From: Sally Manton smanton@hotmail.com

Now this could illustrate the viewpoint problem here. The post that actually drew *me* into the thread wasn't Wendy's short opening one, but (and Wendy, I'm truly not trying to criticise you, I'm quoting this to try and make things clearer for non-CJs) went as follows : "After a bit of Freudian imagery of Avon firing off a big rocket and fertalising her race, he then leaves her to die of radiation poisoning on Cephlon, having taken away her reason for living! A case if wham, bang, thank you man. What a sexist pig!"

To me, that *did* refer to Avon

Whereas to me, it referred to the imagery, and the imagery was that of a rocket being fired off by a man who happened to be Avon. That it *was* Avon is almost irrelevant, it's the imagery that matters.

Difference in viewpoint? Well, like you say, you see what you look for. However, that doesn't mean that what you don't see isn't there. I don't think the people arguing for a sexist/imperialist interpretation of Deliverance are reading anything in (but then I wouldn't, would I, being one of them), they are just seeing what others are overlooking. Such things are easy to overlook - I barely noticed the imperialist dimension until Wendy's accusations of misogynism made me think more carefully about the episode.

Likewise, as a non-CJ, I don't see all the subtle nuances of character action and interaction that the CJs devote a lot of their discussion to. Sometimes I wish I could, I might then be able to appreciate more of that discussion instead of just lightly skimming through it, as I tend to. However, I tend not to accuse them of making it all up (though in the case of the B/A dynamic, I stand by my assertion that it has been grossly exagerrated, for whatever reason).

This business of staying out of threads is a bit of a hairy business therefore.

I misphrased myself there. I wasn't trying to imply that some threads should be considered off-limits to particular people. More that there are times when joining in can make a positive contribution and other times when it comes across more as an interruption.

I've got a friend called Dave. Dave doesn't like to be left out, so if he's with a group of people who start talking about a subject that goes over his head or simply disinterests him, he will butt in with a deliberately asinine remark to disrupt the discussion and drag it off in a direction that suits him. I should add that Dave is actually quite an intelligent chap and can speak with authority on a number of topics. He also has a very well developed sense of humour which most people can readily appreciate. Basically, he's a good bloke who doesn't know when to keep quiet. There are times when the behaviour of certain people on the Lyst can seem a bit ... Davian.

Davian tactics are rather common, and they seem to be especially favoured by people who don't want certain subjects to be discussed. Not just because they feel they can't contribute, more because they do not want to hear what other people are saying. So they deliberately set out to silence everyone else. Grand Masters of Davianism can kill an intellectual discussion with one sentence.

It's easy for me to say "this thread's on the chemical properties of Aquitar, I'll just sit back and try and learn or even understand something". It's easy for you to say "Red leather trousers and Avon's state of mind at Terminal ... oh bloody hell, not again!" But when it's a thread combining [a] interpretation of a perceived subtext by one

of

the writers involved on the episode *and* [b] interpretation of what one

or

more of the characters *actually did or did not do* (remember, part of

this

discussion was a disagreement on the validity of individual

interpretations

of the part of the action not shown) it gets more complicated.

True, we have the problem of differing viewpoints. But I notice that you refer to the subtext as 'perceived', implying that it is not really there. To some of us, these things are every bit as real as what individual characters did or did not do. More real, in some ways, in that they come from the subconscious mind of the author, rather than the consciously crafted words and actions of the characters. The subtext of Deliverance says more about the mind of Terry Nation than the script does. (The script, conversely, says more about the characters. If characters are your sphere of preferred interest, then yes, I suppose you would have to focus on that.)

Besides which, do admit, had all of us CJs not become involved over that little point, the thread wouldn't have been nearly as long or convoluted, and probably died a quiet death. As it is, my inbox is chockers every morning. *How* many posts has it spawned now?

At least you admit that you CJs have a lot to answer for:)

Neil