CONVERSATION!!!
JChap0217
> I would not want server to stop carrying this newsgroup so I hope to stir up
> some conversation. Though there are so many others that are much better with
> words than I.
>
> So come on folks lets bring some life here.
I agree! The show was one of the best EVER! It was truly unfortunate that
Linda Hamilton left the show when she did! It just DID NOT work without her!
I really do miss it -- even after all this time. And there are still SO MANY
fans all over the world who are absolutely passionate about the show! I
couldn't believe it when I found some of the newsletters and web sites. I
thought I was the only one who was so strangely CRAZY about this show! I still
watch the tapes regularly, and my family thinks I'm nuts! Now I know that I am
moderate in my fandom compared to some others that I have come across via the
internet!
There continues to be talk of a new BatB project - a major motion
picture(though I doubt it), a TV movie or a mini-series (more likely). I still
haven't heard anything definate, but the folks at Republic pictures (they own
the rights) and Ron Koslow (the creator) still say they are very interested,
are "researching" the idea and have not abandoned the idea. They better hurry
- no one is getting any younger! Ron Perlman won't be a problem since he wears
so much makeup, but how do you throw a 40-something Linda Hamilton back into
the role of an early- 30's "Catherine"?! Don't get me wrong -- Linda looks
FABULOUS -- but you must admit, she's not quite "Catherine" anymore! If they
do go ahead with a project, I hope they will stay true to the original
characters and themes of the show. I couldn't stand it if they "messed up" my
Beauty and the Beast! (Of course, really, they already did that with the death
of "Catherine" and the whole "Vincent/Diana" thing!!! I HATED that!)
Anyway, I've babbled enough! I don't usually ramble on so, but I guess I am
making a last-ditch attempt at keeping this thing alive!!!!
Julie
"Though lovers be lost,
Love shall not;
And death shall have no dominion."
northsider
JChap0217 wrote:
> There continues to be talk of a new BatB project - a major motion
> picture(though I doubt it), a TV movie or a mini-series (more likely).
I agree that a mini-series would be more likely, less of a financial
risk; and, frankly, I prefer a mini-series.
I don't think two hours is long enough work out Catherine's return in
what I would consider any satisfactory manner, especially when you
consider the obligatory "action."
Also theatrical movies and television have a different "tone" to them.
BATB was television; and I don't think it would feel right as a
theatrical movie.
Personally, I would like a four hour mini-series (Six hours would be
better; but, we are unlikely to be so lucky.); with the option of buying
the "uncut" version at video stores. :)
=Sandra=
Spend too much time with people of like mind and you will lose yours.
http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/b/m/bmoore3/
JChap0217
>I don't think two hours is long enough work out Catherine's >return in what I
would consider any satisfactory manner,
I agree - but from what I've heard, this project may be treated as if third
season never happened!!! She never died!!! PERFECT!! I never liked that
whole thing with Diana, anyway!
JChap0217
>I only wonder if Linda Hamilton would ever be convinced to >return to the
part.
I seem to remember hearing her say somewhere that she would love to take that
character further. That could be taken to mean that C & V's relationship could
be "explored" a little more "intimately" (which I DEFINATELY remember her
complaining about, with TV censorship, et al); and/or it could be interpreted
to mean, "Sure, I'll do it!"
Let's hope both interpretations would apply here!
northsider
JChap0217 wrote:
>from what I've heard, this project may be treated as if third
>season never happened!!! She never died!!! PERFECT!!
Personally, I doubt that that will happen, the "ghost of Dallas" and all
that. IMO they have to deal with the third season in some way; and,
Catherine escaping from a witness protection program to find her way
back
to Vincent, or something like that offers the most "action"; and, make
no
mistake about it, there will be plenty of "action." The network will
require it.
I will admit that I would like an original resolution to the third
season
dilemma; but, with all the SND's out, I have my doubts that Koslow can
come up with anything that has not been done. So maybe he should take
some clues from them instead; and, among other things, further explore
the character of Catherine. This might encourage Linda Hamilton to
reprise her role. It is also just plain a good idea.
>I never liked that whole thing with Diana, anyway!
There is much that I liked about the third season; but, I did not take
to
Vincent and Diana as a couple. I would have continued to watch the
series and perhaps the V/D relationship would have grown on me; but, the
series as such is dead. I don't think four, or even six, hours is
enough time to develop a Vincent and Diana relationship to the point
where I would be interested in it.
northsider
I think Linda Hamilton wanted for Catherine to be able to further
explore her relationship with Vincent spiritually, mentally, and
physically. I also think Linda Hamilton wanted for Catherine to be able
to further explore her other relationships and her career.
In other words, she wanted Catherine to be able to do more than moan
about how she and Vincent couldn't be together and getting herself in
jams and having to be rescued by Vincent.
northsider
Moon7star8 wrote:
>
> I am glad to see action and life coming back to this group.
>
> As far as a movie or mini series goes, I agree with you Sandra I would really
> like more than 2 hours. A mini series would be more than I could ever hope
> for.
>
> I only wonder if Linda Hamilton would ever be convinced to return to the part.
> didn't. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Moon
>
> **"Darkness in only the absence of light
> and all winters end."**
>
I have heard that Ron says he will return only if Linda Hamilton
returns;
but, I don't recall actually seeing him say it.
Roseprism
I really, really, really would like to see a B&B movie! :::acting childish and
stomping floor::::I WANT A BEAUTY AND THE BEAST MOVIE...NOW NOW NOW!!!
I recieved a copy of "Of Love and Hope Today", finally. It's absolutely
wonderful! Ron's voice is sooo cool!
Lauren
Moon7star8
>In other words, she wanted Catherine to be able to do more than moan
>about how she and Vincent couldn't be together and getting herself in
>jams and having to be rescued by Vincent.
>
>
Well I couldn't agree with her more actually I don't think anyone disagrees
with her except perhaps TPTB at CBS at the time.
>I have heard that Ron says he will return only if Linda Hamilton
>returns;
>but, I don't recall actually seeing him say it.
I think I remember him saying something about this in the first chat he did on
AOL. Anyone remember?
Bergeron22
I hope I'm doing this right. I'm not sure about the "reply to group" vs.
e-mail to author... but I mentioned earlier, in another "subject" that I wonder
what actress would be good for the character of Catherine since Linda Hamilton
has said she wants no part of B&B ever again. Too many painful memories, etc.
I opted for Kelly McGillis of Top Gun fame, or Gillian Anderson of X-files.
What do you think? Who else?
JoAnne
northsider
Nia (sp?) Peeples. She was in "Fame" and played opposite Ron in "Mr.
Stitch." Most fans hated that movie but I couldn't help but be somewhat
pleased. Ron was the love interest! And, from what I saw, there was
chemistry with Nia and there is some resemblance to Linda Hamilton which
could be make greater with proper lighting and makeup.
Also there might be an unknown out there who would be perfect!
--
JChap0217
>what actress would be good for the character of Catherine since Linda
>Hamilton
>has said she wants no part of B&B ever again. Too many painful memories,
>etc.
Where did you hear this? Painful memories? From everything I've heard her
say, she loved working on the show. She even told once about how the show was
written for her - with her in mind all along to play Catherine. The only thing
I've ever heard her say is that she loved playing Catherine and she wished TV
had allowed them to take the relationship further. I would think that doing a
film, or even a TV mini-series or TV movie with what the censors allow today,
would allow Catherine and Vincent to "explore" more of their relationship.
And, Ron said he won't do it if Linda won't! I hope they can both agree to do
it someday. But I'm with Ron on this one - if Linda Hamilton is not Catherine,
I don't even want to see it!
Roseprism
I think that Gillian Anderson would do a great job!....Yet, IT JUST WOULDN'T BE
BEAUTY AND THE BEAST WITHOUT LINDA!!
Lauren
Bergeron22
Hmmm..... Nia doesn't ring any bells, but the idea of an unknown is indeed
tantilizing... someone who could like be a brunette for once? :-)
JoAnne
Bergeron22
As I mentioned in an earlier subject, when I saw her on a late night talk show,
she was very adamant about never doing it again because the memories were "too
painful." After the way they treated her in the third season, she said she
would not ever go back. That it was past history, had some good and some bad
memories and that she was moving on. She then did the "Terminator" movies and
did, indeed, move on. If, as I said, she has changed her mind, that's
terrific!
JoAnne
Bergeron22
I agree! What seem to be the two dichomoties to deal with are:
1) The third season; and
2) Will she do it?
Agreed, that it would not be the "same" without her, but... what if?
1) She won't do it; and
2) We want Vincent?
There are many, many series which have had to substitute, replace or downright
make a new character to make possible the continuance of the theme. I think it
can be done, since love is the theme here.
I don't think any fan in their right mind will accept a replacement for
Catherine. I don't think a temporary substitute will suffice, either. But it
is possible for Vincent to love another, without taking anything away from the
relationship he had with Catherine. Or us.
JoAnne
JChap0217
>There are many, many series which have had to substitute, replace or
>downright
>make a new character to make possible the continuance of the theme. I think
>it
>can be done, since love is the theme here.
>
>I don't think any fan in their right mind will accept a replacement for
>Catherine. I don't think a temporary substitute will suffice, either. But
>it
>is possible for Vincent to love another, without taking anything away from
>the
>relationship he had with Catherine. Or us.
>
>
Maybe..... Just to voice my vote......I'm just not interested if it isn't
Vincent AND Catherine. It's not just the story of their meeting and falling in
love, or the special "bond" that they have - I think it also, for me at least,
has to do with the chemistry that Ron and Linda have as actors. I think they
compliment each other extraordinarily well. They "feed" off each other, if you
will. I wouldn't even mind seeing them in some other project together. Both
actors have done GREAT jobs in other roles, but together.......they're the
best! I just can't watch a Beauty and the Beast without her - to me it would
be as proposterous as watching Linda play Catherine without Vincent!
JChap0217
>memories were "too
>painful." After the way they treated her in the third season,
What did "they" do to her? She was pregnant - SHE chose to leave from all
accounts I've heard. I'm just trying to understand... I was under the
impression after seeing her on....well, I can't remember what it was
on.....that she had a great experience with that show -which was, she said,
actually CREATED for her! Please - fill me in on what happened to her.
Roseprism
>What did "they" do to her? She was pregnant - SHE chose to leave from all
>accounts I've heard.
That's what I've heard, also. I figured that "they" were treating her better
than nice. I mean, Linda's name WAS the first to appear in the credits, but Ron
deserved the credit for the show just as well as she. Don't get me wrong, I
love Hamilton, but what did she mean about "painful memories"?
Lauren
northsider
I think Linda expected her career to take off after T2 more than it has!
=Sandra=
northsider
JChap0217 wrote:
>
> >memories were "too
> >painful." After the way they treated her in the third season,
>
> impression after seeing her on....well, I can't remember what it was
> on.....that she had a great experience with that show -which was, she said,
> actually CREATED for her! Please - fill me in on what happened to her.
I have never been too sure what they did to her or what she did to them.
You hear a lot of confused stories.
=Sandra=
northsider
I just don't think Anderson is right for the part. Nothing against her.
She just is not the right type.
=Sandra=
northsider
Bergeron22 wrote:
>
> I agree! What seem to be the two dichomoties to deal with are:
> 1) The third season; and
> 2) Will she do it?
> Agreed, that it would not be the "same" without her, but... what if?
> 1) She won't do it; and
> 2) We want Vincent?
>
> make a new character to make possible the continuance of the theme. I think it
> can be done, since love is the theme here.
>
> I don't think any fan in their right mind will accept a replacement for
> Catherine. I don't think a temporary substitute will suffice, either. But it
> is possible for Vincent to love another, without taking anything away from the
> relationship he had with Catherine. Or us.
>
As a classic fan, I never thought it would; but, Catherine being dead
would take away from my enjoyment of the first two seasons.
northsider
I would like some resemblance to Linda Hamilton. So I was thinking of
Nia's hair being lightened some. :)
Bergeron22
Okay, this is what I have heard... (and for whatever's sake, anyone jump in and
correct me if they've heard to the contrary!).
Because of her already foundering marriage, combined with her pregnancy, she
did not want to even do a third season. However, the producers promised her
that she would not be put through any undue hardships, considering her
condition. She signed the contract, believing them. Then came the scenes
where she gave birth to Vincent's child.. It was take after take after take.
They couldn't get the camera angle right so that they would NOT show how really
pregnant she was. Watch the videos.
Then, she was extrememly upset that they put her through so many violent
scenes. She was overweight, puffed up due to the pregnancy and low on energy,
and they drove her every day to do more and more.
It may very well be that she's not at all upset with the series, per se, and
that she will return if many conditions are met. But, they put her through
hell, and she hasn't forgotten.
Hope that clears it up.
JoAnne
Bergeron22
Acknowledged! But... what is the right "type?" :-)
JoAnne
Bergeron22
I wish I had the tape of the show so that I could quote her. As it is I'm
working from "essence" memory rather than "fact" memory. It was very shortly
after the series had ended, she had given real birth and it was during or just
after her marriage ended. She said that she had painful memories from the
series, would never do it again, and it was time to move on.
I'm sorry if I've created any stress here. I think Linda is a terrific
actress, would be more than welcome to a new series involving B&B, has stood in
good stead with the Terminator movies, and I wish that she would consent to a
quality movie with Ron.
I don't think it's over. It took Star Trek 20 years to get their rear in
gear and anything's possible, with love.
JoAnne
Roseprism
>But, they put her through
>hell, and she hasn't forgotten.
> Hope that clears it up.
Boy, I feel badly for ever saying what I said... The woman was very brave for
taking this on..Especially while being pregnant! GO LINDA!
Lauren:-)
Rozndon
>There are many, many series which have had to substitute, replace or
>downright
>make a new character to make possible the continuance of the theme. I think
>it
>can be done, since love is the theme here.
>
>I don't think any fan in their right mind will accept a replacement for
>Catherine. I don't think a temporary substitute will suffice, either. But
>it
>is possible for Vincent to love another, without taking anything away from
>the
>relationship he had with Catherine. Or us.
I agree totally. I don't think a replacement for Catherine is a possibility. I
also don't want a temporary substitute. But I feel that Vincent could move on
with his life and eventually find another love interest just as often happens
in real life. That's where they were heading with the series after they lost
Linda - but they wanted to take a very long time and there's no guarantee it
would have ended up being Diana if the chemistry was found to be not right.
What's important to me to retain in any movie is Vincent and the Tunnel World.
Because in my heart and mind Catherine is dead - I can't manage to bring her
back for myself by simply denying it ever happened. It just doesn't work for
me. I respect those fans who are able to do this. I simply cannot.
I want and need to feel a part of that special world Below again and to see
Vincent on the big screen. I'm just not very concerned who his love interest
might be (unless of course, it's me!!!! LOL!).
Love,
Roz
northsider
I am concerned about who Vincent's love interest is, not because I look
upon the series as Teri does; but, because, if I accept Catherine's
death than I lose all enjoyment of the first two seasons. I am sitting
there watching them struggle and all the time thinking "She's going to
die." No fun!
Personally I liked Diana all right. I just didn't feel there was any
chemistry there with Vincent. What might have developed is beside the
point. The fact is that it didn't develop, IMO partly because of the
chemistry factor and most certainly because of the cancelation of the
series. I don't think a relationship, that I would find interesting,
could be developed with Diana within the time frame of a movie or
mini-series. A new love interest for me would be iffy as well; but, I
would be more willing to try it.
Bergeron22
Oh, Roz! Well said! I agree completely! Vincent and the Tunnel People...
yes. I can't bring her back, either. Maybe some very talented writers can, to
the point of believability, and I would welcome that. But right now, I won't
fight "reality."
After being here yesterday I went through my Starlog magazines, just for old
times' sake and to possibly find a glimmer of the future for B&B. One of the
statements made by someone who was being interviewed, Koslow I think, was that
because of the foundation created by the original series, there were/are
unlimited stories out there. The richness of all the characters lend
themselves to a myriad of new horizons.
JoAnne
Bergeron22
Ah, Sandra, you bring up a wonderful point! And what a dichotomy you put
forth!
If the third season, which centers around Catherine's death, is unaccepted,
then we run into the problem of accepting her and Vincent's child. True, it
ain't fun. But which to choose? Without the third season there would be no
baby Jacob (and god knows I wish they had named him Chandler instead! :-)
As toDiana, I hated her on sight. I knew she would make an impact on Vincent's
life and I was so loyal to Catherine that I could hardly watch Vincent and
Diana together. But, as time passed, it became obvious that there WAS, IMO, a
chemistry, quite different from the one between Vincent and Catherine, and
that's what the writers had in mind. They didn't want a "second class"
Catherine. They wanted another strong, intelligent, independent woman who
could give Vincent pause. I remember resenting the last look between Diana and
Vincent when they were in his chamber with Baby Jacob. But, I realized Diana
was on his side (if not wanting to stay by his side).
JoAnne
TweetyDion
>I opted for Kelly McGillis of Top Gun fame, or Gillian Anderson of X-files.
>
>What do you think? Who else?
Why not just start where the series left off???? Am I the only B&B fan who
liked Jo Anderson?????
TweetyDion
>Personally I liked Diana all right. I just didn't feel there was any
>chemistry there with Vincent.
How could there be any chemistry...think about it Vincent just lost his true
love and is searching for his child...I don't think another love interest is at
the top of his list.
If the show would have continued on I think Diana would've ran circles around
Catherine...but that's just my personal opinion...I liked Diana's character a
lot better.
TweetyDion
>
>I just don't think Anderson is right for the part. Nothing against her.
>She just is not the right type.
I completely agree!
Roseprism
>Why not just start where the series left off???? Am I the only B&B fan who
>liked Jo Anderson?????
>
>
No, certainly not. I did like Diana because she helped Vincent, but I didn't
think that they should have tried to replace Catherine with her character. I
just couldn't have seen V&D together....Know what I'm saying?
Lauren
Geniepiper
TweetyDion wrote:
>
> >I opted for Kelly McGillis of Top Gun fame, or Gillian Anderson of X-files.
> >
> >What do you think? Who else?
>
There are a number of third season fans who really like Jo Anderson. In
fact I never talked to a 3S fan who was not as much into the
Vincent/Diana relationship as classic fans are into the
Vincent/Catherine relationship. That is why I say that if you are a
classic or a third season fan is really a matter of if you prefer
Catherine or Diana as a love interest.
Most of us BATB fans seem to prefer Catherine which makes us classic.
Geniepiper
Chemistry is not a matter of storyline. If it were, writers would
create chemistry in every script they write. Chemistry is something
that sometimes happens between actors, and sometimes characters, usually
unexpectedly and unpredictably; and, although most people see it, not
everyone does.
Most fans and observers, such as television critics, felt that there was
a lot of chemistry between LH and RP on BATB; but, saw none to little
between RP and JA. Some people disagree; but, this is the consensus of
opinion.
BTW chemistry does have to be romantic in nature. For example Paul
Newman and Robert
Redford had chemistry. :)
Geniepiper
Especially since she looks so much like Jo Anderson, that they are not
related is something I find hard to believe!
--
AdamsGreg&Judy
Bergeron22 wrote:
>
> I agree! What seem to be the two dichomoties to deal with are:
> 1) The third season; and
> 2) Will she do it?
> Agreed, that it would not be the "same" without her, but... what if?
> 1) She won't do it; and
> 2) We want Vincent?
>
> make a new character to make possible the continuance of the theme. I think it
> can be done, since love is the theme here.
>
> I don't think any fan in their right mind will accept a replacement for
> Catherine. I don't think a temporary substitute will suffice, either. But it
> is possible for Vincent to love another, without taking anything away from the
> relationship he had with Catherine. Or us.
>
....
Judy: No, no, no, no, no!
AdamsGreg&Judy
JChap0217 wrote:
>
> >There are many, many series which have had to substitute, replace or
> >downright
> >make a new character to make possible the continuance of the theme. I think
> >it
> >can be done, since love is the theme here.
> >
> >I don't think any fan in their right mind will accept a replacement for
> >Catherine. I don't think a temporary substitute will suffice, either. But
> >it
> >is possible for Vincent to love another, without taking anything away from
> >the
> >relationship he had with Catherine. Or us.
> >
> >
>
> Vincent AND Catherine. It's not just the story of their meeting and falling in
> love, or the special "bond" that they have - I think it also, for me at least,
> has to do with the chemistry that Ron and Linda have as actors. I think they
> compliment each other extraordinarily well. They "feed" off each other, if you
> will. I wouldn't even mind seeing them in some other project together. Both
> actors have done GREAT jobs in other roles, but together.......they're the
> best! I just can't watch a Beauty and the Beast without her - to me it would
> be as proposterous as watching Linda play Catherine without Vincent!
Judy: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! I could watch the two of them in
another project that is not BatB. I would like to see a BatB movie with
them, but I would also like to see them in other things together.
Wonder if Linda would make a guest appearance on M7???? <g> --Judy--
AdamsGreg&Judy
Bergeron22 wrote:
>
> Acknowledged! But... what is the right "type?" :-)
>
> JoAnne
Teri
> > > Julie:
> > >There are many, many series which have had to substitute, replace or
> > >downright
> > >make a new character to make possible the continuance of the theme. I
think
> > >it
> > >can be done, since love is the theme here.
> > >
> > >I don't think any fan in their right mind will accept a replacement
for
> > >Catherine. I don't think a temporary substitute will suffice, either.
But
> > >it
> > >is possible for Vincent to love another, without taking anything away
from
> > >the
> > >relationship he had with Catherine. Or us.
tap:
The love theme isn't there because V&C loved each other. It's there
because the story is Beauty and the Beast - which means it was destined
between them and only them. Whether you like or approve of the concept of
destiny doesn't change the dramatic premise. That's the driving force
behind the fairytale. You can throw that premise out, but then you don't
have the story 'Beauty and the Beast', just a story with that title. Most
audiences have an expectation for what 'Beauty and the Beast' is - we've
all heard the story since we were children - some of us in numerous
versions. I think all those versions had the same chief commonalities to
them, though (unless you read some quirky modern-day vampire version of it
; ) and that's the expectation that Koslow and Republic (or whoever) build
when they do a series or movie by this name. It's jerking the audience
around that irritates them so much, imo. You can't call a story 'Beauty
and the Beast' just to get people to tune in/show up/etc. then give them
'Three's Company' or 'Gilligan's Island'. You'll bring the wrath of god
down upon your head (which is exactly what happened during the 3S eps).
--
Catherine and Vincent, together forever!
Teri
Teri
> > JoAnne:
> > I agree! What seem to be the two dichomoties to deal with are:
> > 1) The third season; and
> > 2) Will she do it?
> > Agreed, that it would not be the "same" without her, but... what if?
> > 1) She won't do it; and
> > 2) We want Vincent?
tap:
Now we're reaching what is at the heart of the rift in fandom, imo.
Classic fans see the story as the modern-day retelling of BATB. The entity
of C&V is *the* most important thing in it. Some AS and, imo, all 3S fans
don't really care if the story if BATB or something else, as long as
Vincent is in it.
I'm not making a judgement about that choice, just pointing out that given
it, the difference in how we all view 'the story' (well defined to one
group, could be anything to the other) is *huge*!
For me, the answer to your questions are:
1. If LH won't do it I'll continue to enjoy the story in fanfic and through
fandom.
2. I absolutely *do not* want Vincent without Catherine. That to me is
very unappealing because, by my interest in the story, it's such a
diminishment of what came before. V becomes much more of a man who simply
looks different and lives in a different place, which is pretty boring to
the mythical tale given us previously, imo. Or, worse yet, he becomes a
sort of superhero (and I never cared for those stories much) because he has
claws and fangs. It's not only unappealing to me, but it's very
distressing to see him fall to that level - which he does given the way I
view the story. Keeping Catherine alive is the only way to keep Vincent
alive in my story, and only RP and LH can reprise those roles in an
acceptable way, imo.
I have got to get to the other side of town for xmas - and need to pick up
two neices and nephews on the way - so quit distracting me with these
intriguing posts!! ; >
Happy holidays everyone! I hope you all have the best of days with a
wonderful new year before you.
Sandra
AdamsGreg&Judy wrote re: Ron and Linda
> Judy: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! I could watch the two of them in
> another project that is not BatB. I would like to see a BatB movie with
> them, but I would also like to see them in other things together.
So would I.
> Wonder if Linda would make a guest appearance on M7????
I doubt it; but, we can always dream!
Sandra
Teri wrote:
> tap:
> The love theme isn't there because V&C loved each other. It's there
> because the story is Beauty and the Beast - which means it was destined
> between them and only them.
That is your interpretation. For me both in the fairy tale and in the
series, BATB is about a remarkable but flawed women who falls in love
with a remarkable but uniquely flawed man.
I know that does not turn you on; but, I find it interesting!
northsider
Teri wrote:
> tap:
> Now we're reaching what is at the heart of the rift in fandom, imo.
> Classic fans see the story as the modern-day retelling of BATB. The entity
> of C&V is *the* most important thing in it. Some AS and, imo, all 3S fans
> don't really care if the story if BATB or something else, as long as
> Vincent is in it.
That is not what I am told when I talk to them. Most AS fans, and I
have
yet to meet an exclusively 3S fan, really like and want Diana; but,
realistically
don't expect to get her.
> 1. If LH won't do it I'll continue to enjoy the story in fanfic and through
> fandom.
> 2. I absolutely *do not* want Vincent without Catherine. That to me is
> very unappealing because, by my interest in the story, it's such a
> diminishment of what came before. V becomes much more of a man who simply
> looks different and lives in a different place, which is pretty boring to
> the mythical tale given us previously, imo. Or, worse yet, he becomes a
> sort of superhero (and I never cared for those stories much) because he has
> claws and fangs. It's not only unappealing to me, but it's very
> distressing to see him fall to that level - which he does given the way I
> view the story. Keeping Catherine alive is the only way to keep Vincent
> alive in my story, and only RP and LH can reprise those roles in an
> acceptable way, imo.
It is just your version of the story, based upon what turns you on,
however.
The story is not the same for everyone.
It is your insistence on your version of the story, to the extent that
you don't
want to discuss other possibilities, as well as your insistence that the
great
majority of fandom shares your exact view of the story; and, what is
more that
TPTB know it; and, will therefore do your version - that is what gets to
me.
What is more. If there is a movie, I think you are in for a big let
down.
AdamsGreg&Judy
Judy: Then I'm in for the same letdown, Sandra, because I agree with
Teri 100%. I am willing to discuss anything, just about, and I have
even watched "those" episodes, the few of them that I have. But I have
to be in a certain mood to see them because they upset me very much. I
know it's only a tv show (gee, did I say that?), but these people in the
Tunnels are like friends and family to me. I do have a life, (family
and friends), so don't tell me to get one, but this is my OTHER life.
If you want to discuss those eps at any time, e-mail me.
Bergeron22
>Classic fans see the story as the modern-day retelling of BATB.
I wish I knew what that meant. :-)
>all 3S fans
>don't really care if the story if BATB or something else, as long as
>Vincent is in it.
>
>
Does that mean "all third-seasons fans don't really care.." etc.? I was and am
not a third season fan. I DO really care if the story is something other than
BATB. (I don't think he'd do well in an episode of Frazier.)
>1. If LH won't do it I'll continue to enjoy the story in fanfic and through
>fandom.
I agree!
...>by my interest in the story, it's such a
>diminishment of what came before.
I disagree. I don't think dimishment could happen to the character of Vincent.
Ron is in charge of Vincent and he won't let that happen.
JoAnne
Bergeron22
Teri wrote:
>The love theme isn't there because V&C loved each other. It's there
>because the story is Beauty and the Beast - which means it was destined
>between them and only them. Whether you like or approve of the concept of
>destiny doesn't change the dramatic premise.
And in a nutshell, Teri, that's pretty much the scism between you and me. Yes,
I think the love theme IS there because Vincent and Catherine love each other,
not because the story is based on a fantasy. To me, it always had to do more
with the concept of loving another >because< they projected such a powerful
love of their own, not >in spite< of their differences. The history of the
original Beauty and the Beast story has little to do with the adults protrayed
in the TV series.
No, it was not "destined between them and only them." Where did the idea of
"destiny" come into it at all to you? In the original fantasy, or in the TV
series?
It's not a matter of approval here. It boils down to a difference of opinion,
neither right, neither wrong.
JoAnne
Bergeron22
Sandra writes:
>For me both in the fairy tale and in the
>series, BATB is about a remarkable but flawed women who falls in love
>with a remarkable but uniquely flawed man.
It may be that you consider them both "flawed," Sandra, but I consider them
both perfect. Only when comparisons and standards are imposed does the trap
open wide for judgment. Without judgment, they are perfect. Without
comparisons or standards they are perfect. I am. You are. There are no
exceptions to perfection, unless one decides to make one.
JoAnne
northsider
AdamsGreg&Judy wrote:
>
> northsider wrote:
> >
> > Teri wrote:
> >
> > > tap:
> > > Now we're reaching what is at the heart of the rift in fandom, imo.
> > > Classic fans see the story as the modern-day retelling of BATB. The entity
> > > don't really care if the story if BATB or something else, as long as
> > > Vincent is in it.
> >
> > have
> > yet to meet an exclusively 3S fan, really like and want Diana; but,
> > realistically
> > don't expect to get her.
> >
> > > fandom.
What do you mean by "those stories?" The Trilogy? the 3S? I did not
say that Catherine was not going to return. If a movie is done I think,
in
all likihood, it will feature the return of Catherine; but, Teri is so
exacting. She is not going to get everything she wants; although the
way she writes, it sounds like she thinks she will get it all because
everyone loved the same things she loved about it, except for a few odd
balls like me, and TPTB see this and will deliver...Not likely!
northsider
Bergeron22 wrote:
>
> >Classic fans see the story as the modern-day retelling of BATB.
>
>
different fans.
I call myself a classic fan because I prefer the return of Catherine;
but, I did like
the Trilogy and Third Season episodes.
I sometimes use the term myself; but, there seems to be no such thing as
a third season
fan, that is someone who just likes the third season.
Becky Bains once divided the fandom into five groups. They are:
1. first two seasons only
2. all seasons, prefer the return of Catherine
3. no preference
4. all seasons, prefer a Vincent/Diana romance
5. third season only
Then she did a poll. 2 won handily!
northsider
I agree with all the above!
northsider
Without judgement everything is perfect! IMO one of the things wrong
with
this world is that we are too afraid to make judgements of any kind.
BTW I don't like perfect things anyway. If V&C were perfect, they would
be
boorrring!
Bergeron22
Sandra writes:
>IMO one of the things wrong with this world is that we are too >afraid to make
judgements of any kind.
>
>BTW I don't like perfect things anyway. If V&C were perfect, >they would be
boorrring!
(Smile) I always admire a powerful commitment to an opinion. And with that
powerfully expressed opinion, Sandra, I see why we have a 180 degree difference
in our philosophies. You see, in my opinion, there is nothing "wrong" with
this world, and by far no one is afraid to make judgments of any kind, else
there would be no killing of one by the other.
I LOVE perfect things. I see them every day and appreciate them more than I
can tell you. Never is a perfect flower boring; never is a perfect child
boring; never is a perfect puppy or kitten boring. They are all perfect, in
joy, in life, in harmony, and no strife nor tension needs to make them
exciting! :-)
Vincent is perfect as is. He need not kill, he need not suffer, he need not
question himself. To heck with the old out-dated axioms that one must suffer
to be strong, or sin in order to be saved. That's garbage.
This society does not need -- no individual person needs - imo - the negative
in order to appreciate the positive. They are one and the same. HOW one
>perceives< permissible outside events is determined by their own spirit. How
one >reacts< to permissible outside events is fully dependent on one's own
personal power.
All is perfect. All Is One. I Am What That Is. Ergo, I Am Perfect, and
therefore, nothing else cannot BE perfect. :-)
I know, this philosophy can be daunting to some, and it appears that we will
never meet at certain crossroads. So be it. :-)
JoAnne
Teri
> >tap:
> >because the story is Beauty and the Beast - which means it was destined
> >between them and only them. Whether you like or approve of the concept
of
> >destiny doesn't change the dramatic premise.
> JoAnne:
> And in a nutshell, Teri, that's pretty much the scism between you and me.
Yes,
> I think the love theme IS there because Vincent and Catherine love each
other,
> not because the story is based on a fantasy. To me, it always had to do
more
> with the concept of loving another >because< they projected such a
powerful
> love of their own, not >in spite< of their differences. The history of
the
> original Beauty and the Beast story has little to do with the adults
protrayed
> in the TV series.
>
> No, it was not "destined between them and only them." Where did the
idea of
> "destiny" come into it at all to you? In the original fantasy, or in
the TV
> series?
tap2:
When I said the main premise of the batb story boils down to the destined
love of the beauty and the beast, I wasn't referring to the series, but to
the fairytale - that's the common theme at the heart of the fairytale - the
beast is different (due to an enchantment) and because of that difference
leads an isolated, lonely life. The enchantement will be broken when he
meets a woman who will love him for what he is. That woman is the beauty,
and she is not a random, any-woman-who-walks-by character. She is as much
a part of the enchantment in the final analysis. I'm speaking of what the
fairytale is and of how the Classic story fits it while the 3S story does
not. This is what I mean by it no longer being 'Beauty and the Beast' from
tlbl on. I don't mean it's no longer the tv show - obviously it is. I
mean that it deviates from all traditional versions of the fairytale by
eliminating the destined beauty and making it a story about a different man
on his own in the world.
> It's not a matter of approval here. It boils down to a difference of
opinion,
> neither right, neither wrong.
tap2:
You're right that it certainly is a matter of opinion as to which (or both)
stories a fan likes, but it's not a matter of opinion as to whether the
story does or does not fit the traditional tale. That's literature and
mythology. You can say you have an opinion on what it is, but that doesn't
change the fact that the 3S eps are no longer the traditional fairytale
story about a beast and his destined beauty. You can say that new story
is fine with you, but that doesn't mean the whole history of the BATB
fairytale suddenly revises itself to fit this new storyline direction
because Koslow redirected it for a tv series, regardless of the reason he
did it.
Teri
> Sandra:
> however.
> The story is not the same for everyone.
tap:
Sandra, I have said the above over and over again. I'm talking about what
I love of the story, and I've spoken many, many times to the fact that of
course not all people like the same thing. I've made it so very clear with
every post, by using - to an extrememly redundant extent in some cases, the
use of 'imo' (in my opinion) so that there can be no mistaking that. Why
do you keep implying that I'm doing otherwise?
> Sandra:
> It is your insistence on your version of the story, to the extent that
> you don't
> want to discuss other possibilities, as well as your insistence that the
> great
> majority of fandom shares your exact view of the story; and, what is
> more that
> TPTB know it; and, will therefore do your version - that is what gets to
> me.
tap2:
Again, I'm at a complete loss as to what you're talking about. I've been
doing nothing *but* discuss the other possibilities in these posts and
debates. If by 'refusing to discuss' you actually mean 'refusing to accept
for my own personal preference these other options', then I say 'guilty as
charged'. But that's not what you said, and it's misleading to say the
least. I have indeed said that the majority of fans want the classic
story, but above you say I've said that purely because it's the story I
want. I've gone out of my way to present factual data to support that
claim - letters from Republic, data from polls, etc. You may disagree with
me, but those statements are not unsubstantiated. Even then, though, I've
always made a clear distinction when talking about the way I feel over the
story and the discussion of why I think Republic respond re a movie as they
have.
> Sandra:
> What is more. If there is a movie, I think you are in for a big let
> down.
tap2:
You have a right to your opinion, but I would bet you dollars to donuts
that if a movie is done, I won't be let down at all. I would also bet that
though I've discussed why very, very often in the last few weeks, you still
wouldn't understand why I feel that way. Again, it's because I'm positive
they'll do a V&C romance that returns to the fairytale premise. I have no
idea what details they'll use for a SND - I've said that over and over
again. I've clearly said which SND is my preference, but again, I've made
it clear that any SND they do which returns the story to the fairytale will
be okay with me.
Teri
> Sandra:
> What do you mean by "those stories?" The Trilogy? the 3S? I did not
> say that Catherine was not going to return. If a movie is done I think,
> in
> all likihood, it will feature the return of Catherine; but, Teri is so
> exacting. She is not going to get everything she wants; although the
> way she writes, it sounds like she thinks she will get it all because
> everyone loved the same things she loved about it, except for a few odd
> balls like me, and TPTB see this and will deliver...Not likely!
tap:
Again, Sandra, I don't think you're reading my posts closely. I've said
what I'd like to see, and I've said what I think they'll do. In the case
of what I'd like to see I've given details galore. In the case of what I
think they'll do I've given almost no details, just a rough outline. I
said in a recent post I couldn't add anymore to that rough outline because
I had no idea and no degree of certainty about those details. When you say
I 'think I'll get it all', you're blatantly disregarding what I've written
over and over again. I don't know if it's because you don't understand
what I've written or are just choosing to ignore it because this is
something you want to say, but I do that what you're claiming above bears
no resemblence to the content in my posts.
Teri
> >tap:
> >Classic fans see the story as the modern-day retelling of BATB.
> JoAnne:
> I wish I knew what that meant. :-)
tap2:
It means that the title 'Beauty and the Beast' means the story contained
therein is about the story 'Beauty and the Beast' - not about 'The
Incredible Hulk' or 'Superman' or anything else. 'Beauty and the Beast' is
a fairytale first told several centuries ago, and retold many, many times
since. It has common themes and premises that are always present. It's
studied along with other folklore in academia. It has a dramatic outline,
plot and characters. A modern-day retelling means just that - the story,
with it's dramatic outline, plot and characters all present, is set in
modern time. An example of that is Shakespeare's 'Richard III'. It's a
good example because it's one of the most commonly retold tales which is
often set in a time period other than the author's original setting.
Versions of 'RIII' have been done very futuristic - I've heard of one set
centuries from now in a space colony - but is most often done in a pre-WWII
setting at the transition between fascist and Nazi germany. But the
outline, plot and characters are always the same, always present, otherwise
they wouldn't call it 'Richard III'. A war between two factions, a younger
brother betraying and usurping his elder, murder of the two young boys -
both ultimately the real heirs to the throne - etc. etc. etc.
> >Joanne:
> >all 3S fans
> >don't really care if the story if BATB or something else, as long as
> >Vincent is in it.
> tap2:
> Does that mean "all third-seasons fans don't really care.." etc.? I was
and am
> not a third season fan. I DO really care if the story is something other
than
> BATB. (I don't think he'd do well in an episode of Frazier.)
tap2:
That's not what I said. The full statement made clear that *imo* : > most
AS fans and all 3S fans do not care if the story is BATB or something else.
The reference to BATB in this sentence is, again, not the tv series, but
the original fairytale outline. And this is patently true. AS and 3S fans
accepted and/or enjoyed the 3S eps, which are not consistant with the
fairytale. I wasn't making a judgment about them because they liked it,
but just describing why *imo* there is such a dramatic difference in what
is and isn't acceptable to the fans. If the fairytale outline is a
requirement for enjoyment of the story, then the 3S eps aren't going to be
accepted. This, however, does not mean that only those who love the
fairytale want the C&V story. Of all those who want a C&V story, those who
require the fairytale are a subset of that larger catagory. There can
certainly be other fans in that larger set that prefer that story for other
reasons. You made clear yourself that there are fans who 'want Vincent'.
That's a preference, but it isn't consistant with the Beauty and the Beast
fairytale. And I didn't say they 'don't really care...' I said 'they
don't care if teh story is BATB or something else' - two dramatically
different statements.
> > tap:
> ...>by my interest in the story, it's such a
> >diminishment of what came before.
> JoAnne:
> I disagree. I don't think dimishment could happen to the character of
Vincent.
> Ron is in charge of Vincent and he won't let that happen.
tap2:
By diminishment of the character, I mean in terms of what the fairytale
allows him and what he is in its absence (i.e. without his bonded soulmate,
eternal love). I'm not saying that you feel that way, but that I feel that
way, and it's is *definitely* a diminishment of that character in terms of
the way I veiw the story.
Teri
> Sandra:
>
> 1. first two seasons only
> 2. all seasons, prefer the return of Catherine
> 3. no preference
> 4. all seasons, prefer a Vincent/Diana romance
> 5. third season only
>
> Then she did a poll. 2 won handily!
tap:
Oh please, let's not discuss Becky's poll - then we really would get into
an argument ; >
Sandra
Bergeron22 wrote:
>
> Sandra writes:
>
> >For me both in the fairy tale and in the
> >series, BATB is about a remarkable but flawed women who falls in love
> >with a remarkable but uniquely flawed man.
>
> It may be that you consider them both "flawed," Sandra, but I consider them
> both perfect. Only when comparisons and standards are imposed does the trap
> open wide for judgment. Without judgment, they are perfect. Without
> comparisons or standards they are perfect. I am. You are. There are no
> exceptions to perfection, unless one decides to make one.
>
> JoAnne
When you accept that everyone has imperfections, it works out pretty
much the same. :)
Sandra
Bergeron22 wrote:
>
> Sandra writes:
> You see, in my opinion, there is nothing "wrong" with this world
What world are you from? Sorry I couldn't resist that one! :)
Sandra
It is true that you got upset about it; and, I still have no idea why;
but, I wasn't using it to prove that there are more people who favor my
position or anything.
I was just pointing out that there are more positions in BATB than just
a clear cut "I want the fairytale" vs. "I just want Vincent."
There are all kinds of positions in between. Becky's poll did a good
job of putting those positions on a sliding scale. Most of us will fit
somewhere on that scale.
My experience in the fandom has taught me that most of those on either
extreme side of the scale tend to view those inbetween as extreme.
Nan Dibble, for example, thinks I am an extreme classic fan because I
defend Catherine to her. :)
Teri
> > > Sandra:
> > > Becky Bains once divided the fandom into five groups. They are:
> > >
> > > 1. first two seasons only
> > > 2. all seasons, prefer the return of Catherine
> > > 3. no preference
> > > 4. all seasons, prefer a Vincent/Diana romance
> > > 5. third season only
> > >
> > > Then she did a poll. 2 won handily!
> > tap:
> > Oh please, let's not discuss Becky's poll - then we really would get
into
> > an argument ; >
> Sandra:
> It is true that you got upset about it; and, I still have no idea why;
> but, I wasn't using it to prove that there are more people who favor my
> position or anything.
tap2:
I got upset because the poll was so extrememly unscientific and poorly
done. That means it's not going to accurately reflect what is and isn't so
except perhaps in the actually people who answered the poll, and perhaps
not even in them. This was your point in not liking or accepting the
polling data I quoted from USA Today. Where we disagree on that issue is
that I think that was a scientific poll (and therefore probably was
designed with a high degree of certainty built into it) while this was not
(and that's not an opinion - it absolutely was not). However, I'm sure she
would be the first to tell you that it was not her intent to do a
scientific poll, but rather just to ask people how they felt. The problem
is that:
1. She didn't define her terms when she asked the question. You and I
both call ourselves Classic, but we obviously define 'Classic' slightly
somewhat differently. I think the AS fan group is the most nebulous of
all, and definitely requires defining for any fan to be able to
characterize themselves accurately within it. She did separate that group
out into several catagories, as that goes some ways toward indicating the
differences which exist, but left ambiguity in them.
2. She had people discussing what they chose and why they chose the options
they did publicly on the mailing list while people were still answering
their questions. People would ask for the clarification she didn't give
them and then a bunch of fans would jump in with their interpretation and
there would be several answers (sometimes many) for the fan to take into
account when trying to determine what answer best defined them. Again,
that means there's a huge error built into the study right from the get-go.
3. This poll was of a small group of fandom, mostly online. She asked the
groups she belongs in (and groups form for specific reasons, often around
seasonal preference - you may not like it, but it is most certainly so in
this fandom) and the friends she knows. The small number of responses and
their particular residence in a a small sliver of electronic media means
again that the poll can in no way be used to interpret a population outside
of those polled themselves, and that even that can not be done well given
the lack of definitions and ambiguity.
4. The normal purpose of a poll, unless it's a census - which this of
course was not - is to take a statistically representative small group and
with the use of statistical methods apply their profile overtop of a much
larger population. This can be done with almost any chosen degree of
certainty, depending upon the pains you're willing to take with your poll
group and study, from very low to very high. By degree of certainty, I
don't mean you can say anything 'absolute', but that there you can say that
*on average*, the population understudy (of whom the polling group
represents) will feel this way on this issue Y% of the time with an X%
degree of certainty. This was not how the poll was done, yet, as knew it
would be, people who didn't know any better would later on quote those
figures anecdotally and apply meaning and interpretation to them where
there is no valid way to do so (from a statistical, scientific standpoint).
You may argue that you feel the same way about Harris, Neilson and
Price-Waterhous polling, but those are professional groups who specialize
in this particular field of mathematics.
You were worried that the professional polls were manipulated and
misleading, though that is only speculation on your part, but you seem
happy with this one, though it was obvious right from the beginning that it
would be so. I want to add that I'm not quarrelling with your quoted
result of the poll, only that given the way the poll was done there's
absolutely no way to tell if it actually was correct. And if it was
correct (which would be purely by luck given the way it was done) there's
still ambiguity left as to what it means because there are no specific
definition of terms given which each fan used to make their initial polling
choice.
> Sandra:
> I was just pointing out that there are more positions in BATB than just
> a clear cut "I want the fairytale" vs. "I just want Vincent."
tap:
Yes, I agree with this, I always have. I consider much of that
sliding-scale, gray area to exist within the group of fans that most often
call themselves 'all season'. That's the area where the interests start to
be distinguished by love of characters vs love of actors vs love of story
plot, etc. I view the Classic fan population as those who know Catherine
is not dead because for them the story is the fairytale, and it doesn't
exist in a form without both the beauty and her beast together. I think
the 3S catagory is the one which blatantly dislikes the Catherine character
and/or really prefers the Diana character. They don't want or need the
fairytale to keep their interest, they really only need Vincent. The AS
fans, though, are a complex mix of preferences and motivations (while the
other two are quite easy to read, imho). AS fans include those whom simply
cannot accept somthing Koslow hasn't given them, whether they preferred the
V&C story or not. They include fans who just want Vincent back, whether
they loved the C character or not. They include 3S fans who believe there
is no difference and so therefore call themselves this irregardless (I'm
not arguing with them doing this - it's just a made up characterization in
fandom, after all - but just that without a definition of terms, the term
'AS' can mean almost anything). In other words, the AS catagory includes
lots and lots of different types of fan interests and therefore makes a
definition absolutely necessary for a fan to decide if that's them or
someone else in a poll they take part in. We don't even all need to agree
upon a definition used in a poll, just as long as we're all making our
decisions based on the same understanding of what those terms mean for that
particular poll. Of course those terms should always be published with the
results so that the poll can be evaluated *relative* to all the information
sought within it.
> Sandra:
> There are all kinds of positions in between. Becky's poll did a good
> job of putting those positions on a sliding scale. Most of us will fit
> somewhere on that scale.
tap2:
Depending on your definitions for the terms, which were not included when
done. Yes we'll all fit, but we won't necessarily fit in the correct place
as we might have envisioned in it answering the quesions.
> Sandra:
> My experience in the fandom has taught me that most of those on either
> extreme side of the scale tend to view those inbetween as extreme.
tap2:
My experience in fandom has taught me that most of those on either extreme
side of the scale tend to view those inbetween as moderate. OTOH, my
experience in fandom has taught me that most of those in the middle of the
scale tend to view those on the outer edges as extreme. It's the classic
bell-curve example.
> Sandra:
> Nan Dibble, for example, thinks I am an extreme classic fan because I
> defend Catherine to her. :)
tap2:
Yes, and that fits into my speculation on what 3S fans believe - at least
in part. I have AS fans who get taken to task all the time by 3S fans for
defending Catherine. It gives me the impression that they want her
denigrated (a fictional character) and sometimes even LH herself, the
actor. Remember that awful tirade about her with speculation about drug
use (years ago vs now), her leaving the story, her looks, yada yada yada,
in OLAH about 2 years back (not by Nan)? I find it very offensive that
someone would speculate so maliciously and so publicly about a person they
could have no first hand knowledge of, all in the attempt (at least imo) of
denigrating a character the actor plays on television. It's not only
offensive to me, but it's also very weird.
AdamsGreg&Judy
The history of the
> original Beauty and the Beast story has little to do with the adults protrayed
> in the TV series.
>
......
Judy: I agree with you here, JoAnne. I feel that the story of Vincent
and Catherine is unique, and that no other can compare. I usually agree
with Teri just about 100%, but I can't compare any other story with the
love between Vincent and Catherine.
Bergeron22
Sandra asks:
>What world are you from? Sorry I couldn't resist that one! :)
>--
>=Sandra=
No problem. :-) You are right, we are not from the same "world." It's called
"differences in reality." My reality is different from yours, hence the
difference of opinion about the world we inhabit.
JoAnne
Bergeron22
Teri writes: (and you came close to answering the two questions I had posed
before... but)
>that's the common theme at the heart of the fairytale - the
>beast is different (due to an enchantment)
Twasn't enchantment created the Beast in the TV series - 'twas genetic
manipulation.
>I'm speaking of what the fairytale is and of how the Classic story >fits it
while the 3S story does not.
It never occurred to me that we were discussing the third season only...
> I mean that it deviates from all traditional versions of the fairytale > by
eliminating the destined beauty and making it a story about a > different man
on his own in the world.
It deviated from all traditional versions of the fairytale when Vincent killed,
presumably for Catherine, in the pilot.
(Before I continue, that brings to mind how I had felt and still do feel that
the so-called "powers-that-be" used -- no -- exploited -- the faitytale right
from the beginning and then bastardized it.)
Okay, moving right along...
>but it's not a matter of opinion as to whether the
>story does or does not fit the traditional tale.
(smile) Everything is a matter of opinion, particularly when it comes to
debating the pros and cons of a fairytale.
>You can say that new story is fine with you, but that doesn't mean >the whole
history of the BATB fairytale suddenly revises itself to >fit this new
storyline direction because Koslow redirected it for a >tv series, regardless
of the reason he did it.
Yeah, that's what it means, since that's precisely what Koslow did.
JoAnne
Bergeron22
Teri writes:
>I've made it so very clear with every post, by using - to an >extrememly
redundant extent in some cases, the
>use of 'imo' (in my opinion) so that there can be no mistaking that.
I can vouch for that. I've not seen any personal attacks by Teri (who by the
way, can take care of herself, but I want to put MY two cents in) and have seen
only support, a desire to make sure as many people's opinions are expressed
here as are possible, and has apparently done some keyboard work to get those
opinions to us here, that because of some mysterious web problem, we would, or
I would, not have otherwise enjoyed; and she has her ducks in a row and WILL
stand her ground, while never resorting to putting someone else down. We
differ on some stuff, and I will stand MY ground. But gad, what fun!!!
JoAnne
p.s. Okay, Teri, pay me the $50 you said I'd get if I said good things about
you... :-;
Teri
>JoAnne:
> p.s. Okay, Teri, pay me the $50 you said I'd get if I said good things
about
> you... :-;
tap:
$50?! I coulda sworn it was $20.... ; >
Bergeron22
>When you accept that everyone has imperfections, it works out pretty
>much the same. :)
>--
>=Sandra=
No, it doesn't. Number 1, because I do not accept that everyone has
imperfections, and No. 2, because when a person's self-image is so shot to the
point where they have to consider that because they are "imperfect" therefore
everyone "has imperfections", they are, therefore, operating from an
"imperfect" premise and cannot deal, let alone appreciate, perfection.
If the premise, from the get-go, is that humans are imperfect, and a human
accepts that premise, then the whole question is moot. An imperfect being
cannot recognize perfection, and so how can they determine what is perfection
and what is not?
This is the basis of organized religion. All religions have some truths. No
religion has the Truth. But organized religion has one basic theme, to which
many whose poor self-image aspire: That humans are about one notch above
garbage, need to suffer for some abstract "sin" (which, by the way, is a Greek
word used in archery that means "missing the mark" or the target) and "should"
(that word is not a part of MY vocabulary because it makes no sense) constantly
be on the lookout for doomsday, and no matter what a human does at this
dimension, the threat of hell or purgatory or just plain being rejected shall
hang over their heads during their tiny march of time here.
IMO, whenever by any human tries to make another human feel less than perfect -
that's abomination.
This crap is repleat in the character of Vincent. He was constantly put into
moral dilemmas and he failed, every time. But his failures were suppposedly
justified by his Love. Pooh. Not acceptable. That just tells fans that Love
is justification for vicious behavior. And organized religions say the same
thing. Ergo, wars.
Vincent's redemption was to go insane. I think that's why the series went
down. In his passive and loss-of-memory state they had to think up a really
nasty bad guy. From the sublime to the vicious.
The fairy tale: Except for the Disney animated movie (which is typical for
Disney) the original story did NOT involve violence, unless I've not seen all
the renditions.
We can go WAY back with regard to this scenario. The Lord of the Underground
who has the lady (what is her name?) for half the year (autumn and winter) but
must let her go the other half of the year (spring and summer). But she goes
willingly...
Tarzan and Jane... :-)
Enough for now...
JoAnne
JChap0217
> I would also like to see them in other things together.
>Wonder if Linda would make a guest appearance on M7???? <g>
Great idea, Judy!! Somebody --- Quick --- Get in touch with her agent!!!!!
<G>
Julie
JChap0217
> I could watch the two of them in
>> another project that is not BatB. I would like to see a BatB movie with
>> them, but I would also like to see them in other things together.
>
>So would I.
>
>> Wonder if Linda would make a guest appearance on M7????
>
Why do yo say that, Sandra? LH made guest appearances on Frasier! <g>
Teri
> >tap:
whole
> history of the BATB fairytale suddenly revises itself to >fit this new
> storyline direction because Koslow redirected it for a >tv series,
regardless
> of the reason he did it.
> JoAnne:
> Yeah, that's what it means, since that's precisely what Koslow did.
tap2:
So if I wrote story and called it Noah's Arc, only in it there weren't two
of each creature on the boat, but instead only one, would it then have
equal footing and be just as valid as the one quoted in numerous biblical
version by numerous translators over time, all of which tell the tale as
having two of each? Would the validity (or lack thereof) change if I
somehow convinced someone to televise my version? To me the answer is very
clear - It isn't the same and it doesn't have the same degree of validity.
This is what I mean by 'a rose by any other name...'
The 'Beauty and the Beast' fairytale outline has a commonality to it which
allows various versions to still be perceived as 'Beauty and the Beast' by
large audiences which crosses cultures widely - even if the beast looks
like a lion instead of a pig or some animal hybrid. IOW, the beast *can*
look like a lion instead of a pig, but the nature of the beast - the basic
premise - can remain intact. But take away the Beauty and the basic
premise is gone completely.
Some things are incidental to the story, some things are integral. There
are a lot of incidentals with most mythology and folk tales - thus the
ability to set those stories in different times and different places with
different secondary characters while still keeping the main themes intact.
However, The Beast and his Beauty are definitely integral to this
particular story, as are differences which separate the Beast from the rest
of mankind - so that he must live in a world apart - and the destined love
of a soul who enters his world, at first unknowingly, but then eventually
crosses that boundary (the lines between the world grow thin... : ) by her
own free will to be with him. And of course the fairytale ends with the
ubiquitious 'and they all lived happily everafter' happy ending.
I love the way the series remained true to the integral themes of the
fairytale. I knew there was a happily everafter ending out there and was
thoroughly enjoying observing just a part of the many adventures the beauty
and her beast encountered on their way towards that happy ending and happy
life together. I don't need to see that actual ending - the little
adventures are all I expected in television, while the zines provide a
little more ; > but I did expect to see progression, and imo we got that,
even though many of us wanted Koslow to be a little less stingy with the
pace : > I'll be very happy with another adventure for this couple should
a movie take place, whether Koslow shows them absolutely reaching their
happy life together or not - as long as he shows them merrily on their way
toward it with a good deal of emphasis on their relationship as well as the
action/adventure.
Teri
> JoAnne:
> Twasn't enchantment created the Beast in the TV series - 'twas genetic
> manipulation.
tap:
Ah, but we don't know that! We only have that implied in the series, given
to us in bits and pieces as part of the Paracelsus lore. Along with that
we've also been given several very dramatic warnings not to easily believe
what we hear or think we know of him. This is a mystery that bears further
investigation, imo, and one of the reasons I would dearly love to have that
character back in a movie. Of course a nightmare scenario which
encompasses part of the third season still allows for that possibility...
; > Actually, even the coma scenario allows for it with some devious
twists that would have to be shown in flashback - and Paracelsus is nothing
if not devious! : >
To tell you the truth, I really don't want the mystery of Vincen'ts origins
revealed. I can't help but think that once known, the answer will either
be a letdown (genetic mutation) or seem silly (alien parent - hehehe). I
would, however, like to investigate the mysterious history between Jacob
and John and their early years in the tunnels, perhaps even their history
pre-tunnels. It seems there is much more there than meets the eye. In
'Dead of Winter', John (Paracelsus) pauses when he could have struck Jacob
(Father) down. Is that sympathy? Is it a glimpse of some good remaining
it him? What is it? I think it would be deliciously intriguing if John
and Jacob turned out to be *real* brothers! Now there's a twist on the ep
'Brothers', which dealt with male bonds; Devin and Charles, Devin and
Vincent, Vincent and Charles, Devin and Father, Vincent and Father. Sigh!!
When Koslow does it right, he really does it well!
--
Catherine and Vincent, together forever!
Teri
Check out http://www.rtchaos.com/cabb/cabb.html for Classic BATB stuff!
(stories under the 'Tunnel Tales' and 'Sampler' links)
Teri
> > JoAnne:
> > Twasn't enchantment created the Beast in the TV series - 'twas genetic
> > manipulation.
> tap:
> Ah, but we don't know that! We only have that implied in the series,
given
> to us in bits and pieces as part of the Paracelsus lore. Along with that
> we've also been given several very dramatic warnings not to easily
believe
> what we hear or think we know of him. This is a mystery that bears
further
> investigation, imo, and one of the reasons I would dearly love to have
that
> character back in a movie. Of course a nightmare scenario which
> encompasses part of the third season still allows for that possibility...
tap:
Error, error, does not compute, Norman coordinate! Norman here : > The
words 'third season' in the last line above should be replaced with
'trilogy' to make sense.
Bergeron22
>tap:
>$50?! I coulda sworn it was $20.... ; >
>
>
>
:-)
JoAnne
the northsider
I was about to put this on the shelf with a lot of sermons I have heard
in my time :); but, finally could not let just one thing go unsaid.
You see, I don't think that most of "man's inhumanity" to man is about
judgement at
all. It is about power and greed. We make the judgements you are
talking about in
order to justify what we are going to do anyway; and, we would do them
anyway!
the northsider
Teri wrote:
> tap2:
> When I said the main premise of the batb story boils down to the destined
> love of the beauty and the beast, I wasn't referring to the series, but to
I don't think destiny is at the common theme at the heart of the fairy
tale
at all. In most versions, it is not destined that Beauty will fall in
love
with the Beast. That is what it will take to break the spell; but, it
is
not destined that the spell will even be broken.
Sandra
Teri wrote:
> tap2:
> You're right that it certainly is a matter of opinion as to which (or both)
> stories a fan likes, but it's not a matter of opinion as to whether the
> story does or does not fit the traditional tale. That's literature and
> mythology. You can say you have an opinion on what it is, but that doesn't
> change the fact that the 3S eps are no longer the traditional fairytale
> story about a beast and his destined beauty. You can say that new story
> is fine with you, but that doesn't mean the whole history of the BATB
> fairytale suddenly revises itself to fit this new storyline direction
> because Koslow redirected it for a tv series, regardless of the reason he
> did it.
There is more than one way to interpret the Bible, there is more than
one
way to interpret Shakespear, and there is more than one way to interpret
a fairy tale.
If there is any "right" way to interpret any of these things above, no
living human being can tell!
Sandra
Teri wrote:
> tap2:
> I got upset because the poll was so extrememly unscientific and poorly
> done. That means it's not going to accurately reflect what is and isn't so
> except perhaps in the actually people who answered the poll, and perhaps
> not even in them. This was your point in not liking or accepting the
> polling data I quoted from USA Today.
You are talking about the Nielson Ratings which are not exactly a poll
although
I have no argument with their validity. I do argue with your numbers
and your
interpretation of those numbers.
> Where we disagree on that issue is
> that I think that was a scientific poll (and therefore probably was
> designed with a high degree of certainty built into it) while this was not
> (and that's not an opinion - it absolutely was not).
It is your opinion.
> However, I'm sure she
> would be the first to tell you that it was not her intent to do a
> scientific poll, but rather just to ask people how they felt. The problem
> is that:
>
> 1. She didn't define her terms when she asked the question. You and I
> both call ourselves Classic, but we obviously define 'Classic' slightly
> somewhat differently. I think the AS fan group is the most nebulous of
> all, and definitely requires defining for any fan to be able to
> characterize themselves accurately within it. She did separate that group
> out into several catagories, as that goes some ways toward indicating the
> differences which exist, but left ambiguity in them.
She did not use term classic or all-season; and, there was no ambiquity
in
the questions!
> 2. She had people discussing what they chose and why they chose the options
> they did publicly on the mailing list while people were still answering
> their questions. People would ask for the clarification she didn't give
> them and then a bunch of fans would jump in with their interpretation and
> there would be several answers (sometimes many) for the fan to take into
> account when trying to determine what answer best defined them. Again,
> that means there's a huge error built into the study right from the get-go.
Not so! You may have your interpretation; but, I have my memories and
my memory
is very good!
> 3. This poll was of a small group of fandom, mostly online. She asked the
> groups she belongs in (and groups form for specific reasons, often around
> seasonal preference - you may not like it, but it is most certainly so in
> this fandom) and the friends she knows. The small number of responses and
> their particular residence in a a small sliver of electronic media means
> again that the poll can in no way be used to interpret a population outside
> of those polled themselves, and that even that can not be done well given
> the lack of definitions and ambiguity.
The poll was only intended to represent the online fandom; and, response
was
good from many groups. The only group that did not respond were a few
classic
fans on what I would call the extreme end of the classic scale. And
this is my opinion, I know; but, it was pretty obvious that you did not
participate because you were afraid of being out voted. If you have
thought
there was any chance that the extreme classic position would win, you
would
have been right there voting!!!
> 4. The normal purpose of a poll, unless it's a census - which this of
> course was not - is to take a statistically representative small group and
> with the use of statistical methods apply their profile overtop of a much
> larger population. This can be done with almost any chosen degree of
> certainty, depending upon the pains you're willing to take with your poll
> group and study, from very low to very high. By degree of certainty, I
> don't mean you can say anything 'absolute', but that there you can say that
> *on average*, the population understudy (of whom the polling group
> represents) will feel this way on this issue Y% of the time with an X%
> degree of certainty. This was not how the poll was done, yet, as knew it
> would be, people who didn't know any better would later on quote those
> figures anecdotally and apply meaning and interpretation to them where
> there is no valid way to do so (from a statistical, scientific standpoint).
> You may argue that you feel the same way about Harris, Neilson and
> Price-Waterhous polling, but those are professional groups who specialize
> in this particular field of mathematics.
You are throwing up a smoke screen. The purpose of the poll was to poll
the
small online fandom of that time. That is what was done. The results
of
the poll were not supposed to represent any other group at large. It
really
isn't necessary when the =whole= group represented is being polled!
> You were worried that the professional polls were manipulated and
> misleading, though that is only speculation on your part,
I did not say that those polls were manipulated, just that it is
possible to
manipulate any poll, even professional and scientific ones; and, if you
are
really a scientist, you know that!
> but you seem happy with this one
I did mention results of the poll; but, that was not what my post was
about.
I said that, in my experience with the online fandom, that fans do fall
in
the five categories in the poll.
Find me someone who does not and I will reconsider!
Becky's poll was not a poll of "why" but "what."
>
> > Sandra:
> > There are all kinds of positions in between. Becky's poll did a good
> > job of putting those positions on a sliding scale. Most of us will fit
> > somewhere on that scale.
>
> tap2:
> Depending on your definitions for the terms, which were not included when
> done. Yes we'll all fit, but we won't necessarily fit in the correct place
> as we might have envisioned in it answering the quesions.
Yes, we did; because we are the one's who chose where we wanted to be
put!
>
> > Sandra:
> > My experience in the fandom has taught me that most of those on either
> > extreme side of the scale tend to view those inbetween as extreme.
>
> tap2:
> My experience in fandom has taught me that most of those on either extreme
> side of the scale tend to view those inbetween as moderate. OTOH, my
> experience in fandom has taught me that most of those in the middle of the
> scale tend to view those on the outer edges as extreme. It's the classic
> bell-curve example.
>
> > Sandra:
> > Nan Dibble, for example, thinks I am an extreme classic fan because I
> > defend Catherine to her. :)
>
It is a bell curve; but, what I am saying is that those on the two far
sides
seldom make a differentiation between those in the middle and those on
the far
side of the position they take.
> tap2:
> Yes, and that fits into my speculation on what 3S fans believe - at least
> in part. I have AS fans who get taken to task all the time by 3S fans for
> defending Catherine. It gives me the impression that they want her
> denigrated (a fictional character) and sometimes even LH herself, the
> actor.
I agree. If Diana and Jo Anderson are so wonderful than Catherine and
Linda
Hamilton cannot be... :)
> Remember that awful tirade about her with speculation about drug
> use (years ago vs now), her leaving the story, her looks, yada yada yada,
> in OLAH about 2 years back
If you recall, you and I were on the same side.
> (not by Nan)?
Nan has two hats: her professional fan hat in which she is fair to both
Catherine and Linda Hamilton, and her private fan hat where she has
different
opinions and attitudes.
> I find it very offensive that
> someone would speculate so maliciously and so publicly about a person they
> could have no first hand knowledge of, all in the attempt (at least imo) of
> denigrating a character the actor plays on television. It's not only
> offensive to me, but it's also very weird.
That particular person, you know I had a very unpleasant run in with
less than
a year ago! :)
geniepiper
There are so many versions of BATB, none of us is familiar with all of
them; but,
as Disney once said, "Basically BATB is about two people who have dinner
every night." :)
As for the rest of what you said, sounds like something some preacher
would say. :)
geniepiper
'Cause I don't expect to get lucky; and because M7 isn't the big show
that Frasier is.
OTOH if M7 does become a big hit, the probability that LH would appear
on it is increased and IMO the probability of a BATB movie is increased!
Teri
> > tap:
> > that I think that was a scientific poll (and therefore probably was
> > designed with a high degree of certainty built into it) while this was
not
> > (and that's not an opinion - it absolutely was not).
> Sandra:
> It is your opinion.
tap2:
If you consider it an opinion when it's based on a well-defined field of
mathematics I have studied extensively, in an academic, scientific
environment and put into practice in a corporate environment, then feel
free to call it an opinion ; >
> > 2. She had people discussing what they chose and why they chose the
options
> > they did publicly on the mailing list while people were still answering
> > their questions. People would ask for the clarification she didn't
give
> > them and then a bunch of fans would jump in with their interpretation
and
> > there would be several answers (sometimes many) for the fan to take
into
> > account when trying to determine what answer best defined them. Again,
> > that means there's a huge error built into the study right from the
get-go.
> Sandra:
> Not so! You may have your interpretation; but, I have my memories and
> my memory
> is very good!
tap2:
In this case your memory is wrong. They discussed the polling before she
closed and published the polls. People asked for clarification (and
rightly so, given the ambiguity I think was in the poll) but not to Becky
privately, to the bbtv group at large (I have no idea what went on in other
groups). Lots of different responses were given to many requests, but of
course almost everyone's opinion differed slightly depending upon their
interpretation of each choice. And there were actually posted responses
where a fan, all in the attempt to be helpful, I'm sure, answered with a
suggestion of how they thought that fan should answer based on what they'd
heard them saying in the past on the mailing list - oh yeah, that's a good
poll ; >
tap2:
I belong to a Classic group online, and maybe Becky isn't aware of us, but
we were not polled. Though to be fair, I wouldn't have taken part in it
then anymore than I did with the original as posted to bbtv. And no, it
didn't matter to me what the results were - it's just an online fandom
questionaire. Otherwise, as you say, I would have voted, and yet I didn't.
I already know what the feelings are of the greater population - it's been
determined extensively by professionals (and I have no doubt as to their
ability to conduct a scientifically valid poll), so I have no need of
further, unscientific ones in small slices of fandom.
tap2:
I said clearly above that the purpose of Becky's poll was just to find out
how individuals feel who answered - you need to reread the beginning part
of my post. And in the above, I'm describing what the scientific purpose
of a poll is - and that is the definition. My point was to distinguish
between what a poll is and what Becky did. And while I said (again) that
it was probably not Becky's intent to do a scientific 'poll', it was
inevitable that after some time someone would call it that and imply a
significance to it where there isn't any.
> > tap2:
> > Yes, and that fits into my speculation on what 3S fans believe - at
least
> > in part. I have AS fans who get taken to task all the time by 3S fans
for
> > defending Catherine. It gives me the impression that they want her
> > denigrated (a fictional character) and sometimes even LH herself, the
> > actor.
> Sandra:
> I agree. If Diana and Jo Anderson are so wonderful than Catherine and
> Linda
> Hamilton cannot be... :)
tap2:
Yes, I find it strange that any time I say I disliked the D character,
someone jumps in with a defense of JA. It's even stranger yet that it's
always the same group of people who attack LH personally, then go on to
make negative statements about the C character. I don't have a problem if
they disliked C - that's part of the preference for their fiction. But to
take it out on LH is clearly beyond the pale, just as I would never
attribute negativity to JA purely because I don't like a fictional
character created by Koslow which she happens to play.
> > Remember that awful tirade about her with speculation about drug
> > use (years ago vs now), her leaving the story, her looks, yada yada
yada,
> > in OLAH about 2 years back
> Sandra:
> If you recall, you and I were on the same side.
tap2:
I didn't mean to imply you were, only that I was pretty sure you were
subscribed to OLAH and would remember - it was pretty memorable!
> >tap:
> > (not by Nan)?
> Sandra:
> Nan has two hats: her professional fan hat in which she is fair to both
> Catherine and Linda Hamilton, and her private fan hat where she has
> different
> opinions and attitudes.
tap2:
And I only added the (not by Nan) to make sure no one thought I was
implying so, since I had been referring to her the sentence before, in
response to something you'd said.
> > tap:
> > I find it very offensive that
> > someone would speculate so maliciously and so publicly about a person
they
> > could have no first hand knowledge of, all in the attempt (at least
imo) of
> > denigrating a character the actor plays on television. It's not only
> > offensive to me, but it's also very weird.
> Sandra:
> That particular person, you know I had a very unpleasant run in with
> less than
> a year ago! :)
tap2:
That doesn't surprise me. I had my own unpleasant experience. Oh well,
when you swim with the sharks, you gotta swim fast! ; >
Bergeron22
Sandra wrties:
>I was about to put this on the shelf with a lot of sermons I have >heard in my
time :); but, finally could not let just one thing so >unsaid.
>You see, I don't think that most of "man's inhumanity" to man is >about
judgement at all. It is about power and greed. We make >the judgements you
are talking about in order to justify what we >are going to do anyway; and, we
would do them anyway!
According to the dictionary, "sermon" is a long, tedious speech given as
instructions on religion or morals. I now see the game you are playing, by the
use of that word, after all the posts I've put up, defining what I believe.
I'm the best there is at your game, Sandra, so let's engage. It's always been
fun for me; hope it is for you. :-)
Judgment of others is always denied by those who are more interested in
delivering "sob" stories and how bad the "system" is and how badly they are
being treated than they are in changing their circumstances. But, they are oh,
so sanguine when it comes to how well they are holding up against the odds.
Your move. :-)
JoAnne
Bergeron22
>As for the rest of what you said, sounds like something some preacher
>would say. :)
>
>--
>=Sandra=
The terror of a possible god usually shows up in a person's preoccupation with
religion. :-)
JoAnne
OMEN
>JoAnne:
> who has the lady (what is her name?) for half the year (autumn and
winter) but
> must let her go the other half of the year (spring and summer). But she
goes
> willingly...
Persephone. :)
Carla
______________________________
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
AdamsGreg&Judy
Judy: Persephone is mentioned in "When the Phoenix Sings", a zine you
can get through the Lending Library. I think it's on CABB's page. I
read it twice before sending it back. --Judy--
Teri
tap:
Warning: Zine review and spoiler below!!
There's a wonderful Classic BATB zine by Sue Glasgow called 'When the
Phoenix Sings' (7/93). It's still one of my all-time favorites and I
reread it regularly. She puts a twist on the Phersephone mythology and
makes her a very willing bride to her dark, underground groom, unhappy to
return to her family 'above' : > but like a dutiful daughter with
responsibilities doing it nonetheless, for six months out of every year.
The story isn't an alternate universe one, but she makes use of the theme
of Phersephone on several levels - a children's class below that
Catherine's teaching involving mythology along a recurring dream Vincent
has which involves the Kristopher and Mr. Smythe, of 'When the Blue Bird
Sings' (hence the title). Along with these two is the sudden reappearance
of a helper who coincidentally went to college with Catherine. He later
becomes a well-known portrait artist, and what-do-you-know, has done some
*very* interesting pics of Cathy from her college days and just happens to
have them in his portfolio when he makes a visit back to NY and the
tunnels. No, he and C were not an item, but it seems C did some body
modeling in her risque youth for some art classes at Radcliffe. They're
supposed to be studies of body types, no heads, but apparently he worked on
a project long term, using C (unbeknownst to her) as his subject which
involved - you got it - the Phersephone myth. Seems everyone at winterfest
sees the headless body work, but only V gets a glimpse of the later project
and puts it all together. The dream plays out to a resolution in
real-life, putting Vincent in jeopardy and bringing Catherine to his aid in
a very delicate way - you'll *love* this scene!!! Throughout the whole
thing it seems that poor Vincent can't escape the various conversations and
remarks - by the children of all things - about Phersephone and their
innocent speculation that they think she was one happy camper with
oh-so-romantic bride-groom. It's inevitable, of course, and Romance ensues
in a very satisfactory way ; > Sigh!
Sue does a wonderful job of mixing romance, love, tenderness, eroticism and
the bond - all absolute musts, imo, for good V&C romance stories. She's
also good at surrounding the two heroes with secondary tunnel characters
and making them all come to life, but it's Catherine and Vincent who hold
you enthralled throughout this story. There's this one scene (the one
where C is caring for V) that just knocks my socks off each time I read it
- wow! Search out the lending library, guys, and find this gem if at all
possible! It's a real keeper!!
P.S. Vincent loves the pics of Catherine, needless to say, and as his old
friend Bryce the artist says, 'Vincent's not as prudish as everyone down
here thinks he is' - hehehe.
--
Catherine and Vincent, together forever!
Teri
Check out http://www.rtchaos.com/cabb/cabb.html for Classic BATB stuff!
(stories under the 'Tunnel Tales' and 'Sampler' links)
OMEN <car...@onr.com> wrote in article
<01bd14e9$1c4596a0$240968ce@carlah>...
Teri
>Joann:
>-- I heartily second tap's recommendation (as if any were needed!) -- this
>is a wonderful 'zine! Teri -- is "Phoenix" the one that has that
wonderful
>short "fable" at the beginning about V & C (having to do with one white
>and one red rose in the Crystal Cavern)? If so, I have to say that it
>chokes me up every time I read it, it's so beautiful and fitting.
tap2:
That's the one, Joann. After writing the post on it last night I had to
pick it up and begin reading it again - sigh! The prologue has nothing to
do with the story, but everything to do with the fairytale, and it's so
lovely. She wrote it as a short stand-alone piece earlier - 1991, I
believe. I don't think Sue would mind if I posted the prologue - that
short tale, so here it is:
The Storyteller
by Sue Glasgow
Gather closely and I shall tell you the favorite of the long ago stories...
of the time when our world was in its infancy. Of the time before the
Peace, when our people still held tightly to the Tunnels of Below, and
feared the light of Above... before we flowed freely from Below to Above
and back again.
The Father... a good man of strength and vision... founded the tunnel
world. But even greater than the Father was the Golden Prince who was
found as a babe outside St. Vincent’s hospital in the ancient city of New
York. The Prince was a being of miracles... terrible and wonderful... and
dearly beloved by all the People.
And the Prince loved the People in return... but the depths of his devotion
belonged to the Lady from Above. Many were the joys, sorrows, and dreams
which became their destiny. Great was the strength and courage which they
shared through a bond which the People could not understand.
A time of darkness fell upon the hearts of the People, but you must know
that the Prince and his Lady survived the darkness and lived to experience
many wondrous adventures together. But those are another story.
I tell you now of the later days.... when the Golden Prince grew old and
his brilliant mane turned to silver. His Lady remained most exceedingly
fair even into the last of her long life.
But no man can stop the years, and at last came the time when the Lady had
fulfilled her days, and she breathed her last oath of eternal love to her
Prince. The agonizing roar which echoed through the width of the Tunnel
World filled the People with such great sorrow as they had never known.
The aged Prince spoke to no man. His children watched him go in silence,
knowing that he took with him the very end of the beginnings. He bore the
tender body of his Lady to a place far, far below... a chamber of marvelous
crystal dreams. And there he laid the precious form upon a crystal couch.
Many were the days which passed... until the People could wait no longer
for the return of their beloved defender. At last his favorite son went in
search of his father... far down to the magic chamber. But when the young
prince entered, there was no being alive or dead within the crystal walls.
Only this did he find... two roses... one red, one white... lying
entertwined upon the couch of brilliant stone.
The years will pass, even when a world mourns...
And the years brought with them a renewing miracle. Children were born,
and children grew old... but sometimes a child would be born who was
different. A babe, with the mark of a golden mane and the delicate split
in the upper lip, would come forth from the womb and bless the generation
in which it lived. Through these children we have come to this time of
resolution and peace with the Above.
And so it is that even unto this very age we can still expect these very
special children who carry the gift of bonding.
This is our legacy from the Prince and his Lady... but their story does not
end here. You need to know that through all the decades and centuries a
presence has been felt, especially in the happiest of times. At
Winterfest... when a waltz is played... the tapestries sometimes flutter
without a breeze and across the pictures two shadows move as one.
There is a story among the children that... as they play... a terrible and
wonderful beast of great beauty walks hand-in-hand with a lady of exceeding
fairness... and the couple smile upon the children.
And young lovers who go to the old abandoned entrance at the drain in the
park have often reported a mysterious tapping upon the pipes... in a code
so old it is forgotten. And if the young lovers are very still and remain
in the shadows, they may see a marvelous Golden Prince come through the
rusted old gate and greet the lovely Lady from Above. And she touches his
face and says, “Forever, my beloved?”
And he kisses her gently and answers, “Forever.”
(The following passage was written for the South of Oz con, June, 1991)
And so we come now to this time and place. The walls have grown thin
between Above and Below... and sunshine and candlelight blend as one.
We come to claim our inheritance as each of us becomes a caretaker of the
love. Dreams and love are fragile only if they are not shared. It is by
telling the dream to another that we are able to clutch it most firmly to
our own hearts. It is by standing tall in our unity that our love is
strengthened and given power.
As two roses found their beginnings in a crystal chamber, we find new
beginnings in ourselves. It is not over. It is beginning. And when we
are asked how long we shall dream... when we are asked how long we shall
love... we will remember the answer given by the Golden Prince, and we will
lift our hands together.
I ask the children, “How long shall we dream?”
And the children shall answer, “Forever.”
And I ask the people, “How long shall we love?”
And together we answer...
“Forever.”
**************************************************************************
And this story so appropriately goes with the Neil Diamond song which has
been posted here so recently - the themes are exactly the same:
THE STORY OF MY LIFE
The story of my life
Is very plain to read:
It starts the day you came
And ends the day you leave.
The story of my life
Begins and ends with you,
The names are still the same--
The story's still the truth.
I was alone.
You found me waiting, and made me your own.
I was afraid
That somehow, I never could be
The man that you wanted of me.
You're the story of my life,
And every word is true:
Each chapter sings your name,
Each page begins with you.
It's the story of our time--
Of never letting go.
And if I die today,
I wanted you to know.
Stay with me here.
Share with me, care with me,
Stay and be near.
And when it began,
I'd lie awake every night,
Just knowing, somewhere deep inside,
That our affair just might write
The story of my life.
It's so very plain to read:
It starts the day you came,
And ends the day
You leave.
**************************************************************************
Teri
>Kathy:
> So, is Phersephone Greek or Roman mythology? I have never heard
> this story before.
tap:
It's Greek. And I misspelled it before - it's Persephone. The story is
that Persophone is the daughter of a rich and famous woman. The King of
the Underworld, on a journey above, falls in love with her. An arrangement
is made whereby the mother must give up her daughter for six months out of
the year so that she can reside in the underworld with the king, her
husband. In exchange she is allowed to remain above with her mother for
the remaining six months of the year. While she is below, it is said that
spring withers and summer ends and the world turns to winter. I like to
think it's because Persephone brings the spring and summer below, to her
dark lord.
In the zine, Catherine is explaining why so many people suddenly are
putting a different twist on this myth, and she asks Vincent what he thinks
of it. In an attempt to avoid the issue of the new interpretation's
obvious analogy to his and Catherine's relationship, he responds - with a
deadpan expression that makes me chuckle every time - ' I think Persephone
is a fictitious character invented by the Greeks to explain the seasons.'
See, we aren't the only ones to dance around the real vs fictional issue -
hehehe!
Battershell
At 03:11 12/30/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>Kathy:
>> So, is Phersephone Greek or Roman mythology? I have never heard
>> this story before.
>
>tap:
>It's Greek. And I misspelled it before - it's Persephone. The story is
>that Persophone is the daughter of a rich and famous woman. The King of the
>Underworld, on a journey above, falls in love with her. An arrangement is
>made whereby the mother must give up her daughter for six months out of the
>year so that she can reside in the underworld with the king, her husband.
>In exchange she is allowed to remain above with her mother for the remaining
>six months of the year. While she is below, it is said that spring withers
>and summer ends and the world turns to winter. I like to think it's because
>Persephone brings the spring and summer below, to her dark lord.
Thanks. I looked in book and couldn't find with wrong spelling.
Kathy
ba...@ipa.net
Give me roses to remember in the shadow of December.
Margaret L. Woods.
geniepiper
Teri wrote:
>
> > > tap:
> > > Where we disagree on that issue is
> > > that I think that was a scientific poll (and therefore probably was
> > > designed with a high degree of certainty built into it) while this was
> not
> > > (and that's not an opinion - it absolutely was not).
>
> > Sandra:
> > It is your opinion.
>
> If you consider it an opinion when it's based on a well-defined field of
> mathematics I have studied extensively, in an academic, scientific
> environment and put into practice in a corporate environment, then feel
> free to call it an opinion ; >
You have said all that before; and, remember what I said? "You are
really Pat
Jackson in disguise!" :)
On GEnie, it was GEnie back then and not Genie, Pat would try to prove
that she
knew how the writers intended for the "third season arc" to end because
she was
a scientist and had studied it all. It didn't matter what GRRM said.
She knew
better; and, what she knew was a fact, not an opinion!
Well common sense tells me that GRRM knew what he meant; and, common
sense tells
me that a poll designed to poll only those that voted is accurate. How
could it
not be?
tap:
The poll was not ambiguous. If you think it was, tell me how.
My memory is not wrong. What discussion there was was mostly you having
a
panic attack :) and announcing that you and CABB would not vote!
However, just for the sake of argument, I will give this one to you. It
really
doesn't make any difference. Do people stop talking about the
presidential races,
do the news media stop covering them, just because Gallop is doing a
poll? Have
we stopped discussing the classic/third season schism just because TPTB
were having
a poll? In the real world such things are discussed during polls.
>
tap:
> > > 3. This poll was of a small group of fandom, mostly online. She asked
> the
> > > groups she belongs in (and groups form for specific reasons, often
> around
> > > seasonal preference - you may not like it, but it is most certainly so
I may not like it? :) I really don't care; but, although I can see why
you
believe that to be so, the facts are that there have been many BATB
online groups
that do not evolve around a seasonal preference. That only started with
the mailing
lists. On Genie, for instance, seasonal preference was not really an
issue.
And lest we forget, Becky is a classic fan!
> tap:
> I belong to a Classic group online, and maybe Becky isn't aware of us, but
> we were not polled. Though to be fair, I wouldn't have taken part in it
> then anymore than I did with the original as posted to bbtv. And no, it
> didn't matter to me what the results were - it's just an online fandom
> questionaire. Otherwise, as you say, I would have voted, and yet I didn't.
Becky is perfectly aware of your online classic only group. You had
already
discussed it on the mailing list before the poll was taken.
When Becky decided to take her poll, you were very vocal about how you
and they
would not be voting although you were invited to. I also do not know how
many "they" there are outside of you and maybe Aurea.
tap:
> I already know what the feelings are of the greater population - it's been
> determined extensively by professionals (and I have no doubt as to their
> ability to conduct a scientifically valid poll), so I have no need of
> further, unscientific ones in small slices of fandom.
>
You have decided that the television ratings are a "poll." IMO that is
questionable
and not very good science. I know that they could have been affected by
other things
than just a distaste for the third season. The time change is one
thing. I know
two members of my family who stopped watching BATB on account of the
time change and
for no other reason. Also the third season episodes were shown during
the holiday
season, a time of what is traditionally very low viewership.
> tap2:
> I said clearly above that the purpose of Becky's poll was just to find out
> how individuals feel who answered - you need to reread the beginning part
> of my post. And in the above, I'm describing what the scientific purpose
> of a poll is - and that is the definition. My point was to distinguish
> between what a poll is and what Becky did. And while I said (again) that
> it was probably not Becky's intent to do a scientific 'poll', it was
> inevitable that after some time someone would call it that and imply a
> significance to it where there isn't any.
I was applying no significance to it. You are the one who gets all in a
panic about it. I was discussing the five groupings. I do believe that
BATB fans fall into those five groupings. Why they do is not the point,
just
that they do!
Actually there is not that big a difference between us. I do believe
that
most potential viewers of a BATB movie want Catherine back. I just
believe
they are a little less exacting than you are; and, I believe that TPTB
have
gotten the message that the public wants Catherine to return; but, IMO
that
is the only message they have gotten.
Teri
>Sandra:
> a
> panic attack :) and announcing that you and CABB would not vote!
tap:
I never, ever said this! Please produce this if you can, but you'd never
be able to. I would never presume to say such a thing for anyone else -
ever! And, btw, CABB was not the classic group I was speaking of when I
said there was no attempt to poll everyone. Twice in this post you said 'I
was in a panic', but so far as I can tell, your assessment for 'panic' only
requires that someone be in disagreement with you.
>Sandra:
>I believe that TPTB
> have
> gotten the message that the public wants Catherine to return; but, IMO
> that
> is the only message they have gotten.
tap:
Gee, I wonder what weird, twisted reason there might be for them only
getting that feedback? ;>
northsider
Bergeron22 wrote:
>
> Sandra wrties:
>
> >I was about to put this on the shelf with a lot of sermons I have >heard in my
> time :); but, finally could not let just one thing so >unsaid.
>
> >You see, I don't think that most of "man's inhumanity" to man is >about
> judgement at all. It is about power and greed. We make >the judgements you
> are talking about in order to justify what we >are going to do anyway; and, we
> would do them anyway!
>
> According to the dictionary, "sermon" is a long, tedious speech given as
> instructions on religion or morals. I now see the game you are playing, by the
> use of that word, after all the posts I've put up, defining what I believe.
>
> I'm the best there is at your game, Sandra, so let's engage. It's always been
> fun for me; hope it is for you. :-)
I wasn't calling what you said a sermon. I said I would put it on the
shelves with
sermons I have heard.
Most sermons don't make enough sense to me to get a handle on enough to
refute or
say anything about them. :)
> Judgment of others is always denied by those who are more interested in
> delivering "sob" stories and how bad the "system" is and how badly they are
> being treated than they are in changing their circumstances. But, they are oh,
> so sanguine when it comes to how well they are holding up against the odds.
>
Now that is a judgement; and, IMO has nothing to do with my statement of
why
I believe people kill, etc.
--
northsider
Teri wrote:
>
> >Kathy:
> > So, is Phersephone Greek or Roman mythology? I have never heard
> > this story before.
>
> tap:
> It's Greek. And I misspelled it before - it's Persephone. The story is
> that Persophone is the daughter of a rich and famous woman. The King of
> the Underworld, on a journey above, falls in love with her. An arrangement
> is made whereby the mother must give up her daughter for six months out of
> the year so that she can reside in the underworld with the king, her
> husband. In exchange she is allowed to remain above with her mother for
> the remaining six months of the year. While she is below, it is said that
> spring withers and summer ends and the world turns to winter. I like to
> think it's because Persephone brings the spring and summer below, to her
> dark lord.
>
> putting a different twist on this myth, and she asks Vincent what he thinks
> of it. In an attempt to avoid the issue of the new interpretation's
> obvious analogy to his and Catherine's relationship, he responds - with a
> deadpan expression that makes me chuckle every time - ' I think Persephone
> is a fictitious character invented by the Greeks to explain the seasons.'
>
> See, we aren't the only ones to dance around the real vs fictional issue -
> hehehe!
>
> --
> Catherine and Vincent, together forever!
>
> Teri
>
> Check out http://www.rtchaos.com/cabb/cabb.html for Classic BATB stuff!
> (stories under the 'Tunnel Tales' and 'Sampler' links)
"Hercules" did a fun "version" Persephone story. :)
Bergeron22
>Now that is a judgement; and, IMO has nothing to do with my statement of
>why
>I believe people kill, etc.
>
>--
>=Sandra=
Tsk. How often people are determined to confuse judgement [sic] with
observation. ;-)
JoAnne
Bergeron22
>The Lord of the Underground
>> who has the lady (what is her name?) for half the year (autumn and
>winter) but
>> must let her go the other half of the year (spring and summer). But she
>goes
>> willingly...
>Persephone. :)
>
>Carla
Thank you, Carla! And MANY thanks to those who put the entire story up for us!
JoAnne
northsider
Teri wrote:
>
> >Sandra:
> > My memory is not wrong. What discussion there was was mostly you having
> > a
> > panic attack :) and announcing that you and CABB would not vote!
>
> I never, ever said this! Please produce this if you can, but you'd never
> be able to. I would never presume to say such a thing for anyone else -
> ever! And, btw, CABB was not the classic group I was speaking of when I
> said there was no attempt to poll everyone. Twice in this post you said 'I
> was in a panic', but so far as I can tell, your assessment for 'panic' only
> requires that someone be in disagreement with you.
Teri, even if I produced it, there would be no way to prove that it was
genuine. You know enough about computers to know that.
No, a panic is the way you get whenever it is suggested that you may
not be in the majority as concerns your views on BATB.
As concerns what group you were speaking of when you said they would
not vote, it is true that you did not mention CABB by name. You said
just a group of classic fans that just couldn't bear the mention of
the third season, classic fans which I do not even know exist for sure.
Teri
> Sandra:
> Teri, even if I produced it, there would be no way to prove that it was
> genuine. You know enough about computers to know that.
tap:
It seems your 'good' memory is getting badder and badder by the minute,
Sandra ;>