Do Immortals have parents?
Mark Moore
mother was really his foster mother. When Amanda said "I swear on my
mother's grave", Duncan blatantly told her, "You don't *have* a
mother".
Has there ever been a mention in the TV series of an Immortal having
biological parents?
In Endgame, if Connor's mother wasn't really his biological mother,
then why didn't she say so when given the chance?
Mark
First Fallen
Whenever the idea of parents has been brought up with Immortals, none of
them have ever known a true birth parent. Michelle Webster was raised by
foster parents. Kamir tells Richie that no Immortal knows their parents,
and that has certainly been supported by everything we've seen and been told
through the series.
As for Caiolin not speaking up, to her Connor was much a son as any child
she could have bore of her own womb. She would not denounce him, and
nothing they did her to could make her.
Jette Goldie
"Mark Moore" <sailo...@naturecoast.net> wrote in message
news:48d3c1d3.04011...@posting.google.com...
She was his mother in every way that counted, and saw it
that way herself.
--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Jerri
> Duncan's father told him that he was found. Ritchie
> found out that his mother was really his foster mother.
> When Amanda said "I swear on my mother's grave",
> Duncan blatantly told her, "You don't *have* a
> mother". Has there ever been a mention in the TV
> series of an Immortal having biological parents?
No.
> In Endgame, if Connor's mother wasn't really his
> biological mother, then why didn't she say so when
> given the chance?
Love and loyalty to her son?
Jerri
Highlandmg
> found out that his mother was really his foster mother.
> When Amanda said "I swear on my mother's grave",
> Duncan blatantly told her, "You don't *have* a
> mother". Has there ever been a mention in the TV
> series of an Immortal having biological parents?
Hi
Just had to respond to this if you adopt a child does you not love that child
any less?
Do not say this is my son/daughter?
as far as immortal parents concern they are there son and daughter.
Mary
Find A cure for Neurofibromatosis: (NF)
http://www.nfinc.org/whatisnf.html
DonnaLetto
>> biological mother, then why didn't she say so when
>> given the chance?
>
>Love and loyalty to her son?
Speaking as an adoptee (and future Immortal, if Bill Panzer is correct <g>), I
feel pretty confident that my mother would never deny me, even to save her own
life.
Donna
Klausimus Maximus
news:48d3c1d3.04011...@posting.google.com...
[snippage]
>
> In Endgame, if Connor's mother wasn't really his biological mother,
> then why didn't she say so when given the chance?
>
"Greater love hath no man..."
I know my mother would give up her life to spare any of her kin's.
Motherhood is not always granted to the physically able.
--
Klausimus Maximus,
Christian, Youth worker, Uilleann piper
Moladh an Tighearna, Dia agat- "Praise the Lord, God be with you"
"Live, grow stronger, fight another day." - Methos, "Highlander: The
Series"
Edgar Governo
<creative snippage>
>Whenever the idea of parents has been brought up with Immortals, none of
>them have ever known a true birth parent. Michelle Webster was raised by
>foster parents. Kamir tells Richie that no Immortal knows their parents,
>and that has certainly been supported by everything we've seen and been told
>through the series.
Conversely, of course, everyone we know to be a foundling in
Highlander: The Series also happens to be an Immortal--which I
consider to be rather convenient and a bit silly, but I've learned
better than to make much of that opinion around here....
Edgar Governo
Historian of Things That Never Were
http://www.mts.net/~arphaxad/history.html
You can also visit my homepage:
http://www.mts.net/~arphaxad
Personal email is encouraged, as always.
DonnaLetto
>Highlander: The Series also happens to be an Immortal--which I
>consider to be rather convenient and a bit silly, but I've learned
>better than to make much of that opinion around here....
I don't tend to announce my foundling status anywhere but here (unless someone
insists on the family resemblence between my mother and myself). The exception
would be if I was with or meeting someone else who was also a foundling --
look, a kindred spirit with whom to compare notes.
From the storyteller standpoint, not everyone who watched HL was psychic, and
therefore if you wanted to get the foundling across, you had to say it out
loud.
Donna
Edgar Governo
<sigh> I'm not going to belabour this point too much because every
time I mention it on here, I get pounced on and people generally
interpret my words in a way I did not intend.
Having said that, I'll try to use an analogy of a human characteristic
that's more readily apparent...
To me, The Foundling Thing is like...I don't know...everyone with blue
eyes in The Series being Immortal, or (perhaps more aptly) every
Scotsman in The Series being Immortal. Silly, superfluous,
unnecessary to the overall storytelling mythos.
First Fallen
> time I mention it on here, I get pounced on and people generally
> interpret my words in a way I did not intend.
>
> Having said that, I'll try to use an analogy of a human characteristic
> that's more readily apparent...
>
> To me, The Foundling Thing is like...I don't know...everyone with blue
> eyes in The Series being Immortal, or (perhaps more aptly) every
> Scotsman in The Series being Immortal. Silly, superfluous,
> unnecessary to the overall storytelling mythos.
Here's the thing though, it has been established that all Immortals are
foundlings. So the only time it comes up, is in regards to Immortals.
For all we know, Anne might have been adopted, or Sgt. Powell. But because
that fact was never relevant to the story, it never became public knowledge.
It's not mentioned a lot in the show. Duncan discusses it a few times,
Kenny, Kamir, Michelle...those are the only instances I can think of off the
top of my head.
It's not that all foundlings are Immortal, it's just that all Immortals are
foundlings. <g>
(tried not to pounce)
Jerri
> To me, The Foundling Thing is like...I don't know...
> everyone with blue eyes in The Series being Immortal,
> or (perhaps more aptly) every Scotsman in The
> Series being Immortal. Silly, superfluous,
> unnecessary to the overall storytelling mythos.
I hope you don't think I'm pouncing. I'm just making an observation. In my
huge family, adoptions have been relatively frequent. So, personally, I know
several adopted adults in my family. Outside of my family, I don't know of
any of my friends or acquaintances who have taken it upon themselves to
announce that they're adopted. I presume there must be some, but I don't
know. Unless they've seen some reason to announce it, why would I know? Same
thing goes for Highlander. Immortals are all foundlings, so we know they're
adopted. Anyone else might be a foundling, might be adopted, but it's not
necessarily something they'd announce in the brief time we see them. Why
would they?
Jerri
TBird
Do Immortals have pants?
TBird <---- ask the professor
Raymond Speer
Uhhh, please do not flame me. I mean no disrepect to anyone who has
studied the canon & come to conclusions --- but are we sure that all
Immortals are foundlings?
Point One. At no time in the series does our Expositor in Chief, Joe
Dawson, or Ramirez, Connor's mentor, say: All Immortals are foundlings.
The Know It Alls make that categorical statement in regard to
infertility but they _never_ assert all Immortals come from unknown
origins and are adopted into the families that raise them.
Point Two. Each and every reference about Connor shows him to have been
born into his family. Think about it: he is born in a teeny little town
(by our standards) and is ostracized as a witch / monster /demon --- but
when he talks to his cousins and mentions their relationship, not a one
of them denies the bonds of blood. Had Connor been a foundling, you know
damn well that someone would have brought up the issue of his adoption.
"You ain't my cousin --- you were adopted --- you're a changeling." And
the charge against Connor's mom is not that she adopted or raised a
monster --- the people who knew them best act precisely as if Connor's
mom is his biological parent.
Point Three. The reality is that we have absolutely no clue as to the
birth and childhoods of 99.99% of the Immortals in the series. How does
such a lack of information make us confident in an assertion that all
Immortals are foundlings?
Point Four. Richie doesn't know who his parents are, as he was raised
by Social Services. I can find other Anglo-Irish Americans with an
identical background but I would never assert that, ergo, all Anglo
Irish Americans must be foundlings. I make the same call with
Immortals.
Point Five. Scandalized by Duncan's survival post-demise, Ian repudiates
his son in 1622, driving him away. At that traumatic moment, Ian shouts
loudly & confidently at his son that "you're not mine, you are adopted."
Am I the first observer to note that this data was not passed on in a
parent-child conversation following a holiday meal? It is the assertion
of a very angry guy who is abandoning his son and showing the worst side
of his personality in doing it. In real life, as an attorney, I dealt
with such a matter in 1985. A fifteen year old had been banished from
home, told he was no damn good and was an adopted orphan. My assignment
from juvenile court was to fix the problem. I spoke with the dad, and
he confessed that his talk of adoption was BS --- his son was his
biological son --- he wanted the kid gone forever and would say anything
to get that achieved.
Now, I am not calling Mac's dad, Ian, a liar. He could have been telling
the gospel truth and Mac was adopted. But, once again, if Mac was a
foundling, Mac's situation cannot be assumed to be universally shared
among all Immortals. And, in at least one analogous case, I know that a
dad can lie to a son and deny paternity because the father is very angry
at the son.
Point Six. Kenny is a foundling, I recall. He was rescued by Amanda
after soldiers killed his parents (and Kenny himself). There is nothing
shown in the flashback that established that Kenny was not born of
natural conjugal relations. Why make that assumption when there is no
need for such a theory in order to account for observed facts?.
Point Seven. Nichole's adoption was arranged by Mac. The circumstances
of Mac getting a pre-Immortal baby in his custody are left utterly
unexplained by this episode. Yeah, the baby might have appeared by
magic. On the alternative, the baby's parents could have been killed in
a car wreck, and Duncan did a good deed by placing the child immediately
with a new, loving set of parents.
If I wrote the FAQ, my answer to the question that started this thread
would be:
"In the overwhelming majority of cases, we know nothing of the birth and
upbringing of the Immortals. Some fans have noted that, in the
instances where we do learn something of their origin, the Immortals
usually turn out to be adoptees or wards of the State. [To the contrary,
however, it appears that Connor MacLeod is a biological member of the
family that raised him.] Because of that observation, coupled with a
statement by MacLeod that no Immortal knows his parents, some have
theorized that pre-Immortal children are never born to Mortal parents.
Such a theory would require that pre-Immortal infants are generated in
some unknown manner and enter society through adoptions."
GHorvath
isn't accurate.
Also:
A) Check out Kamir's speech in Wrath of Kali for confirmation from an Immortal
teacher that no Immortal knows their parentage.
B) Duncan's entire attitude in "Family Tree" makes it clear that he knows,
without research, that Richie parents are adoptive.
C) The charge against Connor's mother in "EndGame" is, in fact, that she is
being told to deny that Connor is her son. She refuses out of love. The
premise of that sequence has no drama if he's not adopted.
D) Doesn't Kenny specifically say, "They found me when I was a baby?" I'm
pretty sure he did, because we were getting tired of people arguing that since
not every single Immortal announced their adoptive status aloud, the case is
unproven.
>Nichole's adoption was arranged by Mac.
I think you mean Michelle? I remember him saying he'd been keeping an eye on
her (he says the same of Claudia Jardine), not that he'd arranged the adoption.
GH
DonnaLetto
>Immortals are foundlings?
Yes.
It says so in the bible. Therefore, it is true, no matter what dance you try
to do to make it not true.
Sorry.
Donna
(so bloody tired of this topic)
Edie
Raymond Speer wrote:
>
> Uhhh, please do not flame me. I mean no disrepect to anyone who has
> studied the canon & come to conclusions --- but are we sure that all
> Immortals are foundlings?
Just to let you know, I have been enjoying your posts,
even the ones I don't agree with. :-) They've given me
perspectives to think about and discuss.
Over the years, some topics have been discussed a
lot, and in some cases the answers really are definitive,
as with this foundling issue.
Me, I think it's a fine part of Highlander lore. That
immortals are all foundlings adds mystery to their
origins, which to me makes the Highlander universe that
much more intriguing.
Edie
Jette Goldie
"TBird" <64t...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:FCSNb.11866$1e.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I just was doing a quick scan of thread titles, and thought this said:
>
> Do Immortals have pants?
>
We certainly don't see any VPL (Visible Panty Line) under
any of Amanda's clothes, do we?
First Fallen
In support of what Gillian and Donna have both stated. Here's the actual
quotes from the series bible:
"There is and will be no explanation given as to where Immortals come from
and what determines who is Immortal. We do not know how they are born --
they are all foundlings."
There is a second paragraph later on that states:
"All Immortals are foundlings who do not know their natural parents."
John Donchig
Jette Goldie wrote:
> "TBird" <64t...@earthling.net> wrote in message
> news:FCSNb.11866$1e.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>I just was doing a quick scan of thread titles, and thought this said:
>>
>>Do Immortals have pants?
>>
>
>
>
> We certainly don't see any VPL (Visible Panty Line) under
> any of Amanda's clothes, do we?
Gee, thanks. Now I have to go rewatch all of the episodes with
Elizabeth Gracen. I had planned on working on world peace this weekend,
but now this comes up.
John
GinjerB
(Edgar Governo) writes:
>Subject: Re: Do Immortals have parents?
>From: arph...@TAKEmb.sympatico.ca (Edgar Governo)
>Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:30:29 GMT
>
>"First Fallen" <no...@nope.com> wrote:
>
><creative snippage>
>
>>Whenever the idea of parents has been brought up with Immortals, none of
>>them have ever known a true birth parent. Michelle Webster was raised by
>>foster parents. Kamir tells Richie that no Immortal knows their parents,
>>and that has certainly been supported by everything we've seen and been told
>>through the series.
>
>Conversely, of course, everyone we know to be a foundling in
>Highlander: The Series also happens to be an Immortal--which I
>consider to be rather convenient and a bit silly, but I've learned
>better than to make much of that opinion around here....
>
>Edgar Governo
So if an epi had been done with someone who was adopted who *wasn't* Immortal,
the whole thing would be easier for you to swallow?
I don't get it...the two seem to me to have nothing to do with one another.
GinjerB
GinjerB
(Raymond Speer) writes:
>Subject: Re: Do Immortals have parents?
>From: ray...@webtv.net (Raymond Speer)
>Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:50:02 -0600 (CST)
>
>
>Uhhh, please do not flame me. I mean no disrepect to anyone who has
>studied the canon & come to conclusions --- but are we sure that all
>Immortals are foundlings?
>
>
Yep, we are!
GinjerB
Ammaletu
> So if an epi had been done with someone who was adopted who *wasn't*
Immortal,
> the whole thing would be easier for you to swallow?
Without having followed the last part of this discussion I just want to add:
There actually are episodes with adopted mortals! Katya found her mortal
daughter Elena as a small child on the streets of Buenos Aires ["Justice"].
And Morgan Kenworthy adopted his mortal son, William, who was later killed
along with Morgan (who became Immortal then) [Raven-03 "Bloodlines"]. Just
had to throw this in. 0:-)
Bye,
Johannes
Ammaletu
> In support of what Gillian and Donna have both stated. Here's the actual
> quotes from the series bible:
Just for interest: Where do one get a copy of the series bible?! Is it
floating around the net somewhere or was it once auctioned at a Con? Sounds
interesting and I definitely would like to read it. :-)
Bye,
Johannes
First Fallen
Well, Donna and Gillian hve one, because they worked in the story department
on the show. I have one, because I work in the industry, and a colleague
was in Vancouver doing a show, and came across the bible, and brought it
back for me.
As far as I know, it's not available anywhere on the net, or for sale.
Klausimus Maximus
some of you out there are even now, relishing the thought of Methos without
pants........ on. [cough cough]
--
Klausimus Maximus,
Christian, Youth worker, Uilleann piper
Moladh an Tighearna, Dia agat- "Praise the Lord, God be with you"
"Live, grow stronger, fight another day." - Methos, "Highlander: The
Series"
"TBird" <64t...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:FCSNb.11866$1e.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Klausimus Maximus
raised by the village. If I have my facts straight, there is no bastardry
in Icelandic culture. There's a kid, it needs to be raised, so it is done.
Why are we trying to distinguish between mortal and Immie adoptions? The
"Bible" states the parameters for being Immortal. Having no biological
parents that are ever known is only ONE of the generaliztions that go into
being Immortal. Not the determining factor.
--
Klausimus Maximus,
Christian, Youth worker, Uilleann piper
Moladh an Tighearna, Dia agat- "Praise the Lord, God be with you"
"Live, grow stronger, fight another day." - Methos, "Highlander: The
Series"
"Ammaletu" <wat...@ammaletu.de> wrote in message
news:bu9um9$loe$1...@news.uni-leipzig.de...
GHorvath
>daughter Elena as a small child on the streets of Buenos Aires ["Justice"].
>And Morgan Kenworthy adopted his mortal son, William, who was later killed
>along with Morgan (who became Immortal then) [Raven-03 "Bloodlines"]. Just
>had to throw this in. 0:-)
Good point!
GH
Edgar Governo
>> <sigh> I'm not going to belabour this point too much because every
>> time I mention it on here, I get pounced on and people generally
>> interpret my words in a way I did not intend.
>>
>> Having said that, I'll try to use an analogy of a human characteristic
>> that's more readily apparent...
>>
>> To me, The Foundling Thing is like...I don't know...everyone with blue
>> eyes in The Series being Immortal, or (perhaps more aptly) every
>> Scotsman in The Series being Immortal. Silly, superfluous,
>> unnecessary to the overall storytelling mythos.
>
>Here's the thing though, it has been established that all Immortals are
>foundlings. So the only time it comes up, is in regards to Immortals.
<sigh>
Part of the reason I'm always reluctant to bring this up is because
people automatically assume I am questioning the canonicity of The
Foundling Thing. I'm not. I'm questioning the *motivations* for The
Foundling Thing existing as a rule.
Yes, it's been established that all Immortals are foundlings. My
question is really about why they bothered to establish such an aspect
of Immortality.
>For all we know, Anne might have been adopted, or Sgt. Powell. But because
>that fact was never relevant to the story, it never became public knowledge.
>It's not mentioned a lot in the show. Duncan discusses it a few times,
>Kenny, Kamir, Michelle...those are the only instances I can think of off the
>top of my head.
The fact that it's not mentioned a lot in the show played a big part
in the formation of my perspective on this, for a couple of reasons.
First off, I'll be honest--I didn't pick up on the idea that all
Immortals were meant to be foundlings until after I started hanging
out here. By that point, I'd seen all of The Series except for Season
One (as Canadian syndication does not include it), and I was fully
aware of the examples of Duncan, Richie, Kenny, and Michelle.
Although I'd seen "The Wrath of Kali," Kamir's line didn't register
with me at the time, and--based solely on a handful of Immortals
amongst a couple of hundred that were seen over the course of The
Series--I (understandably, I think) did not extrapolate a
generalisation from their examples.
As such, my first reaction to learning of this rule was...to think it
was silly. I thought to myself: If it's only relevant to a few
storylines (and sometimes only tangentially), and someone who's
already quite familiar with the subject matter and continuity still
has to be involved in a hardcore fandom to pick up on it, how useful
is it as a universal rule?
>It's not that all foundlings are Immortal, it's just that all Immortals are
>foundlings. <g>
Well, yeah, sure...but at the end of the day, TPTB made a conscious
choice to make that part of the series bible. It didn't have to be
there, especially since it hadn't been previously established--and
even if it had, The Series still diverged from other aspects of
Immortality set up in the original film.
In a very real sense, the makers of the series bible could've made up
any rules they wanted, and The Foundling Thing was chosen as such a
rule, *then* held up alongside the others.
When I posted the analogies above, I wanted to convey a sense of how
arbitrary this particular rule seemed to me. That's why I chose a
characteristic that's relatively common, and doesn't need to be
mentioned outright except in certain specific circumstances, but isn't
a universal (i.e. having blue eyes); as well as a characteristic
that's important to who Duncan is, but isn't universal for (or unique
to) Immortals as seen in The Series (i.e. being Scottish).
Now, going by the original film, TPTB *could've* hypothetically
decided at the beginning of The Series that all Immortals would be
men--which would no doubt have caused any number of complaints, even
though it would've held up to canonical scrutiny. Still, the
possibility of such a choice existed at the outset.
Hypothetically, TPTB could've also decided that all Immortals in The
Series were going to be Scottish. Most people would probably say that
that's silly, arbitrary, and not something that was established by the
first movie...but then, that's how I feel about The Foundling Thing.
:}
>(tried not to pounce)
I take that as a kindness. :-)
Having said that, it appears I went and belaboured the point anyway.
:}
In a world where Joe can be suggested as the father of Anne's baby, I
didn't think this particular opinion of mine would be considered such
an out-there notion...but perhaps I am still wrong about this.
Paris
Paris (Who'd do the same thing for something on Duncan! LOL!)
"John Donchig" <jdon...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:40084C62...@earthlink.net...
Edie
Edgar Governo wrote:
>
> "First Fallen" <no...@nope.com> wrote:
>
> >> <sigh> I'm not going to belabour this point too much because every
> >> time I mention it on here, I get pounced on and people generally
> >> interpret my words in a way I did not intend.
> >>
> >> Having said that, I'll try to use an analogy of a human characteristic
> >> that's more readily apparent...
> >>
> >> To me, The Foundling Thing is like...I don't know...everyone with blue
> >> eyes in The Series being Immortal, or (perhaps more aptly) every
> >> Scotsman in The Series being Immortal. Silly, superfluous,
> >> unnecessary to the overall storytelling mythos.
> >
> >Here's the thing though, it has been established that all Immortals are
> >foundlings. So the only time it comes up, is in regards to Immortals.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Part of the reason I'm always reluctant to bring this up is because
> people automatically assume I am questioning the canonicity of The
> Foundling Thing. I'm not. I'm questioning the *motivations* for The
> Foundling Thing existing as a rule.
>
> Yes, it's been established that all Immortals are foundlings. My
> question is really about why they bothered to establish such an aspect
> of Immortality.
IMO, because it adds mystery to the Highlander mythos.
It makes the origin of immortals unknown, therefore adding
interesting possibilities to who they are and where they
come from.
>
> >For all we know, Anne might have been adopted, or Sgt. Powell. But because
> >that fact was never relevant to the story, it never became public knowledge.
> >It's not mentioned a lot in the show. Duncan discusses it a few times,
> >Kenny, Kamir, Michelle...those are the only instances I can think of off the
> >top of my head.
>
> The fact that it's not mentioned a lot in the show played a big part
> in the formation of my perspective on this, for a couple of reasons.
>
> First off, I'll be honest--I didn't pick up on the idea that all
> Immortals were meant to be foundlings until after I started hanging
> out here. By that point, I'd seen all of The Series except for Season
> One (as Canadian syndication does not include it), and I was fully
> aware of the examples of Duncan, Richie, Kenny, and Michelle.
> Although I'd seen "The Wrath of Kali," Kamir's line didn't register
> with me at the time, and--based solely on a handful of Immortals
> amongst a couple of hundred that were seen over the course of The
> Series--I (understandably, I think) did not extrapolate a
> generalisation from their examples.
>
> As such, my first reaction to learning of this rule was...to think it
> was silly. I thought to myself: If it's only relevant to a few
> storylines (and sometimes only tangentially), and someone who's
> already quite familiar with the subject matter and continuity still
> has to be involved in a hardcore fandom to pick up on it, how useful
> is it as a universal rule?
For me, because it is relevant to every story as
background, just as the holy ground rule is (which also is
only mentioned when it is relevant to a particular story.)
>
> >It's not that all foundlings are Immortal, it's just that all Immortals are
> >foundlings. <g>
>
> Well, yeah, sure...but at the end of the day, TPTB made a conscious
> choice to make that part of the series bible. It didn't have to be
> there, especially since it hadn't been previously established--and
> even if it had, The Series still diverged from other aspects of
> Immortality set up in the original film.
>
> In a very real sense, the makers of the series bible could've made up
> any rules they wanted, and The Foundling Thing was chosen as such a
> rule, *then* held up alongside the others.
Me, I'm happy with the changes, particularly as my
perspective comes from one who saw almost all of the
series eps before I ever saw H1. For me, the series is
my primary sense of what the Highlander universe is,
with the movies as secondary visions, regardless of the
production timelines. :-)
>
> When I posted the analogies above, I wanted to convey a sense of how
> arbitrary this particular rule seemed to me. That's why I chose a
> characteristic that's relatively common, and doesn't need to be
> mentioned outright except in certain specific circumstances, but isn't
> a universal (i.e. having blue eyes); as well as a characteristic
> that's important to who Duncan is, but isn't universal for (or unique
> to) Immortals as seen in The Series (i.e. being Scottish).
>
> Now, going by the original film, TPTB *could've* hypothetically
> decided at the beginning of The Series that all Immortals would be
> men--which would no doubt have caused any number of complaints, even
> though it would've held up to canonical scrutiny. Still, the
> possibility of such a choice existed at the outset.
>
> Hypothetically, TPTB could've also decided that all Immortals in The
> Series were going to be Scottish. Most people would probably say that
> that's silly, arbitrary, and not something that was established by the
> first movie...but then, that's how I feel about The Foundling Thing.
> :}
I guess our perspectives are different, because I don't see
the decision to make immortals foundlings as being in the
same category as if TPTB had given all immortals blue eyes
or made them all Scottish. By making them foundlings, it
makes their origins a mystery. They may not be human at
all. Or they could be. They may be (ack!) from another
planet, or another dimension, or are from a race of humans
whose evolution on earth diverged from homo sapiens. Or
there could be any number of other explanations.
It's not an arbitrary decision that has no meaning, IMO,
such as giving all immortals blue eyes would have been. To
me, the choice to make them all foundlings is far-
reaching in its global (universal?) implications in
enriching the Highlander universe with possibility.
snips
Edie
(JMHO, no pouncing intended :-))
>
> Edgar Governo
David Halpern
"DonnaLetto" <donna...@aol.combative> wrote in message
news:20040111185241...@mb-m06.aol.com...
> >> In Endgame, if Connor's mother wasn't really his
> >> biological mother, then why didn't she say so when
> >> given the chance?
> >
>
> Speaking as an adoptee (and future Immortal, if Bill Panzer is correct
<g>), I
> feel pretty confident that my mother would never deny me, even to save her
own
> life.
>
> Donna
Explain to use the concept of future Immortal?
What did Bill Panzer say?
D.H.
JDChronicler
concept of HL. I cringe every time I read another speculation about how
Immortals really do have parents and how they reproduce--especially when it's a
fanfic that makes canon immortals into blood relatives (e.g. Methos is really
Duncan's father and Richie is really his son) It's important to me that HL
recognizes that there can be strong bonds between people without them being
related genetically. I believe very strongly in chosen family and it's a
central aspect of how I see HL.
Shomeret
Fuzzy
wrote:
Thank you! I can't believe I forgot about them. I knew there had to be
non-Immortal foundlings on the show.
Gabby
DonnaLetto
>> floating around the net somewhere or was it once auctioned at a Con?
>Sounds
>> interesting and I definitely would like to read it. :-)
>>
>> Bye,
>> Johannes
>
>
>Well, Donna and Gillian hve one, because they worked in the story department
>on the show. I have one, because I work in the industry, and a colleague
>was in Vancouver doing a show, and came across the bible, and brought it
>back for me.
>
>As far as I know, it's not available anywhere on the net, or for sale.
IIRC, much of the "rules" portion of the bible is on the Watcher Chronicles CD
in the guise of the Watcher Handbook, in the section called "What We Know About
Immortals."
No, this is not on the DVDs, because with the revised format there was no where
to put it.
Donna
DonnaLetto
>question is really about why they bothered to establish such an aspect
>of Immortality.
IMHO, to quickly indicate that Immortals are a separate race or species, a
thing apart from ordinary mortals yet living among us.
If mortal Ma and Pa MacLeod had given birth to little Dunkie, then he'd just be
a genetic mutation. And we weren't making "X-Men."
Donna
DonnaLetto
>What did Bill Panzer say?
That when I die my First Death, he'll be there to be my Teacher.
Donna
(can't lay my hands at the moment on the convention bio in which Bill says in
which century he was born...)
David Halpern
maybe they will let you participate in the Highlander feature?
You are an excellent historian.
Best,
D.H.
"DonnaLetto" <donna...@aol.combative> wrote in message
news:20040118121124...@mb-m03.aol.com...
Edgar Governo
Do you consider Buffy "just a genetic mutation," in that case?
John Donchig
Edgar Governo wrote:
> donna...@aol.combative (DonnaLetto) wrote:
>
>
>>>My question is really about why they bothered to establish such an aspect
>>>of Immortality.
>>
>>IMHO, to quickly indicate that Immortals are a separate race or species, a
>>thing apart from ordinary mortals yet living among us.
>>
>>If mortal Ma and Pa MacLeod had given birth to little Dunkie, then he'd just be
>>a genetic mutation. And we weren't making "X-Men."
>>
>>Donna
>
>
> Do you consider Buffy "just a genetic mutation," in that case?
Difference being that there's only one of her. Er, two, but that's
because of an unfortunate accident :)
"Chosen One" stories tend to work in the context of natural births when
the writer/creator chooses to do so. Besides, in the specific example
you're using, she grows older, she can (obviously) die, she can have
children, etc. All essentially human traits. The Immortals, I would
contend, really aren't human. Hence no natural births, hence the
unclear origins, hence the foundlings, all of which provide *some* of an
explanation, but keep the Truth shrouded in mystery.
Nice creative device, that.
John
Susan Stansfield
>For me, the series is
>my primary sense of what the Highlander universe is,
>with the movies as secondary visions, regardless of the
>production timelines. :-)
I feel the same way. I was also a fan of the series before I saw the first
movie.
Susan
Darth Maul's Highlander Site:
http://pub54.ezboard.com/fdarthscommunityfrm20
DonnaLetto
No. But I don't consider all Immortals chosen by god/fate/time for a special
purpose.
Comparing the existence of thousands of random Immortals to the existence of
one chosen Vampire slayer is apples and oranges.
Donna
John Donchig
DonnaLetto wrote:
>>Do you consider Buffy "just a genetic mutation," in that case?
>
>
> No. But I don't consider all Immortals chosen by god/fate/time for a special
> purpose.
Is that God/Fate/Time a nod to Quantum Leap?
John
phil...@ee.signature.uk
wrote:
>>
>> Do you consider Buffy "just a genetic mutation," in that case?
>
>Difference being that there's only one of her. Er, two, but that's
>because of an unfortunate accident :)
Now quite a lot, since the last episode! Every potential Slayer,
anywhere, went 'live'.
See, Peter was right! 'In the end there will be a bunch' (or something
like that....).
Philippa
Edie
<g>
This isn't really a response to your post, Philippa,
But I'm not getting the relevance of a comparison between
Buffy and Highlander. Buffy is Buffy and Highlander is
Highlander. Each has its own fictional existence. Buffy
isn't a foundling, the immortals are. Neither are mutants
like the X-Men. The X-Men being mutants is integral to
that story, and while immortals being foundlings doesn't
seem quite as integral to the Highlander universe, it seems
to me that this is because we don't know the origins of
immortals.
It might well be the key to immortal existence, and
therefore be just as necessary to the overall story as
the mutantism (is that a word? :-)) of the X-Men. As it
is, IMO it adds mystery and richness to the Highlander
Universe, which I really like.
Now, not everyone needs to feel as I do; there are those
who hated having any supernatural elements to Highlander
beyond the quickenings, for instance; those who wanted
Duncan to be just like the guy next door except for the
Game and immortality. I understand that different
people like and dislike different creative choices; I just
think that this does not invalidate the legitimacy of
those creative choices in building a fictional universe.
MHO
Edie
>
> Philippa
Jerri
> Now, not everyone needs to feel as I do;
> there are those who hated having any
> supernatural elements to Highlander
> beyond the quickenings, for instance;
> those who wanted Duncan to be just
> like the guy next door except for the
> Game and immortality. I understand
> that different people like and dislike
> different creative choices; I just think
> that this does not invalidate the legitimacy
> of those creative choices in building a
> fictional universe.
Throwing my 2 cents in here, because it is my considered opinion that once
any sort of supernatural event becomes part of a fictional universe, the
mundane world is no longer a yardstick of legitimacy. Once there is magic,
there is no such thing as too much magic. Things build on things. Thousands
of years ago, there was the abacus. Movable type came long. Electricity,
calculators ... and all of a sudden, there's a PC on every desk that is more
powerful than ever dreamed of 20 years ago. Once there is a Quickening ...
with the light show and the successful combatant pretty much coming and
going at the same time ... you gotta know there's more. I don't know how
there could possibly *not* be more. So we get a witch with precognition and
a Voice, and demons and crazy guys with projectile psychoses, a Hayoka whose
cup gets way overfull, and some sort of unexplainable attraction between a
straight arrow Boy Scout Immortal and that lying thief, whore Amanda.
Jerri
Raymond Speer
Immortals as a different species?
That would bring up the question of: "what does a fertile Immortal look
like?" If the Immortal life cycle has a biological basis, then somewhere
there is something that emits pre-Immortals. What and where is it?
Besides, we know that there is nothing biologically distinct about
Immortals. There was a limit to what that doctor could test in his
basement in Deadly Medicine 92111-8, but he covered all the basics. Mac
tests out as human in every respect. If Mac was a different species, he
would have a blood type foreign to our species.
Edie
I see your point. :-) IMO, there's such a thing as
getting too "out there" with this sort of stuff,
though- although, that's really a matter of execution
as it is concept, IMO. If it is well done, stays true
to the HL concept, and doesn't stretch credulity too far
within the already fantastical Highlander universe, I
don't object to more. I found some of the comedy eps
like Unusual Suspects way farther out there than AAA, for
instance.
> and some sort of unexplainable attraction between a
> straight arrow Boy Scout Immortal and that lying thief, whore Amanda.
<g> Well, as you know, Amanda isn't a favorite character
of mine, but I think I understand the attraction.
Especially the physical attraction. :-) Mac likes to live
dangerously at times when it comes to women, and I think
that Amanda was a source of amusement to him for quite a
while. Later she actually demonstrated some true caring
for him and others, and a little bit more depth to her
character than before, IMO. And there's no malice in her.
As for Amanda, I think she is also attracted to that
which she is not. :-) But they are too far apart in
personality to be true loves the way Duncan and Tessa were,
IMO.
Edie
> Jerri
Edie
<pondering> I wonder what Neanderthal blood types were
like?
Edie
DonnaLetto
>
>John
You betcha.
Donna
DonnaLetto
I specifically said race or species. I'm not getting into semantic nit-picking
with you.
Donna
phil...@ee.signature.uk
><g>
>
>This isn't really a response to your post, Philippa,
>But I'm not getting the relevance of a comparison between
>Buffy and Highlander.
They both have Watchers. I have speculated here before that perhaps the
Watcher academy for Immortal Watchers and Slayer Watchers might be the
same place and the intake is divided by aptitude at some point <BEG>.
Philippa
John Donchig
Yay! Someone else with some taste. Hear anything about Sci-Fi channel
developing a new QL series in the hopes Enterprise gets whacked?
John
Edie
<g>
Maybe the dividing point relates to which Watchers can or
cannot observe record, but never interfere. If so,
clearly some mistakes in judgment were made... <g>
Edie
>
> Philippa
DonnaLetto
>developing a new QL series in the hopes Enterprise gets whacked?
>
>John
The Quantum Leap that I'm aware of in development for SciFi doesn't star Scott
Bakula, although there were hopes that he'd do the hand-off, much like
Christophe handed off to Adrian in the first episode of Highlander.
Donna
TBird
"DonnaLetto" <donna...@aol.combative> wrote in message
> >> Just for interest: Where do one get a copy of the series bible?! Is it
> >> floating around the net somewhere or was it once auctioned at a Con?
> >Sounds
> >> interesting and I definitely would like to read it. :-)
> >>
> >> Bye,
> >> Johannes
> >
> >
> >Well, Donna and Gillian hve one, because they worked in the story
department
> >on the show. I have one, because I work in the industry, and a colleague
> >was in Vancouver doing a show, and came across the bible, and brought it
> >back for me.
> >
> >As far as I know, it's not available anywhere on the net, or for sale.
>
> IIRC, much of the "rules" portion of the bible is on the Watcher
Chronicles CD
> in the guise of the Watcher Handbook, in the section called "What We Know
About
> Immortals."
OH!
COOL!
TBird <--- never knew this
John Donchig
Excuse me. I have to go sit in a dark room somewhere and cry.
John
GinjerB
writes:
>Subject: Re: Do Immortals have parents?
>From: "Ammaletu" <wat...@ammaletu.de>
>Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:09:53 +0100
>
>Hi everyone!
>
>> So if an epi had been done with someone who was adopted who *wasn't*
>Immortal,
>> the whole thing would be easier for you to swallow?
>
>Without having followed the last part of this discussion I just want to add:
>There actually are episodes with adopted mortals! Katya found her mortal
>daughter Elena as a small child on the streets of Buenos Aires ["Justice"].
>And Morgan Kenworthy adopted his mortal son, William, who was later killed
>along with Morgan (who became Immortal then) [Raven-03 "Bloodlines"]. Just
>had to throw this in. 0:-)
>
>Bye,
>Johannes
>
>
>
>
Of course! I should have remembered Justice, it's my favorite spin-off chick
epi. And there is a character in my HL novel who appears in Bloodlines!
Thanks.
GinjerB
GinjerB
Governo) writes:
>Subject: Re: Do Immortals have parents?
>From: arph...@TAKEmb.sympatico.ca (Edgar Governo)
>Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:08:09 GMT
>
>donna...@aol.combative (DonnaLetto) wrote:
>
>>>My question is really about why they bothered to establish such an aspect
>>>of Immortality.
>>
>>IMHO, to quickly indicate that Immortals are a separate race or species, a
>>thing apart from ordinary mortals yet living among us.
>>
>>If mortal Ma and Pa MacLeod had given birth to little Dunkie, then he'd just
>be
>>a genetic mutation. And we weren't making "X-Men."
>>
>>Donna
>
>Do you consider Buffy "just a genetic mutation," in that case?
>
>
But what's Buffy got to do with it? She's clearly human--just with Special
Powers, most of which seem to be ordinary abilities, enhanced in one specific
direction--to make her a better fighter.
Buffy is far more "magical" than the Immies, MHO--it's been establised that
Slayers train before they are activated--but it is not until they are (in some
undefined and I think undefineable way) that their enhanced abilities kick in.
Joss &Co, wisely, never ever tried to deal with what that process of activation
is, who triggers it, how, etc.
GinjerB
GinjerB
<nooneh...@invalid.com> writes:
>Subject: Re: Do Immortals have parents?
>From: "Jerri" <nooneh...@invalid.com>
>Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:52:20 -0600
Except that--all of the "magical" things you mentioned (except for Ahriman)
aren't in the realm of magic at all--they are more in the nature of sf
extrapolations--various changes rung on the notion that extrasensory
preception(s) do exist. And if they do for some of us ordinary folk, why not
also for some Immies?
Ahriman stretched my credibility--but I still wouldn't consider that story line
to be particularly "magical." Folks swear that The Exorcist was based on
something that really happened, after all....<g>
GinjerB
Jerri
> Except that--all of the "magical" things you
> mentioned (except for Ahriman) aren't in the
> realm of magic at all--they are more in the
> nature of sf extrapolations--various changes
> rung on the notion that extrasensory preception(s)
> do exist. And if they do for some of us ordinary
> folk, why not also for some Immies?
Each of the "magical" things I mentioned are completely outside my mundane
experience. I think of them as "supernatural" which, in my never very humble
opinion, also contains "magic". So if mundane folks gots them, they is
magic. And if Immies gots them, they is magic. Magic is all around. I've
just never met any, personally.
> Ahriman stretched my credibility--but I still wouldn't
> consider that story line to be particularly "magical."
> Folks swear that The Exorcist was based on
> something that really happened, after all....<g>
I've never seen The Exorcist ... not too interested in demons and/or
exorcism. I wasn't at all impressed with Ahriman. What? A demon that gives
up as soon as someone says he's non-relevant? I would interpret Ahriman's
presence as yet another manifestation of the extremely pliable and
susceptible mind of Duncan MacLeod. But that's just me. I know he's got all
sorts of Zoroastrian imperatives, but ... yikes.
Jerri
David Halpern
work on "The Source".
I wasn't being smart when I said that.
You know a lot about history and it is impressive.
Best,
David
"David Halpern" <photoni...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:SpAOb.13728$q4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
GinjerB
<nooneh...@invalid.com> writes:
>Subject: Re: Do Immortals have parents?
>From: "Jerri" <nooneh...@invalid.com>
>Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:46:16 -0600
That's a version of "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
from magic", eh? <g>
MHO, ESP isn't magic at all. It's an inborn albility, like perfect pitch. We
all could potentially have it, but most of us don't.
GinjerB
Jerri
> MHO, ESP isn't magic at all. It's an inborn
> albility, like perfect pitch. We all could
> potentially have it, but most of us don't.
I've never met anyone who has ESP, but I've met any number of people who
have perfect pitch. The one guy that I met, and who claimed he had ESP did
*not* have ESP. I'm willing to work with claims of ESP. No problem. I just
refuse to accept that a guy who can't read *my* mind can read any mind. At
all. I ain't that complex and we all know how shallow my depths are
Jerri [working into the first few chapters of Sorceress of Darshiva ...
again ... and enjoying it immensely.]
GinjerB
<nooneh...@invalid.com> writes:
>Subject: Re: Do Immortals have parents?
>From: "Jerri" <nooneh...@invalid.com>
>Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:02:20 -0600
You've never known anybody who has had a precognitive dream?
And ESP is a lot more than "mind reading."
Call it "heightened intuition" is you prefer. It exists.
GinjerB
Jerri
> You've never known anybody who has had
> a precognitive dream? And ESP is a lot more
> than "mind reading." Call it "heightened
> intuition" is you prefer. It exists.
For a believer in imaginary magic, I'm a Very Hard Sell on ESP and such. I'm
not exactly sure how you define "heightened intuition", so can't really
agree that I believe it exists. It all kind of goes with my particular brand
of atheism. I saw the faithful speaking in tongues and receiving an
interpretation of the message in church services for many years. If I can
deny the truth of *that*, I can certainly deny the reality of "heightened
intuition" until I am convinced of its truth.. Myownself. In person.
Jerri
TBird
"Jerri" <nooneh...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:iLGdnUKfYYI...@gbronline.com...
> I've never met anyone who has ESP,
You met me, briefly.
I've predicted through a clear knowledge the specific suicide of a friend
and the exactl means by which he did it. (I predicted it ten years in
advance, and told a mutual friend.)
I had a dream about a missing check at work and I journaled it, and forgot
it. Several months later, the exact circumstances of the lost check and
it's recovery came true. I'd forgotten the dream, and didn't make the
connection until re-reading my journal.
So. There ya go. Those are the two most dramatic examples I have of my own
ESP, and there are lots less dramatic ones.
You met me briefly at Legacy 2000, so now you can proudly say that you have
met someone with ESP.
TBird <---- predicts you will ignore or try to debunk this post....but that
doesn't take ESP
Jerri
> TBird <---- predicts you will ignore
> or try to debunk this post....but that
> doesn't take ESP
You believe you got ESP. Okey dokey. I never saw any sign of it when I met
you briefly at Legacy 2000. Which puts us exactly nowhere in the proof
department.
Jerri
DonnaLetto
> I never saw any sign of it when I met
>you briefly at Legacy 2000.
She didn't say she was blue or had three arms. She said she had ESP.
Donna
("funny, you don't look bluish")
Jerri
> Jerri:
> > I never saw any sign of it when I met
> >you briefly at Legacy 2000.
> She didn't say she was blue or had three arms.
> She said she had ESP.
Oh. Well, that's different then. I divined no sense of ESP in the ethers
about her at Legacy 2000. Did you? I'm just wondering. I've never divined a
sense of ESP in the ethers around anyone at any time at any place, and would
like to know how it's done. The divining thing. Not the ESP. Because I am as
likely to believe a person is blue or has 3 arms as I am to believe that he
has ESP.
Jerri [the Unbeliever]
GHorvath
>about her at Legacy 2000. Did you? I'm just wondering. I've never divined a
>sense of ESP in the ethers around anyone at any time at any place, and would
>like to know how it's done. The divining thing. Not the ESP. Because I am as
>likely to believe a person is blue or has 3 arms as I am to believe that he
>has ESP.
>Jerri [the Unbeliever]
Okay, by that logic:
Which people at who were Legacy have high blood pressure?
Which have diabetes?
Which know how to speak French?
I saw no one "demonstrating" any of these conditions; are we to assume they
don't exist?
That fact something is not apparent to a casual observer doesn't make it
imaginary.
Perhaps you'd like to rephrase the statement, "I've never met anyone with ESP"
to what I believe you intended, "I've never met a convincing incidence of ESP,"
before we go any further in arguing this tangent.
GH
<== not a believer in ESP, but a believer in logical discourse
http://hometown.aol.com/webgill/index.html
Jerri
> Perhaps you'd like to rephrase the statement,
> "I've never met anyone with ESP" to what I
> believe you intended, "I've never met a
> convincing incidence of ESP,"
> before we go any further in arguing this tangent.
I'm kinda thinking it's not necessary to continue arguing this topic. I
don't believe in ESP. I'm also an atheist. I don't argue with proselytizing
religiously-engaged persons because it's a low-cal experience and it has
been my experience that my lack of faith seems to upset them horribly. I
think it might well behoove me to add believers in ESP to the category of
persons with whom I choose not to argue about belief systems.
Jerri
First Fallen
> >What did Bill Panzer say?
>
> That when I die my First Death, he'll be there to be my Teacher.
>
> Donna
> (can't lay my hands at the moment on the convention bio in which Bill says
in
> which century he was born...)
I recall you telling me that story, when I was relaying the tale of my car
accident, and my very Highlander-esque "revival".
Fuzzy
Peter Mason
> >are we sure that all
> >Immortals are foundlings?
>
> Yes.
>
> It says so in the bible. Therefore, it is true, no matter what dance you try
> to do to make it not true.
And why does that make it canon? The bibles are nothing, but simply
background stuff for the writers to use. It's not the holy writ for
the Highlander Series Universe, the stuff that appears on my tv is.
Edie
Peter Mason wrote:
>
> donna...@aol.combative (DonnaLetto) wrote in message news:<20040116115744...@mb-m18.aol.com>...
> > >are we sure that all
> > >Immortals are foundlings?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > It says so in the bible. Therefore, it is true, no matter what dance you try
> > to do to make it not true.
>
> And why does that make it canon? The bibles are nothing, but simply
> background stuff for the writers to use.
Then they *are* something- in this case, background on
immortals that say they're all foundlings.
It's not the holy writ for
> the Highlander Series Universe, the stuff that appears on my tv is.
And the stuff on your TV also indicates that immortals
are foundlings. Unless you can show evidence on screen
that contradicts this (and I've never seen any) why
bother disputing it as being canon?
Edie
(mystified by the problem some have with this concept of
immortals being foundlings)
Raymond Speer
Edie asks why some people have a problem with all Immortals being
foundlings.
Speaking for myself, I would rephrase the question: why does anybody
have a problem with assuming that pre-Immortality is a condition that
rarely and randomly appears among human births?
I have never thought that pre-Immortality for a fortunate few detracts
an iota from the HL mythos. An earlier post in this thread points out
that my preferred origin would make Immortality nothing more than a
"mutation" in the X-Man sense. My sensitivity antenna (at full
extension) fails to detect that as a problem.
Frankly, I've always been appalled at the changeling myth --- the notion
that nonhumans may substitute replacements for human babies. That myth
was a cruel spurning of people born with defects like mental
retardation, palsies and disfigurements --- the bottom line is that they
were not really human. I like many Immortals --- don't tell me that
Duncan, Connor, Darius, Fitzcairn and Amanda aren't human.
Also (possibility because my personal exposure to fantasy occurred
through superhero comics), my sense of wonder operates on an Occam's
Razor basis. My imagination is churning out explanations to make the
impossible fit as snugly as it can with the mundane details of real
life. You can note that in some of my postings ===
(X) Darius would have been the subject of unwanted attention had he
simply stayed in a single church 200 years, so I suggest that he would
stay at one assignment a couple decades at the most, then he would
recycle through the training process again and return to clerical duties
with a new name somewhere else.
(X) Because it doesn't snow in Belgium in June, Darius and Duncan first
met soon after the Battle of Valencia, Spain, four years before the end
of the Napoleonic Wars.
(X) What evidence we have on Immortals, as presented on screen, does not
lend itself to the assumption that Immortals are foundlings. Every
factor in Connor's origin argues that his mother is his biological
parent -- even cousins that hate him admit they are related to him,
which they would not do if they could argue he was adopted. Kenny's
parents are slain on the same day Kenny has his first death. Amanda once
swore on her mother's grave --- Duncan cruelly said Amanda did not have
a mom, and the poor lass was silenced but left the boorish Scotsman soon
thereafter. *-)
We know that Duncan's dad spurned him as an adoptee at a moment of
crisis and that Richie is raised by Social Services. That is two, and
there is the philosophical meanderings of a monk to the effect that no
Immortal knows his parents. The teen girl who became Amanda's student
was also adopted, do there are 4 foundlings, at most.
For other Immortals, we know zip about their early lives. Hence, why
entertain a universal theory suspended upon so few data points?
Edie
Raymond Speer wrote:
>
> Edie asks why some people have a problem with all Immortals being
> foundlings.
>
> Speaking for myself, I would rephrase the question: why does anybody
> have a problem with assuming that pre-Immortality is a condition that
> rarely and randomly appears among human births?
I wouldn't have any problem with it if it were established
that this were so. I certainly wouldn't be arguing that
immortals were foundlings in the face of clear evidence that
they were not!
But it *has* been established that they are foundlings.
And I still don't get the insistence that this must
somehow be open to question.
>
> I have never thought that pre-Immortality for a fortunate few detracts
> an iota from the HL mythos. An earlier post in this thread points out
> that my preferred origin would make Immortality nothing more than a
> "mutation" in the X-Man sense. My sensitivity antenna (at full
> extension) fails to detect that as a problem.
But wishing doesn't make it so. I would have wished, for
instance, that mortality were not the prize that Connor won
in Highlander 1. I thought that it was pretty silly to
spend centuries killing people so that you were the "One",
only to get death as a prize. But I didn't write
Highlander 1, so my vote doesn't count. Morality *was*
(part of) the prize. Just as immortals in the series are
foundlings.
>
> Frankly, I've always been appalled at the changeling myth --- the notion
> that nonhumans may substitute replacements for human babies. That myth
> was a cruel spurning of people born with defects like mental
> retardation, palsies and disfigurements --- the bottom line is that they
> were not really human. I like many Immortals --- don't tell me that
> Duncan, Connor, Darius, Fitzcairn and Amanda aren't human.
I'm not sure why their not being human would make them any
less likable, but I'm just as happy with their being human
as well. Their being foundlings doesn't eliminate that
possibility. But I also like the idea that they are
extra-human, with a purpose to their uniqueness.
I snipped the rest, but to me, there is nothing in the
examples you gave to contradict the declaration of the
writers and the on-screen evidence that that immortals are
foundlings.
First Fallen
> instance, that mortality were not the prize that Connor won
> in Highlander 1. I thought that it was pretty silly to
> spend centuries killing people so that you were the "One",
> only to get death as a prize. But I didn't write
> Highlander 1, so my vote doesn't count. Morality *was*
> (part of) the prize. Just as immortals in the series are
> foundlings.
I still think that the prize was whatever the winner most desired. All
Connor wanted was to have children and grow old with the woman he loved.
Winning the prize allowed him to do exatly that.
First Fallen
car
> >accident, and my very Highlander-esque "revival".
> >
> What happened exactly?
I hit a cab in an intersection, going about 50 Km/H (or about 31 MPH).
Wrecked the whole front end of my car, it spun right around. When it was
all over, I was laying in my car for a few seconds, eyes closed, not
breathing, then I opened my eyes and started gasping for air, my back arcing
against the seat. It was all very surreal. I was even wearing a long black
trenchcoat at the time <g>
Edie
First Fallen wrote:
>
> > But wishing doesn't make it so. I would have wished, for
> > instance, that mortality were not the prize that Connor won
> > in Highlander 1. I thought that it was pretty silly to
> > spend centuries killing people so that you were the "One",
> > only to get death as a prize. But I didn't write
> > Highlander 1, so my vote doesn't count. Morality
<g> Good typo there. :-)
*was*
> > (part of) the prize. Just as immortals in the series are
> > foundlings.
>
> I still think that the prize was whatever the winner most desired. All
> Connor wanted was to have children and grow old with the woman he loved.
> Winning the prize allowed him to do exatly that.
It could be, although it was also the ability to know what
everyone was thinking, IIRC. It still seems senseless to
me to have spent centuries fighting for survival in order
to win the prize of mortality.
Edie
First Fallen
> everyone was thinking, IIRC. It still seems senseless to
> me to have spent centuries fighting for survival in order
> to win the prize of mortality.
Not if what you want is just to live as a normal man.
Peter Mason
> > And why does that make it canon? The bibles are nothing, but simply
> > background stuff for the writers to use.
>
>
> Then they *are* something- in this case, background on
> immortals that say they're all foundlings.
They are material for the writers to use and also for the writers to
change so they are simply not canon period.
> It's not the holy writ for
> > the Highlander Series Universe, the stuff that appears on my tv is.
>
> And the stuff on your TV also indicates that immortals
> are foundlings. Unless you can show evidence on screen
> that contradicts this (and I've never seen any) why
> bother disputing it as being canon?
Where exactly does a reliable source say that? MacLeod surely doesn't
know the origins the majority of immortals on Earth.
> Edie
> (mystified by the problem some have with this concept of
> immortals being foundlings)
Possibly because the foundling thing makes their origins less
mysterious.
First Fallen
> change so they are simply not canon period.
You obviously don't know how a series bible works. It is a set of rules
laid down so that writers know what they can and cannot do. These are the
rules of the universe in which the show takes place. If DPP didn't care
about the foundling thing, it wouldn't be so clearly laid out in the series
bible. Because it is put down so matter of factly, in writing, in the
bible, that all of the writers are familiar with, it is considered gospel.
Davis/Panzer has said "All Immortals are foundlings", therefor that has been
the case with the show, and is the way it is. The rules laid down in the
bible are not there for the writers to change, they are the rules of the
universe that they have to work within. You'd have to come up with
something pretty impressive for them to consider bending the rules.
> Where exactly does a reliable source say that? MacLeod surely doesn't
> know the origins the majority of immortals on Earth.
EVERY SINGLE TIME that the topic of Immortals' origins has come up, it has
either been specifically laid out or heavily implied that no Immortal has
even know their true birth parents. That they were orphans, most often
raised by adopted parents. And while MacLeod doesn't know the origins of
the majority of the Immortals on earth, you can bet the Watchers do.
What do you want, that everytime we meet new Immortals, they exchange
adoption papers?
> Possibly because the foundling thing makes their origins less
> mysterious.
How could not knowing how you came to be or where you come from be any
mysterious?
DonnaLetto
>entertain a universal theory suspended upon so few data points?
Feel free to come back and argue this point again after you've actually
familiarized yourself better with the show.
These are the "data points" I could look up off the top of my head. There may
be others:
TESSA
Jack Ryan. Richie's father.
MACLEOD
I wouldn't lay odds on finding him.
**************
RICHIE
I... ah... saw Mr. Stubbs in the
park on my way back. I wanted to
ask him more stuff about my mother.
Turns out that check she got every
Friday was from a foster agency.
She was a foster mother. My foster
mother.
TESSA
But your name is Ryan? Emily must
have given you her last name.
RICHIE
I figured that, too. Guess I'll
never know where I came from.
MACLEOD
Maybe not. But for now you have a
place to be.
**************
MACLEOD
I'm your son!
IAN MACLEOD
No! And never were!
On the night my lady wife gave birth
to our only son, still born... was
brought to her chamber by a peasant
woman a boy child, to replace that
which was lost....
******************
RICHIE
You never found out? Who your real
parents were?
MACLEOD
No. But... after a couple hundred
years, you get over it.
He turns to them with an ironic smile.
MACLEOD
One day, so will you.
***************
MACLEOD
Listen to me. Forget about that
crap your stepfather told you.
CAHILL
How did you know he was my step-dad?
MACLEOD
I know a lot of things about you,
Cahill. Things you don't know...
yet.
**************
MACLEOD
It's my guess Ursa grew up in the
wilds... alone.
**************
AMANDA
(protesting)
On my mother's grave...
MACLEOD
You don't have a mother.
**************
TARSIS
I'll tell you how long. All your
life. You never had parents, you
never had anybody to look after
you.
**************
MICHELLE
(moving away)
They're not my parents.
They're not. And they won't tell
me who is.
************
KENNY
They found me when I was a baby. I was like their son.
************
G’ESTAING
(with difficulty)
Things have changed, Morgan.
(beat)
When we thought we'd remain childless,
we adopted you to carry our ancient
family name. To carry on the
G'Estaing line.
************
KAMIR
Because you don't know your parents?
No Immortal does.
(with passion)
We are the children and heirs of the
time and place that bore us.
**************
MACLEOD
So who's this Andrew Donnelly?
METHOS
Probably Cochrane's student. No
parents, living on the streets of
Aberdeen when Cochrane found him a
couple years ago. Cleaned him up,
gave him a job.
**************
MARY
(aside, urgently)
I love Duncan as you do, as my own
flesh and blood...
(beat)
But you know he's a foundling! What
if it's Duncan he seeks?
**************
ROLAND
A boy... found on the winter
solstice... a foundling child.
**************
MACLEOD
They say he'd sell his own mother
for two pennies... he breaks people's
legs for breakfast!
FITZCAIRN
You worry too much.
(beat)
Besides, he doesn't have a mother.
**************
CASSANDRA (V.O.)
Hijad was our Tribe's Healer. He
had found me as a baby, and taken me
in as his student.
(beat)
I wasn't yet Immortal, but I had
skills, and Hijad trusted me. Maybe
he could sense I was different.
**************
BELL
Derek was in fifteen foster homes by
the time he was ten.
**************
KEOGH
No, but Duncan taught me a lot.
(beat)
When I was born, you could buy an
eight-year-old boy out of the
orphanage for less than the price
of a pig, and bind him in
apprenticeship like a slave until
he was twenty-one.
Edie
Peter Mason wrote:
>
> Edie <ed...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<40136735...@comcast.net>...
>
> > > And why does that make it canon? The bibles are nothing, but simply
> > > background stuff for the writers to use.
> >
> >
> > Then they *are* something- in this case, background on
> > immortals that say they're all foundlings.
>
> They are material for the writers to use and also for the writers to
> change so they are simply not canon period.
So long as they are writing from what's in it, and
what's in it is that immortals are foundlings, I
disagree.
>
> > It's not the holy writ for
> > > the Highlander Series Universe, the stuff that appears on my tv is.
> >
> > And the stuff on your TV also indicates that immortals
> > are foundlings. Unless you can show evidence on screen
> > that contradicts this (and I've never seen any) why
> > bother disputing it as being canon?
>
> Where exactly does a reliable source say that? MacLeod surely doesn't
> know the origins the majority of immortals on Earth.
See Gillian's post. IMO, the indications that immortals
are foundlings are everywhere, starting with Family Tree.
>
> > Edie
> > (mystified by the problem some have with this concept of
> > immortals being foundlings)
>
> Possibly because the foundling thing makes their origins less
> mysterious.
How do do you figure that? It leaves the question of their
origins completely open, whereas if they are human, the
mystery surrounding them is less. Or so it seems to me.
Oh well. :-) YMMV.
Edie
Edie
Connor may have been completely happy with the Prize; he
certainly seemed to be. As a viewer, however, I find
a Game where immortals spend millennia killing
each other to claim a prize that turns out to be mortality
for the last of them to be an exercize in futility. They
may as well not have been immortal or played the Game at
all in that case.
Again, YMMV. :-)
Edie
Jerri
> Connor may have been completely happy
> with the Prize; he certainly seemed to be.
> As a viewer, however, I find a Game
> where immortals spend millennia killing
> each other to claim a prize that turns out
> to be mortality for the last of them to be
> an exercize in futility. They may as well
> not have been immortal or played the
> Game at all in that case. Again, YMMV. :-)
I kind of thought Connor "chose" mortality as his Prize. He could have had
anything and chose mortality. Idiot. He could have had anything and offed
himself when he got tired of his new toys. Making himself mortal wasn't
going to get his dead wife back. It wasn't going to accomplish anything. You
can bet The Kurgan wouldn't have chosen mortality as his Prize, and I can't
think of any sensible Immortal who would fight through the millennia to win
*that*.
Of course, we have the revised Highlander in which Connor didn't really win
The Prize ... he and Kurgan were just foolin' themselves ... and that
Quickening was just a regular everyday monster Quickening taken from an
ancient Immortal. So the Real, Honest to Goodness, Really Truly Prize is
still up for grabs and who knows what that would actually be ... except the
power to rule the world for a few eons. And who believes that's even
possible? Immortals have a high 'n' mighty opinion of their abilities ...
but us humans wouldn't necessarily let The One have his way.
Jerri
Bizarro7
blood test was conducted for some purpose, around about the time of WWII, and
the results had to be suppressed because they revealed that a shockingly large
percentage of children in American families didn't have the fathers they were
supposed to?
Leah
Fuzzy
wrote:
>> >I recall you telling me that story, when I was relaying the tale of my
Wow! What an experience!
Gabby
Jette Goldie
Tell me, Jerri - and just how would it show itself to you?
--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Jerri
> "Jerri" <nooneh...@invalid.com> wrote
> > "TBird" <64t...@earthling.net> wrote
> > > TBird <---- predicts you will ignore
> > > or try to debunk this post....but that
> > > doesn't take ESP
> > You believe you got ESP. Okey dokey.
> > I never saw any sign of it when I met
> > you briefly at Legacy 2000. Which puts
> > us exactly nowhere in the proof
> > department.
> Tell me, Jerri - and just how would it show itself to you?
I don't know. You have any ideas?
Jerri
GinjerB
(Raymond Speer) writes:
>Subject: Re: Do Immortals have parents?
>From: ray...@webtv.net (Raymond Speer)
>Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 09:30:53 -0600 (CST)
>
>
>
>We know that Duncan's dad spurned him as an adoptee at a moment of
>crisis and that Richie is raised by Social Services. That is two, and
>there is the philosophical meanderings of a monk to the effect that no
>Immortal knows his parents. The teen girl who became Amanda's student
>was also adopted, do there are 4 foundlings, at most.
>
>For other Immortals, we know zip about their early lives. Hence, why
>entertain a universal theory suspended upon so few data points?
>
>
>
But it's not a "few data points"--it's a consistent message.
If the consistent message had been that some few ordinary human children are
born as Pre-Immies, that would be okay with me.
But that's not the case.
GinjerB
HiRene23
>These are the "data points" I could look up off the top of my head. There
>may
>be others:
Wow. Very impressive.
I'm also having a hard time understanding why some people just can't accept the
foundling theory. I guess I've always just accepted it as canon based on
everything I've ever seen in the shows and movies. It is nice to have examples
spelled out so clearly though.
Jerri
> I'm also having a hard time understanding why
> some people just can't accept the foundling
> theory. I guess I've always just accepted it
> as canon based on everything I've ever seen
> in the shows and movies. It is nice to have
> examples spelled out so clearly though.
In a fantasy universe, the rules are set up by the creators of the fantasy,
who then invite guests in to enjoy the ride. If the guests don't accept the
rules of the fantasy, they're just not playing the game correctly. If they
don't like "this" fantasy, they're free to set up their own fantasy
universes and set their own rules. If they can.
Jerri [whose dragons are hibernating through this blasted cold]
Harold Buck
"Jerri" <nooneh...@invalid.com> wrote:
However, the creators have an obligation, too: they need to stick with
their own rules, or at least be consistent when they add new rules. And
they often don't do that.
IIRC, Highlander the Series wasn't *too* bad in this respect. However,
shows like Quantam Leap really screw up their own rules ("No one can see
him as Sam. No wait, animals can. And kids. And the mentally ill. And
Manute Bol. . . .")
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson
Edie
<g>
This depends, though, IMO. Not every series of books or
TV shows is meant to be a consistent whole. In some, a
fantasy (or non-fantasy) setting is created with certain
characteristics, but where each individual story is a whole
in itself and not necessarily designed to be consistent
with the previous story.
Many of us like to have a world created for us that is
very consistent story after story, because we like to
live in that world in our imaginations and believe
in its existence there. When established rules are
broken, it makes it harder to suspend our disbelief in
that world.
But this can also be limiting to the imagination of the
authors as they find themselves stuck with rules when
their latest story would be much better served if they
could change those rules. Sometimes having different
rules from story to story can make each story more
compelling.
I don't think that one way of telling stories is less
legitimate than the other; I agree that internal
consistency in a story is important, but not necessarily
from story to story.
Really, I think that the only obligation a story-teller has
is to the honesty of his or her own vision. Whether ot not
the story appeals to me, is another question entirely.
MHO
Edie
>
> --Harold Buck
Jerri
> However, the creators have an obligation, too: they
> need to stick with their own rules, or at least be
> consistent when they add new rules. And they
> often don't do that.
It's true ... consistency is not the hallmark of fantasy universes ... but
I'm willing to grant leeway for modifications to rules as unforeseen
circumstances come up. As the rules in Real Life get tumbled with the
times, so will the rules in a fantasy universe go topsy turvy at need. I've
been told that I have no respect for the rules of fantasy ... when what I
have no respect for are people who try to limit fantasy when the only limits
*should* be those imposed by imagination.
> IIRC, Highlander the Series wasn't *too* bad in this
> respect. However, shows like Quantam Leap really
> screw up their own rules ("No one can see him as Sam.
> No wait, animals can. And kids. And the mentally ill. And
> Manute Bol. . . .")
We call inconsistencies in the Highlander multiverses YAHIs ... Yet Another
Highlander Inconsistency. The acronym would never have been necessary if
consistency had ever been the hallmark of Highlander. Of course, there are
those who argue that inconsistencies aren't *really* inconsistencies if
this, that or the other damn thing is taken into consideration. Arguing that
point can take way too much time out of a person's life.
Jerri
XavierFan79
>shows like Quantam Leap really screw up their own rules ("No one can see
>him as Sam. No wait, animals can. And kids. And the mentally ill.
If I remember right, they explained that animals, children, and the mentally
ill were more likely to see the world as it is, not as they're supposed to see
it.
DonnaLetto
>ill were more likely to see the world as it is, not as they're supposed to
>see
>it.
Which is a Bellasario concept that was used quite cleverly, IIRC, in "Magnum,
P.I." when Magnum was a ghost who could only be seen by a little girl.
Donna