HIGHLA-L Digest - 7 Jun 2005 to 8 Jun 2005 (#2005-63)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Wed, 8 Jun 2005 22:00:08 -0400
There are 9 messages totalling 476 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT (9)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:42:21 +0100
From: "a.j.mosby" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
> John--
>> If someone could create a show (as was considered) for Spike (James
>> Marsters) then I'm not sure Methos would have been a creative stretch.
Nina--
> There is a key difference between Whedon's vampire lead characters &
> Highlander's Methos. Angel & Spike were demons & had no souls when they
> were the scourge of Europe, killed 2 Slayers, ate babies, etc. When their
> souls were restored, they reacted differently but both felt guilt & horror
> over their evil deeds & neither (when in their right minds) cheerfully
> continued committing atrocities. Far as I know, Methos was always human &
> always had a soul--he just managed to ignore it in a rather stupendous way
> &
> for a really, really long time. Actually, we have no proof that he ever
> grew a conscience, as opposed to changing times simply making a low
> profile
> the better survival course. It is the fundamental change & associated
> dramatic angst the characters underwent from evil to good that makes Angel
> &
> Spike viable lead characters; w/ Methos, there was no fundamental change
> of
> character--only a change of times & what worked to best safeguard his
> personal survival. That's what limits Methos as a viable lead character.
Can't argue with the overview in and of itself, though I think it'd be
perfectly possible to create a show around a character who we like despite
the fact that he might be a bad role model and, ultimately, even a bad guy.
I think Methos clearly has *some* sort of conscience, though it may be
limited to how far he'll listen to it. He goes out of the way to save Mac on
a few occassions where the opportune thing would be to simply walk away.
It's clear he considers some of our main cast friends, though it's unclear
whether he's leave them all hanging to dry if push came to shove. He's
ultimately a pragmatist and a seasoned one at that.
But watching The Shield I see a central character who has a dark but
intelligent agenda and twisted-but-understandable moral code that's just as
fluid and possibly deep-set. Vic Mackey would have been a better example,
maybe, but the comparison I was making to Spike was the attraction of a
morally ambigious character to a series rather than one actually seeking
redemption as a possible theme. There have also been intelligent comics
based around villains - often with interesting insights into why they do
what they do. TV isn't that far behind. I'm not saying Methos Place or
Point Pierson would be a good idea, but I don't think a series is impossible
simply because of Methos' character (though I think he's always better as
the foil).
I'm also tempted to think that the success of House shows us that we can
have a central character who can make us cringe with his utterly un-PC
outlook sometimes, but is utterly engaging, undeniably smart, never modest
and usually annoyingly right.
Come to think of it, there's probably a series out there for me.
;)
John
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:51:14 -0400
From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
John says:
> But watching The Shield I see a central character who has a dark but
> intelligent agenda and twisted-but-understandable moral code
> that's just as fluid and possibly deep-set. Vic Mackey would have been
a
> better example, maybe,
I'm not a "Shield" watcher but I assume that Vic , while violent and
not above skimming a bit of drug money now and then, is really all about
"the job"? You know, the kind of cop that beats up people and condones
various illegal activities in the name of either catching bigger fish or
keeping peace on the streets? I assume he helps small children in
danger and rescues the occasional abused woman? Which would mean that he
has more of an agenda than we ever saw out of Methos. The bad-ass cop
is just an out-growth of the gunfighter ... justice at the end of a gun
or a pair of brass knuckles. Methos doesn't have justice in mind at all
, IMGLO.
>but the comparison I was making to Spike was the
> attraction of a morally ambigious character to a series rather than
one
> actually seeking redemption as a possible theme.
But you really can't separate the moral ambiguity from the redemption in
Spike's case. In some ways, BtVS *was* "The Spike Show". Imagine BtVS
without Spike...it's harder to imagine that than to imagine it without
Angel. Spike arrives as the evil vampire. We discover over time that
while "evil", he has a soft spot where love is concerned. We saw him
struggle with his dual nature (animal and lover) and try to become a
better man (and this was before he had a soul ). We saw his on-going
love/hate relationship with Buffy...from the early "comic book" days of
him doing something bad and escaping at the last minute to the final
days where they were equal partners in the fight against a greater evil.
It was all about redeeming Spike. If he had remained the bad boy of
Season Two, it would have been boring as hell after a while.
> I'm also tempted to think that the success of House shows us
> that we can have a central character who can make us cringe with his
utterly un-PC
> outlook sometimes, but is utterly engaging, undeniably smart,
> never modest and usually annoyingly right.
Again...House saves people's lives every week (or tries to). We're
willing to be amused at his appalling personality because he saves the
day. If he was the same person and was just that nasty with no
particular "redeeming" quality... I think the show would away fade very
quickly.
I think Methos' appeal is the very fact that we don't know why he does
(or doesn't do) things. A TV series would inevitable answer the "why"
....and would kill the appeal.
Wendy(Anyone heard from Fearless Leader Debbie recently?)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 18:51:13 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
OMG! I can't believe I'm going to agree with Nina! But:
>we have no proof that he ever
>grew a conscience, as opposed to changing times simply making a low profile
>the better survival course. It is the fundamental change & associated
>dramatic angst the characters underwent from evil to good that makes Angel &
>Spike viable lead characters; w/ Methos, there was no fundamental change of
>character--only a change of times & what worked to best safeguard his
>personal survival.
Does anyone think that there's *anything* in the world that could
*possibly* *ever* make Methos undergo some sort of fundamental character
change the way Nina describes Angel and Spike? I've been thinking about
it and I really can't think of one. Threaten his life? Been there, done
that. Kill someone he loves? Ditto. *Maybe* if someone found some
ludicrous, sci-fi way to siphon his immortality (like in the HL cartoon,
apparently - I never saw it) then *maybe*. But short of that, I can't
think of one thing.
>Interesting. OK--DM is a lush & intricately patterned sweater (in chocolate
>tones). And Methos is a skein of basic beige. But Richie's just lint.
He's the lint that Marina keeps safely tucked away in a little pouch in
her bottom drawer for sentimental value. :)
>(unfortunately, AP tends to choose sweaters that make my eyes bleed)
I personally like that chunky white jersey Methos was wearing in "Chivalry".
Come to mama! (Daniel's white 'ascended' jersey is a close second.)
- Marina.
\\ "I'm naming all the stars." ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// "You can't see the stars, love. That's the || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ ceiling. Also, it's day." - Drusilla & Spike ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//===============tmar@sifl.iid.co.za============|| \\
\\==============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
Teal'c: You have no recollection of the incident?
Daniel: No. Who shot me?! ["Lockdown"; Stargate SG-1]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 18:51:17 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
>(Anyone heard from Fearless Leader Debbie recently?)
Yes. On another list. More than that I'm not authorized to tell you.
:)
- Marina.
\\ "I'm naming all the stars." ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// "You can't see the stars, love. That's the || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ ceiling. Also, it's day." - Drusilla & Spike ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//===============tmar@sifl.iid.co.za============|| \\
\\==============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
Teal'c: You have no recollection of the incident?
Daniel: No. Who shot me?! ["Lockdown"; Stargate SG-1]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 13:04:24 -0400
From: L Cameron-Norfleet <cgliser@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
Nina:
> >we have no proof that he ever
>>grew a conscience, as opposed to changing times simply making a low profile
>>the better survival course. It is the fundamental change & associated
>>dramatic angst the characters underwent from evil to good that makes Angel &
>>Spike viable lead characters; w/ Methos, there was no fundamental change of
>>character--only a change of times & what worked to best safeguard his
>>personal survival.
Marina:
>Does anyone think that there's *anything* in the world that could
>*possibly* *ever* make Methos undergo some sort of fundamental character
>change the way Nina describes Angel and Spike?
I do.
Time.
I think that it's perfectly reasonable for someone to have
fundamental and drastic changes to their personality over the course
of 5000 years (or more). Did we see any proof of that happening in
Methos? No.
Do I think that affecting this sort of change in a way that resembles
geologic time would work for a main character in a series? No. If
only because of the logistics.
Nina:
> >Interesting. OK--DM is a lush & intricately patterned sweater (in chocolate
>>tones). And Methos is a skein of basic beige. But Richie's just lint.
Nina, Nina, Nina. Have we learned *nothing* over the years?
Methos is GREY.
Lisa
--
Lisa Cameron-Norfleet ** cgliser@earthlink.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 13:07:30 -0400
From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
I asked:
> >(Anyone heard from Fearless Leader Debbie recently?)
Marina says:
> Yes. On another list. More than that I'm not authorized to tell you.
Marina?
Bite me!
Wendy (Smart ass.)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@cox.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:16:09 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
John--
> I think Methos clearly has *some* sort of conscience
"Clearly"? Were we watching the same show?
> He goes out of the way to save Mac on
> a few occassions where the opportune thing would be to simply walk away.
And each time, it can be argued Methos acted on his own agenda--NOT for
Mac's benefit.
> It's clear he considers some of our main cast friends
And they say Hitler loved dogs. So? Considering Joe a pal when convenient
isn't proof of a conscience.
> I'm also tempted to think that the success of House shows us that we can
> have a central character who can make us cringe with his utterly un-PC
> outlook sometimes, but is utterly engaging, undeniably smart, never modest
> and usually annoyingly right.
As has been said, House saves lives. If he were an incompetent orderly, his
offbeat attitude wouldn't be tolerated by the hospital OR by viewers. As
opposed to saving lives, what does Methos do? He saves his own life. It's
just not good drama.
Lisa--
>>I think that it's perfectly reasonable for someone to have
fundamental and drastic changes to their personality over the course
of 5000 years (or more). Did we see any proof of that happening in
Methos? No.>>>
Living 5,000 years is so far outside the actual human condition that
imagining WHAT it would be like is tough. According to what Methos shows
us, though, it's no big deal. Time just ... passes. Even assuming that
Methos DID develop a conscience over the millenia, what does that say about
him, as opposed to people who were born w/ one? One the other hand, maybe
that's how Gods are made. Still, Methos has a way to go.
> Nina, Nina, Nina. Have we learned *nothing* over the years?
> Methos is GREY.
I think camo green is more apt, really.
Wendy--
> In some ways, BtVS *was* "The Spike Show". Imagine BtVS
> without Spike...
Impossible. Kind of like imagining Marina posting here w/o talking about
me....
Nina (also--La Femme Nikita was really all about Michael) (yum)
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 18:47:13 -0400
From: L Cameron-Norfleet <cgliser@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
me:
I think that it's perfectly reasonable for someone to have
> fundamental and drastic changes to their personality over the course
> of 5000 years (or more). Did we see any proof of that happening in
> Methos? No.>>>
>
Nina:
> Living 5,000 years is so far outside the actual human condition that
> imagining WHAT it would be like is tough.
Yes. But saying "it's too big to think about" is kind of a cop out.
We have to *try* to put it into the actual human perspective, or the
whole conversation is moot.
I've known people who have changed in personality *drastically* in the
course of a decade. It's part of maturing. This is the logic I am
using when supposing that Methos could have changed so much over the
course of 5000 years.
> According to what Methos shows
> us, though, it's no big deal. Time just ... passes.
And isn't that how we mortals feel about our daily lives? I know I
frequently look back and say "It was HOW long ago that I did X?" it
feels like yesterday. My gut reaction to the question of "When did you
graduate from college?" is "Five years ago". The REAL answer is twelve
years ago.
Time just...passes.
> Even assuming that
> Methos DID develop a conscience over the millenia, what does that say
> about
> him, as opposed to people who were born w/ one? One the other hand,
> maybe
> that's how Gods are made. Still, Methos has a way to go.
One could argue that children are born without consciences and develop
them over the course of their lifetime.
Certainly a five year old has to be *told* why it's a bad thing to pull
the legs off of ants--he's not born with that innate sense of what is
right and what is wrong. I don't believe there is anything hard-wired
into human nature that says "It's wrong to
rape/murder/steal/fill-in-the-blank". We have to be taught these
things. There are laws about these things. There are no laws about
having to breathe or eat or pee.
Yeah. Methos has a way to go. But I don't think that means he can't
ever get there because of what he was in the Bronze Age.
Lisa
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 13:44:10 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
me before, then Lisa--
>> Living 5,000 years is so far outside the actual human condition that
>> imagining WHAT it would be like is tough.
>
> Yes. But saying "it's too big to think about" is kind of a cop out.
> We have to *try* to put it into the actual human perspective, or the
> whole conversation is moot.
Well, it is largely moot, since Immies aren't real. Applying "actual human
perspective" is tricky. According to HL canon, Immies are human, but
different in one fundamental way--theoretically capable of living forever.
How the passage of immense time changes them or not doesn't necessarily
follow any normal human rules.
We can only go by what the series showed us about ancient Immies, & it
wasn't growth or fundamental change. Across the millennia, Cassie nursed
her grudge (&, of course, did her nails), Kronos & co remained blood-thirsty
lunatics, & Methos ... survived. Now, Darius changed dramatically, but the
whole Light Q/finding God thing clouds the issue regarding him; there's no
evidence anything similar happened to Methos, & indeed he would be the 1st
to jeer at any such possibility. Even looking at far "younger" Immies that
we know more about--Connor never changed a bit, Amanda's soul was
perpetually starved, & Duncan will always be a Boy Scout & head of his clan.
Blame the writers if you want, but in HL the characters didn't really
change--no matter how long they lived.
> One could argue that children are born without consciences and develop
> them over the course of their lifetime.
> Certainly a five year old has to be *told* why it's a bad thing to pull
> the legs off of ants--he's not born with that innate sense of what is
> right and what is wrong. I don't believe there is anything hard-wired
> into human nature that says "It's wrong to
> rape/murder/steal/fill-in-the-blank". We have to be taught these
> things.
And it took thousands of years for Methos to learn that
rape/pillage/massacre is a no-no? I guess he's really, really slow.
> Yeah. Methos has a way to go. But I don't think that means he can't
> ever get there because of what he was in the Bronze Age.
I think that his heinous past makes it only prudent to demand some extremely
strong proof of change. The series never provided that.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 7 Jun 2005 to 8 Jun 2005 (#2005-63)
************************************************************