HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cliff@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Cliff Chen)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp
Subject: Re: Going to Extremes
Date: 5 Jan 93 22:57:01 GMT
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore

In article <1993Jan5.211625.10381@leland.Stanford.EDU> H. Nunes <hwnunes@leland.stanford.edu> writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.064223.19282@hubcap.clemson.edu> Joe Chung,
>jchung@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
>>Sorry for the non-"Northern Exposure" show but I just had to ask:
>>
>>1) What do you think of this show, produced by the same folks that
>>produce "Northern Exposure"?
>
>The show started out strong, then went completely in the dumper, but then
>there were two very strong episodes back to back... the christmas episode
>was pretty good, also.  But I have officially stopped taping the show
>because overall, I don't care much for it, and with the shows REALLY low
>rating following 'Rosanne' and the 'Jackie Thomas Show,' it has been
>moved to Wednesday and will be canceled (unless Brand/Falsey have some
>special deal we don't know about).

	I have to disagree.  The show started out rather poorly, which is
why so many Falsey & Brand fans gave up on it.  But the show has definitely
taken an upward trend and I have to say that the GTX Christmas episode is
easily comparable with some of the better NEXP episodes.
	The show began trying too hard to be another NEXP.  And that was
unfortunate because Charlie and Alex are not Joel and Kathleen is not
Maggie.  For a time I was drawing lots of parallels between the shows:
Charlie/Alex as Joel, Kathleen as Maggie, Henry Croft as Maurice, and many
more.  But they are finally developing aside from their NEXP-ness.  They
are much more interesting characters (perhaps that is only because I know
the Cicelians so well and am just getting to understand the Jantiquans).
	But I strongly think that people who like Falsey & Brand and gave
up on this show early on, should tune in now, as the show has improved
considerably.
	One disadvantage GTX has is that it is not as easy to just turn on
and be absorbed by the characters, like NEXP.  The problem is that with GTX
you have to have seen the previous episodes in order the fully understand
the characters motivations.
	It would be a shame if the show was cancelled, especially when the
first sexual tension relationship is just beginning to form
(Kathleen/Colin).

						Cliff Chen
						cliff@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp
From: rice@nosc.mil (Joe Rice)
Subject: Re: Adam & Eve
Reply-To: rice@nosc.mil
Organization: NCCOSC, NRaD Division
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:49:01 GMT

> >>Where are Adam and Eve?
> 
> >Last I heard Arkin was in a successful Broadway production, keeping him
> >too busy to work on NE.
> 
> And Eve has been playing some Senator's daughter on NBC -- John Forsythe
> (Blake Carrington) has a new show about being a goof-ball senator, and she
> plays his daughter.
> -- 
And don't miss Eve as Wayne's forlornly distracted teenage ex-girlfriend in 
_Wayne's World_ (the movie).

Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp
From: rwalls@twg.com (Roger Walls)
Subject: Re: January 4th Episode
Organization: The Wollongong Group, Palo Alto, CA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:30:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.203820.20183@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pwy6d@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (Phil Yarrington (SG)) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.135253.7928@sei.cmu.edu> bjz@sei.cmu.edu (Barbara Zayas) writes:
>>
>>In article <rizzoe.616.726244287@FASECON.ECON.NYU.EDU>, rizzoe@FASECON.ECON.NYU.EDU (Emily Rizzo) writes:
>                    <stuff deleted>
>I was not at all surprised by what Maurice said last night given the
>history of his character.  I also agree that there are bigots in the
>world that are full of un-substantiated hate toward other races.  I
>don't get this impression from Maurice, however.  The impression I get
>from him is that he is afraid of anyone different from himself, and
>his fear and insecurity comes out as racial slurs.  When he was
>talking to Chris' brother, Bernard a few weeks back, I didn't sense
>any hatred, but he certainly made a few racist remarks.  A hate-filled
>bigot would really be pushing for seperation from all of
>the native americans that are in Cicely, don't you think.  What I am a
>little disappointed in, however, is that Maurices bigotry doesn't seem
>to have improved at all after his discovering he had a half-japanese
>(or was it korean) son.  Don't you think an experience like that would
>change a person?  Just a little bit?
>
>anyway, that's my $.02, for whatever its worth.
>
>-phil

Maurice's character is a bigot, but he is not a seperate, hate everyone
not of my skin color/race/religion bigot. His character is more of the
kind of bigot who buys into the stereotypes. He got Joel not just because
he was a doctor, but a New York Jewish doctor. His comments on the gay couple
was "Farries are perfect for this kind of work, they have the upper body
strength for the tough work, but the softness to not break the fragile
items" (the precediding comment is paraphrased from memory). These comments
help to form Maurice's character much like Archie Bunker from All In The
Family was formed. A bigot whose comments are from the time and area they
were raised and not from any real viciousness at the offended parties.
He probably believes that black people are faster runners, mexicans are
better produce pickers, irish are drunks, etc. Maurice is just an "All-
American" boy of the 40s when people believed all the streotypes about
other races.

Just my humble opinion and another view on the situation

Jolly Roger
From: jld7@jaguar.uofs.edu
Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp
Subject: RE:1/4 episode (RE: post 2092)
Date: 11 Jan 93 01:35:02 GMT
Organization: University of Scranton

Hi!  It's been a while since I last posted and it's good to be back. :) (There
was something wrong with the NEWS feature here at my school.)
I read post 2092, and I'm sorry that I'm not advanced enough in my knowledge of
how to use the net to include a previous post in my own, but I wanted to
respond to it anyway.  (Perhaps some kind soul could email the instructions to
me???? :) )
Anyway, what I wanted to say in response to Jules' question "Does anyone out
there agree with me?" in reference to saying that it would be good for future
civilizations to learn from excavating what will become our artifacts is that I
do agree with him.  As countless history teachers have told me, and others out
there, I'm sure, if we fail to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.
(Or words to that effect.)  Future generations will have to learn from the
mistakes of the one that currently controls the nation now.  For me now, it is
my grandparents' generation, and just think that in a couple weeks, power will
transfer to my parents'.  True, Bill probably won't do any excavating on the
White House lawn, but the analogy is there;  he has to learn what 12 years of
Republican rule has done to society and pick up the pieces to repair what's
wrong.  
Perhaps I'm being too liberal in my interpretation, or just a die - hard
liberal at heart, but I think that this would be something interesting to
consider, especially since the inauguration is only a short time away.  Isn't
it strange that this came on now, or am I really reading too much into it?

Just my $0.02,
		Jennifer
Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp
From: pholland@iastate.edu (Paul J Hollander)
Subject: Re: 1/4 episode: YUCK
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:14:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.175208.16377@mlb.semi.harris.com> mwp@ms9.mis.semi.harris.com writes:
>
>I didn't like last nights episode either...
>Maggie was out of control, much more so that her normal self.
>I can understand her desire to put the artifacts back and
>make her point about women being more that what men think
>they are, but she was too wacko about the whole thing.
>Both Joel and Chris agreed with what she was doing yet she
>bit their heads off.  I didn't understand why she had such rage.
>
>...and....
>
>get rid of the bubble boy.

Maybe she needed to psych herself up to throw Maurice and his excavation 
crew out.  If she had been sweetly reasonable, M would still be digging.

I do not understand her desire to put the artifacts back.  It just
leaves another part of "herstory" buried and untold.  After all, who made
the bowl, cradle board, etc?  IMHO, some woman.

Paul Hollander    pholland@iastate.edu
Behold the tortoise: he makes no progress unless he sticks his neck out.


Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp
From: nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel)
Subject: Re: Holling sings
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:19:40 GMT

In article <93006.093039CLINDSAY@vma.cc.nd.edu> <CLINDSAY@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
>I bet he has a long list of stage credits
>(anyone out there know).  More singing, more singing!

John Cullum's first musical role on Broadway was in Camelot.  He was an
understudy and played Arthur for a handful of performances.  He later took
over the part of Mordred.  Since he wasn't in the original cast, his
performance isn't recorded.

His first lead musical role was in On a Clear Day You Can See Forever.  It's
amazing looking at the photos how young he looks.  Incidentally, you can
also hear William Daniels (Dr. Craig from St. Elsewhere among other parts)
on the cast album.  Note that the song "Come Back to Me," sung by Cullum,
was quite popular at the time.

To hear him in 1776, you have to listen to the movie soundtrack.  He
did play Rutland on Broadway but took over the part from another actor.
(William Daniels shows up again as John Adams.)  "Molasses to Rum to Slaves"
is his only musical number and it's the best musical performance of the
movie.  Of course, 1776 is one of the rare hit musicals in which the book
is much much better than the score, so it's acting ability that counts.

Shenandoah has also been mentioned already.  Cullum's singing is fine, but
the musical is not one of my favorites.  It's one of those which is
incomprehensible from the cast album and, though I've read the book, it
just doesn't strike my fancy.

The last Broadway musical that Cullum had the lead in was On the Twentieth
Century.  This has one of Cy Coleman's best scores and Cullum, as the
lead, has a couple of magnificent songs.  The sneering of "I Rise Again"
and the bitter irony of "The Legacy" are not to be missed.  Cullum won
a Tony for that performance.  The female lead was Madeline Kahn, whose
singing is somewhat weaker.  Kevin Kline played Cullum's rival and won
a Tony as best supporting actor.

Cullum has also done a lot of nonmusical theatre over the years.  I remember
him in Deathtrap, for example.  I don't think he's done much film work.
I think of him as primarily a Broadway actor.

Miriam Nadel

Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Historical accuracy of Maggie's claims?
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:28:24 GMT

In article <forb0004.194.726780248@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis ) writes:

>Watch the damned episode before making public comments about my masculinity, 
>please. 

Why?  What did the Cicely and Roslyn episode of NORTHERN EXPOSURE have
to say about your masculinity?

>This was no positive statement about women, strong or otherwise, just many
>generalized abusive statements about men.

Only the most juvenile, self-absorbed type of man could possibly
derive such a message from this show.  Perhaps if you assume that
*everything* that is said must pander to men and masculinity, you
could arrive at a conclusion like this one, but not otherwise.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp
From: Gordon_Wong@mindlink.bc.ca (Gordon Wong)
Subject: NEXP (1/11): When Did You Know the Monk Was A Woman?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:58:11 GMT

When brother Simon wouldn't eat with the rest of them, I thought brother
Simon was a woman. When brother Simon shrouded his/her face when he/she
walked down the hall, I was sure at that point that he/she was a woman.

Was it that much of a giveaway? Or did viewers only figure that out when
brother Simon lowered his/her hood?

Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp
From: pwjarman@cc.utah.edu (PARRY W. JARMAN)
Subject: Re: Continuity from last week's episode
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: 12 Jan 1993 14:51 MST  

In article <1iv4c4INN933@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, angelelj@ucs.orst.edu (Joseph Angelelli) writes...
{		The Chris storyline seemed to be a way of bridging the
{	gap that was created by Maggie vs. men last week.  His final
{	comments provided continuity from the reburial scene by cutting
{	beneath the group behavior of men toward women, showing that 
{	underneath it all men think of women as the most important  
{	element of life itself.  It was a much more pleasant assessment
{	of men/women relationships than last week's.  Do you think the
{	writers might have used last week as a set up episode to show
{	the extremes, thus making this week's episode seem all the more
{	profound?   Just my .02 			

 And have another idea to throw out. Isn't
it significant one of the central  players in last week's show was
Maggie and a significant player in this week's show was Joel.
Both are suffering from unfulfilled lives--we had analysis of both
characters back to back.  What does THAT say?

I think the poster who said Brother Simon was Chris' other half
<anima, I believe was the word> was on to something. And how about
this--Joel's Tree <his life> had no shadow, because he had not faced
his own nothingness or sought to understand the meaning of his existence.
Chris sought the meaning of his existence and came face to face with his
shadow--

Add my .02 to the lot and you have .04--
HCJ
{   
{      
{	            
{ 
Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp
From: H. Nunes <hwnunes@leland.stanford.edu>
Subject: 1/11 Episode "Revelations"
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A777A903AA0100F0@naranja-pc-175.stanford.edu>
X-Xxdate: Mon, 11 Jan 93 22:45:23 GMT
Organization: CaveMakers, Inc.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d17
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 06:45:08 GMT

Finally, a solid NX episode.  Really, nothing to complain about, however,
there isn't nothing to discuss/debate about either.  Now for some
thoughts:

! I was waiting for them to do an episode where Joel finally runs out of
patients (I know, bad pun, but its the truth).

! Were Janine Turner and John Cullum (Maggie & Holling) doing another
"Quantum Leap" episode?

! I guess Chris is officially the coolest guy on TV, riding to a
monastery on a hog.  What was that 20's term he used in that last Isuzu
ad?  Yawser (yow' za)?

! Joel does need a hair cut.

! The way Maurice went about trying to get the store back was foolish. 
He should have Bernard casually talk to Ruth-Ann during lunch or
something, why her deal was a foolish one... lets see how much freedom is
really worth to her.  That $350 fine was a low blow, very unlike Maurice 
:)

! Do you think NX glamorized Monastary life in this episode?

! Marilyn:  Paper clips, blue, and beige.  Is it just me or is this
Marilyn/Joel schtick getting very old?  Although I can never get enough
of the fact that "we only have one line."

! Yes, even I thought about it when Joel and Bernard were talking for the
first time.  How could they ever use the phrase "come again" with a
straight face again?

! What really shocked my about the whole Chris and Simon thing was the
fact that Simon DID turn out to be a woman.  It was so predictable, I
didn't think they would take that route, then again, it was pretty much
their only choice.  Any ideas why they decided to make her name Chris? 
Was it just to get that Twilight Zone effect?

! First and only gripe-- the reuse of footage used in the episode
"Dateline:  Cicely" in the ending montage (the mom reading the newspaper
with her daughter) is probably worst than using the trebuchet a second
time... for me, anyway.

! Hmm, "Parent Trap."  Seems like they took the low road with Ed, but it
worked and the "don't forget to rewind the tape" line was very amusing. 
And as I remember it, there was nothing wrong with Ed's appetite.

! At least Joel didn't change at the end, as demonstrated with his
diagnostic rampage with Bernard.  Eve would of been proud.  It wasn't
like the embarrassing moment in "The Body In Question" were he thinks
he's changing, when he wasn't.

! Any prognosis on the return of Adam & Eve?  A local TV writer says that
January was the target air date.  The "Powers That Be" has been canceled,
and Adam Arkin is directing NX episodes.

! I really like Bernard (who doesn't?), but they really need to
find/write better reasons for him being in Cicely so much lately.

! A very, very, very good episode.  Solid, with no real complaints.
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:27:46 GMT
Subject: Re: Was it 849?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp

In alt.tv.northern-exp, H. Nunes <hwnunes@leland.stanford.edu> writes:

> 
> I really don't know why Maggie, the women of NX for that matter, were so
> caught up in their revisionist thinking and angst, with Maggie in the
> main role as the Christine de Pizan of the great northwest.  I understood
> that story line, and the reasons why they acted that way, but the whole
> thing was taken too far, even for NX.

I don't think there was anything particularly revisionist about it.
The fact is that there are many bold and noble women throughout
history.  She merely mentioned a few.

> 
> As for the wolf thing?  Well, taken in the context of the show, it went
> way over my head.  If someone could explain the purpose of the wolf,
> please do.  I thought it was more man hating, but it wasn't that clear. 

No, it showed her vulnerability.

> The wolf (played by Robert Nadir) seemed to have the same purpose in this
> episode as Adam had in "Roots."  Their role was simply to screw with
> Maggie psychologically, making her do something rash.

Essentially this is what happened, but people often have extreme
reactions in an effort to deny their vulnerabilities.

> 
> Is it coincidence or not?  When Monday Night Football is not on, NX is
> the number one network show watched by men between the ages of 25-49.  So
> what is the first episode aired right after MNF's season ends, this one.

Don't take it so personally.  

doug
Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp
From: mas@porgy.jpl.nasa.gov (Marc A. Sarrel)
Subject: Re: Was it 849?
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
	<1993Jan5.204320.8992@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:00:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.204320.8992@leland.Stanford.EDU> H. Nunes <hwnunes@leland.stanford.edu> writes:

   As for the wolf thing?  Well, taken in the context of the show, it went
   way over my head.  If someone could explain the purpose of the wolf,
   please do.  I thought it was more man hating, but it wasn't that clear. 
   The wolf (played by Robert Nadir) seemed to have the same purpose in this
   episode as Adam had in "Roots."  Their role was simply to screw with
   Maggie psychologically, making her do something rash.

#define POP_PSYCH_MODE

Well, as I saw it, the Wolf was very Freudian.  Not only that, but
very patronizing and demeaning as well.  (Some people would consider
those two statements redundant.)  I think the dream was what finally
motivated Maggie to rebury the artifacts.  The wolf represented
everything she disliked about men.  Notice how the wolf talked to her
as a child and, at the end, took the basket away.  I don't mean to
misquote or misparaphrase anyone, but I believe that some feminists
consider Freud to have been very sexist.

#undefine POP_PSYCH_MODE

Overall, I liked the episode, even though it induldged in some male
bashing.  I think the fact that it was exagerated and made a bit silly
kept it pallatable and interesting.  And, as always, Maggie took
things a little beyond...

--marc
Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp
From: lwv26@cas.org (Larry W. Virden)
Subject: New voice on car commercial?
Reply-To: lvirden@cas.org (Larry W. Virden)
Organization: Nedriv Software and Shoe Shiners, Uninc.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 12:26:31 GMT

Okay, in the past, Barry did a commercial for some car - I forget who.
Janine of course is doing the series now.  Last nite I caught the last
5 or 10 seconds of a new Isuzu commercial and it sure SOUNDED like Chris
in the morning...  Anyone know for certain?
-- 
Larry W. Virden                 UUCP: osu-cis!chemabs!lvirden
Same Mbox: BITNET: lvirden@cas  INET: lvirden@cas.org
Personal: 674 Falls Place,   Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-1614
Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp
From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Subject: Re: Who Was The Big Bad Wolf?
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:24:03 GMT

peterbi@microsoft.com (Peter Biddle) writes:

>I KNOW that voice--I just can't place it.  Anybody catch who it
>was and what they have done before?

Wasn't it the darker-haired of the gay couple?  Sorry, can't recall
his name.
-- 
	"You can't get here from here."
Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp
From: cbsmith@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Chris Smith)
Subject: Re: Historical accuracy of Maggie's claims?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:51:31 GMT

"It was sexism, pure and simple. I know of a good many men who were very 
offended by Maggie's backhanded swipes at the entire gender; if this was 
supposed to be irony or parody, they would have accomplished the same with 
race by references to "niggers", etc.. Lousy episode. Considering their 
founding sequence where lesbians were glorified and men were portrayed as 
emotional cripples by nature, I'm not too surprised. Welcome to feminism in 
action."
-- 

I think you missed the point of what Maggie was doing. I didn't see anywhere where the show was *necessarily* justifying her actions. I mean, take a look at how they portrayed her overracting to Joel. I was talking to a female friend of mine about this and she said she understood exactly what they were showing. She said that every now and then there is one example of sexism that shows up that you just say, "No way! I'm not putting up with that anymore1" when that happens, she says she gets really mad in ge




neral and is likely to strike out at anyone for anything. Then, all of a sudden it all goes away again. The only that bothers her is that the feeling that she's not going to put up with that orginal example of sexism tends to go away as well, and she feels like she's wimping out.

I think in a lot of ways that's what happened with Maggie. I don't blame her one bit for being mad about Maurice, although I think he would have done the same thing with a man, just different tactics maybe. Anyway, once she was mad there was no turning back. There's no question that at some point she was overshooting logic. I imagine this happens to any minority at one point or another.

--Bo ("the One who Knows")
From: wegeng@xerox.com (Don Wegeng)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.northern-exp
Subject: Re: 1/4 episode: YUCK
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:02:23 GMT
Reply-To: wegeng@xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corp., Henrietta, NY

In article 050193090709@mm-mac19.mse.uiuc.edu, revillot@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Judy Tolliver) writes:
>Do the writers hate environmentalists and feminists?  I found last night's
>episode to be insulting.  It did not come across to me as tongue in cheek
>or ironic at all.

Hmm... I'm an environmentalist and a feminist (as much as a man
can be), and I didn't take offense at this episode.  I took it to be satire,
and I have no problem laughing at myself.  I also laughed at the
end of the show, when the group of men were standing out in the open,
watching the women (which some might take to be very insulting to
men).

Of course, I rarely take Northern Exposure very seriously.  Most of the
charactors play stereotype roles (though with interesting twists) that
are in the whole pretty unbelieveable.  I do ask that the characters be
consistant within their personalities, but I don't expect them to be real.

/Don
wegeng.henr801c@xerox.com