Bachii Epidsode
stingray
Spolier
s
e
x
y
s
e
x
y
s
e
x
y
s
e
x
y
s
e
x
y
s
e
x
y
s
e
x
t
s
e
x
y
s
e
x
y
Okay that should be enough.
I was more than slightly aroused. That's one of the first things I
can say about this episode. That music, the dancing and the sexual
overtures were a little to much for primetime and me. Xena and
Gabrielle were intriguing to say the least. I have avoided the
lesbian discussion about their relationship. But i think the
producers and writers were defintely playing with that theme tonight.
Vampires are typically seductive. I guess it's a part of their
appeal. Tonight's episode was funny (the rap song eveyone was dancing
to) and sensual ("bite me Gabrielle"). I always thought Xena and
Gabby were just friends and still believe it but... tonight they took
a walk on the wild side. next week's episode will be somewhat
"anticlimatic"
"i never mind much about the little things"
Jane
don't know if I can...
oh no
diana
Aethe...@worldnet.att.net
I agree, a lot of erotic stuff (although the rap was a bit
too camp): I'm willing to predict detailed descriptions of and comments
about the actual bite scene, which was very long and intense and
definitely erotic.
But the rest of the show, PEE-uuu, apart from Orpeus' head
(funny, not a single joke involving the word 'head'!) and a couple other
gags. This has to be one on the all time classically confused and
convoluted x.w.p. episode. They took Bacchus and the Bachiantes,
harmless harvest/wine spirits, and turned them into the Maenid followers
of the Dying God, whose annual celebration in early Hellenic times
involved a bunch of frenzied drunken young women hunting a young man
across country an ripping him to bits. And as if that wasn't enough
they then had to be turned into parodies of Stockerian Vampires,
Now I'm not saying it wasn't enjoyable, but what is getting into
the minds of those writers? Are they spending too much time partying
with the White house crowd that still don't have security clearance, and
inhaling?
Bill Boelema
Aaah! Bacchii episode.? I only thing I could think of was the referenc of
Xena to 'sons of Bacchae'. I thought the vampire episode was "GIRLS JUST
WANT TO HAVE FUN" and (usually: I caved in on OoW) don't want my first
impression to be mostly from watching it... (by the time I figured out
what it was it was too late, but I will survive.)
can someone clarify the titles?
stingray (ddc...@mail.one.net) wrote:
--
Bluesong
Bill,
The bacchae (bacchi?) episode is "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun." That's the
title of the ep, but it's about the Bacchae.
I know some posters haven't been very good about spoiler warnings; I don't
know what we can do about that. Sorry if they ruined your episode for
you. I know you don't read *my* spoilers until after you've seen the
show.
Please, everyone, remember -- just because you've seen the episode, don't
assume all others have. Some people won't see this until Sunday (10/27),
so a spoiler warning in the heading is helpful. Usually after WGN has
shown it, spoilers aren't necessary.
Singin' in the rain,
Bluesong
Vaxen
In article 326D6C...@worldnet.att.net,
> They took Bacchus and the Bachiantes,
>harmless harvest/wine spirits, and turned them into the Maenid followers
>of the Dying God, whose annual celebration in early Hellenic times
>involved a bunch of frenzied drunken young women hunting a young man
>across country an ripping him to bits. And as if that wasn't enough
>they then had to be turned into parodies of Stockerian Vampires,
> Now I'm not saying it wasn't enjoyable, but what is getting into
>the minds of those writers?
Did you just start watching Xena this week? The show is about as close to classical mythology and historical reality as "Silence of the Lamb" is to a light comedy. While they may drop a name or two and claim to be portraying Ancient Greece, there is a whole lot of fudging going on. The writers know exactly what they are doing. Their entertaining us and if it doesn't quite measure up to some standard of reality, so much the better. I get enough reality in my life. And if they happen to mix myths, who cares as long as it works.
Aethe...@worldnet.att.net
Well, sorry I broke into your world so harshly: just lie down
and try to get back into that value free coma.
I still say that if these writers start off in a Hellanistic
thread (with mycenian adjuncts) then they should keep to it, not go off
into all these weird side tracks. Or they should cut out the current
legendary God & Godess intro guff and say that this is pure fantasy,
uncontrolled and unbounded. They might like to call it 'The Twilight
Zone', er, except that's copyrighted.
Sure, the writer's job is to give the talent a script that will
allow them to get the show the required rating for the week, but if they
lay out a background for the series they should try to keep to it.
This is, OF COURSE, MHO
The Immortal
Aethe...@worldnet.att.net
Vaxen wrote:
>
> In article 32703B...@worldnet.att.net,
OK, OK, you win, now stop it: that blotchy red is not a good
look for you, and I don't think those veins are supposed to be sticking
out like that. I admit it: you are right on this Bachii thing: I am
wrong because you must be right.
Now I would suggest that next time some moron posts some piece
of assinine garbage that offends you so badly, try repeating 'It is a TV
show. The people I see are actors being paid for a job. It is called
entertainment. It is not reality. This is a fan newsgroup, not my
career.'. Four or five repeats of this simple mantra might avoid the
needless minor irritation of us mindless lowlives who post items which
you do not agree with 100%.
Morgan Dhu
Aethe...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> I still say that if these writers start off in a Hellanistic
>thread (with mycenian adjuncts) then they should keep to it, not go off
>into all these weird side tracks. Or they should cut out the current
>legendary God & Godess intro guff and say that this is pure fantasy,
>uncontrolled and unbounded. They might like to call it 'The Twilight
>Zone', er, except that's copyrighted.
> Sure, the writer's job is to give the talent a script that will
>allow them to get the show the required rating for the week, but if they
>lay out a background for the series they should try to keep to it.
> This is, OF COURSE, MHO
Aethelrede, I'm more or less with you on this point... while I don't
oject if they range farther afield in their use of other bodies of
myth (Greece did have trade with Egypt at various times, and to see
some of those deities would be lots of fun, IMO, should our girls ever
wander into Egypt) but it would be preferable to me if they did remain
within the already established areas of variability in their use of
myth...
I still haven't seen Girls Just Wanna Have Fun... but I've already
said that I worry about just how far the worship of Bacchus has been
bent out of shape... and I hear that horrible thing are done to the
concept of dryads, one of my favourite groups of nature spirits...
--Morgan Dhu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you have two loaves of bread, sell one and buy a hyacinth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vaxen
>> >harmless harvest/wine spirits, and turned them into the Maenid followers
>> >of the Dying God, whose annual celebration in early Hellenic times
>> >involved a bunch of frenzied drunken young women hunting a young man
>> >across country an ripping him to bits. And as if that wasn't enough
>> >they then had to be turned into parodies of Stockerian Vampires,
>> > Now I'm not saying it wasn't enjoyable, but what is getting into
>> >the minds of those writers?
>>
>> Did you just start watching Xena this week? The show is about as close to
>classical mythology and historical reality as "Silence of the
>Lamb" is to a light co
>
>
> Well, sorry I broke into your world so harshly: just lie down
>and try to get back into that value free coma.
There are values and then there is just being pedantic.
> I still say that if these writers start off in a Hellanistic
>thread (with mycenian adjuncts) then they should keep to it, not go off
>into all these weird side tracks. Or they should cut out the current
>legendary God & Godess intro guff and say that this is pure fantasy,
>uncontrolled and unbounded. They might like to call it 'The Twilight
>Zone', er, except that's copyrighted.
> Sure, the writer's job is to give the talent a script that will
>allow them to get the show the required rating for the week, but if they
>lay out a background for the series they should try to keep to it.
>
Somehow, I just don't think the writers are going to change a format that works. BTW, if gods and goddesses isn't a fantasy I don't know what is. Unclench a little before you give yourself a stroke.
Bill Boelema
Bill Boelema (wjbo...@mtu.edu) wrote:
: WANT TO HAVE FUN" and (usually: I caved in on OoW) don't want my first
: impression to be mostly from watching it... (by the time I figured out
: what it was it was too late, but I will survive.)
oh geez, I know this is late but I hate mistakes (not that any of you
misunderstood what I meant in the first place)... should be "I want my
first impression to be mostly from watching it" or "I don't want my first
impression to be mostly from spoilers" but I combined the two to produce
the reverse meaning of what I meant...
I have gotten too sloppy lately... somebody take me aside and yell at me
(joking, but a weird joke)
--
Bill Boelema
The Immortal (imor...@midwest.net) wrote:
: blue...@aol.com (Bluesong) wrote:
:
: >Bill,
:
: >The bacchae (bacchi?) episode is "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun." That's the
: >title of the ep, but it's about the Bacchae.
:
: >know what we can do about that. Sorry if they ruined your episode for
: >you. I know you don't read *my* spoilers until after you've seen the
: >show.
:
: >Please, everyone, remember -- just because you've seen the episode, don't
: >assume all others have. Some people won't see this until Sunday (10/27),
: >so a spoiler warning in the heading is helpful. Usually after WGN has
: >shown it, spoilers aren't necessary.
:
: >Singin' in the rain,
: >Bluesong
souls who rely on WGN won't see GJWTHF until Saturday, Nov. 1st. (I used
to be one of those people but was lucky the local station picked it up.)
And I think a New York Fox station I get will first show it Nov. 2nd...
(what's the name of that station...?)
--
scar...@ix.netcom.com
Vaxen <dmk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>BTW, if gods and goddesses isn't a fantasy I don't know what is.
You don't know "what is." For some, Gods and Goddesses are quite the
reality.
Erin
(different account...don't e-mail me)
Vaxen
In article 32715D...@worldnet.att.net,
>look for you, and I don't think those veins are supposed to be sticking
>out like that. I admit it: you are right on this Bachii thing: I am
>wrong because you must be right.
> Now I would suggest that next time some moron posts some piece
>of assinine garbage that offends you so badly, try repeating 'It is a TV
>show. The people I see are actors being paid for a job. It is called
>entertainment. It is not reality. This is a fan newsgroup, not my
>career.'. Four or five repeats of this simple mantra might avoid the
>needless minor irritation of us mindless lowlives who post items which
>you do not agree with 100%.
>
>
Well, as long as I win, that's the important part. :-)
kathy davis
I felt much the same as several posting here: I was taken aback at the
treatment of Bacchae (and dyrads!) but got carried along in the story. It
was an enjoyable hours' entertainment. (I even liked the lez stuff well
enough not to get political about the role lesbianism was assigned)
As for the twisting of history . . . it all remonds me of a NYTimes
article about a month ago, flaming the Disnefication of the Hunchback of
Notre Dame. While my ivy educated yuppie little heart yearned to follow
the author, it just couldn't.
Sure, I condemn the blending of culture into one vast mush. I'd draw a
line at seeing Socrates portrayed as a pederast (tho I might hear the
ghost of Aristophanes having a last laugh). But what am I to do, say with
the myth of the death of Agamemnon? Aeschulyus and Homer tell two
different versions. And you just know, each chose the version that suited
their story best. Homer surely wanted to contrast Clytaemnestra with
Penelope. And there's no end of interpretation of his motives.
Even in Greek times, though, audiences loved retellings that cast a
different light on an old legend. Did the XWP version accomplish that? I
think so. Will it endure? I doubt it. Fun? Yeah.
--
Kathy Davis
Mathematics Department
University of Texas at Austin
da...@math.utexas.edu
kathy davis
In article <54uut4$j...@news.inforamp.net>, moo...@inforamp.net (Morgan
Dhu) wrote:
<snip>
> I am, both personally and professionally, profoundly interested in the
> role that cultural artifacts such as myths, folklore, religious icons,
> heros, story cycles, and the like play in shaping personal and
> societal perceptions. I am interested in the interplay of myth and
> archetype, and in how both provide an underlying symbological language
> which can amplify and deepen the language of words we all use.
> <snip>
> To completely change the meaning of a myth or archetype, is to
> unilaterally change the language...
I respect your position, and your highly articulate expression of it. In
fact I agree with so much of what you say that I'm reluctant to raise a
niggling professorial point.
I really wonder whether meanings can be unilaterally changed. If discourse
on Dryad is significantly altered by X:WP, then I suspect that Dryad is no
longer a living symbol in our culture.
RJ-
moo...@inforamp.net (Morgan Dhu) writes:
>As one who is sometimes a purist, let me try to explain my position...
[snip]
>I am, both personally and professionally, profoundly interested in the
>role that cultural artifacts such as myths, folklore, religious icons,
>heros, story cycles, and the like play in shaping personal and
>societal perceptions. I am interested in the interplay of myth and
>archetype, and in how both provide an underlying symbological language
>which can amplify and deepen the language of words we all use.
Same here. Looking at the language we use and how it shapes the way we
view the world is a fascinating topic. Even though I don't give
traditional Jungian ideas such as 'archetypes" a whole lot of weight.
>To present a myth or an archetype in a different light merely adds to
>the accretions of meaning which it has been collecting siince its
>first formulation... an example might be the "Aphrodite as Valley
>Girl" interpretation HTLJ has developed. The core of what Aphrodite
>means to any of us, at any time, anywhere, is not altered by this
>interpretation, she remains a symbol of a focus on physical, sexual
>eroticism in love.
I disagree. By adding the layer of flightiness and superficiality that
the valley-girl characteristics convey, the symbolic nature of love is
changed to include (in the HTLJ's writer's version, at least) these
characteristics. The folkloric process is an accretive one and the
language and subtleties that vary from story to story can and do change
our perceptions of the qualities presented in the stories or myths.
>To completely change the meaning of a myth or archetype, is to
>unilaterally change the language... to someone who has only seen
>GJWHF, I cannot use the image of the dryad as a relatively neutral
>nature spirit, specifically a protector of trees... an image I might
>be inclined to use in engaging in a debate on ecology, for instance.
>Someone has changed the core meaning of an important word in my
>vocabulary...
Here I am at a disadvantage (the Chicago area sees GJWHF next week) as far
as the particulars go, but I will argue that anyone who has any experience
with the folkloric process would not employ so simple a linguistic
modelling process. I am not familiar with dryads as presented in
historical fiction, but I would not conclude that the presentation I see
next week is the _only_ possible presentation of them.
>Oddly enough, I am less disturbed by a profound distortion of what is
>held to be historical fact that I am of a profound change of
>symbological meaning... probably because I feel that of the two, the
>symbol is a description of the interior life of our species, and hence
>is actually "truer", and more important in the long run, than the
>historical veracities, which can rarely be determined with complete
>certainty anyway. History has always suffered from selective memory,
>observational bias, and the human inclination to present things in the
>most favourable light possible.
Again, I disagree with you, mostly from my personal difficulaty in
embracing the Jungian concepts that you seem to like. I think that
reality is consensual, but not that there is some underlying "true"
symbology. Of course, I think that Western philosophy took a wrong turn
at Platonic forms and has been stumbling around ever since. But I
digress....
RJ
Who is looking forward to seeing the episode, even if he does know the
ending :)
Mad Max
In article <davis-26109...@mac06.ma.utexas.edu>,
da...@math.utexas.edu (kathy davis) wrote:
>Even in Greek times, though, audiences loved retellings that cast a
>different light on an old legend. Did the XWP version accomplish that? I
>think so. Will it endure? I doubt it. Fun? Yeah.
>
I happen to agree, and I wonder at some of the 'purist' complaints we see on
the NG. Given the nature of X:WP, one would assume, I should think, that the
show is going to play fast and loose with both history and myth. To conclude
otherwise after viewing even a single episode seems credulous, to say the
least.
And, of course, those who don't care for the 'fast and loose' jumble can
simply go watch something that doesn't upset them.
Mad Max
"Get thee to a nunnery! Oh, and while you're at it,
take me with you - I've always had a thing for nuns."
- Mad Max, shortly before being ejected from a
Catholics convention in San Diego.
Morgan Dhu
craz...@ix.netcom.com (Mad Max) wrote:
>In article <davis-26109...@mac06.ma.utexas.edu>,
> da...@math.utexas.edu (kathy davis) wrote:
>>Even in Greek times, though, audiences loved retellings that cast a
>>different light on an old legend. Did the XWP version accomplish that? I
>>think so. Will it endure? I doubt it. Fun? Yeah.
>>
>I happen to agree, and I wonder at some of the 'purist' complaints we see on
>the NG. Given the nature of X:WP, one would assume, I should think, that the
>show is going to play fast and loose with both history and myth. To conclude
>otherwise after viewing even a single episode seems credulous, to say the
>least.
>And, of course, those who don't care for the 'fast and loose' jumble can
>simply go watch something that doesn't upset them.
As one who is sometimes a purist, let me try to explain my position...
To me there is a fine line somewhere between retelling a legend in a
new light, and twisting a legend beyond recognition, and for the
record, GJWHF is the first time since I began watching (halfway thru
the first season), that X:WP has crossed that line for me.
Where is the line, and why does it matter to me? Long story, I'll try
to express it clearly.
I am, both personally and professionally, profoundly interested in the
role that cultural artifacts such as myths, folklore, religious icons,
heros, story cycles, and the like play in shaping personal and
societal perceptions. I am interested in the interplay of myth and
archetype, and in how both provide an underlying symbological language
which can amplify and deepen the language of words we all use.
To present a myth or an archetype in a different light merely adds to
the accretions of meaning which it has been collecting siince its
first formulation... an example might be the "Aphrodite as Valley
Girl" interpretation HTLJ has developed. The core of what Aphrodite
means to any of us, at any time, anywhere, is not altered by this
interpretation, she remains a symbol of a focus on physical, sexual
eroticism in love.
To completely change the meaning of a myth or archetype, is to
unilaterally change the language... to someone who has only seen
GJWHF, I cannot use the image of the dryad as a relatively neutral
nature spirit, specifically a protector of trees... an image I might
be inclined to use in engaging in a debate on ecology, for instance.
Someone has changed the core meaning of an important word in my
vocabulary...
Oddly enough, I am less disturbed by a profound distortion of what is
held to be historical fact that I am of a profound change of
symbological meaning... probably because I feel that of the two, the
symbol is a description of the interior life of our species, and hence
is actually "truer", and more important in the long run, than the
historical veracities, which can rarely be determined with complete
certainty anyway. History has always suffered from selective memory,
observational bias, and the human inclination to present things in the
most favourable light possible.
This may not make sense to anyone else, but at this level, I was
disturbed by this level. I felt that the meanings of Bacchus and of
the dryads, and also of all the various types of creatures that make
up the broad stream of vampire legend in European culture, were
changed, rather than just re-interpreted in this episode... and that
bothered me. The maenads, the precursors of GJWHF's Bacchai, could
indeed be frenzied and bloody creatures, but the symbolism involved
was not the symbolism of the vampire legends... at a psychological
level, different kinds of sexuality, different kinds of bloodlust,
different needs, are represented by the two myths... and it bothered
me to take the meaning from one and put the name from another on it.
Having said that, I'll add that at other levels I liked many things
about the episode... you could certainly cut the eroticism with a
knife, and it was interesting that Gabrielle fought the command to
drink the vampire-god's blood (I choose to use *my* words for the
symbols used in this episode), and that at the end, after changing
Xena, she seemed to attack the vampire-god alongside her... there's a
strong will inside our young bard... naturally, we would expect Xena
to be able to resist the command of the vampire-god... but I found it
interesting that he seemed not to be concerned about whether she would
be able to resist him or not... he tells her that only a vampire can
kill him, and in the next breath, so to speak, he commands Gabrielle
to bring her over... a death-wish on his part, perhaps? Vampire lore
often contains the notion that after endless years, the most ancient
of vampires can long for an end to their existance...
And while I still don't like Joxer, he was used rather effectively for
comic relief in the episode.
Well, I'll probably have more to say after another viewing, so I'll
save any other comments until then.
--Morgan Dhu, symbol junkie
Morgan Dhu
da...@math.utexas.edu (kathy davis) wrote:
>In article <54uut4$j...@news.inforamp.net>, moo...@inforamp.net (Morgan
>Dhu) wrote:
> <snip>
>> I am, both personally and professionally, profoundly interested in the
>> role that cultural artifacts such as myths, folklore, religious icons,
>> heros, story cycles, and the like play in shaping personal and
>> societal perceptions. I am interested in the interplay of myth and
>> archetype, and in how both provide an underlying symbological language
>> which can amplify and deepen the language of words we all use.
>> <snip>
>> To completely change the meaning of a myth or archetype, is to
>> unilaterally change the language...
>I respect your position, and your highly articulate expression of it. In
>fact I agree with so much of what you say that I'm reluctant to raise a
>niggling professorial point.
>I really wonder whether meanings can be unilaterally changed. If discourse
>on Dryad is significantly altered by X:WP, then I suspect that Dryad is no
>longer a living symbol in our culture.
Kathy:
An excellent point... I don't think that one instance of such a
reassignment of meaning necessarily has lasting effect... although it
is very difficult to assess the effect of new cultural artifacts from
within the culture producing them (what *is* the real place of Star
Trek in the cultural history of humanity? right now, who knows? Same
for Xena...).
I protest the occurance of such matters in X:WP more as a symptom of
what may be a general degrading and, for lack of a better word,
"mashing together" of cultural artifacts in many places all around us.
I've heard from schoolkids, children of friends of mine, of teachers
unable to decode T.S.Elliot and other writers with a tendency to use
dense symbolism, because they lack the language of myth and archetype.
I fear that we are losing access to our cultures, because we are
forgetting, or changing beyond recognition, the keys we need to
interpret them.
If we lose the symbol of the Dryad, that's just one symbol, and
perhaps it is not longer pertinent to our modern psyche... but it
seems to me sometimes that we run the risk of losing many of our
symbols, and with them, our cultural history. Looking at the struggle
of Africans brought to North America and taken from their culture, to
regain it and integrate it into the North American psyche, makes me
think that it is not good to lose the roots of any human culture...
Which is why I have mixed feelings at this level about X:WP and HTLJ.
They reinterpret all the time, frequently parody, and sometimes
distort symbols from the roots of European culture... but at the same
time, they do get people interested in those symbols... which I hold
to be a positive influence. I think, overall, that the interest in our
cultural histories which is aroused by media projects such as these is
ultimately, a greater influence than the effects of such distortions
as do from time to time occur...
But I'm still gonna grump when they step over my line in the sand <g>.
Thanks for your comments.
--Morgan Dhu
John Iwaniszek
> >> >harmless harvest/wine spirits, and turned them into the Maenid followers
> >> >of the Dying God, whose annual celebration in early Hellenic times
> >> >involved a bunch of frenzied drunken young women hunting a young man
> >> >across country an ripping him to bits. And as if that wasn't enough
> >> >they then had to be turned into parodies of Stockerian Vampires,
> >> > Now I'm not saying it wasn't enjoyable, but what is getting into
> >> >the minds of those writers?
> >>
> >> Did you just start watching Xena this week? The show is about as close to
> >classical mythology and historical reality as "Silence of the
> >Lamb" is to a light co
> >
> >
> >thread (with mycenian adjuncts) then they should keep to it, not go off
> >into all these weird side tracks. Or they should cut out the current
> >legendary God & Godess intro guff and say that this is pure fantasy,
> >uncontrolled and unbounded. They might like to call it 'The Twilight
> >Zone', er, except that's copyrighted.
> > Sure, the writer's job is to give the talent a script that will
> >allow them to get the show the required rating for the week, but if they
> >lay out a background for the series they should try to keep to it.
> >
>
> Somehow, I just don't think the writers are going to change a format that works.
The Bacchus episode was a brilliant concoction of Myth and modernity, which is just one of the attactions of
Xena and Hercules. There was a cult of Dionysos the members of which were rumored to be young women who tore
apart and ate live men, oxen an such. I can see a little myth springing from this rumor that would be used to
scare young girls into behaving. So what if the ages a culture get mixed up? These shows are too much fun to
get hung up about the details.
John
Alan Hamilton
There is a case to be made that by popularizing the Greek myths, however
altered, creates intrest amongst the viewers in the real thing. I probably
never would have looked up "Ixian" if he hadn't appeared on Xena.
--
/
/ * / Alan Hamilton
* * al...@primenet.com
Kevin Martin
In article <davis-27109...@mac06.ma.utexas.edu>,
kathy davis <da...@math.utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <54uut4$j...@news.inforamp.net>, moo...@inforamp.net (Morgan
>Dhu) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> role that cultural artifacts such as myths, folklore, religious icons,
>> heros, story cycles, and the like play in shaping personal and
>> societal perceptions.
>I respect your position, and your highly articulate expression of it. In
>fact I agree with so much of what you say that I'm reluctant to raise a
>niggling professorial point.
Ditto and ditto.
My niggling point would be that they spelled it "driad" in the joke
in the end credits.... Different creature, different spelling?
I continue to be amazed at the way the producers can take the old
myths, completely stand them on their head, and still leave one
going "Yes, I can see how that got jumbled up in the retelling
over the centuries...."
Aethe...@worldnet.att.net
> >>
> >>To me there is a fine line somewhere between retelling a legend in a
> >>new light, and twisting a legend beyond recognition, and for the
> >>record, GJWHF is the first time since I began watching (halfway thru
> >>the first season), that X:WP has crossed that line for me.
>
> >There's no obligation on the part of the show to do so, since they never made
> >any promises to that effect. In fact, the opening cut of every episode pretty
> >much informs the viewer that 'here be fantasy' and not much else; I'm at a
> >complete loss to see how you can come to any other conclusion based on the
> >show's premise and past history.
>
> I guess I've failed to make myself clear. I know exactly what the show
> is doing... they're engaging in a playful, very tongue in cheek romp
> through mythology, history , fantasy and their own very fertile
> imaginations in order to produce a TV show that enough people will
> like that it will stay on the air and give them six more years of
> steady employment, plus great anecdotes and lots of cool stuff for
> their resumes.
>
> At that level, I like it, watch it regularly, and all of that...
>
> But sometimes some of the things that are done bother certain
> sensibilities and issues that I have, even while I'm enjoying the
> show. This little bit with the Bacchae and the dryads is, in and of
> itself, pretty much irrelevant, but to me, at a certain level, it
> seems to be part of a trend towards the loss of a certain depth and
> continuity in our cultural symbols. And I have some concerns about
> what the loss of that does to people. That's all.
>
> >[snip]
>
> >>To completely change the meaning of a myth or archetype, is to
> >>unilaterally change the language... to someone who has only seen
> >>GJWHF, I cannot use the image of the dryad as a relatively neutral
> >>nature spirit, specifically a protector of trees... an image I might
> >>be inclined to use in engaging in a debate on ecology, for instance.
> >>Someone has changed the core meaning of an important word in my
> >>vocabulary...
>
> >your vocabulary, it was *you* that accepted that meaning. See the difference?
> >As entertainment, it matters not a whit if the skeletal beasties are called
> >'dryads' or something else entirely.
>
> Actually, I've chosen to retain the original meaning, as I suspect
> will everyone who knew what a dryad was before seeing this, and
> probably most people who are encouraged to read about dryads by this
> will, after the fact. I was trying to give a simple example of what
> can happen, albeit at a much less obvious and direct level, if we lose
> cultural cohesion for our symbols.
>
> >Heh. As if X:WP had anything at all to do with history. Let's toss that
> >right out the window, shall we?
>
> I thought I did... <g>
>
> > that I am of a profound change of
> >>symbological meaning... probably because I feel that of the two, the
> >>symbol is a description of the interior life of our species, and hence
> >>is actually "truer", and more important in the long run, than the
> >>historical veracities, which can rarely be determined with complete
> >>certainty anyway. History has always suffered from selective memory,
> >>observational bias, and the human inclination to present things in the
> >>most favourable light possible.
>
> >so to fit the times. Numerous examples of such changes can be found in both
> >Greek legends and Norse legends, the two groups with which I'm most familiar.
> >Gods change, heroes change, quests change, all to make them more relevant to
> >the audience at hand. Myth is a curiously flexible thing.
>
> Of course, myth changes... but the interesting thing is that never
> before have we had the facility to change so many myths, so quickly,
> in so many different directions, virtually simultaneously. Our
> technology has made it possible, and I'm not certain of the longterm
> effects of this much cultural variance on the human organism...
>
> "Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold..." The speed at which our
> icons, symbols, and perspectives can shift *may* have the effect of
> leaving us without a set of core beliefs... I don't know if that's
> going to happen, it's just a concern of mine that it might...
>
> And before anyone jumps on me, I am not saying that calling Greek
> vampires by the name of Roman wine-revellers is going to destroy our
> society! I'm not nearly that simplistic in my thinking. What I'm
> talking about is a vague feeling I have about the directions in which
> our culture is moving, some questions I have about the psychological,
> and in a very non-religious way, spiritual consequences that that
> movement may have, and since this particular episode contained an mild
> example of what has sparked my feelings and questions, I decided to
> raise them here, as one possibility of might motivate a certain amount
> of purism in connection with the show.
This, and the previous couple of posts express almost exactly my
own caveats about X:WP. Showing a mythology to an audience new to it is
better than not doing it: using colloquilisms probably helps. But when
the writers start totally reinterpeting the mythos and even start mixing
up mythologies from completely different cultures, they go over the
line. Someone described it as the writers having fun with mythology,
but thats fine for them, its also fun for people who know whats going
on: but how many people over the months have posted here saying that
they didn't know about the existance of a particular mythological
character until they showed up on X:WP?
I know its jus a TV show, but if a couple million (pushing it,
but how long will this show go in syndication?) people grow up thinking
GJWTHF really is hellenic mythology? (maybe we should call it Dorian?).
kathy davis
In article <552f1e$q...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, al...@primenet.com (Alan
Hamilton) wrote:
> There is a case to be made that by popularizing the Greek myths, however
> altered, creates intrest amongst the viewers in the real thing. I probably
> never would have looked up "Ixian" if he hadn't appeared on Xena.
Ditto here . . . like Atatlanta on Hercules. Imagine my surprise to
find a whole myth about her!
--
Kathy Davis
da...@math.utexas.edu
Scott C
Mad Max wrote:
>
> In article <davis-26109...@mac06.ma.utexas.edu>,
> da...@math.utexas.edu (kathy davis) wrote:
>
> >Even in Greek times, though, audiences loved retellings that cast a
> >different light on an old legend. Did the XWP version accomplish that? I
> >think so. Will it endure? I doubt it. Fun? Yeah.
> >
>
> I happen to agree, and I wonder at some of the 'purist' complaints we see on
> the NG. Given the nature of X:WP, one would assume, I should think, that the
> show is going to play fast and loose with both history and myth. To conclude
> otherwise after viewing even a single episode seems credulous, to say the
> least.
>
> And, of course, those who don't care for the 'fast and loose' jumble can
> simply go watch something that doesn't upset them.
>
>
> "Get thee to a nunnery! Oh, and while you're at it,
> take me with you - I've always had a thing for nuns."
> - Mad Max, shortly before being ejected from a
> Catholics convention in San Diego.
>
>
>
You have to realize that it is a TV show,not history.
Bill Boelema
Morgan Dhu (moo...@inforamp.net) wrote:
: symbols used in this episode), and that at the end, after changing
: Xena, she seemed to attack the vampire-god alongside her... there's a
: strong will inside our young bard... naturally, we would expect Xena
: to be able to resist the command of the vampire-god... but I found it
: interesting that he seemed not to be concerned about whether she would
: be able to resist him or not... he tells her that only a vampire can
: kill him, and in the next breath, so to speak, he commands Gabrielle
: to bring her over... a death-wish on his part, perhaps? Vampire lore
: often contains the notion that after endless years, the most ancient
: of vampires can long for an end to their existance...
I thought he thought that no Bachae were able - mentally, spiritually - to
kill him. He either underestimated Xena's ability to counteract that, or,
my take is more that she was not enough totally tranformed to resist the
Bacchae control
:
: And while I still don't like Joxer, he was used rather effectively for
: comic relief in the episode.
well her certainly was that in Callisto, where I considered it
almost necessary to to keep the the show from being too intense. I didn't
find him that way in this episode, and the show was to weird to be intense
for me (more realism makes for more intensity for me)
--
Morgan Dhu
craz...@ix.netcom.com (Mad Max) wrote:
>In article <54uut4$j...@news.inforamp.net>,
> moo...@inforamp.net (Morgan Dhu) wrote:
>>As one who is sometimes a purist, let me try to explain my position...
>>
>>To me there is a fine line somewhere between retelling a legend in a
>>new light, and twisting a legend beyond recognition, and for the
>>record, GJWHF is the first time since I began watching (halfway thru
>>the first season), that X:WP has crossed that line for me.
>And X:WP never once claimed to be 'retelling a legend in a new light'.
>There's no obligation on the part of the show to do so, since they never made
>any promises to that effect. In fact, the opening cut of every episode pretty
>much informs the viewer that 'here be fantasy' and not much else; I'm at a
>complete loss to see how you can come to any other conclusion based on the
>show's premise and past history.
I guess I've failed to make myself clear. I know exactly what the show
is doing... they're engaging in a playful, very tongue in cheek romp
through mythology, history , fantasy and their own very fertile
imaginations in order to produce a TV show that enough people will
like that it will stay on the air and give them six more years of
steady employment, plus great anecdotes and lots of cool stuff for
their resumes.
At that level, I like it, watch it regularly, and all of that...
But sometimes some of the things that are done bother certain
sensibilities and issues that I have, even while I'm enjoying the
show. This little bit with the Bacchae and the dryads is, in and of
itself, pretty much irrelevant, but to me, at a certain level, it
seems to be part of a trend towards the loss of a certain depth and
continuity in our cultural symbols. And I have some concerns about
what the loss of that does to people. That's all.
>[snip]
>>To completely change the meaning of a myth or archetype, is to
>>unilaterally change the language... to someone who has only seen
>>GJWHF, I cannot use the image of the dryad as a relatively neutral
>>nature spirit, specifically a protector of trees... an image I might
>>be inclined to use in engaging in a debate on ecology, for instance.
>>Someone has changed the core meaning of an important word in my
>>vocabulary...
>Actually, it wasn't X:WP that changed the core meaning of an important word in
>your vocabulary, it was *you* that accepted that meaning. See the difference?
>As entertainment, it matters not a whit if the skeletal beasties are called
>'dryads' or something else entirely.
Actually, I've chosen to retain the original meaning, as I suspect
will everyone who knew what a dryad was before seeing this, and
probably most people who are encouraged to read about dryads by this
will, after the fact. I was trying to give a simple example of what
can happen, albeit at a much less obvious and direct level, if we lose
cultural cohesion for our symbols.
>Heh. As if X:WP had anything at all to do with history. Let's toss that
>right out the window, shall we?
I thought I did... <g>
> that I am of a profound change of
>>symbological meaning... probably because I feel that of the two, the
>>symbol is a description of the interior life of our species, and hence
>>is actually "truer", and more important in the long run, than the
>>historical veracities, which can rarely be determined with complete
>>certainty anyway. History has always suffered from selective memory,
>>observational bias, and the human inclination to present things in the
>>most favourable light possible.
>The same is true of myth. Myth changes as much as history does, perhaps more
>so to fit the times. Numerous examples of such changes can be found in both
>Greek legends and Norse legends, the two groups with which I'm most familiar.
>Gods change, heroes change, quests change, all to make them more relevant to
>the audience at hand. Myth is a curiously flexible thing.
Of course, myth changes... but the interesting thing is that never
before have we had the facility to change so many myths, so quickly,
in so many different directions, virtually simultaneously. Our
technology has made it possible, and I'm not certain of the longterm
effects of this much cultural variance on the human organism...
"Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold..." The speed at which our
icons, symbols, and perspectives can shift *may* have the effect of
leaving us without a set of core beliefs... I don't know if that's
going to happen, it's just a concern of mine that it might...
And before anyone jumps on me, I am not saying that calling Greek
vampires by the name of Roman wine-revellers is going to destroy our
society! I'm not nearly that simplistic in my thinking. What I'm
talking about is a vague feeling I have about the directions in which
our culture is moving, some questions I have about the psychological,
and in a very non-religious way, spiritual consequences that that
movement may have, and since this particular episode contained an mild
example of what has sparked my feelings and questions, I decided to
raise them here, as one possibility of might motivate a certain amount
of purism in connection with the show.
--Morgan Dhu
Mad Max
In article <552vja$q...@news.inforamp.net>,
moo...@inforamp.net (Morgan Dhu) wrote:
>But sometimes some of the things that are done bother certain
>sensibilities and issues that I have, even while I'm enjoying the
>show. This little bit with the Bacchae and the dryads is, in and of
>itself, pretty much irrelevant, but to me, at a certain level, it
>seems to be part of a trend towards the loss of a certain depth and
>continuity in our cultural symbols. And I have some concerns about
>what the loss of that does to people. That's all.
Morgan, what I think you might be failing to realize here is that Bacchus
isn't a cultural symbol of 20th century America; the average American - most
Americans, in fact - don't have any idea who or what Bacchus is. The same
goes for dryads; you know what they are, and I know what they are, and a few
other freakish types who read ancient legends know what they are, but this
isn't the kind of stuff passed down orally or via school or even taught as
part and parcel of basic college courses.
In this country, Bacchus and the dryads are dead and gone. Vampires and
christian demons are alive and well. You can't twist, warp, or destroy a
symbol that doesn't exist.
>Actually, I've chosen to retain the original meaning, as I suspect
>will everyone who knew what a dryad was before seeing this, and
>probably most people who are encouraged to read about dryads by this
>will, after the fact. I was trying to give a simple example of what
>can happen, albeit at a much less obvious and direct level, if we lose
>cultural cohesion for our symbols.
Once again, you're including dryads as cultural symbols of 20th-century
America. They aren't now, and as best as I can tell they never have been. In
certain very limited social circles (D&D players? if there're any left) it
might be common knowledge what a dryad is, but 95% of the rest of the public
doesn't have a clue.
>"Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold..." The speed at which our
>icons, symbols, and perspectives can shift *may* have the effect of
>leaving us without a set of core beliefs... I don't know if that's
>going to happen, it's just a concern of mine that it might...
That's fine by me. A static set of core beliefs is, I think, a bad thing;
stagnancy facing off against a world climbing an asymptotic curve of
technological advancement. Those who can't adapt will be left behind, and I
won't be shedding any tears for them when the train pulls out of the station.
>What I'm
>talking about is a vague feeling I have about the directions in which
>our culture is moving, some questions I have about the psychological,
>and in a very non-religious way, spiritual consequences that that
>movement may have, and since this particular episode contained an mild
>example of what has sparked my feelings and questions, I decided to
>raise them here, as one possibility of might motivate a certain amount
>of purism in connection with the show.
>
Whether you question or not, the sand is shifting under your feet as we speak.
Either you can keep moving so the waves don't knock you on your ass, or you
can stand your ground and go under against the advancing tide. No one can
stop it, slow it, or alter it's course, and for this I'm profoundly relieved.
Change, both good and bad, is what makes life interesting.
Chaos is even better. ;-)
Not Honey
In response to Morgan Dhu's comments about the bar shown in "Girls Just
Wanna Have Fun," yes, there are FK fans lurking on atx!
Morgan, you must be a Ravenette, yes?
NotH...@aol.com
"God Bill, can't Walter afford a better rug?"
clash
I have been reading about a lot of Celtic myths lately, and there are so many
reinterpretations of the same stories, each with its own little twist. Before
long, it takes chapters and chapters just to explain all the variations on a story.
Also, a lot of the Roman gods and goddesses were adopted by the Celts, then
given other names like "Rhiannon Hera" for mother goddess, etc. after the
Celtic and Roman goddesses. Pretty neat, eh?
Its only after the appearance Bullfinches "Mythology" (and other examples),
that we decided there was a "correct" version -- that's when mythology dies.
clash
"Just because I love my family, doesn't mean that I should acknowledge them
in broad daylight..."
-- Hyacinth Bucket
Bill Boelema
Mad Max (craz...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:
: Morgan, what I think you might be failing to realize here is that Bacchus
: Americans, in fact - don't have any idea who or what Bacchus is. The same
: goes for dryads; you know what they are, and I know what they are, and a few
: other freakish types who read ancient legends know what they are, but this
: isn't the kind of stuff passed down orally or via school or even taught as
: part and parcel of basic college courses.
important to be able to communicate with symbols, and with shows, if they
are not decreasing societies ability, certainly isn't helping. Most
people (me included) don't know so much what a dryad was or perhaps who
Bacchus was (I did have an idea of Bacchus). Now if one had no idea of
what these things were before seeing this show, the image they have of
Bacchus and dryads (if they retained any) would be of this show. If we
don't have any classical sense of these symbols retained - nor any
universal image of symbols in general, we are loosing the ability to use
use symbol and metaphor in communication (something that I, too, even though
I am not very familiar with mythological symbols, agree is important).
Now if one previously unfamiliar with these symbols come in contact with
these words in speech or writing, they fail to grasp the meaning of they
retained from the speech or writing.
Bill
--
Morgan Dhu
noth...@aol.com (Not Honey) wrote:
>In response to Morgan Dhu's comments about the bar shown in "Girls Just
>Wanna Have Fun," yes, there are FK fans lurking on atx!
>Morgan, you must be a Ravenette, yes?
*And* a Knightie, *and* a Natpacker, *and* even a Cousin upon
occasion... <g> There was nothing but the ending that I did not like
about that show... and I still swear that the stake did not fall, and
that the distorted POV looking up at Nick and LaCroix is from Nat,
she's *not* dead... and of course, Janette escaped the fire, but I'm
not sure if she's still mortal or if she's crossed over again...
either way could be interesting for the inevitable (I hope) rebirth of
the series. I'd like to find a way to ressurect Vachon too, c'ause I
sort of liked him, but I guess you can only rewrite episodes so
far...<g>
Lisa Smith
In response to Jen's question concerning the contacts used for this ep,
talk to your optometrist about them. Having had the evilly delightful
pleasure of working on the largest privately-run, not-for-profit
haunted house in the US, I know that we got ours from a local
optometrist here in Austin. BTW -- We had them in red and also in
bright yellow. Very impressive! (The Gorgon wore the red contacts,
and the Lord of the Abyss wore the yellow.) <sigh> Who knows? Maybe
we'll get to do another one next year.
--Cloudcat, feeling nostalgic (It was a lot of work, but it was fun.)
-----------------------------------
Mothers tell your children
Be quick you must be strong
Life is full of wonder
Love is never wrong
-----------------------------------
Morgan Dhu
craz...@ix.netcom.com (Mad Max) wrote:
>In article <552vja$q...@news.inforamp.net>,
> moo...@inforamp.net (Morgan Dhu) wrote:
>>But sometimes some of the things that are done bother certain
>>sensibilities and issues that I have, even while I'm enjoying the
>>show. This little bit with the Bacchae and the dryads is, in and of
>>itself, pretty much irrelevant, but to me, at a certain level, it
>>seems to be part of a trend towards the loss of a certain depth and
>>continuity in our cultural symbols. And I have some concerns about
>>what the loss of that does to people. That's all.
>Morgan, what I think you might be failing to realize here is that Bacchus
>isn't a cultural symbol of 20th century America; the average American - most
>Americans, in fact - don't have any idea who or what Bacchus is.
Maybe I'm being really unclear about this, Max, or maybe it's just
that I'm talking about something that has so much internal meaning for
me that I'm just not filling it out enough as I put it out there for
someone else. Or maybe it has something to do with what appears to me
to be a difference between us in that you seem to have a distinct
preference for the rational and tangible, while I know that I've got a
major leaning towards the irrational and ineffable *in some areas*.
(If I've misread you on this, my apologies).
I *felt* (non-thinking reaction, which I believe to be just as valid,
though not necessarily in the same ways), that the extreme changing of
those particular, albeit arcane symbols, was an *example* of a trend
in late 20th century North American culture which disturbs me. Yes,
this particular example was arcane, and of itself not very important,
but beaches are composed of many grains of sand and a journey of a
thousand miles begins with... and yadda yadda yadda...
Diclaimer: Everything that follows comes out of philosphical
perspectives I have adopted, and represents statement of personal
opinion and belief, not fact.
We are a social species... we are culture-makers just as clearly as we
are tool-makers. We, I believe, need our cultures in order to provide
paradigms, meanings, orientations, guideposts, or whatever metaphor
you like for our internal processing of reality, and without a shared
culture, we're going to have problems communicatiing the results of
that internal processing with others.
The core beliefs that have held continuity (which is not the same as
stagnation, or static interpretation... these things change, but they
change organically, out of the interaction between the previous aspect
of the symbol, and the current need of the society which uses it as a
cultural tent-peg [more metaphors]) provide a means for organising
both the internal processing and the communication.
The richer and deeper the available library of cultural symbols that
we can use for assisting our internal processing, the more flexible
and capable of adapting to change we are... and the more capable of
retaining what is important from our past as a species we are at the
same time.
>>"Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold..." The speed at which our
>>icons, symbols, and perspectives can shift *may* have the effect of
>>leaving us without a set of core beliefs... I don't know if that's
>>going to happen, it's just a concern of mine that it might...
>That's fine by me. A static set of core beliefs is, I think, a bad thing;
>stagnancy facing off against a world climbing an asymptotic curve of
>technological advancement. Those who can't adapt will be left behind, and I
>won't be shedding any tears for them when the train pulls out of the station.
Who's designing that train's engine, Max? it's the people who have the
broad background... you know that examinations of the culture of
"arts" people and the culture of "science" people have shown that the
science types know more about the culture of their "opposite numbers"
than the arts types do... (start with C.P.Snow if you haven't come
across this point before) the broader your base, the more you can do
with it...
When we collapse symbols, or stop making them available in all their
diversity to people, we cut down on the options, and the information.
>Whether you question or not, the sand is shifting under your feet as we speak.
>Either you can keep moving so the waves don't knock you on your ass, or you
>can stand your ground and go under against the advancing tide. No one can
>stop it, slow it, or alter it's course, and for this I'm profoundly relieved.
Yeah, but we are the sand and the waves just as much as we are the
people dancing on them... which means that we can and do affect the
tide...
It's easier to do it if you've got you handy dandy wave-dancer's guide
to the universe that tells you all about your species' past thinking,
feeling, and experiencing on how to deal with tides, put into images
that speak directly to your inner self...
>Change, both good and bad, is what makes life interesting.
Change is constant... but there are constants within the change...
>Chaos is even better. ;-)
...just as there is embedded order within the chaos... <g>
Methinks we have a major philosopical difference... I'm game to
continue if you so choose, but I'm just as happy to drop it and go
people watching at the cyberbar with ya... <g>
Alice Turner
Aethe...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
(context snipped except for this quote:
> > >As entertainment, it matters not a whit if the skeletal beasties are called
> > >'dryads' or something else entirely.
>
>
> This, and the previous couple of posts express almost exactly my
> own caveats about X:WP. Showing a mythology to an audience new to it is
> better than not doing it: using colloquilisms probably helps. But when
> the writers start totally reinterpeting the mythos and even start mixing
> up mythologies from completely different cultures, they go over the
> line. Someone described it as the writers having fun with mythology,
> but thats fine for them, its also fun for people who know whats going
> on: but how many people over the months have posted here saying that
> they didn't know about the existance of a particular mythological
> character until they showed up on X:WP?
> I know its jus a TV show, but if a couple million (pushing it,
> but how long will this show go in syndication?) people grow up thinking
> GJWTHF really is hellenic mythology? (maybe we should call it Dorian?).
I agree here. What's more, the people on this thread who didn't know
(for example) what a dryad is and don't care are not making a good
argument. There are--really!--quite a lot of people who do. And the
writers have taken a existing concept with its own dictionary definition
and turned it into something else, thereby offending me, for one. If the
dryads had been called dorians, okay by me. But once you have called a
flying skeleton a dryad, you can't have real dryads on the show, and
that's too bad, because it might have been a lovely show. (Gabrielle
starts to chop a tree limb, etc. etc.) And once you call the vampires
Bacchae, you can't have a show about real Bacchae, and THAT one could
have been a real humdinger.
I like the playfulness of the shows, but Greek myths are so very rich
that it seems a shame to twist them out of shape. Twist is dandy, out of
shape is not.
Mad Max
In article <559iql$h...@news.inforamp.net>,
moo...@inforamp.net (Morgan Dhu) wrote:
>I *felt* (non-thinking reaction, which I believe to be just as valid,
>though not necessarily in the same ways), that the extreme changing of
>those particular, albeit arcane symbols, was an *example* of a trend
>in late 20th century North American culture which disturbs me. Yes,
>this particular example was arcane, and of itself not very important,
>but beaches are composed of many grains of sand and a journey of a
>thousand miles begins with... and yadda yadda yadda...
No, this definitely wasn't clear to me from the previous posts. You took this
particular set of myths and held them up as an example, when clearly these
myths in and of themselves have meant little, if anything, to the American
people for quite some time. When broadened via the above paragraph, I can
understand your point, even if I don't agree with it.
[major snippage]
>Yeah, but we are the sand and the waves just as much as we are the
>people dancing on them... which means that we can and do affect the
>tide...
>
>It's easier to do it if you've got you handy dandy wave-dancer's guide
>to the universe that tells you all about your species' past thinking,
>feeling, and experiencing on how to deal with tides, put into images
>that speak directly to your inner self...
Now there you travel perilously close to asserting that Jungian archetypes do,
in some form, exist. To me, this is nothing more than sheer mysticism; humans
can, do, and will change, at remarkable speeds - if we weren't adaptable our
technology and our culture would *by definition* have to slow their rate of
advancement. Conception and imagination, as always, are the key; so far, they
seem quite up to the task.
>>Chaos is even better. ;-)
>
>....just as there is embedded order within the chaos... <g>
And, as you know, order is always a passing thing in a universe which tends to
entropy. Can you imagine how boring things would get if this weren't true?
>
>Methinks we have a major philosopical difference... I'm game to
>continue if you so choose, but I'm just as happy to drop it and go
>people watching at the cyberbar with ya... <g>
People-watching is always one of my favorite sports...humans are such strange
and crazy creatures....
Mad Max
In article <327912...@interport.net>,
Alice Turner <a...@interport.net> wrote:
>I agree here. What's more, the people on this thread who didn't know
>(for example) what a dryad is and don't care are not making a good
>argument.
So far, I haven't heard any arguments from a person who didn't know what a
dryad was. Perhaps these posts didn't show up on my server.
There are--really!--quite a lot of people who do.
And they're a tiny minority of the American public, and most likely (given
Xena's share of ratings) a tiny minority of the viewing public.
And the
>writers have taken a existing concept with its own dictionary definition
>and turned it into something else, thereby offending me, for one. If the
>dryads had been called dorians, okay by me. But once you have called a
>flying skeleton a dryad, you can't have real dryads on the show, and
>that's too bad, because it might have been a lovely show. (Gabrielle
>starts to chop a tree limb, etc. etc.)
Sure you can. The concept can be summoned up at any time, under a different
name. You want a tree spirit, you got a tree spirit. The average viewer will
get the gist of it, whether the name is right or not.
Besides, I thought it a fine joke, making the dryads undead. It seemed a most
amusing commentary on we, in the 20th century, are doing to our precious
planet.
John Russell
>> > >As entertainment, it matters not a whit if the skeletal beasties are called
>> > >'dryads' or something else entirely.
>>
>>
>> own caveats about X:WP. Showing a mythology to an audience new to it is
>> better than not doing it: using colloquilisms probably helps. But when
>> the writers start totally reinterpeting the mythos and even start mixing
>> up mythologies from completely different cultures, they go over the
>> line.
>> I know its jus a TV show, but if a couple million (pushing it,
>> but how long will this show go in syndication?) people grow up thinking
>> GJWTHF really is hellenic mythology? (maybe we should call it Dorian?).
In a thousand years, will it really matter? Who knows what people
thought dryads were before the "family values" bunch of whatever B.C.
turned them into peaceful forest spirits. I'm sure plenty of ancient
myths were jazzed up into unrecognizable forms to make them
entertaining. At the time, it's bastardization; a thousand years
later it's folklore.
John
--
John Russell
joh...@io.org, http://www.io.org/~john13
Take a photographic tour of Viet Nam at
http://www.io.org/~john13/fareast.htm
Morgan Dhu
craz...@ix.netcom.com (Mad Max) wrote:
>Besides, I thought it a fine joke, making the dryads undead. It seemed a most
>amusing commentary on we, in the 20th century, are doing to our precious
>planet.
Actually, Max, it had occurred to me that this was the only
interpretation of what they did to the dryads that I could live
with... that it was a comment on the deforestation of the planet...
Morgan Dhu
craz...@ix.netcom.com (Mad Max) wrote:
>In article <559iql$h...@news.inforamp.net>,
>Now there you travel perilously close to asserting that Jungian archetypes do,
>in some form, exist. To me, this is nothing more than sheer mysticism;
You've got me pegged right there... I'm so much of a mystic (and
thoroughly unashamed to be so) that drug experiences are tame and
boring for me... <g>
>People-watching is always one of my favorite sports...humans are such strange
>and crazy creatures....
Aren't we though? <g>
Catch ya at the bar...
Mad Max
In article <55ds78$q...@news.inforamp.net>,
moo...@inforamp.net (Morgan Dhu) wrote:
>craz...@ix.netcom.com (Mad Max) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Besides, I thought it a fine joke, making the dryads undead. It seemed a
most
>>amusing commentary on we, in the 20th century, are doing to our precious
>>planet.
>
>Actually, Max, it had occurred to me that this was the only
>interpretation of what they did to the dryads that I could live
>with... that it was a comment on the deforestation of the planet...
>
I actually laughed when I first saw the creature, after the desolate graveyard
scene. The first thing I thought of was 'Brazilian rainforest, circa 2020.
And boy, are those dryads *pissed*!'
Coyote
John Russell <joh...@io.org> wrote:
[snip]
> >> I know its jus a TV show, but if a couple million (pushing it,
> >> but how long will this show go in syndication?) people grow up
thinking
> >> GJWTHF really is hellenic mythology? (maybe we should call it
Dorian?).
>
> thought dryads were before the "family values" bunch of whatever B.C.
> turned them into peaceful forest spirits. I'm sure plenty of ancient
> myths were jazzed up into unrecognizable forms to make them
> entertaining. At the time, it's bastardization; a thousand years
> later it's folklore.
It matters. It mattered enough that the myths have arrived here in the
20th century INTACT--over not one but, what, FOUR THOUSAND YEARS...more?
Sure, throughout the centuries there have been twists to the myths--the
Romans were sure guilty of that--but there's a BIG difference here:
Those intervening artists KNEW their myths and KNEW they were making
changes.
These Xena and Herc writers and producers are--on the other hand--wholly
ignorant of them.
PLEASE--someone take a myth course.
--Coyote
Joshua Jasper
In article <01bbca86$d35aeb00$7bd4abce@harry_balzac.novastor.com>,
Coyote <coy...@bosco.netus.com> wrote:
>John Russell <joh...@io.org> wrote:
>>
>> In a thousand years, will it really matter? Who knows what people
>> thought dryads were before the "family values" bunch of whatever B.C.
>> turned them into peaceful forest spirits. I'm sure plenty of ancient
>> myths were jazzed up into unrecognizable forms to make them
>> entertaining. At the time, it's bastardization; a thousand years
>> later it's folklore.
>
>It matters. It mattered enough that the myths have arrived here in the
>20th century INTACT--over not one but, what, FOUR THOUSAND YEARS...more?
>Sure, throughout the centuries there have been twists to the myths--the
>Romans were sure guilty of that--but there's a BIG difference here:
>
>Those intervening artists KNEW their myths and KNEW they were making
>changes.
>
>These Xena and Herc writers and producers are--on the other hand--wholly
>ignorant of them.
So, you've talked to them, been off to kiwiland, eh? Or perhaps
you happen to be psychic, and have read thier minds. Just because they
don't hold mythology to be sacred, untouchable and immune to farce,
unavailable for people to use as a source for fun, like you do dosn't
mean they don't know about it.
Good grief, you'd think they were insulting your personal honor
or something. Its a _show_ it's for _fun_. Nowhere on the show does it
say it represents a true version of mythology. Look, there are plenty of
Hong Kong made action films that do the same thing with Chinese
mythology, people there recognise it as fun, not the trampling of
something untouchable. If they show seems booring, or unentertaining,
don't watch it, like I do with Maried With Children. You don't see me
sending messages to thier fan groups, or for that matter, even railing
against them on other groups.
Sinboy
jspe...@aol.com
>> In a thousand years, will it really matter? Who knows what people
>> thought dryads were before the "family values" bunch of whatever B.C.
well, I dont know if it means anything or not, but I had captioning on
when i was watching xena, on that episode, and it was spelled Driad on the
screen. I dunno if there is different spelling of it or that they are
talking about something else...what do you think?
Lord Raptor
Roving Reporter
It's fairly common (and joked about somewhat derisively among those who
know about these things in the deaf community) to have words misspelled.
And BTW, it irks me to see people misspell things here too. "Bakkhai" makes
"Bacchae" look like look like the Russian version. Geographically, that's
not what I think of when I think of Bacchus. Greece isn't at all like
Russia! I suppose it must be my persnickety editor self that is
complaining, so don't mind my carping, please...I admit it was startling to
see the devil reclaimed in the guise of the grape god, but I got over it by
mentally substituting "devil" and "vampire" in appropriate slots on an as
needed basis, so I suppose I can make a similar switcheroo for Bakkhai.
*sigh*
*******************************************************
* Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net *
* http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ *
* Xena: http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/xena.html *
* Usually bare feet, but if cold then in polyfleece! *
*******************************************************
* En Ring er over dem alle, En Ring kan finde de andre
* En Ring kan bringe dem alle, i morket laenke dem alle
* I Mordors land, hvor skygger ruge. - JRR Tolkien
*******************************************************
Finger: use tls...@finger.concentric.net
Bob & Vicky Hyde
Melanie Young wrote:
>
> On 5 Nov 1996 06:34:03 GMT, jspe...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >well, I dont know if it means anything or not, but I had captioning
> on
> >when i was watching xena, on that episode, and it was spelled Driad on the
> >screen. I dunno if there is different spelling of it or that they are
> >talking about something else...what do you think?
> > Lord Raptor
>
> in studio approved spelling, or is it added somewhere down the line?
I'm not sure where they add the captions, but no, it's not official.
We've been discussing this on another group, and people with actual
scripts have pointed out discrepancies between what's in the script and
what's on the screen. Sometimes it's even obviously different from
what's spoken by the actors.
Guess that's what the "rewind" button's for.
Vicky
(not to be confused with Vicki) ;)
WizJoanna
Roving Reporter <Tls...@concentric.net> wrote:
<<It's fairly common (and joked about somewhat
<<derisively among those who know about these
<<things in the deaf community) to have words
<<misspelled.>>
A couple of years ago, I applied for a job as a
caption editor with the National Captioning
Institute. It sounded like a rewarding sort
of thing (and I was out of money, and yet to
get any bites on my TV specs) so I went through
a battery of tests (grammar, spelling, etc. etc.),
had several interviews and watched the captioners
at work. In the end, I had to withdraw my name
because my right hand was injured several years
ago (when I used to be a technical illustrator in
the aerospace industry - yeah, I've had a lot of
very different jobs) and the hand-intensive work
of being a caption editor would have put me back
in PT after only a couple days.
In their defense, they have to work extremely fast.
They most assuredly do their very best to get it all
right, but it's not an easy job, as sometimes it's
hard to understand the actors, and they are often
trying to boil down huge speeches into manageable
captions without losing any of the meaning or intent.
One of the tests was a series of dialogue chunks and
a blank line with a number next to it (like "5 words")
and we had to somehow repeat the dialogue in only
five words and not lose a single bit of the meaning.
That is the heart of captioning. And although I know
they attempt to spell everything correctly, foreign
words, like "dryad", can be forgiven, I think, if the
editor doesn't happen to be up on her mythology.
I was very dissapointed when I had to withdraw
my name. The pay was horrible -- barely livable.
And the hours long, the workers all complained of
hand problems. But it would have been rewarding to
provide hearing impaired viewers with a good TV
experience. And the Institute promised to teach
me sign language, which I've always wanted to learn.
Just wanted to share, because it gave me a real
appreciation for the hard work caption editors do.
-- Joanna
Bluesong
In article <01bbca86$d35aeb00$7bd4abce@harry_balzac.novastor.com>,
"Coyote" <coy...@bosco.netus.com> writes:
>PLEASE--someone take a myth course.
>
>--Coyote
>
>
Myth! Oh Myth! <<huff>>> wait up! I can't jump over ... <huff> the
obstacle ... Myth! Myth!! 'Scuze me! wait up! <<huff>>> Do I *really*
have to do the ropes course, too? <<<huff, wheeze>>> but Myth! Oh, Myth,
please listen! I've had a bad cold << huff>>> and I don't think I can run
the 10K ....
Myth! Come back Myth! <<wheeze>>
Darn it! What is that woman thinking?
Bluesong
Aethe...@worldnet.att.net
WizJoanna wrote:
>
> Roving Reporter <Tls...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> <<It's fairly common (and joked about somewhat
> <<derisively among those who know about these
> <<things in the deaf community) to have words
> <<misspelled.>>
>
> A couple of years ago, I applied for a job as a
> caption editor with the National Captioning
> appreciation for the hard work caption editors do.
It surely doesn't really matter all that much; its a word the
Romans adopted from the Greek and transliterated from the Greek to the
Roman alphabet. My pocket Oxford dictionary has the listing "Dryad, n
Wood-nymph (cf naiad).' So if Naiad is spelt that way then surely
Driad, or even Draiad should be acceptable;)
Kevin Martin
In article <3283a732...@library.airnews.net>,
Melanie Young <myo...@wwonline.com> wrote:
>On 5 Nov 1996 06:34:03 GMT, jspe...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> >well, I dont know if it means anything or not, but I had captioning
>on
>>when i was watching xena, on that episode, and it was spelled Driad on the
>>screen. I dunno if there is different spelling of it or that they are
>>talking about something else...what do you think?
They also spelled it that was in the "joke" in the closing credits.
>
>Which leads to my question. Is closed captioning the "official" as
>in studio approved spelling, or is it added somewhere down the line?
Depends. Live shows are generally a mess, with someone trying hard
to keep up in real-time. Scripted shows usually provide a script
(but not always). If you had a Babylon 5 question, I wouldn't take
a CC typist's word over that of JMS in a newsgroup (just as an example).
The transcriber might or might not be "winging it".
Coyote
jspe...@aol.com wrote in article
<19961105063...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> >> In a thousand years, will it really matter? Who knows what people
> >> thought dryads were before the "family values" bunch of whatever B.C.
>
> well, I dont know if it means anything or not, but I had captioning on
> when i was watching xena, on that episode, and it was spelled Driad on
the
> screen. I dunno if there is different spelling of it or that they are
> talking about something else...what do you think?
> Lord Raptor
The captioning would be incorrect--the spelling is DRYAD.
From: http://gs213.sp.cs.cmu.edu/prog/webster?dryad
>Webster Definition for "dryad"
>
>dry.ad \'dri--*d, -.ad\ n [L dryad-, dryas, fr. Gk, fr. drys tree - more
at >TREEM : WOOD NYMPH
There is no listing for DRIAD.
Also the spelling BAKKHAI above is Hellenic; the standard Roman fashion is
Bacchae.
Regards,
Coyote
Bill Boelema
Roving Reporter (Tls...@concentric.net) wrote:
: It's fairly common (and joked about somewhat derisively among those who
: know about these things in the deaf community) to have words misspelled.
: not what I think of when I think of Bacchus. Greece isn't at all like
: Russia! I suppose it must be my persnickety editor self that is
: complaining, so don't mind my carping, please...I admit it was startling to
: see the devil reclaimed in the guise of the grape god, but I got over it by
: mentally substituting "devil" and "vampire" in appropriate slots on an as
: needed basis, so I suppose I can make a similar switcheroo for Bakkhai.
: *sigh*
I'm with you here at least a little, Roving.... I'm reading this group,
and I think "to make a plural of a word that ends in 'y', make it 'ies'
instead...". But I am not any true editor, and I probably even made errors
in this post in sentence structure, wording, wording, and format...[g]
Shall we make a list of common errors we see :)? I guess that would be
quite anal... and I myself am quite guilty of irregular use of
capitalization, and general sloppiness [sigh]... you expect me to put as
much effort into these as papers for courses and the eventual upcoming
thesis [BG]?
Well, I have to go vote... and don't want to because I don't like many of
the candidates, but it saves me from having to complain if things don't
turn out the way I want to...
Bill
--
Bill Boelema
:
: >well, I dont know if it means anything or not, but I had captioning
: on
: >when i was watching xena, on that episode, and it was spelled Driad on the
: >screen. I dunno if there is different spelling of it or that they are
: >talking about something else...what do you think?
: > Lord Raptor
: Which leads to my question. Is closed captioning the "official" as
: in studio approved spelling, or is it added somewhere down the line?
: regards' Melanie
well, I do know they spelled 'driad' the same way in CC and in the
disclaimer... I often get the impression when I turn on CC in different
shows, particularly when actors have a lot a leeway, that it is the actual
script they are putting down... but some actors who are natural just know the
essense of the scene and make it their own (many scenes in Lethal Weapon
III were worded differently than Gibson and Glover said them... and I
don't know how else they would have gotten the words for the CCD except a
different route, like the actual script)... But I don't have an official
answer for you... maybe wizjoanna?
--
Vampire406
Captioning is done by the National Captioning Institue or Real Time
Captions. Mostly it is done by the script. Sometimes all the captions
are not the exact wording that was sprited. Editing is during long
sentences and so forth so the captions will not lag behind the actual
scene on the screen.
Coyote
Roving Reporter <Tls...@concentric.net>:
> It's fairly common (and joked about somewhat derisively among those who
> know about these things in the deaf community) to have words misspelled.
> And BTW, it irks me to see people misspell things here too. "Bakkhai"
makes
> "Bacchae" look like look like the Russian version. Geographically, that's
> not what I think of when I think of Bacchus. Greece isn't at all like
> Russia! I suppose it must be my persnickety editor self that is
> complaining, so don't mind my carping, please...I admit it was startling
to
> see the devil reclaimed in the guise of the grape god, but I got over it
by
> mentally substituting "devil" and "vampire" in appropriate slots on an as
> needed basis, so I suppose I can make a similar switcheroo for Bakkhai.
> *sigh*
Bakkhai is Hellenic, Bacchae is Roman. There is no Russian influence here.
(Tak ya znayu.) The name in Greek is spelled:
BAKXAI <--this is how it looks in Greek...
Beta
Alpha
Kappa
Khi (or Chi, if you prefer)
Alpha
Iota
There is no "C" in Greek (well, there's a lunate sigma that looks like it,
but I digress). I transliterate in a Hellenic fashion because Dionysos
(here called Bakkhos) is a Greek god. Granted, hoi polloi are more
comfortable with the Roman transliterations (as I've seen--Dionysus before
Dionysos, Apollo before Apollon, Achilles before Akhilleus). Neither is
more correct, just the latter (in the examples) is more "Greek." Greece is
the source, not Rome.
The Roman version Bacchae is actually a transliteration itself. They are,
in these two languages, pronounced the same...notably the Greek AI and the
Roman AE are pronounced "eye." Stress on the first syllable. "BAK-keye"
(let's not get into the evolution of the pronunciation of Khi).
Thus, in the episode, it is pronounced correctly. Huzzah.
Pedantry is its own reward.
Regards,
Coyote
Aisa
::snipping all the other stuff to save band width::
I work a lot with captioners...real time or otherwise. Seldom are
scripts provided (except for things like some news programs - channel 5
comes to mind - that they get the teleprompter script...note how much
that is 'winged" doesn't appear on the screen). Usually the captioner
must rely upon what they hear and then spell it phonetically and hope
there is something already in the dictionary they draw from.
And yes, the more one does a particular subject, the larger the
dictionary, thus the reduction of miscues.
Just tossing in my .02 dinar,
Aisa
--
***"There is no truth and there is no evil. Only data to be
manipulated." - Don Henley***
ldyai...@earthlink.com
Lisa Smith
>>PLEASE--someone take a myth course.
>>--Coyote
>Myth! Oh Myth! <<huff>>> wait up! I can't jump over ... <huff> the
>obstacle ... Myth! Myth!! 'Scuze me! wait up! <<huff>>> Do I
>*really* have to do the ropes course, too? <<<huff, wheeze>>> but
>Myth! Oh, Myth, please listen! I've had a bad cold << huff>>> and I
>don't think I can run the 10K ....
>Myth! Come back Myth! <<wheeze>>
>Darn it! What is that woman thinking?
THANK YOU, Bluesong! What an image!!! ROTFLMAO ;>
--Cloudcat
Bill Boelema
This may be true (I'm no linguist), but the basic modern English way of
spelling it, which is modern Latin basically, is Bacchae. Since Bacchus
is in reality the Roman god (why they didn't make him Dionysus - or
just some new monster instead of fairly well twisting mythology - instead I
don't know) it makes more sense to use Latin spellings.
Coyote (coy...@bosco.netus.com) wrote:
:
: Bakkhai is Hellenic, Bacchae is Roman. There is no Russian influence here.
: (Tak ya znayu.) The name in Greek is spelled:
:
: BAKXAI <--this is how it looks in Greek...
:
: Beta
: Alpha
: Kappa
: Khi (or Chi, if you prefer)
: Alpha
: Iota
:
: There is no "C" in Greek (well, there's a lunate sigma that looks like it,
: but I digress). I transliterate in a Hellenic fashion because Dionysos
: (here called Bakkhos) is a Greek god. Granted, hoi polloi are more
: comfortable with the Roman transliterations (as I've seen--Dionysus before
: Dionysos, Apollo before Apollon, Achilles before Akhilleus). Neither is
: more correct, just the latter (in the examples) is more "Greek." Greece is
: the source, not Rome.
:
: The Roman version Bacchae is actually a transliteration itself. They are,
: in these two languages, pronounced the same...notably the Greek AI and the
: Roman AE are pronounced "eye." Stress on the first syllable. "BAK-keye"
: (let's not get into the evolution of the pronunciation of Khi).
:
: Thus, in the episode, it is pronounced correctly. Huzzah.
:
: Pedantry is its own reward.
:
: Regards,
: Coyote
:
--
Alan Hamilton
In article <19961107183...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, vampi...@aol.com wrote:
>Real time captions are a hoot sometimes. The best of the worst was on
>Nightline.
>Jesus Christ became "GEE SHOES Christ." Also annoying is things not
>captioned at all. The closing monologue of the X-Files usually gets
>zapped.
>
>So far though I've not seen to many glitches in Xena. Unfoutunatly some
>times the episode is aired with out the captions. Same with a lot of
>syndicated shows.
If that happens, bug your local station. KSAZ in Phoenix lost the captions
to Xena and Herc, but they came back right after I called to complain.
Unfortunately, most stations don't seem to check the captioning as part of
their signal quality checks, and won't know if there's something wrong
unless someone complains.
--
/
/ * / Alan Hamilton
* * al...@primenet.com
Roving Reporter
captioning for shows is never done "live" but rather is from the script.
It could be the writers don't know how to spell the word dryad either, or
it might be a NZ alternative spelling.
S. Yoder
Alan Hamilton <al...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<55u7nr$9...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>...
>vampi...@aol.com wrote:
> >Real time captions are a hoot sometimes. The best of the worst was on
> >Nightline.
[snip]
> If that happens, bug your local station. KSAZ in Phoenix lost the
captions
> to Xena and Herc, but they came back right after I called to complain.
> Unfortunately, most stations don't seem to check the captioning as part
of
> their signal quality checks, and won't know if there's something wrong
> unless someone complains.
So true, but if we did that _everytime_ they screwed it up around
here AT&T would love us. (vampire406 is my roomate) "Local"
isn't quite local out here in the bible belt :)
Enjoy,
Stef
Lisa Smith
In <55ofcu$p...@bioserver.bio> wjbo...@mtu.edu (Bill Boelema) writes:
>
>Roving Reporter (Tls...@concentric.net) wrote:
>: It's fairly common (and joked about somewhat derisively among those
who
>: know about these things in the deaf community) to have words
misspelled.
>: And BTW, it irks me to see people misspell things here too.
"Bakkhai" makes
>: "Bacchae" look like look like the Russian version. Geographically,
that's
>: not what I think of when I think of Bacchus. Greece isn't at all
like
>: Russia! I suppose it must be my persnickety editor self that is
>: complaining, so don't mind my carping, please...I admit it was
startling to
>: see the devil reclaimed in the guise of the grape god, but I got
over it by
>: mentally substituting "devil" and "vampire" in appropriate slots on
an as
>: needed basis, so I suppose I can make a similar switcheroo for
Bakkhai.
>: *sigh*
>
group,
>and I think "to make a plural of a word that ends in 'y', make it
'ies'
>instead...". But I am not any true editor, and I probably even made
errors
>in this post in sentence structure, wording, wording, and format...[g]
>
>Shall we make a list of common errors we see :)? I guess that would
be
>quite anal... and I myself am quite guilty of irregular use of
>capitalization, and general sloppiness [sigh]... you expect me to put
as
>much effort into these as papers for courses and the eventual upcoming
>thesis [BG]?
>
>Well, I have to go vote... and don't want to because I don't like
many of
>the candidates, but it saves me from having to complain if things
don't
>turn out the way I want to...
>Bill
Good luck on the thesis, Bill. I'm surprised you even get near a
computer in your "copious spare time". ;>
--Cloudcat
Coyote
Joshua Jasper <sin...@netcom.com> wrote:
> So, you've talked to them, been off to kiwiland, eh? Or perhaps
> you happen to be psychic, and have read thier minds. Just because they
> don't hold mythology to be sacred, untouchable and immune to farce,
> unavailable for people to use as a source for fun, like you do dosn't
> mean they don't know about it.
> Good grief, you'd think they were insulting your personal honor
> or something. Its a _show_ it's for _fun_. Nowhere on the show does it
> say it represents a true version of mythology. Look, there are plenty of
> Hong Kong made action films that do the same thing with Chinese
> mythology, people there recognise it as fun, not the trampling of
> something untouchable. If they show seems booring, or unentertaining,
> don't watch it, like I do with Maried With Children. You don't see me
> sending messages to thier fan groups, or for that matter, even railing
> against them on other groups.
Point taken.
--Coyote
(Love that Al Bundy!)
Richard Hooles
Vampire406 (vampi...@aol.com) wrote:
: Captioning is done by the National Captioning Institue or Real Time
Captionning on both Xena and Hercules is not done by the NCI, it's done
by a company called VITAC. MCA provides the script, and it is
periodically edited to make it easier to read and follow. Xena and
Hercules are okay as far as the amount of editing is concerned, but many
sitcoms have a good 10% of the dialogue cut because there is too much
drivel in the script.
--
Richard Hooles
bz...@freenet.toronto.on.ca