HIGHLA-L Digest - 4 Jan 2001 - Special issue (#2001-8)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Thu, 4 Jan 2001 17:46:23 -0500
There are 11 messages totalling 836 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS (6)
2. Scottish Guilt? (5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:00:06 -0500
From: KLZ <zklee@huskynet.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
O
h
m
y
n
e
x
t
w
e
'
l
l
h
a
v
e
i
n
n
e
r
c
r
o
p
c
i
r
c
l
e
s
>
> This is a matter of opinion. IMHO, anyone who thought Connor should die is
> not a true HL fan.
:::: running around in circles screaming
"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!" and waving hands ::::
Killing off Connor was a logical conclusion to the HL movie arc.
I keep remembering Connor's expression when the cops had him
slammed against the Porsche when he tried to get away after the
Madison Sq. Garden fight. His whole demeanor in even that first
movie was that he was tired, tired, tired. He found Brenda and
lost her. He nearly lost his foster son. He lost Rachel. He
had too many centuries of losing people, and I think there's a
limit to what a human being can lose and still survive, even an
Immortal human being. Or maybe it's "especially an Immortal
human being".
Duncan expressed the same thing in The Gathering flashback -that
he was tired of the killing; of the endless, mindless death. He
said essentially the same thing in FUOT, in the church, talking
to Darius.
We've seen Immortals go into and out of this kind of weariness.
Connor spent three movies doing it. Duncan went into a five-year
tailspin after Tessa's death, to the point where, in FUOT and
again in the series finale, and it nearly killed him.
Literally. We've seen Carl Robinson in that kind of funk;
Gregor, Cullen, Connor's friend in HL3. We've seen Methos
insulate himself from it by "I spend centuries losing my
conscience...", and Amanda insulate herself from it by becoming
the Immortal Material Girl. We've seen Immortals become evil
because of it, and become good because of it. Darius coped with
it, I believe, by religious discipline and making peace his
purpose in life. Brother Paul coped by helping others of his
kind. Duncan coped by hiding, by religious and martial arts
discipline, nekkidsweatykatas, and the assistance of a roguish
dead Immortal named Fitz.
So Connor's step of hiding was not a surprise to me. It was just
like Duncan's retreating to the island in 1872, and for the same
reason. And I was not surprised to not see Connor recover from
the weariness. He wanted to go, and he went out in style, and
for a good cause.
I'm glad Gillian Horvath and Bill Panzer finally gave Connor what
he wanted.
ZK
(BTW, I believe that they've discovered that this is how crop
circles are made)
zklee@huskynet.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:20:35 -0500
From: LC Krakowka <liser@lightlink.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
>spoiler space
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
Lance:
>
> >However, there was absolutely no need for him to die.
>
Me:
> I think this is a matter of opinion. In the plot, as it was written,
> there was a need for Connor to die.>>
Lance:
>Only problem is the death was a cheap one. It reeked of gimmick and that
>came across as distasteful.
I didn't find it to be cheap in the slightest. I rather liked the
fact that Duncan was forced to kill someone he loved--probably the
last person on the planet he would ever want to kill. It smacks of
irony, consequences, and depth of character development.
>
> << But, the fact remains that, in this particular story, the whole point
> of the story is LOST if Connor walks away smiling.>>
>
>The story would have been better had he simply not been included. Connor
>presence was unnecessary IMHO.
His presence was integral. First of all, the whole point of the bad
guy was that he (Kell) wanted to stick it to Connor.
I realize that this movie might not have been what you wanted, but
you seem to be confusing your wants with the reality of the
situation. The reality is that Connor needed to be in the movie *as
it was written*. Did he have to be in ANY fourth HL movie? No,
certainly not. They could have written a film without him. This one,
though, had Connor in it and his role was crucial to the plot of the
film.
Me:
><< I take issue with this generalization. I am both a HL fan AND a
> Connor fan and it had meaning for me.>>
Lance:
>The fact that you hated Connor's death makes you a true HL and Connor fan.
I didn't hate Connor's death. It saddened me greatly. But I didn't
hate it and I don't hate the fact that he's dead. I "miss him" in as
much as you *can* miss a fictional character and, yeah, sure, I wish
he were still alive in the HL universe. But I thought his death was
in character, had meaning, and was reasonably well executed. If he
had to die, I'm glad he died the way he did. It had honor and
purpose--which beats dying at the hand of a random k'immie any day,
in my book.
>
><< What we've seen when characters that are perceived as major within
> the realm of HL are killed off is that the fans tend to have a want
> of a happy ending. Connor didn't have to die, he could have walked
> off into the sunset. Richie didn't have to die, he could have left
> Mac and struck out on his own.>>
>
>In Richie's case, the happier ending would have been more realistic.
Oh, I don't agree at all. But that's another discussion entirely.
>
><< Phooey, I say. These people do not lead happy lives. The very
> nature of their survival is kill or be killed. You don't walk away
> into the sunset in that kind of world. Eventually, they will ALL
> die. All but one. Think that guy's gonna be happy?>>
>
>Connor certainly seemed so at the end of HL1.
Ah...but not so much at the beginning of HL2, eh? Talk about lonely,
depressed, and tired of life and the world.
Liser
--
Lisa Krakowka ** liser@lightlink.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:35:48 -0500
From: LC Krakowka <liser@lightlink.com>
Subject: Scottish Guilt?
In another thread, Elaine mentioned that she thinks Scottish Guilt
would manifest as anger. This got me wondering.
What, in the opinion of the Scots on the list, is the root of
Scottish Guilt? Does it lie in religion? In culture? Is it some
sort of survival guilt in the aftermath of The Clearances?
I am not a Scot and my experiences with them as a people are
admittedly limited, but I don't think I find the Scots to be a
particularly "guilty" folk, generally speaking. The Irish,
sure...but they have that whole Catholicism angle to build on. Isn't
most of Scotland (generally speaking) Protestant? (In my experiences
in both churches--having been a member of both sects-- Protestants
seem to be less interested in guilt than the Catholics.)
I think that *Duncan* has a lot of guilt and is Scottish. But I'm
not sure I'd categorize his guilt as inherently Scottish, if that
makes sense.
Elaine? Jette?
Liser
--
Lisa Krakowka ** liser@lightlink.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:59:16 -0500
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
At 02:33 PM 01/04/2001, Lance Aldridge wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>This is a matter of opinion. IMHO, anyone who thought Connor should die is
>not a true HL fan.
IMHO, anyone who thought Connor shouldn't have died in Endgame is not a
true HL fan. All true HL fans recognize Duncan MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod
as the one true Highlander.
Long Live The Highlander!!!
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 21:04:08 -0000
From: Jette Goldie <jettegoldie@thefreeinternet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Scottish Guilt?
Liser asks
> In another thread, Elaine mentioned that she thinks Scottish Guilt
> would manifest as anger. This got me wondering.
>
> What, in the opinion of the Scots on the list, is the root of
> Scottish Guilt? Does it lie in religion? In culture? Is it some
> sort of survival guilt in the aftermath of The Clearances?
>
It's deep in our Celtic souls - goes back long before the Highland
Clearances. It gives us that "dual personality" that will get Drunk
as a Lord (reekin' fu'/stocious/miraculous/stoatin'/ three sheets to
the wind - an English friend once pointed out that the Scots had
more ways to describe a good drunk session than any other
nationality he knew of - and he was a sailor so he knew a few!)
one day, and the next be more puritan than the passengers on
the Mayflower! We *brood*, we get drunk, we feel very sorry
for ourselves - and for others, we sympathise with them, we
*love* them all - then we sober up and...... well, you know
what a hangover feels like? A Scottish hangover is like that
- but more! <g>
> I am not a Scot and my experiences with them as a people are
> admittedly limited, but I don't think I find the Scots to be a
> particularly "guilty" folk, generally speaking. The Irish,
> sure...but they have that whole Catholicism angle to build on. Isn't
> most of Scotland (generally speaking) Protestant? (In my experiences
> in both churches--having been a member of both sects-- Protestants
> seem to be less interested in guilt than the Catholics.)
Whoo boy! You haven't known many Scottish Protestants
then, have you?
"SINNER!!!! THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS!!! Hellfire
and Damnation, All Women are Harlots, etc etc etc"
Yep, Scottish Protestants have been known to envy the
Catholics from time to time - at least they get to do
penance and be forgiven by the priest! The Proddy's
get told that it doesn't matter how we atone - we're
damned anyway! (and some sects of Scottish faiths
held that we were damned/saved from before our
birth, from the Day of Creation)
It's almost the right time of year for this (another two
weeks) so go look for a book of poems by Rabbie
(never Bobby) Burns and find one called "Holy Willie's
(or Wullie in some versions) Prayer".
Actually reading some Burns - and realising that a good
deal of it is satire and humour (including "Ode to a
Haggis" btw <g>) - will give you a good insight into
Scottish psychology, guilt and all.
Jette
jettegoldie@thefreeinternet.co.uk
http://members.tripod.com/~bosslady/fanfic.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:34:01 -0500
From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
|X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
(===)
| |
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
\ |
\|
>> Connor always kept someone close to him nearby. <<
er when... in Highlander 2 he'd been alone since Brenda's death. Okay in
3 he'd had the boy with him for a good while. In the series he turns up
out of nowhere, he has been hunting Slan we are led to believe. In
flashbacks there are often people but you are not going to flashback to all
the times you were alone.
Connor was very much alone it's part of his character.
>> It was a wonder he
and Duncan didn't spend more time together during the series, considering
they were nearly like brothers. <<
Well if you have been following this as you claim you'll know that it's
simply the fact that the production company couldn't afford CL on their
budget. The world maybe fantasy but it has to be paid for in the real
world.
>> Connor was never depicted as prone to
depression or suicidal action, and I found this interpretation reeked of a
gimmick laden need to draw in the older audiences familiar with the first
Highlander, and less an attempt to keep him in character, and that hurts
for
Connor fans. <<
Excuse me...care to read what you have just said...they tried to draw in
the audience attracted to the first Highlander(Connor) but took him out of
character...I'm afraid that just doesn't work.
>> Duncan would. he was very much this type of character. <<
Don't think so. Duncan would remember, but he is more of the type who gets
on with life after a period of mourning. Duncan is very much the optimist
type of Scot and Connor is the depressive type.
>>
Once again, not at all like Connor. <<
For me very much the Connor I fell in love with all those years ago.
>>
Actually, Duncan was more the type to give up from weariness, as he almost
did in To Be or Not To Be. <<
Almost did, but he didn't, maybe one day he will.
>> This is a cheap way out. Connor, at least TV Connor is dead, and dead
by
reason of gimmick. <<
In your opinion, I happen to like it as an idea.
>> I think Methos is as importatnt to Duncan as Connor, even though the
friendship is not as long lasting. <<
No I don't think he was or is, or ever will be.
>> IMHO, anyone who thought Connor should die is
not a true HL fan. <<
Well I am a Connor fan, I am a Highlander fan and I find this kind of
attack offensive. One of the great things in Highlander fandom has always
been the fact that there is room for so many fans of so many of the
characters, we all have our personal favourites, that's one reason that
Highlander has spawned so many different fan clubs, but we are all HL fans
and we respect each other for that, we do not say that because someone does
not like the same character as us they are not a true fan. Highlander is
not about one character it has grown beyond that if it ever was that,
Ramirez was as important a character as Connor was, even Angus was an
important character.
Elaine.
OCA.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:34:03 -0500
From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Scottish Guilt?
>>
What, in the opinion of the Scots on the list, is the root of
Scottish Guilt? Does it lie in religion? In culture? Is it some
sort of survival guilt in the aftermath of The Clearances? <<
It may have it's roots in Presbyterianism, or maybe that religion just
suited us because it has the whole guilt thing. I don't think there are
many groups like the "wee Frees" The Free Church of Scotland who thought
even the church of Scotland enjoyed itself way too much, there was o'er
much laughter in Kirk.
Personally I think the Scots just like to be miserable. They enjoy the bad
weather or rather enjoy complaining about it, one reason I think the Scots
parliament may not lead to full independence we'd have no one to blame for
all our ills. The problem with all this of course is that at the same time
we are a nation so full of hope and joy. Read things like My love is like
a red red rose that's newly sprung in June.... Or the Declaration of
Arbroath "It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are
fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up
but with life itself." Or A man's a man.....When you read the things
written by Scots, Sir Walter Scott, Robert Louis Stevenson....Even Peter
Pan was written by a Scot.
We are very much a mixed bag. I always thought Duncan and Connor showed
two of the sides of Scottish people.
As to why we are like that, I'm not sure. The Clearances were something we
did to ourselves. Culloden was the English defeating the Scots it was the
Scots defeating the Scots. It wasn't even as simple as lowlander against
highlander.
One thing about the Scots they are the very best in the world at coming
second, we like to be seen as the proud runners up, it's kind of as if we
like to be seen as the nice guys and nice guys don't win, so it's better to
be nice and come second.
Another thing about Scots is that they love the underdog, and they like to
be the underdog too. I know that I always cheer for the underdog even if I
don't happen to agree with him.<G>
>>
I think that *Duncan* has a lot of guilt and is Scottish. But I'm
not sure I'd categorize his guilt as inherently Scottish, if that
makes sense. <<
I've always thought Duncan was a masterpiece of writing of a Scot. He is
so Scottish it's difficult sometimes to realise that he wasn't written by a
Scot. The other thing to remember about Scots is that duty and honour
come very high in the scheme of things for them. Both Connor and Duncan
had that. Sometimes looking after those can seem like being guilt ridden.
Personally, I've never seen myself as being guilt ridden. In fact I am the
opposite, Life is about joy, it's for living and enjoying every moment, it
should be savoured. Those sunrises and sunsets should be treasured, the
friends should be held close to your heart. It maybe that we are not
guilt ridden, but more sentimental, I know that the reason most Scots get
drunk at New Year is because it's a time to remember especially those who
are no longer with us. I'm willing to bet that I wasn't the only Scot
who saw in the New Year with a tear not just for the year gone, but the
people who would normally have been there and weren't. In reality most
Scots will tell you they hate New Year, I don't think I hate it I think
it's a time to get that stuff out of your system and then move on into the
next year having remembered. Connor's candle for Heather is in a way
something every Scot does at New Year. <sigh>
See what did I say sentimental.
Elaine.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:51:53 -0500
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
Spoilers:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I said:
> >what's to stop a kimmie from
> >coming along, killing all the watchers, and then killing all the comatose
> >immies? Or what would stop a "bad watcher" from doing the same thing?
Lisa responded:
>Nothing. As we saw. :-)
Exactly. So why would an immie make himself vulnerable like that? Even if
we go with the "sanctuary is a deep dark secret" scenario, I still think
immies just aren't that trusting.
Take Duncan for example. He knows about the watchers, understands them and
their true purpose (let's forget about the renegades for a moment) and sees
the importance of it. But would he trust them in such a way? I doubt it,
and I doubt that the others would either.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 17:18:05 -0500
From: Jo MacArthur <macarthur@erinet.com>
Subject: Re: Scottish Guilt?
At 04:34 PM 1/4/01 -0500, you wrote:
>One thing about the Scots they are the very best in the world at coming
>second, we like to be seen as the proud runners up, it's kind of as if we
>like to be seen as the nice guys and nice guys don't win, so it's better to
>be nice and come second.
>
But, all must remember, Scots (including expatriots like Alex Graham Bell,
born in Scotland) hold more patents per capita than the people of any other
country. (Or at least they used to... and what with the cloning advances
of the '90s, etc. they may still.) In invention and creativity, I'm not
sure but what they may come in first!
- Jo
~Jo MacArthur: Clan Outlander
macarthur@erinet.com
http://members.aol.com/MacGreggor/homepg1.htm
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:23:06 -0800
From: "R. Shelton" <rshelton@jps.net>
Subject: Re: Scottish Guilt?
Briefly de-lurking. . . :-)
At 4:34 PM -0500 01/4/2001, Elaine Nicol wrote:
At 3:35 PM -0500 01/4/2001, LC Krakowka wrote:
>>What, in the opinion of the Scots on the list, is the root of
>>Scottish Guilt? Does it lie in religion? In culture? Is it some
>>sort of survival guilt in the aftermath of The Clearances?
Thanks for asking this, Lisa. I've been playing catch-up, as usual
(especially this year-of-so-much-change in my life) and was
wondering this same thing.
>It may have it's roots in Presbyterianism, or maybe that religion just
>suited us because it has the whole guilt thing. I don't think there are
>many groups like the "wee Frees" The Free Church of Scotland who thought
>even the church of Scotland enjoyed itself way too much, there was o'er
>much laughter in Kirk.
>
>Personally I think the Scots just like to be miserable.
LOL!
>They enjoy the bad
>weather or rather enjoy complaining about it, one reason I think the Scots
><snip>
>but with life itself." Or A man's a man.....When you read the things
>written by Scots, Sir Walter Scott, Robert Louis Stevenson....Even Peter
>Pan was written by a Scot.
>
>We are very much a mixed bag. I always thought Duncan and Connor showed
>two of the sides of Scottish people.
Very good point! Thanks for the replies, from yourself & Jette.
>As to why we are like that, I'm not sure. The Clearances were something we
>did to ourselves. Culloden was the English defeating the Scots it was the
>Scots defeating the Scots. It wasn't even as simple as lowlander against
>highlander.
That's for sure. Maybe some of the guilt comes from the wealthy,
landowner nobles allying w/the English in the first place? Just
throwing something out there. . .I could be much mistaken.
>One thing about the Scots they are the very best in the world at coming
>second, we like to be seen as the proud runners up, it's kind of as if we
>like to be seen as the nice guys and nice guys don't win, so it's better to
>be nice and come second.
LOL!
>Another thing about Scots is that they love the underdog, and they like to
>be the underdog too. I know that I always cheer for the underdog even if I
>don't happen to agree with him.<G>
Hmmm. . .I've been know to do that too. <bg>
> >>I think that *Duncan* has a lot of guilt and is Scottish. But I'm
>not sure I'd categorize his guilt as inherently Scottish, if that
>makes sense. <<
>
>I've always thought Duncan was a masterpiece of writing of a Scot. He is
>so Scottish it's difficult sometimes to realise that he wasn't written by a
>Scot.
Agreed. I've always thought the Duncan character was even better
than the Connor "Scots character", even though I was an HL movie fan
before I ever saw The Series. I figured they'd simply had time to improve
upon the character. Casting AP didn't hurt either. :-)
>The other thing to remember about Scots is that duty and honour
>come very high in the scheme of things for them. Both Connor and Duncan
>had that. Sometimes looking after those can seem like being guilt ridden.
Good point. And there is the religious thing to an extent -I always
wondered just how religious Duncan & Connor could be, what with
their Immortality. I know that's a whole 'nother can of worms!
>Personally, I've never seen myself as being guilt ridden. In fact I am the
>opposite, Life is about joy, it's for living and enjoying every moment, it
>should be savoured. Those sunrises and sunsets should be treasured, the
>friends should be held close to your heart. It maybe that we are not
>guilt ridden, but more sentimental, I know that the reason most Scots get
>drunk at New Year is because it's a time to remember especially those who
>are no longer with us. I'm willing to bet that I wasn't the only Scot
>who saw in the New Year with a tear not just for the year gone, but the
>people who would normally have been there and weren't.
As do lots of people, I'm sure, Scottish or not. I know I did.
>See what did I say sentimental.
Again, as are many people. Perhaps the Scottish men don't mind
showing their feelings as much or are more sentimental? Or do they
just need to get drunk to show it? <g> I think that holds true for lots
of people also. . .
Wonderful explanation - thanks again. Rachel
Rachel Shelton
rshelton@jps.net
@}->->->-
"What if I told you it was Magic. . .?"
Duncan MacLeod ~UA~
Highlander:TS
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:38:54 -0800
From: Kintoun <kintoun@home.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
Sandy Fields wrote:
> Spoilers:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I said:
> > >what's to stop a kimmie from
> > >coming along, killing all the watchers, and then killing all the comatose
> > >immies? Or what would stop a "bad watcher" from doing the same thing?
>
> Lisa responded:
> >Nothing. As we saw. :-)
>
> Exactly. So why would an immie make himself vulnerable like that? Even if
> we go with the "sanctuary is a deep dark secret" scenario, I still think
> immies just aren't that trusting.
I don't think you paid enough attention at the beginning of the movie to the
time that elapsed after Cracker Bob, Carlos, Winston, and Jin Ke were fatally
shot. One of the Watchers immediately instructed the others to cut their heads
off just in case they were immortal. At that point, Jacob Kell appeared and not
only avoided gunfire but succeeded in slaughtering all the Watchers in the area.
Afterwards, he kicked Winston's corpse and said "Don't be long." Kell made quite
a speech when he entered the Sanctuary and it took a while for his followers to
come back to life though.
The idea that a bad mortal Watcher could enter the Sanctuary and kill numerous
monks with shotguns is rather absurd. Perhaps dozens of armed renegade Watchers
could kill all these monks and get to the immortals inside but there would
certainly be casualties in that scenario. Is the average renegade Watcher
willing to die to rid the world of immies? There's no denying the fact that the
monks at the Sanctuary could handle taking out those 4 immortals.
The movie made it extremely clear that the Watchers had more than enough time to
cut all their heads off. Kell, on the other hand, was too fast for them to hit
once let alone sufficient times to get him to stay down. I'm quite surprised
that so many people believe any immortal can be killed with a gun. If that's the
case, it's just a matter of time until renegade Watchers achieve their
objective.
Kintoun
"Where else could stir the blood of a Scotsman too long of this Earth and too
far from home? I can nae get enough of it."
-Jacob Kell
>
> -- Sandy
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 4 Jan 2001 - Special issue (#2001-8)
*************************************************************