From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #362 Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk chakram-refugees-digest Friday, December 5 2003 Volume 03 : Number 362 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] FIN and dying a hero's death on a dumb television show [cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] FIN and dying a hero's death on a dumb television show On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:48, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > 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. But so what? There are other forums that are biassed quite the other way. I also recall many posts that demonstrated (to the satisfaction of the posters) that Joxer was the most evil, reprehensible, vile character in all of TV fiction. (Just for example). If there's nobody on this list at the moment feels inspired to argue that, I don't see any need for me to bring that up. The only reason I'd do something like that is if this list started to turn into a mutual-admiration society, and I don't see much risk of that happening. ;) (snip) > 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. If we're arguing a point, it's entirely legitimate, IMO. While recognising that the opposition will produce the opposite example. But your comparison was between a real-life death and a fictional one, presenting them as alternatives. That (IMO) is a quite unfair comparison. To turn it on its head - would any of the FIN-destroyed-my-life brigade happily choose to sacrifice their nearest and dearest *if* it meant that Xena could stay alive at the end of FIN? An equally unfair comparison, no doubt. > 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. What do they call this, 'moral relativism' or something? Regarding all viewpoints as equally valid? At the risk of being thought elitist, I do _not_ agree with that proposition (and nor, in practice, does 99% of the earth's population). As a reductio ad absurdum demonstration, there are some peoples' viewpoints that are patently ridiculous, or morally wrong. I'm sure most serial killers (e.g. the Green River killer) would produce very good 'reasons' for their careers. Less dramatically, I read of one deeply religious person who truly believed that God would protect him from *anything* and accordingly ignored most of the road rules (in practice one suspects the defensive reactions of more commonsense drivers were what protected this idiot). In both those cases, those persons' viewpoints not only are wrong, but cannot be accepted by society. (I'm *not* comparing FIN-haters with such persons, btw. At least, not most of 'em ). I'd concede that: most viewpoints have some validity but I'd strongly assert that: not all viewpoints are equally valid. In other words, some viewpoints are more valid than others. In fact, if we didn't feel that was the case, there'd be no point in arguing our point of view, because there would be nothing to 'prove' by it. Personally, I tend to give most weight to those who can state their viewpoints coherently and back them up with rational argument. (And doubtless, I have an inherent bias towards those who agree with me, I can't help that :) Coming back to your specific example in FIN, maybe most of us wouldn't accept our partner's decision to stay dead. Gabby didn't. But that doesn't mean her views were necessarily correct. Some things may be more important than the 'relationship'. Apparently TPTB (and Xena) thought so. (I rather think that's where a lot of the complaints arose from). In my view, it was TPTB's choice to tell the story their way. Just as it was in Fates, of course. In that instance (and some others), I happen to think they made an error of judgement. But I certainly won't let that cancel out all the things they did right or accuse them of bad faith on the strength of it. cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:27:06 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:48, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > 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). What?? lfe!! Am I sapping your resolve? Subverting your impulse to put the other fellow's point of view? I'm not sure whether to be smug or mildly embarrassed. ;) 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: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:37:16 -0500 From: "Ribaud, Lynn" Subject: RE: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! cr has again responded to me: Oh -- if this doesn't make a lot of sense, I am literally thinking it out as I type (and re-type) -- the trade-off between spontaneity and refinement. > 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. In general, I agree, but I'm not sure this argument is as strong as it first appears. Yes, Xena changed in response to circumstances -- one of them perhaps being Gabrielle's influence -- cf. The Price vs. Daughter of Pomira. Or consider the Xena of The Greater Good in contrast to she of The Way (i.e., quite sure of her role in the world vs. deeply questioning that role). One happy aspect, as you imply, of X:WP was that Xena was not immutable. There has to be some grey -- quite a lot in this case, it seems to me -- in the call as to what is and is not properly Xena's character, or within a reasonable reach of that character, in terms of change. But this also implies that Xena's character (since it has the capacity for change we don't see a priori) at the beginning of the show is not fully defined to us (and, of course in reality, probably not to TPTB, either, though I doubt we'll ever know much on that point for sure). Well, for that matter, how many of us are that well defined to *ourselves*? So -- where do we draw the line between here and there? Where is the 'new dolly'? And yes, I recognize that this is the crux of much of the discussion. Obfuscation happily supplied... > 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. As It happens, I was thinking about just this myself last night. In a sense, Fugate seems to want to have it both ways, if we take the Fates Xena as 'submitting' to crucifixion in any way (as distinguished with opposing it to greatest extent she could have done), because she (Fugate) wants to keep the relationship aspect of the character. Now there is at least one important disclaimer, of course -- what I'm stating is what *I* am reading into the ep. Another is that I am arguing here that the relationship *is* an inherent part of Xena's character, expressed or not (that is, just latent before Gabrielle, and for this argument, not necessarily limited to Gabrielle at all -- rather, perhaps, a 'need' for a close bond with *someone*). As I said at the start of my comments, I'd like to see what Fugate had in mind more fully explained. But with the limitations of working only with what was shown, I'd now have to say there are internal inconsistencies (at least, if not outright contradictions). I reserve the right to change my mind as many times as I like, without warning... > > > > 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. Quite honestly, I thought that Adams was intending something of a statement -- well above the level of just a joke -- in making the Question not only trivial, but outright wrong. On the other hand, I do have a rather dark view of the universe. That's no small part of why I liked X:WP, in fact. 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: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:21:38 -0500 (EST) From: cande@sunlink.net Subject: [chakram-refugees] Interesting tidbit on WB ratings Sunday night Christinia Aguiliar (?) special had worst ratings than Tarzan whose spot she took. Perhaps the time spot is just bad. 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V3 #362 **************************************