December 2003 posts


Previous December 2003  

More December 2003
Just found a Buffy article I hope we can argue about. -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:20:43 12/20/03 Sat

I was just browsing through the Internet yesterday when I stumbled upon this Buffy article. You know how sometimes you'll read something and really feel like you should argue against it, but you don't necessarily want to make contact with the person who wrote it? Well, that's what happened to me, so I'm going to post this article here and see if we can discuss it and potentially argue over it.

http://www.angelfire.com/poetry/valor_faiths_fic/opextraflamey.html

'This site has sort of a political context... ok not really, I'm an addict of the show, and no matter how much I hate what it stands for I can't stop watching it. When I first realized this would be a site for the non-white characters on Buffy, I felt really hopeless and like it was a pointless endeavor. In my opinion, Joss Whedon and Co. couldn't write a character of color for an audience of color to save their lives. And they don't really feel like trying. So what's the point? After all anyone who's a fan of the show, especially someone like me who gets off on watching this .

'But then I thought, what about people who find those characters interesting and want to read up about them, or the actors who play them? Not to mention, I would like it if someone else made this site and I found it. Plus, it's a hobby. So the site stays.

'I wrote a long opinionated rant on a Willow/Tara 'shipper site, Extra Flamey (actually a pretty good site). I posted it to the guestbook as a response to one of their essays. And while they don't deal with issues of color, gays and lesbians are minorities and they have some interesting articles and essays about that. And I felt like posting my own rant here, which also goes into the pimping of women of color that I find in the Buffyverse, as well as the 'good nigger' approach taken with Gunn's character.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Ok, first, thanks for the longwinded but important essay. It is common for people who aren't minorities to just, no offense, but to just NOT GET IT... they just DONT GET IT... I don't know why, either everything goes on in their subconscious minds, or they actually don't have a clue, and I know sometimes I am like that too for other minorities, so I totally get having to hold someone's hand through WHY it was wrong, and HOW it was wrong, and WHY it was SO WRONG... [ the last three episodes of season 6 BtVS]

'That being said, to be honest, that is what BtVS does. Season three it was Faith... having identified myself with the "bad" girl, I was really hurt. She just got ripped apart. You can tell when people are putting things into your mouth. And I think she was redeemed because the writers didn't expect so many people to identify with her. To love her. They didn't expect that, but of course it was destined to happen , because Buffy and Faith are just part of one person really, and no matter how much you try to separate them, they're part of you and you will go to any lengths to protect them.

'Another thing is Faith's hair color. This goes on in Xena too. The blonde is good, the brunette is bad, this is about white supremacy.I don't think Buffy is the best role model ever.

'I will always be greatful for having as an archetype and being able to dream about being a strong amazing woman. But the thing is, Buffy herself is an archetype, in the same way of being new, she is not new. She is strong, and despite the words put in her mouth she's bright. Which is why , up until about season five, every time she did something amazing, she would have to say something stupid or that made her look dull. She was virginal , and as her power grows, her frame shrinks. That might be a SMG move, or not.

'One thing people, collectively , will do to a woman is say, ok, you think you deserve this? Well, alright, but you'll really be worth nothing unless you can do AAALLL this...

'Buffy is a character who is liked so much, in part, because no female that size, unless a hardcore bodybuilder/gymnast, is that strong. No female is as strong as Xena, another heroine. So it's ok for them to be role models, because it's impossible to achieve what they do. And then there are other hindrances. Buffy has to constantly look like a dumb blonde and care way too much about clothes, Xena has to constantly atone, even for things she didn't do.

'On Angel, one of my serious peeves, is Gunn. They had the scene at the end of season 1 where Gunn said, " I dont need some white guy.. telling me what to do." I'm black. I know that scene. It's the scene where the black character gets angry for no reason and brings up race, so that later on in the show, s/he will be incapable of questioning the motives or calling the shit of the character they dissed, because , hey, the've already gone there in a moment where the white charcter has been without blame, and of course, it's more of an issue to the black character, and they're imagining things.

'Then we got to the point where Gunn had to leave his friends. Then we got the point where Gunn had to fight his friends... and WTF!!! was that twisted scene about his sister acting all sexual when she'd been turned vampire about? I know vampires act as another cliche, partially sexual. But I also know when I'm being duped. I've seen it in The Bodyguard, I've seen it in Mission Impossible ll . Black women are constanlty being treated asexually, or conversely being put in all of these bizarre sexual situations. And everyone has love interests, but of course they had to make Olivia, Gile's interst, black, and she shagged him and left about after five minutes... There was the scene for me that really clinched it, where Gunn said something like, "Anne's a nice, (white, blonde girl who runs that shelter in L.A. who used to be part of a vampire worshipping cult on BtVS) girl" - and here we finally see color-, and he takes all the kids in a room, and says I know you, and I want to make sure you're not taking her for a ride."

'These things can be passed off as coincidence...up to a point. Here ,we see the "gone with the wind" "happy slave" myth who doesn't want to be free, the myth of the stranger who is the protector, and is constantly giving of themselves to others, they are loved and revered, but only as long their needs are left behind. Once that stops, bring out the rope and the guns. <> This is also another aspect of the Buffy myth archetype, and of the Xena archetype. If you've read "Dance me Outside", you know about the Native Indian, who died doing it to save his own hyde... naturally he was branded a hero. Trying to save your life brings on heroism. So when the writers pulled the W/T shit, I was definitely not surprised. It's what they do, unfortunately. If only I could stop watching that fucking show now!!'


Thoughts? Comments?

Replies:

[> A little burnt out on arguing. -- Arethusa, 13:18:11 12/20/03 Sat

First of all, the author is right. Anyone who isn't a minority won't totally (or maybe even partially) understand what it is like to be a minority. Therefore I cannot argue that (s)he is wrong to say hair color is about white supremacy, Buffy is liked because she can't possibly really be superior and is constantly undercut as a person, and blacks only exist in the media to be leered at or treated asexually or to perpetuate the slave mentality. That is how (s)he views the show based on his/her own life experiences, and that point of view is just as valid as mine, which is also based on my life experiences.

I can't argue someone's emotional reaction to a work of fiction is wrong, that facts can't be interpreted more than one way. And based on past experience, I know that such arguments usually end up dividing and hurting instead of uniting and edifying. Therefore, I would not choose to argue either for or against the post.

[> [> Ditto -- CW, 13:43:07 12/20/03 Sat

The second writer says the rest of us just don't get it. Unless there is some perceived common ground, any discussion boils down into a pointless argument, about points view, definintions of terms or who feels what about this and that. All sides are at once completely right, completely wrong, and always at odds with each other. Not a very productive way to spend one's time.

[> [> [> Re: Ditto -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:38:56 12/20/03 Sat

I admit it's not very productive. However, whenever I read an opinion I disagree with but don't get to read a counterargument, it starts knawing at my brain. To read such an argument without finding at least one other person who feels the same way I do, it feels like admitting the first argument was right. If no one counterargues, it seems as though everyone who has read the article has been totally swayed to its side. Logically, I know this is not the case, but that doesn't stop it from feeling that way.

[> An opnionated rant. Nothing more. -- Majin Gojira, 16:31:11 12/20/03 Sat

Whenever I see abreviations like "SMG" and "WTF" in a supposedly legitimate essay, I feel ill.

Worse still, (s)he provides little to no evidence to support her/his claims. No episode sitations and poor use of quotes. Just ranting and raving.

"'Then we got to the point where Gunn had to leave his friends. Then we got the point where Gunn had to fight his friends... and WTF!!! was that twisted scene about his sister acting all sexual when she'd been turned vampire about? I know vampires act as another cliche, partially sexual. But I also know when I'm being duped. I've seen it in The Bodyguard, I've seen it in Mission Impossible ll . Black women are constanlty being treated asexually, or conversely being put in all of these bizarre sexual situations."

I'm sure being a vampire had nothing to do with her actions. nope. It was the writers being racists pigs. Yessir.

I feel like smacking this person in the back of the head right now.

"There was the scene for me that really clinched it, where Gunn said something like, "Anne's a nice, (white, blonde girl who runs that shelter in L.A. who used to be part of a vampire worshipping cult on BtVS) girl" - and here we finally see color-, and he takes all the kids in a room, and says I know you, and I want to make sure you're not taking her for a ride." "

Problem here is that they weren't all black: they were all minorities, true, but they were also all street kids. Is it not fun how the author glosses over that important fact?

It is hard to tear appart the conclusion as much because I really have no clue how they reached it. No understanding of Arc, Character Development, or Storytelling is evident in this "essay".

I'll try, though: Basically, this person argues that Minorities get shafted on Buffy, and their isn't enough representation of their 'true' nature. And that the "good" minorities portrayed have "Sold out" to their "white" oppressors.

Frankly, the writer is a racists who sees racism everywhere. "Bad Things happen BECAUSE the characters are a minority". Bull and Crap. As I said, no understanding of Development, plotting or story telling.

Let's take the Willow/Tara Death Example:

If she was with Oz when this happened (suppose they never broke up, and Oz is the one who gets shot and killed) and this happened, would there be such a clammor. No. And that is the problem here. These people are making a fuss BECAUSE a minority is involved and they are being treated just like everone else. It annoys me, because it's the exact oppisite of the equal rights. You don't get "Special Treatmeant". You get treated like everyone else.. Deal.

And before anyone asks, I am a Minority--I'm Scicilian. Everyone nationality along the mediterainian has some of their DNA in me -- this includes Morroco, Egypt, algeria and Libya. I'm also Irish (just a quarter), another, white, group that has suffered discrimination in the past (and still suffers from some stereotyping, as do Sicilians/itialians--Mafia ties, "Mario". Just recently, a friend of the family sent over pasta. It's a nice thought, but still stereotyping and mildly insulting).

I love how people of color think they are the only minorities out there. It's egocentric and moronic, much like this "essay".

I'm Annoyed, Ranting and Politiaclly Incorrect.

[> [> I agree -- fidhle, 20:46:01 12/20/03 Sat


[> [> [> Re: Also agree -- sdev, 11:21:27 12/21/03 Sun

There is another prominent example of a newly turned vampire going all sexual, and she was a white mother, Spike's mother in fact.

Further Giles had another relationship, with a local white woman, Jenny, that was pretty rocky. It was obvious Olivia was not from California so it was never clear how long she was staying. My vibe was short-term visitor from the start.

As to hair color, let me describe mine for the record -- very dark and I am white. Is the author unaware that many people who are white have dark hair? I believe there is a convention of blond equals good and brunette equals bad. At this point in time it is a convention not an indicator of racism. JW alluded to this convention in his oft quoted description of turning the horror genre on its head by having the blonde come out the victor, not dead, in the monster in the alley attack scene. Willow's hair turns black when she's bad and blond when she's good.

Very often I have noticed that monster equals ugly. TV is a visual medium and these conventions are sometimes both historical and convenient. As a brunette I relish the nefarious and dangerous associations.

I believe Anne's role as easily manipulated began with the Angel/Lindsey tug-of-war in the episode Blood Money. It was then that Anne was shown as an innocent being taken advantage of by W&H and Angel. Earlier on BtVS she was also shown as a naive and easily swayed person taken in by others in the episode Lie to Me. So again I do not see the racial overtones in Gunn's description and protecion of her.

I feel less equipped to discuss Gunn's role so I won't.

[> [> [> [> Re: Also agree -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:36:38 12/21/03 Sun

And, as far as the criticism of Buffy setting the standard for women's accomplishments too high, that seems to me more like a criticism of the entire superhero genre rather than just Buffy. If Buffy and Xena should avoid being better than any woman can be, then Superman and Neo shouldn't be better than any man can be.

[> [> pasta, Newcastle -- skeeve, 09:01:05 12/22/03 Mon

If the pasta was the result of stereotyping, then the sender must have been the type who would send coal to Newcastle.

[> [> Insulted -- Claudia, 11:16:44 01/06/04 Tue

"I love how people of color think they are the only minorities out there. It's egocentric and moronic, much like this "essay"."


I found this comment, a little insulting. I'm a person of color, and I certainly don't feel that we are the only minorities out there. I'm quite aware that various groups (including those that consist of whites) face discrimination and oppression of all kinds. Your opinion that all minorities of color harbor this belief is insulting and . . . dare I say it? Racist.

[> Re: Just found a Buffy article I hope we can argue about. -- Kansas, 16:53:37 12/20/03 Sat

It's not that the author has no valid points about the treatment of racial minorities in the Buffyverse... but these are problems with the entire medium of television. Joss & Co. could never have made up for the limitations of an entire industry, nor should they have tried.

It's often been said that Buffy was originally conceived as the anti-victim; i.e. a figure that counters the woman-as-victim clichZ. Perhaps this led to the expectation on the part of some viewers that they would go on to bust every other TV clichZ. Which is wildly unrealistic. Bashing them for not doing the impossible is just plain dumb.

And don't get me started on the patronization inherent in that assumption that anyone who doesn't look like the author can't understand the issues involved. Please!

[> One comment on relation of "Dance Me Outside" to this rant... Zero relation: -- Briar Rose, 11:48:41 12/22/03 Mon

I think sometimes people miss the entire point of a story.... The story in Dance Me Outside did not end with the guy as hero at all.

It ended with a group of women taking extreme revenge against a man that killed their friend while sexually assaulting her. The guy in question simply helped lure the perp to them, then one of the women played him into their trap.

It was a twist to the old stereotype that Native American women were passive, (the "squaw" myth - never use the word squaw, it's highly derogatory, means, literally!, vagina) when in reality Native American women were expected to have the warrior spirit and be capable of extreme acts of self preservation while still being strong, nurturing and modest. Just as the men were expected to be.

Further more, it's been my experience that when you go into a situation looking for something, you will find it. No matter whether it's intended in the original context or not.

It's interesting to me that this poster didn't happen to mention that Spike Lee has perpetrated some of the most horrific stereotyping (IMO) of African Americans (especially African American women as sexual pawns/bitch goddesses) while complaining about other media protrayals by other authors/directors. It isn't about white supremacy when the author is of color, no matter what the content? Why would it be so when the author is not?

This happens with people who are enamoured of carrying their professional victim status as a mantel to warm themselves with when they don't want to face that everything is simply not about them in reality.

I think there might be certain small currents of truth to this person's post, basically that if she sees it that way I'm sure that others do as well. But I really think that, overall, it's making mountains out of molehills and more about the poster's own issues and the way she views her role in the world than in intentional racial attacks by ME or anyone else she mentions.

That's all most posts about any medium of creative expression are anyway.... All we can do is fit it to our own inner landscape and relate to it as we can.

Happy Holidays everyone!!!! Let's make peace on earth a reality.

[> [> Not according to my dictionary -- Sophist, 10:29:13 12/24/03 Wed

never use the word squaw, it's highly derogatory, means, literally!, vagina

While the term is derogatory, it does not mean "vagina" according to Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: squaw
Pronunciation: 'skwo
Function: noun
Etymology: Massachuset squa, ussqua woman
Date: 1634
1 : often offensive : an American Indian woman

[> [> [> Pick up a NATIVE American dictionary.*LOL It's a Lakota term for the female sexual organ. -- Briar Rose, 22:15:24 01/02/04 Fri


[> [> [> [> Except that the English usage did NOT originate in the Lakota -- Sophist, 10:56:08 01/03/04 Sat

English settlers used the term long before they ever heard of the Lakota (it was in use at least as early as 1634).

It's also important to remember that the original meaning of a word is not necessarily its current meaning. For example, the word "woman" stems from the Anglo-Saxon meaning "wife of the man". The word today, however, does not have that meaning at all. Even if "squaw" had originated in Lakota, that is not necessarily what it means today.

Another key point is that Native American languages varied even if they were related. In Lakota the word may very well have meant "vagina" (or something equivalent). But other tribes, speaking different but related languages, could easily have used the same word to mean something different. The meaning of the word in Lakota is not definitive.

[> [> [> [> [> "wife" didn't always mean what it does now, either -- anom, 19:21:09 01/03/04 Sat

"For example, the word 'woman' stems from the Anglo-Saxon meaning 'wife of the man'."

Not exactly. "Wif" (now "wife")--by itself--meant "woman"; it had nothing to do w/marital status. "Man" meant "person" & could actually be used of a woman as well as of a man. In fact, "wif-man" (now "woman") was coined to specify which kind of "man" was meant; its meaning was closer to "woman-person" than to "wife of the man." I've never seen any interpretation that the 2nd part was in the possessive case.

There was a corresponding form for males, "w34p-man," but it didn't catch on the way "wif-man" did. Instead, men just took over the formerly gender-neutral "man" came to be used for men. (I'm pretty sure "waep" meant "man" (male-specific), but I couldn't confirm that on a quick search.)

[> Racism, the Outside vs. the Inside, and Minorities in "First Date" -- RadiusRS, 01:53:36 12/23/03 Tue

Hey folks, I happen to disagree with a lot of what the essayist wrote, though I do believe she has some valid points. The point I most disagree on is that she states that someone who isn't a minority can't possibly relate. I think this statement is partly true, but partly false. I myself am Mexican/Colombian, and grew up in Mexico and the U.S. My culture is a culture of amalgamation, of the European juxtaposed with the American. And my mother culture, that of Spain, is itself an amalgamation of European, Mediterranean, and Muslim cultures and people. Most of the population of my country (about 95%) is of mixed ancestry, and even one of our holiest figures, the Virgin of Guadaloupe, is a mixture of the Virgin Mary and Tenotzin (sp?), the Aztec goddess of life and death. The Catholic religion, predominant here, is based upon the appropriation of pagan rituals and redefining them within the Church (the Yule log=Christmas Tree, Birth of Christ=Winter Solstice, Day of the Dead=All Hallows Eve and All Saints Day, The bread and the wine=sacred cannibalism of pre-christian societies, etc; I know some of these aren't exact but they are off the cuff examples). My point is that my culture is one with almost a thousand years of mixing, shuffling, appropriation, and plunder, and in those thousand years there has been an understanding and learning that form who we are; sure racism and classism still exists, but when everyone is a little mixed, everyone is on one level the same (one of the points I think Joss was trying to make on Firefly).

Personally I have experienced racism, been called a wetback, a beaner, been asked if they have cars where I come from, if I live in a mud hut, and if I went to school on a donkey (my favorite, and the most frequent question, is how long it took me to get to the U.S., like I lived on Neptune, look at a map people!!). But on the outside, I am far from what a mexican looks like. I have white skin which burns, doesn't tan, blue eyes, and light brown hair that lightens in the summer. I often heard comments about how American I looked which I would challenge by stating the African-Americans, Latinos, and Asian-Americans are all more American than the cultures and races from whence they came, many of whom don't speak the language of their ancestors. And while I may look white and be treated like I'm white until someone knows I'm not, my life experiences also make me a minority, and my "cover" makes me privy to comments that wouldn't be made in front of a minority person. Personally, I consider my self both mexican and american, since my thoughts, feelings, languages, and tastes encompass both cultures to such a point that I am unable and unwilling to separate them, which isn't easy on this side of the border either. All in all, I think ME does a wonderful job (far better than most shows on television) of integrating minorities, which the spawn of Buffy shows such as Smallville and Alias have built upon. They couldn't make Buffy, Xander, Willow (a Jew, first minority integration), or Giles a minority so Willow first became Wicca, another minority, and then gay. Sunnydale is a middle California, uppercrust suburb, so there wasn't that much of a chance of making it the cultural melting pot L.A. is, but there were still efforts, and even minority villains such as Mr. Trick. Xander has dated an Incan girl/mummy and been a demon magnet (which is a grey area but which has been treated on both Angel and Buffy that some demons are allegories for minorities (such as in "Hero", Lorne). Angel had one of the only regular minority characters in Gunn years before controversy pointed out the lack of minorities on network television, and a strong one with flaws to boot. Even Jasmine, the goddess, was a minority. Firefly had two African-American regulars as well as one Latina/Mediterranean regular. So racism in the Jossverse is hogwash.

Though it is almost universally reviled as the worst episode of season 7, I thought "First Date" was brilliant in that it showed how far TV has come, partly due to creators like Joss Whedon. In that episode, both Buffy and Xander went out on dates with African-Americans (OK, one was actually a demon but you get my point) while Willow was dating a lesbian Latina (though her name my not have been very latin, I think a lot of her character, mannerisms and speech indicated she had that sort of origin). And the clincher is, it was no big deal!! No drama about interracial relationships (how 50s), no raised eyebrows, and totally natural within the story itself, not forced or contrived. When more and more shows are treating interracial relationships like no big deal (Pete and Chloe on Smallville, Will and Francie or Will and Allison or Sark and Allison on Alias, Fred and Gunn on Angel, President Palmer and his doctor on 24, Dr. Benton and Dr. Kingston on ER, etc.), is when you know that people are looking beyond shared victimization or skin color and looking at shared experiences.

Whew, rant over.

[> [> Re: Racism, the Outside vs. the Inside, and Minorities in "First Date" -- Ann, 07:35:49 12/23/03 Tue

"I'm white until someone knows I'm not, my life experiences also make me a minority, and my "cover" makes me privy to comments that wouldn't be made in front of a minority person."

This is where white people can use this opportunity to make it known that they do not hold these values of oppression and racism as their own. It is an opportunity that can not be passed upon or unchallenged. Until remarks made are challenged and uncovered as racist, this kind of thing will continue. It is a start.

As a foreign person here in the US, I have experienced a similar situation when citizens here comment about the "foreigners". I am foreign but don't look it, whatever that means. People seem to assume that because I am white, I am American. I follow those comments with the question "What does an American look like?" That usually stops the comments pretty quick.

I think that Buffyverse usually looks past all of these stereotypes but doesn't exclude the cultures behind the person. Colorblind should not mean excluding the culture or the experiences of the person. I this JW does a good job with this as you describe about s7.

[> [> [> Good for you Ann -- Rahael, 08:24:56 12/23/03 Tue

I usually wait around a little, after some horrid comment has been made, so that the people present have an opportunity to demonstrate that it doesn't speak for them, and nor do they condone it by their silence.

Then I have to say something. But I always wait. Because I trust that people who do not have a visibly different skin colour are still outraged by such comments, and do indeed know what it might be like to be so targetted. Specially when I'm the only non-white person in the room, and someone else makes a comment about how they want the neo-fascists to win the election so that they'd hang all the undesirables.

Alas, there are many who hope that if they keep their mouth shut, no one will notice them. I'm sometimes a long time waiting.

"What does an American look like?"

I guess the question asked by the Buffyverse is:

"What does a human being look like?"

And while Joss never explicitly deals with race (other writers have done though. There's a reason why "Are you now..." is in my top three AtS eps), this is a crucial question, that anyone for whom the theme of difference and humanity means anything will find much to move/resonate/stimulate them.

[> [> [> [> Re: Good for you Ann -- Ann, 08:45:37 12/23/03 Tue

When I lived in W. Lafayette Indiana about ten years ago, I heard a racist/foreigner comment every single day. From all levels of society, from the academics at the university, students, to store clerks. That was the first time I used the "What does an American look like?" A coworker was going on about the foreigners, not knowing I was from Canada. She was doing it in a very non-angry way which I think was even scarier. So ingrained. When I asked her this question, it really made her think. This had never, ever occured to her before. She said that. She had always assumed Americans looked like her and me. I could "pass" so she assumed I felt the same way she did. She agreed after this conversation that Americans might actually look not like her preconceived notion. Talk about opening someone's mind. At least she was receptive to this idea. Small steps!

[> [> [> [> Re: Good for you Ann -- dub, 09:04:01 12/23/03 Tue

I'm usually the (undeniably white) one who raises the issue of racism, particularly in my circle at work. It's an uphill battle, and I work with people who staff The Program Against Racism!

For example, the Japanese-Canadian woman who still uses the term "Orientals" and is angered when people mistake her for Chinese-Canadian because, "the Chinese are such lousy drivers!"

Then there's the Italian-Canadian woman who refers to herself and several others on staff as "Wops." Do I have the right to tell her she's being racist? Or is that not racist because she's "white?"

Still, I persist in bringing it up and the result, at least, is that most people remember not to make remarks like that around me, because the atmosphere then becomes uncomfortable for them. And I worry about being a hypocrite, because I have to accept that we all harbor some racist beliefs, no matter how well-buried and contained they are, and it's better to admit it and work from that...then I start to wonder whether I, with no experience as a racial minority, have any right to make these remarks (that are critical of racism)at all. Isn't that somehow, I don't know the right word but sort of patronizing? As if I, as a representative of the "white" race, undertake to "protect" the poor, downtrodden "others," implying that they can't stand up for themselves? Ugh.

*sigh*

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Good for you Ann -- Ann, 10:25:20 12/23/03 Tue

As Buffy would say: That would be wrong.(Ignoring comments) Or as Spike would say: Its the right thing to do. (Addressing comments)

This is why I think it is important to note and comment on people when they say such things. It is sad that in my work, when I do the littlest of efforts for minority students, that minority staff state that I am so far ahead of the game. I think if we all do this little bit, then more and more people will make these realizations. I too, am that person that everyone thinks they need to be careful around. Well good.

Minorities can and do stand up for themselves. I don't think standing on the side of right is patronizing even though I agree that it might seem that way. Until racism is not institutionalized and so embedded in all cultures, I think we all need to do what we can.

BUFFY: It's not enough. I need to fix this...I just I need to do something, OK? I have to make this better...

She is so wise!

[> [> [> [> [> good for you too, dub -- anom, 15:05:04 12/23/03 Tue

It's definitely worth it for "majority" members to speak up against prejudice when it's expressed, for several reasons. First, the more places people feel "uncomfortable" saying prejudiced things, the better. Second, getting people to think about what they're saying & what it means, & to question their ideas, may help open their minds. (Ann's story above about her coworker is a great example.) Third, someone like Rahael or Ann or RadiusRS may be there waiting to see if anyone who isn't in a minority group objects to the racist comment. Fourth, it's only hypocrisy if you're not willing to have any prejudices you do have pointed out to you the same way you point others' prejudices out to them.

"Then there's the Italian-Canadian woman who refers to herself and several others on staff as 'Wops.' Do I have the right to tell her she's being racist? Or is that not racist because she's 'white?'"

More likely she thinks it's OK because she's of Italian ancestry herself. (Gee, am I a prejudiced American because "Italian-Canadian" looks strange to me?) After all, can she be racist against her own ethnic group? It's like how some Jews think it's OK for them (but nobody else) to make Jewish jokes, or some blacks call each other "nigger," or some GLBT (did I leave anyone out? anyway, non-heterosexual) people call themselves "queer." It may be more important how other Italian-Canadians feel about "one of their own" calling them "wops."

"...then I start to wonder whether I, with no experience as a racial minority, have any right to make these remarks (that are critical of racism)at all. Isn't that somehow, I don't know the right word but sort of patronizing?"

I'd call it supportive, not patronizing, & I think it's important for people who have experienced prejudice to know that not all of those who haven't go along w/such attitudes. It's not that they can't stand up for themselves, it's that the prejudice is real & does hamper their efforts to do so, & members of the majority who oppose that prejudice have a responsibility to make our opposition known.

It might also help to realize that many members of the majority truly don't realize the advantage their majority status gives them. We have the luxury of ignorance. A lot of racial discrimination is "hidden." For example, I might go to look at an apartment listed for rent & have no idea that 15 minutes before, a black or Latino person went to see it & was told it was taken. Things like this are invisible to a lot of white people, who genuinely don't realize they happen. Any response to a prejudiced remark might be received better if it takes that into account & doesn't sound like an accusation (not that I'm assuming you do it that way, dub)--like saying, "Isn't that a racist term?" or "Excuse me, but that's a stereotype," rather than "You're being racist." Although that can be hard, I know, esp. when the remark makes you angry. (I've been known to call out "Stereotype alert!")

[> [> [> [> [> [> It's a little problematic for me... -- Random, 19:48:30 12/23/03 Tue

...as a member of the aforementioned majorities. White Anglo-Saxon Pro-- well, Agnostic (WASA?) The assumptions predicated upon my status are ones that I take no pleasure in dealing with, and the difficulty of defending myself from unsubstantiated accusations derived from a generic paradigm of "majority = oppressive, ignorant and/or malicious" has instilled in me a rather deep disregard for humoring any such generalizations applied to me. In other words, I tend to completely ignore such patently pejorative attempts to evoke a reaction in me. The problem with the essay above -- as I believe somebody has stated -- lies in the fact that there is truly no room for discourse. There is only acceptance or rejection. When one defines the parameters of the discussion in terms of the other sides' absolute inability to comprehend or engage effectively, then the debate is finished because no interchange of ideas is possible, nor will compromise be reached.

The writer of the essay was ranting, I think. More power to him or her. We all need a rant sometimes. But until some framework for discourse is laid in such a way as to not rob either side of such basic rights as the opportunity to define him or herself independently of the other's perspective, or the potential to disagree without being subjected to unwarranted generalized stereotypes (and this applies to both the minority and the majority), then the discourse is just spinning its wheels. One cannot make a basic assumption about who is in the wrong and refuse to yield any ground without rendering the entire debate futile. The upshot is that while members of a majority -- including me -- should, by most prevailing ethical and moral standards, avoid prejudice and discrimination against minorities, the same members cannot be coerced into "behaving well" nor, I believe, should they be required to be apologists for people in their own demographic, anymore than a minority should have to defend his or her own character because of the actions of another member of his or her demographic. If I am expected to loudly assert my own moral stature due to a parti pris dynamic, I am no longer acting in a moral manner -- I am acting in a manner calculated to appease. Yes, it's important to send a message that not everyone feels a certain way. But it's a fine line between social affirmation and socially compulsion.

The most problematic aspect I have is that people -- including me, though luckily my accuser lacked any ability to formulate a coherent argument, thus ended up looking very silly -- do, on occasion, get subjected to unwarranted accusations of prejudice merely because they object to being denied a relevant voice. Ironic, indeed. My argument above could be construed as an instrument of prejudice because it runs contrary to the theme of accepting the problem as defined in the terms of people other than me. Not by anyone who knows me, of course, but that's my point...we cannot divorce the perspective from the individual without robbing the perspective of most of its meaning. Hence, to use the example above, the word "wop" has a different connotation when spoken by an Italian-Canadian/American/El Salvadoran et cetera than when spoken by me. Surely some people will be offended no matter who says it...but just as surely, the intentions of the speaker can and should be differentiated in each case.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> A Christmass eve rambly post. -- Rahael, 02:37:30 12/24/03 Wed

There's no coercian involved. When I was younger, I was very idealistic. I thought everyone burned as I did at the thought of any kind of injustice.I was familiar to being in an environment where such issues were paramount and *not* in a white/black dichotomy either.

I learnt that we were fighting for our souls and our integrity, and the peace in our community when we spoke up.

But now I'm in the West, all these things are much more complicated. The stakes aren't so high. The community isn't going to fall apart becasue I got beaten up in the street one day and all the people went past and ignored me, lying on the street pavement. All the cars went by and no one stopped.

Life goes on. I looked up, disbelievingly, waiting for them to apologise, picked up my glasses and put them back on. I tottered on to school and my teachers comforted me, and a nice policeman came along and takes down the details and cheers me up by discussing economic conditions in pre-revolutionary Russia.

I felt shamed, in front of everyone. I didn't burn with anger then, for myself. I felt ashamed for myself, that I had been so humiliated, me, the proud me, being so cast down by people so vicious, so careless that they laughed as they did it. I thought, well, these are busy people, why would they stop to help a school girl up?

And yes, I understand one picks ones battles, and there's no time to be always disagreeing with others who say things like "these [asylum seekers aka me] people should be deported." (Temp secretary in my office, a couple of months ago).

Everything's so much more complicated now. I understand why everyone looks embarrassed and goes silent. I understand why they pass by.

Sometimes, I question why I care so much, not just about isseus that concern me. I wonder why I have a stand up row with a muslim friend about comments regarding hindus. Or why the anti-semitism I encountered at university so totally shocked me and made me furious. Sometimes I doubt as to why I try - it doesn't change anything. And it just gets caricatured as something beyond compassion. As something laughable and ridiculous.

I was thinking about this overnight - that I no longer think that when someone says "these people [asylum seekers] are ruining this country and polluting it, and they should be deported", I no longer wait to see if anyone will indicate that *they* are not being spoken for. I'm afraid to wait.

When anyone does say anything to demur...well, I look upon it as something incredible. A gift, not a duty.

But in myself, when I am placed in positions where I benefit from the cleavages of power in society, it felt so stark and destructive to me. The ride home from school where there were people living on rubbish tips. Children like me, foraging in the dirt. The girls who looked after me after school to earn money so they could still get an education. And when I was at school, the snobbery and the assumptions about who was worthy and who wasn't. Why it was okay that people could be born and by their accident of birth, be condemned to that. And why they were, in the end, abandoned on the front line of this terrible war, while I was allowed to escape.

(I think of them, when I hear these comments about asylum seekers, and I guess I cannot feel too angry. I have more than enough.)

So on reflection maybe you are right. There's nothing to apologise for or fight against. Why would anyone feel sorry for me, privileged and educated as I am, when someone tries to take me down a peg or too by reminding me, that I, am ultimately a paki (this is the equivalent of the 'n' word, here in Britain,for someone like me), and nothing more? I had a big fight with a male, asian friend of mine when I said that we should be as equally, if not more concerned about poverty first and race second. That I'd be first concerned about anyone trapped in poverty, and then be concerned about a rich lawyer like himself facing prejudice.

So you see, I have an open mind. I have nothing to be appeased. Apart from a need to see a fairer world. To live in a fair community, and not benefit from its unfairness. That seems self destructive to me.

One of the most moving interviews I ever saw was from the actor Paul Eddington (The Good Life, Yes Minister), who was visibly dying from cancer at the time. He was asked what he wanted people to say about him after he died, what he'd like to be remembered by. He said, and I've never forgotten this "He did very little harm".

That would be an amazing thing to be remembered for, I think. As long as it's understood that doing little harm is not a passive thing, but one that requires that harm is never done in one's name.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Something happened to the son of a friend and I always wondered if I said or did the right thing. -- Rufus, 06:06:36 12/24/03 Wed

I have a friend who is Fijian/Chinese/Indian who is married to a fellow who is white (a Mc name). They have a wonderful son who has suffered much the same thing you have described over a period of time. When he was in elementary school he was frequently pushed into the slough while other children called him "paki". He endured that and still was able to be a popular very intelligent young man with a loving nature. It was in middle school that the worst thing happened. He was assaulted by another student who threw him to the ground and smashed his head against the floor. He had a concussion. The school did nothing to the hateful boy who attacked the young man and when my friend called the boys parents they swore at her and hung up the phone. This family was of an upper income bracket and a financial contributor to the school. The complaints went nowhere and my friends son was hurt and angry. I spoke to him on the phone and said a few things. I told him that sometimes things happen that are wrong and it appears that the hurtful person gets away with it. (My friend didn't want to take the issue to court or anything so she was faced with her angry son who was trying to cope with the attack.) I told the son that he was a special person who was mature and better than the creep who attacked him. He vented about how angry he was about the attack and the school's lack of response. I then told him that given the circumstances that he may not get justice that is visible but because of who he is he could go onto living the best life he could and to look back at this point in time as not when he gave up but when he kept going. The type of young man who would attack another boy should have been charged with assault and thrown out of school. In this case money talked and the school went with the cash. I also told my young friend that revenge isn't hurting another person but going on to live the best life you can without allowing rage to ruin who you are. The young man who attacked him can't be a happy person and do the thing he did. Time is on my young friends side as he well proved over the years. He is happy and popular with everyone, I have to wonder how the other boy is doing with his apparent easy life? I always agonized over what I told my friends son, I made it clear that what happened was wrong and that the schools reaction to it baffling. The best I could do is encourage him to go on knowing that not everyone is hateful because his skin is not white. Part of me wanted to beat the crap out of the other kid......nah, the idiot parent who was a rude pig. My friend has taught her son what is right and wrong...the best I could do is talk to him about how life sometimes isn't fair but ultimately a life lived like that hateful boy can't be a happy one. I didn't fix it, I don't know if I made him feel any better, I'm thrilled that he went on to be the kind of man he is now but wonder how many other children lose their way because of the cruelty of others who use race as an excuse to hurt another. I did tell my friend to take her son out of the fancy school and send him somewhere else....she did and he spent his last years of high school a very happy lad.

This brings me to the attack against you, it was wrong and people just don't seem to know what to do when these situations arise. This leads most to avoid it at all costs because they are conflicted or they just don't want to bother. I think that also people don't speak out because they are afraid of putting their feet in their mouth, leading them to take the easy way out by saying nothing. You remind me of my friends son in that you are understandably trying to work through the feelings of anger at the attacker and those who allowed it to happen. All I can do from my tiny office is say to go on, become the best you can be as that may be the only revenge that is the least hurtful to anyone while benefiting you.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for this, Rufus -- Rahael, 12:51:27 12/24/03 Wed

Your friend's son is awesome, and thank you for telling me about him.

And have a great Christmas!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not exactly my point.. -- Random, 10:28:15 12/24/03 Wed

I was not even remotely attempting to make a case for discrimination and prejudice. Indeed, my point was, in part, that my unwillingness to accept that I hold such cruel and racist beliefs merely by virtue of my cultural and physiological attributes -- things over which I had no control -- cannot be logical construed as a sign of intolerance. The logical leap from my points to believing that one should never challenge racism is rather extreme, to say the least.

I was raised in a household where prejudice was considered unthinkable. My little sister once expressed -- at age 7 -- the thought that she didn't want to date another 2nd grader because he was black. My parents did not take that well, and she learned her lesson very quickly. Her last two boyfriends were, respectively, African-American and Lebanese. A lesson well-learned indeed.

The Good Samaritan rule fell well outside of the scope of my observations, but can be addressed. It would be a fairly substantial leap to say that refusal to accept the arguments that are applied to me generically without modifications translates into an acceptance such unacceptable things as racism and violence. Such things make me furious too, and I have had my own share of battles in that regard. Sometimes members of the majority can be decent people -- but I cannot imagine having to assert my decency for the sake of public relations rather than doing so because I feel compelled by a sense of right and wrong. My actions are my tools, my testimony. The people who pass by are, in a sense, monstrous. But they do not speak with my voice, do not act under my control. I reject them just as they reject others. Am I better than them? No. They are each possessed of their own pains, their own unspeakably tragic histories. I disagree vehemently with the fact that they pass by the pain of others, but I can never understand the pain they feel as well.

I never said there was no fight. Just as surely as I believe racism and discrimination should be eradicated, I believe that it a good and moral fight that shows the quality of the person. There are quite a few people in the line of fire. Dub mentions her own role above. Her methods are not my methods, but they are the voice of someone entering the fray to bugle calls and angry opposition. I have been there. Many of us have been there, whether we speak up about it or not. Indeed, my own personal history -- I'm not entirely a member of the majority -- has given me scars that I bear with honor, even if I don't display them often.

I care. My words cannot be construed as echoing words of prejudice because, quite frankly, there is no foundation for such a construction. I care about many things, some more foolish than others. I do not step aside, or cross the street. But nor do I accept -- which was primarily what my original post was saying -- guilt for actions that I have never committed ot been a party to. My voice is my own, and to fail to speak in my defense does not negate the ability to speak in the defense of others. And, because I do pick my own battles, I disagree with the idea that one should not challenge said secretary above. One should try to establish her rationale for the sake of common discourse, but, barring some highly unlikely rationale that explains everything sensibly (I cannot imagine it, but I'm sure something is possible in theory), I would choose to challenge. It is not an act of contrition, but of defiance.

I am 1/8 Cherokee. I am 3/4 Anglo-Saxon, traced back to the 1700s in America. {The other 1/8 is the Spanish Pinzons} My ancestors committed vile atrocities on a scale that beggars the imagination...against other members of my ancestry. The Anglo-Saxon element cannot be exculpated -- they were here all along. Sometimes, in the middle of contemplating it on a cool winter's eve, I pass from horror to a sort-of dazed bemusement at the nature of my own ancestry. It is somehow surreal. I was once berated -- the incident alluded to in my first post -- for the actions of my ancestors in the Southern United States and accused of racism because of the very real possibility that my ancestors kept slaves. I didn't bother dignifying the statements with a retort, but I did spend a while afterwards re-hashing old musings about where I come from, the people who eventually engendered me. The learning curve about my Cherokee ancestry was steep once it became readily apparent that the "conquest of the Americas" was as brutal an affair as any in modern history. What rage could I feel, knowing that 3/4 of my ancestry virtually exterminated, in the cruelest ways, 1/8 of my ancestry?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well perhaps I was confused -- Rahael, 13:06:34 12/24/03 Wed

Because I didn't think anyone in the subthread was saying that people *must* say things, or that 'white' people were automatically racist or ignorant.

Rather, that they would be privy to comments that people might not make in front of people like me, and that would afford them an opportunity to say: "well, don't assume that I hold these opinions".

Actually, it's funny, some people seem completely comfortable making racist comments in my presence! Oh wait......

Once a friend of mine came back and told me what I think was supposed to be a funny/outrageous anecdote, about how some people had been singing anti-semetic songs in German in the student union. I was like: what did you do? "nothing!". "Why, didn't you walk out or anything?" "There weren't any Jewish people there to be offended!"

At which point my head metaphorically hit the table several times. It's *not* about racism being offensive to people like me. I'll keep my own feelings out of it since I appear to declare a bias. But it's these people who claim to speak for all white people. They are the ones who claim a monolithic white culture and people. They are the ones who refuse to recognise the nuances within such a concept, or indeed, refuse to recognise how their vision of 'Englishness' and 'English' history is completely distorted.

I definitely don't believe them. And I frequently say "You don't speak for Britain, nor are you aware of the complexity of your history" (only more tactfully!). But these people do not respect my opinion or my intelligence.

But what do I know? I can recognise the difficulty of your position. At least my position in these affairs has a certain simplicity. (Until I start dealing with my own identities back home, where either way I look I am either an oppressor or a terrorist, and I say "I condemn both, utterly")

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Expectations and hope for the future -- Random, 14:03:53 12/24/03 Wed

Expectations are funny creatures. We meander through our lives and often find our expectations met, or somehow demolished. And the funny thing is, the truth or falseness of said expectations often has little relevance to our ultimate conclusions. And sometimes we expect people to behave in a certain way, and the expectations carry suprising consequences, practical and philosophical, when the recipients of those expectations rebel. But I think perhaps you were under a misapprehension about what I was trying to convey, and I under one about your post. I was confused at the discussion of silence about racism and the idea that there's nothing to apologize for or fight against. It took me by surprise, since I hadn't meant to imply that. Still don't see where I did, but that could be my own lack of perspective. Just to clarify: I am opposed to this despicable behaviour (yes, I know I am now defending my character, so be it) and have acted accordingly. And I choose to behave in the manner I feel is most moral and most suitable for my philosophy.

But it's that illusion of monolithic history that is precisely my personal bugbear. I am not a component of a monolithic wave of aggregate identity, nor do I care to be so identified. And you are quite right not to believe such claims. No intelligent, educated person could without a healthy dose of self-delusion. And I would never claim such was true. It cuts both ways, though...I do not care for others speaking for me (i.e. neo-Nazis, xenophobes, et cetera), nor do I care for people assuming that my background implies that it is necessary for me to speak up specifically to reassure people that at least I don't hold the same beliefs as others from a similar background. I know many people who feel differently, including several close friends, but I pick my battles by different criteria. Perhaps my criteria are misguided, but they have served me well enough. As always, I speak for my own values, and others speak for theirs. No-one who knows me would seriously suggest I am either racist or passive about racism. So in that regard, I've accomplished a little of what I want people to know about me.

But injustice still exists. No question about that. And I have never lived under a caste system. I have never attended a segregated school. I do not twist and gnaw at my bonds in the hottest conflagrations of such inhumanity to man. Which makes me a limited observer, someone not to be taken seriously, perhaps, but I cannot help that. It was not my fate to be born a woman in Afghanistan, or a Tutu in Rawanda, or an African-American in the hellhole of the Jim Crow-era South United States. Maybe that's why I'm capable of optimism. Maybe that's why I can say, "Things will get better."

We are living in an age that has heightened awareness, even if it hasn't eradicated injustice. Each age builds on the bones of the previous one, and there are many skeletons indeed under the foundations of our modern era. Injustice and intolerance have never been watchwords before -- they were, rather, brutal facts of life for virtually all of human history. Slavery and genocide is not a recent phenomena. Chinese history is replete with the death of hundreds of thousands of peasants under restrictive regimes and conquering enemies, and that doesn't even count the modern famines attendant with the Cultural Revolution. Persia operated under a "lose and die" programme, and Rome sacked Carthage and salted the earth. Germanic tribes put every man, woman and child to the sword upon conquest. The Crusades were uniformly vicious, though the Fourth Crusade was particularly destructive and murderous. Stephen's Crusade aka "The Children's Crusade" ended with tens of thousands of prepubescent and teen-aged children marching on Jerusalem...not a single one made it, and very few returned home. The fate of the rest is uncertain, though the fact that they came to horrible ends as slaves or corpses is incontestable. The fate of the native Americans has been well-documented. The colonial powers raped and ravaged Africa, Asia and the Americas. (Australia, as well, though that's a very interestingly complicated topic that I'm not qualified to speak on.) And we haven't even reached the 20th century on this little list. I witness and read about and hear the accounts of racism and murder and injustice nowadays and wonder what my voice can do.

But it's not just my voice. It's the voice of an entire era. I willingly choose to join it, just as I carefully choose my modus operandi. I'm a fool, of course, but aren't we all? The 20th century brought atrocities that are especially distinguished for having been well-documented (for the most part. Who knows what horror in, say, the killing fields will never be told, what blood will forever stain the soil beneath the surface. A single movie isn't enough. A thousand movies wouldn't be enough. Too many names and faces, millions even, will never be remembered) But I see hope too. In the 19th century, we saw the voluntary -- at least on one side -- ending of slavery by the oppressors. The aftermath has been horrid, unspeakable, but it is, at least, an aftermath. Small comfort, but better than none. The 20th century brought newer ways to kill and oppress...but it also brought newer ways to educate, change, transform. Where Aphra Behn was an icon and a unique voice in her age, and Mary Wollstonecraft was lauded for finding a voice, Steinem and Katharine Nash and Cynthia Orozco and bell hooks and Freidan and Daly and, yes,Joss Whedon -- they are each important, and, yet, part of a multitude. We are not silent. The voices against oppression and stereotypes buzz loudly across a million channels. When the slaughter in Rawanda went shamefully unabated, we were nevertheless unsilenced. We knew. We spoke. We remember. And perhaps we will do better next time. Perhaps. And there will be a next time, no question, unless we contrive to destroy the world before then.

It's a conflict, loggerheads, but not a paradox. The coming of the new age has brought wonder and horrors, conjoined, and who can see how it will end. But I choose hope. I choose to take the fact that I grew up around people of different ethnicities and never once assumed there was something odd about that to be a sign of hope. We need hope. We need to pick battles that can be won, or battles that must be fought regardless of whether they can be won or not. But we take our own paths, and we need to understand that sometimes we find allies in the least likely places, people who will not conform to our own beliefs or expectations, but fight nevertheless. Me, I'm the child of privilege, I suppose. White. Male. Middle class. I am proud to raise a battle standard next to those who have taken different paths, believe differently about how one should behave. Overly-dramatic? Possibly. Tomorrow, I may feel low-key and Christmas-y. And the day after? Who knows. But it doesn't affect my core beliefs. I take a certain satisfaction in that. I'm simplistic too.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dipping my toe into this discussion -- Sara, ready to run for the hills, 13:43:28 12/24/03 Wed

This is such a big topic, I'm not sure whether by the time I'm done writing this I'll post it or chicken out. It's hard to get my mind around it because it is both simple and complex. On the simple side - racism, prejudice, slurs bad. Tolerance, kindness, acceptance good. But the truth is , it's not that simple.

I have encountered minimal prejudice in my life, just enough to know it's there, but certainly nothing that had scarred or damaged me in any way. My mother, however, grew up in dramatically anti-semitic environment. She made a comment that she learned to run fast as a child to avoid being beaten up. She experienced the kind of hate that did have a strong affect on her perceptions of the world. In my mother's world view the only people who didn't hate Jews, were Jews. Let me emphasize this to you, in my mother's eyes each and every non-jew on this board deep down, in their heart of hearts has a dislike of Jews. Do I believe this to be true, of course not - but I understand what shaped this prism that she looked at the world through. Now, here's where it gets complicated - my mom had many, many close gentile friends. Her best friend when I was growing up was the lady across the street who was a devout Roman Catholic with a missonary brother. My mother loved this woman and mourned her too early death the rest of her own life. But she also believed that Mrs. M, was at some level or other anti-semitic. My mom didn't blame Mrs. M for that, how could she it wasn't her fault, all goyim don't like Jews. Now, in my experience I've found friends who really don't have any hidden hatred or dislike that I've ever found, but I've also have (present tense) friends who do have some of that anti-semitism my mom was expecting hanging around in there. They're still my friends, and when it has come out accidently they have been embarrassed and ashamed, and I've just thought - "that's one for you, ma!"

My grandfather as a child learned Ju-Jitsu from Russian soliders camped near his village. He was saved on a train by a soldier who hid him under a coat during a search. Yet, it was Russian soldiers who terrorized his and other Jewish villages with pograms.

I think that a lot of prejudice and discomfort with other groups is in people's natures. Not the really ugly stuff, that would allow a group to beat up a defenseless school girl - that kind of hate is taught and encouraged and will hopefully be rewarded with an eternity or two in hell. But the quieter stuff, the attitudes that come out in more subtle ways - that isn't learned, it has to be unlearned. Just as Random's 7 year old sister had issues with African American school mates, and Graffiti as a 4 year old didn't like a little girl in nursery school because of her dark skin - he didn't think she was pretty. Racism may be so ubiquitous because people are born with it, and must have it removed. Graffiti's first real girlfriend in junior high school was African American, so I think his racism-otomy worked, as did Random's little sisters'.

To be honest, I don't always stand up to prejudice when I encounter it. I would certainly hope I could never walk past a child being beaten for any reason, but the verbal stuff among adults is different. Sometimes I react strongly to it, sometimes I just quietly indicate that I don't want to hear it in my presence, and sometimes I ignore it. I completely respect and admire all of you that make a stand on every occasion, but I don't. I can't help but believe that the best real solution is true integration. Diversity in the workplace, on tv, in neighborhoods. I don't think that my opinion or comments are going to affect what's in someone else's heart.

I think the reason that I'm writing this is because I can't help but feel that it's better to understand other people's areas of gray. It's not that it's wrong or inappropriate to be outraged, please don't think that I'm saying that. Just that, a lack of outrage is a result of different set of experiences.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It *is* complicated... -- Random, 14:20:14 12/24/03 Wed

...and gets more complicated the more one thinks about it. Interestingly enough, my first personal (as opposed to second-hand from history books) encounter with anti-Semitism came only in my second year of undergraduate, when I had trouble pronouncing someone's name. He told me it was a Russian Jewish name and suddenly paused as if he hadn't meant to say that and asked, "Does that bother you?" I was baffled -- I had never encountered anti-Semitism in my social, familial or scholastic circles before. It just wasn't there when I grew up, or at least extremely muted. In a way, ignorance actually helped keep me on the straight-and-narrow, ironically enough. Not that my parents would have tolerated it anyway. And this person -- whose name is obscured by 8 years of time, sadly -- was genuinely worried. I was genuinely baffled. Not even annoyed that he assumed I would care, just...puzzled. But it's always complicated. I laugh at Mel Brooks movies, and feel no shame. I tease Rob about his Jewishness (if that's a word) and he retaliates with teasing me about my extreme goyness (if that's a word.) It occurs to me that Mel Brooks perpetuates stereotypes, and that Phillip Roth (an author I once enjoyed reading) does so to an even greater degree...but it also occurs to me that the issue is more complicated than this basic thesis. I dunno. Ultimately, I think it comes down to understanding where everyone is coming from. Education is the answer, but it's only a very simple answer. It needs help. It needs attendant insights, discourse...dialogue. No-one is born a racist. No-one, I think, is irredeemably racist -- at least not in theory.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dipping my toe into this discussion -- Rahael, 11:07:35 12/26/03 Fri

I don't always react loudly or obviously, but I will do something to show I cannot condone it. Even if it is a subtle comment. It's not really noble or brave or anything. I guess if I have a button it's 'the group' laughing or mocking anyone who is powerless. Usually that is connected to prejudice, but sometimes it's not.

It's worse if that person is actually present. Sometimes it's been tried on me, but my sharpness of tongue and vicious bitca-ness of personality are my perpetual help!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sharpness of tongue is never to be under-rated -- Sara, 12:44:08 12/26/03 Fri

I don't know that anyone ever made a comment in front of my mother without seriously regretting it - she could dissect a person in 10 seconds sharp without breaking a sweat. One of my favorite traits of hers. Sadly, I take after my father more - not so good at the giving of the just desserts.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sharpness of tongue is never to be under-rated -- sdev, 10:53:08 12/28/03 Sun

And I admire the ability to employ subtlety, a skill I sadly lack.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It's a little problematic for me... -- anom, 22:16:51 12/28/03 Sun

I'm glad I waited to answer Random's post, because I had to read it more than once to realize it's not really a response directly to mine. At 1st I was thinking, wait, I didn't say that, or accuse Random--or white people in general--of what he's talking about. I think a lot of that kind of posting may go on, here & elsewhere--we aren't necessarily saying to each other, "This is what you said, & this is what I think of it," so much as we're talking about what something in someone else's post triggered in us. I certainly didn't read Rahael's post as saying that Random wouldn't have objected to her being beaten on the street or helped her after she was left there, or that not objecting to prejudiced speech is equivalent to either of these. But I can understand its making her remember it (& I'm very sorry to hear it happened, Rahael, & about the lack of response from the people going by!).

I don't see anything in either my post or even the essay that started this thread that advocates coercion of members of the majority into "behaving well" or defending the group they belong to. If I speak out when someone says something prejudiced, it's because that's what I believe in doing. (I wish I could say I always do it, but I sometimes don't--I'm one of those people who can always think of just the right thing to say...later.) My response to dub meant that if she wants to say something but feels it may not be "her place" to (now there's an ironic expression in this context), these are reasons to go ahead & say it. But I didn't see where anyone said you had to, let alone loudly, & even if they do, you can do it for your own reasons--who cares if someone thinks you did it for theirs?

"We all need a rant sometimes. But until some framework for discourse is laid in such a way as to not rob either side of such basic rights as the opportunity to define him or herself independently of the other's perspective, or the potential to disagree without being subjected to unwarranted generalized stereotypes...."

But then it wouldn't be a rant, would it?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Better said than I -- Rahael, 14:40:58 12/29/03 Mon

I've been wondering, though, whether my "pausing to see if anyone else in the room would speak up if a vicious comment had been made that was clearly directed at me" is coercive.

Maybe the expression of the expectation is! But only in the most optimistic and respectful of the sense of justice of others kind of way!

Perhaps it's hard to explain the feeling of suddenly being marked out, and the oppressive nature of the silence. What is one to do? Laugh nervously? Get moody and storm off? Pretend you didn't hear it? What is the best response when one is told that you should get back to the jungle and you stink, (by someone whose hair could have done with a thorough shampooing, the indignity!!).

Such is the nature of difficult social situations.

[> [> [> [> [> For me....(Tangent into caste system) -- Rahael, 23:42:36 12/23/03 Tue

It's not standing up for a minority or defending or being defensive of oneself as a 'majority'

I grew up as part of an elite, and it made itself felt every day. The people who would stand aside in deference to me, a little girl. The people who were, by their birth, condemned to nothing more than tending our garden. The girls one didn't talk to in class.

A couple of years ago, my grandmother told me that one of my teachers had been talking to her, and told her that I used to go and stand beside all the lower caste girls. I don't know whether I could fully articulate why I did it.

It stung. I knew I benefited from this system. To do anything else would be graceless. I wasn't sticking up for them. I was sticking up for myself being possibly a person of integrity.

And this is how I know what it might be like to be on the other side. And it does affect yuo. It affects you in a million ways. It makes you expect a certain privilege, a deference to one.

When I lost it, I understood more truly than before.

Remember....these things can be taken from us all, at some time in our lives. We stand up for ourselves, at all times, even when we do it for others.

[> [> [> [> [> [> All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke -- sdev, 09:13:25 12/25/03 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, I've never liked that quote -- Sara, hoping not to get myself into trouble here, 11:57:29 12/25/03 Thu

It always makes me feel guilty - and maybe I should feel guilty, I don't know. I've never spent a day in my life fighting evil, it feels like way too big a project to take on. I support good, that I can handle - but fighting evil, not so much. I've always felt that if you try and treat other people with respect, and bring up your children to do the same, you add a little more good to the world and hopefully that's enough. But is it? It's a real question here, I'm not looking for self justification - but I also don't really like the idea of people being judged based on the how far the person judging is willing to go. There are many people who are far more brave then I am that have posted here, and they all have my admiration, but are they the scale I need to be measuring myself to? I feel completely in over my head in this discussion, but the grey areas in it keep calling out to me. Just call me the voice of gray...(which matches my roots - I'm coordinated!)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Um, Sara? -- dub, 16:05:09 12/25/03 Thu

Every minute you have spent in the passed 13+ years, raising Graffiti to be the amazing young man he is today, was a minute spent fighting evil.

Believe me, it's more than many have done.

;o)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That was one of the nicest things -- Sara, feeling relieved, 16:43:25 12/25/03 Thu

anyone has ever said to me! Graffiti and I both thank you! (While Darby of course makes comments with words like misguided in it...)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That is exactly the message of the scoobies -- Ann, 08:13:10 12/26/03 Fri

Not everyone had Buffy's powers but they did what the could. Xander, Willow, and all of them did their part even though they did not slay like Buffy. They used their minds, their hearts whatever they could. They each did their part like some of us can raise out children as our part - our choice. We do what we can when we can. That is important too. The "little" battles help with the big picture.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I do like the quote -- sdev, 07:39:59 12/26/03 Fri

and believe it has profound truth.

The 20th century sadly showed how accurate a statement it is. Someone mentioned Rwanda, for instance. About a million Black Africans died in virtual world silence about ten years ago. I don't want to get too political here (this is kind of my safe haven) but why is that? Why is it that some deaths are cause for world outcry and some get no attention even in far greater numbers?

I am making no judgements here about individuals so please do not take this personally.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I do like the quote -- Rahael, 10:53:50 12/26/03 Fri

Moreover, it gives one a sense of power in the face of the saddening and the bewildering.

That *good* has something to do, that it has some agency, some sense of power. That it can do something, anything.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> very much agree -- sdev, 12:10:24 12/26/03 Fri

Like Angel's-- "the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world." Acts come in all shapes and sizes.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "They also serve who only stand and wait...." -- Rahael, 10:55:19 12/26/03 Fri

That is another quote I like, and one I believe has profound truth also.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "They also serve who only stand and wait...." -- sdev, 11:59:53 12/26/03 Fri

I think perhaps that quote of Milton's is greatly misunderstood. I think he was talking about the power of faith in Christianity here. And also at the time he was blind and thus dealing with incapacitation of another sort after quite an active political life.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh yes, Samson and all that -- Rahael, 15:21:03 12/26/03 Fri

That even those who have been prevented from acting, who have lost their way, who thinks God has deserted them, will get their chance to rise again, with 'inward eyes illuminated'.

It's a beautiful line in itself, and I think refers on how to deal with disillusion, after those who think their acts could change their world, find that they get sold into bondage with ease.

It may not address Sara's pov, but it kind of addressed mine! (Milton of course, endorsed Samson's final act of faith in God, while, he himself, paid his ransom and bought his freedom. A painful end for him)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh yes, Samson and all that -- sdev, 11:32:21 12/28/03 Sun

But he, though blind of sight,
Despised, and thought extinguished quite,
With inward eyes illuminated,
His fiery virtue roused
From under ashes into sudden flame,
And as an evening Dragon came,
Assailant on the perched roosts
And nests in order ranged
Of tame villatic fowl, but as an Eagle
His cloudless thunder bolted on their heads.
So Virtue, given for lost,
Depressed and overthrown, as seemed,
Like that self - begotten bird
In the Arabian woods embost,
That no second knows nor third,
And lay erewhile a holocaust,
From out her ashy womb now teemed,
Revives, reflourishes, then vigorous most
When most unactive deemed;
And, though her body die, her fame survives,
A secular bird, ages of lives.

"When most unactive deemed"

Samson was Milton's last great work.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I absolutely Love that poem -- Rahael, 15:38:30 12/28/03 Sun

I think, it and the Horation Ode compete. Appleton House comes close behind. (for that period of course!).

[> [> First Date -- Claudia, 11:23:47 01/06/04 Tue

"Though it is almost universally reviled as the worst episode of season 7, . . ."

It is?

[> This is neither an essay or an article -- Rahael, 02:47:14 12/24/03 Wed

In fact, I'm a little confused. It seems to be a response to an article we can't see.

In any case, it just seems to be a bit of a ramble that isn't in anyway written to be able to support any of its points in a substantive way.

However, I've made some remarks in the past here, both about how the Buffyverse can indeed have positive messages about race and otherness and how it sometimes perpetrates some discomfiting ideas/images/situations. I can't say the responses haven't been peculiar at times, but there have been enough thoughtful and interesting responses. They are in the archives - always worth investigating!

You might want to look up the Silent Slayer debate. There's a debate which was civilised and with great posts on either side, eliciting new and interesting perspectives on the ep.

One little point - I cannot pull myself apart and say: here's me as an asian person, and here's the part of me that's a woman. So if Buffy is meant to be a genre busting show and it's ridiculous that it should even think about challenging prejudice, - well, I think it does, I think it has, but in a way where I have to fanwank it a lot.

But if I hadn't been able to find things to respond to, well, it wouldn't have busted any genres for me. There isn't a separate category for women and then women who happen to be not white. Well there often is, but there shouldn't be. Oooh, should I post this? I never know whether I should even bring up such topics here. Well, none of this is meant to offend or threaten anyone and I will apologise profusely if anyone does feel that way, just let me know.

[> [> Just tacking onto the end of the discussion... -- Ronia, 17:55:09 12/30/03 Tue

I hope this one isn't done for, as I have enjoyed reading it very much. I suspect that the responses to the article far outmerit the article itself..so what I'm going to do is hijack it just a bit with a different, yet related subject. I'm not certain it has enough weight to warrant a new topic, so hopefully no one will mind me just bringing it up for a closer look.

I grew up in a small town in Iowa..a very small town even by Iowa standards. To further the cloister experience, I grew up in a large family in a small town. This was my mother's family, and they were a mix of Caucasion and Native American, with the Caucasion dominant. In other words, they are all very fair..all of them, every last one. Blue eyes and white skin as far as the family portrait extends. Then the eye inevitably is drawn to me. I stick out. My mother had a wanderlust, you see, and as a result my father was from the extreme east Texas/border of louisiana area. Very gulf, very not fair. That is pretty much how I felt about it growing up..very not fair. You see...despite being arguably caucasion, I was also indisputably *other* In some nonspecific way that people couldn't put their finger on but also made note of [as an example of this...here is an amusing historical moment in my life..I was in high school, and was asked by a teacher I didn't know if I was an exchange student..the fact that it took me a few moments to register what she said only seemed to confirm her suspicions..she started speaking slowly and carefully while standing too close and touching my arm as if she had every right to do so. One could argue that she just never learned the three feet rule of polite conversation with strangers, but when I got my wits about me and responded with the lack of accent well known in the midwest, she immediately assumed the appropriate distance, although she looked very befuddled] Is it more than the dark eyes and hair in a fair community? Is it more than my physical differences to the vast majority [did you know that clothing sizes often run larger in Iowa?] I became aware of the discomfort my otherness created in people...see, they couldn't put me into a nice comfortable box anywhere, they didn't know which stereotype to apply. They themselves would be very shocked [in this well eduacated, multicultural community]at the idea that their own subconcious reactions were stereotypical in nature. I see some merit in the writer of the original rant in regard to how people see and relate to color, but it is so very vague that they themselves can't put words to it, nor would they try to defend it, it just is. This is why, depite my very chaste existence, people regarded me sexually. This is why any time there was a dramatic role to be assigned, I was volunteered for the part of dark and mysterious, although I am pretty ordinary. Put my shoes on one at a time, no magic involved. Something about me sitting with my nose in a book suggested to them that I might be exciting and edgy. Not unusual in and of itself, but the person sitting next to me with their nose in a book was regarded as a nerd. It would be neat if I could say we were reading the same book..but unfortunately, things very seldom play out that way. The person sitting next to me probably found it just as irritating to be considered a nerd as I did to being considered sexy and intimidating [this is applied while I am drinking cherry coke with a straw and drumming my fingers on the table in rhythm with whatever song I currently have on "repeat" in my head] Even using descriptions like sexy and intimidating makes me uncomfortable..because, really, how is a person supposed to judge that? What rule of measurement is applied? Why did we know that Lilah was intimidating and sexy when all she was doing was folding laundry? What do we really see when we look at other people? I think Joss has played on this [thus the difference between Buffy's wardrobe and Willow's]and I understand that the reason behind it has more to do with the medium of bringing the story to the masses [television] than with intent to cement stereotypes. Television is visual..what can I tell you about this person with out wasting time actually *telling* you...this isn't disturbing, just efficient. What is disturbing is just how very clearly the message came through to large numbers of people from many different backrounds. This brings up questions for me that I have no answers for. What makes a person who they are? What combination of things take priority..for example, if a person has one black parent, and one white parent, might they just as easily and truthfully say that they are white as that they are black? I mean, honestly, how thoroughly do most people document every ethnicity that has taken part in their gene code in casual conversation or when filling out a document? Is it being pretensious to call yourself an African American when you have never set foot in Africa and have little or no knowledge about the culture and people there? Why do we have these little distinguishments anyway? What purpose do they serve? Where does that leave me? Does it mean that some part of my self is missing because I don't actually know all of the ethnicities that got stirred together in my person? Are there gaps in my consciousness? Shall I expect internal conflict if two or more of the countries that I apparently hail from are at war with each other? Is it possibly damaging to be overly descriptive of ourselves and other people? To say I *am* such and such rather than I enjoy this, or have been interested in that, or have had this experience? Even then, am what I'm telling people really necessary? What motivates me to tell people some things about myself and not others? Obviously I am projecting an image which is only just that. Illusions, deceptions, smoke and mirrors..but I have deluded myself as well. I don't know what defines a person, I do know how people are judged in various circles, but I don't understand it. It gets all complicated and messy and no one who has been caught in the act of being an ass can justify their behavior if put genuinely in a defensive position. Likewise the person victimized may all too easily dismiss the person as an ass on the whole, and thereby categorize them as surely as they have themselves been categorized. [there is a bit of hypocrysy here, because who among us has not done or said something shamefull at one time or another? You may say "well, at least I have never done THAT!" and sniff dismissively. All that means really, though is that you have shamed yourself while facing a different direction.]

How tightly can we as individuals possibly be defined anyway? A person may be illiterate until they learn to read, a person may feel one way their whole lives and then suddenly change their mind about something.

Please forgive the lack of cohesion here, my writing tends to follow my thoughts rather than discipline them, just in general, tonight I have been interrupted several times and may have changed tracks on my way to the point. It makes sense to me when I read it, but I have the priviledge of being inside my own head and if it looks dodgy to you, I will certainly clarify if I am able.

a small bit of humor with possible depth attached : On e few occasions some person or other have asked me.."so, what exactly ARE you?" my reply to the question taken literally? "Sorry, I don't exactly Know"

[> [> [> Re: Just tacking onto the end of the discussion... -- dub, 17:19:47 12/31/03 Wed

Just a quick note to keep this alive and allow others to read your post, Ronia.

One thing this whole discussion has caused me to think about (along with having just seen RotK) is:

Why does ugly = evil?

Okay, I take the point that sometimes you have to use character "shorthand" in media like television, but this is a really pervasive societal metaphor. I think the reason it struck me (very SMALL ROTK SPOILER coming up...) was that one of the bad guys looked amazingly like the John Hurt film portrayal of The Elephant Man, and that gentleman was far from being evil, AFAIK.

This is a major topic and I shouldn't have started on it just now, 'cuz I gotta go...but more later, maybe.

;o)

[> [> [> [> Really good point -- Sara, 23:14:07 12/31/03 Wed

It keeps bothering me that Whedon didn't want to use Amber Bensen because of body type - TV has a bad habit of showing people that the producers think are attractive as the heros, and using a lack of conventional beauty to define second bananas, the "pal", the bad guy. We do visually cue to have our knee jerk reaction to otherness in people, but movies and TV just reinforce it. The implications of Ugly = evil is a great area to discuss - but you can even take it further to specific beauty = good. Alot of this is just human nature, but it's an aspect of our nature that is inflated by the images we see on TV.
What is the First Evil? -- Felicia, 11:37:22 12/20/03 Sat

While reading previous posts from Buffy's Season 7, it seems that many people seem uncertain on what exactly was the First Evil. Everyone seemed to agree that it was non-corporeal.

From what I've seen of Season 7, I think that the First Evil was exactly what it claimed - the spirit of evil. In fact, I think that Joyce's spirit gave the answer to Buffy in "Bring Home the Night", but no one seemed to consider that possibility. The First Evil was the dark spirit that resided in all of us and whenever it interacted with different characters, it was the characters facing their own darker natures and feelings.

Replies:

[> Masq's alter-ego. -- HonorH (with Honorificus), 14:54:22 12/20/03 Sat


[> NYRALETHOTEP! THE CRAWLING CHAOS! -- Majin Gojira, 16:32:14 12/20/03 Sat


[> Forgive them, Felicia -- The First Naughty Virtue, 18:30:13 12/20/03 Sat

There's a little too much rum punch somewhere.

[> [> Where did the rum go? -- Honorsh, 18:43:23 12/20/03 Sat

Haven't had enou'

[> [> [> WHY IS THE RUM GONE??? -- angshelsh nibblebeblet, 23:56:38 12/20/03 Sat

*falls off chair*

[> [> [> 'Twasn't rum. 'Twas elixer. -- skeeve, 11:21:06 12/23/03 Tue


[> Which came first? -- Vapthorne, 18:58:46 12/21/03 Sun

While, we please refrain any punchlines that involve chickens and/or eggs, I want to ask this question. If the First is the omni-spirit of all evil, then how did he come about? Was he born before the universe and responsible for the evil within all living beings. Or, was the evil within everyone already there and he's the spirit that was personified/born out of it. I have not seen many episodes in season seven, so I don't know the offical answer. But, aside from that, I'm curious on any theories.

Based, off the facts in this post, the second answer fits nicer. But, that's just my opinion.

-Vapthorne

[> [> My Theory -- Claudia, 07:40:36 12/24/03 Wed

My theory is that evil was already present within everyone and that the First Evil is a personification of that spirit.

[> [> [> Re: My Theory -- Dandy, 18:40:17 12/27/03 Sat

And if evil was first, how did good arise from evil?

[> [> [> [> Good and Evil -- purplegrrl, 14:58:50 12/29/03 Mon

I don't think "the First Evil" implies that Evil came first (meaning that Good came second). "The First Evil" means that it came before all the lesser evils that came later, that it is the biggest, baddest, worst evil of all.

The universe (even the Buffyverse) is a succession of opposites Light and Dark, Good and Evil, etc. These opposites appeared simultaneously to balance each other. (Too much of one or the other and the universe goes wonky.)

The evil side of the universe probably views "the First Good" in pretty much the same way we view "the First Evil" -- as something to be fought against, turned away, destroyed if possible.
For fans of BtVS and LotR-- -- HonorH, 19:02:10 12/20/03 Sat

Someone's done something demented, and it's a beautiful thing:

Once More, With Hobbits

If nothing else, read "I'll Never Tell."

Replies:

[> I just saw RotK today..... (spoilers within, if you haven't seen it yet shame on you! see it now!) -- angel's nibblet, 23:30:31 12/20/03 Sat

Was soooooo great, so many moments made we blubber like a little baby...Pippin's singing (amongst many other things) was positively heartbreaking! I still haven't got my thoughts straight....words....failing.... I'm sorry, I think I need to go sit in a corner by myself for a while....

BTW that website is hilarious! Thanks HonorH

[> [> Re: I just saw RotK today..... (spoilers within) -- Cheryl, 19:30:33 12/22/03 Mon

Pippin's singing (amongst many other things) was positively heartbreaking!

I agree 100%. Beautiful song and beautiful voice. I enjoyed ROTK, although not as much as the Two Towers. Lots of unanswered questions (since I haven't read the books), but I'm glad others posted questions and answers here. They cleared up some things for me.

But I have one more question - why did Frodo have to leave at the end and where was he going? Was it four years later because he had to finish the book first? Even so, why leave at all? I guess that's more than just one more question, but any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[> [> [> Re Frodo and ROTK (spoilers for RTOK) -- jane, 22:10:25 12/22/03 Mon

Frodo left because the damage done to him by the burden of the Ring, and the wound he suffered on Weathertop, was too much for him to bear. In order to be healed, he was give the gift of going with the Elves to the Undying Lands.
I heartily recommend reading the books. The movies are wonderful, and I love them, but the books have so much more depth.

[> [> [> [> The books have depth -- Dlgood, 22:20:29 12/22/03 Mon

In addition, the books have appendicies, which if you are an amatuer historian, will rock your socks.

[> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- Cheryl, 06:44:34 12/23/03 Tue

I'm going to borrow the books from my brother. He read the ending to me over the phone last night (that's how much this was driving me crazy). Thanks for filling me in. I wish the movie had been a little clearer on the ending.

[> Re: For fans of BtVS and LotR-- -- jane, 00:26:30 12/21/03 Sun

This is great! Thanks, HonorH; I just saw Return of the King tonight, loved,loved it! I am so in awe of the way Peter Jackson has managed to translate my very favourite books of all time to the screen. Nice treat to read these songs and to realize that it is all connected. Buffy and the Scoobies, Frodo and the Fellowship, all heroes in my eyes.

[> LOL Just this second walked in from my first viewing of RotK -- Celebaelin, 16:01:09 12/21/03 Sun

Absolutely brilliant.

As faithful to the book as could be expected, more so probably. It's a romantic horror comedy drama (particularly if your an arachnophobe like my sister) of great vision and huge talent. I loved it wholeheartedly and in places it actually gave me chills to watch it. Going a bit OTT but for what it's worth that's the honest truth. See it.

No spoilers here but those of you who have already seen it will know what I mean when I say

"It still only counts as one"

C

[> [> Hehe Gimli is great. Also *worships Peter Jackson, who is the Joss Whedon of the movie world* -- angel's nibblet, 18:08:18 12/21/03 Sun


[> [> [> Saw ROTK (SPOILER) -- Claudia, 08:00:43 12/22/03 Mon

Before I saw the first movie of the "Lord of the Rings" saga, "Fellowship of the Ring", I asked someone which was the best story of the trilogy. That person told me it was the first - "Fellowship . . ." I decided not to take that person's response as the truth, until I saw the entire trilogy.

Last Saturday, I saw the final chapter of the saga, "Return of the King", and I can honestly say that person was right, after all. I loved "Fellowship of the Ring", when it first arrived in the theaters, some two years ago. It was, without a doubt, one of the best fantasy movies I have ever seen. And to be frank, one could say the same about "The Two Towers" and "Return of the King". But the latter two seemed a bit overblown in compare to the first movie. It also seemed that the further one delves into the saga, the less magical it becomes.

"Return of the King" seemed to possess the dubious trait of being both too long . . . and rushed, at the same time. It seems that the more important aspects of the story - Aragon's seeking the so-called Army of the Dead, Arwen's "connection" to the Ring and Middle Earth's fate, and the reasons why Pippin is believed to be the Ring bearer were rushed. Yet, we had to deal with the battle of Minas Tirith (which I have dubbed "Helm's Deep, Part 2"), Frodo's efforts to reach Mount Doom, and especially the ending, which seemed to be never ending. One of the biggest disappointment of the movie was the lack of chemistry between Aragon, Legolas and Gimli, which was so apparent in "The Two Towers". The old comradeship seemed a ghost of its former self.

The more one delved into the saga, more unexplainable plot twists and arcs seemed to pop up. I have a few questions that have been on my brain since "Fellowship of the Ring". Like:

1. Why did Sauron's forces release Gollum, after they tortured him for the name of the Ring bearer?

2. If Sauron knew that a Baggins was the Ring bearer, why did Gandalf come up with the theory that Sauron believed Pippin was the Ring bearer?

3. Why were the kingdoms of men so important to Sauron? Is this another case (from Tolkien's point of view) of a science-fiction/fantasy story, placing humanity on a pedestal?

4. Why did Sauron and Saruman change their focus from finding the Ring to destroying the kingdoms of men within a period of three days (time between "FOTR" and "TTT")?

5. What was the reason behind Denethor's hostility toward his younger son, Faramir? Was the latter the illegitamite son of another man? What?

6. What happened to Saruman and Wormtongue? You mean to say that after their defeat at the hands of the Ents, they remained in Saruman's towers, as prisoners? That's it?

And most importantly:

7. How on earth was Arwen tied to the Ring and Middle Earth's fate? Could someone please explain that?

But "Return of the King" wasn't a complete disappointment. It still had its great moments, including scenes the Rohan riders' charge against Sauron's army at Minas Tirith, Sam's rescue of Frodo, Gandalf and Pippin's rescue of Faramir. What I really enjoyed about "Return of the King", was the developing relationship between Gandalf and Pippin. Ian McKellan and Billy Boyd saved the movie for me.


Two more things:

One, it seemed to me that the audience had become weary of Gollum (which happened to me in "TTT"). When Frodo first shoved him over the ledge, during their encounter with the spider (whose name I don't remember), everyone cheered and clapped. But the cheering and clapping seemed more muted -less enthused, when Gollum finally bit the dust.

And two, I have to disagree with the person who stated that Peter Jackson is the Joss Whedon of the movie world. Peter Jackson directed three incredible movies, but unlike Joss Whedon, George Lucas, and J. Michael Stracynski, who created their sci-fi/fantasy sagas; Jackson didn't create the world of Middle-Earth.

[> [> [> [> Re: Saw ROTK (SPOILER) -- LittleBit, 09:39:40 12/22/03 Mon

I haven't seen RotK yet, but from my own perspective I'd like to make one distinction. There's a difference between the question "which is the best story of the trilogy?" and "which is the best film of the current movie trilogy?" The reason I make those distinctions is not unlike the point you make about Peter Jackson not creating the world of Middle-Earth. In making the movies there are choices made about how much of the book can be translated onto film without the movie being 6 hours long. And there are decisions made aboout the characters, Arwen being one of them. Many of the questions you pose are the result of these decisions. The books didn't leave them unanswered.

[> [> [> [> Answers to Claudia's Questions (SPOILERS) -- Dlgood, 09:58:30 12/22/03 Mon

As mentioned in the other reply, some of these questions aren't answered in the movies, but are in the books:

1. Why did Sauron's forces release Gollum, after they tortured him for the name of the Ring bearer?

Because he was of no value as a prisoner, but could do some evil if released. The enemy also planned to track him in hopes Gollum would lead them to the Ring.

2. If Sauron knew that a Baggins was the Ring bearer, why did Gandalf come up with the theory that Sauron believed Pippin was the Ring bearer?

Because Pippin did not reveal his name to Sauron, so Sauron assumed Pippin was "Baggins".

3. Why were the kingdoms of men so important to Sauron? Is this another case (from Tolkien's point of view) of a science-fiction/fantasy story, placing humanity on a pedestal?

4. Why did Sauron and Saruman change their focus from finding the Ring to destroying the kingdoms of men within a period of three days (time between "FOTR" and "TTT")?

Because the kingdoms of men are the primary sources of military opposition and resistance to their dominion. And destroying the opponent is a good way to win a war. This does not mean Sauron changed focus away from finding the ring.

It's not really shown in the movie, but Sauron assumes that Aragorn has the ring and will plan to go to Minas Tirith and claim it for himself

5. What was the reason behind Denethor's hostility toward his younger son, Faramir? Was the latter the illegitamite son of another man? What?

There are a lot of possible reasons for this. Illegitimacy is not one of them. It actually has far more to do with Denethor's relationship with Aragron and his own father in his youth, and that is discussed only in fragments in the appendix to the Book, and in Tolkien's unpublished writings.

6. What happened to Saruman and Wormtongue? You mean to say that after their defeat at the hands of the Ents, they remained in Saruman's towers, as prisoners? That's it?

This is a case where the movies diverge from the books, where Saruman's story continues with tremendous relevance. Covering what happens with Saruman would have added another 45 minutes to the movie.

7. How on earth was Arwen tied to the Ring and Middle Earth's fate? Could someone please explain that?

Not explained anywhere. Jackson just pulled this out thin air to add drama, and poorly IMHO.

[> [> [> [> [> ROTK -- Claudia, 10:10:41 12/22/03 Mon

"Many of the questions you pose are the result of these decisions. The books didn't leave them unanswered."

Unfortunately, the movies did. Which is why I ended up feeling slightly disappointed by ROTK.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: ROTK -- LittleBit, 11:22:52 12/22/03 Mon

Which I can thoroughly understand. After the first two movies I'm still saying "why is Arwen there?"

[> [> [> [> [> re: Saruman (SPOILERS) -- Rob, 14:54:05 12/22/03 Mon

6. What happened to Saruman and Wormtongue? You mean to say that after their defeat at the hands of the Ents, they remained in Saruman's towers, as prisoners? That's it?

Actually, what happened was that the fate of Saruman was filmed, but it was dropped due to the movie's enormous running length. However, this plot thread is being restored to the movie for the upcoming extended DVD cut that should come out about a year from now. The new version is expected to be over 4 hours and 20 minutes long.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: re: Saruman (SPOILERS) -- Claudia, 14:16:16 12/23/03 Tue

"The new version is expected to be over 4 hours and 20 minutes long."


OH MY GOD! That long?

You have to understand my reaction. Just watching the 3 hours and 30 minutes theatrical release was torture enough. Believe me, I'm not being catty.

[> [> [> [> [> Arwen and the ring -- angel's nibblet, 17:00:49 12/23/03 Tue

7. How on earth was Arwen tied to the Ring and Middle Earth's fate? Could someone please explain that?

Not explained anywhere. Jackson just pulled this out thin air to add drama, and poorly IMHO.

This is what I thought at first, but I think maybe it was not so much the actual ring itself she was tied to (can't remember what Tolkien says about this, if anything) , just the fact that Sauron was effectively 'poisoning' Middle-earth and Arwen, being an elf, was so tied to the land and no longer had any protection from his influence (Elrond's "I cannot protect you now" ?), and the only way to get rid of Sauron was to destroy the ring, therefore the only way for Arwen to get better was for the ring to be destroyed.

So yes her fate was dependent on what happened to the ring, but not actually tied to the ring or anything silly like that, which would not make any sense because I can't recall Arwen having any contact whatsoever to it.

Yes that's just my little rant got out now :-P, feel free to shot me down with actual facts.....

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Arwen and the ring -- Dlgood, 20:24:31 12/23/03 Tue

feel free to shot me down with actual facts.....

Elrond and his twin brother Elros were of both human and elven descent. When the world was changed at the end of the first age, they were each asked to choose between life as a Man or as Elf. Elros chose to be a man, and Aragorn is a direct descendent of that line - some sixty generations onward. Elrond chose to be Elf.

At the end of the third age, Elrond's children would be offered the same choice. As the War of the ring represented the end of the Age, with either Sauron or men ascendent, Arwen would have to be prepared to make a choice. But in the story, that choice isn't put to her before the ring is destroyed.

In a sense, either way she loses. If Aragorn dies, she leaves Middle Earth along with all the other elves, save that she does so as a widow. If he survives and wins, she forfeits her immortality and never sees her father, grandmother (Galadriel) or her household again.

In a sense, perhaps she's merely making that choice in advance, in which case she'll either be married to Aragorn, or he'll die and she'll be stuck in a decaying Middle Earth, alone, and under Sauron's yoke. Unlike the other elves, who would still have passage west if they could find a ship that could take them.

But that's not really explained all that well by Jackson.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Arwen and the ring -- Claudia, 11:15:00 01/05/04 Mon

"But that's not really explained all that well by Jackson."

I think you have stated perfectly, what was wrong with the movie. There were a good number of plot lines and arcs that were not explained well, by the movie. Whoever did the screenplay adaptation . . . well, they didn't do a good job.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Answers to Claudia's Questions (SPOILERS) -- celticross, 22:50:31 01/05/04 Mon

5. What was the reason behind Denethor's hostility toward his younger son, Faramir? Was the latter the illegitamite son of another man? What?

There are a lot of possible reasons for this. Illegitimacy is not one of them. It actually has far more to do with Denethor's relationship with Aragron and his own father in his youth, and that is discussed only in fragments in the appendix to the Book, and in Tolkien's unpublished writings.
------

In several interviews, John Noble (Denethor) has said his acting decisions were based on the idea that Faramir reminds Denethor uncomfortly of his (Denethor's) late wife, while Boromir, the favored son, reminded him of himself and gave him the chance to relive his youth. Not, perhaps, strictly Tolkien-esque, but a good take on the family drama, I think.

[> [> [> [> Off the cuff RoTK answers (SPOILER) -- fresne, 16:24:10 12/22/03 Mon

Well, speaking as someone who skimmed through the novels ten or so years ago, perhaps I can muddy the waters. I beg your pardon for any flippancy in advance, IÕm in a feyish mood.

1. Why did Sauron's forces release Gollum, after they tortured him for the name of the Ring bearer?

Because GollumÕs a ring obsessed freakazoid and the moment he was released he would and did make a ring bee-line. Just one more method to try and find the ring/keep the ring from becoming lava soup.

2. If Sauron knew that a Baggins was the Ring bearer, why did Gandalf come up with the theory that Sauron believed Pippin was the Ring bearer?

One hobbit looks like another hobbit.

Short.

However, this was not the hobbit that they were looking for. Sauron needs more observant minions.

3. Why were the kingdoms of men so important to Sauron? Is this another case (from Tolkien's point of view) of a science-fiction/fantasy story, placing humanity on a pedestal?

He is a)trying to prevent the age of men from arriving, b)trying to eliminate the largest possible source of resistance c) annoyed about being a large blinking eye, d) once he controls the lands of men, it will be that much easier to search for the ring,

4. Why did Sauron and Saruman change their focus from finding the Ring to destroying the kingdoms of men within a period of three days (time between "FOTR" and "TTT")?

Was it three days? I figured that the time period was some interminable period of walking, walking, walking. In any case, Sauron has many minions. Some minions are trying to take over the kingdoms of men, and incidentally expand SauronÕs potential ability to find this tiny gold metal thing, and other minions are trying to find the shiny gold metal thing. Really, Sauron should have made sure that the garbage disposal was off before reaching down there to see if his ring had fallen down the drain.

5. What was the reason behind Denethor's hostility toward his younger son, Faramir? Was the latter the illegitimate son of another man? What?

Why do parents sometimes favor one child over another? Why do humans sometimes blame the survivors when someone they love dies? Denethor sent a son, probably his favorite/chosen representative/heir to participate in some council thing and ended up having that son die far from home. Meanwhile, the city that Denethor is set to defend is under constant attack by fill in the blank evil. He was human. He snapped.

6. What happened to Saruman and Wormtongue? You mean to say that after their defeat at the hands of the Ents, they remained in Saruman's towers, as prisoners? That's it?

For now that is. When we get another hour or so of footage, perhaps there will be pacing around in the tower and muttering, ÒWhere did I leave my giant black marble?Ó

And most importantly:

7. How on earth was Arwen tied to the Ring and Middle Earth's fate? Could someone please explain that?

Well, given the sheer vagueness of the thing, IÕll guess a)She looooves Aragorn. Her fate is tied to his/his peoples, b) Her fate is tied to the mystical magic necklace that she foolishly gave her boyfriend and she needs a recharge, c)SheÕs was supposed to leave on the black ships. She didnÕt and this is the result d)ItÕs one of those plot points where you say, ÒAh, itÕs a magic maguffin. Oh, a sorcerer did it. ItÕs a multiphasic positronic widget.Ó e)She languishes so there can be a reason to mention her and give a reason why Aragorn will ultimately choose her. Otherwise, Arwen who?

As to quality of the movies, I enjoyed the first two. I enjoyed this one. All epic and grand and beautiful and lump in the, ÒDonÕt go where I canÕt follow.Ó throat. IÕm inclined to think that once the first rushing crush settles, IÕll probably like this one best because I tend to like payoff stories best. Like my preference for SayersÕ BusmanÕs Honeymoon or BujoldÕs A Civil Campaign. After all my suffering (because if my characters bleed, do I not bleed also?), I want the gavel to the bench, the soft gleaming with the world at rest sigh. But itÕs all speculatation until a few months goes have passed.

[> [> [> [> Sauron always wanted to rule the kinddoms of men -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:27:16 12/22/03 Mon

Or, rather, he always wanted to rule Middle-Earth, and men were the chief adversaries to that goal (too few Elves were left to pose a threat, Dwarves didn't care about much of anything outside their own mines, Ents were both scarce and isolationist, and Hobbits, well, not much of a challenge there even if they knew/cared who Sauron was). Sauron's interest in the One Ring was only as a tool for dominating the earth.

[> [> [> [> Re: Saw ROTK (SPOILER) -- liz, 16:18:55 12/23/03 Tue

I have yet to read other people's replies and so I won't answer the questions as they've likely already been answered.

But I wanted to say that, of the movies, Fellowship was also my favorite. I'm not entirely sure why. It's a bit different with the books but with the movies it's definitly the first.

And I also was baffled with Arwen's fate being tied to the ring. I think it was a brain fart of an idea.

[> [> [> [> Let's clarify... (Book/Film Spoilers) -- Sofdog, 18:41:35 12/27/03 Sat

First, "The Lord of the Rings" is not a trilogy. It is a single novel (story) that for much of its publishing history has been broken into three parts and sold separately. It doesn't fit the definition of "trilogy" ["A group of three dramatic or literary works related in subject or theme." - every dictionary I could access] as the single plot of destroying the One Ring is begun in "Fellowship" and not completed until "Return of the King."

I'm just clarifying that, as it is discussed in the Foreward of fully bound editions, because the idea of ranking/comparing the three parts seems impossible. On what basis, storywise, can one rank the separate parts of a single tale?

The events of "Fellowship" are more intimate because of the bonding nature of the Company of the Ring's journey. You can't be on the road like that and not develop a bond with your companions, no matter your initial misgivings. But the point of the story is to win the War of the Ring and destroying the One Ring is one part of that.

"The Lord of the Rings" is the story of the Great War of the Ring and the cosmic convergence that allowed the Free Peoples to narrowly defeat the Enemy.

To your list of questions, I would suggest reading the book if you want a more satisfying experience of this tale. As fabulous as the films are, they are a Reader's Digest Condensed version of the story. I'm in the midst of my second reading, the first being just before "Fellowship" opened.

Some of your questions may be answered by the Extended Edition of "The Two Towers" there are a few scenes featuring Faramir, Denethor, Boromir and other Gondorians that clarify a lot. Enough to make it almost a different film, and to clarify much of what happened in "Fellowship."

1. Why did Sauron's forces release Gollum, after they tortured him for the name of the Ring bearer?
**As a long-term Ringbearer, Gollum was totally under its control. His chief agony was not being in possession of it. He was hunting for it when Sauron's people found him and he would continue to look for it after. His craftiness and stealth might help them to find it.

2. If Sauron knew that a Baggins was the Ring bearer, why did Gandalf come up with the theory that Sauron believed Pippin was the Ring bearer?
**Sauron did not know Pippin's name, nor what Baggins looked like. He thought that Pippin was the Halfling he sought.

3. Why were the kingdoms of men so important to Sauron? Is this another case (from Tolkien's point of view) of a science-fiction/fantasy story, placing humanity on a pedestal?
**Refer here to the opening of "Fellowship." Sauron's first rise to power was spent enslaving all the lands of Middle-earth (against which the Last Alliance of Elves and Men was formed). He poured into the Ring his "cruelty, his malice and his will to dominate all life." He didn't only want the Kingdoms of Men. He wanted the Kingdoms of everything else and was actually launching his many forces on multiple fronts. Men were the most numerous. Dwarves, Elves, even Ents were in decline (having way less children and being decimated by past wars/exodus).

4. Why did Sauron and Saruman change their focus from finding the Ring to destroying the kingdoms of men within a period of three days (time between "FOTR" and "TTT")?
**The only thing they changed was the time table. These plans were already well underway as evidenced by the time it would have taken to hack down a forest and to build all those war machines and craft a dragon-shaped battering ram. Sauron's armies had been coming to Mordor from the Southern and Eastern kingdoms for some time.

5. What was the reason behind Denethor's hostility toward his younger son, Faramir? Was the latter the illegitamite son of another man? What?
** See the EE of TTT. Better yet, read the book. In the text the deal is simply that Boromir is more likeminded to Denethor. He is commanding and a man of war and combat. Faramir is more wise and thoughtful. Gandalf is a mentor to him and his father despises that. Faramir is just different than his father expects him to be, which is a crucial distinction in the fate of the Ring. If Faramir had gone to Rivendell and so joined the Fellowship, he would have withstood the Ring. He would not have forced the Breaking of the Fellowship. That Breaking set all parties to tasks they had not planned to undertake, tasks that were necessary to the winning of the War.

I'll try to sum up: the whole Fellowship was known to Sauron and being watched for, there were too many of them to get into and through Mordor without being noticed; the search for Frodo leads to confusion that allows the Uruk-hai to steal the wrong hobbits which draws the three hunters to Rohan; in Rohan the hobbits rouse the Ents while the others help to save Rohan and then summon the Armies of the Dead to help overtake the Corsairs of Pelargir and bring help from the waterfront of Gondor; they also rouse Eowyn to war who brings Merry - they are crucial to undoing the Witch-king because she is not a man and Merry's blade was specially made against the Witch-king... I won't bore you further, but simply to point out the cosmic convergence that unfolded as it needed to.

6. What happened to Saruman and Wormtongue? You mean to say that after their defeat at the hands of the Ents, they remained in Saruman's towers, as prisoners? That's it?
** Wait for the EE or read the book. As it was stated in the film, Treebeard's posse was left to confine them in Orthanc.

And most importantly:

7. How on earth was Arwen tied to the Ring and Middle Earth's fate? Could someone please explain that?

**I don't know, but I took it to mean that her newfound mortality made her susceptible to the evil influence that was all about in Middle-earth. Elves are extremely...perceptive and elemental. But I allow my book-knowledge to fill in movie blanks wherever possible. I really don't know what the heck that was about.

Two more things:

One, it seemed to me that the audience had become weary of Gollum (which happened to me in "TTT"). When Frodo first shoved him over the ledge, during their encounter with the spider (whose name I don't remember), everyone cheered and clapped. But the cheering and clapping seemed more muted -less enthused, when Gollum finally bit the dust.
**Well that was pretty tragic, wasn't it? He was so overjoyed to regain the precious that he had no thought to himself. Even when he was in the lava he tried to save The Ring. The damn token is that powerful. His was a sad, sad story.

And two, I have to disagree with the person who stated that Peter Jackson is the Joss Whedon of the movie world. Peter Jackson directed three incredible movies, but unlike Joss Whedon, George Lucas, and J. Michael Stracynski, who created their sci-fi/fantasy sagas; Jackson didn't create the world of Middle-Earth.
**I'll have to disagree with this. Jackson didn't create the source material, no. But he deserves accolades for assembling a team of people and commanding that Middle-earth should be as historically accurate, both to the text and to Medieval England, as possible. The films presented a vision rooted in the real world which makes the story all the more palpable. The possibility that it really could have happened, that there really could have been a Fellowship of the Ring in the history of the world, is astoundingly displayed by his films.

The attention to detail, in armor, dress, weaponry, tactics... masterful. More than could have been expected.

I was really pissed that no one recommended that book to me until I was 28. Who knows what might have happened if it had come to me as a kid? The singlemost spiritually uplifting read of my life. (And the movies kicked ass, too.)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Let's clarify... (Book/Film Spoilers) -- Claudia, 15:03:22 01/05/04 Mon

"**I'll have to disagree with this. Jackson didn't create the source material, no. But he deserves accolades for assembling a team of people and commanding that Middle-earth should be as historically accurate, both to the text and to Medieval England, as possible. The films presented a vision rooted in the real world which makes the story all the more palpable. The possibility that it really could have happened, that there really could have been a Fellowship of the Ring in the history of the world, is astoundingly displayed by his films."

But this still does not make Jackson another Joss Whedon, George Lucas, Gene Roddenberry or J. Michael Stracynski. The other four CREATED their fictional worlds. Jackson did not do this. All he did was translate someone else's creation onto the screen.


As to your answers to my questions - its a shame that Jackson and his screenwriters couldn't answer them ON SCREEN, instead of leaving viewers such as myself to look to the novels for answers.

And quite frankly, RETURN OF THE KING, cinematic wise will never be on the same par as FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. I simply find it inferior.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Let's clarify... (Book/Film Spoilers) -- Sofdog, 10:36:56 01/06/04 Tue

I'm not telling you how to feel. Just offering a different perspective.

[> [> [> [> And I'd have done it too if it wasn't for those pesky Hobbits (minor spoilers LotR) -- Celebaelin, 07:46:33 12/30/03 Tue

Most of the questions have been more than adequately addressed in the above posts so I wonÕt re-iterate. Ther is one thing though, although I respectfully disagree about RotK being a disappointment there is a good point here in that

2. If Sauron knew that a Baggins was the Ring bearer, why did Gandalf come up with the theory that Sauron believed Pippin was the Ring bearer?

In fairness to Claudia since Peter Jackson has Frodo under the eye of Sauron when he accidentally puts the ring on in the Prancing Pony it does seem unlikely that the First (Age) Evil would not recognise that this is not the same Hobbit, particularly if we interpret SauronÕs scrutiny as being looking into the heart and soul rather than merely regarding the outer appearance.

Perhaps because Sauron, if youÕll forgive the pun, little regarded Hobbits he doesnÕt understand their natures as clearly as he does the other races. Hobbits alone (if we assume that Gollum was a Hobbit kin from a distant parish) of the free creatures had no Rings of Power crafted to enslave them and bend them to SauronÕs will. They were an irrelevance and unworthy of study to the power-brokers of Middle Earth. Even as regards the Istari, Gandalf alone knew of them in any depth, and as he says they constantly surprised even him. The hidden reserves of will of Hobbits and the fact that the rings were not designed with them in mind probably explains both BilboÕs and FrodoÕs resistance to the power of the One, it could well be that the same reason underlies SauronÕs inability to tell one Hobbit from another.

Ever the racist SauronÕs plaintive ÒThey all feel the same to me*Ó when called upon by Melkior to answer for his failings on the 252nd layer of the Abyss explains why he spent the next 9 Ages as sentient desiccated pond scum being eaten by slugs.

Oh, incidentally, I think itÕs a commonly held view implied by the books that the Elves could have defeated Sauron but would have had to use the power of the Silmarils (the Three) and the One to do it and would therefore have become that which they sought to destroy. Sauron did understand Elves unfortunately. See GaladrielÕs ÔBitch QueenÕ ÒÉtreacherous as the seaÉÓ speech in Lothlorien (FotR).

*Permanently hungry, vacuous of brain and stomach. A mind like cream cheese and mushrooms wrapped aroundÉ somethingÉno matter.

[> [> [> [> Ring Answers -- dmw, 17:20:05 12/30/03 Tue

Some of the questions have already been answered so I'll restrict myself to answers that haven't yet been mentioned.

4. Why did Sauron and Saruman change their focus from finding the Ring to destroying the kingdoms of men within a period of three days (time between "FOTR" and "TTT")?

While the answers others have given are all correct--Sauron was always focused on dominating the Middle Earth and occupying the lands where he thinks the ring might be located is an effective way to search for it--there's more to it than that. Sauron was always afraid that someone else would take up the Ring and use it against him, as indeed Boromir wanted to do in FotR. He wanted to eliminate his enemies before they could use the Ring against him. In the book, Aragorn used the palantir to show himself and the reforged Narsil to Sauron with the implied threat that if his forefather and the sword had defeated Sauron with the Ring, he could obviously defeat Sauron without the Ring in the present.

7. How on earth was Arwen tied to the Ring and Middle Earth's fate? Could someone please explain that?

This is the question I had too. It's true that her father, Elrond, bears the ring Vilya (the ring of air), and her grandmother Galadriel bears the ring Nenya (the ring of water or adamant), indicating a family connection to the rings. The third elven ring, the ring of fire, Narya, was given by Cirdan to Gandalf. Any effect of the One Ring on the elven rings should impact Arwen's father and grandmother first before herself.

This is one of the two changes he made to LotR that detracted from the movies to little point. The worst change was the added scenes in Osgiliath with Frodo and Faramir in TTT. For the most part, his changes were either good in themselves and/or essential for reducing the length of the movies.

[> [> Gushing within....(ROTK spoilers) -- angel's nibblet, 17:12:35 12/23/03 Tue

Any doubts I had about how much I love these movies was completely erased wtih Elijah Wood's last little scene.

Frodo's standing on the deck of the boat that will soon take him to the Grey Havens, away from the only home he has ever known and the people dearest to him, and he turns around and he has this huge smile on his face and his huge blue eyes are all sparkly. This is the point where I melt in my seat and start crying like a bitty baby.

Me? Obsessed? Never!

I'm not some idiot schoolgirl with a crush...

Current board | More December 2003