?

Log in

No account? Create an account
My Journal Friends' Postings Calendar About Me Partners Forever Previous Previous Next Next
Nikki's Notations
A Slash Friendly Journal
nakeisha
nakeisha
The two sides of canon
One of the people on my f-list raised an interesting point about what different people regard as canon.

To me canon is both simple and complex.

For me on the simple side, canon is everything that we see on the screen, everything that makes it from the cutting room floor. Canon isn't what the actor might say about the role in an interview, canon isn't bloopers, canon isn't cut scenes. Canon is what we see. Once again, this is just my opinion; others may differ and that's fine.

Now we come to the complex part. There are two sides to canon:

Factual canon.
Interpretative canon.

Factual canon is stuff like: Gibbs is building a boat in his basement. Ducky is a Medical Examiner. Illya has blond hair. Napoleon has a dimple in his chin. Bodie was a mercenary. Doyle was a copper. Benny is a Mountie. Ray is a cop. Etc. etc. etc.

These are facts. Hard and fast. We can't argue with them. And most fanfic writers use factual canon for the grounding of their stories. It's the bread of our stories.

Interpretative canon, on the other hand, is really the filling for writers. It's what makes fanfiction, IMO. It's what gives us such a huge variety in fanfiction. It's the point that all of us see the same scene, hear the same exchange and yet we interpret it in different ways. We then bring those different interpretations to our fanfic.

Interpretative canon has a basis, a grounding in factual canon, as it is what we see and hear. But it isn't fact, because it's all down to each individual. And often how we view the characters and their relationship has an affect on how we interpret the scenes. And this can be a conscious or a sub-conscious affect, or more probably both.

And of course the two overlap. You can't have interpretative canon without fact.

I've always been aware of this and have had many discussions with people about it, both in specifics and generalisations, and there is, IMO, no right or wrong when it comes to this kind of canon. However, my friend's post came on top of me reading several reviews of this week's NCIS episode, really brought it home to me.

Specifics are behind the cut because they contain spoilers for this week's NCIS episode and others. Not to mention the fact that the post gets very long.



Today I read several squees from Gibbs/DiNozzo fans describing this week's episode as 'the most slashy', because of one scene. Now I saw the same scene and 'read' it in an entirely different way. However, I take several similar scenes involving Gibbs and Ducky and 'read' them my way.

Let's establish some facts from the various NCIS seasons thus far.

FACT: Gibbs stroked the back of DiNozzo's head.

FACT: Gibbs took DiNozzo pizza when DiNozzo had been arrested.

FACT: Gibbs put his arm around DiNozzo and draped DiNozzo's arm over his shoulder to help him walk when DiNozzo twisted his ankle.

FACT: Gibbs has ruffled McGee's hair on at least two occasions.

FACT: Gibbs has kissed Abby at least three times.

FACT: Gibbs has cupped and patted Ducky's face.

FACT: Gibbs and Ducky have shared two double walking hugs (i.e. they both had their arms around one another).

FACT: Ducky has put his arm around Gibbs on at least one other occasion.

FACT: Gibbs tipped the brim of Ducky's hat back in order to see his eyes.

FACT: Gibbs put his arm around Ducky, hugged him and ruffled his hair after the team had rescued him from certain death.

FACT: Ducky called Gibbs 'my dear Jethro'.

FACT: DiNozzo strokes McGee's face.

And there are more of the same kind of fact for all the above mentioned people and others. But detailing them all would take a heck of a long time.

All these things are canon fact. You can't get away from them. They all happened on-screen; they are canon. I can't imagine that anyone will disagree with them, no matter whether they are Gibbs/Ducky, Gibbs/DiNozzo, Gibbs/McGee, Gibbs/Abby or Gibbs/any one else or a gen fan or even a non-Gibbs slash/het fan.

However, what we will disagree over is what these touches, hugs, kisses mean. And in most cases the person we see Gibbs as being 'with' will influence how we view the scenes. How we interpret them. How we read them. And thus how we declare them to be 'the most slashy or het-based (hetty just doesn't sound right) episode'.

Gibbs/DiNozzo

I watched this week's ep, I saw the head stroke and I just saw Gibbs being sarcastic and using it as one more example of throwing DiNozzo off-balance.*

I saw the look on his face when DiNozzo was rubbing McGee's chin, and yes, I saw irritation. But unlike Gibbs/DiNozzo fans, the anger wasn't jealousy, it was just another 'DiNozzo's really annoying me' look, plus, Gibbs could see how the teasing was really getting to McGee. So it was him in 'boss' mode, nothing more, nothing less.

Gibbs taking DiNozzo pizza was just something Gibbs would do. He is passionate about his team, heaven help anyone who, in any way, hurts any member of it. Gibbs taking DiNozzo pizza, one of DiNozzo's favourite things, is just something that a good boss would do.

Gibbs putting his arm around DiNozzo, again, is again something anyone would have done; DiNozzo couldn't walk on his own.

However, I agree fully that if I were a Gibbs/DiNozzo fan, yes, I'd be squeeing and bouncing and full of slashy heavenness.

Gibbs/Ducky

Now I, and my fellow Gibbs/Ducky fans, on the other hand, take all of the above mentioned Gibbs and Ducky canon facts and interpret them, together with other 'evidence', as being proof of Gibbs/Ducky.

Ducky didn't need helping to walk when Gibbs put his arm around him, yes Ducky was upset, yes, Ducky is Gibbs's oldest and closest friend (and actually a lot of Gibbs/DiNozzo fans I know don't dispute that 'fact'), but he could walk, he didn't need Gibbs's help.

Gibbs wasn't throwing him off balance when he cupped and patted his face; it was a simple, natural gesture.

Ducky does call people 'my dear', but hitherto it has only been women, and then suddenly he calls Jethro 'my dear'. Again, friendship? Yes, I agree. Friendship, but also for me, so much more.

To me Lt. Jane Doe is the slashiest NCIS episode there has been.

Gibbs/McGee

Gibbs ruffling McGee's hair, it happened. Why? Well to me, partly because Gibbs does like McGee, thinks he'll make a very good agent, even better than he already is. But also because Gibbs, despite attempts to show us otherwise, is good with people. He knows people, and he knows that different people need to be handled in different ways. McGee needs more praise, needs a slightly gentler approach than DiNozzo, so Gibbs shows that. To me, he's just being a good boss.

However, again, wonderful evidence for Gibbs/McGee fans. After Ducky and Abby, Gibbs treats McGee the best of all. He is slightly softer with him than he is with DiNozzo and Ziva and even Kate.

Gibbs/Abby

Gibbs kissing Abby, bringing her Caff-Pow, etc. etc. to me, shows that in many ways Gibbs sees Abby as a surrogate daughter. He cares for her, I'll even use the term 'love', he loves her, he's very paternal towards her.

But again to Gibbs/Abby fans the kisses, the Caff-Pow the softness, the open caring is all food to show that their relationship isn't that of father-daughter, but that of lovers.

DiNozzo/McGee

DiNozzo/McGee fans will see the above mentioned face stroking scene and see it in an entirely different way from myself and also Gibbs/DiNozzo fans.

I'm sure that DiNozzo/McGee fans were squeeing and bouncing, because they'd see it as evidence of DiNozzo/McGee.

One tiny scene; three (at least) different interpretations.

Beyond NCIS

And every show we watch contains the same kind of 'evidence', the same kind of interpretative canon. With other shows, The Professionals, The Man From U.N.C.L.E., Starsky & Hutch, etc. etc. where there really is only one couple,** we don't have the differences in what touch to Character A meant over touch to Character B. We have a different kind of interpretation.

Was Doyle crying in Klansmen? Or was it sweat? To me, it was categorically tears. To others... Not tears, sweat.

When Napoleon says to Illya 'When you grow up...' what does that show? Is it evidence that he is several years older than Illya? Or simple teasing and something that two people of the same age say to one another? To me, it clearly show that Napoleon is several years older than Illya. To others, just the kind of teasing that two people of the same age might indulge in. Two different interpretations of the same scene.

How come we get so many different interpretations?

Well we are all individuals, we all have a culture, an upbringing, a way of life, our own thoughts, feelings, knowledge, personal experiences, we've studied different subjects, have different priorities. We don't watch TV in a vacuum. We can't forget our culture, upbringing, etc. etc. So we bring it to our watching - be it consciously or sub-consciously. We can't help it. We can't switch off.

We can, and I know that a lot of us do, try to be objective, try to look at couples outside of our own and see if we can at least see how other people can see slash/het/non-slash. But no one can be one hundred percent objective; we are all to a degree subjective. And yes, I know that the very nature of the statement I have just made is subjective. It has to be, I said it.

Which is why there is so much diversity in fanfiction. Why it is such a vast array of goodies. Why it can be like going into a sweet shop and seeing so many different sweets, so much to choose from. Your best friend might go in with you, but they might well choose something different from what you choose. And both of you will think that your selection is the 'best' the 'one'.

There is something for everyone in fanfiction; be it romance, angst, BDSM, f***-buddy stuff, kink, love, affection, etc., etc., etc. You name it, it will almost certainly exist. And most writers do use canon to write their stories. They take the factual and the interpret it and thus they write what they personally 'see', 'read', 'hear'; what works for them. Other people might think that their views/vision don't fit with what they see, because they are interpreting things differently.

Thus nothing is 'wrong' and nothing is 'right' when it comes to interpretative canon. It can't be by the nature of the word 'interpretive'. (Understand an action, mood or way of behaving as having a particular meaning or significance'). We see the same scene and we understand the actions, the moods, and the way the characters behave, in the way that suits us, that fits with our vision of the characters.

Isn't fandom a wonderful place?

*FWIW, hubby who was watching this week's ep with me, also saw this take on Gibbs behaviour - in fact he mentioned it even before I did.

**I know there are a handful of stories that pair one half of the partnership with someone else in the show, but the vast majority is about the pairing.


Tags: , , , ,
Current Mood: contemplative contemplative

62 Notes or Leave A Note
Comments
aingeal8c From: aingeal8c Date: 6th April 2006 13:11 (UTC) (Link)
Ooo very thought provoking post!

I do agree with you on the factual and interpretative canon and what they are you're right you can show a roomful full of people the same scene ask them to describe it and you'll get as many interpretations as there are people in the room. Even if they agree on a pairing in a scene they will have their own ideas about what the gesture meant in terms of feelings behind it etc.

Then sometimes you can happily watch a show without doing so through slashy goggles. I mean I hear there's a hwole load of CSI slash out there but I've never seen any hint of slash when I'm watching.

It's bizarre but even when you know of a pairing doesn't mean you see any slash when you watch the show.

I have to say the episode that showed me Gibbs/Ducky was Lt. Jane Doe without a doubt. I wasn't looking for it but the more I watched the more I thought - Wow I can see what Nikki means. Before that I wasn't really seeing it with the slash glasses. Or should I say pairing glasses?

I've never really seen any sort of other romantic intereaction with NCIS apart from Abby/McGee and in a way Kate/Tony. Of course that's het.

But yeah sometimes witha show a light dings on and all of a sudden you see a pairing be it het or slash. I wonder why that is. I mean some people will have to find a pairing to watch a show but others don't, it just happens. What interests me is what leans us towards parings. I know sometimes it's the obvious but other times it's like something clicks.

Anyway as usual I have wandered off tangent ;-)

But yes I agree with your points and fandom is a great place to be.
nakeisha From: nakeisha Date: 6th April 2006 15:34 (UTC) (Link)
Ooo very thought provoking post!

Thank you. It wasn't meant to be anywhere near as long as this ::sigh:: It was just when I read all the squeeing over the most slashy NCIS ep ever, it really got me thinking, more so than before and a post started to write itself. But it was only ever really intended to be a short one. Hmmm.

I do agree with you on the factual and interpretative canon and what they are you're right you can show a roomful full of people the same scene ask them to describe it and you'll get as many interpretations as there are people in the room. Even if they agree on a pairing in a scene they will have their own ideas about what the gesture meant in terms of feelings behind it etc.

Indeed, this is completely true. I'm sure that you and I could write separate 'reviews' focussing on the slash and friendship angles of a dS ep and they'd be quite different.

Most shows that I watch I watch without slashy glasses on, even when some of my closest friends are huge slash fans. Take SG-1 for example. I know several J/D devotees. And whilst I can kind of see how people can see it, at an intellectual level, I have never once watched it with slash glasses on.

I have to say the episode that showed me Gibbs/Ducky was Lt. Jane Doe without a doubt. I wasn't looking for it but the more I watched the more I thought - Wow I can see what Nikki means. Before that I wasn't really seeing it with the slash glasses. Or should I say pairing glasses?

::Beam:: I am so pleased that I manged to get that episode to you (and not just because it also included DM!) It just screams 'slash' to me, so loudly that I can't see how anyone can watch it and not see it. But...

I do really like Abby/McGee and sometimes give them a supporting role in my stories, and yes, in a way I too can see the possibility of Kate/DiNozzo, but other than that... No way.

But yeah sometimes witha show a light dings on and all of a sudden you see a pairing be it het or slash. I wonder why that is. I mean some people will have to find a pairing to watch a show but others don't, it just happens. What interests me is what leans us towards parings. I know sometimes it's the obvious but other times it's like something clicks.

As I'm sure I've mentioned before to you, I didn't get Gibbs/Ducky to begin with. I didn't want/need another fandom/pairing, and I was only watching the show for DMc. And although I saw a really close friendship between them and love at that level, slash didn't hit me. When pushed by someone who likes to ask those questions, I did say that they were the only possible slash couple, but... And then, it did hit me. And wham. Well, you know the rest and how I stand with them now.

You haven't wandered off tangent at all. I always look forward to reading your comments.

And as we've mentioned LJD, I thought I'd use the other icon from that episode to go with this post :-)
dinahmt From: dinahmt Date: 6th April 2006 13:13 (UTC) (Link)
Thanks for a most interesting and enjoyable essay :)

I saw the original post and it made me think - especially about what we actually regard as canon. I find myself guilty of taking both fanon (Napoleon as CEA) and background material (Illya's pile of jazz records under the bed) as canon when strictly speaking they are not.

het-based (hetty just doesn't sound right) episode'. An aside: there was a fun play on Radio 4 a wee while ago called 'Fiona and the Hetty Closet'. The title amused me no end!

LIke you, I'm a real fan of hugging. I was watching the NCIS episode where Tony and Ziva get stuck in the container at the port yesterday, and there was the most delightful Ducky/Abby moment where he holds out his arms to her in a 'come to daddy' gesture that I've seen him use before. Beth tells me it was in the A-Team UNCLE episode and with RV. I also saw him use it in 'Trainer' with Angharad Reese. It was definitely a fangirly moment for me. I really must use it in a story!
nakeisha From: nakeisha Date: 6th April 2006 15:40 (UTC) (Link)
Thanks for a most interesting and enjoyable essay :)

Thank you. Not that it was ever meant to be an essay... Merely a few lines (it grew, like Topsy).

I find myself guilty of taking both fanon (Napoleon as CEA) and background material (Illya's pile of jazz records under the bed) as canon when strictly speaking they are not.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I do it too. Knowing what in theory I regard as canon and what I might do, are two different things. And with things like CEO, it's so far into fanon, that it's very difficult to separate it, for most of us.

Oh, yes that Ducky&Abby hug was indeed wonderful. And it did indeed seem the 'come to Daddy' type (have you seen the icon I made for Ghostie using this scene). Abby has two surrogate fathers actually :-) Haven't you seen the A team thing? Would you like a copy of it on DVD?

Hugs are good, whether they are merely (not that I like to use the term as there's no 'mere' about it) friendship or more. I do like to see open affection displayed so naturally. And Ducky is just so huggable.
st_crispins From: st_crispins Date: 6th April 2006 14:13 (UTC) (Link)
I wouldn't argue with anything you've said here. Indeed, I've been arguing pretty much the same thing myself for years.

Thus nothing is 'wrong' and nothing is 'right' when it comes to interpretative canon.

True, as long as it proceeds from fact canon, as you say, or at least managed to find support for the argument (something I always teach my students).

In fandom, I've always made the distinction between what works for *me* personally and what doesn't but I can still accept as a reasonable interpretation ---reasonable because it extrapolates from fact canon.

This is why I can be a gen writer but still read slash. I've tried to explain this in the past, but sometimes the position is misunderstood.

As an academic, I'm comfortable with the existence of multiple interpretations. Often, people have a hard time distinguishing between a social constructionist view of the world in liberal arts as opposed to facts in science, but it's parallel to the distinction you draw between canon interpretation and canon fact above.

To aid in my own interpretation in fan texts, I do go to what I consider the apocrypha ---the supporting materials to canon ---particularly what I can learn about the development process of a text. I like context and it helps me form and understand my own perspectives.

I feel the same way about religion, BTW. Roman Catholic theology (as opposed to the institutionalized Church) works for me, but I can understand how folks may find other religious viewpoints just as satisfying to them and just as vald.
nakeisha From: nakeisha Date: 6th April 2006 15:53 (UTC) (Link)
I wouldn't argue with anything you've said here. Indeed, I've been arguing pretty much the same thing myself for years.

Thank you. I've been saying it myself for all the time I've been in fandom, just not in such depth in one place before.

True, as long as it proceeds from fact canon, as you say, or at least managed to find support for the argument (something I always teach my students).

Exactly! Support for the argument is indeed the important thing. I remember having this drummed into me when doing O, A levels and my degrees. And I can certainly say that I can argue/defend/provide evidence for my vision of my characters from canon.

In fandom, I've always made the distinction between what works for *me* personally and what doesn't but I can still accept as a reasonable interpretation ---reasonable because it extrapolates from fact canon.

This makes sense. It's similar, but not exactly the same, as my own view, which is that I personally don't have to agree with the vision of the characters presented by a writer, but I have to be convinced by it. They don't have to be *my* characters for me to enjoy a story. In fact a handful of my favourite stories have characters that aren't 'mine'. If the author convinces me, which I guess (thinking about it) must mean that sub-consciously I can see the possibility from canon, then I can enjoy the story.

This is why I can be a gen writer but still read slash. I've tried to explain this in the past, but sometimes the position is misunderstood.

As you know from several previous enjoyable discussions you and I have had, I'd call you a het writer, as you do write het sex, whether the focus is on the relationship of Napoleon and Illya or not. I wonder, purely as a thought whether the fact that you are happy to write them having sex, albeit with women, makes you more open to them having sex with one another? Whereas a 'true' gen person who doesn't want to read or write about them having sex with anyone, can't see het or slash? That probably has nothing to do with it, but I did wonder.

To aid in my own interpretation in fan texts, I do go to what I consider the apocrypha ---the supporting materials to canon ---particularly what I can learn about the development process of a text. I like context and it helps me form and understand my own perspectives.

I can understand this. It's not something that I do, but I can understand how it would work for you. It's something else that shows the diversity of fandom and fan texts, etc. we all do different things and yet probably get just as much pleasure and enjoyment and fun out of it.

Roman Catholic theology (as opposed to the institutionalized Church) works for me, but I can understand how folks may find other religious viewpoints just as satisfying to them and just as vald.

My feeling always has been in respect of religion and most things is that all viewpoints are indeed valid and if they satisfy the individual, then that is the main thing.

Interesting icon that you used given the subject matter of the post :-) Very well and no doubt deliberately chosen.


st_crispins From: st_crispins Date: 6th April 2006 14:18 (UTC) (Link)
Above, a poster said they never see anything in NCIS but Abby/McGee and Kate/Tony.

and I must admit, that's all I've ever seen too.
nakeisha From: nakeisha Date: 6th April 2006 15:23 (UTC) (Link)
Actually, not wanting to split hairs, but I'm going to :-) what she actually said was that apart from Gibbs/Ducky, she hasn't seen any other romantic pairings except Abby/McGee and maybe Kate/DiNozzo.
lizamanynames From: lizamanynames Date: 6th April 2006 20:14 (UTC) (Link)
*applauds* YES. Yes, yes, yes!! If everyone had this much sense and grace when dealing with fandom, canon, fanon, and shippyness, the Ray Wars, the Harmonian/Heron War, and countless other Shipper wars could have been avoided.

You and I, for example, see different things when looking at the facts of interaction between Fraser and each of the Rays, AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!

Thatnk you for writting this!! ♥
nakeisha From: nakeisha Date: 7th April 2006 11:53 (UTC) (Link)
Thank you very much indeed for your praise. I'm so glad that you enjoyed it and agree with it.

dealing with fandom, canon, fanon, and shippyness, the Ray Wars, the Harmonian/Heron War, and countless other Shipper wars could have been avoided.

That is true. The wars are nasty things and are unnecessary. So far (she says with crossed fingers) with one or two minor exceptions that go around 'Ducky having sex is icky', I haven't seen any hint of a war in NCIS, or even any hint of anyone dishing anyone else's choice of pairing. Maybe it is because there are so many pairs, but it's nice.

You and I, for example, see different things when looking at the facts of interaction between Fraser and each of the Rays, AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!

Exactly! I enjoy a good discussion about these various views, as long as it remains civil and respectful. It's such a shame that more people can't do that.

Thatnk you for writting this!!

You are welcome. I enjoyed writing it. As I said to a couple of other people, it was never intended to be this long or this in-depth, but the meta-bunny was clearly bouncing.
(Deleted comment)
nakeisha From: nakeisha Date: 7th April 2006 13:03 (UTC) (Link)
It's always interesting to read different views. I understand what you're saying, I really do. I disagree that calling someting ' interpretative canon' implies that you are saying others must view it in the same way, as you're saying 'this is how I see it', it implies opinion, by the word ' interpretative'. IMO, of course.

I'm not going to want to go along with someone else's view of what we're seeing.

Nor do I. Otherwise I'd be into so many fandoms I wouldn't be able to keep track of them. Not to mention I'd be seeing Gibbs/DiNozzo.

In some fandoms, I can take the same show and completely justify with canon either a totally het/gen view or a completely slashy view.

I certainly find that it is entirely possible to justify a scene or episode, etc. in more than one way, at least I can see how it can be done. I can do it at an academic level, I can see how people can see it. With some shows, however, I cannot even do that. There are a handful of pairings which various of friends of mine are into (either heavily or in passing), whereas I am unable, even at an academic 'I don't see slash but I can see how others can see it', level, to see it. For me no matter how hard I try, I can't. There aren't that many of those, because usually even if I don't see it, I can understand how people are able to, but there are a couple of pairs that I simply can't.

Not that I try to see slash, I don't. For me it's either there or not, at least on a personal level, but I do like to see what makes my friends tick and what works for them, even if it's just to show interest or say 'oh, yes'. So I actually feel that I've in someway 'failed' my friends when I can't even do the academic bit.
dragonmuse From: dragonmuse Date: 8th April 2006 17:58 (UTC) (Link)
I've just got to say I really enjoyed reading this. :) You've said it all so well, and it's as simple as you say. It's just when people get involved that things get complicated, after all. ;)

Anyway, I think I'm going to have to add this to my Memories. :)
nakeisha From: nakeisha Date: 9th April 2006 10:58 (UTC) (Link)
Thank you very much indeed. It's great to hear that you enjoyed reading it.

It's as simple as you say. It's just when people get involved that things get complicated, after all. ;)

LOL How very true. Life would be so much simpler without people :-))))

Thank you again.
rokeon From: rokeon Date: 9th April 2006 06:34 (UTC) (Link)
Very excellent bit of meta.

It's so easy to mentally reduce Gibbs's character down to just the bastard ex-Marine, so of course any affectionate physical contact with [insert character here] means they're sleeping together. I know I'm guilty of it. But looking at that list of moments... I'm expecting a lightning bolt to hit me for typing it, because that ingrained self-fanon is hard to shake, but the only description I can come up with is touchy-feely.

OTP preferences aside, I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Gibbs doesn't care for his team. So why is it so hard to acknowledge that he shows it sometimes?
nakeisha From: nakeisha Date: 9th April 2006 11:41 (UTC) (Link)
Very excellent bit of meta.

Thank you very much indeed. It's surprising how a couple of two line squees and a shortish poll elsewhere can lead to such in-depth stuff :-))

It's so easy to mentally reduce Gibbs's character down to just the bastard ex-Marine, so of course any affectionate physical contact with [insert character here] means they're sleeping together.

Quite! Given the fact that the only four people I don't think I've seen him paired with (but I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a story somewhere) are Jimmy, Fornell, Tom Morrow and Gerald, the poor guy must never get a moment to sleep. As someone said to me, it's no wonder he never gets any work done on his boat :-)

But looking at that list of moments... I'm expecting a lightning bolt to hit me for typing it, because that ingrained self-fanon is hard to shake,

Oh, I do so agree. And again as I've said elsewhere, we are all in danger of something being *so* fanon, that in our minds it becomes canon.

but the only description I can come up with is touchy-feely.

Oh, he is. He most definitely is. Someone once said to me quite a while ago, he even flirts with the office furniture :-)

OTP preferences aside, I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Gibbs doesn't care for his team. So why is it so hard to acknowledge that he shows it sometimes?

I just don't know why it's so difficult. Canon (touches aside) shows us how much he cares for his team. We've seen him worried about Ducky, Kate, DiNozzo, McGee, Gerald and although Tobias isn't actually part of his team, we saw him risk a lot to prove him innocent. And then there's his ex-Commander. He cares, probably if the truth be known, too much.

Thank you again. I'm glad you enjoyed the meta.
shooting2kill From: shooting2kill Date: 11th April 2006 15:13 (UTC) (Link)
Very interesting post, if I may say so N. Thanks for doing it.
nakeisha From: nakeisha Date: 11th April 2006 16:04 (UTC) (Link)
Thank you very much indeed. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
ptyx From: ptyx Date: 29th April 2006 14:35 (UTC) (Link)
It's a wonderful essay, and I'm going to save it in my memories. I liked your distinction between factual/interpretive. I don't know this fandom, but I think you've made your point very well and clear. You might want to read this old post by no_remorse, which I also find very interesting.
nakeisha From: nakeisha Date: 29th April 2006 15:13 (UTC) (Link)
Thank you very much indeed.

I'm really pleased that you found it interesting enough to save.

To me the distinction is clear, which is why I get a tad irritated when people come out with sweeping statements along the lines of 'X would never do/say that'. Their X may not say 'I love you', for example, but someone else's X just might. It's all down to how we view the characters. I know, I know, I'm preaching to the converted :-) I'll shut up now.

Thank you for the other link I shall toddle over there in a few minutes.
62 Notes or Leave A Note