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
Usual disclaimers apply. Please stow luggage under forward seats.
----- Original Message ----- From: Betty Ragan bragan@aoc.nrao.edu
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.
Like you, I also object to people saying "you're wrong to view it that way," whatever that is. But thing is, and one reason why I may have been coming across rather anti-slash lately, is because I also don't like the "anything goes!" attitude which basically holds that one can read anything into the text, and it can't be contradicted because all interpretations are valid (I blame the extreme elements of the postmodernist movement myself, grumble grumble). People can interpret whatever they like, but to my mind there's some that fits the text, some that fits the text with a bit of stretching and straining, and some that doesn't fit the text at all, and these should all be acknowledged as such.
Certainly slash fans have been told that they are "wrong" (in both "factual" and "moral" senses of the word)
Not to sound utterly Tory here, but I do think it also has to be acknowledged that some people do have sensibilities which should be respected for politeness' sake (which I am blatantly disregarding at the moment, but in fairness I'll point out that we're both using serious warnings on the topic thread). Related example: Oxford Uni is currently encouraging all its colleges to make condoms freely available to students as part of a safe-sex campaign. As a member of my college's Common Room Committee, I was privy to a debate on this subject, as, while we all agreed that this was a good idea, several of the College's members are of Muslim and Christian sects which have moral objections to seeing contraceptives freely passed around. Finally, we agreed to compromise, and to confine the condoms to the W.C.s in the college bar (which is a public place, but not one the abovementioned members would be likely to use). Thus, while I disagree with the idea of calling slashers "wrong," I can see why discretion might be advised.
Avon and Blake (particularly on Avon's part).
As I'm sure you're aware, I don't agree, and for reasons we've discussed :).
Jenna and Blake (almost entirely on Jenna's part, I think).
But the fact that in "Duel," Jenna is the one chosen to represent the "death of a friend" suggests it's mutual. Also see below.
Possibly Cally and Avon (though perhaps more on Cally's than on Avon's).
As I said, certainly it's ambiguous. Although it's interesting, actually, that on her death she cries out "Blake!"
seem not unreasonable to me (I could believe Tarrant and Dayna engaging in the occasional bout of recreational sex quite easily, for example),
Possible, though in such a closed environment, I'd think that recreational sex would quite quickly lead to something closer, or at the very least to jealousy issues (which she doesn't show during Tarrant's extracurricular relationships).
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?
Yes, but as we've both been saying (I think!) some ventures are easier to fit in with the canon than others.
. 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?
[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 think he *has* worked Avon out by this point, and I don't hear anything quizzical in his voice at all. More, "Here we go again."
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?)
I did, and those were what I was referring to when I said that I thought slash which did take other complexities into account could work for me (although I have to admit, the slash I was thinking of when I made that remark didn't actually do much to my mind to explore the characterisation of/relationship between the partners, but made me think about other things, e.g. the ethics of terrorism). But as I've said, the PWPs I've seen tend to outnumber the stuff which interests me.
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.
Sorry, not sure I understand. Please accept that I'm dumb, and spell it out for me.
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.)
Fair enough argument :), but one also has to note that Travis (who has previously stated "I know that man better than myself") picked Inga as the bait to lure Blake to Exbar. Not Ushton; not Ushton and Inga (even if we assume that Blake has no other surviving relatives which might be equal candidates); not even a planetful of innocent people whom Travis will destroy if Blake doesn't talk. The bait has to be something Travis knew he would take-- hence he would have to go for somebody to whom Blake had a strong emotional connection. And again, if it had simply been the kin tie, why not Ushton, or both of them?
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.
Or it could be that he's gotten fatter :) (only joking! I accept your point).
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).
*All* females under forty seem to get referred to as "girls" at some point or other in the series. It was the 1970s after all. But fair enough, she does look about 25.
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.
I think that's impeccably argued so far. However, at that age, people frequently do have romantic relationships which mean a lot to them at the time and afterwards, without actually having sex. This, though, doesn't make the feelings any less romantic, or important for both parties. Teenagers do also have crushes, which again are powerful for those involved, and which resonate in later life (as anyone who's ever met up with someone they fancied in secondary school later on knows) but don't generally lead to sex.
[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." In "Killer," they sit together on the couch, smiling and chatting with lots of eye contact. In fact, there is mutual eye-contact and smiling in many episodes. I've mentioned "Duel," which IMO is significant. Finally, in "Blake," Blake knows how she dies, suggesting that he cared enough to stay in contact throughout the wilderness years. Again, not to say that there *was* a deep relationship... but there's more evidence of romantic feeling between them than for Blake and anyone else in the principal cast.
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 IMO the other possibilities should be given greater priority given the lack of supporting evidence. See also above and last couple of messages, re number of times Blake does show interest in women.
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...
The scene I'm thinking of is the bit where he and the crew stage the gunfight to bring her out into the open. She comes out, he grabs hold of her and, possibly by accident but it does happen, grabs her breast. They struggle briefly, during which time they are face-to-face, quite close together, and are making eye contact. Avon then punches her; she falls into the arms of the crewmen, and Avon says, rather absently, as he moves away, "You'd better take her. I rather enjoyed that."
Which to my mind suggests that what was intended to be a violent act suddenly turned sexual, for him if not her.
["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.
:)!
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.)
Again, if you're talking about a sexual interest, while I do agree that the Avon-Cally evidence is slender and ambiguous, I've still yet to see a single example of Avon-Blake interaction that even falls into that category. The episode "Sarcophagus" is IMO a very clever one in the way that it has its cake and eats it as far as A/C is concerned, it gives and refutes evidence for both sides... but again, ambiguity for Avon and Cally is more than nothing for Avon and Blake.
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.
There's no evidence at all, that's the problem-- which still to me implies that to say that they existed falls in the same category as saying Avon likes disco-dancing.
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!)
Cheers, cos I'm not insisting anything of the sort :). Just arguing for more acknowledgement as to what's a strong possibility and what's a bit of a stretch of credibility, and what's a fantasy.
(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).
True, though as I argued in my article "There Is A Hole in Your Plotline" (Zenith Magazine, 2000 <buy it, buy it>), compared to series which were actually intended to have a soaplike element (e.g. B5), the changes are pretty subtle and minimal. Furthermore, the point Boucher seems to be making there is not that relationships couldn't develop and change, but that they shouldn't change so much or in such a way that somebody dropping casually into the series midway in couldn't pick up pretty quickly on the relationships between the characters. It's not necessary to have seen "Seek Locate Destroy" or "Trial" to understand Travis in "Hostage," for instance. However, were an explicitly-portrayed romance to happen between, say, Blake and Jenna, a lot of internal continuity would need to be built up. It's true that one could tune into one episode and understand them as friends, and then into another and understand them as lovers, but it does require a bit more viewer explanation than simply having Travis say "I'm on the run from the Federation." (Another parallell e.g.: as someone who watched DS9 for a while, lost interest and then happened across an episode a few years later, my reaction was "Odo and Kira?!? When? How?" Not hard to see they were involved, but a bit harder to understand what had happened to the characters).
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.
As we've seen. But I'm still campaigning for a continuum!
<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.
You're getting one, or a partial one anyway :). But as I said, I have only my own experience to go on.... can you give me an example, either online or on an offlist post?
<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).
And I'll hasten to add my voice to this! Personally, I'm enjoying this discussion; it's giving me a good chance to explore and think about some things which have been on my mind almost since I discovered organised fandom. But there should always be more than one voice...
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.
Including politics and allegorical representations :). Bit too character-oriented for my take, but hey, as we've both been saying, live and let live...
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. :))
Oog. Get me alone at a con sometime (assuming I make it to one in the next few years, grumble grumble) and I'll tell a few stories...
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:-
There's no evidence at all, that's the problem-- which still to me implies that to say that they existed falls in the same category as saying Avon likes disco-dancing.
Oh no. Surely that's not ordered enough for him? I think strict formation ballroom. Although whether he'd dance clockwise or counterclockwise, or both, is a whole other debate which may not be suitable for discussion on this lyst. ;-)
Emma.
emma wrote:
Fiona:-
There's no evidence at all, that's the problem-- which still to me implies that to say that they existed falls in the same category as saying Avon likes disco-dancing.
Oh no. Surely that's not ordered enough for him? I think strict formation ballroom. Although whether he'd dance clockwise or counterclockwise, or both, is a whole other debate which may not be suitable for discussion on this lyst. ;-)
Are you sure he's not a closet Morris dancer?
Kat W.
Emma asked, with regard to Disco Avon:
Oh no. Surely that's not ordered enough for him? I think strict formation ballroom.
The lyrics from one of the "Strictly Ballroom" numbers are very B7 slash ("If you don't make your mind up, we'll never get started...And please don't tell me, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.") So far I haven't figured out a rationale for getting an OC version of Paul Mercurio to teach Avon the rhumba, but I'm working on it.
And Katharine W. asked:
Are you sure he's not a closet Morris dancer?
I'm pretty sure he isn't--he'd have to cooperate with too many other people.
-(Y)
Tavia: If there's no such thing as written pornography, then some of us have indeed labored in vain....
----- Original Message ----- From: emma emmapeel@calvino.freeserve.co.uk
Fiona:-
There's no evidence at all, that's the problem-- which still to me
implies
that to say that they existed falls in the same category as saying Avon likes disco-dancing.
Oh no. Surely that's not ordered enough for him? I think strict formation ballroom.
What *is* it about you people, Avon and ballroom dancing?
I mean, really. Don't you know the series canon categorically proves he's a swing fan?!?
I mean, look at the evidence:
In "Trial," he suggests that they "swing the ship about,"
In "Mission to Destiny" his tussle with Sara is visibly an attempt to tango, you can tell by the way he holds on to her hand...
If you wind the video back really slowly, then fast-forward it, during the bit at the beginning of "Ultraworld" where he's walking across the flight deck, it looks *exactly* as though he's doing the Lindy...
It's been years since I've seen the episode, but I'm pretty damn sure that in RoD Anna says that she and Avon used to dance the Charleston...
Any one want to dispute this? Come on, have a go... :)
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
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Fiona Moore wrote:
Like you, I also object to people saying "you're wrong to view it that way," whatever that is. But thing is, and one reason why I may have been coming across rather anti-slash lately, is because I also don't like the "anything goes!" attitude which basically holds that one can read anything into the text, and it can't be contradicted because all interpretations are valid (I blame the extreme elements of the postmodernist movement myself, grumble grumble). People can interpret whatever they like, but to my mind there's some that fits the text, some that fits the text with a bit of stretching and straining, and some that doesn't fit the text at all, and these should all be acknowledged as such.
Basically, this is the difference between fanfic and litcrit. Fanfic is a creative exercise which takes the show as a starting point and then diverges in some direction or other from it. Litcrit is an attempt to find a sound critical interpretation of the text, where soundness depends on such things as consonance with the textual evidence, parsimony, coherence, and all that.
In fanfic, pretty much anything _does_ go. That's half the fun. In litcrit, however, one is far more constrained, and if an interpretation struggles to fit the text that's a mark against it.
For example, I've just written an essay for my political philosophy course on whether the position Machiavelli adopts in 'The Prince' is moral. Now, there's nothing in that book to prove that it wasn't inspired by the Doctor, when he chased the Master to ground in 15th century Florence. In fact, that might make a pretty fun story. However, I'm pretty confident that I would have got poor marks if I'd made that the basis of my essay. Instead, I made all sorts of (I think) reasonable arguments based closely on plausible readings of the text.
Similarly, slash is fine as fanfic. It's just pretty poor litcrit. When it's advanced as if it were litcrit -- when someone seriously proposes a physical relationship between Avon and Blake as an interpretation of the show -- then it's right to criticise that position. When it's done as a fun bit of fanfic, though, it should be allowed a good deal more latitude.
Iain
Fiona asked:
Yes, but as we've both been saying (I think!) some ventures are easier to fit in with the canon than others.
OK, but is the venture interesting? well-written? plausible about human motivations? arousing?
(although I have to admit, the slash I was thinking of when I made that remark didn't actually do much to my mind to explore the characterisation of/relationship between the partners, but made me think about other
things,
e.g. the ethics of terrorism). But as I've said, the PWPs I've seen tend
to
outnumber the stuff which interests me.
Fair enough argument :), but one also has to note that Travis (who has previously stated "I know that man better than myself") picked Inga as the bait to lure Blake to Exbar.
However, considering the fact that Blake went to a lot of trouble for total strangers in, e.g., Time Squad and Mission to Destiny, taking ANY hostage might have lured Blake.
But where does he utterly not respond? He does. I've pointed out how he touches her face in "Bounty." In "Killer," they sit together on the couch, smiling and chatting with lots of eye contact. In fact, there is mutual eye-contact and smiling in many episodes.
It's a wonderful relief for Blake to have a conversation with someone who isn't slagging him off.
Which to my mind suggests that what was intended to be a violent act suddenly turned sexual, for him if not her.
Mission to Destiny is very early in the series--I read it to mean that Avon is still disturbed by enjoying violence
Cheers, cos I'm not insisting anything of the sort :). Just arguing for
more
acknowledgement as to what's a strong possibility and what's a bit of a stretch of credibility, and what's a fantasy.
Everything about B7 is fantasy, including canon.
You're getting one, or a partial one anyway :). But as I said, I have only my own experience to go on.... can you give me an example, either online
or
on an offlist post?
Nova, Bend Me Shape Me (for a whole zine worth of marvelous stories); my personal favorite Nova story, Five Easy Pieces is available online at Liberator Belatrix Carter, passim Predatrix, Erogenous Zone (yeah, it's just one [description omitted] after another [expletive deleted] but by no means short of psychological insight) Most stories in Fire & Ice
-(Y)
PS--a brilliant bibliography has been composed listing "Gen for Slash Fans"-- perhaps the converse is also needed.
From: Dana Shilling dshilling@worldnet.att.net
Yes, but as we've both been saying (I think!) some ventures are easier
to
fit in with the canon than others.
OK, but is the venture interesting? well-written? plausible about human motivations? arousing?
IOW, never mind the nutritional value, just enjoy the taste. Slash - the chocolate eclair of fanfic!
Of course, *all* gen is GM-free and organically grown:)
Everything about B7 is fantasy, including canon.
I used to think that the SF/F milieu might be the prime factor permitting the slashing of such series of B7, ST, and the like. That is, that a setting removed from the real world would facilitate the consideration of relationships that would not normally be considered as a serious possibility in the real world. But the slashing of mundane shows like The Professionals, Starsky and Hutch, and even Inspector Morse, rather knocks that one out of the window.
OTOH, it could be that slashing began (as it appears to have done) with ST *because* it was set in an ORL (outside real life) milieu, but having established itself there it spread to fandoms of other shows with IRL milieux.
Was ST the first show (SF/F or otherwise) to be slashed? Was it, indeed, the first show to generate a body of fanfic? (Fanfic of a kind goes back at least to Sherlock Holmes, I think I've heard it said, long before television.)
<Mr Bronson>And for some of us, Dana, Blake's 7 is *not* fantasy, but occupies a locus on the SF/F continuum which resides towards the end we call SF. </Mr Bronson>
Neil
Neil said:
IOW, never mind the nutritional value, just enjoy the taste. Slash - the chocolate eclair of fanfic!
Lovely! Can I use that as a blurb?
I used to think that the SF/F milieu might be the prime factor permitting the slashing of such series of B7, ST, and the like. That is, that a setting removed from the real world would facilitate the consideration of relationships that would not normally be considered as a serious
possibility
in the real world. But the slashing of mundane shows like The Professionals, Starsky and Hutch, and even Inspector Morse, rather knocks that one out of the window.
I'm beginning to think that the major requisite for slashing a domain is N hot guys greater than or equal to 2, or possibly one really hot guy and lots of OCs. I'm still trying to understand why there seems to be so much more slash than hetsmut.
Was ST the first show (SF/F or otherwise) to be slashed? Was it, indeed, the first show to generate a body of fanfic? (Fanfic of a kind goes back
at
least to Sherlock Holmes, I think I've heard it said, long before television.)
The spread of fanfic depends on...wait for it...the means of production. It's tough but possible to circulate typescripts, easier if someone has a mimeograph machine, and lots easier with copiers, duplicators, and the Web.
<Mr Bronson>And for some of us, Dana, Blake's 7 is *not* fantasy, but occupies a locus on the SF/F continuum which resides towards the end we
call
SF. </Mr Bronson>
In which case I'm sorry, considering how crap most of the science is.
-(Y)
From: Dana Shilling dshilling@worldnet.att.net
<Mr Bronson>And for some of us, Dana, Blake's 7 is *not* fantasy, but occupies a locus on the SF/F continuum which resides towards the end we
call
SF. </Mr Bronson>
In which case I'm sorry, considering how crap most of the science is.
<Mr Bronson again>Science Fiction need not be defined as Science Fiction solely by the quality of its science. </Mr Bronson again>
Neil
Dana Shilling wrote:
I'm still trying to understand why there seems to be so much more slash than hetsmut.
When I stumbled across the existence of slash and was trying to puzzle out the attraction - particularly the 'by women, for women' aspect of it - I postulated to myself that it might have something to do with having one's two favourite male characters all to oneself (as opposed to having to share them with another female, even a female character). If there's any truth to that at all, it might go some way toward explaining the discrepancy.
Mistral
----- Original Message ----- From: Dana Shilling dshilling@worldnet.att.net
Fiona asked:
Yes, but as we've both been saying (I think!) some ventures are easier
to
fit in with the canon than others.
OK, but is the venture interesting? well-written? plausible about human motivations? arousing?
None of which are actually at issue here.
Fair enough argument :), but one also has to note that Travis (who has previously stated "I know that man better than myself") picked Inga as
the
bait to lure Blake to Exbar.
However, considering the fact that Blake went to a lot of trouble for
total
strangers in, e.g., Time Squad and Mission to Destiny, taking ANY hostage might have lured Blake.
As I said in the part of my paragraph which you snipped, though, that could have been something Travis could have done. A la Darth Vader, he could have contacted Blake and said "Talk, or I'll blow up [fill in name of planet here]." As it was, he didn't. Which suggests that he wanted to appeal to some element of Blake beyond just abstract altruism.
But where does he utterly not respond? He does. I've pointed out how he touches her face in "Bounty." In "Killer," they sit together on the
couch,
smiling and chatting with lots of eye contact. In fact, there is mutual eye-contact and smiling in many episodes.
It's a wonderful relief for Blake to have a conversation with someone who isn't slagging him off.
Is it, really? Cally seldom slags him off. Gan never does, as far as I can recall. Vila's occasionally acerbic, but by no means always. Avon does, but he's not the only person Blake talks to on the ship.
Which to my mind suggests that what was intended to be a violent act suddenly turned sexual, for him if not her.
Mission to Destiny is very early in the series--I read it to mean that Avon is still disturbed by enjoying violence
Again, that's a side point. I was using that scene, in which eye contact is both sexual and hostile (and you can't deny that he grabs her breast and that they tussle awfully closely), to contrast with Betty's cited scenes of Tynus and Avon, in which they eye contact is exclusively hostile.
Cheers, cos I'm not insisting anything of the sort :). Just arguing for
more
acknowledgement as to what's a strong possibility and what's a bit of a stretch of credibility, and what's a fantasy.
Everything about B7 is fantasy, including canon.
Ahem. Once again. let me redefine my terms. Rewrite that sentence to read "acknowledgement as to what *is supported by the canon*, *could fit the canon but only if you stretch it*, and *what is totally unsupported by the canon.*" Do you understand now?
<examples of slash stories snipped>
Yes. But what are the URLs, if these *are* in fact available online? I asked for online or privately posted stories for a specific reason, i.e. that as a doctoral student I don't have unlimited amounts of money or time (well, I'm OK on the latter for now :), but my supervisor gets back from Berlin on Friday). Consequently, I was asking for one or two stories that Betty considered to be thought-provoking slash, to instigate a discussion on the thoughtprovokingness of slash.
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
Disclaimers still applicable. Some settling may have occured during shipment.
(Also, I should add that I am currently drugged up with narcotic cough syrup, so if this post is even more disjointed and nonsensical than usual, that's my excuse. :))
Fiona Moore wrote:
People can interpret whatever they like, but to my mind there's some that fits the text, some that fits the text with a bit of stretching and straining, and some that doesn't fit the text at all, and these should all be acknowledged as such.
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.
Not to sound utterly Tory here, but I do think it also has to be acknowledged that some people do have sensibilities which should be respected for politeness' sake (which I am blatantly disregarding at the moment, but in fairness I'll point out that we're both using serious warnings on the topic thread).
Definitely. I don't remotely disagree here, either, which is why I stuck serious warnings on my posts in the first place, and which is why I was actually rather reluctant to address the subject here at all. 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. In my experience, slash fans are generally been conscientious about people's sensibilities (if only because they don't want to deal with all the flak they're likely to get if they're not). That's why Freedom City exists (and, believe me, if this conversation were being held there, you'd be hearing a *lot* more from the pro-slash people). That's why every slash or adult zine or website I've ever seen has been very clearly labelled as such.
Thus, while I disagree with the idea of calling slashers "wrong," I can see why discretion might be advised.
There's a world of difference between the two, though, I think.
Avon and Blake (particularly on Avon's part).
As I'm sure you're aware, I don't agree, and for reasons we've discussed :).
Yup. But you asked for my opinion. :)
Jenna and Blake (almost entirely on Jenna's part, I think).
But the fact that in "Duel," Jenna is the one chosen to represent the "death of a friend" suggests it's mutual.
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. I don't think it's very *solid* evidence, personally, but, as I've said before, solid evidence doesn't really seem to exist one way or another, so... <shrug>
Possibly Cally and Avon (though perhaps more on Cally's than on Avon's).
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.
. 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." By contrast, Tarrant and Vila *do* strike me as very much "exclusive heterosexuals." I'm not sure what the difference is, really.
I did, and those were what I was referring to when I said that I thought slash which did take other complexities into account could work for me (although I have to admit, the slash I was thinking of when I made that remark didn't actually do much to my mind to explore the characterisation of/relationship between the partners, but made me think about other things, e.g. the ethics of terrorism). But as I've said, the PWPs I've seen tend to outnumber the stuff which interests me.
I won't dispute that PWP's probably outnumber the really complex and interesting stuff in slash. But then, I think that "shallow" action-adventure gen fiction probably outnumbers really complex and interesting gen fiction, too. Have you heard of Sturgeon's Law? 99% of everything is crap. :)
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.
Sorry, not sure I understand. Please accept that I'm dumb, and spell it out for me.
Er, I thought I did, in the bit you snipped. I see that *emotional* attatchment as being primary in that relationship, and much slash fiction also sees it that way, I think. If Avon and Blake become lovers, it's because that complex emotional relationship already exists. It's not that that relationship springs automatically into being simply because they're having sex.
Does that make sense, or has the codeine muddled it up? :)
Fair enough argument :), but one also has to note that Travis (who has previously stated "I know that man better than myself") picked Inga as the bait to lure Blake to Exbar. Not Ushton; not Ushton and Inga (even if we assume that Blake has no other surviving relatives which might be equal candidates); not even a planetful of innocent people whom Travis will destroy if Blake doesn't talk. The bait has to be something Travis knew he would take-- hence he would have to go for somebody to whom Blake had a strong emotional connection. And again, if it had simply been the kin tie, why not Ushton, or both of them?
It makes perfect sense to me. Presumably, Travis knew that Blake and Inga had had a close emotional relationship (more like a brother-sister one than a cousinly one). Travis, if he really does know Blake that well, also knows how important family is to Blake, and that, in particular, the way to get to him is to use someone for whom he he's had not just familial feelings, but *protective* feelings. Even if it was a long time ago, and those feelings are no longer immediate (and he *does* say "she was important to me once," not "she is important to me," so that seems to be the case *regardless* of the nature of the relationship), Blake will remember that relationship and feel bound by it. (And this could be very much magnified by the fact that Blake's *actual* brother and sister are dead, leaving Inga the closest thing to a sibling he's got left.)
Basically, I *do* agree that Blake must have had a strong emotional attatchment to Inga. I just don't think it was sexual. 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. :)
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.
Or it could be that he's gotten fatter :) (only joking! I accept your point).
:)
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).
*All* females under forty seem to get referred to as "girls" at some point or other in the series. It was the 1970s after all.
True, which is why I said "seems to reinforce that" instead of "confirms that." But it was kind of an offhand point, anyway. Toss it out if you like; I don't think it makes a great deal of difference. :)
I think that's impeccably argued so far. However, at that age, people frequently do have romantic relationships which mean a lot to them at the time and afterwards, without actually having sex. This, though, doesn't make the feelings any less romantic, or important for both parties. Teenagers do also have crushes, which again are powerful for those involved, and which resonate in later life (as anyone who's ever met up with someone they fancied in secondary school later on knows) but don't generally lead to sex.
True. The possibility, like so many possibilities, is open. But, personally, I think the age difference is great enough that it's highly unlikely. (In other words, *I* see the theory that Blake and Inga had a romantic relationship as more of a stretch from canon than the theory that they had a more siblingesque kind of relationship. They're both within the realm of plausibility, though.)
[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."
I still need to re-watch that ep, because I don't remember this bit at all (despite having watched it multiple times in the last year or so).
In "Killer," they sit together on the couch, smiling and chatting with lots of eye contact. In fact, there is mutual eye-contact and smiling in many episodes.
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...)
Btw, do you see "Redemption" as evidence that Jenna and *Avon* had a sexual attraction? The way that she's sitting cuddled up next to him in the cell?
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.
Hmm. Trying to decide if I see sexual elements in his interaction with Sara or not...
The scene I'm thinking of is the bit where he and the crew stage the gunfight to bring her out into the open. She comes out, he grabs hold of her and, possibly by accident but it does happen, grabs her breast.
You're kidding! OK, *that* I *must* re-watch! :)
They struggle briefly, during which time they are face-to-face, quite close together, and are making eye contact. Avon then punches her; she falls into the arms of the crewmen, and Avon says, rather absently, as he moves away, "You'd better take her. I rather enjoyed that."
Which to my mind suggests that what was intended to be a violent act suddenly turned sexual, for him if not her.
I tend to interpet that more as him enjoying the violence, the adrenaline rush... And feeling just a little bit weird about it, since Sara is such a tiny little thing that it almost seems wrong to be beating up on her, no matter how well she fights. But, OK, it's easy to see how that can be read as sexual, and that kind of a reaction seems quite in character for Avon. Not that it matters a whole lot for this discussion, as I never disputed the fact that Avon was interested in women...
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.)
Again, if you're talking about a sexual interest,
Yes, that's what I meant.
while I do agree that the Avon-Cally evidence is slender and ambiguous, I've still yet to see a single example of Avon-Blake interaction that even falls into that category. The episode "Sarcophagus" is IMO a very clever one in the way that it has its cake and eats it as far as A/C is concerned, it gives and refutes evidence for both sides... but again, ambiguity for Avon and Cally is more than nothing for Avon and Blake.
Well, I'd agree with that to an extent. Certainly the A/C ambiguity is a major facet of "Sarcophagus," so it's *there* in the episode in ways that A/B never was. More textual than subtextual, you could say.
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.
There's no evidence at all, that's the problem-- which still to me implies that to say that they existed falls in the same category as saying Avon likes disco-dancing.
<Shrug> Seems to me that this eventually just boils down to a fundamental differnce of viewpoint, really.
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!)
Cheers, cos I'm not insisting anything of the sort :).
I didn't believe that you were! :)
Just arguing for more acknowledgement as to what's a strong possibility and what's a bit of a stretch of credibility, and what's a fantasy.
Cheerfully and happily acknowledged!
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. :)
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).
True, though as I argued in my article "There Is A Hole in Your Plotline" (Zenith Magazine, 2000 <buy it, buy it>),
Bought it. :)
compared to series which were actually intended to have a soaplike element (e.g. B5), the changes are pretty subtle and minimal.
They certainly were so compared to B5, but, based on what I remember of the article, I think I do see them as being more significant than you do.
Furthermore, the point Boucher seems to be making there is not that relationships couldn't develop and change, but that they shouldn't change so much or in such a way that somebody dropping casually into the series midway in couldn't pick up pretty quickly on the relationships between the characters.
I dunno, though. Seems to me that someone coming in at, oh, say "Terminal" is going to be pretty darned confused about who this Blake person is and exactly what Avon's relationship is to him. As an off-the-top-of-my-head example. Or, a while back, I showed a third-season episode to a friend of mine who'd only seen part of the first season. He was confused. "What happened? Who *are* these people?"
However, were an explicitly-portrayed romance to happen between, say, Blake and Jenna, a lot of internal continuity would need to be built up. It's true that one could tune into one episode and understand them as friends, and then into another and understand them as lovers, but it does require a bit more viewer explanation than simply having Travis say "I'm on the run from the Federation."
I dunno, that seems to me to underestimate the intelligence and flexibility of the audience somewhat. They were friends. They became lovers. What's so hard to understand about that?
I do see where Boucher was coming from on this, though.
(Another parallell e.g.: as someone who watched DS9 for a while, lost interest and then happened across an episode a few years later, my reaction was "Odo and Kira?!? When? How?" Not hard to see they were involved, but a bit harder to understand what had happened to the characters).
Hmm. Whereas my reaction when it was revealed that Odo was in love with Kira was "He *is*?!" [pause] "Oh, yes, of *course* he is!" But then, I *was* watching the show from the beginning, so admittedly my perspective is different.
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.
As we've seen. But I'm still campaigning for a continuum!
Oh, well, I'm *always* in favor of a continuum! But the simple fact is, no two people are going to place everything on exactly the same places on that continuum.
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.
You're getting one, or a partial one anyway :).
No, no, definitely not necessary.
But as I said, I have only my own experience to go on.... can you give me an example, either online or on an offlist post?
I'll give it a little thought (perhaps once the cough syrup wears off :)), and give you some examples off-list.
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.
Including politics and allegorical representations :). Bit too character-oriented for my take, but hey, as we've both been saying, live and let live...
Well, you know, if it weren't possible to take a character-oriented approach to the series, I wouldn't be watching it, let alone be enthused enough about it to want to spend hours on-line discussing it. :) But this kinda goes back to my (very badly expressed, IIRC) comments to Neil about the "characters vs. ideology" thing, which I'm not entirely sure I want to get into again...
Oog. Get me alone at a con sometime (assuming I make it to one in the next few years, grumble grumble) and I'll tell a few stories...
You're probably more likely to make it to a con in the next few years than *I* am, alas. <Deep sigh>
Disclaimers still applicable. May contain nuts and/or dairy products.
----- Original Message ----- From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
(Also, I should add that I am currently drugged up with narcotic cough syrup, so if this post is even more disjointed and nonsensical than usual, that's my excuse. :))
Get well soon! Just to even the score, it's late at night (well, early in the morning :) here in Oxford, and I've had a long day :)).
People can interpret whatever they like, but to my mind there's some that fits the text, some that fits the text with a bit of stretching and straining, and some that doesn't fit the text at all, and these should all be acknowledged as such.
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.
Not to sound utterly Tory here, but I do think it also has to be acknowledged that some people do have sensibilities which should be respected for politeness' sake (which I am blatantly disregarding at the moment, but
in
fairness I'll point out that we're both using serious warnings on the
topic
thread).
Definitely. I don't remotely disagree here, either, which is why I stuck serious warnings on my posts in the first place, and which is why I was actually rather reluctant to address the subject here at all. 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. And in any case, it takes two to tango...
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>. 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 (which also seems to have at least partly fueled the anti-hijacking and anti-silliness threads last month).
Avon and Blake (particularly on Avon's part).
As I'm sure you're aware, I don't agree, and for reasons we've discussed
:).
Yup. But you asked for my opinion. :)
True :).
Jenna and Blake (almost entirely on Jenna's part, I think).
But the fact that in "Duel," Jenna is the one chosen to represent the
"death
of a friend" suggests it's mutual.
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 :).
Possibly Cally and Avon (though perhaps more on Cally's than on Avon's).
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?
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. But I'm aware of your feelings about canonicity of interviews :), so this is cited as a side point only.
. 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. As I've pointed out, we don't see any sort of same-sex flirtation, sexual eye- or physical contact, innuendos of the "every vice... every pleasure..." sort, which we do see for Egrorian, Krantor, Carnell and Dorian. Shane may take issue with this :), but if we're confining ourselves to onscreen hard evidence, I don't think body language or fashion sense are admissible.
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... :).
I won't dispute that PWP's probably outnumber the really complex and interesting stuff in slash. But then, I think that "shallow" action-adventure gen fiction probably outnumbers really complex and interesting gen fiction, too. Have you heard of Sturgeon's Law? 99% of everything is crap. :)
Fair point :). I've gotten your other post and I'm going to read those stories and reply. May take a day or two, though.
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.
Sorry, not sure I understand. Please accept that I'm dumb, and spell it
out
for me.
Er, I thought I did, in the bit you snipped. I see that *emotional* attatchment as being primary in that relationship, and much slash fiction also sees it that way, I think. If Avon and Blake become lovers, it's because that complex emotional relationship already exists. It's not that that relationship springs automatically into being simply because they're having sex.
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.
It makes perfect sense to me. Presumably, Travis knew that Blake and Inga had had a close emotional relationship (more like a brother-sister one than a cousinly one). Travis, if he really does know Blake that well, also knows how important family is to Blake, and that, in particular, the way to get to him is to use someone for whom he he's had not just familial feelings, but *protective* feelings. Even if it was a long time ago, and those feelings are no longer immediate (and he *does* say "she was important to me once," not "she is important to me," so that seems to be the case *regardless* of the nature of the relationship), Blake will remember that relationship and feel bound by it. (And this could be very much magnified by the fact that Blake's *actual* brother and sister are dead, leaving Inga the closest thing to a sibling he's got left.)
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! But see my posts elsewhere on evidence for Blake's heterosexuality vs homo/bisexuality.
[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."
I still need to re-watch that ep, because I don't remember this bit at all (despite having watched it multiple times in the last year or so).
In "Killer," they sit together on the couch, smiling and chatting with lots of eye contact. In fact, there is mutual eye-contact and smiling in many episodes.
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....
Btw, do you see "Redemption" as evidence that Jenna and *Avon* had a sexual attraction? The way that she's sitting cuddled up next to him in the cell?
No, on the grounds that they *were* inside a prison cell, and thus had non-sexual justification for cuddling up together-- no idea what was going to happen to them, after all. Besides, that contact does seem to be a one-off for the pair of them.
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. 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?
[Sara struggle snipped]
Which to my mind suggests that what was intended to be a violent act suddenly turned sexual, for him if not her.
I tend to interpet that more as him enjoying the violence, the adrenaline rush... And feeling just a little bit weird about it, since Sara is such a tiny little thing that it almost seems wrong to be beating up on her, no matter how well she fights. But, OK, it's easy to see how that can be read as sexual, and that kind of a reaction seems quite in character for Avon. Not that it matters a whole lot for this discussion, as I never disputed the fact that Avon was interested in women...
True, but others have... :). And again, the point was that we do occasionally see things like that for Avon and women, but not for Avon and men.
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.
There's no evidence at all, that's the problem-- which still to me
implies
that to say that they existed falls in the same category as saying Avon likes disco-dancing.
<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.
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 :).
True, though as I argued in my article "There Is A Hole in Your
Plotline"
(Zenith Magazine, 2000 <buy it, buy it>),
Bought it. :)
Good!
compared to series which were actually intended to have a soaplike element (e.g. B5), the changes are pretty subtle and minimal.
They certainly were so compared to B5, but, based on what I remember of the article, I think I do see them as being more significant than you do.
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.
Furthermore, the point Boucher seems to be making there is not that relationships couldn't develop and change, but that
they
shouldn't change so much or in such a way that somebody dropping
casually
into the series midway in couldn't pick up pretty quickly on the relationships between the characters.
I dunno, though. Seems to me that someone coming in at, oh, say "Terminal" is going to be pretty darned confused about who this Blake person is and exactly what Avon's relationship is to him. As an off-the-top-of-my-head example. Or, a while back, I showed a third-season episode to a friend of mine who'd only seen part of the first season. He was confused. "What happened? Who *are* these people?"
In the first case, a season-ender episode, which Chris in the interview exempts from the continuity rule-- and in fairness, it *is* explained who Blake is and what Avon's relationship to him was/is over the course of the episode. In the second case, again, Chris seems to have been referring to within-season viewing (again, recall the original mode of consumption of the series-- it was being shown with no assumption that it was going to be rerun, and indeed with no idea whether or not they would be able to continue from one season to the next).
However, were an explicitly-portrayed romance to happen between, say,
Blake
and Jenna, a lot of internal continuity would need to be built up. It's
true
that one could tune into one episode and understand them as friends, and then into another and understand them as lovers, but it does require a
bit
more viewer explanation than simply having Travis say "I'm on the run
from
the Federation."
I dunno, that seems to me to underestimate the intelligence and flexibility of the audience somewhat. They were friends. They became lovers. What's so hard to understand about that?
I refer you to my reaction on Odo and Kira-- or to your friend's reaction to the third season, or to the fun times my family used to have when I was small and we were watching Doctor Who and occasionally missing episodes due to other commitments (these being pre-VCR days). 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.
Actually, too, I think there's been a shift in intervening years on SF attitudes to continuity. In ST:TOS, B7 and other series of the 60s-70s (I'm exempting serials like DW), the writers and creators seem to pretty much take a minimal-continuity attitude to their series; ST:TOS, Space 1999, The Avengers and Randall and Hopkirk are all shows which you can pretty much pick up anywhere without too much strain to follow the relationships. In the late 80s and early 90s, though, we get shows like ST:TNG and its offshoots, followed by B5, Buffy etc., which (although admittedly you can to some extent jump in late in the series and get by) do take a quasi-soap format. This is (get to the point, Fiona!) not to say that audiences have necessarily increased in intelligence :), but that at the time of B7's creation, writers in general were more wary than today of putting in too much continuity, and perhaps audiences were less "conditioned" to accept soap elements in SF.
Hmm. Whereas my reaction when it was revealed that Odo was in love with Kira was "He *is*?!" [pause] "Oh, yes, of *course* he is!" But then, I *was* watching the show from the beginning, so admittedly my perspective is different.
My point exactly :). Whereas I was someone who did know the premises of the series, but who dropped in casually from time to time, as a non-fan.
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.
As we've seen. But I'm still campaigning for a continuum!
Oh, well, I'm *always* in favor of a continuum! But the simple fact is, no two people are going to place everything on exactly the same places on that continuum.
Which is good, or else we'd have a very boring lyst :).
Including politics and allegorical representations :). Bit too
character-oriented for my take, but hey, as we've both been saying, live
and
let live...
Well, you know, if it weren't possible to take a character-oriented approach to the series, I wouldn't be watching it, let alone be enthused enough about it to want to spend hours on-line discussing it. :) But this kinda goes back to my (very badly expressed, IIRC) comments to Neil about the "characters vs. ideology" thing, which I'm not entirely sure I want to get into again...
Nor do I. I'm a non-CJ (perhaps a bit surprisingly for an anthropologist) but I freely accept, and celebrate, the fact that other people are.
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
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. :)
Usual warnings apply. No animals were harmed during the making of this post.
----- Original Message ----- From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
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.
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)
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 :).
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.
Yes, I agree with that-- it's like any group, there's always one or two bad apples. But most slash fans I know are *very* considerate people.
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 :).
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.
OK :), just giving them their proper place in the argument to hand-- which is as support for onscreen evidence, with the onscreen stuff prioritised.
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...
Oh, and see my continuity argument, further down, for a reason why this couldn't happen within the series format as presented...:).
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.
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.
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. :)
Heh, I'm sure they'll be fine...
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...
Ah, but as I said, the thing with the heterosexual evidence is that it is very ambiguous and open to interpretation, but the gay stuff just ain't there. I think I said to Steve a while back: hetero evidence: slim, it's true. Gay: nonexistant, for the principals anyway.
[Jenna]
I find it easy to imagine that she did, in fact, do this and he utterly failed to respond...
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."
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. If he didn't want to encourage her, I'd've thought he'd've broken off eye contact or responded with a fraternal pat on the shoulder.
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."
See my post on the Blake/Jenna thread, on the subject of physical contact. To sum it up for other people who aren't following it, though: Carnell and Dorian convey their bisexuality without touching the person at whom the conveyance is aimed, through looks and glances. Well more subtle than a touch. But even when you get down to that minute level, there's still nothing between Blake and Avon.
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.
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.
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.
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>.
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. :)
But mentioning the smugglers' trick was effectively a pretext to bring Jenna into the conversation. He could equally have waved aside Tarrant's remark about his flying and steered the conversation round to limiters or aliens.
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. I also think that the evidence on side A doesn't just support the heterosexual interpretation, but also actually works *against* the homosexual interpretation. See above on known bisexuals in B7.
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.)
Which brings me actually to a fairly major point. If we take the drama-series format as outlined by Chris Boucher, then only the season-opener and -ender episodes can be the ones to bring in any major format changes. Other changes, e.g. the death of a character, can occur within the middle of the season, and so on top of those you get some episodes which do have to be viewed in order in order to "get" the series (while it does have to be said that you can see, for instance, "Hostage" without having seen "Trial," through the miracle of expository dialogue, it's a bit harder to see "Hostage" before "Trial"). Within those confines, though, most of the episodes can be pretty much viewed in any order within seasons (as I said, they weren't thinking in terms of interseason reruns), or even, as I said before, snipped out.
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.
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...:)
Nor do I. I'm a non-CJ (perhaps a bit surprisingly for an
anthropologist)
And my degree is in astrophysics. Go figure. :)
No accounting for tastes... :)
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
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."
Usual warning. Void where prohibited by law.
----- Original Message ----- From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
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. :)
Actually, I've read your definitions back three times and I think in the end that they are the same thing, just differently expressed. So I withdraw any suggestions about arguing at cross-purposes :).
<hypothetical bi episode snipped>
:)! 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.)
"Truce" proposal: Let's both acknowledge that : a) speculation is a wonderful thing :), b) the series was written according to conventions which (unfortunately? perhaps...) precluded relationships between the principals...
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.
You're partly right here-- the look does come later, but she's not looking sad, her face is expressionless :). But again, this is another example of the ambiguity which stems from the fact that the series could not have open and developing sexual relationships between the principals-- we get a scene which *could* be read as mutual sexual interest, or as comfort, or as anything in between. So on B7, one can have one's cake and eat it-- one can have the possibility of a relationship without the actuality.
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.
Yes, but staying on the canon-or-not-canon discourse, it doesn't work (though yes, I agree that taking a more speculative/imaginative line, it does..:)...).
I hate to say this, though, but I'm a bit confused as to what your interpretation of the (hypothetical) relationship is-- a while ago I thought you were saying that Avon was pursuing Blake, but your last paragraph suggests it's the other way around. Just a request for clarification, btw, and totally a side topic...
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?
But we don't have disproof, either :).
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. :)
And I see none for him being bisexual :).
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."
:), and true. However, my definition of contracanonical is something that contradicts the canon in some way. So once again, if we can't have a relationship within the series canon because of the format of the series, then to write in a relationship does strike me as something of a contradiction of canon. Hope that clears this up.
Having hashed out the relative status of B/A slash with regard to canon, onscreen evidence, dramatic convention, visual grammar and entertainment value, shall we go for dinner? <offers arm-- in a totally nonsexual way, of course :)>
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
Well, I was going to send this off-list, but, what the heck, I've already admitted in public that I read the stuff; I suppose I might as well name names. :) And maybe this will be of interest to others... If it ain't of interest to you, go for that "delete" button!
(Oh, and the word "you" when used below refers to Fiona, since it was her I was responding to...
Fiona asked for an example of non-shallow slash... I've had a brief look through my zine collection, and several leap out at me:
I think I mentioned Bryn Lantry's "Puppeteer" on the Lyst at one point, actually, and how utterly brilliant I thought it was. IMO it's a *great* example of just the kind of thing I was talking about. It's bound not to be to everyone's taste, but... Well, I can imagine one not liking the prose style, or disagreeing with the characterization, or disliking its extremely character-oriented focus, but I can't imagine anyone in their right mind dismissing it as "shallow." It's very psychologically complex story, and one where the actual sex act iself is almost irrelevant. Certainly *Avon*, in the story, regards it as irrelevant: his interest in Blake is emotional rather than sexual, and he regards the sex primarily as a way to motivate Blake to stay with him.
Actually, Bryn Lantry's work in general tends to be very complex in exactly the ways that I like... Though it probably doesn't remotely hurt that her view of the emotional elements of the Avon-Blake relationship is very similar to my own. (Some of her stories, IMO, are considerably better than others, but "shallow" she certainly ain't.) Her "Fanatics" is another nice example, I think. (Not sure what zine that one was published in, unfortunately, as I only have a photocopy someone sent me, but I know the zine's out of print, or I wouldn't have accepted the photocopy.) A good study, among other things, of Avon working through his feelings for Blake.
Another good slash story that comes to mind (primarily, I think, because it hasn't been that long since I read it) is "Touching Life" by Vanessa Mullen in "Fire & Ice 7." It's many, many years PGP, and Avon is working for Servalan when Blake, who he thought dead on GP, suddenly shows up and leaves Avon faced with a major cased of divided loyalties... Actually, no, that doesn't remotely begin to do it justice, really, but IMO it's extremely good and thought-provoking, and might even involve some of those issues that *you're* interested in, (though then again, maybe not). Definitely qualifies as "complex," in any case.
(There's been a lot of complex A/B fic in "Fire & Ice" over the years (along with a lot of simpler PWP stuff and more than a few examples of what I tend to consider somewhat oversentimentalized romantic stuff), but I'd have to go back over my stash of zines and re-read things to remind myself which stories particularly appealed to me that way and why... And, while I wish I had the time to do that ('cause it sounds like fun!), alas, I don't.)
Somebody else mentioned Nova's "Bend Me, Shape Me"... Personally, I enjoy Nova's stories immensely: she's a very good writer, and she certainly does some interesting and complex things with the characters. But her versions of the characters do, to me, feel rather "stretched" from canon, which gives me the distinct suspicion that they're not likely to be to your taste...
It occurs to me, that most of the fic mentioned above is either out-of-print (I think I bought Judith's last copy of "Puppeteer,") or appears in zines which are almost certainly not generally going to be to your taste. Meaning that even if you were inclined to take a look at them, you'd probably have trouble doing so, unless you could find someone to borrow the zines from. So I thought it might be interesting/worthwhile to point out a few relevant stories that are actually available online. Unfortunately, there isn't really a terribly large amount of B7 slash on the web, and while much of what is there is IMO quite good, not all of it really qualifies as "complex" in the kinds of ways we're talking about. (So, for the record, just because I haven't singled out a particular story here doesn't mean I don't think it was good, or even that I don't think it was "complex.")
But, let's see...
-
Betty Ragan -
Betty Ragan -
Dana Shilling -
emma -
Fiona Moore -
Iain Coleman -
Katharine Woods -
Mistral -
Neil Faulkner