My apologies for coming off so strongly, I do agree with much of your points in your earlier comment, it's just that when they give you a canon line that suggests he considered the whole "date" thing "while he was away" it bugs me when people throw it out the window. The line itself isn't necessary unless they wanted us to know that little fact. There’s no other point for it.
I grant you the ambiguity of the scene, it's purposefully there, and my apologies yet again that I am unable to see it as anything but. Especially when the interviews all stress it's a subtextual conversation, I also fail to see how anyone can interpret it at surface level (save the fact that it's not the best written/acted show ever). If you do read it as it is, then you've countered what they seem to have intended with the scene.,. which is fine, but does negate their apparent aim when they wrote it.
Moreover, all the interviews that stress there is no Gwack (and yes, I shall “smushname” because I find it’s fanon term just as aptly appalling as the "relationship" it represents) this season, the BBCAmerica's Captain's Blog that don't seem to see it beyond Jack losing a valued member of his team, etc make me reevaluate any scene where it seems like Gwack is afoot. I’m not saying my interpretation wins out, just that it seems easier to accept (personally) when it’s rather in keeping to all we’ve been told by writers/actors/the beeb to expect/is going on.
Sorry to belittle you in anyway… I acted on a knee-jerk reaction to the tired rhetoric of Gwackers and was disgustingly harsh when you did nothing to garner such a reaction (and I'm not being sarcastic).
no subject
My apologies for coming off so strongly, I do agree with much of your points in your earlier comment, it's just that when they give you a canon line that suggests he considered the whole "date" thing "while he was away" it bugs me when people throw it out the window. The line itself isn't necessary unless they wanted us to know that little fact. There’s no other point for it.
I grant you the ambiguity of the scene, it's purposefully there, and my apologies yet again that I am unable to see it as anything but. Especially when the interviews all stress it's a subtextual conversation, I also fail to see how anyone can interpret it at surface level (save the fact that it's not the best written/acted show ever). If you do read it as it is, then you've countered what they seem to have intended with the scene.,. which is fine, but does negate their apparent aim when they wrote it.
Moreover, all the interviews that stress there is no Gwack (and yes, I shall “smushname” because I find it’s fanon term just as aptly appalling as the "relationship" it represents) this season, the BBCAmerica's Captain's Blog that don't seem to see it beyond Jack losing a valued member of his team, etc make me reevaluate any scene where it seems like Gwack is afoot. I’m not saying my interpretation wins out, just that it seems easier to accept (personally) when it’s rather in keeping to all we’ve been told by writers/actors/the beeb to expect/is going on.
Sorry to belittle you in anyway… I acted on a knee-jerk reaction to the tired rhetoric of Gwackers and was disgustingly harsh when you did nothing to garner such a reaction (and I'm not being sarcastic).