HIGHLA-L Digest - 25 Aug 2003 (#2003-197)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Mon, 25 Aug 2003 22:00:02 -0400
There are 6 messages totalling 583 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced
punk] (5)
2. Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or
whiney voiced punk]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:35:04 -0500
From: Shawn <core@enodev.com>
Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish,
or whiney voiced punk]
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 17:57, MacWestie wrote:
> Lucky for you, as it happens.
How? (Raising multi-phasic shields, loading torpedo bays 1-7)
> > Homo-erotic is used by me /really/ loosely.
> Not on this list, it isn't. Nothing is, actually. Say what you mean & mean
> what you say, or you waste the time of those trying to discuss things w/
> you.
Like I said, the fact that he fails to pull off the biker-bad-arse makes
him (to me) look like an extra in a "Village People" music video. I
guess homo-erotic fits pretty well considering how he comes off to me.
Now, to the next person, who knows. Maybe most folks don't see it that
way. Unfortunately, it is irrevocably the case from my perspective, and
no amount of cheer leading will change it.
> > The fact that he just doesn't
> > pull the look off makes him (to me) look like an extra in a village
> > people music video.
> Nah, that was just the crappy green jacket. Tessa soon tossed it.
It was especially this way for my eyes, though, when Richie went off on
his killing spree.
> > Opinions are by definition subjective and do not need to be "backed up".
> You' re new here, right? The point of a discussion list like this one is to
> present _& defend_ one's opinions. That means thinking before one types,
> not speaking "loosely," backing up opinions, etc.
Circa 1995, back from a 4-5 yr hiatus. Anyway, the discussion was in a
"poll" context, which by it's nature is simply a question.
I did, however, invite the flag waiving with the tone of the poll... ;)
> > No, the point was "Do you agree that he was pissy and that sux0red?"
> Huh?
$sux0red = "sucked";
Anyway, it was a comment meant to point out arguing disjunct points was
futile. Tom: "You suck eggs!" Ben: "No, I wear pants!"
> > I don't know where you get this, and frankly I find it odorous to assume
> > these "qualities" exist in the "average" 18 year old. As an 18 year old
> > I would have been spitting mad at having been insulted in such general
> > terms, and questioned your maturity for making such a generalization.
> Which would have been less than a mature reaction & completely typical....
Mad being typical maybe, but questioning ones maturity for making broad
negative generalizations is very logical.
> > I really don't feel obliged to teach you the fundamentals of logic.
> Which is a good thing, considering you don't appear equiped to teach anyone
> much of anything.
Seems fitting you'd misspell "equipped" in an insult meant for me... ;}
Sorry, but you asked for it. Anyway, I boast an IQ of >140, and was
called a genius by some of my philosophy profs. I don't, however, hold
any teaching degree, so alas, you're right to an extent.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:47:04 -0500
From: Shawn <core@enodev.com>
Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish,
or whiney voiced punk]
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 17:50, L Cameron-Norfleet wrote:
> Sandy, to Shawn:
> >Well I would guess that "most" HL fans don't agree with your subjective
> >opinions. Here are my subjective opinions:
> >
> >1) Richie was annoying sometimes, just like most people his age.
> >2) The fact that he was annoying (even if he were annoying *all* the time)
> >doesn't mean he shouldn't have been a regular in the show.
> I find Duncan annoying ALL the time. Ergo, he was written poorly and
> should not have been a regular in the show.
>
> Right, Shawn?
You're missing the crucial point. Do you believe Duncan is annoying to
/most/ folks /all/ of the time? If so, SURE!
> Shawn:
>
> >>No, just saying that Stan relies on choreography, and Richie+sword-fight
> >>is more boring as a result. (my opinion, and I bet I'm not alone) Make
> >>him a regular character, and you have more boring sword fights on average.
>
> Sandy:
>
> >Most actors rely on choreography for swordfight.. for *any* fights as a
> >matter of fact.
>
> ALL actors rely on choreography during fights. If they don't,
> someone gets hurt. It doesn't matter if Adrian is a martial arts
> expert, or if Sarah Michelle Gellar has a black belt, or if Peter
> Wingfield is certified level 3 in stage combat...one simply does not
> adlib in a fight scene. It's *dangerous*.
I guess well executed blocks and strikes are more important to me than
some other folks.
Be that as it may, it's a non issue, as pointed out, as there's usually
at least one proficient sword-skilled person in a fight.
> We're not talking about real fights here. We're talking about
> choreographed fights that are supposed to look real. The difference?
> In a real fight, you are trying to hurt the other person. In a
> choreographed fight, you're trying to LOOK like you're trying to hurt
> the other person WITHOUT actually doing so. Every hit is scheduled
> with a block or a dodge. Make it up on the spot and your partner may
> or may not be quick enough to catch it. If they're not, they get
> hurt.
My [non]point is choreography doesn't make up for poor stances and badly
executed maneuvers. Scenes need to be "cut up" more, and with more
obscuring angles.
> And yes, it HURTS to get hit with a sword. Even an aluminum one with
> a dull edge. I have a scar from missing a parry, in fact.
Wow... Aluminum must have /terrible/ balance. Well, I guess mine feels
like cast iron sometimes... While I wouldn't spar with it, it still
wallops that watermelon like a champ!
> > Most actors don't have the sword and martial arts skills
> >that Adrian Paul has. Plus, Richie only had one or 2 on-screen fights out
> >of the whole 6 years of the show anyway... it's a non-issue.
>
> Adrian's martial arts skills probably gave him an edge (no pun
> intended) when it came to making the fights look more real. Stan
> wasn't as good at it--at ACTING like he knew how to fight.
Even if he did have /some/ scenes, I think the writers handled it
properly by not making "Richie fight scenes" common.
> For example, watch the fight scene between Kronos and Cassandra in
> Horsemen. Valentine Pelka is very experienced with stage combat.
> Tracy Scoggins is not. You can tell. There are points in the fight
> where it's clear that he's...slowing himself down to keep with the
> pace she is capable of. He's better at acting like a swordsman.
Neat. I'll have to look at that one.
> Shawn:
> >>You need to buy (and read) a book on critical thinking.
> Oh. My.
> {{shakes head sadly}}
I addressed this a moment ago, and I'll just say the response fit the
situation.
I'll admit, though, I was indulging my childish side.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:04:31 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish,
or whiney voiced punk]
Shawn--
> Now, to the next person, who knows. Maybe most folks don't see it that
> way. Unfortunately, it is irrevocably the case from my perspective, and
> no amount of cheer leading will change it.
I suspect nothing ever changes anything for or about you, so why bother?
> > > The fact that he just doesn't
> > > pull the look off makes him (to me) look like an extra in a village
> > > people music video.
> > Nah, that was just the crappy green jacket. Tessa soon tossed it.
> It was especially this way for my eyes, though, when Richie went off on
> his killing spree.
Maybe I'm not up on Village People videos, but DO the extras go around
beheading folks?
Shawn before--
> > > Opinions are by definition subjective and do not need to be "backed
up".
me before--
> > You' re new here, right? The point of a discussion list like this one
is to
> > present _& defend_ one's opinions. That means thinking before one
types,
> > not speaking "loosely," backing up opinions, etc.
Shawn--
> Circa 1995, back from a 4-5 yr hiatus.
Newsflash--the show ended.
Shawn--
>Anyway, the discussion was in a
> "poll" context, which by it's nature is simply a question.
You meant "its"; the genderless possessive does not have an apostrophe, any
more than "his" does. An apostrophe is only used to indicate a contraction
of "it is."
But, yes, your poll. Interestingly, polls are only allowed under the list
rules if you have prior permission from the list owner.
> > > No, the point was "Do you agree that he was pissy and that sux0red?"
> > Huh?
> $sux0red = "sucked";
Maybe on _your_ planet....
> Seems fitting you'd misspell "equipped" in an insult meant for me... ;}
Guess I was still trying to work out your "sux0red."
> Sorry, but you asked for it. Anyway, I boast an IQ of >140, and was
> called a genius by some of my philosophy profs.
Oh, well, THAT'S different. Now that we are informed of your special
status, I'm sure everyone on the list will agree w/ you completely in every
way. (Except regarding apostrophes.)
Nina (if you have to TELL people you're smart.....)
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:45:28 -0400
From: Wendy Tillis <immortals_incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish,
or whiney voiced punk]
Shawn wrote:
>Keep in mind, this is all still meant to be simply an exchange of
>opinion.
Then let's try to keep it that way, eh?
Me:
> So, yes, IMGLO, Richie's behavior was within the realm of "normal".
Shawn:
>Perfect! I don't know where you get that most 18 year olds are hell bent
>on anarchy and have pissy bitchie tendencies.
<smile> Just where did I say that *most* 18 year olds were hell bent on anarchy or had prissy bitchie tendencies? I've argued that being prissy and bitchie (as defined by you) is within the range of normal behavior for teens. Not that *all* teens behave that way- only that it is not unrealistic to show *one* teen behaving that way. Richie's behavior was not an indictment of teens everywhere. He wasn't meant to symbolize all teens everywhere. He was simply *a* teen. On the bell curve of teen behavior and personality he may well have been to one end or the other, that doesn't make him a less "realistic" character.
Me:
>> But you'll have to go into a lot more detail
>than you have if you want to actually support your opinion that Richie's
>tale was bad story-telling.
Shawn:
>Opinions are by definition subjective and do not need to be "backed up".
Ah. Interesting notion.
Shawn.
>I simply believe that
> 1. The character of Richie was annoying (I'm not the only one)
> 2. Annoying characters should be short term
> 2a. Richie is whiny. (subjective)
> 2b. It had been posed that Richie was only annoying due to his tough
>upbringing.
> 2c. Characters which require one to understand the specificities of
>their life story in order to identify with them have a "learning-curve"
>if you will, which new viewers would find to be an obstacle in the way
>of identifying with said character.
> 2d. A large portion of viewers find Richie annoying. (opinion based
>on anecdotal evidence)
> 3. One of the goals of any TV series is to reach out to a larger,
>hotter, or in any case, additional demographic to the extent that
>artistic integrity is not violated and core fan base is not alienated.
> ERGO:
> Given the subjective opinions stated are true, the conclusion of
>"Bad Storytelling(tm)", or, at least counterproductive storytelling is
>at least likely.
Sorry , but your perfect logic has some wopping big leaps in it and you have assumed several "facts" not in evidence. Your #1 and #2a are identical. #2 is purely your opinion. #2c is assumes truth where none has been demonstrated. #2d is, as you note, anecdotal and useless in discussion. #3 may or may not be true but, without more, does not support or refute your conclusion. #3 springs forth fully formed without basis in the points listed above it. Whininess and annoyance of a character and the learning curves of viewers do not, per se, indicate Bad Storytelling(tm) unless you insist on defining Bad Storytelling(tm) as any story you didn't like.
One might as well say:
1) Onions are disgusting.
2) Cooking with onions should be avoided.
2a) Onions are bad.
2b) It is suggested that onions are gross because of their many layers which are natural in most onions.
2c) Learning to appreciate onions takes time which most people don't want to dedicate to the effort
2d) Many people find onions icky.
3) One of the goals of cooking is to reach as many hungry people as possible....
Ergo: Given my subjective dislike of onions, any recipe that uses onions is Bad Cooking (tm).
And the correct response to this is "No". Many great foods include onions and my personal dislike of onions does not render these food "bad". All it does is render them unpalatable to *me*. The recipe is fine....I just don't happen to enjoy the outcome.
Shawn:
>My opinion does not need "backing". This is a conclusion of "Bad
>Storytelling(tm)" based on subjective opinion, but more to the point,
>that's what ANY such argument would be based on. What's "BAD"?
I think the sky is lavender. It's my opinion. It's subjective and it's correct. Is that the way of it? I think Richard Nixon was the funniest man ever to live. It's my opinion. It's subjective and it's correct, right? And no one is allowed to ask me for an example of a single funny thing Nixon said...and no one is allowed to ask me on what I base my opinion that the sky is lavender, huh?
The mind boggles.
me:
> Even adults who get shuffled around as children and never have
>stable homes can be soft-hearted and naive when it comes to certain
>aspects of life. Richie was an optimist. He wanted to see good in people.
Shawn:
>No, the point was "Do you agree that he was pissy and that sux0red?"
No, Shawn, the question was..even if he *was* pissy, does that make him a bad character or any story that includes him a bad story. (PS..the answer is"no")
Shawn:
>So his personality was peace, but he went on an indiscriminate killing
>spree.You'd think he would at least select his enemies more carefully based on
>like/dislike, evil/good, etc etc.
Did you actually ever see any other episode besides "End of Innocence"? Because you seem pretty hung up on it..and seem unable or unwilling to discuss Richie beyond that one moment in time. Richie went head hunting. It wasn't his best moment. Duncan once hunted down British soldiers and killed them while their wives and children watched. Not his best time either. Methos killed tens of thousands for fun.
And to be strictly correct..Richie didn't go on an indiscriminate killing spree. He mostly just stopped avoiding fights when they came his way. He stopped backing down or looking for a way out. If he came across another Immortal...they fought. Which is all part of the Game.
Me:
>> And I expect many people would
>get pissy when confronted with an Immortal lifestyle.
Shawn:
>My point has always been a subjective one, and that is that this detracts
>from the story, and asked others for their opinion too.
And you've gotten others' opinions. Those opinions seem to be unanimous that, regardless of whether Richie was annoying or not, the storytelling on HL:TS was, generally speaking, topnotch. It only seems to be in your mind that story-telling and the likeablity of character are inexorably linked.
Shawn:
>>18 or not, that makes him a bitch.
Me:
>> Or just a teenager.<EFG>
Shawn:
>I don't know where you get this, and frankly I find it odorous to assume
>these "qualities" exist in the "average" 18 year old.
You added the "average", not me.
>As an 18 year old
>I would have been spitting mad at having been insulted in such general
>terms, and questioned your maturity for making such a generalization.
Getting spitting mad and all righteously insulted when someone suggests that *some* teenagers are self-centered, whiny, occasionally annoying, etc is not really such a great example of "maturity", now is it?
Me:
>> What you are really saying is that *you* would have preferred HL:TS
>without Richie. Or that you would have preferred Richie to be a different
>type of character. And that's fine. But, without Richie, HL:TS would have
>been very different. With a more "mature," less whiny Richie, many
>episodes of HL would have been different. Would they have been "better"?
>Maybe from your point of view, but that is hardly definitive (except for
>*you*). The writers had a story to tell...the story *they* wanted to
>tell...and that story included Richie with all his "faults". If you had
>been writing HL, you would have had different stories to tell. Not
>necessarily *better* stories, just ones that*you* liked more.
Shawn:
>I think you're forgetting that of course the subjectivity of the follow-on
>goes without saying and is assumed. I'm not trying to win a tug of war. I
>don't have to preface everything I say which is intrinsically opinion with
>a disclaimer stating that the following is my opinion. It truly goes
>without saying.
If you say that Richie is annoying - *that* is just your opinion and everyone here understands that without adding IMO at every turn.. Taking the next unsupported step to saying that an annoying Richie equals bad storytelling is rather more than a simple subjective opinion. Storytelling is an art (or maybe a craft). I can look at a painting and declare that I hate it....that's my opinion and I need not really say more if I don't want to. If , however, I say that the painting is an example of bad painting technique..I had better be prepared to back that up with more than "because I say so."
Me:
>> I'm sorry...but one can agree that Richie is annoying and still think he
>was a good character and/or that he writing was good. It isn't an
>either/or proposition. Richie was *a* character. He had faults and good
>points - as any well-drawn character should have. Could he be
>exasperating? Of course. And the fact that he drew such an emotional
>response from the audience means the writers *did* capture some "truth"
>about the ways of teenaged boys. Not *all* teenaged boys..but enough to be
>recognizable to many many viewers.
>...and what part of what I said disagrees with that?
The part where you say Richie is an example of bad storytelling?
>You're still merely
>disagreeing with one of my basic premises, not the validity of the
>argument itself. The only difference is that you disagree with the other
>premise, which I have already acknowledged many times is subjective, and
>was the point of the "poll" to begin with.
If I do not accept one of your basic premises as true, why would I accept the validity of your argument?
>I really don't feel obliged to teach you the fundamentals of logic.
I doubt that you could teach me logic..since your opinions are not based on logic You clearly state that your opinions are your opinions. Period. Full stop.
Me:
>> What you seem to be proposing is that no series should ever have a
>character whose personality is annoying to any possible member of the
>audience - even if that character is a realistic portrayal of some "real"
>people.
Shawn:
>I'm really struggling with whether to even reply to this, as you are
>totally putting words in my mouth.
I don't think so. Let me see if I have this right.
1) You believe Richie was annoying.
2) You believe that annoying characters should be short term at best
3) You believe that using annoying characters for the long term is bad storytelling.
Did I mis-state anything?
>Ru Paul is not a good regular immortal character simply because he
>portrays someone who is realistic to "some" people. Richie falls into
>the same (yet to a lesser extent) category. I have to say, I would
>definitely watch a one-episode Ru Paul HL:TS.
Please explain why RuPaul could not be a satisfactory long term character. Think of the difficulties a tall, black, transvestite Immortal might face over the ages. Think of the trouble he could get into...the choices he would make over the years trying to fit in (or not). He and Duncan would have clashed wonderfully..which can be the start of good storytelling.
>>>But anyway, that's what this is about. Public opinion.
>> No, not *public* opinion. Your opinion. Or my opinion. You can't
>extrapolate.
>Huh? That doesn't even make any sense.
What? You don't know what the word "extrapolate" means?
>You need to buy (and read) a book on critical thinking.
I think I did once....probably when I was on my way to graduating with honors from law school.
Wendy(Who turned the Bunny loose?)(I do like onions, btw.)(Wouldn't want to upset the onion lovers in the crowd.)(I don't really think the sky is lavender.)(That's deb's worldview.)(Nixon could be pretty funny.)(In a put-a-gun-to-your-head-in-frustration sort of way)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:42:23 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish,
or whiney voiced punk]
At 07:17 PM 8/25/2003, Shawn wrote:
>Almost seems like they were trying to break out of some false dichotomy
>which dictates good guys can't be mentally weak.
Well no. Actually I think they did a very good job of showing a
less-than-perfect hero. We did see many weaknesses in Duncan. Those
weaknesses made him more human... more like us. We couldn't always be sure
that the hero was going to do the right thing. *He* could never be sure
that he was going to do the right thing.
Me:
> > And I'm saying you're wrong. The fact that a character has annoying traits
> > does NOT mean that the character shouldn't be there. Plus, I still say that
> > *most* (not "some") HL viewers found Richie's character to be quite
> realistic.
Shawn:
>By realistic do you mean "most 18 yr olds", or do you contend that it's
>not /that/ far off the beaten path?
I don't know your age, but I'll tell you I'm 50. I was 18 once upon a
time. At that time I thought I was very smart, very mature, very
savvy. When I look back on it now... the way I thought, the opinions I
held, the actions I took, I can see just how stupid ...er... I mean...
immature I really was. 18-year-olds are as mature as 18-year-olds are
supposed to be.... which means more mature than a 10-year-old and less
mature than a 30-year-old. When a 30, 40, 50-year-old looks at the
behavior of an 18-year-old, they can see that it is indeed immature, but
normal for that age. No insults implied... just fact. 18-year-olds aren't
*supposed* to be as mature as a full-grown adult. They're teenagers, for
heaven's sake! And Richie acted his age.
>On the non-issue, good point. I guess the Richie character was an onion
>in my pie, but not for you. (In ym opinion, you must like onions in your
>pie...) ;)
Depends on what kind of pie it is. :-) I liked the character of Richie
Ryan. I liked Jo Dawson, too. ::: ducking from the Weezel :::
Shawn to Wendy:
> > >You need to buy (and read) a book on critical thinking.
Me:
> > Ouch #2. Why are you being insulting?
Shawn:
>I find it insulting when someone goes off like "...oh, so you're saying
>you don't want any possibility of any character being annoying to
>anyone.", which clearly was not the case.
Oh.. so you just want them to get rid of characters that *you* don't like.
Actually Wendy's summation of your case was dead on. You find Richie
annoying and you've said that *for you*, annoying characters shouldn't be
regulars. I would assume you would agree that others who watch tv have the
same rights as you. If so, this would mean that if I, or Wendy, Lisa, or
anyone else found a character to be annoying, then that character shouldn't
be a regular either. Wendy finds Joe annoying, so by your standards, he
shouldn't have been a regular in the show because the character was
annoying to someone. I found Charlie annoying, so he shouldn't have been a
regular in the show because the character was annoying to someone. Lisa
found Duncan annoying, so I guess he shouldn't have been a regular either
because someone found him annoying.
Saying that you don't like a character (for whatever reason) is
valid. Saying that the character shouldn't have been there -- just because
you didn't like him -- is going too far, unless you're also willing to get
rid of every character that is disliked by someone.... which would probably
leave us without a television show.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:51:48 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish,
or whiney voiced punk]
At 07:47 PM 8/25/2003, Shawn wrote:
Lisa:
> > I find Duncan annoying ALL the time. Ergo, he was written poorly and
> > should not have been a regular in the show.
> >
> > Right, Shawn?
Shawn:
>You're missing the crucial point. Do you believe Duncan is annoying to
>/most/ folks /all/ of the time? If so, SURE!
Than I think you've just made our point. If the character (by your
standards) has to be annoying to most folks all the time, then Richie
doesn't fall into that category. He was annoying to some people some of the
time. Not for everyone, and not all the time.
>I guess well executed blocks and strikes are more important to me than
>some other folks.
If it was a show about sword-fighting, it would be all-important. But even
though the fighting was an important part of the show, it's not the basis
of the show... so no, it wasn't *that* important.
>Even if he did have /some/ scenes, I think the writers handled it
>properly by not making "Richie fight scenes" common.
I agree. Trying to make a fight scene look good with 2 non-skilled actors
can be done, but probably not with the time/budget constraints that they
were working under. FWIW, they also handled Richie's quickenings very well
by keeping them off-screen... except for one. :::shudder::: DQ = disco
quickening
-- Sandy
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 25 Aug 2003 (#2003-197)
************************************************