Why the "Moonlighting" Argument is a Fallacy
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | Why the "Moonlighting" Argument is a Fallacy |
| Creator: | Dianora |
| Date(s): | October 3, 1997 |
| Medium: | online |
| Fandom: | Moonlighting, The X-Files |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | Why the Moonlighting Argument is a Fallacy, Archived version (at the author's website) Why the "Moonlighting" Argument is a Fallacy, Archived version (at Gossamer) |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
Why the "Moonlighting" Argument is a Fallacy is a 1997 essay by Dianora. It has the subtitle: "A Treatise/DIAtribe."
It was posted to alt.tv.x-files.creative, the author's website, and archived at The Gossamer Project.
Author's Notes
NOTE: This is NOT an attack against NoRomos. This is a well-reasoned, thought-out, logical response to one particular ubiquitous and nonsensical argument against Mulder and Scully's relationship. Some of my best friends are NoRomos. ;-DThanks to MD1016 for getting me to do this and to Amy Vincent for her input.
This is dedicated to anyone who reads it and exclaims, "Exactly!"
Want to comment? E-mail me at [email protected]. If the formatting comes out yucky on this, you can see a nice version of it at my website: http://members.aol.com/dianora2/main.htm
Wow, I'm actually writing something that doesn't require a disclaimer... <g>
Includes Footnotes!
1. A fallacy is defined by Webster's as "a false or mistaken idea" or "false or illogical reasoning."
2. If you need further proof, I actually had a T-shirt made up that said, "Does felt feel? Do dice die?" while a friend got the corresponding shirt, "Do bears bear? Do bees be?" That obsessed.
3. Damn that Mark Harmon!
4. Or have you, like me, attempted to block them from your memory?
5. I'm pretty sure it was two episodes. I'm going by memory, here.
6. And wouldn't Sliders have been better if Quinn and Wade had gotten together, so we wouldn't have been subjected to Chicks of the Week (COWs) or Maggie "Maggot" Beckett?
7. Actually, only about two people have told me this, so it's not a very scientific conclusion, just an observation.
8. Then the two of them made out on screen, just to taunt us.
9. No, John Shiban doesn't count.
10. Jennifer Lyons' stuff is an excellent example. See "Too Close" or the Jason vampire stories.
11. First told to me in an AOL Relationship Chat sometime in early 1997.
12. Again, John Shiban is of course excluded from this category, since as far as I'm concerned he is not a writer, just a talentless toady.
13. Yes, this is a Quagmire reference.
Some Topics Discussed
- Moonlighting and its failure to successfully sell fans the romantic relationship between Maddie and David
- similar failures in the shows: Remington Steele, Scarecrow and Mrs. King, Who's the Boss
- MSR, Chris Carter, and why The X-Files won't fall into the same trap if a romantic relationship is allowed to develop between Dana Scully and Fox Mulder
- "Reason Number One: Mulder and Scully's Relationship is Not the Only Plot/Purpose of "The X-Files." Think about "Moonlighting.""
- "Reason Number Two: ... The Primary Tension Between Mulder and Scully is Not a Sexual Tension, But Rather One of Intuition vs. Science."
- "Reason Number Three: Mulder and Scully are Professional, Well-Developed Characters."
- "Reason Number Four: Mulder and Scully Already Love Each Other."
- "Reason Number Five: We're Not Asking For Much."
- "Reason Number Six: It Can Work, or, It's All in the Writing."
Excerpts
"Mulder and Scully can't get together. Look at what happened to 'Moonlighting.'"It's possible that no two statements in the English language can raise an intelligent Shipper's ire quite like the ones above. We have heard them countless times in chat rooms, on bulletin boards, on newsgroups -- and each time we have to make a choice: enlighten the purveyors of this misguided theory, or ignore them and try to keep our blood pressure at normal levels. And yet, despite attempts to dispute this theory, the fallacious argument continues. So here, once and for all, is a definitive treatise: Why the "Moonlighting" Argument is a Fallacy.
Something to be kept in mind while reading this argument is that I was, at the time, a huge "Moonlighting" fan. Obsessive to the extreme. I =know= the show. I =love= the show. And maybe in a weird way that's what helps me to see the whole argument more clearly.
First and foremost we must deal with the most obvious and crucial reason this argument doesn't hold water:
The consummation of David Addison and Maddie Hayes' relationship did not bring about the ruin of "Moonlighting."
In short: lousy writing, backstage clashes, and keeping the characters =apart,= repeat, =apart,= is what killed "Moonlighting." Not David and Maddie "getting together." They never got together! Having sex in two episodes does not constitute together by any stretch of the imagination.
If you are a NoRomo you may only see it as a platonic love, but the fact is that these characters do love each other, and as partners, would gladly put their lives on the line for each other (and have done so more than once). How could this relationship possibly be intensified by sleeping together? The emotional commitment is already there, and =that's= what determines the intensity of a relationship, isn't it? To bring David and Maddie into this, did we ever feel any true love between them? Would Maddie lay her life down for David, or vice versa? No. While David and Maddie's relationship was fun and wonderful for what it was, it's nonetheless a completely different kind of relationship than Mulder and Scully's.
In short, if you want to argue against Mulder and Scully becoming involved in a romantic relationship, be my guest. You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. But please, please: use an argument that makes sense, that can be considered and evaluated on logical and reasonable terms. Don't bluster about "Moonlighting" just because you can't think of any other reason to support your opinion. Because all you're doing is proving that you don't have a leg to stand on. Not even a peg leg.