MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 1947 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) homosexuality in ML by Julia Gray 2) Same sex pairings in Nature by Julia Gray 3) Re: homosexuality in ML by SachiAiko-+AT+-aol.com 4) Re: homosexuality in ML by Darkmoon 5) Re: Same sex pairings in Nature by Darkmoon 6) Candlemarks+Kosovo by "Wolfshadow K'Vala" 7) RE: homosexuality in ML by "L. J. Thompson" 8) Queen's Own by "charlotte distefano" 9) Re: homosexuality in ML by Kenneth Allen Hyde 10) Re: homosexuality in ML by "Phoenix, Guardian of Harmony" 11) Re: homosexuality in ML by "Matthew" 12) by Liss 13) a new topic to talk about by "Kristy Lyseng" 14) Re: MERCEDES-LACKEY digest 1946 by Katie McQuage 15) Re: Queen's Own by "Derrick O" 16) Re: a new topic to talk about by "Derrick O" 17) Re: homosexuality in ML by Julia Gray 18) Re: a new topic to talk about by Abigail Laughlin 19) RE: a new topic to talk about by Lisa Whitman ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 08:42:32 -0500 From: Julia Gray To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: homosexuality in ML Message-ID: <3725BEC7.68B13299-+AT+-oakton.edu> > > Freedom Walker wrote: > >Is it just me or is anyone else ready for a new and contraversal > >subject for the Misty related part of the list? It seems to me that it > >has been a while sense anyone has gotten really set off by > >something... even the letter from the higher powers of lawful Misty > >land didnt' seem to jar anyone to speak up too much. So what is going > >on? Maybe everyone is having a slow brain period where all the > >interesting subjects are slipping by like slimy fishies in a small > >pond. hmmmmmm..... that could be just me though. anyway I am going to > >do some serious thinking for a subject to set some sparks off... I > >haven't made a truly Misty related long post in so long I don't even > >remember ever doing one... But I am sure I have at one point or > >another.... Or does anyone already have one.... Do you think Misty is trying to the portrayal of saych characters in Misty's work is "realistic" (within the genre of fantasy)? My general impression, as an a sort-of-outsider looking in, is that she does pretty well with the feelings - the emotions of falling in love, the reactions of being seen as "different", the hurt that friends and family not understanding causes. My only thought is that it seems a great majority of her saych (which I'm probably spelling incorrectly) characters are a heck of a lot more flamboyant than my gay colleagues. Think of some of them - aren't a majority of them more handsome than anyone else? aren't a majority of them way too concerned with clothing? As understanding as ML seems to be on the subject, is she letting her characters fall into stereotypes at times? I don't know if this will be controversial enough :-), but it's something I've pondered. beth'alis ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 11:17:02 -0500 From: Julia Gray To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Same sex pairings in Nature Message-ID: <3725E2FC.A1858E71-+AT+-oakton.edu> The april 26th US issue of TIME magazine has, on page 20, a one page article about same sex pairings that occur in nature. obmisty - if kyrees are neuters (i hope I'm remembering this correctly), then can they have pairings? can you have a pairing that's non-sexual in nature [intellectual or whatever]? betha'lis (who keeps moving her apostrophe) and sorry for two short posts ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 12:45:11 EDT From: SachiAiko-+AT+-aol.com To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: homosexuality in ML Message-ID: ::steps outa lurkdom to ponder this a minute:: hrmm... well... I think she does pretty well with the homosexuality thing in her books. And i think she might be falling into some sort of sterotype at times but Van wasnt always into his clothes. And truth is alot of my gay friends can be extremly flamboyant at times ::chuckles:: Its fun. I myself am bi sexual but thats different. So i cant really say from my own exp. bout the emotions and so on but i'm guessing that they are pretty good since alot of my gay friends seem to like misty alot. I don know. i can say that i *really* enjoy the fact she writes about it at all. I think its awsome because i just havent read much with really good gay characters. And i like the way the hawkbrother are so accepting of it and so on. I don know ::shrugs:: But that was something i loved bout her books from the begining :):) Well das it! ::wing wavies:: Coconut flavored Icey sheep to all!! Snow Daughter of anything ungodly cold. "Lead. Follow. Or get outa my flight path!!" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 13:26:01 -0400 From: Darkmoon To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: homosexuality in ML Message-ID: <3725F324.7A8CBE73-+AT+-tidalwave.net> > > > My only thought is that it seems a great majority of her saych (which I'm probably spelling incorrectly) It's spelled shaych, BTW(or she'chorne or shay'a'chern, depending on which language you're using). > characters are a heck of a lot more flamboyant than my gay colleagues. Think of some of them - aren't a majority of them > more handsome than anyone else? Yes. > aren't a majority of them way too concerned with clothing? No. Vanyel, Firesong, and Krebain were the only shaych characters I've read that are overly concerned with clothing. Krebain was evil as well as shaych, and Vanyel was only overly concerned with clothing for the first book of the LHM series. And Firesong... well, Firesong is Firesong. Neither Tylendel, Starwind (I THINK that's his name), Moondance, or An'desha (if you count him as being shaych) were at all concerned with clothing. > As understanding as ML seems to be on the subject, is she letting her characters fall into stereotypes at times? I don't think so. I think that by making her shaych characters more handsome than some normal characters, Misty is attempting to ERASE a stereotype - that everyone who is shaych doesn't care about how they look, are ugly, or always wear a belt-and-suspenders. > > > I don't know if this will be controversial enough :-), but it's something I've pondered. > Hope I could help. ~Seuroqi Official Shepardess of the Neon Pink Sheep ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 13:33:37 -0400 From: Darkmoon To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Same sex pairings in Nature Message-ID: <3725F4EB.7C3C9E56-+AT+-tidalwave.net> > The april 26th US issue of TIME magazine has, on page 20, a one page > article about same sex pairings that occur in nature. Really? I must go look at it. > > > obmisty - if kyrees are neuters (i hope I'm remembering this correctly), > then can they have pairings? can you have a pairing that's non-sexual in > nature [intellectual or whatever]? First things first. Kyree can be male, female, or neuter. As to the neuters being able to have non-sexual pairings; I'm not sure as to what you mean by that. If you mean among the kyree, I have no idea. But outside of the kyree; absolutely. After all... SPOILER ALERT: OATHBOUND or BTS ...Tarma's bondmate was Warrl, a kyree neuter who Kethry called. Okay. That was a rather short spoiler. *grins* ~Seuroqi Kostanian Official Shepardess of the Neon Pink Sheep ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 17:39:39 GMT From: "Wolfshadow K'Vala" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Candlemarks+Kosovo Message-ID: <19990427173939.31444.qmail-+AT+-hotmail.com> Fair Day to Thee, On the candlemark subject (I know, done to death before) I always figured it to be around 20 or 30 minutes. There were times where they listed the number of candlemarks ridden and anything higher than 30 min would have been near impossible :-) On Kosovo, the words to describe my despair and horror of the situation do not exist so I will not try to explain them. The death and atrocities go beyond mere religious bounds, deep into the realm of crimes against humanity. Being of no strong religious (but highly spiritual) I feel sorry for *insert name of god of choice*, with so much evil done in his/her/it's name. My voice and heart cry out to a quick resolution, and the safe return of the Kosovars to their lands. On a lighter note what would I be if not gifted? An explorer. Working in the Pelgars(sp?). Wind to your wings, and peace to all, Wolfshadow K'Vala P.S. It is very gratifying to be responded to... Thank you. See you all on the list :-) _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:34:59 -0700 From: "L. J. Thompson" To: "'mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk'" Subject: RE: homosexuality in ML Message-ID: <01BE9099.A76D3260-+AT+-BASIL> beth'alis said: >Do you think Misty is trying to the portrayal of saych characters in Misty's >work is "realistic" (within the genre of fantasy)? I don't know about "realistic," but of all of the fantasy that I've read she's done the best job so far in my opinion. Most fantasy, if there is a gay character, it's a minor character, so you don't see how well or poorly they are portrayed really. I can only think of one other fantasy novel that I've read with a gay main character off of the top of my head, although there have probably been others, and that one was ok mostly and then the ending made me want to throw the book across the room and jump on it, so there doesn't seem to be much competition for "best job" sadly. Bah. May squirrels never take a liking to your teeth, L.J. Thompson ICQ #6886878 begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(A81`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!-+AT+-`(````Y 0```````#H``$(-+AT+- <` M& ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0-+AT+-36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`0V ! `"`````-+AT+-`"``$$ MD 8`Z $```$````0`````P``, (````+``\.``````(!_P\!````5P`````` M``"!*Q^DOJ,0&9UN`-T!#U0"`````&UE4!H97)A;&0N M8V\N=6L`4TU44 !M97)C961E``(P M`0````4```!33510`````!X``S !````'0```&UE4!H M97)A;&0N8V\N=6L``````P`5# $````#`/X/!-+AT+-```!X``3 !````'P```"=M M97)C961E4!H97)A;&0N8V\N=6L` M`````-+AT+-'W7P$```!7`````````($K'Z2^HQ 9G6X`W0$/5 (`````;65R8V5D M97,M;&%C:V5Y0&AE4!H M97)A;&0N8V\N=6L```,`_5\!`````P#_7P`````"`?8/`0````0````````" M`6\!!( !`!-+AT+-```!213H-+AT+-:&]M;W-E>'5A;&ET>2!I;B!-3 `\" $%-+AT+- ,`#-+AT+-`` M`,\'! `;``H`(-+AT+-`[``(`7-+AT+-$!(( #``X```#/!P0`&P`*`!H`)-+AT+-`"`$$!`0F M`0`A````1C0X0S,Y03(X0D9#1#(Q,4(X,$$P,$4P,CDR-S=!.#D`+ # $````%````4TU44 `````>`!\,`0````\```!L:G1 ;&-L M87)K+F5D=0```P`&$.[>)ZD#``<0?-+AT+-(``!X`"! !````90```$)%5$A!3$E3 M4T%)1#I$3UE/551(24Y+34E35%E)4U1264E.1U1/5$A%4$]25%)!64%,3T93 M05E#2$-(05)!0U1%4E-)3DU)4U194U=/4DM)4R)214%,25-424,B*%=)5$A) M3E0``````-+AT+-$)$ $```#V`-+AT+-``\-+AT+-(``!8$``!,6D9U4]4V`P,`"-+AT+-!R8W!G,3(U M%C(`^ M-+AT+-;-+AT+-X0,#,S'0'W( *D`^,"`'!R<1$.4&9C: K 1T+-+AT+-&<7X!>0 M%1!E(' 1"1%R87D'0"!O9O46(7D14" 14-+AT+-#0%* 1-+AT+-'<8H .-+AT+-&%,G$, 5AA:. M=_<%L!-+AT+-P&+$B"7 501AP#>"X(B H`_ 7\AES9PGP&PEP&E)F`' !D'-Y*8X_ M% 84*A' 22!D`B#Z)P5 :Q- !^ !H A-+AT+-!4#U'E-+AT+-L'O!B(U$:80= &D,7&8(-+AT+- M91?A805 22=V^QF-+AT+-'F%D%-+AT+-`9D!P-+AT+-(F(9H(<9-+AT+-A3P&' -+AT+-:F]B%-+AT+-`O%Y -+AT+-8 7 M&Z%M&)!O<-4+-+AT+-&D"("X%T&\G\2!EWBP8H"43( $8L6$?P!H0VQKH*H%T)Q$K M8&T+-+AT+- 6QORO)*&$7LB)T$9 9H&-+AT+-B\;QW9232!< 9P 6P;"72?F48D K &:<) M-+AT+-":")-!Y^RF-+AT+-(E!C`Y$"(# #&!(:8?\G4A20*N$E9Q- )F #("7]_Q\B*U4` MP!NA&O<:43,!)13]&5!P&E(I`1F0)K J-+AT+- = ^Q40"&!G&M JU!%-+AT+-)F$4<;YB M`: P`13P"? S5',XP>YN)L E\R=2=R"-+AT+-&E 8,'\$8!AP, $[A#K1&8()\&3_ M&1(`P $`*/ \,-+AT+-(P&40#8/\'X">3+] 8, #0`V $$1F"QP--+AT+-`W [Q2,$)X!40+!0$Z$PN2BF-+AT+-5"\`0< H8 ,+D!0324-1(",VY#-+AT+-X3( W M."#\%"(240(`3E ```,`$! ``````P`1$ `````#`( 0_____T `!S" 7S8; MTY"^`4 `"#" 7S8;TY"^`0L`'X (( 8``````, ```````!&``````.%```` M`````P`A-+AT+- -+AT+--+AT+-!-+AT+-``````P ```````$8`````$(4````````#`"2 "" &```` M``# ````````1-+AT+-````!2A0``MPT```,`*( (( 8``````, ```````!&```` M``&%`````````P`P-+AT+- -+AT+--+AT+-!-+AT+-``````P ```````$8`````$84````````>`#. M"" &``````# ````````1-+AT+-````!4A0```0````0````X+C `"P`W-+AT+- -+AT+--+AT+-!-+AT+-`` M````P ```````$8`````#H4````````#`#F "" &``````# ````````1-+AT+-`` M```8A0```````!X`2( (( 8``````, ```````!&`````#:%```!`````0`` M```````>`$F "" &``````# ````````1-+AT+-`````WA0```0````$````````` M'-+AT+-!*-+AT+- -+AT+--+AT+-!-+AT+-``````P ```````$8`````.(4```$````!`````````!X`/0`! 9````!0```%)%.B ``````P`--/TW``"P7X4` ` end ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:44:06 PDT From: "charlotte distefano" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Queen's Own Message-ID: <19990427174406.16551.qmail-+AT+-hotmail.com> Hey all, I know it's amazing, I'm actually saying something on the list. Most of you probably don't even know me. :) Anyway, I thought of something when I was re-re-re-re-re-reading AotQ last night. When Talia first gets to Haven, Selenay tells her that often, the next Queen's Own is chosen from someone who is already a chosen trainee. My question is, if that is true, and the trainee gets chosen by the the current Monarch's Own Companion, what happens to the companion that already chose that person? Just a question. Lightsong Royal Defender of the Brat Dame of Amber and Marigold "If you're going to traverse thin ice, you might as well dance your way across!" -Skif "Nothing is more important that playing the piano...except for maybe eating" -My piano teacher _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 13:44:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Kenneth Allen Hyde To: Misty Lackey List Subject: Re: homosexuality in ML Message-ID: On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Julia Gray wrote: > Do you think Misty is trying to the portrayal of saych characters in > Misty's work is "realistic" (within the genre of fantasy)? Hmmm. Well, that is a loaded question. =) Of course, a "realistic" portrayal of gays would show the vast diversity of homosexual/gay existence, ranging from the self-hating closeted types (these are two cumulative characteristics, not necessarily co-incidental) to the wildly flamboyant "out-there" brothers and sisters; i.e., the good, the bad, and ugly, and all the other variations. This is true of any group, but fortunately for str8s, the literature about their lives is vast enough to do a pretty good job at coverage. It would be asking to much of Misty to provide a realistic presentation of gayness or homosexuality in this sense. However, in another sense, we can ask if the characters that she writes about are realistic in the sense of whether their experience are part of some gay person's actual experience. In other words, not "does Misty give the whole truth" but "Is her portrayal an accurate, if partial, truth." In this sense, I think that she does indeed give a "realistic" portrayal of gays. I would not be willling to commit myself to saying that she gives a representative portrayal, but I know that some people do in fact go through the same sorts of emotional territory that Van, 'Lendel, Stefen, Firestorm, Keren, et al. cover (You will notice, btw, the obvious fact that, whatever she may write about "gays", Misty pretty much ignores lesbians except as minor characters with very little character development). > > My general impression, as an a sort-of-outsider looking in, is that > she does pretty well with the feelings - the emotions of falling in > love, the reactions of being seen as "different", the hurt that > friends and family not understanding causes. Hmmm. Honestly, as an insider-looking-at-other-insiders, I have to say that very little that she wrote was familiar to me from personal experience. I never went through the things that Van did. About the closest to "familiar" that I get is Stefen, at least pre-Van. However, I do know many people who see in Van and Lendel an almost perfect mirror of their own lives. > My only thought is that it seems a great majority of her saych (which > I'm probably spelling incorrectly) characters are a heck of a lot more > flamboyant than my gay colleagues. Well, that's definitely a real part of the Gay community. Now, here, I think it's important to bring up an issue that Misty doesn't ever address (and doesn't necessarily need to, since she is writing about another (fictional) culture): the difference between being "Gay" and being a homosexual. Gay is a subculture, homoesexuality is a statement about a persons sexual orientation (an analogy would be the difference between being Deaf and being deaf). American Gay subculture is a culture of flamboyance, among other things. Although not every member of the culture is equally flamboyant, it is an acknowledged part of the culture, and a valued one. Other characteristics of the culture are the high premium that is placed on physical attractiveness and style. This is not to say that every Gay person is a shallow, appearance obsessed flake. Rather it means that these areas have become central, fundamental areas of valuation in Gay culture and the members of the culture must deal with this. Like any cultural value, we can accept it or reject it. Most people accept the value system (that's how it becomes a value system, after all). Some people reject it. [I just realized that I am about to go into a huge long lecture on Tajfel (1974, 1981) model of social change. And I don't think I want to do that now. So, if you are interested, let me know privately, and I can give you some references. Gee, can you tell that this is what I teach? =)] Obviously, in some ways, Misty is basing her "gay" characters on "Gay" culture in the US. She is "accepting" the values, rather than rejecting them. Obviously, she could have chosen to write subversively, showing the flaws and problems with Gay culture, but that might have defeated the purpose of her book. After all, she seems to have a goal of creating a gay-positive work, not a gay-critical one. > I don't know if this will be controversial enough :-), but it's > something I've pondered. I think it's great. A nice meaty topic that we can really sink our teeth into. =) May the seas be your solace and the forests a refuge for your spirit, Cennydd Councilor of Mist Kenneth Allen Hyde | No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife Univ. of Delaware | between the shoulder blades will seriously Dept. of Linguistics | cramp his style -- Old Jhereg proverb kenny-+AT+-Udel.Edu | A mind is a terrible toy to waste! -- Me //www.ling.udel.edu/hyde/prof/ken.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 13:07:22 -0500 From: "Phoenix, Guardian of Harmony" To: Subject: Re: homosexuality in ML Message-ID: <01be90d8$cc00e920$7c0c9ace-+AT+-default> *Oh my goodness! Will you look at that.... It's Fireheart coming out of his lurker-trance* Wow... hadda get in on this. Julia Gray Wrote: > >My only thought is that it seems a great majority of her saych (which I'm probably spelling incorrectly) characters are a heck of a lot more flamboyant than my gay colleagues. Think of some of them - aren't a majority of them >more handsome than anyone else? aren't a majority of them way too concerned with clothing? As understanding as ML seems to be on the subject, is she letting her characters fall into stereotypes at times? > But dearie... all the gay men _I_ know _ARE_ better looking than the others... self included. ;-) j/k. No... honestly I don't think so. I NEVER saw Vanyel as being very flamboyant myself. I, honestly, saw him as something of a hard-ass. but I still love him. *shrugs* Even before my friends knew I was gay in high school, they nicknamed me Van because I acted like him. And yeah... I guess I did. *shrug* but that's me. *steps off his soapbox, and passes out New homes that come with sheep-shaped pools in the back to everyone.* Fireheart k'Vala Healer Adept Bondmate of Aayana (Firebird) God of New Homes Owner of the Eternal Contact Paper Giver of the Perpetual Housewarming Gift ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 20:25:59 +0200 From: "Matthew" To: "Lackey Mailinglist" Subject: Re: homosexuality in ML Message-ID: <006701be90db$9385a740$e75e8fc3-+AT+-deathwalker> Newbie unlurking: Well you wanted controversial... beth'alis wrote > >My only thought is that it seems a great majority of her saych (which I'm probably spelling incorrectly) characters are a heck of a lot more flamboyant than my gay colleagues. Think of some of them - aren't a majority of them >more handsome than anyone else? aren't a majority of them way too concerned with clothing? As understanding as ML seems to be on the subject, is she letting her characters fall into stereotypes at times? > >I don't know if this will be controversial enough :-), but it's something I've pondered. > >beth'alis It would seem to me, that much the same way that you have a stereotype female Characters keyed to male fantasies in male orientated novels /you know the kind perfect body and more often than not extremely grateful for the passing hero to rescue them/ you will have female orientated books speaking to female fantasies. With the one difference that while men might find it pleasing to think that women throw themselves at men or want to be rescued by them, some women seem to find too much attention from a man threatening because they always suspect an ulterior motive. So what better way to solve that fear than by setting up a desirable well clothed, groomed and sensitive man to be admired but who being shay´a´chern will not have any of those motives towards a woman and so won´t make a dumb pass at you. So in some ways the flamboyant chay´a´chern character fill the female equivalent of the maiden in distress. Please don´t get me wrong. I´m not trying to cast these Characters into a bad light. I think that this kind of wishful writing in moderation is ok even desirable as long as it dosn´t insult the readers of the same sex as the Character in question. Which in this case it dosn´t, unlike many other books I know of covering mainly male fantasies sadly enough. Seen from a different perspective Mistys book do fabulous job portraying gay relationships in a positive light without offending men or women gay or otherwise. That alone makes these characters important and worthwhile. So to get to the point (and thank you for baring with me) It dosn´t harm the novel to have a few stereotypes so I don´t see any harm in the Valdemar books as it isn´t overdone or insulting. Ok, this was a mans view of the situation based on my own observations and on what my friends tell me about the fantasies and wishes of their gender. So... should anyone have taken offence, I would prefer flaming sheep to buckets of water as I have somewhat of a cold at the moment. Wind to thy wings and fare thee well !!!! The newly named and only slightly insane StarShadow :-) ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 99 12:04:28 PDT From: Liss To: Mercedes Lackey Mailing List Message-ID: <19990427190430.4166.qmail-+AT+-nw173.netaddress.usa.net> Heyla All! Yes, it's me _again_. Are you sick of my presence yet? Rae Henderson wrote: Tell me about it! I think that's one reason why I like Misty's books so much. The places and characters are so vivid and lend themselves to imaginary flights of fantasy. Welcome to the list! *yeah, one newbie welcoming another. Oh well!* beth'alis wrote: Like you said, I think the feelings are, but some of the characters are a little over the top. Most of my gay friends aren't super handsome and outrageously flamboyant. On the other hand, most of the Tayledras are flamboyant, and that seems to be the shay'a'chern that you're referring to. betha'lis (there's that moving apostrophe) wrote: Not all kyrees are neuters. My impression when they are has always been that they don't really pair. Neuters are the adventurers of the species, the ones that go out and do things. *See Liss bounce off the walls* I _finally_ got my copy of Werehunter. For those who were interested in the story of Alberich's choosing that I was talking about before, "Stolen Silver", it's in here. It's been nice to read the two SKitty stories that I missed and some other ones I've never seen. Anyways, I guess that's enough of my blathering. *Liss offers double chocolate brownie sheep to all in apology for not being able to keep her mouth shut.* Zhai'helleva! Liss .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. http://members.tripod.com/half_asleep To join Twisted Jokes (joke exchange): http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/twistedjokes WARNING: THOSE WHO SEND ME SPAM WILL BE PROMPTLY FLAMED. I AM A RESIDENT OF WA STATE: IT IS ILLEGAL TO SEND ME E-MAIL W/OUT A VALID RETURN ADDRESS. I _WILL_ FORWARD IT TO THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL. DEAL W/ IT! .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 12:17:08 PDT From: "Kristy Lyseng" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: a new topic to talk about Message-ID: <19990427191709.42108.qmail-+AT+-hotmail.com> Hi, all! I have to agree with Freedom Walker that we DO need a new discussion to talk about. Here's a rather sober one that nobody doesn't HAVE to pick up. It's about the Denver tragedy. I heard from my best friend who heard from the radio that the public is blamming what caused those to kids to go and massacre the whole Highschool was the music they were listening too. Eg) KMFDM (I could've spelled that wrong, but it's not my fault. I don't listen to them.), Marilyn Manson, and Rampstein (sp?). I was NOT happy at these accusations. Yes, I do agree that in music, musicians have the ability, and the freedom, to send messages to the people who listen to them. It's called freedom of speech. And I do NOT believe that, although I am not a firm fan of these particular bands (and they're the only three being blamed), they're the cause of what happened. What those people who think that are doing are looking for an excuse at staring them down. What do you people say? Love, Light and Laughter, Kristy ---------------------- "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe."--Albert Einstein ---------------------- ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 15:43:03 +0000 From: Katie McQuage To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: MERCEDES-LACKEY digest 1946 Message-ID: <3725DB04.617D22A4-+AT+-geocities.com> --About the Companions "fighting" over who would get to choose the royal twins... I think those Companions may have eaten a batch of wild mushrooms or something.-- Goat's foot! The stuff that scrambles gifts! Ok, maybe not. As far as I know, the candlemarks about equal the Karsite water marks, blah blah blah. They do seem to be about an hour, but I think there are twn, rather than twelve in a day. i don't know why I think that, it might be in the beginning of the first Storm book where Karal is pondering the differences between Karse and Valdemar. Or I might be making it up. I never can tell. --OK everyone, listen up! I have decided that every so often and just for the fun of it I am going to ask an obscure question to test your knowledge of Misty.-- Speaking of which, wherever did the Misty jeopardy go? By the time I'd managed to get into the groove and was going to try a few questions, it had gone away. Are we going to keep track with sheep points again? Not that I know the answer to this one, I was only ever good with Companion-Herald pairs and obscure hawkbrother events. But that's ok. Bardic Gift affects emotion. So it is logical that it would not affect non-humans in expected ways. It is logical however, that it would affect them in different more basic ways. It's all about feeling, so it probably wouldn't work in intended ways, especially on animals. Instead of love, animals would go into heat, or other strange things. I doubt it's been tried on nonhumans outside of K'Leshya. I'm sure it would work similarly but differently on gryphons, hertasi, and the like, since they are human-like but not quite the same in many ways. The gryphons still have carnivorous nonchalant attidudes. Devil may care. So songs about courage and the like would possibly put them in some kind of battle-heat. Stuff like that. DON'T EVEN MENTION THE FANTASY VS LITERATURE DEBATE. That was the nasties, bitterest fight I've seen online. Usually people just get off the list, but that guy had to get personal. ::shudders:: Something nice and safe, like the eternal Companion reincarnation debate that comes up with every newbie. Of course, that is getting tiresome. But it's safe and harmless. No blood or broken bones have ever resulted, to my knowledge. If I could be on Velgarth, I don't think I could settle into one country. I'd start my own gypsy caravan and introduce a whole new way of life. Nomads in Velgarth don't leave it seems. Like the Tedrels where in their own little country (or so I've understood it) and Shin'a'in don't leave the plains. I'd wander everywhere, I think. May the road rise up to meet you, May the wind be ever at your backs. Rhiannon Shadowsong ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:01:33 PDT From: "Derrick O" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Queen's Own Message-ID: <19990427210133.75595.qmail-+AT+-hotmail.com> I don't know I've been wondering on that one myself. My thought on it is that maybe since the link between teh companion and the chosen trainee is still new and not as strong as it could be, the chosen might be able to choose again and not die when the connection with the trainee is broken. That's the only explation I can think of, but I'm probably wrong *L* -Derrick ----Original Message Follows---- Hey all, I know it's amazing, I'm actually saying something on the list. Most of you probably don't even know me. :) Anyway, I thought of something when I was re-re-re-re-re-reading AotQ last night. When Talia first gets to Haven, Selenay tells her that often, the next Queen's Own is chosen from someone who is already a chosen trainee. My question is, if that is true, and the trainee gets chosen by the the current Monarch's Own Companion, what happens to the companion that already chose that person? Just a question. _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:28:18 PDT From: "Derrick O" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: a new topic to talk about Message-ID: <19990427212818.38945.qmail-+AT+-hotmail.com> As far as I'm concerened the news media should all be taken out and flogged for their misbetrayal of what they've said about various groups that the two gunmen were involved in and who they are blaming for everything that happened. They say these two guys were gothic, and they are blaming the music and that it is all bad. Me and many of my friends are goths, most of the people I know online are goths and most of the sites I visit are goth related sites, and to a site and to a person everyone one I know is trying to make it VERY clear that these two were not goths and for the most part we are a very peaceful group, and that we are all VERY upset and hurt by what happened! As for the music factor. Music has nothing to do with it! I listen to Rammstein, some Manson, KMFDM, and a ton of other groups along the same lines and anyone who can distinguish between reality and fiction knows that the music is just that fiction and it doesn't effect how you act. I have friends in Dever and from what I'm hearing from them Denver is having a WITCHHUNT for anyone even remotely gothic and they have arrested people for just how they've been dressed right off the street. A friend of mine had three of her friends expelled from school for dressing in black, and every nightclub or coffee house that is gothic is either closed down or restricted. And I blame the news media for all of it. The news media has been talking about these types of events for the last year so you can't hardly look around without seeing some story on it and even if it isn't in a good way these types of things are being glorified and that's what is giving people the ideas of what to do and not the type of music they listen to or how they dress! Most everyone I know who is gothic as well has at least one memeber of their family pointing a finger at them and accusing them of similar things or at least thinking of them and that is totally ridiculous and it is ALL the news media's fault! I've become fed up with the entire situation and just wish that the media and everyone else wouldn't jump to accusations and blame groups of people for the actions of a small few! Do you really think that if someone shot up a Burger King and blamed it on Garth Brooks or Shania Twain's music for it, do you think that all cowboys and country music fans would be blamed? No! Yet since goths and music like Rammstein and KMFDM are MISUNDERSTOOD they immediately get blamed whether they are even remotely responsible or not! I'm sorry for the long rant, but I've seen too many people accused of things that they didn't even do or would never do becasue of the actions of a couple of mis-guided idiotic people. I just wish that for once the media would think before they reported something and started a witchhunt like they have in Denver. -Derrick ----Original Message Follows---- Hi, all! I have to agree with Freedom Walker that we DO need a new discussion to talk about. Here's a rather sober one that nobody doesn't HAVE to pick up. It's about the Denver tragedy. I heard from my best friend who heard from the radio that the public is blamming what caused those to kids to go and massacre the whole Highschool was the music they were listening too. Eg) KMFDM (I could've spelled that wrong, but it's not my fault. I don't listen to them.), Marilyn Manson, and Rampstein (sp?). I was NOT happy at these accusations. Yes, I do agree that in music, musicians have the ability, and the freedom, to send messages to the people who listen to them. It's called freedom of speech. And I do NOT believe that, although I am not a firm fan of these particular bands (and they're the only three being blamed), they're the cause of what happened. What those people who think that are doing are looking for an excuse at staring them down. What do you people say? Love, Light and Laughter, Kristy ---------------------- _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 16:40:47 -0500 From: Julia Gray To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: homosexuality in ML Message-ID: <37262EDE.8A9058E5-+AT+-oakton.edu> Cennyd wrote (much snipped out here): > (You will notice, btw, the > obvious fact that, whatever she may write about "gays", Misty pretty much > ignores lesbians except as minor characters with very little character > development). yep - the ones who got the most time were in Arrows (I think -- correct me if I'm wrong). She does deal with male bisexuality in one book that I know of, but female homosexuality or bisexuality seems to be lacking in her books. I often wonder why this is - perhaps no characters of hers have expressed themselves as such.... > Well, that's definitely a real part of the Gay community. Now, here, I > think it's important to bring up an issue that Misty doesn't ever address > (and doesn't necessarily need to, since she is writing about another > (fictional) culture): the difference between being "Gay" and being a > homosexual. Gay is a subculture, homoesexuality is a statement about a > persons sexual orientation (an analogy would be the difference between > being Deaf and being deaf). I'm not sure about the analogy - but you're correct that I used "Gay" as interchangable with homosexual, when I shouldn't have. To clarify then, few of my homosexual friends are active in the Gay community, and seem to not buy into some of the cultural values of that subculture. I was, in fact, stereotyping homosexuals as "Gay" - sorry :-) > Obviously, in some ways, Misty is basing her "gay" characters on "Gay" > culture in the US. She is "accepting" the values, rather than rejecting > them. Obviously, she could have chosen to write subversively, showing the > flaws and problems with Gay culture, but that might have defeated the > purpose of her book. After all, she seems to have a goal of creating a > gay-positive work, not a gay-critical one. I think taking on the flaws and problems of a character is enough to tackle. Thanks for an informative and thoughtful response. I also want to thank the person (sorry that I deleted your post before I got a chance to respond) who talked about (this is from memory so correct me if I'm wrong) having homosexual male protaginists (sp?) as heros who are "safe" for female readers to sympathize with. It was thought provoking... Betha'lis - sending orange-chocolate sheep (covered with white chocolate sprinkles) to all who want 'em ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 18:19:33 -0400 From: Abigail Laughlin To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: a new topic to talk about Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19990427181933.007db100-+AT+-mail.montreat.edu> On the subject of goths, music, and Columbine High... The day it happened, I was online, and a friend of mine caught it on the news and explained it to me. (Had she not, isolated carless college student that I am, I would probably not have figured out what happened for another month.) I commented that it would probably get blamed on music and roleplaying games again and made a statement about how very tired I was of incidents like that being blamed on everybody and everything but the perpetrators. My ex-boyfriend, still a very close friend of mine, disagreed with me. What resulted was an all-out verbal battle royale--horse, foot, and artillery. Eventually we agreed to disagree, but not before I at least was fuming. Brett (my friend) opined that the kids had been driven to insanity by harassment from their peers, that they weren't responsible for doing it since they were insane and that it was bound to happen once they were pressured into snapping. His most-repeated statement was that those kids had ceased to be human beings, that they could no longer be expected to know right from wrong. Therefore, it seemed (I don't recall him actually stating this, but it appeared to be heavily implied) that the two gunmen were not responsible for what they did, and while the people who died or got hurt did not necessarily deserve it, they were the cause of the incident. I don't claim to be a psychologist, but it seems to me that kids have been being cruel to their peers since the first kids were born; that hasn't changed. What has changed is that now when kids want vengeance on the kids who are cruel to them, they don't meet them behind the school and pound each other to a pulp, they get semi-automatic weapons and blow away half their school. Because they can. They hear about it happening, they hear people saying 'he was driven to it by his cruel classmates/the violent music he listened to/the games he and his friends played'. They decide that they, too, have been driven to it. Rather than accept that shooting people would be wrong and unjust, they choose to blame their targets and say they had it coming for not being nicer. And I think that as long as people keep saying 'he was driven to it' kids are going to continue to make that decision because they know they can. Regardless of whether or not they were right in the head, it is still *wrong* to go out and shoot half a hundred innocent people. It is still wrong, and they are still responsible for choosing to do it. *It is their fault,* in the end. Yes, there are outside causes--their peers were cruel, they're numbed to violence by the media, they hear evil messages in Marilyn Manson's music, their parents did a poor job teaching them the difference between right and wrong--but in the end, the choice to pick up the gun or not is theirs. They are responsible. Not the kids who picked on them, not the society that developed schools in which kids pick on one another, not their parents or their bad potty training or the cable companies or Marilyn Manson (much as I loathe the concept of Marilyn Manson. Whole other discussion, there). Them. THEM. I'm not sure if man has always been looking for a scapegoat or if the tendency evolved from the process of looking for the reasons behind man's actions. Sometimes I think that if we all spent a little more time saying 'It's my fault'--even if it isn't--then we'd all be a lot better off. Because while blaming yourself can make you more determined not to do the same thing again, blaming someone else just makes you resent each other. What made me mad about the argument with Brett was that while he claimed to be looking for the reasons to why those kids did that, what he was doing was looking for excuses. There are reasons to get up in the morning and reasons to stay in bed, reasons to shoot yourself up with heroin and reasons to say no thanks when you're offered a cigarette. In the end, it still comes down to a choice. You keep people from making the choice by making them realise that if they make that choice they will be held accountable and they will be to blame. Maybe there's just not enough self-accountability in the world today. No, I don't know how to solve it. Probably the best way would be for all parents to make it a point of teaching their children self-accountability--don't ask me how they'd do that. But then, there's no way on earth to force every parent to do that, and no way to ensure they would succeed. And what really made me angriest about that argument was not that my friend and I disagreed, or that his reasoning seemed so faulty to me, but that at three pm that day I thought the world was a wonderful place and I loved my life, and that night at nine the entire US looked a lot like Gotham City, ugliest metropolis on earth. Small rant from me, anyhow. Zha'hai'allav'a, Raven Darkblade forgoing the long .sig ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 15:26:37 -0700 From: Lisa Whitman To: "'mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk'" Subject: RE: a new topic to talk about Message-ID: Well, this is not exactly Misty-related, but I can add my $.02 worth. The problem with the media is a combination of several things. The first and foremost problem is that the media caters to the viewer and what will get them ratings. "If it bleeds, it leads" is a common phrase among the press (at least among editors, news directors, etc.) In that vein, blaming flamboyant groups/musicians is an easy scapegoat. It is easy for the common viewing audience to see as being the cause of all problems. (Remember back with Ozzy Osborne and Judas Priest? Some things never change.) More info on the gunmen from Littleton, for those of you who have not heard it: They were not part of the Trench Coat Mafia - but were themselves semi-outcasts from that group of admitted social outcasts (who coined the term Trench Coat Mafia to keep those who would torment them in school scared of them. Good idea, if you ask me - anyone else on this list a high-school outcast? I was - it was hellish.) Also, they were not wearing trench coats, per se, but Australian Dusters (apparently the dusters covered the guns better.) Something rather disturbing tho...in Northern California, Miller's Outpost (a popular clothing store for those of you who have not heard of it) can not keep Australian Dusters in stock. They seem to be a BIG favorite of the goths of that area suddenly. I'm sorry, but I cannot understand why a group who should know that they will be watched/persecuted, albeit unfairly, would TRY to exacerbate the situation by dressing as the people who started this particular persecution in the first place. <> It seems like a slap in the face and in extremely poor taste. I'm fully in agreement with dressing as you want/listening to whatever music you want but with that freedom must come the understanding that some narrow-minded people are going to persecute you for it, no matter who you are. You should see Los Angeles (where I am) - a good number of kids are arrested/harassed for dressing like gang members whether or not they are. Anyway...this is too long as it is, and is not Misty-related...so, I'll shut up now. Star ------------------------------ End of MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 1947 **********************************