I was more than a bit annoyed -- you knew this was coming -- with the question in this current poll about Shikari. (And no, I'm not voting on that question or the rest of the poll.)
I'll put on record here what I've noted on the old DC boards: Shikari, from all I've seen, is one of the few cases where the creators of a character have spoken strenuously, repeatedly, and on the public record about what they intended and carried out.
I'm sorry, this isn't a matter of character archetypes, or one of a usual slot for The Winged Chick on the Team, but one of actual artistic motivations and actions.
Anyone who insists that Shikari was not created as an independent and unique character -- with no ties to Dawnstar or anyone else -- ought to have the courage to also state the resulting and necessary conclusions about Abnett and Lanning. Which would be that they are creatively weak with their one new heroine -- and, toward those buying their work, utter, repeated liars.
Yes, this is more vehemence than a poll question normally warrants. I admit it. I bring this up not only because this issue matters to me, but also because the reasonable range of opinion about such artistic matters is often far from being infinite.
In this case, it's quite narrow. Opinions about what DnA have done mean little where they have spelled out, themselves, precisely what they have done.
You're encouraged, of course, to suggest any reasons for holding otherwise. I'd like to know what they are. I am slightly famous, or notorious, for maintaining that not every matter about art is one of mere taste or opinion. So I'll warn you, this is one matter I'm willing to go to the mat and (civilly) wrestle about.
Posted by Princess Crujectra on :
So, because you didn't like 1 out of 20 questions, you refused to finish the poll? Isn't that a little... ummm... excessive? I mean, there have been questions that I either couldn't answer or didn't care about, so I just skipped them and moved on. It seems a shame that you let one question prevent you from filling out the remainder of the poll.
And as for that particular question, I don't think of it as so much as calling DnA liars as it is asking for individual interpretations. For instance, Sensor is the reboot of Projectra. Fairly obvious, and I believe that the creators have even said so. However, there are some who cling to the hope that one day the "true" Projectra will appear, and we will find out that they are two separate individuals. Does that mean that they felt the creators were lying when they said Sensor was Projectra? No, I don't think so.
With the Shikari/Dawnstar question, I took it as "what is your individual interpretation of the debate?" Do you think that the two are similar enough that there would be no place for Dawnstar as long as Shikari's around? Or do you feel that both characters could co-exist in the Legion? Or, as far as you are concerned, are they just the same character? It's just asking for opinions, not absolute facts.
But that's just my take on the issue Posted by Dave on :
Thank you Princess for summing up my feelings so well. Posted by minesurfer on :
This is like that episode of Friends where Phoebe tells Ross that she doesn't believe in evolution and Ross spends the rest of the show trying to prove to her the facts about evoulution and its existence.
My say on the Shikari/Dawnstar matter:
I hate to come back to cliches, but the proof is in the pudding...
Until they reboot Dawnstar, and put her side by side with Shikari, (I don't care what the creators say) she could possibly be the reboot Dawnstar. If for no other reason than that the presence of Shikari is keeping Dawnstar from being re-booted. She may not be Dawnstar in form or spirit, but she is in application.
If you want me to believe otherwise, then re-boot Dawnstar... as Dawnstar or Bountystar or Dounty or Lone Dountystar. I don't care which, but once that happens, I'd be more than willing to accept Shikari as Shikari. Plus, I wouldn't mind seeing those two squabble over who has the better wings or maybe who is the better tracker... Meow.
But an adamant fan's (with obvious bias) reporting of the "facts" (which I don't dispute now, but they are certainly open to change) doesn't convince me that Shikari isn't the reboot Dawnstar.
Posted by Danny Blaine on :
I agree, if and when Dawnstar reappears, I will not look at Shikari as the one who was filled Dawny's place/role.
As it is, there are many differences between the two. There are also enough similarities that SEEM to suggest that it was intentional.
Personally, I would love to see Dawny return and Shikari go far far away. I just don't think it's in the cards...
Posted by Eryk Davis Ester on :
I don't know that there's really an answer to the question of whether such and such character is a "rebooted" version of another character.
That said, I see no reason to take Dawny and Shikari to be the same character in any way. There are similarities, yes, but there are similariaties between many characters in the Legion universe. Dawnstar and Shikari are no more similar than, say, Lazon and Quanto [that's his name, right? The guy from the Taurus gang], or Lume for that matter.
[ July 14, 2003, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Eryk Davis Ester ]
Posted by Arachne on :
Or Superboy and Mon-el.
Posted by Greybird on :
[minesurfer] {[...] (I don't care what the creators say))
Well, you're being admirably forthright. If you don't care about what the creators say, then you clearly don't care whether -- on several occasions on the DC boards, and more than once in Arune Singh's and other interviews -- they're telling the truth about their actions and motivations.
{[...] She may not be Dawnstar in form or spirit, but she is in application.}
I wasn't talking about any of those categories, but about what the creators of Shikari actually did, by their own reports.
Since you mention it, though {rueful smile} ... neither in form (morphology and body type), nor spirit (attitudes, motivations, verbal facility), nor application (pathfinding vs. tracking -- I was waiting for others to note it again, as they did on another thread) "is" she Dawnstar.
These last points, true enough, do have the evidence ranging from fairly indisputable visual stylings to interpretations of how the characters were written. It gets decided, though, for honest observers, by trying to find facts. Not by asserting, to fit this all-is-relative age, that the facts can simply change at any time, thus it's not worth bothering to do so.
So, yes, this goes beyond two comics-stories characters. I find it more entertaining, and certainly easier to keep my interest up, when bringing forward matters of facts and objectivity on an example such as this. Rather than entirely in the abstract on a philosophy mailing list -- as I also happen to do.
{[...] But an adamant fan's (with obvious bias) reporting of the "facts" (which I don't dispute now, but they are certainly open to change) doesn't convince me that Shikari isn't the reboot Dawnstar.}
Bias? Not in my selecting a source. Abnett and Lanning created Shikari. Unless they're presumed to not know their own creative impulses -- from how they've been praised among current fans, and often beyond reason, this I doubt -- they are the most reliable reporters.
Even if DnA had said they did model their new character on the earlier one, I wouldn't presume that the facts of their admitted actions were murky and vague. I'd give DnA credit for being forthright, which you apparently are not willing to do.
And whatever they did report about themselves, whether I like or approve of what they have done is immaterial. You are confusing one's estimation of the importance of an issue with one's being "biased." These are two different issues. Anyone can be objective about facts, even if one doesn't like seeing their implications ... or if one does.
Posted by Papa Smurf Lad on :
Well OBVIOUSLY their different characters. Shikari and Dawnstar hold about as much similarity as say Saturn Girl and Mentalla. But it is true that Dawnstar is unlikely to get herself an L-belt while Shikari is around. Perhaps DnA should just introduce Dawny in the new Legion Academy which is apparently debuting in Legion #25 just to put the matter to rest.
BTW, isn't this all a bit excessive? Stating that people are accusing Dan and Andy of being "utter liars" merely by having an opinion about something as insignificant as a fictional character seems more than a bit over the top to me. I'm sure Dan and Andy aren't losing any sleep over it.
Posted by Dave on :
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: I was more than a bit annoyed -- you knew this was coming -- with the question in this current poll about Shikari. (And no, I'm not voting on that question or the rest of the poll.)
I just cannot understand the level of annoyance about a single question in a poll that would cause you to forego participating in the rest of the 20 questions. This board is supposed to be fun, and a way for us to get to know each other...right. So as the Princess suggested...why not just skip the question.
Why drag your personal annoyance into another forum? Why not just comment on it in the polls thread itself?
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: I'll put on record here what I've noted on the old DC boards: Shikari, from all I've seen, is one of the few cases where the creators of a character have spoken strenuously, repeatedly, and on the public record about what they intended and carried out.
Very true. DnA have been very forward about Shikari...I still think of Shakira every time I see her name in print though..heh.
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: I'm sorry, this isn't a matter of character archetypes, or one of a usual slot for The Winged Chick on the Team, but one of actual artistic motivations and actions.
What do think their motivations were?
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: Anyone who insists that Shikari was not created as an independent and unique character -- with no ties to Dawnstar or anyone else -- ought to have the courage to also state the resulting and necessary conclusions about Abnett and Lanning. Which would be that they are creatively weak with their one new heroine -- and, toward those buying their work, utter, repeated liars.
I think you're being a little unfair here. DnA can state something over and over again till they're blue in the face, and some fans will never accrpt it as being 100% truthful. This makes neither party an utter and repeated liar. Peter David tells a story of fans who were convinced that Jean DeWolfes (forgive the typo if I spelled her name wrong) was not "real" and that she would return...even though he titled the story "The Death of Jean DeWolfe", had her shot at close range with a shotgun, had a funeral, and buried her in the comics. Mind you, this was before the over abundance of ressurected characters had hit the market.
The fans that doubted were eventually proven wrong, and Peter proven correct in his straightforwardness about the characters demise.
Should either be called liars? Should either have to retract their opinions/thoughts? No. Comic readers are generally (from what I've seen) pessemistic, and no matter what a creator says, there will be those that doubt them at their word until such time that there is irrefutable proof...and even then, some fans will still maintain that the creator is wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: Yes, this is more vehemence than a poll question normally warrants. I admit it. I bring this up not only because this issue matters to me, but also because the reasonable range of opinion about such artistic matters is often far from being infinite.
We're dealing with comic fans that have seen just about anything...been lied to before by EiC's and don't trust any creator at his/her word...and then there are those that just hope that the creators are pulling their leg...so to speak.
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: In this case, it's quite narrow. Opinions about what DnA have done mean little where they have spelled out, themselves, precisely what they have done.
See my Peter David example above. Also, read about Terra and the Teen Titans from Marv and George's perspective. All of the fans still don't buy what happened to her.
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: You're encouraged, of course, to suggest any reasons for holding otherwise. I'd like to know what they are. I am slightly famous, or notorious, for maintaining that not every matter about art is one of mere taste or opinion. So I'll warn you, this is one matter I'm willing to go to the mat and (civilly) wrestle about.
Not going to get into the art thing with you again...we'll just agree to disagree.
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: [minesurfer] {[...] (I don't care what the creators say))
Well, you're being admirably forthright. If you don't care about what the creators say, then you clearly don't care whether -- on several occasions on the DC boards, and more than once in Arune Singh's and other interviews -- they're telling the truth about their actions and motivations.
See above examples of fans responses to creators insistances that things are as they seem.
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: {[...] She may not be Dawnstar in form or spirit, but she is in application.}
I wasn't talking about any of those categories, but about what the creators of Shikari actually did, by their own reports.
Since you mention it, though {rueful smile} ... neither in form (morphology and body type), nor spirit (attitudes, motivations, verbal facility), nor application (pathfinding vs. tracking -- I was waiting for others to note it again, as they did on another thread) "is" she Dawnstar.
These last points, true enough, do have the evidence ranging from fairly indisputable visual stylings to interpretations of how the characters were written. It gets decided, though, for honest observers, by trying to find facts. Not by asserting, to fit this all-is-relative age, that the facts can simply change at any time, thus it's not worth bothering to do so.
So, yes, this goes beyond two comics-stories characters. I find it more entertaining, and certainly easier to keep my interest up, when bringing forward matters of facts and objectivity on an example such as this. Rather than entirely in the abstract on a philosophy mailing list -- as I also happen to do.
Similarities are there between the two...but there are also differences. There is also the fact that there are numerous Kwai operating with the Legion at this point.
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: {[...] But an adamant fan's (with obvious bias) reporting of the "facts" (which I don't dispute now, but they are certainly open to change) doesn't convince me that Shikari isn't the reboot Dawnstar.}
Bias? Not in my selecting a source. Abnett and Lanning created Shikari. Unless they're presumed to not know their own creative impulses -- from how they've been praised among current fans, and often beyond reason, this I doubt -- they are the most reliable reporters.
Even if DnA had said they did model their new character on the earlier one, I wouldn't presume that the facts of their admitted actions were murky and vague. I'd give DnA credit for being forthright, which you apparently are not willing to do.
And whatever they did report about themselves, whether I like or approve of what they have done is immaterial. You are confusing one's estimation of the importance of an issue with one's being "biased." These are two different issues. Anyone can be objective about facts, even if one doesn't like seeing their implications ... or if one does.
Until DnA show otherwise, I agree with their assertations that She is not a rebooted Dawnstar.
She's a character created to fill a role, and the fact that there are similarities is coincidental.
[ July 16, 2003, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: Dave ]
Posted by minesurfer on :
Greybird,
I certainly don't mean your "bias" as a bad thing. You like what you like and apparently you like it alot. I respect that.
I'll try to rephrase my point... We are talking about serial (science) fiction when we discuss whether or not Shikari is the re-boot Dawnstar. When I say I don't care about what the creators say about their creation, I mean that DnA can assert all they want that Shikari is new and totally different from Dawnstar, and they may be right.
Their wings are different, their powers are quasi-different (path finding vs. tracking), and just about everything is different... Too many details to name them all. But, they created a character with a power very similar to Dawnstar's and she just happens to have wings. Not the type of wings you like, but wings none-the-less. Now, it just so happens that the only major character not re-booted yet has similar powers and wings.
Back to the nature of serial fiction... DnA can claim all they want that Shikari is not the re-boot version of Dawnstar. All it takes is one decision by WB/DC execs and DnA could be off of the title. The new writer comes in and sees the similarities between the characters and decides that Shikari is the new Dawnstar and writes her that way. I don't see where that is too far fetched. Let's ask Wildfire's creator what he thinks. Or Blok's, or Stone Boy's, et al.
So until DnA re-boot the Dawnstar character, it doesn't matter what they say about Shikari, there are enough similarities between the two characters that Shikari can easily be assumed as the "new" Dawnstar. Hence my assertion of Dawnstar by application.
Posted by MLLASH on :
Hmmm.
Sorry, Grey, but I'm of the notion that ideas and opinions as originally stated are 100% open to change and evolution over time.
For example, I may have stated 2 years ago that someone I just met is "only a friend". However, after 2 years of hot sex and being treated like a Prince, that original statement may have evolved into something else. Doesn't mean I'm a liar.
I simply don't think DnA's years-old statements can still be 100% reliable in a "Shikari is NOT Dawnstar" scenario. I've thought this since the "Lone Star" issue of LLOST.
This -doesn't- mean, however, that I think Shikari IS Dawnstar. Far from it. In fact, I agree totally with the above statement that Dawny should go ahead and be re-intro'd into the coming LEGION ACADEMY to put the matter to rest. The sooner the better!
Posted by Eryk Davis Ester on :
I'm still not sure what it would mean for Shikari to be a reboot of Dawnstar. What really counts as evidence for or against this claim?
Posted by He Who Wanders on :
It's a frikkin' question. Reep could have asked, "Is Shikari a rebooted version of Eyeful Ethel?" and it still would have been as valid as any other question.
Grey, you go to great lengths to defend DnA's honor. Your devotion and trust in them is laudable. But it would be naive to think that creators never mislead fans in their intentions. One must bear in mind that DnA are working for DC Comics. Everything they say in interviews is geared toward selling LEGION comics and creating a favorable impression of the Legion in the media and among fans.
Thus, if TPTB had said to them, "We want you to create a new Dawnstar," they are NOT going to tell us that. Why? 1) It makes it sound as if DnA are not in charge of their own stories (which is true, but what creator wants to admit that?), and 2) it detracts from a character to call her a redone version of something else. DnA may have taken great pains to make Shikari as original as possible while fulfilling DC's hypothetical mandate to create a new Dawnstar. We'll never know the full story. But let's not pretend that everything we have been told is the complete and unvarnished truth.
Asking such a question in a fan poll (which TPTB will likely never see or care about) takes nothing away from DnA, or from Shikari.
Posted by Greybird on :
[HWW] {It's a frikkin' question. [...]}
Yes, it is. I've already admitted that it's also a hot button for me. Doesn't everyone pick something in particular to go to the (verbal) wrestling mat about, at times? This is what does it for me.
I have seen comics art and writing denigrated for too long as being derivative and imitative, or as having nothing to engage the mind and heart beyond mere adolescent fantasizing. I loathe and oppose this viewpoint, and have for years ... since I gave it up myself, as I've freely admitted.
At some point, the constant tearing-down of this art form -- and fanboys and ueber-fans can do some of the worst of this, ironically -- gets to a tipping point. Where you start screaming a bit.
For me, it's this casual casting of aspersions on DnA's honesty, in regard to two characters I care about ... yes, TWO. Everyone has a point where they can say, in regard to a larger issue, "That's enough already." This is my issue and breaking point. You each have yours, we simply haven't seen them yet -- in most cases.
{Grey, you go to great lengths to defend DnA's honor. Your devotion and trust in them is laudable. [...]}
"Devotion" isn't the right word. I haven't cared, in fact, for very many of the elements they've brought to the Legion mix -- though I've admitted all along that they can tell a serial story well. (Coipel couldn't, visually, not for a long time -- he was my sore point.)
What I admire is the admirable and candid attitude Lanning (the other guy won't talk) has shown about what they're creating and why. Perhaps it's from encountering artists and writers who don't know their own minds, and can't explain their art. Or won't. I've run into more than a few of those over the years.
As for "trust," I believe some signs of honesty come out over the longer term. Especially when a subject of an interview is allowed to ramble, as Arune Singh has done more than a few times, with DnA and others. That makes for harder going with readers, but it ends up revealing more about creators' attitudes. If this has added to such trust, well, so far for me, it's been earned by their demeanor.
{[...] if TPTB had said to them, "We want you to create a new Dawnstar," they are NOT going to tell us that. Why? It makes it sound as if DnA are not in charge of their own stories (which is true, but what creator wants to admit that?)}
It's very interesting that you use this example. In Lanning's first comments about Shikari on the old DCMBs, he reported that DnA approached the then-editor with the idea of their creation being the functional return of Dawnstar -- and the editor told them to not do so. They took up the implicit mandate to be more original.
Lanning, in other words, freely admitted what you doubt anyone would admit: that the one character he and his partner newly created was not allowed to be shaped on their original plan.
{[...] We'll never know the full story. But let's not pretend that everything we have been told is the complete and unvarnished truth.}
I'm not pretending any such thing. I simply need evidence for believing that DnA are, or would want to be, habitual liars -- in any sense other than the misdirection on the edges needed to not spoil upcoming surprises. Perhaps we don't have the same degree of cynicism about the industry and those who work in it.
{Asking such a question in a fan poll (which TPTB will likely never see or care about) takes nothing away from DnA, or from Shikari.}
True enough. It's a sign of being careless about looking at the facts, though, and that takes away from what's expected by fans from other fans. Where this is happening, I'd rather not endorse it. Where it involves characters and a story heritage I care about, I'd especially rather not do so.
Posted by DrakeB3003 on :
Maybe the better question then is: "Is Shikari the 'functional return of' Dawnstar?" Interesting that they were told not to do it, but it still seems some people feel that she "fills the role", whatever that role means to them. Maybe it's simply the similarity in powers, but for a team that had a rule against the duplication of powers, characters are largely defined by what they can do for the team.
Some people thought Inferno was a rebooted Dirk because of the code name, but that turned out to not be the case. Similarly, there's certainly room for a "Dawnstar" to be rebooted.
I think the original poll question was asking for subjective opinions based on whether or not Shikari "filled Dawnstar's role in their mind" (thus the options listed below it) rather than to ask (or imply) whether or not DnA were lying.
Comic forums are filled with speculation and interpretations on things that contradict creator's intent and comments. (i.e. that was not Hal Jordan in "Emerald Twilight!") It's part of the fun of the boards, but at the same time I understand having a sore point. Vehement fans are also part of the fun of the boards, after all .
Posted by Princess Crujectra on :
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: It's very interesting that you use this example. In Lanning's first comments about Shikari on the old DCMBs, he reported that DnA approached the then-editor with the idea of their creation being the functional return of Dawnstar -- and the editor told them to not do so. They took up the implicit mandate to be more original.
Seems to me that only proves that Shikari is more a rebooted Dawnstar than not. I mean, if their original plan was to create a character to be the rebooted Dawnstar, but by editorial mandate changed her just enough to make her different, well, doesn't that make her Dawnstar in intention if not in application?
In any case, I still don't see what the big deal is. It was just a question on a poll. Innocent enough. I really don't see any reason to elevate it into a big thing about calling the creators repeated liars. I understand that Grey feels passionate about all things Dawnstar, but sometimes its really not necessary to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Posted by He Who Wanders on :
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: [HWW] {{[...] We'll never know the full story. But let's not pretend that everything we have been told is the complete and unvarnished truth.}
I'm not pretending any such thing. I simply need evidence for believing that DnA are, or would want to be, habitual liars -- in any sense other than the misdirection on the edges needed to not spoil upcoming surprises. Perhaps we don't have the same degree of cynicism about the industry and those who work in it.
First off, I understand what you are saying about the subject of Dawny/Shikari being a hot button. And there's nothing wrong with expressing your annoyance on such matters. I think you're going overboard by announcing that you're not going to participate further in the poll (and thereby risk offending the poll-maker), but that's my opinion. Maybe I'm just annoyed that you're annoyed.
As for being cynical, I'll gladly cop to certain cynical tendencies, but I don't think that's in play here. It's just that I've worked for a corporation (which is also a media, like DC) for several years, and I know from first-hand experience that there is only so much employees, freelancers, or other representatives of the company can tell the public. No corporation wants its internal decisions made public, and therefore scrutinized by people not part of the decision-making process. DnA may very well have been instructed not to call Shikari a rebooted Dawnstar. This does not make them "habitual liars" (your term), but merely guys who want to keep their job.
I'll concede that you've read far more interviews with them than I have and you probably are in a better position to trust what they have to say, though.
Posted by Greybird on :
[Princess Crujectra] {[...] if their original plan was to create a character to be the rebooted Dawnstar, but by editorial mandate changed her just enough to make her different, well, doesn't that make her Dawnstar in intention if not in application?}
Lanning didn't say that "just enough" was done. Far from it. He alluded to a far more extensive remodeling of their original intention.
His implication -- and I'll admit that this was the tone that I perceived from the interview -- was that the original notion (reviving Dawnstar, more or less) was floated because reworking an earlier character might have been more acceptable to editors and management than their going to the trouble to create a wholly new one. Or so they thought. They were being cautious in what they proposed.
Mike McAvennie told them, in effect, to go ahead and be more original in their conceptions. DnA clearly felt (as I read Lanning's comments) that this was much more room to be creative than they had anticipated for "Legion Lost," and that they were glad to take it and run with it.
{[...] I really don't see any reason to elevate it into a big thing about calling the creators repeated liars.}
Well, it's hardly the first time this has been implied about them, or that I've complained publicly about it. It goes back to Shikari's first appearance.
Other treatments of this get far more under my skin, frankly. One of them is Chaim Keller's Legion.hlp file, which simply indexes Shikari under "Dawnstar (New Version)" -- that is, reboot version.
Keller has freely admitted, though, that his conceptions of what the characters are about are what matter for his project, any and all creator testimony be damned. That, to me, endangers the reference value of Keller's own work. It's not the first time a headstrong or fanboyish tendency has done so, however.
{[...] sometimes it's really not necessary to make a mountain out of a molehill.}
Let's see, how is it conjugated? My passion, your preoccupation, his obsession? {rueful smile}
A strong interest about a particular element is what can keep our broader interests alive. Here, for me, in the whole Legion legacy. I'd say that while this is hardly "necessary" for being a fan, such passion shouldn't be discouraged.
Posted by Greybird on :
[HWW] {[...] I think you're going overboard by announcing that you're not going to participate further in the poll (and thereby risk offending the poll-maker), but that's my opinion. Maybe I'm just annoyed that you're annoyed. :) :)}
Eh ... you're probably right, I was overreacting in that sense. The poll didn't deserve my being that annoyed.
I suppose I was showing another long-standing take of mine on the larger subject. Which is that polling can be entertaining or enlightening, but rarely should be taken as a guide to "truth." Far too many people treat opinion polls that way, especially out in the Real World.
I can't do much about, say, what Gallup does, or how its work is used and abused in politics. Legion World, though? That's another story {g}
I have nothing against polls as such, by the way. Treating them as data-mining, though, or being careless about the assumptions behind questions -- that's what bothers me, and always has.
Posted by Princess Crujectra on :
Perhaps, but it's been my experience that the more repeatedly and vehemently you say the same thing, the more likely other people are to disregard what you're saying.
Posted by minesurfer on :
So.... We all agree.
Shikari is the new Dawnstar. (rueful smile)
Posted by Greybird on :
I realize now that I overreacted to the presence of the question about Shikari. (Which question's assumption, in regard to DnA, I still vigorously dispute.) This was being unfair to Reep, wherein I tender regrets.
I have voted in the poll. The UBB software won't let me omit an answer to that question 7, however, which calls for one radio-button choice. That, to me, is the first genuine shortcoming I've encountered in this UBB version, as such a response should not be required, nor omitting one seen as an error. (It's also inconsistent, in that multiple-response questions don't require making the full number of choices called for -- as they should not.)
So I chose the only alternative I consider to be at all reasonable (or fair to DnA): No, she is not a rebooted Dawnstar, and "Shikari's and Dawnstar's characters and roles are different, there is no connection between them."
(Also posted in the poll's thread. A thank-you goes to all who responded in this one.)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)