From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #365 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 Sunday, December 7 2003 Volume 03 : Number 365 Today's Subjects: ----------------- 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] FIN and dying a hero's death on a dumb television show [IfeRae] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 23:39:52 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! In a message dated 12/6/2003 1:53:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > >LOL! Sorry, but it was more a matter of not feeling the need to argue > with > >myself. > > > >-- Ife > > Ah, like Deimos at the end of 'Fade Out'. > (Sorry for the Herc reference but I can't think of a Xena one) > Didn't see that, as I watched very little non-Xena Herc. Anyway, I'd prefer comparison to Xena's conflicted pacing back and forth in OAAA. (Apologies to KT, who includes that among her Never Would've Happened scenes. ) - -- 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: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 23:39:56 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! In a message dated 12/6/2003 1:53:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > Mind, I didn't like Caesar, from the first time I saw him. I kept wishing > > to see Xena kill him, every ep he was in. I guess she couldn't, though, > without clashing in a big way with history. As it was, TPTB had to settle > for Xena 'setting up' Brutus to do the deed, which is next best thing as far > > as I'm concerned. > > As for Caesar being a major influence, how many eps was he in? Umm, > Destiny, The Deliverer, When in Rome, A Good Day, Endgame (just, though > nowhere near Xena), Ides. (I may have forgotten one). That's 5 eps > (ignoring Endgame and WFC). Dahak was in as many. And Caesar Julius > Caesar wasn't the major influence in When in Rome or A Good Day either, he > was just background opposition. >> I've said before that I believe you and KT are giving far too much weight to Caesar in terms of "making" her. Even "small," one-time occurrences can have a major determination on the direction our lives take, sometimes despite and sometimes because of what's inside us. I'm reminded of people who still remember the second-grade teacher who encouraged (or ridiculed) a particular talent. To me, Tapert wanted a dramatic, symbolic way to show why Xena went from bad things as a means for ostensibly practical purposes, to pursuing that as an end in itself. Tapert picked Caesar and the cross, at a time when youthful Xena was still vulnerable and trusting, open to deception. I can remember a host of "small" things that had a tremendous impact on me when I was younger, but now have less impact because I've been exposed to so much more. I wouldn't say those experiences "made" me, but they definitely shaped my responses and views later on. If you ask me why I am a certain way, I can usually point to an experience that stands out from all the others. Caesar's the one that stands out for Xena. I like that it wasn't Ares, since that fits with Xena's self-determination and mistrust of gods. I like that she was seduced because of her own desires, rather than because she was tricked by the magic of somebody like Alti. I liked that at least the catalyst for her evil was someone of stature and even greater ambition, whom she would continue having to deal with on the mortal plane after her reformation. I've always found it interesting that Reformed Xena never attempted to "off" or go after Caesar for what he did in the past. She didn't seem to regard him as more despotic or evil than others threatening humankind. She fought him only when he directly threatened an area where she happened to be, people she cared about or herself - except for Britannica. This was the one time she did allow her personal feelings about him to be her primary motivation, with the threat to others being secondary. As a result, she was blinded to the real threat from Dahak and to Gabrielle. Other than his impact in the past, I didn't see Xena as obsessed with him or going out of her way to avenge his betrayal. What happend was significant in her life, but it was done with, over, a regrettable bad memory. She didn't constantly talk or dream about him. She didn't live her life around him. She effectively dismissed his having any more influence on who she would be *now.* He was simply a major catalyst for the rage, mistrust and twisted goals that drove her as Evil Xena, but never credited for who she became as Reformed Xena. What Fates seemed to be showing was that Reformed Xena grew out of Evil Xena, with the height of Reformed Xena's deeds directly connected to and measured by the depths of Evil Xena's deeds. As Xena accepted her dark side in Dreamworker, she recognizes in Fates that she must accept Caesar's role in bringing out her darkness. I said in another post that I didn't understand Fugates' comment about Xena forgiving herself by accepting crucifixion. I think now that maybe Fugate meant Xena replaced her negative feelings of self-disgust about Caesar, with a sense of peace about "That's how it was. That experience gave me lessons that I used for positive purposes. If the bad never happened as it did, the good wouldn't have happened in the same way either. I must accept both, if I am to truly accept who I am and want to be." In a way, that means she also forgives Caesar. I'd seen Xena as triumphing over Caesar by rejecting his fake life. As I said in my "confessional" post, I value self-determination -- focusing on how I will respond according to what's important to me, rather than on "beating" or worrying about the other person. It's a form of "letting go," but not the same as forgiveness. Fugate's comments suggest she was focused on the latter, with Xena's return to the life she wanted as an unwitting secondary result. I can now understand why those who focus on love and forgiveness (often tied to "the relationship") viewed Fates as so supportive of those themes -- as "right" in a way that I found many of Xena's responses to be uncharacteristic -- "wrong." If I'm willing to entertain that view, I could see Xena as triumphing beyond what I'd imagined. I usually fight against any notion of her "giving up" in terms of her will, a view you and KT share. However, in my own rationalization, she rejects Caesar's world -- a triumph of will that is to me "characteristic." In the forgiveness scenario, she "lets go" of the hatred for Caesar and his crosses, as well as of the self-loathing associated with them. Yes, that's "uncharacteristic" of my Xena in a way that's not particularly comfortable, but I can also see it as her evolving to a higher (more positive) acceptance of herself. I can appreciate a different perspective on "giving up," where I shift my focus to it as active rather than passive, to what she gained, rather than to what she was willing to lose. Crap, now I *am* arguing with myself. Unbelievable. You, KT and I share similar views on so much. Now I find myself in her nightmare of the Interminable Fates Discussion, far from where I started, yet at nearly the opposite end from her (and probably you). Does it get any better than this? - -- 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: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 23:39:59 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 12/6/2003 1:53:38 AM 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?!!! > > Considering the criticisms we regularly level at episodes of the show, I > think there's a fairly healthy level of scepticism around. ;) >> Oh, I thought you meant mutual-admiration in terms of each other, not the show itself. > >>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. > > Umm, you've gotta compare like with like. >> Okay, I guess I'm missing what the "like" is. I thought we were using the ep as a basis for the choices, talking about the different ways people might respond to those same choices. > > KT was quoting a real life woman who had been consoled by FIN, as (I think) > a > counter to those fans who said they were devastated by FIN. i.e people's > real-life responses to FIN in each case. > > You said: > "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". > > As I read it, that is *not* comparing like with like (unless I misunderstood > > you). Quite obviously anyone would choose the real-life benefit (their > partner alive again) over an episode of a TV series, however inspiring. >> KT's example focused on the aftermath of death. Many of the "ruined my life" people weren't talking about that, so much as the pre-death choices that led up to it. Perhaps they might also find inspiration once a death occurred, but they didn't find inspiration in how/why this death occurred. I thought KT's example was beautiful in and of itself. I simply didn't believe it was comparing "like to like" in reference to the "ruined my life" people's position. > > So on the subject of good or bad, all I can say is "I know it when I see > it". > But this does *not* mean that I have to accept that a slave-trader has as > much right to his point of view as I have to mine. (Nor did Xena :) >> No, you don't. Nor does anyone. No doubt the slave-trader believes he has as much right to his view, which has little to do with whether you accept that or not. I'm separating the moral arguments from the practical scenarios where we're forced to deal with opposite views regardless of "rights" -- legal or otherwise. I guess for me a person's "validity" is like your objective reality - -- it exists within/for that person apart from my awareness or acceptance of the person. It can affect me even if I decide it can't possibly exist or be "right." > << If one took your viewpoint to its > logical extreme, though, the courts would have to close down because their > entire existence is based on the assumption that some actions are wrong and > that a judge or jury can make a judgement on that.>> No, I said most people agree to adhere to certain rules for peace and order, as long as they believe those rules serve their interests. > > >>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. > > So, you wouldn't consider bopping him over the head quick as 'dismissing' > his > viewpoint? I would. But I'd still bop him (assuming, of course, that I > was physically able and believed that he really meant it). That in no way > implies that I accept his viewpoint as valid.>> Any response that takes his threat seriously is, to me, giving validity. Not "right," "good," or "acceptable," but the recognition that it could be "real" enough to them that they'd act on it and that it could have "real" consequences for me. > Well, I usually have to give your viewpoints a certain amount of validity > because they have some ijnnate credibility and you argue them coherently. >> > I appreciate that, tho I think the "innate" part should be acknowledged as subjectively determined. I believe we've acknowledged a bias for viewpoints approached the way we would approach them. > > For a few viewpoints that are way out in Cloud Cuckoo Land*** check out the > Letters pages of back issues of Whoosh ;) > > (*** I think the American equivalent is 'left field' ? ) >> True, I tend to dismiss shrill yelling and calling of names, but I make myself see the viewpoints as valid. First, they're part of my environment. I like knowing what's out there that could affect what's important to me now or in the future. Second, I usually learn something I didn't know already. I love learning. Third, some of the most fruitful ideas initally seem "nuts." I think of Tapert's battles to convince people he wasn't nuts to do what he did with XWP in some aspect or another. > > >>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? > > She wasn't happy about it, was she? Without splitting hairs about what > 'accept' means, she made it quite obvious that she disagreed with Xena's > wishes. >> Okay, we do seem to be viewing "accept" differently. I agree Gabs wasn't happy. I was referring to her agreeing not to immerse the ashes, of her shifting to thoughts of life without Xena, as opposed to continuing to fight Xena on her decision. > >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. > > Not sure if 'supported' is the right word there. She allowed her immediate > > instinctive reaction to be overruled by Xena. Ultimately, she may have > come > to accept it - there was some acceptance implicit in the final scene, > possibly, but it was never explicitly stated. >> Ah, I see the problem. I'm using "accept" and "support" as what I saw Gabs work through to, not necessarily her initial reaction. Admittedly, she was stunned and didn't have much time to argue or think. But I'd have a different view if the last scene had showed her angrily dumping Xena's ashes overboard, screaming at the heavens in her grief (and throwing herself overboard) or sullenly floating into the distance mumbling how she'd never think of Xena again. Just because she wasn't joyful about Xena's decision doesn't mean she couldn't accept or support it. - -- 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 #365 **************************************