Usual disclaimers apply. Not responsible for articles left unattended.
Responding to me, Fiona wrote:
<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>.
Thanks. :) But, as I've said, I *do* see a possible sexual tenstion, so, for me, A/B slash is often a very small step into AU territory.
< 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.
Which is all *I've* really been saying, in my horribly long-winded fashion, all along.
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 believe you, that you've encountered that attitude. Personally, what *I* object to is one fan telling another "you're wrong to see it that way." Whatever "that way" is. And this is something that can and does work both ways. Certainly slash fans have been told that they are "wrong" (in both "factual" and "moral" senses of the word) for interpereting things the way they do, and it's often implied (or so it seems to me) that they're, frankly, pretty nuts for doing so. And that sort of thing can be quite hurtful, and can make slash fans pretty defensive. Me, all I'm arguing for is a little mutual respect for others' viewpoints and a little live-and-let-live. (Note: if that makes it sound like I'm accusing you of attacking pro-slashers, rest assured that I am NOT.)
< 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 :)?
Avon and Blake (particularly on Avon's part). Jenna and Blake (almost entirely on Jenna's part, I think). Possibly Cally and Avon (though perhaps more on Cally's than on Avon's). Certain other combinations seem not unreasonable to me (I could believe Tarrant and Dayna engaging in the occasional bout of recreational sex quite easily, for example), but have less basis, in my perception, in what's on the screen.
<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.
Unfortunately, once again, I can't speak to your particular example, as being forced to read _Emma_ in high school was enough to convince me that I *loathe* Jane Austen's writing. :)
<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 :).
Canon, IMO, is the starting point, but if you never dare to venture beyond it, well, what's the point?
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.
This is a good point. But points of view as to exactly what *is* in character vary widely. I think we can all agree that disco dancing is probably out of character for Avon. On the other hand, there's likely to be far less agreement about, say, ballroom dancing. (Hey, I could see him doing it! Maybe.) The thing about slash is that opinions seem to be strongly polarized. Many people see having sex with men as extremely out of character for Avon. Others don't. I don't; as I've said before, I can easily see the character as bisexual, based on what's on the screen.
[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?
A little bemused, I suppose. A little wary. A little... Hmm, not sure of the adjective. Like he's trying to let Avon know he's got Avon's number, while at the same time wheels are turning in his head as he works on figuring Avon out. *Maybe* a little frustrated (hey, Avon's hard to figure out!). But I don't get "fed up" out of it at all.
<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.
Hmm. All I can say is, no, you're *not* reading the right kinds of slash. I'm not saying there's not a lot of slash like that out there. Simple is easier to write than complex, for one thing...
But, you know, there's a lot of diversity in slash fic. Personally, while I find a simple fun romp or sexy PWP can be enjoyable, it's stuff (slash or gen) that gets into the character complexities that I find most interesting and satisfying. And slash fic that meets those criteria certainly exists. (Didn't you say a few threads back that you had, in fact, read some slash fiction that *did* make you think about the series?)
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!"
Ah, well, that seems to have the causality backwards, to me. If they *are* lovers, it's because Blake somehow manages to reach something in Avon that brings forth his protectiveness and his trust. Sex may or may not then follow.
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.
Sure. I think most of us like our explanations to chime well with what's onscreen. It's just that the chimes ring differently for each of us (to use a really stupid attempt at metaphor :)).
[and, talking about "Hostage"]
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.
It *is* subjective, which is largely my point. (Although I'm sure you've figured that out by now. :))
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.
Disagree. Kin relationships *do* change. I was fairly close to some of my cousins when I was a teenager; today, they are virtually strangers to me. Here's how *I* interepret this line: Blake is reflecting back on his previous life, which seems very distant to him now, very divorced from the life he's currently living. He hasn't seen any of his family since before his mindwipe (faked tapes not couting), and perhaps even his memories of them have been affected by the Federation's tampering. In any case, he's certainly had at least one major break with his past. He might regard that time as being almost like something out of another life. In that previous life, Inga meant a lot to him (I see her as being probably a little-sister figure, for reasons I'll get into in a minute). But now, he hasn't thought of her in a long time, and his feelings aren't the same. Hence the past tense. (And the fact that he doesn't just say "she's my cousin," as that doesn't actually imply any kind of emotional attatchment, just a genetic 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.
OK, here's my reasoned argument for why I *don't* think it was sexual. When Ushton meets Blake, he tells him "you've grown." Which implies that he hasn't seen his uncle (and thus, presumably, his uncle's daughter) since he before he had reached adulthood. This is confirmed by the fact that Blake refers to having been to Exbar when he was "a boy." Now, we know from "Weapon" that Blake is 34. We don't know how old Inga is, but she looks quite young (and the fact that everyone keeps referring to her as a "girl" seems to reinforce that). I'd say mid-twenties at the most. (Anybody know how old the actress was at this time, just for reference?) Now, let's say that Blake had a late growth spurt, and the last time he visited Exbar he was as old as 20 (which might *just* qualify him as having been a "boy"). And let's say Inga's much older than she looks -- late 20's instead of early 20's, say as old as 29. That would make her 5 years younger than Blake, or 15 to Blake's 20 when Blake last visited Exbar. Now, it's *possible* that, at age 20, Blake was having a sexual affair with his 15-year-old cousin, but, I dunno, that strikes me as a little bit icky. Adjust Blake's age at the time he visited Exbar downward and it gets even ickier: if he was 16, for example, she would only have been 11. And if the age difference between Inga and Blake is *more* than 5 years (as seems likely to me), it gets even ickier still. Now, as I don't happen to believe the pedophilia charges against Blake, I'm very much inclined to regard that relationship as non-sexual.
My speculation is that Inga was must like a beloved little sister to Blake during his teenage years (or at least whatever portion of them he spent on Exbar). I'm inclined to believe that Blake was the youngest in his family (no support from canon on that one, either way, but I'm basing it on my perception of Blake's personality and on research I've read on the statics of birth order and personality traits). If that was the case, he might have very much enjoyed playing the role of big brother to his younger cousin. I can easily see him taking on that role, with great enthusiasm and affection.
And then time and circumstances intervened, they grew up, and grew apart. It happens. But he still looks back on those times with fondness.
My highly speculative thoughts, anyway. :)
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.
I find it easy to imagine that she did, in fact, do this and he utterly failed to respond... leaving her a host of posibilities other than homosexuality. Is he just utterly oblivious? Did the mindwipe damage his sex drive? Does he not believe in shipboard romances? Is he just not interested in her? Does he just not think about anything besides his revolution? I see Jenna as being a pretty persistent person, so she might not be inclined to give up easily, just because she's not getting a response. Her reaction to Inga might be attributed to the fact that he seems to be paying Inga attention that he's not paying to *her*. It could even be "Damn it, he told me he was gay! Bastard was lying, look at him! If he just didn't fancy *me*, why didn't he say so?" :)
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
I *would* make the argument that Blake shows little interest in women, therefore it's *possible* that he's gay, though.
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.
Hmm. Trying to decide if I see sexual elements in his interaction with Sara or not...
["Sarcophagus" theory -- not mine -- snipped]
I just went and watched the episode back, and I'd have to say that's actually a pretty valid interpretation.
I thought so, too.
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."
Yes, that could be rather significant, couldn't it? And, really, I don't see much in the way of interest on Cally's part either before or after that. (A few very vaguely possible things, maybe, but, hell, less than for Avon and Blake, IMO.) I remember the first time I saw "Sarchopahgus" the apparent A/C implications (which was the only interpretation I could see at the time) caught me absolutely flat-flooted. They seemed to come out of absoutely nowhere. It immediately set me to mentally reviewing the last few epsiodes in my mind and wondering whether I'd missed something. (And I don't actually remember a whole lot about my first viewing of the series, so the fact that I *do* remember that shows just how much of an impression it made on me.)
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....
Oh, yeah, there's loads of ambiguity. But, heck, there's loads of ambiguity throughout the whole of the series, IMO. And I *love* that. I love the fact that multiple intepretations are possible, that you can play around with the possibilities, that there's so much to speculate about, so much to think about.
I think that's one reason why I don't really understand the argument that so many people seem to be making, that since there's no solid evidence for slash relationships obviously there *weren't* any. For me, engaging with the show is all about exploring the *possibilities*. Anything that opens those possibilities up and gives me more to think about, new ways of exploring the characters, different interpretations to choose from, I'm glad of it! Why would you want to cut off areas of possibility out of hand? And why on earth would you want to insist that *other* people should do it? (Er, that's a generic "you," not anything directed at you, personally, Fiona!) Sure, you want those possibilities to fit with the characterizations, but, geez, thinking up ways in which speculative ideas can be made to fit with what's on-screen (including the characterization) is *fun*!
Or maybe that's just me. :)
(Fiona quoting Boucher here):
"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.
Hmm. If that was their intent, IMO, it wasn't particularly successful. Thank goodness. One of the things that I particularly like about B7 is the way the characters actually develop and change over the course of the series (and their relationships with each other seem to develop and change, as well).
AFAIK that was the case, and in fact I have similar canonicity problems with Clone Stories as with slash
I have the same problems, actually. But, you know, it's possible for someone who's very clever and has given the whole matter a great deal of thought to come up with a way to make it plausible, even given those objections. Which is why I'm not inclined to reject it-was-the-clone stories as anti-canonical out of hand without seeing what that particular writer's take on the matter is, first.
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.
True enough. But where one draws the line between something that fits well with canon and something that doesn't is going to differ a lot from person to person.
<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
Gotcha, and I understand that this is based on your experience. But, you know, that's the second time a style of fic that I like has been dismissed as "shallow" on this list in recent memory, and, frankly, it does prick at my emotions a little. (No, I'm not looking for an apology, or anything. Like I said, I understand that that's what the majority of the stuff you've seen has been like, in your opinion, and you're entitled to your opinion. Nor have you actually said anything insulting. But that word "shallow" is starting to kind of bug me, I admit it.)
All I can say is: some is, some ain't. To lump it all in together with a blanket statement like that *is* an overgeneralization.
<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.
We do seem to focus on very different things (which, I hasten to add in case anybody still isn't clear, is IMO very much a good thing). Personally -- and I'm a little ashamed to admit this -- politics bore me to tears. So I tend not to get very caught up in the political aspects of the show, per se. (Example: the current politics thread, which initially had me thinking "Oh, that sounds like an interesting topic," but has, frankly, now started to kind of make my eyes glaze over. It's a weird thing: I can recognize that it *is* an interesting topic, but somehow it just seems not to be able to interest *me*. Definitely my lack, there, not the thread's.)
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 :).
I'm almost afraid these posts have gotten too long and cumbersome as it is, but if you'd like to expand on them, I would certainly keep reading. Definitely don't feel you have to, though! It's entirely a tangent, anyway...
You :)?
Actually, I've been thinking about this since I posed the question... Initially, my thought was "Oh, lots and lots and lots of stuff! So much that any possible answer I could give would take multiple pages." But, on further reflection, I got to thinking about what all those lots and lots of things had in common, and whether everything I see the series as being about could be boiled down into one sentence. That's probably wildly overreaching myself, but here's my attempt at that sentence:
Blake's 7 is about human beings responding, in their own varying, individual ways, to life in a violent, corrupt, unfair and uncaring universe.
The way I see it, that sentence covers a *hell* of a lot. Certainly issues of power and morality and leadership are all sort of subsumed in there, as are issues about how people relate to each other. (And maybe that's why I see sex as potentially relevant?)
< 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 :)?
Actually, you know, I don't think I ever have. I've certainly met people who, IMO, took things way too seriously, but I've never met anybody who, as far as I could tell, had an honest-to-god problem telling TV drama from reality. (There are those who can tell the difference between fantasy and reality just fine and just prefer the fantasy, but I can't say I blame them at all. :))
Btw, I just wanted to say how much I'm enjoying this conversation. There've been a lot of slash-related posts lately that have made me feel the need to bite my tongue and not reply for fear of things getting unpleasant (whether on my part or someone else's), but this exchange has been quite thought-provoking and interesting. Whew!
-- 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