HIGHLA-L Digest - 17 Jul 2001 to 18 Jul 2001 - Special issue
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:32:48 -0400
There are 18 messages totalling 813 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers) (8)
2. CAH and the down-slide of HL (5)
3. Morality
4. If you don't like it...
5. OT Inquiry: The other British Peter W. (2)
6. Bootleg etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:09:28 -0700
From: Lynn <lloschin@sprynet.com>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
From: "Geiger" <geiger@MAUI.NET>
> Lynn never explained why she assumed Val Pelka being upset about
slash was
> due to his religious beliefs,
Hrm... let's see.... maybe because... that isn't what I said? It's
not my job to explain your misinterpretations or correct your faulty
assumptions, so I think I'll just join Carmel in the refrain of
"ROTFLMAO...er...no, Nina...I'm not saying that....."
(Maybe all of us who qualify to say this could have a get-together at
Reunion... I think there's at least one ballroom big enough.)
Lynn
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:36:49 EDT
From: Ashton7@aol.com
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
In a message dated 7/17/01 10:10:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
lloschin@sprynet.com writes:
<< (Maybe all of us who qualify to say this could have a get-together at
Reunion... I think there's at least one ballroom big enough.) >>
We could serve tea and cookies. ;-)
Annie CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:22:58 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: CAH and the down-slide of HL
In a message dated 7/16/01 7:51:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Dotiran@aol.com
writes:
<< 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. >>
Correction; Cassandra was violently vilified for *years* after CaH/Rev by
many of the same fans who thought Bronze Age Methos was the sexiest thing
that ever lived. She had committed the unpardonable sin of hating their
blue-faced honey, and deserved to die for such specifics as carrying a grudge
for the murder of her father and having overly long fingernails. It's only
within the past year or so that the tide has started to turn back toward a
more reasoned center with respect to fannish opinion on the subject.
Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:28:11 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: CAH and the down-slide of HL
In a message dated 7/16/01 9:09:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
a.j.mosby@btinternet.com writes:
<< 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. >>
One of the funniest--and saddest aspects of the anti-Cassandra rhetoric has
been the focus on her supposedly horrific episode of "child molestation" in
Donan Wood. People who dislike the character love to cite that example of how
repugnant they find her. Ignoring the fact that a 12 year old boy was
essentially considered an adult in Mideval Scotland, the same fans often echo
Methos' cry "The times were different" to excuse his Bronze Age acts of mass
murder, rape and brutality, but *never* utter that phrase in context with
Cassandra having exposed herself to a teen-aged ogler. Somehow, they consider
her act to be heinous and inexcusable; but Methos may be excused anything
because "the times were different."
Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:34:42 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Morality
In a message dated 7/17/01 10:32:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Dotiran@aol.com
writes:
<< 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.
>>
Exactly my point. But so many fundamental believers do. You and I are
actually in agreement on this point, Rottie. I love the bible, for what it
is. I simply have a problem with hypocritical literalists ("It's all
immutable and all really historical--but I'm going to ignore the parts that
make me uncomfortable and rave on and on about those that suit my personal
agendas.")
Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:37:48 -1000
From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
me before--
> > Lynn never explained why she assumed Val Pelka being upset about
> > slash was due to his religious beliefs,
Lynn--
> Hrm... let's see.... maybe because... that isn't what I said?
Yes, it is.
In response to this (from I have no idea who)--
> >I can think of one HL actor who was totally thrown off guard by the
> >discovery of slash..and he wasn't any 18 year old kid.
You wrote--
>>>No big secret here that Valentine Pelka was quite unhappy. He is a
very religious and conservative person.>>>
Unless you were simply hitting keys at random there, you must have made some
mental connection between VP's reaction & your perception of him as
religious & conservative. Unless, of course, assuming even a modicum of
reasonableness as to your thought processes is too much of an assumption.
Let us know.
Lynn--
> (Maybe all of us who qualify to say this could have a get-together at
> Reunion... I think there's at least one ballroom big enough.)
Cute. But could your ego squeeze in as well?
Nina
geiger@maui.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:37:13 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: If you don't like it...
In a message dated 7/17/01 11:19:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
a.j.mosby@btinternet.com writes:
<< > 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.
Er. Really? Sexual content seems to have become MORE tolerable in recent
years. I'd say films that rated an X or 18 certificate for nudity and sexual
situations a decade or so ago would probably get by with a lower
certificate now. I seem to remember Porky's was an X here all those years
ago. It's content is probably less offensive than Dude, Where's My
Prophylactic (15). >>
I said this was the situation. I didn't say it wasn't gradually shifting in
the last couple of decades. To some, it's not 'gradual' at all; they see it
as the downfall of morality and civilization and the End of Days.
Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:47:19 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
In a message dated 7/17/01 11:37:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Ashton7@aol.com
writes:
<< We could serve tea and cookies. ;-) >>
Heh heh. But only at 4 O'Clock sharp behind a closed office door.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:46:14 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
In a message dated 7/17/01 10:10:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
lloschin@sprynet.com writes:
<< "ROTFLMAO...er...no, Nina...I'm not saying that....."
(Maybe all of us who qualify to say this could have a get-together at
Reunion... I think there's at least one ballroom big enough.) >>
As long as it doesn't conflict with certain Q&A events, sign me up for that
one. Should I look for it in the schedule under "Toxic Communication" or
"They Only Come Out To Fight"?
Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:15:45 -0700
From: Lynn <lloschin@sprynet.com>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
From: "Geiger" <geiger@MAUI.NET>
What Nina claims I said:
> me before--
> > > Lynn never explained why she assumed Val Pelka being upset about
> > > slash was due to his religious beliefs,
What I actually said:
> >>>No big secret here that Valentine Pelka was quite unhappy. He is
a
> very religious and conservative person.>>>
>
> Unless you were simply hitting keys at random there, you must have
made some
> mental connection between VP's reaction & your perception of him as
> religious & conservative.
"Some mental connection" between being "a religious and conservative
person" is a far cry from his "reaction" being *solely* "due to his
religious beliefs". There are about three important distinctions
between those two statements. You misquoted and therefore changed my
meaning.
And if you are truly unable to understand the connection between being
a "religious and conservative person" and finding slash distasteful,
then I really can't help you. It seems rather obvious.
>Unless, of course, assuming even a modicum of
> reasonableness as to your thought processes is too much of an
assumption.
*giggle*
> Lynn--
> > (Maybe all of us who qualify to say this could have a get-together
at
> > Reunion... I think there's at least one ballroom big enough.)
>
> Cute. But could your ego squeeze in as well?
*giggle*
Lynn
(okay, I confess! I wasn't giggling, I was ROTFLAMO again....!)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 07:24:16 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: OT Inquiry: The other British Peter W.
> Rather recently (within the last three or four months) I have became a
> major fan of Babylon 5 as well as the spin-off Crusade. On Crusade,
> there is an actor by the name of Peter Woodward. This actor has become
> one of my fav actors. I was curious, are any of you fans of Peter
> Woodward?
No but I've always been very fond of his dad. :-)
Jette
Glory may be fleeting, but obscurity is forever!
bosslady@scotlandmail.com
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fanfic.html
(Edward Woodward, aka Callan or The Equaliser)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:58:52 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: CAH and the down-slide of HL
Okay:
Part of my post:
> 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.
Leah's response:
> One of the funniest--and saddest aspects of the anti-Cassandra rhetoric
has
> been the focus on her supposedly horrific episode of "child molestation"
in
> Donan Wood. People who dislike the character love to cite that example of
how
> repugnant they find her. Ignoring the fact that a 12 year old boy was
> essentially considered an adult in Mideval Scotland, the same fans often
echo
> Methos' cry "The times were different" to excuse his Bronze Age acts of
mass
> murder, rape and brutality, but *never* utter that phrase in context with
> Cassandra having exposed herself to a teen-aged ogler. Somehow, they
consider
> her act to be heinous and inexcusable; but Methos may be excused anything
> because "the times were different."
Which all flies wonderfully to back up my point (and superbly ignoring the
plea in Point 3) that whenever Cassandra's name is mentioned it is
immediately defined in relaton to the way another person acted. It's always:
"Well, character X could do Y, why can't she?" Given that this was a
relatively minor character in the grand scheme of things (by appearances
standard, if not story importance) then there is huge scope for the
character to have had many fascinating stories full of other facts that can
be backed up by selective historical research.
In other words, I wish the 'Cassandra-as-Saint-to-All-Women' Brigade would
stop vilifying Methos and 'Cassandra-as-longnailed-corrupter-of-boys' Inc
would stop vilifying her... because both show a fantastic lack of ability to
get beyond the source material (which is what fanfic should be able to do).
Frankly, if she can only be defined by one brief flash to Teen-McLeod and
one act which took place 5000 years before, then it would be a pretty weak
character or a pretty wasted life.
Times were different. Cue for some different times, surely?
John
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:26:43 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
Nina wrote:
>Pat--
> > That's pretty much what the expected answer, but you'd didn't answer the
> > key question.
>
>Gee, once again, I dropped the ball. Yet, I NEVER got an answer back from
>Jo (even after I provided her the text) as to exactly what language in the
>Fair Use clause she thinks shelters fanfic. Carmel never clarified her
>meaning in using the word "decadent" in talking about sex between 2 men,
>Lynn never explained why she assumed Val Pelka being upset about slash was
>due to his religious beliefs, Marina never apologized for grossly misstating
>my views, & on & on & on. Basically, NO ONE has come up w/ any reason that
>distributing fanfic isn't illegal or immoral, other than the fact they like
>doing it, of course. That's what I wanted an answer to, but....
I'm sorry that no one seems to answer your questions Nina. Might that be
because of the way you phrase them?
I can answer your last question, or at least part of it. I don't believe
distributing fanfic is immoral because it does not violate my moral
code/philosophy. Since I neither read nor write fanfic, my personal
pleasure does not enter into my opinion of it's morality. You are, of
course, free to feel otherwise. That does not mean your opinion on the
subject is any more valid than mine.
>As I said earlier, copying video tapes or taping stuff off TV & then
>distributing the videos is illegal. And of course, people do it a lot, in
>fandom. (Because they like doing it, obviously.) So what? You seem to be
>saying THAT makes fanfic OK, & I can't see that.
..er...no, Nina...I'm not saying that..... :-)
> > 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.
>
>Actually, fanfic on the Internet today IS ubiquitous, & only slash probably
>has the "wonderful sexual propriety questions attached" that you mention, so
> your argument falls even further short.
Fanfic may or may not be ubiquitous on the internet, but that does not make
it ubiquitious in the real world. Most US homes contain VCRs, but only
50% are on the internet. A large majority of US households tape tv
programs of some variety from time to time. Fanfic is hardly so
prevalent. Sexual propriety questions can be attached to het as well as
slash by those who are concerned with such things.
> > Fanfic doesn't complete with any DPP product,
> > including the official novels.
>
>Sure it does--as I recall, Marina, for one, has said here she ONLY reads
>fanfic; if fanfic weren't available on the net, maybe she'd buy something
>from DPP.
And maybe she wouldn't buy them. I wouldn't presume to speak for Marina,
but I recall her saying she only cares to read slash. Since DPP hasn't
offered any slash, why would she be buying from them?
Pat L.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 21:53:24 +1000
From: Carmel Macpherson <Carmel@stuartfieldhouse.com>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
HI all
Nina said: <<..Carmel never clarified her meaning in using the word
"decadent" in talking about sex between 2 men,..>>
You see Nina - this is why I and I assume all the others you accuse of not
answering you would rather put our energy into a discussion with others who
don't seem to set out to deliberately distort and misconstrue what we said.
I would defy you or anyone to find where I said that sex between two men was
decadent. What I recall saying was: "Don't tell me that Methos has
lived that long, through some of the most decadent empires in the world, and
not had male lovers and orgies." Orgies can, by definition, involve
*anyone*...the fact that empires may be regarded as decadent does not mean
that every activity that takes place in that empire is decadent. Certain
times lend themselves to a more free-wheeling attitude towards sexual
experimentation and Methos may well have lived through such times. Duncan
certainly appeared to have a wild time during the 17th and 18th centuries.
Frankly, I'd rather put my energy into the type of discussion I had with
Liser. It was a genuine engagement which I enjoyed very much - no point
scoring, no attempt to misconstrue (indeed - quite the opposite where pains
were taken on both sides to attempt to understand what the other was
saying.) And there was no attempt to bash each other over the head with the
other's point of view. At the end we agreed on some things, we disagreed on
others but both I felt were clearer about certain points in the debate.
That's the type of discussion that is enjoyable to read and enjoyable to
engage in. It doesn't get personal. If you would like to have one of those
discussion I would be delighted to try and engage with you.
Kind regards
@ Carmel Macpherson:
<<<@{}=================>>> Chief EDFWs
@ carmel@hldu.org
http://www.carmelmacpherson.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Highlander DownUnder: The Official HL Fan Club of Australia
PO Box 198, Brisbane Albert St QLD 4002, Australia.
OR, for US members, make out checks to Fran and send $US25 to: Fran Koerner
P. O. Box 3565, Palos Verdes, CA 90274
Visit the HLDU club site: http://www.hldu.org
***HLDU5. May 2003. Brisbane***
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:11:00 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: CAH and the down-slide of HL
In a message dated 7/18/01 4:59:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
a.j.mosby@btinternet.com writes:
<< In other words, I wish the 'Cassandra-as-Saint-to-All-Women' Brigade would
stop vilifying Methos and 'Cassandra-as-longnailed-corrupter-of-boys' Inc
would stop vilifying her... because both show a fantastic lack of ability to
get beyond the source material (which is what fanfic should be able to do).
Frankly, if she can only be defined by one brief flash to Teen-McLeod and
one act which took place 5000 years before, then it would be a pretty weak
character or a pretty wasted life. >>
Your non-fiction authorship is showing, AJM. One of the first rules of good
fiction includes conflict, and the hotter the chemistry (of either love or
hate), the more potential in a plot. The reason why a character who only
appeared on 3 episodes generates so much debate and attention is obvious; the
conflict between the two is tremendous and compelling, which is what good
drama is all about. If it were bad, it would be ignored.
The reason why I deliberately overlooked Point 3 was because it was
inaccurate. The perennial argument isn't an attempt to justify (or martyr)
Cassandra based on the acts of Methos. It's about the faulty logic of the
fans who choose to ignore one and do the other (on either side). The issue is
*fans*, not characters, in these particular discussions. Nothing that
Cassandra has ever done is excused by something Methos did, and vice versa.
But you wouldn't know it, in the logic of some fanfic authors and proponents
of Methos as wronged saint. The object of bringing up the comparisons that
disturb you so much is *not* to excuse one by citing what the other did; it's
to point out that these excuses are used by fans to justify their hatred.
And while were on it, let's correct a bit of a misimpression that's being
thrown around here; that fans who like Cassandra must automatically despise
Methos. This mutual exclusion is a patent myth, also one frequently employed
by fans who hate Cassandra. The Methos-Cassandra debate is one of my favorite
topics, and I'm on the ATH, the Holyground Forum and this list for quite some
time now, and have only ever seen *one* fan who declared that they loved
Cassandra but didn't care for Methos. Most of the Cassandra fans actually
count Methos among their favorites, and the idea that liking one implies the
other is inaccurate and illogical. Methos has always been my favorite
character, and always will be. Apparently, some see support of Cassandra and
a declaration that Methos was culpable for his Bronze Age behavior as
evidence that the latter is hated. Extreme exaggeration. The same fans will
happily tell you that he's an interesting, likeable character in the modern
context, and some think he's sexy as hell.
Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:17:13 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Bootleg etc
Nina may be fond of talking loudly in libraries, but she does raise some
interesting points here, ones which I'd be very interested in hearing honest
and considered answers to - even if it has to be in a different
thread/subject-matter.
The list seems to be blurring the lines between what is legal, what is
illegal and what is 'well, it doesn't hurt anybody, what's the big deal?'.
It's a worthy subject-matter and a moral line that makes hypocrites of most
of us - including me! Now the following is based on fact, rather than on my
own code of conduct. Not saying I would act in any given way (except the
following paragraph), but this is the big picture:
If someone copies my Impact/Dreamwatch work and distributes it without my
permission (for no profit, minimal profit or that great big whopping yacht
moored off Monte Carlo) I'm still going to kick their arses over it. The
action is wrong on a variety of levels. One, it's basically hi-jacking my
work, ignoring the time it took me to complete it and is basically standing
on the shoulders of someone else (Cue the Ian Malcolm speech in the original
Jurassic Park). Two, it negates my choice as to where the work is placed. I
write in specific styles for specific outlets and have made arrangements
based on that. Three, the magazine outlet immediately loses the exclusive
and why the hell should anybody buy a magazine if they can get it for
free/less elsewhere? Four - if it's an interview, it was probably organised
under restrictions as to where it would appear. Actors don't care if someone
hi-jacked my work - they just won't talk to me again if a deal is seemingly
broken. Infringers (is that a word?) either don't think or don't care about
any of the deals done and the implications of their actions on me. For all
these reasons and others, any careless reproducers of my work will be
stomped on gently and any deliberate attempt will see legal action by either
myself or the magazine in question.
Now, Tape-trees are common-place and do a lot to spread fandom even further.
I won't argue that. But does the distribution of home-made tapes technically
infringe copyright? Unbetcha, without question. Ever wonder what those words
flashing by at the end of an episode are? Freeze-frame and read carefully:
"Unauthorized duplication, distribution or exhibition may result in civil
liability and criminal prosecution"
It's not there to fill time and screenspace and it doesn't add 'But, hey,
you're doing it for cost, so go ahead'. Is there any harm done? Well, it's a
matter of perspective. If I had a perfectly good taped copy of a TV show I'm
not about to go out and buy the official version of the tape box-set for
half my weekly salary just because it's got a pretty new illustration on the
front and a shiny copyright hologram on the cassette. Some will, but logic
suggests that if your homemade/circulated copies are of sufficient quality,
it's going to affect the need to get 'official' merchandise' to some regard.
I'm sure someone will come back and say 'Well, I'll buy official merchandise
AS WELL as the copies.' Cool. But unless you can guarantee everyone will do
that, you have to admit that there will be financial loss to some extent,
however small. Financial loss guaranteed. End of that moral/legal argument
as the sound you hear is a lawyer having the defence for breakfast on a
technical, but ultimately accurate point.
When the Endgame script appeared on-line months before film release some
were quick to point out it was an illegal copy, others to grab acopy for
perusal! "How dare someone do that..but, hmmm, wonder what it's like?" There
were equal divisions when the illegal WorkPrint Disc was offered after the
disappointing official release of the film. People wanted to see it and yet
knew it was an unapproved and illegal copy. Does a moral stance on not
seeing a work because of copyright infringement BEFORE release/broadcast
mean the same morality should forbid you from doing the same thing after
release/broadcast? If not, why not? (Serious question)
As I said at the beginning... I'm as guilty as anyone. I've watched copies
of tapes made by other people and I frequently get unofficial tapes sent
from the US for me to watch. (My only defence is that the various networks
are supposed to get official review copies to me and because of rather lax
posting and my tight deadlines, I couldn't review stuff in time for
anybody's liking unless I had a back-up plan. I'm not sure that would stand
up in court or not).
Am I saying that tape-trees should be or could be stopped? Nope. It's a long
tradition amongst fans and it probably does much more good than harm. DPP,
again, probably can afford to turn a slightly less than 20-20 visioned eye.
It would be stupid to think otherwise. Go for it. Tape away. I know I'm not
about to change my actions, either.
But...there's always a BUT.
But we have to acknowledge the hypocrisy, however little it's impact may or
may not seem to be to us. Because the moment I acknowledge that what I do
could be illegal and the moment that I state that I'd crucify anyone for
doing the infringing on MY work, then I'm operating on a double-standard. If
you would accept a home-taped edition of a Highlander episode, but would
never dream of copying my Dreamwatch/Impact work, then so are you.
Now, I'm talking tapes here, not fanfic. I won't link this argument directly
to fanfic (as that concerns new work inspired by a copyrighted property -
and I think we've rode that moral/legal carousel until we're dizzy) except
to note the following. The only comparison might be if someone re-edited an
episode themselves and then distributed the new version in a tape-tree.
Similar to the recent amateur Phantom Edit that George Lucas has rightly
been interested in.
John
Angel with a dirty mind...er...face.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:51:05 -0400
From: pgannon <pgannon@OPTonline.net>
Subject: Re: OT Inquiry: The other British Peter W.
> > Rather recently (within the last three or four months) I have became a
> > major fan of Babylon 5 as well as the spin-off Crusade. On Crusade,
> > there is an actor by the name of Peter Woodward. This actor has become
> > one of my fav actors. I was curious, are any of you fans of Peter
> > Woodward?
>
>
> No but I've always been very fond of his dad. :-)
>
>
> Jette
> Glory may be fleeting, but obscurity is forever!
> bosslady@scotlandmail.com
> http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fanfic.html
> (Edward Woodward, aka Callan or The Equaliser)
Ah Jette - here it is, the dreaded "Me, too!!!!!!!" post ;-P
Peggie
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 14:33:09 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: CAH and the down-slide of HL
> Your non-fiction authorship is showing, AJM.
Really? Guess I'll mention that to the judges of a national fiction
competition I came runner up in a few years back. Not well-known and
prestigious by international scope, but they liked my stuff enough. To
mis-quote Methos: "Just because I don't like to publicise my fiction,
doesn't mean I can't" Trust me, I've been writing fiction longer than most
people here have been writing. It's just easier to make a good living
dealing with facts.
> One of the first rules of good
> fiction includes conflict, and the hotter the chemistry (of either love or
> hate), the more potential in a plot. The reason why a character who only
> appeared on 3 episodes generates so much debate and attention is obvious;
the
> conflict between the two is tremendous and compelling, which is what good
> drama is all about. If it were bad, it would be ignored.
Conflict, yes. Emotion, yes. Compelling interaction, yes. Obvious
components, well....yes. But while I'm happy to admit there is probably
Cassandra fanfic out there which does not concern Methos, a majority of the
time that's what gets argued about. Agreed I don't read a lot of fanfic, but
whenever the name of Cassandra comes up, it seems Methos-related stuff isn't
far behind and vice-versa. It may be an obvious and stimulating subject
matter, but if 5000 years of Cassandra history often leads to aspects of her
relationship with Methos then it's just a shame there isn't more scope for
discussion on other aspects of that time-frame in which they were apart.
("5,000 years, you don't write, you don't call....") After all, not every
Duncan story has Amanda or Tessa in it. Or Horton for that matter....all of
which contain dynamic imperatives Just my perception, but a perception I
also often hear repeated by others, even those with no axe to grind.
> The reason why I deliberately overlooked Point 3 was because it was
> inaccurate.
Nope, you miss my point. I was referring to the line:
>>>>(and I'm not inviting historical reasons why it shouldn't be an issue
here)<<<<
I was stating that there IS a camp that dislikes that aspect of Cassandra's
character history, not wanting to hear the oft-stated thesis on the
historical mating rituals of the lessser-spotted -hmmm, maybe more-spotty -
Scot :) Not personal. Same thing for not wanting to hear the 'Methos as/is
Innocent' argument all over again either. Been there. Done that. Bought the
copyright infringing t-shirt.
>The perennial argument isn't an attempt to justify (or martyr)
> Cassandra based on the acts of Methos. It's about the faulty logic of the
> fans who choose to ignore one and do the other (on either side). The issue
is
> *fans*, not characters, in these particular discussions. Nothing that
> Cassandra has ever done is excused by something Methos did, and vice
versa.
> But you wouldn't know it, in the logic of some fanfic authors and
proponents
> of Methos as wronged saint. The object of bringing up the comparisons that
> disturb you so much is *not* to excuse one by citing what the other did;
it's
> to point out that these excuses are used by fans to justify their hatred.
(Firstly...*disturb you so much*???? Darling, I was disturbed
looooooooooong before you came here ;)) I see no reason to hate or despise
Cassandra, nor to love or sanctify her. I agree that some fans may want to
do one of those. Some - including me and yourself -can't understand why
there is such polarisation. She was a relatively minor character in the
grand scheme of things and while I can see the potential in a certain set of
pivotal events she was connected with, I'm simply repeating that there could
be so much more to her than that hould a writer really want a challenge .
And....while I think of Methos as one of the most fascinating characters in
the Highlander mythos, this is the first time I've seen any inferrence that
ANYONE has ever considered him a saint ?????? ( I guess that any fanfic
writeris entitled to interpret what they see on screen as they see fit
though). As Methos himself might be wont to say: "Who'd want to be a Saint?
Don't they all end up dead?"
> And while were on it, let's correct a bit of a misimpression that's being
> thrown around here; that fans who like Cassandra must automatically
despise
> Methos. This mutual exclusion is a patent myth, also one frequently
employed
> by fans who hate Cassandra.
Agreed. Until you threw in those last words and neglected to also add 'one
frequently employed by fans who dislike Methos' which I'm guessing would be
used by the other side of the equation, right? After all, it's only fair to
note there are extreme/passionate views on BOTH sides. I think that the
pro-Cassandra lobby are just as loud as the anti-Cassandra voices when they
want to be
I do agree with your last paragraph. I see no reason why both characters
cannot be appreciated in their own right. Methos-likers may or may not like
Cassandra as well. Cassandra-likers may or may not like Methos. I just think
it's a pity that too often one camp will take an opportunity to extol the
virtues of their own by commenting on the other's failings.ie: a 'hero can
be shaped by 'villains', but should never be defined by them.
Be proud. Be loud. Be Cassandraers (Cassandronians? Cassandriates?). Be
Methosians. Be Methosites, Be Methalyated Spirits. Just behave too. :)
John
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 17 Jul 2001 to 18 Jul 2001 - Special issue (#2001-208)
*******************************************************************************