Usual warnings/disclaimers still in effect. Do not read while operating a motor vehicle.
Fiona Moore wrote:
Wellll... I don't think I'd agree with that statement, actually, but I also think we've seen that you and I have rather different notions about what things like "misinterpretation" and "out of context" mean.
Here's my notions, then.
Misinterpretation: taking a scene in which nonsexual contact occurs, and misconstruing the contact as sexual in intent (e.g. The Web, when Avon pulls Blake out of the way of the explosion and the two fall with their arms touching each other).
Out of context: taking contact for which there is an obvious nonsexual justification and removing this justification, so that the contact appears sexual (e.g. a fan video I saw a while back which removed the soundtrack from the "Do I have a choice?" scene in Duel, then slowed it down, so that it looked as if Avon and Blake were cuddling each other. A friend of mine used to use that particular video as "canonical proof" of A/B, until we sat down and compared it to the original scene)
Yes, definitely different notions. :) My definitions would be something as follows:
Misinterpretation: Interpreting a scene in a way which is clearly contradicted by other elements of canon, or in a way which renders some aspect of the epsiode entirely nonsensical. E.g. Inga is Tarrant in disguise (unless you can come up with a *really* good explanation!).
Out of context: Disregarding or ingoring the context in which something occurs, where "context" can refer to plot, setting or character elements. E.g. to interpret the Avon's shooting of Blake as implying that Avon came to GP with the intention of killing Blake, which ignores the context of Blake's apparent betrayal.
Both sets of definitions are, I think, valid, but it can get confusing when you're using one and I'm using the other. :)
We do basically agree, I think, that there's nothing on the screen that *requires* one to make a homosexual reading. I think we just have different ideas as to what the proper response is to that fact. :)
And, I think, about the meaning of negative evidence :).
Well, at least as it relates to TV shows, anyway. :)
This is turning into another hashing-over-who-offended-whom thing now, though, and I *really* don't want to get into that here. It's starting to be kind of tedious. (And yes, I know, I've perpetuated some of it, myself.)
Fair enough. Shutting up now :).
Ditto.
As far as the "is it out of character?" question is concerned, let me try and clarify just what I mean by that. Let's say that, at some point during the show, there *was* an episode in which Avon had a sexual affair with another man, or in some other way displayed unambiguous evidence of bisexuality. *If*, halfway through my watching of the series, I were to have come across that episode, it would not have caused me to immediately sit up and yell "No way! Avon would never do something like that! What idiot wrote this episode?! Ooh, bad characterization!" (Which, btw, is pretty much my response to large portions of "Harvest of Kairos." :)) *That's* what I mean when I say it doesn't seem out of character.
:)! But if that episode had happened, then this debate wouldn't be taking place now...
Yes, I know. It was a hypothetical example. But did it make sense to you? Is it clear what I mean by "I don't see it as out of character?" Because, for me, that's is absoutely, positively at the heart of the issue, and has absoutely *everything* to do with whether I regard a given interpretation as a reasonable one or a ridiculous one. (Though that is, of course, highly subjective.)
Oh, and see my continuity argument, further down, for a reason why this couldn't happen within the series format as presented...:).
OK, it was *very* hypothetical! :)
OK, that's certainly fair :)-- though, hard-headed cow that I am, I'd again take that as *anti*-bi evidence, in that if Avon doesn't care much for society's standards, he has no reason not to be open about his desires.
Which is a reasonable enough point. :)
Of course, now I'm worrying whether those stories are really as good as I remember them, and whether I could have picked better examples, and whether you're going to come back and say "*Those*? 'Complex?' Ha!" and I shall have to hang my head in shame, having disgraced the good name of slash-readers everywhere. :)
Heh, I'm sure they'll be fine...
Well, I went and re-read "Revolution" and decided that it is, in fact, a darned good example, particularly for someone who's mosre interested in the political aspects of the show. But the sex is *very* explict.
Don't forget though, that at this point her ex-lover is lying dead at her feet, and she isn't even dignifying him by saying his name in reporting his death. But to get back to the look and the touch: if the look on Jenna's face shows sexual attraction, and Blake responds to this by touching her face and speaking softly, then if he isn't showing reciprocation he is either blind or misunderstanding her outrageously badly.
No, the look definitely came *after* the touch. Before that, she was just looking kind of sad, I believe.
If Blake was Jenna's dad, then I'd say you had a point :). But he isn't, and if you look at the way he treats Cally, there's quite a contrast. They are tactile, in that we do see them touching at various points in the series, but never in a way that suggests as much intimacy as with Jenna. Also, Cally has a few reasons to be every bit as distressed as Jenna is in "Bounty" over the course of the series (what about SLD, in which she's tortured?), and Blake never gets that close, even in reassurance.
Well, Cally seems rather more aloof than Jenna to me, as well.
That is an argument :), but again, as far as we can go is to say again that the evidence suggests a different sort of closeness between Blake and Jenna-- a closeness which involves physicality. Whether this physicality is sexual or not is of course unknowable-- but Blake and Avon, again, don't share this sort of physicality, nor do they use any of the conventionally accepted nonphysical substitutes <cough>cruisy look<cough>.
And that's a fair point (though I think we're both well aware by now that not everybody agrees about the nature of the way they look at each other. :)) Taking the "adopt a hypothesis and see if you can make it fit" approach I mentioned in another post, though, I don't think the lack of that sort of physicality (or even "conventionally accepted subsitutes") renders the idea untenable. Lots of explanations are possible (I, personally, favor "Avon is doing his damndest *not* to respond to Blake that way." :)). But that *is* a different mode of discourse from the argument-from-canon.
Well, they were talking about the "old smuggler's trick," and neither Cally nor Gan was a smuggler. :)
But mentioning the smugglers' trick was effectively a pretext to bring Jenna into the conversation.
I'm inclined to think so, too, but we don't have proof of that, do we?
Again, I think a lot of this *really* boils down to that difference in opinion on how you view the things that *aren't* unambiguously settled by canon. Side B may well get intepreted as saying "Canon says gay/bi" when what the proponent of Side B really means is that side A's "hard evidence" isn't really all that conclusive. (Again, not intending to speak for any *particular* proponent of any viewpoint, here.)
You're going to hate me here :), but I still think that it's not just a case of one side having evidence and the other not.
Nah, no hate involved. But I *still* don't see any good evidence for Blake being heterosexual. :)
Consequently, any sexual relationships in the series have to have reached closure by the story's end (I think this is called "girlfriend of the week syndrome" in certain detective series) and changes in relationship between major characters can only happen during the season opener or closer, or when that character is about to leave the series/die, in order to avoid the continuity nasties.
Agreed, this is quite true for episodic television. (And often leads to some unfortunate results, IMO. I loathe the girlfriend-of-the-week syndrome, although, in fairness, B7 didn't overdo it as much as some shows I could name...)
So in other words, Blake and Jenna's relationship always remains on the same ambiguous level because nothing can be done within the central episodes to advance it. This, however, also is the case for Avon and Blake. Since "Orac" and "Redemption" offer no real scope for changes in character relationships, the only point at which a change in status from friends to lovers could properly have occurred would be in "Star One"-- in which we do, interestingly, get that "For what it's worth..." line, which does advance the progress of their relationship, but, significantly, does not do so in a sexual direction. So if you go for the Boucher reading, *any* sexual relationship between the principal characters, straight *or* gay, is contracanon...:)
Er, no, that doesn't make it contracanonical, just noncanonical (assuming we're using the terminology the same way). Boucher is saying "we couldn't put that in there" not "we had to deliberately make sure that there was no possible way it could be seen in there."