From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #247 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 Monday, August 25 2003 Volume 03 : Number 247 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH ["H.J.J. Hewitt" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Whoosh article [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle ["S. Wilson" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Whoosh article ["Cheryl Ande" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 01:02:41 -0500 From: "H.J.J. Hewitt" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH Ifrae noted-- >The fundamental reason >we prefer Xena to Gabrielle is shaped by our world view, as is the fact that >we spend 90% of our time arguing about how Xena does/should/could act in her >world, as opposed to Gabs. I'm not even going to pretend that's because the >"show's called 'Xena'" or that I'd be focusing on the WP less if they >changed the >title to "The Adventures of Xena and Gabrielle." I identify with the WP >more. Period. True, even for a Gab-fan. Xena is simply the more interesting character. If I could spend an hour with either Xena or Gabrielle, it would definitely be Xena. But, on the basis of all the interviews, things I've read, media reports, if I could spend an hour with either Lucy or Renee-- it would be Renee. TEXena ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:52:29 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH On Monday 25 August 2003 18:02, H.J.J. Hewitt wrote: > Ifrae noted-- > > >The fundamental reason > >we prefer Xena to Gabrielle is shaped by our world view, as is the fact > > that we spend 90% of our time arguing about how Xena does/should/could > > act in her world, as opposed to Gabs. I'm not even going to pretend > > that's because the "show's called 'Xena'" or that I'd be focusing on the > > WP less if they changed the > >title to "The Adventures of Xena and Gabrielle." I identify with the WP > >more. Period. > > True, even for a Gab-fan. Xena is simply the more interesting character. > If I could spend an hour with either Xena or Gabrielle, it would definitely > be Xena. But, on the basis of all the interviews, things I've read, media > reports, if I could spend an hour with either Lucy or Renee-- it would be > Renee. > > > TEXena Errm, with respect, I'd say you may not be a typical Gabfan then. I can certainly call to mind many pronouncements by Gabfans that would relegate Xena to some sort of obscure supporting role. ;) Of course, they may not have been in the majority. 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: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:31:45 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Whoosh article On Sunday 24 August 2003 16:18, Cheryl Ande wrote: > There's a very good article in Whoosh this month that is about how certain > scenes in Xena emulate Renaissance pictures. It covers such things as > composition and lightening. The use of shadow and perspective to highlight > the characters emotions and to symbolically represent what is going on in a > particular scene. If you read it then watch a Xena episode you do begin to > notice how certain scenes do look like paintings. > Interesting article. In fact I did notice that XWP's cameramen had an eye for scenery (well, it was almost impossible not to notice). And they also (as we've discussed) filmed it like a movie rather than a TV show. But Mazzeri missed out what I think is the most striking shot of the whole series - www.whoosh.org/issue32/graphics/xenrc11a.jpg where Callisto is seen in silhouette with her sword raised while Xena gallops in from the background. The whole scene is back-lit with golden-green toitoi (sawgrass) with white feathery tufts. Marvellous composition, 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: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 22:40:16 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH On Monday 25 August 2003 16:01, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 8/24/2003 5:14:44 AM Central Daylight Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > Speaking in the abstract now (and not referring to your posts at all) - > > I do always object to what I consider to be attempts to judge the show in > > the > > light of current (frequently American :) social movements, whether > > that's feminism, political correctness, or what-have-you.>> > > Methinks that may be as much in your mind, as I'm seldom aware of that. I think I could point you to a few Letters to the Editor on Whoosh that are coming from just such single-interest perspectives. :( Not all from women either. By way of example I can call to mind one Andjam (not an American btw), who had diagnosed that Joxer had Asperger's Syndrome, and every time Jox fell flat on his face or did something else klutzy, TPTB were deliberately cripple-bashing. Nobody could ever convince him that Jox came straight out of the Three Stooges. > I > see most people speaking from their own experience or values (as I believe > you do), rather than from some notion about a "movement." If they are, > they usually say so or make that distinction. I don't see the difference > in your talking about Brit-influenced reticence among Kiwis, which could be > perceived among less reticent folks (such as myself) as a form of > "political correctness." But it's precisely my awareness of the huge > diversity of American responses that keeps me from taking something like > that as an "us" vs. "the rest of the world" kind of thing. Sorry if I implied that. Just that most posters seem to be American and therefore it's American social institutions that get reflected in their posts. Incidentally, I think Kiwis would indignantly deny that their reticence is British influenced, I think they would claim it as their own indigenous character. > > (e.g. the suggestion that > > the Rift was an example of 'domestic violence'). >> > > You don't have domestic violence in NZ? Does it occur to you that most of > the posters are women, who might have a personal interest in that, which > they might share with other women regardless of where they live? I don't > think domestic violence is a good example. We're not talking about some > evil that takes place "out there," but in people's own homes. Well precisely. And domestic violence usually takes the form of some person going out on the town, getting drunk, and coming back and beating up their husband. Or wife. It happens all the time, it's deplorable, and I sure don't want to watch it as entertainment on TV. Now you tell me by what Procrustean exercise a mythical saga set in ancient Greece, where Gabby's devil-spawn daughter kills Xena's son, Gabby kills her daughter, and Xena (urged on by the God of War) attempts to throw Gabby off a cliff in revenge - can be shoe-horned into the category of 'domestic violence' and I'll stop watching XWP because I obviously haven't been watching a Greek tragedy, I've been watching a kitchen-sink soapie all along and never realised it. (That is, even assuming I found Xena and Gabs remotely 'domestic', which I don't and wouldn't even if I was a subtexter which as you know I'm not. :) > As an > American woman, I only wish it represented some kind of "social movement" > that could sweep away all the barriers in our police force, the armed > services, the judicial system (a huge number of women are in jail for > killing/wounding abusive partners), and religious/secular marriage "canon" > that still favors women putting up with such crap. Umm, yup. Only wish what did? > > I acknowledge that I > > myself doubtless have a world-view (there's probably a long German word > > for it) which colours my views, but I try not to impose it too strongly > > on the show. >> > > Sure you do. We both do. But it's there nonethless. The fundamental > reason we prefer Xena to Gabrielle is shaped by our world view, as is the > fact that we spend 90% of our time arguing about how Xena does/should/could > act in her world, as opposed to Gabs. I'm not even going to pretend that's > because the "show's called 'Xena'" or that I'd be focusing on the WP less > if they changed the title to "The Adventures of Xena and Gabrielle." I > identify with the WP more. Period. And everything I perceive stems from > that. They could've given Gabs twice as much air time, and everything I > focused on would still be related to Xena. I'd just have more scenes to > fast-forward through. Me too. :) > > I try to be gender-neutral in my judgements of characters, and I don't > > accept > > that there are 'typically male' or 'typically female' traits. > > Specifically, > > I don't think men have a monopoly on anger, or women on emotionalism. >> > > I try to be "gender neutral" as well, but I know I don't always succeed. > Plus, I think there are "typical" differences, even though I don't believe > those differences apply to everyone in either gender. An example is the > domestic violence you spoke of above. I'd be very surprised if it cropped > up as regularly and with as much emotion (fear or anger) among men as it > does among women. I love Xena because she's a woman who is equally > comfortable being what some might call "masculine" and "feminine." I am > admittedly biased in thinking women are multi-dimensional in that way than > most men, even as I try to be open to accepting that's not always the case > and/or may be because of cultural expectations/conditioning. Yes, well, I agree, there are 'typical' differences that apply *on average*. On average, say, men tend to be stronger and hence more likely to do the fighting - which is why a 'woman warrior' is unusual. Also why, for example, women in sport usually can't quite match the performances of men. That isn't to say that I consider the 'average state of affairs' (as I might call it) necessarily desirable. And any female athlete can doubtless out-run (or out-whatever-their-specialty-is) 99.9% of 'average' men. These characteristics are not immutable. Which is why I fizzed a bit when you thought I was assuming 'anger' was a male characteristic and 'emotionalism' a female one, because I don't. > > >I'm only going on what I thought you > > >suggested, which seemed to equate crying with being "emotional," but > > > not anger. > > > > Roughly, in terms of common usage of the words, yes. >> > > See, "common usage" sounds like "politically correct" to me, as it can be > applied to certain groups who aren't "toeing the line" like they're > supposed to. But how can we have any sensible discussion if we don't use words according to their common usage? "Words mean what I want 'em to mean** " simply reduces them to being meaningless to anybody else. (**Humpty Dumpty, IIRC). (And I absolutely disagree that common usage is allied to political correctness, in fact 'politically correct' language usually arouses my indignation when it tries to monkey around with the common meanings of words. The two are frequently incompatible, in my view). > Regardless of the emotion, they are described as "emotional" > as opposed to "being reasonable." I want to know what *you* think, > because you can't represent the personal motivations of those who write > dictionaries or etiquette books. I don't want to argue about that anyway. > I want to discuss what cr, Ife, Jackie, Cande, etc. think. When I hear > "common usage" brought in, I have the same reaction you do to what you > perceive to be "politically correct." It's the same to me as "everybody > knows (i.e., "it's commonly accepted that") TPTB made a big mistake with > AFIN and that most hard-core fans hated it." What "everybody"? How was > that determined? Nevertheless, without commonly accepted meanings of words, how can anybody understand anybody else? (snip) > > I think that 'restrained' is good in anybody, and emotionalism (i.e. > > excessive emotion) is less desirable. >> > > Whereas I would rather be around someone who can "let it out" in a > nondestructive way so that they can move on and I can have confidence that > what I'm getting from them is "real." I have a better idea of where they > are, where they stand and whether they're invested in it personally -- > whether that's a "true" indicator or not. I think both restraint and > emotionalism can be overused or exhibited at the wrong time. I'm more > comfortable with emotionalism, but I don't necessarily think it's always > "better." I also don't see "anger" as connoting more "strength" than, say > crying. As Cande has pointed out, Xena considered her "rage" to be a > weakness that blinded her to more effective options and abilities, as well > as got a lot of innocent folks killed. Well, obviously you and I disagree on the question of emotion. I like 'understated'. Or 'subtle'. I don't think that is necessarily a male characteristic, btw. I certainly don't see anger as connoting strength, though. > This certainly applies to a > > > 'warrior', of whichever gender. How far would Xena have got as a > > warrior if she'd been in the habit of breaking down at difficult moments? > > >> > > Again, I don't see emotionalism as necessarily "breaking down" or leading > to ineffectiveness. Gabrielle was exhibiting a range of emotions (outrage, > fear, love, grief) when she saw Xena lying helpless and turned into the > Gabinator. Was it a breakdown of sorts? Probably. Was understandable, > even > appropriate, under the circumstances? Possibly. Was it effective? She > kept Xena from being killed on the spot, which might've saved them if it > had been any other ep besides the one where they were supposed to be > crucified no matter what. Heh. But she turned into a quite effective killing machine, she didn't burst out crying. If she was being emotional, it was certainly a well-directed emotionalism. If Xena did that now, we'd know that she was channelling her rage. In the case of gabs, maybe she just struck lucky. What was it Ares said in Ten Little Warlords - without a reigning God of War, ordinary folks didn't know what to do with their anger and just lost it completely, warriors just got more foucssed? I don't go all the way with Ares, but certainly it's possible (IMO) to decide when and how to 'lose it'. > > I also, though, think that sensitivity is good, and callousness or > > obtuseness > > bad. But sensitivity and restraint are quite compatible, and > > sensitivity does not automatically imply emotionalism. Nor does > > restraint necessarily imply obtuseness or a thick skin. > > Agreed. My concern is that sensitivity is labelled "weak" or "bad" in the > "real" world, more often than callousness or obtuseness, even when the > latter wreak havoc and cause more problems than it solves. OK, agreed there. > > > Am I wrong about the > > > > >impressions I got about your views about "emotional" in regards to > > > anger, restraint and weakness? > > > > > >-- Ife > > > > No, I think you got them right. Where you got it wrong (IMO) was in > > implying (intentionally or not) that I consider them gender-related, > > because I don't, or at least I try not to. >> > > Perhaps I should've said "accepting of gender based connotations shared by > both men and women." I do believe seeing emotions/emotionalism in terms > of "weakness" or "strength" is a more "masculine" propensity, Very possibly > just as > "best" or "who's in command" are. I don't accept that we always have to > talk as though that should be our focus, even when discussing what > "warriors" should be like. I especially strive for a more > multi-dimensional approach when the warrior is a woman. Again, that's my > bias, which I recognize isn't necessarily shared by men and women who think > that shouldn't matter or believe that the basic warrior model is > "masculine." > > -- Ife Hmmm, I'd say that warfare is not a democratic process, and therefore, when in battle, you do need to have somebody in command who knows what they're doing. (And I say this as someone who would make an absolutely terrible soldier, since I always dispute and disagree with 'orders'. ;) When not in battle, then there is room for listening to all points of view and being multi-dimensional. 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: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 22:43:30 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH On Monday 25 August 2003 16:01, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > > > Oooh, thank you so much. > > > > cr > > ... trying to figure out how lfe would actually stop him... ;) > > Stop you from agreeing with me (i.e., "get it right")? I wouldn't even > try. > > -- Ife (imagining cr gnashing his teeth) That's interesting. How *does* one gnash? I've always wondered. ;) 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: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:47:03 -0500 From: "S. Wilson" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle At 11:56 PM 8/24/2003 -0400, HawkFalco@aol.com wrote: >I'm a devout Gabrielle fan too, and her part of the story appeals to me >deeply. I lurk mostly because I have little time to post my ideas much >less read >all that crosses through my e-box. >No, Gab fans. You are no alone. > >Hawk Even though the WP is on my pedestal, I do have to admit that by the close of the show, I really loved Gabrielle. She had much depth, enough to dive into and not bang your head on the bottom (*like in Season I*). I felt warm fuzzies for her. And I also don't have enough time to post much so that's MO for now at least. :> S.tephanie ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:24:04 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH In a message dated 8/25/03 7:12:01 AM Central Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: On Monday 25 August 2003 16:01, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 8/24/2003 5:14:44 AM Central Daylight Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > Speaking in the abstract now (and not referring to your posts at all) - > > I do always object to what I consider to be attempts to judge the show in > > the > > light of current (frequently American :) social movements, whether > > that's feminism, political correctness, or what-have-you.>> > > Methinks that may be as much in your mind, as I'm seldom aware of that. I think I could point you to a few Letters to the Editor on Whoosh that are coming from just such single-interest perspectives. :( >> Grrrr. I thought you were talking about discussions on the list. See, that's what drives me nuts about referring to folks who aren't here (except for KT, who's always in spirit and presumably will crop up periodically). << Not all from women either. By way of example I can call to mind one Andjam (not an American btw), who had diagnosed that Joxer had Asperger's Syndrome, and every time Jox fell flat on his face or did something else klutzy, TPTB were deliberately cripple-bashing. Nobody could ever convince him that Jox came straight out of the Three Stooges. >> I'm sorry, but I don't see how that's tied to some "social movement." What's so unusual about people noting something of personal interest to them -- like jokes about age or baldness? Sure, maybe some see deliberate "bashing" and maybe even conspiracies, but humor is very culturally sensitive and personal. Heh, as far as I'm concerned, anything based on the Three Stooges is suspect (Lucy's fondness for them notwithstanding). <> Yes, I imagine that can get irksome sometimes, especially if we assume everybody knows what we're talking about -- or should care. But that's our frame of reference. Do you find that to be a problem sometimes on this list? <> Better take that up with Lucy and some of the other Kiwis I've heard talk about some of the differences between them and 'Mericans, especially when it comes to humor, degree of expressiveness and comfort with "celebrity" status. << Now you tell me by what Procrustean exercise a mythical saga set in ancient Greece, where Gabby's devil-spawn daughter kills Xena's son, Gabby kills her daughter, and Xena (urged on by the God of War) attempts to throw Gabby off a cliff in revenge - can be shoe-horned into the category of 'domestic violence' and I'll stop watching XWP because I obviously haven't been watching a Greek tragedy, I've been watching a kitchen-sink soapie all along and never realised it. We forget that Greek plays, Shakespeare's plays, etc. were like the "soaps" of their day, in terms of presenting fare to "entertain" as well as explore subjects of interest to the particular audience. I'm not sure what the medium has to do with the fact that some people are going to react more strongly to particular themes or images no matter how "sophisticated" the presentation. I'm sure there are many who do see XWP as a step below the "soaps" of our day, which doesn't lessen my own appreciation of XWP's achievements or its appeal to me. <<(That is, even assuming I found Xena and Gabs remotely 'domestic', which I don't and wouldn't even if I was a subtexter which as you know I'm not. :)>> What's the subtext got to do with it? I don't see how you can get more "domestic" than living together -- eating, sleeping, dividing up chores, enjoying leisure time, etc. -- as X&G did, regardless of where they did it or their relationship. Their "home" happened to be wherever they were. Did you mentally put walls between them? See them as two individuals who accidentally ended up in the same place most days, usually talking to each other? Is it because they didn't have a house? What would you call that aspect of their lives? Camping? The Gabdrag didn't bother me personally. To this day, I thrill to that music and Xena's riding double on horseback, galloping with that mannequin in tow. Still, I can well understand those who thought it was way over the top. We did indeed see Xena brutally attack the person she lived with, which in some viewers' minds destroyed the feeling of "safety" with the one person you trust above all others. They couldn't accept that, anymore than you accept that Xena would "blubber" in "Doctor." Doesn't matter that it's supposed to be "fantasy." We respond and make our assessments based on our on "real" experiences and beliefs. > As an > American woman, I only wish it represented some kind of "social movement" > that could sweep away all the barriers in our police force, the armed > services, the judicial system (a huge number of women are in jail for > killing/wounding abusive partners), and religious/secular marriage "canon" > that still favors women putting up with such crap. Umm, yup. Only wish what did?>> Discussions about domestic violence. << Yes, well, I agree, there are 'typical' differences that apply *on average*. On average, say, men tend to be stronger and hence more likely to do the fighting - which is why a 'woman warrior' is unusual. >> Women warriors are not that unusual in some countries/cultures. If brute force were the only criterion, some of the greatest warriors in the world wouldn't be smaller people who developed the "martial arts." Normally, we talk about courage, skill, quickness, endurance, mental sharpness, etc. when cataloging what makes an effective warrior, yet somehow physical strength becomes the primary characteristic that lessens the probability of female combatants. Suddenly the "David and Goliath" scenario becomes irrelevant. <> In sports where physical strength give a decided advantage, which men like to emphasize. But when you get to archery or target shooting, women often excel. I suspect that they could do so in swimming, running and other sports as well, if they devoted as much time and energy to it as their male counterparts. My point is that any number of characteristics go into champions and that it's dismissive of those characteristics to emphasize only one of them. I don't hear people saying that the only reason a man excelled is his strength. Usually, they write about his "heart," with particular fondess for the contestant who didn't seem to have the physical requirements to succeed. << Which is why I fizzed a bit when you thought I was assuming 'anger' was a male characteristic and 'emotionalism' a female one, because I don't. >> I don't think you do consciously or intentionally, anymore than I do. But you tend to emphasize typically "masculine" advantages (strength) or traits (anger) when saying what's "better." I tend to look for creativity, quick thinking, using the opponents' strengths against him -- which is what I love about Xena more than her superhuman physical feats. Yes, I'm sure you like those qualities too. The difference is that you see Xena as an exception in the "real" world. I do not, because I'm aware of both the tradition of women warriors and focus on warrior characteristics I've seen women demonstrate on a variety of "battlefields." << Nevertheless, without commonly accepted meanings of words, how can anybody understand anybody else? >> "Commonly accepted meanings" often become ends in themselves, rather than means to understanding someone else. I can accept that your definition of something may be based on your reading of a dictionary or how it's used among people you're aware of. That's a start. It helps me know where you're coming from. Then I tell you what my reading and experience say. We can end it there or keep arguing over whose meaning is more commonly accepted. If we're truly trying to understand each other, we'll move away from "common" to what's true for us personally. During our discussion of "reality," I let go (albeit reluctantly) of what it meant to me, and you did the same, so we could understand why the heck we saw it so differently. We both still have our priority personal views of what reality "means." I certainly understand better why you see things as you do, even though the commonly accepted view on the list might be that we're both nuts for obsessing about such things. << Well, obviously you and I disagree on the question of emotion. I like 'understated'. Or 'subtle'. >> Whereas I might interpret that as "repressed" or "not honest" -- holding back something. << I certainly don't see anger as connoting strength, though. >> No, but I think you see it as connoting more strength than, say, crying (that is, beyond a single tear escaping down an otherwise impassive face). << Hmmm, I'd say that warfare is not a democratic process, and therefore, when in battle, you do need to have somebody in command who knows what they're doing. (And I say this as someone who would make an absolutely terrible soldier, since I always dispute and disagree with 'orders'. ;) When not in battle, then there is room for listening to all points of view and being multi-dimensional. >> There have always been smaller, less well equipped forces which have succeeded by breaking into smaller units, nearly any one of whose members could act alone or lead others. The smarter ones are able to quickly incorporate new information and creatively respond to new situations, when "orders" no longer make sense. I think this is why some of the best leaders refrain from "second guessing those in the field." "Listening" has become a very underrated tool. Doing' it when doesn't matter may not nearly as critical as listening when there's new information that could get you killed if you ignore it. When animals sense danger, the forest becomes quiet. Maybe the biggest is roaring, but the others are listening as an important part of their survival. But what do they know, eh? - -- 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: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:24:01 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH In a message dated 8/25/03 7:12:13 AM Central Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: << > -- Ife (imagining cr gnashing his teeth) That's interesting. How *does* one gnash? I've always wondered. ;) >> Very carefully, especially if they've gotten a bit "long in the tooth." Bwhahahaha! Ife (who also must be careful gnashing and grinding) ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:32:39 -0400 From: "Cheryl Ande" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Whoosh article - ----- Original Message ----- From: "cr" > > But Mazzeri missed out what I think is the most striking shot of the whole > series - www.whoosh.org/issue32/graphics/xenrc11a.jpg > where Callisto is seen in silhouette with her sword raised while Xena > gallops in from the background. The whole scene is back-lit with > golden-green toitoi (sawgrass) with white feathery tufts. Marvellous > composition, IMO. > > cr > Yes that is a wonderfully compsed scene. Perhaps the camermen and directors had more freedom to compose beautiful shots simply that they were dealing with a mythic story. Xena's stories often seemed to beg for a romantic vision or a classical vision. You had to sort of hark back to the old masters to evoke the since of time and history you needed for Xena. Perhaps it also underscores the pride the crew of Xena took in their little syndicated show. The real shame has always been that the show never got the respect it deserved from the industry. It was always visually interesting and technically superior to many of the prime time shows. CherylA ========================================================= 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, 26 Aug 2003 02:54:52 +0300 From: Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH "Greek tragedy"???? Now that's a big word. Let's just try to be more careful! Sophia - ----- Original Message ----- From: "cr" To: ; Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH > On Monday 25 August 2003 16:01, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 8/24/2003 5:14:44 AM Central Daylight Time, > > > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > > Speaking in the abstract now (and not referring to your posts at all) - > > > I do always object to what I consider to be attempts to judge the show in > > > the > > > light of current (frequently American :) social movements, whether > > > that's feminism, political correctness, or what-have-you.>> > > > > Methinks that may be as much in your mind, as I'm seldom aware of that. > > I think I could point you to a few Letters to the Editor on Whoosh that are > coming from just such single-interest perspectives. :( > > Not all from women either. By way of example I can call to mind one Andjam > (not an American btw), who had diagnosed that Joxer had Asperger's Syndrome, > and every time Jox fell flat on his face or did something else klutzy, TPTB > were deliberately cripple-bashing. Nobody could ever convince him that > Jox came straight out of the Three Stooges. > > > I > > see most people speaking from their own experience or values (as I believe > > you do), rather than from some notion about a "movement." If they are, > > they usually say so or make that distinction. I don't see the difference > > in your talking about Brit-influenced reticence among Kiwis, which could be > > perceived among less reticent folks (such as myself) as a form of > > "political correctness." But it's precisely my awareness of the huge > > diversity of American responses that keeps me from taking something like > > that as an "us" vs. "the rest of the world" kind of thing. > > Sorry if I implied that. Just that most posters seem to be American and > therefore it's American social institutions that get reflected in their > posts. > > Incidentally, I think Kiwis would indignantly deny that their reticence is > British influenced, I think they would claim it as their own indigenous > character. > > > > (e.g. the suggestion that > > > the Rift was an example of 'domestic violence'). >> > > > > You don't have domestic violence in NZ? Does it occur to you that most of > > the posters are women, who might have a personal interest in that, which > > they might share with other women regardless of where they live? I don't > > think domestic violence is a good example. We're not talking about some > > evil that takes place "out there," but in people's own homes. > > Well precisely. And domestic violence usually takes the form of some person > going out on the town, getting drunk, and coming back and beating up their > husband. Or wife. It happens all the time, it's deplorable, and I sure > don't want to watch it as entertainment on TV. > > Now you tell me by what Procrustean exercise a mythical saga set in ancient > Greece, where Gabby's devil-spawn daughter kills Xena's son, Gabby kills her > daughter, and Xena (urged on by the God of War) attempts to throw Gabby off a > cliff in revenge - can be shoe-horned into the category of 'domestic > violence' and I'll stop watching XWP because I obviously haven't been > watching a Greek tragedy, I've been watching a kitchen-sink soapie all along > and never realised it. > > (That is, even assuming I found Xena and Gabs remotely 'domestic', which I > don't and wouldn't even if I was a subtexter which as you know I'm not. :) > > > As an > > American woman, I only wish it represented some kind of "social movement" > > that could sweep away all the barriers in our police force, the armed > > services, the judicial system (a huge number of women are in jail for > > killing/wounding abusive partners), and religious/secular marriage "canon" > > that still favors women putting up with such crap. > > Umm, yup. Only wish what did? > > > > I acknowledge that I > > > myself doubtless have a world-view (there's probably a long German word > > > for it) which colours my views, but I try not to impose it too strongly > > > on the show. >> > > > > Sure you do. We both do. But it's there nonethless. The fundamental > > reason we prefer Xena to Gabrielle is shaped by our world view, as is the > > fact that we spend 90% of our time arguing about how Xena does/should/could > > act in her world, as opposed to Gabs. I'm not even going to pretend that's > > because the "show's called 'Xena'" or that I'd be focusing on the WP less > > if they changed the title to "The Adventures of Xena and Gabrielle." I > > identify with the WP more. Period. And everything I perceive stems from > > that. They could've given Gabs twice as much air time, and everything I > > focused on would still be related to Xena. I'd just have more scenes to > > fast-forward through. > > Me too. :) > > > > I try to be gender-neutral in my judgements of characters, and I don't > > > accept > > > that there are 'typically male' or 'typically female' traits. > > > Specifically, > > > I don't think men have a monopoly on anger, or women on emotionalism. >> > > > > I try to be "gender neutral" as well, but I know I don't always succeed. > > Plus, I think there are "typical" differences, even though I don't believe > > those differences apply to everyone in either gender. An example is the > > domestic violence you spoke of above. I'd be very surprised if it cropped > > up as regularly and with as much emotion (fear or anger) among men as it > > does among women. I love Xena because she's a woman who is equally > > comfortable being what some might call "masculine" and "feminine." I am > > admittedly biased in thinking women are multi-dimensional in that way than > > most men, even as I try to be open to accepting that's not always the case > > and/or may be because of cultural expectations/conditioning. > > Yes, well, I agree, there are 'typical' differences that apply *on average*. > On average, say, men tend to be stronger and hence more likely to do the > fighting - which is why a 'woman warrior' is unusual. Also why, for > example, women in sport usually can't quite match the performances of men. > That isn't to say that I consider the 'average state of affairs' (as I might > call it) necessarily desirable. And any female athlete can doubtless > out-run (or out-whatever-their-specialty-is) 99.9% of 'average' men. > These characteristics are not immutable. > > Which is why I fizzed a bit when you thought I was assuming 'anger' was a > male characteristic and 'emotionalism' a female one, because I don't. > > > > > >I'm only going on what I thought you > > > >suggested, which seemed to equate crying with being "emotional," but > > > > not anger. > > > > > > Roughly, in terms of common usage of the words, yes. >> > > > > See, "common usage" sounds like "politically correct" to me, as it can be > > applied to certain groups who aren't "toeing the line" like they're > > supposed to. > > But how can we have any sensible discussion if we don't use words according > to their common usage? "Words mean what I want 'em to mean** " simply > reduces them to being meaningless to anybody else. (**Humpty Dumpty, IIRC). > > (And I absolutely disagree that common usage is allied to political > correctness, in fact 'politically correct' language usually arouses my > indignation when it tries to monkey around with the common meanings of words. > The two are frequently incompatible, in my view). > > > Regardless of the emotion, they are described as "emotional" > > as opposed to "being reasonable." I want to know what *you* think, > > because you can't represent the personal motivations of those who write > > dictionaries or etiquette books. I don't want to argue about that anyway. > > I want to discuss what cr, Ife, Jackie, Cande, etc. think. When I hear > > "common usage" brought in, I have the same reaction you do to what you > > perceive to be "politically correct." It's the same to me as "everybody > > knows (i.e., "it's commonly accepted that") TPTB made a big mistake with > > AFIN and that most hard-core fans hated it." What "everybody"? How was > > that determined? > > Nevertheless, without commonly accepted meanings of words, how can anybody > understand anybody else? > > (snip) > > > I think that 'restrained' is good in anybody, and emotionalism (i.e. > > > excessive emotion) is less desirable. >> > > > > Whereas I would rather be around someone who can "let it out" in a > > nondestructive way so that they can move on and I can have confidence that > > what I'm getting from them is "real." I have a better idea of where they > > are, where they stand and whether they're invested in it personally -- > > whether that's a "true" indicator or not. I think both restraint and > > emotionalism can be overused or exhibited at the wrong time. I'm more > > comfortable with emotionalism, but I don't necessarily think it's always > > "better." I also don't see "anger" as connoting more "strength" than, say > > crying. As Cande has pointed out, Xena considered her "rage" to be a > > weakness that blinded her to more effective options and abilities, as well > > as got a lot of innocent folks killed. > > Well, obviously you and I disagree on the question of emotion. I like > 'understated'. Or 'subtle'. I don't think that is necessarily a male > characteristic, btw. > > I certainly don't see anger as connoting strength, though. > > > This certainly applies to a > > > > > 'warrior', of whichever gender. How far would Xena have got as a > > > warrior if she'd been in the habit of breaking down at difficult moments? > > > >> > > > > Again, I don't see emotionalism as necessarily "breaking down" or leading > > to ineffectiveness. Gabrielle was exhibiting a range of emotions (outrage, > > fear, love, grief) when she saw Xena lying helpless and turned into the > > Gabinator. Was it a breakdown of sorts? Probably. Was understandable, > > even > > appropriate, under the circumstances? Possibly. Was it effective? She > > kept Xena from being killed on the spot, which might've saved them if it > > had been any other ep besides the one where they were supposed to be > > crucified no matter what. > > Heh. But she turned into a quite effective killing machine, she didn't > burst out crying. If she was being emotional, it was certainly a > well-directed emotionalism. If Xena did that now, we'd know that she was > channelling her rage. In the case of gabs, maybe she just struck lucky. > What was it Ares said in Ten Little Warlords - without a reigning God of War, > ordinary folks didn't know what to do with their anger and just lost it > completely, warriors just got more foucssed? I don't go all the way with > Ares, but certainly it's possible (IMO) to decide when and how to 'lose it'. > > > > I also, though, think that sensitivity is good, and callousness or > > > obtuseness > > > bad. But sensitivity and restraint are quite compatible, and > > > sensitivity does not automatically imply emotionalism. Nor does > > > restraint necessarily imply obtuseness or a thick skin. > > > > Agreed. My concern is that sensitivity is labelled "weak" or "bad" in the > > "real" world, more often than callousness or obtuseness, even when the > > latter wreak havoc and cause more problems than it solves. > > OK, agreed there. > > > > > Am I wrong about the > > > > > > >impressions I got about your views about "emotional" in regards to > > > > anger, restraint and weakness? > > > > > > > >-- Ife > > > > > > No, I think you got them right. Where you got it wrong (IMO) was in > > > implying (intentionally or not) that I consider them gender-related, > > > because I don't, or at least I try not to. >> > > > > Perhaps I should've said "accepting of gender based connotations shared by > > both men and women." I do believe seeing emotions/emotionalism in terms > > of "weakness" or "strength" is a more "masculine" propensity, > > Very possibly > > > just as > > "best" or "who's in command" are. I don't accept that we always have to > > talk as though that should be our focus, even when discussing what > > "warriors" should be like. I especially strive for a more > > multi-dimensional approach when the warrior is a woman. Again, that's my > > bias, which I recognize isn't necessarily shared by men and women who think > > that shouldn't matter or believe that the basic warrior model is > > "masculine." > > > > -- Ife > > Hmmm, I'd say that warfare is not a democratic process, and therefore, when > in battle, you do need to have somebody in command who knows what they're > doing. (And I say this as someone who would make an absolutely terrible > soldier, since I always dispute and disagree with 'orders'. ;) > > When not in battle, then there is room for listening to all points of view > and being multi-dimensional. > > 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. > ========================================================= ========================================================= 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 #247 **************************************