From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
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.
Speaking only for myself, that's not really my position. All I expect, and I don't think it's too much to ask or unreasonable to ask, is that anyone who speculates on some aspect of the show, whether its the sexual orientation of Blake and Avon or what Justin meant by a war being a bit of cock-up, should offer some reason why they think their opinion carries some weight. Which you do yourself when you have to, BTW.
The 'litcrit' mode comes more easily to some than it does to others. I don't think it's anything to do with litcrit per se, which I've had no grounding in apart from some background reading. It's more an academic mode, likely to be adopted by someone who's been through further education of whatever kind (in my case, environmental science). There is a reason for its particular style - it makes it possible to express complex concepts briefly and accurately. I don't think it's particularly impenetrable, though it does sound more detached and impersonal (and hence possibly aloof, which may be misread as being supercilious) than a chatty colloquial style (which is more appropriate to some threads anyway).
As for knowledge of the canon, this varies immensely from individual to individual both in depth and in scope. I doubt if anyone knows it all, back to front and inside out (and simply possessing that much knowledge is a rather dubious credential anyway). That's why direct reference to canonical evidence is important - it shows the suppositions on which you're basing your ideas, and allows other people to either cite further evidence for those ideas, or counter-evidence which might knock your theory for six or simply indicate that it might need modification. At worst, you stand to end up getting people to think about aspects of the series that they might have previously overlooked, and everyone's appreciation of B7 is that little bit richer.
Even those whose knowledge of the canon is both deep and wide can still have their attention brought to something they've hitherto overlooked. As has indeed happened to me many times on the Lyst. So I would never claim canonical knowledge as some kind of status symbol with which to browbeat the less knowledgeable.
Proof from canon is not what is needed. Possibility within canon is another matter, and possibilities are relative things, subject to personal judgement, interpretation and preference with a modicum of common sense. There is no proof from canon that Avon went throughout the whole series with a ferret down his trousers, neither is there any proof that he didn't. Therefore the possibility remains open that he might have done so. I would expect most people to rate that probability as so low as to be negligible. Except for those predictable jolly posters, who may or may not be called Dana:), who will now pipe up to say they thought so all along.
The same goes for slashing the characters. There is no proof from canon, neither is there any emphatic disproof from canon. So there is only possibility, which depends on how you choose to interpret particular words or gestures in certain scenes, along with personal preference. Fiona has painstakingly catalogued many of the indications of heterosexual expression within the series, and I agree with her that they are both more numerous and more convincing than any posited instances of homosexual expression. But as we all know, expression isn't everything. (My first meaningful conversation with a gay man, at least that I know of, was in his room on campus in the small hours, where he'd invited me in 'for coffee' after a disco. I knew at the time that he was married with kids. I only found out later that he was gay and trying to chat me up.)
A slash interpretation isn't canon, but neither is an exclusively straight interpretation. Proofs are not required because the proofs aren't there. Either interpretation remains a speculation. At least if you make clear the basis for your speculation, one way or the other, you allow people to appreciate why you interpret it the way you do.
Neil