Cheryl wrote:
--- Steve Rogerson steve.rogerson@mcr1.poptel.org.uk wrote: > Shane said: "Slight misunderstanding here, I think. Cheryl has just said that there's no
evidence for gay relationships between these characters within the canon. If that's the case,how can such scenes be "within the boundaries of
canon?"
Something can be said to be within canon if it doesn't contradict canon. The fact that it gives us something new doesn't mean it is not within the boundaries of canon.
Well, no, that means it's not anti-canonical or AU. ISTM to be _within_ the boundaries of canon, it ought to be a logical inference based on what we actually see on the screen. I think a great deal of the slash debate is really about whether same-sex relationships _are_ a logical inference (compounded by the religious or philosophical objections that many people have to slash). OTOH, there's _lots_ of room to play within the boundaries of a personal subcanon without being anti-canonical.
I am getting a bit confused over the use of the term 'canon' on this list, I always understood the word to mean (in this area) something along the lines of: within the boundaries of what has already been stated/implied, therefore: Vila and alcoholic substances is canon, Vila and blueberry muffins is not. Cally being taken over by alien lifeforms is canon, Avon being an immortal super hero is not. Avon loves Anna is canon, Blake loves Avon or vice versa is not...not in any sense, sexual or otherwise.
Well, no, IMO that doesn't work, either. Take just one of your examples - Avon loves Anna. It's not canonical in the sense that we are ever told it explicitly. We _infer_ it from Avon's behaviour - at least some of us do. Some may not. If you hang out here long enough (and I'm glad you're still here, BTW), you'll see that people definitely do not agree on what is canon, apart from on-screen occurences - and even then motives, subtexts, etc., will be in dispute.
Mistral