HIGHLA-L Digest - 9 Jun 2003 to 10 Jun 2003 (#2003-107)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:00:01 -0400
There are 8 messages totalling 335 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Legacy (7)
2. TNN = Spike TV
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:09:42 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Legacy
Mel:
>I had to laugh at Amanda and the frying pan...when
>Duncan said he'd never seen her use one before, I was
>sitting there thinkning 'well, she apparently can't do
>much else with it'....when do we start hearing about
>all of that anyway? Her cooking, I mean.
We do see her cook later on- Reunion, I think.
Frankly, I figured she was a deadly with a frying pan as she ever proved herself to be with a sword.
Let's see..what else about Legacy?
Could John have been any more useless? He's married, apparently for some length of time, to a 3000 year old Immortal and he doesn't have sense enough to run for HG when he's told?
Rebecca - I thought she gave up way too easily. I understand her wanting to save John, but why not pretend to kneel for Luther and then dodge? Dishonorable, I agree- but better alive & dishonored than dead. Really. Luther was wrong (dishonorable) for holding a mortal hostage to gain an advantage over Rebecca-- why should she keep her promise to such a lout?
Didn't seem slightly against the Rules for Duncan to interfere in the fight between Luther and Amanda? Those two were fully engaged in the battle, Duncan should have stayed out of it.
>BTW, When does Amanda switch to the bleach blond look?
>I really didn't like it.
She goes blond in time for Methuselah's Gift. She looks terrible - and continues to look terrible all through Raven. I'll never understand why TPTB allowed her to get away with that. It was ugly and it "spoiled" the Amanda character somehow.
>I'll be interested to see how this plays out in
>'Methuselah's Gift'.
:::grumble grumble ::: magic disco ball :::::: grumble grumble ::::::::
Wendy(Isn't anyone going to raise the issue of the true nature of Amanda and Rebecca's relationship?)(::::pines for the old days::::)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 15:36:58 +0000
From: Lore Krajsman <lilith93@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Legacy
She goes blond in time for Methuselah's Gift. She looks terrible - and
continues to look terrible all through Raven. I'll never understand why TPTB
allowed her to get away with that. It was ugly and it "spoiled" the Amanda
character somehow.
>I'll be interested to see how this plays out in
>'Methuselah's Gift'.
:::grumble grumble ::: magic disco ball :::::: grumble grumble ::::::::
Wendy(Isn't anyone going to raise the issue of the true nature of Amanda and
Rebecca's relationship?)(::::pines for the old days::::)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
---------------------------------------->
Must be a question of taste. I never thought she looked attractive till she
went for blond. It suited her...
Lore
Spike: I wanted to give you what you deserve. I got it, they put the spark
in me and now all it does is burn
Buffy:Your soul
Spike: Bit worse for lack of use.
Buffy: You got your soul back. How?
Spike: It's what you wanted right? It's what you wanted, right?
And now everybody's in here. Talking, everything I did, everyone I..
And him, it, the other, the thing beneath, beneath you. It's here too.
Everybody, they all just tell me ... go... go... to hell.
Buffy:Why? Why would you do..?
Spike: Buffy shame on you. Why does a man do what he musn't. For her, to be
hers. To be the kind of man who would nev.. To be the kind of man...
And she shall look on him with forgiveness. and everyone will forgive and
love and he will be loved.
So everything's ok right? Can we rest now, Buffy. Can we rest.
_________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:21:38 -0700
From: Becky Doland <becky@beckyjo.com>
Subject: Re: Legacy
>
> Wendy(Isn't anyone going to raise the issue of the
true
> nature of Amanda and Rebecca's
relationship?)(::::pines
> for the old days::::)
>
Isn't it obvious? Where d'ya think Amanda learned to
be so creative and free with her sexuality?
~ Becky
**********************
Joss Whedon has a slashy mind:
BUFFY: You know, one of these days I'm just gonna put
you 2 in a room and let you wrestle it out.
SPIKE: No problem at this end.
BUFFY: There could be oil of some kind involved.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 17:58:29 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Legacy
>
> Wendy(Isn't anyone going to raise the issue of the true nature of Amanda
and
> Rebecca's relationship?)(::::pines for the old days::::)
>
> Fairy Killer
For all the slash talk in the HL Universe, I think that the scene with
Rebecca and Amanda sharing a bed was the only ONSCREEN inference that there
was ever a same-sex reltionship going on with any of the main characters.
Not that there's anything wrong with that and not saying that fans haven't
made much of various 'looks' etc between loads of other
charactres/situations, but for me this was the only time when my first
reaction to the scene was that a relationship was actually text, rather than
subtext - even if not exactly made canon.
It's also a case where it wouldn't run completely contrary to the character
we know - one whose horizons and attitude is one of pushing her experiences
of life to the max.
John
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:41:54 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Legacy
John--
> For all the slash talk in the HL Universe, I think that the scene with
> Rebecca and Amanda sharing a bed was the only ONSCREEN inference that
there
> was ever a same-sex reltionship going on with any of the main characters.
> Not that there's anything wrong with that and not saying that fans haven't
> made much of various 'looks' etc between loads of other
> charactres/situations, but for me this was the only time when my first
> reaction to the scene was that a relationship was actually text, rather
than
> subtext - even if not exactly made canon.
Oh, good grief.... Didn't _whole families_ often sleep in one (lice-ridden)
bed in those times? (If they were lucky enough to have a bed at all.) Did
that indicate widespread incest?
> It's also a case where it wouldn't run completely contrary to the
character
> we know - one whose horizons and attitude is one of pushing her
experiences
> of life to the max.
Amanda might do anything, & she'd do it w/ flair--that's what the series
taught us. But the fact we only saw one bed in Legacy means nothing.
Nina (and the series also taught us that DM likes women--lots of them & in
all flavors--exclusively)
mac.westie@verizon.net
>
> John
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 19:50:38 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Legacy
I didn't say it was definitive. In fact, I think I said it was anything but.
I said it was the only time when I saw a scene set-up that two people of the
same sex (who obviously did care for each other deeply) in bed together
during the whole of the run. Nothing to infer anything either way apart from
the location and *possible* context.
The same way that if we had a scene in which Methos and Duncan were seen
together in a bed, I'd have a lot more truck with those who say that there
was canon to support the slash.
I don't think it proves or disproves.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "MacWestie" <mac.westie@verizon.net>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] Legacy
> John--
> > For all the slash talk in the HL Universe, I think that the scene with
> > Rebecca and Amanda sharing a bed was the only ONSCREEN inference that
> there
> > was ever a same-sex reltionship going on with any of the main
characters.
> > Not that there's anything wrong with that and not saying that fans
haven't
> > made much of various 'looks' etc between loads of other
> > charactres/situations, but for me this was the only time when my first
> > reaction to the scene was that a relationship was actually text, rather
> than
> > subtext - even if not exactly made canon.
>
> Oh, good grief.... Didn't _whole families_ often sleep in one
(lice-ridden)
> bed in those times? (If they were lucky enough to have a bed at all.)
Did
> that indicate widespread incest?
>
>
> > It's also a case where it wouldn't run completely contrary to the
> character
> > we know - one whose horizons and attitude is one of pushing her
> experiences
> > of life to the max.
>
> Amanda might do anything, & she'd do it w/ flair--that's what the series
> taught us. But the fact we only saw one bed in Legacy means nothing.
>
> Nina (and the series also taught us that DM likes women--lots of them & in
> all flavors--exclusively)
> mac.westie@verizon.net
>
> >
> > John
> >
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 17:44:10 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: Legacy
Wendy wrote:
>Could John have been any more useless? He's married, apparently for some
>length of time, to a 3000 year old Immortal and he doesn't have sense
>enough to run for HG when he's told?
What a shame that such a lovely man with such a beautiful voice was such a
dolt.
>Rebecca - I thought she gave up way too easily. I understand her wanting
>to save John, but why not pretend to kneel for Luther and then dodge?
>Dishonorable, I agree- but better alive & dishonored than dead.
>Really. Luther was wrong (dishonorable) for holding a mortal hostage to
>gain an advantage over Rebecca-- why should she keep her promise to such a
>lout?
Dishonorable? Did she actually give her word or did she just lay down her
sword and wait to die? I can't recall.
Either way, it doesn't really matter. IMO a promise made under duress is
not morally binding. Luther crossed a line when he put his sword to
John's neck. Nothing dishonorable about tricking him or fighting back
once John was down.
I still don't like the day-night-day quickening. Bah.
Pat L.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:44:01 EDT
From: EllnT@aol.com
Subject: Re: TNN = Spike TV
In a message dated 6/6/03 08:56:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, USTADAWN@aol.com
writes:
> Well, there's ANOTHER station that will
> have parental block put on it!
>
>
Y-u-u-u-p-p-pp-p!
Hopefully the guys will keep Hl alive for all of us.
Ellen
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 9 Jun 2003 to 10 Jun 2003 (#2003-107)
**************************************************************