From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #363 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 363 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! [cr ] [chakram-refugees] Ngila Dickson - Last Samurai [KLOSSNER9@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Ngila Dickson - Last Samurai [cjlnh@webtv.net (Che] Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] FIN and dying a hero's death on a dumb television show [IfeRae] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 20:49:12 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 03:37, Ribaud, Lynn wrote: > 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... I quite agree, it's all a matter of shades of grey. However, that argument can only go so far... (see my comments below) > > 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... Well, at the risk of repeating what KT's said, Xena demonstrated (in Sin Trade for example) that she was willing to face death for The Relationship. (She also demonstrated in that ep - as she implicitly did in FIN - that for her, some considerations were even more important). But the difference with WFC was that she was trusting Caesar to keep his word after she had meekly allowed herself to be crucified. As she said to Ares on another occasion, "based on WHAT?" Obviously, there can be new and different parts of her character that maybe we haven't seen before, of decreasing probability the more they diverge from the Xena we 'know'. There's a line somewhere beyond which the Xena that I picture in my imagination would not go, and WFC is over that. > > > > > 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. Hmm, that hadn't occurred to me. Worth some thought. > 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. You, and me, and Xena ("I like dark") and probably KT too..... :) cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 02:05:34 -0900 (AKST) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! CR wrote: > > 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, I brought this up in my post to which cr was replying: "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." And I would add now that Xena realizing in Fates that there is another life (even though that life of course had never existed and Alti should never have been able to acces it *cough*) opens the same questions that any belief in another life opens in our world. Where is/was/will be that other life lived? How is it possible that there are two livelines? Does what we do in this life impact what we did/do/will do in that life, and/or vice versa? And so on and so forth. > > > > 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, > > 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). And long live Xena seasons three through five. 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. Well, this is exactly what she WAS trying to show. She's said that at cons. And another fan who also finds Fates totally lame, boring and sometimes inadvertently amusing, sent me the following link. http://www.katherinefugate.com/main_frameset.htm A few lines from it relate to your question above (Note: Miss Fugate eschews punctuation on her site.) "just as when caesar and xena meet there will always be a crucifixion. it is their destiny - their path together. and it will play itself out, regardless." And then later we have this: "however, now, in this incarnation, xena can accept - for the first time in the entire series - that being crucified by caesar was meant to be. the act may have spawned the evil xena period she so despises - but without it, her need for redemption would have never come to be. and without that, she would never have become the warrior princess." I don't think it could be much more clear that Fugate considers Caesar the most important person in Xena's life THE one whose connection with her and actions towards her made her the woman she was. I don't agree at all. And I would argue that Xena has never accepted her dark side as being absolutely part of herself and instrumental in who she is before Fates. That's first strongly suggested in Dreamworker and appears in numerous other eps. Chakram is one of the BIG ones on that theme. (Fugate appears to be talking literally about the crucifixion here though. I personally think that's not near so important in having made Xena as many other things combined were.) Next line in Miss Fugate's note: "and then she would never have had a life with gabrielle." Is this true? I think Xena the tavern keeper's daughter/Gabrielle the slave, Armenestra/Shakti, and Maddie/whoever's body Xena was in at the time, negate the belief that Xena has to be the Warrior Princess in order to have Gabrielle in her life. It happens no matter who they are and what they do. As Naima tells Gabrielle, she and Xena have been and will be together in many lives. AND Alti and Xena will also be together in many lives. As I said, there's nothing new in Fates that hadn't been done before. Except for you know what. Next line: "thus, despite all the hatred and guilt xena associates with the cross, it happened precisely as it was meant to be. and now, by accepting her destiny in both lifetimes by willingly getting back up on that cross again, she not only forgives herself, she unwittingly gets her original life back by doing so." "Willingly and unwittingly" seem at odds to me. It certainly negates that Xena went on the cross in order to rescue the situation. She went on the cross to die. All we have in the script to indicate what Fugate is trying to say is Xena saying "Everything happens as it should." But, if this is true, then Xena should figure she's gonna be rescued from that cross, as she was in the real world. Which means there was really no reason for her to be crucified, since it was merely a temporary embarassment last time and failed at killing her. It wasn't her crucifixion that started her descent into becoming evil Xena. It was M'lila dying to save her. Where's THAT in Fates? Knowing that, she should have just refused to go onto that cross since she was rescued the last time and Caesar's plan to kill her was foiled. So why bother this time? Next line: "and that comes from gabrielle, who acts independently of xena by going to the Temple of the Fates. Of course, there is a parallel in Gabrielle saving her as M'Lila did in Destiny. But again, there's no foreshadowing or preparations for that in the script. No sense that Xena knows Gabrielle will pull an M'Lila and save her. As Fugate states here, Xena had no idea that Gabrielle could possibly save her. She was a poet, not a warrior. Xena had no idea that Gabrielle would even attempt to destroy the world, never mind actually being able to accomplish it, nor that this would save them both and return the old world to them. And if Xena feels that "Everything happens just as it should", she should realize that her destiny (wink) is NOT to die on a cross. But to escape from Caesar and his plans. KT > 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. > ========================================================= ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 02:08:18 -0900 (AKST) From: KTL Subject: RE: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! Lynn wrote: > > > 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. snip snip > 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. Well, this is absolutely my point. That why is sucks so bad to me. Xena's Xena until the teaser ends. Then she's not. (It's how I feel about the Indiana Jones movie. The film is GREAT until that ENORMOUS ball stops rolling (or rolls away to oblivion or whatever). Once that scene ends, the rest of the movie is all downhill from there...) I admit cheerfully that I held season six on it's first run to a more strict standard than any other season on their first runs. Because we all knew that the series was ending. And I wanted every ep to be if not excellent, at least very good. As I've said before, to my vast frustration, I found season six to be the most uneven season to me. (Note: This is discounting the Lack o' Lucy season five eps--they are a totally different case and inherently were not able to reach excellence for me because no ep without Lucy in most of it can be excellent for me.) It was just so EXASPERATING to have the truly great eps of season six interleafed with what I felt were banal and boring eps. I'm not asking for The Ring Arc extravaganza excellence every week by the way. I LOVE Many Happy Returns. It's just a perfect little XWP comedy. And it was ABSOLUTELY Xena, Gabrielle AND Aphrodite. Simple, not darkly mythic but perfectly XWP. The closer to the end things got, the worse *I* got with wanting, hell NEEDING, each dwindling hour to give me a memorable ep. Fates was fifth from the last ep. Did I want to see one of the literally last hours of XWP spent on a non Xena Xena? Honey, do you have to ask? 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. Very true. And very vital to what made the show so extraordinary. But this was to me excellent character development. One of the banes of TV is that the characters never grow, never change. Xena was on a trajectory towards a total transformation since we first met her in Sins Of The Past. Sins of the Past, by the way is one extraordinary episode. It absolutely lays out every important theme that the series will take up over the next six years. The person who wants to reform, the person who cannot escape their past but has to integrate it and then overcome it, the warrior who has to stay a warrior even when her goal now is to become the exact opposite type of person than what she used to be, the warrior who doesn't despair under the weight of her guilt but continues to fight for the good of others, Xena's need to atone to specific individuals for her past misdeeds, the intense need in Xena to be a protector, the way Xena attracts people to become her allies. Plus all the other stuff like the comedy, the camp, the multi-racial lovers, the way over the top fights and the way Xena always accomplishes the mission. RJ did an incredible job with that first ep. Even the NAME lays out the main theme of the series. And from that first ep, there was a great deal of filling in these themes. And in the course of working on one or more of these themes, Xena developed into an amazingly complex and multi-layered character. But in most eps, the core of Xena remained, no matter what happened to her externally. Not so in Fates for me. > Other threads entered. For example, Xena's whole interaction with the gods > was not at all indicated initially -- True--all we have in Sins of the Past is the Xena demanding that Draco swear on the head of Ares that he will leave the valley in peace. Anybody can swear by the gods without really knowing them. But at least we do have the foreshadowing of the gods being part of the mix by being mentioned in the ep. Again, the way Xena dealt with the gods in season five was to me very Xenaic. She schemed against them, she tried to scam them, but when there was no alternative, she literally fought them to the death for the sake of her child. I didn't much LIKE the whole premise. But it was consistent with her character. Tapert had said he wanted to show the twilight of the gods. The way it really happened, just zealots converting people to the new gods and them abandoning the old wasn't really very good material for filming. The wars that accompanied the conversions are. Tapert just made it a small scale war, one that literally involved the gods themselves and not just their followers. And one that had a VERY small army arrayed against them. Xena, Gabrielle and a baby. 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). > Yeah. Gods of many pantheons have messed with Xena many times. But each time she fights against them. And usually won. Sometimes very sloppily and sometimes very narrowly in terms of doing the right thing. But in all of it, she never gave in to fate and gave up on the fight. Except in Fates. And in FIN, where she runs out of time and does do the god's bidding. BUT for the sake of the 40,000 souls she had hurt in her past. Not just because someone wanted her dead. KT Respectfully Snipped hitchhiker's musings. > > Lynn ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 02:16:27 -0900 (AKST) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Peekabo, I see you KT: > > 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 CR: > > 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. Yes, exactly agreed. I made a distinct split between what is literally, presented in terms of creating a totally objective image of how a character looks. How people interpret how and why a character acts is totally separate from this. > 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. > Possibly. But GOOD literature would leave much to the imagination also--would rely on subtext in the classical artistic sense of the word. They would be talking about one thing on the surface, but actually meaning or referring to other things that are really the point of the story. Hence, SUBtext. As you know... > 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. Hey--do you remember Rob talking about that in the commentary? How he and someone--maybe Joe DoLuca went around and around--should they do the sounds Xena was talking about or should they do music in that scene. 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. > I dispute that you couldn't film that. I think you could. AND once it was filmed, then everyone would think of that forest in exactly the same way. Just like we all KNOW what the wagon Xena hid behind in FIN looked like--we all got that exact same wagon in our heads. Same color, same size, same position on the ground. It is THAT important that we know what that wagon was like? Not really. But it's like Plato's wagon now--it's there in all or our minds. > > 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. I think the visual sense is "restricted" in films. We see how characters stand in relation to each other and get information from things like that too. But the imaginative sense of interpretation, of what's going on in this place we all see is not restricted. I think Bitter Suite was obviously one of XWP's finer visual creations. And BOY are there LOADS of interpretations to hang on just about everything in that ep. I had no idea that they were dressed as Tarot cards. THAT was WAY kewl to find out about on line. But the > written word and film each have their own strengths and they are not > interchangeable. Again, absolutely agreed. KT 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: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:22:51 EST From: KLOSSNER9@aol.com Subject: [chakram-refugees] Ngila Dickson - Last Samurai Note that Ngila Dickson, costumer for Xena and the LOTR films, is also the costume designer for The Last Samurai. Boeotian ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:46:02 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! In a message dated 12/5/2003 5:09:41 AM Central Standard Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: > > I would argue that Xena has never accepted her dark side as being > absolutely part of herself and instrumental in who she is before Fates. > That's first strongly suggested in Dreamworker and appears in numerous > other eps. Chakram is one of the BIG ones on that theme. >> KT, I don't understand what you're saying here. I always thought the point of Dreamworker was to show early on that Xena was forced to acknowledge that she wouldn't be who she was without her dark side. She literally embraced it as the "key" to escaping the horrors of her own dreamscape. How did you interpret that or Chakram? > Next line [from Fugate quote]: > "thus, despite all the hatred and guilt xena associates with the cross, it > happened precisely as it was meant to be. and now, by accepting her > destiny in both lifetimes by willingly getting back up on that cross > again, she not only forgives herself, she unwittingly gets her original > life back by doing so." > > "Willingly and unwittingly" seem at odds to me. It certainly negates > that Xena went on the cross in order to rescue the situation. She went > on the cross to die. }} Not sure what Fugate meant by "forgives herself," but I think "unwittingly" means Fugate's Xena did indeed think she was about to die, period. > > All we have in the script to indicate what Fugate is trying to say is Xena > saying "Everything happens as it should." But, if this is true, then Xena > should figure she's gonna be rescued from that cross, as she was in the > real world. >> Now, that's interesting, though, again, though I'm not convinced Fugate was thinking of or necessarily meant to suggest that. However, it's fitting that, as you say, Xena was saved like she was before, even thought her "I love you, Gabrielle" suggests to me that she believed she was a goner. > > Next line: > "and that comes from gabrielle, who acts > independently of xena by going to the Temple of the Fates. > > Of course, there is a parallel in Gabrielle saving her as M'Lila did in > Destiny. >> Wow, I hadn't made that connection either. Again, don't know if Fugate was conscious of that. However, in both cases Xena wasn't exactly able to save herself, so that necessitates someone else doing it independently. More "precisely" as it should be. Huh. By willingly bashing Fugate, you've unwittingly make me think maybe Fugate knew what she was doing even more than I'd begun to believe. Thanks! - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:46:06 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! In a message dated 12/5/2003 3:23:50 AM Central Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: Lynn said: > >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. > > You, and me, and Xena ("I like dark") and probably KT too..... Me too! Sorry, couldn't resist. Pretend I wrote one of my usual treatises instead. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:36:02 -0500 (EST) From: cjlnh@webtv.net (Cheryl LaScola) Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Ngila Dickson - Last Samurai Speaking of Last Samurai, while I have not seen the film, the trailers on TV have an eerie similarity to Xena's final battle in AFIN. It is not just the similarity of a Samurai battle.... but many cues including the foggy battlefield where Tom looks like he is about to lose his head, etc...,.... makes you wonder if they watched AFIN for some of the ideas.... CJ ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:41:51 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! In a message dated 12/3/2003 11:30:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > 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. ;) > LOL! Sorry, but it was more a matter of not feeling the need to argue with myself. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:41:50 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 11:30:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > 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. ;) >> You mean it's not?!!! > > (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. > >> Um, KT used a real-life response to a fictional death, as a source of inspiration for a real-life death. I don't understand how that's different from talking about those who responded to the same fictional character's death as depressing in terms of their real life. > 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. >> Yes, because that's not the choice the ep presented us with. However, I do think it would be fair to ask them if they would sacrifice the well-being of thousands of strangers (regardless of the reason), if it meant the salvation of their nearest and dearest, as that was one of the options the ep presented. > 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? >> I wasn't talking about morality, so much as emotions. People can't help how they feel. We may disagree with the reasons they feel as they do, but how can we say the emotion is not valid *for them*? And, yes, I do believe all viewpoints are valid for each person presenting a viewpoint. It's based on their experiences, values, needs, etc. It's what makes sense to them until or unless something causes them to see it differently. > > 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). > Yes and no. Those wishing to live with others in some order and harmony agree to accept certain rules or viewpoints they don't necessarily agree with -- as long as that suits our needs. When it doesn't, we may use all sorts of means -- including killing -- to impose or defend our will. 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. > >> Why use serial killers or other sociopaths? There are wars going on all over the place where each side believes absolutely that it has good "reasons" and the moral authority to eliminate the opposition. I'm not seeing universal agreement among "reasonable" people about which viewpoints are "wrong" or ridiculous. > I'd concede that: > most viewpoints have some validity > but I'd strongly assert that: > not all viewpoints are equally valid. >> Let's say your sociopath walked up and declared, "I'm going to kill everyone I see who's wearing red." Perhaps you would stare at him or try to get him to understand why that's not rational or nice. Maybe you'd call him crazy and wait for him to come to his senses. Me, I'm a basically practical person with a pretty strong instinct for survival. I'd take him seriously, even though whatever view he had didn't fit my idea of sanity. I'd probably first check to see if I was wearing red. I might ask him, "How come?", while surreptitiously glancing around for help. I might run like Hades or see if my kickboxing classes were worth anything. I don't know why or how he came to believe what he does, but I'm not going to assume it's not valid enough *to him* that he wouldn't act on it. I'd accept whatever was going on in his head -- whatever world he pictured himself in -- as "real" (true, valid) for both of us. It wouldn't mean anything to me in that moment whether it's more or less valid than my own or society's view. Dismissing it puts me in peril. It confines my scope of possibilities to a "sane" person's way of thinking. > > 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 :) << I assume most of us are on this list because we've chosen to express and listen to other viewpoints. We start out with opinions that are valid for us, however we arrive at them. Some of us simply state our opinion and don't feel the need to "back it up." It's ours. We shared it. 'Nuff said. Some folks are perfectly fine reading that, with simply knowing where others stand. Some of us want more. We go on for days (months, years) giving our reasons for something, prodding others to do the same. Sometimes what we read shifts our perspective a little. Sometimes it convinces us we were "right" all along. The determination of "validity" is totally subjective, based (as you acknowledge) on our biases. Yes, I think what I'm saying is valid. For me. But my viewpoint is no more or less valid *to me* than your viewpoint is to you. I simply don't agree with you. > 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. >> She didn't?!! All the times I've watched AFIN, you're saying I missed the part where she immersed Xena's ashes anyway? 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). >> Wow, I've got to watch that thing again. Not sure if Gabs' response was "correct," but I came away thinking she ultimately supported (albeit reluctantly at first and with understandable pain) Xena's decision to stay dead. I agree that many fans saw that as making the relationship secondary. I didn't see it that way. I saw X&G as loving each other body *and* soul. Even without the "eternal soulmates" thing, I believed neither would want the other to live by betraying what she believed in. The more selfish response would be to want the other with her in the flesh, no matter what the other wanted or needed, and regardless of the consequences to the larger society. They chose to honor what their life together stood for, what gave it meaning and mutual respect. That became the "heart" of their partnership and would endure long after their bodies were gone. I think that's what the woman KT quoted also saw. > << TPTB's choice to tell the story their way. >> I agree. > > 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. > > As you say, they had a story to tell. Some of us are still busy making it ours. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V3 #363 **************************************