Fiona Moore wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Mistral mistral@centurytel.net
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.
But if you read through my discussions with Betty and Steve, the point is, there has thus far not been a single example of *onscreen* evidence for homo/bisexual relationships among the principal cast either.
Of course I read them; and the point is, there isn't anything _you_ recognize as onscreen evidence. Nor do I consider there to be enough evidence to draw such a conclusion. That doesn't mean that someone _else_ might not find there to be plenty of evidence. We all see different things because of our POVs. This happens IRL, too.
Just to give an example turned about the other way - you say Dorian gives Avon a 'decidedly cruisy' look. I don't doubt that you see it quite clearly; but in all honesty, it had never occurred to me that it might be interpreted that way until you said it. But I don't doubt for a moment that you actually _see_ it that way. This could simply be me being oblivious - several times I've been unaware until much later that someone was trying to chat me up, and have also conversely had my motives misinterpreted on many occasions - but this in itself should indicate that people both express themselves differently, and interpret others differently, and therefore multiple possibilites for perceived meaning exist.
Chris Boucher was simply cited as supporting evidence, which I do realise not everyone accepts.
I did wonder; one of the first things I learned in speech class was that citing evidence that the audience doesn't accept is one of the fastest ways to alienate an audience. It weakens an argument rather than strengthening it. Not something I really see you wanting to do; you obviously put in a great deal of thought and effort into your posts.
The artwork _is_ the message. It stands or falls on its own.
- Sometimes it's difficult to work out what the author means, in B7 as much
as in other texts. In which case, in order to do that, one has to look to other evidence which s/he has provided outside of the text itself. Without that, again, literary criticism falls flat on its face.
The point of art is to communicate. How well it does so is a reflection of the skill of the artist, and also a function of the overlap between his and his audience's frame of reference. IOW, it doesn't matter what he meant if he didn't _communicate_ it. If I go onstage and play B-flat when I meant to play B-natural, the audience will still have heard B-flat; my fault, not theirs, and they are certainly not obligated to look up interviews 20 years later in order so that I can point out that it was supposed to be B-natural. They're even less obligated to edit their memories of my performance in order to 'hear' B-natural in their memories. The same applies if I write a flat character when I should have written a round one (and vice versa), or any other disparity between artistic vision and perception of finished product by the [intended] audience.
To use Dorian as an example again: if you were to find out tomorrow that you'd been grossly misled and that the writer, actor, and director had all intended that Dorian was as straight as an arrow, would you suddenly have somehow _not_ seen the look he gave Avon as 'cruisy'? Of course not.
After all, to take your Shakespeare example, if Shakespeare *had* left more in the way of notes as to what he intended, there would be a lot more agreement as to how his plays should be performed.
Which would be, IMNSHO, a _very_ bad thing for English lit in general and Shakespeare lovers in particular. The wealth and beauty of Shakespeare for me lies not only in the beauty of his language, but in the depth and multiplicities of possible interpretations. I don't watch every version of Hamlet I can get my hands on in order to see the next company perform it the same way as the last; I do it for the _differences_. I do it to see how the next performance compares to all the others, and how it enriches and expands both my intellectual and subjective appreciation of the play. The reason I have a bookcase full of Shakespeare commentaries isn't because they all say the same thing; I have them because the different views help me as I'm trying to sort out what _I_ think the plays are about.
And I'm not trying solely to puzzle out the Bard's intent, either. It would be fascinating to know, but in many ways _less_ illuminating than the aggregate speculation. After all, Shakespeare doesn't know what his own subconscious snuck past him. I very much fear that if we knew in minute detail what Shakespeare intended, he'd seem a great deal less brilliant than he does at this distance, and his legacy would be diminished. Like I said, the wealth is in the layers, and I don't think _all_ the layers were planned. (People have on occasion found what they considered to be really clever stuff in my writing that IMO isn't there at all; how much more must that be true with Shakespeare, who really is a great wordsmith?)
Chris Boucher and Terry Nation were both very clever writers, and they did (and still do, in one case) provide us with a lot of examples of authorial intent for the hard-to-read stories.
And I don't for a minute intend to minimize either the talent of Chris Boucher (who I much admire), or the fascination of his anecdotes. But authorial intent shows up on the screen, or it doesn't. Great art survives because it's great art, not because the artist _intended_ to make great art. The effectiveness of Blakes 7 as art is demonstrated by the strength and variety of response to it; trying to restrict fan response to an acknowledgement of authorial intent diminishes art, artists, and audiences.
Or to simplify - it sucks out all the fun.
- So, the medium is the message? There is nothing outside of the text?
Again, I find it very difficult to do any sort of interpretation at all in a context in which all interpretations are deemed equally valid....
I've never suggested that all interpretations are equally valid; nor have I suggested that we should be disrespectful of artists. On the contrary, I have the utmost respect for art and artists; I consider the urge to create a reflection of the image of God. In fact, what brought me in on this portion of the thread was your assertion that ignoring authorial intent _in interpretation_ is somehow disrespectful. My position is that giving weight to intent rather than effect disrespects art itself and denies its power, and is therefore ultimately _more_ disrespectful of artists.
Validity of interpretation for me is about how well an aspect of personal sub-canon fits with canon. What I'm looking for is logical extrapolation, internal consistency, completeness, and enough creativity to make it interesting (see Neil's excellent post on proof and possibility, and Betty's equally excellent post on the two approaches). None of these things is likely to disrespect an artist who understands what art is about.
Mistral