From: Lisa Williams lcw@dallas.net

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."

Indeed. Although it can be argued that many of the explanations within the programme are of necessity viewer-generated in that they are not put forward in an expository way.

...

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.)

But that is actually what Neil said, just with a slight difference in terminology (the post, btw, is #44591-- I bookmarked it cos I think it's a useful guide, and explained in the inimitable Neil fashion).

...

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.

But those are again slippery terms. If you are defining "valid" or "correct" as "is within the canon," that's one thing, and I think we're both agreed that it isn't. If you're using them in the sense of "can be made by viewers," that's another, and again I think we're both agreed that it can. But one shouldn't confuse the two.

...

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.

Agreed, then!

(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.)

As I said, we do have reasonably concrete evidence in that some of the writers and actors *were* actually asked that question, and have responded in the negative. So perhaps we don't know *all* their views (nobody's asked the tea-lady yet :)), but certainly there's a body of evidence.

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.

Oh, definitely not, but as I said to Steve, I've never said the slash interpretation can't or shouldn't be made. Just that it isn't actually a canonical one, and hence should be filed with "Blake survived GP" stories, etc. (and note: in neither case do I feel that this in and of itself cheapens a story or makes it bad. I've read both slash and "Blake survived" stories which have made me think, but they're both in the same position with regard to canon).

...

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.

Interesting! I'd be interested in discussing it further, but that would be getting well off topic.

...

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.

I'm actually a bit more surprised that it *didn't*, given all the mental and physiological changes that occur when growing up. But again, that's off-topic :).

...

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.

Again, I can understand that but still do find it a little surprising (just out of curiosity, and I don't expect an answer if you don't want to give one, but do you live in a small town?). The general pattern I've encountered has been that people don't tend to set out to find fandom, but happen across it due to their interest in a programme: even if you don't actually write away to the address on the back of the videos for fanclub information, you can develop a friendship with someone involved in fandom due to your shared interest, or else, if people don't actually physically encounter fans, they often buy sci-fi magazines with articles about their programme (which brings them conceptually into fandom). Maybe it varies internationally-- if anyone out there is reading this who'd care to come in, maybe they should?

...

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.

But in the "is slash canon" discussion, what we were all interested in, on all sides, was that root, and made as much effort as possible to keep the various offshoots out of the 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 it's the context in which the discussion takes place. I think that we've both read if not actually participated in the same threads on Lysator (some of which deal with viewers and "readings" of B7); we may even read the same zines and pro-mags, and if not, probably very similar ones. So I suspect we've both been exposed to the same arguments.

...

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.

But as I've said, televison, like film and theatre, is of necessity more stylised than real life. In real life people don't speak with RADA accents, or make ersatz-gunslinger gestures when fighting, or continually respond to other people's remarks with ready quips, but these are particular visual and dialogic conventions in Western film to convey particular things (I know you like Eroica-- are you into anime too? Because if you've seen it, you'll notice that there are visual conventions in anime which look very strange and stylised to us, but which Japanese viewers don't remark on, because they're used to this set of visual conventions). Because of this, looks, touches etc. have to convey meanings. Whether this meaning is *well* conveyed or not depends on the actor, and on the familiarity of the viewer with the conventions in question (again, I suspect international differences sometimes come into play here-- in other fandoms, I have encountered American viewers who assumed a character was gay simply because the actor was English, and apparently his mannerisms as an Englishman conformed, totally by happenstance, to the visual conventions used for representing homosexuality on American televsion).

...

Very probably, which makes me wonder why you want to rehash it all here.

Er, I don't, which is why I didn't.

Sorry, then-- I took the fact that you responded to my post as an invitation to discussion.

...

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.

But interestingly, it's one of the ones for which we actually have documentary evidence that the look was intentional and *intended* to convey homosexual interest, given that Scott Fredericks has spoken about it later on, and how it got put into the story.

...

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"

Um, again, no. Betty and I, as I said, were keeping our interpretations out of it. When Betty brought up an example which could be construed as homoerotic, I didn't simply say "that's not evidence"--and similarly when I brought up a heteroerotic (?) example, she didn't simply dismiss it out of hand; we both looked at what was actually on the screen and discussed whether or not the scene as seen contained evidence of sexual interest, homo or hetero. When Betty convincingly pointed out, from onscreen evidence alone, that Blake and Inga could not have been having a sexual relationship, I didn't say "That's your opinion" or "Well, *I* sense sexual tension between them," I admitted that the onscreen evidence was for Betty. Likewise she did me the courtesy of treating my examples in the same way-- conceding when the evidence was for me, drawing the line when the evidence was inconclusive.

, 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.

In that case, fine :).

...

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.

I think so, actually. You seem to have assumed that Betty and I were talking about interpreting the series, when in fact we were confining ourselves to onscreen evidence and visual convention, and I think we seem to have reached agreement on this now.

...

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 probably shouldn't belabour this, but it was that clause, not the sentence, that bothered me. Your sentiment is well appreciated, but that phrase *is* often used as a means of justifying inaction on particular issues. I don't believe that you yourself would justify that inaction, so it bothers me to see you using that phrase.

...

I've been trying to stay civil, but frankly I don't much like being patronised.

I wasn't being patronising;

Erm, you said, "Thread over, thanks for playing." You didn't ask if *I* wanted to end the thread (and if you do, all you have to do is not answer). You did this shortly after invoking Godwin (which actually bothers me, because it suggests that Nazism cannot be discussed and considered as a historical example, which is IMO a dangerous thing to suggest as well as a stifling of discussion on a controversial subject). And as I said, it wasn't a "tactic." It was an example (I do admit that, since you didn't know about my professional life, you could have read it as a "tactic"-- I hope I've explained the association now). You may not have intended to come across as sounding like you were saying: "Nothing to discuss, take your toys now and go," but I'm afraid you did. Since you didn't intend this, then let's just take it as a simple misunderstanding.

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