Straight from ROC's own lips.......

(JOURNEYCAKE) writes:
> (bamaxena) writes:
> > (Leigh-Leigh) writes:
> > > "To be or not to be?"
> > >
> > > A long time ago, THAT was the question. But since X:WP came along, the question is:
> > >
> > > "Are they or aren't they?"
> > >
> > > For those who haven't read it, the following is a small portion of an interview with Renee' O'Connor conducted by The AUSTIN CHRONICLE (Austin, Texas). The article is titled "Women Who Run With Warrior Princesses" and was written by Kate X. Messer. The interview was conducted around the time that "The Bitter Suite" was in production. The publication date was Feb. 13-19, 1998.
> > >
> > > (I included this in a reply to a post about a week ago, but it was at the bottom of the stack when I replied to it. I thought it was interesting, so I'm sending it your way again.)
> > >
> > > -----------------------------
> > > AC: On to the "L" word: Do you guys hire real live lesbian consultants for the show? Seriously, how much of the show's lesbian "subtext" was a response to fans reading into the show? Chicken or egg?
> > >
> > > ROC: Mostly, the characters started developing and having an intimate friendship which was non-sexual. People looked into it and said, "Oh, this has to be something more than what it seems. That's where the lesbian subtext started, mostly from the strong female following. Then the writers started playing it up and we did as well. We just said, "Let's just make it as ambiguous as we can." Now, we've sort of moved on from that, especially since their friendship has developed a conflict. It's such a profound relationship, you know. It's not even about sex at all, it's just about a deep friendship.
> > > --------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > Does anyone have an opinion or comment about this? Do you think ROC said "too much?"
> > >
> > >
> > > L.L.
> > >
> > >
> > Hey there, L.L.! Nice to meet ya!
> >
> > I don't think she said too much, I think she was very wise. The story itself is, as she and LL say, a love story between two people. What they do on their own time is none of our business. The story itself doesn't say whether they ever have, do, or will have sex, because the story itself is not about that.
> >
> > This does not mean, however, that there is no such aspect to their relationship, it just means what it says, that the story is not about that. That may exist, but the story does not concentrate on it, it isn't *about* that. So she said just about what she should say, really. She neither denied nor confirmed, just like her friend and partner in the fabulous phenomenon of XWP, and she gave a very clear and straightforward amBIGuous statement on the ambiguous relationship between X&G. They may or may not be, but the story is not about that.
> >
> > BTW I am a HUGE fan of the subtext, but I see what they mean. Thanks for lettin' me ramble on. bama :)
>
>
>
> Ditto what bama said. . .
>
>
> Journeycake (who likes to think of subtext as an adult version of "Where's Waldo". . .)

Hee-Hee - - That is very funny, Journeycake. But the subtext is much easier to spot than Waldo (even without the red & white striped sweater.)

L.L.