HIGHLA-L Digest - 19 Jul 2001 to 20 Jul 2001 - Special issue
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:34:52 -0400
There are 17 messages totalling 835 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. CAH and the down-slide of HL (4)
2. Morality
3. CAH and the down-side of HL
4. Review of the Breed (2)
5. bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers) (6)
6. criticizing characters (was Re: CAH and the down-slide of HL) (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 00:19:59 -0400
From: Lisa Kadlec <lkadlec@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: CAH and the down-slide of HL
jjswbt@earthlink.net wrote:
> Leah :
> > There is no vocal 'anti-Methos' faction;
> > just some fans who happen to think he was dreadfully bad in the Bronze Age > and deserving of justice.
>
> I wonder why that is. Seriously. I can't think of another character that doesn't have a vocal "anti-faction". Lots of people don't like Duncan, some people hated Richie, Tessa had her detractors...Anne has more foes than friends...Joe isn't universally beloved. Was it that we universally bought into the idea that anyone who had lived 5000 would, inevitably, have a few dark patches of personal history and so we cut him more slack than if he had been only 1500? Was it the actor? Would people have hated him if we had seen a more graphic account of his Horseman days? Interesting.
>
> Wendy(I think it was his nose<eg>)
:-) It's always about the nose, isn't it. <g> Seriously, though, this *is* an interesting point, though I'm not sure I'd agree with Wendy's summary above, in that some of the characters listed, while not universally liked, do not seem to really have vocal 'anti-factions,' and, in turn, Methos is not, in fact, universally liked. I *know* there are people out there who could take or leave the character, and even people who actively dislike him. And I've been around this fandom since, well, almost the dawn of time <g> (not a founding geezer, but not that far behind), and I am hard-pressed to recall something I would call an 'anti-Joe' faction, for example, or an 'anti-Tessa' faction, in the sense that there were ever significant numbers of posts berating those characters. Yes, there are Tessa-haters out there. Yes, there are people who aren't so fond of Joe, but they don't seem to be 'vocal anti-factions' to me.
Which brings me to a related issue/question, which isn't really in response to anything in this discussion, or even anything recent on the list, but is rather of, well, 'historical' interest, I guess. During my time in HL fandom, I've often found myself wondering why it is that the character who seems to be most actively and loudly berated is Duncan himself.
Given the vehemence of some of the dislike that I've seen expressed around and about HL fandom, I sometimes wonder why some people watched the show at all if they found the main character, who is in practically every episode, so loathsome. I imagine that if I'd felt this way about Duncan, I wouldn't have lasted past Season 1. <g>
Admittedly, those are the more extreme viewpoints, but I've also seen I don't know how many of the 'character X is better than Duncan for thus and such reason' arguments, in which Duncan really didn't seem germaine to the point at hand, but was brought in anyway, for reasons that weren't clear to me. I've never understood this apparent need some folks seem to have, when extolling the virtues of one character, to simultaneously tear down another (generally Duncan). Odd.
Thoughts, anyone?
Lisa
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 02:04:12 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Morality
In a message dated 7/18/01 7:26:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
trilby23@bellsouth.net writes:
<< My friends from churches that ordain women still can't explain to
me how they reconcile that with Paul's unequivocal statement: "I
do not allow a woman to teach, or to have authority over a man;
she must keep silent." ;-) >>
The worst of it doesn't get quoted very often, because it's downright
appalling:
"Woman is defective and accidental...a male gone awry. The result of some
weakness in the father's generative power." --St. Thomas Aquinas (13th
Cent.)
"Among all savage beasts, none is found as harmful as woman." --St. John
Chrysostom (4th Century)
"Girls begin to talk and stand on their feet sooner than boys because weeds
grow up more quickly than good crops." -- Martin Luther (Table Talk; 1533)
Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 02:30:20 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: CAH and the down-side of HL
In a message dated 7/19/01 4:11:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
a.j.mosby@btinternet.com writes:
<< >>As a journalist, you know one of the first rules; just spell my name
right.
>> Sorry. Which post did I spell it wrong in? I'll go back and check.<<
I was simply paraphrasing the old saw that "the only bad publicity is no
publicity; just spell my name right." The parallel was, of course, that a
debate isn't bad because it's hot or repeatedly arises as an active issue.
Quite the contrary; it indicates that the subject of the debate is unusually
compelling for some.
>>I commented that a majority of times I hear the name of Cassandra, it seems
to be in the context of her relationship to Methos. WE agree character like
Cassandra,
who appeared so little in the series, is ripe for exploration beyond three
episodes of the show. I can see why those existing episodes are popular and
draw interest and inspiration, but if a majority of the stories on your
web-page deal with a variety of other aspects of Cassandra's life as well,
then writers are now obviously rising to the creative challenge.<<
Bless 'em, they do. Adding dimension to a character who only appeared a few
times on a series is difficult, and some have risen to the challenge
magnificently (one excellent example among numerous others: "The Reflecting
Pool" by Sylvia Volk, at the HL Quill Club Library. Unfortunately, there's
also that tendency for some fans who dislike Cassandra to write the same
cookie-cutter story over and over again, each thinking they are the very
first; these are the
"Cassandra-goes-insane-and-becomes-more-murderous-than-Methos-ever-was-and-the
refore-must-die-by-the-end" tales. Now, after having encountered over 30 of
these potboilers, *that's* an example of tedious repetition on a theme.
>>But the wonderful thing about Immortal characters is that they
have such a big canvas to paint on. Tessa, one of his greatest loves, was
already in Duncan's life when we first meet them and though we see how they
first met, there are several years of unexplored territory. There is a long
and complex backstory between Joe and Horton. Amanda's history should have
been equally rich and controversial territory (which I personally think was
botched, mainly in its execution on The Raven). I agree that a character
featured less in the show has a broader canvas still... so hopefully all
that canvas can be used to its full potential, not just one corner.<<
I hope so too. In the meantime, some like to paint on canvases in a variety
of sizes; some very small, others those broad landscapes. Both can be 'art'
or utter dreck, but all aspiring artists should be free to express
themselves...even if you feel they might have painted themselves into a
corner.
>>I was following up Dotiran's post which included a comment on how the
Cassandra opinions were often polarised. I was simply and briefly outlining
the various camps that I felt existed and expressing disappointment in what I
perceived to be a character often defined by the actions of other characters
(regardless of
whether you agree with that initial perception).<<
No disagreement with that point at all. Which is exactly the reason why
Cassandra so often comes up in the same context as Methos. About 50% of the
whole purpose of her appearance on HIGHLANDER was to help define who Methos
really is. As perhaps the last surviving victim and witness of that past, she
serves an important part in that role. For those who love the character of
Methos, that's irresistably intriguing and an endless source of discussion.
>> Phew! Yup....completely different set of hormones to contest with :) But I
still say that I've NEVER heard Methos described as a saint. Blue Face Love
God, yes. RRRROG, yes. Huge Hunk of Bronze Age Bofforamic
Brutiness...er...possibly. *erk* But never, ever as a Saint. Even those who
would gladly carry his spear for him, seem willing to admit that they kinda
like his whole UnSaintliness.<<
The next time the phenomenon comes up, I promise to bring it to your
attention. The phenomenon exists, because Gillian, Ginjer and Donna are
always commenting on it when the topic arises on the ATH board.
Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 02:40:21 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: CAH and the down-slide of HL
In a message dated 7/20/01 12:31:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
lkadlec@Princeton.EDU writes:
<< Admittedly, those are the more extreme viewpoints, but I've also seen I
don't know how many of the 'character X is better than Duncan for thus and
such reason' arguments, in which Duncan really didn't seem germaine to the
point at hand, but was brought in anyway, for reasons that weren't clear to
me. I've never understood this apparent need some folks seem to have, when
extolling the virtues of one character, to simultaneously tear down another
(generally Duncan). Odd.
Thoughts, anyone? >>
I think you've at least partly answered your own question, Lisa. I've noticed
that some of those attacks come from fans who have become tremendously fond
of a different character on the show and feel that Duncan 'takes away' from
their favorite, or else acts in a way toward their favorite that they find
deplorable. Examples; Duncan nearly killing Richie Ryan and ultimately
killing him by accident, thanks to Ahriman. Or Duncan, having the disloyalty
to believe for one moment that Methos might have actually been a mass
murderer in the past, and deserving of a shocked reaction and some
judgemental thoughts.
Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 13:30:28 +0100
From: Finbar Ryan <finbarr@microsoft.com>
Subject: Review of the Breed
Hi,
I've been lurking for so long it feels really strange sending a mail to
the list again.
I found a review of Adrian's new movie at the following URL.
http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=3D0
<http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=3D0&this_cat=3DTelevisio=
n&a
ction=3Dpage&obj_id=3D27944&type_id=3D270286&cat_id=3D270356&sub_id=3D270=
385>
&this_cat=3DTelevision&action=3Dpage&obj_id=3D27944&type_id=3D270286&cat_=
id=3D2703
56&sub_id=3D270385
There are some pictures and a complimentary review of Adrian's
performance as well.
Thanks,
=20
Finbar.
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:19:11 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
Pat wrote:
>(Tired and bored with wasting my time on this discussion)
You held out the longest. Most of us got bored with it days ago.
- Marina.
\\ "But then, we saw that Obi-Wan doth look upon ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// Qui-Gon with lust, and that Mr. Lucas was not || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ likely to include that in the next movie, so we ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// said screw it and wrote it ourselves." - Warning || \\
\\ page of the 'Master & Apprentice' slash site || //
//==fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za=Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie==\\
Watching "Demons", an episode of Stargate SG-1:
My brother: I need a trepanning ritual like I need a hole in the head.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:19:12 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za>
Subject: Re: CAH and the down-slide of HL
Andrea wrote:
>The fact that Methos was such a baddie during the Bronze age made me like him
>even more. In RL I certainly don't condone rape, pillaging (sp?) and
>destruction but sometimes I like fictional characters that do really bad
>things. Methos is one of them. I also like Vampires and am happiest when they
>are biting people and causing mayhem. Having said that, I also thought that
>Cassandra was perfectly justified in staying angry and "holding a grudge."
Hey, another fan of non-lily white characters! There is something to
be said for evil characters. I mean, without them, we wouldn't have
many drama and action shows, would we? And very often they are the
most interesting. I've read how actors often enjoy playing evil
characters.
I used to watch "Dallas" just to see J.R.! <g>
- Marina.
\\ "But then, we saw that Obi-Wan doth look upon ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// Qui-Gon with lust, and that Mr. Lucas was not || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ likely to include that in the next movie, so we ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// said screw it and wrote it ourselves." - Warning || \\
\\ page of the 'Master & Apprentice' slash site || //
//==fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za=Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie==\\
Watching "Demons", an episode of Stargate SG-1:
My brother: I need a trepanning ritual like I need a hole in the head.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:19:15 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za>
Subject: Re: CAH and the down-slide of HL
Lisa asked:
>Given the vehemence of some of the dislike that I've seen expressed
>around and about HL fandom, I sometimes wonder why some people watched
>the show at all if they found the main character, who is in practically
>every episode, so loathsome.
I wonder if it isn't because characters with flaws are just more
interesting than perfect characters. And Duncan has a lot of flaws,
let's face it. Understand I am not trying to make disparaging
remarks about him. I wouldn't have watched HL if I didn't like
Duncan (well, maybe I would have watched the Richie episodes <g>).
I think he's truly one of the best characters to come out of genre
TV in a long time.
But he isn't perfect. He does things that we might consider wrong.
He's killed 99% of his friends. But we know why he does these things
and we are interested in seeing what he will do next. I've criticised
Duncan before, but always from the position of my liking him, first
and foremost.
I usually trust the opinions of people who criticise characters they
like. Because they don't have an agenda of hatred behind what they
say: they criticise because they *like* the character and want to
understand him.
Hope that makes sense.
- Marina.
\\ "But then, we saw that Obi-Wan doth look upon ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// Qui-Gon with lust, and that Mr. Lucas was not || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ likely to include that in the next movie, so we ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// said screw it and wrote it ourselves." - Warning || \\
\\ page of the 'Master & Apprentice' slash site || //
//==fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za=Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie==\\
Watching "Demons", an episode of Stargate SG-1:
My brother: I need a trepanning ritual like I need a hole in the head.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:41:33 -0400
From: Lisa Kadlec <lkadlec@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: criticizing characters (was Re: CAH and the down-slide of HL)
Marina Bailey wrote:
Me (or part of my post):
> >Given the vehemence of some of the dislike that I've seen expressed
> >around and about HL fandom, I sometimes wonder why some people watched
> >the show at all if they found the main character, who is in practically
> >every episode, so loathsome.
Marina:
> I wonder if it isn't because characters with flaws are just more
> interesting than perfect characters. And Duncan has a lot of flaws,
> let's face it. Understand I am not trying to make disparaging
> remarks about him. I wouldn't have watched HL if I didn't like
> Duncan (well, maybe I would have watched the Richie episodes <g>).
> I think he's truly one of the best characters to come out of genre
> TV in a long time.
>
> But he isn't perfect. He does things that we might consider wrong.
> He's killed 99% of his friends. But we know why he does these things
> and we are interested in seeing what he will do next. I've criticised
> Duncan before, but always from the position of my liking him, first
> and foremost.
>
> I usually trust the opinions of people who criticise characters they
> like. Because they don't have an agenda of hatred behind what they
> say: they criticise because they *like* the character and want to
> understand him.
>
> Hope that makes sense.
>
> - Marina.
Back to me:
Well, most of what you said made sense on it's own, but not as a response to
my post. <g>
I was wondering aloud about 1) why people who seem to pretty much *hate*
Duncan would keep watching the show, and 2) from whence comes a tendency
I've observed, over time, for people to be talking about the virtues of
character X and then bring in seemingly random comments about how inadequate
Duncan is, as if somehow tearing him down is required in order to build up
someone else.
Your first response is to suggest that it might be because characters with
flaws are more interesting than perfect characters, and that Duncan has a
lot of flaws. While I would agree with you that this is probably often true
for many people, I don't see how it addresses either of my points. As far
as question #1 goes, if his flaws make him more interesting, then wouldn't
that make people like Duncan, rather than hate him? Or are you saying that
people keep watching because they are interested in things they hate? My #1
above refers to the sorts of people who really can't seem to stand Duncan at
all. I've seen numerous posts in various forums from people who apparently
find him completely unlikeable and boring, and I'm just curious why they
kept watching the show at all in that case. As I said, I doubt I would have
made it past season 1. <g>
And I don't see any connection to my #2, either, although you seem to be
sort of trying to get at that one in the next part:
Marina:
"But he isn't perfect. He does things that we might consider wrong.
He's killed 99% of his friends. But we know why he does these things
and we are interested in seeing what he will do next. I've criticised
Duncan before, but always from the position of my liking him, first
and foremost.
I usually trust the opinions of people who criticise characters they
like. Because they don't have an agenda of hatred behind what they
say: they criticise because they *like* the character and want to
understand him."
Me:
Again, what you say makes sense. No, Duncan isn't perfect. And yes, the
criticisms of people who like a character may well be more worth listening
to than those who hate him/her/it. But this doesn't really speak to my
questions either. I have no problem with people criticizing Duncan. *I've*
done it, though not too often on list as I found myself defending him more
often than not <g> (personally, for instance, while I would agree he has
flaws, I'm not sure I'd say he has 'a lot of flaws,' at least not relative
to the other characters and/or people in general; and I also think it's a
*big* exaggeration to say that he's killed 99% of his friends)(but those are
both parts of another discussion, and not the one we're trying to have right
now <g>).
I wasn't talking about any/all criticism of Duncan. What I was trying to
ask about/understand (in #2 above) was why Duncan seems to be criticized
more than other characters, and to the point where he gets brought into
discussions that aren't even about him, so that someone can point out just
how great character X is, in comparison. Again, this isn't in response to
anything in the current thread, or to something recent on the list. It's
just a general question.
Leah suggested:
"I've noticed that some of those attacks come from fans who have become
tremendously fond of a different character on the show and feel that Duncan
'takes away' from their favorite, or else acts in a way toward their
favorite that they find
deplorable."
Me:
I think she makes a valid point. I've gotten that feeling from many such
posts. But one of the things I wonder about is why it seems to be something
that's peculiar to Duncan. I don't, for example, see pro-Richie posts which
criticize Joe, or Methos, or pro-Methos posts which see the need to explain
how great he is in comparison to, say, Amanda. I wonder if this is because
Duncan is the hero and the main character, and therefore most likely to be
seen as 'taking away' from others?
Hmm, again.
Lisa
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 18:39:45 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za>
Subject: Re: criticizing characters (was Re: CAH and the down-slide of HL)
Lisa wrote:
>Well, most of what you said made sense on it's own, but not as a response to
>my post. <g>
>I was wondering aloud about 1) why people who seem to pretty much *hate*
>Duncan would keep watching the show,
Oh. Okay. I missed that; thought you were asking why it seemed that
people hated Duncan. I was replying, in a nutshell, that maybe they
didn't hate him and were just criticising him.
To try to answer what you actually asked <g>, I think a lot of the
later fans - people who might not have watched the show from the
beginning - did not *start* watching the show in order to see
Duncan. I know of many fans who only started watching it after Peter
Wingfield came. So in that case, of course, they *aren't* actually
watching the show to see Duncan, even if it's ostensibly about him.
To them, Peter Wingfield is the star and they just have to 'put up'
with Duncan until they can see their favourite character, Methos.
I started watching the show for the *concept*. I watched the movie,
loved it, and can quite clearly remember being thrilled that they
were making a TV show with Adrian - because I already know him from
War of the Worlds, had read interviews with him and thought he was a
good choice. And although I fell totally in love with Richie the
first time I laid eyes on him (in the first episode, of course!),
I always knew that the show was not about him. I didn't 'sit
through' Duncan scenes until I could see Richie - I liked Duncan
from the first as well.
>2) from whence comes a tendency
>I've observed, over time, for people to be talking about the virtues of
>character X and then bring in seemingly random comments about how inadequate
>Duncan is, as if somehow tearing him down is required in order to build up
>someone else.
I think this is the tendency in any fandom, not just HL. People seem
insistent on comparing characters unfavourably. I think people feel
'threatened' by the other character, as if by acknowledging that
character's virtues, they're putting their favourite character in a
bad light. So people who like Methos, Richie, Nick, or whomever, might
very well compare them to Duncan and decide Duncan comes up short.
But I don't really think it's a logical, reasoned thing - more like
a knee-jerk reaction: 'My favourite character is better than yours,
nyah nyah!' Deep down it just comes down to which character a person
likes. If someone started watching because of Methos/Richie/Joe, and
likes only that character, it's an emotional thing - kind of like my
trying to explain why I like slash - I just do.
>As far
>as question #1 goes, if his flaws make him more interesting, then wouldn't
>that make people like Duncan, rather than hate him? Or are you saying that
>people keep watching because they are interested in things they hate?
No, no. As I said, we were talking at cross-purposes. I thought that
maybe you thought people hated Duncan because they often criticise
him. But criticism doesn't equate to hating him. And you wanted to
know why people who genuinely hate him would watch the show.
>I've seen numerous posts in various forums from people who apparently
>find him completely unlikeable and boring, and I'm just curious why they
>kept watching the show at all in that case.
Yeah. Gotta wonder. I just read a post on another (non-HL) list in
which the person wrote that Adrian "cannot act his way out of a
paper bag". I was totally flabbergasted! How could someone think
that?! But it might just be a matter of personal taste.
>while I would agree he has
>flaws, I'm not sure I'd say he has 'a lot of flaws,' at least not relative
>to the other characters and/or people in general;
Oh, no, everyone has flaws. But it's nice to see a TV hero who isn't
perfect. Which is why Duncan seems like more of a real person despite
the fantasy aspects of HL. Christopher Reeve's definition of a hero
fits Duncan well: "A hero is someone who, despite weakness, doubt or
not always knowing the answers, goes ahead and overcomes anyway."
>and I also think it's a
>*big* exaggeration to say that he's killed 99% of his friends)(but those are
>both parts of another discussion, and not the one we're trying to have right
>now <g>).
Yeah, but it would be fun. I've never bothered to keep track, but
doesn't every one of Duncan's Immortal "old friends" - with the exception
of Amanda - end up dead? And the new ones he makes are in danger as well.
If I were Methos I'd be too scared to hang around with Duncan! Not to say
that Duncan didn't have valid reasons for killing the people he did - I'm
not disputing that - it's just something I noticed along the way: Duncan
has killed almost all his friends. (And I'm not even counting Richie in
this; the BREW killed Richie through Duncan.)
>I wonder if this is because
>Duncan is the hero and the main character, and therefore most likely to be
>seen as 'taking away' from others?
I think it probably has something to do with it, yes. Being the hero,
Duncan seems like the natural target for whatever comes his way. It
makes sense.
- Marina. (Freezing cold in Jo'Burg. Hey, Tarryn, is it cold in Durbs?)
\\ "But then, we saw that Obi-Wan doth look upon ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// Qui-Gon with lust, and that Mr. Lucas was not || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ likely to include that in the next movie, so we ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// said screw it and wrote it ourselves." - Warning || \\
\\ page of the 'Master & Apprentice' slash site || //
//==fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za=Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie==\\
Watching "Demons", an episode of Stargate SG-1:
My brother: I need a trepanning ritual like I need a hole in the head.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 13:21:53 -0400
From: Lisa Kadlec <lkadlec@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: criticizing characters (was Re: CAH and the down-slide of HL)
Just a short note of little substance for now <g>
Marina Bailey wrote:
> Lisa wrote:
> >Well, most of what you said made sense on it's own, but not as a response to
> >my post. <g>
> >I was wondering aloud about 1) why people who seem to pretty much *hate*
> >Duncan would keep watching the show,
>
> Oh. Okay. I missed that; thought you were asking why it seemed that
> people hated Duncan. I was replying, in a nutshell, that maybe they
> didn't hate him and were just criticising him.
>
> To try to answer what you actually asked <g>
<bg> Thanks for taking a stab at the real questions. I do appreciate it. As to
this:
"I thought that
maybe you thought people hated Duncan because they often criticise
him. But criticism doesn't equate to hating him."
Come on, Marina! :-) I think we've both been around here long enough for you to
know that I know better than that. Just as I know that someone disagreeing with
me doesn't equate to flaming or being 'mean to me.' <vbg>
Lisa
(As to other conversations which might be fun--maybe later, though off the top of
my head I can think of several of Duncan's 'old friends' who don't end up dead
(David Keough, Gregor Powers, Carl Robinson, Warren Cochrane, and Kiem Sun), and
that's not even counting the ones who are pretty much wholly on the 'good' side
of things when we meet them (e.g. Grace, Robert and Gina, Ceirdwyn,))
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 10:33:52 -0700
From: Marie <gumarund@colfax.com>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
> Pat wrote:
> >(Tired and bored with wasting my time on this discussion)
>
> You held out the longest. Most of us got bored with it days ago.
>
> - Marina.
I imagine that for the active participants it could get boring. I
personally have found the posts generated by the oriiginal one interesting
and occasionally entertaining reading. I was shocked when I got home from a
week in the hospital and there were more than a handful of messages in the
Highlander mailbox.
For the most part the discussion has been civil which is not always the case
when the topics that have been discussed come up. This made the time I am
spending recuperating much less boring than it could have been. Now I just
hope that there is an equally interesting discussion going on after the next
surgery to do some more work on the broken hip which is not healling right.
I actually thought of the benefits of being an immortal while I was laying
in the hospital bed waiting to get the pins put in.
Lorna Marie
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 18:50:38 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
> Now I just
> hope that there is an equally interesting discussion going on after the
next
> surgery to do some more work on the broken hip which is not healling
right.
> I actually thought of the benefits of being an immortal while I was laying
> in the hospital bed waiting to get the pins put in.
> Lorna Marie.
No problem. Let me know when that's due and I'll schedule my 'Duncan the
wimp and why did they ONLY kill Richie twice?' thread.
;)
John
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 20:28:56 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
John wrote:
>No problem. Let me know when that's due and I'll schedule my 'Duncan the
>wimp and why did they ONLY kill Richie twice?' thread.
And the sounds you will hear will be the sound of me whapping (haven't
had the chance to whap anybody in *so* long!) and a few hundred Duncan
fans shredding what's left...
:)
- Marina.
\\ "But then, we saw that Obi-Wan doth look upon ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// Qui-Gon with lust, and that Mr. Lucas was not || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ likely to include that in the next movie, so we ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// said screw it and wrote it ourselves." - Warning || \\
\\ page of the 'Master & Apprentice' slash site || //
//==fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za=Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie==\\
Watching "Demons", an episode of Stargate SG-1:
My brother: I need a trepanning ritual like I need a hole in the head.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 19:47:03 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
Marina threatens ;-)
> John wrote:
> >No problem. Let me know when that's due and I'll schedule my 'Duncan the
> >wimp and why did they ONLY kill Richie twice?' thread.
>
> And the sounds you will hear will be the sound of me whapping (haven't
> had the chance to whap anybody in *so* long!) and a few hundred Duncan
> fans shredding what's left...
>
> :)
(Jette holds up a BIG shield for John)
Gaun yersel, John! Get stuck in there!
;-)
Jette
Glory may be fleeting, but obscurity is forever!
bosslady@scotlandmail.com
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fanfic.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 10:03:21 -1000
From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
mouse--
> I do hope Nina and Lance will be happy together in
> my kill-file.
Well, it's gonna be crowded in there, what w/ all of Lance's imaginary
friends butting in, not to mention JFK, Martin Luther King JR, & Jesus
Christ. (As to Him, I guess it's just as well my conscience is clear on
that pesky fanfic thing, at least.)
I think it's interesting how threatened some people are by differing views,
especially on a supposed discussion list. So threatened that they do the
cyber equivalent of plugging their ears toddler-style, & at least _say_ they
killfile certain people. The oddest reaction, though, is what's-her-name (I
can never keep Leah & Annie straight; oh, well--a difference that MAKES no
difference IS no difference) who keeps saying she has me killfiled, yet
keeps responding to _other_ people's posts to me & commenting that way. It
IS a neat way to be able to personally attack me, yet avoid needing to
comment on what I _say_. Yet, pathetic.
So, John, you haven't yet figured out a way to distinguish the fanfic you're
OK w/, from the scenario I proposed about someone adding a bit of artwork to
your Impact articles & distributing those via the Internet? Interesting.
Nina
geiger@maui.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:34:18 EDT
From: Dawn Lehman <USTADAWN@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Review of the Breed
In a message dated 7/20/01 8:31:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
finbarr@microsoft.com writes:
> http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0
>
OK, I saw the movie, read the review from Cinescape.com, and here's my take
on it....
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
The movie was ~OK~ in my opinion. I still can't help feeling disappointed by
the fact that the movie - which was B grade material as far as I am concerned
- did not do very much for Adrian Paul's career as a "Top billing -A- type
movie actor!!! I love Sci-Fi movies, but the "dirty" too futuristic setting
and the un-developed characters really detracted from it. There wasn't much
of a plot (at least it wasn't expanded upon as well as it could have been).
I just WISH Adrian would get top billing in a Top Box office movie for a
change - that would really make his career explode! (I know Highlander
Endgame could have fallen into this spot, if it were... blah, blah, blah,
(won't rehash millions of topics here about EndGame).
I feel Adrian is WAY PAST his due for a good top box office movie!!!!!
Anyway, this was all in my HUMBLE opinion.
(Oh, BTW, he did a great job on his character in this story; he's such a good
actor!)
Ciao
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 19 Jul 2001 to 20 Jul 2001 - Special issue (#2001-211)
*******************************************************************************