<Again, those who don't wanna hear about this subject, abandon ship now!>
Seconded. Also cc'ing Betty's point about not wanting to analyse somebody without consent, etc. etc. Prices slightly higher in the UK than on the Continent.
<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. >
In that case, I'm doubly impressed with your defense of the genre <bows>.
< Other people, however, seem to get different vibes, and, hey, who am I to claim that my own perceptions *must* be the right ones?>
True-- but they're at least as right as the other camp's. Thing is, different people watch the series for different reasons. And IMO, it's one thing to say "OK, you can argue about canon all you like, but I'm going to watch and think about Avon and Blake together" and another to say "Avon and Blake *were* together, look right here!" Which you're not, Betty, I know, but believe it or not, I have heard quite a few arguments along that line.
< 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.>
Dare I risk asking which :)?
- 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.)>
Again, though, all of the main characters (with the possible exception of Cally) have worked for the Federation at some point, and on projects of possibly questionable value (I doubt they wanted to develop the teleport simply to make it easier for citizens to get to the holiday camp!) Furthermore, Carnell has no real emotional interest one way or the other whether Servalan gets what she wants (he's in it for the money, not out of ideology) and jumps ship when things start to go wrong. All of them things which I can see Avon, at least, doing in Carnell's shoes...
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.>
OK, false analogy. To change it, perhaps it's better to say that it's one thing to give a feminist reading of *Pride and Prejudice,* and another to claim that Elizabeth is a feminist heroine.
<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.>
Indeed, my point exactly-- which is why I tend to prioritise onscreen evidence :).
<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. >
Not quite, though. To follow that through, you could say that absolutely *any* activity, however out of character (breeding rabbits? Enjoying disco music? Being Federation-Wide Pong Champion in the Under-Fives Division?), is possible for Avon offscreen. The cartoonist Alison Bechdel frequently has a good deal of fun with cartoons which imply that her characters' "offstage" lives are very different from their "onstage" lives (in one of these "offstage" strips, a radical-left lesbian feminist character is seen painting her toenails and swearing at her broker down her mobile phone), and one could do similar things with the B7 crew (and I'm sure many have!) but again, that's an exercise in comedy.
<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.>
True, but again, there's a whole continuum of speculation out there, and some of it fits better with the characters' creators' vision than others. Anyway, as I said, I have no problem with exercises in speculation seen as such, just with the retconning thereof.
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.>
Surely, though, to play that game, you have to look at the known evidence about the character's background, interests etc. and work from there?
[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*. >
How do you hear it, then?
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. :)>
In the other way, though, it might read: Blake (suspicious): Why? Avon (ingenuously, catching Blake's eye and moving his hand closer to Blake): Automatic reaction; I'm as surprised as you are. Blake (irritated, moving firmly away from Avon): I'm not surprised.
BTW, in doing this I'm not trying to take the mick or belabour the point; I'm just looking at how a scene *would be* played with a gay subtext of one sort or another (this is dead fun, actually. I'm really annoyed now that I couldn't get to Redemption and go to that alternative-acting panel!)
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?>
Thing is, though, if we're talking about slash, most of what I've seen of it doesn't actually go beyond the sexual, and frequently seems to present the sexual relationship as a kind of "hey, presto!" explanation to the complexity of B and A's relationship. IMO, a slash story which did take the line of "Blake and Avon have a complex friendship-cum-rivalry, with elements of sacrificial love... if they were lovers as well, how would this alter the mix?" would be well worth reading. However, most of what I've read seems to go more along the lines of "Avon and Blake seem to respect each other but be suspicious of each other, Avon risks everything twice on a slim chance of finding Blake, Blake trusts Avon despite all the odds... why is this? I know, they're lovers!" Again, perhaps I'm reading the wrong stories, but this is what I've seen.
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. :)>
Gives it a bit of a Star Wars flavour, that :). You're right, it is an exaggeration-- but my point is that, except as an exercise in fantasy, I like my explanations to chime well with what's onscreen, and with what we see for the characters before and afterwards.
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.>
Again, though, interpretation of Blake's amusement is entirely subjective; one could just as easily see it as him gaining a bit of amusement from winding up a potential/actual partner by bringing home the ex. But once we leave this supposition game aside, it can't be denied that Blake does say that Inga meant a lot to him once. Now, since they're still cousins, and that's not going to change, he's very unlikely to be referring to the kin relationship. Since past friendship is generally referred to more often as "we were friends..." than "we meant a lot to each other..." I think the balance of the implication *is* more towards the sexual.
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. >
Well, again, to go by indirect evidence, if Jenna fancied Blake enough to be jealous of other women, I'd imagine she'd also be doing what people do when they fancy someone else: testing them, dropping hints, trying to work out whether there's the slightest chance of a relationship, whatever. The fact that she doesn't drop the possessiveness bit at any point in the series suggests that she hasn't seen anything to the contrary to discourage her interest.
< (Which I think is quite reasonable for Blake; he's very focused on his revolution, and might regard relationships to be an unneeded distraction.)>
Which is a very good point, and one which I think actually refutes the "Blake shows little interest in women, therefore he's gay," argument which some people (not you, Betty, but some others) have brought up-- in that, just because somebody shows little interest in women, it doesn't mean they're necessarily attracted the other way, just driven/focused/mad/whatever.
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. :)>
True :). But compare the Avon/Tynus scenes with, say, scenes with Avon/Servalan or Avon/Sara (if you can stand to watch Mission to Destiny again), in which the eye contact is both threatening *and* sexual.
[Sarcophagus as Avon/Cally evidence]
<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 just went and watched the episode back, and I'd have to say that's actually a pretty valid interpretation. Interestestingly, what the alien says is: "Cally liked you... I'm so very much in her image, I could even think and feel as she does, you and I could be..."
You'd think the next word would be "lovers," wouldn't you? It isn't though, it's "friends." In fact, there's an ambiguity in everything she says. So I guess Sarcophagus will have to go in the "undecided/open to interpretation" category....
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. :))>
:)! I'd just like to quote what Chris Boucher does say, in a December 1992 DWB interview (Issue 108), in response to the question "Was there ever an attempt on behalf of the writers to develop a progressive, ongoing relationship between Servalan and Avon, or between among of the regular characters for that matter?"
"No, and this was quite deliberate. Because with a drama series [as opposed to a soap--FM], it should be possible to show any of the episodes, apart from the first and last, in any particular order. So really, from that point of view, it would be essential to try and keep the relationships between the regulars as simple as possible. Occasionally we would suggest that one or other of them would have romantic feelings towards a person outside of the group, but then that was convenient, because once the episode was over, you never saw them again."
Or, to put it another way, Blake's seeming lack of interest in Jenna was not an attempt to make the character's sexuality ambiguous, but to avoid the potential plot complications of a developing relationship between principals. Similarly, though, it rules out homosexual relationships between the characters, because the same rule would apply. Now, the second quote, taken from a tape recording made for the same interview (quoted with permission of the interviewer):
"I tried to make sure that you could pay your money and take your choice, that you could see what [Avon] did either as a idealistic or totally selfish and cynical.... (Q. but he did save Blake on a number of occasions?) I don't think-- well, there should have been the development there that you could begin to suspect that he did have sort of feelings for Blake. Uh-- not *those* sort of feelings, you understand, but friendship. Brotherly feelings, or whatever, and the possibility of them should have been perceptible. But I would hope in most cases it should have been possible to justify what he did on selfish and or psychotic grounds."
Which does imply an ambiguity-- but over whether Avon liked Blake or whether Avon had more cynical reasons for saving his life. Not over whether Avon fancied Blake or not. Which reads neatly back into the bomb scene in "The Web," actually; it's ambiguous, yes, but over whether Avon saved Blake out of friendship, for selfish reasons (a dead Blake isn't much use to him at this point), or whether it really *was* an automatic reaction.
<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. >
AFAIK that was the case, and in fact I have similar canonicity problems with Clone Stories as with slash ( 1) Orac's not often wrong about things like that; 2) the clone was a physical copy, not a mental duplicate of Blake; since the clone never met Avon, and didn't have Blake's past experience, why would it react as Blake did to Avon? 3) The Clonemasters instilled in the clone a belief in the sacredness of life, which the Blake on GP does not seem to share. But that's another argument). And again, I feel about them the same way I do about slash: fine, as an exercise in speculation (although there's more plausible, IMO, ways for Avon to deal with his guilt, if any, PGP than to have the real Blake come back). But it has to be said, to fit them into the canon is a bit of a stretch.
< 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.>
I'm not saying people are wrong, just that some fan interpretations fit the series better than others.
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.>
Good point. But again, I'd say that some fanfic fits what we see on screen better than others, and some that doesn't does so with more justification than others, and that I think we have to be careful not to confuse our categories.
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.>
<slaps wrist :)> But see above, re: the focus on sex over characterisation of most slash that's come my way.
<What do you think the series is actually about? :)>
Ooh, lots of things... so as not to open the floodgates: I'd call it an action-adventure series with a complex political subtext stemming from a) the politics of Britain in the 1970s; b) memories/fears of totalitarianism, and with literary roots in sources as varied as Shakespeare and Zane Grey. I'd also see it as an exploration of the morality of resistance, the positive and negative aspects of having different sorts of power, and the complexities of different sorts of leadership. I can unpack any of these concepts elsewhere, if you like :). As for the sex element (which I do see, though as I said, it seems for the main crew to be entirely hetero), I see it as only a very small part of the series at all, especially in seasons 1 and 2.
You :)?
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!>
Some of us do better than others... haven't we all met some rather sad people who seem to have the TV show confused with reality :)?
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com