Yes, you can do that - subjectively. Any "reading" is subjective.Lhbizness wrote:Well, you could write a thesis on why Gambit or Tara or any of them didn't work as characters - you could interpret the show through feminism, through queer theory, through psychoanalytic reading, historical/cultural interpretation, or simply provide a close reading of episodes demonstrating how you conceptualize and interpret the different characters, motivations, etc.Frankymole wrote:It's all a matter of taste - some people like Gambit, some people like Tara, there's even a rumour that someone somewhere likes the movie. Holding an opinion that they're wrong to like those things isn't valid, because they're not objectively "bad" things to like. It's just that we have different preferences.
No-one can write a thesis on why Gambit or Tara don't work as characters (or Emma or Cathy), because all of them were hugely popular with one section of audiences or another and the shows (both TNA and original) were a great success.
This is art, not science - you can never objectively prove that Gambit (say) is a worse character than Emma, any more than I can prove that Cathy is a better one.
Like I said - it's a matter of subjectivity, of taste, of likes and dislikes. We can respect each other's tastes without trashing them for liking Gambit with some argument that he's objectively inferior (not that I'm suggesting you wanted to do so, just that that is how it comes across).
I trust that we are using the terms "subjective" and "objective" in the same way?
