show a strong regard for Blake by Avon, there is no suggestion that this regard is sexual. IMO, the scene is a lot more interesting when you consider the possible emotional complexities of a close Platonic friendship between two such different individuals than when one simply takes the easy way out by viewing it as sexual.
I agree that it's the emotional complexities that are what's really interesting here. I think most people who *do* see (or like to see) a sexual element to it *also* think that, though. Is seeing it as sexual really taking an "easy way out" or is it adding an extra level of complexity to an already complex relationship? Again, in my view, the emotional complexities are *there*. If one wants to see an additional sexual element overlaid on that, fine. It certainly doesn't make the emotional element *less* interesting, at least not as far as I'm concerned.
Good point, but that wasn't only what I meant by "context." I was also referring to the intentions of the writers when they sat down to write the scene, the directors in filming it, etc. If you ignore these, then you make absolutely *all* interpretations valid, from the plausible (Avon saves Blake out of instinct/respect/etc...) to the ridiculous (Avon saves Blake cos Blake owes him £ from lunch/is his maternal aunt's second cousin/etc....). :)
I think that's setting up a false dichotomy, though. (Actually, no it's not, it's a different logical fallacy I can't remember the name of. I think.) Some of those interpretations obviously fit better with what's actually on the screen than others. I'm not saying that all intepretations are *equally* valid. Though, frankly, I could imagine a suitably talented writer managing to make the "maternal aunt's second cousin" idea convincing. :)
Actually, I was thinking of the scene in which Jenna informs Blake that Tarkin (whom Blake knows to be her ex-lover) is dead, a death she herself brought about. Blake cups the side of her face with his hand, looks into her eyes and smiles at her, and says softly "Take us out of here, Jenna." She returns the smile. I think the subtext there is pretty darn clear :).
Hmm. All I can say is I obviously missed *that* subtext, too. Or just didn't see it as being there. Will have to take a look at the episode and see what I think of it.
Yes, but there's more than just the kiss there. When Inga first appears on screen, Jenna asks him who she is. Blake says "She meant a lot to me once..." They are cousins (a kin relationship which is distant enough to make a sexual relationship possible), and there doesn't seem to be any family rift; there is thus a suggestion of possible romantic involvement, or at least a "crush". At the end of the story he kisses her-- fairly chastely; he holds her hand while saying goodbye to Ashton; Jenna visibly bristles, and again Blake does not seem unaware of her reaction.
Agreed that *Jenna* interprets this as sexual, and that Blake seems to be aware of it. IMO, he seems to be more amused by it than anything (judging by the expression on his face), which might easily enough be attributable to him being aware of just how very unfounded that reaction is. Remind me later and I'll make that extensive "why I don't think Blake's connection with Inga was sexual" post. This one's long enough already.
Furthermore: If Blake was gay, surely Jenna would have noticed in such a closed environment-- and wouldn't be reacting in such a possessive way anytime a woman appears interested in him. To say nothing of how it would affected Jenna if Avon and Blake were in fact having a sexual relationship... thwarted affection is hard to hide.
Now *this* is a good point. It's at least a reasonable piece of evidence (indirect evidence, but isn't it all?) that Blake wasn't actually sexually involved with anyone else in the crew. Although it's entirely possible, I think, that Blake *could* be gay (or bisexual) without Jenna realizing it if he never acted in a sexual way towards anyone one way or another. (Which I think is quite reasonable for Blake; he's very focused on his revolution, and might regard relationships to be an unneeded distraction.)
[and talking about my perceptions of Tynus here]
Bit difficult to deal with this one, since you don't specify a scene.
Unfortunately, my meomory isn't quite good enough to say for certain exactly which of the scenes you mention and where in the scenes I saw this, and I don't have access to my videos right at the moment (and probably won't have time to look at them when I get home. Sigh). So I can't really hash out this example in detail (which I apologize for, since you obviously spent some time carefully considering it). I'm pretty sure I'm thinking of their first scene together, but I can't give you the exact context.
I could go on, but I think the point is made that the eye contact between Avon and Tynus in "Killer" is threatening, not sexual.
This is Avon we're talking about. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. :)
Anyway, my main point was not to convince anybody that Avon and Tynus were ex-lovers or anything. Just to point out, once again, that individual perceptions as to just which things are seen as having sexual overtones varies greatly. *I* watched it. *I* saw it. I wouldn't expect that *you'd* see it, even if I were to point out where I saw it. <shrug>
"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.
Such as, and from whom?
I've been racking my brain, actually, trying to remember who it *was*. But someone posted an excellent alternative analysis of this episode on FC some time back (or maybe it was Space City then, I'm not sure). I don't remember all the details, unfortunately, and while I can look and see if I have a copy of the post (which I'm not at all sure I do), I couldn't quote it here without permission. (Maybe the poster in question is here and would be willing to come forward?, she asked hopefully.) But I remember finding it very convincing at the time. The basic theory, IIRC, was that the alien basically fed on emotions, and found Avon's emotional makeup very interesting indeed. So *that* was the reason she was interested in keeping him around in some other capacity than beaten-into-submission slave; it was more his mental/emotional texture she was interested in than anything sexual. And it was not that she was distracted by the kiss because she/Cally was sexually interested in Avon, but that, rather, the kiss served as a stimulus to get *Avon* riled up (and not necessarily due to any particularly romantic feelings for Cally), and turn Avon himself into a distraction for her while he stole her ring. (I'm probably explaining that badly and not remembering it well, either. But it was, IMHO, very cleverly thought out and fit perfectly well with the events on screen. I'm still not sure which version I prefer.)
To me, it's enough to know that Chris Boucher, Terry Nation, the actors and the various directors didn't intend the characters to be seen as gay to convince me they aren't.
Whereas, for me, that doesn't even seem particularly relevant. Seems to me the main issue here is this "authorial intent" thing. And I don't think that's nearly as cut-and-dried an issue as you seem to be making it out. (Or probably, as much of one as *I* seem to be making it out, either. :))
A parallell I would draw would be with another genre of fanfic in which the familiar characters are put in historical/fantasy settings: Blake as a gangland boss in Chicago in the 1930s, say, and Avon as a corrupt bank clerk.
Bit of a difference there, though. It's obvious -- *without* reference to authorial intent -- that Blake *isn't* a gangland boss in 1930's Chicago. That Blake might be gay is considerably more arguable. A better example would be... Oh, damn, it's hard to come up with one because I don't *know* the writers' stances on most of the really debateable stuff. Well, here's one: what about all those it-was-the-clone stories? As I understand it (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) the idea was always that it *was* Blake on GP. (Gareth Thomas certainly believed that Blake, the "real" Blake, was being killed off once and for all.) Personally, I think it was. But I know many others are completely convinced that that's not what happened, and I'm not going to say they're wrong to believe that, even though I disagree with it.
Well, partly it *is* because I feel that the vision of the people who created the series should be respected, *when it comes to the series itself* (as an exercise in fantasy, as I said, well, anything goes! but not when it comes to the series).
Of course, *any* speculation about the lives of the characters beyond what we see on the screen is an "exercise in fantasy," so I wonder if this isn't kind of a meaningless distinction. (I do think that saying something like "Terry Nation *was* deliberately putting gay subtext in his episodes, he just wouldn't admit it!" would be rather disturbing, unless there was some good evidence for it. But I see that as being a very different matter.)
Partly, also, cos I sometimes feel as if what the series actually was about gets drowned in a sea of wildly speculative and IMO shallow interpretations,
I think "shallow," as a generalization, is a miscategorization.
What do you think the series is actually about? :)
which again are often not consumed as interpretations, but as "reality."
Well, you know, at the end of the day, it *is* "just a TV show." And I think we all realize that!
Um, insert usual disclaimers here. Not intending to shove any electrodes into anybody where they're not wanted. All opinions entirely my own. Void in Utah.
-- 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