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.