Disclaimers still apply. Not for internal use.
Fiona Moore wrote:
Get well soon!
Thanks! (Though I'm not actually *ill*, really; I've just got this doggoned cough that won't go away...)
I don't think we're actually in disagreement here, at all. It's just that I think there's a very important additional point to keep in mind, there, which is that different views are possible on just how much stretching and straining any one interpretation actually takes.
Indeed. But also that any single example of "homosexual" activity on the part of Avon and Blake (n.t.m. Vila, Tarrant, Gan...) on the screen has thus far been shown to have been a misinterpretation or an outright removal of the scene from context.
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.
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. :)
But, you know, in all fairness, it seems primarily to have been the *anti*-slashers who brought the topic up in the first place, and who seem to want to keep discussing the topic.
As I say in another post, I'm not anti-slash, just anti-retconning. But it was actually Steve Rogerson (who seems to have been taking a pro-slash line) who brought up the topic this time round, and IIRC it was Dana the first time round.
Was it? I feel like I should go back through the archives and check, but, oy, I really don't want to tackle doing that. If I'm in error about that assertion, then I apologize.
In my experience, slash fans are generally been conscientious about people's sensibilities
Except when they're producing lurid artwork without the actors' permission, randomly killfiling people, arguing semantics... <irritated>.
Yeah, believe me, I definitely understand the irritation, and I think a degree of irritation at certain things that have been going on here is justified. I stick by that word "generally," though.
But yes, I do agree that most slashers have historically been careful of others' sensibilities. But IIRC one of the things fueling the debate initially was some people feeling as if slash/slashy subjects were intruding too much into ordinary/academic debate on the lyst
Yes. Although I think it became fairly clear fairly quickly that the main part of the problem there was that different people had widely varying perceptions of just what consitutes "slashy" or "adult" topics, and exactly was might or might not count as "intrusive." IOW, the people who were bringing up the offensive topics didn't realize that other people even saw those topics as falling under the category of "offensive." (Generalizing here again, I know.) I know *I* was certainly surprised when that complaint was made, because I hadn't noticed any intrusive slashy stuff. And others said the same things.
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.)
Well, it suggests Jenna is a friend, anyway. :) Actually, I agree, that's an interesting point, and one I'm still kind of mulling over.
Since I've dug up a lot of material on it, I'm taking the executive decision of moving the Jenna/Blake thread to a separate post :).
I look forward to reading it!
As I said, certainly it's ambiguous. Although it's interesting, actually, that on her death she cries out "Blake!"
Something for which many, many explanations have been put forth, none of which has succeeded in fully convincing me. I'm still not remotely sure what that was about.
Interesting, though, innit?
Very, and not least because there are a zillion possibilities one can imagine. But then, I do love ambiguity. I love having various possibilities to explore and playing around with different ideas to see which ones can be made to fit with canon (or even, with which canon can be reinterpeted to fit... much as I know that appalls you ;)).
If I can cite Chris Boucher (who wrote the episode) again in an unpublished interview which would have gone into the Marvel B7 Special had it not folded (which was sent to me by the author, Alan Stevens, and I've gotten his permission to quote it here), Cally shouted out Blake's name because she was calling out to the leader, and that Avon thought nothing of Cally's death, as the only person he cared about was himself.
Rather a sad thought.
But I'm aware of your feelings about canonicity of interviews :), so this is cited as a side point only.
I should add here, that despite aforementioned opinion on canonicity of interviews, I *am* interested in reading them, and in hearing what the writers had in mind.
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.
Again, can you give me examples?
Ooh, once again, we're not talking about anything specific, just general, personal impressions. I'd say it's based on several things, though: his body langauge, the fact that he doesn't seem terribly concerned with conforming to conventional morality... If I were being flippant, I might say the way he dresses. :) Mainly, it's just that I don't see anything in him that screams "exclusive heterosexual"
But that's not hard evidence.
Oh, dear, we've hit that viewpoint barrier again. I'm not talking about hard evidence. I will freely and happily admit that, in my perception, no there *is* no hard evidence. There isn't even any *soft* evidence, really (beyond the very dubious and subjective "well, if you squint at it the right way, there's some stuff that looks kinda sorta like it might possibly be suggestive"). There's just a possibility that is not ruled out.
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.
I'm also racking my brains trying to think where Avon suggests that he doesn't conform to conventional morality, and what I've been able to come up with is that he is an embezzler, a terrorist and occasionally shows sadistic leanings. I assume (well, I sincerely hope!) you're not including bisexuality with that lot... :).
Heh. Well, I'm not trying to draw a direct connection there, no. I certainly don't equate those activities in moral terms! But Avon is certainly not what you would call a conformist, is he? Besides the criminal examples (which, yes, are what I was thinking of), there's his rather abrasive approach to interpersonal relationships. He doesn't really seem much concerned what people think of him, or whether he's conforming to society's standards, nor does he seem much bothered by the idea of doing what he wants to do and social attitudes (like notions of politeness :)) be damned.
(Of course, that's only relevant if you regard Federation society as to some degree homophobic, which I regard as quite likely, but, as has been pointed out elsewhere, there is no solid evidence for, either.)
I've gotten your other post and I'm going to read those stories and reply. May take a day or two, though.
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. :)
Thanks, I do understand now :), and that's exactly my problem with it. It's that a complex emotional relationship is being explained as simply sexual tension.
Ah, well, we seem to be in agreement on that issue, as well, then! :) Personally, I dislike seeing the characters oversimplified, for any reason.
Basically, I *do* agree that Blake must have had a strong emotional attatchment to Inga. I just don't think it was sexual.
That's well argued, and a plausible and acceptable argument. Point conceded--it's brotherly love :).
:)
People *can* have strong emotional attatchments to people with whom they do not have a sexual relationship, as I seem to recall you pointing out with respect to Blake and Avon. :)
Touche!
:) I think that's a point very much worth keeping in mind, really. Some of the stuff that's been put forward as evidence for Blake's heterosexuality seems to meet with that objection every bit as much as the Blake/Avon stuff does. See "Bounty" comments below...
[Jenna]
I find it easy to imagine that she did, in fact, do this and he utterly failed to respond...
But where does he utterly not respond? He does. I've pointed out how he touches her face in "Bounty."
Well, I've gone back and re-watched that bit, now. And, I must say, I don't see evidence of sexual attraction there. Well, not on *Blake's* part. The look on Jenna's face definitely conveys some, I think, but then, I've always thought Jenna was attracted to Blake. Unfortunately, we can't see Blake's face very well, as he's turned away from the camera, which makes his expression very difficult to judge. But based on the sound of his voice, and the nature of the touch itself, I see affection, concern, a desire to comfort... But nothing overtly sexual. Seems to me that it might or might not involve a sexual attraction on Blake's part. I'm gonna call this one "inconclusive."
The thing is, I do see evidence of *affection* between Blake and Jenna, but nowhere did he ever seem to me to display anything that looked much like sexual attraction. I'm telling you, I just don't see it. (And Blake and Avon make eye contact and smile...)
But don't touch each other's faces, or waists, or hands (except where there are other reasons to present, e.g. an explosion). Or hug. Or act jealous whenever anyone else shows any interest....
One point here, though. Jenna and Avon are *very* different people. Honestly, I can't imagine that Avon would appreciate Blake touching his face that way in public even if they *were* sleeping together. Avon hates "sentiment."
As for the idea that touching someone's face is necessarily sexual... Nah. I can imagine my *mother* touching me that way if I was as in need of emotional reassurance as Jenna at that point, and, believe me, there is *nothing* remotely sexual about *that* relationship! (Ick!) It *does* say something about the nature of the emotional side of their relationship, I'll grant, but I don't think it remotely consitutes proof of a sexual attraction on Blake's part.
Finally, in "Blake," Blake knows how she dies, suggesting that he cared enough to stay in contact throughout the wilderness years.
I don't think that's really evidence for much of anything. We don't know anything at *all* about what happened during those years. For all we know, it's a third-hand report he picked up on the rebel grapevine.
But one he's remembered.
Again, I *do* think there's an emotional attatchment there. I very much believe that Blake cared about and liked Jenna, that she was, to borrow a phrase "important to him." But, again, if "evidence of emotional attatchment does not consitute evidence of sexual attraction" works for A/B, it should be applied to B/J, as well. Otherwise, I start offering up "Terminal" as evidence that Avon was sexually attracted to Blake. :) You have to keep the standards of proof the same, if you're going to play this game.
If that's the case, too, why didn't he mention Cally's death? Or Gan's, which he knew about personally and which would probably have equal impact with regard to "testing" Tarrant's allegiances as Jenna's?
Well, they were talking about the "old smuggler's trick," and neither Cally nor Gan was a smuggler. :)
<Shrug> Seems to me that this eventually just boils down to a fundamental differnce of viewpoint, really.
And I'm fine with that... so long as the difference is between those who say "I'm going to adhere to canon" and those who say "Sod canon" (or some continuum between them). It does worry me when one side are saying "Canon says straight," and the other side are saying "Canon says gay/bi" and side A has all the hard evidence. Again, we do seem to be in agreement on this (why are we arguing again :)?) but I like to define my terms.
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.)
To which I add that, IMHO, sexual tension between Avon and Blake is a tiny, tiny stretch of credibility, and actual A/B sex is a moderate-to-somewhat-large stretch. Whereas it-was-the-clone is a *very* large stretch, and Avon-likes-disco-dancing is a stretch of light-years. :)
I think they're all equally unlikely :).
And we are, of course, both entitled to those opinions.
In support of my viewpoint, I'd like to point out that one can effectively strip Season 3 down to three episodes: Aftermath, Powerplay, Terminal. All the significant changes in plot and characterisation take place within those three episodes only. One can do similar things for the other seasons.
This is true... There is a substantial difference between those episodes which are critical in terms of making major changes and those which aren't. On the other hand, I do find that when, say, watching a first-season and a fourth-season episode back-to-back, the differences in Avon's characterization are rather jarring. (Must less so, IMO, than if you watch the whole series from the beginning and follow his character development (character degeneration? :)) through the course of the show.)
But also that all these occurred within fan/regular viewer contexts. The B7 team were operating on the assumption that a good portion of their audience consisted of casual viewers who might be alienated by too much continuity.
Yes, there *is* a big difference between the two types of viewer. (And trying to please both can be a major balancing act!)
Actually, too, I think there's been a shift in intervening years on SF attitudes to continuity.
I think so, too. Personally, it's a shift I quite like... Which is why I'm very fond of the bits of continuity that B7 *does* have. (Which was more, I think, than most shows of its day. Certainly more than TOS.)
Nor do I. I'm a non-CJ (perhaps a bit surprisingly for an anthropologist)
And my degree is in astrophysics. Go figure. :)