Carter Wellan and Haresh Clay
RebeccaMW
a question. I have seen several posts that claimed they were obviously gay. I
didn't see any evidence of it except that Carter was kinda feminine looking
with all that blonde hair and they had been friends for 900 years. Did I miss
anything? or was that the sum total that started all the rumors. NOt that it
really matters, but I expected something alot more obvious from the degree of
certainty I read on the ng. What a great quickening. They made it look like
a lot of time had passed. The sky darkened. Was that just special effects or
did that mean something too?
Liked the episode too. enough angst for any HL fan.
Rebecca
A victim of the world wide Celtic diaspora. Denied my heritage! Denied the
Scottish Highlands! All for a bunch of sheep! Plan to hold the grudge
forever!
LZeitgeist
>
>I just watched the End of Innocence from my new season five videos. And I
>have
>a question. I have seen several posts that claimed they were obviously gay.
>I
>didn't see any evidence of it except that Carter was kinda feminine looking
>with all that blonde hair and they had been friends for 900 years. Did I
>miss
>anything? or was that the sum total that started all the rumors. NOt that it
>really matters, but I expected something alot more obvious from the degree of
>certainty I read on the ng.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I never got the impression that they were
gay. Of course, living in an incredibly stupid world that accuses Bert and
Ernie from Sesame Street to be gay (they're PUPPETS, people!!!!!! Fer
Chrissakes...), I suppose that any time you spot two male characters on the TV
or movie screen at the same time, they just *have* to be gay. ("Gee... I bet
Duncan and Richie were gay! I mean, you know they spent a loooot of time
together.... and who knows *what* they did when they weren't on camera... I bet
Amanda was just a 'marriage of convenience' for Duncan..." NO!!!! It doesn't
mean *ANYTHING*!!!! Richie and Duncan were *FRIENDS*, dammit!!! *sigh* Friends,
just like Carter Wellan and Haresh Clay.)
So to answer your question, unless one of the writers steps in here to say that
they were written to be gay, then no, they were not gay, and I personally, have
no idea where the rumors started. It's not surprising that the rumors started,
but as far as I know, they're not true.
LZeit...@aol.com -- Patrick W. Heinske
/} ShadowPlayers
@#####{ ]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\} Stage Combat Group
"...the Four Horsemen ride again... "
Robert Schechter
>
> I just watched the End of Innocence from my new season five videos. And I have
> a question. I have seen several posts that claimed they were obviously gay. I
> didn't see any evidence of it except that Carter was kinda feminine looking
> with all that blonde hair and they had been friends for 900 years. Did I miss
> anything? or was that the sum total that started all the rumors. NOt that it
> really matters, but I expected something alot more obvious from the degree of
> a lot of time had passed. The sky darkened. Was that just special effects or
> did that mean something too?
> Liked the episode too. enough angst for any HL fan.
I more or less assumed that they were, just from the overall impression,
but it doesn't really matter, as you say. The new Watcher Chronicles
supports that theory, BTW.
Yes, that was a nice quickening. It's a real favorite with a good many
people. Several of them have the sky darkening, sometimes because they
ran out of light, but sometimes on purpose, seemingly.
Eleanor
Velia Tanner and Friends
>
>So to answer your question, unless one of the writers steps in here to say that
>they were written to be gay, then no, they were not gay, and I personally, have
>no idea where the rumors started. It's not surprising that the rumors started,
>but as far as I know, they're not true.
If the sexuality of a character is unspecified, why are they "not gay" until
further notice?
There are quite a few characters on HL of whom it is never said what their
sexual preference is. They might be either.
V.
--
=========================================================================
Betcha on land, they understand; bet they don't reprimand their daughters
Bright young women, sick of swimmin', ready to stand...
-- The Little Mermaid ||ve...@netcom.com||
==========================================================================
lhw...@ix.netcom.com
differently from anyone else -- Republicans, in wheelchairs, on Wall Street,
Buddhists, etc. Some percentage of the population is gay. Thus, some
percentage of the Immortals whacked on the show were gay, whether some ugly
cuss like Durgan or the gently handsome Carter Whelan.
My point is this: If we don't see a character write or wield a sword, we
can't tell whether she is left-handed or right-handed. Odds are she's
right-handed, since most folks are, but just because it's not stated doesn't
mean she's *not* left-handed.
By the same token, if it wasn't stated clearly in the story, then we fans
can't state with certainty whether they were gay or not. But that doesn't
prove that they were *not* gay any more than it proves they *were* gay.
Thus, speculation either way seems open to me, such as for fan fiction.
Further, even if one or both of them *are* gay, that doesn't mean they would
have sex with each other any more than two straight people of the opposite
sex. I'm straight, and I have some close, longstanding male friends that I
wouldn't sleep with if we were the last two people on the planet -- that
chemistry just isn't there.
Also, even if one or both of them are straight, that doesn't mean that they
don't or haven't ever had sex with each other. There's a difference between
situation and orientation.
Finally, does it really matter? Finding someone you can relate to for the
long haul is a wonderful thing. Losing someone you've known for 900 years
would be traumatic regardless of whether you've been lovers for any of that
time. *That* was the point of the story.
Regards,
Louise
Jim Byrnes Appreciation Place jbap.org
Jim Byrnes Video Retrospective www.darkmage.net/jbvideo
Someone replied:
>...unless one of the writers steps in here to say that
> they were written to be gay, then no, they were not gay,...
Someone asked:
> >I just watched the End of Innocence from my new season five videos. And I
> >have a question. I have seen several posts that claimed they were
> >obviously gay. I didn't see any evidence of it...
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
John A. Biltz
watched it a few times since then and while there is nothing conclusive, I
think they were too. Nothing I can put my finger on just the overall
impression. There must be some Gay immies. I would think they would
ststatistically be the same as everyone else. I could be wrong, seems like
a judgement call but I think they were Gay, not that there is anything wrong
with that.
The three Moose of the Apocalypse doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it?
I was Death, Death on a Moose.
Its Mooseday, he doesn’t take heads on Mooseday.
Robert Schechter wrote in message <35C5C2...@worldnet.att.net>...
>RebeccaMW wrote:
>>
>> I just watched the End of Innocence from my new season five videos. And
I have
>> a question. I have seen several posts that claimed they were obviously
gay. I
LZeitgeist
>lzeit...@aol.com (LZeitgeist) writes:
>>
>>So to answer your question, unless one of the writers steps in here to say
>that
>>they were written to be gay, then no, they were not gay, and I personally,
>have
>>no idea where the rumors started. It's not surprising that the rumors
>started,
>>but as far as I know, they're not true.
>
>If the sexuality of a character is unspecified, why are they "not gay" until
>further notice?
>
>There are quite a few characters on HL of whom it is never said what their
>sexual preference is. They might be either.
>
>
O.K. - your point. You are absolutely right - if unspecified, they could be
either.
However, I think this is quite possibly the most worthless conversation I've
ever entered into in regards to HL:tS, because it just doesn't matter. The
story tells the same either way.
Helga Abendroth
Well, I thought they may be gay because of their closeness to each
other (900 years) and because Clay was really mad about loosing his
friend. Not mad like Duncan loosing Fitz, for example; but mad like
loosing a mate or lover. BTW I always thought Matlin and Curlow of
Blackmail to be gay, too, mainly for the same reasons: the way they
sticked together and acted to each other. Only an impression, though.
<just reaching, of course. But there really have to be some gay
immies, too. And perhaps most of the older ones have tried to bed both
sexes? Would seem really strange to me if curiosity never would start
kicking in, and I doubt that it is possible for an really attractive
Immie to live over a couple of hundreds of years without ever getting
an offer of the same sex. Speak about statistics. At least they should
have enough possibility and occasion to learn how to turn that down
politely without getting homophobic...> :-)
Helga <now, who do you folks suspect to be gay couples, too?>
<just curious>
Helga
LZeitgeist
>lzeit...@aol.com (LZeitgeist) wrote:
>
>>ve...@netcom.com (Velia Tanner and Friends) wrote:
>>
>>>lzeit...@aol.com (LZeitgeist) writes:
>>>>
>>>>So to answer your question, unless one of the writers steps in here to say
>>>that
>>>>they were written to be gay, then no, they were not gay, and I personally,
>>>have
>>>>no idea where the rumors started. It's not surprising that the rumors
>>>started,
>>>>but as far as I know, they're not true.
>>>
>>>If the sexuality of a character is unspecified, why are they "not gay"
>until
>>>further notice?
>>>
>>>There are quite a few characters on HL of whom it is never said what their
>>>sexual preference is. They might be either.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>O.K. - your point. You are absolutely right - if unspecified, they could be
>>either.
>>
>>However, I think this is quite possibly the most worthless conversation I've
>>ever entered into in regards to HL:tS, because it just doesn't matter. The
>>story tells the same either way.
>
>Well, I thought they may be gay because of their closeness to each
>other (900 years) and because Clay was really mad about loosing his
>friend. Not mad like Duncan loosing Fitz, for example; but mad like
>loosing a mate or lover. BTW I always thought Matlin and Curlow of
>Blackmail to be gay, too, mainly for the same reasons: the way they
>sticked together and acted to each other. Only an impression, though.
>
Not that you're right or wrong - we just don't know - but in regards to male
Immortals who spend centuries together naturally being gay, no one has (until
now) mentioned the bronze-age Fab Four - your favorites and mine, the famed
Four Horsemen.
They rode together for over a thousand years, "shared everything", and they
were kinda P.O.'d when their group was split asunder. How 'come nobody's
considering them to be gay?
(Not trying to start an arguement - just wondering at that very noticeable gap
in the thread of logic...)
RebeccaMW
>called him leather boy and what was said in the new Watcher Chronicles.
>
Jen,
Richie called him leather boy because he was wearing a black leather vest and
pants and he did look young with all that blond curly hair. I will check the
watcher Chronicles tonight and get back to you on that.
Also, if Carter Wellan was Haresh Clay's lover of 900 years and not just
another immie. Then I wish the episode had been written differently. Think
about it. If it had been a woman that Richie killed, who's lover of 900 years
came after him, I doubt if we would be cheering Richie on. Richie should have
been whacked right then and there. By Mac or Clay. He was a stupid, angry,
little twerp that ended the love affair of two intensly devoted people. Just a
thought.
John A. Biltz
LZeitgeist wrote in message
<199808051726...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
There was a lot of women slaves in the camp. They seemed to be acting
brutally heterosexual in their actions with Cassandra.
Moose must always triumph over evil, do you not know that.
Shomeret
Regardless of his sexual preference, Richie evidently killed a good man and I
was angry at him about it, though not quite as angry as I was about Jennifer
Hill in "Haunted".
Shomeret
Judith Cornish
>Also, if Carter Wellan was Haresh Clay's
> lover of 900 years and not just another
> immie. Then I wish the episode had
> been written differently. Think about it. If
> it had been a woman that Richie killed,
> who's lover of 900 years came after him,
> I doubt if we would be cheering Richie
> on. Richie should have been whacked
> right then and there. By Mac or Clay. He
> was a stupid, angry, little twerp that
> ended the love affair of two intensly
> devoted people. Just a thought.
I don't understand why it would have been worse for Richie to kill
Carter if he had been Clay's lover. Carter and Harish were obviously
"two intensely devoted people" reguardless of whether they were lovers
or not. Does the loss of a brother or son hurt less than the loss of a
lover? I thought Richie was acting like a "stupid, angry, little twerp"
when he challenged Carter for no reason but he was playing by the rules
of the Game. I would have been routing for Richie to win anyway because
I had an emotional investment in him after watching him 'grow up' for 5
years and I could understand why he was acting the way he was.
PEACE
Judy
MG
LZeitgeist wrote in message
<199808051726...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>gre...@vossnet.de (Helga Abendroth) wrote:
>
>
>Not that you're right or wrong - we just don't know - but in regards to
male
>Immortals who spend centuries together naturally being gay, no one has
(until
>now) mentioned the bronze-age Fab Four - your favorites and mine, the famed
>Four Horsemen.
>
>They rode together for over a thousand years, "shared everything", and they
>were kinda P.O.'d when their group was split asunder. How 'come nobody's
>considering them to be gay?
>
>(Not trying to start an arguement - just wondering at that very noticeable
gap
>in the thread of logic...)
Actually plenty of fan fiction has sort of covered the idea of various
members of the Horsemen having sex w/each other, either consensual or
otherwise. But their is so much else going on to discuss with them that it
just doesn't happen to get discussed that much on ATH.
Marg
John A. Biltz
season 4 and started liking him in season 5. I really did not think he was
wrong in killing in Haunted. He was really pushed by Alec. Do you think he
could have talked to Mac like that and walked away if they had never met
before. When two immies meet a fight is more likely to break out then not.
If you are as hostile as Alec was, a fight was a logical outcome. As for
victimizing his wife, she seemed to be awfully eager to be victimized. She
was the seducer not him. Richie made a mistake. He started thinking with
the wrong body part. Been known to happen to older and wiser men then him.
Duncan felt guilty about Richie, evil DM had turned Richie into a hunter.
Being helpless with Mac, who he had trusted, prepared to kill him caused him
to reject Mac's teaching. But, that fight was all Richie's fault and was
not necessary.
Shomeret wrote in message
<199808060238...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>Rebecca said about "The End of Innocence": >Either way as the days go by
and I
>think about that episode, I am
>>angrier and angrier at Richie. And more confused that Duncan didn't call
him
>>on it. Even through the 'game' have we ever seen Duncan kill without
>>remorse?
>>Over a trivial matter?
>
>No, we haven't and we never will. In "Haunted" Duncan rebukes Richie for
the
>death of Alec Hill saying that he could have walked away and Richie
defended
>himself in terms of The Game. Where's Richie's personal sense of ethics?
If
>this was how Richie behaved with Duncan's shining example always before
him,
>there's no doubt in my mind that he would have been a k'immie if he'd never
met
>Duncan.
>
>But Duncan genuinely felt toward Richie as a father toward a son even
though he
>did tell Richie that he wasn't his father. So he was willing to forgive
Richie
>no matter how he behaved. If this weren't so, he would have taken Richie's
>head in "Haunted" when Richie killed a good friend and then victimized his
wife
>out of moral cowardice.(Hey, I calls 'em as I sees 'em.) I used to not mind
>Richie before the fifth season and there were even a few episodes where I
felt
>sympathy toward him. Now the only way I can feel anything benign toward
Richie
>is by pretending the fifth season Richie never existed.
>
> Shomeret
>
>
>
>
>
>
John A. Biltz
Well, I certainly would not want to share a jail cell with one of them.
Kimlduff
>>were kinda P.O.'d when their group was split asunder. How 'come nobody's
>>considering them to be gay?
No one considers the 4 horsemen to be gay because of the Cassandra element. It
was certainly stated clearly that she was taken by Methos to serve him, in
every imaginable way.... Remember when he slides his hand up her leg.......
He wasn't patting her down for weapons you know...... All so you can see Silas
with a woman..directing her to his tent.... Can't remember about Caspian......
but Kronos demanded that Cassandra be shared with him first and then implied
the others.... Also, when Kronos meets up with Cassandra after a few thousand
yrs.... he comments about her being upright instead of on her back....
No I don't think the 4 horsemen aka murdering bunch of rapists..... were
gay....
IMHO
Kim
"I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way"
Jessica Rabbit Who Framed Roger Rabbit
RebeccaMW
>Carter if he had been Clay's lover. Carter and Harish were obviously
>"two intensely devoted people" reguardless of whether they were lovers
>or not. Does the loss of a brother or son hurt less than the loss of a
>lover? I thought Richie was acting like a "stupid, angry, little twerp"
>when he challenged Carter for no reason but he was playing by the rules
>of the Game. I would have been routing for Richie to win anyway because
>I had an emotional investment in him after watching him 'grow up' for 5
>years and I could understand why he was acting the way he was.
>
>PEACE
>Judy
>
Good point Judy. The loss of a brother or son is no worse than the loss of a
lover. Either way as the days go by and I think about that episode, I am
angrier and angrier at Richie. And more confused that Duncan didn't call him
on it. Even through the 'game' have we ever seen Duncan kill without remorse?
Over a trivial matter?
Shomeret
think about that episode, I am
>angrier and angrier at Richie. And more confused that Duncan didn't call him
>on it. Even through the 'game' have we ever seen Duncan kill without
>remorse?
>Over a trivial matter?
No, we haven't and we never will. In "Haunted" Duncan rebukes Richie for the
MG
John A. Biltz wrote in message <6qbf5a$1v2$1...@news.cyberhighway.net>...
>MG wrote in message <6qb5lf$3uo$1...@winter.news.erols.com>...
>>
>>LZeitgeist wrote in message
>><199808051726...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>>gre...@vossnet.de (Helga Abendroth) wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>Not that you're right or wrong - we just don't know - but in regards to
>>male
>>>Immortals who spend centuries together naturally being gay, no one has
>>(until
>>>now) mentioned the bronze-age Fab Four - your favorites and mine, the
>famed
>>>Four Horsemen.
>>>
>they
>>>were kinda P.O.'d when their group was split asunder. How 'come nobody's
>>>considering them to be gay?
>>>
noticeable
>>gap
>>>in the thread of logic...)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Actually plenty of fan fiction has sort of covered the idea of various
>>members of the Horsemen having sex w/each other, either consensual or
>>otherwise. But their is so much else going on to discuss with them that
it
>>just doesn't happen to get discussed that much on ATH.
>>
>>Marg
>>
>>
>
>Well, I certainly would not want to share a jail cell with one of them.
>
>Moose must always triumph over evil, do you not know that.
>The three Moose of the Apocalypse doesn’t have the same ring to it, does
it?
>I was Death, Death on a Moose
LOL! That is too funny.
Marg
Lily
Not that you're right or wrong - we just don't know - but in regards to
male
Immortals who spend centuries together naturally being gay, no one has
until
> >>>now) mentioned the bronze-age Fab Four - your favorites and mine, the
> >famed
> >>>Four Horsemen.
> >>>
> >>>They rode together for over a thousand years, "shared everything", and
> >they
> >>>were kinda P.O.'d when their group was split asunder. How 'come nobody's
> >>>considering them to be gay?
> >>>
> >>>(Not trying to start an arguement - just wondering at that very
> noticeable
> >>gap
> >>>in the thread of logic...)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Actually plenty of fan fiction has sort of covered the idea of various
> >>members of the Horsemen having sex w/each other, either consensual or
> >>otherwise. But their is so much else going on to discuss with them that
> it
> >>just doesn't happen to get discussed that much on ATH.
> >>
> >>Marg
As a fan of Oscar Wilde (you would never have guessed...), I feel
obliged to point out that Homosexuality was not looked upon negatively
in many cultures, or was ignored (unless of course you were dumb enough
to write a love letter to the son of a lord and then sue the lord for
liable when he claims you had sex with his son, but I digress again)...
My point is, that there were times when sex between two men was not a
sin (I think the greek culture looked at it favorably). So what if they
did have homosexual encounters?!
At Wilde's era men were expected to marry and have heirs. Their sexual
relationship with other men had a politically correct terminology (which
escapes me right now).
Sorry if I broke anybody's sexual fantasies!
Lily, who lives 20 minutes from San Francisco, loves Oscar Wilde and
suspects that somewhere there is a picture gallery filled with
Immortals' pictures that do age...!
--
********************************************************************************
"The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it" Oscar Wilde
********************************************************************************
Quote of the month:
=====================
The flapping of the sail against the mast,
The ripple of the water on the side,
The ripple of the girls' laughter at the stern,
The only sounds: -when 'gan the West to burn,
And a red sun upon the seas to ride,
I stood upon the soil of Greece at last
Impression De Voyage/ Oscar Wilde
********************************************************************************
My Email address is still: gily[at]pacbell[dot]net ;I am just trying to
avoid spam on my account. I do check the Wild...@hotmail.com account
often so don't worry if by mistake you tap on "reply"... &8-)
Helga Abendroth
>> Forget about Political Correctness what I want to know is why Richie
>>called him leather boy and what was said in the new Watcher Chronicles.
>
>>
>Jen,
>Richie called him leather boy because he was wearing a black leather vest and
>pants and he did look young with all that blond curly hair. I will check the
>watcher Chronicles tonight and get back to you on that.
>
>Also, if Carter Wellan was Haresh Clay's lover of 900 years and not just
>another immie. Then I wish the episode had been written differently. Think
>about it. If it had been a woman that Richie killed, who's lover of 900 years
>came after him, I doubt if we would be cheering Richie on. Richie should have
>been whacked right then and there. By Mac or Clay. He was a stupid, angry,
>little twerp that ended the love affair of two intensly devoted people. Just a
>thought.
>
>
>
>
>Rebecca
>A victim of the world wide Celtic diaspora. Denied my heritage! Denied the
>Scottish Highlands! All for a bunch of sheep! Plan to hold the grudge
>forever!
>
No, I don't think so, because Carter Wellan was playing the Game.
However tragc it was for Clay to lose him, it was a risk that Wellan
and Clay had to take - as would, for example, Robert and Gina de
Valincourt. On the other hand Richic *was* a stupid arrogant little
whelp who killed Wellan for *nothing* in that ep, regardless if Wellan
was Clays lover or just his friend. He was playing the Game, too, but
he had no reason at all to challenge Wellan but that his nose did not
suit him. Not a very nice move, then.
But then, well, the Game *is* (tragically) like that. If another
Immortal doesn't like you, challenge you for no reason, and win, there
you go... probably hundreds of years lost to the whim of one nasty boy
who had a bad day.
Helga <could understand Clay's anger, though>
Claire Maier
: Also, if Carter Wellan was Haresh Clay's lover of 900 years and not just
: another immie. Then I wish the episode had been written differently. Think
: about it. If it had been a woman that Richie killed, who's lover of 900 years
: came after him, I doubt if we would be cheering Richie on. Richie should have
: been whacked right then and there. By Mac or Clay. He was a stupid, angry,
: little twerp that ended the love affair of two intensly devoted people. Just a
: thought.
My thought is that Carter accepted the challenge. It's part of the Game.
He left the bar with Richie and they drove to a place where they could
fight. It's not like Carter had no choice. He could have said, "Some
other time," and stayed right where he was. But he didn't. If Carter
valued his relationship with Haresh Clay so much, then maybe he shouldn't
have taken challenges from immortals of unknown fighting ability.
And if Richie was a stupid, angry little twerp, than what does that say
about Haresh Clay when he took out Graham Ashe?
--
Claire Maier bioa...@emory.edu CLMaier (within AOL only)
To be different is not necessarily to be ugly;
to have a different idea is not necessarily to be wrong.
The worst possible thing is for all of us to begin
to look and act and think alike.
-- Gene Roddenberry
Claire Maier
: Re Richie in "The End of Innocence"- Well, I certainly wasn't cheering him on.
: was angry at him about it, though not quite as angry as I was about Jennifer
: Hill in "Haunted".
What makes you say Carter was a good man? We don't know enough about
either Carter or Clay to say.
But I don't give Clay high marks for what he did to Ashe or Duncan.
Greg Moody
Kurlowe and Matlin, or any/all of the Four Horsemen, etc.) . . . .
This is no different from the Kirk/Spock rumors, or Batman and Robin, or Holmes
and Watson . . . I could go on. The point is that, for whatever reason, many
people in our society don't seem to be able to conceive that two unrelated men can
have a close relationship without something "funny" going on. The thinking
apparantly is that any in any such relationship the men must either be openly gay
or have repressed tendancies.
Especially in fiction: Find any literary example of two grown men with a close
friendship, and before long you'll find someone who can "prove" that the
characters are homosexual by citing various examples, which usually boil down to
one of them giving a damn about what happens to the other.
I am not gay-bashing here, and I have nothing against homosexuals; "live and let
live" and all that. And I have nothing against speculation on the subject of "are
they or aren't they?" or slash fiction. It's just that I find the insistance that
"they're obviously gay" to be a bizzare form of prejudice. The only thing more
ridiculous, IMHO, is that it's such a big deal.
Greg M.
P.S. - I realize this might sound a little hostile. This IS NOT directed at
anyone in this thread, but it is something that's always annoyed me and I finally
found a forum to get it off my chest. Thank you for listening.
Judith Cornish
>I really did not think he was wrong in
> killing in Haunted. He was really pushed
> by Alec. Do you think he could have
> talked to Mac like that and walked away
> if they had never met before. When two
> immies meet a fight is more likely to
> break out then not. If you are as hostile
> as Alec was, a fight was a logical
> outcome. As for victimizing his wife, she
> seemed to be awfully eager to be
> victimized. She was the seducer not
> him. Richie made a mistake. He started
> thinking with the wrong body part. Been
> known to happen to older and wiser men
> then him.
I basicaly agree with this. When Richie killed Alec, he was defending
himself and I think Duncan would have done the same thing as a
youngster. In fact in the fb of Unholy Alliance he does kill a stranger
(Michel de Bourgoune) for no other reason than because he was
challanged. After his initial anger, Duncan realized that Richie wasn't
to blame. He tells an irate Jennifer, "When two immortals fight, one of
them dies. That's not murder, that's how we live".
I also agree that he did not victimize Jennifer. As I've posted in
another thread, I think there was some sort of connection between Jen
and Richie due to Richie taking her husband's Q. Richie *did* try to
avoid the inevitable by sending Jen home alone in a cab form Joe's and
she tracked him down, that's not the action of a 'victim'.
I think Richie's actions reguarding Carter Wellen were much more
culpable than anything he did in Haunted. He provoked and challenged
Carter for absolutly no reason beyond wanting to take a head. That being
said, I could still forgive what he did because I could sympathize with
the emotional upheaval he'd been through since Duncan tried to kill him
in Something Wicked. And, as an immortal, what he did might have been
unpalitable but it wasn't unethical. It was a fair fight between
immortals, his life was on the line right along with Carter's.
PEACE
Judy
MG
Greg Moody wrote in message <35CA24B7...@cshore.com>...
Didn't sound hostile to me, just stating your viewpoint. One which I happen
to share by the way. Why is it whenever two guys show any kind of concern
for each other and aren't related, it comes down to this "they must be gay".
If they are, fine there isn't anything wrong with it.(why do I suddenly feel
like I'm in a Seinfeld episode) But I think men are capable of strong
emotional feelings without particularly wanting to have sex with the person
they feel them for.
Marg
DMVTREK
lzeit...@aol.com (LZeitgeist) writes:
>Not that you're right or wrong - we just don't know - but in regards to male
>Immortals who spend centuries together naturally being gay, no one has (until
>now) mentioned the bronze-age Fab Four - your favorites and mine, the famed
>Four Horsemen.
>
>They rode together for over a thousand years, "shared everything", and they
>were kinda P.O.'d when their group was split asunder. How 'come nobody's
>considering them to be gay?
You obviously don't read alot of fan fic. A numbered of fan fic writers have
used that premise in they're Horseman stories. There is also alot of slash
about Duncan and Methos. And some fan fic writers have suggested that Methos is
bisexual.
Dana
**************************************************************************
********
"Good must always triumph over evil. Did ya not know that?"-Duncan MacLeod
"I've found that Evil usually triumphs unless Good is very,very
careful."-Dr.McCoy
RebeccaMW
>I am not gay-bashing here, and I have nothing against homosexuals; "live and
>let
>live" and all that. And I have nothing against speculation on the subject of
>"are
>they or aren't they?" or slash fiction. It's just that I find the insistance
>that
>"they're obviously gay" to be a bizzare form of prejudice. The only thing
>more
>ridiculous, IMHO, is that it's such a big deal.
>
>Greg M.
>
>P.S. - I realize this might sound a little hostile. This IS NOT directed at
>anyone in this thread, but it is something that's always annoyed me and I
>finally
>found a forum to get it off my chest. Thank you for listening.
>
Actually, what started to get my interest was the thought that Richie, through
his stupid arrogance, might have destroyed a love affair that had lasted almost
a millennea. Somehow I found that really tragic. But as others have said.
Carter did go, willingly, to a place to fight even though he could have
refused. I guess I just hate Richie in this episode. Everyone else got over
the DQ, why couldn't Richie. I know he was traumatized, but what a putz.
LZeitgeist
>
>In regards to the entries about Haresh Clay and Carter Wellan being gay (or
>Kurlowe and Matlin, or any/all of the Four Horsemen, etc.) . . . .
>
>This is no different from the Kirk/Spock rumors, or Batman and Robin, or
>Holmes
>and Watson . . . I could go on. The point is that, for whatever reason, many
>people in our society don't seem to be able to conceive that two unrelated
>men can
>have a close relationship without something "funny" going on. The thinking
>apparantly is that any in any such relationship the men must either be openly
>gay
>or have repressed tendancies.
>
>Especially in fiction: Find any literary example of two grown men with a
>close
>friendship, and before long you'll find someone who can "prove" that the
>characters are homosexual by citing various examples, which usually boil down
>to
>one of them giving a damn about what happens to the other.
>
>I am not gay-bashing here, and I have nothing against homosexuals; "live and
>let
>live" and all that. And I have nothing against speculation on the subject of
>"are
>they or aren't they?" or slash fiction. It's just that I find the insistance
>that
>"they're obviously gay" to be a bizzare form of prejudice. The only thing
>more
>ridiculous, IMHO, is that it's such a big deal.
>
>Greg M.
>
>P.S. - I realize this might sound a little hostile. This IS NOT directed at
>anyone in this thread, but it is something that's always annoyed me and I
>finally
>found a forum to get it off my chest. Thank you for listening.
>
>
EXACTLY!!!!! Thank you very much for putting into words exactly the feelings
I'd been trying to carry across for the past week in various threads...
*whew* - glad that's over...
LZeitgeist
>
>Actually, what started to get my interest was the thought that Richie,
>through
>his stupid arrogance, might have destroyed a love affair that had lasted
>almost
>a millennea. Somehow I found that really tragic. But as others have said.
>Carter did go, willingly, to a place to fight even though he could have
>refused. I guess I just hate Richie in this episode. Everyone else got over
>the DQ, why couldn't Richie. I know he was traumatized, but what a putz.
You know, people in this discussion seem to selectively forget that it takes
two people to make a duel... Richie, pissed off, traumatized, or for whatever
reason, challenged Carter Wellan to fight. Carter accepted (read that again,
please - "Carter accepted"...), and they took it outside. No matter what was
going through Richie's head, or how pissed Richie was at Carter/Duncan/Joe/his
Mom/whoever, Carter had the option to decline the duel and stay right where he
was and finish his beer. Since one person challenged, and the other person
accepted the challenge, it was a fair fight - age, lifestyle, lovers,
relationships notwithstanding. Richie may (or may not ) have fought harder and
won because he was angry, but if you think about it, Richie actually weakened
himself by fighting out of rage instead of skill. If Carter Wellan was 900+
years old, and he doesn't stand a chance against a guy who's been in the Game
for less than two years, then I guess Carter should have found a better teacher
a loooong, long time ago.
Just my (final?) two cents....
Naomi A. Rose
rebe...@aol.com (RebeccaMW) wrote:
*snip*
>Good point Judy. The loss of a brother or son is no worse than the loss of a
>lover. Either way as the days go by and I think about that episode, I am
>angrier and angrier at Richie. And more confused that Duncan didn't call him
>on it. Even through the 'game' have we ever seen Duncan kill without remorse?
>Over a trivial matter?
>
>
>Rebecca
Who says Richie didn't feel remorse? We *have* seen DM kill without remorse
-- he felt none for killing Kern, for instance (I know he had a much better
reason for killing Kern than Richie did for killing Carter, but Kern was not
doing anything that we or DM knew of in the present day to justify DM's
challenge -- DM killed him purely in revenge and felt no remorse, or none
that we saw. Not only that, but one second after encountering Kern, DM
reverted wholesale back into the vengeance-seeking, angry, driven man he had
been before Coltec took his anger away 100 years earlier. So much for all
Coltec's efforts). I'm not by any means justifying Richie's behavior. But
he was embittered and young and stupid. Carter walked into that bar knowing
there was another immie in there. He knew the risks of the Game. Richie
was wrong wrong wrong for challenging Carter -- he had no good cause. But
he was wrong only in a moral sense -- he didn't break any of the Rules.
Richie was going through his angry adolescence. Carter Wellan was an
unfortunate victim of the Dark Q and Richie's youth, if you want to look at
it that way. I think Richie *did* feel remorse. And I think he got over
his angry adolescence pretty quickly after that. He died a loyal friend
who had made some mistakes. DM killed a lot of soldiers after Culloden --
who's to say they were *all* guilty of atrocities?
(And what was DM supposed to call Richie on, anyway? When has DM ever
challenged another immie for playing the Game, no matter who they killed?
When has he ever rejected a friend for playing the Game? DM didn't even
call Richie on killing Alec Hill -- who was a friend and whom Richie
fought for not much better a reason than he did Carter. DM was angry at
Richie for his mistakes, but not rejecting. I think he reacted the best
way he could have. If he had rejected Richie then, Richie might have been
irredeemable. As it was, DM salvaged an embittered soul. Carter and Alec
[and the others Richie challenged and killed] were dead -- Richie was still
alive and needed DM's support to find his way home. IMHO.)
Naomi
Kimlduff
The reason Richie killed Alec Hill still bothers me..... It reminds me of so
many teenage criminals who view life as cheap..... I am glad Duncan didn't
judge him..... A court would have if he were mortal and he would of been in
jail for life......
Rob Morris
Japan, Chun-Li mistakenly assumes that Ryu and Ken are "together". The
truth about Bert and Ernie is quite simple. They're half-brothers. They
simply keep it quiet out of respect for their father, who wasn't married
to Ernie's mother. Batman and Robin, Kirk and Spock, Gilligan and
Skipper. I think some people look for fictional gays because those who
have chosen to closet themselves in real life are too good at hiding. I
admit to being less than enlightened, and probably would feel funny if
one of my friends said they were. But some people watch our favorite
shows, looking for fictional action, as it were. Me, I post to
newsgroups. The flame wars at moviemonsters keeps me plenty busy.
Finally, we're talking about a show where you cut off someone's head and
take in their essence, and go off to do it again and again. If that's
not enough overtly sexual enough for the seekers of hidden messages , I
don't know what is.
Quote for the week - "Could you be so kind, as to please make up your
mind?"-Paul Revere and The Raiders, 1960's group
RebeccaMW
>
>(And what was DM supposed to call Richie on, anyway? When has DM ever
>challenged another immie for playing the Game, no matter who they killed?
>When has he ever rejected a friend for playing the Game? DM didn't even
>call Richie on killing Alec Hill -- who was a friend and whom Richie
>fought for not much better a reason than he did Carter. DM was angry at
>Richie for his mistakes, but not rejecting. I think he reacted the best
>way he could have. If he had rejected Richie then, Richie might have been
>irredeemable. As it was, DM salvaged an embittered soul. Carter and Alec
>[and the others Richie challenged and killed] were dead -- Richie was still
>alive and needed DM's support to find his way home. IMHO.)
>
>Naomi
>
I guess that I think that Duncan shoud have told Richie that he was treating
the Game as an excuse to be an immoral, arbitrary, murdering little twerp.
Which is everything that Duncan has avoided being. And then I wish that he had
told Richie that if he continued in this vein, that he would gladly take his
head. But I understand that the needs of the series are to have regulars and
conflict, etc.. So I consider this behavior the writers way of trying to show
us that Richie is angry and needs Mac's nuturing to recover from the trauma of
having his beloved mentor come for his head, while under the influence of the
DQ(yada, yada, yada). But I don't have to like it. Cause the more I think of
it, I wish Carter Wellan had won the duel.
Velia Tanner and Friends
> I think some people look for fictional gays because those who
>have chosen to closet themselves in real life are too good at hiding.
Someone on this newsgroup, who was gay themself, once explained that people
*have to* "look for" fictional gays because ther are so few *overtly*
portrayed. Most of the media treats them as invisible or non-existent; to
find role models or peers or "friends" in the mass media, they have to look
for what's called the "gay window" -- characters who aren't openly gay
because the broadcasters fear offending a segment of the audience, but who
have been portrayed in such a way that those who are looking for gay
characters can find them.
I don't think Ernie and Bert legtimately fall into this category, but I'd
say Clay and Wellan (as well and Matlin and Kurlow) do.
V.
--
=========================================================================
Betcha on land, they understand; bet they don't reprimand their daughters
Bright young women, sick of swimmin', ready to stand...
-- The Little Mermaid ||ve...@netcom.com||
==========================================================================
Monkysquat
>the DQ, why couldn't Richie. I know he was traumatized, but what a putz.
Someone....no let me rephrase that, your best
friend tries to kill you and you're just supposed to get over it? It's hard
enuff to trust anyone as is and if something like that happened and it didn't
shake your world and perception of people to the core then you are
a foolish person.
Tim
RebeccaMW
>
Timmy,
Do you realize who you are calling a foolish person. It's me, Rebecca. Your
fan, remember? And Richie was a putz in this ep.
Rebecca(ducking and running real fast because I think that Timmy actually has a
sword or two.)
Jerri LaPoint
> told Richie that he was treating the Game as
> an excuse to be an immoral, arbitrary,
> murdering little twerp. Which is everything that
> Duncan has avoided being. And then I wish that
> he had told Richie that if he continued in this
> vein, that he would gladly take his head. But
> I understand that the needs of the series are to
> have regulars and conflict, etc.. So I consider
> this behavior the writers way of trying to show
> us that Richie is angry and needs Mac's nuturing
> to recover from the trauma of having his beloved
> mentor come for his head, while under the
> influence of the DQ(yada, yada, yada). But I
> don't have to like it. Cause the more I think of
> it, I wish Carter Wellan had won the duel.
Opposing point of view is that Richie merely came of age in a rather bitter
fashion and decided to play The Game to win. The Game is The Game. There
Can Be Only One. Duncan knows this, and he would be the last to deny
Richie's right to play The Game to win. Duncan seems never to really judge
people playing The Game. He certainly defended Kenny's right to be the
murdering twerp he was. And he's gone after, and taken, more than a few
heads himself. Duncan really seems on intent on saving the mortal
population from Immortals who go outside the bounds of The Game. Immortals
are on their own, except for that few whom Duncan regards as his family.
I don't think the writers were at all trying to show that Richie needs
nurturing. They're showing that Richie has grown up and is now a force to
be reckoned with. He can be just as savage as any other Immortal with a
sword in his hand, and pretty darn good with that sword, too.
Jerri
RebeccaMW
Hmmmm...... I am trying to think of examples where Duncan has gone after other
immies for the type of behavior that Rcihie demonstrated with Carter Wellan. I
can't think of any. But on the other hand, thinking of Richie as 'savage' is
pretty hard to do. Duncan did defend Kenny's right to kill to survive but he
explained that after not being able to trust anyone in his formative years,
Kenny was unable to distinguish between people who were a threat to him and
those that wern't. I figured that it was this inability to make moral choices
that excused Kenny from what would have been Duncan's fatal retrubution.
Richie, IMHO, doesn't have this excuse. He had the advantage of watching
Duncan for years. He should have been able to model himself as a noble and
tolerant immie. In this episode we are asked to believe that Richie has an
excuse for becomming a k'immie. Like I said, I understand that the writers
needed to use this as a plot device. Perhaps it just comes down to the fact
that I thought Carter Wellan was really cute and I would have liked to see him
live and become part of the cast. Richie in this phase of his character
development, has lost the appeal of the cute little boy with the big blue eyes,
and instead is now a mean punk with cold blue eyes and little to recommend him.
I know that some people liked his look as he bulked up some and I will admit
that he buffed up admirably for the role as an immie. But to me, he always
looked pathetic next to the magnificant physique of Duncan. And therein
probably lies my entire problem with the episode.
LZeitgeist
Rebecca wrote:
>
>>Everyone else got over
>>the DQ, why couldn't Richie. I know he was traumatized, but what a putz.
>
>Someone....no let me rephrase that, your best
>friend tries to kill you and you're just supposed to get over it? It's hard
>enuff to trust anyone as is and if something like that happened and it didn't
>shake your world and perception of people to the core then you are
>a foolish person.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, Tim, but I was just curious... how much time
is supposed to have passed since the DQ and the Carter Wella incident? Has it
been a few days, a few weeks, a few months..?
I'm just thinking that if it's been a few days or a few weeks, then Richie's
got a right to be acting like a mini-Kurgan. But if it's been much longer than
that, then he needs to start dealing with the pain a little better, know what I
mean? Otherwise, his rage is gonna get him killed (and if it's been that long,
then I'm even more shocked that it hadn't killed him already).
(Just my two cents...)
LZeitgeist
>
>>Richie on killing Alec Hill -
>
>The reason Richie killed Alec Hill still bothers me..... It reminds me of so
>many teenage criminals who view life as cheap..... I am glad Duncan didn't
>judge him..... A court would have if he were mortal and he would of been in
>jail for life......
Alec Hill was acting like a total asshole. If a guy came up to me with all the
attitude that Alec Hill had, *I'd* want to kick his ass, and I'm a very
even-tempered peaceful type of person. Richie was already having a bad day, but
even if Richie was having the best day of his life, I'd be glad to see him
whack an asshole like Alec Hill. (Overall, I liked the character of Alec Hill,
and I hated to see him go - but all Richie ever saw of him existed in that one
short moment of confrontation, and if that's all I ever saw of a person, I'd
want to whack them, too.)
I see this fight as being extremely different from the fight with Carter Wellan
- in that one, Richie just wanted to fight because he was pissed off, and
Carter chose to accept Richie's challenge. In the Alec Hill fight, Alec pushed
all of Richie's buttons to piss him off to the point of *wanting* to fight.
Either way, Richie could have lost either fight - a duel is never a sure thing.
(It seems like it's a sure thing because we're on this side of the screen, and
we know the character that has been seen many times is surely goingto whack the
guy we just met.) So it's not like Richie wasn't putting *his* neck on the line
as well. His reason for engaging in the fight notwithstanding; we need to show
a little bit of respect for Richie for being willing to engage in a fight, even
though he hasn't had a whole lot of formal training - especially against older
Immortals. He could die just like Graham Ashe.
Claire Maier
: >In regards to the entries about Haresh Clay and Carter Wellan being gay (or
: >Kurlowe and Matlin, or any/all of the Four Horsemen, etc.) . . . .
: >This is no different from the Kirk/Spock rumors, or Batman and Robin, or
: Holmes
: >and Watson . . . I could go on. The point is that, for whatever reason,
Actually, I think the Clay/Wellan and Kurlow/Matlin pairs *are* different
from Kirk and Spock, etc. The others are together for jobs, hobbies,
avocations, and while they are friends, they are not portrayed as
*couples.* I think Clay/Wellan and Kurlow/Matlin were portrayed as
couples. The episodes emphasized how they were together all the time,
continuously. That certainly isn't the case for Kirk and Spock or Holmes
and Watson. (The Four Horsemen, BTW, I think were portrayed as primarily
straight-- each of their interest in women was made a point of.)
: many
: >people in our society don't seem to be able to conceive that two unrelated
: men can
: >have a close relationship without something "funny" going on. The thinking
: >apparantly is that any in any such relationship the men must either be
: openly gay
: >or have repressed tendancies.
I certainly think straight men have close friendships. And I don't
automatically assume sexual relationships between men just because they
are friends. But I think there are enough hints in the episodes
"Blackmail" and "The End of Innocence" to indicate that a purely "buddy"
relationship is perhaps not what was intended.
: >they or aren't they?" or slash fiction. It's just that I find the
: insistance that
: >"they're obviously gay" to be a bizzare form of prejudice. The only thing
Well, so is, "They're obviously straight," if you want to go that far.
But TV shows have an advantage with straight characters-- they can come
right out and *say* that they're in love without having to worry about
stations complaining to the distributor and refusing to air the episode.
If a TV show wants to portray a gay couple without having to go through
all the rigamarole and controversy, the only thing they can do is
something very much like what Highlander did with Clay/Wellan and
Matlin/Kurlow. I think they went out of their way to show that these guys
were a couple as much as possible without coming out and saying they were
lovers.
Claire Maier
: >Richie on killing Alec Hill -
:
: The reason Richie killed Alec Hill still bothers me..... It reminds me of so
: many teenage criminals who view life as cheap..... I am glad Duncan didn't
: judge him..... A court would have if he were mortal and he would of been in
: jail for life......
Alec challenged Richie. Richie killing him was no different than Duncan
killing Michel de Bourgoyne (the knight in the Unholy Alliance 1
flashback). It's part of the immortal Game. It's what they do. Mortal
justice doesn't apply to the Game.
If Alec didn't want to die, he shouldn't have challenged Richie.
Either issuing or accepting a challenge means you risk your life. That's
the way it works.
I also don't think Richie was a teenage criminal who viewed life as cheap.
He was a young immortal who had realized that he could not assume he was
safe with *any* immortal, and the way to stay alive was to be good with a
sword and ready to fight. After all, there can be only one.
Claire Maier
: I guess that I think that Duncan shoud have told Richie that he was treating
: the Game as an excuse to be an immoral, arbitrary, murdering little twerp.
I don't think that's what was going on at all. Duncan had proved to
Richie, beyond question, that *any* immortal on the planet might try to
kill him. Richie was trying to stay alive.
: Which is everything that Duncan has avoided being. And then I wish that he had
: told Richie that if he continued in this vein, that he would gladly take his
: head. But I understand that the needs of the series are to have regulars and
But that wouldn't have been Duncan. Duncan doesn't off his friends for
playing the game. He will only do so if they 1) challenge him and he
can't avoid killing them, or 2) if they represent an imminent danger to
the lives of innocent mortals. Richie did not fall into either category,
so there was no way Duncan would kill him. And since it was, in a large
part, Duncan's *fault* that Richie was off on a killing spree, I don't
think Duncan is in a position to pass judgment on Richie. After all, he
could have come back to the states right after his dunk in the holy spring
and gone looking for Richie to try to help him when he couldn't reach
him by phone. But he didn't.
Also, Duncan does not consider playing the Game to be murder. He tells
this to McCormick in "Manhunt." "You can't condemn him for something we
all do." And, in fact, McCormick was *not* blaming Carl for beheading
that immie-- he wanted Carl to answer for killing the *mortal* slave owner
and his *mortal* son.
And Duncan has blood on his hands, too. He came from a clan that would
kill neighboring clansmen over a few head of cattle. I'm sure Duncan
didn't get to lead his kinsmen into battle because they thought he looked
cute. He'd probably proved himself a fit warrior, by killing. How is
that better than what Richie was doing? Duncan himself suffered his first
death because of hostilities over a bunch of cows.
: conflict, etc.. So I consider this behavior the writers way of trying to show
: us that Richie is angry and needs Mac's nuturing to recover from the trauma of
: having his beloved mentor come for his head, while under the influence of the
: DQ(yada, yada, yada). But I don't have to like it. Cause the more I think of
: it, I wish Carter Wellan had won the duel.
I don't think they were showing that. They were showing what happens when
you lose your heroes. Richie saw that Duncan had feet of clay, and it
undermined his security with the world. (Similarly, Duncan saw his hero
beg and grovel for his life.) I think Richie was a lot more frightened
than he was angry. And the point wasn't that Richie needed Duncan's
nurturing. In fact, quite the opposite. Richie needed to see Duncan as
he actually was, not up on the pedestal that Richie had placed him. They
needed to move their relationship onto a new level, to one that was more
realistic and equal. (This was also paralleled by what was happening
between Duncan and Joe.)
I think thinking EoI was about Richie being angry and Duncan needing to
nurture him is to miss the point of the episode.
Claire Maier
: >
: >>Everyone else got over
: >>the DQ, why couldn't Richie. I know he was traumatized, but what a putz.
: >
: >Someone....no let me rephrase that, your best
: >friend tries to kill you and you're just supposed to get over it? It's hard
: >enuff to trust anyone as is and if something like that happened and it didn't
: >shake your world and perception of people to the core then you are
: >a foolish person.
: Do you realize who you are calling a foolish person. It's me, Rebecca. Your
: fan, remember? And Richie was a putz in this ep.
I don't think you realize who Tim was calling a foolish person. It was
someone who had had that happen but did not have their perception of
people shaken to the core. If you've never had that happen to you, you
couldn't be the foolish person that Tim was talking about.
And I don't think Richie was being a putz in this ep. And I think Tim is
absolutely right. (Looking for snowflakes in hell since I agreed with
Tim.)
Claire Maier
: Hmmmm...... I am trying to think of examples where Duncan has gone after other
: immies for the type of behavior that Rcihie demonstrated with Carter Wellan. I
: can't think of any. But on the other hand, thinking of Richie as 'savage' is
That's because Duncan doesn't go after his friends for playing the Game.
It's something he feels every immortal has the right to do, including him.
: pretty hard to do. Duncan did defend Kenny's right to kill to survive but he
: explained that after not being able to trust anyone in his formative years,
: Kenny was unable to distinguish between people who were a threat to him and
: those that wern't. I figured that it was this inability to make moral choices
: that excused Kenny from what would have been Duncan's fatal retrubution.
I don't think so. That certainly wasn't the point Duncan was making.
Duncan defended Kenny on the basis that he had as much right to survive
and play the Game as anyone else. That all immortals were in the Game.
Male, female, or child, it didn't matter. Duncan wasn't considering
Kenny's ability to make moral choices. It was Joe and Richie who were
discussing Kenny's morals, and Duncan basically said that none of that
matters. They are immortals, and they fight until there's only one left.
That's what Kenny's doing, and he has just as much right to do it as any
of the rest of the immies.
It was only when Joe informed Duncan that Kenny had killed innocent
*mortals* (and he realized Anne was in danger) that Duncan attempted to
stop Kenny.
: Richie, IMHO, doesn't have this excuse. He had the advantage of watching
: Duncan for years. He should have been able to model himself as a noble and
Years? We're about 3 years total here. Maybe a little less, considering
the times when Richie was on his own. Three years when he had *never* had
an appropriate male role model before Duncan.
: tolerant immie. In this episode we are asked to believe that Richie has an
It took a long time for Duncan to become noble and tolerant, and he had
advantages that Richie did not, like growing up loved by two great
parents. He's also so good with a sword that he can *afford* to be noble
and tolerant.
And then, this "noble and tolerant" immie that you are suggesting Richie
model himself on tried to kill him. Great model, huh?
: excuse for becomming a k'immie. Like I said, I understand that the writers
I don't think Richie was a k'immie. He wasn't evil. He was playing the
Game aggressively, but he wasn't out murdering mortal peacemakers or
robbery victims like the really evil ones do.
: needed to use this as a plot device. Perhaps it just comes down to the fact
: that I thought Carter Wellan was really cute and I would have liked to see him
: live and become part of the cast. Richie in this phase of his character
Ah... now we get into the truth of it.
: development, has lost the appeal of the cute little boy with the big blue eyes,
: and instead is now a mean punk with cold blue eyes and little to recommend him.
Cute little boys with big blue eyes have to grow up sometime. And when
they are afraid their lives are in danger, they can become ruthless.
: I know that some people liked his look as he bulked up some and I will admit
: that he buffed up admirably for the role as an immie. But to me, he always
: looked pathetic next to the magnificant physique of Duncan. And therein
: probably lies my entire problem with the episode.
Let me get this straight-- you had a problem with the episode because
Richie is not as cute as Carter or as hunky as Duncan?
Claire Maier
: Either way, Richie could have lost either fight - a duel is never a sure thing.
: (It seems like it's a sure thing because we're on this side of the screen, and
: we know the character that has been seen many times is surely goingto whack the
: guy we just met.) So it's not like Richie wasn't putting *his* neck on the line
: as well. His reason for engaging in the fight notwithstanding; we need to show
: a little bit of respect for Richie for being willing to engage in a fight, even
: though he hasn't had a whole lot of formal training - especially against older
: Immortals. He could die just like Graham Ashe.
Exactly. Every immortal that plays the Game risks his own life. (And
that includes Kenny, who risks being whacked if someone turns around at
the wrong moment). It's wrong to think of Duncan (or other immies,
provided they haven't hired Horton and his mercs) just going out and
killing someone. They aren't. They are *dueling.* It's not like they are
pulling a trigger on an unarmed victim from a safe distance. They are up
close and personal and are risking everything they've got on the outcome.
Just because Duncan is so much better than his opponents (and is the star
of the show), we think of him going out and killing someone without
thinking of the risk. (One thing that Tessa did was remind us of the
risk.) But every time Duncan unsheathes that sword, he could die. Ditto
with Richie and the rest of them. As Duncan points out, it isn't murder;
it's trial by combat.
LZeitgeist
> A court would have [judged Richie for >killing Carter Wellan] if he were
mortal and >he would of been in
>jail for life......
>
>
Um.... what Immortal *wouldn't* be in jail if they were subject to mortal laws?
To paraphrase Duncan - They live, they fight, they kill, they die - it's what
they *do*; it's what they *are*. There can be only *one*.
Richie didn't do a single thing wrong by challenging or killing Carter Wellan
(*or* Alec Hill, for that matter). We may or may not agree with his reasoning
for issuing the challenge or the rage he wore during the fight, but he did what
Immortals are supposed to do - live, fight, kill or be killed.
The only fault I can pin on Richie is that of being with Alec's wife after he
found out that he was the one who killed her husband. That was *waaaaaaayyyyy*
uncool. (However, if I had that girl coming after me wanting to get into my
shorts, I don't know if I could have held out for long, either... if I was
single. Being married gives a man a whole new perspective.) It was just plain,
flat-out wrong, though.
LZeitgeist
>
>kiml...@aol.com (Kimlduff) wrote:
>
>> A court would have [judged Richie for >killing Carter Wellan] if he were
>mortal and >he would of been in
>>jail for life......
>>
>>
>
>Um.... what Immortal *wouldn't* be in jail if they were subject to mortal
>laws?
Sorry - I snipped and then paraphrased incorrectly - the original statement
should have read:
>> A court would have [judged Richie for >killing Alec Hill] if he were
>mortal and >he would of been in
>>jail for life......
(not that it changes anything, but I wanted to correct my error in quoting.)
LZeitgeist
>I don't think they were showing that. They were showing what happens when
>you lose your heroes. Richie saw that Duncan had feet of clay, and it
>undermined his security with the world. (Similarly, Duncan saw his hero
>beg and grovel for his life.) I think Richie was a lot more frightened
>than he was angry. And the point wasn't that Richie needed Duncan's
>nurturing. In fact, quite the opposite. Richie needed to see Duncan as
>he actually was, not up on the pedestal that Richie had placed him. They
>needed to move their relationship onto a new level, to one that was more
>realistic and equal.
Ah, YES!!!! Someone else saw the same episode I did! That is exactly what I
felt.
The internet is an amazing thing... it may be a possibility that an infinite
number of monkeys given an infinite number of typewriters will eventually write
"Hamlet", but it is always such a rush for me when there's something complex
I'm trying to put into words through multiple posts over multiple days, and
then someone else comes along and says exactly what I meant to say when I
started to whole conversation... it's kinda like redemption or something...
(not Redemption (the episode), but redemption (little "r")...
Helga Abendroth
>Rebecca said about "The End of Innocence": >Either way as the days go by and I
>think about that episode, I am
>>angrier and angrier at Richie. And more confused that Duncan didn't call him
>>on it. Even through the 'game' have we ever seen Duncan kill without
>>remorse?
>>Over a trivial matter?
>
>No, we haven't and we never will. In "Haunted" Duncan rebukes Richie for the
>death of Alec Hill saying that he could have walked away and Richie defended
>himself in terms of The Game. Where's Richie's personal sense of ethics? If
>this was how Richie behaved with Duncan's shining example always before him,
>there's no doubt in my mind that he would have been a k'immie if he'd never met
>Duncan.
>
>But Duncan genuinely felt toward Richie as a father toward a son even though he
>did tell Richie that he wasn't his father. So he was willing to forgive Richie
>no matter how he behaved. If this weren't so, he would have taken Richie's
>head in "Haunted" when Richie killed a good friend and then victimized his wife
>out of moral cowardice.(Hey, I calls 'em as I sees 'em.) I used to not mind
>Richie before the fifth season and there were even a few episodes where I felt
>sympathy toward him. Now the only way I can feel anything benign toward Richie
>is by pretending the fifth season Richie never existed.
>
> Shomeret
>
But Richies behavior in the fifth season is a matter of growing up and
also a matter of "behaving adolescent": finding his own rules,
becoming independent from his teacher (he was forced on this badly),
making his own choices - even bad ones and mistakes.
And he's a street kid, he learned to survive by any means necessary
prior to meeting Duncan. Duncan was risen as a chieftains son supposed
to take one day his "fathers" place and protect his people, settle
disputes, react with honor, stay with his word... he died first time
with thirty when all this traits were fully developed and his possible
stupid and less honorable adolescent actions were already done.
Duncan's whole moral code can be explained in this light, save that he
developed it further due to himself growing wiser with times.We do not
know if there were some really stupid actions in his early
Immortality, save the one when he effectively caused the death of
Hamsa el Kahir at the hands of Xavier St.Cloud by his stupid and
stubborn decision to stay and fight Xavier (and in terms of his near
Highland - Warrior thoughts of courage and cowardice at this time his
decisions to stay was very honorable - but it was nevertheless simply
stupid. Inexperienced.).
This is the only time in the series when we see him act in a flashback
like a stupid whelp (though I like that scene where he walks over the
market bluffing with bravado in his flashback in Legacy).
There may have been others.
And we don't know how Richie might have developed if he had not been
killed by Duncan in Archangel. He might have got over his
Adolescense-Phase pretty good, and he might not have developed into an
Immie with as high moral standards as Duncan - but not necessarily
into an evil one.
So I have no problems with Richies development in the fifth season,
although I did not like everything of his behaviors, either.
Helga
Maggie
> kiml...@aol.com (Kimlduff) wrote:
> > A court would have [judged Richie for >killing Carter Wellan] if he were
> mortal and >he would of been in
> >jail for life......
> Um.... what Immortal *wouldn't* be in jail if they were subject to mortal laws?
> To paraphrase Duncan - They live, they fight, they kill, they die - it's what
> they *do*; it's what they *are*. There can be only *one*.
> Richie didn't do a single thing wrong by challenging or killing Carter Wellan
> (*or* Alec Hill, for that matter). We may or may not agree with his reasoning
> for issuing the challenge or the rage he wore during the fight, but he did what
> Immortals are supposed to do - live, fight, kill or be killed.
snip
It seems this way to me, too. It also seemed to me that CW was pretty
confident about defeating RR, even going so far as to offer to call it
off. I had the feeling he didn't consider RR a serious threat. He was
older, more experienced, and cooler (and cuter).
Maggie
Shomeret
pursued him to his apartment--The only reason why Jennifer did that is because
Richie didn't tell her the truth which he should have done as soon as possible
preferably right there at Joe's. Since she didn't know that Richie had killed
Alec, she had no idea that her attraction to Richie was caused by the presence
of
Alec's quickening within Richie. So her involvement with Richie was not based
on informed consent. That's what upset's me about the whole thing. So it's
not rape, but I wouldn't define it as consensual sex either. It's a crime with
no name and I consider Richie guilty. He should have told the truth and taken
the consequences.
Shomeret
Helga Abendroth
<bilt...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
*snipalot*
Helga wrote:
>>>
>>>Well, I thought they may be gay because of their closeness to each
>>>other (900 years) and because Clay was really mad about loosing his
>>>friend. Not mad like Duncan loosing Fitz, for example; but mad like
>>>loosing a mate or lover. BTW I always thought Matlin and Curlow of
>>>Blackmail to be gay, too, mainly for the same reasons: the way they
>>>sticked together and acted to each other. Only an impression, though.
>>>
>>
Patrick wrote:
>>Not that you're right or wrong - we just don't know - but in regards to
>male
>>Immortals who spend centuries together naturally being gay, no one has
>(until
>>now) mentioned the bronze-age Fab Four - your favorites and mine, the famed
>>Four Horsemen.
>>
>>They rode together for over a thousand years, "shared everything", and they
>>were kinda P.O.'d when their group was split asunder. How 'come nobody's
>>considering them to be gay?
>>
>>(Not trying to start an arguement - just wondering at that very noticeable
>gap
>>in the thread of logic...)
>> LZeit...@aol.com -- Patrick W. Heinske
>> /} ShadowPlayers
>> @#####{ ]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
>> \} Stage Combat Group
>> "...the Four Horsemen ride again... "
John wrote:
>
>There was a lot of women slaves in the camp. They seemed to be acting
>brutally heterosexual in their actions with Cassandra.
>
>Moose must always triumph over evil, do you not know that.
>The three Moose of the Apocalypse doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it?
>I was Death, Death on a Moose.
>
Now me:
Well, there are a lot of people (every slash-writer, for once) who
considered at least the possibility of the Horsemen being in more ways
together as just happening to live in the same camp. In some ways,
being shield brothers would even include the possibility of sharing
occasionally sexual intercourse with each other, at least when there
were no women available. John pointed out correctly, that there were.
But I have to make a difference here between being gay (as in *only*
attached to the same gender) and being bi or sharing bed with the same
gender, even having love affairs, occasionally. we know from the
flashbacks of CaH and Rev 6:8 that at least both Kronos and Methos
were *not* gay in the first sense, because they both were attracted to
women. There have been subtle hints *IMHO* in the series that at least
methos might be not only attracted to women but occasionally to men
too (if nothing else, then look at the scene between him, Byron and
shelly at TMP). We know he's not *gay* in the first (exclusively)
sense because of his bonding with Alexa and because of Cassandra.
IMHO that does not exclude that there were bedtime encounter
occasionally between some of the Horsemen (although I can honestly
imagine *nobody* who would consensually jump into the furs with
caspian - Ewwww!!!).
So to answer your question, I would not say that they were not
together in that said furs sometimes... but then, this *is* just IMHO,
and I *do* like slash.
To go back to Matlin and Curlow... it was just the way they stuck
together and acted in sync in that FlashBack. And with them I was
thinking of a truly *gay* couple in the exclusive scene of the word.
Helga <shocking everybody near and straight around here, I fear...>
John A. Biltz
Monkysquat wrote in message
<199808070710...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>Everyone else got over
>>the DQ, why couldn't Richie. I know he was traumatized, but what a putz.
>
>Someone....no let me rephrase that, your best
>friend tries to kill you and you're just supposed to get over it? It's
hard
>enuff to trust anyone as is and if something like that happened and it
didn't
>shake your world and perception of people to the core then you are
>a foolish person.
>
It was worse than that. Here you are young and impressionable at a low
point. A common thief and nogoodnik. You meet a Hero (that is right Hero
with a capital h.) And he has mystical magical powers. He is 400 years old
and is immortal. He is rich. He is handsome, He is charming. He has
charisma. This man, the best man you have ever met, brings you into his
life, educates you, takes you to Paris. And then one day he beats you to
the floor humiliating you with how easy it was, at the last minute you are
saved by luck. Do you think this could be a little disillusioning? Could
it perhaps affect your self image. And how are immies evaluated and ranked?
By how great a warrior he is. You may scoff and say no it is how good a
person they are. But how many times has Richie asked Mac if he was better
than some immie, countless times. Remember Grayson. The concern there was
that Grayson was better than Mac. They were certainly not talking about
character. Richie was trying to regain a good self image. Look how he was
living, he did not have money or friends. He had decided on the way of the
lone warrior. He had reduced himself to a single thing, a warrior. Mac is
a warrior, but he is more than that. Richie was focusing on that one thing.
Through it he was seeking redemption.
John A. Biltz
Shomeret wrote in message
<199808071857...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Jeez, us guys are in trouble. Most guys Richies age would say just about
anything to get a girl like that. All Richie had to do was keep his mouth
shut. Now I admit that is usually a challenge for him, but he had three
choices. 1. Think of some excuse why he did not want to take her to bed.
Possible, but difficult at best, and he was not only feeling the pressure,
but he really did not want to get rid of her. 2. Tell her the truth.
Probably not a good idea. 3. Take her to bed. Not very honorable, but it
did have its advantages, that were right in front of him.
John A. Biltz
Methos invented beer. Now, many have converted to my theory. One day I am
going to find that discarded clay container with "Horsemen Extra Pale"
inscribed on it and I will have my revenge on them all. I will receive
honoree degrees and fame. Its out there, I know its there.
"The Truth is Out There"
Moose must always triumph over evil, do you not know that.
The three Moose of the Apocalypse doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it?
I was Death, Death on a Moose.
RebeccaMW wrote in message
<199808080101...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>>
>>>RebeccaMW (rebe...@aol.com) wrote:
>>>: >
>>>: >>Everyone else got over
>>>: >>the DQ, why couldn't Richie. I know he was traumatized, but what a
>>putz.
>>>: >
>>>: >Someone....no let me rephrase that, your best
>>>: >friend tries to kill you and you're just supposed to get over it?
It's
>>>hard
>>>: >enuff to trust anyone as is and if something like that happened and it
>>>didn't
>>>: >shake your world and perception of people to the core then you are
>>>: >a foolish person.
>>>
>>>: Do you realize who you are calling a foolish person. It's me, Rebecca.
>>>Your
>>>: fan, remember? And Richie was a putz in this ep.
>>>
>>>I don't think you realize who Tim was calling a foolish person. It was
>>>someone who had had that happen but did not have their perception of
>>>people shaken to the core. If you've never had that happen to you, you
>>>couldn't be the foolish person that Tim was talking about.
>>>
>>>And I don't think Richie was being a putz in this ep. And I think Tim is
>>>absolutely right. (Looking for snowflakes in hell since I agreed with
>>>Tim.)
>>>
>>>--
>>>Claire Maier
>>
>>Stranger things have happened :)
>>And actually you are right on both counts.
>>I was definitely not calling anyone a fool
>>especially not Rebecca. It wouldn't be the
>>first time my meanings were misconstrued
>>and certainly not the last time. Good call
>>Claire.
>>
>>Tim
>
>>
>Well I feel lots better now Tim. Thanks. I want you to note that this is
>saying a lot as every idea that I had about this episode what shot totally
to
>hell and back by the denizens of the group. I once confessed to being
>fictionally challenged. When everyone else in the room has figured out how
a
>movie will end, I still don't have a clue. It appears that I am also
pretty
>clueless when it comes to plot and character analysis. Perhaps I should
just
>stick to numbers. I seem to get them right. In the mean while I will
still
>hang out and put forth opinions in the hope that someday I will get it
right
>and fit in with the crowd:) It is just too much fun here for me to take my
>marbles and go home.
Jette Goldie
had the following bright ideas:
> I can honestly
>imagine *nobody* who would consensually jump into the furs with
>caspian - Ewwww!!!).
>
Caspian - maybe not.
Marcus - YES YES YES! <g> ::::thunk::::::::
(gods and goddesses - that is one heck of a sexy voice on a phone <g>)
Jette - Joe's my jo!
******************
HOMELAND '98 (25th - 28th September 1998)
http://members.tripod.com/~bosslady/index-2.html
Scotland's First Highlander Convention
boss...@scotlandmail.com
Monkysquat
>Date: 8/7/98 12:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <6qf8hr$e...@paladin.cc.emory.edu>
RebeccaMW
>: that I thought Carter Wellan was really cute and I would have liked to see
>him
>: live and become part of the cast. Richie in this phase of his character
>
>Ah... now we get into the truth of it.
>
>: development, has lost the appeal of the cute little boy with the big blue
>eyes,
>: and instead is now a mean punk with cold blue eyes and little to recommend
>him.
>
>Cute little boys with big blue eyes have to grow up sometime. And when
>they are afraid their lives are in danger, they can become ruthless.
>
>: I know that some people liked his look as he bulked up some and I will
>admit
>: that he buffed up admirably for the role as an immie. But to me, he always
>: looked pathetic next to the magnificant physique of Duncan. And therein
>: probably lies my entire problem with the episode.
>
>Let me get this straight-- you had a problem with the episode because
>Richie is not as cute as Carter or as hunky as Duncan?
>
Gee Claire,
Call me on it, why don't ya? :) ok, I give. Richie wasn't a arbitrary,
murdering, little twerp with a chip on his shoulder. He was playing the game,
as he had a right to, and took the same risks as the immies who accepted his
challenge. But nothing changes the fact that Carter Wellan was tons cuter!
Rebecca(ducking and running for real this time)
RebeccaMW
>
ROSESDREAM
>pursued him to his apartment--The only reason why Jennifer did that is
>because
>Richie didn't tell her the truth which he should have done as soon as
>possible
>preferably right there at Joe's.
I don't think that's the "only" reason she went to Richie's.
Since she didn't know that Richie had
>killed
>Alec, she had no idea that her attraction to Richie was caused by the
>presence
>of
>Alec's quickening within Richie. So her involvement with Richie was not
>based
>on informed consent. That's what upset's me about the whole thing.
You're assuming that Richie knew exactly why she was responding to him. The
idea of an immortal taking on the characteristics of the one they killed has
been flirted with but I don't think Richie was really fully aware of what was
happening. His actions were certainly in bad taste but I did see him attempt
to walk away from her. I don't think her told her because she was upset
already and Mac had asked him to look out for her. I don't think he was
attempting to deciever her I think he was attempting to avoid her. Even DM
thought that she shouldn't be told the truth (albeit after the fact).
So it's
>not rape, but I wouldn't define it as consensual sex either. It's a crime
>with
>no name and I consider Richie guilty. He should have told the truth and
>taken
>the consequences.
>
> Shomeret
He did tell the truth - too late perhaps but he told it. He didn't tell it
sooner because that would've left 20 minutes of dead air since the story and
the tension leading up to the resolution would've been over.
Suzanne
I am certain of nothing but the holiness of the Heart's affections and the
truth of the Imagination - John Keats
ROSESDREAM
I never once thought they were gay and seen the eps in question several times.
You think gays are underrepresented in the media and that perhaps they're
looking for clues of representation in these shows ? All I have to say is at
least you can say there may have been clue to point to this or that persuasion.
(not that I agree that they are real clues but points can be made) Try
finding a black woman in the HL universe - especially an immie like the men
under discussion.
Getting back to the point at hand I missed the clues since it never occured to
me that they might have been gay - not because I assume everyone's straight but
because as characters their sexuality was of little concern to me. (yes I
don't care) These guys were not important enough to me for me to care what
their personal relationships were. I don't think the writers went out of their
way to say anything other than breaking a centuries old bond between two people
stirs feelings of revenge and any other interpretations will have to be
confirmed by the writers themselves.
You get to believe what you want but I don't think they were gay..... they were
black women in heavy drag. <g>
Shomeret
did tell the truth - too late perhaps but he told it. He didn't tell it
>sooner because that would've left 20 minutes of dead air since the story and
>the tension leading up to the resolution would've been over.
Of course Suzanne is right from a script viewpoint. The central conflict would
be brought to a head too soon. But I was taking a different perspective. For
me, this discussion was about what Haunted tells us about the character of
Richie Ryan, and why my conclusions of the character, based on my view of that
episode, were troubling.
Shomeret
Naomi A. Rose
kiml...@aol.com (Kimlduff) wrote:
>>Richie on killing Alec Hill -
>
>The reason Richie killed Alec Hill still bothers me..... It reminds me of so
>many teenage criminals who view life as cheap..... I am glad Duncan didn't
>judge him..... A court would have if he were mortal and he would of been in
>jail for life......
>
>Kim
Once again, I feel compelled to point out that Immortals do not just *kill*
each other -- they challenge each other to combat and each takes the same
risk by fighting the other. Referring to mortal justice is an empty
exercise when it comes to immies -- Richie *never* would have killed Alec
Hill for blocking Alec's car with his bike if both of them were mortals.
And it was *Alec* who challenged Richie -- yes, Richie didn't have to
accept the challenge (any more than Carter needed to accept Richie's), but
Richie didn't start that fight, like he did in the bar with Carter.
Richie was a thief in his pre-immie days -- he wasn't a killer and even in
the a.u., he couldn't kill a mortal. The only time Richie ever killed
mortals in the series was in "Nowhere to Run" (another reason I didn't like
the ep) -- DM killed many mortals, in wars and in BDiBA types of situations,
but Richie only did the once (at least I can't think of any other time). He
got into a bad place with challenging and killing immies for a while there,
but he was risking his own life in doing so -- he could have been killed at
any time and frankly, I think part of his motivation for going on his
challenging spree was a deeply buried death wish (arising from his
bitterness over losing the innocent faith he had in DM).
Richie shouldn't have accepted Alec's challenge -- he shouldn't have killed
him when he won. He shouldn't have challenged Carter. But he did. And he
never broke any of the rules in doing so. And he didn't kill any mortals
during his little spree (and he even left the $1800 for his bike with the
mechanic, after threatening to torch his garage -- in his own mind, he was
still adhering to a moral code). *That's* why DM didn't reject him. Richie
had made some serious mistakes (and made another one with Jennifer Hill), but
he was still redeemable. He had been cut adrift -- DM was determined to hold
out his hand to him. Rightfully so, IMHO.
Naomi
Naomi A. Rose
rebe...@aol.com (RebeccaMW) wrote:
*snip*
>I guess that I think that Duncan shoud have told Richie that he was treating
>the Game as an excuse to be an immoral, arbitrary, murdering little twerp.
>Which is everything that Duncan has avoided being. And then I wish that he had
>told Richie that if he continued in this vein, that he would gladly take his
>head. But I understand that the needs of the series are to have regulars and
>conflict, etc.. So I consider this behavior the writers way of trying to show
>us that Richie is angry and needs Mac's nuturing to recover from the trauma of
>having his beloved mentor come for his head, while under the influence of the
>DQ(yada, yada, yada). But I don't have to like it. Cause the more I think of
>it, I wish Carter Wellan had won the duel.
>
>Rebecca
Well, I guess there's not much more to say then. I think if DM had reacted
the way you wanted him to (come down like the heavy-handed, controlling kind
of father figure that would have caused Richie to react the same as if DM
had rejected him, IMHO) -- shown Richie only judgment and anger, rather than
compassion and understanding (as well as judgment -- DM did tell him what he
was doing was wrong, although Richie really already knew it), he would have
made a serious error (plus it would have been rather out of character, IMHO).
Because he would have pushed Richie away and left Richie well on his way to
becoming a k'immie down the road, if he survived long enough to get there.
How would that have helped matters?
I've said it before and I'll say it again -- DM is very wise and he is by no
means as judgmental as some people like to think he is.
But you feel the way you feel. I have to say I object rather strongly to you
dismissing what did happen as the writers making a rather shallow, expedient
decision to move the plot along. I found the way they did handle it much
more complex and "realistic" than what you wish had happened. But you're
absolutely right. You don't have to like it. I didn't like it either, but
I understood it and thought it was well done.
Naomi
Naomi A. Rose
rebe...@aol.com (RebeccaMW) wrote:
*snip*
>Hmmmm...... I am trying to think of examples where Duncan has gone after other
>immies for the type of behavior that Rcihie demonstrated with Carter Wellan. I
>can't think of any.
No, DM doesn't play the Game this way. He only fights when he's challenged
and when mortals are threatened. But he does not judge others who fight this
way. The only time he ever challenged another immie for threatening to kill
an immie was in "The Immortal Cimoli" -- and even DM felt very conflicted
about that challenge. DM did not consider Case evil for playing the Game as
he did, although he questioned him challenging a newbie immie who didn't
stand a chance against him. Other than that situation, which was quite
unique, DM does not challenge or threaten to challenge immies for fighting
each other in fair combat. (Well, he did threaten Methos in FUOT, but that
was, IMHO, another unique situation where the threat was more to stop
something from happening than a sincere threat to kill [I think he might
have fought Methos if Methos had killed Keane, but I doubt very much he
would have killed him, if he had won]).
*snip*
>Duncan did defend Kenny's right to kill to survive but he
>explained that after not being able to trust anyone in his formative years,
>Kenny was unable to distinguish between people who were a threat to him and
>those that wern't. I figured that it was this inability to make moral choices
>that excused Kenny from what would have been Duncan's fatal retrubution.
I disagree mightily. As I just said above, DM does not challenge immies for
fighting other immies. He didn't kill Kenny, who hardly fought fair, because
he figured there was no such thing as a fair fight for him. But he would
never have challenged or threatened to challenge Richie for playing the Game.
He might have rejected him as a friend (or turned his back on trying to save
the friendship), but he wouldn't have challenged him.
>Richie, IMHO, doesn't have this excuse. He had the advantage of watching
>Duncan for years. He should have been able to model himself as a noble and
>tolerant immie.
He did before the Dark Q and he did after "Haunted." He went through a
black period. He made some serious mistakes. But he was still inside there,
still worth "rescuing," if you will. DM didn't need to baby or nurture Richie
or take care of him or any of that -- and he didn't excuse him either. He
needed to stand by him when he was in a very dark place. Richie stood by him
later in "Archangel" -- Ceirdwyn stood by DM when he was in his dark place
after Culloden (and DM was killing mortals there, something in DM's own code
which is more unforgiveable than playing the Game in a belligerent fashion).
>In this episode we are asked to believe that Richie has an
>excuse for becomming a k'immie.
No, we are not. We are asked to accept that Richie reacted *really* badly to
what happened with EDM. That his reaction was extreme and harsh and that he
made some very serious mistakes. That his youth and inexperience (and his
experiences growing up, where issues of trust and love played a big role in
shaping his character long before he had DM as a role model) were poor supports
after EDM nearly killed him. He slipped -- big time -- but DM could either
push him all the way down or hold out his hand to help him up again. I'm glad
DM had the wisdom to do the latter.
There was no excuse for what Richie did, there was only an explanation. There
is no justice, only mercy. DM (and we) can decide Richie's slip was sufficient
to justify rejecting him. Or DM can decide that he can accept Richie's slip
and see what he can do to keep Richie from continuing down the road he's on.
>Like I said, I understand that the writers
>needed to use this as a plot device.
I'm sorry, Rebecca, but this really bugs me.
>Perhaps it just comes down to the fact
>that I thought Carter Wellan was really cute and I would have liked to see him
>live and become part of the cast. Richie in this phase of his character
>development, has lost the appeal of the cute little boy with the big blue eyes,
>and instead is now a mean punk with cold blue eyes and little to recommend him.
>I know that some people liked his look as he bulked up some and I will admit
>that he buffed up admirably for the role as an immie. But to me, he always
>looked pathetic next to the magnificant physique of Duncan. And therein
>probably lies my entire problem with the episode.
Well. And here I was thinking I was having a really profound conversation :-).
Naomi
Naomi A. Rose
"John A. Biltz" <bilt...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
*snip*
>He had reduced himself to a single thing, a warrior. Mac is
>a warrior, but he is more than that. Richie was focusing on that one thing.
>Through it he was seeking redemption.
Wow. I like this a lot, John. I pointed out in another post that Richie
never broke the rules and he had left the money for his bike with the
mechanic (even though he had threatened to torch the place). He still had
his ethics. I believe he *was* seeking redemption through being the lone
warrior (as he said bitterly to DM, "I get it now -- there can be only one").
And I think DM saw that, which was why he didn't reject Richie and why he was
in such despair about what Richie as doing -- because he would never be more
than that if he kept going as he was. I said before that Richie was well on
the way to becoming a k'immie in EoI and "Haunted" -- I take that back. Now
I think he probably wouldn't have (I think he would have died before it
became a concern anyway). I think he would have become a lot less than he
could be, though. And I think that saddened DM immensely.
Naomi
Jarielle
>Well I feel lots better now Tim. Thanks. I want you to note that this is
>saying a lot as every idea that I had about this episode what shot totally to
>hell and back by the denizens of the group. I once confessed to being
>fictionally challenged. When everyone else in the room has figured out how a
>movie will end, I still don't have a clue. It appears that I am also pretty
>clueless when it comes to plot and character analysis. Perhaps I should just
>stick to numbers. I seem to get them right. In the mean while I will still
>hang out and put forth opinions in the hope that someday I will get it right
>and fit in with the crowd:) It is just too much fun here for me to take my
>marbles and go home.
>
>
It's okay, Rebecca. I also said a while back that Richie should have
gotten over the DQ. I mean, he knew Duncan was in trouble, and you'd
think he would have asked Joe about him before coming back. I thought
he was being immature. (I also thought it was a writer's
inconsistency, but that's another thread). It's also been argued that
Duncan could have contacted Richie first, and this furthered his
distrust and hurt at Duncan's hands. I say, it goes back to another
thread where we were talking about Duncan respecting the privacy of
others, and doesn't meddle or ask, even when he should. That's not
saying he's right or wrong, but it seems to be one of Duncan's
character traits.
As for the fights, I agree with Naomi that the challenge is issued and
accepted, by the rules of the Game. Tragic maybe, but it's reality.
As for theories being shot to hell, well, I've experienced that.
Thank goodness for the thick skin!
Jarie <and YES to Duncan's magnificent physique!>
Velia Tanner and Friends
>He
>got into a bad place with challenging and killing immies for a while there,
>but he was risking his own life in doing so -- he could have been killed at
>any time and frankly, I think part of his motivation for going on his
>challenging spree was a deeply buried death wish (arising from his
>bitterness over losing the innocent faith he had in DM).
Not that deeply buried, if you ask me.
V.
--
=========================================================================
Betcha on land, they understand; bet they don't reprimand their daughters
Bright young women, sick of swimmin', ready to stand...
-- The Little Mermaid ||ve...@netcom.com||
==========================================================================
Judith Cornish
>In this episode we are asked to believe
> that Richie has an excuse for
needed to
> use this as a plot device.
I didn't think for a second that Richie had tuned into a k'immie. He was
just playing the Game. Also, I don't think his behavior was a plot
device. There was sufficient reason and sufficient explainations for his
actions given in Something Wicked and EoI. Just because you don't like
the way he acted doesn't make it a plot device.
>Richie in this phase of his character
> development, has lost the appeal of the
> cute little boy with the big blue eyes, and
> instead is now a mean punk with cold
> blue eyes and little to recommend him.
As I see it, the whole point of the ep was to show how Duncan's betrayal
in SW caused Richie to lose his illusions about living as an immortal
and to finally grow-up. He might have acted like a 'mean punk' for a few
months but you seem to forget this is the same guy that wanted to stop
the fighting in The Messenger and who actually quit carrying a sword for
a while. Hardly the actions of a souless killer with no remorse.
PEACE
Judy
Judith Cornish
>I guess that I think that Duncan shoud
> have told Richie that he was treating the
> Game as an excuse to be an immoral,
> arbitrary, murdering little twerp. Which is
> everything that Duncan has avoided
> being.
I think Duncan did try to tell Richie what he was doing was wrong though
he didn't quite use your words. At the beginning of EoI Duncan tells
Richie that he's heard about his indescrininate fighting and tells him,
"You know what you're doing is wrong don't you". At that point, Richie's
still too angry to admit it.
Also, IMO, Richie's actions may have been arbitrary but they weren't
immoral in the bounds of the Game. And, no one-on-one, blade-to-blade
fight between immortals can be considered murder of any kind. As others
have pointed out Carter had a choice, he didn't have to accept Richie's
challenge. And, Richie's life was just as much on the line as Carter's
was.
PEACE
Judy
Judith Cornish
>I'm just thinking that if it's been a few
> days or a few weeks, then Richie's got a
> right to be acting like a mini-Kurgan. But
> if it's been much longer than that, then
> he needs to start dealing with the pain a
> little better, know what I mean?
> Otherwise, his rage is gonna get him
> killed (and if it's been that long, then I'm
> even more shocked that it hadn't killed
> him already).
I think it had been several months between SW and EoI. I don't think
Richie's actions in after SW are just a manifestation of pain and anger.
When Duncan almost killed him, it caused a change in his philosophy of
living. He came to the conclusion that TCBOO wasn't just words but that
it was the only way he could keep his head attatched. If the man he
trusted more than any other person could try to kill him, then the only
way to stay alive was to treat all immortals like enemies, to be avoided
or challenged. After he has to deal with the repescussions of this
philosophy in EoI and Haunted, he realizes that it's not right and he
abandons it. In fact, in the Messenger, he goes to the opposite extreme
and tries to lay down his sword.
PEACE
Judy
Claire Maier
Re: Haunted and Richie telling Jennifer Hill that he killed Alec
: attempting to deciever her I think he was attempting to avoid her. Even DM
: thought that she shouldn't be told the truth (albeit after the fact).
And I think Mac was absolutely right. What Jennifer didn't know wouldn't
hurt her. Richie should have just thought up some lie to explain why they
couldn't be together (like telling her that there was someone else in his
life) and gotten the hell out of Dodge.
But Richie wanted to be forgiven for whacking Alec, which is probably why
he told her. And found that Mac had been right-- she wouldn't understand.
"I have another theory. I'm an idiot." --Richie Ryan, "Haunted"
--
Claire Maier bioa...@emory.edu CLMaier (within AOL only)
To be different is not necessarily to be ugly;
to have a different idea is not necessarily to be wrong.
The worst possible thing is for all of us to begin
to look and act and think alike.
-- Gene Roddenberry
Judith Cornish
>It is just too much fun here for me to take
> my marbles and go home.
Thank goodness!! Please *don't* go home. Everyone's enttled to an
opinion and your opinion on this topic sparked some of the best
discussion we've had in a while. Thanks.
PEACE
Judy
RebeccaMW
>I'm sorry, Rebecca, but this really bugs me.
>
>>Perhaps it just comes down to the fact
>>that I thought Carter Wellan was really cute and I would have liked to see
>him
>>development, has lost the appeal of the cute little boy with the big blue
>eyes,
>>and instead is now a mean punk with cold blue eyes and little to recommend
>him.
>>that he buffed up admirably for the role as an immie. But to me, he always
>>looked pathetic next to the magnificant physique of Duncan. And therein
>>probably lies my entire problem with the episode.
>
>Well. And here I was thinking I was having a really profound conversation
>:-).
>
>Naomi
>
Ocuh, Naomi. I already gave up yesterday. If Duncan could forgive Richie,
then you can forgive me. I suspect that I am not as deep a thinker as some of
you, but for me this was a really profound converstaion. Or as profound as I
am capable of.
RebeccaMW
>>I guess that I think that Duncan shoud
>> have told Richie that he was treating the
>> Game as an excuse to be an immoral,
>> arbitrary, murdering little twerp. Which is
>> everything that Duncan has avoided
>> being.
Quoting myself.
You know what I have just learned? When one says something disagreable on the
ng, people keep disagreing with you for days cause there is always someone new
to come along and find your words of wisdom. I am wondering how many weeks
into the future that I will have to eat these words. Will someone please pass
the ketchup?
Naomi A. Rose
rebe...@aol.com (RebeccaMW) wrote:
*snip*
>Ocuh, Naomi. I already gave up yesterday. If Duncan could forgive Richie,
>then you can forgive me. I suspect that I am not as deep a thinker as some of
>you, but for me this was a really profound converstaion. Or as profound as I
>am capable of.
>
>
>Rebecca
Rebecca:
It isn't a matter of "giving up." You're perfectly entitled to continue
holding the opinion you started with. As I said in another post, you
obviously feel strongly about this and have your reasons. I don't happen
to agree with them, but that's the point of this ng. You put out your
opinions and discussion ensues. There is certainly nothing to *forgive*!
As for being a deep thinker and profound and all that...you hold your own
just fine.
And sorry for having a delay of 48 hours on my replies -- I was a couple
of days behind on reading the ng and didn't see that the discussion had
moved on until I had already replied to you.
Naomi
LZeitgeist
>Date: Sat, Aug 8, 1998 18:36 EDT
>Message-id: <27941-35...@newsd-112.bryant.webtv.net>
I *strongly* second that! Thanks for the excellent spark to this thread... it's
nice to find some good conversation here again.
RebeccaMW
>
>It isn't a matter of "giving up." You're perfectly entitled to continue
>holding the opinion you started with. As I said in another post, you
>obviously feel strongly about this and have your reasons. I don't happen
>to agree with them, but that's the point of this ng. You put out your
>opinions and discussion ensues. There is certainly nothing to *forgive*!
>
>As for being a deep thinker and profound and all that...you hold your own
>just fine.
>
>And sorry for having a delay of 48 hours on my replies -- I was a couple
>of days behind on reading the ng and didn't see that the discussion had
>moved on until I had already replied to you.
>
>Naomi
>
Naomi, I am truely laughing, good naturedly. Thank you for saying that I was
holding my own. However there is no way that I have the strength of
personality to hold to my previous opinion, no matter how strongly I expressed
it. But I am honestly, having great fun. I hope that you can tell that much.
LZeitgeist
That's very true... it's been a while since I partook of all the episodes in
order, so I've kinda lost the overall thread dealing with Richie. But your
observations sound very correct in my memory.
RebeccaMW
>>Thank goodness!! Please *don't* go home. Everyone's enttled to an
>>opinion and your opinion on this topic sparked some of the best
>>discussion we've had in a while. Thanks.
>>
>>
>
>I *strongly* second that! Thanks for the excellent spark to this thread...
>it's
>nice to find some good conversation here again.
You have no idea how much these two comments mean to me. Thank you.
Monkysquat
>saying a lot as every idea that I had about this episode what shot totally to
>hell and back by the denizens of the group. I once confessed to being
>fictionally challenged. When everyone else in the room has figured out how a
>movie will end, I still don't have a clue. It appears that I am also pretty
>clueless when it comes to plot and character analysis. Perhaps I should just
>stick to numbers. I seem to get them right. In the mean while I will still
>hang out and put forth opinions in the hope that someday I will get it right
>marbles and go home.
>
>
>Rebecca
>A victim of the world wide Celtic diaspora. Denied my heritage! Denied the
>Scottish Highlands! All for a bunch of sheep! Plan to hold the grudge
>forever!
'Becca you give up too easily hun. 'Cause
you know what? Everything you said was right and everything you said was also
wrong.
Truth be told any number of things can be read into any piece of writing or
performance.
Each person will connect in a different way and bring different things away
from the experience. Of course I think I'm right, and in my experience I am,
just as you are. That's the whole fun of this. It's verbal volley ball.
You serve up your ideas, opinions and views on the subject and I spike it back
at you with a nice backspin in attempt to win you to my view. It's human
nature and it's fun when done correctly. You get that nice feeling of victory
when you show someone your version and they say "hey! I hadn't noticed that!"
:)
Tim
RebeccaMW
>you know what? Everything you said was right and everything you said was
>also
>wrong.
>Truth be told any number of things can be read into any piece of writing or
>performance.
>Each person will connect in a different way and bring different things away
>from the experience. Of course I think I'm right, and in my experience I am,
>just as you are. That's the whole fun of this. It's verbal volley ball.
>You serve up your ideas, opinions and views on the subject and I spike it
>back
>at you with a nice backspin in attempt to win you to my view. It's human
>nature and it's fun when done correctly. You get that nice feeling of
>victory
>when you show someone your version and they say "hey! I hadn't noticed
>that!"
>:)
>
>Tim
>
Thanks for explaining it like this Tim. I am having a total blast. But I am
getting spiked a lot. And you are right about another thing. I am learning so
much. Not the least of which is that having your ideas spiked back at you is
just fine. Not only do I survive, but it is invigorating.
Strax
>
>Actually, what started to get my interest was the thought that Richie, through
>his stupid arrogance, might have destroyed a love affair that had lasted almost
>a millennea. Somehow I found that really tragic. But as others have said.
>Carter did go, willingly, to a place to fight even though he could have
>refused. I guess I just hate Richie in this episode. Everyone else got over
>the DQ, why couldn't Richie. I know he was traumatized, but what a putz.
>
>Rebecca
>A victim of the world wide Celtic diaspora. Denied my heritage! Denied the
>Scottish Highlands! All for a bunch of sheep! Plan to hold the grudge
>forever!
>
>
Excuse me?!?!? What-in-the-world are you talking about? So, if someone
you trusted with your life, someone your thought of as a father, and
as a best friend, one day walks up to you and tries to kill you
(sadistically, I might add) with no explanation and the left thought
you have of him is him standing above you ready to take your
head...well, I don't know about anyone else on this group, but I think
I might be a little pissed off, shaken up, hurt, angry, CONFUSED,
etc..
He most definitely was not ever a putz. If anyone was ever a putz, I
would have to nominate Methos for that award..on more than one
occasion. (Isn't it amazing? I can turn any thread into an Anti-Methos
thread...Talent, I tell you) Rebecca, you are allowed your
opinion...just as much as your allowed to be wrong in said opinion:-)
You guys should have been happy I was gone...Richie's greatest
champion has returned!!
Strax (Richie should have taken DM's head instead..I would have)
-------------------------------------------------
David Sanders da...@duke.edu
OIT Help Desk UIN# 895986
Duke University www.bayou.com/strax
"Every man dies, but not every man truly lives!"
-William Wallace, Braveheart
Strax
>>jac...@webtv.net (Judith Cornish)
>>Date: Sat, Aug 8, 1998 18:36 EDT
>>Message-id: <27941-35...@newsd-112.bryant.webtv.net>
>>
>>Rebecca wrote in part:
>>>It is just too much fun here for me to take
>>> my marbles and go home.
>>
>>Thank goodness!! Please *don't* go home. Everyone's enttled to an
>>opinion and your opinion on this topic sparked some of the best
>>discussion we've had in a while. Thanks.
>>
>>
>
>I *strongly* second that! Thanks for the excellent spark to this thread... it's
>nice to find some good conversation here again.
> LZeit...@aol.com -- Patrick W. Heinske
> /} ShadowPlayers
> @#####{ ]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
> \} Stage Combat Group
> "...the Four Horsemen ride again... "
I agree...If everyone agreed with me, it would be very quiet....(Not
that it's not an aspiration*grin*)
Strax
Strax
>monky...@aol.com (Monkysquat) wrote:
>
>Rebecca wrote:
>>
>>>Everyone else got over
>>>the DQ, why couldn't Richie. I know he was traumatized, but what a putz.
>>
>>Someone....no let me rephrase that, your best
>>friend tries to kill you and you're just supposed to get over it? It's hard
>>enuff to trust anyone as is and if something like that happened and it didn't
>>shake your world and perception of people to the core then you are
>>a foolish person.
>
>Not that I'm disagreeing with you, Tim, but I was just curious... how much time
>is supposed to have passed since the DQ and the Carter Wella incident? Has it
>been a few days, a few weeks, a few months..?
>
>I'm just thinking that if it's been a few days or a few weeks, then Richie's
>got a right to be acting like a mini-Kurgan. But if it's been much longer than
>that, then he needs to start dealing with the pain a little better, know what I
>mean? Otherwise, his rage is gonna get him killed (and if it's been that long,
>then I'm even more shocked that it hadn't killed him already).
>
>(Just my two cents...)
> LZeit...@aol.com -- Patrick W. Heinske
> /} ShadowPlayers
> @#####{ ]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
> \} Stage Combat Group
> "...the Four Horsemen ride again... "
Patrick,
I always got the impression it was a few months later, no more than
2...but that's not canon, just my impression...And, yes, Richie does
have problems dealing with strong emotions..As a child living on the
streets, emotion got you killed. You became cold and emotionless to
survive, stealing what you needed to survive no matter who it hurt.
Duncan and Tessa showed him what a family could be like, they let his
emotions start to grow and develop and rise to the surface. Look at
the times Richie stood up to people far beyond his abilities to
protect Tessa...He grew up a lot with tessa and DM. Then to have all
that taken away from him by DM in a split second...I think he
regressed back to the 'street' mentality after Dark DM left for Paris
and being a new Immortal with all that rage, he held it in, let it eat
him up inside and turned into a cold, killing machine...I have a
strong feeling there were A LOT of heads taken during that time...most
of them richie probably didn't even remember...but like when he was
young and stole to survive, he now was older and immortal..hence had
to kill to survive..and let his rage and hatred brew inside
him...IMHO, of course..
Judith Cornish
>I think he regressed back to the 'street'
> mentality after Dark DM left for Paris
> and being a new Immortal with all that
> rage, he held it in, let it eat him up
> inside and turned into a cold, killing
> machine...I have a strong feeling there
> were A LOT of heads taken during that
> time...most of them richie probably didn't
> even remember...but like when he was
> young and stole to survive, he now was
> older and immortal..hence had to kill to
> survive..and let his rage and hatred brew
> inside him...IMHO, of course..
I don't think Richie regressed back to the'street' mentality or that he
was acting on rage and hatred. There was a wonderful scene in the
eurominutes (a fb to right after EDM left) where Richie explains to Joe
that because of what Duncan did he had come to the conclusion that the
only way to survive being an mmortal was to live by the code TCBOO. He
wasn't angry, he was more thoughtful and a bit shaken. He embraced the
Game because he thought it was the only way to keep his head.
If he had truely been as filled with rage and hatred as you seem to
think, he would probably have challenged Duncan at the rooming house and
he certainly wouldn't have been as accepting of Duncan at the police
station, at the hotel, the cemetary or in the end at Joe's. Also, of the
two heads we saw him take during this period, only one was because he
was the agressor (Carter Wellen). In the encounter with Alec Hill,
Richie was surly but he wasn't a "cold killing machine". He only fought
Alec because he was challenged.
So, I don't think there's evidence that Richie became a blood thirsty
killer or that he killed "A LOT" of immortals. For one thing, given the
sparcity of immortals in the population, Richie wouldn't have run into
that many in a couple of months even if he was looking for them. And no
matter how many he killed why would you think he wouldn't remember them?
Duncan says at the end of Haunted, "I believe in the kind (of ghosts)
you carry with you, everyone you've loved and everyone you've killed.
You never forget them". And, Richie agrees with him.
PEACE
Judy
William Armstrong
The reason Richie didn't challenge Duncan at the rooming house was
because he knew how good Duncan is, and knew he would have lost (if
Duncan would even have fought him, which is debatable). Anyway, Richie,
for whatever reasons he fought Carter Wellan, cannot be faulted.
Fighting to the death is what Immortals do. Haresh Clay knew this; he
says at the end, when defeated by MacLeod, "It's what we do." He was
naturally traumatised by the death of his friend Carter - student, and
companion (whom he would have loved only platonically, even if Carter
*was* a bit of a fop) - and emotion may have blinded him to that, in the
beginning. But he knew that Richie was perfectly correct in challenging
Carter, no matter his reasons, but also *he* was perfectly within his
"rights" to challenge Richie.
Whatever anger Richie felt, it would not have been only for what
happened between himself and Duncan, but for the *reason* it occurred.
Richie did not want to be thought of as a child in need of protection.
I think he felt he had come to rely on Duncan more than he'd wanted to,
and that their encounter woke him up in many ways. His "madness,"
challenging Immortals recklessly, was more a result of his desire to
prove himself both to other Immortals (to make a name for himself, as
Dawson said) but also to the Watchers. He wanted that impressive record
that Duncan and others hold, he wanted to be known as the twenty-
something young immortal who defeated opponents many times his age and
power. He wanted to be taken seriously.
Strax
the super-secret eurominutes, so judging by what I saw, that is the
impression I got..and I didn't mean he was bloodthirsty, perse..just
with the loss of trust and feelings of betrayal, the Street would have
become home again kinda..In which case different rules apply, Kill or
Be Killed..Survival of the Fittest..etc....I guess I can't explain
what it is I mean clearly..I'll try to rephrase it later when I'm more
awake..
Strax
-------------------------------------------------
Claire Maier
: Judith, bear in mind, the majority of viewers do not have access to
: the super-secret eurominutes, so judging by what I saw, that is the
The Eurominutes are not super-secret, and anyone can buy them.
Bobrien5
The only ones i can afford are The individual Season one tapes, and the three
Feature length tapes.
Other than that, i have to wait for christmas and my birthday.
- Bob
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Tell me, what goes better with Rodent, white or red?" - Caspian
"I have something to say: It's better to Burn out...Than to fade away!" -
Kurgan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Strax
Maier) wrote:
See my later post. Some of us aren't rich, Claire......
Strax
Judith Cornish
>The reason Richie didn't challenge
> Duncan at the rooming house was
> because he knew how good Duncan is,
> and knew he would have lost (if Duncan
> would even have fought him, which is
> debatable).
I agree with this. My point was that Strax was describing Richie as a
cold blooded killer so full of rage and hatred that he couldn't control
his actions. I was trying to point out that *if* he was that far out of
control he would probably have challenged Duncan reguardless of the
danger.
>His "madness," challenging Immortals
> recklessly, was more a result of his
> desire to prove himself both to other
> Immortals (to make a name for himself,
> as Dawson said) but also to the
> Watchers. He wanted that impressive
> record that Duncan and others hold, he
> wanted to be known as the twenty-
> something young immortal who defeated
> opponents many times his age and
> power. He wanted to be taken seriously.
I agree that Richie did want to be taken seriously and to be respected.
He as much as says so when he tells Duncan, "Next time you pull a sword
on me it won't be so easy". The whole point I was trying to make in my
response to Strax was that his actions weren't a form of madness. They
resulted from a conscious decision to live by the rule TCBOO.
Yes, he was angry. Yes, he wanted to make a name for himself. But, IMHO,
these two driving forces were secondary to keeping his head attatched
and he had come to the conclusion that the only way to do that was to
"Get them before they get you". And, because it was a conscious decision
to act the way he did (not an overwhelming emotional storm of rage and
hate), he could make another conscious decision to forgive Duncan (which
he had done by the end of EoI) and to abandon his policy of
indescriminant fighting.
PEACE
Judy
Jette Goldie
>Strax wrote in part:
>>I think he regressed back to the 'street'
>> mentality after Dark DM left for Paris
>> and being a new Immortal with all that
>> rage, he held it in, let it eat him up
>> inside and turned into a cold, killing
>> machine...I have a strong feeling there
>> were A LOT of heads taken during that
>> time...most of them richie probably didn't
>> even remember...but like when he was
>> young and stole to survive, he now was
>> older and immortal..hence had to kill to
>> survive..and let his rage and hatred brew
>> inside him...IMHO, of course..
>
>I don't think Richie regressed back to the'street' mentality or that he
>was acting on rage and hatred. There was a wonderful scene in the
>eurominutes (a fb to right after EDM left) where Richie explains to Joe
>that because of what Duncan did he had come to the conclusion that the
>only way to survive being an mmortal was to live by the code TCBOO. He
>wasn't angry, he was more thoughtful and a bit shaken. He embraced the
>Game because he thought it was the only way to keep his head.
>
And I have to ask - where DO people get the idea that Richie was a
*street kid*?
He tells us of his foster families - and seems to have good memories
of one at least.
As a member of a family that fostered I have to resent the automatic
assumption that foster care is *bad* and that children in care always
have *bad* experiences. In =my= experience, it's the experiences
=before= they come into care that are bad - and the foster family
becomes the refuge. Sometimes it takes a while - their experiences
have soured them and you have to be patient and let them gradually
come out of their shells. (this is especially important with those who
have been sexually or otherwise abused by their *real* families).
Otherwise why did so many young people who had been fostered by my
family show up at my mother's funeral, in tears, and of their own
accord? Why is the last one my mother fostered still living with the
family and asking to be adopted by my father?
Jette - Joe's my jo!
******************
HOMELAND '98 (25th - 28th September 1998)
http://members.tripod.com/~bosslady/index-2.html
Scotland's First Highlander Convention
boss...@scotlandmail.com
Naomi A. Rose
jac...@webtv.net (Judith Cornish) wrote:
*snip*
>Yes, he was angry. Yes, he wanted to make a name for himself. But, IMHO,
>these two driving forces were secondary to keeping his head attatched
>and he had come to the conclusion that the only way to do that was to
>"Get them before they get you".
*snip*
You know, it's kind of interesting. Earlier in this thread, I said (to
little fanfare -- Velia seemed to be the only one to pick it up) that
Richie's behavior after he left Joe in the Eurominutes fb (going out
picking fights and "making a name for himself") actually masked a deep-
seated death wish (which Velia considered not so deep). Judy says here
that his primary motivation was actually to keep his head attached and
he felt the only way to do that was to get them before they got him. I
have to disagree with this and stick to my original contention. If
Richie's main motivation was to keep his head attached, running around
picking fights with immies he didn't know (and who might be 2000 years
old and excellent fighters) was a rather stupid way to go about it.
The conclusion Judy believes he came to seems altogether stupid, in
fact (the best way to keep his head attached would be either to refuse
challenges and run from danger, kind of like Methos, or to take refuge
on holy ground, like a number of immies [including DM at one time] have).
I don't think he felt the best way to stay alive was to get them before
they got him -- I think he wanted to take crazy risks, because he just
didn't care if he lived or died. The man he had trusted more than he
had ever trusted anybody in his short, sad life (where trust was in
short supply) had tried to kill him. He had finally found love and
trust and they turned to dust, first through a mugger's bullet and
then through what he felt was the one Rule Immortals, including himself,
couldn't escape -- TCBOO. What did he have to live for anyway? He
wasn't the suicidal type, so he didn't go put his head on a railroad
track and he fought to win everytime he fought, but I honestly don't
think he cared much about life anymore.
Naomi
Naomi A. Rose
William Armstrong <william....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
*snip*
>Of course, just taking on every Immortal he could
>find was a bit extreme, but, as we all know, he was a bit insane at the
>time.
I don't think he was insane or out of control. I think he knew exactly
what he was doing, but that he just didn't care about the foolish risks
he was taking or the consequences of the deaths he was causing.
A long while back, I said I didn't think how rabid Richie was shown as
having become in EoI made sense (I don't think it made all that much
sense to SK, because in Anaheim he said that he felt Richie's
development was a little all over the place sometimes and I think part
of what he was talking about was how Richie went from good boy to head-
whacker to pacifist and back to good boy again). I take that back now
(I love how one's appreciation for stuff on this show *grows* instead
of fades). Now I think what happened to Richie between SW and EoI
makes a lot of sense. Richie was utterly disillusioned by what
happened in SW. Going out and playing the Game with little regard for
his own life, taking risks and picking fights and making a name --
fighting to win, yes, but fighting so much that winning became less and
less of a probability -- does make sense to me now. I don't think he
was completely conscious of this motivation (he couched it in terms of
TCBOO and he seemed desperate enough to stay alive when Clay cornered
him in the museum), but his behavior was not that of a man whose main
interest was to keep his head attached. IMHO.
Naomi
Strax
wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:55:02 -0500 (CDT), jac...@webtv.net (Judith
>Cornish) had the following bright ideas:
>
>>Strax wrote in part:
>>>I think he regressed back to the 'street'
>>> mentality after Dark DM left for Paris
>>> and being a new Immortal with all that
>>> rage, he held it in, let it eat him up
>>> inside and turned into a cold, killing
>>> machine...I have a strong feeling there
>>> were A LOT of heads taken during that
>>> time...most of them richie probably didn't
>>> even remember...but like when he was
>>> young and stole to survive, he now was
>>> older and immortal..hence had to kill to
>>> survive..and let his rage and hatred brew
>>> inside him...IMHO, of course..
>>
>And I have to ask - where DO people get the idea that Richie was a
>*street kid*?
>
>He tells us of his foster families - and seems to have good memories
>of one at least.
>
>As a member of a family that fostered I have to resent the automatic
>assumption that foster care is *bad* and that children in care always
>have *bad* experiences. In =my= experience, it's the experiences
>=before= they come into care that are bad - and the foster family
>becomes the refuge. Sometimes it takes a while - their experiences
>have soured them and you have to be patient and let them gradually
>come out of their shells. (this is especially important with those who
>have been sexually or otherwise abused by their *real* families).
>
>Otherwise why did so many young people who had been fostered by my
>family show up at my mother's funeral, in tears, and of their own
>accord? Why is the last one my mother fostered still living with the
>family and asking to be adopted by my father?
>
>
Well, he as much as said it a few times, also with the friends he kept
in the earlier seasons, like the kid who died from the "Super Drug"
and the girl he helped later. His dress and the fact that he was a
well-known felon to the police department. he was a thief and I
seriously doubt Macleod's store was the first place he had robbed.
I agree with what you are saying, Jette, but I don't see what bearing
it has on his being a street rat....Yeah, he was in a foster family
once or twice..apparently they didn't work out and he ran away...If
you haven't noticed that seems to be his MO....gets hurt, run away...