From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #376 Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk chakram-refugees-digest Tuesday, December 16 2003 Volume 03 : Number 376 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Did Ares Kill? ["Xena Torres" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Did Ares Kill? [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] moral dilemma of Orphan [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] FIN and dying a hero's death on a dumb television show [IfeRae@] [chakram-refugees] [OT] Prince of Milk [KLOSSNER9@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Peekabo [IfeRae@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:20:09 -0800 From: "Xena Torres" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Did Ares Kill? >OK - question - did Aphrodite ever kill anyone? She certainly started a >couple of wars in The Apple and other early eps... She's started conflicts, but I don't believe we ever saw deaths in her created conflicts. And Aph herself NEVER killed directly in either series. BATTLE ON XENA! Xena Torres: Warrior Writer http://www.geocities.com/bitchofrome "And most importantly, I've learned that the heart can betray, but the sword never lies." - Eve "Heart of Darkness" _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:55:45 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] "Good" Reasons for Xena to Die On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:55, KTL wrote: (huge snippage) > > *I* found the "oops, here's another person from > > my past who broke my heart, made me chop off her head, and inadvertently > > caused me to burn down a whole city, trap thousands of souls in her evil > > father's spirit, and necessitate my dying in order to bring them peace" > > scenario a bit far-fetched. Of course, so were most of the scenarios we > > got, so I'm not saying "ridiculous" is bad, just par for the course. To > > me. > > Exactly-it was no less nor no more far fetched than many of the other Xena > eps. We've all talked about this factor of XWP and most people seem to > accept it. Myths often don't make a lot of sense and Xena was a mythic > epic. It goes with the genre. Herc, on occasion when faced with some secret passage full of traps, was wont to grumble rhetorically "Who invents these things?" or "Why is it never easy?" > > > Double standards certainly come into play very often when some people talk > about FIN. Some people act as if FIN had come totally out of the blue and > was unlike anything else that had ever come before. But that is an > unsupportable claim. It's not true at all. > > The reality is that there are masses of objective examples one can point > to to show that the ending of the series was foreshadowed over and over > again in many eps. And that FIN ended in a way that PacRen had been > leading up to as a distinct possibility for a long time. I just noticed a nice quote on that subject in 'You Are There' - G: "In Valhalla, but it's not easy to get there." Sieglinda [Sie]: "For some! But you were a Valkyrie once, Xena. You know the way to Valhalla. Die a hero's death. I'll escort you there myself." X: "That's part of my long-range plan. Right now, I just need to see Odin." OK, so maybe Xena was being facetious... or maybe not. (huger snippage) > Xena and Gabrielle deeply loved each other. That is also undeniable and > also totally supported in dozens of scenes. And it's supported in FIN when > we see that Gabrielle loved Xena enough to want her to have the peace > she'd been seeking since she met her, even though it would break > Gabrielle's heart to do so. In other words, she stood by the decision she > had made in OAAA and accepted that Xena needed to sacrifice herself for > the greater good, just like Gabrielle had wanted to do then. Nice rant! > You will of course try to claim that this is just my opinion. I defy > ANYONE to say that Xena not carrying Gabrielle off to Athens on Argo in > OAAA to get the antidote doesn't prove that working for the Greater Good > is the most important thing in both their lives. It is literally what they > live (and die) for. I, of course, say it's because in that ep Xena didn't have a clue which direction was up, let alone Athens. 8) cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:22:40 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Xena timeline On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:46, Creation (Sharon Delaney) wrote: > Is there a web page out there that someone has put together with a timeline > of the events in Xena's life? > Thanks, > Sharon Not a timeline as such, but there's a 'short biography' at http://www.whoosh.org/faq/faq05.html cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:10:31 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:42, KTL wrote: > > And THAT'S what made her evil Xena. Her rage over the senseless death of > M'Lila, killed for no other reason than that she was trying to save Xena. > Not the crucifixion as Fugate says in Fates. NICELY observed! Since M'Lila is one of my absolute favourite characters. (She's also rather gorgeous, isn't she? ;) They could have done so much more with her, in numerous flashbacks). I'd *much* rather she played a pivotal role in Xena's story, even if a negative one, than old ego-with-the-evil-haircut Caesar. > 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 > > > Ife, I don't mind the Neener neeners. (I always find them amusing. AND > satisfying in what they imply. Grin.) > > But I will NOT accept your claim that I am bashing Fugate. I am commenting > on her work and analyzing why it doesn't work for me. I never confuse > disliking someone's work with disliking that person. Just as I never > confuse disagreeing with someone's views of an ep with disliking that > person. Both are totally bogus in my book. I'll leap to KT's defence on this one (even if I look a bit like Joxer purporting to defend Xena ;) I haven't seen KT make any personal remarks about KF in her criticisms of the ep. And I'm kinda sensitive about that sort of thing, having felt obliged to defend O&K - umm, Orenstein & Koppel (oops, wrong list, they were a German manufacturer of small steam locomotives, I mean of course Orci & Kurtzmann but if everyone else can have their nickname for them I don't see why I can't) every time somebody ranted on at them for the alleged deficiencies of Season 5 episodes including ones they had nothing to do with... ;) But anyway, coming back to Saint Katherine of the Subtext, I happened to be watching Legacy the other day and mentally compared Missy's treatment with KF's. And the difference is, I think, that Missy, albeit that she writes fanfic (or uber or whatever), has a much 'tougher' less romanticised approach. There is one notable similarity in Legacy with WFC, in that in Legacy it's Gabrielle who effectively volunteers to be executed. The difference is that there's a much more credible reason (even though, as I've said before, I scream at the screen "Shut UP!!!!" whenever I see Gabby about to confess). It's entirely consistent with The Gab We Know. And so are Xena's actions. > Also, I have no idea if Fates is typical of Fugate's work, having never > seen anything else written by her. For all I know, she may have done other > stuff that is excellent. And I am open to that possibility. > > It's just like Helicon. Helicon sucked BIG time to me. (Though it's much > better than Fates in that Xena is Xena, even if she's shown as being a > real bonehead in regards to strategy ONLY in this one ep. But at least she > doesn't lie down and die for no reason as Fugate had her do.) But I > absolutely love Many Happy Returns, which was written by the same duo as > Helicon. And certainly I came to that work without prejudice. Now had Many > Happy Returns ALSO sucked, then I would be very leery to wish for another > ep from Friedman and Place. > > Hell, if critiquing an ep means that we are bashing the writer, than we > are all extremely guilty of that on this list every single day. > > KT Yeah, well, you've all heard my [low] opinion of Gurkhan, and it was written by RT and RJ, who are far and away my favourite writing pair (Sin Trade, The Debt, Destiny, Friend in Need.... ) Just goes to show... cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:16:46 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] FIN and dying a hero's death on a dumb television show On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:56, KTL wrote: > > fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: > LOL! Ife, you know, I honestly feel that if I had come out complaining > about Fates by sobbing hysterically that that b*tch Fugate had stabbed all > true fans through the heart by showing Xena as a stupid coward who dies > for no reason, leaving Gabrielle behind to bear the consequences, (while > fluttering a hanky as I dab at my weeping eyes and wailing that Fugate did > it just to torment ME), then you would be defending me against all comers. > > Note-I KNOW I couldn't do that with a straight face and I know even more > fully that my buds wouldn't let me get away with it. Oh, KT, we all know you're a timid, sensitive, moose-like creature who needs care and protection in the cruel world of mailing lists. :) cr ... What? Oh, sorry, I meant *mouse*-like of course. ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:25:09 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Peekabo On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:56, KTL wrote: > > Oh absolutely. Lucy as Xena hooked me. But I remember looking up at the > screen the first time I saw Hooves and Harlots and suddenly realizing with > a real frisson of joy that the screen was filled with women. (Half naked > women, sadly, but still, women all the same.) I'm trying to figure out which attribute occasioned your regret. The 'naked' or the 'half' ? > > In about seven years on line I haven't seen much variation to discount > this belief that if you're not saying anything new after three posts or so > it ain't gonna happen in the fourth nor the twenty-fourth. I do my very best to liven things up by veering wildly Off Topic at every opportunity. Hadn't you noticed? :) > > > Based on Cyrene's inn, > > some folks think Xena's family wasn't well off, while others think the > > family did pretty well. > > I have to say that I NEVER heard any discussion on that point. The tavern > was just a tavern to me. It was a fairly substantial building, from what we saw in Haunting of Amphipolis. I think we could conclude that Cyrene probably wasn't rich, but reasonably affluent by local village standards. (Assuming the place wasn't owned by the bank, which would have been much less likely in those days). > I really didn't see any difference in any of the > taverns-they pretty much all looked alike as I remember. They all had the > same wooden mugs, the same wooden bar in the same place, the same table > and chairs-and I mean the SAME. Grin. Came out of the same prop store, after all ;) > Having home video players has literally changed the way we "see" movies. > Because now we can endlessly rewind, thus making the moving picture static > also, and peruse it at our leisure. > > I always wonder if anyone noticed the propane tank under the table in > Girls Just Wanna Have Fun on their first viewing. Certainly the > cinematographer and the director missed it during filming, as did the > editor and the director on the final cut. (Presumably-otherwise they could > have CGI'd it out?) But someone finally noticed it and now it's one of the > many delights in GJWHF. I've never managed to spot it yet! > KT: > > > Xena is homeless. Xena has relegated herself to a spartan life. No more > > > fancy yurts nor big tents with servants for her. This also is > > > absolutely true. Differing interpretations come in when we think about > > > why it's true.>> > > > > Yes, with XWP I had confidence that every critical aspect about Xena -- > > from her armor to what she traveled with -- had been given careful > > consideration. > > I think Tarzan did too. The mere fact that something is on the set means > that a choice was made to put it there. By somebody. But the decision to put it there may have been very carefully taken to convey the exact impression the director wanted; or it may just have been that the director said 'we need a couple of tables' and someone grabbed the nearest ones out of the prop store, with no more significance than that. Just like the propane tank under the table. That sure wasn't intended to convey something to us. :) > > And I'm thinking, Xena wore red to seduce Caesar in Destiny. Then she wore > red at his party in When In Rome. And of course she is dressed in a red > robe by the ghosts in FIN. (I'm kind of surprised Xena the Conqueror > didn't wear red.) The Furies wear red too, don't they? I LOVE realizing > things like this. Like when I just recently realized that she didn't have > her chakram in The Debt. Hmmm. I've noticed that in the comedies they tend to use brighter colours than in the dramas. (OK, this *could* just be a subjective impression!! I certainly wouldn't want to push it too far and there are exceptions.) But certainly, some episodes seem to have a distinctive 'look' or even colour to them - maybe the influence of the director's choices. Sin Trade for example, has (at least in my memory) a predominant colour of browns. Many Happy Returns is full of bright colours, though it could just have been that the weather smiled on them while they were making it. And so on. cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:31:56 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Did Ares Kill? On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:20, Xena Torres wrote: > >OK - question - did Aphrodite ever kill anyone? She certainly started a > >couple of wars in The Apple and other early eps... > > She's started conflicts, but I don't believe we ever saw deaths in her > created conflicts. And Aph herself NEVER killed directly in either series. > BATTLE ON XENA! > > Xena Torres: Warrior Writer > http://www.geocities.com/bitchofrome Put it this way - as with Gabby whacking people with her staff, if no-one ever died it must have been down to just good luck. cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:25:00 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] moral dilemma of Orphan In a message dated 12/15/2003 3:57:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, outback@creationent.com writes: > Gabrielle realizes that she should have been less judgmental and more of > a friend, which is what Xena needed. > Gabrielle is slowly learning how to be a friend to Xena while keeping > her moral code. > There's a larger view here about how to be a friend to someone you > disagree with? > And where do you draw the line and realize you can no longer be their > friend? I think XWP did a great job of exploring some of the many facets of that question. First, there's the "who's life is it anyway" issue, in terms of the right to make decisions about personal matters. Second, there's the "who will be affected" issue involving personal vs. greater good. Third, there's the stage of a friendship, where problems may diminish over time, as trust and comfort level increase. In Orphans, Gabs essentially questions Xena about decisions Xena made regarding her own child, which primarily affected Solan and his parents. Gabs wasn't there. She recognizes the personal nature of Xena's decision and chooses to believe Xena did what she thought best and will continue doing so. In the rift arc, Gabs believes she should have the same right to determine what's best for her and her child. She is quite personally affected by the decision. However, her decision is also driven by her belief that people are basically good and that she can make sure that side of Hope triumphs. Xena (rightly or wrongly) imposes her own beliefs on Gabs, which means erring on the side of not giving Hope the chance to be bad. In Price, Gabs sees the situation for herself and is a participant. She questions decisions which run contrary to her moral code and will affect not only her, but everyone else involved. She essentially respects that Xena is doing what she thinks best according to her code, so Gabs decides to take unilateral action in line with her own beliefs. In Ties, she chooses to impose her ideals on Xena by whacking the WP over the head, believing that to be in the best interests of Xena as well as the villagers Xena's threatening. Early on in their relationship, Gabs has a fairly idealistic view of Xena -- sort of "we're alike underneath." As she experiences how Xena operates, Gabs becomes more aware of the big differences in their views, becoming much more conscious of the effects of the WP's clay feet. By season four, Gabs is herself exploring her beliefs in a way that could change the nature of their friendship and even result in their going separate ways. But now she has become invested in the relationship, in staying together no matter what. In sum, we get to see several responses to your questions. I think it's very realistic that X&G came so close to splitting up when their differences hit them in the heart in a very personal way -- involving their children and the betrayal of trust between the two of them. It can take some major event (like Illusia) to bring people back together after that. It's one thing to argue about differences theoretically. It's quite another to decide whether to forgive a wrong actually committed, to become an accomplice to something you don't believe in, and/or to negotiate something inbetween that accepts the probability of more conflicts in the future. I think it's also realistic that X&G reached a point where they resigned themselves to the potentially painful consequences of continuing to work through their differences. There are differences that would make me walk away from someone I haven't known long, yet have learned to live with when it involves someone I've been able to trust overall through years of good and bad times. Also, what was black & white or important to me in my 20's has modified as I've gotten older. Similarly X&G's friendship evolved, and I believe they would answer your question a little differently depending on at what point in their relationship you asked 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:25:12 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 12/15/2003 5:09:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: > So yeah, extremely angry, disgruntled fans attacking other fans because > they disagreed about an episode always makes me want to fight for the > "greater good" of tolerating differing opinions. Far more than making me > want to nurture the damaged fans along by just meekly standing by while > they spit on anyone who disagrees with them. And ultimately drive the more > timid or less aggressively argumentative people totally off the lists. > Thus effectively censoring what is allowed to be said on the lists. > > Ah. Okay, I see the problem. A few of us were discussing the merits of Fates and FIN from our perspectives. I hadn't seen anybody this time around arguing from the "ruined my life" view. Frankly, I wasn't even interested in that - -- not unless someone brought it up in our discussion. Your quote from the fan who was inspired by FIN came out of left field *for me.* I wondered if maybe it was in response to something I had posted, which perhaps suggested I shared the "ruined my life" viewpoint. I *understand* the viewpoint better and will defend its validity for those who believe that, but I don't share it. It has nothing to do with my own improved appreciation for Fates; nor does it diminish my appreciation for FIN. I also publicly argued with folks who painted TPTB with a negative brush. I entirely agree that personal attacks on them or other fans should not go unchallenged. I'm thinking now that you were responding in general to your previous experiences, not necessarily to my comments about Fates. Is that the case? If so, I'll shut up. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:29:26 EST From: KLOSSNER9@aol.com Subject: [chakram-refugees] [OT] Prince of Milk IMDb Movie of the Day Breathing lush, color-saturated life into the modern fairy tale genre, The Price of Milk charms the audience with quirky wit and fresh perspective. It tells the story of Rob (Karl Urban) and Lucinda (Danielle Cormack), a young couple living blissfully together on a simple but comfortable farm amongst the rolling hills of New Zealand, along with Rob's 117 dairy cows and their dog Nigel - - an agoraphobic who runs around covered by a large cardboard box. When Rob proposes, it appears that their joy is complete, though Lucinda's chats with her friend Drosophila (Willa O'Neill) make her wonder how to keep the spark in their relationship after marriage. Perfection starts to unravel when Lucinda's tests of their love are combined with the paranoia caused by the warning of a mysterious old Maori woman (Rangi Motu) to "keep warm". Their idyllic pairing disintegrates when Lucinda trades Rob's cows for the return of their stolen quilt, an action which opens the flood gates for aspects once foreign to their relationship - mistrust, deception and betrayal. Both Rob and Lucinda are separately left to their own devices when forces beyond their control strip away all the complications that have distracted each of them from reaching a better understanding of what they want from and for each other, and especially for themselves. Overcoming the false intentions of those around them will take the peculiar combination of children's footwear, a stunning red wedding sari, a Maori golf team and a bulletproof patchwork quilt, all teaching them how very simple it is to keep each other warm. Be sure to catch the opening credits, which have to be amongst the most original in recent memory; one gets the distinct feeling that the pair sleeping under the quilt during those credits might just have dreamed the rest of the film.- Heather Campbell (more) (Movie of the Day Archive) ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:25:11 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Peekabo In a message dated 12/15/2003 5:19:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: > KT: > >>Art is always interactive. Art is communication and without an audience, > >>there's no art. Without an artist there's no art either though. THEY > >>generate the response we bring to the event. >> > > > IFE: > > > >Yes, I'm emphasizing the "we bring," while you're emphasizing "generate," > but > >I think we're both agreeing you need both for the "communication" to occur. > > > > Well the generate is the most important part because without it there's > nothing. >> KT!!! There's imagination! There's whatever inspired our ancestors to tell stories, draw pictures, make music, decorate themselves and their surroundings, etc. before they'd experienced that from someone else. There's whatever is in us that causes us to want to listen or look, applaud or want to be different. > But anyway, you gotta start with someone's creation. If not, there'd be no > such thing as "artists". Nor those of us who critique them. >> Sorry, I've got to start with what was in their heads that caused them to create what they do. I think there are countless artists living alone, who produce for themselves, with no one ever seeing the results. I can think of many people with mass audiences, whom I regard more as good marketers than I do as "artists." > I give people (and usually me also) about three posts to say what they > want. If nothing new comes up, at that point the exchange far too often > degrades into people just refusing to accept that other people don't share > their opinion and wanting to try to beat some sense into them through > endless repetition. It's exactly like when people go to places where > people don't speak English. And the methodology is to SCREAM out, in > endlessly escalating volume, "Water! WATER! Where can I get some > *WATTTTERRRR*!!!!!????" >> LOL! I find that people seldom give their opinions the same way twice. Sometimes the slightest difference in wording or examples suddenly makes me say, "Aha! Now I see what they're saying." The volume, tone, feelings (or expressions and body language, in person) can come through to the point where something more or different is communicated. Thing is, it's easier for me to distinguish that with the people who do keep writing, which is why I suppose I have a certain degree of patience with seemingly repetitive posts -- mine or others'. Once the conversation stops, there's less chance I'll understand the disconnect. > IFE: > >> >>>produces more "objective" data or interpretation, since presumably we're > >>all looking > >>>at the same "board"? That what we take away from the visual image is > less > >>>subjective than if we'd read it in a book? > > > > KT > >>Yes. But only in terms of the fact that onscreen we see the artifact and > >>therefore it is the same for everyone. Unlike in a book where we each see > >>our own imagined artifact. > > > > > > IFE: > >See, that's why I hesitate putting emphasis on the thing itself. Yes, the > >thing itself is the same, but that doesn't mean it is the same for > everyone. We > >see/perceive it differently. A structure we see in XWP could be viewed as > a > >home, a shack, a "quaint" abode, or something else that influences our > "take" > >on things, regardless of what the characters say or do. > > > > > But those are all living quarters. In XWP we pretty much had low class > homes or palaces. Since there was no middle class then, there was nothing > in between. They had "rich and powerful" and they had "poor". And that > says something too and it's saying it to all of us. Nobody would confuse > who's rich and who's poor in XWP (unless they were in disguise) because of > these distinctions which they created in living conditions and costumes. > No matter how you designate it, it stayed consistent from ep to ep and so > always represented the same thing. > > Taverns were very like lower class houses except they were bigger, both > houses and taverns were different from Amazon huts, and all of these were > different from palaces. I strongly believe that everybody realized this. > Whether they realized it consciously or not. >> Wow. Not me. I didn't think of "class" in that way and certainly not one extreme or the other. I saw a range of folks -- some apparently self-sufficient and/or able to buy or barter what they didn't have. I saw loads of merchants, farmers, tradespeople, mercenaries, officials. I saw laborers and servants, some of whom apparently worked or lived at the whim of someone else, someone not necessarily "rich." I saw a variety of folks wandering about or living in bad conditions because of sickness or attack from some army, some who'd lost a lot, some who may have little to lose. I guess I mainly looked at the structures to get a sense of the culture, whether this was a thriving village or more cosmopolitan city, what the inhabitants did for a living. I saw a continuum, with Gabs and Xena coming from communities that seemed more or less prosperous/stable than others I saw, with Amphipolis and Xena's life being a little more "sophisticated" than Poteidaia and Gabs' life. But I didn't think of either of them being "low class." > > > > Based on Cyrene's inn, > >some folks think Xena's family wasn't well off, while others think the > family > >did pretty well. > > > > I have to say that I NEVER heard any discussion on that point. I The tavern > > was just a tavern to me. I really didn't see any difference in any of the > taverns-they pretty much all looked alike as I remember. >. People did not usually describe Xena as a "peasant" as they did Gabs. It wasn't that Cyrene's tavern was different from other taverns, but that she had one at all. It was a meeting place where things got discussed and Cyrene (and possibly her daughter) had a somewhat unique position and influence. It said something to me about Cyrene's strength, independence, savvy. The inn/tavern gave me a different impression of Xena's background, than the more farm country I pictured Gabs coming from. They all had the > > same wooden mugs, the same wooden bar in the same place, the same table > and chairs-and I mean the SAME. Grin. Except of course for Meg's Tavern > which had all those Creation artifacts. > > If it mattered to the story, there would have been a difference between > Cyrene's tavern and others, just like there was in Meg's. But there > wasn't. So there wasn't. SMILE. >> Again, I thought it significant that they chose a tavern/inn for Xena's background, as opposed to her living on a farm. It didn't matter to me what the inn looked like, so much as imagining what Xena might've been exposed to because of it. I certainly though of Cyrene a little differently than Hecuba, because the former was running a business. Maybe it's because I identify with that. > Some of us don't even notice a particular person, object, > >expression, while others do. > > > Well, sure. Much of our surroundings are only absorbed sub-consciously > even in real life. > > I truly believe that we eventually do take, if not all, then at lest most > of it in. Static art like a picture is easy to process just because it's > static and always available in an unchanging state. Filmed moving pictures > are a lot tougher to assimilate in one shot because there is so much going > on. And because moving pictures are composed to highlight the main actor > or the main action, so the things in the background don't get noticed so > quickly and easily. >> I think of all the times we didn't "see" something after several viewings, until someone else pointed it out to us. In some cases, it changed someone's idea of what they saw -- of what was "actually" happening. Even then, some people would say it didn't matter to the "main" story, while it might've mattered to someone else. One scene that stands out for me is in Deliverer, when Xena and Boudica are arguing about Gabs. I hadn't noticed the bit where Xena tosses Gabs' staff back to Boudica, until somebody said that's why Gabs didn't have the staff in the temple. They thought it significant (and somewhat thoughtless) that Xena didn't bring the staff with her, so she could give it to Gabs after the rescue. Not sure I entirely agree with that, but TPTB might've been trying to at least establish that Gabs didn't have the staff when it came time to fight Dahak's folks, which could somewhat explain her resorting to a knife. Again, I saw some heated discussions around Xena's culpability because of the staff thing. > But everything that appears in the scene is collected and placed on set by > the director and the set designer to create what's called the Mise en > scene. The look of the show. And they do this with an eye to creating an > environment that plays a big part in telling us about the world the > characters live in and therefore things about the character themselves. >> Agreed. It's just that some of us put more stock in some props than others of us do -- e.g., Cyrene's tavern. > I always wonder if anyone noticed the propane tank under the table in > Girls Just Wanna Have Fun on their first viewing. >> Oooo, under what table? I sure never noticed. > > IFE: > I have art in my home that I've looked at for > >years and suddenly "see" something I'd missed before. To me the richness > of XWP > >has come from all the varied perspectives on the "same" thing, which each > >person will argue is based on "what we all saw." > > > > > And we all saw the exact same physical appearance. There's no arguing that > for example, Xena is a brunette and Gabrielle is a blond with sometimes > red highlights. We can say, "Oooooo, this says that Xena's a dark soul and > Gabrielle's a light" but that's interpretation. First and foremost, Tapert > chose to have both of the grrls dye their hair, thus controlling the image > of the characters he wanted to present to us. >> >From my understanding, that was partly to make Lucy look different from other characters she'd played in Herc. I've heard Lucy talk about wanting to look like the tennis player Gabriella (?) Sabatini, in terms of a "warrior" image, but I can't recall them initially thinking about highlighting the contrast between X&G beyond superficial "look." And which we all saw. Some > > people have pre-conceived notions about people's hair colors. For example, > does the term, "Irritating brunette" sound quite so apt as "Irritating > blond"? How about "Aggravating brown haired person"? How about > temperamental redhead? (And why did the phrase, "redhead" come into use > instead of just red like blond or brunette?) Uh...just wandering >> No, actually that gets at why I'm arguing about this. It's not so much that we all saw one with light hair and one with dark, so much as what we may have associated with that. Did Tapert control what people thought of Gabs as a semi-redhead vs. when she became blond? Some people saw her as clueless before she became a blond, while others saw her character as somehow changing (or reinforced) when she did become a blond. I distinguish that from when Xena donned that blond wig in Miss Amphipolis. << snipping Tarzan bit, 'cause I'm not confident about what I was supposed to be seeing >> > KT: > >> > >>Xena is homeless. Xena has relegated herself to a spartan life. No more > >>fancy yurts nor big tents with servants for her. This also is absolutely > >>true. Differing interpretations come in when we think about why it's true.> > > > > > > > >Yes, with XWP I had confidence that every critical aspect about Xena -- > from > >her armor to what she traveled with -- had been given careful > consideration. > > > > > I think Tarzan did too. The mere fact that something is on the set means > that a choice was made to put it there. >> I meant in terms of the reason behind the choice -- e.g., "This looks like something a rich person would have" vs. "This is something Kate would have." I never got the sense of intent and cohesiveness that maybe you did. > >I had confidence that the structures I saw, the objects in dwellings, the > >clothing of villains, etc. "meant" something. The only thing above that I > might > >quibble with is "Xena is homeless." No, she didn't live in a "house." But > >though she didn't know how she'd be received in Amphipolis at the beginning > of > >Sins, she called it and Cyrene's place "home." She chose to leave, once > >welcomed, yet knew she could return. > > > > BWAAHAHAHAH! Gods, you crack me up. Now let's see-you say that Kathleen's > house which is referred to as numerous times as "Kathleen's house", "his > aunt's house", "your sister's house" or just "Kathleen's", is probably NOT > her house. But Xena, whom we see every week living without a house in the > forest, does have a house-even though she hasn't lived there for over ten > years and everybody calls it "Cyrene's". > > Uh-huh. >> Nope, I was distinguishing between a "house" and a "home." The latter can be just about anywhere someone feels welcome. I called Cyrene's place/Amphipolis "home" because that's what Xena called it. It suggested a place where she had roots and some good memories, which was all the more poignant because of her initial reception and choice to live on the road. IOW, she gave up something to wander around, as opposed to not having anywhere to go. > IFE: > The main reason it means > >anything vs. anybody else is because we compare it to what she gave up, and > we > >know she could have more if she wanted. We might feel she was "denying" > herself > >creature comforts, not just being practical, because we saw a propensity > for > >her to be hard on herself. > > > > > > > > > Uh-that's what *I* said, how I interpreted that. That when she was > "naughty", she used to live luxuriously compared to how she lives now. > That was exactly my point. >> LOL! Yes, I was agreeing with you. However, I arrived at that based on Evil Xena's luxuries, not simply becase Reformed Xena traveled lightly. > << But > what's wrong with using the word "spartan" in its accepted usage to > describe a minimal life style? I'm not using it as a pejorative, just as > an adjective. << Not a thing. I didn't take it as pejorative. I just think it's more interpretive than listing the things she traveled with. I'm saying it's very difficult to use adjectives, descriptions, etc. of "immutable facts," without also making a judgment of some kind, based on one's own knowledge or experience (assuming it's not stated in the show). > Once you > >get beyond detailing what somebody can point to (which usually requires > >words, which can mean different things to different people), you're > probably > >already in the realm of interpretation. > > > >-- Ife > > > > > Yep. Once you start talking about what the things there mean, that goes > beyond the immutable fact that they're there. But first they gotta be > there. >> Agreed, as long as the "immutable fact" is what people are actually discussing. Usually they aren't. They're talking about the interpretation as if it were the "immutable fact." It's not just "Gabs picked up the sword." It's "Gabs picked up the sword eagerly," or "Gabs picked up the sword when she didn't need to," or "Gabs picked up the sword because she thought she had to," or "What made Gabs think she could handle a sword?" It'll be an "immutable fact" to them that Gabs looked tentative or silly or whatever, because that's what the person "saw," just like they "saw" her pick up the sword itself. Yes, at least they can rewatch that image and point to why that's what "is," which I believe is the main point you're making. At least we have some semblance of a common starting point. My point (jeez, lots of "points" in here) is that we so quickly draw conclusions (based on what we bring to, say, seeing early Gabs picking up a sword), that we automatically dismiss or give significance to what is "really" or "actually" being shown. And we'll argue about the factualness of that until the cows come home. Moooooo. - -- 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 #376 **************************************