User blog comment:MerlinUSA/Merlin -- The Big Picture/@comment-5102537-20130120143649/@comment-5995315-20130123013529

Hi Lurker --

I'm not trying to force my interpretation on anyone as fact. I'm giving my interpretation based on what I see. I was telling someone else that the series is produced in such a way that more than one interpretation of particular scenes and episodes can be valid. My interpretation and someone else's can both be right. I hope I'm being clear about that.

I didn't say all men in the over-40 segment were gay or bi or gay-friendly. I seldom express myself with all-or-nothing statements. But I do think a significant number are. What I can tell you with certainty is that Merlin is immensely popular among non-straight men.

My personal observation is that it's more popular the older the man is. I think younger gays are offended by the "bromance" label and think it was put out there to make fun of them, and they are also at the age where the idea of fate hasn't begun to take hold.

While I'm not forcing my interpretation of The Hollow Queen on anyone as fact, I hope you're not either. I came to that conclusion because of the "kitchen-seduction" scene, plus many things done and said between the two. I don't want to go into details that would make it appear I'm trying to establish a tryst with Daegal as fact.

However, to think Merlin was wound up by the time he met Daegal isn't a "dirty-minded" idea unless erotic thoughts are. I know some people believe this to be the case; so it's strictly my opinion, not a fact that I'm trying to prove, that seeing The Hollow Queen as and erotic allegory with a lesson at the end is one way to think about that episode.

While I think Merlin had to have a same-sex attraction to be Arthur's servant, I don't think our modern label of "gay" applies to a male who lived in the Dark Ages. I don't think of Arthur as "gay" at all, but rather a hyper-masculine male capable of regarding another man as a sex object if he saw fit. Thus, I do not see Merlin and Arthur as "gays." I do think both were capable of same-sex attraction, but our modern language gives us no single word to properly describe it.

Again, I'm only sharing my opinion. Yours is equally valid too. If you saw nothing to it or have a different idea of its meaning, that's fine with me and I'm glad for you to share it.

I enjoy philosophy, and reading it has taught me to take a lot of care distinguishing a fact from an opinion. I'm usually explicit if I'm claiming something as fact.