There are 9 messages totalling 529 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. Plugged 2. More about Slash. Same Sex warning 3. K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers) 4. writers vs actors (was slash discussion) 5. CAH and the down-slide of HL (3) 6. K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writer s) 7. Touchy AP question ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:56:13 +0100 From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: Plugged All the stories are untrue...unless they're really juicy ones, in which case: maybe...and SHARE!!! As for a photographer at Reunion, I'm bringing the digital camera and my laptop. You've all been warned. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jette Goldie" <jette@blueyonder.co.uk> To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 10:00 PM Subject: Re: [HL] Plugged > > Just a heads up for the Buffy fans on this list (and I saw what you did at > > Nocturnal and you should be ashamed ;)) > > Och, but she confessed everything to me - had a few stories > about you too ;-) > > > Impact will be running a pieceon the Reunion Con with material from myself > > and Big John Bierly, probably in the edition that comes out in the UK at > the > > end of September. We're working on doing some Tracker stuff later in the > > year. > > > > Oh oh. > > You won't be bringing a photographer will you? > > ;-) > > Jette > Glory may be fleeting, but obscurity is forever! > bosslady@scotlandmail.com > http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fanfic.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:26:07 -0400 From: jjswbt@earthlink.net Subject: Re: More about Slash. Same Sex warning I said: >>I have read many theories on why people like/write slash. And I have my >own >theories <eg>. Marina says: >We *all* have our own theories. Tell me yours! (I won't get offended. >After being called a criminal, I doubt a little slash theory could >offend me.) *You* might not get offended..but I'm willing to bet someone would <g> The discussion so far has been mostly civil, why spoil it now ? >>Well...as usual..you have to buy the premise to buy the bit. > >That's the thing - to me, slash is not only about buying the premise. >It's often trying to get readers to accept a possibility. I guess I just have a higher threshold for what is possible. Specifically speaking about HL.....I do not see a sexual relationship between Duncan and Methos developing in the normal course of events in the near future. Yeah...you could send them both to prison and make them cellmates..or strand them for 100 years on an island with no apparent hope of rescue..then I guess I could see them boinking each other <g> But I don't see Duncan suddenly looking across a crowded room and realizing that he loves Methos so much that only a physical expression of that love will do. I can't imagine Methos mooning around Duncan, rubbing up against him hopefully, and finally throwing caution to the wind and declaring his deep passionate love for Duncan (talk about a deathwish!). >>"Richie entered the apartment and tossed his wet coat toward the coat >>tree in the corner. Duncan approached, towel in hand. "Let me help you," >>Duncan offered with a sly gleam in his eye........." > >Wendy, you evil woman you!! <g> You loved it..admit it! >>Second, I remain convinced that much slash is just Mary Sue in disguise... >>after all , you can't accuse a female writer of writing a Mary Sue if all >>the characters are male! >I don't agree. This has been argued before, by others, and I really >don't think that's the case. I do not want to "be" either of the >characters... I want *them* to be *together*. Well...you know my history with Mary Sue <g> . Why is it that, when a female writer creates a male/female relationship, it's assumed that the writer wishes to be the woman in the story - and that is considered a bad thing. But if a man writes a male/female relationship, it is *not* assumed he wants to be the man in the story- or if he *does* , that it's OK? Why assume that any strong intelligent female character must be the avatar of some pathetic female hack....but not assume that every big strong masculine hero isn't the avatar of some pasty-faced 98 pound wimp male writer? And, if one is going to assume that women always use their characters to live vicariously in fanfic..why not assume that some women are living vicariously through their male characters? It's just better cloaking...instead of a 5' 3" unattractive, fat, blonde woman writing about a 5' 11" beautiful, raven-haired, Amazon ..she writes about some 5' 11 handsome, raven-haired Highlander. *He* falls for Methos! ! ..*he* eventually gets swept off his feet...*he* gets to apply whipped cream as needed. but no..no.a thousand times no...the writer isn't inserting herself into the story. Of course not <snort> (All lesbian writers of m/m slash are hereby exempted from this portrayal of female fanfic writers <eg>) >>Third, the characterizations and emotions that slash is "chock-full of" >>are often alien to the characters as seen on screen and, worse (to my >mind) alien to men in general. The male characters in slash most often seem to >>act the way women *wish* men would act in relationships with women. >Well, I disagree. (Big shock there, heh.) In my own writing I try >to make the character act the way I think he would... I don't want to >turn him into a stereotype. Saying that "men don't do that" or whatever >is, to me, falling into the trap of seeing the characters as stereotypes >instead of people (albeit fictional people). But stereotypes are often based on facts. Talk to a thousand women who have been in female/male relationships and you will get certain "bits" repeated over and over. Men (most men..not 100% of all men) *do* act differently than women . ..and the one glaring "error" in much of the slash I have read is that one or the other of the male characters reacts and talks much more like a women than like the man he is based on. I don't mean that women can't write realistic male characters...they can and do all the time. But many slash writers have real difficultly writing two men "together" and *not* having one of the males suddenly sound like....Mary Sue. (And I know gay men in relationships and they don't sound like the slash versions of Duncan and Methos either) >>I comprehend that you find depictions of m/m sex more arousing than >>depictions of m/f sex..but I doubt that the actual participants are >>having more or less fun one way or the other. >Not more arousing... I just find the slash dynamic more interesting. Are you sure? (see the next bit below) >>I can't remember ever reading a slash story that did not have at least >>one sex scene. Did I just get "lucky" or is there less slash fanfic >>that is asexual (if you know what I mean). >Actually, yes, you do get slash stories in which there is no sex. Not >that I read them. <g> OK....you don't find the sex arousing..but you won't read a slash story that *doesn't* have sex in it? What happened to the emotions and characterizations and dynamics? All of that is possible without any sex. >>Do you like those more, less, or the same as those that include sex >scenes. >I don't like them. Might as well be a gen story, and I don't read those. OK..but it's not about the sex, right? <BEG> A story where Methos and Duncan (Ray and Fraser) (Paris and Kim) (etc/etc) are working on their relationship but which doesn't include a bit of thrusting and probing..is just like "gen" and not of interest to you? But the sex doesn't matter. Right. >Strangely enough, I tend to read stories labelled only R or NC-17... but >I skim over the sex scenes. Go figure. (If you want to psychoanalyse me >at this point, Wendy, go right ahead. Because I haven't the faintest >idea why that would be. Just be nice!) I doubt that you *do* actually skim over the sex scenes. I suspect you *think* you skim over them. I bet you have them all memorized <eg> The titillation of reading something "naughty" heightens the fun for you. In fact..it may well be the *only* fun for you...since you say that without the sex scenes you won't read it And this brings me to one of my several slash theories <g> That it is, at its core, all about the sex. Some women find male on male sex exciting.( There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.) These women like to fantasize about their favorite male TV characters having sex with each other. Being women, however, they still think of sex in terms of relationships...i.e. they want these male characters to be "in love" and having sex..not just mindlessly boinking each other. So...you get all the various plot devices designed to get the two characters into a loving relationship ....so they can have sex. Of course, someone who comes to slash without the pre-existing predilection for male/male sex is going to end up looking more at the plot and less at the sex...and wondering how the hell the writer ever imagined those two characters would wind up in bed. In other words..you read the story to get to the sex scene..I read the story not caring if there even is a sex scene. I'm plot dr! ! iven..you're goal driven. I want a fanfic to be true to the characterization I saw on TV and to have a great plot....you just want the fanfic to reasonably carry the characters into bed. <eg> Wendy(We all know that South African school teachers are all repressed sex maniacs.) Fairy Killer jjswbt@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:59:45 -0400 From: LC Krakowka <liser@lightlink.com> Subject: Re: K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers) me: > Sometimes >>I find the character assassination (to use Wendy's terms) to be a >>criminal act on the part of the writers... <g> Dotrian (and Marina in another post): >Well, character assassination can be found in gen as well as slash. Yes, I know. But gen, IMO, doesn't start out that way. For me, slash is "out of character" at the out-set. As soon as you tell me that Methos and Richie are sleeping together, that tells me that you're not writing about the Methos and Richie *I* know. I don't need to read the story to know the characters have been "tampered with"...all I have to read is the Author's Notes. With Gen, I have to get somewhat into the story to find out that it's not the Duncan I saw on my tv. Again, though, this boils down to personal view. Some people obviously find it perfectly within character for Methos and Richie to have sex. Kristine has a whole universe of fic built around it. Liser -- LC Krakowka ** liser@lightlink.com "The creations of a great writer are little more than the moods and passions of his own heart, given surnames and Christian names, and sent to walk the earth." --W. B. Yeats, letter to editor - 1895 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:15:21 -0400 From: LC Krakowka <liser@lightlink.com> Subject: writers vs actors (was slash discussion) I said: > >Television is a hard medium to draw these lines in, though. Both >>writer and actor help to define character... >>But, I still find myself feeling like what the writer says is law. I >>think I feel like writers create characters and actors *help* to >>define them. And I think that something like sexual preference falls > >under the "create" process, not the "define". Marina: >As you say, in TV it's hard to draw the lines. But I have seen >examples of actors not liking the way a script was, and changing >it. Also directors changing stuff to suit *their* vision. In >that case, it doesn't matter what the writer said, does it? >Because up on the screen is something the writer didn't intend. I don't know. We accept that books are different from movie adaptations...maybe it's not too much of a stretch to accept that a script can be different from the episode as-aired. Often times ad-libs and changes made by directors only serve to muddy the waters instead of improve upon the script. Think...the Watcher cd in the book case. Think Methos telling Duncan that the Sanctuary was Holy Ground. Think about the painted nose. I'm inclined, I think, to side with the writers always. I can't think of one example of a time that I have seen something on-screen that was *better* than what was "supposed to happen"--though there may be some that I don't know about, I suppose. <snipped the FK example> >So in that case it really >doesn't matter what the writer wanted; what's up on the screen is >what we got. Yeah...but which do you like better? Which fits better? Not being familiar with FK, I can't speak to this example. But I do think that writers are better equipped to decide what fits with story and character than actors--or maybe even directors--are. I'm biased. I know. Liser -- LC Krakowka ** liser@lightlink.com "The creations of a great writer are little more than the moods and passions of his own heart, given surnames and Christian names, and sent to walk the earth." --W. B. Yeats, letter to editor - 1895 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:43:10 -0400 From: LC Krakowka <liser@lightlink.com> Subject: CAH and the down-slide of HL Over in the slash discussion, Marina and I said: >Liser wrote: >Absolutely. As much as I adore Methos, this is all his fault. <G> I >also happen to think that the CAH arc was both the best thing and the >worst for Highlander. But that's a different topic. :-) Marina: >So, let's change the header and talk about it! I'd love to hear >what you have to say. Well...this is a dicey topic and I'm probably going to piss a lot of people off--unintentionally, I assure you. But, here goes. Why I think that arc was the "best" of Highlander: Those two episodes, IMO, took five season's worth of Duncan's journey and condensed them into 2 hours. Everything that he's been learning along the way--struggling with, trying to figure out...it all came to a head in that neatly wrapped package. Big stuff. Forgiveness. Personal accountability. Changing social mores. Friendship versus Chivalry. It's all there. I think it's possible to argue that the events in those two eps changed Duncan--or effected him, anyway-- more than just about any other event we saw up to that point. Even Tessa's death was less earth shattering than Methos' alleged betrayal, in some ways. I subscribe to the theory that life is about lessons and that you are presented with the same lessons over and over again until you get it right. Oprah Winfrey once said something like "First, God sends you a pebble. If you ignore it, he sends another. If you ignore that...another. Until, eventually, you get a brick." CAH/REV were Duncan's brick, I think. Okay...this is the part where I think I'm going to start pissing people off... :-) Why I think that arc was the "worst" of Highlander: I should be more specific and make that the "worst of Highlander fandom". Things *changed* with the introduction of Broze Age Methos and Kronos. Suddenly, slash stories became snuff fic...rapists became "Blue Faced Love Gods"...sociopaths became mis-understood heroes. The lists became further divided--there was one more thing for people to draw lines about and defend--and get defensive over. (The only other thing that I can think of that effected this list in a similar way was Archangel.) It might just be coincidence, I don't know. But it seems to me that the "tone" of the fandom took a shift after Bronze Age Methos and Kronos hit the scene. Suddenly the age-old newbie/geezer debates became barbed instead of tongue in cheek. Suddenly you were "cool" if you thought BA Methos rocked and "wimpy" if you preferred the other one--or, worse yet--Adam Pierson. To some extent, it's similar to the slash debate--you either "get" BAM or not...he rocks your world or you find him repulsive and there doesn't seem to be much middle ground. But suddenly there was a faction within a faction, if that makes any sense. And I think there is something different and more divisive about a split along the lines of one character than there is about something like a genre of fanfic. To bring this back into the more general...I also think that HL itself started sliding downwards after that arc. As the culmination of something that was such a big part of Duncan's journey (those lessons about forgiveness, chivalry, etc...) I think finding something to follow it up with was tricky. I don't know if TPTB planned it that way (intended for it to be a culmination), or if it just worked out, but I do know that the Duncan we saw in season six was facing another set of lessons. And I think that the second set (which, IMO, are about loss, duty of a different sort, and self) were just never fully explored. Some of that has to do with the limitations put on them during season 6. But some of it, I think, was a floundering of direction. It almost felt like they were saying "Okay, we finally got Duncan to point B...now what?" They were, I think, trying to address some heavy stuff in season 6. But they fell short--for whatever reason. Okay, there you have it. Liser -- LC Krakowka ** liser@lightlink.com "The creations of a great writer are little more than the moods and passions of his own heart, given surnames and Christian names, and sent to walk the earth." --W. B. Yeats, letter to editor - 1895 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:50:07 EDT From: Dotiran@aol.com Subject: Re: CAH and the down-slide of HL In a message dated 7/16/2001 5:43:47 PM US Eastern Standard Time, liser@lightlink.com writes: > They were, I think, trying to address some > heavy stuff in season 6. But they fell short--for whatever reason. > Liser said it all. And so well. I too watched the fandom shift in a strange and oddly sad direction. Of course I never got the Methos thing. Never. Yet suddenly there were more Methos/PW sites than I could believe.. And Cassandra who had been vilified because of Prophecy was now canonized because she had been mistreated. Duncan Macleod was almost forgotten. That I find incomprehensible. Season 6 could have done so much to correct that , but it was doomed by late decisions, actors unavailability, and the hunt for the action chick. I personally am grateful for 2B and Not 2B for returning our focus to the real hero of the piece. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:04:58 -0500 From: Kelly Marx <kemarx@swbell.net> Subject: Re: K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writer s) After several years of lurking...I'm coming out of the closet! <g> I had some thoughts to add, and I'm feeling a bit bold today. Liser: > I'm not entirely sure I think it matters one rip *what* Peter or > Adrian or anyone but the writers think is going on. This, > admittedly, is probably a bias of mine--as a writer myself I think I > tend to fall down on that side of the fence. > > Television is a hard medium to draw these lines in, though. Both > writer and actor help to define character...can we imagine what > Duncan would be like if Lorenzo Lammas had been cast to play him? > But, I still find myself feeling like what the writer says is law. I > think I feel like writers create characters and actors *help* to > define them. And I think that something like sexual preference falls > under the "create" process, not the "define". Television specifically, and all film in general, is a collaborative medium. Every hand the script passes through has some sort of creative control on a project. Most feature scripts get rewritten dozens of times, and more often than not, the original screenwriter doesn't do the revisions. Then, there's the "director's vision" that comes in to play. Is a film the work of the writer, or the director? Or, what about films based on novels where the only similarity is the title? This is what the WGA was up in arms about a few months ago. Who really deserves the "Film By" credit? My point is the "create process" doesn't end until a film (or episode) is released. The writers, the directors, the producers, the cinematographers, the actors, the editors, the special effects people, the foley artist and even the key grips all have some input on a project. As my manager told me when I was crying when someone re-visioned my script: "Selling a story is like selling a car. Once it's driven over a cliff, that's it." Sure, I could say "That's not what I wrote!" but it's what people see that matters in the end. It's a team effort, and a project is only as good as its weakest link. For the actor to say he was "playing it gay," that's just as important to the final outcome as the writer saying "he was supposed to wear a lobster costume". In other words, it isn't important. Until the viewer sees the characters come out on screen, it's just subtext. Subtext is in the eye of the beholder. A film could be a wonderful masterpeice in storytelling, but until someone watches it, it's just a strip of plastic. Just like reading a book, it's up to the audience to decide what's important, what they're going to get out of it. Was Methos ever in a homosexual relationship? Who knows, he could have been. He could also be the straighest arrow ever to live. Or, he could have spent a century living as a woman. That's what I like about fanfic (and slash). Writers try to answer the "what if" questions. Put the characters we all know and love in unusual (or far-fetched) situations, and try to make it believable. What if Duncan was gay or bi-sexual? How would he react? Would he find Methos attractive? These are stories that the series writers/directors/producers either a) don't want to tell, b) don't have time to tell, or c) don't think people would be interested in watching anyway. As it is, slash is just a small sub-comuninty of Fandom-Land. Sure, there are a lot of slashers out there, but just think of all the fans that don't even have a computer or know what fan-fic is. They might not be interested (or they might get violent) at the thought of any character being...sexually adventurous. Hey, that's okay. That's what fan-fic is for. That's why we have support groups to feed our additions. We write the stuff we write and read the stuff we read because *we* are interested in those types of stories. Marina: > As you say, in TV it's hard to draw the lines. But I have seen > examples of actors not liking the way a script was, and changing > it. Also directors changing stuff to suit *their* vision. In > that case, it doesn't matter what the writer said, does it? > Because up on the screen is something the writer didn't intend. Yes, exactly. It's like when actors negotiate for script approval before signing a contract. Or, when actors *should* negotiate for script apporval before signing a contract (*cough*Highlander 2*cough*). The writer has the seed of the story idea, but it's up to everyone invovled to make sure the story grows into something good. Random (who wonders if sending out her spec scripts is criminal) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 02:08:43 +0100 From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: CAH and the down-slide of HL And Cassandra > who had been vilified because of Prophecy was now canonized because she had > been mistreated. Duncan Macleod was almost forgotten. That I find > incomprehensible. Season 6 could have done so much to correct that , but it > was doomed by late decisions, actors unavailability, and the hunt for the > action chick. I personally am grateful for 2B and Not 2B for returning our > focus to the real hero of the piece. I always find it interesting when a character is discussed more in the nature of their reaction to another or by their relation to another. Cassandra is a prime example. There were three reactions to the character originally. 1) Those who liked the character 2) Thise who didn't care for the character and 3) Those who felt there was something morally questionable about the goings on in the Donan Woods (and I'm not inviting historical reasons why it shouldn't be an issue here) with an underage child. The last category were quite vocal and some remain so to this day. When Casandra re-appeared, she was essentially shown as the victim. Thousands of years ago she had been treated in the worse way you can treat someone. Now there were more opinions.... 4) It was awful, but bearing in mind the times it happened in and the length of time past, she should get over it and 5) She had every reason to still feel angry and to hold the 'new' Methos responsible. What I always found interesting was the fact that Cassnadra, whatever your opinions, is most often *discussed* as a reaction to one of those sets of circumstances, rather than as a whole person made of shades of grey. I've seen Cassandra lovers and haters be guilty of the same mistake...defining someone by one particular aspect of their life. Fandom does seem to veer from one extreme to another on such occassions - for whatever reason. But I prefer characters whch are more than the sum of one experience and time. I'm not a huge fan of Cassandra, but I don't see Cassandra as totally a victim or totally a saint. I see her as a deeply flawed person and one who was not featured enough to fill in the gaps. John ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:57:34 EDT From: List Kathy Avery <Lynxf19@aol.com> Subject: Re: Touchy AP question I would belive it be a fake picture. Although AP has been an exotic dancer, I've heard. Kathy ------------------------------ End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 16 Jul 2001 (#2001-205) ************************************************