From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #137 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 Wednesday, May 21 2003 Volume 03 : Number 137 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] The Chakram [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] The Last Of The Centaurs [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] OT: RL Violence [was: Comments on FIN added to Xena Season 1 dvd...ad infinitum ;) ] [] Re: [chakram-refugees] The Chakram [cr ] [chakram-refugees] [Flawless] Re: Xena tearaway desk calendar quickie POLL ["Creation (Sharon Delaney)" I think cr is right in that he says the chakram is "Xena's weapon". Ii is > not a mgical weapon but a weapon that is uniquely her's and her's alone. > Anyone can pick it up and toss it around but it will only perform in an > extraordinary manner in her hands. I think of it as her Excaliber more > than > Wonder Women's lariet. Xena is it's mistress and some how it knows it. I > think that's why it breaks in Ides of March - it is used against it's true > mistress and in a way it self-destructs because of it. It can only be > mended again when it is reformed or redeemed by finding it's other half > which happens in Chakram. The flawed chakram, the dark chakram which > betrayed it's true owner, is redeemed by joining with chakram of light and > is once again made whole. After that we actually only see two other people > use it or catch it. Eve after her redemption and Gabrielle once she takes > Xena's place in the physical world as the warrior of the greater good. The > new chakram seems now to have an affinity only for those who follow the > enlightened path. > "Knows"? "Redeemed"? An "affinity"? Um, okaaay. You probably go to New Age thingies, don't cha? Definitely got more imagination than those of us who see a pretty circle of metal. What about that fying pan in ADITL? Xena sure made it do some neat tricks before its untimely demise. How come it doesn't get to go to some kind of Heaven for Objects Xena Has Used, along with other things she's made into magical weapons? Huh? Huh? - -- 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: Tue, 20 May 2003 00:51:30 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Last Of The Centaurs Okay, I know there's always tongue-in-cheek humor in your reviews, but this was hilarious. I have got to quote a few of the sections that had me falling on the floor laughing: In a message dated 5/19/2003 7:21:59 PM Central Daylight Time, cande@sunlink.net writes: << (this bit of> > exposition is offered by Ephiny to Gabrielle who is puzzled why Xena's chin > just hit the floor - the audience is puzzled as to why Ephiny knows this, > perhaps ghosts can read minds). >> > < uncertain but Xena says he can stay with his thugs or ride to glory with > her. > Borias says how can he choose since he has never ridden with her. Xena > knows > she has won and they retire to his tent for some riding lessons. >> > < take a perverse delight in making small boys miserable first it was Ming > Tien > and now it is the young Belach. I wonder sometimes where this contempt for > these kids came from. Is it just matter of adolescent cruelty on Xena's > part > or something deeper? >> > << He calls for his guards but Xena tosses him out > the window and he lands painfully on a horse - it could have been worse, he > could have landed on the saddle horn. Xena jumps down on to another horse > and > with Belach in two they're off. >> > <<> Gabby > sterilizes the chakram with a dirty piece of rag >> > Now lets ponder this for moment. Belach has profound feelings of > abandonment. His father has left his wife and young son to fend for > themselves when he ran off with a younger woman. His daughter has now > abandoned him also for a creature that his hated father championed. Now > the > woman who stole his father tells him that his father so loved the son he > had > with her that he sacrificed his life just to see him. Now Belach is > suppose > to realize what a great man his father was. >> > << Nicha and the baby now make an > opportune appearance (you see good peasant blood will tell - she has a > c-section and is up and walking five minutes later). >> Now, on to more serious matters. > The problem is that Belach > orders either directly or indirectly the genocide of the centaurs and gets > away with it. Xena excuses the crime by basically saying he had a bad > childhood and it was all her fault anyway. Xena spends the whole episode > trying to reconcile Belach with his dead father. The murder of the > centaurs > becomes just a means to accomplish this. It is almost as if Xena pardons > Belach's behavior as way to salve her own conscience. This seems out > character of Xena. >> I have to agree. I think they were also playing with the "Gabs wants vengeance" vs. "Xena wants forgiveness" turnabout we got a lot of in S5&6. Then there's the reality that Xena's slaughter of the Northern Amazons, bound Centaurs and others was maybe a hair less heinous than Belach's crime, yet she got the chance to change. But it is very unclear where Xena's personal feelings leave off and her desire for forgiveness without more bloodshed begins. True, moral ambiguity is a cornerstone of XWP. I mean, if we can accept Xena's chance to change, why is Belach so different? Problem is, the case is so weak that it's hard to tell if we're being confronted with yet another deep question with hard answers or just plain bad writing. - -- 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: Tue, 20 May 2003 21:33:07 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OT: RL Violence [was: Comments on FIN added to Xena Season 1 dvd...ad infinitum ;) ] On Monday 19 May 2003 11:12, Jackie M. Young wrote: > *Sorry*, I know this is late, but been behind in _every_thing....;( > > On Tue, 6 May 2003 20:48:35 +1200, cr wrote: > >There's a big gap, for me, between my 'real-life' beliefs (which lean > >towards the pacifist) and what I like to watch on TV. > > --Actually, I think I'm one of the few Xenites locally that actually _is_ > like X IRL (at work, at home, etc.). ;) That might be why I'm having a > hard time finding a new job. ;=) *hehe!* > > I mean, I don't go around chakraming people when they come into my office, > obviously, but I also don't go groveling at their feet like most other > secretaries do, and I'm not beyond standing up for myself when I think I'm > being patronized (and I'm not beyond arguing about it, either). > > I don't _enjoy_ disputes, but I don't avoid them, either. So I'm not sure > "pacifist" would be a word I'd use to describe myself. ;P OTOH, I'm not > sure "pacifist" would be a word I'd use to describe you, either, Thel. ;P I said I 'tend' towards the pacifist view. I think *most* wars are unnecessary and evil and don't solve anything. And that force is very rarely justified. But (for me) that's not absolute. I think that it can usually be justified to fight in genuine defence, if, for example, one's country is invaded or one's town is attacked. So no way am I like Eli or Season 4 Gabby, that's futile IMO. But arguments such as we have on this list are unrelated to that, IMO. Nobody's going to start punching someone else over them (or at least, I hope not) so pacifism's not really relevant. OTOH there is the purely pragmatic point that you're more likely to win an argument by staying cool than by losing it. ;) > I agree times were rougher in the "olden days", but to counteract that, > courtesy and protocol had a higher priority than they do today. Nowadays, > Reality TV is the norm and I think that's reflected in our "let it > all hang out" everyday behavior. 'Reality TV' is the absolute dregs, and the scum who produce this stuff should be beaten about the head with their own TV cameras. So there! ;) However, courtesy and protocol didn't prevent constant wars from breaking out, all through history. If anybody wanted to start a war, they could usually find a 'legitimate' protocol-sanctioned reason for it. 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: Tue, 20 May 2003 22:12:35 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Chakram On Tuesday 20 May 2003 16:51, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/19/2003 9:22:19 PM Central Daylight Time, > > cande@sunlink.net writes: > > I think cr is right in that he says the chakram is "Xena's weapon". Ii > > is not a mgical weapon but a weapon that is uniquely her's and her's > > alone. Anyone can pick it up and toss it around but it will only perform > > in an extraordinary manner in her hands. I think of it as her Excaliber > > more than > > Wonder Women's lariet. Xena is it's mistress and some how it knows it. > > I think that's why it breaks in Ides of March - it is used against it's > > true mistress and in a way it self-destructs because of it. It can only > > be mended again when it is reformed or redeemed by finding it's other > > half which happens in Chakram. The flawed chakram, the dark chakram > > which betrayed it's true owner, is redeemed by joining with chakram of > > light and is once again made whole. After that we actually only see two > > other people use it or catch it. Eve after her redemption and Gabrielle > > once she takes Xena's place in the physical world as the warrior of the > > greater good. The new chakram seems now to have an affinity only for > > those who follow the enlightened path. > > "Knows"? "Redeemed"? An "affinity"? Um, okaaay. You probably go to New > Age thingies, don't cha? Definitely got more imagination than those of us > who see a pretty circle of metal. What about that fying pan in ADITL? > Xena sure made it do some neat tricks before its untimely demise. How come > it doesn't get to go to some kind of Heaven for Objects Xena Has Used, > along with other things she's made into magical weapons? Huh? Huh? > > -- Ife Now that's definitely pushing it, lfe! ;) I personally won't have a bar of New Age mysticism, I reckon it's a sign of weakness in the head, *but* I can see quite clearly what cande's getting at. IMO she's quite right about the chacky having a special affinity for Xena. And her speculation about the chacky having 'betrayed' its owner (maybe involuntarily) by being used against her, and redeemed by joining with the light chacky, is interesting. There's a loose parallel between Xena's search for redemption and the chacky's, that hadn't occurred to me before. 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: Tue, 20 May 2003 12:18:38 -0700 From: "Creation (Sharon Delaney)" Subject: [chakram-refugees] [Flawless] Re: Xena tearaway desk calendar quickie POLL Well, it looks like no space on the pages wins. Here's another questions for ya. During the calendar poll of which types we should do, the winners were the photo cal, tearaway and Lucy/Renee candid. The art montage calendar listed very low. I'm curious as to why. What didn't you like about the art montage calendar? Did you like 2002 better than 2003? Would it have been #4 on your list of choices? Sharon ========================================================= 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: Tue, 20 May 2003 15:49:03 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Chakram In a message dated 5/20/03 5:12:09 AM Central Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: Cande wrote: << The new chakram seems now to have an affinity only for > > those who follow the enlightened path. > > "Knows"? "Redeemed"? An "affinity"? Um, okaaay. You probably go to New > Age thingies, don't cha? Definitely got more imagination than those of us > who see a pretty circle of metal. What about that fying pan in ADITL? > Xena sure made it do some neat tricks before its untimely demise. How come > it doesn't get to go to some kind of Heaven for Objects Xena Has Used, > along with other things she's made into magical weapons? Huh? Huh? > > -- Ife Now that's definitely pushing it, lfe! ;) I personally won't have a bar of New Age mysticism, I reckon it's a sign of weakness in the head, *but* I can see quite clearly what cande's getting at. IMO she's quite right about the chacky having a special affinity for Xena. And her speculation about the chacky having 'betrayed' its owner (maybe involuntarily) by being used against her, and redeemed by joining with the light chacky, is interesting. There's a loose parallel between Xena's search for redemption and the chacky's, that hadn't occurred to me before. cr >> All kidding aside, let me say that I do not regard New Ageism as a sign of weakness, but of the ability to see the spiritual in all things, which I admit I don't do well. I have a problem with assigning human traits to nonhuman things, especially when I fear it may suggest that the thing has a "life" of its own apart from human responsibility or influence. I have no problem with the chaky's being Xena's signature weapon, nor with the notion that she was destined to be its primary master -- even guardian, until she could bequeath that role to someone of equal honor. I can accept that the gods imbued the chaky with unusual powers, that its light/dark aspects and path reflected Xena's own in a unique way. I too find that intriguing, but hesitate assigning it more significance than that for several reasons: First, I can't dismiss how close Callisto came to using the chaky to kill that priestess, had Xena not thrown another weapon to knock the chaky off course. It's never explained how/why Callisto could control the chaky right off the bat, but that said to me that Xena could not take her signature weapon for granted, in terms of its "affinity" for her or purpose in her own or others' hands. Without Xena's vigilance, the chaky could be appropriated by someone as evil as she once was. Second, I'm not sure the chaky "betrayed" Xena, especially since it broke and essentially became useless when it hit Xena. I don't think it had "intent" to harm Xena, but was powerless to stop evil forces -- one a supernatural one (the "devil"), the other (Callisto) one that Xena herself helped create -- from using it for evil purposes. Callisto broke the rules -- even of the supernatural evil -- when she used the chaky against Xena in "Ides." I think that's why Xena was given another chance (fated?) to live as its guardian once again. Third, "redemption" suggests having had the consciousness and ability to choose good over evil, just as does "betrayal." Maybe the chaky did achieve its rightful state with both halves joined, but it was Xena who made that choice, not the chaky. If it had a "spirit" apart from Xena, I don't see any evidence to suggest that it also had "choice." "Chakram" suggests that Ares gave Xena the "dark" chakram to augment her superiority as a warrior in his name. Yet she turned it to good use even before it became joined with its "light" duplicate. And she essentially nullified the "light" half's power to kill gods by joining it with the dark chakram. If Xena did "save" the chakram in a redemptive way, it was in recognition of human's (including her own) fallibility -- "No one should have that power, especially me." But the chaky did not "save" or "redeem" itself. I guess I'm saying that Cande's idea does offer another layer to the story -- a symbolic aspect that, as you say, "parallels" Xena's quest. It sort of makes Xena the chaky's chosen guardian, just as she became the protector/champion of the Amazons (through Gabrielle) and Eli (through Eve). Hmmm. Remember back when she and Autolycus rescued the "ultimate weapon" -- which turned out to be religious in nature (the 10 commandments)? Well, the chaky was in its own way an "ulitmate weapon." So, she was the Warrior Protector on the physical, social and spiritual planes, eh? I can buy that. I can see the chaky's "spirit" in that context, just not its having the gift of "choice." Interesting. I like it. Thanks, Cande. Yeah, you too, cr. - -- 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: Tue, 20 May 2003 15:22:33 -0700 From: "Creation (Sharon Delaney)" Subject: [chakram-refugees] Renee and Southern California Firefighters Burn Relay Renee is participating in the Southern California Firefighters Burn Relay on Saturday, May 31, to help raise funds for the Alisa Ann Ruch Burn Foundation. She will be riding in a parade of fire engines. They will be making stops at fire stations in Arcadia, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Chevron, Culver City, Downey, El Segundo, Hermosa Beach, Long Beach, Manhattan Beach, Monterey Park, Redondo Beach, Torrance, San Pedro, San Gabriel, San Marino, Santa Monica and Santa Fe Springs and will have a gigantic fire hat set up at each for the public to make contributions. For the route and list of times, check the fan club page at www.creationent.com/outback/fanclub/index.html Sharon Official Xena Fan Club ========================================================= 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: Tue, 20 May 2003 18:47:38 EDT From: KLOSSNER9@aol.com Subject: [chakram-refugees] [OT] Buffy in NYT A friend sent me this today-- From New York Times today -- 10 Questions for 'Buffy' Creator As the seven-year run of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" comes to a close tonight, the show's creator, Joss Whedon, shares his thoughts about redemption, the soul and other frivolous matters. The link leads to the New York Times registration page. I didn't register and I haven't seen the article, but it is remarkable that the NYT is running a piece on Buffy. It's become a real critics' pet. And it has remained a favorite with critics down to its last episode. Xena had worn out its welcome with critics by the time it got to its last season. To compare the two shows, I would say that Buffy has been more consistent than XWP. Buffy has had some weaker episodes, of course, but it had fewer bad eps than Xena. I think that the material from ancient lore which was useful to Tapert and the other Xena-Herc-makers was more limited than the material from 20th century horror films and urban legends, which is the good stuff on Buffy. In the whole story of the intellectual history of mankind, the ancient myths and ancient history are more importnat, but for the purposes of a popular culture series right now, the modern horror material is more useful. Boeotian ========================================================= 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: Tue, 20 May 2003 20:20:37 -0400 From: "bookdaft" Subject: RE: [chakram-refugees] [OT] Buffy in NYT (and Other Series) Boeotian wrote: <<>> I am registered to the NY Times. For those who might want to read the article, I'm posting it with the sufferance of the rest of you. It was 3 web pages long. This article from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by bookdaft@voyager.net. Joss Whedon May 16, 2003 As the seven-year run of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" comes to a close, creator Joss Whedon shares his thoughts about redemption, the soul and other frivolous matters. Q. 1. What are your thoughts on the academic community's use of the show, from the humanities to the sciences, to debate and analyze everything? A. I think its great that the academic community has taken an interest in the show. I think its always important for academics to study popular culture, even if the thing they are studying is idiotic. If its successful or made a dent in culture, then it is worthy of study to find out why. "Buffy," on the other hand is, I hope, not idiotic. We think very carefully about what were trying to say emotionally, politically, and even philosophically while were writing it. The process of breaking a story involves the writers and myself, so a lot of different influences, prejudices, and ideas get rolled up into it. So it really is, apart from being a big pop culture phenom, something that is deeply layered textually episode by episode. I do believe that there is plenty to study and there are plenty of things going on in it, as there are in me that I am completely unaware of. People used to laugh that academics would study Disney movies. Theres nothing more important for academics to study, because they shape the minds of our children possibly more than any single thing. So, like that, I think "Buffy" should be analyzed, broken down, and possibly banned. Q. 2. Is there anything on any show you wanted to do, but couldn't, because the budget or network TV standards wouldn't allow it? A. Ive always fought the budget fight, but I found early on the less money you have the more you have to fall back on good story telling, so its never been a terrible problem. Weve never been able to have (with the exception of John Ritter) any particularly notable guest stars. Were not one of those shows thats such a big hit that everyone wants to be on it, and we never had enough money to have anyone really famous. Every now and then we sort of wished we would, but we dont really tell stories that way so that wasnt a big deal either. The only thing that weve ever actually been stopped or asked to stop doing was the fast food run. When Buffy worked at the fast food joint it made the advertisers very twitchy. So apparently the most controversial thing we ever had on Buffy was a hamburger and chicken sandwich. Q. 3. Are there any plot twists or character developments (characters leaving the show, going from evil to good or vice versa) that you look back on and wish you could alter, somehow? A. There arent a lot of twists that I wanted to throw out there. After seven years youve pretty much used a bunch of them up, and then you start twisting just to twist again (like we did last summer). Youre not really telling mythic stories, youre just trying to surprise people and it sort of becomes fake. However, there are a couple of things I wouldve liked to have seen a little more of; either Vampire or Hyena Xander, because Nick pulls that off really well. And I wish we had been able to service Dawns character a little bit more in her third season. I really wanted to paint her with a lot of different colors, but we got wrapped up in the big slayer story and the whole arc of the season, so I think she got a little bit gypped. Q. 4. Buffy's father and his absence are important thematically in the first season. How did he go from being a somewhat neglectful, newly-divorced father in Season One to a total deadbeat? Did he fade out to clear the way for Giles as a father figure? Did you ever consider taking the Joyce/Giles pairing farther than it went? A. Its true that Buffys father started out as just a divorced dad and then turned into this sort of "evil pariah" figure of not even bothering to show up, and that was simply because we had a father figure in Giles. Im very much more interested in the created family than I am in actual families. And, you have to deal with that character; how hes dealing with his ex-wifes death for example. We have so many characters to service it made things simpler to use the short hand of, "hes just not there". And since were telling stories about family that often hit on the traditional patriarchy as being kind of lame-o, and the created family as being more lasting and more loving, it just made sense. But there was also the practical reality of having to hire an actor and create a sub-plot that may not be as important as what we wanted to see our regular actor, Tony Head, going through, nothing against Dean [the actor who played Buffy's father]. We didnt mean to make him such a bad guy, but thats just the reality of the thing. And no, I never wanted Joyce and Giles to hook up romantically, but I did think it would be pretty funny if they had one night of drunken sex, of course the "Band Candy" episode lent itself perfectly to that. Q. 5. I would like to get a more in-depth, coherent explanation of your concept of the soul. It seems to be the crucial thing that separates good and evil in the Buffyverse, yet at times it is treated like a commodity -- if you survive torture or know the right kind of magic you, too, can get a soul. Is it one particular soul per customer, as the white fog in the glass jar, identified as "Angel's soul" would indicate? Or is the soul merely the conscience? Why was Spike able to be "good" even without a soul? A. I would love to give you a more in-depth coherent explanation of my view of the soul, and if I had one I would. The soul and my concept of it are as ephemeral as anybodys, and possibly more so. And in terms of the show, it is something that exists to meet the needs of convenience; the truth is sometimes you can trap it in a jar; the truth is sometimes someone without one seems more interesting than someone with one. I dont think Clem has a soul, but hes certainly a sweet guy. Spike was definitely kind of a soulful character before he had a soul, but we made it clear that there was a level on which he could not operate. Although Spike could feel love, it was the possessive and selfish kind of love that most people feel. The concept of real altruism didnt exist for him. And although he did love Buffy and was moved by her emotionally, ultimately his desire to possess her led him to try and rape her because he couldnt make the connection - - the difference between their dominance games and actual rape. With a soul comes a more adult understanding. That is again, a little vague, but can I say that I believe in the soul? I dont know that I can. Its a beautiful concept, as is resurrection and a lot of other things we have on the show that Im not really sure I can explain and I certainly dont believe in. It does fall prey to convenience, but at the same time it has consistently marked the real difference between somebody with a complex moral structure and someone who may be affable and even likable, but ultimately eats kittens. Q. 6. We hear you're fond of Shakespeare's works - "Hamlet" in particular. Could that have partly inspired the "Normal Again" storyline that Buffy might be insane, since one theory about "Hamlet" goes that the entire story is actually taking place in Hamlet's imagination? How important is "Normal, Again" in the "Buffy" arc? A. I have never been a subscriber to, "the entire play takes place in Hamlets imagination" theory. In fact, although Im a devoted fan of "Hamlet" and it is the text I know best in all the world, "Normal Again" did not come from it. How important it is in the scheme of the "Buffy" narrative is really up to the person watching. If they decide that the entire thing is all playing out in some crazy persons head, well the joke of the thing to us was it is, and that crazy person is me. It was kind of the ultimate postmodern look at the concept of a writer writing a show, which is not the sort of thing we usually do on the show. The show had merit in itself because it did raise the question, "How can you live in this world and be sane?" But at the same time the idea amused me very much and we played on it a little bit, "How come her little sister is taller than her?" "What was Adams plan?" We played on the crazy things we came up with time and time again, to make this fantasy show work and called them into question the way any normal person would. But ultimately the entire series takes place in the mind of a lunatic locked up somewhere in Los Angeles, if thats what the viewer wants. Personally, I think it really happened. Q. 7. Redemption has been an important theme of the show. Is redemption the mode through which the characters become less cliched, more inspiring and interesting? Is redemption a theme that you have looked for in other texts from which you have drawn inspiration? A. Redemption has become one of the most important themes in my work and it really did start with Angel. I would say probably with the episode "Amends," but even with the character itself and the concept of the spin-off was about redemption. It was about addiction and how you get through that and come out the other side, how you redeem yourself from a terrible life. I do actually work with a number of reformed addicts, if thats what you call them. I call them drunks. But my point is a good number of people that are most close to me creatively have lived that life, and it informs their work. I never have, and so Im not sure why it is that redemption is so fascinating to me. I think the mistakes Ive made in my own life have plagued me, but theyre pretty boring mistakes: I committed a series of grisly murders in the eighties and I think I once owned a Wilson-Phillips Album. Apart from that Im pretty much an average guy, yet I have an enormous burden of guilt. Im not sure why. Im a WASP, so its not Jewish or Catholic guilt; its just there. Ultimately, the concept of somebody who needed to be redeemed is more interesting to me. I think it does make a character more textured than one who doesnt. I can't think of anything, off hand, that I am a big fan of that contains that kind of thing. My favorite fictions are usually the kind I make, which is sort of adolescent rites of passage, which is what "Buffy" is about. Its about the getting of strength and thats probably the most important theme in any of my work, but I would say coming a close second is the theme of redemption. I think as you make your way through life its hard to maintain a moral structure, and that difficulty and the process of coming out the other side of a dark, even psychological time is to me the most important part of adulthood. I think to an extent every human being needs to be redeemed somewhat or at least needs to look at themselves and say, "Ive made mistakes, Im off course, I need to change." Which is probably the hardest thing for a human being to do and maybe thats why it interests me so. Q. 8. "Firefly" was the first time in a while when your ideas did not get to make it through to fruition. First of all, is there anything you would like to share with people following the show on the edge of their seats? And secondly, having seen how you turned a previous disappointment, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," the movie, into an artistic success on your own terms, can we hope for something similar with "Firefly"? A. "Firefly." Ill answer the second question first. I have every hope in the world of bringing "Firefly" back to people in another format. I havent got anything definite yet but Ive been fighting to do that since the day we were cancelled. I therefore dont have any particular plot things I want to share with people because Im hoping Ill get the chance to do that in the near future, whether it be on TV, film or a t-shirt. It was a bizarre blow to have a story in your head and suddenly not get to tell it. I dont know why, Ive written movies long enough to know that thats usually the case, but after "Buffy" and "Angel" sort of took off I got lulled into overconfidence and was so excited to tell the stories of these people, and then suddenly had it truncated. However, knowing that what we shot will be coming out on DVD in its full form is a big vindication, because I got to say a lot of things that I wanted to say right, up in the first episodes. So, as I said, watch and wait. Q. 9. Have you always known how "Buffy" would end? I ask this more in terms of Buffy's character than the show's plot. Meaning - have you always known where you wanted to take the character psychologically? And if so, where is that? A. It would have been impossible for me to predict where Buffys character would go by the end of the series because the character is informed by so many things. You have to find out what people respond to, you have to find out what works on the show, what aspects make sense, what your meaning is. After seven years your mission statement may have changed. Ours remained pretty much the same, or rather came full circle. We looked at the idea of power; the girl who had power that nobody understood, living in high school and how hard that was. We came back to that girl and that concept very strongly in the seventh season on purpose because we knew it was our last. In terms of the character, though, you cant say - a lot of it has to do with the actor. If you are working with an actor, and reading them at all, and are making a show in which people change and dont just solve a crime every week, inevitably that actor informs that character. It happened very quickly with Willow becoming goofier and sexier, because thats the way Alyson was. Giles character became hipper because Tony was not a stuffy guy. Sarahs became more thoughtful and intelligent. Buffy also became a little bit closed off from the other characters, in the same way that a star is kind of separated from an ensemble, so we dealt with the idea of the isolation of the Slayer, of the person who has to lead. Some of that of course comes also from me - because at the end of the day I dont know how Im going to evolve - and as much as the actor, the writer is the character. For seven years Ive been Buffy. Some people do plot in advance, but because my show is really about just growing up and changing and growing, if you try and predict that too heavily you stunt it, you dont feel a natural flow and the stories start to feel forced. Q. 10. If you were to continue with the same cast of Buffy for another year, where would you like to go with it? A. Honestly, if I had a strong answer for that question there probably would be another season. I think its time they all went their separate ways. And so my answer is, I cant possibly think of anything, Im simply too tired. Thats the end, thanks very much. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/16/readersopinions/16WHED.html?ex=1054475809& ei=1&en=f1d056676f96c8f9 Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company ========================================================= 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 V3 #137 **************************************