From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #104 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 Wednesday, April 14 2004 Volume 04 : Number 104 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle's Hope [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question [KTL ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Lord of the rings vs Xena ["Daniel T. Miller" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 02:08:53 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question In a message dated 4/12/2004 4:26:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: > Gabrielle went to the Elysian Fields. (How'd she do that without Hades > coming in, shoving Xena aside and tapping Gabrielle as "Good to go"?) > And sure, people do come back from being clinically dead all the time. > > But Xena was unique in going to that "waiting room" where the choice > of "Do I go or do I stay" appeared to be totally left up to her. No god > came along and decided where she should go. Just M'lila who pleaded with > her to decide to return to Greece. > > Regardless of where Gabs went, how is her choice to come back different from Xena's? How do we know Xena was in some special "waiting room," as opposed to Tartarus? Gabs was apparently somewhere nice (naturally), whereas Xena was somewhere not so nice (naturally). Both could've stayed dead but got to decide not to. In both cases, they provided the main motivation for each other to return. In neither case did I hear of some god being involved. - -- 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, 13 Apr 2004 02:08:52 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle's Hope In a message dated 4/12/2004 7:54:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, cande@sunlink.net writes: > I would have loved to have heard Lucy's take on this. I some how think > that > Lucy didn't think of Xena as a hero here. I am particularly intrigued by > the > way she played the scene with Gabrielle in the castle when they are > discussing > Hope's future. Gabrielle has just said something to the effect that she > would > use Hercules as a model for Hope. Xena then says she would be watching > Hope's > development very closely. Gabrielle then warns Xena not to come between her > and her daughter. What I find interesting is that Lucy plays that scene > with > a smug sense of superiority. It is as if Xena expects that Gabrielle will > naturally accept Xena's judgment over her daughter's fate. I don't know if > Lucy is doing this so that Gabrielle's anger is seen a justified and giving > Renee something to play off or she feels that Xena is being premature in her > condemnation of Hope. >> Huh. I didn't get smugness or certainty at all in terms of her reaction to Gabs. It was like Xena knew what she had to do, despite giving Hope the initial benefit of the doubt for Gabs' sake. When she looked at Gabs, it was appraising her friend as she would any opponent who could present a problem. Lucy played it with Xena's "mask" on. I felt Xena's underlying pain at what she might have to do and recognition that Gabs was just as resolute in stopping her. Yes, she no doubt hoped Gabs would see reason, but I don't think she underestimated Gabs' need to believe in Hope's innocence, nor Gabs' determination. The "don't come between us" was about as clear as Gabs could be about where her loyalties might have to lie, just as was Xena's "I'll be watching her development." I think both LL & ROC played their characters in the "raw" -- with their different outlooks firmly determining what each must do, relationship taking second priority, as opposed to the give and take when the stakes were less personal for one of them. Xena was the resolute warrior communicating that she would have to follow her own instincts to kill if necessary. Gabs was the equally resolute mother communicating she would have to follow her instincts to save if possible. Usually the characters' different sensibilities complemented each other. This was a perfect example of all the ways those sensibilities could clash and send them spiralling in opposing directions. As to the hero part, I think Lucy often played that with what I call "the mask" -- little emotion -- especially when the opponent wasn't the typical "extra" bad guy she might run through with glee. Even in season 1, Xena throws her sword down in disgust at what she sees as a needless kill (e.g., the father in "Chariots.") It's like she carries the weight of knowing that "heroes" must often do the dirty work others are unable or unwilling to. But she seldom regards herself as a "good" hero in the way Hercules was. Lucy's expression was, "It's my job, whether I like it or not, whether I'm a good enough person or not." With Hope, Xena had the added burden of knowing Gabrielle had given birth to this demon, despite Gabs' refusal to see that. At the time, I thought Xena might be wrong and possibly arrogant, but I didn't see it as that different from her usual "debate time is over, I have to take action" mode. I guess "smug" suggests to me a degree of satisfaction with one's opinion. to me, Lucy played Xena as perhaps satisfied that she was taking the right approach, but not feeling satisfaction with what she might have to do. > > I have always thought that Xena was just a bit to quick to decide that Hope > was evil. Why is she so sure the baby strangled the knight. The castle is > obviously riddled with secret passages. She herself just left the door open > to one when she went looking for the missing knight. Gabrielle is right > anyone could have come in a strangled the knight. So Xena is Xena justified > at this point in time in deciding that Hope had to be killed? >> Again, Xena's strength and challenge was taking action in uncertain situations. Many of her victims might've been pressed into a warlord's army because they had few options, not because they were bad. She couldn't worry about that when they were threatening someone. In "Remember Nothing," she comes face to face with the consequences of that, when she realizes her victim is little more than a boy. She gets to save him later, but the price is accepting that she'll probably spill more "questionable" blood in the future, even as a "warrior for good." As to Xena's justification, I'm not sure that was ever totally resolved. What if Hope did kill the knight? Could her actions as a baby carry the same weight as an adult's? What if Gabs had raised the child and kept her away from Dahak's influence? Hope is right in accusing Gabs of never giving her that chance. There's the suggestion that Hope's hurt and anger over that may have helped warp her and played into Dahak's love for rage. Thing is, at the time Xena discovers the knight, she can't take the chance that Hope might be redeemable. All she knows is that a terrible new evil may be unleashed in the guise of innocence, which only she is willing to assume responsibility for destroying. If she'd killed Hope then, she could've been certain the evil had no chance. But she would've also killed any chance that Hope could be good either. In hindsight, Xena's actions look justified. Her reasoning seems logical. The irony is, people could've said her own death would be justified, given what she'd willingly done at a much later age than Hope. If Xena had let such doubts cause her to hesitate, she wouldn't have become a "hero." It meant taking the calculated chance that she could be wrong. > -- 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, 13 Apr 2004 02:08:56 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons In a message dated 4/11/2004 10:08:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:17, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > >In a message dated 4/11/2004 4:26:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > >jyoung@lava.net writes: > >> 4. I asked at least two philosophers in our dept. about > >>"relativity" and they both agreed that there is an informal PHILOSOPHICAL > >>theory of relativity out there based on Einstein's scientific theory. > >>From what I can gather, it's somewhat like situational ethics; that a > >>person's perception of reality depends on his/her subjective perspective. > >>>> > > > >Yes! This is what I was arguing with cr way back when we were on notions > >of "reality." See, Jackie, "translation" works both ways. Laurel &Hardy > >are back! (At least for a little while.) Thanks! > > Laurel &Hardy are doubtless more compatible with the 'philosphical' theory > Jackie mentions than Einstein >> I'll let Jackie handle that one. Heh heh. > > >> 5. There is even a philosophical area of study called Philosophy > >>of Language, in which meaning is debated based on your cultural > >>(and other) perspectives (i.e., do you REALLY mean what you say?).>> > > > >Yes again! We see that constantly on these lists, especially when folks > >are from different countries. That's why dictionary and "common" > >definitions are only starting points, because the words themselves are > >automatically loaded with personal meaning. Like "exploitative." > > Why I asked for a definition.... ;) >> Which you both provided with "examples" of what you meant. > > >> 6. Philosophers will always debate "reality" with you. >> > > > >So *that's* why I do that. Huh. I'm liking this more and more. > > Not sure you'd want to... I remember the philsophers in the Hitch-Hiker > trilogy :) >> As I remember all the "mad" scientists in even more movies. - -- 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, 13 Apr 2004 02:08:58 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons In a message dated 4/11/2004 9:48:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > A better example would be "The [traffic] > light was green" - there is no doubt about the purported meaning of that > statement. It's either correct or not - no room for 'opinion'. >> Heh, tell that to the cop who insists green with a touch of yellow is red. > > 4. I asked at least two philosophers in our dept. about > >"relativity" and they both agreed that there is an informal PHILOSOPHICAL > >theory of relativity out there based on Einstein's scientific theory. > >From what I can gather, it's somewhat like situational ethics; that a > >person's perception of reality depends on his/her subjective perspective. > > Well, in that case they have totally failed to understand Einstein's theory, > > or alternatively don't care. Particularly if their 'theory' is informal, > since both Einstein's theories can be expressed entirely formally, > mathematically. It would be hard to find a greater contrast between their > 'subjective perspective' and Einstein's theories. >> Would you please do me the great favor of contrasting Einstein's theory with what Jackie said? I'm being totally serious here, especially since I've never understood where "theory" lies on the scientific continuum of "what is." > > > 5. There is even a philosophical area of study called Philosophy > >of Language, in which meaning is debated based on your cultural > >(and other) perspectives (i.e., do you REALLY mean what you say?). > > > > 6. Philosophers will always debate "reality" with you. > > I see you've picked up their habits ;) >> Me too! Except I picked up the habit from experience. > > 7. Philosophers say philosophy is older than science (i.e., the > >theory of knowledge preceded scientific studies). > > So is religion, so is superstition. What is the relevance of this? >> That there's a thin line between them? > BTW, ask your philosophers whether it's possible to have a meaningful > discussion about abstract concepts (such as 'exploitative') without first > defining your terms. ;) > Now, cr, I think that's unreasonble, as we'd have to define everything in your sentence from "possible" and "meaningful" to "discussion" and "defining." To me, neither of you "defined" exploitative in my sense of the word. Both of you applied your "sense" of the word to particular situations, which gave me a sense of what you meant. It's hard for any of us to automatically know which words we use will be important or unclear or totally misunderstood. Hence, we give a context, examples, metaphors, etc. For me, "meaningful" is the key word in your sentence above. It suggests your particular bias and comfort zone, though it could be construed as a universal pronouncement. I don't take it as such because I automatically supply "meaningful discussion *to me*," even though those last two words aren't in your statement. I assume (rightly or wrongly) that you will accept the possibility that others could have a meaningful discussion *for them* without attempting to define every concept. Neither of us thought we needed to define "reality" until we realized we were coming from entirely different perspectives. But when I discuss reality with you now, I'm conscious of explaining what I mean in a way that I hope will be meaningful to *you.* Otherwise, we'll go round and round *debating* moreso than *considering* -- both of which my dictionary defines as "discussion." - -- 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, 13 Apr 2004 12:53:54 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question > fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: > > > Gabrielle went to the Elysian Fields. (How'd she do that without Hades > > coming in, shoving Xena aside and tapping Gabrielle as "Good to go"?) > > And sure, people do come back from being clinically dead all the time. > > > > But Xena was unique in going to that "waiting room" where the choice > > of "Do I go or do I stay" appeared to be totally left up to her. No god > > came along and decided where she should go. Just M'lila who pleaded with > > her to decide to return to Greece. > > > > > > Regardless of where Gabs went, how is her choice to come back different from > Xena's? How do we know Xena was in some special "waiting room," as opposed to > Tartarus? Gabs was apparently somewhere nice (naturally), whereas Xena was > somewhere not so nice (naturally). Both could've stayed dead but got to decide > not to. In both cases, they provided the main motivation for each other to > return. In neither case did I hear of some god being involved. > > -- Ife LOL! This whole thing started because you asked what our thoughts were about where Xena was. Because it's the only time we've ever seen anyone in a place like that. It was as is so many things, unique to Xena. The difference in choosing to come back was that Xena was given the choice before she was assigned her place. That it was "understood" she had a choice, so why take the trouble of slotting her in if she's going back anyway? Gabrielle coming back, including the story she told about seeing her loved ones is a classic experience related by those who have what we call a "near death experience". Those very rare folks who return from being clinically dead and don't go on to being brain dead. Gabrielle had a, while not common experience, a not unique one either. KT ========================================================= 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, 13 Apr 2004 14:02:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Daniel T. Miller" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Lord of the rings vs Xena On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 23:24:50 +1200, cr wrote: > > However, what I didn't get in LOTR, anywhere, was the intensity that > Lucy, > Kevin Smith or Hudson brought to the screen. I wouldn't say the LOTR > actors > were less capable, there were some fine actors there, but I think maybe > they > were overwhelmed by the story. I suppose they may also have been > limited by > the fact that their opponents were monsters, rather than humans, so they > couldn't get the same face-face confrontation as between Lucy, Kevin or > Hudson. > Good point. Some Xena related examples. . . I didn't pay much attention to H:TLJ before Xena, but in the beginning wasn't Hera just a special effect? I got the impression they gradually phased that out. (But years before they had a "real" Hera. And wasn't initially Ares just a stuntie in armor? I assumed that was what led to the casting of Kevin Smith, they wanted a Greek God as a returning villain and realized the character need to be an actual actor. :~) Someone during Cleopatra 2525, forgot what they had learned in H:TLJ and tried to make yet another special effect the recurring main villain -- the giant killer robots, the Baileys. Too late, they must have realized their mistake and made the Joel Tobeck character the central bad guy of the series. Back to LOTR-- And of course, the reason that Gollum gave such a terrific performance was that the actor Andy Serkis was actually in most of the Gollum scenes, in some sort of special effect outfit. Just read an interview with Skeris, and he said that Peter Jackson initially planned for a lot more scenes with the other actors talking to empty air, but those takes just seemed dead compared to the ones with Skeris. Oh, and the voice of Gollum was not a special effect but solely a creation out of Andy Skeris' throat. He said he based it on the sound his cat made throwing up a hairball. :~) ******************************** __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ========================================================= 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, 13 Apr 2004 14:02:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "Daniel T. Miller" Subject: OT (was Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy in Celebrity Skin Issue #126) On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 18:17:09 -0900 (AKST), KTL wrote: > > Thanks, Lee. My feelings exactly. > > It's a spiritual endeaver, replying to posts. The time must be right and > that awareness of the process of replying, when and how posts suddenly > foment and rise to the top of the list to be answered, is mysterious, > purely instinctive and totally illogical. The stunned mullet Did anyone else imagine a dazed hairpiece? :~) (drum rimshot) > > And for me, March is always a horrific month in work. > > Speaking of moldy posts, I hear the posts on "Xena's season four blues" > saxaphoning out to me.... Oww! > KT Now, I'm humming "Harlem Nocturne" and imagining Xena blowing the sax part in the middle of nowhere. (Nowhere being the beautiful NZ backdrop.) Not a bad image. I wonder if a blues or jazz episode was ever considered? ***************************************************************** __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ========================================================= 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, 13 Apr 2004 13:18:02 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: The Debt > > Gasp! I never lie about Xena! And yes, it took me a bit of contemplation > > to figure out what the heck Xena was saying with that line but that's what > > I came up with. A person consumed with hatred does not love themselves. > > Not ever. > > Yes I do agree with you there. People who hate are, I believe, consumed by > self-loathing which they project on to someone else. Callisto probably > hates herself for surving at Cirra and in all probablity feels guilty about > this. Oh yes. She's DRENCHED in survivor guilt. And it can only be worse after Armageddon (was that the name of ther Herc one?) where she actually has a part in making her family die. Jeeeeeez. And of course RJ talked about that being the main reason they created Callisto. To make the reforming Xena face up to what her actions had cost the human beings she had victimized. Friendly snippage for band's width. > > And I bet I may know what take you took on it. Because after I saw it and > > read through my spoilers folder, I read that the pure subtext viewers were > > translating that line this way: > > > > "The love of your love is you" Okay, so we know that these two are lovers. > > Do we? Perhaps they aren't lovers at this point. Maybe they haven't quite > realized or accepted their relationship yet. No, I'm not saying this. These arguments are what I read in the posts from the pure subtexters that were in my spoilers file. I HATED not seeing an episode without any prior knowledge of it. So I always stored all the posts on it in spoiler file that I would read after I had watched the ep. Pure subtexters were those who saw the girls as monogamous romantic, sexual partners period. Anything that was shown on screen that disagreed with that take made them really angry. Just like the fully cemented friendship folks. Both of these camps keep trying to throw out certain scenes, hell sometimes certain eps all the time. Trying to hone a show that was totally multi-faceted into ONE. STRICT. INTERPRETATION. AND. ONE. ONLY. And it was the pure subtexters who started the interpretation of this line with the premise, "We all know X&G are lovers". > > > > It's a hilariously clanging line. > > No I agree it's a awful line. I can see accept the interpretation that > forgiveness in the abstract leads to self acceptance and self love (stop > snickering KT!). I only snickered after you told me not to. You know you and I agree on the show far more than we disagree on it. And I certainly don't see these exchanges of posts as a contest to make the other side agree with what you say. We disagree on what the Bitter Suite chorus meant. I have no problem with that and am happy to leave it that way. I also can interpret the line as saying that once you free > yourself from hate you can see that you are worth being loved. That you > will recognize the love others have for you Oh yeah, well, yeah, that absolutely fits too. Ah, so perhaps the kindest interpretation of that gooblydink is that Xena is saying that she has already forgiven Gabrielle for her part in Solon's death and has released the hate towards Gabrielle that fomented in her, leaving only the love towards her behind. That works too. And certainly fits the intent of the ep. KT ========================================================= 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 V4 #104 **************************************