January 2003 posts


Previous January 2003  

More January 2003

Fun with numbers or How Strong Buffy really is -- Majin Gojira, 11:23:24 01/19/03 Sun

A little fun with numbers.

Vertical Height = y
Acceleration = a
Velocity = V

Instance: Crush, Buffy punches Spike and sends him approx 40ft across a room.

Earths Gravity = 9.8m/s^2

Using SI units

Falling Time for an Object Y meters off the ground

T = sqrt (2y/9.8)
T = approx. 3s. y unknown due to camera angle

In order to throw a person X meters in Time T, the velocity must be

V=x/t
V =12.2/3
V = 4.06 m/s

In order to impart v to victim with distance x that the punch contacts the victim's body, the acceleration must be:

A=sqrt (v^2 /2x)
A = sqrt (4.06^2/2(12.2))
A = 6.76

Finally, the force required to accelerate an object with mass m to acceleration a is defined by:

F=ma
F=(67.95kg)(6.76)
F=459.342 Newtons
Or, 103.26 lbs

This is only an approximation and does not take into account Air resistance, Friction with the floor (e.g. if the victims feet drag), the slope of the floor, or when the target becomes airborne.

In other words, this is an extremely conservative number, if anything.

Aside from which, against a normal person, if the person is not killed immediately or fatally injured by the punch indicates that it is a non-physics situation: the force required for the correct ballistic arc would kill a man. Thankfully, Spike is already dead when this occured. and I'm surprised that when she sent Riley flyng, that he survied, then again, he was on the initiative drugs at the time.
[> Yargh! Typo! -- Majin Gojira, 11:27:13 01/19/03 Sun

9.8m/s/s...ARGH!
[> Which leads to the obvious question... -- Apophis, 13:29:59 01/19/03 Sun

... could Buffy take Spider-Man?
[> Re: Fun with numbers or How Strong Buffy really is -- skpe, 14:50:30 01/19/03 Sun

I would think that the force buffy delivered would be considerable greater. In your calculation you are assuming an inelastic rebound but in actuality a lot of the force would go into deforming Spikes face. Plus you need to take into account that the blow lifted him 4 or 5 feet off the ground, (too lazy to do the math)
[> [> Though, it looked to me more like 20 ft than 40 ft -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:39:56 01/19/03 Sun

Which should probably change the measurements a great deal.
That wacky New York Times! -- Rob, 15:49:58 01/19/03 Sun

I've really stopped caring about critics' opinions of any shows or movies I like. I used to get really upset when a movie or show I loved was rejected by the critics; but, now I've reached the point where a positive review is just icing on the cake.

With that said, I noticed something interesting in the NY Times this week. IN their TV Guide, they put a star next to a "recommended program." For its first five years on the air, Buffy got one of those coveted stars, and since its second season, "Angel" did as well. About halfway through the sixth season, they stopped putting that star next to Buffy, which at the time annoyed me. Starting this week, they have restored the star next to Buffy's name, but curiously, have taken it away from Angel's. Which I actually thought was kind of funny, because even though I said I don't care about negative reviews, I was very excited to see the star and thought "Finally both shows are getting the stars! Wouldn't it be funny, though, that just b/c I said that, they took it away from Angel?" And lo and behold, they did!

Oh, you wacky, crazy, New York Times! You never cease to amaze me! Of course, we won't really know until the ends of the seasons, but so far I think "Buffy" and "Angel" are having some of their strongest seasons out of their entire runs. Sometimes I think that whoever decides these things at the NY Times is a disgruntled Internet fan. Why do I say this? Because the star came away from Buffy just during the height of the Buffy/Spike controversy (which again, I was on the pro- side of), and it came away from Angel the very episode after Cordy & Connor had sex--another big brouhaha (of which I was on the didn't-like-but-not-going-to-stop-watching-because-of-it side). It just makes me laugh that the NY Times' opinion seems to coincide regularly with that of the more vocal fans.

Rob
[> Re: That wacky New York Times! -- shadowkat, 18:35:43 01/19/03 Sun

Noticed the star thing a few weeks back - where the star was next to Buffy. Angel wasn't on until this past week, so couldn't compare.

But NY Times is odd. They put stars next to things I wouldn't - certain movies and not next to ones I would.

Once again that funky question arises...who determines what is good and bad in culture? And is there really any need for critics? Since critical opinion often appears to be subjective and based on the viewer?

(Thinking this as I'm listening to the Golden Globes in the background and wondering why some things win and get nominated and others...don't.)
[> [> Well, I heard that critics often altered their opinions -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:47:29 01/19/03 Sun

According to what they percieve the public as more likely to enjoy.
[> [> Critical opinion -- Rahael, 04:14:43 01/20/03 Mon

Once again that funky question arises...who determines what is good and bad in culture? And is there really any need for critics? Since critical opinion often appears to be subjective and based on the viewer?

I'd certainly agree that taste is subjective and that critics often get it wrong. And get it really really wrong on many occasions. But we're all critics . We just don't get paid for it. All your posts display critical opinions on BtVS and on actors and entertainment generally. Most of the posts here do.

So you might as well phrase the question thus: why do we need to post on this board and share our subjective opinions at all? Personally, it's the subjectivity that I most value here. I generally don't like to claim that what I 'see' in BtVS is what anyone else sees or indeed, what the writers intended. That's because I tend to write about what resonated with me, and spoke to me. But that's because I rarely take out my critical hat. If I were to write about our fave shows dispassionately, my posts here would be very different. But a lot of people here do often write dispassionately and critically, and I love reading their posts.

I love essays on art and critical works generally. In fact, I'll read many many reviews and op pieces on tv shows I'll never watch and books I'll never read.
[> [> [> Good point. -- yez, 07:36:09 01/20/03 Mon

I think most professional critics fulfill a couple of functions for the public, though. They're a tool that can help you decide which entertainment you're going to spend time and money on; once you "calibrate" with them -- figure out how your tastes compare to each other, whether you tend to like the same things -- they can be just a strong a tool as word of mouth from friends who share your taste.

I think they also are educators in a way, at least the good ones. Being specialists in their fields, historians, they can sometimes give you the "bigger picture," no pun intended, on a film, TV show, etc., helping you learn about why it may be noteworthy aside from a pure "I liked the story and special effects" kind of enjoyment. They can help you see why it's different or a first for this or that.

They're also "judges," to some extent once they establish some authority. When enough of the public has faith in their opinions (as a screening tool or an educator), their opinions can affect the box office success of a film and even how it's perceived artistically -- which can also affect box office success.

That's just my opinion. Maybe someone else can speak to how others in the industry use critics, whether favorable reviews can affect funding for new projects, casting, etc.

yez
[> [> [> [> Well, if they do their job well enough, -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:49:06 01/20/03 Mon

I find it entertaining to read movie or TV reviews. For instance, I've seen very few of the movies at "MutantReviewersFromHell.com" or "StompTokyo.com", and most likely won't see most of them ever, but I still immensely enjoy reading their reviews of movies.
[> [> [> Is it possible to be objective? -- shadowkat, 09:29:41 01/20/03 Mon

We've discussed this before I think and it reminds me of an old discussion I've had with my brother.

He insists that it is impossible to have an "objective" opinion on anything. OR to write objectively. That all writing, all points of view, is inherently subjective.
I often leave these debates scratching my head in confusion, because I can't decide if I agree, if he's right or what.

I see it here as well. Can we post objectively? What is objectivity? Or subjectivity? Anyway? And is the very fact that we re-watch these episodes so many times and post so often on Btvs and ATs - evidence that we are from being "objective" on it to begin with? Maybe...what we try to do is be well less emotional about it - which admittedly is hard for me, I tend to reside in an emotional place and inadvertently reveal personal things about myself regardless of what I post on. So perhaps my brother and others are right - objectivity is not within our grasp?

Dictionary definition, American Heritage Dictionary,

Objective: 1) Of or having to do with a material object. 2) Having acutal existence. 3 a) Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. b.) Based on observable phenomena.

Subjective: 1a) Proceeding from or taking place within a person's mind such as to be unaffected by the external world. b) PArticular to a given person;personal; sujective experience.

Hmmm...now reviewing the definitions...makes me think it's impossible to be just one or the other. So critical opinion is usually on a sliding scale between the extreems of:

1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

to

2. Completely affected by personal experience but unaffected by external experiences.

Sort of like the range between introvert and extrovert.
Most opinion like most personalities lie within neither extreme but somewhere in the middle.

Thanks for making me think about it...I've been guilty of accusing opinion of being one or the other, when it is really a combo of both.

SK
[> [> [> [> What about fair, professional and open? -- Rahael, 10:03:38 01/20/03 Mon

Some of the most invaluable articles I read in preperation for essays were reviews of history books - they tended to tell you what the book said and why they agreed/disagreed. A handy guide to current historiography. Are historians objective? Not always. Many times, they have pet theories. When I spent a term doing Literature and Politics in Early Modern England I had two tutors who didn't like each other. What's more, they had diametrical opinions on most things and would mark down people who disagreed with them. It was a good thing that by the time I took this course I had very strong opinions of my own about most of the essays I wrote, otherwise I'd have spent the entire term telling the tutor what they wanted to hear.

But that doesn't mean I didn't get valuable insights from both, even when they disagreed with each other (One of them "venerated" Thomas More, and the other thought he was 'a blazing hypocrite" LOL.) Were they *both* objective about Thomas More? I don't always think so. Were their opinions valuable and insightful and useful? Absolutely yes.

I wrote my essays always from a very opinionated perspective - that's the training I got from my degree. If I wrote with passion, and style, and backed up my argument with good evidence - they liked it even more if I got witty, funny and pungent quotes, and I always tried to oblige!. And yes, with emotion too. I loved my work for my degree because I could use my imagination and my own subjective viewpoint to having essays that were just a little bit different. I approached the foreign policy of Elizabeth, the economic policies of Mary, and the emotional landscape of Oliver Cromwell in exactly the way I analyse Buffy. Lots of leaps in logic and lots of poetry quotes!

The thing is - we only interpret history, as we only interpret art - and therefore we have many truths, even if the truths appear to disagree. I see a claim to objectivity as saying "I'm detached, impartial and therefore what I see *is* the truth. There is no other". Whereas an acceptance of subjectivity is saying "you may not have given the definitive truth. But that's something I hadn't thought about"

So when a critic hates a film I like, I just shrug. So what? Did he/she give good reasons? Maybe for him/her but not for me. And vice versa. It's not the final pronouncement. Just like we live with the fact that some posters we respect just hate eps that we might love. I don't consider them deeply wrong, it just worked for me and not for them.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What about fair, professional and open? -- Random, 14:42:13 01/20/03 Mon

Yes. Therein lies the key. People tend to construe the undeniable subjectivity of human perception as analogous to saying that there can be no reliable standard of judgement. Which is rather shortsighted, really. If a critic of BtVS observes that it engages in metaphor for realworld experiences, features a supernaturally strong blonde female who fights vampires and demons, utilizes some campy gags, et cetera, and thus concludes that the show lacks the visceral gutwrenching realism of, say, American Idol, then we may observe that the reviewer states relatively accurate facts and draws an opinion that we may or may not agree with. Yes, we all see things differently -- it's dictum that no two witnesses to the same event will describe it in exactly the same way. Nor do we react in exactly the same way. But...I may love "When She Was Bad" (which I do) for exactly the same reasons another may hate it. We may agree on all the essential points of what happened and why, and nevertheless come to completely different conclusions. Indeed, interpretative subjectivity is necessary when we lack all the facts (Xander's "The Lie" is a perfect example of a major division in Buffy fandom predicated upon the fact that the show never bothered to clue us in on Xander's motives.) But we all agree he lied.The example pertaining to More, for instance, demonstrates that the tutors apparently agreed on a few facts, i.e. More was a real person who espoused (hypocritically or not) certain points of view.
Critics are as human as the rest of us...well, I have a few friend, artists and playwrights and the like, who might disagree, but for the sake of argument, let's assume they are. Are their opinions any more "objective" than ours? Course not! Are they smarter or more insightful than the average person on the street? Maybe, but not necessarily. What distinguishes them is the fact that they've demonstrated to some authority -- generally the public at large -- that they're capable of offering opinions worth listening to. If I read a critical analysis written by, say, T.S. Eliot or Toni Morrison, I will certainly give it some weight. I will make up my own mind in the end, but some part of me will take into account the opinion of a person who I perceive to have a greater insight into the topic (literature in this case) than the vast majority of the population. I understand that they have their own preferences, but I trust them to care enough about the subject to be "fair, professional and open." I see it on this board all the time. Certain posters immediately grab my attention because, in a year and a half of lurking, I have learned that they tend to be intelligent, insightful posters without an excessive amount of dogmatism. (I won't name any for fear of leaving out, by accident, somebody I'd definitely put on the list...well, since I'm replying to Rahael's post, I'll go ahead and note that Rah is definitely one.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Okay - you said that a whole lot better! -- Rahael, 16:01:27 01/20/03 Mon

Judgement - that's a pretty important word in this discussion!

I should mention for anyone seeking an amusing and rather subjective pov on this discussion that you couldn't do better than read Henry Fielding's remarks on his critics in Tom Jones. Witty and cutting all at the same time!

(Really pleased to be on that list, btw. Big smile)
[> [> [> [> Of course, than there is the paradox of the 'everything's subjective' theory itself being subjective -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:41:47 01/20/03 Mon

[> BIG spoiler for Angel in Rob's post (for those who aren't spoiled) -- Marie, 03:38:09 01/20/03 Mon

[> [> I didn't see any future spoilers... -- Rahael, 04:19:34 01/20/03 Mon

Only for aired eps. What am I missing??
[> [> [> Re: I didn't see any future spoilers... -- Marie, 07:21:27 01/20/03 Mon

I guess I should've clarified that it's a spoiler for those in the UK and other places that haven't started the new season - specifically, the spoiler concerns Cordy and Connor.

Everyone knows what a trollop I am, so it didn't worry me, but I know lots of people who are trying not to be spoiled. It's easy to slip, though, on these boards!

Marie
[> [> [> [> I kinda thought so - but I thought knew something I didn't! -- Rahael (spoilers only for aired S4 eps in this thread!), 07:35:26 01/20/03 Mon

I kept peering at Rob's post to find the secret!

I hang out (in a much less obsessive fashion) at another general board where there is a Buffy S6 thread. They just saw Wrecked! Absolutely no future spoilers allowed!

Though I wonder, do we have any British posters here who aren't spoiled? I just put the clarifying line "no future spoilers", because then most of the board would have avoided reading Rob's post!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I kinda thought so - but I thought knew something I didn't! -- Marie, 08:28:19 01/20/03 Mon

Well, since I've discussed this board with friends, I know one or two who lurk now and again, and I thought it better to be safe than sorry!

My own partner lurks here, but I can warn him off the ones I notice (though how he avoids being spoilt, associating with me, heaven only knows!). (Hmm... maybe there's another reason I occasionally notice steam coming out of his ears!)

M
[> [> [> [> [> [> It's good to keep posters on their toes -- Rahael, 10:10:42 01/20/03 Mon

I've been getting lazy about putting spoiler warnings for anything other than this season's eps!

Now that I've written out that subject line, it occurs to me what a bizarre expression it is.
[> [> Sorry! I must have not noticed, since Apocalypse Nowish aired so long ago in the States! -- Rob, 12:07:00 01/20/03 Mon

[> Admissions of former newspaper composing room employee -- Deb, 10:43:31 01/20/03 Mon

The TV Guide section rarely is seen in editorial. It comes to composition ready to print. I used to work at a unnamed midwestern city newspaper in composing. Whoever was responsible for the TV Guide section would add or remove stars to their preferences. If space was short, would lope off late night TV also. And the astrology cols? Just pulled one out of the drawer or computer to insert.

I don't know of NY Times does it differently, but this is how is has been done at most papers I know of. Wouldn't take TV Guide section to heart at all.
Angel's retconned functionality -- Darby, 08:02:30 01/20/03 Mon

The subthread on the shortcomings of The House Always Wins makes me wonder whether people mind that the show seems to be undermining the previously-established image of souled Angel, wandering aimlessly along the fringes of society, wracked with guilt and barely functional. How would this guy hang out with the Rat Pack and Vegas mobsters(and play tennis)? Is it Angel telling stories, making stuff up from decades of sitting in hotel rooms watching tv? Or was Angel cool before Buffy?

Do people like the idea that Angel may have a lot of cool backstory to tell, or does it alter the myth too much?
[> Well, he said he met the Rat Pack in a bar -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:52:07 01/20/03 Mon

Could be they simply drowned their sorrows together. Just because you're hanging out with celebs doesn't mean you can't still wallow in your own misery. Though, would someone mind mentioning who Bugsy is?
[> [> Try this -- Darby, 09:22:51 01/20/03 Mon

http://www.ipsn.org/siegel.html
[> Re: Angel's retconned functionality -- Apophis, 10:42:59 01/20/03 Mon

Personally, I think it does ruin his image a bit to for Angel to have been "cool" during his century of malaise. I think that Angel must have been B.S.ing a little when he mentioned the Rat Pack. Maybe he did meet them, but my guess is that he embellished because he wanted to impress his friends. Also, when he said that he was at Elvis' wedding, he mentioned that he got kicked out for being drunk (or something like that; I can't remember exactly what he said). Maybe he was trying to drown his sorrows and (as is often the case with benders) wound up somewhere unexpected.
[> Re: Angel's retconned functionality -- yabyumpan, 11:02:26 01/20/03 Mon

Well I've fanwanked it like this:

After leaving the Hyperion Hotel in 1952, pissed off with humans after taking the chance of getting close to one and then getting royally screwed (well...hanged), he decided to stop feeling guilty about what he'd done to humans as Angelus and high tailed it to Vegas to hang out at a place that offers the worst of humanity in terms of greed and superficiality. (apologies if I've offended any Los Vegas residents, I've never been there but it seems to me it's not the sort of place flowing with the milk of kindness or goodness. It would be high on my list of places that I would never want to visit). It seems like the place where he could loose himself and his inner darkness wouldn't seem so out of place. Sort of a larger version of the hotel except that he seems to have attempted to have 'fun'.

I'm more intrigued by how he got from there to being 'stink guy' in New York in 1996. From the pop culture references we've been given he seems to have spent the later half of the sixties and early seventies watching TV ("Bonanza? Fifteen years on air not mean anything to any one? Okay, now I feel old" Belonging ) and sitting in dark movie theatres feeling kinship with Charlton Heston (sp). I hope we get to find out at some point how he went from that relative stability to the wreck we met in 'Becoming'.
[> [> Re: Angel's retconned functionality -- KKC, 12:46:06 01/20/03 Mon

If I may add to Yab's speculation. Just because Angel met the Rat Pack in the 50's doesn't mean that it was a pleasant encounter. I noticed that he carefully didn't say what it was he was doing in town when he met that famous drinking circle...

Frank: Waiter! Who's this ugly Irishman with the bad hair?
Dean: Doesn't matter, he sure can put it away.
Frank: Shut up and drink your apple juice, Dean.
Joey: Uh...
Frank: Shut up, Joey.
Sammy: You sure he's Irish? You white guys all look the same to me.
Frank: Yeah, he's Irish. He looks Catholic and he's not from my part of the old world, so that makes him either Irish or Mexican.
Dean: Well he may not be Mexican, but he's sure takin' a helluva siesta.
Joey: Uh...
Frank: Shut up, Joey. Waiter, throw the bum out!

-KKC, with apologies to everybody, because the people he's offended just now are too numerous to name. :)
[> [> [> Meanwhile, Peter Lawford sits quietly in the background, planning his day of glory... -- cjl, 13:23:30 01/20/03 Mon

"Soon," he whispers to himself, slurping his Jack Daniels on the rocks. "Soon..."
[> [> [> [> I would have included Lawford, but I just couldn't think of anything for him to say. *shrug* :) -- KKC, 16:05:32 01/20/03 Mon

[> [> you're kidding, Vegas is great! -- Helen, 00:52:33 01/21/03 Tue

[> [> I find Vegas depressing, but I pick up on emotional undercurrents . . . -- vh, 06:20:31 01/21/03 Tue

[> [> [> but the beauty of Vegas is that it totally lacks in emotional undercurrents. Its totally surface. -- Helen, 06:21:36 01/21/03 Tue

Moorock/ME parallels, Law, Chaos and the Grey Revolt (spoilers to 7.11/4.8) -- KdS, 10:36:48 01/20/03 Mon

For some time I've noted certain similarities in plot and characterisation between AtS and the substantial corpus of Michael Moorcock. I haven't posted until now because I wasn't sure if they were of interest to anyone else on the board. However, Corwin has recently recommended Moorcock's Elric novels on the board, and the last few episodes of both BtVS and AtS have shown definite resonances with Moorcock's cosmology.

Moorcock's cosmology has evolved organically over some forty years and certain areas remain ambiguous or the subject of conflict between canonical materials. However, Moorcock's novels can broadly be described as being set in a Multiverse of a very large number of individual realities, including both different universes with differing physical laws, and alternate versions of the same universes based on historical contingency. Travel between different realities is possible, but highly dangerous, as the dimensional traveller tends to become increasingly weakly anchored to any reality and liable to unexpected and involuntary shifts. Those dimensional travellers who survive and remain sane are not so much able to avoid this consequence, as sufficiently self-sufficient or idealistic to tolerate such a rootless and random existence. Moreover, the inhabitants of certain realities have developed the ability to create and maintain artificial pocket universes by either magical or technological means. Add to this the fact that time not only moves at different rates between distant realities, but cannot be mapped between realities in any consistent way, and one has a very complex venue. While there are hints that some creative force may be lurking in the background, there does not seem to be any guiding deity. God-like entities exist in certain realities, but they may well have either evolved from lesser sentient beings by spiritual or technological advance, or possibly have been created by the imagination and belief of their followers. All these realities, however, are subject to an eternal struggle between abstract forces of Law and Chaos. These do not correspond to Good and Evil in any simplistic sense, but to philosophical and psychological tendencies. Morality is created by sentient beings and cultures. However, a certain balance between the two abstract forces is necessary for the existence of sentient life and the development of culture. If the forces of Law become too powerful within a reality, it produces political repression and cultural stasis. An excess of Chaos leads at first to Hobbesian social breakdown, and then, if unchecked, to total failure of the laws of physics and causality, with spectacular and universally lethal results. (If this sounds familiar to you, it was shamelessly plagiarised by the creators of Dungeons and Dragons for their metaphysics).

The survival of sentient life is maintained by an entity known as the Eternal Champion (EC). This Champion, usually male, is brought into being within a certain reality at a crisis point in its history. The Champion's life is generally marked by violence and tragedy, and he is usually torn between Law and Chaos in a very personal manner. The Champion's job is to bring the reality he or she manifests in to a state of balance more suited to the development of culture. The Champion is generally unaware of his or her status until very late in his or her personal saga, although one incarnation, Erekose, has access to the memories of all the incarnations and is constantly flipped between different realities as a sort of travelling trouble-shooter. In Moorcock's sword and sorcery novels, Chaos is generally associated with Evil and Law with Good, and the Champion must put down Chaos so that sentient life can develop a civilisation without being pillaged by uncivilised sentient life or destroyed by magical upheaval. In the more SF oriented work, the situation is reversed, and the Champion's job is generally to subvert a civilisation that has become oppressively restricted by excessive Law. There are obvious parallels with the Buffyverse Slayer, but Buffy is definitely not an EC incarnation in the normal sense, as she is far saner, more idealistic, and more sociable than the average EC, who is generally marked by moral confusion, clinical depression and gratuitous violence. Buffy and Cordelia are both more reminiscent of the female maguses who often guide the EC in Moorcock's later novels.

The best-known and most written-about of Moorcock's various EC orientations is the notorious Elric of Melnibone. The similarities of personality and experience between Elric and Angel are suggestive. Both have a childhood marked by conflict with parents: Angel hated and eventually killed his father. Elric's mother died giving birth to him and his father never forgave him. Both are inhuman - Angel is a vampire, and Elric is a member of a humanoid species that preceded and rivalled humanity on his homeworld. Both survive by mystical parasitism and have malignant alter egos. Angel is a souled vampire with an inner demon. Elric is a congenital invalid who survives through his ownership of a magic sword which allows him to draw sustenance by consuming the souls of others. Unfortunately, the sword has its own demonic intelligence which constantly seeks to corrupt him and consume his relatives, lovers and friends. Elric is at times forced in extremis to consume lovers and friends in order to survive, with varying degrees of consensuality. Angel is forced to feed from Buffy in GDII and is fed by Wes in Deep Down. Both suffer from crippling guilt and self-pity over their past crimes (Elric's home culture was extremely cruel and violent, it took him well into adulthood before he fully recognised that recreational torture was a bad thing, and he eventually helped to annihilate it for largely self-centered reasons), but sometimes forget about their much-vaunted consciences in moments of stress. Both are capable of betrayal and all-consuming fury, and both have a fearsome capacity for cold-blooded sadism which they tend to self-righteously indulge on people who they think deserve it. Both believe themselves to be manipulated by higher forces, and at times use that to evade responsibility for their own actions. Both are at their most morally admirable and truly effective when they submit themselves to the guidance of a physically slightly weaker, but saner, more intelligent and more ethical female guiding figure (Buffy and Cordelia at different times for Angel, Rose and Oona/Una (Persson?) at different times for Elric).

There are interesting parallels between Moorcock's cosmology of Law and Chaos and current developments in BtVS and AtS. Recent episodes have shown severe assaults against the forces of Law by Chaos, regardless of their moral status - the extermination of the (morally questionable) Watchers' Council by the forces of the First Evil, and the massacre of (the unambiguously evil) Wolfram and Hart by the Beast. In both series the actions of the main characters have allegedly provoked this shift - the First Evil is apparently empowered by some act of "the Slayer" while the Beast is apparently connected to the creation of Connor. However, one can explain this shift against Law in a Moorcockian manner by looking at the bigger picture. Ever since Buffy broke from the Watchers' Council her actions and the actions of people with past or present connections to her have shifted the orientation of the forces of Good to an increasingly Chaotic philosophical style - flat communities of ideals rather than hierarchical organisations, situational moral judgements rather than black and white rules, rampant miscegenation and transformation between the living and the dead, the human and the inhuman. Vampires have sex with Slayers and get souls, vengeance demons turn human, resting actresses become half-demon seers, vampires breed human children, Watchers become rogue demon hunters, green balls of energy become human adolescents, people who should be dead by all the rules of prophecy are resuscitated or find someone else to die in their place, and it's all down to Buffy and her influence on the people she meets. All this embrace of Chaos by the morally upright has empowered the Chaotically oriented forces of evil (the FE and the Beast, driven by raw destruction rather than conquest), and while the new Chaotic Good vs. Evil paradigm is in some ways more morally admirable than the old structure, it's far more inherently unstable.

If ME really are being consciously influenced by Moorcock, one can only expect spectacular fireworks (in the final Elric novel Stormbringer, Moorcock became one of the very few genre-fantasy authors to actually go through with an Apocalypse in the Biblical sense, with good technically coming out on top, but nothing recognisable left of the world when the dust settled). The fact that in AtS we seem to have a war of evil Law against evil Chaos makes me wonder if ME are going for the ultimate subversion of grand narratives - if we're finally going to see a real Apocalypse, but both sides are going to be from the human point of view evil, with humanity as the collateral damage. Maybe the end of the season isn't going to be Black versus White, but Grey (humanity and all the demons who want to live in this reality instead of conquering or destroying it, regardless of their morality) versus Black and White together?
[> Moorock/ME parallels and a possible alternative to Apocalypse... -- cjl, 13:02:00 01/20/03 Mon

As someone who's been a fan of Moorcock for about twenty years, I was wondering when someone would bring the connection up. Somewhere down my disposal chute of fanfic ideas, I had Buffy battling a particularly nasty set of demons, and for Buffy to survive, Giles was forced to break out a special weapon--a dazzling, ebony blade with mystical properties and one minor problem for the wielder...

(Guess.)

Not really going to add much to your post, KdS, because I think you've just about covered it. But I will, in my own puckish way, offer an alternative. My favorite Moorcock series isn't Elric: it's the Dancers on the Edge of Time, with Jherek Carnelian, the Iron Orchid, Lord Jagged, and all the other, decadent Q-like beings lolling around at the cusp of Eternal Darkness. As I recall, Jherek, his Mom, and the others managed to stave off the End by creating a sort of self-sustaining chronal loop--in effect, the ultimate perpetual motion machine. Against all the natural laws of the universe? Absolutely. (In fact, wasn't Mongrove--he of the morbid and gloomy disposition--pissed off that the universe survived by "cheating"?) But it seems that nobody told our super-powerful yet sweetly naive Dancers this was impossible.

Every duality, whether it be good and evil or Law/Order and Chaos, can eventually be transcended. If the end comes, and Buffy is confronted with the choice between the rigidity of fate (Law) and the potential destructiveness of Chaos, I hope she "cheats" and finds a compromise position.
[> [> I can't believe we both mis-spelled 'Moorcock' in the header. -- cjl, 13:13:31 01/20/03 Mon

[> [> LOL re misspelling -- KdS, 13:19:41 01/20/03 Mon

I noticed after I posted much to my embarassment.

Transcending the divide - that was really what I was trying to get at with my grey vs. black&white idea. Regarding the End of Time - wasn't there some sort of hint that it would be the same time reused all the time and hence that everybody would be preserved in a sort of Huis Clos cultural stasis? I thought that that was the downside and why Jagged sent Jherek and Amelia on to the next cycle...
[> [> [> Not sure the Sartre reference applies here. -- cjl, 13:42:02 01/20/03 Mon

I thought The Iron Orchid and the remaining superbeings relished the idea of hanging out for eternity and partying in their own private paradise, happily expelling Jherek and Amelia to the next cycle, so they can live, love and explore Beyond Eden.
Where We Be-Heading.. (ATS and BTVS spoils season 4 and 7) -- neaux, 11:54:24 01/20/03 Mon

Ok... as more and more people speculate and relate the parallels in ATS and BTVS this year, I propose a head to head competition.

As it stands right now, BTVS and ATS are tied neck to neck as Gunn has beheaded Gavin and Buffy lopped off the Uber-vamp's noggin. Yet, we still dont know if Giles is still in one piece and Xander also was on his way to a scalpin before he was saved by Buffy.

So Could it be that this season (s), the emphasis is on Wits or Brains rather than heart?

anyone care to chime in or is everyone just nodding off.
[> Re: Where We Be-Heading.. (ATS and BTVS spoils season 4 and 7) -- Vickie, 12:30:48 01/20/03 Mon

But Cassie's heart gave out. Gunn's heart was stopped by electro-girl. And Angel's heart was made to beat by the same.
[> [> very good point.. but here's more headgear -- neaux, 12:55:35 01/20/03 Mon

Lorne's headcentric episode where what he knew was what was important to W&H and..

Cordelia's memory wipe. That's two more instances this year where the head or what was in the head was important.
[> [> [> Not to mention... -- KdS, 13:02:32 01/20/03 Mon

Lilah lopping Linwood's head off in Deep Down
[> [> [> [> So that's five heads -- Vickie, 13:34:51 01/20/03 Mon

To three hearts.

And one throat (the Beast stabbed Angel in the throat).
[> [> [> [> [> Either way, at least it's an improvement... -- Random, 14:13:24 01/20/03 Mon

...on last season's "pelvis" theme.
X-Men aren't human (OT) -- Kenny, 21:03:18 01/20/03 Mon

I'll readily admit that this is off-topic, but I submit three reasons that I, uhm, submit this thread:

1) I have a case of the Tuesday anticipations,
2) I figure quite a few people here, like some of the characters we like to discuss, have at least a passing interest in the X-Men, and
3) I like the way you people thing and wish to hear some opinions on the subject.

Anywho, according to http://slashdot.org, a judge ruled that, for the purpose of levies on toys, the X-Men are not human. An old tax law on toys said that taxes on DOLLS imported from China were higher than those of TOYS from China. Marvel sued to regain the tax money, claiming that the X-Men weren't human and were therefore not dolls, and the judge agreed.

95% of me says, "Hey, it's only toys, don't worry about it." The other part is looking for the deeper meaning of this. Enter ya'll. First, there's the hypocrisy of Marvel (and I'm not saying they're bad people, as they're trying to make money for their stockholders, and this is a smart move on their part). How do you explain this reasoning to a child if you're using the X-Men to teach tolerence. How old must one be to understand what's really happening?

But I'm more interested in the Judge's thought process. Obviously the judge has trivialized the situation by recognizing the inherent fiction to it. We'll ignore the possible bias of the judge from the start (such as having the opinion the the tarriffs themselves are a bad thing, and this is a vehicle to vent that opinion) and say she gave it honest consideration. I see one major train of thought that would lead to each of the possible conclusions. On one hand, imagine they really existed, and give your honest opinion on whether or not they are human. I wouldn't imagine that most people would give "no" as an answer here, so she couldn't have used that line of reasoning. Instead, she used more of a taxonomic approach; from that standpoint, it's very possible that, given objective taxonomists, they wouldn't be labeled as "human" (that is Homo sapien).

What I think is really interesting, though, is how the judge said they are characters who "use their extraordinary and unnatural . . . powers on the side of good or evil." And I believe it a fair inferrence that the judge recognizes the characters are aware of good and evil (as aware as a fictitious character can be, anyway) and make decisions accordingly (in the way that fictitious characters make decisions). So, for some purposes they can be labeled human, while for others they can't be. Which leads to the point that it's all about the ambiguous way we define human, that even in the real world courts have to make decisions about them. Which makes it come as no surprise that the Scooby gang has so much trouble with the demon population (ooh, I brought it back on topic!!!).

And this goes into a whole discussion on words, how they define conciousness and how conciousness defines words, the intrinsic limiting power of definition (which gets recursive in a way I don't want to deal with right now--no wonder I had to take a break from GEB...I've been subconciously digesting the material, and I just burped some of it out). I think I'll stop now.

And...woohoo! New episode tomorrow!
[> Interesting post! -- Rahael, 02:01:26 01/21/03 Tue

[> Shadowkat, Sophist...legal questions? -- Angela, 05:11:57 01/21/03 Tue

Thanks for posting this Kenny! And nice to find another slashdot reader. It is ironic since the characters in the books are mutations of humans though! And all the sub-themes definitely came from that.

The first question that comes to mind is if the decision on this type of a case might be more related to precedent than making a statement on humanity? Although the judge's remarks *are* very interesting. If the later, and we want to consider it as related to humanity, wouldn't we also need to consider the concept of sentience?

OK, now I'm flashing on Toy Story! :-)
[> [> I would think it is more to do with legal precedent -- Helen, 07:13:30 01/21/03 Tue

Certainly a UK court would be bound (depending upon the seniority of the court hearing the case) by previous cases on similar lines (not necessarily on X-Men, I don't suppose the Court of Appeal has heard too many of those) but probably relating to the Sale of Goods Act and sales by description etc.

Precedent is basically how the courts in UK operate, lowere courts are 'bound' by the decisions of higher courts (Court of Appeal and House of Lords) under the doctrine of stare decisis which means "let the decision stand".
[> [> Defining the ineffable -- Sophist, 08:11:51 01/21/03 Tue

I did a quick search, but found no cases or statutes under CA or US law attempting to define the word "human" in this context (it does come up in abortion and related cases -- is a fetus a human being?). This is just as well; I'm not sure biologists could agree on a definition.

The term "person" is generally defined in statutes to include artificial entities such as corporations or governments, so the issue never arises.
[> [> [> Thanks Helen and Sophist -- Angela, 09:59:04 01/21/03 Tue

Just to clarify...I was thinking that since this issue was import tax on toys that the decision might be primarily based on how other similar toys were taxed. I'm not sure where the issue of fighting evil would really arise...OK, I can but I'm soooo not going there!

***Now envisioning a courtroom filled with students from the School for Gifted Mutants and Power Rangers, with Spike slouched in a corner cadging a light from Wolverine, as Jedi knights bar the door and Spiderman hangs from the ceiling madly shooting pics and Daredevil pleads with judge for ...sorry, sorry! Back to the intellectual end of the pool please!
[> [> [> Re: Defining the ineffable -- Darby, 13:07:42 01/21/03 Tue

I wonder if the definition here is more of a separation of dolls that involve realistic role-playing (baby dolls, lego firemen, etc) from those less so as the basis for "human." That might give you what seems like a nonsensical decision based on a definition that kinda sorta makes sense. After all, the Marvel lawyers must have thought they had some letter to stand on with the case...or am I giving everyone too much credit?
[> [> [> [> Re: Defining the ineffable -- Sophist, 13:31:54 01/21/03 Tue

It's very hard to tell without reading the actual opinion. For example, the whole discussion may just be about statutory definitions or trade practices rather than metaphysics.
[> In the same (OT) neighborhood... -- Darby, 05:14:58 01/21/03 Tue

Judges and courts rule the strangest things. According to this article, in the UK it is okay to buy or own child pornography but not make it. All right, that alone is a debatable issue (in the US, buying and owning is illegal as well - the Brits seem to look at sublimation of urges while the Yanks look at support of child abuse in the system), but an Appeals Court ruling somehow decided that downloading is equivalent to production (probably some publishing equivalents that got the judges confused, or so one hopes).

This all has something to do with the Pete Townshend case. I found the article link on Neil Gaiman's weblog; Gaiman is very much involved in First Amendment issues (and is British), which I assume is why this interests him.
[> [> Re: In the same (OT) neighborhood... -- Arethusa, 09:51:09 01/21/03 Tue

In the US, the FBI charged people who downloaded images with distribution becuse the penalty is much more severe than merely observing the porn. Their reasoning was that by downloading the picture one was part of the distribution system-even if the accused never did anything but look at the pictures. The Townsend case is part of what in America was called the Candyman cases.

Would this even be a 1st Ammendment issue? I found the following on a Caltech website:

So, there are clear limits to free expression. In fact, besides the instances listed in the previous paragraph, there are categories of speech which are specifically exempt from protection under the First Amendment. They are: obscenity, defamatory incitement, "fighting words" and child pornography (American Booksellers Association v Hudnut).
[> [> [> Re: In the same (OT) neighborhood... -- Darby, 13:00:36 01/21/03 Tue

I suspect that it's the weird definitions of production and distribution that might have piqued Gaiman's interest, because those could be applied beyond the child pornography area and into the other, trickier areas - if what is on the internet could be deemed obscene by local standards somewhere, is the source liable if the material is downloaded in the wrong place?
[> To me it just proves the law to again be insipid. -- ZachsMind, 07:44:07 01/21/03 Tue

The judge presiding over the X-Men Toys/Dolls thing shoulda just thrown it out of court, because the argument is a waste of the court's precious time.

Dolls ARE toys, so there shouldn't be a tax or tarriff difference between a teddy bear and a barbie. Just because dolls are toys based off humans shouldn't matter. Most teddy bears look more like humans than bears nowadays anyways. Ironically, this is precisely what the X-Men franchise prosletyzes: that difference should be tolerated.

IF 'homo superior' lifeforms were alive outside fiction, they would be differentiated from 'homo sapiens' like you and me on a genetic level. The X-Men, according to the writings of Marvel employees, are mutant humans. I don't recall any storylines in the old comics (any that were good anyway) which specified mutants should be considered inhuman. By arguing this case, Marvel may have lined their pockets with extra cash but the company also (once again) became hypocrites.

In reality, if a scientist finds a mutant string of bacteria, it's still bacteria. Just a mutated strain, different from its predecessor. Depending on just how mutated the X-Man in question is might dictate whether or not the individual is _still_ human, but characters like Kitty Pryde and Cyclops each started out human, and never give proof to assume they've lost their humanity. Then there's the character of The Beast, who appears on the surface to have devolved into a cross between Bigfoot & Magilla Gorilla, however he is perhaps the most human mentally and spiritually of all the X-Men.

Since most X-Men in the stories are born human and then develop their mutations during or after puberty, I find the judge's logic substantially flawed no matter how you look at it. I also find the judge's ruling to be irrelevant to the deeper meaning. It's like the judge in "Miracle on 34th Street" aquiescing to the United States Postal Service in determining whether or not there's a Santa Claus. It resolved the issue for the purpose of the movie, but has no intrinsic meaning beyond that.
[> [> More human than human (rambling warning) -- Apophis, 08:48:48 01/21/03 Tue

Marvel Universe mutants are classified as "Homo sapiens superior." This makes them a sub-species of Homo sapiens, just as we are Homo sapiens sapiens (I'm assuming; I don't intend to offend anyone). Yet, "normal" humans can give birth to mutants. Think of it this way: could a modern human give birth to a Neanderthal (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis {debatalbe})? Humans and mutants can breed together and produce viable offspring. I don't think there is any precendent for a mutant couple producing an H. sapiens sapiens offspring (although Quicksilver and Crystal's daughter is normal, but Crystal is an Inhuman, so I'm not sure what effect her biology had on it). This makes things kind of tricky. Mutants are, as ZachsMind said, merely mutated humans. Yet, they are also presented as the next step in human evolution. I guess at some point a Homo habilis gave birth to something that looked more Homo erectus than otherwise. This leads me to the conclusion that mutants are a transitional stage between modern humans and whatever comes next (see Rick Jones in the Kree-Skrull War and Avengers Forever). Therefore, they aren't a seperate species, but they are different.
[> [> Re: To me it just proves the law to again be insipid. -- Kenny, 09:12:49 01/21/03 Tue

The problem with the bacteria analogy is that bacteria is a much higher taxonomic level than humans. At the same level as human you have different types of bacteria, such as E. coli, S. aureus, Mycobaterium tuberculosis, etc. Kind of like comparing all plants with a single species of animal. From the X-Men point of view it's interesting as they have been called both Homo sapiens superior and Homo superior. The first would imply that they are a subclass, or breed, of the human species, while the second implies they are a distinct species at the same level as humans. Going from a strictly scientific standpoint, the idea of making them a breed is, I believe, more accurate, as two sibling species that mate generally produce sterile offspring. I don't believe that to be the case with Marvel's merry mutants.

The issue, at least from a phenotypic standpoint, has taken a turn since Grant Morrison came on board. He's introduced a slew of new mutants at the school, and very few of them look human. Humanoid, maybe, but if you saw them walking down the street you wouldn't say they are Homo sapiens. If you haven't checked out X-Men recently, you may want to give it a go. As there are multiple X-books out right now, look for _New X-Men_.

From the court standpoint, it's moot as the tarriff has been lifted across the board. I'd be interested to see why the distinction was made in the first place. Any legal types around here who could point me in the direction of where to look?
[> Hmmm what is human legality in legal terms and X-men/Btvs -- shadowkat, 10:27:02 01/21/03 Tue

Bad subject line heading, I know, but I'm horrible at naming things.

I think you have two interesting questions posed here, which I want to deal with separately. One is a tax law question - and an international tax law question at that. It's also a business question. The other is a philosophical one which ironically enough has been at the center of the X-Men comics and BTVS/ATS for a while now. And they oddly interconnect. Don't really have the answers, but I have some opinions and theories...(Thanks for a great topic btw, as you may be able to tell from my name - I'm a long time x-men fan, only recently stopped collecting the comics.)

So putting on my legal/business hat first.

The issue before the judge was:a judge ruled that, for the purpose of levies on toys, the X-Men are not human. An old tax law on toys said that taxes on DOLLS imported from China were higher than those of TOYS from China. Marvel sued to regain the tax money, claiming that the X-Men weren't human and were therefore not dolls, and the judge agreed.

Haven't read Sophist's take on this yet...so hopefully this doesn't contradict or repeat too much of his. If it contradicts - I'd go with Sophist, since he's practicing law at the moment. ;-)

First the Judge had to interpret what a "doll" is under Chinese law. And under American Law. Also figure out which law held precedence. Now it's been a while since I studied it but if memory serves - if the entity collecting the tax is the US - then American Law holds sway. If the entity collecting the tax is China - then Chinese law holds sway, it's the jurisdiction controlling the item that is important. That definition may be -a doll is a minuture replica of a human, ie. the baby doll. So the question the judge is asking is either:

1. Is this a representation of a live human being, aka James MArsters or is this a representation of a character aka Spike? Same token with Marvel's action figures - is this a representation of a human being aka PAtrick Stewart or a representation of a fictional character appearing in a comic book - aka Professor Xavier.

In which case the Judge's determination that the X-MEn aren't human, would be the same for Buffy, Captain Kirk, or
Neo of the Matrix - they are fictional characters or "action figures".

However if it was a representation of say one of The Little Women - Amy, Beth, Joe as a Madame Alexander Doll - then would these be considered dolls by definition - ie. representations of humans or "action figures" representations of fictional characters? Difficult to know.
Personally, I can't see how the Judge can state the X-Men aren't representations of humans, ie just fictional characters - if the Little Women are considered human representations. Seems contradictory. Which means did the Judge's decision fall into the philosophical category rather than the legal one?

Next possible way of determining this legally - the Judge determined how the "makers", "marketers", and "consumers" defined the figures. Did Marvel Comics, their retailers and advertisers define and describe thes figures/toys as "dolls" or "replicas" of humans aka Aprilbot in btvs might have described as a human representation. While a Spike bot definitely would not be? If so - the Judge did not determine these aren't dolls, ie human - the makers and consumers did. So the philsophical question/contradiction is on the makers and consumers' heads? All the Judge did is objectively determine how they saw it?

The question I guess is what do we consider human?

Can a fictional character be considered human? Or is the very fact that the character only exists in the minds of it's creator and those who watch, read about, or think about it - enough to make that character less than human and just as Spike would put it - a figment? Reminds me of a Star Trek The Next Generation Episode - where Lt. Data, an artificial life form is attempting to get legal control over his functions, so the Enterprise crew can't keep turning him off and on at will. The question in that episode was "what makes one human" or rather "sentient" legally. An issue the series revisited with holograms in later episodes - the equivalent of this question methinks.

Asking whether a "fictional character" can be considered human is very different than asking if the X-Men (the mutant super-heros in the comics and movies) are human - since that question is one which is dealt with in their universe. Asking if fictional characters are - sort of includes every single character in the Marvel Universe and in every piece of fiction ever written. Just as it is quite different than asking if Buffy and the whole crew in both shows are human as opposed to just asking if the demons/etc should be treated as human.

It would be interesting to know whether Marvel fought this tax battle on all their action figures, including the "human" characters - such as Fantastic Four and
Captain America and Spiderman. If so...did the judge rule that these were "fictional characters" and therefore not human or did the judge rule that these were human characters and dolls?? Did the Judge base his/her decision on a broad view of fictional characters not being human or on the creators definition of which of its fictional characters should be considered human?

Let's assume for argument's sake that the Judge decided the X-men weren't human because Marvel defined them as mutants and like replicas of vampires or monsters - they aren't dolls under Chinese tax Law. In which case - besides being slightly hypocritical on Marvel's part (The X-Men comics spend a lot of time discussing how the X-men while super-powered and evolved mutated versions of humans - are still human and should treated with the same compassion and grace - it's a big prejudice metaphor), this makes me wonder
how we describe/define "human".

Is human - someone who looks like us, has our skills and abilities, bleeds like us, is born in the manner we were born from a mother and father and out of a womb, and fits the dictionary or biological definition? And if so, how do we define the variations on this theme - how would we define a test-tube baby? A clone? Or a child who has severe birth defects - aka the X-Men?

In our history - people have been known to use an even more specific range of criteria to describe what is human in order to justify acts of violence that is beyond my comprehension. (See The Holocaust, Khamer Rouge Killings in Cambodia, the enslavement of other races, the Indian Wars in the American West...). Which brings to mind a recent discussion on this board about colour blindness and gender blindness. (At one time - women weren't really considered "human" and just property - denied the right to vote, own property). So does a definition...such as what is human limit us?

American Heritage Dictionary's definitions:
Human:Of or characteristic of human beings.
Human Being: 1. member of the genus Homo and esp. of the species. H. sapiens. 2. A person

Homo - same/like. Homo sapien - the modern race of human beings.

Hmmm - if I had a faster computer where I could break this off to do a google search I would. Those definitions are rather lame.

I'm wondering right now if I like the fact that we seem to lable and define everything like Riley and his Initiative.
Place things in neat little boxes: this is human, this is reptile, this is mammal, this is demon, this is bacteria, this is Indian, this is French, this is a woman, this a man, this a child, this a black child, this a Jewish child, like a bunch of bins for sorting - which uh reminds me of Aldous Huxely's Brave New World now - where everyone fits into the A, B, of C categories. OTOH can we not label and define? And should we NOT notice all the wonderful exceptions? No..it's not the noticing of the wonderful uniqueness that bugs me, its the generalizing (and I include myself in this) - the placing people, characters, toys, things in neatly labled boxes without looking deeper and seeing that they really can't be so neatly placed.

The X-Men action figures - are human in a way, yet not, they are distinct from Madame Alexander Dolls and Btvs action figures as well. Should they be taxed as members of the doll group? Maybe not. But shouldn't the distinction be made on another basis? Such as they are meant to be used as "action figures" not dolls? The purpose is different.
Or is that classification no different really than the one arrived at in the judgement?

Not sure. Feeling very confused right now...so will stop and hopefully others can make sense of it all.

Interesting post btw. SK
[> [> When is a doll not a doll? -- Arethusa, 11:38:25 01/21/03 Tue

Isn't "action figure" just a term created to sell dolls to boys? "Doll" is "a small-scaled figure of a human being used especially as a child's plaything." (Mirriam Webster) Does that mean Madam Alexander's Cowardly Lion figure is not a doll, while Dorothy is? Would a Jean Gray figure be a doll, and a Wolverine figure not be? (Sorry, I'm not helping, am I?)

I found another definition of human in Mirriam Webster-a very interesting one: "Susceptible to or representitive of the sympathies and frailities of human nature." That could possibly include X-men and some aliens, couldn't it? In other words, if you act like us, you are one of us. (?)

Arethusa, who was teased about being a mutant because she was born without wisdom teeth.
[> [> [> Re: When is a doll not a doll? -- Angela, 12:09:50 01/21/03 Tue

I would've have been thrilled not to have those! I spent 2 weeks of my senior year of high school looking like a bruised and jaundiced squirrel after mine were taken out.

Thanks though for the info both of you, it does seem an odd case...I think I'll go look at the original article. And Arethusa I do like the second def better...no surprise!
[> [> [> [> Lol. Sometimes it's great to be different. -- Arethusa, 12:20:45 01/21/03 Tue

[> [> Re: Other Marvel characters -- Kenny, 13:35:39 01/21/03 Tue

It stretched pretty much across the line. She said she had a tougher time with characters like Kraven and the Mole Man, but she seemed to take each character into account. My guess is she decided that most were non-humans and would find a reason for the others to be non-humans.
The Beast's Purpose -- Holdemfoldem, 08:33:27 01/21/03 Tue

Here's one fer y'all:

What if the Beast's purpose is to become a "worthy" vessel for the FE to inhabit?

Think about it: This thing goes around ravenously killing, takes a bunch of bodies and sets them on fire with some ritual to help bring about Armagedden, breaks into "Evil Inc.", kills everyone there, but then turns them into zombies, (assuming he did that), then sucks the essence out of an evil entity in the white room.

Could it be that all these steps are being taken to prepare this thing, which just happens to look EXACTLY like the devil incarnate, to be the worthy vessel for the FE to inhabit and thereby contact the physical world directly, leading its army in a final show down vs Angel, Buffy, and every other good guy and gal they can call in for the end of season finale, (hopefully a two hour cross over)?

Gotta admit, it'd make one helluva smack down, eh?
thoughts on 7.12 (big spoilers) -- Clen, 08:39:17 01/21/03 Tue

it appears that the people who responded to me yesterday were right. thankfully I didn't see them until today...
it gave me about 5-10 minutes of thinking they actually made Dawn a potential, with me yelling the word "PUKE!" to myself.
Andrew continues to be funny, his "girl power" comment was doubly funny, IMHO.
Also good to see the blatant references concerning Kennedy's orientation. Is this just a joke for tvland, or is Kennedy the character herself actually dropping hints for everyone else?
Otherwise, the ep was generally pretty laid-back, as they often do, alternating between tense and comedic. Though, I wouldn't say this one was comedic, but certainly not tense.
It looks like sometime, probably soon, they will have to have another Buffy/Spike episode, considering the tension between them when she was checking his ribs. I forgot to load a tape into the vcr, so I will have to wait until Saturday to watch that scene again, the most interesting one in the whole thing, really.
I guess the closing scene with Dawn and Xander was memorable, as it was intended to be. And yet, I feel a little wistful, as it gave me the impression that their time was at an end. Maybe it was just me, but that scene gave me the impression that people were coming to terms with themselves, in a way that usually happens just before the end of a show's run.
'Spike' comments on end of Buffy series (spoiler?) -- David Frisby, 10:53:52 01/21/03 Tue

The website (http://whedonesque.com/) that lists things about Joss Whedon got me to the following:

"Buffy (TV): James 'Spike' Marsters turned up at Creation's Sci-fi Media Convention this weekend in Sacramento, where he was asked what will happen at the end of the season: "I finally found out myself what Joss is planning...and I'm SURE as hell not gonna tell you guys...but I will tell you guys that the end of this season is going to be...very romantic...very heartbreaking...and you guys are probably going to HATE it".

Wow! Did Marsters let the cat out of the bag? Romantic!? Heartbreaking?! How can that not be referring to Spike and Buffy and one or both of their deaths? Whether I love it or hate it -- either way -- I bet I find it moving! My bet is still on the Buffy/Spike thing becoming the closing focus for the series.

And I'm getting to write about some of this for my course on the history of television -- what fun!

David Frisby
[> Yup its a spoiler -- The antispoiler, 11:41:09 01/21/03 Tue

[> I'm wondering if those '. . .' mean anything. -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:56:00 01/21/03 Tue

I'm personally thinking that, given Joss's rep, expectations will be dashed and altered, so not gonna say one way or the other what I think this means.
[> Poor Spikey! -- Drucilla (speculative vision), 13:09:31 01/21/03 Tue

He aint' Love's Bitch anymore because electricity tells lies about the girl to Daddy's blood so it's stop screaming. Spikey'll have to return the used soul, without an exchange, or all the little fishies in Heaven will cry crocodile tears of blood. Then the hounds will devour the middle. But if Daddy keeps his nasty suit it won't matter because either way there's gonna' be a party and everyone will sparkle then sizzle, and sparkle and sizzle . . . . and then the lights will all go out forever.
[> Re: 'Spike' comments on end of Buffy series (spoiler?) - What about the cross over option??? -- JulieB, 13:31:48 01/21/03 Tue

Who knows maybe there will be a Buffy and Angel series cross over. From what I have read elsewhere, (sorry have'nt got the details at my finger tips, some network big wig anyway) this is still a possibility. Perhaps the romance and heartbreak will come between Buffy and Angel. Who knows, I am an eternal optimist and a self-confessed B/A shipper.

Yes I know Buffy and Angel have not been an item for a very, very, very long time and that there is the Cordelia dynamic, But still......

What does anybody else think am I backing a sinking ship???

Current board | More January 2003