From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #241 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 Friday, August 22 2003 Volume 03 : Number 241 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] RE" ITADITH [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH ["S. Wilson" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [IfeRae@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 01:05:05 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH In a message dated 8/21/2003 8:58:03 PM Central Daylight Time, aemoses@comcast.net writes: > >And as you know, I have a low threshold of tolerance when it comes to > >emotionalism. ;) > > now what do you consider "emotionalism?" when the romans off m'lila, i would > say that xena gets just the least little bit emotional. her emotion, > however, is vicious, violent but nonetheless grief-driven I can't wait to see if cr considers anger an "emotion." I don't remember ever hearing a man say "he got all emotional" or "He had a fit of emotionalism" when another guy gets angry, even goes off on a rampage. - -- 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: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 01:05:07 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] RE" ITADITH In a message dated 8/21/2003 8:06:30 PM Central Daylight Time, cande@sunlink.net writes: > I don't think the powers ever meant to make Xena a man in drag. She is a > woman as evidenced by the fact that she put on a slinky red dress to seduce > Caesar. She didn't offer him a couple of beers and engage in a burbing > contest with him. Xena is a woman and she acts like a woman here. She > gets > upset that her friend is in danger, exhibts her emotions and then sets about > fixing things without the help of any of the men around her. In fact the > men > that you somehow believe saved Xena were urging her to give up and Xena > ignored them to saved the day. I would call that femine in the best sense. > Bless you. I always thought it unfortunate that RT said they approached Xena as if she were a man. I knew what he meant. I also knew he had no other way of expressing that, given that he probably didn't have a clue about how to envision that in positive way from a woman's viewpoint. My translation was, "Xena is a warrior who happens to be a woman in a man's world. She has a larger arsenal of possible weapons, so will sometimes use the same ones as men and will also use ones available to her as a woman. She is unafraid to be or use her entire potential as a human being, rather than be confined to certain notions based on gender." What I loved most about Lucy was her ability to pull off the above -- to resist pulling back on physical actions simply to appear more "feminine" or on emotions in order to appear more "masculine." It came off as very unself-conscious -- not the "I must look like a man" or "I must look like a woman" that I'm so used to seeing. Someone else might've taken RT literally -- turned Xena into an attractive Robocop. I am so grateful she finally gave me a female action hero who was all woman -- capable of defending people as women have done throughout the ages and of nurturing them as well, of "taking care of business" logically and efficiently when called upon and listening, caring, and crying as though that were normal and worth doing. << Xena on the other hand is much more swayed by emotions. Xena admits this over and over. She knows her rage and grief makes her act in ways that are disasterous for herself and those around her. Xena's struggle is to control herself and not let her emotions over take her. If Xena appears controlled it is because she is making a concious effort to control herself. This is a woman of vulcanic emotion. >> Yes, and I think this is also how RT saw her as comparable to a man. Indeed, if she had been one, we wouldn't be talking about how she should've restrained her grief, but about "what a guy" he was to have shown such "vulnerability," "caring," or something else deemed positive in that case. We are used to hearing women like Xena described as "cold, unfeeling bitches." The assumption is that, sense they don't weep and moan, they must be devoid of emotions, as opposed to controlling them. Some may have wished she was always like that, because for once it was being portrayed as good -- "stoic." Others felt this made her "too much like a man." The beauty to me is that she blew all those stereotypes to smithereens. - -- 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: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 01:05:11 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH In a message dated 8/21/2003 10:01:47 AM Central Daylight Time, sswilso@uark.edu writes: > At 02:56 PM 8/21/2003 +0300, you wrote: > >I realy believe that Xena turned to a human being when she met Gabrielle. > >And human beings lose their control in occasions like that. > >But... Anyway I think the "problem" is the point of view. It has a big part > >the fact that each of us want to see something different, something > special, > >something that fits to ourselves. > >We see things with the way we need to see them. This is impossible to real > >life and for that reason we do it in an unreal life. > >Sophia > > Good observation. I've found that in any fandom I'm in, there are some > people who take the show more to heart than others, and see more things in > it than are there. There are also people that see exactly what's there, and > those that don't see it no matter how hard they look (or how many people > they have telling them where to look). Um, I think Sophia may have been saying that we *all* see things that may not be there, no matter how much to heart we take the show. Cr and I had an argument about that once before -- "reality." We finally agreed that there are things "out there" that exist whether we're aware of them or not. I *think* we also agreed that, once people become involved, they "see" a "reality" that has more to do with their own perceptions. True, maybe there are those who simply saw a bunch of people fighting, riding horses, walking, and talking on XWP. that's all it is to them. Anyone who saw more than that can be said to have taken the show "to heart," in the sense that they saw some meaning beyond what actually appeared on screen (e.g., motivations, emotions, "good/bad"). And once they add that meaning, it's bound to be different than someone else's meaning. You (and I) might argue till the cow's come home that XWP was somebody else's show, but there "those others" who will argue that it was *their* show. And they will be "right" from their perspective, just as we are "right" from ours. - -- 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: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 19:28:01 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH On Friday 22 August 2003 17:05, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > Um, I think Sophia may have been saying that we *all* see things that may > not be there, no matter how much to heart we take the show. Cr and I had > an argument about that once before -- "reality." We finally agreed that > there are things "out there" that exist whether we're aware of them or not. > I *think* we also agreed that, once people become involved, they "see" a > "reality" that has more to do with their own perceptions. Yes, that's certainly in line with my thinking. I might add that (IMO) reality remains the same, whatever we think we know about it. (I'm not talking about our 'reality' here, OK? ;) "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Feynman, report on the (first) Space Shuttle accident. 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: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 19:35:56 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH On Friday 22 August 2003 17:05, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 8/21/2003 8:58:03 PM Central Daylight Time, > > aemoses@comcast.net writes: > > >And as you know, I have a low threshold of tolerance when it comes to > > >emotionalism. ;) > > > > now what do you consider "emotionalism?" when the romans off m'lila, i > > would say that xena gets just the least little bit emotional. her > > emotion, however, is vicious, violent but nonetheless grief-driven > > I can't wait to see if cr considers anger an "emotion." I don't remember > ever hearing a man say "he got all emotional" or "He had a fit of > emotionalism" when another guy gets angry, even goes off on a rampage. > > -- Ife I've mentioned the difference between 'emotion' and 'emotionalism' in another post so I won't repeat it here. Yes, anger is an 'emotion', so is laughter, so is boredom, but we're into a shades-of-meaning thing here. If we're talking about somebody being 'emotional' we usually mean someone who's likely to burst into tears rather easily. If a person is always angry we put it differently - we say he's got a short fuse, or (in current jargon) he has an anger-management problem. And if someone's perpetually bored, we don't usually call that 'emotional' at all. 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: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 21:32:17 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH On Friday 22 August 2003 10:39, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 8/21/03 2:28:41 AM Central Daylight Time, > aemoses@comcast.net writes: > > << i thought lucy did a very good job and wondered what she tapped to get > that. > i particularly liked it b/c in she'd had to let solan go again > and this time, she really was making a connection.>> > > Yes, I always thought (if I were an actor) that it would be very difficult > for me draw on what it would feel like to lose my own child. Brrrr. I > agree that Lucy made the scream come out like I thought Xena would do it -- > raw, almost primal, like it had been torn from her. It seemed "right" in > that sense. Somehow, it just struck me as more cerebral, though -- more > like, Lucy *thought* that's what Xena would do, rather than *felt* it. No > biggie, though. More like cr's splitting hairs. Hmmmmm. It felt 'real' enough to me. Lucy's best scream, though, must be the one in the fight in Between the Lines. That wasn't due to mental anguish, though, that was due to Alti making her re-live Caesar crucifying her... that was some convincing scream. Straight after "You biiitch!" that made me laugh out loud in appreciation, came this incredible scream of agony. Amazing stuff. This show is brilliant sometimes. Well, often. > I think the music annoyed me more than anything, for some reason. As I > said, I felt like TPTB were overdoing the "okay, this is a tender moment" > hints, as though I couldn't figure that out for myself. I felt the same > when I heard that kind of Western refrain from the end of "Sin Trade," > which was repeated as the Amazons salute X&G at the end of PoV. Oh, agreed. That was really cool at the end of Sin Trade, which I still rate as the best music score of the whole series. And using it in PoV which was really a very average episode, devalued ST slightly in retrospect. IMO. > In the > past I was aware of certain theme music being replayed, but was > particularlary conscious (and often irritated) when I heard it during S6. > It didn't feel seemless, but like somebody was plunking it in as "Xena's > working" music or "X&G are showing tenderness" or "this is about Amazons." > Sorry, just another nitpick. See, you're not the only one who had some > things to get off her chest. Yes, there's always a tendency to make a sequel or refer back to some particularly good ep of the series, and often it doesn't work very well. And the music is just one symptom of that. > << yep. absolutely. and for my money, the strength of the > relationship--however > one viewed it--was best expressed through humour, sticking up for each > other or occasional emotional subtlety. i thought was excellent in > this regard as were and the sappho gift ending in . now *that* > was superb (imo). both lucy and ren were very fine. and i thought the > scene could have been interpreted from virtually any relationship point of > view which is nice. >> > > Ditto again. Even the arguments were based on knowing and caring about > each other so much. I loved the bits in "Sickness" and "Shoe Fits," where > they get on each other's nerves, which ADITL had as well. ITSF was an ep I liked. Mainly for its cleverness in adjusting the Cinderella tale to suit whoever was telling it at the time. It was a neat reflection of the characters. And yes, it did reflect a certain disagreement between them. But so what, it would have been boring if they'd all been unanimous. One thing that did strike me as 'off' was the little homily that Gabs delivered at the end (and no, not just because *Gabs* delivered it! :) It just reminded me too much of - umm, can't remember which ones, but innumerable series used to do it. I expect The Waltons did it every episode. XWP was mercifully free of that sort of explicit moralising. ('Scuse me rambling off the point.....) 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: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 19:19:37 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH On Friday 22 August 2003 13:54, mirrordrum wrote: > > Yes, I find it quite in character that Xena would go off > > 3000 miles to try to rescue Gabs. Maybe even go slightly off her head > > in the process. > > slightly? SLIGHTLY? if that's > slightly, m'dear, what would completely look like? ;) May I just put it this way - Xena was still very controlled in Sin Trade. There was a lot of method in her madness. She never looked like breaking down and just losing it. > > I just don't see her breaking down and losing it like she did > > in ITADITH. > > of course, all this is *so* post-mortem but fun nonetheless. is there any > of it you *would* buy? since you don't like gab anyway, let's say just for > the sake of argument, it were m'lila. Good analogy. Okay, I'll go on about that. Even if it were M'Lila, I don't see Xena breaking down like she did in ITADITH. > or better yet, let's consider her > response to the loss of m'lila, realizing that this antedated her > relationship with gab by eversomuch. has this been discussed and i missed > it? if so, sorry and you can just tell me it's been dealt with. No, I don't think it has. Xena, as we saw, didn't break down. It affected her deeply, emotionally, but she didn't lose control. > admittedly, xena didn't try to save m'lila b/c at that time she hadn't > supplemented her non-inconsiderable basic skills with the healing genius > she later manifested. but her reaction was certainly emotion. you say: > > And as you know, I have a low threshold of tolerance when it comes to > > emotionalism. ;) > > now what do you consider "emotionalism?" when the romans off m'lila, i > would say that xena gets just the least little bit emotional. her emotion, > however, is vicious, violent but nonetheless grief-driven. when eve is in > danger, i would say xena gets just the teensiest bit emotional. she also > gets mad and even. so it isn't really emotional you're talking about, imo, > but rather when xena (or anyone?) shows certain kinds of emotion: grief, > direct pain (as in crying), a certain softness perhaps? or it's how they > show those things. i don't know if you differentiate between actors and > people in real life. i do. Umm, I'd draw a big distinction between 'emotion' and 'emotionalism', which is (according to my dictionary) 'an appeal to the emotions' or 'a tendency to be readily affected by emotions'. I don't think I'd call Xena guilty of either of those, though the writers of XWP were on occasion. When Dickens did it it was called 'tear-jerking'. I guess ITADITH strikes me that way. > i think it's both fun and important to clarify these things b/c there is a > tendency to describe as acceptable in xena emotions and their outcomes > stereotypically assigned to men (violence, anger, hatred, direct revenge). Now we're running into shades of meaning - those emotions aren't the ones usually associated with the term 'emotional'. They have their own terms of opprobium. > well, by acceptable i mean that nobody accuses her of being wimpy when she > gets grief stricken and beats the stuffing out of somebody. what's the kiwi > equivalent of wimpy or soft? Near enough the same. > we are much more tolerant of xena's (yawn) > dark, self-sufficient side than of her more vulnerable side. Not so much that, as the fact that Xena wouldn't let her vulnerable side *show*. I think that's the key. When (like LL) you can make one word, or one look, speak volumes, why make a speech? > nope, that's > not ture. many people like(d) that side of her and i did sometimes. it > depended on how it was enacted. about did me in for example. Not sure quite how you mean there? > what i want to know is first of all, how do you define (acceptable) > emotionalism, specifically for xena. 'Acceptable' emtionalISM - zero. Acceptable emotion - a wide range. But it's how she expressed it that counts. I could see the emotion at the end of Orphan of War, but that seemed in character. The OTT breakdown in ITADITH seems both out of character and not what I want to see in Xena anyway. > second, what do you think xena would > have done and should have done had the person who coded in been > m'lila whom you like rather than gab whom you don't? would it have made any > difference to you? do you feel that her violent response to m'lila's death > based on significantly less relationship time than xena's time with gab was > appropriate? if so, what's the difference? btw, i ask that of anyone myself > included. I think Xena would have controlled herself either way. She may well have been heartbroken, but I can't see her 'losing it' in such a futile fashion as in ITADITH. (And before someone points out that Xena invented CPR, that was pure fluke, not anything she planned). > > I am *much* more likely to get emotional myself when the > > characters on screen are holding back. > > In a way, it's similar to the way . . . if the characters on > > screen are breaking down and yelling or crying, they have to be *very* > > convincing to stop me from reacting "oh, grow up!!" (Unsympathetic > > bastard > > that I am :) OTOH, if the _situation_ is such that strong emotions are > > evoked (e.g. with Solan at the end of Orphan of War) and if the > > characters > > aren't showing it (or, as in OOW, aren't able to let themselves show it) > > then it 'gets' to me. Then I'm the one who feels the emotion. > > i think this is quite fascinating and also quite true for most of us. > there's something, possibly cultural, about seeing *strong* people coping > stoically with what we know to be extreme pain that we respect and admire. > it's also a basic tenet of acting, is it not? the holding back? Yes, that's what I was getting at. If they can make the audience feel the emotion, so that it comes from the viewer, rather than the actor, that's good acting (and writing, direction, yadda yadda) IMO. > in acting, what little i know of it, i believe there's emphasis on the > "less is more" presentation of emotion. one of my current favorite films is > "iris" with judi dench as the older iris murdoch who has alzheimer's. of > course, imo, you don't get much better than dench and i don't expect lucy > or ren to be her. in the commentary that goes along with the dvd, the > producer or director, i forget which, talks about her ability not to insert > herself between the character and the audience--she really takes backstage > to the character so that even when she's raving and anguished, she's > *never* sentimental. and perhaps the most intensely emotional scenes in the > movie involve a look of such absence and so little action, that i stand > constantly in awe. i think maybe sentimentality, or lack thereof, is what > it comes down to (and here i'm stealing from david mamet although he calls > it "truth"). to get across the truth of a character's emotion is perhaps to > do emotion without sentimentality. Well put. Sentimentality and emotionalism are very close relatives. > i think i found many of the protestations between x and g sentimental and > therefore untrue (or sometimes untrue and thus sentimental). mind you, i > don't blame the actors and i'm not really complaining. I don't blame the actors even though I *am* complaining ;) > i think both lucy > and renee in (off the top) , , , and , kevin always > and hudson leick in and much of nailed difficult > emotion a lot of the time. lucy with akemi's ashes was astounding. i > thought ren did a very good job in, oh, uh, , especially in > the "don't you *dare* blame me" part, a contained blaze. I was a bit indignant that she went off at Xena over a perfectly reasonable and obvious question - but yes, it was entirely understandable and good acting. > and in the windy > bit at the end. she doesn't do well with emotion--doesn't like to display > it so i give her props for what she did.another excellent moment to my mind > was the fireside scene between gab and callisto where they play "the game." > superb. Both of 'em. Yes. It was masterful how Callisto engaged our (and Gabs') sympathy - and then flicked it away. Playing with Gabby? - maybe, but I think more likely she decided she did not want anybody's sympathy. Now that was a moment with heaps of emotion but without too much emotionalISM - or sentimentality. > i'm keeping in mind, too, the kind of schedule and pressures they were > working under, the short rehearsal times, fatigue, cold, heat, etc. i think > given the circumstances and the heavy load each of them, and particularly > lucy, carried, the intense nature of the work and the demands of the fans, > they did an amazing job. all credit to them. so this isn't my expectation > that they should or could have done more. it's just fun chatting. I've always said that. I'm not sure quite how that relates to the question of emotion, other than a possible excuse for some of their 'off' moments, which were remarkably few. > > Gosh md, this tendency of yours to reflective rambling must be catching > > ;) > > some things just don't change, do they? love it when you ramble. > like the good old days. We must do more of it. Be afraid, listmistress, be very afraid. :) > > > it. i would have kept the lid down harder, held it down tighter, so > > > that the pain was greater. i kick myself about that one. . ." > > > > Hey, Lucy knows *exactly* what I was getting at. Except, I think she > > got it right, in that scene. > > yep. i agree. and yes, she does know what you're talking about and so do > you. you're talking about actors telling the truth as best they can. of > course, you're talking about more than that but in re: xena, i think that's > what you're talking about. both lucy and renee worked for that. they talk > about it, about trying to find the truth of their characters. not easy when > everyone else is throwing their version of the "truth" at you. bless 'em! > > md Well, that's one way to put it. Being true to the character (or 'in character') - yes, that's part of it. And part of it is in the writing, in setting up a situation where the emotion comes from the situation itself, or the dialogue, so that the audience feels it without the actor necessarily having to be emotionAL. Much more subtle and effective, IMO. 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: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:33:25 +0300 From: Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 8:05 AM Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH > Um, I think Sophia may have been saying that we *all* see things that may not > be there, no matter how much to heart we take the show. > > -- Ife > No no I didn't mean that! Sophia ========================================================= > 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:04:29 -0500 From: "S. Wilson" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH At 01:05 AM 8/22/2003 -0400, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: >Um, I think Sophia may have been saying that we *all* see things that may not >be there, no matter how much to heart we take the show. Cr and I had an >argument about that once before -- "reality." We finally agreed that >there are >things "out there" that exist whether we're aware of them or not. I >*think* we >also agreed that, once people become involved, they "see" a "reality" that >has >more to do with their own perceptions. Right. Which is what I was trying to say, to a degree. I took what Sophia said and agreed and just expounded on it to say that if you have zillions of fans, you will have zillions of viewpoints. Everybody takes everything differently, but there is a commonality in it all. It's a shared experience and that's why we're all here talking about it and learning from others their viewpoints. I definitely know my viewpoint of Xena is influenced by the fact that I see a lot of myself in the character, but I still try and remain as objective as I can, because it helps me understand better and keep a more open mind to other fans and definitely to TPTB's direction. >True, maybe there are those who simply saw a bunch of people fighting, riding >horses, walking, and talking on XWP. that's all it is to them. Anyone who >saw more than that can be said to have taken the show "to heart," in the >sense >that they saw some meaning beyond what actually appeared on screen (e.g., >motivations, emotions, "good/bad"). I think what I really meant in "taken to heart" is a fan, who enjoys the show well. I'm sorry, I don't have much frame of reference for other fans outside of the mailing lists and the internet. I work next to a lady who loved to watch Xena (regularly) but computers are foreign to her so she has never been exposed to the thriving fanbase here, and as well she knows nothing of TPTB, no background on the episodes (she didn't know it was filmed in New Zealand), doesn't know the episode titles, has never had anyone to talk to about XWP, so to her, even though she loved it and watched it faithfully, she considered it "just some show, but a good one" (her words - which also made me really think about the reinforcement I've received by having access to the internet over the years Xena was on, which fed my habit and then some). But I've not yet met a Xena fan like myself face to face in my side of the village. All that to say that 99% of the Xena fans I've ever seen are ones that "reside" on the internet, these lists, and they all take the show "to heart" in some fashion, meaning they feel something for it in one way or another, and they devote time to its exploration (don't over-analyze "to heart" - it's just the best way I know how to explain it). > And once they add that meaning, it's bound to >be different than someone else's meaning. You (and I) might argue till the >cow's come home that XWP was somebody else's show, but there "those >others" who >will argue that it was *their* show. And they will be "right" from their >perspective, just as we are "right" from ours. > >-- Ife I really don't try to argue that my perspective is right, but I do sometimes see another person's perspective and wonder how they arrived at the conclusions they're making. This is not to say I've not had lively debates and even had my better judgment clouded. I know, privately, the way I see XnG and XWP is the right way for me, but not everyone else, though there may be few, some or many people who agree with some of its aspects. There will also be people who agree with none of it, just as there are people I will not agree with at all. Which is cool. It's all good. S. ========================================================= 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: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:33:46 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH In a message dated 8/22/03 6:27:47 AM Central Daylight Time, sgitzou@periaktoi.gr writes: << Um, I think Sophia may have been saying that we *all* see things that may not > be there, no matter how much to heart we take the show. > > -- Ife > No no I didn't mean that! >> LOL! Well, that's too bad, because Sue and I have already agreed on what you meant and also agree with what we thought you said. You're quite brilliant, if I must say so myself. Seriously, though, you expressed your point very well. We realize you may have had a different intent/meaning, but we used it to jump off on our points. If we went waaaaay off what you were getting at, please jump in again. - -- 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: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:33:47 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH In a message dated 8/22/03 5:05:07 AM Central Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: md said: << > i think it's both fun and important to clarify these things b/c there is a > tendency to describe as acceptable in xena emotions and their outcomes > stereotypically assigned to men (violence, anger, hatred, direct revenge). Now we're running into shades of meaning - those emotions aren't the ones usually associated with the term 'emotional'. They have their own terms of opprobium. >> Aha! I knew you wouldn't consider anger a "true" emotion. I kept trying to figure out how Xena could ever be described as "not emotional." (I'm not saying you said that, tho I think you ideas about "emotionalism" support such a view.) It's for the same reason that men can storm up and down a hallway and not be considered "emotional." If it involves yelling, whacking someone, plotting revenge, etc., it's more "masculine" and therefore not an emotion! It's something else with a "shade of meaning" that's somehow less "weak" or ineffective -- not because that's necessarily true, but because if men do it, it *must* be less emotional -- "weak" or ineffective. Was Xena's yelling at bystanders less emotional than yelling at Gabs to "wake up"? Was it the crying that made her appear more emotional? What about whacking Gabs on the chest? Would that've been emotional without the yelling and/or crying? Does yelling, crying *and* whacking Gabs simultaneously not compute? I'm trying to understand these "shades" of meaning, because they in fact make a huge difference in assessments of Xena's behavior. - -- 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: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:33:52 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH In a message dated 8/22/03 5:01:22 AM Central Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: Ife said: > I think the music annoyed me more than anything, for some reason. As I > said, I felt like TPTB were overdoing the "okay, this is a tender moment" > hints, as though I couldn't figure that out for myself. I felt the same > when I heard that kind of Western refrain from the end of "Sin Trade," > which was repeated as the Amazons salute X&G at the end of PoV. Oh, agreed. That was really cool at the end of Sin Trade, which I still rate as the best music score of the whole series. And using it in PoV which was really a very average episode, devalued ST slightly in retrospect. IMO. >> Yes, that whole bit -- from the sort of surreal "waking the Amazons" part to the end where she rides of, triumphant -- gives me goosebumps whenever I play that CD. Some of the music from "Ides" was special to me as well. I agree, I kind of felt like they were devaluing that -- cheating by using such music to give S6 more "feeling" than some scenes deserved. I've always wondered if someone. As much as I loved LoDuca, I almost wished for no music sometimes, rather than music which wasn't as "in synch" as I was accustomed to. LOL! Boy, were we spoiled -- grousing when the award-winning music didn't meet the high starndards that had been set. << ITSF was an ep I liked. Mainly for its cleverness in adjusting the Cinderella tale to suit whoever was telling it at the time. It was a neat reflection of the characters. >> Not to mention the discussion we've been having on our different "takes" of the same scene in "Doctor." <<('Scuse me rambling off the point.....) >> Point? There's a "the point" to all this? (I'm being funny. Please do not go through that file of yours to answer a question I'm really not interested in the answer to.) -- 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: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:33:45 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH In a message dated 8/22/03 9:09:22 AM Central Daylight Time, sswilso@uark.edu writes: <> Okay. Sorry, one of my hot buttons is the notiion that some of us know what's "really" happening, while everybody else is "reading something into it." I think you're saying you're aware of your own "filters" and try to be objective by accepting that others may have a different view. I agree that there are those who believe absolutely that they know the "truth" and are neither interested in hearing nor accepting any other possibilities. That doesn't mean we have to change our minds necessarily, so much as maybe learning about and from other viewpoints. Mind you, I generally learn the most from people like that when their view is different from what I already "know." Doesn't mean they don't drive me nuts though. <> Yes, this is clearer to me as well now. I also know a few people who watched from time to time, usually liked what they saw, but weren't motivated to do more than that. Most of them relied on me to fill them in on BTS info. I know what you mean about the internet. When I was watching the show on my own, I made sure to see each ep, but I wasn't nearly as obsessive as when I got online. But it's sort of like the chicken and the egg. The show fascinated me to the point where I finally got interested in the internet and is still the biggest reason for my online activities. Once I got on, my interest in the show escalated dramatically. As you say, those folks I've met who aren't into online fandom are least likely to get that "Xena haze" in their eyes when they talk about the show. << I really don't try to argue that my perspective is right, but I do sometimes see another person's perspective and wonder how they arrived at the conclusions they're making. This is not to say I've not had lively debates and even had my better judgment clouded. I know, privately, the way I see XnG and XWP is the right way for me, but not everyone else, though there may be few, some or many people who agree with some of its aspects. There will also be people who agree with none of it, just as there are people I will not agree with at all. Which is cool. It's all good.>> Yes, "the right way for me" is what I meant as well. It's the "right for everybody" opinion that irritates me. Thanks for the clarification. -- 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V3 #241 **************************************