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.))