Neil wrote: <What I do think, and I'm quite aware that this might be nothing more than a reflection of my own prejudices, is that my distaste for character junkieism (as opposed to those who practice it) lies in what I perceive as a superficial appraisal of the series. There is an exagerrated awareness of differences between individuals, whereas I tend to look for similarities, which in turn leads to the social or, dare I say, the ideological.>

Certainly there's a balance to be struck between the two, since leaning too far in the direction of the social - *denying* their individuality in favour of ideological archtypes - would probably end up as superficial as anything a blind Avonite could manage. Not that I'm saying that's what you're doing, but what we have - what we *all* have - is different perceptions of where the balance lies for ourselves. I'm not sure that this is so much a matter of prejudice as merely personal taste. After all, there's also those who spend time and many words in making sense of the physics - the hardware aspect - of the show, which is also a part of the background but which I am *not* much interested in per se (tying the Federation to historical parallels in totalitarian dictatorship, yes. Tying the FTL capabilities of the Liberator to real physics, not really. But that's just me).

Do more people lean to the individual rather than the overview? I'm not that sure, going by what I read on this list (on the other list, oh yes :-)). Going over the recent years' archives, there's actually a goodly mixture of *all* types of threads and POVs within the threads (see the dreaded Star One discussions for almost the whole range).

Maybe it's just that some of us character junkies burble more ...

<There is also a focus on immediate impressions - what is said or done (or worn - now that is what I really do call superficial) - with an implied reluctance to look deeper than the cosmetic surface.>

Oh but Neil, and here I am working out a theory of how the changes in Avon's attire over time can represent his relative emotional state :-)

But is extrapolating societal or ideological significance from what actually happens on screen *really* any deeper and more meaningful per se than extrapolating an individual's thoughts and emotions from the same evidence? Or is it just a larger screen? Both ways *do* use the same evidence - "what is said or done" - and both *try* to look deeper, but in different directions.

I like to turn a microscope onto My Darling; you prefer a magnifying glass on the background.

<And that devotion to 'playing the game' - discounting the external contribution of the process of production (writers, directors, actors, budget etc).>

Is okay by me as long *as* we all remember it's a game. Then again, so might be second-guessing the people involved in the production.

<Which is fine for threads that confine themselves within those limits, but not so fine when it gets dumped on threads that try to step out of those narrow parameters.>

Now is that fair? Most of us *aren't* specifically thinking about what particular parameters the thread or our answer comes under, just trying to add our pennysworth (even if inflated at the price) to a discussion we find interesting. And if we *do* think individual characterisation is central to the matter under discussion (as I still do with 'is Avon a sexist pig in Deliverance?' which *was* the post that started it all :-) not 'does Avon represent an chauvinist porcinery in general) then we are not going to approach it from an angle that seems less relevant. Maybe I'm wrong from a non-character-junkie's POV, but I do tend to see it from my own ...

<It comes across as deliberate sabotage sometimes.>

<sotto voce> Rats. He found out.

_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.