Fiona said: "Yes, but if you saw me eating chocolate ice cream all the time? If, when offered a choice between chocolate and vanilla, I inevitably pick chocolate? If I talk to you about how much I like chocolate ice cream, but never mention vanilla?"
That doesn't mean you won't eat vanilla if the shop's sold out of chocolate.
And she said: "Similarly, if a character in B7 has relationships with women, expresses admiration for women's physical attributes ("I like God's taste in servants!" e.g.), and never seems to express any sort of similar interest in men, I'd assume a *slight* preference for women."
No-one's denying that the men show a preference for women (apart from Blake who shows no preference), but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have a gay relationship. All we are saying here is that it is a viable avenue for fan fiction to explore and that some of the reactions, notably between Blake and Avon, can be interpreted that way. I know you don't interpret them that way, but there are many fans that do, and their view is also valid.
-- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson
Redemption: The Blake's 7 and Babylon 5 convention 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption
steve:-
That doesn't mean you won't eat vanilla if the shop's sold out of
chocolate.
Some people create an illusion of liking chocolate in non friendly environments, like outmoded Victorian working environments where vanilla is perceived as the devil's ice cream. But they binge on vanilla at the weekends. So one group of people thinks they like chocolate, but another knows they prefer vanilla.
Does that help at all?
Emma.
Emma wrote:
steve:-
That doesn't mean you won't eat vanilla if the shop's sold out of
chocolate.
Some people create an illusion of liking chocolate in non friendly environments, like outmoded Victorian working environments where vanilla is perceived as the devil's ice cream. But they binge on vanilla at the weekends. So one group of people thinks they like chocolate, but another knows they prefer vanilla.
Does that help at all?
And how about those of us who prefer sorbet?
Una
----- Original Message ----- From: emma emmapeel@calvino.freeserve.co.uk To: blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 4:27 PM Subject: [B7L] more ice cream
steve:-
That doesn't mean you won't eat vanilla if the shop's sold out of
chocolate.
Emma:>
Some people create an illusion of liking chocolate in non friendly environments, like outmoded Victorian working environments where vanilla is perceived as the devil's ice cream. But they binge on vanilla at the weekends. So one group of people thinks they like chocolate, but another knows they prefer vanilla.
Loud applause. Thank you.
-(Y) ObB7: The flavor is less significant than the topping.
steve:-
That doesn't mean you won't eat vanilla if the shop's sold out of
chocolate.
Some people create an illusion of liking chocolate in non friendly environments, like outmoded Victorian working environments where chocolate is perceived as the devil's ice cream. But they binge on vanilla at the weekends. So one group of people thinks they like chocolate, but another knows they prefer vanilla.
Does that help at all?
Emma.
Steve said:
<Fiona said: "Yes, but if you saw me eating chocolate ice cream all the time? If, when offered a choice between chocolate and vanilla, I inevitably pick chocolate? If I talk to you about how much I like chocolate ice cream, but never mention vanilla?"
That doesn't mean you won't eat vanilla if the shop's sold out of chocolate.>
Hm. So, to bring the metaphor back to sex, homosexual behaviour on the part of Blake and Avon is an act of desperation?
<No-one's denying that the men show a preference for women (apart from Blake who shows no preference)>
<Sigh>. Allow me to copy out for the third time (the rest of you may wish to skip down the page):
------- Not disagreeing about Tyce. Actually, I was thinking of the scene in which Jenna informs Blake that Tarkin (whom Blake knows to be her ex-lover) is dead, a death she herself brought about. Blake cups the side of her face with his hand, looks into her eyes and smiles at her, and says softly "Take us out of here, Jenna." She returns the smile. I think the subtext there is pretty darn clear :). Furthermore, Jenna is visibly jealous of Tyce, and Blake's reaction to this in the final scene shows that he is very much aware of Jenna's feelings.
<bit about the Inga/Blake kiss snipped>
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.
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.
-----
<, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have a gay relationship.>
Now, if you were talking about real people, I'd agree. I certainly don't think it's justifiable to make assumptions about a person's exclusive sexual preference based on their current choice of partner (although I should make the point that I don't consider it invalid either. If a friend, whatever their gender, has up until this point only gone out with women to my knowledge, I'd be pretty surprised if they mentioned a boyfriend).
However, the fictional world is considerably simpler. Vladimir Nabokov once made a remark to the effect of how, in literature, characters can't go against the way they have been written by their authors: King Lear can't make it up to his daughters, Madame Bovary can't stay with her husband and, in Nabokov's case, Humbert can't cure himself of his obsession with Lolita, even though it is arguable that had these three been real people, they could conceivably have had such changes of heart.
In an action-adventure series, the rules of characterisation are considerably narrower than in literature. So therefore, just as, if one is going to write a story about King Lear, one would have to base him on Shakespeare's characterisation to be taken seriously, if one is going to write about Avon and Blake, one has to take the filmed and written (scripts, character sketches, interviews...) evidence into account first.
<All we are saying here is that it is a viable avenue for fan fiction to explore and that some of the reactions, notably between Blake and Avon, can be interpreted that way. >
I'd agree with you on the "viable avenue for fan fiction to explore" bit. Just like it's viable for fan fiction to explore what the show would have been like if written as a camp comedy, a high Arthurian fantasy, or if the characters were cross-gendered (Rogina Blake, Jonno Stannis, Villette Restal?). Once again, though, I'd say that to retconn this avenue back onto somebody else's text is taking interpretation far too far.
<I know you don't interpret them that way, but there are many fans that do, and their view is also valid.>
Once again: surely to read into the show something that its creators didn't intend is a tiny bit disrespectful of the people who spent so much time and effort creating a complex action-adventure story with political undertones?
And as for relative numbers: well, there are any number of bad governments that got in with a majority vote.
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
Fiona Moore wrote:
In an action-adventure series, the rules of characterisation are considerably narrower than in literature. So therefore, just as, if one is going to write a story about King Lear, one would have to base him on Shakespeare's characterisation to be taken seriously, if one is going to write about Avon and Blake, one has to take the filmed and written (scripts, character sketches, interviews...) evidence into account first.
Just so that you're aware - there are _some_ of us (including myself) who don't accept anything as evidence that doesn't show up on the screen. That's all the canon there is. Character sketches and interviews - even with Chris Boucher, who I'd regard as the only person who can really speak with authority to long-term intent - simply *do not count*. This _might_ be causing some disparity between what you consider a reasonable view of the series, and what others consider a reasonable view.
<snip>
Once again: surely to read into the show something that its creators didn't intend is a tiny bit disrespectful of the people who spent so much time and effort creating a complex action-adventure story with political undertones?
Speaking as a performer, I cannot possibly couch this in strong enough terms, so please consider the following statement to be in foot-high, flashing, fluorescent orange letters: NO!
The artwork _is_ the message. It stands or falls on its own.
The creative team put 52 eps of B7 out for public consumption. Their work is _finished_. Now it's our turn. What the artists meant to say may or may not bear any resemblance to what they actually said; that depends a great deal on how good they were at expressing their vision - but they don't get a second chance. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, *not* in the recipe.
I could rant for hours about the independence of finished art from the artist, but I'll spare us all.
Mistral
Mistral wrote:
Fiona Moore wrote:
In an action-adventure series, the rules of characterisation are considerably narrower than in literature. So therefore, just as, if one is going to write a story about King Lear, one would have to base him on Shakespeare's characterisation to be taken seriously, if one is going to write about Avon and Blake, one has to take the filmed and written (scripts, character sketches, interviews...) evidence into account first.
Just so that you're aware - there are _some_ of us (including myself) who don't accept anything as evidence that doesn't show up on the screen. That's all the canon there is. Character sketches and interviews
- even with Chris Boucher, who I'd regard as the only person who can
really speak with authority to long-term intent - simply *do not count*.
Well, that depends on your purpose. Writing fanfic, I feel able to keep or dump whatever I want and am more interested in reading/writing different perspectives on the characters (the writers' included). Similarly, finding out the different ways in which fans view the same show doesn't involve knowing the intention of the writers.
But If you're interested in how the show was produced and received, then of course the views of those who produced it need to be taken into account. The thread on how B7 was received in Britain on transmission in the light of IRA activity at the time is one-sided without knowing whether or not these issues were put into the text by the writers. It's also an extremely interesting debate (well, I think it is).
Of course audiences receive texts in unexpected and multiple ways. But that doesn't make the issue of how they were *supposed* to receive them any less interesting.
Una
Una McCormack wrote:
Mistral wrote:
Fiona Moore wrote:
In an action-adventure series, the rules of characterisation are considerably narrower than in literature. So therefore, just as, if one is going to write a story about King Lear, one would have to base him on Shakespeare's characterisation to be taken seriously, if one is going to write about Avon and Blake, one has to take the filmed and written (scripts, character sketches, interviews...) evidence into account first.
Just so that you're aware - there are _some_ of us (including myself) who don't accept anything as evidence that doesn't show up on the screen. That's all the canon there is. Character sketches and interviews
- even with Chris Boucher, who I'd regard as the only person who can
really speak with authority to long-term intent - simply *do not count*.
Well, that depends on your purpose. Writing fanfic, I feel able to keep or dump whatever I want and am more interested in reading/writing different perspectives on the characters (the writers' included). Similarly, finding out the different ways in which fans view the same show doesn't involve knowing the intention of the writers.
Absolutely. However, the thread does appear to have become some people saying 'this is what I see on the screen' or 'this is how I enjoy looking at it' vs. Fiona saying 'but one must factor in what the creators intended'. My point is simply that neither side is going to convince the other because they're not using the same criteria for validation of evidence.
But If you're interested in how the show was produced and received, then of course the views of those who produced it need to be taken into account. The thread on how B7 was received in Britain on transmission in the light of IRA activity at the time is one-sided without knowing whether or not these issues were put into the text by the writers. It's also an extremely interesting debate (well, I think it is).
Of course audiences receive texts in unexpected and multiple ways. But that doesn't make the issue of how they were *supposed* to receive them any less interesting.
I agree completely that it's an interesting topic, and an interesting debate. It just seems a bit like apples and oranges at the moment, though.
Just to clarify what I'm trying to say: If Shakespeare turned up on my doorstep, I'd be pumping him for information about his works. I'd want to know _his_ opinion of what he'd written. And his ideas _might_ inform and alter my opinion of those works - but they might not. Because Shakespeare isn't an authority on what his works mean _to me_. The Bard lost control of his art and its interpretation when he put it into the public eye; how much more so in the case of the BBC.
Mistral
Mistral wrote:
Una McCormack wrote:
Well, that depends on your purpose. Writing fanfic, I feel able to keep or
dump
whatever I want and am more interested in reading/writing different
perspectives
on the characters (the writers' included). Similarly, finding out the
different
ways in which fans view the same show doesn't involve knowing the intention
of
the writers.
Absolutely. However, the thread does appear to have become some people saying 'this is what I see on the screen' or 'this is how I enjoy looking at it' vs. Fiona saying 'but one must factor in what the creators intended'. My point is simply that neither side is going to convince the other because they're not using the same criteria for validation of evidence.
I quite agree - Alison posted definitively on this yesterday - and it's why I haven't really entered the debate.
Of course audiences receive texts in unexpected and multiple ways. But that doesn't make the issue of how they were *supposed* to receive them any less interesting.
I agree completely that it's an interesting topic, and an interesting debate. It just seems a bit like apples and oranges at the moment, though.
I think I'd flip it round the other way: there are several debates going on at the moment all of which are related to the general topic of how media are produced, received and appropriated. It's interesting to see the various ways in which pointing to authorial intent is used or dismissed as a legitimating tactic within these various debates.
What have we been discussing recently?
- Whether pornographic or violent media affects behaviour (i.e. whether the 'weight' of authorial intent allows no resistant readings). - Whether the lack of authorial intent undermines a particular reading of B7 (here slash) or whether viewers' readings have as much legitimacy. - How authorial intent is itself affected by the social and political context in which a TV show is produced.
What do I think? I'll give my standard answer, 'It depends on the context' which leaves me in the nicely self-congratulatory position of being able to champion resistant readings while shaking my head and stroking my beard when I think about the deleterious effects of propaganda.
Of all the three debates I've found the final one the most interesting, since we seem to have been generating new perspectives on the cultural context in which B7 was transmitted. I hope more people will post on this one.
Just to clarify what I'm trying to say: If Shakespeare turned up on my doorstep, I'd be pumping him for information about his works. I'd want to know _his_ opinion of what he'd written. And his ideas _might_ inform and alter my opinion of those works - but they might not. Because Shakespeare isn't an authority on what his works mean _to me_. The Bard lost control of his art and its interpretation when he put it into the public eye; how much more so in the case of the BBC.
I think I'm pretty much with you on that.
Una
Una McCormack wrote:
My point is simply that neither side is going to convince the other because they're not using the same criteria for validation of evidence.
I quite agree - Alison posted definitively on this yesterday - and it's why I haven't really entered the debate.
Oh dear, I've been repetitive then? Shame on me. This is what comes of allowing oneself to dwell on penguinography.
Mistral
----- Original Message ----- From: Mistral mistral@centurytel.net
Just so that you're aware - there are _some_ of us (including myself) who don't accept anything as evidence that doesn't show up on the screen. That's all the canon there is. Character sketches and interviews
- even with Chris Boucher, who I'd regard as the only person who can
really speak with authority to long-term intent - simply *do not count*. This _might_ be causing some disparity between what you consider a reasonable view of the series, and what others consider a reasonable view.
But if you read through my discussions with Betty and Steve, the point is, there has thus far not been a single example of *onscreen* evidence for homo/bisexual relationships among the principal cast either. Chris Boucher was simply cited as supporting evidence, which I do realise not everyone accepts.
The artwork _is_ the message. It stands or falls on its own.
1) Sometimes it's difficult to work out what the author means, in B7 as much as in other texts. In which case, in order to do that, one has to look to other evidence which s/he has provided outside of the text itself. Without that, again, literary criticism falls flat on its face. After all, to take your Shakespeare example, if Shakespeare *had* left more in the way of notes as to what he intended, there would be a lot more agreement as to how his plays should be performed.
Chris Boucher and Terry Nation were both very clever writers, and they did (and still do, in one case) provide us with a lot of examples of authorial intent for the hard-to-read stories.
2) So, the medium is the message? There is nothing outside of the text? Again, I find it very difficult to do any sort of interpretation at all in a context in which all interpretations are deemed equally valid....
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
Fiona Moore wrote:
The artwork _is_ the message. It stands or falls on its own.
- Sometimes it's difficult to work out what the author means, in B7 as much
as in other texts.
And some of us don't much care. :)
After all, to take your Shakespeare example, if Shakespeare *had* left more in the way of notes as to what he intended, there would be a lot more agreement as to how his plays should be performed.
And I suspect the theater would probably be much poorer for it...
--- Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org wrote: .
After all, to take your Shakespeare example, if Shakespeare *had*
left more in the way of notes
as to what he intended, there would be a lot more
agreement as to how his
plays should be performed.
And I suspect the theater would probably be much poorer for it...
Unlikely, given that even the most cursory examination of the work of Shakespeare as compared to his contempories (even those great or nearly great in thier own right, such as Ford, Webster, Middleton) suggests, in fact more or less confirms, that the plays are written to *be* interpreted. There is a looseness built deliberately into them that allows a director leeway with many aspects of staging and performance. Compared to Middleton or Marlowe who excercise far more control over thier text (down to stage directions, suggestions of emphasis etc) Shakespeare seems to positively revel in the multifaceted.
wilsonfisk2@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Wilson Fisk wrote:
Unlikely, given that even the most cursory examination of the work of Shakespeare as compared to his contempories (even those great or nearly great in thier own right, such as Ford, Webster, Middleton) suggests, in fact more or less confirms, that the plays are written to *be* interpreted. There is a looseness built deliberately into them that allows a director leeway with many aspects of staging and performance. Compared to Middleton or Marlowe who excercise far more control over thier text (down to stage directions, suggestions of emphasis etc) Shakespeare seems to positively revel in the multifaceted.
I wonder If this has anything to do with Shakespeare having been an actor? Stage directions are beloved of writers, loathed or ignored by actors.
Iain
--- Iain Coleman ijc@bas.ac.uk wrote:
I wonder If this has anything to do with Shakespeare having been an actor? Stage directions are beloved of writers, loathed or ignored by actors.
That's certainly an interesting suggestion. Thanks for that. : - )
Hmmm...
<noise of wf's brain ticking over>
wilsonfisk2@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Iain responded:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Wilson Fisk wrote:
Compared to Middleton or Marlowe who excercise far more control over thier text (down to stage directions, suggestions of emphasis etc) Shakespeare seems to positively revel in the multifaceted.
I wonder If this has anything to do with Shakespeare having been an actor? Stage directions are beloved of writers, loathed or ignored by actors.
I just assumed that he didn't bother to write the directions in, because he was standing next to the other actors telling them in person.
steve
--- Steve Kilbane steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk wrote:
I just assumed that he didn't bother to write the directions in, because he was standing next to the other actors telling them in person.
Not an unreasonable assumption, but it's documented historical fact that 'cut down' company's derived from "The King's Men" would tour the country with plays whilst Bill was doing something else in the smoke.
Also there were loads of revivals of his plays by other companies and the like, which he simply can't have had time to supervise.
Some of the 'travelling' manuscripts are extant, and they don't give any more away than the good quartos and F1 (1623).
I think it's safe to say he was more Noel Coward than Bertolt Brecht.
wf
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Fiona Moore wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Mistral mistral@centurytel.net
Just so that you're aware - there are _some_ of us (including myself) who don't accept anything as evidence that doesn't show up on the screen. That's all the canon there is. Character sketches and interviews
- even with Chris Boucher, who I'd regard as the only person who can
really speak with authority to long-term intent - simply *do not count*. This _might_ be causing some disparity between what you consider a reasonable view of the series, and what others consider a reasonable view.
But if you read through my discussions with Betty and Steve, the point is, there has thus far not been a single example of *onscreen* evidence for homo/bisexual relationships among the principal cast either.
Of course I read them; and the point is, there isn't anything _you_ recognize as onscreen evidence. Nor do I consider there to be enough evidence to draw such a conclusion. That doesn't mean that someone _else_ might not find there to be plenty of evidence. We all see different things because of our POVs. This happens IRL, too.
Just to give an example turned about the other way - you say Dorian gives Avon a 'decidedly cruisy' look. I don't doubt that you see it quite clearly; but in all honesty, it had never occurred to me that it might be interpreted that way until you said it. But I don't doubt for a moment that you actually _see_ it that way. This could simply be me being oblivious - several times I've been unaware until much later that someone was trying to chat me up, and have also conversely had my motives misinterpreted on many occasions - but this in itself should indicate that people both express themselves differently, and interpret others differently, and therefore multiple possibilites for perceived meaning exist.
Chris Boucher was simply cited as supporting evidence, which I do realise not everyone accepts.
I did wonder; one of the first things I learned in speech class was that citing evidence that the audience doesn't accept is one of the fastest ways to alienate an audience. It weakens an argument rather than strengthening it. Not something I really see you wanting to do; you obviously put in a great deal of thought and effort into your posts.
The artwork _is_ the message. It stands or falls on its own.
- Sometimes it's difficult to work out what the author means, in B7 as much
as in other texts. In which case, in order to do that, one has to look to other evidence which s/he has provided outside of the text itself. Without that, again, literary criticism falls flat on its face.
The point of art is to communicate. How well it does so is a reflection of the skill of the artist, and also a function of the overlap between his and his audience's frame of reference. IOW, it doesn't matter what he meant if he didn't _communicate_ it. If I go onstage and play B-flat when I meant to play B-natural, the audience will still have heard B-flat; my fault, not theirs, and they are certainly not obligated to look up interviews 20 years later in order so that I can point out that it was supposed to be B-natural. They're even less obligated to edit their memories of my performance in order to 'hear' B-natural in their memories. The same applies if I write a flat character when I should have written a round one (and vice versa), or any other disparity between artistic vision and perception of finished product by the [intended] audience.
To use Dorian as an example again: if you were to find out tomorrow that you'd been grossly misled and that the writer, actor, and director had all intended that Dorian was as straight as an arrow, would you suddenly have somehow _not_ seen the look he gave Avon as 'cruisy'? Of course not.
After all, to take your Shakespeare example, if Shakespeare *had* left more in the way of notes as to what he intended, there would be a lot more agreement as to how his plays should be performed.
Which would be, IMNSHO, a _very_ bad thing for English lit in general and Shakespeare lovers in particular. The wealth and beauty of Shakespeare for me lies not only in the beauty of his language, but in the depth and multiplicities of possible interpretations. I don't watch every version of Hamlet I can get my hands on in order to see the next company perform it the same way as the last; I do it for the _differences_. I do it to see how the next performance compares to all the others, and how it enriches and expands both my intellectual and subjective appreciation of the play. The reason I have a bookcase full of Shakespeare commentaries isn't because they all say the same thing; I have them because the different views help me as I'm trying to sort out what _I_ think the plays are about.
And I'm not trying solely to puzzle out the Bard's intent, either. It would be fascinating to know, but in many ways _less_ illuminating than the aggregate speculation. After all, Shakespeare doesn't know what his own subconscious snuck past him. I very much fear that if we knew in minute detail what Shakespeare intended, he'd seem a great deal less brilliant than he does at this distance, and his legacy would be diminished. Like I said, the wealth is in the layers, and I don't think _all_ the layers were planned. (People have on occasion found what they considered to be really clever stuff in my writing that IMO isn't there at all; how much more must that be true with Shakespeare, who really is a great wordsmith?)
Chris Boucher and Terry Nation were both very clever writers, and they did (and still do, in one case) provide us with a lot of examples of authorial intent for the hard-to-read stories.
And I don't for a minute intend to minimize either the talent of Chris Boucher (who I much admire), or the fascination of his anecdotes. But authorial intent shows up on the screen, or it doesn't. Great art survives because it's great art, not because the artist _intended_ to make great art. The effectiveness of Blakes 7 as art is demonstrated by the strength and variety of response to it; trying to restrict fan response to an acknowledgement of authorial intent diminishes art, artists, and audiences.
Or to simplify - it sucks out all the fun.
- So, the medium is the message? There is nothing outside of the text?
Again, I find it very difficult to do any sort of interpretation at all in a context in which all interpretations are deemed equally valid....
I've never suggested that all interpretations are equally valid; nor have I suggested that we should be disrespectful of artists. On the contrary, I have the utmost respect for art and artists; I consider the urge to create a reflection of the image of God. In fact, what brought me in on this portion of the thread was your assertion that ignoring authorial intent _in interpretation_ is somehow disrespectful. My position is that giving weight to intent rather than effect disrespects art itself and denies its power, and is therefore ultimately _more_ disrespectful of artists.
Validity of interpretation for me is about how well an aspect of personal sub-canon fits with canon. What I'm looking for is logical extrapolation, internal consistency, completeness, and enough creativity to make it interesting (see Neil's excellent post on proof and possibility, and Betty's equally excellent post on the two approaches). None of these things is likely to disrespect an artist who understands what art is about.
Mistral
----- Original Message ----- From: Mistral mistral@centurytel.net
Fiona Moore wrote:
Just to give an example turned about the other way - you say Dorian gives Avon a 'decidedly cruisy' look. I don't doubt that you see it quite clearly; but in all honesty, it had never occurred to me that it might be interpreted that way until you said it.
But, if you compare it onscreen with the similar looks in "Weapon" (same-sex) and "Gold" (opposite-sex), and then consider the similarities of all three contexts, the dialogue in them, etc-- that's where the interpretation of cruisiness comes in. In Dorian's case, he makes a remark redolent of sexual suggestion ("indulge any pleasure... any <look> vice"); in Avon's, his face is devoid of expression until the woman in the revealing outfit passes, at which point: <look>. In Carnell's case, there is perhaps nothing in the dialogue or the social context to give the look a sexual intent; however, the similarity of that look to the two others cited is undeniable, and present, and we already know from his behaviour with Servalan that Carnell is not above using flirtation as a calculated tactic. Taken as single examples, they can be missed... but if you read them all together and try and work out the similarities of context, it does work.
Actually, too, I've turned up another example of cruising in B7, in "Breakdown." Blake asks Jenna to get information from Dr Renor about Professor Kayn. She says, "I'll try, I might not be his type, though." Blake laughs and says "You'll just have to take the chance." When they meet, Renor says "Hello, hello, hello!" in a lecherous tone; he gives her two cruisy looks and says "I had a feeling this was going to be a good day." Jenna cruises him back and says "you mustn't let your feelings run away with you..." A line or two later, he says "Do you believe in love at first sight?" She says, "not yet..."
Now, while Blake may not have originally asked her to actually flirt with Renor, her line, and his line after, make it clear that she has interpreted it in this way. Renor's greeting to her and flirtatious talk afterwards suggests that he is attracted to her; we know from her previous conversation with Blake that she intended to try flirtation as a means of persuasion. If you take those three looks, and compare the looks whose intention is being debated (Carnell's and Dorian's) with them, do they come out as similar at all?
Chris Boucher was simply cited as supporting evidence, which I do realise not everyone accepts.
I did wonder; one of the first things I learned in speech class was that citing evidence that the audience doesn't accept
Ah, but I didn't know that till I cited him, now did I :)?
To use Dorian as an example again: if you were to find out tomorrow that you'd been grossly misled and that the writer, actor, and director had all intended that Dorian was as straight as an arrow, would you suddenly have somehow _not_ seen the look he gave Avon as 'cruisy'? Of course not.
No, but I'd really, really wonder what went on there. To take a non-B7 example (I know, me and my side points...) the Doctor Who "companion" Captain Mike Yates, who has a fantastic line in queer innuendo and suggestion (my favourite being the long look he gives the Master's arse in "Terror of the Autons" :) ). Now, all the production evidence says that the character was intended to be straight as an arrow... however, there's also a lot of evidence from the production team and actors that there was a lot of kidding around and camping it up on the set at the time, and that frequently people on the set *would* deliberately throw in a piece of innuendo or suggestion about a character's sexuality, virginity etc. (and for some reason, perhaps *because* the character was intended to be totally straight, Yates seems to have come in for a lot of it), just to see if they could get away with it, wind up the director, whatever. Given that a look requires a deliberate effort, I'd be a bit curious as to why the actor tried out the look-- Something in his eye? Practical joke? Subversion of intent in order to try it on with the director? Accident?
After all, to take your Shakespeare example, if Shakespeare *had* left more in the way of
notes
as to what he intended, there would be a lot more agreement as to how
his
plays should be performed.
Which would be, IMNSHO, a _very_ bad thing for English lit in general and Shakespeare lovers in particular.
Oh, I'm in definite agreement with you there-- but also that a drama production with notes, collaboration, character sketches circulating around the team etc. is a bit of a different thing from a Shakespearian text-only approach. Just as, if you have a play with more in the way of notes (The Seagull, for instance), you have to make a decision whether to play it according to authorial intent or whether to throw away the notes, and why.
And I'm not trying solely to puzzle out the Bard's intent, either. It would be fascinating to know, but in many ways _less_ illuminating than the aggregate speculation.
Agreed. I've often thought that if there *was* some way of going back in time and finding out Shakespeare's intent, it would probably turn out to be a bit disappointing. Much like how I tend to prefer modern-dress Shakespeare to period-dress Shakespeare-- because I do like seeing the different spin on the words having it in modern dress gives. I like Shakespeare precisely because of the potential for interpretation...
make great art. The effectiveness of Blakes 7 as art is demonstrated by the strength and variety of response to it; trying to restrict fan response to an acknowledgement of authorial intent diminishes art, artists, and audiences.
Oh, agreed. But the discussion was about whether evidence for a certain reading was there or not-- not about whether or not that reading could be made, cos it obviously can and is. And I say, hurrah.
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
-
Betty Ragan -
Dana Shilling -
emma -
Fiona Moore -
Iain Coleman -
Mistral -
Steve Kilbane -
Steve Rogerson -
Una McCormack -
Wilson Fisk