Some HTGSC thoughts
Steve Pagano
ideas addressed.
* Some people have complained that all 'Ghosts' did was rehash stuff we
already knew about M&S. But that's not the point, IMO. What's important is
that M&S themselves have finally been confronted with some of these issues,
having them thrown in their faces for the first time. No, the 'ship is not
the *whole* show, but it's an integral part of it. M&S facing these issues
is something that has to happen for the show to progress, because if any one
portion of the show stagnates, the show will die. See too the next
bullet-point.
* People who are complaining about the show going 'lite' would do well to
change their focus to the idea that so many 'lite' episodes have come in
such close proximity to one another. We'll hear similar complaints later
this season when we are hit with ten or twelve serious/heavy shows in a row,
I'm sure. Be patient, your turn will come.
* Am I dreaming, or is there a *lot* more complaining from Noromos (well, a
few of them at least) about shippy episodes than there is from Shippers
about non-shippy episodes?
* 'Ghosts' works well if one views it as TXF's take on classic Christmas
stories, rather than a 'straight' TXF episode set at Christmastime. CC
manages to avoid most of the tired old rehashes of Scrooge (as has been
pointed out by others) and tells a fun story nonetheless. And for me, the
gift exchange at the end was priceless. As for the complaint re: the bullet
wounds suddenly disappearing, this was telegraphed from the very start of
the show, and it would have been vastly more incongruous to have had the
wounds *not* disappear. I simply didn't see any problem with the
denouement.
Enough for now.
--Steve, CotHP
Laura Shapiro
<snip>
>As for the complaint re: the bullet
>wounds suddenly disappearing, this was telegraphed from the very start of
>the show, and it would have been vastly more incongruous to have had the
>wounds *not* disappear. I simply didn't see any problem with the
>denouement.
I agree that the wounds had to disappear, and that that *was* telegraphed
from the beginning. I have no problem with the concept itself. I just felt
that it wasn't done in a very dramatic manner. Mulder, and then Scully,
seemed rather blase about it, which for me contrasted quite unfavorably with
the horror, betrayal, blood, and pain which they had just experienced.
~ Laura
--"I can accept that I'm the poor, sorry bastard at home jerking off, but
why do you get to be the rock star who gets the blow job?"
--Jack Ayer
Steve Pagano
>Steve Pagano wrote in message <753opq$b7p$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>...
><snip>
>
>>As for the complaint re: the bullet
>>wounds suddenly disappearing, this was telegraphed from the very start of
>>the show, and it would have been vastly more incongruous to have had the
>>wounds *not* disappear. I simply didn't see any problem with the
>>denouement.
>
>
>I agree that the wounds had to disappear, and that that *was* telegraphed
>from the beginning. I have no problem with the concept itself. I just felt
>that it wasn't done in a very dramatic manner. Mulder, and then Scully,
>seemed rather blase about it, which for me contrasted quite unfavorably
with
>the horror, betrayal, blood, and pain which they had just experienced.
Okay, I'll buy that. It did end a tad quickly, yes. I would have liked
even just a quick extra shot or two to show some sort of reaction from them,
to let us know what they were thinking/feeling, before having them run out
of the house and drive off.
--Steve
stillwater16
In article <753opq$b7p$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>, "Steve says...
>
>A few things here. Some of them may seem obvious, but I've yet to see these
>ideas addressed.
let's address 'em!
>
>* Some people have complained that all 'Ghosts' did was rehash stuff we
>already knew about M&S. But that's not the point, IMO. What's important is
>that M&S themselves have finally been confronted with some of these issues,
>having them thrown in their faces for the first time. No, the 'ship is not
>the *whole* show, but it's an integral part of it. M&S facing these issues
>is something that has to happen for the show to progress, because if any one
>portion of the show stagnates, the show will die. See too the next
>bullet-point.
>
and that's one of my problems with the characters, and has been for some time:
we know; they don't. how dumb would you have to be in mulder and scully's life
to not be paranoid, a little crazy, at least nervous? how many awful things
must happen before they start twitching a little?
(there's a connection here - bear with me.)
the characters (as currently written, anyway) have no self-consciousness at all.
they never think, ponder, or draw conclusions. they don't learn. the writers
have to write the conclusions out and announce them. the word for that is dull.
the word for people who live through some of m&s's life without showing any
changes is unbelievable.
>* People who are complaining about the show going 'lite' would do well to
>change their focus to the idea that so many 'lite' episodes have come in
>such close proximity to one another. We'll hear similar complaints later
>this season when we are hit with ten or twelve serious/heavy shows in a row,
>I'm sure. Be patient, your turn will come.
it's a matter of a balanced diet; by the time they start serving the meat and
potatoes, all the whipped cream will have killed me. <g>
>
>* Am I dreaming, or is there a *lot* more complaining from Noromos (well, a
>few of them at least) about shippy episodes than there is from Shippers
>about non-shippy episodes?
i'd have no objection at all to romance between m & s. but last night's
characters weren't m & s. the guy was some hip, happening, fairly normal guy
who wears leather jackets all the time and has abandoned or outgrown the little
quirks that made him mulder. the woman was some mouse who backs trembling into
corners and doesn't even try to bust her way out of locked doors that are *half
glass*. i have no interest in those people.
>
>* 'Ghosts' works well if one views it as TXF's take on classic Christmas
>stories, rather than a 'straight' TXF episode set at Christmastime. CC
>manages to avoid most of the tired old rehashes of Scrooge (as has been
>pointed out by others) and tells a fun story nonetheless. And for me, the
>gift exchange at the end was priceless. As for the complaint re: the bullet
>wounds suddenly disappearing, this was telegraphed from the very start of
>the show, and it would have been vastly more incongruous to have had the
>wounds *not* disappear. I simply didn't see any problem with the
>denouement.
context again: if it had been sandwiched between a couple of good motws and a
mytharc, i'd have been charmed. as it is, i'm surfeited with xf-lite, and i
REALLY want to find that reset button and use it on my own life.
>
>Enough for now.
>
>--Steve, CotHP
>
>
stillwater16, fuming
Steve Pagano
>>already knew about M&S. But that's not the point, IMO. What's important
is
>>that M&S themselves have finally been confronted with some of these
issues,
>>having them thrown in their faces for the first time. No, the 'ship is
not
>>the *whole* show, but it's an integral part of it. M&S facing these
issues
>>is something that has to happen for the show to progress, because if any
one
>>portion of the show stagnates, the show will die. See too the next
>>bullet-point.
>>
>and that's one of my problems with the characters, and has been for some
time:
>we know; they don't. how dumb would you have to be in mulder and scully's
life
>to not be paranoid, a little crazy, at least nervous? how many awful
things
>must happen before they start twitching a little?
I don't know what you're getting at in the above paragraph; the focus
changes haflway through and the tesulting syntax bears little informational
content.
>(there's a connection here - bear with me.)
>
>the characters (as currently written, anyway) have no self-consciousness at
all.
>they never think, ponder, or draw conclusions. they don't learn. the
writers
>have to write the conclusions out and announce them. the word for that is
dull.
>the word for people who live through some of m&s's life without showing any
>changes is unbelievable.
Not showing changes? The characters don't think and learn? You must be
watching a different show.
The only thing of value I can read in your above paragraph is an annoyance
with the laying out of things in plain talk by the ghosts in the episode.
And as I said, this is not laying things out to us -- it's laying it out to
M&S. There has been copious evidence and analysis presented in this group
to the effect that M&S (heck, most people) have troubles dealing with
certain aspects of themselves and their relationship with one another. Just
because it's obvious to us doesn't mean it's obvious to them.
>>* Am I dreaming, or is there a *lot* more complaining from Noromos (well,
a
>>few of them at least) about shippy episodes than there is from Shippers
>>about non-shippy episodes?
>
>i'd have no objection at all to romance between m & s. but last night's
>characters weren't m & s.
Wait a minute. Weren't you just demanding change a moment ago? Characters
that evolve and grow?
>the guy was some hip, happening, fairly normal guy
>who wears leather jackets all the time and has abandoned or outgrown the
little
>quirks that made him mulder.
I didn't see that at all. Just because said quirks weren't in our face the
entire episode doesn't mean none were there.
>the woman was some mouse who backs trembling into
>corners and doesn't even try to bust her way out of locked doors that are
*half
>glass*. i have no interest in those people.
As I said before, the show works when viewed as a Christmas special with a
TXF twist to it. It does not work if one judges it by the same criteria as
a 'normal' episode.
>context again: if it had been sandwiched between a couple of good motws and
a
>mytharc, i'd have been charmed.
Isn't that what I'd just said?
--Steve, CotHP
gwaihir
>>wounds suddenly disappearing, this was telegraphed from the very start of
>>the show, and it would have been vastly more incongruous to have had the
>>wounds *not* disappear. I simply didn't see any problem with the
>>denouement.
>
>
>from the beginning. I have no problem with the concept itself. I just felt
>that it wasn't done in a very dramatic manner. Mulder, and then Scully,
>seemed rather blase about it, which for me contrasted quite unfavorably with
>the horror, betrayal, blood, and pain which they had just experienced.
I don't know, I saw a definite look of "let's get out of here, NOW,"
as well as alarm, on Mulder's face just before they both took off.
I think they just wanted to put distance between them and the house
before the ghosts snagged them back in. <G>
Joyce
...I will quit watching the X-Files when they
pry the remote out of my cold, dead hand.
Magpie
I loved them running back to the cars. I could just picture the
illustration in Tales from The Crypt: we're in the house's pov
watching the two little kids run for their lives having learned
their lesson! I thought it was the perfect bookend after the
scene in the car. It really seemed right to me, watching them
"high tail it out of there".
-m
bugs...@my-dejanews.com
gwaihir <gwa...@dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> I don't know, I saw a definite look of "let's get out of here, NOW,"
> as well as alarm, on Mulder's face just before they both took off.
> I think they just wanted to put distance between them and the house
> before the ghosts snagged them back in. <G>
>
> Joyce
> ...I will quit watching the X-Files when they
> pry the remote out of my cold, dead hand.
>
I can't believe people are having a problem with this scene. I saw our two
heros in retreat. And this retreat was hilarious to me. They exchange that
quick 'let's get out of here' look and then make a run for it. Someone
finally got the better of them and they acknowledged it! But it was their
choice, not one of those frustrating X-file endings where they are all
indignant and waving their evidence around and some droning authority figure
is telling them to go play nice and takes their evidence and throws it in the
trash...It being their choice; to me, means they are starting to gain some
control in their lives.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Deborah A Tinsley
gwaihir <gwa...@dejanews.com> wrote in article
<753r7g$i...@drn.newsguy.com>...snip
>
> I don't know, I saw a definite look of "let's get out of here, NOW,"
> as well as alarm, on Mulder's face just before they both took off.
> I think they just wanted to put distance between them and the house
> before the ghosts snagged them back in. <G>
>
> Joyce
And didn't you think in the last scene after he determined the thump was
someone knocking and not someone thumping on the ceiling, that little look
around the corner suggested that for a split second maybe he thought the
ghosts had followed him <g>. I loved that little look--it's akin to eyebrow
bounce in "Drive".
Deborah
--
"Art is a wicked thing. It is what we are."
Georgia O'Keefe
GregSerl
>Date: 12/14/98 1:29 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <753opq$b7p$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>
>
>No, the 'ship is not
>the *whole* show, but it's an integral part of it. M&S facing these issues
>is something that has to happen for the show to progress, because if any one
>portion of the show stagnates, the show will die.
I accept this as an opinion, but not a truism. I don't care really one way or
the other about Mulder and Scully's relationship.
For the show to "progress" from what to what? A show about paranormal
investigation without romance to a show about paranormal investigation with
romance?
For the most part, I often viewed Mulder and Scully as being as unrealistic as
the cases they investigated. This had nothing to do with their relationship to
each other, rather it had to do with how they reacted to real events in their
lives. We're talking fairly horrendous events here, including the murder of a
sister who was mistaken for Scully. At the *very* least, I'd ask myself "is
*anything* worth this kind of horrible senseless loss?"
I think that's why the mytharc stakes were raised so high. We start out
believing the evil government has been covering up UFO activity, then that
morphing over time to an invasion that's coming from within and some consortium
group racing against time to keep the Earth from being colonized and taken over
by these "aliens". In that way, all kinds of horrible personal losses can be
justified as sacrifices to save the Earth from invasion.
>* People who are complaining about the show going 'lite' would do well to
>change their focus to the idea that so many 'lite' episodes have come in
>such close proximity to one another.
> We'll hear similar complaints later
>this season when we are hit with ten or twelve serious/heavy shows in a row,
>I'm sure.
This I don't doubt, but I don't understand the part about "focusing" on the
number of lite episodes in a row. If that means to prepare us for the spate of
dark episodes, okay, but why not do them as they've always been done,
intermixing the lighter episodes with the dark ones so neither starts feeling
like an overdose?
>* Am I dreaming, or is there a *lot* more complaining from Noromos (well, a
>few of them at least) about shippy episodes than there is from Shippers
>about non-shippy episodes?
I think there's been a lot more complaints period, especially from fans who
don't seem to fit the shipper or noromo stereotype. Fans who feel the show has
lost its unique fingerprint and become something of a burlesque of itself.
For me, I think I'd have preferred Dreamland to be serious rather than
humorous, but all of the episodes this season thus far have fit "x" files to me
whether aliens, ghosts, the bermuda triangle or a guy's head exploding, so I
haven't done a whole lot of complaining.
I think there is also an increasing incidence of those who have negative
comments being labeled "trolls" and an increase of those making negative posts
who start attacking "people" rather than truly expressing their misgivings
about the show's current direction.
We basically are seeing passion from two diverse groups. Those who love the
show so much that they can't believe anyone but a troll could hate it, and
those who hate it so much this year they can't believe anyone could possibly
love it unless they're medically brain dead. Both groups are wrong about the
other. There *are* fans who are very disappointed this year and there *are*
fans who are very happy with the way things are going. The problem as I see it
is the chasm between the two is at the widest point it's ever been.
A crummy plot like Detour, for example, could at least get some analysis going
on its viability or lack there of last year, whereas shippers could be happy
for the shippy moments and analyze that. However, this year, there's been
little in the way of plot to discuss or analyze. There's been dreams, or
dreamlike states, resets and illusions. I can say why Dreamland disappointed
me, but because it was reset, there's no real point in getting into a
discussion about it since it "never happened". The same with Triangle, which I
enjoyed, but again, the feeling that "it never happened" blunted any deep
analysis of it other than on a character level, and there's the rub ... or at
least the friction.
Some fans just aren't that interested in getting into the heads of Mulder and
Scully or their relationship. How do I know? I'm one of them <g> I have
*never* bregrudged shippers the Mulder/Scully romance, if that's what they
truly want from the characters, but I do start to resent it a little when the
part of the show I enjoy is short-changed in the name of the relationship. Not
to mention that a couple of times recently, the word "campy" has popped into my
head while watching and that bothers me.
I'm not saying that it will make it difficult for me to find Mulder and Scully
believable again when serious episodes return, because they certainaly haven't
hit the Leslie Nielson "you can't go back again" barrier, but if the show is
paying more homage to characterization and relationship this season, then at
least be cosnsitent. Don't sacrifice who they are for the name of comedy.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
If you can't say anything nice ...
you're probably on Usenet.
Steve Pagano
>>From: "Steve Pagano" <za...@mindspring.com>
>>Date: 12/14/98 1:29 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: <753opq$b7p$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>
>>
>>No, the 'ship is not
>>the *whole* show, but it's an integral part of it. M&S facing these
issues
>>is something that has to happen for the show to progress, because if any
one
>>portion of the show stagnates, the show will die.
>
>I accept this as an opinion, but not a truism. I don't care really one way
or
>the other about Mulder and Scully's relationship.
I get the idea that you're reading 'romance' when I say 'relationship'
above. The relationship between any pair of characters in a show that puts
any emphasis whatsoever on said relationship (regardless of gender or the
people or whether or not it's a platonic relationship) is utterly integral
to the show, and any writer with any experience will tell you that said
relationship (not necessarily romance) must evolve for the show to remain
alive.
>For the show to "progress" from what to what? A show about paranormal
>investigation without romance to a show about paranormal investigation with
>romance?
I don't respond to rhetorical questions, sorry.
>>* People who are complaining about the show going 'lite' would do well to
>>change their focus to the idea that so many 'lite' episodes have come in
>>such close proximity to one another.
>> We'll hear similar complaints later
>>this season when we are hit with ten or twelve serious/heavy shows in a
row,
>>I'm sure.
>
>This I don't doubt, but I don't understand the part about "focusing" on the
>number of lite episodes in a row. If that means to prepare us for the
spate of
>dark episodes, okay, but why not do them as they've always been done,
>intermixing the lighter episodes with the dark ones so neither starts
feeling
>like an overdose?
This I've no quarrel with.
>>* Am I dreaming, or is there a *lot* more complaining from Noromos (well,
a
>>few of them at least) about shippy episodes than there is from Shippers
>>about non-shippy episodes?
>
>I think there's been a lot more complaints period, especially from fans who
>don't seem to fit the shipper or noromo stereotype. Fans who feel the show
has
>lost its unique fingerprint and become something of a burlesque of itself.
>For me, I think I'd have preferred Dreamland to be serious rather than
>humorous, but all of the episodes this season thus far have fit "x" files
to me
>whether aliens, ghosts, the bermuda triangle or a guy's head exploding, so
I
>haven't done a whole lot of complaining.
Nor have I, actually. But I think that the complaints should be directed
more at the continued light tone, and the lack of dispersion of the lighter
episodes among the 'regular' ones.
>I think there is also an increasing incidence of those who have negative
>comments being labeled "trolls" and an increase of those making negative
posts
>who start attacking "people" rather than truly expressing their misgivings
>about the show's current direction.
People who make baseless attacks, who impugn the character of those who
disagree with them, who cast aspersions without backing them up with
sufficient evidence, or who consistently refuse to answer non-rhetorical
questions put to them, especially those with poor manners, will be
(correctly) labeled as trolls. People who blissfully declare that the
show's better than it ever has been, to the chagrin of those who disagree,
without giving some sort of backing up of their opinion, are also guilty of
making unbased claims. However, this latter sort tends to have a
considerable deal better manners than the former, and also don't tend to
tread on the toes of the in-betweeners as much. The negative posts draw a
lot more fire because of these reasons.
>The problem as I see it
>is the chasm between the two is at the widest point it's ever been.
I'm in no position to judge the veracity of this claim, but could you give
more direct evidence of this? The following paragraph may have been
intended to do this, but the intent was difficult to ascertain.
>A crummy plot like Detour, for example, could at least get some analysis
going
>on its viability or lack there of last year, whereas shippers could be
happy
>for the shippy moments and analyze that. However, this year, there's been
>little in the way of plot to discuss or analyze. There's been dreams, or
>dreamlike states, resets and illusions. I can say why Dreamland
disappointed
>me, but because it was reset, there's no real point in getting into a
>discussion about it since it "never happened". The same with Triangle,
which I
>enjoyed, but again, the feeling that "it never happened" blunted any deep
>analysis of it other than on a character level, and there's the rub ... or
at
>least the friction.
This is good analysis of the quarrel on the whole, yes. I find it hard to
really deal with the plots in 'reset button' shows because I don't see it as
mattering in the long run. Thus I gave up on trying to argue some of the
finer points of Triangle and Dreamland I/II, and I still feel tenuous
discussing stuff that happened inside the house in Ghosts, as I'm convinced
that most of what happened in the house was illusory.
>Some fans just aren't that interested in getting into the heads of Mulder
and
>Scully or their relationship. How do I know? I'm one of them <g> I have
>*never* bregrudged shippers the Mulder/Scully romance, if that's what they
>truly want from the characters, but I do start to resent it a little when
the
>part of the show I enjoy is short-changed in the name of the relationship.
Not
>to mention that a couple of times recently, the word "campy" has popped
into my
>head while watching and that bothers me.
Ah, much better, some good back-up of an opinion that disagrees with my own.
I'll accept this as a valid reason for a differing opinion.
>I'm not saying that it will make it difficult for me to find Mulder and
Scully
>believable again when serious episodes return, because they certainaly
haven't
>hit the Leslie Nielson "you can't go back again" barrier, but if the show
is
>paying more homage to characterization and relationship this season, then
at
>least be cosnsitent. Don't sacrifice who they are for the name of comedy.
I don't understand the idea you're trying to get at (because I can come up
with at least three ways to interpret the syntax). Could you clarify?
--Steve, CotHP
Deborah A Tinsley
GregSerl <greg...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981217165405...@ng-cr1.aol.com>...
> >From: "Steve Pagano" <za...@mindspring.com>
> >Date: 12/14/98 1:29 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <753opq$b7p$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>
> >
>
> >No, the 'ship is not
> >the *whole* show, but it's an integral part of it. M&S facing these
issues
> >is something that has to happen for the show to progress, because if any
one
> >portion of the show stagnates, the show will die.
>
> I accept this as an opinion, but not a truism. I don't care really one
way or
> the other about Mulder and Scully's relationship.
Okay, there are plenty of fans in either of these camps and some in
between.
snip
> >* People who are complaining about the show going 'lite' would do well
to
> >change their focus to the idea that so many 'lite' episodes have come in
> >such close proximity to one another.
> > We'll hear similar complaints later
> >this season when we are hit with ten or twelve serious/heavy shows in a
row,
> >I'm sure.
>
>
> This I don't doubt, but I don't understand the part about "focusing" on
the
> number of lite episodes in a row. If that means to prepare us for the
spate of
> dark episodes, okay, but why not do them as they've always been done,
> intermixing the lighter episodes with the dark ones so neither starts
feeling
> like an overdose?
I don't like the "lite" rubric at all. There is comedy (especially in DL
I&II), but comedy does not mean without substance which "lite" does. It may
not advance the case for those who look to the series primarily for
paranormal situations and mysteries, but for those of us who are interested
in why these two people do what they do, how it affects their lives, what's
important to them, what they are afraid of, and the deep desires (and I'm
not talking merely sexual) in their hearts, these eps have a lot to offer.
snip
> I think there is also an increasing incidence of those who have negative
> comments being labeled "trolls" and an increase of those making negative
posts
> who start attacking "people" rather than truly expressing their
misgivings
> about the show's current direction.
But that's not happening here at ATXFA. We discuss our opinions vehemently,
but I don't think anyone wants to stop or even discourage the differing
opinions. If we did, there'd be nothing left to discuss. It's just the
negative posters who use insulting language or generalizations that usually
get it, but even then, it's a debate. I admit when someone gets nasty with
me, I take great delight in shooting it back to them twice over (usually on
ATXF), and find the ones who dish it out on a regular basis usually can't
take it when it comes back at them. I like a good rowdy set to once in
awhile. It's really fun here because folks are just so dammed smart!
snip
>
> A crummy plot like Detour, for example, could at least get some analysis
going
> on its viability or lack there of last year, whereas shippers could be
happy
> for the shippy moments and analyze that. However, this year, there's been
> little in the way of plot to discuss or analyze. There's been dreams, or
> dreamlike states, resets and illusions. I can say why Dreamland
disappointed
> me, but because it was reset, there's no real point in getting into a
> discussion about it since it "never happened".
No point for you. That's fine, but a lot of us had great fun discussing
every aspect of DL--especially the "never happened" angle. Maybe the
problem is one of the language we use. I know I'm often surprised when
someone shoots off a post directed at me and my snotty attitude<g>. I don't
feel snotty at all but recognize there's something in the tone of my posts
that sets some folks off. Look at your last sentence. When you say "there's
no real point in getting into a discussion", that could be construed as "I
don't think anyone should discuss it. It's boring." I'm sure that's not
what you meant. You only meant it doesn't interest you. But we scan these
things so fast (or I do) sometimes we pick up on a tone that is perhaps
unintended.
snip
>
> Some fans just aren't that interested in getting into the heads of
Mulder and
> Scully or their relationship. How do I know? I'm one of them <g> I have
> *never* bregrudged shippers the Mulder/Scully romance, if that's what
they
> truly want from the characters, but I do start to resent it a little
when the
> part of the show I enjoy is short-changed in the name of the
relationship. Not
> to mention that a couple of times recently, the word "campy" has popped
into my
> head while watching and that bothers me.
Perfectly legitimate line of discussion, but why begrudge shippers. We (and
yes, I guess I am one, converted by this seasons eps) have nothing to do
with it. We take each ep as it comes just as you do. I do think I have a
slight edge on enjoying TXF because I can also enjoy the non-shipper parts
of it. There are a certain percentage of noromos or just non-shippers who
are annoyed to furious about the eps we shippers live for. Maybe that's a
difference.
And to tell you the truth, I like the campiness. I think this show could
stand to have a little air let out of its tires, especially after the movie
and The End/The Beginning. Don't get me wrong. I loved those, but sometimes
it just gets so serious about aliens and conspiracies, I have trouble
taking it seriously. It's the relationship parts that provide the depth,
underline the fictions with profundity. Most of us don't believe or are
agnostic about aliens and conspiracies, but we can definitely relate to the
quest or the struggle, hell even the more pedestrian problems that our
heroes endure. Our bosses may not be giant bugs sucking the life out of us,
turning us into robots-- or are they?
> I'm not saying that it will make it difficult for me to find Mulder and
Scully
> believable again when serious episodes return, because they certainaly
haven't
> hit the Leslie Nielson "you can't go back again" barrier, but if the show
is
> paying more homage to characterization and relationship this season,
then at
> least be cosnsitent. Don't sacrifice who they are for the name of comedy.
>
Well I hope the series isn't spoiled for you. I think once they return to
the old forms these early episodes will be as if you dreamed them <g>.
--
Deborah
"Art is a wicked thing. It is what we are."
Georgia O'Keefe
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~
GregSerl
>Date: 12/17/98 10:13 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <75ckqt$ij5$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>
>I get the idea that you're reading 'romance' when I say 'relationship'
>above
Well, as I've seen "shipper" defined, the majority of definitions involve
"romance". But I won't try and pigeonhole anyone. Is it something other than
a romantic relationship that you personally would like to see develop between
Mulder and Scully?
>The relationship between any pair of characters in a show that puts
>any emphasis whatsoever on said relationship [...]
>is utterly integral
>to the show, and any writer with any experience will tell you that said
>relationship (not necessarily romance) must evolve for the show to remain
>alive.
This tends to be more true of a character-driven format (Party of 5 or Dawson's
Creek, for example, or in ensemble shows like ER, NYPD Blue where characters
evolve over a few years before the actor moves on from the series) In plot,
or goal-driven formats, the characters change very little, and sometimes not at
all. Columbo leaps to mind.
Columbo has existed for over 15 years, and in that time span, aside from
getting older, he hasn't really changed as a person very much. This doesn't
make him stagnant, sad or pathetic, but rather a traditional "sleuth" in the
mystery genre. Jessica Fletcher solved murders in Cabot Cove, where logically
everyone should be dead or in prison after her show ran 11 years, and she too
changed very little.
For the first four years of The X-Files, Mulder and Scully were more like the
traditional "sleuth" type characters, though admittedly their track record for
really solving anything was pretty dreadful. However, it's one reason that the
horrible things they both suffered were bearable, because events never seemed
to impact them much. Mulder or Scully evolving wasn't *integral* to the show
for four years, so it's debatable to me whether it is integral currently.
>>For the show to "progress" from what to what? A show about paranormal
>>investigation without romance to a show about paranormal investigation with
>>romance?
>
>I don't respond to rhetorical questions, sorry.
Actually it wasn't a rhetorical question, it was my guess at what you meant by
"for the show to progress". You didn't explain what that meant.
>>paying more homage to characterization and relationship this season, then
>at
>>least be cosnsitent. Don't sacrifice who they are for the name of comedy.
>
>I don't understand the idea you're trying to get at (because I can come up
>with at least three ways to interpret the syntax). Could you clarify?
>
In other words, after watching the past several shows where the emphasis has
been more on the characters than the unfolding events in the plots (since
they've turned out to be resets, maybe-dreams, and illusions), I've been left
to wonder if the writers know the difference between "evolving" and "morphing".
Evolving is gradual and morphing can be almost instantaneous.
The "morphing" phenomena seems to happen mostly in comedic episodes. The
characters take on an exaggerated feel. Scully depicted as jealous or
territorial in a dramatic episode such as The End, slinks off like a wounded
teenager who saw her boyfriend kissing a cheerleader under the bleachers at
halftime. In a comedy episode like War of the Coprophages, on the other hand,
Scully almost does the equivolent of male posturing in front of Bambi as she
slams the magazine into the pistol well. I almost expected her to say "This
ain't no place for womenfolk" and spit or blow her nose with one finger.
The argument will be made that Fowley, having a history with Mulder, was/is
much more of a threat to Scully than Bambi, however I've come to expect in
comedy episodes that address this issue such as WotC, Syzygy, or even the
recent Dreamland two-parter, to have a much more flip attitude, whereas the
dramatic episodes will slide into soap opera over the same issue. I'll just
ask this straight out. Are we to believe or dismiss Mulder and Scully's
characterization in comedic episodes, because to tell you the truth, I really
don't know.
I'm asking because I've seen other dramatic shows take a comedic turn, like ER,
but the characters remained consistent with how they were in the usual dramatic
episodes, they didn't morph into caricatures for an hour. It just may be that
when comedy used to be rare on The X-Files that it was a given that Mulder
and Scully, like everything else, were not to be taken too seriously. If
that's the case, I'll stop thinking of the comedy efforts as "inconsistent"
and simply think of them as "idiosyncratic", or even "anomalistical" <g>
Steve Pagano
>>From: "Steve Pagano" <za...@mindspring.com>
>>Date: 12/17/98 10:13 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: <75ckqt$ij5$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>
>
>>I get the idea that you're reading 'romance' when I say 'relationship'
>>above
>
>Well, as I've seen "shipper" defined, the majority of definitions involve
>"romance". But I won't try and pigeonhole anyone. Is it something other
than
>a romantic relationship that you personally would like to see develop
between
>Mulder and Scully?
I'll take whatever comes, so long as it makes logical sense within the
story.
<snip>
>For the first four years of The X-Files, Mulder and Scully were more like
the
>traditional "sleuth" type characters, though admittedly their track record
for
>really solving anything was pretty dreadful. However, it's one reason that
the
>horrible things they both suffered were bearable, because events never
seemed
>to impact them much. Mulder or Scully evolving wasn't *integral* to the
show
>for four years, so it's debatable to me whether it is integral currently.
But the fact is that they *did* evolve, and their evolving attitudes helped
define the motives and tone and actions of several episodes over those
times, and how the two of them related to one another similarly evolved and
drove plots. At this point, to drop the ball on the relationship (not
necessarily romance) would be fatal to the show. Take this from someone
with 20 years' experience writing.
>>>For the show to "progress" from what to what? A show about paranormal
>>>investigation without romance to a show about paranormal investigation
with
>>>romance?
>>
>>I don't respond to rhetorical questions, sorry.
>
>Actually it wasn't a rhetorical question, it was my guess at what you meant
by
>"for the show to progress". You didn't explain what that meant.
By definition, because you clearly presupposed an answer (the second
'question'), the question was rhetorical.
By 'progressing' I of course mean that the show must continue to develop and
evolve along the paths it has chosen for itself over the past 5+ years. The
nature of the cases, the relationship between M and S, their position in the
FBI, the conspiracy -- all this must continue to move forward, however that
turns out to be in the long run.
>
>>>paying more homage to characterization and relationship this season,
then
>>at
>>>least be cosnsitent. Don't sacrifice who they are for the name of comedy.
>>
>
>>I don't understand the idea you're trying to get at (because I can come up
>>with at least three ways to interpret the syntax). Could you clarify?
>>
>
>In other words, after watching the past several shows where the emphasis
has
>been more on the characters than the unfolding events in the plots (since
>they've turned out to be resets, maybe-dreams, and illusions), I've been
left
>to wonder if the writers know the difference between "evolving" and
"morphing".
> Evolving is gradual and morphing can be almost instantaneous.
<snip>
>Are we to believe or dismiss Mulder and Scully's
>characterization in comedic episodes, because to tell you the truth, I
really
>don't know.
I take them as variations on the main theme, myself.
>I'm asking because I've seen other dramatic shows take a comedic turn, like
ER,
>but the characters remained consistent with how they were in the usual
dramatic
>episodes, they didn't morph into caricatures for an hour. It just may be
that
>when comedy used to be rare on The X-Files that it was a given that
Mulder
>and Scully, like everything else, were not to be taken too seriously. If
>that's the case, I'll stop thinking of the comedy efforts as
"inconsistent"
>and simply think of them as "idiosyncratic", or even "anomalistical" <g>
I like the term 'idiosyncratic' here, yes. I don't think 'inconsistent' is
appropriate because the tone and style of dramatic vs. comedic episodes are
different and thus it's difficult to decide exactly what must remain
constant in these two forms and what may change.
In any event, the proof of the pudding will of course be the outcome of the
more serious episodes; the serious episodes define the main themes and the
comedic ones are the variations. We'll be able to tell after a few of the
dramatic episodes what's happened to the show as a whole, and if people's
worries are well-founded. Until then, the jury's out, and I'm remaining in
wait-and-see mode.
--Steve
GregSerl
>Date: 12/17/98 10:30 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <01be2a3f$49959a80$c9ba9cd1@oemcomputer>
>I don't like the "lite" rubric at all.
Perhaps they're being labeled as "lite" because some of us get the impression
that in the end, they're not given the same "weight" as the dramatic episodes.
Maybe I'll believe that comedy episodes and their take on characterization and
story continuity carries the same credibility when we have a comedic "mytharc"
episode <g> Maybe Krycek can dance to the song stylings of Cancer Man and his
all Olien orchestra ;)
>It may
>not advance the case for those who look to the series primarily for
>paranormal situations and mysteries
I remember reading in the TV Guide six years ago the description of The X-Files
in the Fall Preview guide: "The FBI meets The Twilight Zone". It went on to
say, "Like 'The FBI' and the best of the true-crime series, these tales are
told with an absolutely straight face, and told well." I couldn't wait to see
it, and was glad I watched, but as with the TV Guide description, "a
suspenseful mystery series" and that's what I wanted and hoped to continue to
get.
Unfortunately a lot of that has seemed to drift away for me, and unlike you, I
really have no interest in "why these two people do what they do, how it
affects their lives, what's important to them, what they are afraid of, and the
deep desires" Sometimes it's a little like fanfic. I'll be reading along and
Mulder will be thoughtful, attentive, sensative, romantic and sweet-talking and
Scully will giggle a lot, and I don't recognize them at all. But maybe that's
where the show itself is headed, so I better be ready ;)
> When you say "there's
>no real point in getting into a discussion", that could be construed as "I
>don't think anyone should discuss it. It's boring." I'm sure that's not
>what you meant. You only meant it doesn't interest you.
Actually I meant neither ;) Anyone who wants to discuss anything is free to do
so, but for myself, I saw no point in really analysing events in Dreamland
since it "never happened" in the end. However, even before the reset
happened, I felt that the chanracterization was off in that Scully took so long
to figure things out and that Mulder, who knew he wasn't in his own body and
could pretty well assume that "grandma top gun" wasn't either, that he'd
question the pilot in hopes of getting some answers and insight into his own
dilemma, but the interaction was used for comedy only and that was that.
>Perfectly legitimate line of discussion, but why begrudge shippers.
As I said, I *don't* begrudge shippers what they get out of the show, but
rather I do start to resent having what interests me in the show eclipsed by
relationship-heavy episodes that have almost no other plot to them, or a plot
that gets reset, dismissed as dreams, illustions, etc.
>I do think I have a
>slight edge on enjoying TXF because I can also enjoy the non-shipper parts
Well, that's probably good since the bulk of the series is a shipper wasteland
<g> I know there's shippers who would disagree, but unlike a shipper, I don't
read much into touches or eye contact that isn't really set up demonstratively
as romantic. If I did, I'd probably be a huge fan of Kirk/Spock slashfic since
in three short seasons they seemed to have more romantic contact than Mulder
and Scully in over 100 episodes <g>
>There are a certain percentage of noromos or just non-shippers who
>are annoyed to furious about the eps we shippers live for. Maybe that's a
>difference.
Or, like me, they picked up TV Guide six years ago and thought they'd be
getting a suspensful mystery show about investigating the paranormal and not a
romantic comedy, or they believed Carter when he said the show wouldn't develop
a romance between Mulder and Scully, who knows ;)
>And to tell you the truth, I like the campiness. I think this show could
>stand to have a little air let out of its tires
Campiness was fine for the old Batman series (though there are still Dark
Knight fans who won't forgive that) but on the X-Files, I think we get
campiness because Carter understands schtick, but not humor.
>It's the relationship parts that provide the depth,
>underline the fictions with profundity.
Can you give examples of this? What I've gotten from the relationship in going
on six years is that Mulder has and still trots off on Scully without so much
as a cursory explanation, he expects her to drop everything for him and she's
enough of a doormat that she'll do it. What seemed in the beginning a joke
about pornography seems to currently indicate Mulder might actually be addicted
to it. The most endearing moments seem to happen in times of stress or
anguish or in any number of hospital rooms, but other times .. nada. In
non-stressful times, it's juvenile throwaway lines. None of which are taken
seriously by either party. Then again, and I suspect this is the case, I'm
too shallow to see the depth ;)
>Well I hope the series isn't spoiled for you. I think once they return to
>the old forms these early episodes will be as if you dreamed them <g>.
Actually the early episodes this season are already as if I dreamed them <g>
The series, however, isn't spoiled for me. If the lines are drawn between
shippers and noromos, then noromos by far have gotten a lot more episodes even
if Carter turns the last season and a half of the series into Melrose (show as
much skin as the censors will permit) Place of sizzling, steaming romance.
Heck, maybe even Fowley and Scully will get in a hair pulling competition and
fall into a swimming pool during the "cat fight" ;)
Deborah A Tinsley
> >From: "Deborah A Tinsley" <TINS...@prodigy.net>
> >Date: 12/17/98 10:30 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <01be2a3f$49959a80$c9ba9cd1@oemcomputer>
>
> >It's the relationship parts that provide the depth,
> >underline the fictions with profundity.
>
> Can you give examples of this?
Why yes. Yes I can.
Paper Hearts is a great example of a mystery that is given weight by the
relationship. It is Scully's reactions as much as Mulder's that give us a
sense of how deeply he is affected. It's so subtle, but the scenes in the
jail with the three of them, how Scully reacts, how she sees what is
happening.
Demons is loaded with stuff. Essentially Mulder centered, it is Scully's
tenacity and finally Mulder's faith in her that brings this to conclusion.
Squeeze, an early ep, shows the relationship beginning to take hold.
Scully's loyalty to Mulder and Mulder's appreciation for her faith in him
are central, the glue that holds this ep together.
Irresistible- Scully's trouble dealing with the crimes, her inability to
talk to Mulder about it is central to what happens and again, provides the
power of the ending far beyond simply solving the crime.
Pusher is another episode where the relationship keeps us aware of the
danger and the tenuousness of Mulder's ability to handle Modell's
challenges.
In Elegy, it is the failure of their relationship, Scully's inability to
share her fears with Mulder that give this ep additional weight.
In Folie a Deux, the problems in the relationship exacerbate the situation.
The failure of the partners to communicate, the fact that they are at odds
push the tension and it snaps back in the end when Mulder makes his appeal
to Scully and she returns, drawn their by her loyalty, her concern and her
sense that there may be more happening than she first thought.
In Pine Bluff Variant it is Scully's tenacity, her concern and loyalty to
her friend and partner, that pulls her into a case from which she has been
excluded. It is her faith in her friend, her knowledge of him that puts her
in the position to once again save the situation, find the bank.
In the mytharc there are dozens of examples, but I'll spare you an endless
list and concentrate instead on the Anasazi/Blessing Way/Paper Clip. (I'll
avoid the Gethsemane/Redux/Redux II as too obvious)-- In this trilogy none
of it could have worked without the relationship as its anchor, its basis.
Without the trust and deep feelings of Mulder and Scully, Mulder would have
been lost from the beginning. Even the dream Scully has that Mulder is
alive demonstrates a strong link between them. Mulder only relents in Paper
Clip because of his respect for Scully's feelings.
When I say their relationship provides the profundity or the underlying
power of these eps, I am not talking about romance. The personal romance
has only just begun (it has been a long smoldering and just beginning to
kindle) and it is still in the background. But the relationship, the deep
friendship, the love these characters have for one another is the
cornerstone of the series. Without it, you get a paranormal version of
Murder She Wrote or any of the dozens of buddy crimebuster series we've
seen. Those are fine but one of the things that makes this not just another
mystery show (besides the monsters, aliens and paranormal events) is the
relationship.
I see that on shows like NYPD Blue as well and I don't hear folks calling
it Melrose Place??? Maybe because it's grittier and the way it's filmed??
You can't be much closer that Bobby Simone and Andy Sipowicz were. Their
relationship was an incredibly important part of the show.
The main difference is NYPD Blue characters are meant to be naturalistic,
familiar, they are not drawn romantically (I mean that in the literary
sense) . Mulder has a brooding, driven, obsessed quality of the Gothic
hero--he's mysterious. He's intuitive and emotional. He's a dreamer. We
aren't always sure he's not a little crazy. When a character is drawn so
romantically, it colors the stories. All that feeling needs a foil and
Scully was created to be that foil. Over the years her character has become
much more than that and in doing so, the two have become bonded. I don't
see how their relationship could not have drawn them closer.
I'm not sure what you really want from this series. Do you want them to
just go home at the end of the day-- "See you tomorrow." How can they have
normal lives when the intensity of the series relies on their work being
their lives? How can they relate to others when the bizarre nature of their
work makes most folks think they are crazy? If they just met and solved
cases and went home, it would be another show.
I guess I don't understand what noromos want? Is it just these last 4 eps
or does the dissatisfaction with the show extend beyond that? Would you
exclude all the humanizing touches? Why don't you give me some examples of
what you liked? I don't think TXF followed that TV Guide summary very long
at all, especially not after the Duane Barry/Ascension/One Breath arc. For
me, that's when the relationship became more than just subtext.
Deborah
GeoRed
In article <19981218164907...@ng154.aol.com>, greg...@aol.com
(GregSerl) writes:
>Actually the early episodes this season are already as if I dreamed them <g>
>The series, however, isn't spoiled for me. If the lines are drawn between
>shippers and noromos, then noromos by far have gotten a lot more episodes
Not according to the shippers.......
And I would know. <g>
Heidi
::::::::with head in hands, rocking slowly::::::::::
"It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter."
<Mulder: He's not just lean.......he's cuisine.>
Deborah A Tinsley
GregSerl <greg...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981218164907...@ng154.aol.com>...
> >From: "Deborah A Tinsley" <TINS...@prodigy.net>
> >Date: 12/17/98 10:30 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <01be2a3f$49959a80$c9ba9cd1@oemcomputer>
>
What seemed in the beginning a joke
> about pornography seems to currently indicate Mulder might actually be
addicted
> to it.
Mulder is not a porn addict.
He likes porn but shows no signs of addiction. I don't think his interest
level exceeds what might be expected of a young, healthy male whose job (in
this case, his quest) makes it nearly impossible for him to have a social
life. He's not some weirdo sneaking off to look at girlie pictures in his
wallet.
"Er, uh, excuse me Scully. I'll be back in a minute. I just have to look
some things over."
Enjoying porn isn't the same as being addicted. Addiction implies it's
interfering with his life, threatening his job and his relationships with
other people.
Deborah A Tinsley
You ask why people who post negative things about TXF get labeled as
trolls, well I of course am not saying you are that, but I gave you fairly
straightforward replies to your response and there are several times when
you took the opportunity to respond in a way that could be construed as --
insulting. Let me point them out to you.
GregSerl <greg...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981218164907...@ng154.aol.com>...
> >From: "Deborah A Tinsley" <TINS...@prodigy.net>
>
snip
>
>> Maybe Krycek can dance to the song stylings of Cancer Man and his
> all Olien orchestra ;)
Okay, I know you meant to be humorous, but it is at my expense and doesn't
really respond to my remarks.
snip
>
> I really have no interest in "why these two people do what they do, how
it
> affects their lives, what's important to them, what they are afraid of,
and the
> deep desires" Sometimes it's a little like fanfic. I'll be reading
along and
> Mulder will be thoughtful, attentive, sensative, romantic and
sweet-talking and
> Scully will giggle a lot, and I don't recognize them at all. But maybe
that's
> where the show itself is headed, so I better be ready ;)
It is not like fan fic at all, or not most of it. The way you describe
Mulder and Scully is true of fanfic, but not pertinent to our discussion.
By using it here, you make it sound like this is what I'm talking about.
I'm not. I have never seen M or S behave this way on the series.
snip
> Well, that's probably good since the bulk of the series is a shipper
wasteland
> <g> I know there's shippers who would disagree, but unlike a shipper, I
don't
> read much into touches or eye contact that isn't really set up
demonstratively
> as romantic. If I did, I'd probably be a huge fan of Kirk/Spock slashfic
since
> in three short seasons they seemed to have more romantic contact than
Mulder
> and Scully in over 100 episodes <g>
Your use of "shipper" in this paragraph stereotypes those of us who are
interested in the relationship. You lump all shippers together like it's a
unified front trying to turn M&S into characters from (as you say later on)
Melrose place. That's not my intent.
You can put in all the <g> you like, but essentially what you are saying
here has nothing to do with my argument and mischaracterizes it.
snip
> >And to tell you the truth, I like the campiness. I think this show could
> >stand to have a little air let out of its tires
>
> Campiness was fine for the old Batman series (though there are still Dark
> Knight fans who won't forgive that) but on the X-Files, I think we get
> campiness because Carter understands schtick, but not humor.
I don't think you can compare Batman and TXF. I mean really do you think
they are the same? There's really no difference to you? You are using
exaggeration to try and make your case. I would give your argument more
credence if you would be more exacting and thoughtful in your examples as I
have been in the ones I've used.
snip
> Can you give examples of this? What I've gotten from the relationship in
going
> on six years is that Mulder has and still trots off on Scully without so
much
> as a cursory explanation, he expects her to drop everything for him and
she's
> enough of a doormat that she'll do it.
Exaggeration. You don't even bother to give an example.
What seemed in the beginning a joke
> about pornography seems to currently indicate Mulder might actually be
addicted
> to it.
More negative exaggeration. Mulder is not a porn addict.
The most endearing moments seem to happen in times of stress or
> anguish or in any number of hospital rooms, but other times .. nada. In
> non-stressful times, it's juvenile throwaway lines. None of which are
taken
> seriously by either party. Then again, and I suspect this is the case,
I'm
> too shallow to see the depth ;)
You are calling yourself shallow--not me. Doing this makes it sound as if I
am implying that. Just because I see something you don't doesn't mean it
isn't there, isn't valid. I respect the fact you don't care about these
subtextual levels, but I do. I don't know what you see because you don't
bother to tell me.
snip
If the lines are drawn between
> shippers and noromos, then noromos by far have gotten a lot more episodes
even
> if Carter turns the last season and a half of the series into Melrose
(show as
> much skin as the censors will permit) Place of sizzling, steaming
romance.
> Heck, maybe even Fowley and Scully will get in a hair pulling competition
and
> fall into a swimming pool during the "cat fight" ;)
It's fine if you want to joke like this, but even though it's a joke,
essentially what you are giving me a backhanded insult by once again
overstating and exaggerating. It comes off as snide. A good portion of your
response uses these exaggerations, overstatements and <g>. I get it, you
don't like these eps or the way the series is going, but in the process you
have essentially told me I'm an elitist with a taste of melodrama and
trash. It'd be nice if you'd answer a little more thoughtfully.
I love humor, but in a sense you are doing to me exactly what you accuse
1013 of doing to TXF. Maybe that's why you see it that way. I know that a
lot of what I see in TXF is my own mind. I respond to the things closest to
my own life.
I'm not trying to unload on you, but in my earlier post I talked about tone
when you complained that anyone who criticizes TXF is labeled a troll.
Making fun of me and my ideas isn't really a debate or a conversation. I
get the point and it's not much fun.
gwaihir
says...
>>The series, however, isn't spoiled for me. If the lines are drawn between
>>shippers and noromos, then noromos by far have gotten a lot more episodes
>
>
>And I would know. <g>
Not by my count, either and I consider myself a romantic rather than
a shipper. <g>
I am thoroughly enjoying the character growth and development we
are seeing this season. I don't consider these episodes a dream
because we, the audience, are being given insight into the characters.
Whether or not Mulder and Scully remember everything that happened,
we do and we will carry that awareness into the next arc of MOTW and
mytharc. That, I believe, is CC's purpose - to catch everyone up to
speed on the characterization and varying relationships with the
secondary characters before he moves into the next phase of the show.
bugs...@my-dejanews.com
>
> For the first four years of The X-Files, Mulder and Scully were more like the
> traditional "sleuth" type characters, though admittedly their track record for
> really solving anything was pretty dreadful. However, it's one reason that
the
> horrible things they both suffered were bearable, because events never seemed
> to impact them much. Mulder or Scully evolving wasn't *integral* to the show
> for four years, so it's debatable to me whether it is integral currently.
>
I only want to comment on this one point. I disagree that we see no impact of
the first four years on the characters, no changes. I watch the early shows
and I want to cry for Scully. Part of it is the physical change in the way GA
is dressed and made up, but the portrayal of the character has changed. She
has developed a veneered shell, for better or worse. If anything I think
Mulder has become more grounded, but he also seems more bitter(wonder why).
In my mind, if the characters don't make some changes they are going to
become depressing. Now that I've seen most of season 5, with the what sounds
to be the most depressing of all to come, Emily/CC, there had to be changes
after that slip down the slope into the black depths of dispair that was that
season.
Magpie
<snip snip snip>
>I'm not sure what you really want from this series. Do you want them to
>just go home at the end of the day-- "See you tomorrow." How can they have
>normal lives when the intensity of the series relies on their work being
>their lives? How can they relate to others when the bizarre nature of their
>work makes most folks think they are crazy? If they just met and solved
>cases and went home, it would be another show.
>
> I guess I don't understand what noromos want? Is it just these last 4 eps
>or does the dissatisfaction with the show extend beyond that? Would you
>exclude all the humanizing touches? Why don't you give me some examples of
>what you liked? I don't think TXF followed that TV Guide summary very long
>at all, especially not after the Duane Barry/Ascension/One Breath arc. For
>me, that's when the relationship became more than just subtext.
I remember being thrilled with that original TV Guide summary review. I
had been waiting for this show since I was five and they cancelled
THE NIGHT STALKER. I was too young to understand the tongue-in-cheek
stuff in NS back then, so for me it *was* TXF.:)
But I remember thinking that it was too bad that the show would be,
I assumed, completely action-based without much character. So I
watched the show from day one and I loved it--the writing, the
paranormal, etc. I liked Mulder's monolgue about the Sam in the
pilot but thought it was just a device for the pilot. I figured
FM and DS would be like the detectives in mystery novels who are
not affected by their cases too much or change over time (probably
the reason I've just never was a big mystery fan:).
Then I saw Conduit--a great mystery *heavily* based on why Mulder did
what he did. That last scene in the church--"I want to believe". That
was when I became focused. I think the show's always been character
based--how else could CC play the mytharc for years and never tell
us anything? I love shows that give us a glimpse of the characters
or the shifting relationship. It fascinates me. They fascinate me.
It makes the aliens/paranormal stuff more interesting for me (and I
already find that stuff interesting).
Would I want the show to become Mad About You? God forbid. But
I can't imagine the writers would give up writing about these
two great characters. Not about "this great couple".
-m
anem...@my-dejanews.com
and what it has become. Or, rather, what CC envisioned vs. what actually
happened. Or what the viewers expected vs. what we got. Oh, I don't know.
Read on <g>
greg...@aol.com (GregSerl) wrote:
> I remember reading in the TV Guide six years ago the description of The
X-Files
> in the Fall Preview guide: "The FBI meets The Twilight Zone". It went on to
> say, "Like 'The FBI' and the best of the true-crime series, these tales are
> told with an absolutely straight face, and told well." I couldn't wait to see
> it, and was glad I watched, but as with the TV Guide description, "a
> suspenseful mystery series" and that's what I wanted and hoped to continue to
> get.
I recently found the corresponding Canadian TV guide, which said the
following: ________ *Premise*: FBI agent Fox Mulder (DD) digs up some
long-buried reports dealing with paranormal phenomena; he's teamed with Dana
Scully (GA), a skeptical partner soon bitten (literally) by the UFO bug.
*Strength*: Newcomers Duchovny and Anderson make an attractive pair.
*Weakness*: C'mon - this is *silly*! *Quote*: Executive producer CC compares
X to '70's series "The Night Stalker": "It used to scare the pants off me as
a kid. So I said to Fox, 'Let's do a scary show.'" *Buzz*: Americans who
believe in UFOs already watching "Step by Step". *Chances*: Bigger chance of
life on Mars. ---------
OK, what cracked me up was not the mosquito bite joke, but the fact that they
really did find fossilized evidence of microbial life on Mars a few years ago,
didn't they? Scully even mentioned it in Tunguska or Terma, I think.
But anyways, that was just for interest's sake, and to share my amusement
about the Mars thing. :) My real point is that I don't think I've ever seen
a show that, several years into it, was exactly what its creator thought it
would be (well, I've never watched B5, but I understand they planned out the
whole 5 year story arc - this could be a possible counterexample, I guess -
someone who's actually *seen* the show might want to comment!). When TXF had
to do this, last season, I think it stifled them creatively, in that they
*had* to arrive at that pre-movie point at the end of the season, with the
characters in exactly the shape they were at the beginning of the movie.
Most people who have tried to write fiction will tell you that after a while,
characters don't necessarily want to do what their creator had hoped they
would. Sometimes they interact in ways the author never expected, and it
does no good to try to rein them back in, because it just isn't true to
character if you do.
The X-Files has progressed in this way, and it will continue to progress, and
if it didn't, it wouldn't be a very good show, imo. When the characters are
real enough to take over and do what *they* want (fall in love, for example -
I'm not at all sure that CC meant them to, but they went and did it, and now
he has to deal with it <g>), then *that* is when a show begins to inspire me.
OK, it's 2 am. I'm not completely coherent. But I hope this made a bit of
sense.
Anemone (trying to think up a suitable quote from Pirandello's "Six Characters
in Search of an Author"...)
GregSerl
>Message-id: <01be2ae5$bad744e0$a662fcd1@oemcomputer>
>
I'm going to respond to this post first because it's clear that even though it
was not my intention to upset you, Deborah, apparently I did, and so I
apologize.
>>> Maybe Krycek can dance to the song stylings of Cancer Man and his
>> all Olien orchestra ;)
>
>Okay, I know you meant to be humorous, but it is at my expense and doesn't
>really respond to my remarks
Yes, I meant it to be humorous, but not at your expense. You had said that you
didn't like the comedic episodes being labeled "lite" and I said that they
might be labeled as such because in the long rong, the show doesn't treat them
with the same "weight" as the dramatic episodes. The characterization seems
to be one of the forfeits here. It is exaggerated for the sake of getting
laughs instead of the characterization being comparably real in a dramatic
episode.
In a way, to the public eye, Mulder and Scully do have something of caricature
identifiers to them. Their deadpan banter is almost a trademark as much as it
was with the old Dragnet series.
In Jose Chung, for example, it gets exaggerated for humor's sake, but Darin
Morgan wisely chose for that facet to be seen through the eyes of someone who
didn't know them, and yet for most of us it was very funny, because sometimes
they actually do come across as "mandroids" in their more laconic moments. In
Jose Chung we don't have to wonder if the characterization is "off" or "on"
because we *know* it is off and deliberately so because the characterization
for the most part is being relayed through people with their own versions of
the "truth" to tell. Chung assessed Mulder as a "ticking time bomb of
insanity" not because that's what Mulder is, but that's how *Chung*
interpretted him.
Other comedic efforts don't fare nearly as well, but one thread that seems sewn
through all of them is that for the most part, you cannot really trust the
characterization, or at least can't rely on it to be valid reactions and
interactions from Mulder and Scully. Jose Chung, the characters and their
actions and interactions are viewed by others.
In Syzygy the actions and interactions of the characters are caused by an
"event" phenomena.
Small Potatoes, some of the time it's Mulder, other times it isn't, but
interstingly enough, it seems to emphasize what strangers Scully and Mulder
remain after 5 years of working together. Eddie seems to click onto that right
away.
In Post Modern Prometheus, the entire ending is a fable.
In Bad Blood, the point of view comes from others again, even if from Mulder
and Scully themselves regarding each other. Not terribly flattering POVs
either, but certainly funny.
Triangle, the reality of almost everything in the episode is thrown into
question. Was it all Mulder's dream? Was it an alternate universe?
Dreamland, a reset, but even before that, the characters not really being
terribly believable, unless it would take Scully that long to catch on or that
the best after nearly 6 years that Mulder could come up with to jog Scully's
memory is bee pollen and yogurt.
And now the "ghosts" episode. I've seen the debates on this one. Would it be
in character for Scully to faint? Scream? Be so shaky she can't point her gun?
Were the ghosts accurate in their assesments, or were they being deliberately
provocative to cause a chain of events, or to sow the seeds of suspicion?
After saying *all* of this, aside from Syzygy, Post Modern Promethus and
Dreamland, I thoroughly enjoyed the comedy episodes. I love laughing and when
they're spread out well, mixed between the heavier episodes, they're also a
nice respite. My only point is that I feel that the characterization in comedy
episodes is less viable because how the characerization is arrived at is often
through less than reliable means.
>It is not like fan fic at all, or not most of it. The way you describe
>Mulder and Scully is true of fanfic, but not pertinent to our discussion.
>By using it here, you make it sound like this is what I'm talking about.
>I'm not.
No, what I said was "sometimes it's like reading fanfic" in that I'll be
reading along and the characterization might turn terribly treacly, but with no
middle ground, nothing that would account for such a drastic overhaul in Mulder
and Scully's current depiction on the series.
>Your use of "shipper" in this paragraph stereotypes those of us who are
>interested in the relationship
I said that I viewed the bulk of the 100 plus episodes as having very little to
do with "shipper" themes or even shipper moments, and then acknowledged that I
*knew* there would be shippers who would disagree with me, and at least two
reading this thread *did* disagree. That's all I was saying. That I can view
the series as having few memorable shippy moments but that shippers who read
the character interaction differntly than I do, would disagree.
>You lump all shippers together like it's a
>unified front trying to turn M&S into characters from (as you say later on)
>Melrose place
I did *not* say shippers (carter or anyone else) was trying to turn the show
into Melrose Place, I said "even if Carter turned the show into Melrose
Place..." and that's a big difference. I don't see the show in any way similar
to Melrose Place and seriously doubt Carter would even come close to that.
>I don't think you can compare Batman and TXF. I mean really do you think
>they are the same? There's really no difference to you?
You said you liked occasional campiness, and I said the only place I saw it
having a place was on the old Batman series, where even the producers admitted
they were making the show campy. Since Batman is the best example of campy
acting I could think of, that's why I used it when speaking of that type of
humor. I *don't* like campiness on The X-Files.
>What I've gotten from the relationship in
>going
>> on six years is that Mulder has and still trots off on Scully without so
>much
>> as a cursory explanation, he expects her to drop everything for him and
she's
>> enough of a doormat that she'll do it.
>Exaggeration. You don't even bother to give an example.
Mulder is so famous for ditching Scully, it's part of most fan nomenclature
"another classic Scully ditch from Mulder". One of the rudest, or it seemed to
to me, was in Detour when Scully comes to his room with wine and cheese, and
==zip=== he exits. Mulder leaving Scully, wine and cheese and a hotel room had
me shaking my head. As for the doormat (I did it all for you, Mulder) Scully
moments, was in the most recent episode. Scully showing up in the middle of
nowhere because Mulder asked her to meet him there. Then when she tries to beg
off, he turns sour rather than understanding that some people do have other
things to do with their Christmas eve than stake out an alleged haunted house.
>More negative exaggeration. Mulder is not a porn addict.
Yes, I'm probably exaggerating this point, but the show seems to be slathering
it on rather thick lately. It's so bad that when Scully needed Mulder's help,
it's all Mulder could do to be civil while talking to her from a phone booth
outside a porno theater that he seemed almost frantic to return to. He's such
a good costumer of at least one phone sex service, he's given courtesy calls
for special discounts. So while I may be exaggerating, I'm not sure by how
much.
>I respect the fact you don't care about these
>subtextual levels, but I do. I don't know what you see because you don't
>bother to tell me.
For the most part, through the years, I've seen Mulder and Scully caring about
each other on a level that sometimes seems like friendship and sometimes seems
like an older sister trying to keep her goofy younger brother out of trouble.
Beyond that, what I liked about Mulder and Scully was that their sardonic
humor, sarcasm and quips helped ease the tension of some pretty goosebumpy
moments.
>I get it, you
>don't like these eps or the way the series is going, but in the process you
>have essentially told me
It always bothers me that when I state the things I don't like or that didn't
particularly work for me, inevitably the assessment is "you hated the episode
(season, series)" Just because someone doesn't love *everything* doesn't mean
he *hates* everything. For the record, I will say again, the premier was okay,
but rather disjointed. It had some loose ends to tie up and did so for the most
art. I don't care if Drive was a ripoff of Speed, I never lost interest,
thought it was suspenseful and so it worked for me. I thought Triangle was
brilliant, I was disappointed in Dreamland, but I enjoyed the ghosts episode.
So out of all the episodes so far this season, there's only one I didn't
particularly like, but I sure didn't hate it.
>Making fun of me and my ideas isn't really a debate or a conversation. I
>get the point and it's not much fun
Deborah, I never once made fun of you, and reading back over my reply to you, I
don't see where it might be interpretted that I was making fun of you or
belittling your opinions in any way. However, as I did at the top of this long
post, I will apologize once again because even if I upset you by accident or
misinterpretaion, it wasn't my intention. I promise to make this my final post
to you so that we can avoid any misunderstandings in the future. I posted this
last time in hopes of making myself better understood and to apologize to you
for upsetting you.
~*~*~*
gwaihir
>But anyways, that was just for interest's sake, and to share my amusement
>about the Mars thing. :) My real point is that I don't think I've ever seen
>a show that, several years into it, was exactly what its creator thought it
>would be (well, I've never watched B5, but I understand they planned out the
>whole 5 year story arc - this could be a possible counterexample, I guess -
>someone who's actually *seen* the show might want to comment!). When TXF had
>to do this, last season, I think it stifled them creatively, in that they
>*had* to arrive at that pre-movie point at the end of the season, with the
>characters in exactly the shape they were at the beginning of the movie.
I watched B5 until (1) I got bored with it and (2) it foundered on a
rock that tore away my willingness to believe in the journey the writer
was taking me on. Perhaps your point makes it understandable why I was
bored - I was getting the sense that everything was entirely too
controlled. So, I simply walked away and haven't looked back.
I haven't even felt the slightest twinge of boredom with the X-Files
because it isn't being forced to develop within rigid guidelines. It
moves in different directions, exploring possibilities, taking chances.
There is, for me, still a sense of wonder inherent in the show.
>Most people who have tried to write fiction will tell you that after a while,
>characters don't necessarily want to do what their creator had hoped they
>would. Sometimes they interact in ways the author never expected, and it
>does no good to try to rein them back in, because it just isn't true to
>character if you do.
Oh yeah! Characters have been known to take the bit between their
teeth and gallop off in very strange directions. Unless that direction
would completely destroy the story, it is usually best to hang on for
the ride. That's what I like about TXF, it doesn't color within the
lines and often runs with scissors. <g>
>The X-Files has progressed in this way, and it will continue to progress, and
>if it didn't, it wouldn't be a very good show, imo. When the characters are
>real enough to take over and do what *they* want (fall in love, for example -
>I'm not at all sure that CC meant them to, but they went and did it, and now
>he has to deal with it <g>), then *that* is when a show begins to inspire me.
Like any good lifeform, TXF is mutating and evolving and may end up
something very different than any of us anticipated. I'm enjoying the
ride, especially this season. I don't need to impose any version of
reality, or at least what modern science calls reality, on the events
of the show. As long as the story is enjoyable, I don't care whether
it defies the laws of physics.
CC has clothed his romance in modern clothes, but it is still a
questing tale full of magic and wonders, told by a fire. We have
mystical creatures who dwell beneath the earth who aid our heroes in
their quest, and a knight to guide them through the perils in the
journey. We even have a fire-breathing dragon. <g>
Maggie Helwig
> Other comedic efforts don't fare nearly as well, but one thread that seems
> sewn through all of them is that for the most part, you cannot really
> trust the characterization, or at least can't rely on it to be valid
> reactions and interactions from Mulder and Scully. Jose Chung, the
> characters and their actions and interactions are viewed by others.
I really don't entirely agree with this. First because I think a
literalist reading of TXF (this part is "real" or "canon" and this part
isn't) will invariably get you into trouble -- the show consistently
plays games with its own "reality", on all sorts of levels, and does not
have a straightforward "canon" and stuff that is straightforwardly "not
canon" -- and mostly because I think these episodes _do_ contain
characterization work, which can be taken seriously.
> > In Syzygy the
actions and interactions of the characters are caused by an
> "event" phenomena.
Which, as Madame Zirinka explains, _exaggerates_ stuff that's already
there. So we do need to read some base of actual content under the
strange behaviour. But it's played way up for effect, sure.
>
> Small Potatoes, some of the time it's Mulder, other times it isn't, but
> interstingly enough, it seems to emphasize what strangers Scully and
> Mulder remain after 5 years of working together. Eddie seems to click onto
> that right away.
Well, only if it also suggests that most husbands and wives are also
strangers to each other. But anyway, you're now using it to _advance_ a
particular line of characterization rather than arguing that comic
episodes _don't_ advance characterization.
> > In Post Modern Prometheus, the entire ending is a fable.
The end of PMP, despite all the focus on the dance, was not primarily
designed as an M/S characterization moment. And I think the question of
whether or not it was "real" is actually very complex in the context of
a show that self-consciously presents itself as an artifact. Besides, if
it _is_ a fable it may be Mulder's fable, in which case it _does_
advance characterization. There are so many possible ways to read that
ending and I don't think it's a good idea to rule any of them out -- you
have to hold them all in your mind simultaneously.
> > In Bad Blood, the
point of view comes from others again, even if from Mulder
> and Scully
themselves regarding each other. Not terribly flattering POVs
> either,
but certainly funny.
And quite revealing. You think the characterization is not advanced by
seeing how M and S see _themselves_ at times? Or how they see each
other? Even if it only happened in Mulder's mind, Scully's "I do it all
for you, Mulder! All for you!" says something about both of them.
> >Triangle, the reality of almost everything in the episode is thrown into
> question. Was it all Mulder's dream? Was it an alternate universe?
It is in either case fairly revealing about Mulder, since it was either
"real" Mulder in an alternate reality or Mulder's own dream. Scully's
characterization is a little more uncertain.
> > Dreamland, a reset, but
even before that, the characters not really being
> terribly believable,
unless it would take Scully that long to catch on or that
> the best after nearly 6 years that Mulder could come up with to jog Scully's
>memory is bee pollen and yogurt.
Oh come on. You'd have to discard virtually every episode if you start
holding them to that kind of standard of believability. How come they
only do CPR on the detective for ten seconds in "Pusher"? Hey, maybe it
was all a dream!
Most of these episodes do play with levels of reality. They demand a bit
of work. But the characterization is in no way to be discarded; it just
requires a slightly more complex reading.
and re Mulder's porn --
> Yes, I'm probably exaggerating this point, but
the show seems to be
> slathering it on rather thick lately. It's so
bad that when Scully
> needed Mulder's help, it's all Mulder could do to
be civil while talking
> to her from a phone booth outside a porno
theater that he seemed almost
> frantic to return to.
Actually what happened, if you listen to what he says, is that he called
home from outside the theatre to get his messages, found Scully had
phoned him and _instantly_ called her back. This does not suggest to me
that he is "frantic" to get into the theatre. And he was perfectly
civil.
> He's such a good costumer of at least one phone sex service, he's given
> courtesy calls for special discounts. So while I may be exaggerating, I'm
> not sure by how much.
What, you don't think they do to every customer? It's a basic sales
technique. Phone up every customer and tell them there's a special offer
just for them. In fact, part of the spiel was "It's been so long since
I've heard your sexy voice," so if you wanted to, you could interpret it
as meaning that he's given up phone sex. Personally I interpreted it as
a standard spiel that told us only that Mulder has used their services
on at least one occasion. It doesn't give us any more useful information
than that.
As I said, I get tired of the way people interpret everything as
"addiction" these days.
I do have a larger and more general difficulty with your approach to
characterization in the "comic" episodes, which in general I feel cannot
be so easily discounted, but maybe I'll have time to write that one
later.
maggie h
GeoRed
In article <01be2ae5$bad744e0$a662fcd1@oemcomputer>, "Deborah A Tinsley"
<TINS...@prodigy.net> writes:
>Your use of "shipper" in this paragraph stereotypes those of us who are
>interested in the relationship. You lump all shippers together like it's a
>unified front trying to turn M&S into characters from (as you say later on)
>Melrose place. That's not my intent.
>You can put in all the <g> you like, but essentially what you are saying
>here has nothing to do with my argument and mischaracterizes it.
Thank you for so eloquently pointing out my problem thus far with this
conversation (and the main reason that I have tried to stay out of it). I find
myself (although I am borderline shipper at best) somewhat insulted by reading
this thread. And not by *you* Deborah. "Shippers" do not all *live* for the
little hand touches and meaningful looks (that greg seems to think do not
exist) at the expense of *everything* else there is to enjoy about this show.
There is way too much to enjoy about this show without bringing in
shipper/noromo stereotypes. We talk about the *relationship* in much more
important ways than just if he "touched her hand" or not. As two adults who do
have a *relationship*......be it romantic or otherwise.
GeoRed
In article <19981219060734...@ng-fc1.aol.com>, greg...@aol.com
(GregSerl) writes:
>Mulder is so famous for ditching Scully, it's part of most fan nomenclature
>"another classic Scully ditch from Mulder". One of the rudest, or it seemed
>to
>to me, was in Detour when Scully comes to his room with wine and cheese, and
>==zip=== he exits.
Soooo.......now ditching includes telling your partner that you are going to
check something out about a *case* INSTEAD of playing footsie with your
partner in your hotel room? I thought you *weren't* a shipper? It is amazing
what people will label as ditches when it is simply M and S being independent.
I suppose Chinga was a Scully ditch because she had the nerve to go on vacation
without him? Seriously. I suppose that All Souls was a Scully ditch because
she was working on something for a priest.....without Mulder? Come on, people!
These two are not joined at the hip, here. If you want to point to an example
of a ditch, use Deep Throat. He purposely dumped Scully and didn't tell her
where he was going. That is a ditch. Nine times out of ten people label Mulder
as ditching Scully simply because he is working independently of her.......and
she *knows* where he is and what he is doing. I am seriously starting to think
that this is certain people's way of protecting poor little Scully. She
doesn't need it, IMO. I would hazard a guess and say that she agrees.
<snipping Porn exaggeration conversation>
>Yes, I'm probably exaggerating this point, but the show seems to be slathering
>it on rather thick lately. It's so bad that when Scully needed Mulder's
help,
>it's all Mulder could do to be civil while talking to her from a phone booth
>outside a porno theater that he seemed almost frantic to return to. He's such
>a good costumer of at least one phone sex service, he's given courtesy calls
>for special discounts. So while I may be exaggerating, I'm not sure by how
>much.
Oh right. When Scully *ditched* him to work a case by herself *on her own*
time and she interrupts *his own time*, when he is doing something else (which
in *none* of her business...although I doubt she cares)? Jesus. It is rather
interesting that if *Mulder* had pulled this stunt he would be labeled as
*ditching* Scully and then requiring help. He would be roasted. Oh,
wait....... By the way, he does *stop* doing his own, off-time activites in
order to help her.....even though she *won't* give him any details. Funny, he
didn't seem terribly upset by it. Much the way Scully never seems terribly
upset with Mulder.
For the record, I do *not* consider Scully doing her own thing to be *ditches*
any more than I consider Mulder's behavior most of the time as ditching. I
think that most of the time the term ditch, who ever it is applied to, is
inaccurate. I am with Paula, it is something like 90 percent.
Deborah A Tinsley
anem...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<75ftj8$njl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> I've been thinking about the difference between what TXF expected to
become,
> and what it has become. Or, rather, what CC envisioned vs. what actually
> happened. Or what the viewers expected vs. what we got. Oh, I don't
know.
>
> Most people who have tried to write fiction will tell you that after a
while,
> characters don't necessarily want to do what their creator had hoped they
> would. Sometimes they interact in ways the author never expected, and it
> does no good to try to rein them back in, because it just isn't true to
> character if you do.
CC even says as much in "Resist and Serve" and I've had it happen to me
while writing. I have a specific idea in mind but once the characters are
established what I thought would happen starts to change. I always thought
that was a good sign that you were creating 3 dimensional characters.
And I certainly don't begrudge them stretching the format and experimenting
even when it's not entirely successful. What struck me while reading
"Resist and Serve" was how much chance comes into play. Best laid plans
sometimes don't work. Getting the story from script to film is not an exact
science. There was one ep, I think it was Detour but I'm not sure, that
they were still editing just hours before it went on air. There's a certain
degree of "seat of the pants" creativity involved, more than I'd realized.
Deborah A Tinsley
> because it isn't being forced to develop within rigid guidelines. It
> moves in different directions, exploring possibilities, taking chances.
> There is, for me, still a sense of wonder inherent in the show.
Me either. Actually I've enjoyed every ep this season, but last year, and
oddly more in season 4, there were eps that were problematical for me
(Teliko, TFWID, El Mundo Gira). Problematical but not boring. It still gave
me a lot to think about, and some of these have now become my favorites.
(All Souls, Paper Hearts, Never Again).
> >Most people who have tried to write fiction will tell you that after a
while,
> >characters don't necessarily want to do what their creator had hoped
they
> >would. Sometimes they interact in ways the author never expected, and it
> >does no good to try to rein them back in, because it just isn't true to
> >character if you do.
I was in a writing group and was working on a long story. I'd take chapters
in and there was this one woman who wanted to take over the story. She'd
say, "Why don't you just make them do. . . .". I tried to explain to her
that I couldn't just makes characters "do" things. It had to evolve out of
the story and the integrity of the character. She thought I was nuts.
I think with a television show it's even more out of your control. You not
only have writers, directors, editors, prop people, etc. shaping the story,
but the actors input, the way they play the scene, the ad libs they make,
are modeling the story as well. It isn't an exact science.
snip>
> Like any good lifeform, TXF is mutating and evolving and may end up
> something very different than any of us anticipated. I'm enjoying the
> ride, especially this season. I don't need to impose any version of
> reality, or at least what modern science calls reality, on the events
> of the show. As long as the story is enjoyable, I don't care whether
> it defies the laws of physics.
I entered the dream/Dreamtime/ not a dream conversation because it's so
much fun to debate the points, but truth is, when I watch it all has the
same level of reality for me. Our analysis is not the show. It is a version
of the show. Taking it apart bit by bit and examining each piece does not
really tell us what "it" is when it's all together. You can take any part,
any piece and develop a theory, make a case, make an argument.
A good example is the key debate--did M steal it or not? Well the truth
is--we don't know for sure and that's the way CC wanted it, or at least the
way it played. The same with Triangle, did it happen or was it a dream? CC
leaves us asking the questions. To me, this is very realistic <g> because
it mirrors life. Here we have a show where the main characters primary goal
is finding the Truth. Well there is no The Truth-- there are truths and
sometimes they are in opposition. It's the juxtaposition of the quest with
the unanswered questions CC always poses that I find delightful.
> CC has clothed his romance in modern clothes, but it is still a
> questing tale full of magic and wonders, told by a fire. We have
> mystical creatures who dwell beneath the earth who aid our heroes in
> their quest, and a knight to guide them through the perils in the
> journey. We even have a fire-breathing dragon. <g>
>
> Joyce
Oh Joyce, I love this paragraph. You say what I was trying to say but in
more evocative language. A tale told by the fire. That's what I loved about
HTGSC. I curled up on the couch, fire going, dog sleeping with his head in
my lap and enjoyed the hell out it.
Deborah
Deborah A Tinsley
> >From: "Deborah A Tinsley" <TINS...@prodigy.net>
> >Date: 12/18/98 6:24 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <01be2ae5$bad744e0$a662fcd1@oemcomputer>
> >
>
> I'm going to respond to this post first because it's clear that even
though it
> was not my intention to upset you, Deborah, apparently I did, and so I
> apologize.
>
was inappropriate for me to take out my frustrations on you. I've been
under attack lately by a few folks (not even on the ng) who overreacted to
my posts. So what do I do? I overreact to yours. Sorry.
I just think so many of the flame wars (not here, there are really no flame
wars here) begin because the tone of the post is misunderstood or the
rhetoric gets a little overblown. I decided in my infinite lack of
consideration to demonstrate it using your post. Bad idea and not very fair
to you.
Deborah
GregSerl
>Date: 12/19/98 8:45 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <1dk9xzb.1y6...@ip203-80.cc.interlog.com>
>I really don't entirely agree with this
I don't expect anyone to agree with me. That's part of the discussion and
opinion process.
>First because I think a
>literalist reading of TXF (this part is "real" or "canon" and this part
>isn't) will invariably get you into trouble -- the show consistently
>plays games with its own "reality"
If by "the show consistently plays games with it's own reality" you mean the
writers often forget from one episode to the next what was written and so
inadvertently rewrite it, I agree. The show has some serious continuity flaws.
Most shows that run long enough do.
>does not
>have a straightforward "canon" and stuff that is straightforwardly "not
>canon"
Again, I agree, the show makes mistakes and so what was canon third season may
end up being replaced by the new improved canon fifth season.
>and mostly because I think these episodes _do_ contain
>characterization work, which can be taken seriously.
I never said they didn't contain characterization work, but it never seems to
be given the same weight as dramatic episodes nor the same parameters of
certainty.
>Which, as Madame Zirinka explains, _exaggerates_ stuff that's already
>there. So we do need to read some base of actual content under the
>strange behaviour
Syzygy, an episode that always seemed like a bad movie of the week from the 70s
to me, something along the lines of Satan's Cheerleaders, if merely an
"exaggeration" of character traits already in place, says some unpleasant
things about their working relationship if not their personal relationship,
well, if they had one at that time.
>Well, only if it also suggests that most husbands and wives are also
>strangers to each other.
I would hope a couple who had been married five years would know more about
each other than Mulder and Scully do. The other women Eddie raped in the
episode he was posing as their husbands, and so likely didn't have to booze
them up or "woo" them as he did with Scully. With that one woman we meet at
the beginning, he simply had to take advantage of someone who had some serious
problems if she thought Luke Skywalker was not only a real person, but someone
who was visiting her. I hope she never gets that baby given back if her
concept of reality remains so distorted.
>The end of PMP, despite all the focus on the dance, was not primarily
>designed as an M/S characterization moment.
I agree, since it didn't happen, it would be pointless to see it that way.
>And I think the question of
>whether or not it was "real" is actually very complex in the context of
>a show that self-consciously presents itself as an artifact.
The fact that it didn't happen seems pretty obvious and not complex at all. As
for an "artifact", I suppose anything made by humans can be defined as such,
and so The X-Files is an artifact in the same manner Gilligan's Island is an
artifact, but I will say the civilization that created The X-Files was higher
up the evolutionary ladder.
>Besides, if
>it _is_ a fable it may be Mulder's fable, in which case it _does_
>advance characterization.
Well if we go into "if it is" and "may be" then I guess any interpretation is
possible, but it does require a lot of playing around with facts that simply
aren't in evidence and those that are.
>There are so many possible ways to read that
>ending and I don't think it's a good idea to rule any of them out -- you
>have to hold them all in your mind simultaneously.
What are they exactly? It really did happen, and the whole town was within
driving distance of a place where Cher was performing, or a female imporsonator
who was lypsyncing a Cher tune gave the "monster" a last thrill before being
hauled away. Mulder pulled some strings and had Cher airlifted to the Chirp
'N' Burp out on I-90. Seriously, maybe one day Mulder and Scully will dance
together, be all smiles and have a good time, but to my mind, it didn't really
happen in PMP. They brought in the writer to give a fantasy tag ending to a
story that wouldn't really have one otherwise.
>Even if it only happened in Mulder's mind, Scully's "I do it all
>for you, Mulder! All for you!" says something about both of them.
>
I agree, that is revealing, if essentially unflattering. It's as if Scully
actually does realize she's a doormat and Mulder is tired of hearing her
complain about being one.
>It is in either case fairly revealing about Mulder, since it was either
>"real" Mulder in an alternate reality or Mulder's own dream. Scully's
>characterization is a little more uncertain.
I'm not sure how much dreams tell us about ourselves or anyone else. Sometimes
it only tells us not to eat pepperoni pizza before we go to bed.
>> terribly believable,
>unless it would take Scully that long to catch on or that
>> the best after nearly 6 years that Mulder could come up with to jog
>Scully's
>>memory is bee pollen and yogurt
>Oh come on. You'd have to discard virtually every episode if you start
>holding them to that kind of standard of believability.
"standard of believability"??? Mulder knows Scully for nearly six years and he
has a fleeting shot to convince her he is who he says he is and comes up with
bee pollen and yogurt? Come on, I"m not the *only* person who was disappointed
by that lame contrivance. There was *nothing* more private between them he
could have used to be more convincing?
>As I said, I get tired of the way people interpret everything as
>"addiction" these days.
Why is it that it's okay to read PMP as not having a fable ending because it's
"so complex" but it's *not* okay to wonder if maybe Mulder doesn't have an
obsession with pornography, or even an addition to it? Are only *positive*
interpretations of the characters permissable?
>I do have a larger and more general difficulty with your approach to
>characterization in the "comic" episodes, which in general I feel cannot
>be so easily discounted
I never discounted them, but merely suggested that the way comedy episodes are
set up, it throws a lot of the characterization into doubt.
>but maybe I'll have time to write that one
>later.
I'll look forward to reading it.
Magpie
>> >Most people who have tried to write fiction will tell you that after a
>while,
>> >characters don't necessarily want to do what their creator had hoped
>they
>> >would. Sometimes they interact in ways the author never expected, and it
>> >does no good to try to rein them back in, because it just isn't true to
>> >character if you do.
>
>I was in a writing group and was working on a long story. I'd take chapters
>in and there was this one woman who wanted to take over the story. She'd
>say, "Why don't you just make them do. . . .". I tried to explain to her
>that I couldn't just makes characters "do" things. It had to evolve out of
>the story and the integrity of the character. She thought I was nuts.
>I think with a television show it's even more out of your control. You not
>only have writers, directors, editors, prop people, etc. shaping the story,
>but the actors input, the way they play the scene, the ad libs they make,
>are modeling the story as well. It isn't an exact science.
I had a great teacher who was very good about stopping that.
Someone would start to tell you what to make the characters do
and he would say, "no story conferencing!" He had to do a lot of work
on scripts in Hollywood and was a little sensitive about it people
doing that.;)
This teacher also had us begin the semester by writing an autobiography
to understand where we were coming from.
That's one of the interesting things about good fanfic for me. It
says so much more about the author than the show. I recently read
a story that really interested me. The characters were very well
drawn and realistic...they just weren't M&S. At all. Not even
close. But that didn't matter to the story. But the M&S we see
on the show must belong to CC.
It reminds me of a thing I did for a teacher in college. I couldn't
think of a paper topic for the book _Adam Bede_ so I wrote the story
as written by other authors: Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, D.H.
Lawrence and, of course, Andrew Lloyd Weber in a new
musical BEDE! (including the touching ballad, "Paper Hats, Paper
Hearts" and the rousing opening number, "There's a Squire A-Comin'
of Age Tonight!").
-m
Magpie
>>From: ksi...@interlog.com (Maggie Helwig)
>>As I said, I get tired of the way people interpret everything as
>>"addiction" these days.
>
>Why is it that it's okay to read PMP as not having a fable ending because it's
>"so complex" but it's *not* okay to wonder if maybe Mulder doesn't have an
>obsession with pornography, or even an addition to it? Are only *positive*
>interpretations of the characters permissable?
FWIW, I think the reason Mulder's beginning to seem like
he's got an unhealthy preoccupation with pornography is
because it's been brought up once too often. I think there's
a general rule with this kind of thing: say it once, you've
said it twice. Say it twice, you've said it three times. Say
it three times and you've said it five times...and so on.
I do find it odd that Mulder's unused bedroom in Dreamland,
which I saw as a cluttered storage room with tons of files
and two old magazines tossed in on top was seems to be remembered
by some viewers as Morris opening a door only to be pinned under
an avalanche of Hustlers and XXX videos. Anyone care to watch the
scene and tell us *exactly* what fell out of that room?
-m
Konrad Douglas Frye
>FWIW, I think the reason Mulder's beginning to seem like
>he's got an unhealthy preoccupation with pornography is
>because it's been brought up once too often. I think there's
>a general rule with this kind of thing: say it once, you've
>said it twice. Say it twice, you've said it three times. Say
>it three times and you've said it five times...and so on.
Exactly. There was a period of time in season 5 where the writers were
beating us over the head with gratuitous porn references nearly every
week. That is the sort of thing I get tired of. I for one long for the
subtlety of a 'One Breath' porn reference.
-----
Konrad Frye (umfr...@ccu.umanitoba.ca)
Computer Engineering IV
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Or what? You'll release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with the
bees in their mouths and when they bark they shoot bees at you?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Eschliman
> There are so many possible ways to read that
> ending and I don't think it's a good idea to rule any of them out -- you
> have to hold them all in your mind simultaneously.
>
Something I think to be true about the entire run of the XF. We've become
so accustomed to a simple tag-line definition of a television series,
unless it's a collection like "The Twilight Zone." The XF has been
kaleidoscopic, shifting viewpoints, themes, relationships, myths and
current events in a constant challenge to a definition of the series. In
a way, for me the relationship between Mulder and Scully acts as the
mirrors within the kaleidoscope -- not always visible, but generating the
continuity between quite disparate "views."
-rje-
Never look a gifted horse in the mouth.
Deborah A Tinsley
to how many times it has been brought up in the series. I don't find it all
that distracting, but I realize some folks may be more sensitive to it than
I.
For M to be considered an addict, it would have to seriously interfere
with Mulder's life, in some way damaging--his work, his relationships. Some
folks focus on his lack of relationships but I think it'd be awfully hard
to say that was because he watches porn when it's the obsession with his
quest that makes it hard for him to sustain a relationship. His quest for
The Truth is much more damaging to his quality of life than his enthusiasm
for porn.
Until I see a scene where he screws up, fails to follow a lead, or let's
someone down because he has to call a 1-900 number or zip into a porn
movies, it's not an addiction. It doesn't mean it's a habit everyone has to
approve of, but I don't see any signs of addiction.
--
Deborah
"Art is a wicked thing. It is what we are."
Georgia O'Keefe
Konrad Douglas Frye <umfr...@cc.UManitoba.CA> wrote in article
<75hfjq$fkn$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
Magpie
>to how many times it has been brought up in the series. I don't find it all
>that distracting, but I realize some folks may be more sensitive to it than
>I.
>
>For M to be considered an addict, it would have to seriously interfere
>with Mulder's life, in some way damaging--his work, his relationships. Some
>folks focus on his lack of relationships but I think it'd be awfully hard
>to say that was because he watches porn when it's the obsession with his
>quest that makes it hard for him to sustain a relationship. His quest for
>The Truth is much more damaging to his quality of life than his enthusiasm
>for porn.
>
>Until I see a scene where he screws up, fails to follow a lead, or let's
>someone down because he has to call a 1-900 number or zip into a porn
>movies, it's not an addiction. It doesn't mean it's a habit everyone has to
>approve of, but I don't see any signs of addiction.
Oh, absolutely. Addiction is one of those words that is so
overused it's lost its meaning. It's funny that some of the
people insisting the M has an addiction based on a tape
collection etc. easily fall into their own diagnosis with
their "obsession" with TXF.
-m
lynx mulderite
> Oh, absolutely. Addiction is one of those words that is so
> overused it's lost its meaning. It's funny that some of the
> people insisting the M has an addiction based on a tape
> collection etc. easily fall into their own diagnosis with
> their "obsession" with TXF.
>
> -m
recognize Mulder's dabbling in porn as a simple (and endearing) habit,
not an addiction at all. He may have an obsessive personality, but not
an addictive one. Me, I'm both.
--
lynx
mulderite HPotMMs FEB
"But you *believed* me..."
Goo Bee Goo Bee Do
GeoRed
>which I saw as a cluttered storage room with tons of files
>and two old magazines tossed in on top was seems to be remembered
>by some viewers as Morris opening a door only to be pinned under
>an avalanche of Hustlers and XXX videos. Anyone care to watch the
>scene and tell us *exactly* what fell out of that room?
Actually, already done. Two porn mags, a pair of fuzzy dice and about 500
files. Yep, a real den of iniquity. Bad boy, that Mulder. Not.
Maggie Helwig
> GregSerl <greg...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <19981218164907...@ng154.aol.com>...
> > >From: "Deborah A Tinsley" <TINS...@prodigy.net>
> > >Date: 12/17/98 10:30 PM Central Standard Time
> > >Message-id: <01be2a3f$49959a80$c9ba9cd1@oemcomputer>
> What seemed in the beginning a joke
> > about pornography seems to currently indicate Mulder might actually be
> addicted
> > to it.
> Mulder is not a porn addict.
> He likes porn but shows no signs of addiction. I don't think his interest
> level exceeds what might be expected of a young, healthy male whose job (in
> this case, his quest) makes it nearly impossible for him to have a social
> life. He's not some weirdo sneaking off to look at girlie pictures in his
> wallet.
> "Er, uh, excuse me Scully. I'll be back in a minute. I just have to look
> some things over."
> Enjoying porn isn't the same as being addicted. Addiction implies it's
> interfering with his life, threatening his job and his relationships with
> other people.
Absolutely. Where is there any indication of "addiction"? I see none.
Except that current pop-pysch tends to interpret practically any level
of pleasure in anything as "addiction" (I was pondering recently the way
that twelve-step thinking about alcoholism, which is questionable in
itself, has gradually taken over all popular psychological discourse in
North America). He doesn't watch porn in preference to doing other
things. He watches it weekends and evenings, when he's off work anyway,
and even then only when he has nothing better to do. He'd obviously
rather talk to Scully than watch porn any day ("Chinga"). And it's
clearly not all he does -- he seems to watch a ton of non-porn movies,
for one thing.
maggie h
Smlp0tat0
being referenced to "continuously in 5th season", I have to stop and try to
think of more than 2 or 3 references that I can remember from last season.
Anyone care to catalog every reference in the entire series so far? I would
bet money that it hasn't been referred to nearly as much as people think it
has.
And I have to agree with the fact that it's not an obsession. The man just
likes porno. What's wrong with that? I mean you may not agree with it, but
he's doing it on his own time, in his own home. It's not involving minors.
It's a hobby with him. I see it as nothing more than that and I still giggle
at any reference to it. It's part of his personality just as me liking the
X-Files is part of mine.
Scully knows about it and she doesn't seem to regard it as being any problem.
So why should we?
Cindy
GravesPA2
<<You know in reading these posts about the pornography issue in reference to
it being referenced to "continuously in 5th season", I have to stop and try to
think of more than 2 or 3 references that I can remember from last season.
Anyone care to catalog every reference in the entire series so far? I would
bet money that it hasn't been referred to nearly as much as people think it
has.>>
This is from memory, so I may be missing some....
SEASON ONE
Jersey Devil - Mulder is looking at a centerfold when Scully enters the office.
Makes a joke about an "anti gravity chamber."
Beyond the Sea - Scully makes a joke about Mulder being so engrossed in
something he's reading---"The last time you were so engrossed it turned out you
were reading ADULT VIDEO NEWS.
SEASON TWO
Blood - (I think) - Mulder comments to the Boys that he hadn't read a
particular issue of The Lone Gunman because it came at the same time as his
subscription to Celebrity Skin.
One Breath - Mulder is watching (but not enjoying) what sounds like a porn
movie.
Excelsis Dei - Scully and Mulder exchange quips about videos that aren't his.
SEASON THREE
PAPER CLIP - Mulder says something about Frohike not getting his video
collection just yet.
D.P.O - very mild reference to Celebrity Skin, I think...or some magazine like
that.
CBFR - I supposed Clyde's little A.E.A. dig could qualify.
NISEI - Scully comments that the alien autopsy video isn't Mulder usual fare.
PUSHER - Mulder asks if the Eyes and Ears will pick up the Playboy Channel.
JCFOS - Jose seems to think Bigfoot videos do it for Mulder....
SEASON FOUR
Small Potatoes - a phone sex salesgirl laments that she hasn't heard from
"Marty" in awhile.
SEASON FIVE
Chinga - hinted at--but never sufficiently proven--that he's watching a video
at the office.
All Souls - he seems to be headed to an XXX theater, but he claims to be
tailing a suspect.
SEASON SIX
Dreamland 2 - Mulder has a couple of old girly magazines in amidst a ton of
other junk.
Most of the references are joking or teasing, and some even have ambiguity.
So...I'd say addiction is out.
Paula Graves
"We aren't living in the dark ages. We are, in fact, well into the fluorescent
era." - John Munch - HOMICIDE: Life on the Street
GregSerl
>Date: 12/20/98 8:53 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <1dk8xpg.f94...@ip220-27.cc.interlog.com>
>Absolutely. Where is there any indication of "addiction"? I see none.
>Except that current pop-pysch tends to interpret practically any level
In a way I think it's endearing how Mulder's interest in pornography is being
defended. It can be anything *but* addiction. There's also the idea that
something isn't an addiction unless it severely compromises a person's work
performance or interaction with friends and family. Of course this isn't true.
If someone can't be sociable in the morning until they've had a dose of
caffeine, then they have some dependency on caffeine, I ought to know, because
I sure do <g>
An addiction is usually defined by how much anxiety the idea of being without
the addictive substance would cause. Does a sudden cessation of the addictive
substance cause physical, emotional or mental withdrawal symptoms?
1) Does missing a new episode of the X-Files make you feel anxious or agitated?
2) Could you skip a new episode of The X-Files, not even tape it, and not feel
anxious?
3) Do you sometimes think of The X-Files at work or school?
4) Have you ever read or written fanfic while at work or school?
5) Have you ever read or posted to usenet or message boards while at work or
school -- not being able to wait until you are home?
6) Do you spend more than an hour a day in pursuit of X-Files related
interaction?
7) Do you subscribe to more than one on line service such as AOL, Compuserve or
Prodigy *only* because of The X-Files?
8) Do you refuse to answer the phone, or even leave it disconnected when a new
episode of The X-Files is airing?
9) Do you sometimes watch The X-Files alone if only to keep from being judged
by family or friends? Re: "Are you watching that *again*!!!??"
10) Do you watch the reruns on FOX, FX or local affiliates even though you have
every episode on tape?
11) Do you ever binge watch (marathon)?
12) Have you ever drifted away from a friend who lost interest in The X-Files,
or if you remained friends The X-Files is something you agree not to discuss in
order to maintain a civil interaction?
13) Can you name the titles of all 100 plus episodes without the help of an
episode guide?
14) Does the question "why does Mulder tape an 'X' in his window" cause an
irresistible urge to post a flame or joke response?
15) Do you become angry or upset when Krycek is spelled "Krychek" "Cricheck"
or "Wheatcheck"?
16) If you can't be home when a new episode of The X-Files is airing, do you
set more than one VCR in the paranoid fear that one might malfunciton?
17) If you're a guy, and you bought The X-Files Barbie dolls, did your father
drag out the rosary beads and weep?
18) Have you spent some *serious* cash on X-Files related merchandise?
19) Have you ever worn out a VCR or VCR remote (especially "pause" "frame
advance" and "slo-mo" buttons)?
20) Did you read all the way down to this last question? ;)
If you answered "yes" to three or more of these questions, you may have a
problem. If you answered "yes" to six or more of these questions, you may be an
addict. If you answered "yes" to more than half of these questions, then don't
worry, you're just a big fan of The X-Files ;)
Deborah A Tinsley
> >From: ksi...@interlog.com (Maggie Helwig)
> >Date: 12/20/98 8:53 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <1dk8xpg.f94...@ip220-27.cc.interlog.com>
>
> >Absolutely. Where is there any indication of "addiction"? I see none.
> >Except that current pop-pysch tends to interpret practically any level
>
> In a way I think it's endearing how Mulder's interest in pornography is
being
> defended. It can be anything *but* addiction. There's also the idea
that
> something isn't an addiction unless it severely compromises a person's
work
> performance or interaction with friends and family. Of course this isn't
true.
I'm not defending Mulder's predilection for porno. Why would it need to be
defended? I see nothing wrong with it.
If you want to call it an addiction, fine, but apparently it's not a
problem for him, nor does it seem to interfere with his life, just as your
coffee habit may not be a problem for you. All in all a porno "addiction"
like Mulder's may be less damaging than caffeine.
Issab1
>My real point is that I don't think I've ever seen
>a show that, several years into it, was exactly what its creator thought it
>would be (well, I've never watched B5, but I understand they planned out the
>whole 5 year story arc - this could be a possible counterexample, I guess -
>someone who's actually *seen* the show might want to comment!). When TXF had
>to do this, last season, I think it stifled them creatively, in that they
>*had* to arrive at that pre-movie point at the end of the season, with the
>characters in exactly the shape they were at the beginning of the movie.
>
>
I agree. I think that was exactly the problem with season 5. Not that I hated
season 5, I just think you've put your finger on a problem with it.
>Most people who have tried to write fiction will tell you that after a while,
>characters don't necessarily want to do what their creator had hoped they
>would. Sometimes they interact in ways the author never expected, and
it
>does no good to try to rein them
>back in, because it just isn't true to
>character if you do.
>
>The X-Files has progressed in this way, and it will continue to progress, and
>if it didn't, it wouldn't be a very good show, imo. When the characters are
>real enough to take over and do
>what *they* want (fall in love, for example -
>I'm not at all sure that CC meant them to, but they went and did it, and now
>he has to deal with it <g>), then *that* is when a show begins to inspire me.
>
>
>OK, it's 2 am. I'm not completely coherent. But I hope this made a bit of
>sense.
I think you made tons of sense. I think CC was sincerely with all his
"there'll never be a romance" protestations. It's just that eventually his
characters developed other ideas. And now as you say, he's got to deal with
it.
Mari B.
Akakan
GregSerl <greg...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981220151655...@ng134.aol.com>...
>
> In a way I think it's endearing how Mulder's interest in pornography is
being
> defended. It can be anything *but* addiction.
>
> 1) Does missing a new episode of the X-Files make you feel anxious or
agitated?
>
> 2) Could you skip a new episode of The X-Files, not even tape it, and not
feel
> anxious?
Hilarious post, and a great example of the DSM-IV-ization of America.
FWIW, the DSM-IV is the diagnostic manual of the psychiatric profession.
The fourth edition is renowned for turning basically every observable human
behavior into a mental illness. Luckily, it has also been used to classify
every behavior as a disability, so we can all get free checks from the
government now.
Magpie
>> GregSerl <greg...@aol.com> wrote in article
>> <19981218164907...@ng154.aol.com>...
>> > >From: "Deborah A Tinsley" <TINS...@prodigy.net>
>> > >Date: 12/17/98 10:30 PM Central Standard Time
>> > >Message-id: <01be2a3f$49959a80$c9ba9cd1@oemcomputer>
>> What seemed in the beginning a joke
>> > about pornography seems to currently indicate Mulder might actually be
>> addicted
>> > to it.
>> Mulder is not a porn addict.
>> He likes porn but shows no signs of addiction. I don't think his interest
>> level exceeds what might be expected of a young, healthy male whose job (in
>> this case, his quest) makes it nearly impossible for him to have a social
>> life. He's not some weirdo sneaking off to look at girlie pictures in his
>> wallet.
>> "Er, uh, excuse me Scully. I'll be back in a minute. I just have to look
>> some things over."
>> Enjoying porn isn't the same as being addicted. Addiction implies it's
>> interfering with his life, threatening his job and his relationships with
>> other people.
>Absolutely. Where is there any indication of "addiction"? I see none.
>Except that current pop-pysch tends to interpret practically any level
>of pleasure in anything as "addiction" (I was pondering recently the way
>that twelve-step thinking about alcoholism, which is questionable in
>itself, has gradually taken over all popular psychological discourse in
>North America). He doesn't watch porn in preference to doing other
>things. He watches it weekends and evenings, when he's off work anyway,
>and even then only when he has nothing better to do. He'd obviously
>rather talk to Scully than watch porn any day ("Chinga"). And it's
>clearly not all he does -- he seems to watch a ton of non-porn movies,
>for one thing.
I popped into ATXF this morning and there was a post casually
explaining that not only is M a porn "addict" but his eating
sunflower seeds indicates that he has an "obsessive/compulsive
disorder"!!!
A little psychological terminology can be a dangerous thing.
-m
cshardie
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: ab...@flash.net
X-Trace: news.flash.net 914195575 208.194.197.239 (Sun, 20 Dec 1998 17:12:55 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 17:12:55 CDT
GregSerl wrote:
> In a way I think it's endearing how Mulder's interest in pornography
> is being defended. It can be anything *but* addiction. There's also
> the idea that something isn't an addiction unless it severely
> compromises a person's work performance or interaction with friends
> and family. Of course this isn't true. If someone can't be sociable
> in the morning until they've had a dose of caffeine, then they have
> some dependency on caffeine, I ought to know, because I sure do <g>
Well, that *is* affecting their life :) If they don't get it, they don't
function as well.
Mulder, on the other hand, seems to function exactly the same with or
without his porn. He doesn't usually seem anxious to get back to it,
just anxious to hide it from Scully. It's only something for her to
tease him about.
--
Suzanne readily admits that she, too, is caffeine dependent ;) It's
amazing what a bad mood I can be in without it and how easy it is to get
things done at work with it!
But I could quit anytime I want.
I just don't want to.... :)