From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #359 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 Tuesday, December 2 2003 Volume 03 : Number 359 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [chakram-refugees] CURSES! FATES AGAIN! [Lilli Sprintz ] [chakram-refugees] FIN and dying a hero's death on a dumb television show [KTL ] Re: [chakram-refugees] CURSES! FATES AGAIN! [KTL ] [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! ["Ribaud, Lynn" Subject: [chakram-refugees] CURSES! FATES AGAIN! I don't believe i'm doing this. I am just jumping into the fray here, and though this discussion has been going on...how many weeks? still, i just saw something which may have been commented on earlier (as in, years ago!), but am seeing it just now. KT responded to Brule31x63@aol.com several times, saying, "OH OH OH OH OH! Now wait a minute.Hercules. DAMN what a BETTER story this would have been, hell it might even have begun to make a little sense if Hercules had been the person who was the catalyst for making Xena the woman she became in the series. Now THAT is intriguing." and much later, "And of course we have already seen a Xena who didn't have Hercules in her life. She still becomes an empress. But when she meets Gabrielle, she blithely kills her--becuase she sees her as an enemy and Xena don't surrender to no enemies, un-unh.?" Here's the catch. The Empress Xena in the alternate time line in the Hercules episode...the nasty one who killed Gabrielle...that Xena was the one who came after, in Destiny, Caesar had betrayed her AND had M'Lila killed. That was the Xena, who had seen M'Lila Killed, for whom Death, as she said so dramatically at the end of the Destiny, was her purpose. The Xena in Fates, however, not only was not betrayed by Caesar, but also never watched M'Lila get killed (though i would have loved to see M'Lila come in somewhere in Fates, as I think about it now...actually, she would have been smart enough not to join with Caesar). So, Hercules would be no where in between here. Unless in another lead story yet to be written. Oh that's confusing. The point is that the horrible, horrible Xena whom Hercules redeemed (though I believe that Xena redeemed herself, with some help from some friends), never ever existed in the Fates story. She was essentially closer to that Xena who misguidedly became a warlord in the process of trying to protect her village, Amphipolis, from attacks. That Xena was never Xena the Terrible. Lilli ========================================================= 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, 2 Dec 2003 21:30:08 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] CURSES! FATES AGAIN! On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:53, fsktl wrote: (Much pragmatic and existential snippage....) > > >Thus, in such a universe the existential truth will hit Xena squarely. She > >will succumb to the Sickness Unto Death in Fear and Trembling, to not coin > > some > >cool phrases... She's not in touch with the Greater Good. It's WRONG, > >WRONG, WRONG. So, imagining that she cannot understand the workings of the > >universe, she must suicide. I'll pre-empt KT's comments by saying that I too don't agree with this. Xena just ain't the sort of person to off herself just because she can't understand something. She's far too pragmatic for that. If Xena can't understand the Universe, too bad for the Universe. ;) > Now wait. I absolutely agree that Xena operates as an Existentialist. She > always has, in terms of doing the right thing solely because it is the > right thing to do. She has her own system of morality and follows that just > because it is right to her. Not because her religion or her society says > it's right, and not because she expects a reward in the afterlife for doing > right, but just because she feels in her soul that this is right. So she > chooses to live a life of fighting for the greater good, of standing up > against rules that are wrong. There are numerous times in the series when > she protects people from society's harsh, totally black and white > interpretation of the way things must be done. As when she doesn't kill > Cyrene for having killed her father. As in The Way, when she defies and > interrupts the Indian custom of Sati because she doesn't believe that women > should die on their husband's funeral pyre. > > However, Xena is not totally an existentialist because she KNOWS there is > an afterlife. She's been there. Her boyfriend's been there. Hell, she and > Marcus DATED in the afterlife. Another boyfriend is the God of War, for > pete's sake! > > So that basic existential idea of a person believing there is no afterlife > and that life therefore exists only on this plane, only in this manner and > is complete, discrete, ephemeral and then over forever, is not part of > Xena's mental construct. Ooooh, a hair I can split! :) I don't think existentialism is automatically linked with a (dis)belief in the afterlife. As I understand it, existentialism basically denies that there is some deep hidden Meaning of Life, The Universe, and Everything. Or at least, if there is, we have no way of knowing what it is. Other than 42. (It's closely linked with pragmatism, I think). The main way that an 'afterlife' has got linked with the Meaning of Life today is that most religions emphasise both those points. But I reckon it is quite logically possible for there to be an afterlife without the universe having a 'meaning' or a divine plan; or vice versa. Certainly, these days, anyone who believes in an afterlife is more probable to believe also in a Divine Plan - both require a certain amount of faith in things not in evidence. A religious person is likely to believe in both and a sceptical pragmatist is unlikely to believe in either. BUT, in the Xenaverse, the gods and the afterlife existed, and Xena had plenty of empirical evidence of that. That required no faith or belief in the unseen for Xena to credit it. On the other hand, I don't think Xena had ever seen any proof of a 'meaning' for existence. Therefore, Xena could truly be an existentialist *in her world* and still believe (because they were empirically proven matters of fact for her) in the Afterlife and the gods. > This therefore is not the reason that Xena decided to live a life of > integrity. That leap of faith to accept that this life is all there is and > to live a good life anyway was not required for Xena because she already > knew there was something beyond this life. Of course with Olympus gone and > most of her gods dead, Oops. How did that happen? ;) > the only thing Xena had to answer to was herself. > And in that way, yes she operated as an existentialist. > > However, the main question of existentialism, do we make that leap of faith > and decide that this life here and now IS worth living and worth living > well or do we give up and commit suicide, that question doesn't really > factor in if you do know that there is an afterlife where you do get judged > and sorted out by how you've lived life here. Hmmm. I wonder if that applied to Xena? After all, she'd offed Hades so that department was no longer functioning... there was of course ArchangelMichaelwhoshehadajollygoodgoatdrowning's boss, but whether Xena was expecting to get any fair treatment from those quarters is problematical.... no, I reckon Xena, in true existentialist fashion, had just decided to Do The Right Thing because what else was there to do? > And even in Fates, Alti says to Xena, "Those images. They're not from this > life. There's something.more." And Xena agrees, "Yes, much more." So at > that point, Xena is aware that the life she is living in the alternative > world is not all there is either. Another life, a separate reality exists > there also and thus negates the basic premise of the philosophy of > existentialism for the Fates existence also. > > So I would disagree that Xena being an existentialist was a good reason for > Xena choosing suicide in Fates. > > But MAINLY I would disagree that Xena would ever choose suicide-because > this woman WAS our Xena in that she lived Xena's formative years. And that > Xena would never ever give up to her enemies. There, I agree completely. Nothing to do with belief, all to do with character. (snips rest of fascinating discussion) 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, 2 Dec 2003 00:26:47 -0900 (AKST) From: KTL Subject: [chakram-refugees] FIN and dying a hero's death on a dumb television show KT wrote > > >>I don't see dying and giving up as fulfilling self-actualization as a > > >>warrior for good or for anything. >> > Ife replied > > >> > > >No doubt many folks hated AFIN for the same reason. I don't think they'd > > >make fine distinctions because of the reason. > > > > > > > > >-- Ife > > > > > > The reason is germane. It is the whole crux of the difference. There was > > no greater good being served in Xena giving up and dying in Fates. >> > > I responded to that in another post as well. Bottom line, there will always > be disagreement over what's a "good" reason to die, kill or go along. For > some, the "greater good" begins with being true to one's self or an ideal, doing > what feels right personally. For others, the "greater good" may be tied to > the number of others you intentionally or inadvertently help. Still others will > argue there's no such thing as an absolute "greater good." > > But in the series Xena: Warrior Princess, dying for the greater good was absolutely tied to sacrificing oneself for the good of others--to save them. Not just to enoble them or to be a good example for them, but to literally and actually save them from death. Or worse. (As in the case of the Amazons in Adventures in the Sin Trade and Grunhilda in The Ring Arc.) From the very first time this concept is introduced in XWP, this is what it means and damn what it takes to do it! "If I'm to die, let me die as I am, a warrior with a sword in her hand". (Or something like that...) In Fates nobody gets saved because Xena died. In FIN 40,000 souls are not only saved from Yodoshi's belly, but are further given the chance for their souls to be at rest. This is exactly analagous to what the Amazons in Sin Trade needed and got from Xena. > > The Xena who sacrifices herself for those souls in FIN is absolutely the > > woman whom we've watched returning to her humanity over the last six > > years. It is perfectly in character and perfectly appropriate for a hero > > to die for the sake of others. snip, snip > Ife wrote: > As you know, I thought AFIN was a fitting resolution -- for Xena. I do not > think every hero *has* to die to be a hero, even though willing to do so. Oh exactly, neither do I. We see heros not dying all the time--so much that we no longer expect that they will. They only seem to die in "great literature". Or in real life. But if I glorify someone for being a hero because they are willing to die, then by the gods when they die I will appreciate and applaud their sacrifice. Even if it breaks my heart. (Been there, done that.) My > problem with some of the criticism is precisely that AFIN was seen as > sending out some universal message about vengeance and sacrifice, as > opposed to what seemed "right" for the character. Yes, but that comes from ignoring what is literally in the script and MORE IMPORTANTLY, what was always present in the series. A self-sacrificing for the greater good Xena was not suddenly created in FIN. It was always an element of her character, right from season one on. And you don't have to make up a reason for Xena staying dead in FIN--it's right there on the screen and in the text. Sure one can argue about if it ever should have been written or not and if the plot held up or tanked. But no one can argue that this Xena was totally in character in putting herself on the line for others and in not backing down when the chips were down. Every other time she did this, she saved herself or was saved (sometimes not 'till the the beginning of the next season though) by others. This time we ALL ran out of time to get her back. (For now...) And sure, one can say that the "They gotta be saved by sundown" was sheer contrivance. But again, there were many other rascally inconvenient constraints placed upon our hero when she was out to save others. But she always came through to save them--she only stopped trying in Fates. I was okay with > those who felt "the love" (in general and/or between X&G) dictated > that Xena live, because at least they based it on what in *their* view > had become the "real" story. And, no, I don't want to argue that > point, especially since I personally believe the main story was Xena's > quest to give her all and her best. > > -- Ife Well I agree completely. To some fans, the love between Xena and Gabrielle was the most important part of why they loved the show. But even so I know a number of those fans who still appreciate FIN as a beautiful and magnificent ending to a beautiful and magnificent love story, one filled with honor, nobility and absolute heroism on the parts of both characters. In fact, one of the most moving posts I ever read about FIN was written by a woman who had lost her partner to death a number of years ago. And she talked about how FIN validated for her that the love between her and her partner transcended the death of one of them. And that the sight of Xena's spirit at Gabrielle's side was incredibly heart fulfilling and satisfying for her as an emblematic image of the never ending love in her own life. KT ========================================================= 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, 2 Dec 2003 01:47:00 -0900 (AKST) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Peekabo, I see you Ife wrote: > > >I absolutely agree. Fates was not the ep either of us necessarily wanted. Now now Ife, don't be so negative! (GRIN) Hey--did I ever tell you about the 2002 Con where a woman in the audience got up and said to Fugate who was onstage, "I know I speak for everybody here when I say that Fates was great and should have been the last episode" and expounded on how Fates was just so sublime and how FIN sucked so bad and was a total abomination. Were I not the kind-hearted, laid-back, easy-going soul that I am, I would have stood up and chastised that woman soundly for her sheer arrogance. But I ask ya--HOW could I do that without insulting Fugate? Oooooooo. I do admit however, that had I had a pea-shooter, that woman would now have an enduring ridge across the back of her skull...or even better, perhaps I could have spelled out F-I-N F-O-R-E-V-E-R on it. (Woulda taken a LOT of peas, though.) > > >The difference is, the Warrior Princess I saw in it was believable to me, > > but > > >not to you. Each of us has ample "evidence" for our perspectives, based on > > >what we believed we saw. We can discuss our differences, but it won't > > change > > >that "our" Xena is what's in our heads, regardless of what she does > > onscreen. > > > > > >-- Ife > > > > > > No, that's backwards. What's in our heads is because of what she's done > > onscreen, not regardless of it. >> > > > Okay, I'll speak for myself. I was flipping through channels when I > saw a woman doing what -- in my head -- "fit" my concept of what a > female action hero could be, much better than Wonder Woman did no > matter what was projected onscreen. Boy Ife, this sounds totally circular to me. What you SAW made you think Xena was a more satisfying hero than Wonder Woman. Didn't this come about because of what you SAW? And what you saw was what was on screen. I'm totally confused if your point is that what you see onscreen doesn't matter. Help, me, Obewaniferae, you're my only hope... From there, Lucy gave my concept > texture, depth -- a personality, heart and soul. If she suddenly let > herself go like she did in Doctor, I accepted it as "true," even if it > was totally unexpected and even a little unsettling to me when I saw > it. LOL! Oh, that old Doctor thread. I haven't even BEGUN to unearth that one yet! > > KT: > > What we saw on screen built up the reality of the character we expect to > > see when we watch a Xena ep. And yeah, we all interpret her differently. > > But there is no denying what is actually on the screen and actually in the > > dialogue. Interpretations of these vary. But the images and the words > > exist as objective reality.>> > > IFE: > Cr and I had that discussion ad nauseum. I believe we agreed that > "objective" reality is what's out there regardless of whether we're > aware of it or not, but that once our awareness comes into play, so > does subjectivity -- which is the realm of "reality" we operate in > anytime we discuss our opinions about what "really" happened on XWP. > My own position is that someone else's XWP is as valid for them as > mine is for me, and that those views can be worlds apart even though > we're watching the "same" show. Yes, I'm absolutely agreed upon that. Of course that's true. Or else we'd never ever argue over the show. And how boring would THAT be? "Hey---You're RIGHT!" "No, YOU'RE right!" "No, no, you're MORE right!" > KT: > > Certainly movies and plays have the same inherent "problem". But they > > create a much more restricted presentation. Because we literally see the > > characters and the environment they operate in. We don't have to make up > > how everybody and everything looks and sounds. We not only read their > > words, we hear them and we see the body language they use when > > communicating also.>> > > Ife: > I disagree. We live and work with people who are far more "real" and > defined than what we see on TV, yet we misinterpret and project upon > them every second of the day. They become what is in our own heads -- > a smart, ambitious person to some people, a conniving ladder climber > to others. Nothing, nothing, nothing that human beings talk about is > devoid of human interpretation, no matter how much we "see" and how > much we fill in ourselves. Ife, you cut out important parts of my paragraph above. This part: "This still of course, leaves interpretations of the "text" wide open. That is what art is. And why art is so valuable to humans." I agree completely that the most important "reality" for humans is that which we each construct in our own minds. Sure objective reality exists. (Or at least, we all believe that it does.) But what matters is how we individually interpret it and experience it. As an example, for most people in the world, a snowfall indicates that it's cold and that the temperature will be uncomfortable. For those of us who live in Interior Alaska, snowfall means that it will be warm. Because it almost NEVER snows at 30 below or colder. So in the middle of winter when it can well be 40 below or so for us, if we see snow, we know it's gonna be nice and warm out. Both scenarios present the same temperature and the same physical evidence. But for some it translates to "cold", for some it translates to "warm". And certainly the things that make us most human are all mental constructs. Social rules, legal systems, religious beliefs and most of all art and an appreciation of humor are all totally intangible and absolutely without physical elements. Sure, we write them down, but they originate in our minds. And we all then sit down and construct, deconstruct, and reconstruct them endlessly as we move through each day and collect new experiences. I remember when you and Thel were having this discussion on "real" reality. I happened to be in the Houston Museum of Fine Arts one day during it. And I remember seeing this quote next to a piece of art by Amadeo Modigliani. "What I am searching for is neither the real nor the unreal, but the subconscious, the mystery of what is instinctive in the human race." And I think the pursuit of that is what drives much of literature, plays, radio, TV, movies and just sitting around the dorm talking. You also cut out this part: "But filmed images make a more specific board to bounce our impressions off of. We "see" the board in movies, we don't have to imagine it." And this IS important. Because being able to see the characters does restrict the imagination somewhat. If everybody had only read, "Gabrielle is blond", there would be millions of impressions of "blonds" for her. But when we see her hair, that's it-it IS that color as transmitted from her head to the camera to the projector to the transmitter to our individual TVs. (Except when it was reddish, which led to endless posts aobut exactly what color her hair was...) KT You know, whenever I look at pictures by Degas, I would bet anything that at least one time he put on the tutu and danced. ========================================================= 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, 2 Dec 2003 02:16:49 -0900 (AKST) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] CURSES! FATES AGAIN! > I don't believe i'm doing this. > It's insidious, I tell ya! INSIDIOUS! Aside from everything else, Fates is just a great sucking MAW that drags in the most innocent of bystanders. And because you're a brand new face, I will reply to this. (Now I have to start my year of silence clock on Fates as of today, rather than last week. Tch.) > > > I am just jumping into the fray here, and though this discussion has been going on...how many weeks? > still, i just saw something which may have been commented on earlier (as in, years ago!), but am seeing it just now. > > > KT responded to > Brule31x63@aol.com several times, saying, > Ow! Hey--I apologized already in case this one showed up twice--posts to Chakram just don't LIKE being in second "copy to" place on my system and lurk in cyberspace just waiting until I rewrite the whole damn thing and resend it before they pounce into people's inboxes with a fresh and innocent air. > KT: > "OH OH OH OH OH! Now wait a minute.Hercules. DAMN what a BETTER story this > would have been, hell it might even have begun to make a little sense if > Hercules had been the person who was the catalyst for making Xena the woman > she became in the series. Now THAT is intriguing." > > and much later, Much MUCH later...grin > > "And of course we have already seen a Xena who didn't have Hercules in her > life. She still becomes an empress. But when she meets Gabrielle, she blithely > kills her--becuase she sees her as an enemy and Xena don't surrender to no > enemies, un-unh.?" > > > Lilly replied: > Here's the catch. The Empress Xena in the alternate time line in the > Hercules episode...the nasty one who killed Gabrielle...that Xena was > the one who came after, in Destiny, Caesar had betrayed her AND had > M'Lila killed. That was the Xena, who had seen M'Lila Killed, for > whom Death, as she said so dramatically at the end of the Destiny, was > her purpose. Well, and even more importantly, she was the Xena who had never been influenced by Hercules since in that two part ep, the storyline was that Herc had never been born. This is why it fits so nicely into Herc being the catalyst for Xena being who she is (IF we have to have somebody be that.) Like you, I think Xena made and remade herself. And doing that was exactly one of the main themes of the show and it applied to many people. > > The Xena in Fates, however, not only was not betrayed by Caesar, but > also never watched M'Lila get killed (though i would have loved to see > M'Lila come in somewhere in Fates, as I think about it now...actually, > she would have been smart enough not to join with Caesar). So, > Hercules would be no where in between here. Unless in another lead > story yet to be written. Oh that's confusing. > > The point is that the horrible, horrible Xena whom Hercules redeemed > (though I believe that Xena redeemed herself, with some help from some > friends), never ever existed in the Fates story. She was essentially > closer to that Xena who misguidedly became a warlord in the process of > trying to protect her village, Amphipolis, from attacks. That Xena > was never Xena the Terrible. Yes we have gone over this over the last few exhausting months. My problem with Fates is that it claims that if Caesar doesn't crucify Xena, she never becomes the incredible person we know and love. She needs Caesar to achieve this. And I think that's a sucky idea. I'm fine with Xena's evil being a part of her that she has to accept and integrate as it was stated endlessly in the show, from season one on. But any other time they took that story up, they had Xena accept her evil past fully and work beyond it. If Xena recognized her true self as some people argue, then she should also have recognized this, that she never gave in to despair. Well, not for long anyway. And as I've endlessly repeated, the real trip-up for me is that this ep starts with a Xena who's not a blank slate but is already a formed character. To me it's this formed character that actually allows her to save herself in the real series. She was already a good person when Cortez' attack started her on her downhill slide. And in the intervening years, she moved (was SHOVED sometimes) away from her goodness. But she returned to it. It was her touchstone, as the series showed throughout the whole six years. (Except for parts of season four.) Oh and welcome to my nightmare. KT > > Lilli ========================================================= 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, 2 Dec 2003 09:30:42 -0500 From: "Ribaud, Lynn" Subject: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! > From: cr > BUT, in the Xenaverse, the gods and the afterlife existed, > and Xena had > plenty of empirical evidence of that. That required no > faith or belief in > the unseen for Xena to credit it. On the other hand, I > don't think Xena had > ever seen any proof of a 'meaning' for existence. > Therefore, Xena could > truly be an existentialist *in her world* and still believe > (because they > were empirically proven matters of fact for her) in the > Afterlife and the > gods. Umm...I'm confused here. Which Xena are we discussing? If we're still on the Fates Xena, then it is by no means clear to me that she *does* have such empirical evidence -- recall she sees Ares (the first Olympian she meets) for the first time in S1, and that'd be after C,JC. Ditto Hades and his realms. So the Fates Xena would have no more experimental evidence than most of us have... > > This therefore is not the reason that Xena decided to live a life of > > integrity. That leap of faith to accept that this life is > > all there is and > > to live a good life anyway was not required for Xena > > because she already > > knew there was something beyond this life. Of course with > > Olympus gone and > > most of her gods dead, > > Oops. How did that happen? ;) Yeah. Twice-over, even. Now -- whether this has anything to do with the way the Fates Xena (mis)behaves is quite another matter. Personally, I'd like to see what Fugate had written in full. As I've noted before, one of the curses of television is its need to be extremely telegraphic, especially so if you're allergic to serialization, as TV (or at least TV execs) seems often to be (long live B5). So I want to consider the possibility that Fugate had intended to show the crucifixion as inevitable in any time-line for Xena, but didn't have enough screen time to motivate that well and at the same time cover all the other ground she had in mind. In a perfect world, all that would have been accomplished. But Dr. Pangloss doesn't live here. And since the issue was raised -- we do know more than '42', of course -- we know the Question, too. Lynn Lynn Ribaud ribaud@bnl.gov ========================================================= 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, 2 Dec 2003 09:47:37 -0500 (GMT-05:00) From: cande@sunlink.net Subject: [chakram-refugees] Re: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #358 Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:40:53 -0600 From: Lilli Sprintz Lilli Well I think everyone, except Sam, seemed stilted in the early episodes. Lucy had a bigger problem since she was brought in to relace another actress and had to reshoot scenes already filmed. I think maybe her problem was she was trying to match what the other actress was doing so that there would somekind of continuity in the episodes. I actually didn't think she was all that stilted but it was something diferent for her. I saw her as more relaxed in the last episode. 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, 2 Dec 2003 18:20:55 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] CURSES! FATES AGAIN! In a message dated 12/2/2003 5:23:02 AM Central Standard Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: Lilli wrote: > >I don't believe i'm doing this. > > > > It's insidious, I tell ya! INSIDIOUS! Aside from everything else, Fates > is just a great sucking MAW that drags in the most innocent of bystanders. > > And because you're a brand new face, I will reply to this. (Now I have to > start my year of silence clock on Fates as of today, rather than last > week. Tch.) >> Bwahahahahaha! Um ... I mean, awwwww, poor thing. The sacrifices you make for us go and on, endlessly. Just like that last minute before the beginning of your Year of Silence. Bwhahahahaha! > > >I am just jumping into the fray here, and though this discussion has been > going on...how many weeks? >> > Endlessly, Lilli, endlessly. Just like KT's last minute before .... Okay, I won't rub it in any more. For now. I'll simply quote from the dear heart: "Welcome to my [KT's] nightmare." - -- 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, 2 Dec 2003 18:20:57 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: [chakram-refugees] Back to "Reality" (Was Re: Peekabo, I see you) In a message dated 12/2/2003 4:47:50 AM Central Standard Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: > >>>The difference is, the Warrior Princess I saw in it was believable to > me, > >>but > >>>not to you. Each of us has ample "evidence" for our perspectives, based > on > >>>what we believed we saw. We can discuss our differences, but it won't > >>change > >>>that "our" Xena is what's in our heads, regardless of what she does > >>onscreen. > >>> > >>>-- Ife > >> > >> > >>No, that's backwards. What's in our heads is because of what she's done > >>onscreen, not regardless of it. >> > > > > > >Okay, I'll speak for myself. I was flipping through channels when I > >saw a woman doing what -- in my head -- "fit" my concept of what a > >female action hero could be, much better than Wonder Woman did no > >matter what was projected onscreen. > > > > Boy Ife, this sounds totally circular to me. >> I believe I agreed with that point in a post to cr. What you SAW made you think > > Xena was a more satisfying hero than Wonder Woman. Didn't this come about > because of what you SAW? And what you saw was what was on screen. I'm > totally confused if your point is that what you see onscreen doesn't > matter. Help, me, Obewaniferae, you're my only hope... >> LOL! What's on screen *doesn't* matter to me, so much as what I make of it. What "matters" is what it *means* to me -- how I interpret it, what I focus on, what I ignore, how it compares with what I "know" and believe, what value I place on it. I bring that with me to everything, and it is unique to me, regardless of how similar it might be to what someone else sees. I *recognized* the portrayal I'd never seen before but knew was missing from my experience. I knew it when I saw it, because the concept was in my head. Lucy/Xena gave it a particular "look" and characteristics. Maybe when you were growing up, you didn't think about seeing or being someone like Xena. I did. Xena came the closest to my concept in many (but not all) key ways. My Xena will always be different from yours -- not simply because of what got aired, but because of what was happening in our heads before the show premiered, during the show's run, and even now as we look at it in retrospect. > >My own position is that someone else's XWP is as valid for them as > >mine is for me, and that those views can be worlds apart even though > >we're watching the "same" show. > > > > Yes, I'm absolutely agreed upon that. Of course that's true. Or else we'd > never ever argue over the show. And how boring would THAT be? "Hey---You're RIGHT!" "No, YOU'RE right!" "No, no, you're MORE right!" >> That's all I'm saying above. I'm saying "perception" is sort of like the chicken and egg. I don't mean to dismiss the very show I love, or the actress who brought Xena alive. But (being the fossil I am) I remember when I relied on my imagination to do that, as I read books or listened to radio dramas. However "lost" I got in Xena, I knew it was an interactive process, not one where I was completely under the influence of what was being projected. Even so, it still amazed me when people didn't see what I did. But what amazes me even more is when I suddenly see what they did. I love that! > Ife, you cut out important parts of my paragraph above. > > This part: "This still of course, leaves interpretations of the > "text" wide open. That is what art is. And why art is so valuable to > humans." >> Sorry. I figured we agreed on that part. :-) > I agree completely that the most important "reality" for humans is that > which we each construct in our own minds. Sure objective reality exists. > (Or at least, we all believe that it does.) But what matters is how we > individually interpret it and experience it. >> Whew! Then we are in synch on that at least. For the moment. > > I remember when you and Thel were having this discussion on "real" > reality. I happened to be in the Houston Museum of Fine Arts one day > during it. And I remember seeing this quote next to a piece of art by > Amadeo Modigliani. > > "What I am searching for is neither the real nor the unreal, but the > subconscious, the mystery of what is instinctive in the human race." > > And I think the pursuit of that is what drives much of literature, plays, > radio, TV, movies and just sitting around the dorm talking. >> Quite possibly. I think many so-called "primitive" people are more in touch with that "mystery," at least in seeing themselves as "one" with nature, the cosmos, other living things. > > You also cut out this part: > > "But filmed images make a more specific board to bounce our > impressions off of. We "see" the board in movies, we don't have to imagine > it." > > And this IS important. Because being able to see the characters does > restrict the imagination somewhat. If everybody had only read, "Gabrielle > is blond", there would be millions of impressions of "blonds" for her. But > when we see her hair, that's it-it IS that color as transmitted from her > head to the camera to the projector to the transmitter to our individual > TVs. (Except when it was reddish, which led to endless posts aobut > exactly what color her hair was...) >> If you're simply saying that visual media can give us a more commonly shared and defined starting point, I'm with you. If you're saying it gives us something we can show other people, I'm with you. We didn't "make up" seeing Xena do certain things. We saw her do it, even if we disagree about what it means. Most of us have tapes we can go back and refer to. I omitted that part of your post because I agreed with it. Are you also saying that visual art produces more "objective" data or interpretation, since presumably we're all looking at the same "board"? That what we take away from the visual image is less subjective than if we'd read it in a book? > -- 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, 2 Dec 2003 18:20:59 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] FIN and dying a hero's death on a dumb television show In a message dated 12/2/2003 3:29:39 AM Central Standard Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: > KT wrote > > >>>>I don't see dying and giving up as fulfilling self-actualization as a > >>>>warrior for good or for anything. >>> > > > Ife replied > >>>> > >>>No doubt many folks hated AFIN for the same reason. I don't think they'd > >>>make fine distinctions because of the reason. > >>> > >>> > >>>-- Ife > >> > >> > >>The reason is germane. It is the whole crux of the difference. There was > >>no greater good being served in Xena giving up and dying in Fates. >> > > > >I responded to that in another post as well. Bottom line, there will > always > >be disagreement over what's a "good" reason to die, kill or go along. For > >some, the "greater good" begins with being true to one's self or an ideal, > doing > >what feels right personally. For others, the "greater good" may be tied to > >the number of others you intentionally or inadvertently help. Still others > will > >argue there's no such thing as an absolute "greater good." > > > > > > > But in the series Xena: Warrior Princess, dying for the greater good was > absolutely tied to sacrificing oneself for the good of others--to save > them. Not just to enoble them or to be a good example for them, but to > literally and actually save them from death. Or worse. (As in the case of > the Amazons in Adventures in the Sin Trade and Grunhilda in The Ring > Arc.) >> Your nightmare is discussing Fates ad nauseum. Mine is feeling stupidly compelled to defend points of view I don't necessarily agree with. That's what I was doing in the case of those who believe Xena did not die for a good reason in AFIN -- who in fact may never have accepted "sacrifice" as preferable and even see it as "giving up." Oh, crap, there I go again. > In fact, one of the most moving posts I ever read about FIN was written by > a woman who had lost her partner to death a number of years ago. And she > talked about how FIN validated for her that the love between her and her > partner transcended the death of one of them. And that the sight of Xena's > spirit at Gabrielle's side was incredibly heart fulfilling and satisfying > for her as an emblematic image of the never ending love in her own life. >> I'm sure it was. I just wonder how eagerly she would've chosen that image, over the chance to have her partner with her in the flesh, healthy and alive. (Yes, I'm doing the defending thing again.) I think one of the reasons XWP was so powerful was because of how strongly fans identified with it, often through one or more characters in particular. People chose certain aspects to help them validate, laugh at, think through, reconcile themselves with experiences in their own lives. We discarded, revised or gave less importance to what didn't "fit." You know why I didn't see the Xena in Fates as "wrong" in quite the same way as you or Cleanthes? Because I *must* see my Xena as somehow triumphing -- being in control of what *she* makes of herself -- no matter what. Our Xena would never give up, yet we see her on that cross, accepting that this is what must be. You say she wouldn't do that under any circumstances, that it's "wrong" in terms of her core character and therefore should be relegated to the "never happened" bin. Cleanthes suggests that, under the circumstances, this was the "wrong" Xena, period, so can't truly represent what "characteristic" Xena would do. I straddle both those views, in that my Xena would still retain her self-determination even under "impossible" circumstances. Though we use different rationalizatins, none of us gives credence to "real" Xena giving up. For you, Fates Xena doesn't exist. For Cleanthes, "real" Xena doesn't exist *in Fates.* For me, "real" Xena exerts herself by refusing to accept the "wrong" life in Fates. That's also why the reason Xena died in AFIN doesn't matter so much to me, because I'm still going to see her as doing what *she* believes is "right." That has much less to do with the "evidence" in the show (though I've argued it endlessly, heh), than with what I *want* to see. - -- 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 #359 **************************************