From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #361 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 Thursday, December 4 2003 Volume 03 : Number 361 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] FIN and dying a hero's death on a dumb television show [cr ] RE: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! ["Ribaud, Lynn" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] FIN and dying a hero's death on a dumb television show On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:20, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > Your nightmare is discussing Fates ad nauseum. Mine is feeling stupidly > compelled to defend points of view I don't necessarily agree with. Heh. Once upon a time I used to do that sort of thing. These days, I can't be bothered. I reckon there are enough people out there only too eager to put their point of view, they don't need me to do it for 'em. I'll save my ammo for the things I do believe in ;) > > > 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.) Oh dear, lfe. That's an unfair comparison and a loaded question. Obviously the woman would rather have had her partner back. But her partner was dead. That wasn't a choice, it was a circumstance. Given that circumstance, she found FIN to be a consolation. KT was using it as a counter-example to the 'FIN destroyed my life' posts. > 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." That's true. ("Married with Fishsticks? Was that an episode of Baywatch or something?") > 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. ... and I thought *I* was the supreme rationaliser on the list... ;) 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: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 19:54:56 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 03:30, Ribaud, Lynn wrote: > > 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... Well, at that point I was discussing 'mainstream' Xena. (I *think* KT was discussing Xena's 'regular' character at that point). > > > 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. That would imply that Xena was a more or less helpless victim of fate. But I still (like KT) don't think Xena would have accepted it lying down, so to speak. In fact it's my impression that Xena took the position that people *could* change fate. (Hercules on his show was always banging on about it). So, *if* Fugate had written it that way, I still don't think I'd agree. > And since the issue was raised -- we do know more than '42', of > course -- we know the Question, too. > We do? I was under the impression that the Question was never explicitly stated by DNA. But I could have missed something in the fourth or fifth book of the trilogy. 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: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:36:57 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Peekabo, I see you On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:47, KTL wrote: > 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...) Interesting point. But you know, I don't entirely agree with it. (Predictable, ain't I? :) Film/TV, as compared with a written story, is more specific in some directions and less so in others. For example, TV is much more explicit about appearances, but much less so about characters inner thoughts (unless they use that tired old relic of '50's private-eye movies, a voice-over). As far as their thoughts go, TV leaves far more to our imagination. This is why, I think, excellent works of literature often don't translate well to the screen, and vice versa. Take a scene - for example, Akemi honouring her grandfather's shrine in FIN, when Xena makes as if to behead her and Akemi calls her bluff and coolly pulls her hair out of the way. This was fantastic on-screen. I'm not sure any writer could have done justice to it on the printed page. But as to what Xena and Akemi were thinking at the time, that is entirely left to our imaginations (working off what we know of their characters and can deduce from their dialogue). A written version might well have been much more explicit about their thoughts. On the other hand, scenery is best suited to TV when it's in 'Kodacolor' - bright and contrasty. The 'New Zealand Tourist Board's Obligatory Five Minutes' on Herc episodes is an excellent example. More subtle themes are much more difficult to convey on TV - TPTB tried in FIN, when Xena was teaching Akemi to listen - Xena stops and listens. XENA Like listening. Listen to that. AKEMI To what? XENA To life and death. Every sound, every movement, is a message. A wagon just crossed a creek up ahead. (closes eyes) A deer grazing nearby. But of course, we the audience can't hear or sense any of this, so (at least for me) it didn't have a very strong effect. Compare it with a _written_ passage (about a skirmish in a Finnish forest in the very early morning): "It wasn't one of those tall, dark, cathedral-like forests; no northern forest is. The trees were small and thin and sparse, and didn't stop much of the dim, misty light from the low clouds overhead. The mist itself had pretty well stopped at the edge of the forest; all that was left was a faint blurriness and weird bottom-of-the-sea light that had no source and cast no shadows and faded off not into darkness but uncertainty. ... You would see a man stand up thirty yards away, in this light, but he might not stand up; he might be sitting on the other side of the rock you're leaning against." Now I can just 'see' that forest, but you *could not* film that scene effectively. Because the entire point of it was that the 'hero' and his opponent were stalking each other in this weird half-light where you couldn't be certain what you were looking at. But in that sort of light, and that sort of forest, listening for little noises and knowing the shape of the ground are crucial, and of course film/TV cannot give a sense of direction at all. And all you'd see on your TV screen would be a dim blur. So in that respect, the written version (IMO) is actually more specific than a filmed version could be; but it also makes use of the reader's imagination very strongly to visualise the scene. If a director had to film it, I think he'd have to fake it by showing brief shots of nondescript gloom intercut with close-ups of the protagonist - someone like Mel Gibson say - looking tense, listening intently, etc... it would convey quite a bit about Mel Gibson's emotions but almost nothing about the forest, it could just as well be an abandoned warehouse in Chicago. Where am I going with this? I guess I'm just saying that film gives more information *in one respect* - visually (though only in a good light). But I don't think even then that extra information 'restricts' the imagination, I think it gives more material for the imagination to feed on. But the written word and film each have their own strengths and they are not interchangeable. The most nearly interchangeable feature is dialogue. (I'm not knocking 'Xena' at all, just pointing out the limitations of film). ('The Most Dangerous Game' by Gavin Lyall, if you want to know where the quote came from). 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: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:56:23 -0500 From: "Ribaud, Lynn" Subject: RE: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! cr has responded to me: > > 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. > > That would imply that Xena was a more or less helpless victim > of fate. But > I still (like KT) don't think Xena would have accepted it > lying down, so to > speak. In fact it's my impression that Xena took the > position that people > *could* change fate. (Hercules on his show was always > banging on about it). > So, *if* Fugate had written it that way, I still don't think > I'd agree. Well, I'd like to have seen it played out more fully. I agree it isn't the Xena we've seen, but then that may be the whole point. Moreover, it *is* quite Greek, and even with that background Classical Greece managed to produce some quite compelling stories (e.g., Oedipus et al.). That it isn't the Xena we've seen isn't all that solid a point, either. The Xena we had by the middle of S4 (After A Family Affair but before India, perhaps, just to cite a particular time) is not the Xena we had at the start of S1. Other threads entered. For example, Xena's whole interaction with the gods was not at all indicated initially -- and you could argue that there are strong issues of fate vs. making one's own way in those interactions -- certainly so where Eve is concerned (albeit in that case not *Xena's* fate, or not much so). > > And since the issue was raised -- we do know more than '42', of > > course -- we know the Question, too. > > We do? I was under the impression that the Question was > never explicitly > stated by DNA. But I could have missed something in the > fourth or fifth > book of the trilogy. No, it's earlier -- I'm not sure, but I think it's at the end of the third book. The Question is, "What is six times nine?" 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: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:48:43 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! In a message dated 12/3/2003 7:58:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, ribaud@bnl.gov writes: > I agree it > isn't the Xena we've seen, but then that may be the whole point. >> Yes! I understand Those Who Do Not Believe "Fates" Xena Could Ever Exist. But if you believe the Xena in "Fates" *could* have existed, I agree the ep shows she *shouldn't* have . (I realize there are fans who think this Xena is perfectly fine, but they'll have to argue that themsleves). I believe that's very different than debating whether she was less "herself" than when she had some form of amnesia (e.g., "Chakram," "Return of the Valkyries"), had herself chosen some other existence ("Remember Nothing," "Fallen Angels"), or in her response to events like those in S4 or S5. In the first instances, she was in her "right" world. In the second, she was fully aware of her "real" life. In the third, she was adapting, evolving, often discovering or more fully utilizing different internal strengths. "Fates" tried to show what would be "right" (destined) *and* what would be "wrong" because our girls had not determined (willed) how it would play out. Caesar's betrayal was shown as both destined and willed, in terms of being the catalyst for dark experiences that profoundly influenced the hero Xena (and Gabrielle) became. X&G's love was shown as both destined and willed in terms of the saving grace that helped Xena triumph with and over those dark experiences. The destined vs. willed issue was a constant theme throughout XWP -- to my mind never resolved as "either/or." "Fates" also depended on awareness (both in the audience and through Alti) of "another" existence in establishing what was "wrong," while asking us to pretend that the other existence never happened. We're supposed to accept what we see as "uncharacteristic," based on the ep's own premise, yet we can't help but refer to the "logic" of other eps in determining whether it's believable. Another tough task. I won't argue how well "Fates" succeeded in all that. I simply don't see the issue so much as whether X&G were "themselves." Many of us agree that they weren't "right" in key ways, even if we thought they were in other key ways. I happen to think that was the point. The big question for me is the one suggested by KT -- whether it was worthwhile have such an ep at all and, if so, how well did it pull off what it tried to do. - -- 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: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:48:47 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 12/3/2003 12:39:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > << I reckon there are enough people out there only too > eager to put their point of view, they don't need me to do it for 'em. > I'll > save my ammo for the things I do believe in ;) >> I'm not sure about that. I get the feeling those of us still interested in discussing the show are more Xena-biased, with some who focus on X&G equally. Sure, we've had different opinions, but most of us seem to agree, for example, that Gabs got more interesting during S3, that Xena wasn't quite "right" (for whatever reason) in Fates, or that it was okay for Xena to die in AFIN. In the past, I saw more posts that would argue with those positions. KT wrote: > > > >>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. >> > Ife responded: > > >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.) > > Oh dear, lfe. That's an unfair comparison and a loaded question. > Obviously the woman would rather have had her partner back. But her partner > > was dead. That wasn't a choice, it was a circumstance. Given that > circumstance, she found FIN to be a consolation. KT was using it as a > counter-example to the 'FIN destroyed my life' posts. >> Yes, I know. But if we're going to use real-life examples, I don't think it's fair to confine ourselves only to the aspects that support our view. Much of the criticism about AFIN had to do with Xena's *choice* to stay dead, not that she was already dead. Of course we try to find what inspiration we can when we lose someone. But how many of us would gladly accept our partner's decision to die for what appeared to be an unjust reason and when she/he had the chance to resume a healthy life? Afterwards you can celebrate a person's integrity and eternal love, but it's certainly not a choice I'd want forced on me. Thing is, how I or that woman KT mentioned feels has nothing to do with the validity of how someone else feels. > >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. > ... and I thought *I* was the supreme rationaliser on the list... ;) >> Nope. I submit we're all quite capable of exercising that among our many skills. "-) - -- 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: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:48:45 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Peekabo, I see you In a message dated 12/3/2003 12:39:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > Film/TV, as compared with a written story, is more specific in some > directions and less so in others. > > For example, TV is much more explicit about appearances, but much less so > about characters inner thoughts (unless they use that tired old relic of > '50's private-eye movies, a voice-over). As far as their thoughts go, TV > leaves far more to our imagination. > > Excellent, excellent point. Especially since nearly all our character discussions are about thoughts, emotions -- inner stuff -- not appearance. Even the behavior we describe gets interpreted so many ways, based on motivation. - -- 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: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 18:04:39 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:56, Ribaud, Lynn wrote: > > > > That would imply that Xena was a more or less helpless victim > > of fate. But > > I still (like KT) don't think Xena would have accepted it > > lying down, so to > > speak. In fact it's my impression that Xena took the > > position that people > > *could* change fate. (Hercules on his show was always > > banging on about it). > > So, *if* Fugate had written it that way, I still don't think > > I'd agree. > > Well, I'd like to have seen it played out more fully. I agree it > isn't the Xena we've seen, but then that may be the whole point. Moreover, > it *is* quite Greek, and even with that background Classical Greece managed > to produce some quite compelling stories (e.g., Oedipus et al.). That it > isn't the Xena we've seen isn't all that solid a point, either. The Xena > we had by the middle of S4 (After A Family Affair but before India, > perhaps, just to cite a particular time) is not the Xena we had at the > start of S1. Other threads entered. For example, Xena's whole interaction > with the gods was not at all indicated initially -- and you could argue > that there are strong issues of fate vs. making one's own way in those > interactions -- certainly so where Eve is concerned (albeit in that case > not *Xena's* fate, or not much so). I think I'd draw a distinction between circumstances and character. That is, the 'gods' thing was, as you said, new - mostly in S5. Caesar was a new development (albeit in a 'ten winters ago' flashback) in 'Destiny'. But Xena's reaction to these new circumstances is, IMO, consistent with what we knew of her character. If her character changed, it was in response to the effect that the circumstances had on her existing character. She wasn't a new and different Xena dolly just out of the box. In fact her whole interaction with the gods in S5 was, IMO, typically Xena. KT's objection to Fates, as I see it, is that the Fates Xena is not just different but incompatible with what we know of her pre-Caesar character. > > > And since the issue was raised -- we do know more than '42', of > > > course -- we know the Question, too. > > > > We do? I was under the impression that the Question was > > never explicitly > > stated by DNA. But I could have missed something in the > > fourth or fifth > > book of the trilogy. > > No, it's earlier -- I'm not sure, but I think it's at the end of the > third book. The Question is, "What is six times nine?" I rather think that was dismissed as being too trivial to be the true Question. 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V3 #361 **************************************