Betty said:

...

Now there's where I would disagree with you, I'm afraid. There is some evidence for heterosexual relationships/feelings/leanings between some of the principal characters on B7.

Well,it's like billboards--there's a lot of pro-heterosexual imagery in Western cultures.

Actually, I *don't* see much evidence of heterosexual relationships between the principal characters at *all*. Let's see what we've actually got, here: 1) the obvious sexual tension between Avon & Servalan, 2) the fling between Tarrant and Servalan in "Sand," 3) Dayna kissing Avon in "Aftermath," and 4) Vila's occasional and apparently not-too-serious attempts at pickup lines directed at his female crewmates. That's *it*. Based strictly on what's on-screen, these people for the most part just aren't involved with each other sexually at *all*. But, as someone (Dana?) pointed out, there's a lot of stuff that we don't get to see on-screen. We don't get to see them using the bathroom, either, but presumably they do it.

Everybody does have eliminatory functions, although I don't find them an interesting subject for fiction. Not everybody has partner sexual relations, although the series goes on for an awfully long time for me to believe that the characters didn't have sex with SOMEBODY.

...

In other words, to say that these characters were gay or bisexual is to say that the series' creator, script editor and principal actors have no say in their own series. In which case we may as well give up viewing the series entirely.

No, no, we need a springboard for our own and greatly improved versions!

Aw, but Series 2 has better examples. :) But, OK, let's explore an example from Series 1. One scene from that season that's often regarded as being very "slashy" is the bomb scene from "The Web." You know the one:

OK, it's true that my mind is right in the gutter here, but I'd say, "you know, the one where when they're picking themselves off the floor, Blake removes his hand from Avon's lap, looks really upset at the state of play, and Avon says, "Automatic reaction. I'm as surprised as you are."

What, specifically, are you thinking of with respect to "Bounty"? Tyce? I see considerable attraction for Blake on her part, but no real evidence of reciprocation. And I see nothing sexual about the kiss he gives Inga at *all*. I see it as being entirely, well... cousinly. (I could, in fact, make a long and detailed argument as to why I think Blake's feelings for Inga were almost certainly non-sexual, if you really want... :))

Anyway, we're not talking about scientific proof, here, or a court of law. There's no "burden of proof" involved. Anything not explicitly ruled out is possible.

Betty, if we believed that, there wouldn't be millions of words of PGPs.

...

To take a nonsexual example: if you're going to write a B7 story in the style of a "Carry On" film, this can be a quite clever and fun thing to read. If, however, you start insisting that the series on which the story was based was a camp comedy,

Personally, I think it's a gay soap opera.

(I like to view the series as a Shakespearean-style tragedy, with Avon as a classic Tragic Hero. I kind of doubt that was deliberately intended, though.

I think the Richard III echoes were quite consciously intended, ditto Hamlet.

And Paul Darrow's Avon is *waaaay* different than most fans' perception of Avon. But Darrow, in a sense, did create Avon. Does that mean we should all stop interpreting the character for ourselves and take the version in A:ATA as gospel? <Shudder>

Obviously he didn't object to ALL fanfic departures from canon.

A person who has a religious objection to pornography is, of course, not going to be a slash fan. And for a person whose religion defines homosexual acts as sinful, slash stories will refer to immoral actions. (However, Avon would be at least as culpable in committing adultery with Anna as fornication with Blake.) Even if I thought I could talk anyone out of her/his religious beliefs, I wouldn't want to.

After all, there were consensual hallucinations long before cyberspace. Any fiction is something that the writer has dreamed up and wants other people to see. Personally, given a choice between reading about the crew blowing up a Federation installation, except somebody gets trapped in the basement without a working teleport bracelet and [omitted in the interests of good taste and list etiquette] I'd tend to choose the latter. But then, I don't consider it insulting to a character to say that s/he engages in any kind of sexual activity that s/he can persuade a consenting adult to agree to.

-(Y)

--- Betty Ragan bragan@aoc.nrao.edu wrote: > <You know, I'm feeling in a bit of a bind about discussing this subject. >

Like Betty, I'd ask that if you're offended by this, please delete the post.

I wrote:

Now there's where I would disagree with you, I'm afraid. There is some evidence for heterosexual relationships/feelings/leanings between some of the principal characters on B7. There is no evidence of homosexual ones for these characters.

<Actually, I *don't* see much evidence of heterosexual relationships between the principal characters at *all*. >

No, but there's *some.* A small, restrained bit, perhaps, but vastly more than we get for homosexual ones.

Additionally, we get slightly more in the way of evidence for relationships with one-off characters: Kerrill, Inga, Zeeona (oh, that hair! What was Tarrant *thinking*?). All of which, again, are heterosexual.

<That's *it*. Based strictly on what's on-screen, these people for the most part just aren't involved with each other sexually at *all*. But, as someone (Dana?) pointed out, there's a lot of stuff that we don't get to see on-screen. We don't get to see them using the bathroom, either, but presumably they do it.

And as someone else (Shane?) pointed out, there's a bit of a difference between peeing and shagging, in terms of how you react to someone afterwards, how you treat them, etc.

<Note, however, that Carnell, Egrorian and Krantor are all, in some fashion or another, *bad guys*. Also that any homosexual elements to those characters are very subtle and non-explicit.>

1) Carnell a bad guy? Maybe, but surely no worse than Avon :)...

2) There's at least as much hard visual evidence for their bisexuality as there is for the principal characters' heterosexuality.

<Truth is, it seems to me that the simple assertion that there would have been no barrier whatsoever to having openly gay regular characters on B7 is somewhat... naive. If that's what you're actually asserting. Homosexuality is *still* kind of a touchy issue, and was much more so back in the 1970's. Unless there was a much bigger difference between the UK and the US in this respect than I'm aware of (which is possible).>

Openly gay characters, no (although there has historically been less of a problem representing this in the UK than the US). Subtext, yes. To take an example which you might know from elsewhere: the Doctor Who story "Stones of Blood." This was definitely considered "family" viewing, even more so than B7. Nowhere is it openly stated or shown that the character of Vivien is a lesbian. However. We do learn that in the 1920s she was named Violet Trefusis (Vita Sackville-West's lover); she gives Romana long looks from under her eyelashes while making suggestive remarks about bicycle seats; she and her friend, Professor Rumford, make faintly campy anti-male remarks and invite Romana to join in. All this is going to go well over the head of the average ten-year-old. However, in my university's Doctor Who Society's recent showing of it, virtually the whole society picked up on it.

My point is: while you're perfectly right, you can't openly portray a character as gay in 1970s "family" television, you can drop enough hints for an educated and intelligent adult to pick up on.

In other words, to say that these characters were gay or bisexual is to say that the series' creator, script editor and principal actors have no say in their own series. In which case we

may

as well give up viewing the series entirely.

<But I strongly disagree here. Why should we give up viewing the series just because we find it possible to see things in it that the creators didn't intentionally include? If that were the case for everything, a hell of a lot of literary critics would be out of a job.>

Again, a fair point. But it seems to me that there is a bit of a difference between the lit-crit search for subtexts and the one we are discussing here. I've read a fair bit of lit-crit in the course of my professional life, and it seems to go along the lines of taking a text (*Pride and Prejudice*, for instance), and arguing for an interpretation which may not have been the author's intention (e.g. seeing it as a feminist work). However, the fact that this may not have been (and in fact often wasn't) the author's intention, but a later interpretation, is always recognised for the criticism to have validity.

To my mind, to say that regardless of the intention of the authors, actors etc., the character *was* gay, is like saying that Jane Austen *was* a feminist, despite the fact that she lived 150 years before any sort of feminist movement existed.

<I'm not one of those who believes that the authors' intent is always utterly irrelevant and should never even be considered, but I do think that what was in the creators' minds doesn't really matter a *whole* lot in this context. What matters is what's actually on the screen.>

Elsewhere, though, some people have been pointing out that the series does have to be taken in the context of the time and the circumstances of its creation in order for any critique thereof to have relevance.

I would challenge you to find a single scene in, for instance, Series 1, which supports this interpretation. Any of the scenes which are commonly held up as showing "gay subtext" can only be interpreted as such when divorced entirely from

their

contexts.

<Aw, but Series 2 has better examples. :) But, OK, let's explore an example from Series 1. One scene from that season that's often regarded as being very "slashy" is the bomb scene from "The Web." You know the one: Avon pushes Blake away from the bomb, they land in a tangled heap on the floor and have that great (IMHO) exchange about "instinctive reactions." Actually, I think this is a really good example with which to illustrate the difference in mindset between the slash-minded viewer and the non-slash-minded viewer. To begin with, probably a major reason why this scene gets singled out is because there's lots of physical contact. They land on the floor, they lie there in close contact for a while after the explosion, and there's a point where, IIRC, Avon sort of touches Blake's hand.>

Physical contact: Not much. Avon pushes Blake out of the way three seconds before the bomb explodes. When they land on the floor, their arms are touching (they don't, btw, land in a "tangled heap"). They sit there for approximately twelve seconds--justified under the circumstances of having been nearly blown up. Blake does touch Avon's hand, but it's a bit unavoidable given the way they fall. Blake's "Why?" afterwards is very suspicious in tone; Avon's reply, "automatic reaction, I'm as surprised as you are," is in the dangerously facetious tone he uses on other occasions when he has not killed Blake despite having had the opportunity (e.g. in "Cygnus Alpha"). Blake replies, "I'm not surprised," without eye contact, in a tone which is decidedly fed up and weary.

It would actually have been *very* easy to play that scene as having a gay subtext, by simple alterations of tone and expression: Blake: (surprised and pleased): Why? Avon (wondering): Automatic reaction, I'm as surprised as you are. Blake (loving, looking steadily into Avon's eyes): I'm not surprised.

As it stands, though, while the scene you cite does show a strong regard for Blake by Avon, there is no suggestion that this regard is sexual. IMO, the scene is a lot more interesting when you consider the possible emotional complexities of a close Platonic friendship between two such different individuals than when one simply takes the easy way out by viewing it as sexual.

<Now, the non-slash-minded viewer can (quite reasonably) say that to look on that contact as sexual only makes sense if you take it completely out of context. Yeah, so they're lying together in a tangle on the floor. They've just been thrown by an explosion, for cyring out loud! It's not surprising that they don't get up again right away, either; they're probably feeling pretty dazed. (I think, Fiona, that this is probably the sort of thing you meant about interpreting things divorced from their contexts. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that.)>

That *is* what I meant by interpreting things out of their contexts, yes.

<The slash-minded viewer, however, isn't *disregarding* that context at all; she's merely interpreting it differently. In a slashy reading of that scene, Avon saves Blake from the bomb (at some risk to himself, in fact) precisely *because* he loves and cares about Blake, and then perhaps takes advantage of the circumstances to remain in physical proximity to Blake for a few moments longer than necessary *because* Blake's peril has aroused feelings in him. And the rather unconvincing (at least to many) nature of his protests about why he did it only serve to underline the idea that something signifigant is going on here that Avon doesn't neccessarily want to admit to. Again, that's not really *ingoring* the context, it's re-interpreting it>

Good point, but that wasn't only what I meant by "context." I was also referring to the intentions of the writers when they sat down to write the scene, the directors in filming it, etc. If you ignore these, then you make absolutely *all* interpretations valid, from the plausible (Avon saves Blake out of instinct/respect/etc...) to the ridiculous (Avon saves Blake cos Blake owes him £2 from lunch/is his maternal aunt's second cousin/etc....). :)

But to take this example:

Erm, I think both "Bounty" and "Hostage" would

suggest

certain leanings towards the heterosexual :).

<What, specifically, are you thinking of with respect to "Bounty"? Tyce? I see considerable attraction for Blake on her part, but no real evidence of reciprocation. >

Not disagreeing about Tyce. Actually, I was thinking of the scene in which Jenna informs Blake that Tarkin (whom Blake knows to be her ex-lover) is dead, a death she herself brought about. Blake cups the side of her face with his hand, looks into her eyes and smiles at her, and says softly "Take us out of here, Jenna." She returns the smile. I think the subtext there is pretty darn clear :). Furthermore, Jenna is visibly jealous of Tyce, and Blake's reaction to this in the final scene shows that he is very much aware of Jenna's feelings.

<And I see nothing sexual about the kiss he gives Inga at *all*. I see it as being entirely, well... cousinly. (I could, in fact, make a long and detailed argument as to why I think Blake's feelings for Inga were almost certainly non-sexual, if you really want... :))>

Yes, but there's more than just the kiss there. When Inga first appears on screen, Jenna asks him who she is. Blake says "She meant a lot to me once..." They are cousins (a kin relationship which is distant enough to make a sexual relationship possible), and there doesn't seem to be any family rift; there is thus a suggestion of possible romantic involvement, or at least a "crush". At the end of the story he kisses her-- fairly chastely; he holds her hand while saying goodbye to Ashton; Jenna visibly bristles, and again Blake does not seem unaware of her reaction.

Furthermore: If Blake was gay, surely Jenna would have noticed in such a closed environment-- and wouldn't be reacting in such a possessive way anytime a woman appears interested in him. To say nothing of how it would affected Jenna if Avon and Blake were in fact having a sexual relationship... thwarted affection is hard to hide.

<Of course, there's an interesting open question here of just how acceptable it is in Federation society to show feelings of attraction towards the same sex. If there's a major taboo against the latter, he might well be less inclined to show it, even if he feels it. >

Again, though, we have to remember this in the context of filmic conventions. The Federation is meant to be a future society-- but because B7 was meant to be viewed in the 1970s, its norms have to be understandable to a 1970s viewer. So again, if the reading that a character is gay was his creator/author/director/actor's intention, these people would have to find a way of putting this across to the viewer. Which didn't happen.

<Actually, I find these examples interesting, because, to me, Carnell and Dorian's supposed flirtatious behaviors seem a *lot* less obvious to me than the significant looks Avon gets from Tynus (and which, interestingly, he gives right back). Even when I'm *trying* to watch "Killer" with my mind out of the gutter (and I can so get my mind out of the gutter, really! :)), I can't escape the impression that Tynus *is*, at the very least, interested in Avon, and that Avon, at the very least, knows it and is quite happy to use it. YMMV, of course.>

Bit difficult to deal with this one, since you don't specify a scene. The first time they meet, there is slight eye-contact, but for the bulk of the scene, Avon has his back turned to Tynus, and both men seem very suspicious of each other. When Avon does make eye contact with Tynus, it is when he is saying that Tynus has no choice but to help him, and it is visibly a threat. There is no more significant eye-contact between Tynus and Avon in this scene than between Avon and Vila.

In the next scene, Avon pulls a gun on Tynus as he comes through the door. Tynus says "Nervous?" Avon says "Just careful." This sets the tone of the entire scene, which is one of suspicion. There is a lot of eye contact, it's true, but again of a threatening kind. Tynus is refusing to help Avon; Avon is informing Tynus that he has no other option. Interestingly, Vila, instead of picking up on any sexual tension between the characters, remarks "Nice. When Avon holds out the hand of friendship, watch his other hand-- that's the one with the hammer..."

The next scene also, it's true, has Avon and Tynus staring into each other's eyes. As before, however, the tone of their conversation is threatening and their poses hostile. Avon is threatening Tynus with exposure and criticizing his plan; Tynus is explaining and defending the plan he has visibly thought up under duress. Again, if you're threatening someone, of course you're going to be keeping eye contact with them.

The fourth scene has them wearing goggles. No eye contact there :), but lots more hostile dialogue. When they return to the office and remove their goggles, Avon grabs Tynus by the shoulder and snarls "You'll give us all the time we need." Again, anger and hostility, not sexuality.

I could go on, but I think the point is made that the eye contact between Avon and Tynus in "Killer" is threatening, not sexual. Furthermore, the eye contact seems to stop once Avon has what he wants, and only returns when Tynus declares his intention to kill Avon. Finally, the fact that Tynus both betrays and tries to kill Avon (he says, when attempting to do so, "it's nothing personal..."); not exactly loving, or even lustful, behaviour, unless Tynus is a very sick man indeed :).

Cally... well, during and after the events of "Children of Auron" and "Sarcophagus" she seems to feel some attraction towards Avon (and in fact the alien possessing her in the latter directly states that Cally has feelings for Avon),

<"Sarcophagus" can certainly be read that way, and for a long time I took it as pretty solid proof that Cally had *some* sort of romantic feelings for Avon, which is why the alien can't kill him. I still think that's likely, but I've since heard entirely plausible alternative explanations for what happens on screen.>

Such as, and from whom?

<Anyway, we're not talking about scientific proof, here, or a court of law. There's no "burden of proof" involved. Anything not explicitly ruled out is possible. And the way I see it, anything that's possible is fair game!>

Fair enough, but Steve asked for examples :). To me, it's enough to know that Chris Boucher, Terry Nation, the actors and the various directors didn't intend the characters to be seen as gay to convince me they aren't.

To take a nonsexual example: if you're going to write a B7 story in the style of

a

"Carry On" film, this can be a quite clever and fun thing to read. If, however, you start insisting that the series on which the story was based was a camp comedy, then I think not only the point, but the

whole

effectiveness of the story, have been lost.

<Well, I'm not familiar with the "Carry On" films, but I think B7 occasionally verged on camp comedy, notably in "Gambit." :) >

:)! But my point was, that's just a quick excursion out of a series that is broadly action oriented.

<But never mind that, I think I get your point here. If I understand it correctly, what you're objecting to is people insisting that they see slashy subtexts in the show itself (as opposed to putting those elements into fanfic all by themselves, conjured out of whole cloth). Is that right? I'm not sure why that really bothers you, though, unless you're feeling that said people are trying to force *you* to accept that intepretation. Or unless you feel offended on behalf of the series' creators that their intentions are being ignored.>

OK, right, long explanation here. Your analysis is right. I have no problem with slash as an exercise in make-believe. A parallell I would draw would be with another genre of fanfic in which the familiar characters are put in historical/fantasy settings: Blake as a gangland boss in Chicago in the 1930s, say, and Avon as a corrupt bank clerk. Now, reading these stories can shed light on characterisation, but nobody who reads these stories then goes back and says "Blake was a 1930s gangland boss." Similarly, with slash, I'm willing to accept that a story in which Avon and Blake are lovers can make interesting points about the characters, and that there are a lot of slash writers/readers who do simply see the exercise as just that: a "what if... Avon and Blake were lovers?" thing.

(side point here: the valid point can be raised that "Blake, in some ways, was *like* a gangland boss." True. I would also agree that there are many ways in which one can see Avon and Blake as being *like* lovers; like lovers, they respect each other, there is tension, there is indeed a form of love between them. But I would also say that there is a big gap between being *like* lovers and actually *being* lovers).

My problem, though, is with retconning the relationships created in slash back into the series itself. Why does this bother me? Well, partly it *is* because I feel that the vision of the people who created the series should be respected, *when it comes to the series itself* (as an exercise in fantasy, as I said, well, anything goes! but not when it comes to the series). Partly, also, cos I sometimes feel as if what the series actually was about gets drowned in a sea of wildly speculative and IMO shallow interpretations, which again are often not consumed as interpretations, but as "reality."

<.(I like to view the series as a Shakespearean-style tragedy, with Avon as a classic Tragic Hero. I kind of doubt that was deliberately intended, though. Does that make it wrong of me to see it that way? I don't believe so.) >

Well, though, that is actually a bit more debatable. The series was being written by people who would have been well aware of Shakespeare and the conventions of tragedy, and could quite arguably have had those in mind when writing (in fact, in some episodes they blatantly did-- witness "The Keeper"). Similarly, though, I don't see you trying to argue that Avon *is* Hamlet, just that Avon is *like* Hamlet. Which to my mind is eminently justifiable.

<Besides, this being a TV series, you also have to deal with the fact that there wasn't necessarily one unified vision behind it. I'm sure Terry Nation saw things a little differently from Chris Boucher who saw things a little differently than all the other writers and directors and actors.>

Thank you, actually, cos this is really the nub of my argument against seeing the characters as gay in the series itself. The thing is, the TV series was the unified vision of several people: Terry Nation, Chris Boucher, various principal actors, dozens of directors, all of whom had wildly diverging political stances, social backgrounds, sexual orientations etc. If Avon (or any of the other principals) had been intended to be gay/bisexual, it would have required a concerted effort on behalf of the team, and a general agreement that this was to be portrayed. There's no evidence, documentary or remembered, that this was to be the case (by contrast, Scott Fredericks does recall being told by the director to play the character of Carnell as bisexual).

< And Paul Darrow's Avon is *waaaay* different than most fans' perception of Avon. But Darrow, in a sense, did create Avon. Does that mean we should all stop interpreting the character for ourselves and take the version in A:ATA as gospel? >

Perish the thought :) ! However, I'd say that A:ATA represents only Paul Darrow's vision of Avon. The character as portrayed on the screen was an amalgam of Darrow's acting, various people's scriptwriting, directing and costuming, Terry Nation's creative processes, and Chris Boucher's editing. If A:ATA had been explicitly made as part of the series, I might well swallow hard and take it as canon-- however, it was written after the fact and by one member of the team acting alone.

So, to sum up a long post:

1) I've still yet to see any convincing evidence that any of the principal characters were intended to be gay or bisexual.

2) I can't speak for others, but I think that slash can be a good and valid creative exercise-- but if taken as a creative exercise only (and, btw, when not descending into the extreme realms of rape fantasy, etc.), an AU story if you will. Retconning slash back into the series, contrary to the intentions of its creators, is another thing entirely, and IMO isn't justified.

Cheers,

Fiona

The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net

____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie