In a message dated 3/6/01 7:47:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, wilsonfisk2@yahoo.com writes:
<< If you (and I mean 'you' generic rather than specific) wrote an essay arguing Bklake and Avon were lovers you'd failt the course becasue you wouldn't be able to provide suifficent textual evidence.
Who cares?!? Most of us have no interest in writing an essay. We aren't taking university courses in Blakes 7, for Pete's sake. We're just fans, enjoying a hobby and a fandom. This kind of insistence on "textual evidence" and scholarly research (based on an old tv show!) and so on is ludicrous. I mean, if some fans want to do it because *they* think it's fun, have at it. But trying to insist that the rest of the fandom should adhere to the same sort of guidelines for "proof" and that they have to make a "case" or they can't discuss anything is just ludicrous.
Annie
wilsonfisk2@yahoo.com writes:
<< If you (and I mean 'you' generic rather than specific) wrote an essay arguing Bklake and Avon were lovers you'd failt the course becasue you wouldn't be able to provide suifficent textual evidence.
Actually, IIRC, several critics have published interpretations of "King Lear" that postulate Cordelia and the Fool are the same character, based largely on the fact that the two never appear in the same scene...
I'll admit when I first heard of slash, years ago, my reaction was shock and disbelief. Then, after sampling some stories, I found it added another dimension to the characters (or my reading of same) and, when I returned to viewing the episodes, allowed me to see them in a new light. (Oddly enough, a by-product of this has been that I'm now better able to appreciate feminist criticism and re-visionings of older works, because I can see how my take on slash has affected the way I interpret actions in the episodes and apply the same understanding to feminist rereadings and texts.)
DDJ
In a message dated 3/6/01 7:47:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, wilsonfisk2@yahoo.com writes: << If you (and I mean 'you' generic rather than specific) wrote an essay arguing Bklake and Avon were lovers you'd failt the course becasue you wouldn't be able to provide suifficent textual evidence.
Who cares?!? Most of us have no interest in writing an essay.
Thank you, Annie, for telling me what I'm interested in. I do *so* like to have my opinions represented without being asked.
Shane
"Avon, you were my only friend..." --Blake
From: Ashton7@aol.com
wilsonfisk2@yahoo.com writes:
<< If you (and I mean 'you' generic rather than specific) wrote an essay arguing Bklake and Avon were lovers you'd failt the course becasue you wouldn't be able to provide suifficent textual evidence.
Who cares?!?
Quite a few people, actually.
Most of us have no interest in writing an essay. We aren't taking university courses in Blakes 7, for Pete's sake. We're just fans, enjoying a hobby and a fandom.
But simply being a fan implies possession of a body of knowledge about the focus of fandom (in this case, B7), and it is through this body of knowledge that fan discourse takes place. There might not be a set course in B7, with pass marks and gradings, but fan discussion presumes some level of knowledge. Events in episodes are discussed, and the motivations of characters at particular moments are speculated upon, with evidence cited from the series to support a line of argument.
Which makes you something of an odd one out. Out of 111 posts to the Lyst since you returned on 13/02, only 5 or 6 actually contain any speculation on events within the series or even the background to the series. None of them cite any kind of canonical support. The rest are mainly about fandom, fannishness, and fan fiction - all perfectly legitimate topics for the Lyst, so I'm not accusing you of filling the Lyst with guff. But you might care to consider that the content of your posts is atypical. Nothing wrong with that per se. However, it does suggest that being *in fandom* is more important to you than being *a fan*, and that your primary focus of attention is not the series as such, but the discourse that evolves from it. Again, I see nothing wrong with that: we are all here because we want to talk to each other (or simply listen, in the case of lurkers), with B7 - however we may interpret it on an individual basis - as the common platform from which to enter into that discourse.
But to make a flat assertion that we are here 'just' to be fans and 'just' to have fun, goes directly against the grain of the common mode of fan discourse that *is* primarily focussed on the source, namely the citation of evidence from canon to support or deny a speculative proposition regarding ambiguities within the canon. I can't help but see some irony here, this statement coming as it does from one who has accused others of trying to 'control' the Lyst and the nature of the discussion that takes place within it, or suggested that they should even go elsewhere to pursue their debate.
To requote:
We aren't taking university courses in Blakes 7, for Pete's sake. We're just fans, enjoying a hobby and a fandom.
We might not be taking university courses, but most of us - you are a notable exception - are engaging in a mode of discourse that would allow us to take such a course if one existed. Much of the enjoyment of fandom comes from engaging in precisely that mode of discourse and from the possession of the body of knowledge (whether deeply encylopaedic or relatively shallow) that allows such discourse to take place at all. And when you go on to say:
But trying to insist that the rest of the fandom should adhere to the same sort of guidelines for "proof" and that they have to make a "case" or they can't discuss anything is just ludicrous.
you seem to be implying that 'the rest of fandom' represents a majority, whereas I detect precisely the opposite. The majority might not be looking for evidence that can stand up in a court of law, but they are nevertheless looking for evidence to support their speculations in a way that you have never done in any of your posts, at least not this year.
Despite the risk of being tedious, I'll repeat myself in the hope of avoiding any misunderstanding: I am not trying to suggest that your mode of engagement with fannish discourse is in any way 'wrong', inappropriate, or irrelevant. I merely think you are mistaken in thinking that your chosen mode of engagement is that adopted by most fans most of the time and hence represents a normative mode against which all others should be compared.
Neil
Neil Faulkner wrote:
But to make a flat assertion that we are here 'just' to be fans and 'just' to have fun, goes directly against the grain of the common mode of fan discourse that *is* primarily focussed on the source, namely the citation of evidence from canon to support or deny a speculative proposition regarding ambiguities within the canon. I can't help but see some irony here, this statement coming as it does from one who has accused others of trying to 'control' the Lyst and the nature of the discussion that takes place within it, or suggested that they should even go elsewhere to pursue their debate.
In fairness to Dana here, though, I don't think she's saying that she objects to other people engaging in that kind of discourse. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Dana, please!) It's just that she doesn't want to be pushed into that kind of discourse (or taken to task for not engaging in it) when it's not what she's interested in doing. Which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
In my perception, one thing that does seem to be happening here is that the pro-slashers are being... Well, I almost wanted to use the word "attacked," but that's too emotionally laden and probably not entirely accurate. Let's say "pressured" by the anti-slashers to *prove* that there is a homosexual subtext within canon. And the response of most of them has been "I'm not interested in doing that," but that doesn't seem to be considered an acceptable response by many. I don't think anybody's saying (at least, I *hope* nobody's saying!) that having canon-based discussions about stuff is wrong or bad to do. Personally, I often find it tremendous fun, and a nice intellectual exercise (if you couldn't tell that from the fact that I spent several long paragraphs arguing about the nature of Blake and Inga's relationship based on their respective ages and dialog from the episode). But fans who *don't* want to engage in that kind of discourse should be free not to. A lot of what I've seen in recents threads, though, seems to consist on people who've indicated they're *not* interested in doing that being repeatedly challenged to do so. I can understand a certain amount of frustration at this point.
Sorry if any of that seems a little too strong. Again, I'm not meaning to be offensive. I think this is just a major case of colliding viewpoints, where people more often than not seem to be talking right past each other.
I wrote:
In fairness to Dana here, though...
Whoops. It was, of course, Annie, and not Dana that Neil was responding to here. I blame the codeine. Apologies to all concerned.
----- Original Message ----- From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
Neil Faulkner wrote:
But to make a flat assertion that we are here 'just' to be fans and
'just'
to have fun, goes directly against the grain of the common mode of fan discourse that *is* primarily focussed on the source, namely the
citation of
evidence from canon to support or deny a speculative proposition
regarding
ambiguities within the canon. I can't help but see some irony here,
this
statement coming as it does from one who has accused others of trying to 'control' the Lyst and the nature of the discussion that takes place
within
it, or suggested that they should even go elsewhere to pursue their
debate.
In fairness to Dana here, though, I don't think she's saying that she objects to other people engaging in that kind of discourse.
(Correct me
if I'm wrong, Dana, please!) It's just that she doesn't want to be pushed into that kind of discourse (or taken to task for not engaging in it) when it's not what she's interested in doing. Which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Look, nobody's forcing her! As has been pointed out earlier, if you don't want to debate the canonicity of slash (or whatever), then don't.
In my perception, one thing that does seem to be happening here is that the pro-slashers are being... Well, I almost wanted to use the word "attacked," but that's too emotionally laden and probably not entirely accurate. Let's say "pressured" by the anti-slashers to *prove* that there is a homosexual subtext within canon. And the response of most of them has been "I'm not interested in doing that," but that doesn't seem to be considered an acceptable response by many.
I feel I'm being a little bit misrepresented here (not much, I hasten to add), so I'm going to clarify a bit: as I said at the outset of the thread, I have no problem with people going off and writing slash as an exercise in fantasy, masturbation, whatever. I think three or four people have come on here and said "Oh, who cares if slash is canon! I like it." Again, fair enough, and welcome to it.
But some people on this lyst have been trying to claim a canonical basis for slash. Which is, I think you'll agree, awfully difficult if not actually impossible to do. And I must say that I do find it a bit annoying that some people (not you, Betty, but I'm sure you've seen the posts) have come on and said "slash is canon," and then when I said "prove it!" they've gone on to say "Oh, who cares if it's canon!" Which, to paraphrase something I saw in a post on the porn thread, is basically just moving the goalposts.
If you don't care if slash is canon, then I support you to the hilt, and I will defend to the death your right to go off and write/read your AU/total fantasy stories. If you claim that slash *is* canon, though, I'm going to come on this lyst and demand proof. And if there's none to be found, I think that proves the point made by myself, Shane, Wilson Fisk, Cheryl and (to some extent) Neil, that it just ain't there.
Oh, and as I've also said, I'm not anti-slash. I've read and enjoyed some slash stories; I've not enjoyed others but hey, tastes differ. But I'm decidedly anti-retconning.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Fiona Moore wrote:
It's just that she doesn't want to be pushed into that kind of discourse (or taken to task for not engaging in it) when it's not what she's interested in doing. Which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Look, nobody's forcing her! As has been pointed out earlier, if you don't want to debate the canonicity of slash (or whatever), then don't.
Yeah, but several people have said things along the lines of "If you're going to suggest that, you have to prove it from canon," with the implication (or, at least, the implication that *I'm* getting, though I'm always open to the possibility that I'm misreading) that any mode of engaging with the show (or with other fans) that *doesn't* involve that litcrit kind of thing is invalid or unacceptable or some kind of cop-out, even.
In my perception, one thing that does seem to be happening here is that the pro-slashers are being... Well, I almost wanted to use the word "attacked," but that's too emotionally laden and probably not entirely accurate. Let's say "pressured" by the anti-slashers to *prove* that there is a homosexual subtext within canon. And the response of most of them has been "I'm not interested in doing that," but that doesn't seem to be considered an acceptable response by many.
I feel I'm being a little bit misrepresented here (not much, I hasten to add),
Well, it wasn't you I was thinking of here, Fiona. I think I understand your position reasonably well by now (I hope!), and, actually, I think you've been trying to avoid doing that.
If you don't care if slash is canon, then I support you to the hilt, and I will defend to the death your right to go off and write/read your AU/total fantasy stories. If you claim that slash *is* canon, though, I'm going to come on this lyst and demand proof.
I think part of the problem here, though, is definitional. If I say, for instance, something like "I consider the possibility of a sexual attraction between Avon and Blake to be valid within canon" (which I do), what I mean is that there's nothing in canon that unambiguously contradicts it, nor does the notion seem to be out of character for the characters as I see them. The problem comes in, I think, when somebody else reads a statement like that as saying that that attraction is *provable* from canon, which isn't what I mean by it at all.
I think the main problem, really, is that we've got two groups here with very different attitudes towards, not just canon, but what canon *doesn't* actually say. One point of view is focused more on what possibilities canon leaves open, the other is focused more on what canon actually establishes. POV #1 says "Can it be ruled out? No? Then it's a valid speculation." POV #2 says "Is there a good basis for it? No? Then it's not a valid speculation."
Grossly oversimplifying here, I'm sure. But I really think that this difference in viewpoint is what's caused so much of the friction and frustration, and has resulted in a lot of people talking past one another.
IMHO, YMMV, etc.
From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
Yeah, but several people have said things along the lines of "If you're going to suggest that, you have to prove it from canon," with the implication (or, at least, the implication that *I'm* getting, though I'm always open to the possibility that I'm misreading) that any mode of engaging with the show (or with other fans) that *doesn't* involve that litcrit kind of thing is invalid or unacceptable or some kind of cop-out, even.
Speaking only for myself, that's not really my position. All I expect, and I don't think it's too much to ask or unreasonable to ask, is that anyone who speculates on some aspect of the show, whether its the sexual orientation of Blake and Avon or what Justin meant by a war being a bit of cock-up, should offer some reason why they think their opinion carries some weight. Which you do yourself when you have to, BTW.
The 'litcrit' mode comes more easily to some than it does to others. I don't think it's anything to do with litcrit per se, which I've had no grounding in apart from some background reading. It's more an academic mode, likely to be adopted by someone who's been through further education of whatever kind (in my case, environmental science). There is a reason for its particular style - it makes it possible to express complex concepts briefly and accurately. I don't think it's particularly impenetrable, though it does sound more detached and impersonal (and hence possibly aloof, which may be misread as being supercilious) than a chatty colloquial style (which is more appropriate to some threads anyway).
As for knowledge of the canon, this varies immensely from individual to individual both in depth and in scope. I doubt if anyone knows it all, back to front and inside out (and simply possessing that much knowledge is a rather dubious credential anyway). That's why direct reference to canonical evidence is important - it shows the suppositions on which you're basing your ideas, and allows other people to either cite further evidence for those ideas, or counter-evidence which might knock your theory for six or simply indicate that it might need modification. At worst, you stand to end up getting people to think about aspects of the series that they might have previously overlooked, and everyone's appreciation of B7 is that little bit richer.
Even those whose knowledge of the canon is both deep and wide can still have their attention brought to something they've hitherto overlooked. As has indeed happened to me many times on the Lyst. So I would never claim canonical knowledge as some kind of status symbol with which to browbeat the less knowledgeable.
Proof from canon is not what is needed. Possibility within canon is another matter, and possibilities are relative things, subject to personal judgement, interpretation and preference with a modicum of common sense. There is no proof from canon that Avon went throughout the whole series with a ferret down his trousers, neither is there any proof that he didn't. Therefore the possibility remains open that he might have done so. I would expect most people to rate that probability as so low as to be negligible. Except for those predictable jolly posters, who may or may not be called Dana:), who will now pipe up to say they thought so all along.
The same goes for slashing the characters. There is no proof from canon, neither is there any emphatic disproof from canon. So there is only possibility, which depends on how you choose to interpret particular words or gestures in certain scenes, along with personal preference. Fiona has painstakingly catalogued many of the indications of heterosexual expression within the series, and I agree with her that they are both more numerous and more convincing than any posited instances of homosexual expression. But as we all know, expression isn't everything. (My first meaningful conversation with a gay man, at least that I know of, was in his room on campus in the small hours, where he'd invited me in 'for coffee' after a disco. I knew at the time that he was married with kids. I only found out later that he was gay and trying to chat me up.)
A slash interpretation isn't canon, but neither is an exclusively straight interpretation. Proofs are not required because the proofs aren't there. Either interpretation remains a speculation. At least if you make clear the basis for your speculation, one way or the other, you allow people to appreciate why you interpret it the way you do.
Neil
Neil Faulkner wrote:
A slash interpretation isn't canon, but neither is an exclusively straight interpretation. Proofs are not required because the proofs aren't there. Either interpretation remains a speculation. At least if you make clear the basis for your speculation, one way or the other, you allow people to appreciate why you interpret it the way you do.
Actually, I all really want to say here is that I'm in fundamental agreement with pretty much everything you said in this entire post. Really.
In message 3AA7D223.F92F393E@sdc.org, Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org writes
Neil Faulkner wrote:
A slash interpretation isn't canon, but neither is an exclusively straight interpretation. Proofs are not required because the proofs aren't there. Either interpretation remains a speculation. At least if you make clear the basis for your speculation, one way or the other, you allow people to appreciate why you interpret it the way you do.
Actually, I all really want to say here is that I'm in fundamental agreement with pretty much everything you said in this entire post. Really.
AOL.
Slash discussed below.
----- Original Message ----- From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
Yeah, but several people have said things along the lines of "If you're going to suggest that, you have to prove it from canon," with the implication (or, at least, the implication that *I'm* getting, though I'm always open to the possibility that I'm misreading) that any mode of engaging with the show (or with other fans) that *doesn't* involve that litcrit kind of thing is invalid or unacceptable or some kind of cop-out, even.
I think Neil's answered this one, anyway, which is that if you're going to make a statement, it should be backed up with evidence. Now, what sort of evidence you use depends on the discussion and the point you're debating. E.g., if we were discussing something like placement of the crew's living quarters on the Liberator, a lit-crit style interpretation would be out of the question although one could use onscreen evidence. If we were discussing the best way to run a con panel, both onscreen evidence and lit-crit style interpretations thereof would also be rather out of place. In this instance, whatever the debate was before and whatever side discussions are taking place, the point under discussion does seem to be "are Avon and Blake bi?" Which does seem to call for a lit-crit style discussion, as the question can't be answered simply from technical drawings or outside experience. So I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that the lit-crit mode is the *only* way of engaging with the series, but simply the one that best fits the discussion at hand.
I feel I'm being a little bit misrepresented here (not much, I hasten to add),
Well, it wasn't you I was thinking of here, Fiona. I think I understand your position reasonably well by now (I hope!), and, actually, I think you've been trying to avoid doing that.
Thanks!
If you don't care if slash is canon, then I support you to the hilt, and
I
will defend to the death your right to go off and write/read your
AU/total
fantasy stories. If you claim that slash *is* canon, though, I'm going
to
come on this lyst and demand proof.
I think part of the problem here, though, is definitional. If I say, for instance, something like "I consider the possibility of a sexual attraction between Avon and Blake to be valid within canon" (which I do), what I mean is that there's nothing in canon that unambiguously contradicts it,
Erm, well, not in the sense of Blake, for instance, saying to Dr Bellfriar: "you may have heard of me, I'm Blake, I'm completely heterosexual and have no sexual interest in my male crewmates..." :), but as Kingpin says, that is a bit much to ask in terms of definitionality.
nor does the notion seem to be out of character for the characters as I see them.
Based, though, on subjective impressions rather than on actual evidence, which gets us back, I think, to ballroom dancing :).
The problem comes in, I think, when somebody else reads a statement like that as saying that that attraction is *provable* from canon, which isn't what I mean by it at all.
I know you don't, Betty, and I think that's been clear in the discussion we've been having. But there were one or two others, whom I'm not going to name, who *have* had a go, and I'm saving myself a reply here :).
I think the main problem, really, is that we've got two groups here with very different attitudes towards, not just canon, but what canon *doesn't* actually say. One point of view is focused more on what possibilities canon leaves open, the other is focused more on what canon actually establishes. POV #1 says "Can it be ruled out? No? Then it's a valid speculation." POV #2 says "Is there a good basis for it? No? Then it's not a valid speculation."
I think you're right. But the flaw, as I see it, in POV #1, is that there's a *lot* that can't be ruled out, simply cos it isn't explicitly stated in canon. It can't be ruled out that Avon was in fact a ballroom dancer. It also can't be ruled out that Servalan, as a teenager, gave birth to Avon's lovechild who then was adopted and grew up to be Soolin. Which is why I tend to favour POV #2, just cos it's easier to apply rigorous criteria.
I think what's needed here is a balance between the two points of view. Perhaps what should be done is that one takes a notion which the series canon does not contradict. (Blake is gay, Avon is a ballroom-dancing champ, Soolin is Avon's long-lost daughter). One then looks at the series and sees whether this notion is *also* supported by the canonical evidence to hand. So, in other words, it's true that certain things under discussion aren't *disproved* by the canon, but if that's the *only* criterion for believing them, then we really are in anything-goes territory again.
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
More slash discussion.
Fiona Moore wrote:
I think Neil's answered this one, anyway, which is that if you're going to make a statement, it should be backed up with evidence.
And like I said, I do basically agree with what Neil said in that post. On the other hand... I dunno, it kind of bugs me to see things like:
[Note: Hypothetical example *only*!]
Person A: I think Blake is gay. Person B: Why do you think that? A: I just get that feeling from him. B: Can you give examples? A: Well, this scene looks kinda suggestive, and that one. B: But that's not proof! A: No, but it convinces me, and besides, I like that interpretation. B: But you haven't backed it up! If you're going to say things like that, you have to back them up! A: Huh? But I'm not trying to make *you* believe it!
Again, this is a totally hypothetical and oversimplified conversation, but I think it at least encapsulates a little bit of what's been happening here. Seems to me that the conversation person A is trying to have is totally different that the conversation person B is trying to have, and unless they can each stop and sort out where the other person is coming from, things can get highly frustrating, indeed. You see what I mean? For Person A, saying "I just get that feeling from the way they're always touching is other" *is* giving a reason. It's just one that doesn't meet B's standards of what constitutes a "good reason." (Basically, A's giving a subjective, emotional, perception-oriented reson, where B is looking for a more objective and logical reason.) And so the argument begins, with A wondering why B feels the need to be so challenging, and B feeling like A is trying to wriggle out of something. Classic case of two people tripping over their fundamentally incompatible approaches to social discourse. Happens all the time, especially on the net. And, as someone who more often then not tends to see things from six different viewpoints at once, this sort of thing drives me absolutely nuts.
Ahem. Sorry. That was me starting to rant. Bit of a pet peeve kind of topic for me, I'm afraid.
Erm, well, not in the sense of Blake, for instance, saying to Dr Bellfriar: "you may have heard of me, I'm Blake, I'm completely heterosexual and have no sexual interest in my male crewmates..." :), but as Kingpin says, that is a bit much to ask in terms of definitionality.
Of course it is. But I'm not asking it. Like I said, I *like* ambiguity. :)
nor does the notion seem to be out of character for the characters as I see them.
Based, though, on subjective impressions rather than on actual evidence, which gets us back, I think, to ballroom dancing :).
Yup.
Hmm. Here's a question, posed in all seriousness. If someone were to make a post saying "I think Avon likes ballroom dancing," would people feel the need to challenge that statement for support from canon?
I think you're right. But the flaw, as I see it, in POV #1, is that there's a *lot* that can't be ruled out, simply cos it isn't explicitly stated in canon. It can't be ruled out that Avon was in fact a ballroom dancer. It also can't be ruled out that Servalan, as a teenager, gave birth to Avon's lovechild who then was adopted and grew up to be Soolin. Which is why I tend to favour POV #2, just cos it's easier to apply rigorous criteria.
Aw, phooey. I'd never pick a POV just 'cause it was *easier*. Not for something like this, anyway, where the complexities are the most interesting things about it.
I think what's needed here is a balance between the two points of view.
I've been trying. :)
Perhaps what should be done is that one takes a notion which the series canon does not contradict. (Blake is gay, Avon is a ballroom-dancing champ, Soolin is Avon's long-lost daughter). One then looks at the series and sees whether this notion is *also* supported by the canonical evidence to hand.
Yes! Personally, I very much enjoy doing this. Take an assertion. Resolved: "Blake is gay." Or "Avon likes ballroom dancing." Or "Soolin is Avon's daughter." Take another look at canon with that hypothesis in mind. Does it still make sense? Do certain facts or certain scenes take on new overtones, new interpretations? What things do you have to fudge a bit and work on explaining away? What things seem to fit even *better*? This is a *fun* game, IMO. (It would be bad science, mind, but as the B7 world doesn't actually exist, there's no objective truth to uncover, so anything you can come up with that can be made to fit works. (At least, for those of us who don't think the authorial intentions thing is a sticking point.))
From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
And like I said, I do basically agree with what Neil said in that post. On the other hand... I dunno, it kind of bugs me to see things like:
[Note: Hypothetical example *only*!]
Person A: I think Blake is gay. Person B: Why do you think that?
etc
Unfortunately you also get:
A: Blake is gay. B: Why do you think that? A: Because he is! B: Do you have proof? A: 25 episodes of proof. Just watch him with Avon. They're both camp as a row of tents. B: No they're not. A: Yes they are. B: Are not! A: Are!
ad nauseam.
And the same thing can happen with an assertion that Blake is straight.
Hmm. Here's a question, posed in all seriousness. If someone were to make a post saying "I think Avon likes ballroom dancing," would people feel the need to challenge that statement for support from canon?
Which strikes deep into the real heart of the whole great slash debate. It's about sex. People (for whatever deranged and unfathomable reason) care more about that than they do when it comes to preferred styles of dancing. (I would personally say that Avon Doesn't Dance. But not because he *can't*, you understand...) Fans construct their own ideals of the characters, develop an emotional investment in them, and assign greater or lesser priority to each aspect of that ideal. Sexual orientation tends to be near the top of the priority list. Dance floor expertise tends not to. (Although we might imagine a hypothetical fan who might argue passionately that his or her - though probably her - Avon is a ballroom dancer and not give a squit about who he sleeps with, it's unlikely.)
Similarly, the importance of the character to the fan is a major factor. If someone were to suggest that Chevner were gay, or Piri, or the third Decima from the left, I can't see many people batting an eyelid. They don't care about these characters. They don't have an emotional investment in them.
That's what it all comes down to - emotional investment. Fans talk about 'my Avon' or 'my Cally' in explicitly proprietorial ways. They tend not to talk about 'my Dastor' or 'my Groff' because they don't have sufficient interest in, nor care enough about, these minor characters. Some fans don't even know who they are anyway.
And if you get emotionally possessive about someone, you tend to get a bit heated when someone challenges your ideal. Like being told your best friend is a no-good cheating liar when you've no evidence to believe that.
Though he might be, of course.
Neil
Neil Faulkner wrote:
That's what it all comes down to - emotional investment. Fans talk about 'my Avon' or 'my Cally' in explicitly proprietorial ways.
Hm. I always thought that was a way of avoiding arguments, rather than possessiveness - an easy way to say 'this is what I think, what happens in my personal canon, YMMV' with a lowered risk of being taken as rude or confrontational.
Mistral
Mistral wrote:
Neil Faulkner wrote:
That's what it all comes down to - emotional investment. Fans talk about 'my Avon' or 'my Cally' in explicitly proprietorial ways.
Hm. I always thought that was a way of avoiding arguments, rather than possessiveness - an easy way to say 'this is what I think, what happens in my personal canon, YMMV' with a lowered risk of being taken as rude or confrontational.
Yeah, I agree with Mistral here. I think that's *exactly* what that's meant to convey, and, in fact, I almost mentioned it in my "Approach #1" vs. "Appraoch #2" post. It's a signal that the poster is in Approach #2, I think, and that she's talking about the Avon or Cally that exists *in her own head*. And it's a compact, yet fairly explicit, way of acknowledging the subjectivity of that. ("My Avon" is not "your Avon.")
Leastways, that's what I mean when *I* use it.
(Which is not to say that I don't think Neil had some good points in the rest of that post, btw.)
----- Original Message ----- From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
More slash discussion.
Fiona Moore wrote:
I think Neil's answered this one, anyway, which is that if you're going
to
make a statement, it should be backed up with evidence.
And like I said, I do basically agree with what Neil said in that post. On the other hand... I dunno, it kind of bugs me to see things like:
[Note: Hypothetical example *only*!]
Person A: I think Blake is gay. Person B: Why do you think that? A: I just get that feeling from him. B: Can you give examples? A: Well, this scene looks kinda suggestive, and that one. B: But that's not proof! A: No, but it convinces me, and besides, I like that interpretation. B: But you haven't backed it up! If you're going to say things like that, you have to back them up! A: Huh? But I'm not trying to make *you* believe it!
Me too. But what you also get is: [likewise, hypothetical example only]:
Person A: I think Blake is gay. Person B: Why do you think that? Person A: [cites a whole list of scenes]. Person B: Oh but... [goes through the same list of scenes, pointing out the dubiousness of each as evidence] Person A: Oh, but I'm not trying to make *you* believe it!
Which as I said is a hypothetical example-- but that's why I sometimes mutter about moving goalposts. But OK, I'll shut up now...
Again, this is a totally hypothetical and oversimplified conversation, but I think it at least encapsulates a little bit of what's been happening here. Seems to me that the conversation person A is trying to have is totally different that the conversation person B is trying to have, and unless they can each stop and sort out where the other person is coming from, things can get highly frustrating, indeed.
<snipping for length reasons. Hope you don't mind. If you do, I'll requote it back in the next post in full... :)>
OK, calming down a bit now myself, too, and I think you're right-- some of the people on this thread *have* been arguing at cross purposes. So what it all boils down to is: there's canon and there's exercises in imagination which refer to the canon without particularly feeling required to stick to it?
To make sure I've understood, I'll refer back to the The Web example. So person B would say "yep, Blake and Avon at loggerheads again," and person A would say "but if you imagine they were lovers, then *hmmm*..."
If I've got it right (and I hope I have), then like I said to Steve, fair enough :).
I think you're right. But the flaw, as I see it, in POV #1, is that
there's
a *lot* that can't be ruled out, simply cos it isn't explicitly stated
in
canon. It can't be ruled out that Avon was in fact a ballroom dancer. It also can't be ruled out that Servalan, as a teenager, gave birth to
Avon's
lovechild who then was adopted and grew up to be Soolin. Which is why I
tend
to favour POV #2, just cos it's easier to apply rigorous criteria.
Aw, phooey. I'd never pick a POV just 'cause it was *easier*.
I never said it was easier to *argue,* as this discussion has demonstrated :) (do you know, I can now quote whole swatches of 'Hostage' ? And it's YOUR fault :)...).
I think what's needed here is a balance between the two points of view.
I've been trying. :)
Me too :).
Perhaps what should be done is that one takes a notion which the series canon does not contradict. (Blake is gay, Avon is a ballroom-dancing
champ,
Soolin is Avon's long-lost daughter). One then looks at the series and
sees
whether this notion is *also* supported by the canonical evidence to
hand.
Yes! Personally, I very much enjoy doing this. Take an assertion. Resolved: "Blake is gay." Or "Avon likes ballroom dancing." Or "Soolin is Avon's daughter." Take another look at canon with that hypothesis in mind. Does it still make sense? Do certain facts or certain scenes take on new overtones, new interpretations? What things do you have to fudge a bit and work on explaining away? What things seem to fit even *better*? This is a *fun* game, IMO. (It would be bad science, mind, but as the B7 world doesn't actually exist, there's no objective truth to uncover, so anything you can come up with that can be made to fit works. (At least, for those of us who don't think the authorial intentions thing is a sticking point.))
I accept it, and I do like that game myself :)-- I've written many articles along similar lines. But I think that the operative point here is where you say that in making any interpretation, you do have to fudge a bit, explain away etc. Which I agree, is fun. But as I said before, that's a side issue from trying to map one of those hypothetical points back onto the canon... which I think we've argued into the ground :).
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
-
Ashton7＠aol.com -
Betty Ragan -
DDJ -
Fiona Moore -
Julia Jones -
littles＠lycos.co.uk -
Mistral -
Neil Faulkner