December 2004 posts
Does Connor's blood
have the same effect as slayer's blood on vampires? -- megaslayer,
10:03:09 12/01/04 Wed
When Angel's blood supply with connor's he started to act crazy
and went postal on some demons. When a vampire feeds off a slayer
they get supercharged for a little while. Angel drank Connor's
blood for awhile had some similar effects.
Replies:
[> Re: Does Connor's blood have the same effect as slayer's
blood on vampires? -- Wizard, 18:36:38 12/01/04 Wed
IIRC, it was the fact that he was drinking human blood that set
off the mood swings. There was some explanation that he wasn't
used to it after about a century of (mostly) animal blood.
[> [> just a thought...... -- Duell, 22:36:47
12/06/04 Mon
This is just a random thought, but I always thought it would be
cool if Connor was the beginning of a new type of slayer, a male
one. Like what if he died, and another was called? I mean, look
at it. He basically has the same abilities as a slayer, stronger
than human, faster, more adept at fighting. And, he was created
through demonic energy, much like the first slayer was. Just an
idea.
Buffy reference on the Gilmore
Girls -- Ames, 21:28:04 12/01/04 Wed
Rory to Paris: "You're going out to meet people at 11:00pm?
Who do you expect to meet, Spike and Drusilla?"
Replies:
[> And the very next scene was a philosophy class...
-- cougar, 23:14:30 12/01/04 Wed
about Freud, Jung, Joseph Campbel and archetypes.
[> Triple Buffy/Angel reference in the same episode:
-- cjl, 06:57:52 12/02/04 Thu
Rory's newspaper editor starts a romance with Rory's quirky dorm-mate,
Paris.
The references?
Rory's newspaper editor is played by DANNY STRONG.
His character's name is DOYLE.
Paris' last name is GELLAR.
[> [> Did Jane Espenson write the episode? -- Cheryl,
11:41:01 12/02/04 Thu
Isn't she a writer for Gilmore Girls now?
[> [> [> Jane left after the end of last season.
-- cjl, 12:44:40 12/02/04 Thu
This ep was written by GG creator Amy Sherman-Palladino.
(BTW, even though Jane is gone, Rebecca Rand Kirshner is currently
representing ex-Buffy writers on the GG staff. RRK wrote GG 5.9,
"Emily Says Hello"--and did a fine job, too.)
What qualifies someone as
a champion/hero? -- megaslayer, 10:24:32 12/03/04 Fri
It is fighting the good fight or the big fights like apocalypse
that makes a person champion. Angel said in the Buffy finale a
champion is stronger than human but ensouled. Is giving up your
life the main thing that gives you a champion status? In my personal
opinion is that being that is willing make a stand against evil
willing to put everything on the line is a hero. Could you count
Doyle as one because he sacrificed himself for others plus he
was stronger than human but ensouled too. He was a half-demon
with a soul, and their are other good demons like Kamal who was
a champion in season 2 premere.
Replies:
[> I think perhaps Champions and Heros are different
-- manwitch, 14:28:32 12/03/04 Fri
At any rate, in the Buffy finale, Angel said the amulet was for
"a champion, stonger than human, recently ensouled."
He was not defining the term "champion," he was describing
the champion that could wear the amulet to some effect.
Doyle was heroic in his final sacrifice. He was not what I'd call
a champion, given that it was his one and only stand and he didn't
exactly win, which takes nothing away from the nobility of his
sacrifice. Angel's a champion, like Buffy, and peut-etre spike,
because they keep doing it over time and keep coming out on top.
Doyle's like Barkley. Great effort, never won a title. Angel's
like Bird. Buffy's like Michael. Actually, if that's the analogy,
Doyle's probably more like Sherman Douglass.
I'm sorry. Never mind.
[> [> Re: I think perhaps Champions and Heros are different
-- Random, 22:07:31 12/03/04 Fri
Indeed, champions and heroes are not necessarily analogous. It's
an interesting distinction, really. Howabout a more easily-identifiable
analogy? Hector of Troy was a champion. Perseus was a hero. Keep
in mind, all of the major warriors were called "heroes"
in the idiom of Greek myth, but the distinction they made was
one of personal ability rather than moral character. In a world
where the highest beings could be as venal and scurrilous as the
lowliest highwayman on occasion, this isn't surprising. In Buffyverse
(and modern, if not modernist) terms, however, the distinction
shifts to a more subtle amalgamation of virtue and prowess.
On the most basic level, Hector's true tragic flaw was that he
fought for the losing side. As such, history (and myth) does not
adjudge him a hero as such, though one can concede he had heroic
qualities. But he was very much a champion. Champions are
never circumstantial -- they are chosen. Note that the word "champion"
connotes both singular superiority and, to a degree, recognition
of the person's role within society. To wit, a champion is the
representative of those s/he champions, perhaps even the distillation
of their identity. Essentially, the role of "champion"
is almost vocational, a job description. In a sense, the champion
can be seen as the advocate of hir people on the field of conflict.
There are no incidental champions. The population as a whole may
not be involved in the decision-making process that nominates
a champion, but the authorities or the ones with power almost
always are. By this light, Hector is certainly the champion of
the people of Troy. While champions may embody qualities of great
moral virtue, depending on who they champion, their identity revolves
more around ideals and force of will than virtue. They
are required to meet certain criteria, including steadfastness,
courage and dedication. These are relatively neutral traits, indicative
of someone who can perform well in battle rather than someone
who can be trusted to do the moral thing.
Even Caleb could be considered a champion. As the representative
of the First Evil, he was essentially the Chosen one to take up
the fight against the forces of humanity (or Good, if you choose
to reduce it to that binary.) A champion needs no other qualities
save the ability to do battle in some form and the passive or
active support of a faction. (Faith is an interesting example
of how one moves from hero to champion simply by switching sides
and redefining her role. She was never quite a champion for the
side of Good, not in the sense that Buffy was, because she was
never quite legitimacized.)
Theseus, scion of divinity, is the prototypical hero. His consecutive
defeats of Periphetes, Sinis, Sciron and Procrustes on the road
to Athens gave notice of this. Chosen by no-one, he nevertheless
freed the population from the monsters that plagued them. He was
a force, not simply of battle and triumph, but of justice -- his
defeat of Procrustes, for instance, consigned the villain to the
very fate he'd inflicted on so many others. The strangling of
the Minotaur likewise mirrors this. Perseus had no people to represent
exactly, and only ideals to champion. But there was a moral quality
inherent in taking on "evil-doers." By saving lives
and battling those who fell into the category of the malicious
Other, Perseus established himself as something more than just
another belligerent fighter taking out those who challenged him.
Think in terms of the ronin, and the broad swath of moral variety
contained therein -- at some point, the distinction between the
hero and the mere warrior can be seen in how a person of established
courage and martial pedigree carries himself in situations requiring
moral judgement.
In modern myth, the hero is essentially alone. S/he may have supporters,
friends, but the role of the hero is neither collective nor representative.
Our perceptions of the hero-archetype have been irrevocably coloured
by the existentialist model of heroism -- the solitary hero against
a universe that is implacable but ultimately neither benign nor
malicious, in a struggle that is utterly personal. We add virtue
to the equation, but it is still essentially linked to this formulation
of heroism. While champions likewise act alone -- few champions
can be found hiding in the midst of a battalion -- they do so
with the implicit backing of the people they champion. Heroes
are not only capable of being incidental and circumstantial, they
are almost necessarily so...at least in themselves. But sometimes
a person is both hero and champion -- both chosen and incidental.
At this point, we reach the Buffy/Angel discussion....
And so it goes.
[> [> [> What of the Buffyverse definitions? --
BrianWilly, 00:44:23 12/04/04 Sat
Buffy: "I'm not gonna let this thing hurt you. Any of
you. Grown-ups don't believe you, right? Well, I do. We both know
that there are real monsters. But there's also real heroes that
fight monsters. And that's me."
Ben: "She could have killed me."
Giles: "No she couldn't. Never. And sooner or later Glory
will re-emerge, and...make Buffy pay for that mercy. And the world
with her. Buffy even knows that...and still she couldn't take
a human life. She's a hero, you see. She's not like us."
Angel: "Nothing in the world is the way it ought to be.
It's harsh, and cruel. But that's why there's us. Champions. It
doesn't matter where we come from, what we've done or suffered,
or even if we make a difference. We live as though the world was
what it should be, to show it what it can be."
By the textbook definition, "champion" is a title that
can most definitely be hosted by either moral or immoral individuals,
whereas hero is fairly explicitly a moral status.
In the shows, however, ME seems to have made it a point that being
a champion is a state reserved for the heroic individual to the
point where there is essentially little distinction between the
two positions, the biggest one being that "champion"
would be the term used on AtS and "hero" the term used
on BtVS. In fact, being that AtS focuses a bit more on the nuances
of morality and salvation and simply "doing good because
it's what needs to be done" and all that jazz, I would say
that being called a champion in the Buffyverse has actually become
a more illustrious title than that of a hero. I assume that a
bit of it is because being a champion sounds a lot more exotic
and classical and almost epic compared to simply being called
a hero which is a fairly normative contemporary word, and that
Joss was merely capitalizing on that notion. Still, there are
other distinctions.
To my knowledge, no villain or immoral character on either show
has ever referred to him/herself as a champion. The term has only
ever really been used on Angel, wherein it referred almost exclusively
to Angel and those who shared his mission of saving lives and
souls, one person at a time. Joss seems to have taken the term
and elevated it to a celebrated status on the side of the angels.
To be referred to as a champion in the Angelverse meant more than
simply that you were really good at something or that you stood
for something...it meant that you were something. Something
good.
The one time on Buffy that the idea of being a champion was really
addressed was in Chosen. Buffy hands the amulet mean to be worn
by a champion to Spike, and this simple act means more to both
of them than can be readily explained. "Been called a lot
of things in my time," Spike remarks self-deprecatingly.
Never a champion. There are certain qualities a fellow needs to
have in the Buffyverse in order to be considered a champion...qualities
that Spike did not at the time see in himself despite having been
in more than his share of battles, recently on the side of good.
It's more than just fighting. It is also a highly distinguished,
almost noble position...being indirectly called a champion
by Buffy, who is a champion herself not to mention the woman he
loves, is an immense affirmation for Spike, someone who has been
questioning his worth and redeemability in the past year.
[> [> [> [> Re: What of the Buffyverse definitions?
-- manwitch, 04:34:13 12/04/04 Sat
I think most of this holds with Random's suggestions.
"Champion" is also a verb, whereas "hero"
is not. One champions something.
Obviously there is a medieval courtly love quality to the way
Buffy defines spike as champion, giving him this token prior to
the joust. There it becomes very individual again. He is her
champion, not a champion.
I'm not sure if a hero can really be alone. Or at least, part
of their heroism is invariably about breaking past that isolation,
recognizing community and connections, giving self for other.
Although I suppose "other" could be a pure ideal or
concept.
Do you think Buffy would really call herself a hero if she wasn't
trying to buck up the courage of a little kid? I wonder if Angel
can call himself a champion so freely because that is an honor
that is bestowed upon him. Calling one's self a hero is a little
less comfortable. Angel is a champion because the PTB selected
him. Given Angelus, can he ever legitimately call himself a hero?
I know he can be heroic, but does his past exclude him from being
a hero? Could that be part of why the term is not used on Angel?
Because he lacks the moral purity to be a true hero? I wonder
if that's part of it. There are always people in the audience
who unlike Buffy, don't accept that Angelus and Angel are truly
different. For him to call himself a hero might be icky.
[> [> [> [> [> Classical definitions --
Matthew, 13:23:10 12/04/04 Sat
I agree with Manwitch that the difference is more likely in the
fact that a Champion has to represent someone or something other
than themselves. The classical example we've got from Walter Scott
novels is the knight to jousts for the honour of his lady. But
an even older example is the champion in the duel. During judicial
duels in the Middle Ages, it was sometimes possible for a participant
to ask for a champion to represent them. (In some places there
were people who did this for a living, essentially as mercenaries.
In Russia, you could only ask for a champion if you were a woman.
And they duelled with hatchets.)
So a hero, I think, defines his own morality, while a champion
has to define himself by something else. Angel was defined for
a long time by the Powers that Be, so I think that is why there
is such a distinction. Buffy has always been about getting away
from being defined by someone else's morality.
[> [> [> [> Buffy as "Champion" --
Sofdog, 10:43:36 12/09/04 Thu
I'm not recalling the exact wording off the top of my head but
wasn't Buffy referred to as a "champion" at least once?
I thought Adam suggested that she could fill that role in his
final plan at the Initiative.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy as "Champion"
-- Ann, 12:30:53 12/09/04 Thu
There are 89 references to the word champion in the Buffyverse
Dialogue Database. All of the Buffy references refer to sporting
events, cheerleading, swimming. None that I noticed refer to Buffy
as champion. Cordelia once is refered to as champion as defending
her bitch of the year championship.
All of the rest are from AtS.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Not quite -- Finn Mac
Cool, 12:42:56 12/09/04 Thu
From "Chosen":
Angel (about who can wear the amulet): A Champion; someone ensouled
but more than human.
Buffy: Like me.
Angel: Or me.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not quite
-- Ann, 13:39:04 12/09/04 Thu
The rest of the quote:
BUFFY: And the right person is?
ANGEL: Someone ensouled but stronger than human. A champion. As
in me.
BUFFY: Or me.
ANGEL: No. I don t know nearly enough about this to risk you wearing
it. Besides, you ve got that real cool axe-thing going for you.
This could be read as Angel doesn't think that Buffy is a champion.
His protective side certainly rears its head, but given both his
(and Spike's) need to be champion, jealous banter later verifies
that for both of them, he dismisses her pretty quick. He doesn't
know yet that Spike is souled.
Later:
SPIKE: Where s the trinket?
BUFFY: The who-ket?
SPIKE: The pretty necklace your sweetie-bear gave you. The one
with all the power. I believe it s mine now.
BUFFY: How do you figure?
SPIKE: Someone with a soul but more than human? Angel meant to
wear it. That means I m the qualified party.
(He holds out his hand for it.)
BUFFY: It s volatile. We don t know
SPIKE: You ll be needing someone strong to bear it, then. You
plan on giving it to Andrew?
BUFFY: Angel said the amulet was meant to be worn by a champion.
(Spike's hand drops, defeated, but Buffy advances and gives it
to him)
Buffy makes Spike ask for the amulet, like he asked for his soul
back.
She gives him his championship just as she gives the potentials
their power.
Maybe part of being a champion is giving those who need, what
they need, and allowing them to find and use power for themselves.
Not just "saving" them, and helping them. Power turned
outward, rather than just a reflection of the good intent that
is inward.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Giving those
who need what they need -- Rich, 11:35:29 12/13/04 Mon
This may be a little OT, but it sort of ties in with things I've
posted in other threads, usually in response to "Buffy was
a jerk in season 7" type comments. My opinion is that Buffy's
achievement in the fight against the FE was not winning the battle
- it was building the team that won the battle. Giving the amulet
to Spike, encouraging Willow, empowering the Potentials, were
all part of that. She became a different kind of "champion"
in the process.
[> [> Re: Definition of "Champion"... --
Rich, 08:35:46 12/04/04 Sat
...from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica:
"one who fights in behalf of another. During the Middle Ages
a feature of Anglo-Norman law was trial by battle, a procedure
in which guilt or innocence was decided by a test of arms.Clergy,
children, women, and persons disabled by age or infirmity had
the right to nominate champions to fight by proxy."
Most of the Buffyverse heroes seem to fit the "fighting on
behalf of another" part of this description. Spike in season
7 fits the "nominated" part as well, since he was specifically
asked by Buffy to wear the amulet. Angel & his his team also fit,
since they take on missions at the request of others.
[> [> [> Re: Definition of "Champion"...
-- Terry, 16:32:14 12/07/04 Tue
Champions are people chosen to fight for something or "someone"(PTB,CoW,...)They
are knigths,in the old sense of the word,they are chosen to fight
in the name of others.Slayers,Angel are champions.May be the Watchers
can be considered champions too.
Heroes?People doing the right thing no matter the cost for themselves.They
are heroes, the main characters in the Jossverse,all of them...but
the best ones,the real ones IMHO?The foot soldiers,the unwilling
G.Is in the mud,those who don't have super-powers,super-healing,(and
DON'T come back from the dead.)The ones who don't want to go in
a blaze of glory,no,they don't have a duty or a fate to fulfill,
they want to live and,if it's possible,live to fight another day
and,may be,enjoy life a little.But when the chips are done...
Doyle,Anya,Cordy,...and Xander.
[> [> [> [> Re: Definition of "Champion"...
-- Finn Mac Cool, 19:41:52 12/07/04 Tue
How are "unwilling G.Is" true examples of heroes, as,
to be truly unwilling, they'd have to only go on fighting because
of what would happen to them if they didn't (such as going to
jail). And that's not even taking into account whether or not
the cause they fight for is just.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Definition of "Champion"...
-- manwitch, 03:55:26 12/08/04 Wed
Well, I think heros don't have to start out as willing. You can
be drafted and still turn out to be a hero. You can be thrust
into a situation that you don't want to be in at all and still
turn out to be a hero. Arguably Buffy in the early seasons is
that. Perhaps again after her Season 6 resurrection.
But at some point I agree there would have to be some willing
aspect to their character. They couldn't, at least not very often,
be completely intransigent in opposition to the situation life
was giving them.
[> [> [> [> [> G.I.s -- Rich, 11:37:22
12/10/04 Fri
First person accounts of combat suggest that ordinary soldiers
don't necessarily care very much about the cause, whatever it
might be. They fight for each other, or the unit, and much of
their training is designed to instill this attitude (such as close-order
drill, which has been militarily obsolete since the invention
of the rifled musket). In that sense, they do fight for others.
PLEASE HELP (screen capturing,
S7 DVD) -- ghady, 13:05:51 12/03/04 Fri
how i do the screen capture thing?? ive been trying to do that
for beneath you but it always ends up messing up..
ok so here it is:
the program photoimpression allows u to get screen captures. so
i paused my player (intervideo windvd), pressed f8 (cuz thats
what the program says u have to do), and there the picture was.
so i set it as a desktop background.
then i got other pics and saved them too.
now everytime i save them as JPEG files, all i see is a black
screen.
and every time i save them as any other format, i get the pic
first, then EVENTUALLY after opening them for like the 10th time,
i see a black screen.
also, everytime i seem to press f8 and then restore the intervideo
windvd screen display thingy, that image then turns into the wallpaper..
not fullscreen even, only as big as the restore thing..
anyone got any tips on how to do this (i also tried pressing the
PRNT SCRN button on my keyboard, but i got the same results here..
when i tried to paste the image on Ulead photoexpress, i got a
black screen.. but it worked on paint, though every time i'd try
to copy it: black screen)
Replies:
[> Re: PLEASE HELP (screen capturing, S7 DVD) -- Ames,
18:04:35 12/03/04 Fri
Many of the video programs don't actually go through the normal
Windows API to display their images in the desktop window you
see. Instead they use DirectDraw to write directly to the video
memory on the graphics card, for performance reasons. When you
try to capture the screen through the Windows API, the video window
comes out blank.
What you should do is use the snapshot function in your DVD playback
program to capture the image.
[> [> thx a lot.. i'll try that.. -- ghady, 08:07:59
12/04/04 Sat
Joss-keteers, sound off! Who's
coming to NYC on 7/1/2005? -- cjl (making reservations), 18:42:15
12/03/04 Fri
The 2005 ATPo get-together in New York City is now only seven
months away, and this year's master of ceremonies, yours truly,
has been busy the past couple of months--watching Monty Python
DVDs, writing fanfic, and devoting endless amounts of time to
the search for the ultimate chocolate chip cookie. (That last
one was just a touch too greasy...the quest continues.)
But it is December 2004, and since our get-together is during
Independence Day weekend (or, as the Brits in our audience like
to call it, "King George's Little Booboo"), I should
start nail down a block of hotel rooms before everything in the
five boroughs has been taken.
But before I go and look at hotel space, I need to know: Who's
coming? Five people? Ten? Twenty? More? How many rooms should
I reserve?
So let's take attendance. Give the number of people in your party,
and whether you're interested in a single room or willing to double
up. (For once, I don't have to worry about hotel space for myself.
In fact, I'd be perfectly willing to welcome a roomie to my apartment
for the three day fest.)
And if anybody out there has expertise about negotiating a deal
with a hotel, please, PLEASE let me know about the ins and outs
and how I can keep from committing half my bank account.
Make yourself heard, folks! This is all going to come together
much faster than you think!
Replies:
[> Joss-keteers, sounding off! -- LittleBit, 19:47:23
12/03/04 Fri
I'll be there...and rooming with LadyS as always!
Don't know if you ever read the atpobtvsats
community on LJ, but several questions and suggestions have
been posted there, and cross-posted here, but not in the archives
yet for me to link.
Gathering
Hints
Gathering
inquiry and suggestions
Gathering
plans
LadyS, Ann and Rob have been doing some of the preliminary work
on this since a number of people were getting concerned that we
hadn't heard anything from you (masq said she emailed you about
this but never heard back), and for some of us knowing the dates
for certain, and the cost, and getting flight reservations while
they're still cheap can make the difference in going or not going.
You might want to join the community as well, so you can coordinate
(assuming you don't mind some assistance). :-)
[> [> I'll be there! -- Jane, 21:04:37 12/03/04
Fri
I've got my holidays booked already. My friend Sue has expressed
interest in coming, too, but that's still iffy. But count me in
definitely. I'd be willing to double up with somebody if Sue doesn't
come. I'm looking forward to this!
[> [> What I need from organizers of previous get-togthers...
-- cjl, 06:41:31 12/04/04 Sat
...are the nitty-gritty details of hotel negotiation.
What should be part of the contract? A block of hotel rooms, surely.
A conference room. We'll definitely rent a TV. (I can provide
my own DVD player.)
What is the hotel responsible for? What am I responsible for as
the guy who signs on the dotted line? If I book 15 rooms, and
three are unused, will they charge me for them?
And now, a question for the rest of the group: what is a "reasonable"
daily rate for everybody? Hotels in NYC ain't cheap, even if you
buy space in bulk. What would be "too much" for the
ATPoers?
See? Plenty of questions.
Rob?
[> [> [> Re: What I need from organizers of previous
get-togthers... -- LadyStarlight, 17:43:56 12/04/04 Sat
1. Call hotels.
2. Ask what their group rates are.
3. Yes, a block of rooms would be part of the contract. And a
cut-off date for guaranteeing availability,
4. Since the conference room setup hasn't been the best for our
purposes, it has been suggested, by several people, that this
year we also look at the possibility of a hospitality room instead.
5. If rooms don't get used, they're released for other uses. But
if we get a minimum number of people, is there a 'break' on the
hospitality/conference room rate?
6. Vancouver was around $75 USD/night, Chicago was $72/night,
with shared costs for the conference rooms if needed. People seemed
to be okay with that range. And yes, we're aware that hotels in
NYC "ain't cheap" even for groups. Hence the concern
by various people that it was being left a little late to make
the arrangements, and the starting to look around by Ann, Rob
and myself.
7. What is the best way to communicate with you? We've tried here
on the board, email, the ATPo comm on LJ and your own LJ without
any particular luck.
8. What, if anything, do you have planned for us to "do"?
As a group, we don't seem to do well with planned activities.
(unless it's sitting around and talking all night)
[> [> [> [> Thanks for the rundown... -- cjl, 21:18:24 12/04/04
Sat
If you need to contact me, use the e-mail address above.
[> Re: Joss-keteers, sound off! Who's coming to NYC on 7/1/2005?
-- Dlgood, 21:16:15
12/03/04 Fri
Haven't decided for sure, but am very seriously contemplating.
[> Yo. -- Masq, 21:17:06 12/03/04 Fri
[> Well, ya know I'll be there. ;-) -- Rob, 22:15:50
12/03/04 Fri
[> I'm gonna try my level best -- TCH, 00:59:09 12/04/04
Sat
[> Yes -- Ann, 04:26:46 12/04/04 Sat
What are the exact dates going to be?
I have been working on "the dress" for
some time now.
[> [> hey, Ann! -- Sheri, 13:32:31 12/04/04 Sat
Wanna be roommates again?
[> [> [> Re: hey, Ann! -- Ann, 13:37:03 12/04/04
Sat
Yup! Would be a great idea.
[> Yes! Santa is buying my plane ticket! -- Ladyhelix,
15:40:53 12/04/04 Sat
My mom asked me what I REALLY wanted for Christmas!
[> Save me a room . . . -- d'Herblay, 16:14:49 12/04/04
Sat
. . . though I tend to leave actual commitment to the last minute.
[> i'll be there, but no room needed... -- anom, 18:47:39
12/04/04 Sat
...except for Friday night, 'cause of the whole Shabbes issue.
I'd be glad to help someone defray the cost of their room for
that night. The rest of the time, I think I can manage to get
from Upper Manhattan to a hotel elsewhere in New York without
needing to stay over. (OK, maybe not Staten Island.) There'll
be 1 in my party (kinda like my birthday party after election
activities left no time to plan one...).
As for hotel negotiations, 1 piece of advice: Get everything
in writing. No "Of course the video equip't. is included
w/the conference room, just tell them I said so."
And as I said in Chicago, let me know if I can help w/anything.
After all, I am right here on the scene.
[> [> I'm gonna need a different roomie, then! --
Masq, 18:50:05 12/04/04 Sat
[> [> [> well, except for 1 night...isn't fresne coming?
-- anom, 19:17:16 12/04/04 Sat
[> [> [> [> Donno.... -- Masq, 11:07:25
12/06/04 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Donno.... -- fresne,
13:21:22 12/06/04 Mon
I'd love to, but trying to figure out how to Refinance (hey, it's
been a year), get new windows, SD Comicon (Joss goes every year),
and a vacation is kinda baffling me.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Prepare for 7 months of
severe whining and nagging from us. ;-) -- Rob, 15:25:06
12/06/04 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, yeah --
fresne, 14:41:02 12/07/04 Tue
We'll see how refinancing goes.
Plus, my post classes finances. I'm of the opinion something will
rush into fill the void in my finances it currently makes, but
who knows.
I have line graphs.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> fresne, fresne...where
*are* your priorities? -- anom, 21:21:36 12/07/04 Tue
'Cause you know you gotta come, you just gotta!
OK--that takes care of both the nagging & the whining....
[> I say this every year -- Pony, 06:25:08 12/05/04
Sun
But I'm really going to try to make it!
Though various family obligations may require me to not do the
full stint at the hotel - of course a booked room may be just
the escape clause I need...
[> I will try to come too....but that is too long from now
for me to make any definite plans. :) -- SS, 09:12:01 12/05/04
Sun
is Wonderfalls a cool show?
is it worth buying on DVD? what abt firefly? -- ghady, 08:09:47
12/04/04 Sat
Replies:
[> Yes and yes. -- Rob (who has no time to elaborate!),
08:42:26 12/04/04 Sat
[> Re: is Wonderfalls a cool show? is it worth buying on
DVD? what abt firefly? -- Evan, 09:52:05 12/04/04 Sat
I'm enjoying Wonderfalls - they're currently playing the whole
series here in Canada on Vision TV. But I'm not sure I love it
enough to buy it. I haven't decided yet. As for Firefly... I feel
basically the same way.
[> What are your criteria? -- Ames, 10:51:02 12/04/04
Sat
I think Wonderfalls is great. I think I've seen 8 or 9 of the
12 episodes made, and I'm watching the rest as they air on Vision
TV, but I do plan to buy the DVD set when it comes out in February
(we all hope). It's the only DVD set of a TV show I currently
plan buy besides what I have: BtVS, AtS, and Firefly (also excellent).
Wonderfalls is a whimsical comedy, which is not to everyone's
taste. You should try watching an episode first to see what you
think. Several episodes are available on the internet.
That's not to say that I don't like any other shows. I guess my
ill-defined criteria for buying the DVD set of a TV show are:
1. I liked it a lot when it aired (pretty rare these days)
2. It's not outrageously overpriced (on sale for $25 is good,
pretty packaging with a lot of fluff for > $100 is not worth
it)
3. There's some depth to it which makes it worthwhile to see the
episodes more than once. Some things are entertaining once, but
then I have no particular interest in seeing them again.
4. There's worthwhile extra content, e.g., commentaries from the
writers that I would actually be interested in hearing
5. It's something I'd potentially like to share with friends and
family in the future
6. It's not one of those series that's always running in syndication
and blends into a big blur of too-similar episodes with an unchanging
cast and circumstances (e.g. The Simpsons, Star Trek whatever...).
How do all you other DVD buyers decide? What motivates you to
buy the DVD set?
[> [> Re: What are your criteria? -- Rob, 11:43:10
12/04/04 Sat
What motivates me to buy a DVD set? Hmm...If it exists!
Seriously, though, for a while I was buying almost every set of
any show that I liked as they came out, or any show that I'd never
seen before but always wanted to, mostly because there weren't
that many out to begin with. Now that there are just so many of
them available, and I don't have as much expendable money as I
did, now that I'm older, I've severely limited it. Another great
thing now is Netflix. In the past, if there was a show I didn't
know if I'd like but wanted to see, I'd have to buy it, because
most rental places don't offer the big boxed sets of TV shows.
Now, though, I can watch DS9, for example, a show I hadn't
seen regularly in its original run, disc by disc without having
to purchase the 7 $100 sets.
To give an idea of what I mean by lots of TV on DVD sets, though,
here are the sets I own:
24: Seasons 1 and 2
Alias: Seasons 1, 2, and 3
Arrested Development: Season 1
Babylon 5: Season 1
Batman, the Animated Series: Season 1
The Ben Stiller Show: Complete Set
Black Adder: Complete Set
Buffy: Seasons 1-7
Angel: Seasons 1-4
Clerks, The Animated Series: Complete Set
The Critic: Complete Set
Dark Angel: Seasons 1 and 2
Dawson's Creek: Season 1
Farscape: Seasons 1-4
Firefly: Complete Set
Freaks and Geeks: Complete Set
Friends: Season 1-6
From the Earth to the Moon: Complete Set
Futurama: Seasons 1-4
Greg the Bunny: Complete Set
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Complete Set
The Kids in the Hall: Seasons 1 and 2
The Mary Tyler Moore Show: Season 1
Monk: Season 1
Mr. Show: Seasons 1-4
Neverwhere: Complete Set
Nip/Tuck: Season 1
The Osbournes: Season 1
Oz: Season 1
Popular: Season 1
Red Dwarf: Series 1-4
Rocky and Bullwinkle: Season 1
Roswell: Seasons 1 and 2
Saved by the Bell: Seasons 1 and 2
Sex and the City: Seasons 1-4, and Season 6, Part 1
The Simpsons: Seasons 1-4
Six Feet Under: Seasons 1 and 2
Smallville: Seasons 1-3
Soap: Seasons 1 and 2
The Sopranos: Seasons 1-4
South Park: Seasons 1 and 2
Sports Night: Complete Set
Spider-Man: Complete Set
Stargate: Season 1
Star Trek-TNG: Seasons 1-7
Strangers With Candy: Seasons 1-3
Taken: Complete Set
The Tick: Complete Set
Twin Peaks: Season 1
Xena-Warrior Princess: Seasons 1-5
The X-Files: Seasons 1-7
The Young Ones: Complete Set
Rob
[> [> [> my criteria.. hmm -- ghady, 12:06:50
12/04/04 Sat
let' see..
ok it's VERY complicated to explain.. i think some of you might
know that i'm not a big fan of standaloneishness.. but then again,
i really enjoyed the S7 episode Him cuz it was just so SILLY!
and it MEANT to be silly, what with the corny music and the 4
split screen thing..
i like silliness in shows .. and humor.. but not lame humor..
(i actually really liked the pylea arc cuz it made me laugh SO
hard..) i like some quirky characters.. and the acting HAS to
be good.. no corniess or lameness there.. also, predictable storylines
are NOT for me..
ok, take xena for example.. ive seen like all the eps, but i only
own season 1. the first part fo the season was pretty lame, w/
forced acting on lucy's part and no *real* plot developments..
but then i started to see that even though there was no real STORY
arc, there was this WONDERUFLLY crafted character arc, for BOTH
xena AND gabrielle.. i'd sometimes sit there, pause the dvd, and
spend a few minutes thinking to myself how intelligent this show
is, character-wise..
now clearly, a mixture of both character and story arcs would
be perfect..
but one of the most important things is: NO LAMENESS (i'll take
comedies for example.. MANY of them are, as you, very trite and
corny, esp those w/ a laugh track.. now Ed is what i would consider
a REALLYYY smart comedy)..
clearly, dramas and horror etc have to be good too (ala buffy
and angel), and, again, i dont like the horror to be lame..
well.. wasnt THAT incoherent..
ok, and here are some shows that i would by on dvd: six feet under
(LOVED the few eps i saw), the simpsons, NOT friends, even though
i DO enjoy it... hercules and more of xena.. and quite possibly
Ed (or not.. i dunno yet).. oh, and charmed, though only the shannen
doherty seasons (or even only the first season.. not arcy, but
much better in quality, and darker than the rest).. ugh!!!
[> [> [> [> PS -- ghady, 12:12:49 12/04/04
Sat
i need shows that are intelligent and brain stimulating.. something
that i can go back and watch over and over again..
[> [> [> [> [> Then Firefly is the show for
you -- radioreverie, 16:30:12 12/05/04 Sun
[> [> [> Re: What are your criteria? -- Masq,
19:24:41 12/04/04 Sat
Where *do* you get the money for all this???
[> [> [> [> Re: What are your criteria? --
ghady, 08:10:42 12/05/04 Sun
Hmm ok
i own Buffy 1-7
Angel 1-4
Xena 1
Now for buffy, i got seasons 5 and 6 as birthday presents, seasons
3 and 4 as graduation gifts, and as for 1,2 and 7, well i saved
up my allowance.
Angel and xena: i saved allowance money basically
[> [> [> [> Well... -- Rob, 08:44:50 12/05/04
Sun
Heh, It did help that I worked at Blockbuster for a year, so I
got an employee discount, and um basically spent my full paycheck
there each week. I've cut way, way back. I can usually only afford
one or two DVDs, and maybe a boxed set a month now. And now my
mom actually expects me to help out money-wise in the house. I'm
slowly learning to not be spoiled. It's quite the arduous process.
;)
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Ah, you work, but not for a living...
; ) -- Masq, 10:50:41 12/05/04 Sun
Are there differences between
the S7 DVD's and the S7 episodes that were originally aired?
-- livia,
15:50:09 12/04/04 Sat
The final fight scene underground seemed slightly altered, as
did the scene between Buffy and Angel over the amulet, as they
were outside discussing Buffy's reasons for not wanting Angel
to stay, and her intentions towards him. I don't have video recordings
of the original aired shows so I can't check.
Replies:
[> Re: Are there differences between the S7 DVD's and the
S7 episodes that were originally aired? -- Ames, 18:08:00
12/04/04 Sat
I have both versions, and I didn't notice anything different except
for the missing PoB on the region 1 DVDs. But I didn't expect
any differences, so I wasn't really looking for any. There haven't
been any in previous seasons that I know of, aside from a couple
of small censorship cuts in the UK release only. Can you give
a specific example of what you think might be different so that
we could check?
[> [> found a confirmation of one of the differences
I suspected -- livia,
18:07:46 12/05/04 Sun
Thank goodness! I'm not imagining things. I had recalled that
when Buffy was talking to Angel, she said to him, "having
both of you here would be confusing"--(I actually think there's
another small bit omitted) and I finally found the alternative-ending
script on the internet--alot of the beginning was the same, so
I read it. There was the line(and I have never read that script
before) I suspected had been omitted, and then I checked back
on the DVD--the alternative script followed the lines before and
after verbatim, and just the "having both of you here would
be confusing" was omitted(at least in terms of the diff,
between the alternative script and the DVD--I think there may
have also been the phrase "I'm with Spike now" in the
version I watched. So, If you want to compare to your video--note
where Angel starts griping about having a soul first--then, in
the DVD, Buffy says, "You're not getting the brush off(leading
right into are you just gonna come here and go all Dawson on me
everytime I have a boyfriend?"
In the original, the "having both of you here would be confusing"
should be interspersed somewhere--in the alternative script it
was right after the "not getting the brushoff".
I do wish they had been more careful about putting the DVD together--its
just weird, and I found it disconcerting to remember the episode
differently than it was on the DVD.
But, seeing something like this I didn't expect at all, I'm even
beginning to wonder if possibly folks saw/videotaped slightly
different versions to begin with. I'll be interested in what your
record shows.
[> [> [> Re: found a confirmation of one of the differences
I suspected -- Ames, 23:31:21 12/05/04 Sun
I played the broadcast version and the DVD side-by-side simultaneously.
They matched throughout that scene. The original shooting script
may have been slightly different. They might have left out a line
or cut it in editing.
[> [> [> [> very curious -- livia, 04:32:54
12/06/04 Mon
Thanks for checking that out, but I am still puzzled. I watched
that show in NY city, never read the script to my recollection,
and the line I found, was the line I remembered missing.
I am curious, where did you watch the show you have videotaped?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: very curious -- Ames,
07:17:23 12/06/04 Mon
I have a couple of copies of Chosen on VHS tape (Space Channel)
and VCD (UPN) which came from the initial broadcasts in Canada
and the USA. They are the same as the DVD, as is the off-air episode
transcript on Buffyworld.
You could be remembering some similar dialog from somewhere else.
Caleb made a comment about confusing real Buffy and The First/Buffy
a couple of episodes earlier. And maybe someone on Angel made
a comment about it being confusing to have two vampires with a
soul the next season.
I'm sure it would have been mentioned by somebody if there were
an editing change between the initial broadcast and later ones.
Aside from those censorship cuts in the UK, the only change I
know of is the reduced-length version of Once More With Feeling.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Also... -- Rob, 08:38:14
12/06/04 Mon
...I believe that, for rights issues, they had to change some
of the music in Lie to Me, for the DVD and rebroadcasts.
Rob
[> Don't know about S7, but i know of one in S2 -- shambleau,
11:50:47 12/06/04 Mon
In Lie To Me, the original braodcast has Willow saying something
like "Well, sometimes you NEED a story" after Angel
says the Goth kids are just listening to pretty stories about
vampires. I loved that line and have never understood why it was
cut. Rob mentions above that there were some music cuts in that
ep too. Maybe there's a connection?
So, anyway, there's precedent for a line being dropped, but i
think it's really rare.
[> [> Other Lie to Me cuts -- Masq, 16:51:52 12/06/04
Mon
When Buffy is talking to Angel at the Bronze bar about his cup
of coffee, and she says, "You drink drinks? Non-blood things?"
And he says, "There's a lot you don't know about me."
And she says, "Yeah, I can believe that."
This is an odd cut, since it directly reflects her state of mind
after seeing Angel with Drusilla and ties into the theme of the
whole episode.
[> [> [> Just speculating... -- Rob, 18:37:36
12/06/04 Mon
Maybe, for whatever reason, they couldn't remove the background
audio with the music they weren't allowed to use from those parts
and so had to excise those moments all together? I don't know
much of anything about editing, so I don't really know if what
I'm saying really makes sense. But it does seem like it would
be awful coincidental if there weren't some connection, since
this is the only episode that they changed the music for, and
the only one with any dialogue missing from it.
Rob
[> [> [> [> Is it really the only one with dialogue
missing?? -- Masq, 06:41:16 12/07/04 Tue
I have hung onto all my old BtVS and AtS VHS tapes because I'm
afraid there is other random stuff in other episodes that's been
cut I'd like to keep. But if that's the only one that was cut,
I can finally tape over those tapes or give them away or something!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Is it really the only one
with dialogue missing?? -- Ames, 07:34:30 12/07/04 Tue
It may be the only one that was cut from what aired in the USA,
but the DVD commentaries mention many scenes that were cut to
fit the time slot. The only such scene that has been included
on a DVD as a standalone feature is Fred and Wesley's ballet fantasy
on Angel. If all of those cut scenes still exist somewhere, then
some day there is bound to be a director's cut version of the
episodes. Though it will probably be released over Joss's dead
body.
[> [> [> [> [> I should probably just drop this,
but... -- livia, 07:51:36 12/07/04 Tue
Its interesting to hear those facts about "lie to me"--I
never saw that episode in the original, and it does make sense
that some lines could have been cut in the process of changing
the music.
In terms of my problem, I don't think I'm confusing it with the
shows Ames described--I wasn't watching AtS. Also, I'm a writer,
and I had the same feeling when I watched "chosen" on
the S7 DVD as I had had once when reading a magazine with an article
by me in it, which I'd had a helper transmit to the editor. As
I looked at it in the magazine, I just felt weird, and obviously,
like things were "wrong"-although clearly not editing
changes, as the things that seemed to be wrong were more ambiguous
and awkward than I somehow expected. When I checked, what had
happened was that they had received and published one of my prior-to-final
drafts.
Now I wish I'd been more of a perfect fan and had videoa myself!
Does anyone know someone who has a copy of the show from the NYC
area?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Shhh! You're revealing
the secret! -- Ames, 08:26:51 12/07/04 Tue
The BtVS episodes were edited slightly differently for each broadcast
area, in order to identify where pirated copies on the internet
came from. Now that you know, we'll have to kill you.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wow, really?
-- Ann, 11:06:55 12/07/04 Tue
That means we all have seen slightly different versions. Wow again.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Huh...
-- Rob, 13:03:16 12/08/04 Wed
That brings a whole new level to the idea that we each see something
different when we watch an episode of Buffy!
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Huh...
-- Ann, 14:03:52 12/08/04 Wed
That could account for the divergent interpretation.
/snerk
LOL
[> [> Re: Don't know about S7, but i know of one in S2
-- MaeveRigan, 13:43:12 12/07/04 Tue
I'm pretty sure that Willow's "sometimes you need a story"
remains in the DVD version, though it may have been cut from the
"syndicated" re-run version of the episode that runs,
for example, on FX.
I'll check tonight or tomorrow.
[> Well... -- monsieurxander,
08:21:44 12/07/04 Tue
I still haven't bought the S7 DVD set, but I'm willing to be there's
at least one major change. Originally, in Showtime, during
the infamous Buffy/Willow/Xander telepathy scene, someone else
was doing the voice over for Buffy. When the episode reran, Sarah
Michelle Gellar had supplied her voice. I'm willing to bet the
second version is on the DVD.
why didnt SMG attend the wrap-up
party? (i didnt see her on the dvd) -- ghady, 15:23:51
12/05/04 Sun
Replies:
[> Re: why didnt SMG attend the wrap-up party? (i didnt
see her on the dvd) -- LittleBite, 17:29:58 12/05/04 Sun
It depends on who you're talking to. The answer to that ranges
from "because she's a total bitch DIVA who made life miserable
for everyone else for years" to "Freddy didn't want
her to go" to "because she pretty much went straight
from wrapping Buffy to filming in Tokyo."
[> [> Scooby-Doo 2 was filmed in Tokyo? -- shambleau,
11:29:43 12/06/04 Mon
I forget where it was filmed, but she was indeed there when they
had the wrap party. Whether she could have taken the time to come
back, and chose not to, dunno.
[> [> [> I thought it was filmed in Canada --
Vickie, 12:07:53 12/06/04 Mon
You're correct, shambleau, that SMG was filming the doggy sequel
immediately after S7. I think Grudge (the Tokyo film) was this
past year.
Anyway, she had work as an excuse, even if it wasn't a real reason.
[> [> [> [> Yes, I think it was Scooby 2 she was
filming... -- Rob, 13:08:11 12/06/04 Mon
I remember an interview where she said the loss of Buffy
didn't hit her until later because she had no time to process
it at the time, since she went almost directly from filming her
final scenes to, a day or so later, being in Australia (I believe)
filming Scooby Doo 2.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> and that was here in Vancouver,
Canada -- Ames, 13:45:33 12/06/04 Mon
... close enough to go to an evening wrap party in LA and return
the following morning.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Which Seth Green did
-- Pony, 13:55:30 12/06/04 Mon
Of course we have no idea what her call time was the next day,
so it stands as a valid though somewhat eyebrow-raising excuse.
The not appearing on AtS during season 5 gets a bit murkier with
lots talk of Grudge re-shoots, and a few he said/she saids. Ah
well, even if SMG's not bestest friends with everyone on BtVS
anymore she's always been a big booster of the show to the press.
[> [> [> Re: Scooby-Doo 2 was filmed in Tokyo?
-- LittleBite, 20:35:05 12/06/04 Mon
You'll notice I was giving ranges for the various 'reasons' (acccurate
or not) that I happened to read as to why she wasn't at the wrap
party. Personally, I have no real knowledge as to why she didn't,
although I'm willing to give her a break if she went more or less
straight from shooting Chosen (not the simplest episode) to filming
SD2 the next day.
BtVS vs. AtS -- PurpleYoshi, 17:03:01
12/06/04 Mon
Hey guys,
I'm working on a paper comparing and contrasting BtVS and AtS,
and I was looking for some other fans' input. Any thoughts? How
do you think the shows differ tonally, philosophically, visually,
or thematically, for example? Or do they both really have the
same message in the end? Which show is stronger, and which is
more accessable?
But really, any comments whatsoever that you have are greatly
appreciated! :)
Replies:
[> Re: BtVS vs. AtS -- Jay, 20:12:27 12/06/04 Mon
Both BtVS and AtS come out swinging, but BtVS quickly gains the
upper hand by finding its footing and landing several devastating
blows. But AtS does what it does probably better than most, and
takes the punishment while it improves its own performance. While
BtVS continues to hold the upper hand, AtS improves to the point
where the two shows are trading punches at a level that will sear
your eyeballs and singe the hair in your ears. Finally some of
BtVS's vaunted defense cracks and AtS takes full advantage by
going evil all over broadcast television. And while BtVS saunters
into the twilight, AtS showboats like only BtVS before it could.
Conclusion: what the hell is JAG?
[> Re: BtVS vs. AtS -- EvilLawyer, 20:46:38 12/06/04
Mon
OK, I'm going out on a limb here. (And since I'm really a lurker,
not a poster, this is WAY out on the limb for me.)
BtVS is a show about what you do when your responsibilities interfere
with your perfectly reasonable desire to have a life of your own.
The Slayer is the only person with the power to combat vampires,
etc., a power on which the safety of the world depends. But she
is also an adolescent girl who would like to have school, friends,
boyfriends, normal relations with parents, etc. That's the essential
conflict of the show. And it resonates with us because many of
us face such conflicts. E.g., the need to care for elderly, young,
or disabled family members interferes with career aspirations.
Or the need to share funds interferes with a desire for further
expensive schooling. We can all think of similar conflicts.
AtS, on the other hand, poses the question of how you live your
life after you have done something so terrible that no forgiveness
is possible. For more than a hundred years, Angel murdered and
tortured, killing uncountable victims and devastating those he
left alive. Nothing he does now can make it up to those he victimized.
Having recognized what he's done, how does he go on? What does
he do with the rest of his (eternal) life? Happily, few of us
are mass murderers on Angel's scale, but many of us have caused
some smaller irrevocable hurt to someone.
Of course, this difference affects the tone of the two shows.
Buffy is more or less an innocent, morally speaking, so the tone
of the show can be -- and is -- pretty light. Angel was evil --
it's a darker show.
What the two shows have in common (aside from some characters
and some very good writers) is that, like other "speculative
fiction" (fantasy, science fiction), they play out these
conflicts in a world that's sufficiently different from the "real
world" that we can make a more dispassionate (maybe) examination
of the merits of the arguments. (And maybe also have a little
more fun doing it.)
[> Re: BtVS vs. AtS -- Finn Mac Cool, 06:17:07 12/07/04
Tue
Here are a few differences I've noticed over the years that I've
watched Buffy and Angel:
(1) How they view the establishment.
Both shows rarely have a positive portrayal of large organizations
and people in charge, but exactly how they present that is quite
different. On Buffy we have the Watchers Council, the Mayor's
government, the Initiative, and the post-Initiative military.
Of these, only the Mayor's rule over Sunnydale was blatantly evil,
and even then the focus was more on the individual of the Mayor
rather than the system he controlled. Those other organizations
were all well-intentioned by nature, but were engaged in questionable
activities. The Watchers Council did enforce the Crucianitum test,
and they did attempt to execute Faith, but otherwise their actions
were usually more annoying than truly harmful, and actually came
in helpful now and again. The Initiative was corrupted by Maggie
Walsh's designs, but that was a secret kept from everyone above
or below her. Most of the Initiative soldiers, while making themselves
vulnerable to exploition by obeying orders too readily and engaged
in a few questionable activities (such as the torture of Oz),
were really just trying to fight demons and save lives, the same
thing that Buffy does. Angel is different, though. On Angel large
organizations are more likely to appear, and they're more likely
to be pure evil. Many standalone episodes feature the heads of
corporations and their underlings as the villains (see "City
of", "Guise Will Be Guise", and "Ground State"
for examples). During the Faith crossover between Buffy and Angel,
we can also see this different take used in regards to the Watchers
Council. On Buffy the operatives sent in were definitely creepy
and did try to kill Faith/Buffy when they couldn't get her back
to England, but, when they appeared on Angel, they were closer
to gun toting maniacs than they were before. And of course there's
Wolfram & Hart, Angel's constant nemesis a large law firm that
also happens to be the personification of all evil. As should
probably be obvious by now, where Buffy rarely focused on large
organizations and usually presented them in an ambiguous light,
Angel used them much more frequently and portrayed them as pretty
much pure evil.
(2) Action scenes.
Angel tended to have the characters seem more powerful for action
scenes than Buffy did. For example, Angel will make use of ten
foot leaps into mid-air, slow-motion spinning kicks, and other
such feats. When Buffy fights she usually remains pretty squarely
on the ground and fights at normal speed. There's also the human
fighters as well. Gunn and Wesley have been shown tackling multiple
vampires on their own and still kicking ass, whereas Xander and
Giles, even at their best (or the vampires' worst) would consider
themselves lucky if they managed to beat two.
(3) The relationships between the characters.
I've always noticed that the character dynamics are different
on Angel than on Buffy, but it took me a while to put my finger
on it. Then I realize that it came down to varying emphasis put
on friendship and on work. On Buffy we'd get Buffy, Xander, and
Willow just hanging out in their free time, having fun. They'd
also congregate together to fight demons, but they only seemed
to be doing that together because they were already friends. On
Angel, however, most of the group interaction centered around
the business of Angel Investigations. They'd gather at Angel's
office or the Hyperion to discuss potential clients, how the next
demon threat was going to be handled, etc. They often got involved
in witty banter and did seem to care about each other, but most
of their interaction was based around work. It's also a good idea
to take a look at what determines who is in and out of the group.
On Buffy, the Scooby Gang pretty much consisted of a small group
of friends, as well as significant others of those friends. While
Cordelia learned that Buffy was the Slayer back in Season 1, she
didn't really become a Scooby until mid-Season 2, when she got
together with Scooby Gang member Xander. Likewise Anya, Riley,
and Tara became Scoobies simply by virtue of dating other Scoobies,
and Dawn became part of the group simply because she was Buffy's
sister. When a falling out occurred between Scooby members, it
almost always caused a rift in their demon fighting activities.
Willow and Tara break up, so Tara stops coming to the Scooby meetings.
Adam splits the core Scoobies apart, and they only unite to defeat
him after reconciling their differences. It doesn't work the same
way on Angel, though. Angel Investigations, unlike the Scooby
Gang, is an official organization, a business, and how membership
is handled reflects that. Members of AI get paid for doing what
they do, and they can be fired (as seen in "Reunion"
and "That Old Gang of Mine"). They also tended to join
based on what they could offer in demon fighting skills rather
than because they were friends with someone in the group. Wesley
was given a job because Angel felt sorry for him, yes, but also
because he did have some useful talents, all this despite the
fact that they didn't get along too well. Likewise Angel began
employing Gunn as a freelancer, and eventually a full member,
not because they were friends (it's clearly stated that they're
not several times) but because Gunn is good at fighting demons.
Fred and Lorne joined the group because, due to actions either
done by or related to Angel, they had nowhere else to go. It's
also important to note that for a while Wesley dated Veronica,
someone who knew full well what his work was, yet there was never
even a hint that she might join AI. Then there's Gunn and Fred,
who became a couple, broke up, but still kept working for Team
Angel. All in all, the difference between the two groups is like
this: the Scooby Gang is a group of friends who happen to fight
demons, while Angel Investigations is a group of demon fighters
who happen to be friends.
[> [> Re: BtVS vs. AtS -- PurpleYoshi,
09:49:26 12/07/04 Tue
Thank you for all of your observations!
the Scooby Gang is a group of friends who happen to fight demons,
while Angel Investigations is a group of demon fighters who happen
to be friends.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. In Buffy, close relationships
have always come first (except maybe in Season Seven, with the
whole "mission" deal), while in Angel, everything's
about the world as a whole with personal issues taking the backseat.
[> Great stuff in the archives -- tyreseus, 09:24:47
12/07/04 Tue
There are some excellent discussion of this subject in the archives.
One that jumps to mind as particularly memorable was KdS's analysis
of the political persuasions of the two shows from December 2002.
(Found here.)
If there's a particular topic you'd like to look at, the archives
are searchable (see link at top of page, or click here.)
[> [> Re: Great stuff in the archives -- PurpleYoshi,
09:50:55 12/07/04 Tue
Thanks for the suggestion... I'm still finding my way around here
:)
[> [> [> Re: 'Buffy' v 'Angel' -- Liam, 02:08:22
12/09/04 Thu
I would also suggest, PurpleYoshi, that you try www.televisionwithoutpity,
and look in its 'Angel' forum, which has a very good 'Buffy' v
'Angel' thread.
[> [> Gee, thanks -- KdS, 12:25:49 12/08/04 Wed
It should be noted, however, that the said post dates from the
interim between AtS3 and AtS4, and arguably needs to be updated
following the intriguing developments of AtS4-5. In particular,
the denouement of AtS5 suggests a return to revolutionary vanguardism
and the propaganda of the deed ;-)
Jewel Staite on Wonderfalls
-- Ames, 18:45:54 12/06/04 Mon
Tonight's episode 10 of Wonderfalls "Lying Pig" on Vision
TV starred Jewel Staite (Kaylee from Firefly) as Heidi, the cheating
wife. She was completely different from Kaylee, even looking a
lot thinner.
Replies:
[> Re: Jewel Staite on Wonderfalls -- Rob, 19:19:16
12/06/04 Mon
She was amazing on "Wonderfalls"! Very talented actress.
I never would have believed, after only knowing her from Kaylee,
that she would so effectively be able to play a character that
I hate! And not just love to hate: I hate her! (But at the same
time recognize what a great job Jewel does at playing her!)
Btw, in her later appearances, her character becomes increasingly
hate-worthy. ;-)
Rob
[> Re: Jewel Staite on Wonderfalls -- Evan, 08:17:10
12/07/04 Tue
Yes, I was also impressed! In the teaser, I couldn't figure out
who it was, probably because I like Kaylee so much and I felt
none of that for Heidi.
Good episode!
My favourite so far has been Lovesick Ass, I think.
Bad news from the rumor mill
-- Vegeta, 08:49:34 12/07/04 Tue
I heard some second hand rumor that Joss has shut down Mutant
Enemy. Which would put a damper on any future BtVS or AtS ventures.
ME being shut down wouldn't be that suprising considering none
of the writers are there anymore, but a bummer none the less.
Has anyone heard anything solid about this or is this just wild
second hand speculation.
Vegeta
Replies:
[> Re: Bad news from the rumor mill -- Cactuw Watcher,
13:30:31 12/07/04 Tue
I heard it before. I think it means Joss is done with TV for awhile.
As far as I know, he's still pursuing movie ideas beyond Firefly.
[> It is solid -- Pip, 07:11:17 12/08/04 Wed
There's a link to the story here
(the original Variety newspiece requires a subscription, so I
haven't linked to that).
Not as gloomy as it looks, though. The original production contract
had only a year left to run, and Mutant Enemy has simply shut
up its production offices; Joss still owns it and can restart
at any time. What it looks like is an acknowledgement that he's
not going to be producing a TV series in that final year of his
production contract (beyond, possibly, the cartoon); he wants
to concentrate on movies for a bit, and Twentieth Century have
agreed to let him do so.
[> [> Re: It is solid -- skpe, 17:32:16 12/09/04
Thu
I have to agree with joss saing he was "disillusioned with
the current state of American TV programming and in particular
with the current vogue for "reality TV," which he characterized
as "loathsome.""
[> [> [> Re: It is solid,...but wrong target.
-- Terry, 05:00:46 12/12/04 Sun
Blame the viewers,Joss,not the Networks.If there is so much 'trash'
on TV,it's because people don't watch intelligent,quality programming.
People want easy and entertaining.And the Networks are not suicidal,they
need money,it's a business,you know?
Why not voicing the truth?Because it's not PC?
No hypocrisy,please.Everybody knows that Vox populi,vox dei.If
you can't attract enough viewers,you're doomed.
One day(may be),people will be tired of watching these programs(hey,who
knows,one can hope!)
Let's launch a campaign against intellectual laziness.Much more
honest (and fair) than blaming the system.
[> [> [> [> Yes, TV is a business. But what type
of business? -- Pip, 11:33:12 12/14/04 Tue
To my cynical little mind the probable reason there are so many
reality shows, 'news' shows about car chases, etc, etc. is because
they're cheap to produce. Not that the audience is desperate for
them, or that they get better ratings than good dramas (which
often get incredibly high ratings), but that they'll deliver a
certain level of ratings for a lot less money.
I think Joss is right to see the problem being with the networks.
Because there are two types of business models; type one sees
its job as producing a good product (which makes money). Type
two sees its job as making money (which needs some kind of product).
Mutant Enemy was type one. The US networks have become (they weren't
always) type two; they don't really care whether the 'show' is
news, drama, reality, because they're now purely focused on advertising
revenue. You can see this in the time given to adverts versus
time given to programmes - now down to 43 minutes or less. One
quarter of a one hour slot is adverts.
[In my home country there's been a sudden upsurge in 1 hr 10 minute,
40 minute, even 10 minute programmes, because the U.S. programmes
are now so short we're having to lengthen our home-grown scheduling
to keep programmes starting mostly on the hour and half hour.]
This is 'business'. But it's a particular type of business. Taken
to its limit, the 'make money' (I need some kind of product) philosophy
not only isn't really interested in producing anything useful
or entertaining, it'll quite happily sell you things it knows
will ultimately harm the customer. It'll quite happily sell you
products it knows are way below the quality they could be. It'll
sell you anything at all, provided somebody's prepared to buy
it.
And then it will blame the customer. Because it's the customer's
fault, for being so stupid. Our customers are a bunch of stupid
morons because they watch this/smoke this/eat this crap. It's
all their fault. And we have no responsibility whatsoever for
the things we spend our lives selling them.
The networks will take no responsibility whatsoever for cancelling
shows which people would like to watch, and do watch in their
millions, in favour of something cheaper to produce. Because people
will still watch TV, right? After a hard days work, they don't
really want to have to schlep out to the DVD rental store. They'd
rather relax.And watch whatever is on the darn TV. So our
job as business people is to produce the cheapest crap we can,
that won't actually make them drive out to Blockbusters ...
Gaah.
Yeah, it's a business. Like Wolfram and Hart was a business. Personally,
I prefer the 'make money by producing a good product' scenario.
Rant over.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, TV is a business. But
what type of business? -- auroramama, 10:49:12 12/15/04
Wed
Rant warning:
Under current US law and judicial precedent, it is illegal for
the management of a publicly owned corporation to act in any way
that does not maximize "shareholder value." Shareholder
value, in the past, has been interpreted to include growing a
company over a period of years. However, most shares these days
are held by interests that chose this company (among perhaps hundreds
of others) based on current share price and next quarter's earnings,
and will promptly sell if they don't like the way things look
next week. If share prices go down, the shareholders or their
representatives are entitled to get rid of the existing top management
and install someone who will fire half the employees, sell off
assets, and otherwise raise share prices by destroying the company
as a productive entity.
Legally, management is forbidden to squander shareholder value
on satisfying customers or employees unless doing so yields the
highest possible profit/share price. They can and do spend plenty
of money on political candidates, lobbyists, and advertising,
because these are seen as efficient ways to improve profits. They
even donate to charity, but they're only allowed to do so in so
far as necessary to improve shareholder value.
This not only provides no incentive to to produce high-quality
products, it actively discourages it, as long as the shareholders
believe there are cheaper ways to make money in the short term.
It's the shareholders who need to take responsibility for this
unwelcome consequence of the way the system is set up. But the
bigger the company, the less likely it is that someone with stock
in a mutual fund that owns shares of a media conglomerate is going
to see a connection between his interest in short-term gains and
the cancellation of Firefly. And in fact that connection is so
remote, for any one of us, that only a change in the law is likely
to make a difference. Right now we're paying management to lie,
pollute, lobby, bribe, downsize, outsource, and produce crummy
products. As long as they don't get caught, that's maximizing
shareholder value. I think shareholder value will have to be redefined
to include Joss Whedon shows, breathable air, jobs with health
benefits and a living wage, affordable public universities, and
the many other things that make life not suck.
OK, now my rant's over.
[> [> [> [> [> In addition -- KdS, 02:12:11
12/16/04 Thu
I personally think that once broadband becomes really widespread
everything will go to entertainment on demand and the whole advertiser-supported-TV-channel
model will go down the toilet (direct subscription-supported networks
like HBO wll probably survive). I suspect that the TV networks
know this and are in the stage of deliberately making as much
short-term profit as possible without regard for their future
reputation, because there is no future.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm not so sure that such
a transition would be a good thing, though -- Finn Mac Cool,
10:58:33 12/16/04 Thu
I personally just don't like the idea of paying for TV. I tend
to watch a large number of programs on different channels (CBS,
FOX, NBC, FX, AMC, TBS, Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, the WB,
UPN). Currently, with advertising based programming, I can watch
almost any show I want for free (there is the cost of basic cable,
but that costs less than HBO or Showtime, and gives over 60 channels
as opposed to one). The idea of adding to my bill everytime I
watch a TV show isn't pleasant, as I'd either wrack up quite a
lot or really have to cut down on what I watch. And then of course
there's the effect it would have on my willingness to try out
new shows; if I try a new show now and don't like it, all I've
lost is a little of my time, if I try it with a broadband format
and don't like it, I've wasted both time and money.
Reminder: This Sunday December
12 National Children's Memorial Day -- Ann, 11:13:45 12/07/04
Tue
Communities across the world will be joining in The Compassionate
Friends annual Worldwide Candle Lighting on December 12, 2004.
http://www.compassionatefriends.org/
For Jacky, Liam, Davie, and Donovan. Light a candle. I know I
am going to.
Dogs are moral; cats aren't
-- dmw, 15:35:10 12/07/04 Tue
The NY Times recently printed an
article on a recent Nature article on the evolution
of morality. While dogs are as limited in their ability to cogitate
about moral matters as they are about numerical matters, they
nonetheless have cognitive abilities of both types: being able
to count small numbers of objects and being able to recognize
certain rules about living in a social groups. In the same way
that humans can count higher than canines, we can also use our
ability of abstraction to organize in groups much larger and more
complex than those of the dog pack. However, our mathematical
abilities aren't limited to just counting higher than dogs can,
and similarly, our moral thinking isn't limited to thinking about
larger groups. We also come up with more complex and sometimes
bizarre rules to enforce on ourselves and can be outraged by things
that affect us in no way whatsoever. Whether that characteristic
is a net improvement over canine morality, I'll leave to the reader.
Cats, on the other hand, are solitary hunters by nature, and as
such, have little need for morals. What little need for morals
they have are derived from the queen-kitten relationship, as there
is no natural social grouping of adults to compare with the dog
pack or primate tribe. Anyone who has attempted to train both
dogs and cats quickly learn the difference between the attitude
of the two species to social environments, as the cat has no interest
in social requirements and will only do what you want it to do
when it thinks you're in a position to enforce your rules.
While we've had cats living with us for thousands of years and
that's bound to have some evolutionary impact, it's clear that
cats are not as easy to mold as dogs. The diversity of shapes
and sizes of dog breeds is immense and as far as we know, all
dogs are either of a breed or of a mixed breed. On the other hand,
we've been much less able to modify cats in size and shape outside
of catching a few lucky mutations (Scottish foldies, hairless
cats), and the typical cat is just a cat, little changed from
his ancestors, with pure breeds making up a small number of minor
exceptions, so it may take higher technological measures than
we've applied so far to breed a moral cat.
Replies:
[> But cats are intelligent, and dogs aren't... -- frisby,
16:26:39 12/07/04 Tue
I read that article too -- quite interesting. I've long pondered
the relation of intelligence and morality, especially whether
one's morality limits one's intelligence, or, whether one's morality
makes possible an expansion of one's intelligence. Strauss points
to the difference between his intelligence and his friend Jacob
Klein's as one not confined by morality and one that is.
On cats, did you know the large cats are much more recent evolutionarily
than the smaller ones, including the original one, which is similar
to our domestic one. Also, that the sabre tooth evolved out of
that domestic one (actually a small desert cat) and went extinct
and then a million or more years later evolved again out of that
same domestic like cat (which had not gone extinct), and then
went extinct again, and again, four times! Meaning the sabre tooth
could evolve again out of our house tabby? (this was on a show
on the discovery channel)
As for dogs, they eare loyal, trainable, and the perfect example
of morality (according to Plato), since they always take only
a moment and then regard one as friend (to lick and serve and
obey) or as enemy (to bite and kill and eat). The dog is like
the soldier (not to be confused with the warrior, which is more
like the cat).
I think this cat/dog opposition is very old and vast in association.
I've always sided with the cat. How about you?
[> [> Re: relationship between intelligence & morality
-- Rich, 18:00:31 12/07/04 Tue
There's a theory ( I forget the source ) that "intelligence"
is actually a collection of not-necessarily-related abilities.
In other words, we actually have multiple intelligences, each
relating to specific types of activities. This explains the "idiot
savant" phenomenon - individuals who are brilliantly talented,
but only in certain specific areas. Reasoning from this, we could
postulate the existence of a "moral intelligence", which
would apply only to moral questions.
On another note - what did the article say about lions ? They're
cats, but live & hunt in groups, like dogs.
[> [> [> you mean multiple intelligences theory of
howard gardner? -- frisby, 09:47:49 12/08/04 Wed
Howard Gardner posits multiple intelligences, and we are biased
in favoring the verbal and analytic (or mathematical) over the
others (musical intelligence, dance, sport or spatial, intropersonal,
intrapersonal, natural environmental, existential, and one or
two others, for nine in all) -- and YES, moral intelligence might
very well be a tenth!
Or one could return to the old metaphors of mind (intelligence)
and heart (morality) and find the two almost always in opposition
and not complementary.
Or one can posit the 'gut' as the opposition of head, with heart
as the proper balance.
Ultimately though, there seems to be no way to overcome completely
the utter difference between the true and the good!!!!! (and as
Nietzsche says, if one claims no difference, walk away, and if
they add 'the beautiful' thrash them).
Today, the primary term is the 'real' ---
(and as Heidegger says, the ultimate business of philosophy is
to preserve the force of the most elemental words)
[> [> [> [> Possibly.. -- Rich, 11:40:43
12/08/04 Wed
... I've read some of Gardner, & this may be where I encountered
the theory.
On morality - I think the case could be made that most "moral"
decisions involve empathy, which could certainly be considered
as a type of intelligence.
[> [> [> [> [> not 'master' morality ...
-- frisby, 13:47:43 12/08/04 Wed
The gist of 'master morality' -- which comes in various types
and degrees -- is that one thing (enacting justice) is appropriate
for me (the master) but not you (the other), or visa versa, that
this particular thing (what particular thing depends on the type
of bondage) is okay for you (the servant) but not for me (the
lord).
Master moralities are very different than slave moralities. The
latter entail universality and deny that master moralities even
'are' moralities, much less moral. And of course master moralities
understand slave moralities as moral only for slaves, fit for
those who serve only -- and not for the true, the noble, the strong,
those who have mastered themselves, and now, others...
This master/slave dialectic of Hegel can be read in many ways,
as the strong over the weak, as old over the young, as male over
female, as one race over others, and even as the wise over the
non-wise: all of these involve what Plato called 'titles of rule'
-- only one of which (he lists seven) involves what we understand
as 'law' --
-- but maybe discussion of Hegel is not appropriate for this forum?
-- but surely BtVS advocates the mastery of humanity over the
forces of darkness including the vampires and the demons! humans
are good and the others not! right? (Buffy learns this is not
simply the case, and even teaches it to Riley, of course) -- so
even though BtVS points out the all-important exceptions, and
the complexities involved, still, is not 'mastery' a fundamental
theme of the series?
My big question is the relative priority of self-mastery over
the mastery of nature -- or visa versa. That is, must we make
ourselves 'fit' to be the master of nature before we can master
nature, or, do we need to master nature before we can then make
ourselves into proper masters. Which has priority, genetic eugenics,
or political engineering?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: not 'master' morality
... -- Malandanza, 23:20:37 12/13/04 Mon
"Master moralities are very different than slave moralities.
The latter entail universality and deny that master moralities
even 'are' moralities, much less moral. And of course master moralities
understand slave moralities as moral only for slaves, fit for
those who serve only -- and not for the true, the noble, the strong,
those who have mastered themselves, and now, others..."
How do the various types of rebels fit in with the Master/Slave
morality? Do successful rebels who replace the old order with
a new order just adopt the master morality, or are they "immoral"?
As for BtVS advocating human mastery over the demons, I think
that is the mentality of the WC and the Initiative -- and was
rejected by Buffy in S3 & S4. I don't even think Buffy even could
be said to champion good over evil -- instead, in spite of Riley's
claims of being an anarchist, Buffy supports order over chaos.
Demons, vampires, and humans who do not threaten the existing
order are in no danger from Buffy -- even when past transgressions
would justify swift and brutal justice. Thus, Clem, Spike, and
Willow roam freely as long as they pose no threat -- but step
over the line, as Anyanka did in S7, and Buffy becomes judge,
jury, and executioner. With such a mentality, it would be easy
for Buffy to choose Spike over Wood, though justice or vengeance
might demand otherwise -- Spike is working with Buffy to preserve
order, Wood represented a threat to order.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Buffy's morality
-- frisby, 02:45:45 12/14/04 Tue
Buffy's morality seems to me to touch on master morality in that
it holds to individual cases and shuns rules applicable to all
cases -- fuzzy logic instead hard epistemic logic, gray and brown
instead of black and white. Buffy has a spidey-sense as to what
is good or bad in any specific situation regarding any specific
being, but she retains a strong scepticism regarding general theoretical
judgments such as all demons are evil. This seems to me more like
the master morality of the noble instead of the slave morality
of the base.
As for 'rebels' Nietzsche describes the mass revolutions and slave
revolutions as a transvaluation wherein what the old masters labelled
'good' becomes now 'evil' and what the old labelled 'bad' becomes
now 'good' -- or more generally, good and bad are transvalued
into good and evil. But, as he ends this analysis, he adds, as
an aside to never forget, that one never really leaves behind
all good and bad (that is, morality, of which there is no greater
power on earth, always returns in some fashion). Although he also
speaks of a transitionary stage that seems to be simply amoral,
for a time.
Hard stuff huh ....
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's
morality -- fidhle, 17:34:03 12/14/04 Tue
Interesting discussion of morality. But we must remember that
Buffy is a 21st Century American, a society which, while it has
classes, the classes are mutable and individuals can rise or fall
in class based on lots of individual factors, whereas the Master/Slave
discussion comes from rigidly defined societies, prior to the
20th Century.
In Edwardian times, in England, class was relatively rigid and
most people could not change the class into which they were born.
Rather, the mark of success was to be the best at whatever lot
society had put one. This led to great stability, along with great
stultification for a lot of people.
One result, though, was that when the Titanic went down in 1912,
the crew, especially the crew in the boiler room, kept the lights
and electricity on as long as humanly possible, even though it
meant that they would die, rather than abandon their post. Thus,
the radio operator was able to broadcast his SOS for as long as
possible, not that it did him too much good. BTW, he went down
with the ship, too. Another result was that most of the deaths
were in the steerage passengers, who could not, in many cases,
get to life boats, which were taking on the well off, at any rate.
This is not to slight the sacrifice of some of the wealthiest
people on earth, who chose to stay with the ship rather than take
up space in the boats, such as the Guggenheim's.
By contrast, there was a passenger ship that caught fire in the
latter part of the 20th Century which was noted for the fact that
the crew left the ship and basically made no efforts to save the
passengers. Times had changed.
The morality that Buffy displays is much more a product of these
times, in which she makes individual decisions based on the danger
the demon or vampire makes, rather than the more rigid class based
morality of "human good - demon bad. Kill demon!"
I think Buffy is referencing a basis for morality that has little
to do with dialectics or "master/slave" analysis, and
much more reflects a type of moral pragmatism.
The measure of good v. evil in the Buffyverse, including Angel,
seems to be based on helping humans and never, ever, giving up
the good fight, whether it be at the level of Buffy v. vamps and
demons, or Angel v. the Senior Partners et al, or even Anne v.
despair and disadvantage.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> titles
to rule -- frisby, 20:22:28 12/14/04 Tue
Hi Fidhle! Nashville and Chicago were sure memorable this year!
I'm debating New York -- desire is there but maybe not the wherewithall.
Anyway, I don't explicitly disagree with anything you said, and
there are historical class societies -- of course -- but in my
mind the key issue has more to do with rule, simply who rules,
and by what title. Plato outlines seven titles to rule, and in
all cases the ones who rule are, generally so to speak, masters,
and the ones ruled are slaves, even though the terms master and
slave in this context seem foreign to our ears. Anyway, the seven
titles to rule include the wise over the foolish, the strong over
the weak, the wealthy over the poor, the old over the young, --
I forget the other three at this time. But in the one divided
by strength, if one loses strength they no longer rule, and if
one who was weak becomes strong they cease to be ruled and instead
rule. Same with the others, meaning there is mobility.
Also, when Hegel speaks of masters and slaves in his dialectic
on lordship and bondage, the terms more generally mean something
like who rules and who is ruled, or who counts and who is simply
counted, or who makes the laws and who is subject to them, etc
etc etc
Even more generally, on the one hand you have those who advocate
everything for everyone (all subject to the law, fairness, reciprocity,
universalizability, etc), and on the other hand you have those
who advocate one thing for themselves and those like them, and
another thing for the others (you as subject to the law but not
us, etc). And of course, also, the former think their system or
science of behavior (loosely, a morality) is moral and the other
immoral, while the latter think their own is good for them but
not for the others, and the other's is good for them but not for
them (or us). It reminds me of the relationship of Ares and Aphrodite,
with he describing it as one of war, and she one of love -- and
on it goes. But, as I read Nietzsche, that really is the state
of affairs in the world of morality -- it's not really all that
different from the right and left in this country -- not exactly
of course -- but to the extent that the two simply disagree fundamentally
and find it difficult if not impossible to even communciate the
root of that disagreement.
For myself, it all really comes down to how one understands Plato's
_Republic_ -- the book I think of as the foundation stone of the
spiritual history of the west. And the key line from book five
is what they speak of as simply the greatest good period: the
community of women and children. But a discussion of that would
take us far far abroad, and would include things like the noble
lie and the willing lie. And how can one speak of Plato withnot
moving also into Homer and Nietzsche?
Later, time to go to sleep.
David
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's
morality -- Malandanza, 20:39:52 12/15/04 Wed
"Buffy's morality seems to me to touch on master morality
in that it holds to individual cases and shuns rules applicable
to all cases -- fuzzy logic instead hard epistemic logic, gray
and brown instead of black and white. Buffy has a spidey-sense
as to what is good or bad in any specific situation regarding
any specific being, but she retains a strong skepticism regarding
general theoretical judgments such as all demons are evil. This
seems to me more like the master morality of the noble instead
of the slave morality of the base."
I don't agree that Buffy goes case by case, making moral judgments
based on situational ethics. I think she has been consistent in
her decisions about who or what to stake -- an opponent working
to disrupt the world is defeated, one who isn't doing any real
harm is ignored. So chipped Spike lives, as does Clem, but demons
and vampires who seek to disrupt or destroy meet the business
end of Mr. Pointy. Buffy isn't concerned about Rack the magic
crack dealer, or Willy's shifty demon/vampire bar. She has been
fairly constant in her judgment: humans engaged in destructive
are stopped but handled by human justice, demons and vampires
are handled by the slayer. The few occasions she has deviated
from punishing the wicked for crimes currently in commission,
it has been apparent that she has acted immorally (or that she
has seen her actions as immoral) -- her attack on Faith, following
Faith to L.A., wiping out the vampire hookers, for example. At
no time does Buffy absolve herself from blame for her actions,
nor does favoritism keep her from finally administering justice.
Compare the treatment of Spike, Willow, and Anyanka in late S6
to S7: Buffy is willing to stop Willow by whatever means is necessary
because Willow has broken the moral code Buffy upholds -- in S7,
Willow is no longer a threat, so no longer requires Judge Buffy.
Similarly with Spike -- he is not personally a danger. The First
uses him as a weapon, but Buffy will not punish Spike for the
sins of the First. Anyanka is allowed free reign -- she's just
as free as Clem -- until she kills. Then, and only then, does
Buffy intervene. I doubt very much that Buffy would have administered
the coup de grace on Ben -- she simply doesn't kill villains,
no matter how evil, who are not a present threat. There is a universality
to Buffy's morality -- it's not "demons, bad; humans good",
but it has not varied since Becoming.
So based on how you have defined Master/Slave morality, I would
say that Buffy favors the slave. Being a slayer is a burden to
her -- her morality is imposed upon her. She is not free to stop
being a slayer, because the world would collapse with her. She
rejects the master morality of the WC as not even being moral
-- and does so emphatically in The Gift. After her resurrection,
she suffers -- she has been dragged back into a life of slavery.
At the end of S6, she has become reconciled to her place in life.
She is not the exultant master, except briefly in Bad Girls,
when Faith tempts her away from the shackles of her morality.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Where
We Differ But Also Agree -- on Buffy's Morality -- frisby,
17:35:57 12/16/04 Thu
As you say, Buffy s morality is not simply demons bad, humans
good which I think of as a kind of slave morality one of perhaps
the lowest type, one where rules are simply followed regardless
of the particular circumstances of the case (situational ethics
as you call it). I also agree with most of your description of
her morality (she being consistent for the most part, with her
decisions based in real life situations for the sake of limiting
or preventing harm from taking place, as contrasted with unimportant
or not as important cases such as Rack s magick dealing). Clem
and Willy and some others are not simply bad because they are
demons or hang out with demons although a slavish morality of
rules would not leave room for exceptions in their cases. Justice
is her overall concern, and not any simple enforcement of laws
or rules and justice of the highest spiritual type is always a
matter of specific cases. We might differ though on the extent
of her favoritism (you seem to think she is above it but I m not
so sure about that -- compare the favoritism mothers show for
their children). I also agree there is a type of universality
but not a simple one that abstracts away from concrete cases in
favor of absolute dictums her type centers more on universal principles
such as justice or equity or even kindness.
So, based on how you have described Buffy s morality, I would
still name it as a master morality and not a slavish one. Still
though, you make a good point that there are various types of
master morality, and hers is not to be confused with the vampiric
morality of the Master of season one (which seems to center on
honor and loyalty of a type) or with the morality of the Watcher
s Council (who are above or beyond the law), or the morality of
Faith in Bad Girls (which is one where one s will is the law want
take have). Season six turns on Buffy s resurrection back into
the world of life (6.1) and then her eventual reconciliation with
the world of life (6.22). But season seven follows the standard
theological model where her church is then founded (especially
7.22).
But I think we do agree that morality generally is one of the
main themes (if not the primary one) of the show, and that Buffy
evolves or develops or learns much about morality as she moves
through the seven seasons. She does finally realize her superiority
complex she is better than others but she feels inferior for it
(one might say humble, in a more healthy way).
Question for you: do you categorize the morality of demons bad,
humans good (implying all cases) as a slave morality? And do you
think the master morality espoused by Faith in Bad Girls is the
only type of master morality? The bottom line, according to my
teacher Nietzsche, is that they can be distinguished for the most
part with regard to the criterion of health those resulting in
a healthy consciousness and with healthy consequences being masterful,
and those associated with sickness of some type or other, from
which one needs to convalesce, as being slavish or fit for those
who need to be corrected or improved. Regardless, thanks for a
most interesting response or post. For myself, I often find the
choice of morality comes down to what is the good thing to do
versus what is the noble thing to do and it s usually the truth
that makes the difference in the real world (and 'truth' in that
case itself turns on honesty and integrity).
Going to New York?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Where We Differ But Also Agree -- on Buffy's Morality -- Malandanza,
22:13:54 12/17/04 Fri
I have looked up Nietzsche before replying to your post -- but
most of the websites give the same concise information on the
master/slave moralities. The other sites tend to be biased to
one extreme or the other ("Nietzche freed humanity from the
chains of religion" or "Nietzsche is the Antichrist
-- just ask him") so I am by no means an expert on his philosophy.
From my understanding of what you have said about it (and from
what I've gleaned from Masq's and others' sites) I think our principle
disagreement is in this statement of yours:
"Justice is her overall concern, and not any simple enforcement
of laws or rules and justice of the highest spiritual type is
always a matter of specific cases."
I would agree with you that if this statement is the starting
point, Buffy has exercised her enforcement of justice capriciously
at best. Angel gets a sword through his heart and a quick trip
to hell to stop an apocalypse, Dawn has Buffy protecting her even
if it means letting a significant section of the world die (including
Dawn); Anya gets a sword through the heart for killing people,
Andrew and Spike get tied to a chair while Willow gets a free
room at the Summers' Bed and Breakfast; Faith gets a knife in
the gut for helping the Mayor, Spike almost gets scolded for helping
Adam. Lot's of favoritism and inconsistencies -- Buffy knows best,
never mind the conventional morality (it's for slaves anyway).
However, by disagreement is not with the conclusions, but with
the premise. I don't think Buffy worries about justice much --
maybe a little nagging reminder in the back of her mind that some
things aren't fair or right, but she gets over it. I think early
on she learned that there isn't much hope of justice (Prophecy
Girl, Lie to Me, B2) so gave up that fight for one of containment.
She fights for order, and the status quo, not for justice. She
isn't an honest, hardworking country sheriff making sure justice
gets done in spite of the lawyers, she's a soldier on a peacekeeping
mission who doesn't get involved in local politics and customs
-- she just keeps the peace.
And in keeping the peace, she is consistent. If people die fighting
her, well, they shouldn't have been causing trouble -- they knew
the consequences. She doesn't pull her punches when it comes to
a fight -- whether it's Willow, Spike, Faith, or Anyanka. But
she doesn't kill her prisoners, she doesn't kill innocents (or
let them die if she can stop it), and she doesn't kill people
who are no longer a threat. Even in "Into the Woods",
Buffy gives the VampPimp a chance to walk away, to avoid becoming
a problem she has to clean up.
Season Seven is problematic. In the first episodes, it appears
as though Buffy will be the new big bad, in some form -- as an
ally to the First, perhaps, or pushed by the First into becoming
a monster. However, by the end of the series, we have Buffy pleading
with her friends in a most unmasterly way, second guessing herself,
pontificating rather than acting, and making disastrous or illogical
decisions when she does act, ending up banished from her own house
and meekly accepting the verdict of the mutineers. In any event,
I see no instances of Buffy working for justice in S7 -- justice
would have had her side with Wood (or at least sympathize with
him), whose mother had been killed by Spike; order calls for her
to condemn Wood and Giles. Justice would have hauled Andrew off
to prison for Jonathan's murder, where he would have been sharing
a cell with Willow.
"The bottom line, according to my teacher Nietzsche, is
that they can be distinguished for the most part with regard to
the criterion of health those resulting in a healthy consciousness
and with healthy consequences being masterful, and those associated
with sickness of some type or other, from which one needs to convalesce,
as being slavish or fit for those who need to be corrected or
improved"
One of the big, recurring themes in BtVS is Buffy's desire to
be normal. She may have been given the power to become a Nietzschean
Master, but she yearns to be one of the slaves. Throughout the
series, her consciousness has been unhealthy -- I can only recall
two clear instances of a happy and healthy Buffy in S6 and S7
-- Tabula Rasa and the beginning of Lessons. I think
that the virtues Buffy espouses (Christian values like helping
the weak) would be sneered at by a master -- why would a master
help slaves without any foreseeable benefit? And the guilt --
what Nietzschean ever felt the guilt Buffy saddles herself with?
Finally, here's a quote I found describing the slaves that I think
describes Buffy perfectly:
"fears the Dionysian side of the self".
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Justice -- according to Buffy -- frisby, 10:48:16 12/22/04
Wed
Any consensus on Nietzsche is still in dispute there s no simple
way to look him up even using his name forces one to enter the
fray of interpretation he referred to as the will to power. Looking
up Nietzsche is as hard as looking up Jesus or Plato there is
nothing taken for granted. But regardless of Nietzsche, I think
you are wrong when you disagree that justice is Buffy s overall
concern also, that her capriciousness, favoritism, and inconsistencies
raise doubts about her morality. You surely do agree that Buffy
is moral (See What would Buffy do?)? But you say she worries little
about justice? And fights instead for order and the status quo
and peace?
You are downplaying justice. Political orders all aim at justice
and the particular type colors or influences or impacts on everything
that occurs in the regime (according to my reading of Plato here
and each is a rendition of the noble lie). Tyrannies aim at the
justice of order and peace, or safety and security, while democracies
understand justice as liberty and equality. Oligarchies understand
justice in terms of wealth and power while Timocracies (or Timoarchies)
think of everything as a matter of victory and honor. Aristocracies
focus on virtue and nobility. BUT, all of these are moved first
and foremost by justice, which has psychological, political, and
even cosmic implications.
Also, just as it seems to me you might be downplaying the centrality
and scope of justice, I think you might also be limiting your
depiction of the morality of masters, which includes things like
liberality, magnanimity, or generally, philanthropy in fact I
think it is more true to say that master morality loves humanity
than slave morality (which finds humanity not acceptable and repulsive
and in need of redemption of some sort). Guilt is also an important
aspect of master and slave moralities, but for the former it is
sublimated into responsibility.
In the best sense justice is indeed the highest spirituality of
virtue, or the means to the good, which become of the good (as
Oz says). Justice is hard and by no means simple. Buffy does fear
the Dionysian (who, Nietzsche says, is the god of darkness) within
herself (which, Nietzsche says, involves always aspects of mastery
and slavery), but it is Spike that teaches her to embrace that
speck of darkness so as to in the end become an eternal snowflake
instead of a waterdrop indistinguishable from the rest of the
ocean
Well, that s my usual spiel or play of thoughts. In a nutshell,
I really do think Buffy is animated and inspired by justice throughout
the series (which at times takes on focus on the notion of law
but at other times on the right or generally and simply on the
moral and the good). But all of this intricately tied up in the
knot of justice! (see Plato s Republic for a taste of the complexity
we refer to as the just). Nietzsche, like Plato, and, I content,
like Buffy, are not understandable apart from the centrality of
the notion of justice, which is, in the end, what Buffy is, what
she will become!
We probably still disagree some but perhaps there s also some
room for agreement? For example, do we agree that Buffy is of
the good ?
(Thanks for this opportunity to think and talk about things dear
to my heart.)
David
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Justice -- according to Buffy -- Malandanza,
20:05:32 12/23/04 Thu
"But regardless of Nietzsche, I think you are wrong when
you disagree that justice is Buffy s overall concern also, that
her capriciousness, favoritism, and inconsistencies raise doubts
about her morality
"Also, just as it seems to me you might be downplaying the
centrality and scope of justice..."
Well, I'm certainly doing that -- I just don't see Justice as
all encompassing. Instead, I see it as one aspect of right and
wrong -- justice, morality, legality, necessity, etc., all play
a part. For me, justice (fair/unfair) and morality (good/evil)
make up the bulk of right and wrong, but lots of little factors
contribute as well -- expedient/inexpedient, proper/improper,
legal/illegal, and so forth. So, yes I agree that Buffy is moral,
but I would say that morality is a bigger concern to her than
justice, so sometimes her actions are unfair, but they are biased
towards an essentially Christian morality -- compassion, forbearance,
forgiveness, empathy, mercy. The capriciousness, favoritism, etc.,
raise doubts about her unswerving devotion to Justice, not her
morality. It is because she supports order rather than justice
that she can be compassionate. I have no trouble saying Buffy
is a good person -- the best on the series. I would have trouble
saying a completely impartial dispenser of justice is good --
he would be fair, not necessarily good.
I think it is entirely possible for an act to be just but immoral,
or moral but unjust. There is less ambiguity about right and wrong
when acts are both just and good, or unfair and evil, which is
further clouded by the different value systems that have alternate
views of right and wrong as well as moral/immoral, fair/unfair.
For example, the gypsies who cursed Angel saw Angel's continued
suffering as right -- that vengeance was moral. But in the prevailing
system of morality in BtVS, vengeance is wrong -- it may be just
(Willow going after Glory, Giles after Angelus, Buffy after Faith)
but it is immoral, and morality has more weight on the show than
fairness. Similarly, when Giles sends Buffy off in Prophecy
Girl, Wesley argues about letting Willow die if it means destroying
the Mayor's chance of ascending, or Giles suggesting Dawn's death
to stop Glory, the WC mentality of greatest good for greatest
number of people makes these choices the right choices for Giles'
and Wesley's value system (although neither claims the choices
are fair), but for BtVS, these choices are immoral, and so are
wrong. Buffy herself has understood that it is unfair that she
has been chosen the slayer, but she continues to do her duty because
it would be wrong to stop (immoral, in this case, as people would
die without her help).
I don't think Buffy gets up in the morning and thinks: "Time
to dispense some Justice!" Instead, she grumbles about having
to make sure the local demons and vampires aren't killing people
again, or trying to take over or destroy the world. And it's fortunate
for her friends, her enemies, and Spike that she isn't an unswerving
champion of Justice for, as Hamlet said:
"God's bodykins, man, much better: use every man after
his desert, and who should 'scape whipping? Use them after your
own honour and dignity: the less they deserve, the more merit
is in your bounty."
So, overall, not much agreement after all. I will, however, agree
with you that Buffy is "of the good."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Check out Slayage.tv.
-- fidhle, 11:03:48 12/20/04 Mon
There is an interesting article in the most recent issue of Slayage,
No. 15, in the recommended reading section. It is an article which
appears in the Cardozo Law Review. The article is William P. MacNeil,
"'You slay me!' Buffy as Jurisprude of Desire." Cardozo
Law Review 24.6 (2003): 2421-40. [available in PDF only] The cite
is www.slayage.tv
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great!
Thanks fidhle! -- frisby, 13:54:09 12/20/04 Mon
Great! Thanks fidhle. I printed it and looked at the beginning:
BTVS and the philosophy of law! Wow! Right up my alley! My big
interest! I'll read it. Thanks again!
You going to New York? I think I might be able to.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Planning
to go. -- fidhle, 14:20:28 12/20/04 Mon
I'm planning on going so maybe we'll see each other again in the
Big Apple. There's lots to do there. Maybe we can do a little
hustling like in Chicago [heehee]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Who is coordinating this time? -- frisby, 10:58:56 12/22/04
Wed
Do you remember who got the job of coordinating when and where?
Think it will be Sat Sun and Mon? (as to 4th of July)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Check
out Slayage.tv. redeux -- fidhle, 19:23:05 12/20/04 Mon
Just read a really interesting undergraduate paper on "A
Question of Faith: Responsibity, Murder and Redemption in Buffy
the Vampire Slayer." by Martin Tomlinson, in the Chrestomathy:
Annual Review of Undergraduate Research at the College of Charleston
3(2004): 205-228. It is an excellent analysis of the characters
of Faith and Buffy with regard to responsibility, murder and redemption,
marred only by the fact that the author apparantly didn't see
the eps of Angel in S4 with Faith in them, and so he gets one
basic fact wrong.
[> [> [> Intelligences (Pinker, not Gardner) and Species
-- dmw, 09:43:46 12/09/04 Thu
While Gardner has written some books on multiple intelligences,
I'd recommend Pinker's How the Mind Works as a better popular
text on how the brain's abilities are divided. Oliver Sacks' books
on brain research are good too. Modern brain research makes it
clear that we have a multiplicity of mental abilities, with the
brain consisting of different units with tasks as specific as
recognizing human faces. One of the two authors discusses an account
where damage to a tiny area of the brain removes all moral considerations
from the victim's decision making.
Alas, the article didn't mention lions, but if you're interested
in informed fictional speculation on the topic, read CJ Cherryh's
Chanur's Voyage, which is told from the point of view of
an alien species that evolved from something lion like. Males
(lions) are treasured as beautiful, poetic, strong, and are the
official leaders, but are also considered too unstable and aggressive
to let them actually run the daily business of commerce and diplomacy,
which is handled by the females (lionesses), much as the business
of an actual pride is done.
[> [> [> [> Hmmm. -- Sophist, 12:08:10 12/09/04
Thu
Pinker's books on language (he's an expert) are excellent. His
others (he's not an expert) not so much. Antonio Damasio writes
terrific books on the mind, though he doesn't address the multiple
intelligences issue.
[> [> [> [> Thanks -- I'll try to check out Pinker
-- frisby, 11:01:25 12/22/04 Wed
Thanks. I'll try to check out Pinker. This area interests me much.
I think the culture is biased in the importance it gives to intelligences
like verbal and mathematical, at the expense of, for example,
music and dance, or intropersonal and intrapersonal, intelligences.
[> [> I'm a Cat person! -- Wizard,
01:49:27 12/08/04 Wed
Ignore the doggist propaganda!
Ahem.
Seriously, cats are smarter. There is a vast difference between
intelligence and the ability to be trained.
[> [> [> Ahhhhhhhh, but remember -- Rufus, 03:25:03
12/08/04 Wed
We are a species that highly values the licking of our boots.......;)
[> [> [> [> you mean those who count and those
who .... -- frisby, 09:53:00 12/08/04 Wed
are counted?
is Hegel right that Mastery and Bondage is the fundamental category
of humanity? until the end of history of course, at which time
the masters disappear and the slaves win --
[> [> [> For example,,,,, -- frisby, 09:49:54
12/08/04 Wed
For example, consider the difference between the context of discovery
versus the context of judgment (in logic), or the utter difference
of the mathematical vs the philosophical (according to Plato).
As Strauss says, the philospher's nature is at bottom opposed
to all forms of habituation.....
[> [> [> [> blatant cat button plug (but w/philosophical
example) -- anom, 23:24:34 12/09/04 Thu
You knows those buttons I'm always quoting? My friend Nancy makes
'em. Her website has a whole (yes) cat-egory of cat buttons. But
I can't post a direct link to it--you have to go to her search
page & choose "CATS" from the dropdown list.
Plato? Straus? Nah, cats are more into the Eastern philosophies:
"Cats are Taoists. They know the Way, and are always in it."
[> [> [> [> [> But Socrates knew the Tao and
possessed Teh too! -- frisby, 11:05:13 12/22/04 Wed
A friend of mine who teaches eastern philosophy and religion argues
with me regularly about the differences between east and west,
with me contending Socrates should count as a follower of the
tao and Nietzsche should be credited as a zen master. Western
philosophers are too narrowly construed and eastern ones are given
too much leeway. There's never been anything as powerful with
regard to the planet and the species as modern european philosophy
(and yes it does deserve some of its detractors).
[> [> Have you been tamed? -- LeeAnn, 07:52:25
12/08/04 Wed
As for dogs, they are loyal, trainable, and the perfect example
of morality (according to Plato), since they always take only
a moment and then regard one as friend (to lick and serve and
obey) or as enemy (to bite and kill and eat). The dog is like
the soldier (not to be confused with the warrior, which is more
like the cat).
I believe when we build robots we will try to make them like dogs,
i.e., willing slaves who love us. It's what we aim for with domestication,
whether a dog or a human. Many people view the rich and powerful
exactly as dogs view their owners.
In dogs and cats and other domesticated mammals, domestication
is accomplished by selecting for juvenile traits in the adult,
traits like fearlessness and trustfulness. In domesticated animals,
individuals retain puppie-like or kitten-like traits. This is
also linked with about a 20% reduction in brain size between the
domesticated and wild varieties. Thus a dog has a brain that is
about 20% smaller than that of a wolf of equal size. And domestic
cats also show a similar reduction in brain size. A smaller brain
size is a juvenile trait.
But now we come to the kicker. One of the main difference between
Cro-Magnon and modern man is a 20% reduction in brain size and
this reduction occurred about the time civilization developed.
About 50 thousand years ago the brain size averaged 1,468 cc in
females and 1,567 cc in females. Today it's 1,210 cc in females
and 1,248 in males. Did early rulers kill the more rebellious,
more independent individuals and thus, accidentally, produce the
same changes that occur in the domestication of other species.
Have the powerful been domesticating us, so we will be more docile
slaves?
[> [> [> Not today mistress :) -- lakrids, 08:09:35
12/08/04 Wed
[> [> [> The answer to your question is 'Yes' but
we must also ... -- frisby, 09:37:32 12/08/04 Wed
The answer to your question as to whether our rulers have tamed
us (thus resulting in smaller brains) during the last 10,000 or
so years (what Nietzsche calls the moral epoch), is YES, but,
we must also remember the secret esoteric teaching hideen at the
center of _The Little Prince_ -- namely, that we are responsible
for that which we tame. We must remember this because the key
lesson for the rulers of our time and for the future is the lesson
of responsibility (according to Nietzsche). Our future leaders
are those of the most comprehensive responsibility, and Nietzsche's
teaching of the eternal return is that which creates those capable
of bearing the most responsibility, and thus of becoming the new
nobility, the new masters (thus refuting Hegel's analysis of history
as the victory of the slaves, resulting in the citizens of the
state being free and wise). The lions and the wolves will return
to the goats and the sheep, once again.
But I think my metaphors are getting too mixed here....
[> Oh please.................<g> -- Rufus, 03:23:37
12/08/04 Wed
That dogs are dear to the unimaginative peasant-burgher
whilst cats appeal to the sensitive poet-aristocrat-philosopher
will be clear in a moment when we reflect on the matter of biological
association. Practical plebeian folk judge a thing only by its
immediate touch, taste, and smell; while more delicate types form
their estimates from the linked images and ideas which the object
calls up in their minds. Now when dogs and cats are considered,
the stolid churl sees only the two animals before him, and bases
his favour on their relative capacity to pander to his sloppy,
uniformed ideas of ethics and friendship and flattering subservience.
On the other hand the gentleman and thinker sees each in all its
natural affiliations, and cannot fail to notice that in the great
symmetries of organic life dogs fall in with slovenly wolves and
foxes and jackals and coyotes and dingoes and painted hyaenas,
whilst cats walk proudly with the jungle's lords, and own the
haughty lion, the sinuous leopard, the regal tiger, and the shapely
panther and jaguar as their kin. Dogs are the hieroglyphs of blind
emotion, inferiority, servile attachment, and gregariousness --
the attributes of commonplace, stupidly passionate, and intellectually
and imaginatively underdeveloped men. Cats are the runes of beauty,
invincibility, wonder, pride, freedom, coldness, self-sufficiency,
and dainty individuality -- the qualities of sensitive, enlightened,
mentally developed, pagan, cynical, poetic, philosophic, dispassionate,
reserved, independent, Nietzschean, unbroken, civilised, master-class
men. The dog is a peasant and the cat is a gentleman.
from "Cats and Dogs" by Lovecraft
I (purely my personal,flawed, biased opinion)consider the
ownership of dogs rose from function, cats, their aesthetic appeal.
But seriously, I feel that the moral nature of the cat more closely
conforms to us than does the dog. The dog, who we think we should
be, the cat, who we wish or sometimes fear to be.
[> [> utility vs aesthetics -- frisby, 09:54:47
12/08/04 Wed
Yes, very very good quote. And the choice of aesthetics over utility,
or visa versa, determines everything, or as Nietzsche called it:
art versus truth!
Art wins, but only the art of truth.
[> Re: Dogs are moral; cats aren't -- manwitch, 04:04:49
12/08/04 Wed
"it's clear that cats are not as easy to mold as dogs."
There's no reason why that should be true.
What kind of mold are you using? Copper is more expensive, but
it will conduct the oven's heat better and should help hold the
shape of the mold.
[> [> ROFL -- Sophist, 08:44:59 12/08/04 Wed
[> [> or maybe cats are capable of ... -- frisby,
09:57:07 12/08/04 Wed
or maybe cats are capable of transvaluation, whereby the old good
and bad pass away in favor of a new good and bad?
While dogs always remain in bondage to their table of the good,
or their morality, the power of good and evil that defines who
they are and where they're at?
[> While I generally agree... -- Cactus Watcher, 05:47:28
12/08/04 Wed
It's also true that cats are better about sharing than dogs. And
when it's a dead mouse, it's certainly better to give than receive.
;o)
[> That's just liberal propaganda -- hebrokeaway, 07:55:36
12/08/04 Wed
The media has always been biased against cats.
[> [> ... not to mention the time of the black death!
-- frisby, 09:40:24 12/08/04 Wed
It's an old story, but worth noting again, that the christians
killed the cats, believing them animals of the devil, which resulted
an explosion of rice and mice, which resulted in an explosion
of fleas, which resulted in an explosion of the bubonic plague
which killed millions of people. We need our kats! (Especially
that 'lion' that is depicted at the very end of Zarathustra IV).
[> [> [> Re: ... not to mention the time of the black
death! -- Rich, 11:58:03 12/08/04 Wed
I actually looked this up - according to "Plagues and Peoples",
plague apparently entered Europe by sea, through shipping lanes
leading from India, through the Middle East, to the Mediterranean.
Of course, the relative lack of cats could still have been a factor,
at least in Europe.
Also, and this is really off topic, plague is (or was) endemic
among prairie dogs in the American west - I have no idea how they
got it.
[> [> [> [> the plague was NOT due to killing the
cats? -- frisby, 13:50:05 12/08/04 Wed
I thought it was historical fact that the killing of the cats
in great numbers led to or caused or at least contributed heavily
to the explosion of the plague in europe. Maybe I am wrong? Anyone
else heard this as fact or myth?
[> [> [> [> [> Correction to "Plagus"
posting -- Rich, 15:23:48 12/08/04 Wed
I checked further - the "Indian sea lanes" reference
was apparently to an earlier epidemic, or series of epidemics,
in the 6th & 7th centuries. These were part of a series of disasters
which are described in the book "Catastrophe !" which
came out a couple of years back (the theory is that a volcanic
irruption in the south Pacific caused a temporary climate change
that affected events as far away as England).
If I'm reading correctly, The Black Death was apparently picked
up by Mongol armies invading southeast Asia in 1253, and became
established in burrowing rodents in the Mongolian Steppes. There
was an outbreak in China in 1331, and in central Asia in 1338.
In 1346, it struck a Mongol army beseiging a city in the Crimea,
spread to the city itself, & from there spread along trade routes
(both land & sea ) to other cities. Infected people from these
cities carried it to the rest of Europe and the Middle East.
None of which means that cats weren't a factor - but it looks
like the Mongols were a bigger one.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Correction to correction
... -- Rich, 15:28:50 12/08/04 Wed
Obviously I meant "Plague", not "Plagus".
This is what happens when I try to use all my fingers to type,
instead of just two of them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I agree; I think that's
right -- frisby, 16:28:32 12/08/04 Wed
Yes, your description is what I remember or understand too, and
the cats only played a part in europe once the plague spread to
there. Thanks for the clarification.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Didn't sailors traditionally
keep cats on board their ships? -- dmw, 09:28:24 12/09/04
Thu
In some cultures, it was traditional to keep ship cats, which
would've helped to stop plague from spreading via shipborn rats.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Justinian's Plague
-- dmw, 09:33:52 12/09/04 Thu
I checked further - the "Indian sea lanes" reference
was apparently to an earlier epidemic, or series of epidemics,
in the 6th & 7th centuries. These were part of a series of disasters
which are described in the book "Catastrophe !" which
came out a couple of years back (the theory is that a volcanic
irruption in the south Pacific caused a temporary climate change
that affected events as far away as England).
Justinian's Plague in the 6th century was much worse than the
Black Plague, killing about half of Europe's population and ending
the hopes of the Roman Empire's restoration in the West. It was
likely the result of the same bacterium, though the death toll
of about 100 million was much higher than the later black plague's
toll. Combined with the subsequent Persian Wars, the plague weakened
the two great powers of the time (the Eastern Roman Empire and
Persia) so much that the newly united Arabs were able to conquer
Persia and much of the remaining Roman territory in North Africa,
Palestine, and Syria.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Justinian's Plague
-- frisby, 11:07:25 12/22/04 Wed
I never knew this. This is intriguing. I'll print your page in
hopes of looking up more info. 100 million?!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Justinian's
Plague -- Rich, 12:32:18 12/22/04 Wed
If you're really interested, I recommend the book I mentioned
earlier :"Catastrophe", by David Keys. It's been out
long enough to turn up in libraries (I think), and may be available
through Amazon or EBay. The author shows possible connections
between a lot of separate events that occurred during the period,
and traces them back to a common cause - climate change brought
on by a supervolcano. I don't know if I completely agree, but
it's interesting nonetheless.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes --
Thanks -- I'll try to check it out -- frisby, 12:48:25
12/22/04 Wed
Yes, I'm very interested in such things -- catastrophe theory
and chaos theory -- clearing up confusion --
thanks --
will you be at the ny gathering?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Yes -- Thanks -- I'll try to check it out -- Probably won't
make it to NY, 08:34:56 12/25/04 Sat
[> [> [> No, the Black death was not carried by rats
-- lakrids, 16:51:48 12/08/04 Wed
but was transmitted through human contact
see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1925513.stm
[> [> [> [> Well, I'll be ...... you just never
know .... -- frisby, 18:07:29 12/08/04 Wed
I've copied and pasted from that URL for others in case they're
interested. You're right. You just never know anything for sure
about history. Of course, it still remains a debate among professionals?
Black Death and plague 'not linked'
The Black Death that affected Britain in the 14th century was
probably not the modern disease known as bubonic plague, scientists
claim.
The symptoms of the 14th century disease are similar to bubonic
plague, and historically they have been referred to as one and
the same.
Bubonic plague is spread by the fleas of rats and other rodents.
However, anthropologists in the US believe the Black Death was
caused by any number of infectious organisms, probably transmitted
through person-to-person contact.
The spread of the Black Death was more rapid than we formerly
believed
The university research team studied church records and other
documents from the UK to reconstruct the virulence and pattern
of the disease.
They looked at bishops' records which show that many priests died
during the epidemic.
Dr James Wood, professor of anthropology at Penn State University,
said: "These records indicate the spread of the Black Death
was more rapid than we formerly believed.
"This disease appears to spread too rapidly among humans
to be something that must first be established in wild rodent
populations, like bubonic plague."
Modern bubonic plague typically needs to reach a high frequency
in the rat population before it spills over into the human community
via rodent fleas.
Historically, epidemics of bubonic plague have been associated
with enormous die-offs in rats.
Dr Wood said: "There are no reports of dead rats in the streets
in the 1300s of the sort common in more recent epidemics when
we know bubonic plague was the causative agent."
The anthropologists believe that instead of being spread by animal
fleas, it was transmitted through human contact, in the same way
as measles and smallpox.
They say the geographic pattern of the disease reflects this too.
It spread rapidly along roadways and navigable rivers and was
not slowed down by the kinds of geographical barrier that would
restrict the movement of rodents.
The team is not able to pinpoint the agent that caused Black Death.
However, it has not ruled out the possibility that the Black Death
might have been caused by an ancestor of the modern plague bacillus,
which might later have mutated into the insect-borne disease of
rodents that we now refer to as bubonic plague.
Bohemil Drasar, a bacteriologist at the London School of Hygiene
and Tropical Medicine is unconvinced by the findings.
He said: "Black Death was the plague.
"This is fantasy."
He says it is unscientific to try to draw conclusions from historical
records.
He said: "This is speculation and it doesn't explain anything
extra by saying it wasn't bubonic plague.
"The only way that would tell us more is to find some Black
Death victims in decent conditions and extract some bacterial
DNA and compare it with various strains of plague bacteria that
exist."
Black Death ravaged Europe and Asia between the 14th and 17th
Centuries.
In the 14th Century alone it is estimated to have killed 200 million
people.
Although bubonic plague is no longer a major health problem in
Europe, it is still prevalent in some parts of the world.
About 3,000 cases are reported annually to the World Health Organisation.
[> [> [> [> Article is too lacking in detail to
make sense -- dmw, 09:26:00 12/09/04 Thu
The article is too lacking in detail to make sense. The disease
caused by Yersinia pestis comes in several forms. The article
omits the fact that while plague is initially transferred from
rats to humans via flea vectors in its bubonic form, it also infects
the lungs and then spreads from person to person via the air as
pneumonic plague. Yes, there have to be dead rats someplace for
the plague to spill over into the human population, but even in
those days, travel was quick enough for the plague to be in England
while the point of transfer from rats to humans was someplace
in continental Europe.
[> [> [> [> [> another cat connection --
anom, 15:13:04 12/19/04 Sun
Years ago, I read a book called The Natural Cat, which
among other things advised chopping up a little fresh garlic & mixing
it into (presumably canned) cat food. The book claimed that 1
of its effects was to repel fleas--& mentioned that it worked
for humans too. If this is true, it could mean it's true that
eating garlic helped prevent the plague!
Of course, it's not that simple--this would have prevented only
the flea-transmitted, bubonic form of the plague...unless garlic
on the breath kept people far enough away to prevent the pneumonic
form too.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: another cat connection
-- dmw, 18:51:17 12/19/04 Sun
Interesting. Unfortunately, garlic repels cats as well as fleas.
My cat makes a terrible face and runs away as if being chased
by the furies when he smells it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: another cat connection
-- anom, 20:10:03 12/19/04 Sun
It may depend on the cat. One of my former cats was very interested
in the smell of garlic on my fingers, but when her nose actually
touched one (finger, that is), she did that sneeze-of-rejection
thing & wouldn't even let me get close enough to rinse it off
her.
However, both cats still ate their food when I chopped a small
amount of garlic very fine & mixed it in. Maybe the more relevant
question is whether cat fleas--a different species from dog fleas
(don't know about rat fleas)--can carry Y. pestis, or whether
cats have a resistance to it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: another cat connection
-- Ann, 05:02:25 12/20/04 Mon
My cat, RIP, used to eat pizza and didn't seem to mind the garlic
at all ;-) This was first discovered when we found her licking
the inside of an empty pizza box, that had fallen open by the
front door before we could get it out to the garbage.
And no we were not starving her lol.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> pizza cats
-- dmw, 06:47:25 12/20/04 Mon
My cat's quite attracted to pizza--cheese being the most important
human invention and all--but won't actually eat it. Oddly enough,
he prefers sharp cheeses to mild ones like mozarella.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: pizza
cats -- Ann, 08:36:20 12/20/04 Mon
Yes, on the cheese as most important invention. I fully agree.
I even made an icon once.
And best of all, Joss feels the same way so it must be true! LOL
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: another cat connection
-- auroramama, 10:30:30 12/20/04 Mon
A little garlic is probably OK, but concentrated stuff like onion
or garlic powder can be dangerous to cats. There seems to be a
higher sensitivity to terpenes and aromatic compounds in cats
-- PineSol is no good for them either.
They will eat stuff that isn't cat food, certainly. I had two
that used to eat melon rinds. Not the actual rind; I'd give them
my cantaloupe slices after I'd had the best bits, and they'd rasp
down the rinds with their tongues until they'd gotten every last
speck of fruit.
[> But what about Miss Kitty Fastastico?? -- frisby,
09:59:46 12/08/04 Wed
But what about cats and dogs with regard to Buffy? Maybe our Jungian
archetypes of werewolves and vampires, in the end, come down to
dogs and cats?
Or do they stem from the primal blood cycle of the female, when
tied to the full and new moons, and when all the females are in
sync, leading males to behave as werewolves during full moon,
and vampires during the new????
[> A bunch of points -- Darby, 07:43:29 12/10/04
Fri
I didn't get in in time on the "soul" thread (my checking
in is getting pretty spotty), but there are several things to
repond to here...
The ability to count in cultures without actual word-for-numbers
(some human cultures don't have those) seems to top out at around
4, which is close to what it is for other animals. (See http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/science+society/lectures/lecture3.html),
among others.
Kitty-cat culture is closer to lions than leopards, though - they
form kind of pseudo-prides in wild or near-wild conditions. This
makes sense - it's almost impossible to domesticate animals that
don't have a natural culture with some form of leader deference.
The stuff with cat evolution, from both ancient-to-modern and
over domestication times, is based upon very spotty data and some
pretty broad assumptions (like the ones on brain size, which likely
have no direct correlation to intelligence levels in this context).
The cats-and-plague connection, like so many things, sees to be
another assumption that sounds reasonable but needed an
awfully widespread (both geographically and temporally) behavior
to be significant, and that's pretty far-fetched. Don't trust
about 80% of what historians tell you, about 90% of evolutionary
biology explanations (especially when land animals' fossils are
involved), and maybe 95% when ethologists tell you why a species
behaves the way it does (and it may not even behave that way in
the first place).
But does this all mean that "morals' is purely an awareness
of "acceptable / unacceptable" behavior? Is it a meme,
purely from training?
[> [> one little one -- frisby, 09:56:05 12/10/04
Fri
I think (following what I think I've learned from Nietzsche) that
morality (or morals or the moral) is indeed a matter of training
instinctual behavior, with the learning accomplished through memes,
but that there is no greater power on earth with regard to the
change it can bring about. The creation of conscience is a bigger
event in the history of life on earth than when the water creatures
evolved into land creatures. Morality is a matter of overcoming
ourselves, transvaluing an older moral meme in favor of a new
one that makes us better -- more powerful. Bacon's moral meme
taught humanity to master nature (and human nature) for the sake
of establishing dominion over creation. Nietzsche's new moral
meme of eternal return forges a new conscience for a new planetary
aristocracy -- the return of nobility (in direct refutation of
Hegel's victory of the slaves with the creation of the modern
state through the moral meme of civil service). My cat yawns though
and considers the past 10,000 years (the moral epoch) no big deal!
Hi Darby! Nice to meet you in Chicago. Will you be in New York?
Your son is 16?
[> [> [> All signs point to YES... -- Darby, 08:27:09
12/12/04 Sun
We're expecting to be in New York when the time comes. The Evil
creature is 14 - he'll be 15 by then.
I'm not completely clear on the connection between the philosophers
and the moralities - you're not suggesting that they established
these variations, just that they described variations already
in play, right-?
My cats don't ignore history - I suspect their take is different,
though. They're more likely to see the importance of the rise
of feline empire over the primates (next - elimination of the
canine threat!) than care about how the primates relate to each
other.
[> [> [> [> I am suggesting that... -- frisby,
09:54:35 12/12/04 Sun
Yes, I am suggesting that. I read Nietzsche as teaching that.
It's really an old history -- whether great changes are the result
of individual invention or whether great changes simply accrue
gradually due to impersonal forces, so to speak. Hegel has much
to say about this when he discusses 'world historical individuals'
-- and Nietzsche is explicit about, for example, Plato inventing
or creating the 'good in itself' and the 'pure mind' that apprehends
it. Nietzsche speaks in the _Genealogy_ of the one who created
the conscience, and of later political philosphers as controlling
the destiny of humanity for thousands of years by modifying that
conscience, or poetically, of instilling eternal demands in the
heart of humanity. This 'great man theory' as it is often called,
runs through art, law, history of course, and even science, but
there is also of course the other side which denies that the greatness
is due to particular individual innovations, and credits instead
more general historical forces which can't ever quite be pinpointed
-- just in the air so to speak. So, summing up, yes I am suggesting
that the greatest changes in morality occur through the actions
of an individual and spread from there. I just thought of an example,
Exorcist II, where she is able to change the mindset of the horde
through simply spinning in the opposite direction. Something like
that. Even science which prides itself on small changes accruing
through the actions of many minds, has to allow sometimes for
great and grand changes through a single work of mind such as
Darwin or Einstein. Descartes lays much of this out in his _Discourse_
in his talk of weak minds vs strong minds, and then also of good
minds who serve the great minds, and of course, his own category,
the best minds. But also, he begins the book speaking 'politically'
of how reason is equally existent in 'all' minds (before the takes
it back a few pages later). But most of us these days don't know
how to read an author like Descartes (the first one to publish
the fact that the sun is a star, by the way), who had to write
esoterically to avoid persecution.
Been to New York before? I have not.
[> [> [> [> [> Interesting examples... --
Rich, 17:56:02 12/12/04 Sun
..Because Darwin and Einstein didn't actually invent the processes
they described. Evolution was occurring before Darwin was born,
and the relationship between energy and matter didn't change just
because Einstein discovered it. So I'm not sure they really illustrate
your point.
Of course, morality is a social/intellectual phenomenon rather
than a physical one, so the line between description and invention
is harder to map. Still, there's a difference between an art expert
and an artist. I suspect that most philosophers fall into the
first category rather than the second.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Point Well Taken! --
frisby, 02:59:06 12/13/04 Mon
Very good point! I stand corrected. Darwin and Einstein are not
good examples of what I had in mind. Unless of course we think
of reality as 'so' plastic that all theories are created impositions.
Anyway, I think a better example might be the idea of a founding
-- ?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Anthrocosmology
-- dmw, 18:49:48 12/19/04 Sun
Very good point! I stand corrected. Darwin and Einstein are
not good examples of what I had in mind. Unless of course we think
of reality as 'so' plastic that all theories are created impositions.
Anyway, I think a better example might be the idea of a founding
-- ?
The idea of reality conforming to theory in physics is called
anthrocosmology. Greg Egan's Distress focuses on this idea.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anthrocosmology
-- again! Great info. Thanks. -- frisby, 11:11:49 12/22/04
Wed
I never heard of it. Thanks again. I've thought long and hard
about the relation of mastering nature to mastering human nature
-- which has priority in the modern project for example. Are we
improving ourselves (medicine, education, philanthropy) so as
to make ourselves 'fit' to be the masters of nature, or, are we
mastering nature so as to make it 'fit' for us? This issue is
also a matter of the very famous Socratic turn, with nature the
concern before the turn, and human nature afterwards.
Thanks dmw. Will you be at the NY gathering?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I am suggesting that...
-- auroramama, 09:56:17 12/13/04 Mon
I don't think I know how to read any author whose culture promoted
the idea that some people are worth more than others. I also have
deep suspicions of schemas for dividing minds into "weak"
and "strong". Until recently, most such divisions were
put to work explaining why the aristocrats (mysteriously presumed
to be strong of mind) should tell everyone else what to do. (What
about the strength of mind needed to survive in the underclass,
and even raise decent human beings there?)
As for science, here's my view:
When a scientist comes up with a new way to understand the world,
or a large chunk of the world, the effect on other scientists
is huge; it's like the explosion that strips away rock and earth
to reveal new mining opportunities. But you need the other scientists,
and the engineers, and a host of other people in order to have
an effect on the rest of the world. Otherwise, the impact of the
great discovery on humanity is a few people saying, "Whoa,
dude!"
[> [> [> [> [> [> and yet ... Descartes
-- frisby, 10:59:43 12/13/04 Mon
Descartes "is" though known as the father or founder
of modernity or the father or founder of modern philosophy or
the father or founder of modern science ---
-- and he "does" speak often of weak minds as contrasted
with strong minds
-- and he did present us with cartesian coordinates, x and y and
all that, combining algebra and geometry for the first time, and
making calculus and thus modern technology possible
-- and yes, he did what you don't like.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: and yet ... Descartes
-- auroramama, 10:24:12 12/20/04 Mon
Had a reply to this, but it never appeared. To summarize: none
of Descartes' credits make him an expert in psychology, anthropology,
ethology, sociology, or human behavior. This is also the guy who
thought animals were automata. Am I going to trust someone who
can't see *any* mind in a dog to tell me what people's minds are
like? Nope.
Also, the founder of modern science is whoever it was that took
accurate measurements before and after a change in state. Bacon?
Lavoisier? That's what took us from speculation to science. See
Asimov, passim, or Peter Atkins, =Galileo's Finger=. Mind you,
I don't go as far as Atkins does, but then I'm not a bench chemist.
And do you really need cartesian coordinates to do calculus? I
thought Newton was on the trail of calculus. Then again, my placement
of Descartes in time is wobbly to the point of not being sure
who preceded whom. I only remember Lavoisier's period because
of the French Revolution.
This above all: against stupidity the gods themselves contend
in vain. Descartes was extremely smart, but that doesn't mean
he wasn't stupid. My opinion is that talking about strong vs.
weak minds makes a lot of smart people suddenly stupid.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: and yet
... Descartes ... and yet again. Rene -- frisby, 11:19:04
12/22/04 Wed
One credit of his needs to be given due: he was a philosopher
(and even though most don't know it, a Platonic political philosopher).
And yes, his creation of analytic geometry made all the difference
-- ask a mathematician. And yes, he gets the official credit for
realizing the notion that marks the modern mind off from all hitherto:
the sun is a star. And if you really want to know about who he
is (including his errors and stupidities, which are also great),
read his _Discourse_
I spent over a decade hating and loathing Descartes, but also
studying him intently -- he really does reward study, and aims
for enlightenment as much as any other figure east or west
Descartes (along with other early moderns -- or co-conspirators
-- such as Machiavelli and Bacon) brought down the kingdom of
darkness (christendom) and bestowed on humanity a new ideal: to
make ourselves, as it were, the masters and owners of nature
we may never achieve this ideal, but we are all (or most of us)
still involved in working for its manifestion
that's what makes him so important
or so it seems to me (even though I used to disagree vehemently)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> got my own
problems w/him -- anom, 20:45:19 12/22/04 Wed
"This is also the guy who thought animals were automata."
Yeah, & tortured them horribly in the name of science, marveling
all the while at how these "automata" screamed & struggled
as though they were actually in pain. But of course they couldn't
really be feeling pain, since they were just automata.
"And do you really need cartesian coordinates to do calculus?
I thought Newton was on the trail of calculus. Then again, my
placement of Descartes in time is wobbly to the point of not being
sure who preceded whom."
Descartes died within a decade after Newton & Leibniz were born.
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia, which doesn't
give more than the basics, says Newton discovered Descartes' work
at Cambridge U., but it doesn't say anything about what influence
it might have had on his development of differential calculus.
It's been a long time since I studied calculus, & I don't have
any feel for how crucial cartesian coordinates might have been
for doing it, or for its development. I remember a lot of functions
that mapped onto graphs, but not whether the graphs might have
done more than illustrate the functions.
[> [> Partly nurture, partly nature -- Rich, 11:28:56
12/10/04 Fri
Not everyone would agree with this, but I tend to define morality
primarily as a code which governs our relations with others.
I think Humans, and most other Primates as well, have an intinctive
tendency to form groups in which each member helps/cares for the
others. Until comparatively recently in our history, this was
necessary for survival even at the personal level - a solitary
individual would be lucky to survive, let alone reproduce (and
pass on their genes to the next generation). This provides a basis
for a type of morality, although somewhat self-serving and limited
initially to the immediate family. As family groups evolved into
clans, tribes, and finally cultures, this "proto-morality"
evolved as well, to encompass the larger community. Therefore,
IMO, morality is shaped by training but rooted in instinct.
[> [> [> I agree, except... -- frisby, 11:22:26
12/22/04 Wed
I generally agree with your approach but would add that the history
of shamanism, or the quest for individuality by particular excluded
members of the moral group, also plays a huge role in the history
of morality, because those individuals sometimes return to the
fold and modify the code (creating a change in conscience for
example) thus influencing the tribe generally for centuries or
even longer. This is Nietzschean interpreation of the genealogy
of morality.
[> [> [> [> Re: I agree, except... -- Rich,
12:39:46 12/22/04 Wed
I'd include this as part of the evolutionary process, which morality
had to go through as societies became larger and more complex
- which is still happening.
a friend of mine asked me to
tell him what BtVS was about..... -- ghady, 08:19:07 12/08/04
Wed
and i didn't know what to say!
i was like "it's buffy... um.. the vampire slayer.. um..
it's... NOT as stupid as it sounds.. it's a VERY cool show.."
i didn't know WHAT to tell him.
how DO you explain to someone whos never seen buffy what it's
about?
"this girl who fights vampires and demons"--->lame
"this teenage girl who tries to cope with being normal and
fighting vampires"-->sure, thats the way it started, but
can anyone say that thats the way buffy was by Chosen? and even
in the earlier seasons, this explanation sounds a bit...cheesy..
i'm lost! the only way i know HOW to explain this show is by making
ppl watch it!
Replies:
[> Re: a friend of mine asked me to tell him what BtVS was
about..... -- tomfool, 08:44:45 12/08/04 Wed
I always liked this little description from "PASTOR STEVE'S
BUFFY PAGE" (http://www.mtcnet.net/%7Ebierly/buffy.htm#CURRENT%20SEASON):
"The absolute best show on television today, when it's on
top of its game, is the action/adventure, suspense thriller, soap
opera, cliff hanger, fantasy/horror, serious coming-of-age drama,
romance, satiric comedy, morality play...Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
As you can tell, it has something for everybody. You'll be laughing
one minute and crying the next and have much to think about when
it's over.
Brilliantly written and well-acted (Sarah Michelle Gellar is the
best actress on TV, bar none.)
Try it, you'll like it!!"
It doesn't really explain the show much, but it should get someone
intrigued, especially if you tell them it was written by a minister.
[> Easy -- hebrokeaway, 08:45:35 12/08/04 Wed
"It's a show about attractive Caucasians fighting metaphors
and making pop-culture references between bouts of sex. At one
point there was a cat."
Oddly, bringing up Jung and Foucault rarely convinces them to
tune in.
[> It's about 'Power' (see if that gets them) .....
-- frisby, 10:02:01 12/08/04 Wed
And it really is all about power. But what does "BtVS"
teach us about power, in the end, considering the seven seasons
as a whole?
[> Or maybe there's a dark side to the show? -- frisby,
10:08:09 12/08/04 Wed
Someone at the Nashville Buffy conference posited the show as
about the victory of white christians over all other ethnicities
and religions, with demons generally representing foreigners,
and vampires in particular as dirty blood-sucking jews. (but what
Willow the witch?)
The show permits a wide diversity of interpretation -- I favor
a Nietzschean version, which centers on Buffy the young girl who
used to play at being 'powergirl' and who then really becomes
the super-person (not some sort of crazy supergirl though who
is really in an institution) --
I've heard others that focus on the catholic church versus all
the other christian types --
and there are others and others --
But what "is" BtVS REALLY about?? (does Joss know?)
[> [> "Dirty blood-sucking Jews???" --
KdS, 12:18:49 12/08/04 Wed
Oy. (Sorry, couldn't resist it.)
Who was this individual, so I know to avoid anything he/she ever
writes on any subject again?
[> [> [> Stoker's Dracula started it .... -- frisby,
13:36:06 12/08/04 Wed
She sat behind me at one of the presentations, I'm not remembering
which exact one at this time. She was Jewish, and said Bram Stoker
was Jewish too, and that his Dracula was read by many when it
was published, and since then too, as symbolic of the eastern
european jew who had come west. And just as the jews were (for
these terrible bigots) the worst of the foreigners, so in BtVS
the vampires are worst of the demons (or if not worst, at least
set apart in some way from all the other foreigners or demons).
My whole point in all of this of course is simply to point out
that the text of BtVS is capable of multiple readings. I will
admit for myself that which I began watching it, during the middle
of the second season, I at first was not sure what to make of
it at all, but one of the first takes I had on it was a simple
christian reading, given that cross around her neck, whereby buffy
had to go around converting the unsaved -- saving their souls
so to speak, whatever it took. Giles though expanded this false
interpretation far beyond a focus on christianity, and I now understand
the series to be in part about all religions, even religion per
se, or religion itself -- religious beings, if you will.
But, in closing, she seemed adamant that the reading of Stoker's
Dracula as anti-jewish was a tried and true standard interpretation
of the work. I was convinced she knew what she was talking about.
Am I wrong?
[> [> [> [> Re: Stoker's Dracula started it ....
-- Dlgood, 14:43:00 12/08/04 Wed
My whole point in all of this of course is simply to point
out that the text of BtVS is capable of multiple readings.
Including some very loony ones... I'm somewhat sensitive to the
Jewish angle, but that reading of BtVS seems extremely superficial
to me.
The one character, that when I look, seems to clearly be a "Jewish
Type" stand-in, is Lorne. And I hardly think his portrayal
is one to lend that interpretation.
[> [> [> [> [> sorry -- frisby, 15:21:34
12/08/04 Wed
surely, you're aware the show was considered racist, by some,
with demons being blacks, for its early history
this charge was taken seriously and blacks began to appear in
later seasons
again, though, the charge is unfounded and BtVS is not racist
one of the presenters at the Nashville Buffy Conference even spoke
of the show as anti-feminine, and as pushing back women's rights,
etc
and another there spoke of BtVS as fostering american imperialism
BtVS DOES permit of multiple readings, even if many are unjustified
-- that's the way with texts
but still, what about dracula being considered an attack on the
blood-sucking jews? was the women right that this interpretation
has followed stoker's book ever since it's first publication?
maybe she fooled me and i was simply persuaded of this historical
accuracy of that interpretation? it was news to me.
and i'm sorry if this offends anyone; i'd had to think certain
topics aren't even tolerated as topics; things like slavery and
anti-semitism and racism and gender oppression and even genocide
are part of our history; i'm surely not advocating anything of
the sort; i don't even think ....
nuf of this.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I've seen the argument
that Dracula is a Jew -- KdS, 15:27:29 12/08/04 Wed
I don't know if Stoker was or was not. There's much play with
the weird scene where Harker tries to stab Dracula in London,
but only manages to rip the pocket of his coat and a flood of
coins and banknotes pours out.
But the BtVS reading is blatantly wrong, because canonically vampires
are not the "worst of demons" - other demons usually
treat them with absolute contempt.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How some other
demons see vampires -- Liam, 02:03:14 12/09/04 Thu
I agree with you here, KdS. In season 3 of 'Buffy', what the Mayor
became was supposed to be a 'pure' demon. Also, in the episode
'Hero' in season 1 of 'Angel', other demons regarded vampires
with contempt, calling them 'half-breeds' because they were demons
inhabiting _human_ bodies.
[> [> [> [> Re: Stoker's Dracula started it ....
-- purplegrrl, 08:42:39 12/09/04 Thu
***But, in closing, she seemed adamant that the reading of Stoker's
Dracula as anti-jewish was a tried and true standard interpretation
of the work. I was convinced she knew what she was talking about.
Am I wrong?***
Well, I'm not convinced she's right. The "standard"
reading of Stoker's "Dracula" is that it was a comment
on the Victorian views about sex, and, to a lesser degree, the
changing role of women in Victorian society. I've never heard
the interpretation that "Dracula" is anti-Jewish --
and if Stoker was Jewish (I've never heard that he was), what
does he gain by writing an anti-Jewish novel, even one as highly
symbolic as Dracula? If he's Jewish and he's writing anti-Jewish,
that just brings self-hatred to a whole new level.
Anytime someone is adament that they *know* the *real meaning*
of some author's work, I think back to Robert Frost's poem "Stopping
by the Woods on a Winter's Eve." Literary critics have long
interpreted the poem to mean things like life and death, life's
journey, the coldness of death, etc. When Frost was asked about
the meaning of the poem, he said it was about stopping by the
woods on a winter's eve. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And
people will interpret literature/events to suit their own agenda.
Perhaps it would be better to look at Stoker's body of work for
a more accurate interpretation. "Dracula" was not the
only novel he wrote. Unfortunately, Stoker's other books have
not been so widely embraced like "Dracula" has been.
I think, like other Victorian writers (including Edgar Allen Poe),
Stoker was exploring the Gothic genre of writing. This was a time
when "the sun never set on the British Empire" and so
it was "safe" to write about dark and disturbing things.
Things that could not be experienced in your own backyard.
Other books by Stoker (from amazon.com; not a complete list):
Lair of the White Worm
Under the Sunset
The Lady of the Shroud
The Jewel of Seven Stars
The Mystery of the Sea
Erotic Tales of the Victorian Age
Miss Betty (Collected Works of Bram Stoker)
Gates of Life (Collected Works of Bram Stoker)
Lady Athlyne (Collected Works of Bram Stoker)
The Snake's Pass (Collected Works of Bram Stoker)
The Man from Shorrox's (Collected Works of Bram Stoker)
The Watter's Mou (Collected Works of Bram Stoker)
Shades of Dracula: Bram Stoker's Uncollected Works
Famous Imposters (Collected Works of Bram Stoker)
Crooken Sands (Collected Works of Bram Stoker)
At least one other of Stoker's novels/short stories has been made
into a movie -- something about rats (I can't remember the title).
It was on one of the movie channels around Halloween.
I have other thoughts about interpreting "Dracula,"
but can't seem to make them form cohesive remarks.
;-)
[> [> [> [> [> Actually... -- Wizard,
23:18:46 12/12/04 Sun
The Lair of the White Worm was made into a movie in the 70's or
so, starring (I think) Michael York. I have never actually seen
it, but not for lack of trying.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually... --
purplegrrl, 15:14:25 12/16/04 Thu
I think this film was also showing up on one of the movie channels
at Halloween time. It may be on video.
I don't know for sure, but I think that the story of "Lair
of the White Worm" did not originate with Stoker (that like
"Dracula" he took an existing story and wrote his own
version). It seems to me it is an old folk tale/legend/myth, but
I'm not sure. Haven't done as much research on this story.
[> I'll give it a go -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:20:42 12/08/04
Wed
(I'm going to try to write this in the same way I might say it
while talking with a friend)
OK, obviously it's about this girl named Buffy who is a Vampire
Slayer. That basically means she was given super strength and
some neat kung-fu moves so that she can stop vampires, demons,
and a bunch of other bad things from killing people and trying
to destroy the world. But it's not just about watching this hot
blonde girl fight monsters. That's pretty cool, no doubt, but
there's a bunch of other stuff too. It's got the action and horror,
of course, but it's also got lots of comedy and drama too. There's
this one episode where Buffy does the whole "fight the big
demon" thing, but when she goes after the vampires who brought
him out, she has to fight one she used to be in love with. He's
totally changed, likes to taunt her and is a real sadist, but
she still can't kill him. So he goes out and starts stalking her,
killing people she cares about, until Buffy has to kill him, just
as the good in him is starting to come out. There's a lot of stuff
like that. A friend of hers once accidentally killed a guy for
example, but did a really bad job coping with the guilt and tried
to make Buffy take the fall. But it's really funny too. For every
episode where someone has to grieve over a lost loved one, there's
another where a character accidentally makes every woman in town
fall in love with him. That one is pretty hilarious. And a lot
of the dialouge, even in serious episodes, can be funny too. Like
one time some vampires here a group of demons is trying to kill
Buffy, and one of them says, "If they actually do it, we
should do something nice for them, like, a fruit basket or something."
Besides, how can you not like a hot blonde girl with Jet Li moves?
[> Re: a friend of mine asked me to tell him what BtVS was
about..... -- alliterator,
23:06:02 12/08/04 Wed
If I remember correctly, Neil Gaiman once said that if he had
to sum up the entire Sandman series in one sentence, it would
be, "The King of Dreams learns that he must change or die."
(or something to that affect)
So here is Entire Series of Buffy in One Sentence (well, my version):
"Buffy and her friends learn how to change their own destinies."
Now, it might not suck people in, but that right there is the
entire jist of the series for me.
[> [> i usually tell them abt the angel(us) arc in S2...
-- ghady, 09:34:22 12/09/04 Thu
with special emphasis on the soul, the sex , the killing (and
buffy's not killing), the sadism, the "was it good for you
too" written in blood, and obviously the "sticking a
sword in his heart just as the band camp girl from american pie
gave him his soul back" thing..
i made another friend of mine watch the becomings, and she actually
SCREAMED in shock when buffy stuck the sword through angel.. she
didn't say a word till a minute or two after the credits.. i actually
got worried for a second..
[> [> [> Re: i usually tell them abt the angel(us)
arc in S2... -- Masq, 10:48:51 12/09/04 Thu
You did explain about vampires and metal, right?
; )
[> [> [> [> hmmm.. err.. no i don't think so..
lol.. -- ghady, 11:36:51 12/09/04 Thu
[> How are these? -- Tom, 16:43:53 12/15/04 Wed
The elitist approach:
It is a postmodern mediation on the horror genre that uses skillful
plotting and clever metaphors to tell a seemingly conventional
mythic hero story in a unique and wonderful way.
The regular guy approach:
It is a show that has everything: drama, comedy, action, horror,
etc and most of all, it is continuously surprising and the character
development is superb.
Tom
[> [> Those are very good! -- frisby, 17:02:05
12/16/04 Thu
Very good! One for the regular and another for the exceptional.
Current board
| More December 2004