July 2003 posts
Book
Melee, revived: Stars My Destination -- mamcu, replying to
Vickie's excellent Tiger! Tiger!, 08:25:46 07/01/03 Tue
Great post, Vickie. I thought that was where the book was going--it
really worked for the first 4/5's of the book. But the ending,
which isn't so much redemption as rebirth, really gets away from
this, to me. Gully wants to pay for his sins? He is content now
back where he started? This doesn't fit with the mysterious beyond-good-and-evil
that Blake envisions. The mystic visions of the visits to the
stars maybedoes work with the Blake thing, though.
[> Re: Book Melee, revived:
Stars My Destination -- Rendyl, 08:32:06 07/01/03 Tue
Could Vicki or someone who copied it repost her message? It must
have archived over the night and I would love to read it.
Ren
[> [> Doesn't need to
be reposted, Rendyl -- KdS, 08:49:34 07/01/03 Tue
If you look in the top-right hand corner of the screen, you'll
see Archives: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
The numbers are links to seven pages of recently archived topics.
The topic should be in the first or second page. Once topics are
in those archived pages they can still be read, but not written
to.
[> [> Link to Vickie's
post -- mamcu, 10:37:42 07/01/03 Tue
Here.
[> [> [> Re: quick
thank you to KdS and mamcu - -- Rendyl, 13:05:53 07/01/03
Tue
before the Voy demon pulls his next evil trick and some new thing
keeps me from the board. It just is not my Voy-day.
Ren
[> Have to disagree with
Vickie on one point. -- CW, 09:13:18 07/01/03 Tue
Giving PyrE to humankind is not necessarily "good"
in this scenario. Indeed, it is handing a baby (or a thug) a lighted
match in a room full of open gas cans (insert your own highly
inflammable scenario here). However, it may be the right sort
of opposition for humankind's spiritual growth.
Given the time when the book was written I'd guess that, while
Blake's work was certainly being used as a metaphor, Bester was
pointing directly toward the then recent explosion by the Soviet
Union of their first hydrogen bomb. Concidering the fear induced
all over the world by that event, you have to see that Bester
is very upbeat about it. So yes, I think you do have to say that
Bester thinks that giving PyrE to the world was a 'good' idea,
even apart from spiritual growth. Considering the US was not that
far past a war with Japan which heavily used suicidal tactics
to make up for numerical inferiority, and with the Soviet Union
for all intents and purposes using them to make up for technical
inferiority in the same war, it was just as controversial a position
then as it would be now.
[> [> Agree with CW on
this point. In addition... -- dub ;o), 10:11:01 07/01/03
Tue
There's also a pro-socialist sort of message in the fact that
Gully Foyle, Total Loser, turns out to be the person blessed with
the talent to jaunte thousands of miles through space. That talent
presumably has nothing to do with his redesigning himself to pass
as upper class. It was inborn. Indeed, his earlier ability to
teach himself how to operate various unknown and/or disabled craft
by reading about them indicates a fairly high level intelligence
to begin with. Bester seems to be saying that having been born
in to the working class guaranteed that these skills and talents
of Gully's would remain undiscovered, unexplored, and undeveloped
had he not been thrust into such bizarre and life-threatening
circumstances.
Don't get me wrong, no way am I a Gully Booster, but the sensibility
behind these aspects of the character is attractive, at least
to me.
dub ;o)
[> [> I'm confused
-- Vickie, 10:11:54 07/01/03 Tue
CW, how is this a disagreement? I took a literary approach to
the book, you took an historical/topical one. Both are potentially
valid. Doesn't have to be opposition, unless we are endeavoring
to further one another's spiritual growth. ;-)
Wait a sec, maybe it is a disagreement.
Any case, you're certainly right that Bester appears to be disturbingly
positive about the nuclear threat of his time. We still don't
know if he was correct, but we certainly do know that it was at
least in part the nuclear threat that eventually forced the "superpowers"
to start talking and move their itchy little fingers further from
the nasty red buttons.
[> [> [> Re: I'm confused
-- CW, 10:37:18 07/01/03 Tue
I just got the feeling you thought Bester wasn't thinking it was
a good thing. You and I do seem to agree about the way the story
plays now.
It's just that fear over nuclear war was such a huge topic then
that I think maybe in this case it isn't telling the whole story
if we ignore it. Normally I don't go in for this kind of critcism,
but I doubt Bester could have written the story at all without
the real world background.
[> Re: Book Melee, revived:
Stars My Destination -- fresne, 09:23:08 07/01/03 Tue
Yes, gone too swift, but thanks for pointing out the well, Tiger
tattoo quality to Foyle.
Now, I'm going to take a stand and say I liked the book. The end
just blows me away. It's the end of 2001 as commented, but umm
- I liked it. Foyle really is amoral, un-nice, un-good, a negation
in space. His path a transformation, not a redemption. He isn't
the sacrificed lamb. He is the tyger that burns in a pyre.
He is the beast, raging. Terrible. That's why upon seeing his
true aspect, whispered love turns away. The lines in relief that
in their anger, show his nature. The internal written upon his
skin.
Contrasted to this purely mental ability. To jaunt the stars.
To be. To go. To dream.
That in the end, he is not dead, but dreaming. We never see him
awake to his final self. Merely witness the conflagration that
consumes him.
Although, given the whole anti-hero theme, I'm halfway expecting
us to read The Collector after the Winter's Tale. Someone, suggest
something shiny, please.
[> [> Gully and the Count
of Monte Christo? -- mamcu, 10:48:33 07/01/03 Tue
Not an original idea with me--just came across it googling around
and found that lots of people make the comparison. I haven't read
CMC in years, but as well as I can recall, it's the story of a
man who is obsessed with revenge but transcends it in the end.
[> [> [> I think Bester
was the first to make the comparison . . . -- d'Herblay, 15:27:19
07/01/03 Tue
. . . considering that he consciously based The Stars My Destination
on The Count of Monte Cristo.
This might shed some light on why I find myself of such a different
opinion from the posters in the original melee thread (I haven't
gotten caught up with this revivification): I am (nominally) a
Dumasian, but Count is my least favorite of the novels
of his I've read, and I think Stars is loads better! The
complaints I've read about Foyle's transformation coming upon
the reader without development seem justified, but piddling compared
to the way Dantes, with blood in his eye and his end in sight,
just chucks the whole revenge thing (I think Dumas actually makes
reference to Christ in Dantes's redemption). And while Foyle may
be completely amoral and inhumane, I wasn't convinced that Dantes,
once he became the Count, was even human (in a way, he's
closer to Grennouille than to Foyle). (In fact, and to connect
the books at hand with the nominal subject of the board, in the
Opera scene, the crowd whispers that the Count is really a vampire,
and one can see that they do so with some justification.)
There's nothing in The Count of Monte Cristo which has
the power and majesty of Foyle's hortative to the human race:
"Learn to live together or die trying!" And there's
nothing to match Foyle's final jaunte through space. Plus, The
Stars My Destination is about a fifth as long as The Count
of Monte Cristo, which is not to be sniffed at.
Still, I think I'll go back to claiming that The Demolished
Man is my favorite Bester novel. But it would never cross
my mind to list The Count of Monte Cristo as any sort of
favorite.
[> [> [> [> A Tyger
by the Tale -- mamcu, 17:29:44 07/01/03 Tue
to read Demolished Man. So thanks for this.
I keep thinking though that there's some way of understanding
Foyle's abrupt change near the end as something purposeful on
the part of Bester, and meaningful. Was hoping the CMC reference
would help, but I don't think Christ is it.
Is it evolution, or is that putting too literal a spin on the
2001 connection?
Well, I asked for Blake when we read Lewis, and now I've got him,
and don't know what to do with him. Can't quite let go!
I can't say why but I am thinking of Pynchon when I'm trying to
understand what happens to Foyle. He seems not to be redeemed
in the conventional moral sense but to move into another way of
understanding the universe. I have usually read endings like this
one with joy but without trying to verbalize the meaning, but
now I'd like to try to say what happened when he goes to the stars
and returns to his little womblike pod. Clearly Moira knows.
[> Re: Book Melee, revived:
Stars My Destination -- Arethusa, 09:53:19 07/01/03 Tue
What I got from Tyger, Tyger was wonder that the good and loving
God who made us all also made the terrible, deadly tiger. Whe
can't begin to fanthom his reasons why, but since it was made
by God there must be a reason.
And there must be a reason for Gully Foyle, too. I think his arc
was an example of what all men can do. No matter who you are,
you have the ability and responsibility to make yourself into
an adult person. Ability, if you work hard. Responsibility, if
you want a livable society for yourself. With the arrival of immediate,
world-wide destruction, we have to start growing up, or our childishness
will destroy us all. Foyle's personal redemption become immaterial
next to the possiblity of enormous growth for all mankind.
And every one of us deserves the right to make our own choices,
unfiltered through the fears and ambitions of our leaders. We're
not stupid, and we're not children. Let us decide for ourselves
how we will make the choices that we are forced to live
with.
I love that people keep finding out we are capable of so much
more than we thought. Even if we can never travel across time
and space with our minds, we can travel outside ourselves and
improve ourselves. So how do we do that? Not through religion
or science, which as institutions that exist for their own sake
have become perversions of their helpful beginnings. (Not saying
that's true, just that seems to be true in the book.) "Profit
and loss, sin and forgiveness, idealism and realism," Foyle
smiled. "You're all so sure, so simple, so single-minded.
I'm the only one in doubt." All are things we cling to to
make sense of our confusing world. "Don't ask about it. Live
it," Presteign's robot tell him. The fact that we're here
at all is a freakish twist of fate, a convergence of innumerable
circumstances. Live, learn, teach and grow. What else is there
worth doing?
I agree with what posters are saying about women in Bester's society.
If they can jaunt, they will have freedom, just like everyone
else. He sees the women almost purely through their relationships
with men, which is so tiresome and '50s. But than, my entire response
to the novel is filtered through my own perceptions, so who can
blame him?
I really liked the book.
[> [> Am I the only one
who had trouble reading Jiz's motivations? -- Rob, 09:59:07
07/01/03 Tue
Honestly, I just did not understand her as a character. One moment,
she seemed to be on Gully's side, next moment she wasn't. I may
just be incredibly dense, but can anyone explain to me why she
turned on him so vehemently after seeing his tattooed face, so
much so that she hated him even after they were removed? But then
at times still seemed to like him? Or not? See, I'm very confused.
The characterization of Jiz, which I see as downright uneven,
is one of the major reasons I had trouble getting through the
book.
Rob
[> [> [> Re: Am I
the only one who had trouble reading Jiz's motivations? --
dub ;o), 10:20:06 07/01/03 Tue
None of the women are portrayed particularly realistically as
human beings, and Jiz is no exception. In fact, just about everybody
falls in love immediately with whomever they meet next, and quite
fortuitously that person falls in love with them, too.
Maybe Jiz didn't maintain her hatred of Gully because she didn't
have time to feel his abandonment and impending death the way
Gully did after Vorga and the Presteign Princess left him to die.
Jiz was rescued almost immediately, and promptly fell in love
with her rescuer. I'm not gonna put too much effort into investigating
or defending the motives of what are essentially two-dimensional
(or even one-dimensional) female characters. I had to just let
all that go in order to get through the book.
;o ) (Does that help at all?)
[> [> [> [> Dimension
deficient characters and gender issues: a defense -- LonesomeSundown,
18:44:15 07/01/03 Tue
It's not just the women who are unrealistic. All the men are dimensionally
challenged too, so I don't think we can accuse Bester of gender
bias there. This isn't a bash, I loved the book. There is nothing
subtle about any of the characters or the story. This works very
well with Foyle, and makes him a compelling character, and, IMO,
gives the book much of its power. But, as many posters have noted,
it makes it diffcult to understand the motivations of other characters.
As for the question of the treatment of women, I strongly disagree
with the contention that women in the story are not empowered.
The three female characters, Robin, Jiz and Olivia Presteign,
are all strong women.
Robin is scared of Foyle, but she is not cowed down. She is socially
successful and economically independent. She is resourceful and
managed to stay on Earth during the war without giving away the
fact that she is from the Outer Planets. One more thing: she is
black. I would say it was quite progressive of Bester to write
a positive female black character in a book aimed at the mass
market in the 50's.
Jiz is a rebel against the rules of society, also well educated
and highly intelligent. Nice coincidence that her surname is McQueen.
While her character is confusing, she never comes across as weak.
She holds her own quite well against Foyle. Dagenham never looks
down upon her. She is the only character with a moral compass.She
wants Foyle to help the Scientific People repair the damage his
escape caused. She also wants him to destroy the PyrE to save
the world.
Olivia Presteign at first seems to be weak, both because she is
blind and also because of women's place in society. But then we
find out that she actually is actually a pirate queen, strong
and ruthless.
Oh, and don't forget Lindsey Joyce, the Skoptsic ex-captain of
the Vorga. If people wrote fanfic about this book, this character
would be a goldmine.
The confusion with women's roles in the book comes from Bester's
pronouncements. He says that society became more conservative
as a result of jaunting and, at least among the wealthy, women's
freedoms were restricted. Jiz McQueen says "There's nothing
for us to do ... nothing respectable. No jobs, no careers."
But the lives of the characters tell a different story. This is
clearly contradicted by both Robin and Lindsey's careers. Olivia
herslef must have had some men under her command.
Comments?
[> [> [> It's a poser.
-- Arethusa, 11:09:30 07/01/03 Tue
She befriends him, they escape, they make love. But there's no
real reason for her radical change in behavior. She turned on
him, calling him a ghoul, lecher,and liar-a cancer, eating him
up from inside. Because they made love and she realized all her
cared about was revenge, that there was nothing inside for her?
It doesn't make sense, and her behavior, as well as the behavior
of all the women in the book, is a big flaw.
[> [> [> [> Thanks,
guys. I'm just glad I'm not the only one who noticed this.
-- Rob, 12:43:06 07/01/03 Tue
I was worried there might be some "D'oh!" moment of
clarity about her character that I might have missed. But it seems
like my perplexedness was well-warranted. ;o)
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
Bester, clearly not a fan of female empowerment! -- Sara,
having no intention of hiding in a jaunte proof maze, 17:00:55
07/01/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> OT
to Arethusa -- Rahael, 03:58:38 07/02/03 Wed
I missed answering your reply to me about anger and power in the
femininity/masculinity thread.
I identified so completely with your experience. Also, whenever
the physical differences between men and women are extrapolated
upon to moral qualities, I instantly find myself excluded
from being a 'woman'. Which is a strange place to find myself
really, because I simultaneously saw that the large family I grew
up in were simutaneously very much women, and yet, Not-Women.
Also, the sinews of power were very much laid bare and naked in
the community. Men and women with guns pretty much had it. We
didn't. Only we did, really. Otherwise, why were the army and
terrorists so threatened by those who dissented, without brute
force to back them up? Why did they need to eliminate those who
never allowed their voices to be silenced?
Power is remaining silent while being tortured and not betraying.
Power is being sneaky and lying and avoiding being tortured. Power
is refusing to go out with a man who clutched his gun as he asked
you out on a date. Power is refusing to kneel before a soldier,
and power is the grandmother who tells her elderly husband, about
to obey and kneel that he would do no such thing. Here's the chair.
Sit down! Power is crying all night and being resolute and brave
all day. Power is laughing and dancing despite the world turning
to blood outside. Power is getting married quietly, secretly,
to someone of a different social group while outside, murderous
riots are happening between your community and his community.
Power is retaining your humanity. Power is in the shaking hand
clasp as the darkness descends. Power is in the anger that makes
you think: I will never forget this, I will never forget you and
I will never fall silent.
This is how I view power. This is how I connect to it. I am nurtured
on tears and anger. I am the daughter of the land of the blood
sodden earth.
[> [> [> [> [>
Power is your paragraph on power. Extraordinary. Thank you.
-- Tchaikovsky, 04:04:08 07/02/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
Thanks for your beautiful, terrible message -- mamcu, 16:59:24
07/02/03 Wed
I wish that could have been published as the headlines for major
newspapers. Thank you.
[> [> [> [> [>
O/T to Rahael -- Arethusa, 17:10:55 07/02/03 Wed
Your response to my archived post was archived before I could
respond, lol.
Yes, I have a problem with ascribing moral qualities to different
sexes too. (Unsuprisingly.) Those condescending words for a
woman. Your're brave, moral, intelligent, honorable, trustworthy
for a woman. (I don't think any of us escape mankind's tendency
to catagorize and rank in a hierarchy, though.)
Do you think that power can only be given, not taken? Not power
over bodies, just power over minds, which is where I think our
real power lies. Conquer the mind, and the body will follow. So
many people are convinced by others that they have no power.
Maybe we can change that. Maybe we can teach people that they're
ready to be strong.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Ready to be strong (Losing Sunnydale, inheriting the
world) -- Rahael, 17:12:31 07/02/03 Wed
Well, I have realised between the space of replying to you, and
reading your reply to me and now replying to you again, that this
is actually one of the more important ideas to my life. So I don't
view the concept of power in a disinterested fashion (well, I
guess I could, only I'd have to be writing a proper essay where
I wasn't allowed to talk about myself. Imagine!)
I used to think of myself as someone entirely without this mysterious
quantity. It was an all encompassing concept that really boiled
down to a basic need - the ability to go away and read undisturbed
by either adults telling me to do homework, the terrorists cutting
the fricking electricity, the army deciding to bomb that day,
or my sister determined to get me to play with her.
Other people had it. I didn't. And then I woke up to myself near
the end of adolescence and realised that I had tons of it, and
I had purposefully turned my back on it. It was easier to pretend
I was invisible to the world than to think about interacting with
human beings who might ask things of me. Easier to pretend I had
no voice and no identity and no sense of self than deal with all
the difficult emotions and determination and stubborness inside
me. Easier to pretend to be powerless than to not face the real
world I was living in. Easier to have no power than to realise
I was responsible for anything.
(Yeah, I liked Season 6)
Even rejecting power was a very powerful (though destructive)
thing I did. I really did shape a life which was both simultaneously
unbearable, and convenient for me. But when I realised that I
really couldn't bear it anymore, it was arrogance that saved me:
someone like me, shouldn't be living like this. And so I redirected
all the will power, determination and power that I had used to
keep myself in my little prison to leaving it behind. Once I understood
that I had always been powerful (because, god, no matter what
the privations of war had been, I made myself unhappy and miserable
and joyless during peacetime in a way that people with brute power
had never succeeded in doing) - now, that's power.
(Funnily enough, I realised that during all the years that I imagined
myself to be invisible - they were really very selfish years.
It wasn't I who was invisible to me - - other human beings around
me were invisible to me. So I was being all weak and helpless
and enormously selfish all at once.)
So I don't really view power as having no negative sides to it.
And everyone has their own personal perspective on power, what
it means to them, how they see it. Because mine does seem to be
a very personal one, and in my story, the denial of it was the
most negative thing I did (as you say, people giving away their
power).
Nowadays, I do give up all kinds of power. I go to work everyday
(in contrast, I used to truant from school whenever I felt like
it). I make commitments to other people rather than run away because
its too inconvenient for me. I give up time, and cut into my reading
and tv watching and surfing so I can help my cousin do her essay
or listen to my other cousin practice his pieces. But my power
does not appear to diminish because of it. Instead, I feel I am
'giving it away because I have so much'. When I kept it inside,
I lived in this little box. Now, I live in world with a horizon
and new places to go and see.
(Which goes back to what Plin and Fresne are discussing below.)
In a way, it is a fitting metaphor in Chosen, where we see slayers
from around the world awakening and becoming aware of their power.
Buffy gave up Sunnydale so they could all inherit the world.
[> Summer jobs with Gully
Foyle (longish, hopefully!) -- Tchaikovsky, 03:28:08 07/02/03
Wed
Here it comes again:
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forest of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire?
And what shoulder and what art
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And, when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand and what dread feet?
What the hammer? What the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?
When the stars threw down their spears,
And water'd heaven with their tears,
Did He smile His work to see?
Did He who made the lamb make thee?
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?
Hello everyone. I've been reading both Melee threads with interest
and agreeing with a lot of what has been said. Instead of doing
the usual thing and firing off various lengthy ripostes, however,
I've been scuppered by the inexplicable assumption of my work
colleagues that I should do some work, and therefore have left
various trains of thought undocumented. Here's a few points I
picked up on the way through. Imagine me writing this through
a few interruptions to enrol people on Yoga courses, and so forgive
me for the disjointedness.
-I was grumpy that the title had been changed from Tiger, Tiger
to The Stars My Destination because it gave away too much.
When I heard Gully's chant at the beginning, with 'Nowhere my
destination', it seemed a little too obvious that he must end
up, transformed, back upon Nomad, (although the way in which he
was back in Nomad was more ingenious than I was imagining). Also,
as Neil Gaiman suggests, Tiger, Tiger is a more threatening
and dangerous, yet beautiful title, reflecting the character of
Gully. Luckily, Blake hasn't been overlooked by this discussion.
Two particularly salient points have already been mentioned in
excellent posts by Vickie and Arethusa. Vickie explained how 'good'
and 'bad' are overtaken by ideas of positive and negative energy.
Arethusa further mentioned that the brooding in the first stanza,
over who made the tiger, serves to make us consider how we are
related to this incredible creature, who made both the tiger and
ourselves. How diverse. But some of the tiger's characteristics
must therefore be embodied in us as well. Enter Gully Foyle- the
human who inherits part of the spirit of the tiger.
Foyle's transformation back from tiger to fully enlightened human
has been mentioned above- it's jerky and unnaturalistic. Bester's
not really writing a straight fiction with objective correlative
well intact. He's writing more thematically. Of course, some of
the implicit assumptions as a result of this range from irritating
to downright angry-making; the careless jettisoning of women,
the way some of the characters melt into each other, the hopeless
attempts at second guessing the culture of the future. And yet
there's the opposite transformation going on at the start again-
when Foyle goes from human to tiger. I would suggest that despite
the Merits: NONE Prospects:NONE on his records, Foyle probably
developed extreme economy of language, and the brightly burning
savagery of his animalistic life (bred out of an inhuman experience
on his own in 'Nomad') and was previously just another gutter-tongue
speaking prole (of course, style of language develops thought
in this novel, which is deeply troubling for me). So the journey
from man to tiger is threefold.
1) The complete quarantine for months upon Nomad
2) Vorga. The ship's passing crystallises all the dull unfocussed,
almost unused energy that has been directed at survival, and directs
it to the one ship. Vorga, ironically, saves Foyle as well as
almost damning him. He becomes obsessive, and hauls himself out
of his half-death, but also fixates so strongly on death that
I half-expected a Macbethian tragedy, (although the title dissuaded
me from this idea- humph).
3)The 'Frames thy fearful symmetry' line needs to happen- and
it does, powerfully. The tatooing gives him the tiger pattern,
but the metaphor is deepened after the tattoo is apparently removed.
Instead, whenever the tigerish aspects of his character assert
themselves, it appears- a memory of the tattoo. This means that
the symbol is not just an enforced, painted tiger-skin from the
crazy science pagans, (a brilliant idea), but something which
comes form inside Foyle. From this-->point we try to see Foyle
shed his tiger-skin- to become so rigidly in control of his emotions
that he will rarely if ever show his Inner Tiger. Ultimately,
the person most likely to bring it out shares both of his most
fiery emotions- love for the Ice Queen, and hatred for Vorga giving
the order to pass him by. Presteign (Olivia) is the apotheosis
of Foyle's temptations, and she makes him realise that what he
is striving for isn't quite what he needs- or what the world needs.
He finds that he doesn't need to kill her- but also that his ultimate
decision isn't to settle down and marry her. He re-defines his
search.
And many of the people in the old world are all about subjugating
emotions. Presteign (no first name, impersonal, unemotional),
Sheffield, Dagenham, who all operate based on simplistic jaded
notions of the world- who are not confused and passionate, like
Foyle realises he must be. As Fourmyle, Foyle performs the circus
trick-- he is more in control than anyone. Yet he experiences
a disillusionment. For every appearance of Fourmyle at a suave
party, there's the visitation of Foyle burning, consumed by the
emotion that he has channelled into one crazy Ahab-ian monomania.
Releasing this- realising that life is hard and messy and confusion
is the best approach, the least complacent, the most creative
and honest- is what he realises.
Like fresne, despite all its flaws, I loved the end. I was transfiexed
by the brilliant solution- giving pyrE to everyone. 'Are you ready
to be strong?'. Everyone has the ability to murder and create.
It's a beautiful act. Hidden away from the supremicist world where
those who hide their true selves and their true ambitions are
most successful, comes a solution more communal than communist.
And finally, Foyle can become the collective consciousness, both
the Tiger and the Man, and in every point in the universe- allowing
people to reconcile both sides, not suppress the dangerousbeautifulfearful
creativity- the Tigerishness.
-I loved jaunting.
-Note how the stars in Blake's poem 'threw down their spears/And
watered heaven with their tears'. This is where Foyle is heading-
his destination is honest emotion, and empowerment- the spears
coupled rhymingly with the tears. The lamb and the tiger. The
emotion and the conscience.
-If only we could have had the woman and the man.
TCH
[> [> Excellent stuff,
thanks -- Rahael, 03:35:36 07/02/03 Wed
[> Thread preservation
-- d'Herblay, 16:53:20 07/02/03 Wed
[> [> Preservation? Looks
like resuscitation -- mamcu (wondering how you did that),
16:55:38 07/02/03 Wed
[> [> [> Masq shared
the power with him! -- O'Cailleagh, 06:24:45 07/03/03 Thu
Girls
Just Wanna Have Guns -- HonorH, 09:26:57 07/01/03 Tue
Hey, guys. I was sent this link by the estimable Miss Selena this
morning, and I thought you'd all be interested. It's kept on-topic
by a nice little surprise at the end: The
Boston Globe Online: Girls Just Wanna Have Guns.
[> A few random thoughts
(making sure this doesn't get archived) -- Doug, 10:32:46
07/01/03 Tue
In alot of the action movies that come out these days it seems
that the female characters are major ass-kickers.
This is not an issue at all.
I wanted to make that clear before my post because otherwise this
could be much more easily misunderstood. Probably one of my favorite
female characters was Arilyn Moonblade from Elaine Cunningham's
books. Arilyn was an asskicke, even without her sword, but Cunningham
managed to make her formidable without going the usual route of
female fantasy characters; she was not treated as a sex object,
at least not as far as I could tell. Most of the covers of the
book were done extremely well, not stooping to the depths that
the covers of books like Azure Bonds did. (famous for it's
presentation of cleavage-mail armor)
But nowadays it seems like to be a strong female character you've
got to be an underwear model with kung-fu. Women have moved from
predominantly support roles to front line roles, there is nothing
wrong with that. Likewise, people want female characters who can
be sexual, that's ok to. But the specific combination that is
increasingly prevalent these days is pretty toxic. Women can be
tough and be sexual, but both the toughness and sexuality in many
modern offerings is pretty much a sham. The sexualized action
of Charlie's Angels is pretty pathetic to my eyes. I tend to find
that alot of male characters suffer as a result as well; I truly
miss the days of Danilo Thann (Arilyn's companion); a male character
who could play traditionally female roles of helpmate/trickster/seducer
but like Arilyn still maintain integrity as a character.
Just my $0.02 Canadian
[> [> violent+sexual=kinky?
-- mamcu, 17:36:55 07/01/03 Tue
Totally agree with these analyses, but is there room for Faith?
Can't a woman really be into violence and into sex, like men are?
Not that many of either gender are, but can't it be an option
for both?
Which is a lot different from saying that it's great that the
women who do this are doing it for men's fantasies. I'm thinking
about women's own fantasies. Let me mention my favorite, as always,
Anita Blake. Where is the AB movie?
[> [> [> I think Faith
has the depth to balance her cleavage... -- Scroll, 19:18:28
07/01/03 Tue
I agree, Faith may be pretty focused on the sex and violence,
but her character has been developed enough that we can understand
why she's focused on sex and violence, we understand her
motivations, her raison d'etre. And the sex and violence aren't
there simply to draw the male gaze, but to act as vehicles for
developing and exploring Faith's abusive past and her distrust
of men, her need for love and inability to take responsibility
of her crimes. And her resulting redemption. So while Faith is
all about the sex and violence, that's not all she is about.
[> [> [> [> Re:
I think Faith has the depth to balance her cleavage... --
JM, 19:54:53 07/01/03 Tue
Actually one of the most interesting things about post-jail Faith
is her insistance that the violence is not all she is about and
her determination to control, not even channel, but just control
her propensity for violence. And also how well she is doing.
[> [> [> Re: violent+sexual=kinky?
-- Doug, 20:58:50 07/01/03 Tue
Of course it's alright for a character to be both sexy and tough;
I actually tried to write something about that in my first post
but I sounded clumsy so I sorta left it out. There's alot of ways
to mix character traits; and I happen to think that there are
a number of ways of mixing sex + violence that are extremly toxic.
Let's look at Faith as an example. She has definite issues behind
her use of both sex and violence as means of trying top control
her world; I imagine that there are whole esays on Faith's psyche
out on the web so I won't go into details. But suffice it to say
that there are valid reasons based in the nature of the character
for her to be like this. But most importantly she does the things
she does for internal motivations. It's not a hard line between
the two extremes though, it's more of a continuum. Faith and Buffy
are both defintely sexualized, but that is balanced by the fact
that the characters are given far more personality than the basic
amount needed to provide tittillation to the audience. Ripley
is the same way. I can't comment on Alias since I doin't watch
it. But if you switched around the actresses on the three angels
I don't think you could tell which was which from their personalities.
Because rather than making a character, who is strong and has
a sexual nature as well, what you end up making is a blow-up doll
with combat moves( which frequently aren't all that good because
they focus on sexy maneuvers instead of practical ones, but that
is a debate for another time).
In other words, what Scroll said.
(I wish I had read Scroll's post before typing this out)
[> [> [> [> I think
the thing to remember is . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:59:51
07/01/03 Tue
. . . that "Charlie's Angels" isn't "Buffy"
and was never meant to be. While its advertisers latched onto
the fact that it had women in the lead role, the people who made
it never really had any sort of agenda. Their goal? Create a tougne-in-cheek
action movie. The intent of such movies is never about the characters;
it's about providing as much superficial stimulation as possible.
You say that if you switched the three Angels around, you wouldn't
be able to tell them apart by personalities. Well, let's take
that further: take almost any popcorn flick action heroes, switch
them around, and try to tell them apart by their personalities.
James Bond, John McClane, Triple X, and the like may have a few
personality tweaks that make them different, but, at the core,
they're essentially the same: they're one dimensional characters
who serve the sole purpose of entertaining people on the shallowlest
possible level. Why has Bond chosen a profession where he gets
a lisence to kill, and why is he incapable of being monogymous?
Why is Triple X so obsessed with daredevil sports? Why does John
McClane have a flagrant lack of respect for authority, but still
feel compelled to save people's lives? We never find out why these
characters do what they do, because the people who made them didn't
care about that. They just needed an excuse to get to the tittilation.
So, I guess what I'm saying is, I don't see why you need depth
of personality to justify the use of violent, sexual women, but
it's perfectly acceptable for male action heroes to be shallow,
violent and sexual (and, before you say anything, I'm aware that
most male action heroes aren't as free with their bodies as the
Angels are, however, please remember: 1) I know that James Bond,
at the very least, usually got shirtless a few times and tended
to speak very sexually; 2) "Charlie's Angels" is a lot
campier than most action movies, so the sexuality must be over
the top; 3) movie producers do realize that, even with female
heroines, action films will have an audience that is heavily made
of hetrosexual males, and all forms of entertainment must cater
to the needs/desires of their audience).
[> ''Alien'' : Sigourney
Weaver rules the universe. Amen to that -- lakrids, 10:39:35
07/01/03 Tue
[> Marge needs a gun too
-- fresne, 12:07:51 07/01/03 Tue
Funny you should post this.
In a quiz lemming sort of way, I just took, this quiz:
What
handgun are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
It was interesting that in the "who carries you" question,
there were no female gun toting action heroes. Although, in all
honesty, I'd be at a loss to ID say Nikita's gun of choice. Scully,
well, she was a good shot. Anita Blake, what gun doesn't she use?
Xena .. no guns.
I realize it's just a quiz someone put together, but it's interesting.
Provided that people in films remember that a gun is a distance
weapon (i.e., don't throw it, or get within three feet of someone
to use it) guns can be weapons of equalization in a body strength
sort of way. Annie Oakley doesn't need to have enormous upper
body strength, she just needs good aim.
Pausing to consider that Wonder Woman's weaponry was primarily
of deflection. Restraint.
Also, in a horror movie sort of way, guns never seem to work on
the villain. Oh, look, Jason, Michael, random villain has been
shot thirty times and he's still coming. Something that Buffy
reinforced in Flooded when she threw the guards gun away.
Huh - oh, and by the way, apparently I'm a Sig Sauer P226. I feel
so proud and possibly like watching the Simpsons' episode where
Homer gets a gun.
[> [> Re: Marge needs
a gun too -- Rendyl, 14:36:59 07/01/03 Tue
Hmmm...I am a Smith and Wesson 44 Mag...Which in keeping with
the empowerment theme above appears to give me power but no sex
appeal. :)
The article did omit any mention of Samus Aran from metroid Prime.
Since she kicks butt while wearing a somewhat bulky powersuit
I doubt we will see any movie adaptations of the game.
Ren
[> [> One of your own
-- mamacu, 17:52:01 07/01/03 Tue
I'm a SigSauerP226 too.
Remembering my very brief life with guns. I had married him because
he was a pacificist, but then we had this land, and people might
come around, and I was going to be there by myself--so he took
me down the hill and I tried shooting bottles. Broke 'em all.
Never shot again. Nobody ever came, and now I live in the city.
Some simple-minded thoughts on "Teachers Pet" -- Q, 14:33:24 07/01/03 Tue
Teachers Pet
Grade: B
"Teachers Pet" was the second "side" episode
in a row, as the earlier seasons seemed to have more of that kind
of thing. I have to say that I really liked this one, though.
Again, it loses marks for it's lack of urgency, but it was chock
full of stand-alone goodness. The first season especially dealt
beautifully with the horrors of high school life mirrored in metaphors
about monsters. With WttH about being the new kid, The Witch about
parental pressures, and now the male sexuality episode, and the
pressure to be "experienced". This was very well done.
This episode was as close to a straight comedy episode as season
1 got, and was a good prequel to later Xandercentric comedies
such as B,B, andB, and the Zeppo.
Xanders opening dream, later reminisced in Beer Bad, was priceless.
If I could only count how many times I have had that EXACT dream!!!!
The love triangle (again) intensifies, but now a cog is thrown
into the wheel to make it a quadrangleóAngel. Xanders "He's
a very attractive man!" line is just CLASSIC. When Angel
says "looks better on you" and walks way, and Buffy
mumbles a concerned "Oh boy", you know steamy things
are on the horizon.
Cordelia is, as always, the voice of comic brilliance with her
looking on the bright side of death.
Willow's concern about Xander losing his head because "that's
where his eyes are" was particularly heartbreaking after
certain events in the end of season 7.
And it is good how, though this is a monster-of-the week episode,
they keep arcs alive by subtly hinting at them, such as B/A's
attraction, and The master's connection to claw guy.
Good show.
[> Re: Some simple-minded
thoughts on "Teachers Pet" -- JM, 16:46:37 07/01/03
Tue
I will always remember this ep as the ONLY one when sydication
started that I hadn't already seen. I was my last new old Buffy
episode.
Granted it wasn't the greatest ep ever, but it had some of the
best Xander-Buffy interaction of the first season. I'm not really
a shipper, but they can still throw sparks, ever of the confuzzled
kind. He really feels, and she cares, but never quite gets him.
Good stuff.
Nikki's Coat (Spoilers for Season Seven) -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:02:29 07/01/03 Tue
Many people have commented on the fact that, in "Get It Done",
Spike once again donned the leather coat he took from a murdered
Nikki Wood, and that he has continued to wear it after the events
of "Lies My Parents Told Me". Some people have interpreted
this as a sign that Spike has no remorse for the people he's killed,
otherwise he wouldn't be wearing a dead girl's coat. I see it
differently:
Spike is a pragmatist. Always has been and probably always will
be. It's not to say he has no ethics; it's just that he will ignore
them if he believes them to be pointless or the cause of more
harm than good. His take on morality is diluted in a large amount
of realism (whether it's too much is a different topic). Since
he got his soul back, he does have ethical guidlines he lives
by (not killing people, respecting Buffy's right to live her life),
but isn't as adamant on always following them if he believes there
are extenuating circumstances (see his threat to kill Principal
Wood in LMPTM as an example, or making deals with the Slayer back
in his evil days, despite his vampiric "evil is good"
mentality).
This pragmatism carries into the coat. I believe Spike does wish
he hadn't killed all of the people he has (as evidenced in "Sleeper"
and "Never Leave Me"), but his pragmatic outlook has
helped him get over it and put it behind him rather quickly. As
such, while he did take his coat from Nikki's body right after
he killed her, and while he recognizes it as a terrible act, he
probably sees it in the light of, "Getting rid of it won't
bring her back to life, so why should I get rid of a perfectly
good coat?" If Spike were Angel, he would almost certainly
have ditched the coat; Angel is very focused on making amends
for his past, both literally and symbollically, and losing a symbol
of his evil would be a big symbollic guesture. However, for a
pragmatist like Spike, symbollic acts don't really mean much,
so he decides to keep it since it doesn't hurt anyone and looks
really cool.
The only real concern with Spike wearing the coat is the way it
might effect Wood to see it. But, after the attack in LMPTM, Spike
has made his dislike of Wood pretty clear, not without justification,
and is likely to feel that he shouldn't change because it might
hurt the feelings of someone who tried to kill him.
That's my theory, at least.
[> Re: Nikki's Coat (Spoilers
for Season Seven) -- JM, 19:37:17 07/01/03 Tue
Found the episode deeply creepy and unsettlingly, not all in ways
I approve. But I did find the symbolism very, very interesting.
LMPTM seemed to put Spike in Anya's camp of rejecting redemption,
and the need for it, as opposed to Faith and Angel's commitment
to the concept. (Intersting parallel too to the moment where Angel
rejects his coat as a symbol of rejecting the promise of redemption
in S2.)
I was somewhat impressed with Spike's interesting decision to
reject the need for redemption. However I found Wood's decision
to suck it up and deal even more interesting.
[> Good theory and fits
with some other things I've read (Spoilers for Season Seven)
-- s'kat, 21:31:57 07/01/03 Tue
Spike is a pragmatist. Always has been and probably always
will be. It's not to say he has no ethics; it's just that he will
ignore them if he believes them to be pointless or the cause of
more harm than good. His take on morality is diluted in a large
amount of realism (whether it's too much is a different topic).
Since he got his soul back, he does have ethical guidlines he
lives by (not killing people, respecting Buffy's right to live
her life), but isn't as adamant on always following them if he
believes there are extenuating circumstances (see his threat to
kill Principal Wood in LMPTM as an example, or making deals with
the Slayer back in his evil days, despite his vampiric "evil
is good" mentality).
I agree.
As far back as S2 we see Spike's pragmatism in action and it goes
a long way to explaining his acts. Examples:
1. School HArd - he sees the opportunity to go after the slayer,
so does it, when she's least prepared, as opposed to St. Vigeous
Day when she would be - even if that's the traditional time. Also
he kills the Annoited One, b/c pragmatically it affects his a)life
and b)control. (Although other reasons can be used.)
2. What's my Line - he pragmatically hires bounty hunters to kill
the slayer allowing him to focus on healing Drusilla
without the distraction.
3. His comments to Angelus regarding the slayer: "Kill her
works very well. That's what we do." or "We're vampires,
we kill sort of our raison d'etre."
4. Becoming - he calls a truce with Buffy to save the world because
practically speaking - it wins him Dru and provides him with what
he likes.
5. The switching sides in S4 - to Adam to pragmatically get the
chip out, to the SG when Adam doesn't follow through.
Even getting the soul can be considered a pragmatic act - I want
to make sure I don't hurt Buffy, I also want Buffy, she says I
need a soul? Okay I go get a soul. Easy. He really had no idea
what getting soul really meant. He didn't get it. He basically
followed emotion and pragmaticism. He's not a planner, he doesn't
think it all through, Spike just does what makes sense to him
at the time. He basically lives in the moment as opposed to past
or future.
All Spike's actions actually make a great deal of sense if you
look at them from the point of view of the pragmaticist.
Lisa on the ASSB (Angel's Soul Board) several weeks back posted
a great take on the personality differences between Angel and
Spike - she said that one was not better or more good/more evil
than the other - they just were different personalities.
Angel fits the Sensing/Judging/Reasoning persona, he thinks things
out, tends to worry over consequences, he's a planner. Also very
into judging the situation. HE goes with logic over emotions,
although emotions do inform him. Angel tends to live more in the
past/future, while Spike more in the moment.
Spike fits the Perceiving/Intiutive/Feeling persona, he feels
things out, tends to go with gut instinct, the hell with the consequences,
and acts spontaneously. He is more perceiving and sensitive to
emotions and goes with emotions.
He's also pragmatic, even though emotion informs him.
Pragmaticist = common sense. "Jacket provides me with a sense
of power and well-being, no one else is using it, dead slayer
won't need it - won't bring her back, and Wood is a bastard -
so what the hell." (Actually *I* would have disposed of it
as would Angel, b/c it is a *disgusting* thing - splattered with
demon blood, fake blood, dirt, grime, what have you, etc - let
Wood have it for crying out loud, that thing is gross...but I
guess I can see why Spike might not care. ;-) Sure DB Woodside
was glad Marsters had to keep it. Marsters was NOT happy about
it. ;-))
Good post Finn. Completely agree. (PErsonally I hope the jacket
is gone next year, sick of it. But rumor has it the PTB(in other
words the network brass/Kuzuis/and some fans who keep writing
post cards) think it's cool so we'll probably see more of it.)
[> [> Agree with both
of you -- Valheru, 00:38:15 07/02/03 Wed
Personally, if I were Joss, I wouldn't have even gone the symbolic
Nikki/Spike/Robin route with it. Of all the things that were/could
have been at issue in S7, Spike's coat was near the bottom of
my list. And it just seemed like another ME attempt to de-cool
Spike: "You guys like the way Spike dresses? Then we'll make
it a bad thing." It was unnecessary.
On a show(s) where clothes are such an integral part of the storytelling,
Spike was the poster-child. For two seasons (S2, "Lover's
Walk", first half of S4), the only times Spike ever had a
costume change were when he would wear the red shirt and the few
times he would take the coat off by necessity. In late-S4 to early-S7,
they kept trying different things with him, but nothing ever felt
like "Spike" except the jacket.
I don't want to give the impression that I'm all "I luv Spieks
jaket 4eva!" but it's part of his character, what makes him
Spike. It's like he's a comic book superhero who always wears
the same multicolored tights. His costume makes him identifiable,
an icon. In it, he's like a bat (which was the intention) or like
some modern-day caped villain. I'm sure James would love to stop
bleaching his hair too, but try imagining a bleachless Spike.
Imagine if Spike showed up somewhere with the blue longsleeves
he wore in "Beneath You" and with William's natural
hair--how many people would instantly recognize him?
If ME wants to change his look, they'd have to do a hell of a
lot better than what they tried before. Something only Spike could
wear. Honestly, I have no idea what that would be. Maybe a white
leather duster (ack, I know, but I'm at a loss)? Something that,
when someone looks at him, makes them think, "This guy's
a vampire, but not an eeeevil vampire." Maybe HH can ask
her villainous cohort to come up with an appropriate number?
[> [> [> The origins
of that jacket (Not Nikki - the real life orgin) -- s'kat,
07:50:47 07/02/03 Wed
I don't want to give the impression that I'm all "I luv
Spieks jaket 4eva!" but it's part of his character, what
makes him Spike. It's like he's a comic book superhero who always
wears the same multicolored tights. His costume makes him identifiable,
an icon. In it, he's like a bat (which was the intention) or like
some modern-day caped villain. I'm sure James would love to stop
bleaching his hair too, but try imagining a bleachless Spike.
Imagine if Spike showed up somewhere with the blue longsleeves
he wore in "Beneath You" and with William's natural
hair--how many people would instantly recognize him?
Might interest you to know the whole jacket idea was grabbed from
Frank Miller's Sin City according to Doug Petrie in Fool for Love
commentary. They sold Whedon on the Nikki scene - by having Spike
get his jacket from Nikki.
The idea behind Fool for Love was how does one become a "monster"?
Bit by bit. Spike's redefinition of himself from "good man/bad
poet" to "punk/monster" is shown in Fool For Love.
The first realization is the killing of Chinese Slayer and he
gets the eyebrow scar (something that may have been borrowed from
Marsters own experience - MArsters got the scar in a mugging/street
fight in Harlem during the 80's - he was hit by brass knuckles.
Marsters hit the assailant back according to interviews with something
akin to a crow-bar.). The second realization is the killing of
Nikki and in that scene he gets the jacket. They struggled with
it at first and it wasn't a cheap shoot - but they figured out
the jacket from the comic. In Frank Miller's noirish Sin City
- a hit man climbs his way up a crime organization by killing
people, from each person he kills - he takes a jacket as a trophy.
Not sure what costume they'll give him next year - but if it's
the jacket - they better give a good reason for how it survived,
since it burned up with Spike in Chosen. A human/vamp being reborn
or reincarnated I can buy, but a jacket? And oh dear god, please
don't bring him back as a ghost - that would just be lame.
[> [> Hey sk! Did you
know you're mentioned on whedonesque.com? Very cool! -- ponygirl,
07:13:22 07/02/03 Wed
[> [> [> Uhm no...I
am? What is whedonesque.com? -- s'kat, 07:34:50 07/02/03
Wed
[> [> [> [> Sort
of like slayage.com -- ponygirl, 07:45:56 07/02/03 Wed
A collection of links to BtVS and AtS related articles. And unlike
slayage it's not taking the summer off.
There's a link to your essay on BC&S (which I haven't had a chance
to read yet). It seems your fandom is growing!
[> [> [> [> [>
Actually you already read it. -- s'kat, 07:55:27 07/02/03
Wed
I just re-posted my Season 7 Critique over on B C & S in response
to someone's post.
[> Thread Preservation
-- d'Herblay, 17:54:22 07/02/03 Wed
[> Re: Nikki's Coat (Spoilers
for Season Seven) -- Malandanza, 08:43:47 07/03/03 Thu
"Spike is a pragmatist. Always has been and probably always
will be."
I have trouble with the characterization of Spike (a vampire who
seeks out slayers) as a pragmatist. For me, a pragmatic vampire
is one like Mr. Trick, who walks away from Kakistos when it looks
like the slayers will win, who likes Sunnydale (before he knows
of the slayers in residence) because of the murder rate that no
one cares about, who sets a bounty on the slayers and lets other
people do the (dangerous) dirty work, and who joins forces (in
a subordinate role) with the power in town when it appears dangerous
to be freelance.
Spike, by contrast, is an opportunist. He doesn't look at the
"big picture" -- just his immediate desires. He is the
Want/Take/Have/Worry-about-the-consequences-when-they-catch-up-to-you
vampire. He offers his services to the Anointed One initially,
but when he fails to deliver on his promises (and it was Spike's
plan that failed on the pre-vigeous attack) he kills the Anointed
One and assumes leadership. He really had to do something -- we've
seen that vampire society is not particularly forgiving of failure.
He lets the Judge burn Dalton, his translating vampire, just because.
He helps the Slayer to get Dru back and, ostensibly, to keep the
world from being sucked into hell, since he likes the happy meals
with legs, but abandons Buffy to her fate when it looks like Angelus
has her beaten. Pragmatic? Only if he was lying about wanting
the world to remain his picnic basket. If that's the case, he
could have helped the world be destroyed by sticking with Angelus
and Dru. He comes back to Sunnydale, not once, but twice (even
Harmony understands that his battles with Buffy are far from pragmatic).
He switches side to join Adam -- but remember he tells Adam that
Buffy and her friends have a way of winning in spite of all the
odds against them -- yet he sided against them for the short term
benefit of Adam's dubious promise to remove the chip. He opportunistically
switches back once he realizes that Buffy has won.
He alienates the people closest to Buffy even while they are protecting
him from the Initiative and while he tries to get closer to Buffy.
He is the tattletale for the Riley affair, and only afterwards
thinks about how that made him look -- and worries that the slayer
may hold a grudge against him. He demonstrated his ultimate opportunism
in Season Six, when he used the Slayer's confidence, her insecurities
about her nat-->re, and Warren's information about the chip
functioning perfectly to have himself his one good day at Buffy's
expense.
As for the jacket -- he's room temperature. He doesn't need a
jacket for any reason. He wears it as a trophy -- proof to himself
that he's the "big bad" and can beat down the bitches
strong women when he feels the urge. A pragmatist would have dumped
it as soon as its origin was revealed -- to prove he had changed.
[> Out of the coat closet
(AtS S5WKC spoiler) -- fresne, 09:19:17 07/03/03 Thu
Funny, I see the jacket a bit differently.
Now, excuse me as I assume my Klingon identity. Grr - argh - meat
- red meat - Ragnorak - good fun - today is a good day to die
- grr.
The jacket is an item of coup. But more than that, it is the symbol
of an honorable and worthy opponent. A Slayer. She who demons
fear. Who fought with style and grace and verve. Spike could have
danced with her all night.
He doesn't drink like she's food, a Happy Meal on legs, for all
that Slayer's blood is an aphrodisiac. He takes her coat. I need
to review the scene again, but was Spike wearing any sort of something
to emphasize the scar on his eyebrow?
This week I seem to be fascinated by words and images that play
two ways. I blame the bad fanfic. Their/They're, wear/ware, and
whatnot.
Anyway, the coat to Wood is a symbol of his mother. A lost soft
loving presence. To Spike, it's strong, powerful, glaring death.
Well, actually, that's me viewing the thing first through my right
eye and then my left. Like that picture that is both an old woman
and a young girl.
To apologize to Wood, to feel sorry for killing Nikki, feels,
when seen through my left eye, like making her all mother and
no warrior. A victim. Although, then I segue to the Crow, ultimate
revenge movie that it is, "Victims. Aren't we all?"
Well, no. And today is never a good to die. The Klingon mindset
warring with the desire to have the shelf life of a Cheeto (the
crunchy ones, not the puffy ones.).
Wearing the coat, is in its way a reminder of who and what he
is and was. Shedding it to wear new skin, ignores that the essential
skin remains. Leaving it behind with Buffy in SR, going to don
a soul, does nothing to face that dark warrior. The dark roots
of self. It can't be discarded or hidden in a trunk. It can't
be part of some shrine to Nikki Wood. It needed a funeral pyre
with full honors.
Now, as to AtS, the leather coat needs to stay burned away and
Spike needs a new coat. Like Neo. I'm sure I should have symbolic
reasons, it's just it looks like a priest's cassock and it moves
like woolen beauty like the night. And all that is best in fabric
and cut meet in its aspect and its dualistic eyes.
[> [> Re: Out of the
coat closet (AtS S5WKC spoiler)-nice tribute to Byron -- sdev,
10:10:49 07/03/03 Thu
Byron and Spike- yes I can see that.
[> [> Not neccessarily
-- Finn Mac Cool, 10:41:33 07/03/03 Thu
I have a bit of speculation which would allow Spike to keep his
coat (or, at least, ME would get to keep using the same coat).
OK, in my head, I've begun plotting out what I think the premiere
episode of "Angel" will be like. In my plan, it begins
with Spike observing the AI gang and appearing to them in many
different forms. To Fred he's a meek, Southern scientist. To Wesley
he's a gruff hotdog vender. To Lorne he's a flamboyant would-be
actor. Etcetera. At the end of the episode, though, he accidentally
runs into Angel (clad in his usual white hair and black coat)
and is recognized. It is then revealed that Spike was sent back
to earth by the Powers That Be in order to sway Angel back to
their side. As a result of the process, he's no longer a vampire,
and so doesn't have any superstrength. However, since he's already
dead, he can't be killed, and heals instantly from all wounds.
Also, he can change his outfit and hairstyle at a moment's notice.
All it takes is a wave of his hand and his hair becomes curly
blonde and his coat becomes a sweater vest.
If this speculation resembles what ME actually does, than they
can keep the coat, since Spike's capable of wearing any piece
of clothing he wants.
JM -- To Rahael and Scroll,
19:27:13 07/01/03 Tue
Hmm, wonder if my late night posts contribute to getting slid
off the board.
Thanks, Scroll, Rahael, when I don't have time to read the whole
board (which is most of the time lately), I still look for your
names as posts to check out. Like what you have to say.
"In fact I was wondering whether your absence was due to
a dislike of either S7 or S4."
It was a lot of factors frankly, only some relating to board talk,
and even fewer to the shows themselves. One was just the aftershock
of losing "Firefly." I was very active in the fandoms
up to that point, and just had to step back a little. Not really
appropriate to grieve so hard for something inanimate.
I loved every ep of season six, with the possible exception of
the last one, and never bought the fan consensus that it was terribly
flawed and misguided. Seven, on the other hand. . . . There were
multiple eps I thought stellar (many not included in the general
esteem: "Help," "Never Leave Me," "Potential,"
"Killer in Me," "First Date," "Get it
Done," "Storyteller," and "Empty Spaces."
But others left me positively cold. I thought "Chosen"
nearly perfect, so I've decided to take a few steps back and wait
until I can reassess the season as a whole. But choosing to be
detached made me a little .. detached.
"Angel" on the other hand bowled me over. Absolutely.
Freaking. Stunning. The three ep Wes-Faith arc are among the best
episodes the series has ever done. (Of course, OMV, I know.) Jasmine
was both surreal and so true-to-life, and the end-all-and-be-all
of creepiness. And, Lordy, I miss Cordy, but I really thought
CC did fabu. The "We're special. . . . Crazy pregnant lady"
riff was the chillingest and funniest thing she's ever done. So
for the record, S4 kicks all kinds of butt. Was even reconciled
to saying good-bye (pleasantly surprised by renewal) on that high-note
all the way.
"I too adore the character of Wes while seeing him as dark,
very dark. Capable of plumbing the depths."
Not just do I adore him, though fear for him, also adore that
the writers are so no-holds-barred with him. I think that they
have pushed him, punished him, and, most importantly, allowed
him to fail more than other main character, while remaining true
to his amazingly stubborn personal moral code. I just love that
they respect him, but do not much sentimentalize him.
"To go a little off tangent, I am wondering about the images
of the season we see at the beginning, through the prism of Home."
Yeah, that's why I thought "Home" was amazing. Really
surprised that so many are angry about it. Not only cinematic
and disturbing, but also Deep.
I thought Angel's choice was immoral and beautiful at the same
time. And I am impressed that the writers allowed such an ending.
Loved the seasonal parallel too. We began with Angel's hallucinations
of happy family gratis Connor's choice and actions; we ended with
Connor's hallucinations of happy family gratis Angel's choice
and actions. How arresting, how repulsive. Love this show. I don't
want my heroes, especially Angel, to do the right thing. I want
them to do the interesting, heart-rending thing.
About getting an LJ, no not yet. Do you? Not sure I have enough
to say to support one. But I discovered one through following
a rec to a fic author's Web site and found a whole new world.
Very different dynamic to the discussions than the boards.
[> Embarrassingly Subject
and Name should be reversed. D'oh! -- JM, 19:29:09 07/01/03
Tue
[> I know I'm not Rahael
or Scroll, so I hope it doesn't seem like I'm butting in, but...
-- Rob, 20:07:45 07/01/03 Tue
...just wanted to say I really enjoyed reading your post! Nice
to see your name here again, too!
Rob
[> [> Re: I know I'm
not Rahael or Scroll, so I hope it doesn't seem like I'm butting
in, but... -- JM, 20:36:45 07/01/03 Tue
Rob, you couldn't possibly butt in, you're too much the gentleman.
Thanks, I'm touched.
I didn't mean to take up anymore bandwidth, but I just wanted
to let Scroll and Rahael know I'd read their responses and was
interested in responding in kind, even though the original post
got ate.
Love your annotated site. Had to take a break after "Dark
Age." My mind got a little burnt, something about thinking
too much about Giles. Regret not visiting your SFU (that's you
right, I know I've asked before) site, but I'm a whole season
behind. When you're best friend asks you to lend her the first
two eps of any season before you've watched them, the correct
answer is no. You'll never see them again. Darn. They'll repeat
eventually.
[> Agree with your love
of S4 -- Scroll, 20:59:39 07/01/03 Tue
While I enjoyed much of BtVS S7, I really think AtS S4 was the
superior season. I'm glad it's been renewed, I was pretty worried
about that for a time. I just hope that S5 will turn out okay,
though it'll probably be nothing like what we're expecting :)
Not just do I adore him, though fear for him, also adore that
the writers are so no-holds-barred with him. I think that they
have pushed him, punished him, and, most importantly, allowed
him to fail more than other main character, while remaining true
to his amazingly stubborn personal moral code. I just love that
they respect him, but do not much sentimentalize him.
Totally agree! Wesley, I feel, is easily the most organically
developed character in the Buffyverse. It's amazing how consistent
they've kept him, so that even at his most noble, his most suicidal,
his most screwed-up moments, you can still see that fumbling,
bumbling Watcher from BtVS S3. His core personality hasn't been
changed so much as evolved as life happened to him. The internal
and external worked hand-in-hand to forge the dark, gritty S4
Wesley we know and love so well. I really think Joss respects
the Wesley character, and I can't wait to see what happens next
season.
I guess I have enough faith in Joss that I think the mind-wipe
will be a plot-point, and not something that acts as a totaly
reset button, making the last two seasons of plot and character
development moot. I think we're going to see really interesting
things. (But don't mind me if I cross my fingers just in case!)
Angel's decision, IMO, was horrible and heart-rending and totally
in character. Taking Connor's choice away and making Connor
be happy is both awful and beautiful, and a perfect testimony
of the darker side of love. I hope Joss milks this angst for all
it's worth!
[> [> Re: Agree with
your love of S4 -- JM, 04:47:09 07/02/03 Wed
Keeping my fingers crossed too. I have faith and love that they
never do the same thing twice, but just a teensy bit nervous.
Hard to imagine topping this last year. I guess that's part of
the point of changing the framework.
I love Dark Wes, but have recently been wathcing S1 again and
am really surprised at how much I've been enjoying his more innocent
times. I understandstand now why some of the ficcers miss him.
But love how gradual and logical the change has been.
[> Immoral and Beautiful
(inc. OT message to Maeve Rigan) -- Rahael, 03:25:47 07/02/03
Wed
Those two words could describe the whole of S4. There are no words
to say how much I enjoyed the last season of AtS. Absolutely freaking
stunning seems to sum it up to! People often say - why can't we
have repentence and guilt and remorse done without Angel style
brooding - well AtS did it in S4 with the Gunn/Fred Seidel storyline.
One little scene toward the end of the season showed us that it
was still a terrible crime, that it ate Fred and Gunn up, and
hinted that it was not far from their minds. It is those little
details that delight me, as well as the more showy twists and
thrills that AtS 4 also provided. I don't know whether S5 will
give me what I want or need, but I shall be content with the amazing
4 seasons of AtS we have seen so far. And I have to say - Faith
used to be one of my least favourite characters. I found her annoying,
not someone I could identify or connect with. Has S4 proved me
wrong or what? She leaps straight up to become one of my all time
fave tv characters. A moral integrity that is all the more worthy
of respect because it is hard won and her constant sense
of watchfulness/awareness of its fragility. Tough and beautiful
and dynamic and I could go on and on. I think I have a Connor
like crush on her.
Ditto on S6 and S7. I too liked individual eps - I didn't care
for First Date all too much, and I can't even remember what happens
in Never Leave me. But I really rate Killer in Me and Potential
which no one else seems to get really enthusiastic about, and
of course I loved Storyteller, Selfless etc. But for me, the season
was all about my disconnection from BtVS. Dissonance, distance,
a strange sense of alienation from it.
Re LJ - me, yes. It's really easy to find me. Please feel free,
and also if you want a code, just ask. I don't have all that much
that is important to say either (as you will see!), but Icons!
Also, I'm starting to feel inspired about thinking and writing
about AtS4. I've been feeling like I have absolutely nothing to
write recently.
(OT to Maeve Rigan, I am so ashamed!! I have severe writers block.
I will email you, either to free you from waiting around for me
to start writing, or if you aren't completely exasperated with
me, to start batting around ideas)
[> [> Re: Immoral and
Beautiful (inc. OT message to Maeve Rigan) -- JM, 04:52:57
07/02/03 Wed
Cool, I'll have to check it out. I still don't understand what
those code things mean:)
One of the things I thought was so great about S4 was the unexpected.
Angel and Cordy never get together. Fred and Gunn never get caught/punished/go
evil from killing the Professor. Angel and Wesley never had a
big explosive fight with emotional apology. Wes didn't go for
revenge when he thought Angelus killed Lilah. Angel didn't get
all broody about losing his soul. Yes there were consequences
and pay-off and development on all of these issues, but ME went
the original instead of the obvious route on every one. I was
really impressed.
[> [> OT to Rahael--Re:
OT message to Maeve Rigan) -- MaeveRigan, 06:34:23 07/02/03
Wed
Don't worry about it, Rahael. I was stunned by the way A4 ended--but
in a good way!--and haven't been able to write anything much myself,
though I still think we have a good idea spinning around.
I'm still upset because I don't live anywhere near Cleveland :-(
E-mail me.
[> [> [> Me too!
-- Rahael, 09:21:04 07/03/03 Thu
I tend to find that talking stuff through helps me sort out what
I think a lot, and this process is immensely aided by face to
face interaction, plus of course, lashings of coffee and cake,
etc!
[> Thread Preservation
-- d'Herblay, 18:00:22 07/02/03 Wed
The Replacement/Out of My Mind/No Place Like Home part
of the round robin -- deeva (oh, I'm
rusty.), 20:51:14 07/01/03 Tue
The Replacement/Out of My Mind/No Place Like Home
After finding Faith at Clark's, off the main street, Xander and
Spike escorted her back to Revello Drive. That was, after she
finished freaking with every one there. Many patrons were left
with uncomfortable consequences caused by the lock up Lolita.
They envied the two men who dragged her out.
Not wanting to hear a possible rehash of events, Spike took off
and patrolled, jonesing for some violence. He dusted a handful
of vampires while they were still rising from their graves.
Hearing a commotion in a clearing near him Spike headed in that
direction. He came upon a group of 3 Ty'edji demons. They were
terrorizing a young couple who unwisely thought the cemetery would
be a good place to conduct intimate relations.
Before he could step in to do anything, a flash of Feria color
#9.13 Sparkling Light Beige Blonde launched itself at the mass
of demons, knocking two down.
"It's not nice to eat the kids!" Buffy scolded.
The demons just snarled in response and charged. She deftly ducked
one punch, which landed on the Ty'edji behind her. Twirling right,
she kicked back and knocked the two demons together into a neat
little pile at her feet.
"Bingo!"
The third Ty'edji grabbed her from behind. They struggled for
a few seconds before Buffy swung her feet up, knocking them off
balance onto the Ty'edji's back. The surprise of falling backwards
caused it to release its hold on Buffy. Kipping up she turned
to face it, only to see that her opponent had disappeared completely.
Turning she saw that the other two had disappeared as well.
"Hey! I wasn't done!" Buffy cried out indignantly.
"Were you going to help at some point, Spike?" she asked
while dusting herself off.
Spike approached her. "Bingo?"
"Eh, so it wasn't the best I've ever come up with."
Smoothing back her ponytail now. "Can't always be Quippy-girl."
"Didn't look like you needed any help but I would've been
in there the second you did. Thought you would be back at the
house getting Faith all caught up."
"Nah, Giles and Willow can do all that. I didn't feel like
catching the repeat and I needed to get out and get some action."
Spike cocked an eyebrow at that.
Catching his meaning, she countered. "Not that kind of action!
Pig!"
"Oink." Replied Spike. "Which way are you headed
now?"
"Back to home base. I figure I should stop now because, hey,
clothes are still clean and are not in need of replacing. So it's
a good thing."
"Still sending Dawn off to LA?"
"I'm not sure what to do about that. I think that you would
be just as weirded out as any of us by you and Da-I can't even
say it."
"No need to. Bit's like a kid sis to me. Makes my skin crawl
to even hear it."
They walked along in silence for a distance. Both keeping ear
out for any more activity of the non-human variety.
"I called Angel." Buffy mentioned casually.
"Yeah? What'd the grand poufter have to say?"
"Not much. I think I can hear brooding now. Does it have
a volume control? Cause it was deafening. Anyway he said that
he'd have Wesley do some more research and on Oz's rock-thingy.
That was it."
"That all?"
"Yep."
"So - there was no - I dunno, declarations of undying devotion
of the soul-losing variety?"
"Nope. Been there, done that." Said Buffy. "I get
enough unwanted declarations from souled vamp Version 2.0."
Spike abruptly stopped and turned to face Buffy, who was still
walking and talking. She collided right into him.
"What?" asked Buffy.
Spike shot her a look of incredulity. "So that's what I've
been all this time?"
"What?" she replied tilting her head in such a way that
it would make it into a certain website. "A sexy, undead
Sid Vicious/Billy Idol wannabe who knows how to push all my dark
side buttons?"
"Yes! No!" huffed Spike. "I bloody meant the replacement
for Peaches! And I'm not a-"
"Sid Vicious/Billy Idol wannabe. Blah, blah, blah. Stole
it from you. Blah, blah, blah." mocked Buffy, her hand mimicking
the words.
"Hey!"
"You're not an Angel replacement. You're far too annoying
and blond to be one. Besides why would I need one if Angel and
I are supposed to be together?"
"Are you daft?! You said yourself she's no Abe Lincoln. Since
when did cheerleader become the voice of reason? Word is a friend
of a bloke I know, knocked up her and a few other bints. Was about
to have a litter, she was. How wise and all knowing does that
sound?"
"A litter?"
"Yeah. Something about increasing the odds that least a few'll
sur-that's not the point!" He sputtered. "Point is,
why is anyone paying attention to her relationship advice? Her's
are so stellar. And the Sha'i-Pir wars are coming up-"
"That's it! Shipper!" interrupted Buffy.
"Its Sha'i-Pir, luv."
"No. Don't you get it? Sha'i-Pir. Shipper. Relationship?"
she explained excitedly. "So this war is all about 'ships."
"Giles already went through this."
"I guess someone does really care about who I sleep with.
Which is so not fair! I should be able to do who ever I want and
whenever I want." Buffy supposed, not hearing Spike
"You're forgetting about the where ever part." Said
Spike trying to help. "Some would argue that it's not about
what you want but what you need."
Buffy rolled her eyes, "Since when did the 'where' ever bother
you? I told you when it gets to be a certain time in my cycle,
I get horny! Get itch. Scratch itch. God, can I sound anymore
like Faith?"
"I dunno that one's got quite a mouth."
Buffy continued, not paying attention to Spike's muttering. "What
I need versus what I want? What does that even mean?"
"Think I read it from some guy named Josh Weldon. Got some
kind of indie cred. He's a decent writer. He'll be big one day."
" You know what I think?"
"Course I do. I always know what you really think."
"Prove it."
"You think that the answer to the Shipper wars is to not
do anything. No relationships. Meaning you'll keep your hands
to yourself. Be alone. Cue the violin music."
"Wow."
"I know, it's a gift." He shrugged.
"And you're going to say that I'm bloody out of my mind for
even thinking that."
"Got it in one, luv. You're getting the hang of it."
"This is creeping me out. We know what each other is thinking.
It's not like you're my boyfriend or anything." She stopped.
"Did I just say that?"
Spike just grinned wickedly at the statement.
"I did not just say that! It's not like I think that at all!
It just proves that I'm around you too much! That's why we shouldn't
be together!" exclaimed Buffy.
"The lady protests too much, methinks..."
Changing topics Buffy quickly asked, "Why wouldn't my plan
work?"
"Because according to Miss Cleo, it's already begun. We're
supposed to stop it. Also, with the largesse of information that
Wolf Boy brought, it involves the Rock of Naszturshol."
"Darn! Just when I thought I was ahead of the game girl."
They turned up onto the walkway of Revello Drive. From the looks
of things, there were still people in the house. Spike entered
first and went directly into the kitchen. Buffy stood in the entryway
and saw that Giles, Willow, Tara and Faith were still in the dining
room. Dawn was in the living room watching some late night cable.
Looking up and seeing that it was Buffy she quickly switched channels.
"Be it ever so scary and demony, there's no place like home."
Sighed Buffy closing the door behind her.
"Unless, of course, the home is holding you and your friends
hostage." quipped Dawn.
Dawn was met with a patented Parent!Buffy glare.
"I said I was sorry about that, ok?" Dawn sheepishly
said. "How many times can I apologize for that?"
"Not enough in my book." grumbled Buffy. "Go to
bed! It's way past your bed time."
"Whatever!" groused Dawn while clomping up the stairs,
in a way that only teen-aged girls could do. It was topped off
by a door slam that would make Shannon Doherty proud.
************
Who'll be next? Come on, you know you wanna do it! The next would
be Family/Fool for Love/Shadow.
Listening To Fear
Into The Woods
Triangle
Checkpoint
Blood Ties
Crush
I Was Made To Love You
The Body
Forever
Intervention
Tough Love
Spiral
The Weight Of The World
The Gift
[> Rusty or no -- good job!
-- LadyStarlight, 21:25:22 07/01/03 Tue
[> I'll second that. Anyone
claiming the next three? -- Marie, 01:08:47 07/02/03 Wed
[> Thread Preservation
-- d'Herblay, 17:56:29 07/02/03 Wed
[> That was great! ("oink"
- snerk) -- Anneth, 19:16:56 07/02/03 Wed
[> [> *giggle snort*
-- deeva, doing her bit to keep this here., 10:20:43 07/03/03
Thu
[> Thanks, d'H - want to
take the next three? Does anyone? -- Marie, 06:47:52 07/03/03
Thu
[> [> Preserving thread
-- Marie, 09:00:52 07/03/03 Thu
[> [> [> Here's a
thought -- deeva, 10:23:50 07/03/03 Thu
I don't think that anyone might sign up till after the Independence
holiday. At least, that's what I think. Because it can't be because
people think that they can't do it. Or do they? Nah.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Here's a thought -- Marie, 05:49:52 07/04/03 Fri
Maybe.... it's just that I'm in a writing mood, so I want people
to join me in something...I may end up finishing this myself (and
I don't really care if people aren't reading it - I just enjoy
the writing!) We need to start another fic - quick!
M
[> [> [> [> [>
Thread preservation. -- Marie, 07:52:14 07/04/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
I am, too. -- deeva, 10:02:09 07/04/03 Fri
I would gladly write the turn after next or so. I can't do the
next now because I'm supposed to be writing something else for
Monday. But after that I should be good.
Why don't you just write the next one then? Personally, it's nice
to know that people are reading but it is what it is. It's just
entertaining enough to do the writing with a tiny bit of research
thrown in.
More July 2003 | Current
board