Email from a non-SadGeezer
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
As for the [i]Garden[/i] thing, I know we’ve discussed it before and it doesn’t really need to be brought up again. I was just curious. It is theoretically possible that that was the intent, but I find it unlikely. If it were deliberate symbolism it would be more apparent. The [i]possible[/i] symbolic significance of the watering cans is just too subtle for the normal viewer to notice.
By what grounds are you categorizing “normal”? Because, as has been pointed out several times by several people, in showing this episode to objective parties, practically *every one* of those parties immediately picked up on the sexual symbolism of this episode. People around the office here, who aren’t fans of LEXX, aren’t clued in to the wide array of sexual symbolism used on the show, and aren’t familiar with the sexual humor inherent in the show, when seeing the watering cans and labial designs of the flowers, were pretty quick to realize what they were intended to represent. And these are people from a wide array of backgrounds, not a homogenous group of people that would tend to tilt the scales. My family members, upon seeing this, came to the same conclusion. Friends of mine, ditto. Reviews I’ve read, ditto. A broad spectrum of people have seen, recognized, and acknowledged the sexual symbolism of these bits of set and prop design.
If, by “normal”, you’re referring to yourself, you have to take into account that you have (publically, on this board) claimed that you have no sexual urges or instinct, and that you find the expression of same offensive to the point of physical revulsion: this would make you quite probably less able to spot sexual symbolism when it’s overt, or either conciously or unconciously refuse to acknowledge the presence of such symbolism when possible. At any rate, the fact that you either do not have, or believe that you do not have, a sex drive, sexual urges, the inborn drive to procreate, in and of itself excludes you from what would be considered “the normal viewer.” So if that’s your basis (or, as with other points where you’ve made broad generalizations regarding the generally accepted quality and/or popularity of certain works, you are extrapolating the view/opinion of 2 or 3 not-randomly-selected people to represent the view/opinion of a vast number of people) for your stance, you are probably quite off the mark.
–Aleck