Butting in here yet *again*...
Fiona Moore wrote:
I think it's worth pointing out that there *is* a definite visual grammar within the series for conveying bisexuality.
To which, I must admit, my reflex response is "So what?"
Again, I think this is a case of major difference in viewpoint (I'm almost tempted to use the word "paradigm", but I'll refrain. :))
Here's the 64,000 question, if you ask me. What do we mean whan we make a statement like "Avon and Blake are lovers" or "Blake is heterosexual"? I mean, obviously, there are no real people named Blake and Avon out there roaming around the galaxy blowing things up. So those questions aren't really the same as asking "Who is president of the United States?" or "What is the charge on an electron?" Those are factual questions about things that actually, physically exist in a way that Blake and Avon don't.
It seems to me that there are two disparate ways that people approach that question, and that they've gotten completely muddled up. (And apologies here if I seem to keep repeating the same points, but, doggone it, this whole thing is *bugging* me.)
Here's how I see it (and you are now all free to claim that I've misrepresented you! :)).
Approach #1: _Blake's 7_ is a TV show. Questions like "Are Blake and Avon lovers?" can only be approached by attempting to determine whether the question is, in fact, answered within the text of the show itself, or by reference to the creators' intent. The question "Are Blake and Avon lovers?" thus translates as "Were Blake and Avon indended to be lovers, or can the fact that Blake and Avon are lovers be deduced from either the show itself or what we know about the context of the show's production?"
Approach #2: _Blake's 7_ is a fictional universe. (I like Tolkien's word "subcreation," personally.) The question "Are Blake and Avon lovers?" is approached by building up a model of that universe inside one's head -- consistent with canon as it appears on the screen, but disregarding its roots as a BBC production and adding inevitable layers of personal interpretation -- and then interrogating that model. Thus, "Are Blake and Avon lovers?" translates as "In the version of the _Blake's 7_ universe that I have built in my head, are Blake and Avon lovers?"
Approach #1 has the advantage of being much more objective, thus leading to easier (and probably more productive) debate. It's also an interesting approach for those who are more interested in the various issues of television production (such as how TV shows reflect cultural context, or the dramatic conventions by which various things are conveyed on TV).
Approach #2 has the advantage of creating a very rich and satisfying landscape of the imagination, and of encouraging creativity. It is also an interesting approach for those who are more interested in how *viewers* enagage with a TV show (such as what creative inspiration one might get from it, or how one emotionally identifies with the characters).
The thing is, a person operating under Approach #2 may well look at that statement about visual grammar in utter bafflement, wondering how on earth that's relevant. Sure, it had an effect on how what's on the screen got there, but how does that matter? We're talking about the Blake's 7 universe, aren't we, not the BBC? Blake and Avon don't know they're bound by television dramatic conventions!
Whereas I imagine somebody stuck firmly in Approach #1 is likely to find that response utterly bizarre.
(Gawd, I hope at least some of that makes sense. It's *really* difficult to put this stuff into words.)