February 2002 posts
Potential *mega spoilers* if you haven't seen next week's S6 preview
-- manwitch, 05:30:10 02/20/02 Wed
So Let's talk about Riley.
Just so we know what we're getting into.
To me, Riley was the image of Hypermasculinity, chemically enhanced.
I always felt he was a horrible match for Buffy because of his
need to diminish her. From the first moment he discovered she
was the slayer, his response was about his own humiliation and
how to make up for it. "I don't even know if I could take
you." and "Give me a week to get ready, and I'll take
you down."
Even after he left the initiative and semi-joined the scoobies,
he was never comfortable relinquishing his leadership authority
to her. He talked a good game about "Lets agree to take care
of each other," but he seemed to me to embody scripts of
male protection. Does he like women? sure. Is he polite and chivalrous?
sure. But he expects to be the male protector. And he expects
women to like it and be appreciative. He's Cowboy Guy, the ultiimate
white hat from the westerns who will receive the girl as the boon
of his hero deed.
Riley never owned up to his own dishonesty at their parting. No
matter how cool Xander was in that episode, I always thought it
was a great stroke of luck that Buffy didn't get to the helicopter
in time. And in that scene, the use of the sound always made me
think that Riley knew she was there. We see a close up of Buffy
screaming his name. Then we get "pov" from inside the
helicopter, looking out past Riley down towards Buffy, and the
sound of her cries become fainter, muted. But they can still be
heard. If they wanted us to think Riley was just oblivious, we
would have just seen her down there waving her arms. I mean, we
already knew what she was doing. But the camera "hears"
her. Which means Riley hears her. He finally gets the moment he
has craved with her the whole time. He's the powerful one. She
needs him. He's the man.
That boy makes me so mad. Contrast him to Spike!! I am always
amazed at the number of people who think Spike is a bad match
for Buffy. He never wants her to be less than. Whether he loves
her or wants to kill her, he loves that this is the best slayer
there is. That's how Spike measures himself. Selfish perhaps,
but he promotes Buffy's self-fulfillment. Riley does not. And
Buffy's final conversation with Riley is dead on. "That's
what this is about, isn't it? You can't handle the fact that I'm
stronger than you."
Now he's back. Fit and trim in his uniform. Contrasted with the
nakedness of Spike's "dead body." There is a nakedness
to Spike. He is what he is. Riley is a costume. A creation. An
inflated uniform.
And his timing couldn't be worse. Offering Buffy the chance to
retreat, to be protected, to go back to ground she's already covered.
When its time to grow up.
I'm very distressed.
Someone, help me out here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Potential *mega spoilers* if you haven't seen next week's
S6 preview -- Anne, 05:46:00 02/20/02 Wed
I'm speculating, but I don't think Riley being back means that
they are going to have Buffy wind up with him or anyone like him,
and I do think it still leaves the door open for Spike at some
point in the future.
To me it seems obvious that, whether or not Buffy is going to
end up with Spike, there is a dramatic necessity for her to have
at least one more try at "being normal", which would
include being with a relatively normal guy. By breaking up with
Riley in the fifth season, it might be maintained that Buffy tacitly
rejected normality. But the truth is she hasn't yet consciously
chosen, or taken responsibility for, the fact that as the Slayer
neither she nor her life are going to be normal, ever. And I suspect
that Season 6, which is forcing her to face her demons in every
sense of the word, is going to bring her to that point. In my
opinion, the best way to bring her to that choice is to have her
make a serious try at normality and find out it just doesn't work
for her. Having Riley come back could just be a vehicle for instigating
that process.
By the way -- again sheer speculation -- it seems to me that Spike
is undergoing a mirror-image journey to that of Buffy: she's a
creature of the light with a big streak of darkness in her, striving
to reconcile herself to that darkness, and he a creature of the
darkness with a streak of light, striving to reconcile himself
with the light. If the plot line bears this out, we would expect
Spike to lose his chip and have a serious go at being evil again
-- and find out that it just won't work for him any more. (I have
a post below under the "does Spike think he can change"
thread arguing that being evil has already been ruined for Spike
-- he can do it, but it won't be the simple uncomplicated fun
for him that it used to be).
Here's hoping, anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I can make you feel better if you don't mind spoilers..if
you do, don't read further.. -- JodithGrace, 06:27:08 02/20/02
Wed
Riley is married. His wife's name is Sam and she is a fellow demon
hunter. So Buffy and Riley will not be getting back together even
for one episode despite the typically misleading promo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> All that is on the Trollup Board......:):) --
Rufus, 07:09:27 02/20/02 Wed
You would have known not to worry....:):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Pairing up and pop psychology. -- Darby, 07:08:18 02/20/02
Wed
It is said that girls (women? not sure what's applicable here)
seek mates (the old adage is husbands, but boyfriends apply to
BtVS) who are like their fathers. I and others have compared Hank
Summers, what little we know of him, with Angel, Parker, and Spike
- the impetuousity, lack of responsibility, temperament, etc.,
seem to support the comparison.
It's my assertion that Riley is more comparable to Buffy's other
father, Giles. More available, more dependable, somewhat more
authoritarian and somewhat threatened by Buffy's independence.
In subsequent recent FX reruns, first Riley and then Giles refer
to Buffy's "mystery"; was that accidental? If you look,
comparisons are everywhere, especially if you match in the parallels
between the Initiative and the Watchers' Council. The similarities
actually increase once Riley has lost his enhanced abilities.
Buffy's tendency to be protective of Riley and sometimes not include
him are somewhat similar to the way she relates to Giles as well.
But didn't she accept Giles as an equal partner? Riley could have
been that.
But are Buffy and Riley mismatched? Compare Buffy to Giles' "soulmate,"
Jenny Calendar - more similarities than differences, aren't there?
Of course, in no way am I discounting the fact that almost everybody
out here on the observation deck hates Riley as Buffy's boyfriend,
but that didn't seem relevant here...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Pairing up and pop psychology. -- dream of the
consortium, 07:32:08 02/20/02 Wed
Hmmm... My problem with that is that ultimately Riley couldn't
conceptualize much beyond the us/them mentality that Buffy has
been learning to go beyond since Angel. There are parallel between
Giles and Riley - but remember "A New Man", when Giles
goes out drinking with Ethan Rayne? That episode specifically
draws distinctions between Giles and Riley. Riley is shown as
a soldier, a follower of orders (yes, he does learn to question
authority later). He's all about having the keys, and the guns,
and the access to computer databases. And Giles? "We are
both old sorcerers, you and me" says Ethan, not known for
his truth-telling, admittedly, but hitting the nail on the head
with that. Giles agrees and toasts "To magic." Buffy
is of the world of magic, and she has no choice about that (though
at this point, I believe she is beyond wanting it any other way).
Riley can leave the demon-fighting business to fight regular armies
if he chooses, and one could imagine him doing it. Could you imagine
Giles or Buffy as a regular soldier? It just doesn't work.
That said, I like Riley. Despite everyone's complaints about his
supposed desire to diminish Buffy, I think he was actually surprisingly
accepting of her and proud of her skill and ability. If he had
a hard time with believing she could love him, he at least had
some good reason for that. She didn't really love him, and she
did seem to assume at every turn that he was going to be intimidated
by her. Buffy seemed to be just as responsible as he was for making
the non-traditional roles an issue, if not more so. Their relationship
made a lot of sense for a stage of Buffy's life, and I thought
it was handled very well.
Of course, I bristle a bit to hear any comparisons made between
Riley and Giles. I mean, Riley was nice and all in that boyish
All-American way, but Giles, Giles is something else entirely...
That voice, the wit, the intelligence, those eyes.... sigh....
how long until the Ripper series?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> OT - Are you in the UK? Did you see 'Manchild'
last night? -- Marie, 08:14:11 02/20/02 Wed
Giles is something else entirely... That voice, the wit, the intelligence,
those eyes.... sigh.... how long until the Ripper series?
'Giles' in only a towel, in a Turkish Bath! Oh, dear, I wish I
hadn't seen that! (And, yeah, yeah, I know it's shallow, but...
you know... Giles!).
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: OT - Are you in the UK? Did you see
'Manchild' last night? -- dream of the consortium, 08:42:30 02/20/02
Wed
Not in the UK, though if Giles is showing up in just a towel on
prime-time, maybe I'll move.
You're in Wales, correct? I envy you. The most beautiful place
on earth, I'm convinced.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: OT - Are you in the UK? Did you see
'Manchild' last night? -- Spikesbitch, 20:26:44 02/20/02 Wed
I saw Manchild and have to admit I thought it was pretty bad.
Those voiceovers were supremely annoying and to be honest I wouldn't
have bothered watching if Giles wasn't in it. He had all the best
lines and the impotency scene gave me a good laugh.
He was incredibly hot on that moterbike I have to say. And am
I the only person who winced at the scene where he is offered
liposuction to make another part of his body er slightly larger.
Giles is just perfect the way he is. The towl scene only proved
that.
Well thats my contribution to the thread anyway, take it and run.
Anyone else in the UK (I'm also in Wales) watch Manchild?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: little Riley happy at last (no spoilers) -- ponygirl,
07:59:22 02/20/02 Wed
BtVS does like its symbolic pairings doesn't it? However I would
say that Giles is actually paired with Spike (though not alas
in that way), Joss himself has said Giles and Spike represent
roles each has rejected. Their link was further played up when
Spike took on the role of Giles' son in TR. I would say that Riley's
symbolic double is Xander -for Xander, Riley represented all that
he craved, male bonding (though not alas in that way), physical
prowess, military know-how, respect, and of course Buffy. What
Xander represented for Riley is less clear, though I imagine Xander
was what Riley feared becoming once he left the Iniative - the
guy with no purpose, weak, rejected by Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Riley as symbolic of patriarchy ...spoilers for As You
Were -- Caroline, 07:31:17 02/20/02 Wed
I do understand where you are coming from manwitch. I've interpreted
Riley symbolically as the representative of the unreconstructed
patriarchal world. Buffy herself is a challenge to the patriarchy
- a young, short, blonde with super strength and the ability to
deal with dangerous, violent situations every day, something that
only men should be able to do in a patriarchal world. However,
Riley could never stretch his brain enough to accept her as she
is without somehow feeling himself to be diminished. His whole
behaviour to her was designed to weaken her so that she needed
him in the way he wanted her to need him, not in the way she needed
him.
Riley also represented the part of Buffy that has internalized
the patriarchal view. In terms of her public world and conscious
life, Buffy has always challenged patriarchal modes of female
behaviour. However, in her internal, unconscious world, particularly
her sexuality, she has internalized patriarchal norms. Sexually,
she was the maiden ignorant of the hidden, female aspects of life.
In fact, her conscious life helped to cut her off from it. That's
symbolically why the first boy she slept with turned evil - it
represented her fears of the hidden parts of life - sex, orgasm,
menstruation, blood etc. With Riley, she got to more fully explore
her feminine power but the cost was too high - the price for her
newfound knowledge of her feminine power was to give up her power
in her public, conscious life, or forever face resentment from
Riley if the relationship continued. (That's why I hated the whole
helicopter scene).
Now, the contrast with Spike. He allows her to fully explore her
unconscious, feminine power without judgement. She gets to unleash
all of the stuff that's inside her and it's really scary for the
innocent, ignorant nymph. Buffy is symbolically Persephone, unconsciously
desiring to delve into the underworld and Spike is playing her
Pluto. Patriarchal role-playing does not really have a place in
their relationship that I can see, except as Buffy allows her
own internalized norms to lead her to harsh self-judgement about
her behaviour and the newly-discovered parts of herself. And I
hope that she does move beyond that. After the abduction and 'rape'
of Persephone, a compromise is reached whereby she lives half
the year in the underworld with her lover and half above ground.
This is symbolic of the integration that she reached with her
conscious and hidden self. Buffy has the opportunity to do this
now - integrate the disparate parts of her Self - as well as spend
part of her time with her demon lover in his world physically
if she chooses. Because let's face it, Buffy will never have a
normal life.
As for Spike, the projection works in reverse. Buffy represents
to him the good side of his nature that he has repressed since
her became a vampire and he needs to make a journey that parallels
Buffy's. And I think that you have really hit on something manwitch
about the symbolic meaning of Spike's nudity this season - he
is open and vulnerable whereas Riley is a toy soldier. But don't
be distressed - ME usually plays the myths out to the end - e.g.
the whole crucifixion/resurrection myth in season 5, the genesis
myth in season 4 - so I have a feeling they'll play Spike and
Buffy out too. It fits so well with the maturity theme this season
for them to throw it away in one episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Riley as symbolic of patriarchy ...spoilers for
As You Were -- Rufus, 07:37:08 02/20/02 Wed
But it's okay if Riley cleans my house....right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Housecleaning -- Kimberly, 08:10:21 02/20/02
Wed
Rufus, I just got this wild image of Riley in a French maid's
outfit (without the top, of course) cleaning your house.
Enjoy. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Riley as symbolic of patriarchy ...spoilers
for As You Were -- Caroline, 11:55:19 02/20/02 Wed
okay, the visual is pretty good, Marc Blucas is quite sexy in
that tall, manly way, but the character of Riley just wasn't right
for Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Riley as symbolic of patriarchy ...spoilers
for As You Were -- Rufus, 19:05:08 02/20/02 Wed
I wasn't thinking of Buffy.......:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> You have someone "better"
in mind? -- VampRiley, 19:18:02 02/20/02 Wed
Maybe Spike for some m/m action?
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yes -- purplegrrl, 11:10:11 02/21/02 Thu
But make sure you feed him milk and cookies afterwards. He needs
to keep his strength up.
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Yes of course can't forget the milk
and cookies.....;) -- Rufus, 18:18:40 02/21/02 Thu
Can't have him starving to death.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Potential *mega spoilers* if you haven't seen next week's
S6 preview -- Caroline, 07:38:35 02/20/02 Wed
I do understand where you are coming from manwitch. I've interpreted
Riley symbolically as the representative of the unreconstructed
patriarchal world. Buffy herself is a challenge to the patriarchy
- a young, short, blonde with super strength and the ability to
deal with dangerous, violent situations every day, something that
only men should be able to do in a patriarchal world. However,
Riley could never stretch his brain enough to accept her as she
is without somehow feeling himself to be diminished. His whole
behaviour to her was designed to weaken her so that she needed
him in the way he wanted her to need him, not in the way she needed
him.
Riley also represented the part of Buffy that has internalized
the patriarchal view. In terms of her public world and conscious
life, Buffy has always challenged patriarchal modes of female
behaviour. However, in her internal, unconscious world, particularly
her sexuality, she has internalized patriarchal norms. Sexually,
she was the maiden ignorant of the hidden, female aspects of life.
In fact, her conscious life helped to cut her off from it. That's
symbolically why the first boy she slept with turned evil - it
represented her fears of the hidden parts of life - sex, orgasm,
menstruation, blood etc. With Riley, she got to more fully explore
her feminine power but the cost was too high - the price for her
newfound knowledge of her feminine power was to give up her power
in her public, conscious life, or forever face resentment from
Riley if the relationship continued. (That's why I hated the whole
helicopter scene).
Now, the contrast with Spike. He allows her to fully explore her
unconscious, feminine power without judgement. She gets to unleash
all of the stuff that's inside her and it's really scary for the
innocent, ignorant nymph. Buffy is symbolically Persephone, unconsciously
desiring to delve into the underworld and Spike is playing her
Pluto. Patriarchal role-playing does not really have a place in
their relationship that I can see, except as Buffy allows her
own internalized norms to lead her to harsh self-judgement about
her behaviour and the newly-discovered parts of herself. And I
hope that she does move beyond that. After the abduction and 'rape'
of Persephone, a compromise is reached whereby she lives half
the year in the underworld with her lover and half above ground.
This is symbolic of the integration that she reached with her
conscious and hidden self. Buffy has the opportunity to do this
now - integrate the disparate parts of her Self - as well as spend
part of her time with her demon lover in his world physically
if she chooses. Because let's face it, Buffy will never have a
normal life.
As for Spike, the projection works in reverse. Buffy represents
to him the good side of his nature that he has repressed since
her became a vampire and he needs to make a journey that parallels
Buffy's. And I think that you have really hit on something manwitch
about the symbolic meaning of Spike's nudity this season - he
is open and vulnerable whereas Riley is a toy soldier. But don't
be distressed - ME usually plays the myths out to the end - e.g.
the whole crucifixion/resurrection myth in season 5, the genesis
myth in season 4 - so I have a feeling they'll play Spike and
Buffy out too. It fits so well with the maturity theme this season
for them to throw it away in one episode.
note: This post was removed and reinserted because it had a major
spoiler in the subject thread. Please avoid doing this!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Keep spoilery words and names out of subject lines,
please! -- Public service reminder, 07:45:53 02/20/02 Wed
That's what the trollop board (see link above) is for--philosophical
goodness and spoilage at the same time Woowee!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Keep spoilery words and names out of subject
lines, please!- please clarify -- Caroline, 08:04:56 02/20/02
Wed
I thought that because we had a preview with Riley in it then
it wasn't spoilery - could I get clarification on this? I don't
want to spoil anyone's enjoyment of the show but that was my understanding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Keep spoilery words and names out
of subject lines, please!- please clarify -- Masquerade, 09:32:06
02/20/02 Wed
Sorry, I didn't see the previews because I don't watch reruns
unless I need to tape them. I've been avoiding spoilers completely
this season and I accidentally heard about the Riley one about
a week ago. So I really flipped out seeing it in your subject
line. Didn't mean to pick on you in particular. After I saw yours,
I noticed it was in other places in this thread and in another
thread, too.
The general policy of the main ATPoBtVS board is not to give away
major plot points before and about a week after the show airs
for the first time in North America. Some people won't see the
show until Saturday. We don't worry much about UKers or other
non-North America people because they can get spoiled just about
anywhere in the six months until they get to see new episodes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Keep spoilery words and names
out of subject lines, please!- please clarify -- Darby, 09:52:13
02/20/02 Wed
The thing is, we're mostly discussing Riley in the abstract -
not his upcoming role, but his role in the FX arc being run now.
Yeah, his upcoming appearance got us thinking about that, and
his name in a "spoiler"-labelled thread is somewhat
spoilery, but...Oops.
Never mind. Sorry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Keep spoilery words and names
out of subject lines, please!- please clarify -- Caroline, 11:52:58
02/20/02 Wed
Thanks Masquerade. I apologize to all the spoiled and promise
to observe the rule for one week after the show. I can now of
course think of a hundred different subject lines that do not
include the name of the enormous hall monitor....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Me too -- verdantheart, 06:27:24
02/22/02 Fri
I've been avoiding spoilers too, and was similarly accidentally
spoiled earlier about this very subject! Earlier I was even spoiled
accidentally just trying to find out whether there were going
to be new episodes over the Thanksgiving holidays! It's really
hard to avoid being spoiled these days!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> And one more point.... -- Caroline, 08:14:41
02/20/02 Wed
I'm not the first to do this. Other posters have done it in this
thread and in the 'As you were recap' thread below. I read d'Herblay's
post saying that previews weren't spoilery so I went ahead and
did it. So why haven't the other posts mentioning Riley been re-inserted
with new subject lines?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Caroline -- Marie, 08:22:12 02/20/02 Wed
It is confusing, isn't it? But previews for you lucky people in
the US are spoilers for not-so-lucky ones (such as moi!) here
in the UK and other places.
Now, personally, as a self-confessed Trollop, I love spoilers
(oh, yes!), but can appreciate that others don't, so some kind,
clever person invented the Trollop Board. Praise be!
Only people are prone to forget in their subject headings, so
it's just as well to be careful.
Hope that helps.
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> less distressed -- manwitch, 08:24:07 02/20/02 Wed
I don't know nuthin about subject lines, but the content is pretty
outstanding. This is one of the best explanations of Buffy's sexuality
I have yet read. And it definitely helps me feel less distressed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> This is a blantant, shameless plug for yours
truly, but if you are interested... -- OnM, 14:46:41 02/20/02
Wed
... you might visit the Existential Scoobies site and check out
my 1st Anniversary character essay on Riley.
I have long since come to accept that this individual will always
cause a substantial rift in the Buffy fan community as to what
he was or wasn't 'about', but since my analysis is so completely
opposite of yours, it might be interesting for you to get a 180
perspective in some greater detail.
BTW, Warning!! This essay is VERY, and I mean VERY long.
Now, a shameless, blatant plug for other veteran boarders, directed
at all ATPo newbies-- if you haven't checked out last summer's
1st Anniversary Character Posts, please do so... These writings
represent some of the board's very best work!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> What's the link? -- Traveler, 15:52:17
02/20/02 Wed
I don't know where the existential scoobie site is, and if you
could give a link directly to your essay, I would really appreciate
it. Thanks :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> It's right at the top of the page,
'First Anniversary Character Posts' ... -- OnM, 20:21:20 02/20/02
Wed
...or right here:
http://ivyweb.com/btvs/characters.html
Once there, click on the character of your choice.
You can also find a link to the Existential Scoobies site from
the ATPoBtVS home page.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks. -- Traveler, 11:46:05
02/21/02 Thu
I really do feel like I have a better grasp on Riley's character
now, and I respect him a lot more for it. Still, I don't want
to see Buffy dump Spike for him :P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: This is a blantant, shameless plug
for yours truly, but if you are interested... -- Caroline, 07:49:28
02/21/02 Thu
I haven't made it yet to the character posts and, as someone who
was sympathetic to manwitch's views on Riley, I took your advice
and checked out the Riley essay. But I have to say, in all respect,
that I disagree with a lot of the interpretations of Riley's behaviour.
In many ways he is an admirable figure - duty and honour are important
to him and he has shown many times just how caring he can be.
However, I have several areas of disagreement:
1. Riley does respect Maggie's authority but he can never comes
to terms with Buffy's superior strength. And the reason that he
does choose to follow Buffy out of the Initiative is not respect
for her authority or a guarantee that he will follow her authorithy
in the future, it's that the Initiative and Maggie are corrupt,
their values are not in accord with his. (In fact, to say he follows
Buffy's authority diminishes his own moral conscience - in many
ways he's a decent guy). Also,
2. Riley helping the lesbians is not 'integrating his sexual and
social relationships in the manner of a woman' - he was being
gentlemanly and helping the ladies - very male and not an acceptance
of strong women.
3. Riley not recognizing Faith in Buffy's body was probably the
nail in the coffin for many fans. I wouldn't have given this event
the signficance that I do if Buffy had not recognized Giles while
he was a Fyarl demon. The fact that she looked into his eyes and
new that it was him was not about magic etc. It was symbolic of
the deep connection that people who love each other have. And
Riley didn't have it with Buffy. To me, this meant that Riley
saw the surface of Buffy, he sees what he wants to see of her,
not the real her.
This goes a long way to explain why I feel that Riley, although
a decent person in many ways, did not belong with Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> My more rational view of Riley --
manwitch, 08:37:20 02/22/02 Fri
I enjoyed the existential scoobie piece, but I confess I do agree
with Caroline.
Riley is not just part of the Initiative system, he's part of
the Western Cultural System based on the Garden Myth that all
of Season 4 is at pains to reject. Its not just a plot device
that Riley is the only major character we have ever seen actually
go to church as a member of the congregation. He's a participant
in that culture and its values. Those values include the separation
of man from nature, the superiority of man over nature and the
turning of nature to man's purpose. Those values also include
obediance to authority, particularly obediance to the Father (note
that women and the natural impulses to sexuality were regarded
as corrupt after the Fall), fighting for good against evil, and
the notion of progress--that we can come eventually to reclaim
the truth that was obscured from us in the Fall from the Garden.
These aren't just my interpretations of the Garden Myth. Many
many have said this before. Particularly the notion of modern
science as stemming from, as Joseph Campbell calls it, "the
biblical condemnation of nature that they brought with them."
The argument against this culture, which appears commonly in science
fiction, is that in divorcing ourselves from nature and recognizing
only "useful" knowledge as valid, we divorce ourselves
from Life, and from our own humanity. Such knowledge, such an
approach to knowledge is not creative, it is destructive. You
can see this, for example, in The Terminator. By following a system
of rules based on utility we become monsters. We may look like
a human on the outside, with bad breath and all, but inside we
are an inhuman machine, run by rules and programming, not advancing
humanity. In fact, we are destroying our own humanity by doing
it. The movie makes this clear by showing the Terminator get his
human flesh burnt off of him, and his lower half (the procreative
half) blown off of him. Because following the rules of a system
is not creative of life. Contrast to Sarah Connor, who in a gesture
of compassion towards the suffering what's his name conceives
the saviour of humanity. Through our compassion, our love for
each other, we bring forth the creative power of life. So at the
end, a pregnant Sarah Connor destroys a sterile and impotent man/machine.
Buffy calls Adam "The Terminator but without the charm."
And the symbols do appear to be right on. As the product of a
sytstem of rules and authority, we don't develop our humanity,
we become a monster. We may have some human parts, but we're a
monster. Adam is the ultimate production of man's separation from
nature and fall from the Garden. Maggie Walsh is the corrupt woman/mother,
the Eve-temptress who throws Man into the world of Good and Evil,
gives him this approach to knowledge. And, like the Terminator,
that approach is ultimately destructive of life. "My purpose
is to extinguish life, wherever I find it." Adam is really
the worst monster that such a culture can produce. Part man, part
monster part machine, all run by programming. But the programming
didn't begin with computer science geeks. It began with the Garden
Myth.
Riley is Adam's brother. He is also produced by the same system.
By the same "mother." Riley is the best that such a
culture can produce. He is good, loyal, honest, brave. He is absolutely
a good and decent man. Buffy is his Eve-temptress, but she tempts
him not to the knowledge of Good and Evil, but to the knowledge
of Life and its impulses. That is surely part of the intense sexuality
of their relationship. Buffy is Eve as the initiator of life.
Again to inaccurately quote Campbell, "Of course woman brings
man in to the world of opposites. But I think its childish to
reject the world and all its sufferings." Women bring man
into Life. By this other view of the Garden myth, Eve gives us
the greatest gift. Humanity. And that is forever in the gray zone
of compassion. Riley ultimately cannot survive in that world.
He needs to "know what he needs to know." To know what
to do. To have the orders. To have someone tell him that what
he's doing is good. He needs his moral structures handed to him.
Hence he goes to the church. (This is meant to be my own personal
evaluation of symbols on a TV show, not a comment about the value
of church or people that go there. No offense is intended towards
anyone). He expects instruction, he even seems to require orders.
The Scoobs way of defeating Adam is not the Riley way. Its not
guns and heroism. It is a surprisinly postmodern spell of "de-individualization."
The term is Michel Foucault's and it refers to the process of
rejecting the static and separate individual identities that the
State imposes upon us. To recognize that our individuality is
acutally made up of very complex relationships to ourselves and
to others and that it is never static, never pre-determined. Its
an approach to knowledge and identity that lies outside the Garden
Myth, and draws on powers that are antecedent to it.
In defeating Adam, and particularly by defeating him in this way,
the show is saying something. I know that Etrangere, in her really
fascinating and excellent posts on Season 4, has said that the
shows comment on culture and nature was ultimately ambiguous.
I would argue that it very explicitly rejected our separation
from nature, our dominance over it, and our adherence to the kinds
of values that stem from the Western Civilization interpretation
of the Garden Myth.
And the sad thing is that Riley is part of that set of values.
Riley, at his best, perpetuates patriarchy, sexual inequality,
and fascism. He doesn't mean to. He requires that moral determinations
be made external to himself, that men protect women, that men
and women be "equal" even if it means reducing the power
of women, and that he obey orders. Since Riley has surrendered
the power of moral decision making, those orders could just as
well come from Mussolini. As it turns out, they were coming from
a pretty objectionable source as it was.
Riley makes very clear that he isn't comfortable in the grays.
I'm not saying he's bad, or that he never contributed. He's the
best. That a particular order of knowledge can produce. But its
still flawed, and its still inadequate to Buffy's needs. Riley
is certainly admirable for his attempt to leave the initiative.
But he needs the structure. Buffy doesn't make him that way. He
was already that. Wesley, by contrast, is 80,000 times the man
that Riley is. Wesley made the journey. He made it all the way.
No backsliding. Riley ends up back with the military, back with
the boys, back with the structure, back with the orders. That's
where he's comfortable.
So that's my more reasoned view of why I feel about Riley the
way I do.
For Buffy to be with Riley would be for her to reject everything
she stands for. Not gonna happen. For Buffy to be with Spike would
be for her to fully incorporate otherness into her self. That
sounds like her. Not that it'll be smooth or happy.
As far as the military goes, I don't think Buffy's portrayal of
the military is intended as a knock on the military, but I think
it simply uses the military as a metaphor for a mode of interpersonal
relationships that it believes are inadequate for the day.
And I also am not saying the show is dumping on men. There are
lots of great men in the show. Xander for example. But it is definitely
playing with particular conventions of masculinity. Its noteworthy
that Xander's current anxieties come from his concerns of being
a "provider."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My more rational view
of Riley -- Teri, 10:34:30 02/22/02 Fri
Alls I can say on this post is....Whoa!
And! That it makes me want to go back and watch the entire season
four in a whole new light!
Great post!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Gee, and I just saw Riley as a cigar... -- Darby,
09:46:06 02/20/02 Wed
Not to diminish any of the symbolism, but Riley also worked fine
as a young guy coming to grips with a radical shift in his worldview.
His reactions to Buffy were undoubtedly somewhat those of bruised
ego, but his problems with her not opening up to him, and of her
for not truly trusting his motivations, were so typical of many
relationships that I just bought the story at face value. It was
just one of those rebound things where, having been burned by
a failed romance's intensity, a person hooks up with a partner
who will love them unconditionally while they stay reserved from
fully engaging. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt and the
guilt.
I got past it to an equal partnership, though - what's Buffy doing?
I was going to follow up with a point about the show's layers,
but that's just too bad a pun now to allow discussion.
Arrrggghhhh!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thinking about starting a thread called 'Overanalyze
much? .. certainly applies to me! -- Caroline, 19:48:49 02/21/02
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Potential *mega spoilers* if you haven't seen next week's
S6 preview -- Dochawk, 07:51:13 02/20/02 Wed
I agree, Spike wants Buffy to be the best Slayer she can be, what
drives us away from Spike is that he does NOT want Buffy to be
the best person she can be. He wants her to be a vamp in human
clothing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I like your reasoning....it gels some stuff that's been
floating around in my head.. -- AurraSing, 07:56:04 02/20/02 Wed
Yeah,Riley had some issues but I never before thought it through
from this angle.And of course to make matters worse Buffy will
think "Oh,this is what I gave up!" and give Spike the
boot.
Well,here is a harsh fact of life-never base your life on "What
might have been" and look at other couples to compare the
state your relationship is in.Every 'ship is unique and I wish
Buffy could realise that.Grrr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I like your reasoning....it gels some stuff that's
been floating around in my head.. -- Rufus, 08:04:52 02/20/02
Wed
Ahh but maybe she will finally get the "perfectly normal
life" syndrome over and done with......maybe not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Perfectly Abnormal Life -- Rachel, 09:12:39
02/20/02 Wed
It frustrates me to no end that Buffy wants to be so "normal,"
like her non-slayer friends. Hello -- no one around her is the
prototype for normal. These kids have seen so much strange stuff.
Therapists would have a thriving practice in Sunnydale.
Beyond the Hellmouth, though, I wonder where Buffy gets her image
of normal? I'll second the "grrrr" from the poster who
said that all 'ships have their unique good/bad stuff. Buffy is
a good-looking, powerful, well-clothed/fed/housed, educated young
woman surrounded by people who would die for her. Yeah, she's
right, she's not normal. Does she really want to live in a low-rent
I-flip-burgers apartment, wear non-designer clothes, struggle
with the eternal extra 10 pounds, have a boyfriend who doesn't
kick ass, have many acquaintences but few or no kinship-type friends,
and not be able to drop witty remarks at every turn? Cause that's
"normal" for a lot of people I know!!!
Okay, my rant is over. Let the more enlightened posting continue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> "The grass is always greener..."
-- Deeva, 11:11:17 02/20/02 Wed
I'm not much more enlightened but heck that's never stopped me
from running my mouth. I know that I'm generalizing but people
will always want what they don't have then they move to the next
thing to fixate on.
Buffy's sense of normal probably originates from her pre-Slayer,
I'm-a-cheerleader and my-parents-are-still-together" days
at Hemery High. For the longest time she lamented on how much
she wanted that all back. She got a little taste of "normal
non-ass kicking girl" back in Helpless. Not so loving it.
Her strength is a part of her as much as the fact that she is
blond (in varying degrees through out the years!). But like lots
of individuals, you don't truly know what you have till it is
taken away from you. There are a lot more people out there who
would love to have the life you're living because they think it
might be the ideal. They don't really see the downsides as bad
as they are because they just don't know. The "only if I
had/did this" is an awesome flight of fancy. We've all done
it but would you really? I don't think that Buffy would really
choose to be that "normal". Sometimes the idea of being
something else and trying to achieve it is better than actually
achieving it. It might get you to where you're really supposed
to be. Such is life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Good but for one niggling detail :) -- Earl Allison, 09:38:23
02/20/02 Wed
I loved your post, great, great work.
Except (c'mon, you KNEW there would be an 'except')where you write;
"That boy makes me so mad. Contrast him to Spike!! I am always
amazed at the number of people who think Spike is a bad match
for Buffy."
Disliking Spike doesn't automatically make someone pro-Riley,
or vice-versa -- the two aren't mutually exclusive.
I disliked Riley, partially for what you said, and partially for
what he did to the vampiress, Sandy. He led her on, and staked
her -- I'm sorry, he came to her, knowing what she was, and staked
her -- grrrr.
However, that being said, I don't like Spike with her either,
but for different reasons.
I know it's not what you meant, but it just sounded a bit like
hating Spike = loving Riley ...
Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yeah ! I'm not the only one to feel like that for
Sandy ! poor Sandy :'( -- Etrangere, 09:42:47 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Nope not the only one. -- Spikebitch, 20:41:30
02/20/02 Wed
I thought Riley was despicible. In many ways Buffy's current behaviour
mirrors Riley's treatment of Sandy. She sees Spike as an inconvienience
there to provide her with what she needs and when she's done she
just casts him aside. I mean imagine if Riley had actually had
sex with Sandy before staking her. Or if Buffy shagged Spike and
staked him in Wrecked immediately afterwards. Puts a slightly
different spin on it in my eyes. And of course Riley going to
the vamps offering blood was connected with sex. Riley passed
himself of as superior and saw Sandy as subhuman. Buffy is trying
to do the same with Spike. It seems to me that's the influnce
of the initiative and the Watchers council kicking in. Lets hope
Riley has managed to adjust his black and white world view. He
may even help Buffy do likewise?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Nope not the only one. -- Mr. B, 21:10:19
02/20/02 Wed
Sandy is subhuman, I'd have staked her, she probably killed lots
of people. Maybe that makes bad or something, but I don't see
a problem with it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Nope not the only one. -- Spikesbitch,
21:23:25 02/20/02 Wed
But do we know she killed anyone? She was accepting blood from
willing donars. Buffy has generally staked vampires only because
she sees them committing wrong doing. In Crush for instance she
lets two rather pathetic vampires run off when realizing they're
not much of a threat. Therefore Riley staked Sandy not because
of her actions but because of who she is. She may have never taken
a life.
And I feel Riley's actions say a great deal about him as a person.
To use Sandy's services before staking her was morally wrong regardless
of whether Sandy may have actually deserved it or not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Nope not the only one.
-- Mr. B, 21:44:35 02/20/02 Wed
I understand where you are coming from about Riley's actions,
but yes, we can assume Sandy killed people, she is a vampire,
that's what they do. Maybe she stopped after a while when she
was shown she could get blood in a mutal pact between her and
a willing "donor" and avoid the pitfalls of hiding the
body (if they do) and getting staked. If she did then good for
her and her trick, but if she has killed humans then she should
be staked, no matter what her current status is. I believe this
is true for Spike as well, and in some ways this is why I agree
with Holtz's revenge against Angel. Do we forget all past transgressions
because said vampire is currently leaving people alone? I have
a problem with that---people discus shades of grays while acting
like there are no blacks and whites, untrue.
And that's why Buffy is wrong for letting any vampire get away
because though they may appear weak and ineffectual to her, a
normal human doesn't stand a chance. This is why commom people
like Justine and Gunn are justified as vampire hunters. While
other demons may be harmless, vampires are different for me and
shouldn't be taken lightly, except Angel perhaps, and that's not
always a certain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Nope not the only
one. -- Spikesbitch, 22:28:31 02/20/02 Wed
But like I said in my previous post whether vampires deserve certain
treatment or not I don't feel it always justifies the "good
guys" actions. For instance we can say the vampires and demons
captured by the inititive deserved torture but it still made me
uncomfortable to see Oz prodded and Spike doomed to live in that
tiny cage for experimentation purposes. I don't think Riley's
behaviour of Sandy was justified. If he was going to stake her
fair enough. But to use her to bring him satisfaction first. Nothing
particularly heroic about that.
And I am puzzled at your condemnation of Angel. He had no soul
when terrorising Holtz and is therefore no longe rthe same person
in a way. It's not just a question of Angel doing good now giving
him a free pass. Angelous is his dark half he is constantly trying
to suppress. Just my interpretation anyway, feel fre to disagree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Argh! I had this
great wonderful long post and didn't... -- Mr. B, 02:16:17 02/21/02
Thu
press the final submit button. Darnit, it was good---I did some
agreeing with you and expanded my views. Serves me right for staying
up too late. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> By all means, stake her, but USE
her first ... -- Earl Allison, 02:02:15 02/21/02 Thu
Nope, sorry, wouldn't be prudent :)
Seriously, you have a good point, Sandy was an evil vampire. Stake
her, absolutely, but do NOT lead her on and utilize her services,
make her think something else, and THEN stake her.
To me, that said a lot about Riley -- and none of it good.
Actually, it made me think Riley was a gutless coward here. He
approached Sandy, after brushing her off earlier. She admitted
what she was, he went to her willingly, BIG difference from a
vampire hunter stalking its undead prey. He should have either
staked her the first chance he got, or left her alone -- but what
he actually did was uncalled for.
And while I agree, she probably did kill -- what about Oz? Surely
his werewolf form had killed, or would kill given the chance --
he DID kill Veruca, and Jack (albeit he was already the walking
dead). How far do we go?
And if we agree with Holtz, that good behavior never undoes bad,
does that mean there is no such thing as redemption? That once
you do bad, you can never make up for it, so why even try?
Spike I can see, he's not trying to make up for past wrongs, nor
does he even acknowledge them as such, but Angel.
And here's a tricky one -- what about Drusilla? Is she criminally
insane, and therefore not truly to blame for her actions, or is
she evil by default, being a vampire?
THIS is why I love this board, discussions like this.
Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Ooops, SHOULD have read "By
all means, stake her, but USE her first? -- Earl Allison, 03:27:21
02/21/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Nope not the only one. -- Etrangere,
10:18:24 02/21/02 Thu
>Sandy is subhuman,
She's not human. Not fully anway. putting her in a human hierarchy
is stupid and prejudiced. Other doesn't mean Inferrior.
>I'd have staked her, she probably killed lots of people.
I have no problem with staking her. It's about how you do it,
not about what you do.
Humans murderer have killed people, doesn't mean they don't have
some rights, doesn't mean they're subhuman or anyting like this,
does it ?
Ok, Sandy is a vampire, so she's not human, but she's a person.
I don't care about soul, vampires can feel, so they are persons.
Riley's violated her trust, that's what bothered me.
You're not only "good" because you're in the "good
side", because you bear the right team colors and fight for
the good ideas. You're good because you act fairly. Riley didn't.
>>Maybe that makes bad or something, but I don't see a problem
with it.
Don't think anyone is bad for what he thinks :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> It's not even the moral question
that bugs me... -- Dariel, 16:11:38 02/21/02 Thu
If you think someone/thing is so disgusting and evil that they
should be "put down" just for existing, what are you
doing getting intimate with them? There's a word for that: perversion!
Ick!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Potential *mega spoilers* if you haven't seen next week's
S6 preview -- Etrangere, 09:39:51 02/20/02 Wed
>>Now he's back. Fit and trim in his uniform. Contrasted
with the nakedness of Spike's "dead body." There is
a nakedness to Spike. He is what he is. Riley is a costume. A
creation. An inflated uniform.
It's funny that in Restless, both their "costumes" were
underlines, Riley by being the Cow-Boy in Willow's dream (because
he was the first to take the part, indeed !), Spike hiring himself
as an attraction and making a show of his Big Bad personna in
Giles' dream.
This was the answer to Something Blue, which theme was Good Guy
vs. Bad Boy for relation ship, and Buffy wondering why she wanted
the Bad Boy :)
Except it isn't right, it's only a show, and Riley is as much
truly a Good Cow Boy Guy that Spike is still the Big Bad.
The two other appearand of Riley and Spike in Restless, has also
similarities. They were both linked to Family and Autority, but
in a very different way.
In Xander's dream, Spike is a part of the Scoobie Family, learning
to be a Watcher and like a son to Giles. Buffy was acting childlike
and called Xander her brother to further the family theme.
In Buffy's dream, Riley is with his brother, Adam. He's the government,
and what he says, underlined by a very obvious gun, sounds threatening.
What you say about Spike being naked now is very interresting.
It's true that Spike has open his heart to Buffy, he's her truthteller,
and in DT he told her to open her eyes.
Riley on the other hand has runaway very quickly as soon as his
lies and dissimulations were discovered by Buffy. He could not
bear for her to see the real him, unperfect Riley.
He said she was closed to him, but wasn't he as reluctant to tell
her about how he felt ?
Well, Riley was Cow Boy Guy in the Season that had Pangs in it,
and he was in Willow's dream. So that's clear it can't be a very
good thing, can it ?
I think As You Were will be the Crush of this Season, the symetric
appearance of old love of Buffy to reveal more about the B/S relationship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> riley discussion cont. -- abby, 12:21:55 02/20/02
Wed
The way in which Buffy's relationships have evolved as her character
does is one of the things I enjoy most about this show (pick one,
pick any!). Could we ever imagine the s2 Buffy, so repelled by
Angelus and the evil she saw within the vampire, ever face that
'evil'/ soulless spike with the understanding of her own dark
side as she does now? And am I right in thinking that s1 Buffy
would have run a mile from Riley and his safety/authoritarian
representation?
The fact is that each male figure is very specific to the stage
of development she was experiencing in that series, even if he
had returned wanting to pick up, Riley would have been turned
down eventually. Buffy is changed now- she has revealed new facets
of her personality to herself; Just as I doubt even a theoretical
Buffy/Angel reunion would work.
ps- I just have to say that this board is peeling away levels
and layers to the show I never saw before....in an altogether
'this could be unhealthy soon' way :) Thanks all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: riley discussion cont. -- leslie, 14:22:25
02/20/02 Wed
I just want to know how she's going to tell him she was dead for
three and a half months. "So, what have you been up to?"
"Resting." Plus he doesn't know her mom died, does he.
Will *that* finally make him feel a little guilty? To me, that
was the final failure of Riley--all the other problems I could
see ways of working out, ways in which they were as much Buffy's
problems as his, but his complete incomprehension of what it is
like to have a seriously ill mother was unforgiveable. So what
if all he wanted was to be there for her--how DARE he make judgements
on what she needed to do to get through that?
And while we're on the subject, how did the Scoobies manage child
social services or whatever for Dawn while Buffy was dead? I mean,
she was buried in a cemetary, I think you need a real death certificate
for that, and that isn't something you can hide from the people
in charge of seeing to the care of minors. Did Giles take responsibility
for Dawn? Because, loyal and devout as Spike might be, I don't
see a government agency saying, "Yeah, sure, the vampire
can take care of the fifteen-year-old. Give us a call if you need
food stamps." Or even, "Sure, the two lesbian college
girls can take care of the fifteen-year-old." Not in this
California.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Err... I think you missed some episodes...
-- Traveler, 16:01:47 02/20/02 Wed
Angel DOES know that Buffy's mom died. He showed up and comforted
her after the funeral. He also knows that Buffy died and was resurrected.
Willow called him both times.
I don't know if Child Services regularly checks the obituaries
to see if the legal guardian is dead. The BuffyBot presumably
stood in for Buffy at meetings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Err... I think you missed something
as well... -- Philistine, 22:23:40 02/20/02 Wed
Leslie appears to have been talking about Riley, not Angel. Riley
almost certainly DOESN'T know about any of that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Interesting, Etrangere! Something bothered me in the
promo--I wonder what you'll think about it. -- Dyna, 16:46:37
02/20/02 Wed
Etrangere, by mentioning "Crush," you've touched on
something that bothered me very much from the promo--the scenes
of Buffy and Riley confronting Spike in his undercrypt. Spike
is shirtless--undressed, as has been mentioned, symbolically and
literally defenseless against (human) Riley. Riley and Buffy,
in contrast, are armed and dressed in matching black turtleneck
outfits--"armored" and visually united against Spike.
But what disturbed me most were the couple of very fast clips
at the beginning of the promo, seemingly from the same scene,
which show (a) Buffy blasting away, in the crypt, with a large
gun, and (b) the lamp next to Spike's bed exploding.
I know, I realize the danger of reading too much into the promos.
But I've been having a hard time coming up with a scenario in
which Buffy's actions, even her presence in the crypt with Riley,
could be explained benignly. It seems so cruel, and strange, given
how important Spike's crypt has been to her since her resurrection--all
indications were that this was a space that had significance to
her, where she felt she could be herself, or at least experience
some rare peace and calm.
But then, thinking about this as an S6 revision of "Crush,"
I can sort of see the parallel between Buffy going on a self-righteous
anti-vampire tear with Riley and Spike's walkabout with Dru in
"Crush"--an attempt, maybe, to reclaim an old "identity"
by hooking up with a person who embodies that identity, and acting
according to their expectations.
If that's true, I imagine Buffy will fail, as Spike did--she can't
be "as she was" anymore, as much as she'd like to. Still,
I wonder what the fallout will be for Buffy and Spike. I was spoiled
for Riley's reappearance a couple of months ago, and I expected
it would cause some problems, but I really didn't imagine Buffy
would team up with Riley and turn on Spike so overtly. Ignore
Spike, blow him off, act like he never existed, yes, these would
be in character for our Buffy, but weapons? Yikes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Very good points, I answered were you copyed
the post upper -- Etrangere, 10:49:59 02/21/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Potential *mega spoilers* if you haven't seen next week's
S6 preview -- Jonx, 16:10:03 02/20/02 Wed
Spike encourage's Buffy's self-fulfillment? After that you belong
in the shadows comment how can you say that? Riley may have had
flaws (he is human afterall) but he and Spike share the idea (subsconscious
or not) of dragging Buffy down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Riley=oafish dude -- Eric, 19:41:38 02/21/02 Thu
I never prefered Riley as Buffy's boyfriend. Of course, I never
really cared for Angel, Spike, or any other either. _I_ should
be Buffy's boyfriend. :) Seriously, though, I think you (and others)overstate
Riley's Buffy intimidation. He was at first, with repeated confrontations
and competitions. But after a while he consistently maintained
and demonstrated he'd gotten over it. Especially in the Twin Xander
ep, where he told Buffy he wanted her in her entirety - Slayer,
ice skating thing and all. What alienated him from Buffy I think
had more to do with two things. One, as Xander described it, was
being treated as "rebound guy". The other is that while
he had no fear of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, he could not get used
to the Buffyverse. He went from being part of a rational scientific
military operation into the medieval night. He chose the military.
I suppose you can fault him for that, along with the others you
mention, but no character in the series is without his or her
moments of stupidity/cruelty.
One thing that absolutely confounds me is that you think of him
as "hypermasculine". Riley is an Iowa farm boy with
no real life experience beyound his specialized training. Fittingly,
they cast Mark Blucas - who looks like an underwear model with
a gym membership. Compare him to Angel and Spike. I suppose the
only thing we could do is open a new thread to discuss what masculinity
is...
As for Riley the inflated uniform thing. You may very well be
right. He certainly had some of those attributes. But having known
some soldiers (even a handful of the elite variety) I can tell
you that BtVS has almost the worst portrayal of our uniformed
services I've ever seen on TV. He'd look stuffed no matter what.
Finally, Buffy herself put it best when Riley asked her what he'd
be without his identity as a good soldier: "A good man".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ah, youth! ... (venturing OT with discussion of military
in the media) -- verdantheart, 06:20:25 02/22/02 Fri
Having grown up with MASH, I was more than used to--and tired
of--the one-note portrayal of the military in nearly all movies
and TV series as, basically, either boors or jokes (the military
intelligence = oxymoron phenomenon). So I guess the portrayal
we saw on Buffy really didn't phase me--particularly since it
was so unrealistic. After all, they had a researcher giving the
orders to the commandos, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense
to me.
Side note for those who are familiar with the short-lived series
War of the Worlds (season 1, anyway). It seemed to me that the
part of Ironhorse was initially written in a shallow, one-note
fashion, but the actor (Richard Chaves) was not willing to portray
the character in that way and gave him depth virtually without
dialog. Later on in the season, the character was given more of
a real personality. But it was interesting to me, living through
the period that this role became one of the first positive military
characters in a long while, and at the beginning of a trend toward
the kinds of characters you tend to see today.
During that time (the late 70s) I really got the feeling that
some folks in the media were rather embarrassed by their behavior
during the late 60s and tended to express that by treating military
characters as victims at best, jokes at worst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Riley=oafish dude -- Rattletrap, 07:01:53 02/22/02
Fri
"What alienated him from Buffy I think had more to do with
two things. One, as Xander described it, was being treated as
"rebound guy". The other is that while he had no fear
of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, he could not get used to the Buffyverse.
He went from being part of a rational scientific military operation
into the medieval night."
I think both of those things are good observations, but I'd add
one more: After Riley's chip removal in OomM, Buffy would not
let him patrol or go out and fight demons. That seemed to destroy
some of the most fundamental common ground on which their relationship
was built. More to the point, I think Riley always saw it as a
bit of an attack on his identity--he had defined himself as "soldier
boy" and was unable to continue with that definition when
his girlfriend was going out to fight the good fight and leaving
him home. The "cute and weak and kitteny" conversation
in NPLH really showcases this very nicely.
P.S.-off topic
Eric, e-mail me please, the link on the posting name will do it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Riley=oafish dude (POSSIBLE SPOILERS) --
DEN, 09:29:48 02/22/02 Fri
And he does return to the military--not least because he is convinced
the things they know about him are to his credit. He's valued
there for who he is and what he can do. And even the "public"
info about next week's ep suggests that in fact Riley has come
back quite nicely from his dark night of the soul. Living well
is the best revenge--even for straight-arrow Iowa farmboys!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totally OT (Sorry Masq!) - Got my first date in 5 years tonight!
-- Marie, 08:40:05 02/20/02 Wed
And I'm so nervous! I can't stop thinking about it, so that's
why I'm typing this... butterflies...
Sorry. Stopping now.
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Woo-hoo! You go, girl!! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 08:44:14 02/20/02
Wed
It's about time we had some more good news around here...I'll
be thinking about you, sweetie.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thanks, d-d! I only hope he likes our Buffy! -- Marie,
08:47:01 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Woo-hoo! You go, girl!! ;o) I second the motion!
-- CW, 08:52:26 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> No worries, Marie. When I finally get a date, I'll throw
a party on the board. ; ) -- Masq, 09:24:37 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What's a date?! Why wasn't I told about this?! -- Dedalus,
09:38:32 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> "Date" like the dried up fruit? No thanks.
Something about wrinkly fruit that I don't like. -- Deeva, 11:18:00
02/20/02 Wed
Oh, you meant the "interact with another person, with potential
for a l'il sumthin, sumthin later on".
Good luck and have fun! Hope you guys connect on many levels!
Wait, I didn't mean "connect" like, you know, physically.
Cause it's just a first date and well...I hope he likes Buffy,
too! ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I think it has to do with cup o' tea, cup o' tea...
;-) ....hehehehe -- Solitude1056, 12:14:49 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Take a deep breath, relax and have a great time! -- Dichotomy,
12:29:13 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> wait a minute... does this mean you can't write on our project?
;) j/k HAVE FUN! -- Liq, 12:33:29 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> *chuckling* -- VampRiley, 12:58:25 02/20/02 Wed
When I hear or see people getting nervous like this, about dates,
I chuckle. No malice intended. It's just people twitching and
squirming about dates makes me smile and chuckle slightly.
Sorry.
*chuckling*
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Totally OT (Sorry Masq!) - Got my first date in 5 years
tonight! -- DEN, 13:09:04 02/20/02 Wed
If it was five years, all I can say is that there are a lot of
guys out there who are dead from the neck up and paralyzed from
the waist down!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Congratulations! I havn't had one in longer than that. --
vampire hunter D, 14:20:23 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Was it you? -- pagangodess, 16:06:08 02/20/02 Wed
Is is the guy you talked about on that little known Valentine's
thread? The friend you asked out and then... Well, congrats. You
are so brave! If I had to be out in the dating circle, I'd be
scared %#@&less.
I too hope he likes Buffy. Then again, does not matter, because
if he likes you, liking Buffy is a given (part of the package).
pagan
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thank you all! Just letting you know I had a great
time! -- Marie, 01:20:17 02/21/02 Thu
(pagan - not the same one. That was years ago.)
Nice meal, great conversation and even better kiss! I'm still
on a high, and he's bringing takeout and a video round on Friday.
(Though of course I'll be bringing out the BtVS videos!)
And today is Buffy/Angel day! *Contented sigh*.
I promise I'll never bore you on this subject again, and thanks
for your good wishes and patience.
Marie
just one p.s. - his name is Liam! What's a girl to do?!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Thank you all! Just letting you know I had
a great time! -- DEN, 04:26:57 02/21/02 Thu
OUT-BLEEPING-STANDING!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Liam? Just wait a while before you start calling
him you-know-what! ;o) -- CW, 05:52:09 02/21/02 Thu
Hope, he'll enjoy the Buffy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have to wonder... ;) -- RabidHarpy, 08:58:29 02/20/02 Wed
In a television show like BtVS where all the action is located
in Sunnydale CALIFORNIA, why, oh why aren't the Scoobies ever
at the beach frolicking in the sun and sand? Obviously we understand
why Spike wouldn't be joining them, but seriously! The Scoobies,
(with the exception of Anya's "Charlie's Angel's" Hallowe'en
outfit) don't even wear SHORTS!
Joss doesn't take nearly enough advantage of all that glorious
California sunshine! I think I've only seen 2 episodes where the
Scoobies were on the beach - the ep where the high school swim-team
turned into creatures from the "Black Lagoon", (and
even then, the party was at night and everyone was wearing jackets
and long pants), and the ep where the gang goes on a picnic and
Willow tries to light the BBQ and ends up creating a thunder storm!
What is UP with that?!?! With everyone bundled up in jackets and
long pants all the time, you'd think they lived somewhere in CANADA
for heaven's sake!!! (Actually that's not true, most of us have,
at one time or another, worn shorts on warm, sunny days when there
was still snow on the ground - lol!)
I'm just curious, because even though the eps take place (or at
least are played) during our fall and winter seasons, they are
filmed during the summer... I'm not asking for "Baywatch",
people (yikes!) - but if I lived in Sunnydale, (unless some sort
of Loch-Ness-type monster occupied the California coast-waters),
I'd be at the beach at LEAST every second weekend!!!
(Does the fact that SMG has a really big/obvious tattoo on her
ankel have anything to do with it, do you think?!)
Any thoughts or theories?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Not so strange, really! -- Marie, 09:03:34 02/20/02 Wed
I rarely go to the beach, and we have some lovely ones nearby.
Or to the mountains, or the lakes, for that matter.
I occasionally take my kid, but not as much as he'd like, I'm
sure.
It's not laziness, either, just so much else to do at the weekends
- shopping, washing, cleaning, 'sigh'...
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Not so strange, really! -- leslie, 09:36:43 02/20/02
Wed
I live two miles from the Santa Monica beach and I think I've
been down there twice in the last year. In fact, I *need* to go
down to a shop on the Venice boardwalk and I keep putting it off--for
one thing, parking is a bitch! It's like no-one who lives in New
York ever goes to the Empire State Building unless they have people
visiting from out of town. But more to the point, Sunnydale appears
to be inland. All the establishing shots show it nestled against
mountains. The thing about southern California is that while it
all looks like one long urban sprawl from Santa Barbara to San
Diego, in practical terms, you live within a fairly limited range
of your house and your office or school because, since it's so
decentralized, everything you need is available locally. There's
no "downtown" to go to because that's where all the
shopping is--shopping is all over and everywhere. Likewise with
restaurants, theaters, etc. As far as I can tell from my friends
who grew up here, if you live *right* at the beach, you hang out
at the beach, but if you're any further inland than the immediate
beach communities, you don't go there any more often than someone
who lives miles inland and makes a specific trip as a special
occasion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yes--that's how it was for me, too -- Masq,
in-lander from Orange, California, 13:55:34 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> And... -- Masq, 13:58:00 02/20/02 Wed
You could always tell who the tourists were--the ones wearing
shorts when it wasn't the 80+ days of summer.
To a Californian, it's friggin' cold when it's below 75! Shorts?
That's insane!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: And... -- leslie, 14:25:28 02/20/02
Wed
My favorites are, in fact, the British tourists, who feel the
need to strip down to their underwear when it gets *above* 75
degrees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> How nice it is that Californians
can make fun of everyone -- JBone, 20:50:30 02/20/02 Wed
As a native South Dakotan, I have a habit of wearing shorts out
occasionally in the harsh north Texas winter when the town is
frozen over. 35 degrees is freezing? Since when, and how? If it's
windy, sure, that's chilly, but I can wear shorts comfortably
down to 20 degrees. With a decent jacket of course. I laugh at
those all bundled up like they might die of exposure or something.
Wimps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You'd fit right in,
here in Arizona -- CW, 05:42:04 02/21/02 Thu
You see people wearing heavy coats beside people wearing shorts
and t-shirts all the time in the winter here. It can get below
30 here in the morning, but almost every day it gets above 65
in the afternoon. You almost never see a coat or jacket at noon
even if it's chilly because you know it's not going to stay that
way. And it stays warm well into the evening. Same temperature
pattern happens in summer. It's cool and nice in the morning.
So everybody runs around and get's everything done before it gets
to be above 110 in the afternoon. Then they hide in the AC till
the next morning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Not so strange, really! -- Chiomaca - a
newbie, so be gentle, 21:05:53 02/20/02 Wed
I thought Sunnydale had to be on the ocean, since there seems
to be a fairly substantial shipping industry there, (judging from
the docks we've seen in a few episodes.) But Leslie's right -
I live in San Diego and work right on the waterfront, but I rarely
go near the beach on my free time. And don't forget the ocean
breeze - it can be quite chilly for those of us with thin blood!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Better a thin blooded newbie than a thin
skinned newbie.....;) -- Rufus, 22:05:00 02/20/02 Wed
I live right by the ocean and never go there.....I guess I just
take it for granted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> welcome, chiomaca! (was it my turn to
do the welcome? nobody told me...) -- anom, 12:04:42 02/21/02
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the welcome! I'm not
at all thin-skinned (and I'm usually polite...) -- Chiomaca, 18:10:13
02/21/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, I say that about being
polite too...........sometimes I lie....:):):) -- Rufus, 00:55:45
02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sometimes you lie?!
I'm shocked. :-) -- VampRiley, 06:38:21 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> So, I take it
I'm not your hero anymore...champion and all.....;) -- Rufus,
06:57:15 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I' might
warm up if you gave me chocolate to make me feel better. To turn
my frown upside down. -- VampRiley, 08:02:03 02/22/02 Fri
And a cat!
Something small and cuddly like Miss fantastico. She was funny.
Oh. Hey. Bad thought.
Maybe the cattress (cat actress? does that sound right?) got hurt
or even killed since we last saw her.
:-(
Sad now,
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Would
that be ****Canadian Chocolate??****.....I'm very generous with
goodies.....:):) -- Rufus, 11:07:18 02/22/02 Fri
You'd like my latest kitty.....Buffy (name to piss off husband
who is stuck with Buffy for many years now)she is a tiny Black
kitten with white chest and tummy....she's quite a scrapper.....and
naughty....she has a thing for ears...:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Canadian Chocolate? Always good. -- VampRiley, 11:22:12 02/22/02
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Buffy, huh? -- VampRiley, 11:26:32 02/22/02 Fri
Well "Buffy" sounds to me suspiciously like LoveSpellWillow.
Specifically when she was in Xander's bedroom.
LoveSpellWillow was "naughty" and had "a thing
for ears" too.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
if it's warming up you want, there's nothing like *hot* chocolate
-- anom, 18:46:49 02/23/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> that
brings up a question: -- anom, 18:44:33 02/23/02 Sat
"Something small and cuddly like Miss fantastico. She was
funny."
Who got custody of Miss Kitty Fantastico when Willow & Tara split
up?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Not so strange, really! -- LeeAnn, 21:11:16 02/20/02
Wed
When my family lived near a beach for 3 years we went to it twice.
Once we moved away we would drive for 12 hours each way to spend
a week on it.
Weird, huh?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Saved By the Bell 90210 action!! -- neaux, 09:16:34 02/20/02
Wed
Yeah... they always fast forward the summer months it seems..
they really could the 90210/saved by the bell summer months episodes..
but honestly I dont think I'd want to watch it.
Also Spike and a sunny beach wouldnt mix very well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: You have to wonder... ;) -- juliaabra, 09:33:48 02/20/02
Wed
i've reasoned it this way: sunnydale is not in southern california
but further north and not near the beach either but more inland
and is perhaps located in the foothills of a mountain range. i
think we've seen mountains encircling the town when we've seen
long shots. the arts and crafts bungalows that everyone seems
to live in make me think of claremont which is about 30 miles
to the east of la, and the high school (and parts of the university)
looked just like my college, scripps. however, there are probably
many other areas in california which were built up during the
late 19th and early 20th centuries which would look like claremont.
all that aside, if the town were further north and east it would
eliminate easy trips to the beach and perhaps necessitate warmer
clothing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: You have to wonder... ;) -- Wolfhowl3, 09:43:36 02/20/02
Wed
I just want to point out, that there are part of California that
are farther north then Parts of Canada. (check the maps of you
don't beleive me.)
Wolfie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Okay, I checked the map. -- LadyStarlight, 12:27:16
02/20/02 Wed
And as a CDCW, um, what map are you looking at? 'Cause I can't
figure it out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Well I'll be darned... turns out this is a true
fact! -- GreatRewards, 14:20:47 02/20/02 Wed
The California city of Yreka is 22 miles south of the Oregon border.
It sits at Latitude 41°43'N.
The most southerly land feature of Canada is Middle Island in
Lake Erie at latitude 41°41'N (which is actually farther South
than Yreka). Middle Island is at the same latitude as the Klamath
Mountains of northern California; Great Salt Lake, Utah; Des Moines,
Iowa; and Chicago, Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Okay, I checked the map. -- matching mole,
14:24:02 02/20/02 Wed
It's true, although not obviously unless you trace lines of latitude
across the continent. The northern border of California is the
same latitude as the base of Point Peelee in extreme southern
Ontario. So a tiny fraction of Canada is further south than the
northern edge of California.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> And that little bit is hundreds of miles
from Sunnydale -- Masq, 15:08:54 02/20/02 Wed
Which is Santa Barbara, by the way, not the "Valley"
The Valley has plenty of Neiman-Marcus', and SD is of course,
two hours away on the freeway from the nearest one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I believe the Valley referernce
referred to hemery high and Buffy's childhood -- Dochawk, 15:50:40
02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: You have to wonder... ;) -- Apophis, 11:41:56 02/20/02
Wed
If you lived in a town built on a Hellmouth, filled with vampires,
demons, werewolves, fish-people, psychotic robots, dragons (after
The Gift), and ghosts, would you really trust the local ocean?
If that's the kind of stuff that lives on land, just think of
what the Hellmouth energies could be attracting in the seas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: You have to wonder... ;) -- Rendyl, 12:34:25 02/20/02
Wed
Actually RH makes a good point about clothing. I live deep in
the south (about an hour/hour and half from the beach) and while
Buffy and comp are frolicking in leather jackets and sweaters
I am wearing shorts and t-shirts. My little girl wears a (very
light) jean jacket in the early mornings. I don't even own a coat.
This (the winter clothing in what should be a warm climate) is
pretty much as jarring for me to watch as some of the other issues
brought up this week are for other viewers.
(proving if you get hip deep in paint scrapings and don't check
the board it will go places without you...cough)
As for the beach, (grin) we go once or twice a month most of the
year. Maybe monster stopping just doesnt allow for much time on
the beach?
Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Serial TV Writers -- Dochawk,
13:26:40 02/20/02 Wed
Go Fish certainly implies that Sunnydale is on the ocean. And
Buffy is a Valley Girl. they spend as much time at the beach as
they do at the mall. Buffy didn't lose her taste for shopping,
can't believe she would give Beaches up. on the other hand, I
am sure Willow was warned against the sun by her science minded
mother.
Even if Sunnydale isn't on the ocean, its in southern california
(I always think of it as Newhall or Simi Valley (whitebread SC
communities)transported to Bakersfield for location (any place
in 909 would work too). but the things is these places are hot,
9 months of the year. they absolutely should be wearing shorts/bikini's
alot more frequently.
But we have seen several instances where the consistancy isn't
exactly pure. Did the SG place a warding off spell at the Summer's
home for Spike between Becoming II and The Gift? Was the chip
olny activated after Spike left the Initiative or were those doctors
demons? I know there are others, but I can't think of them now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Serial TV Writers
-- Rattletrap, 15:11:00 02/20/02 Wed
I can answer at least one of these:
"Did the SG place a warding off spell at the Summer's home
for Spike between Becoming II and The Gift?"
Yes, Willow did a de-invite spell in Crush.
As to the clothes and climate issue: This has mildly annoyed me
the whole time I've watched the show--the clothes don't fit with
Southern California temperatures, except for a few times during
the winter. It is even more problematic if we accept Joss's statement
that Sunnydale "is" Santa Barbara to mean that the two
are in about the same place.
That said, I'm even more bothered by the fact that all of these
characters get more dressed up to go to class (or even just sit
around the house) than anyone I've ever known. Whatever happened
to faded jeans and a sweatshirt on a college campus? Oh well,
there are some things we probably just shouldn't think too hard
about :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Serial TV
Writers -- tost, 16:03:47 02/20/02 Wed
Then Buffy invited Spike in again in "The Gift"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Serial TV
Writers -- Rahael, 04:47:30 02/21/02 Thu
Don't really know whether I should admit this, but I used to get
dressed up nearly every day for classes, or at least think carefully
about what I wore. Just added a bit more interest to the day.
I'll admit, I'm a clothes horse.
Re Buffy clothes debate - people have different tolerances to
cold - I get warm very quickly, and my two friends always felt
the cold. So often when we went out, I would be wearing a shirt
and skirt and no coat, and they would be wearing trousers, vest,
shirt, jumper and a voluminous coat. And scarves and woolly hats
sometimes. Could be that with standing around and filming, plus
the camara's illusion of there being more light than there actually
is, the actors get colder than we'd expect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Does it always rain at night? -- Cleanthes,
06:56:53 02/21/02 Thu
Buffy has to wear more clothes when she's going to fight so that
the switch to the stunt woman will not look so jarring. Even were
they to find a stunt woman as slight as Buffy, there would need
to be somewhere to hide the padding.
Over on Roswell, every time there's a scene at night, the pavement's
wet. But, it don't rain much in NM, and when it does, it's more
likely thunderstorms during the day than gentle rain at night.
Sunnydale has wet streets at night rather too much, too.
Of course, they do look a lot better than most people of their
age. They're way tidier, too! Riley never has to do windows, even
though he could reach the high ones, because they clean themselves.
Even in Spike's crypt, the spider webs arrange themselves artistically
rather than in that icky way that spider webs really do.
In the tension between the escapism function of TV and the desire
for realism and authenticity, excapism will always win. And that
means the streets will be wet and photogenic at night.
Hey, the bands at the Bronze are consistently better than at any
club I've ever heard of.
You can seldom get 50% of people to dress up for Halloween except
in Sunnydale. Oz's "god" costume is the norm in the
rest of the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> only in camelot! -- anom, 11:14:39 02/21/02
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Rationalizing Animal - aka Chip Speculation
-- Philistine, 22:55:56 02/20/02 Wed
Perhaps the chip was learning? If the chip's function is based
on detecting and reacting to patterns of activity in Spike's brain,
then the chip might have to build its threat library before it
could start doing its job in earnest. It's been a while since
I watched that ep, but doesn't Spike seem to become progressively
less violent over the course of the episode? He fought his way
out of the Initiative, but then was unable to bite Willow; by
the end he tried to fight the Initiative capture team but according
to (Forrest?) he "can't hardly hit anymore."
Of course, if the chip is actually a functioning soul detector
this idea doesn't work so well - but then I *really* don't like
the idea of the chip as soul detector for several reasons, not
least of which is that the Initiative didn't seem to place much
emphasis on (or even acknowledge) the metaphysical side of the
demon-hunting biz.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Rationalizing Animal - aka Chip Speculation
-- Cleanthes, 07:14:42 02/21/02 Thu
The chip could be a functioning soul detector without the Initiative
understanding that that is what it was doing. Assume that the
initiative discovered some systematic aspect of "HST's"
that was different from humans. They would explain the difference
scientifically -- perhaps one of the 11 dimensions of super-string
theory seems unravelled for HST's in some slightly detectable
way; the spin on the neutrino's is off maybe. BUT, the human soul
taps into the anagogic perspective in a characteristic way and
defines the human. All this information is inaccessible to the
scientific analysis by definition. Apodictically, then, the chip
is scientifically detecting souls but the science can never be
understood. I refer you to Wittgenstein's `On Certainty` for more...
Just kidding, pretty much, btw.
Nevertheless, and it's this thought that moves me to post: Tara
says Buffy's not "wrong". The chip, though, says she's
no human. Shouldn't Buffy try to get someone to compare the impulse
given off by the chip when Spike hits a human and a demon and
her to see how it differs. Following my "anagogic aura of
the soul" theory above, maybe Spike could have hit St. Theresa,
too. (sorry, this is a reference to threads some months ago, but
I've been out of the loop for awhile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Rationalizing Animal - aka Chip
Speculation -- Rufus, 09:32:43 02/21/02 Thu
On St Theresa.....Buffy called herself "Joan" in Tabula
Rasa, and there was that visual of St Theresa....so my question
is (if you assume the Joan could be Joan of Arc)what do both these
female figures have in common?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> St Theresa and St Joan of Arc *Spoilery
and speculative* -- Rahael, 10:07:57 02/21/02 Thu
Rufus, you've obviously heard the spoilers floating around that
Buffy's stint in heaven, or her belief in her stint in heaven
is not all as it initially was presented to us. I speculate that
this is the storyline that the writers 'have been misleading'
us about. I might be completely wrong.
Do you think we were misled by a Buffy who clearly believes she
was in Heaven but wasn't?
Of course the spoilers could be wrong, but St Theresa and St Joan
were two very strong women who had intense spiritual experiences.
Those who don't believe in God have explained these away in a
variety of ways, including those who say that both women might
have been epileptic.
Its interesting that if you look at Tabula Rasa, which dealt with
a profoundly mind altering experience, Buffy experienced a kind
of joy which came from leaving behind her every day experiences
and taking on a new identity, that of 'Joan', an identity where
she was able to embrace her destiny with gusto.
When memory and the everyday world returned, her spirits crashed.
So, are the writers trying to tell us that Buffy's stint in heaven,
might have been joyful, but ultimately she had to 'crash down
to earth'? Is the little journey in TB, from the bliss of forgetting
to the pain of remembrance an echo of her being torn from heaven?
So that could be the connection between the image of Theresa and
Buffy's name in TB, a thematic connection between 'heaven' and
'hell'. Joan is compounded image of heaven and hell - since some
denounced her as a heretic and witch, and others a saint. And
Joan of course, ended by being burnt - and we have a thematic
connection here with OMWF. Walking through the fire, Buffy might
melt away like Joan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Rationalizing Animal - aka
Chip Speculation -- dream of the consortium, 10:12:21 02/21/02
Thu
Well, the only thing I can come up with off the top of my head
for Saints Theresa and Joan is visions. Both had intense visions,
and both believed in them thoroughly, despite the questioning
of those around them. That's not unusual among the saints, but
it is far from universal. Also, both these saints were very headstrong,
independent, powerful women. That is not as uncommon as you might
expect among female Catholic saints, but there are an awful lot
of meek, humble, spent-my-whole-life-in-obedience saints that
would make no sense in relationship to Buffy, so both Theresa
and Joan work in that light. Surely there's someone on the board
who can come up with more than that.
Individually, I do find the choice of St. Theresa interesting,
because she not only experienced ecstasies and religious visions,
I blieve including visions of heaven (though I may be misremembering
that), but she described her experiences in highly eroticized
language. For a woman who has been torn from heaven and seems
to be finding relief from the pain of that experience by immersing
herself in sexuality, the sex/religion co-joining in St. Theresa
would presumably resonate. Buffy's heaven seemed to be more womblike
than ecstatic, however. And Joan - well, Joan was a warrior and
a martyr, and Buffy is both of those as well. I wonder how strongly
the name Joan resonates for people, however. Do most people think
of St. Joan when they hear "Joan"? I do, but, then again,
I was raised Catholic, and Joan was my confirmation name. ME may
have chosen it as something generic, like "Anne".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Rationalizing Animal - aka
Chip Speculation -- Cleanthes, 20:02:14 02/22/02 Fri
Both women had, perhaps, glimpsed where Buffy was after she died.
That would be where anagogic information is held, stuff like where
missing socks go, and why mathematics works so well as a tool
of science, and why cats claw furniture. The great mysteries.
This place pretty fast anymore. I didn't want to miss posting
before this scrolls off. I wanted to write up some more elaborate
answer, but this will have to do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: You have to wonder... ;) -- matching mole, 14:36:10
02/20/02 Wed
I've always thought it was odd that we didn't see more beach scenes.
According to the lore I've heard Sunnydale is supposed to be based
on Santa Barbara which is right on the coast. If the show was
inland the climate would, as Dochawk says, be really hot for a
large fraction of the year. My wife lived in Riverside for a year
and a half and I visited regularly. We only went to the coast
(90 miles away) once in that time but I wore shorts a lot. We
also went hiking in the mountains most weekends but then I imagine
we are more outdoorsy than the Scoobies.
Speaking of regional clothing patterns I noticed when I lived
there that people in Phoenix fell into two groups. One that regarded
anything colder than 75-80 F as cause for a jacket (and anything
below 60 F as cause for a Parka!) and those, like myself, whose
transition from fall to winter consisted of wearing jeans instead
of shorts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: You have to wonder... ;) -- purplegrrl, 15:29:26 02/20/02
Wed
I've also heard that Sunnydale is based on Santa Barbara. Although
the high school scenes were done somewhere else (Torrence if I
remember correctly). Sunnydale isn't really inland -- it has a
port. Both Angel and Faith had the opportunity to take a cargo
ship to somewhere else. Harbor needs to be fairly deep for large
ships of that kind.
As for clothing types: The Pacific current is cold water. Breezes
coming off the water tend to be very cool. Hence jacket-wearing
weather. (I've been to the beach near Santa Maria at Christmas
and it can be pretty cold. Alright, not freezing or anything.
But you want a coat.)
As for not going to the beach: The Scooby Gang is caught up in
demon fighting, wedding planning, Spellcasters Anonymous, and
Dawn-sitting. Not to mention working and shagging. Sometimes there
is just not enought hours in the day/week/month to just go hang
out at the beach/mountains/etc. Maybe they figure it's always
there, they can go whenever they want, but just never get around
to it. I grew up 30 minutes from the mountains and hardly ever
went.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: You have to wonder... ;) -- Santa Barbara, 16:12:47
02/20/02 Wed
Being a native of Santa Barbara, California, the Scoobie Gang's
beach going activities and fashons aren't unusual at all. First
of all while the weather is sunny, the ocean is COLD. So cold
in fact my mom moved to Florida so she could swim AND sunbathe.
I myself spent very little time there. Its a curiosity of human
nature. Tourists from Europe (Germany mostly) practically lived
there. But for the natives, it was no big deal.
As for the clothing, its a matter of perspective. Buffy & Co.
are normally working in the winter and at night. A winter in S.B.
is ~35-55 degrees. To people from wintery places this is shorts,
T-shirt or at most sweater weather. But to natives its still considered
cold enough to warrant medium jackets, long trousers, etc. Also,
not every Californian wants to wear shorts and T-shirts all the
time. Gotta show off them long leather jackets, long skirts, euro
cut suits, etc. :)
BTW, has anyone commented that Willow typically wears cooler clothing
than Buffy? Really. Some of the dresses Buffy wore in season 1
& 2 were incredible. Now its all leather or jeans. (Yeah, yeah,
they make good tactical sense) Meanwhile, UPN marketing should
seriously consider selling a Willow fashion line.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Vampires and temperature (OT and nerdy speculation)
-- matching mole, 17:55:30 02/20/02 Wed
This thread got me pondering acclimatization in humans and then
I moved on to vampires. The comments people have made in this
thread about temperatures being cold for Californians and moderate
to hot for other people have a physiological as well as a psychological
basis. If you live in a cold climate your body undergoes long
term changes that help you resist cold better. I've been swimming
in the ocean off Santa Barbara and elsewhere in southern California
and the water struck me as a more or less ideal temperature (the
ocean off northern California is a different case entirely) but
I can appreciate that the natives might think and feel differently.
Is the same true for vampires? Vampires are described as taking
on the ambient temperature of their surroundings, at least that's
what Angel implied this week in Couplet. Do they feel cold and
heat? I don't remember if this has come up in the show, other
than in the context of being set on fire. Given the resistance
of vampires to physical damage it seems unlikely that ambient
temperatures on the hot end are likely to hurt them. A body temperature
of 110 F would kill a human but presumably not a vampire. However
what would happen at lower temperatures? In coastal California
the temperature is unlikely to drop below freezing for more than
brief periods. However if vampires were exposed to below freezing
temperatures for very long their tissues might freeze, which might
not kill them but would make moving difficult. Because they don't
generate their own body heat wearing clothes is not going to keep
them warm for very long. Perhaps vamps in colder climates might
produce some sort of antifreeze like animals that live in polar
oceans. This way they could get really cold and still remain mobile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Vampires and temperature (OT and nerdy speculation)(some
spoilers) -- Darby, 08:40:52 02/21/02 Thu
Vampires are room-temperature - that was established when the
Initiative was searching for Spike.
That has always bothered me - we humans are very sensitive to
temperature, especially experienced through contact - think cold
feet in bed - shouldn't it be extremely weird to kiss a vampire?
Dawn should have picked up on it in All The Way. Okay, first kiss,
but shouldn't Janice, who seemed more experienced, have at least
remarked that kissing her vamp was like kissing a lamp (unintended
poetry there)?
And then there's the shagging. Not to be too-much-information-guy,
but the experience with someone running a mild fever is bizarre
(in a good way, but still...); going at it with someone who is
as cold as a basement under a crypt...Kinda like sleeping on an
unheated waterbed (also bizarre, but not in a good way).
Forget "evil" - Buffy likes her men cold - literally!
And to weigh in on the whole clothing debate - isn't the crew
working in more or less the same climate as Sunnydale's? It seems
like if the wardrobe people dress the actors for September in
the studio parking lot, they're dressed for September in Sunnydale...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Vampire novel recommendation and room
temp discussion -- matching mole, 09:36:42 02/21/02 Thu
I had interpreted the room temperature statement by the initiative
to be simply a shorthand for the environmental temperature. It
doesn't seem like we have enough information to decide whether
vampires are ectotherms (i.e. 'cold-blooded') whose bodies take
on the ambient temperature or endotherms ('warm-blooded') with
a constant body temperature that is simply a lot colder than humans
(i.e. at room temperature). I apologize to the rest of the board
for the biological jargon. The former explanation makes more sense
from the point of view of vampires being animated corpses but
given that vampires on BtVS seem to retain a large number of other
life-like properties (eating, drinking, etc.) the correctness
of Darby's interpretation wouldn't surprise me either.
What put this into my head in the first place was the novel 'Blood-sucking
fiends' by Christopher Moore. This is a very entertaining book.
It's not a horror novel, in the sense that it doesn't focus on
darkness or try and scare the reader. Instead it's the story of
a woman who happens to get turned into a vampire and how she deals
with the situation. I think that many BtVS fans would enjoy it.
The physical nature of vampires is spelled out in the book in
a fair amount of detail because the heroine has no idea herself
of what she can and can't do and has to figure it out on her own.
In many respects it differs markedly from the Buffyverse. Most
notably vampires are rendered instantly and utterly comatose with
the rising of the sun, where-ever they might be, and remain that
way until sunset. Also vampires are unable to eat or drink anything
except blood (makes them nauseous). So I am not (repeat NOT) advocating
that the physical properties of vampires in the book be in any
way be interpreted as evidence for how things work in the Buffyverse.
But it does offer an interesting take on Darby's post. In 'Blood-sucking
Fiends' vampires are portrayed as completely ectothermic, they
take on the temperature of their surroundings. They can survive
being frozen solid but they remain comatose while frozen until
thawed out (the novel is set in San Francisco so the issue of
being frozen while outside doesn't come up). Before intimate physical
contact the vampire heroine takes a very hot shower to warm her
body up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Toasty Vamp flesh -- Farstrider,
15:29:52 02/21/02 Thu
Hi all, first post.
I was under the impression that in general vamp lore, vampires
who have recently fed are indistinguishable from living humans.
In other words, they have rosy cheeks and body temperature. Was
there no support for this in the show?
Also, is there any reason to believe that Angel has a different
body temperature thing going than Spike? If not, why couldn't
Buffy tell in "Angel"?
Farstrider
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Toasty Vamp flesh -- Darby,
17:04:31 02/21/02 Thu
Nothing like that has been established in the Buffyverse. We don't
really know where the blood goes, or how it's processed - there's
no circulation, so it's got to be something else...
And I guess the Buffy - Angel thing can be rationalized in the
same way I did the Dawn thing - that first passionate kiss is
so new on so many levels that you have no basis to judge what's
wrong.
But Janice should have - or other humans we've seen should at
least comment on it. Ford did when he shook Angel's hand in "Lie
to Me," and Xander apparently had noticed as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Toasty Vamp flesh
-- VampRiley, 06:32:32 02/22/02 Fri
There was a passing mention of where the blood goes in the Angel
episode "Darla":
ANGEL (re: Darla): And this one. Down and goosefeathers and the
finest silks and linens. Oh, and the view. She's always got to
have the view, don'tcha, my lamb?
The Master's eyes burn on Darla.
DARLA: We fed very recently. The blood is still hot in his veins.
ANGEL (nuzzling her): You noticed that, did you?
But other than this, I don't know of any other reference.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Toasty Vamp flesh -- anom,
21:01:49 02/21/02 Thu
"Also, is there any reason to believe that Angel has a different
body temperature thing going than Spike? If not, why couldn't
Buffy tell in 'Angel'?"
If she didn't notice he went into full vamp-face while they were
kissing at the skating rink (What's My Line part I), she could've
missed him being cold in Angel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Vampires and temperature (OT and nerdy
speculation)(some spoilers) -- LadyStarlight, 10:46:13 02/23/02
Sat
Vampires are room-temperature - that was established when the
Initiative was searching for Spike.
Something that has bugged me about the whole 'Initiative finds
Spike in the dorm room by using a scanner' thing, perhaps someone
could explain this to me in words of one syllable or less -- how
would a room temperature vampire show up like a 98.6 degree human
does?
(goes away scratching head in puzzlement)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Vampires and temperature (OT
and nerdy speculation)(some spoilers) -- matching mole, 14:19:56
02/23/02 Sat
Less than one syllable? That's quite a challenge. I don't really
know the answer because I don't remember the details of what they
were supposed to be using to detect Spike. But I'll give it a
shot.
There are infrared detectors that measure the amount of heat being
given off by objects. You could use something like that to 'see'
objects after dark. I'm not very familiar with how these things
actually work but my impression is that if Spike was, in fact,
exactly the same temperature as his surroundings he would be undetectable.
However unless vampires have some sort of magic thermostat that
automatically resets their body temp to exactly that of their
surroundings it is unlikely that Spike was exactly the same temperature
as the room he was in (was he in a room or outside when they made
this statement?). He was moving around, through environments with
different temperatures. If you did the same thing to any solid,
man-sized object it would take it a while to cool down or heat
up when you moved it from one place to another. If Spike is constantly
at 'room temperature' then his body is set at some constant temperature.
That might match the temperature in some rooms but not all of
them. As long as Spike was colder or warmer than his surroundings
then he is potentially detectable.
Hope that helps and bear in mind that I don't realy know what
I'm talking about!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> This helps, thanks. -- LadyStarlight,
14:48:58 02/23/02 Sat
This was when he'd been sitting in Buffy's dorm room, angsting
about not being able to bite Willow.
However, your explanation makes sense. I just chalked it up to
a minor plot hole before now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: You have to wonder... ;) -- vampire hunter D, 19:28:52
02/20/02 Wed
I have been wondering about the cloths thing. I don't know where
Sunnydale is, but wouldn't SOuthern California (where the show
is filmed) be too warm for shorts? Hell, sometimes it's so cold
you can see the vapor of the actor's breath (which is bad if your
James Marsters).
Where is Buffy filmed? I thought it was LA but it looks to be
too cold for that
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You have to wonder... ;) -- Spikesbitch, 21:37:44
02/20/02 Wed
I have always wondered about the warm clothing the characters
wear. I am British and when I went to Florida on holiday I practiacally
lived in shorts for the entire time and I noticed some people
more warmly wrapped up and couldn't understand it. I don't see
why the scoobies wear coats outdoors in California. If the sun
comes out in Britain most of us get incredibly excited and cast
coats aside and I haven't noticed much of a breeze in Sunnydale.
I remember one episode Teachers Pet when Giles commented on the
lovely weather and I thought if its so hot why is Giles in tweed
and Buffy has a huge leather jacket wrapped around her (although
to be fair Willow was wearing a T-shirt).
It is just one of those bizarre facts I have learned to accept
like the fact that Buffy and Dawn are on the breadline yet have
outfits to rival a supermodels wordrobe (can't they sell some
designer outfits as a way of making some quick cash?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You have to wonder... ;) -- SKPE, 07:18:47 02/21/02
Thu
Why don't any of the scoobys have a car. In s calf it would
easyer to live without legs that to be carless
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Xander had a car in 'The Body', didn't he? --
Marie, 08:30:14 02/21/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: You have to wonder... ;) -- LadyStarlight,
08:46:38 02/21/02 Thu
Xander borrowed his Uncle Rory's car in 'The Zeppo', that's how
he saved Faith from the Sisterhood of Jhe, by ramming one of them
with said car.
He was trying to find his 'thing', as far as I can remember. Since
Oz pretty much had the whole 'musicanship' thing sewn up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Okay, Let's All Resolve To Get Out More Often!! -- Rachel,
09:04:10 02/21/02 Thu
Reading through the above posts, I often see the "I live
just a few minutes from (insert lovely nature spot) and I rarely
visit" as a sympathetic reason why Buffy is never at her
nearby beach.
I don't know about ME, but how about if all of us who live near
panoramic nature get out and take a hike/swim now and again. Do
it for Buffy. :-)
Rachel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I think it's further irony on the part of Joss and Co. --
DaveW, 20:56:39 02/23/02 Sat
Where's the Hellmouth located? Gloomyvale? Evilton? Not-so-nice-ville?
No, it's in Sunnydale. Putting a show where a great deal of the
action happens at night in Cali is just more evidence of the inherently
contrary nature of Mr. Whedon, I think. It's along the same lines
as, oh, I don't know, a blonde bombshell being the one standing
between humanity and Hell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poll from the Buffy Cross and Stake... (Spoilers through OaFA)
-- Wynn, 12:35:28 02/20/02 Wed
Anya's Necklace posted a poll over at the Buffy Cross and Stake's
Spoiler Board, which I thought was interesting.
What are your top 5 dramatic moments and top 5 comedic moments
of BtVS?
Here are mine...
Dramatic-
Prophecy Girl- Buffy's "I Quit" speech. The two lines
"Do you think it'll hurt?" and "I'm only 16 years
old. I don't want to die" make me cry every time.
Blood Ties- The scene where Dawn cuts herself and questions whether
or not she is it is blood or if she is real.
The Gift- The entire episode, especially when Buffy and Giles
argue over the fate of Dawn, Buffy inviting Spike back into her
house, the entire last sequence of Buffy and Dawn on the tower,
and the voiceover at the end.
Passion- Jenny's death. It cemented the fact that Angel was truly
gone (well until Becoming 2) and that Angelus was truly evil.
Giles' reaction, Angelus voiceovers, and Buffy and Willow's reactions...
sniffle.
Becoming Part 2- *The* scene. She told him she loved him and she
kissed him and she killed him. :(
Comedic-
Tabula Rasa- Everything from the time the SG wake up amnesiacs
to when they get their memories back is hilarious. Especially
the interaction of Anya and Giles, "Randy" and Giles,
and "Randy" and "Joan".
Life Serial- Buffy's 3 jobs (I laughed so hard I cried at the
Magic Box sequence) plus DrunkBuffy and Spike hitting the demon
world complete with kitten poker and Spike-"Come on, someone
stake me?" Buffy-"I'll do it."
The Zeppo- Every scene with Xander was priceless.
Anya- All of Anya's one liners.
Spike- Ditto for Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Poll from the Buffy Cross and Stake... (Spoilers through
OaFA) -- Amber, 13:44:22 02/20/02 Wed
Top 5 Dramatic
1. "Becoming" Part 1 : Whistler's voice over about "not
seeing the big ones coming..." etc. This is the first episode
that really hooked me on the show...
2. "Becoming" Part 2 : When Buffy tells her Mom she's
the Slayer and Joyce demands she quit. The whole scene is incredible.
3. "The Prom" : Jonathon's presentation of the "Class
Protector Award" I always tear up:)
4. "The Body" : The entire episode!
5. "Crossroads" : Buffy tells the Watcher's Council
that they're working for her now and sets down the rules. It really
shows how much she's grown!
Top 5 Comedies
1. "Lover's Walk" : Just about every moment that Spike's
on the screen! Especially the scene where his hand catches fire.
2. "Once More with Feeling" Buffy's first song and Anya's
Bunnies interlude.
3. "Hush" : The entire silent scene between Spike and
Xander when Xander tries to call Buffy.
4. "Lie to Me" : The scene with the Vamp want-to-be
and Spike. To paraphrase, "I've only been around you five
minutes and I can't stand you, I don't fancy you being here for
eternity." and everything else they say in that scene.
5. A tie: "Fear, Itself": when the fear demon is revealed.
Giles, "Xander don't taunt the fear demon." and equally
funny... but I can't remember the title, the one where Riley and
Angel meet. I wish those two could have more scenes together...their
jealousy makes for great comedy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hmmmm, tough choices -- vampire hunter D, 14:05:08 02/20/02
Wed
For me it would be
Dramatic:
Blood ties- When Dawn cuts herself (this scene always gets me)
the Gift-Buffy's death
Bargaining pt2- Dawn goes to Buffy on the tower (somethng about
he way Buffy asks "Is this Hell" in that pathetic little
girl voice really makes me feel for her)
Tabula Rasa-the ending sequence, whith Tara Leaving, Willow and
Dawn crying, and Buffy depressed at teh bar.
5x5 (angel)-at the end when Faith breaks down crying and begs
Angel to kill her.
Comedic:
B,B,&B- when Xander leads Cordelia out of the building saying
"I think we lost them", anly to be met by an angry female
mob lead by an ax-weilding Willow (This ep is one of the funniest
ever, and by far my favorite ep)
Tabula Rasa- all of it from when they wake up to when the crystal
breaks (Amazing how the same ep is the funniest and yet has one
of the saddest scenes ever)
Disharmony (angel)- the whole thing. It was the funniest Angel
ep, and has several funny scenes.
Intervention- Do I need to say it?
Guise will be Guise- the sequence right after teh demon left.
THere are like 3 or 4 funny conversations happening at the same
time, and the whole thing mixes to be really funny.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Hmmmm, tough choices -- B, 14:21:59 02/20/02 Wed
I answered this over there but I'll answer it here too (if i can
remember my answers)
Dramatic (no particular order)
1) Becoming Pt 1 -- Buffy running back to the library to try to
save her friends
2) Becoming Pt 2 -- Sarah McLaughlin gets me every time
3) Passion -- the chase to the very end
4) Graduation Day Pt. 2 -- Angel feeds off Buffy
5) The Gift - Spike sobbing
Comedic: (no particular order)
1) Earshot -- the scene in the library, esp when Cordelia just
says what she thinks
2) Life Serial -- the Magic Box loop
3) Earshot -- Xander and the cafeteria lady
4) Going Through the Motions
5) Grad Day Pt. 2 -- Wesley getting knocked down for the count
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> My choices, plus a brand new category -- Rattletrap, 14:58:06
02/20/02 Wed
Dramatic (in no particular order, narrowing it down to 5 is hard
enough :-)
1. Prophecy Girl -- the "I Quit" speech; the 2 lines
Wynn mentioned are phenomenal, but the part that always really
chills me is Buffy speculating about her replacement slayer.
2. Passion -- Jenny's death and Angel's subsequent voice-over
3. The Body -- Too many parts to be specific, an all around intense
episode.
4. The Gift -- Buffy's speech to Dawn, her swan dive, and all
the reaction shots that follow.
5. Graduation Day part I -- Buffy's fight with Faith and all of
the conversations leading up to it.
Comic moments (again, no particular order)
1. The Initiative -- The "impotence" discussion after
Spike's failed attempt to bite Willow.
2. Earshot -- inner-thought voice-overs from Cordy and Oz
3. Dopplegangland -- Good Willow pretending to be Evil Willow;
Cordy having a talk w/ Evil Willow about boyfriend stealing; Percy
doing his homework after being beaten up by Evil Willow
4. Intervention -- Great funny moments all the way through; but
special mention to the conversation in Buffy's living room when
Buffy and the 'bot first meet.
5. Fear, Itself -- The "actual size shown" fear demon.
and, *drumroll* I offer this new category:
Jumping-out-of-your-seat-cheering moments: for those times that
are not the most heavily dramatic, but merit a hearty "woo
hoo!" usually because the Good Guys have won one.
1. Checkpoint -- the bit with the sword, you know the part I mean
2. Graduation Day, part II -- The whole epic battle at the end
3. The Harvest -- the final fight at the Bronze, especially the
"Sunrise . . . it's in about 9 hours, moron" line.
4. Innocence -- Buffy kicking Angel in the groin, one of the most
deeply satisfying moments in the history of the show; honorable
mention to killing the Judge with a rocket launcher
5. Fear, Itself -- Giles breaking down the wall of the house with
a chainsaw
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Jump out of my seat and cheer moments... -- Wynn,
20:09:27 02/20/02 Wed
Here are five moments that made me jump up and cheer:
Checkpoint- Buffy stands up to Travers and knocks him off of his
high and mighty pedestal.
OMWF- Spike and Buffy finally kiss.
The Gift- Glory gets her ass kicked by the SG. (sorry about the
language)
Becoming Part 2- Even though Spike was evil at the time and his
actions were completely selfish, I still loved it when he got
up from his wheelchair and beat the hell out of Angelus.
Graduation Day Part 2- Snyder gets eaten by the big snake. 'Nuff
said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Poll from the Buffy Cross and Stake... (Spoilers through
OaFA) -- manwitch, 15:06:40 02/20/02 Wed
I recognize the superior quality of eps like the body and the
gift. But these are moments that just "do it" for me.
Dramatic:
1) Prophecy Girl.
Willow to Buffy: "It wasn't our world anymore. They made
it theirs."
2) Wild at Heart.
Willow to Oz: "So that's your solution?"
3) Faith, Hope and Trick.
Giles to Willow: "There is no spell."
4) Blood Ties.
Dawn to Buffy: "Is this blood?"
5) New Moon Rising.
Willow to Tara: "I am."
Comic:
1) Living Conditions.
Oz to Buffy: "No one deserves mime, Buffy."
2) Intervention.
Buffybot to Willow: "I can make sketches."
3) Halloween.
Giles to Willow: "The, uh, ghost of what, exactly?"
4) The Yoko Factor.
Giles to the gang: "Fort Dicks?"
5) A New Man.
Giles to Spike: "Wait, stop the car."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Poll from the Buffy Cross and Stake... (Spoilers through
OaFA) -- Sophist, 16:56:48 02/20/02 Wed
Dramatic:
1. The end of Becoming II.
2. The death of Jenny Calendar.
3. Buffy finding her mother on the couch in The Body.
4. The end of The Gift.
5. Willow in Oz's room at the end of NMR.
Comedic:
1. The Spike can't bite scene in The Initiative.
2. Xander's line in Innocence: "I'm 17. Looking at linoleum
makes me think about having sex."
3. The debate over killing the avenging Chumash spirit in Pangs.
4. Giles's "Bloody Hell" in response to Willow's announcement
that Tara is her girlfriend in TYF.
5. Spike's interaction with Buffy, Dru, and Harmony in Crush.
This was too hard! I need more than 5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting observations from the AYW Promo *spoilery* -- Liq,
16:53:31 02/20/02 Wed
There are three very speedy scenes in the promo that I completely
missed watching it. It took seeing the screencap links posted
on the Trollop Board to notice them.
1. Buffy is firing some sort of flamethrower weapon.
2. Hands are holding a grenade with other hands pulling the pin.
(I assume the hands are Buffy/Riley)
3. Spike's crypt is aflame. Specifically the table next to his
bed is being blasted.
The first thought that crossed my mind was "Why the heck
is Buffy destroying her refuge?" We won't know the answer
to that question until the episode airs but I see no reason not
to discuss it now.
Regardless of personal opinions or feelings for the Spike/Buffy
relationship, the fact is, there is one. Several scenes and snippets
of dialogue have alluded to the timeframe that has passed. (The
DT "rug" scene, Willow's comment of "32 days"
since Wrecked and Spike's comfort level at Buffy's house during
the birthday party, assuming the possibility that he would have
some quality moments alone with her.) If is fairly clear to me
based on Dawn's comments and Buffy's guilty looks that she spends
all of her spare time away from her job with Spike and has for
at least 5 - 6 weeks.
Promos lie. They twist and manipulate scene continuity to interest
the viewer into wanting to tune in to the episode. This one was
a corker in that respect and works very hard in trying to entice
us with the solid fact that Buffy still cares for Riley (which
she probably does.) They hammer in the point with several scenes
of sweet, coy, flirtateous, girly Buffy batting her eyes at him.
We even have a brief "O" face when he has her pinned
to a wall.
"The return of the man she loves." Hmmmm.... I know
that Buffy wanted to love Riley and probably did on some level,
but there was also too much Angel-baggage plus poor Riley was
book-ended by the obsessive fanbase adoration of Angel and Spike.
Poor guy never had a chance.
The final scene shows a possibly nude, definitely shirtless Spike
facing down Riley. "Over my dead body." Riley's response?
"I've seen enough of your dead body." I've seen the
plethora of nude Spike scenes this season showing his naked vunerability
right now. He has literally discarded all things unique about
himself in order to take care of/and be what Buffy wants, needs
and demands from him. Hopefully those days are soon ended. Spike
crows about "getting his rocks back" in Wrecked, but
has spent the last few episodes proving otherwise but enough of
that. Kicking Buffy out of his crypt in Gone turned out to be
a snit on his part and not true resolve that he deserved better
treatment. The utter lack of consequences of Buffy beating the
crap out of him in the previous episode compounds the point.
So, to wrap this up, what is really going on here? Sure, there
will be a surface storyline which apparently includes Riley, but
what message is out there for the future or lack thereof of the
Spike/Buffy relationship?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> By coincidence, I just posted about this below. I'll just
copy it! :) -- Dyna, 17:04:55 02/20/02 Wed
(Etrangere suggested that this episode may be S6's version of
"Crush"--in which Buffy is confronted by a choice between
her old and new "loves," just as Spike was last season.
Which, IMO, is a brilliant idea! The setting is even the same--Spike's
undercrypt, though now much better decorated. I replied: )
Etrangere, by mentioning "Crush," you've touched on
something that bothered me very much from the promo--the scenes
of Buffy and Riley confronting Spike in his undercrypt. Spike
is shirtless--undressed, as has been mentioned, symbolically and
literally defenseless against (human) Riley. Riley and Buffy,
in contrast, are armed and dressed in matching black turtleneck
outfits--"armored" and visually united against Spike.
But what disturbed me most were the couple of very fast clips
at the beginning of the promo, seemingly from the same scene,
which show (a) Buffy blasting away, in the crypt, with a large
gun, and (b) the lamp next to Spike's bed exploding.
I know, I realize the danger of reading too much into the promos.
But I've been having a hard time coming up with a scenario in
which Buffy's actions, even her presence in the crypt with Riley,
could be explained benignly. It seems so cruel, and strange, given
how important Spike's crypt has been to her since her resurrection--all
indications were that this was a space that had significance to
her, where she felt she could be herself, or at least experience
some rare peace and calm.
But then, thinking about this as an S6 revision of "Crush,"
I can sort of see the parallel between Buffy going on a self-righteous
anti-vampire tear with Riley and Spike's walkabout with Dru in
"Crush"--an attempt, maybe, to reclaim an old "identity"
by hooking up with a person who embodies that identity, and acting
according to their expectations.
If that's true, I imagine Buffy will fail, as Spike did--she can't
be "as she was" anymore, as much as she'd like to. Still,
I wonder what the fallout will be for Buffy and Spike. I was spoiled
for Riley's reappearance a couple of months ago, and I expected
it would cause some problems, but I really didn't imagine Buffy
would team up with Riley and turn on Spike so overtly. Ignore
Spike, blow him off, act like he never existed, yes, these would
be in character for our Buffy, but weapons? Yikes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> you certainly did and quite well also.... -- Liq,
17:06:59 02/20/02 Wed
Sorry Dyna, I don't always take the time to read through the posts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Liq, you still around? Want to talk story? --
Marie, 17:59:47 02/20/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Oh! I just meant, "Yay! I'm not the only
one!" -- Dyna, 07:36:04 02/21/02 Thu
Sorry Liq, I hope you didn't think I meant that you should have
read my post! I was just excited that you raised the issue, because
it's been bugging me so much since I saw the promo. Thanks for
giving it the prominence of a new topic!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I've got a theory- -- Spike Lover, 19:28:40 02/20/02
Wed
I think Riley will be the first to "put together" S
+ B on his own. I think that is probably why he comes back.
I think he will want to Kill Spike, but he won't because Buff
will never forgive him. I think what he will do is try or suceed
in de-activating Spike's chip in the hopes that Buff will see
what a killer Spike is and will kill him herself.
I think Riley will hear the fatal words "you left when I
needed you most!"
Those are my thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> SPOILERS -- Jonx, 21:05:56 02/20/02 Wed
The main reason I am sure the crypt is blown up is because Spike
is protecting (he was paid) the eggs of the demon Riley is after.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I've got a theory- -- Corwin of Amber, 22:55:42
02/20/02 Wed
>I think Riley will hear the fatal words "you left when
I needed you most!"
From whom? Spike? Buffy spent most of the Buffy/Riley relationship
proving she didn't need him for anything
other than snuggles when it was conveniant for her.
Maybe it's a twisted-reality ep where Riley comes back for his
true love, Spike. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I agree with you about the quote, but
Buffy still might say it. Real life is like that. -- Cactus Watcher,
06:30:45 02/21/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Buffy still might say it. Real life
is like that. -- alcibiades, 06:40:20 02/21/02 Thu
If the episode has any Dawn-Riley time, I think Dawn would definitely
say it. She seemed a lot angrier at Riley than any of the others,
and told Buffy so as well. I'm kind of hoping for a scene like
that.
alcibiades
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> twisted reality -- purplegrrl, 10:55:05
02/21/02 Thu
***Maybe it's a twisted-reality ep where Riley comes back for
his true love, Spike. :)***
Okay, having a weirdness head-rush now!
**********************
Scene: Somewhere in an alternate Buffyverse; Riley and Spike talking.
Riley: "I couldn't show you my true feelings before."
Spike: "The big macho Marine couldn't admit to himself that
he really likes boys. You give a whole new meaning to the term
Nancy-boy."
Riley: "Don't give me that. You know you enjoyed it when
I staked you with that plastic stake."
Spike: "Let's not be spreading that around, Captain Cardboard.
I've got my rep with the other demons to think about."
Riley: "What about me? People are saying I only went out
with Buffy as a cover-up. Maybe she sensed something between you
and me. Maybe that's why she never loved me the way I wanted her
to."
Spike: "Oh, get over yourself, will you? Buffy's quite the
bit, but you knew she wasn't what you really wanted. And your
precious Professor Walsh is dead so there's no mummy to be disappointed
how her darling boy turned out."
Riley: "Shut up, Spike!"
Spike: "Come over here and make me."
(fade to black)
********************************
Okay, trying to cruise back into the fantasyland that is the "real"
Buffyverse.
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> LOL! Thanks--I needed that! -- Dariel,
15:56:58 02/21/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> If As you were is like Crush (spoilers from AYW) --
Etrangere, 10:48:43 02/21/02 Thu
I see Crush as an episode that illustrates, for Spike, the Tarot
Card of the Lovers (or more accuratly the Tarot of Marseille L'Amoureux,
centered upon the male figure you has to choose between the two
female figures)
In the whole episode, we can fear that Spike is going back to
evil with Drusilla, indeed, he's very closed to do so. But in
the last moment, when he had the least reason not to (Buffy having
rejected him very clearly and harshly) he still stands with Buffy
against Drusilla. Crush gave us a Redemptionnist vision of Spike,
yet the superficial impression was very bad for him, and it's
not until Intervention that Spike's decision was aknowledged and
consequently accepted by Buffy in the group.
If As You Were is alike, Buffy will be very tempted by what Riley's
stand for, she will follow him until she will be very close to
accept his viewpoint. But somewhere in the end, she will still
defend Spike, and Spike's side against Riley, though probably
with some subtility, and I trust that a few episodes later, they
gonna be able to be together in a much "healthier" way
than before because of that.
Buffy needs to be pushed to accept Spike as a person, to make
a stand for him. That's important because of the way they treat
each others, and especially themselves, as we've seen in Dead
Things.
I guess for some reason, the Scoobies weren't the better placed
for that. I guess because now they know Spike too well ("I
worked besides you all summer"), but Riley seems perfect
to treat Spike as a "subhuman" and thus makes Buffy
react.
'Cause she really need to be proud to be with him.
You should never feel ashamed of your feelings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: If As you were is like Crush (spoilers from
AYW) -- Corwin of Amber, 20:18:06 02/21/02 Thu
> You should never feel ashamed of your feelings.
Ok, I have to philosophically object to this. :)
You should NEVER feel ashamed of your feelings? Really? Never?
Absolutely never, not once?
Just food for thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> That's my personnal rule number #3 :)
-- Etrangere, 23:26:25 02/21/02 Thu
But, sure I could be wrong.
But even if your feelings are somewhat "wrong", it's
probably better to accept them for what they are and then decide
what to do about it, not to act about it, and move on.
Isn't it easier if you accept whatever you feel, even if those
feelings are objectionnable, than repress it and see them kick
back as soon as you don't pay attention and become uncontrollable
?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Interesting observations from the AYW Promo *spoilery*
-- LeeAnn, 19:35:33 02/20/02 Wed
Regardless of personal opinions or feelings for the Spike/Buffy
relationship, the fact is, there is one. Several scenes and snippets
of dialogue have alluded to the timeframe that has passed. If
is fairly clear to me based on Dawn's comments and Buffy's guilty
looks that she spends all of her spare time away from her job
with Spike and has for at least 5 - 6 weeks. - Liq
Aaaaaeiiieee
So there has been LOTS more Spuffy sex which ME has not even given
us a flash of or alluded to.
Some people are sooo selfish.
Damn.
Pastport scenes are one thing but leaving out Spuffy sex is something
else.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An article I found on An Angel's Soul on Angel and Cordy...may
be spoilery -- Rufus, 22:48:55 02/20/02 Wed
An Angel's Soul
The site with the article....
www.deseretnews.com
'Angel' moves on
But his new love upsets some fans
By Scott D. Pierce
Deseret News television editor
PASADENA, Calif. - The star and the executive producer of "Angel"
have three words for the fans of the show who are up in arms over
the budding romance between Angel (David Boreanaz) and Cordelia
(Charisma Carpenter).
Get over it.
Accept the fact that Angel and Buffy (Sarah Michelle Gellar) are
not going to get back together. Not only have the characters moved
on, but the shows are on different networks now.
"If you actually saw these two characters get back together,
it would be so different . . . it probably wouldn't even work,"
Boreanaz said.
"It would be like getting together with your first wife,"
added executive producer David Greenwalt. "It would be a
nightmare."
On the other hand, there definitely is something going on between
Angel and Cordelia.
"There's definitely love a-bloomin' there. She is not yet
aware of her feelings toward Angel, but Angel has become somewhat
painfully aware that he has feelings toward her."
In Monday's episode (8 p.m., WB/Ch. 30) Angel, Cordelia and the
gang attend the ballet. Angel discovers that he recognizes the
troupe from the 19th century, and - through various mystical surprises
- he and Cordelia get, um, involved.
David Boreanaz, Charisma Carpenter
It's an episode written and directed by "Buffy" creator
and "Angel" co-creator (with Greenwalt) Joss Whedon.
Greenwalt said that he had reservations about pairing Angel with
someone other than Buffy but that Whedon wanted to go ahead with
Angel and Cordelia.
"He was, like, 'People move on. You have to move forward
all the time,' " Greenwalt said. "What I do like about
the show is that it does keep changing and we are full of surprises.
And people do come and go as in real life. . . . People fall in
love and people move forward.
Except for fans who post nasty messages on Web sites and send
Greenwalt chocolate and peanut butter - meant to remind him that
Angel and Buffy belong together forever.
"The idea that Angel and Cordelia would have feelings for
each other - it scared us all and it sort of appeared out of the
material," Greenwalt said. And it continues to scare Angel.
"He's going, 'Oh my (gosh), not her!' " Greenwalt said.
"But, you know what? She's a champion. She's really changed."
It's not that Greenwalt doesn't appreciate the fans, but - as
he correctly pointed out - if he and the other writers of both
"Angel" and its parent show, "Buffy the Vampire
Slayer," had listened to protests, some of the show's best
developments would never have happened.
"I don't care what people think about it because I know we're
doing the right thing," he said. "People didn't like
Spike when he came on 'Buffy.' They didn't like when we got rid
of Doyle. There's always things that people don't like, and part
of that means you are doing your job correctly because that means
people are identifying with the character and attached to the
character.
"I feel less like 'Get over it' and more like 'This is what
happens.' People get on with their lives. . . . But it doesn't
mean you still don't pine for that girl you knew in high school."
But he could do without any more chocolate and peanut butter.
"I'm afraid to open the jars because it could be anthrax,"
he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: pierce@desnews.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: An article I found on An Angel's Soul on Angel and Cordy...may
be spoilery -- Cactus Watcher, 07:02:56 02/21/02 Thu
Just makes sense. Why else would Cordy turn all sweet with a demony
center? ;o) Have to say I like her a lot better now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: An article I found on An Angel's Soul on Angel
and Cordy...may be spoilery -- Angelina, 12:09:35 02/21/02 Thu
There is absolutely NO CHEMISTRY between Cordy and Angel. Not
one litta bit, not an iota, not even a smidgen! It was actually
painful watching Waiting in the Wings, not to mention a BIG YAWN.
Angel looked good in his Tux, that's about it. Now, Spike and
Buffy - MAN THAT IS HOT HOT HOT. But ultimately, I think Angel
and Buffy belong together, and if there is a God in Heaven, or
really Powers That Be, they will be brought back together when
the shows are at the end of their prime time runs! PLEASE - RETHINK
THE CORDY THING, IT DOESN'T WORK!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: An article I found on An Angel's Soul on
Angel and Cordy...may be spoilery -- Valhalla, 20:20:29 02/21/02
Thu
Bravo!
Yes, Cordelia and Angel have zippo for chemistry. I object to
the storyline just because of that -- Actually, I'm perfectly
fine with he and Buffy not getting back together, or Angel having
a new romantic interest, but there are no sparks there.
Plus, I had sort of forgotten about Doyle leaving and now I'm
annoyed all over again. He and Cordelia had chemistry, and Buffy
and Angel had it, so it's not that the actors can't spark with
anyone (actually, Cordelia and Wesley had something there too).
Plus, with the Gunn-Fred storyline, it's all getting a little
too claustrophic...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tales of the Slayer comic book -- Robert, 08:22:23 02/21/02 Thu
Would it be appropriate to discuss the "Tales of the Slayer"
stories on this board? I am inclined to believe that it would,
because the book appears to provide relevant background to BtVS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Tales of the Slayer comic book -- Darby, 08:48:14 02/21/02
Thu
It was discussed recently, but in more general terms, I think.
I just picked it up yesterday - and the first 4-5 issues of Fray
(is that the right name?) - and haven't had a chance to read it
yet...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Tales -- Is this new?? Too late for me to catch
up? -- Rachel, 09:06:57 02/21/02 Thu
Was this comic recently released? I didn't know BtVS had a comic
series. So there's Tales and Fray...any others I should know about?
About how expensive? Thanks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Tales -- Is this new?? Too late for me to
catch up? -- ponygirl, 09:19:47 02/21/02 Thu
Tales is a graphic novel type thingie so you don't have to worry
about catching up. I paid $22 Canadian for it, so I imagine it
will be far far cheaper in US. Sigh.
It was great except too short. All of the tales seemed like just
a taste. Still it was great to see the writers cut loose in the
comics format. And Joss' prologue story offers an explanation
for the origin of the Slayers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> May be a vague spoiler in above post --
ponygirl, 09:33:05 02/21/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> So what's this "origin" story??
-- Masquerade, 14:05:58 02/21/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Tales -- Is this new?? Too late for me to
catch up? -- Darby, 09:43:29 02/21/02 Thu
Buffy and Angel have both had series - Buffy for several years.
I don't know much about the series - the quality has looked iffy
to a cursory glance - but there have been "special"
issues written by people directly connected to the show, such
as a Willow and Tara special written by Amber Benson. Tales are
written by several of the staff writers. It was just recently
released in the U.S.
Fray, about a Slayer of several centuries in the future, is written
by Joss Whedon. It is several (6?) issues of a standard-size comic,
all of which have not yet been released. I think that Dark Horse
Comics have handled all of them (and compilations of the series)
- a net search ought to get you a website, where I'd assume you
could get more info.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: So, Fray is not about...(spoiler-y)...
-- Rachel, 09:59:24 02/21/02 Thu
Fray is not about Sunnydale, then? I'll check it out. I'm so hooked
into the Sunnydale lore that it might be hard to think of the
slayer in any other time frame.
Wherever does Joss find the time for so many projects?? Years
of comic books in addition to several series on TV. This man must
be a genious...or else seriously organized.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: So, Fray is not about...(spoiler-y)...
-- Darby, 10:15:50 02/21/02 Thu
The impression I've gotten is that, in general for the comics
and the novels, Joss has been much less hands-on than he is on
the shows. How much they are or are not "canonical"
is debatable, except for the ones with direct involvement from
show staff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So, Fray is not about...(spoiler-y)...
-- Robert, 12:40:06 02/21/02 Thu
>> "The impression I've gotten is that, in general
for the comics and the novels, Joss has been much less hands-on
than he is on the shows. How much they are or are not "canonical"
is debatable, "
This may be true for the other BtVS and Angel comics. However,
Mr. Whedon wrote the Fray books himself (no doubt during his copious
spare time). Because of this, I think we can assume that Fray
is canon, though its relevance to BtVS and Angel may be thin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> But Tales of the Slayers,
both GN and short stories were approved by JW (and some written
by him) -- dochawk, 15:35:40 02/21/02 Thu
I think we can take the Graphic Novel at least as canon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Fray is about...(spoilers for Fray)...
-- purplegrrl, 11:51:58 02/21/02 Thu
Fray takes place about 300 years after Buffy (the TV series).
In this Jossverse, there haven't been any vampires for quite some
time - since Buffy?? Therefore no Slayers have been called and
everyone seems to have forgotten that there is such a thing as
Slayers. But vampires are making a comeback. And so Fray is called.
She is more reluctant than Buffy about being called as a Slayer.
I think her Watcher has more trouble with her than Giles did with
Buffy, possibly because he's not human.
Fray is an 8-issue miniseries (I haven't read them all yet, so
I don't know how it ends). The series is listed as being written
by Joss. Now whether he wrote more than issue one and the story
outline, I don't know. (Yes, Joss is a workaholic and extraordinarily
talented.)
As for the Buffy and Angel comic series, I'd say on average they
are good. Like the show, there are good episodes and better episodes.
I'm not a comic afficianado, but the two series have had some
incredible talent working at various times on them: Ryan Sook
who draws the "Hellboy" series and Christopher Golden
who has written a number of BtVS-based novels.
There are also about 8 or 10 graphic novels. However, most of
these are compilations of the series.
For back issues of all these comics, check out Things From Another
World at www.tfaw.com. This is the distribution outlet for Dark
Horse comics (they don't sell directly).
Hope this helps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Fray is about...(spoilers
for Fray)... -- Andy, 13:08:22 02/21/02 Thu
"Fray is an 8-issue miniseries (I haven't read them all yet,
so I don't know how it ends). The series is
listed as being written by Joss. Now whether he wrote more than
issue one and the story outline, I
don't know. (Yes, Joss is a workaholic and extraordinarily talented.)"
It is entirely written by Joss. If nothing else it's consistent
with his writing style, and unlike Buffy it fully belongs to him,
so I doubt he'd allow others to play around with it :)
"As for the Buffy and Angel comic series, I'd say on average
they are good. Like the show, there are
good episodes and better episodes. I'm not a comic afficianado,
but the two series have had some
incredible talent working at various times on them: Ryan Sook
who draws the "Hellboy" series and
Christopher Golden who has written a number of BtVS-based novels."
A quick correction: Ryan Sook does not draw Hellboy. Mike Mignola
does. However, Sook did begin his career by aping Mignola's art
style and I think has worked on some things that Mignola created
(possibly Hellboy, but not to any meaningful extent).
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> you're right -- purplegrrl,
13:35:59 02/21/02 Thu
You're right about Sook and Mignola. I just forgot. Thanks for
the correction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Tales of the Slayer comic book..."Spoilers for
Tales of the Slayer"...:) -- Rufus, 09:29:15 02/21/02 Thu
Clearly mark the post as having Spoilers for the comic so that
those who don't want to be spoiled don't read it.
I've got 1-5 of Fray and are awaiting my copy of Tales of the
Slayer in the mail...it could be some weeks before I get it. I've
heard a bit of the story behind Tales, and was interested in the
origin of the Slayer in Fray...the last issue of Fray is in July
I think.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Thanks, Rufus and Ponygirl...And a question...
-- Rachel, 09:52:42 02/21/02 Thu
So far my BtVS hobby was free...Now I have to have a budget. US
or Canada -- it still costs something, you know! One last question:
Will these comics prompt the same sort of thinking as the show
does? Or are they of a simpler nature?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Thanks, Rufus and Ponygirl...And a question...
-- Rufus, 18:00:20 02/21/02 Thu
I posted some transcripts of Fray 3&5 in an above post....we can
answer questions after you read it.
I think Fray and Tales of the Slayer are worth the money.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Fray comic books -- Robert, 10:11:49 02/21/02
Thu
>> "the last issue of Fray is in July I think."
Don't trust any schedules for Fray. Dark Horse has had to delay
releasing the last couple of issues and it is pushing everything
out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Just read it. People, get it, very well written ! And very
interresting for the BtVS -- Etrangere, 09:58:34 02/21/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Tales of the Slayer comic book with spoilers -- Dochawk,
10:54:03 02/21/02 Thu
if you want to get the comic the best way is to go to the DarkHorse
website and get to their list of prefferred comic stores and call
them. Only the preferred stores have it, going to be months until
Amazon/Borders etc get it.
its worth reading because all of the stories were approved by
Joss and they were written by 6 of the show writers and Amber
Benson. The stories themselves could be told in 2/3 of a page
each. Three really interesting facts come from them, 1. How the
first slayer came about and the slayer otherness. 2. How Mayor
Wilkins came to Sunnydale and 3. That all slayers have deep memories
of the slayers that came before.
If you want a much more interesting read, that is also based on
Slayerlore and approved by Joss (though some of the authors obviously
don't understand the canon entirely), the short story book "Tales
of the Slayer" is worth it. The french Revolution slayer
has alot of the depth of the show concerning the evilness of humans
versus the possible goodness of vampires. There is alot of meat
for discussion in them, but it might be worthwhile to wait until
the dried up Summer for it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question for Angel viewers -- dream of the consortium, 09:31:41
02/21/02 Thu
I don't watch Angel, mostly because I figure one show obsession
at a time is enough, and the characters who left Buffy to form
Angel were my least favorites anyway. (It was like someone had
asked me whom to eject to creat my ideal Buffy. How rarely life
works out so nicely. No offense to fans of Angel, Wesley or Cordelia,
of course.) Anyway, I have some free time at work and thoguht
I might read the transcripts for those episodes of Angel that
actually shed light on the Buffy world. I know there has been
at least a few crossovers. Would someone be willing to list the
episodes of Angel most essential to the Buffy viewer? Thanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question for Angel viewers -- Cactus Watcher, 09:46:32
02/21/02 Thu
There have been fewer pivotal eps. and more pivotal moments spread
out over many eps. in Angel. You might start with these.
Season One
City of Angels - the first ep. tells you who Wolfram and Hart
is.
Hero - tells how Cordy became vision gal.
Five by Five - maybe the best Angel ep ever. Faith stars.
Season two
Thin dead line - tells why Angel is no longer exactly in command,
and why there are trust issues with him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Cross-over episodes -- Masq, 10:00:13 02/21/02 Thu
In the Dark-prechip Spike
I Will Remember You-Buffy and Angel's last truly romantic adventure
Five-by-five/Sanctuary-Faith shows up in LA, with Buffy on her
trail, comes directly after "This Years Girl" on btvs
Darla-companion piece to "Fool for Love" on btvs
There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb - Willow arrives to tell Angel
about buffy's death
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A bizarre Buffy moment -- purplegrrl, 10:33:49 02/21/02 Thu
I was channel surfing late last night (or was that very early
this morning?) and happened upon a black-and-white movie. I normally
would have gone on, but this was the same movie that Joyce and
Buffy are watching at the end of "Innocence" (season
2). And I happened to catch it at EXACTLY the same place in the
movie that is shown in the episode!! (Insert Twilight Zone music
here!)
For you trivia fans out there, the name of the movie is "Stowaway"
and was made in 1936. It stars Robert Young who plays Tommy Randall,
Alice Faye who plays Susan Parker (that's them dancing in the
scene), and Shirley Temple who plays Barbara Stewart also known
as Ching-Ching. Basically, it's a Shirley Temple movie that the
adults get to act in.
Plot summary: Chin-Ching gets lost in Shanghai and is befriended
by American playboy Tommy Randall. She falls asleep in his car
which winds up on a ship headed for America. Susan Parker, also
on the ship, marries Randall to give Chin-Ching a family.
For more info on the movie, check it out at http://us.imdb.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A bizarre Buffy moment -- Heroin Addict, 11:14:16 02/21/02
Thu
Cool!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tales of the Slayer (SPOILERS) -- Robert, 12:28:37 02/21/02 Thu
First a disclaimer! Fray is the first comic book I ever read.
Therefore, I don't know much about the art of comic books or graphic
novels. WARNING! I give major spoilers below for "Tales of
the Slayer", "Fray" and a few older episodes of
BtVS.
Tales of the Slayer is composed of eight very short stories.
"Prologue" -- Whedon
"Righteous" -- Whedon
"The Innocent" -- Benson
"Presumption" -- Espenson
"The Glittering World" -- Fury
"Sonnenblume" -- Kirshner
"Nikki Goes Down!" -- Petrie
"Tales" -- Whedon
"Prologue" is only six pages and it serves to present
some background on the first slayer. We find out why the first
slayer fights alone. The villagers don't want her around, after
the demons are gone. More interesting, however, is the idea that
some aspect of each slayer survives in all the subsequent slayers
and that the first slayer finds some consolation in this.
"Righteous" is by far my favorite story. My wife could
find only one word to describe it after she read it ... sick!
On the other hand, I have always favored the more twisted episodes
of BtVS and Angel, such as "Passions". This story take
place somewhere in Europe during the church ruled dark ages and
is told as a ballad. It shows us why the slayer must operate in
anonymity in a most horrifying and graphic way. It also shows
the strength of the relationship between watcher and slayer, and
the equally horrifying consequences thereof.
"The Innocent" shows a very different relationship between
watcher and slayer. This story take place in France, during the
French Revolution. Here, the watcher, Jean, has a much more carnal
relationship with his slayer, Claudine. Though he apparently professes
to love her, he also uses her as a tool to serve his own immoral
purposes. He calls her his "angel of death". As a result,
he soils her very soul. This is not the first story in the buffyverse
to present an immoral watcher. There was Gwendolyn in "Revelations".
However, what Jean does is much more damning. After reading this
story, Jean's relationship to Claudine feels almost incestuous.
"Presumption" is another very nice story. It presents
the special problems for the slayer, Elizabeth, during the Victorian
era, and the unexpected solution for dealing with them.
"The Glittering World" takes place in the old west,
presumably in California. The slayer is a Navajo woman called
"Naayeeneizghani" or monster slayer. Her watcher, who
apparently was a brit, was previously killed by a vampire. Even
though her slayer was a white man, she apparently had a very close
strong relationship with him. This story evokes a couple rhetorical
questions however. Was the watcher's council located only in England?
If so, who trained the slayers in the Americas and Asia, before
the age of discovery? I wonder if maybe the watcher's council
always had a worldwide presence. The artwork gives this story
a strong feeling of a tired and dusty old west, through the use
of monochromatic panels. The big surprise is the revelation of
the founding of Sunnydale (which was almost named Happydale or
Sunny Acres).
The next story "Sonnenblume" takes place in Nazi Germany,
and is the only story I did not like. I'm not claiming that it
was a poor story, but it just didn't work for me. I couldn't find
any inspiration or subtext beyond the obvious point that the Nazi's
were as evil as the demons and vampires. It wasn't clear to me,
but the author may have been attempting to present the Nazi's
as demons or vampires. The style of the artwork did not appeal
to me either. I hope someone on this board can provide me some
enlightenment regarding this story.
"Nikki Goes Down!" has the most fantastic artwork. The
story seemed only mediocre, which for me was unfortunate, because
I was looking forward to this one. Nikki is the slayer first presented
to us in "Fool For Love". Nikki was a fascinating character
and I wanted to know her more. Nikki is cohabiting with her boyfriend,
Li, who is a NY cop and doesn't know Nikki is the slayer. No mention
is made of Nikki's watcher. Li busts open a smuggling ring (of
vampires and demons), run by some guy named Le Banc. Nikki is
unable to save Li's life and so she goes on a vengeance tear.
Her loss may account for why Spike was able to best her in "Fool
For Love".
The last one is "Tales" and is set in the universe of
Fray, which is some dilapidated city (probably New York) of a
couple centuries in the future. Fray doesn't have watcher, because
watcher's council has deteriorated into insanity. She is therefore
trained by a demon. We don't know why. On the other hand, it shows
a good example of strange bedfellows!
In the most recent issue of Fray, it was revealed that Fray is
the only slayer that does not have the dreams of previous slayers,
and why. Coupling this revelation with that of "Prologue",
I guessing that Fray doesn't have the essence of the previous
slayers either. "Tales" makes a couple revelations.
First, Fray realizes that she can turn her lack of the previous
slayers to her advantage. Her fighting methods will not be influenced
by those of the the previous slayers. Therefore, the demons and
vampires won't have the advantage of previous knowledge of those
methods. Also, Fray finds a stash of watchers dairies and finds
solace in reading the stories of the previous slayers. Otherwise,
Fray is as alone as the first slayer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Tales of the Slayer (SPOILERS) -- newbie, 13:16:19 02/21/02
Thu
where can I get these?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Tales of the Slayer (SPOILERS) -- Robert, 20:43:45
02/21/02 Thu
I bought might from Barnes and Nobel, http://www.bn.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Fray (SPOILERS) -- Grump, 13:21:39 02/21/02 Thu
I wonder if Fray's reason for not having the dreams because they
went to her twin brother could be a setup for a male slayer in
some future tale? I know a lot of fans are opposed to this idea
because of the usual cliche reasons they give (men are not protectors,
etc) but I'd like to see it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Fray (SPOILERS) -- Robert, 20:46:43 02/21/02 Thu
>> "I wonder if Fray's reason for not having the dreams
because they went to her twin brother could be a setup for a male
slayer in some future tale?"
I would personally not want to see that, because I find female
super heros to be more interesting. Regardless, I don't think
Mr. Whedon is going in that direction. I believe rather that Fray's
brother is just a more potent nemesis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Fray (SPOILERS) -- Grump, 01:02:28 02/22/02
Fri
I didn't mean they would go with it in Fray, but if a male can
get half the powers then its possible a male could somehow get
them all. Embryonic cannibalization is one such scenario.
And I'm fond of male and female heroes, one hold no preference
for me, its the tale not the gender.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Oh, uhhh, ewwwwwwww.....;) -- Rufus, 01:55:18
02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Fray (SPOILERS) -- Robert, 07:06:47
02/22/02 Fri
>> " its the tale not the gender."
Not entirely!
Tales take on special meaning in the context of society and its
morals and ethics. I find it more interesting and rewarding to
view and read about the culturally weak and downtrodden, who have
risen to the occasion.
To take the biblical example, there are several stories in the
bible about women who did what was necessary, when the men would
or could not (such as Ruth). These are interesting stories to
read, more so than the stories about the Israelites smiting another
enemy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Tales of the Slayer (SPOILERS) -- Etrangere, 14:16:55
02/21/02 Thu
First of all, I exactly agree with your judgement about every
stories, Rightous was the best (Whedon sure knows how to write
in verse, but then, we knew that from OMWF), Nikki goes down had
the best drawing but disapointing writing, and Glittering World
(We'll never forget OMWF, will we ?) had the best balance of both,
plus a very interresting other way to look at the Slayer mythos
with a Navajo myth.
I loved how every tales was linked by themes, how it draw the
complicate relationship of the Slayers and the people she must
save and more often than not, turn against her, of the Slayer
and the Demons, who are what she's the most alike in nature; of
the Slayer and her Watcher, father, lover or brother.
I loved that it began with "I am alone" and ended with
"I am not alone"
How interresting that the Prologue says that it is indeed a demon
that was called upon a girl body to call the Slayer !
How interresting that it also said that, living in the body of
the following Slayers, the Slayer will never fully die. (Is it
a curse or a blessing ?)
How interresting that they summoned only one because they feared
her power. Is it why they chose a girl, then ? I always assumed
that it was so because women were more often the victims, and
the Slayer was meant as being the Defenser of the victims, she
should somewhat be one of them.
But maybe they though they would have less to fear from "only
a girl". If it is so, I think they were wrong :)
"For God is good and God is kind
And he would not curse me so"
But it isn't God who did that, was it ?
Rightous put another layer to the whole Slayer-as-a-christic-figure.
But is it me or with the lines :
"She cried out, "Father ! Help me, Lord !"
But kept her eyes on me"
they put the Watcher in a God-the-Father role ?
Add to this the demon-spirit inhabiting the girl to make her the
Slayer and there you have the whole Trinity.
"For God is good and God is kind
But he's not welcome here"
Even more than in the show, the stories were demonstrating that
evil is more a people deed than a monster deed.
I think that was what Sonnenblum was about. I was well-done, well
written and subtle enought, but it's a kind of thing that has
been done like a thousand times before :)
About the Navajo Myth, I think that Death is not the vampire that
the Slayer killed (were they sisters ? they seemed to know eachother),
but that Death has been let alive by the Monster Slayer is the
reason why the Slayer kills vampires ( and is killed by them)
And this reason is moved by compassion for those who always let
her alone, use her and sacrifice her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Tales of the Slayer (SPOILERS) -- Robert, 21:06:38
02/21/02 Thu
I hope your questions are rhetorical, because I couldn't begin
to answer them all!
>> "How interresting that they summoned only one because
they feared her power. Is it why they chose a girl, then ?"
I don't think so. I always assumed that girls were chosen because
they were closer to the nature, or some such explanation.
>> "About the Navajo Myth, I think that Death is not
the vampire that the Slayer killed (were they sisters ? they seemed
to know eachother), but that Death has been let alive by the Monster
Slayer is the reason why the Slayer kills vampires ( and is killed
by them)"
I really didn't understand what was meant here, but I assumed
that it was related to the hellmouth, given that this was the
site where Sunnydale was subsequently located.
>> "Add to this the demon-spirit inhabiting the girl
to make her the Slayer and there you have the whole Trinity."
I hadn't thought in those terms. "Righteous" was definitely
the most controversal of the stories. I was interested to know
if the priest was in league with the vampires, or if he merely
wanted to maintain his status as head honcho of the village. In
a way, the latter seems more evil. Add to that, the slayer's watcher
extracts ultimate revenge on the village for their deeds. I wonder
how this sits with the watcher's council.
What did you think of "The Innocent"? This one horrified
me, because of the shear audacity of Jean tricking Claudine into
commiting murder, and thus staining her soul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Tales of the Slayer (SPOILERS) -- Etrangere,
23:38:09 02/21/02 Thu
>>I don't think so. I always assumed that girls were chosen
because they were closer to the nature, or some such explanation.
Hummfff, I usually don't think much of what separate by nature
women from men...
>>I was interested to know if the priest was in league with
the vampires, or if he merely wanted to maintain his status as
head honcho of the village
Oh, I think they were just bothered that the girl wasn't ordinary,
and ashamaded that "just a girl" was the one to save
them.
>>I wonder how this sits with the watcher's council.
Cautionnary tale not to reveal the Slayer's identity, and not
to be too close to your Slayer, I guess.
>>What did you think of "The Innocent"? This one
horrified me, because of the shear audacity of Jean tricking Claudine
into commiting murder, and thus staining her soul.
Wasn't really surprised. When you think you know exactly what's
good and evil, and that you're allowed to kill evil, it's very
easy to slip and think you can just decide who among humans are
evil and decide to kill them.
They see Slayers as Tools.
Tools don't ask questions.
That's just a casual fanatism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Tales of the Slayer (SPOILERS) -- Apophis, 15:05:12
02/21/02 Thu
Where did you guys get the comics? I've been reading Fray since
issue #2, and I've got the book version of Tales (which has different
stories), but apparently my comic book store doesn't carry Tales.
I just thought it hadn't come out yet (I don't usually read Dark
Horse, so I haven't been paying attention).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Obtaining Tales of the Slayer -- dochawk, 15:32:39
02/21/02 Thu
Apparantly Dark Horse has only a limited run of TofS. they seem
to be sending it only to their preferred comic book stores. Go
to the darkhorse.com site and go to "buy" then click
on preferred retailers and then look in your state. Then call
those retailers. I finally found a copy in Newhall, CA. or you
can use the following link:
http://www.darkhorse.com/buy/retail/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Barnes and Nobel ... -- Robert, 21:08:48 02/21/02
Thu
for "Tales of the Slayer". Dark Horse is very late getting
the 6th issue of Fray out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Tales of the Slayer (SPOILERS) -- Darby, 16:50:28 02/21/02
Thu
Well, it's...interesting. Joss seems to be the only one who has
a real "feel" for the medium - the others are okay,
probably due to the editor, although I didn't recognize the name.
For those who haven't or won't see it, think of the vignettes
we've been shown of Angel, or Spike, or Darla - short-form films.
Tales does that with Slayers, examining some of the permutations
that the relationships - Slayer / Watcher, Slayer / Vampire, Slayer
/ Public, Slayer / Society, Slayer / Big Bad, Slayer / Lover -
can take by showing past and future incarnations.
I think that it shows - and I'm not sure that this is deliberate
- that what we know about Slayers is always filtered through the
perceptions of humans, adapted to their own mythology as it flows
through time. Nothing can be completely trusted as Truth.
The most interesting aspect, for me, is the reincarnatory nature
of the power itself, although it's couched here in riddles. The
best I could describe it is a kind of "racial memory"
( a horrible and metaphysically inconsistent term, full of bad
applications ) that persists as each Slayer picks up some essence
of all of her predecessors, at least in terms of fighting instincts.
It might explain why Buffy rebounds from her deaths energized,
or suggest that where she was wasn't quite Heaven, but it still
doesn't come close to explaining how Slayers, vamps and demons
all seem to have an innate acquaintance with Far East fighting
styles; that's better left ignored, I think. It might have been
interesting to see some similarly-influenced art styles as well,
but who can complain about the symmetry of having Gene Colan illustrate
vampires and bat-demons in 1980's New York? I've never seen much
evidence that Buffy was influenced by Tomb of Dracula, but it
was still neat to see them "meet."
Have to weigh in with everyone else on the Nazi Germany vignette
- been there, seen better, don't want the armband. Never was a
fan of art styles that don't at least hint that there's a competent
draughtsperson underneath.
Guess I'll dig into Fray next...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Tales of the Slayer (SPOILERS) -- Wayne, 21:04:07
02/21/02 Thu
Agree with you completely on Joss being the only one who has a
feel for it, Darby, in fact, I mentioned it in my "Tales
Of The Slayer/Sonnenblume" post which I meant to post in
response to Robert's understandable confusion re: Sonnenblume,
but which somehow ended up under a new heading...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
death and a few teeny random spoilers -- anneth, 12:54:17 02/21/02
Thu
after watching life serial and all the way on tuesday, i realized
that one of the reasons i've enjoyed this season so much is that,
finally, death has become tragic. maybe it started with the body,
when someone *both* the viewers and the characters knew, liked,
and cared about died unexpectedly. i would posit that joyce's
death was the 1st truly tragic death in the entire series; no
death before affected me as much, and possibly only jenny calanders
death affected the characters much. (i dislike lie to me b/c b
is only sad about her friend's death for the last few minutes
of the ep; jenny is at least mentioned posthumously.)
anyway, i think death became less a plot device and more - well,
human in season 5, w/ joyce, dawn's "fate", and b's
gift. This season, our two human deaths have been truly painful
- katrina and the old man in all the way. i think i was more taken
aback by his death than i have been by almost anything else this
season, "spuffy" (kudos to whoever came up w/ that!
made me giggkle.) aside. true, the old man was a big fat red herring,
but the fact of his innocence was driven home at the moment he
was bitten, and that tragedy nearly brought tears to my eyes.
(the rice krispies treats with pumpkin candies on them really
did make my throat close.) katrina's death has been very thuroughly
discussed by now, but it too was shocking, affecting, and truly
tragic.
another, tangential thought that life serial and all the way inspired
in me emotionally - spike has become a tragic character, too.
i think that up til the end of season 5, he was in love w/ b,
but still hated her. (harkening back to their interaction in something
blue, actually, only creepier and not mutual.) but i think that
he now loves her, and is also *in* love wth her (a hairy distinction.).
in life serial, especially, it is clear that he truly, deeply
cares for her, totally beyond his own needs and desires. she responds
to it, by seeking him out and even complimenting him at the end
of all the way, paving the way for their first kiss... but then
he discovers that he can hit her, and starts pushing the envelope.
i suspect that, in the end, their rel'n is doomed b/c he forced
her hand. there's just a glimpse, in the ep's leading up to smashed,
af what could be - something rweally quite sweet - but he destroys
that promise himself. can we blame him, really? i don't think
i can; she was in denial about her burgoning feelings for him,
and it's tough to remember to be delicate w/ someone when she's
as strong as b is...
just some thoughts. it's easier now to type one-handed, but i
miss capital letters...:) please excuse typos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: death and a few teeny random spoilers -- Robert, 13:03:09
02/21/02 Thu
>> "... i realized that one of the reasons i've enjoyed
this season so much ..."
I also have thoroughly enjoyed this season. I've felt almost embarassed
to admit it though, given the vociferous outcry against season
6. I will go farther and claim this season 6 is shaping up to
be my favorite season. I have not disliked even one episode. This
was not true of any previous season. I hope to find more people
who think this season is worthy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: death and a few teeny random spoilers -- Caroline, 19:44:03
02/21/02 Thu
In total agreement about season 6 being very enjoyable, probably
the most fun I've had with Buffy since the glory and wonder of
discovery in the first season. I feel that there are several strengths
this season - moving towards a season (or longer) arc and less
monster of the week and the increasing 'humanity' as well. It
hadn't occurred to me that part of this increasing humanity has
been that the deaths are more tragic - it's a really good point.
Going along with this is that the villians are human - big quandary
for the slayer. I like what this represents to Buffy in terms
of the challenge to her slayer powers and strategy as well as
how this affects her worldview and personal growth in dealing
with human rather than demon villians. Still dealing with metaphor
but the monsters are kinda different. Lovely meaty stuff here.
I only have one reservation about this season: the season is suffering
from Willow's addiction storyline (way too many anvils being dropped
on us, ME!). But all the other goodness is definitely of a much
larger magnitude and with a show as good as Buffy, I'm willing
to give the writers the benefit of the doubt and see what they
make of this. I've been reading the stuff everyone has been saying
about not enjoying season 6 and I don't get it - the criticisms
that many people I have are precisely why I'm enjoying it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> 'Shades of the Prison House' - Season Six and Weight
of the World -- Rahael, 04:19:52 02/22/02 Fri
I've been viewing Season 6 in a very disjointed way - usually
I sit down and watch my box sets in one go. But I got the first
stretch - Bargaining to Tabula Rasa on disc from a friend and
that was very very good. The themes are certainly resonating with
me.
One thought about Willow's addiction and her very physical and
obvious signs of withdrawal. Willow started abusing magic in the
first place because she wanted to skip pain, skip the processing
of painful emotions. She didn't want to feel the pain of Oz leaving,
the pain of fighting with Tara. So to really deal with this problem,
she must be seen as having feel both emotional and physical pain;
it will have to be drawn out and painful - it's as if she's feeling
all the pain she tried to hide away from.
I thought some of the most significant but overlooked lines in
'Weight of the World were the words that Glory spoke to Dawn.
"GLORY: Funny. 'Cause I look around at this world you're
so eager to be a part of ... and all I see is six billion lunatics
looking for the fastest ride out. (smiles) Who's not crazy? Look
around. Everyone's drinking, smoking, shooting up ... shooting
each other, or just plain screwing their brains out 'cause they
don't want 'em anymore. (looks at Dawn) *I'm* crazy? Honey, I'm
the original one-eyed chicklet in the kingdom of the blind. (sighs)
'Cause at least I admit the world makes me nuts. "
The world is a place full of pain - human beings with lives to
live spend their time looking for a way out, drugging away the
pain, or trying to die, anything but to really live life. They
view their lives as a prison, just as Glory was imprisoned within
Ben. These words had a compelling, cynical truth about them.
And in Season 6, we see the full ramifications of Glory's words.
Willow tried hiding from the pain through magic . Buffy is sleepwalking,
deadning her pain by deadning her her heart and her mind and her
emotions. She's also 'screwing her brain out'. The whole season
is a kind of childhood to adulthood arc - snatched from heaven,
and being forced to live life. Or as Wordsworth's poem 'Intimations
of Immortality' put it,
"Whither is fled the visionary dream?
Where is it now, the glory, and the dream?
Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting
The soul that rises with us, our life's star
Hath had elsewhere its setting
And cometh from afar
Not in entire forgetfulness
And not in utter nakedness
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
And as we grow up, 'Shade s of the prison-house begin to close/Upon
the growing Boy'
So not only are they trapped within themselves in 'OAFA', they
are trapped in life.
Buffy dying may have saved Dawn, but it didn't answer Glory's
point about the pain of human life. This is something they have
to do in Season six, and find a way of reaching the 'philosophic
mind' that Wordsworth talks about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Let's talk Willow -- Rufus, 05:24:57 02/22/02
Fri
Willow has been running full tilt away from what she was for six
years now. Her geek status is something she is just as eager to
sweep under the carpet as Buffy is her "relationship"
with Spike. The problem is that everyone still see's good old
dependable Willow.....who insisted to Buffy that she wasn't the
sidekick.
I have a feeling about the addiction metaphor and the story with
it...it ain't over and I feel will get more painful than Wrecked
hinted at. I can only remember Restless and Willows dream...
GILES
All right, everyone, pay attention.
In just a few moments that curtain
will open on our very first
production. Everyone Willow has ever
met is in that audience, including
all of us. That means we have to be
perfect. Stay in character, remember
your lines, and energy energy energy.
Especially during the musical numbers.
Remember that we all commented on Willow's silence in the Musical...she
didn't do anything much past delivering the usual dependable lines
she always does.
GILES
Remember, acting isn't about
behaving. It's about hiding. The
audience wants to find you, they want
to strip you naked and eat you alive.
What could the gang possibly find out about Willow that she feels
she needs to hide?
GILES
Yes. It's all about subterfuge.
(to Harmony)
That's very annoying.
(to the company)
So get out there, lie like dogs and
have a wonderful time. If we can
stay focussed, keep our heads and if
Willow can stop stepping on
everybody's cues I know this will be
the best production of Death of a
Salesman we've ever done.
Lie like dogs....stepping on cues..I remember Willow kinda threatening
to step on Giles in Flooded...
WILLOW: What? Giles...
GILES: (turns to face her) Do you have any idea what you've done?
The forces you've harnessed, the lines you've crossed?
WILLOW: I thought you'd be ... impressed, or, or something.
GILES: Oh, don't worry, you've ... made a very deep impression.
Of everyone here ... you were the one I trusted most to respect
the forces of nature.
WILLOW: Are you saying you don't trust me?.....
WILLOW: No! (stands) Giles, I did what I had to do. I did what
nobody else could do.
GILES: Oh, there are others in this world who can do what you
did. You just don't want to meet them. (turns away again)
WILLOW: No, probably not, but ... well, they're the bad guys.
I'm not a bad guy. (upset) I brought Buffy back into this world,
a-and maybe the word you should be looking for is "congratulations."
One thing I remember about the bad guys I've met in the world
is that they never saw themselves as bad guys. Willow has crossed
some lines, dealt with forces that don't give freebies.
GILES: (angry) You were lucky.
WILLOW: I wasn't lucky. I was amazing. And how would you know?
You weren't even there.
GILES: If I had been, I'd have bloody well stopped you. The magicks
you channeled are more ferocious and primal than anything you
can hope to understand, (even more angry) and you are lucky to
be alive, you rank, arrogant amateur!
Giles angrily grabs his towel and turns to leave.
WILLOW: You're right.
He pauses by the door, looks back at her.
WILLOW: The magicks I used are very powerful. I'm very powerful.
And maybe it's not such a good idea for you to piss me off.
That little conversation bugged me because Willow seems to keep
having to remind herself which side she is on. The power she uses
makes things easier. Things go faster and are "perfect".
Except that people have begun to notice. But let's go back to
Restless..
BUFFY
Play's long over. What are you still
doing in costume?
WILLOW
Okay, still having to explain wherein
this is just my outfit.
BUFFY
Willow, everybody already knows.
Take it off.
WILLOW
No... No, I need it...
BUFFY
Oh, for God's sake just take it OFF.
And so saying, she grabs at an out-of-frame Willow, shoving her
to the front of the class and ripping the outfit from her. Buffy
stands, Will's outfit in hand, looking the girl over.
BUFFY
That's better.
REVERSE ON: WILLOW
As we saw her once, a long time ago. Long, slightly duller red
hair. Plain grey frock that embodies the softer side of you know
what. (Uh, Sears, just in case you don't.) A hapless, almost sick
expression of embarrassment. She stands by the teacher's desk,
looking at herself.
Welcome to Willows nightmare....not losing Tara, or her friends.....but
finding herself back in that classroom, with a group of people
looking at her and only seeing a geek. I'm not saying Willow will
be the Big Bad as much as I feel that the addiction metaphor has
been a bit misleading in that it isn't a high she gets from magic,
but that escape from herself, an identity where she is in control
for the first time in her life. What is she willing to do to keep
that? Lie to her friends? Or is there a bill past due that Willow
doesn't realize needs paying up? I could be wrong and Willow will
get her 6 mos pin from Spell Casters anon., but somehow I don't
think so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Let's talk Willow -- Rattletrap, 06:30:15
02/22/02 Fri
As usual, very good analysis Rufus. I think you are correct, Willow's
problems are probably going to get worse before they get better.
She's only really faced one difficult (i.e. life and death) test
at this point, I can't envision us getting through February without
another one, let alone the rest of the season.
Along with most of the other posters on this thread, I've thoroughly
enjoyed this season. It has, for me, captured some of the frustrations
of young adulthood--realizing that you've spent all of your life
trying to grow up, then waking up one morning and realizing you
are grown up and not sure what to do next. That, and the feeling
of going through life hoping no one realizes what a fraud you
are (w/o realizing that everyone else thinks the same thing).
IMO, the really fragmented, disjointed quality of the writing
and the season story arcs is a beautiful metaphor for growing
up.
*just my $.02*
'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Let's talk Willow -- Rufus,
07:21:42 02/22/02 Fri
I agree about the disjointed quality of this year. If you go back
over the episodes they do kinda flow into each other quite well.
The most glaring thing about this season is the Willow addiction
metaphor, I just don't buy it as a drug/high sort of thing. I
know in The Dark Age, Giles did describe the high that went along
with the spells they did, but I felt what he was up to back then
was deliberately looking for a high. Willow is looking for a way
out of who she was, not a high in the stoned sense, Willow is
all about control and order, not a sloppy stoner content to coast.
And what bugged me most about the Musical in regards to Willow,
was that she was the only one that didn't sing their guts out,
the only one that didn't seem to have a secret...and we know what
she did to Tara with the forgetting spell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> hmm... -- celticross, 09:31:24 02/22/02
Fri
"Along with most of the other posters on this thread, I've
thoroughly enjoyed this season. It has, for
me, captured some of the frustrations of young adulthood--realizing
that you've spent all of your
life trying to grow up, then waking up one morning and realizing
you are grown up and not sure what
to do next. That, and the feeling of going through life hoping
no one realizes what a fraud you are
(w/o realizing that everyone else thinks the same thing). IMO,
the really fragmented, disjointed
quality of the writing and the season story arcs is a beautiful
metaphor for growing up."
Maybe that's my difficulty with this season, then, 'trap. I'm
22, and the growing up I'm facing doesn't look much like any of
the Scoobies'. I definitely feel the uncertainity of the future;
I still have no idea where or even if I'm going to graduate school,
which is my main worry at the moment. But I'm also doing my best
not to flounder through and to have a back-up plan. My own attempts
to keep my life together at this stage make it painful to watch
Buffy and the Scoobies thrash about with no idea what they're
doing. I'm simply not very impressed with the lack of maturity
coming from people who have shouldered far heavier burdens (like
saving the world) than I ever have.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: hmm... -- Terrapin, 10:39:12
02/22/02 Fri
Maybe Tara is the type of character that resembles you. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Let's talk Willow and furniture sales
(s6 spoilers) -- Darby, 07:20:37 02/22/02 Fri
My problem is, for as much as there has been talk of magic and
its balancing consequences, except for the Afterlife "hitchhiking
spirit" - which was defeated with more magic - there has
been no realization of all the warnings. It's like the furniture
dealers who tell you no payments until 2010 or something. I want
to believe that we're being led somewhere important, but it's
taking way too long to be reasonable within the "rules."
And, if Giles calls Willow a "rank amateur," does that
mean that there's such a thing as a professional? Isn't that what
Ethan is, and is that better? Ethan doesn't show any outward signs
of the wages of magic that we've been shown - he and Giles can
still heft pints and get along all right, with the implication
that Giles has been changed more than Ethan has. Are ME telling
us one thing and showing another?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Let's talk Willow and furniture
sales (s6 spoilers) -- DEN, 09:20:06 02/22/02 Fri
I've been arguing all year that Willow's issues involve identity
and self-image, not power. Her use of power, time and again, as
Rufus says, is not to aggrandize herself, but to stabilize situations,
to avoid pain, avoid stress, because geekWillow can't deal with
them. The "softer side of Sears" image from "Restless"
is who Willow really "knows" she is. In the s6 Halloween
ep, when she and Tara look for Dawn in the Bronze, she has some
excellent throwaway lines about her high school geekness.Her "addiction
apathy" of the last few eps, the water-drinking, the shakes,
and so on, is perfectly congruent with the effects of facing an
inner demon more fearsome even than losing Tara. No wonder she
drops her head on the table in "Older and Far Away--she's
exhausted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> There is a thoughtful discussion of Willow
and the addiction metaphor -- Sophist, 09:26:25 02/22/02 Fri
here:
http://fractalcore.com/nocgi/Forum74/HTML/004638.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I quite liked that -- Rufus, 10:05:26
02/22/02 Fri
That was good...so here's the direct link
BBOvenGuy on The Kitten Board
I do believe that the worst thing that may come out of this for
Willow are the after effects of the reckless use of her magic.
Just as Giles found out in The Dark Age, that power that you once
thought you could control, has a way of surprising you and becoming
the unexpected boss. Giles lost a friend when they first tried
to rid themselves of their demon. That demon followed them over
the years and miles to exact revenge, they all paid a price for
trying to get something for nothing. Willow has been warned that
she has crossed lines, broken rules of nature. If something happens
it will be the result of overconfidence, the feeling that she
is the powerful one, instead of someone just borrowing trouble.
I wonder if Willow will have to lose something in payment for
her conceit?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 'Shades of the Prison House' - Season Six
and Weight of the World -- Caroline, 11:25:06 02/22/02 Fri
Rahael, now that I'm rewatching season 4 of fx, I'm really seeing
the build up of the problem that Willow is having with magic.
She even reassures Buffy and Oz that she'll know when she's getting
in too deep. But the way the whole things was portrayed in Wrecked
was IMHO poorly done. To me, Willow's problem is power, control
and avoiding self-knowledge and the process whereby one experiences
things and grows from them. Yes, it is an addiction but in my
opinion, making it a straight drug addiciton took all the power
out of the storyline.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
let's get down to business! did anyone else think...(appearance
spoilers for "couplet") -- anom, 13:57:26 02/21/02 Thu
...Gru looked a lot better w/his hair long? or at least not that
short! & not sticking straight up so he looks bloody stupid!
And why would Cordelia give him Angel's look, hmmm...?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: let's get down to business! did anyone else think...(appearance
spoilers for "couplet") -- zilla, 14:00:14 02/21/02
Thu
I personnaly think he looked much better with it long. I just
like guys with long hair, muscular bodies...grrrr...yum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: let's get down to business! did anyone else think...(appearance
spoilers for "couplet") -- JM, 14:19:36 02/21/02 Thu
Finally some Angel talk. Liked shorter better. Think there were
only two guys in the entire eighties I was attracted to with long
hair. Plus he looked even more adorably clueless for some reason.
Read some good posts on the Angel look-a-like issue. Some think
it's a subconcious gesture on Cordy's part. My favorite theory
though is that she's always liked Angel's taste in clothing, when
it doesn't tend too gay, and Cordy's probably been the one giving
Angel his haircuts. She only knows how to do one style.
Wes's reaction was priceless. Something along the lines of "He's
a completely different person . . . who looks exactly like you."
He's the king of understated shock. Had some of the funnies lines
too. "Okay, if that's the way you want to play it."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: let's get down to business! did anyone else think...(appearance
spoilers for "couplet") -- purplegrrl, 14:22:09 02/21/02
Thu
Considering the Angel/Cordelia vibe that has been happening of
late, could Cordelia have subconsciously made Gru look like Angel
because she has feelings for Angel -- deeper than she is willing
to admit, even to herself??
(Or is Cordy just inept with the barbar scissors, leaving poor
Gru with the vertical 'do?? And Angel's clothes were the only
ones available that would fit Gru?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> that's it! -- anom, 21:26:44 02/21/02 Thu
"Or is Cordy just inept with the barbar scissors, leaving
poor Gru with the vertical 'do??"
It was the classic "Whoops, it's longer on the left, let
me just trim that a little more...wait, now it's longer on the
right, gotta fix that...," until--well, you saw the result.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Is there such a thing as a *Freudian Makeover*???;)
-- Rufus, 04:55:05 02/22/02 Fri
I just loved one scene in the show where you hear a voice then
you see Angel looking at Groo showing the fans how a demon is
dispatched by a champion....one that looks just like Angel...
You think you know someone...You think your place is secure, and
that there's a future there.
And then something happens..No! Strike that...someone happens
They insinuate themselves...pushing you out..taking your place
Of course that was the client Miss Frakes who has been engaged
for 8 years! But Angel is UNIQUE! Except that Groo can do what
he does and a few things more, says Angel. Wesley's kind words
about the unique nature, like a rare volume nature...that is Angel...then
the bookstore clerk brings out three copies of the volume they
are seeking. Back to the hotel it just doesn't get any better
when Wes insists that Angel is the reason for the existance of
the mission, unreplaceable, Groo is just that guy that ......"looks
just like you".
I liked this ep. If there is ever a ship between Angel and Cordy
it won't be a fast moving one. Angel the Champion was begining
to feel just a little insecure in his top dog status at Angel
Investigations. But if you look at it rationally, people kinda
strive to look similar, same hair, clothes..ect.....it's who we
are that makes the difference. Angel finally found out that he
is unique...Groo may be a champion, but there is room for more
than one just like there is more than enough room for the bad
guys.
Even Cordy's makeover of Groo screams Zerox copy of what she really
wants. But there is this little thing of that other cheerleader
Angel once knew, and that pesky curse. But just before this all
got fun then Wesley had to throw an anchor into the island of
pain.
THE FATHER SHALL KILL THE SON
Oh, well, Angel can think about Cordy later....it was a nice gesture
to give her the cash for a little getaway for two. I think Cordy
will need the rest...not saying that Groo is boring...yawn....he
is nice...Zzzzzzzzzzzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Freudian clip? ;o) -- CW, 06:15:53 02/22/02
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Trap.......good one.....LOL -- Rufus,
06:53:36 02/22/02 Fri
Sitting here giggling over that one....:):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Sorry CW was thinking of RT and
missed complimenting you...:):) -- Rufus, 06:55:53 02/22/02 Fri
Still giggling....must be the tears in my eyes that made me make
that mistake....:):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> No problem. Being confused
with 'trap is a compliment! -- CW, 08:13:54 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Is there such a thing as a *Freudian Makeover*???;)
-- Rattletrap, 06:34:26 02/22/02 Fri
"Even Cordy's makeover of Groo screams Zerox copy of what
she really wants. But there is this little thing of that other
cheerleader Angel once knew, and that pesky curse. But just before
this all got fun then Wesley had to throw an anchor into the island
of pain."
It occurs to me that Cordy's prophylactic potion may be a setup
for something later. Could the same potion, or something similar,
be used to keep Angel from losing his soul? I'm not sure I really
like that direction in the writing, but I'm also not quite ready
to rule it out.
Thoughts?
'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Is there such a thing as a *Freudian
Makeover*???;) -- fresne, 07:35:10 02/22/02 Fri
Yeah, I'm thinking definite setup, which taken in context with
the statements made by the PtB (i.e. the show's producers) makes
sense. So those who fear spoilers, no worries, these were vague
get over B/A comments.
Makes annoying please buy some chemistry sense, but sense.
Actually, the funny thing is, I know that Gru is just here for
a short term visit. That he isn't the ship that I should want,
but okay, I like Gru and Cordelia. It's an odd way to prep me
for a Angel/Cordelia romance. Have her in a relationship with
a genuinely sweet cutie. (Because I may fictoamorously go for
the Spike characters, but I also go Data ones.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tales of The Slayer/"Sonnenblume" comments -- Wayne,
16:07:50 02/21/02 Thu
I was looking forward to "Tales" because I figured all
the stories could be considered "canon" since the writers
were all show staffers. Have to say I was disappointed, and thought
that it really showed that except for Joss, none of the show writers
are very comfortable or familiar with the comic book format.
Joss's bookends are great, giving symmetry and cohesion to the
whole volume and maybe even to the 'verse as a whole. The poetic
approach to "Righteous" is to comics what the musical
was the TV series.
As for "Sonnenblume"...it's an attempt to copy the style
of the critically acclaimed comic series "Maus". "Maus"
was a Holocaust biography told in comic book format which represented
all the characters as cartoon mice instead of human beings and
had a similarly crude artistic style, the contrast between the
child-like format and the horrifically adult story heightening
the impact of what it was about. "Sonnenblume" does
the same, but uses the Slayer theme instead of mice, a really
miscalculated substitution, since the Slayer doesn't contrast
with the dark subject matter of the Holocaust the way that cartoon
mice do, so the crude drawings just look inexplicably crappy intead
of ironic. What's more, while "Maus" was a true, rich
biography, "Sonnenblume" is crude and obvious fiction,
an attempt to use the Holocaust for the inherent reaction it invokes
in an audience in lieu of good writing--A flawed and pretentious
"high concept" story without the sincerity and vision
to do justice to subject it attempts to exploit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Tales of The Slayer/"Sonnenblume" comments
-- Rob, 19:38:13 02/21/02 Thu
I honestly couldn't disagree with you more...on all of your points.
While I do agree that Joss' framing stories added a great deal
to the stories, I think these stories showed a lot of careful
planning and thematic cohesion. I actually posted about this a
few weeks back, so I don't want to go into detail about it again.
But I did an analysis of all of the stories, exploring the theme
of the outsider vs. society. All of these stories have a great
deal in common. Each one questions whether the true evil and threat
to society is the outsider (symbolized, ironically, by both the
vampire and the Slayer) or society itself. And each of these stories
reveals that the true problem lies in the very entity which the
Slayer has been created to save. The First Slayer is asked not
to return to the local settlement, because they fear her powers
come from demon origin. The Medieval Slayer slays a vampire, and
is then burned by the society she saved, because they fear she
is a witch. One Slayer is forced to dress as a man, because a
woman in that society is not allowed to carry on the way the Slayer
must. The French Revolution-era Slayer is tricked by her revolutionary
Watcher into killing aristocrats. And so on and so forth. These
stories really helped clarify the gravity and seriousness of Buffy's
destiny. The Slayer must struggle to save a society, which, until
Buffy's era, would never accept her.
I thought the art direction was wonderful. Each piece was painted
in the style of the era it was meant to emulate, and I thought
it was brilliant, and of a much higher quality than your average
comic book.
I also completely accept these stories as "canon." They
perfectly fit into the continuity of the show, and, further, help
clarify key points in the series. Mayor Wilkins even makes an
appearance!
As far as "Sonneblume," I thought that was, as well,
a brilliant story. I didn't see its style as copying "Maus"
as much as the German woodcarvings of fairy tales you can find
in old Grimms Brothers books. Further, I didn't see "Maus"
as trying to look like a children's book. The drawings in "Maus"
were very rough-edged, charcoaly, and dark. You could not confuse
that with a children's book, whereas, some of "Sonneblume,"
you can. Also, regarding the use of the subject matter, I thought
it was ingenious. The Slayer is meant to fight evil. No greater
evil appeared in the Twentieth Century (or many others) than the
Nazi party. It was very significant that many of the other Slayers
died at the hands of their society, or were resigned to it. The
German Slayer actively chose to fight the evil that beset her
people...an evil far worse than the vampires and other supernatural
demons she thought she would be fighting. Humans can sometimes
be far worse than any created monster. Take "Dead Things"
for example. With all of the horror that has occurred on "Buffy,"
that scene of a human (Warren) killing his human ex-girlfriend
(Katrina) by non-supernatural means was perhaps the most disturbing
scene ever depicted on the show. The point of this story was not
that the Nazis were supernatural demons. They were human demons,
which were far worse. This story used a Slayer to show a situation
that happened among many Germans. They began by following the
words of Hitler, but then realized how crazy he was. This girl
starts off by following her government in hating Jews, but then
reached her own conclusions.
I don't think that the Holocaust was "use[d]...for the inherent
reason it invokes in an audience"...I think that it addressed
a very important issue--when the humans in your world are evil,
is it more important to fight the supernatural demons or the humans
themselves? Also, what better way to explore evil than the Holocaust?
Personally, the Holocaust wasn't used "in lieu of good writing."
In fact, I think it was great, and very bold writing to deal with
such weighty subject matter in a popular comic book. The more
the Holocaust is invoked, the less likely something so awful can
happen again.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Tales of The Slayer/"Sonnenblume" comments
-- Andy, 20:30:48 02/21/02 Thu
I totally agree. I thought the book was very well put together.
Regarding the point that the other writers weren't very familiar
with the comics medium, I was actually pleasantly surprised by
how well everyone did. I remember reading Doug Petrie's Ring of
Fire graphic novel (which he did with Ryan Sook) and thinking
that it suffered a little bit from pacing problems that probably
arose because of Petrie's unfamiliarity with writing comics. I
was expecting something similar to happen with many of the writers
here but I think they all did an excellent job. Very crisp storytelling
all around.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Tales of The Slayer/"Sonnenblume" comments
-- Robert, 21:22:16 02/21/02 Thu
Rob, I very much appreciate your comments. Sonnenblume bothered
me, because I couldn't see anything beyond the obvious. It is
frustrating that I can read and understand a quantum mechanics
text, but I couldn't figure out what Kirshner was trying to portray
in this story. This is why I read this board! The artwork still
does nothing for me hoever.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffy, Angel, and more thinkin' 'bout emoticons (spoilers thru
this season) -- mundusmundi, 16:11:46 02/21/02 Thu
Not long ago, in a thread not too far away, I expressed a distaste
(oh, hell, let's just call it what it is: a loathing) for emoticons
and their effect, not only on the World Wide Web, but our entire
culture. The thread came and went, as all threads do; but for
some reason the subject continues to rattle around in my brainpan.
For anyone interested (as I squint to see a show of hands), here
are a few ruminations extending from that thread, including an
evaluation of the role of language on both Buffy and Angel this
season, as well as a musing or two on the nature of communication
itself.
It goes without saying that the internet, more than any other
medium, is rife with the potential for misunderstanding. I'd wager
that when we began dabbling online, most of us sooner or later
experienced the unpleasant surprise of others reacting to our
ideas in a manner completely contrary to which they were expressed.
This is how emoticons evolved. As someone who loves words -- however
constant the struggle to find the right ones -- I recoil at the
thought of the subtleties of a language elevated by the likes
of Shakespeare, Joyce and Twain devolving into a crude system
of pictographs. This is not meant to slight the rich linguistic
traditions of other cultures. Like many languages, English has
regularly employed logograms ($, %, @, and, my personal favorite,
*). So far, though, we have been spared any gaudy oversymbolizing
in our greatest works of literature. Consider how Dickens may
have written in our era:
It was the best of times, :) it was the worst of times. :(
Or Melville:
Call me Ishmael. ;p
Another tricky thing about emoticons is that they can be used
in the disingenuous manner of feigning sympathy or smiling through
gritted teeth. Nevertheless, it's equally worth pointing out that
sometimes emoticons are utilized in very clever and entertaining
ways (a quintet of smileys, a cyclops). Reluctantly, I admit that
my aversion for them has been outweighed by my fear of being misunderstood.
Yet this doesn't change the fact that many of my favorite posters
here have "voices" that register so strongly that emoticonizing
them would be superfluous. They are a helpful tool, but not everybody
need use them.
In Tower of Babel, a fascinating study on how linguistic evolution
can help us understand the biological kind, Robert Pennock demonstrates
that languages are particularly malleable to pressures in the
environments where they are employed. I would submit then, due
largely to the pervasive influence of the internet, that we are
living in an Emoticon Culture, not only in cyberspace but in our
own daily lives. It could be argued that our world has become
so tone-deaf to nuance that it seems that human beings don't know
how to communicate anymore. (For nearly four decades, my mother
and father have had the same laughable argument, one that begins
when the former considers different solutions to a particular
problem out loud, and the latter assumes that a person wouldn't
deign to express any idea that wouldn't ultimately be put into
action. Perhaps if she wore a "winky" emoticon mask,
like a stage actor in antiquity, her intent might become clear.)
On the other hand, a less cynical explanation might consider that
perhaps we are in a transitional period where our language - wherever
we may speak it, whatever it may be - is undergoing fundamental
changes to which we will have to learn to adjust.
Because Joss Whedon obviously also loves words, it bears looking
at how Buffy and Angel are presently employing language, to varying
degrees of success. For anyone understandably weary of the trollery
of late, let me preface that the following overview is untouched
by personal rancor. Indeed, the highest compliment I can think
to pay to a TV series is the one I will now pay to Buffy: never
has there been a show that has had a more profound impact on the
way we speak.
By that I don't mean the kind of witty catchphrase fads that come
and go (though the dialogue has always been eminently quotable);
I'm talking about the very art of communication itself. For at
least their first five seasons, Whedon and his writing staff labored
to give their characters (to use a term expressed recently) "distinctive
voices," creating a world in which words were used as weapons
as well as a way of connecting with others. Yet Whedon has also
shown that he understands the virtues of silence. Long before
"Hush," he had an uncanny knack for knowing when to
keep things quiet. "Giles, shut up," Willow advises
in "Innocence," and indirectly she's telling all of
us to do the same. The anguish on Buffy's face speaks volumes
enough.
Lately, however, the show seems to have problems beyond what Joseph
Campbell would call being "stuck with (its) metaphor"
(I'll save this gripe for season's end). Namely, there has been
too much emoticonizing that aims not only to oversimplify the
characters' feelings but to encourage the viewers to hold up a
mere smile or frown in return. A season that continued a tradition
of solid visual storytelling - Dawn lying beside the Buffybot
in "Bargaining," Buffy walking past the angel statue
in "Afterlife" - has since produced overly verbose episodes
like "Wrecked" (though Willow's "trips" were
an attempt at some imagery) and "Older and Far Away."
Granted, in the latter example, the claustrophobic setting was
tricky to navigate without some reliance on exposition. But there
were still too many lazy, let's-spell-everything-out explanatory
scenes. (Willow and Tara, Tara and Buffy, Buffy and Dawn, Dawn
and Dawn - there's always lotsa splainin' going on!) Rochefort
made a crucial distinction recently that it's not the story this
year that's alienating some fans, but the way it's being told.
Not only are the characters losing their distinctive voices, but
it's not just Anya anymore who doesn't seem to know when to shut
up.
In contrast, Angel is on a major roll, with David Greenwalt & Co.
appearing to have finally mastered the right balance between showing
and telling. Language even began as an in-joke this year, with
the issue of not being able to say Buffy's name. And the arrival
of a compelling and sympathetic new antagonist, Holtz, who chooses
his words the way Angel selects broadswords, has continued a trend
towards less-is-more image-making. (Cordelia still talks up a
storm, of course, but her voice remains wholly hers.) Particularly
in "Lullaby," Holtz's anguish, malice and self-loathing
were all conveyed simultaneously, in a way that would have defied
any emoticon. And in his lovely "Waiting in the Wings,"
Joss Whedon finds a delicate balance between verbosity (Angel
and Cordy's possessed love scenes) and festering silence (Wesley
and Gunn both reaching for Fred's hand). Even in the ballerina's
long climactic monologue, there is less emphasis on her words
than on the ethereal atmosphere surrounding her. This makes her
closing line - "I don't dance, I echo" - all the more
shattering.
Though not in Whedon's league, AtS cowriter/director Tim Minear
takes full advantage of the show's hotel atmosphere in "Couplet,"
and to startling effect. While a fairly talky episode (though
I doubt a word is wasted), it is the visual isolation of Angel
and Wesley from the group that lingers in memory. Early on, we're
treated to an interesting P.O.V. shot of Wesley stepping back
so that Fred is all he sees, with Gunn eclipsed from view. Near
the end, an overhead angle shows Wesley and Angel estranged, not
only from the rest, but each other. Fittingly, the final scene
ends with words displayed on a character's notepad, yet another
instance of information being transmitted through something besides
oral discourse (not to mention that it's the kind of climactic
zinger BtVS used to send us reeling with weekly).
There is an intricacy and an immediacy to AtS this season that
transcends words and symbols. Not that these don't have their
place. (If they didn't, what would be the point of this board?)
Perhaps it's just that the more that's spelled out, the more glaring
the signs, the less intriguing the overall mystery becomes for
me. It's the difference, ultimately, between storyshowing and
storytelling - between the increasingly rare pleasure of not knowing
how to feel about something, and being stuck with our emoticon.
--mm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy, Angel, and more thinkin' 'bout emoticons (spoilers
thru this season) -- Masq, 16:58:46 02/21/02 Thu
While I'm not quite as anxious about the possibility of emoticons
taking over in real life, I do see the subtleties of use language/non-use
of language on BtVS and AtS you point out. Thanks for that!
I, personally, am enjoying Angel more this season than Buffy,
but then, that's been true now for three years.
: ) <----warm smile emoticon (I can't help it!!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> When Cult Icons Emote... -- Aquitaine, 17:00:49 02/21/02
Thu
An eloquent essay, transitional period notwithstanding.
I am wondering whether or not the characters themselves on BtVS
have not become emoting 'icons' of their former selves. Necessarily,
then, they are 'trapped' into telling their story since the image
they are displaying is a static one.
- Aquitaine*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: When Cult Icons Emote... -- Liq, 17:51:22 02/21/02
Thu
[I am wondering whether or not the characters themselves on BtVS
have not become emoting 'icons' of their former selves. Necessarily,
then, they are 'trapped' into telling their story since the image
they are displaying is a static one.]
Good to see you Aq ---
I have to agree with you. It would appear that most of the characters
have lately become described by facial expressions and physical
appearance vs. the words and the stories. Some of it is was truly
fine acting, until it became stale. Static indeed.
Buffy's eye rolling and the "O" face; and emotions directly
corresponding to hair style and clothing choices.
Willow's dumb-talk or her black-eyes-of-doom threats (complete
with frowny eyebrows).
Anya's big eyes and rapid head-bobbing. (Yea for assertive Anya
in OaFA)
Spike's head tilt and all of the other expressions he is famous
for.
Dawn's subtle headshake, usually followed by flouncing, stomping,
shrieking or (d) all of the above.
Giles and the glasses cleaning, although this one is not a fair
example since it's been around from the beginning.
Xander's habit of getting more goofy in times of stress to be
eventually followed by Responsible/Level-headed Xander in the
nick of time.
Tara - the stuttering returns.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: When Cult Icons Emote... -- Aquitaine, 19:49:02
02/21/02 Thu
Wow! You've really hit the nail on the head with those 'freeze
frames' of our friendly neighbourhood Sunnydale icons.
Hmm. Wondering here... it's not as if they are parodying themselves
either.
[scratching head and TTM because of strong residual faith in ME's
ability to salvage these icons of Glory somehow]
- Aq
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Good observations, esp. about Dawn. -- mm, 04:52:23
02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I don't mean to trivialize the issue... -- Cactus Watcher,
17:11:29 02/21/02 Thu
but, over the first two seasons of Angel, it was rare that an
above average episode of Angel occured on the same week as an
above average episode of Buffy. This trend seems to have carried
over, even after Buffy switched networks. The fact that we've
seen an ep. of Angel written by Whedon recently, makes the balance
of quality between Buffy and Angel tilt strongly toward the vampire.
I think the problems you bring up are more problems of time and
distribution of writing talent, and not a symptom of problems
with Buffy in general.
On the other issue, if Melville truly meant to say "Call
me, Ishmael. ;P" perhaps I would be willing to reread Moby
Dick. Of course, the emoticon ;P would also serve as a complete
and accurate book review of that epic in the opinion of many high
school students of the last hundred plus years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> lol! -- mm, 04:53:40 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Ummm, language.... -- Darby, 17:18:29 02/21/02 Thu
About the shows, I agree, in that I had no idea 10 minutes ago,
but now that you've shown me I absolutely agree.
As for emoticons, I trust the people here to be literate enough
to catch my meaning when I express it well, and to make it clear
when I've expressed it badly. Emoticons usually make me...is there
an emoticon for wincing?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> wince 1 XD wince 2 X| wince 3 >_< -- neaux,
05:14:45 02/22/02 Fri
wince 1 XD wince 2 X| wince 3 >_<
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Shoulda known... -- Darby, 06:00:32 02/22/02
Fri
...there would be one. Three??
Ironically, I ran into a language problem in my post, trying to
mimic Homer Simpson's Donuts line. The more I look at it, the
more I'm thinking it shoul be "Mmmmm, language" (like
mmmmm-fashnik).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy, Angel, and more thinkin' 'bout emoticons (spoilers
thru this season) -- Humanitas, 17:47:13 02/21/02 Thu
This is a particularly busy time for me. I have so much going
on in my life at the moment, that I only get to drop in on the
Board once or, at most, twice a week. So I'm always especially
glad, when I do have the opportunity, to find that on that particular
day there's an interesting and thoughtful piece from one of the
Big Thinkers. One of these days, I'll be able to post regularly
again...
Right. Enough grumping. To the Post!
I think that the prevalence of emoticons in internet-culture is
a symptom of the speed at which that culture moves. Those of us
who play with words for fun and profit (mostly fun) take lots
of time choosing the correct word or phrase for the given moment.
Sometimes, we go back and re-write numerous times, and still don't
come up with something that seems just right. Anyone who doesn't
believe me, ask Solitude 1056, who labored mightily editing our
collective fiction last summer, and finally had to cut the rest
of us off on the re-writes! Most folks, though, are more used
to verbal communication, with it's nuances of tone and facial
expression. Those things can be reproduced in text, but it takes
a lot of work. So, most people take a short-cut, and use an emoticon
to save a little time.
Especially in a world as irony-laden as that of BtVS, tone of
voice is essential. Some of our favorite lines from the show,
taken literally, without hearing the actor's voice, either make
no sense or are downright stupid-sounding. But the inflection
and intention of the actor lifts them up to heights of (usually)
comic genius. So what are we poor posters to do, with all that
Slayer-Speak rattling around in our heads?
We use emoticons.
The other important difference in internet language is that it
is less formal, and more conversational. For every post like this
one and the one it replies to, there are a million off-hand posts,
whose model is not the essay intended for publication, but the
running give-and-take of verbal conversation. Again, in this model,
it is almost essential to see the other person's face to understand
the entirety of what they are saying, unless you happen to know
the person well enough to be able to hear their voice. Since most
of us have never met face-to-face, the emoticon serves as a way
to fill that void.
To pull this back to BtVS, I suspect that the reason that there
is so much explaining going on at the moment is that the characters
are going through that phase of early-adulthood where you feel
trapped by Real Life. Suddenly, all the endless possibilities
of adolescence have collapsed, and it seems that the only road
open to you is... Doublemeat Palace.
Yes, the characters are doing way to much talking, and not enough
doing, but I recall very vividly that stage of my life, and at
the time it seemed as though all I could do was talk. It seemed
impossible to act. We have wondered where all the metaphor has
gone this season. Perhaps the talkiness, the explanations-that-never-really-explain-anything,
are the metaphor.
That's the straw I'm grasping at, anyway. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Where's the metaphor gone? Nowhere -- alcibiades,
22:47:52 02/21/02 Thu
I think the metaphor is still very much present.
In Life Serial, Jonathan performs the repeato spell on Buffy,
and we watch her become more and more frustrated and angry as
the scene repeats and repeats until finally she has an inspiration
and figures out how to take control of the situation and solve
it. Then she can get out of Dodge, er, the Magic Box.
In real (fictional) life, Buffy has been trying to escape from
her life again and again and again, and reaching low point after
low point, because she is not solving her problem, just evading
them, and hence is unable to transcend them. She can't get beyond
them.
Sooner or later she'll have a flash of insight and I believe will
finally exit the emotional box she has been in for months.
Furthermore, as someone recently reborn, I think her psychological
state is very id-like. She's not been able to assert her normal
righteous control over herself, the super-ego doesn't seem to
be working much these days. And darkness, shadow, crypt, liminal
space is very much in character with the emotional chaos of an
id-state.
Mara
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Gotta agree -- Sophist, 09:51:45 02/22/02 Fri
I tend to see judgments about the quality of the show(s) as a
matter of personal taste. That being said, I'm surprised by the
criticisms of some of the best writers and most sophisticated
viewers here. Makes me think I'm missing something. I still haven't
figured out what it is.
I watch both AtS and BtVS, and the latter seems clearly superior.
The actors on BtVS blow their counterparts out of the water. The
intricacy of the storyline creates much more opportunity for metaphor,
self-reference, and sophistication. The humor on AtS tends to
cutesy IMO. My only problem with this season has been the addiction
metaphor, and I'm patient enough to see how that plays out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Ditto -- Anne, 10:06:49 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Ditto 2 -- Caroline, 10:45:30 02/22/02
Fri
Loving the metaphor this season - Buffy is really in a state or
mourning. Look at all the things she has lost and she is having
such a hard time accepting that she is back, that she has to deal.
She's in the dark place and fighting it like crazy, not knowing
how to get out and the more she fights it, the less she understands
herself and the more pain and confusion she feels. But I'm sure
that in the not-too-distant future, she'll hit rock-bottom, learn
a lot about herself and choose to deal. The metaphor here is the
process of growing up. Okay it's less about monsters and big external
things than it is about internal stuff but IMHO, this is a great
way to go. For the most part, the writers are doing an amazing
job (we're in complete agreement on the addiction metaphor, though).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Metaphors in Season 4 and Season
6 (Preview Spoilers) -- alcibiades, 18:30:05 02/22/02 Fri
In tonight's Season 4 FX episode, whose title I have already forgotten,
Maggi's military replacement made the point that the slayer and
the SG were anarchists and the Initiative (naturally enough) is
against that.
Riley's last words before leaving the Initiative were to the effect
of "now I'm going to be an anarchist, too." (Oh Boy!
doesn't that sound like fun.) And by the end of the episode, he's
living in the ruins of the hellmouth. In the next few episodes
he's living in the caves of the Initiative. I didn't notice this
last time through, but all this is actually very funny. The only
way to make this metaphor more visually obvious would have been
to put him in a crypt like Spike. (okay, emoticon, but, hey, I
like them) Boy, he's an anarchist now. No more shiny white rooms
for him, where there is no disorder and no clutter. The fact that
he has to keep moving from place to place signifies that he cannot
find a home in this world, it is not a natural state for him.
It is in no way comfortable. When he is living in the caves he
literally begins to die. It is not a state of being that he can
endure.
In Season 5 Riley will try very hard to continue being an anarchist
by getting suck jobs with two bit vamp trulls, but won't succeed,
because there is no natural monster in his man. Once again, the
environment just won't take. And once Spike enunciates that truth
to him, it becomes clear to Riley that he is not by nature and
can never be an anarchist. The words have been spoken, Spike has
given it a name (which, btw, in the dream in Restless is Riley
and Adam's job), thereby making it real. Riley has learned by
Spike's externalization of his problem that his place is not and
can never be with Buffy and her anarchist buddies, but back with
the army.
It is interesting that he only gives Buffy his ultimatum once
Spike has externalized his situation. He hears her calling his
name in the helicopter, but by then he knows that he cannot go
back to her because giving his situation a name has turned it
into a reality for him. He's represents the supra-rationalist,
the super-ego. Ambiguity cannot survive in his world. The rational
thing is to eschew the shadowland and to impose order. So he goes
back to the world where he will stop embracing demons and will
kill them instead. That is his element, his natural state and
what he represents metaphorically.
Now this coming episode of Season 6 features the return of Riley,
back in his army unit for the last year, where he's been fighting
demons (happily one imagines). And suddenly from the preview Buffy
appears to be blowing up Spike's crypt or blowing up things in
Spike's crypt. The crypt has several meanings this season, but
it certainly represents the place of Buffy's sexual pleasures,
which is the thing that, uncomfortably for her, she has been unable
to control for episodes now. Everytime she's there, she willfully
trashes the place but even so she cannot escape her desire for
him. Trashing it with "official" weapons is just so
much more finalizing.
Now what's more anarchic than Buffy's current life? She's been
brought back from the dead, and that's wrong. She's a Slayer sleeping
with a vampire and that's wrong. And she's been escaping all her
responsibilites, and that's wrong too.
I'm betting that the return of Riley will signify an external
manifestation of Buffy's will to control all of the anarchy in
her life by imposing an external, rationalistic and moralistic
discipline on herself. It's the super-ego clamping down and attempting
to annihilate the threat of the dark, shadow world.
But Buffy won't get it right until she's the charioteer channelling
both her black horse and her white horse. She thinks she needs
to annihilate the black horse, but the black horse is half the
source of her power and endurance.
alcibiades
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Metaphors in Season 4
and Season 6 (Preview Spoilers) -- Aquitaine, 13:58:11 02/23/02
Sat
Nice analysis of "Place as Political Positioning and Societal
Status", alcidiades.
Of course, as an anarchist myself, I proudly skulk around my basement
apartment. Hehe.
- Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Wow! Great Post! -- La Duquessa,
16:01:02 02/23/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Gotta agree -- Gwyn, 01:01:16 02/23/02
Sat
I have to agree with Sophist. The writing on BtVS is infinitely
more witty, complex, dramatic,thoughtful, and metaphoric than
on Angel..which strikes me as fairly turgid. And ditto for the
acting...which is lumbering on Angel....I find it difficult to
be engaged by the characters on AtS with the exception of Cordelia
whose lines seem to fire more...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Speaking vs. writing -- matching mole, 18:04:56 02/21/02
Thu
I'm going to make a distinction between written and spoken 'speech'
that not everyone would make (Buffy and Angel would certainly
constitute written speech as the words are written down before
being spoken). For some people they may be the same, but for me
they are very different. If I put my mind to it I can be a reasonably
eloquent writer, rarely am I an eloquent speaker. Communication
over the internet seems to hover somewhere between written and
spoken language.
Many people seem to regard communicating by email or in a forum
like this as akin to talking. Sentences are often fragmentary
and incomplete, just as they often are in casual speech. Without
the nuance of tone of voice or facial expression this sort of
speech seems rife with the possibility for misinterpretation,
as has been pointed out many, many times. Hence emoticons.
Personally I treat internet communication as writing, although
admittedly I am not always as careful an editor when posting than
if I was submitting a written document. Still posts can take me
a long time to write. Rahael recently called me 'sane and articulate'
but she didn't know that I often take 15 or 20 minutes to prepare
a two paragraph post. Part of that time is because my thoughts
wander but still I want to make sure I'm not mis-interpreted.
So I feel no need for emoticons yet I often appreciate them when
others use them.
Some day I'm going to have to enter a chat room (perhaps this
one) something I've never done. I'd be interested in seeing how
communication in there differs from email etc. but I'm not sure
that my slow, careful style would be suited to it.
My personal theory about BtVS vs. AtS is that BtVS has to a certain
extent been hijacked by its own ambition. I've generally prefered
AtS to BtVS for a year and a half, since the start of S2/S5. It
was at that point that I see the long term plot of BtVS start
to really overshadow the episode level plot. Over time BtVS has
developed such a complex (and magnificent) long term plot that
keeping all the elements moving forward in a cohesive manner becomes
a challenge in itself. Nuance surrenders to exposition for reasons
of expedience. The long term plot of AtS remains relatively simple.
There is a lot more room and time for the use of language and
imagery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Is there a difference between an emoticon and an exclamation
point? Or a question mark? -- Sophist, 19:53:50 02/21/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yes.?!;) -- mm, 04:55:58 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> More seriously.... -- mm, 05:28:13 02/22/02 Fri
Exclamation and question marks are punctuation designed for inflection,
less intrusive than emoticons, though they can also be grossly
overused. They're also more flexible, as a single one can suggest
anger, confusion, joy, etc., depending on the intention of the
writer. Emoticons are what they are, and they do their job well.
They just seem more...blatant, to me, is all.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: More seriously.... -- Lilac, 05:35:37 02/22/02
Fri
What worries me about emoticons (and compacted chat spelling e.g.,
"How r u?"), is that they are starting to creep into
use in places other than the Internet. I teach at a community
college, although not a writing based subject, but I hear from
my English teacher friends that one of the biggest battles they
have is trying to get their students to understand that they have
to communicate their ideas with words and to leave the smiley
faces out. So, while I appreciate that a well placed emoticon
can soften a written statement that might be taken the wrong way,
I am resistant to their use for what they seem to be doing to
our written language.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Excellent. -- mm, 05:47:58 02/22/02 Fri
I teach at a community college too (history courses), and encounter
the same problem. Thanks for reading, and for posting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I see the same thing, too. -- Rattletrap,
06:41:58 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Excellent. -- Cactus Watcher,
07:36:31 02/22/02 Fri
I certainly understand how annoying emoticons in students' papers
could be. I rarely had marginal students because of what I taught,
and since just about everything I graded was in Russian, I didn't
see too much garbage from my classes. But, friends from the English
and History departments would show me unintelligible papers with
doodles and such, not to mention whole essays with 'i's dotted
with hearts or smiley faces. Used like that they are no better
and no worse than exclamation points, which are also roundly despised
by many in the education business, for the same reasons.
I guess my joke about Melville above was to lead into the idea
that emoticons like anything else are a tool. In the wrong hands
a surgeon's scapel might as well be a double-bitted axe. Granted
the average teenager is going to use emoticons like a steam roller
at a blown glass exposition. But, they're just learning to make
language really work for them, anyway.
I spent many hours arguing with colleges in linguistics that we
should be paying more attention to subtleties of intonation and
inflection and the meaning they carry. But, it wasn't exactly
my main field of interest. Everyone else seemed to think, simple
word stress (and tone for languages like Chinese and Serbian)
aside, if you couldn't find it on a written page it wasn't worth
studying. And that was despite the fact they bellowed to the world
they were studying the SPOKEN language. Well, you can find emoticons
on a written page, and in the right hands, I think they can do
a lot of good.
We all know an example of an emoticon used properly. When Harmony
and her 'mininions' first went to 'call out' Buffy a rock with
a note was thrown through Buffy's front window. The smiley face
dotting the 'i' in 'die' spoke volumes about Harmony and her gang.
Why is it that watching a play is such a different experience
than reading one? Because on the stage or on TV there is a director
who has filled in all the missing gaps in the expression, sometimes
in ways that suprise us. Even sheet music gives a better clue
to subtlety of expression and emotional tone than the written
word. Wouldn't it be nice to have some better idea of what the
playwright was thinking?
Consider this example, the sentence "That's great!"
Place that sentence before these emoticons and see how it changes:
:o)
;oP
:oT
:o<
:oD
XoP
Just because they can be abused doesn't mean they can't be used
to do a lot. But, subtlety is important as you meant in the begining
of this thread. One person's leitmotif is another's "God,
not this again!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> CW, where were you when --
Aquitaine, 14:10:03 02/23/02 Sat
I was tearing my hair out trying to learn Russian for my PhD?
Sob!
Thanks for reminding me about Harmony as Big Bad. It makes me
think that, in the wrong hands, tools can be dangerous (remember,
Harm also kept a stake under the mattress).
- Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: CW, where were you
when -- CW, 15:18:18 02/23/02 Sat
I was probably the same place you were when I had to learn to
read French for my PhD. ;o) But, I admit our instructor was the
one tearing her hair out. I can't read French, but I can fake
it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: More seriously.... -- dream of the
consortium, 07:06:35 02/22/02 Fri
Students are using smiley faces in their papers?
I have to go sit in a corner and stare at my hands now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Okay. Confession time. -- Marie, 07:15:00
02/22/02 Fri
And please don't laugh!
I've been coming to this board for a long time now (lurked loooong
before posting), and before that I was a board virgin. You are
my first!
I have never owned a mobile 'phone, and had never before seen
"text writing" (I don't even know if that is the correct
phrase, *sigh*).
So, though I did notice the occasional use of extra colons, brackets,
etc., I put it down at first to slips of the finger (sorry!).
Then I realised how often they were used, and figured they must
mean something, so I kept looking and trying to figure them out,
so I wouldn't have to ask and look thick... only now that time
has come *heavier sigh*. I did manage to figure out the smiley
face and the sad face, but ";p"?
I wish one of you would put the meanings up... I mean, I can't
be the only one who doesn't know... can I? Am I just old?
Marie
p.s. May I just add - I HATE with a passion, "text-typing":
"u r, I h8" - grr argh!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> LOL........what a board to say "Am
I just old "on......;) -- Rufus, 07:26:35 02/22/02 Fri
Says Rufus who is old to her nephew.....I only know the basic
ones as well and use them in a happy way....:):):):)
This board was my first too.........I was so pure...;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: LOL........what a board
to say "Am I just old "on......;) -- dream of the consortium,
08:03:47 02/22/02 Fri
My first and only board as well. Among the other parts of modern
life I've managed to avoid thus far - call waiting, a cell phone,
a computer in my home (work is plenty), a car, and cable. I will
have to break down and buy a DVD player when the second season
comes out.
As far as I can tell, the semicolon indicates a wink, and the
P a stuck-out tongue. The combination seems a bit strange - I've
never seen anyone do both at once.
I had to ask someone, after months of seeing them, what the abbreviations
"LOL" and "ROTFLMAO" stood for. Though, in
the case of the second, I think that's perfectly understandable.
There's a frighteningly complete list of emoticons with definitions
at http://www.computeruser.com/resources/dictionary/emoticons.html.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh...My...God... --
VampRiley, 08:13:21 02/22/02 Fri
I just looked.
Wow.
Very frightening.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Gory Hades! I don't
have to learn them, do I?!! -- Marie, 08:42:19 02/22/02 Fri
Who the fiddle-de-dee invented all those? And why? (And thanks
for making me feel not-so-foolish - I feel better now!).
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe it was someone
with too much free time on their hands? -- VampRiley, 08:53:41
02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> In psychology
they call it a Gestalt problem -- Cactus Watcher, 09:01:01 02/22/02
Fri
Go to my post "re. Excellent" above. Turn your head
to the side, and look at each of them as a cartoon face... And
it's OK, if you don't get them all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Learn.......there
will be a test......>-) -- Rufus, 13:44:23 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> >-) =
Devilish Wink, right? Do I get a chocolate now, please? -- VampRiley,
18:11:05 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> How
can I say no to a guy with the name (or part of name)of Riley...:):)
-- Rufus, 21:17:58 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> O.K., I must admit I
think they're kinda cute... -- Masq, 09:27:56 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: LOL -- What I think
it means.... -- Rachel, 10:17:27 02/22/02 Fri
Laughing Out Loud. This was a quite recent discovery on my part.
For the longest time I thought it meant "Lots of Luck"
and I wondered why everyone on the internet was wishing everyone
elso so much luck. True confession.
As for the ROTFLMAO...One day, soon after I decoded LOL, it hit
me:
Rolling On The Floor, Laughing My A** Off
I was most pleased with this discovery, although I don't generally
leave my chair and roll on the floor whilst reading posts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> That is just.........neat.....:x
:x :x -- Rufus, 13:42:00 02/22/02 Fri
Now I'm going to go nuts.....yippie....:-M
Thanks dream...:):):):) want me to make a snake.....???
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> So, "That which
we call a @}----, by any other emoticon would smell as sweet."
Discuss. -- d'Herblay, 20:37:14 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> As Aquitaine suggested
the other day, maybe we're just Emoticonoclasts. ;) -- mundus,
07:08:28 02/23/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> ...and still i remain
anomalous -- anom, 00:04:40 02/24/02 Sun
Checked it out & there's no mutant cyclops.
I'm really not into emoticons, especially the standard one, but
I appreciate the creativity some of them show.
I was surprised there were no vampire emoticons. To me "["
looks like fangs. :-[ But I guess they're not into that. I looked
for a pouting emoticon (pouticon?)...didn't find that either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Pouticon --
dubdub, 12:05:40 02/24/02 Sun
>:o+
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> thanks,
dubdub, but... -- anom, 19:34:11 02/24/02 Sun
...neither of those looks like a pout to me. I'm trying to find
a way to get a stuck-out lower lip. I tried using the "thorn":
@>Þ , but it just looks like a better-centered stuck-out
tongue.
BTW, the thorn is used in Icelandic (& was used in Old English)
for a voiced "th" sound. I got it (assuming it comes
out right when it's posted) by holding down Alt while I pressed
0254. It's part of a series of symbols (accented letters, etc.)
you can get in Word for Windows...unless you can't, like a couple
of people in Chat who tried it the other night.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I find the nose helps ;oP. ( One
eye shut and dangling tongue) Think about it. -- CW, 08:09:39
02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I'm glad I'm not the only one --
matching mole, 08:17:12 02/22/02 Fri
While smiles and frowns seemed pretty self-evident to me, I must
confess that the rest the ones listed in various messages with
Ps, Ts etc. have left me baffled.
Maybe I'm just old as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Back to the cave, Martha.
I feel a horse coming on! -- Brian, 07:46:16 02/23/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: More seriously.... -- Sophist, 08:55:38
02/22/02 Fri
I'm curious why words alone have to serve as the medium of communication.
As CW pointed out above, that certainly is not true of speech.
Speaking adds tonal inflection which we interpret, and is generally
accompanied by gestures which we also interpret. Writing words
alone seems impoverished in comparison.
We have, by custom, accepted some signals in our writing. The
Greeks used no punctuation whatsoever; periods, commas, semi-colons,
etc. came much later, but are now invested with the authority
of long usage. Use of italics or bold type is more recent and
more controversial.
I'm sure your objection is not to the use of signals other than
words to convey meaning. But why do you distinguish between emoticons
and other signals? All such signals seem to me a device to avoid
ambiguity and thereby improve communication. They certainly can
be overused or used wrongly, but they also can add richness to
the page.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: More seriously.... -- Lilac, 09:23:41
02/22/02 Fri
For me, what an over dependence on images rather than words in
written communication does is lessen the richness of the communication,
rather than enhance it. I am well aware that resisting emoticons
may well be a losing battle because language is a living thing,
changing all the time. What concerns me is that depending on a
smiley face to demonstrate good intentions means that one doesn't
really have to find the words to convey that good intention. Written
communication is a step removed from oral communication. When
we speak to each other, our facial expressions, timing, and tone
of voice do indeed color the content of our conversation. When
we write, we have to find ways to convey not only the factual
content, but the emotional content as well. It isn't easy, but
I don't think that means we should take the lazy way out.
Having said all of that, the use of emoticons in this kind of
venue doesn't really bother me. On message boards and in chats
you have written communication between strangers with all sorts
of backgrounds -- misunderstandings can happen easily. It is understandable
that a back up means of stressing the speaker's intent has developed.
What concerns me is that the little devils are sneaking off the
Web and into other kinds of written communication. When students
at, say, the community college level, use icons in their written
work, it means that they have no idea how to communicate what
they mean, and they don't really want to exert the effort to find
a way to do so using words. I would hate to see us revert, as
a culture, to the equivalent of cave painting in our communications.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: More seriously.... -- Sophist,
09:38:00 02/22/02 Fri
Your point about laziness/sloppiness is a good one. To me, that
just means we need to be careful how we use signals, not that
we should forego some arbitrarily.
Part of the resistance to emoticons stems from the inappropriate
usage. In a college term paper, the task is usually to analyze
not emote. An emoticon jars the reader instead of clarifying.
Where nuance is important, and where the potential for ambiguity
is high, I find them useful. Maybe if I could write as well as
some on this board, I would never see the need for them..... :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: More seriously.... --
Lilac, 09:48:00 02/22/02 Fri
Believe me, the students I refer to wouldn't know a nuance if
it bit them on the butt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL (ironic much?) --
Sophist, 09:54:05 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Cave painting and perception of
reality -- Rendyl, 12:27:10 02/22/02 Fri
I don't see emoticons as cave paintings, nor do I see the paintings
as a 'less' valid form of communication. The person who painted
them was no less capable of expressing his or her ideas than I
am, they were just limited to a specific medium. Several cultures
have used a 'picture' language rather than written words and some
cultures still use one today.
(I realize you are teaching the art of writing in a certain language
and the students need to follow certain guidelines to learn it.
I do not mean to say you shouldn't. I just think painting and
other art forms are important and sometimes sophisticated tools
for communication.)
Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cave painting and perception
of reality -- Lilac, 12:37:48 02/22/02 Fri
As a matter of fact, I am, in my spare time, an artist. So I truly
do not think that visual communication is in any way invalid or
less valuable. I do think there is a difference between communicating
with written words, and communicating with pictures. Both are
valid. I would hate to see written communication debased to a
preliterate level because people become too lazy or unskilled
to find am appropriate word and chose to rely on icons instead.
This is not at all the same as chosing to communicate graphically,
or coming from a culture that depends on a pictographic language
form, which is an entirely different matter. I just don't see
sticking a smiley face on something as being an artistic statement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cave painting and perception
of reality -- fresne - who can't draw, 12:44:24 02/22/02 Fri
I would even have to argue, as an art dsyfunctional, that the
people who painted the cave paintings were more articulate in
some ways than I.
I've never gotten Stendahl's Syndrome from an emoticon, whereas
I nearly fainted when looking at the paintings in the Font de
Gaume, Dordogne France.
I ponder the letter A and it origin as a picture depicting a Bull
in the Phoenican alphabet. Makes me curious about emoticon evolution
in 1000 years forward of writing. Ultimately, will they become
as complex as Pictographic writing, with millenium of abstraction
eliminating the original shape of the symbol?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cave painting and
emoticon evolution -- mundusmundi, 13:07:52 02/22/02 Fri
I'm envious you've seen those paintings up close and personal.
They are truly breathtaking, even projected from a slide.
I was wondering the same thing about emoticons. With the world
becoming more "wired" to the internet, will linguistic
evolution favor these symbols, make them malleable, and enable
them to be as commonplace in future writing as exclamation points
and question marks are today?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy, Angel, and more thinkin' 'bout emoticons (spoilers
thru this season) -- neaux, 05:42:26 02/22/02 Fri
Anya $_$
Spike with dull fangs (chip in head) :B
Spike with sharp fangs (without chip in head) :F
Xander 0_0
Willow (who cant use magic) :X
Tara (i'm stretching this one a bit) #_#
Dawn :P
Giles without glasses ._.
Giles With glasses 0-0
Buffy? anyone got any ideas for buffy??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Maybe @_@ for listless and glazed over? -- Rattletrap,
06:43:17 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> These are great. Maybe Masq could add them to the
FAQ? -- mundusmundi, trying to spread a meme, 13:11:32 02/22/02
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy, Angel, and more thinkin' 'bout emoticons (spoilers
thru this season) -- manwitch, 07:27:57 02/22/02 Fri
Language is one of the cruxes (cruxi? cruxeses?) of postmodern
theory. Our relationships to language are very complex and the
ability to interact with language, rather than be ruled by it
is probably now the foundation of the dominant "opposition
movement" (replacing Marx). In addition to the ability people
have to create new words or use old words in new functions (nouns
become verbs, etc.), which is done very often in Buffy (and was
also very common and a highly prized skill in the Renaissance),
the development of the Internet and its bodiless communication
allow a much greater ambiguity of suject positions. No one knows
from where we are speaking, who we are, what sex, what color,
what class, etc. etc. Texts float, appear in the same font, and
are interpreted more in the way of reader response crit than authorial
intent.
Emoticons seem to me to reveal a discomfort with this foray into
dispersed subjectivity that is postmodernism. People aren't yet
ready to go all the way. People aren't quite comfortable with
surrendering their authorial intent, their right to individual
subjectivity.
Buffy the show, which has always had strong postmodern leanings,
has moved farther and more explicitly in a postmodern direction
since Season 4. Angel is still hovering on the edge, where one
could argue Buffy was in Seasons 2 and 3. But it too seems to
have postmodern leanings that are becoming stronger. Its anti-leadership
organization is an exmaple. Its moved from an organization where
Angel was clearly in charge to a pseudo organization that places
Wesley in the lead for the sake of administration but where everyone
leads in accordance with the nature of their gifts. And Wesley
himself acknowledges this, as he did to Angel when he spoke about
Angel's mission.
Anyways, Buffy has thoroughly rejected the modern world of progress,
scientific knowledge, capitalism, various forms of religious authority,
black and white good vs. evil, heirarchy, pretty much all claims
to authority, individual leadership, and arguably individuality
itself (not in the sense of difference but in the sense of separate).
My own interests tend this way, and I see Buffy getting nothing
but better and better, more interesting with each episode. Angel
is nice and all, and I like the characters, but I feel like I
already went through what he's going through when I watched Buffy
a few years back. Plus, Angel's mission of redemption is, frankly,
a very modern mission. Buffy doesn't need to be redeemed. Not
in that way, anyways. She's up to something else.
I think at some level Buffy gets more uncomfortable because its
symbols and metaphors are going to areas we're not as familiar
with, uncharted waters. She's advocating a way of living that
we all aren't sure we've seen before or that we could really aspire
to, or even if we did, that we don't know how to realize in our
own lives. Angel is more recognizable. He's an individual, he
has a mission, its about right and wrong. Its a great show, but
its kind of like Buffy. Just with emoticons. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Please don't hate me... -- Darby, 08:04:49 02/22/02
Fri
...but the way you've described the current Buffy arc reminds
me of the basic arguments presented by Boke about discussion boards.
And he didn't like the current course of the show!
Not that I really understood his arguments, so I guess this is
just my impression of them. I certainly understand yours - not
sure I agree (I think that heirarchy is a basic part of human
nature), but definitely got me goin' "Hmmmm..."
Apropos of this thread, it's all in the presentation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Not at all -- manwitch, 08:58:06 02/22/02 Fri
No problem.
I confess I never actually read any Boke posts.
I acknowledge that I see it the way I do because of my own political/intellectual
positions and they are definitely anti-hierarchical. My boss loves
me for that.
And I certainly don't mean to imply that I'm right. I know I'm
just a fool watching a TV show. The way I see the show works for
me right now.
In contrast to what's his name, I think its great to read whatever
can be read into the show, to play with it and discuss it. Lots
of times I end up thinking differently.
(not about Riley though).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Or me either -- matching mole, 10:39:42 02/22/02 Fri
I don't want this to come off as an attack on post-modernism,
I don't really understand post-modernism well enough to do that
even if I was so inclined. Hopefully this will appear as I intend
it, as a stumbling for understanding, a way of framing the question
so that the answer will make sense to me.
My fragmentary grasp of post-modernism has always been confusing
to me because, like manwitch's post it seems to say some things
that appeal to me, such as the rejection of traditional ideas
of leadership and others that are completely opposite to my entire
view of life. I'll use three examples of my perception of an 'issue'
(for want of a better word) where, as far as I can tell, my own
opinions are very different to those of post modernism.
1. Capitalism. I consider myself to be overall left of center
so I certainly wouldn't call myself a big fan of capitalism. However
I think one of the major problems in human society over the last
century or so has been the use of capitalism and socialism as
ideologies/belief systems rather than tools. Attacking or supporting
either on philosophical grounds seems counter-productive to me.
Instead they should be judged on how well they serve the needs
of individual communities on a case by case basis either separately
or in some combination and possibly even in conjunction with other,
as yet unrealized economic systems.
2. Scientific progress. I'm going to make a distinction here that
I'll admit is somewhat artificial. I'm turning what is in reality
a continuum into a dichotomy to make my point clearer. However
I think that the point is valid either way. I'm going to distinguish
between scientific progress and technological development. Science
is the process of discovering the basic processes that underlie
the universe. Examples of scientific progress would include Mendel's
discovery of the principles of genetic inheritance, Darwin's theory
of evolution by natural selection, Einstein's theory of relativity,
Watson and Crick's discovery of the structure of DNA. Technological
development is the use of basic scientific principles to produce
new things such as television, jet planes, etc. Both scientific
progress and technological development are related to culture
but in different ways. Culture may determine what aspects of the
natural world are studied by scientists but it doesn't, in the
long run, determine what the answers are. Scientific understanding
of the world is imperfect and it will always remain so but it
is becoming less imperfect all the time. Some things we may think
we know may turn out to be completely wrong but if they are eventually
we will find out because they won't match up with reality.
Technological development is a product of culture. We decide to
build jet planes, they are not a necessary outcome of the natural
laws of the universe. However given that jets or TV cameras exist,
they will operate, regardless of the beliefs of the operators.
I would regard the actions of Maggie Walsh and the Initiative
as, at one level, being anti-Scientific. Rather than trying to
understand demons, which they obviously failed to do, they attempted
to create something new from a basis of very imperfect understanding.
3. Specificity and curiousity. This is the most difficult for
me to address because I don't really have a good external label
to describe what I mean here. Manwitch's comment about the anonymity
of internet communication is a good place to start I guess. I'm
having difficulty seeing how not knowing anything about your fellow
conversationalists is useful. Most of my insights into life have
taken this form: person A says something, person A has come to
that conclusion because of some aspect of their life that is different
than mine, I see the connection and my own perception of life
in general is expanded. In the race thread I believe that manwitch
said 'Buffy is you'. But a large part of my enjoyment of any of
the characters on either show is that they aren't me.
Beyond that much of the joy in my life is taken from details,
specifics strongly rooted in a particular location, time, whatever.
I'm not a very abstract person. I can appreciate metaphor but
it generally needs to be rooted in something fairly concrete for
me to find it satisfying. To me the details of life aren't the
icing on the cake they are one of the main ingredients. Again
my imperfect understanding is that this is not a very post-modern
viewpoint, given the strong element of individual subjectivity
in what I am valuing highly.
Again I don't want this to be perceived as an attack but rather
as a request for more information. So if anyone would care to
elaborate on these points I'd be most grateful. Or point me to
a post-modernism for dummies book.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Brilliant. Ditto -- Sophist, 10:47:16 02/22/02
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Postmodernism in science. -- Darby, 11:43:00
02/22/02 Fri
This has been a weird track for me - let me describe it.
A few years ago, in my introductory classes, I began teaching
about sociological-scientific postmodernism - the idea that the
basic explanations that scientists come up with to explain the
world are rooted in the culture of the scientist. It was an interesting
idea, that I didn't take a lot of stock in, but I like to "humanize"
science at the introductory level and that seemed a logical part
of the package. I still thought that the underlying "truths"
were there to be gotten, no matter the person getting them. I
still believe that, but I'm wavering.
But, y'know, in a truly ironic postmodern way, once that idea
is in your head, you start to see it everywhere. Darwin's theories
are distinctly Victorian, while Wallace's can be said to reflect
his multiregional upbringing. Lamarck's ideas of evolution as
"goal oriented," in the largely Christian West, still
exist as a subtext to lots of interpretations. Watson and Crick
might not have "existed" without the development of
audiotape - simple medium, complex message (so technology gets
wrapped in too, as modern neurology uses way too many computer
analogies). I just taught today that cladistics, which views evolution
as discreet feature-based "jumps," (that's as close
as I can get briefly) is largely a product of old-style computer
printers that were limited to right-angle branching - cladogram
form has affected the perceptions of the interpreters. Like any
amended worldview, it starts to take over your filters, but in
this case that's evidence for its existence. Isn't circular reasoning
wonderful?
There must be a bunch of different postmodernisms, though, 'cause
sometimes I can follow discussions about it and sometimes not.
I'm a bit lost in the current thread, which seems to be defining
postmodernism as a relaxing or elimination of the rules. Isn't
that an artistic definition?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I completely agree -- matching mole, 12:10:45
02/22/02 Fri
In that the cultural context of science determines what questions
get asked and even what answers are proposed, at least intitially.
When I was a grad student a bunch of us asked a systematist at
a local museum to teach us something about cladistics, our own
department not having anyone in that area. The perceptual divide
between us grad students and the systematist was pretty large
in a number of areas and I think a lot of it had to do with the
constraints of mapping evolution onto discreet, dichotomously
splitting cladograms. (I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense to
anyone except Darby).
However, in the long run, ideas that don't fit reality get discarded.
Darwin was more right than Lamarck. Your point that Larmarckian
thought keeps creeping in is very interesting and fits in well
with my observations. Natural selection is just the outcome of
a certain set of conditions. There is no goal beyond the next
generation. But people, including many biologists, persist in
trying to give it a goal.
OT - I'm currently designing lab exercises for a non-majors course
and I'm also looking for ways to 'humanize' biology and some of
your (Darby's) examples might fit in as things I could use in
displays. Can I steal them?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Lamarck 'n' stuff -- mundusmundi,
13:01:06 02/22/02 Fri
Wow, all of you are making this a great thread. I was hoping for
at most a handful of posts, only to see it turn into a runaway
train. Many thanks.
Having only an amateur's fascination with evolution, I can't comment
about anything like cladistics. I seem to vaguely recall Dawkins
pooh-poohing the subject in one of his books. I am presently reading
Paul Ehrlich's Human Natures, which is wonderful so far, with
none of the axe-grinding that for me always seems to intrude on
the aforementioned's otherwise thought-provoking ideas. (Perhaps
some smiley emoticons would help smooth over Dawkins's acid prose?)
Ehrlich hasn't gotten into cladistics; but he has mentioned that
Lamarck doesn't get the credit he deserves: that he was wrong
about biological evolution but his ideas are very interesting
regarding cultural evolution. I'm not fit to judge the validity
of this statement -- would you or Darby buy into it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> I might as well give up any
idea of working today -- matching mole, happy to be distracted,
13:46:44 02/22/02 Fri
I think you probably want to get a sociologist or psychologist
into this discussion as well to discuss how information is transmitted
culturally. I would say yes, that cultural evolution could be
described as Lamarckian. For the rest of the audience, Lamarck's
idea was that evolution was based on the inheritance of traits
acquired over an organism's lifetime. The famous (but wrong) example
is that of a giraffe stretching its neck to reach leaves high
on a tree. The stretching elongates the neck. The longer neck
is inherited by the giraffe's kids who continue the process.
The problem is that stretching your neck does not affect how long
your kid's neck will be. Neither does dying your hair or chopping
off your leg affect what children will look like. In general organisms
can be divided into two compartments, the soma and the germ line.
The germ line is (in animals) egg and sperm cells and their precursors
while the soma is everything else. Changes in your soma have no
effect on your children (there are limited exceptions like the
effect of maternal nutrition on babies but these effects are not
genetic and are thus not passed on to future generations). Changes
in the germ line (mutations) do affect your children and are passed
on to grandchildren and so on.
In culture I don't see a distinction between germ line and soma.
A cultural change occuring in any person has the potential to
sweep through an entire population. So I'd buy what Ehrlich said.
A couple of comments on cladistics. Cladistics (which refers to
a specfic technique for reconstructing the evolutionary history
of organisms) is amazingly contentious subject within evolutionary
biology although less so now than ten or fifteen years ago. Part
of the problem is that cladistics, apparently like post-modernism,
means somewhat different things to different people. The basic
mechanics of cladistics and its value in figuring out evolutionary
relationships among organisms is pretty mainstream now and I doubt
that Dawkins would have much of a problem with that. What you
do with that information is another matter. Dawkins and Gould
seem to be in rare agreement in disliking strictly cladistic approaches
to classifying life. Gould says somewhere that he refuses to give
up the useful notion of fish. Cladists would reject the notion
of fish as a useful one because there was never a common ancestor
of all fish that was not also a common ancestor of amphibians,
reptiles, birds, and mammals (the concept of reptile would rejected
for the same reason). In a genealogical sense sunfish are more
closely related to humans than they are to sharks.
Two or three years ago in the journal Evolution Dawkins and Gould
each reviewed the other's most recent popular book. Makes for
entertaining reading, especially Dawkins' response to what he
perceives as an excess of baseball metaphors in Gould's work which
he complains is unfair to the non-American reader.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very interesting. Thanks.
-- the other mm, 19:33:29 02/22/02 Fri
Like many American kids, much of what little I learned about evolution
in school had mixed Darwin's theory with Lamarckian concepts.
Hell, they even threw in Aristotle's "Great Chain of Being"
just to confuse us further. Thank god for my grandfather and his
National Geographics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Sure - stealing is the basis for
education! -- Darby, 14:27:19 02/22/02 Fri
I'm always looking for new stories, techniques, whatever to swipe.
You should see the lab exercise I've written on learning styles
and studying issues - dug through a bunch of ed psych books for
those...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Postmodernism in science. -- Sophist,
12:45:30 02/22/02 Fri
I see much of postmodernism as a radically skeptical attack on
theories of knowledge, including science. This is not new; the
challenge of skepticism led Descartes to cogito ergo sum and it's
roots go back much further.
Skepticism is a valuable and necessary part of science. So is
the humility to recognize that there are limits on what we can
know, not necessarily cultural limits but inherent limits (Heisenberg,
Godel, etc.). There also are limits on what we can know now, today.
Where I part company with the skeptics is in my confidence that
progress does occur in science. Einstein is more accurate than
Newton. Darwin is right, Lamarck was not.
That being said, if skepticism is a tool, it's not fair to complain
when it turns out to have 2 edges. Deconstructing, say, patriarchy
or capitalism is fine, but we can deconstruct the deconstructions
as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> philosophy, quantum mechanics, and Invisible
Girl -- Simon A., 17:38:43 02/23/02 Sat
Okay, while culture may predetermine the questions that scientists
ask of the universe, it doesn't predetermine the answers that
the universe gives back. I would say that science is founded upon
a kind of logical positivism, the idea that the only things that
we can meaningfully talk about are the things that we can observe.
If you can't see angels, there's no point to figuring out how
many can dance on the head of a pin. I (and many others) would
argue that science has made the progress that it has by limiting
itself to the easiest questions: "What is?" not Why
is it?"; "What can we do?" not "What should
we do?". Most attempts to use morality to force particular
answers on scientific questions have been failures; (eg Soviet
biology and Lysenko) It is equally true that when people have
tried to use science to justify the morality of their actions
we have bad morality (Social Darwinism)
My favorite example of how preconceptions inform but do not determine
scientific thought is the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation of
quantum mechanics. When physicists started coming up with strange
results that indicated that a photons and subatomic particles
had both wavelike qualities and corpuscular (particle like) qualities,
their language retreated to talking about their observations,
rather than the particle itself. Thus we have their observations
causing a collapse of the wave function, as if the wave function
was some sort of mystical curtain put up by Heisenberg to prevent
us from finding what the position and momentum were, and that
there is something magical about our seeing it which caused the
particle to exist there. Schrodingers cat; half dead, half alive
until we open the box is the reducto ad absurdum of this idea,
and was meant to show how silly it is, not to be taken seriously.
A misunderstanding of this has been used by several writers to
try to lend scientific creedence to their philosophies without
their even realizing that the language of observations causing
physical change in a system is merely a terminology engendered
from the philosophy of its creators. This idea was the basis for
Marcie's disapearance in "Invisible Girl" (and you thought
that there wouldn't be any Buffy in this rant didn't you)
However, it is also a feature of the Copenhagen interpretation
that there are no hidden variables. This explicitly rejects the
notion that there is some particle hidden behind the wave function.
There would be fewer confused undergrads if instead of talking
about observations collapsing the wave function, professors talked
about interactions causing particles to express a value. My point,
belabored as it is, is that while the language that people use
to describe quantum mechanics is a product of the culture of the
people who came up with it, the actual processes are not determined
by it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> And I would add -- Sophist, 18:27:40
02/23/02 Sat
that the kinds of questions which can be asked in science, while
they may be affected by the culture of the time, are far more
constrained by agreed-upon facts than by culture. And far more
constrained by such facts than most endeavors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> But add to that -- Darby,
19:37:14 02/23/02 Sat
While I can't help but agree about "truth" and the underlying
reality of the universe in science (it's what I do, so I have
an investment), I'm always bothered by history - wave after wave
of perfectly earnest scientists who "understood" what
was happening, who seem quaint to us today, especially based upon
the "facts" that they all accepted. Their perception
of truth was just that, a perception. And do you know how many
times it was declared that there was really nothing left to discover?
How will scientists look at today's work in 200 years? But will
they doubt that their work at that future moment is finding the
"real" truth?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Trying to think of another
quote.... -- mundusmundi, 21:16:10 02/23/02 Sat
from a letter writer in National Geographic. Wondering if you'd
agree with it or not. (Or if it's beside the point entirely --
I feel like a piddler compared to you guys.) "Science doesn't
tell us what nature is. Science tells us what we can say about
nature." A fine distinction, perhaps, but there you are.
By the way, is it just me, or is this thread starting to bear
the appearance of a DNA spiral?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Love your analogy
-- Sophist, 09:03:58 02/24/02 Sun
Don't tell James Watson.
The quote from National Geographic is too tautological for me.
I would re-phrase it (likin' the irony) in post-modernist terms:
science is the attempt to reconcile the opposites of internal
understanding and external world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: on the science question -- manwitch, 13:45:29
02/22/02 Fri
Among other things, Postmodernism recognizes that science exists,
that it produces knowledge and especially that it produces technology
that works.
Postmodernism rejects the notion that science produces knowledge
or technology in a line with a preset moral goal. The Modern Project,
as it has been called, saw science in terms of human progress,
that nature itself had a preset truth, and that it was the goal
of man to recover that truth. Progress was the degree to which
we advanced nearer to that goal. There are many narratives (grand
narratives as the postmodernists call them) that have been used
to legitimate notions of progress. Postmodernism rejects them
all as unbelievable. They don't reject science as unbelievable,
they reject the idea that science necessarily involves human moral
advancement.
A great place to start with this is Thomas Kuhn and The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions. A brief quote from it:
"We are all deeply accustomed to seeing science as the one
enterprise that draws constantly nearer to some goal set by nature
in advance. But need there be any such goal?....Does it really
help to imagine that there is some one full, objective, true account
of nature and that the proper measure of scientific achievement
is the extent to which it brings us closer to that ultimate goal?....For
many men the abolition of that teleological kind of evolution
was the most significant and least palatable of Darwin's suggestions.
The Origin of Species recognized no goal set either by God or
nature...Even such marvelously adapted organs as the eye and hand
of man--organs whose design had previously provided powerful argumetnts
for the existence of a supreme artificer and an advance plan--
were products of a process that moved steadily from primitive
beginnings but toward no goal.... What could 'evolution,' 'development,'
and 'progress' mean in the absence of a specified goal?"
I don't mean to suggest that Kuhn is a postmodernist. But his
rejection of unconditional truth, even in science, certainly has
a kinship with postmodernism.
That's the sense in which I say Buffy, in postmodern fashion,
rejects scientific knowledge. She grants that it produces technology.
She rejects that it is bringing us closer to truth or that it
provides its own moral justification.
I like what Darby had to say a lot. That's very much part of Kuhn's
argument. Scientific communities are not immune to the environments
in which they practice science. Their scientific "truths"
reflect that.
Obviously, postmodernism is extremely relativistic. The fact that
their deconstructions can be deconstructed is to them, further
demonstration of their claims.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: on the science question -- Sophist,
16:29:03 02/22/02 Fri
I agree that evolution does not imply progress, though not all
biologists would agree that it doesn't. Kuhn's use of it here
(BTW, where's the quote -- I'd like to look it up), however, is
a metaphor. Metaphors are dangerous. If evolution doesn't progress,
that doesn't mean science doesn't.
Science does have an articulated goal of understanding nature.
Whether it approaches that goal, and whether it uses proper techniques
for that purpose, are fair questions.
It is also fair to say that scientists in a given time and place
share an environment which affects both their approach to understanding
nature and the nature of their understanding. That does not mean
that scientists across cultures (including across time) can't
move closer to their goal. They can and manifestly do; if not,
technology would not develop. It is misleading to speak of a culture
of science that includes Newton and Ed Witten. Newton is a product
of the 17th century and has little in common with a late 20th
century physicist. The past is a foreign country.
Personally, I'm a relativist when it comes to relativism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Two more quick points -- Sophist, 17:15:33
02/22/02 Fri
I found the quote from Kuhn, so no need to respond to that.
As pointed out above by mm, cultural change (and that includes
scientific progress) is, or at least can be, Lamarckian. Kuhn's
analogy fails because of this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Kuhn's analogy -- matching mole,
20:32:57 02/22/02 Fri
I started to write a reply to this but got bogged down and decided
to start over. Evolution and scientific progress do seem roughly
analogous to me but not for the reason that Kuhn cited. Both are
subject to random (with respect to progress) forces but are constrained
by other, non-random forces. The direction of scientific progress
is constrained by the 'truth' (unless you are a relativist). Cultural
forces will pull the direction science takes back and forth and
the route that they might take from Newton to Einstein (for example)
might not be exactly the same. However scientists will tend to
move from something like Newton to something like Einstein and
not towards the cult of Cthulhu.
Similarly the direction of biological evolution is constrained
by natural laws. Natural selection produced the vertebrate eye
through a series of random steps with no goal. Natural selection
also produced the eyes of octopi and squid (very similar to vertebrate
eyes) through a completely different set of random steps. And
the eyes of snakes (whose ancestors lost their eyes and so had
to evolve new ones) through a third set of random steps. There
appear to only be so many different ways to make an eye. There
is more than one way (insects have very different eyes) but not
an enormously large number.
Evolution isn't aiming to produce an eye anymore than Newton was
thinking - 'this is the first step on the road to super string
theory'. But in both cases the number of viable pathways may be
limited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Kuhn's analogy -- Sophist,
21:51:58 02/22/02 Fri
Gould argues that evolution is just as likely to move in the direction
of simplicity as it is complexity. Just curious whether you agree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Kuhn's analogy --
matching mole, 05:37:32 02/23/02 Sat
Sure. If eyes aren't useful then they tend to be lost. My point
is more that if vision is useful there seem to be only a few ways
that evolution ends up producing them.
I guess I would answer the question of progress in evolution by
asking for a definition of progress. If progress means that birds
are somehow better than dinosaurs I would say no - I don't think
there is progress in that sense. Where evolution is progressive
is in the immediate and local sense of traits tending to become
more adapted. Of course the environmental forces shaping them
can change at anytime so you wouldn't expect continuous progression.
I am inclined to place a much stronger role on natural selection
and adaptation than Gould.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Further clarification
(increasingly OT) -- matching mole, 08:05:30 02/23/02 Sat
We've been using terms like random, progressive to refer to evolution
which can be misleading. A more detailed explanation might help.
Evolution by Natural Selection has both random and non-random
elements. The 'creative' aspect of it is random mutation. That's
what provides the raw new material. This is where my analogy breaks
down slightly because the creativity is random whereas scientific
creativity is not. Natural selection is the editorial aspect.
Natural selection is definitely non-random. Is natural selection,
progressive or goal directed? Only in the limited sense that it
tends to produce individuals that are better able to survive and
reproduce in the prevailing environment in the next generation.
It is not goal directed in the sense that the selective forces
producing small, tree-living dinosaurs in the Cretaceous were
planning to produce birds.
I've actually thought of a number of problems with my science/evolution
analogy and, if anyone's interested in them, I could outline them
later in the weekend. Have to tile the bathroom now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm interested.
Plus, you need an excuse not to tile yourself out. -- Sophist,
09:11:31 02/23/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
I'm interested. Plus, you need an excuse not to tile yourself
out. -- matching mole, 07:11:36 02/24/02 Sun
Thanks. Everytime I think I have my head wrapped around the analogy
it kind of slips away. I'm going to try and enjoy my beautiful
springlike Sunday before the cold weather returns tomorrow. Will
post more on this later.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Progress -- Sophist,
11:29:46 02/23/02 Sat
Completely agree about "progress". I've seen some equate
progress with an increase in complexity and then argue that evolution
does progress because species become more complex over time. I
understand Gould to argue against this. I'm agnostic on the point
because I don't know what "complexity" means or how
to measure it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Progress
-- Darby, 19:51:29 02/23/02 Sat
There are a bunch of ideas that kind of get accepted by general
consensus but don't get actually tested (there was a test in the
90's of Occam's Razor - nope, not reliable). Increased complexity
is one of these - more "advanced" forms are more complex
than "primitive" forms. The problem starts right there
- is a shark primitive because it has existed in something like
its present form for a very long time? Or does that mean that
its form is so well suited to a very stable environment subsection
that its advancements have been of the fine-tuning variety (there's
a weird connection between this and why sharks rarely get cancer,
by the way)? If we take "us" as advanced, we see us
in all of our complexity but ignore the same things in the "primitives."
The logic is a carryover from technology, but it doesn't really
work there either - a lot of great innovations have involved simplifying
complex systems.
Gould tested this by picking particular features that could represent
complexity (it's been too long since I read the paper, but I remember
accepting the parameters as reasonable) and checking their course
along "upward" family trees. Sometimes complexity increased,
sometimes it didn't, sometimes it remained static; there was no
governing trend.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Progress -- matching mole, 06:52:34 02/24/02 Sun
I agree completely. The only way you could argue for an evolutionary
increase in structural complexity would be to start at the very
beginning. As early life was very simple the only general trend
possible (other than no trend) is towards an increase in complexity.
Even this is very misleading. We think of ourselves and other
animals as being complex and bacteria as being simple. But on
a biochemical level bacteria are capable of an amazing array of
things that no animal, plant, or fungus could approach. Examples
would include breathing sulfur and eating 'rock' (provided the
rock has carbon in it).
Biologists studying evolutionary history nowadays don't generally
use the terms primitive and advanced because of the values associated
with them. Instead they use ancestral and derived to indicate
whether the characteristics of organisms are similar to or different
from those of their ancestors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> snake eyes? -- anom, 21:37:15
02/23/02 Sat
"And the eyes of snakes (whose ancestors lost their eyes
and so had to evolve new ones) through a third set of random steps."
Huh? They did? I used to be very into herpetology, especially
snakes, & I never read this. This happened in snakes but not lizards--1
suborder of a class? Are there any theories on how it happened?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: snake eyes? -- matching
mole, 06:38:00 02/24/02 Sun
I wonder if when mundus started this emoticon thread he ever would
have thought it would turn into postmodernism and random topics
in biology?
Anyway - nice to know there is another herpetologically inclined
person on the board. I did all my grad work on lizards.
Snake eyes (or the eyes of anything for that matter) are something
I am certainly not an expert on. But I do remember several times
coming across statements about snake eyes. Lizards as a group
(snakes are really just a particularly successful group of legless
lizards) have evolved limblessness several times (an example of
the evolution of reduced complexity). Many of those evolutionary
events have occured in the context of a burrowing lifestyle. Evolutionary
reduction or loss of the eye also often happens when animal species
spend their lives underground. Snakes are one such group. Or so
people who study such things think. Snakes have a very poor fossil
record so the evidence is primarily based on such things as the
anatomical peculiarities of snakes and the evolutionary relationships
among living groups of snakes.
The most 'primitive' (unfortunately value-laden but convenient
word) snakes now alive live underground and have eyes that have
been reduced to almost nothing. It is thought that the ancestors
of all snakes were similar to these Blind Snakes. Thus snakes
have had to re-evolve eyes. There are apparently some differences
in snake eyes from those of other vertebrates, although they have
the same basic plan.
Of course new information could emerge (or perhaps already has)
that could eliminate this hypothesis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: on the science question -- matching
mole, 20:48:53 02/22/02 Fri
I agree almost completely with your first couple of paragraphs.
I didn't realize that anyone really thought that scientific progress
was equivalent to human moral progress (meaning that as we know
more we become better human beings?). At least not since the 19th
Century. Maybe I'm just ignorant of history. It's not the sort
of thing that I've ever heard any contemporary scientist talk
about. It always seemed clear to me that there were two reasons
for scientific investigation - innate interest and pragmatism.
Where I differ is that I believe that there is a fundamental truth
to the workings of the natural world although, as Sophist says,
we will probably never be able to know all of it. It doesn't necessarily
have anything to do with us, other than that, as part of the universe,
we are part of it. It isn't a moral goal of humanity to try and
uncover this truth although trying to do so might be both useful
and interesting.
Thanks again for the discussion. It's been really interesting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: on the capitalism question -- manwitch,
14:04:59 02/22/02 Fri
Madan Sarap has a book called An Introductory Guide to Poststructuralism
and Postmodernism. Madan is ultimately not a convert, but for
the most part is reasonably fair and accessible in presenting
the ideas. Good chapters on Foucault, Derrida, and Lyotard, even
if its generally critical.
Postmodernism rejects global and totalizing assertions, favoring
the local local local. So what you say about capitalism/socialism,
et al is perfectly in line with postmodernism if you wish it to
be. Postmodernism is not the only sytsem of thought that prefers
local overdetermination (I intend positive connotations to the
term) to sweeping generalizations (of which I, oddly enough, make
a lot).
The same is true of moral claims. We see this in Buffy a lot.
Her moral choices are very local, on a case by case basis, and
decidedly not governed by any sweeping narrative of morality or
suthoritative moral pronouncements.
We see this also in her relationship to capitalism, as she (and
I think the show) rejects large-scale corporate capitalism in
favor of local small business commerce. She is currently entering
a potentially ambiguous arena of the Franchise, which might actually
be an interesting development. Is it corporate? Or is it small
business? And what does it say about her that she participates
in it?
But most of all, we notice the general lack of concern over capital
at all. As an amusing aside (to me anyway) it would be fun to
get the dudes that ultimately caught Al Capone on tax evasion
charges and have them look over Buffy. How much money does she
have to be making to own what she clearly owns?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: on the capitalism question -- Sophist,
16:38:27 02/22/02 Fri
Completely agree on moral questions. They must be decided on a
case by case basis. There are no a priori imperatives or divinely
given commandments.
I think we agree on capitalism. Let me re-state it to be sure.
Capitalism descibes important, but incomplete, principles of economic
operations. When we are convinced that a capitalist system is
working well over a defined subset of the economy, we should leave
it alone. If not, we should not hesitate to intervene based upon
external principles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Money's a big deal on Buffy right now...
-- Caroline, 17:49:43 02/22/02 Fri
I'm a bit confused about your last paragraph. You say that there's
not a concern about capital at all in Buffy and I have to differ.
This show is not Friends. Remember when Buffy had to spend her
allowance to remove the tattoo that Ethan gave her? Cordy had
to work for her prom dress? There are lots of examples but the
best one is this season - Buffy has no money, plumbing goes wonky,
struggles to juggle bills, tries many jobs and fails, gets bailed
out by Giles, and then gets a job at the DmP - because she's desperate
for money. She obviously inherited the house from her mother and
insurance covered the hospital bills. I think it's pretty clear
that this whole season shows a specific concern for means of financial
support.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Money's a big deal on Buffy
right now... -- manwitch, 05:42:28 02/23/02 Sat
Caroline, you have not missed anything. I probably don't give
the adequate weight to all the things you mention. But in a backpedaling
effort to explain myself I offer this.
Consider a show like Friends, once we get past the idea that they
have those apartments in NYC. Chandler has a lucrative job. Ross
had a decent job. We see Monica attempting to get a job and occasionally
getting one. Phoebe has a business. We see them making purchases.
We see them settling bills. We see money as an issue in their
relationships. Some of them can't go out to where the others go.
Some of them feel indebted to others financially. We know that
Rachel uses credit cards. We have seen Chandler go to the ATM.
Or consider shows like NYPD blue or Ally or Practice. We see people
gainfully employed and living in accordance with their positions.
Now consider Buffy. While all your points are true, and certainly
this season has focused on money issues, there have still been
a number of threads on this board questioning the absence of money
information. Threads that ask whether or not the Slayer get's
a stipend from the Watcher's Council or whether Willow and Tara
pay rent. But there are other questions.
Does the Bronze charge money for the drinks and food it sells?
Have the scoobies ever settled a tab?
Do they use cash or credit?
Do they split bills? Is everything on separate checks?
Do they borrow money from each other?
Does money effect what they are willing to do with each other
socially?
What sort of income is required to support the lives they lead?
Consider their clothing, furnishings, night's out, food, utilities,
taxes?
Do their parents make that sort of income?
Do their parents support them? Give them allowance?
Does Mr. Summers pay child support?
If not, do they care?
Does anyone ever go grocery shopping? How do they pay? Cash? Debit
card?
Does anyone have just basic banking accounts or transactions?
I mean other than looking for a Home Equity Loan?
Do Dawn, Willow or Tara work?
How do they pay for their College courses?
Did Buffy get any refund when she dropped out?
If not, did she care? If so, did she care?
Housing values are low, but could we expect insurance rates to
be astronomical? Does anyone notice or care?
Can Willow conjure money?
Where did they get the overhead to start the Majick Box? Surely
they could never get a small business loan for that place.
Did Giles front it all himself? Again, consider some of the priceless
items they have in there.
Consider just how much money is in there that they never talk
about. The weapons in the back room alone are probably worth hundreds
of thousands of dollars. Giles rare book collection, left, I believe,
in the Majick Box is probably worth many thousands of dollars,
and they have explicitly been noted as "private collection"
not inventory. But no one even thinks of these in terms of exchange
value.
It has been noted before that Angel and Spike have made very poor
use of their long lives in financial terms. Even had they just
carried around a bag of their original possessions, those things
would be extremely valuable now.
Some of these questions can be answered for some characters. Some
we can surmise. And I recognize that the show would be less interesting
if it was an Annenberg/PBS show on accounting. But the show seems
to display an ironic lack of concern for these as issues (ironic
given the degree to which money was a concern in the show's production).
I don't think these are plotholes or inconsistencies. I think
they are value judgements. Its not the shows task to determine
what sort of income is required to behave morally, so they necessarily
background issues of economics, unless its metaphorical of a larger
aspect of the story. To me, that is part of why this season is
so interesting. What is it ultimately going to say about the fact
that we live in a society that demands we participate in a particular
type of economy.?What ramifications does it have for Buffy's journey?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Money's a big deal on
Buffy right now... -- Caroline, 17:39:18 02/23/02 Sat
Still not convinced. Let's take friends. Monica was unemployed
for ages and could still afford her apartment living with a flatmate
who waitressed in a coffee shop. Puhlease. Phoebe has a very casual
attitude to work and as someone who knows many people in the bodywork
field in NYC and DC, I know that it does not pay NYC rent. Yes,
the situations of Chandler and Ross are better but doesn't explain
the level of financial unreality of the rest of the cast. Of course,
have not watched Friends in years, so things could've changed.
Back to Buffy. While Buffy was in high school and up until Joyce's
death, there was no need to worry about money 'cos Mom took care
of everything. Now I'm okay with that 'cos I certainly let my
parents worry about the money when I was in school. But since
Joyce's death, things have changed. Buffy's gotta deal financially
and she is doing it. A lot of the situations that you brought
up could be explained but it would be really boring to find out
that Tara is on student loans, Willow's parents are fronting the
money, Giles had two salaries for years (Sunnydale High and CoW)
ergo the books ('cos he sure didn't spend it on cool clothes,
car, overseas trips or honeys). I could go on but no. Perhaps
we just have to agree to disagree 'cos we're definitely seeing
differing authorial intent (*flash of the lightbulb* - post-modernism,
I have seen the light!).
I agree that what is interesting about this season is how the
issue of money is being used in the 'oh, grow up' theme and attitudes
towards corporations, the workplace etc. We can go back to the
career fair in season 2 (What's My Line) and see Oz and Willow's
attitude to the big software corporation that wants to recruit
them. We're seeing these same attitudes presented in season 6.
Joss and ME certainly are not happy about the structures of labor/capital
relations, the power relations inherent in them and the impact
this has on the individual and their needs and creativity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: on the capitalism question -- matching
mole, 20:51:53 02/22/02 Fri
Seems like we agree here. Can't think of any further comment at
the moment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: on the specificity/curiosity question --
manwitch, 14:56:02 02/22/02 Fri
Did you ever watch the Wonder Years? I always liked that show.
If you did watch it, you will remember that stuff keeps getting
added to Arnold's "Permanent Record."
I would say the "permanent record" is sort of like the
identity that impersonal power urges us to have, to internalize.
Its the record that is developed by all the test-givers and trainers
who determine better than we know ourselves what our likes and
dislikes are, whether or not we are college material, what its
appropriate for us to do with our lives.
Postmodernism argues that modern culture impresses very narrow
identities upon us, with very narrow possibilities. And part of
how it does it is by helping us buy into the idea that we have
a personal individual identity separate from our interactions
with others. One of the ways to break past that is to recognize
our identity as being part of our interactions with others as
well as interactions with our self (or various selves). Cuz people
aren't static. Again postmodernism isn't the only philosophy that
would argue for that. And to a degree, one could argue that its
a Straw Man anyway, set up to be knocked down.
For example, the internet thing. I could tell you more and more
about myself until I was basically defined in time and space.
You would, in theory, be able to draw conclusions about me without
my having to say anything. (Truth be told, you don't seem the
sort that would do that or really buy into such a static definition
of anybody, so again, it could just be a straw man). What's more,
I might come to limit myself based on the definitions of me that
I provide you with. By being essentially bodiless, my voice is,
to a degree less constrained. I think you are correct to point
out that other valuable details are lost, but the idea might be
that the internet has the power to release me from the confines
of my defined identity. I don't have any problem with your feeling
dissatisfied with the idea. Or at the very least, dissatisfied
with my explanation.
But I think the show makes a point of saying that Buffy cannot
be defined, either in space or in time. She changes and shifts,
and her power comes not from her autonomous authority, but from
her interaction with others.
I talk about postmodernism because that's what I was mainly immersed
in when I was in grad school in History, not cuz I necessarily
understand it all or think its the only way. People seem generally
willing on this board to both listen to me and tell me that I
don't know what I'm talking about, which is a good thing. I know
that most people aren't into it, but I can't really not see things
that way, cuz that's my education/experience. This board gives
me ample evidence each time I look at it that there are things
going on in Buffy that are totally lost on me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Thanks for all the info -- matching mole,
15:21:56 02/22/02 Fri
I'll respond more later when my brain is less tired
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Is the Chosen One undefinable? -- Caroline,
18:12:55 02/22/02 Fri
Completely with you on the whole identity question - not static
etc, but having a bit of a problem with - not having a personal
individual identity that is separate from our interaction with
others as it relates to Buffy. She's the slayer - there's a whole
destiny thing happening here. And as for being being undefinable
- I would argue that being the slayer is a big part of her identity,
she is the Chosen One with powers that give her some kind of authority
and power to hunt the demons blah blah blah. This would apply
to Faith too. Now they can try to repress or deny it or go along
with it by it is always there.
And our conscious selves are not the only parts of our identity.
We have a whole unconscious life going on under the surface and
so each of us contains multitudes but perhaps many don't get to
fully explore those potentials or integrate the disparate parts
of our selves. And at certain times of our lives those demons
from our unconscious rise up and get slain or they consume us.
Am I just missing something here? Please help!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Self Identity - 'Real Me' -- Rahael,
02:21:57 02/23/02 Sat
Just briefly because though this is a fascinating debate, participating
in it properly would require me to go and actually do some work.
I think the biggest challenge that BtVS has made to an idea of
a stable self identity is Dawn. Who is she? Is she real? Is she
Buffy's Sister? One day, she just appeared in this world and was
left alone to tackle such questions as "Am I good or evil?".
At the end of the day, all she knows is that Joyce regards her
as a daughter, and Buffy as a sister. But Buffy regards her as
more than that, more than a sister - "She is a part of me".
So Dawn has been made from Buffy - and in a way, so was the Buffybot.
In the Gift, the audience are misled momentarily into thinking
the bot is actually Buffy. The Buffybot doesn't think she's a
robot, and she can see she is Buffy, but that they are also separate
entities "We're pretty!".
The investigation of the nature of personal identity can also
be seen in 'Who are you?' where Buffy and Faith switch bodies,
and in 'A new man' where Giles gets transformed.
The idea of a stable, unshifting whole self identity is challenged
consistently. Most especially in the shape of Dawn but also in
the way that Buffy's world view has undergone a sea change this
season.
As for the uniqueness of the slayer - in the earlier seasons,
there used to be voice over from Giles - 'One girl in all the
world' - well that got pretty much challenged with Faith and Kendra.
I'm not a Freudian, so I don't know how far I'd go with the whole
unknown consciousness thing. I'm having vague urgings to start
going on about Wittgenstein here, but I can't articulate clearly
my understanding of Ludwig's theories because I'm not sure that
I've understood properly!
I would say that I was a postmodernist in that I've internalised
so much of it. I am suspicious of grand narratives - I found studying
history with such a suspicion very useful. Also the Foucauldian
idea of power - far more interesting and useful than just the
old fashioned Weberian kind, which didn't acknowledge the existence
of the workings of power below the ruling elite.
Where I do part company with some post modernist thought, as Humanitas
has brought up is authorial intent and the independence of text.
For example one can't go around projecting your own thoughts on
to historical sources and texts (including literature and poetry)
and then saying that this was intended. One can say this this
is your own personal reaction, or that a contrast of context and
text leads you to a certain hunch which you can't prove concretely.
The text is not more important than the author. And I've said
before that Joss' intent is more important than my reaction in
the discussion of Buffy on the board.
One final thought - was it mole who discussed the idea of scientists
being influenced by their time? This seems to me to be self evident.
I had always taken it for granted that the 19th century's fondness
for grand narratives and for the idea of 'progress' had led two
very different men to their ideas. Marx and his critique of capitalism,
and the inevitable march toward a socialist utopia, and Darwin
toward his idea of biological evolution. This doesn't mean that
Darwin was incorrect, its just another nuance toward our understanding
of him.
Postmodernism is inherently suspicious of philosophies and theories
which claim to offer an explanation of everything. And this is
why it does work only on the small scale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Self Identity - 'Real
Me' -- Darby, 05:55:01 02/23/02 Sat
It was mm and me who brought up social-science interactions.
The hard part of the concept is getting contemporary scientists
to acknowledge that they are being influenced by their culture,
and that a conclusion made from results comes partly from the
worldview they were raised under. Although many would see even
the 19th Century discoveries as being influenced only in the way
they were presented, not in the conceptualization itself. I'm
not sure that I agree with your take on Darwin, though - he has
had a lot of nasty concepts (Social Darwinism, for one) attributed
to him that he neither developed nor supported. Definitely a product
of his time, although fleeing a parent-chosen career through a
voyage around the world seems more contemporary.
Some might argue that the true value in art - or even history
and other narratives - is in the interpretation, the lessons learned
and learnable without regard to intent. I'm not one of them, though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I've had The Who stuck
in my head all morning -- matching mole, 08:32:11 02/23/02 Sat
Over and over I hear Roger Daltrey belting out 'Can you see the
real me? Can you? Can you?' I might have to go out and buy a copy
of Quadraphenia to lay it to rest.
Darby brought up the idea of Victorian values influencing Darwin,
I just agreed with him (more or less).
Darby's point about Darwin is interesting because there seems
to be a very strong tendency among evolutionary biologists championing
a particular idea to drag Darwin in as an advocate for their idea.
They'll find some passage in the Origin that seems to back their
claim. This has always seemed odd to me because the important
thing about the idea is not who thought of it but if it matches
the evidence. This is a lot more harmless than Social Darwinism
but much along the same lines.
The comment about scientists is pretty accurate in my experience.
Scientific research involves a large amount of dull, repetitive
work and being successful at it, for most people, involves being
pretty narrowly focused. Thinking about history, sociology, philosophy
and how those things might affect their work is not high on their
lists. I pretty rapidly gave up on doing research, except in a
minor way, very soon after grad school because I got bored too
easily. Teaching is more fun, you get to think about a whole bunch
of things and people pay to listen to you talk.
On the issue of authorial intent in fiction I'm very indecisive.
I used to exchange critiques of short fiction with a friend who
was a much more experienced fictioneer than I. When she read my
stuff she often saw things in them that I had not consciously
put there but when she pointed them out they made sense to me.
That could just mean that I'm inexperienced but I can't make either
the author's intent is unimportant or the author's intent is the
most important argument seem wholly satisfying to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I've had The
Who stuck in my head all morning -- Rahael, 09:43:15 02/23/02
Sat
Sorry Darby - Of course you made that point!
Couldn't agree with you more about Darwin - my mother was a scientist
whose main area of research was primate evolution and Darwin was
a childhood hero of mine. I think that Social Darwinisim is a
big disservice to his work, thus neatly making a point about authorial
intent. (I recall that this was the debate that first pulled me
on to this board)
Mole, I agree that a perceptive reader or critic can find more
in a text than an author can see. I think this is because, as
Joss says, we are slaves to narrative, and half remembered and
submerged ideas work their way into our fiction. We also enjoy
patterns of ideas and sounds, and add those sometimes unconsciously.
The thing about authorial intent is where anachronistic judgements
and readings are given to texts, and stated as fact. Divorcing
Jane Austen, Shakespeare and Milton (to name a few) from contemporary
politics and society, treating texts as pure things leads to an
impoverished reading experience. Jane Austen is a sharp political
satirist of England and English politics, not just of families
and little villages. Shakespeare displays a subtle critique of
monarchy which is lost when you lose context and the audience
he was writing for. That isn't to say that each generation shouldn't
read these texts differently - if they didn't historians and literary
critics wouldn't have jobs!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I've
had The Who stuck in my head all morning -- Aquitaine, 15:09:07
02/23/02 Sat
And, for the reasons you state, literary critics and historians
often share the same identity; their task is to interpret imperfect
texts and contexts.
- Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's identity as presented
on BtVS -- Caroline, 16:51:52 02/23/02 Sat
Once again, let me say I agree that identity is not static. But,
as presented on BtVS, Buffy is chosen by the PTB to be the slayer.
So, on some level, there is a part of her that exists independent
of her conscious wishes for herself. How she consciously shapes
that identity is of course conditioned by culture and social interactions
but the existence of this part of herself is there. And the grand
narrative here is how Buffy comes to terms with it and how she
deals with it. But it's just her journey, her story, it explains/examines
her, not the rest of the world. Yes, the introduction of Dawn
and how Buffy deals does present challenges to the notion of identity
for both of them.
Okay, let me rephrase. We have to have some kind of idea of 'self'
that can then go out into the world and interact with society
and subsequently be shaped by it. I'm not trying to say that nature
is more powerful than nurture or vice versa, just that you gotta
have nature to have nurture. And part of Buffy's nature is the
slayer. The show posits some kind of purposivenss to her identity
that compels her to deal with it that is beyond conscious desires.
How Buffy views that can change and grow but the point is that
it's there. And what that points me to is that consideration of
identity without considering the unconscious (and it's interpretation
through its own symbolic imagery) is not fruitful IMHO.
As for the influence of culture on theory etc, I would heartily
agree - and would add that the unconsious also influences this
as well. For example Freud rejected the existence of incest as
experienced by some of his patients basically because he didn't
want to believe that it existed. And his views on the Oedipal
complex may say more about his own upbringing than could be generally
applied to the entire male population. (Maybe the reason we have
so many differing nuances to psycholanalytic theory is that they
are all just diagnosing themsleves!) Other examples include the
founders of religions that promote polygamy as a moral way of
practising sexual promiscuity. (And talking about the unconscious
mind does not make one a Freudian!!)
I won't get into the whole economics thing 'cos one of the reasons
I come here is to go beyond my day job.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> And.... -- Caroline,
17:42:33 02/23/02 Sat
Just wanted to add one more thing that may shed light on my ramblings.
Jung defined free will as the ability to do gladly that which
I must do. Buffy, to be at peace with herself, has to be able
to do gladly that which she must do - and many of those things
that she must do come from within her, not from outside her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Is the Chosen One undefinable?
-- manwitch, 05:54:34 02/23/02 Sat
Yes and no.
Certainly being the Chosen One is a specific identity. We could
also note that Buffy Summers has a unique name, a unique mailing
address, and unique physical characteristics that we would all
recognize. We could also profile her by race, gender, and class.
My response would be two-fold. First, going back to my "Buffy
is you" comment. The Chosen One is the experience we all
have. We all feel that we alone have an obligation to behave morally.
We all know that we are not recognized or appreciated for our
continuing moral conduct. We look around and see other people
cutting the corners, but we realize that we are not absolved of
our obligation. So in a way, I think the show is not trying to
distinguish Buffy from us, but rather make her like us, because
her experience is our experience. So in that sense, Chosen One
is not unique.
But, getting back within the context of the show, we have also
seen other Chosen One's, and what seems to make Buffy different
from them in success is that she largely let's go of that Chosen
One identity. Compare her to the other slayers we've seen. She,
and her fight, is made up of those around her. In Seasons 1 and
2 we see her battle the enemy alone, but even there the lines
are blurred. She dies alone at the hands of the Master, and Xander
brings her back, and the entire group is present at the Master's
disintegration (interesting word, given what we're talking about).
She kills Angel alone, but Xander is there helping Giles, Willow
is elsewhere performing the spell that restores Angel's sole,
and, in the "politics makes strange bedfellows" category,
Spike has found reason's to work with Buffy in averting the world's
destruction. Without those connections, she fails.
Season 3 is the whole gang and then some fighting the mayor. Season
4 is explicit about the power of their non-individuality (their
individuality as difference informs the spell, but their individuality
as isolated is totally erased). It also demonstrates the threat
of their separation and fragmentation. They all participate in
the fight at the end of Season 5, and the subtext is basically
the same as Season 4. A connection beyond individuality that allows
Buffy to function as an exchange for Dawn.
So, Yes Buffy is unique, but I think her success is predicated
on her identity within the community, not her identity as Chosen
One. This is just my opinion. The premise that she's even a success
could be wrong. I mean, she did die twice. No other slayers have
that kind of failure rate. [insert emoticon here]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: on the specificity/curiosity question
-- matching mole, 20:58:41 02/22/02 Fri
Never really watched the Wonder Years but your explanation was
very helpful. I think I understand your viewpoint a lot better
now but I'm not really sure what I think of it yet. Food for thought
for sure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Causes and reasons -- Shabidoo, 15:29:29 02/23/02
Sat
"I'm having difficulty seeing how not knowing anything about
your fellow conversationalists is useful. Most of my insights
into life have taken this form: person A says something, person
A has come to that conclusion because of some aspect of their
life that is different than mine, I see the connection and my
own perception of life in general is expanded."
It is absolutely true that the anonymity of the internet prevents
readers in most cases from having familiarity with a writer's
baggage. (I'm using baggage as a non-perjorative term here--simply
to describe all the experiences of either the writer or the reader
which color the creation or interpretation a text.) I believe
ignorance about this baggage can be a positive force in dialogue.
It reduces the possibility of an ad hominem attack. In the same
vein, it also compells an author to depend more on reasons than
causes as support for a given claim (if the author wishes to be
rhetorically successful). Rhetorical success depends on an appeal
to some commonality between the author and audience. Without that
commonality there are no grounds for persuasion.
One of the few assumptions I make about my reader is that she
shares certain logical beliefs with me like, "Contradictions
should be avoided." Indeed, if my writing was persuasive
to someone who staunchly disagreed with that belief, I would feel
my work was faulty. A shared sense of rationality becomes the
space in which I can make appeals to complete strangers.
Anonymous correspondence seems to demand logical thinking from
a writer in a way that other forums do not. However, most boards
woefully lack even meager attempts at logical thinking which I
think reveals widespread misunderstanding of the rhetorical context
of anonymous communication. (Emoticons are just another piece
of evidence for this misunderstanding).;)
I want to make it clear that I don't think of reasons and causes
in a dichotomous way. I'd like to think of reasons as a subset
of causes, but that's rarely the way things work. Usually causes
do their work in creating a belief and the reasons tag along in
their own reassuring way. The distinction is muddy, but wallowing
in this mud is helpful in understanding rhetoric.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Can only agree part of the way.... -- Caroline, 11:15:04
02/22/02 Fri
I agree about the increasing post-modernist bent in Buffy recently
- particularly as regards to authority and hierarchies. But I
don't think that Buffy has rejected the modern world of progress,
capitalism, or individuality. We have extensive use of the internet
and computers all the way from season 1 to season 6. I remember
a line where Buffy holds up a pager and says 'If the apocalypse
comes, beep me'. People fly around in aeroplanes, drive cars,
own businesses (love Anya's dance of capitalist superiority),
pay for school, plumbing and recognise the material requirements
of having to support onself financially. What Buffy does is set
up a metaphysical world too, one that interacts with the physical
according to certain rules etc.
This is a really good metaphor for the workings of the conscious
and unconscious minds imo. While the physical world (conscious
mind) mostly wants to deny the metaphiscal world (unconscious
mind) there are continual forays made into the phyical world (conscious
mind) that must be dealt with. The residents of Buffy's universe
definitely have a greater awareness of the metaphysical world
(and hopefully their hidden selves as they grow in self-knowledge)
and therefore do reject a lot of the conventions and norms of
the material world - authority, patriarchy, hierarchy and they
also reject a lot the injustice and hyprocrisy and soul-destroying
activities (such as working at DmP!). I think the message here
is don't get sucked into those norms, not let's overthrow capitalism.
It's use you own brain and don't blindly follow someone else's
religious teachings without submitting them to the test of you
own intellect. It's set your own values, find out for yourself
what you want, not live by someone else's values and what the
conventional world says you should so. The individual is the central
agent here, but it's also an individual who can work with others
effectively in a group (the defeat of every apocalyptic event
has been a group effort that capitalizes on individual talents
- unification of the polarity or oppositional thinking). At least,
that's how I see the show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Authorial Intent -- Humanitas, 16:44:12 02/22/02 Fri
Texts float, appear in the same font, and are interpreted more
in the way of reader response crit than authorial intent.
Emoticons seem to me to reveal a discomfort with this foray into
dispersed subjectivity that is postmodernism. People aren't yet
ready to go all the way. People aren't quite comfortable with
surrendering their authorial intent, their right to individual
subjectivity.
Isn't that the central difficulty with post-modernism from the
perspective of the artist? By 'artist' I mean any person who creates
anything, from the simplest one-line Board Posting all the way
up to a work on the scale of the Cistine Chapel. It seems to me
that the whole point of creating anything is to communicate with
others. If the author's intent is ultimately unknowable, isn't
communication impossible? From that point of view, I think it's
entirely reasonable that people should be unwilling to give up,
as you say, their authorial intent.
Of course, my understanding of post-modernism is pretty limited,
so perhaps I just don't get it.
Certainly, I think, Joss has had issues with Authorial Intent.
Look at how bitter he is about his experience as a Hollywood scriptwriter.
The movies based on his scripts end up not saying what he wants
them to say, and he is understandibly upset by that. Interestingly
enough, if you read some of his Bronze-posts out of context, their
meanings can be pretty seriously inflection-dependant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Authorial Intent -- Darby, 17:14:23 02/22/02
Fri
This brings up a subject that I've had many discussions about
- if a piece of art produces a strong response in the "consumer,"
does it matter if the response was in no way what the artist intended?
I tend to think that art is better if it successfully communicates,
but what if it still has a powerful effect?
I'm reminded of the story (I'm not sure if it's accurate, though)
that Robert Frost insisted that his famous poem about stopping
by the roadside on a snowy evening, widely discussed as a metaphor
for suicidal thoughts, meant nothing of the kind. But if that's
what the reader gets, is it bad poetry?
For a board whose raison d'etre is the dissection of meaning in
a work of art, this may be an important question.
Is it fair, say, to ignore Joss if he were to say, "I don't
care if that's what you see, that's not what I meant"? And
is he the final arbiter?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Reminds me of an amusing quote -- mundusmundi,
19:22:43 02/22/02 Fri
Back in the 80's, Pedro Guerrero, 3rd baseman for the LA Dodgers,
once lambasted a group of reporters, accusing them of misquoting
him. He said, "I wish you people would stop writing what
I say and write what I mean!" Sometimes I think the meanings
people on this board find on our favorite shows are a lot more
interesting than what's ultimately intended. Occasionally, I'm
even persuaded and watch the eps again.
There's an argument that when a work of art is finished and released
into the world, in a way it ceases to become solely the artist's
property. It becomes ours too. I remember discussing Frost's poem
back as an undergrad in a college English class. I didn't see
the suicide motif a bunch of other students did, but I thought
and still think it's a valid interpretation. Some writers, poets,
directors, etc., are reluctant to reveal the intent behind their
work because they feel it risks the dynamic between creator and
consumer. On the other hand, the popularity of DVD director's
commentaries seems to suggest that viewers enjoy comparing their
own interpretations with the original vision.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> story about"Stopping by woods on
a snowy evening" -- Simon A., 17:55:55 02/23/02 Sat
In the 3rd grade every member of our class had to recite Robert
Frost's "Stopping by woods on a snowy evening." My mother
pointed out the suicide interpretation to me while I was memorizing
it. When I pointed this out to the teacher (who was in no way
willing to have a classroom discission of suicide in her third
grade class) I was told that that was NOT what it was about, and
that he was just writing about stopping-by-woods-on-a-snowy evening
and nothing else full stop. I felt rather stomped upon, but when
I got home, me and my mom discussed whether it was valid to get
things out of a powm which weren't even intended to be put there
by the author.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Authorial Intent - Robert frost and
Miles to Go -- Dochawk, 17:46:12 02/24/02 Sun
its interesting that you choose to illustrate your point the Robert
Frost poem since it is referenced in one of BtVS's most difficult
interpetitive scenes. During Graduation Day II Faith reminds Buffy
she has "miles to go" before she sleeps (Little Miss
Muffett counting down from 730). Since then we have learned that
Joss was referring to 730 days until Buffy dies to save Dawn (which
some of you have referred to as suicide), but there were and remain
many other interpetations of this particular sequence which may
be just as valid. Once art is displayed to the viewer, the interpetation
is up to the viewer, not the artist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> But doesn't (or shouldn't) the intent
of the author inform the viewer's interpretation? -- Sophist,
18:12:18 02/24/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> BTW -- Good seeing you back, Hum. -- mm, 19:37:10
02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Thanks, I'm avoiding doing work! -- Humanitas,
20:33:14 02/23/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thanks manwitch -- matching mole, 07:20:26 02/24/02
Sun
for the clear and anti-inflammatory explanations of aspects of
post modernism. If portions of the race thread and the 'Boke'
thing were examples of a low point for this board I think this
has been a high (although only tangentially Buffy related) point,
at least for me. I've learned a lot.
And thanks to everyone else who has participated/is participating
as well
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ditto -- Sophist, 14:46:09 02/24/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Big smoochies to all for feeding my brain --
ponygirl, 06:51:03 02/25/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> By the way, if you still care -- d'Herblay, 00:25:25
02/25/02 Mon
Cruces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because....transcript of a portion of Fray #3 and Fray #5.....Spoilers
galore...;) -- Rufus, 17:58:26 02/21/02 Thu
FRAY Issue three....Ready, Steady....
Urkonn: "There were demons, monsters, beyond imagination,
most of them ruled this dimension as they did so many others.....Eventually,
as mortal animals evolved, under the protection of certain mages
and Loranites.....They left! All right?
Urkonn: The demons, most of them, found more hospitable dimen...places,
and left the Earth to the Mortals, for the most part.....Some
remained, hidden away. Some bred within the human community their
power weakened throughout generations. Some assimilated.....and
some......infected.
It is not known when they first appeared...but the vampires were
a plague. The elders of several villages met, calling for action.
They invoked the strongest and most dangerous magicks they could
summon, to create a power, a power that could fight the vampires.
A power that lived......in the body of a girl."
Fray issue three (the drawing of the first slayer looks like the
first slayer in Restless).
Issue 5 "The Worst of It"
Melaka Fray had a twin called Harth, who was killed by a lurk.
But he wasn't, he became the leader of the Lurks and this is how.....
Melaka: This can't be....
Harth: Cause I'll tell you the truth, Mel......I really missed
you....I mean I've seen you watched you.
Melaka: My Brother has been dead for four years.
Harth: But I couldn't really see you, not til it was time.....
Melaka: Harth....
Harth: It's confusing I know......and it's easy to explain. I
guess we'd start...I guess we'd start with my death........It
hurts you know...my throat torn open, the animal's teeth scaping
bone it was so eager to suck out my blood......I just wanted it
to stop.......And it did...it faded, suddenly. I knew in that
moment I was dying.......And I KNEW, with perfect clarity, what
I had to do..........(Harth rips the face of the lurk, drinking
some of the blood).
Icarus: How did you know?.....How did you know you had to feed
to become one of us?
Harth: I know much more than that. ....I know what we are.....I
know what we will become.
Harth: You don't dream much, do you, Mel?........I dreamed ...Always.
Before my earliest memories of the world. There were the dreams.
......There was this girl.......She was different every time.
But the SAME. A peasant, a Priestess....hundreds of girls, from
times we've forgotten, worlds we couldn't picture.........She
was me...She wasn't me.....I LOVED her.......I KILLED her...I
never said anything about them....The dreams, youd've thought
I was spun......I pretty much thought that myself.
Melaka: My dreams.....
Harth: In my head. I always said we were two halves of the same
person....
Melaka: But Harth, you're not....you can't be one of them....you
don't look....
Harth: ...Like this?....(Harth's face vamps),(I have to include
the fact that the lurks are vampires and they no longer remember
who or what they are, but Harth does, he got the dreams that his
twin Melaka never did. She didn't know she was a slayer)
Harth: I choose not to. Any vampire can appear perfectly human
if they try. Most of them are too primative to know it. Icarus,
he chooses the face of the beast because he's proud.
Harth: But I am more than beast. I am the one who will lead.
Icarus: He is the one who will lead.
Harth: This world belongs to the demons. They were banished, exiled
by one of your ambitous predecessors...I still don't know how
we came back. But we're here. A scattered few of us. And we will
reclaim our world.....I will open the gateway, and bring the Old
Ones back.....and everyone you love will die screaming.
Melaka: No. Harth...you can't mean that. You can't do it...those
memories you have are mine. They're part of ....Harth, you only
think those things because you're infected. My brother would never
hurt anyone.
Harth: Then I guess you shouldn't have gotten me killed. (he proceeds
to beat Melaka) I love you Melaka. I've never felt closer to anyone....I
watched you. I knew what you were before you did. You wasted your
talent grabbing for Gunther, so I used you to complete my collection..The
pieces that will help me open the Gateway...Thanks to you, I have
them all.
Melaka: I won't ....let you hurt.
Harth: Mel, Mel, you can't protect anyone. Haven't you learned
that by now? The only question is....What do I do with you now?
(Hath tosses Melaka around and she falls through a floor into
the sewer system getting away) Oh....oh okay......oops.
Icarus: She can't have lived.
Harth: If she were dead I would know. You keep underestimating
her....
Icarus: But, she knows.....
Harth: Just enough. Enough to cripple her, to make her complicit
in the agonizing deaths of everyone she knows.....Enough to prove
my love.
Melaka goes to her older sisters...........
Sister: But he's alive.
Melaka: Not alive. You don't understand.
Sister: I refuse to accept that he's a shell, possessed by...That
word is something out of the old Horror Scopes
Melaka: Vampire, you're gonna have to believe me.
Sister: I guess I don't. He's got infected. He's a lurk....but
there's gotta be a cure for that, right?
Melaka: You ever hear of one?
Sister: Because you're the slayer.
Melaka: Yes. Sort of. I don't know....Harth, he...I don't think
the Slayer's supposed to have a twin and he got the memories,
the heritage....I just got the strength.
Sister: Mel, You're asking me to take your word for something
you can't explain coherently...I'm a cop. This would be hard for
me even if you weren't...even if we didn't have a history.
Melaka: You're a cop and I'm a crook. Hell, you tried to arrest
me last night....hadda be a big day for you, right? Must've been,
if only for the big cuff, get pissant sis out of your hair for
awhile.
Sister: Mel....
Melaka: You've never had anything but contempt for me since the
day Harth died and you know what? You're probably right!...It
was my fault......But do you think I'd come here and start spewing
stories about monsters and being the chosen one, if I wasn't sure?
If there wasn't trouble coming........Harth....wants to hurt me.
But he wants a lot more than that. He said everyone I love is
gonna die screaming.
Sister: So I guess I'm safe.
Melaka: I'm going. Are you gonna try and stop me?
Sister: No, I'm not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> A link to a site with graphics and a synopsis of Fray 1
- 5.... -- Rufus, 18:16:48 02/21/02 Thu
Fangirl
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spike the Vampire Slayer?!? -- Rob, 19:44:10 02/21/02 Thu
I posted that intriguing title, not only because I knew it would
get you to look in here, but also because there is indeed a vampire
slayer named Spike in a book I am reading.
The brilliant novel, "The Eyre Affair," by Jasper Fforde,
which I would recommend to any lover of literature, sci-fi, alternate
history, fantasy, comedy, thrillers, witty wordplay, etc etc etc,
features a character in a Special Government Operations Unit whose
job is to kill or restrain vampires and werewolves. And his name
is Spike.
I don't know if that was a coincidence, or if it was an intentional
nod to "Buffy."
But it does bring up some interesting thoughts. This man is named
Spike because of his ability to "spike" vamps with his
stakes. Our Spike's name is very interesting, in that regard.
He is a vamp whose name symbolically refers to the way in which
vampires are killed. Hmmm...My brain isn't functioning with enough
strength at the moment to speak about the implications of this...
Perhaps some one else would like to write about this?
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike the Vampire Slayer?!? -- pagangodess, 20:36:38
02/21/02 Thu
I'd say if the book was published recently, then it's probably
not a coincidence. I mean, c'mon, 'Spike', 'vampire slayer', 'gov't
operation' - all screams season 4.
Between you and Rufus' comics my reading material is piling up
pretty high.
:)
pagan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Response and About Eyre Affair... -- Rob, 22:45:23
02/21/02 Thu
Yes, I'm sure you're right...How could it be anything but a reference
to "Buffy"? Also, the author is a Brit, and the show
is very popular there. So it has to be.
More about "The Eyre Affair"...I so recommend this book,
it's not even funny! Well, actually, the book is funny, remarkably
so. Think a "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" for intellectuals.
It is about an alternate-1985, where literature is the most important
thing in the world (People attend audience participation shows
of "Richard III" instead of "Rocky Horror,"
and Baconists knock on people's doors with pamphlets, like Jehovah's
Witnesses, trying to convince people that Francis Bacon wrote
Shakespeare's plays!), and new technology has raised the dodo
from extinction. Further, a new invention called the ProsePortal
has been invented wherein a person can enter a book, literally.
Once inside, he or she can interact with the characters, see the
sights of the book, etc. But a fiendish criminal has stolen the
ProsePortal and is entering different classic novels and killing
off or kidnapping characters!
And the latest kidnapping victim is none other than Jane Eyre...snatched
from the very pages of her own book!
This book is one of the laugh-out-loud funniest I've read in a
long time, and also an insightful, brilliant work of literature
in its own right.
I bought it after attending a book signing by the author at the
Barnes and Noble on Astor Place in NYC, Jasper Fforde (pronouned
"Ford"). He is an immensely funny, brilliant British
man, who I spoke to for a while. I told him that the timing of
the book is perfect, because I'd just finished reading "Jane
Eyre" for a college class. He told me he was "dreadfully
sorry I had to read it"! I love that guy!
Just so you know--if you're a literature buff, you'll love this
book. But even if you're not, while you may miss some of the subtle
jokes, there are more than enough jokes of broader humor to go
around, and all important points from other books are explained
fully. In other words, you do not need to have read "Jane
Eyre" to love "The Eyre Affair."
The sequel has already come out in England, "Lost in a Good
Book" and is due here next January! Aargh! But if you guys
want to get a jump on a major talent, read this book. It's the
most satisfying read I've had in a long time!
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> OT: So Hitchhiker's Guide is for dumb people?
-- Tomtom, 00:54:42 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike the Vampire Slayer?!? -- yuri, 22:35:04 02/21/02
Thu
He is a vamp whose name symbolically refers to the way in which
vampires are killed.
And he got that name (supposedly) shoving railroad spikes through
people's heads, right? So he was doing his own sort of "staking"
before he was ever chipped. The pointy thing was just metal instead
of wood and the vulnerable spot was the brain rather than the
heart. Could connote some interesting things... (not that I have
any idea what they are.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
faith and figure skating -- anneth, 09:23:49 02/22/02 Fri
after watching the figure skating last night, i decided that if
i were an ice skater, i'd perform my flawless olympic routine
to a medly from once more with feeling... complete w/ character
interpretations.
giggle. more seriously, who are you (or is it this year's girl?
it's faith's season 4 cameo pt. 2) was on last night, and the
final few minutes, where faith-inside-buffy screams and beats
the stuffing out of b-inside-f, (incidentally, prob one of my
top 5 fav dramatic scenes ever) reminded me of a poem...
SELF-PORTRAIT
The I examines itself
as it thinks it is seen,
resting its fingers
on its temples,
declares: What lies.
you broken, divine,
pain-bound, etheral,
excrement, perfection...
The mystery, the self-deception:
look at me for a moment,
turn your face from these reflections
of self-love and self-loathing:
I, too, have a mirror.
- revan schendler
I've carried that in my wallet for 8 years, from y=the time that
i was a sad, lonely 15 yr old on. it seems to encapsulate faith's
conflict in that arc so perfectly... any thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Poem certainly captures the dicotomy of Faith -- Brian,
11:41:47 02/22/02 Fri
Faith is a composite of opposites: Hero-Villian, Good-Evil,
Child-Growup, Action-Reaction, Dark-Light, Strong-Weak, Lover-Slut.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Favorite Buffy Episode -- Sloan Parker, 09:24:46 02/22/02 Fri
My favorite buffy episode of all time is "The Body"
where Joyce dies. It's very well written and not melodramatic.
Ok there's no slaying around but I think it's the perfect exemple
to see how good of a writer Joss Whedon is. I also like the Pilot,
which is one of the best Pilot I've ever seen with the pilot from
Prey and Profit. Gee I like Pilots!
I found at www.chez.com/jimprofit/twiz/transcripts/pilots/index.html
an exclusive listing of pilots transcripts, which is very cool!
And of course, I know everybody hates this site, but let me tell
you this, it's a heck of a site, with all the transcripts they
got. Buffy, Angel, Friends, Roswell, even Undeclared! www.chez.com/jimprofit/twiz/index.htlm
to check it out.
I know it's not really buffy-related, I mean it's kinda related
since they got scripts and all, but I just don't understand why
some people just can't stand this site. Go figure!
Anyway my point was: what's your favorite buffy episode?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'm sure this is useless but... -- Darby, 09:39:20 02/22/02
Fri
I really didn't have anything against the site until it turned
into the board equivalent of telemarketers.
We've heard about the site! If we wanted to, we've visited the
site! If anyone here is like me, we've now decided not to support
a site that's spamming our board! We're sick of hearing about
the site! Go away already!
I now have indelibly connected in my head these annoying messages
and Spike holding up the "Two Words" fingers in Hush.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> (Incidentally, this is more of the recent spam.) --
Darby, 09:40:51 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: This is not useless! -- Taralover, 09:44:28 02/22/02
Fri
I don't think it's useless. I just find out about this site yesterday.
So thanks for the "telemarketing"! Just do not read
the posts or do not answer and just go to your business. I think
the "spams" are not directed to you, because obviously
you know about this site, but to people like me who just happen
to find out about it. So my guess is for them to get new visitors.
And I don't see the problem with that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Clueless discussions as marketing techniques.
I guess it's original... -- Darby, 09:55:55 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: No marketing involved -- Taralover,
10:01:42 02/22/02 Fri
Sloan asked for our favorite buffy episode, that was her point!
I think the twiz thing is just a bonus she wanted to share with
us. Her post was totally appropriate, since she want us to discussion
our favorite episode. Why do I even bother to speak for her anyway
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Favorite Buffy Episode -- Taralover, 10:04:25 02/22/02
Fri
My favorite episode evr is "Hush" because it's the most
original I've ever seen. I mean more than 30 minutes of television
and no dialogues! I also like the pilot too and of course Tabula
Rasa. Plus the Body and Revelation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading Recommendation -- Rob, 09:27:34 02/22/02 Fri
I posted about this great new sci-fi/fantasy/comedy book I just
finished reading, "The Eyre Affair," last night, but
it's already in the archives. Please go and look for it...or just
get the book "The Eyre Affair" by Jasper Fforde. In
my mini-review, I called it a "Hitchhiker's Guide to the
Galaxy" for intellectuals. In response, I got a post from
tomtom asking whether I thought HGttG is for dumb people.
I have to answer with a resounding "No, of course not!"
I am a huge, huge fan of the Hitchhiker series. It is in fact
the series that made me love sci-fi. I read it when I was 9, for
the first time, and it will always have a special place in my
heart. It is a brilliant book. But I'm sure most of you know that
it's not "intellectual" humor. Brilliant satire, yes,
but the jokes don't revolve around topics such as great works
of literature, William Shakespeare, Charlotte Bronte, etc. And
it couldn't, because it would be an all together different sort
of book. This book is similar in its many laughs and very British
sense of humor--and while it does have a lot of the sort of comedy
you would find in the Hitchhiker series, there is a more intellectual
slant to the humor, which is riddled with literary references.
So don't think that my comment was a put-down to "Hitchhiker."
I loved the series, and think we all lost a true, great talent
with Douglas Adams' passing last year.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What the heck are you taling about? -- Frank, 09:36:02
02/22/02 Fri
???
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> OK...Anybody else, of the non-troll variety? -- Rob,
09:49:37 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: thanks , but I'm not troll, I'm an ewok!
-- Frank, 09:56:35 02/22/02 Fri
Sorry I just didn't see the point of your post, since it's not
buffy or angel related.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Everything is related to Buffy. In fact,
Einstein was working on just this theory when he died. -- Evil
Clone, 10:45:28 02/22/02 Fri
We suspect a conspiracy, of course.
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> OT topics -- Masq, 11:20:05 02/22/02 Fri
This is what we call an "Off topic" thread--"on
topic" meaning BtVS/Angel related chatter.
As the resident board moderator/working stiff, it's my policy
that OT topics related to philosophy, art, literature, science,
and other fun topics are OK. We get a lot of folks coming to this
board from these backgrounds, and this is a place they can exchange
information and ideas.
The OT stuff I discourage is advertisements for non-BtVS/Angel
websites and merchandise. (Although websites related to philosophy,
art, literature, science, etc, etc are part of the good OT stuff).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Oh, and welcome to the board! --
Masq, 11:21:41 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> How "Eyre Affair" relates
to "Buffy"... -- Rob, 11:43:38 02/22/02 Fri
I first mentioned the book, because it contains a character who
is a Special Operatives Agent, whose sector is involved in slaying
or trapping vampires and werewolves. His name? Spike!
He got that name from his great ability to "spike" vamps
with his stakes.
That was why I originally posted it...both to note a "Buffy"
reference in a popular novel, and to also point ou the irony inherent
in our Spike's name. He is a vamp who is named after the very
thing that kills vampires. I never had thought about it like that
before. Very interesting, especially considering the possible
duality of Spike's nature.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I think it depends on how you define intellectual -- matching
mole, 09:55:49 02/22/02 Fri
Thanks for the recommendation Rob, you make the book sound very
appealing.
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary that I inherited from grandfather
defines intellectual as: 'Of, appealing to, requiring the exercise
of, intellect."
By that definition the Hitchhiker books are certainly intellectual
as they are definitely about ideas.
However the term intellectual is often applied in the way you
used it - to refer to 'high' art, the serious stuff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> You mean the snob things, right ? :) -- Etrangere,
10:02:24 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I was trying to avoid any sort of value judgement
-- matching mole, 10:48:40 02/22/02 Fri
or to imply that Rob was in any way a snob, especially given that
intellectual is commonly used in the way that he used it.
But, basically, yeah.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Of course I'm not a snob! -- Rob, 11:16:56
02/22/02 Fri
I apologize for any misunderstanding with the "intellectual"
comment. What I was referring to is that much of the humor of
"The Eyre Affair" assumes that the reader has a basic
knowledge of famous British literature, and thus the book is populated
with sly, subtle jabs at famous British novelists, i.e. the Brontes,
Austen, Dickens, Shakespeare, Carroll, etc etc. That is not to
say that one who is not well versed in British Literature would
not enjoy the book. There is enough broad humor to appeal to anyone,
and the story is wonderful. Perhaps I should say it's a "Hitchhiker's
Guide" for literature buffs.
If you guys didn't read my earlier review, here's a short synopsis
of the book:
"It is about an alternate-1985, where literature is the most
important thing in the world (People attend audience participation
shows of "Richard III" instead of "Rocky Horror,"
and Baconists knock on people's doors with pamphlets, like Jehovah's
Witnesses, trying to convince people that Francis Bacon wrote
Shakespeare's plays!), and new technology has raised the dodo
from extinction. Further, a new invention called the ProsePortal
has been invented wherein a person can enter a book, literally.
Once inside, he or she can interact with the characters, see the
sights of the book, etc. But a fiendish criminal has stolen the
ProsePortal and is entering different classic novels and killing
off or kidnapping characters!
And the latest kidnapping victim is none other than Jane Eyre...snatched
from the very pages of her own book! The only person who could
save her is Special Ops LiteraTec Detective Ms. Thursday Next,
whose father, incidentally, is a time-traveller.
This book is one of the laugh-out-loud funniest I've read in a
long time, and also an insightful, brilliant work of literature
in its own right.
I bought it after attending a book signing by the author at the
Barnes and Noble on Astor Place in NYC, Jasper Fforde (pronouned
"Ford"). He is an immensely funny, brilliant British
man, who I spoke to for a while. I told him that the timing of
the book is perfect, because I'd just finished reading "Jane
Eyre" for a college class. He told me he was "dreadfully
sorry I had to read it"! I love that guy!"
So, once again, I wasn't implying that HGttG wasn't brilliant,
or that it was not as clever a series as "The Eyre Affair"...I
was implying that the brand of humor is different. That is also
not to say that "The Eyre Affair" is an elitist book.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is just as downright,
freewheelingly, maddeningly insane as Adams...but the subject
matter is different. Hope that clears things up.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Sorry Rob, I didn't intend to hijack
your thread -- matching mole, 11:43:56 02/22/02 Fri
I have now read all three of your reviews of the book. I will
absolutely have to go out and read it now. Just look at this as
extra advertisement:o) (look it's my very first ever emoticon!-
not sure I did it properly).
I was mostly just trying to explain why you might have gotten
the reaction you did to your intitial post. I think the term intellectual
can be an emotionally laden one in certain circumstances and I
did feel a slight irritation when you originally used it. However,
I knew you were just using it as a convenient label but others
might not see it the same way (tomtom certainly didn't). Sorry
if it seemed that I was disparaging you in any way. I think highly
of your recommendations. I read my first Neil Gaiman book a couple
of weeks ago ('Stardust' - the only one available at the time
at my library) and enjoyed it very much. It reminded me a lot
of works by Lord Dunsany, particulary The King of Elfland's Daughter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Glad that's all cleared up!
:oD -- Rob, 11:58:02 02/22/02 Fri
No, I didn't take your remarks as disparaging at all. I'm glad
you pointed that out to me. Sometimes I just type a word, knowing
what I want it to mean, but not realizing that others may take
a different way.
And I'm so glad you enjoyed "Stardust"! I'd read "American
Gods" next, if I were you...That one is brilliant, also.
Gaiman was also the head writer in "The Sandman" comic
book series, which transcended the genre by taking everything
you think you know about comic books, and turning them on their
head. All of the issues of the comic book are collected in a 10
volume series. They are a bit pricey, but so SO worth it. It combines
literary references, ancient and modern myths, and so much more
into a vast universe, mixing the mythical with the mundane. I
actually also bought "The Sandman Companion," which
annotates the series, and explains all the complex references
and symbolism. I promise, even if you are not a comic book fan,
you will love that series. I think I read, actually, that, in
a poll of some sort, it was named the most popular comic book
among people who are not avid comic book readers. Basically, Morpheus,
the Lord of Dreams, is kidnapped for forty years. During his imprisonment,
the world of dreams collapses. Once he is freed, he must set about
recreating his kingdom, and setting everything right again. I
devoured all ten volumes (each of which contain approximately
8-10 issues) in less than a week. It has also won a multitude
of awards, including the World Fantasy Award for one of the issues,
entitled, "A Midsummer Night's Dream." They are actually
stories about the creation of stories. One of the reviews on the
back of the fourth volume called the series, "A postmodern
metafiction with word balloons," which is a perfect description.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> In defense of Mr. Adams -- Anonymous
Poster, 18:08:08 02/22/02 Fri
Although I can't pull an example from HHGttG off the top of my
head, Adams' Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency does however
require knowledge of British poetry -- or at least, a British
poet. As far as I recall, "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner"
and "Kubla Khan" by Coleridge (both excellent poems,
in my opinion) play important roles in the text. To some extent
the coup de grace of the denouement requires knowledge of the
circumstances behind the writing of one of those poems and the
work loses much without that knowledge. It's in his usual style
of nothing making too much sense until you get the whole story,
only this time integrating real-life trivia into the mix.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Huh, me neither ! -- Etrangere, 12:29:54
02/22/02 Fri
After all we're on a forum called "All Things Philosophical
on Buffy the Vampire Slayer", I don't see what someone who
thinks only "classic" litterature is worth interpretating
and is superior to any kind of genre.
I think I just reacted because in France people are way more prejudiced
with all-things-not-elitist and especially contemptuous to Science
Fiction, of which I'm a big fan :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Reading Recommendation -- Brian, 11:02:10 02/22/02 Fri
Thanks for the tip, Rob; I try to find it at my local B&N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
queen of the damned review -- anneth, 14:40:35 02/22/02 Fri
this review is interesting because the movie seems like everything
btvs isn't- but people who discount the show because of its name
seem to fear it is.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/22/review.queen.damned/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> It wasn't THAT bad ... (possible SPOLIERS within) -- Earl
Allison, 15:04:08 02/22/02 Fri
It's not a mind-numbingly bad film -- certainly no "Starship
Troopers" or "Manos: Hands of Fate."
I saw the first showing here in my local theater with a friend,
he and I made up about 10% of the audience -- NOT a good sign
on a Friday the kids have off from school (although in the movie's
defence, my friend pointed out "this is really a film you
should see late at night, not just shy of noontime.")
No, there wasn't a lot of development in the characters, but for
a ninety-plus minute film, that's a rarity anyway -- why hold
this one to a higher standard?
Admittedly, I think the film is mistitled, we see far more of
Townsend/Lestat than Aaliyah/Acasha, but since IIRC, the book
was the same way, no serious harm here.
I enjoyed the film -- it wasn't a great film, but it wasn't a
BAD film, like Ms. Dushku's earlier film venture, "Soul Survivors."
(which, like an idiot, I will get in DVD anyway for her being
in it ...) Turn off your brain, and you'll be fine.
The fight sequences (of which there are few and far between) are
nice, although apparently Rice's vampires can die of broken necks,
being skewered with metal mic stands, or stab wounds -- they are
marred somewhat with the "superspeed" effect of the
vampires, cutting down on what would otherwise be a neat action
sequence.
Acasha vascilates between godly powerful and just a "normal"
vampire -- she incinerates a club full of vamps in one scene,
and is killed by a handful of her more direct descendents at the
close (AWESOME scene of her becoming dust, BTW).
I DID have a problem with Lestat being something of, if not a
hero, at least someone we should root for, at the close -- after
all, this is the vamp that has been snacking on tasty goth groupies
(oh yeah, if you have a thing for goth girls, there are scene
that will leave you in heaven! -- I know, I need help :)
It was a nice movie, as long as you don't go into it with high
hopes and expectations.
Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hey, I loved "Starship Troopers"... -- Rob,
15:12:41 02/22/02 Fri
I thought that movie was an ingenious parody of fascism, war movies,
and sci-fi in general. Yes, it was campy and over-the-top gory,
but that's what made it so fun for me. Those news bulletins were
some of the funniest things in any movie.
And my biggest problem with "Queen of the Damned" is
that the book is absolutely brilliant. The fact that the movie
based on it requires you to turn off your brain is really sad.
Anne Rice has said she approves of the movie, but I have to wonder
whether that's just PR. I'm a huge Anne Rice fan, and I have to
say I was really saddened how two of her best books were mashed
together into this mess of a movie...
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Hey, I loved "Starship Troopers"...
-- LadyStarlight, 15:20:09 02/22/02 Fri
Rob, oh Rob, (shakes head) you poor misguided soul. Go read the
book (by Robert Heinlein) a few times, then watch the movie again.
I hope Virginia got a s**tload of money for it, cause they totally
screwed it up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I liked the movie better than the book
-- Traveler, 17:06:54 02/22/02 Fri
The book didn't contain any satyric elements at all. It was simply
an ode to war and warriors, and that was it. At least the movie
didn't take itself so seriously.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Totally different animals. -- Darby,
17:32:13 02/22/02 Fri
I liked both, but they are in no way comparable thematically -
Heinlein was channeling Ayn Rand, as he tended to do but with
a better writing style, and Verhoeven was using the rough plot
outline to skewer a simplistic idea of the book's themes and modern
ideas he doesn't like.
The funny thing is that both have very strong imagery of the same
battles, but the imagery is so different that they don't seem
related.
It's also funny that Verhoeven is at his best investigating the
darker side of sex (he'd like season six, it's kind of like a
movie he did called Flesh and Blood), while Heinlein was often
at his worst dealing with the much the same subject.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I read the book...I'm a huge Heinlein
fan, but not a fan of his pro-military gung-ho stance -- Rob,
21:43:36 02/22/02 Fri
I much preferred the satire of the film.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Starship Troopers -- Brian,
07:22:22 02/23/02 Sat
I give a "thumbs up" to the movie because it motivated
me to reread the book. Titanic did the same.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> likes Starship Troopers too :) -- Etrangere,
15:22:37 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I did too -- Cactus Watcher, 15:24:07 02/22/02
Fri
It's fairly true to the book which was, in fact, a serious work
not a piece of camp. Obviously, it was written in much different
times. As a period piece of what sci-fi, or more accurately space
opera, once was, it's not bad.
Earl's position is pretty understandable too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I did too -- LadyStarlight, 15:49:01
02/22/02 Fri
(shoves the screaming, frothing at the mouth part of me firmly
away from the keyboard, takes deep breath.)
Okay. Better now.
Fairly true to the book? Hmmm, lessee, drop the 'basketball' game,
the fact that women were not inducted into the army as grunts,
Carl was killed, most women pilots shaved their heads, Carmen's
story was not told, should I go on?
Sorry for beating this into the ground, but I loved the book and
to see it turned into a 'Hollywood' thing broke my heart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I did too -- CW, 16:00:06 02/22/02
Fri
Thanks for replying. Didn't mean to make you mad. I was still
typing my post while yours went up. I admit I haven't read the
book in thirty years. But, even back then I remember the us against
the Nazis tone, and thinking "God, this is dated!" Carmen
did get shorted in the movie, a big shame. And I really hated
Carl in the movie and kind of remember admiring him in the book.
(Sorry Deeva, no offense.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> None taken. -- Deeva, 16:24:26
02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I did too -- Robert, 17:30:25 02/22/02
Fri
>> "It's fairly true to the book which was, in fact,
a serious work not a piece of camp."
It was a coming of age novel for the SF reading youth of the time,
such as myself. Most of Heinlein's early work built on the coming
of age theme. I would have prefered that they produce "The
Moon is a Harsh Mistress" into a movie. The story is likely
to be less controversial than "Starship Troopers", and
its a better story.
>> "Obviously, it was written in much different times."
Oh yes, it sure was!!! The US hadn't yet fried itself in Viet
Nam.
I believe that there is a problem with producing any of Heinlein's
novels, or novels from any other authors from the golden era.
What was once original is now cliche'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Me, too. -- Deeva, 15:36:57 02/22/02 Fri
I loved how over the top it was, too. And that's saying something
because I'm not too fond of gore. Actually, I think I really liked
Neil Patrick Harris' character. Not a big part but it was diferent
for a guy who's mostly known as Doogie Hauser.
As for QotD, well, I loved the book. Was interested in how the
movie was going to be pulled off. Now it looks like I'll wait
till it goes to tape. It's a shame.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Apologies -- Earl Allison, 16:22:34 02/22/02
Fri
I respect your opinion to enjoy the film, but compared to the
book, IMHO, the film is terrible.
The news bulletins were great entertainment, but stacked against
the rest of the film, it didn't do it for me.
That being said, apologies for trampling on a film you liked --
some say po-TAH-to, some say po-TAY-to :)
Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Hey, I loved "Starship Troopers"...
-- Annoying1, 00:20:32 02/23/02 Sat
I had never read any Heinlein and saw Starship Troopers without
any preconceptions and thought it was very funny. I assumed with
the newsreel footage and the over-padded shoulders on Doogie Hitler's
trenchcoat that it had to be a parody. I haven't seen or read
Queen of the Damned and probably won't. I read her first four
vampire books and kind of lost interest after that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: It wasn't THAT bad ... (possible SPOLIERS within)
-- fresne, 17:05:23 02/22/02 Fri
Well, I was going to say "Hey, I love Manos: Hand of Fate"
but I don't want to step on any toes.
However, provided that it is 2:00 in the morning, it's quite amusing.
Trust me. Years later, you will still turn to your friends, hold
out your hand (palm out), loudly declaim, "Manos, Hand of
Fate" and start to giggle uncontrollably.
The catfight between women dressed in Grecian robes in a sandbox
on a soundstage was also amusing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Queen of the Damned: The Movie or How to Ruin a Great Book
in Six Easy Steps! -- Rob, 15:09:20 02/22/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spike got rid of Riley once... -- LeeAnn, 20:02:08 02/22/02 Fri
I've always claimed that Spike got rid of Riley. After his horrified
realization that he had fallen for the slayer Spike's first action
was to start hanging around her house, partly just to be near
her, but also to gather information. He uses what he's learned
to plant the seeds of insecurity in Riley's heart, to convince
him that Buffy was not satisfied with him.
In Shadow Spike points out to Riley that Buffy has never uninvited
him to her house, to which Riley responds Because you're harmless.
Spike replies, Oh yeah, right. Takes one to know, I suppose...Face
it, white bread. Buffy's got a type, and you're not it. She likes
us dangerous, rough, occasionally bumpy in the forehead region.
Not that she doesn't like you ... but sorry Charlie, you're just
not dark enough. After taunting Riley as harmless, Spike also
points out that Buffy didn't even tell him that her mother was
sick and in the hospital, something Spike knew and Riley didn't.
Soon after that Riley begins his walk on the wild side and gets
his first suck job from a vampire trull. Trying to understand
and satisfy Buffy's need for darkness? An idea he got, at least
partially, from Spike. (There was also the Angel thing.)
It's while lurking that Spike learns of Riley's new hobby and
then brings Buffy to see it.
It's Spike, after Riley all but kills him, who laughs and taunts
Riley again, even while he holds his wounded chest, telling him
he's not the long haul guy and he knows it, telling him, The girl
needs some monster in her man ... and that's not in your nature....no
matter how low you try to go. It all seems very spontaneous...until
you think of the result, until you remember that, despite his
obsession, Spike is still very clever and wants what he wants.
"A fella's gotta try, though. Gotta do what he can."
It's after this talk with Spike that Riley has his confrontation
with Buffy, giving her what she considers an ultimatum followed
rapidly by the end of their relationship with Riley on his way
to Central America with his old Initiative buddies.
Go Spike!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Riley should have used wood. -- LorneLover, 22:13:37 02/22/02
Fri
And all this manipulation of Riley, and Buffy too, doesn't show
he's just wrong for anyone?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike got rid of Riley once... -- Malandanza, 06:57:45
02/23/02 Sat
"It all seems very spontaneous...until you think of the result,
until you remember that, despite his obsession, Spike is still
very clever and wants what he wants."
I agree with everything you said until the final line ("Go
Spike!") -- there, we part company and I have to agree with
LorneLover.
My feeling is that Riley showed a great deal of character in his
final episode -- while he recognized that Spike had led him down
the path he was on, he accepted responsibility for everything
that had gone wrong. He did not blame Spike for his own mistakes
(or Buffy for ignoring him)-- he blamed himself for allowing Spike
to influence his decisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike got rid of Riley once... -- Brian, 07:09:35
02/23/02 Sat
Plus, that look on Spike's face when Buffy finds out about Riley's
vamp ho. Spike realizes just how much he has hurt her by revealing
this truth, and I think, he is ashamed of his actions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I agree with Mal -- Rufus, 13:22:29 02/23/02 Sat
Riley did take responsibility for everything he did wrong, and
said so to Buffy. He knew that Buffy didn't love him for awhile
and leaving town made sense to him as there was no reason at that
point for him to stay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike got rid of Riley once... -- alcibiades, 09:09:30
02/23/02 Sat
LeeAnn wrote:
"He uses what he's learned to plant the seeds of insecurity
in Riley's heart, to convince him that Buffy was not satisfied
with him."
Gotta quibble with the wording here. The seeds were already planted
by Buffy's interactions with Riley, and by Angel and Dracula.
Buffy had been stealing out night after night hunting, needing
that extra excitement not provided by Riley.
All Spike did was give voice to Riley's fears, externalize them,
told Riley that what he was feeling had some objective, recognizable
truth in it.
But the reason the remarks hit home is because that is exactly
how Riley has already been feeling. The insecurity is all there
to begin with. Buffy doesn't love him, not the way he thinks he
loves her. She loves him because he's safe and she thinks he will
always be there and maybe because he's convenient.
alcibiades
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike got rid of Riley once... -- LeeAnn, 09:27:10
02/23/02 Sat
You really think she "loved" Riley?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike got rid of Riley once... -- LorneLover,
13:55:54 02/23/02 Sat
In her own way, each person is loved differently from one another.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Buffy, which other show do you like? -- Sloan Parker, 03:21:37
02/23/02 Sat
I like the Simpspons, Malcom in the Middle, the X-Files, Ally
McBeal, Spin City, Picket Fences, Profit, Kindred, Six Feet Under,
Oz, Alias, Dark Angel, the Pretender, Gilmore Girls and much more...
What about you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: After Buffy, which other show do you like? -- Andy,
06:14:19 02/23/02 Sat
Uh, I watch 24. That's about it :)
Although, on a less regular basis, I also check out Invader Zim
(damn you Nickolodeon for cancelling this! DIE!), Iron Chef, WWF
wrestling, and Samurai Jack. And I'm always keeping an eye out
for good documentaries or classic films here and there.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: After Buffy, which other show do you like? -- LeeAnn,
06:49:09 02/23/02 Sat
Farscape
Six Feet Under
Lexx (the worst show on TV..ever...Plan Nine from Outer Space
Bad, the worst hair in the history of man..and I can't stop watching
it.)
West Wing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: After Buffy, which other show do you like? --
Calluna, 08:32:17 02/23/02 Sat
Angel, naturally.
Let's see, I'm slightly eclectic in my viewing tastes.
Antiques Roadshow (US and UK)
24
West Wing
CSI (the body cavity cams are soooo cool. Imagine a camera on
a stake as Buffy stabs a vamp. Now that would be cool!)
Charmed (sometimes)
Futurama, Simpsons, Malcom in the Middle, X-Files (mostly when
it's not a mythology ep. I like the one offs)
Trading Spaces
The Daily Show (the best political commentary on TV)
Let's Go Bowling
Farscape
Johnny Bravo
Sometimes in Re-Runs: Xena, Now and Again, PSI Factor, (when it's
on) The Adventures of Brisco County Jr.
Default channel: Home & Garden (Carol Duvall Rules!)
What can I say, I'm addicted to TV and need treatment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: After Buffy, which other show do you like? -- neaux,
10:17:37 02/23/02 Sat
hmm. right now my weekly schedule follows as..
Sunday nights: King of the Hill, Simpsons, Malcom in the MIddle,
Off Centre... (very funny sitcom)
Mondays: Angel
Tuesday: Buffy
Wednesdays: My wife and Kids
Thursdays: CSI and if possible Whose Line?
Fridays: my wife makes me watch America's Funniest home videos..
shoot me please.
Saturday mornings I watch Relic Hunter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: After Buffy, which other show do you like? -- Apophis,
10:53:42 02/23/02 Sat
The Simpsons (twice a day on weekdays!), reruns of Mystery Science
Theater 3000 (RIP), Dennis Miller Live, The Daily Show, X-Men:
Evolution (so much better than the first cartoon), Samurai Jack,
Cowboy Bebop, 24 (when possible), and occasionally Andromeda.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: After Buffy, which other show do you like? --
VampRiley, 12:56:40 02/23/02 Sat
Sunday: Futurama (This show rocks!), Andromeda (On occasion),
Mutant X (If there is nothing else to do or on), X-Files
Monday: Angel
Monday - Friday: The Pretender, The Practice, Law and Order (The
ones on A & E and TNT), Earth: Final Conflict (On occasion), Highlander:
The Raven, X-Files, Politically Incorrect (Sometimes)
Monday - Thursday: The Daily show
Thursday: Family Guy (Stewie rocks!)
Friday: Dennis Miller Live
Saturday: Andromeda (On occasion), Mutant X (If there is nothing
else to do or on), X-Men Evolution (I agree. Much better than
the other ones. But are you talking about the one from the eighties
or the nineties?)
Highlander: The Series (No one runs this where I live anymore)
Farscape
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Oh. Can't forget South Park. Although I did.
-- VampRiley, 19:18:13 02/23/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: After Buffy, which other show do you like? -- Terrapin,
10:54:12 02/23/02 Sat
Buffy is the only show that I tape and pay so much damn attention
to. But I watch other shows too, just for kicks:
the cosby show
friends
star trek- tng
once and again
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: After Buffy, which other show do you like? -- Rob, 11:47:00
02/23/02 Sat
The only other show on TV that matches "Buffy"s level
of brilliance, in my opinion, is "Six Feet Under." I
actually have a website about it. (If you want the addy, please
e-mail me at morningperson_2000@yahoo.com...I don't want to be
a spammer!)
Other shows that I'd rank as excellent, but not brilliant, are
"Farscape" and "Alias." They are both very
well-acted, directed, etc and tons of fun to watch.
Out of the sitcoms, the only one I watch is "Friends."
So that's about it...To tell you the truth, I don't even watch
"Angel," except for if Darla, Dru, or Faith is on.
Rob :o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Your website is cool! -- Sloan, 12:56:50 02/23/02
Sat
Is this the fishersandsons.com website? Cause I visited it and
it's a heck of a site! I would love to read transcripts of season
2! I receive the TWIZ Weekly Updates Newsletter and it says that
TWIZ will post transcripts for season 1 soon. I guess they will
borrow them from your website. Another good point for the TWIZ
site, and for yours! Six Feet Under is my favorite HBO series
(I do like Oz, but I totally loathe Sopranos and Sex in the City).
I also miss the Larry Sanders Show by the way
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yup, that's my site... -- Rob, 13:57:06 02/23/02
Sat
Glad you like it! Season two hasn't started airing yet, but there
will be transcripts when it does (first ep's on March 5th on HBO)...By
the way, I have a new url: http://www.sixfeetunderfan.com
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: After Buffy, which other show do you like? -- vampire
hunter D, 13:20:18 02/23/02 Sat
Farscape
Andromeda
Lexx (gods it sucks. Yet I have to watch it)
the Tonight Show w/Jay Leno
Late Night w/Conan O'Brien
the Daily Show
That's it, everything else I watch is just whatever's on the Discovery
channel, Animal Planet, or the History Channel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Oh, yeah, I'd like to add Daily Show to my list also...
-- Rob, 13:58:53 02/23/02 Sat
Jon Stewart said the funniest line ever the other night, making
fun of Bush's ridiculous "Axis of Evil" speech. "North
Korea has put up a new welcome sign: 'Welcome to North Korea.
If you lived here, you'd be evil by now!"
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: After Buffy, which other show do you like? -- LorneLover,
14:03:42 02/23/02 Sat
These aren't ranked in any particular order because what I watch
is always best. :)
Angel (s3 has just been so great)
Smallville (wonderful take on the mythos, and Lex is hands down
the best "villain" on TV today)
Buffy
Enterprise
Oz (most overlooked show)
Six Feet Drama (the mom is so great)
Going to California (wow, but Showtime went and cancelled it)
The Chronicle (X-Filish fun)
Lexx (great show if you get it)
Malcome in the Middle
Futurama
King of the Hill
Sopranos
Mad TV
Friends
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Oops, I meant Six Feet Under -- LorneLover, 14:04:53
02/23/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: After Buffy, which other show do you like? --
abby, 14:11:45 02/23/02 Sat
Angel, obviously; I haven't seen s2 but my sky source for buffy
is now including s3 and I'm blown away at how much more amazing
it has become. 'Billy' stunned me.
Roswell; with sighs at the deterioration of s2....I doubt s3 will
be picked up in the UK now.
Smallville; although Lex is the only character I don't wince at..and
the kryptovillan of the week thing better evolve and fast.
black books: UK viewers will understand this, absolute genius
comedy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: After Buffy, which other show do you like? --
HJ, 18:12:18 02/23/02 Sat
Sundays: Alias
Monday: Angel
Tuesday: Buffy, 24, Real World Chicago (only b/c it's chicago)
Wednesday: West Wing
Thursday: sometimes ER
Friday: nothing
Saturday: nothing
also, crossing over, and i really like sex in the city, six feet
under, mind of the married man
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: After Buffy, which other show do you like? -- La Duquessa,
22:18:35 02/23/02 Sat
Buffy
Angel
Lexx (Hands down the weirdest show on TV)
Farscape (where did it go????? When is it coming back?)
Whatever is black and white on Turner Classic Movies
CNN--'cause now I am obsessive about making sure we are all still
here, kinda like headcounting your kids compulsively
Chris Isaak show (when I can get it)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: After Buffy, which other show do you like? --
Spikesbitch, 01:26:00 02/24/02 Sun
Monday:Did watch Farscape (but season 3 has finished unfortunately).
Wednesday:Sex and the city
Thursday:Angel (and Buffy obviously)
Sunday:Roswell(although the last season 2 episdoe is today)
Le Femme Nikita,American Gothic,Sopranoes, X-Files, when they
were on.
And I occasionally watch soaps like Eastenders and Brookside.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: After Buffy, which other show do you like? -- Valhalla,
12:39:06 02/24/02 Sun
Sopranos
Sex in the City
Oz
Angel
West Wing
Monarch of the Glen (BBC America)
various British mystery detective shows (but NOT Agatha Christie)
Masterpiece Theatre (depending)
Law and Order SUV
X-files (formerly)
Babylon 5
And I used to watch Forever Knight when it was in its 1st run
-- it's not Buffy, but it had all sorts of redemption vibes going
on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: After Buffy, which other show do you like? -- leslie,
20:26:58 02/24/02 Sun
Designing for the Sexes, Designer's Challenge, and House Hunters
on HGTV. I am constantly amazed at how many people have no books
anywhere in their houses, no pictures on their walls, and yet
cannot understand why their living spaces seem sterile and empty....
What I really want to see, however, would be Designing for the
Species, in which a decorator comes in and explains where to put
the scratching post so the cats will use it, what brands of carpet
stand up best to dog toenails, what vacuum cleaner pulls up the
most pet hair from the carpet, and how to match your upholstery
fabric to your pet's shedding patterns.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Also... -- Rob, 22:56:56 02/24/02 Sun
Sex and the City (which is underrated for dramatic content, I
think)
The Sopranos (which is overrated)
and, because I'm a child of the 80s, sometimes, late at night
I watch "Family Ties" reruns. I can't help it!
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I don't think i'm addicted to tv... -- Nevermore, 04:07:53
02/25/02 Mon
As a UK person some of my progs I watch may be unknown to US people
:-)
Eastenders (Have to watch some braindead soap sometime!)
Have I got news for you? (Very funny topical/political show)
Shooting Stars (Nutty gameshow)
My Family (Best described as an English Roseanne)
Red Dwarf (Sci-fi satire at its best)
Bottom (If you've heard of Rik Mayall-You don't wana know :-))
Gimme Gimme Gimme (Yet another witty comedy)
Spaced (Brilliant!)
So Graham Norton (A witty Irish guy with a rather cruel sense
of humour!)
The League of Gentlemen (Bizzaro very dark comedy)
I also watch most adaptations of classic literature
So there's me - As you can see I watch mostly comedy - with a
little bit of soap misery thrown in!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: After Buffy, which other show do you like? -- Vegeta,
06:45:00 02/25/02 Mon
The Simpsons (except this season, just not funny), Family Guy,
South Park, & Dragonball Z.
I find cartoons much more entertaining than anything live action,
except Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do all vampires have a soul? -- Angra Mainyu, 11:57:09 02/23/02
Sat
OK, I've thought long and hard about this one, and I think that
vampires activites and behaviours can be explained without the
need for their souls being lost.
My theory is that a when a person becomes a vampire, the human
personality (soul) is retained but overwhelmed by the extremely
powerful demonic instincts of the demon that has merged with them.
Think of it like hormone therapy, where people who are ordinarily
timid and shy can become angry, tearful and occasionally agressive,
or like certain kinds of brain damage (specifically to the frontal
lobes) where the personality of the person literally changes.
I think that the 'soul' of the human *shapes* the vampire; Liam
was by all accounts a weak human with little willpower - he was
a drunkard and a bit of a failure - and so when he became Angelus,
the demon instincts rode roughshod over his morality, as there
was little there to oppose its predatory nature and Angelus became
a truly fearful vampire; a vampire whose human side gave it the
form to control the purely destructive aspects of the demon, but
not to rein in its vicious amorality. Angelus *has* no values.
Everything to him is meaningless except hurting people. Spike
is another story. Here we see someone who in life was ridiculed
and belittled, yet only wanted to love and be loved. When he became
a vampire, much of that need for love remained, but his frustration
at the society that spurned him exploded - the vampire instincts
aren't compatible with holding back agression - and he rebelled.
Yet Spike remains very human, even before his chipping he saved
the world from Acathla and could chat with humans amiably enough.
Where Liam was a weak person, perhaps William was more well-formed,
if unsuccessful, so his humanity remained more on the surface,
colouring his relationships with others. Look at the differences
between the relationship of Darla and Angelus and that of Drusilla
and Spike for the essential fundamental differences of humanity
between Angelus and Spike.
Or maybe the demon was weaker in Spike - look at the generational
loss of inhumanity along the family tree - The Master, Darla,
Angelus, Drusilla, Spike. Notice how they get more human the further
down the line we go? Not necessarily down to age, as Angelus was
vicious from the start, and Spike was always headstrong and emotional.
Could it be that the demon imparted upon the newly created vampire
is a little weaker with every new generation?
Now, though, whatever the situation regarding the demon, Spike's
human nature has begun to resurface, tainted still by the demonic
impulses to gravitate towards chaos and violence, yet not wholly
demonic. Go chip.
In summary, the 'soul' never leaves the vampire's body, it is
merged with a demon and subsumed in the powerful impulses to do
bad stuff. The stronger the human (or the weaker the demon), the
more human the vampire. Angel had the human side forced to the
surface by the curse and placed firmly in control, but with the
full knowledge that it was he who had committed the atrocities
that he did. After all, if it had just been Angelus the demon,
not Angel, why should he feel so guilty about it? Does he feel
guilty about the things that Marcus Roscoe did in his body? No.
Support for this notion comes in the form of memory; Buffy died,
is resurrected, and has a memory of what happened to her soul.
Angel became a vampire, had his soul restored, yet only remembers
what he did as Angelus - he has no memory of being anywhere inbetween
his mortal death and being restored by the gypsy curse, yet remembers
everything that Angelus did.
Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, and I'm new so forgive me
if this has already been discussed!
Angra
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: interesting point, but please make it short next time!
-- JT Walsh, 13:04:08 02/23/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> For this board, that was short -- SK, 14:28:47 02/23/02
Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Interesting thought. I didn't think it was too long. --
Sophist, 13:28:23 02/23/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Nope, only Angel has a soul. Not sure why people can't get
over that. -- LorneLover, 13:52:55 02/23/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Angel is the only one we know about. Isn't this season
about curveballs?? -- SK, 14:29:50 02/23/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Angel is the only one we know about. Isn't
this season about curveballs?? -- LorneLover, 15:54:20 02/23/02
Sat
Well yeah, we only know Angel has one but since it was given to
him I'm of the mind that most vamps simply don't have one--of
course that doesn't rule out other cursed vamps or ones who may
have gotten one by other means.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Angel is the only one we know about. Isn't
this season about curveballs?? -- Angra Mainyu, 15:54:40 02/23/02
Sat
Actually, this is something else I've often pondered. Surely Angel
isn't the only vampire to have ever been cursed with restoration
of his soul. Even if they're no longer around there will have
been others. And what about other vampires who have somehow found
their own paths to redemption? Dracula wasn't exactly Mr Congeniality,
but he wasn't all, like, fangs. He at least tried to chat to his
victims before bleeding them. Going back to my theory, there is
the possibility that some vampires' human side could get back
a degree of control over their actions and directions, just as
Spike seems to be doing. And it can heppen the other way; Angel's
dark phase last season was, to me, the demon taking back a little
control over Angel's actions and personality in just the same
sort of way that Spike's human side has been undermining his demonic
nature in the last couple of seasons of Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Nope, only Angel has a soul. Not sure why people
can't get over that. -- Angra Mainyu, 15:01:32 02/23/02 Sat
Only Angel has a soul that's in complete ascendancy over his demonic
instincts, perhaps....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Do all vampires have a soul? -- LadyStarlight, 14:33:39
02/23/02 Sat
First of all, welcome! With posts like that, you're in the right
place.
I've wondered about that too, especially in light of Darla's "what
we were..." remarks. Why would a demon care about what had
happened in the host's earlier life?
Perhaps when the gypsies talked about 'restoring' Angelus's soul,
they meant just that -- something that was broken, but could be
repaired.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Do all vampires have a soul? -- LorneLover, 15:56:56
02/23/02 Sat
Darla "cared" about what happened because of the effects
of the baby's soul on her. This "caring" was also behind
the reasoning for wanting to die in season 2 when was human, its
the same pain that drives Angel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Do all vampires have a soul? -- VampRiley, 15:39:13
02/23/02 Sat
Welcome!
I liked your essay. I've always been a believer in the soul being
the guide for someone that leaves and goes to the Ether, but I
still liked your post.
And don't worry about the length of this one. If you go into the
archives and look for posts done by OnM, Rufus...myself, I believe
you'll find out just how detalied, word-y and long winded that
we can get at times. And sometimes much of the time.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does Spike love Buffy? -- Lilac, 14:16:49 02/23/02 Sat
This has been knocking around in my head recently. There has been
a lot of discussion about why or why not Buffy could or does love
Spike -- there are good arguments on both sides. But, really,
why does Spike love Buffy? It certainly isn't because she treats
him so well.
Buffy says that he doesn't love her, he loves being beat down.
What this brings to my mind is the idea that Spike fixates on
the Alpha-bitch in whatever environment he is in. We are given
to believe that, at least in her own estimation, Cecily was superior
in social position to William. She was not interested in elevating
his status by aligning with him. By turning him, Drusilla demonstrated
her dominance over William/Spike, and maintained that dominance
as long as she deigned to stay with him. (I am not sure that Drusilla
can be said to be Alpha in the extended vampire family of Angelus,
Darla, and Spike -- she is certainly superior to Spike in that
group, but I don't think she would be considered to be dominant
over Darla, so I am willing to admit this may be a kink in the
theory.)
With Drusilla gone, Spike briefly keeps company with Harmony,
who means nothing to him, whose presence, in fact, he can hardly
bear. Harmony doesn't have the status to keep his attention. It
is during this period, lacking a vampire Alpha to cling to, that
Spike starts his obsession with Buffy. In the community of the
Hellmouth, Buffy has proven herself Alpha over and over again.
She is so Alpha, in fact, that until recently Spike didn't really
believe he stood a chance of getting next to her.
Because Spike devotes himself to an Alpha, he molds his personal
goals to hers. Drusilla was sick and evil, so he became the sickest
and evilest he could be -- a did a darn fine job of it. Now that
he has fixated on Buffy, he has taken on her goals and is trying
to be good. He isn't very accomplished at this being good stuff
yet, because, you know, vampire, but he is trying.
Any way, I don't really know enough about pack behavior to know
if this theory holds water. Maybe someone out there does know.
I am also thinking that Spike could be said to be a victim of
Stockholm syndrome -- while Buffy isn't the one who made him a
prisoner (to his chip), she is the local Alpha bitch, and so attracts
the emotional backlash of his captivity. I don't think that this
dynamic makes Spike's feelings any less real, or less valid, it
just seems to make sense to me as a basis for those feelings happening
at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Wow! Nice post! -- Earl Allison, 15:01:08 02/23/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why does Spike love Buffy? -- Angra Mainyu, 15:14:42
02/23/02 Sat
I think you might be on to something, not necessarily in the alpha
thing, but along the lines of peer pressure. It has a big effect
on a lot of people, certainly big enough to make a good person
do bad things...so why not big enough to make a vampire do good
things? Spike's goals do seem to change with the company he keeps,
and I have to ask "Who *is* the real Spike?" Is it the
monster who gets Drusilla The Judge as a present? Or is it the
caring vamp who refuses, in the face of torture, to tell Glory
who the Key is? Or is it wholly dependant on who he's with at
the time? I hope he finds himself this season, because I think
he does have more to offer than just being love's bitch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why does Spike love Buffy? -- abby, 15:35:28 02/23/02
Sat
I think in some ways the chip forced him to confront what humanity
he *did* still have. Maybe as well as the group pressure idea,
there is also that certain people 'bring out' qualities; thus
with Dru/Angelus etc all that was focussed upon was the evil-
he had no need to be anyhting else. The neutering left him unable
to simply be this 'big bad' any longer, and in the absence of
this he had to realise that he had a whole range of other emotions.
What diminished one facet of him allowed the others to grow and
develop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why does Spike love Buffy? -- Spike Lover, 18:15:17
02/23/02 Sat
The 'Spike' who gave Dru the b-day present of the Judge is the
same who refused to give up the Dawn info to Glory. He is utterly
devoted to the one he loves, (gives them the gifts that they would
want, for example)whoever that is at the time. He is FAITHFUL
with a capital F if he is truly committed. (Harmony was convenience.)
You have seen him save Buffy, and try to save her family (and
friends). Watch those old episodes when he was protective of a
sick Dru who he had brought back to SunnyD to get a blood transfusion
from Angel. He was protective of Dru, in "Lie to Me"
and he makes a deal w/ the slayer in that season final (Becoming
II?) in order to thwart Dru's crazy plans and to rescue her.
He is totally who he is- a devoted lover. That is who Spike is-
which is why I love him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Dark mirror image -- Anne, 16:40:46 02/23/02 Sat
I actually think your interpretation might be exactly right. If
that's what the writers are up to, though, I would not expect
Spike to wind up with Buffy (as indeed he may well not). You'd
think they'd want Buffy to end up with somebody who stood up a
little better by himself than that.
I tend to lean towards another alternative, though. I think it's
possible to see Spike as a kind of dark mirror image of Buffy.
I believe I said something like this in another post recently,
but since it has a separate salience here I'm going to repeat
it: just as Buffy can be seen as a creature of light with a big
streak of darkness, struggling to assimilate the darkness, Spike
might be seen as a creature of darkness with a streak of light,
struggling to assimilate the light. We have heard Spike telling
Buffy that she's a bit in love with death, but doesn't it sometimes
seem to be just as much the case that he's a bit in love with
life? I would argue, in fact, that they are neither of them creatures
of darkness, nor of light, but creatures of the twilight -- that's
why they're both having such trouble fitting comfortably into
any neat scheme of things.
Both being to some degree strangers in their own lands, and both
struggling to integrate their divided selves, I think each might
have the potential to offer the other an understanding of the
part within them that they most hate and fear -- and maybe even
the ability to make peace with it. I can see this forming the
basis of a bond of the most profound kind, and yes, of love.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The dark and light thing -- Lilac, 16:49:44 02/23/02
Sat
I think your view of Buffy & Spike being mirror images of each
other is sound. Something else that has been on my mind about
the relationship is the, much discussed, fact of Spike's trying
to drag Buffy into the dark side with him. My take on that is
that, if she would let him, he would come into the light with
her (with due respect being given to flammability). It is not
Spike's choice that their relationship, whatever it is, takes
place in hiding. I think he would be perfectly happy, at this
point, to be more integrated into the SG and the "light"
world. In fact, he has become more isolated than ever before because
Buffy avoids him in situations where he would have been welcome
before -- when was the last time he was in the Magic Box, for
instance.
He tries to drag her into his world because that is the only option
open to him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The dark and light thing -- Caroline, 17:13:04
02/23/02 Sat
Spike and Buffy are projecting onto each other the parts of themselves
that they need to integrate - Buffy sees Spike's dark side and
is drawn to it compulsively because of the issues she is dealing
with this season and Spike, via the chip, has the chance to explore
the non-demonic parts of himself and Buffy is certainly a bloody
good role model for that. The way this thing will hopefully work
is that they will integrate the hidden parts of themselves into
their identity in a conscious way and when they do, the compulsion
will no longer be there. (How many of us have had relationships
that have been really appropriate for a certain time and then
fade away?) This is where the choice comes in about love - they
will be free of their compulsions but will they be right for each
other after that? The writers could go either way.
As for Spike coming into the light, I'm not so sure. I see this
arc playing out the Persephone myth and at the end, Persephone
spends half her time in the underworld and half her time above
ground (integration of the conscious and hidden selves and a good
way to explain the existence of the seasons in mythology) while
Pluto remains below. To me, this means that Spike will, through
Buffy, integrate non-demonic elements into himself but that his
nature will remain essentially the same. And I feel that it definitely
makes him way more interesting than if he was redeemed because
I find the line that he's treading right now to be fascinating
and complex, and I really don't want it simplified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Redemption as process vs. event --
Anne, 17:56:28 02/23/02 Sat
I don't think redemption need be thought of as boring or simplistic
as long as it is viewed as a process, not some kind of one-time-for-all
event that turns people into Mr. Rogers or little Sir Galahad.
Try T.S. Eliot's model:
"In the middle, not only in the middle of the way
But all the way, in a dark wood, in a bramble,
On the edge of a grimpen, where is no secure foothold,
And menaced by monsters, fancy lights,
Risking enchantment . . ."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> TS Eliot/ was Redemption as process
vs. event -- alcibiades, 08:36:00 02/24/02 Sun
"In the middle, not only in the middle of the way
But all the way, in a dark wood, in a bramble,
On the edge of a grimpen, where is no secure foothold,
And menaced by monsters, fancy lights,
Risking enchantment . . ."
Is this from 4 Quartets or something else? It works beautifully
in context.
alcibiades
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yup. East Coker part II
-- Anne, 09:22:47 02/24/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Kore OT -- fresne, 19:02:46 02/23/02 Sat
And of course, when Persephone (Kore the Maiden) decends into
the underworld, she brings spring with her, which would otherwise
exist in eternal autumn and winter (see the Aeneid).
I have to admit this is one of my favorite myths. It's just so
out of character for Hades. I like to knaw at it. Is the god of
the Dead dead? Hades is a land of misty sighs, perhaps Hades the
god misses the light. Then again dad ate him when he was born,
so you know childhood trauma.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Kore OT -- Caroline, 22:28:53
02/23/02 Sat
Yeah, totally one of my favourite myths. Hades has big childhood
trauma. Having Kronos (Saturn) as your father, the big cosmic
disciplinarian is not a good deal. His brother Zeus was hidden
by their mother, not eaten by Kronos so Zeus avoids the childhood
trauma and becomes ruler of the gods and 'he who gives enlightenment'.
But poor old Hades just had to be lonely down there. And whenever
he did come up above (only twice), he wore a helmet so that no-one
could see him. So when Aphrodite decides to teach Kore a lesson
for being naive and innocent, she had Eros strike him with the
arrow of love and presto he and Kore became an item - after she
picks his flower, the narcissus, the flower of the underworld.
(I love that Persephone means 'bringer of destruction' cause she
certainly brought on the destruction of herself as Kore.) So I
guess the myth is trying to tell us that the madness of love came
upon him, he was alone and wanted companionship - so no matter
how much of a big bad you are, you still need love. (It's a tough
life thinking up suitable punishment for those in Tartaros.) At
least that's how I understand Hades' behaviour.
But there's all sorts of other myths used in BtVS. I think that
the vengeance demons are based on the Erinyes, the dogs of Hades,
who are goddesses of vengeance who punish those who break oaths.
Their punishment usually leads to madness. Professor Walsh has
aspects of the Hindu goddess Kali, goddess of destruction, battle
and death but she also has the ability to grant life. Maybe even
more appropriate for Walsh is Tiamat, the primal mother goddess
in Babylonian myth who was killed by her son Marduk. Marduk then
went on to create the the physical universe. I think that's something
like what Adam wanted to accomplish. There's parallels to this
in Greek myth where Uranus overthrows the primal mother and he
and Gaia create the physical universe. Just goes to show how there's
not a lot of new stories, the important thing is to retell them
well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Isn't it ironic that the actress
playing Halfrek, a vengeance demon, is named Kali? -- Sophist,
07:58:14 02/24/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Nice observations - thanks!
-- OnM, 12:27:15 02/24/02 Sun
Especially like the vengeance demon allegory-- very cool, and
very possible ME did draw on that as the source material.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Let's be kindly -- fresne,
22:09:13 02/24/02 Sun
And by some strange coincidence I was Tisiphone, with my fellow
Erinyes, for Halloween a few years ago. Well, actually several
times since then. It's a remarkably comfy costume, although not
really winter wear.
Yes, I'd have to agree on the Vengeance demon to Erinyes (although
they prefer to be called, "the Kindly Ones") parallel.
After all they don't just punish oath breakers, and pesky relative
killers, but are the "Punishers of the Unfaithful" when
they're feeling plural. Further they were born from anger, revenge
and murder, from the spilled blood when Kronos killed his father.
Hard being a parent in the Greekverse. Course also, hard to be
a child. Sacrifice, abandonment, being eaten.
Glory also falls into that Tiamat, primal mother, force for chaos
creature. Insane and using the insane for her purposes. Interesting
that another primal feminine force, Buffy beats Glory, not with
her usually pointy stakes or swords, but a hammer. While not exactly
a feminine weapon, it lacks the, ahem, thrust, of Buffy's more
phallic weapons.
I guess that is why AtLtC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Dragging her into the dark -- Spike Lover, 18:32:12
02/23/02 Sat
Have to agree with you there. He would come into the light willingly.--
How many times have they shown that- him running into the house
in broad daylight under a smoking blanket.
On the other hand, she has the traditional vampire role... She
enters his home at dusk. He even commented on it in OMWF
As you have said, he is trying to pull her into the shadows with
him -that scene of sex on the balcony at the Bronze. I don't think
that is a 'Darth Vader' moment. I think she has put him in a corner
by refusing to be public about their relationship/fling. She tells
him mutely that her friends have priority over him, and he responds
by saying that she does not fit in with those friends anymore.
Also, he has as big a complex as she does. Whereas she wanted
Tara to tell her that she was not quite human so that she could
rationalize her behavior and her feelings w/ Spike. Spike is equally
confused. In 'The Gift', when Buff was going up the stairs and
was several feet above him he says, 'I know you could never love
me, but you treat me like a man.' It is a symbolic 'lover on a
pedestal'. (You remember Cecely was first introduced descending
down stairs as well.) Spike believes he is beneath Buffy and that
she could never love him. When she became sexually active w/ him,
he could not rationalize it except to believe that she was not
what she had been. She must be a sort of demon or something-.
Spike is desperate to get Buffy to 'come into the dark' and embrace
her dark side/her demon side' because he believes it is the only
chance he has with her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> That's a good point! -- Rahael, 21:10:16
02/23/02 Sat
That Spike has to believe that there's something wrong with Buffy
precisely because she's fooling around with him.
I had never thought of it in that light before.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Author? -- Ishkabibble, 09:53:57
02/24/02 Sun
"I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me
as a member" (W.C.Fields?).
Is this what we're saying about Spike's view of his relationship
to Buffy?
Or am I reading this the wrong way?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Author? -- vandalia, 10:35:37
02/24/02 Sun
"I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me
as a member"
Actually, this was Groucho Marx. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Chivalry & Romance -- Spike
Lover, 20:07:43 02/24/02 Sun
It is not how I see it. In the 1800s I think there might have
been a resurgence of interest in the King Arthur Legend during
those Victorian Days. Women supposedly were considered pure and
wonderful and -read a Tale of Two Cities by Dickens sometime-.
Anyway, I think Spike as an upper middle class bloke would have
been raised in that culture and those ideas. He would have been
raised to idealize women, to elevate them, to respect and protect
them (like his mom). He would have been the type to marry the
"nice" girl, have a child or maybe two, and keep a mistress
on the side for his more earthly urges.
In his mind, In My Opinion, I think when his feelings are engaged,
he puts the woman he loves on a pedestal- like he did with Cecily.
I do not know if he elevated Dru as we were never shown that part
of their relationship immediately after the biting. But I think
it is implied that he had to 'win' Dru by proving himself (killing
the slayer) which is the ultimate test of a vamp?
Thus, 1) he realizes he loves Buffy. 2) He immediately elevates
her (so that she is worthy of His love). 3) He begins to try to
woo her. 4) He fails to win her. 5) He fails to prove himself
worthy of her love (by saving Dawn so that Buff does not have
to jump). 6) In his mind, he has failed, how then, why then, would
she ever love him?
Well, she might love him if she was something different then what
she was. (He shoves her off the pedestal.)
When she eventually tells him she is the same as she was before,
I think Spike may have a small crisis due to steps 1-6 listed
above.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Dragging her into the dark -- leslie,
11:10:49 02/24/02 Sun
Whether he is on the road to "redemption" (whatever
that is) or not, I think it's extremely evident that Spike is
undergoing *some* kind of change as a result of the chip, and
I think that in the broadest sense it's that he is growing up
(after one of the longest adolescences on record). That line about
"you treat me like a man" made me realize, and then
look for in the reruns and find confirmation, that in Spike's
relationships with the Darla/Angelus/Drusilla family, he is CONSISTENTLY
referred to as a "boy." In tones of affection (on Drusilla's
part) affectionate condescension (Darla) or just plain condescension
(Angelus). Furthermore, he seems to like this role--he likes being
a Bad Boy, with equal emphasis on "bad" and "boy"--yet
he can't really enunciate it, can he? He calls himself "The
Big Bad" but the noun is missing. You want to complete the
phrase "big bad wolf" but what's missing is just as
easily "big bad boy." So there's an ambivalence there
that he won't admit to.
Furthermore, going back to his vampirization, when Drusilla first
approaches William and it becomes clear that she is not up to
any good, his response is, "I have to go home to Mother."
As a young adult human, he was still defined as a son/boy, and
his attempts to be a man and define himself as a man were rejected
by his peers. I'd like to know more about William's relationship
with his mother, especially since, as I've said before, BtVS seems
to be more about maternal relationships and AtS seems to be more
about paternal relationships.
After Drusilla leaves him, Spike is nobody's boy. Part of his
disgust with Harmony seems to come from his realization that,
dammit all, *he* is the adult in this relationship! When did that
happen!? Wherever his love for Buffy comes from, it's in the process
of falling in love with her that he starts to consider the positive
possibilities of being a man rather than a boy. He starts off
trying to win her in incredibly adolescent, even childish ways--("And
I don't like your hair!"), and slowly realizes that what
will make her care for him is being strong and reliable--i.e.,
defending her family even under torture, "being a man about
it." The reason why Spike and Buffy are right for each other
at this point in their (un)lives is that they are both dealing
with *unexpectedly* becoming adults--he because he thought being
a vampire meant he was going to be a "boy" forever,
she because she thought she was going to die, like all the other
Slayers, before reaching adulthood.
And I have to say, this is one of the reasons I like this show
so much--I find most of the representations of "manliness"
in American media to be incredibly disappointing, and BtVS offers
a number of really interesting and, I think, admirable models
and processes of "being a man," whether it's Giles's
erzatz fatherhood (or "rakish uncleness"), Xander's
coping with all the implications of marriage, or Spike's "redemption."
(Does he get his ten cents back at the bottle deposit when he's
finally redeemed?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Dragging her into the dark --
Lilac, 11:25:10 02/24/02 Sun
I think that being a man instead of a boy is a good point. I imagine
being a boy for over 120 years would eventually get to be a drag,
no matter how much fun it was at first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Now, that's a very insightful point,
thank you leslie :) -- Etrangere, 12:23:44 02/24/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> P.P. & Neverland -- Spike Lover,
19:52:28 02/24/02 Sun
Now that you mention it, every vampire has been characterized
in a childlike way (except for the Master). Who but a child needs
to be constantly entertained? (Willow: "Bored Now".)
When Angelus is possessed by the ghost in the school to reinact
their final love scene, when the effect wears off, you see him
scrubbing himself in the fountain to get the "love"
off. But it is almost like little boy washing himself vigorously
where a girl has kissed/touched him. This list of examples could
get long, so I won't go on.
I will just say that the vamps seem to take turns being mature
at times. I have seen Spike make the mature decisions when dealing
w/ Dru. I have scene Darla make some mature decisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: P.P. & Neverland -- Andy,
20:46:17 02/24/02 Sun
It's not uncommong for vampires to be used as a metaphor for a
permanent adolescence. I guess this was most obvious in the The
Lost Boys. Possibly except for certain vampires such as The Master,
I think many of the vampires on Buffy fit into that adolescent
perspective. Spike is probably the most obviously adolescent in
his looks and mannerisms. I think Angel is too, or at least he
was moreso when he was still on Buffy. I guess the main difference
between the two is that while Spike represents the ideal life
from the perspective of many teenage boys, Angel is more like
what teenage girls might wish they could have in a boyfriend.
Oh well. Just rambling before I go to bed :)
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Good Post! -- Belladonna, 19:52:36 02/24/02 Sun
That's a really good point. I think I will be watching the Buffy/Spike
relationship more closely from now on...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Very interesting -- LeeAnn, 18:11:35 02/23/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I don't know what he sees in her -- Spike Lover, 18:42:04
02/23/02 Sat
I don't know what he sees in her, but I think you are basically
right about the Alpha Wolf attraction. If you watch the episode
'School Hard'? where they introduce Spike, they say he is one
of the worst vampires. (Angel says it.) They set him up as very
tough and as the Alpha Vampire. (He even kills the Master's Chosen
One.)
Beyond that, I have to say that sometimes attractions are unpredictable.
I have never understood my own. Whereas I am told that for men
it is basically a sight thing, for me, it can have a lot to do
with personality. Does that person 'push my buttons'? Other people
are drawn to a challenge (Xander w/ Cordy?). Some people just
grow on you over time (Xander & Anya?).
I do not think Spike is in love w/ pain. I just don't think he
is a quitter. I mean, take Angel right now. I am so frustrated
with him because he will not tell Cordy how he feels. In my mind,
he is an emotional coward. Spike is not afraid of rejection. He
has encountered it for over a year w/ Buffy, but you have to admit,
he has gained a LOT of Ground by hanging in there and working
on her.
What is that old saying? Sometimes the race does not go to the
swiftest but to the one who doesn't give up- ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: sublimated predator? -- Valhalla, 12:28:49 02/24/02
Sun
I've been wondering if part of Spike's thing for Buffy isn't some
sort of sublimated hunter thing. Before Spike had his chip, we
know he was rather ferocious - I doubt anyone would have caught
him in one of those odd houses where humans volunteered to have
their blood sucked. He was, as someone said, the Big Bad Boy,
but also the Big Bad Predator. And he has chased down and killed
two Slayers. When he first came to Sunnydale, he was obsessed
with destroying Buffy. When Dru leaves him because he's gotten
all not Big Bad, she says something about him having the stink
of the Slayer all over him.
Once he got the chip in, he couldn't kill her. If you throw in
the whole sex and death theme running through English lit (exactly
what it consists of I can't quite recall, except for being on
the test in high school Shakespeare class and the whole French-for-death-is-petit-morte
thing), it makes a weird kind of sense that he'd convert his obsession
with killing her to an obsession with having sex with her, or
'possessing' her. (ok, I know that's kind of a gross way to put
it but I didn't make up the whole sex as possession thing).
Now that he can hurt her, he could kill her (or at least try),
but having sex with her is a pretty good substitute for the hunt
and kill; it's even better because he could only kill her once
(presumably) and they can keep having sex. This may be one reason
their sex is so violent, and also the reason he keeps trying to
bring Buffy into darkness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Petite mort, you got it backward... :) -- Etrangere,
12:30:50 02/24/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Whoops! High school was a long time ago
... -- Valhalla, 22:04:24 02/24/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Sex as the 'little death'? -- Caroline, 14:59:44
02/24/02 Sun
Are you talking about sex as the 'little death'? The Elizabethans
saw the similarity of the states of sex and death and, looking
at it in this way, Buffy's compulsive attraction to Spike makes
a lot of sense - she is seeking that lost unity that she had while
she was dead. As for Spike using sex with her as a substitute
for aggression - I would agree except for the very long development
we have had of his feelings for Buffy and the indications of his
prior love for Drusilla.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Really picky technical point here....
-- LadyStarlight, 15:07:33 02/24/02 Sun
...and I'm sure Etrangere will tell me if I'm right or not, but
"petite mort" is orgasm, not sex per se.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Technically, yes. (Common Elizabethan
metaphor, actually.) -- Solitude1056, 19:41:04 02/24/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, the exhaustion immediately
after orgasm -- Spike Lover, 20:14:07 02/24/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Oh go ahead, be picky... -- Caroline,
20:00:45 02/24/02 Sun
I was just using the terminology that the poster was using to
see if I we were talking about the same thing. I'm hoping that
they'll get back to me on it 'cos it's an interesting point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Sex as the 'little death'? -- Valhalla,
22:20:09 02/24/02 Sun
'except for the very long development we have had of his feelings
for Buffy and the indications of his prior love for Drusilla.'
Yea, except his feelings started in obsession -- Dru felt it and
called him on it. She didn't say he was in love with the Slayer,
but that he stank of her (or something like that - I don't have
that one on tape). And then he went through that stomach-churning
stalker phase.
Also, I was just listening to the musical, and throughout he's
still vacillating between loving her and killing her --
The torch I bear is scorching me,
Buffy's laughing I've no doubt
I hope she fries
I'm free if that bitch dies
I better help her out
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sex as the 'little death'? --
Caroline, 06:55:27 02/25/02 Mon
I agree that his love for Buffy started in an unhealthy place.
But some would argue that since love is a projection - we are
looking for something in others that we don't see in ourselves
- then love is never healthy! Hopefully what happens is that we
bring awareness to those parts of ourselves that we see in our
beloved and become more integrated in terms of our personality.
As for the lyrics in OMWF, Spike, like most vampires, is really
aware of his id. I'm okay with that. He understands how often
love goes hand in hand with more negative stuff. The unconscious
issues that we bring to the relationship - fear of abandonment,
separation, a desire to lose oneself in the beloved, the desire
to be saved by an external agent etc are messy things and we often
work out those issues in a relationship. And the frustration from
not getting what you want from your beloved can lead to all sorts
of anger and hostility - I'm thinking of the Kleinian view of
envy here - we can really hate the person we love who then denies
us. And those of us who have never felt anything negative about
someone we love are most likely kidding themselves. And I guess
that's where I differ with people saying that this thing with
Buffy and Spike is unhealthy - I would say find a healthy relationship
first - one without projection, where the participants are fully
integrated etc, not repressing or in denial about something etc.
It's the holy grail of relationships but for how many does it
exist?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Fun with syntax. -- Darby,
10:42:36 02/25/02 Mon
But what is "healthy"? It isn't really an absolute -
we can say that someone is in perfect health, but it's not really
true physically or psychologically.
If I feel healthy, am I in fact healthy? Even if I am currently
unaware of some nasty thing that is currently growing and will
later make me unhealthy?
I'm just sayin' that the labels aren't often all that useful,
anyway - most posters are clearly defining (or redefining) their
terms as they use them, which is one of the reasons that discussions
are usually easy to engage in here. Even when the disagreements
are largely syntactical, that fact seems to surface quickly.
As someone who this past weekend had a "discussion"
with a blustering Bulgarian fencer that turned out (I think) to
have been largely syntactical, I like it here better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Fun with syntax.
-- Caroline, 14:05:07 02/25/02 Mon
I was trying to say, in a very roundabout way, that I question
the 'healthy' label. Thanks for putting it more clearly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angel and Cordy NOT - Angel and Faith WOW WOW WOW -- Angelina,
16:29:58 02/23/02 Sat
As I have written previously, there is No Chemistry between Angel
and Cordy, and I know quite a few of you out there agree with
me! It was painful watching "Waiting in the Wings",
right? God-Awful! I adore Angel, he is the sexiest man, alive
or dead! Cordy, sorry, BLAH (Prehaps we did a little "Willow
& Tara" romance for Cordy). Angel and Buffy WOW, Buffy and
Spike DOUBLE WOW. Now, what do you think about this: ANGEL AND
FAITH!!!!! Now THAT would be some storyline! I think someone should
get to Joss immediately and work this out! If Spike and Buffy
are together, it is only fitting that Angel and Faith hook up,
Slayers and Vamps - Only Way To Go! Besides, Faith Kicks Ass,
I really think she should be brought back to make amends, but
mostly to bring some SEX into Angel...he's like in DIRE need!
Let's talk!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> But the thing is, there's also people (ME) who disagree,
but A/F *is* sexy as hell, :) -- Katie, 17:07:58 02/23/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> No accounting for taste... -- Caroline, 17:17:39 02/23/02
Sat
Sorry, I'm coming down on the side of loving the Angel/Cordy thing.
This is shaping up to be a mature love based on all the right
sorts of things (at least on Angel's side) and as someone who
has seen quite a few more mature relationships like this in real
life I say go ME.
But I gotta admit I'd really like to see Angel/Wesley...they looked
so forlorn at the end of the show last week...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: No accounting for taste...Angel/Cordy v. Angel/Faith
-- Angelina, 18:12:19 02/23/02 Sat
I disagree totally. Cordy is still a major flake, no matter now
much she's been through since leaving Sunnydale. I still don't
see her as mature, but that is beside my point. I am simply talking
"chemistry" here. I agree that ultimately, a relationship
must consist of much more than mere chemistry, however, this is
prime time TV and we're talking David Borenanez's Angel and the
total fox that he is and well, Charpenter's Cordy just does not
have any sexual fire at all - not with ANY of her male co-stars
to date, and certainly not with Angel, but again, that is my opinion
and how I see it. I just don't enjoy watching them in a "romantic"
way. It's "just wrong". Cordy being Cordy is annoying,
but watchable. As far as Faith and Angel, come on, wouldn't that
be great! I love the Faith character, she has such demension and
there is so much to explore with her back in the plot as a regular
on Angel. The show NEEDS her! Thanks for listening.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I liked Doyle -- Spike Lover, 19:01:35 02/23/02 Sat
But I am getting mad at Angel. He is coming across as an emotional
wimp. I think that was ok when he was dating Buffy, because she
was so strong and take charge. But Cordy is not Buffy.
It is pretty bad when even Wesley is less of an emotional coward
than Angel.
You could say that Angel is acting this way because he does not
believe that he is worthy to be loved. He has all that guilt to
carry around, but please get over it and try to figure out how
to have a sex life.
When you think Angel/Faith would be a good pairing, once again
you are putting Angel with a Dominant female. Faith is probably
more dominant than any other female on the entire series (either
one). So once again you are saying that the problem is that Angel
has no backbone. He is limp- (And you complain about lack of chemistry).
I guarantee you, if he would grow some ___, you would think he
had chemistry w/ every character he was on screen with.
(This by the way is why Spike is so appealing- Spike has a Spine.
He is not moping around for what he has done in his past. He is
not ashamed. He is virile. He is strong.)
In contrast, look at the way David B. acts when his body has been
hijacked by the guy from the nursing home. He is virile. He is
seducing the woman laywer on Wesley's desk. I submit that there
is nothing wrong w/ David's acting, but the writers are holding
him back.
Look at Angelus, when he was evil or when sex was not off-limits,
he was sexy as hell w/ Darla, Dru, and a few other 'one episode'
women. In the tradition of Dracula, vampires are supposed to be
seductive. This non-chemistry is the writers' doing. And with
a flick of their pen, they can have Cordy & Angel's chemistry
turned on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Angel -- lone wolf, 19:56:01 02/23/02 Sat
angel's a lone wolf....meant to walk this world alone...at least
until he fulfills the prophesy.
besides hes annoying as hell when he acts all goofy and emotional
and human. face it, angel was cordy's bitch these past few weeks.
lets hope he's forever past these moments of weakness and begins
acting like that badass that's written in the ancient scriptures....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> This is all fascinating, but what I want to know is...(Couplet
Spoilerish) -- JBone, 22:06:17 02/23/02 Sat
who is the charismatic leader who did the dance of revolution?
Could it have been Numfar? Just an idle thought...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yes, Numfar did the Dance of Revolution -- vampire
hunter D, 11:58:41 02/24/02 Sun
that's why that line was there
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Interesting Pairing, but... -- vampire hunter D, 12:08:42
02/24/02 Sun
I think we've seen enough vampire/slayer ships already. Sorry.
and fyi: Cordy is the hottest girl we've seen in the Whedonverse.
SO I don't understand why you say blah
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classic Movie of the Week - February 22nd 2002 -- OnM, 22:36:09
02/23/02 Sat
*******
"The finest SF movie ever made."
............ Harlan Ellison
*******
A few years back, I was reading this article in a business publication
that was attempting to instruct persons who are employed in a
retail or professional capacity as to the best way to deal with
complaints by customers or clients. The scenarios offered seemed
to be pretty well thought out and logical, and most of them involved
the use of techniques with which I was already familiar.
If a customer is unhappy, and comes to you to complain, it is
best to do the following, in the general order shown:
1. Listen carefully to the customer's complaint. Don't speak until
they are finished speaking, unless you are obviously prompted
for a response. Keep your responses short, simple and positive.
2. If the customer is very upset, allow them to vent-- don't cut
them off or immediately disagree with their analysis of the situation.
3. If the customer has a valid complaint, or even if they do not,
ask the open-ended question, 'How can (I, we) help you to resolve
this?'
4. Listen to the customer's response and go from there.
OK, now who wouldn't agree with that line of reasoning, huh? I
mean, if I had a problem, this is certainly what I would hope
to gain in the way of attentiveness and/or concern from store
personell or a professional office of whatever ilk. And if they
don't, and just try to blow me off, then guess whose business
they won't get in future, right? But there is one little insect
in the unguent... what happens when the customer isn't rational?
Or worse yet, is rational, but devious and even crooked?
True story time again, gentle readers. Your humble audio-man still
clearly recalls the time when due to an oversight in getting some
paperwork processed through our office, a bill was mailed to a
customer for a service repair about three months after he had
picked up the repaired unit. A short cover letter was sent along
with the invoice explaining the reason for the delay.
Now, if this had happened to me, I would have thought something
along the lines of, 'No problem, bro, that's three months free
credit for me, no epidermis offa my exterior, eh?' The recipent
thought otherwise, and if you think that trolls only infect internet
sites, you've got another... well, you know. I happened to be
the one who picked up the phone, and the conversation (after 'Hello')
went approximately like so:
"What's the deal with this bill? You send out a bill three
months late and you expect me to pay it??"
I let the guy vent, even though it's obvious from the get-go that
he's a flake. He prattles on for at least five minutes, excoriating
our store for its rampant incompetance in handling this simple,
trivial thing, and he's never heard of anything so ridiculous,
etc. etc. etc. Normally, if you let someone who unhappy vent,
they wind down. This guy keeps getting wound up. After a pause
in the rant, I calmly apologize to him for the 'oversight', and
ask if there is anything we can do to satisfy him and resolve
the situation.
"Well, I don't see why I should have to pay this! The bill
is late!"
Now, by virtue of both instinct and experience, I knew this was
the deal from square one, as soon as he first complained about
the bill being 'late'. This is just another idiotic variant on
a classic con job-- a devious individual seizes on some genuinely
trivial or inconsequential event and blows it up into a major
cataclysm in the hope of rattling some poor schmuck so badly that
they end up getting something for nothing. I don't rattle easily,
but in some cases it doesn't matter. This was one of those.
"Is the amplifier working OK? Was there a problem with the
repair?"
"THAT'S NOT THE POINT!!!" He shouts, literally. "WHAT
KIND OF BUSINESS IS THIS SLOPPY WITH THEIR PAPERWORK?? HOW THE
HELL DO YOU STAY IN BUSINESS???"
I tell him that I'd appreciate it if he didn't shout at me, and
ask him-- again-- what can we do to resolve his problem (already
knowing that this is a losing battle, and that we are not going
to get paid. The amount, something like $50.00 or so, is too small
to take legal action over, and he knows it. He rants again over
the lateness of the bill, never answering my question because
he knows he is not even remotely in the right, and doesn't care.
He sees this as an perfect opportunity to save $50.00.
After about 15 minutes worth of additional pointless babble, I
finally give up, and hang up on him. Of course, we never get paid,
and psycho-boy gets to pat himself on the back for another successful
scam pulled off. I move on, although of course it subliminally
irritates me for days because of the damn principle of the thing.
Now, an opposite side of a potential confrontational dilemma is
one in which the resistance is passive. You need to have something
done, and no one is even slightly interested in helping you, even
though it is purportedly their job to do so. While this kind of
behavior is maddening if it happens to you in a retail establishment,
at least there you nearly always have the option of taking your
business somewhere else. Such is not the case when the actions
you are undertaking are those proscribed by law, or when you are
in a situation where your alternative options are narrowly proscribed
or nonexistant.
A new movie in current release, John Q., is stirring up some emotions
that many unlucky folks have had way too much personal experience
with-- failure to get proper health care due to bureaucratic rather
than technical malfeasance. I like Denzel Washington, and the
movie's issue is an important one, but I really don't care to
see it because I already have a pretty good handle on the subject.
Last year, a nephew of mine became very seriously ill, and I mean
seriously-- he was so sick, his own mother (my sister) was allowed
to visit him in the critical care unit for a mere five minutes,
literally for fear that the possible additional stress could kill
him. Two days after that, the doctors finally arrested his precipitous
decline, and managed to stabilize him.
Then they sent him home.
That's right, he was released from a critical care ward and sent
home, to 'continue his recovery', even though he was still very,
very ill. Our family was stunned. My sister talked to everyone
she knew, no one had ever heard of such a thing. We had all expected
that he would remain hospitalized for weeks, possibly a month
or more. The real anger, of course, came from knowing the real
reason for this outrage, which naturally no one at the hospital
would publically cop to-- my nephew's HMO balked at paying the
high costs of critical care, and so as soon as 'the patient' wasn't
going to die today, well, then ship him out of there, right?
Bureaucracies aren't inherently evil, you know, but they tend
to grow into it over time. People and their problems get turned
into stacks of papers or electronic files on a hard drive and
they seem less 'real'. My poor nephew fortunately lived to tell
his sorry tale, but the nature of his illness is one that is almost
impossible to recover completely from even with the very best
of care. And what, really, can you do? My family, close and extended,
is composed of ordinary, unwealthy, working-class folk. We have
no real power to influence anybody about anything. We are small
cogs in a big machine, and cogs turn in circles, they don't go
places. If only we could be ducts instead... (~sighs~).
One such 'cog' who longs to be a 'duct' is Sam Lowry, who is bored
listless but otherwise accepting of his position in life in this
week's Classic Movie (revisited), Brazil, by genius/wacko director
Terry Gilliam. This film was the very first Classic Movie that
I recommended to ya'all February a year ago, except at the time
one could pretty much sum up the 'review' as Hi, I'm OnM, this
is a great flick, thank you very much, bye now!. Brazil is one
of the rare flicks that permanently resides on my top-ten-of-all-time
best-of list, and having eventually evolved a format for the column
over the ensuing months that I became reasonably satisfied with,
I have always lamented that I didn't do proper justice to it on
that maiden voyage. So, 'ere I am, J.H.
Speaking of justice, it would be a mistake to think of Sam as
being the hero of this tale, for while he may appear to be a basically
decent chap, in reality he, like most of us, is painfully average
in all of the worst aspects of that descriptive term. The movies,
like their brethern in the textual world, are a medium chock full
of examples of the ordinary man or woman who rises above his/her
ordinariness. Gilliam, however, appears incapable of creating
art which adheres to audience preconceptions, and while the tale
of Sam starts out predictably enough, where the journey ends is
not at all where you expect it to. Said ending, in point of fact,
so disturbed the studio that originally produced the work (MCA/Universal),
that they pulled the film from distribution immediately after
a small number of previews, and ordered Gilliam to rework large
sections of it, and in particular complelely rewrite the finale.
Gilliam refused, after which MCA/Universal, insisting that Gilliam
did not have the legal right of 'final cut' in his contract, began
re-editing it without Gilliam's permission. A months-long battle
between director and studio commenced, ending only when the Los
Angeles Film Critics Association, some of whose members had seen
the film in a series of clandestine screenings, declared it the
'best picture of the year', and likewise selected Gilliam as the
'best director'. Confounded by this 'bypass' around their previous
corporate decision, MCA/Universal released the film two weeks
later. It garnered several Oscar nominations, and within a decade's
time has became considered by many critics and film historians
to fall into the same class as Metropolis, Citizen Kane and Dr.
Strangelove.
Brazil is in many ways a 'contemporary' refurbishing of George
Orwell's equally classic negative-utopian novel, 1984, but only
in many ways, not all. Orwell's great work tended towards the
unremittingly bleak, whereas Gilliam's vision is brightened (albeit
perversely) by a nearly continual streak of dark humor that aims
more towards demonstrating the basic absurdity of the human desire
to completely organize and control the intrinsically unorganizable
and uncontrollable. In 1984, Orwell described the organization
of government as 'a boot, stomping down over and over, ever harder',
until all resistance and dissent are crushed from existence. Orwell's
protagionist, Winston Smith, rejects this allegory, but by novel's
end his soul is as completely crushed and dismembered as any of
his fellows. Sam Lowry's endgame fate is somewhat different, although
it is left for the viewer to argue to, or in what degree, and
if those degrees are genuinely significant.
The essential plot of the film is simplicity itself-- A man working
in a dreary office somewhere is annoyed to the nth by a pestery
fly buzzing about. Manically pursuing its destruction, he stacks
his chair atop his desk, clambers frantically up the makeshift
ladder and smashes the fly viciously and repeatedly against the
ceiling with a rolled up paper. Satisfied at his overwhelming
victory over the tiny invader, he smugly restores his office to
order, unaware that the body of the newly-deceased fly has dropped
off the ceiling and into the mechanics of a nearby computer/printer
machine, which then malfunctions, erroniously printing out an
arrest warrant for one 'Harry Buttle', instead of the intended
Harry Tuttle, a suspected 'terrorist'. Soon thereafter, the innocent
Mr. Buttle is taken into custody, killed during interrogation,
and the error never discovered until it is too late.
Sam, who works in the 'Department of Records', is alerted to this
error when his pathetically inept boss is charged with the task
of delivering a refund check to the widow of the now deceased
Mr. Buttle. (Prisoners must pay in advance for the costs of their
interrogation-- taking out a loan if necessary. Buttle died sooner
than expected, so there is now a refund amount payable to the
remaining family). Barely competent on a good day, Sam's boss
has never seen a refund check actually issued before, and has
no idea what to do with it. Sam tries to deposit the payment into
the widow's bank account, but she doesn't have one, so he decides
to hand deliver the check to her personally. This turns out to
be a bad decision on Sam's part, and much like the fly who wanders
into the wrong office at the wrong time, errant machinery is set
in motion that will change Sam's life forever.
Buttle's widow, quite understandably, doesn't see this well-meaning
bureaucrat's actions as being within the context of 'Good Samaritanism',
and Sam, left emotionally unprepared by his socially conditioned
disconnectedness, is dismayed and frightened by her distressing
pleas to 'just tell me where his body is'. The poor woman, more
pathetic than dangerous, accosts Sam since he is the only person
present that she can vent her helpless rage upon. During his hasty
scramble to escape her clutches, Sam spies the figure of a young
woman ('Jill Layton', played by Kim Greist) who lives on the floor
above Mrs. Buttle, and is stunned to see that she is the exact
visage of the angelic woman who calls to him in his dreams. She
runs off, but he is instantly smitten with, and obsessed with
finding her.
Jill, however, is not interested in being found. Unlike Sam, Jill
is a clear-headed realist who understands the true nature of the
evil society she lives within, and possesses the 'street smarts'
necessary to 'fly under the radar'. It is also possible that Jill
is a member of a resistance faction that is working to bring about
a revolution, but this is never directly confirmed either way.
(It is strongly implied that the 'terrorist attacks' are in fact
created and acted out by the same government agencies that publicly
decry them). Sam comes across information that causes him to suspect
Jill is about be be arrested, and terrified that she may come
to harm, accepts a job with the ironically named 'Ministry of
Information', whose job it is to prevent the dissemination of
same, naturally. From here, things go quickly downhill for Sam,
as each subsequent attempt to 'save' his beloved gets him (and
her) in greater and greater degrees of peril.
Or does it? For Sam, this is certainly the case, as the shocking/surprising
ending makes clear, but one of the many delightful/maddening aspects
of this phenomenal work is that as the story rolls on, it is increasingly
unclear how much of what we are seeing is real, or just additional
fantasy elements playing out in Sam's mind. Even the final scene,
which at first appears to definitively answer this question, doesn't
really do so after one pauses to ponder it further. The film's
ultimate 'statement' remains an enigma, boxed in a fantasy, wrapped
with cords of questions.
On the lighter side of the paradox, there are numerous running
jokes and ironies throughout the film, such as the wonderfully
clever visual metaphors of the city and the technologies that
'make it work' (or more often, don't). For example, the switched-off
reality checks of the dystopia's inhabitants are neatly summarized
by a series of mindlessly cheerful billboards that completely
line the sides of major roads, blocking the view of the literal
wasteland on the other side, or the 'outrageous' actions of the
'real' Harry Tuttle (Robert DeNiro), who demonstrates a flair
for genuine anarchy by flitting Spiderman-like about the city,
and fixing broken machinery all without benefit of proper paperwork.
(One 'legally authorized' environmental systems repairman has
an apparent epileptic-like seizure at the mere mention of a particularly
onerous type of work-requisition form).
Yet another stunning visual series appears very early on in the
film, as we are made aware that Sam Lowry tries to deal with the
humdrum nature of his daily existence by escaping into his dreams,
the recurring apparent favorite of which is one in which he becomes
a gloriously handsome, silver-armored 'winged avenger', swooping
and diving high up among the clouds, sunlight glinting radiantly
off his body, set on battling evil and spurred onward by his vision
of an angelically garbed, mystically beautiful woman. The appearance
of 'evil' in these fantasies is all strikingly unconventional
in form, such as in the giant robot-like samurai figure that represents
'the system', or the tall skyscraper-shaped dark monoliths that
burst out of the grassy plains and rise up to cast equally dark
shadows on the land far below. In Sam's dreams, even the solid
ground itself is not safe to walk on, as the cobblestones of a
street morph into a monsterous torso and arms, the hands of which
grasp painfully at his ankles, keeping the 'winged avenger' from
flight.
Brazil is a film that cannot be fully appreciated in a single
viewing, or possibly even in a dozen. Gilliam fills the screen
from edge to edge with countless details, frame after frame, from
start to finish. Just when you think you have everything down
pat, some other tidbit suddenly enters your awareness. One of
the reasons the visual design and art direction of the movie works
so well (and become so timeless) in its execution is that it borrows
generalities from the real world that we inhabit, but avoids specifics.
The technology of Brazil is oddly funky, to say the least, with
machinery appearing in forms where the level of complexity depicted
far outpaces the actual functional needs of the device in question.
The truly clever aspect of this conceptualization is that the
complexity almost always stops just short of over the top-- the
machines look ungainly and awkward, but at the same time is it
obvious that they are functional creations, that they could work,
just not necessarily very efficiently. A good example of this
is the 'monitor screens' and 'keyboards' used for the computers
that show up regularly in many different interior environments
throughout the movie. Instead of simply making a CRT display tube
with a bigger screen that would be easier to read, a large plastic
fresnel lens is positioned via a spindly arm in front of the tiny
tube face to optically magnify it. The 'keyboard' is simply an
ancient mechanical typewriter mechanism. Safety is apparently
secondary to cost of manufacture, as (in an aspect that only an
electronics tech would notice) there is no protective case over
the body of the high-vacuum (and easily implodable) CRT, and the
high-voltage anode cable and attachment cap is completely exposed
where it could be easily touched.*
This odd technological admixture rather effectively presents a
metaphor for the socio-political makeup of Sam Lowry's world.
Things appear to be functional, but just barely, and are just
as likely to fall apart as hold together. Despite this, the general
population seems inclined to accept the half-baked status quo
rather than challenge or actually improve it, and we are never
sure whether it is because of indifference, incompetence or despair.
As with our own realverse, the truth is probably a balance of
the three, although 'balance' may not be the best way to contemplate
this particular unholy trinity.
Then there are the ducts, which are everywhere. Ducts spring forth
from walls, floors, ceilings, jut out into and reach across rooms,
zigzag almost organically through slum apartment or graceful mansion.
They appear almost organic as opposed to mechanical, like the
root system of a forest of trees, although one can't be certain
if the roots are nourishing to, or crushing the life from, the
space they inhabit. The ducts that awkwardly span the interior
space of rooms are but a small portion of the total plumbing that
encompasses the city and it's living spaces. In a scene where
the HVAC system in Sam Lowry's apartment goes on the fritz, the
anarchist repairman Harry Tuttle opens a panel in the wall to
reveal an almost obscene-looking array of pipes, wires and unknown
artifacts. He pokes and prods about in the maze, finally emerging
clutching some tiny object in the jaws of a pliers.
"Aha!" says Tuttle to Sam. "There's your problem."
"Can you fix it? asks Sam, momentarily elated at the chance
to actually solve a problem for a change.
"No." replies Tuttle, cheerfully. Sam is crestfallen,
and looks forlornly at Tuttle who still seems oddly upbeat.
"But I can bypass it with this!" Tuttle continues, holding
up a bizarre looking assemblage of plastic tubes and mysterious
gomolas.
Sam pauses briefly, then nods assent. Tuttle dives in.
After all these many centuries, one of the greatest unsolved riddles
of the cosmos and humanity's perception of it remains, namely:
What is Reality? And, should you discover what reality truly is,
do you want to live there? If you do choose to live there, what
are your options? Do you go with the flow, buck the tide, rock
the boat, seek the shallow waters, or just bypass the whole dam
thing if that's what gets the job done?
I don't pretend to know for sure, and in fact it's all a matter
of balancing perception and action for the greatest overall good.
I just hope that if we do eventually arrive at a better future,
that the future doesn't have any more forms to fill out.
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technical duct shoot:
Brazil is available on DVD. The film was released in 1985 and
running time is 2 hours and 11 minutes for the evil studio version
with the happy ending, and 2 hours and 22 minutes for the director's
cut version. The review copy was on a deluxe Criterion Collection
laserdisc edition, which contains lots of extra additional goodies
besides the film itself. (I have reason to believe the DVD release
contains many of these same extras). The original theatrical aspect
ratio is 1.85 to 1, which is preserved on the laserdisc and likely
also on the DVD version. (Please, please view this film only in
the original widescreen, 'director's cut' version!) The screenplay
was written by Terry Gilliam, Charles McKeown and Tom Stoppard.
Cinematography was by Roger Pratt, with film editing by Julian
Doyle. Production design was by Norman Garwood, and costume design
was by James Acheson. Music was by Michael Kamen. The sound mix
is standard Dolby Surround, and has probably been remastered to
Dolby Digital for the DVD (although I don't guarantee it, of course.
If you wish to dispute any of these statements, please mail a
request for Form 1088-B-ite/me).
Cast overview:
Jonathan Pryce .... Sam Lowry Robert De Niro .... Archibald 'Harry'
Tuttle Katherine Helmond .... Mrs. Ida Lowry Ian Holm .... Mr.
M. Kurtzmann Bob Hoskins .... Spoor Michael Palin .... Jack Lint
Ian Richardson .... Mr. Warrenn Peter Vaughan .... Mr. Helpmann
Kim Greist .... Jill Layton Jim Broadbent .... Dr. Jaffe Barbara
Hicks .... Mrs. Terrain Charles McKeown .... Lime Derrick O'Connor
.... Dowser Kathryn Pogson .... Shirley Bryan Pringle .... Spiro
*******
Miscellaneous:
Whew, that was a short month! (Yeah, I know, it's not really over
yet but I feel like it should be, ya know?) Next week brings us
another new Buffy ep, and hopefully also the week after that,
so I'll go back to attempting some more BtVS-relevant flicks now
that the CMotW First Anniverssary madness has departed. (The regular
madness will remain, of course!)
Nota Bene Nr. 1: Re: the asterisk* that showed up late in the
main review-- the 'anode cable' referred to is the wire that carries
a high voltage signal to the body of the picture tube in your
TV set or computer monitor. This voltage can be anywhere from
10,000 to 40,000 volts DC, and carries enough current (amps) along
with it to knock you flying across the room if you accidentally
came in contact with it. No responsible engineer or manufacturer
would ever fail to adequately enclose this dangerous component.
Whether the Brazil art directors made this choice for reasons
of style or something deeper, I have no idea, but it is yet another
layer of potential meaning whatever the original intent.
Nota Bene Nr. 2: Still looking for some more movie fans to join
in the fun with a guest host post for the weeks when Buffy is
on hiatus this spring. A couple of adventurous individs have already
volunteered so far, and are presumably working away in fevered
fashion at their reviews, but there is still room for plenty of
others-- May sweeps are (sadly) still quite a ways away, I'd say.
To refresh your memory, here be 'Da Rules', excerpted from the
original February 1st 2002 CMotW column:
Wellsir, the conversation between me and my clone at the column
start-up pretty much spelled out what's in store for this month.
I'll now detail some of the details, though, for those Hobbits,
Elves or Humans out there in Atpoboardland who bravely wish to
take me up on my offer to guest-host a 'Classic Movie of the Week'
column.
C'mon, you know you want to! It isn't that hard, you just need
1) a reasonably functional brain, 2) a love for movies, 3) an
opinion thereon and 4) the ability to type. If you hang at this
board, and read this column regularly, you obviously have already
qualified, so git them fingers a-clickin', OK?
*The procedure:*
Write up your column. Length should be at least one normal 8 1/2
x 11 inch page if printed out, you may make it longer if desired,
of course. You *do not need to emulate my style*, in fact I hope
you do not-- please do your own thing in your own way. You do
not need to include the 'Technical yada yada...' or 'Miscellaneous'
or 'Question of the Week' if you do not wish to. The movie should
*not* be one in current release.
I prefer a 'positive' review. By this, I do not mean to exclude
negative aspects of the film in your review, but there will only
be so much room to fit these into the schedule as the BtVS season
progresses, so I don't want to see a film chosen just to bash
it. What's the point? Pick something you like, and tell us why.
That's really what this is all about.
Send your completed review to me in either .txt or .rtf format.
I will select my favorites from among all submissions, and publish
them during the weeks that Buffy is on hiatus up until the end
of the current season. After that, if there are still submissions
left over, I will publish one a month through the summer until
the new Buffy season starts up again in the fall. The guest columns
will be posted at the usual Friday night, 10:00 PM to 2:00 AM
time slot each week. You should include your preferred return
e-mail address so that I may contact you regarding any revisions
needed, which would be primarily for any questionable spelling
or grammar issues. (I will take it upon myself to correct any
trivial errors/obvious typos I find).
You will have the final say as to the publishing of your submission,
and I will inform you by e-mail of the projected date of posting.
You are a guest in my normal column space, I make absolutely no
claims of any kind over, or assert any rights to subsequent 'ownership'
of anything you write. It remains your work. My CMotW column,
in fact, exists in Masquerade's 'space', and I continue here by
her permission, for which I am extremely grateful.
Send your 'Classic Movie' reviews to:
objectsinmirror@mindspring.com
*******
The Question of the Week:
Have you ever gotten caught in a seemingly helpless bureaucratic
situation, and if so, did you ever resolve it satisfactorily?
Was the experience one you'd class (in retrospect) as the stupid/annoying
kind, or did it involve a truly serious snafu, such as a safety
or health issue?
Post 'em if you've got 'em, and see you next week!
Take care!
*******
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Worth waiting for, as always. Thanks! --
Vickie, 00:38:03 02/24/02 Sun
QoTW: Have you ever gotten caught in a seemingly helpless bureaucratic
situation, and if so, did you ever resolve
it satisfactorily?
Several times. But this one's (at least a little) amusing, so
I'll go with it.
When my Mom passed away (wait! it does get amusing, I promise!),
I had the task of cancelling her accounts, credit cards, etc.
Most people were sympathetic, if uncomfortable and awkward. The
Americal Express people were, well different.
"I'm calling to close my mother's account. You sent a yearly
fee statement after her death and, well, she won't be needing
it."
"You'll need to pay that fee in the interim to keep the account
current and avoid late charges. To close your mother's account,
we'll need an official copy of the death certificate, with notarized
signature(s) of the executor(s), ..."
(Here I stopped her. Those things cost about $10, and take whatever
time the California beaurocracy wants to take. Besides, if she
was going to ask for shoe sizes, I was going to lose it.)
"Wait a sec, what do you need all this for?"
"We need to know that it's proper to close your mother's
account and comp the yearly fee."
"Uh, what happens if I just don't pay the yearly fee?"
"Well, we'll cancel the account eventually. But failure to
pay the fee could adversely affect her credit rating."
"Ya know, I don't think she'll be using her credit rating."
Click.
I have always hoped that particular call was being taped for quality
assurance purposes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Yay choice -- Anonymous Poster, 00:54:09 02/24/02 Sun
Just wanted to commend you on your movie of the month... as additional
side notes, Terry Gilliam also did Twelve Monkeys which I believe
was a response to the editing of Brazil -- the lenses/monitor
issue is also ported to that movie. Mr. Gilliam is actually in
the movie as a cameo. The DVD version, which I have seen, I believe
contains the same essential extras, the full-length and the edited
version (which *maybe a spoiler* is more or less cutting off the
true ending of the movie) and a director's commentary where you
can hear Mr. Gilliam complain about the editing. Last note: Brazil
is not a reference to the country but as Mr. Gilliam puts it (paraphrased):
"the barmitzvah song". Sorry for that, just enthused
by the choice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - February 22nd 2002 -- Cactus
Watcher, 08:39:37 02/24/02 Sun
I spent so much of my early life directly or indirectly being
effected by beaucracies, that I try not to think of the really
bad incidents, just the silly one's and the few in which my father's
small business or I personally came out victorious. For instance,
when I was little, we lived in, what was then, the country. There
was no question of me having a baby sister during the day, because
there was no one around to do it. About the time I was four or
five my mother used to have me hide on the floor of the back seat
of the car, when she made deliveries from our family business
to the big defense plant complex a few miles away, because once
she was sent away because children my age weren't allowed through
the gate to get to the receiving dock.
My favorite story deals with the draft board. I was one of those
young men caught up in the switch when college deferments were
eliminated in 1970. Things here in the US were such a mess that
spring, I just wanted to get away from everything. I planned and
paid for a two-month trip to Europe and the USSR that summer,
myself. My father and I agreed that it looked like I'd probably
get drafted in the fall. Just in case something happened sooner,
I wrote the draft board telling them where I was going to be,
just as the little beaucratic pamphlet we got when we registered
at age eighteen said we should. My trip was great, and I got fresh
perspective on life and what it means to live in a free country.
Naturally, the draft board sent a notice to my home ordering me
to report for a predraft physical on a date before I was supposed
to return. My parents had utterly no idea where I was other than
somewhere on the continent of Europe, and that I was picking up
mail occasionally in Copenhagen. My father, being a former army
officer, knew exactly what to do. He went to the draft board and
told them the situation. Naturally, they didn't believe him, and
started making the usual threats about what would happen if I
didn't show up as scheduled. Over and over, my father told them
about the letter I'd written and over and over they said they
never-ever received that kind of letter from any young men. My
father who was a calm person, kept telling them over and over
to go look in their files, until they finally agreed to do that
much. There were red faces everywhere in the office when the letter
was found. Since I'd followed their beaucratic rules and told
them, that I was going to be gone and out of touch and when I
was coming back, they had no choice, but to reschedule my physical.
During that summer there was a scandal about the army drafting
men who weren't healthy enough to make it through basic training.
The rules for who was acceptable changed by the time I took the
physical. Because of a relatively minor health problem (hey, I'm
still here aren't I?) I failed the physical and was not drafted.
Literally, because I played by their rules, I didn't end up in
Army and perhaps Vietnam.
Brazil is indeed a great movie. My brother talked about it for
years, before I got to see it. I expected a let down when I did
finally get the chance. But it was everything he said it was.
As an aside, as OnM says Brazil owes much to Orwell. Orwell in
turn admitted that his inspiration came from a now little-known
Russian book of the early 1920's "We" by Evgenii I.
Zamyatin (the first name is Eugene in English and sometimes the
last name is spelled Zamiatin). It too is a great piece of sci-fi/social
commentary. Anyone who enjoys Brazil would probably enjoy reading
its intellectual 'grandmother.' "We" has been available
in English since the 1920's (it was not completely published in
Russian until 1952 and then in the US), but it can be tricky to
find. Although it is novel length it has been published with volumes
with early Soviet short stories, as in Bernard Guerney's "An
Anthology of Russian Literature in the Soviet Period." It's
well worth tracking down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thanks for the great story, CW. -- OnM, 12:10:07 02/24/02
Sun
BTW, I'm assuming you meant babysitter, not 'sister', right? Strange
image came up when I read that... *g*.
I remember the reference to 'We', now that you brought it up--
I think my old paperback copy of 1984 mentioned in in a preface.
Never read it, but I'd certainly be interested in hearing from
any other posters who have, and any relationships between it and
1984 and/or Brazil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> We -- d'Herblay, 12:55:47 02/24/02 Sun
I think that I own two paperback copies of We: one trade, purchased
for full price in Cambridge, Mass.; the other mass-market, with
the cover torn off, bought illegally at 113th St. and Broadway
late at night for a quarter. (Yes, my life had been filled with
sordid, shady late-night bibliophilic transactions. Hey, man,
I was jonesing.) So copies must exist; if not, you could borrow
one of mine, I guess.
I have very dim memories of both 1984 and Brazil, but I know that
the first time I read The Republic, I had very visceral recollections
of We. (This was before I got to the part where Plato says, per
Cleanthes, "Hey, folks, just funnin' with you.") Then,
a few months later, I had the exact same reaction reading On the
Social Contract. So, basically, should a philosopher remind me
of Zamiatin, I'll bear a grudge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Thanks for the great story, CW. -- CW, 13:28:46
02/24/02 Sun
I see I also wrote 'effected' for 'affected'... Oh well, you guys
know I can't proofread!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current board
| More February 2002