December 2002 posts

Previous December 2002
More December 2002

Extremely Troubled (Just Viewed Buffy 6.17 "Normal Again") -- David Frisby, 16:15:59 12/25/02 Wed

After just watching Buffy 6.17 (Normal Again), I must say I'm extremely troubled. The doctor or psychiatrist in the episode reminded me through his mannerisms and tone of voice of the new Principal Wood, and recently, in two dreams, Buffy's mother Joyce emphatically said again to "Wake up!" and at the key moment Joyce says to Buffy "I believe in you" in a manner very similar to Buffy saying to Spike "I believe in you" -- and all in all, it at this moment seems quite feasible that Joss and Co. could if they decided end the series by reverting back to this episode and waking Buffy up for good. This would be such a tragedy, a disaster, and extremely troubling. And yet ........

[> Ahh. I've been waiting for someone to notice this ! (Fray spoilers) -- OnM, 17:10:36 12/25/02 Wed

I really don't think it is a coincidence or a random act to have placed this ep (from the last season, and not the current one) as one of last night's two Buffy repeats.

However, I also really don't believe ME is going to do a Dallas with this, as everyone seems to fear.

Instead, please consider the possibilities that:

1. The Asylumverse is a real, parallel dimension.
2. Dawn is probably still the key.
3. According to the future-based Fray series, some Slayer in the distant past cast out the vamps and or demons from the Earth. Cast them out to where?
4. Dawn may not only be able to open portals to other universes, she may be able to create other universes.
5. "You can never begin to understand the source of our power" -- Uber-Buffy from Primeval

Extrapolate. There are multiple potentially fascinating outcomes, none of which involves 'waking up from a dream'.

[> [> Thank you! That helps. -- David Frisby, 17:40:36 12/25/02 Wed

That helps. Thanks. ME won't do it. Interesting connection with _Fray_ there!?

[> Re: Extremely Troubled (Just Viewed Buffy 6.17 "Normal Again") -- Simone, 19:16:49 12/25/02 Wed

Well, I loved NA and I'm very intrigued by all the subsequent scenes harking back to that episode. I think it all works beautifully as an extra, very Jungian layer of possible interpretation wherein Buffy's schizophrenic, the Scoobies are "complexes," Spike is her "shadow," Dawn and Faith are imaginary alter-egos and the story is about her struggle to integrate all the different aspects of her psyche and come to terms with her unconscious/slayerness.

But I agree that it would be completely lame for the show to end up establishing the Normalverse as the real reality and destroy all the other levels on interpretation on which the show works. Also, not gonna happen. Not if ME has any hopes to one day continue the story in a spin-off or a sequel movie - and I'm pretty sure they do. My money's on a very ambiguous (ME? Ambiguous? Shocking, I know!) ending.

[> [> That's Looking on the Bright Side! -- David Frisby, 10:09:42 12/27/02 Fri

That's looking on the bright side, and you're right that the Jungian scenario offers great food for such thought, and I'm quite happy with that alternative, as long as it doesn't become the final reality the show ends with (as you agree). And it also poses interesting conundrums with regard to to analyzing Joss Whedon's mind and intentions and ....

Thanks for noting the brighter side.

[> [> [> Oh, I think I'm mostly just being pragmatic. -- Simone, 13:49:02 12/28/02 Sat

A Normalverse (Asylumverse?) ending would mean the end of the franchise. ME could never use any of these characters again after having once established them as figments of someone's pathological imagination. That's not their MO - they seem really keen on keeping their options open (to the point where it's sometimes detrimental to the narrative, IMO, but that's a whole 'nother story).

>>And it also poses interesting conundrums with regard to analyzing Joss Whedon's mind and intentions and ....<<

I don't want to hijack the thread or anything but I recently read Jung's Tavistock Lectures (my first foray into psychoanalytical theory since I was a teen and got completely put off the whole idea after reading a bit of Freud - no offense to any Freudians out there. There may be people whose psyches work along Freudian lines and for whom his theories and methodology work, but I ain't one of them). And I was *floored* by how well his ideas fit with the way Buffy's storyline has been developed and how much of the archetypal dream symbolism Jung mentions there has found its way onto the screen. Spike's bondage wheel in NLM? A reverse sacrificial sun-wheel symbol. The FE's crab-like manifestation? Apparently, a classic symbolic representation for the unconscious. And then there's all the snakes, the towers, the water/drowning/baptismal font stuff, etc, etc.

Anyway, I'll shut up now because I'm getting OT and because people around these parts have probably already analyzed all this stuff to death. Suffice it to say that I am now convinced that Jung (and, implicitly, NA and everything referring back to that ep) is crucial in understanding BtVS.

[> Re: Extremely Troubled -- Celebaelin, 20:15:22 12/25/02 Wed

This kind of debate makes me queasy and lightheaded, the dream/not dream train of thought has always sparked in me an onrush of existential horror. Riddles within illusions within dreams within fantasies, it's difficult enough to even form a question never mind discover your answer.

Slap my thigh it's panto time...

Ebaneezer - "Oh yes it is."
Audience - "Oh no it isn't."
repeat ad nauseam

Those of you not familiar with the pantomime tradition may not find this funny but it packs out theatres at this time of year in the UK 'bums on seats luv, bums on seats'.

[> If UPN really knew Buffy, one of the episodes would have been Amends (I know FX showed it) -- Dochawk, 21:04:12 12/25/02 Wed

It is both a Christmas episode and the first we see of the first evil and not everyone (actually most everyone) are Buffy geeks like us and know the reference> of course that would mean that UPN would have to admit there is this group in LA who need to be remembered (especially Wesley)

[> Re: Extremely Troubled with _A Beautiful Mind_ spoilers -- flo, 21:08:53 12/25/02 Wed

Incidentally, Normal Again replayed on UPN last night at least in part because it is one of five episodes not running on FX. The others are OMWF, Villians, which played last night with NA, and the two Season Finale episodes from Season six which will air next Tuesday night. SO, though the ME folks may have played NA this week in order to remind us of the possibility of the Asylumverse, it is also possible that it was played simply in order to ease the suffering of those of us who missed it on FX.

The Asylumverse possibility is fascinating -- reminds me of A Beautiful Mind (I imagine ya'll discussed this when the ep originally played so forgive any repeated notions). If the Asylumverse exists as a parallel universe, it is unique to the Buffyverse in that Buffy's consciousness is capable of bridging the two worlds, or, more accurately, leaping between them. In a previous depiction of parallel reality (I'm thinking of Cordelia's Wish and the subsequent Dopplegangland), people in each reality couldn't see the other -- they were challenged instead to have faith that the other might exist: When parallel Buffy asks Giles how he can believe in another, better world, he replies, "Because I have to."

Contrast: in A Beautiful Mind, people from the main character's two worlds inhabited the same physical space. He could see both 'real' and 'imaginary' people at the same time and therefore encountered the possibility of bridging them. Buffy, in NA, can only leap between the two spaces, not bring them together -- at least not so far as we have seen. If the ME gang decides to incorporate NA's Asylumverse into this season, they may attempt a bridge -- someway for Buffy to exist and to function in both worlds. This seems like a lot of bother, though, given that she is a bit preoccupied with The First Evil.

Any ideas on how it all might connect?

Flo

[> [> Uh-huh... glad you mentioned this... -- OnM, 09:47:11 12/26/02 Thu

*** When parallel Buffy asks Giles how he can believe in another, better world, he replies, "Because I have to." ***

My own extrapolations on this parallel/created universe bit are that Buffy will somehow, in connection with Dawn (The Key) and the rest of the Scoobies, form another kind of group meld like they did in Primeval, only this time Buffy & Dawn will create a new parallel universe, modeled on the potentially 'better' one of the Asylumverse, where her parents are still living, there are no vampires, etc.

(Also recall that Anya has actual experience with alternate realities/universes, and Anya is now an 'official' 'Scooby').

Thus, the vamps and demons aren't so much 'cast out' as 'left behind'.

Still working the kinks out, but hey,...

;-)

[> [> [> Re: Uh-huh... glad you mentioned this... -- anom, 17:39:36 12/26/02 Thu

"...only this time Buffy & Dawn will create a new parallel universe, modeled on the potentially 'better' one of the Asylumverse, where her parents are still living, there are no vampires, etc."

"Modeled" in the sense that in this one, Dawn exists? 'Cause otherwise, I think it'll be kinda hard to talk her into it. Bet they could get a lot of plot mileage out of that aspect, just getting her to listen to them tell her there'd be this "modification." She might still have some resistance to it based on her experience in Normal Again.

Come to think of it, if it's too much like the Normal Again 'verse, Willow & Xander, & maybe Giles too, might not want the universe to change to one where they never knew Buffy. Or do you mean they'd create a world empty of humans & move all the Buffyverse humans into it (which might pose a whole separate set of challenges...hmm, I'm picturing Willow risking one last massive spell to move 6-7 billion humans to a different dimension, perhaps reassured by knowing she'll never have those scary powers again afterwards)? Would those who had known about the vampires & demons retain that knowledge & those who didn't never know the difference? Would human history as we know it (i.e., in real life, not the Buffyverse) be superimposed on the new universe?

Ooh, how about this: could Willow tweak the spell so Tara wouldn't have died in the other 'verse? If Joyce could still be alive, why couldn't Tara? But would it be right for her to...what would you call it?...cancel out Tara's death & not those of all the humans killed by vamps/demons? Why should 2 characters who died human deaths be alive there & not those who would be alive if not for the existence of these unnatural creatures, who won't even exist in the new universe?

Sheesh, the differences btwn. this new 'verse & the Buffyverse are starting to sound like those btwn. the Buffyverse & the Wishverse!

[> [> [> [> Re: Uh-huh... glad you mentioned this... -- Flo, 20:48:02 12/26/02 Thu

OK, OK -- it's fun to wish everything into a bit, knotted mess. But remember -- in the Buffyverse, beings can easily exist in multiple dimensions. Evil Willow, for example, despite the fact that she gets shoves into a jagged board by Oz. It isn't so improbable that a new dimension could be created that melds several possible worlds together.

[> [> [> [> [> Well, this is just getting a little nitpicky but... -- Rob, 22:52:06 12/26/02 Thu

...Evil Willow was alive, because when they created the time rift in "Doppelgangland," she was snatched out of her reality BEFORE she could be staked by Oz. It's time travel, in a way of speaking.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Uh-huh... glad you mentioned this... -- wiscoboy, 09:44:41 12/27/02 Fri

I think that whole series about multiple possible universes has been done before....it's called SLIDERS.

[> [> [> Re: Uh-huh... glad you mentioned this... -- Drizzt, 19:37:19 12/27/02 Fri

Uh?

IF the production crew has a happy ending to the asylumverse mini story line...

Maby I will not go to Sunnydayle in season six...

Back to S5...ONLY?

Hmmm...I guess I will just wait and see how things develope in season 7

[> [> OT on crazy math movies. -- Darby, 10:29:45 12/26/02 Thu

I just saw Pi (the real name is the symbol, but I'm too lazy to try to figure out how to do that here), which is a much better movie about a crazy mathematician. And the only movie I can remember seeing where the end credits made me reexamine the movie's message.

And one can't be sure what may be real or delusional, although it's never implied that anything isn't real...

[> [> [> What is it with us mathematicians? -- Tchaikovsky, 10:59:29 12/26/02 Thu

Whenever we're portrayed, we're schizophrenic or just plain loopy. Although on the other hand, I must admit I've never seen a maths professor looking anything like Russell Crowe, so on a purely superficial level we may be doing OK.

There may be a long post somewhere on 'The Mathematics of the Buffyverse', but it's definitely a 2003 post, and anyway, Joss can't do maths, so it can't be that interesting.

Can it?

TCH

[> [> [> [> Re: What is it with us mathematicians? -- KKC, 13:07:20 12/26/02 Thu

For people who aren't exposed to math in a positive manner, it's confusing and mysterious... And so you get Russel Crowe, Matt Damon, and Geoffrey Rush who exhibit this confusion by playing their characters as untouchable and nearly psychotic.

An interesting side note is the relationship between math and art. It's been put forth that human beings who are better at math also excel at the arts, since math abilities are easily parlayed into a good sense or proportion or rhythm. And so if a child has superior mathematical thinking, he or she will also have a superior ability to judge and produce things musical or aesthetic.

So... What would you say about a TV director or writer who knows instinctively that a close-up must be held so long in order to be dramatic, or that a sound effect should only be so loud in order to be creepy or frightening? Who can judge how long you should wait before the punch line should be delivered, or how to film a room so it appears bigger or smaller than it really is? Maybe Joss isn't as bad at math as he thinks (or as he would have us believe.) :)

-KKC

[> [> [> [> [> Quite happy to believe that! -- Tchaikovsky, 16:42:19 12/28/02 Sat

Maybe one day I will be the next Joss Whedon.

Sadly, it will never happen, but thanks for the encouragemnt anyway. Maybe if I keep plugging away at those Atpo essays something will blossom.

TCH- bogged way down in the Sciences camp, but sometimes wondering whether artists' wings are preferable to clumsy, logical knowledge.

[> Re: Extremely Troubled (Just Viewed Buffy 6.17 "Normal Again") -- Silky, 06:46:00 12/26/02 Thu

Didn't watch Dallas, but the Bob Newhart show ended with an awakening - from a dream [only ep I watched 'cause I just knew it was gonna happen].

More interesting - you DS9 fans may remember Sisko's jaunts into a previous 'world' where Sisko was a SciFi writer in the 1950s. I wondered at the time if that was where and how the series would end - but it didn't. I don't really see ME doing it either, but that may be wishful thinking. They always fool me.

[> Why all the fear? -- pellenaka, 09:23:47 12/26/02 Thu

I understand your fears about Buffy ending with the 'it was all a dream'-explanation. When I first saw the episode and read other peoples comments, I thought: No, no! That would be so stupid and meaningless.

But then I saw it again and I tried to look at it from another perspective.

What happens?

Buffy is close to the Troika's lair and Warren tells Andrew to "deploy [his] little friend".

So if the Buffyverse is all in Buffy's head, the nerds show her what's real and what's not. They show that they aren't real either. Why would they want to do that? They believe that they are real and summons the demon to make Buffy believe that nothing is real.
What's the problem? ME has, in my opinion, eliminated the possibility of the Buffyverse being an illusion, by making the nerds doing this to Buffy. If those scene hadn't been there, it would all be more plausible.

Not saying that ME won't do it, but they can't. ;-)

Man, I've been waiting a long time for an opportunity to say this.
About the Principal Wood-issue...I don't really know.

[> [> Re: Why all the fear? -- Darby, 10:33:46 12/26/02 Thu

But the implication is that the healthy part of Buffy's mind was trying to find ways, through the Sunnydale delusion (remember the Doctor talking about how the fanciful parts of the delusiuon were lessening, indicated by her choice of foes?), to weaken its grip on her mind. In that case, the Drug Demon (a creation of her mind, not the imaginary nerds) was a way to wrench her free, if only momentarily.

[> [> Viewpoints and Asylumverse -- cjc36, 06:03:31 12/27/02 Fri

Good point, pellenaka: This is all viewpoint stuff, but in showing the Trio setting up the drugging of Buffy by the demon they'd acquired Joss gave us a point of view external to Buffy's Buffyverse POV.

I could be misremering, but nowhere in Asylumverse do we - save for one establishing shot of a corridor, and Buffy at the 'stinger' ending - hear any two characters talking w/o Buffy being before them, in her padded cell, awakened. We get no conversations between the Doctor and Buffy's parents, do we? If so, this reality has no existence separate from Buffy's unconscious mind, despite the zinger ending, which I chalk up to dramatic license.

Anyway, Buffyverse/Asylumverse/whatever all exists in Joss's mind, anyway.

[> Re: Extremely Troubled (but I hope it ain't true) -- pr10n, 11:28:41 12/26/02 Thu

I'm thinking about this thread in conjunction with another I remember seeing here several times -- that Buffy died at the end of Season 1 and various consequences of that event may be true:

That she's not The Slayer anymore, evidenced by the continuation of the line through Kendra and Faith;

That whatever made her feel "different" after the Master killed her has also made her "non-Buffy";

That she cheated some universal system by *not* dying and therefore threw the universe into the wacky;

Finally, that she was sent back from death (through the mechanism of Xander, avatar of Joss, all hail Joss hoomhoom) with some new role, the discovery of which has been the show's underlying story arc since S2.

Ok, so here's the connection: An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, by Ambrose Bierce. Without giving away the crackling good ending of that story, what if everything we've seen has happened while Buffy was face down in a puddle of water, suspended in that moment of Prophecy Girl, as her dying brain fights to invent a world where she's not just a dead girl in a cute dress?

Thematically, that works as well as Normal Again being the reality Joss will snap us back to. I don't believe it for a second, myself. Ewsh, it's just creepy to think that Joss would yank so much good backstory and character development out from under us, and why? What purpose would it serve?

I vote "no" to the shower-scene plot device, but I agree that Normal Again and the Asylumverse might be important in other ways.

[> An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge and one moment in time... (spoiler spec) -- cjl, 11:57:31 12/26/02 Thu

pr10n (and how do you pronounce that, anyway? P R ten N? pruh-ten-en, kind of like "pretending"? Significance of board name?) presents a good analogy with Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge. But I'd like to spin it another way:

Suppose, instead of a moment in the past, we're watching Buffy flashing through her entire life as she stands on the precipice at a moment yet to come: mainly, the final moments of S7. In 7.22, we might finally arrive at the point in time where Buffy--in a split-second--reviews all the decisions she's ever made, and then takes the action necessary to save the universe.

Or something.

[> [> Ever felt like a change was coming? (OT about me and my needs) -- pr10n, 14:54:38 12/26/02 Thu

cjl asks the question, and how do you pronounce that, anyway? P R ten N? pruh-ten-en, kind of like "pretending"? Significance of board name?

This is my fallback posting name, aside from my actual name, and it has no Buffy significance. It's really just "prion" with 1 and 0 replacing the vowels -- a wanna-be hacker chic name, so now I'm nastier and harder to find than a virus: dig?

"Like in Wonder Woman 297-299... That was cool..." I relate to Xander here, when (again) his inner geekness is revealed, impossible to disguise as "cool" even to himself.

For years I had a Far Side cartoon taped up at work, where a young snake was at a party for cobras, wearing a fake cobra hood. Tragically he was no cobra, and he had no idea that his hood was beginning to slip off...

(Only relevant to posting at ATPoBtVS because of the identity masking part, not the poisonous snake killer scariness part, demon aspects notwithstanding.)

Anyway, cjl, when you asked how to pronounce my name I got that "explaining a joke" feeling. At least my name isn't the hero of a Klingon opera. Now THAT would be tough to explain.

[> Noxon's comments on this..... -- cjc36, 06:08:01 12/27/02 Fri

...which don't mean much, of course, if they are protecting some dastardly plan....but she basically said that if the Asylumverse were real, they would have saved it for the end of the run. She then went on to say, in effect, that the Asylumverse wasn't real and that it was the evil Trio that made her dream it.

That doesn't rule out alt-universe scribe tricks, of course. Things with Dawn or things we haven't thought of. But I think the ep was just a cool "one-of" until I see something else more tangible.

How Close can we get to the Buffyverse? -- Snow White, 16:39:50 12/26/02 Thu

It occurs to me, reading the vampires section of atp, that we never seem to get much closer to (the reality?) of the Buffyverse than speculation of what seems might be the reality assumed by characters' speachs and actions. (or perhaps assimilation of their perceived reality into our own? (or our perceptions of their perceptions)) Sure, there's scripts and camera (a misleadable(/ing) view?), but don't they only show a view(s), rather than posit unquestionable reality? It seems all we can be sure of is the effects that happen to people or maybe just ourself(s). Even then....
Just how close CAN we get?
Gah. Sorry if this is a bit garbled and stupid for you folks. Just one thought.

^_^

[> How close do we get to our 'verse? -- Sara, 19:18:15 12/26/02 Thu

But isn't that like any reality - how close are we even to our own? A couple of years ago my son got into a very neat series of books called "Animorphs" by K.A Applegate. I would read each one after he finished it because it had this wonderful twist to the structure - each book would be written from a different member of the groups perspective. It was always first person, but each book would have a different team member as the viewpoint character. This did a great job of showing differences in perception, because as a continuing series, the same events would be referenced by a different character , and it wouldn't be a question of correct versus incorrect, you would just see it a different way. And isn't that life - where we experience the same family as our siblings and yet have such a different reaction to/opinion about how we grew up. So cool question, but I think my answer is we get as close as we get...

- Sara, loving that whole reality concept

Totally frivolous but I'm snoopy, what did everyone get (BTVS or ATS specially)for Christmas? -- Rufus, 19:08:56 12/25/02 Wed

I just had to ask cause I wanted to know how many people scored Buffy or Angel goodies.

I'll start...my husband asked me if I didn't mind getting "Geeky" gifts this year....I said fine with me.....so I got a DVD-rom and Works for the Computer....Buffy season 3 & and Angel season one DVD's (they will be delivered after Christmas). Add on all the stuff I order from amazon.ca, chapters.ca...and so on...and I've done very well this year. In fact I blamed you all for it and my husband has now threatened to project his shadow over this board.....I wouldn't be quaking any time soon if I were you all. So tell me.......what did you all get?

[> Re: Totally frivolous but I'm snoopy, what did everyone get (BTVS or ATS specially)for Christmas? -- Rob, 19:40:31 12/25/02 Wed

It's been a few weeks, but I got the "Angel" Casefiles book and "Fighting the Forces" for Chanukah. And my grandma got me a giftcard to cover the cost of the Buffy Season 3 DVD Set at Suncoast, which I preordered the other day. Too bad the set hasn't come out yet. Where I live, we've been snowed in all day. Nor'easter with snow, sleet, hail, ice, and all sorts of wintry hijinks!

Rob

[> I got old fashioned geeky gifts -- Cactus Watcher, 20:36:49 12/25/02 Wed

A power tool, a few odd hand tools, and a special pan for frying pancakes.

[> [> Re: I got old fashioned geeky gifts -- Rufus, 22:31:28 12/25/02 Wed

The year before last I got a power screwdriver, and drill...and the house has never been the same.

[> Re: Totally frivolous but I'm snoopy, what did everyone get (BTVS or ATS specially)for Christmas? -- Wolfhowl3, 20:47:46 12/25/02 Wed

I got a Buffy Book "The Wisdom of War"

from reading the back, It seems to be set in season 5, with Faith in it.

The first 30 pages were good.

Wolfie

[> No Jossverse goodies -- Vickie, 21:03:22 12/25/02 Wed

But maybe that's because darlin' hubby incourages me to order them as soon as they are available.

I did get great jewelry making tools (German steel!) and a pasta machine. A Van Gogh art/cook book.

Oh, and sparkly (really sparkly) earrings!

[> Re: Totally frivolous but I'm snoopy, what did everyone get (BTVS or ATS specially)for Christmas? -- Flo, 21:30:22 12/25/02 Wed

I got Fighting the Forces. Although I've read a lot of it online, I'm inclined to throw a little money at those darned academic types. Plus, I like to write in the margins!

[> [> Re: Good stuff for Christmas, along with the white stuff -- Brian, 21:58:30 12/25/02 Wed

Got a bio on SMG, and lots of wolf stuff and a George Foreman grill.

At 1 am EST, there is 11 inches of white on the level ground.

[> [> [> LOL -- Rufus, 22:27:04 12/25/02 Wed

I got computer geeky gifts from my husband and in turn I got him a George Foreman Grill. He is the type that eats Bratwurst and other fatty things and I thought it wouldn't hurt to at least try to drain off some of the fat in the things. And it's fairly warm and damp (no longer rainy)...no wonder people on the West Coast have nice skin, we never get a chance to dry out.

[> Season 1, Season 2, FINALLY, (and a dvd player to watch them. only reason I wanted one.) -- Rochefort, 22:05:49 12/25/02 Wed

[> Re: Totally frivolous but I'm snoopy, what did everyone get (BTVS or ATS specially)for Christmas? -- Anneth, 22:13:29 12/25/02 Wed

I know this sounds a little lame, but the best present I got for xmas was a very, very happy cat. I had to leave him in an empty apartment all by himself (but for my mother's cat, who beats up on him mercilessly) for four and a half days. I got back this evening, and he hasn't left my side since I walked in the door. Whenever I move to another room, he lets out a couple of mournful wails then rushes after me.

It's nice to feel loved... :)

[> [> So he must know the real Rufus -- Rufus, 22:30:09 12/25/02 Wed

Rufus is half Siamese and her meow for the most part sounds like a normal housecat, until I leave the room then she finds that special vocal place and finds her inner Siamese. A happy cat is a fine gift to have cause they love us just the way we are.

[> [> I think Anneth had the best present.*S* Here's to kitties! -- Briar Rose, 22:56:34 12/25/02 Wed

Nothing BtVS or Angel unless you count a gift certificate for the mall. I had a wondeful recycled Yule. Seems almost every gift was a "re-gift" that was passed on to me.*L

And of course, my kitty smoochies that get me through most holidays - and for that i am ever grateful. Even when she does drool on my cheek in her sleep.;)

[> [> Re: Totally frivolous but I'm snoopy, what did everyone get (BTVS or ATS specially)for Christmas? -- grifter, 03:23:46 12/26/02 Thu

I didn¥t have a happy cat because mine died about a month ago...sad grifter I am :(

I did get Angel season 2 on DVD however! Yeah!

Also, I got lots of clothes, because I can¥t be bothered to, you know, dress myself and stuff.

[> Well, snoopy I didn't get any Buffy related items yet -- deeva, 23:32:32 12/25/02 Wed

Buffy S3 is on preorder and there were no other new things Buffy related that excited me. But I did get an ultra geeky gift from the bf. A 10 giga iPod! The rest was regular girly stuff: lotion, a red handbag, a sweater, 2 jackets and some candy.

[> Re: Totally frivolous but I'm snoopy, what did everyone get (BTVS or ATS specially)for Christmas? -- Majin Gojira, 23:54:53 12/25/02 Wed

Highlights include the Special Edition DVD of "Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail", the games "Godzilla: destroy all monsters Melee" (What! I already have Buffy for X-box!) and Mechassult

all gift cards and money I got this year are going towards my Buffy/Angel DVD fund. (Season 3 Here I come!)

[> Clothes, gift cards and a cross! -- neaux, 04:33:33 12/26/02 Thu

yeah.. the boring clothes and the great gift cards.. but my Mother did give my wife and I a beautiful Diamond crusted or crested?/? Cross. Its really quite pretty and I cant wait to stick it on some Vampie's forehead.

[> Been happy all the last two days... -- KdS, 06:25:42 12/26/02 Thu

... dipping into the new edition of David Thompson's Biographical Dictionary of Film. Someday I hope to write criticism that good.

[> A flat screen monitor. -- Lilac, 06:35:57 12/26/02 Thu

This was a total surprise, as we had an otherwise pretty lean Christmas. My old 19" CRT monitor went to my son, and I now have a sleek, modern flat screen. Of course, taking the switch made it very obvious just how cluttered my desk was, since I can now see more of it, so I had to spend all yesterday evening tidying.

[> I got several different small items. -- frisby, 06:58:25 12/26/02 Thu

From different people, I received two buffy posters (one on OMWF), a buffy calendar, the OMWF script book, and a four part buffy novelization (Lost Slayer). I already have the major buffy things (the three academic books, S1 & S2 dvds, and other reference works), but its nice that my friends and family accept my intense buffy obsession and even encourage it with gifts.

[> cjl's goodie basket -- cjl, 08:22:11 12/26/02 Thu

From various sources:

"What If? 2: Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been" (Penguin Putnam, 2002). Alternative history for people who are bored with Harry Turtledove.

"Putumayo Presents African Odyssey (CD)" - Only nine tracks(?), but an excellent cross-section of African folk music from Mali to Cape Verde. Excellent for de-stressing during busy work hours.

"Best of Bowie" CD and HMV gift certificate - Traded in both for partial payment on "Heritage: Civilization and the Jews" DVD set.

And last, but not definitely not least--from my boss:

A $100 gift purchase card to Virgin Megastore, which = Buffy Season 3 and Angel Season 1.

It's not just the money. He APPRECIATES me.

Okay, it's the money.

Woo hoo!

[> Nothing BtVS-related, but I did get a 6" sander/polisher... power tools! yay! -- Solitude1056, 12:38:28 12/26/02 Thu

[> What Voy has taught me this year (don't despair- relevant and short) -- Tchaikovsky, 13:06:35 12/26/02 Thu

Both my stepmother and my stepbrother got me fridge poetry this year- entirely independently. For the record, my stepmother went for the encultured Shakespeare fridge poetry, while my stepbrother plumped for the amusing and obvious erotic fridge poetry. Of course, erotic Shakespeare has been crying out to be done for 400 years, so everyone, when you make your pilgrimage to Stratford-on-Avon to see the bard, pop up those extra few miles to Leamington Spa to see the marvellous results of this mixture.

To the point: I asked them light-heartedly whether I had been dropping heavy hints about fridge poetry- whether it was well-known that I liked fridge poetry, or whether I was considered to have fetishes for large amounts of white space, (I clearly don't as I destroy them regularly in posting on Voy). They responded that it wasn't that I liked fridge poetry, it was that I liked words. This might have struck me as just silly or banal a year ago- I don't like words, I like their import. But they're right. I have gobbled up words on Voy like a new Dyson gobbles up dust on a rarely vacuumed floor, (OK, those pilgrimages to my house looking less likely). Voy this year has taught me that well-juxtapositioned words are as beautiful as a snowflake.

Thank you to board runners, posters, regular and irregulars, and lurkers.

Happy New Year. May 2003 bring as many elegantly crafted words to 14567 as 2002 has.

TCH

[> Re: Totally frivolous but I'm snoopy, what did everyone get (BTVS or ATS specially)for Christmas? -- mordsith, 15:18:55 12/26/02 Thu

My only request for Christmas had been the Season 5 DVD set for Buffy. (Region 2, but I fortunately have a region free DVD player since I am in the U.S.). My husband thankfully obliged.

In addition though, he made the sweetest gift for me. We collect weapons and have many decorating the walls of our home. For my gift, he made a wooden stake, and had it mounted and framed in a shadow box. I thought it was terribly clever of him.

[> you're snoopy? did you do the snoopy dance when you got your presents? @>) -- anom, 18:45:36 12/26/02 Thu

The Core Symbolism of BtVS and AtS -- Majin Gojira, 20:50:54 12/25/02 Wed

What is it? What do you think it is? is it the "Highschool is Hell" metaphore so entrenched in our brains for 3 solid seasons, or has the meaning of BtVS changed as the show has grown?

Add to that, this: What does Buffy Herself Symbolise?

(Ya see, in rerun Hell, a topic like this can be posted safely ;) )

[> Re: The Core Symbolism of BtVS and AtS -- Michael, 03:58:37 12/26/02 Thu

The great thing about Buffy is that the show is not stuck in High School Hell. It's been said before and bears repeating: Buffy is about the rites and passages we all endure and travel through. Buffy is about the Hero's Journey that Joseph Campbell brought to our attention. And the great thing is, we all go through the hero's journey.
Buffy reflects, in story form, the trials and tribulations of growing up. For some of us, Buffy's high school years were fun and more comfortable than what has transpired lately. (But then, isn't that true for all of us?)
But Buffy serves as our mentor, our guide through many troubled waters. She makes the mistakes that we make, or she makes the mistakes for us, and when we observe her, hopefully something clicks inside us.
I believe more than anything else, that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is about being human. It's about how we learn from our mistakes and go on to become that which we were always meant to be; to look within the world that lies within each and every one of us and see that we have the resources to make a life for ourselves here. We don't need the hereafter because this really is the best of all possible worlds.
In the episode "Normal," we see Buffy holed up in some mental institution and her loved ones try to convince her she needs to give up her rich fantasy life. In actuality, Buffy made the harder choice, the choice that lead to life when she closed her eyes and "went back" to Sunnydale. That was reality; that was where she had made the tough choices, but it was also where she had created her life.
As far as I'm concerned, Buffy is a spiritual show. It gives us the chance to consider the incredible possibilites that exist in all of our lives. It is about shadow and light. It is about hope. It is about family. It is about us.
Jung speaks of the numinous quality of life in which we experience an emotional, dare I say spiritual, resonance with life. Those of us who love Buffy know that numinosity infuses this show. IT is a a new myth and it has our attention because it does speak to us.
Jung also speaks of individuation- the process of becoming a whole person. In a nutshell, Buffy is about that process, not only about her, but about us as well.
I've read discussions on this site about Joss Whedon being atheistic. I'm not sure that's true. I think that like many of us, Joss has found a way to the god that lives within all of us; that soul/life force/collective unconscious/whatever that guides us, inspires us, lives with us so that we can be better people. And when we become better people, we can hope to make a better world.

[> [> Re: The Core Symbolism of BtVS and AtS -- Apocalypi, 10:40:21 12/26/02 Thu

Although there have never been any direct references to God or one singular Supreme Being in the show, there has been of course the sustained presence of forces for good, and also for evil - the Powers that Be on Angel could be construed as the overriding positive force in the universe, whereas the First Evil, which Buffy has been aware of since Season 3 (Amends), defines the negative element. However, things are never that simple, as has been indicated numerous times on Angel - evil cannot really be contained within a single entity, i.e. Satan, as it exists within everyone, or rather the potential for good and evil does. It is also important to consider the implications of the parallel Apocalypses on the shows this year - is The Beast tied into the First Evil, and vice versa?
Perhaps Joss Whedon and Mutant Enemy are following an agnostic approach, that Buffy and the others recognise some sort of force controlling their lives, but never really pinpoint it to God or the Devil - the Buffyverse is too complex for that.

From the Jan. Scientific American: "New Light on Medicine" by Nick Lane on the origins of Vampires -- Dochawk, 00:05:54 12/26/02 Thu

This is from the new issue of Scientific American, its really a story about using porphyrins to kill cancer cells by placing them in the cancer and exposing them to light, but they start out with a grab about vampires.

"Stories of Vampires date back thousands of years. Our modern concept stems from Bram Stokerís quirky classic Dracula and Hollywoodís Bela Lugosi [well except for us] ñ the romantic, sexually charged, blood-sucking outcast with a fatal susceptibility to sunlight and an abhorrence of garlic and crosses. In contrast, vampires of folklore cut a pathetic figure and were also known as the undead. In searching for some underlying truth to the vampire stories, researchers have speculated that the tales may have been inspired by real people who suffered from a rare blood disease, porphyria. And in seeking treatments to this disorder, scientists have stumbled on a new way to attack other, more common serious ills.

Porphyria is actually a collection of related diseases in which pigments called porphyrins accumulate in the skin, bone and teeth. Many porphyrins are benign in the dark but are transformed by sunlight into caustic, flesh-eating toxins. Without treatment, the worst forms of the disease (such as congenital erythropoietic porphyria) can be grotesque, ultimately exacting the kind of disfigurement one might expect of the undead. The victimsí ears and nose get eaten away. Their lips and gums erode to reveal red, fanglike teeth. Their skin acquires a patchwork of scars, dense pigmentation and deathly pale hues, reflecting underlying anemia. Because anemia can be treated with blood transfusions, some historians speculate that in the dark ages people with porphyria may have tried drinking blood as a folk remedy. Whatever the truth of this claim, those with congenital erythropoietic porphyria would certainly have learned not to venture outside during the day. They might have learned to avoid garlic, too, for some chemicals in garlic are thought to exacerbate the symptoms of the disease porphyria, turning a mild attack into an agonizing reaction."

[> Woow -- bl, 03:00:57 12/26/02 Thu

[> Vampirism Implicated in Cure for Cancer Shocker -- Celebaelin, 04:31:43 12/26/02 Thu

Almost as rewarding as Mycelial Fungus in Cure for Whole Shedload of Things Revelation. What? It could happen, look at, say, penicillin.

But how would they target the porphyrins to the cancerous cells? What do they suggest?

[> cjl begs the board's forgiveness as he interjects with an on-topic, but shameless corporate plug. -- cjl, 07:21:50 12/26/02 Thu

For the full story on photodynamic therapy and its possibilities for treating cancer, please go to www.sciam.com. Nick Lane's full article is available for your perusal.

And while you're there--subscribe to Scientific American! For those Buffyphiles who are currently obsessed with parallel universes after watching "Normal Again," we have an article on the topic by physicist Max Tegmark coming up in May; for those who find Buffy's precognitive dreams fascinating, we have a June 2003 article on the oracle at Delphi; and for those who subscribe to the viral model of vampirism, we have famed biologist Robert Sapolskly's essay on Parasites and the Brain in March...

For those who...hey! Easy with the grabbiness! Let go of my elbow! OK, OK, I'm leaving, I'm leaving!

[> [> cjl, you work for sciam? Kewl! -- OnM, 09:36:09 12/26/02 Thu

I've had a continuous subscription to Scientific American since 1971-- it's currently my longest term magazine sub.

:-)

[> [> [> From cjl to all the SciAm subscribers at ATP....bless you. -- cjl, 10:08:17 12/26/02 Thu

You pay my salary. Without you, we would have to depend on newsstand sales for our survival....

(Long pause)

Okay, I'm off the ledge and back at the computer.

Much as I would like to take credit for the content, I don't write or edit any of the articles. I'm more of the office manager/paralegal/database cryptkeeper/ author-editor coordinator--in other words, every job the editors don't wanna do, I do.

However, since the office would completely fall apart without my firm yet gentle hand on 6.7 billion daily tasks, I'm invited to all the editorial meetings, where I bring my "common man" viewpoint to whether such and such article would work or not (call me SciAm's version of Xander) and I snag leftover invites to lectures, book signings, and places where I can dress up nice and scarf free food. (Met Oliver Sacks that way.)

[Would like to expand into actually writing something for the magazine or the website, and I'm working on an article about the Prague flooding of Summer 2002. Going verrrry slowly.]

And what are we all talking about in the hallways of Scientific American? What captures the imagination of this stellar collection of brainpower? Bioethics? The intricacies of quantum physics? The frightening mutability of retroviruses?

Nah.

"Just saw 'Two Towers'! Wasn't it cool?"

"Oh, YEAH!"

[> [> [> [> You met Oliver Sacks? I am so jealous! -- Lilac, 10:11:41 12/26/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> A career highlight. Circumstances were VERY weird, though ("brush with celebrity" story enclosed). -- cjl, 10:42:23 12/26/02 Thu

It was about one month after 9/11. A neurological institute was screening the original BBC special on Sacks' work with L-Dopa--the research that inspired Awakenings (the book and the crappy movie with Robin Williams and Robert DeNiro). The screening room was about 10 blocks away from Ground Zero. Walking from the train, the smell of burnt plastic and jet fuel was still pungent.

After the movie, Sacks took questions about the movie and the Hollywoodization of the material, and we all retired to the banquet hall, where I scarfed down some of that free food I was talking about earlier. But I also wanted to talk to Sacks about my mom, who'd had a peculiar and frightening reaction to the destruction of the World Trade Center: she completely blocked it out of her mind. When I called her on September 12th, she was chipper and peppy, going about her usual autumn house-cleaning routine. Uh, Mom--are you sure you're okay? After what happened yesterday?

Yesterday? she said evenly. What happened yesterday?

Mom eventually worked through the emotional trauma, but the whole hysterical amnesia thing give me the wiggins. I asked Dr. Sacks whether she was reacting to a previous trauma from 55 years ago, when there was heavy fighting between German and U.S. troops near her town in Southern Germany. Dr. Sacks said it was more than possible. Events like that leave a physiological impression in the brain, and even more than a half-century afterward, something like 9/11 could bring it all back. As a child of the London Blitz, he knew the reaction well.

Maybe it was me, but I found his manner off-putting and almost disdainful. This was probably my own mental state at the time. Considering his reputation as a physician who's concerned about the effects of neurological dysfunction on normal, everyday lives, I suppose I wanted some genuine empathy for what my mom was going through. But that may have been too much to ask.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: your mother's experience -- yabyumpan, 11:11:02 12/26/02 Thu

A number of years ago on Guy Fawlks(sp) night my aunt came rushing into our house from next door to say that my uncle was crouching under the table and refusing to come out. It was a reaction to some very loud wizz-bang fireworks that had been going off. They'd taken him back to the blitz and he'd run for cover. My father's family were bombed out four times during the blitz and ended up having to be seperated for a while as there was no where to house them.
We eventually coaxed him out and he gradually calmed down and came back to the present, very embarrassed, poor guy. He was a very quite, stoic man. I've heard about this happening to other people of his generation in my area, esp people in psycho-geriatric units, where, generally, their minds have gone back to their younger days anyway. I always think of those poor souls when I hear fireworks now.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A career highlight. -- Lilac, 11:20:49 12/26/02 Thu

I find his reaction a little surprising, but I suppose it may come from not wanting to make professional statements during nonprofessional moments. That kind of experiencee is why I am not one to actively seek out people I admire -- there is something to be said for distance. I did see him speak a couple of years ago (ostensibly about the brain and creativity -- the gist of the speech was we don't really know anything about it). I was very impressed by how close to the real person Robin Williams seems to have gotten his portrayal -- Sacks just radiated this energy.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A career highlight. Circumstances were VERY weird, though -- Dochawk, 13:43:55 12/26/02 Thu

First off, I love SA, one of my favorite subscriptions. And you mean there is a website? I could have saved myself all that typing?????????????????

As for meeting Oliver Sacks. I will tell you people come up to me all the time asking questions about their medical problems. It is extremely hard to say something worthwhile from a 30 second vignette of history (which would normally be part of a two hour exam for him I would guess). Add the fact that its not all together clear that you can't be sued when giving off the cuff advice and I can understand his reaction totally. In addition, remember that probably 10 other people in the room came up to him with their stories and you can imagine how "bored" he gets with that. So don't let his immediate reaction lower your esteem for him

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, Doc, there is a website. And as for Dr. Sacks..."I get that." -- cjl, 14:05:11 12/26/02 Thu

But remember, I was in an odd mental state in that banquet room. I wasn't so much looking for a snap diagnosis than a word of assurance from an avuncular, near-legendary figure of science, who has spent his life plumbing the mysteries of the brain. I suppose I wanted to see a sympathetic nod of the head, and a kindly "That's awful, my boy. But try not to worry too much about your mother. The brain is infinitely sensitive, but it's also remarkably adaptive. She sounds like a strong woman." It would have been non-committal, but comforting.

But I do see your point. And even though I came away from the meeting dissatisfied, it hasn't lowered my esteem for his work.

[> [> [> [> [> [> your chemical meeting (spoilers for Uncle Tungsten) -- cougar, 20:01:24 12/26/02 Thu

After reading Dr. Sacks autobiography, Uncle Tungsten: Memories of a Chemical Boyhood, I am not surprised that you percieved his reactions to an emotionally charged situation as a bit off putting. He is a very sensative individual but he has difficulty in dealing with certain social situations and relationships. His familly were all very scientifically minded but often stilted and unatural when it came to emotions. He commented that his house always looked like a rental because no one ever thought of personalizing it in any way. He was also ruthlessly beaten at boarding school and felt that a part of himself retreated and could never remerge. He can be endlessly patient with somone with Touretts or autism, which is very hard for most people, but has decided to be celibate because he doesn't feel he can truly relate on that level of humanity. He never wanted the celebrity aspect of his life, (his family was furious about it) I imagine he was processing your story in an analytical way in the moments you spoke to him.

[> [> [> [> OT - Opinions on the Two Towers (extensive spoilers for the film) -- matching mole, 13:42:28 12/26/02 Thu

Last year there was quite a lengthy discussion of the LotR (both the books and the first film) and I'd be interested in hearing what other people think of the second installment.

Like Roger Ebert I miss the gentleness and whimsy that were present throughout so much of Tolkien's work. The contrast between the lighter moments and the dark ones really brought things to life. However, like Ebert, I have to take this as a given as Jackson's approach was clear in the first film. And given the enormous cost of the venture and the realities of attracting audiences I can't really see that he could have done anything different.

So I thought the FotR (film #1) was a mild disappointment as an adaptation of the book but possibly the best action/adventure movie I have ever seen. From that perspective I thought that the Two Towers had some really great aspects but was definitely a bit of a step down from the first film.

The high points.

1) Gollum - I would have voted Smeagol as the hardest character to bring to life on the screen and they succeeded brilliantly. In my humble opinion the most interesting character in the trilogy, he (it?) was utterly captivating and just as I had imagined him. Stole the scene every time.

2) The visuals - Spectacle to end all spectacle with the fabulour NZ landscape blending in with the sets and animation in a marvellous fashion. The visuals are on a larger scale this time than in FotR (obviously to anyone who knows the books) but they seem just as natural.

3) Eowyn - the most interesting female character in the book (not saying much I know) is given a lot of screen time. Much more so than her rather boring brother Eomer.

4) Legolas and Gimli develop more personality than they did in FotR.

Things I'm not quite so happy about.

In FotR Jackson was pretty faithful to the book in that most of the changes were basically streamlining - removing material and altering the rest so that it still flowed. The major alteration in the storyline was the expansion of Arwen's role which seemed like a sensible thing to do. In the Two Towers Jackson makes much more extensive changes. The story is getting much more complicated at this point which has two consequences. More characters thus making events harder to follow for those not familiar with the books. Fewer opportunities to cut out entire scenes as the action becomes less episodic. Therefore we get changes like Eomer's exile and return at the end of the film eliminating the need for Erkenbrand and his army. Or the movement of the women to Helm's Deep rather than staying in Edoras. These sorts of changes seem sensible. However there were a number of changes that seemed rather baffling to me - adding complications that didn't really further the story but made it potentially more confusing.

1) The attack of the Warg/Orcs and Aragorn's 'death'. This is the least troublesome except that storyline already features two cases where a major character is thought to die and then returns (Gandalf and Frodo, presumably, in the next film). Why did they feel it necessary to almost kill Aragorn merely to have some flashbacks? A regular dream sequence would have done as well.

2) Treebeard and the decision of the ent-moot. Like number 3 a case in which a character makes a decision completely opposite to the one in the book only to have it reversed in what strikes me as a rather unbelievable fashion. Are we supposed to believe that Treebeard doesn't know that Saruman has cut down a big portion of his forest? And that there are a bunch of other ents standing in the forest just waiting for him to call for an attack when they had just decided not to attack.

3) Faramir and Frodo - Faramir is a minor character whose main purpose is to serve as a counterpoint to the arrogance of his brother and, later on, his father. The whole point of his presence in the Two Towers (the book) is that he rejects the Ring and the false dream of glory it represents. His decision to take the ring back to Gondor and the conflict with the Nazgul just seem to add complications. Not to mention the rather unbelievable way in which Sam knocking Frodo downstairs and a single arrow from Faramir save them from the Nazgul.

The balance of spectacle versus dialogue. In FotR the amount of action was expanded relative to the book. However the action seemed clearly to serve the story rather than the other way around. In the Two Towers the spectacle seems to overwhelming the story. Aragorn was actually more interesting in the first film than he is in the books. In the Two Towers he largely becomes a non-verbal superhero. The battle Helm's Deep (admittedly spectacular) which occupied 27 pages of the 350 page novel takes over the entire second half of the movie.

I still enjoyed it. Gollum alone was worth the price of admittance twice over. But in the first movie I was carried along, noting changes but not being distracted by them. This time I found myself getting a bit impatient in the second half.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: OT - Opinions on the Two Towers (extensive spoilers for the film) -- aliera, 14:04:52 12/26/02 Thu

Agree with most of what you said MM. I've seen it twice now and I want to watch it at least once more before I finish forming an opinion (and finish rereading the book tonight because the differences are even more apparent after rereading) but I can put my gut reaction into a one-or two-liner, I think.

The only way TT works well for me is if I think of Tolkien and Jackson as two different documenters (each storytellers with very dissimilar backgrounds)of the same event. The shifting of some of the dialogue in particular gives one the distinct impression of hearing two different vesions of the same story. That being said, and not wanting to leave you with the wrong impression, I did enjoy the movie. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Points of agreement, and some points of departure -- Philistine, 00:19:49 12/27/02 Fri

Overall, I really enjoyed TTT; however, I did think it lacked... something. It just didn't quite measure up to the mythic feel of FotR somehow. Still though, as I said, quite good.

What I liked lots:
1) Gollum. Smeagol. Stinker. Whatever you want to call him, he was amazing. The delivery was brilliant, and the CGI was without a doubt the best I've ever seen.

2) Eowyn. She's fierce. I like. Yes indeed. Arwen who?

3) Stunning visuals. Every bit as lovely - and as convincing - as the first film.

4) The many loves of Aragorn. I like that they played up Aragorn's romance with Arwen, because that relationship just never rang true in the books. I'd speculate that the love triangle is going to be played up a bit more in RotK. Ordinarily I'd classify that under the Bad, if not the Ugly, but this is one of the rare times when I think it might actually add something to a story.

What I liked less:
1) Gimli as comic relief. Yes, the film needed some humor. And yes, Gimli (among others) needed some development. But I found myself wincing at Gimli-as-butt from his very first scene, and even moreso on my second viewing. Smeagol/Gollum as comic relief was little better, for a different reason - his scenes were as creepy as they were funny.

2) Backward decisions: both the Entmoot's and Faramir's, for the same reasons you gave. I just don't understand why either of these were changed this way. Certainly they don't make any more sense than the version in the books.

3) Ending early. Each book was trimmed by about a third - four chapters of Book III and three chapters of Book IV, just gone; presumably to be included in RotK. In particular, the reunion at Isengard, Pippin and the Palantir, and Shelob's Lair were all MIA. It occurs to me that the screen time spent on the alteration and extension of Faramir's storyline might have been better used. Just an opinion there.

And yet, for all of that... I don't go see just any movie twice. Much less plan on catching third or fourth - or more - showings.

[> [> [> [> [> "Surf Orcs Must Die!" or "Beach Party at Isengard" -- cjl, 07:00:49 12/27/02 Fri

Amidst all the personal, revelatory material, I forgot to chime in with my review of The Two Towers. As you could tell from the scattering of comments across three or four posts, I liked it. Not perfect, but easily measures up to FotR. Some details:

The Bad:

1) The Flooding of Isengard. For the first time in either movie, the special effects looked cheap, and it broke the illusion. When the flood waters were closing in on Saruman's tower, I could only think of Terry Gilliam's words when the Knights of the Round Table approached Camelot in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "It's only a model." And Christopher Lee didn't exactly "sell it" either. He was flitting from one end of his little corner of the set to the other, looking distressed, but I never got the impression he was a man witnessing the destruction of his kingdom.

2) Completely agree with matching mole, re: the Ents and the "surprise" destruction of the Southern end of the forest. WTF? How could the Ents NOT know that the southern end of the forest was destroyed? Isn't that their JOB?

3) Yeah, yeah, big battle coming--blood, death and destruction, yada yada yada.... A little bit too much time and effort gearing up for Helms Deep, with portentious speeches about the big brewin' battle, when they could have incorporated more material from the latter third of the book. We know a big battle's coming. We know it's going to be bloody. Less talk, more action.

But these are minor quibbles. The good stuff:

1) Gollum. A miracle of CGI design combined with Andy Serkis' award-worthy performance. A brilliantly realized, complex character, and the tortured heart of the movie. Frodo's compassion for the creature and his perfectly justified fear of ending up like him was as compelling as any of the battle scenes.

2) Helms Deep. But those battle scenes were nothing to sneeze at, either. Viggo Mortensen said Helms Deep was such a long, grueling, arduous shoot that the actors felt they were hip-deep in an actual battle. The Helms Deep set was perfect, lifted straight from my imagination. "You're late." Aragorn pitching Gimli into the masses of Uruk-Hai. Legolas' X-treme archery display. The breaching of the fortress walls. The retreat to the keep. The dawning of the fifth day. Gandalf's rescue. I could go on and on and on and on....

3. Aragorn. He was merely one of the fellowship in the first movie, but emerges as a full-blown hero in Two Towers. Mortensen is a pure, Errol Flynn-type screen swordsman, maybe the best we've had in cinema since Flynn himself.

4. Eowyn. Every time Mirando Otto was on screen, I was thinking: forget the Elvish chick, Aragorn. Yeah, I know it's "true love" with Arwen, but--come on. Strong, beautiful, compassionate--if only we could have seen her use that sword. (I think a lot of the Xena-philes in the audience would have been in heaven.)

5. Wormtongue. Ooh, Brad Dourif playing one of the slimiest characters in all of modern fantasy. And man, is he good at being sleazy.

I wasn't worried too much about Shelob's non-appearance, because I know she's been shifted to the third movie. And I thought Faramir's character was well-served by the slight alterations. How can he know not to take his brother's path unless he's presented with his brother's choice? In the end, he sees the evil nature of the Ring and lets the hobbits go on their way. Fine and dandy. And Gimli? Agreed, too many pratfalls at the start, but I knew once the battle scenes cranked up, we'd get our favorite dwarf at his warrior best. And he did not disappoint. (BTW, excellent double-duty by JRD as Gimli and the voice of Treebeard!)

I've left out a million other wonderful bits (Hugo Weaving, Merry and Pippin's escape, the Elvish army, Gandalf's reappearance in the forest), but I'd better get back to work...

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Surf Orcs Must Die!" or "Beach Party at Isengard" -- matching mole, 10:15:41 12/27/02 Fri

I love the post title!!

I've thought quite a bit about the Faramir and Treebeard reversals mostly from the standpoint of trying to guess what the rationale was for each.

Treebeard - The only thing I can think of is that it was designed to give Merry and Pippin something to do rather than just be carried along for the ride. I think the ents were a problem for Jackson. There isn't enough action and overt conflict in Treebeard's interactions with the hobbits and the subsequent entmoot to fit into Jackson's vision for the films. In the books Merry and Pippin basically serve as a point of view for the reader to observe the ents. Among the most interesting parts of the TT (the book) in my opinion but it doesn't really advance the plot very quickly. However the ents cannot be excised (like Tom Bombadil) because they are too central to the plot (they destroy Isengard after all).

So Jackson includes the ents but only fairly briefly and invents a conflict so that Merry and Pippin actually get to do something.

BTW I agree with your assessment of the flooding of Isengard - not as impressive looking as everything else. However my own bias is that substandard special effects bother me less than special effects merely for the sake of spectacle at the expense of story. So I didn't think twice about that.

The Faramir issue seems to be an issue of action being preferred over dialogue. cjl complains about there being too much talk leading up to the battle of Helm's Deep and I would agree within that specific context. However across the films as a whole I feel that Jackson seems to mistrust dialogue as a mechanism for moving the plot along. The Faramir/Frodo conflict seemed like a good opportunity for a really revealing conversation that would establish Faramir's character and tell us more about what is going on inside Frodo. But I guess that Jackson felt that a more blatant emphasis on the RING is EVILLL was needed for those who weren't familiar with the story.

I hadn't commented on the abbreviation of the story which leaves several chapters of the TT to be incoporated in the third film. Not really worried about stuff being left from the TT (although I now dread what will happen to the conversation between Saruman and Gandalf at Isengard - but am quite looking forward to Shelob) but I am concerned about the RotK given that we have perhaps 40% of the whole text to fit into the final film. Will the story end with destruction of the Ring? I find the parts in the Shire at the end much more affecting than any of the great battles.

I'm glad that others liked Eowyn. Despite the expansion of Arwen's role she still doesn't have any real identity other than Aragorn's girlfriend. I hope they expand Eowyn's role in the third film.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> How to squeeze the fate of Middle Earth into one itty bitty can (spoilers for RotK) -- cjl, 11:26:53 12/27/02 Fri

First and foremost, Eowyn--if they don't let girlfriend have her battle scene and her dramatic unmasking after said battle scene, I am going to be pissed.

As for the post-Mordor events in RotK--I'm not sure Jackson will have time for them. We might cut straight from the end of the major battles to Sam waving goodbye to Frodo as he departs for the distant lands or Avalon (or wherever) with Gandalf and then end the movie with Sam going back to Rose and the Shire. The Wormtongue/Saruman material might be dropped or altered so it can be pushed up closer to main action. Hard to say. But you're right--a LOT of ground to cover here. You'd need a four-and-a-half-hour movie to do it all justice. I'd be uneasy, but...Gollum, Sam, and Frodo on Mount Doom--don't you get excited just thinking about what that's gonna look like onscreen?

As for Faramir and Frodo, you're right--there should have been a major conversation between the two about the Ring, which would have supplemented the action scene, not replaced it. Maybe we'll get that in the special DVD version, when Jackson can splice together that 3:45 version we all wanted to see but New Line wouldn't let him show.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Who Let the Orcs Out? -- Solitude1056, 12:51:55 12/27/02 Fri

I agreed about the Ents and the issue of a created conflict, since logically wouldn't they know about the destruction of Isengard, etc, etc... but I realized, while watching the film (a distressing point, on the side, that I could comprehend this thought in a side-part of my brain - doesn't spell the best for TT's keeping me as entranced as LotR)... where was I? Oh, right.

In the first movie, Merry and Pippin provide the element of comic relief. Gimli and Legolas are still too antagonistical, Aragorn's all misty-eyed, and Sam's busy shaking his head with Frodo at the other two hobbits. Granted, Pippin provides the dominant comic relief. Sometimes it backfires (I still cringe at the heavy-handed comic bits at the Council of Elrond), but for the most part it's badly needed. The problem is that, if you look at how these two characters evolve, we're supposed to believe - by the third book - that both characters will, at different points, make choices that lead them straight into battle. Both Merry and Pippin grow up the most.

With the possible exception of Legolas and Gimli overcoming racial hatred to become the best of friends, it's Merry and Pippin who stand for the Everyman in the readers' hearts. Their evolution is the most dramatic, and without giving them steps along the way, their positions in the third movie would end up reading as "oh, they're still 'along for the ride' and just thinking this is all fun and games."

In some ways, I like the particular metaphor, therefore, that for the duration of the third book, Merry and Pippin are literally along for the ride. The problem is that the spaces of time with the Ents are a great deal of telling, and very little showing. Jackson was facing a difficult believeability jump, I think, if he stuck to the original story. Are we honestly to believe that, at some point offscreen, Pippin stopped being a dunderheaded Took? And Merry stopped being a cardboard character to be a straight man to Pippin's silliness?

Merry's discussions with Pippin are demonstration of Merry's growing awareness that it's not really possible to just ride it through. And the Ents' decision to stay out of it holds true as an alternate, for me, because of the original metaphor. The Ents are the powerhouses that do change the tide, on the main battlefields - they're the sleeping giants. In the original WWII environment of Tolkein's world, I've always viewed the Ents as the U.S., preferring to lay low and support from afar but not get involved. Once roused, however, the Ents are a mighty force.

And the second reason for the value of the change is that it shows - not tells - us that Pippin is also internalizing Merry's realization. If Jackson had taken the route of Tolkein's telling, and not showing, we'd have a pretty boring story in the Merry/Pippin arc. But Pippin's decision to head south - and expose the Ents to Sauroman's destruction - indicates that Pippin is aware that going home is a choice... but not his, not anymore. He willingly chooses to head into the heart of the matter, despite his natural inclination to get a beer and not get involved.

In some ways, Sam's semi-metanarration at the end of the movie (which bugged me after the second sentence - I mean, okay, we GET the point, enough already!... but then, I was already chafing at the change in Faramir, a point which still bugs the hell out of me like nothing else)... Anyway, Sam's little speech is underlining the idea that otherwise ordinary characters, in a story, become extraordinary simply by reason that they had the choice to not continue. At various points, they could've gotten out, and didn't. I'm reminded of Willow's option to go to college elsewhere, or Buffy's, for that matter.

I'll stop rambling here...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> How Jackson could have solved the Ents/Isengard/Merry-Pippin problem. -- cjl, 13:31:46 12/27/02 Fri

The Entmoot make their decision not to join the battle, and Treebeard starts the journey back toward the Shire. Then Pippin decides to take the battle to Isengard by his lonesome, and asks Treebeard to head south. On the way to Isengard, Treebeard (and his fellow Ents) hear a massive wailing--the cries of thousands of trees dying. En masse, the Ents arrive at the edge of Isengard to find the southern end of the forest cut down, and Orcs setting up factory equipment. The Ents get very, VERY angry--and suddenly, the whole "anything worth talking about is only worth talking about if it takes a long, long time" attitude is tossed out the window.

Boom. They destroy the Orcs and the factory equipment, and march on to Isengard. This slight adjustment would solve most of the narrative difficulties. Merry and Pippin's character growth is preserved; the Ents don't look like a bunch of senile mulch-brains who can't even tell when a quarter of their forest has been destroyed; and we get more scenes of Ents stepping on Orcs. Can never get enough of those....

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Aaaarghhhhh -- Celebaelin, 17:45:08 12/27/02 Fri

From memory

Gimli not FRP comedy dwarf, worthy (albeit short and not as pretty) khazad 'melon'. Totally dour and beard-endowed axe man admits elves completely cool PLUS first in, first out = best option (sniffy cope without me stuff).

No elves at Helms Deep although *EVERYBODY* thought surely they must show (sniffy cope without me stuff).

Hoom haroom burn crackle wuh? (sniffy cope without me stuff).

End of Third Age (sniffy cope without me stuff).

Arwen might leave (sniffy cope without me stuff).

Faramir stalwart brother of Boromir (sniffy cope without me stuff).

Eowen loves Aragorn (sniffy cope without me stuff).

Visual feast, but not Tolkein (sniffy cope without me stuff).

What happened to the seven anyway? Lost in 'the depths' huh? (sniffy cope without me stuff).

Love the kissing +++ (Aragorn definitely not unbothered, just pre-occupied with fate of Middle Earth)(sniffy cope without me stuff).

[> [> [> [> [> Re: OT - Opinions on the Two Towers (extensive spoilers for the film) -- ponygirl, 07:13:24 12/27/02 Fri

I'm going to see TT again tomorrow night so my opinion might change a bit, but I agree with most of your comments. I would say that TT is probably the hardest of the books to adapt, multiple storylines, new characters and settings, and a lack of the clear narrative through-line of FOTR. With all that I'd say it's amazing how well it turned out, 'cause wow that was a kick-ass film! Also I really admire how Jackson emphasized the WWII allusions in the film -- with TT I really grasped the fear of industrialization, the despair of England during the early part of the war, and the sense of an ending of era that haunts Tolkien's books.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Showing & Telling -- Solitude1056, 12:58:02 12/27/02 Fri

I agree about the industry vs. agriculture - that's a huge theme of Tolkein's, but really. Did we need the bad guy, walking through what looks like the factory from hell, also intoning in a voiceover comments about "the industry of this," and the "machine of that" - I mean, hello! I GOT the freakin' metaphor, people, you didn't need to smash me over the head with it. I guess that's the one thing that bugged me more than anything - the metaphor(s), in TT, weren't nearly as sweetly subtle as they were in LotR. Instead we got a lot of yammering along with the visual, where I suspect the story itself - and the visuals - would've demonstrated the metaphor just as adroitly without the excessive smashing.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, but wasn't Legolas pretty? ;) -- ponygirl (a proud Legolas/Aragorn shipper!), 19:30:32 12/27/02 Fri

I do agree that the industrialization bit was heavy-handed, but I really enjoyed the allusions to WWII. I remembered reading a book not too long ago called Five Days In May, which really explained the direness of the situation facing England in 1941, the question of surrender was very real. Aragorn's speech to Theoden gave me a genuine shiver. It was also not on the subtle side but I appreciated the acknowledgement and conquering of despair, something that so often gets overlooked in the midst of epic heroics. Jackson really seems to have a true love for Tolkien and his ideas, the spirit of the books shines through - if only he could talk to the Harry Potter people, or George Lucas, but don't get me started with the grumblies.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Two Towers (extensive spoilers for the film)...Interesting Article -- aliera, 16:54:49 12/27/02 Fri

Courtesy of the OneRing.net

At the American Cinematographer
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/dec02/two/index.html

[> [> [> [> hey! i resemble that remark! -- anom, 17:14:56 12/26/02 Thu

"Without you [subscribers], we would have to depend on newsstand sales for our survival...."

I check the TOC (oops, for non-publishing people, that's table of contents) at the newsstand every month & buy the issue if there's enough stuff I'm interested in, or if there's one thing I'm really interested in. If I subscribed, I'd never have time to read all the issues. As it is, I bought the latest issue last week (new driver, it didn't get delivered till then), w/the porphyria/vampirism article, & still haven't had a chance to read it.

But what the hell, cjl, all you care about is that I bought it, right? @>)

--anom, SciAm reader since at least high school

[> [> [> [> [> How the magazine game works (at least on my end) -- cjl, 09:27:59 12/27/02 Fri

No offense, anom. We are indeed most grateful for your scientific curiosity and good taste. (Geez, I don't grovel this much with Honorificus...) Please keep buying. (Please?)

But let's face it: Scientific American earns its money three ways: subscriptions, advertising and newsstand sales, in that order. We've had dips in newsstand sales over the past year (the July 2002 issue--the one with "sugar drugs" on the cover--was alarmingly poor), but our work in custom publishing and one-shot issues have (mostly) compensated.

But if our subscriber base sheared off and our advertisers bailed out in substantial numbers, we'd be in BIG trouble. And your friend cjl might be looking for a new job. Fortunately, subscriptions are steady (thanks Doc, dub) and advertising income got a huge spike with our December issue. (Aside to budding publishers: no matter how cheesy you think it sounds, a "top 50" ALWAYS sucks in the ads.) My bonus check speaks volumes.

[> [> Okay, okay! I subscribed!! -- Wisewoman, 11:17:52 12/26/02 Thu

The Delphi Oracle did it...

;o)

[> [> [> Thanks, dub. 999 to go and I get the company decoder ring. -- cjl, 11:27:58 12/26/02 Thu

[> Momentary thread hijack (but still relating to vampires). -- A8, 18:15:24 12/26/02 Thu

I don't know if any of you saw this recent Nature special on PBS, but here is the address of an interview with the producer and presenter of the show about real-life vampires:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/bloodysuckers/interview2.html

And while on the subject (I guess), I saw this article in today's San Francisco Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/12/24/international0817EST0492.DTL

Rumor has it, the First Evil is behind this. Now, where is Buffy and the SG when you really need 'em?

[> [> more on vampires/buffy in the media -- anom, 19:11:00 12/26/02 Thu

Might as well put this here.

Last night (maybe the night before) I was listening to WNYC's late-night broadcast of BBC World Service. There was a story about fanfiction that focused on Harry Potter fics but mentioned Buffy as a fanfic subject near the end (not included in the written story at the URL given, but if you click on "Hear story!," it should be there).

This was followed by a more serious story, about "vampires" in Malawi. These aren't the vampires we're familiar with from Buffy/Angel & earlier Western stories. People in villages in Malawi are being accused of being "vampires" & have been attacked; one was killed.

[> [> [> And even more on buffy in the media -- ponygirl, 15:22:13 12/29/02 Sun

Another entry for all roads leading to Buffy. I thought I'd indulge a bit on my favourite guilty pleasure, glossy magazines. So today I was reading the new Cosmopolitan - an article on 15 things to do before you get married, and among the tips like the rather obvious, have more sex, and the practical, pay off your credit card, was number 3: "Make Peace With Your Dating Demons." The author explains it thusly: "No, we're not talking Spike from "Buffy", we're talking the emotional dating baggage all chicks carry around with them."

Then I open up the new Elle and there's a very scary article on treating mental illness with electrical stimulus from chips implanted in the brain!

There's no escape from the show!

Newbie Alert -- Apocalypi, 06:12:35 12/26/02 Thu

Hi, just thought I'd announce my presence - long time lurk..etc...well, it's nearly the new year, so my resolution is to post more on the Buffy/Angel boards. Gift baskets, tidy cash amounts would be appreciated. ;)

[> Welcome! -- Darby, 06:35:49 12/26/02 Thu

If you've been here a while, you probably know that weekends, holidays, and into the rerun stretches, activity here slows down and you may not get many responses to a new post. Also, the automatic archiving monster is a capricious demon, using some algorhythm we'd need Giles to explain to decide what stays and what goes...

But go ahead, jump in!

[> Re: welcome! -- aliera, 07:45:24 12/26/02 Thu

[> [> Re: Nice to see a new face on the Buffy bus -- Brian, 08:23:48 12/26/02 Thu

[> welcome, apocalypi, lolamellor, & our other latest delurkers...cyber-gift baskets to all! -- anom, 11:06:34 12/26/02 Thu

[> "Welcome"?!? Have you people no standards? -- Honorificus (She Who Demands Perfection), 11:46:10 12/26/02 Thu

Please! At least make this person answer a few questions to see if he/she/it is even minimally acceptable. You there! And any other newbies! Pay attention, and give straight answers:

1. Who is the most interesting character on BtVS?
a. Whimpering Witch of the West
b. Whiny Ensouled Follically-Fried Vampire Boy
c. The Twerp
d. Giles, hottest of the Good Guys

2. Who is the hottest male on BtVS?
a. Squishy Carpenter Man
b. Whiny Ensouled Follically-Fried Vampire Boy
c. Principal Wood and his Fabulous Wardrobe
d. Rupert "Good When I'm Good, Better When I'm Ripper" Giles

3. Who is the most interesting character on AtS?
a. Brooding Hulking Ensouled Vampire Boy
b. Cordelia and her Fabulous Breasts
c. Snobby Ex-Street Rat
d. Wesley "Hot When I'm Good, Hotter When I'm Shtupping Lilah" Wyndham-Pryce

4. Who is the hottest male on AtS?
a. Brooding Hulking Ensouled Vampire Boy
b. Snobby Ex-Street Rat
c. Temperamental Thuggish Vampire's Son
d. Ambisexual Horned Singing Green Demon
e. Wesley "The Darker, The Better" Wyndham-Pryce

5. What should happen to fangirls with handles like "Spuffyluv4eva" or "HotAngelGyrl"?
a. They should be banished to an eternal pain dimension.
b. Pretty much "a"
c. "a" and "b"
d. All of the above

6. What should happen by the end of BtVS Season 7?
a. Buffy goes nuts, kills the Twerp and the Carpenter Man, dusts the vampire, and is in turn killed by Willow, who then goes thoroughly bad, kills Anya, and opens the Hellmouth, unleashing a fiery apocalypse of death that only Giles, Wesley, Faith, and Lilah survive.
b. Nah. Can't think of anything better.

7. Who is the best poster at ATP, perhaps in all cyberspace?
a. Honorificus (The Perceptive and Penetrating One)
b. Honorificus (She Who *Will* Rule the World)
c. Honorificus (The Ever-Pulchritudinous One)
d. Honorificus (She Who Shames All Superlatives)

8. What is the proper way to address me?
a. "Hey, whazzup?"
b. "Please don't hurt me!"
c. "Dude!"
d. "Oh, Honorificus, Great and Glorious One, may I lick your toes in hopes of garnering even a crumb of your munificent attention?"

Answer these questions properly, and I may give thought to letting you post to one of my threads at some future point.

[> [> Board veteran here, but I'll give this a shot anyway... -- cjl, 12:17:48 12/26/02 Thu

1. None of the above. Clem and Jonathan were the most interesting characters on BtVS, because they were shlubs and had little-to-zero aspirations to coolness. Everybody else wanted to be a superhero (boring!), but Johnny Boy and Clem just wanted to fit it. And now, Clem is gone and Jonathan is DEAD! Sob.

Sorry. Let me compose myself for a minute.

2. Willy the Snitch. I am such a Becker fan now.

3. Definitely (b), but scratch the "Cordelia" part.

4. (d). Lorne...BABY! Good lord, is there even a QUESTION?

5. (d). And with a rabid B/Xer, a la Sartre in "No Exit."

6. (a). Yup. Sounds good to me. Much burning death, please.

7. Whatever. Please insert preferred mode of grovelling here, o luminous one.

8. Toe licking? SO not my thing. Would you prefer ostrich feather fanning and being fed a continuous supply of red grapes? I could be oiled and ready inside of 20 minutes....

[> [> Nothin sexist about these questions -- Sergio, 15:10:38 12/26/02 Thu

But then we are here only to serve you, Honorificus the most exalted one ever to grace this planet or any other planet in this dimension, or any other dimension for that matter

[> [> I'm only gonna answer #8 -- devilish, 16:03:38 12/26/02 Thu

8. What is the proper way to address me?
a. "Hey, whazzup?"
b. "Please don't hurt me!"
c. "Dude!"
d. "Oh, Honorificus, Great and Glorious One, may I lick your toes in hopes of garnering even a crumb of your munificent attention?"

How about e: Hey dude! S'up. Heard that your supposed worshippers and minions have been inattentive as of late. That must suck Gracknl eggs. It must have something to do with that demon in a red suit and eight gigantic hell hounds pulling his ride.

[> [> Re: "Welcome"?!? Have you people no standards? -- The Pushy Queen of Slut Town, 18:08:29 12/26/02 Thu

Aah, darling Honorificus, always with the trick questions. An admirable way of mocking your underlings with your superior intelligence.

Allow me to solve the challenges you have laid out for the mortal.

#1: The most interesting character on BtVS is obviously whichever lesser being is inflicting pain on choices a, b, c and d.

#2: Gnarl had the best taste, the Gentlemen from Hush were the best conversationalists, and d'Hoffryn has the most pleasing horns. But the hottest of current characters is, without a doubt, that stud the uber-vamp. Every time I catch a whiff of him I nearly swoon.

#3: There are no interesting characters on AtS, only potential food.

#4: I always thought Lilah was the hottest male on AtS. Otherwise, the vampire-spawn hold potential once he realizes that sex with women isn't nearly as much fun as the S/M tricking he's been doing to earn lunch money.

#5: Well, if I got to choose the pain dimension, it would be one where they are tied to a chair in the Summers' home and forced to listen to that damned Slayer prattle on about her feelings and relationship issues. To increase the pain factor, the twerp should occasionally be unleashed on the offending fangirl during whiny mode.

#6: I thought you had plans to kill the whole lot of them, Honorificus, sparing Giles only on the condition that he spend his days licking your toes?

#7: Honorificus (She Who Causes The Fashion-Handicapped To Tremble at Her Beauty, The Ignorant To Weep Before Her Intellect, And The Newbies to Return to the Rock From Whence They Lurked).

#8: Never address the great Honorificus unless she addresses you first. And bring gifts (preferably tasty).

[> [> don't be afraid, good newbie -- Sara, 19:00:18 12/26/02 Thu

Honorificus, she who's bark is far worse than her bite (as long as you're not a kitten, or Giles, or the fashionably challenged), is much to busy running her demon dimension to hurt you in any significant way. So I say, Welcome! Welcome! come and post with us! (and just be ready for an occasional, really not very often, toe-licking session, when required...)

- Sara, who really doesn't like the taste of toes, but in all other ways is ready to worship at her feet

[> [> Re: "Welcome"?!? Have you people no standards? -- Silky, 05:40:49 12/27/02 Fri

Oh great and glorious one! Not a total newbie, but couldn't resist this...

I will be brief - don't want to waste the great shiny one's time!

1. B (because we haven't had a B for awhile).

2. B (see above)

3. D. Droolable Watcher Boy - yum.

4. E. (see #3)

5. D

6. Oh puhleez, great and tasty toes one! It has to be a 'be careful what you wish for' ending! Willow goes to the witch dimension where she becomes #1 witch. Xander gets vamped and, therefore, cool at last. And Buffy ends up with Angel only to realize she really loves Spike! So obvious - come on, really!

7. A

8. A - because in this dimension we are all created equal - or so they tell us.

Silky

[> [> Eh -- Celebaelin, 16:58:02 12/27/02 Fri

Shouldn't this be A8?

[> [> Oh, piffle -- LittleBite, 20:39:07 12/29/02 Sun

How can anyone answer this when none of the correct answers are offered as possibilities?

1. Ethan Rayne with Ripper

2. Ethan Rayne

3. Lilah

4. Lilah

5. You must be more specific here ... are they to be punished or are they the punishment for others? My personal choice is that just as he [read Spike or Angel as appropriate] is about to express his undying devotion to the fangirl an arrow pierces his heart and he's dusted. As she wakes up and realizes it was a nightmare, she sees it was him [S or A] who woke her, and as he's about to express his undying devotion to the fangirl an arrow pierces his heart and he's dusted...

6. Buffy is vamped and we see the apocalyptic showdown of Slayer-Vampire Buffy versus Vampire-Slayer Faith.

7. I've never seen an Honorificus poster, so I certainly can't choose a, b, c or d.

8. Oh, pish, Honori. You know perfectly well there will be no [makes face] toe-licking. But if others feel the need to grovel and snivel at your feet, they're welcome to do so. Devil knows your toes could use it.

[> [> Jeeze, and people thought I drugged my cats to get those Christmas Pics....;) -- Rufus, 23:45:37 12/29/02 Sun

I lost interest in the rest of the quiz when I saw the names Principal Woods and Wesley...the rest just became meaningless.....:):):):) Oh and Giles can't forget the Head boy of the Nancy Tribe.

[> There are great people here that make newbies feel at home. Welcome! -- Briar Rose (pretty newbie myself), 14:59:00 12/27/02 Fri

[> I think that goes the other way around..... -- Rufus, 22:43:20 12/28/02 Sat

You sending ME gift baskets and other offerings of devotion...like cash....or heck just start posting so we don't get all lonely....welcome to the board.

Predators and metaphors -- matching mole, 11:38:36 12/26/02 Thu

I haven't been very active on the board for some time. Pressures of work, mostly, although my vacation next week will also keep me away - so don't feel sorry for me or anything. Unfortunately I don't see it ending until May - just in time for the BtVS finale. I do love season 7 though and I have managed to read at least a few of the fascinating posts. And so I would like to contribute something during this brief respite. This is my humble attempt to add a different perspective on vampires and, somewhat incidentally, serial killers.

Vampires are predators. This is a literal, not a metaphorical statement. They prey upon human beings, feed upon them. Serial killers and some other kinds of crimminals are often also described as predators. This is more of a metaphorical description as, except in extreme and unusual cases, these individuals do not feed upon their victims. Based on my reading of the board, viewers of AtS and BtVS seem to have a wide variety of views of what the moral and metaphysical ramifications of vampirism are. Can vampires be held accountable for their actions? To what extent is cruelty and sadism an inherent part of vampire nature? I'm going to argue that part of the problem is the ambivalent, if not downright contradictory, that human cultures hold towards predators that actually exist; those animals that have been known to feed upon our own species.

Traditionally, in western culture, predatory animals are seen as both noble and savage. They are both admired and hated. They serve as metaphors for leadership and prowess in war. They also serve as metaphors for the hostility of nature to human concerns and to civilization itself. The metaphoric view of humans towards individual predator species seems to have little to do with biological reality but rather with the type of interactions between the animal species and the human population in question as well as human aesthetics.

A brief aside. I'm going to describe a couple of examples of animal behavior and discuss how humans might morally regard that behaviour. This does not mean that I think that animal behaviour should be judged by human moral standards. For from it. Instead I am merely trying to point out that pre-exisiting human moral judgement of these animals is often at odds with biological reality.

Two animals that play a large metaphorical life in western civilizations are wolves and lions. Lions are typically portrayed as ferocious and dangerous but also noble and heroic. The lion is the king of beasts and a common heraldic symbol. Wolves, although more positively viewed in recent decades, have been symbols of darkness and dangerous, bestial urges, cunning and trickery, etc. Calling a warrior (or any sort of leader) a lion is generally a wholly positive comment. Calling a warrior a wolf connotes bravery but also savagery and a disdain for the rules of fair play.

I've chosen these two species both because they are symbolically important but also because they are in many ways quite similar. Both are highly social carnivores that often prey on large animals. And one way in which they differ is entirely is, from a western moral standpoint (again I am not advocating moral judgement of non-human behaviour) entirely favourable to wolves. Wolver, like other social canids (members of the dog family), have a relatively equable society in which both sexes participate in the caring for the young. In contrast male lions would serve well as poster boys for social parasitism. Like many social mammals (e.g. elephants, many primates) female lions remain in the group in which they were born for their entire lives. Social groups consist of a closely related group of females and their young and one or more adult males that have moved into the group from outside. These males take over by driving out the resident males. They then kill off any existing young lion cubs which brings the females back into heat and sit around stealing food that the females catch. Someone who spent years studying lions in Africa was once asked why female lions needed male lions (other than as a source of sperm). The answer - to protect females and young from other male lions.

So why the descrepancy? I have two answers. One is aesthetics. Some animals seem to be more likely to be perceived as attractive than others. Cats seem to be, in general, perceived as more attractive than dogs. This is not stated as my personal opinion but based on my impressions from reading descriptions of animals in many works of fiction. Male lions are certainly striking animals. The other is that lions as wild animals have had little impact on western civilization. Today, with the exception of the Gir Forest in India, lions are restricted to sub-Saharan Africa. In classical times they ranged throughout much of southwestern Asia and as far to the north and west as Greece. However, for the last two thousand years or so, lions would be exotic creatures from far away as far as most Europeans were concerned. Not a source of day to day danger or economic hardship. Wolves would have interacted with Europeans (including the Europeans in North America) over most this period. I'd argue that you are much less likely to mythologize an animal in a positive way if it is eating your cattle.

Another good example is the polar bear. Probably the last mammal on earth that you would want to be alone and defenseless with. A huge and powerful animal whose diet consists, pretty much exclusively, of mammals about the size of humans. Yet polar bears are generally portrayed as cute and cuddly (think of soft drink commercials). Why? They don't look fierce and they live in remote regions with little historical contact with westerners.

So how does this relate to vampires and serial killers? Well I think many of us tend to think of vampires as predators. I know I do and the evidence including a predator-prey population simulation on a Stanford web site indicates that I am not alone. And that brings up the conflicting views. Vampires are savage and dangerous but they are also attractive and safe (because they don't really exist). I don't know much about the history of vampire mythology but my impression is that the perception of vampires as attractive and seductive creatures largely dates to popular fiction of the late 19th Century (e.g. Stoker and LeFanu). If this isn't correct, please enlighten me. Vampires are also given many more human attributes than most fictional monsters. This leads to us thinking of them as human as well as predator which further muddies the metaphorical waters.

So how does ME's portrayal of vampires relate to our view of vampires as predators.? Well vampires are dangerous (bad). However the principal vampires are almost all attractive increasing are tendency to view them positively. They often exhibit many human attributes both positive and negative. They are unecessarily cruel at times but they are also often interested in humans as individuals. Although it is their 'nature' to feed on human blood they do not have to do so bringing in an aspect of moral choice that is absent in our usual consideration of predators. And their fictional nature means that we don't have worry about being an actual vampire victim. We BtVS watchers probably vary in our susceptibility to this rather confusing mishmash of signals. And our perceptions of vampires as a whole and as individuals varies accordingly.

The real problem here is that there is no non-metaphorical reality which we can use as base for comparison.My biological training affects how I view vampires and I was surprised at Spike's confession to Buffy of his past cruelties to his victms. This sort of behaviour had been shown previously as a characteristic of certain individuals (Angelus, vampWillow) and not of vampires as a whole. It is not the behaviour of a sensible predator. It is risky and vampires are very vulnerable to a human population that is aware of them. So I, without really thinking about it, assumed that Angelus' sadism was somewhat abberant. And I was quite surprised that so many posters had assumed that Spike's behavior as a vampire routinely consisted of sexual assault and torture.

However, vampires are not predators - they are fictional creations. Somewhat inconsistent ficitonal creations in ME's hands. But they are portrayed as predators and the history of our cultures' impressions of predators certainly affects how we view them. Vampires and serial killers are in some ways regarded as not really human, predators that don't really have control over their actions. But in other ways they are human, they look human, they seem to have the ability to make choices (unlike a lion). So depending on the attitude of the reader they either get the short end of the stick, unable to make choices but still held responsible for their actions, or they get a 'get out of jail free card'. In the latter case they are not held responsible for their vampiric actions as a human would but are definitely regarded as something more than an animal.

[> Vague BtVS S7 (past not future) spoilers above -- matching mole, 11:44:29 12/26/02 Thu

[> Re: Predators and metaphors -- Flo, 19:22:53 12/26/02 Thu

Interesting line of thinking, MM.

"Vampires ... are in some ways regarded as not really human, predators that don't really have control over their actions."

Contrary to the ways they are regarded, vamps seem to have plenty of control over their actions. They certainly seem a lot more focused and intentional about their actions than most humans. Typical for a predator, yes?

Perhaps we would like to believe that vampires have little or no control over their actions because their actions don't fit our human ethics -- we don't understand, or don't want to understand their predatory acts. To be sympathetic to someone who might kill us is pretty zen and beyond what most of us are capable of feeling. So why not label them as straight up predators and throw them in the lion's den, so to speak? Because, as you mention, they act like and in some ways ARE human. We can't help but empathize with them. They have passion, the very thing we say makes us human. Confusing creatures, for sure. They blur the anthropocentric lines our species holds onto in order to excuse our own predatory nature -- the kinds of reasonings such as that humans have "reason," "love," and, "emotions" and therefore are entitled to rule over and destory other species.

So, yes, the fictional vampires who can't bite us make us darned uncomfortable anyway. Still, if they exist in order to challenge our arrogance among the species, I say go ahead and give them a get out of jail free card.

--Flo

[> Nature and Instinct (Spoilers for CWDP) -- Sara, 19:36:43 12/26/02 Thu

The vampire as predator image has really fascinated me for a while, and it really makes me wonder how evil fits in with something's nature. Is it "evil" if it's a creature's basic instinct? So much of nature appears very cruel, I can't watch a show on the Discovery channel without feeling awfully bad for that poor fly in the spider web, and yet a spider isn't evil. It gives me a very confused feeling about nature and the world around us.

In "Conversations with Dead People" you have on the one hand Holden is a vampire, bad Holden! He wants to kill Buffy, bad Holden! He'll go kill other people, bad Holden! On the other hand, this episode really seemed to show it as the vampire's instinct, just the way animals will have natural enemies, natural prey. I guess it comes down to the fact that regardless of instinct, vampires know the sentience of its prey and that's what makes it evil. I hope that if I ever found out that cows, pigs, fishes, had self-awareness I would turn vegetarian immediately. But would that mean that my past eating habits were evil, given that I didn't know absolutely one way or the other? I'm really not sure. I just wish I liked veggies more...

- Sara, trying to get enthusiastic about tofu

[> [> Re: Nature and Instinct (Spoilers for CWDP) -- Flo, 20:27:52 12/26/02 Thu

If harming something or someone else even when you are aware of their sentience is evil, then we've got a lot more than vampires to worry about. What about people who authorize bombings on civilians? Or bombings on villians, for that matter, since they're as sentient as anyone else. Or how about the corporate head-honchoes who own sweatshops where young children slave and suffer? Some of us say these humans are evil, or are acting evil. Some say they aren't. I think there are plenty of people who knowing harm other humans while offering rationalizations in order to excuse their actions. Vampires, on the other hand, offer no rationalization or excuse for what they do. They openly, honestly prey on humans. At least they've got integrity....

--Flo

[> [> that seems to be one of the themes this season -- anom, 22:00:35 12/26/02 Thu

"In 'Conversations with Dead People' you have on the one hand Holden is a vampire, bad Holden! He wants to kill Buffy, bad Holden! He'll go kill other people, bad Holden! On the other hand, this episode really seemed to show it as the vampire's instinct, just the way animals will have natural enemies, natural prey."

CWDP beautifully pointed up the contrast between the "human" & "demon" sides of a vampire. Holden's 1st line in the "couch" scene is "So you meet someone, you form a bond...." Buffy answers, "And it never lasts." This could be seen as an encapsulation of their entire interaction. Buffy definitely forms a bond w/Holden...& of course it doesn't last. It can't. He's so personable (yeah, I know, Buffy used that word to damn Faith w/faint praise) & seems genuinely interested in what Buffy has to say. His sense of discovery about the ABCs of being a vampire is endearing. His leaning back as he says "Tell me" after Buffy offers to just fight, if he'd rather, is disarming. And yet all those "bad Holden!" things are true, & in the end Buffy has to kill him, though she obviously regrets it.

I see echoes in this of the 1st scene of the season's 1st episode, Lessons, when the vamp Buffy is coaching Dawn to fight is stuck trying to get out of his grave. He seems so harmless, woke up 6' under & doesn't know how he got there, "couldja give me a hand?" As soon as he's freed, though, he turns on Buffy. He's as dangerous as any other vamp, & so is Holden.

Maybe this season Buffy is having to face what it really means to do what she does. She's more open to seeing vampires as individuals, much like humans, and dusting them even though she doesn't feel very happy about it. In season 5 Buffy was worried about losing her humanity, becoming hard. Now it looks like she's learning to be open but still do the slaying. Maybe that's what allowed her to make the decision to spare Spike in Never Leave Me.

She's gone through several stages in her attitude toward slaying--first she just didn't want to deal w/it, later she found it exciting, sometimes she's been the single-minded wreaker of vengeance, other times a fury. Last season she was going through the motions. This year, when Holden begins to dig his way out, Buffy says, "Here we go." She still doesn't feel especially good about it, but at least she's letting herself feel.

When this idea of "a vamp's a vamp no matter how human s/he seems" as a theme first occurred to me, I thought it might augur ill for Spike. He's closer to human than he's ever been since he was one, but he's still a vampire. Yes, he has a soul, but we don't know how he's going to come through his struggle w/himself. We've seen people w/souls go beyond the point of no return. But after seeing Never Leave Me, I don't think that's how it's going to go w/Spike.

Vampires understand that their human prey is sentient, even sapient. But Spike, now that he has a soul, can empathize w/humans. He may still have a predator's instincts, but he can't see people as prey anymore.

I'm not sure what that's a metaphor for.

[> [> [> Re: that seems to be one of the themes this season -- Flo, 00:29:03 12/27/02 Fri

With all the war-room scenes going on this season, I can't resist pulling this line of thinking out into world events. (I mean the world outside of Buffy!)

Maybe the lesson for Buffy, and the cue to us, is to find a way to keep her heart open while fighting what is hers to fight. Hatred is driving most of the fighting in the world these days. Alternatively, desire for peace and love is keeping a lot of people pretty passive. Buffy represents the FIGHT for love, not the sitting back for love.

I'm not suggesting that we all gear up and start a fight, nor am I even suggesting that we all join the same side of political debate. None of us have the kind of moral imperative that Buffy's got -- unless there are any slayers or leaders of the free world online?....

--Flo

[> [> [> [> In a way I see us all as "slayers" in life.... -- Briar Rose, 01:09:42 12/27/02 Fri

We make choices every day as to how we react to what the world around us is giving out. We can either turn a blnd eye to the evils of the world or work to stop them. We can choose love and light over darkness and personal profit.

We slay our own deamons everyday. It may not be as relatively slick and neat as staking a Vamp. In fact it's more messy and complicated and painful than in the Buffy- verse Seasons 1-3!

What I love about Whedon's World is it is ALL real life in a not so metaphorical kinda way. Buffy with Angel/Angelus was growing up to see that love isn't always neat and romatic. Glory/Ben was the Common man who allows evil to thrive because it allows him comfort in his life. Adam was government politics and the war machine run amok. (Prophetic since it was almost two years before we saw it in starting in our real life...)

The metaphors are not that hidden. It's all about real human experiences, the writers just give them masks to make them less scary than the real world actually is.

[> Re: Predators and metaphors -- Celebaelin, 18:19:46 12/28/02 Sat

I'm going to try and express a viewpoint on vampirism which I've been distilling for a while, this may be premature but hopefully setting it out will move my perception on to some more definite position. Most of what follows could most likely be described as stating the obvious but it should still be said I think.

Vampires Aren't

Vampires in the sense that we refer to them do not exist, so they aren't real predators. They may of course be considered as metaphors for predators from several points of view. In a world where humans have achieved the status of top predator it makes sense that a predator that humans would fear must have human or superhuman characteristics. The association between vampires and wolves ("children of the night" is a direct quote from Bram Stoker) reinforces the sense of fear and accentuates the predatory parallels. Wolves are in fact rather cuddly and appealing social animals who share food and domestic tasks and aren't actually that good at hunting (apparently only about 10% of wolf hunts ends in a kill) but it's the perception that counts and like mm says if it's eating your livestock...

The Predator-Prey Relationship is one of Co-evolutionary Interdependance

In nature if a predator becomes too good at hunting and over-predates its' prey animal then it inflicts a food shortage upon its' own kind which leads to a decrease in the numbers of those (and potentially other) predators as the less successful ones die of starvation. The evolution of the prey animal is also directed by the action of predator in taking the more vulnerable individuals for food. Why are most herbivores either big or fast or both? Because they have to be. Without going into the description of the cycle eventually the numbers equilibrate to proportions appropriate to the amount of primary producer nutritional resource (grass usually) available. Y'know...all flesh is grass.

Eating People is Wrong (Bioenergetically and Evolutionarily Speaking)

This theme is perhaps in accordance with the percieved decadence and ennui of vampirism. The inefficiency of preying on an animal that is itself a predator is grotesque even compared with eating a primary consumer (herbivore), not to mention the ability of predators to fight back with all the weapons at their disposal, remember that an injured predator can't hunt and must either be fed by others or die.

Vampires are Mainly Portrayed as 'Lone Wolf' Hunters Rather Than Pack Hunters

This kind of behaviour signifies predators that are as dangerous to others of their own kind as they are to prey animals (and in this case anything weak enough and tasty enough to be eaten is considered a prey animal) and is characteristic of neither lions nor wolves.

There is a Suspicion/Emphasis on the Existance of Obligate Evil in Vampiric Behaviour

Whether that could be said to be the nature of vampires or whether it necessarily, in a rational and self-aware creature, requires an underlying thought process is debatable.

Most of the Metaphors That I See in Stories of Vampirism Have Sexual Relavance

I'll just list the words and themes

Siring/Mixing Blood/Reproduction/Imortality/Undeath
Hunt/Aggression/Predator
Victim/Fear/Death/Submission
Bite/Drink/Taste/Drain

Maybe a Freudian interpretation is that the words describe the user or his/her wishes and a Jungian one is that the stories compensate for a repressed aspect of animal nature. It depends at least to some extent on the individual I would imagine.

Current board | More December 2002