From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V2 #316 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, November 17 2002 Volume 02 : Number 316 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] <> [cr ] [chakram-refugees] Fwd: [Flawless] OT: Danielle Cormack article [cr > [cr ] [chakram-refugees] <> [Lilli Sprintz > [Sekhmet209@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] <> [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] <> [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] <> [cr ] RE: [chakram-refugees] Yet another Xener mention ["bookdaft" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] <> On Saturday 16 November 2002 07:49, cande@sunlink.net wrote: > On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:02:30 +1300 cr wrote: > > > > "It is *only* legitimate if the claimed > consequence is probable. In the case > of Amphipolis, the gods do not seem to have > been in the habit of demanding child (or human) scarifices, and there is > nothing to suggest that they were about to start. So I submit that the > life expectancy of each Amphipolitan child at that point would be many > hundreds of times better if the conflict was avoided (by handing over Eve) > than if the town was destroyed by the attackers." > > So your argument that is that the Amphipolitian would have been much better > off handing the child over because they had no stake in saving Eve. A > choice that is not without presidence. Certainly white Americans were much > better off turning a blind eye to the lynching and beatings of blacks in > the south because the Klu Klux Klan would have turned on them and afterall > they weren't blackand why should they risk anything for them. The Germans > under the Nazis were therefore quite right in turning over their neighbors > who Jews or homosexuals to their Nazis masters because they were only > securing their own safety from the thugs who ruled them. The people in the > Mideast who watch women and gays murdered are also wise in their choice not > defend them because their own safety would be at risk and besides those in > charge obvious know best. No, that's all phony. I didn't say that, and it wasn't the argument Gabby used. She did *not* say "If you hand this child over, can you live with yourself?" That argument I might have accepted. What she said was "If you hand him over, they'll want your child next" which was totally emotive and quite groundless. > > "And while I'm a Xena fan, I really don't know > what claim Xena had on the town of Amphipolis to require it to risk > destruction for her sake." > > Maybe that the Amphipolians thought they owed it to themselves to oppose > Athena. Perhaps they thought that no god had the right to demand that they > be complicit in a a murderous act. Athena needs them to turn the child > over - she demands that they be accomplices. The Amphipolians perhaps > think that they will not subbordinate their own concept of right or wrong > to some god who holds them in comtempt. Bear in mind that the gods were acting, as they thought, in self-defence. They did not just decide "Oh it's a nice day, lets go and kill somebody". They believed that it was either Eve's life or theirs. From their point of view, Eve was as big a menace (or bigger) than Hope had been. Why should the Amphipolitans suddenly decide they owed it to themselves to oppose Athena? Was there any indication that Athena's past 'rule' had been bad? What *was* their concept of right or wrong - would they, given a free choice, have decided that the gods should die so Eve could live? More to the point, from Xena's point of view, did she have any right to bring down destruction on the town for her and Eve's sake? Shouldn't she and Eve have secretly sneaked out of the town before too many lives were lost? Yes, they would have been fugitives. But then, after the defeat of Athena's forces, they were *still* fugitives. So nothing had been gained in that respect. > "The reason I'm unhappy about it is not because > of Ares, it's because of Xena. Ares faithfully carried out his part of the > deal. He fought on Xena's side and *he saved Eve*. (Because without > him the battle would have been lost, I think). And Xena completely > welshed on her side of the deal. Worse than that, she did so using a > pretext so flimsy it was insulting. I'd > almost rather she was upfront about it, "Well > too bad, I lied to you!" > > Well perhaps she could have said that but then Ares could have just forced > the issue and taken what he wanted. He could have done that anyway, I don't see what difference that 'dolly' ploy would make to it. Except, as I said, to cheapen Xena's position. > Obvious in the god world bargains must > be carried out to the letter and no welching on it. I'd say, in Xena's world they should be, too. Specially promises that Xena makes, and, on this occasion, of her own volition. > I frankly don't think > Xena feels that she has hurt Ares - frustrated him yes but hurt him - no. > She doesn't believe he has any real feelings for her - she sees herself as > a means to an end for him. To protect herself she feels it is legimate to > use any means available. Including lying to an ally? I don't think I've seen Xena do that before. > Afterall he is a god and she is only a mortal > therefore he has the advatge here. An advantage he is obviously unwilling to use. I'm sure Ares could hit Xena with a spell and make him do whatever he wanted. But that's not what he wants. > Speaking of which - why can't the gods just kill Eve without all this > regamole? Just zap the kid or give the kid a disease? Well that has occurred to me. > Is it possible the > gods aren't as all powerful as they seem. Is this the danger Eve presents > to them? That her survival demonstrates their real impotence in the face > of those who demand their freedom from them. > > CherylA Not at all. They could certainly 'zap' any normal individual. My impression is that Eve was in some way special, or they could indeed have just zapped her. cr ========================================================= 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, 16 Nov 2002 19:38:07 +1300 From: cr Subject: [chakram-refugees] Fwd: [Flawless] OT: Danielle Cormack article Forwarded from the Flawless list: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/employment/employmentstorydisplay.cfm?storyID= 3004603&thesection=employment&thesubsection=mangement Don't worry, be successful 16.11.2002 By JULIE MIDDLETON You might have more in common with actress Danielle Cormack than you think. Okay, so your CV doesn't include performing hilariously realistic orgasms on stage in front of hundreds (The Vagina Monologues) or swimming in vats of milk for the cameras (The Price of Milk). Cormack, 31, is one of 300,000 New Zealanders who are self-employed; like any engineer, consultant, artist or musician working for themselves, she hopes there'll generally be more flow than ebb. The prospect of slow times used to wind the West Auckland-based actress into knots of anxiety. It happens infrequently now. Fretting and feeling "incredibly anxious about where your next job is going to come from doesn't do you any favours at all", says Cormack over lunch at Auckland's Viaduct Harbour. "It disables you creatively - it disabled me creatively [in the past]," she adds. "And it's not a very inviting kind of energy. Desperate people get a very wide berth - it's human instinct." She laughs. It's a throaty laugh, self-deprecating. Worry "didn't get me anywhere except further away from where I wanted to be, which was relaxed and open enough to stumble across jobs - or open enough for people to approach me about work". And when she is working, it's go hard or go home. "When I'm working now, I like to work bloody hard. It gives me satisfaction to work hard. While I'm there I put my all into it - constantly thinking of the job, the role, the characters, the story as a whole, not just my part in it. "When I'm not working, I'm not working! Where does worry get you? It's never got me anywhere." But Cormack - tawny hair tumbling down, wearing blue denim jeans and jacket - admits that despite a fairly unshakeable self-belief, she does still have a plan B for the days when confidence takes a dive. Then, she says, "I've gone back to myself and worked out what it is I really want, what I really need to have in my life. "I know that I'm one of the luckiest people in the world - I have health and a roof to sleep under." If finances demand it - she has a 6-year-old son, Ethan, and a mortgage - - she can dig drains, she says. "It's a matter of perspective - constantly adjusting your perspective to fit in with what is actually happening in the world. "I know that I can act ... [but] if the work isn't there for me, I'll do something else until there is work." For Cormack, something else has been about expanding her repertoire. To fill gaps between theatre and film, she's started doing advertisements - she has to like the product and the plan before she'll assent - and voice-overs. And she's just completed some "experimental" work - which means she won't give details - in Wellington with double Oscar-winner Richard Taylor, boss of Lord of the Rings' special effects team, and Hercules and Xena producer Eric Gruendemann. Cormack workshops plays with Auckland Theatre Company's Second Unit, and next April stars in the company's production of Neil LaBute's The Shape of Things, based on the story of a male student and art gallery guard who becomes the unwitting subject of an art student's project of transformation. Cormack is not a graduate of the New Zealand Drama School, unlike many of her colleagues. She was a drama queen - "it was just fun" - long before her first formal after-school drama class at the age of 9 or 10. "Even at primary school I remember raiding my mother's wardrobe and taking all her pantyhose to school and dressing people up - stuffing the pantyhose full with other things and giving people extra appendages, writing my own plays for them to perform at school and directing my own plays. "It's just my passion." Cormack's first paid job was an in-house video - she can no longer remember who for - but doesn't recall ever making a conscious decision to be an actor. What she does recall is the acting-is-not-a-real-job line from those around her. "But [acting] has always been a natural part of who I am and what I've done. "It's constantly surprisingly to me ... that I've managed to stay employed thus far. And I don't mean that in a self-effacing way, either - - I'm really happy because I love it and I'm encouraged that people find me appealing to work with." Cormack left school a couple of weeks into the seventh form, trading Auckland's arty, liberal Selwyn College for several series of the 80s soap Gloss, which she'd been doing on and off since fifth form. A few years of travel overseas followed before she joined Shortland Street for a year. Cormack attaches the word "career" to what she does, though it's a sort of anti-definition: "Everything else I ever tried I've been crap at. " She nods vigorously at a suggestion that the best thing about getting older is that others' opinions - on personal and professional matters - matter less. She has learned to take scrutiny of personality and performance in her stride, though admits she's never been completely able to "live up to my personal embargo on reviews". But "it's much more important to me that my friends and the people I do it for really enjoy it, not the critics. "We look down strange avenues for confirmation that what we're doing is the right thing. "You don't need to look anywhere else than at yourself: am I enjoying this or not? Do I believe I did good in this or not? "It's pretty basic. Do I feel I gave it my best shot? Do I feel like this work is good? Do I not? If not, what can I do to improve it?" Downtime for Cormack is shared with Ethan, whose gestation featured in the film Topless Women Talk About Their Lives, painting - "not seriously" - walking, reading and going to the movies. And sewing. She just loves sewing - from cushion covers to clothes - and seems surprised that the person she's telling doesn't ridicule her. She hopes that her personal journal will one day offer enough material for a film. Cormack also volunteers for a social services charity. Still, it's a necessarily frugal lifestyle. Enough is coming in to cover the mortgage and bills, and "I'm not in a position where I'm constantly anxious about my financial state". Of course she daydreams of "having heaps of money ... fantasising about having property up north, my town apartment and a flash car. "But if it doesn't happen I'm not going to break my back. If it's meant to be it's meant to be." Ask Cormack what values drive her work and the answer is immediate: "While you reach for the stars, don't forget to smell the flowers at your feet." It's a line from one of the last letters a late friend sent to Cormack: "That kind of attitude resonated with me," she says. "And you can paraphrase it till the cows come home - 'stay real, brother', or 'keep your feet on the ground'. I believe in that. It's the only way I've managed to get this far. "I respect myself more and in turn I respect other people more, and they respect me more. It doesn't matter whether you're an actor, an artist, a banker - it's really important, knowing yourself." Danielle Cormack's guide to being your own boss * Diversify; define what you do more broadly to attract more work. "What else can I do with what I know?" Cormack, for example, sees acting as another 'department' within a wide range of creative industries. * Have faith in your skills. The things that most scare - rather than disinterest or bore you - are precisely the ones you should try, says Cormack. "That's an indication you've got to give it a go. It might liberate you". * Understand that everyone works at different paces: "Everyone has their own journey and does [things] in their own time." * Go hard or go home. "When you work, work hard. When not working, stay real." - -- Barbara To unsubscribe: From your email program, send a blank message to: flawless-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ - ------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================= 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, 16 Nov 2002 21:36:13 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] <> On Saturday 16 November 2002 17:49, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: (snips for bandwidth) > Agreed. They might also recall what happened way back in SINS, when they > tried to bargain with Draco, who decided he'd do what he wanted to with > them regardless. While Athena might have been expected to be more > honorable than that, she also was basically quite willing to destroy their > village (including other children) if she didn't get her way. Not much > "mercy" in my book. Plus, Xena did singlehandedly save them from Draco, > even after they tried to stone her to death. Cyrene seemed to have quite a > bit of moral currency, since she was about to give Xena up the justice in > SINS. Her willingness to stand up for Xena this time, as well as her own > standing as Eve's grandmother, certainly seemed to carry a good deal of > weight. Letting something happen to Eve was like letting something happen > to one of their "own," whatever resentment some may have still carried > toward Xena. All in all, I think you're right, that they decided to show > backbone against one more person who threatened them in a long line of > folks who'd done the same. I was pleasantly surprised by that, but it > didn't seem at all improbable. > > -- Ife What I was questioning, actually, was whether Xena really was right to endanger Amphipolis because of her (and Eve's) personal problem with the gods. No way was it Amphipolis's fight until Xena and Eve arrived in their midst. And I'm not at all sure that Eve, in the circumstances, could really be considered one of Amphipolis's 'own' since she'd never been there before. Amphipolis did owe Xena something, agreed, but whether that extended to getting the town destroyed is questionable. Don't get me wrong, I totally enjoyed the episode and I'm not in the habit of making Xena look bad . cr ========================================================= 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, 16 Nov 2002 10:22:30 -0600 From: Lilli Sprintz Subject: [chakram-refugees] <> Sorry i'm a bit out of step here with the time, but here goes. cr quoting Cheryl Ande, said: Meanwhile Gabrielle is on the frontlines. One of the villagers is saying > that perhaps they should turn Eve over to Athena. Gabrielle grabs the > villager by the collar and tosses him like a ragdoll (I thought was a bit > out character). "I didn't like that either (for quite different reasons from my usual Gab-bashing, I'll have you know [:)] . As you say, it was out of character. Since when did Gabby beat up people? Ones that hadn't physically attacked her, anyway." Whoah! why, i sort of liked that. not much different than when gabby started knocking people around in Ides of March. sort of, did she do that because she hated these people? no. but was she protecting Eve, yes! if we agree with the proposition that this is a war story, and like Xena in The Price, Gabrielle is assuming that people have "signed up" for the war (at least this one), then we are assuming that they will not go behind the leader's back and start chomping about pulling out. that's kind of leading everyone else into desertion. ========================================================= 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, 16 Nov 2002 12:00:42 EST From: Sekhmet209@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] <> In a message dated 11/16/02 1:51:56 AM, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: >More to the point, from Xena's point of view, did she have any right to bring >down destruction on the town for her and Eve's sake? Shouldn't she and Eve >have secretly sneaked out of the town before too many lives were lost? Yes, >they would have been fugitives. But then, after the defeat of Athena's >forces, they were *still* fugitives. So nothing had been gained in that >respect. A nitpick: It's been a while since I watched the ep, but wasn't Athena already going after Amphipolis before Xena and Eve even got there, in order to force Xena to give up Eve to save the town? If that's the case I don't think sneaking away would have helped... - --Sekhmet ========================================================= 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, 16 Nov 2002 21:16:04 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] <> In a message dated 11/16/2002 11:01:20 AM Central Standard Time, Sekhmet209@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 11/16/02 1:51:56 AM, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > >More to the point, from Xena's point of view, did she have any right to > bring > >down destruction on the town for her and Eve's sake? Shouldn't she and > Eve > >have secretly sneaked out of the town before too many lives were lost? Yes, > > >they would have been fugitives. But then, after the defeat of Athena's > >forces, they were *still* fugitives. So nothing had been gained in that > >respect. > > A nitpick: It's been a while since I watched the ep, but wasn't Athena > already going after Amphipolis before Xena and Eve even got there, in order > to force Xena to give up Eve to save the town? If that's the case I don't > think sneaking away would have helped... > > --Sekhmet "Nitpick" my eye. I had the same impression. True, Athena figured Xena was on her way there (or might likely go), but her Las Vegas Amazons (as a friend of mine called them) were threatening Amphipolis even before Xena got there. Like Gabrielle, Amphipolis was always a "hostage" Xena's enemies could try to use against her if they wanted. Xena (and the townfolk) were probably smart not to give in. I think Xena even says that leaving wouldn't do much good anyway. But whether Xena was there or not, it seemed clear that Athena intended to use Amphipolis as a bargaining chip. - - 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, 16 Nov 2002 21:16:09 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] <> In a message dated 11/16/2002 10:25:07 AM Central Standard Time, spri0037@tc.umn.edu writes: > Meanwhile Gabrielle is on the frontlines. One of the villagers is saying > > that perhaps they should turn Eve over to Athena. Gabrielle grabs the > > villager by the collar and tosses him like a ragdoll (I thought was a bit > > out character). > > > "I didn't like that either (for quite different reasons from my usual > Gab-bashing, I'll have you know [:)] . As you say, it was out of > character. > Since when did Gabby beat up people? Ones that hadn't physically attacked > her, anyway." Hmmm, I saw this as quite characteristic of the Gabs I saw developing particularly after IDES -- who understood the tough decisions she'd have to make as a principal player during battle (e.g., in FALLEN ANGELS, ENDGAME, GOOD DAY). I didn't see her physically attacking that guy, so much as shaking sense into him, reminding him that sacrificing one child could lead to sacrificing others. I saw it as not just persuading him (and the other troops) not to wilt under fire, but as an expression of her outrage that they would let *any* innocent child be used as a pawn in the gods' determination to maintain their supremacy. Maybe in the past, Gabrielle would've expressed that outrage as an individual, trying some nonviolent way to avoid fighting. But in this situation she was a leader forced into fighting and to exhorting others to stay strong however she could. - -- 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: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 14:54:30 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] <> On Saturday 16 November 2002 21:41, Sekhmet209@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/16/02 1:51:56 AM, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > >More to the point, from Xena's point of view, did she have any right to > > bring > > >down destruction on the town for her and Eve's sake? Shouldn't she and > > Eve have secretly sneaked out of the town before too many lives were > > lost? Yes, they would have been fugitives. But then, after the defeat > > of Athena's forces, they were *still* fugitives. So nothing had been > > gained in that respect. > > A nitpick: It's been a while since I watched the ep, but wasn't Athena > already going after Amphipolis before Xena and Eve even got there, in order > to force Xena to give up Eve to save the town? If that's the case I don't > think sneaking away would have helped... > > --Sekhmet Yes, you seem to be right. I've just read the transcript, and she did deliberately let Xena know she was heading for Amphipolis. She says that the people of Amphipolis are loyal to her and will give up the child. No mention of Xena giving up the child to save the town, though. So I tend to think that if Xena had eluded them, Athena wouldn't have bothered with Amphipolis any further. Hard to be sure though, in those days armies often required loot. cr ========================================================= 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, 16 Nov 2002 23:13:11 -0500 From: "bookdaft" Subject: RE: [chakram-refugees] Yet another Xener mention meredith wrote: <<<>>> This is mostly true but, as I learned while at Dragoncon, new blood is coming in through published fan Uber fiction, i.e. through the small press publishers. This is often the case when an author includes acknowledgements to the show and/or the actresses or producers. It's an unlikely avenue but it has turned people on to the show. Wherever they can they tune to see what all the fuss is about. They also appear to be checking out the virtual seasons. While the numbers aren't as high as they would be if the show was in second-run syndication in many more markets, there is still hope that the show won't fade into oblivion. bd ========================================================= 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 #316 **************************************