Wet Dreams: Thoughts on Amor Fatuousness
NJP
some of the things I was feeling weren't of the moment.
Seems to me that one can track the history of this kind of California
dreaming right from season two. We have Scully's riverboat dream from "One
Breath." Simple. Direct. Unadorned. Moving and Powerful.
The next season we have Mulder's pine needle somnambulating. A little more
airy. A little more solemn. A lot more pretentious but still powerful. Still
effective.
A couple of humorous jaunts to dreamland. The busty pornnurse and kickass
Scully scenario from "Kill Switch" and the Nazi version of "Titanic."
The "Grand Inquisitor" scene from "Talitha Cumi" comes to mind, though that
wasn't, strictly speaking, a dream.
Then we have Mulder's mental calisthenics in "Amor Fati."
I am reminded of the story of "Faust, part Two." Goethe wrote the first part
of his drama in his youth. It is a lean, powerful drama that opened itself
up to all sorts of interpretations. The play, though, acquired so much
interpretive baggage, and its author so much repute, that by the time that
Goethe came to write the second part, in his middle age, he was faced with
the daunting task of composing something that would, in essence, sum up the
whole of western thought and do so in flawless style. Needless to say, what
he ended up with was, to be kind, a mess. Sort of like the first raisin-nut
bread I ever baked. Half-baked on the inside with all kinds of weird things
swimming around and tooth-shatteringly dense on the outside.
Which is, in some respects, how I feel about "Amor Fati."
I'm not going to sit around and argue about how much of this was all in
Mulder's mind and how much of this was real. I think the elements we know to
be real--Scully's efforts and CSM and Fowley in the operating theater--were
the skeins of a really terrific mytharc episode--my God, they were casually
tossing out the answers to six-year old questions like they were penny
candy--but it ultimately failed as an episode because we seem to have
forgotten to leave enough time to have a real ending. Schade!
Instead of having Scully actually *rescue* Mulder--you know, gun drawn or
whatever, we just conveniently send everybody off to the can while she
waltzes in and squirrels him out. Hey, you know, it *was* more realistic
than her dragging him a mile through the Antarctica snow, firing up the fuel
exhausted snow-cat and getting him to safety before he froze to death....but
not by much. Sorry Gillian, looks like your character just isn't *ever* go
to get to really save his butt the way he does yours.
As for that hokum that passed for a dream. I'm sorry but I just don't buy
it. Period. If, as we are constantly being told, Scully is *that* important
to him then how is it that he just walks away from her? For years and years
and years? And then she just walks back into his dream at the end? How
convenient. (Writing tip: either match up her little tirade with the real
world praying or with her real-world begging him to come around at the end.
Either way, you give him a *reason* to be in his dream as opposed to
mechanically walking in at the proper plot point.) I cannot buy that someone
so important to his existence would be so cavalierly tossed off--regardless
of the state his psyche was in--and in particular as he had recently read
her thoughts and *knew* all of her feelings for him. It's the kind of
dismissal of Scully-as-soulmate that was at the heart of "Field Where I
Died." It didn't work there and it doesn't work here.
As for the "Last Temptation" bit....sorry. Screen the Star Trek:TNG ep where
Piccard "dreams" he lives an entire life on another, dying planet. That's
good writing in this vein. The 2001 turn-around-and-time-has-changed montage
of scenes was almost laughable (though you did get the makeup right...Mulder
in his dotage in bed looked just like his mother....a little too much, in
fact. It was scary.)
Where do we start? The cigarette? Maybe you do? Let me diagram this. Just
like in the real world where the real CSM works to lull us to sleep so the
aliens can kill us, so Mulder has a mini-me CSM in *him* telling him to
throw in the towel and give up. How deep. His CSM side almost gets away with
it...until his feminine "Scully" side tells him the truth.
And the Deep Throat business. The most suspicious man in the world sits
there with a straight face and listens as his confederate and confidant
tells him to sit back and forget it and he doesn't so much as object?
Please, spare me.
And, of course, any excuse to get the fulsome Ms. Fowley into a bra.
Actually, given the amount of sexual activity Mulder has had over the years,
I guess I might really *believe* that getting some regularly might cloud his
mind. Maybe I would have been more amenable to that scenario if we hadn't
been banging that "Fatherhood" drum so loudly. Gee, do you think so much of
this mytharc has to do with fathers and sons? A miracle we didn't get
Turgenev in there somewhere.
Speaking of *fathers,* like, where was his. Yes yes yes. We made the point
several times that the guy he *thought* was his father wasn't. And the bit
with Ma Mulder and her conversation with CSM and her signing Mulder out of
the hospital, when added to CSM and Fowley's comments in the OR, pretty much
confirms that. So how would that suddenly eliminate a lifetime's worth of
*thinking* that Bill Mulder was his father? If it were a Mulder dream, where
was Bill Mulder? He was there for the pine blanket perambulations. He was
there for the Inquisitor. Couldn't make the flight down from Vancouver? Left
him off the call sheet?
At least they got Samantha's hair color right this go around. Even if it
still *wasn't* really her.
There was the boy on the beach. Did we shoot those scenes on alternate days
from the Scully-in-Africa stuff? How wonderfully cost efficient. "Okay, take
down the huts!" "Put up the picket fence and cue the sea gulls!" So let me
diagram this one. The child Mulder playing in the sand. The older, adult
Mulder has been sitting on the sidelines letting child Mulder play around.
But child Mulder can't build his spaceship--that would be a metaphor for
exposing the alien conspiracy--because, like any child, he lacks the
expertise and does careless things like build it too close to the water. He
needs older mature *adult* Mulder to show him the way. But older adult
Mulder is too preoccupied. He lacks child Mulder's faith in what he is
doing....until dream Scully comes along and kicks his ass. In the end, the
adult Mulder and the child Mulder work *together* to "uncover" the spaceship
in the sand.
Ain't symbolism grand?
And lets not forget to tie it back to Scully's religion by having the ghost
of Albert the Navajo Shaman show up twice at the apartment and, mirabile
dictu!, having him get down on his knees and asking her to pray. Funny,
Albert, you don't *look* Catholic!
What bothers me. What really frosts me about this ep is that they got me.
The last five minutes of this ep were magnificent. Beautifully acted, well
scripted, entirely in tune with six years of the two characters and their
feelings and relationship with each other. That is what this show is about.
When it stays with Mulder and Scully and keeps the high-minded bullsh*t down
to a minimum is succeeds better than anything else on the tube. That whole
scene reeked with the same kind of love for the characters that infused the
end of "The Unnatural" and I have to credit the same creative hand,
Duchovny, I presume.
There were other good points. The scene between Scully and Fowley was
terrific. Coupled with the latter's bedside confession in the middle hour,
it set up the mechanism of the denouement nicely. Davis is superb in
whatever he does. I take it, from the operation and from his conversation
about "saving us all" that he has gone from bad guy to good guy (and quicker
than a WWF cage match!).
And other questions. The rebel aliens have been lurking around flaming every
effort for the past couple of years. So where there they? Vacationing on
Venus while all this was going on?
Ah me. Four or five more hours of this.
Bring on the MOTWs. Please.
NJP
Tracy Cozzens
to him then how is it that he just walks away from her? For years and years
and years? And then she just walks back into his dream at the end?>>
He was told Scully would be in danger if he contacted her, in the dream. And
the dream didn't REALLY last years and years and years. Haven't you ever lain
in bed pondering "what ifs"? What if I had done this back then. Where would I
be today? What kind of life would I be living now?
She returned when CSM no longer cared about whether Mulder lived or died or
pursued his quest, because he was "old" and dying. In the real-world corollary,
CSM was getting what he wanted from Mulder, and he DIDN'T care if he lived or
died. He told Mulder Scully was long dead, and this snapped Mulder out of his
"contentedness" more than any other loss--he called for her, and she came and
got his butt back in gear.
Magpie
> << If, as we are constantly being told, Scully is *that* important
> to him then how is it that he just walks away from her? For years and years
> and years? And then she just walks back into his dream at the end?>>
> the dream didn't REALLY last years and years and years. Haven't you ever lain
> in bed pondering "what ifs"? What if I had done this back then. Where would I
> be today? What kind of life would I be living now?
> She returned when CSM no longer cared about whether Mulder lived or died or
> pursued his quest, because he was "old" and dying. In the real-world corollary,
> CSM was getting what he wanted from Mulder, and he DIDN'T care if he lived or
> died. He told Mulder Scully was long dead, and this snapped Mulder out of his
> "contentedness" more than any other loss--he called for her, and she came and
> got his butt back in gear.
A few weeks ago I dreamed that I won a contest so Duran Duran
came over for dinner. Why not David Duchovney? Why why why??
-m
--
"Yes, that's right...Love should come before
logic...Only then will man come to understand the
meaning of life." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Tracy Cozzens
came over for dinner. Why not David Duchovney? Why why why??>>
I dreamed recently that I met Tom Cruise. Why Tom Cruise?? Why??? He doesn't
hold a candle to DD!! Oh, it's just not FAIR.
Deborah
news:19991115234325...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
Clint Eastwood! It totally mystified me. I never cared for his films, but I
went to see a few after the dream. Still didn't like them.
Deborah
NJP
> He was told Scully would be in danger if he contacted her, in the dream.
Yeah. Buy this magazine or we'll shoot this Scully.
And
> the dream didn't REALLY last years and years and years. Haven't you ever
lain
> in bed pondering "what ifs"? What if I had done this back then. Where
would I
> be today? What kind of life would I be living now?
Well, I guess we're lucky he didn't end up in Bedford Falls with Donna Reed,
aren't we?
I don't have any quibble with the idea set out--that, faced with imminenet
death, that Mulder might dream of the life he might of had--or that it was
Scully who would, ultimately, pull him out of his reverie. My problem is
with the execution of it. "Yeah Fox, we'll just toddle on over to CSM's
house and he'll explain it all to you."
Excuse me, how does the guy who said:
"But you saved me! As difficult and as frustrating as it's been sometimes,
your goddamned strict rationalism and science have saved me a thousand times
over! You've kept me honest ... you've made me a whole person. I owe you
everything ... Scully, and you owe me nothing ... I don't know if I wanna do
this alone ... I don't even know if I can ..." (FTF which, whatever its
other faults may be, handled the business of Mulder's dependence on Scully a
lot better than B/TSE/AF.)
how does this guy just shrug his shoulders and say "Ok. No more Scully."
Just like that. I don't buy it. (Writing tip #2: it should have been
*Scully* in that kitchen telling Mulder to let go. If you can't weave it
believably into the story then have her morph into CSM or Deep Throat or
somesuch. How much more effective would that whole sequence have been if CSM
had produced an elderly "Scully" who continued to assuage Mulder's fears and
Mulder--a la "Kill Switch"--came to the realization that the *real Scully
would never have counseled him in that fashion and dragged himself out of
bed to find the *real* Scully. (Or, if you want pyrotechnics, have the real
Scully kick her way into his bedroom and karate chop the elderly fake Scully
and CSM before delivering that strident sermon. Ah, me. The possibilities,
the possibilities......)
NJP
NJP
news:19991115220403...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
> He was told Scully would be in danger if he contacted her, in the dream.
Yeah. Buy this magazine or we'll shoot this Scully.
And
> the dream didn't REALLY last years and years and years. Haven't you ever
lain
> in bed pondering "what ifs"? What if I had done this back then. Where
would I
> be today? What kind of life would I be living now?
Well, I guess we're lucky he didn't end up in Bedford Falls with Donna Reed,
aren't we?
I don't have any quibble with the idea set out--that, faced with imminent
death, that Mulder might dream of the life he might of had--or that it was
Scully who would, ultimately, pull him out of his reverie. My problem is
with the execution of it. "Yeah Fox, we'll just toddle on over to CSM's
house and he'll explain it all to you and you'l feel better." C'mon. What
did they do over there? Smoke the drapery cord?
GravesPA2
*Scully* in that kitchen telling Mulder to let go. If you can't weave it
believably into the story then have her morph into CSM or Deep Throat or
somesuch. How much more effective would that whole sequence have been if CSM
had produced an elderly "Scully" who continued to assuage Mulder's fears and
Mulder--a la "Kill Switch"--came to the realization that the *real Scully
would never have counseled him in that fashion and dragged himself out of
bed to find the *real* Scully. (Or, if you want pyrotechnics, have the real
Scully kick her way into his bedroom and karate chop the elderly fake Scully
and CSM before delivering that strident sermon. Ah, me. The possibilities,
the possibilities......)>>
Sorry, Nick, but I firmly disagree with this. Scully's presence in any part of
the dream (before the end) would have defeated its purpose. For Mulder,
Scully is truth, and truth had no place in that realm. The only way Mulder
could have led the life of his dream world was to walk away from truth, to push
it out of his sight. Mulder couldn't see what might have been had Scully been
part of it, so his weary, drug-addled brain tucked her "safely" away in a place
where she never got sick and never lost her sister--and where she couldn't
rouse him with the truth.
But in the end, he couldn't die without seeing her again, no matter what lie
CSM told him about her death. That desire and need saved him, for once he
allowed himself to see her, she told him the stark truth that no one else in
the dream would tell him. The truth, embodied by Scully, enabled him to rise
up and fight.
Having her in the dream would have been a horrible writing decision.
Paula Graves
A woman and her okra create a little webpage....
http://members.aol.com/gravespa2/index.htm
Meg Belviso
>Tracy Cozzens <tracyc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991115220403...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
> He was told Scully would be in danger if he contacted her,
in the dream.
<<Yeah. Buy this magazine or we'll shoot this Scully.>>
It's not a question of anyone really telling him not to call Scully. It
simply
set up the rules of the dream. Scully is safe and if you call her you
will destroy her life. Again. Better to stay here.
>And the dream didn't REALLY last years and years and
>years. Haven't you ever lain > in bed pondering "what ifs"? What if I
>had done this back then. Where would I > be today? What kind of life
would I be living now?
<<Well, I guess we're lucky he didn't end up in Bedford Falls with
Donna Reed, aren't we?>>
<<I don't have any quibble with the idea set out--that, faced with imminent
death, that Mulder might dream of the life he might of had--or that it was
Scully who would, ultimately, pull him out of his reverie. My problem is
with
the execution of it. "Yeah Fox, we'll just toddle on over to CSM's house and
he'll explain it all to you and you'l feel better." C'mon. What did they do
over there? Smoke the drapery cord?>>
<<Excuse me, how does the guy who said:>>
<<"But you saved me! As difficult and as frustrating as it's been sometimes,
your goddamned strict rationalism and science have saved me a thousand
times over! You've kept me honest ... you've made me a whole person. I owe
you everything ... Scully, and you owe me nothing ... I don't know if I
wanna do
this alone ... I don't even know if I can ..." (FTF which, whatever its
other faults
may be, handled the business of Mulder's dependence on Scully a lot
better than B/TSE/AF.)>>
<<how does this guy just shrug his shoulders and say "Ok. No more
Scully." Just like that. I don't buy it.
Pretty easily. He dreams he walks away from the Quest and therefore
from Scully and lives a quiet life hidden with the other people from the
Quest. Scully is better off without him.
He's dependent on Scully when he's fighting aliens. He wishes he
could give her the life she deserves.
<<(Writing tip #2: it should have been
*Scully* in that kitchen telling Mulder to let go. If you can't weave it
believably into the story then have her morph into CSM or Deep Throat
or somesuch. How much more effective would that whole sequence
have been if CSM had produced an elderly "Scully" who continued to
Mulder's fears and Mulder--a la "Kill Switch"--came to the realization
that the *real Scully would never have counseled him in that fashion and
dragged himself out of bed to find the *real* Scully. (Or, if you want
pyrotechnics, have the real Scully kick her way into his bedroom and
karate chop the elderly fake Scully and CSM before delivering that
strident sermon. Ah, me. The possibilities, the possibilities......)>>
Now you're just story-conferencing. You might as well say Amor Fati
should have been a MOTW or been about WMM. It's fine to not like
the ep, but you have to take it on its own terms. Your ideas might
be fine, but they're not Amor Fati. Actually, they're retreads of Kill
Switch and Field Trip, as you point out, so why would we need to
see them again? How many times do we have to be shown that
Mulder can tell a fake Scully from the real one? He knows that,
so he's removed her from the scene.
It certainly wouldn't have been more effective to have a cartoon Scully
kicking her way into the room or to have Mulder dramatically outing
her as a fake for me. It doesn't get much stronger than Scully looking
Mulder in the face and calling him a coward or a traitor. That was much
more painful and it snapped him out of his lethargy pretty damned quick.
He had betrayed Scully. And not just in a virtual reality. He was
betraying
her by not fighting for life.
Also, why assume Mulder needs to "figure out" this is a dream? Who's to say
he isn't aware he's dreaming on some level? The reality is that he's
strapped
on a table, so he can't do anything in the real world. So in his head he
sees what would happen if he just died and left the whole quest behind:
"Ah,
everything's just fine. I can leave. Nobody needs me, I'll just hang
here." Then
reality-based Scully turned up and shocked him out of it.
This dream paralleled what was really going on with him. In reality, Mulder
was
strapped to a table, dying. All he had to do was let go and give up and
join
all the others who had drifted away: DT, Samantha. He could just stay with
CSM and DF and they would take care of him in a nice house. What does
it matter anyway? Scully's better off without him. His quest idea was
childish. It's not the suburbs that is the attraction, it's the simplicity
and ease.
He's tired and CSM is offering him a nice, warm bed.
Sure, Scully could have been in the dream, but why does she have to be? Why
would
Mulder, who underneath knows that what he's really choosing is death, want
to drag
Scully down with him? Why put more guilt on himself by pulling Scully into
the
suburbs? In his dream, he had *done right by Scully*. She was, presumably,
a doctor somewhere, no longer in danger and having the life she deserved.
In FT and KS there were outside forces controlling his dream; here Mulder
was
fighting himself. He's more sophisticated than the mushroom; he knows
what his real fears are about Scully--that he's ruined her life and should
walk
out of it.
Those other dreams were about tricking Mulder into not knowing he was in
danger.
This dream was about accepting the danger without fighting; iow, embracing
death. Thus, the apathy, the peaceful acceptance. But in the end, before
he died,
he did want to see Scully once more. He's afraid and reaches out for her.
He wants
her to hold him while he passes over. But when Scully comes in, she's
the real thing. She doesn't thank him for leaving "for her own good"
anymore
than he thanked her for trying to resign in FTF. She tells him what he's
really
doing: he's giving up because it's _too hard to fight_, and he's lettering
her
down by doing that.
-m{agpie}
NJP
news:19991116113248...@ng-tx1.aol.com...
> <<(Writing tip #2: it should have been
> *Scully* in that kitchen telling Mulder to let go
>
part of
> the dream (before the end) would have defeated its purpose. For Mulder,
> Scully is truth, and truth had no place in that realm. The only way
Mulder
> could have led the life of his dream world was to walk away from truth, to
push
> it out of his sight.
Which he didn't do. It just kind of....disappeared. I'm not so in love with
the above scenario that I prefer it to an improved version of what was
there. Merely that I think that certain elements that have long appeared to
be important to Mulder's psyche---Scully, most of all---were elided in a way
that makes me reject the dream as a real plumbing of the depths of Mulder's
mind and heart. I could have done with twenty seconds of, say, Mulder's
father, rather than big-screen type alien spacecraft metaphorically zapping
his brain cells.
Mulder couldn't see what might have been had Scully been
> part of it, so his weary, drug-addled brain tucked her "safely" away in a
place
> where she never got sick and never lost her sister--and where she couldn't
> rouse him with the truth.
You're writing their script for them Paula. If any part of that had been up
there...even five seconds of it...we'd not be having this conversation.
> But in the end, he couldn't die without seeing her again, no matter what
lie
> CSM told him about her death. That desire and need saved him, for once he
> allowed himself to see her, she told him the stark truth that no one else
in
> the dream would tell him. The truth, embodied by Scully, enabled him to
rise
> up and fight.
Absolute true. Except that it wasn't Scully telling him the truth. It was
his dream of her doing that. (All that speculation about what he was
overhearing and how that was influencing his dream doesn't work here because
she's still wandering around the halls--unless you postulated that his
mind-reading ability is still intact and he can hear her through walls--but,
we know that can't happen because, in one of the few deft touches here, he
can't read CSM's mind while in the dream state because you can't *read* the
mind of something that is a figment of your imagination.) Faced with final
dissolution it was Mulder's *own* will to survive that put her in the dream
and made her say--in an almost robotic way--those things.
> Having her in the dream would have been a horrible writing decision.
I think it can work but , well, you're the writer, kiddo.
NJP
Unbound I
>> part of it, so his weary, drug-addled brain tucked her "safely" away in a
>place
>> where she never got sick and never lost her sister--and where she couldn't
>> rouse him with the truth.
>
>
>
>You're writing their script for them Paula. If any part of that had been up
>there...even five seconds of it...we'd not be having this conversation.
>
>
>
defend what she wrote but she is not writing the script, but merely taking the
symbolism and ideals that were already there and expounding upon them as I and
others have done as well.
I think it's very telling that Scully is rarely mentioned in Mulder's dream.
And don't you think that's somewhat odd? Of course it is, unless you consider
the untruths the dream represents for Mulder. And it is her arrival as the
truth in his life that snaps him out of his dream. Mulder even has a line of
dialogue at the end which spells it out pretty clearly.
So it was all there--perhaps not as tidy and neat as some might have it, but
it was a dream, filled with abstracts and symbolism. But it all made sense and
the dialogue at the end of the episode makes that quite clear IMO.
>
>
>
>> But in the end, he couldn't die without seeing her again, no matter what
>lie
>> CSM told him about her death. That desire and need saved him, for once he
>> allowed himself to see her, she told him the stark truth that no one else
>in
>> the dream would tell him. The truth, embodied by Scully, enabled him to
>rise
>> up and fight.
>
>Absolute true. Except that it wasn't Scully telling him the truth. It was
>his dream of her doing that. (All that speculation about what he was
>overhearing and how that was influencing his dream doesn't work here because
>she's still wandering around the halls--unless you postulated that his
>mind-reading ability is still intact and he can hear her through walls--but,
>we know that can't happen because, in one of the few deft touches here, he
>can't read CSM's mind while in the dream state because you can't *read* the
>mind of something that is a figment of your imagination.) Faced with final
>dissolution it was Mulder's *own* will to survive that put her in the dream
>and made her say--in an almost robotic way--those things.
>
>
>
that deals with fantastic ideas so the idea that Scully as a form of symbol
"entering" Mulder's dream to steer him back to reality is not only possible but
entirely logical within the framework of the show. It works thematically and is
consistent with the characters as they have been drawn for us.
Mulder was on the table. He had given up. He was prepared to die, but there
was a part of his consciousness that still NEEDED to see Scully again. And that
coincided with her literal arrival to wherever the heck he was during the
experiments.
She symbolically entered his dream at the exact same moment she entered the
lab where he was being held. That's a wonderful dramatical parallel in my
opinon. The hows and whys for it (he "sensed" her presence or whatever) are
inconsequential to me since this is a show that deals with events that cannot
always be explained logically.
But there can be no way of ignoring, IMO, the idea that Scully represents
the truth and it is that representation and Scully's presence at that moment in
his dream that gives Mulder the strength to continue to fight. She is the one
who supplies it for him (making him a whole person again if you will).
Again, these ideas work dramatically and are entirely consistent within the
framework of the characters, their relationship and the show itself.
Unbound I
NJP
news:860F7FC6D679D211A3E300A0C9E12049A3F01C@GP-1A...
> <<NJP wrote>>
>
> It's not a question of anyone really telling him not to call Scully. It
> simply set up the rules of the dream.
Rules? There are rules? Fourth down and Scully to go? I thought that one of
the major premises of *dreams* as such is that they *have* no rules.
As I said, I have no quarrel with the premise. Merely the execution of it.
To have him simply walk away from the individual who is arguably the most
important thing in his life as if it were nothing more than shedding a
sweater is ludicrous. This isn't a play here where the characters have the
ideas and intentions of their real-life counterparts. This is a puppet show
in Mulder's head. The "devil" as it were, is not *really* tempting him as
with TLTOC, this is Mulder deciding whether he ought to lay down and die.
The whole dream is driven by his desire to give up his guilt, the force that
keeps him going, it would seem, and who, besides his sister, is most
forcefully at the center of that? His partner. I suppose that it is arguable
that the *first* thing his mind would try to neutralize would be Scully's
influence rather than the last, but I'd have been satisfied with a little
deeper and less facile treatment.
> <<how does this guy just shrug his shoulders and say "Ok. No more Scully."
Just like that. I don't buy it.
>
> Pretty easily. He dreams he walks away from the Quest and therefore
> from Scully and lives a quiet life hidden with the other people from the
> Quest. Scully is better off without him.
> Now you're just story-conferencing. You might as well say Amor Fati
> should have been a MOTW or been about WMM. It's fine to not like
> the ep, but you have to take it on its own terms.
Apply this comment to the paragraph above it. You can *make* Mulder do and
be anything. He's just a character in a teleplay. You can make him forget
Scully, dye his hair sky blue and joint a rock band. You can even make him
fall in love with a reincarnated Civil War heroine---of course, none of that
will be consistent with the character as written the past six years but,
hey, you can't have everything. I'm sorry, I was in somebody's mind last
Sunday but it only bore a passing resemblance to the guy I've spend 145 odd
hours with over the past six seasons.
Your ideas might
> be fine, but they're not Amor Fati. Actually, they're retreads of Kill
> Switch and Field Trip, as you point out, so why would we need to
> see them again?
Well, everything is a retread of everything. The point isn't that it *is* a
retread but whether is says something new and different about the character.
How many times do we have to be shown that
> Mulder can tell a fake Scully from the real one? He knows that,
> so he's removed her from the scene.
Does he? Sorry, I missed that story conference. He knows that she's safety
tucked away...until he knows that she's not because she's in the room
ripping him a new a-hole? My, that's convenient.
> It certainly wouldn't have been more effective to have a cartoon Scully
> kicking her way into the room or to have Mulder dramatically outing
> her as a fake for me.
Leaving aside the fact that the kickass Scully comment was a bit of humor,
it doesn't occur to Mulder then, in all those years, that Scully would never
come looking for him...until, of course, that final cue? It never occurs to
him to try to go out of his perfect world? The most paranoid man on earth?
Well, maybe it's the tranquilizer.
> Also, why assume Mulder needs to "figure out" this is a dream?
Huh? If he doesn't, he's a dead man.
Who's to say
> he isn't aware he's dreaming on some level?
More story conferencing? Assume, assume, assume. You know the drill. Why do
we have to say things like "who's to say?" Well, I'm to say. You're to say.
That's who. Anytime we have to start constructing back story to explain
what's going on, it's because the creators aren't doing their job.
> everything's just fine. I can leave. Nobody needs me, I'll just hang
here." Then reality-based Scully turned up and shocked him out of it.
His internal realization predates her ministrations by a couple of minutes.
(By my lights, an editing mistake.)
> This dream ..a nice, warm bed.
A firm grasp of the obvious, no doubt. No argument here. It's the ease with
which he slips into the bed that I question.
> Sure, Scully could have been in the dream, but why does she have to be?
Why
> would Mulder, who underneath knows that what he's really choosing is
death, want
> to drag Scully down with him?
For the same reason that she's still there after all that nonsense in FTF.
Because she wants to be there and he wants her to be there. (See the quote.)
That dream Mulder, the psyche of the guy who would drive a rental Taurus
through a brick wall to catch lightning in a bottle, simply accepts that she
is now out of his life forever--for her good or not--strikes me as
simplistic to the point of stupidity. That she enters, stage left, at the
proper moment, to deliver the "don't give up the ship" speech (and, while
we're at it, given what we have of Mulder's mental picture of Scully, would
she stride in like a robot and chastise him as she did or would she be more
like real-world Scully with the teary plea? Don't answer that, I *don't*
want any *Bad Blood* around here!) leaves me snickering.
I'm sorry if that offends people. I was as moved by that smoopy ending as
anyone. I fully expect his line about his "upside down world" and her place
in it...but it didn't
ring true to me...check that....as true as it might have.
NJP
NJP
news:19991116134514...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
> I disagree here. ... She symbolically entered his dream at the exact
same moment she entered the
> lab where he was being held. That's a wonderful dramatical parallel in my
> opinon. The hows and whys for it (he "sensed" her presence or whatever)
are
> inconsequential to me since this is a show that deals with events that
cannot
> always be explained logically.
No. she didn't *symbolically* anything. She appeared in his dream. She might
be construed as a mental projection of his will to live as expressed through
the one person who was emblematic of the part of his reasoning mind which
refused to fool itself--his conscience. That his mind would make the
connection between the two is a neat piece of writing--just played out a bit
too obviously for my tastes.
David Hume once commented that it was dangerous to look for cause and effect
where there was none. His example was, I believe, of a carriage passing a
bell tower and the clock therein striking noon. If it happened enough, the
uninformed person might come to believe that the one caused the other. Were
the carriage horse to throw a shoe, the observer's world would be tossed
into chaos. Happily, as it relates to television programs, the juxtaposition
of two pieces of video tape is not an accident, though, as long time viewers
of this show will doubtless attent, logic sometimes seems absent as a
causative agent. Certainly, the sliding key and the appearance in his mind,
(in the same outfit. Either that boy is clairvoyent or we got to save money
on those production costs!) by being butted together imply that she is
somehow causing her own appearance in his mind. I've watched that sequence a
half dozen times and, it seems to me, that it just doesn't work that way.
She is two doors off as he goes through his beratement and doesn't enter the
room until it's over. As we have been led to believe--by the fate of poor
Gibson Praise--that Mulder has lost his mind-reading God Module by this
point, so he can't be riffing off her thoughts.....I guess it must just be
that Christian Dior Poison Eau de Toilette she's wearing.
NJP
bubbela
>
> Unbound I <unbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19991116134514...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
>
> > I disagree here. ... She symbolically entered his dream at the exact
> same moment she entered the
> > lab where he was being held. That's a wonderful dramatical parallel in my
> > opinon. The hows and whys for it (he "sensed" her presence or whatever)
> are
> > inconsequential to me since this is a show that deals with events that
> cannot
> > always be explained logically.
>
> No. she didn't *symbolically* anything. She appeared in his dream. She might
> be construed as a mental projection of his will to live as expressed through
> the one person who was emblematic of the part of his reasoning mind which
> refused to fool itself--his conscience. That his mind would make the
> connection between the two is a neat piece of writing--just played out a bit
> too obviously for my tastes.
I agree with the interpretation of Scully's dream appearance as a mental
projection of Mulder's will to fight expressed through the person who
best personifies it. The difference is that I thought it was a neat
piece of writing that *did* work for me.
As I understand it, your two main problems are that Scully should have
been present throughout his dream because of her real-life importance to
him, and should have been more active in his rescue. In another post
you say:
> As for that hokum that passed for a dream. I'm sorry but I just don't buy
> it. Period. If, as we are constantly being told, Scully is *that* important
> to him then how is it that he just walks away from her? For years and years
> and years? And then she just walks back into his dream at the end? How
> convenient. (Writing tip: either match up her little tirade with the real
> world praying or with her real-world begging him to come around at the end.
> Either way, you give him a *reason* to be in his dream as opposed to
> mechanically walking in at the proper plot point.)
Aside from the fact that *no one* controls their own dreams --
especially not people who are heavily drugged with part of their brain
going haywire -- this dream wasn't about Scully, it was about a life
without Scully (and without TXF, or the quest, or anything else that
makes Mulder who he is). That was the whole point. A story about
Mulder longing for Scully would be nice -- might be one that you would
prefer to have been written -- but the story the writers elected to tell
was one where Mulder imagines a life without Scully. Is having such a
dream out of character for Mulder? Perhaps having such a dream would be
out of character for Mulder in an undrugged state when he's not slowly
going out of his mind. But I don't know how to judge what is "in
character" for someone in the condition he was in at the time.
You also said:
> Instead of having Scully actually *rescue* Mulder--you know, gun drawn or
> whatever, we just conveniently send everybody off to the can while she
> waltzes in and squirrels him out.
I liked the fact that, as with the best XF stories, Mulder and Scully
work together -- in this case, to save Mulder's soul. It was important
for Mulder to help in his own salvation by just "hanging on" as long as
possible, which is all Scully implored him to do at the end of SE and
all he was capable of doing at that point. He did this by retreating
when possible to the boy on the beach, by finally understanding what the
boy was trying to tell him, and by conjuring up Scully's stern image
when he needed it most -- hanging on at least until Scully could find
him and do her part in the end. I agree that having Scully suddenly
show up, at the proper door in the right facility (from the editing, it
appears that the room Mulder was located in the stairwell of her
apartment building) was over-rushed and therefore weaker than it could
have been from a logical point of view (though not from an emotional
point of view). I blame this mostly on the fact that they spent so much
time spinning their wheels in SE and then had to cram too much into AF.
> Certainly, the sliding key and the appearance in his mind,
> (in the same outfit. Either that boy is clairvoyent or we got to save money
> on those production costs!) by being butted together imply that she is
> somehow causing her own appearance in his mind. I've watched that sequence a
> half dozen times and, it seems to me, that it just doesn't work that way.
> She is two doors off as he goes through his beratement and doesn't enter the
> room until it's over. As we have been led to believe--by the fate of poor
> Gibson Praise--that Mulder has lost his mind-reading God Module by this
> point, so he can't be riffing off her thoughts.....I guess it must just be
> that Christian Dior Poison Eau de Toilette she's wearing.
I don't think any cause and effect was intended, at least the way I
interpret it. It's what the boy on the beach tells him -- that he's not
supposed to be sitting idly by, he's supposed to be helping -- that
conjures up Scully's image in the dream to tell him the same thing in a
somewhat more forceful way. I'm content that what Scully actually
*does* do in the end is more than enough to help pull him the rest of
the way out. I don't think there was enough strength or will left in
him to make it all the way back by himself.
--
bubbela
"I am confident of nothing but the holiness of
the heart's affections and the truth of imagination."
-- John Keats
Magpie
> > <<NJP wrote>>
> > It's not a question of anyone really telling him not to call Scully. It
> > simply set up the rules of the dream.
>
> Rules? There are rules? Fourth down and Scully to go? I thought that one of
> the major premises of *dreams* as such is that they *have* no rules.
But aren't we both arguing that they do? Except I had less problem
with the rules 1013 came up with in this dream than you did? I'm
saying: Mulder was told he couldn't contact Scully, so he
accepted it. Therefore, that was the rule in the dream.
You're saying: Mulder *can't* decide to agree to that in this
dream because it doesn't fit with his character. It's
against the rules to dream out of character.
We're both right/wrong, and my way totally breaks the convention
you mention below about the clock tower, but I thought that was
in the text and in a dream the clock tower could have power
over the woman with the carriage, if somebody says it does.
<snip>
> > Pretty easily. He dreams he walks away from the Quest and therefore
> > from Scully and lives a quiet life hidden with the other people from the
> > Quest. Scully is better off without him.
> > Now you're just story-conferencing. You might as well say Amor Fati
> > should have been a MOTW or been about WMM. It's fine to not like
> > the ep, but you have to take it on its own terms.
> Apply this comment to the paragraph above it. You can *make* Mulder do and
> be anything. He's just a character in a teleplay. You can make him forget
> Scully, dye his hair sky blue and joint a rock band. You can even make him
> fall in love with a reincarnated Civil War heroine---of course, none of that
> will be consistent with the character as written the past six years but,
> hey, you can't have everything. I'm sorry, I was in somebody's mind last
> Sunday but it only bore a passing resemblance to the guy I've spend 145 odd
> hours with over the past six seasons.
But I'm not making him do this, 1013 is. This is what he did
in the episode, so how can I be making it up? It's canon. Mulder
also fell in love with a Civil War heroine, so that's also in
character for him. There's only been one time during the show
I've ever had to ignore something because it was too out of
character for even *me* to rationalize, and that was Scully
leaving Mulder out in the hall to die in Agua Mala.
> Your ideas might
> > be fine, but they're not Amor Fati. Actually, they're retreads of Kill
> > Switch and Field Trip, as you point out, so why would we need to
> > see them again?
> Well, everything is a retread of everything. The point isn't that it *is* a
> retread but whether is says something new and different about the character.
> How many times do we have to be shown that
> > Mulder can tell a fake Scully from the real one? He knows that,
> > so he's removed her from the scene.
>
> Does he? Sorry, I missed that story conference. He knows that she's safety
> tucked away...until he knows that she's not because she's in the room
> ripping him a new a-hole? My, that's convenient.
Again, I'm going by what Mulder did in the dream. Of course
he knows she's safe, because he's not going after
her. She is safe. It's a dream.<g>
Then she shows up in the room--safe and young--because she does.
This is part of that whole "dreams don't have any rules"
idea. He's lucky she didn't show up dressed as a chicken.
> > It certainly wouldn't have been more effective to have a cartoon Scully
> > kicking her way into the room or to have Mulder dramatically outing
> > her as a fake for me.
> Leaving aside the fact that the kickass Scully comment was a bit of humor,
> it doesn't occur to Mulder then, in all those years, that Scully would never
> come looking for him...until, of course, that final cue? It never occurs to
> him to try to go out of his perfect world? The most paranoid man on earth?
> Well, maybe it's the tranquilizer.
I thought it was more than the tranquilizer, but it doesn't matter.
He didn't try to get out of his world, so either it fits with
his character or it doesn't. For me, it's not a problem. I
wish it wasn't a problem for you because it's annoying when
something totally doesn't work in an episode you're watching.
I believe you when you say it doesn't work for you.
> > Also, why assume Mulder needs to "figure out" this is a dream?
> Huh? If he doesn't, he's a dead man.
Actually, I meant he doesn't need to figure it out because
he already knows. He didn't end the dream by figuring out
it was a dream, like in FT.
> Who's to say
> > he isn't aware he's dreaming on some level?
> More story conferencing? Assume, assume, assume. You know the drill. Why do
> we have to say things like "who's to say?" Well, I'm to say. You're to say.
> That's who. Anytime we have to start constructing back story to explain
> what's going on, it's because the creators aren't doing their job.
Okay, we don't know that he knows he's dreaming. I was coming
up with something out of my head to help it work for you, not
for me. Remember, I have no problem with him not walking out
of the house and I didn't feel like I had to make up any backstory.
Not once while watching it did I wonder why Mulder wasn't going
to get Scully. They said this was his life and I just went
with it. I knew she wasn't going to show up.
> > everything's just fine. I can leave. Nobody needs me, I'll just hang
> here." Then reality-based Scully turned up and shocked him out of it.
> His internal realization predates her ministrations by a couple of minutes.
> (By my lights, an editing mistake.)
I thought the Scully in his dream showed up when he began to die,
actually, not when the real Scully came in. But that's me.
> > This dream ..a nice, warm bed.
> A firm grasp of the obvious, no doubt. No argument here. It's the ease with
> which he slips into the bed that I question.
> > Sure, Scully could have been in the dream, but why does she have to be?
> Why
> > would Mulder, who underneath knows that what he's really choosing is
> death, want
> > to drag Scully down with him?
> For the same reason that she's still there after all that nonsense in FTF.
> Because she wants to be there and he wants her to be there. (See the quote.)
But part of him *doesn't* want her there. The same part of him
who wants her to go be a doctor at the end of FTF. That was
the part of him we were seeing in the dream, which is why I
didn't think he was out of character.
> That dream Mulder, the psyche of the guy who would drive a rental Taurus
> through a brick wall to catch lightning in a bottle, simply accepts that she
> is now out of his life forever--for her good or not--strikes me as
> simplistic to the point of stupidity. That she enters, stage left, at the
> proper moment, to deliver the "don't give up the ship" speech (and, while
> we're at it, given what we have of Mulder's mental picture of Scully, would
> she stride in like a robot and chastise him as she did or would she be more
> like real-world Scully with the teary plea? Don't answer that, I *don't*
> want any *Bad Blood* around here!) leaves me snickering.
There are many times he's thought of her out of his life. Not
because he doesn't want her there but because of what he's done
to her life. The guy who listened to Bill Jr. telling him he
was a bastard and had nothing to defend himself with. This
is the "pick up that phone and make it happen!" Scully.
Aside: do we know Mulder's mental picture of Scully is? She
was a snarling pit bull much of last season. If Mulder needed
to scare himself into waking up, he'd pick the Scully that storms
into operating rooms and demands attention, not the sad one.
> I'm sorry if that offends people. I was as moved by that smoopy ending as
> anyone. I fully expect his line about his "upside down world" and her place
> in it...but it didn't
> ring true to me...check that....as true as it might have.
It doesn't offend me that it didn't work for you--and I don't
think you're dense or anything.<g> I guess it just worked so
well for me I want it to work for everyone!
Magpie
> NJP wrote:
> > > Also, why assume Mulder needs to "figure out" this is a dream?
>
> > Huh? If he doesn't, he's a dead man.
> Actually, I meant he doesn't need to figure it out because
> he already knows. He didn't end the dream by figuring out
> it was a dream, like in FT.
Sorry, left out a line. Besides the idea that "figuring out
it's a dream" isn't what's going to save Mulder here, being
a dead man can be very appealing to some men.
-m
GregSerl
>anyone. I fully expect his line about his "upside down world" and her place
>in it...but it didn't
>ring true to me...check that....as true as it might have.
Sigh ... I wasn't even moved by the "smoopy" ending.
At any rate, what I walked away with after the episode ended was the feeling
the powers that be screened it, realized they'd be crucified (even more
religious imagery) and so cut whatever original ending they had and tagged on a
shippy moment, told us Fowley was dead, and that everything's okay now.
I remembered, even while watching things unfold, thinking "uh, oh, they can
only safe their bacon now with a shippy moment". It reminded me of the
unremittingly bad "Milagro" episode where Scully seemed attracted to a stalker.
Sexual imagery involving Scully and this pervert, but, have no fear, the ship
was here "already in love with someone else".
I've read all the analysis of the dream in the various attempts to dismiss the
fact that it was Fowley who uncuffed Mulder, made love to him, gave birth to
his children, and at whose casket he mourned. That the dream was "orchestrated"
by CSM, or that since CSM and Fowley were talking and Mulder was in a dream
state, it was logical they would filter into the dream like music from a radio
alarm clock.
Then no, it wasn't that, it was that Fowley represented the "path not taken"
or, wait no, she, like all else in the dream, represented that which was wrong.
The truth is, there seemed to be no truth here. I can't imagine any of those
arguments being used or even proffered had it been Scully in Fowley's place in
that dream. Heck no =^D
Had it been Scully, there would be post after post about how the subconscious
doesn't lie and the truth comes out clearly that Scully is more than a friend
or partner to him, she is the woman he would sacrifice his quest for. However,
because it was not Scully, Fowley had to be analyzed away. Made untrue and
valueless to Mulder's subconscious, and to make sure she could never refute
that in any manner, kill her off for good measure.
As for the episode as a whole, at the beginning it seemed CSM and Mulder were
reading each others' minds. How long has CSM had this power? I mean Mulder's
mother couldn't read her son's mind, nor anyone else that I could tell, but CSM
and Mulder were very mentally chatty. Then zap, a magic, unnamed needle full of
goop and the "voices" in Mulder's head are gone.
What did I learn about Fowley? Well, not a darn thing. What really was she in
Mulder's past? The Lone Gunmen seemed to have her pegged as an ex-lover, she
obviously knew him real well and she loved him, but was she the mystery bride
the wedding band hints of in flashback episodes? Shrug, no idea.
Okay, then, what about Krycek. He still had his deadly gameboy to push Skinner
around with, but X-Files has now become such an "insider baseball" show with
mytharc episodes, that I doubt few others besides devoted fans had a clue what
happened to Skinner. I've never missed an episode, and yet it took me a moment
to remember Krycek's toy.
We have a slick book, something like the old Star Fleet manuals (who bets that
mish mash "key to everything" book will be in stores?) appears with all the
answers, index and chapter headings. Wow, to think Scully wasted all that time
on the Ivory Coast when the answers were to be had at amazon.com. Does the
book mean the ship and its symbols were already deciphered a long time ago, or
does it mean the conspirators whipped up a cookbook on how to create a
convincing hoax? I dunno.
Then we tie a pink bow on an incomprehensible mess by having Scully show up at
Mulder's place, kiss the boo-boo on his forehead, have him reach in his fortune
cookie bag of endearments, call her his "touchstone" have Fowley declared a
dead issue, literally, and Duchovny can gloat about the Yanks winning the
series. Well, hurrah.
Makes me so look forward to the New Years themed episode running in November
(no sweeps in January).
Unbound I
>
>Unbound I <unbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:19991116134514...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
>
>> I disagree here. ... She symbolically entered his dream at the exact
>same moment she entered the
>> lab where he was being held. That's a wonderful dramatical parallel in my
>> opinon. The hows and whys for it (he "sensed" her presence or whatever)
>are
>> inconsequential to me since this is a show that deals with events that
>cannot
>> always be explained logically.
>
>No. she didn't *symbolically* anything. She appeared in his dream. She might
>be construed as a mental projection of his will to live as expressed through
>the one person who was emblematic of the part of his reasoning mind which
>refused to fool itself--his conscience. That his mind would make the
>connection between the two is a neat piece of writing--just played out a bit
>too obviously for my tastes.
>
>
>
Personally, I see the symbolism of her appearance in Mulder's dream and what it
is meant to represent. The fact she arrives in his dream at the precise time
she arrives in the lab is also something I believe we were all meant to see.
Is that too obvious for you? If so, that's fine. But it worked terrifically
for me. We do agree, it was a very neat piece of writing and another layer to
an already well-textured story.
Unbound I
Magpie
> >I'm sorry if that offends people. I was as moved by that smoopy ending as
> >anyone. I fully expect his line about his "upside down world" and her place
> >in it...but it didn't
> >ring true to me...check that....as true as it might have.
> At any rate, what I walked away with after the episode ended was the feeling
> the powers that be screened it, realized they'd be crucified (even more
> religious imagery) and so cut whatever original ending they had and tagged on a
> shippy moment, told us Fowley was dead, and that everything's okay now.
> I remembered, even while watching things unfold, thinking "uh, oh, they can
> only safe their bacon now with a shippy moment".
I thought that Fowley's presence in the dream meant that
Mulder dreamed he married Fowley, they had kids
and grew old together. What was the ending that was coming
that TPTB made them change?
-m
NJP
news:3831EB...@attglobal.net...
> But aren't we both arguing that they do? Except I had less problem
> with the rules 1013 came up with in this dream than you did? I'm
> saying: Mulder was told he couldn't contact Scully, so he
> accepted it. Therefore, that was the rule in the dream.
Who's rule? Mulder's? Dream CSM's? Incidentally, the latter doesn't tell him
he *can't* just that to do so would put her into danger. So, other than
Dream Mulder's inclination *not* to, there is no *rule* (other than the
writer's need to be somewhere at a particular point in the plot dynamic)
forbidding him to do anything. The whole point of dreams is that represent
the psyche's ability to work *without* the strictures of real life.
> You're saying: Mulder *can't* decide to agree to that in this
> dream because it doesn't fit with his character. It's
> against the rules to dream out of character.
No, it's against good writing. You are what you are and unlike television
characters you act and behave in a certain fashion that is the sum of your
life so far. When you stop doing that, your family and friends, and society
at large, will like deem you to be "disturbed" and may even take drastic
action. When television characters stay true to character, then they are
most real. When the writer freelances them in order to make a point, or to
cover up holes in a perfunctory plot dynamic, them they devolve into what
they are: ideas on paper.
And, btw, if it's 1013's *rule* then it's not Mulder's and if it's Mulder
vice versa.
> We're both right/wrong, and my way totally breaks the convention
> you mention below about the clock tower, but I thought that was
> in the text and in a dream the clock tower could have power
> over the woman with the carriage, if somebody says it does.
You'll pardon me, but as an old English teacher used to say, you're playing
tennis without a net.
> But I'm not making him do this, 1013 is.
That wasn't you with the *blue* hair comment? Hmmm.
>This is what he did
> in the episode, so how can I be making it up? It's canon. Mulder
> also fell in love with a Civil War heroine, so that's also in
> character for him.
Oh, I think there are a couple of million Philes who'd argue that one. A lot
of them try to fit everything into a whole. (Hell, there are people out
there still trying to get the Kindred into the Mytharc.) You take what you
can from the character and sometimes you have to pass on the stuff that's
off the mark. Mulder and Scully are, largely, consistent through the years
but they are the product of a number of people: Carter and his production
staff, the actors and dozens of writers and directors. To expect completely
consistency in this kind of endeavor is to look for a fool's errand.
>There's only been one time during the show
> I've ever had to ignore something because it was too out of
> character for even *me* to rationalize, and that was Scully
> leaving Mulder out in the hall to die in Agua Mala.
Which indicates that you *do* think these inconsistencies occur.
> But part of him *doesn't* want her there. The same part of him
> who wants her to go be a doctor at the end of FTF. That was
> the part of him we were seeing in the dream, which is why I
> didn't think he was out of character.
Fair enough. Where's the evidence. He could, at least, say "she's better off
without me." Even better would be to show it.
NJP
NJP
news:19991116193650...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
> Had it been Scully, there would be post after post about how the
subconscious
> doesn't lie and the truth comes out clearly that Scully is more than a
friend
> or partner to him, she is the woman he would sacrifice his quest for.
However,
> because it was not Scully, Fowley had to be analyzed away. Made untrue and
> valueless to Mulder's subconscious, and to make sure she could never
refute
> that in any manner, kill her off for good measure.
I don't know. In thinking about why it was Fowley and not Scully, I can't
help but go back to Strughold's line in FTF. Does the Devil tempt the Christ
with the things he can live without?
NJP
c'mell
GregSerl wrote:
>Sigh ... I wasn't even moved by the "smoopy" ending.
I *was*moved, thanks entirely to the incredible chemistry between
DD/Mulder and GA/Scully.
>At any rate, what I walked away with after the episode ended was the
>feeling the powers that be screened it, realized they'd be crucified
>(even more religious imagery) and so cut whatever original ending they
>had and tagged on a shippy moment, told us Fowley was dead, and that
>everything's okay now.
Yup. Don't want to burn the shipper bridge just yet; there's still a
whole season ahead, maybe even another movie. ::sigh:: One could become
cynical. I'd give anything to know what the original ending was. Then
again, maybe I'd rather *not* know.
>I remembered, even while watching things unfold, thinking "uh, oh, they
>can only safe their bacon now with a shippy moment".
Without that final scene, Amor Fati would've been nothing more than
another trip to The Field Where I Died. Even with the scene, the
underlying message of the rest of the episode -- that M&S are not
romantically linked -- was awfully close to unequivocal. Bad news for
those who wish it to be otherwise. But at least the soul-mating in AF
was more equitable than in TFWID: AF M&S were presented as being
destined only for each other (at least as long as there's a quest,
anyway) and Mulder wasn't the hub of soul mate central this time around.
>it was Fowley who uncuffed Mulder
This made no sense to me. Samantha, the alpha and omega of his quest,
should've been the one to uncuff him, especially since he was still
mindful of his "commitments" even after having sex with Fowley. (I'm
wondering what Mulder thinks his commitment to Scully entails.)
He only settled in after being presented with his sister.
>Had it been Scully, there would be post after post about how the
>subconscious doesn't lie and the truth comes out clearly that Scully is
>more than a friend or partner to him, she is the woman he would
>sacrifice his quest for.
Meaning that he sacrificed his quest for Fowley? It seemed pretty clear
to me that he was primarily induced to give up by finding his
sister and by his desire to restore all the losses for which he feels
responsible. Diana was just the cherry on top of his subconscious
do-over, his reward, if you will.
>However, because it was not Scully, Fowley had to be analyzed away.
>Made untrue and valueless to Mulder's subconscious,
Considering the way he responded to the news of Fowley's murder --
as opposed to the way he reacted to the news of Scully's "death" in his
dream -- I don't think it's entirely . . . delusional to conclude that
whatever value she had for him was a thing of the past. He *remembered*
loving her, but he didn't *still* love her. Or so it seemed to me.
c'mell
================================
Ladies and gentlemen, take my advice:
Pull down your pants and slide on the ice.
Katherine
>Scully's presence in any part of
>the dream (before the end) would have defeated its purpose. For Mulder,
>Scully is truth, and truth had no place in that realm. The only way Mulder
>could have led the life of his dream world was to walk away from truth, to push
>it out of his sight. Mulder couldn't see what might have been had Scully been
>part of it, so his weary, drug-addled brain tucked her "safely" away in a place
>where she never got sick and never lost her sister--and where she couldn't
>rouse him with the truth.
>
>But in the end, he couldn't die without seeing her again, no matter what lie
>CSM told him about her death. That desire and need saved him, for once he
>allowed himself to see her, she told him the stark truth that no one else in
>the dream would tell him. The truth, embodied by Scully, enabled him to rise
>up and fight.
I'm just curious, and perhaps I'm misreading this, and need a little
clarification. Are you explaining Scully's presence in his dream as a
function of Mulder's will? That is, are you explaining Dream Scully
as a product of Mulder's mind, rather than as some sort of
"projection" by Scully herself, either by him sensing her imminent
physical presence as she approached with the keycard, or by her
sending herself somehow during her prayer with Albert? I'm not saying
the former explanation is necessarily wrong; I'm just curious, because
remarks made in a former thread -- that the pivotal moment of this
episode was when Scully knelt in prayer, a point I found convincing
and quite moving -- clicked with me. I think it's an interesting
point of interpretation.
The dream-as-struggle-with-his-own-will suggests that Mulder's bizarre
fantasy world -- which, as many people have pointed out, is entirely
inconsistent with the character as it has been written for six years
-- is in fact his own weird subconscious after all, and not the
product of some external tinkering (Fowley, CSM) in the physical
world. I guess that's a point I don't like to return to, because it
makes less and less sense. After all, if that were the case, why did
Scully need to be his constant, his touchstone? He would have just
needed her form to give life to his own internal will.
Katherine
Katherine
>I blame this mostly on the fact that they spent so much
>time spinning their wheels in SE and then had to cram too much into AF.
I'd like to say that this single sentence sums up for me the
distressing qualities of B/SE/AF as an arc. Parts one and two
connect, but then AF shows up out of nowhere, and I found myself
wondering what the point of the entire spaceship thing was. Oh, I
know. The point was, don't try to find a point. But why didn't they
just use more time for the resolution, for heaven's sake? I wish, in
particular, they had explored more deeply (or at all, for that matter)
the discoveries of the ship on Scully's personal beliefs. That's a
lot of God to think about.
Just an off-topic mini-rant.
Katherine
Deborah
> Then she shows up in the room--safe and young--because she does.
> This is part of that whole "dreams don't have any rules"
> idea. He's lucky she didn't show up dressed as a chicken.
If David Lynch had written the scene, that would have been a distinct
possibility.
snip
> > > Also, why assume Mulder needs to "figure out" this is a dream?
>
> > Huh? If he doesn't, he's a dead man.
>
> Actually, I meant he doesn't need to figure it out because
> he already knows. He didn't end the dream by figuring out
> it was a dream, like in FT.
>
> > Who's to say
> > > he isn't aware he's dreaming on some level?
Doesn't this happen in dreams all the time? It does in mine. I don't know
I'm dreaming and then suddenly I know it's a dream and then it isn't a dream
anymore. The spookiest are when you physically react, the reaction wakes you
and you can't remember why you-- i.e. sat up in bed, kicked your leg, why
your eyes are open. My weirdest episode was when I sat up in bed trying to
bite something. I had no memory why, but the snap of my teeth woke me up.
> > More story conferencing? Assume, assume, assume. You know the drill. Why
do
> > we have to say things like "who's to say?" Well, I'm to say. You're to
say.
> > That's who. Anytime we have to start constructing back story to explain
> > what's going on, it's because the creators aren't doing their job.
That's not an absolute. All art incorporates the audience's imagination. If
it doesn't, it's dead and meaningless. I love the part of TXF that actively
engages my imagination.
> Okay, we don't know that he knows he's dreaming. I was coming
> up with something out of my head to help it work for you, not
> for me. Remember, I have no problem with him not walking out
> of the house and I didn't feel like I had to make up any backstory.
> Not once while watching it did I wonder why Mulder wasn't going
> to get Scully. They said this was his life and I just went
> with it. I knew she wasn't going to show up.
Me too.
Deborah
Deborah
> You are what you are and unlike television
> characters you act and behave in a certain fashion that is the sum of your
> life so far. When you stop doing that, your family and friends, and
society
> at large, will like deem you to be "disturbed" and may even take drastic
> action.
But some of us walk that tightrope all the time. We don't have anywhere else
to walk. We have a persona for our families and society that they are
comfortable with, but it is the proverbial tip of the iceburg. Family,
friends, society will project what they want and need upon an individual,
but that has nothing to do with the totality of who we are. I don't let
anyone read my journal. That submerged part is always capable of emerging
and cause those same friends and family to say - you aren't yourself-- when
indeed, you always are yourself. What you do defines who you are. If you do
something "out of character", it's still you. If you do something bad,
wrong, cruel--that is a part of who you are--perhaps not the dominant part,
but it's there, inside you. It paces like a panther in the cage of your
public self and sometimes, just sometimes, it comes out in your dreams and
you can't belive its power and you are damn relieved when you awake that it
was only a dream.
When television characters stay true to character, then they are
> most real. When the writer freelances them in order to make a point, or to
> cover up holes in a perfunctory plot dynamic, them they devolve into what
> they are: ideas on paper.
But there's an edginess to taking that risk. Listen, great writing is a
miracle. Good writing is a delight. What we see on TXF is a lot of writing
that has to be patched together quick and what comes out is not only about
the writing because it's a visual medium and sometimes what we see is more
important than the linear narrative. Sometimes the images are more powerful
and belie the words, just like in real life. So yeah, AF and all of TXF is
not perfect and at times they make blunders, but I admire the way they take
chances and reach for something more-- even if the sketchmarks show beneath
the finished product. It has the power and energy of movement and action, it
catches the eyes and the senses and the word making brain just has to step
aside sometimes.
Deborah>
Jenica Nelan
NJP wrote:
>
> As I said, I have no quarrel with the premise. Merely the execution of it.
> To have him simply walk away from the individual who is arguably the most
> important thing in his life as if it were nothing more than shedding a
> sweater is ludicrous. This isn't a play here where the characters have the
> ideas and intentions of their real-life counterparts. This is a puppet show
> in Mulder's head. The "devil" as it were, is not *really* tempting him as
> with TLTOC, this is Mulder deciding whether he ought to lay down and die.
> The whole dream is driven by his desire to give up his guilt, the force that
> keeps him going, it would seem, and who, besides his sister, is most
> forcefully at the center of that? His partner. I suppose that it is arguable
> that the *first* thing his mind would try to neutralize would be Scully's
> influence rather than the last, but I'd have been satisfied with a little
> deeper and less facile treatment.
>
This is a bit OT from what Nick wrote, but I thought of his objections to the
absence of Scully in Mulder's dreams when I rewatched the ep: Mulder says at the
end, "and even when the world was falling apart you were my constant," implying
that she was always in his dream and not just in the end (while all evidence
indicates that Mulder saw Scully for the first time when he was about to die in
the dream). I think this is a fairly important inconsistancy and is even worse
if you believe that Scully should have been in Mulder's dream all along.
However, 1013 may have found it hard to reconcile Scully's presence with
Mulder's reluctance to go back to the "real world" and decided to leave her out.
-Jenica
trajan
so much "reset and replay" I can take in a single week, but
I must say I have to agree with your analysis. I tend to
give TV a bit less brain time, but even so, I was sorely
disappointed in the disjointed story, freakish cutting, and
lack of resolution (of anything!!)
I AM wondering why TV has abandoned the concept of a 2-hour
premiere. Would perhaps have given them the time to develop
whatever it was they were trying to do without resorting to
such drastic editing.
Much as I've enjoyed it, it's definitely time they wrapped
this series up and ended it.
Regards,
Trajan
(Just another clueless viewer)
MLopez5385
Katherine
>Had it been Scully, there would be post after post about how the subconscious
>doesn't lie and the truth comes out clearly that Scully is more than a friend
>or partner to him, she is the woman he would sacrifice his quest for. However,
>because it was not Scully, Fowley had to be analyzed away. Made untrue and
>valueless to Mulder's subconscious, and to make sure she could never refute
>that in any manner, kill her off for good measure.
No, not everyone has had a problem with the dream because of
Fowley-not-Scully, as I'm sure others will point out. Why should it
not be either (1)criticized as unusually bad characterization or
(2)rationalized as whatever scientific/paranormal cause of the imagery
by, say, CSM? After all, his ideal life had no place for his mother,
his (what he thinks is) his father, his teachers, his mentors, his
past lovers, his reincarnation circus soulmate, his other dead
sources, his childhood playmates, his prom date, or even the darned
dog he admitted once having in Alpha. Even if you wanted to discount
the depth of a six-year bond between him and the person he
acknowledges as the only one he trusts, that's fine. You don't even
have to bring in the issue of Scully to see how untenable it is to
claim that people are only upset that Mulder's dream-mate wasn't
Scully. Fact is, any dream-temptation that involves almost
exclusively a man's nemesis and a woman with whom the man has had a
questionable past, known to be a traitor, is either absurd, or not
intended as any genuine reflection of subconscious desires. Take your
pick.
Katherine
NJP
news:80tad6$3h7c$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
> and cause those same friends and family to say - you aren't yourself--
when
> indeed, you always are yourself. What you do defines who you are. If you
do
> something "out of character", it's still you.
I would argue that the actions don't direct the personality--unless maybe
you hear spirit voices coming out of the radio or the neighbor's black
labrador--but the other way around. As you say. if you do things that seem
out of character, it's because you've hidden or submerged that aspect of
yourself. Which is why the mental health industry is such a dicey game. And
why after months of investigation, people go around saying "we should have
seen what those kids were up to" about the Colombine killers. Nobody in this
world makes a sharp right turn. At least, not if they and the circumstances
of their life are normal. What they are and do is still the sum of what went
into making them up.
>
> When television characters stay true to character, then they are
> > most real. When the writer freelances them in order to make a point, or
to
> > cover up holes in a perfunctory plot dynamic, them they devolve into
what
> > they are: ideas on paper.
>
> But there's an edginess to taking that risk. Listen, great writing is a
> miracle. Good writing is a delight.
And miracles are 90% plain hard work.
What we see on TXF is a lot of writing
> that has to be patched together quick and what comes out is not only about
> the writing because it's a visual medium and sometimes what we see is more
> important than the linear narrative.
I was more accepting of that a few years ago. These people have been doing
this for seven years and that should give them a level of expertise beyond
the usual same-old. This show has give us a lot of excellent television, no
doubt, but they've had *years* to get this mytharc thing right and it's
still occasionally as airy as swiss cheese.
NJP
Cheryl Deering
Katherine wrote:
> On 16 Nov 1999 17:23:55 -0500, bubbela <chr...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >I blame this mostly on the fact that they spent so much
> >time spinning their wheels in SE and then had to cram too much into AF.
>
> I'd like to say that this single sentence sums up for me the
> distressing qualities of B/SE/AF as an arc. Parts one and two
> connect, but then AF shows up out of nowhere, and I found myself
> wondering what the point of the entire spaceship thing was. Oh, I
> know. The point was, don't try to find a point. But why didn't they
> just use more time for the resolution, for heaven's sake? I wish, in
> particular, they had explored more deeply (or at all, for that matter)
> the discoveries of the ship on Scully's personal beliefs. That's a
> lot of God to think about.
Agreed. Even if you put aside the strange fact that Scully did not
investigate
the ship as a forensic scientist (um, given that FTF showed that alien
ships can be biological entities--and that Mulder was being affected
biologically by the ship, was there a _good_ reason she pretty much only
approached this problem from a linguistic/belief POV?), surely we would
need to see how this discovery might have affected her faith. SE should
have been all about that than just "Scully comes up empty-handed."
XF seems to use religion/faith as either a character-defining element
that never really reflects the characters--or as a quickie plot-hole patch.
The writers don't really seem to think through how what Mulder and Scully
see affect them in terms of faith, and just having Scully finger a cross
every now and then and pray isn't nearly as deep or believeable depiction
of religious belief as we should be getting.
C.
**
GregSerl
>Mulder dreamed he married Fowley, they had kids
>and grew old together. What was the ending that was coming
>that TPTB made them change?
Oh, Magpie, m'dear, I shudder to think. There was such a slap-dash finish to
the episode that I got the feeling, which might be totally wrong, that after
careful, and perhaps even panicky consideration, the "staff" felt it might be
better to have an upbeat ending ensuring the audience that the monster in the
closet (Fowley) had been eliminated antiseptically and wouldn't be there
anymore to leap out and shout "boo" =^)
If I were to imagine a hypothetical scrapped ending, my guess is that it would
have been Scully rescuing Mulder as we saw and then a voice-over by Scully (as
she typed her notes) giving us some exposition that would likely have included
the death of the old Navajo chap, the current whereabouts of the book, Mulder
on the mend and that there seemed to be no lingering effects, and perhaps
Fowley disappearing, but not being declared "dead". Even Scully conceding that
she'd misjudged Fowley as she did in the ending we saw.
Again, this is based on a sneaking suspicion and nothing more. The ending we
saw could have been the original, but ... I don't zink zo ;)
NJP wrote:
>I don't know. In thinking about why it was Fowley and not Scully, I can't
>help but go back to Strughold's line in FTF. Does the Devil tempt the Christ
>with the things he can live without?
I have to admit I only watched the movie a couple of times. It seemed CSM (in
the movie) saw Scully as the one person who held true sway over Mulder.
That's why I would have thought Scully would have been in his dreams providing
that tableau of love everlasting and a contentment and even joy that has seemed
to elude him for most of his life. I can even imagine him not accepting her
death (the casket scene) and turning on CSM in one of those great, angry
confrontations. Giving him a right good shove in the chest, or squelching him
by his starched shirt collar shouting "Bring her back!" or "She's not dead!"
and in that realization, perhaps snapping himself out of the dream and getting
back into the fight.
You see, had anything similar to that happened, I could so much more easily
accept and enjoy the "smoopy" scene at the end. It would have an undeniable
genuineness, and not just due to the actors being able to pull it off, but
because even a blind man could have seen the sincerity based even *soley* on
this one episode.
cmell wrote:
>Without that final scene, Amor Fati >would've been nothing more than
>another trip to The Field Where I Died. >Even with the scene, the
>underlying message of the rest of the >episode -- that M&S are not
>romantically linked -- was awfully close to >unequivocal.
Yes, I agree. One of the many problems with TFWID was the eleventh hour
inclusion of a character given so much weight and importance in Mulder's life
(soul). Someone the audience wasn't given time to know, and so could not
identify with, which in turn blunted Mulder's emotional reactions as well.
That's simply bad drama.
>Meaning that he sacrificed his quest for Fowley?<
No. I simply meant had Scully been given Fowley's exact same role in Mulder's
dream, a much different "spin" would have been put on it. That is, there
wouldn't be several posts saying that CSM had orchestrated the dream (well,
maybe noromo's might ;)
>Considering the way he responded to the >news of Fowley's murder --
>as opposed to the way he reacted to the >news of Scully's "death" in his
>dream -- I don't think it's entirely . . . >delusional to conclude that
>whatever value she had for him was a >thing of the past. He *remembered*
>loving her, but he didn't *still* love her. Or >so it seemed to me.
Well, to be fair, he reacted about as strongly over Deep Throat's death as he
did Scully's. In fact, isn't that the part where CSM said "we've been over
this" like Mulder must have asked often about Deep Throat's "fate", or did he
make that statement about the inquiry over Scully?
Katherine wrote:
>Fact is, any dream-temptation that >involves almost
>exclusively a man's nemesis and a >woman with whom the man has had a
>questionable past, known to be a traitor, >is either absurd, or not
>intended as any genuine reflection of >subconscious desires. Take your
>pick.
Is this a trick question? ;) Seriously, I wondered what the "non-devoted" fan
thought of the dream. I had to remind my sister of who Fowley even was when the
show premiered this year. She had no idea what happened to Skinner either. That
scene was so shortchanged, that again, it seemed to call on the memories of
solid fans to grasp the incident.
I couldn't even figure out at first how Mulder had become an alien hybrid. I
had to watch the episode a second time for whatever was said about the alien
virus being introduced into his body and then the new alien thingamabob
interacting with that. Geez, if I had to watch it a second time, just to call
up faint memories of old episodes, heaven help people who haven't seen every
episode or don't remember all the endless contradictory mytharc details.
Yikes, this post got long, sorry ;)
Matt Hale
>
> he *can't* just that to do so would put her into danger. So, other than
> Dream Mulder's inclination *not* to, there is no *rule* (other than the
> writer's need to be somewhere at a particular point in the plot dynamic)
> forbidding him to do anything. The whole point of dreams is that represent
> the psyche's ability to work *without* the strictures of real life.
Have you never had a dream in which a character makes some proclamation
or you simply (for no discernible reason) just know something to be true
and it becomes an absolute truth within the dream? When you wake up, it
may make no sense but in the dream there's simply no questioning it.
I'm pretty sure this is what Magpie means by the rule in the dream. I
absolutely agree that it becomes a given in this dream that Mulder must
not contact Scully. Her absence is essential.
So, the natural question is why this rule? Well, first one can
certainly say this is a dream and there doesn't have to be a reason and,
IMO, that would be valid. Sometimes dreams really don't make a whole
lot of sense.
However, in this case, I believe there is a very good reason that
Mulder's subconscious makes this rule and I also believe that it's right
there in the script. This dream is Mulder considering giving up and he
knows that Scully won't let him. Dreams (when they are making sense)
are, for the most part, very simple, specific and direct. If the
subconscious wants to mull something over, it has no problem removing
any obstacles (no matter how massive).
A big part of your problem with the dream (if I am reading you
correctly) is that you wanted to see Mulder put up a struggle before he
gave up and resisting the loss of Scully would be a perfect way to
illustrate this struggle. The fact that he so easily accepts the idea
that he has lost her (even for her own good) is a gross insult to their
history together and Mulder's love for her. Is that a fair summary?
I believe that these objections miss the entire point of the dream. It
is not about the process of giving up. If that were the case, I would
agree. Instead, the premise of the dream is that Mulder HAS already
given up. This is a given. The dream is Mulder considering the idea
that maybe it would be better to leave the quest behind. It STARTS
there. The struggle is fighting back from that state.
Remember, CSM steps out of the car and leaves Mulder the keys. He can
go find Scully/truth/life but he chooses to stay. He chooses to
consider this option.
I want to go back to a point that I mentioned briefly in another post
and get a little more into it. A dream does not tell you everything
about a person. By saying that Mulder considers giving up/death, I am
not saying that Mulder's true desire is to leave Scully and the quest
behind. A dream is not a fantasy. This is anything but Mulder's
fantasy. It is a visual presentation of that moment when death seems
preferable to life. Mulder addresses this concern by casting himself as
an oblivious suburbanite. He incorporates CSM and Diana's desires for
him because they (especially CSM) symbolize turning away from everything
that defines Mulder. This only underscores Scully's (and everything
that goes with her) importance to him. If his subconscious wants to
portray death, there's no better way than shattering everything that
makes him who he is.
The point of the dream, though, is that he can't give up. He's never at
home on Conspiracy Court and he knows it. He goes through the motions
the way he's supposed to (marriage, kids, old age) but the fact that he
has more to do never quits nagging at him. So, having explored the
possibility that giving up is the way to go, he comes to the conclusion
that he does have something to live for. The world is being destroyed
but he can't "see" it. That is why Scully shows up. She is his eyes.
She is the truth. She couldn't show up before then because Mulder had
to come to the conclusion that he didn't belong in that oblivious state
before he could fight to get out. When it's time to fight, his
subconscious casts Scully as the catalyst. Of course she's aggressive.
He's in deep and has to fight like hell to get out.
That's all going on inside Mulder. It doesn't end there. Scully's
actual, physical presence becomes crucial. I think it's completely
clear that it is her magic tear that finally brings him back. I don't
think she could have saved him, though, if he hadn't helped.
> > You're saying: Mulder *can't* decide to agree to that in this
> > dream because it doesn't fit with his character. It's
> > against the rules to dream out of character.
>
> No, it's against good writing. You are what you are and unlike television
> characters you act and behave in a certain fashion that is the sum of your
> life so far. When you stop doing that, your family and friends, and society
> at large, will like deem you to be "disturbed" and may even take drastic
> action.
Just to go OT for a second (because I believe Mulder WAS in character in
this dream), you've never had a dream in which you seemed completely
unlike yourself? I have. I would not have had a problem with a dream
sequence in which Mulder (or Scully or any other character) acted out of
character. If that were the case, that would color the meaning of the
sequence significantly and the issue would become why he acted in that
particular manner and can it say anything about repressed desires/fears,
etc. I don't think that's the case in AF but it's not bad writing to
distort a character in a dream.
Dreams fascinate me to no end and surrealism is a discipline to which I
have devoted years of study. A well written dream sequence, IMO, is
small in scale. There will inevitably be huge chunks of a character's
personality and history missing from any one dream. The missing pieces
are not unimportant to the dreamer.
In AF, Scully's glaring absence is necessary to allow Mulder to have
this particular dream. CC and DD were well aware that we'd notice
Scully's absence. Our knowledge of her absence becomes a presence and
forces us to ask why she is missing. Her absence helps us interpret the
dream. Even if you think that my interpretation is dead wrong, whatever
interpretation you propose must address Scully's absence simply because
it is so glaringly obvious. I can't believe this was an accident on the
part of CC and DD.
Matt Hale
hale...@earthlink.net
Maggie Helwig
> I believe that these objections miss the entire point of the dream. It
> is not about the process of giving up. If that were the case, I would
> agree. Instead, the premise of the dream is that Mulder HAS already
> given up. This is a given.
The most immediately noticeable thing about the dream, for me, was
Mulder's stunning passivity. He pretty much goes wherever and does
whatever anyone suggests to him, without more than the occasional weak
verbal objection. There's no struggle, no action, no real questioning of
anything on his part. It's a dramatic contrast not only to Mulder in
real life, but to other Mulder-dreams we've seen.
It seems to me there are two potentially valid meanings for this. One is
that the dream is, in part at least, imposed from the outside and his
passivity in the dream is meant to reflect the fact that he is not
creating the dream. The other is, as Matt suggests, that he has already
given up, he's gone under for the third time, he is just too physically
devastated and heavily drugged to continue functioning, and the entire
dream is essentially trying to ease him gently into death. It's not
meant to contain an element of choice -- until the very end, anyway (and
if you want a real-world explanation for why the dream changes at the
end, you can note that they've stopped pumping drugs into him at that
point, though I don't think that's a primary explanation). As far as
Mulder's body is concerned -- I don't think you can ever underestimate
the somatic, as well as the psychological, component of dreams -- he
doesn't have a choice any more.
As for why his mind doesn't try to ease him into death with fantasies of
settling down with Scully, well, there's a pile of reasons for that,
many of which other people have already outlined, but part of it is
external -- the writers have too much respect for Scully to write her as
Little Wifey even in a dream & in any case they're obsessed with
avoiding the M&S-married-in-suburbia scenario. I use obsessed
deliberately here, because the number of times they give us _displaced_
versions of that scenario suggests that it is actually looming
powerfully in the backs of their minds. I know I'm analyzing the writers
now, rather than Mulder, but sometimes it's hard to avoid. Anyway, if we
assume 1013 is now thinking they will go ahead with the 'ship, it would
surely be a stupid move to set up a dream where getting together with
Scully translates into giving up the quest. That's exactly the idea they
have to undermine.
maggie h
NJP
news:38328D53...@primenet.com...
> Katherine wrote:
>
> > I wish, in
> > particular, they had explored more deeply (or at all, for that matter)
> > the discoveries of the ship on Scully's personal beliefs. That's a
> > lot of God to think about.
>
> that never really reflects the characters--or as a quickie plot-hole
patch.
I've always thought that one of the great failings of this show is that the
creators opted not to follow the line that began in "Revelations." It always
seemed to me that the parallels that could be drawn between Mulder's belief
system in the paranormal and Scully's, in traditional religious experience,
would offer many possibilities for illuminating both. (Note: the only ep
that I think really successfully managed to balance the two was the very
underrated "Kaddish.")
Scully's been "learning" how to pray for....how many years is it?....three?
four? You think she'd have gotten it down by now.
Look, praying is, we're taught, direct communication with the Almighty, with
Allah, with who or whatever. A personal communication. And the most
important elements are simple faith and sincerity of purpose. If Scully were
truly at the end of her rope, had truly exhausted all the possibilities that
the real world and science offered her in her efforts to save her partner,
then, if she is to have her prayer answered, she had to get down on her
knees *without* the ersatz dead-but alive shaman yanking her to the floor
and telling her to pray and reach out to her Maker on her own. Otherwise,
it's just a long, very uncomfortable nap on the floor.
Personally, I think that would too much for our friends at 1013. The
implications, in our very secular world, are a little too difficult to take
in what is, after all, popular entertainment. If you imply that traditional
religion has some basis in fact, then you are also implying that the
teachings of that religious tradition also have currency. What with
religious intolerance building by the hour in this country, a serious
examination that casts traditional religion in a positive light would be
televisic suicide. Better to turn into the pop psyche mush as best
exemplified by nonsense like "Touched By An Angel."
And, besides, we all know how popular the ten commandments are in
Hollywood.....
NJP
Deborah
news:80u02u$nsl$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Deborah <tins...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:80tad6$3h7c$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
> > NJP <jny...@mindspring.com> wrote in snip
> >
> > anyone read my journal. That submerged part is always capable of
emerging
> > and cause those same friends and family to say - you aren't yourself--
> when
> > indeed, you always are yourself. What you do defines who you are. If you
> do
> > something "out of character", it's still you.
>
> I would argue that the actions don't direct the personality--unless maybe
> you hear spirit voices coming out of the radio or the neighbor's black
> labrador--but the other way around. As you say. if you do things that seem
> out of character, it's because you've hidden or submerged that aspect of
> yourself. Which is why the mental health industry is such a dicey game.
And
> why after months of investigation, people go around saying "we should have
> seen what those kids were up to" about the Colombine killers. Nobody in
this
> world makes a sharp right turn. At least, not if they and the
circumstances
> of their life are normal. What they are and do is still the sum of what
went
> into making them up.
>
You can probably tell I'm no expert in this field :o), but will that stop
me? Apparently not. You say no one makes a sharp right turn is they and the
circumstances of their life are normal? That's quite an assumption. My life
is not normal if for nothing else because I haven't followed a traditional
path, and Mulder's life if far from normal. If by normal you mean usual,
Mulder usually does this or that, I have to say that usual is not an
absolute. I don't usually lose my temper IRL anyway, but when I do it is
unusual behavior but not abnormal or out of character. Mulder isn't usually
possessed by a merging of alien DNA, in a trance state, and injected by
strange drugs. His behavior in those circumstances might possibly fall out
of the range of his "usual" behavior.
But I've lost track of what you were referring to specifically (haven't had
time to read the entire thread) so maybe I'm off base here.
> > When television characters stay true to character, then they are
> > > most real. When the writer freelances them in order to make a point,
or
> to
> > > cover up holes in a perfunctory plot dynamic, them they devolve into
> what
> > > they are: ideas on paper.
> >
> > But there's an edginess to taking that risk. Listen, great writing is a
> > miracle. Good writing is a delight.
>
> And miracles are 90% plain hard work.
But they are not only hard work. Haven't you ever known anyone who could
spontaneouly put something incredible together while you sat slaving away? I
have, but then I work around a lot of artists. By saying you think the
writing isn't up to snuff (my take on the above statement) it sounds like
you are ascribing a moral value to art--it's no good unless someone works
hard. Again, a value judgement-- what is hard work? I believe in hard work
myself, but when I do something creative it's difficult to say they are
successful because of my hard work. Sometimes hard work means overworked.
Besides, TXF is on a tight schedule.
> What we see on TXF is a lot of writing
> > that has to be patched together quick and what comes out is not only
about
> > the writing because it's a visual medium and sometimes what we see is
more
> > important than the linear narrative.
>
> I was more accepting of that a few years ago. These people have been doing
> this for seven years and that should give them a level of expertise beyond
> the usual same-old. This show has give us a lot of excellent television,
no
> doubt, but they've had *years* to get this mytharc thing right and it's
> still occasionally as airy as swiss cheese.
Well besides the fact that you say "should give" and whenever I read the
word "should" in relation to a creative process it gives me the shivers, I
am willing to give on the tight construction and continuity for the risks
they take. Sometimes there are creative problems the creator can't solve,
and so you have to work around them, and with any luck the work around has
value of its own.
Deborah
NJP
news:38329DF9...@earthlink.net...
> > forbidding him to do anything. The whole point of dreams is that
represent
> > the psyche's ability to work *without* the strictures of real life.
>
> Have you never had a dream in which a character makes some proclamation
> or you simply (for no discernible reason) just know something to be true
> and it becomes an absolute truth within the dream? When you wake up, it
> may make no sense but in the dream there's simply no questioning it.
I'm not sure what is meant by absolute truth here. I think what you're
speaking of is dream actions or activities that we believe, in the light of
day, that we're incapable of doing or being, or the same for other people
and things in our dreams. Frankly, it seems to be that that's pretty much
true of just about everything in dreams. If dreams followed the conventions
of the day, they wouldn't be dreams.They'd be memories and reasoned
suppositions.
Dreams as portrayed in most narrative forms, with the exception, to my view,
of the Latin American writers of "Magical Realism," are only suggestive of
their true life counterparts. They are much more linear. This is not a bad
thing since, as anyone who has every consistently written their dream
memories down knows, for the most part, they make very little long-term
sense. A narrative form can't expect to do that, unless maybe its something
by James Joyce, and maintain interest and tell a story.
As I have said over and over. I understand the mechanical construction of
the dream. Scully, as representative of, at base, Mulder's will to live, and
at best, his Christ-like devotion to his quest. She appears at the proper
moment with the proper comment and he comes out of his self-delusion. If she
doesn't, he's alien toast.
What bothers me is that what is being offered at the onset is simply not
enough, in my view, to turn the Mulder I've observed away from that quest or
his partner. You have CSM telling Mulder that to return will mean his own
death--oh, like that hasn't entered his mind once or twice the past several
years? You have Deep Throat conselling him to give it all up because he's
not really dead--and I would question the depth of Mulder's emotion in
finding Deep Throat alive. It's not like they did more than hang out in a
few bar bathrooms back in the early days. Seems to me that what was done to
Scully would inflect more on his conscience that what happened to DT some
six years ago. But hey, I'm easy. Don't write me on that one. Does this add
up to enough to damp the drive that has engulfed his life since childhood?
For me, no. Which is why I think that if you posit Scully, or maybe his
father--figures who have carried much more weight and baggage in his
life--turning him from his quest, then I think I can accept that he would
reconsider his quest. (And by turning away, I don't necessarily mean a DT
like kitchen conversation. It's just as easy to tell Mulder that she's left
the FBI and moved to....say....Utah and become a doctor. Look Fox, she gave
it up. Why can't you?)
Then we have Fowley. Paula Graves commented in another thread on this topic
that there has been a fair amount of Fowley bashing as it relates to her
being in Mulder's dream. Personally, I think that her comments at his
bedside in TSE were sufficient to place her in his memory. My problem is
that she is rather too obviously being bruited here as the temptations of
the flesh--and, at the same time, as the madonna. Whoa Nellie. In the first
place, 1013 didn't earn that one. We know that she was "Mulder's Chippie."
And that when push came to shove in "The Beginning," she sold him out.
Rogers (and Anderson) are good enough to make the sequence involving her
final betrayal seem believable, but the idea that some part of Mulder sees
her as anything other than the embodiment of the gratification of his
sensual needs strikes me as a plot point stretched tighter than that black
bra she was wearing. To go one step farther, if we look back on six years of
these characters, which one had repeatedly considered the "road not taken"
as embodied by family and children? Mulder? Don't think so. And even if that
is what Fowley meant to him back when, how is it that we're just finding it
out at a critical juncture in his development. That's not good writing.
And hey, I understand that this isn't a novel where the author can go back
and rewrite earlier parts in order to have consistent development for
unforseen plot twists which reveal themselves later in the creation process.
For good or bad, we're stuck with earlier episodes. But still, there are
ways around it.
I think it was Harlan Ellison who once observed that you can't tell the
audience that a character isn't able to use his left hand, and then, later,
in a fight, show him using the hand without somebody in the audience crying
"foul!"
Besides, the whole Fowley marriage was there doing double duty anyway. Her
"you've been a child" comments and his domesticity were there to reinforce
the boy and his sand-spaceship message about Mulder "growing up." I.e.
pursuing his quest and whatever else (hint. hint. kiss. kiss.) in an adult
(read: less reckless, less selfish, less porno-watching) manner. In this
instance, I think the mixed message hurt rather than helped.
> I believe that these objections miss the entire point of the dream. It
> is not about the process of giving up. If that were the case, I would
> agree. Instead, the premise of the dream is that Mulder HAS already
> given up. This is a given. The dream is Mulder considering the idea
> that maybe it would be better to leave the quest behind. It STARTS
> there. The struggle is fighting back from that state.
That is, if you'll pardon me, a quibble about timing and not about
structure. If he's already given up by the time the dream starts, the why
the CSM car conversation? Why the emotional meeting with Deep Throat? Why
that hoary seduction scene and Fowley's marching him over to CSM's house for
a (missing) discussion? Even supposing that the self-delusion has already
begun, then just where was there any struggle with the idea? In TSE? Hardly.
There was no internalization of Mulder's pain and suffering through *two*
hours of this three hour tour. (a three hour tour) Lord knows, there was
amply opportunity to posit his serenity at severing his life from his past
as merely the desire to escape just that localized agony. But no. And I'm
sorry, but a couple of, well-delivered by WBS, to be sure, pure Carteresque
philosobabble speeches do not explain how and why a guy who is driven as
Mulder has been shown to be, just kisses it all off. Not to me anyway.
BTW, Mark, I get the point of the dream. Everybody gets the point of the
dream. Hell, it was so simplistically executed, even a two-year gets the
point of the eam. By my lights, that's the problem.
> That's all going on inside Mulder. It doesn't end there. Scully's
> actual, physical presence becomes crucial. I think it's completely
> clear that it is her magic tear that finally brings him back. I don't
> think she could have saved him, though, if he hadn't helped.
You know, if the whole dream disappeared and that scene remained, virtually
the exact same point would have been made. Though, of course, without that
money shot of Fowley...
> I don't think that's the case in AF but it's not bad writing to
> distort a character in a dream.
Well, to return to an earlier comment. This isn't a dream, it's a narrative
and if we expect the readers or viewers to be able to follow it, then the
characters must maintain some kind of internal consistency regardless of
what we make them do.
> In AF, Scully's glaring absence is necessary to allow Mulder to have
> this particular dream. CC and DD were well aware that we'd notice
> Scully's absence. Our knowledge of her absence becomes a presence and
> forces us to ask why she is missing. Her absence helps us interpret the
> dream.
Which is one of the things I'm complaining about. You noticed her absence. I
noticed her absence. Everybody noticed her absence. Hell, I'm surprised they
didn't run a crawler underneath the picture with "Where In The World Is
Scully?"
NJP
NJP
> You can probably tell I'm no expert in this field :o), but will that stop
> me? Apparently not.
Does it ever stop any of us?
You say no one makes a sharp right turn is they and the
> circumstances of their life are normal? That's quite an assumption. My
life
> is not normal if for nothing else because I haven't followed a traditional
> path, and Mulder's life if far from normal.
If you are a morose, secretive, under achieving teen-ager, who wears dark
garb, reads skinhead literature and makes public anti-social comments and,
one day, you blow away a dozen of your fellow classmates, that's not a sharp
right turn.
If you are an A student, demonstrably happy and sociable, with an loving
supportive friends and family, and, one day, you blow away a dozen of your
fellow students, that *is* a sharp right turn.
When it happens, we usually think the latter, but over time, we usually find
out it was the former. That's because we think we're more complex creatures
than we really are.
Got it?
> >
> > And miracles are 90% plain hard work.
>
> But they are not only hard work. Haven't you ever known anyone who could
> spontaneouly put something incredible together while you sat slaving away?
The Mozart/Beethoven conversation. (Oh where oh where is Chris Williams when
you need him. He knows all about *rules!*) The former composed almost right
out of his head. The latter worked laboriously to bring his efforts to their
final conclusion. What you're ignoring here is the nature of talent. Some
people have it and can translate it directly into result. God bless them.
Most people need to work at it.
> you are ascribing a moral value to art--it's no good unless someone works
> hard. Again, a value judgement-- what is hard work?
It may be art but it ain't building five miles of asphalt road on a hot day
in New Mexico. My comment is in response to the "miracle" notion that we
should be grateful for anything moving or effective that comes out of the
creative process and forgiving of all that which doesn't. Art ain't a
miracle. That is comes easier to some than to others is an accident of fate
or whatever. As it relates to 1013, they are obviously not blessed with
Mozart's facility.
> Besides, TXF is on a tight schedule.
Well, I've had six years of "this is the television business" conversations.
Yeah. I know. I know all about the production delays and unforseen scripting
changes and all that. I don't care. I think that if you agree to accept,
say, 80% what you get it 50% and if you back down to 50% then you get 30%.
If you demand 100%, then, if you're lucky, you get a "Paper Hearts" or an
"Irresistable" once in a while...in between the "Teliko"'s and the "Hell
Money"'s.
NJP
Cheryl Deering
NJP wrote:
> Deborah <tins...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:80udui$2ngg$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
>
> You say no one makes a sharp right turn is they and the
> > circumstances of their life are normal? That's quite an assumption. My
> life
> > is not normal if for nothing else because I haven't followed a traditional
> > path, and Mulder's life if far from normal.
>
> If you are a morose, secretive, under achieving teen-ager, who wears dark
> garb, reads skinhead literature and makes public anti-social comments and,
> one day, you blow away a dozen of your fellow classmates, that's not a sharp
> right turn.
Or if you are the above and you drop out of hs/college, create a killer web-site
or game that enables you to sell out for millions o' bucks, that's not a sharp
right turn, either--g!
> > > And miracles are 90% plain hard work.
> >
> > But they are not only hard work. Haven't you ever known anyone who could
> > spontaneouly put something incredible together while you sat slaving away?
>
> The Mozart/Beethoven conversation. (Oh where oh where is Chris Williams when
> you need him. He knows all about *rules!*) The former composed almost right
> out of his head. The latter worked laboriously to bring his efforts to their
> final conclusion. What you're ignoring here is the nature of talent. Some
> people have it and can translate it directly into result. God bless them.
> Most people need to work at it.
As well, some artists can lay stuff down without needing to shape or change
it, but they are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule. For every Muriel
Spark (who reportedly can do a fully-thought-out, perfectly concieved and
written novel in one draft) or Jack Kerouac (who regarded editing as
tampering with genius and supposedly never looked his books over
once he typed 'em out), there are far more writers whose creativity is
maximized (and work made near-perfect) once their initial draft
has been edited, shaped, and sharpened.
> > you are ascribing a moral value to art--it's no good unless someone works
> > hard. Again, a value judgement-- what is hard work?
>
> It may be art but it ain't building five miles of asphalt road on a hot day
> in New Mexico. My comment is in response to the "miracle" notion that we
> should be grateful for anything moving or effective that comes out of the
> creative process and forgiving of all that which doesn't.
Ugh. That attitude doesn't do artists any favors, for it would deprive a lot
of them of the extra step that makes their work truly good. Any writer
worth his or her salt knows that a good editor is hard as hell to find and
worth trading everything you own to keep because they help you
bring out the best you can do in your work. F. Scott Fitzgerald
was a terrific writer, but he never forgot to thank his editor
(Maxwell Perkins) for helping him do his best.
> Art ain't a
> miracle. That is comes easier to some than to others is an accident of fate
> or whatever. As it relates to 1013, they are obviously not blessed with
> Mozart's facility.
>
No comment--g!
> > Besides, TXF is on a tight schedule.
>
Shakespeare often was too, from all accounts--g! As were up-from-pulps/
get-paid-a-penny-a-word writers like Ray Bradbury, Theodore
Sturgeon, Dashiell Hammett, Robert Bloch, Fritz Leiber,
and Raymond Chandler, among many, many others. The latter
literally depended on the amount of stories they turned out for their
daily bread and cheese (with the exception of Bloch, who had a full-
time advertising gig, and Hammett, who was a detective before
becoming a writer) yet you will find they racked up a better
quality-to-junk story average than XF has.
>
> Well, I've had six years of "this is the television business" conversations.
> Yeah. I know. I know all about the production delays and unforseen scripting
> changes and all that. I don't care. I think that if you agree to accept,
> say, 80% what you get it 50% and if you back down to 50% then you get 30%.
> If you demand 100%, then, if you're lucky, you get a "Paper Hearts" or an
> "Irresistable" once in a while...in between the "Teliko"'s and the "Hell
> Money"'s.
Yep. I think it was ace French movie director Cocteau who told an
audience "Now, you see what we can do. Now it's up to you
to keep demanding the best we can give." Cutting artists endless
slack for not delivering more often than not results in a vicious
cycle in which they feel they don't have to shoot for the far wall--
or they get pressure from peers/the industry to not try because audiences
will buy whatever they put out there anyway. A major reason why
the STAR WARS era of high FX/lousy scripting lasted so long,
incidentally--g!
C.
**
Katherine
>Cheryl Deering <dee...@primenet.com> wrote in message
>news:38328D53...@primenet.com...
>> Katherine wrote:
>>
>> > I wish, in particular, they had explored more deeply (or at all, for that matter)
>> > the discoveries of the ship on Scully's personal beliefs. That's a
>> > lot of God to think about.
>>
>> XF seems to use religion/faith as either a character-defining element
>> that never really reflects the characters--or as a quickie plot-hole
>patch.
>
>I've always thought that one of the great failings of this show is that the
>creators opted not to follow the line that began in "Revelations." It always
>seemed to me that the parallels that could be drawn between Mulder's belief
>system in the paranormal and Scully's, in traditional religious experience,
>would offer many possibilities for illuminating both. (Note: the only ep
>that I think really successfully managed to balance the two was the very
>underrated "Kaddish.")
I have always found this to be an extremely frustrating aspect of the
X-Files. Scully's faith -- and they veer back and forth between it
being a faith and it being a religion/faith -- is kept in a neat
little box until it's hauled out one or twice a season to be The One
Area Where She is Believer is Mulder is Skeptic. Goodness, no wonder
the Saint Scully movement emerged: her faith, supposedly one of her
central motivating forces, is so disconnected from much of what her
character has experienced, she seems like a waxen, glossy statue of
the Virgin Mary. (I won't get started on how AF presents her as
Christ's mother; it plays into the heavy-handed religious symbolism,
and I'm not taking the bait.) On my wish list, among other things,
would be S&M coming to terms with this switching of roles. Also, them
grappling with how this affects their standard, more cliched roles in
every single case that doesn't involve Christianity/religion, it would
seem.
Please, don't mistake me. I did enjoy AF on a lot of levels, but that
is because I have learned to suspend requirements of plot/character
consistency and continuity. That's a shame; I shouldn't have to do
that. I think that potentially, Dana Scully is the most fascinating
character ever to grace a television screen, and I think, for a variey
of reasons, that the X-Files is now about the partnership's quest, but
it was actually about *Scully's* quest at the beginning, not Mulder's.
But when devices like Scully's faith are whipped out when convenient
and then forgotten quickly, or when they fall back on suggestions like
the happy faith-filled Scully family (when my own take on the Scully
household is extremely dark, more dysfunctional than the Mulder home),
I get extremely frustrated. So, much more could be done, but I guess
it's about sticking to a winning formula.
Sigh. I love this show, but I know next Sunday, the counter is reset
to zero. Again.
Katherine
(who thinks that at the very least, the darned Everything Book should
be mentioned in the next ten episodes, if it's really All About
Everything)
Maggie Helwig
> If Scully were
> truly at the end of her rope, had truly exhausted all the possibilities that
> the real world and science offered her in her efforts to save her partner,
> then, if she is to have her prayer answered, she had to get down on her
> knees *without* the ersatz dead-but alive shaman yanking her to the floor
> and telling her to pray and reach out to her Maker on her own. Otherwise,
> it's just a long, very uncomfortable nap on the floor.
I think you're pushing this way too far (every prayer that is the result
of a suggestion from someone else is invalid? I don't think so), but in
any case, it was actually Scully's idea. Albert said one of those
cryptic Wise Old Guy things about "looking for him here [points to
heart]", which is susceptible of multiple interpretations. Scully says,
"Are you telling me to pray?" Albert's kind of a Rorshach Elder here;
you could make his statement mean pretty much what you want. Scully, as
it turns out, wants it to mean prayer. Which honestly is not the first
interpretation I would have put on the statement ... actually I'm not
sure how I would have interpreted it, but I don't think I would have
thought it was a direction to pray. And I'm someone who does pray.
(I'm leaving aside here the hard-core rationalist explanation that she
collapsed from exhaustion and dreamed about Albert, which would make it
even more her idea. I don't know if canon law has ever ruled on whether
prayers offered in dreams are valid, but I don't see why they shouldn't
be.)
I don't terribly mind Albert having a catalytic role here. I don't think
this means that Scully has not figured out how to pray. It's the same as
the ever-returning "giving up Samantha" motif for Mulder. You do go
through the same issues over and over again in your life, but (one
hopes) gradually incorporating them more or more. Mulder physically let
go of Samantha in the diner; in this episode, he let her go emotionally.
Scully acknowledged that prayer has a place when there is no more hope
in Redux II. Here she acknowledges that, though there may still be
things that could be done in the "real world" (she's got that book, for
instance), and she feels she should be doing them, maybe the best thing
to do nonetheless is to pray. So she needs someone, or a vision of
someone, to act as a catalyst for that realization. So?
As for Scully having "learned to pray" in three or four years, some of
us have spent a lot longer than that and still haven't "got it down",
whatever that means.
BTW I do not think this episode was without its flaws. Overall, though,
I thought it had a number of high points. It worked pretty well for me.
maggie h
Meg Belviso
<<NJP wrote:>>
has engulfed his life since childhood? For me, no. Which is why I think that
I thought Fowley's comments about being a child were supposed to oppose
Mulder's fantasies about the boy on the beach. The quest and
Mulder's growing up were mutually exclusive in Fowley's pov. She didn't
know about the boy on the beach, that was Mulder's secret place he went
to.
> I believe that these objections miss the entire point of the dream. It
> is not about the process of giving up. If that were the case, I would
> agree. Instead, the premise of the dream is that Mulder HAS already
> given up. This is a given. The dream is Mulder considering the idea
> that maybe it would be better to leave the quest behind. It STARTS
> there. The struggle is fighting back from that state.
<<That is, if you'll pardon me, a quibble about timing and not about
structure.
If he's already given up by the time the dream starts, the why the CSM car
conversation? Why the emotional meeting with Deep Throat? Why that hoary
seduction scene and Fowley's marching him over to CSM's house for a
(missing)
discussion? Even supposing that the self-delusion has already begun, then
just
where was there any struggle with the idea? In TSE? Hardly. There was no
internalization
of Mulder's pain and suffering through *two* hours of this three hour tour.
(a three hour tour) Lord knows, there was amply opportunity to posit his
serenity
at severing his life from his past as merely the desire to escape just that
localized
agony. But no. And I'm sorry, but a couple of, well-delivered by WBS, to be
sure,
pure Carteresque philosobabble speeches do not explain how and why a guy who
is driven as Mulder has been shown to be, just kisses it all off. Not to me
anyway. >>
<<BTW, Mark, I get the point of the dream. Everybody gets the point of the
dream. Hell,
it was so simplistically executed, even a two-year gets the point of the
eam. By my
lights, that's the problem.>>
Actually, we don't get the same point to the dream at all. There are
two totally different interpretations in the discussion, based on two
totally different temptations to Mulder, which is why we're all talking
at cross purposes.
According to what you're saying here, the temptation to Mulder is a simple
life,
Fowley, sex, children and Samantha. That's why you feel Scully needs to be
explained. You're right, in that case, that it would make much more sense
to trick Mulder into thinking Scully has given up herself and approves of
his
choice. I agree with everyone who says Mulder would never be tempted to
give up for a nice house or a simple life or the wife and kids for anyone
except
possibly Scully. For him to choose these creature comforts over her he
would need to think she was either dead or agreed with his choice.
I don't believe he is tempted by any of these things. I see the dream as
being much closer to what is actually happening. I think (and I think Matt
does
too) that the temptation to Mulder is simply death. He's not giving up by
moving
to the suburbs and becoming respectable, he's giving up by dying, and
passively
letting DF and CSM do to him what they will without a fight. The suburban
setting and Fowley's lingerie are just window dressing. Despite DF's soft
porn
enterance in black, this didn't seem like much of an erotic dream to me.
The
sex happens off screen, the kids and the marriage happen in the blink of an
eye.
Everything is rushing toward getting the life over with and dying. I don't
think
this is the first time Mulder's been tempted by the purple bug light of
death,
so to me it was very in character.
I think Mulder was tempted in this ep to abandon Scully and he's not
lying to himself in the dream about that. She's still herself, doing
whatever
it is she's doing with her life, but Mulder's not interested anymore.
Scully
can do it alone. He's just going to stay here. The fact that staying with
this dream will make him a dead man is fine by him, so him figuring out
that he's in danger and these people are really killing him doesn't matter.
He's passive through the whole thing. Nobody's holding him here, but he's
still not moving. The only time he makes a move against the tide is
to try to get out of bed after Scully arrives. That leads into him waking
up
on the table.
I think those are two different ways of looking at the dream that make the
ep read differently. Which one is correct is another story.<g>
m{agpie}
Jenica Nelan
Katherine wrote:
>
> >I've always thought that one of the great failings of this show is that the
> >creators opted not to follow the line that began in "Revelations." It always
> >seemed to me that the parallels that could be drawn between Mulder's belief
> >system in the paranormal and Scully's, in traditional religious experience,
> >would offer many possibilities for illuminating both. (Note: the only ep
> >that I think really successfully managed to balance the two was the very
> >underrated "Kaddish.")
>
> I have always found this to be an extremely frustrating aspect of the
> X-Files. Scully's faith -- and they veer back and forth between it
> being a faith and it being a religion/faith -- is kept in a neat
> little box until it's hauled out one or twice a season to be The One
> Area Where She is Believer is Mulder is Skeptic. Goodness, no wonder
> the Saint Scully movement emerged: her faith, supposedly one of her
> central motivating forces, is so disconnected from much of what her
> character has experienced, she seems like a waxen, glossy statue of
> the Virgin Mary. (I won't get started on how AF presents her as
> Christ's mother; it plays into the heavy-handed religious symbolism,
> and I'm not taking the bait.) On my wish list, among other things,
> would be S&M coming to terms with this switching of roles. Also, them
> grappling with how this affects their standard, more cliched roles in
> every single case that doesn't involve Christianity/religion, it would
> seem.
>
> (when my own take on the Scully
> household is extremely dark, more dysfunctional than the Mulder home),
Wow... I never thought that Scully's family was *that* bad... on the other hand, I don't
have much doubt that Mulder's home life was pretty awful.
I've always thought that the religion/paranormal "competition" between M&S is much more
equitable in terms of giving Scully more chances to be right than she often is with her
scientific explanations. And 1013 could do some really interesting things with her
religion - they've seemed to want to try this again with this trilogy. But overall, CC
does seem scared to really explore religious themes. Religion is a tough thing to tackle
on TV and especially if you go against the more "traditional" view of Christianity
(represented by something like "Touched by an Angel"?). And because beliefs vary so much
from person to person, it would be hard to have a religious story-line and say at the end
"this is what happened" (of course, they still don't do that with their
paranormal/scientific stories, but whatever).
I'm not religious, but I'd certainly like to see more of it on the show. I love the idea
of Scully's religious/scientific conflictions and think that they could be developed more.
-Jenica
NJP
news:860F7FC6D679D211A3E300A0C9E12049A3F022@GP-1A...
> >Matt Hale wrote:
>
> I thought Fowley's comments about being a child were supposed to oppose
> Mulder's fantasies about the boy on the beach. The quest and
> Mulder's growing up were mutually exclusive in Fowley's pov. She didn't
> know about the boy on the beach, that was Mulder's secret place he went
> to.
Except that we're entirely in Mulder's head. He's working the same theme in
one dream with two different situations. It isn't a matter of any import
that Fowley, so far as we know, does not know about Mulder's dream. (Though
CSM apparently does) The point here is that the same them which is portrayed
well in the dream of the boy comes across as a little heavy-handed (or
heavy-some other part of the anatomy) in the LTOC part.
> Actually, we don't get the same point to the dream at all. There are
> two totally different interpretations in the discussion, based on two
> totally different temptations to Mulder, which is why we're all talking
> at cross purposes.
Well, the only one I've read of is the LTOC version starring Scully as
savior with a side trip to "Grow Up" land. Is there another interpretation
out there? Please supply.
> I don't believe he is tempted by any of these things. I see the dream as
> being much closer to what is actually happening. I think (and I think
Matt
> does too) that the temptation to Mulder is simply death.
Hello! (Tap tap tap) Is this thing on?
Let me see if I can sum this for you. Better yet, I'll let my pal, Bill do
it for you......
"To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 't is nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 't is a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
the oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of disprized love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action."
Sound familiar? You remember who said this, right? Prince Hamlet.
But CSM said that Mulder wasn't *even* Price Hamlet. This is what passes for
depth in series television.
> The sex happens off screen, the kids and the marriage happen in the blink
of an
> eye. Everything is rushing toward getting the life over with and dying. I
don't
> think this is the first time Mulder's been tempted by the purple bug light
of
> death, so to me it was very in character.
You're reaching. The jump cut manner of his life and the offstage actions
are, most likely, the need to squeeze the most important part of a *three*
hour episode into the last 20 odd minutes. Can you say "time management?"
Mulder has always had a death wish. Check out the last 15 minutes of
"Pusher." It is precisely that reckless disregard for his own life, and, by
inference, the lives of those around him, that is being called into question
by the dream of the boy on the beach. What the *easy* life means, for Mulder
is the *easy* death. His quest for the truth stands in for his will to live
in the dream. He could stop chasing aliens tomorrow in the real world and he
isn't necessarily going to mean the end of any meaninful existance but to
stop it in the dream world means, in essence, to give up.
I'm not real fond of this dream but I think would be a mistake to say that
CSM doesn't stand in for that part of Mulder that wants to give up. Or that
he has to use a certain degree of artifice and temptation to seduce Mulder
into complacency--though I think it occurs far too quickly and easily--the
LTOC parallels here are a little *too* clear to assume that Mulder is just
the victim of any confusing editing techniques.
> I think Mulder was tempted in this ep to abandon Scully and he's not
> lying to himself in the dream about that. She's still herself, doing
> whatever it is she's doing with her life, but Mulder's not interested
anymore.
A nice restatement of one of my quibbles with this episode. It's the "why"
of that lack of interest, among other things, that gives me pause.
> He's passive through the whole thing. Nobody's holding him here, but he's
> still not moving. The only time he makes a move against the tide is
> to try to get out of bed after Scully arrives. That leads into him waking
> up on the table.
Oh, so you have read Bill's play....
NJP
Carrie-Anne DeDeo
: Actually, we don't get the same point to the dream at all. There are
To play on the very "inspiration" for this episode, I'd expand on the idea
of Mulder being tempted to die to say that his temptation is the
temptation *to be* Christ. Mulder's decision to live ultimately is a
refusal to become Christ -- or, more clearly, to become the Christ CSM
wants him to be.
Not at all clear, am I? All this aparently heavy-handed Christ imagery --
cross-shaped operating table, medical crown of thorns, etc. -- proceed not
from Mulder's dreaming mind but from CSM's conscious machinations. It's
CSM, not Mulder, who makes the explicit comparison of Mulder to Christ.
For CSM, the comparison is simple. Christ died to save the world. He
wants Mulder to willingly die to enable salvation of the world from
aliens. Mulder's dream adheres to this line of thinking. In it, his
life spells the destruction of the world. Paradoxically, by accepting
this vision of life, Mulder would not be accepting the world's
destruction. Rather, he would be accepting CSM's rationale -- dying
willingly to save the world from this prospect.
Mulder's choice then, is the opposite of Christ's in LTOC. Christ's
temptation is life; his true path depends upon his death. CSM, while
presenting the illusion of life to Mulder, tempts him with the comfort of
death. Mulder himself ultimately refutes the Christ analogy. He is not
meant to die. His death would not save the world.
It's significant that the moment of Mulder's realization occurs in the
scene most like, in terms of dialogue, LTOC -- that is, Scully's "traitor"
speech, "borrowed" directly from Judas's words to Christ in the film.
Though both speakers demand the embrace of the more difficult path -- for
Christ, death on the cross, and for Mulder, life, continuing to fight --
Mulder's choice of life separates him from CSM's self-defined role as
God-the-Father, whereas Christ's choice reaffirms his place in God's plan.
The artificiality of the comparisons of Mulder to Christ, then, emphasize
the folly of CSM's thought. In a way, he's acting very much in accordance
with the Syndicate party line about Mulder's death providing him with
power in his martyrdom. The problem is, CSM forgets to factor in the
significant difference between Mulder's choice and Christ's. In setting
himself up as a God figure, CSM denies the existence of any power greater
than himself. His failure to make Mulder become Christ stems from his
inability to recognize the role fate plays in Mulder's life and choices.
Mulder, then, is like Christ only generally -- not in CSM's attempt at a
one-to-one comparison but in his "fatedness." Mulder cannot be Christ.
His death on that cross-shaped operating table would not have saved the
world. It's unclear that his embrace of life necesarily will either.
Unlike Christ, whose misssion is universal, Mulder embraces an individual
fate -- a theme 1013 has hinted at over and over with comparisons between
Mulder and the Syndicate -- and rather than an artifical role, the one
life that is meant to be *his* own.
Some more clarity is probably necessary on this issue, but right now, it's
back to work. . .
C-A
NJP
news:1e1ezgf.13w...@ip220-39.cc.interlog.com...
> NJP <jny...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I think you're pushing this way too far (every prayer that is the result
> of a suggestion from someone else is invalid? I don't think so), but in
> any case, it was actually Scully's idea.
Leave us not be facetious here. Religious leaders are always pointing out
the efficacy of prayer. The point is that sincerity of intent is rather
important in communicating with the Diety and someone who has to be
constantly told to use this resource is suspect.
Or, to draw a parallel:
When the actor collapsed and died on stage, it was suggested from the
audience that he be given an enema. When this was challenged, the reply came
"Well, it might not help, but, at this point, it can't hurt."
That's kind of how I feel about this effort.
Btw. Had this come from Father Whats-His-Name instead of from
Albert-Lets-Try-And-Tie-The-Whole-Thing-Together-From-Anasazi-On Hosteen,
I'd have been a little more accepting.
And you're better at rationalizing that "have you looked in here" connection
to praying. I'm still scratching my head.
Besides, it really didn't matter since Fowley's turncoatting appeared to be
more the results of Scully's telling comments and CSM's callous greed than
any divine intervention--all of which give the whole sequence the feel of
something tossed in to offer resonance with all those (much better) past
references to Scully's religious quest. And all I can say is "thud!"
NJP
GregSerl
>Date: Wed, 17 November 1999 09:13 AM EST
>Message-id: <1e1epcq.5b...@ip220-39.cc.interlog.com>
>I don't think you can ever underestimate
>the somatic, as well as the psychological, component of dreams -- he
>doesn't have a choice any more.
This would only be a valid point for me if AF was a PBS special on the
eccentricities of dreams or drug-induced dream states. Unfortunately, it's the
discussion of a television series with established characters. That being the
case, dreams, flashbacks, or even hallucinations are (or should be) part of the
narrative. They, like all other devices used for storytelling in a screenplay,
should give us either character insight, or move the plot (in this case the
mytharc) along.
Since obviously his dream did nothing to explain the mytharc components, it has
to be assumed that it was insight into the character of Fox Mulder. What would
someone learn of Mulder in this long and pretentious dream sequence? Well, that
someone named Diana Fowley had the key to free him and she did so. Once freed,
he was able to act on his once forbidden (shackled) desires to have her as his
lover, wife and the mother of his children.
Sorry, that's what it said to *me*. Frankly, I'd have found it much more
fascinating had Scully entered the room and pressed the key into Mulder's hand
making it his choice, because realistically, he would and will never be free
unless *he* makes the choice. No one can free him. Not even Scully.
Better still, just in terms of imagery, have Mulder use the key to free one
wrist, and then lock the open cuff around Scully's wrist and then hand the key
back to her. To me, if we're in a self-made prison, then only we hold the key
to unlock the cell door.
Even Samantha, though a much more logical choice than Fowley, couldn't unlock
those cuffs for Mulder, because his quest has outgrown her. Like Marley's
description of Scrooge's chain he "forged in life, link by link.." Mulder's
shackles are a "ponderous thing". The only person who can free him now is
Mulder, or when his quest is through, the chains will fall away. Anything else
seems like a cheat.
>the writers have too much respect for Scully to write her as
>Little Wifey even in a dream
I've never seen much in the way of "respect" for Scully from the writers, to
tell you the truth. She's been nearly raped more than once, had her ova
harvested, been used to create clones, and any man she's shown an interest in,
she's been punished for in some manner. However, again, she, like Mulder, holds
the only key to change that.
>if we
>assume 1013 is now thinking they will go ahead with the 'ship, it would
>surely be a stupid move to set up a dream where getting together with
>Scully translates into giving up the quest. That's exactly the idea they
>have to undermine.
Though 1013 is fairly notorious for having a kind of sneering contempt of the
image of marriage in suburbia, it seemed to me in AF that they were making
marriage in suburbia seem idyllic. Idyllic to the point that being rescued from
the dream was a metaphoric way of slapping the cuffs back on Mulder. The old
rusty saw about a hero having to sacrifice happiness to be a true hero.
Happiness is for those he saves, but not for him.
Hogwash, to be sure, but sit down and make a list of legendary heroes who have
romantic happiness everlasting as well as being able to keep their "quest", and
you'll find it to be a very short list.
I realize the show, now running out of time, will likely give us the shippy
ending, but if the mytharc remains the muddled mess it has become, then the
romantic conclusion is being chosen simply because it's easier at this point
than making sense of various alien lifeforms, the bees, smallpox, Gibson
Praise, Marita, Krycek, the symbol-laden spaceship, the book that explains the
ship, when and to whom Mulder was married, and who Fowley really was in his
past.
If Mulder forged a ponderous chain, it ain't nothin' compared to Chris
Carter's.
Cheryl Deering
Katherine wrote:
> On 17 Nov 1999 09:18:07 -0500, "NJP" <jny...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> Katherine wrote:
> >>
> >I've always thought that one of the great failings of this show is that the
> >creators opted not to follow the line that began in "Revelations." It always
> >seemed to me that the parallels that could be drawn between Mulder's belief
> >system in the paranormal and Scully's, in traditional religious experience,
> >would offer many possibilities for illuminating both. (Note: the only ep
> >that I think really successfully managed to balance the two was the very
> >underrated "Kaddish.")
>
> I have always found this to be an extremely frustrating aspect of the
> X-Files. Scully's faith -- and they veer back and forth between it
> being a faith and it being a religion/faith -- is kept in a neat
> little box until it's hauled out one or twice a season to be The One
> Area Where She is Believer is Mulder is Skeptic. Goodness, no wonder
> the Saint Scully movement emerged: her faith, supposedly one of her
> central motivating forces, is so disconnected from much of what her
> character has experienced, she seems like a waxen, glossy statue of
> the Virgin Mary.
Oh, God, _yes_. Perfectly put. I'm admittedly not a church-every-Sunday
person, but one of the things that has always put me off about the
way faith is presented (in both organized religion _and_ in the media)
is that it is treated as a thing apart from a person, a high gloss (to use
a woodworking term--g!) that is usually used as shallow
dramatic shorthand for "this person is a good 'un". But faith isn't shown often
enough as something which with people wrestle constantly or
that is a trial to them or is something they have a lifelong,
questioning relationship with that can change for lesser or greater.
And we don't see enough of how it realistically shapes them as a _person_,
not as some kind of potential icon ("The Saved/Faithful One.")
For a really good, realistic depiction of a character going through this, check out
DOGMA, whose central character is a woman for whom faith has fallen
down the scale from being even a struggle--it has become something she
is so tired of not living up to, it's become a reflex for her. As one of the
angels involved with her aptly notes (paraphrased), "You humans mourn your faith
more than you live it." g!
> (I won't get started on how AF presents her as
> Christ's mother; it plays into the heavy-handed religious symbolism,
> and I'm not taking the bait.) On my wish list, among other things,
> would be S&M coming to terms with this switching of roles. Also, them
> grappling with how this affects their standard, more cliched roles in
> every single case that doesn't involve Christianity/religion, it would
> seem.
>
Agreed.
> Please, don't mistake me. I did enjoy AF on a lot of levels, but that
> is because I have learned to suspend requirements of plot/character
> consistency and continuity. That's a shame; I shouldn't have to do
> that.
No, you shouldn't. And for people to insist that you should is asking
you to settle for less, which, taken in the big picture, doesn't do viewers or
creators any favors.
> I think that potentially, Dana Scully is the most fascinating
> character ever to grace a television screen, and I think, for a variey
> of reasons, that the X-Files is now about the partnership's quest, but
> it was actually about *Scully's* quest at the beginning, not Mulder's.
> But when devices like Scully's faith are whipped out when convenient
> and then forgotten quickly, or when they fall back on suggestions like
> the happy faith-filled Scully family (when my own take on the Scully
> household is extremely dark, more dysfunctional than the Mulder home),
> I get extremely frustrated. So, much more could be done, but I guess
> it's about sticking to a winning formula.
>
I totally agree. I'm _sorry_, but just because the writers have the nerve to
tackle questions of faith does not mean they automatically should be praised
for tackling them well. Even if you don't compare XF's treatment of
faith with that of Frank McCourt in ANGELA'S ASHES or even Toni
Morrison's in BELOVED, the former comes up not nearly as in-depth and
believeable as it should be.
>
> Sigh. I love this show, but I know next Sunday, the counter is reset
> to zero. Again.
>
> Katherine
> (who thinks that at the very least, the darned Everything Book should
> be mentioned in the next ten episodes, if it's really All About
> Everything)
Gee, you think? :) Shame on you--g!
C.
**
Deborah
> Deborah <tins...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:80udui$2ngg$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
>
stop
> > me? Apparently not.
>
> Does it ever stop any of us?
>
> > circumstances of their life are normal? That's quite an assumption. My
> life
> > is not normal if for nothing else because I haven't followed a
traditional
> > path, and Mulder's life if far from normal.
>
> If you are a morose, secretive, under achieving teen-ager, who wears dark
> garb, reads skinhead literature and makes public anti-social comments and,
> one day, you blow away a dozen of your fellow classmates, that's not a
sharp
> right turn.
>
> supportive friends and family, and, one day, you blow away a dozen of your
> fellow students, that *is* a sharp right turn.
>
> When it happens, we usually think the latter, but over time, we usually
find
> out it was the former. That's because we think we're more complex
creatures
> than we really are.
>
> Got it?
Of course, your examples are extrene and very narrow, but how do they relate
to the aspects of Mulder's behavior in this episode? Do you think his
behavior was that clear cut? I'm not sure what bothered you specifically, I
can only say what happened in this episode didn't set off any of those
alarms. Maybe I don't get it--what you're relating to this example that is.
> > >
> > > And miracles are 90% plain hard work.
> >
> > But they are not only hard work. Haven't you ever known anyone who could
> > spontaneouly put something incredible together while you sat slaving
away?
>
> The Mozart/Beethoven conversation. (Oh where oh where is Chris Williams
when
> you need him. He knows all about *rules!*) The former composed almost
right
> out of his head. The latter worked laboriously to bring his efforts to
their
> final conclusion. What you're ignoring here is the nature of talent. Some
> people have it and can translate it directly into result. God bless them.
> Most people need to work at it.
But most talent is not that clear cut. I'm not sure I would put CC in the
Mozart/Beethoven and certainly not in the Shakespeare category of genius. He
is talented and has a speck of genius. That's not really the argument I'm
making though. Creating works, even work like the X-files, is not a "job".
Yes, a certain amount of legwork, scutwork, research, structuring has to
take place, but that's only a part of what makes it fly. I don't know that
"working harder" would make the X-Files a better show. It's easy for you to
make that judgement from the outside. In my experience sometimes "working
harder" on a piece just makes it worse and the imperfect but vital early
works are the ones with the juice. I'd say it's more the Mozart/Salieri
argument. No matter how hard Salieri worked, his compositions just weren't
as good as Mozart's. Except for self satisfaction, art is one area where
working harder is not always guaranteed to give you the best output. There
is such a thing as craftsmanship, and that does often improve with work, but
it doesn't become art without that special something that has nothing to do
with work or practice.
> > you are ascribing a moral value to art--it's no good unless someone
works
> > hard. Again, a value judgement-- what is hard work?
>
> It may be art but it ain't building five miles of asphalt road on a hot
day
> in New Mexico.
I don't understand the relevance of this comment?
>My comment is in response to the "miracle" notion that we
> should be grateful for anything moving or effective that comes out of the
> creative process and forgiving of all that which doesn't.
I'm not asking you to do that. It works for you or it doesn't for whatever
reasons. I'm just sharing how it works for me, arguing my from my own
perspective.
> Art ain't a miracle.
I think it can be.
> That is comes easier to some than to others is an accident of fate
> or whatever. As it relates to 1013, they are obviously not blessed with
> Mozart's facility.
No one said they were Mozart, but CC and 1013 have their own brand of
talent, their own magic.
> > Besides, TXF is on a tight schedule.
>
> Well, I've had six years of "this is the television business"
conversations.
> Yeah. I know. I know all about the production delays and unforseen
scripting
> changes and all that. I don't care. I think that if you agree to accept,
> say, 80% what you get it 50% and if you back down to 50% then you get 30%.
> If you demand 100%, then, if you're lucky, you get a "Paper Hearts" or an
> "Irresistable" once in a while...in between the "Teliko"'s and the "Hell
> Money"'s.
>
> NJP
I'm rarely disappointed with the show, not because it doesn't have flaws,
but maybe because I'm just grateful for all the good stuff CC and 1013 have
produced over the years and have faith there will be more good stuff to
come.
I never expected a show like this to emerge on television and in a way it's
mere existence is a miracle to me. Maybe I just don't have the expectations
you do. I certainly do not expect perfection or expect them to write the
show exactly as I'd like to see it. I'll put up with the Hell Money's and
Telikos for the occasional Paper Hearts, but I've found nothing to complain
about with S7 so far. I liked 6E and loved AF.
How many X-File eps will there be when S7 ends? 140 or so and out of that
140 if there were 10 I loved and 20 or 30 I liked, I would consider that an
impressive body of work. However, I love about 20 eps, really like about 40
more, and only really dislike about 20 eps for the 6 year run. I think
that's impressive work from Carter and Company. I just don't have the
bitterness toward 1013 I read in some of the critics posts. I'm not sure
why. Maybe the show isn't as important to me as it is to some? I don't feel
like it's a personal slap in the face if an ep isn't what I'd hoped it would
be. That's the only thing I can come up with and it surprises me because I
thought I was pretty passionate about TXF.
Deborah
Robin Butts
Katherine <perse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3832df20...@news.earthlink.net...
> Please, don't mistake me. I did enjoy AF on a lot of levels, but that
> is because I have learned to suspend requirements of plot/character
> consistency and continuity. That's a shame; I shouldn't have to do
> that. I think that potentially, Dana Scully is the most fascinating
> character ever to grace a television screen, and I think, for a variey
> of reasons, that the X-Files is now about the partnership's quest, but
> it was actually about *Scully's* quest at the beginning, not Mulder's.
> But when devices like Scully's faith are whipped out when convenient
> and then forgotten quickly, or when they fall back on suggestions like
> the happy faith-filled Scully family (when my own take on the Scully
> household is extremely dark, more dysfunctional than the Mulder home),
> I get extremely frustrated. So, much more could be done, but I guess
> it's about sticking to a winning formula.
>
> Sigh. I love this show, but I know next Sunday, the counter is reset
> to zero. Again.
>
> Katherine
I'm curious. Why do you think that the Scully family was so dysfunctional,
especially as compared to Mulder family? Short of actually sexually abusing
or killing your kids or spouse, how more dysfunctional can you get than
allowing one child to be taken away and letting the other child carry the
burden and guilt of that loss? Bill and Maggie may not have been perfect
parents. They made have put a lot of pressure on Dana to succeed. Bill
seems to have disapproved of Dana's career choice. He certainly didn't stop
what she did. My parents didn't particularly approve of my career choice or
the fact that I married a man 17 years older than myself with 4 teenage
children, 3 of whom lived with us, but I would not call our family
particularly dysfunctional because of that. Bill Jr. certainly acts like a
jerk and wants to control Dana's life but is he that much different from
many other big brothers? I'd really like to hear your reasons and what you
have seen that I haven't.
Robin
Maggie Helwig
> Maggie Helwig <ksi...@interlog.com> wrote in message
> news:1e1ezgf.13w...@ip220-39.cc.interlog.com...
> > NJP <jny...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > I think you're pushing this way too far (every prayer that is the result
> > of a suggestion from someone else is invalid? I don't think so), but in
> > any case, it was actually Scully's idea.
>
> Leave us not be facetious here. Religious leaders are always pointing out
> the efficacy of prayer. The point is that sincerity of intent is rather
> important in communicating with the Diety and someone who has to be
> constantly told to use this resource is suspect.
"If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say onto this
mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing
shall be impossible unto you."
No doubt Scully is neither 100% pure of heart nor utterly faithful at
all times, but I'm sure she's got at least a grain of real faith there.
The consistent teaching I've got is that a fairly small amount of faith
outweighs a fairly substantial amount of doubt and even utilitarian uses
of prayer. And in fact this is the first time we've seen Scully be
prompted to pray by an external or quasi-external person (it was her own
idea in Redux II, for instance), so I'm not sure where the "constantly"
comes from. Everyone needs a catalyst now and then. She was preoccupied
with action in the "real world" at that point, and understandably so.
I agree Albert was a bit of contrivance, but this seemed to be the
"bring back everybody" episode. At least he wasn't used in quite such an
unpredictable and contrived way as Kritschgau. ("I don't believe in
aliens! And this is alien and you won't admit it, damn you! Call the
National Institute of Health!")
maggie h
Ali P.
>Therefore, that was the rule in the dream.
NJP wrote:
>Who's rule? Mulder's? Dream CSM's? Incidentally, the latter doesn't tell him
>he *can't* just that to do so would put her into danger. So, other than
>Dream Mulder's inclination *not* to, there is no *rule* (other than the
>writer's need to be somewhere at a particular point in the plot dynamic)
>forbidding him to do anything. The whole point of dreams is that represent
>the psyche's ability to work *without* the strictures of real life.
>
Haven't you ever had Rules in dreams?
I know that personally, most of my dreams have some strange restriction that I
just obey, because taking that course of action would disrupt what my
subconscious wants to sort out.
I've had dreams where people tell me nonsensical things like, "DON'T EAT THAT
CEREAL, or my dog will die!"
It doesn't matter that if I rationally thought about it, my eating a bowl of
cereal would have no effect on a dog's well-being. It's a Rule, it's been
labeled as a No-No, and so I don't do it. The dream moves on to something
else.
So... <shrug> It's very easy for me to see why Mulder wouldn't press on to find
Scully. CSM could've told Mulder that he couldn't contact Scully, because if
he did, it would start raining giant elephants and crush his house!.... and I
think Mulder would just say, "Oh, no! I don't want that to happen!" and he
would accept that strange warning as truth. :o)
-Ali
- - -
"Life is the first gift, love is the second, and understanding, the third."
-Marge Piercy
- - -
Sunflower seeds for all! C> C> C>
Fox William Mulder on the Web (FWMW)
members.aol.com/Sally700/fwmw.html
Magpie
> Meg Belviso <MBEL...@guideposts.org> wrote in message
> > >Matt Hale wrote:
<snip>
>
> > Actually, we don't get the same point to the dream at all. There are
> > two totally different interpretations in the discussion, based on two
> > totally different temptations to Mulder, which is why we're all talking
> > at cross purposes.
> Well, the only one I've read of is the LTOC version starring Scully as
> savior with a side trip to "Grow Up" land. Is there another interpretation
> out there? Please supply.
Gee, and here I thought I was just going to clarify to make
the discussion easier, but we're right back to sneering.
You've already quoted the lines where I laid out the two
interpretations. One is Mulder tempted by death and
intertia, the other is Mulder tempted by sex, comfort,
children and Samantha. You don't see the difference,
for some reason. You see Mulder trapped in a fake world
where he's unwittingly being slowly killed, but he's
kept there by his fascination with the scenery and
the people around him. I see Mulder walking knowingly
into the clutches of CSM and DF, thinking there is
no way out, and happily rationalizing his way into the
grave. If you see so little difference between the
two, why do keep insisting 1013 stick to your version?
Yes, we agree that Mulder is tempted to give up and
Scully convinces him not to. You have no interest
in how they've chosen to play it out, because it is
not the way you would play it out, so you don't look
any closer at it and I do.
> > I don't believe he is tempted by any of these things. I see the dream as
> > being much closer to what is actually happening. I think (and I think
> Matt
> > does too) that the temptation to Mulder is simply death.
> Hello! (Tap tap tap) Is this thing on?
> Let me see if I can sum this for you. Better yet, I'll let my pal, Bill do
> it for you......
> "To be, or not to be: that is the question:
> Whether 't is nobler in the mind to suffer
> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
> And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
> No more; and by a sleep to say we end
> The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
> That flesh is heir to, 't is a consummation
> Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
> To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
Oh my, he's got a Riverside Shakespeare. His interpretation
must be correct.
> Sound familiar? You remember who said this, right? Prince Hamlet.
Yes. This must be the high school English class again.
Unfortunately, you haven't explained why this doesn't apply
to Mulder, using evidence from Amor Fati. You just
said it's Hamlet, and then the kind of silly under the
circumstances of the episode...
>But CSM said that Mulder wasn't *even* Price Hamlet.
>This is what passes for depth in series television.
It must be pretty deep because I have no idea what
you're getting at. Why does it matter that he's
not *even* Prince Hamlet, according to dream-CSM, and
why does this mean he can't be considering dying on
the operating table?
CSM also tells him he's not Christ, so do I get to
negate your "LTOC" parallels, regardless of the
similarities to the movie, if I quote some Bible
passages? You still haven't convinced me I should
blame CC, DD and 1013 for your interpretation of the
episode, especially since you yourself describe it
as totally inconsistent with the characters.
> > The sex happens off screen, the kids and the marriage happen in the blink
> of an
> > eye. Everything is rushing toward getting the life over with and dying. I
> don't
> > think this is the first time Mulder's been tempted by the purple bug light
> of
> > death, so to me it was very in character.
> You're reaching. The jump cut manner of his life and the offstage actions
> are, most likely, the need to squeeze the most important part of a *three*
> hour episode into the last 20 odd minutes. Can you say "time management?"
Can you say, "this is what happened on screen?"
It doesn't matter how it got there, it's there, I saw it.
You interpret it as time management, I say 1013 is in charge
of what scenes they put in and take out. The work stands on
its own after it's left the hands of the makers.
Hell,half your interpretation rests on scenes that "should have"
been there and weren't. Are we keeping count: the scene
where Scully should have told Mulder to give up, the scene
where Mulder should have demanded to see Scully, the
scene where Scully should weep by Mulder's bedside. That's
why I prefer to stick to the episode they actually aired
and not go beyond that.
> Mulder has always had a death wish. Check out the last 15 minutes of
> "Pusher." It is precisely that reckless disregard for his own life, and, by
> inference, the lives of those around him, that is being called into question
> by the dream of the boy on the beach. What the *easy* life means, for Mulder
> is the *easy* death. His quest for the truth stands in for his will to live
> in the dream. He could stop chasing aliens tomorrow in the real world and he
> isn't necessarily going to mean the end of any meaninful existance but to
> stop it in the dream world means, in essence, to give up.
LOL! The boy on the beach means what??? These are open symbols
in the show, there is no one interpretation for any of them!
This isn't a code, it's a work of fiction with many ways
to look at it. You are sticking to your first interpretation,
where Mulder has no idea that stopping chasing after aliens
in the dream world means he will die, and I think he does
know and has given up. And I think a lot of people would
also disagree with your assertion that giving up chasing
aliens in the real world would not mean the end of any
meaningful existance for Mulder.
Look, I know you're very very emotionally attached to your
interpretation,
but your mistaken if you think that makes it The Truth. Your
interpretation of the boy on the beach, which seems so painfully
obvious to you, seems completely off base to me, and I'm just
as emotionally attached to my version. I'm not trying
to pry you off your version of the episode. Who knows, you might
have even been able to convince me it was right in a real discussion.
I've changed my mind before. But the second you start saying
something definitely means something, and that I'm imagining
anything that doesn't fit your version, I immediately suspect
what you're saying. The episode made far too much sense to me
to make me reject it for a theory that only works if you cut out
scenes and put in others. The doorway scene works just fine in
my version, and I'd like to keep it.
> I'm not real fond of this dream but I think would be a mistake to say that
> CSM doesn't stand in for that part of Mulder that wants to give up. Or that
> he has to use a certain degree of artifice and temptation to seduce Mulder
> into complacency--though I think it occurs far too quickly and easily--the
> LTOC parallels here are a little *too* clear to assume that Mulder is just
> the victim of any confusing editing techniques.
Yes, that's true. Mulder is everyone in the dream, and CSM is
the one who tells him to stay in suburbia. He's also the one
who in the end lets him listen to the boy on the beach (oh, but
your boy on the beach is telling him to stay in suburbia too,
so I guess in the end of your version Mulder gives up? Or
does he just choose to be reckless and destroy people's lives
and watch porno?)
But I admire your generosity in considering that at least
this scene wasn't the result of "confusing editing
techniques". Honestly, you make it sound like this thing
was put together by a couple of autistic ten-year-olds
in their garage. Whatever is on screen is there because
the show's creators let it be there. They can't take it
back now.
> > I think Mulder was tempted in this ep to abandon Scully and he's not
> > lying to himself in the dream about that. She's still herself, doing
> > whatever it is she's doing with her life, but Mulder's not interested
> anymore.
> A nice restatement of one of my quibbles with this episode. It's the "why"
> of that lack of interest, among other things, that gives me pause.
Yes, I know. Mulder didn't act the way you thought he should.
Instead of scoffing at 1013's big mistake, why not try to think
of why Mulder isn't interested anymore without resorting to
sloppy writing again. DD and CC don't have to write anything.
They wanted to write this because, apparently, they had something
to say.
I didn't decide what the dream was supposed to be in the first
scene. I didn't decide anything until it was over, then I looked
at the work I was given and thought about what it said to me. 1013
always leaves open spaces for us to project into, it's not
a show where everything is laid out clearly. Everyone projects
what they want to see. Some of us know we're doing that. Some
of us don't.
This is beginning to sound more and more like LTOC. Wasn't
the whole controversy over the fact that many people resented
the idea that Christ would ever consider something like this?
Heh, that DD might be more clever than we thought. How dare
he put his version of Mulder on screen where impressionable
people might see it and think it was really Mulder???
> > He's passive through the whole thing. Nobody's holding him here, but he's
> > still not moving. The only time he makes a move against the tide is
> > to try to get out of bed after Scully arrives. That leads into him waking
> > up on the table.
> Oh, so you have read Bill's play....
Hey, if you can turn the episode into a hopelessly flawed pile
of crap and call it truth, I can turn it into Hamlet and call
it the same thing. Interesting the way that I described
exactly what happened in the episode, and *you* came up
with Hamlet.
That's the great thing about TXF, it always leave big spaces
for us to interpret what it meant. Hooray for them. This
is what I *love* about it. When I watch a show that follows
all the guidelines for Good Writing as you put it, I have
a different experience. I like ER. I watch it like I
watch a game. We've got all these characters with very
set traits that have clear origins. Each character tries
to get what they want, and they run into the other characters.
Just like a game. It's only alive for the hour it's on.
The only way I can relate to the characters is as chess
pieces ("I wonder what they're going to do with Carrie
this year?") or as real people ("I can't believe
Lucy, she's so annoying!"). When the show's over, it's
over. They might have brought up some interesting ethical
questions, but it doesn't really touch me or make me
think about what I saw. It's just there.
With TXF I can relate to M&S as real people ("Wasn't Mulder/
Scully a jerk/bitch last night?") or as actual fictional
characters, which is very rare on tv. In that sense, they
*are* like Hamlet and Ahab and Gatsby. I wonder what they
are thinking and what that means to me. What they do
resonates throughout the story, changing the meaning.
I'm am very glad that Mulder can have a dream where he ditches
Scully and lives with DF. It makes me wonder what he wants, since
I know it's not DF. Why has he given up today? How does he see
his life? How will Scully get him back? Why does her prayer
work? Why does the tear wake him up? If I want to see your
version of the Correct Character, the one who is simply the
sum of his assigned character traits, I can flip right over
to an ER rerun and watch Doug Ross choose to do something
that gets the hospital in deep trouble because a kid's life is
at stake. Yes, it's interesting watching Doug and Carrie
square off during the hour, but not much to think about
after it's over.
-m
--
"Yes, that's right...Love should come before
logic...Only then will man come to understand the
meaning of life." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Julia Milton
> The point of the dream, though, is that he can't give up. He's
> never at home on Conspiracy Court and he knows it. He goes
> through the motions the way he's supposed to (marriage, kids,
> old age) but the fact that he has more to do never quits nagging
> at him. So, having explored the possibility that giving up is the
> way to go, he comes to the conclusion that he does have
> something to live for.
Tellingly, that "something" isn't his kids. In the dream-reality, Mulder
dutifully procreates ... in the flash-forward sequence, we see DF heavily
pregnant, then the next thing you know, look - Mulder must have had some
kids, because here (fleetingly) are their laughing faces.
But that's the only time we ever see these nameless offspring. When
elderly!Mulder is dying in his bed, CSM reminds him that he no longer has
anything to live for, because everyone he has known and loved is dead.
What of his kids? There is no imagined affection towards them (or from
them?), whoever they are or were. It seems they were merely incidents of
the past. I can't help thinking that dream-Mulder accepted DF's view that
having kids is something you do, in order to grow up - rather like buying a
house, or paying off the mortgage on it. Done and dusted.
Now, I agree that Mulder's dream isn't "intentional", so this isn't
necessarily indicative of how the waking Mulder feels about children - in
fact, I think there's evidence that he'd make a warm and caring father. On
the other hand, it does reflect how CSM views HIS "children" (Mulder,
Cafe!Samantha), or all other human beings for that matter - as objects to
be manipulated and then forgotten.
Is anyone else intrigued by the absence of Mulder's Children in an episode
that was - nominally - all about fathering?
Julia
Matt Hale
> > or you simply (for no discernible reason) just know something to be true
> > and it becomes an absolute truth within the dream? When you wake up, it
> > may make no sense but in the dream there's simply no questioning it.
>
> I'm not sure what is meant by absolute truth here. I think what you're
> speaking of is dream actions or activities that we believe, in the light of
> day, that we're incapable of doing or being, or the same for other people
> and things in our dreams.
No, that's not what I meant. I guess I wasn't very clear. I'll try to
illustrate this with a simple example. Say you have a dream in which
you are in a house. There is one door that you are not supposed to
open. There is no logical reason why you can not open the door (maybe a
character told you not to, maybe you just know not to). Maybe you even
hold the key to the door in your hand. You don't open it, though
because it is not allowed. In the context of the dream, "you must not
open that door" is an absolute truth. A rule.
It's very simple and I'm sure I'm over explaining it but I just want to
be clear. "You must not contact Scully" becomes that kind of rule in
Mulder's dream. There's no logical explanation and there's no need to
convince Mulder. His subconscious needs Scully out of the way for this
dream so she's off limits. Period.
> Dreams as portrayed in most narrative forms, with the exception, to my view,
> of the Latin American writers of "Magical Realism," are only suggestive of
> their true life counterparts. They are much more linear.
Well, strict surrealism is pure dream logic. Magical realism is far
more linear than surrealism. But I guess you don't consider surrealism
a narrative form. I think it can be narrative or non narrative.
Either way, I think maybe a big split between us is that I see a great
deal of magical realism and even, on occasion, surrealism in XF.
Certainly in AF.
> This is not a bad
> thing since, as anyone who has every consistently written their dream
> memories down knows, for the most part, they make very little long-term
> sense. A narrative form can't expect to do that, unless maybe its something
> by James Joyce, and maintain interest and tell a story.
You don't have to be Joyce to incorporate dream logic into narrative for
goodness sakes. All of my favorite fiction (including XF) acknowledges
senselessness on occasion. Besides, many dreams do make a beautiful
kind of sense. They're logical, just not rational.
> What bothers me is that what is being offered at the onset is simply not
> enough, in my view, to turn the Mulder I've observed away from that quest or
> his partner.
It isn't. But it doesn't have to be. He never turns away from the
quest or Scully. He dreams that he HAS TURNED away. There is no
process of letting life go and there doesn't have to be. His
subconscious wants to explore the possibility that giving up is a good
idea so he dreams that he's given up. It doesn't matter how he got
there.
> You have Deep Throat conselling him to give it all up because he's
> not really dead--and I would question the depth of Mulder's emotion in
> finding Deep Throat alive. It's not like they did more than hang out in a
> few bar bathrooms back in the early days.
Seeing DT alive isn't just learning that DT didn't die. DT carries a
lot of baggage with him. DT's death was when everything got serious.
When M&S became irrevocably involved in the mythology. When Mulder
finds DT alive, all of his responsibilities and guilt melt away.
> Seems to me that what was done to
> Scully would inflect more on his conscience that what happened to DT some
> six years ago. But hey, I'm easy. Don't write me on that one.
I'm going to anyway (sorry <g>). It isn't just that Mulder is guilty
about what happened to DT. DT's role in the dream is to absolve Mulder
of his guilt about everybody (including Scully).
> I think that if you posit Scully, or maybe his
> father--figures who have carried much more weight and baggage in his
> life--turning him from his quest, then I think I can accept that he would
> reconsider his quest.
But they ARE his quest. The whole premise is that he turns away from
Scully not just the abstract "quest". Scully is truth (Truth, Scully --
ooh, bad pun; sorry about that) so she can not support the lie that he
is better off dead. You're asking for an entirely different dream.
> if we look back on six years of
> these characters, which one had repeatedly considered the "road not taken"
> as embodied by family and children? Mulder? Don't think so. And even if that
> is what Fowley meant to him back when, how is it that we're just finding it
> out at a critical juncture in his development. That's not good writing.
His dream is not a fantasy. A life in the suburbs raising children with
Fowley is not the temptation in the dream. As I said in another post,
Mulder puts himself in the suburbs because he is giving up everything
that has made him who he is. I never got the impression once that
Mulder was fulfilling some long standing desire. No, this is the
opposite of who Mulder is and that's the point. When he says it's
"perfect," he's not saying that it's what he wants. It's the model of
perfection in a world to which Mulder has never aspired. When he says
"What the hell am I doing here?" he means it. It's not his house.
> > I believe that these objections miss the entire point of the dream. It
> > is not about the process of giving up. If that were the case, I would
> > agree. Instead, the premise of the dream is that Mulder HAS already
> > given up. This is a given. The dream is Mulder considering the idea
> > that maybe it would be better to leave the quest behind. It STARTS
> > there. The struggle is fighting back from that state.
>
> That is, if you'll pardon me, a quibble about timing and not about
> structure.
No, it's a fundamental disagreement about meaning.
> If he's already given up by the time the dream starts, the why
> the CSM car conversation? Why the emotional meeting with Deep Throat? Why
> that hoary seduction scene and Fowley's marching him over to CSM's house for
> a (missing) discussion?
These scenes all set the stage. The CSM conversation was stating the
premise (you can go and fight if you want to but consider the benefits
of giving up), the DT scene was illustrating some of said benefits (see
above) and the Fowley/marriage/kids/old age is about Mulder letting all
that most defines his life slip away. Why Fowley? Because she is both
a part of his pre x-files past and, more importantly IMO, she is now
associated with CSM. I also think there's something to be said for the
theory that Mulder incorporated his surroundings into the dream. It's
still Mulder, though, that plays things out like we saw them.
> Even supposing that the self-delusion has already
> begun, then just where was there any struggle with the idea? In TSE? Hardly.
> There was no internalization of Mulder's pain and suffering through *two*
> hours of this three hour tour. (a three hour tour) Lord knows, there was
> amply opportunity to posit his serenity at severing his life from his past
> as merely the desire to escape just that localized agony. But no. And I'm
> sorry, but a couple of, well-delivered by WBS, to be sure, pure Carteresque
> philosobabble speeches do not explain how and why a guy who is driven as
> Mulder has been shown to be, just kisses it all off. Not to me anyway.
Ah, okay, we have a major miscommunication here (on my part). I'm not
saying that Mulder is ready to give up. That is NOT the point of the
dream. Premise does not equal point. This is precisely why I went on
and on about the fact that dreams do not tell us everything about a
person. I hope I can make my point a little more clear.
Mulder may very well be dying. That's the physical truth. This truth
is preying on Mulder's mind. His natural inclination is to fight it.
As you point out, that's Mulder and we all know it so there's no need to
state it. Part of him, though, is thinking about letting go. In the
dream, he simply entertains that notion. It's a "what if?" exercise.
What if I did give up? So he leaves the keys in the ignition and steps
out of the car. This isn't a decision to die, it's only a decision to
CONSIDER death. That's what dreams are for the most part: mulling
things over.
The point of the dream, though, is that he can't give up. Given the
premise that he wants to die, he can convince himself that his life, as
it is, is worth fighting for. It's only a given that he wants to die IN
THE DREAM, though. That's why there's no need for us to see Mulder
struggle with giving up. When I said that the dream starts with Mulder
already having given up I did not mean to imply that we missed the
process. It never happened. The dream simply deems it so for the
reasons I stated above. Dreams defy cause and effect.
> > I don't think that's the case in AF but it's not bad writing to
> > distort a character in a dream.
>
> Well, to return to an earlier comment. This isn't a dream, it's a narrative
> and if we expect the readers or viewers to be able to follow it, then the
> characters must maintain some kind of internal consistency regardless of
> what we make them do.
I'm looking at it like a dream. I guess that's why we seem to be having
two different conversations here. I completely disagree with your
contention that a narrative can't incorporate a true dream. Just
because the overall structure of XF is narrative, there's no reason it
can't incorporate non narrative elements. Hell, Eraserhead has an
overall narrative. And, no, I'm not saying XF is Eraserhead but trips
into subconscious logic are not new to this show. IMO, Mulder's dream
in AF is not merely an internal extension of the narrative. It's a
dream and operates as such.
Matt Hale
hale...@earthlink.net
Akakan
GregSerl <greg...@aol.com> wrote in article
> I realize the show, now running out of time, will likely give us the
shippy
> ending, but if the mytharc remains the muddled mess it has become, then
the
> romantic conclusion is being chosen simply because it's easier at this
point
> than making sense of various alien lifeforms, the bees, smallpox, Gibson
Distraction works, doesn't it? Look at all the drooling over the ep on this
newsgroup.
Whether you want to admit it or not, as with every long detective tale, the
engine of the early XF was a search for the truth. Not Mulder's truth. Not
Mulder's repressed feelings for Scully. Not Mulder's heretofore unheard-of
desire to live in Rancho Santa Fe. The truth. Remember -- The Truth is Out
There?
I am astounded to see how easily intelligent people dismiss the
show-stopping collapse of story logic in this trilogy of episodes. Mulder
revealed as the first true hybrid -- except for Cassandra Spender, the
other first true hybrid? CSM never sucked anything out of her nose when he
had the opportunity. Plus, I thought the aliens *wanted* humans to develop
hybrids as a slave race -- hardly an endeavor they would encourage if the
resulting end product dripped vaccine out of its skull. I'm not even going
to talk about the buried ship, that interstellar Goodyear Blimp of
cosmology.
Logic is central to storytelling, to the willing suspension of disbelief.
Unless, of course, Mulder and Scully smooch.
Cheryl Deering
Akakan wrote:
> GregSerl <greg...@aol.com> wrote in article
>
> > I realize the show, now running out of time, will likely give us the
> shippy
> > ending, but if the mytharc remains the muddled mess it has become, then
> the
> > romantic conclusion is being chosen simply because it's easier at this
> point
> > than making sense of various alien lifeforms, the bees, smallpox, Gibson
>
> Distraction works, doesn't it? Look at all the drooling over the ep on this
> newsgroup.
> Whether you want to admit it or not, as with every long detective tale,
No, no, no--XF is now a _fairy_ tale. A mythical quest. A mythology.
And, of course, it suddenly being called so exempts it from having to
have any kind of story logic or character consistency, no?
> the
> engine of the early XF was a search for the truth. Not Mulder's truth. Not
> Mulder's repressed feelings for Scully. Not Mulder's heretofore unheard-of
> desire to live in Rancho Santa Fe. The truth. Remember -- The Truth is Out
> There?
>
> I am astounded to see how easily intelligent people dismiss the
> show-stopping collapse of story logic in this trilogy of episodes.
If you can't get the story you love (and deserve), love the one you get--g!
> Mulder
> revealed as the first true hybrid -- except for Cassandra Spender, the
> other first true hybrid? CSM never sucked anything out of her nose when he
> had the opportunity. Plus, I thought the aliens *wanted* humans to develop
> hybrids as a slave race -- hardly an endeavor they would encourage if the
> resulting end product dripped vaccine out of its skull. I'm not even going
> to talk about the buried ship, that interstellar Goodyear Blimp of
> cosmology.
>
> Logic is central to storytelling, to the willing suspension of disbelief.
> Unless, of course, Mulder and Scully smooch.
XF has devolved into bad fan-fic with the aims of bad fan-fic. "Will
M/S kiss and when?" has preempted almost every other issue this show used
to raise and handle well.
C.
**
Akakan
NJP <jny...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<80ui8i$ovj$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>...
> To go one step farther, if we look back on six years of
> these characters, which one had repeatedly considered the "road not
taken"
> as embodied by family and children? Mulder? Don't think so. And even if
that
> is what Fowley meant to him back when, how is it that we're just finding
it
> out at a critical juncture in his development. That's not good writing.
This is why AF fails on characterization as well as plot. It's interesting
to imagine what kind of life might truly have tempted Mulder to abandon
his quest. However, that exercise would be way more difficult than popping
LTOC into the VCR and copying down the script. Face it: LOTC is where the
happy family fantasy came from, NOT from Mulder's well-established
character.
Katherine
>> (when my own take on the Scully
>> household is extremely dark, more dysfunctional than the Mulder home),
>I'm curious. Why do you think that the Scully family was so dysfunctional,
>especially as compared to Mulder family? Short of actually sexually abusing
>or killing your kids or spouse, how more dysfunctional can you get than
>allowing one child to be taken away and letting the other child carry the
>burden and guilt of that loss? Bill and Maggie may not have been perfect
>parents. They made have put a lot of pressure on Dana to succeed. Bill
>seems to have disapproved of Dana's career choice. He certainly didn't stop
>what she did. My parents didn't particularly approve of my career choice or
>the fact that I married a man 17 years older than myself with 4 teenage
>children, 3 of whom lived with us, but I would not call our family
>particularly dysfunctional because of that. Bill Jr. certainly acts like a
>jerk and wants to control Dana's life but is he that much different from
>many other big brothers? I'd really like to hear your reasons and what you
>have seen that I haven't.
I've had this theory for a long time. Please keep in mind, this is
only my very subjective take on it. But hey, if the men in charge can
make it up as they go along, so can I every now and then. :) But
these thoughts have stuck with me for a long time.
Okay. Pure speculation mode on.
I don't mean to say that the Mulder family is not dysfunctional.
However, they strike me as a household where the dysfunction is harder
to cover up: the sister is obviously *gone*, and we can only assume
that the family was not a stable unit as of that incident. What makes
the Scullys dark in my eyes is how everything seems to be suppressed
but constantly bubbling over; they seem to be a very angry group of
people. I don't think it was any one moment that made me think this,
it was more a cumulative string of Things That Make You Go Hmmmm.
Take Beyond the Sea. I don't know quite what to make of Margaret
Scully here. The first time we see her, she seems very much concerned
with her husband -- when he wants to go home, healing any possible bad
feelings between father and daughter. Keeping the peace.
I was okay with that, but I got a few curiosity-tinges later in the
episode. I thought it interesting that Margaret Scully seemed very
content with how her late husband would have wanted his service,
family only. I would assume a service man would have a lot of dear
friends, as would the family. That's fine. But it was her reaction
to her daughter's tears -- asking if her father was proud of her
despite her career choice -- was rather odd, even cold. "He was your
father." Hmmm, I said. We also get the groundwork for the tension
between father and daughter here, the whole Ahab-Starbuck angle.
Pleasing this man is obviously paramount, and neither a subtle point,
or as you point out, an unusual one. But as she suggests later in
Never Again, her father is someone who inspires her to worship the sea
he sailed on, but he also plays into her "Thing," where she gets so
close, and then pulls away, deliberately creating distance.
This seemed to establish a thread I saw again and again. Distance.
Control. Which is not to say that the family didn't react as a
concerned and affectionate in Ascension and elsewhere. But I wonder
how idyllic the Scully household could have been to engender a
daughter with a "Thing" like that. Or, one who says that ever since
she was a child, she could never allow herself to get close to people
or feel emotional attachments (A Christmas Carol). Or, one who says
at the beginning of Emily that she is alone as ever (I've never been
sure that the line in that monologue about being touched but never
held is definitively about her, and not about Emily -- it's a
confusing little 1013-esque funfest. If anyone can make it clearer to
me, I'd be happy to listen).
Even the images and flashbacks about Scully's childhood strike me as
unusual: on the one hand, there are the dead, decaying, suffering
animals (snake, rabbit), and on the other, there are these glossy
hallmark moments that are simply too good to be true. Now, I am not
saying that the creators are masters of subtlety -- these are the men
who pinned the hero to a glowing cross in AF, it's deep symbolism, get
it? Get it?? -- and it could very well be that I should take these
memories at face value. But in my own twisted little theory, I feel
like the greeting card snippets are wishful, distorted thinking: in
Christmas Carol, with its overdone, beatific handing of the sacred
cross from mother-saint to daughter-saint, or in Piper Maru, with its
Norman Rockwell hopscotch playing by young Dana and Melissa. The
latter example is particularly red-light for me: earlier in the
episode, Scully learned that the investigation about her sister's
murder was closed, and she's obviously distraught and emotional when
Skinner tells her. She's seeing her past through a heavy lens of
grief and guilt, and as such, I have a hard time taking that memory at
face value. The childhood hug and the laughter were a little over the
top for me; even when I got along with my siblings, we didn't take it
that far. :) I was left wondering, what is the idealized memory
concealing?
I've also noticed a lot of suppressed (often not too well) anger. I
don't know if this can be attributed to the family blaming Scully for
Melissa's death -- that could be part of the larger picture, but I saw
that undercurrent of Anger Issues before then. And sure, plenty of
families are angry, but I am struck by the constant controlling of
that anger. In One Breath, I saw a lot of old sharp edges between
Melissa and her mother, beyond any stress of the moment. Same with
Scully and Melissa at the kitchen table, arguing about the abduction
-- this seemed like an well-established, well-worn anger. In A
Christmas Carol, Bill and Margaret seem quick to criticize Scully --
is she being happy enough for her pregnant sister in law? Is she
bringing too much of her work into the home, intruding on the family
holiday? Scully seems to want to control her emotions around these
people, and when she lets them go, or generates emotions, she is
apologetic. In Momento Mori, when Margaret loses her temper (hmmm, I
thought, that's a woman who can do a great passive-aggressive rage),
Scully seems to steel herself to be strong as she holds her crying
mother. And Redux 2 is really really interesting, when Scully is
crying and apologetic to her mother for rejecting her faith, the faith
her mother presumably instilled in her when she gave her the gold
cross like Moses getting the Commandments.
This works for me in terms of the way Scully expresses her anger. In
general, she's completely under control. In Never Again she's
literally hollering at Ed Jerse to regain control, and it sounds like
she's ordering herself to get back in control after a moment of
desiring and weakness. And, if Padgett is right in Milagro, this is
something she purposefully cultivates. But the anger is bubbling
under the surface, and when she snaps, she snaps. (For example, in
Apocrypha, when she corners Luis Cardinal.)
I also have to say that the killer red-light for me in rethinking the
Scullys-as-loving-vs-Mulders-as-dysfunctional paradigm was Unruhe.
Now that one's interesting. When Scully immediately asks Schnauz what
his father had done to his sister, and when he says Scully has howlers
just like that dead sister, that was another hmmm.
What do I think might have happened? In my speculation, I toyed with
the idea that Scully might have been abused, by her father or brother
or someone else. I'm not convinced. My mind keeps coming back to
Margaret Scully -- her world-weary smile and her "he's your father."
My current pet theory is that she was not close to her daughters, and
especially not close to Scully; I picture her punishing her youngest
for her adoration of her absent, and therefore more easily idealized
seafaring father.
I also picture Margaret Scully having some sort of problem like
alcoholism, that made the childhood household uncertain: at times, it
may have been idealized, like perfect sisterly love over a game of
hopscotch, and at others, it may have been frightening and emotionally
dangerous, like trying to keep a rabbit safe only to cause its death.
I could see mother and daughter mending fences in adulthood and trying
to forge a closer relationship, with mixed success. But as a
childhood environment, that's powerful, combined with a loving but
absent father, who has a lot of strict rules about cigarettes and
careers. I can see that as the kind of environment that would help
shape an adult who, by her own words, feels constantly alone, and for
whom emotional intimacy has never succeeded.
It all makes me see certain scenes in an interesting light. The
Margaret-Mulder-Scully scene in Wetwired becomes a whole lot more
intriguing... her mother is telling her she's safe, no one will hurt
her at home, perhaps indicating a reforged bond.
As I said at the beginning, this is all purely speculative. I
understand that many times we see this family, it's under stress. And
I understand that they've been through a lot, and that families are
not perfect, and may have any number of unpleasant undercurrents.
What I am reacting against is the suggestion made so often that the
Scullys constitute a wonderful, faith-filled, loving family, as
opposed to the Mulders, which constitutes the screwed up, dark,
unhappy family. Like the opposition between Skeptic and Believer,
this is too simple. At the end of the day, as warped as it may seem,
I've been more open to Mulder's moments with his scattered, bipolar,
mired-in-denial mother than the Margaret Scully-Dana Scully moments
fanfiction writers seem to latch onto like koalas on a eucalyptus.
There's something about watching the two of them that makes me
uncomfortable and sad. Maybe the Scullys aren't dark dark dark. But
they've always struck me as profoundly shadowed, when a lot of
interpretations want to place them directly in the sun.
Katherine
ABauer7333
fantasy. It is a visual presentation of that moment when death seems
preferable to life. Mulder addresses this concern by casting himself as
an oblivious suburbanite. He incorporates CSM and Diana's desires for
him because they (especially CSM) symbolize turning away from everything
that defines Mulder. This only underscores Scully's (and everything
that goes with her) importance to him. If his subconscious wants to
portray death, there's no better way than shattering everything that
makes him who he is.
>>
I think Matt sums up Mulder's dream beautifully here. Although I don't think
fiction is life, every night I have dreams which are alternate realities, in
which my mates, friends, job and circumstances bear no relation to RL. Count
me with those who see no point in yeat another TXF dream sequence that melds RL
and fantasy (at least in this context). "Mulder" as the character we know and
love does not exist in this dream except as repressed potential. And it was
intentionally ambiguous to blur the line between Scully's prayers and Mulder's
getting in touch with his inner babe.
Dr. B
"No sound is dissonant that speaks of life."
Coleridge.
The MulderGirls: We put the virture in virtual reality.
c'mell
Matt Hale wrote:
>It's very simple and I'm sure I'm over explaining it but I just want to
>be clear. "You must not contact Scully" becomes that kind of rule in
>Mulder's dream. There's no logical explanation and there's no need to
>convince Mulder.
"One of the characteristics of the dream is that nothing surprises us in
it. With no regret, we agree to live in it with strangers, completely
cut off from our habits and friends." -- Jean Cocteau
In Mulder's case, this disconnect from his habits and friends is not
only a quirk of the dreaming mind; it's the whole point of the dream. So
of course he's not the Mulder we know and of course Scully, who is his
Friend, doesn't appear in the dream until he's ready to leave it. She
has no place among strangers who want him to forsake his habits
(beliefs). Yeah, I know, a lot of other people aren't in his
dream either but a) the show's only 44 minutes long and b) Scully's
absence is the only one of any consequence to Mulder.
Anyway, upon another viewing of the episode and further reflection, and
despite still having some quibbles with the execution of the dream, I've
come to feel that Amor Fati did a pretty good job of affirming the
depth and persistence of Mulder's connection to Scully, as well as the
fact that she so completely embodies the Truth for him that even his
dreaming mind cannot misrepresent her. (However, I also still feel that
Conversation on the Threshold was added specifically to appeal to the
shipper contingent and to compensate for the fact that M&S were
separated throughout the episode with Mulder spending all of
his time among strangers.)
c'mell
================================
Ladies and gentlemen, take my advice:
Pull down your pants and slide on the ice.
Julia Milton
> In Momento Mori, when Margaret loses her temper (hmmm, I
> thought, that's a woman who can do a great passive-aggressive
> rage), Scully seems to steel herself to be strong as she holds
> her crying mother.
Yes, I found that interesting too. Margaret chides her daughter for
keeping her situation hidden, trying to be "strong". But because Margaret
is outraged and hurt, what happens? Scully ends up comforting her mother.
The focus has been shifted away from Scully and her feelings, to Margaret
and her need for consolation. Suddenly, Scully is obligated to become the
strong one ... AGAIN.
I don't think this is necessarily as sinister as you may think. All the
same ... it was a very telling scene. (And if Margaret were my mother, I
probably would have kept the truth from her, too.)
Julia
NJP
relate
> to the aspects of Mulder's behavior in this episode? Do you think his
> behavior was that clear cut? I'm not sure what bothered you specifically,
I
> can only say what happened in this episode didn't set off any of those
> alarms. Maybe I don't get it--what you're relating to this example that
is.
To Recap.
My point here is that the character, Mulder, in slipping so easily into his
seeming surrender, was being written in a way that was inconsistent with his
personality as set forward in the previous six seasons. I argued that he has
been shown to be a driven man--unwilling to settle for less than what he
truly believes to be the truth even to the point of his own death and those
of others to whom he has strong emotional ties. It is my belief that he
would not "go gently into that good night." Of particular note, in my
surmise, is the fact that he appears to be willing to accept his separation
from the one individual, if we are to believe their relationship since "One
Breath," with whom he shares the strongest psychological and emotional bonds
of adulthood with little more than a shrug of resignation.
Please note, this is not the same thing as saying that Mulder *would not*
ultimately accept the situation--in fact, the more protest he puts up, the
more effective the ensueing passivity becomes when it does come.
Most people have responded by assuming that I was, somehow, not
understanding the dream or what it meant. Much of the response to my
original post has been in the form of restating the terms of the dreams and
supposing that there must have been some sensible Mulderian reason, mostly
Scully's safety, that led him to accept their separation. My response to the
former, we will forego as I promised some people I would play nice when in
this sandbox; my response to the latter has been that the kind of quietly
reasoned decision that has been proposed was simply another case of Mulder
being written out of character.
This led to the conversation about personality and change and what
constitues a sharp right turn. Some people offered examples of what they
deemed to be erratic behavior that was perfectly consistent with their
personalities. It was then my supposition--as illustrated by the example
already given--that, often times, what is considered erratic behavior is
perfectly explicable if all the factors are known. Which is where we are
now.
> as good as Mozart's. Except for self satisfaction, art is one area where
> working harder is not always guaranteed to give you the best output. There
> is such a thing as craftsmanship, and that does often improve with work,
but
> it doesn't become art without that special something that has nothing to
do
> with work or practice.
Well, we're on the same page here but to clarify things: hard work doesn't
guarantee great art. Great art almost always involves hard work. Anyone who
thinks not, need only spend time studying the lives and efforts of people
who produced it. The Mozarts of the world are the rarest of exceptions.
> > > you are ascribing a moral value to art--it's no good unless someone
> works hard. Again, a value judgement-- what is hard work?
> > It may be art but it ain't building five miles of asphalt road on a hot
> day in New Mexico.
>
> I don't understand the relevance of this comment?
Actually, I was ascribing a moral value to hard work. Whether creating Art
or building roads. We could get into a lengthy argument on one of my pet
peeves, the unwilllingness of current American society to do work if they
consider it "hard" but we'd be way off topic.
> I'm rarely disappointed with the show, not because it doesn't have flaws,
> but maybe because I'm just grateful for all the good stuff CC and 1013
have
> produced over the years and have faith there will be more good stuff to
> come.
You'll pardon me, Deb, if I riff here a bit on the difference between
criticism and disappointment. The fact that I find there were elements of
this show which I think were off the mark or which could have been done
differently or, perhaps, better, doesn't mean that I think the creators
failed. At least, not necessarily. I respect what they are up against. I,
too, am grateful to have some of the episodes that we have. I, too, think
that this show is, on the whole, well above the nonsense that plays day
after day on television. I think, though, that we as intelligent, reasoning
individuals have to have critical standards to say "this is good" and "this
is not" and it has to go beyond "I like it" and "it moved me." Otherwise, if
we are not able to understand our Art and how it works and how it doesn't
then we won't understand *why* we liked it or it moved us and, by extension,
we won't understand ourselves. Which is what, to my view, great Art is all
about.
NJP
NJP
news:383373...@attglobal.net...
> > Well, the only one I've read of is the LTOC version starring Scully as
> > savior with a side trip to "Grow Up" land. Is there another
interpretation
> > out there? Please supply.
>
> Gee, and here I thought I was just going to clarify to make
> the discussion easier, but we're right back to sneering.
No. When I sneer. I make a face like this. Can you see the face I'm making?
>One is Mulder tempted by death and
> intertia, the other is Mulder tempted by sex, comfort,
> children and Samantha. You don't see the difference,
> for some reason.
Well, you're right. I don't. Dream Mulder isn't contemplating death unless
you mean in the guise of CSM. But then he would have to *know* that to
follow CSM would mean death. Which he doesn't. As for the inertia part, what
is causing that? His natural tendency to sloth? No. It is the "fake" world
around him consisting of sex. comfort, children and Samantha.
Now if, in the first case, you mean the real Mulder and in the second, you
mean the dream Mulder then I would have to point out that this is just the
dream metaphorically playing out the former. I don't think they can fairly
be called two different things.
You see Mulder trapped in a fake world
> where he's unwittingly being slowly killed, but he's
> kept there by his fascination with the scenery and
> the people around him. I see Mulder walking knowingly
> into the clutches of CSM and DF, thinking there is
> no way out, and happily rationalizing his way into the
> grave. If you see so little difference between the
> two, why do keep insisting 1013 stick to your version?
Well, accuracy is everything and there would appear to be little of it in
your summary of what you suppose to be my view. I've recapped it elsewhere
so I'm not going to lay it out yet again but will simply say that, if you
mean these as literally as you've laid them out as you say then you are
fairly far off the mark. There is a duality here but it is between the real
Mulder who's struggle is with death and the dream Mulder who objectifies
this as being seduced into a complacency that saps his will to live. The
real Mulder is "trapped," so to speak, and "unwittingly" dreams (unless you
suppose that people rationally direct their dreams) about the "people and
scenery" while he slowly dies. Within that dream, the elements of his
mind--and not CSM of DF persuade him not to resist--a metaphor for the
struggle to live in the real world. He doesn't rationalize his way "into the
grave." He rationalizes his way into a undemanding life which leads to an
unchallenged death.
> Oh my, he's got a Riverside Shakespeare.
It's the Arden, sweetie.
His interpretation
> must be correct.
And how perceptive of you to notice.
> > Sound familiar? You remember who said this, right? Prince Hamlet.
>
> Yes. This must be the high school English class again.
If at first you don't succeed. Try, try again.
> Unfortunately, you haven't explained why this doesn't apply
> to Mulder, using evidence from Amor Fati. You just
> said it's Hamlet, and then the kind of silly under the
> circumstances of the episode...
That would presume that you read it. Which it would seem, from the next
several lines, you haven't. The creators obviously felt obliged to reference
Shakespeare not once but twice in the same episode--for which they get major
points in my book--though it is obvious from the example in front of us, is
a little like tossing pearls before swine.
> It must be pretty deep because I have no idea what
> you're getting at.
To paraphrase Dirty Harry: "A phile's got to know his or her limitations."
> Hell,half your interpretation rests on scenes that "should have"
> been there and weren't.
And the other half on scenes which were and shouldn't have been. Look, I
don't pretend to be a writer of televison or fanfic or anything else. I
offer possibilities in order to illuminate the point that I'm making. Some
aren't workable, and I think I've acknowledged that in earlier threads of
this discussion. They can write it any way they want to but what they've
written is hardly scripture. By the way, my "interpretation" rests on what
they've written. My "opinion" rests on what was there and what wasn't. Klar?
> LOL! The boy on the beach means what??? These are open symbols
> in the show, there is no one interpretation for any of them!
<snip>
> Hey, if you can turn the episode into a hopelessly flawed pile
> of crap and call it truth, I can turn it into Hamlet and call
> it the same thing.
How does one proceed? I've written a couple of thousand words on this
episode in the last week and if this is your impression of what I've said,
all I can say is.....remind me never to loan you my copy of the play.
NJP
NJP
> because it is not allowed. In the context of the dream, "you must not
> open that door" is an absolute truth. A rule.
I can't honestly say that I ever remember encountering this in any dream. I
have been puzzled and perturbed at things hat have happened but can't
remember a situation where I felt I was prevented from doing something.
> Well, strict surrealism is pure dream logic. Magical realism is far
> more linear than surrealism. But I guess you don't consider surrealism
> a narrative form. I think it can be narrative or non narrative.
I would posit that surrealism has more in common with graphic art than with
traditional narrative forms. The comprehension of it is more of a gestalt
than a moving from place to place. As that relates to popular forms, like
novels and television programs, I think it would be extremely difficult to
sustain interest. I think the MR's have managed the most accessible
imitation of the dream but that wouldn't necessarily be the truest.
> Either way, I think maybe a big split between us is that I see a great
> deal of magical realism and even, on occasion, surrealism in XF.
> Certainly in AF.
Well, elements of either form are certainly there. But the structure of the
narrative is not based on their forms. They tend to be used to communicate
aspects of the story.
> > I think that if you posit Scully, or maybe his
> > father--figures who have carried much more weight and baggage in his
> > life--turning him from his quest, then I think I can accept that he
would
> > reconsider his quest.
>
> But they ARE his quest. The whole premise is that he turns away from
> Scully not just the abstract "quest". Scully is truth (Truth, Scully --
> ooh, bad pun; sorry about that) so she can not support the lie that he
> is better off dead. You're asking for an entirely different dream.
You've got Keats rolling in his grave. I think most shippers would agree
with you, as it relates to Scully. I think Carter wouldn't. Scully, DT, his
father, all represent truths but not *the* truth. (Another way of putting
this might be, you'll forgive me. "all lies lead to the truth.")
I fully understand what dream Scully represents to dream Mulder and Maggie's
comment that her appearance in the dream earlier than her diatribe at
Mulder's deathbed is exactly right. Hey, if I were a better writer than DD
and CC, I'd be sitting in my Malibu beachhouse spending my 1013 paycheck.
> His dream is not a fantasy..It's not his house.
I think you have a valid point here in that, having made the choice, Mulder
is, to some degree, committed (I'd use the word "trapped" but that seems to
have gotten me in trouble on another thread) and may accept the terms of his
domesticity without necessarily understanding why or being fully convinced
that he wants what he has accepted. All this does, though, is trade
complacency for temptation. A Mulder lulled to passivity is, for me, as much
of a stretch as a Mulder seduced.
>This isn't a decision to die, it's only a decision to
> CONSIDER death. That's what dreams are for the most part: mulling
> things over.
>
> The point of the dream, though, is that he can't give up.
No argument on any of this. We disagree on a matter of degree. I can fully
accept that an individual as curious as Mulder has been shown to be, and as
accepting of the strange and unusual, would take up dream CSM's challenge.
That his response to it would be limited to "it's too perfect" strikes me as
too simple and out of character. Obviously, from the volume of the response
to my comment about this, most people--or the most vociferous people--agree
with you.
> reasons I stated above. Dreams defy cause and effect.
Well, that can also be used to explain away poor continuity and bad writing.
> Just because the overall structure of XF is narrative, there's no reason
it
> can't incorporate non narrative elements.
Well, see above as we don't disagree on this.
>It's a dream and operates as such.
Mulder's dream is, in part, *our* dream, but since the things that animate
his mind are constructs cobbled together by a couple of people sitting in an
office in the light of day, and since their intention is to make points
about the character which they have created, and not to simply explicate a
biological/psychological process which may have meaning only to a person
undergoing it, I think it is something different than a pure dream. That
such things do exist in Art, I wouldn't dispute. That this is one of them, I
would.
NJP
ABauer7333
Beautifully put! The tempest in a teapot (oh no, CSM=Prospero) on this thread
has certainly sharpened my views on AF. I think Mulder's dream represents a
very oblique toying with the implications of CSM's comparisons: with Christ,
Hamlet, Ralph Nader,(Luke Skywalker). Well, what *if* Mulder were Christ (and
CSM God), what if Mulder=Hamlet, CSM=his uncle, what if Mulder=crusader for the
little guy, CSM=evil corporate oligarch? I totally agree with Magpie--Mulder's
passivity marks the dream as one beyond "will"; unlike earlier dream/fantasies,
he is searching for nothing, striving for nothing, initiating nothing. He
bends to the "fate" of his surroundings in a way antithetical to waking
character, riding the tide of this one, particular vision to it's logical
conclusion. That is represents CSM's vision is obvious; it matters little
whether the latter intended this dream or not. And it matters little that we
see more time pass once the basic parameters have been set up, because the
whole point of the dream is to view this life in retrospect. Great point that
CSM at the end is waiting to be deified by Mulder's sacrifice; since he also
seems to be doing double-duty as the spirit of what's to come, I see this as
another point where real life (the operating theater) impinges on the dream.
Thus the dream CSM brings Mulder this far bust must prevent him from seeing
this possible future clearly, because he has so much at stake in it.
The most confusing parts of AF come later, when we wonder just what did
transpire in that operation; if I were in the mood to slice 'n dice the script,
I wouldn't be wasting my time with the dream, which holds up quite well
interpretively!
Magpie
Great. I get it. You don't understand what I'm saying
and I don't understand what you're saying. You don't
care to understand what I'm saying because I'm an idiot
and I don't care to undersand what you're saying because
you're rude and an idiot. So we agree.
Magpie
<big snip>
> As I said at the beginning, this is all purely speculative. I
> understand that many times we see this family, it's under stress. And
> I understand that they've been through a lot, and that families are
> not perfect, and may have any number of unpleasant undercurrents.
> What I am reacting against is the suggestion made so often that the
> Scullys constitute a wonderful, faith-filled, loving family, as
> opposed to the Mulders, which constitutes the screwed up, dark,
> unhappy family. Like the opposition between Skeptic and Believer,
> this is too simple. At the end of the day, as warped as it may seem,
> I've been more open to Mulder's moments with his scattered, bipolar,
> mired-in-denial mother than the Margaret Scully-Dana Scully moments
> fanfiction writers seem to latch onto like koalas on a eucalyptus.
> There's something about watching the two of them that makes me
> uncomfortable and sad. Maybe the Scullys aren't dark dark dark. But
> they've always struck me as profoundly shadowed, when a lot of
> interpretations want to place them directly in the sun.
I get a lot of the same impressions of the Scully's as you do. I
don't think they have any particularly dark dark secrets, but I've
never envied the way they family operated--I think I prefer the
Mulders (except for the handing over the children for their own
safety thing). They both have their problems, and we see both
families at times of stress.
The Scully's seem to suppress any feelings of weakness--something
that seems "soft", except for Margaret who strikes me as passive
aggressive (like in the scene Julia mentioned). I can't imagine
Mulder ever teasing Samantha by threatening the life of her
pet to the extent that she felt she had to hide it. The insistance
on rules and strength is probably what sent Melissa searching for
the kind of "soft" spirituality she had, all about reaching out
for the light etc. She might have associated the Catholic church
with her father's kind of rigidity, while Scully could see
the emotion and comfort in it. It's funny, btw, that Mulder's
seen his missing sister about five times more often in the
past 7 years than Scully's seen her brother Charlie, as far
as we know.<g>
The Mulders seem to be the more emotional, despite Teena's
unruffled beige exterior. I don't agree with the Bill-Mulder
as-abuser or alcoholic father. He may have drunk more in
later years, but I don't think we have a reason to think
he drank a lot before Sam was taken. Their last conversation
in Anasazi was the beginning of a real conversation between
the two men. (A lot of abuse fanfic portrays Bill Mulder
as being jealous of Mulder, telling him he's not as great
as he thinks he is as a child, but I got a sense of pride
and acceptance when Bill told Mulder he was a better
man.)
The Mulders seem to yell when they get angry and then get
over it (or not). Mulder's got memories of them
screaming at each other, and his mother slaps him
in Demons. But he's also got sweet memories of
his Dad's comforting presence and being an Indian
Guide, and growing up on the Vineyard. I know each person
is more than the sum of their childhood, but Mulder's
such an open person emotionally that I can't believe
he always lived in an unsafe environment. Scully's
own guarded emotions are partly her natural make-up, but
they're also reinforced in the scenes we see
with her family.
I mean, Scully's distant at Christmas so Bill
demands that she get over it right away so she
doesn't ruin Christmas. Actually, Bill takes
so many liberties with Scully I'm amazed everytime
he walks on screen. Live and let live has
obviously never been Bill's way, so it's not
surprising Scully retreated internally to find
a private place.
Scott Moore
exactly does Amor Fati mean? Oh, I've looked here and there, and I can
guess at it, but I'm still in he dark.
And that's okay. These last few days moving about the shadows, as it
were, I've been impressed with the depth of analysis coupled with real
passion for this remarkable series.
What has prompted me to chime in is the weight many writers here have
given the nearly complete absence of Scully from Mulder's dream. More
to the point, I sense that many feel betrayed by Mulder for not making
Scully an integral part of his unconscious examination. Still others
seem incensed that the writers and producers would abandon Scully in
favor of Fowley.
Consider this:
Semiotician Olivier Burgelin argued: 'There is no reason to assume that
the item which recurs most frequently is the most important or the most
significant, for a text is, clearly, a structured whole, and the place
occupied by the different elements is more important than the number of
times they recur' (Burgelin 1968, 319; also cited in Woollacott 1982,
93). (From Daniel Chandler's web page Semiotics for Beginners)
Now, I am not a semiotician by training, nor do I profess any profound
knowledge of the field. That said, this Burgelin quote makes sense to
me. Scully's appearance, both as phantasm and as flesh and blood, to
Mulder's emotional and physical rescue, is absolutely vital. Had she
been in more of the dream --as it was written-- arguably, her importance
is diminished. As part of a structured whole, one where Mulder is
paralyzed and despondent, it is that one key scene that results in his
salvation.
In other words, I'm all for it.
Scott Moore
http://community.webtv.net/sdmoore494/VastWasteland
Eric S. Smith: Left-Field Marshal
NJP <jny...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>My point here is that the character, Mulder, in slipping so easily into his
>seeming surrender, was being written in a way that was inconsistent with his
>personality as set forward in the previous six seasons.
D'you suppose that this might've been part of the point? Seeing Mulder
acting as though he's bought into the Conspirators' mental lifestyle serves
both to humanize them and condemn it.
The conspirators are humanized, if only by association, because we see our
friend Mulder living as they do. We can imagine that they, too, might have
their charming sides and personal problems (I'd argue that a fridge full of
sunflower seeds probably falls into both categories...). Their mental
lifestyle is condemned, of course, exactly because it *is* out of character
for Mulder -- he's not a wilfully ignorant, short-sighted, nothing-to-
be-done, I'm-all-right-Jack kind of guy.
So, what happens when he appears to fall for dream-Diana's "Worrying about
the fate of the world is immature. Let's have babies!" line? There's a
dissonance; it's un-Mulderesque. It's wrong. On the other hand, he's still
our friend, so we can't just write him off as evil and soul-less -- and by
extension, perhaps, the other "bad guys".
Nevertheless, the world ends in flames, which is perhaps the second
condemnation of the Conspiracy: their cozy mindset kills everyone, even the
people they should have been trying hardest to save. They have bought their
peace by sacrificing their humanity and, well, the human race.
Maybe this doesn't hold up; I'm a Smoking Man Sympathizer, after all, and
I'll take any opportunity to hug 'im...
>Please note, this is not the same thing as saying that Mulder *would not*
>ultimately accept the situation--in fact, the more protest he puts up, the
>more effective the ensueing passivity becomes when it does come.
Yeah, it would've been nice to see him at least pretend to put up a fight.
Time restrictions? It's not as though there weren't fat to be trimmed in
the previous episode, since much of what went on there was just dropped on
the floor (and into the void of Carternuity?) this week.
On the other hand, this *was* a dream. Smokey occasionally appears in mine,
and, at the time, he always makes sense. It's only later that things start
going wrong, which, now that I think of it, is pretty much how Mulder's
dream ends up, too.
>It was then my supposition--as illustrated by the example
>already given--that, often times, what is considered erratic behavior is
>perfectly explicable if all the factors are known.
My supposition: Mulder-out-of-character serves as a sort of moral
shorthand. To make the point, he has to exhibit "erratic behavior". Could
it have been more plausibly presented? Yep, but it wasn't completely
implausible, since dreams *can* go all weird for no reason.
--Eric Smith
Deborah
> To Recap.
>
> My point here is that the character, Mulder, in slipping so easily into
his
> seeming surrender, was being written in a way that was inconsistent with
his
has
> been shown to be a driven man--unwilling to settle for less than what he
> truly believes to be the truth even to the point of his own death and
those
> of others to whom he has strong emotional ties. It is my belief that he
> would not "go gently into that good night." Of particular note, in my
> surmise, is the fact that he appears to be willing to accept his
separation
> from the one individual, if we are to believe their relationship since
"One
> Breath," with whom he shares the strongest psychological and emotional
bonds
> of adulthood with little more than a shrug of resignation.
>
> ultimately accept the situation--in fact, the more protest he puts up, the
> more effective the ensueing passivity becomes when it does come.
>
> understanding the dream or what it meant. Much of the response to my
> original post has been in the form of restating the terms of the dreams
and
> supposing that there must have been some sensible Mulderian reason, mostly
> Scully's safety, that led him to accept their separation. My response to
the
> former, we will forego as I promised some people I would play nice when in
> this sandbox; my response to the latter has been that the kind of quietly
> reasoned decision that has been proposed was simply another case of Mulder
> being written out of character.
>
> This led to the conversation about personality and change and what
> constitues a sharp right turn. Some people offered examples of what they
> deemed to be erratic behavior that was perfectly consistent with their
> already given--that, often times, what is considered erratic behavior is
> now.
I truly appreciate that you took the time to spell this out for me. It was
lazy of me not to go back and read the old posts, but my assistant has been
sick all week and I've just been too pooped (tired eyes) to do it. Please
forgive my poor overworked brain for not being able to grasp this. I think
I'm just not in the game this week. Accept my apology if I made you go over
ground you have covered before when I'm not really up to snuff this week.
To be honest, there may or may not be enough evidence to support your
premise, but reading what you've written here clarifies for me where I'm
coming from. You may indeed have a more astuste critical interpretation of
the show. Right or wrong and with all due respect for your argument, that
particular aspect of the episode just doesn't bother me. Maybe I'm not
paying very close attention or maybe I don't care as much. I don't mean that
to come off as a throwaway "whatever" kind of statement, but mean it quite
sincerely. I enjoy the X-Files and often like discussing it, but if you are
correct in your assessment, I can only say that I didn't notice it. Perhaps
my imagination fills in all the blank spaces or make the leaps or rewrites
the past. I just don't want to argue dishonestly and this is an aspect of
the show where I don't think it's particularly appropriate for me to just
say: you're wrong. ;o)-- someone else will have to make those arguments.
> > as good as Mozart's. Except for self satisfaction, art is one area where
> > working harder is not always guaranteed to give you the best output.
There
> > is such a thing as craftsmanship, and that does often improve with work,
> but
> > it doesn't become art without that special something that has nothing to
> do
> > with work or practice.
>
> Well, we're on the same page here but to clarify things: hard work doesn't
> guarantee great art. Great art almost always involves hard work. Anyone
who
> thinks not, need only spend time studying the lives and efforts of people
> who produced it. The Mozarts of the world are the rarest of exceptions.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but as someone who tries to create art, I have
to say it does demand a lot of you, but I don't think of it as hard work in
the sense of scrubbing floors or mucking stalls because there's such a pay
off emotionally, spiritually, etc. at times. The only reason I keep at it is
because I get a charge out of it. So even though it requires committment and
sometimes what seems to be your life's blood, I don't think of it as work.
Maybe I'm just having a semantic problem. With art sometimes the joy, the
pay off, the whatever you want to call it is in the process, in the making
and the final piece is a let down. I feel like a faithless lover at times. I
work and work on a piece, love the whole process though it is destroying my
eyes and isolating me from my friends (it takes time), and I am so excited
when it all comes together -- but -- as soon as it's finished, I'm on to
something else, leaving it behind and often only able to see what I don't
like about it. I don't think that's unusual. And no, I'm definitely no
Mozart or Matisse or Picasso. I'll never be famous and my work will never
hang in any galleries, and there are plenty of critics who would find it
worthless -- but that doesn't negate the power the process has for me.
That's part of what I take into each ep of TXF. I am amazed at what Carter
has been able to do.
snip
> > I'm rarely disappointed with the show, not because it doesn't have
flaws,
> > but maybe because I'm just grateful for all the good stuff CC and 1013
> have
> > produced over the years and have faith there will be more good stuff to
> > come.
>
> You'll pardon me, Deb, if I riff here a bit on the difference between
> criticism and disappointment.
snip
>I think, though, that we as intelligent, reasoning
> individuals have to have critical standards to say "this is good" and
"this
> is not" and it has to go beyond "I like it" and "it moved me." Otherwise,
if
> we are not able to understand our Art and how it works and how it doesn't
> then we won't understand *why* we liked it or it moved us and, by
extension,
> we won't understand ourselves. Which is what, to my view, great Art is all
> about.
>
> NJP
Yes, you are right and maybe I just have a problem making a distinction
between the two. The thing is, I do see the flaws -- how could I not? The
show isn't perfect. I think my reaction in part comes because so often when
I read a critique of the show along with it there's resentment,
disappointment, contempt for Carter. Saying that if he only worked harder
the show would be better translates as a personal remark to me and not a
legitimate critique. Saying you think Mulder behaved out of character or
the dreams didn't ring true is legitimate criticism.
Maybe you aren't one of the ones who always seems to be angry with Carter,
seeing him as a hack or ultimately untalented. Saying someone is a hack or
lazy doesn't really give us much to talk about. It always boils down to "is
too" and "is not". Forgive me if I've lumped you in with those folks
unfairly.
Cheryl Deering
Deborah wrote:
> NJP <jny...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:812767$mom$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> I'm not disagreeing with you, but as someone who tries to create art, I have
> to say it does demand a lot of you, but I don't think of it as hard work in
> the sense of scrubbing floors or mucking stalls because there's such a pay
> off emotionally, spiritually, etc. at times. The only reason I keep at it is
> because I get a charge out of it. So even though it requires committment and
> sometimes what seems to be your life's blood, I don't think of it as work.
> Maybe I'm just having a semantic problem. With art sometimes the joy, the
> pay off, the whatever you want to call it is in the process, in the making
> and the final piece is a let down. I feel like a faithless lover at times. I
> work and work on a piece, love the whole process though it is destroying my
> eyes and isolating me from my friends (it takes time), and I am so excited
> when it all comes together -- but -- as soon as it's finished, I'm on to
> something else, leaving it behind and often only able to see what I don't
> like about it. I don't think that's unusual. And no, I'm definitely no
> Mozart or Matisse or Picasso. I'll never be famous and my work will never
> hang in any galleries, and there are plenty of critics who would find it
> worthless -- but that doesn't negate the power the process has for me.
> That's part of what I take into each ep of TXF. I am amazed at what Carter
> has been able to do.
But isn't that like giving someone credit merely for showing up at work? Sure,
art is incredibly hard; sure, taking in account the circumstances under
which it is made is only fair to the artist. But none of that is an excuse in
the
long run or in the big picture to let an artist consistently off the hook if
their
stuff isn't truly cutting it--_especially_ if they have proved before that they
can
produce good work.
> Yes, you are right and maybe I just have a problem making a distinction
> between the two. The thing is, I do see the flaws -- how could I not? The
> show isn't perfect. I think my reaction in part comes because so often when
> I read a critique of the show along with it there's resentment,
> disappointment, contempt for Carter. Saying that if he only worked harder
> the show would be better translates as a personal remark to me and not a
> legitimate critique. Saying you think Mulder behaved out of character or
> the dreams didn't ring true is legitimate criticism.
>
Um, exactly where does one draw the line when it comes to assessing what
is "personal" and what isn't when the personal affects the work under analysis?
Can one look at Leni Riefenstahl's career/films and _not_ see how her basic
blindness
about Nazism affected her artistic judgement (to use an extreme example.)
Can one look at what Robert E. Howard (the creator of Conan and the author
of some truly good horror stories) achieved without admitting that his rather
florid
lifeview/imagination marred his work as much as they sometimes inspired it?
What you are saying smacks uncomfortably of rabid-fan "Oh, anything critical of
The Creator" is nothing but a personal attack, and that is hardly sensible in
terms
of how critical analysis is done--or fair in general.
>
> Maybe you aren't one of the ones who always seems to be angry with Carter,
> seeing him as a hack or ultimately untalented. Saying someone is a hack or
> lazy doesn't really give us much to talk about.
(sigh) If one gives good reasons why one thinks Carter is a hack, I suppose
that doesn't give one anything to discuss, eh?
C.
**
Michele Lellouche
>
>>
> You'll pardon me, Deb, if I riff here a bit on the difference between
> this show which I think were off the mark or which could have been done
> differently or, perhaps, better, doesn't mean that I think the creators
> failed. At least, not necessarily. I respect what they are up against. I,
> too, am grateful to have some of the episodes that we have. I, too, think
> that this show is, on the whole, well above the nonsense that plays day
> individuals have to have critical standards to say "this is good" and "this
> is not" and it has to go beyond "I like it" and "it moved me." Otherwise, if
> we are not able to understand our Art and how it works and how it doesn't
> then we won't understand *why* we liked it or it moved us and, by extension,
> we won't understand ourselves. Which is what, to my view, great Art is all
> about.
>
to analyze everything I like and "understand myself." I guess being a
history major/lawyer makes me bored to tears with most analysis and all
of the so-called "standards" as to why something is a brilliant work. I
tend to respond to works on an emotional level--it's when I don't
respond on some emotional level that I start analyzing why things don't
work.
Which is why I loved AF and I'm not going to give reasons beyond "it
moved me." Well, yes I will. I sat there stunned that I was seeing
something like this on television, especially after seeing some of the
prosaic dramas I've been subjected to lately (don't even get me started
on ER. Or the box of dull that is The Practice). If pressed to trot
out critical reasons, I can only offer that it peeled back layers on X
that I hadn't realized were there. That the imagery, the idea of
subsconcious soul connections, that rational Scully had to believe to
find Mulder (and regardless of whether she had help to find him in the
"real" world, if she hadn't connected in the spirit world, she would've
found a corpse)--this is heady stuff. For me, when I start analyzing a
work to the degree of how and why it works, that's a sign to me that it
doesn't work.
And, to answer Deborah's post, I for one am dog tired of reading that
CC is a hack or that he needs Darin Morgan (who for my money is the most
overrated writer in XF) to do things. He created this universe we've
all been studying for the past six years. If he does nothing else,
that's a quite brilliant creation and I'm glad for it. I loved AF and I
won't go much further to analyze why.
Michele
Deborah
NJP <jny...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > as good as Mozart's. Except for self satisfaction, art is one area where
> > working harder is not always guaranteed to give you the best output.
There
> > is such a thing as craftsmanship, and that does often improve with work,
> but
> > it doesn't become art without that special something that has nothing to
> do
> > with work or practice.
>
> Well, we're on the same page here but to clarify things: hard work doesn't
> guarantee great art. Great art almost always involves hard work. Anyone
who
> thinks not, need only spend time studying the lives and efforts of people
> who produced it. The Mozarts of the world are the rarest of exceptions.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but as someone who tries to create art, I have
to say it does demand a lot of you, but I don't think of it as hard work in
the sense of scrubbing floors or mucking stalls because there's such a pay
off emotionally, spiritually, etc. at times. The only reason I keep at it is
because I get a charge out of it. So even though it requires committment and
sometimes what seems to be your life's blood, I don't think of it as work.
Maybe I'm just having a semantic problem. With art sometimes the joy, the
pay off, the whatever you want to call it is in the process, in the making
and the final piece is a let down. I feel like a faithless lover at times. I
work and work on a piece, love the whole process though it is destroying my
eyes and isolating me from my friends (it takes time), and I am so excited
when it all comes together -- but -- as soon as it's finished, I'm on to
something else, leaving it behind and often only able to see what I don't
like about it. I don't think that's unusual. And no, I'm definitely no
Mozart or Matisse or Picasso. I'll never be famous and my work will never
hang in any galleries, and there are plenty of critics who would find it
worthless -- but that doesn't negate the power the process has for me.
That's part of what I take into each ep of TXF. I am amazed at what Carter
has been able to do.
snip
> > I'm rarely disappointed with the show, not because it doesn't have
flaws,
> > but maybe because I'm just grateful for all the good stuff CC and 1013
> have
> > produced over the years and have faith there will be more good stuff to
> > come.
>
> You'll pardon me, Deb, if I riff here a bit on the difference between
> criticism and disappointment.
snip
>I think, though, that we as intelligent, reasoning
> individuals have to have critical standards to say "this is good" and
"this
> is not" and it has to go beyond "I like it" and "it moved me." Otherwise,
if
> we are not able to understand our Art and how it works and how it doesn't
> then we won't understand *why* we liked it or it moved us and, by
extension,
> we won't understand ourselves. Which is what, to my view, great Art is all
> about.
>
> NJP
Yes, you are right and maybe I just have a problem making a distinction
between the two. The thing is, I do see the flaws -- how could I not? The
show isn't perfect. I think my reaction in part comes because so often when
I read a critique of the show along with it there's resentment,
disappointment, contempt for Carter. Saying that if he only worked harder
the show would be better translates as a personal remark to me and not a
legitimate critique. Saying you think Mulder behaved out of character or
the dreams didn't ring true is legitimate criticism.
Maybe you aren't one of the ones who always seems to be angry with Carter,
seeing him as a hack or ultimately untalented. Saying someone is a hack or
Deborah
This hasn't shown up yet. Reposting it. > quotes are my reply.
Deborah <tins...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:...
> NJP <jny...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:812767$mom$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
To Recap.
> > My point here is that the character, Mulder, in slipping so easily into
his seeming surrender, was being written in a way that was inconsistent
withhis
personality as set forward in the previous six seasons. I argued that hehas
been shown to be a driven man--unwilling to settle for less than what he
truly believes to be the truth even to the point of his own death andthose
of others to whom he has strong emotional ties. It is my belief that he
would not "go gently into that good night." Of particular note, in my
surmise, is the fact that he appears to be willing to accept hisseparation
from the one individual, if we are to believe their relationship since
"OneBreath," with whom he shares the strongest psychological and
emotionalbonds
of adulthood with little more than a shrug of resignation.
Please note, this is not the same thing as saying that Mulder *would
not*ultimately accept the situation--in fact, the more protest he puts up,
themore effective the ensueing passivity becomes when it does come.
Most people have responded by assuming that I was, somehow, not
understanding the dream or what it meant. Much of the response to my
original post has been in the form of restating the terms of the dreamsand
supposing that there must have been some sensible Mulderian reason,
mostly Scully's safety, that led him to accept their separation. My response
to the
former, we will forego as I promised some people I would play nice when in
this sandbox; my response to the latter has been that the kind of
quietly reasoned decision that has been proposed was simply another case of
Mulderbeing written out of character.
This led to the conversation about personality and change and what
constitues a sharp right turn. Some people offered examples of what they
deemed to be erratic behavior that was perfectly consistent with their
personalities. It was then my supposition--as illustrated by the example
already given--that, often times, what is considered erratic behavior is
perfectly explicable if all the factors are known. Which is where we are
now>>
My reply (had to remove quotes to post)
I truly appreciate that you took the time to spell this out for me. It was
lazy of me not to go back and read the old posts, but my assistant has
been sick all week and I've just been too pooped (tired eyes) to do it.
Please
forgive my poor overworked brain for not being able to grasp this. I think
I'm just not in the game this week. Accept my apology if I made you go
over ground you have covered before when I'm not really up to snuff this
week.
To be honest, there may or may not be enough evidence to support your
premise, but reading what you've written here clarifies for me where I'm
coming from. You may indeed have a more astuste critical interpretation of
the show. Right or wrong and with all due respect for your argument,
that particular aspect of the episode just doesn't bother me. Maybe I'm
notpaying very close attention or maybe I don't care as much. I don't mean
> > NJP
Deborah
Deborah
Michele Lellouche <md...@earthlink.net> wrote
> Well, y'know, call me an unreasoning Phillistine, then. Why do I have
> to analyze everything I like and "understand myself." I guess being a
> history major/lawyer makes me bored to tears with most analysis and all
> of the so-called "standards" as to why something is a brilliant work. I
> tend to respond to works on an emotional level--it's when I don't
> respond on some emotional level that I start analyzing why things don't
> work.
For me analyzing is a different pleasure from watching the show. I have this
weird kind of compartmentalization. Although some analyses, the ones I'm in
sympathy with, may increase my enjoyment, most of the time it'separate from
the way I actually respond to the show while watching. I don't know how to
describe except I come to the show with and open heart. When I read some of
the harsher comments about the show, especially when they seem to be some
indictment against Carter's talent or even his morality (i.e. Cheryl
Deering, extex, etc. - and I'm not singling these folks out. They can't deny
their critiques of TXF impugn Carter's talent and intent), and especially
when they make snide remarks about people who really enjoy the show in spite
of what they see as it's faults, it mystifies me. But I no longer ask why
they post if they dislike TXF now or Carter because I understand that this
kind of critique is fun for them in some way.
Now I'm not talking about criticism that explores the structure of the
story, points out the lack of continuity or wonders why, why, why Carter
can't (make Fowley more interesting, make Scully less obtuse and bitchy at
times, let our heroes be a tad more affectionate, decide if CSM is Mulder's
father or not, etc)-- I'm talking about the complaints that Carter is
untalented, mean spirited, too sexist to deal honestly with women, etc. I
don't get that? But I don't have to get it. It's certainly legitimate fodder
for this group. For the most part I ignore it now, but every once in awhile
I give into my need to argue with it, try to understand the anger and
resentment that a show that people care about so intensely seems to
generate.
> Which is why I loved AF and I'm not going to give reasons beyond "it
> moved me." Well, yes I will. I sat there stunned that I was seeing
> something like this on television, especially after seeing some of the
> prosaic dramas I've been subjected to lately
I'm with you. To me, TXF at its worst is still amazing. I'll forgive (and
forget) the occasional Agua Malas and Hell Money eps because we still get
the incredible ones (and every season has its dogs).
(don't even get me started
snip
>For me, when I start analyzing a
> work to the degree of how and why it works, that's a sign to me that it
> doesn't work.
I kind of agree and disagree. Sometimes in the analysis my imagination takes
flight and when I add my own imaginative leaps to the offered ep, it becomes
an intensely personal experience, as if the ep was written specifically for
me. That's part of the magic of the series for me.
> He (CC) created this universe we've
> all been studying for the past six years. If he does nothing else,
> that's a quite brilliant creation and I'm glad for it. I loved AF and I
> won't go much further to analyze why.
> Michele
I agree whole heatedly. I have a real affection for the show because it has
given me so many hours of pleasure. I like some analysis, but as I said,
that's kind of like icing on the cake for me - a separate pleasure from the
show itself.
BTW-- I snipped so much only because my newserver is having a problem with
quotes lately.
Deborah
NJP
news:38361585...@earthlink.net...
> NJP wrote:
> >
> >>
> > You'll pardon me, Deb, if I riff here a bit on the difference between
> > criticism and disappointment.
> >
> to analyze everything I like and "understand myself."
No one says you do. But then why hang out on a group with the word
"analysis" in the title? The point of being *here* is to go beyond the
surface emotions. To take apart the show and discover why it does what it
does. There are other places where people can rhapsodize on their personal
takes with one another. Alt-tv-x-files is ostensibly where that should
occur.
Now, I'll grant you that the main group has gotten a little unmanageable the
past few years but there are probably dozens of chat groups, mailing lists,
etc. where people take the show as you do. Why not save yourself the
aggravation.
> found a corpse)--this is heady stuff. For me, when I start analyzing a
> work to the degree of how and why it works, that's a sign to me that it
> doesn't work.
And some of us find beauty in structure and execution. I can appreciate the
aesthetic beauty of, say, the Chysler Building or the World Trade Center
Towers in NYC while also admiring the craftsmanship that went into making
it. Probably most particularly when I am on a high floor on a very windy
day.
> And, to answer Deborah's post, I for one am dog tired of reading that
> CC is a hack or that he needs Darin Morgan (who for my money is the most
> overrated writer in XF) to do things.
Interestingly enough, there was kind of an Orson Welles Orgy on teevee last
night. Based on what I've seen come out of some of the former co-creators,
I'd have to say that Carter, certainly creative in his own right, has been
blessed with an extraordinary group of collaborators and that the sum of
their efforts is the XF Universe. Like Welles, his real talent seems to be
in bringing them together and meshing their talents so seamlessly. That
wasn't good enough for Welles, in some respects, and he allowed the
misperception that he had pretty much created "Citizen Kane" single-handed
to flourish when, in fact, he had people like Mankewicz, Toland and Wise
collaborating with him. I can't say that I think CC feels the same way. He
appears to have no problem giving credit where it is due.
Which means that he would disagree with you regarding DM.
NJP
Magpie
>
> Michele Lellouche <md...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:38361585...@earthlink.net...
> > NJP wrote:
> > > You'll pardon me, Deb, if I riff here a bit on the difference between
> > > criticism and disappointment.
> > Well, y'know, call me an unreasoning Phillistine, then. Why do I have
> > to analyze everything I like and "understand myself."
> No one says you do. But then why hang out on a group with the word
> "analysis" in the title? The point of being *here* is to go beyond the
> surface emotions. To take apart the show and discover why it does what it
> does. There are other places where people can rhapsodize on their personal
> takes with one another. Alt-tv-x-files is ostensibly where that should
> occur.
A lot of what you refer to as "rhapsodizing on their personal
takes" is also analysis. They look at one scene and see how
it fits into the next scene and they work together to form
a coherent idea. They can break it down, look at how it works,
and admire that. If they break it down and it it doesn't
support their personal take, then their personal take probably
doesn't match the creator's intent. They are going beyond
their surface emotions...pretty far beyond.
-m
Michele Lellouche
>
> Michele Lellouche <md...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:38361585...@earthlink.net...
> > NJP wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > > You'll pardon me, Deb, if I riff here a bit on the difference between
> > > criticism and disappointment.
> > >
> > Well, y'know, call me an unreasoning Phillistine, then. Why do I have
> > to analyze everything I like and "understand myself."
>
> No one says you do. But then why hang out on a group with the word
> "analysis" in the title? The point of being *here* is to go beyond the
> surface emotions. To take apart the show and discover why it does what it
> does. There are other places where people can rhapsodize on their personal
> takes with one another. Alt-tv-x-files is ostensibly where that should
> occur.
>
Well, I suppose I wasn't clear (although that's a pretty condescending
snap back). I meant analyze in the sense that each piece has to be
pecked to death and if it doesn't add up logically and someone else
likes it, well, it's obvious you're an idiot. I love hanging out in
this group because folks are willing to discuss the show and the
characters' motivations, something I was not getting on certain mailing
lists (one of which I believe Laura created this group in direct
response <g>).
> Now, I'll grant you that the main group has gotten a little unmanageable the
> past few years but there are probably dozens of chat groups, mailing lists,
> etc. where people take the show as you do. Why not save yourself the
> aggravation.
Let me re-iterate. I don't mind analysis. What I don't like is the
tone that we all have to analyze why things are great before they can be
considered great. And if you analyze the show and it doesn't measure up
to your standards, then those of us who liked the ep are responding only
emotionally--a) we're probably not and b) what is wrong with that? Why
is an emotional response to something immediately considered suspect?
>
> > found a corpse)--this is heady stuff. For me, when I start analyzing a
> > work to the degree of how and why it works, that's a sign to me that it
> > doesn't work.
>
> And some of us find beauty in structure and execution. I can appreciate the
> aesthetic beauty of, say, the Chysler Building or the World Trade Center
> Towers in NYC while also admiring the craftsmanship that went into making
> it. Probably most particularly when I am on a high floor on a very windy
> day.
As can I, although I'm more into imagining the work that went into
something. Like how did they construct the Chrysler Building and make
all those beautiful shapes?
>
> > And, to answer Deborah's post, I for one am dog tired of reading that
> > CC is a hack or that he needs Darin Morgan (who for my money is the most
> > overrated writer in XF) to do things.
>
> Interestingly enough, there was kind of an Orson Welles Orgy on teevee last
> night. Based on what I've seen come out of some of the former co-creators,
> I'd have to say that Carter, certainly creative in his own right, has been
> blessed with an extraordinary group of collaborators and that the sum of
> their efforts is the XF Universe. Like Welles, his real talent seems to be
> in bringing them together and meshing their talents so seamlessly. That
> wasn't good enough for Welles, in some respects, and he allowed the
> misperception that he had pretty much created "Citizen Kane" single-handed
> to flourish when, in fact, he had people like Mankewicz, Toland and Wise
> collaborating with him. I can't say that I think CC feels the same way. He
> appears to have no problem giving credit where it is due.
Total agreement here. CC always seems to be saying "we" or so and so
did this, etc.
>
> Which means that he would disagree with you regarding DM.
Well, yeah, probably. But that's my personal response ;-)
Michele
NJP
> NJP wrote:
> snap back). I meant analyze in the sense that each piece has to be
> pecked to death and if it doesn't add up logically and someone else
> likes it, well, it's obvious you're an idiot.
No, what you mean is analyze in the sense of "criticize."
I have no problem with people who like a show that I consider problematic. I
do have a problem discussing such a show with people like that because I
find that, lacking any critical basis for their enjoyment, they inevitably
retreat into the position that it is a matter of "opinion" and, given the
egalitarianism prevalent these days, that constitutes a defense against a
reasoned explication of points. Such people are, in my opinion, "idiots."
Not because they liked the show. Not because they don't want somebody else
to spoil their good feelings. Because they are arguing about it at all. And
that inevitable back-against-the-wall, "that's your opinion" comment
*always* brings out the rude and condescending elements of my personality.
>I love hanging out in
> this group because folks are willing to discuss the show and the
> characters' motivations, something I was not getting on certain mailing
> lists (one of which I believe Laura created this group in direct
> response <g>).
Well, I think that is for lack of looking. And even if none of the hundreds
of X files related list and chat rooms suits you, then why not start your
own? Four years ago, a member of atxf, Bernadine, proposed a mailing list,
"Utopia," and a couple of dozen of us sour old debaters signed on. We've
been at it since then on discussing not just TXF but whole lot of other
things. (We've also had some dynamite gatherings but you'll have to ask
gizzie about that wild Duck Boat ride.....)
> Let me re-iterate. I don't mind analysis. What I don't like is the
> tone that we all have to analyze why things are great before they can be
> considered great. And if you analyze the show and it doesn't measure up
> to your standards, then those of us who liked the ep are responding only
> emotionally--a) we're probably not and b) what is wrong with that? Why
> is an emotional response to something immediately considered suspect?
You'll pardon me but you contradict yourself and your response with this
paragraph. I reiterate: there is nothing with standing up and saying "I like
it." (There are probably still deluded folks out there who think "Hell
Money" was a hell of an episode.") but if you say this on a group like this,
you have to expect an argument.
It works the other way, too. People who want to post "This Ep Sucked!"
shouldn't be doing it here either.
NJP
Michele Lellouche
>
> Michele Lellouche <md...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:383821DD...@earthlink.net...
> > NJP wrote:
>
> > snap back). I meant analyze in the sense that each piece has to be
> > pecked to death and if it doesn't add up logically and someone else
> > likes it, well, it's obvious you're an idiot.
>
> No, what you mean is analyze in the sense of "criticize."
>
> I have no problem with people who like a show that I consider problematic. I
> do have a problem discussing such a show with people like that because I
> find that, lacking any critical basis for their enjoyment, they inevitably
> retreat into the position that it is a matter of "opinion" and, given the
> egalitarianism prevalent these days, that constitutes a defense against a
> reasoned explication of points. Such people are, in my opinion, "idiots."
> Not because they liked the show. Not because they don't want somebody else
> to spoil their good feelings. Because they are arguing about it at all. And
> that inevitable back-against-the-wall, "that's your opinion" comment
> *always* brings out the rude and condescending elements of my personality.
And what I see a lot is "analyze = criticize." Thankfully, I don't see
that much here. Of course, in the end, all analysis really comes down
to a matter of opinion in something without objective, quantifiable
standards.
>
> >I love hanging out in
> > this group because folks are willing to discuss the show and the
> > characters' motivations, something I was not getting on certain mailing
> > lists (one of which I believe Laura created this group in direct
> > response <g>).
>
> Well, I think that is for lack of looking. And even if none of the hundreds
> of X files related list and chat rooms suits you, then why not start your
> own? Four years ago, a member of atxf, Bernadine, proposed a mailing list,
> "Utopia," and a couple of dozen of us sour old debaters signed on. We've
> been at it since then on discussing not just TXF but whole lot of other
> things. (We've also had some dynamite gatherings but you'll have to ask
> gizzie about that wild Duck Boat ride.....)
Quite honestly, I'm on several X lists in one format or another. What
I'm tired of on some of those lists is the constant negative tone that
has pervaded them since mid 4th season. That's not to say I haven't
hated episodes virulently (please don't get me started on Christmas
Carol/Emily for example). I'm not sure what the point of that paragraph
is, honestly.
>
> > Let me re-iterate. I don't mind analysis. What I don't like is the
> > tone that we all have to analyze why things are great before they can be
> > considered great. And if you analyze the show and it doesn't measure up
> > to your standards, then those of us who liked the ep are responding only
> > emotionally--a) we're probably not and b) what is wrong with that? Why
> > is an emotional response to something immediately considered suspect?
>
> You'll pardon me but you contradict yourself and your response with this
> paragraph. I reiterate: there is nothing with standing up and saying "I like
> it." (There are probably still deluded folks out there who think "Hell
> Money" was a hell of an episode.") but if you say this on a group like this,
> you have to expect an argument.
I've never said I don't expect an argument. I don't mind an argument.
Hell, I'm still banging away at this one ;-) (And honestly, I've never
understood the hatred of "Hell Money." IT's not a bad ep, compared to
say, "Space.")
>
> It works the other way, too. People who want to post "This Ep Sucked!"
> shouldn't be doing it here either.
>
Not unless they can back it up with reasons. I think we got into a
misunderstanding. What I hate is the idea that there is one set of
"standards" by which everything should be judged and if it doesn't fit
those standards, then off with its head, so to speak. Everyone has a
different set of what is "great" standards.
Michele
> NJP
Scarlet
Katherine wrote:
> But it was her reaction
> to her daughter's tears -- asking if her father was proud of her
> despite her career choice -- was rather odd, even cold. "He was your
> father." Hmmm, I said.
Yeah, it also struck me as cold and not reassuring at all. I was expecting a
'Of course darling, he was proud of you.' But instead we've got this 'Don't
you dare questionning his feelings for you because a daughter should not
question those things but take them for granted' subtext.
Guess it explains a lot as why Scully's got so much trouble expressing her
feelings, she's been well trained.
> We also get the groundwork for the tension
> between father and daughter here, the whole Ahab-Starbuck angle.
> Pleasing this man is obviously paramount, and neither a subtle point,
> or as you point out, an unusual one.
Hence Scully the over-achiever.
But as she suggests later in
> Never Again, her father is someone who inspires her to worship the sea
> he sailed on, but he also plays into her "Thing," where she gets so
> close, and then pulls away, deliberately creating distance.
I thought that 'thing' was Scully's rebelious streak showing up for the
first time. More a statement of the independence she fiercely values.
> This seemed to establish a thread I saw again and again. Distance.
> Control.
Yup. Scully is often described as a control freak in fanfic. Her behaviour
during her cancer was a blatant proof of this.
> But I wonder
> how idyllic the Scully household could have been to engender a
> daughter with a "Thing" like that.
Hmmm, I think you're reading too much about what I honestly think is nothing
more than a rebelious streak. Which, by the way, make her not so different
from Mulder as people would think at first glance.
> Or, one who says that ever since
> she was a child, she could never allow herself to get close to people
> or feel emotional attachments (A Christmas Carol).
May I be so bold as to suggest a sick theory? ;-) I think the root of
Scully's
trouble to get close to people comes from a kind of morbid ambivalent
repulsion/fascination towards death. If I remember the end of that
statement: 'she could never allow herself to get close to people or feel
emotional
attachments' was: 'because it was something which wouldn't last. It seemed
like a bad thing' This use of the term 'bad thing' struck me as being
children words.
Did she have an epiphany the day she found the dead rabbit? Everythings dies
and when it is someone/something you love it hurts like hell?
At such a young age it could have been a hell of a trauma. Reinforced later
by the knowledge that she could bring death herself when she killed that
snake (One Breath?). And ultimately realise that she was born to die?
Is this why she became a pathologist? This job which is the antithesis of
what doctors are usually expecting to do: care for the living? Did she hope
that by being constantly confronted to it, she would understand it and
therefore be less scared of it, like a lifetime exorcism? I may be reaching
but what if, despite her faith, she had that deep ingrained feeling that
death is the ultimate lonely place? And that by keeping her emotions in
check and not letting herself get close to people she would get used to the
idea, develop an immunity to it?
> Or, one who says
> at the beginning of Emily that she is alone as ever (I've never been
> sure that the line in that monologue about being touched but never
> held is definitively about her, and not about Emily -- it's a
> confusing little 1013-esque funfest. If anyone can make it clearer to
> me, I'd be happy to listen).
Well, I never had any doubt that she was talking about herself, because this
monologue actually supports what she says to the social worker about being
unable to bond with others.
> The childhood hug and the laughter were a little over the
> top for me; even when I got along with my siblings, we didn't take it
> that far. :)
Uhmmm, my brothers and I did hug a lot. But then again, I'm French, rather
tactile people we are.;-)
> I've also noticed a lot of suppressed (often not too well) anger.
Ooooh, I noticed that too! Which made me think that our little 'Sunshine'
has got some very dark places buried inside herself.
> don't know if this can be attributed to the family blaming Scully for
> Melissa's death -- that could be part of the larger picture, but I saw
> that undercurrent of Anger Issues before then. And sure, plenty of
> families are angry, but I am struck by the constant controlling of
> that anger.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Does her anger stems from her
inability to accept that there are some things she can't control? Like the
small death of her abduction?
In One Breath, I saw a lot of old sharp edges between
> Melissa and her mother, beyond any stress of the moment. Same with
> Scully and Melissa at the kitchen table, arguing about the abduction
> -- this seemed like an well-established, well-worn anger.
Well I think Scully was angry because her sister was forcing her to remember
that she'd been powerless at some point in her life. And maybe during their
childhood, Melissa was the one who forced her to face her weaknesses,
thinking it would help her sister to come to term with them and therefore
gain strength from that knowledge.
Th only snag is that Scully refused to see weakness as a necessary component
of human nature. That's probably her dear dad who taught her that perfection
does not abide weakness. Which made of Scully the queen of denial she is
now. What you ignore does not exist.
Maybe deep inside, scully is angry about herself because she knows that by
refusing to face her fears, she is in fact a coward.
Is that why she joined the FBI, a highly dangerous job? To prove to the
world that she isn't a coward? That by fighting tangible evil she will be
absolved from refusing to face her own demons?
>In Never Again she's
> literally hollering at Ed Jerse to regain control, and it sounds like
> she's ordering herself to get back in control after a moment of
> desiring and weakness.
Yup, you're never more angry that when people display traits which mirror
your own failures.
> What do I think might have happened? In my speculation, I toyed with
> the idea that Scully might have been abused, by her father or brother
> or someone else. I'm not convinced.
Uhmm, highly unlikely in my opinion, I don't think this type of anger stems
from external sources. It is much more primal.
> My mind keeps coming back to
> Margaret Scully -- her world-weary smile and her "he's your father."
> My current pet theory is that she was not close to her daughters, and
> especially not close to Scully; I picture her punishing her youngest
> for her adoration of her absent, and therefore more easily idealized
> seafaring father.
I think her mother ressented her for not allowing her to get close to her.
And Scully made her feel like she was an inadequate mother. When Scully was
merely trying to detach herself , because, if she had this acute awareness
of death, she would try to lessen the potential pain of a loss by not
getting too close to anybody, especially not her mother.
> I also picture Margaret Scully having some sort of problem like
> alcoholism,
Mrs Scully? The devout catholic? Naaah, alcoholism would have been too much
of a sin.
> It all makes me see certain scenes in an interesting light. The
> Margaret-Mulder-Scully scene in Wetwired becomes a whole lot more
> intriguing... her mother is telling her she's safe, no one will hurt
> her at home, perhaps indicating a reforged bond.
Or just telling her that it's OK to open up and rely on other people, that
safety does not imply never letting anyone in.
Anyway, thanks Katherine, this analysis of yours was most entertaining :-)
--
TAWIU
Scarlet.
**** "It would be bad for the fish." ***
- Scully - LGM-
NJP
> NJP wrote:
>
> A lot of what you refer to as "rhapsodizing on their personal
> takes" is also analysis.
"a gentle man, your majesty, must say what he means, if he is to mean what
he says."
Look up "analyze" and "rhapsodize" in the dictionary.
NJP
(And, mon petite corneille, are you familiar with the phrase "quit while
you're ahead?")
Meg Belviso
he says."
Words to live by. >Look up "analyze" and "rhapsodize" in the dictionary.
Analyze: to study or determine the nature and relationship of the parts by
analysis.
Sounds to me like a lot of the posts on Amor Fati.
Rhapsodize: to speak or write in rhapsodic manner.
Rhapsodize? Us? Me? Never!<g>
I will try to use them both in a sentence today.:-)
But, if you notice, I did say what I meant when I qualified: "what *you
refer to* as rhapsodizing. I suspected that because you insist the
parts do not fit together anyone who thinks they do is rhapsodizing--
loudly--and refusing to consider your points. (Okay, in reality you were
directly answering a post that said the person preferred not to
analyze the ep if she really liked it, but I hijacked your answer to say
what I wanted to say.)
I agree with you on what analysis means, and I don't have a problem
breaking down the episode to see how it works and why the
creators put things the way they did. Actually, I said almost
the exact same thing to you in another post and it seemed to make you
mad, so I was surprised to see you tell someone else to do the same
thing. I like arguing the way different parts of an episode fit together
and AF just seems to keep coming up with more and more ways for me.
When it does, I really do like to analyze it and not just rhapsodize about
it.
Analysis makes me feel more a part of the ep, I guess. And when
you said it didn't work I naturally wanted to argue that it *did* work.
I still think it does.
I also agree with you that criticism does not boil down to simply
"that's your opinion", which I think you might believe I do. I rarely
just like or don't like something and leave it at that. I like to figure
out why Iiked it. But this whole discussion started over whether it
was "in character" for Mulder to dream that he had abandoned
Scully etc. There was a big disagreement there, one that I don't
think we will come together on, so I have to see that as a personal
taste issue for both of us. For me it honestly was a good thing
for Mulder to do right now, and I just couldn't shut up about it.
When it comes to *this particular issue* of whether Mulder was
in character in this episode, I have to say it is a matter of strong
opinions on both sides. I think we're in grey area on this one.
I also realized, however, that I was dishonest when I acted as if I never
identified something as out of character or badly written and left it at
that. I felt that way in ToE when Scully was, I felt, made into a terrible
investigator to move the plot. (I felt the same way in Hungry, but we
saw so little of her it wasn't as obvious.) I do it all the time, in fact.
When I see the strings moving the episode immediately drops to
a lower level of importance for me. I would never use ToE to illustrate
my ideas about M or S's character, for isntance. ToE is like that for me,
and Bad Blood is like that for you. I do exactly what I claimed I never did
and was wrong to say I didn't. I just didn't have to do that in AF. I
*do* give less weight to episodes I thought were badly--yes, even
sloppily--written. There are people who have tried to convince me it
was in character for Scully to deliver a baby instead of helping Mulder
in AG, and I thought they were crazy.
In summary of my long ramblings, I think TXF does and should stand
up to analysis, and I don't think it's disloyal or bad to point out where it
doesn't work. But we've gotten to a weird place with the show now, where
it's morphing into something different than what it originally was, for
better or for worse, so we're going to start seeing really different kinds
of readings. Lately it's been reminding me of The Beatles. You've
got your "Please Please Me's", which everybody can agree is a great
little pop song. Then they start getting bored and trying things that
interest them. Out of that we get some great songs that play around
with the basics, but still work for most people, like Strawberry
Fields Forever...but you also get your Revolution 9's that strike some
people as ridiculous and send other people to the record player to play
it backwards.<g>
-m{agpie}
tins...@prodigy.net
"NJP" <jny...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Magpie <bel...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:3836C3...@attglobal.net...
> > NJP wrote:
> >
> > A lot of what you refer to as "rhapsodizing on their personal
> > takes" is also analysis.
>
> "a gentle man, your majesty, must say what he means, if he is to mean
what
> he says."
>
>
>
Well despite your objection to what you snidely call "rhapsodizing",
that's what many of us enjoy right here on ATXFA and always have.
Regardless how you choose to label it, a lot of this "rhapsodizing" is
insightful, interesting, amusing, educational, and speaks to the series
in a way that mere analysis does not.
And for the record, a lot of what you seem to think is "analysis"
or "critique" reads like complaints, i.e. Carter doesn't work hard
enough.
Deborah
(Prodigy still won't post to the ng consistently)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Deborah
> Magpie <bel...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:3836C3...@attglobal.net...
> > NJP wrote:
> >
> > A lot of what you refer to as "rhapsodizing on their personal
> > takes" is also analysis.
>
> "a gentle man, your majesty, must say what he means, if he is to mean what
> he says."
>
> Look up "analyze" and "rhapsodize" in the dictionary.
>
> NJP
The thing is, no matter how you choose to label it, it's what a lot of us
enjoy on this very group. It may not be analyze in your book, but you can't
argue these rhapsodies contain insight, opinions, and are of great interest
to many of us. On the same note, some of what you call analysis or critique
is merely complaint.
Deborah
NJP
> Well despite your objection to what you snidely call "rhapsodizing",
> that's what many of us enjoy right here on ATXFA and always have.
> Regardless how you choose to label it, a lot of this "rhapsodizing" is
> insightful, interesting, amusing, educational, and speaks to the series
> in a way that mere analysis does not.
Well, precision in thinking is always a good thing especially when it comes
to "labels."
Analyze: To separate into parts or basic principles so as to determine the
nature of the whole; examine methodically.
Rhapsodize: To express oneself in an immoderately enthusiastic manner.
There is no connotation of positive or negative in the first definition. One
may show why something works or why it doesn't. "Analysis" per se is a
neutral term. The notion of immoderacy contained in the second definition
implies a certain quality to be avoided.
Example: (Analysis) "I think that the changes in Scully's dress and hair
style over the years accurately reflect the increased sophistication that
would come to a woman in her position in a city as cosmopolitan as
Washington D.C. even as I question her ability to afford some of these
things on the salary that such a position would bring her."
Example: (Rhapsody) "I think Scully's hair is so cool. My best friend has
the same shade of orange and I can *so* believe that she'd do that color!"
> And for the record, a lot of what you seem to think is "analysis"
> or "critique" reads like complaints, i.e. Carter doesn't work hard
> enough.
"Carter doesn't work hard enough" would be, unless the author works *with*
Carter, an uninformed supposition used to support a criticism. As anyone who
carefully reads my analyses would doubtless attest, I make it clear that I
am not privy to the operation of 1013 nor what goes on inside the heads of
those who work there. I can only point out things about episodes that I feel
do and do not work. If other people choose to ascribe motive and action,
that is their business--and I would agree that such suppositions are
unfortunate.
This does, however, get us to the crux of the matter which is the difference
between "praise" and "criticism" and not "analysis" and "rhapsodizing."
Unsupported praise and criticism are simply not desirable. We should
petition Usenet for newsgroups so that people who wish to post those kind of
commentary might go to alt.tv.x-files.unqualified.praise and
alt.tv.x-files.unsupported.criticism where they can rhapsodize or vent
without clogging up the newsgroups where more sensible people are trying to
work things out.
What is bothersome is that some people take *any* criticism as being unfair
criticism. That an effort to even analyze a work--beyond the most
superficial of explications--is, somehow, itself an unfair criticism. Do we
suppose that teachers of Literature are unable to enjoy the works they teach
because they spend a lifetime analyzing them? Or teachers of the Fine Arts?
Or teachers of Architecture? This is nonsense, pure and simple.
Unencumbered apprehension and unqualified appreciation of Art have their
place, even on this group. As I pointed out earlier, though, since this
group has as part of its mandate, the interchange of opinion, such posts
will always draw responses.
NJP
Deborah
off. They keep saying I'm posting in the future? So much for time travel eh.
Š
NJP <jny...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:81c6ot$p04$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> <tins...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:81c0uo$ab9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > Well despite your objection to what you snidely call "rhapsodizing",
> > that's what many of us enjoy right here on ATXFA and always have.
> > Regardless how you choose to label it, a lot of this "rhapsodizing" is
> > insightful, interesting, amusing, educational, and speaks to the series
> > in a way that mere analysis does not.
>
> Well, precision in thinking is always a good thing especially when it
comes
> to "labels."
Precision in thinking is a tricky thing and some times I think what passes
for precision is mere pedantry. It's one thing to say one is using precise
thinking. It's another to actually think precisely.
Even so, I'm not certain I agree that it's always a good thing. Maybe if it
could be done well, but thinking is almost always skewed by perception,
emotion, bias, misunderstanding. So simply excoriating me for fuzzy
thinking, is not the same thing a thinking precisely. (I bought the book,
Fuzzy Logic, awhile ago but haven't read it yet).
I often enjoy stream of consciousness and free association as a more
creative way to get to things some times. That doesn't necessarily exclude
"precision thinking" but is maybe, the long way round. Haven't you ever had
a wonderful insight and then had to find the evidence to back it up? Haven't
you ever felt a thing was true, but didn't have the facts to prove it? I
believe Mulder has.
snip
> What is bothersome is that some people take *any* criticism as being
unfair
> criticism.
Yes, that's true, but not the case with either Magpie or me. It's a common
tactic in these arguments that instead of responding to the individual we
(and I include myself in this) say that "others" have driven us to our
retort by their unfair or slanted remarks. I don't mind most critiques but I
do mind the kind of complaining and blaming we sometimes see either tacked
on or the primary reason for the attack in the first place. I don't find the
statement, "Carter has become a hack" either interesting or useful
regardless of wheteher he has or has not become a hack. We cannot know that
for certain. You can say you did not like Amor Fati, thought the continuity
lacking and the characterization off, and go into detailed analysis why you
think that's true. But our conversation strayed into the artistic process
yourself where you impled that what was lacking was hard work. I don't think
that's a valid analysis.
That an effort to even analyze a work--beyond the most
> superficial of explications--is, somehow, itself an unfair criticism.
To whom?
Do we
> suppose that teachers of Literature are unable to enjoy the works they
teach
> because they spend a lifetime analyzing them? Or teachers of the Fine
Arts?
> Or teachers of Architecture? This is nonsense, pure and simple.
But they also express their love of the medium and of the work. I didn't see
any of that. I see that in Magpie, Unbound, Matt Hale, Autumn T's reviews
and analyses. I don't hear resentment or contempt even though any one of
them will take Carter and 1013 to task. Nor do they ridicule the insights of
others. They often disagree with someone, but don't try to negate what the
other has said by labelling them "rhapsodic" or "unqualified". This is not
just a forum for those with liberal arts educations--though many of us find
refuge here :o).
Deborah
NJP
Deborah <tins...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:81clak$5p2m$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
> Precision in thinking is a tricky thing and some times I think what passes
> for precision is mere pedantry. It's one thing to say one is using precise
> thinking. It's another to actually think precisely.
> Even so, I'm not certain I agree that it's always a good thing. Maybe if
it
> could be done well, but thinking is almost always skewed by perception,
> emotion, bias, misunderstanding. So simply excoriating me for fuzzy
> thinking, is not the same thing a thinking precisely. (I bought the book,
> Fuzzy Logic, awhile ago but haven't read it yet).
Leaving aside that this is a nonsensical and non sequitur appeal to the
Analytical/Emotive Spectrum variant, we are not discussing intuitive versus
logical thinking but a simple definition of terms. You chose to attack what
you thought I meant and not what I said as evidenced in the misuse of terms
(rhapsodize). I have repeatedly pointed up that I have no problem with the
kind of positive unchallenged *praise* you find so fufilling but that I am
rather more surprised that people who post it get offended when others use
it as a point of discussion.
> I often enjoy stream of consciousness and free association as a more
> creative way to get to things some times. That doesn't necessarily exclude
> "precision thinking" but is maybe, the long way round. Haven't you ever
had
> a wonderful insight and then had to find the evidence to back it up?
Haven't
> you ever felt a thing was true, but didn't have the facts to prove it? I
> believe Mulder has.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. What you are describing is a form of
analysis as much as proceeding from forms to the work. Being creative in
analysis is not the same thing as simply describing personal feelings or
saying that something is great simply because it makes you feel good. The
Macarena made *lots* of people feel good. That didn't make it great music.
"Carter has become a hack" either interesting or useful
> regardless of wheteher he has or has not become a hack. We cannot know
that
> for certain. You can say you did not like Amor Fati, thought the
continuity
> lacking and the characterization off, and go into detailed analysis why
you
> think that's true. But our conversation strayed into the artistic process
> yourself where you impled that what was lacking was hard work. I don't
think
> that's a valid analysis.
At the risk of pointing up some "fuzzy"thinking, permit me to quote myself:
"Well, we're on the same page here but to clarify things: hard work doesn't
guarantee great art. Great art almost always involves hard work. Anyone who
thinks not, need only spend time studying the lives and efforts of people
who produced it. The Mozarts of the world are the rarest of exceptions."
This was in response to the comment, common on this group, that 1013 should
be excused for lapses in the shows because they are so difficult to produce.
The implication here is that we cannot assume that because Carter and Co.
work hard long hours that what they produce is automatically good or
acceptable and only the most superficial reading would lead one to think
that it constitued a complaint that they don't work hard enough.
> That an effort to even analyze a work--beyond the most
> > superficial of explications--is, somehow, itself an unfair criticism.
>
> To whom?
To people who prefer to approach an episode on an emotional level, as
several people in this thread have already stated they do. Let's not be
intentionally obtuse, shall we? Every episode brings its share of posters
who don't want to go beneath the surface. No one said that this is a bad
thing but when such folks start complaining about other people who want to
go deeper and imputing motives of resentment and contempt--then it is an
issue.
> But they also express their love of the medium and of the work. I didn't
see
> any of that. I see that in Magpie, Unbound, Matt Hale, Autumn T's reviews
> and analyses. I don't hear resentment or contempt even though any one of
> them will take Carter and 1013 to task. Nor do they ridicule the insights
of
> others. They often disagree with someone, but don't try to negate what the
> other has said by labelling them "rhapsodic" or "unqualified". This is not
> just a forum for those with liberal arts educations--though many of us
find
> refuge here :o).
Appeal to the unsubstantiated authority. Appeal to the crowd. Arguing the
wrong point. Arguing undemonstrated opinion as fact. Wasn't it you who
originally posted the location of the web site "How Not To Talk?" Seems like
you've been studying it pretty closely, Deb.
You infer that, because I have objections to an episode, that have
"resentment or contempt" for Carter or 1013. Fair enough. Quote me.
You say that I ridicule the insights of others. I don't ridicule insight. I
don't even ridicule specious or confused explication of insight. I *do*
ridicule hyperventilating respondents who argue what they think is being
said rather than what is there on paper or the screen and, when prompted to
go back and check the record, insist on bleating appeals to creativity and
freedom of thought and expression amid their bad worded condemnations and
appeals for sympathy from the bleachers.
I'd love to keep splittin hairs with you and will do so via e-mail if you
choose to respond thatway as I feel this is now out of the bounds of atxfa.
NJP
Deborah
NJP <jny...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:81ctq8$a1u$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Deborah <tins...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:81clak$5p2m$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > Precision in thinking is a tricky thing and some times I think what
passes
> > for precision is mere pedantry. It's one thing to say one is using
precise
> > thinking. It's another to actually think precisely.
snip
> Leaving aside that this is a nonsensical and non sequitur appeal to the
> Analytical/Emotive Spectrum variant,
Okay? Any translators out there care to interpret this for me? .
we are not discussing intuitive versus
> logical thinking but a simple definition of terms.
Hmmm, I thought it was connected to the larger discussion.
>You chose to attack
Attack? Argument is war aye. I chose to dispute this statement you wrote:
" Well, precision in thinking is always a good thing especially when it
comes to "labels."
I know you meant that in regard to the argument over the difference between
rhapsodizing and analysis, but I decided to take issue with your stated
opinion on "precision thinking" (not to mention I thought it was a
backhanded insult). I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that this opinion might
be at the very heart of the dispute. Perhaps I was wrong.
what
> you thought I meant and not what I said as evidenced in the misuse of
terms
> (rhapsodize). I have repeatedly pointed up that I have no problem with the
> kind of positive unchallenged *praise* you find so fufilling but that I am
> rather more surprised that people who post it get offended when others use
> it as a point of discussion.
I guess what sets me off is the way you choose to word your arguments. I do
not agree that "positive unchallenged praise" is what I prefer. It's quite a
bit more complex than that statement implies
> > I often enjoy stream of consciousness and free association as a more
> > creative way to get to things some times. That doesn't necessarily
exclude
> > "precision thinking" but is maybe, the long way round. Haven't you ever
had
> > a wonderful insight and then had to find the evidence to back it up?
Haven't
> > you ever felt a thing was true, but didn't have the facts to prove it? I
> > believe Mulder has.
> This is exactly what I'm talking about. What you are describing is a form
of
> analysis as much as proceeding from forms to the work.
Huh? I'm not certain of your meaning.
>Being creative in analysis is not the same thing as simply describing
personal feelings or
> saying that something is great simply because it makes you feel good. The
> Macarena made *lots* of people feel good. That didn't make it great music.
I have a fairly simple approach to art in the beginning - it has to have
some impact on me, emotional impact being the most basic - the rest comes
later for me. If it doesn't make me "feel" something from the get go, it
will sink into the the teeming masses of other things trying to get my
attention. I did not start watching the X-Files because I "knew" it was
going to be an incredible, ground breaking television show-- I watched it
because it intrigued me, peaked my interest and even titillated me a bit. It
took awhile for me to discover the rest. Not every bread crumb trail of
leads to a gingerbread house, but we don't know till we follow.
I open my heart and mind because I crave the experiences to be found by
doing so. If I hadn't opened myself to the "feel good" appeal of early TXF,
I'd never have come to enjoy it. So when folks want to write how TXF made
them feel and explain how it made them feel good, I can relate to that and
sometimes it evokes that early sense of discovery. Perhaps the Macarena is
not great music, but it had its moment in the sun. A lot of folks think rock
and roll is trash music too (as was said of the blues, R&B, Bluegrass,
etc.), but while not all rock and roll is art, some of it is.
snip
snip
> This was in response to the comment, common on this group, that 1013
should
> be excused for lapses in the shows because they are so difficult to
produce.
Who has actually done that, made the naked statement that any weakness in
the episodes should be excused because of the difficulty? Certainly, the
challenges of the medium are mentioned in discussion of artistic process and
the limitations of television as an art form.
snip
> To people who prefer to approach an episode on an emotional level, as
> several people in this thread have already stated they do. Let's not be
> intentionally obtuse, shall we?
Okay, maybe I'm being a tad intentionally obtuse, but for a reason. You cite
this "emotional level" in a pejorative and general way, but what exactly do
you have a problem with? If I am being intentionally obtuse it was only
because you are being intentionally vague.
Every episode brings its share of posters
> who don't want to go beneath the surface. No one said that this is a bad
> thing but when such folks start complaining about other people who want to
> go deeper and imputing motives of resentment and contempt--then it is an
> issue.
Well I apologize if I've unjustly accused you of resentment and contempt,
but your word choice and phraseology led me to believe so. Could you be just
a little more condescending?
snip [only because some of the quoting seems confused here. I know for
certain I said the following though:]
"I am willing to give on the tight construction and continuity for the risks
they take. Sometimes there are creative problems the creator can't solve,
and so you have to work around them, and with any luck the work around has
value of its own."
snip
> Appeal to the unsubstantiated authority. Appeal to the crowd. Arguing the
> wrong point. Arguing undemonstrated opinion as fact. Wasn't it you who
> originally posted the location of the web site "How Not To Talk?" Seems
like
> you've been studying it pretty closely, Deb.
No, that wasn't me.
> You infer that, because I have objections to an episode, that have
> "resentment or contempt" for Carter or 1013. Fair enough. Quote me.
>
> You say that I ridicule the insights of others. I don't ridicule insight.
I
> don't even ridicule specious or confused explication of insight. I *do*
> ridicule hyperventilating respondents who argue what they think is being
> said rather than what is there on paper or the screen and, when prompted
to
> go back and check the record, insist on bleating appeals to creativity and
> freedom of thought and expression amid their bad worded condemnations and
> appeals for sympathy from the bleachers.
Well let me catch my breath (all that hyperventilating has made me dizzy).
I'd take back the "resentment" and "contempt" except it's all to evident in
the above paragraph.
I think what bothers me is not necessarily your ideas but your tone. Your
vocabulary is like nails on the chalkboard. If you aren't trying to obscure
your meaning in tiresome rhetoric (Example:> Leaving aside that this is a
nonsensical and non sequitur appeal to the> Analytical/Emotive Spectrum
variant,) then you are using words like bleating, confused, hyperventilating
or the most condescending, accusatory phrases (see above) not to mention
putting words in my mouth as well as erroneous attributions.
> I'd love to keep splittin hairs with you and will do so via e-mail if you
> choose to respond thatway as I feel this is now out of the bounds of
atxfa.
>
> NJP
I don't know that it's out of bounds? We are discussing the different ways
we see and talk about TXF, but I can understand that you might be weary of
this discussion. I'm not sure it has anywhere to go at this point. I think
neither of us is able to hear what the other is actually trying to say at
this point, so it's probably best to let it lie and take up the argument at
some later date, about some other episode. I do appreciate the energy you
put into this discussion.
Deborah
petitesoeur
> news:3836C3...@attglobal.net...
> > NJP wrote:
> >
> > A lot of what you refer to as "rhapsodizing on their personal
> > takes" is also analysis.
>
> "a gentle man, your majesty, must say what he means, if he is to mean
what
> he says."
>
> Look up "analyze" and "rhapsodize" in the dictionary.
>
> NJP
>
while
> you're ahead?")
>
>
Here's a news flash for you: TXF is _not_ a book.
Serious cinematic analysis requires that all aspects of the
mise-en-scene be taken into consideration. Your analysis &
intrepretation is based on a single aspect of TXF -- the dialogue. A
cinematic text is hardly composed solely of words. The words spoken by
the actors are only the tip of the iceberg.
In the thousand of words you've posted about Amor Fati not once have you
described, analyzed or interpreted the other aspects of its
mise-en-scene. You've choosen to ignore the cinematography [camera
movement, composition, sequencing & editing] as well as the lighting,
the sound, and the production design. You neglect the acting [line
delivery, facial expression, gesture, posture & movement] & and the
directing.
Yet, you have the gall to say that your posts are serious analysis while
the rest of us are being emotional & rhapsodizing.
What I really don't get is why you find it necessary to be rude and
demeaning.
-- irene aka the mad rambler
::Let's Hear It For Free Will & Rampaging Rapturous Romanticism!::
The MulderGirls: putting the virtue in virtual reality!
NJP
news:81dd77$aij$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In the thousand of words you've posted about Amor Fati not once have you
> described, analyzed or interpreted the other aspects of its
> mise-en-scene.
And if you'd read any of them you'd know this comment is nonsense.
> Yet, you have the gall to say that your posts are serious analysis while
> the rest of us are being emotional & rhapsodizing.
And if you'd read any of them you'd know that this is misrepresentation
*and* nonsense.
> What I really don't get is why you find it necessary to be rude and
> demeaning.
I had quibbles with an episode. I presented them and, in response to the
issues raised, tried to argue my position. I've had some really cogent
conversation (Matt, Maggie) and a lot of rather confusing and occasionally
insulting attacks which struck me more as a response to the fact that I was
finding fault with an episode in which more than a few people had an
emotional investment that any serious effort to debate the original points
proffered. The issue quickly moved away from my analysis to the fact that I
was arguing it about at all. A lot of that tired old "I don't see the need
to tear things apart" put down of analysis. Which brought my comment about
rhapsodizing. If we're all going to sit around and sing paeans to TXF then
why call it "analysis?" People have persisted in assuming that I am, some
how, attacking anyone who likes the show or talks about it in a positive way
and despite several clarifications are *still* having at me for it.
Well, genug.
As for "rude" and "demeaning," what is one to do, sweet pea, when it is
obvious that one's opponents aren't listening? Since nothing is being
resolved, one must find one's amusement where one can and I will certainly
cop to having pushed a few buttons intentionally to that end. I think that
if you go back and read my earliest entries into this melee without the
righteous indignation you'll find that the tone is more ironic and, on
occasion, even self-deprecating. (Okay, a *rare* occasion, I'll admit.)
NJP
Cheryl Deering
NJP wrote:
> Michele Lellouche <md...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:38361585...@earthlink.net...
> > NJP wrote:
> > found a corpse)--this is heady stuff. For me, when I start analyzing a
> > work to the degree of how and why it works, that's a sign to me that it
> > doesn't work.
>
> And some of us find beauty in structure and execution. I can appreciate the
> aesthetic beauty of, say, the Chysler Building or the World Trade Center
> Towers in NYC while also admiring the craftsmanship that went into making
> it. Probably most particularly when I am on a high floor on a very windy
> day..
:) Good analysis has to take in structure and execution--or
the lack thereof.
Not looking at those with an artistic work is like trying to
judge a restaurant
meal without knowing how it is put together--and why it
doesn't taste like it
should.
>
> > And, to answer Deborah's post, I for one am dog tired of reading that
> > CC is a hack or that he needs Darin Morgan (who for my money is the most
> > overrated writer in XF) to do things.
>
> Interestingly enough, there was kind of an Orson Welles Orgy on teevee last
> night.
. .to tie in with HBO's RKO 281 (about the making of
CITIZEN KANE)
which is on tonight--g!
> Based on what I've seen come out of some of the former co-creators,
> I'd have to say that Carter, certainly creative in his own right, has been
> blessed with an extraordinary group of collaborators and that the sum of
> their efforts is the XF Universe. Like Welles, his real talent seems to be
> in bringing them together and meshing their talents so seamlessly. That
> wasn't good enough for Welles, in some respects, and he allowed the
> misperception that he had pretty much created "Citizen Kane" single-handed
> to flourish when, in fact, he had people like Mankewicz, Toland and Wise
> collaborating with him.
But then again, Welles took all the heat from Hearst (and all
the hatred
from Hollywood) by taking that "solo genius/I made this by my
'lone" stance.
Whether he did so out of ego (most likely) or partly out of
friendship so
Houseman and those associated with him wouldn't get nailed is
open to
question. Either way, he sure paid for it (but to make
CITIZEN KANE is an
achievement worth almost any price, in my book--g!)
> I can't say that I think CC feels the same way. He
> appears to have no problem giving credit where it is due.
I don't think he gave near enough credit to Morgan/Wong for
helping shape this show. Or to John Bartley for XF's look.
Not many people outside of XF lists/SF magazines/the net know
much about those who helped make XF what it is because
of the "Carter is a lone genius" hype.
> Which means that he would disagree with you regarding DM.
As would any number of folks.
C.
**
Cheryl Deering
petitesoeur wrote:
> In article <81bitm$t4k$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "NJP" <jny...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> Serious cinematic analysis requires that all aspects of the
> mise-en-scene be taken into consideration. Your analysis &
> intrepretation is based on a single aspect of TXF -- the dialogue. A
> cinematic text is hardly composed solely of words. The words spoken by
> the actors are only the tip of the iceberg.
> In the thousand of words you've posted about Amor Fati not once have you
> described, analyzed or interpreted the other aspects of its
> mise-en-scene. You've choosen to ignore the cinematography [camera
> movement, composition, sequencing & editing] as well as the lighting,
> the sound, and the production design. You neglect the acting [line
> delivery, facial expression, gesture, posture & movement] & and the
> directing.
>
A script (which includes story and dialogue) serves the same function
as a foundation and frame does for a house. If the latter is weak, warped,
underdeveloped, or not put together well, the house will not stand
satisfactorily, nor will it be particularly durable (POST-MODERN
PROMETHEUS, anyone? g!). For every case where an episode succeeds with
(or in spite of) a weak script, there are at least ten where it does _not_.
I've said this before (and it looks like I'll be saying it till the stars
fall
from the sky--g!), but filmed narratives that work mostly due to terrific
set design/visuals
are the _exceptions_, not the rule. For a filmed narrative work to be
truly satisfying, it must meet film's demands _and_ writing's demands.
> Yet, you have the gall to say that your posts are serious analysis while
> the rest of us are being emotional & rhapsodizing.
(sigh) Nick did not discount any of the elements you mentioned. He merely
pointed
out that they were pretty much all to naught because the story they served
didn't
add up.
C.
**
(who would bet there are a ton of folks on here ready to swear
SLEEPY HOLLOW should be regarded as a perfectly-rendered
classic horror/fantasy movie because of its visuals alone. Never
mind that the movie sacrificed plot logic to How Many Ways
Can We Show Fancy Decapitations--and was ultimately way
less a movie than it could have been.)
Michele Lellouche
>
> NJP wrote:
>
> > Michele Lellouche <md...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:38361585...@earthlink.net...
> > > NJP wrote:
>
> > > found a corpse)--this is heady stuff. For me, when I start analyzing a
> > > work to the degree of how and why it works, that's a sign to me that it
> > > doesn't work.
> >
> > And some of us find beauty in structure and execution. I can appreciate the
> > aesthetic beauty of, say, the Chysler Building or the World Trade Center
> > Towers in NYC while also admiring the craftsmanship that went into making
> > it. Probably most particularly when I am on a high floor on a very windy
> > day..
>
> :) Good analysis has to take in structure and execution--or
> the lack thereof.
> Not looking at those with an artistic work is like trying to
> judge a restaurant
> meal without knowing how it is put together--and why it
> doesn't taste like it
> should.
What I was objecting to, and I'll say it again, is that we should have
one set of "standards" by which everything is judged--and that I have to
apply these standards all the time. I quite honestly think I do it
subconsciously, without having to go through gyrations to get there.
But if things don't work, it's rather easy to do. (and Cheryl, hang on
to your hat, we agree on Sleepy Hollow, yet I'm not sure what's wrong
with it--I think it's the fact they took a cool fable and had to force
it into a prosaic ending).
<snip>
>
> > I can't say that I think CC feels the same way. He
> > appears to have no problem giving credit where it is due.
>
> I don't think he gave near enough credit to Morgan/Wong for
> helping shape this show. Or to John Bartley for XF's look.
> Not many people outside of XF lists/SF magazines/the net know
> much about those who helped make XF what it is because
> of the "Carter is a lone genius" hype.
And exactly how is this his fault? I've seen more on X's "other
creators" in EW for example or, hell, even TV Guide, than anyone
else's. It's not his fault that the media portrays it that way--how
many people could name Steven Bochco's other folks? The media looks for
an easy way to portray things. I for one was nicely surprised to see
James Wong and Vince Gilligan intro'ing on the newest set of tapes. Or
how 'bout the f/x moments?
Michele
Cheryl Deering
Michele Lellouche wrote:
> (and Cheryl, hang on
> to your hat, we agree on Sleepy Hollow, yet I'm not sure what's wrong
> with it--I think it's the fact they took a cool fable and had to force
> it into a prosaic ending).
:) The original script was _terrific_. I get the feeling a
couple of vital
narrative/character layers were removed, most likely in the
editing
(which would explain why we got so many shots of heads
getting cut off
in a variety of ways and not enough clarification of the
central conspiracy.)
What wrecked it for me was that "I Know What Your Terminating
Headless Self Did Couple of Centuries Back" illogical ending.
(spoiler)
Um, if you have confronted the fiendish villian who 1) is
controlling Evil
Spectre by holding his skull; 2) has just made the herione
ES's new target
and 3) is standing right next to you cheering on ES bearing
down
on you from misty-stage-right, what do you do? Do you try to
overpower fiendish villian; get skull; and thereby enable ES
to return to the netherworld--or do you begin
a _long_-ass flee session through a windmill and spooky
forest, even
though you know from ghastly experience that you can neither
outrun nor kill ES?
> > I don't think he gave near enough credit to Morgan/Wong for
> > helping shape this show. Or to John Bartley for XF's look.
> > Not many people outside of XF lists/SF magazines/the net know
> > much about those who helped make XF what it is because
> > of the "Carter is a lone genius" hype.
>
> And exactly how is this his fault? I've seen more on X's "other
> creators" in EW for example or, hell, even TV Guide, than anyone
> else's. It's not his fault that the media portrays it that way--how
> many people could name Steven Bochco's other folks? The media looks for
> an easy way to portray things.
An easy thing to fix--mention your collaborators in every
interview
and stress their contributions constantly. I agree that
Carter is not
the only one guilty of this (anyone know who helps Bochco do
all his stuff?),
but Carter is the worst at swearing up and down that all of
XF was
his vision and not acknowledging the elements others came up
with that
truly made the show. As well, a guy with a
credit-where-credit-is-due
problem would not have pulled something as obnoxious and
out-and-
out stupid as buying the rights to a work (HARSH REALM) and
not
giving the creators credit. Even for
Hollywood that is sorry mess (and it is something that even
Spielberg didn't
get away with--in his case, using much material and scenes
from author Barbara Chase-Riboud's non-fiction book for his
movie AMISTAD--then claiming
there were _no_ similarities whatsoever.)
> I for one was nicely surprised to see
> James Wong and Vince Gilligan intro'ing on the newest set of tapes. Or
> how 'bout the f/x moments?
Which will get a writer more work and props (outside of
industry people and
fans who know the real deal)? Being credited for elements
he/she
bought to a successful show, or getting to intro. tapes of
said show?
C.
**