August 2001 posts
Shooting script site latest FOX victim -- Masquerade, 14:44:26
08/13/01 Mon
Hi all,
Well, I got the e-mail that I'd been dreading getting ever since
I started the site. The Fox lawyers have ordered me to remove
the scripts. So I complied. There was no use fighting it because
I knew that what I was doing wasn't exactly legal.
So the The Buffy Shooting Script Site is gone. (I put up a farewell
not and explanation at http://www.mustreadtv.com/buffyscripts
)
If you're on this list, don't rush to unsub - because I might
occassionally post a tidbit or two from the scripts.
It's really been a pleasure.
Rayne
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Ooohhhhh, damn it :( -- AK-UK, 15:19:51 08/13/01 Mon
I can't believe it. I NEED that site! Reading those scripts....sometimes
it was BETTER than watching the episodes (and, living in the UK,
it meant I didn't have to wait for months to "get" the
latest episodes).
This sucks :(
Hey, I have a little legal knowledge, and whilst I'm not fully
up to date on US copyright law, I'm suprised to hear you say that
the site wasn't exactly legal. What laws would you be breaking?
It was a non-profit website, and the published scripts had been
taken down......surely you have some defence under "fair
use"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I'm no lawyer... -- Cactus Watcher, 16:21:01 08/13/01
Mon
but I know profit isn't an issue. You can't reproduce books, articles,
scripts, etc. for distribution without permission of the copyright
holder, period. Quoting copyrighted material is fair game, but
not copying whole works or even substantial chunks of works. Back
many years ago universities in this country (USA) got in trouble
for xeroxing virtually unattainable books from abroad. The reason
the rules have been loose on the internet is the fact that the
net crosses international boundries, and the governments have
been loath to step on each others' toes. Now that jurisdiction
is being sorted out, look for a lot more of this. It's a shame,
but that's the way it will be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Anyone here a lawyer (Cleanthes... Anthony8
sorta??) -- Masquerade, 17:02:18 08/13/01 Mon
I'm not very worried about my site (pause to knock on virtual
wood), but I am concerned about theslayershow.com where I get
all my pics for my site now. Would this be considered copyright-protected
material, or alternatively, a violation of using copies of a t.v.
show for personal home use only?
Not to mention psyches' transcripts!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> My understanding of US copyright law --
AK-UK, 18:08:02 08/13/01 Mon
Ok, I'm ready to get shot down in flames, but from what I remember....
Distributing copyrighted material isn't inherently copyright infringement.
Courts will look at:
The pupose and use of the distributed material (are they doing
it for educational puposes, like this site) and the commercial
aspects of the distribution (getting money from copyrighted material
is a big no-no)
How much of the copyrighted material is being distributed (generally
speaking, using a small percentage, like a paragraph or a screenshot,
will be ok)
The commercial impact of distributing copyrighted material: i.e.
Will your actions result in the copyright holder losing income?
(which is arguably the case with the shooting script site).
Has permission (explicit or implied) been given by the copyright
holder to distribute said material?
I haven't been to theslayershow.com, but I'd suspect that limited
screenshots would be considered fair use (as long as they don't
charge you for downloading them).
Pysche's transcript site would also (I suspect) be ok, because
of it's non-commercial nature.
However, I'm not a US copyright expert -- and there's nothing
to stop FOX getting it's lawyers to use bully tactics even if
the website owner isn't breaking the law. I suspect there aren't
too many people who would risk standing up to a multi-billion
dollar corporation......although I seem to remember a something
along these lines happening to various X-Files fan sites. If I
remember correctly a lot of them simply ignored the threats.
Hmmmm.....further investigation seems to be called for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Berne Convention -- Solitude1056,
18:26:29 08/13/01 Mon
Technically, US copyright law is fundamentally the same as international
copyright law, due to the Berne Convention Treaty. The real issue
with the internet usage is whether the copyright holder can show
a loss of income. Given the intentions to continue publishing
the scripts for BtVS, it's possible that Fox would use this as
a basis, and thus step around the usual "personal use"
issue.
However, it seems a little odd, since most fanfic, and fan-related
sites (such as screen shots, publicity stills, quotage, and transcripts)
have been shown to create more income for the copyright holder,
and not reduce it. That's because it feeds the fans, who then
want more, of which some part of what they get/buy/use is something
profitable for the copyright holder. In the case of some of the
other major fan-related sites (Hercules, X-Files, etc), I've come
across commentary from the producer, director, or creator of the
show that knocking down fan pages in fact reduces the show's profitability
because the fans get offended and react accordingly.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. FOX, like its counterparts
at NBC, CBS, and the like, may not get this minor but crucial
element... but I think Joss and his writers do, since they were
the ones distributing the bleedin' scripts in the first place.
Unfortunately, it's all work-for-hire, which means none of those
scriptwriters has even the minutest say as to the use of their
scripts. Even Joss doesn't hold the copyrights on everything.
Bummer, too.
However, I doubt Psyche's site will go down, unless the owner's
easily unnerved. While Denmark is a participating country in the
Berne Convention (I think, not all EU are), that doesn't necessarily
mean that Denmark's going to automatically enforce some lawyer's
request. Denmark would, however, enforce the withdrawal of the
webpage based on a court order, and frankly that means money,
time, and effort on the part of FOX. Ok, so maybe the legal department
at FOX has nothing better to do this summer, but then again, it's
not like anyone's going to track down the Psyche site owner and
extradite him/her to the US... and it's certainly not like FOX
can get any money out of him, anymore than they could out of Rayne.
So it's likely that when they find the Psyche site, it may get
a letter. But if I owned that site, I'd sit tight and wait until
I hear more. Denmark's a long way away for the FOX legal department
to be able to justify stretching their arms to strangle blood
from a turnip.
So, in that sense, I wouldn't stress about images, either. As
long as you're not posting the video in full, they can't claim
that you're causing loss of income. As a matter of fact, one could
always argue (as have many fans before us) that our usage in fact
leads to more income for them. Courts aren't stupid, they pay
attention to the counter-arguments... and the fan-related argument
of "limited usage without malicious intent or financial harm"
does hold water.
I'm a photographer, not a video person, but the copyright laws
are (for the most part) pretty analogous across the various mediums.
On the other hand, I could be just blowing smoke outta my...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Berne Convention -- Rufus,
18:59:28 08/13/01 Mon
Tell me is this is so...the transcripts of the Closed caption
are available, so what would the difference between that and Psyche's
transcripts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Uh... I dunno, honestly.
-- Solitude1056, 20:37:10 08/13/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Just when I think I'm out, they pull me
back in ;-) -- Anthony8, 00:15:43 08/14/01 Tue
Just let me disclaim that my venture into the world of law was
one of the most unhappy times of my life, so these days I am a
faithful practioner of selective amnesia when it comes to dispensing
any information that might be a product of my legal education.
You really want someone who is actively practicing to advise you
on these issues. Also, I received my legal education before the
advent of the World Wide Web, so what I know with respect to Fair
Use of copyrighted material is probably substantially less than
your average layperson who is Net savvy.
I consider myself a musician these days (actually, I was always
a musician, but bad choices in my youth led me down an evil side
path--I've played my own version of Lindsay in couple of Wolfram
and Hart-like firms) and the only reason I venture into the belly
of the legal beast these days is because legal temp jobs pay substantially
more than any other 9-5 work for which I am qualified. I have
worked for more than my share of Holling Manners, so every time
I finish an assignment, I'm relieved to escape the building still
in possession of my soul.
That having been said, I'll just put it this way--when it comes
to Fair Use on the Internet, there simply are no hard and fast
rules except that if you receive a Cease and Desist letter, the
game's over for all intents and purposes unless you have the resources
and daring to attempt to make new law by testing it in the courts.
The fact that we could make any number of decent arguments (or
for that matter even be 100% in the right)regarding Fair Use is
all fine and nice in this forum, but just having a good argument
won't cut it when litigation ensues.
In most cases, the suits don't go after the little guy unless
they feel that they are being deprived of an income source as
a result of the alleged infringement. On the other hand, there
are quite a few lawyers out there who have to make it look like
they are doing real work in order to justify their obscene salaries,
so there you have it. About a decade ago, Coca-Cola sued a local
SF mom & pop diner for trademark infringement because the diner
did not inform its customers that it was serving Pepsi when asked
for a generic 'coke.' And from that day forward, when you ask
for a 'coke,' a server must ask you "is Pepsi okay"
if that is the only cola they serve.
Given the money making potential of commercially published script
books, it's not too surprising they went after the shooting script
site. I wouldn't be surprised if they go after the Psyche Transcript
site next, even if it does reside on a foreign server.
Sol's post was right on the mark. What we do here, and on most
fan sites, enhances the value of Fox's property and keeps their
suits in nice homes and Bimmers. Without us, "they're pretty
much watching 'Masterpiece Theatre' to quote the lithe blonde
one. These bean counters who run the entertainment industry never
quite grasped the concept of symbiosis. It eluded them when it
came to home taping 25 years ago, and VCRs in the early 80's and
it continues to this day with respect to Napster (although I'm
extremely ambivalent about Napster) and recordable DVD. They screw
the artists and they screw the customers. And yet they provide
no real value of their own. Nature couldn't have designed more
perfect parasites. There was a great book on the subject called
"Hit Men" that I would recomment highly if it is still
in print.
I wish I could be more helpful, but the last thing I would ever
want to do is dispense bad advice. If it were me, I'd just play
it by ear and not worry too much for the time being. Unless you
are independently wealthy, there's probably no point in fighting
it either. Once again, you should consult a specialist if any
legal action beyond a Cease and Desist letter seems likely to
occur. If you're interested in learning more about copyright infringement,
Fair Use and the Internet I found a couple of sites that offer
some decent general info:
http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm
and
http://fairuse.stanford,edu/
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Just when I think I'm out, they
pull me back in ;-) -- Cleanthes, 07:07:35 08/14/01 Tue
I agree with all this.
Leaving aside that these small siteowners couldn't afford the
legal fees, but looking only at the chances at trial, I'd feel
good working on the defendant's side in most of these cases where
the copyright holder is trying to shut down a site -- because,
what are the copyright holder's *damages*? In most cases, the
copyright holder uses some strongarm tactics in the first instance
to try to shut down the site. Bingo -- no equitable remedies available
when it all comes to trial because of the clean hands doctrine.
So, that leaves only the legal remedy of damages and the infringer
gets to offset any damages with *gains* - for example, Masquerade
here is almost certainly providing a greater value in free publicity
than any loss in "revenue" from ... well ... what exactly?
The shooting script site though is putting up something that could
(or is?) sold. I used to buy Xena shooting scripts from Creation,
but I haven't bought Buffy scripts. Are they also offered for
sale? If so, it's much easier to see how the copyright holder
could show damages
Someday this issue will make it through the courts. I predict
the infringer will win damages from the copyright holder because
once a suit is filed, the infringer can counterclaim. Wouldn't
that be sweet?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just when I think I'm
out, they pull me back in ;-) -- Solitude1056, 08:43:37 08/14/01
Tue
The shooting script site though is putting up something that could
(or is?) sold. I used to buy Xena shooting scripts from Creation,
but I haven't bought Buffy scripts. Are they also offered for
sale? If so, it's much easier to see how the copyright holder
could show damages.
Actually, they might... but then again, Rayne could also demonstrate
strong diligence in that she does not post published scripts that
can be purchased in book-format from the copyright holders. If
you wanted season 1 scripts, she had a link to Amazon, and to
Psyche. Her site didn't carry them. When word got out that Season
2 was going to be published, she posted a note that she'd be removing
all season 2 scripts shortly. Given her insistence on this, I
find it especially irritating that FOX chose her to be the latest
shutdown.
Personally, I'd think in court her diligence would count for something,
that she recognized that her site would be in direct competition
then with the copyright holder and thus did not post all scripts.
On top of that, her scripts are invariably the original form,
lacking many of the later edits that result in the final version.
As far as I know, the copyright on the final script may be held
by FOX, but I dunno about the rough drafts. That's a wierd area,
anyway - I hold copyrights on all my negatives, regardless of
whether the client purchases licensing rights on all or only one.
I have no idea whether that's analogous to Big Mega Teevee Corp.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> What peeves me... --
Masq, 09:03:23 08/14/01 Tue
Is that Rayne always got her scripts up within days of the episode
airing. Psyche's helpers take longer. It was really helpful in
doing my episode analyses not to have to play, pause, and rewind
my taped version of the ep. Rayne's transcripts always helped
me get my analyses done in a timely manner.
Guess it's back to play, pause, rewind!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I use the closed
captioning to help me get the quotes I want....... -- Rufus, 12:07:34
08/14/01 Tue
Pluse that dreaded pause, rewind, repeat cycle.:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I use
the closed captioning to help me get the quotes I want.......
-- Masq, 13:41:30 08/14/01 Tue
I always have CC on. But it doesn't make the pain go away. You're
still playing, pausing, and rewinding.
And don't even get me started on reading the Latin incantations
off the screen!
The bummer with Rayne's scripts is they included translations.
*sigh* : (
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, you could
assemble a little team... -- nathan, 13:06:14 08/14/01 Tue
maybe you could set up a team comprised of a bunch of ATPoBTVS
posters to do the transcripts. each person could do a certain
section or scene in the episode. Blah does the scene before the
first commercial. Blah #2 does the scene after that until the
next commercial. and so forth. might be a little tedious, but
it could save time...
~nathan~
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hmmmm....fudgsicle.....bug***........:):):) -- Rufus, 15:53:47
08/13/01 Mon
They weren't just scripts they were study guides.....now I guess
they want to make sure we buy the overpriced, oversized scriptbooks
that they are only up to season two on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> This TOTALLY BLOWS - and not in a good way. -- VampRiley,
18:13:42 08/13/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I needed those research materials! -- verdantheart, 05:48:51
08/14/01 Tue
Crap! Thank goodness I printed out all I needed for my character
analysis already! It wasn't as though they were kept there after
they were published in book form.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The aired-version transcripts are at Psyche's site
-- Masq, 09:05:04 08/14/01 Tue
http://www.psyche.kn-bremen.de/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The aired-version transcripts are at Psyche's
site -- verdantheart, 14:21:23 08/14/01 Tue
Thanks. I also use those, but it's really nice to see the differences
between what was written and what aired. Won't be able to do that
anymore!
Buffy the Hero! (from U.S. News & World Report) -- mundusmundi,
13:34:26 08/14/01 Tue
Just got this week's issue. It's a special edition devoted entirely
to "Heroes," mostly real-life ones. But there's also
a page devoted to fictional heroes, including one we all know
well. Here's an excerpt from the article below....
***
BUFFY SUMMERS, 20, of UPN's Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Heroic deeds: In the season finale, she granted the ultimate boon:
her life. (Don't worry, she'll be revived.) And don't forget the
blows to her social life from constant slayage.
Classical roots: Buffy was meant to be mythic. Creator Joss Whedon
studied with Wesleyan professor Richard Slotkin, author of Regeneration
Through Violence. "The term I use constantly that I stole
from him is 'the man who knows Indians'-the person who straddles
two worlds but belongs in neither," says Whedon. That's Buffy-stuck
between the demon and human worlds.
Flaw: Buffy may be too merciful-she doesn't kill a human enemy
whose death could save others.
Grade: She's a mediocre student, but as a hero she earns an A+.
***
Lara Croft got a D. Heh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Excellent - thanks -- Dedalus, 17:46:20 08/14/01 Tue
Buffy: 1st annual character posting party -- Nina, 17:03:52 08/14/01
Tue
Buffy. What's in a name? Mrs. Rosenberg called her "Bunny"
(Gingerbread). Spike called her "Betty" (Superstar).
Buf-fy???????? What kind of name is that? Who's that girl? Who's
that heroin who is so often left off the "who's you're favorite
character" list? Is that petite blonde so hard to love? All
threads lead to Spike.... but so seldom to Buffy. Here's a little
tribute to her. May all threads lead to her in the future (at
least this one should :).
_______________________________________
I. BUFFY
Before the Slayer there was a girl
BOY: You're just a girl
BUFFY: That's what I keep saying (The Gift)
Before she was called, Buffy was pretty much a normal Cordeliaesque
adolescent. She was part of a gang. She was popular. Member of
the cheerleading squad. Prom princess and fiesta Queen. All her
care in the world revolved around friends and boys. Hanging out.
Having fun. Like so many household her family was broken before
any divorce took place. She even forshadowed some deliquency behavior
(stealing lipstick). From this period of relative tranquility,
Buffy brought along with her her 1. her love for ice skating (the
ice capades without the irony) 2. Mr. Gordo (her stuffed Pig),
3. Her love for dancing and 4. Her clothes (don't play with those
Sunday!) 15 years of a normal life that's all Buffy got. Becoming
the slayer changed everything drastically and Buffy spend her
first four years as a slayer yearning for normality again.
BUFFY: I want to leave
WESLEY: What? Now?
BUFFY: No, not now. After I graduate, you know, college?
WESLEY: But you're a slayer.
BUFFY: Yeah, I'm also a person. You can't just define me by my
slayerness. That's something-ism. (Choices)
It is true that most people still tend to define themselves by
their job and their title. As the Little Prince of St-Exupéry
said, we shouldn't define a person by the work they do, but according
to what they like. That's the way to learn who someone really
is. Buffy is a slayer, but she also likes cheese, round shaped
earings and "Wind beneath my wings"! But I guess it's
still not enough to know her...
The dumb blond with witty puns
BUFFY: You know it's probably none of my business but I just gotta
ask: did you smell this bad when you were alive? If it's a post
mortem thing, then hey, so not your fault and boy is my face red.
But just so you know... the fast-growing personal grooming's come
a long way since you become a vampire. (Fool for Love)
Buffy is not an intellectual. She's an action girl. Her speech
pattern colorfully illustrate it. She often talks with broken
sentences. Right to the point. No flourish. Does this mean she's
dumb? Um. One could wonder sometimes if the dumb blond myth is
true, but like any real human being Buffy harbors many contradictions.
When she fights she will come with a repertoire of witty puns
all the time. It's coming to her very easily. When she's into
slaying, words are flowing, when she's normal Buffy, she oscillates
between sheer stupidity and pure genius. Here are some of her
finest "dumb blond" moments:
XANDER: You're up for some reconnaissance?
BUFFY: You mean where we all sculpt and paint stuff?
XANDER: No, that's the renaissance. (The Freshman)
And:
BUFFY: I'm like that kid in the story, the boy who stuck his finger
in the duck.
ANGEL: Dike. It's another word for a dam.
BUFFY: Oh, okay, now that story makes a lot more sense (Gingerbread)
Buffy may suffer from undiagnosed dyslexia. She often has a problem
to remember difficult words and often misuse them or alter them.
In "Faith, Hope & Trick", she will call Kakistos "Kissing
toast", "Taquitos", and "Khaki trouser".
In "Tough Love", she'll call a haiku "a poem that
sounds like a sneeze'. In "Nightmares" she will call
Billy's astral body "Billy's asteroid body". Buffy is
not a bookish girl either. She prefers to watch the Hunchback
of Notre-Dame on video instead of reading the book (Crush). Dawn
teases her about cracking up some books sometimes as she knows
nothing of Harry Potter (Real Me).
BUFFY: There's a lot of book on this list. Any of them come on
tape? You know read by George Clooney or someone cute like that?
(Real Me)
At school, she's usually an average student with no particular
curiosity or aptitude for studying.
BUFFY: I have to take an English makeup exam. They give you credits
just for speaking it, right? (Faith, Hope & Trick)
Yet sometimes she gets to surprise herself and her friends. She
aced her SAT's and got to do better than Willow on an assignment
in professor Walsh's class.
Because Buffy is not high maintenance, she remains very simple.
The writers will often mock her to endear her to us, like in "The
Initiative:
SPIKE: I don't care how brilliant she is. CUT TO:
BUFFY: Stupid pen. (her hands are soaked with ink)
Or "School Hard":
SPIKE: So, how 'bout this Slayer? Is she tough? CUT TO:
Buffy's room. She's standing at her mirror, trying to brush her
hair.
BUFFY: Ow!
Buffy will also have enough wits to know when to play the dumb
girl to save her ass from a situation.
BUFFY (to Prof. Walsh): So I've seen. On the discovery channel
with gorillas and sharks. They made them all nice. Have you seen
it? (The I in team)
She also often knows a lot more than it seems.
BUFFY: Um, as much as I'm sure we all love the idea of going all
Willy Loman... We're not in the band. (Band Candy)
Okay, she may only have seen the movie of "Death of a salesman",
but still it proves that she can mix witty and dumb comments.
Buffy is not black and white. She's shades of gray. Like we all
are.
RILEY: You are amazing! Your speed, your strength.
BUFFY: (I'm) also passionate, artistic and inquisitive. (Doomed)
Even though Buffy can come with witty puns as fast as a magician
can make a rabbit appear from a hat, communication is not Buffy's
forte. When it's time to talk about difficult issues, she tends
to shy away and avoid them.
BUFFY (to Riley): Let's not talk about it and patrol. (New Moon
Rising)
RILEY: You don't wanna talk about it.
BUFFY: It's just that deconstructing Angel can wait. Right now
I just want to go out there and patrol. Find Adam. We can talk
about it later. (The Yoko Factor)
SPIKE: Common' we need to talk.
BUFFY: We don't need to do anything. There is no "we".
Understand. (Crush)
The importance of family and friends
XANDER: You've been through it all with Angel and you're still
standing. So, tell us, wise one, how do you deal?
BUFFY: I have you guys. ( The Wish)
The core of the scoobie gang (the original gang) gave to Buffy
what she didn't have at home. A sister, a brother and a father.
As we've seen in "The Wish", without friends, Buffy
would probably be a mix between Kendra and Faith. She would lack
the love, support and understanding that are so important to keep
her rooted and balanced in the real world. Spike in "Fool
for Love" will say the same, telling her that her mom and
the scoobies are what tie her to the world, they prevent her from
succombing to her death wish. Blessed with friends, Buffy will
still yearn for a "slayer family" though. People who
know what it is to fight demons. A family where her slayer powers
will be elated. Where she will feel normal. This is why, even
though her friends mean so much to her, Buffy will sometimes push
them away and befriend new people. People who are part of that
slayer family. Thus, she'll hang out with Faith (Bad Girls) and
with the Initiative soldiers (The I in Team). Both time she's
trying to be part of that slayer family. Both times she's disappointed.
Faith and the Initiative both turn their back on her.
Insecurities and abandonment issues
1ST SLAYER: You're full of love (...)
BUFFY: I'm full of love? I'm not losing it? (Intervention)
Over the five seasons, 3 episodes were particularly dealing with
fears: Nightmare, Fear itself and Restless. We got to witness
that one of Buffy's inner fear was abandonment (by father or friends).
It's seems very cliché to talk about the repercussions
of divorce, but what can I say, I know the drill myself, divorce
deepens our insecurities. Even though Buffy tries to live a normal
life she is overly lacking that father presence. In "Nightmares"
she is afraid that her father doesn't love her and many years
later she will have this conversation with her mother that proves
that this issue is still hovering over her head:
JOYCE: Your father loved spending time with you.
BUFFY: Not enough I guess
JOYCE: Buffy.
BUFFY: Oh, that just paved right over memory lane, huh?
JOYCE: You know the divorce had nothing to do with you.
BUFFY: I don't know. I'm starting to feel there's a pattern here.
You open your heart to someone and he bails on you. Maybe it's
easier to not let anyone in. (Fear Itself)
Everytime Buffy let anyone in, she lived to regret it. Owen was
too Reckless, Angel turned evil, Scott Hope dumped her, Parker
used her, Riley got himself bit by vampires whores and finally
left her. During all this time her father was M.I.A. No wonder
Buffy has abandonment issues. No wonder she always feel she has
to please and become someone she's not to date a guy. She'll want
to read Emily Dickinson to flirt with Owen, she'll dress as a
18th century lady to please Angel, she won't fight at full strenght
with Riley in case he's too frightened by her powers, she'll laugh
at Ben's jokes to show that she's not self involved. By the end
of "I was made to love you", Buffy decides to remain
single and learn to be comfortable with herself before being involved
again. A huge step into breaking the walls that make her always
choose the same kind of guys.
Too much way on her shoulders
FAITH: Hey, what's up with B? I mean, she seems wound kinda tight.
Needs to find the fun a little. (Faith, Hope & Trick)
Buffy had to grow up very fast. When the girls her age had nothing
more to think about than what color of lipstick to wear, Buffy
had to make life and death decisions in a matter of seconds. She
had to face death at 16, send her lover to hell, go through 6
apocalypses, fight hundreds of demons. Who could expect her to
just back off and have fun? Despite all those circumstances, Buffy
surprisingly still managed to find time for some R&R at the Bronze,
try out for the cheerleader squad, compete for Homecoming Queen
and host a Thanksgiving dinner at Giles'. Trying to get the shadow
of a normal life gives her the strenght to continue her fight
against evil. Without those distractions she'd be anything but
the Buffy we know.
In season five though, Buffy is confronted to a lot more pressure
than usual. A lot of responsabilities. Suddenly the weigh on her
shoulder becomes almost unbearable. She loses control. It all
begins with "Buffy vs Dracula". Dracula charms his way
to Buffy. He compliments her and she's flattered. She's seduced.
Another fear Buffy has, as we've seen in "Nightmares"
and "Fear Itself", is to be unable to fight a vampire
back. To become one of them or to die by their hands. The fact
that she is powerless to resist Dracula's charms scares her. She
isn't in control. And *control* here is the key word. For the
first time of her life she meets a vampire she can't kill. He
rapes her, metaphorically speaking, and she becomes a victim.
Freaked out she asks Giles to act as her watcher again. She needs
to know more about herself. She needs answers. Why wasn't she
able to resist that thrall? Where are her powers really coming
from?
Afterwards, Buffy needs to prove herself again with all the vamps
she meets. Needs to be the one in control. Not to let "that"
ever happen again. It's too bad for Spike, but he shows too many
ressemblance with Dracula and he will be the one getting all the
blows: Drac was attracted to her physically (so is Spike in FFL
when he almost kisses her), Drac comes into Buffy's room at night
(so does Spike in "Into the woods") Drac bites her (so
*almost * does Spike in OomM), Drac tells her her power are rooted
in darkness (so does Spike in FFL when he tells her about the
slayer death wish). Buffy is in a quandary. Instinctively she
will come to Spike for help, as seen in Real me, OomM, FFL, Checkpoint,
BT, TL, Spiral, The Gift. She trusts him with the life of the
people she loves the most in the world, yet she needs to beat
the crap out of him everytime she sees him. Many fans found Buffy's
attidute bitchy. I simply believe that Buffy was afraid. Still
that control issue to resolve. (It's interesting to note that
Buffy will punch Spike on the nose everytime she will have failed
to have control over a vampire, but as soon as her life is not
threatened anymore by other vamps (after FFL) Buffy will stop
beating Spike (okay she does in "Crush" but he deserved
that one for once!)
The discovery of the origin of her sister will also bring a lot
of pressure on Buffy's shoulder. As soon as Buffy knows that Dawn
is the Key, she will overprotect her. Acting sometimes more like
a mother than a sister. Her mother's illness will bring Buffy
to overprotect her too. Not only does she has to solve her own
issues as a slayer, but she has to be the grown up. She has to
become the parent of the family. She doesn't know how to deal
and will keep everything bottled up instead of talking to Riley
or her friends. One thing leading to another, Riley will leave,
her mother will die, Dawn will be kidnapped by Glory. Her world
will fall apart and so will Buffy.
Buffy has wanted out on many occasions (when she refused to fight
the Master, when she flew away from Sunnydale after killing Angel)
but where ever she went there was no out. To be out when you are
a Slayer you have to die. To survive Buffy endured everything
until it was too much. Until she couldn't take it anymore and
went into catatonia. In "The weigh of the world" Buffy
is separated in two in her own mind. Buffy the femine girl and
Buffy the slayer. Only there's no such thing as two different
entities. Buffy exist only as a slayer and the slayer lives in
Buffy. Her inner journey is to let them merge and coexist without
hostility.
II. THE SLAYER
Becoming the Slayer...
GILES: It's all about the journey (Restless)
The transition from normal girl to superhero took quite a long
time to accept. Each year Buffy had to go through a 5 steps to
grief program (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance).
Each year she began a little stronger than the last.
Year one (denial):
In the first season, Buffy is in denial land. She has been kicked
out of Hemery in L.A and is looking forward to going back to her
carefree life as an average teenager.
GILES: I don't understand this attitude. You, you've accepted
you're duty, you, you've slain vampires before...
BUFFY: Yeah, and I've both been there and done that and I'm moving
on (...) I'm retired. (Welcome to the Hellmouth)
She will often put her slayer's duty on hold and privilege her
social life.
BUFFY: If the apocalypse come - Beep me. (Never kill a boy...)
Giles often has to put her back on track and remind her that her
mission is to save the world, not having "post pubescent
fantasies with boys":
GILES: Follow your hormones if you want, but I assume I don't
have to warn you about the hazards of becoming personaly involved
with someone who's unaware of your unique condition.
BUFFY: Yeah, yeah, I read the back of the box. (Never kill a boy...)
At the end of the season she casts a last pleading supplique:
BUFFY: I'm 16. I don't wanna die. (Prophecy girl)
But after realizing how much she is needed, she will accept her
faith and will fight the Master.
Year two (anger):
During the second year Buffy will be the Slayer out of duty. She
still needs to be told to be a Slayer.
BUFFY: Sacred duty, yadda, yadda, yadda... (Surprise)
She's often angry to be told to patrol. She is also angry about
herself not to have known better about Angel. Anger and pain is
what will attrack James the ghost in "I only have eyes for
you". When she discovers her friends have been almost killed
by Angel in "Becoming part 1", anger will give the power
Buffy needs to accept that she has to kill her lover once and
for all.
Third year (bargaining part 1):
By the third year, Buffy tries to open herself to new perspectives.
Killing Angel was the most painful thing she had to do and she
tries to build back her life. With Faith she witnesses a different
point of view. Faith kicks ass and likes it. Buffy moves from
considering slaying a duty to seeing it as a job. She's getting
more mature about it. Conscious of her responsabilities, she's
starting to make compromises.
BUFFY: We help people, it doesn't mean we do whatever we want.
(Consequences)
At the end of the season she'll bargain her life to save Angel.
Even though things turned out well, she was ready to sacrifice
herself for love.
Fourth year (bargaining part 2):
During the fourth year, Buffy is Watcherless.
GILES: Well, officially you no longer have a Watcher. Buffy, you
know I'll always be there when you need me, but you'll have to
take care of yourself. (Freshman)
Buffy has to learn to become self-reliant. She's not only growing
up as a young woman, but as a Slayer as well. Buffy will understand
and accept her role as the Slayer even more when she is confronted
to the Initiative. She's becoming possessive like an animal who
needs to delimit its territory.
BUFFY: This isn't your business. It's mine. You, the Initiative,
the suits in the Pentagon... You're all messing with Primeval
forces you can't begin to understand. I'm the Slayer. And you're
playing on my turf. (Primeval)
Fifth year (depression):
In the fifth season, Buffy has become a hunter. She will patrol
every night on her own without needing Giles to tell her to do
so. She won't like other people to patrol with her anymore. It's
also the year of depression. Buffy will swallow everything up
and will cry alone. She takes everything on her shoulders and
feels indispensable (deep sign of depression). She will go on
until she goes catatonic and refuses to go back to the real world.
It is only at the end of "The Gift" that she will finally
come to total acceptance and sacrifice herself with love.
BUFFY: This is the work I have to do. Tell Giles, tell Giles I've
figured it out and I'm okay.
There's no way to say yet if Buffy will need a depression part
two phase before totally accept her faith, but the fact remains
that over the years Buffy not only became a better slayer (better
agility), but in her choices she showed true compasion and love
for humankind. She probably even was the first slayer who ever
saw her existence as more than the kill.
Fighting techniques
SPIKE: She's tricky. Baby likes to play. (...) You see that? The
way she stakes him with that thing? That's what's called resourceful.
(Halloween)
Buffy's forte is her unpredictability. The lack of attention to
tradition. The fact that she can improvise. Giles in the first
two seasons and then The Council of Watchers reproached those
qualities many times. They tried to show her how unprepared she
was, but Buffy may not fight accordingly to the book, she still
managed not to die for a long time (oups... she is dead technically...
But well you get my drift!)
As said before, the use of puns gives her an edge. She destabilizes
her attackers and makes it less personal. Buffy who can find it
so hard to have a deep talk about deep things, will chat and banter
with her victims like there's no tomorrow. It's a way to forget
about the kill.
BUFFY: You're gonna get heartburn. Get it? Heartburn?
The vamp dusts and gives no reaction.
BUFFY: That's it? That's all I get? One lame-ass vamp with no
appreciation for my painstakingly thought-out puns. (Wild at heart)
Anger is also a powerful way for Buffy to defeat her attackers.
We've witnessed on many occasions when anger got her the extra
strenght she needed to win the fight. Here are some examples:
Harsh light of Day: as soon as Spike mentions Angel Buffy pummels
him like a beast in fury.
Homecoming: After Scott Hope broke up with her, Buffy unleashes
her anger on Faith. (FAITH: You really have some quality rage
going. Really gives you an edge)
Triangle: As soon as Olaf, the Troll, says that Xander and Anya
won't make it as a couple, Buffy beats the crap out of him.
Checkpoint: Humiliated by Spike, council of watchers and university
professor, Buffy beats the hell of an anonymous vamp in the cemetery
(VAMP: Who the hell are you talking to?)
Blood Ties: When Glory calls Spike Buffy's boyfriend, Buffy finds
new strenght to punch Glory in the face.
Even though Buffy will often refuse to admit that slaying is a
turn on and that she likes it, she only fools herself:
KEN: That... was not... permitted.
BUFFY: Yeah, but it was fun. (Anne)
In "The I in Team", we see intercuts of scenes between
Buffy and Riley fighting and making love. Buffy may still deny
how much she likes slaying, her actions often prove the contrary.
In "Buffy vs Dracula" she confesses to Giles that she
was out every night during the summer, hunting for vamps. She
will even leave the love nest to satisfy her needs.
Leadership and authority
Ms. Calendar: The part that gets me, though, is where Buffy is
the Vampire Slayer. She's so little. (Prophecy Girl)
Buffy is little, but when it comes to orders in the slayer department,
Buffy is the one giving them, not receiving them. Her integrity,
loyalty and straighforwardness make her a born leader. She's the
one leading her army to battle. Defying authority and being a
woman after her own heart is what characterizes her.
GILES: Just do as you're told for once, alright!
Buffy punches him in the face. (Prophecy Girl)
WESLEY: Are you not used to being given orders?
BUFFY: Whenever Giles sends me on a mission, he always says 'please'.
And afterwards I get a cookie. (Bad Girls)
When confronted with outside authority (school in particular),
Buffy sometimes will feel diminished though.
PROFESSOR REEGERT: Do you understand? You are sucking energy from
everyone in this room. They came to learn. Get out!
BUFFY: I didn't mean to... suck.
She exits. (Freshman)
But it usually doesn't last. Buffy is the defender of the weak
and she will learn to defend herself when in need. She'll be impressed
by Professor Walsh's authority, but will find the guts to tell
her she has no compassion in "Something Blue". She's
impressed by The Council of Watchers, but will have a straight
talk with him at the end of "Checkpoint".
The quest for love
Buffy is no conventional slayer. Her need to understand her nature
takes her apart from her kin. Buffy won't accept to fight only
to lose herself in the bargain. She needs a raison d'être,
a purpose. She needs to understand and bring the slayer and the
human in her in perfect harmony.
BUFFY: I'm just ... starting to feel ... uneasy about stuff.
GILES: Stuff?
BUFFY: Training. Slaying. All of it. It's just ... I mean ...
I can beat up the demons until the cows come home. And then I
can beat up the cows ... but I'm not sure I like what it's doing
to me.
GILES: But you've mastered so much. I mean, your strength and
resilience alone-BUFFY: Yeah. Strength, resilience ... those are
all words for hardness. (pause) I'm starting to feel like ...
being the Slayer is turning me into stone. (Intervention)
She will go on a quest to know more. The spirit guide will give
her a few pointers:
GUIDE: You're full of love.
GUIDE: Love, give, forgive.
But will also unsettle her with her final blow:
GUIDE: Death is your gift.
From this encounter, Buffy will find some sort of resolution in
her life. She'll be able to forgive Spike. Out of love she'll
sacrifice her school life to take care of Dawn. She won't understand
the "Death is your gift" part on the spot, but will
nevertheless accept it as part of the package.
The hero's journey
The jungle cat is the steward of the rain forest and keeper of
the gateway of death. The jaguar helps to dismember that which
must die in order for the new to be born. (Alberto Villoldo, "Shaman,
Healer, Sage")
The jungle cat was present in "Restless" when we got
to see Miss Kitty Fantastico in slowmotion walking her way towards
us. We meet him again when he takes Buffy to her spirit guide.
BUFFY: Hello kitty! (Intervention)
Every hero, in order to be a hero, has to face the ultimate fear
that is death. Be it in the raw sense of dying or in the metaphorical
sense of transforming oneself into something else. Before her
own dismissal, Buffy had to face a lot of pain, a lot of loss.
She lost Riley, her mother, her life ("I have Dawn's life"),
she even was ready to lose her friends if they were to kill Dawn.
She shed her skin like a snake, losing what was precious to her.
Until there was nothing left but love. Then she made the final
jump. The leap of faith. She jumped to save her sister, to save
the world. As a true hero, she left words of love to her friends
and hope. She sacrificed her life. And for once it seemed as if
she finally had found her true purpose in life. Love.
May she rest in peace... But not for too long!
Quotes coming from:
- Jotted down while watching the episode (50%)
- Psyche's transcript site (45%)
- The Watcher's guide books 1&2 (5%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Wonderful.......... -- Rufus, 17:27:33 08/14/01 Tue
Just printing off a copy I'll get back to you...great job.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Wonderful.......... -- Dedalus, 18:31:58 08/14/01
Tue
Glad to see I'm not the only one who prints out hard copies of
some of this stuff ...
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> What's really scary.... -- mundusmundi, 14:47:12
08/16/01 Thu
...isn't just printing out the posts, but highlighting interesting
passages with a yellow marker as you read them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> As long as you don't use too many colors...
-- Nina, 17:16:21 08/16/01 Thu
it won't be qualified as quirky! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I do the highlighting thing as well.........
-- Rufus, 17:36:18 08/16/01 Thu
Using many colours I may add.......:):):)Next thing, I'll be investing
in a pocket protector.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I don't have a printer so... --
Nina, 17:39:13 08/16/01 Thu
I imagine I'm saving a lot of trees (but I also spend way too
many hours reading from the screen instead of a sheet of paper!)
I'd probably go for the highlighting thing too if I had the chance
to use it!!! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> and beyond highlighting... -- Solitude1056,
06:59:05 08/20/01 Mon
is not only highlighting in different colors, but summing up the
pages' arguments in the top margin of the page, with additional
commentary & responding arguments along the side margin, in an
ink pen that corresponds with the highlighting color so you know
while studying which commentary & argument goes with which quotage.
...Uh... not that I ever do this. No, not me. I never, ever write
in books. Pfffft. Sacrilege!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> whoa--sounds like the talmud, w/color!
-- anom, 10:50:42 08/20/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Okay, okay.....you've done it........Sol
you have......... -- Rufus, 14:47:20 08/20/01 Mon
Won the Golden Pocket Protector award for those who excel in being
studious (I think the word is nerd). I may highlight in different
colours but write notes in a seperate note book....just can't
bring myself to write in a book. When I borrow someones book I
keep it in a Ziplock bag just like evidence that I don't want
to mess up....my friends think I'm wierd but do like getting an
unblemished book back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Better a nerd than an ziploc-carrying
AR-bie! -- Solitude1056, 17:15:19 08/20/01 Mon
I mean, really, a ZIPLOC BAG? Tell me you're pulling my leg! I
don't write in books 'cause I'm a nerd, I do it because it's the
only way to organize my thoughts. Short-term memory loss from
all that fun in college, yanno. Some thing never really recover.
Uh. *cough*
Anyway... back to your regularly scheduled postings...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Call me naive...but
what is an Ar-bie.... -- Rufus, 18:10:36 08/20/01 Mon
Is that an American term? As to the Ziplock bag...I kid you not....do
you know just how wet it is on the west coast? I just happen to
have a thing about keeping books in the best shape. As for College
"I" never got into any mischief whatsoever....not me...never
caused any either....;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Call me naive...but
what is an Ar-bie.... -- Solitude1056, 19:00:21 08/20/01 Mon
someone who's AR. as in, uh... can I use words like that here?
hm. since this isn't meant as a mean thing, let's go with AR means
"someone who's really particular." Verges on obsessive-compulsive
on bad days, but that's okay, since we all know Rufus never has
any of those! ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, that's
what you meant............;) -- Rufus, 20:01:42 08/20/01 Mon
No, not me..... have I told you about Ziplock slipcovers lately?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Call
me naive...but what is an Ar-bie.... -- Humanitas, 20:55:35 08/20/01
Mon
Hehe - The polite version you're looking for, I think, is "detail
oriented." Don't know anyone like that, myself, of course.
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy: 1st annual character posting party -- Ophelia,
18:19:58 08/14/01 Tue
Wow that was awesome! Do you think that Buffy realized the 5th
stage of grief (acceptance) by the end of last season? I've often
thought she had. She had such a look of peace when she jumped
into the portal. She seemed to have accepted her fate/purpose.
I wonder if it's possible that she'll regress to earlier stages
after she's been brought back.
Thanks for the wonderful analysis. You really did her justice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Quite good, must think for a while before making comments
. . . -- Rattletrap, 18:47:40 08/14/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Lovely job, Nina - doing the printer thing also... -- OnM,
19:34:16 08/14/01 Tue
I'll have some more to say tomorrow once I can study it a bit
more. I did like the reference to Miss Kitty Fantastico and the
jaguar and the shaman- very cool.
It's hard to believe English isn't your first language. Fine work!
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy: 1st annual character posting party -- Cactus
Watcher, 20:19:40 08/14/01 Tue
I really enjoyed your comparison of what happened between Dracula
and Buffy, and between Spike and Buffy. It's something I hadn't
thought of before. I also enjoyed your section on Buffy getting
more strength from anger. I think 'Don't make her mad' is one
of the true reoccuring themes of the show.
As someone who has learned Russian to the point of teaching it
at the college level, let me also compliment your English. It's
a great accomplishment to write in a second language with your
skill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I really enjoyed this. How about helping us out with Dark
Alchemy? -- Talking Drum, 21:46:53 08/14/01 Tue
The Dark Alchemy contributors have been discussing how difficult
it is to write for Buffy (the character). One issue I've asked
about is what do we know about how she feels about all those people
she has saved in her role as the Slayer. We know how she feels
about her family and friends and about her duties in general.
We have had glimpses of how she responds to specific individuals
she has helped (Jonathan comes to mind). But what about the thousands
of Buffyverse souls whose lives have been made better as the result
of her efforts? Do they really matter to her or is that just too
much for any one person, even a Slayer, to begin to comprehend?
TDrum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I second the motion and raise you a "very well
done!" -- Liquidram, 22:20:47 08/14/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I third it with a definite kudos for an excellent
essay! -- Solitude1056, 12:11:48 08/15/01 Wed
If you can get into Buffy's head, and wouldn't mind at the very
least beta-reading to give the writers an idea of whether we're
on target with Buffy - that'd be greatly appreciated. As TD pointed
out, for some reason she's the hardest to write for, tho' I'm
not sure why.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Gee! I'd love too! -- Nina, 14:56:58 08/15/01
Wed
I miss my daily reading! :) I'd love to help! Keep in touch with
me! I know that I stopped reading a lot of other fanfic after
a few paragraphs because the charaters just didn't cut it for
me. Dark Alchemy is one of the few story I've read that really
respects the characters we know! (So far I only noticed one thing
that seemed peculiar for Buffy to do, I'll get back to you on
that if you want!) Bravo to the whole team again and kudos to
all of you too! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Does Buffy care? -- Helen, 01:31:25 08/15/01 Wed
Well done Nina, I think Buffy is the hardest of all to give any
coherent analysis of. She often seems like a cypher - the other
scoobies revolve around her, and they are in so many ways easier
to relate to.
Does Buffy care about the thousands she must have saved? I think
so.
Season three Consequences:
Faith: People need us to survive. In the balance, nobody's gonna
cry over some random bystander who got caught in the crossfire.
Buffy: I am.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Does Buffy care? -- verdantheart, 06:19:00
08/15/01 Wed
Really? In a lot of ways I see Buffy as the most "normal"
of the Scoobies. After all, if it weren't for the Slayer factor,
she probably would have continued along her sosh-cheerleader path--probably
not have had great friends like Willow and Xander, admitted outsiders.
Perhaps it is this very centered-ness, this average-ness, that
makes her seem opaque. We can't latch our analysis to obvious
character quirks or flaws. She's a lot like the rest of us, only
better, more self-sacrificing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Thank you all! :) -- Nina, 08:34:21 08/15/01
Wed
Thank you! I'm happy if it makes a little sense and brings new
way to watch at Buffy's character. :)
It was a great challenge, but really fun! Looking at everything
through Buffy's eyes is quite an experience. I often forgot to
do that during last season. That's why I could be so pissed off
at her and her attitude. Maybe because she is a hero it is easier
to relate to other characters that look more like us. I realized
that Buffy's journey is a lot like anyone's journey in life. We
are all torned between our mind and body. We try to merge them,
be complete. Much like Buffy does with the Slayer and the girl
in her. The Slayer powers are metaphorical for what we really
are. We all are strong inside, we just need to acknlowledge it
and accept it.
"Ophelia: Do you think that Buffy realized the 5th stage
of grief (acceptance) by the end of last season? I've often thought
she had. She had such a look of peace when she jumped into the
portal. She seemed to have accepted her fate/purpose. I wonder
if it's possible that she'll regress to earlier stages after she's
been brought back."
Sincerly, I don't know! That's why I kept the issue opened! :)
I don't believe she will regress though. She never has. One thing
I didn't say (because it would have been a lot more work and I
was too lazy at that point) is that each year is also a 5 steps
to grief program by itself. Let's take season 5 for example. Buffy
starts by denying Dracula's affirmations. She doesn't want to
believe that her powers are rooted in darkness. That denial phase
lasts until "Into the woods" when she switches to anger.
As I said, in every episode after that her anger gets the better
of her. After Crush she begins the bargaining phase. She bargains
with Ben (if I laugh at his joke he'll like me), with herself
(if I don't show how much I am in pain over my mother's death
everything will be fine), with Dawn (I take your life on my shoulder).
She's trying to learn more about herself. Until there's the depression
phase in "Weigh of the world" and the acceptance phase
in "The Gift". I did that fot every year (in my head!)
and it pretty much work all the time (I'm not sure about the denial
phase in year four though).
So yes, Buffy accepted her fate at the end of "The Gift",
but each season she has accepted her fate as well. She did what
she had to do to save the wrold. On the bigger picture it would
just make sense that Buffy starts out in denial phase again in
season 6 (doesn't want to return), then anger, bargaining... you
know the rest! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Acceptance -- Kerri, 09:14:21 08/15/01
Wed
So yes, Buffy accepted her fate at the end of "The Gift",
but each season she has accepted her fate as well.
It's true that at the end of every season Buffy has done what
she had to do, but it isn't until The Gift that she really understands.
In PG and Becoming Buffy did what she needed to do to save the
world but she didn't understand why. She only understands and
accepts her place and importance as the Slayer in The Gift when
she accepts love. She nolonger resents the sacrafices she has
to make she is okay with them because she embraces love for Dawn,
for her friends, and for humanity. She understands that her job
isn't about bringing death it is about bringing life, and that
is a job that Buffy *wants* to do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Acceptance -- Brian, 09:43:41
08/15/01 Wed
Each year, Buffy has had to reaffirm her identity as a hero. Usually
this happens in the 1st episode of each season.
Each season takes her through the various levels and layers of
partaking the Hero's journey. Each season the depth of that journey
has deepen, become tougher, and harder to accomplish. Each season
she has returned harder, tougher, faster, and more sure of her
job, her destiny. This last season showed her on the hero's journey
to the God-head.
When Buffy jumps off that tower, she merges with those many demon
dimensions, with the God-head. When she returns, it should be
her choice to return, and she will be stronger, more centered,
and more at peace with whom she is. She has merged with supernatural
powers, and her task will be to find the balance her new powers
and her humanity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Excellent Points
Kerri and Brian -- Dedalus, 20:04:29 08/15/01 Wed
I feel the same way about The Gift. That was the first time it
all really came together for her. I mean, that expression on her
face at the end ... you know she just "got it." And
even though it was a sad ending, it was blissfully triumphant
too. Running toward death, yet with a twinkle in her eye and a
bright expression, embracing life at the same time, the sun rising
in the background ... I mean, come on. That's what it is all about.
I know some don't feel this way, but it was such a beautiful climax/resolution,
it's almost a shame to continue on with the series.
Than again, scratch that last part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Scalability of the Hero's
Journey -- Humanitas, 13:21:35 08/16/01 Thu
First of all, I gotta say, Nina, WOW! You did a great job with
a difficult character. I'm so glad I got back to the board in
time to see this.
I just wanted to comment on the way that the Hero's Journey (which
it seems is another way of expressing the Grief Cycle) works on
so many different scales in BtVS. There is the grand multi-season
arc, the arc of each individual season, and the arc of each episode
or small group of episodes. At each level the pattern is reapeated:
stasis, intrusion, reaction, action, resolution. That fractal
quality distinguishes this show from, say, Forever Knight (a show
that I enjoyed, but was never compelled by), and is what keeps
us coming back for more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Does Buffy care? -- John Burwood,
09:27:17 08/15/01 Wed
Maybe the question is not: does Buffy care? but : for whom does
Buffy care? think back to WttH - Giles tried to convince her to
fulfil her destiny & protect the world & she did not want to know,
but the moment Willow was in danger she was rushing to the rescue,
and whenJesse was abducted, she dashing along intothe underworld
to save him - with little chance of success & at great risk, & in
ep100 she was ready to save Dawn if she sacrificed the world.
It is for identifiable individuals that she cares, rather than
for humanity & theworld as a whole. She cares in a real emotional
way, rather than out of a detached &rational sense of moral duty.
The essence of Buffy's character & attitudes is surely emotion,
not calculation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Does Buffy care? -- Kerri, 10:48:04
08/15/01 Wed
It is for identifiable individuals that she cares, rather than
for humanity & theworld as a whole.
Yes this is true, and in season 5 Buffy had begun to become detached
from humanity. It was through Buffy's love for Dawn-her emotional
connection to the individual-that brings Buffy back to humanity.
Dawn is humanity-the part of Buffy that she loves-and Dawn helps
Buffy to reconnect with her purpose as the slayer because she
realizes how much she loves humanity and that it is something
worth saving. This gives Buffy peace in knowing that she has brought
life not death, and life is something Buffy loves more than anything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Does Buffy care? -- John
Burwood, 12:09:02 08/15/01 Wed
To amplify my last post, which could have beenbetter phrased,
with reference to the earlier post about problems writing the
character in Dark Alchemy. Love the story, BTW, but I agree about
the problem writing Buffy. Remember that when storybreaking Buffy
scripts Joss / co always work out 'the Buffy' of the story - namely
the emotional journey has to go through. You will need to work
this out, but I do not see how until S6 starts & you can learn
how Buffy has reacted to death. Don't ask what Buffy feels about
humanity - people who say they care about humanity are either
bona fide saints or have intellectuallyconvince themselves it
is morally right to 'care' - this is not caring as gut feeling.
Humanity as a whole is an abstract concept - gut love can only
be felt for identifiable individuals not for abstract anonymities
like the human race or society.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Buffy and fanfiction
-- Nina, 15:19:44 08/15/01 Wed
I love your point! It is true that in writing Buffy most people
fail to work on her journey. Where does she starts and where does
she end at the end of the story? I guess this is why ME's writers
are paid so much! They have a lot more than "telling storie"
to do.
Most of the time in fanfiction, Buffy ends up being the vessel
of anyone's fantasy. Through her they live what they'd like to
experience themselves. That's one of the reason she is so rarely
Buffy-like. The hardest thing is to get in her head, try to understand
why she acts like she do.
That's like the whole Spike thing in the beginning of season five.
I don't say I found THE explanation (I'm sure I haven't!), but
I figure there must be something that made her tick more than
just: "I want people to hate me so I'm going to punch their
bleachboy in every episode".
Another reason why it's so hard to get into Buffy's head is that
we haven't really been in her head lately. It used to be easier
to feel what she felt when Angel went bad. We could identify with
the pain then. Last season, we hardly saw the world through Buffy's
eyes. In "I was made to love you" it was the first time
we got to see things like she did. And what happened? People disliked
the episode. They found everyone too harsh with Spike. I think
it was part of a strategy (it must be at least!). Buffy was in
depression and , as someone mentioned above, all the other characters
where finally getting somewhere with there lives. Most depressions
go unnoticed. Had we been in Buffy's shoes and able to tell what
she was feeling all the time, it wouldn't have been the same.
We had to be cut from Buffy's world, we had to be split away from
her, so we could feel how much she had grown in "The Gift".
Well my humble opinion anyway (like always).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Dumb Blonde -- Cactus Watcher, 10:50:00 08/15/01 Wed
I've been wondering if Buffy's 'ignorance' in the early years
wasn't just an act.
We've seen as time has gone on that, she's quite bright. High
SAT scores may not mean as much as some colleges seem to think,
but they don't come out of nowhere either. I wonder if Buffy didn't
act dumb, in the early years (and occasionally even this past
season) as a defense mechanism. Perhaps she felt that if people
thought she wasn't very smart they wouldn't criticize her as harshly
when she made real mistakes. On the otherhand, maybe it was an
in-crowd mentality; that in the circle she ran around in at Hemmery
High (and the one Cordy ruled at Sunnydale high) it wasn't really
polite to act too intelligently.
As for it being a case of her just growing intellectually and
getting smarter naturally as time past, I sincerely doubt it!
Nobody develops like that. There are certainly late bloomers,
but they don't act as dumb as Buffy did at the beginning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dumb Blonde -- Nina, 11:08:10 08/15/01 Wed
Well I might have elborated on that part. I don't consider Buffy
as a dumb blonde myself. I do believe that sometimes she just
doesn't get it. It's quite evident looking in her eyes that she
doesn't know what she is talking about sometimes. It's not part
of an act. Buffy is intelligent and I agree that she wouldn't
get high score like that if it wasn't *there* already. Professor
Walsh said it herself: Buffy could do a lot more than B-. It's
just that Buffy is not the intellectual type. She's emotional.
She won't connect to something through a piece of paper (hence
her dislike for books).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dumb Blonde -- John Burwood, 11:39:03 08/15/01
Wed
I agree , but I would add a spin - her intelligence is more creative
than reason-based. Both her punning & her Malapropisms are examples
of not thinking in a straight line - she thinks laterally, intuitively,
imaginatively - not like Giles & Willow learning lots of facts
& applying them in an organized way - but taking apparently unrelated
concepts and mixing them together inoriginal ways - hence thinking
Khaki trousers for Kakistos, but also hence thinking fertilizer
bomb for volcano. By nature she thinks 'outside the box'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Dumb Blonde -- Anthony8, 12:05:23
08/15/01 Wed
And she has shown a facility to learn, retain and later use with
great skill information that others (supposedly less attention
deficity) have overlooked. I was specifically thinking of the
scene in 'New Moon Rising' (was it NMR?) where she is freeing
Oz and Riley from the Initiative and, with crossbow to the head
of the base commander, tells the soldiers to let them by or she'll
"go all William Burroughs." They're all "hunh?"
She responds (I may be paraphrasing somewhat here): "was
I the only one paying attention in English that day?"
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Arcane bits of Buffyknowledge --
Tanker, 22:48:06 08/15/01 Wed
Besides the William Burroughs bit (which I don't get, btw), she
once said that Faith "makes Godot look punctual" and
commented to Giles that magic shop owners in Sunnydale have the
life expectancy of a Spinal Tap drummer. Buffy is actually quite
intelligent, and is capable of absorbing information and using
it in creative ways. When she pays attention. Her academic problems
are a result of being distracted by world-saving and personal
issues. And possibly self-esteem issues, i.e. *she* thinks she's
dumb, hence her confusion at her SAT scores.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Arcane bits of Buffyknowledge
-- Rattletrap, 06:49:49 08/16/01 Thu
Borroughs tried a William Tell act with his wife, and accidentally
shot and killed her.
Xander's comment about boring them to death with free prose is
equally accurate, however.
'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Arcane bits of Buffyknowledge
-- KoopaFanatic, 09:38:38 08/16/01 Thu
And let's not forget her correct use of the word "oeuvre."
That alone dispels the whole "dumb blonde" thing in
my mind. In my entire college career I've never come across a
person who could even pronounce it properly, let along work it
into conversation! ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Buffy and language --
d'Herblay, 20:37:33 08/16/01 Thu
One of my favorite of Buffy's habits is that she questions the
meanings of dead metaphors. In "What's My Line, Pt. 2,"
she wonders "whole nine yards of what?" And in "No
Place Like Home" after telling Giles that he'll be making
money "hand over fist," she actually starts holding
a hand over her fist, looking at it puzzledly. I think this shows
how language is alive for her, which counts as a sign of intelligence
in my book. Not that I have a book. Of signs which are counted.
Off topic, I'd just like to thank Masq for putting this thread
back on the active board. Voy.com archives faster than I think!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and
language -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 11:52:54 08/18/01 Sat
I totally agree about the language in Buffy. I know some people
who seem to think that the use of language in Dawson's Creek is
more interesting and I find this very difficult to stomach. It
is just as unbearable to see television or film in which words
are treated like artifacts that must be passed around carefully
so they don't break as it is to hear cliches being chucked around
like rubber balls. On Buffy, communication is active and energetic
as it is (or should be) in real life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffyspeak
-- mundusmundi, 14:49:12 08/18/01 Sat
I've never been able to bear more than 5 minutes of Dawson's Creek,,
but from what I gather every character talks exactly the same.
Ditto the much ballyhooed Gilmore Girls. Not a bad show (I can
stomach it longer than Dawson, though Lauren Graham does get on
my nerves), but right now the clever dialogue sounds too much
like clever dialogue. Maybe it'll sound more natural once the
writers realize that their audience is hooked and they needn't
resort to breathless His Girl Friday-style monologues.
Buffy, though, is different. The dialogue is distinct and witty,
but somehow it's always sounded natural. I wonder if that's because
Joss and his crew understand actual speech patterns. They insert
lots of stutters and pauses. Also, each character has his/her
own voice. Buffy talks different from Willow, Willow from Giles,
and so forth. About the only other writer I can think of offhand
who matches this is Elmore Leonard. He's been doing it for decades.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Buffyspeak -- KoopaFanatic, 13:13:24 08/19/01 Sun
Exactly right about the character voices... I'm one of those sad
latecomers to BtVS, and I spent most of last summer going back
and reading transcripts and scripts. After the first couple scripts,
I realized you don't even need to read the character name to figure
out who's talking.
Well, sometimes anyway.
The really scary thing is that the dialogue really is pretty natural.
When you read it, it sounds stilted and not-at-all like the pretty
prose we've come to expect on TV. Aloud, though, it sounds much
like real English. Rarely do we see movies or TV that actually
capture the odd word usements that people structure...
For a comparison, watch an episode of Babylon 5 right before Buffy.
JMS couldn't write a believable line of dialogue to save his life.
I've always wondered what B5 might have been had Joss been doing
rewrites on it ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> She quotes Robert Frost
too!! -- Rahael, 08:08:04 08/22/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> The Spinal Tap comment always
cracked me up since... -- Anthony8, 12:14:56 08/16/01 Thu
...Buffy would have only been 3 years old when the Spinal Tap
mockumentary came out (and somehow she doesn't seem like the type
of person who, in her teens or later, would have rented a 10 year
old movie about an imaginary metal band). I recently recommended
the Spinal Tap movie to a local, just into his twenties, movie
rental store clerk and he did not realize that the movie was a
joke. He thought, "oh, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Led Zep,
and Spinal Tap"--all great 70's metal bands.
I always thought that Buffy's Spinal Tap comment was one of those
anachronistic pieces of dialogue that reflected the writer's own
age bias. O/T somewhat, but I was watching the 'Bring It On' DVD
with the director's commentary enabled and he pointed out that
one of the big inauthenticities in teen films is that there is
almost always a character (or even many characters) who listens
to the type of music reflective of the director's age, tastes
and personal high school or college soundtrack and would be unlikely
to be found in any contemporary teen's music collection. Naturally,
he had a 17 year old character in the movie who was heavily into
the Clash, a band that had pretty much split before the character
would have been out of diapers.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> actually... -- dan,
12:43:06 08/16/01 Thu
i'm twenty-three, and plenty of my friends who are as young as
I am or younger love the film *Spinal Tap*. it's a classic.
Some of us like the Clash a lot, too. ;->
My favorite bit of Buffyarcana is in the early season 5 ep (can't
remember the title for the life of me) when she's telling Willow
about how "workin' hard is hard work" and how she had
envisioned (paraphrase alert!) "a montage, with inspirational
music: me in class raising my hand, me training with giles, me
falling asleep over a book with my glasses falling off my nose
- 'cause in my montage, i wear glasses". Has anyone else
heard "montage" used correctly on a TV show?
-d
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: actually...
-- Andy, 13:07:00 08/16/01 Thu
Yeah, Spinal Tap is one of those movies, like Star Wars, that
has a way of renewing itself with each generation. Not to mention
that for kids, one of the ways to be hip and knowing is to try
and dig up old stuff to enjoy instead of the shallow new stuff
that everyone else likes. I'm an 80's kid but when I was in school
there were people who wouldn't shut up about Led Zeppelin, for
instance (of course, to some extent, I was one of them) :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: actually...
-- Nina, 17:28:45 08/16/01 Thu
Actually, we sent a few French words your way! (don't worry we
use plenty anglicisms here too!) I thought about including that
part about the montage in the essay, but I didn't dare to do more
than Wisewoman or OnM (one page was enough for me!)
About the word "oeuvre" mentioned bellow (I think),
it is true that SMG has a knack for French words! (by the way
"oeuvre" is not so hard to prononce once you get that
the voyel sound "oeu" is only a "buh" sound)
That's one of our "old French" rules that scares all
the French learners: what you hear is not what you get on paper.
Maybe one day the old people at the Academie Française
will realize that 14th century French is not cool! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Spinal Tap comment
always cracked me up since... -- KoopaFanatic, 13:29:29 08/19/01
Sun
The interest in a previous generation's music and pop culture
has always seemed pretty common. When I was in high school ('92-'96)
Pink Floyd, Journey, the Beatles, the Clash and Bob Dylan all
had their dedicated fan groups. In the theater clique, watching
"The Wall" after our spring play was a major ritual.
Additionally, plenty of people discover all sorts of new music
and movies upon hitting college. In my first year, I remember
branching out heavily from the mainstream pop/rock that had gotten
me through high school... Enya, NIN, all sorts of classical, and
George Clinton all played a major role in that year. It doesn't
strike me as too unlikely that someone would have dragged Buffy
(and other freshmen) into a hall-wide viewing of such college
classics as Spinal Tap and Wizard of Oz/Dark Side of the Moon,
and Animal House.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Do we really know
what kind of music/films the SG like? -- A8, 17:39:39 08/19/01
Sun
We know Xander likes 'Apocalypse Now,' that Giles is partial to
The Who and that Dawn listens to "aggressively cheerful music
sung by persons selected for their ability to dance," (we
probably can guess who that refers to--name your 'mook' or 'midriff'),
but what do we really know about the SG's tastes in entertainment
besides the incidental music that can be heard in the background
at the Bronze or occasional party that is shown?
All this talk about one generation rediscovering the styles and
entertainment of previous generations got me to thinking about
how some nostalgia must not seem so alien to kids these days.
When, 'Freaks & Geeks' was on, the clothing styles, if not the
music, weren't that different than what they were showing in the
Old Navy ads that played during the commercial breaks. Yikes,
and I never thought those clothes were that attractive back then!
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> SG taste in music
-- Rattletrap, 05:21:38 08/20/01 Mon
From the posters that decorate the walls in every episode, we
are led to believe that the entire gang are huge fans of Widespread
Panic and The String-Cheese Incident. Does anyone know what the
story behind this is? Both of these bands have picked up many
of the Grateful Dead's old fans since *sniff* Jerry Garcia's demise
*sniff*. Is one of the set designers a Deadhead or something?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Other evidence -- Cactus Watcher, 12:30:36
08/15/01 Wed
To add to what Anthony8 just said-
In Becoming part II when Buffy and Joyce are arguing just before
Joyce warns her to stay in the house or not come back, Buffy wishes
she had the time to do a number of things instead of having to
go save the world. One of them was just to be able to go up in
her room and study. It wasn't her first choice certainly, but
the fact she mentioned it at all is significant I think.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dumb Blonde -- Rufus, 23:54:31 08/15/01 Wed
I have to remember my experience in college as a petite, blonde.
I found that some of the men in my Crim class got downright hostile
when I did well in tests (beating them that means) one had a tantrum
and said that I couldn't possibly have gotten such a good mark
cause "you're blonde". I told him that the pigment of
my hair or gender and size didn't change my ability to think.
Well, then I told him to "piss off" in a very unladylike
fashion. I have found that my stature and hair colour made many
assume that I was going to be a dumb blonde til I opened my mouth.
Then I had to deal with an atmosphere of threatened hostility
and constant teasing. When I first saw BVS I was glad that they
were making a show about someone who was the same size as me at
the same age. It's so easy to stereotype people and we all do
it. Buffy proves that brains come in all forms...some of them
blonde.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> OT: I'm a tall brunette and had similar experiences
in college -- verdantheart, 06:17:51 08/16/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I apologize... -- Cactus Watcher, 08:46:24
08/16/01 Thu
for the assinine male behavior you two and others experienced.
The real problem the guys were griping about may have had nothing
to do with you personally. That hardly excuses what they did.
I can think of two similar incidents in college. The first was
a statistics class I was required to take outside my department.
Everyone else in the class was in business school. There was exactly
one woman in the class, and by chance we sat on opposite sides
of the room. She and I were getting by far the best grades. When
test time would draw near, the guys near me would gather around
to find out what I was going to spend the most time studying.
The guys on the other side of the room seemed to ignore the girl.
The real difference seemed to be that the instructor made a point
after each assignment of giving a compliment to the woman for
her work to encourage her. I never saw any of the guys grumble
about it, but I can image some of the dumber guys thought she
was getting special treatment, when the instructor was just trying
to encourage a very good student to stay in business school. Don't
think I'm suggesting that you're cases were similar. They probably
weren't.
In the other incident I can think of, the shoe was on the other
foot. It was a class of about 12, half men, half women. Being
an upper level class, we all knew each other. One day I happened
to overhear two of the women talking about the class. They were
griping that the men were getting special treatment. I was startled
and a little offended. I walked away without interrupting. I thought
about it awhile, and decided that concerning this particular professor
they might be right. The professor did seem to be favoring the
men a little. Not only was the professor an attractive young woman,
but the two women who were griping about her, regularly walked
to church with her!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dumb Blonde -- anom, 12:21:23 08/16/01 Thu
I took an introductory computer class in college (back in the
punchcard days!). The instructor used a term--don't remember what
it was, but a pretty basic one--without explaining it. (Probably
forgot it was an intro class.) We all looked at each other uncomfortably.
No one wanted to admit not knowing what it meant. Finally a small
blonde a few seats away (wasn't you, Rufus, was it? @>) AU,
'70s?) asked, "What's a [whatever it was]?" The relief
in the room was palpable, but a guy sitting next to me leaned
over & said, "What a dumb question!" I answered, "Come
off it, you know we all wanted to ask. She's the only one who
had the guts." I wonder if being treated as dumb may teach
some blondes not to be afraid to ask questions that might make
them look ignorant. In a paradoxical way, it might actually be
empowering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dumb Blonde -- purplegrrl, 14:56:05 08/20/01
Mon
I agree, Rufus. When I was in college I had to put up with people
thinking I was either a Bio or Chem major because since I was
blonde and somewhat attractive I couldn't possibly be a Geology
major (which I was). And I had some of these people in my Geo
classes!! Being blonde and being smart tends to put a cramp in
some people's styles. ;)
And, until Buffy came along, I was really tired of the blonde
in horror films always getting killed by the end of the first
act. One of the many reasons I don't usually watch them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Stereotypes for every purpose, really. -- Solitude1056,
21:39:21 08/20/01 Mon
A friend of mine's hair is naturally a very pretty light strawberry
blonde, and she had her natural haircolor through most of college.
She was also a double major in History & Theology, and graduated
magna cum laude in both - and no, I don't mean a concentration,
I mean a double load o' classes. The woman is a walking textbook
brilliance case. She frequently commented that she got treated
as a nitwit because of her hair, and it put a chip on her shoulder...
so she dyed her hair red. To her astonishment, treatment from
friends was radically different. They were acting as if they expected
her to be feisty, argumentative, and, well, easy. Yes, in the
sexual sense.
Blondes are treated like they're vapid, brunettes get the brainy
stereotype (and worse so if they wear glasses), and redheads carry
the connotation of being sex-obsessed, fight-obsessed spitfires.
Oh, and don't forget those with black hair: exotic, mysterious,
unapproachable. And yes, the stereotypes exist on the opposite
side of the gender coin, too. Look at the fact that we've got
a character in our ongoing group fanfic that's supposed to be
mysterious & exotic. There wasn't even any discussion; he's got
black hair, like Angel. And Riley was a brunet. No way to win,
unless you take my sister's route and change your hair color every
week...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Stereotypes for every purpose, really.
-- Brian, 03:42:24 08/21/01 Tue
Absolutely. What's interesting about hair color is that it is
so not gender specific. Being in theatre my hair color has been
nearly every shade there is, and people who didn't know me would
react in those stereotypical ways to whatever my color happened
to be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dumb Blonde -- Javoher, 11:18:25 08/16/01 Thu
The points above about the "dumb blonde" stereotype,
and how it extends beyond people who are dumb, or blonde, or female,
are quite valid. It's quite common in high school for girls to
hide their smarts - we all know that. One of the smartest women
I ever met had beautiful white-blonde hair, a gorgeous pink complexion,
and a petite figure. She had guys clustered around her, for a
while. She was also a mathematician by profession, going back
to college for her degree in music. As soon as she opened her
mouth and made it obvious, effortlessly, that she could think
circles around them, she no longer had guys clustered around her.
In the guys' defense, no one really likes to make friends with
someone who is obviously a lot smarter. The friendship becomes
too one-sided. Now if they're just threatened by a female who
can hold her own and doesn't bother to cover up her intelligence,
I withdraw my defense.
If Buffy was "Cordeliaesque" (great description, Nina!)
in her first high school, then acting smart would have been fatal
to her popularity with boys, which is very important to her, and
would have gotten her kicked out of her clique. When she reached
Sunnydale High, she already felt like a sideshow freak. She had
to cover up her disproportionate strength, much like Superman,
and probably covered up her intelligence much the same way.
Buffy is perfectly capable of drawing conclusions based on her
frame of reference and defending those conclusions. I'm thinking
of "Checkpoint" in the class where she mentions Rasputin's
impossibility to kill, and the professor ragging on her for her
inferring that Rasputin was indeed evil and not human, and for
bringing up the same thing about Prussian generals the week before.
I remember thinking to myself, Buffy read the homework?!? But
when it pertains to her calling, she does do the homework and
thinks intelligently about her options and choices. I agree that
Buffy seems to pull in knowledge by osmosis, and what she doesn't
need she doesn't absorb. And she picked up a very abstract point
in that episode that no one else did, including me - that it's
all about power and who has it. She knew then that her power didn't
mean her physical strength or her ability to heal quickly, but
the whole package that is Buffy, intelligence and loving heart
and all.
Perhaps Willow's unusual intelligence intimidates Buffy. Certainly
the way Willow learns, by reading and thinking abstractly and
playing by the rules, is rewarded by the school system more than
the way Buffy learns, which is by doing and absorbing what is
pertinant. That's enough to intimidate any kid. However, defending
my point above, if the levels of raw intelligence weren't roughly
equal they wouldn't be the friends they are.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Dumb Blonde -- Brian, 13:13:27 08/18/01 Sat
AS Xander said in "The Gift" - "Smart women are
so hot-"
Of course, he was an adult by the time he could vocalize that
thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> SAT Scores -- Solitude1056, 12:16:03 08/15/01 Wed
Hm. I got the impression, when the SG were finding out their SAT
scores, that Buffy's SATs were suspiciously high, given her disinclination
to test well (or just work well within structured environment
like SATs, etc). Given the circumstances, I concluded at the time
that the Mayor & his gang had possibly found a way to "bump"
Buffy's SAT scores up high enough that she'd take the chance & get
out of town. This conclusion was further emphasize by Joyce's
immediate reaction that the high scores meant Buffy wasn't boxed
in to going to a local instate school, and to start encouraging
Buffy to look at east coast schools (read: far away from the Hellmouth).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: SAT Scores -- John Burwood, 13:05:56 08/15/01
Wed
But the mayor would have wanted Buffy out of town before Graduation
- high SATs would only get her out after Graduation. We do not
have SATs in the Uk, but I got the impression they were multiple
choice questions, and the point of multiple choice questions is
that they do not simply test memory, but the ability to think
intelligently & fast to work out answers to questions on basis
of what makes most sense rather than simple computer-like memory
recall. Buffy was told by a teacher in S1 Ep4 that she had a first
rate mind & could think on her feet - ideal for multiple choice
tests, I would have thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: SAT Scores -- John Burwood, 13:47:20 08/15/01
Wed
But surely the Mayor would want Buffy out of town before Graduation
- high SATs would not get her out until after Graduation. We have
no SATs in the UK, but I got the impression they were multiple-choice
questions. The point about multiple choice questions is that they
test ability to make fast choices intelligently rather than simply
remember masses of facts. Buffy was described by Dr Gregory in
S1 Ep4 as having a first rate mind & being able to think on her
feet. Ideal temperament for the intelligent guesswork needed to
do well in multiple choice tests, I would have thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: SAT Scores -- Nina, 15:31:33 08/15/01 Wed
I don't have the script handy right now so I am not sure in which
episode it takes place, but beofre she got her SAT scores, Buffy
did some pratice with Giles. She was improvising answers andwas
not even listening to all the choices. She said something like:
"B. The answer is B, because there has been no B for awhile".
I remember when I was 16 I had to take a governement geography
test ( a bit like the SAT) with multiple choices. I used to be
the second best in class and as soon as we got to learn to answer
to multiple choices, I just flunked the class. Never got around
to understand the system. During the final exam, instead of answering
with what I knew, but using statistic to know which answer to
choose, I got a good score. Maybe Buffy was that lucky herself!
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy: 1st annual character posting party -- JBone,
20:05:05 08/15/01 Wed
Usually when I respond to one of these character essays, I'm either
responding to something that I believe to be incorrect or something
that I agree with that I haven't considered before. And most of
the time it involves a character that I perceive not to be fully
examined and/or discussed to his/her true meaning. Buffy, as she
seems to do on the show, breaks a lot of these rules.
Let's face it, Buffy is the reason I started watching in the first
place. I saw a couple of those big hair, short skirt ads, and
thought that I should check this new show out. I saw the original
movie, and was somewhat unimpressed. But, if the new show was
at least as good, I could watch it for a few episodes. Little
did I know the brilliant dramatic horror that awaited me. Buffy,
and the show sucked me in with little ease, and I became a happy
addict. I dare to say that the part of Buffy is the best written,
best directed, best stunt action performed, and best acted female
drama role in the history of American television.
In the last fifty years, the best female parts have traditionally
come on television, rather than the male dominated American film
industry. There have been many strongly written female roles on
television in the later half of the twentieth century up until
today. But they are usually dependent on some man or at least
for an older woman. Not that good drama can't be centered around
an older woman, but to me, they don't stand up to Buffy.
I feel I'm starting to ramble with no clear outcome. I'll let
the rest of you brainiacs decide if I made any kind of sense or
some kind of point. Thank you for your patience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy: 1st annual character posting party -- Wisewoman,
17:27:29 08/16/01 Thu
Oh Nina, what a lovely thing to come back from vacation to find
your Buffy character post! I think you've done an excellent job
of tackling the various aspects of her character, which I have
always found the most difficult one to comprehend. I tell myself
that it's because Buffy is a hero and heroes are different from
ordinary people, but you have made her seem much more human to
me with your perspective. Congratulations on a superb job!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great Job, Nina -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 11:46:29 08/18/01
Sat
Very difficult character to do but you handled it really well.
Like the jungle cat stuff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The word we dare not speak nowadays -- John Burwood,
01:34:37 08/19/01 Sun
Just been re-reading the whole Buffy thread of posts, and have
not noticed there is a critical word missing - a word for some
reason nobody ever seems to be able to use nowadays without getting
embarrassed. We call her the hero, but that refers to courage
or being the centre of the story. There is another word we have
missed - the word is 'good' - in the simple old-fashioned moral
sense. Not infallibly - as Angel told Faith in consequences, she
falls down occasionally - and not in reasoned sense of trying
to be moral, but in simple emotive instinct. She cannever see
someone in trouble, not just from demons, but from bullies or
anyone - remember how she moved to protect Sheila from Snyder
bylying in School Hard, yet she rarely seems to expect gratitude,
or appreciation - or karmic reward! She just does it, by instinct,
without thinking. How many of us do that? And why do we shy away
from using the word nowadays?
A defining 'cool' challenge -- John Burwood, 13:08:14 08/16/01
Thu
I am trying to bodge up a poster profile for Masq which will foster
the illusionthat I have both a life & a soul, & I have a problem.
The list asks for a coolest topic. Can anyone help this faller
off the precipice of the generation gap by defining just exactly
what it means to 'be cool'. Zeppo-Xander had the same problem
& found it by remaining silent in face of Cordelia's taunts, but
that was what I usually tried & it never seemed to work & a thread
which says nothing seems rather pointless. So can anyone produce
a definition? Or am I right in my current surmise that the concept
is definitively indefinable?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Don't you have to decide that for yourself?? -- Masq, 13:31:12
08/16/01 Thu
I think Xander discovered the real meaning of "cool"
was not doing whatever everybody else considered "cool",
but being himself and self-confident about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 'Cool' is in the eye of the beholder... -- Anthony8, 13:39:38
08/16/01 Thu
...at least with respect to the poster profile question IMO. So
for me, it would mean a topic that created an unusual connection
between things for which there wouldn't seem at first glance to
be an obvious tie. Then like a nuclear reaction, the topic would
generate even more not-so-obvious connections in the ensuing discussion.
As far as 'cool' goes culturally, who knows? The term is tossed
about with such casual abandon by virtually every age group (although
I have never heard anyone from my grandparents' generation, 80
and older, use the term), it must mean something different to
each generation. The term originates from its use in jazz from
the Be-Bop era and refers to an attitude and style that is laid
back and aloof--doing one's own thing without caring whether anyone
else likes it or not. Miles Davis was so cool, he turned his back
on the audience preferring to play directly to the other musicians
rather than engage those who came to observe his 'coolness.'
With kids, throughout the years, the term seems to have drifted
away from its original meaning and has been generally used to
identify something synonymous with what's hip or currently 'it'
in terms of popularity and fashion. 'Phat,' 'awesome,' 'gnarly,'
'rad,' 'bitchin',' 'groovy,' and 'keen' all appear to have been
used at one time or another in place of cool in that context.
By the way where does the term 'bodge' come from? Never heard
that one before.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 'Cool' is in the eye of the beholder... -- John
Burwood, 11:07:45 08/17/01 Fri
Thanks for the analyses. 'To bodge', or 'to bodge up' means 'to
assemble or perform clumsily' - can have connotations, depending
on context, of improvisation or ineptitude or both. Some flexibility
of definition here, but not quite as much as 'cool', I think
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 'Cool' is in the eye of the beholder...
-- anom, 19:48:15 08/18/01 Sat
"'To bodge', or 'to bodge up' means 'to assemble or perform
clumsily' - can have connotations, depending on context, of improvisation
or ineptitude or both"
Hmm. Sounds like a classic Carrollian portmanteau word coming
from "botch" & "kludge."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A defining 'cool' challenge -- fresne, 14:06:46 08/16/01
Thu
Well, there are bound to be many definitions. Fashionable. Hip/hep.
Whatever. Problem is we use it so many ways.
"How'r you feeling?" "I'm cool."
Response when given a complete set of Buffy DVD's. "Oh, my
God, this is so cool!" Like being optional somewhere in that
statement.
When discussing a man/woman who one finds madly attractive. Looking
carefully vague, gazing into the distance stage right. "Yeah,
he/she's cool."
Whenever I try to define cool, I always come back to a class in
which we read and discussed Baldassare Castiglione's Book of the
Courtier /Book of the Lady. Great book. Very interesting.
Basically, a bunch of courtiers and ladies get together and decide
to define the perfect gentleman/lady by way of entertainment.
(Well, you know...no t.v.). Lots of humanistic dialog and discourse
later, they decide that the perfect gentleman/lady must possess
the quality of sprezzatura/panache/or as my professor explained
it, cool like the Fonz. Not just calm in a crisis, but controlled.
Not just doing things, but doing them with style. As in one example,
get shot in the thigh while fighting on the battlefields in the
Lowlands, sprezzatura is composing a poem about your thigh. I
think it was Sydney, which given that he wrote the Defense of
Poesy makes some sort of sense.
But anyway, for me cool (usage as in he/she/it is cool) is all
about style. Lord Peter Whimsy is cool. Sherlock Holmes, very
cool. Miles Vorkosigan can be cool when he isn't being manic depressive.
Arthur Fonzerelli, of course, defines cool.
One can not try to be cool, thus paving the way to uncoolness.
Instead, it must well from inside. Thus Xander is only cool when
he stops trying. Was it not the coolest when he fixed the window
in IWMTLY, spouting carpenter factoids, being competent, happy
in his own skin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I salute Fresne as our own homegrown Philosopher Of
Cool. ;-) -- Solitude1056, 14:32:55 08/16/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I salute Fresne as our own homegrown Philosopher
Of Cool. ;-) -- fresne, 09:45:50 08/17/01 Fri
I except your salutations and am proud to say that I am both homegrown
and 1/3 the calories of imported Philosopher's of Cool.
Fresne - Pondering what to wear tonight and that age old dichotomy
- Hot chicks are cooler than hot guys, because we can wear fewer
clothes when dancing, not to menation the cool/fashion factor
of carrying a fan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'm gonna throw a rock into a hornets' nest and see what
happens. :-) -- Anthony8, 15:02:03 08/16/01 Thu
With reference only to the jazz definition of cool in my above
post, here's my assessment of 'cool' as it pertains to the Jossverse:
Angel--cool. Spike--not (Sorry, he's way too hot to be cool!)
Faith--cool. Buffy and Kendra--not (Too self-conscious and obedient).
Gunn--cool. Cordelia--nu, uh (those who dictate to others what
is fashinoable or trend-setting are never cool)
Lindsay--cool (why do you think Angel was so threatened by him?)
Lilah--nope (anyone who can put a lump of coal between her cheeks
and produce a diamond is way too uptight to ever be cool.)
Drusilla--cool (but very, very scary). Darla--no. (She's too pretty
and snotty).
Giles the Ripper (cool...and dangerous). Giles the Watcher--not
(Too stern and stuffy).
Jenny Calendar (cool as the other side of the pillow). Joyce--negative
(too sweet, too 'mom').
Oz--cool, of course. Willow--nope.
Tara--cool (unassuming self-awareness and empathy are always very
cool).
That's my take. What's yours?
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I'm gonna throw a rock into a hornets' nest and
see what happens. :-) -- d'Herblay, 21:06:40 08/16/01 Thu
Chanterelle/Lily--uncool, allows herself to be defined by others;
Anne--cool.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Defining Coolness As: The tune 'Step Right Up' by Tom Waits
-- OnM, 21:39:08 08/16/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hey OnM...here's some PG news and a video that might
interest you... -- A8, 21:44:34 08/16/01 Thu
Go to, if you like:
http://www.kfog.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Ever noticed that someone trying to be cool isn't so hot?
-- Marie, 04:13:24 08/17/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> OK, this board's driving me bonkers! -- Marie, 04:17:37
08/17/01 Fri
What's going on! All day yesterday I was getting the message the
forum server was not responsing, today I can't get into a single
message without having to stop and reload - every sodding time!!
(And I'm not even going to mention the disappearing threads...)
And now it's taking messages - but TWICE!!
Aaaargh!
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: OK, this board's driving me bonkers! --
Brian, 04:56:15 08/17/01 Fri
I feel your pain. The same thing is happening to me.
Very frustrating!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> voy.com needs some serious fixing -- Cactus
Watcher, 07:29:31 08/17/01 Fri
And would someone please shoot clickXchange.com, and put it out
of its misery? Every time I get shunted through there, this site
comes to a screeching halt!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> hey Marie, did you get my email address? --
vampire hunter D, 12:42:41 08/17/01 Fri
I tried reposting it yesterday because I remember you asked for
it. But that thread has totally disappeared (it's not even in
the archives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Yes! I sent you an e-mail using your link
here - didn't you get it? -- Marie, 16:04:02 08/17/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> cool or cool not. there is no try. @>) -- anom,
20:07:27 08/19/01 Sun
Respect my authority -- spotjon,
14:32:02 08/16/01 Thu
Buried deep down in the "Buffy and God" discussion,
the point was made that Joss seems to have a problem with authority,
and I responded by citing a few examples of this. After which,
Dedalus gave his thoughts as to why authority is such a bad thing.
(Note: The preceding links probably won't work after the thread
has been moved into the archives.) Dedalus summed up his thoughts
with this phrase: "Rebellion pushes us farther." I'm
going to spend a little time disputing the anti-authoritarian
philosophy that Dedalus is proposing, hopefully in a way that
makes. Here goes.
"Without rebellion, we would have no [C]onstitution. We would
still think the sun revolved around the earth. We would have no
... heck, no Christianity. No Protestantism. No anything, really."
- Dedalus
What authority is: Authority is when a person or group of persons
possesses the right to tell other persons what to do and/or what
not to do (i.e., how to behave). Parents possess authority; teachers
possess authority; governments possess authority. At least they
all do in my opinion. The important aspect of my definition is
that certain persons and institutions actually do possess the
right to command a certain type of behavior in others. Parents
have the right to tell their children how to behave. Policemen
possess the right to keep us from driving faster than the speed
limit. Employers have the right to demand that their employees
perform work as defined in their contracts. And as such, if these
people have the right to demand a certain type of behavior, then
those who are under their authority have the obligation to submit
to their instruction.
Now, I hear Dedalus and others lauding the philosophy that says,
in order to become the best you can be you must deny and rebel
against authority. In his post, Dedalus cites such movies as Crouching
Tiger, Hidden Dragon and the Star Wars trilogy as illustrations
of his view. In those stories, the characters who rebelled and
broke all the rules were the ones who finally broke free from
the "The System," and had "infinite potential and
took everything to a whole new level." Of course, these stories
are only fiction, so while they perform an excellent work in illustrating
the espoused philosophy, they cannot be used as examples of that
philosophy's supposed superiority.
Before I move on to the examples given, I want to take a look
at whether rebellion against authority can ever be right. Assuming,
as I have above, that most authority is legitimate (e.g., parental
and governmental authority), then do we ever have the right to
act against that authority? If they have the right to tell us
what to do, then what right do we have to argue against them?
I would submit that we have have the right to rebel against authority
when, and only when, that authority has overstepped its bounds.
When the government demands that you cannot practice your religion,
or speak publicly about your beliefs, then the government has
overstepped its bounds. When a parent tells you to shoplift because
you can get away with it more easily than they, then they have
overstepped their bounds. When a manager demands "favors"
from you, with a threat of unemployment, he has overstepped his
bounds. In such cases, you are totally in your right to rebel,
because that person or institution has demanded things that it
has no right to demand. But, so long as they have remained within
their rightful boundaries, you have no right to act against their
wishes.
The examples that Dedalus cites are few and brief, but important.
The first is that we would have no (American) Constitution without
rebellion. While this is true, it is important to note that England
overstepped her bounds in the Americas (or at least that was the
rationalization by the Revolutionaries). I don't know enough about
American history to say whether or not the Colonies were justified
in rebelling against the British, but I assume that they were.
Rebellion against unjust authorities is justifiable, right, and
necessary, but that doesn't mean we are justified in denying a
just authority. (Just how many "justs" can I fit into
one sentence, I wonder?)
The second example is Christianity. I agree that there was a certain
spirit of rebellion in early Christianity, but it was always directed
against the corruption of those who sat in the places of authority,
not against the authority itself. Jesus spoke out against the
religious leaders of His day, not because He was against authority,
but because the leaders were themselves corrupt. He had no patience
for those who were hypocritical in their beliefs, no matter how
holy they appeared on the outside. In fact, Jesus commanded His
disciples to obey the very religious leaders He was speaking out
against: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in
Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell
you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what
they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders,
but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them"
(Matthew 23:2-4). Jesus spoke out against the zealots of the day
who wished to overthrow the Roman rulers, and even commanded His
followers to pay the Roman tax ("Give to Caesar that which
is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's" - Matt. 22:21).
Still later, the apostle Paul echoed Jesus' sentiments in his
letter to the church in Rome, when he said, "Everyone must
submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority
except that which God has established. The authorities that exist
have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against
the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and
those who do so will bring judgment on themselves" (Romans
13:1,2). I would recommend reading the entire 13th chapter of
this book, which gives a good reason why a Christian needs to
submit to governmental authority.
The third example is Protestantism, which of course is closely
tied to Christianity (at least some of us hope so). The Protestant
Reformers were speaking out against corruption in the church leadership
at this time, a problem which was very pervasive. In fact, the
Reformers at first had no intention of branching off into their
own churches apart from the Roman church, but rather attempted
to (and here's the key word) reform the church from within. It
was only after the Catholic church refused to acknowledge its
own corruption that the Reformers started their own denominations.
I don't know that the Reformers were totally justified in everything
they did in their protests, but the movement was not anti-authoritarian,
at least not in the beginning.
I would ask anyone here to give an example of an unjustified break
from and against authority which resulted in something better
and brighter, and which did not fall under its own weight after
a short time. I wouldn't bother throwing in new philosophies from
the last century that are still around, since we have yet to see
whether or not they will stand the test of time.
Rules were not made to be broken - they were made to be followed;
but rulers were not made to be autonomous - they are still subject
to judgement. We need rules if only because we have such a strong
desire to disobey. Anarchy is never a justifiable position to
take, in my opinion.
-spotjon
P.S. - I will be out of town for most of the weekend starting
Friday, so I won't be around to reply until I'm back. Just so
you don't think I'm avoiding the debate. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Respect my authority -- voyageofbeagle, 16:42:09 08/16/01
Thu
I think the problem with your argument: "I would submit that
we have have the right to rebel against authority when, and only
when, that authority has overstepped its bounds." is that
"overstepping bounds" is not something that can be clearly
defined.
You site the American Revolution as an instance of when the authority
(England) overstepped its bounds. In the eyes of the colonists,
they certainly had. "No taxation without representation"
was a powerful rally cry.
However, in the eyes of England, they had poured immense amounts
of money and resources into making this "savage" land
inhabitable, and in turn expected to reap the benefits in the
form of raw materials, like timber, and a captive population that
would buy English goods.
In their eyes, a relatively small segment of the population had
declared, "Hey, thanks for all the help getting this all
set up, now go away."
Another example you give is that parents have the right to tell
their children how to behave. You mention that a parent would
be over-stepping their bounds if they tried to force their child
to shoplift. What if it was grayer? What if a parent was telling
their 17 year old what religion they must follow? Or whom they
could date? Or what college they could attend?
I don't think there can be any hard and fast guideline for rebelling
against authority. Personally, I have to side with Dedalus and
say "Viva la revolution!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Respect my authority -- Dedalus, 16:42:17 08/16/01 Thu
Okay, I was about to launch on a dissertation here, but why not
just nip it in the bud?
(And that was a well-written response by the way)
To sum up, I remember a quote that was made by one of the writers
of Rebel Without a Cause (one of my favorites - he-he), in which
he said a very interesting thing. The film was not so much about
juvenile delinquents - as juveniles rebelling against a delinquent
society.
I am so glad I recalled that. And there we go.
I use to think as you do, and was very conservative growing up,
but I can't really get into that mindset anymore. Mainly because
the more you live, the more you see no one really knows what they're
doing. Some people give great imitations of such, but never really
get it down.
The basis of your argument seems to be that those in authority
have a perfect right to that authority. The basis of mine is that
authority does not have a perfect right to said authority. You
do bend and say it is justifiable to rebel when authority becomes
corrupt or oversteps its bounds, but I would like to posit that
pretty much all authority is corrupt. Cause you know, power corrupts.
And this is for everyone, be he Bill "pass the cigar"
Clinton or George W. "There's nothing wrong with the o-zone"
Bush.
Actually, I think my main thesis is that people are pretty much
idiots.
And with that in mind, I'm not advocating anarchy, though it does
sound that way. That would be a mistake. I'm not sure what I'm
advocating, to be honest. I just think it's a sign of our immaturity
as a species at large that we need people to sit around and tell
us what to do. And not just because I'm some immoral whatever
that just wants to fornicate and do drugs and lie and cheat and
steal. Put it this way, I want drugs legalized, but I have never
done drugs nor do I have any interest in doing them. I just think
it's ridiculous that there's a law about it. And, you know what?
It doesn't do anything. The war on drugs. Drugs are illegal. So?
Nobody cares. The people that do them, do them anyway. And those
of us that steer clear of them, steer clear of them anyway. I'm
generalizing, but that's not always such a bad thing.
But maybe all of this is necessary in some way. I believe in dependent
origination, and how everything depends on everything else, and
so maybe if there wasn't a status quo at work, the really cool
people wouldn't have anything to rebel against and spurn them
on. So maybe it's a symbiosis of some strange kind.
The thing is, we're on a big rock zipping around a star. We don't
know where we're going, we don't know where we've been, and on
top of that, we have to keep going to the bathroom. And that's
pretty much the situation. I think art and myth are our only achievements
of any worth whatsoever. I'm probably alone in that assessment,
but there it is. Which is fine, because I'm not trying to persuade
anybody of this. It's just a matter of seeing things.
I'm not sure what else there is to say. You seem to be positing
some kind of belief in the "divine right of kings,"
which is sort of an odd thing to say in the twenty-first century,
but again, there it is. Most Christians stay away from Romans
13, but if you still really believe that all authority is instituted
by God, I mean, where am I gonna go with my argument?
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Respect my authority -- Slayrunt, 17:34:26 08/16/01
Thu
Actually, I think my main thesis is that people are pretty much
idiots. I'm probably alone in that assessment, but there it is.
Which is fine, because I'm not trying to persuade anybody of this.
It's just a matter of seeing things.
You are not alone. I also have come to that conclusion, but I
would rephrase it to- all people are idiots, some more often then
others.
I agree with your statement about legalized drugs, and like you,I
don't nor want to use drugs.
About the "divine right of kings" I have to agree with
spotjon. I would like to add that the kings are also to follow
Gods laws though.
I would hope that everyone will agree that man is flawed regardless
of your theological believes. It all comes down to this. There
is a divine Creator who put us here, or there is not. If there
is not and this is all some kind of universal accident what does
it really matter. Darwin is right. The survival of the fittest
is the law. If on the other hand, there is a divine Creator then
we can choose to serve that Creator or not.
We are all slaves to something or someone. There are many things
in this world we can choose to be slaves to, money, power, lust,
our ego, our intellect, the rules set by man or by government,
the rules set by God. The great thing about this type of slavery
is that the slave gets to chose his/her master. Choose well.
The thing is, we're on a big rock zipping around a star. We don't
know where we're going, we don't know where we've been, and on
top of that, we have to keep going to the bathroom.
Love it!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Respect my authority -- Darrick, 18:10:57
08/16/01 Thu
I would take issue with some of your comments. If you believe,
as I do, that there is no god of any kind, then we are not merely
left with "survival of the fittest." I think you're
making the mistake of assigning some political or social role
to what is only a rule describing the natural process of evolution.
Even that "rule", is often misquoted to imply that it
is the physically strongest creatures that survive. In simple
terms, fitness can only be defined in terms of the ability to
survive long enough to reproduce. This can be accomplished in
any number of ways. I believe there is more to life than this,
your mileage may vary. As intelligent beings, we can sidestep
evolution and even work against it. We often do.
You ask "what does it matter", and I would answer that
it matters because we as generally rational beings assign some
level of meaning to our lives and the lives of those around us.
Just because there's no god, it does not mean that we have to
become nihilists who believe life has no value. It has the value
we as a society, and as individuals, have given it over thousands
of years of development.
I also take issue with your argument that people are all slaves.
While we do have strong needs tied directly into our biological
functions, beyond that I think most people have to be held responsible
for their actions and given credit for being rational beings.
Perhaps I simply don't understand your definition of slavery.
You allow for a choice, so perhaps it's a question of semantics
rather than a real point of contention.
As for the divine right of kings, how can there be any "divine
right" when kings are put on their thrones by men and women
to control other men and women? Arguing that all authority is
established by god seems to be a dubious prospect at best. I suppose
if you believe that everything that happens is ordained and controlled
by some god, with no free will, then this "divine right of
king's" makes sense. After all, in that kind of world, people
could do nothing that wasn't God's will. Of course, that begs
the question of why you should even get up in the morning, since
you can't possibly do anything but the divine intent. It seems
to me that if you believe in any free will at all, the notion
that all authority should be obeyed as a matter of religious command
is suspect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> A couple of points... -- AK-UK, 18:27:25
08/16/01 Thu
Re: Survival of the fittest.
Can I just express how much I despise this ridiculous phrase.
Putting to one side it's flagrant misuse, and the lack of attention
paid to species which co-operate to survive, HOW was this pathetic
tautology ever allowed to gain such widespread acceptance?
"The fittest creatures survive"
"How do you know they were the fittest?"
"Well, because they survived"
WHAT????? ARGH!!!!
Annnnnyway.
The Divine right of Kings doesn't depend upon an all-knowing,
all-powerful creator. We are allowed to maintain our free will.
It's just a way of ensuring that everyone knows their place in
society, and ensures that such a society is run in accordance
with the laws set out by God. The fact that said God is omniscient,
omnipotent, and that the Kings tend to be corrupt tyrants who
completely ignore any law which doesn't suit them is entirely
coincidental.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: A couple of points... -- Dedalus,
18:52:43 08/16/01 Thu
"The fact that said God is omniscient, omnipotent, and that
the Kings tend to be corrupt tyrants who completely ignore any
law which doesn't suit them is entirely coincidental."
Ha! I love that. Law is sort of situational, isn't it?
And I agree with what you say about survival of the fittest. Especially
sense the end point for all species is, ya know, extinction. "Bloody
tooth and claw" is so passe. And actually, in one way or
another, all species cooperate to survive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: A couple of points... -- Darrick,
19:30:36 08/16/01 Thu
I agree with you 100% on "survival of the fittest."
That one phrase has caused a great deal of misery since it first
came to light. I suppose the trouble lies mostly in how people
interpret fitness. I imagine the reason the circular logic of
social Darwinism is so attractive is that, in the absence of religious
morality, it provides a "scientific" rationale for the
powerful to do whatever they like. In fact, it bears more than
a passing similiarity to the "divine right of kings."
I get your point about the divine right, but it seems to me if
someone believed in a _literal_ interpretation, it would call
into question the notion of free will. After all, if a King ruled
with a divine mandate, doesn't that imply that some deity is taking
a direct hand in the affairs of mortals? But I guess you're right,
if the authority makes the choice to break the divine law then
they will no longer be have the divine mandate and so free will
is preserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Respect my authority -- Slayrunt,
21:58:09 08/16/01 Thu
As far as "survival of the fittest" goes, as intelligent
beings we can and do sidestep evolution and do at times work against
it. In caveman days (if there were caveman days) the strongest
used force on and over the weak. Society now uses the "fittest",
read power, to help protect the weak. btw I should say the theory
of evolution, as it is not a scientific law and has not be proved
true, just as the existence of God has not be proved true in scientific
terms.
As far as "what does it matter" goes I was speaking
in the larger picture of things. If there is no God and no after-life
then someday the sun will burn out and we will all die and no
one will be left to remember anything we did. I certainly believe
life has value, but in the larger sense, why?
My definition of slavery in this context is that we all live in
this world and hopefully will think and learn about life. We all
must make decisions about our life and live with the consequences.
If you are a drug addict and your whole life is about your next
fix, then you are a slave to that drug, but it was your choice
to use the drug in the first place.
My point about divine right of kings comes from the old Testiment
where the Jews requested God for a king to rule them. It was not
God's intent that man be ruled by man, but at mans insistence.
God explained to them what that would mean by still they wanted
it.
There is certainly free will and that is my point about slavery.
You have free will to serve God, man, yourself, whatever. But
you will serve someone or something. You can choose to give authority
over yourself to God or not and if that is the case then if the
notion that all authority should be obeyed as a matter of religious
command is your free choice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> But what does God want? And why?
-- OnM, 07:42:13 08/17/01 Fri
You can choose to give authority over yourself to God or not.
True, you can, but what is the intrinsic motivation for God to
tell us what to do? Why is he/she/it even interested in us? If
I accept what some groups consider to be the nature of God-- i.e.
all-knowing and all-powerful compared to little ol' us, why do
we even matter? To be honest, while I don't do out of my way to
kill most insects, if they are annoying me, I do (for example,
swat a fly). I don't grieve over them. They simply 'are', there
is no emotional involvement. I have no desire to run insect lives.
Personally, I'd rather have humanity being created by some advanced
race of alien beings, because then I could see a point in it,
just as we are now on the first crude pathways to creating life
ourselves. You could explain the desire in a number of ways, curiousity,
artistry, exploration, the collection of greater knowledge. But
having created life, do we now righteously insist on controlling
it's every move? Or do we give it freedom, including the freedom
to ignore it's creator?
It's not going to happen for a while yet, but someday, maybe a
century or less, we will have to deal with this dilemma for real,
methinks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But what does God want?
And why? -- Slayrunt, 22:17:04 08/17/01 Fri
True, you can, but what is the intrinsic motivation for God to
tell us what to do? Why is he/she/it even interested in us? If
I accept what some groups consider to be the nature of God-- i.e.
all-knowing and all-powerful compared to little ol' us, why do
we even matter?
If you accept some groups version of the nature of God then God
created us. To a child, his/her parents are all-knowing and all-powerfull
compared to the little ol' child. That child's parents want to
protect and help the child learn and grow. That is why God is
interested in us.
But having created life, do we now righteously insist on controlling
it's every move? Or do we give it freedom, including the freedom
to ignore it's creator?
God is sets rules as hopefully parents sets rules and we as His
children can follow them or ignore them and our Creator.
My question to you is what was the point of the aliens creating
us?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But what does God
want? And why? -- OnM, 22:33:51 08/17/01 Fri
My question to you is what was the point of the aliens creating
us?
If you check in the middle of my middle paragraph, I answered
this as follows:
You could explain the desire in a number of ways, curiousity,
artistry, exploration, the collection of greater knowledge.
Your point about the child seeing his/her parents as 'all seeing
and all-knowing' is true, but as the child grows, s/he will learn
that this is not the case, that the parents are limited in the
knowing of things. God is presented as 'all-knowing and all-seeing',
without qualification. Thus, my comparison of us being insects--
trivial beings. I actually would be willing to accept a god who
is *not* omnipotent/omniscient, but if I broach this argument
to many 'believers', they will not accept it because then God
would have no authority over them if s/he is not perfect.
Catch 22.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But what does
God want? And why? -- Dedalus, 13:21:01 08/18/01 Sat
And furthermore, said God, the God that would preside over heaven/hell,
and the saved vs. unsaved, and would negate so much of the world's
population by providing only one acceptable means of salvation
which 98% of all the people who have ever lived probably never
heard of, would not have unlimited power because said God would
have a very limited view. A view built on oppositional thinking
that does not really apply with how we have come to not just see
the world, but experience it. This would be the God that presided
over an earth that was flat, had four sides, was stationary, built
on a foundation, and that the sun revolved around. Thus we have
the now recognizable (hopefully) problem of how we have tried
to filter omniscience through human intellect only to find that
human intellect has actually surpassed said omniscience! We get
ourselves into the most peculiar situations.
Just for the record, I actually think the earth is just one big
insane asylum, and we're all inmates and don't know it.
"Take me to your leader."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dedalus,
you're a closet Sufi? -- Solitude1056, 18:01:35 08/18/01 Sat
There's a quip from the 16th or 17th century which goes something
like, "A philosopher is someone who sees the earth as a ball
of rock (or dirt or something) hurtling through the heavens covered
with fools." The Sufis, btw, have a thread that believes
this world isn't an insane asylum, but more like a mental hospital,
where we're all stuck until we get better. Once we do, we can
check ourselves out & move on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hummmm....
Mental hospital as Original Sin analogy? -- OnM, 06:54:26 08/19/01
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmmm....Life
= Basketweaving 101.......... -- Rufus, 13:48:44 08/19/01 Sun
Graduation comes when you make the perfect basket. I think many
of us suck at arts and crafts.:):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But what does
God want? And why? -- Slayrunt, 00:27:32 08/19/01 Sun
Yes, we eventually learn that our parents don't know everything
and we may learn that we are smarter than our parents or at least
think so.
I just don't understand the connection between God being "all-knowing
and all-seeing" and our intellegence. No matter how intellegent
we are or become, there certainly could be more intellegent creatures
out there. If it is back to why God cares I can only go back to
God created us so we are His children, that's why.
If I am missing something, I apologize. Please restate so I can
understand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But
what does God want? And why? -- OnM, 07:16:24 08/19/01 Sun
No apology necessary. Lemme give it another try.
One limitation of this forum is that I can't draw or use a graphic
when one might be handy, and right now would be a good time. So,
I will try to describe a scenario, and then use it to illustrate
my thinking.
Some years ago, a science program on TV (might have been *Nova*,
not sure) had a fellow who was explaining just how short a time
we have been on the Earth relative to other species, and furthermore
just how fast we developed intellectually in a very short time
period. He used the following analogy.
He set up a five mile course along one of those really straight
roads out in the Western US. The beginning of the road was the
beginning of life on Earth, using our best current information,
fossil records, etc. You had to drive along the road for several
miles before you even got to where the dinosaurs existed. You
had to drive something like 4.9 miles before you got to where
humans branched off from other existing primates. The civilization
of the Greeks and Romans is about 2 feet from the 5 mile endpoint.
When we moved into the 20th century, we are about one inch from
the five-mile endpoint of the road.
Now place the range of cosmic intelligence (we are assuming for
the sake of argument that there is other intelligence in the entirity
of the universe) along a similar road, high intelligence on one
end to low intelligence on the other end. God's intelligence/perceptivity
is at the beginning point of the road. We are maybe two feet from
the five mile point at the other end.
The above statement presumes that God is possessed of all knowledge
and has essentially infinite power and ability. If this is not
the case, then God could be much closer to us along the highway.
I prefer to think of any personal gods that I care to believe
in to be closer to me in this fashion, not off at the very end/beginning
of the road where I can't even see them, and where it seems to
me the difference in abilities is so great, that I am but an insect
to God, maybe even a paramecium. I find it hard to accept that
such a being would have more than a faint curiousity about me,
and caring seems out of the question.
My fellow humans, on the other hand, are right here next to me,
therefore I prefer to put my faith in them. I do not require them
to be flawless to care for them.
Is this any better, or have I just confused things further?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
But what does God want? And why? -- Wisewoman, 10:42:44 08/19/01
Sun
Was the beginning of the road the beginning of life on earth,
or the Big Bang? I can't remember, although I saw the same program.
Now, I'm a neo-Pagan, so I'm not qualified to talk about the capital
G God, but why would someone assume that he/she/it began at the
same time as life on earth, or even at the same time as the Big
Bang? I thought the whole point was that he/she/it was supposed
to be infinite in time and space, and therefore existed before
the Big Bang and in fact, was the primary cause of it?
My own personal theory (which I know you're all just dying to
hear...lol) is that we, human beings, all life in fact, are a
game that Unity Consciousness is playing with itself. The object
of the game is to discover who/what you really are during the
limited time of a lifespan on earth. Not many people make it.
Those who don't have the choice of deciding whether to come back
and try again (reincarnation) but the rules of the game make it
clear that not only do you forget what you learned in previous
lifetimes, you also forget you had previous lives, and to make
it even more interesting, you forget you're playing the game!
And my own take on why this happened in the first place is that
Unity Consciousness was bored...and this extremely convoluted
game is definitely not boring...as OnM pointed out (although not
with my theory in mind, granted) it took billions of years just
to set up the board for the game, and things become unimaginably
more complicated at each step along the way.
(This also explains why we keep having to go to the bathroom,
a la Dedalus/Carlin...it just makes things a little bit more difficult,
and therefore more interesting!)
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
God's not just playing dice, God's playing yahtzee? -- Solitude1056,
15:41:15 08/19/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I rolled a 42, what does that mean? -- Slayrunt, 17:10:27 08/19/01
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Well... -- Masq, 19:21:41 08/19/01 Sun
It's either the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything,
or the number on the door of Mulder's apartment.
Or possibly both.
Douglas Adams. *sob*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Social Darwinism/evolutionary Darwinism -- Rahael,
09:05:35 08/20/01 Mon
Darwin didn't mean that the powerful survived in societies. He
didn't mean to make any moral commentary on human society. All
he was talking referring to was physical attributes that enabled
some species to survive longer than others. And even then, it
didn't operate all the time. Evolution took place in spurts, with
climate and environment, playing an important factor.
It really gets to me when people use Darwin to justify treating
other human beings in a degrading way. Especially those who are
not good at exams, or who are disabled, or who are regarded as
less than human. I really object to 'social' Darwinism. They never
seem to consider that our desire to form communities, to help
each other is one of our strongest reasons for surviving thus
far. Our altruism is a sign of 'fitness'.
As for the debate about 'authority', there is another side to
this. What about the laws regulating big business? Preventing
them from plundering the earth's resources? What about legislation
preventing discrimation against minorities? (it works in Britian,
don't know about the situation in the US). Surely there is a difference
between 'power' and 'authority'. Sure, authority is often used
to legitimise oppressive and unjust power, but it is the only
tool the powerless have, because authority is condititional -
you can, and should challenge it. If all authority broke down,
you'd be left with untrammelled power -- money and guns.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Social Darwinism/evolutionary Darwinism
-- Humanitas, 10:07:59 08/20/01 Mon
"Our altruism is a sign of 'fitness'."
OK, History major here, so don't stake me if I'm mis-remembering
this, but I seem to recall one of my biologist friends in college
telling me about a phenomenon known as "biological altruism"
in birds (and maybe animals, too, but I can't remember). The way
she described it, the statistical probability of one individual
sacrificing itself for another is directly correlated with the
percentage of genetic material that the two individuals have in
common. Anyone out there know anything about this?
What's different about humanity is that we seem to have the ability
to divorce our altruistic impulses from the evolutionary imperative
to pass along genetic material.
Woah. Hang on, just got a head-rush from stringing all those 50-cent
words together. OK, I'm back.
Anyway, I think you're right, Rahael. Our unique adaptation, the
analog of the giraffe's neck or the elephant's trunk, is our intelligence.
The ability to do things and desire things that are not grounded
in simple biology is the reason why we are one of the most sucessful
species on the planet. Of course, it's also what allows us to
do things that could ultimately destroy the planet. I think that's
going to be the big issue for this new century. Which edge of
this sword are we going to cut with?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Kin selection and altruism -- d'Herblay,
20:54:17 08/20/01 Mon
Humanitas writes: OK, History major here, so don't stake me if
I'm mis-remembering this, but I seem to recall one of my biologist
friends in college telling me about a phenomenon known as "biological
altruism" in birds (and maybe animals, too, but I can't remember).
The way she described it, the statistical probability of one individual
sacrificing itself for another is directly correlated with the
percentage of genetic material that the two individuals have in
common. Anyone out there know anything about this?
Ok, philosophy major here, so I'm not technically adept in this
subject, and while I can claim to have done extensive reading
in evolutionary biology, I cannot claim to have done extensive
understanding. That said, I think the principle you're referring
to is called kin selection.
Briefly stated, the theory holds that it would be an evolutionary
beneficial strategy for the genes of an animal to influence it
to vary its level of altruistic behavior towards another of its
species according to the degree of the genetic relationship it
has with that other. (Dawkins defines altruism in this statement:
"An entity [ . . . ] is said to be altruistic if it behaves
in such a way as to increase another such entity's welfare at
the expense of its own."1) Thus, one would expect an animal
to show more altruistic behavior towards its parents, siblings
or offspring, all of who share 1/2 its genes than to grandparents,
grandchildren, half-siblings, uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces,
who share 1/4. (I apologize for using human terms of relation
here. I simply don't know how to refer to offspring of siblings
in biological terms.) 2 As J.B.S. Haldane put it, "I will
lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins."3
It is important to remember that just because this would be an
evolutionary beneficial strategy does not mean that is necessarily
occurs in all species. Many opportunistic feeders will eat their
own young (guppies come to mind), despite the negative effect
on their own reproductive potential. Also, and here I'm speculating,
I think any cost-benefit analysis of kin-selected altruism would
have to be adjusted from the percentage of genes shared to reflect
the potential reproductive success of such altruism's beneficiary.
That is, I would expect to see more altruism toward a sexual mature
sibling than to a senescent parent. By this reasoning, the more
sure you are that an offspring will reach sexual maturity, the
more altruism you will direct to it, and the less you would direct
to other kin.
I apologize if this has turned out convoluted. Were I smarter,
it would be simpler.
*** 1. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1976/89, Oxford, p.
4. 2. Also, these percentages only hold for those creatures who
practice diploid sexual reproduction, where each offspring receives
as half its genetic material half of its mother's, and receives
half its father's for the other half. Wasps, bees, and ants practice
haplodiploid reproduction, so the percentages of shared genes
differ in a complicated way which I cannot explain but which has
been used to explicate the social arrangements of these animals.
3. Quoted in Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin, 1977/92, Norton,
p. 262. See my post "Re: Lies, damned lies, and statistics"
in the thread "Buffy and God" on the ubiquity of quotes
attributed to Haldane.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Kin selection and altruism --
Humanitas, 21:10:22 08/20/01 Mon
Smarter? Smarter? You not only used footnotes, you figured out
how to code the annotations! Where's that Golden Pocket Protector
someone was waving around eariler?
Seriously, your explanation was fine. Thanks for expanding on
my fuzzy memory. So what do you think about the tendancy humans
have to override that principle, and do things like, say, battle
a master vampire to one's own death and beyond to save the world?
(Can't use The Gift. Dawn shares all or nearly all of Buffy's
genetic material.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Kin selection and altruism
-- d'Herblay, 21:47:09 08/20/01 Mon
Well, I tried writing the HTML so that clicking on the superscript
would take you down to the footnote, but that didn't work out.
But HTML tricks ain't smarts, it's just showin' off.
As to the tendency of Buffy and humans in general to display non-kin
selected altruism . . . just off the top of my head, it strikes
me that children just aren't in the picture for Buffy--it's not
part of the Slayer package, especially when you're dating someone
240 years old and sterile. It would be interesting if she showed
less inclination to risk her life at the end of season four, when
she and Riley are together and happy, than at other times, but
she shows the same heroism all the time as far as I can tell.
Plus, her mother, though still fertile, is unlikely (before her
death) to pass on 1/4 of Buffy's genes to a half-sibling, and
the only Buffy-cousin I know of died young, so Buffy may take
some propensity for kin-selection and expand it to humanity as
a whole. But I think that biological explanations are a dead end
here. Buffy risks her life for people she hardly knows because
she is, as John Burwood points out at the end of the 1st Anniversary
thread, *good*.
Evolutionary explanations for general altruism in humans depend
first of all on there being general altruism. Except in Mother
Teresa/Millard Fuller-type cases, there's some basis for cynicism
here (and Mother Teresa, like Buffy, had no reproductive potential
of her own). A lot of our altruism depends on some sort of relationship,
if not kin-selection level closeness, then group-selection proximity,
which is again, we help those who share our genes. This is probably
the impetus for a lot of "altruism" in the pre-modern
era, when "Let's help our Christian brothers in Palestine"
translated into "Let's kill the Saracens, and any Jews or
Byzantine Christians we encounter along the way." One impetus
for altruism separate from shared genetic material might be that
we seem to be coded, either genetically or culturally, to feel
affection for the youthful. (Stephen Jay Gould, in The Panda's
Thumb, has a wonderful exploration of this tendency using the
development of Mickey Mouse from long-nosed, pinched-face rat
in Steamboat Willie to snub-nosed, big-eyed child substitute in
the modern day.) One thing I've noticed is that Sally Struthers
never asks me to Save the Grandparents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Kin selection and altruism --
anom, 21:59:26 08/20/01 Mon
"Thus, one would expect an animal to show more altruistic
behavior towards its parents, siblings or offspring, all of who
share 1/2 its genes than to grandparents, grandchildren, half-siblings,
uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces, who share 1/4."
Then there are some apes (incl. chimps & bonobos, I think) among
which the females mate w/>1 male, so any of them could be the
offsprings' father & all of them may have a stake in their survival.
In human societies, since there's always the possibility of doubt
as to who fathered a child, this may lead to a sort of just-in-case
altruism, at least toward those who are more likely to be related
to one. I wonder if racism is based in part on the idea that "if
you don't look like me, you're probably not related to me."
On the other hand, there are societies in which a child's mother's
brother, whose relation to the child is beyond question, is expected
to be responsible/have feelings for the child in the way we expect
of a father.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> i'm so glad you said that -- anom, 10:41:06
08/20/01 Mon
I wanted to say something along those lines early on, but I have
a tendency to lose track of which message I want to respond to
if I don't do it right away. Just as well, since you said it better
than I would've. I'll just add that even in the evolutionary context,
"survival of the fittest" is often used too generally,
as though it applied to the entire environment instead of meaning
survival of the species, & the individuals within it, best adapted
to each niche. ("Evolution: Life's a niche, & then you die.")
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Mini A:tS-related primer on "fitness"
-- Masq, 12:31:16 08/20/01 Mon
From my entry on "First Impressions" Angel, Season 2,
ep 3 (http://home.4w.com/pages/btvs/a21.html#203ma)
"Survival of the fittest, bro: "Fitness" is not
necessarily about who is the strongest, or the best fighter. As
any good Darwinian will tell you, fitness is relative--it all
depends on what dangers you're up against, even in the demon-hunting
business. Gunn tries to stay alive by being ever-vigilant, and
he's made it his responsibility to keep his fellow demon-fighters
on their toes. He's also rude to people who lack his fighting
skills. He wants to protect them, but they can only get in his
way when it's fighting time. Or so he thinks.
Walking around with your fists perpetually raised can get people
killed. You make enemies that way, and those enemies will go after
the people you love. You can't always protect them, especially
if you need their help. But why would you ever need that? Gunn
has yet to learn the value of weapons other than brute strength--things
like research, planning, magic spells, and tact. These are also
fit traits in the Buffyverse."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Tact???Well, that sure takes all
the fun out of a Saturday night....:):):) -- Rufus, 14:51:00 08/20/01
Mon
So what you mean is Walk softly, but hide your big stick.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Using science to discriminate....... -- Rufus,
15:35:21 08/20/01 Mon
Oh, you have tripped over something close to my heart, the treatment
of the disabled in our society. Social Darwinism is just an excuse
to dehumanize others and make cruel judgements about their value
to society. Our bodies may have evolved but our compassion and
ability to care needs some work. We place entirely too much import
on the visual, and not enough on the real. If a person looks good,
they are good. That leaves the disabled marginalized, their value
and use to society untapped. Just because someone is disabled,it
doesn't mean that they don't have a talent that has been missed
because of our obsession with physical perfection. I think one
of the most clear examples of this is what happened to someone
I knew years ago. They were chronically ill and unable to work
so their value to society to some was considered less. What really
pissed me off were the cruel words used to further crush this
person. They were told to kill themselves so they could be reincarnated
in a better form. The sad part was that emotionally fragile, this
person began to agree with that cruel and thoughtless suggestion.
In the Buffyverse, Demons are what we use to consider value. It
was easy in season one as they were considered all evil. Now,
with more information we have to look at, not just what we consider
a monsterous visage, but what that being does. Buffy kills only
the threat to humanity, something in her prevents her from killing
all demons on sight. We have to look closely what matters, a soul,
the appearence, or, what the demon does. It is the human monster
that is the most frightening because we are all capable of being
one. Maybe not all the time, but we all possess the ability to
become a monster by our words or actions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Cordelia the Social Darwinist -- Helen,
03:56:51 08/21/01 Tue
She has now grown as a person, but Cordelia used to display a
chilling attitude to the less fortunate, and certainly display
social darwinist tendencies:
"Some people deserve certain priviledges. They're called
winners .
Go Fish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> All great points! -- Rahael, 15:37:49
08/21/01 Tue
You guys have made me think even more!
Esp, about altruism and genetic links. I agree that there is probably
a strong impulse to put family versus anyone else, as shown in
the Gift. But BtVS also demonstrates other tendencies - what is
family? Tara rejects her family for her friends - how many of
us have known people to do that.
I have seen (admittedly the unusual situation of a civil war)
some exceptional acts of bravery by individuals who sacrificed
their own and their families safety for the sake of relative strangers.
What about the pull of ideology? Religious fanaticism? Who could
doubt that a committed member of a terrorist organisation like
the Taliban would put their religious beliefs before their own
family? What about the enormous and often unspoken amount of abuse,
neglect that occurs in families? I think these are the things
that Social darwinism brushes under the carpet. Human beings and
human minds are much more mysterious, interesting, and deep than
the simplicities of some social darwinists.
I did history at Uni too, but my mother was a scientist specialising
in primate development. I like Stephen Jay Gould a lot for the
depth and sophistication of his understanding of science and life,
and strongly object to Richard Dawkins. I don't think that human
consciousness has been fathomed or located fully by scientists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Nature vs Nurture -- Malandanza,
10:13:02 08/22/01 Wed
"Esp, about altruism and genetic links. I agree that there
is probably a strong impulse to put family versus anyone else,
as shown in the Gift. But BtVS also demonstrates other tendencies
- what is family? Tara rejects her family for her friends - how
many of us have known people to do that."
I would say that we are seeing the conflict between our genetics
and environment in action. We have a genetic predisposition to
protect our families, but family is sometimes redefined by our
social interactions. Thus, Buffy defending Tara against Tara's
biological family was Buffy's genetic altruistic instincts (to
protect her family) hijacked by her social conditionings (Tara
is family). Actions like Mother Teresa's sacrifices for the poor
of Calcutta could even be explained -- she considered the poor
her family, so her genetics worked with her, making the sacrifices
more palatable. In countries with stable, non-immigrant populations,
nationalism and wars make sense from a genetic perspective (two
distinct gene pools competing for dominance) but coutries like
America, with great genetic diversity, need a better explanation
than mere genetic compulsion. If we can be socialized into believing
that Americans are all "brothers," altruism can be harnessed
to fight foreign wars just as surely as if we all truly shared
the same genotypes.
In the science fiction novel "The Dosadi Experiment,"
Frank Herbert (author of "Dune") also postulates that
homosexuals would have a stronger willingness to sacrifice themselves
for their community -- since they have already given up on on
perpetuating their own genes. The same could be said for celibate
orders of the monks and nuns.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Family Discord -- Rahael,
11:28:50 08/22/01 Wed
But isn't the insistence to see genetics behind everything ultimately
reductive of human endeavour? That when we call other human beings
'sisters and brothers' we actively state to ourselves that we
recognise more than family kinship?
Personally, I think the most interesting things about humanity
is what genetics and biology don't explain. At times of human
conflict, relatives on opposite sides will murder each other.
They will betray.
Inter family conflict is present in myths and stories, signifiying
its centrality in human experience. Cain and Abel for instance.
Oedipus. Jesus telling his disciples to reject family. The Pandavas'
epic struggle against their half brother in the Mahabaratha.
What about Melanie Klein's work on the resentment of children
against the mother? And, connecting with another part of this
discussion, what about the fact that children will eventually
rebel against authority figures - their parents.
I actually come from a very close knit and loyal extended family
group. They are my best friends. Family is central to human cultures.
But like all our most important ideals, it is constantly subverted,
and exists on a paradoxical knife edge.
And returning to the Social Darwinism thing - social theories
based on genetics and biology will never explain to me how Shakespeare
wrote his plays, how Dante conceived the Divine Comedy, what made
Proust write about his world. Why Buffy is so delightfully entertaining
and thought provoking. And therefore it doesn't seem to do much
at all except excuse inequalities and discriminatory practice.
Jeez, another rambling post from me!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Family Discord
-- Rufus, 14:31:10 08/22/01 Wed
Family is something that people will fight to the death over.
Frequently the ones they kill are other family members in disputes
that outsiders would consider trivial. But a healthy family unit
is able to accomodate differences in individual members without
the impulse to force them to conform to expectations. "Family"
raised something that I think is happening more and more, people
are having to piece together families from non related people
as they can't survive in their genetic family unit. Family isn't
always the people that you were born into, they can be people
that give you what an unhealthy family cannot. It is a survival
tool for those in families with such disfunction they can't tolerate
continued contact. Family, to me are the people that care about
you and love you for who you are not who they may want you to
be. The ability to create family where there is none is an adaptation
that can save a persons life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The man
who loves women (re: Joss) -- mundusmundi, 15:49:38 08/22/01 Wed
"Family" raised something that I think is happening
more and more, people are having to piece together families from
non related people as they can't survive in their genetic family
unit. Family isn't always the people that you were born into,
they can be people that give you what an unhealthy family cannot.
It is a survival tool for those in families with such disfunction
they can't tolerate continued contact. Family, to me are the people
that care about you and love you for who you are not who they
may want you to be. The ability to create family where there is
none is an adaptation that can save a persons life.
Your theory seems especially true in Hollywood, as many actors/writers/directors/etc.
had to uproot themselves, or even those like Joss that hail from
Hollywood "royalty" seem to experience more than the
usual dysfunction. Paul Thomas Anderson, the young auteur behind
Magnolia and Boogie Nights, is a prime example of this. And to
be honest, I find his worldview rather narrow and naive. Everyone's
a product of their environment, I guess. I've read one reason
the Godfather films were so popular was because people actually
found the close-knit, us-vs.-the-world Corleone attitude romantic.
(Never mind poor Fredo....)
I used to think Joss's attitude was a little juvenile, too. (Joyce
was just too stupid through Becoming.) But Dawn has deepened things
nicely, and the Scoobies' are at least frequently challenged in
their ways of defining themselves and their relationships with
each other.
Don't you think they need a new paterfamilias, though, what with
Giles on the way out? Most shows have the opposite problem --
too many male characters and not enough females. BtVS has four
or five compelling femmes, but could really stand another decent
male lead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: the meme scheme
-- mundusmundi, 15:27:25 08/22/01 Wed
And returning to the Social Darwinism thing - social theories
based on genetics and biology will never explain to me how Shakespeare
wrote his plays, how Dante conceived the Divine Comedy, what made
Proust write about his world.
I agree completely, and many geneticists and biologists would
too. There is, however, an interesting field of study along these
lines everyone here is probably already aware of, involving what
are called memes, i.e., "units of cultural inheritance."
(Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow) Why, we could be operating in
a Buffy meme-machine right now. Maybe not, but still fascinating
stuff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just trying
to keep thread alive while I think -- d'Herblay, 13:56:01 08/23/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> memes --
d'Herblay, 02:30:12 08/24/01 Fri
I'm fascinated by memes. I love looking at etymologies, urban
myths, apocryphal quotations--anything that provides a case history
for the growth and spread of ideas. I love looking at those ideas
that seem to pop up every few hundred years and then recede in
remission, such as gnosticism (with this caveat). And while I
don't think memetics explains Mozart and Shakespeare any better
than genetics does (I don't see why great genius can't be regarded
as the extreme right end of a skewed curve mapping distribution
of talent), I'd like to take this opportunity to talk about it
before this thread is finally archived.
To understand memetics, we have to understand something about
Darwin's theory of "descent with modification," as he
called it. Basically, for Darwinian theory to operate, three conditions
need to be met. First, there must be an object capable of reproduction.
Secondly, the object, or its offspring objects must be capable
of modification, either between bouts of reproduction or during
reproduction itself. Thirdly, there must be some process of selection
which will favor some modified offspring over others. Now the
thing about this process (reproduce, modify, be selected) is that
it is an algorithm, not some vis vitae. And an algorithm can work
no matter what it is applied to, no matter what the reproducer,
modifier, selectee actually is. Thus, Darwinian descent with modification
may work at the gene level, the individual level, the group-population
level, the species level, or even the ecosystem level. (At what
level it actually does operate is the basis of much contention.)
In fact, descent with modification can function entirely outside
of the biological sciences. It has been used in computer science
to build better checkers-players, and one physicist (Lee Smolin,
in 1992) has suggested that such a process might have been at
work in the creation of the universe. Now, what Richard Dawkins
did in 1976 was to apply the Darwinian algorithm to the evolution
of culture. But he needed a unit of culture capable of reproduction
and modification and subject to selection. He called this unit
the meme, in analogy with "gene." He left this term
ill-defined, though, so we're just going to use it somewhat analogously
with "idea," "concept," "story,"
"catchy pop tune that you can't get out of your head,"
any element of culture subject to descent with modification.
Dawkins's main insight into the nature of evolution is that the
genes that prosper are the genes that are built for their own
propagation, with the success of the organism as a means, not
an end, of genetic success. He transferred this insight to memes,
arguing that the most successful ideas may not be the ones that
are the most beneficial to humanity. (And if you don't think that
Dawkins, Britain's loudest atheist, formulated this as a direct
response to the criticism "If there's nothing to religion,
then why is it so widespread?", please do so now.) Among
organisms, one of the most successful evolutionary strategies
is "be a parasite"; Dawkins goes so far as to suggest
that many of our most cherished beliefs are parasitic.
(Anyone who thinks that the most successful units of culture are
the best ones should watch Total Request Live more often.)
While I think there may be some validity to this, though not much
promise in the "new science of memetics," I'm sure I'm
not doing it justice. If you're interested, most books by Dawkins
as well as Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea are probably
the best sources.
A question for the Campbellians: What makes everyone so sure that
the hero's journey is a "Jungian archetype" instead
of a product of cultural transmission or even some parasitic meme?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
A definite KABOOM! Too early, hafta think.... -- mundusmundi,
06:36:06 08/24/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
memes -- Humanitas, 09:34:19 08/24/01 Fri
For a tremendously entertaining fictional exploration of this
(what? Fictional explorations of philosophy? Not on This Board!),
read Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash. Great Stuff!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
memes -- Rahael, 11:31:58 08/25/01 Sat
Well, this is exactly why I don't like Dawkins!! Maybe I'm just
a romantic idealist, who fell in love with literature, music,
history and ideas, and believe them, and the absorption of them
to be the raison d'etre of life but I can never reduce culture
and ideas down to evolution.
Maybe I don't want to face the truth!! But my study of history
has shown that the most interesting thing about any human society
is what they accept as "truth" and "common sense".
These inform as to the priorities and mindset of various groups.
The 'truth' is just one model for viewing the world, a model which
is constantly changing. This applies just as much to Christian
evangelists, Islamic fundamentalists and to atheists like Dawkins.
Now I love science, and I love religion. I can accept the beauty
of evolution and the 'beauty of holiness'. They are both so fundamentally
human. And no, I don't think I believe in God. I accept that probably
am not the most rational or logical person on this board!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> rambling speculation
on perpetuating (or not) genes -- anom, 15:56:51 08/22/01 Wed
"In the science fiction novel "The Dosadi Experiment,"
Frank Herbert (author of "Dune") also postulates that
homosexuals would have a stronger willingness to sacrifice themselves
for their community -- since they have already given up on on
perpetuating their own genes."
Would this also imply an evolutionary reason many homosexuals'
families reject them--they don't expect them to have much greater
an attachment to their relatives than to the wider community?
Or would people who've given up on perpetuating their genes themselves
be more protective of their relatives, who have the potential
to pass on the genes they share?
Anyone remember The Andromeda Strain's "single man theory"?
Maybe single men were more likely to complete a task that involved
risking their lives to save others' because they were more likely
to be gay or otherwise not to expect to pass on their genes!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Social Darwinism/evolutionary Darwinism
-- Dedalus, 19:57:16 08/21/01 Tue
Interesting turn of discussion. We are getting some mileage on
spotjon's initial post, aren't we?
Anyway, I agree with Rahael. Altruism is a sign of fitness. I
like the idea that compassion may be a result of evolution, that
active participation in the suffering of another, rather than
a negation of it. What could be stronger than that?
I'm only periphally aware of people like Stephen Jay Gould, but
what about those examples we have in the wild of dolphins and
apes and such protecting humans? Not exactly a genetic match.
And I know (thanks to David Mech and his work up in the Arctic)
that wolves feed their old as well as their young. How does that
fit in?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> We're doing a bang-up job of keeping this
thread active until spotjon returns!! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 20:52:23
08/21/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Social Darwinism/evolutionary Darwinism
-- d'Herblay, 21:53:45 08/21/01 Tue
I'm responding to both Dedalus's post immediately above and Rahael's
post up and a little to the right.
Of course, any discussion of genetic bases for behavior must include
the caveat that human culture allows us to override genetic influences.
In a less serious vein, as you can tell from my picture, I'm myopic,
and this is an inherited condition. Without culture, I'd be at
some sort of evolutionary disadvantage. But culture gives me glasses
and contacts and radial keratotomy. Indeed, evolutionary psychology
does sweep things like ideology, religious fanatacism, etc., under
the carpet. Things like this are cultural, and not genetic. They
may derive from some behaviors that are genetically based, but
they are in no way genetically coded themselves. (See anom's post
"Re: Kin selection and altruism" above for the idea
that racism is an overexpansion of the idea of caring for one's
relations.)
By the way, for those that missed it, here's some breaking news
from the world of evolutionary biology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> LOL! -- Wisewoman, 23:48:04 08/21/01
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> obviously The Onion is behind the
times.... -- mundusmundi, 06:06:29 08/22/01 Wed
Take a look..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Fabulous! I love the Onion!
-- Dedalus, 14:05:38 08/22/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ever read "Our
Dumb Century?" Pure genius. -- mundusmundi, 15:13:19 08/22/01
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: But what does God want? And why? -- Dedalus, 12:16:47 08/21/01
Tue
Hey, Wisewoman.
That idea seems strangely compatible with a book I read not long
ago.
It was by Alan Watts, Western expositor of Eastern philosophy.
It was called "The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who
You Are."
Very similiar ideas. It was largely based on Vedantic ideas, I
do believe. The Upanishads, and all that fun stuff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Not strange, at all! -- Wisewoman, 18:00:24 08/21/01 Tue
In my on-going, unsuccessful (so far) attempt to obtain wisdom
there has been much delving into the Upanishads, the Bhagavad
Gita, and Alan Watts as well! I haven't read that particular one
of his books, though.
In with that I mix Ken Wilber, David Bohm, and Deepak Chopra...
so I'm either a kind of dilettantish mystic or a mystical dilettante,
or something...
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Not strange, at all! -- Dedalus, 19:43:42 08/21/01
Tue
IMO, Deepak Chopra is too trendy for me and ... I don't know.
Too New Agey. Or at least that New Agey part that is so eager
to embrace everything it in the end embraces nothing. :-(
On the other hand, David Bohm - I was thinking about the Watts
book I mentioned and was flipping through it, and he has a quote
from Bohm! That's wild. My main introduction to Bohm can via a
book by Michael Talbot called The Holographic Universe. Very interesting,
whether you buy it or not. I mean, buy the concept not the book.
Because of course you would have to buy the book if you wanted
to read it. Unless of course you got it from the library.
(Tuesday is my day to ramble)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Not strange, at all! -- Wisewoman, 20:46:34
08/21/01 Tue
Yeah, I know what you mean about Deepak...part of his problem
is that it's so easy to dismiss him because of his New Age popularity,
but really he's saying essentially the same things as Bohm. Bohm
has the advantage of having been a physicist rather than an m.d.,
and because he's not as accessible to the run-of-mill New Ager
he tends to be granted more credibility. Bohm uses the terminology
of theoretical physics and quantum mechanics, and Chopra reduces
it to "a vast quantum soup of energy and information,"
which is a lot easier for most people to envision.
I think it's a case of slick marketing, being in the right place
at the right time, as well as charismatic and photogenic that
makes Chopra less respectable. Well, that and preaching to the
converted...lol.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Not strange, at all! -- Dedalus, 14:10:47
08/22/01 Wed
Preaching to the converted ... there's a lot of that going around.
:-)
I like what Alan Watts said about the whole "energy"
thing. Saying everything is energy is a lot like saying everything
is everything. And energy isn't everything, because you know,
that whole matter stuff. You really need to read the Book on the
Taboo against Knowing Who You Are. It's so mystical it's not at
all. :-)
Sigh. I have yet to be able to use the Force to pick up a pencil.
It can get frustrating. Still I try.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> I have no sympathy...try being a
Wiccan who can't float a rose! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 17:32:14 08/22/01
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> OTOH, your life won't depend
on staking a vamp w/ a pencil! ;) -- Humanitas, 17:39:43 08/22/01
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good point[y]! ;o) --
Wisewoman, 18:54:30 08/22/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
But what does God want? And why? -- Slayrunt, 17:03:24 08/19/01
Sun
Thank you, I now understand.
Your scenario with the 5 mile track may be an accurate description
of life on Earth and I definately agree with the intelligence
track.
The track is based on the theory of evolution and as I stated
in an earlier thread is only a theory. True, a lot of scientist,
all the media, most of the schools and a majority of people assume
it is true and proven, but it has not been proven.
Let us suppose the track looks this way: at the beginning is man
and everything else and the Greeks and Romans are about 3.5 to
4 miles down.
I know you were using the life on Earth track to get to the intelligence
track to show the difference between our smarts and Gods. If you
use Nova's or whoever's track and think about the intelligence
track, I can understand the why you wonder why God cares. If on
the other hand, you use the track suggested above and think about
the intelligence track you see that God made the other track for
us and He cares.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
What are your thoughts on what will happen to human religious
belief... -- OnM, 21:11:14 08/19/01 Sun
...after we successfully create life, and eventually sentient
life? I personally feel that this is an inevitability, as I stated
earlier. Are we morally eqipped to handle this level of responsibility?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Good question. -- Slayrunt, 19:27:07 08/20/01 Mon
First, I'm not sure we should try and I wonder if it would work.
With cloning, genome(sp?) and stem cell research, we've come a
long way from leaches. The testing so far has only been on animals
and in a Christian sense, animals have no souls. If we try to
create human life in a different way then nature, I'm curious
if the result would have a soul.
I know there are "test tube babies" out there, but besides
the physical act the conception is natural.
I don't know what might happen to human religious beliefs, but
as for the moral responsibility, I agree with the statement that
power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I guess that's why I have a problem with (human) authority. I'm
not like you, I guess. I am very cynical about people. Being a
student of history, I've seen too many examples of misuse of authority.
One of my theme songs is John Cougar/John Cougar Mellencamp/John
Mellencamp's "The Authority Song".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> S'okay-- I'm really not like me, either.... ;) --
OnM, 20:23:03 08/20/01 Mon
I find it interesting that you feel yourself to be 'cynical',
and presume I am not, when actually I would have guessed the reverse.
I consider myself to be very cynical, but I also recognize that
it is a type of bigotry if it is allowed to extend beyond a reasonable
degree of self-protection. Cynicism is like a drug, at times.
This is your brain...
This is your brain on cynicism...
Any questions?
Uhh, yeah, man, uhh, ya got any irony to go along with that??
I need some irony reeeaaallll bad...
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> since you asked (spelling)... -- anom, 21:34:29 08/20/01
Mon
..."genome" is correct, but it's "leeches."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Thanks, I can't spell worth a shirt -- Slayrunt,
13:32:20 08/21/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> ROFL! -- Solitude1056, 19:19:26 08/16/01 Thu
The thing is, we're on a big rock zipping around a star. We don't
know where we're going, we don't know where we've been, and on
top of that, we have to keep going to the bathroom.
Dude, you just became my new .sig line. Absolutely classic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Okay, I admit it ... -- Dedalus, 19:26:20
08/16/01 Thu
I stole it from George Carlin. I thought about citing him, but
I was typing too fast ...
Sigh.
See, I'm being honest, all without respecting authority.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Dedalus......are you a lapsed Catholic?
-- AK-UK, 20:21:04 08/16/01 Thu
That nagging sense of guilt, the need to confess.....
C'mon! Repeat after me:
Lord, I believe,
Help my unbelief.
AK-UK: Good shepherd, bad sleeper :(.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Dedalus......are you a lapsed
Catholic? -- Dedalus, 20:50:29 08/16/01 Thu
More like lapsed Protestant. It wasn't guilt until he said, "hey
this is my new tagline." Then I thought, well, I should have
cited him to begin with.
"I have just as much authority as the Pope ... I just don't
have as many people who believe it." - George Carlin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> as long we're citing who said
what... -- Solitude1056, 21:28:32 08/16/01 Thu
10 points & a cyber cookie to anyone who can identify who said
the following line:
"I would've made a great pope."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Robert Bork? -- A8,
21:51:42 08/16/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Bzzzzzzzzt! Nope.
;-) -- Solitude1056, 22:04:28 08/16/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Mariah Carey?...She
seems a bit confused these days. ;) -- A8, 22:29:17 08/16/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Bzzzzzzzzt again!
;-) -- Solitude1056, 22:42:39 08/16/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I cheated -- d'Herblay,
22:49:48 08/16/01 Thu
And came up with Richard Nixon saying "I would have made
a good pope."
The fact that my expensive education was useless and that I found
this with a Google search seems somewhat dishonest and thus appropriate.
I would like to donate my points to the charity of my choice.
The cookie, on the other hand . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Heh. That's not
cheating, that's being ingenious. -- Solitude1056, 22:51:57 08/16/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You wouldn't
happen to know the context, would you? -- d'Herblay, 22:55:15
08/16/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Pope
Richard -- d'Herblay, 17:43:02 08/17/01 Fri
I still can only find the Nixon quote ("I would have made
a good pope") in quote lists and .sig lines, which crib from
each other, and in one 1994 column by Liz Smith in The New York
Post. She doesn't give the context either.
It isn't enough for me to find out who said it. Now I have to
find out when he said it, why he said it, and even if he said
it. After all, Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat
cake," and Kurt Vonnegut never said, "But trust me on
the sunscreen."
One thing is, depending on the context, I think Nixon would have
made a good pope. Comparing him to Julius II or some of the Borgia
popes reveals that he's almost saintly. My favorite bad pope story
is that of Pope Stephen VII (896-7), who had his predecessor Pope
Formosus exhumed and tried for heresy. The court found the corpse
guilty, chopped off three fingers of his right hand and threw
his body to the mob outside, who dragged his body through the
streets of Rome and threw it into the Tiber. Nixon was a piker.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I believe it was Baz Luhrmann who ventured the 'Sunscreen' quote?
-- OnM, 22:37:25 08/17/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Mary Schmich . . . -- d'Herblay, 00:17:26 08/18/01 Sat
. . . columnist of The Chicago Tribune, in a June 1, 1997 column.
The column then circulated around the internet without accredition,
sometimes credited to Vonnegut. Baz Luhrmann received the e-mail,
set it to music, made history, didn't give Schmich a writer's
credit. Read all about it here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The Boat Pope -- mundusmundi, 06:41:17 08/18/01 Sat
My favorite bad pope story is that of Pope Stephen VII (896-7),
who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed and tried for heresy.
My fave is one of the John's, I believe of that same century.
He was an antipope who was essentially a pirate, and whose "church"
was on board his ship in the Mediterranean.
I don't see Tricky Dick as a pope. A Byzantine emperor, maybe.
As for the quote, I could be wrong, since he did tape everything,
but it sounds apocryphal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> The Good of Apocryphal Statements -- Humanitas, 16:23:54
08/18/01 Sat
Y'all got me thinking about great quotes that were never said,
like "Elementary, my dear Watson." Where do these things
come from?
Warning: Word Geek at Work!
I wonder if our collective memory doesn't create these things
to sum up a particular character. After all, it makes intuitive
sense that Holmes should have said the above, or that P. T. Barnum
should have said "No one ever went broke by underestimating
human intelligence" (which, to veer back on topic for just
a moment, is why we need authority in the first place). The fact
that those individuals (one fictional, one real) never said any
such things is almost irrelevant, since those quotes fit our perceptions
of those characters so perfectly. Their effect on the culture,
then, is more a product of our perceptions of them, than of anything
they actually said. It's the "Lucrece Effect," in which
it doesn't matter so much whether Lucrece was actually raped,
but whether the Romans believed she was raped.
OK, I'm rambling. That's enough. Don't I have a scene to write?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> We never veered off-topic! -- d'Herblay, 17:16:20
08/18/01 Sat
As the whole point of deciding whether a quote is legit or fabricated
is what sort of "authority" do you accept as authoritative.
I think the idea of approaching authority with skepticism is as
applicable to knowledge as it is to power.
Plus, as "Idiotic question regarding 'The Harvest'"
was mine, and as it is sort of the grand-daddy to this thread
("Idiotic question" spawns "Buffy and God";
"B&G" spawns "Respect my authority!"),
I feel I can give us license to follow this thread wherever it
leads.
As to your actual point, I'd like to offer an actual quote: "When
the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Often we prefer our legends to facts. Or does that statement fit
better back in "Buffy and God"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> I'm not sure these threads were spawned....
-- mundusmundi, 20:50:15 08/18/01 Sat
so much as the progenitors were unwittingly playing Wallace to
your Darwin. (And there were one or two more very similar threads
that followed soon after. What gives?)
On a wholly unrelated note, how the hell does one link to another
site or text? I've yet to figure it out. *Sigh* I feel so impotent.
I have link-envy.
Sorry, was that out loud?
Note to self: Less talk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Linkage -- Wisewoman, 21:13:46 08/18/01
Sat
Hey, mm...do you mean just how do you html code a link? I'm a
total computer non-geek, but I figured that out recently with
the help of a nifty html book, but now I'm not sure if I can illustrate
it for you without it turning into an actual link, if y'know what
I mean!
So, anyway, I'll try: you have to have the complete url of the
site you're linking to, http://www.whatever.com and you put it
in between two sets of html commands as a complete phrase. The
opening command...
Wait, wait, wait, WHY am I doing this? Masq but it all in the
ATPoBtVS FAQ for posters! It's all spelled out really clearly
there and it works great!
Whew, close call, almost became pseudo-geek there for a minute...
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> I guess that makes *me* pseudo-geek!
And a little slow too! -- d'Herblay, 21:19:08 08/18/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
It's in the FAQ too. Scroll down a little bit.
I stand by my self-aggrandizing, humility-free description. :)
Helen, in the "Idiotic question" thread under "Re:
Communion Elemenents (semi-OT)," writes, "I'm letting
my own post up the top go and joining in down here if that's okay."
Her own post began the "Buffy and God" thread. Then
spotjon begins "Respect my authority" by saying, "Buried
deep down in the 'Buffy and God' discussion . . . " So I
think that one thread has clearly lead to another. That and 60¢
gets me a jelly donut. :)
Totally off-subject (oh, wait, it's the grandson of my subject!),
I had to look up the html for ¢. Where have all the cents
signs gone from keyboards? Is this a sign of inflation?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Aaah! I can feel the power! -- mm,
07:18:38 08/19/01 Sun
Here's a relevant link on our thread's subject.
Thanks, you and WW both.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> reminds me of a button, as
so many things do -- anom, 09:16:11 08/19/01 Sun
It says: "If the government doesn't trust the people, why
doesn't it dissolve them & elect a new people?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Loved it! -- Wisewoman, 14:03:10
08/19/01 Sun
Especially nice to see that we Godless (oops, that's the other
thread!) Canadians are in the running.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: The Good of Apocryphal Statements -- Solitude1056,
18:15:40 08/18/01 Sat
There's a boatload of them. Not only are there misquotes, like
"play it again, Sam," which isn't the actual line. There's
also misattributions, like "Men are those creatures with
two legs and eight hands," which is attributed to Jayne Mansfield
but I believe was actually Mae West. I used to have a great game,
years ago, in which each person got a set of cards with quotes
and attributions, and one person would read a quote, and everyone
else would pick a card out of their personal set that had someone
on it that they thought would be most likely to have said that.
All the cards got put in a slide holder, and each person would
vote for the one they thought was the correct attribution of the
quote. Things like "When I was little, no one said I was
pretty," got put to the strangest people, and never Marilyn
Monroe. The pope quote from Richard Nixon was another one folks
never got, but everyone always got "How many polyesters did
you kill to make that suit?" (Steve Martin).
And btw, yes, you DO have a scene to write! Get on it!
*sound of editorial whip cracking*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> "I am the dwred Pope Woberts! There will be no surwivors!"
-- Solitude1056, 18:07:53 08/18/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Respect my authority (way OT) -- Darrick, 16:53:43 08/16/01
Thu
You ask for an example of an "unjustified" break from
authority, but how do we define what is and isn't justified? Sometimes
a break from authority is only "justified" in retrospect.
For instance, the American revolutionaries who rebelled against
the English Crown _created_ their own justification for their
rebellion. While in hindsight you might claim they were justified,
at the time the English and many colonial loyalists would have
claimed they were totally unjustified.
My problem with your question is that _at the moment an act of
rebellion results in something "better and brighter"
and does not "fall under its own weight after a short time"_
it usually has become justified in practice, even though at the
time it may have been wildly controversial. The question you ask
us to address almost becomes meaningless, especially in the long
term.
I hate to use these somewhat cliche examples...but keeping women
and blacks out of the voting booth probably seemed to be entirely
justified to generations of Americans. No doubt you would say
that any time the government abetted such actions, it was unjustified.
Yet, how would this have been obvious to anyone? People's idea
of what is justified comes from community standards as well as
the words and deeds of our authority figures. If we assume the
absolute authority of our government( as you seem to)as long as
its justified, yet also allow them to define what is meant by
"justified", how do we avoid tyranny? People also questioned
(and continue to question) the justification of those who publish
pornography. If the government passed a law punishing them as
criminals, would you consider an act of civil disobediance on
their part justified or not? For instance, if they continued to
publish would you say they were justified or unjustified in acting
in such a manner. This has happened in the past, and it eventually
forced the Supreme Court to confront the issue head on.
Civil disobediance and even rebellion have often been the means
to a better world. However, finding unjustified examples of this
in hindsight may be difficult because so many "unjustified"
actions have become justified with time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Respect my authority (way OT) -- Dedalus, 16:58:52
08/16/01 Thu
Good point. It's just the way the pendelum swings.
If England had won the American Revolution, George Washington
and friends would be seen as traitors, and Benedict Arnold would
be a hero in the history books.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Hey! Benedict Arnold is a hero in the history
books (Well, the ones I read in school, anyway :) -- AK-UK, 17:44:26
08/16/01 Thu
Here in the UK we regularly toast the great man's name, and his
birthday is a national holiday, a day on which all the subjects
of Her Majesty are encouraged to drink, sing, and thrown stones
at American tourists.
Honest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Hey watch it. If it wasn't for us ratty
yanks... -- Pilgrim's Ghost, 18:28:47 08/16/01 Thu
...you'd be speaking German and eating schnitzel Holstein right
now. And picture Prince Charlie Mountbatten goosestepping down
the aisle with Frau Camilla to 'Ode to Joy.' ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Anarchy from the AK-UK -- AK-UK, 17:28:27 08/16/01 Thu
I'm sorry, but I cannot argue with you on such an uneven playing
field.
You've made a number of statements that need to be clarified,
and you've made a number of assumptions to support your case which
I would take issue with.
You say that certain persons and instituitions actually do possess
the right to command certain types of behaviour from us. Well,
what exactly do you mean by "right". Do you mean they
have the power to compell or coerce certain types of behaviour,
backed by the weight of law and/or the threat punishment? Or do
you mean something else?
Another question. What exactly constitutes "legitimate"
authority? I'm sorry, but we can't just "assume" it
into existence. From where does it derive it's legitimacy? From
God? From a meeting of Elders? By Bloodright? By a vote? Is the
Government of China as legitimate as the Government of the U.S.A.?
Is a President who gained office with the votes of less than 40%
of eligible voters "legitimate"? Can the other 60% rightfully
say "I did not give you permission to make or enforce laws:
you do not have authority over me?" What about those members
of society who are unable to vote (Young people, for example)?
Can they reject the authority of "democratically" elected
officials?
Your argument gets weaker still, however, when you say that an
individual has the right to rebel against "legitimate"
authority when, and only when, said authority has overstepped
it's bounds. This begs the question:
Who decides what the boundaries of authority are, and who decides
when such boundaries are over-stepped?
You may think that, for example, a parent should be allowed to
spank their children. I, on the other hand, say that the parent
is wrong, and should never hit the child. Who decides whether
or not the parent who does spank their child has over-stepped
the boundaries? You? Me? The parent? The child who was spanked?
You than delve into Christianity, before asking for an example
of an unjustified break from and against authority which resulted
in something better and didn't collapse under it's own weight
after a short time. Hmmm. This question really could do with being
fleshed out a bit more. As I've already mentioned, you have not
given a definition of what exactly constitutes an unjustified
break against authority, haven't properly defined what constitues
a legitimate authority. Furthermore you don't define what constitues
"something better", and I'm puzzled as to what you mean
when you talk about breaks from authority "falling under
their own weight". That concept seems wildly inappropriate
with reagards to the question you are asking. However, I will
try to answer it anyway.
You quote St Paul, and so shall I. Ahem.
Ephesians 6:5-8
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear,
and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey
them not only to win their favour when their eye is on you, but
like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.
Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men,
because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever
good he does, whether he is slave or free."
Now, I could trawl thorugh the Bible and find a number of passages
like this, but let's just stick to this one. I say that rebeling
against the authority of whoever came up with such a "law"
is justified. I would suggest, in this case, that a break with
such an authority led to a better and brighter future for a number
of people's on both sides of the Atlantic.
Would you argue that St Paul had overstepped his authority in
his various writings? Or did he just stray over bounds in this
particular case?
I'm sorry if this whole post comes across as a slam.......but
in a sense I guess it is. There are just too many assumptions
in your post, too much tautology, a lack of specific definitions
and a great deal of generalisation. Feel free to tear my post
to pieces too (philosophically, of course).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Respect my authority -- Wisewoman, 17:55:30 08/16/01
Thu
Having missed the original discussion on Buffy and God (I've been
out of town) I'll jump right into this one anyway.
My feeling has always been that authority, like respect, must
be earned. It is not granted in conjunction with titles like parent,
teacher, or government, and may in fact not be possessed by people
with those titles. For example, becoming a parent is a biological
act. While there are legal ramifications to bearing and raising
children, there are also very good reasons in many cases to remove
a parent's authority over his or her children, such as physical,
emotional, or sexual abuse. In other words, your community grants
you the right of authority over your children by agreeing that
you are a good parent; you earn the authority by your behaviour,
not by the physical act of creating life.
In the same way we grant teachers authority in the classroom if
they are competent teachers. If they are incompetent, it quickly
becomes apparent that they can not maintain that authority by
their behaviour, and their classrooms become chaotic.
In a democracy we grant authority to elected officials, but they
must maintain their positions and their authority by justifying
them with their actions.
Isn't there some quote about eternal vigilance being the price
of freedom? It seems to me that the motto, "Question Authority"
is about vigilance. Things change--circumstances, people--and
we may find that those to whom we have granted authority are no
longer worthy of it. Part of responsible citizenship is vigilance,
continually questioning authority, and seeking proof that authority,
in whatever guise, is legitimate. That's a far cry from anarchy,
to my mind.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I respect your authority -- d'Herblay, 11:57:11 08/17/01
Fri
Wisewoman, I just wanted to thank you for making skepticism seem
like a positive virtue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I always thought it was... -- Wisewoman, 15:42:22
08/17/01 Fri
...isn't that why they call it "healthy" skepticism?
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> It wasn't too healthy for Galileo, and
quite a few others. -- OnM, 22:38:58 08/17/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Even virtue itself can be unhealthy
if those in authority are threatened by it. -- Anthony8, 23:04:18
08/17/01 Fri
Some have been sainted by the same authority who had earlier burned
them at the stake for being a little too virtuous. Maybe the lesson
to be learned is never, never upstage the people with the funny
hats.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That's one excellent point,
Anthony ... -- Dedalus, 12:55:10 08/18/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hmmm...yes eternal vigilance -- fresne, 12:28:51 08/17/01
Fri
I have to admit I like structure and authority. I like roads and
street lights and police. I like the things government can give
me. Although I have to laugh when I think of the philosopher (cannot
remember his name, think it was Weber, could be wrong) of the
modern state who said that Bureaucracy was the most efficient
form of government. But I digress...
I like a structure or authority above me in which I have a say
in how they do things. Can't say as I would have enjoyed the United
States in 1901. Why? I am a woman. I would not have been allowed
to vote.
Note how this philosophy neatly allows me to believe in authority
and yet support the idea of the American Revolution. To my mind
less a case of taxation without representation and more a case
of government without representation. It also allows me to protest,
write letters to my "Representatives" in government,
make jokes about elected officials, etc. I am exercising my right
to have a say. In fact, I wish more people would exercise their
right to say, U.S. voting numbers being what they are.
Suddenly, I have this image of Mom/Dad England telling little
America that it is only 16, not old enough to vote or drink. We
pay to clothe and feed you. Pay for a roof over your head. Heck,
we paid for front row tickets to the French and Indian War, which
were not cheap. Now give me your wages from your part time job
producing raw materials to help defray costs. Mom/Dad England
isn't made of money you know. Little America saying Mom/Dad you
just don't understand what its like for me.
Which brings me to Buffy. Odd that. So, Joyce, Buffy's mother,
was in parental authority over her. She was forever coming down
on Buffy for doing things that from her perspective were wrong.
Buffy of course felt that she was rebelling against parental authority
in the name of a righteous cause, saving the world. And yet Joyce
was just trying to be a loving mother. No real opinion here, just
pondering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hey! You're the fish! -- Anthony8, 18:09:27 08/16/01 Thu
The question that begs to be asked in response to spotjon's argument
is if someone is excercising their authority in a truly "just'
manner then why would anybody ever question it? Even someone who
is questioning it for the sake of questioning it must perceive
some sort of injustice in its exercise. For someone to whom the
status quo seems just fine, there would be no incentive to question
authority at all.
The circular trap of spotjon's argument brought to mind some literature
with which I am very fond. First there are two passages from Kafka's
The Trial which seem apropos, starting with:
"...'Here are my identification papers.' 'What are your papers
to us?' cried the tall warder. 'You're behaving worse than a child.
What are you after? Do you think you'll bring this fine case of
yours to a speedier end by wrangling with us, your warders, over
papers and warrants? We are humble subordinates who can scarcely
find our way through a legal document and have nothing to do with
your case except to stand guard over you for ten hours a day and
draw our pay for it. That's all we are, but we're quite capable
of grasping the fact that the high authorities we serve, before
they would order such an arrest as this, must be quite well informed
about the reasons for the arrest and the person of the prisoner.
There can be no mistake about that. Our officials, so far as I
know them, and I know only the lowest grades among them, never
go hunting for crime in the populace, but, as the Law decrees,
are drawn toward the guilty and must then send out us warders.
That is the Law."
And continuing with:
"'...do you think I must be innocent?' 'Well, innocent,'
said Fraulein Burstner, 'I don't want to commit myself, at a moment's
notice, to a verdict with so many possible implications, besides,
I don't really know you; all the same, it must be a serious crime
that would bring a Court of Inquiry down on a man. Yet as you
are still at large--at least I gather from the look of you that
you haven't just escaped from prison--you couldn't really have
committed a serious crime.' 'Yes,' said K., 'but the Court of
Inquiry might have discovered, not that I was innocent, but that
I was not so guilty as they had assumed.'
And from "Candide,":
"...They immediately put irons on his legs and took him to
a regiment. He was taught to make right and left turns, raise
and lower the ramrod, take aim, fire, and march double time, and
he was beaten thirty times with a stick. The next day he performed
his drills a little less badly and was given only twenty strokes;
the following day he was given only ten, and his fellow soldiers
regarded him as a prodigy.
Candide, utterly bewildered, still could not make out clearly
how he was a hero. One fine spring day he decided to take a stroll;
he walked staight ahead, believing that the free use of the legs
was a privilege both of mankind and the animals. He had not gone
five miles when four other heroes, all six feet tall, overtook
him, bound him, brought him back and put him in a dungeon. With
proper legal procedure, he was asked which he would prefer, to
be beaten thirty-six times by the whole regiment, or to receive
twelve bullets in his brain. It did him no good to maintain that
a man's will is free and that he wanted neither; he had to make
a choice. Using the gift of God known as freedom, he decided to
run the gauntlet thirty-six times, and did so twice. The regiment
was composed of two thousand men, so his punishment was so far
composed of four thousand strokes, which had laid bare every muscle
and nerve from his neck to his backside. As they were preparing
for a third run, Candide, unable to go on, begged them to blow
his brains out instead. The favor was granted; he was blindfolded
and made to kneel. Just then the King of the Bulgars came by and
inquired about the condemned man's crime. Being a highly intelligent
king, he realized from what he was told that Candide was a young
metaphysician, utterly ignorant of worldly matters, and pardoned
him with a clemency that will be praised in all newspapers and
all ages..."
That silliness aside, let me disagree with a few of spotjon's
examples. First, I would argue that, unless you are promoting
tyranny, persons in authority do not have any more rights than
the persons subject to that authority. Parents do have the responsibility
to raise their children with love and to teach them how to make
choices wisely. Policemen do have the responsibility to enforce
the law within the limits of reason and citizens' rights. As far
as employer-employee relations are concerned, in a free society,
both parties volunteer to abide by the terms of the employment
contract, so the rights of each regarding the other constitute
a voluntary exchange of consideration, not the creation of a master-slave
relationship.
My point is that people are fallible. The rules they create are
no better than those who created them. Questioning authority is
a natural aspect of human emotional development, without which
progress is seriously hindered, if not impossible. One can never
really think for one's self unless one questions the rules that
have been established by those who, by accident of birth or random
placement earlier in the timeline, have found themselves in the
position to tell others what to do.
And to close this diatribe, I would leave you with a lyric, that
is somewhat relevant to this topic:
There are those who think that life Has nothing left to chance
With a host of holy horrors To direct our aimless dance
A planet of playthings We dance on the strings Of powers we cannot
perceive
"The stars aren't aligned-- Or the gods are malign"
Blame is better to give than receive
You can choose a ready guide In some celestial voice If you choose
not to decide You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fear Or kindness that can kill I will
choose a path that's clear I will choose free will
There are those who think that They've been dealt a losing hand
The cards were stacked against them-- They weren't born in Lotus-land
All pre-ordained A prisoner in chains A victim of venomous fate
Kicked in the face You can pray for a place In Heaven's unearthly
estate
You can choose a ready guide In some celestial voice If you choose
not to decide You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fear Or kindness that can kill I will
choose a path that's clear I will choose free will
Each of us A cell of awareness Imperfect and incomplete
Genetic blends With uncertain ends On a fortune hunt That's far
too fleet...
You can choose a ready guide In some celestial voice If you choose
not to decide You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fear Or kindness that can kill I will
choose a path that's clear I will choose free will
--Freewill by Neil Peart (of Rush)
Enough me argue. Someone else's turn!
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Machiavelli and Rush -- Malandanza, 13:32:08 08/17/01
Fri
"The question that begs to be asked in response to spotjon's
argument is if someone is exercising their authority in a truly
'just' manner then why would anybody ever question it? Even someone
who is questioning it for the sake of questioning it must perceive
some sort of injustice in its exercise. For someone to whom the
status quo seems just fine, there would be no incentive to question
authority at all... "
There are anarchists in the world who question authority as a
matter of routine. No authority, no matter how conscientious in
its exercise of power, will satisfy these people. Furthermore,
different people may see an authority's actions in different lights
-- what I consider an abuse of power might not seem inappropriate
to you (or vice versa). Machiavelli, in his Discourses, frequently
mentions the "love of novelty" as a motivating factor
for revolutions -- people not necessarily particularly dissatisfied
with the status quo, but still willing to effect a change. He
makes a distinction between these rebellions-without-a-cause and
legitimate discontent, warning that "Princes should remember,
then, that they begin to lose their state from the moment when
they begin to disregard the laws and ancient customs under which
the people have lived contented for a length of time." I
believe that spotjon was referring to such cases -- where the
authority has clearly deviated from the path of righteousness
-- rather than ambiguous cases. Machiavelli, however, was unable
to reccomend rebellion even in extreme cases, quoting Cornelius
Tacitus: "men should honor the past and obey the present;
and whilst they should desire good princes, they should bear with
those they have, such as they are," and adds "surely
whoever acts otherwise will generally involve himself and his
country in ruin." (from the Third Book of the Discourses,
chapters V and VI)
"First, I would argue that, unless you are promoting tyranny,
persons in authority do not have any more rights than the persons
subject to that authority... Questioning authority is a natural
aspect of human emotional development, without which progress
is seriously hindered, if not impossible. One can never really
think for one's self unless one questions the rules that have
been established by those who, by accident of birth or random
placement earlier in the timeline, have found themselves in the
position to tell others what to do."
Machiavelli states "No more useful and necessary authority
can be given to those who are appointed as guardians of liberty
of a state, than the faculty of accusing the citizens to the people,
or to any magistrate or council, for any attempt against public
liberty." (Book 1, chapter VII of The Discourses) The ability
to question authority is vital -- but merely questioning authority
is far different from taking to the hills with automatic weapons
to bring about the violent overthrow of the government. Sometimes
the authority is right -- and not every revolution results in
a better society -- remember that Pol Pot was a revolutionary,
too. I closing, I leave you with another Rush song (adapted from
one of Aesop's fables):
"THE TREES" Words by Neil Peart, Music by Geddy Lee
and Alex Lifeson
There is unrest in the Forest There is trouble with the trees
For the Maples want more sunlight And the Oaks ignore their pleas
The trouble with the Maples (And they're quite convinced they're
right) They say the Oaks are just too lofty And they grab up all
the light But the Oaks can't help their feelings If they like
the way they're made And they wonder why the Maples Can't be happy
in their shade?
There is trouble in the forest And the creatures all have fled
As the Maples scream `Oppression!` And the Oaks, just shake their
heads
So the Maples formed a Union And demanded equal rights 'The Oaks
are just too greedy We will make them give us light' Now there's
no more Oak oppression For they passed a noble law And the trees
are all kept equal By hatchet, Axe, And saw ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Your implication is that 'The Trees' is an indictment
of violently rebelling against... -- Anthony8, 14:05:38 08/17/01
Fri
against a 'right' authority. Considering Neil Peart's Liberatarian
inclination, a few of us always considered 'The Trees' to be a
condemnation of affirmative action. The revolution being described
in the song is not a political one (Economic class vs. economic
class as in proletariat v. aristocrat), but a racial struggle.
The lyric "But the Oaks can't help their feelings if they
like the way they're made and they wonder why the Maples Can't
be happy in their shade" is the same type of argument white
people make all the time in response to cries of "equality
now" by people of color. And of course it follows then that
making all trees equal by "hatchet, ax, and saw" is
a sarcastic reference to the lowering of standards that is sometimes
associated with affirmative action.
I was a big Rush fan at the time, and read a few interviews which
indicated that Neil Peart was a big supporter of Reagan's ideas
(not from a conservative perspective, but from a Liberatarian
viewpoint) so the anti-affirmative action argument seems more
applicable. Moreover, many have interpreted 'New World Man' to
be an ode to Mr. Reagan. These guys were quite enamored with the
promises of Reaganism and accomplisments incorrectly attributed
to him (the Space Shuttle, for example--a program developed during
the Kennedy-Johnson administrations and, in fact, threatened by
Reagan's budget axe--conservatives still took credit for it though)
at the time, but for different reasons than those one would normally
associate with that kind of support. So there you go, one person's
ceiling is another person's floor.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Your implication is that 'The Trees'
is an indictment of violently rebelling against... -- Malandanza,
10:23:42 08/18/01 Sat
"Your implication is that 'The Trees' is an indictment of
violently rebelling against against a 'right' authority. Considering
Neil Peart's Liberatarian inclination, a few of us always considered
'The Trees' to be a condemnation of affirmative action. The revolution
being described in the song is not a political one (Economic class
vs. economic class as in proletariat v. aristocrat), but a racial
struggle. The lyric "But the Oaks can't help their feelings
if they like the way they're made and they wonder why the Maples
Can't be happy in their shade" is the same type of argument
white people make all the time in response to cries of "equality
now" by people of color. And of course it follows then that
making all trees equal by "hatchet, ax, and saw" is
a sarcastic reference to the lowering of standards that is sometimes
associated with affirmative action."
I do think "The Trees" is about a rebellion of the have-nots
against the haves. The original fable, if memory serves, had a
similar premise -- the trees disputing over light. The shadowed
trees called in a woodcutter to settle the dispute and he happily
chopped down the tallest trees -- but did not stop there. The
fable seems to be a condemnation of bringing in outside forces
to settle internal disputes (something Machiavelli warns about
in both "The Prince" and "The Discourses").
Rush's revision suggests a sort of French Revolution or Communist
revolution where the oppressed workers rise up against an indifferent
upper class. My interpretation of the song is influenced by the
fable (which I knew when I was very young) and, most likely, the
other songs on "Chronicles" (I later bought "Hemispheres")
such as "Bastille Day," "A Farewell to Kings"
and "Closer to the Heart" -- all revolutionary in one
form or another.
"The maples want more sunlight/ and the Oaks ignore their
pleas."
"As the Maples scream `Oppression!`/ And the Oaks, just shake
their heads "
"So the Maples formed a Union/ And demanded equal rights"
(this line suggests a Communist revolution to me -- trade unions
have long been associated with Communism).
"Now there's no more Oak oppression/ For they passed a noble
law/ And the trees are all kept equal/ By hatchet, Axe, And saw
..." (and this one suggests the French Revolution).
Note that I do not believe that the song is about rebelling againsta
a "right" authority. The Oaks in the song were prepared
to live in their luxurious world of sunlight while the maples
wasted away in the shadows. Rather, I see it as a warning both
to the upper class (to pay attention to the sufferings of the
lower classes) and to those whose advocate violent rebellion (the
revolution isn't always an improvement). The revolution I most
closely associate with "The Trees" is the Khmer Rouge
takeover of Cambodia, where a third of a nation was massacred
in the interests of an egalitarian society. Also, while I have
used the word Communism, a word with very negative connotations
-- at least for Americans, I recognize that the reason Communist
revolutions have succeeded is that in some areas of the world
conditions were so intolerable, and life so miserable, that the
people were willing to accept any change. In some rare cases,
Communism may have actually been an improvement (I would consider
South Vietnam an example).
The song is too powerful to merely be about reverse discrimination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> To many here in the States, affirmative
action has been used as a buzzword for communism... -- Anthony8,
10:40:50 08/18/01 Sat
...but I do agree that the stronger argument runs along the lines
of what you are saying. I was offering another interpretation
based on the context of the times (late 70's to mid 80's) and
what I understood to be the political leanings of Mr. Peart (and
I don't know this first hand, but from information provided by
a couple die-hard Rush fans--I just enjoy the music).
Since Rush is from Canada, do you know if there is has been any
specific Canadian attitude towards these issues (affirmative action,
the need to contain the "communist menace") over the
years? Do they have the same extreme conservative vs. liberal
politics (and all that nasty 'if you don't agree with prayer in
schools, making love to the flag, blah blah woof woof, you're
a commie pinko' crap) like we do in the United States?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Accck! I'm supposed to be working on this week's movie,
and now... -- OnM, 18:51:30 08/16/01 Thu
...I'm allowing myself to get drawn into this instead! Oh, well,
I'll be brief (and I can, if I want to, ya know!).
(Speaking of movies, if you're one of those who generally agree
with the above stated 'all people are idiots', and/or the 'older
you get, the more you realize that most people really don't know
what they are doing', you'll really appreciate the Classic Movie/Guilty
Pleasure for next week! Hee-hee...)
First:
What authority is: Authority is when a person or group of persons
possesses the right to tell other persons what to do and/or what
not to do (i.e., how to behave). Parents possess authority; teachers
possess authority; governments possess authority. (...) The important
aspect of my definition is that certain persons and institutions
actually do possess the right to command a certain type of behavior
in others.
I would alter the above line in one small, but very significant
way--
"Authority is when a person or group of persons possesses
the privilege to tell other persons what to do and/or what not
to do."
That privilege must be granted by some one, or some group, and
that group in turn must have oversight present upon it. Society
is too complex to be adequately controlled/influenced for the
betterment of all under the 'authority' of a single entity. To
paraphrase the ex-president's smarter half, 'It takes a village
to raise anybody'.
Rules were not made to be broken - they were made to be followed.
I prefer the concept of 'Guidelines were meant to be followed,
and you must justify in a credible, logical fashion when you elect
to not follow them. You must also (and this is a real biggee--)
accept responsibility for whatever you do, especially when you
elect not to follow the guidelines.
Anarchy is never a justifiable position to take, in my opinion.
spotjon, if you get anywhere near a good bookstore on your travels
this weekend, stop in the SF section and see if you can find a
copy of Ursula K. LeGuin's classic novel, The Dispossessed. Read
it, and I suspect you will never think of the word 'anarchy' in
the same way again.
Great post, BTW. Thanks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Movies and Rebellion (and Treason) -- Isabel, 19:35:00
08/16/01 Thu
This whole topic makes me think of a couple of quotes from "1776."
Rebellion
Ben Franklin: John, I'm surprised at you! Rebellion is always
legal in the first person, such as "OUR rebellion."
It is only in the third person, "THEIR rebellion," where
it becomes illegal.
Treason
Ben Franklin: Treason is a charge invented by winners as an excuse
for hanging the losers. John Adams: I don't have all day to sit
around and listen to you quote yourself. Ben Franklin: Oh, that
was a new one!
I don't know if Ben actually said either of those quotes, but
I thought they were fitting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Movies and Rebellion (and Treason) -- Humanitas,
18:24:49 08/18/01 Sat
There's a mid-Sixteenth Century verse which runs:
Treason never prospers And what's the reason? For if it prosper,
None dare call it treason.
I think the author is John Dryden, but Im not sure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Ah-Hah!! -- Solitude1056, 22:54:09 08/18/01
Sat
I've got a little paperback book somewhere, that was printed at
the height of McCarthyism, called None Dare Call It Treason. All
about the communist threat, and how to identify it, and what to
do about it, and where pinko commies are bound to show up - quite
panic-mongering. Always wondered where the title came from.
And now I'm being reminded by my housemate about the scene from
Shogun, where Blackthorne is talking to Toranago (sp?) about treason.
Toranago accuses Blackthorne of treason (since the Netherlands
fought for their independence from someone), and Blackthorne refutes
that label, but acknowledges that it might've been (or some such).
Toranago, in fine Japanese feudal fashion, says, "there is
never an excuse for treason against one's liege lord."
Blackthorne replies: "Unless you win."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Respect my authority revisited -- Dedalus, 19:40:17
08/16/01 Thu
In regards to Romans 13, I just have to say ...
That is strange. All authority is divinely instituted? All? Like,
Stalin? Sadaam Hussein?
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities,
for there is no authority except that which God has established."
Does that include the SS? I mean, Nazis were the governing authorities
in Berlin at one time. I find it disconcerting to say the least
that God would divinely institute death squads and such.
And where is all this stuff about "overstepping the bounds"
coming from? Not the Bible. "All authority is instituted
by God." Why would God institute authority that would overstep
its bounds, and thus someone would have to overthrow them? There
is no clause that I know of in these passages that say anything
about authority overstepping its bounds.
It is assumed that the colonies were right in overthrowing British
rule? Why? Because they didn't want to pay their taxes? Christ
himself said - "Give to Caesar that which is Caesars."
How does that jive with the American Revolution? They didn't want
to pay their taxes. Following that strain of logic, the king of
England was divinely instituted - mad as he may have been - so
shouldn't the Founding Fathers be viewed as dangerous heretics
by Christians?
"It's like you're blackmailing the government! In a patriotic
way."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yipes, and authority. -- Solitude1056, 22:00:45 08/16/01
Thu
Does that include the SS? I mean, Nazis were the governing authorities
in Berlin at one time. I find it disconcerting to say the least
that God would divinely institute death squads and such.
And not forgetting that a number of people the Nazis imprisoned
first were protestant & catholic priests who refused to acknowledge
the revisionist Nazi doctrine for the german christian national
church. Which, if I recall correctly, the Pope authorized and
actually supported. Yeah, that's an authority, and recalling the
history, it's one I'm damn glad I don't support. May be divine
right, but more than being idiotic... people are falliable.
And yet, at the same time, I must acknowledge that culture has
a great deal to do with it. A coworker is pregnant, with her second
child. She's also, like her husband, still a Chinese citizen.
I asked how she could be having two children, when the rule is
for one. The farther you are from the Chinese government, she
explained, the less control they exert. And then she went on to
explain that while she was in China, once a year she & all other
female employees would report to the Family Division of the company's
Human Resources department, who'd oversee mandatory long-term
contraceptives and check-ups. If you're married & don't have a
child, you don't get those, but once you've had one child, you're
in the line-up for enforced contraceptives. And then she just
oh-so-off-handedly added that if you are found to be pregnant,
you will be forced to have an abortion. Oh, and if you manage
to have the kid anyway, you're fired. Period. End of sentence.
Now, to me, as an American, this is anathema. Sidestepping the
emotionally loaded topic of abortion, I consider any forced intrusive
action upon a person's body to be repugnant, and no less so when
it's the government. It could be enforced appendectomies and I'd
be no less disinterested. Yet my friend takes it as a matter-of-course.
This is the way things are. This is the government she grew up
with, the culture she's from, it's how things are. Whether it
upsets her or not, I can't tell; I'm not going to pry that deep.
But what, to her, is a matter of fact, to me, is a matter of shock
and disbelief.
To flip the coin, while I was in Sweden, I was told repeatedly
that the legal blood alcohol limit for driving is, well, essentially
zero. Someone consuming a glass of wine within 15 feet would have
enough second-hand fumes to put you over the limit. Don't drink
and drive, over and over. And they're not kidding... and they
look at our track record in America, and they're stunned and shocked
that we could not only allow drunk drivers on the road in the
first place, but let them back out... again, and again, and again.
To them, our permissive culture is anathema. The lack of gun control
is terrifying, the teenage pregnancy & suicide is unacceptable,
and the hate crimes happening in our backyards are repugnant.
Each government is an authority, but whether or not we accept
that authority has a great deal to do with the culture in which
we were raised. Yeah, people are idiots, but the ones with even
an iota of knowledge about different cultures are less so, in
my experience & opinion. The internet is the closet thing to being
there, sometimes, because it's the only way people may eventually
realize that external authorities demanding that you do a, b,
and c, are absolutely null and void if you yourself do not take
responsibility for your actions independent of any authority.
Police yourselves. We do it here, and that gives me hope we might
learn to do it elsewhere, without popes, or dictators, or shrubyas.
Ok, ok, rant mode off now... it's late.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> And the very same authority that has been trying
to conceal it's complicity with Hitler... -- A8, 22:19:11 08/16/01
Thu
...is currently in the process of beatifying the man whose gentlemen's
agreement with the Nazi's helped to condemn millions more to their
deaths. All based on the interpretation of the infallibility of
the Pope as established via Petrine Theory (Matthew 16:18-20).
Since then, all manner of strange contradictions have been possible
all due to that grant of ultimate authority (including the fictional
paradox presented in 'Dogma').
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> a little devil's advocating.... -- nobody by the name of
mundusmundi ;), 21:44:31 08/16/01 Thu
Maybe, like Dedalus, I just have an affinity for the underdog.
While I admittedly don't agree with the crux of spotjon's argument,
some part of me has the perverse inclination to consider his viewpoint
from a different angle.
An overlooked portion of this debate seems to be Dedalus's comment
that "Everyone...that made a mark on the world did not conform
to authority." Eh, I dunno. After all, couldn't it be said
that it's been POA's (Persons of Authority) who all throughout
history left pretty indelible marks on the world they lived in?
Hammurabi left his legal code; Augustus stabilized the Roman Empire
and launched the Pax Romana.
Even in art, it's been POA's who have set the parameters and given
patronage to their favorites. Shakespeare's plays could be viewed
as pro-establishment, in the sense that they were written for
Queen Liz. Michelangelo was sponsored by the Church into painting
the Sistine Chapel. Even Joss Whedon, it could be argued, is pandering
to the new establishment of teen viewers, tweaking "authority
figures" all the while holding plenty of cards himself. Let
me raise my flame-shields as I submit that "knee-jerk anarchy"
can be just as mindless as blindly adhering to the status quo.
But, one could object, what about revolutions? Obviously, it's
been the underdogs in history that have made big changes happen.
Well, maybe not. One of the tricky rules of history seems to be....starving
people don't revolt.
People who are starving, so this theory goes, don't have the will
to revolt. "Starving" can mean not just literally hungry,
but the absolute lowest (i.e., oppressed) members of society.
The life, the spirit, the hope has been beaten out of them. That's
why tyrants stay in power so long: they keep the people who have
every right to depose them down.
The Brinton Thesis states that nearly all revolutions have similar
causes, which include: 1) a weak monarchy; 2) a rising middle
class; 3) a guiding ideology. In other words, ruthless dictators
(e.g., Hitler, Stalin) aren't overthrown, but well-meaning boobs
(Louis XVI, Nicholas II) get whacked. Starving people don't revolt.
It's people threatened by starvation, who could go either up or
down on the social tier (the French bourgeoisie, the Russian intelligentsia),
that make revolutions happen.
Enlightenment ideals helped foster both the French and American
revolutions. Marxist ideology seeded the Russian Rev. Of course
the lower-classes played a part in these events, but the leadership
came a little higher on the social ladder.
It's like what Joe Queenan once wrote about the American presidency:
"Americans don't mind if you were born in a log cabin, but
you sure as hell better not had stayed there."
I guess what I'm trying to say, in a tremendous grasp of the obvious,
is that life is complicated. And it is here ultimately, for reasons
already mentioned by others, that I think the argument for authority
falls apart.
Lastly, at some risk at sounding older than I really am, I continue
to be overwhelmed by the thought and quality of writing on this
board. Dedalus is what, 25; and spotjon's 22. Both far more eloquent
that most people I've encountered 10, 20, even 30 years older.
Maybe there's hope for the future after all. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: the Hero's Journey and Authority -- mm, 06:56:22
08/17/01 Fri
It's morning, having my ice tea, and still thinking about this
debate. A question for the Campbell experts: To what extent is
the Hero's Journey pro- or anti-authority? "The enemy is
always in the seat of power," Campbell has said. Yet in most
myths that come to mind, it seems that heroes like Luke Skywalker,
Paul Atriedes (sp?), etc., do in fact have a case for "divine
right." I.e., they have a legitimate "claim" on
their destiny that was stripped from them, and now they have returned
as the "master of both worlds" and such. I suppose we
could even weave this argument into Buffy as to whether she was
tapped to be the Slayer because she already had the potential
within her, or if the powers were simply thrust upon her.
It's early, and my mind's a-curious.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: the Hero's Journey and Authority -- Dedalus,
18:59:04 08/17/01 Fri
Well, generally speaking again, the heroes in myths are generally
born ... outside the sphere of their ... destiny, you might say.
I mean, the Buddha was born to incredible wealth and power, but
his father had heard about the prophecy surrounding his birth
(there's always one of those), so he walled him up and didn't
let him go out. So even though he had wealth and power, he had
to shrug it all off and go into the wilderness. Of course, Christ
was just the opposite.
There is a little tie-in that Joyce brought in and used for his
own mythic ideas. I believe it had several basic archetypes -
that of the 1. Missing Father 2. Unfaithful Wife/Mother 3. A usurper/betrayer
4. The displaced son. He used this in regards to his own Ulysses,
and I think it was the formula the young Stephen Dedalus gave
for understanding Hamlet. It's been too long. I'm not up on my
Joyce. The point is, the hero is always having to fight tooth
and nail to either retain his heritage, or win it for the first
time.
As far as "divine right" in myth, that is true. But
in the case of Skywalker and Paul, as you point out, their destiny
has been taken from them, and they have been driven into the hinterlands.
So it's not exactly the same thing. When I think of divine right,
I think of a clear-cut and easy succession of kings. One that
has perhaps been long established. Myth is not about that. In
most of the Arthurian romances, for example, Sir Gareth and Parsifal
and even Arthur himself somehow have to overcome great obstacles
to get back to their "rightful place." I think one can
distinguish between destiny and status quo.
There is always some dragon to slay or some Death Star to be blown
up. Therefore the hero is not representative of the status quo.
I think there is indeed a strain of rebellion in these things.
(Prometheus comes to mind as one of the most definitive examples
of this)
I was about to bring up that Campbell quote about the enemy being
in the seat of power. Things would be pretty boring if they weren't.
For example, so many people have brought up the fact that the
Jedi in The Phantom Menace were literally situated up in an ivory
tower, and seemed all too sure of themselves, more drowsy than
enlightened. And even though we always think of them as good guys,
it is clear they are slipping towards apathy. Hence, the Force
brings a little boy named Anakin into existence. That scene with
the Council was so Twilight of the Gods.
It's almost like a transvaluation of values, which is what makes
TPM so damn cool ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Good explanation. Thanks. -- mundusmundi,
06:24:02 08/18/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> And the devil you know is preferable to the one that
you don't... -- OnM, 07:55:19 08/17/01 Fri
Your comment,
Well, maybe not. One of the tricky rules of history seems to be....starving
people don't revolt.
brings to mind a sort of corollary to that thought, which is something
I have always suspected, but never have been really able to prove.
Is the real reason that the United States as relatively 'free'
as it is mainly due to the fact that we have discovered, probably
in a subconscious fashion, that if we simply allow a large enough
proportion of the people who hold the reins of power to become
obscenely wealthy, that they will be pretty much content with
that wealth and the benefits it brings, and so pretty much leave
the rest of us alone?
If so, I'm not sure how well this bodes for democracy as a worldwide
paradigm, since very few countries of the world are anywhere near
as wealthy as the US.
Thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: a little devil's advocating.... -- Dedalus Likes
to Generalize, 18:40:33 08/17/01 Fri
Did I literally say "everyone"?
Geez. Whatever happened to "all things in moderation"?
Just know that when I say "everyone" I'm generalizing,
and don't literally mean "everyone." :-)
And thanks for the compliment about writing. As Buffy would say,
"It's what I do."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> This posting board always blows my mind!! -- Deeva, 23:38:10
08/16/01 Thu
This particular discussion has just blown me out of the water.
Geez! Everyone seems to be so clear in their thought that I can't
help but be intimidated by the sheer magnitude of it. People around
me like to tell me that I am a little too analytical but I'm nothing
compared to you guys! I need to go and lay down now. I can't think
right now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Deeva, you took the words right out of my mouth! --
Marie, 03:42:35 08/17/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> You should have been around for the fungus discussion!
-- OnM, 07:30:06 08/17/01 Fri
Good thing that one brought it's own penicillin!
BTW, just shows why we love having spotjon around here-- his thoughtful
posts always get us goin'...
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The fungus discussion should be in the archives
now -- Masq, 09:09:45 08/17/01 Fri
Currently, I have all the posts from Oct 00 through April 01 up,
and it was that discussion was definitely before May.
I'm working now on getting the May archives up!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> C'mon Deeva, join in the fun, bloody your nose a bit--you
know you wanna. ;-) -- Anthony8, 10:56:30 08/17/01 Fri
After you rest for a few, let's hear your two cents. We're all
over the board here. And today, the board seems to be all over
itself (ghosts in the machine, I suppose). Maybe the psychic energy
from all the contributors to this subject is disrupting the authoratively
hierarchical world in which the VOY server exists.
Anyhow all this discussion reminds me of an Irish expression Campbell
used when he was describing how one should jump unself-consciously
and wholeheartedly into the messy and wonderfully horrific experience
that is life:
"Is this a private fight? Or can anyone join in?"
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I wanna but can't really sum up my feelings
like you guys do. One day it'll happen. :o) -- Deeva, 21:23:02
08/17/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: This posting board always blows my mind!! -- Dedalus,
19:02:29 08/17/01 Fri
I feel your pain.
Actually, I always think I have clear thoughts that are well developed
and presented, and I post them right up at the top before discussion
gets going. Then after everyone else posts I go back, and I'm
like "I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy." It does get a
little mind-blowing. Put it this way, this is the only forum I
know of where people have been known to actually have footnotes
with their posts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yeah, I'm with you. -- Anthony8, 21:45:20 08/17/01
Fri
I'll finish posting what I think is a fairly well-thought out
rant, sitting here all proud of myself and then, 'D'oh!' I notice
a misspelling that makes me look like Cletus the Slack-jawed yokel.
Then every time I hit the board, there it is staring out at me--as
if I'm walking around in public with my finger up my nose. Oh
well. Humility is good for the soul.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Yep, ya got that right. -- OnM, 23:00:43
08/17/01 Fri
It think it's so fascinating that many people read this board
and think geez! They're all so focused and so clever and all,
but they are only reading the finished product, and it doesn't
always just 'happen', it can take effort.
I just finished posting my weekly movie column, and as usual it
took me about three hours to write, and that doesn't include viewing
the film and doing some research on the IMDb or other sites/sources
to make sure that I mostly don't make a fool of myself.
Even then, almost every week while I'm actually writing the thing,
I look at the work in progress and think to myself, ohh, this
sucks. It's not working, now what? But I massage it, and tweak
it, and usually finally get into some kind of a groove, and when
I'm done it's usually at least acceptable, IMO. But's it's effort.
So, to Deeva or to others who think this is 'so easy' for us,
it isn't always. I find writing very rewarding, and I'm much better
at it than I am at speaking, because I'm a slow thinker, but it's
a bitca a times.
So just give us whatever you've got. Take your time if it raises
your confidence. I only have a high-school education (an oxymoron
if ever there was one!), most of the useful stuff I learned over
the years was from reading extensively and listening to other
folks who were smarter than I was-- or at least appeared to be!!
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Taking your time... -- Wisewoman,
08:38:52 08/18/01 Sat
...is an excellent suggestion, except for those occasions when
the discussion/debate becomes hot and heavy, and I find that my
carefully composed comments suddenly follow three other posts
that say essentially the same thing, but much more lucidly!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> You know, I've been computer
literate for over a decade now... -- Anthony8, 10:48:07 08/18/01
Sat
...and I never got used to reading screen text with the same disciplined
eye as I do hard copy. I have a much easier time catching misspellings
and typos on paper. Maybe it's because screen text seems more
conversational to me. Oh well. In a way, watching my own mistakes
slip through now and then keeps my ego in check (as if people
shooting down my point of view with deadly precision doesn't?
Who am I kidding? :-).
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You know, I've been
computer literate for over a decade now... -- Dedalus, 13:26:30
08/18/01 Sat
This is sort of conversational, which is why I like to generalize
and such on occasion. Still, this is pretty deep conversation,
so it evokes a certain amount of pondering that might not be necessary
on other forums.
Speaking of writing, if it is something long and drawn out, I
will STILL write it out long hand. That's just the way I do it.
Even getting more and more familiar with the computer, I have
to write with paper first. Which is good, because then typing
it up ensures that you do at least two drafts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Respect my authority -- Rufus, 12:58:43 08/17/01 Fri
Rules were not made to be broken-they were made to be followed;
but rulers were not made to be autonomous-they are still subject
to judgement. We need rules if only because we have such a strong
desire to disobey. Anarchy is never a justifiable position to
take, in my opinion.
Words to remember....I have experience in the drive to disobey
that humanity contains. There are many good reasons for rules
to exist. First of all they are guidelines on how to behave in
society, giving a person direction on what is and isn't acceptable
behavior. I have found that unless you have been impacted by actions
of rule breakers you don't understand that fact. The basic laws
that prohibit certain behaviors such as murder, assault, theft,
fraud, are there because the adverse results of these activities
have, made people request laws to prohibit them. I find that if
a rule or a law is unfair it generally will be challenged enough
to change or be dropped. Everytime I see a person stripped of
their belongings because of someone who doesn't like the rule
about not stealing I remember why that rule needs to be in place,
same as dealing with greaving families whose member has been murdered
or beaten senseless. People have a strong drive to disobey but
that doesn't mean that the laws and rules that govern them need
to be scrapped. The rule makers or enforcers are subject to judgement
if they forget that the rules also include them. We need to use
good sense when it comes to rules. If something is so unjust as
to clearly need questioning there are ways to do that. People
in places of authority need to be observed to make sure they don't
turn from being a guardian of their fellow man to a predator of
the same. Anarchy isn't a solution good sense and compassion is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Respect my authority -- Dedalus, 19:10:19 08/17/01
Fri
Good points, but I still have issues.
As much as it pains me to see people hurting each other for nonsensical
reasons, I have to question what good rules actually do. I stated
this up there at the very beginning.
A person stripped of their belongings to me is a reminder that
rules don't really work. Makes sense, really. If rules prohibited
stealing, there wouldn't be stealing. But as I said, the people
who are going to follow the rules do so anyway, and those that
don't, don't anyway, so there you go.
Yes, I'm generalizing, and possibly being naive. I will not pretend
law does not act as a deterent in some cases. The problem with
me is more metaphysical, I suppose. I expect more of us as a species.
There's no sense in the things we do to each other.
I like a quote I came upon the other day, I think it was courtesy
of Einstein. It went something like this - If every action we
take has to be motivated by fear of punishment or lust for reward,
and we can't function without those two things, we are a sorry
lot indeed.
The virtuous life is its own reward, or it should be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Respect my authority -- Rufus, 21:52:46
08/17/01 Fri
A virtuous life is its own reward, or it should be.
Great thought if you are by nature virtuous. I think that law
springs from the reality that many are not. We also have to have
a baseline idea of what is and isn't acceptable in a society.
Laws themselves won't stop bad behavior but they give us an idea
of what is right and wrong and is at least a start. Our conscience
will be the ultimate guide....if you have one.:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Respect my authority -- Dedalus, 13:11:31
08/18/01 Sat
Yes, you are right about the baseline for society thing.
My point - more like a highly heretical idea - was that more often
than not, said laws instigate more problems than they solve. I've
quoted Blake many times here - "Prisons are built with stones
of law, brothels with bricks of religion." Thus we have a
kind of boomerang effect, with one feeding the other.
I'll give you a great bit that pretty much sums up my thoughts
on the matter. This is from a different book, but the quote was
taken from "Christian Ethics," by Waldo Beach and H.
Richard Neibuhr -
"In a sense Paul's whole thought on the law may be interpreted
as a development of Jesus' idea that a good tree brings forth
good fruit and that no amount of external conduct can make men
really good. In far as imperative moral law remains something
external to man, an affair of 'You ought' and 'You ought not,'
it cannot make him good at the core; it cannot transform his motives.
The imperative form of the law, not its content, is a relative
thing which presupposes the presence in man of a desire contary
to the intention of the law. Moreover, the giving of injunctions
to them to transgress the law. Where there are imperatives, adults
as well as children are tempted to see how close they can come
to the edge of the forbidden. Again, imperative law cannot produce
that innate, unforced graciousness of conduct evident in Jesus
Christ which is so much more attractive and so much more fruitful
than self-conscious goodness."
God, I do love that passage. And, while I know the world is an
awfully complex place, I still can't help but be dismayed at the
overemphasis society gives to "imperative law" while
no emphasis at all is given to that "innate, unforced graciousness."
From my own life experiences, as I've mentioned before, that doesn't
often work. I've gone to schools that were highly strict, and
schools not so much, and the not so much schools always had much
better behaved, less hypocritical, and generally nicer people.
Just my opinion. And it rests on the assumption that everyone
has a conscience. Some people say doing away with laws and rules
and such would bankrupt everything, and make people less responsible.
But, in a way, a funny, semi-optimistic, cross-my-fingers way,
wouldn't it make them more responsible, virtually forcing responsibility
on them?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> In a world populated with only "good
trees" it could work..... -- Rufus, 15:48:38 08/18/01 Sat
Unfortunately there are many sick trees bearing equally diseased
fruit. Laws may seem pointless in a society where the Golden Rule
is followed but we are in a society that doesn't love their brothers
as themselves, or hate themselves so much they can only spread
that emotion. Laws are there because they are needed for the sick
trees. Laws aren't there because of the virtuous, but to protect
them. I would love to share your optimism about responsibility
but have seen too much blood and destruction to believe that all
people can be responsible. Most people act in a way that they
don't break the law because it's not in them to behave in that
way but the many that are society needs protection from. Law won't
stop crime but it will be what we base our judgement of lawbreakers
on. I'm talking criminal law more than civil law here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: In a world populated with
only "good trees" it could work..... -- Dedalus, 19:41:39
08/18/01 Sat
Well, I suppose I should ask what makes society like this, then?
Is it the people in it? Or is it the society itself?
My point is, how do we know we don't live in a world populated
by "good trees"? We never really give anyone a chance
do we?
Humorous story - I have said once or twice around some very strict
moralists that I think people should be able to do whatever they
want. And it never fails. Every single time, they come back with,
"So everybody can just do whatever they want? So if I wanted
to take out a gun and shoot you, I could?" To which I always
reply, "If you could do whatever you wanted, would you want
to shoot me?" To which they reply, "Well ... no."
To which I reply, "Well there ya go." Of course, I realize
I'm going to say that to the wrong person one of these days and
probably wind up in a shallow grave on the side of the road somewhere,
but them's the breaks.
You know, I endlessly rail against people, call them names and
so forth, but ... when all is said and done, I guess I just still
retain a basic faith in human nature. Now, I should point out
this human nature has nothing to do with this socialized, religiousized
creature which is currently posing as human nature. I think we
have lost our nature long ago, and that of course, is the problem.
My take is very Taoist. As my friend Lao Tse once put it, "Give
up this advertising of goodness and duty, and people will regain
love for their fellows." Taoism operates under the simple
assumption that if someone believes they can do whatever they
want to do - I mean, really believes it - in the end, they will
want to do the right thing. I mean, the people who go around having
meaningless sex and killing people and doing drugs ... is that
really what they WANT to do? They don't strike me as particularly
happy human beings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Shallow grave..................
-- Rufus, 20:04:17 08/18/01 Sat
Be careful, you knock on enough doors, someone is apt to answer.:):):):)
Most people don't want to harm others so the removal of laws simply
won't change their basic nature, but there are some who are lost
and don't understand that there is something more to life than
drugs, meaningless sex, and the pursuit of material things. For
me I hope that most people will be good and feel good by their
good acts, but I have a plan B to protect the good from the acts
of the evil. Some people are empty of feeling, enough so that
they are a danger to everyone around them, rules and laws they
don't adhere to anyway. I hope that people left to their own devices
will instinctally be good, but for those who don't, I want to
protect from the acts of the lost. Sometimes the light of goodness
can't infiltrate the dark form that is evil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Trust but verify?
-- OnM, 07:38:24 08/19/01 Sun
Never thought I'd ever quote a man whose general policies I was
none too fond of (to put it very politely), but his attempt to
be humorous about the US dealing with the 'new' Soviet Union'
makes a statement about the essential paradox of human behavior
that I doubt he really appreciated.
To trust, of course, means exactly that. But how often can you
truly trust anyone? That is, totally, unquestionably, trust without
reservation?
In 'The Gift', Buffy essentially asks this of Giles and the SG.
They do, and things work out, the world is saved. But it is clear
that even 'trust in Buffy' has it's limits, as Joss proposes to
us by having Giles kill Ben/Glory.
I posed the question back a few weeks after this ep first aired,
did Giles do the right thing by effectively not trusting Buffy
in this one instance? I agreed that he did what had to be done,
IMO, but there were some-- albeit a minority-- who felt that what
he did was wrong, and that if Buffy spared Glory, there may have
been a reason.
Can there ever be 100% trust? For a practical reality basis, considering
how flawed we as humans are, and in that our society's nature
follows our own, there need to be some safeguards, as Rufus states.
I do agree wholeheartedly with Dedalus that we tend to lean far
more heavily on the law then we often need to-- it's just 'easier',
but not always better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Trust
but verify? -- Dedalus, 09:23:46 08/19/01 Sun
I am so impressed, OnM, that you actually managed to get us back
to a Buffy topic!
Just for the record, I for one breathed a heavy sigh of relief
when Giles got done with Ben. That scene had an edge to it, but
I don't think he got off on it or anything. And Glory was too
serious a threat to let go. I did not want the Scoobies to have
to deal with that again.
And yeah, I guess that is what I'm saying about leaning too heavily
on the law. It is easier, but not always better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Buffy =
demon specialist...Giles = experience with the failings of man
-- Rufus, 14:09:43 08/19/01 Sun
I agree that people lean too heavily on the law as it can sometimes
be a crutch to avoid acting in a humane way. As people we need
to distance ourselves from others making them "its"
so we can feel better screwing them around.
With Giles and his lack of trust in Buffy I don't see it as a
lack of trust as much as a state of despair caused by Giles experiences
as a human being.
Giles: I love Dawn.
Buffy: I know.
Giles: But I've sworn to protect this sorry world, and sometimes
that means saying and doing...what other people can't. What they
shouldn't have to.
Buffy: You try and hurt her, and you know I'll stop you.
Giles: I know.
Giles acted as a rational man who used his experience of the world
to bring him to the conclusion that certain things are justifiable
for the greater good. He also understood that these things may
make him a human monster. I see Giles killing Ben as a sacrifice
of his own. First, he killed Ben for the greater good...now he
has to live with his words about Dawn to Buffy and the fact that
for the world to go on someone had to make the hard choice to
kill as a preventative measure.
Giles: Can you move?
Ben: Need a...a minute. She could've killed me.
Giles: No she couldn't. Never. And sooner or later Glory will
re-emerge, and....make Buffy pay for that mercy. And the world
with her. Buffy even knows that...(reaches into his pocket, takes
out his glasses)and still she couldn't take a human life.
Giles: She's a hero, you see. (Giles put his glasses on) She's
not like us.
Ben: Us?
Giles highlighted the difference between the journey of the Hero
and the life of man. Buffy only does what she has to do on her
journey. Giles is a man of the world, he understands first hand
about human weakness and vengeance. Buffy has a limit as a hero
on what actions are actually heroic, Giles as a man of the world
does not. Buffy may have lost her life in the protection of the
world and Dawn, but what did Giles lose?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Buffy = demon specialist...Giles =experience with the failings
of man -- Humanitas, 20:50:41 08/19/01 Sun
Now contrast that with Xander's "We could, kill a normal
guy? Couldn't we?" THe way he trails off at the end makes
it clear that, although he can think it, to actually kill Ben
would be as impossible for him as it would be for Buffy. With
the exception of Giles, I think that's true of the entire SG.
They are still young and idealistic, and can no more kill a human
being than Spike can, at the moment. Giles has seen enough horror
(and, it is suggested, been the cause of some of that horror)
that he knows that he can kill if he needs to. Hmm, I wonder if
this is partly him still trying to atone for Eighon, after all
these years?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Buffy = demon specialist...Giles =experience with the failings
of man -- anom, 21:43:18 08/19/01 Sun
I'm not so sure Giles knew beforehand that he'd be able to kill
Ben. He was willing to (bloody well) talk about killing Dawn,
but he didn't speak up to support Xander's halfhearted suggestion
(although as a creation of the monks, Ben, like Dawn, was arguably
not "really" human). And even if he did, killing on
BtVS has usually been in the context of fighting, either self-defense
or defending someone (or the world) against an enemy actively
trying to harm them. I bet Giles hadn't pictured himself killing
not only a human, but a helpless one.
One question we didn't see dealt with was the fact that if Buffy
had killed Glory in her hellgod form, Ben would still have died
with her. Any thoughts on the ethics of that? If killing one kills
both, why does it matter which one is manifested at the moment
the killing is done?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Buffy killing humans -- Helen, 03:36:03 08/21/01 Tue
Throughout the seasons, we've always been told that Buffy has
this huge honour code about not killing human beings - even when
Ethan Rayne nearly led her to unwittingly kill Giles, she didn't
give him the good stab in the heart he deserved. And she had no
intention of killing Maggie Walsh, even though maggie tried to
kill her, Buffy was genuinely grieved by Maggie's death.
So what about Faith? We had this hiatus in the last part of season
3, in which Buffy was perfectly prepared to kill another human
being, another Slayer no less, to save her creature of the night
boyfriend. Xander really started to come into his own at this
point, and has grown in confidence ever since, when he told Buffy
"I don't want to lose you." He understand the possible
consequences of Buffy's intended course - she could have wound
up just like Faith herself.
Now we know that Buffy didn't succeed (not for want of trying)
but Season four didn't really deal with the consequences of what
Bufy had been prepared to do. Faith's re-emergence dealt solely
with her own battle to come to terms with her past actions - I
wish we had had time for a little investigation into Buffy's failure
to help her back when help would have been effective (Consquences,
for example). The only acknowledgement Buffy ever seemed to give
that things should have been differnt - 2 slayers, they could
have taken on anything - was the kiss on Faith's forehead as she
lay in her Buffy induced coma.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Buffy killing humans -- Brian, 03:48:10 08/21/01 Tue
Didn't Buffy kill several of those Knights in "Spiral"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Buffy killing humans -- Helen, 04:01:01 08/21/01
Tue
well, yes indeed she did, and being reminded about it confuses
me further. Why couldn't she kill Ben, when she was quite happy
to kill Faith and the Knights? And why did she feel no remorse
about the Knights afterwards? Is her new attitude to human life
a fore-taste of the darker, different Buffy who will be returning
next season, or is it a goof?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Buffy killing humans -- Cynthia, 04:08:34
08/21/01 Tue
Well, I wasn't watching when Faith was on. But maybe she was unconciously
trying to kill the part of herself she saw in Faith.
As for the knights, I think its just the fact that she didn't
have time to reflect on their deaths. Things were happening to
fast.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Go back to Checkpoint...... -- Rufus, 04:34:48
08/21/01 Tue
In Checkpoint, she is instructed to protect a dummy as if it were
"precious", Buffy does the axe toss in her fight with
a COW member and hits the dummy about where she gets the KoB in
Spiral. Buffy was protecting who she felt was precious. Instead
of a dummy, Buffy with intent, kills a human. She was acting in
self defence, protecting those she loved. It was a battle where
they were outnumbered and did what they had to, to survive. One
thing to note, Buffy didn't know any of the men she killed, they
were "soldiers in a vast army". When it came time to
finish Glory off, Ben resurfaced. Buffy had known Ben, she had
trusted him, and almost went out with him. In short, she knew
him to be the doctor who had been careing and compassionate. I
don't know if she knew much about what Ben had done in regards
to Dawn, his sell out of humanity to save himself. It was clear
that unlike the Knights, Ben was no soldier and had surrendered.
As a hero, Buffy showed mercy, unable to kill a man she knew,
and at some point liked. Ben was no threat and Buffy gave him
the chance she gave the Knights, end the fight. Giles was more
practical about the situation, made the hard choice to kill the
man who had patched him up. Giles made it clear that he wasn't
like Buffy, he wasn't a "hero".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: When did Buffy kill some of the Knights?
-- Dedalus, 20:08:54 08/21/01 Tue
I've heard people say this, but I've watched the episode several
times, but I don't see it.
She kicks a couple off the side of the van. Moving, granted, but
it probably wasn't enough to kill them. The guy she hit with the
axe was wearing chainmail. It probably didn't kill him. It looked
like it was just enough to knock him off the van.
But later, the Knight says "Seven of my men are dead"
when they are trying to get help for Giles. Is he talking about
the ones Glory killed?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: When did Buffy kill some of
the Knights? -- Rufus, 20:21:11 08/21/01 Tue
That axe stuck....and not because it was hung up on chainmail.....Buffy
is really strong and she proved that when she tossed that sword
into the wall in Checkpoint...she was only a bit pissed in that
ep....in Spiral she was protecting the person most precious to
her....she killed the guy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: the difficulty of authority -- mundusmundi,
14:31:20 08/18/01 Sat
Another point I'd add to yours is: authority is hard work. Even
for leaders who are genuinely smart and capable and bucked the
Peter Principle, it takes a lot of responsibility, a lot of caution,
a lot of care. I'm not a police officer, but I respect police
officers (in most cases), as they put their asses on the line
in a way I never could. Again, generally speaking, I also respect
parents. I'm not a parent, but my parents are parents, and I cringe
reflecting on some of the hell I put them through.
For me, the most ridiculous of Joss's authority figures are teachers.
I'd love nothing more than for him to substitute a real class
for a week or two. Maybe then he'd see just how much "authority"
we actually possess nowadays. ("Sorry I missed the last two
months of class, Professor Whedon. My babe wrecked my Harley and
I was totally bummed. Did I miss anything important?")
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: the difficulty of authority
-- Dedalus, 19:50:35 08/18/01 Sat
I'm not sure Joss has that many issues with teachers. They haven't
all been depicted in a bad light.
Professor Gregory back in the praying mantis episode was very
nice to Buffy. But didn't he have his head ripped off or something?
Ooh, and what about that poetry teacher this past season? He was
an all around decent chap.
Out of all authority figures, I really like teachers. If we're
talking college professors, I love them. I only had two semi-competent/parental
figures/teachers in high school, and that was the Colonel and
Chief in Air Force Junior ROTC. That was when I liked authority,
of course. But they ruled in a major way.
I don't know why Joss could possibly get flake for drumming down
authority figures though. It's not like he's making this stuff
up. Okay, he's making the metaphor stuff up, but there has to
be some kind of dialogue between the society and the artist, for
the artist can't just pull stuff out of the air. It has to be
based on something. An IMO, it is in this case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: the difficulty of authority
-- mundusmundi, 20:35:34 08/18/01 Sat
I'm with you on the poetry prof. But that scene where the history
professor blasted Buffy for her question on Rasputin was stupid
and unconvincing. Joss clearly has no idea what actually goes
on in a college classroom. (Of course, he's depicted a TA sleeping
with a student without anyone blinking an eye, so we knew that
already.)
Sorry, being accuracy-boy. It's made me more sympathetic of the
archeologists who carped about Indiana Jones.
I typically identify with the underdogs in life. But as Richard
Russo put it in Straight Man: "I'm not without sympathy for
the guys in suits."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: the difficulty of
authority -- Malandanza, 21:39:30 08/18/01 Sat
"I'm with you on the poetry prof. But that scene where the
history professor blasted Buffy for her question on Rasputin was
stupid and unconvincing. Joss clearly has no idea what actually
goes on in a college classroom."
Most of my college professors (and a few of my High School teachers)
were great people. The notable exception for me was my first MAT341
professor -- a class about writing proofs with a professor that
could not write a decent proof to save his life. He would skip
steps that were "obvious" and realize he had made mistakes
partway through the proof (and go back and erase and alter his
notation). Notes were all but useless and the text used an entirely
different set of notation. One time, a student asked him about
a step (in a proof by contradiction) where he had negated an if-then
statement. The student did not understand how to negate a conditional
(I didn't either, but I figured it out afterward on my own using
truth tables) -- instead of explaining the process, he stopped
his lecture to rant (actually yelling at the student) about how
badly educated this student was and how he should never have taken
a difficult math course without the appropriate background. A
few other students tried to rally to his support (not me -- I
respect authority :), but they, too, ended up as targets of hs
phillipics. Ten minutes of screaming. So I would say there is
at least one professor who matches the History professor pretty
well. But at least at College you have a luxury typically denied
to HS students -- you can always drop the class (as I did).
OT -- How do you think spotjon is going to react to his thread
when he finally returns?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> the difficulty
of authority -- Brian, 05:41:55 08/19/01 Sun
Like a reflection of the general population, I've seen teachers
from excellent to really bad. And I've seen profs like that history
guy go off on students with a nasty rant. Sigh. And as for TA's
sleping with their students, I thought that was a requirement
of college life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay the
daughter gets a chastity belt for a university gift..... -- Rufus,
14:17:21 08/19/01 Sun
Bad enough we have to come to terms with the fact that our kids
may know what sex is, but we now have to move on to let sink in
about them practicing. I think that most TA's are at least in
the age range of my step child, but if she drags home some brooding
lout with a big forhead....I'll have to kill him. Or at least
check his age.:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: the
difficulty of authority -- dream of the consortium, 12:14:06 08/21/01
Tue
Have to agree with both these points. Have had teachers that ranged
from horrific to fantastic. And when I was in school only a few
years ago, several students were having very public affairs with
professors without anyone getting too bent out of shape, though
that probably reflects the tenor of my particular college more
than university life in general. By the way, in a recent interview
linked by somone here (I forget where), Joss mentions that Richard
Slotkin was a major influence on his thinking. I am assuming he
went to Wesleyan, as I did. Professor Slotkin was absolutely amazing;
his understanding about American literature was both deep and
broad. Joss mentioned specifically Slotkin's idea of the "man
who knows Indians" as influential on his thinking about Buffy.
As far as Slotkin is concerned, many of the central myths of American
literature come from James Fenimore Cooper. Natty Bumpo is the
man who knows Indian, a important archetype in American culture,
the man who is both civilized and yet understands savagery, who
lives with one foot in society and one outside. Buffy obviously
derives from this archetype - I remember Slotkin mentioning Hans
Solo, and I would add the Harvey Kietel character in The Piano,
as well as every character who has ever said "I know these
people, I grew up here" on a bad cop show. Slotkin also argued
that the two women in the Leatherstocking Tales (boy, have I forgotten
a lot about those books - there's no hope that I will remember
the women's names)created our almost unbreakable hair color rules
in literature and film. One dark and dangerous, one blond and
innocent, one representing the call of savage, the other civilization,
- and note Faith and Buffy. (And the discussion about hair color
prejudices above.)
I haven't read Slotkin's books - Gunfighter Nation or Regeneration
though Violence, but would be interested if anyone on the board
has. Thrilled as I was to see that I share with Joss admiration
for a particularly wonderful professor (see, I'm almost on-topic
here - the point is that Joss loves professors. Loves them, Rasputin-guy
be damned), I've forgotten a lot from that class in the years
since college and would love to know more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm OT if you're
OT -- mundusmundi, 07:36:50 08/19/01 Sun
I'm wondering if all these topics lately (of which I've been an
active participant) aren't the Masqverse's equivalent of spring
training. Cutting our teeth before the real debates begin (e.g.,
"Buffy's return: Huh?" and "Spike's hottieness:
a metaphysical discourse.").
Once again, one of your posts has introduced me to a new word:
philippics. No longer subscribe to Reader's Digest, so I have
to get my word fix somewhere.
Even more OT: I liked your fanfic idea. The reaction of the minions
was a unique yet believable angle. (Reminds me of a scene in Martin
Cruz Smith's novel Polar Star. After the KGB honcho is killed,
his lackeys, who've been harassing the hero, now decide to help
him as he's next in line of authority. Hilarious take on Soviet
logic.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm
OT if you're OT -- Dedalus, 09:40:16 08/19/01 Sun
My high school teachers were okay ... a couple of them were pretty
good and semi-competent.
My real education did not begin until college though. And I started
at a two year local college before going on to university. And
that little local college had some of the BEST professors you
could possibly imagine. Everyone talked about it. It was mind-blowing.
Such a repository of wit and wisdom. It set me on my course as
a lover of knowledge.
But there was one ... this English teacher. It was bad. She thought
I couldn't write at all. She often used me as an example of what
not to do. Made me write stuff over and over. It was actually
rather funny in retrospect. Most of the other teachers were hailing
me as one of the best they'd ever seen, but not her. I think she
just hated men altogether. Someone suggested she actually had
a crush on me.
Okay, and there was another one, an English one. I was finishing
up my last semester, and my advisor (Just let me say - most advisors
are crap, but this guy was incredible - he got me out of college
algebra) told me that I needed one last English because of this
credit swap or something. And I had just got done with my senior
seminar and directed studies and all that with no problem, but
I go back to this sophmore English class, and the teacher was
a complete idiot. She never had any clue what was going on. She
totally ruined any enjoyment I might have gotten out of that last
semester. It took her months to grade a five paragraph essay.
We didn't even have a syllabus until like two months into the
semester. And yes, she made me redo a paper I wrote comparing
Gone With the Wind's place in Southen literature to the Bible's
place in Western literature. It was really good, and I had several
people tell me so.
I kid you not, I wrote about how Scarlett (as both tempting Eve
and suffering Christ) with her "I'll never be hungry again"
speech and her rise and fall was analogous to a death and resurrection.
On the topic of death and resurrection, she wrote to the side
of my paper "So how is this biblical?"
Enough to put a chill down your spine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "So
how is this biblical?" -- Rufus, 14:19:55 08/19/01 Sun
Oh no....what a bitch....she was probobly envious of your talent...it
happens. I can also imagine her take on "The Gift".....I
think you would have to crack open a case of chalk to chuck at
her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: "So how is this biblical?" -- Dedalus, 12:21:45
08/21/01 Tue
Actually, I think she was doped up on pain pills or something,
but that's another story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Kenneth Burke -- Wisewoman, 21:39:16 08/20/01 Mon
Interesting article on Burke's take on authority (among other
things) at:
http://www.sla.purdue.edu/people/engl/dblakesley/burke/kohl.html
Quotage:
Burke was particularly interested in how humans became capable
of maintaining socio-political hierarchies (or inequalities) in
the first place. Of course he, like Max Weber, recognized several
reasons why people submit to being ruled: (1) the authority of
custom; (2) the authority of the exceptional, personal gift of
grace or charisma demonstrated by a leader to whom one is personally
devoted, and/or (3) by virtue of the belief in the validity of
the legal statute itself; in such case, submission is not generally
motivated only by fear or hope but by personal interests of the
most diverse kinds, including a perceived elevation in status
due to a loyalty to authority (Lassman and Speirs, pp. 311-312).
The universities are catching
on somewhat to what we already knew. -- Anthony8, 11:32:33 08/17/01
Fri
They are teaching BtVS at university now according to an article
you can find here:
http://www.slayage.com/news/010817-adelaideuni.htm
Too bad they haven't discovered our forum. Their course description
sounds much more limited than what we explore on a daily basis
here.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The universities are catching on somewhat to what we
already knew. -- dan, 11:56:55 08/17/01 Fri
Too bad they haven't discovered our forum. Their course description
sounds much more limited than what we explore on a daily basis
here.
You're right, they are limited... they probably don't talk nearly
enough about chocolate, canadians, or cats. ;->
-d
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The universities are catching on somewhat to what
we already knew. -- John Burwood, 13:17:06 08/17/01 Fri
Thanks for the tip, & good for them. I note that in the article
there is a mention of making comparisons between Buffy & Jane
Austen. As a life member of the Jane Austen Society, I would say
it is about time someone noticed how much have in common - both
write powerfully character-centred stories about young people,
primarily young women, growing up and finding their place in the
adult world. There is enormous potential for academia in btvs
- anyone who has not already done so should follow the ATPoBTVS
link to Slayage - the Buffy studies site - it is fascinating.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Buffy/Austen -- fresne, 14:31:09 08/17/01 Fri
Well, just in case you missed it and no one else mentions it,
(a bit of self-promotion here) back in april my housemate and
I did a Buffy/Pride and Prejudice, hmmm...hard to call it a crossover.
We, well, we took an e-text of P&P, reversed everyone's gender,
traded P&P characters for Buffy characters, changed locations
to Buffyverse locations, and added fight scenes in the places
of dances.
If you haven't seen it go here.
http://lifeamgood.com/01aprbuffy.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy/Austen -- Deeva, 21:17:23 08/17/01
Fri
Pretty cool. I'm now half way through it and it's really entertaining.
Pride & Prejudice is one of my absolute favorites. This is the
best of both worlds here! Gee, I wonder how it will end? ;O)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The universities are catching on somewhat to what we
already knew. -- Dedalus, 19:34:25 08/17/01 Fri
When did this happen?
I agree that what we discuss here would probably blow them away.
Someone needs to find one of their students and patch them through
to us. The Existential Scoobies Unleashed in Academia.
I want to teach this class ...
:-(
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> You would be the perfect professor, Dedalus. -- Deeva,
21:18:56 08/17/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Thanks for the Vote of Confidence ... --
Dedalus, 12:53:26 08/18/01 Sat
I can just see me in the classroom, throwing pieces of chalk at
people, raving "What do you mean Buffy shouldn't have been
able to give her blood for Dawn's?! The Gift is the meaning of
life, damn you! Whaddaya mean you wanna watch Ally McBeal instead?!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Dedalus, ever thought of putting chips
in students heads??:):):) -- Rufus, 15:36:41 08/18/01 Sat
It may be evil, it may be wrong but it would save on chalk.:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> And no books are needed!! -- Deeva,
16:59:46 08/18/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> On British news, a couple of months ago.... -- Marie, 06:38:34
08/19/01 Sun
...it was announced that a student atBath University was doing
his PhD and the subject of his thesis? Buffy and Angel!
M
Monsters and Redemption -- Rufus,
13:42:42 08/17/01 Fri
To show just how bored I've been I have to tell you I got a copy
of "The Monster Book" by Golden, Bissette, and Sniegoski.
Some of the last words of this book made me think I had to share
them with you all.
As evidenced by the remarkable story of damnation and redemption
that Faith has suffered through, human monsters can change. Some
can break the cycle of their own cruel and even evil behavior.
But that is no simple task. After all that she has done, Faith's
redemption is by no means complete. Nor are the issues that drove
her to her monstous behavior resolved. Though we have extended
the definition of monster for the purposes of this book to include
beings created or influenced by the supernatural, in the end,
we return to the simpler definition. As a vampire, Angel is a
monster. As a werewolf, so is Oz. As the slayer, Faith has abilities
that are superhuman. Monsters. But true monstrosity is, in the
end, defined by human behavior. Buffy the Vampire has shown, time
and again, that monsters can find their redemption. Ya gotta have
Faith.
I liked those words as they reflect some of what I feel. Some
of us have considered that redemption is only for humans, but,
I believe that as long as a being exists, anyone or monster can
find redemption through their actions. On BVS we are constantly
reminded that the humans are the true pros when is comes to evil.
If humans are the ones that can show the monsters a thing or two
about true evil, why are humans considered the only ones that
should be redeemed sometimes using the soul as the only ticket
accepted to embark on Redemption road. Monsters on BVS seem to
be the metaphor that reflects the worst and sometimes the best
a human can be. As Monsters can so readily demonized because of
their appearaence it's easy to judge one of them to represent
all. When we put on blinders because of appearance or the disposition
of a soul do we become a type of monster ourselves?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Monsters and Redemption -- Nina, 14:35:06 08/17/01 Fri
Very interesting post Rufus! I do believe that if monsters coudn't
be redeemed at all, we woudln't have spent all year wondering
if it could be done. The fact that there are so many pros and
cons prove that the issue is more complicated than a yes or no
answer.
As we've seen at the end of season 5, a monster is not someone
who IS monstrous, but ACTS like one. Ben was a monster even if
he was human. Hitler was one too. History showed us a load of
humans acting like monsters. We also have the elephant man who
looks like a monster, but doesn't act like one. It's all about
appearences. We often judge people by their looks. You look like
a monster so you are one. I find that this issue in BtVS teaches
us about tolerance. Accepting that someone who did bad things
can have a chance to become more. It's also an anti-fatalism way
to look at things. You are not stuck to be a monster because you
have a tag on your forehead. Everyone is given the chance to be
free. Free to be alive and not kill anymore. that's liberty of
choice. Real liberty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Monsters and Redemption -- Dedalus, 19:26:48 08/17/01
Fri
I have a line from an essay I once wrote - "Compassion always
strives to find its likeness."
On a side note, I just gotta ask - Is quoting your own bloody
self egotism or what?
Anyway, I think that is true. Who among us can just totally turn
away from kindness. And I mean genuine kindness. I believe Angel's
redemption of Faith was one of his greatest feats. I mean, everyone
else had given up on her, some rightly so, but Angel just stuck
with it. And his faith was rewarded. Even after all the horrible
things she did, winning that soul back to the light - or at least
putting it on the course - is a profound accomplishment. I really
love Angel for that.
On the topic of monsters, Vader comes to mind. He was a true monster,
but he was human, too. And that Luke could still find it in his
heart to love him and care about him ... no one else in the SW
galaxy could have done that. No one had any faith left in him
at that point. Maybe Qui-Gon would have, but he was dead. And
if you notice in Jedi, Yoda actually turns his back on Luke when
he reveals Vader is his father. Like he can't even claim the son
for the sins of the father. And that Vader was finally able to
respond to that faith and save Luke was a sublime note indeed.
Human monsters are the worst kind, because they're so problematic.
So close to us. We do demonize each other, project all out negative
traits onto other groups, and so on. And when we do this, even
with REAL monsters, we run the risk of becoming the monster. Again,
like Luke in Jedi, when he almost killed his father, and would
have clearly taken pleasure in it. This is the paradox that Buffy
has had to face down all year. She gets so psycholgically close
to the darkness just by her proximity to it because of her slaying.
That she retained her humanity and did not give into her predator
side and kill Ben even after what he had done to Dawn is another
profound thing. She doesn't deny her animal/predatory side, but
she never let it consume her either.
Compassion ... com-passion, suffering with, is what it's all about.
It's what transforms a human animal - or even a human monster
- into a real human being.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Amen to that Dedalus! Love the SW analogy! -- Nina,
20:09:46 08/17/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Compassion........... -- Rufus, 21:48:09 08/17/01
Fri
So one step further, can a monster an inhuman monster change if
they somehow learn to connect with humanity by the exposure to
compassion? I think here the mention of the Prio Motu demon comes
to mind. How did that demon change? How did he learn compassion?
If one demon learns compassion can the rest of the demons of that
species learn compassion by example like the learned behavior
spreading like explained in "The Rebirth of Nature"
by Rupert Sheldrake. One member learns a new behavior and it travels
by morphogenesis. The Prio Motu could change the species by learned
behavior spreading through the morphic fields of all others of
that species. It would be the ultimate in learning by example.
You would have a form of learning by changing the collective unconscious
of a species, the one demon may be dead, but the learned behavior
lives on in the rest, only an opportunity waiting to happen. The
fact that one demon was able to change makes it more likely that
more will find it easier to do the same thing. Just a thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Compassion........... -- Dedalus, 12:50:15
08/18/01 Sat
"Just a thought."
Well, it was a pretty interesting one at that. I like that you
bring in learned behavior, since so many of our bad behaviors/attitudes
are in fact learned.
As far as demons go, I think Joss has been playing with our preconceptions
from the beginning. And as I mentioned down in the Buffy and God
thread, Lie to Me is a good example of this. Family, too, for
that matter. It would be easy to write everyone off like Tara's
father with his black and white, "Evil is evil" philosophy.
But real life is much more complicated than that, as psychology
has shown.
I've never really thought about it before, but all the demons
that have stayed in the Buffy reality are hybrids, right? I think
that's what Anya said. A lot of them have in fact been integrated
into human society, and even mated into it, as we have seen with
Doyle. And as mentioned before, the Prio Motu was even a Buddhist,
or at least had a Buddhist shrine up with his stuff. And then
there's Spike, who could be learning by example.
That sounds like an interesting book, Rufus. I will have to read
it sometime.
Classic Movie of the Week - August
17th 2001 - Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures PT. III -- OnM,
22:10:09 08/17/01 Fri
*******
This is the stuff of audacious myth, combining the perverse, the
glorious, and the ridiculous. The movies were invented to tell
such stories.
..........Roger Ebert
*******
It's generally considered to be a given in the movie biz that
sequels and remakes are money in the bank. Just as generally,
this condition exists because you don't bother to even make a
sequel, or a remake, unless the original work was very popular
and/or has become a 'classic' through the passage of time and
public opinion.
Not that it doesn't backfire at times. Artistic inspiration is
a tenuous schematic at best, and even if you try your best, things
just don't always click the second (or third, or fourth) time
around. I recall many years ago when the producers of *The Rocky
Horror Picture Show* decided to try the 'midnight movie madness'
schtick once again, and it flopped, big-time. As far as Dr. Frankenfurter
and friends went, you couldn't go home again. Formula doesn't
quite taste the same when the audience has already been suckled
on the breast milk of genuine quirkiness and originality.
Be that as it may, (and this being August, actually) you will
recall that I have been exploring the field of Guilty-Pleasures/Buried
Treasures for the last two weeks here in my humble column, and
certainly no ground is more fertile for growing the unexpected
cinematic mutant that sequels and remakes often bring into bloom.
This week's Classic Movie is one such strange growth, in that
in my humble opin, it is not only as good as it's progenitor,
it is actually far, far better. Yes, it does happen!
The Buffyverse is filled with all manner of strange creatures,
monsters who in a goodly number of cases are some variety of or
variant on a fusion of the human and the animal kingdoms, such
as Oz and his alter-ego, the werewolf. There is Dracula, who turns
into a bat, or sometimes also a wolf, albeit a sleek and sexy
one, as opposed to Oz's scruffy, out-of-control beastie. Why do
we have this fascination with the animal part of ourself? Is it
because we still see ourselves as fundamentally animal in nature,
despite the trappings and pretensions of advanced perception that
our big warm fuzzy forebrain bestows upon us? Or is it because
we often find the burdens of rational thought simply too ponderous
to bear, and we long for the simple recourse of following our
primordial DNA wherever it might lead us, gloriously free from
blame for any coincident suffering that follows the course of
our actions.
Let's suppose, just for the sheer bestial fun of it, we postulate
that long, long ago, in the very dawn of human prehistory, there
was a tribe of humans who existed alongside a tribe of leopards
(yes, the big, sleek, black feline variety). The humans worhip
these powerful animals, because they see them as creatures with
a powerful spirit. They decide that it might be a good idea to
offer a sacrifice to them, so (naturally) they send one of their
young women to the place where the leopards congregate, but it
turns out she doesn't get eaten. I'm not exactly sure why not,
but if I was foolish enough to try to be reasonable, I might posit
that the great cat senses some kind of kindred spirit force in
the woman who was chosen. No, the cat decides to mate with the
young woman, and so is engendered the beginnings of a line of
a new species, which we'll call... well, uhh... 'Cat-People'.
Spring forth to the present day, and just like last week, it's
still New Orleans. A young woman, one Irena Gallier (Nastassja
Kinski) arrives in town. Irena is tall, lean, muscular, intelligent
looking, with wide-set green eyes, and a very sleek, leonine walk.
She meets a man at the airport, he turns out to be Paul Gallier
(Malcolm McDowell), her long-lost brother. Together they travel
to his home, where they recall old times. Later that evening,
Paul appears to be getting a bit on the edgy side, and goes out
for a walk. Several hours later, a hooker gets partly mauled by
this big, black leopard that was hiding under the bed in the hotel
room where she went to meet her client.
Enter the curator of the local zoo, Oliver Yates (John Heard)
and his lovely and charming assistant, Alice Perrin (Annette O'Toole).
They marvel at what a fine, frisky and potentially deadly specimen
is holed up in the hotel room, then shoot him full of tranquilizer,
and cart his significant but currently quiescent mass off to the
zoo. Meanwhile, Irena waits for her brother to take her out and
show her the sights of New Orleans, but strangely enough, he didn't
come home last night. Now, why would that be, do you think? Do
you suppose... nahhhh....
Now, this movie, which silly as it sounds on the surface, is actually
pretty well done. In fact, watching it again last night after
not seeing it in it's entirity or properly visually formatted
for at least 8-10 years or so reminded me of just how superb a
job the director and cinematographer did with showing us the interesting
aspects of the city of New Orleans, not the slick and touristy
aspects like Herb Ross did in last weeks film selection, *Undercover
Blues*. This New Orleans is often moody, rainy, shadowy, neon-lit,
and very old-looking, old not so much in the sense of being tired
or run down, but in the ease of posture of a slightly cranky,
achey old man who moves his body whatever way he feels like moving
it, and doesn't care who sees his shuffly gait. Contrasting to
the ancient/modern landscape that sweeps before our view is the
feral stride of Irena, who is taking in the sights, sans brother,
who still has not returned home. She comes across the zoo, is
powerfully drawn to it somehow. Wandering about, she comes to
the cage where the big cats are kept, and soon to a particular
cage wherein resides the zoo's newest addition. She takes out
a pencil and a drawing pad, and begins to sketch. Hours later,
when Oliver comes out to close up the zoo, she is still standing
before the very same animal, transfixed.
So now, comes the strangeness (no, the *real* strangeness!) and
the blood, and the passion emancipated and the passion reigned
in, and the choices to be made, and the penalties paid thereupon.
If there *is* an animal or a primitive within us, does that knowledge
free us or bind us? Would we choose a life without love and passion
if doing so means love and passion will exist for another? All
great questions, all with no easy answers.
The original *Cat People* that this week's Classic Movie is based
on was made in 1942, and offered to thrill us for an hour or so
while it asked some of these same questions, but despite it's
generally good cinematic intentions and, for the day, atmospheric
noir-ness, it did lack a certain visceral aspect that Paul Schrader's1982
re-envisionment has in spades. (Indeed, it's hard to get more
visceral than what happens to poor Ed Begley's character partway
through the presentation). While the tag line for the '42 effort
might have been 'A Kiss Could Change Her Into a Monstrous Fang-and-Claw
Killer!', by 1982 we pretty much need a decent orgasm to do the
job, not to mention a very scary/erotic Nastassja Kinski prowling
through the bayou completely naked and chasing down a rabbit for
dinner. Oh, my...
I really, really like this film. I recall being both amused and
mildly perturbed several years ago when while browsing through
the local TV guide, I found that AMC was hosting a showing of
the '42 version of the film. Never having seen it, I tuned in
to find the host singing the praises (well, speaking in a mellifluous
upper class voice at least) about what a great old noir this was,
and how off-putting the sleazy newer remake version was. He especially
didn't seem to like that Ed Begley was in it.
Despite his putting down the new, I watched the old anyway, and
as I said above, pretty good, not bad, can't complain. I suppose
it was considered sort of daring back then, in a time in America
before people actually had (~sex~) and you could turn into a big
ol' nasty panther by just thinking about 2nd base. But then, to
be fair, we have better special effects departments now, and also
while Simone Simon is easy on the eyes, it's still pretty hard
to beat a naked and non-body-doubled Nastassja. It's more than
good enough to make you forget how David Bowie started off so
well with his theme song and then mucked it up at the last moment
by rocking out when he shouldn't have. Maybe it was just his inner
animal acting out.
Now having fed your mind, do let loose your inner beast just a
bite, and slink on down to the local vid shoppe to glom onto a
copy of *Cat People* (1982) by director Paul Schrader. Rowwrr!!
Pffft!!
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technical (swiiiiippeeeeeeee....slash... Owww!!!) Kitty Litter:
*Cat People* (1982) is available on DVD. Running time is 1 hour
and 59 minutes. Aspect ratio of the theatrical production is 1.85:1,
which is preserved on the DVD. The soundtrack is standard Dolby
Surround. Screenplay is by Alan Ormsby, Music by Giorgio Moroder,
Director of Photography is John Bailey. From a camera arts standpoint,
this is a really great looking flick, and while the DVD transfer
itself is only average and not exceptional, it's still clean enough
to really sell the atmosphere, pretty much a technically critical
item for any noir film. This is one case where the color version
really is better than the black and white, and that's not something
you can expect to hear me say very often, I assure you!
Cast overview, first billed only:
Nastassja Kinski .... Irena Gallier Malcolm McDowell .... Paul
Gallier John Heard .... Oliver Yates Annette O'Toole .... Alice
Perrin Ruby Dee .... Female Ed Begley Jr. .... Joe Creigh Scott
Paulin .... Bill Searle Frankie Faison .... Detective Brandt Ron
Diamond .... Detective Ron Diamond Lynn Lowry .... Ruthie John
Larroquette .... Bronte Judson Tessa Richarde .... Billie Patricia
Perkins .... Taxi Driver Berry Berenson .... Sandra Fausto Barajas
.... Otis
*******
Now, just for grins, here's a few specs on the original (as above,
courtesy of the IMDb):
*Cat People* (1942)
Directed by Jacques Tourneur
Writing credits DeWitt Bodeen
Complete credited cast:
Simone Simon .... Irena Dubrovna Kent Smith .... Oliver Reed Tom
Conway .... Dr. Louis Judd Jane Randolph .... Alice Moore Jack
Holt .... The Commodore
Runtime: 1 hour, 13 minutes Country: USA Language: English Color:
Black and White Sound Mix: Mono
*******
Miscellanea (and!) the Question of the Week:
I found this little tidbit while searching the IMDb for background
info this week, and since we were discussing the Jeff Pruitt stuntman
strangeness just a short while ago, I thought this might be of
interest to ya'all.
*** When cameraman Hal Mohr was shown how the climactic flood
scene was to be shot, he objected on the grounds that it would
place many of the extras in jeopardy. Mohr told the executives
that while the trained stuntmen knew what to expect, the ordinary
extras would have no idea what was coming, and many would be hurt.
When his objections were overruled, he quit the picture. During
filming of the scene, the huge torrents of water overwhelmed the
actors; three were drowned, one was so severely injured his leg
had to be amputated, and almost a dozen had broken limbs and other
serious injuries. ***
This occurred during the filming of *Noah's Ark* in 1929, so as
you can clearly see, while brilliance is shining and short-lived,
stupidity waxes eternal.
(~sigh~)
******* The Question of the Week:
If you were going to be reincarnated as an animal, what species
would you prefer to be, and why? Now answer honestly, and don't
make me get all philosophical on yer ass!
*******
So post 'em if you got 'em, and I'll see you again next week,
when I am *really* digging deep into the dusty vaults to bring
you what is either one of the great satirical masterpieces of
the '60's, or else one of the most wretchedly overwrought star-studded
fiascos of the self-same decade. I'm not sure myself, but I do
get this stupid grin on my face at regular intervals when I watch
this film, so I guess that means something!
Stay tuned for Guilty Pleasures/Buried Treasures Pt. IV, same
philoso-time, same philoso-channel!
*******
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 17th 2001 - Guilty
Pleasures / Buried Treasures PT. III -- Anthony8, 22:49:09 08/17/01
Fri
I get the willies every time I think about the Ed Begley scene
you mentioned (the only other scene in a movie that I can recall
that gave me a similar sickening feeling was when Sam Neill punished
Holly Hunter in 'The Piano'). Fingers, limbs...(yikes! My shoulders
are shuddering thinking about this)
If I could be reincarnated as an animal I would be a peregrine
falcon or a desert eagle of some sort. I have a serious fear of
heights, but I have always been fascinated with flying. Every
day for the past couple of years, when I go for my run or bike
ride, I see the same three hawks evenly stationed on lightposts
along the boulevard that runs parallel to the bike path I follow,
and every once in a while, I have the honor of observing one of
them swoop down close to me as it searches for prey. The power,
grace and control these birds exhibit is awe-inspiring. I can
only imagine what the world must look like through their eyes
or what it must feel like to have access to all that space between
the Earth and sky. From what I have seen of peregrine falcons
in nature documentaries and such, the speed and accuracy with
which they maneuver through the environment instantly bring to
mind all those flying/diving dreams I have experienced throughout
my life (plunging toward the ground, then swooping back up only
inches from disaster). Okay. 'Nuf said. If another life awaits,
bird of Prey, I pray.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Cat People.......I was waiting for you to get to this one........
-- Rufus, 23:17:55 08/17/01 Fri
I've seen both and quite like the modern Cat People. I liked the
ending as well. As for coming back as an animal...myself I'd like
to be a human animal but would settle for being a much loved housecat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Rufus! You gave the title away! Bad, naughty, kitty!
-- OnM, 06:37:19 08/18/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I am a bad kitty, I must be punished......:):):)
-- Rufus, 15:26:47 08/18/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Cat People.......I was waiting for you to get
to this one........ -- Malandanza, 07:58:08 08/18/01 Sat
I like the original -- the scene at the pet shop is worth more
to me than all the gory massacres of modern films. It had a lovecraftian
feel to it (the natural animals tended to shy away from his creatures).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 17th 2001 - Guilty
Pleasures / Buried Treasures PT. III -- Andy, 04:51:06 08/18/01
Sat
Eh, sorry, but I like the original better. I *love* Jacques Tourneur's
films. OTOH, I'll admit it's been a long while since I've seen
either version :)
As for what animal I'd choose, not to be unoriginal, but I'd pick
an outdoors housecat. I like their independence, their cleanliness,
and they seem like they have a lot of fun prowling and hunting
and climbing and, uh, napping. It seems like the greatest danger
they have to look out for is either oncoming cars or obnoxious
children.
Speaking of movies about nice women turning into beasties, I just
happened to watch The Reptile last night. It's a nice second tier
Hammer film about a woman in a Cornish village who's cursed by
an obscure tribe of Asian snake worshippers to turn into a lizard
person after her anthropologist father had spied on their rituals
(I gathered that the main subtext of the film is British imperialism
getting turned inside out or something like that). The makeup's
a little cheesy but they do okay for the mid-60's and the movie's
got a good subdued mood and pace. Overall, I'm glad I spent the
$5 for the dvd :) (Suncoast's having a sale on a few of their
Anchor Bay dvd's and this is one of them).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 17th 2001 -
Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures PT. III -- Nina, 11:24:16
08/18/01 Sat
Cat People! I saw that one! I am so stunned everytime that happens!
I was 14 or so at the time, saw it dubbed in French and didn't
understand most of it (it was late at night and if I remember
right it was for 18+). So it was a capper to watch that. From
what I remember it freaked me out, but I didn't see it again,
so I'd have to catch an old copy to see how I'd react now.
As for the animal I'd choose. Probably the dolphin. I love them.
I admire them. A part from the occasional rivalry and problems
within their clans, they enjoy a good life. They can jump to meet
the sun and go as deep as they want to explore the sea. Yeah...
I'd like that life!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 17th
2001 - Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures PT. III -- Brian, 13:26:32
08/18/01 Sat
I'm intrigued; I'll have to take a look. Thanks, OnM
Favorite Animal? Been running with the wolves for years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 17th 2001 -
Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures PT. III -- Vonnie, 14:08:37
08/18/01 Sat
I adore the original "Cat People". Sure there is no
overt sex, but Simone Simon seethes with repressed sexuality all
the same. I like the shadows in that movie, encroaching from behind,
under the pool, and overhead, miles scarier than seeing the actual
beast. The sense of intimidation and impending doom it inspires
is formidable.
Although "Cat People" is excellent, my favorite Jacques
Tourneur/Val Lewton piece is "I Walked with a Zombie".
Maybe it's the Jane Eyre obsession I had as a schoolgirl. The
movie haunts me. I get shivers to this day, thinking of the rustle
of the sugarcanes in the night, the dancing voodoo dolls, and
the relentless beat of the drum.
I haven't seen the remake of "Cat People", but OoM makes
a good case for its appeal. I'll have to check it out!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Vive Tourneur! -- mundusmundi, 14:59:00
08/18/01 Sat
He also directed Out of the Past, one of the best and weirdest
films noir from the classic period. (Watch it and fishing will
never ever look the same.) Bob Mitchum in prime form.
Cat People was a departure for Schrader. A more typical film,
and also one of the 70's great buried treasures, is Blue Collar.
Anticipated much of the class stratifications and racial tensions
of the 80's. That and Richard Pryor in a great, serious performance.
I'm not kidding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 17th 2001 - Guilty
Pleasures / Buried Treasures PT. III -- Wisewoman, 15:27:38 08/18/01
Sat
For the serious cat-lover, there is no greater moment in cinema
than the one in the remake of Cat People when the camera follows
Malcolm McDowell up the steep, narrow staircase in his New Orleans
home...he saunters, he lopes, he's fluid, and then, just before
he reaches the top, he glances over his shoulder in absolutely
the best feline imitation I have ever seen...
Nastassja wasn't bad, either! And I absolutely loved Putting Out
the Fire...with Gasoline.
Even so, I'm comin' back as a bear, a grizzly, I just know it!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Meat is murder/murderous meat -- d'Herblay, 01:54:37
08/19/01 Sun
I haven't seen either Cat People, so I'm unqualified to add to
this thread--not that that ever stops me. As for the animal I'd
like to come back as, I'd like to be an otter or a sea lion. Or
Nina's dolphin and A8's falcon both sound good to me. Or a leopard.
Basically, anything that spends a large part of the day in play,
is reasonably brainy, and can swim or fly or um . . . climb trees
real good. And, oh yeah, is carnivorous.
And I see I'm not alone. Nina wants to be a dolphin, A8 a raptor,
Wisewoman a grizzly, Brian a wolf, and Rufus and Andy both want
to return as the most vicious killer of them all, the housecat.
(Don't cry foul. I have three of them and I'm constantly finding
decapitated chipmunks, eviscerated robins, half-digested field
mice on my patio and occasionally my kitchen floor.)
I realize I'm working from only partial returns here, but does
no one want to be a graceful gazelle or a powerful rhino? This
is a smart board, and Larry Niven once asked, "How many brains
does it take to sneak up on a blade of grass," but elephants
are smart, long-lived, never preyed upon and have nifty matriarchal
societies. Aren't there any takers for the gentle bottom of the
food chain?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Hey, we're all power-hungry! -- Wisewoman, 10:24:16
08/19/01 Sun
I can't believe I didn't notice that...gotta raise that TTMQ,
five is just not high enough to get by on this board!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Hard times... -- Solitude1056, 16:42:08 08/19/01
Sun
I'd love to come back as an elephant, but it's not the best of
times for elephants. Where once they did rule, now they have a
fierce and unrelenting predator: humanity. Same goes for gazelles,
deer, elk, hawks, owls, leopards, buffalo, mountain lions, coyote,
wolves, everything, right down to my favorite, the panda bear.
I'd vote for panda bear in my next life, but it's possible that
my lifetime will be the last generation to see pandas living wild
in their native lands in China. The great lions of India are down
to 200 in their native territories; the rest are in zoos scattered
across the world. Given the options, I think I'll opt for being
stardust.
And btw, my housemate's vote is to come back in his next life
as Nastassja Kinski.
Hehehe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Meat is murder/murderous meat -- Nina, 08:40:46
08/20/01 Mon
As I need to put my TTMQ down to earth a little bit, my karma
would probably mean for me to be reincarnated not in something
I want (gee... see the dolphin... it thinks way too much...gotta
stop my brain thinking about stuff!) So maybe I could become something
that doesn't think too much. Maybe a sloth would be perfect. It
sleeps most of the day. A little dull on the action side... but
it could put my TTMQ to a reasonable 3/10! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Meat is murder/murderous meat -- Malandanza,
09:20:23 08/20/01 Mon
How about a manatee? They have pretty good lives -- and their
only natural enemy is the outboard motorboat (and evolution is
at work -- some day all manatees will have armor plated skulls
-- or very good dive reflexes).
I used to think crocodiles would be a good choice -- it would
be cool to be an animal that could go without eating for a year
-- but then I wondered if the crocodile is hungry for the entire
year...
For carnivores, I'd say I'd want to be a jaguar. they climb like
leopards, swim like tigers and eat alligators for breakfast.
Maybe a new archetype for Spike?
-- Humanitas, 14:45:49 08/20/01 Mon
I was just going over some backstory stuff for Dark Alchemy, and
I realised that it is entirely possible that we need to update
our metaphor for Spike.
We know that for a long time Spike was "like a serial killer
in jail." The chip in his head kept him from hurting anyone,
but not from wanting to do so. However, over time, the cognitive
dissonance set up by an enforced change in behavior can change
a person's desires. It happens with kids all the time. I'm thinking
that by this point (between seasons) Spike has convinced himself
that he really does care for the SG, execpt for maybe Xander.
Now having said this, he doesn't much care about anyone else,
and he certainly loves the thrill of violence. (I always got the
impression it was the violence and it's attendant notoriety that
he got off on, rather than the fact of the kill, anyway.)
So, maybe instead of a serial killer, Spike's a mafioso (I appologize
if I offend any of our Italian readers, but it is a pop-culture
archetype)? Look at the situation: He cares about a small group
of people, who interact as a family, and is willing to hurt anyone
who threatens that family.
What do you think? Am I nuts? Or is Captian Peroxide evolving
a little?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Maybe a new archetype for Spike? -- Masq, 15:01:08 08/20/01
Mon
Vampires without souls could never really be classed as "serial
killers" anyway--and I hate to dredge up that old debate,
but vampires in the Buffyverse are like pack animals, as many
have mentioned. Serial killers are loners (with maybe one confidant)
with their own agendas, fantasies, and keen intelligence.
Vampires attach themselves to a "family" or heirarchical
social structure and refine their instinct to hunt and kill within
that rule structure of that family. We've seen numerous examples
of this.
This was all pointed out a while ago, but I think your call to
change the metaphor has always been apt. Buffy has a tendency
to humanize vampires she knows well, like Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Good book to read about archetypes...... -- Rufus, 16:11:23
08/20/01 Mon
Consider reading "The Writers Journey" by Christopher
Vogler. It has some great stuff in it.
Shapeshifter Archetype: The Shapeshifter archetype is also a catalyst
for change, a symbol of the psychological urge to transform. Dealing
with a Shapeshifter may cause the hero to change atttitudes about
the opposite sex or come to terms with the repressed energies
that this archtype stirs up. The Shapeshifter serves the dramatic
function of bringing doubt and suspense into a story. When hero's
keep asking "Is he faithful to me? Is she going to betray
me? Does he truly love me? Is he an ally or an enemy? a Shapeshifter
is generally present.
That's just a small sample of the book. I think it's well worth
reading. Is Spike a Shapeshifter or a Shadow? Have a read and
you may see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yikes, my Liquidram RP character is a shapeshifter
-- Liquidram, 16:14:41 08/21/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Three words: Nail. Hammer. BANG. -- Solitude1056, 21:31:02
08/20/01 Mon
Clergy in BtVS -- Masquerade,
11:07:31 08/21/01 Tue
O.K., maybe this has been discussed in a few of the religion-related
posts we've had recently, but I'm trying to brainstorm a list
of clergy (priests, nuns, monks, pastors, etc) we've seen on the
shows who were depicted in a sympathetic light.
A part from the fact that we've seen few, the sympathetic characters
I can recall off the top of my head are:
* The nun in "IGYUMS" Angel ep--smart cookie * The season-5
monks (morally ambiguous, though--I mean, why did they think the
key was worth protecting before it was human?) * The priest/Cardinal
in the Buffy-Angel dream wedding was pretty neutral, just doing
his job.
less sympathetic:
* The nun in "Triangle" was kind of a... bimbonun
* The priest in Pangs was personally innocent of the crimes for
which Hus executed him, but he was symbolic of his forefathers
of the cloth who murdered Hus' people.
Any others??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Clergy in BtVS -- VampRiley, 11:21:43 08/21/01 Tue
I don't know about sympathetic since we don't see anything about
him before hand, but I feel sorry fo the priest that got eaten
by Angelus in the confessional in Becoming.
Those Clergy on The Host's home world were definitly less sympathetic.
All I can think of right now. Not sure if there is anyone else.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Clergy in BtVS -- Cleanthes, 13:51:16 08/21/01 Tue
The person officiating at Joyce's gravesite recited from the Book
of Common Prayer. I assume he was a clergyman because even when
using a funeral parlor for the funeral service, they contract
out with one's minister of choice - or at least that's how it's
happened the two times I've had to arrange funerals.
Anyway, he was competant.
I rather liked the nun in "Triangle" - her confusion
seemed understandable given the circumstances and I thought it
was rather good of her to let Buffy try on her wimple.
In addition, Angelus takes Dru's confession and the Master comes
into human-who-became-Darla's room under pretense of being clergy.
The evilness of Angelus & the Master's acts suggests that their
ruse was particularly heinous owing to the normally "good"
nature of these clergy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Clergy in BtVS -- Cactus Watcher, 14:14:20 08/21/01
Tue
I also thought the nun in Triangle was a positive figure. Obviously,
she is a postulant, and a little bewildered by Buffy's naive questions.
But, she's a good sport.
Among the clergy, I think I'd include the Master, because he seemed
to act as an unholy minister for the whole gang of vamps in season
one, and was comfortable in the role of a priest as Darla was
dying back in ol' Virginia. He frequently spoke the prophecies
as if they were scripture. Not exactly positive, though, is he?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Drusilla the postulant -- Ryuei, 15:14:18 08/21/01
Tue
Come to think of it, Drusilla was herself a postulant. In fact,
I believe Angel turned her on the eve of taking her final vows.
Now this makes me think - the clergy sure seem to get targeted
by vamps quite a bit. But who else has more access to ancient
records, crosses, holy water, and other anti-vampire/demon paraphenalia
than the Church (by which I more or less mean the Roman Catholic
Church with all its trappings, the Vatican Library, etc...) It
seems to me as though the Church of the Buffyverse should be knowledgeable
enough and provoked enough to fight back on their own. So where
are there vampire hunting squads? And would they know about the
Watcher Council? Would they consider the Slayer as a holy or unholy
power? Seems to me that there is even more potential here than
there would be with the Initiative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> church vs. vampires -- anom, 15:31:10
08/21/01 Tue
Maybe because the Church is so well equipped, the vamps & demons
maintain a low profile w/regard to them. Maybe its members believe
demons etc. exist--the occasional exorcism & such--but don't realize
how common they are. Although you'd think by now the reports from
the Sunnydale diocese would've alerted them....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Ahhh but the larger the organization......
-- Rufus, 15:31:23 08/21/01 Tue
Yes, you would think that a church as large as the Catholic Church
would have Vampire Hunting squads of their own. There is nothing
to say that they don't. But my thought is that the larger the
organization, the more likely that it can become out of touch
with the reality of the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Another Roadside Attraction -- Brian,
19:47:34 08/21/01 Tue
Sounds like season 7 hi-jinks to me. Buffy versus The Techo-Devampers
like in John Carpenter's movie "Vampyrs"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Another Roadside Attraction
-- Rufus, 19:55:39 08/21/01 Tue
Hey....there's a story...get rid of one antiquated bureaucracy
and replace it with a younger more convoluted bureaucracy...and
that would be a T4 slip to send to the taxman.......Income from
the Vatican....hmmmmm I read the book "Vampires" that
lead to the series and liked it much more than the movie. But
you would think that humanity would in a private way take up the
slack for not having one slayer per block.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Exorcist (somewhat o/t) -- Wisewoman,
18:30:59 08/21/01 Tue
Believe it or not, I saw The Exorcist for the very first time
today, on DVD. When it was first released in the 1970s I worked
with a woman, a devout Catholic, who went to see it and fainted
during the movie, so that was enough to put me off it for almost
30 years.
I did expect though that it would have gone into a great deal
more detail over the actual exorcism than it did. It was obvious
from the movie that this was considered an arcane ritual in that
Father Karas knew of no priest who had ever performed one, and
Father Merrin seemed to be the only experienced exorcist around.
I seem to recall that actual exorcisms have been accomplished
or attempted in the recent past, which leads me to believe that
Joss has perhaps missed the boat in this area. The ritual obviously
exists and has fallen into disuse owing to the infinitesimally
small number of actual "proven" cases of possession
in the Realverse, but surely in the Buffyverse there's enough
evidence of evil around the Hellmouth that the RC clergy at least
would be on the case...?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Exorcism (back on topic) --
Humanitas, 19:40:55 08/21/01 Tue
There was an Exorcist on AtS, in IGYUMS. Well, a dead exorcist,
anyway. Did we mention him already?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Exorcist (somewhat o/t) -- Rattletrap,
03:54:13 08/22/01 Wed
Slightly O/T
I believe the Pope himself performed an exorcism about two years
ago, I don't remember the exact date or anything, but there is
a ritual and it is in some use today. The case depicted in the
movie is loosely based on the only exorcism ever perform on US
soil.
hope this helps
'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, 'trap... -- Wisewoman,
11:24:28 08/22/01 Wed
I did some surfing last night, and the whole exorcism thing is
fascinating. Found the reference to the true case The Exorcist
was based on, and found references to the Pope's (unconfirmed
by the Vatican) attempts at exorcism, which, BTW, were unsuccessful!
Yeeeesh, if the Pope can't help ya, where ya gonna go?
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> failed exorcism? call...
-- anom, 13:46:36 08/22/01 Wed
"Yeeeesh, if the Pope can't help ya, where ya gonna go?"
Ghostbusters?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> exorcism on the upswing --
purplegrrl, 13:32:43 08/23/01 Thu
There was an article in Time magazine a while back (within the
last year) that talked about exorcism. Supposedly the performance
of exorcisms is on the increase in the U.S. And that there are
actually recognized/sanctioned exorcism priests (something the
Catholic Church chose not to acknowledge for quite some time).
The speculation for the increase was the renewed spirituality
of today's culture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: William Peter Blatty...and a
suggestion for OnM (way OT) -- mundusmundi, 16:12:05 08/22/01
Wed
My mother is a big fan of William Peter Blatty, who wrote and
also Legion, the novel's sequel, which confusingly Blatty also
directed as Exorcist III. Both books are interesting though oft-criticized
in their views of morality, faith and God, in ways that have overlapped
some of the discussions here.
Anyway, the movie sequel, called Exorcist II: The Heretic, is
a classic turkey, Wisewoman. Directed by John Boorman, it's an
awful stinker with flashes of genius. (No less a filmmaker than
Martin Scorsese swears by its greatness and cites it as an influence.)
Blatty decided to kindly overlook it when making Exorcist III,
which begins with a striking image of a helicopter flying over
a cathedral but really isn't much better.
Humble suggestion for OnM, on the subject of Guilty Pleasures:
Have you or anyone else ever seen The Ninth Configuration? Also
directed by Blatty, based on his book Twinkle, Twinkle, Killer
Kane, it combines downright kookiness with profound philosophical
thoughts. Your comment in the "Respect my authority"
thread about the world as an insane asylum made me remember it.
Watch it, and you'll see why. *evil laugh*
(Oh, and clergy in Buffy: the ones that joined the Knights in
Spiral. They were outmatched by Willow's magic wall, but they
seemed like decent chaps.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Nope, haven't seen it. Also,
believe it was Dedalus who first used the 'insane asylum' analogy.
-- OnM, 20:38:56 08/23/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: on cable tonight
actually, at least my neck of the woods -- mundusmundi, 06:38:16
08/24/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Clergy in BtVS -- Lucifer_Sponge, 16:25:38
08/24/01 Fri
Don't forget the clerics from Spiral. It's hard to say what their
morals or ethics were... though it can be assumed they wanted
to destroy Dawn as badly as the Knights who employed them. If
anything, they sounded stuck up and prissy... arrogant about their
faith. "A witch's magic pales to the might of our God. The
infidel's wall shall tumble before us." Eh.
~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Clergy in BtVS -- Rattletrap, 15:52:34 08/21/01
Tue
The clergymen that accompanied the Knights of Byzantium in "Spiral"
-- basically a negative portrayal, but not enough information
for much judgement. Its entirely possible that the Knights themselves
were clergy after a fashion, like the Knights Templars during
the crusades or something.
Also, Josephus Du Lac (WML1) "Excommunicated and sent to
Sunnydale? Must've been big with the sinning." 'nuf said
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> not sure, but... -- JBone, 20:24:01 08/21/01 Tue
I haven't taken the time to go back through my tapes, but in the
S4 episode Who Are You, they had that big scene in the church.
There must have been a priest in there, but maybe it was inferred
that he was already killed my Adam's vampiric groupies. My memory
is a little foggy on this detail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> okay, reviewed the tape... -- JBone, 20:54:15 08/22/01
Wed
they really don't show it straight out, but while FaithinBuffy
goes in, it looks like there is a priest in the front right-hand
pew. When the rest of the parisheners rush out, he flows out with
them.
Crouching Slayer, Hidden
Vampire? -- Dedalus, 12:34:09 08/21/01 Tue
Wow, you go away from this board for two days, and things you
were reading are already on the first archive page. Just out of
morbid curiousity, what are things like around here when the actual
season starts up? BTW, I can't wait to be on here when new eps
start coming up. I already look foward to the commentary.
Okay, back on topic. I saw Rush Hour 2 this weekend. Great movie,
at least in the mindless fun sense. Anyway, it had whats-his-face
that plays Quinton Travers in it, and I was like, the Watchers
Council? It was wierd seeing him on the big screen, and even wierder
to see him in a non-Buffy role. Or at least, it seemed to be a
non-Buffy role. Maybe he's really a secret service guy on the
side. Or MAYBE the Watchers Council is the secret service he was
working for, and Ricky Tan and company were really vampires! No,
they were out in the daylight.
Anyway, my main Buffyverse thoughts during the film revolved around
Zhang Ziyi, of Crouching Tiger fame. I swear, while she was fighting
Chris Tucker (a funny thought in and of itself), I swear I had
a vision of her creeping through 18th century China with her hair
tied back and a stake in her hand. I mean, tell me, would ZZ not
make a SUBLIME vampire slayer? She's quite the actress, quite
attractive, and can do quite the martial arts. I mean, I love
SMG, but she can't get her leg that high for that long. Okay,
there is that little thing about how she can't speak English yet
(ZZ, not SMG), but that can be overcome.
Or hell, maybe not. Just shoot a tales of the Slayer in China
with ZZ as the Slayer and Ang Lee directing and Joss Whedon writing
and producing, and there we go. I for one would be willing to
read subtitles.
Well, as Xander once said, "We can dream."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You forgot... -- Cactus Watcher, 13:58:09 08/21/01 Tue
a very important part. Michelle Yeoh HAS to play her strong and
impatient watcher.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You forgot... -- Slayrunt, 14:41:44 08/21/01 Tue
With Jackie Chan as the Xander/comic relief character
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You forgot... -- LadyStarlight, 19:31:18 08/21/01
Tue
...and Lucy Liu for the "Faith" character. And Margaret
Cho as "Willow".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: You forgot... -- Dedalus, 19:35:40 08/21/01
Tue
Well, what about Chow Yun Fat?
Ooh, maybe Chang Chen can play the "Angel" character,
and show off his real Dark Cloud side ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: You forgot... -- Shaglio, 05:45:52
08/22/01 Wed
I'm putting in a vote for Tea Carrera (sp?) to play the Cordelia-type.
I'm not sure of her exact nationality, but I am under the impression
that she's of East Asian decent. Although Carrera sounds Spanish
or Italian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: You forgot... -- Cactus Watcher,
06:51:38 08/22/01 Wed
Tia Carrere is from Brazil, and if I remember correctly is a mix
of a lot of different things. Most people may look like her in
a few hundred years. Not too bad, eh?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> AAAAAGhhhhh! Why was I born
too soon? ;o) -- Wisewoman, 11:21:28 08/22/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Man, that watcher gets around. -- Humanitas, 19:46:45 08/21/01
Tue
Mr. Travers (Harris Yulin is his name, according to IMDB) also
plays the railway boss in "American Outlaws," which
was also a heckuva lot of fun.
Summer
flicks-while buff's away where will we play? -- Sam Jones, 15:29:35
08/21/01 Tue
What summer flicks is everyone seeing to help pass thoose long
buffly-less nights? I am gonna check out Bubble Boy, it looks
hilarious and has a great cast including Mini-Me, Fabio, and Beetlejuice
from the Howard Stern Show
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Summer flicks-while buff's away where will we play?
-- Shiver, 17:55:04 08/21/01 Tue
Not a flick, but I've been filling the void with Witchblade. I
loved the comic series. However, the episodes of Witchblade have
made me REALLY appreciate the excellent writing and acting on
BtVS :-) :-) :-) if ya know what I mean. The bar has been raised.
At least the guy who plays Jake is decent eye candy in a Xander/Riley
boy next door kind of way. But I also dig the soulful puppy eyes
of the kid who plays Gabriel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Summer flicks-while buff's away where will we play?
-- Brian, 19:40:05 08/21/01 Tue
Waiting for "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back." The TV
series "Witchblade" has just gotten better and better
with each passing week. The end of the 1st season tonight was
a terrific stunner! For those who want to catch up, TNT is running
the whole series from 10 am to 10 pm this Sunday.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Summer flicks-while buff's away where will
we play? -- Humanitas, 19:52:31 08/21/01 Tue
"The Others" is a fantastic ghost story, and easily
the best-directed movie I've seen this Summer.
"Original Sin" is less well-directed (in fact, the editing
is downright annoying), but well acted - Dastardly Deeds done
by Beautiful People.
And "American Outlaws" is just a great ride! Stars Harris
Yulin, who plays Quentin Travers (as I mentioned below).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> American Pie 2 -- cknight, 19:59:27 08/21/01
Tue
It's just as funny as the first one. It also has Alyson Hannagan!!!:):0...:0..:)
She makes use of a Trumpet in a very interesting way.
HmmmmHmmm....that Alyson :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: American Pie 2 -- Rufus, 20:00:44
08/21/01 Tue
When they had a cover story on the Girls of American pie 2 on
Rolling Stone all I could think of was...where is AH?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: American Pie 2 -- cknight,
20:59:27 08/21/01 Tue
She has more screen time in the new movie though. She has a real
knack for being funny. I'd love to see her do more films :).
Also Jay & Silent Bob Strikes Back will have (ED) Faith, in it.That
should be great film to check out to. I'm a little bais on Kevin
Smith movies since I live in Jersey.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Silent Bob and Jay Strikes Back - love Kevin Smith! -- Liquidram,
22:26:21 08/21/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Silent Bob synchronicity *Spoiler* -- d'Herblay, 02:37:55
08/24/01 Fri
From what I understand, at some point in the movie, Jay and Silent
Bob are picked up by the Mystery Machine. Who should play Fred
but Marc Blucas!
So there's a fake movie featuring SMG's fake boyfriend in the
role taken by her real boyfriend in the real movie. My head hurts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Summer flicks-while buff's away where will we play?
-- Slayrunt, 00:25:43 08/22/01 Wed
Planet of the Apes. It was ok but I got in free so, I can't complain
about anything.
plan to see American Pie 2
Can't think of any others right now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Summer flicks-while buff's away where will we play?
-- Millan, 02:58:56 08/22/01 Wed
Me, I'm finally getting to see the last half of season five, so
I don't have a problem with what to occupy myself with (yet).
I've never seen Buffy as aired (where I live only season one has
aired), but have been bying the video-boxes.
Yesterday my SO came home with the second box of Buffy, season
five and the second of Angel, season two! (We've borrowed the
previous Angel from friends before.)
Now comes the really hard part - to try and pace the watching
a bit... Yesterday we saw Checkpoint and Blood Ties as well as
Blood Money. Today I'll try not to see more than three episodes.
Will it be three from Angel, or two from Buffy and one from Angel,
or...
Ohh, sooo giddy... :)
/Millan
"Anya Christina Emmanuella Jenkins. Twenty years old. Born
on the fourth of July - and don't think there weren't jokes about
that my whole life, mister, 'cause there were. "Who's our
little patriot?" they'd say, when I was younger and therefore
smaller and shorter than I am now." - Anya, Checkpoint
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Summer flicks-while buff's away where will we play?
-- Andy, 06:50:52 08/22/01 Wed
Well, I just saw The Others and Ghost World this past weekend
and really liked them both. Easily the two best movies I've seen
this summer, which has otherwise been pretty depressing. The Others
was a great old fashioned ghost story, and Ghost World was probably
the best "teen" movie I've seen in ages, with excellent
performances by Thora Birch and Steve Buscemi (I guess I'll have
to read the comic now). I'm not really planning on seeing any
more movies this summer. Got a lot of upcoming dvd's to buy. I
suppose I might try Jay and Silent Bob, but I'm not much of a
Kevin Smith fan anymore...if not, I'll just catch up on some reading
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Summer flicks- that weren't -- Dedalus, 14:23:57 08/22/01
Wed
This has been one lukewarm movie summer for me.
And I love summer movies. I grew up with them, and usually see
them several times.
But this summer has been bland, to say the least.
Mummy Returns was good on a pure Velvetta cheese level. Jurassic
Park III was better than The Lost World. Planet of the Apes was
alright but a notable disappointment. Rush Hour 2 was fun. Still,
I think I liked X-Men and Gladiator more than anything this summer.
Nothing really grabbed me where I wanted to see it 5 or 6 times.
Next summer is where it's at. Spider-man. Are you kidding me?
Only my Favorite Comic Book Hero of ALL FREAKIN' TIME. And the
Green Goblin is in it, better still. And the trailer had everyone
in the theater rocking. I always wanted to see live action web-slinging
like that. And two weeks after that, SW Episode Two, baby. As
one of the few and the proud that loved and adored TPM, I just
gotta say, it is really cool being a SW fan right about now. Bring
on the Clones!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> don't you mean... -- anom, 17:59:38 08/22/01 Wed
"Bring on the Clones!"
...send in the clones?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Actually, it's Attack of the Clones -- Dedalus,
12:23:10 08/23/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Killer Clones from Outer Space? -- Humanitas,
13:38:31 08/23/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: More like Killer Tomatoes from
Planet Clone -- Dedalus, 21:21:48 08/23/01 Thu
Spike and Buffy (speculations
and possible spoiler) -- Slayrunt, 01:20:45 08/22/01 Wed
I'm bored here at work and I'm going from memory so be kind.
Things characters say sometimes come true.
Examples- in season 1 Xander told Buffy that he wanted to dance
with her while asking her out. Season 2 "WSWB" we get
Buffy's naughty dance with Xander.
Season 3 in "Doppelgangland", Willow talking about Evil
Willow says she thinks she's kinda gay. Season 4 Uh, gay now.
Season 5, Tara is a little freaked about Glory's brain sucking
and she was the one to get brain sucked.
So, here is my speculation. In Triangle (I think), Tara is talking
with Buffy and Willow at the college about "The Hunchback
of Notre Dame" and says that the relationship could not work
out because Quasimoto did everything for selfish reasons, so it
was bound to end badly and besides he's all bumpy and stuff. Sound
like anyone we know?
I speculate that the B/S ship, if there is one, is doomed to sink
like the Titanic. I just hope that if it does and it means the
end for our platinum blonde big bad, he goes out with a bang before
going out all dusty and such.
How long season 6? I think I'm going though withdrawals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike and Buffy (speculations and possible spoiler)
-- voyageofbeagle, 06:29:13 08/22/01 Wed
There is more to the scene, though.
Willow actaully says something in support of Quasimodo, prompting
Tara's now infamous, "no moral compass, no happy ending when
the guys all bumpy" speech.
Willow then asks Buffy what she thinks, and Buffy says something
like, "I have no opinion until the test."
Is this a throw away line? If not, what is the test? Is it Spike's
test in Intervention? Or maybe something we have yet to see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike and Buffy (speculations and possible spoiler)
-- Wisewoman, 11:17:58 08/22/01 Wed
I agree that the whole Quasimodo scene was a direct cue from the
writers on Spike, as he was at that time. I believe they were
trying to answer the large B/S shipper contingent as to why Buffy
didn't just fall into Spike's arms.
I also think that Spike has now progressed beyond the "no
moral compass" point. Initially, I thought the writers were
telling us, no way, never gonna happen. Now I'm not so sure.
With reference to the thread below, the torture he endured from
Glory rather than sacrificing Dawn to her seems to be an act of
altruism, rather than self-interest.
And to tie in the whole kin/altruism discussion, we've also had
the speculation that Dawn somehow is "related" to Spike,
either through the transfer of blood from Doc's knife, or through
some convoluted plan of the Monks! Hmmmm, TTMQ is going way up
today!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike and Buffy (speculations and possible
spoiler) -- Javoher, 13:42:04 08/22/01 Wed
IMHO, a vampire who says "I made a promise to a lady"
to explain his knight-in-shining-armor chivilrous protection behavior
to an attacking demon is not someone who is operating without
a moral compass.
Spike's Romantic attempts to behave as that knight according a
medieval/Victorian kind of ethic, despite his subsequent failure,
could create a direction for the writers to go in a B/S ship.
Going along with the speculation, Buffy seems to respond to guys
who behave in a more genteel fashion than is usual, i.e. her comment
in "The Body" about the flowers her mother received
after her date: "Still a couple guys getting it right."
I don't think Spike is a guy who's going to 'get it right' the
first time out of the chute, however. But he did practice, with
the chocolates and the mannikin.
And I agree about the seeming altruism. It was sort of like he
remembered what it meant to be human while he was being tortured,
which contrasts with Glory who had never been human and was barely
able to deal with being mortal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike and Buffy (speculations and
possible spoiler) -- Rufus, 14:42:25 08/22/01 Wed
In The Gift, Glory said to Buffy "you can't understand my
pain". Glory, though a god was the worst of what we can become
when we think our pain is the only pain that counts. Glory did
what she did for selfish reasons, not caring about who would suffer
in attaining that goal. Glory not only didn't have a moral compass,
but used the excuse that she was a "god" to excuse her
treatment of others. Glory was incapable of ever getting or developing
a moral compass because she simply didn't care, herself the only
thing that matters. Then there is Spike, he had no moral compass
either, without the chip I doubt he would have stopped killing
long enough to consider his actions. Now, with what has happened
to Spike there seems to be an understanding that there is suffering
that matters above Spikes desires or pain. So, what do you do
with a vampire, who, for whatever reasons has been able to act
as though he is developing a moral compass? In the admission of
his status as a monster, Spike came closer to being what he had
lost decades ago, a person. Buffy can't or won't kill him. So
what do you do with someone who is no longer what they once were?
Do you give into vengeance and kill him to make sure he is never
a threat or do you enlist his aid in the battle? What difference
is there between a vampire "with" a soul and one without
if their actions are now to help in the battle of good and evil?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Nooooooo!!!!! -- Tanker, 18:46:07 08/22/01 Wed
[crying] They have a miraculous love!
Heh, just kidding. I also think a B/S relationship is Doomed,
but it'll be a fun ride. Well, fun for Joss, anyway. He likes
doing mean things to our favorite characters. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Nooooooo!!!!! -- Rufus, 22:21:21 08/22/01 Wed
You mean a romantic relationship? I don't know if they will go
there, and if they do if it will last that long. I like to stay
out of the area of ships as they cause more fighting than it's
worth. Whatever they do to our favorite characters I assume it
will include humor and pain and suffering with a bit of fighting
to break up the monotony.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Greenwalt comments and speculation -- possible mild SPOILER
-- verdantheart, 06:57:20 08/23/01 Thu
I'm sort of surprised that no one has commented on what David
Greenwalt had to say recently. These are probably his speculations
IF B/S ever got together, but, anyway, here's the quote:
"It's so wrong. You know the boyfriend you hate, but it's
just for the sex, and your friends all hate him, but you can't
leave him? It's a natural place for her to go, in this year of
her life. She's so troubled. He's the one she can talk to. It's
just one of those funny quirks of life. ..."
I can see Buffy turning to Spike in a moment of weakness. I certainly
have a hard time seeing Spike turn her down (remember the speech
with Riley about who "has the better deal"?). Then Buffy
might have trouble disentangling herself considering Spike's ardor
and "perfect boyfriend"-ness. We could again see a role
reversal. Buffy could be the equivalent of a rather callous boyfriend
who takes advantage of his girlfriend's devotion, while Spike
would take on the role of the girlfriend who is unable to leave
an unsatisfactory relationship. This could lead us (perversely)
to sympathize even more strongly with Spike (and become a bit
angry with Buffy). It certainly would be a bumpy road to travel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My strange S/B idea .... -- Dedalus, 12:32:39
08/23/01 Thu
Thinking about what circumstances might sort of push them together,
I remember how Dawn related to Spike because he was able to understand
her predicament as the Key ... that of identifying yourself as
one thing, and learning that you're something else (or new) altogether,
whether it be girl-Key or boy-vampire.
This got me thinking ... we don't know HOW Buffy will come back
from the dead, but the only character who pulled a similiar stunt
was none other than Spike, so maybe they will start relating on
that level ...
I kinda have my doubts that a full-fledged romance will come about
for those two ... maybe hints, maybe a kiss or two, maybe just
friends ... I really don't know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: My strange S/B idea .... -- Rufus, 14:37:51
08/23/01 Thu
There is always a couple where we can look at them and ask "what
the heck do they see in each other". I'm on the fence about
a romance but I doulble dog dare ME to come up with something
that can both piss people off but they can understand why it's
happening.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: My strange S/B idea .... -- mundusmundi,
15:08:49 08/23/01 Thu
This got me thinking ... we don't know HOW Buffy will come back
from the dead, but the only character who pulled a similiar stunt
was none other than Spike, so maybe they will start relating on
that level ...
This is why I've got odds on Spike as the first to see post-mortem
Buffy. (Double my wager that she's nekkid, and Spike loans her
his jacket. ;>)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike and Buffy (very mild spoiler inside) -- LadyStarlight,
14:03:32 08/23/01 Thu
Watch with Wanda's latest transcript says this about a possible
relationship: Sloow but sure.
So who knows?
Willow is Bi --
cknight, 01:47:08 08/22/01 Wed
While I love the Tara/Willow romance. I think Willow is fooling
herself when she told Tara that she wasn't going to jump ship
in terms of being a Lesbian. Even in the "Gift" when
Xander says "smart women are so sexy". then she asks
why he couldn't figure that out in tenth grade. Look I know nothing
is going happen Xander now. But remember "Vamp Willow"
was Bi. It seemed to me she was ready to jump anything that came
her way even herself.
But if you do yourself does that count or is masturbation :)
But anyway, I think Willow is Bi and that will come out this season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow is Bi -- Slayrunt, 02:40:34 08/22/01 Wed
I agree. Don't forget how sexy she thought Giles was singing and
Dracula.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Well, duh. -- Solitude1056, 06:10:43 08/22/01 Wed
If you're going on the sociological/psychological theory that
sexual preference is something that "is," and isn't
something you "choose," then there's a good chance that
Willow is bisexual. However, it's also very hard to tell, IMO/IME,
what a person's sexual preference is during high school in a significant
number of cases. That has a lot to do with the fact that during
high school the big push is to conform, and heterosexuality is
the norm, not the exception. Alternately, it also depends on which
group within your high school peers that you opt to conform with,
and yes, I have known kids whose selected peergroup considered
heterosexuality to be the exception, and pushed a norm of homosexuality.
There are large numbers of gay people who experimented with heterosexuality
during those years, and later - as they learned more & better
about themselves - realized that their inner self "is"
gay.
Personally, I think Willow prefers to call herself gay because
she's in a lesbian relationship. For the duration of this time,
she's gay. That follows a certain logic, I think. However, since
much of discovering this choice revolves around the sexuality
and sex itself, IMO/IME it's been that one of the triggering signs
of one's sexuality being different from a current relationship
is a subtle dissatisfaction with the sex within that relationship.
Willow, however, never expressed even the remotest dissatisfaction
with the sex within her relationship with Oz (other than some
early complaining about it not happening soon enough).
That, and her confusion over Oz' return, means to me that she
didn't walk away from Oz because she's a lesbian, but because
it wasn't going to work with him for other reasons. There's a
difference between running away, and running towards, and there's
a difference between leaving one person for another, and leaving
one person because it won't work, regardless of who else is out
there. Okay, so that's probably muddled, but my point is that
Joss has captured perfectly the quiet tensions in a relationship
between someone of a clear preference and someone who's bisexual.
I don't think it'll be a growing tension in their relationship,
unless outside forces act on them to provoke that issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Well, duh. -- Dedalus, 14:00:58 08/22/01 Wed
I concure with the WIllow being bi thing.
Also, remember Riley admitted he was a lesbian.
(Psst - So am I)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> yanno... -- Solitude1056, 15:19:04 08/22/01
Wed
You are what you eat.
Gracious, did I say that out loud?
*mmhpf*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Well, duh. -- Nancy, 15:45:04 08/22/01 Wed
I'm going to step in here and object *nicely* to the old (new?)
joke that men "are lesbians". I don't mean to step on
tongue-in-cheek toes (mixed metaphor! wew!), but being a lesbian
is very different from being a straight man. Why?
· Women's experience of sexuality is different than men's
experience of sexuality. most people would not argue with this.
Lesbians are women and see the world through a woman's eyes.
· Likewise, lesbians derive erotic and romantic satisfaction
out of loving women as women. This is not about wishing they were
men or even pretending they are.
· The only exception to this I would accept are male-to-female
transexuals. If you grow up in a male body, but feel female, think
female, consider your body "wrong" for your inner self
and take steps to have your body changed to a female body, and
then take on a lesbian lifestyle after the sex change, you probably
*were* a lesbian trapped in a man's body, IF your sexual/romantic
thoughts and feelings about women prior to the change were typical
of a woman, not a man.
Just my thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Well, duh. -- Shiver, 20:14:47 08/22/01
Wed
Bad pickup line of all time heard from a dork I went to college
with, on a weekly basis:
"I've always know I was a lesbian trapped in a man's body".
He just didn't get why that wasn't working .. poor thing!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, duh. -- Solitude1056,
21:49:36 08/22/01 Wed
and such lines usually prompted the response of...
"I'm not a lesbian, but my girlfriend is."
Yes, it's also on a T-shirt. Don't Panic absolutely rocks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, duh. -- Dedalus,
12:11:04 08/23/01 Thu
What about if the joke has an obviously relevant context? Like
with Riley hanging up a Lesbian Pride banner? Ya know, in retrospect,
Riley is much funnier now than he was then.
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Willow is whatever the writers make her -- Tanker, 18:40:17
08/22/01 Wed
Sorry if this comes off as snarky, but I got *really* tired of
all the arguments about Willow's sexuality on the newgroup. It's
kind of a pet peeve of mine. It's pointless to speculate, because
this is a fictional character and she'll be whatever the writers
decide she needs to be for the story. They may change their minds
from time to time. [Gump] And that's all I have to say about that.
[/Gump]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I didn't know you could HTML Forrest! LOL!! ;o) --
Wisewoman, 18:48:35 08/22/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow is whatever the writers make her -- Mike,
07:23:00 08/23/01 Thu
but that is the easy way out... you could say this about ANYTHING
metaphorical, philosophical, anythingelse-ical in the Buffyverse!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> And if we all had that attitude, this board wouldn't
exist! -- vampire hunter D, 09:42:17 08/23/01 Thu
And even if it did, it would be nothing but the girls drooling
over Spike like the Bronze was.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: And if we all had that attitude, this board
wouldn't exist! -- Dedalus, 12:17:41 08/23/01 Thu
In Tanker's defense, things do get out of hand over at alt.tv.buffy.
They have this thing going there called "Tara's Lesbian Spell
on Willow" that hasn't had a thing to say about Buffy since
like a thousand responses ago.
And as I've said before, I really like the way the show has handled
this. It hasn't been a big deal at all ... well, maybe personally
for the characters, but there has been no propaganda. It is so
understated. It's not an "issue," but a genuine relationship.
I like what Greenwalt said about how Joss can overcome "dogma
and political correctness with humanity." Exactly what he
does.
"Guys, do you live in the world? There are gay people around.
I mean, there are a lot of them! Most of the gay people I know
are gay." - Joss Whedon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Hogwash -- Tanker, 14:58:39 08/23/01 Thu
This board is dedicated to philosophical discussions on Buffy
the Vampire Slayer. Debating Willow's sexuality has little to
do with philosophy and is a major source of arguments that tend
to turn nasty, at least elsewhere (this board is much more civilized
than most). If the topic of Willow sexuality were *banned*, it
wouldn't affect this board one bit, as far as I can see. All I'm
saying is that I've never seen anything good come out of this
topic. This is not an "attitude," it's a simple statement
of my opinion on this one topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Hogwash -- OnM, 19:26:46 08/23/01
Thu
Your point is well taken, Tanker, but I would mention that quite
a lot of us here don't visit other sites/boards that are Buffy
related for exactly the reasons you stated-- endless arguments
with very little real point or pointmaking. You check them out,
kinda go 'ewww' and look for greener pastures. I suppose we're
spoiled a bit. For example, other than here (80%), I only hang
out (mostly lurk, rarely post) at the Cross & Stake (10%) and
the remaining 10% is at largely informational sites like the Shooting
Script Site, BuffyNewsWire, Council of Watchers, etc.
I guarantee you, though, if anyone could make something philosophical
out of the W/T sexuality thing, someone here would be the one
to do it (and maybe already has!)
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hogwash -- mundusmundi, 06:48:33
08/24/01 Fri
Your point is well taken, Tanker, but I would mention that quite
a lot of us here don't visit other sites/boards that are Buffy
related for exactly the reasons you stated-- endless arguments
with very little real point or pointmaking.
Non-Buffy related boards are like this too. About a year ago I
frequented a movie board that had two or three self-proclaimed
mayordomos who tried to bully everyone else's opinions into submission.
When anyone tried to make some valid criticisms about a certain
recent popular tearjerker, for example, they would reply with
ad hominem attacks: "You've obviously never experienced the
death of a loved one. I feel sorry for you." Ugggggh....You'd
think people would get enough vitriol in real life. I mean, hey,
who needs it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> hogwash -- Mike, 07:15:20 08/24/01 Fri
All opinions are valid. Some are more valid than others.
oink oink :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow is "gay now" -- Wiccagrrl, 19:10:15
08/22/01 Wed
I find myself getting a little frustrated and maybe a bit defensive
when this question keeps coming up. I guess maybe it's a gut-level
reaction to a kind of "it's just a phase" attitude.
(Not necessarilly you, cknight, but kind of in general)
The fact is, the way Willow's been written, yes she is capable
of being attracted to men, BUT- she's in a long term relationship
with another woman, and more importantly self-identifies as gay.
She may be a fictional character, but this is something real-life
people face on a daily basis- other people second-guessing and
dismissing their sexuality and saying "no, you're not"
or "you shouldn't be" to how they see themselves. Willow
was clearly hurt at the idea that Tara might think she was marking
time until she went back to boystown. Willow's not looking past
Tara to what will come next- she's in love with another woman,
and she takes this relationship and her recent self-discovery
seriously. And I think second guessing Willow's sexuality kind
of undercuts this.
Before they had Willow state that she was gay, I probably would
have said she was bi if pressed to give her a label. But the writers,
through Willow, have said she's gay- and even if it is a fictional
character, I think, when it comes to sexuality, how a person sees
themselves is really the only thing you can go by.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Wiccagrrl -- cknight, 20:53:52 08/22/01 Wed
I see your point . I think that even though Willow is not a real
person, it's good for people trying to figure out where they are
sexually to see these characters going though the same things...searching
for who they are. Whether dealing with sex or other life choices,
Buffy is a cool show to watch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> cknight :) -- Wiccagrrl, 22:30:34 08/22/01 Wed
I agree that it's good to see the characters dealing with some
of these issues, and even better that we all get to discuss them.
One of the things I love about Buffy is that it's so thought provoking.
I think you asked some interesting questions.
It would be nice if we were at a point where love really was label-free.
Willow loves Tara (or is "Tarasexual", as I've heard
some say) I can understand where doing some defining is helpful/interesting
(maybe even necessary at times) My only concern is with the concept
of saying "she's not *really* gay, despite what she says".
I know that Willow's a fictional character, and so some speculation
may be more appropriate than if we were talking a real person.
But I think that this does touch on a real-world issue. Since
sexuality can be very fluid, since everyone knows best what is
in their own hearts and minds, and what *their* definition/labels
are, I think in real life, that it's good to be careful about
labelling people, especially if it's not how they self-identify,
or see themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> attn: wiccagrrl -- Masquerade, 09:54:58 08/23/01 Thu
Haven't seen you in a while! Would you like to submit a profile
to the ATPoBtVS posting board "Meet the posters" page?
It's at http://home.4w.com/pages/btvs/posters.html
I've been saving the Tara picture for you!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> You've got mail. And thanks for saving me a
Tara pic :) -- Wiccagrrl, 10:25:58 08/23/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow is Bi -- Shiver, 20:09:43 08/22/01 Wed
In the Buffyverse, love has no labels.
If Buffy loves Angel, but he is a vampire, what label do we put
on that - interspecies-ism? If Dru loves a Chaos demon, all slime
and antlers ... if Doyle loves Cordy, half demon that he is ...
etc etc.
Willow loves a person. It happens to be a she and her name is
Tara. They don't go to rallies or meetings or put bumper stickers
on their Harleys that say "Roll me in honey and throw me
to the lesbians" (oh wait, that's my sister and her girlfriend).
Willow used to love another person who happened to be a werewolf
and his name was Oz and he was in a band. To call Willow "gay"
or "bi" or "straight" is to try and assign
her ot a category.
In Buffyverse, there isn't even a clear category for "right"
or "wrong" or "good" or "evil".
So how can we expect there to be one for "love".
Cheers!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Wow. Beautifully put. -- Wiccagrrl, 20:12:13 08/22/01
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Wow. Beautifully put. -- Shiver, 20:17:32
08/22/01 Wed
Thanks ... I just reject the ideal of categorzing Willow. If we
don't understand that she could be in love with a woman, let's
call her "gay" or "bi" and then do we understand
it any better? Because we can assign her to a certain outline
of how a "gay" person acts and feels or a "bi"
person acts and feels?
Willow loves a person whose name is Tara, and that's all there
is to it. Even when a writer has her quip a witty comeback like
"Hello, gay now!" it still doesn't allow us to put her
in a box, tie a bow around it, and slap a label on the outside
that says "This is the definition of Willow".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Wow. Beautifully put. -- Rufus, 22:09:25
08/22/01 Wed
The important thing is that Willow loves Tara, not their gender
or a label that can be used to trivialize their love. BVS encourages
you to look beyond the superfical appearance or label and find
that love, sexuality, evil, and heroes come in all kinds of packages.
What may seem to be a scary demon may turn out to be the good
guy, and a helpless child the annointed one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> So what is Tara? -- Mike, 05:01:39 08/23/01 Thu
there is no way of knowing who she was before, and therefore who
she might be again... is there?
This was probably dealt in the Tara bio (which I never read, oops)..
she thought she was a nobody, that's all she had ever been told.
She hid in the background not getting close to anyone, cos she
thought she was a demon. Willow was probably the first person
of either sex who came long and showed interest in her, encouraged
her to be herself.. Tara developed a crush on Willow, and mutually
it turned into love - I always got the feeling it caught them
both unawares, as Willow didn't really comprehend (consciously)
until Oz's return, which forced the issue.
It was a beatiful story, I really enjoyed watching it. But I still
dont feel confident making assumptions that require labels. I
cannot categorically state that either is gay or bi. Life just
isn't that simple!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: So what is Tara? -- Wiccagrrl, 09:50:04 08/23/01
Thu
We don't know too much about any possible love life for Tara before
she met Willow, and they haven't shown Tara having much of an
interest in anyone but Will, male or female. But there was an
interesting comment in Tough Love, during the fight. Willow makes
the statement that Tara's been out longer than she (Willow) has.
Willow also mentions not having established her "lesbo street
creds" (implying Tara had)before getting into their relationship.
Now, I don't know how "out" Tara possibly could have
been under her father's roof, but they sure made it sound like
Tara was well aware she liked women, and had possibly even had
a girlfriend or two, before she met Willow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: So what is Tara? -- vampire hunter D, 10:13:04
08/23/01 Thu
Actually, I don't think that Willow is Tara's first relationship.
The feeling I got from watching their arguement was that while
Willow hadn't established her "lezbo street cred", Tara
had. Maybe I'm reading them wrong, but that's the impression I
get.
As for labels, it may be well and good for you philosophers to
say that people and relationships can't be classified and leave
it at that, but I'm not really a philosopher. I'm a former engineering
student and science enthuseist (taking a temporary break from
college) and so I can't comprehend not putting everything into
categories. It's my personal paradigm to give everything a clear
label, even if the labeling isn't too clear.
Having said that, I do think Willow is bi. SHe has not only shown
interest in both sexes, but has also had no problem with being
happy and fulfilled in a romantic/sexual relationship with each.
That in my book makes someone bi, no matter what they think.
Tara, however, is totally gay. We have never seen any indication
of her being interested in guys in a romantic way. In fact, the
only guys we've ever seen her talk to (outside of her family)
are Xander, Giles, and Oz (I can't even think of an instance of
her talking to Riley or Spike). So she has only shown an interest
in girls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: So what is Tara? -- Wiccagrrl, 11:16:13
08/23/01 Thu
That in my book makes someone bi, no matter what they think.
I think that's kind of the crux of the matter for me- where I
part company from some people. I happen to think that what someone
thinks about their own sexuality very much matters. Who am I to
say "You're not gay, you're bi" or "You're straight"
or "You're really gay" if that's not what the person
thinks/knows is true? These just aren't hard-and-fast catagories,
and I think it's a tad presumptuous to be telling someone else
"This is what you are, period. Doesn't matter what you think
or how you define yourself."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: So what is Tara? -- Solitude1056,
12:36:50 08/23/01 Thu
This was my point about how Willow defines herself. I think on
some levels it makes her bisexual to be willing to entertain the
possibility of relationship with a person regardless of gender.
However, while in a relationship with someone of the same sex,
she has defined herself (like many do) as gay. It's possible that
if Tara and Willow become history, that Willow may hook up with
a guy and at that time may define herself as straight, instead.
(Yeah, "straight" is a word I dislike, being one who
always takes a crooked path to walk a crooked mile. But that aside...)
Fact is, it's not indecisiveness or "not-knowing-oneself"
that leads one to define one's Self differently today than yesterday.
To draw a line between this and other things in which our self-categorization
is a major part of our self-identity, look at what we do (for
a living, to pass time, etc). Ten years ago I would've told you
I'm a student; five years ago I was a consultant working in the
hospitality & hospital industries. Two years ago I would've said
technical writer & editor; now I say photographer. To draw this
description back to Willow, should she really say (and should
we blame her/the writers for not having her launch into a huge
explanation saying) that she "was straight, is now gay"
anymore than we would introduce ourselves by saying, "hi,
I'm a former student, former writer, former consultant, who's
now a photographer"? Anymore than we would introduce ourselves
as all of the above former job descriptions if we no longer work
in those industries and no longer consider them to be part of
our self-identity?
Yes, I understand completely the engineering/analytical need for
categories. As one of many writers on this board, I'm sure I'm
not the only one who understands that words help us communicate
but they can still make it awful difficult anyway - and despite
what the cliche says, no, pictures aren't always much better!
Fact is, the need to categorize is not a negative thing, but it
can become so IMO if this categorization does not take into consideration
the object's own pre-determined category. You can't just toss
out how/what a person identifies, and replace it with your own
label - not, at least, IMO. That's disrespectful on some basic
level, to the person/character.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: So what is Tara? -- Humanitas,
13:51:59 08/23/01 Thu
"Fact is, the need to categorize is not a negative thing,
but it can become so IMO if this categorization does not take
into consideration the object's own pre-determined category. You
can't just toss out how/what a person identifies, and replace
it with your own label - not, at least, IMO. That's disrespectful
on some basic level, to the person/character."
I think you've hit on the big difference between reason and fanaticism
- reason alters its views to fit the facts, and fanaticism alters
the facts to fit its views.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Labels are best used for things
that are not people. -- Anthony8, 20:40:42 08/23/01 Thu
IMO, when labels are applied to real people (or in the context
of this discussion--fictional Willow's sexuality) to "type"
them, there is a frequent tendency for them to become tools of
limitation and discrimination rather than understanding. Of course,
some labelling in society is always necessary for numerous practical
reasons. However, IME, many people seem to need to label others
and themselves in order to validate their own sense of self (to
reassure themselves that they belong to the right group, live
the 'proper' lifestyle, have the right opinions, etc.). The whole
mission statement of BtVS, IMO, has been to blur all the lines
in order to encourage people to open their minds to what it means
to be good, bad, heroic, a family, moral, loveable and so forth.
I'm not sure whether or not Willow being bi or gay has any real
meaning in the Jossverse other than to include that way of being
as one of the many that just are in that world (and by reflection
back, the real world). Whether hers is a lifestyle choice, a genetic
predisposition or even a whim is not important. It's just okay,
simple as that, and I believe that was the point in the first
place.
I have always been fascinated by the way persons I meet seem to
need to type me by ethnicity, age group, marital status (and by
that, even more subversively, sexual preference) and so on, and
how they seem to be obviously disappointed when they can't pidgeon-hole
me one way or another (and I do admit that I enjoy being evasive
when responding to what I consider irrelevant inquiries). Since
I am something of a mutt (and most happy with it), my appearance,
last name, and barely post-adolescent attitude tend to confuse
them. These people are always wrong because, in most cases, their
own narrow view of the world and/or themselves relegates them
to making overly simplistic assumptions about me based on a limited
(and often stereotypical) system of categorizing individuals.
Unfortunately, the potential abusive applications of such a system
are obvious.
Even in a supposedly liberal and open-minded community like the
SF Bay Area, the "isms" run rampant. Before the Dot.com
bust, when every kid who knew html believed he was entitled to
become a millionaire before the age of 25, the idea that anybody
over 30 was "washed up" and "over the hill"
became an accepted hiring consideration. Kind of a twisted, alternate
universe version of "don't trust anyone over 30." As
a consequence, quite a few people I have encountered have had
to resort to "passing" for being younger than they are
in order to be credible hires. I remember one co-worker commenting
how in his experience, even the temp environment became very inhospitable
once he passed 35. This is the 21st Century, and to me that's
just sad.
Once more, this stream of consciousness thing has gotten the better
of me. Sorrrrry. Like Roseanne Rosannadana used to say, "if
it isn't one thing, it's another." Ultimately, shouldn't
each of us be free to decide who and what we are at any point
in our lives? If we are not causing any harm to anybody (and IMO
offending a peron's "sensibilities" does not count as
harm), shouldn't people just accept, if not respect, such decisions.
Ramble over. Ramble on...
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well said! -- anom, 22:07:45
08/23/01 Thu
"IMO, when labels are applied to real people (or in the context
of this discussion--fictional Willow's sexuality) to 'type' them,
there is a frequent tendency for them to become tools of limitation
and discrimination rather than understanding...."
Yeah, labels tend to get used to define rather than just describe
people.
"I have always been fascinated by the way persons I meet
seem to need to type me....These people are always wrong because,
in most cases, their own narrow view of the world and/or themselves
relegates them to making overly simplistic assumptions about me
based on a limited (and often stereotypical) system of categorizing
individuals...."
I hate being typed (that's why I prefer to remain anomalous).
But it's hard to avoid making assumptions, because the nature
of an assumption is that you're not aware you're making it. I
like to think I'm open-minded, but once in a while I need to have
my own stereotypes busted.
"Ultimately, shouldn't each of us be free to decide who and
what we are at any point in our lives? If we are not causing any
harm to anybody (and IMO offending a peron's 'sensibilities' does
not count as harm), shouldn't people just accept, if not respect,
such decisions."
Rock on, A8! If this be rambling, I'd say you've made the most
of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Excellently put! (I would've
said, "well said" but anom got that already.) -- Solitude1056,
22:47:07 08/23/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> "And now........one to grow on" -- cknight, 16:22:40
08/23/01 Thu
Labels are bad. :(
this has been........"one to grow on"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Labels -- Nina, 12:17:47 08/24/01 Fri
That's what the Little Prince (St-Exupery) taught us. Not to judge
someone on what job they do, or how much money they have etc...
but on who they really are, what makes them tick, what do they
love. That's the real way to learn who someone really is.
A8 is right, people need to label things because when you label
things, when you name names (like in Harry Potter) then you are
the strong one. That's why human beings are naming every little
thing they see. (I am currently learning anatomy and I am blown
away by some of the names I have to memorize! Come on people some
of those names are coming from another planet!) Labels are our
weapon, but it's a weapon we have because we are afraid to be
defenseless without it.
Willow needs to label herself as a gay person in season 5 because
she needs to hear the word. If she were that secure she wouldn't
need to say it. I don't say she isn't in love with Tara. I believe
she is, but the word "gay" makes her feel safe for the
moment. When she will be safe with who she is, she won't need
to use it anymore. Tara doesn't use it. It's what she is, she
knows it, she accepts it. I don't go in the street telling people
I am a woman. I know I am one. The need to label other people
or ourselves is to gain control over something. To make ourselve
feel a little more secure in this overwhelming big world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Labels -- anom, 19:54:54 08/25/01 Sat
"A8 is right, people need to label things because when you
label things, when you name names (like in Harry Potter) then
you are the strong one."
Naming is powerful. I once took an improv class, & the 2 things
I hesitated to do were lay hands on another person & pull her
along with me, & give someone's character a name. It felt like
something I didn't have a right to do, which of course in real
life it is.
As for learning anatomical names, I hear ya, Nina! I do medical
editing, & yeah, you learn the names of body parts most people
don't even know they have! (That's also how I know stuff like
how long a person can live w/a broken neck.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> The Power of Names -- Wisewoman, 10:42:31
08/26/01 Sun
Was it Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea Trilogy that had the subplot on
the power of knowing something's true name? I can't remember,
but I remember being impressed when I read it. It also features
in Guy Gavriel Kay's Fionavar Tapestry. To know someone's true
name gives you the ability to command them, or at least to call
them forth.
I changed my name in my early twenties, and started to use my
middle name. I am convinced that that caused a major shift in
my personality, although personality types are supposed to be
impervious to alteration. For anyone who is familiar with the
Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator, before the change I tested as an
ENFP and since the change I have consistently tested as an INTJ.
I remember who I was as an ENFP, and the type descriptions were
accurate for me at that time, just as I feel the INTJ type description
is accurate for me now. That's a shift in three out of four type
preferences, which, IMO, just shouldn't be possible!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Power of Names -- cknight,
13:17:57 08/26/01 Sun
I think a person can change if the surrounding factors change....money,
health, love, no-love, kids, no-kids, no ice cream, ice cream
and on and on.
On this hot day in Jersey I use a true name and call fourth "Rocky
Road" :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Personalities & Alteration & the
MBTI -- Solitude1056, 14:41:34 08/26/01 Sun
Personalities aren't completely impervious to alteration, but
then, personality tests are an iffy one. For instance, I can't
take the MBTI anymore, since my mother (an industrial psychologist)
was certified as a tester when I was in HS & thus I've been exposed
to every variation of the test already. Take it more than 3 times,
and you've destroyed the validity. Take it more than once every
5 years, and you've destroyed the validity. Even unconciously,
you're able to shift your answers in accordance with your expectations,
having studied (and presumably received the results of) the test.
So I've only taken it 4 times. At the age of 11 (way too early
in most folks' eyes, since the Jungian perspective that underlines
the MBTI assumes that only one letter may be "set" that
early, if any), I was an INTJ, with zero in the E and S ranges.
Total introvert, total intuitive - a bit extreme. Excellent example
of too-young being a third way to destroy validity. At 16, I took
it again and tested as ENTJ, strong E, and still a total iNtuitive
on the range. That's crazy, since I was an athlete & my reason
for rowing was the physical sensation. (My mother's observation
is that the test most likely just wasn't asking the right questions
to trigger a Sensing response from me.)
At 22, I took the test again, and was an INTP. Go figure, the
person gets older, gets more experience, the personality will
shift, and environment has a great deal to do with it - the more
stress, the more a person will move away from their preference
and force themselves into a personality to be able to handle what
they're going through. Btw, the iNtuitive score was getting weaker
(IOW, I was showing more Sensing traits), and the Introvert score
was significantly strong again. At 27, I took the test and guess
what: I'm an XNXX. No kidding. I'm 2 points into Introversion
on the Extrovert-Introvert scale; only 3 points into Thinking
on the Thinking/Feeling scale; and only 1 point into Perceiving
on the Judging/Perceiving scale. I'm at something like 8 points
into the iNtuitive, so that kind of counts... but still not really,
I'm told. ;-P
Yeah, I'm wonked. I tell my mother (the longterm ENFP) that it's
cause I was traumatized by having to deal with her personality
type, which really stands for Essentially No F****ng Personality.
Bwahahaha.
Just bored on a sunday afternoon... ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Essentially No F****ing Personality...
-- Wisewoman, 17:57:09 08/26/01 Sun
Hey! That's exactly how I felt when I was an ENFP!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> It was Le Guin!! I wonder why it
sounded so familiar! -- Rahael, 17:09:46 08/26/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Labels -- Shaglio, 10:42:47 08/27/01 Mon
"Labels are our weapon, but it's a weapon we have because
we are afraid to be defenseless without it."
I disagree with this overgeneralization. Sometimes labels can
be very helpful. If you go out for ice cream and it's your turn
to order, you can't step up to the window and ask for chocalte
ice cream in a sugar cone with rainbow sprinkles if the ice cream
wasn't labelled as "chocolate," the cone wasn't labelled
as a "sugar cone," and the sprinkles weren't labelled
as "rainbow." In fact you'd also need to have the labels
"ice cream," "cone," and "sprinkles"
as well or else you'd be stuck trying to play charades with the
guy or desperately trying to point to everything you want. Labelling
things (including the parts of the body) is a tremendous in the
communication process.
Could you image going to the doctor and saying, "my thing
hurts" and have him try to figure out which of the millions
of "things" in the human body you are refering to? Or
a police scetch artist trying to draw a picture of a suspect if
the witness could only say, "he had 2 eyes, a nose, and a
mouth. And hair, too."
There is a saying: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Similarly, labels aren't bad, the improper use of labels is bad.
Synchronicity (o/t) -- Wisewoman,
20:02:05 08/22/01 Wed
On the general subject of Life, the Universe, and Everything...
In my on-going quest for wisdom I use seven key principles, which
I think I mentioned in a thread several months ago. In any event,
the first principle is, "Know yourself." I've been working
on this one for about twenty years, and it involves all kinds
of interesting forays into psychology, anthropology, sociology,
etc. I try not to be too obsessive, but the only way I'm content
that I've covered the subject is to work forward from The Big
Bang to me, and backward from me, through genealogy, history,
anthropology, and genetic research, to as far back as I can get.
As you can imagine, it's a never-ending story because new discoveries
are coming to light all the time.
I'm fortunate that both my parents are still alive and actively
pursuing their own genealogical research. When I was visitng them
last week my mother asked me to do some surfing to see if I could
come up with anything on her paternal great-grandfather. Now,
as fascinating as I know that sounds (lol) I didn't really want
to get into it right now because I'm mired in the other end of
the subject--cosmology, quantum physics, superstring theory, and
all that good stuff. However, being a dutiful daughter I did do
a fast and dirty search and found, to my surprise, that someone
is actually in the process of writing a book about these ancestors
on my mother's side. I contacted him by e-mail and we started
a correspondence, comparing information, and he turned out to
be quite a nice guy. About three e-mails in, I noticed that his
address was @hq.nasa.gov so tonight I keyed his name into a google
search and got back 1700 results, including quotes on CNN, no
less--he's the director of the Science section on Structure and
Evolution of the Universe at NASA in Washington!
This kind of blows me away. So, do ya think he'd be offended if
I started asking him cosmology questions, along with the genealogy
ones? And how the heck does he have the time to write a book about
our ancestors, anyway?
I've been addressing him by his first name, and now I think I
should be calling him Dr. So-and-so. Okay, I'm intimidated! I
had to share this dilemma with someone, and you guys got lucky
(lol). Forgive me, it's summer and I have to do something to keep
mysef occupied. ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Synchronicity (o/t) -- anom, 20:29:21 08/22/01 Wed
"So, do ya think he'd be offended if I started asking him
cosmology questions, along with the genealogy ones?"
One way to find out--ask him!
"And how the heck does he have the time to write a book about
our ancestors, anyway?"
Same answer (wish I had time for stuff like that).
"I've been addressing him by his first name, and now I think
I should be calling him Dr. So-and-so."
My policy: call him whatever he signs his email with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Synchronicity (o/t) -- Cactus Watcher, 21:45:14 08/22/01
Wed
I'm supposed to know lots about both my mother's ancestors and
my father's so I get a fair amount of email from distant cousins,
I've never heard of. We always address each other by first names.
But, if you want a cosmology question answered, it wouldn't hurt
to mention you know he's a PhD, and to ask if he'd rather be addressed
that way. I doubt he will, and it will give you brownie points
for being polite.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Good ideas...thanks, guys! -- Wisewoman, 21:54:00
08/22/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Good ideas...thanks, guys! -- Dedalus, 21:46:16
08/23/01 Thu
That is interesting, Wisewoman.
I'm sure Alan Watts would love the irony. Genealogy and cosmic
history. Exxccccellent.
Speaking of such, this is sort of double OT, but since that other
thread is getting SO long ...
We were talking about floating pencils and such, and also Deepak
and New Agey stuff. I finished re-reading my Watts book, and I
loved what he had to say concerning how we usually think about
and attempt to conceptualize transcendence. With our more traditional
Western theology, we have God as Cosmic Father. And science actually
grows out of this mindset, out of the idea that we came "into"
this world from somewhere "else" instead of out of it
like leaves to a tree - we are somehow seperate from it rather
than correlatives with it, thus we have to interpret science in
terms of the old Aristotelian "cause and effect" that
translated via Augustine I think to the Judeo-Christian set-up,
and inadvertently through Western science, rather than the idea
of correlatives arising together. Thus we have the orthodox idea
of the Cosmic Father, replaced by the scientific view of what
Watts called the Cosmic Idiot, and in reaction to one of these
or both, we have the New Agey Cosmic Jello. I for one have issues
with all these interpretations.
So from the Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are -
"But the fact that IT eludes every description must not,
as happens so often, be mistaken for the description of IT as
the airiest of abstractions, as a literal transparent continuum
or undifferentiated cosmic jello. The most concrete image of God
the Father, with his white beard and golden robe, is better than
that. Yet Western students of Eastern philosophies and religions
persistently accuse Hindus and Buddhists of believing in a featureless
and gelatinous God, just because the latter insist that every
conception or objective image of IT is void. But the term 'void'
applies ot all such conceptions, not to IT.
"Yet in speaking and thinking of IT, there is no alternative
to the uses of conceptions and images, and no harm in it so long
as we realize what we are doing. Idolatry is not the use of images,
but confusing them with what they represent, and in this respect
mental images and lofty abstractions can be more insidious than
bronze idols."
I think that is really interesting, to say the least. That's a
take I've never really heard before, or at least one not expressed
so well. I love the relativity he speaks of, and the relationship
between seeming disparate things. That is the Tao. All the conceptions
- Cosmic Father, Idiot, and Jello, overtly reacting against one
another yet sharing a secret unity. Then again, maybe not, cause
you know the drill - if you can label the Tao, it's not the real
thing. Like Watts says, trying to talk about the Tao is sort of
like trying to eat your own mouth or see your own eyes.
This particular quote may be of relevance to you in your ancestral
searches -
"My body is also my total environment, and this must be measured
by light-years in the billions."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Analogies and Idolatry -- Wisewoman, 00:57:42
08/24/01 Fri
"Yet in speaking and thinking of IT, there is no alternative
to the uses of conceptions and images, and no harm in it so long
as we realize what we are doing. Idolatry is not the use of images,
but confusing them with what they represent, and in this respect
mental images and lofty abstractions can be more insidious than
bronze idols."
I find that quote from Watts really pertinent to the things I'm
investigating right now. The extent of my scientific training
was a few undergrad bio and psyc courses, so I've tended to shy
away from cosmology and physics because when I see an equation
my mind goes blank. OTOH, I kinda felt that things like Hawking's
"A Brief History of Time" were pretty well dumbed down
to the lowest common denominator and therefore not really representative
of science at all. Then I came across this quote from Brian Greene,
and Oxford-educated physicist, who wrote The Elegant Universe,
which deals with string theory:
"I don't know that everybody realizes that even physicists
themselves often do, maybe not always explicitly, but implicity,
use analogies in the way that they actually think about things.
It really is how you sharpen your intuition by having a good mental
image, a good metaphor, that captures the heart of the matter
without getting bogged down in the details."
Okay, so the map is not the territory, but if I can better understand
the basics of quantum theory by the use of analogy and metaphor,
hey, I'm fine with that! I don't confuse my simplified analogies
with the mind-boggling complexity of theoretical physics. And,
as Watts points out, for me there's no alternative, other than
ignoring the subject entirely.
Current board
| More August 2001