From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V2 #119 Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk chakram-refugees-digest Sunday, May 5 2002 Volume 02 : Number 119 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [chakram-refugees] Canon (was Re: Xena and her sidekick) [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Con 2002 Day 3 Part 4 [KTL ] Re: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Twilight Of the gods [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Canon (was Re: Xena and her sidekick) [cr ] RE: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Twilight Of the gods ["Ann Reddecliffe" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Canon (was Re: Xena and her sidekick) [IfeRae@aol.] [chakram-refugees] "Iolaus" as "Data" ["H.J.J. Hewitt" But, from my definition of 'canon' it follows that anything explicitly shown > > / mentioned about any character on screen is 'canon' - whether it's about > Xena or, say, Seraphin the terminally annoying. For example it's canon > IIRC > that Seraphin was a childhood chum of Gabby's (or something like that). > Yes, I understand that you mean what you see as "explicitly" shown or stated. I'm asking, is it enough for your "canon" that Xena is simply shown or stated to be a warrior? Your canon does not include anything else about that - -- e.g., what kind of warrior she is? You would put her on a par with, say, Draco, who was also shown and stated to be a warrior? Or might your canon distinguish her by saying, "Xena was a warrior. Draco was a warrior. Xena did and said things differently from Draco," and leave it at that? Maybe say how she was shown to be different -- e.g., stating that she wished to go home, that she didn't want to partner up with him, that she didn't demand any payment from the Amphipolis folks? But you wouldn't make any inferences from that, in terms of canon that included her motivation or character? - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 04:35:05 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Con 2002 Day 3 Part 4 Snipped some, believe it or not... And I'm going NUTS with the excellent exchange of posts on the eps and the characters lately--I don't have TIME to jump in and write replies--but I will soon...Mwahahahahahahaah! My comments are the ones with two carots in front of them, Thel's replies have the single carot. > > > > SPOILERS FOR FIN, HELICON, HOOVES AND HARLOTS > > > > > > > > At any rate, that question would have been more appropriately asked of the > > writer of the ep. Hurst just directed what he found on the page. (I > > remember at a very early con, someone asking Danielle about Ephiny's > > history with Xena. And Danielle looked blank. > > She thought for a second, then shrugged and smiled > > and essentially said, "Beats me." > > Answer: Danielle did it because the director asked her to. It's an > interesting point that I've been debating (on another list) whether the actor > needs to know *why* they're doing something. Specifically, in that case, > with regard to Gabrielle _not_ cutting of Morimoto's head in Friend in Need - > in the 'commentary' DVD, ROC says it's because she wouldn't do him the > honour, RT says it's because she can't kill a defenceless man. And one fan > on that list is dismayed by this, the idea that the director and the actor > may not know what each other's thinking. My feeling is, so long as the > actor produces exactly the performance the director is looking for, it > doesn't matter how or 'why' they do it. Though of course sometimes it may > help the actor to know why, but it isn't essential. IMO. > The actor and director don't have to agree on motivation, but a good actor has to make up some motivation to come up with an action or facial expression that conveys what they are thinking inside. Reactions don't occur in a void--people do things for reasons. Once it's on the screen, it doesn't always translate exactly to what they believed they were conveying. Just look at all the differing interpretations each audience comes up with--there's just about as many interpretations as there are viewers. Because in a way, our thought processes are all also "cameras" and what we record comes through our own lens which is formed from the life we've lived and the experiences we've had. > > > They showed the world premiere of "The Making of Friend in Need" >> One of the really cool things about it > > was that it showed just how totally visual a movie is. Now this sounds > > dumb because it's so basic, but whenever people first start to write for > > film, they almost never intuitively "get" that the main way a script > > differs from a story or novel is in the requirement to fully describe on > > the page what the person is doing, what the background is, what the props > > s/he's working with are, etc. etc. etc. > > > > This is why, I think, the director of a film / TV has such a huge input into > the finished product. Because, whatever the writer puts down on the page, > how it is interpreted on screen is almost entirely up to the actors and the > director. For example, whether an actor says a line apologetically or > defiantly can change their whole character and the whole feeling of the > scene. > snip > > In fact, if you read the draft script of an earlier version of Friend In Need > that's in circulation (or I imagine any other episode), the detail isn't > nearly as comprehensive as you suggest above. (Sorry, KT ;) Now this > could of course be because RT was filming it, so could be presumed to know > the writers' intentions (as he co-wrote it); or it could be because it's > customarily left up to the director. > Yes, of course it's different when Rob does it. And also it's different for an established show. You don't need to describe Xena's looks, age and background each time you write a new script. You don't need to talk about her clothing and weapons. But for a new show or movie you do have to do this. Also, I'm fairly certain that on Xena they just write things like, "Teaser fight" "half-point fight" "climatic fight" and assume that Peter Bell (the stunt coordinator) will fill in the blanks. Though I appreciated very much Rob saying that the reason Xena wore that silly bikini under her wool wrap in the winter in Japa was purely for the the fight scene in the forge when she she gets the Sacred Katana. That bare skin being exposed around sharp metal and raging fires is a compelling image. I love how he says essentially, "Yeah, the outfit is dumb, but what a scary, gut-wrenching visceral visual all that bare vulnerable skin on the warrior fighting among the hot fires and the flashing sharp metal gave us." This is pure storytelling through images. And he's right--but what did we all talk about? How silly the bikini was. We noticed it for sure, but while the surface of our minds was saying, "There they go again, exposing them female bits", the deep part of our psyche were going, "Oh no! Ouch, Oooo, be CAREFUL! Look out for that open flame there. ARRGHHHH!!!! They pinned her bare chest to that wall of sharp things!" This is "playing to the pits" in Stratford-upon-Avon style. While the serious story of love, betrayal and redemption spins on in the foreground, below the surface we all subliminally cringe over the "scary stuff" thrown in our faces and sucked into our guts. > It's interesting to mentally compare the 'look and feel' of The Debt and Sin > Trade for example - both Xena - flashback stories set in Asia, yet very > different in visual tone. And this I think is almost entirely down to the > style of the directors - Oley Sassone and T J Scott. I think if T J had > directed The Debt it would have looked like Sin Trade, and if Oley had > directed Sin Trade it would have looked like The Debt - and both would still > have been magnificent episodes. > Yes, absolutely directors are extremely important in film. It's a real group effort (again as totally opposed to a novel or other written to be read work) and the director is essentially the editor of the piece, the one with the final say, and the one who pulls it all together. Or not. Becker is not my favorite director in his later efforts. > > (snip of fascinating description) > > > > I loved this sequence in the tape-it was fascinating to watch how that > > scene was envisioned, then talked over between Rob, Lucy and the crew, > > reworked on set, then blocked out for Lucy and the dozen or so crew people > > who among other things slid arrows on wires towards Lucy, and then got > > filmed in take after take after take. Which of course later get edited > > into one flowing sequence. > > That does illustrate that, whatever the writer originally had in mind, it can > get dramatically changed on the set. (On this occasion of course, the > director was one of the writers so presumably it stayed close to the original > vision, but that often isn't the case). > Yes, a script has to exist, even if it only exists in the director's mind when the director is also the writer. But a script is also only a blueprint--this is literally what a good teacher (whether one is teaching in a formal classroom setting or one giving you on the job training) will hopefully get across to you. Unlike a novel which is finished when it is published (and one could argure, "and read"), a script is not finished until it is filmed and edited. A novel is an end product, a script is not. > > You know, Saturday night we had dinner with a friend of one of my buds. > > And during dinner, she suddenly declared that Lucy had just had too much > > input into the show. "I mean, being the executive producer's wife, ya > > know? It was unavoidable that she would have too much input. It just > > wasn't right." > > (snip) > > > But boy, watching this snippet of her working out this scene, I sure think > > her input was very valuable, worthwhile and damn sure made the show > > better, even though she WAS the executive producer's partner. It shows > > just how hard she works and just how important doing the best job she can > > is to her. They didn't take a lot of short cuts on that show. > > Well, I believe, ROC used to have quite a lot of input too. As I recall, > she used to keep track of continuity more than Lucy did. But both of them I > think were conscious of keeping their characters 'in character'. And much > credit to them both for their input. Well yes, that's another thing I've heard many of the actors at cons talk about. How PacRen was VERY open to input from everybody and how things always got changed on set if someone came up with a good suggestion or a good line. From lead actors and any and all members of the crew. (Except that "Eve always had to be good..." blech and grin.) And Renee, as Lucy says in the "Coffee Talk" video, when Renee talks about how weird it must have been for Lucy to take direction from her, Lucy says, "But you know the show surely as well as anyone could." And dismisses that it was awkward for her. She says that Renee was the director and that she, Lucy, always tries to be "good" with the directors. And Renee says something like, "You were very good, very supportive." And then they joke with each other about having "discussions" about how to play or frame a scene. And that it was absolutely up to Renee to make the final decisions and Lucy dealt with that. Lucy ALWAYS praises Renee and her value to the series. And to herself personally as a comrade in arms, so to speak. Everyone has their areas of expertise. And I believe from everything I've heard and read about working with Tapert, he believes in hiring good people and then using them to help him make the best product he can. While still retaining his executive producer right of yay or nay on any suggestions. Sometimes he had lots of time to devote to Xena's story and the final product, sometimes, unfortunately, he didn't due to other commitments. But see, the woman who said "Lucy had an unfair advantage" is a Gabfundie. To her, any input from Renee should be treated as pure gold, but Lucy's should be dismissed because she's the producer's partner and always takes unfair advantage of that. I was on a list with this women where one of the often repeated cries of torment and rage was the serious belief that Lucy and Rob were involved in a conspiracy against Renee--they wouldn't allow her to do interviews or to appear on TV or at PR events because if she did, everyone would realize that she was far more beautiful and talented than Lucy was. And Lucy just couldn't allow that. And so made Rob MADE Renee stay away from the public eye. No, I am not fooling and Yes, I am not on that list anymore. Grin. > > Nice con report, KT, and even your digressions are thought-provoking. And long...grin. KT > Thanks! > > Thelonius ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 02:07:58 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Twilight Of the gods On Saturday 04 May 2002 03:51, cande@sunlink.net wrote: > "Yes, though I must admit to thinking Xena may have had other motives than > just protecting Aph & Gabs.... a certain degree of revenge for having > used her, possibly, or maybe a determination to stop him useing her again > in the future? (Either way, I was cheering Xena on, I was very peeved > when Big G stepped in and took care of his boy Michael :)" > > Oh my yes Xena was more than peeved - she was furious. Michael certainly > put eve in mortal danger to get Xena to do his dirty work for him. I > always thought it was an interesting choice to turn an archangel into a > quasi-villian. I was always waiting for some kind of howl of protest over > this but nothing much happened that I'm aware of but I never did a lot of > other lists. Interesting. I was expecting howls of protest too when I saw it, and I never heard a peep (and I'm on quite a number of lists). Maybe the usual protestors were all howled out ;-) Michael struck me as the quintessential rising CIA executive (or KGB if you prefer). Going places and determined to get the job done successfully, and not too worried about collateral damage. (snip for bandwidth) > > "I think Eli's god was just using him, too. But then, I'm a sceptical > about him as Amarice was." > > I liked Eli and believed he was sincere but he is like a lot of saints > after they are dead their words or deeds are perverted to the ends of > others. St Francis of Assisi taught apostolic poverty but once he was dead > and gone those who followed built his order into one the most powerful and > wealth orders in direct opposition of what he preached. So perhaps what we > have is the powers that be using Eli's good message to gather supporters so > they can relace the Olympians. If that makes any sense. > > CherylA To be honest, I didn't care for Eli and I thought his pacifism was quite untenable. And yet I believe in pacifism, in principle. I just don't think Eli's was very realistic. But yes, what you say about TPTB using Eli's message to gather supporters, I do agree with. And, on reflection, I guess they thought he was as useful dead as he was alive. Every movement needs a martyr. Thelonius ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 01:54:09 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Canon (was Re: Xena and her sidekick) On Saturday 04 May 2002 16:33, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/3/2002 3:14:26 AM Central Daylight Time, > cr@orcon.net.nz > > writes: > > But, from my definition of 'canon' it follows that anything explicitly > > shown > > > / mentioned about any character on screen is 'canon' - whether it's > > about Xena or, say, Seraphin the terminally annoying. For example it's > > canon IIRC > > that Seraphin was a childhood chum of Gabby's (or something like that). > > Yes, I understand that you mean what you see as "explicitly" shown or > stated. I'm asking, is it enough for your "canon" that Xena is simply shown > or stated to be a warrior? Your canon does not include anything else about > that -- e.g., what kind of warrior she is? OK, we are *definitely* using different meanings of the word 'canon'. I was using it to mean 'facts explicitly stated on screen'. You're using it to mean - umm, I can't think of a precise definition, but I guess it relates to my 'vision' of what and who Xena is. Based on the show but including any inferences I may draw or imagine from it. (I'm not putting this very well I'm afraid). > You would put her on a par > with, say, Draco, who was also shown and stated to be a warrior? Or might > your canon distinguish her by saying, "Xena was a warrior. Draco was a > warrior. Xena did and said things differently from Draco," and leave it at > that? Maybe say how she was shown to be different -- e.g., stating that > she wished to go home, that she didn't want to partner up with him, that > she didn't demand any payment from the Amphipolis folks? But you wouldn't > make any inferences from that, in terms of canon that included her > motivation or character? > > -- Ife Well, certainly I do. I have a mental image of Xena, a sort of gestalt (ooh another term to argue over :) built up from all the episodes, and the inferences I draw from them. Maybe I need to find another more explicit word than 'canon' to use for 'things which are explicitly stated on screen'. Thelonius ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 02:35:14 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Con 2002 Day 3 Part 4 On Sunday 05 May 2002 00:35, KTL wrote: > Snipped some, believe it or not... > > And I'm going NUTS with the excellent exchange of posts on the eps and the > characters lately--I don't have TIME to jump in and write replies--but I > will soon...Mwahahahahahahaah! > > My comments are the ones with two carots in front of them, Thel's replies > have the single carot. > > > > SPOILERS FOR FIN, HELICON, HOOVES AND HARLOTS > > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate, that question would have been more appropriately asked of > > > the writer of the ep. Hurst just directed what he found on the page. (I > > > remember at a very early con, someone asking Danielle about Ephiny's > > > history with Xena. And Danielle looked blank. > > > She thought for a second, then shrugged and smiled > > > and essentially said, "Beats me." > > > > Answer: Danielle did it because the director asked her to. It's an > > interesting point that I've been debating (on another list) whether the > > actor needs to know *why* they're doing something. Specifically, in > > that case, with regard to Gabrielle _not_ cutting of Morimoto's head in > > Friend in Need - in the 'commentary' DVD, ROC says it's because she > > wouldn't do him the honour, RT says it's because she can't kill a > > defenceless man. And one fan on that list is dismayed by this, the idea > > that the director and the actor may not know what each other's thinking. > > My feeling is, so long as the actor produces exactly the performance the > > director is looking for, it doesn't matter how or 'why' they do it. > > Though of course sometimes it may help the actor to know why, but it > > isn't essential. IMO. > > The actor and director don't have to agree on motivation, but a good actor > has to make up some motivation to come up with an action or facial > expression that conveys what they are thinking inside. Reactions don't > occur in a void--people do things for reasons. > > Once it's on the screen, it doesn't always translate exactly to what they > believed they were conveying. Just look at all the differing > interpretations each audience comes up with--there's just about as many > interpretations as there are viewers. Because in a way, our thought > processes are all also "cameras" and what we record comes through our own > lens which is formed from the life we've lived and the experiences we've > had. > > > > They showed the world premiere of "The Making of Friend in Need" > >> > >> One of the really cool things about it > >> > > > was that it showed just how totally visual a movie is. Now this sounds > > > dumb because it's so basic, but whenever people first start to write > > > for film, they almost never intuitively "get" that the main way a > > > script differs from a story or novel is in the requirement to fully > > > describe on the page what the person is doing, what the background is, > > > what the props s/he's working with are, etc. etc. etc. > > > > This is why, I think, the director of a film / TV has such a huge input > > into the finished product. Because, whatever the writer puts down on > > the page, how it is interpreted on screen is almost entirely up to the > > actors and the director. For example, whether an actor says a line > > apologetically or defiantly can change their whole character and the > > whole feeling of the scene. > > snip > > > In fact, if you read the draft script of an earlier version of Friend In > > Need that's in circulation (or I imagine any other episode), the detail > > isn't nearly as comprehensive as you suggest above. (Sorry, KT ;) Now > > this could of course be because RT was filming it, so could be presumed > > to know the writers' intentions (as he co-wrote it); or it could be > > because it's customarily left up to the director. > > Yes, of course it's different when Rob does it. And also it's different > for an established show. You don't need to describe Xena's looks, age and > background each time you write a new script. You don't need to talk about > her clothing and weapons. > > But for a new show or movie you do have to do this. > > Also, I'm fairly certain that on Xena they just write things like, "Teaser > fight" "half-point fight" "climatic fight" and assume that Peter Bell > (the stunt coordinator) will fill in the blanks. Yes, I've seen that stated somewhere by someone in TPTB (can't remember who, now). > Though I appreciated very much Rob saying that the reason Xena wore that > silly bikini under her wool wrap in the winter in Japa was purely for the > the fight scene in the forge when she she gets the Sacred Katana. > > That bare skin being exposed around sharp metal and raging fires is a > compelling image. I love how he says essentially, "Yeah, the outfit is > dumb, but what a scary, gut-wrenching visceral visual all that bare > vulnerable skin on the warrior fighting among the hot fires and the > flashing sharp metal gave us." This is pure storytelling through images. > And he's right--but what did we all talk about? How silly the bikini was. > We noticed it for sure, but while the surface of our minds was saying, > "There they go again, exposing them female bits", the deep part of our > psyche were going, "Oh no! Ouch, Oooo, be CAREFUL! Look out for that > open flame there. ARRGHHHH!!!! They pinned her bare chest to that wall of > sharp things!" *I* never talked about how silly that bikini was!!!! I was too busy watching Xena's figure...... [Thelonius frantically demists his glasses] OK, yes I do agree, it looked really dangerous for Xena. I wonder though, since she was without her armour, whether her fur coat would have been any protection at all in a fight or whether she could move more freely in her bikini? It may have been an entirely practical move on her part. Of course, there's also the consideration that the swordmaster's henchmen should have been similarly struck by her appearance. That they weren't just shows what dull unappreciative clods they were. Serves them right that they got beaten up. Besides, it gave Lucy that great line, "I'm just a girl in search of a really good sword". Cheeky as all get-out. > > It's interesting to mentally compare the 'look and feel' of The Debt and > > Sin Trade for example - both Xena - flashback stories set in Asia, yet > > very different in visual tone. And this I think is almost entirely down > > to the style of the directors - Oley Sassone and T J Scott. I think if > > T J had directed The Debt it would have looked like Sin Trade, and if > > Oley had directed Sin Trade it would have looked like The Debt - and both > > would still have been magnificent episodes. > > Yes, absolutely directors are extremely important in film. It's a real > group effort (again as totally opposed to a novel or other written to be > read work) and the director is essentially the editor of the piece, the > one with the final say, and the one who pulls it all together. Or not. > Becker is not my favorite director in his later efforts. Oh, I quite agree. Which is why I quoted Sassone and Scott as examples and not Josh. OTOH, he's accessible, and will answer questions if they're to the point, which is good. (snip) > I was on a list with this women where one of the often repeated cries of > torment and rage was the serious belief that Lucy and Rob were involved > in a conspiracy against Renee--they wouldn't allow her to do interviews or > to appear on TV or at PR events because if she did, everyone would realize > that she was far more beautiful and talented than Lucy was. And Lucy just > couldn't allow that. And so made Rob MADE Renee stay away from the > public eye. > > No, I am not fooling and Yes, I am not on that list anymore. Grin. Since you've mentioned it, yes, I can vouch that there were a few conspiracy theorists even on general lists like Xenaverse. It was always absurd - ROC has always been a very private person, and still is. Thelonius ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 15:28:39 +0100 From: "Ann Reddecliffe" Subject: RE: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Twilight Of the gods >>I liked Eli and believed he was sincere but he is like a lot of saints after they are dead their words or deeds are perverted to the ends of others. >> When I read that I was reminded of Legacy when Gabrielle's words had been interpreted and reinterpreted by others during their "absence". She was surprised by the way people saw her, as the "battling bard". Her words had been taken, by others, to mean what they wanted, regardless of her original intention in writing them. Ann ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 18:42:45 EDT From: MelosaQu@aol.com Subject: [chakram-refugees] New Xena Book :::G'day, Y'all::: I just received an advanced copy of Nikki Stafford's new Xena book, "How Xena Changed Our Lives - True Stories By Fans For Fans" and all I gotta say is....it is simply GLORIOUS!!! A *must* have for any Hardcore Nutball! The cover is beautiful, the pictures outstanding and the format is terrific! She had time before it went to the printer to do a Kevin Smith tribute ("In Memory") at the end of the book to which our very own KT, from this list, is published.....good on ya, KT! In fact, there are many well known fans that contributed to this book! Should make a wonderful read!! Good Job and Thank You, Nikki, for putting this all together for us! Just my (happy) thoughts.... BTW...Nikki also has a Trek book coming out along the same lines as this one....by the fans, for the fans. She also has a follow up to her first Buffy book ("Bite Me"), a continuation of the episode guide, cast bios, etc...and the series, "Angel" has been added. That should be out soon. Just an FYI to the Buffy fans and Trek fans that are on this list. ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 20:37:56 EDT From: MelosaQu@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] New Xena Book My own post and I am already adding on to it.... In a message dated 05/04/2002 5:43:26 PM EST, MelosaQu@aol.com writes: >I just received an advanced copy of Nikki Stafford's new Xena book, "How Xena Changed Our Lives - True Stories By Fans For Fans" and all I gotta say is....it is simply GLORIOUS!!! A *must* have for any Hardcore Nutball! I will add this to all of you out there.....not only is this a book for HCNB but for all your spouses, SO's, family members and friends who have looked at you with glazed eyes, odd expressions, laughed or shrugged you off, or just plain didn't understand why you got into the show, Xena: Warrior Princess so much....also give them a copy of this book. THEN they may understand where you are coming from. Already, the first three stories had me in tears....I understood, I could relate, I "got it" and maybe, just maybe, they will too. I forgot to mention in my first post that some of the proceeds from the sale of each book is going to Mist at Sword And Staff to be donated to the Starship Foundation in NZ. More copies sold, more for the Greater Good. Damn! Xenites are amazing aren't they? Time to dab my eyes, dry my tears and get back to reading.... Just my thoughts..... ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 01:48:26 +1200 From: cr Subject: [chakram-refugees] swords I see that Livia's sword (one of 'em, anyway) is up for auction on Ebay and currently fetching about 5 times the price of Virgil's. Does this prove it's better to be an almost universally hated baddie than a nice guy? ;-) Thelonius ... wondering how much Perdycorpse's sword would have fetched. If he had one. ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 01:02:36 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Canon (was Re: Xena and her sidekick) In a message dated 5/4/2002 7:51:51 AM Central Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > Yes, I understand that you mean what you see as "explicitly" shown or > > stated. I'm asking, is it enough for your "canon" that Xena is simply > shown > > or stated to be a warrior? Your canon does not include anything else > about > > that -- e.g., what kind of warrior she is? > > OK, we are *definitely* using different meanings of the word 'canon'. I > was > using it to mean 'facts explicitly stated on screen'. >> Um, that's what I was saying I thought you meant. > > You're using it to mean - umm, I can't think of a precise definition, but I > guess it relates to my 'vision' of what and who Xena is. Based on the show > > but including any inferences I may draw or imagine from it. (I'm not > putting this very well I'm afraid).>> Yes you are. That's exactly what I'm asking. Except, I'm not saying what "canon" means to me right now. I'm trying to figure out what it means to *you.* I thought I was understanding the "explicit" part. I was asking if you also meant the "vision" part. I believe you're saying "no" to the latter. > > > You would put her on a par > > with, say, Draco, who was also shown and stated to be a warrior? Or might > > your canon distinguish her by saying, "Xena was a warrior. Draco was a > > warrior. Xena did and said things differently from Draco," and leave it > at > > that? Maybe say how she was shown to be different -- e.g., stating that > > she wished to go home, that she didn't want to partner up with him, that > > she didn't demand any payment from the Amphipolis folks? But you wouldn' > t > > make any inferences from that, in terms of canon that included her > > motivation or character? > > > > -- Ife > > Well, certainly I do. I have a mental image of Xena, a sort of gestalt ( > ooh > another term to argue over :) built up from all the episodes, and the > inferences I draw from them. > > Maybe I need to find another more explicit word than 'canon' to use for > 'things which are explicitly stated on screen'.>> I have seen "canon" used with different meanings for different people. I simply wanted to clarify how you meant it. It seems to mean what you believe is explicitly done or said -- established, the "facts" -- without interpretation. It is the basis for your interpretation -- your "vision." For some people, "canon" seems to involve both the explicit and implicit (at least to them), while you see the former as "facts" that can be separate from (and a step preceding) the latter. Correct? - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 21:49:55 -0500 From: "H.J.J. Hewitt" Subject: [chakram-refugees] "Iolaus" as "Data" Michael Hurst guest-starred on Kevin Sorbo's ANDROMEDA tonight (it plays on WGN tomorrow [Sunday] at 6 CDT, and there again next Saturday at 5 CDT) as an AI (Artificial Intelligence) embodied in an android. He looks like an older, beefier Data... I didn't recognize him until he spoke. (Of course, I watched the HTLJ "Yes, Virginia..." all the way thru without the least perception of who was playing the pathetic lush!!!) This was a pretty good ep, and one you can probably follow \fairly/ well without series background, but if y'all wish, I'll post a quickie run-down of what it would help to know. TEXena ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 22:47:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Sarah Anne Packard Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] New Xena Book Hey, how did you get an advanced copy?? :) And, when the heck is it being released?? Amazon.com's page for it just said April, and it still says "pre-order it today," so I'm wondering....I never got around to submitting a story for it (doh!), but I did fill out one of her long fan surveys in depth, so maybe I'll be quoted or something. :) I was going to submit some Kevin Smith con photos too but I missed the deadline... By the way, I'm also psyched for her follow-up to "Bite Me"! That book and her "Lucy and Renee: Warrior Stars of Xena" are my top favorite books about Buffy and Xena...the episode guides in each of them were invaluable to me when I was starting my journey into fandom... -Sarah, aka the abbagirl- P.S. I'm hearing rumors that "Xena Live 2"'s run in Chicago will be extended? That would ROCK, cuz I don't think I can make it there b4 the set end date of May 19...I saw the original and am dying to see the sequel; I've avoided reading reviews from ppl on here and elsewhere though, cuz I don't wanna be spoiled too much if I do get to see it. :) On Sat, 4 May 2002 MelosaQu@aol.com wrote: > :::G'day, Y'all::: > > I just received an advanced copy of Nikki Stafford's new Xena book, "How Xena > Changed Our Lives - True Stories By Fans For Fans" and all I gotta say > is....it is simply GLORIOUS!!! A *must* have for any Hardcore Nutball! > The cover is beautiful, the pictures outstanding and the format is terrific! > She had time before it went to the printer to do a Kevin Smith tribute ("In > Memory") at the end of the book to which our very own KT, from this list, is > published.....good on ya, KT! In fact, there are many well known fans > that contributed to this book! Should make a wonderful read!! Good Job and > Thank You, Nikki, for putting this all together for us! > > Just my (happy) thoughts.... > > BTW...Nikki also has a Trek book coming out along the same lines as this > one....by the fans, for the fans. She also has a follow up to her first > Buffy book ("Bite Me"), a continuation of the episode guide, cast bios, > etc...and the series, "Angel" has been added. That should be out soon. Just > an FYI to the Buffy fans and Trek fans that are on this list. > ========================================================= > This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with > "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. > Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. > ========================================================= ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V2 #119 **************************************