----- Original Message ----- From: Dana Shilling dshilling@worldnet.att.net
To give a (semi-)fictitious example, some people can be having a discussion on, say, themes of class struggle in "Weapon," and then somebody else, who hasn't participated at all up
until
this point, will launch in and say "Ooh, I think Carnell's accent is
dead
sexy! What's everyone else think?" And there's the whole prospect of
further
serious discussion gone to pot.
But why not just reply to the points raised in the last post actually about the class struggle?
I think Neil answered that one better than I could. He's right, it *is* awfully offputting when you're gearing up for a rapier thrust to open a post which seems to be on the same topic but isn't. The reverse equivalent might be me going into a thread on red leather trousers and saying "That's intriguing. Have you considered deconstructing these trousers as a signifier of Lacanian potency, with regard to Derrida's belief that deconstruction cannot exist outside of the text?" A lot of people would flame me, and for good reason.
relationship between Buffy and Angel being explored in this way, cos
over
the course of that series they *do* have impassioned emotional
discussions
while in a clinch. But not Blake and Avon.
"Do I have a choice?" "Yes" "Then I agree." They really do spend a LOT of time much closer together than decorum would dictate.
This is a possibly delicate subject on which I am again going to risk offending people, but it's something about which I have a lot of suppressed feeling which it may be time to air. Deep breath, here goes.
1) I have a friend who is a gay man. He watches B7, and whenever he watches a TV show he watchs it with his gaydar at the ready :). I once asked him if he saw any of the gay subtext in B7 which many fans say they do. He replied that he detected no sexual tension *at all* between Blake and Avon. Now, before you say "but the actors weren't gay, so of course he didn't," this doesn't always read. Scott Fredericks is (I speak as one who has spent a full day taping with him) about as straight as they get-- and yet this same friend said he detected a sexual ambiguity in Carnell. Which, Mr Fredericks confirmed when asked, he had intended the character to have, and in fact gave "a look" to a male officer at the suggestion of George Spenton-Foster, who *was* gay (incidentally, I've heard other gay men say they had no problem seeing the attraction between the leads on Queer as Folk, even though all three IIRC were played by straight men).
2) This is not to say that there *aren't* gay subtexts on the show. Egrorian and Krantor (who incidentally reminds me of the flamboyantly bisexual Rafiq of "Gangsters") are at least bisexual; I've mentioned Carnell. Dorian, a character who liked to "indulge any taste... any sensation..." (and who was played by a gay man), gives Avon a decidedly cruisy look after making the above quote (and Avon replies "you really are insane, aren't you?" :)). In other series there are flagrant gay subtexts-- The Tomorrow People for one, and read my expose on certain episodes of Doctor Who, if you like, at http://redrival.com/nyder/whosqueer.html. But in all of those cases, those subtexts were put in there intentionally by the writer and/or director and/or actor (or fall under the category of accidental double-entendre). I've yet to see any evidence of that for Blake and Avon.
Now before people start up with the old "That's your interpretation, it's not mine," defense, I'd say that I wouldn't have a problem with this if it was simply put forward as fanon or wishful posthoc interpretation. There are, I'm sure, people who write slash while thinking "Of course, the two characters were *really* straight, but wouldn't it be nice...?" But in this case I took what you said to refer to them being "closer than decorum would dictate" as referring to the confines of the show. If I've misunderstood, I'm sorry and please take all these arguments as misdirected.
3) It *is* possible for two men to spend a lot of time together, and share a close friendship, without it being sexual. Albert Speer and Adolf Hitler, for instance. Lennon and McCartney. Morecambe and Wise. In a way, I'd argue that to explain the intriguing closeness of Blake and Avon simply through a sexual attraction is to ignore the other possibilities of human relationships, which are really quite fascinating for a student of human behaviour.
The Greeks believed in five kinds of love, and that the noblest was Agape, or self-sacrificing love. I tend to see Blake and Avon's love as being Agape, not Eros. And Chris Boucher has said this as well.
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