From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #127 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 Thursday, May 6 2004 Volume 04 : Number 127 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Fates Again [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Fates Again [cr ] [chakram-refugees] OT: Yet another Xena mention [KTL On Tue, 04 May 2004 17:31, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > >In a message dated 5/3/2004 5:27:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > >cr@orcon.net.nz > > > >writes: > >>She would never submit to Caesar simply because she's Xena. >> > > > >I believe we could agree on that. (Quite an example of reasoned discourse, > >by the way. ) We apparently disagree on whether she submitted as an > >end or as a means. > > Unfortunately, my wording was unintentionally ambiguous. I think, not > quite > the way you read it. > > I meant, Xena would _never_ submit to Caesar, period. >> Yes, that's how I read it. > << Why > >else do you think Alti killed him? > > Because KF thought it was a cool idea? Because the producer thought it > looked good on screen? >> Ah. > >>I wouldn't say there's a 'standard' for shock value, any more than > >>there's a > >>'standard' for morality or pornography. Nevertheless, some films/scenes > >>are demonstrably more shocking / violent / pornographic than others, and > >>censors do draw a line between what's 'acceptable' and what isn't. > >>It's a shades-of-grey thing and people argue over it, but there is a real > >>difference. >> > > > >Sounds like a "standard" to me, otherwise we couldn't tell the "real > >difference." But I'm ready to move on. > > Maybe it's just in the wording. To me, a 'standard' implies a fairly > precisely defined criterion, whereby something either complies with the > 'standard' or fails to. >> We interpreted "standard" similarly then. I have no idea why some U.S. movies get certain ratings, while others with virtually the same content don't get those ratings. Despite wide personal opinions, various "watchdog" groups do seem to be applying some "standard." Perhaps you were talking about personal opinions, whereas I was thinking of the criteria that gets "formalized" based on those opinions. > >>As to 'how it's done' vs 'what is done', I would say *both* play a part > >>in determining how exploitative a scene is. In _some_ situations, how > >>it's shot may indeed be more significant than the subject matter. Umm, > >>consider for example Xena and Borias 'getting it on' under the furs at > >>the start of Sin Trade. I don't think the actual plot point (of Xena > >>having it off with Borias) was exploitative at all. (In fact it was > >>necessary to explain Solan). >> > > > >Um, okay. There might be children watching who might not understand "I'm > >pregnant with your child," without some visual representation to explain > >how that happened. > > That's not what I said at all. Are you being facetious? (And IMO Xena > is *certainly* not a show for children). >> Yes, I was being facetious. However, I also think it's quite possible to indicate that something has taken place without showing the act itself. I personally don't have any problem with the Xena/Borias scene, but it wasn't in the least necessary for my understanding of how Solan came about. I accepted a lot in XWP that I might've disdained in other shows. But once I accepted that I liked a show that relied heavily on sex and violence, I accepted that I would see a lot of things I consider exploitative. As you know, I can go on ad nauseum about why I watched XWP, but that doesn't mean I didn't see many aspects I found gratuitous or even negative. I simply chose not to spend my time focusing on that. > > >> Nor do I think the brief scene we saw was exploitative. OTOH, I > > >>suppose it could have been filmed like a soft-porn scene - which IMO > >>could have been quite exploitative - but it wasn't. >> > > > >I'm always intrigued by the term "soft porn." But I digress. So, we (or > >somebody) needed to learn how Solan got produced, in order to understand > >the plot. Therefore not exploitative. But if we'd seen (and heard) a > >little more about what was happening under the bearskin, that would have > >been a little too educational, in terms of learning how Solan got produced. > > Unnecessary, so therefore exploitative. And possibly "soft porn," > >whatever the heck that is. Okey dokey. > > Well, no, that's not what I said and you're twisting my meaning by > introducing a lot of things I *didn't* say. Just forget it. >> Agreed. > >It's the censors (who may or may not care about the good Sister's opinion) > >I'm more worried about. :-) > > Which censors? >> I was being facetious again -- this time about folks like the ones who "guard" what's appropriate to see on TV. > << Maybe > >>your friends weren't Xena/Gab fans so didn't feel for Xena and Gabs so > >>much? >> > > > >Quite the contrary. They cared *only* about Xena/Gabs. Caesar's > >assassination did nothing for them but needlessly bloody (heh) the > >Xena/Gabs story. > > Hmmm. Interestingly opposite reactions. >> Yes, which is why I'm always intrigued by the wildly different reactions to certain eps. That might be even truer of some casual observers who tuned in expecting to always see whatever attracted them in the first place, whereas avid fans knew to expect the unexpected. > Cut out the last ten seconds. Just end with them hanging on the crosses > and > fade to black. An enormously powerful ending, which that 'angel' moment > just kicked the legs out from under. >> Those last seconds are what made the ep so powerful for many viewers. I'm not a big fan of "tear jerkers," but I certainly wouldn't have wanted to go through the summer with my last image of X&G on those blasted crosses. Sure, I considered the "angel" moment a bit sappy, but I couldn't come up with any better way to picture them as rising triumphant in some way. I guess, for me, that's one of those images which was important to the story, if the point was to suggest X&G weren't defeated victims. > >You're saying the subtext only > > existed if the two were together physically? It vanished if one of them > > wasn't there? > > So Xena is so taken by this bit of fluff she's only met a few days ago that > she finds time while dying in agony to parrot out "I love you Gabrielle"? > Sounds like a subtexters' wet dream to me. >> Wow, talk about different views. Sounds like, for you, the "subtext" is about sex more than love, about short-term dalliances rather than a long-term relationship (however it's defined). Certainly by the time she'd made her decision, Xena knew what Gabrielle's "true" importance to her was, even if she hadn't lived through some of the experiences that made it "real." I suppose she could've screamed, "I hate you, Caesar!" or "Gods, this hurts!" or been stoically silent. To me, she was more like someone who gets executed in a foreign land and cries out the name of her country or someone close, not the name of the enemy. Sort of going out with that person's name on her lips, declaring what she was fighting for, not against. The purpose and meaning go far beyond what's physically around her at that time. Instead, it's more about what she carries in her head, which she's affirming that the enemy can't take or sully. Certainly XWP was about hate as much as love, but I felt the ultimate purpose (not just of Fates) was to show the triumph of the latter over the former. Obviously, if you didn't see all that, it's understandable why you assess that moment as you do. - -- 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: Wed, 5 May 2004 19:41:25 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Fates Again On Wed, 05 May 2004 17:50, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/4/2004 12:26:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > On Tue, 04 May 2004 17:31, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > >In a message dated 5/3/2004 5:27:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > >cr@orcon.net.nz > > > > > >writes: > > >>She would never submit to Caesar simply because she's Xena. >> > > > > > >I believe we could agree on that. (Quite an example of reasoned > > discourse, > > > >by the way. ) We apparently disagree on whether she submitted as an > > >end or as a means. > > > > Unfortunately, my wording was unintentionally ambiguous. I think, not > > quite > > the way you read it. > > > > I meant, Xena would _never_ submit to Caesar, period. >> > > Yes, that's how I read it. > > > << Why > > > > >else do you think Alti killed him? > > > > Because KF thought it was a cool idea? Because the producer thought it > > looked good on screen? >> > > Ah. > > > >>I wouldn't say there's a 'standard' for shock value, any more than > > >> > > >>there's a > > >>'standard' for morality or pornography. Nevertheless, some > > >> films/scenes are demonstrably more shocking / violent / pornographic > > >> than others, and censors do draw a line between what's 'acceptable' > > >> and what isn't. It's a shades-of-grey thing and people argue over it, > > >> but there is a real difference. >> > > > > > >Sounds like a "standard" to me, otherwise we couldn't tell the "real > > >difference." But I'm ready to move on. > > > > Maybe it's just in the wording. To me, a 'standard' implies a fairly > > precisely defined criterion, whereby something either complies with the > > 'standard' or fails to. >> > > We interpreted "standard" similarly then. I have no idea why some U.S. > movies get certain ratings, while others with virtually the same content > don't get > those ratings. Despite wide personal opinions, various "watchdog" groups > do seem to be applying some "standard." Perhaps you were talking about > personal opinions, whereas I was thinking of the criteria that gets > "formalized" based on those opinions. Since you mentioned watchdog groups and censorship, I'd point out that their decisions are notoriously capricious and liable to fluctuate from one town to the next. Probably depending on the personal bias of whoever happens to be top dog in the particular group. When I talked of a 'standard', I was thinking of engineering standards. Either a coat of paint is the required thickness or passes certain standardised abrasion tests, or it doesn't. Questions of morality, or taste, are usually so complex and so dependent on circumstances that one can't possibly define any set 'standard'. All one is left with is personal opinion or 'judgement'. I'm reminded of the old British legal standard of pornography as being a work 'utterly wihout redeeming social value' - could there be anythjing more subjective than 'redeeming social value' ? Take violence, for instance. Which was worse, Xena killing the Amazon leaders in Sin Trade, or Xena zapping Khan's 100,000 soldiers? I'd say, the Amazon leaders - because it was unprovoked and 'personal', so to speak. But - - how can I rate 12 deaths as worse than 100,000? Well, I just do, and (IMO) the circumstances are what make all the difference. I think many people would agree with me. But, it's kinda hard to define a 'standard' that says Khan's 100,000 dead are 'acceptable' while the dozen Amazon dead aren't. In fact, you try and define a criterion for judging such things and I'll find you plenty of examples that disprove it. (I'm not proposing this as a serious exercise, as it only leads to frustration :) > > >>As to 'how it's done' vs 'what is done', I would say *both* play a part > > >>in determining how exploitative a scene is. In _some_ situations, how > > >>it's shot may indeed be more significant than the subject matter. > > >> Umm, consider for example Xena and Borias 'getting it on' under the > > >> furs at the start of Sin Trade. I don't think the actual plot point > > >> (of Xena having it off with Borias) was exploitative at all. (In > > >> fact it was necessary to explain Solan). >> > > > > > >Um, okay. There might be children watching who might not understand > > > "I'm pregnant with your child," without some visual representation to > > > explain how that happened. > > > > That's not what I said at all. Are you being facetious? (And IMO > > Xena is *certainly* not a show for children). >> > > Yes, I was being facetious. However, I also think it's quite possible to > indicate that something has taken place without showing the act itself. I > personally don't have any problem with the Xena/Borias scene, but it wasn't > in the > least necessary for my understanding of how Solan came about. I accepted a > lot > in XWP that I might've disdained in other shows. But once I accepted that > I liked a show that relied heavily on sex and violence, I accepted that I > would see a lot of things I consider exploitative. As you know, I can go > on ad nauseum about why I watched XWP, but that doesn't mean I didn't see > many aspects I > found gratuitous or even negative. I simply chose not to spend my time > focusing on that. Well, I certainly tend to disapprove of violence. Umm, in theory, at least. But I still cheer when Xena whacks a baddie. See how easily my principles can be compromised by a bit of clever drama? ;) > > >It's the censors (who may or may not care about the good Sister's > > > opinion) I'm more worried about. :-) > > > > Which censors? >> > > I was being facetious again -- this time about folks like the ones who > "guard" what's appropriate to see on TV. OK > > << Maybe > > > > >>your friends weren't Xena/Gab fans so didn't feel for Xena and Gabs so > > >>much? >> > > > > > >Quite the contrary. They cared *only* about Xena/Gabs. Caesar's > > >assassination did nothing for them but needlessly bloody (heh) the > > >Xena/Gabs story. > > > > Hmmm. Interestingly opposite reactions. >> > > Yes, which is why I'm always intrigued by the wildly different reactions to > certain eps. That might be even truer of some casual observers who tuned > in expecting to always see whatever attracted them in the first place, > whereas avid fans knew to expect the unexpected. > > > Cut out the last ten seconds. Just end with them hanging on the crosses > > and > > fade to black. An enormously powerful ending, which that 'angel' > > moment just kicked the legs out from under. >> > > Those last seconds are what made the ep so powerful for many viewers. If you mean the 'angel' bit, that's another example of opposite reactions. Because I hated that. It was incongruous. > I'm > not a big fan of "tear jerkers," but I certainly wouldn't have wanted to go > through the summer with my last image of X&G on those blasted crosses. > Sure, I > considered the "angel" moment a bit sappy, but I couldn't come up with any > better way to picture them as rising triumphant in some way. I guess, for > me, that's one of those images which was important to the story, if the > point was to suggest X&G weren't defeated victims. But - we knew that X & G weren't going to stay dead. (Btw, they died remarkably quickly - if it hadn't been for the angelic stuff, I would have assumed they were merely unconscious, not dead yet). So it wasn't 'defeat', any more than every season-ending cliff-hanger is. Actually, I would *much* rather they'd stayed on the crosses, then in the next ep Amarice and Joxer had got them down *before* they died, and Eli had maybe used a bit of his healing powers to help them recover. I would have accepted that much more readily than the whole mediaeval-Christian Fallen Angel thing. > > >You're saying the subtext only > > > existed if the two were together physically? It vanished if one of > > > them wasn't there? > > > > So Xena is so taken by this bit of fluff she's only met a few days ago > > that she finds time while dying in agony to parrot out "I love you > > Gabrielle"? Sounds like a subtexters' wet dream to me. >> > > Wow, talk about different views. Sounds like, for you, the "subtext" is > about sex more than love, about short-term dalliances rather than a > long-term relationship (however it's defined). Certainly by the time she'd > made her decision, Xena knew what Gabrielle's "true" importance to her was, > even if she hadn't > lived through some of the experiences that made it "real." I suppose she > could've screamed, "I hate you, Caesar!" or "Gods, this hurts!" or been > stoically silent. > > To me, she was more like someone who gets executed in a foreign land and > cries out the name of her country or someone close, not the name of the > enemy. Sort of going out with that person's name on her lips, declaring > what she was fighting for, not against. The purpose and meaning go far > beyond what's physically around her at that time. Instead, it's more about > what she carries in her > head, which she's affirming that the enemy can't take or sully. Certainly > XWP was about hate as much as love, but I felt the ultimate purpose (not > just of Fates) was to show the triumph of the latter over the former. > Obviously, if you didn't see all that, it's understandable why you assess > that moment as you do. > > -- Ife I guess, if one's main interest is the subtext, the ep all makes sense. To me, though, it all just looks like a contrivance to stack up as many 'subtext moments' as possible. Oh, and bring in ('cash in on'?) as many good bits from past eps as possible. In some cases that worked - Alti was very good (but then, like Callisto, she always is) - even though some of the things she had to do made no sense. Alternate Joxer was a sympathetic character. Some of those references were clever and amusing. Others fell flat - the 'envoys from Lao Ma' that Alti killed for no apparent reason - 'Lao Ma' was just pure name-dropping - they could have been envoys from Cleopatra or Geronimo for all the difference it made. The crucifixion scene, Alti stabbing Caesar - they were definitely derivative from Ides. IMO, exploitative, at least partly because (IMO and as I've explained) I could see no good reason for either. I know you disagree. 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: Wed, 5 May 2004 04:45:00 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: [chakram-refugees] OT: Yet another Xena mention I'm reading "Maggody and the Moonbeams" by Joan Hess, copyright 2001. This is part of a hilarious series about a sheriff, Arly Hanks, who has run away from her failed marriage to a "New York City advertising hotshot" back to the tiny Arkansas town in which she grew up. She has a somewhat strained relationship with her mother and her mother's best friend and the various inhabitants of the town. One ongoing character in the series is Raz Buchanan whose best friend is his pig, Marjorie. She lives in his trailer with him. He and Marjorie also have difficulties in their relationship at times. Raz has decided that Marjorie wants a companion and she's picked out a donkey whose owner doesn't want to sell her/him. Raz is willing to steal her/him but then Marjorie and the donkey would have to hide out in the barn until things cooled down. And on page 164, he argues, "'If you was to spend your time in the barn', he persisted, 'you'd miss your favorite shows on the satellite channels.' "He paused, then went in for the kill. 'But if you're down in the barn, as opposed to watching reruns and pay-for-view, then so be it. Don't think I'm going to bring down bags of microwave popcorn, 'cause I ain't. I'll be sittin' right here watchin' Xena's boobs bobble.' Marjorie's eyes watered and her snout began to drip on the new tangerine area rug." I bet Raz and Marjorie and maybe even the donkey would buy tickets to a Xena movie. 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: Wed, 5 May 2004 15:30:05 -0700 (PDT) From: "Daniel T. Miller" Subject: [chakram-refugees] OT: Someone's address file was scalped! ) It looks like a X:WP fan's address file was scalped. Just recieved a phony post with this subject ****************************************************** Subject: Fw: Fw: PLEASE READ!!!! it was on the news! asap ************************************************** I assumed everyone who recieved this was smart enough not to open the attached file. :~) I reconized the other fan names, but I can never recall who is on Chakram or Flawless. So, don't know which list the person whose computer has been screwed with is on. (My last sentence needs a rewrite. But I'm in a hurry. :~) Here are the FROM and TO headers ********************************************************** From: "Melissa Adamson" To: "Daniel T. Miller" , "DB" , "deanp22" , "debby phillips" , "Debra Oram" , "Denis and Joan Martin" , "Distance Learning Manager" , "Doctor's Guide" , "Donna Kaye" , "Egsplat1" , "ellen" , "emvs57" , "Fuzz" , "fyrestrk" *************************************************** __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 00:16:44 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OT: Someone's address file was scalped! ) In a message dated 5/5/2004 3:53:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, d_t_miller@yahoo.com writes: > Just recieved a phony post with this subject > ****************************************************** > Subject: Fw: Fw: PLEASE READ!!!! it was on the news! > asap > Yep, I got it too, but didn't open. Can't remember if it was to Flawless or C-R. - -- 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: Thu, 6 May 2004 00:16:49 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Fates Again In a message dated 5/5/2004 12:50:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > Since you mentioned watchdog groups and censorship, I'd point out that > their > decisions are notoriously capricious and liable to fluctuate from one town > to > the next. Probably depending on the personal bias of whoever happens to be > > top dog in the particular group.>> Agreed. I simply meant that their "standards" can have enourmous power, regardless of capriciousness. > Take violence, for instance. Which was worse, Xena killing the Amazon > leaders in Sin Trade, or Xena zapping Khan's 100,000 soldiers? I'd say, > the > Amazon leaders - because it was unprovoked and 'personal', so to speak. > But > - how can I rate 12 deaths as worse than 100,000? Well, I just do, and > (IMO) the circumstances are what make all the difference. I think many > people would agree with me. But, it's kinda hard to define a 'standard' > that says Khan's 100,000 dead are 'acceptable' while the dozen Amazon dead > aren't. > > In fact, you try and define a criterion for judging such things and I'll > find > you plenty of examples that disprove it. (I'm not proposing this as a > serious exercise, as it only leads to frustration :) .> No, my whole point was that I think such standards or criteria or whatever we call them are inherently subjective. You have a personal whatever it is, which determines what is exploitative, "acceptably" violent or scantily-clad, etc., as do I. We got into this because I was asking you how you determined those things, which you answered. I initially thought you were suggesting it was "obvious" what was "too much," which suggested some "standard" or criteria I should know about. I didn't believe there was such a commonly agreed upon standard, which I guess we do agree on. > >>Cut out the last ten seconds. Just end with them hanging on the crosses > >>and > >>fade to black. An enormously powerful ending, which that 'angel' > >>moment just kicked the legs out from under. >> > > > >Those last seconds are what made the ep so powerful for many viewers. > > If you mean the 'angel' bit, that's another example of opposite reactions. > > Because I hated that. It was incongruous. >> Yes, I meant the "angel bit." > > >I'm > >not a big fan of "tear jerkers," but I certainly wouldn't have wanted to go > >through the summer with my last image of X&G on those blasted crosses. > >Sure, I > >considered the "angel" moment a bit sappy, but I couldn't come up with any > >better way to picture them as rising triumphant in some way. I guess, for > >me, that's one of those images which was important to the story, if the > >point was to suggest X&G weren't defeated victims. > > But - we knew that X &G weren't going to stay dead. (Btw, they died > remarkably quickly - if it hadn't been for the angelic stuff, I would have > assumed they were merely unconscious, not dead yet). So it wasn't > 'defeat', > any more than every season-ending cliff-hanger is. >> I think you bring up another good reason for the "angel bit" -- to indicate that they were dead. Again, I just didn't want that image of them hanging on those crosses, possibly suffering, through the whole summer. As to "defeated," it's the same reaction others had to Xena on the cross in Fates. She's hanging there, helpless, which is not something I like to see. Sure, I can rationalize whatever I want, to explain why hanging there might not mean much in the long run. But at the time, I felt much better actually seeing some indication that she'd "risen above" the cross, had not been defeated by it. The "angel bit" did that for me in Ides. Her voluntarily getting on the cross, yelling Gabs' name and inspiring Gabs to destroy the loom (thus succeeeding in defeating Caesar) did that for me in Fates. There are still folks who may think she was defeated in both those scenarios, despite the following scenes. Crosses can do that. I'm speaking solely for myself and why those scenes worked for me in terms of suggesting X&G's triumph. > > Actually, I would *much* rather they'd stayed on the crosses, then in the > next ep Amarice and Joxer had got them down *before* they died, and Eli had > maybe used a bit of his healing powers to help them recover. I would have > accepted that much more readily than the whole mediaeval-Christian Fallen > Angel thing. >> I wasn't all that happy about the religious aspect either. Again, I'm just saying I was glad the girls got off those crosses (continuing on in some fashion) however it was done. That's probably why some people prefer the DC ending of AFIN, where Ghost Xena is still visible at the end. I like (well, am satisfied with) the original ending, even tho it tugs my heart more. but only because I got to see Xena continuing on for so long as a ghost. > > >>>You're saying the subtext only > >>>existed if the two were together physically? It vanished if one of > >>>them wasn't there? > >> > >>So Xena is so taken by this bit of fluff she's only met a few days ago > >>that she finds time while dying in agony to parrot out "I love you > >>Gabrielle"? Sounds like a subtexters' wet dream to me. >> > > > >Wow, talk about different views. Sounds like, for you, the "subtext" is > >about sex more than love, about short-term dalliances rather than a > >long-term relationship (however it's defined). Certainly by the time she'd > >made her decision, Xena knew what Gabrielle's "true" importance to her was, > >even if she hadn't > >lived through some of the experiences that made it "real." I suppose she > >could've screamed, "I hate you, Caesar!" or "Gods, this hurts!" or been > >stoically silent. > > > >To me, she was more like someone who gets executed in a foreign land and > >cries out the name of her country or someone close, not the name of the > >enemy. Sort of going out with that person's name on her lips, declaring > >what she was fighting for, not against. The purpose and meaning go far > >beyond what's physically around her at that time. Instead, it's more about > >what she carries in her > >head, which she's affirming that the enemy can't take or sully. Certainly > >XWP was about hate as much as love, but I felt the ultimate purpose (not > >just of Fates) was to show the triumph of the latter over the former. > >Obviously, if you didn't see all that, it's understandable why you assess > >that moment as you do. > > > >-- Ife > > I guess, if one's main interest is the subtext, the ep all makes sense. >> I can't answer that, as you're the one who brought it up. I'm still not sure what you mean by "subtext," but I can say the ep made sense to me regardless of a romantic/sexual relationship. In the specific situation above, I gave examples involving love of country and possibly of one's mother. No doubt there are other fans who found the ep meaningful in terms of a very close friend they regard as a "soul mate." What struck me the first time around was not the magnetic moments between X&G, so much as the "logic" of how Caesar's world got created, operated and ended. I accepted it, but I didn't understand it. Now I do, though I certainly don't expect that to be the case for you or somebody else. My comments were primarily about why Xena believed she needed to get on that cross and whether she accomplished her goals. Xena's love for Gabs was part of that, but not moreso than Xena's accepting the "rightness" of her nightmare past and ending the "wrongness" of Caesar's world. Even if Gabs hadn't been there at all -- except maybe in Alti's visions -- I would've had the same questions I did about the "logic" and probably come to the same conclusions. Yes, I liked that Gabs was there and played an active role in the outcome, as I do see the relationship as the "heart" (love) that makes all that more meaningful. It's a thread woven throughout the series -- a "given" in my mind -- which is perhaps why I kind of took it for granted in Fates and focused on the aspects I tend to noodle about anyway. To > > me, though, it all just looks like a contrivance to stack up as many > 'subtext > moments' as possible. Oh, and bring in ('cash in on'?) as many good bits > from past eps as possible. In some cases that worked - Alti was very good > (but then, like Callisto, she always is) - even though some of the things > she > had to do made no sense. Alternate Joxer was a sympathetic character. > Some of those references were clever and amusing. Others fell flat - the > 'envoys from Lao Ma' that Alti killed for no apparent reason - 'Lao Ma' was > just pure name-dropping - they could have been envoys from Cleopatra or > Geronimo for all the difference it made. > > The crucifixion scene, Alti stabbing Caesar - they were definitely > derivative > from Ides. IMO, exploitative, at least partly because (IMO and as I've > explained) I could see no good reason for either. I know you disagree. >> Actually, I do agree that a lot was derivative or (like the Lao Ma thing) felt contrived, "flat." I felt a lot was very, very convenient. I simply don't agree that those elements were more prevalent, worse or less tied to the story being told than what I blithely accepted in other eps. They made "sense" to me in terms of the premise, even though, taken individually, I initially shrugged them off as the usual fantasy. The difference is that now they do have a "logic" that ties them together in a way I hadn't seen before. I think those are the areas we will continue to see most differently. > -- 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 V4 #127 **************************************