Slash discussed below.
----- Original Message ----- From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
Yeah, but several people have said things along the lines of "If you're going to suggest that, you have to prove it from canon," with the implication (or, at least, the implication that *I'm* getting, though I'm always open to the possibility that I'm misreading) that any mode of engaging with the show (or with other fans) that *doesn't* involve that litcrit kind of thing is invalid or unacceptable or some kind of cop-out, even.
I think Neil's answered this one, anyway, which is that if you're going to make a statement, it should be backed up with evidence. Now, what sort of evidence you use depends on the discussion and the point you're debating. E.g., if we were discussing something like placement of the crew's living quarters on the Liberator, a lit-crit style interpretation would be out of the question although one could use onscreen evidence. If we were discussing the best way to run a con panel, both onscreen evidence and lit-crit style interpretations thereof would also be rather out of place. In this instance, whatever the debate was before and whatever side discussions are taking place, the point under discussion does seem to be "are Avon and Blake bi?" Which does seem to call for a lit-crit style discussion, as the question can't be answered simply from technical drawings or outside experience. So I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that the lit-crit mode is the *only* way of engaging with the series, but simply the one that best fits the discussion at hand.
I feel I'm being a little bit misrepresented here (not much, I hasten to add),
Well, it wasn't you I was thinking of here, Fiona. I think I understand your position reasonably well by now (I hope!), and, actually, I think you've been trying to avoid doing that.
Thanks!
If you don't care if slash is canon, then I support you to the hilt, and
I
will defend to the death your right to go off and write/read your
AU/total
fantasy stories. If you claim that slash *is* canon, though, I'm going
to
come on this lyst and demand proof.
I think part of the problem here, though, is definitional. If I say, for instance, something like "I consider the possibility of a sexual attraction between Avon and Blake to be valid within canon" (which I do), what I mean is that there's nothing in canon that unambiguously contradicts it,
Erm, well, not in the sense of Blake, for instance, saying to Dr Bellfriar: "you may have heard of me, I'm Blake, I'm completely heterosexual and have no sexual interest in my male crewmates..." :), but as Kingpin says, that is a bit much to ask in terms of definitionality.
nor does the notion seem to be out of character for the characters as I see them.
Based, though, on subjective impressions rather than on actual evidence, which gets us back, I think, to ballroom dancing :).
The problem comes in, I think, when somebody else reads a statement like that as saying that that attraction is *provable* from canon, which isn't what I mean by it at all.
I know you don't, Betty, and I think that's been clear in the discussion we've been having. But there were one or two others, whom I'm not going to name, who *have* had a go, and I'm saving myself a reply here :).
I think the main problem, really, is that we've got two groups here with very different attitudes towards, not just canon, but what canon *doesn't* actually say. One point of view is focused more on what possibilities canon leaves open, the other is focused more on what canon actually establishes. POV #1 says "Can it be ruled out? No? Then it's a valid speculation." POV #2 says "Is there a good basis for it? No? Then it's not a valid speculation."
I think you're right. But the flaw, as I see it, in POV #1, is that there's a *lot* that can't be ruled out, simply cos it isn't explicitly stated in canon. It can't be ruled out that Avon was in fact a ballroom dancer. It also can't be ruled out that Servalan, as a teenager, gave birth to Avon's lovechild who then was adopted and grew up to be Soolin. Which is why I tend to favour POV #2, just cos it's easier to apply rigorous criteria.
I think what's needed here is a balance between the two points of view. Perhaps what should be done is that one takes a notion which the series canon does not contradict. (Blake is gay, Avon is a ballroom-dancing champ, Soolin is Avon's long-lost daughter). One then looks at the series and sees whether this notion is *also* supported by the canonical evidence to hand. So, in other words, it's true that certain things under discussion aren't *disproved* by the canon, but if that's the *only* criterion for believing them, then we really are in anything-goes territory again.
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