Fiona Moore wrote:
But by that analysis, you're removing the explanations within the show itself.
Sorry, that was indeed unclear. I should have been more specific and said "viewer-generated explanations."
No, to use Neil's terminology, it would be subcanonical.
But you had asked me how *I* regard canon. In the example you cited, I would regard as canon the fact that Blake said he was 34. Whether he really was, or why he would say so if he wasn't, is not canon (provided we aren't given any other canonical information on the subject.)
I feel no particular feelings as to the rightness or wrongness of the principal characters being heterosexual;
I was not using "right" in the sense of morality, but in the sense of validity or correctness.
Claiming that the characters are gay or bisexual within the series itself, on the basis of the fact that some fanfic out there portrays them as such.
If by "claiming that the characters are gay or bisexual" you mean claiming that they were portrayed that way, by the conglomeration of people who contribute to the existence of a TV character before it reaches the viewer, then I'd agree that it is highly unlikely that they did so. (I can't pretend to know for sure, since I don't have insight into what they were all thinking. But I'd be inclined to doubt it ever occurred to most of them.) This does not, however, change the fact that they may be *perceived* that way by a viewer. The character is not created entirely by its authors; the reader or viewer contributes to the mix as well, which is why we all see the same character in different ways -- sometimes *very* different.
I'm impressed that you knew what homosexuality was at age 5, I have to say.
Well, I didn't, in a technical sense. But from what I've read about childhood development, it's pretty normal to be having romantic fantasies by age 5 (things like sexual orientation and identity often start to be discernible by then), and mine were invariably about male/male relationships.
But the interpretations we make at 5 are not the same ones we make at 25.
Oh, I've become considerably more sophisticated in my interpretations over the years -- but the basic instinct remains the same. Be rather surprising if that had changed, really; given how early and how strongly it appeared, I suspect it's hard-coded.
It's remarkable that you've managed to avoid any contact with fandom for thirty-odd years...
It wasn't a question of avoidance; it simply didn't cross my path. It probably never would have, had it not been for the development of online fora for fan discussions, and those are a comparatively recent phenomenon, after all.
But just because you're not the only one to make an interpretation doesn't necessarily mean it has a factual basis. Quite a number of cultures independently concluded that the sun went around the Earth, after all.
An individual perception of a fictional character isn't quite the same thing as an objective reality. In the latter, given two mutually contradictory proposals, they can't both be true. In the former, they can, because there are as many different "realities" as there are percipients. The Blake who exists in my head is not the same as the one who exists in yours -- but they both have an equal claim to their "existence", because we each have a concept of the character. They came from the same root, but diverged when they reached us, the viewers, because we each contribute a different set of elements to the final picture.
Which appears to be the same one as yours, with one or two small differences
I would have thought the differences were fairly radical, judging from your previous comments. We seem to have very different backgrounds and approaches to the whole idea of watching a TV show. A small overlap in the highly specific area of B7 fandom (or some aspects thereof) is just a fragment of the whole social context, for either of us.
But how, that is the point? How? Is the look hostile? Cruisy?
Well, since I've seen one look from one moment in the show being given diametrically opposed meanings by different viewers, I doubt whether you're going to get a unanimous decision about "how". An expression with any subtlety at all can be interpreted multiple ways even in real life, let alone when it's on a fictional character in a TV show.
Very probably, which makes me wonder why you want to rehash it all here.
Er, I don't, which is why I didn't.
for instance, Carnell and the staff officer,
I never could figure out exactly what people are seeing there -- it's one of those instances which misses me completely.
To find visual or dialogic evidence from canon of a homosexual interest on the part of the principal characters of B7.
Well, as I've said, or attempted to say, I see a lot of things which I would interpret that way. You probably wouldn't, and hence you would not consider them "evidence", and hence I see no point in trying to enumerate them. The people who made the show probably didn't put them in with that intent. Nonetheless, that's how they appear to me. And I am not claiming anything more than that.
And therefore, because you can't see my point of view, my argument isn't worth listening to?
I have no idea where you got that, since it doesn't resemble anything I've said. I was expressing puzzlement because I didn't understand you, and I was getting an impression there might be some basic assumption involved that was being taken for granted, but which we didn't actually share. I still suspect that's the case.
But that isn't actually what you said. You said, and I quote, "there is no One True Way."
No. What I wrote was an entire *sentence*, from which you have extracted one clause. To wit, and this is pasted directly from my original message (feel free to look it up if you don't believe me):
I don't expect other people to regard things the same way I do, but I do expect them to realize that these are *fictional* characters and open to *multiple* interpretations, no single one of which is the One True Way.
In its original context, where I placed it, the referent and meaning of that clause were perfectly clear. You removed it from that context, dragged it over to another, completely unrelated one, tossed it in, and then proceeded to find it objectionable. You didn't just distort my meaning, you completely obliterated it, wrote a new one, and then complained about it. I think I'm not *too* unjustified in regarding that sort of treatment as unconducive to productive communication.
I've been trying to stay civil, but frankly I don't much like being patronised.
I wasn't being patronising; I was trying to point out, in a reasonably civil and non-hostile manner, that if you are going to resort to the tactics above, there is little point in my saying anything more.
- Lisa
-- Lisa Williams: lcw@dallas.net or lwilliams@raytheon.com Lisa's Video Frame Capture Library: http://framecaplib.com/ From Eroica With Love: http://eroicafans.org/