----- Original Message ----- From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
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!
Me too. But what you also get is: [likewise, hypothetical example only]:
Person A: I think Blake is gay. Person B: Why do you think that? Person A: [cites a whole list of scenes]. Person B: Oh but... [goes through the same list of scenes, pointing out the dubiousness of each as evidence] Person A: Oh, but I'm not trying to make *you* believe it!
Which as I said is a hypothetical example-- but that's why I sometimes mutter about moving goalposts. But OK, I'll shut up now...
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.
<snipping for length reasons. Hope you don't mind. If you do, I'll requote it back in the next post in full... :)>
OK, calming down a bit now myself, too, and I think you're right-- some of the people on this thread *have* been arguing at cross purposes. So what it all boils down to is: there's canon and there's exercises in imagination which refer to the canon without particularly feeling required to stick to it?
To make sure I've understood, I'll refer back to the The Web example. So person B would say "yep, Blake and Avon at loggerheads again," and person A would say "but if you imagine they were lovers, then *hmmm*..."
If I've got it right (and I hope I have), then like I said to Steve, fair enough :).
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*.
I never said it was easier to *argue,* as this discussion has demonstrated :) (do you know, I can now quote whole swatches of 'Hostage' ? And it's YOUR fault :)...).
I think what's needed here is a balance between the two points of view.
I've been trying. :)
Me too :).
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.))
I accept it, and I do like that game myself :)-- I've written many articles along similar lines. But I think that the operative point here is where you say that in making any interpretation, you do have to fudge a bit, explain away etc. Which I agree, is fun. But as I said before, that's a side issue from trying to map one of those hypothetical points back onto the canon... which I think we've argued into the ground :).
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