Fiona said: "But some people on this lyst have been trying to claim a canonical basis for slash."
I think the point is that, while none of the main characters are openly gay, some of the scenes can be interpreted in that way. It is clear that you and some others who've contributed to this thread don't interpret them that way, but, as I've said before, that doesn't make you right and them wrong or vice versa. There is no right and wrong here, it's just different fans' interpretations of different scenes.
-- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson
Redemption: The Blake's 7 and Babylon 5 convention 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption
----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Rogerson steve.rogerson@mcr1.poptel.org.uk
Fiona said: "But some people on this lyst have been trying to claim a
canonical
basis for slash."
I think the point is that, while none of the main characters are openly
gay, some
of the scenes can be interpreted in that way. It is clear that you and
some others
who've contributed to this thread don't interpret them that way, but, as
I've said
before, that doesn't make you right and them wrong or vice versa. There is
no
right and wrong here, it's just different fans' interpretations of
different
scenes.
I wasn't the one talking in terms of right *or* wrong. I was pointing out that one side has hard, onscreen evidence to back up their position, whereas all the other side has is "a bit of a feeling," and the fact that nothing occurs to directly contradict that feeling (Look, what would it take to convince you? Blake saying "you may have heard of me, my name's Blake and I'm a heterosexual?" Travis saying "His name... *was* Blake, and by the way he was straight?" Avon saying "I've located Blake on Gauda Prime, and he's still straight?"Good grief.)
And no, it's not just "different fans' interpretations of different scenes." It's also what the characters' creators have said about their intentions for the characters (again, Steve, are you suggesting that Chris Boucher's vision of Avon is invalid? Terry Nation's? David Maloney's? In which case they may as well give up writing, editing and directing entirely, as it's plain that their efforts at characterisation have been wasted).
It's also the fact that the scenes which have been "interpreted" as showing Avon/Blake affection have been shown to have been misremembered or grossly misconstrued (see Dana's post in which says that Avon has his hand in Blake's lap in The Web, which turns out to be inaccurate when watched back), whereas, while the same can be said of *some* scenes brought up to support the heterosexual position (e.g. Hostage), is definitely not the case for all (see my Blake/Jenna post if you like).
Furthermore, your argument as I understand it runs: "Oh, yes, there's evidence for heterosexuality, but because there's no explicit denial of homosexuality, bisexuality can't be ruled out." I think it's worth pointing out that there *is* a definite visual grammar within the series for conveying bisexuality. Take the cases of Carnell and Dorian, both intended to be bisexual, and both of whom convey this through giving a man a "cruisy look." Now, given that a character's bisexuality can be conveyed through such cues when the character *is* intended to be bisexual, the fact that other characters do *not* perform such cues is pretty strong evidence that the characters are *not* bisexual.
I'll further spell it out for you. Carnell has a total screen-time of about one-quarter of an episode. Dorian has a total screen-time of about a third of an episode. In that time, both characters--who *do* also give strong indications that they like women--manage to convey their bisexuality through brief glances and, in one case, suggestive dialogue. Avon and Blake's total screen time, together *and* apart, over the course of the series is easily twenty times that of Carnell and Dorian put together. In *all that time,* neither of them gives such an unambiguous visual or dialogue cue that they fancy men (I'd point out too that Avon does give a similarly cruisy look in "Gold"--to a woman-- which suggests that it's not a lack of ability in the cruise department). If somebody, somewhere in the production team, had wanted the characters to show a hint of bisexuality, they had ample opportunities to do so. But they didn't.
See also my post to Betty, sent a few minutes ago, on the subject of why there *cannot be* a major relationship between principals on B7.
I feel, actually, that it's a little insulting that I've gone back and watched all the Avon/Blake scenes that people have been citing, and on top of that watched a whole bunch of Blake/Jenna, Avon/Cally, Carnell/officer etc., scenes, and still you insist that my views have as much validity as if I had suggested that Avon likes ballroom dancing.
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
Butting in here yet *again*...
Fiona Moore wrote:
I think it's worth pointing out that there *is* a definite visual grammar within the series for conveying bisexuality.
To which, I must admit, my reflex response is "So what?"
Again, I think this is a case of major difference in viewpoint (I'm almost tempted to use the word "paradigm", but I'll refrain. :))
Here's the 64,000 question, if you ask me. What do we mean whan we make a statement like "Avon and Blake are lovers" or "Blake is heterosexual"? I mean, obviously, there are no real people named Blake and Avon out there roaming around the galaxy blowing things up. So those questions aren't really the same as asking "Who is president of the United States?" or "What is the charge on an electron?" Those are factual questions about things that actually, physically exist in a way that Blake and Avon don't.
It seems to me that there are two disparate ways that people approach that question, and that they've gotten completely muddled up. (And apologies here if I seem to keep repeating the same points, but, doggone it, this whole thing is *bugging* me.)
Here's how I see it (and you are now all free to claim that I've misrepresented you! :)).
Approach #1: _Blake's 7_ is a TV show. Questions like "Are Blake and Avon lovers?" can only be approached by attempting to determine whether the question is, in fact, answered within the text of the show itself, or by reference to the creators' intent. The question "Are Blake and Avon lovers?" thus translates as "Were Blake and Avon indended to be lovers, or can the fact that Blake and Avon are lovers be deduced from either the show itself or what we know about the context of the show's production?"
Approach #2: _Blake's 7_ is a fictional universe. (I like Tolkien's word "subcreation," personally.) The question "Are Blake and Avon lovers?" is approached by building up a model of that universe inside one's head -- consistent with canon as it appears on the screen, but disregarding its roots as a BBC production and adding inevitable layers of personal interpretation -- and then interrogating that model. Thus, "Are Blake and Avon lovers?" translates as "In the version of the _Blake's 7_ universe that I have built in my head, are Blake and Avon lovers?"
Approach #1 has the advantage of being much more objective, thus leading to easier (and probably more productive) debate. It's also an interesting approach for those who are more interested in the various issues of television production (such as how TV shows reflect cultural context, or the dramatic conventions by which various things are conveyed on TV).
Approach #2 has the advantage of creating a very rich and satisfying landscape of the imagination, and of encouraging creativity. It is also an interesting approach for those who are more interested in how *viewers* enagage with a TV show (such as what creative inspiration one might get from it, or how one emotionally identifies with the characters).
The thing is, a person operating under Approach #2 may well look at that statement about visual grammar in utter bafflement, wondering how on earth that's relevant. Sure, it had an effect on how what's on the screen got there, but how does that matter? We're talking about the Blake's 7 universe, aren't we, not the BBC? Blake and Avon don't know they're bound by television dramatic conventions!
Whereas I imagine somebody stuck firmly in Approach #1 is likely to find that response utterly bizarre.
(Gawd, I hope at least some of that makes sense. It's *really* difficult to put this stuff into words.)
Betty Ragan wrote:
Here's how I see it (and you are now all free to claim that I've misrepresented you! :)).
Approach #2 is pretty much exactly what I mean by 'Playing the Game', and I've appreciated all along your ability to articulate the two approaches so clearly. Thanks.
Mistral
Mistral wrote:
Approach #2 is pretty much exactly what I mean by 'Playing the Game', and I've appreciated all along your ability to articulate the two approaches so clearly. Thanks.
<Betty breathes a huge sigh of relief>
:)
----- Original Message ----- From: Betty Ragan ragan@sdc.org
Butting in here yet *again*...
And here's me saying I'd give up on this thread :)...
I think it's worth pointing out that there *is* a definite visual grammar within the series for conveying bisexuality.
To which, I must admit, my reflex response is "So what?"
Well, the point I was making is that people were saying "it's not visually there so it can't be ruled out," and I was pointing out that it *is* visually there, just not for the characters under discussion.
Here's the 64,000 question, if you ask me. What do we mean whan we make a statement like "Avon and Blake are lovers" or "Blake is heterosexual"? I mean, obviously, there are no real people named Blake and Avon out there roaming around the galaxy blowing things up. So those questions aren't really the same as asking "Who is president of the United States?" or "What is the charge on an electron?" Those are factual questions about things that actually, physically exist in a way that Blake and Avon don't.
Correct-- but in B7, there are facts within the context of the show. Basically, there is a solid set of fictional material from which all the other material springs-- in B7, the 52 episodes which we both agree are the canon.
Approach #2: _Blake's 7_ is a fictional universe. (I like Tolkien's word "subcreation," personally.) The question "Are Blake and Avon lovers?" is approached by building up a model of that universe inside one's head -- consistent with canon as it appears on the screen,
Exactly. The thing is, if we do take the canon, divorced from all evidence about production, intent etc., the fact still remains that Avon and Blake do not show "loverly," flirtatious or potentially-attracted behaviour in the way that other characters do; they do not display behaviour consistent with that of the gay and bisexual characters in the series (cruisy looks, innuendo, pateki-cakes); and all the scenes we've been discussing (The Web, Duel, Redemption, etc.) have all turned out to have viable, simple explanations within the context.
disregarding its roots as a BBC production and adding inevitable layers of personal interpretation -- and then interrogating that model. Thus, "Are Blake and Avon lovers?" translates as "In the version of the _Blake's 7_ universe that I have built in my head, are Blake and Avon lovers?"
But this now gets into what I said right at the outset-- which is that slash is essentially an exercise in imagination. Which, as I said, is a fine and lovely activity-- but then claiming that this is somehow "there" on our screens is still basically a retconn.
The thing is, a person operating under Approach #2 may well look at that statement about visual grammar in utter bafflement, wondering how on earth that's relevant. Sure, it had an effect on how what's on the screen got there, but how does that matter? We're talking about the Blake's 7 universe, aren't we, not the BBC? Blake and Avon don't know they're bound by television dramatic conventions!
Right, they don't know it. But they are. Every thirteen episodes, a disaster happens. The characters speak with far too perfect diction. Somehow everybody fails to notice that Travis' face and accent change from one year to the next. No relationships between crew can develop outside of "pivotal" episodes. That's the show's grammar-- the internal conventions of the series. Which I think even somebody in Approach #2 is taking into account, even if that's not what they call it, if they're sticking to canon.... :)
Whereas I imagine somebody stuck firmly in Approach #1 is likely to find that response utterly bizarre.
Perhaps less than you might think. You see, I personally come down somewhere in the middle of those views-- I like fantasy, and I like canon, and IMO the two are not necessarily contradictory. E.g., knowing the visual grammar used within the series itself can help one to write creative and extrapolative fanfic which fits in with the canon, much as knowing the peculiarities of Georgian English can help one write an effective Jane Austen pastiche.
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
Fiona said:
It's also the fact that the scenes which have been "interpreted" as showing Avon/Blake affection have been shown to have been misremembered or grossly
misconstrued
(see Dana's post in which says that Avon has his hand in Blake's lap in The Web, which turns out to be inaccurate when watched back),
No, I said he was removing his hand from Avon's lap--you can trace where an object has been from its trajectory.
-(Y)
----- Original Message ----- From: Dana Shilling dshilling@worldnet.att.net
(see Dana's post in which says that Avon has his hand in Blake's lap in The Web, which turns out to be inaccurate when watched back),
No, I said he was removing his hand from Avon's lap--you can trace where an object has been from its trajectory.
The scene:
They fall to the floor. Blake falls with his hand on the floor *between* Avon's arm and leg. The scene cuts to the flight deck, then back to Blake and Avon, who have not changed position at all. Not even their hands. So either Blake was picking his hand up off the floor, or Avon has some very peculiar anatomy indeed :).
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
In message 030f01c0a831$f2edaba0$8cae01a3@1.174.140.stx.ox.ac.uk, Fiona Moore nydersdyner@yahoo.co.uk writes
I wasn't the one talking in terms of right *or* wrong. I was pointing out that one side has hard, onscreen evidence to back up their position, whereas all the other side has is "a bit of a feeling," and the fact that nothing occurs to directly contradict that feeling (Look, what would it take to convince you? Blake saying "you may have heard of me, my name's Blake and I'm a heterosexual?" Travis saying "His name... *was* Blake, and by the way he was straight?" Avon saying "I've located Blake on Gauda Prime, and he's still straight?"Good grief.)
Which assertion is causing much of the disagreement. You keep saying "we all know...", when we *don't* all know. Had I been asked, before I ever heard of slash, what Blake's sexuality was, I would have said, "probably gay", based on the very same scenes that you keep citing as evidence of his interest in Jenna. When I look at those scenes, I see a man who likes a women, but has no sexual interest in her.
Your evidence is *not* hard, because it can be interpreted very differently, and by someone who is not trying to support a slash view. I'm a recent convert to slash (ironically, the first time I ever encountered the concept was in Horizon's call for stories that said "no slash"), and I have a very clear memory of my reaction on encountering the notion that Blake and Avon might be having it off. "Blake, yes, I think he's probably gay anyway given his complete disinterest in the women he meets, but Avon likes the ladies too much."
And here's me looking forward to a slash-free Sunday :)... any horses should leave now, lest they be frightened...
----- Original Message ----- From: Julia Jones julia.jones@jajones.demon.co.uk
Had I been asked, before I ever
heard of slash, what Blake's sexuality was, I would have said, "probably gay", based on the very same scenes that you keep citing as evidence of his interest in Jenna. When I look at those scenes, I see a man who likes a women, but has no sexual interest in her.
Doesn't always mean "gay," though. I have plenty of straight male friends who like me, but have no sexual interest in me whatsoever--but they do for other women (somebody, Betty I think, also pointed out that given that Blake is so devoted to the revolution he seems to ignore just about everything else, female or male).
Again, though, that gets back to the ambiguity of the series that Betty and I were talking about-- given that there could be no relationship between principals within the confines of the series, there could be potential for a sexual relationship between Blake and Jenna, but that's all it could ever remain--potential.
But as for the hard evidence: it's true, Blake does show none of the signs used within the series to show interest in women. However, there is also a visual grammar within the series for showing interest in men (both openly, like Krantor and Egrorian, and more subtly, like Carnell and Dorian)-- and Blake also does not employ this. So therefore, in the Blake case, we can't say gay either. I think that when Betty and I had hashed it out, we found we couldn't come up with any examples of looks, unambiguously sexual touching etc. for Blake for *anyone* ;).
However, thinking that last bit through, there's one other bit of, admittedly negative, evidence which hasn't really been considered. Jenna continues to show interest in Blake from the beginning of the series right through until she leaves. Now, Jenna's definitely not stupid, esp. when it comes to men who are interested in her :), and so it might be a bit significant that she never stops showing interest in Blake-- cos if he *had* done something to discourage her, she'd quite likely have called it off, which suggests that he hasn't done anything to warn her that they can't be anything more than friends.
Your evidence is *not* hard, because it can be interpreted very differently, and by someone who is not trying to support a slash view.
But as I said, interpretation is a different matter. Of course Blake can be interpreted as gay-- he has been, in several independent places, and will be again. But <pedant> that's a different thing from hard or soft evidence. Hard evidence is the onscreen stuff-- soft evidence is things like "feelings," or that gaydar stuff Shane's on about all the time.
I'm a recent convert to slash (ironically, the first time I ever encountered the concept was in Horizon's call for stories that said "no slash"),
:)!
and I have a very clear memory of my reaction on encountering the notion that Blake and Avon might be having it off. "Blake, yes, I think he's probably gay anyway given his complete disinterest in the women he meets, but Avon likes the ladies too much."
Tee hee :)!
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
-
Betty Ragan -
Dana Shilling -
Fiona Moore -
Julia Jones -
Mistral -
Steve Rogerson