Arggh! Sent the wrong place. Sorry, Shane.
littles@lycos.co.uk wrote:
Mistral said:
None of the above are canonical proof of that. I'm not even entirely sure that I'd use any of them for evidence as to why _I_ believe that Avon loved Anna, as they're too easy to counter. For example, Dayna's comment, "You killed someone he loved." That she _said_ it is canon; that we take it as evidence that Avon loved Anna requires that we _assume_ (i.e. interpret) that (1) she was being honest, and (2) that she knew what she was talking about.
Here's where authorial intent comes in. Remember this is a drama series. So if a character says that Anna was someone Avon loved, this is meant to be a big flag to the audience that Avon loved Anna. Even if this is contradicted later in the story-- because the presence of the initial remark is meant to be a hint as to how the relationship should be read at that point by the audience.
Sure, Shane, but that's a different issue. We're talking about canon vs. not-canon. Authorial intent is clearly not-canon (and while my experience of fandom is still fairly limited, that's true of all the fandoms I've dabbled in.)
Think of it like this: when my mum puts together a jigsaw, she refers to the picture on the box to see what the finished puzzle should look like. Fine.
I almost never look at the picture on the box when I put together a jigsaw; to me, it's cheating.
In Playing the Game, one has to treat the B7 universe as a reality. Authorial intent is the outside of the box. It's fine if the intent is to analyse a television show; but in Playing the Game, it's cheating. Both approaches are fun for their enthusiasts; but to have a meaningful conversation, the participants have to choose one or the other.
Just IMHO, Mistral