Usual warnings apply. No animals were harmed during the making of this post.
----- Original Message ----- From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
Indeed. But also that any single example of "homosexual" activity on the part of Avon and Blake (n.t.m. Vila, Tarrant, Gan...) on the screen has
thus
far been shown to have been a misinterpretation or an outright removal
of
the scene from context.
Wellll... I don't think I'd agree with that statement, actually, but I also think we've seen that you and I have rather different notions about what things like "misinterpretation" and "out of context" mean.
Here's my notions, then.
Misinterpretation: taking a scene in which nonsexual contact occurs, and misconstruing the contact as sexual in intent (e.g. The Web, when Avon pulls Blake out of the way of the explosion and the two fall with their arms touching each other).
Out of context: taking contact for which there is an obvious nonsexual justification and removing this justification, so that the contact appears sexual (e.g. a fan video I saw a while back which removed the soundtrack from the "Do I have a choice?" scene in Duel, then slowed it down, so that it looked as if Avon and Blake were cuddling each other. A friend of mine used to use that particular video as "canonical proof" of A/B, until we sat down and compared it to the original scene)
We do basically agree, I think, that there's nothing on the screen that *requires* one to make a homosexual reading. I think we just have different ideas as to what the proper response is to that fact. :)
And, I think, about the meaning of negative evidence :).
In my experience, slash fans are generally been conscientious about people's sensibilities
Except when they're producing lurid artwork without the actors'
permission,
randomly killfiling people, arguing semantics... <irritated>.
Yeah, believe me, I definitely understand the irritation, and I think a degree of irritation at certain things that have been going on here is justified. I stick by that word "generally," though.
Yes, I agree with that-- it's like any group, there's always one or two bad apples. But most slash fans I know are *very* considerate people.
This is turning into another hashing-over-who-offended-whom thing now, though, and I *really* don't want to get into that here. It's starting to be kind of tedious. (And yes, I know, I've perpetuated some of it, myself.)
Fair enough. Shutting up now :).
But I'm aware of your feelings about canonicity of interviews :), so this is cited as a side
point
only.
I should add here, that despite aforementioned opinion on canonicity of interviews, I *am* interested in reading them, and in hearing what the writers had in mind.
OK :), just giving them their proper place in the argument to hand-- which is as support for onscreen evidence, with the onscreen stuff prioritised.
As far as the "is it out of character?" question is concerned, let me try and clarify just what I mean by that. Let's say that, at some point during the show, there *was* an episode in which Avon had a sexual affair with another man, or in some other way displayed unambiguous evidence of bisexuality. *If*, halfway through my watching of the series, I were to have come across that episode, it would not have caused me to immediately sit up and yell "No way! Avon would never do something like that! What idiot wrote this episode?! Ooh, bad characterization!" (Which, btw, is pretty much my response to large portions of "Harvest of Kairos." :)) *That's* what I mean when I say it doesn't seem out of character.
:)! But if that episode had happened, then this debate wouldn't be taking place now...
Oh, and see my continuity argument, further down, for a reason why this couldn't happen within the series format as presented...:).
I'm also racking my brains trying to think where Avon suggests that he doesn't conform to conventional morality, and what I've been able to
come up
with is that he is an embezzler, a terrorist and occasionally shows
sadistic
leanings. I assume (well, I sincerely hope!) you're not including bisexuality with that lot... :).
Heh. Well, I'm not trying to draw a direct connection there, no. I certainly don't equate those activities in moral terms! But Avon is certainly not what you would call a conformist, is he? Besides the criminal examples (which, yes, are what I was thinking of), there's his rather abrasive approach to interpersonal relationships. He doesn't really seem much concerned what people think of him, or whether he's conforming to society's standards, nor does he seem much bothered by the idea of doing what he wants to do and social attitudes (like notions of politeness :)) be damned.
OK, that's certainly fair :)-- though, hard-headed cow that I am, I'd again take that as *anti*-bi evidence, in that if Avon doesn't care much for society's standards, he has no reason not to be open about his desires.
I've gotten your other post and I'm going to read those stories and reply. May take a day or two, though.
Of course, now I'm worrying whether those stories are really as good as I remember them, and whether I could have picked better examples, and whether you're going to come back and say "*Those*? 'Complex?' Ha!" and I shall have to hang my head in shame, having disgraced the good name of slash-readers everywhere. :)
Heh, I'm sure they'll be fine...
People *can* have strong emotional attatchments to people with whom they do not
have
a sexual relationship, as I seem to recall you pointing out with
respect
to Blake and Avon. :)
Touche!
:) I think that's a point very much worth keeping in mind, really. Some of the stuff that's been put forward as evidence for Blake's heterosexuality seems to meet with that objection every bit as much as the Blake/Avon stuff does. See "Bounty" comments below...
Ah, but as I said, the thing with the heterosexual evidence is that it is very ambiguous and open to interpretation, but the gay stuff just ain't there. I think I said to Steve a while back: hetero evidence: slim, it's true. Gay: nonexistant, for the principals anyway.
[Jenna]
I find it easy to imagine that she did, in fact, do this and he utterly failed to respond...
touches her face in "Bounty."
Well, I've gone back and re-watched that bit, now. And, I must say, I don't see evidence of sexual attraction there. Well, not on *Blake's* part. The look on Jenna's face definitely conveys some, I think, but then, I've always thought Jenna was attracted to Blake. Unfortunately, we can't see Blake's face very well, as he's turned away from the camera, which makes his expression very difficult to judge. But based on the sound of his voice, and the nature of the touch itself, I see affection, concern, a desire to comfort... But nothing overtly sexual. Seems to me that it might or might not involve a sexual attraction on Blake's part. I'm gonna call this one "inconclusive."
Don't forget though, that at this point her ex-lover is lying dead at her feet, and she isn't even dignifying him by saying his name in reporting his death. But to get back to the look and the touch: if the look on Jenna's face shows sexual attraction, and Blake responds to this by touching her face and speaking softly, then if he isn't showing reciprocation he is either blind or misunderstanding her outrageously badly. If he didn't want to encourage her, I'd've thought he'd've broken off eye contact or responded with a fraternal pat on the shoulder.
The thing is, I do see evidence of *affection* between Blake and
Jenna,
but nowhere did he ever seem to me to display anything that looked
much
like sexual attraction. I'm telling you, I just don't see it. (And Blake and Avon make eye contact and smile...)
But don't touch each other's faces, or waists, or hands (except where
there
are other reasons to present, e.g. an explosion). Or hug. Or act jealous whenever anyone else shows any interest....
One point here, though. Jenna and Avon are *very* different people. Honestly, I can't imagine that Avon would appreciate Blake touching his face that way in public even if they *were* sleeping together. Avon hates "sentiment."
See my post on the Blake/Jenna thread, on the subject of physical contact. To sum it up for other people who aren't following it, though: Carnell and Dorian convey their bisexuality without touching the person at whom the conveyance is aimed, through looks and glances. Well more subtle than a touch. But even when you get down to that minute level, there's still nothing between Blake and Avon.
As for the idea that touching someone's face is necessarily sexual... Nah. I can imagine my *mother* touching me that way if I was as in need of emotional reassurance as Jenna at that point, and, believe me, there is *nothing* remotely sexual about *that* relationship! (Ick!) It *does* say something about the nature of the emotional side of their relationship, I'll grant, but I don't think it remotely consitutes proof of a sexual attraction on Blake's part.
If Blake was Jenna's dad, then I'd say you had a point :). But he isn't, and if you look at the way he treats Cally, there's quite a contrast. They are tactile, in that we do see them touching at various points in the series, but never in a way that suggests as much intimacy as with Jenna. Also, Cally has a few reasons to be every bit as distressed as Jenna is in "Bounty" over the course of the series (what about SLD, in which she's tortured?), and Blake never gets that close, even in reassurance.
Again, I *do* think there's an emotional attatchment there. I very much believe that Blake cared about and liked Jenna, that she was, to borrow a phrase "important to him." But, again, if "evidence of emotional attatchment does not consitute evidence of sexual attraction" works for A/B, it should be applied to B/J, as well.
That is an argument :), but again, as far as we can go is to say again that the evidence suggests a different sort of closeness between Blake and Jenna-- a closeness which involves physicality. Whether this physicality is sexual or not is of course unknowable-- but Blake and Avon, again, don't share this sort of physicality, nor do they use any of the conventionally accepted nonphysical substitutes <cough>cruisy look<cough>.
If that's the case, too, why didn't he mention Cally's death? Or Gan's, which he knew about personally and which would probably have equal impact with regard to "testing" Tarrant's
allegiances as
Jenna's?
Well, they were talking about the "old smuggler's trick," and neither Cally nor Gan was a smuggler. :)
But mentioning the smugglers' trick was effectively a pretext to bring Jenna into the conversation. He could equally have waved aside Tarrant's remark about his flying and steered the conversation round to limiters or aliens.
Again, I think a lot of this *really* boils down to that difference in opinion on how you view the things that *aren't* unambiguously settled by canon. Side B may well get intepreted as saying "Canon says gay/bi" when what the proponent of Side B really means is that side A's "hard evidence" isn't really all that conclusive. (Again, not intending to speak for any *particular* proponent of any viewpoint, here.)
You're going to hate me here :), but I still think that it's not just a case of one side having evidence and the other not. I also think that the evidence on side A doesn't just support the heterosexual interpretation, but also actually works *against* the homosexual interpretation. See above on known bisexuals in B7.
This is true... There is a substantial difference between those
episodes which are critical in terms of making major changes and those which aren't. On the other hand, I do find that when, say, watching a first-season and a fourth-season episode back-to-back, the differences in Avon's characterization are rather jarring. (Must less so, IMO, than if you watch the whole series from the beginning and follow his character development (character degeneration? :)) through the course of the show.)
Which brings me actually to a fairly major point. If we take the drama-series format as outlined by Chris Boucher, then only the season-opener and -ender episodes can be the ones to bring in any major format changes. Other changes, e.g. the death of a character, can occur within the middle of the season, and so on top of those you get some episodes which do have to be viewed in order in order to "get" the series (while it does have to be said that you can see, for instance, "Hostage" without having seen "Trial," through the miracle of expository dialogue, it's a bit harder to see "Hostage" before "Trial"). Within those confines, though, most of the episodes can be pretty much viewed in any order within seasons (as I said, they weren't thinking in terms of interseason reruns), or even, as I said before, snipped out.
Consequently, any sexual relationships in the series have to have reached closure by the story's end (I think this is called "girlfriend of the week syndrome" in certain detective series) and changes in relationship between major characters can only happen during the season opener or closer, or when that character is about to leave the series/die, in order to avoid the continuity nasties.
So in other words, Blake and Jenna's relationship always remains on the same ambiguous level because nothing can be done within the central episodes to advance it. This, however, also is the case for Avon and Blake. Since "Orac" and "Redemption" offer no real scope for changes in character relationships, the only point at which a change in status from friends to lovers could properly have occurred would be in "Star One"-- in which we do, interestingly, get that "For what it's worth..." line, which does advance the progress of their relationship, but, significantly, does not do so in a sexual direction. So if you go for the Boucher reading, *any* sexual relationship between the principal characters, straight *or* gay, is contracanon...:)
Nor do I. I'm a non-CJ (perhaps a bit surprisingly for an
anthropologist)
And my degree is in astrophysics. Go figure. :)
No accounting for tastes... :)
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