Okay, got to jump in here, and no, I'm not a Xena-phile (or whatever the
proper term is).  I simply think that it is a bit odd that people on a list
which discusses science fiction and fantasy are so quick to turn up their
noses at the show based upon its lack of faithfulness to history or myth.  In
the first place, I'm not sure that you can expect a show to be faithful to
both, IF you accept that history and myth are two separate things (that
"history" is "true" and "myth" is "fictional").  Secondly, would you make the
same critique of, say, Zelazny's reworking of various mythologies, or the
works of dozens (maybe hundreds) of other science fiction and fantasy authors
who have similarly incorporated transformed elements of mythology into their
works?  Third, I think that the show displays a distinctly postmodern
approach to narrative, refusing as it does to accept traditional hierarchies
which place "history" or even "literary history" above such traditionally
"low" forms of narrative as comic books or (gasp) pulp fantasy novels, all of
which it incorporates into a surprisingly complex narrative matrix.  After
all, Homer (if there ever really was a Homer--the jury is out) ripped off
earlier storytellers.  He just got into print (must have had a good agent).
 I could go on, but I won't bore you.  Unless of course you come to the
Southwest Popular Culture Association Conference, where I'll be giving the
whole spiel (and thank you to Eric Johnson for posting that call for
proposals last month).

Craig Jacobsen
[log in to unmask]
Tempe, AZ