About Xena...
JG
roughly to the expansion of the internet. This is important when considering
how the series has developed. The series has been immensely successful and
it is syndicated to over 200 countries. It is conscious about post-modernism
and this is seen to be the key to its success. This occurs in many ways. It
constantly undermines orthodox gender constructions. Gender constructs are
collapsed. Xena’s partner, Gabrielle and their relationship is only
privileged by the end of the story. The two central female characters are
seen to be independent whilst the male characters are seen to be stupid or
evil and are often only temporary. Gabrielle is a stereotyped women in
jeopardy and she is always rescued by another women. Some episodes play
around with gender. The series also plays around with history. The time
frame is set sometime around BC. Various characters such as Jesus and Julius
Caesar have appeared. Such an attitude towards history is emphatically
post-modern. It makes out that history itself is a lie and merely a
collection of stories. It refers viewers to the fact that there are many
hundreds of people who have been written out of history, for example, gays.
Xena therefore creates a pseudo-history that addresses groups that have been
previously not had voices heard. This it why it appeals to the lesbian
audience.
The series is open to many interpretations and uses the idea of
heteroglossia a lot. By messing around with history and gender, this also
blurs many boundaries. There is often a lesbian subtext running throughout.
Some episodes are in fact strongly heterosexual, but there are also many
episodes where the lesbian subtext is emphatically lesbian. Often
heterosexuals don’t pick up on these things. Particular sets of iconography
allow gay viewers to pick up on these lesbian subtexts. It has been popular
throughout the United States as its lesbian subtexts are not as explicit as
in other series such as ‘Ellen’. The text often refers to other texts
outside Xena and in this way it work alongside its Internet fan base.
The producers and those involved with the series actively encourage fan
websites – they often participate and join in on live chatrooms on the
Internet. They also gain ideas for the evolution of the series from fans.
Xena (from about the 2nd season) shows clearly how it responded to its fan
following. It represents a new stage in cult television. The Xena text blurs
into various other texts. E.g. multimedia, sound files, journal articles,
backstage footage. The series often draws upon this. In the post-modern TV
series, there is a process of re-imagining sexual and racial classes. It
functions as a representational space in which new identities can be
explored within an imaginary zone.
Any comments?
Stacey Capps
> Xena made its debut in 1995. The production of the series corresponds
> roughly to the expansion of the internet.
A happy coincidence.
> It
> constantly undermines orthodox gender constructions. Gender constructs are
> collapsed.
In some ways, yes. In others, no. I feel you are making a broad
generalization. Xena is doing the same thing that the Society for
Creative Anachronism does. It allows people to paint an idealized picture
of gender roles that embodies only the gender "rules" we wish to have --
not those which we as a modern society are trying to get away from. By
doing so in an other-worldly past, it is easier for people to grasp.
> Xena’s partner, Gabrielle and their relationship is only
> privileged by the end of the story. The two central female characters are
> seen to be independent whilst the male characters are seen to be stupid or
> evil and are often only temporary.
Another overly broad generalization. Borias? Autolycus? Perdicus? Of
course they don't attach themselves to men in any permanent sense. If
they "settled down" with a guy, it would mean the end of the show.
> Gabrielle is a stereotyped woman in
> jeopardy and she is always rescued by another woman.
Perhaps true at the inception of the show, but not lately. And Gabrielle
is only stereotyped if you don't bother learning anything about her.
> It makes out that history itself is a lie and merely a
> collection of stories. It refers viewers to the fact that there are many
> hundreds of people who have been written out of history, for example, gays.
> Xena therefore creates a pseudo-history that addresses groups that have been
> previously not had voices heard. This it why it appeals to the lesbian
> audience.
History is not a "lie" to this show. It takes liberties with history,
sure, but so does every other show or television special that involves a
historical or mythological topic. They're just more honest and obvious
about it than other movies/shows. It's downright ludicrous to suggest
that the writers warp history because they want the show to be more
palatable to gays and lesbians. If lesbians like the show, it is because
it portrays two women who are romantically in love and who are also
portrayed as heroes. I only see the warping of history as appealing to
people who are history and/or mythology enthusiasts.
>
> Some episodes are in fact strongly heterosexual, but there are also many
> episodes where the lesbian subtext is emphatically lesbian.
Well, I certainly HOPE the lesbian subtext is emphatically lesbian.
Otherwise, something is very, very wrong. :-)
What, are you going to have lesbian subtext that is emphatically
straight? Or just only kind of sort of lesbian? I'm confused...
> Often
> heterosexuals don’t pick up on these things.
You're generalizing again. Many heterosexuals pick up on the subtext.
> Particular sets of iconography
> allow gay viewers to pick up on these lesbian subtexts.
Excuse me? Iconography? You are setting it up as if the writers are using
some sort of screenwriting secret handshake to tip off gay people. This
is a ridiculous presumption on your part, especially considering that the
show's original concept did not involve subtext at all. The only
iconography I see is based on feminism, not homosexuality. If you can't
tell the difference, you need to read a few books on modern patriarchy.
> It The text often refers to other texts
> outside Xena and in this way it work alongside its Internet fan base.
It refers to other texts? Which? The scripts are never based on internet
content, per the writers have been given orders to avoid fan fiction and
other fan-based sites and forums. They are concerned about copyright
issues, and I can't say I blame them. The only reason I imagine you
included this sentence is that it fits your presumptions. The lesbian
fans are being encouraged over the internet and through special gay
iconography. It's all one seething mass of hot lesbian fan love.
> The producers and those involved with the series actively encourage fan
> websites – they often participate and join in on live chatrooms on the
> Internet.
Placing this sentence after the highly misleading one above will lead
readers to the conclusion that the producers etc. are getting specific
lesbian input through the internet. But they don't seek out lesbian
opinions, nor any other specific group. You're falsely leading the reader
in a misguided attempt to "prove" that Xena is a cult phenomenon.
> In the post-modern TV
> series, there is a process of re-imagining sexual and racial classes. It
> functions as a representational space in which new identities can be
> explored within an imaginary zone.
Your conclusion rings true. But your methodology above strikes me as
over-generalized, stereotyped, and logically incorrect. Furthermore, you
are ignoring the fact that much of the show's popularity has nothing
whatsoever to do with lesbians. Xena has a very broad fan base, and
appeals to different people on many different levels.
You aren't even mentioning the teen girl fans, the college babe-watching
fans, the highly educated history/mythology fans, the fans of Japanese-
style fight scenes, or the many "Xena changed my life" women fans. You
seem to think Xena is all about lesbianism. As much as I enjoy the
subtext, I have to disagree with you. Leave your stereotypes at the door
if you want to write an essay like this. I feel you've belittled me by
putting my fandom under a very distorted, straight male magnifying glass.
--
Stacey Capps
The FAQ for alt.tv.xena-subtext.misc
and my personal homepage are at:
http://www.dimensional.com/~jbh
Pintele
(Stacey Capps) writes:
I agree with Stacey on a lot of these points, but, ah, I respectfully differ on
a few points...
>
>On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:01:54 -0000, Ja...@alsorts.freeserve.co.uk said...
>> Xena made its debut in 1995. The production of the series corresponds
>> roughly to the expansion of the internet.
>
>A happy coincidence.
>
Yes, but one that *has* affected the show- for one facilitating the
self-referential pokes at fandom that don;t appear to be just random, and more
importantly bringing into focus the subtext- leading the show from that
pre-modern first season into more postmodern-feeling waters. Many people- LL,
ROC, writers like Manheim- have acknowledged throwing things in to fan the
flames of subtext. Most of those early articles about Xena mentioned two
things- subtext and the internet. The three will be forever entertwined, like
lines in the Mendhi.
<snipped>
>
>> It makes out that history itself is a lie and merely a
>> collection of stories. It refers viewers to the fact that there are many
>> hundreds of people who have been written out of history, for example, gays.
>> Xena therefore creates a pseudo-history that addresses groups that have
>been
>> previously not had voices heard. This it why it appeals to the lesbian
>> audience.
>
>History is not a "lie" to this show. It takes liberties with history,
>sure, but so does every other show or television special that involves a
>historical or mythological topic. They're just more honest and obvious
>about it than other movies/shows. It's downright ludicrous to suggest
>that the writers warp history because they want the show to be more
>palatable to gays and lesbians. If lesbians like the show, it is because
>it portrays two women who are romantically in love and who are also
>portrayed as heroes. I only see the warping of history as appealing to
>people who are history and/or mythology enthusiasts.
>
They may not warp history in order to make it more palatable for queers, but
just speaking for myself, I'd say that I wouldn't have any interest in this
show if it was slavishly true to "history" (as if there is such a thing- here's
where post-modernism comes back in to discuss knowledge and power). Strictly
IMO, women's "place" in "history" sucks and the lesbian's "place" in "history"
bites the big one- bruised and buried if not burned at the stake or stoically
surviving. Give me fantasy any day.
I like the show because it makes room in a pseudo-historical setting for women
who may or may not be lesbians or bisexual to be the heroes and almost the full
focus, for one, and to be strong and capable as such. IMO you have to warp the
"history" to bring in strong women who have a life of their own in a way that's
fun and not totally grim, to rewrite at least one woman's place in the scrolls,
and that opens the door that subtexters cracked open.
>
>> Particular sets of iconography
>> allow gay viewers to pick up on these lesbian subtexts.
>
>Excuse me? Iconography? You are setting it up as if the writers are using
>some sort of screenwriting secret handshake to tip off gay people. This
>is a ridiculous presumption on your part, especially considering that the
>show's original concept did not involve subtext at all. The only
>iconography I see is based on feminism, not homosexuality. If you can't
>tell the difference, you need to read a few books on modern patriarchy.
>
Huh?
The show's original presumption didn't include a lot of what the show's
presumption now includes- like regular slapstick comedies. It's canon now.
The writers *do* on occasion use screenwriting "secret handshakes" to allow at
least two sets of viewers to see exactly what they want to see- it's just not
that "secret" a handshake thanks to the dispersion of queer underground culture
into that most mainstream of cultures- the media- over the last few years.
I'm thinking here of how many straight folks with little or no previous
exposure to the queer and present danger in their midst who currently have no
problem seeing subtext would have "read" the show as subtextual fifteen years
ago. A lot less, I suspect, if my own family is any indication. We used to be
brave and crazy for seeing things and hearing voices, now we're just sheep.
Now resistant readings deny subtext.
Altared States, fishing scene, allows two simultaneous readings- fishing,
"fishing".
AFA- family scene, allows two simultaneous readings- family scene, "family"
scene.
Those references aren't about feminism. They're about women who love each
other and at least joke about having sex and pay the societal price for that
crime against nature, not just their independence. Since when was the lavendar
herring subsumed back into feminism?
>> It The text often refers to other texts
>> outside Xena and in this way it work alongside its Internet fan base.
>
>It refers to other texts? Which? The scripts are never based on internet
>content, per the writers have been given orders to avoid fan fiction and
>other fan-based sites and forums. They are concerned about copyright
>issues, and I can't say I blame them. The only reason I imagine you
>included this sentence is that it fits your presumptions. The lesbian
>fans are being encouraged over the internet and through special gay
>iconography. It's all one seething mass of hot lesbian fan love.
>
Wow- what an image.
But, ah, the scripts and show *do* refer to texts outside Xena, classic films,
plays, epics, myths, etc.
And they may not read fanfic directly but by sheer coincidence they *have*
managed to spear just about every fanfic convention *spot on* and milked them
for laughs.
>> In the post-modern TV
>> series, there is a process of re-imagining sexual and racial classes. It
>> functions as a representational space in which new identities can be
>> explored within an imaginary zone.
>
>Your conclusion rings true. But your methodology above strikes me as
>over-generalized, stereotyped, and logically incorrect. Furthermore, you
>are ignoring the fact that much of the show's popularity has nothing
>whatsoever to do with lesbians. Xena has a very broad fan base, and
>appeals to different people on many different levels.
Why does this phrase come off as saying that it's just lesbian identities that
the show is open to- "re-imagining [or IMo denying the existnece of] sexual and
racial classes" makes it uniquely open to whole female/feminist identities,
among others. The both warped and reclaimed historical setting allows a much
different "place" for people of color than film & TV "history"- i.e. Helen
instead of Mammie. The show is just more "open" because it's openly fantastic
& mythological and clearly not afraid to mix and match. Why the assumption
that this analysis is necessarily lesbocentric? Didn't that straw man burn
before?
>
>You aren't even mentioning the teen girl fans, the college babe-watching
>fans, the highly educated history/mythology fans, the fans of Japanese-
>style fight scenes, or the many "Xena changed my life" women fans. You
>seem to think Xena is all about lesbianism. As much as I enjoy the
>subtext, I have to disagree with you. Leave your stereotypes at the door
>if you want to write an essay like this. I feel you've belittled me by
>putting my fandom under a very distorted, straight male magnifying glass.
>
>--
>Stacey Capps
>The FAQ for alt.tv.xena-subtext.misc
>and my personal homepage are at:
>http://www.dimensional.com/~jbh
>
>
Can we not deny the import of the lesbian/queer thang while making the points
that Stacey and ranlauren are making? Why is it either/or? The lesbian thing
is important, maybe just notequally important for everyone. Any time the word
gets mentioned is important to me, because I like to know what people are
saying behind our backs as well as on and off our backs.
In some ways the show *is* a secret pat on the back from the blue gods of the
Xenaverse, if not a handshake which would be a sign of full citizenship, for
those of us who've always been a frickin freak of nature, whether intentional
or not. It has that result, and so it is important. All the b.s. comes with
the territory- because what's important to freaks is a threat to the normal.
Backlash, cooptation, and re-assimilation, the managing of diversity, are not
irrelevant. Just tired and boring.
IMO there aren't enough of us lesbians around here to oppress anyone, no matter
how strident our opinions. I understand what set you off, but ah, it's as hard
to read this as it is to read the original post, ya know? It's bad enough that
Raoul disclosed all our secret plans to rule the world and ruined a good
revolution.
I'm sorry. I don't really know what I'm saying. Can we be more careful with
our rants? I get so tired of hearing that "the lesbian thing is irrelevant".
There's got to be a better way to state that point. Noone likes to hear that
they're irrelevant, even if the point being made is not that.
-pintele
Stacey Capps
> I agree with Stacey on a lot of these points, but, ah, I respectfully differ on
> a few points...
Differ away. I may even decide to agree with you and differ with myself.
(Is that possible?)
> Yes, but one that *has* affected the show- for one facilitating the
> self-referential pokes at fandom that don;t appear to be just random, and more
> importantly bringing into focus the subtext- leading the show from that
> pre-modern first season into more postmodern-feeling waters.
Okay. Good argument. I will agree with you on that.
> Many people- LL,
> ROC, writers like Manheim- have acknowledged throwing things in to fan the
> flames of subtext. Most of those early articles about Xena mentioned two
> things- subtext and the internet. The three will be forever entertwined, like
> lines in the Mendhi.
Not the Mendhi! :-) I can't complain, since I'm part of this phenomenon.
> They may not warp history in order to make it more palatable for queers, but
> just speaking for myself, I'd say that I wouldn't have any interest in this
> show if it was slavishly true to "history" (as if there is such a thing- here's
> where post-modernism comes back in to discuss knowledge and power). Strictly
> IMO, women's "place" in "history" sucks and the lesbian's "place" in "history"
> bites the big one- bruised and buried if not burned at the stake or stoically
> surviving. Give me fantasy any day.
But the role of lesbians in ancient Greece is completely unknown, save
for Sappho's writings -- and they don't tell you much about daily life
for the average Grecian. For all we know, lesbians were once EXACTLY like
Xena. I am trying to seperate things which appeal to lesbians as opposed
to things that appeal to all women. I would submit that all women like
the expansion of gender roles, not just lesbians.
> The show's original presumption didn't include a lot of what the show's
> presumption now includes- like regular slapstick comedies. It's canon now.
True. That's a fair point to make. But can we call the chakram (a yonic
symbol) to be a "lesbian secret handshake" when it was developed before
TPTB were aware of having so many lesbian followers? Or Xena's leather
and armor outfit? That was the sort of thing I was discussing.
> The writers *do* on occasion use screenwriting "secret handshakes" to allow at
> least two sets of viewers to see exactly what they want to see- it's just not
> that "secret" a handshake thanks to the dispersion of queer underground culture
> into that most mainstream of cultures- the media- over the last few years.
The original writer was presuming that lesbians are picking up on things
that straight people are not. I would submit that there isn't really
anything left to pick up on that straight people wouldn't also recognize.
> I'm thinking here of how many straight folks with little or no previous
> exposure to the queer and present danger in their midst who currently have no
> problem seeing subtext would have "read" the show as subtextual fifteen years
> ago. A lot less, I suspect, if my own family is any indication.
But I would submit that many lesbians wouldn't see these supposed "secret
handshakes" 15 years ago either, especially the many now-lesbians who
were unhappily attempting to live stereotyped heterosexual lives then.
> Altared States, fishing scene, allows two simultaneous readings- fishing,
> "fishing".
>
> AFA- family scene, allows two simultaneous readings- family scene, "family"
> scene.
>
> Those references aren't about feminism. They're about women who love each
> other and at least joke about having sex and pay the societal price for that
> crime against nature, not just their independence. Since when was the lavendar
> herring subsumed back into feminism?
Yes, but straight people understood these jokes too. Even straights that
don't approve of homosexuality understood the jokes. I remember, because
a few of them complained about it on ATX at the time. So I wouldn't call
this a "secret handshake." Just sexual innuendo that supports subtext.
> But, ah, the scripts and show *do* refer to texts outside Xena, classic films,
> plays, epics, myths, etc.
Yes, but how are those texts related to modern-day lesbianism? The only
thing I can think of is the Bacchae, which was a tribute to lesbian
vampire movies. But again, straights saw that reference just as easily as
lesbians did. It wasn't a "secret handshake" that eluded straight people.
> And they may not read fanfic directly but by sheer coincidence they *have*
> managed to spear just about every fanfic convention *spot on* and milked them
> for laughs.
I wish I could comment, but I just don't read fanfic. I wouldn't know.
> Why the assumption
> that this analysis is necessarily lesbocentric? Didn't that straw man burn
> before?
I made the assumption because the original poster seemed fixated on
making the show a lesbian cult phenomenon. The distinction I was trying
to make was this: He made it sound like the show would not survive
without its lesbian fan base. I think it would. I don't think this
opinion demonizes or marginalizes the lesbian fans. It just goes to show
that his original argument doesn't hold water.
<snipping a bit I can't think of anything to say about>
> IMO there aren't enough of us lesbians around here to oppress anyone, no matter
> how strident our opinions. I understand what set you off, but ah, it's as hard
> to read this as it is to read the original post, ya know? It's bad enough that
> Raoul disclosed all our secret plans to rule the world and ruined a good
> revolution.
I think maybe you were reading something into my rant that I wasn't
trying to say. Perhaps I phrased my opinion badly. I had no intention of
denigrating the lesbian fans. I like the lesbian fans. I understand why
they take so much away from the show, and I know how important many
lesbians feel Xena is to their culture and their personal self-
confidence. More power to them!
I also would submit that the lesbian fans got a lot of media attention
directed towards the show that got curious viewers to start watching it.
I don't think those viewers would still be watching if they weren't able
to relate to it, though. I think the fact that the fan-base is so diverse
deserves some attention if you are going to discuss Xena intelligently.
I take offense at some straight guy writing a treatise aimed at other
straights that makes it appear as if the show is basically a tool crafted
for lesbians by lesbian supporters. The show is rich, and deep, and
appeals to different people on a number of levels. The lesbian take on
the show is wonderfully appealing, and certainly must be mentioned and
explained in a general article about Xena's popularity. It should not be
the ONLY thing mentioned, though. That's not fair to the other fans.
> I'm sorry. I don't really know what I'm saying. Can we be more careful with
> our rants?
I will if you will. :-)
ranlauren
paradigm for analysing this show. I would say that it was ontologically
fallacious and of limited versitility in _any_ situation, but you know how
aggravating such snotty remarks are. I also feel really tired when people who
clearly do not have a feel for it over-focus on the lesbian thing. It ought,
ought, ought to be irrelevant!!!
Speed the day!
Rooth
ranlauren
personal relationships, immaterial to everyone else.
I reject that lesbian, gay and bi are outside nature. I am an essentialist in that
I believe we cannot go outside nature in this way, we only imagine that we do. I
am (and presumably you are) a material manifestation who grew originally from the
instructions in a single cell. All else may be interesting, but outside of human
discourse, is affectation. To me post-modernism is a rehash of solipsistic
nineteeenth century crypto-fascist theory, dressed up in jargon ultimately
uninspiring to anyone who has learnt French.
I shall not shift from this view, but have no desire to repeat it.
Let's just avoid elitist paradigms that are not accepted everywhere before they
involve us in silly tautological tailspins.
Against nature? Any definition of nature that doesn't include me is wrong!
Yours, I hope for the last time in such a ranting mood
Rooth
ranlauren
Rooth
Aethelrede
ranlauren wrote in message <36E91E75...@corplink.com.au>...
>Lesbians are not irrelevent. Whether one is lesbian ought to be, outside
one's
>personal relationships, immaterial to everyone else.
Unless one mentions it all the time in posts to the internet. If one
keeps it personal, it's your business: should one insist on being seen as a
lesbian and having ones opinion seen as being lesbian, then it becomes
everyones concern and open to discussion.
Pintele
<Aethe...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
Actually walking down the street is usually all it takes. But that's neither
here nor there on the internet.
Being a reader of historical texts should be kept to oneself as well, but
should one insist on being seen as knowledgeable about history, it becomes
everyone's concern and open to discussion. Why is sexuality any different than
any other part of one's identity? The Kama Sutra is dead. Long live the Kama
Sutra.
A sincere apology to Stacey. I did really misread & mis-represent your post
after the tone started to piss me off. Creatively and destructively reading
too much between the lines too often... Mostly very poor writing on my part-
no personal offense intended.
As for identity, some of us think it is pretty important and directly relevant
to discussions about lesbian/bi/queer/heterosexual subtext, but whatever, to
each his/her own. And theory- yeah, it's overrated.
My point wasn't about relevance of anyone. It was that an exclusive focus on
any set of viewer's experience of the show, even in the grossest
generalizations and even for bad intent, shouldn't lead to a response couched
in terms like "enough of the focus on the lesbian aspect". That response
misses the point- that there has never been a real focus on the lesbian aspect
of the show any more than there has been a focus on any other aspect of the
show. No reviewer or reporter has yet seen the show, apparently.
To see the focus on the titillating "lesbian" aspect of the show as excluding
any fans misses what that focus is trying to do to lesbians and any women who
can be smeared as lesbians- separate us out again as something to be gawked and
marveled at. Want to join me in the lion's cage? Be my guest. Stick a hand
in first...
-pintele
Stacey Capps
> A sincere apology to Stacey. I did really misread & mis-represent your post
> after the tone started to piss me off. Creatively and destructively reading
> too much between the lines too often... Mostly very poor writing on my part-
> no personal offense intended.
I suspected as much. And I realized immediately that I could have written
the post better if I had been considering what a lesbian might think
while reading it. But I was focusing on the straight male poster, and I
didn't take the care I should have in writing.
I think it's fair to say we've mended our fences now. :-)
ranlauren
Aethelrede wrote:
> ranlauren wrote in message <36E91E75...@corplink.com.au>...
> >Lesbians are not irrelevent. Whether one is lesbian ought to be, outside
> one's
> >personal relationships, immaterial to everyone else.
>
ranlauren
Rooth
Pintele wrote:
> In article <7ccpdl$l...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Aethelrede"
> <Aethe...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >ranlauren wrote in message <36E91E75...@corplink.com.au>...
> >>Lesbians are not irrelevent. Whether one is lesbian ought to be, outside
> >one's
> >>personal relationships, immaterial to everyone else.
> >
> > Unless one mentions it all the time in posts to the internet. If one
> >keeps it personal, it's your business: should one insist on being seen as a
> >lesbian and having ones opinion seen as being lesbian, then it becomes
> >everyones concern and open to discussion.
>
> Actually walking down the street is usually all it takes. But that's neither
> here nor there on the internet.
>
> Being a reader of historical texts should be kept to oneself as well, but
> should one insist on being seen as knowledgeable about history, it becomes
> everyone's concern and open to discussion. Why is sexuality any different than
> any other part of one's identity? The Kama Sutra is dead. Long live the Kama
> Sutra.
>
> A sincere apology to Stacey. I did really misread & mis-represent your post
> after the tone started to piss me off. Creatively and destructively reading
> too much between the lines too often... Mostly very poor writing on my part-
> no personal offense intended.
>