Una McCormack wrote:
Mistral wrote:
Fiona Moore wrote:
In an action-adventure series, the rules of characterisation are considerably narrower than in literature. So therefore, just as, if one is going to write a story about King Lear, one would have to base him on Shakespeare's characterisation to be taken seriously, if one is going to write about Avon and Blake, one has to take the filmed and written (scripts, character sketches, interviews...) evidence into account first.
Just so that you're aware - there are _some_ of us (including myself) who don't accept anything as evidence that doesn't show up on the screen. That's all the canon there is. Character sketches and interviews
- even with Chris Boucher, who I'd regard as the only person who can
really speak with authority to long-term intent - simply *do not count*.
Well, that depends on your purpose. Writing fanfic, I feel able to keep or dump whatever I want and am more interested in reading/writing different perspectives on the characters (the writers' included). Similarly, finding out the different ways in which fans view the same show doesn't involve knowing the intention of the writers.
Absolutely. However, the thread does appear to have become some people saying 'this is what I see on the screen' or 'this is how I enjoy looking at it' vs. Fiona saying 'but one must factor in what the creators intended'. My point is simply that neither side is going to convince the other because they're not using the same criteria for validation of evidence.
But If you're interested in how the show was produced and received, then of course the views of those who produced it need to be taken into account. The thread on how B7 was received in Britain on transmission in the light of IRA activity at the time is one-sided without knowing whether or not these issues were put into the text by the writers. It's also an extremely interesting debate (well, I think it is).
Of course audiences receive texts in unexpected and multiple ways. But that doesn't make the issue of how they were *supposed* to receive them any less interesting.
I agree completely that it's an interesting topic, and an interesting debate. It just seems a bit like apples and oranges at the moment, though.
Just to clarify what I'm trying to say: If Shakespeare turned up on my doorstep, I'd be pumping him for information about his works. I'd want to know _his_ opinion of what he'd written. And his ideas _might_ inform and alter my opinion of those works - but they might not. Because Shakespeare isn't an authority on what his works mean _to me_. The Bard lost control of his art and its interpretation when he put it into the public eye; how much more so in the case of the BBC.
Mistral