Fiona Moore wrote:
In an action-adventure series, the rules of characterisation are considerably narrower than in literature. So therefore, just as, if one is going to write a story about King Lear, one would have to base him on Shakespeare's characterisation to be taken seriously, if one is going to write about Avon and Blake, one has to take the filmed and written (scripts, character sketches, interviews...) evidence into account first.
Just so that you're aware - there are _some_ of us (including myself) who don't accept anything as evidence that doesn't show up on the screen. That's all the canon there is. Character sketches and interviews - even with Chris Boucher, who I'd regard as the only person who can really speak with authority to long-term intent - simply *do not count*. This _might_ be causing some disparity between what you consider a reasonable view of the series, and what others consider a reasonable view.
<snip>
Once again: surely to read into the show something that its creators didn't intend is a tiny bit disrespectful of the people who spent so much time and effort creating a complex action-adventure story with political undertones?
Speaking as a performer, I cannot possibly couch this in strong enough terms, so please consider the following statement to be in foot-high, flashing, fluorescent orange letters: NO!
The artwork _is_ the message. It stands or falls on its own.
The creative team put 52 eps of B7 out for public consumption. Their work is _finished_. Now it's our turn. What the artists meant to say may or may not bear any resemblance to what they actually said; that depends a great deal on how good they were at expressing their vision - but they don't get a second chance. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, *not* in the recipe.
I could rant for hours about the independence of finished art from the artist, but I'll spare us all.
Mistral