HIGHLA-L Digest - 16 Jul 2001 to 17 Jul 2001 - Special issue
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:04:50 -0400
There are 15 messages totalling 836 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. ATTN: All Fan Fic writers--bootleg tapes
2. Touchy AP question (5)
3. Morality (5)
4. Sorry.
5. If you don't like it...
6. writers vs actors (was slash discussion)
7. Fandom (was: CAH and the down-slide of HL)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:15:32 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers--bootleg tapes
>Pat--
> > Is making, copying, or lending video tapes of broadcast episodes or movies
> > a violation of copyright? We're talking about distribution of the
> > material. If so, why aren't those who decry fanfic also vocal about this
> > common practice?
Nina replied:
>People who deal in bootleg tapes (either end of the transaction) are
>breaking the law. The fact it's done a lot doesn't change anything.
That's pretty much what the expected answer, but you'd didn't answer the
key question. You've been very vocal about your views of fanfic. Why
aren't those who decry fanfic as violation of copyright also vocal about
this common practice? Of course sharing of video tapes is ubiquitous and
commonly accepted. Fanfic, on the other hand, is not ubiquitous and has all
those wonderful sexual propriety questions attached to divide opinion.
Putting legal questions aside for the moment, can fanfic be any more or
less right (moral?) then tape swapping? The later has undoubtedly cost DPP
in lost tape sales. Fanfic doesn't complete with any DPP product,
including the official novels. (Fanfic and the novels are different
stories, whereas episode tapes are not unique.) Where is the moral
consistency?
I read some fanfic years ago, but gave it up for lack of time. There was
also the problem of weeding through the dreck to find the
flowers. Neither do I write fanfic, knowing if I did it would fall into
that dreck category.
Pat L.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:13:02 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Touchy AP question
At 09:57 PM 07/16/01, List Kathy Avery wrote:
>I would belive it be a fake picture. Although AP has been an exotic dancer,
>I've heard.
"Exotic" dancer?
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:18:17 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.
"Exotic" dancer?
-- Sandy >>
Yep. I read it somewhere.
Kathy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:18:03 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: Morality
John, we seem to be having slightly different conversations, talking about
two different ideas. It might be I could have been clearer in my
comments. Perhaps it's because we're in different countries with different
outlooks. I was not suggesting that laws were not necessary and
valid. Nor was I promoting anarchy.
The original question which started this thread was;
> >Who decides which concept of morality is "right"?
To which you replied:
>The only reasonable answer to that is: "the law", a set of restrictions
>which, in a democracy, have been voted as to benefit the rights of the
>people, or at least the largest majority of those people possible.
My point was that morality and "the law" are not equivalent. I was
disagreeing with your above statement.
Laws are enacted for many reasons in addition to moral issues, chiefly
money and power. There are vast numbers of laws which have nothing to do
with morality, and there are laws which are themselves immoral. It would
be lovely to think that "the law" is a fair and just judge of morality, but
that flies in the face of human history. This doesn't mean I'm suggesting
all laws are wrong or should be abolished. That's nonsense. I'm saying
that breaking the law is not necessarily being immoral, and conversely,
obeying an immoral law is not moral.
The original question was;
> >Who decides which concept of morality is "right"?
My response is that we must each decide, and we must also accept the
consequences.
This is exactly what DM did those times he helped escaped slaves. He
decided the fugitive slave laws were immoral and chose to ignore
them. He made a moral decision and took the risks of facing the
consequences. The slave owners might view it otherwise, but I suspect the
slaves would agree with Duncan. There will always be differing moral
opinions. If we fail to decide for ourselves what is/isn't moral, immoral
laws will stand unchallenged.
>In other words: life often means choosing the lesser of two
>evils rather than having a perfect moral solution (okay...I can't think of a
>evil worse than genocide!). Action and lack of action can be equally
>devastating. In certain cases, some of what we would normally consider
>immoral may be the only course of action - the lesser of two immoral acts.
Could you provide an example of this?
>Can a law be immoral? Yes, absolutely, but it doesn't usually last long if
>the majority of those who live in that society disagree with it. Viva la
>revolution and all that. I'm sure that people who kept slaves didn't feel
>they were acting immorally at the time, (though I'd agree that I find it
>hard to think of God-fearing Christians finding justification). Hopefully,
>as we progress we recognsie the mistakes of the attitudes of the past and
>move forward.
We're talking in broad generalities here. Certainly progress has been
made and the world in general is a much better place. Personally, I'm glad
for that. :-) Has human nature actually changed in, say, 400 years? No,
it hasn't. Slavery is alive & well in several areas of the world. So is
genocide and tyranny. It's easy to say that immoral laws don't usually
last long. In truth it takes people making individual moral decisions &
acting upon them to make change happen. (BTW, a belated happy 4th of
July. <g>) "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
> > IMGLO morality is based on consistent & rational principles, not the
>latest public opinion polls.
>
>IMGLO, moral codes are often based on worthy ideals, experience and
>circumstance and any human weaknesses or strengths thereof. Examples of
>well-known moral codes:
>
>1) Thou shalt not kill is a strong Christian moral imperative, one of the
>Big 10. A good one in my book. But Christians go to war to defend people.
>Do Christian soldiers who kill think they are acting immorally? (I don't see
>any get-out clause carved into Moses's original granite)
That's a common mistranslating. In the original Hebrew, the prohibition is
"Do not murder". There is a substantial difference in
meaning. Self-defense is not murder. The Talmud says "If someone comes to
kill you, arise quickly and kill him."
>2) Thou shalt not steal. Okay...I'm starving and hungry in the middle of a
>war zone and the people I'm protecting will die without nurishment. If a
>local farmer says 'no' to giving me food, do I take it or say to my people
>'Sorry you're going to die of starvation, but morality says I shouldn't take
>without permission'.
It's interesting you phrased this in terms of obtaining food for others
whom you're protecting. Are you of any less value then those others? Is
there any moral difference between getting food for yourself and getting it
for others? If you give food to them but don't yourself eat, you'll soon
be unable to protect them.
To answer your question, no it's not moral to steal the farmers
food. Would I do so to feed my family? In a heartbeat. That doesn't make
it moral, and it would weigh heavily upon me. It's a potentially fatal act
of aggression, and it's wrong.
Would I do so in a situation that was less than life-or-death for my
children? No. By stealing, are you dooming the farmer's family to
starvation? Are you stealing the seed corn necessary for next years
crop? Might the food you steal have made the difference between him
keeping his farm or losing it? Even if he has plenty and you are poor,
stealing is immoral. The circumstances do not change the morality.
>3) Some faiths consider suicide unforgivable (others actually demand it).But
>if I go into a situation knowing I will die (while, say, saving countless
>others), do I commit an immoral act by my action, or would my lack of
>sacrifice and its fatal consequence on others, be even more awful?
I imagine that would depend on you & on your faith's definition of
suicide. I don't belong to a faith which condemns or condones suicide,
but I think each faith could answer the above question in terms consistent
with their moral viewpoint. I don't see this any kind of "exception" to a
moral code.
>My point is simply that society, extreme conditions and extreme consequences
>change the REASON we do certain things...and the reason we do things is
>perhaps as important as the act which takes place. Probably moreso.
Intent is more important then action? What counts is that you mean
well? That's a really scary philosophy.
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "the right of the individual's rights TO
> > society". By society I'm assuming you mean a collection of
> > individuals. Rights belong to the individual. Any society can have only
> > the same rights as it's individual members.
>
>Sorry I'm confused. I think you mean it can only have the *combined* rights
>of its individual members (to form groups which can become the majority). If
>not you are asserting an individual's moral right to go into a crowded
>theatre and yell FIRE and not be held responsible for any injuries occurring
>in the stampede (Note: negated if the seats ARE on fire).
Let me say this a little differently. Individuals have rights. Rights
are not collective or additive. A group, of whatever size, has no more
rights than any individual. To say otherwise is to deny the equal rights
of minorities, whether the minority is one person or a million. (note:
groups/minorities might be political, religious, racial, ethnic, sexual,
geographic, etc. makes no difference.)
I have the right to free speech. If 50 of my neighbors join together they
have EXACTLY the same right to free speech I do. No more, no less. They
might be able to outshout me, but then we're talking about power which a
whole 'nother discussion.
In your theater example, neither I nor that 50-member neighbor group have
the right to falsely yell fire in a theater.
>I simply mean that for an individual to have rights IN society, he must also
>show respect TO other people's rights in the society. To live within a
>group, you respect the moral code that the group follows according to the
>majority...or leave the group. A person has a moral right to personal
>freedom. If he murders someone (neagting his victim's rights), society may
>find that unacceptable and says that it will lock him up. Is it infringing
>his rights or protecting the society according to the morality it
>understands? You decide.
My right to swing my fist ends where it would hit your nose. That's pretty
straight forward. On the other hand, you don't have the right to tell me I
can't swing my fist simply because you don't like flapping arms. If it
doesn't intrude on you it's NoYB.
>I've met too many
>people who think they can do something because they can get away with it
>legally or because they can argue their case well.... it's becoming an age
>of excuses (I'm not a philanderer, I'm a sex-addict...I'm not a criminal,
>I'm the victim of my family's expectations)
This describes an amoral person, someone who lacks moral sensibilities.
>John
>(who wishes he was writing a thesis, not an e-mail)
This has gotten a little long and very off topic, hasn't it? It's been fun
though, thanks! Think we should quit or take it off-list?
Pat L.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:20:34 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Touchy AP question
In a message dated 7/16/2001 9:14:01 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
diamonique@earthlink.net writes:
> Although AP has been an exotic dancer,
> >I've heard.
>
> "Exotic" dancer?
>
Yes, *rumor* has it he was part of a trio of dancers in the early days, I
think the other two were said to be black dancers and that their routine was
more Chippendales than ballet *g* Whether tis true or not I dinna ken. :)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:30:04 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Touchy AP question
At 10:20 PM 07/16/01, Dotiran@aol.com wrote:
>Yes, *rumor* has it he was part of a trio of dancers in the early days, I
>think the other two were said to be black dancers and that their routine was
>more Chippendales than ballet *g* Whether tis true or not I dinna ken. :)
Hmm... strange. I always heard they were more like street dancers... doing
the same kind of dancing he did in :::shudder::: Dance To Win.
Oh well... whatever.
-- Sandy (strange that I had never heard the "exotic" dancer thing before)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:38:16 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: Touchy AP question
Kathy Avery wrote:
><< >I would belive it be a fake picture. Although AP has been an exotic
>dancer,
> >I've heard.
>
> "Exotic" dancer?
>
>Yep. I read it somewhere.
Oh, then it must be true. It couldn't be printed, or on the net, if it's
not true. ;-p
Adrian demonstrated a tiny bit of the dancing style at a con. As Sandy
said, it was like street dancing. I think this was in the breakdancing
era. Sorry ladies, not Chippendales style. It's a shame really,
considering Adrians natural grace, that the dance style was more athletic
than graceful.
Pat L.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:57:01 +0100
From: John Mosby <A.J.Mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Morality
Pat,
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on some of the interpretations, but a
couple of things I wanted to address...
>There are vast numbers of laws which have nothing to do
> with morality, and there are laws which are themselves immoral. It would
> be lovely to think that "the law" is a fair and just judge of morality,
but
> that flies in the face of human history. This doesn't mean I'm
suggesting
> all laws are wrong or should be abolished. That's nonsense. I'm saying
> that breaking the law is not necessarily being immoral, and conversely,
> obeying an immoral law is not moral.
I see your point, but I am saying that there must be laws, rather than the
alternative that is: no law whatsoever. A law cannot be moral in itself, but
it CAN ensure the restrictions placed on a person's actions based on his/her
morality and if it affects others. So, the more accurate answer to your
question is: the law decides on the limitations placed on your rights to act
on your morality.
> The original question was;
>
> > >Who decides which concept of morality is "right"?
>
> My response is that we must each decide, and we must also accept the
> consequences.
The consequences of which are laid down in law in most cases.
> >In other words: life often means choosing the lesser of two
> >evils rather than having a perfect moral solution (okay...I can't think
of a
> >evil worse than genocide!). Action and lack of action can be equally
> >devastating. In certain cases, some of what we would normally consider
> >immoral may be the only course of action - the lesser of two immoral
acts.
>
> Could you provide an example of this?
I think I did. In a war situation, particulalrly, you might have to kill
one soldier to stop hundreds of other people dying.Let's take an extreme
example, but one which illustrates the point. A soldier is within a few
metres of a switch that he is about to activate that will setonate a bomb in
the nearby town. It will kill hundreds. You've tried talking him down, you
haven't been able to incapacitate him. Your very last resort is to shoot
him. He knows that and yet he goes for the switch. You shoot him.
Technically it's not self defence (because YOU weren't in danger).
Technically it's murder. Killing another person is not right (presuming that
there is ONE morality), but would it be the lesser of two evils. You could
argue justification if you were so inclined. It's interesting to note that
war is often seen to lay waste to the normal moral code. But , in everyday
life you can make decisions based on keeping the exact truth from someone
for very good reasons. Again, it's consequences which define our morality,
otherwise we wouldn't justify excpetions to the rule.
> In the original Hebrew, the prohibition is
> "Do not murder". There is a substantial difference in
> meaning. Self-defense is not murder. The Talmud says "If someone comes
to
> kill you, arise quickly and kill him."
So is murder moral? Or is it only moral if you belong to a faith that says
it is? In which case morality is a shifting thing and no one act is right or
wrong unless judged in context against a certain faith...not one truth.
>
> >2) Thou shalt not steal. Okay...I'm starving and hungry in the middle of
a
> >war zone and the people I'm protecting will die without nurishment. If a
> >local farmer says 'no' to giving me food, do I take it or say to my
people
> >'Sorry you're going to die of starvation, but morality says I shouldn't
take
> >without permission'.
>
> It's interesting you phrased this in terms of obtaining food for others
> whom you're protecting. Are you of any less value then those others?
Is
> there any moral difference between getting food for yourself and getting
it
> for others? If you give food to them but don't yourself eat, you'll soon
> be unable to protect them.
That's really avoiding the issue (but thanks for caring about MY welfare too
;)) You addressed the main issue in the next paragraph, but we would have to
diagree. This would be the 'lesser of two evils'; again. Is it right to
steal? Leaglly, no, it's never right to steal. Morally, I can think of
situations (as mentioned) when it would be a moral imperative. Again, I see
a mixing of legality and morality here.
> Intent is more important then action? What counts is that you mean
> well? That's a really scary philosophy.
Is it? I find it quite comforting and I find most people feel the same way.
For instance, I've been told by various faiths that I won't get into heaven
unless I...believe that soemone was the Son of God....if I don't practise
certain specific actions. Rubbish, or at least, I hope so. One vicar once
told me that I wouldn't get into heaven unless I embraced Jesus as my
saviour. I asked him whether Ghandi and a host of other historically
spiritual people would get in? He said not if they hadn't accepted Jesus.
This was not an extremist, this was a run-of-the-mill vicar (though I don't
think all shared his enthusiasm)
Though, legally, a person can be jusged by the act and outcome, I believe in
judging people by their motivation. You cannot possibly judge everyone on
the result of an action without taking into account why something happened,
otherwise there is no mercy, no understanding and nothing is ever learnt.
Duncan Macleod learned that all the time. If a person I loved was killed by
a car driver....I'd want to know: Was the driver drunk? Was he careless? Was
he, in fact, swerving to avoid a group of school children who had run out in
front of him? There are a million and one reasons and factors that affect an
outcome.The WHYs are usually more profound than the WHATs.
I try and do my best and then do it for the best of reasons. If that's not
enough then sod it, I tried. I do what I can and when I can - according to
the personal moral code I strive to follow, and whether one eternal
afterlife will accept me or not is actually the least thing on my mind when
I make my decision. I'm not buying my way into heaven, I'm acting the best
way I can and I'll let the rest take care of itself. In my book INTENT is
paramount and I jusge or act accordingly.
> My right to swing my fist ends where it would hit your nose. That's
pretty
> straight forward. On the other hand, you don't have the right to tell me
I
> can't swing my fist simply because you don't like flapping arms. If it
> doesn't intrude on you it's NoYB.
I have the right to tell you that flapping your arms could be dangerous and
that if your nearby, rather active fist connects with my poor innocent nose
then you'll have to pay the consequences. Or are you asking me to take into
account that you didn't mean to hit me and you were just flapping your arms?
Hmmmm. Is that factor something I shouldn't take into account as part of my
really scary philosophy? ;)
John.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:58:23 +0100
From: John Mosby <A.J.Mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Sorry.
Sorry. Sent my reply to the List out of habit. Meant it to go personal. Will
keep it off-list from now on.
John
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:58:07 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Morality
In a message dated 7/15/01 12:52:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
a.j.mosby@btinternet.com writes:
<< Given that the Bible is a collection of books, rather than one, I've found
that it's often possible to find a line/verse/chapter that will back up
ALMOST any argument. I'm sure it's possible to look elsewhere in the Bible
(and for equal opportunists, other Holy scriptures) for alternative phrases
to back up alternative thoughts. >>
Welcome to modern Christianity, where individuals, sects and entire religious
administrations have been selectively picking and choosing the parts of the
bible they want to obey and enforce and studiously ignoring those that are
'inconvenient' for centuries. You are absolutely right, AJ.
I've studied the bible for many years in parochial school. I don't recall
coming upon any part that told me to treat it like a buffet and just take a
plate full of the stuff I like. If one is supposed to shape one's life around
the strict adherence to one part of it, you'd better be prepared to do the
same with the rest, or else you insult the source and look hypocritical to
outsiders.
It's either literal and a historical narrative of events in ancient times, or
else it's meant to be a spiritual guide of allegorical tales. It's either a
strict guide for morality, or a gentle reminder of how we ought to behave
toward our fellow man and god. But you can't pick and choose, and that's
absolutely ALL that goes on nowadays among the 'faithful'.
Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:04:25 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: If you don't like it...
In a message dated 7/15/01 2:13:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za writes:
<< >I think labels and warning and disclaimers are all very nice. But you can
>slap a warning label on a video of some guy torturing a woman to death
>while raping her..and I still won't 100% agree that it needs to exist.
Ah--here we get into another area, violence. We live in a society where
sexual content is actually regarded as more obscene than extreme violence,
particularly against women. Parents don't get up in arms and lead righteous
campaigns against all those horror movies directed toward teens, where women
are inevitably the principal victims. Not a peep. But have a graphic sex
scene in that same film, and that's entirely different! This goes back to the
religious base of Western society, where the primary guide book was loaded
with unbelievable violence (even in the name of God), but sex had long ago
been deemed an original sin and the rules were dictated by Saint Augustine.
It's not quite the same in Europe, where they still blank out violence on
American TV show imports (including HL), but sex between consenting adults is
okay.
Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:25:24 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Morality
Well, being an equal opportunist I have to say:
a) I'm not singling out Christianity. Of all religions, it's the one I know
best. But I'm a dyslexic agnostic. Not sure which dog I believe in.
b) A religion is man-made because it is man's way of interpreting a
(possible) divine message and given the time factor the intereptation can be
changed. That would be Man's fault rather than (insert deity here). The
Truth may remain unchangeable, but Man doesn't. Not to say any one faith
isn't right, but I've yet to find it right for me. I won't diss any person's
faith or criticise their choice or calling, but I welcome discussion on
interpretation of their faith. The journey, not the destination etc etc etc.
If that is the case no-one here is more expert than anyone else on religious
matters and the last word on the matter can only come from a MUCH more
informed source . Or not.
;)
John
"Welcome to Hell. You may call me Toby. Okay. Let's start. Everyone who saw
'Monty Python's Life of Brian'. Ah, yes. Well... it seems He can't take a
joke after all. Right, now.....bank managers?"
- Rowan Atkinson, Live in Belfast.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Bizarro7@aol.com>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] Morality
> In a message dated 7/15/01 12:52:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> a.j.mosby@btinternet.com writes:
>
> << Given that the Bible is a collection of books, rather than one, I've
found
> that it's often possible to find a line/verse/chapter that will back up
> ALMOST any argument. I'm sure it's possible to look elsewhere in the
Bible
> (and for equal opportunists, other Holy scriptures) for alternative
phrases
> to back up alternative thoughts. >>
>
> Welcome to modern Christianity, where individuals, sects and entire
religious
> administrations have been selectively picking and choosing the parts of
the
> bible they want to obey and enforce and studiously ignoring those that are
> 'inconvenient' for centuries. You are absolutely right, AJ.
>
> I've studied the bible for many years in parochial school. I don't recall
> coming upon any part that told me to treat it like a buffet and just take
a
> plate full of the stuff I like. If one is supposed to shape one's life
around
> the strict adherence to one part of it, you'd better be prepared to do the
> same with the rest, or else you insult the source and look hypocritical to
> outsiders.
>
> It's either literal and a historical narrative of events in ancient times,
or
> else it's meant to be a spiritual guide of allegorical tales. It's either
a
> strict guide for morality, or a gentle reminder of how we ought to behave
> toward our fellow man and god. But you can't pick and choose, and that's
> absolutely ALL that goes on nowadays among the 'faithful'.
>
> Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:31:40 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Morality
In a message dated 7/17/2001 6:59:06 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
Bizarro7@aol.com writes:
> It's either literal and a historical narrative of events in ancient times, or
> else it's meant to be a spiritual guide of allegorical tales. It's either a
> strict guide for morality, or a gentle reminder of how we ought to behave
> toward our fellow man and god
tsk tsk. I thought you believed in "grey" *g*
It is really not an "either/or" situation. Form criticism and all good
contemporary biblical studies indicate that the type of literature being
written -- and the bible is filled with many different types --at times
allegorical legends, at times poems, at times geneologies, all different
"forms" -- will determine just what type of interpretation can be given to
the text. One simply cannot read the first three chapters of Genesis, the
Song of Songs and the Book of Acts with the same set of "glasses" without
doing violence to both the literature and the theological meaning.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:04:16 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za>
Subject: Re: writers vs actors (was slash discussion)
Liser wrote:
>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.
Yes. But my point (originally <g>) was that the viewers do not
have access to the scripts. And TPTB shouldn't 'force' the
viewers to buy the scripts in order to understand the medium of
the TV show. So if a viewer with no access to the script sees
only what is aired and forms their opinion based on that, no
one has the right to tell them their opinion is wrong.
>Think about the painted nose.
:::Marina goes off into dreamland:::
>Yeah...but which do you like better? Which fits better? Not being
>familiar with FK, I can't speak to this example.
I like the aired version better, because it is how the character
of Natalie was played all along.
>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 can't argue with you there, and in fact am not going to. I was
just saying that we base our opnions on what is aired, not on extra
sources that not everybody has access to.
I agree with you that the writers or creators of a character will
know the character better; absolutely. Witness Fraser in Due South.
In the first season, the show's executive producer was Paul Haggis,
the guy who created it. See the *depth* of the character in the
first season. Lots of Mountie-stereotyping going on, but one is
always aware that's not ALL there is to the character. Third season,
the actor was the executive producer. In the third season, Fraser
became *just* a stereotype. No depth. But I have to witness this
devolution of my character, because it's up there on the screen.
I can't say, "I'm going to email Paul Haggis and ask him what he
would have done" - it doesn't matter. It still won't bring the
Fraser I liked back.
>I'm biased. I know.
We all are. So what? <g>
- Marina.
\\ "Cast your eyes on the ocean; cast your soul ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//to the sea. When the dark night seems endless,|| R I C H I E >> \\
\\ please remember me." - Loreena McKennitt ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//===Marina Bailey===fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za===|| \\
\\============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie=============//
"I'd rather be watching 'The Sentinel'... no, 'Highlander'... wait,
'Stargate SG-1' is on... Oh, hell, make it all and make it so!"
- Tarryn, who apparently didn't notice that Peter Wingfield was in
all those shows. :)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:04:15 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za>
Subject: Fandom (was: CAH and the down-slide of HL)
I agreed with what Liser said about CAH/Rev 6:8. I hadn't
really looked at it that way before, but you bring up some
really good points. So I'd like to go off at a tangent. :)
>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.)
But you know, Lisa, fandom gets divided all the time. It's not
just Highlander fandom. This is bound to happen in ANY fandom in
which there is any sort of significant change. I've been in
fandom for (calculating madly) 23 years and it happens over and
over.
Star Trek - Trek is divided into a lot of camps - one for fans of
each incarnation - and that's just the beginning.
Beauty and the Beast - divided into Catherine fans and Diana fans
(and no, there's no in between - if you like Diana, the Catherine
fans accuse you of betraying them).
Due South - divided into Vecchio fans and Kowalski fans (with some
crossover; a person *can* swing both Rays), and the two camps seem
bound and determined to insult each other and write the Ray they
don't like in unsavoury ways.
HL - Liser covered that.
Forever Knight - not as extreme, but there's a 'seasonal preference'
in evidence.
I think the only fandom I've ever been in that has not split is
Starman fandom. Anyway.
>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.
I don't think it's coincidence at all. Radical changes affect people
in this way. And each party has to be right - which is why you get
people forming into these camps. It's sad, but it happens all the
time. And I think it's really the rule rather than the exception.
Some sociologist or psychiatrist could get a great thesis paper out
of it.
>To bring this back into the more general...I also think that HL
>itself started sliding downwards after that arc.
And this is just MNSHO - I think the character of Methos contributed
to that. Because TPTB created this amazingly cool character and
wanted to do stories about *him* even though the show was about
*Duncan*. There was bound to be some muddied water.
Please do not misunderstand me - I adore Methos. I love Richie dearly
(everybody knows that). But the show was meant to be about Duncan, and
I think TPTB lost sight of that in their excitement over this cool new
character they'd created.
- Marina.
\\ "Cast your eyes on the ocean; cast your soul ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//to the sea. When the dark night seems endless,|| R I C H I E >> \\
\\ please remember me." - Loreena McKennitt ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//===Marina Bailey===fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za===|| \\
\\============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie=============//
"I'd rather be watching 'The Sentinel'... no, 'Highlander'... wait,
'Stargate SG-1' is on... Oh, hell, make it all and make it so!"
- Tarryn, who apparently didn't notice that Peter Wingfield was in
all those shows. :)
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 16 Jul 2001 to 17 Jul 2001 - Special issue (#2001-206)
*******************************************************************************