Fiona Moore wrote:
But my name has come up several times here, and I feel like my own position is being very slightly mischaracterized,
Great, now I feel bad :(.
No, no, no. Damn. I deliberately tried to phrase that in a way that *wouldn't* make you feel bad. I'm not upset or anything, really. I just wanted to clarify my own position (which truthfully is rather closer to Lisa's than to yours).
You're right, I should have left you out of it-- but I did want to make the point that we were playing the game *together,* and it wasn't just one person talking about interpretation and the other about canon.
No problem, really. And it is very heartening, IMO, to realize that two people with different takes on things *can* agree to play nicely together. I do wish more people would try it. (Or else just accept that fact that if one person's trying to play chess with the pieces on the board and the other one's trying to play checkers, they're only going to end up feeling frustrated and should either agree on one game or abandon the board. To use a possibly silly analogy.)
My feeling was that if we'd included intepretation, before long we'd've come down to the point where we were upsetting each other-- perhaps I was wrong, but it wasn't a risk I wanted to take, especially given the volatile tone of the lyst (which was moreso then than now).
Oddly enough, though, it is *entirely* possible to discuss individual interpretations (even greatly differing ones) without upsetting each other. It takes place on a more or less continuous basis on the Other List. It juse seems near-impossible to do it *here*, which I find rather sad.
Tee hee! Well, I'm glad to hear it--that you wouldn't have gotten offended, I mean :). These days it's hard to tell what would upset somebody.
Tell me about it... :/
One reason I didn't pursue the Inga thread, actually, was because so many other people--Neil, Dana, etc.-- were coming up with much more interesting explanations as to why they *could* have had a relationship that I felt any comment I could make would be pretty banal.
[nod] I don't find that particular relationship to be one of the more interesting things to speculate about, anyway.
No, I don't believe in moral (or literary) absolutes myself. However, I also don't believe, as I said, that all interpretations are necessarily equally valid *in the context of their being made.* As I said, in the context of an interpretation from the canon, some interpretations are more valid than others in the sense of fitting the canon better.
Within that context, yeah. But one need not stay rigidly within that context.
However, to take a different example, in the context of publishing a zine in which all stories spin off from A:ATA (has anyone done this? Would they dare?),
Bite yer tongue!
the Letts-type interpretation of the young Avon as a sadistic lecher would definitely not fit, and a story about Avon and Madame Gaskia at the Purple Nightingale would get put in the pile for a "Dear Contributor, thank you..." letter.
IMHO the radio scripts should have, anyhow. But never mind that... :)
So I'd still say there *is* a case to be made as to some interpretations being more valid than others, but in the sense that any genre of writing or type of essay is going to start from particular premises, which some interpretations of the series are going to fit better than others.
Sure. No disagreement from me on that one. But there's room for all sorts of premises and all sorts of interpretations, and no one need feel duty-bound to stick to the simplest, most "provable," or most consistent-with-the-writers'-intentions one. I know you're not really disputing that, but IMO it's still a point worth repeating.
And I really will try to shut up now. :)