July 2003 posts

Persuasion vs. Assassination -- sdev, 01:03:59 07/12/03 Sat

I am relatively new to this Board, but these are my observations:

Posters on all sides are sometimes guilty of name calling, which is what it amounts to if one uses adjectives alone to characterize the other person's position instead of reasoning, whether logical, elliptical or associative. These posts are sometimes serious and sometimes humorous- same effect they are inhibitory, insulting and boring.

Argument, in the Aristotelian sense, is not served by posts that state unsupported opinions. Unsupported opinions have no more worth than the comments, "Buffy rules," or "Spike is hot." They are equally contentless. And if I had to pick the lesser of two evils I would pick the latter over the former. "Buffy rules" makes no one feel badly.

Signposts of non-critical, assassination attempts:

The Body Slam--"that is not valid," "you are inventing," "you are simplifying"
The Shun-- "that is not the show I watch," "why are you watching," "you're perverting the true meaning"

If one thinks a post has no valid point or is too ridiculous to have meaningful discussion on, ignore it. Silence in this instance is not agreement. People whose posts get ignored get the message; after all they are posting to get a response. If one disagrees with a post, argue what's wrong with it. Just calling it a name is meaningless. And it doesn't make the point go away although in certain instances I am sure it has driven some to leave or be silent. Inappropriate responses to posts give the appearance of someone who cannot come up with a valid counter-argument. That is not a flattering picture and not accurate I am sure for this forum.

[> Re: Wrong thread-should be on-Response to lunasea's thread -- sdev, 01:09:01 07/12/03 Sat

[> [> It's not my thread. I just wish it would go away -- lunasea, 05:25:34 07/12/03 Sat

[> [> [> Oh, don't fret, it will. The three sure things in life-- death, taxes and Voynak. ;-) -- OnM, 06:38:50 07/12/03 Sat

Unless you live in PA, in which case it's four things:

Death, taxes, bad roads, and Voynak.

[> Mainly agree, however -- dub ;o), 12:32:56 07/12/03 Sat

People whose posts get ignored get the message...

Unfortunately this has not been the case.

;o)

[> The thread didn't go away because you kept responding to it -- I'm just saying..., 14:58:19 07/12/03 Sat

[> [> omg! you are right. -- just doesn't get it, 15:38:48 07/12/03 Sat

[> [> [> What goes around comes around. -- Still just saying....., 15:41:25 07/12/03 Sat

Board Kudzu -- lunasea, 04:54:46 07/12/03 Sat

Those who live in the southern USA are quite familiar with this plant, Kudzu. It takes over everything. It was originally brought to this country from Japan in order to prevent erosion, but like so many things that are introduced into a foreign environment, there were nothing to keep it in check, so it just took over.

It's the summer, shows are in reruns, if they are being shown at all. The temperature is hot and tempers run even hotter. Some are out of school, some of us are trapped with kids that are out of school. The boards run a bit slower.

Nature abhors a vacuum. On the net Kudzu tends to take over that vacuum. Then it proceeds to take over EVERYTHING. Blowing off a little steam is fun, but when people start taking that seriously and personally, it isn't any fun any more, either for the original participants or those who watch it. I've learned most perceived insults tend to just be a joke, usually exageration to make a point and to be funny. If you don't find it funny, then just ignore it.

To aid in the ignoring, I offer the following proposal. For the span of one 1 (one) week, that is just 7 (seven) days, we don't talk about EITHER souled vampire. There are so many other characters on the show. Neither is important to "The Pack," the next episode in Back to the Beginning. Any parallels between Xander and Angel can wait until the following week when we discuss "Angel."

The exception to this is TCH's Odessey or anyone that wants to discuss Season 4 of AtS, unless these people also want to accept the proposal and just wait one week before posting their brilliance (not sarcasm).

I think it is an interesting experiment that will show what else will fill in the vacuum. Will the other characters fill the board or will those who don't accept the proposal fill it with the standard stuff? It will also be interesting to see what happens when the week is over.

If you accept, sign below.

[> OK by me. -- OnM, who is mostly obsessed with obsession., 06:41:07 07/12/03 Sat

[> [> I prefer Giorgio's Red for special occasions & Jessica McClintock for everyday -- lunasea, 12:00:44 07/12/03 Sat

[> [> [> lol... that was lower case 'o' without the little 'tm' after it, but good one anyway ;-) -- OnM, 14:45:55 07/12/03 Sat

[> Sign me up. I'm definitely no fan of Kudzu. -- Cactus Watcher, 07:00:13 07/12/03 Sat

[> Kudzu... that's, like, cane toads, right? -- Caira (adding his distinctive X), 08:07:24 07/12/03 Sat

[> Nay for me - let the discussions fall where they may. -- Darby, figuring the point's made either way, 08:52:29 07/12/03 Sat

[> [> Agreed. I'd say steering away from Spike Vs. Angel threads is a good idea... -- Rob, 09:18:20 07/12/03 Sat

...but I don't necessarily think we have to remove either of those characters from the conversation, particuarly since The Pack has quite a few subtexual/metaphorical links to Angel, as well as Xander himself in the episode referring to Angel. I can't remember at the moment whether the character himself was in it or not.

Rob

[> Heck, I rarely get involved anyway. -- HonorH, 11:19:55 07/12/03 Sat

[> "One Mans Flower is Another Mans Weed" -- Jasmine, P.T.B., 13:28:35 07/12/03 Sat

Does this would mean everyone will have a turn deciding what is "weed" and what isn't?

YES!

I absolutely LOVE this idea!

I've been doing some experimenting along these exact same lines, but with little luck. The set-up for this experiment is pure genuis.

I'm sure everyone will agree to this. Or at the very most, be ambilvant about the precedent it sets.

Now - how will we take turns being the person who decides what isn't allowed to experimentally be posted each week?

* Alphabetically?
* Chronologically?
* Loudest Posting Voice?
* Politest?
* Grouchiest?
* Largest Vocabulary?
* Most Appropriate Posting Name?
* Best Fashion Sense?
* Most Powerful?
* Cutest Hiney?

[> [> LOL! Put me down for Cutest Hiney!!! -- The Thought Police, 13:48:19 07/12/03 Sat

[> [> Well, exactly. -- dub, 14:21:00 07/12/03 Sat

I have to admit, I simply can't take this anymore.

I heard an analogy in a film last night that can be applied to this situation. Apparently if you drop a frog into boiling water it will leap right out. But, if you put the frog in cold water and slowly heat it to boiling, it will just sit there and get cooked.

What's happened here is that, little by little, under the imminently sensible guise of keeping the board "civil," many regular and frequent posters have been marginalized by the directive not to respond negatively to lunasea. We have been further directed to ignore her posts if we don't like what she has to say. Excuse me? In her relatively brief time here lunasea has sewn more discontent than Boke, Aquaman, and all the other trolls we've suffered through combined. Her stand on Angel is tolerated and supported because it parallels that of some influential posters. I, for one, would never argue with that. Hey, praise and 'ship whoever you want. It's her blatant Spike-bashing and her unvarnished antagonism toward all things concerned with that character, that is completely inflammatory and does not deserve to go unchallenged. Nor does her rude, arrogant, condescending behavior. These things have no place on this Board, not because I say so, but because they are unworthy of the community we have developed. If this board has become the sort where things like this have to be ignored for the sake of "civility," then truly it isn't worth frequenting.

Go along to get along? Not bloody likely. Give your heads a shake, people! Yesterday there was the "Hey, Masq" directive which said, basically, "A lot of people are making fun of me and I want you to get rid of that thread right away and bring back one of MY threads that I like a lot better." Now it's, "Okay, here's my plan. Nobody can talk about souled vampires (i.e. Spike) for a week, except of course, I can prattle on interminably about the glory of Angel in TCH's thread; that doesn' count." Heh. Yeah. Good idea! (And yes, that IS sarcasm.)

The sheer genius of lunasea, I must admit, is in somehow convincing otherwise sensible and intelligent people that SHE is not the source of the discord; THEY are.

I'll truly miss this community, but there comes a time when you just gotta take a stand. As long as lunasea's brand of blatant manipulation is welcome on this Board, I'm outta here.

[> [> [> Re: Well, exactly. -- Alison, 14:26:37 07/12/03 Sat

I respect your discision, but I want to let you know, you will be missed. Even though you don't post very often anymore, when you do, it's wonderful, and you're a great part of the board community. Hope you'll still drop in sometimes.

[> [> [> I'm with Dub...... -- a fed up Rufus, 14:40:15 07/12/03 Sat

I believe in being polite but Dub is right in her assessment of lunasea.....and like Dub it just may be time for me to bow out as well.

[> [> [> [> Re: I'm with Dub...... -- Alison, 14:45:11 07/12/03 Sat

Again, I respect both you and Dub taking a stand- but why must one person be allowed to destroy the whole board? Isn't there a way to return to some sense of normalacy without boycotting the board all together?

[> [> [> Why take this seriously? -- curious, 14:40:40 07/12/03 Sat

Please stay on the board. I completely agree with your take on lunasea's posts but I also have to say that her posts are the only ones that bother me consistently on this board. That is AMAZING. I can't say that about any other board I have been on.

Why leave over one poster's self-righteousness? I am a relatively new poster but I have been lurking here for quite a while. I agree that I see a lot more tolerance and placating of this rudeness than would be tolerated on a lot of boards - but I would really hate to see ANYONE censored here.

Does anyone really take the Kudzu crap seriously?? I mean - come ON! I read it and found it pretty cringe-worthy and embarrassing to read - but I certainly can't take it seriously.

[> [> [> Manipulation is not welcome here, so stay. -- fidhle, 15:06:42 07/12/03 Sat

I don't believe that any manipulation by posters should be welcome to this Board, and that any appropriate topic should be free to be discussed. The problem seems to be that some people are so certain that they know the right answer to some issue, that they see others as wrong, misguided, mistaken, or not worthy of respect.

I am not a shipper and have never been one. I happen to like all of the characters which I have seen on Buffy and Angel, at least in their function within the story. Obviously, I would not like someone like Adam in real life, but he served a function in the story and served it well.

I happen to like both Angel and Spike (there, I've said both names) and both serve their functions within the story. We should remember that these are fictional characters who serve the ends of the writers and directors, not real people. I believe that we can have a civilized debate about the meanings of the characters, and even of the meaning of the relationships of the characters. I do not believe that anyone should feel that they must leave the Board or stop posting at all, but I do believe that each poster should remember that different people see things in different ways. We should cherish and respect our differences, because that is one way we learn to see different aspects of this show that we all love.

Sometimes families will argue with each other, and that is normal. I believe that it's time for all of us to also come together in mutual support of our differences as well as our similarities. I also believe that it's time for those who find themselves the center of controversy to examine how they contribute to the controversy and unpleasantness and try to end that which causes the disputes. I think that all that is necessary is a decent respect for the opinions of others and a realization that each of us does not have a perfect understanding of all that is in this show.

Dub and others thinking of leaving, please stay and contribute. I and others value your contributions and would hate to see you, or anyone, feel that they were not welcome.

fidhle

[> [> [> Arguing about how to argue -- Sophist, 16:02:17 07/12/03 Sat

Parliamentary procedure can be very helpful. When I was doing Model UN.....

Actually, I never did Model UN. But I do have some experience in arguments.

In my profession, I get letters and briefs every day that are intentionally provocative and occasionally dishonest. They are written by people who have far greater talent at that sort of thing than any poster I've ever seen on this Board.

There was a time when I responded in detail to such letters. I was (and am) quite good at this game; better than most of my correspondents. That's not a point of pride with me. Fact is, responding in that way just made my life less happy.

About 15 years ago, I had an epiphany. I decided it wasn't worth it to get into contests like that. Kind of late in life for such an epiphany, but I'm a slow learner. Maybe if I'd had that Model UN experience....

Anyway, my practice ever since is to respond to letters like that by saying something like "your letter contains a number of points with which I disagree, but I see no need to respond to them". I then go on to address the substantive issues, if there are any.

IRL, I have to read letters I get and suffer the momentary (or longer) tsuris. The best part about a posting Board is that I don't have to read all the posts. Here, I can identify the posts or posters I choose to read. It gives me illicit pleasure (I'm easy) to skip over such posts.

I'm probably sounding pompous at this point, but I'm not sure why the strategy of ignoring posts won't work. That, and continuing a dialogue with posters you know and trust. Seems to me it's kind of like Christianity -- it's never been tried.

I suspect many posters here whom I very much respect are angry at themselves right now. I hope they're not flogging and punishing themselves by abstaining from the Board (other ways are fine :)). Come on -- we'll write haikus or make fun of Rob's pompoms or something.

[> [> [> [> Hey, leave my pom-poms outta this! ;oD -- The Cheerleadery One, 16:07:38 07/12/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> LOL! Thanks for that Sophist. Very wise. -- s'kat, 16:25:06 07/12/03 Sat

[> [> [> Re: Well, exactly. -- sdev, 16:48:33 07/12/03 Sat

I regret if anything in my post contributed to your decision. I am new here, but I would hate to see you leave. My intention was inclusivity. This was the last thing I intended.

Actually I was telling Lunasea and others that if they find someone else's ideas unworthy they have two choices critique or ignore. Insults should not be an option. My comment about ignoring posters was along the lines of what Sophist said. Ignore it if you feel it is unworthy of substantive comment. But don't just hurl insults.

If a post is obnoxious and you want to confront that I think you should go for it. I don't think rudeness needs to be tolerated.

[> [> [> [> I don't think it was you sdev -- curious, 17:08:10 07/12/03 Sat

I am pretty new here too sdev - and I think this has been an ongoing problem that was around before we came to this board.

In an ideal world, it would be nice to ignore all the posts that push our buttons but we are human and sometimes these things happen. I'm just amazed at how rare it is on this board comppared to other boards. I think that is why these posts tend to stick out like a sore thumb here.

I hope that makes sense.

[> [> [> [> Your posts are thoughtful and polite. Don't worry about it. -- Sophist, 18:15:13 07/12/03 Sat

So are curious'...'s...es. Whatever.

[> [> [> Entering the fray -- Sara, peeking out from under her desk, 18:23:06 07/12/03 Sat

What fid said.
What Sophist said.

Actually, I'd like to discuss this weird communication that many of us are so addicted to. It is of endless fascination to me how vested we become in this community of somewhat faceless friends, how bonded we become with each other. (in other words, dub and Rufus, Don't Go!) And how we do this without the luxury of seeing each other's faces and hearing each other's tones of voice, :)'s notwithstanding.

I grew up in a household where sarcasm was the norm, when I say my mother's wit was razor sharp, I actually mean that razors were jealous of her. But that edge was on a sense of humor that was so amazingly funny, she could have us all literally rolling on the floor laughing. I remember times when I would laugh so hard it hurt, and other times where I watched my dad collapsed on the bed, unable to sit up due to the laughter. When I joined the real world in college, which consisted of people who were not my family, I found that not everyone got my sarcasm, and even if they got it most of the time, other times it would just seem mean or nasty. So, I toned it down, dropped any iffy stuff unless it was self-directed (of course the self-directed stuff has occasionally made people wrongly assume I have some sort of esteem issues - you just can't win sometimes) and have most of the time avoided hurting anyone's feelings, although mistakes still can be made. Here on the board and in chat I find myself even more careful, because without the cues of other people's faces, and without them able to hear my voice and see my face there is so much room for misinterpretation.

So anyway, other than the lovely trip down memory lane I just took regarding family fun, my point is that what's happening on the board is a regular wake-up call that this isn't as easy a method of communication as it sometimes feels. It's easy to be complacent and throw your ideas out there, forgetting that the people reading those ideas have different but totally valid points of view. It's never a bad idea to be careful of other people's feelings, and put the effort out to make sure that differing opinions are treated with respect. Relationships are hard work, and this board (in my opinion) is as much about relationships as it is about Buffy.

- Sara, climbing back under my desk now

[> [> [> My 2 cents -- Giles (who is currently very sad), 21:19:50 07/12/03 Sat

I feel absolutely terrible that lunasea is driving you out of the board. I have talked to you a few times and I loved you. I have a few opinions about lunasea myself, but I think if I said what is on my mind I would have grapefruits thrown at me. I just want to tell you goodbye, if you must then I have o right to tell you not to go. But I would of hoped that this turn out different. Please keep in touch with us and do not forget us, your crazy friends. IF you want to get in touch with me then you can reach mer at blackmagevivi6688@hotmail.com. goodluck in life and goodbye

[> [> [> Re: Well, exactly. -- Caroline, 12:53:47 07/13/03 Sun

dub, I'm really sorry that you are going through this. As someone who has tangled with lunasea both on the board and in chat, I realize how unpleasant the experience is and how difficult it can be to mind one's manners. But please don't go. My view is that I'm not going to let this type of thing drive me from a board I enjoy and from people with whom I've rapidly become friends.

[> [> [> noooooo!!! don't leave, dub & rufus!! -- anom (who didn't get the memo), 23:11:18 07/13/03 Sun

I can understand your frustration & fed-up-ness w/Lunasea. The "don't read 'em" (more because of her I Am Right attitude than based on any particular topic) approach has worked for me--enough so that the "don't respond negatively" directive(?) escaped my notice entirely. But Lunasea can't impose a moratorium. Even if a majority of the posters voted in favor, they can't stop anyone who wants to from posting on either or both of the souled vamps.

If you really can't just say no to reading her posts & feel you have to answer, from what I saw before I quit reading them, you could come up w/a couple of boilerplate paragraphs that, w/slight adaptations & occasional additions, you could paste in as replies. That'd save time that you could use to enlighten those of us who'd rather read your posts, not to mention bolstering the threads you post them to against being crowded out.

I don't see how giving up your own voices on the board will help. You'd be ceding more of its territory to Lunasea, & you'd be depriving the rest of us! So [makes imploring Willow-eyes] please don't leave us! The board won't be the same without the 2 of you! And the CQ (Canadian quotient) will drop precipitously!

C'mon, stay...how much chocolate will it take?

[> [> Agreed. Perhaps A definition from another board on bashing will help -- shadowkat, 15:58:52 07/12/03 Sat

Since some people on this board seem to have difficulty understanding what "bashing" means - I thought I'd illegally borrow AngelX from Buffy Cross and Stakes wonderful statement on it. On B C & S and ASSB, you get deleted when you bash and if you keep it up, banned from the board. AngelX is a wonderful moderator, because she is a B/A and Angelshipper but tolerates other ships and posts that are pro-Spike. If someone bashes Spike, Angel, ANY character or ship regardless of it's makeup or is overtly immature - their post is gone, deleted. They get three warnings and if they keep it up? Their Ipo address is banned from the board.

Here's her missive on bashing:

"DON'T DO THIS... DO THIS...
NOT Acceptable behavior:
Attacks at the writers/crew/actors. They bring us this show, and we are to treat them all with respect. Bite your tongue (or fingers) if that's a problem.
ex: "What drugs was so and so on when they wrote that piece of crap?" or "That
was the most pathetic acting job I've ever seen!" or
Acting like a child unable to get his/her way. I know there are quite a few posters who are stuck with their own ideals of how a character *should* be and can't seem to accept the character(s) for who they are now. Tough. Characters evolve. People evolve. If you're going to act immaturely because they evolve in a way that you didn't want them to, just don't even get into it.
ex: "How can Xander like her? The writers are wasting their time with this
relationship, no one's gonna watch it until he's with *this* person." or "Buffy
belongs with so and so. I'll never watch the show unless they're together!"

These are examples of Bashing:

"That episode sucks."
"Buffy and Spike are a stupid couple."
"I hated season 4."
"Buffy is such a slut for sleeping with Spike!"
"Willow's a stupid bitch for treating Tara that way!"

These are NOT Bashing:

"I didn't like this episode. It was the worst one I've ever seen."
"I really don't like Buffy and Spike together. The couple doesn't make sense to me."
"Season four was my least favorite season."
"I don't like that Buffy had sex with Spike. It lowers my opinion of her."
"I'm mad Willow was so mean to Tara. I didn't like seeing her character behave that way."

Phrases like these are okay and a good idea to use instead of harsher rude phrases:

- "I didn't like..."
- "This was disappointing, because..."
- "This didn't work for me, because..."

DIFFERENCE OF OPINION...

There will always be opinions that you don't agree with and don't like to hear. You may not see a character or relationship some way, but there will *always* be someone out there who sees it another way. As annoying as said comments may be, unless they are specifically rude and offensive to fans, they're not going anyway. STAY AWAY from them if they bug you. Don't start a fight every time someone brings it up again.

When you're going to express how much you don't like something, consider the people who actually like that something. Because trust me, there will *always* be someone who likes and dislikes every little thing. There will always be at least two sides to it and you need to consider the people you are possibly insulting. Pretend someone else was talking about *your* favorite character or couple or episode. Are you going to offend them with your comment?

Comments like:
"I think Spike's a serial killer." Sure, not everyone sees it that way. But it's not bashing. It's an opinion, however annoying it may be to those who don't like it. You only cause trouble for *yourself* alone when you reply rudely because you took offense to someone's opinion.
"I think Buffy and Spike are the best couple ever!" Again, not everyone see every relationship the same. If you're not a B/S fan, a simple comment like this does not read, "If you don't think Buffy and Spike are the best couple, tell me why!" Leave it be.

FLAMES...

Under NO circumstances will posts that contain the slightest hint of personal attacks be allowed. For those who don't get this concept...

Comments remotely like the following will get your post deleted and piss me off. (If you've ever done things like the following in the past, reconsider your plans for the future. Now that this is in writing, my tolerance will be even less.)

"Don't bother. All fans of *this* ship are blind to reality or truth."
"You support *that* relationship? That's sick!"
"Oh, but you're a fan of this ship, so you can't see it."
"Of course, someone like *you* wouldn't understand that."
"I'm right, your wrong. If you can't see that, you're obviously not watching the same show as me."

These are--by my own definition, if nothing else--FLAMES. A flame, in my opinion is any sort of an attack on other *fans* (or the actual people behind the show, obviously). I care far more about the way you all treat each other than I do the way the show is treated. Any comments that are the slightest bit hostile at each other, other fans or the works of fans will not be taken lightly. It takes very few incidents of these sorts for my patience to wear out. I will NOT put up with it."

Now, I know the mean age on this board is 35. The mean age on BC&S is 25. Question is can we post on any subject and
be nice to one another? Or do we have to resort to censorship? Does Masq have to moderate the board like AngelX does, spending all her time reading posts and the like? I should hope not. I should hope we are mature adults. Nor should we expect her to have to moderate behavior. If you don't like something?
Don't respond to it. If you do like it? Respond.

Granted we're human, we all lose our temper from time to time. I did this week. But voy will eat it if we let it.
One of the few nice things about voy. This is a fun board.
An intellectual board. A board that has an online book club and discusses literature and philosophy. Spike is the character I'm most obsessed with on these shows - and yes I will continue to post on him and read posts on him here and elsewhere. Do I have to post here? Nope, like Rufus I frequent MANY boards. So I can leave and post somewhere else no problem. I'd hate to do that though, b/c there are posters here I adore, OnM, manwitch, cjl, Rufus, dub, curious, Rahael, Earl Allison, Dochawk, Sophist, Scroll, TCH, Rob, Masq, Random, Aresthusa, Darby, Sara, Rendyle the list goes on...and several of these posters do not share my views on the characters - that's why I like them. But they are always polite about it. As I pray I have been.

Here's another bit of good advice from AngelX's rules:

"I can't change the way people interpret other opinions, but I'm not going to side with everyone who gets insulted every time someone expresses a differing opinion. I have to listen to all of it, complaints, praise, whatever whether I agree or not. Everyone needs to take a chill pill and quit taking EVERYTHING so seriously. Whether you like it or not, this board is for ALL fans who enjoy the show and spoilers. Every shipper, every character fan, every episode fan, every season fan--every fan. If you can't deal with people expressing an opinion that isn't yours, stay away from those people/posts or don't come here."

(Of course we don't do spoilers...but everything else fits)

And:

"Under no circumstances will any sort of flaming or attacks be tolerated for the following:

- Fellow fans. From this board or any other location. I don't want to hear it.
- The people behind the show. If you want to complain about the product, go for it. But do not attack the writers/actors/crew.
- Other boards or websites. Negative talk about any other boards or websites will not fly. Let the other boards and sites dis us all they want, sinking to that level by anyone here at the boards will only make us look bad and I won't accept it.

From NOW ON! This is giving a bit more control to thread/post starters.
If you start a thread about a particular character or ship and you are ONLY looking for people who agree with you, specify that in your subject.
ex: "For B/A fans ONLY. What do you like about the couple?" (I'm not going to
restrict non-B/A-shipper fans who want to chime in with positive responses, but if
this is specified in the subject, negative responses or "Here's what I *don't* like
about the ship" responses will be deleted.)
If you want to discuss a relationship but NOT turn it into a shipper discussion (i.e., B/S is nothing like B/A!), specify that in your subject. Or if you are not looking to compare ships, specify that in your subject.
ex: "Buffy and Spike fighting evil together. NOT a shipper discussion," or "The
Buffy/Spike relationship, no comparisons to other ships, please."
If you want to discuss an episode/character/writer/whatever, the same rule applies. If you're NOT going to want to hear a specific kind of response, specify what you are looking for and not looking for and the posts rudely ignoring the requests will be removed.
ex: "For Xander fans. What's your favorite characteristic?"
If you start a thread and you want to simply get an answer to a simple question, not start up a huge debate on an old issue, specify that in your subject.
ex: "Who likes W/T together. NOT a debate, just a simple answer would be fine."

These rules also apply to replies. If you're expressing your opinion on a specific topic and don't want a certain kind of response, put it in your subject. Anyone who replies against your wishes will be deleted unless their post is harmless. But, in the case you do want a debate and can keep a level head under the circumstances of other opinions that differ from yours, no need to do anything. :)

Point is, you do not have to read every single post on the board. If a post is not directed at you, don't read it. No matter how important you may consider your own opinion, hammering it into everyone's head on a certain topic every chance you get only makes you look bad and ticks me off. Now, if there are any questions about what is or is not allowed, please let me know. I will adjust these guidelines if there is any confusion to avoid any in the future."

Perhaps these should be added to our FAQ's??? Instead of telling people what character to post on - blatant censorship in my opinion and intolerable. Maybe we should agree to follow the rules above??

And oh...why do I have a quote at the top of the board, if no one is going to pay attention to it? It's getting embarrassing.

Take it and run...as Earl would say.

SK

[> [> [> But the thing I like about this board... -- curious, 16:18:53 07/12/03 Sat

is that these kinds of rules are unnecessary for the vast majority of posters. I continue to be impressed with the civility of almost all of the posters on this board. I like the fact that most people have an internal sense of what the boundries are and don't need them spelled out.

I hear your sentiment s'kat, but I still think that restrictions on anyone's free speech are ultimately restrictions on everyone's free speech.

I am going to continue to ignore the posts and posters that bug me for the most part - and respond as respectfully as I can when I feel silence is tacit approval of outrageous behavior.

[> [> [> Very nice! A lot of it seems to boil down to accountability. Clearly owning our words. -- WickedBuffy, 16:28:15 07/12/03 Sat

"That episode sucks."
"Buffy and Spike are a stupid couple."
changed to
"I didn't like this episode. It was the worst one I've ever seen."
"I really don't like Buffy and Spike together. The couple doesn't make sense to me."

Even though we think in statements in our heads and don't usually add an "I" to them (cause we know we own them - unless you are one of the special posters like me, with several different voices chattering on) it's important to do that in posts. Then it comes off as your opinon and not as if you were stating an absolute fact.

okok, just realized I shoulda used "I" instead of "you" in all that up there. ::sigh:: my bad. :>

That's just one of the ways I try to do it, to make sure my post is clearly about my opinions and beliefs - and also make it clear that I realize it.

[> [> [> Thank you, SK -- Fidhle, 18:14:54 07/12/03 Sat

[> [> [> Re: Agreed. Perhaps A definition from another board on bashing will help -- jane, 00:17:13 07/13/03 Sun

I mostly lurk here,drawn by the thought and care most people put into their posts. I do not agree with every poster, but that is not a problem to me. Everyone has their own way of seeing this show; what I see may not be what someone else does. No one way is right or wrong. As SK points out we are adults, and responsible for the tone of our posts. I really hope that no one is driven from this board, it would be very sad to lose any one of the voices here. Isn't there someone in American history who said,I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it? (Me? I'm Canadian;it's in our constitution to be polite..)

[> [> [> [> French History (or, should we want to be jingoistic, Freedomish History) -- d'Herblay, 02:03:31 07/13/03 Sun

I agree with the sentiment.

[> [> [> [> [> LOL on the "Freedomish"! -- Rob, 12:55:37 07/13/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> what i thought d'herblay was going to say... -- anom, 21:21:03 07/13/03 Sun

...was that the quote is from Voltaire. (Maybe he figured on this board, most of the posters would already know?) That's who I'd always heard it attributed to, & the online Bartlett's Familiar Quotations backs this up: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Whose right Voltaire was offering to defend, & whether he ever actually did, I have no idea.

[> [> The experiment I secretly & without prior authorization added here IS NOW COMPROMISED. -- Jasmine Bugface, P.T.B., 09:52:09 07/13/03 Sun

This feels hypocritical to me.

If no one is supposed to tell anyone else how to post, then why is this thread now full of do's and don'ts?

This messageboard is based in a land where freedom of speech has no disclaimers about what tone that speech must be in. Or what the proper form is to word sentences.

Of course, if you're just asking or suggesting - then that's different.

At my last place of residence, I created (near)perfect harmony, a (nearly)perfect world. The only way to accomplish that was to appoint one immortal, I mean humanoid to take on responsibility for all decisions. This left the rest of the community free to be happy, unburdened by accountability and worries, free to chitter and chatter and quickly devour their mates after sex.

You are obviously fighting against the creation of such a wonderfully peaceful and harmonious forum. I don't understand why you even want the stressful burdens of having to argue and defend anything anyone decides to say. Just out of the blue. With no guidance, no censorship, no rigid, I mean clearrestrictions.

Having limitless choices is confusing, overwhelming and completely unneccessary. Choice, like Free Will, is an Evil everyone must fight to overcome. I'm offering to completely dictate, I mean bear that cross for you, each of you, and make all those mentally gruelling decisons .

If we elect one person, I highly insist on, I mean suggest me, to confine thoughts to certain, non-upsetting areas, think of what a calm group this would be. Everyone in agreement, holding hands, drooling, docile, I mean bright-eyed, cozy, singing our favorite songs around the campfire.

Total Peace. Awesome Harmony.

No one making waves. A still, calm pond of happy, shiny posters with the same complacent, I mean inspiring, ideas.

A Brave New World!

Shangri-La!

Xanadu!

1984 with much better hair. (I've noticed everyone agreeing about hair, so I assume that is a core community concern.)

How can you resist? Why resist?

Look, over there.... some of you are already gathering to join me. See how serene and fulfilled they are? Don't you want to feel the same way? Effortless and joyfully?

How wonderful it would be to see hundreds of replies to each post saying "I agree. Completely. Perfect!" N/T

Wouldn't you like to be immersed in total love and acceptance? Wouldn't you adore being everyones best friend and confidente? What would I need to do to get you to drive out of here in this beautiful 1974 Pinto Hatchback, I mean to come with me to create this new community of bliss and love? Intoxicated with posting comradeship, all joined together in a collective hive, I mean paradise of rapturous love?

Come, come to me my vapid clones, I mean wise children let us be as One. So it didn't work in MantisWorld or L.A.

::shrug::

But the third time is a charm, so I'm told. Let's start making the difference today, this minute, hurry-up now... my face is falling off ...

[> [> [> Drat! Your eeeevil plan has been foiled by this crack team. -- And I was hoping for A Brave New World., 11:25:07 07/13/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> Yes, I'm disappointed. My only solace is to watch this video of you I just bought on the 'net. -- Hole in the Head Jasmine, P.T.B., 13:23:34 07/13/03 Sun

[> [> [> *koff* -- KdS, 15:43:53 07/13/03 Sun

This messageboard is based in a land where freedom of speech has no disclaimers about what tone that speech must be in.

Unfortunately, the First Amendment only bans the *government* from restricting freedom of speech. Private communities can make whatever rules they want. Including ones about sardonically impersonating deities to tar all your critics as book-burners.

[> [> [> [> LMAO!!! True...as can private schools, churchs, etc. ( A ramble on censorhip, tone) -- s'kat, 16:40:17 07/13/03 Sun

Fighting censorship is such a tough occupation.
But a worthy one. Except of course for those situations where we are forced to face our own hypocrisies.
Throughout my life I've noted that the most avid protestator of censorship regarding his/her views becomes the most avid advocator of it - when they run across something they find offensive. And let's face it we all discover something that offends us sooner or later.
I've had to wage long and difficult battles with myself regarding the desire to advocate the censorship of some things and not others - such as *koff*internetpornographyspan*koff* - would really like it if we could ban that, yet by the same token don't want to ban Richard Mapplethorpe's artwork - so how do you draw the line?

I studied Con Law and Constitutional Litigation - tough courses in law school. Took lengthy two semester seminar on one with a small class of 15 students. Then did another seminar on it - where compared the supreme court judges.
Constitutional Amendments and Laws are fought and debated by lawyers all the time and they are murky.

We have laws about how "hate speech" is prohibited.
How you aren't supposed to pray aloud in school - separation of church and state. How you can't debase the flag, yet where it interfers with free speech you can.
If you pray aloud in school - all religions must be allowed to. If you ban one book - what keeps you from banning another.

Constitutional Law you see is a very slippery slope.

I remember when I was still in law school, my kid brother - an grad student and conceptual artist, calling for my assistance regarding his right to do a piece of performance art. The piece was dressing up as Santa Clause and asking for "arms" for the Homeless. He had fooled the local media into thinking he was serious. He wasn't - what he was doing was doing a performance to assess how media blew stuff out of proportion and people reacted to things. The free speech issues were murky as heck. He got off with a slapped wrist, graduated, and does very well for himself now. It was decided, that he did have the right to express himself, the media's response was the media's responsibility not his.

Free Speech is a very odd area. I will defend it to my dying day, even if it means I have to put up with stuff I can't stand and that offends me. And there's a ton. It's why I refuse to leave a board in protest over another poster - they have a right to their views as I do mine.
By the same token it does help if we try to obey some rules of etiguette - which you can do, I believe, without censoring yourself. Many have.

There is a difference for instance between "hate words"
used to hurt people intentionally - and hate words used to make a point in intellectual debate. Words have the power we give them. Tone - is an incredibly important and subjective thing. IT is also an incredible weapon. It is amazing to me, what the tone and meaning of a "word" can accomplish.

Note for instance the different feelings we get when we use:

fuck you
frig you

or if you use slang from another language.

In US - the word "shag" isn't offensive. Nor are the words "nonce", "bint", or "bugger".
To Americans - (who don't know the UK meaning) - we believe they are akin to sex or making out, idiot, chit, and
damn.

In UK - they have a much stronger meaning.

Same thing goes on tone. But tone is harder to describe.
It is the strength or emotion, the connotative power, behind the words. In some cases difference in tone can be akin to the difference between screaming in someone's ear and whispering. It can be the difference between stating:
"You are an idiot who clearly knows zip" to stating "I'm clearly not making my point very well or we may never agree, but here it goes."

Fresne is an example of a poster who never raises her voice on line or uses an overly aggressive tone. Even when you don't agree with her, you find yourself smiling in spite of yourself. She may not sway you to her point of view, but you end the argument respecting her more and feeling she respects you as well. That is an argument style I aspire to.
I have a tendency to get emotional at times - and that affects both my word choice and my tone...causing me to come across either as "snarky", "bitingly sacrastic" or "didatic/preachy". All of which hurt my argument far more than anything the other person has to say. When we sink to pot-shots or lecture mode - we lose our reader and listener. And as a result our arguement. You want to be clear, yes, but you also want to engage.

A published writer who I can't read due to his tone is the writer of The Corrections - Jonathan Katzchen(sp??). His tone comes across to me as condescending and egotistical.
IT puts me off. J.K. Rowling on the other hand has an engaging tone. She may not be the renowned writer and literary figure Jonathan is, but she is far more easier and fun to read. I don't leave the experience angry. And let's face it...none of us enjoy feeling angry or being frustrated. (Well most of us don't anyway. ;-) )

I honestly think tone is the secret behind many a writers success. Stephen King is the popular writer he is today, because he controls the tone of his words so well. Check the board - ask yourself - why does one poster get so many positive responses while another gets so few? What did they do right? I bet you money it's the open and engaging tone of the words. Do you ever get angry reading one of Rob or Sara's posts? OR cjl? Or fresne? I mean angry enough to throw things at a screen? I can't say I ever really do.
Not really. How about TCH? Never, not once. (Oh, don't mean anything by leaving people out - just using examples that came to mind) That's using tone well. And it is something to aspire to - because as a writer - you only get your ideas across if people wish to read them, if they ignore you or have no desire to read, then you might as well be writing on your wall or never putting pen to paper, hands to keyboard.

I think it's something we all forget in this information free age - how much power we as readers, viewers, critics truly have. We can decide not to read, view or respond to something. We can decide not look. And like that tree that falls alone in the forest...does a post with no reply and no look-see truly matter? Isn't it as good as swallowed by voy?

Sorry for the ramble. ;-)

sk

[> [> [> [> [> s'kat, i have a button for you -- anom, 23:25:06 07/14/03 Mon

"Sorry for the ramble. ;-)"

It says, "I'm sorry, but I'm not apologizing anymore." You have nothing to apologize for. What you say in the posts in this subthread--about free speech, tone, empathy/sympathy, emotional responses to the shows & to posts, & especially (to me) what we don't realize may be going on in another person's life--has been amazing. You're not rambling; you're ranging wide, covering all the bases, inviting us all to widen our own viewpoints. Why would that require an apology--even one w/a smily?

[> [> [> [> [> US vs UK usage -- Celebaelin, 20:47:05 07/13/03 Sun

In US - the word "shag" isn't offensive. Nor are the words "nonce", "bint", or "bugger".
To Americans - (who don't know the UK meaning) - we believe they are akin to sex or making out, idiot, chit, and
damn.

That's about right (fine use of the word chit btw) but bugger is derived from Bulgar (Bulgarian) and is a referrence to certain sexual habits that were believed to be commonly practiced in that far-off land. The Shorter Oxford definition is as follows

1 A heretic: used esp. of the Albigenses (Hist.)

2 One who commits buggery; a sodomite. In decent use only as a legal term. 1555

b A coarse term of abuse; also, in Eng. dial. and in the U.S., = 'chap', customer, etc.

Hence Bugger v. to commit buggery with. Also absol.

You'd have to be on very good terms with someone to greet them with "Hello you old bugger." and not have them be offended. I nearly went into the post version of Turets there thinking of the viable extreme rudeness you could get away with to such a close friend but caught myself just in time. Anything you read on this board is mild as I'm sure everyone is aware - from vitriol to sheer obscenity the versitility of the English language for causing offence is unparalleled.

Woohoo, looking up dirty words in the dictionary again, makes me feel three, maybe four, years younger.

As regards the strength of feeling about certain opinions my personal take is that I have never read anything on this board that incensed me, plenty of stuff that I didn't agree with but so what? No one person can be the sole arbiter of what can and cannot be read here, except Masq I suppose, should she choose to spend her days in that manner. It's all a question of viewpoint anyway IMO, surely we come here to air our opinions and hopefully to read and absorb the opinions of others in order to broaden and enrich our experience. I am dumbfounded that anyone should feel so strongly about another posters interpretation that they would consider leaving because of it (and frankly a little bit hurt).

I realise that "Why can't we just agree to be friends because we can't, in this instance, nail things down to one interpretation?" is probably unacceptable in the case where opinions are very deeply felt but is there actually a necessity to form a consensus opinion or for one opinion to dominate? I mean, to what end? All takes on a given scenario have their merits, certainly as far as the originator is concerned. For myself I find that I attend more closely to posts I don't agree with because the points being made are new to me and require careful consideration in contrast to the feeling of easy familiarity that is generated when reading someone elses account of a view I happen to share.

C

[> [> [> [> [> [> I think it depends on how much emotion you bring to the fore -- s'kat, 21:38:38 07/13/03 Sun

As regards the strength of feeling about certain opinions my personal take is that I have never read anything on this board that incensed me, plenty of stuff that I didn't agree with but so what? No one person can be the sole arbiter of what can and cannot be read here, except Masq I suppose, should she choose to spend her days in that manner. It's all a question of viewpoint anyway IMO, surely we come here to air our opinions and hopefully to read and absorb the opinions of others in order to broaden and enrich our experience. I am dumbfounded that anyone should feel so strongly about another posters interpretation that they would consider leaving because of it (and frankly a little bit hurt).

I realise that "Why can't we just agree to be friends because we can't, in this instance, nail things down to one interpretation?" is probably unacceptable in the case where opinions are very deeply felt but is there actually a necessity to form a consensus opinion or for one opinion to dominate? I mean, to what end? All takes on a given scenario have their merits, certainly as far as the originator is concerned. For myself I find that I attend more closely to posts I don't agree with because the points being made are new to me and require careful consideration in contrast to the feeling of easy familiarity that is generated when reading someone elses account of a view I happen to share.

I think it has to do with how you view or react to things.
Do you react from the gut, the emotions, or the head, the intellect, or both??

I'm hesistant to say that this is a gender response, particularly after my debate with sdeve regarding making assumptions based on gender differences, but I'm wondering if it might be?? I've noticed that the female posters seem to reacte more emotionally to certain posts, while the male posters (assuming everyone has been honest about their gender or I'm reading gender correctly) seem to be more
detached. Or maybe it's just personal or neurological makeup?? ie. How we are all wired.

I honestly wish I could state that there are very few things that get me incensed, but nope very often the opposite. I am or tend to be emotional, tightly wired - and there are certain buttons that just really get a reaction when pushed.

When I am obsessed with something - or obsessed enough to spend hours writing posts on it - then I'm more than likely to be emotionally connected to it in some way - hotwired as it were. We are all wired differently I suppose. Things bug us differently.

Sort of like your discourse on use of the term Bugger. While being called a bugger - would hardly offend me, have no real emotional connection to the word, it would probably heavily offend someone in Britian. Butt-monkey doesn't bug me at all - yet KdS seemed offended by it's use and suggested we be careful. Rape and how it is conveyed by the media is a hot button for me, for different reasons than for other people, perhaps. But it may not be for someone else. I can't handle discussing the character Wood too much because it is like pressing on a raw wound that has barely healed. While I intellectually understand that Wood is a tv character and in no way real or associated with that wound, I emotionally associate the character in some subconscious way with it.

Something in Btvs and Ats to a smaller extent - clearly hit me in a way that was emotional as well as intellectual.
Deeply emotional. Or I wouldn't have written 40 essays on it. I don't write about things that don't hit that emotional and intellectual core. By the same token - if it hits the emotional core - in a negative way - I may not be able to respond coherently - due to outside pressures or frustrations that have zip to do with it but influence how I'm feeling at the time. Everyone who posts on this board - has baggage, we all have pressures outside of the internet and posting boards that may, in way. be what brings us here - possibly for some relief from those pressures.

Xyz poster who says they need to leave and are fed up, may have something else going on right now which the posts on this board instead of relieving are aggravating emotionally. Perhaps they are in a bad situation at work and dealing with an obnoxious co-worker who reminds them a great deal of someone who is posting?
Perhaps it's a sense of no control over their own life?
Perhaps it is just merely getting fed up with rudeness and cruelty and bashing - because that's all they see around them right now - including now on this one place they'd retreated for peace and support, blowing off steam and little escapism? We don't know what people do for a living. Some people may be trauma nurses or public defenders or prisoners rights activists or domestic violence help line volunteers...or just unemployed and looking desperately for a job. We also don't know the baggage - someone might have just left an S&M relationship, or been raped, or suffered a violent death in the family, or escaped from a war-torn country, or survived a fire, or fought for civil rights.
Each of these things informs the faceless posts we see on the internet, in chat, on fanboards. And each informs the reader's responses. While it is impossible for us to foresee or even realize any of this baggage or keep in mind half of it - it helps to at least keep in mind that others are reading us, being affected emotionally and intellectually by what we say. Keeping that in mind - may prevent us from hurting anyone unintentionally. Being aware of tone in posts - may help us communicat thoughts better without pressing those ever-present buttons. And that is not always easy, particularly if you speak another language or aren't an expert at written discourse. And Of course we're human and it's impossible not to press buttons - heck I have more times than I can count...but I also admit I have miserable thin skin when it comes to my written words and reading others. I reacte far too emotionally to things. I wish I didn't, it would make life I think much easier sometimes, particularly since I have this nasty tremor -so that every time I get really really upset, my right hand shakes so badly I can't type. sigh.

So I envy you your ability to remain emotionally detached.
I wish I had that ability.

sk

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think it depends on how much emotion you bring to the fore -- Celebaelin, 22:30:56 07/13/03 Sun

I think it has to do with how you view or react to things.
Do you react from the gut, the emotions, or the head, the intellect, or both??

I'm hesistant to say that this is a gender response, particularly after my debate with sdeve regarding making assumptions based on gender differences, but I'm wondering if it might be?? I've noticed that the female posters seem to reacte more emotionally to certain posts, while the male posters (assuming everyone has been honest about their gender or I'm reading gender correctly) seem to be more
detached. Or maybe it's just personal or neurological makeup?? ie. How we are all wired.

You're right in saying that I am relatively emotionally unattached as concerns BtVS but I don't think that this is entirely a gender issue (although the ability to detatch emotionally under any circumstances, to surpress the visceral response even to a fiction, may be seen more in males). Why I find that I can control my inner emotional celt in this regard is I think at least in part that I associate with all the principal male characters to some extent. The laconic Oz is tricky, I might have to settle for vague and Andrew's not really me so he might end up a walking cliche, I'm thinking about reaching for the largely untapped reserves of cattiness and thinking that may be my only hope. That is part of the appeal of the show to me, that there is a kind of Shakespearian universal truth to the way each of the main characters is written. I could even do a passable Willow a 'reasonable' Tara and a lukewarm Anya I think (and by 'do' I mean write for). The Summers women I find more difficult but I might be able to manage Cordelia at a push, I'm not very familiar with Fred as yet but I think I have her, prodigious mathematical talent notwithstanding. So anyway the point is that there are a reduced number of tensions that can occur for me actually because I empathise with the characters. Hey, there's no point beating yourself up about it could easily be my motto in this regard. In RL emotion will always have a greater input, like it or not it's part of being alive, but as regards BtVS the conflicts are part of plot development, they're constructed not encountered so I have trouble taking them seriously no matter how real they are to other posters who may be living the experience.

C

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think it depends on how much emotion you bring to the fore -- s'kat, 23:47:23 07/13/03 Sun

So anyway the point is that there are a reduced number of tensions that can occur for me actually because I empathise with the characters. Hey, there's no point beating yourself up about it could easily be my motto in this regard. In RL emotion will always have a greater input, like it or not it's part of being alive, but as regards BtVS the conflicts are part of plot development, they're constructed not encountered so I have trouble taking them seriously no matter how real they are to other posters who may be living the experience.

Hmm. Not sure empathy is the right word here. Maybe sympathize?? When you empathsize, you feel their emotions on a gut level and may react to them more that way.
ie. You really feel Buffy's pain in Empty Places - to the extent that you want to hit Dawn for throwing her out - is in a way empathy. Sympathy is a more detached intellectual response - where you feel for the character, but don't grok them. Not in a gutteral way that you can't quite describe.
You understand yet not feel their pain.

I watch Btvs far more on a character/emotional level than a detached plot level. Oh I do both. I don't mean to say I pay no attention to the plot and don't care about it - clearly I do or I wouldn't have been so critical of it this year or even last year. But for the most part, I tend to watch and read and write things more based on character and emotion than plot. (I suppose Even my posts have an emotional flavor to them - often coming off as stream of consciousness. ) If the characters don't move me - the plot is meaningless. For example I hear 24 has marvelous tight plots, but the characters leave me cold so I've never been able to really get into it. Same with Law & ORder - great plot structure, but I can't empathsize or connect to the characters, so I get bored and don't watch (that and I find it incredibly predictable - but that's another debate ;-) ).
Btvs' characters, especially in the last three seasons, had characters that spoke to my emotional core - I groked them.
And I found them unpredictable. Ats - actually, I've enjoyed the plot structure more, but the characters on the show, while I enjoy them, don't speak to me on that core emotional level. I find it much easier actually to intellectually discuss Angel and Company, than Buffy and Company - yet I'm more interested in discussing Buffy and Company. Why? Btvs hits my emotional core and I feel a need to explore it. Ats not so much...more pure intellectual.
Emotions are a funny thing - less easy to predict or analyze or understand and very difficult to control.
They can either enhance or detract from an argument or post or peice of writing. Just as being completely detached can do the same. No passion to your prose? You could lose the viewer or reader. Too much passion? They may not be able to read. I guess it goes without saying - to all things there must be moderation, too much of anything and we end up being devoured whole by it, suffocated.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think it depends on how much emotion you bring to the fore -- Celebaelin, 00:52:07 07/14/03 Mon

Hmm. Not sure empathy is the right word here. Maybe sympathize?? When you empathsize, you feel their emotions on a gut level and may react to them more that way.
ie. You really feel Buffy's pain in Empty Places - to the extent that you want to hit Dawn for throwing her out - is in a way empathy. Sympathy is a more detached intellectual response - where you feel for the character, but don't grok them. Not in a gutteral way that you can't quite describe.
You understand yet not feel their pain.

I see the distinction you are drawing and to some extent I agree but I think it's entirely appropriate for me to say that I feel that empathise is the right word to use, mainly because how I rationalise my sympathy for the characters is not in any way mapped out until such time as I am prompted to write on the subject. I watch the program, I grok what I grok (never have known the origins of that one incidentally) and only rarely do I feel it necessary to re-visit to bolster my understanding beyond checking out the late-night un(less)censored version. Watching re-runs is another matter but that is done for pleasure and a review in the light of subsequent personal, series and character development.

Forever comes to mind in this regard, and I'm afraid you're going to find me a cold fish for saying this but I'd like you're opinion if you're willing. Forever is about bereavement and the acceptance of irrevocable loss and anyone who has experienced that will realise how inadequate any attempt to address those issues in a drama must be. No matter what connection you have to a fictional character it cannot resemble your feelings for a real person (or a cherished pet or intriguingly, as I recently found, a home of long-standing). As a preparation for the (sometimes unrecognised) psychological turmoil that the loss generates the episode is of great value but what it cannot (thank heavens) IMO do is bring the viewer to an intimate understanding of the nature of grief unless they have already experienced it. Knowing Dawn's motivation in an intellectual sense and understanding it on a personal emotional level are two staggeringly different prospects in this example and the fiction cannot match the reality.

I will go to a personal experience here, my lab. partner in undergraduate genetics was a punk, not a cosmetic one but in fact one of the last remaining nihilist punks. An intellectually gifted and gentle soul with an edge of danger which was never turned in my direction but which was put to use in the defense of others to my certain knowledge (some idiots tried to literally muscle in on the girlfriend of a friend of ours in a bar and we, along with about three other guys had to show them the error of their ways). I liked him a lot and when in response to a bet that I could write a poem on any subject he suggested sub-atomic physics I did so and liked him even more.

He died at 21, shortly after graduation, of a brain heamorrhage, on a train from Birmingham home to Bath and when I was telephoned with the news I actually yelped with emotional pain. You can't recreate that feeling by means of a drama.

C

Bozons are for bozos
And Mesons are for morons
And pigs might fly
If they'll ever unify
Electromagnetic strong ones
Quarks are quirks
Of fate, for jerks
Tiny blips of entropy
They really don't explain a thing
So it's just a waste of energy
Why wrack the mind
Only to find
A Neutrino on a flying visit
It just goes to show
That no-one really knows
About sub-atomic physics

RIP Barney

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Aaarghhh 'your opinion' not 'you're opinion' -- Celebaelin, 02:55:23 07/14/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That was moving, Celebaelin. Thank you. -- Tchaikovsky, 03:34:36 07/14/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That was moving, Celebaelin. Thank you. -- Rahael, 03:40:10 07/14/03 Mon

Not only moving, but all of Celebaelin's posts of late have made me laugh out loud, as well as think.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: -- aliera, 05:00:45 07/14/03 Mon

I was actually wondering where you had gone to since I hadn't seen you on the board of late... figured it was just me since I've haven't had as much time for the board.

It's very remarkable how life (Madame Fortune) brings people cross our path. I had a friend named Sara. She had a very childhood (I'm using the most inocuous of words only) and was dealing and growing through and then the year after graduation she passed away in a freak car accident. No drinking or drugs involved, another car simply hit a patch of ice.

Was reading a book by Sven Birkett's last week so it's very much on my mind how certain unexpected events shape us and how how we carry pieces with, they sometimes, the things we read, the people we know become a part of us. Thank you very much for the post... and the poetry.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Grok" -- from Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" -- Sophist, 08:30:14 07/14/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Have read that but only brought away 'catenative assemblage' -- Celebaelin, 02:57:26 07/15/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think it depends on how much emotion you bring to the fore -- s'kat, 08:33:25 07/14/03 Mon

Hmmm....perhaps I should define the two words first? To make it clearer how I'm using them. Clarity is so hard when posting, particularly when I often inadvertently use the wrong word or phrase. I even have an odd tendency to make-up words. It's a family trait. My brother apparently does it too as does my mother.

These definitions are from American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd Edition (because it's the only dictionary I have available).

SYMPATHY: (1 b: Mutual understanding or affection.
2. A feeling or expression of pity or sorrow for the distress of another. 3. Harmonious agreement;accord.

EMPATHY. Indentification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings and motives.

So using your example - I express sympathy for your loss.
Since I also lost a dear friend when I was in my 20s, he died at 22 of leukemia, I also empathsize with your loss, having experienced something similar myself.

I'm not sure if the episode Forever is a good example of this. Because I have to admit Forever, while it terrified and squicked me in places did not move me, I did not empathsize with the characters. Sympathise maybe.

The Body on the other hand did move me to tears. At the time I saw the Body, I had not that long ago, lost a very close relation. A dear Aunt. One who actually encouraged my love in fantasy, science-fiction, musicals and reading at an early age. Someone who I still deeply miss to this day. While losing my Aunt is not the same as Buffy and Dawn losing their mother - it is close enough for me to have a feeling of mutual understanding. I can associate it emotionally with their loss on both a subconscious/purely visceral level causing tears to appear and sobbing every time I watch the episode (and it takes a great deal for ANY drama to elicit that response) and I can associate intellectually, ie. understand the emotional pain. Now if I'd never experienced a loss or death -- I probably would be hard-pressed to experience that level of "empathy". I may be able to sympathsize, but I think it is hard to empathsize with no understanding of the experience. For instance, until 911, I could not empathsize with people in countries who had experienced bombings - the experience was beyond me. Now having lived through a bombing in my hometown, I can empathsize and I understand why I never did before. I think it's a level of emotional understanding we can only access if we have something a least parallel to or comparable to the event to reference. That is not to say that I can't empathsize with rape victims, b/c I myself have never been raped - I can imagine it - and it does render a deep horrific emotional reaction, just as I believe we can empathsize with people who have lost a parent even if we have not lost our own. These events unfortunately are common enough (VERY unfortunately in case of rape) in our cultural experiences for us to react emotionally to them.
Other events such as bombings, raids, taken captives as political prisoners and torturing them are not as common (at least in the US) for us all to have the same deep level of association. (Again doesn't mean we don't react emotionally, just not in the same way.)

I think you can react strongly and emotionally to drama. But not all people do. Some just can't get past the fact that what is on the screen is simply not real. They feel for the characters, may even become obsessed with them. But they do not reacte with a certain level of emotion and may (not necessarily do) consider people who do reacte with that level - as being a bit nuts. ;-) (I'm not saying you yourself feel any of this, trying to be careful here of what I project on to others, since I really have no way of knowing). I for example reacted strongly to The Body, but not much at all to Amends, Forever, or The Gift. I also reacted strongly to Xander's speech in Potential - makes me weep every time I see it. But the rest of the season? Not a tear. Why? I think the speech to Dawn was one I could empathsize with. I could not empathsize with Spike on the cross in Beneath You - although it did emotionally move me.
I could not empathsize with Buffy and Spike clutching hands in Chosen although it moved me. But not to tears. It takes a lot to get me to cry at something. Does that make me a cold fish? I should hope not. No more than it would make you one for not crying at any of them.

How we are wired or rather how we react to media and messages thrown at us is not something I think we can create a formula for or explain coherently. I tried, but now I'm convinced it's impossible to grok or explain clearly.

I hope that makes a bit more sense.

Oh before I sign-off - another example might be poetry.
Poetry moves some people not others. For me it depends on the poetry, a great of poetry leaves me cold. But while watching a movie this weekend, the Dangerous Lives of the Altar Boys (interesting flick) the reading of the poem "Tiger Tiger Burning Bright" had me in tears. It was used in the same moving manner as your poem above. The kid
had just lost a dear dear friend and the poem spoke to that loss. Poetry by it's very nature, like music, speaks to our emotions not our intellect, in some cases our intellect may never understand a word, yet we respond emotionally and viscerally to it - even, in the case of music such as opera, if it is in another language we don't understand.

Emotions are a funny thing.

Hopefully that post made more sense and I didn't contradict myself too often within it. (Or offend anyone with my examples)

sk

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think it depends on how much emotion you bring to the fore -- Celebaelin, 04:00:13 07/15/03 Tue

I think you can react strongly and emotionally to drama. But not all people do. Some just can't get past the fact that what is on the screen is simply not real. They feel for the characters, may even become obsessed with them. But they do not reacte with a certain level of emotion and may (not necessarily do) consider people who do reacte with that level - as being a bit nuts. ;-) (I'm not saying you yourself feel any of this, trying to be careful here of what I project on to others, since I really have no way of knowing)

More or less where I am, yes, although 'nuts' is a bit strong. Overly sensitive perhaps? Too involved? Got too much invested in the fiction? That sort of comment anyway, hopefully inoffensive although from a certain point of view it might still be considered critical (it might also be considered as complimentary).

I could not empathsize with Buffy and Spike clutching hands in Chosen although it moved me. But not to tears. It takes a lot to get me to cry at something. Does that make me a cold fish? I should hope not. No more than it would make you one for not crying at any of them

Strangely I am often moved to tears by dramas (I imagine you wouldn't have expected that from what I've been saying) usually in the predictable 'gets you right there doesn't it?' moments. Buffy scripts don't do this, deliberately I'm sure. The 'too beautifal' moment is not in Joss' style, whether you think that this is more realistic of him or whether you acknowledge that such moments do really occur in RL, but seldom in fact move those involved to tears when they do really happen, is another question. I'm in the latter group, there's nothing wrong with portraying the nobler side of human being, they do have one, but there's everything wrong with not knowing what emotion that should make the audience feel. It is obvious to me from your writing, interpretations and the simple fact that you can have your buttons pushed again and again on a subject without 'compasion fatigue' setting in that you are not a cold fish.

Poetry moves some people not others. For me it depends on the poetry, a great of poetry leaves me cold. But while watching a movie this weekend, the Dangerous Lives of the Altar Boys (interesting flick) the reading of the poem "Tiger Tiger Burning Bright" had me in tears. It was used in the same moving manner as your poem above.

My poem for Barney being a case in point, when I wrote it it was just a mildly amusing piece of doggerel to win a bet, a sportsmans bet in fact. Now? I can't read it without thinking about his death and it always saddens me and often brings a tear to my eye. I have no idea how you would react knowing the background but it always moves me to melancholy.

C

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think it depends on how much emotion you bring to the fore -- WickedBabbler, 09:25:38 07/14/03 Mon

"As a preparation for the (sometimes unrecognised) psychological turmoil that the loss generates the episode is of great value but what it cannot (thank heavens) IMO do is bring the viewer to an intimate understanding of the nature of grief unless they have already experienced it." - Ceb

Both s'kats and C's posts on this have been very intriguing to me. One of my most important experiences with BtVS and emotions is from a slightly different angle.

The first time I saw the scene where Buffy finds Joyce dead on the couch, I was surprised and a bit grossed-out. There was no deep emotional hit - it was more intellectual "I bet that would be a terrible shock" and "That must have felt horrible to just find her so suddenly gone - no lingering in the hospital with time to say goodbye, to adjust in some small ways." But it was mostly in my head.

I had to analyze what Buffy's feeling might be, because I had no basis to really empathize with something of that magnitude. I've never lost anyone in my family, or any of my close friends. Just my grandfather many., many years ago - and all I can recall of that really was wailing for hours alone in the basement of the house I shared with friends. Seems distant and long ago, now, though. Not real.

"Sympathy is a more detached intellectual response - where you feel for the character, but don't grok them. Not in a gutteral way that you can't quite describe.
You understand yet not feel their pain." - s'kat

A few months ago, I saw the episode again. With a completely different reaction. Even though it was a rerun and I knew what would happen. Right now, at some random moment, my grandmother, father and mother will die. And my parents will just drop where they are standing - no lingering, no warning, no hospital goodbyes.

So when I watched as Buffy came home, yelling for her mom, a totally normal day - and she saw Joyce lying there dead - I had a heartjerking, emotional response to the scene and the ones following. No intellectual observing as before, but pure gut response to the situation.

"Forever is about bereavement and the acceptance of irrevocable loss and anyone who has experienced that will realise how inadequate any attempt to address those issues in a drama must be." - Ceb

I agree with that now, since my own recent experiences followthat same path. But it hasn't even happened in my life yet. So part of me lives in cold dread of that moment Buffy went through, that I know is inevitable soon in my life.

I also know that not having lived through it yet, I don't even fully realize what pain will be involved - though this seems fairly painful.

So, even though it was a rerun, I reacted in two completely different ways. The first was my head, analyzing how it might feel. The second time with my heart, feeling it. There certainly is a huge gap between the two.

Which explains why I react emotionally to some posts and intellectually to others. Or occasionally both. I feel it's less about gender, though, than it is about personal experiences and personality.

And there's a third response, based on empathy. I believe some others do it also. It's the times I recognize how deeply a post is affecting another person and empathize with their pain/frustration/anger. At those times I can (as others do) step in and add a more detached, intellectual point of view to support what that person is trying to get across.

So I agree that our different reactions to posts and to Buffy are about how we are wired AND how we are being wired. Generalities in gender is a difficult one to point to because are we talking gender in a physical sense? or psychological? or sexual? It seems more inclusive to go with the "how each individual is wired" statement. (I'm defining "wired" as all the different tings that go into making a person who they are - genetics, emotions, experience, etc.)

So someone on the board may feel at the end of their rope seeing the space being taken up by a topic they don't want to see anymore. And suggests an experiment where we don't talk about certain things to see what happens. This pushes each persons buttons - some very lightly and others with the force of a hammerblow. Some respond intellectually, some emotionally, some a mixture. Feelings or lack of them are presented logically, satirically, angerly, etc.

No one is wrong. It's all expression, communication, which is what the Forum is about. damnit! I've had too much coffee and this has tapdanced itself into a mini-tome.

I apologize for the length, got carried away. I love reading everyones posts, even though I usually have to skip the real long ones. My decision about whether to read a post or not is never based on the poster, it's completely about how much was written in one post. And this being a long one, I appreciate you've read this far. :>

(I'm really liking learning nasty words from the UK, though.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nice. Thank you. Agree mostly. -- s'kat, 09:57:24 07/14/03 Mon

feel it's less about gender, though, than it is about personal experiences and personality.

And there's a third response, based on empathy. I believe some others do it also. It's the times I recognize how deeply a post is affecting another person and empathize with their pain/frustration/anger. At those times I can (as others do) step in and add a more detached, intellectual point of view to support what that person is trying to get across.

So I agree that our different reactions to posts and to Buffy are about how we are wired AND how we are being wired. Generalities in gender is a difficult one to point to because are we talking gender in a physical sense? or psychological? or sexual? It seems more inclusive to go with the "how each individual is wired" statement. (I'm defining "wired" as all the different tings that go into making a person who they are - genetics, emotions, experience, etc.)

I think this is true or at least what I was trying to get at. Somehow. Thanks for saying it.

"Forever is about bereavement and the acceptance of irrevocable loss and anyone who has experienced that will realise how inadequate any attempt to address those issues in a drama must be." - Ceb

I agree with that now, since my own recent experiences followthat same path. But it hasn't even happened in my life yet. So part of me lives in cold dread of that moment Buffy went through, that I know is inevitable soon in my life.

I also know that not having lived through it yet, I don't even fully realize what pain will be involved - though this seems fairly painful.

Okay that makes more sense to me than what Ceb said...I do agree, drama will never completely convey the emotion we feel or adequately get across the totality of it. But it does sometimes come awfully close. For me, at least, the Body came the closest to conveying my feelings about death, loss and grief. Nothing else dramatically has ever come that close.

Thanks for the post WB.
sk

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you for your kind words, s'kat. I always look forward to your posts. -- WickedBuffy, 22:24:10 07/14/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, I'll be buggered.... -- O'Cailleagh, 01:35:23 07/14/03 Mon

Hmmm...
Nope, can't see bugger being offensive in this day and age. It tends to be one of those, and I hesitate to use the term here, swear words that kids are allowed to get away with, like bloody or damn. In other words, its a very mild swear word. That's not to say a more elderly person might not be offended by it, but hey, different generation etc. Its rarely used in the original context now, so I suppose that has something to do with it. (The word sodomy *does* offend me, as a gay man-implying, as it does, that gay sex is somehow wrong)
Can't imagine why KdS suggests care be taken over butt-monkey, its not really a phrase used in Britain-its is a very American term, like Skanky Ho-Biscuit (one of my favourite terms of endearment!).
Also, regarding bint and nonce.
Bint seems to have come to mean something along the lines of bitch or slut, although it originally meant serving girl, or wench (wench also having taken on the slut connotations). Nonce, as far as I am aware, is a prisonesque term for a paedophile, and as such isn't really used in a jocular sense (as opposed to ponce which can mean someone who leeches away all your cash, or someone who is quite poofy..like that Angel, the stupid hair wearing ponce! )

O'Cailleagh

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> British Slang and Peg Bundy's Maiden name -- O'Cailleagh, 16:20:03 07/14/03 Mon

While we're on the subject of swearwords not commonly known in the US, I have a question...
In 'Married with Children', the popular US sitcom, Peg Bundy's maiden name was Wanker. Now, I get that this is a relatively common surname over there, but my question concerns the raucous laughter that would invariably accompany the merest utterance of it on the show.
It was my understanding the America has only recently discovered the joys of British slang, (mainly through 'Buffy' and 'Austin Powers'), and the intermanet was non-existant back then, so how did the audience know it was a funny thing?
I remember that Joss said at some point that 'wanker' only got past the censors in 'Buffy' because they had no idea what it meant (I think it was Joss at least...)
So again...how did the audience of 'Married...' know to laugh at Peggy Wanker?

O'Cailleagh

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, I'll be buggered.... -- Rahael, 02:39:16 07/14/03 Mon

And just to back you up on bugger, it was my grandmother's favourite swearword. I really don't think she knew what it meant, and for years I was convinced it must have been really innocent, because she used it. I used to think it had something to do with a person who caught insects ;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why do I love learning nasty words from different lands? -- WickedBuffy, 10:07:10 07/14/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Went to the Dictionary and... -- Celebaelin, 02:43:35 07/14/03 Mon

Nonce means nothing or just for the moment (just for the nonce) so shadowkat's 'idiot' seemed a fair enough interpretation although it did originally cross my mind that it was a corruption of ponce (which I think can also mean pimp).

Interesting that you would find sod more offensive than bugger but I think that most people would regard either as derogatory in intent with a possible side order of defamatory as well. Unlikely to be thought of as endearing jocularity would be my appraisal.

I agree that I don't find Spikes regular usage of "Bugger!" offensive, more amusing if anything but compared to many people I'm somewhat de-sensitised to expletives, being the proud owner of a WASP "Animal, I F**k like a beast" CD (I'm not being coy, that is the official title).

C

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sod Vs Bugger -- O'Cailleagh, 16:01:12 07/14/03 Mon

It wasn't the word 'sod' that I take exception to, (actually I'm quite fond of it) but 'sodomy' as a term for gay sex, as it originates-so I am led to believe-from the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Not that I'm overly familiar with the myth, but the gist of it seems to be that Yahweh decided he didn't like all the hedonism going on in the towns and went all Destructo-Boy-hence the offensive. By association, the terms 'sodomy' and 'sodomite' imply that homosexuality is inherently wrong (which it clearly isn't...cos of the fun!)
I always think of 'sod' as meaning a clump of earth, although I am aware that it is most probably a derivative of 'sodomy'.
While I am not sure of the actual origins of 'Bugger', I've never considered it to have the implications associated with 'sodomy'. Nowadays it means nothing more than 'scamp' in common parlance.

While I'm here, 'nonce' really does mean paedophile, I wasn't aware of its Shakespearian era meaning, but I think that it should be considered as being two different words as their meanings are so different.
Also, you may be right with the pimp/ponce thing as a pimp does tend to leech money from his girls, which is the meaning of ponce. Mostly.

O'Cailleagh

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nonce -- Rahael, 02:48:50 07/14/03 Mon

I thought nonce did have a offensive meaning connected to sex - hence the notorious Brass Eye episode which got a celebrity to wear a t shirt saying 'nonce sense' and bravely 'speak out' against the threat to children from evil people over the internet, just by getting kids to touch the screen!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're probably right but I'm unaware of any specific sexual meaning -- Celebaelin, 02:59:53 07/14/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Nonce" is someone who rapes children. -- KdS, 03:28:22 07/14/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: -- Rahael, 03:38:35 07/14/03 Mon

Yes, that was what I was trying not to say out loud. I don't know why I didn't spell it out. I think I just found my inner prude.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Clarification on "nonce" where I found it -- s'kat, 08:48:32 07/14/03 Mon

I was on ASSB (Angel's Soul) and someone used "nonce"
over there as another word for idiot. Someone else came back and said, "uhm you don't want to use that word casually". They said why? (apparently they'd gotten it from one of Giles' swear words at Spike - I think they misheard Giles in First Date say "nonce" when he'd said "ponce".)
At any rate, the response was: according to the internet
dictionaries they'd googled - nonce means sexual deviant or person who hustles for sex with children. The other person was aghast. Apologized profusely and said they really didn't know that, they thought it meant idiot. Oh for that, said the respondent, you mean ponce.

The ways we can misinterpret and misunderstand just by inserting an "n" instead of a "p" to a word. Amazing.
Now if something as simple as that can happen and offend, it's not surprising that tone can do the same. Words if misused can create horrible misunderstandings.

sk

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Boy, am I behind the times -- Cleanthes, 12:21:29 07/14/03 Mon

I thought "nonce" was just a Shakespeare word:

"POINTZ.
Tut! our horses they shall not see,--I'll tie them in the wood; our visards we will change, after we leave them; and, sirrah, I have cases of buckram for the nonce, to immask our noted outward garments."

Henry IV pt.1, Act 1, Scene 2.

Of course, this is rather a suggestive passage, implying cross-dressing, I think.

Nonce means "for then once", though, as far as I ever heard before today. You all corrupt my innocence.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What are ya'll doing with my word?!? -- Random, 16:59:24 07/14/03 Mon

I've used nonce on several occasions, primarily in the context of "nonce word," which is, in essence, a neologism, a word created for the specific occasion it is first used at (and generally implies spontaneity.) Insofar as the non-slang term goes, it pretty much means "contemporaneous, for the occasion," at least here in the States.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: cute -- aliera, 04:27:10 07/15/03 Tue

There went my coffee... and keyboard.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Clarification on the butt-monkey thing -- KdS, 02:56:41 07/14/03 Mon

This goes back to a discussion a long time ago about Xander's character development in which "butt-monkey" was being hurled about by just about everyone as a synonym for powerlessness and incompetence. I suggested that it was a questionable term given that it's based on the assumption that being sexually penetrated is the ultimate horror and humiliation for a man, which assumption gives rise to all manner of unpleasant social phenomena (and that speech of Xander's is so stuffed full of homophobic metaphor and gay panic that you have to wonder what it says about him). It's weird, I have no problem with the casual use of the word "bugger" because its original meaning of "person involved in anal sex" has become so utterly secondary. "Butt-monkey", on the other hand I maybe felt more sensitive to because it was so unfamiliar to me before.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Clarification on the butt-monkey thing -- O'Cailleagh, 16:07:31 07/14/03 Mon

Ah! Now I understand...I thought it was because of a different meaning in the British usage..which of course doesn't really exist.
Yeah, in this context I totally agree with you. Butt-monkey shouldn't really be used as a jokey insulty thing!

O'Cailleagh

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Interesting fact about Hyenas -- Celebaelin, 03:14:26 07/14/03 Mon

Female Hyenas have a sort of false penis (anatomically I've no idea what it's formed from, I'd be guessing embryological knowledge or no) I believe these organs, and the female Hyenas themselves, are actually larger than their male counterparts and the females settle pack pecking order by physically demonstrating domination over each other and the males (to what extent the males can exert dominance is unknown to me). Xander may have enjoyed his sojourn in Hyenaland even less than is apparent and he may be determined that this will not be a metaphor for the rest of his life.

I really hope that this doesn't turn out to be the nature documentary equivalent of an urban myth.

C

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hyenas -- KdS, 03:29:56 07/14/03 Mon

I read a Steven Jay Gould essay on this, and apparently the female hyena's "false penis" is a very enlarged clitoris (the two start off as the same thing embryologically).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's what I would have guessed -- Celebaelin, 05:01:52 07/14/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> monkeys in prison -- WickedBuffy, 10:27:43 07/14/03 Mon

I just took the term in the context of Xander being at Dracula's beck and call, with no say in it at all.

And it's parallel in prison life when the prisoner with the most power has another prisoner as a type of "slave". The most powerful one completely dominates a weaker one, using the latter in many ways, most infamously (especialy in movies and tv) for sex.

It wasn't a direct sexual term as much as it was a reference to a type of relationship, the kind portrayed in some prison situations. Dracula had complete power over Xander.

I hope I explained that correctly, I know it is a hot spot for some and want to be sure I'm respecting their feelings as I clarify how I took how the term was used in that episode.

[> [> [> [> Re: *koff* -- translation, please?, 17:57:54 07/13/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> I don't understand the post, either. -- B.S. Fabulist, 10:33:12 07/14/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, trying to be charitable here, but -- Rahael, 17:30:43 07/14/03 Mon

I'm not surprised you don't understand either, since you are the same person. And that's rather the point of KdS's post isn't it?

[> Oh the bitter irony. -- O'Cailleagh, 19:51:44 07/13/03 Sun

Well, I think the experiment may have gone horribly wrong lulu, 'cos it seems to me that this post about kudzu has actually mutated into kudzu itself.
And it seems to have ensnared me with its sticky tendrils and triffid like grasp. (No, you're right, I've never even seen a picture of kudzu, have no idea what it actually looks like)
My main worry though, is that it seems to be working in tandem with the Voynak beastie, maybe some kind of symbiotic relationship..I don't know, and at this early stage, its difficult to tell. One thing is sure though, its pushed a number of threads into the beast's salivating maw.
Of course, now I'm being held by it as well, I can try to implement my 'Little Shop of Horrors' -esque plan and destroy this plant from the inside. Or I could sing about dentistry.

O'Cailleagh Krelbourn

Buffy's Spiritual Journey 1.4 (Teachers Pet) -- manwitch of the weak behind, 13:18:32 07/12/03 Sat

Teachers Pet is not one of my favorite episodes. I like Nicolas Brendanís performance. He shows for the first time his considerable comedic talents. But beyond that, I find the episode a little tough to figure out.

But I will start with the things I think are pretty clear.

In this episode we find out that Willowís last name is Rosenberg. So her full name is Willow Rosenberg. So whatís in a name? Willow is the name of a tree. We will be reminded of that a couple of times throughout the series. Characters will specifically mention that ìWillowî is a tree. The significance of a tree, it seems to me, is that it grows, it develops, one might even say it flowers. A tree is the result of a remarkable series of transformations, as it goes from potential in a tiny seed to beautiful fulfillment. Also, the tree grows in two directions. There is what we see on the surface, but there is also just as much beneath the surface, that we canít see, but that is indispensable to the growth of the tree. The tree has what we might call ìroot support,î which is coincidentally the name of the first Chakra in Kundalini yoga. So the tree can be thought of as a metaphor for spiritual growth and transformation It addresses both consciousness (the tree we see) and the subconscious (the root support). And you cannot have the flowering transformation if you do not have the nourishment that comes from developing the roots. But Willow also is a specific tree, sometimes referred to as the ìWeeping Willow.î Weeping of course suggests compassion, arguably the core value of any spiritual or religious experience. Compassion is the recognition of shared suffering.

By giving Willow the last name ìRosenberg,î they have implied that she is jewish. It has not been explicitly stated yet, but eventually it will be. They are not just offering a nod to religious diversity here. Willow is being explicitly linked to a religious system in a way that none of the other characters are. So I think Willowís name is our first indication that she will be, at some level, the voice of Buffyís spirit. While I am no authority on religion, I did recall something from a book used in an old survey of religions course. The book is called The Way of the Torah,, and the author, Jacob Neusner, describes what he calls ìa Judaismî in this way:

It is ìa single religious system composed of three elements: a world view, a way of life, and a social group that, in the here and now, embodies the whole. The world view explains the life of the group, ordinarily referring to Godís creation, the revelation of the Torah, and the goal and end of the groupís life in the end of time. The way of life defines what is special about the life of the group. The social group, in a single place and time, then forms the living witness and testimony to the system as a whole and finds in the system ample explanation for its very being.î

If youíll forgive my belaboring the point, this is applicable to Buffy in a number of ways. There is clearly a ìworldviewî to the Buffyverse, a worldview that is distinct from the one that most of the normal people on the show are familiar with. Within that worldview, there is a required way of life for Buffy, although in Season 1 she is attempting to side step it and to live in the worldview of the normal people. And there is of course, the social group that embodies the whole and forms the living witness. Giles, Xander, Willow and Buffy embody the whole and are the testament to this way of life that is Buffy, a way of life based yes on ethical commitment, but primarily on a spiritual commitment within this worldview.

But this is also applicable as the metaphor reflects back to the viewer. The show advocates a worldview for us. It is a worldview based on a spiritual commitment to humanity that we are all invited to share. The show advocates a particular way of life. And it also recognizes this way of life and this worldview as social activities. Our spiritual growth and expression is not private, it is social. Our social connections are what call us to this way of life in the first place, our social connections are the relationships through which we express this commitment, and our social connections are the witness to this commitment. Buffy the series will emphasize the social group and its function in this spiritual way of life repeatedly, to the degree that these social relationships, the social bond, will influence identity itself. One does not achieve spiritual bliss in isolation.

And that is partly because spiritual bliss is the recognition that the isolation is illusory. Behind our manifest forms and experiences is a reality that outlives us all, but that nevertheless we are. I couldnít help but think that was being referred to as science class began. Dr. Gregory refers to something that will be here long after we are gone. He turns out to be talking about ants, but his intro to it suggests again the relationship between mortality and immortality that has been regularly alluded to all season long. And what is the key to this ìimmortalityî of the ants? It is touch. Contact. Connection. I think there is a metaphor for human immortality here. Partly because through touching another, connecting to another, we momentarily break past the mortal forms and identities that separate us, but also because when we are touched by another, the effect of that touch lives on in us, even after the one who touched us is gone. Its as if the touching never stops. They become part of us, so that we aren't simply ourselves anymore but in someway are both together. Just as we live on in the people whose lives we have touched, even when we are no longer present. And such is the case with Buffy and Dr. Gregory.

Dr. Gregory tells Buffy, ìLetís make them eat that permanent record.î We donít have to stay ìpermanentlyî who we are, or who we are supposed to be. We can change. We can be transformed. Buffy sees herself as DestructoGirl. Thatís how her permanent record defines her. But in Dr. Gregory she finds someone who perceives her differently. This touches Buffy deeply, and the effect of that touch continues long after Dr. Gregory is gone. This is why Buffy tenderly returns his glasses, the glasses through which he saw her differently, to his breast pocket, even though he is dead.

This touches Buffy because she wants and needs to see herself differently. We might think of Buffy in this sense as a perception distorter. The issue in this episode is not so much SheMantis, but how willl Buffy see herself. Will she believe in and stagnate with the distorted perception that is DestructoGirl or will she transform herself into the realization of her creative potential? Will she allow this perception distortion to perpetuate itself through the consuming and corrupting of her own pure, innocent and impressionable heart? Or will she use that purity to create something new?

It is clear that Buffy is inspired by Dr. Gregoryís brief insight. And interestingly enough, it is in this episode in which she seems for the first time to recognize that she could perhaps be someone else that we see the first indications of her feelings for Angel. There is a mystery to Angel. Somehow he is connected to that strange and enchanted world that she is being asked to join but that she has been resisting all season thus far. And she finds in this episode that she desires him. While she consciously rejects the world of mystery, she recognizes at a much deeper level that there is something about that world that she wants. And Angel gives her a trapping from that world, a jacket, that ìlooks betterî on her. This messenger from the spiritual realm is giving her an outward sign to remind her always of her inward purpose, to let her know that the spiritual life she is resisting will, in fact, suit her quite well.

Buffy ultimately hacks She-Mantis (read DestructoGirl) to pieces. And Xander the pure destroys its eggs. All but one. Does that final egg represent a different sort of creativity? Perhaps the creative potential that Buffy can still unlock within herself to give birth to her new identity? Or is it indicative of the draw, the hold of the perception distortion, that can still come back to reclaim her if she does not commit fully to her spiritual way of life? Or, perhaps, is it a cool X-files type moment?

At any rate, the show has once again highlighted themes of the relationship of mortality to immortality, of the relationship of birth (sex) and death. To give birth to something new, something old must die. Its an endless cycle. Dr. Gregory reminds Buffy, quite pointedly, to read ìChapters six through eight.î The line comes through in such boldface type, that I found it difficult to resist a quick check of the Old Testament, the first book of Moses, Genesis, chapters six through eight. It is exactly the story of Noahís flood, from the start of the rain to the return to dry land. The wiping clean of one thing, and the start of something new. They say goodbye to the spiritless and begin a new life of spiritual commitment.

Buffy is starting to hear the rumblings of her spirit and to realize that if she truly wants to, she really can start a new life.

The Top Ten Percent (so far)

1 Witch
2 Welcome to the Hellmouth
3.Teachers Pet
4.The Harvest
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

[> Tara's Harp -- Cleanthes, 15:15:46 07/12/03 Sat

So whatís in a name? Willow is the name of a tree.

I've mentioned this before, but I think it is so cool that the Harp That Once Through Tara's Halls the soul of music shed, was made of willow wood.

http://www.worldinfozone.com/country.php?country=Ireland&page=2

[> [> Willow. A Tree. -- O'Cailleagh, 16:26:33 07/12/03 Sat

Willow. The Comforter
Polarity-Feminine
Element-Water
Planet-Moon
Deities-Kuan Yin, Artemis, Hecate, Persephone

White Willow (salix alba) Deciduous.

Other species include weeping, bay, purple, grey, and goat.
The White Willow is the largest and can easily reach 70-80 feet. They rarely reach this height because they are usually pollarded. Pollarding is usually done for the production of withy branches (or osiers) used for basket making and fences.
The Anglo-Saxon 'welig' (willow) means pliancy.
It is no coincidence that the practice of using the pliant branches of willow for basketry is known as wicker-work. Wicker coming from the same (etymological) roots as Wicca (all meaning to bend and shape).
The willow's relationship with water and the moon links it to emotion and feeling. It has long been known as a symbol of grief in that deserted or forsaken lovers would wear a garland of willow to mourn for their lost love. The association with grief is actually because of the comforting properties of the willow, it cares and protects like a mother. It is a healing tree, healing through the ability to withstand pain and to refine it. To continue with this theme, it is appropriate that the pain reliever aspirin is derived from the willow.
The lesson that willow teaches is that of flexibility, flow with life rather than resist, accomodate rather than confront.
Also through its connections to the moon, willow again becomes linked to Witchcraft, indeed the traditional Witch's besom, or broom, is bound by willow bark. It is a magickal tree, one of inspiration and enchantment.
It is also a symbol of purification and rebirth, staves cut from it will almost always put out new roots and grow to form a new tree. An old country saying is 'The willow will buy the horse before the oak will buy the saddle', a reference to the speed of growth of the willow.
It is believed that Orpheus, one of the most celebrated poets of ancient Greece, recieved his gifts of communication and eloquence by carrying willow branches down to the Underworld. He was then presented with the lyre by Apollo, and he instructed the Muses in its use. A bas-relief in a temple at Delphi portrays Orpheus leaning against a willow, reaching out to touch the branches.

I'll stop there for fear of boring people, but there is a lot more on the symbolism and folklore of the willow, some of it deliciously appropriate...if enough people want it, I'll post it.

O'Cailleagh

[> [> [> Re: Thanks to all -- aliera, 17:56:51 07/12/03 Sat

Really enjoyed the original post AND the follow-ups. Thanks!

I walked among the seven woods of Coole:
Shan-walla, where a willow-hordered pond
Gathers the wild duck from the winter dawn...

[> [> [> Dude. this is so freakin' cool -- manwitch, 18:06:00 07/12/03 Sat

I know I'm a nerd, but I love this stuff. If there's more, let's have at it.

As you say, it is deliciously appropriate, and raises yet again the question of "when did they know?" Did the story tell itself, or did they know from the get-go? Not that the question can or should be answered. But its just amazing how much is already there at the beginning.

Thank you very much for this post.

[> [> [> [> More on Willow. (Some parts may be unsuitable for younger readers) -- O'Cailleagh, 14:08:34 07/13/03 Sun

About the Kundalini issue...keep it up, I'm loving the parallels! Also, my priestess tells me that the chakra system is very similar in many ways to the Qabala and the Tree of Life-don't know how right she is, while I'm quite conversant with chakra work I find the Qabala odd and cannot get into it at all (thats not to imply that it is an invalid tradition, just one that I can't work with!).

On to the tree-lore.
Many ancient Goddesses are associated with the willow, including Persephone, Demeter, Helice, Belili and Hera. The mother and daughter Goddesses, Persephone and Demeter had a sacred grove of willows and poplars that was situated in far western Tartarus.
Helice was associated with the willow through Her water magick. Because Zeus loved Her, His consort, Hera, changed Helice into a She-Bear in a fit of jealousy, and then placed Her in the heavens as the Great Bear (linking Her to Artemis). Helice's priestesses were said to use willow in all their water magick and Witchcraft, and the faerie form associated with the willow in those times was the Heliconian, named after Helice. The Heliconian was the muse held most sacred by the poets of the time.
The infamous Greek sorceress, Circe, had a riverside cemetery planted with willows dedicated to Hecate and Her moon magick. In this cemetery, male corpses were wrapped in untanned ox-hides and left exposed in the tops of the willows for the elements and birds to consume. Circe's cemetery more than hints at the darker sides of the willow's usage, as do the Spartan ceremonies associated with Artemis, where a male celebrant would be bound with willow thongs to a sacred image or tree trunk and flogged until the lashes produced and erotic reaction and he ejaculated, fertilizing the land with his semen and blood.

The Sumerian Goddess Belili was a Goddess of trees, especially the willow. She also ruled over the moon, love and the Underworld. As a willow Goddess, She resided over springs and wells, until She was superceded by Her willow God consort, Bel. Bel was later assimilated by the Celts as the Sun god Belin Who gave us Beltane.
Another example of such supplanting is found in the legends of Anatha, a form of Athena or Anat, Who had a willow cult at Jerusalem. She was ousted by Yahweh and His priests (much as they had done previously with His wife Yareah) who then claimed the 'rain making' willow as Yahweh's tree at the Feast of the Tabernacles.

Hecate, the most powerful of the willow and moon Goddesses, was descended from the Titans, and was the only one of them to retain Her power after being adopted by the Greek pantheon. She taught sorcery and Witchcraft, and frequented crossroads and tombs. Her totem was the dog, and She was associated with Cerberus, the three headed Guard Dog of the Underworld.
Through association with The willow/sun God Bel and his derivatives, we find many young sungods being set afloat in baskets of willow, to be found by people who raise them to maturity.
In the Bible we find reference to the weeping willow, which droops its head to mourn the captivity of the Jews. I believe aliera posted the quote from psalms 137:1,2 (also Boney M, but we won't go there!).
Apparently, there is a lot of Jewish folklore connected to the willow. Unfortunately I don't know any of it!

Information in these willow posts came from 'Tree Wisdom' by Jaqueline Memory Paterson, 'Cunningham's Encyclopaedia of Magickal Herbs' by Scott Cunningham, 'Magickal Guardians' by Philip Heselton, and 'The Enchanted Forest' By Yvonne Aburrow. A few bits also came from memory.

O'Cailleagh

[> [> [> Re: Willow. A Tree. -- jane, 23:39:47 07/12/03 Sat

This is so neat! I love the way Willow's name foreshadows her path in the coming seasons. The Willow tree has depth as well as breadth. It reaches into the darkness of the earth and lifts its head to the sky...everything is connected...

[> [> [> [> Lessons - -- Darby, 06:57:42 07/13/03 Sun

When Joss went to shoot in England, it rained pretty much the whole time they were there, but the one scene they made sure to film outside was with the Paraguayan flower.

What kind of tree were they under?

Oh, and manwitch, with all of the backside references currently on the Board, is "weak behind" a typo or a pun?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Lessons - -- manwtich, 08:23:35 07/13/03 Sun

I meant to be saying that I was a week late, and the reason was because my ass was tired. Then it was followed by a whole thread about bum fondling. Sounds envigorating.

[> [> [> water, moon, grief, magic -- manwitch, 08:21:33 07/13/03 Sun

I am particularly struck by these associations, all of which apply to season two. Chakra two in kundalini yoga, to which I link the arc of season two, is about recognizing the importance of the passions, but also recognizing that they are not your sole motivation, to acknowlege your passions, but not be ruled by them. Chakra two is associated with the element water, and in the iconography used to illustrate the kundalini system, the symbol for the water element is oddly enough the moon.

So its very intriquing to me this association of water, moon, grief and magic around the willow tree. Obviously the season deals with the grief of lost love. Buffy loses Angel twice. She is both the spurned and the spurner. Water appears everywhere throught the season. And Oz the werewolf, ruled by the moon, comes to fruition as a love interest for willow, at basically the same time she starts her foray into magic, the very magic that will restore Angel's soul and allow Buffy to once and for all let her passions pass through her without controlling her actions.

And all this was in her name from the start.

And, just a quick apology to people. I know I'm kind of stuck on this yoga idea. I truly do not believe that it is the only thing going on in the show or the only thing worth talking about, but I think the general scheme worked, and now I am basically going through these episodes from the beginning, like others on the board, but my focus is to look for just how detailed the connection is. Is it just general themes? How deeply integrated into the writing is this concept? So that's what I'm trying to work out for myself. I do cringe every time I write the word chakra or kundalini, and there are days when I even roll my eyes and say, "enough already." But I am too interested in following it through. Input like the post from O'Cailleagh are extremely exciting and helpful to me. So, my apologies to all the people who are done with it. I recognize my obsession. But like booze, I have to keep at it.

[> [> [> [> Re: -- aliera, 09:37:26 07/13/03 Sun

Just speaking personally, I've been watching for these posts and enjoying them. And you may be framing through yoga, but the connections you're working with run back and forward and through many things... hope you continue.

By the rivers of Babylon
we sat down and wept
when we remembered Zion.
There on the willow-trees
we hung up our harps.
WillowMyth

[> [> [> [> More on Willow Rosenberg -- Caroline, 12:30:56 07/13/03 Sun

Please donít stop posting on this topic. Iíve really enjoyed these posts recently but RL has not left me much time to respond.

I think that there is another play on the name of Willow Rosenberg ñ it refers to the kabalah, the hebrew tree of life. The root of the tree is earth (malkuth in hebrew, malkut in Arabic, both meaning kingdom), and one goes by various pathways to the crown (kether). These pathways have several attributions ñ those of the tarot, the traditional astrological planets (from the Sun to Saturn ñ the gods), the tarot, and the Hebrew/Arabic/Greek and Coptic alphabets. The alphabet itself also has numerical attributions which can be applied to the tree. This is a very simplified explanation of the kabalah but one can see the esoteric links from myth to letters/language to numbers to astrology to tarot to magic. There is also a psychological link underpinning to all of this ñ myth is the original psychology that the ancients used to understand themselves and their world. The kabalists say that whoever possesses the key to this knowledge can communicate with spirits and command the natural forces and that is exactly what Willow does. She consciously causes change to occur in her environment in conformity with her will. (Manwitch, you may be also interested to know that in hindu astrology, which is linked to kundalini, the energies of the charkas correspond to the energies of the 7 traditional astrological planets in hindu astrology.)

I find it interesting that the kabalists often warn against the misuse of power, particularly the hallucinations and flights of imagination of the waking state. The kabalists compare these people to drug addicts or drunks. In Wrecked, we saw Willow succumb to this and we see the MagiCrack metaphor. Despite that, I still do not believe that the metaphor as it was dramatically conveyed properly expressed the truth of Willowís experience.

I have no direct evidence but I deduce from the show that the writers do have specific knowledge not only of myth and psychology but also more esoteric subjects. In S6, when Tara and Willow discuss the timing of the resurrection spell, Tara refers to the time being right because mercury is in retrograde. Mercury is in astrological retrograde usually 3 times annually for a period of 3 weeks. Mercury is the psychopomp, he escorts souls of the dead to the other world. In retrograde, he escorts souls from the other world back to earth. This little, seemingly thrown-away, sentence required both a knowledge of astrology and mythology. So I donít think that we are pulling these interpretations out of thin air.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: More on Willow Rosenberg -- manwitch, 13:09:47 07/13/03 Sun

I have neither the desire nor self control to stop posting on the topic, although, as you point out, real life can sometimes get in the way. I just don't want anyone to think I'm completely oblivious to how much else there is to talk about.

That said, thanks for this post. Still more stuff. I thought there was a very specific tree metaphor for the spiritual life. Is there something called the tree of yoga? I feel like I've heard the phrase but have not been able to track it down. Not that I've given it a real professional effort or anything. But the tree of life is perfect. Given Willow as Buffy's spirit, she represents the tree of Buffy's spiritual life and its passage from spiritual sleep to bliss.

Anyways, as you are well aware, the root/earth (spiritual sleep) to the crown (bliss) dovetails quite nicely with my kundalini obsession. But also the many "psychology" references that circulate around Willow, from her parents to the classes she takes, suggest again that much of this story is intended to be read psychologically, not simply as the unfolding of linear events. It points to much more than it shows.

I know nothing about astrology, and certainly not hindu astrology, beyond knowing that someone who was into it told me that since I was a gemini, I must get bored easily and rearrange the furniture a lot and read the end of books first. Point for the astrologer.

[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL -- Rahael, 13:19:05 07/13/03 Sun

I too am a gemini, and I do regularly re-arrange furniture and nearly always peek ahead to the end, and of course, spoil myself silly for tv shows.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: More on Willow Rosenberg -- Caroline, 16:20:51 07/13/03 Sun

The 7 chakras are also known as the tree of life in hindu cosmology. The serpent energy lies at the bottom of the spine and, when awakened, climbs to the crown or sahasrara. There are mysticists who have found correspondences between the 7 chakras and the 10 keys of Kabalah (keys 4-6 are conflated to the anahata or heart chakra and keys 9-10 are conflated to the root chakra).

I agree with you about Willow being some sort of measure for Buffy's spiritual growth. The hindu concepts of the soul, which correspond to the chakras, range from the sthula sarira (corresponding to the root chakra or muladhara) the animal soul, the soul that sees and perceives, to the atman, (corresponding to the sahasrara or crown chakra) the highest Self. I think that there certainly is some correspondence between the challenges that Willow/Buffy undergo, both spiritually and psychologically. For example, in S6, both Buffy and Willow struggled with their buddhi, their life force (ajna chakra) each of them not wishing to live yet managing to find a way to once again deal with the world. In S5, both Buffy and Willow faced challenges to their intuition or higher manah in order to save someone they loved.

I wrote a post on Willow from a psychological perspective at the end of S6 if you'd like to read it, I think it's in the May 2002 archives. I won't repeat what I say here, merely to make the point that there are both spiritual and psychological elements at work simultaneously in the show that never cease to amaze me, because I personally feel that these elements are so inextricably linked anyway.

Since we're sharing our astrological backgrounds, I have several planets (though not the sun) in Gemini and I have the traits you mention - I do read the last page first, I frequently redecorate my house and I am easily bored. But I find the worst thing about Gemini is being able to have 2 contradictory responses to an event, or feel 2 completely opposite emotions about something. I'm always ambivalent (well maybe only sometimes) and it can really suck -sometimes!

[> Great point about the perception distorter -- Sophist, 16:30:38 07/12/03 Sat

[> Fantasy's role in the Spiritual Journey -- lunasea, 09:07:01 07/13/03 Sun

I can recommend some some exercises to strengthen that behind of yours if you want :-)

This summer I have started watching a show on NBC called "Scrubs." When I first heard about it, one word came to mind: lame. I have to admit that I got hooked. The main character, JD, has all these fantasies/day dreams that are intercut with his life because he has trouble dealing with that real life. Each episode is JD figuring out how to deal with things. It is a sit-com that isn't based on the situation, but totally on character development. The script is a lot like a Buffy episode. They take one issue and show it through the perspective of each character. The voice over at the end tends to be a bit over the top, but it is a commedy.

What does that have to do with "Teacher's Pet?" First one more show, this one written by ME over on the WB. The specific episode is even written by Greenwalt as well and is the fourth episode of the series' first season. Both episodes are equally under-appreciated. There is one line, that crystalizes both episodes, said by a certain character that will go nameless,

"This guy is too messed up to deal with a real woman and he canít stand that. So he creates a fantasy about a girl he barely knows. But eventually even she fails him. So he has to hurt her, because when he looks at her all he sees is how useless he is, how damaged..î

The other series tends to be a bit darker than Buffy, so shows a much darker side of this type of fantasizing, but what is going on in "Teacher's Pet" isn't quite "Scrubs" either.

"Teacher's Pet" revolves around Xander's fantasies, both about Buffy and Natalie French. Why does Xander have these fantasies? They are a normal part of growing up, but they are a coping mechanism. Xander cannot handle reality, so he is creating this fantasy. He got "one of the girled" last episode.

Xander is dreaming in class, a rather common occurance in high school. His fantasy is interrupted by real-life Buffy, the person he can't deal with. The stuff you said about ants is great. The only thing that I would add is that Willow gets to grope Xander in trying to communicate with Buffy. There are several fantasies in this episode: Xander about Buffy, Willow about Xander, Buffy about vampire, Xander about Miss French. Each of these fantasies are because the person cannot handle reality (Buffy/vampire is not a good thing Season 1)

Opening scene: Blaine questions Xander's manhood, so Xander puts on a show using Buffy and Willow. Willow has no problem playing along. She gets to act out a bit of her fantasy. Buffy plays along until her fantasy shows up. Xander's fantasy is once again interupted by what he can't deal with.

Actually there is one more fantasy Willow/vampire. Not saying she actually wants him, but she lives vicariously through Buffy. She wants Buffy coupled up. Then she can dream about it.

Giles complains about the weather. California weather tends to be a bit of a fantasy. Giles wants some variety, something more real.

When Buffy asks Xander about Dr. Gregory, he mentions "he cheerleaders were modeling their new short skirts." More fantasizing. Xander's fantasies almost messed up with Buffy's reality. She needs to find out what happened and shows little patience for Xander in this scene.

This whole thing is interrupted by the entrance of Miss French, who is shown through Xander's view point. His inability to deal is shown by his inability to speak or help her. Blaine swoops in and just steals Xander's fantasy away.

A quick note about the bad, a She-mantis that kills her mate. The demon tend to have something to do with what is going on with the characters. Just like "The Replacement" focuses on Xander, but really tells us why Buffy and Riley don't work, this episode is really about Buffy's fantasy.

Buffy believes herself to be the She-mantis. As she tells Giles, in WttH "For having to spend all of my time fighting for my life and never getting to tell anyone because I might endanger them?" Buffy is worried that her calling will hurt her mates (this time friends) and so she develops the fantasy she does surrounding the vampire. It is an important piece of the arc that will lead to the episode bearing his name and shows what is going on S1 with them.

The She-mantis needs a mate to fertilize her eggs. Fantasies can't grow on their own. They need us to fertilize them.

The resolution of this episode is Buffy killing the she-mantis, which will lead to her accepting a normal date with a normal guy next episode and getting away from her fantasy with vampire guy. Xander hacks away at the eggs, or nascent feelings he has for Buffy. He starts to appreciate her more than worship her. This is actually an important and overlooked episode in their relationship.

But vampire guy is more than just Buffy's fantasy. He is also representative of her accepting her calling, so at the end, they have to move things forward a bit. That isn't where the episode ends though. It ends back in school.

Still working on how fork guy fits into the fantasy motif. Blaine is pretty easy. Science is also easy. Science is supposed to be what debunks fantasy. Buffy does her homework in order to defeat the She-mantis.

[> Doing that preserving thang -- Masq, 20:41:09 07/13/03 Sun

[> took me this long to read the 1st post--better do my part to keep it here! -- anom, 23:36:50 07/13/03 Sun

Amazing again, manwitch--hope I'll have a chance to read the rest of the thread--& maybe even respond--tomorrow!

[> Preserving thread. -- Arethusa, 09:33:34 07/14/03 Mon

More July 2003 | Current board