Usual warning. Void where prohibited by law.
----- Original Message ----- From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
Fiona Moore wrote:
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)
Yes, definitely different notions. :) My definitions would be something as follows:
Misinterpretation: Interpreting a scene in a way which is clearly contradicted by other elements of canon, or in a way which renders some aspect of the epsiode entirely nonsensical. E.g. Inga is Tarrant in disguise (unless you can come up with a *really* good explanation!).
Out of context: Disregarding or ingoring the context in which something occurs, where "context" can refer to plot, setting or character elements. E.g. to interpret the Avon's shooting of Blake as implying that Avon came to GP with the intention of killing Blake, which ignores the context of Blake's apparent betrayal.
Both sets of definitions are, I think, valid, but it can get confusing when you're using one and I'm using the other. :)
Actually, I've read your definitions back three times and I think in the end that they are the same thing, just differently expressed. So I withdraw any suggestions about arguing at cross-purposes :).
<hypothetical bi episode snipped>
:)! But if that episode had happened, then this debate wouldn't be
taking
place now...
Yes, I know. It was a hypothetical example. But did it make sense to you? Is it clear what I mean by "I don't see it as out of character?" Because, for me, that's is absoutely, positively at the heart of the issue, and has absoutely *everything* to do with whether I regard a given interpretation as a reasonable one or a ridiculous one. (Though that is, of course, highly subjective.)
"Truce" proposal: Let's both acknowledge that : a) speculation is a wonderful thing :), b) the series was written according to conventions which (unfortunately? perhaps...) precluded relationships between the principals...
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.
No, the look definitely came *after* the touch. Before that, she was just looking kind of sad, I believe.
You're partly right here-- the look does come later, but she's not looking sad, her face is expressionless :). But again, this is another example of the ambiguity which stems from the fact that the series could not have open and developing sexual relationships between the principals-- we get a scene which *could* be read as mutual sexual interest, or as comfort, or as anything in between. So on B7, one can have one's cake and eat it-- one can have the possibility of a relationship without the actuality.
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>.
And that's a fair point (though I think we're both well aware by now that not everybody agrees about the nature of the way they look at each other. :)) Taking the "adopt a hypothesis and see if you can make it fit" approach I mentioned in another post, though, I don't think the lack of that sort of physicality (or even "conventionally accepted subsitutes") renders the idea untenable. Lots of explanations are possible (I, personally, favor "Avon is doing his damndest *not* to respond to Blake that way." :)). But that *is* a different mode of discourse from the argument-from-canon.
Yes, but staying on the canon-or-not-canon discourse, it doesn't work (though yes, I agree that taking a more speculative/imaginative line, it does..:)...).
I hate to say this, though, but I'm a bit confused as to what your interpretation of the (hypothetical) relationship is-- a while ago I thought you were saying that Avon was pursuing Blake, but your last paragraph suggests it's the other way around. Just a request for clarification, btw, and totally a side topic...
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.
I'm inclined to think so, too, but we don't have proof of that, do we?
But we don't have disproof, either :).
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.
Nah, no hate involved. But I *still* don't see any good evidence for Blake being heterosexual. :)
And I see none for him being bisexual :).
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...:)
Er, no, that doesn't make it contracanonical, just noncanonical (assuming we're using the terminology the same way). Boucher is saying "we couldn't put that in there" not "we had to deliberately make sure that there was no possible way it could be seen in there."
:), and true. However, my definition of contracanonical is something that contradicts the canon in some way. So once again, if we can't have a relationship within the series canon because of the format of the series, then to write in a relationship does strike me as something of a contradiction of canon. Hope that clears this up.
Having hashed out the relative status of B/A slash with regard to canon, onscreen evidence, dramatic convention, visual grammar and entertainment value, shall we go for dinner? <offers arm-- in a totally nonsexual way, of course :)>
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