Oh, dear. I *swore* I wasn't going to post any more on this topic, or anything relating to it, because, overall, I would very much like to just see it die a quiet, ignominious death. But my name has come up several times here, and I feel like my own position is being very slightly mischaracterized, albeit in a completely understandable and non-malicious way, and I simply can't resist the impulse to respond. (This is entirely about interpretation-of-canon, though, not about slash, so that'll be my excuse.)
Responding to snippets from a couple of different posts by Fiona here:
This comment was made in regard to Betty's and my argument-from-canon postings. Now, both of us, as I said, were keeping our interpretations as much out of the picture as possible, and neither of us were particularly making any claims to our own interpretations being the One True Way. We were, however, taking the premise that there is a "reality," i.e. the canon, and I think we're both agreed that as far as canon is concerned the situation is *not* anything-goes; one can't see what's not on the screen. And that as far as interpretations of characters are concerned, there are some that are closer to what's on the screen than others. So to say that all interpretations are equally valid (which is what the phrase "....no single one of which is the One True Way" does suggest) is actually not true within the context of arguing from the canon.
Actually... To begin with, I feel the need to point out that the main reason why I was keeping my own interpretations out of the picture and restricting myself to canon were a) that that seemed to be the sort of discussion Fiona wanted, and the kind that many other people on the Lyst (though by no means all!) were primarily interested in, and 2) that canon was really the only main point of intersection that we had in common *to* discuss. I certainly could have started going on about my own interpretations of things, but I image that Fiona (not unreasonably) would have dismissed those as irrelevant in the same way that I dismissed as irrelevant her points about the intentions of the show's creators. So, we discuss things based on canon because the simple facts of what's-on-the-screen are the one thing we have even a hope of agreeing on (and even there, I think it was obvious that agreement didn't always happen).
However, I must admit that, although I can find such discussions interesting (the Blake-and-Inga argument was certainly a fun intellectual game), I *do* also find them limited and generallty not terribly fruitful, precisely because what's-on-the-screen is so limited. Most of the really interesting stuff, like character motivations, isn't explicit on the screen at all. IMHO, the show *requires* active, creative participation fromt the viewer to really come to life, and I personally regard that as a very positive thing.
When Betty convincingly pointed out, from onscreen evidence alone, that Blake and Inga could not have been having a sexual relationship, I didn't say "That's your opinion" or "Well, *I* sense sexual tension between them," I admitted that the onscreen evidence was for Betty.
The thing is, though, if you *had* said that, I wouldn't have been in the slightest offended, or upset, or even taken aback (except by the fact that it would have seemed out of character for you :)). Indeed, I would have been extremely interested, even delighted, as that would likely have taken us off into an entirely different -- and, to my tastes, more interesting -- type of discussion. It doesn't seem in the least ridiculous to me (no matter that I *totally* don't see it) to say "Well, yes, but I look at that kiss on the screen, and I see real passion and sexual chemistry there, and I can't escape the conviction that there *was* a romantic connection between them." If you'd said that, I wouldn't feel insulted or frustrated that you'd ignored all my careful mathematics. Instead, I would have wanted to hear your theory for explaining why those mathematics might *not* apply. How do you get around that argument? (And there are certainly ways of doing so -- I think it was Neil who pointed out that Inga might have lived on Earth most of her life and only come to stay with her father recently.) And if your explanation was particularly interesting, I would have enthusiastically given the standard FC response: write it!
Personally, I find that kind of speculation, of the opening up of canonical possibilities, to be *much* more interesting and fun than the kind of debate we were doing. The kind of analysis we were doing involves a certain amount of theoretical extrapolation from canon, true, but it seems to mainly consist of an attempt to find the simplest and most likely possible explanation for everything onscreen and declaring that the "canonical" explanation. Which is certainly worth doing, particularly if that's the sort of thing that interests you, but to me it *does* seem rather limited. I'm more interested in interacting *creatively* with the show, and with understanding how other fans interact creatively with the show, often in very different ways that I do. IMHO, then, there *is* no One True Way. Sure, some interpretations are closer to canon, and some seem to stretch it a bit. Some are less parsimonious than others. Some require a lot more creativity on the part of the viewer than others. But I would not say that some are more *right* than others, because that requires a blanket judgment that I'm totally unwilling to make.