June 2003 posts
Watchers
and what they believed (SPOLIERS FOR BTVS S7) -- cjc36, 05:21:44
06/01/03 Sun
So the Slayer is empowered by a demonic essence merged in the
first Slayer by tribesmen, the ancestors of the modern Watcher's
Council/Council of Watchers. What does this tell us about the
Council? Did they still know this demonic essence thing? And if
so, at the end of their existence, what did they actually believe
in? Why did they still fight? Christian-esque icons repel vampires.
Did the Council believe in any kind of 'mainstream' religion?
Did they fight to merely preserve the Current (Human) World Order
by molding the Slayer to fight the demons?
I had always imagined the Council to be a sort of 'white lodge,'
something akin to a Masonic order/Knights Templars, etc. But what
if they were more sinister? They employed killers and dirty-deeds
men. They probably messed with global markets and played power
broker behind the scenes and were the type of organization paranoid
types rail about on shortwave radio.
Could they also have been pawns themselves, manipulated by the
lovers of Chaos (The First and other related baddies) just like
any so-called 'Big Bad?' Or just simply zealots. And all sorts
of sins can be committed under the banner of righteousness. From
dialog in S7, they knew about The First (and seemed to not wish
to inform Buffy and Co. about it).
I guess I am asking What good were they? I do sort of regret the
early- on S7 destruction of the Council. I wish to know more.
The good/bad/not so pretty. But novels and 'tie-in' media will
now have to suffice; I can't imagine Angel dealing much with The
Council. They have their own stories to tell.
[> what good was the council?
(spoilers BTVS S7) -- pilgrim, 15:44:40 06/01/03 Sun
Good questions. Mostly unanswerable, unfortunately.
I think the organization as an organization must have had its
own traditions and in-house myths about its origins and purposes.
Perhaps the council held knowledge about the FE and even knew
about the apparent tie between the FE and the Slayer. But assuming
that it held that information, it clearly didn't know what the
information meant--how to use its knowledge to protect and maintain
the slayer line. It was clueless (Giles said) and impotent. And
as Buffy said, the good guys don't always communicate very well
with each other. The council was the biggest culprit on this point--apparently
it held onto information as a way of holding onto power. Not sharing.
And so, moral of the story, the council goes kablooy.
Since Angel next season apparently is going to offer stories about
powerful organizations and how (and whether)a firm's power corrupts
the individuals who work for the firm, or even corrupts the firm's
own purposes, we may get to explore your council questions in
a different context.
But what good did the council do? It nurtured Giles, if nothing
else, and it put Giles and Buffy together. Definitely a good thing.
Going on to talk a bit about Giles--
For me, the most unsatisfying ending of the series was the resolution
of Giles and Buffy's relationship. This season had such promise
in exploring the strains in the father/daughter and teacher/pupil
relationship, as the daughter/pupil grows up and away from the
father/teacher. And to a large extent the series lived up to that
promise. ME pushed Buffy and Giles past their breaking points,
and I think what the show did with both characters was bold and
emotionally real.
Giles moves from his comfort zone--horseback riding on the green
fields of Westbury and offering Willow sage advice--to a place
where he has lost nearly everything he counts on and believes
in. Council gone, friends dead, books blown apart. Understandably,
he wigs out. His anger, confusion, fear, and grief push him to
behave irrationally at times. Even when he tries to help as only
he can (for example, he gets props for going all the way to England
specifically for the purpose to find something to help Spike),
he blows it by betraying Buffy. He makes flash cards depicting
bloody and dying girls, showing his disturbed state of mind. He
slashes the throat of a bringer apparently without a thought.
He articulates his fear and desperation not by admitting that
he is afraid and desparate, but by advising, indeed pushing Buffy
to take up more of the burden. (Buffy does the same thing--she
articulates her fear and desperation by ordering the potentials,
Willow, and Spike to do more, get tougher, stop being stupid.)
Looking back on the season, all of this is great stuff. At the
time I was watching the shows, however, I couldn't grok Giles
because I kept waiting to see if he was really already dead, or
a pawn of the FE, or was being used for some other plot twist.
If we had been given some scenes, at least after Killer in Me,
showing that this really was Giles, and that Giles really was
suffering all of this anger and depression (perhaps during some
discussion with Willow), I would have bought into his emotional
ride completely. And his growing estrangement from Buffy would
have had a much clearer emotional resonance for me.
I cheered the moment in Chosen when Giles told Buffy that her
plan to share power was "bloody brilliant." Giles was
back! He wasn't a pawn of the FE after all! But I felt cheated,
too. I wanted ME to have hooked me into Giles' journey this season
more completely. The moment when Giles throws over his dead past
for a new and different future should have given me chills. And
it didn't.
[> [> Great points about
Giles. I agree. -- Sophist, 19:05:24 06/01/03 Sun
AICN
spoilers for Angel -- Dandy, 09:01:55 06/01/03 Sun
Ain't It Cool News has posted info of a script sent to them regarding
first season opener of Angel and Spike's first appearance.
Also, at Buffy Cross and Stake on the Angel board there is a thread
started by Jake on Sunday morning about the AICN posting. The
partial script is posted in this thread.
There is debate as to whether it is real or not.
What do you think?
Re: AICN spoilers for Angel
-- Alison (back on spoilers and lovin it), 12:05:51 06/01/03
Sun
If it is the real script..wow. If not, if ME comes up with something
remotely close to this good, I'll be happy.
url please? -- gillie (who
forgot to bookmark AICN last time), 12:22:08 06/01/03 Sun
[> Here -- s'kat, 18:20:18
06/01/03 Sun
Try www.slayage.com - it has the article link posted.
You can also see it at www.bigbad.net and
at the Spoiler trollop board on conversebuffy as well as on Angel
Soul Board and Buffy Cross and Stake.
The consensus is that it is a foiler - ie. fake. But go to the
spoiler boards to discuss. Not here. This is the safe zone. ;-)
Not real and...this isn't spoiler
board. Go to Spoiler Trollops -- s'kat (also back on spoilers),
13:02:22 06/01/03 Sun
While you did a good job of keeping anything concrete out
of your message - the temptation for others to add stuff, could
inadvertently spoil people.
There are many people who come to this board who are spoilerphobes
- ie, will avoid all spoilers no matter how minor, including casting
spoilers. And two of them actually archive the board. So be nice
to these poor souls and discuss it on the other boards.
I read the spoiler and nope, doesn't feel true to me. Aspects
of it might be. But all the writers are on vacation right now,
they aren't meeting until mid-June. They may have pitched a few
ideas to WB to get it renewed, but most pitch meetings include
about 20 some ideas and few if any of those get grabbed.
According to Fanforum the only two definite things at this point
(outside of the publicized casting spoilers) is:
1. Filming is starting in July
2. They are building new sets for Angel on the Buffy lots.
3. We'll get a new Angel episode earlier this year than we did
last year. Possibly mid-Sept.
That's it.
SK
[> Sorry about that
-- Dandy, 17:08:10 06/01/03 Sun
[> [> Don't worry - you
didn't spoil anyone -- s'kat, 18:30:06 06/01/03 Sun
You did a very good job of keeping it out of your post.
I was just trying to keep anyone else from spitting it
out by mistake.
The policy as I understand it is we can talk about spoilers in
shows that have already been seen as long as we put warnings and
don't put spoilers in the subject line, so people can avoid. We
can also do Well Known Casting Spoilers and Writer's spoilers
and Episode Title spoilers.
But try to refrain from posting actual spoilers for episodes not
seen yet.
I think it's all in the rules.
Don't worry, Rah is right, you didn't break any rules. I was merely
doing a preemptive strike against someone who might accidentally.
sk
[> As far as I know
-- Rahael, 18:17:54 06/01/03 Sun
Spoilers aren't banned here.Wasn't that the whole thing about
the warnings of "Well known casting spoilers" etc? There's
a spoiler policy linked above. Moreover, Dandy's message featured
no spoilers!
Rahael, unashamed spoiler trollop who doesn't go to any other
boards. Not even the Spoiler trollop board.
[> [> Re: As far as I
know -- s'kat, 18:25:19 06/01/03 Sun
Not banned. But this is more than a WKCS spoiler Rah, this is
actual foilage (ie could be a fakeout not clear) for the first
episode of S5 Ats. An outline/script has been leaked which may
or may not be fake. And
those are banned here. Dandy didn't mention it in hir
message, but I was trying to keep others from doing so.
I was certainly tempted to go into spoiler hints.
If you want to read it - go to www.slayage.com - see AICN.
I remember stating things on the board last year about Angel losing
his soul which was in Entertainment Weekly
and putting warnings in my post and getting blasted.
So was trying to keep people from feeling the pain this year.
[> [> [> Huh --
Rahael, 18:42:17 06/01/03 Sun
I can't remember the incident in which you got blasted for posting
properly marked spoilers, but that really really irritates me
when that happens.
Because the spoiler policy is very clear, and marked out in bold
both for the Spoiled and the non spoiled. There shouldn't be any
need for blasting anyone.
Of course, I can't link to it because Masq's site is down. Oh,
the irony!
[> [> [> [> [>It's
not important... -- s'kat, 19:10:18 06/01/03 Sun
It was last year sometime. And I might not have marked it well.
But I do remember Masq telling me to try to not post
spoilers from episodes no one has seen yet. (ie Not aired any
where in the world).
But hey, if the policy has changed? Let me know. ;-)More than
happy to discuss this baby. Although I re-iterate,
I'm pretty sure it's fake, a great fake, but fake all the same.
Yep - I'm back on the dope, going to be full-fledged spoiler trollop
for Angel this summer/fall. I want some certainity in my life
dang-it!!
[> [> [> ">Oh
yeah....now you went and hurt my Baby Spoiler Trollop feelings........;)
-- Rufus, 19:09:38 06/01/03 Sun
BTW.....it's a foiler up at AICN
[> [> [> [> ">Am
I right then Ruf? -- s'kat, 19:11:57 06/01/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> [>board space and spoilers -- Rufus, 20:00:12
06/01/03 Sun
The main reason I post the spoilers at the other board is to keep
the board here from losing good posts too soon for people to reply
to them. It's the one thing I hate about the Voy board....great
threads get bumped for stuff that should be on the Trollop board.
Then there is the problem of someone posting a spoiler with proper
warnings only to have someone in the thread shove a spoiler in
the message subject.
Someone posted the script section and it can be found on the Trollop
board here.....Tr
ollop Board
I think it's a foiler as it's just too soon for something that
detailed to be floating around....people can make up their own
minds.
MOLOJ has obtained
a portion of Joss's wife's prenup.... -- Rochefort, 00:10:32
06/02/03 Mon
Some of our spies obtained this. Maybe it will help the resistance.
It's only part of the document, so let me know if you find more.
Prenuptual Agreement of Mrs. Whedon
If I ever say "I love you" and you respond, "Love
you, too. I'll call you," do not expect it to take me the
rest of the year to stake you.
If I ever say "I love you" and you respond in falsetto
"This isn't real...but I just wanna feel," you will
feel me kick you in the crotch.
In the event that the marriage shall end, we shall each receive
50% of the assets. Unless you take your 50% to Los Angeles and
hook up with some ditz we knew in highschool. Then I get all of
it.
If I ever find a BOT in our house, even a bot of ME, and you tell
me it was just to play checkers with, I'll put marzipan in YOUR
pie-plate, buster.
If you ever make me run around on a field screaming "I love
you" while you're leaving in a helicopter going "la
la la la I can't hear you," I get everything!
Penises that have desieses from shumash tribes makes a cute line,
but if it happens, you aren't getting any.
I do not know how to become a vengence demon. Leave me at the
alter though, and I'll find a way.
****
But Joss also made her sign these... They get kind of creepy at
the end; you can really tell he's losing it.
If you ever leave me you have to say: "Take a good look at
this butt cause it's the last time you'll see it. Except when
it's me walking away from you, and even then, I'll probably walk
backwards" or I get everything.
Once a month you have to say "It's Joss. And he's wearing
the coat."
If I ever get bored and say "Tonight we're having dinner
with no dialogue" or "Tonight we're having MUSICAL sex"
you have to go with it.
If I ever become a fish person, you have to stay with me and provide
bath tub toys.
Ditto if I become a rat. I want those little tubes set up in a
maze to run around in.
If no one wants to buy Fire Fly, you have to let me act out every
damn episode in the living room. And clap.
Do not turn out to be a praying mantis who bites my head off during
sex. I don't think you are, honey. But just in case.
Sometimes stare intently at your I-Mac and if you ever want me
to go somewhere I don't want to go all you have to do is say "This
is my determined face. You've seen it before. You know what it
means" and I'll be putty in your hands.
"I do hereby understand that if Joss ever fails in sex that
it is because of the chip."
Once in a while put on a tight sweater and prowl around the house
going "ooooh, I'm going to stake you..."
Life is unpredictable. I gaurantee the major players in our mariage
will not die, but if something happens to say, your mother in-law...
well that's how it goes. Of course, if it didn't make us sad,
I wouldn't be doing my job.
Do not love the scoobies in the basement! They must remain unloved.
And in the basement! THEY ARE MINE! ALL MINE!
[> ">He's diabolical!
Where do I sign up for MOLOJ? -- dub ;o), 08:41:13 06/02/03
Mon
OT X-men/Once and Future King
query -- MsGiles, 04:08:16 06/02/03 Mon
I noticed a couple of references to TH White's The Once and Future
King in X-Men2, and I wondered if anyone familiar with the graphic
version of X-Men knows any background to this?
TOaFK is a version of the Morte D'Arthur, fantasy/historical in
setting but modern in feel and and language (though with conscious
archaisms). I wonder if there are some parallels with Buffy in
it.
The first part of the book, The Sword in the Stone, is much lighter,
and was published separately as a book for children. it's episodic,
and uses humour and metaphor to describe the learning path of
Wart, the future Arthur, as he is guided by Merlin through a series
of magical situations (and animal incarnations. OK that doesn't
happen to Buffy, could have been interesting though..).
As the book enters the adult part of the cycle, it becomes much
darker in tone. In some ways the whole of Arthur's adulthood seems
fraught by self doubt, mistakes, and appalling accident, and the
happy scooby grail-seeking round table is torn apart by suspicion,
lealousy and betrayal, particularly by the Lancelot/Guinevere
affair. Morgan le Fay kills a unicorn in a manner distinctly reminiscent
of Willow and the fawn (and of course she is a dark Arts specialist).
I read the book as a teenager and haven't re-read it recently
(could be on the list) but the feeling that I got as the Wart's
sunny (if fraught) childhood disappeared into the the pain and
anxiety of adulthood seems very like the feeling I've had from
S6, as Buffy and co move from dire but essentially solvable teenage
challenges, into a much more difficult scenario where they try
to cope with the adults they have become, with all their failings
and weaknesses. I found the book very hard to read at the time,
but it gave a lot of insight to the Morte d'Arthur when I finally
got to read that.
I seem to remember seeing the book in a list recently (was it
the 'Buffy' geek test?). Is it a Joss book? Why is it in X-Men?
Anyone enlighten me?
Perfume
(Book Melee time!)(tiny sp. 7.3) -- Tchaikovsky, 07:58:27
06/02/03 Mon
Hello everyone. I'm feeling very presumptuous at the moment. Strictly
speaking I suppose it should be Sara's job to start off the Book
Melee thread, but as I have an essay written, I'll have to hope
the Boss will excuse me for posting this to incite argument. Here
goes...
*********************
These quotes won't exactly be referred to as much as their thoughts
touched upon in the following essay. I don't want to short-change
the writers, but don't have any intention of discussing their
apposite aphorisms in much detail, so include them here as a pretty
little bibliography of inspiration. Forster, Suskind, KdS and
Clarke. Quite a quartet.
'Only connect.'
-EM Forster's inscription to, and mantra throughout, 'Howard's
End'
'Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic'
-Arthur C Clarke
'If your personality, cultural tastes or philosophical opinions
don't fit with the mainstream, it's easy to make yourself feel
good about it by believing that the mainstream is in itself inferior.
That most people just aren't as intelligent, or refined, or sensitive,
or moral as you are. It's a good way of keeping sane. When it
becomes toxic, though, is when you don't just accept that the
mainstream disagree with you, but that you start believing that
they are, literally or metaphorically, cast into outer darkness
for it. When you start believing that you're part of a tiny natural
aristocracy.'
-KdS, in his super post about how The Trio is not an abandonment
of the outsider.
'In eighteenth-century France there lived a man who was one of
the most gifted and abominable personages in an era that knew
no lack of gifted and abominable personages. His story will be
told here. His name was Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, and if his name-
in contrast to other gifted abominations, de Sade's for instance,
or Saint-Just, Fouche's, Bonaparte's, etc.- has been forgotten
today, it is certainly not because Grenouille fell short of those
more famous blackguards when it came to arrogance, misanthropy,
immorality, or, more succinctly, wickedness, but because his gifts
and his sole ambition were restricted to a domain that leaves
no traces in hostory: to the fleeting realm of scent.
-The beginning of 'Perfume'
*********************
First, I'd like to thank Sara for her superb organisation of this
Book Melee, which really appears to be getting off the ground
in a big way now. Secondly, I'd like to write a bit about why
I, (somewhat accidentally) got this book as the first subject.
I only mentioned it because I'd just read it, and had only just
read it because it was on a list of the 100 Greatest Books of
the 20th Century, run by Waterstones in 1997. The list is still
around here
. Looking through them, it may not be the greatest list ever
compiled, but my Father and I have between us now read more than
80 of them, with our ambition to finish them one day. This involves
one of us reading the Proust of course! One thing about the list
is that it has a tendency to be full of books that people took
for English courses, (the Orwell, the Forster, the Woolf), and
books that inspired films, (what other reason for the puzzlingly
high 'Trainspotting', and the appearance of the severely mediocre
'Jurassic Park' and 'The Horse Whisperer'). So this book is a
little bit of a bucking of the trend. Not only has it not spawned
a major movie, or been on any reading list for compulsory perusal
(except here of course!), but it also was originally written in
a foreign translation, which is quite unusual for the list. It
clearly has something a bit special going for it. The below is
my attempt to explain why this book might have ended up on this
list.
*********************
Suskind in this book achieves something a little bit magical.
He tells a story in which there are no relationships of any strength,
and no dialogue of any length. The focus is set on one person,
Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, and a fairly comprehensive story of
his unusual life. The reason for the isolation of Grenouille is
his difference in sensory perception from everyone else he's ever
met, and indeed from everyone we have ever met. It is not, like
the Trio, that his experience of life comes with an inability
to accept reality, and a tendency to hide in fantasy. His is not
a life hiding in Tolkien, or becoming James Bond. Instead, his
primary sense is that of smell, rather than the combination of
vision and hearing which tends to inform all we know and understand
about the world more deeply than the other three modes of awareness.
Of course, as my grandfather used to tell me with a look of revelation
in his eye, even on the 50th telling, smell is the most evocative
of the senses. A certain combination of smells can effortlessly
draw you back to somewhere you remember from decades ago, and
not only that but it tends to be able to re-create the emotions
you may have been feeling there. And yet our modus operandi as
human beings is almost always to steer, observe, and react from
sight. As we evolved, we developed the ability to speak, at which
time, being self-aware and becoming inter- dependent, another
sense, hearing, became important past its initial peripheral uses,
to hear birdsong, and hum to oneself in the shower, and its crucial
use in our early development, in helping us to hunt. Suskind here
asks us to challenge all that we have come to know about our senses
and their relative usefulness, asking- what if our primary mode
of understanding of the world were olfactory? In answering this
question, he creates a truly singular anti-hero, (if even that
is not too strong a compliment, at times he is merely a villain),
in Grenouille.
We see the whole of Grenouille's life, which has an important
symmetry, starting in the streets of Paris, and ending there,
a life later. Throughout the book, we are bombarded with descriptions
that make the faint-hearted (that would be me), seem a little
queasy. We are not exempted from the stench of Parisian life,
but thrown into it, including various grotesque moments such as
at the beginning, where Grenouille's umbilical cord is cut by
his mother's fish knife. From this point onwards, we start to
see what an exceptional wretch Grenouille is, and this is important.
From early on, the leading character does not share the characteristics
of the general populace, represented by his dead siblings. For
unlike the 'several' other children that 'Grenouille's Mother'
[never important enough to the story, indeed to Grenouille himself,
for her own name] gave birth to in the Rue aux Fers, Grenouille
both survives and screams. It is this exceptional stubbornness,
the tendency always to do the hardest thing in order to be selfish,
that remains a vital feature in understanding the man. For, while
other babies lose their neediness for others, transmuting it into
friendship, love, respect and mutual help, Grenouille's tendency
is to react against the world and cushion himself in an external
reality much different from anyone else's. It is as if being born
in this centre of smell has left such a mark on him that he cannot
disavow its importance, even while not smelling himself.
The characters that Grenouille meets along the way are as grotesquely
portrayed as he is, but in their case they are almost all glorious
failures, doing their best while being unextraordinary in an incredible
time. Each has an inflated sense of his or her self-importance.
We see them painted brightly, with a few rather haphazard yet
endearing brushstrokes, backed up by Suskind's strength in internal
monologue. Hence we have the wonderful holier-than-thou Father
Terrier, who quite happily dismisses superstition in a display
of intellectual superiority to himself, before being so thoroughly
shaken by the lack of smell of the baby that he worries about
a Devil Child. Whether Suskind postulates that religion is any
more than superstition is an argument perhaps worth having, but
certainly there is a suggestion that Terrier himself sub- consciously
equates the two. After this, we have the stern Madame Gaillard,
whose complete lack of smell seems to symbolise a loss of ability
to feel others' emotion and even humanity, an interesting symbolism
that I will return to later. Gaillard raises Grenouille without
argument, but, like all the other figures, never accepts him or
connects with him emotionally. Next we see the most elaborately
painted minor character, that of Giuseppe Baldini, the former
Italian perfume master. For the only time in the book, we twist
away from Grenouille for a while, in order to pick up the aroma
and feel of his perfume shop in Paris. Baldini is really a fraud,
and beyond that, a very haughty one. Not only has he only concocted
two notable perfumes in his life, those stolen from his father's
recipes, but also he seems aghast that anyone should dare to be
a better parfumier than himself. His complaints are rather the
analogue of the establishment at the gauche-ness of the nouveau
riche- it is not that other perfumers are any less deserving than
Baldini, (indeed they are far more, in some cases), but that they
have the temerity to try at all, not coming from a line of people
with supposed genius in scent. Of course, Baldini himself is a
dilettante. He has no real skill in scent, and long ago realised
that he never would have. It is his blusterousness and vanity
that keeps him going in life, until eventually he decides that
his life is just too hard as a perfumer, and that he'll retire
back to Italy. Enter Grenouille to transform his life.
The next pompous, glorious failure in the long list is the Marquis
de la Taillade- Espinasse, who has decided he is a scientist,
regardless of his inability to give any evidence to back up his
metaphysics of fluidum vitae. The poison of the ground
is dangerous, and that of the air wonderful, which is why we grow
away from it, he postulates. It takes the charisma of Grenouille,
arrayed with his new startling smell, to let his unsuccessful
career take off, before Grenouille leaves again for the capital
of scent, Graz. Finally, in Switzerland, he meets Richis' daughter
by scent, and then outwits Richis himself, the successful businessman,
by his almost magical ability to smell out movements. Richis is
clever, and undone by only one thing, his inability to believe
that the other player in business might be even subtler than himself.
He takes all the necessary precautions to rid his daughter of
the murderous pursuer except to check and throw out the seemingly
irrelevant, slumbering fool in the barn outside his inn.
All of these people, who have paltry talents in their fields,
have their ability to do what they do inflated by Grenouille,
only for it to crash down upon them again the moment Grenouille
leaves their lives. Grenouille's mother, finally able to give
birth to a child, fulfilling her purpose to finally give birth
to something, is so disinterested by her achievement that she
is charged with attempted infanticide and beheaded. Terrier is
given his first superstitious experience by Grenouille as a baby,
and yet it may undermine all the rather pragmatic Christian faith
that he has. Gaillard vindicates her ability to bring up any
child by her care of Grenouille, but in vindicating what she does,
Grenouille allows Gaillard to continue on her way of careful saving,
resulting in the loss of her money due to hyperinflation many
years later, and the loss of her only dream. Baldini, able at
last to be a famous perfumer, stores Grenouille's recipes carefully,
only for, as soon as he leaves, Baldini's house to collapse into
the Seine, foreshortening his plans. Grenouille validates the
Marquis' scientific argument, only to give him so much faith that
he arrogantly strides up the Pyrenees and clearly kills himself.
And Richis, while forced to even higher orders of planning by
Grenouille's guile, ultimately loses the one thing he loves, his
daughter.
Grenouille is both an initial blessing and a final curse on these
people. One wonders whether Suskind is puzzling through, in these
minor characters, the effect of someone exceptional on their lives.
In Grenouille's case, he appears to validate their existence,
by overcoming their flaws using his talent, only for everything
to collapse, (literally in Baldini's case), when it becomes clear
that Grenouille has imbued quite false and ridiculous things with
a certain credibility- the fake science, the fake genius nose,
the fake faith.
*********************
And so what of Grenouille himself? As I mentioned above, he is
not exactly cutting himself off from the world to live in a fantasy
land- it is just that his reality is based around a different
perception than ours. However, he is clearly morally at fault
for the sufferings of the families and the deaths of the girls
that he killed. There's a rather gothic comparison to all those
Potential Slayers. While Willow's flashy spells reveal Amanda,
and the Watcher's Council's presumably ponderous methods isolate
some others, here Grenouille sniffs out those girls whose aromas
particularly match. It's gruesome, and it's deliberately passed
with no judgement by Suskind, who, after his first paragraph above
where he directly brands Grenouille 'abominable' and 'misanthropic'
stays largely away from judging Grenouille, instead focussing
on his story and his ideas. A crux of Grenouille's life is: how
far can he be blamed for the murders he commits? I suspect that
the most common answer, (certainly my immediate one) is that he
is entirely responsible, is a despicable human being and died
not a moment too soon. That's certainly a point. Yet, people (and
I'm being very vague with law here, so excuse me), are in certain
cases able to plead insanity or infirmity as an extenuating circumstance
for their actions. In the case of Grenouille, what exactly does
he believe he is doing?
First of all, it is made clear early in the book that Grenouille's
speech and understanding of language, stretches only really to
nouns, and of these, only concrete nouns. This is a very important
point. Grenouille has no perception of love, (beyond the craving
for that perfect smell of the adolescent girl), murder, betrayal
or blackmail as concepts. He is an entirely selfish being. This
result is a mix of his complete isolation throughout, and the
way in which his other four senses don't seem to interest him
at all. For while we function with vision as our primary source
of information to the world outside us, the space in which we
live being defined by the pictures in our head, we are also often
swayed by noises, textures, tastes and smells in a way that Grenouille
never seems to appreciate. We do not at any stage stop to see
him appreciate a sunset or enjoy a Claret. So it is not only his
extraordinarily vivid sense of smell, but also his disregard for
his other senses that makes him what he is. Beyond that, the fact
that his smell is entirely receptive is important. Grenouille,
the ultimate connoisseur of smell, nevertheless gives out none
of his own. What does this symbolise? An empty character, devoid
of interest to others? A character so disinterested in communication
that he comes across as not existing in the very medium in which
he is most invested? In any case, it is another way of isolating
Grenouille's character.
In a vacuum, what is morally right or wrong for someone to do?
When we isolate ourselves completely, cutting ourselves off from
the world, nothing any longer has a moral stigma. So in the almost-decade
Grenouille spends, entirely isolated, in his cave in the Massif
Centrale, he has no responsibility, and no rights. His life does
not impinge on anyone else's in any way, and neither do theirs
on him. And yet, this complete dislocation ultimately sours. Grenouille
is overcome by a dual fear. First is his fear of drowning in his
own stench, as he does in his reverie as he concocts all the smells
he has stored in memory into the most beautiful juxtaposition.
This symbolises the idea of the danger of extended self-examination
above everything. Ultimately, it leads to a feeling of despair
and drowning in oneself. And so Grenouille comes to, only to realise
that in the real world, he has no scent at all. He is not at all
examined by others. And this genuinely, and for the first time,
annoys him. While working with Baldini, in a non-co-operative
yet symbiotic relationship, all he was interested in was how to
gain further knowledge of scent. Yet here he for the first time,
understands how little he has interacted with the world, how even
his scent, the one signature that Grenouille knows and understands
in every other object, animal, vegetable or mineral, has no effect
on others. It is a final acceptance that even he, even the most
morally anarchistic (or simply nihilistic, disinterested, uncaring)
person still craves acknowledgement. Grenouille will not play
out the rest of his days in his cave.
And so he, not for the first time, but perhaps the most successfully
of any character ever, decides to fashion other peoples' perceptions
of him. Because now, he finally feels he needs a certain acknowledgement.
He still has no interest in company, or communication, or certainly
of anything deeper. But he needs a certain validation for his
act. He sees how, with a limited palette in Montpellier, he is
able to become a figure of delight. And yet he wishes to go even
further. To gain a scent which can become the paragon of humanity's
scent, the smell, neatly combined that will make everyone so proud
to be human that they will instantly, without thinking in terms
of morality or judgement or retribution, love humankind for what
they are.
He does, and his own hanging devolves into an orgy, precipitated
by the mixed distilled smells of thirty dead female adolescents.
Grenouille has learnt to be the master of smell, yet learnt nothing
about human kind, we might draw from this text. And yet, it is
never that simple. Grenouille's ability, his extraordinary talent,
allows him to transcend petty moral issues and to engage in mind
control through his olfactory masterdom. And yet what does that
achieve knowing that he cannot claim interaction, acknowledgement,
except with his false perfume. It is not he as a person who has
won the admiration, but his skill, a skill entirely inhuman, except
through the pure joy of the perfect smells, and then only until
flouted by the ignorance of morality that allows him to kill the
girls.
It is not Suskind's intention, though, to paint Grenouille as
guilty at the end- as guilty for his actions, for his way of escaping
punishment, or for presenting himself as Messianic. For by the
end of the book, Grenouille has learnt something hideous- that
he still knows, in his heart, that underneath the playfulness,
the lying and the counterfeit, that he doesn't smell at all. That
he is unacknowledged. From the final section, part 4:
'From time to time he reached in his pocket and closed his hand
around the little glass flacon of his perfume. The bottle was
still almost full. He had used only a drop of it for his performance
in Grasse. There was enough left to enslave the whole world. I
f he wanted, he could be feted in Paris, not by tens of thousands,
but by hundreds of thousands of people; or could walk out to Versailles
and have the King kiss his feet; write the Pope a perfumed letter
and reveal himself as the new Messiah; be anointed in Notre-Dame
as Supreme Emperor before kings and emperors, or even as God come
to earth- if there was such a thing as God having himself anointed'
He could do this, but it would be not for himself. He, the exceptional
man, the freak, finally fails, and goes back to Paris, the stench
of the Rue aux Fers, to die as ignorant and isolated from humanity
as when he was born. We may not precisely sympathise with the
mass-murderer, but we understand how he feels- to be unable to
even find out if he could be rejected, because of his unique view
on life. Grenouille's death is a tragedy, not a victory, and ultimately,
in his despair at being unable to recognise his humanity, he becomes
human after all.
*********************
Which leaves the style. Suskind writes in those long Teutonic
sentences, almost begging that Word give him one of those green
squiggly lines which tells him his sentence is too long. It allows
a thought to perch, develop its awareness of its surroundings,
and then plunge down into the lake to retrieve the fish. And the
long sentences are symptomatic of the style of the novel. The
Daily Telegraph reviewer calls it 'An ingenious and totally absorbing
fantasy'. This took me a little aback. For, while Grenouille exhibits
a talent that may in reality by impossible, the world into which
he is drawn is very similar to our own, working within the same
rules as 18th Century France. How fantastic is this book? Is it,
like Germaine Greer claims for the winner of that Book of the
Century 'Lord of the Rings', a book which allows an escape form
reality? For me, not at all. For Grenouille is an archetype from
whom we can learn. Not to isolate ourselves. Although he has a
unique talent, his lack of communication, of love, of connection,
leave him feeling empty, striving for acknowledgement. And he
is almost human. Like Angel; a not- quite-human revealing so much
of what humanity must been. There are flawed human beings in this
novel, and no simple heroes or villains. To call the novel misogynist,
while perhaps tempting due to the deaths of the girls with no
consequences for the perpetrator, is overly simplistic, for the
book has deliberate strains of complete misanthropy. A distaste
for humanity that Grenouille's experience seeps through into the
third person dialogue. A hatred of Paris and the stench that leaps
through into the over-vivid, queasy-making descriptions. Grenouille
is not like-able, but we may be able to sympathise with him.
The novel is more a fable than a fiction. Although we may accept
on one level that Grenouille finds perfume-making, as Dawn might
quip 'smellementary', the olfactory idea, while intoxicating,
also acts as a vehicle for exploring interaction, or a lack of
it, in the story. It's unique-ness, why it has struck so many
people that it has been voted as the best thing written in the
last century, (although, frankly, a touch surprising to me), is
its singularity in involving a person who experiences through
smelling, the nice, somewhat cariacaturised drawings of the flawed
minor characters, and an enigmatic central character to whom we
may relate, but cannot condone at any stage in his journey.
I'm dying to hear other people's thoughts. Thanks for reading
so far in this little reflection, and for indulging me, (those
of you who have), by buying and reading a book just on my questionable
recommendation. Reading knowing there's so many people to argue
with afterwards increases the fun!
TCH
[> Great essay! I have so
much to say in response, but I don't have time...I'll do it later
today. -- Rob, thread preservationist extraordinaire, 08:32:45
06/02/03 Mon
[> Nicely done, TCH
-- dub ;o), 09:11:29 06/02/03 Mon
I haven't read the book in years, but you brought most of it right
back to me. It still squicks me out!
dub ;o)
[> Thanks for getting us
started! More later from me, too -- mamcu, 09:37:42 06/02/03
Mon
[> [> But for now, one
shorter question: why a frog? -- mamcu, 09:58:48 06/02/03
Mon
Thanks, Tch., for an excellent essay. You've touched on so much
that really matters. I want to comment on some of your points
soon, but first here is one question and semi-answer of my own.
Grenouille means frog in French. This is such a common word that
there's no doubt we're meant to understand it. So why is this
the protagonists' name? I don't yet have that figured out, but
here's where my thinking is right now.
Probably the most notable thing about frogs is their life cycle-egg,
tadpole, frog. It's called metamorphosis. Literary hint? Maybe
we're meant to be reminded of Kafka's Gregor Samsa, the man who
woke to find himself transformed into a beetle. In that sense,
we can also think about the frog's repulsiveness (nobody cuddles
froggies on their laps!), so that Grenouille, at least without
perfume, affects people as frogs do.
Grenouille also undergoes metamorphoses, one when he discovers
his gift and his curse and changes from unformed (egg-like) monster
to apprentice perfumer (tadpole?); another when he emerges from
his cave and finds his "mission"-and in a sense, he's
back to monster again.
I'm thinking there must be more to his name, but don't know much
about frogs. Hope someone else can shed some light.
[> [> [> I would say
he's reptilian -- Tchaikovsky, 10:04:38 06/02/03 Mon
...but I have in the back of my mind that frogs are amphibious,
so that wouldn't quite work! Your points seem as good as any-
I expect some other people will have thoughts on it, I'm drawing
a blank for now.
TCH
[> [> [> [> I wonder...
-- KdS, 12:32:45 06/02/03 Mon
If it was Grenouille in the original German version, because the
thing I immediately thought of when I read the book is that "frog"
is a derogatory term in UK English for a French person. Maybe
the German version gave his name as the French literal translation
of the German insult?
[> [> [> [> [>Having checked German Amazon -- Tchaikovsky,
12:53:03 06/02/03 Mon
at www.amazon.de, I find the review, (a very positive one, calling
it a 'masterwork in the great European tradition'), referring
to Jean- Baptiste Grenouille as in the English version. Although
I suppose it can't be ruled out that the Germans call the Franzoesisch
'the frogs' as well, I suppose. What we need is a real-live genuine
German...
TCH
[> [> [> [> My
fanciful slant on this -- Rahael, 13:00:23 06/02/03 Mon
(Though I like all the proferred reasons)
The frog, who is actually an enchanted prince is a common theme
that cropped up in my childhood readings - I wonder whether its
present in European fairy stories? I must check my edition of
Grimm!
Anyway, Grenouille's attempts to give himself the perfect, heavenly
scent is akin to an attempt for the frog to transform into a Prince
(which is what Taillard-Espinasse (sp?) does to him). There are
many mentions of his unprepossessing appearance, and the transformation
after he's been cleaned and dressed up - he looks into the mirror
and realises that he looks perfectly normal.
Plus those two beautiful young women he pursues are reminscent
of the princesses in the stories, and I always found something
creepy about the frog who demanded entrance into the bedroom of
the Princess, and demanded a kiss from an extremely unwilling
woman before he could turn into a prince....
[> [> [> [> [>Ooh! I just did a quick google -- Rahael,
13:02:43 06/02/03 Mon
which seems to suggest that the story of the frog prince is Germanic
in origin, and does indeed turn up in Grimm. Though I should actually
still check my Grimm. Others here, I am sure, know there fairy
tale histories better than I!
[> [> [> [> [>Neat idea! Acceptance -- mamcu, 08:24:09
06/03/03 Tue
And then we can even ask why the fairytale used a frog--still
the idea of transformation and metamorphosis. But yes, he does
become a prince, when he uses the scent made of princesses.
but the idea of the princess's kiss definitely relates to the
idea of acceptance and love in TCH above and your post below.
[> [> [> [> [>Link to Frog Prince story -- mamcu, 08:44:47
06/03/03 Tue
This is even annotated, though it calls him the Frog King:
http://www.surlalunefairytales.com/frogking/index.html
However, in this version, as in many, she does not kiss him. She
throws him against a wall. However, after he becomes a prince
she loves him and marries him, so the connection with acceptance
is still there.
But the story is really a story about the Princess, often read
symbolically as being about sexual maturity (the ugly frog
becomes a handsome prince in the bedroom, symbolizing her loss
of fear of men). Perfume tells it from the other perspective--the
frog's- -and without the redeeming kiss or love.
[> [> [> "It
had a simple smell, the sea," -- fresne, 07:35:47
06/10/03 Tue
Fluidity, melting, the sea that is never achieved.
I ponder the Grenouille, who did not go to sea as was his first
dream. The sea that is the only smell that he does not divide
or dissect, but leaves blended. A thing whole and entire and vast.
The sea that can encompass for even strange limited frog the concept
of endless.
For the boy with no scent, the sea, "which really was no
smell, but a breath, an exhalation of breath, the end of all smells."
How useful the idea of some vaster greater thing into which you
can dissolve. In a world where the king is a rank lion and the
queen a goat, and the Grand Massif is a cold dissectible womb,
and the vast incomprehension of the sea is never achieved.
Grenuouille never dissolves in it. Never mingles himself with
its smell. Is never a frog and breaths in through his skin the
air of the water. Instead, he learns the properties of fire and
taking from the distillation of the water that we hold. Hides
in the earth. Comprehends everything through the air. Instead,
he is the tick. The spider. The angel with feathers picked from
teeth.
[> A great start to the
discussion! -- ponygirl, 09:40:05 06/02/03 Mon
Typically, I've left my copy of the book at home so my thoughts
are a bit disorganized. It's interesting that you brought up Angel,
because one of my thoughts while reading the book was that here
was a perfect illustration of what it was to live without a soul
(odd that I so often discuss a concept I'm not sure I believe
in). Grenouille exists without a moral compass, without much in
the way of desire except for his own basic survival and new scents.
He is a predator of smell, but up until his first victim he doesn't
make any sort of aesthetic judgment. Roses or manure, it doesn't
matter as long as it has a smell. So what changes? What is it
about his victims that causes him to understand beauty and what's
more inspires him to both possess their essence and to recreate
it? It isn't just their purity, it's defined later in the book
as the ability to generate love in others. What is this quality?
Is it their souls?
More later! Oh, and it was a great book!
[> Re: Perfume (Book Melee
time!)(tiny sp. 7.3) -- Oil Can, 10:42:43 06/02/03 Mon
Hi,
I am AMAZED that anyone else has heard of the book!!!
I read it several years ago and whenever I tell people that it
is one of my all time favorites, they all tell me that they have
never heard of it. And I am talking about voracious readers.
Your essay is brilliant.
[> Great Tch! That was wonderful.
-- WickedBuffy (....a small piece of comment), 11:11:34 06/02/03
Mon
Let me warn you all right off - I'm not a scholar. I didn't
even know what an "annotation" was until Rob explained
it to me. I graduated college with a major in sociology/psychology.
I'm not stupid, but I write in very simple language - mainly because
I write for children. (Secretly because I adore Ray Bradbury's
early writing style.) Basically, my words and thoughts seem to
be fairly different from most the posts I read here - please read
what I say for their content, not their style or form. Thanks.
Now that that's out of the way!
One thing that I couldn't fit into understanding the writer was
why each important person in Grenouille's life died after he left.
Then I realized it wasn't based on Grenouille's leaving, it was
because they had reached their ultimate goal or dream. His mother,
bearing a live child. The tanner becoming famous and rich. Tch
explains each of them best in his paragraphs 10-13, so I'm not
going to repeat each one. The descriptions and summations are
quite clear.
Looking back on each of them, they appeared to be more symbolic
of Grenouille himself than anything else. And each ones final
demise, after reaching some sought after dream, mirrored Grenouille's
as well.
Each person mirrored a turning point in Grenouille's life. His
mother's disinterest after she bears a live child mirrors each
of Grenouille's steps thru the perfumery business. He would learn
all the scents, then become disinterested with that and move on
to distilling the scents. Distillation of scents was not enough,
he wanted to distill the essence of things like rocks and air.
And so on.
"Terrier is given his first superstitious experience by Grenouille
as a baby, and yet it may undermine all the rather pragmatic Christian
faith that he has..." Grenouille underwent several inner
transformations which pulled the rug from under him. That you
could recreate scents, then that there was another method of distilling
essences, that he had no smell, that he could create smell...
and so on.
"Gaillard vindicates her ability to bring up any child by
her care of Grenouille, but in vindicating what she does, Grenouille
allows Gaillard to..."
Grenouille believes he can distill any scent from anything.
Giuseppe Baldini's vanity of being the best parfumer ever.
Grenouille assurance that he is the best.
In some form, each of the major characters Grenouille stops at
are smaller extensions of some part of him, his belief system,
his emotional states, his inner transformations. But, unlike each
of those characters who meet their demise after the change in
their life, Grenouille survives and moves on. Those were small-minded
goals - and Grenouille's ultimate goal was much greater than wealth
or security or fame or faith - it was to be a god. When he reached
the point where he could be - then he folds and fades away. His
demise was reached climbing up each of the smaller deaths.
The one thing that validated the world for him was scent. In Grenouille's
reality, it was what made everything real and concrete. But he
could never be real in his own world because because he didn't
have the that very validator. No genuine scent. He could manipulate
people all he wanted, have anything he wanted, be anything he
wanted - except for the sole treasure he needed.
[> [> Yes! -- Tchaikovsky,
12:44:38 06/02/03 Mon
That's a brilliant point WB- that all the characters Grenouille
meets along the way have struggles representing his own struggles
at the time. It's possibly one more reason why the minor characters,
(except perhaps Baldini), never quite feel whole in themselves-
they are aspects of Grenouille, rather like the Scooby Gang are
sometimes aspects of Buffy, but more so
He could manipulate people all he wanted, have anything he
wanted, be anything he wanted - except for the sole treasure he
needed.
When you put it like that, it sounds a bit like a model for the
tragic hero, the person who would be happy except for one flaw-
Macbeth's ambition, Othello's distrust of Desdemona, Lear's vanity.
Yet Grenouille is a darker character than any of these, because
otherwise the three Shakesperian characters are somehow noble
in a way Grenouille isn't- he's too cut off from society.
Anyway, I'm rambling, and I've said plenty already! Great post,
and I thought your writing was clear and lucid- something I struggle
with in my torturously long sentences!
TCH
[> [> [> Thanks, Tch!
and again, thanks for the great jumping-off post! -- WickedBuffy,
18:09:57 06/03/03 Tue
[> Misanthropy -- Rahael,
12:46:45 06/02/03 Mon
I'm cheating because I got a sneak peak at TCH's great review
and I kept my initial reactions to his essay to post on the thread.
More thoughts later.
TCH rightly points out to a kind of misanthropy that pervades
the novel.
Is Suskind a misanthrope, or is he simply being thought provoking?
I think the misanthropy is a challenge to the reader.
Are we no better than Grenouille, to shun humanity because they
smell? We smell of mortality, of life, of the dirt of the world,
and yet, should we not be valued nevertheless? Should we not rise
above the ultimately shallow concern of Grenouille for the most
perfect, most beautiful scent in the world?
Could we not compare the human beings to the flowers that Suskind
so beautifully describes? The limp, lifeless sludge that is left
after the beautiful flowers have been macerated, are these not
the adolescent girls? Grenouille has no care or thought or value
for them. (the girls, and the flowers). Suskind challenges us
- if you saw the world as Grenouille did, would you care more?
Obviously, a lot of the descriptions of Grenouille's society is
satiric. But it also has a deeply ironic purpose, the irony directed
toward the reader. Do you hate humanity? Consider it filthy and
dirty and repugnant? Who could find this loveable? Who could have
found Grenouille loveable as a child, before he became the monster?
And surely, the answer lies, as TCH points out, in love, in loving.
Grenouille *does* smell. It's the
rage of Caliban looking at his own face in the glass. The limp
flower sludge, discarded - those are the orphans that Paris society
discards. When society learns to love the ugly, the filthy, it
will redeem itself. As we get introduced to the stench of Paris,
of humanity, of ourselves, can we accept it? Can we accept who
we are, without being repulsed as Grenouille, a monster, does?
[> [> Ooh good post!
-- ponygirl, 13:59:37 06/02/03 Mon
I was reminded of the three aspects of Eve Neil Gaiman presented
in Sandman. Besides Lilith, and the more familiar apple-eating
Eve, there was another attempt to create a companion for Adam.
This woman was created from the inside out, bones, organs, fluids,
skin. Having seen all of her component parts, Adam could only
feel disgust when he looked at her, ultimately rejecting her.
Grenouille hates humanity, but not their smells, he makes no judgment
on those. As a reader it's hard not to feel disgust from the many
colourful descriptions of the stench (it was a few days before
I wanted to eat cheese again), it's far easier to accept a vague
concept of humanity, quite another to have our noses rubbed in
living, breathing, stinking people. As you say the misanthropy
is a challenge to us - can we accept all the parts of humanity
and ourselves? Even the really stinky ones?
[> Some disjointed ramblings
(but hopefully some good stuff!) -- Rob, 14:35:59 06/02/03
Mon
Perfume reminded me a great deal of a myth we've dealt
with a great deal here lately, namely that of Orpheus. At first,
it was only due to the manner in which Grenouille dies, torn apart
by a pack of homeless people much as Orpheus in the end of one
of the versions of the myth was torn apart by a pack of wild dogs.
Then, I began to retrace the story and noticed many more parallels.
I found this version of the tale on-line at http://www.geocities.com/ailiathena/Myths/Orpheus.html:
"...Orpheus [was] the best musician that ever lived. One
strum of his lyre, one note sung, and beasts would crawl to him,
rocks would move to be closer, trees would leave their places
to be near to him. They called him a sorcerer for his power..."
Grenouille's great powers in creating scents that could take control
of other humans' passions and faculties is highly reminiscent
of this. Like Orpheus, the son of the muse Calliope, Grenouille
seems to have a similar divine inspiration. The major difference,
however, is that, whereas Orpheus' powers are pure and heavenly,
Grenouille is for all intents and purposes a soulless demon whose
greatest aspirations are to use his powers not to inspire love
and bring people to rapture, as Orpheus does, but to control these
"base animals" and to make them grovel before him.
Orpheus falls head over heels in love with the beautiful dryad,
Eurydice, the epitome of feminine beauty and youth, and is crushed
by loss when she is killed by a venemous snake bite. In Perfume,
Grenouille acts as both Orpheus and snake when he first discovers
the most beautiful scent he has ever smelled in his life, in the
form of a young virgin girl, and decides that he must possess
it completely. He strangles the girl swiftly and spends what might
be hours imbibing her scent, awkwardly and frantically running
his nose over every inch of her body, taking in her smell before
it fades away forever. Later he comes to regret the fact that
he could not capture her scent to smell at his leisure whenever
he might want to return to it and instead had to waste it in a
moment of blind passion. Like Orpheus, who decides to descend
into Hades, the Underworld, to bring his beloved Eurydice back
to him, Grenouille prepares for the day when he will find a similar
scent on another young girl and bottle it up for all eternity.
Let's return to the myth of Orpheus:
"With his lyre, Orpheus descended into the Underworld.
A normal mortal would have perished any number of times, but Orpheus
had his lyre and his voice and he charmed Cerberus - the three-headed
monster dog of Hades who guarded the Underworld - into letting
him pass. Facing Hades and his cold Queen Persephone he played
for them his sorrow at the loss of his love. The heart that was
frozen by Hades' abduction melted in Persphone's breast and a
tear rolled down her cheek. Even Hades could not help weeping.
They let Orpheus through to Eurydice, but warned him very carefully:
Eurydice would follow him into the light of the world and once
she entered the sunlight she would be changed from a shade back
to a woman. But if Orpheus doubted, if he looked back to see her,
she would be lost to him forever.
Orpheus heard and rejoiced. He turned and left the dark hall of
Hades and began his ascent back to life. As he walked he rejoiced
that his wife would soon be with him again. He listened closely
for her footfall behind him, but a shade makes no noise. The closer
to the light he got, the more he began to believe that Hades had
tricked him to get him out of the Underworld, that Eurydice was
not behind him. Only feet away from the light Orpheus lost faith
and turned around. He saw Eurydice, but only for a moment as her
shade was whisked back down among the other dead souls. She was
gone. Orpheus tried again to enter the Underworld and demand her
return, but one cannot enter twice the same way - and no other
way was open to him. All that was left to him was death."
Like Orpheus, Grenouille is able to, for a fleeting moment, recapture
his "love." He spends years learning how to be a skilled
perfumist, and soon finds a girl with an even richer smell than
the first. He does not rush to kill her however, but rather spends
his time learning how to best capture the essences of smell, practicing
on small animals, and then other young virgin girls. In the end
he is able to best capture this girl's smell by blending and reinforcing
it with the scents of the other girls, thus creating the most
beautiful scent ever created, one that turns a crowd of otherwise
upstanding citizens of the community into a Pan-inspired, sex-crazed
orgy of writhing bodies. However, just as Orpheus looked back
at Eurydice only to find her gone forever, Grenouille's feelings
of elation at his accomplishment (turning into servants the very
people who moments before were going to hang him for his crimes)
quickly turn sour. The fact that he could so easily overpower
the other humans sickens him; they are filthy, lowly creatures
to him. Imagine them grovelling at the feet of the man who killed
so many of their daughters! He leaves in disgust when the father
of the last girl he murdered begs Grenouille to allow him to adopt
him as his son.
There are various endings to the myth, but the most fitting one
here is the one where "he played so mournfully [on his
lyre] that his songs called for death, and that the animals who
surrounded him tore him apart, weeping as they did."
Grenouille, like Orpheus, uses his great gifts against himself
in the end. One drop of the precious perfume he'd created caused
the frenzy described above; now, he douses his entire body with
the full bottle, whipping the people around him into such strong
emotions, that like the animals he believes them to be, they rip
him apart and finally devour him. Orpheus used his music to cause
his own demise, overpowering the sensory input of the animals
around him, just as Grenouille does. In one glorious moment, they
each become the living embodiments of the highest form of their
craft.
Perfume was a truly beautiful and unusual book. I admire
the author for his uncompromising vision, and his insistence on
creating a book whose protagonist is evil. We do not at any point
truly empathize or feel for him, and any time we feel that we
might be starting to do so, we are cruelly reminded of just what
an awful being Grenouille is. As TCH said, he's not an anti-hero.
He's a villain.
The book's structure is very interesting, too, particularly in
how most of the text is focused on the people surrounding Grenouille
rather than Grenouille himself. With the exception of the first
and last murders, his time spent by himself in the cave, and his
final act, we mostly see him through the perspective of those
whose lives he touches. It's an interesting method, because it
wisely keeps the reader at arm's length. This is not a character
in whose thoughts we would like to dwell for extended periods
of time.
The translation was also very beautiful, with absolutely breathtaking
prose at times, particularly in the long descriptions of smell
and perfume-making. I must confess that at times, my mind wandered,
however, during those longer passages. I really had to force myself
to concentrate on the words during some of the more drawn-out
sensory descriptions, particularly during Grenouille's time in
the cave, and his dreams of smell.
I was entranced by the main concept of the book, that smell is
the most important sense; that when we petty humans perceive something
as beautiful or ordinary for example, we really believe so because
of the smell, even though we don't realize it. The fact that this
is a man who "speaks" the language of smell was a fascinating
conceit.
My favorite portion of the novel was the one immediately following
his 10 year stay in the cave, namely where he is taken under the
wing of Taillade-Espinasse, because this was the most blatantly
satirical portion of the book. I enjoyed the hypocrisy of the
"scientist" and how Grenouille was able to manipulate
his faulty theories to the best of his advantage. This portion
called to mind for me scenes from both "A Clockwork Orange,"
and, funnily enough, Mel Brooks' "Young Frankenstein,"
where a scientist parades in front of a group of intellectuals,
a man who they claim to have transformed from a monster. Another
thing that came to mind was T. Coraghessan Boyle's biting satire,
"The Road to Wellville," where the kooky Dr. Kellogg
demonstrates how he has been able to turn a savage wolf into a
vegetarian. What he does not tell his audience is that the wolf
that rejects the meat had been starved and slowly trained into
rejecting meat, and that this has made the poor animal weak and
sickly. To give the wolf its beautiful looks, Dr. Kellogg has
him powdered and manicured. This is similar to how Taillade-Espinasse
has Grenouille manicured, bathed, and cleaned up, has his wardrobe
changed, has his hair cut and has make-up applied to him, before
presenting him again to the audience.
Wish I had a good way to wrap all this up or a really deep point
to make here. But hopefully some of these ramblings will add to
the discussion.
Rob
[> [> "Hopefully
some of these ramblings will add to the discussion."
-- Tchaikovsky, 15:05:54 06/02/03 Mon
You betcha. Great post, Rob. I love the comparison with Orpheus.
Grenouille has become the analogue of the Greek Episode Title
bloke, the master of the Symphony of Smell, who can lure people
or send them away at will. And the further parallels are interesting.
Orpheus, the extraordinary freak, is on the side of Good, ostensibly-
as a Greek Hero, we always imagie him as well-intentioned. Of
course, the re- interpretations of his myth might beg to differ,
(as the poem 'Eurydice' by Duffy I posted the other day testifies).
Grenouille, the extraordinary freak, is not precisely on the side
of evil so much as the side of self-interest, to the point of
self-absorption and isolation. Unlike Orpheus? The man who for
his pains went down to Hell, broke the laws of the universe for
his aching love? Or actually rather like him after all? Perhaps
the extraordinary geniuses are more alike than Orpheus would admit
to. Or perhaps it's simpler- that underlying the Greek myth and
Suskind's novel lie characters- who while exceptional- are deeply
human.
TCH
[> [> Actually, brilliant
Rob. -- dub ;o), 15:39:35 06/02/03 Mon
Orpheus and Grenouille:
In one glorious moment, they each become the living embodiments
of the highest form of their craft.
And then they are killed precisely because of their ability
to reach the highest form of their craft. What more is there to
live for?
That pretty much sums it up, Rob. Beatifully done.
dub ;o)
[> [> [> Why, thank
you. Come to think of it this also reminds me a lot of...
-- Rob, 18:29:20 06/02/03 Mon
...the end of the Broadway show, "Pippin," where the
lead character is encouraged to light himself on fire, in order
to, for one shining moment, be remembered as the most beautiful
thing in the world.
Rob
[> [> [> [> "Think
About the Sun"... -- Rob, 21:32:58 06/02/03 Mon
Here are the lyrics from the final song from "Pippin,"
which perfectly sums up what I was going for re: Orpheus and Grenouille
both acheiving the highest forms of their art and consequently
being destroyed by it at the same time. Pippin throughout the
play has tried numerous ways of having a meaningful life; he wants
to be remembered. At the end, the narrator and his entourage break
down the fourth wall, appear to Pippin, and encourage him to light
himself on fire. For one brief, shining moment, they tell him,
he will be the most beautiful, unusual thing in the world; he
will glow from the inside out; he will become the flame itself,
in a burst of glory--:
The Leading Player:
Think about the sun, Pippin.
Think about her golden glance.
How she lights the world up.
Well, now it's your chance.
With the Guardian of Splendor
Inviting you to dance.
Pippin, think about the sun.
Players: (Adlib, whispering, beckoning PIPPIN to the fire-box)
Now, Pippin... come on, Pippin... it's ready...
Leading Player: Now Pippin... it's time.
Pippin: Look, it's just that if this isn't it... I'm going to
have a tough time trying something else...
A Player: Pippin, you lack a certain amout of poise...
Another Player: Think of the radiance...
Another Player: Remember the beauty...
Another Player: Admiring glances...
Another Player: Thunderous applause...
Another Player: Think of the word-of-mouth...
Leading Player: Think about your life, Pippin
Fastrada: Days are tame and nights the same.
Leading Player: Now, think about the beauty
Leading Player and Fastrada: In one perfect flame
Leading Player, Fastrada, and All: And the angels of the morning
All (except Leading Player): Are calling out your name
Pippin...
Leading Player: Think about the...
All:
...sun...
Think about your life, Pippin
Think about the dreams you planned
Think about the moment
That's so close at hand
When the power and the glory
Are there at your command
Pippin, think about your life.
Think about the sun, Pippin,
Think about her golden glance
How she lights the world up
Well, now it's your chance
With the Guardians of Splendor
Inviting you to dance
Pippin, think about the sun
Think about your life, Pippin
Think about the dreams you planned
Think about the moment
That's so close at hand
When the power and the glory
Are there at your command
The power and the glory
Are there at your command
The power and the glory
Are there at your command
Pippin, think about your life...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ironically, in the end, Pippin does think about his life, and
settles for a comparatively ordinary existence, marrying a farmer's
widow, and spending the rest of his days raising her young son
with her, and tending to the fields.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>Great Stuff, Rob! -- dub ;o), 22:57:02
06/02/03 Mon
The Guardians of Splendor particularly caught my eye. I
think WickedBuffy makes reference below to a line in Perfume about
Grenouille's "splendor." Not a word we use much in everyday
conversation any more. Don't know if we ever did, really. Well,
"Splendor in the Grass," I guess, but that was almost
before my time, so certainly before yours. What the heck does
splendor (Cdn. splendour) really mean, anyway?
And thanks for the note below...now if I could only spell.
;o)
[> [> [> [> [>Loved Pippin!!!!! Very interesting ideas Rob!
-- Sara, who will be humming all day now, 05:00:19 06/03/03
Tue
[> [> [> [> [>True creation -- ponygirl, 08:59:35 06/04/03
Wed
Interesting comparisons Rob! (And mamcu too!) However I think
in Grenouille's case we are dealing with something emptier. His
art is not that of Orpheus, Grenouille strips the essence of others.
He captures and concentrates scents, he does not truly create.
And for what purpose? So many times Grenouille compares himself
to a god and talks of ruling others. Yet he has complete contempt
for everyone else. He wants to be loved and accepted but realizes
he hates the people he has so easily tricked. There is nothing
inside him, nothing to produce a smell or essence of his self.
I think at the end while he may be demonstrating the pinnacle
of what he could achieve, he is also demonstrating the futility
of it. What is the point of moving people to love if you cannot
feel that love yourself?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> You made me stumble on an epitaph for Grenouille
-- Tchaikovsky, 09:46:53 06/04/03 Wed
From Eliot, as most quotable things are:
'There will be time to murder and create'
Seems to sum him up quite well. The poem itself is very sensuous,
but in a more rounded way than Grenoulle- we get the fog-cat that
'rubs its back upon the window-panes', and 'the taking of a toast
and tea', and '"how his hair has grown thin"'. This
middle-aged, slightly desperate man notices things that seem to
comfort or alarm him in all his senses. He's the unextraordinary
to Grenouille's extraordinary. I wonder who is happier.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> He really is a Hollow Man -- mamcu, 20:29:21
06/04/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> Sort
of like Spike at end of Chosen? -- mamcu, 09:30:58 06/03/03
Tue
[> [> [> [> [>Exactly! Didn't even think of that! -- Rob,
09:37:35 06/03/03 Tue
[> [> [> Btw, I love
your addition there, dub! -- Rob, 21:39:50 06/02/03 Mon
[> [> Wonderful post!
-- mamcu, 08:53:51 06/03/03 Tue
[> [> Artist or politican?
-- mamcu, 09:57:22 06/05/03 Thu
I was really excited by the comparison to Orpheus, because I was
beginning to see Grenouille as a metaphor for an artist--taking
the life from others to create something that he lacks himself.
I thought about the movie "Picasso" and how some creators
seem to fuel their creation by destroying other people.
But then I recalled a recent encounter with a nationally known
politician--one I actually like--and how empty he seemed as a
person, how much he seemed to be relating to everyone as a potential--voter,
I guess, or source of something. That's oversimplification, but
in some ways it seems to work. Just as Grenouille has no scent,
many politicans seem to have no self; just as he is hardly aware
that he destroys them to extract their scents, so politicians
are willing to destroy people to extract the power from them--or
maybe what they want is not just power but validation that they
exist, since to themselves they seem to have no self.
Maybe this is stretching the comparison?
[> Re: Perfume (Book Melee
time!) -- Sara, 18:36:10 06/02/03 Mon
Tch - what a great start! I didn't really love this book, but
it makes this melee even better - I think it's even more interesting
to see what people get out of book I didn't connect with, than
it is when I like it. My thoughts about it are somewhat chaotic
but I'm going to throw 'em out here and see if any make some sense
by the time I'm done typing -
I found that Grenouille as a character had no real odor, in a
literary sense. I never really understood why he did anything,
the character's coldness gave him have no reality for me. It's
funny, I didn't find the book upsetting or off-putting in any
way, which is good, I find I truly cannot read books about
serial killers, but this didn't bother me in the least. No one
seemed real, and if the characters were meant to be symbolic (or
perhaps even metaphoric) I just wasn't getting it.
I really liked WickedBuffy's take on the fate of those whose lives
intersected with Grenouille. I think I'm going to connect it up
with Rahael's misanthropy comment - each character's death was
showing the pointlessness, crassness and futility of people's
goals and dreams. I finished the book with a extremely strong
feeling that Susskind does not like people. There is no real humanity
in any of the characters - the hero/villian is a true cipher,
the girls/victims are empty shells whose existence is shown only
as an object of yearning. Even Richis' emotion is inaccessible,
when his love for his daughter is described it's a statement with
no real power. Susskind writes more convincingly of his momentary
uncomfortable desire for her, his satisfaction at using her to
further his own ambitions, and his elation when he was sure he
had beat his opponent. Was his despair that of a father
who lost a child, or was it a businessman who lost an opportunity,
or even a competitor who lost a battle?
It's hard to picture the person writing this as having any love
for humanity, especially after the orgy scene, when people are
so easily controlled through their own sensuality. However, I
always take my impressions of authors with a grain of salt - I'd
love to have a discussion someday on how unlike their own words
and insights an author can be. Tolstoy and Salinger spring to
mind immediately. But I'm rambling off topic, I'll try to bring
my rambling back on topic now!
I do love the frog turning into a prince as an image for Grenouille,
it does seem to fit. I did find the landscape of the book much
more evocative than the characters. The smells and sights seemed
alive in a way that the people were not.
I can't wait to see what the rest of the melee has to say! So
far this is fabulous!!!!!!!
[> [> Haven't finished
yet, but printing all these posts off for when I do! -- s'kat,
19:59:29 06/02/03 Mon
Sorry slow reader and real life interferred this week.
Hope to get it read by Friday...and will maybe post something
assuming this thread hasn't been archived by then.
Thanks for the cool stuff!
sk (I said I was highly unreliable, ;-) )
[> [> [> If the thread
is archived... -- Sara, 20:30:58 06/02/03 Mon
start a new one! Can't wait to read your take on it - don't let
a silly thing like archival or real life get in the way. I hope
real life is starting to behave itself for you! Me, I'm just updating
my resume tonight 'cause my new boss is making me paranoid (which
unfortunately is not a real difficult task...) You never know
when real life is gonna be a pain in whatever part of anatomy
you wish to point to!
[> [> [> [> Re:
If the thread is archived... -- s'kat, 20:46:34 06/02/03
Mon
Well...I'm on p. 141 so..almost there. Halfway through
roughly. Read a good section at the laundramat this morning.
The Perfumer just died and Grenouille has found his way to volcano,
discovering it's the smell of humanity that he can't stand.
Hopefully will finish before Friday.
Good luck with the boss. I hope and pray he/she/it does not become
anything remotely like my new boss did. Believe me
this is not an economy to hunt for work in. First two interviews
in over three months. ugh.
[> [> [> [> [>Not to worry -- Sara, 21:15:07 06/02/03
Mon
He may not be the boss for me, but he isn't going to turn into
a monster, like yours did. I'm just a great believer in the pre-emptive
job hunt strike. I may not even change, but your experience has
shown me that I'd better check out my options.
[> [> So how far is our
third person 'infected' by Grenouille? -- Tchaikovsky, 06:44:15
06/03/03 Tue
Several of your comments above made me think about how much the
speaker of the novel is not the author himself- it's not transparently
his ideas about Grenouille.
When I first read Pride and Prejudice, I didn't get the joke in
the first line. I dismissed "It is a truth universally acknowledged,
that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in
want of a wife" as an anachronism. In reality, Austen doesn't
believe this, she's allowing her narrative to become infected
by Mrs Bennet or some other rather overbearing speaker. From this
perspective...:
No one seemed real
There is no real humanity in any of the characters
Susskind writes more convincingly of his momentary uncomfortable
desire for her, his satisfaction at using her to further his own
ambitions, and his elation when he was sure he had beat
his opponent
The smells and sights seemed alive in a way that the people were
not.
These all seem to reflect some aspect of Grenouille's perspective
on life. He's not interested in the characters of the girls- they
are all no more than minor aspects in his masterplan. Grenouille
never understands humanity, and thus he never imbues the people
he meets with any. Richis is the person who comes closest to 'beating'
Grenouille- and to do this he has to deny his humanity, and act
only very carefully, logically, in a business like manner. And
of course, Grenouille is much more enraptured by smells than characters.
I am not suggesting that the speaker is Grenouille, recounting
himself to his greater glory, or even someone sympathetic to him
created by Suskind. It's worth noting that the first paragraph
of the novel dismisses him almost cursorily as 'an abomination'.
I don't believe we are expected to go along with this argument
for an objective word for Grenouille without at least questioning
it in the back of our mind. The assertion is too cursorial for
me.
I agree with your points about the book, but I didn't consider
them failings as much as aspects, woven through the narrative,
of Grenouille's character coming out. Not quite 'free indirect
speech' but getting there.
TCH
[> Mass-murderer to mass-murdered
-- WickedBuffy, 21:07:26 06/02/03 Mon
"We see the whole of Grenouille's life, which has an important
symmetry..." Tch.
The symmetry of this book keeps unveiling itself to me as I read
each Meleer's post, then thumb back through the book to reread
a section or two. That and how many times Grenouille is called
villian.
"A murder had been the start of this spendor - if he was
at all aware of the fact, it was a matter of total indifference
to him.Already he could not recall how the girl from the rue des
Marais had looked, not her face, not her body. He had preserved
the best part of her and made it his own: the principle of her
scent."
Suskind marks this killing as the beginning of Grenouille's self-
appointed destiny, which requires many murders to be fulfilled,
ironically naming it a "splendor". We see Grenouille
as a conscienceless, wicked immoral villian because he has killed
to sate his all-consuming desire to possess the the most incredible
scent on earth - into heaven. It's like a drug to him, his initial
taste of it created pure bliss, happiness to the extent of feeling
not just reborn, but lifted from one plane of existence to a higher
one. For the first time, he felt he truly lived and had a greater
purpose. Each step he took thereafter was the right one, because
no matter what the means were, the end was all that mattered.
Mirrored by these feelings much later: "awe to desire,
amazement to rapture", "...did not feel the tiniest
bite of conscience", "...hearts were definitely light...",
"...delightful, bright flutterings in thier dark souls...",
"...a delicate, virginal glow of happiness". Feelings
very, very much like Grenouille's own as he murdered the young
girls and reviled in the scent stripped from their bodies, sated
with the smell of the shorn hair.
But these were the mob of people who tore Grenouille to pieces.
Who ripped him apart with teeth, hands and axes and cleavers.
Skinning him alive and crushing his very bones. While he was still
alive. They too wanted to have "a spark from that wonderful
fire." They were driven to murder to consume what they desired
and make it "their own".
And like Grenouille, their happiness at getting what they wanted
made any other moralities irrelevant. They were "uncommonly
proud", just as Grenouille had been, sating desire. And with
as much conviction as Grenouille had in his "higher destiny"
that led him to do these things for his version of love, these
thirty-plus people were resolute that "For the first time,
they had done something out of love."
Who is not a villian in this tale, then? A man
who murders several dozen people quickly, mercifully and coldly?
or several dozen people who murder one man slowly, tortureously
and passionately? (And eat him.) All motivated by "pure love".
Indifferent to what they had done, because of what they got from
it?
[> [> Ok! An Italic Demon
attacked the end of my post. Sorry it looks odd. -- WickedBuffy,
21:17:08 06/02/03 Mon
[> Re: Perfume (Book Melee
time!) -- KdS, 03:42:44 06/03/03 Tue
It's interesting to think about the connections between Grenouille's
focus on smell and his near-sociopathic personality. Humans tend
to think of ourselves as having an inferior sense of smell, and
being less influenced by it, than many other animals, but certain
psychological studies show that we are subconsciously influenced
by scent in our response to people and situations.
TCH implied (sorry if I read him wrong) that Grenouille's focus
on smell as opposed to sight or sound alienates him from other
people because humans usually communicate in sight and sound.
But this isn't necessarily true, as human odour does change subtly
with emotional state, so he shouldn't have been entirely cut off
from empathy with other humans. What is possible is that his own
lack of odour was the reason for the isolation - that because
he had no conception of how emotion made him smell, he never learned
to read those emotions in other people.
You can also wonder whether the subconscious or conscious revulsion
of others because of his lack of scent was responsible for his
alienation since birth. Suskind often implies in his writing that
Grenouille was "born evil", but it seems to me that
it's reiterated so strongly that we're invited to doubt it. However,
the fact that when Grenouille meets the red-haired girl in the
Marais his immediate response is to kill her, rather than attempt
any other form of contact, goes well beyond social ineptness IMHO.
[> [> Born evil or born
into evil? -- WickedBuffy, 10:37:09 06/03/03 Tue
I was wondering about that "born evil" thread Suskind
carried throughout the book, also. It's as if he wanted to make
solidly sure that no one doubted it, or saw him as an anti-hero
or even human. Yet Suskind also makes sure we understand Grenouille's
reasons for this and that - which were understandably human.
Especially when Grenouille's first cry, the one that saved him
under the fish stall, was described as a cry against love and
for life. Illustrating what a survivor he was, and making sure
the reader understood it wasn't a human choice. It was a reaction
a plant might have, "a bean".
"He was an abdomination from the start. He decided in favor
of lifeour of sheer spite and sheer malice."
Then Suskind goes on to describe Grenouille's childhood where
other children acted as regular children, but Grenouille himself
is called "an ugly little tick". I'm very sensitive
to the treatment of children, personally, but at that point in
the book, when the other children tried to kill Grenouille, it
didn't raise a bit of defense for him in me.
Kds said "Suskind often implies in his writing that Grenouille
was "born evil", but it seems to me that it's reiterated
so strongly that we're invited to doubt it."
I think one thing that intrigued me the most about the story was
that back and forth feeling I had through it, and even now, afterwards
- regarding Grenouille. Victim of society and his unique physiology?
Or inhumane creature wrapped in human skin. Siskind seems to enjoy
pulling us back and forth through the question. Victim? Instigator?
If Madame Gaillard couldn't smell, but did have empathy and a
loving heart, would that have made any difference in Grenouille's
path? If he had been born into a rich family? If Spike hadn't
met Buffy, would he have still found his own way to a soul? If
Liam didn't turn vamp, would he have still become a champion?
How much is inate and how much is circumstance?
Is a vampire just a different kind of human, with rules and urges
dictated by a unique physiology, beyond their control? Is Grenouille
just a different kind of human, with rules and urges dictated
by a unique physiology beyond his control?
[> [> [> Exactly what
I've been ruminating on! -- dub ;o), 11:13:23 06/03/03 Tue
Is a vampire just a different kind of human, with rules and urges
dictated by a unique physiology, beyond their control? Is Grenouille
just a different kind of human, with rules and urges dictated
by a unique physiology beyond his control?
The question is, I think, are they human at all? In the case of
vampires, even ones with souls, the answer is no. This is the
basis of my oft-stated contention that vampires are incapable
of "murdering" humans because by its very definition
murder involves the willful slaughter of one human being by another
human being. I place vampires in the category of non-human predators
along with big sharks, bears, etc. Sharks and bears certainly
kill and eat people occasionally, but we don't consider them to
have murdered anyone.
Now in the case of Grenouille this would not seem to apply. Surely
he is human? Certainly born of human parents in any case. Initially
there are two things that define him as unique; his lack of odour
and his sense of smell. Is it possible that these are the same
phenomenon--that his lack of odour is responsible for his highly
developed sense of smell? (Forgive me if this is stated by Suskind
as I haven't read the book in many, many years.) Perhaps having
no odour of his own to interfere with his perception of other
odours is what has sharpened his olfactory sense.
And what could have caused this unique combination of characteristics
in an individual? I need Darby to help me out on this one...is
it possible to create such an individual by tweaking DNA? What
I'm getting at is, how drastic does a naturally-occuring genetic
adaptation have to be before the individual is considered to be
mutated?
If Grenouille can be considered a mutant I would then place him
in the same category as vampires and sharks; non-human predator.
As such the rules of human behaviour don't apply. It doesn't change
the eventual violent outcome of his life. Man-eating tigers need
to be hunted down and killed eventually. What it does change is
how we view his lack of empathy for his victims, his almost complete
lack of human response in any situation.
I should stop rambling as I'm too far away from the text to really
discuss these things. One question, though: was the implication
at the end of the book that Grenouille had committed suicide by
dousing himself with his elixir?
dub **spending way too much time thinking about this**
[> [> [> [> It's
hard NOT to ruminate on it, isn't it? -- WickedBuffy, 11:30:28
06/03/03 Tue
"One question, though: was the implication at the end of
the book that Grenouille had committed suicide by dousing himself
with his elixir?"
I think so. One of the last thoughts we are allowed to hear him
thinking is:
".. if he could not smell himself and thus never know who
the hell he was, to hell with it, with the world, with himself,
with his perfume."
He also realized that while he desired the scent from the girls,
and took that from them - everyone else woud beleive it's actually
him that they want. And the only way he got the scent from the
girls was to kill them.
Then he goes on to the arcades of the charnel house and waits
for midnight.
He was born a devil in other peoples perceptions because he didn't
have a scent and pushed away. He dies an angel, enveloped by the
same kind of people, because of the scent he know gives off.
[> [> [> [> The
meaning of human or vampire or smell-less being -- mamcu,
13:04:41 06/03/03 Tue
Since none of us are REALLY vampires, and smell-less beings who
also are master perfumers are quite rare, the fact that this novel
resonates for us--and Spike, Angel, etc, for that matter--must
mean that these creatures mean something human in their inhumanity.
So how are we monstrous? Are we vampires in our excessive needs
for attention and love, if not blood? Are people who absorb energy
from other people a little more common than creatures with no
reflections?
And Grenouille. I think he must relate to something less rare,
if not universal. To be hyper-acutely aware of something in others
that you totally lack in yourself--what is that? The fog that
arises in his cave and just before his death and causes him such
despair (the sense of his own scentlessness)...it reminded me
of the theories of alienation that floated around during mid-20th
century, that something about modern life makes us really not
have a self--and thus become overly sensitized to the "super-self"
that appears in leaders, celebrities, etc.
Well, maybe stretching it. But otherwise, how can we relate to
these creatures?
[> [> [> [> [>One theory why we relate and alienate simultaneously.
-- WickedBuffy, 14:35:25 06/03/03 Tue
"So how are we monstrous? Are we vampires in our excessive
needs for attention and love, if not blood? Are people who absorb
energy from other people a little more common than creatures with
no reflections?"mamcu
When you think about it, whole fields of therapy are based on
toning down peoples excessive needs for something. We would call
it an "addiction" or "codependency", though.
And for some people, it does become a "to be or not to be"
question if it's not sated. (Psychologically). Love, drugs, shopping
whatever - when it reaches a monstrous point and is noticed, someone
steps in to adjust it. Kindly or not so kindly. But it *is* noticed
as not "normal" somehow.
We don't usually consider it monstrous unless it's practically
killing someone. The sociopathic killer who needs a certain type
of victim, the ritual murderer who needs a certain form to the
violence. Those society will call monsters.
Maybe that's why vampires who don't drink human blood seem less
like monsters than the ones who do - they've pulled in their need.
And look how people reacted to good ol' Clem when it was discovered
he *does* eat kittens!
And sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be nicer to run into a blood
vampire and not so many energy vampires. One isn't real and I
would avoid, though. The other is real and I avoid as much as
humanly possible.
Maybe "humanness" isn't a line in the sand. It's a spectrum.
Grenouille would be closer to one far end, Angel (be in the "
vampires are human camp for a moment) more towards the middle
and my grandmother at the other far end. But all contained in
the group.
And perhaps some of us swing abit towards this end or that, and
others sweep nearly end to end, and others barel move from their
spot. We can relate because we are actually in the same group,
a common thread of understanding binds us all.
I guess the spectrum analogy could also look like the weights
that Blind Justice holds up, because it does take another point
of view to judge and morally assign where each person is.
I've obviously had too much ice tea and am going into a caffeine
coma....
[> [> [> [> [>
[> The extremes -- mamcu, 18:44:18 06/03/03 Tue
Maybe "humanness" isn't a line in the sand. It's a spectrum.
Grenouille would be closer to one far end, Angel (be in the "
vampires are human camp for a moment) more towards the middle
and my grandmother at the other far end. But all contained in
the group.
I'd really agree with this, as a description of humanity--yet
I'd still want to explore why we find the ones at the draining
end to be such a compelling image. We love the givers, in real
life, want to be with them--yet all of us, here, are also drawn
to the pictures of the takers, and in fact even have trouble when
they begin to be less on the negative end.
Not that I have any more of an answer, now. Just trying to figure
out the question.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Personally, sameness bores me. So I'm drawn to
my opposite - something to be explored. An adventure. -- WickedBuffy,
19:27:01 06/03/03 Tue
I know my mother wouldn't read Perfume, though she devours books.
She would find it too far out of her personal comfort zone to
want to read about someone like Grenouille.
And I am bored reading the books she loves - I find them too predictable
and similar to what I already know. Not just from reading, but
the characters she likes are too much like myself, my family,
my surroundings, what I'm accustomed to.
Which probably explains why she's been married for nearly 50 years
and I'm not. She wouldn't give a "taker" a second thought
- I fall all over myself trying to understand them.
I guess what I'm saying is I don't think everyone is drawn at
times to the opposite end, but some people are. I only know my
reason for it - in characters from books and from life.
Do you think there is a similar reason for everyone? or that each
persons reasons for being drawn to an end is different? (Like
mine might be different than yours, etc.)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Anti heros and the Glamour of the bad -- Sara,
19:37:37 06/04/03 Wed
I think to some extent that there's something glamourous and compelling
about the dark side when you're viewing it from a distance. Whats
unpleasant right in front of you, seems exotic when you're only
hearing or reading about it. For example, I almost never drink,
it makes me feel sick and depressed. Since I'm not drinking along,
I don't really feel comfortable around people that are drunk.
I don't mind them, I'm just not comfortable. Yet I love stories
about wild youth, wild weekends, wild anything. Hearing about
it later is fun, being there isn't. I actually may have only restated
your question, mamcu, but do I get points for using so many more
words?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Not so much dark but empty -- mamcu,
20:15:00 06/04/03 Wed
Totally agree, Sara. We all love the baddies who live out our
evil impulses for us. But I'm still curious about the specific
thing about characters like Grenouille and also vampires in general.
It's not just that they're bad, but that they sort of aren't there.
Their emptiness is what sets them apart. So why do we like that?
Still restating the question myself!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Fascination with Vampires -- Sara,
05:06:56 06/05/03 Thu
It's a great question, mamcu. I have always been fascinated by
vampires of all kinds. As a kid I quit Girl Scouts just to be
home in time to watch "Dark Shadows". One of my favorite
comic books was a really funny one called "Goldberg, the
Vampire" about a good vampire detective. But I'm not sure
why they're such an interesting monster to me. I think there's
something about being the monster version of you, immortality,
perhaps even the feeding off of the life force of others to survive,
that just draws me in. I don't know but vampires are my favorite
kind of horror story. It is certainly monsters with personality
are far more interesting to me than monsters without. I think
thats why I didn't enjoy "Perfume" that much. Grenouille
seemed very empty to me, he didn't seem to have much personality.
I think satire is one of the hardest things for me to "get".
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Humanity (Social and political commentary in Perfume)
-- Rahael, 15:15:10 06/04/03 Wed
Just in passing, again, wish I could write more fully. I don't
know if I would define humanity as a spectrum. Perhaps human beings
wish to define others in a spectrum, but at the end of the day,
what does 'being' human mean? We do talk about the quality of
'humane-ness', but we all agree that inhumanity can be a common
attribute of being human.
The challenge of characters such as Angel or Grenouille is that
they ask us, "what does it mean to be a human, what does
it consist of, and how do we define our lives and experiences".
(For example HOlland Manners telling Angel that he was never more
human than the day he shut the door on the lawyers)
I think it is interesting that one the main themes of the book
is that smell is human. That others suspect that Grenouille is
not human because he doesn't smell. Not because they are conscious
of it, but unconscious and their behaviour is affected by this
in ways they wouldn't realise. I think this is why one must eventually
put Suskind closer to the 'environmental' camp. Surely Grenouille
himself cannot place himself within society, because he subconsciously
affects others, and himself. Someone with the sense of smell he
has must have subconcsiously known he was different, not only
by the way other people treat him.
Grenouille isn't born evil, he's an object lesson in what happens
to one who regards himself, and is indeed treated by others as
belonging outside of what they define as the spectrum of humanity.
In contrast to other humans in the book who define humanity by
smell, Grenouille, who is possessed of no scent, is dispassionate
about humans - he is interested in the scent. For him, it is not
uniquely associated with the person - it can be detached and taken
away, in his mind, or in strips of treated cloth. But when he
puts on his fiendishly beautiful scent, the other humans so associate
him with that scent, they must consume him, every part of him.
I think one of the things I most enjoyed about the book was its
satirical eye. Most of the scenes (apart from the murders committed
by Grenouille) are very funny and keenly observed. The final scene
too has a sly humour. I regarded it as a horror-comedy. Also,
I think in one sense, Suskind captures what is frequently echoed
in contemporary observations of early modern society - the cities
which were now expanding, able to sustain their own populations.
People crowded together, living in insanitary conditions, in volatile
economic, social and political circumstances. There was a fear
of the mob, a fear of old social boundaries breaking, the sudden
and very obvious changes a traditional society was undergoing.
We see this with Taillard-Espinasse too, the new spirit of inquiry
abroad. Everything suddenly is changing, even the old values are
breaking up.
I found this reflected in Grenouille's distaste for the company
of other humans, and his need to be alone. The book describes
a lot of trade activity, a lot about people's economic life, and
I think there's quite a bit of pointed historical commentary about
a society going through change. A mobile, thriving, expanding
society with money to buy scent to prettify life, and able to
cast off its orphans and try and find ways to 'grow away from
the earth' and towards celestial things.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Rahael, you created a new word! -- dub ;o),
17:21:51 06/04/03 Wed
I quite enjoyed this post even though you dashed it off in passing.
I'm thinking particularly about the idea of Grenouille being an
object lesson in regarding oneself as other, as outside humanity.
Perhaps that is more to the point than being treated as belonging
outside the spectrum of humanity by others.
I did get a chuckle, though, and believe me I'm not poking fun
at you in the least--my own rate of typos lately has been burgeoning.
It was this bit:
People crowded together, living in insanitary conditions, in volatile
economic, social and political circumstances.
Insanitary conditions would be the conditions that lead to insanity,
I assume? I think I'm currently living in insanitary conditions
myself!
dub ;o)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Heh!! -- Rahael, 17:27:21 06/04/03 Wed
I think it kind of works! It's unsanitory and insanitory! Cleanliness
is next to good mental health...or something.
(is anyone thinking about all the 'smelly Spike' jokes at the
beginning of S7 all of a sudden?)
Obviously, I meant to invent that word. Thanks for noticing ;)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> I think insanitary and unsanitary are both
OK -- MsGiles, 05:58:44 06/05/03 Thu
I've always used insanitary, so I looked it up in a panic.
I found this article about it at
http://www.freep.com/n
ews/groceries/qcalls28.htm
It says 'Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 10th Edition
defines insanitary as "Unclean enough to endanger health;
contaminated." It and the Oxford English Dictionary recognize
insanitary and unsanitary as words first used in the early 1870s.'
Phew! But the insanity pun is still good!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Oh good! -- Rahael, 11:09:21 06/06/03
Fri
I realised that I've always used 'insanitory', and then put this
down to my idiosyncratic grasp of English, where I use most words
unconsciously, because they just feel 'right'. Mostly in the context
of books I read. But I do get lots of words quite wrong. Yesterday
for instance, I realised that I've been thinking of the word 'abstruse'
as 'abtruse' for all my life.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> What if the person next to you had no scent?
-- WickedBuffy, 20:22:57 06/04/03 Wed
"I don't know if I would define humanity as a spectrum. Perhaps
human beings wish to define others in a spectrum..." Raphael
Yes! That's what I meant at the end of my post when I said:
" I guess the spectrum analogy could also look like the weights
that Blind Justice holds up, because it does take another point
of view to judge and morally assign where each person is."
" We do talk about the quality of 'humane-ness', but we all
agree that inhumanity can be a common attribute of being human."
R
I agree. Inhumanity is included in the spectrum. I haven't heard
the word "unhuman" used to describe Grenouille yet,
by any of us. (I think, whap me if I'm wrong.) But other characters
in the book did see him as unhuman, as a devil.
They considered him that based on his lack of scent. But we readers
are privy to all his murders and don't call him that.
Why? If Grenouille were alive today, I wonder if we really could
sense the non-scent of him - and it would make us feel uncomfortable.
Our consciousness only picks up about 10% of our environment -
so much more is going on than we are aware of tracking with our
senses. Would a person lacking a scent really have such a large
impact on us?
I wonder if anything does exist that really has no scent.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: What if the person next to you had no
scent? -- dub ;o), 20:46:25 06/04/03 Wed
I wonder if anything does exist that really has no scent.
I don't know, but I know at least one person who has no sense
of smell, owing to chemotherapy. I don't know that it really bothers
her all that much, but she also has no sense of taste and that
drives her crazy.
dub
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Some confusion in a few posts on this
thread -- KdS, 03:21:55 06/05/03 Thu
Our actual sense of taste is very crude and limited to only five
sensations: sweetness, saltness, bitterness, sourness and (recently
discovered) umami (soy sauce/sodium glutamate). Everything subtler
is actually the result of our sense of smell acting on the vapours
rising up from our mouth (why your sense of taste is destroyed
if you have a congested nose).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> About Grenouilles food ....
-- WickedBuffy, 08:12:15 06/05/03 Thu
A good part of Grenouilles survival was because he would eat anything
- it didn't matter how horrid it was.
"He had no sense of sensual gratification.... he had no need
for creature comforts either."
I wonder if this was because taste was mostly scent, and since
there were really no scents that turned him away, it didn't matter
what was put in front of him. He simply eat to survive.
Not so sure what his immunity to the fatality of the diseases
were, though. Any ideas why Suskind emphasized that, also? The
only time he nearly succumbed to an illness, it was because he
believed there was no other way to distill scent - his dream was
shattered. It was his will that allowed the disease to slowly
destroy him. And when he was told there were more ways to distill,
his will recuperated him.
[> Quick note about the
Perfume being made into a movie -- WickedBuffy, 10:58:41 06/03/03
Tue
I don't know how they are going to pull it off, since it's based
on scent, unless it's all narrated. But if anyone can do it, Scott
can!
from a movie stock page:
"Based on a French book by Patrick Suskind, Perfume: The
Story of a Murderer is about a perfume maker's apprentice, who
has a unique talent for capturing scents with perfection. His
obsession turns to murder when he seeks to bottle the scent of
a beautiful young virgin. Caroline Thompson adapts the screenplay.
Ridley Scott is attached to direct for Constantin Films. "
[> [> I don't know...
-- Rob, 11:03:47 06/03/03 Tue
I honestly don't see how they could possibly visually represent
Grenouille's ability to dissect and identify scents, nor make
the long introspective sections, such as Grenouille's stay in
the cave, interesting. How, for example, to stage the dream where
Grenouille finds himself being suffocated by the scents? I can't
think of any way besides oversimplification or too much narration.
Rob
[> [> [> Maybe that's
why it's still in "development" -- WickedBuffy,
14:39:39 06/03/03 Tue
Very true, Rob. I don't see how they could even come CLOSE to
pulling it off. But, better books than this one have been totally
destroyed by moviemakers.
I sure would have loved to hear the spiel that sold backers on
the whole idea, though! That person deserves some kind of award.
[> [> [> [> LOL!
I don't even wanna know how they'd plan on staging the final scene!
-- Rob, 15:20:56 06/03/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>ugh!! It will be the exact opposite of the refrigerator
scene in the movie "Six and a Half Weeks" -- WickedBuffy
(okok I have no idea how to make a half sign), 16:42:53 06/03/03
Tue
errrr was it nine and a half?
...the one with Kim Bassinger and that rude guy.
well, at least I can remember the real important parts.
[> [> [> I agree,
although -- Tchaikovsky, 05:40:40 06/04/03 Wed
Ridley Scott is a talented director. It would require a quite
nuanced and terrifying performance from the actor playing Grenouille.
You could have all sorts of fun playing with filling in characters
from actors in the Buffyverse:
-Grenouille; James Marsters
-Grenouille's Mother;
-Terrier; Harris Yulin
-Gaillard; Kristine Sutherland
-Baldini; Anthony Stewart Head
-Taillade-Espinasse; Alexis Denisof
-Richis; David Boreanaz
-Richis' daughter; Michelle Trachtenberg
I'd watch it.
TCH
[> So many wonderful posts
and points in this thread -- Rahael, 13:04:20 06/03/03 Tue
but first I have to go help my dad write his paper.
Feeling virtuous now.
Rahael
[> [> Agreeing with Rah
-- Caroline, 15:35:28 06/03/03 Tue
Thanks all for such a wonderful discussion.
[> [> This is so much
fun that... -- Sara, 19:53:52 06/04/03 Wed
I wish I had more to say! But I am loving reading everyone's comments
and it's making the book a much more interesting experience. Keep
talking everybody!
[> Perfume was one of Kurt
Cobains favorite books. Even based a song on it. -- WickedBuffy,
20:46:39 06/04/03 Wed
No, I'm not a Nirvana groupie - just thought it was interesting
someone famous wrote a song based on the book! I have no idea
what parts if it mean. Maybe someone else does?
Scentless Apprentice
Kurt Cobain/Nirvana
"Like most babies smell like butter
His smell smelled like no other
He was born scentless and senseless
He was born a scentless apprentice
Go away - get away, get a-way
Every wet nurse refused to feed him
Electrolytes smell like semen
I promise not to sell your perfumed secrets
There are countless formulas for pressing flowers
Go away - get away, get a-way
I lie in the soll and fertilize mushrooms
Leaking out gas fumes are made into perfume
You can't fire me because I quit!
Throw me in the fire and I won't throw a fit
Go away - get away, get away, get away, get away, get away, get
a- way"
[> [> Wow! That's so
cool! -- Rob, 20:59:16 06/04/03 Wed
[> Re: Perfume (Book Melee
time!)(tiny sp. 7.3) (my thoughts) -- Oz-Like, 21:54:31 06/04/03
Wed
I have to say it was an amazing book in terms of language and
atmosphere. The aroma's come alive.
And yet, while I sat there reading it, some part of me was in
rebellion. To me, one of the major themes of the book was about
love - and the fact that it is an illusion, a scent, an aroma.
It is an exterior, having to do with impressions. Our Anti-hero
recognizes that he can be loved or hated depending upon his scent.
But what he also recognizes is that love is more than anything
about possession. He catches the scent of the girl that he wants..and
he realizes that he doesn't want "her".. He wants instead
some part of her. He wants to possess some aspect of her. to literally,
keep it in a jar. But he also knows that everyone else is REALLY
doing the same thing, but they are too blind to see it.. (er to
smell it?) .
I thought perhaps as the story was drawing to the close that the
girl's father would salvage the human race. Would he see beyond
his nose, and be able to enact justice and in that way, to stand
for the proposition that human beings are more than their exterior
and that love is deeper than that? But we had hints that he was
just as corrupted as everyone else. He treats his daughter like
a possession after all. He wants to marry her off to gain position,
feels lust towards her because she is so beautiful.
And sure enough, he too is deceived by the disguise of Grenouille.
He is as superficial as everyone else. And he now wants to possess
Grenouille the way he used to possess his own daughter. He wants
to make him his son. Its interesting to see how Grenouille wishes
for something better, wishes perhaps to be really seen. If he
had been loved at birth, perhaps he too would have had a scent..but
it would have been as unreal as that belonging to the rest of
the world.
The final scene is the ultimate proof of this world vision - that
love is all about possession. The crowd is acting out of this
vision of human love, and what could be more complete possession
than consumption.
So here it was..an amazing book. And yet, its not what I believe
about the world truly. I enjoy reading experiences like that,
because they do make me think and feel and articulate my own vision.
[> [> Wow Oz-like! That's
huge. Itt never even crossed my mind 'til I read your post.
-- WickedBuffy ::gonna think on it::, 22:33:24 06/05/03 Thu
[> Oooh, it's back!
-- Tchaikovsky, 03:41:59 06/05/03 Thu
Just preserving here- the number of wonderful points in all the
posts is almost unnerving- I'm worried that if I miss even one
post I might miss a superb insight. Hooray for the Book Melee.
TCH
[> This was good! Is there
another book lined up? -- MsGiles, 06:22:23 06/06/03 Fri
[> [> Next Book - "The
Screwtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis -- Sara, 08:19:08 06/06/03
Fri
In about 2 weeks we'll discuss Screwtape and I'm sure there will
be fun had by all! After that we'll do Stars My Destination and
our fourth book will be Winter's Tale. This is so much fun!
[> [> [> OK, you won
by 111 seconds ;-) -- Tchaikovsky, 08:24:15 06/06/03 Fri
[> [> Get out your CS
Lewis -- Tchaikovsky, 08:20:59 06/06/03 Fri
'The Screwtape Letters' is the next book to be Meleed, with the
date currently set for the 16th of June. It's short, so no-one
has an excuse not to read it! And as an added bonus, I will be
right in the middle of a raging sequence of horrible maths exams,
so there will be no dissertation set to start the thing off! Or
at least not from me...
TCH
[> [> [> I can't find
it -- s'kat, 09:11:27 06/07/03 Sat
If I can find it...I'll read it. It is not in any book store I've
been too. Is it out of print?
SK
[> [> [> [> No,
I just found it in a new reprint under "The C.S. Lewis Library"
label... -- Rob, 10:16:13 06/07/03 Sat
Searching my bookstore, I was told it could be in the literature,
science-fiction/fantasty, or religion sections. Finally found
it in Religion, in a trade paperback for only $10. Short book,
HUGE print. Makes the reading go even faster.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>The ISBN # is 0-06-065293-4 -- Rob, 10:33:55
06/07/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> It's
labeled to be filed under Religion, S'kat! -- Haecceity (Back
from vacation and reading furiously), 22:47:13 06/07/03 Sat
[> [> Next Book: The
Stars My Destination by Alfred Bester -- Vickie, 18:44:10
06/08/03 Sun
At least, I'm almost sure that's what Sara told me. Screwtape
is after that.
Heck, they're short. Read them both!
[> [> [> I'm wrong!
Forget it! -- Vickie, 18:54:03 06/08/03 Sun
[> The Book Melee Affects
Social Circles! -- Haecceity, 23:10:43 06/07/03 Sat
...At least my very small social circle:)
I was in the bookshop this afternoon to pick up The Stars My Destination
(as you tricky folks slipped it before Winter's Tale, which I've
almost finished), and happened to grab the last copy off the shelf,
just ahead of this fellow who looked a bit disappointed. I offered
to give him the book, but he said, "That's okay, it's just
for this...online thing, it's not that important." He seemed
a little embarrassed, so of course I barged right in, "Is
it for ATPo?" Totally gobsmacked, this guy. Then he looked
around furtively and whispered, "Are you a Buffy fan too?"
That's right, folks, a lurker! We went to the counter to see if
they carried any more copies and the guy there was all, "What's
the deal with this book? We've had to restock twice the last week!"
One of the other clerks came over and asked (again in a whisper),
"Is this for ATPo? I ordered six more copies, they'll be
in tomorrow. Do you have Screwtape and Winter's Tale yet?"
That's right, another lurker!
Just another reminder that that corner in Istanbul is going to
be teeming with ATPo folks!
---Haecceity
[> [> Wow -- Tchaikovsky,
02:02:01 06/08/03 Sun
I did read an article in the Guardian over here in Britain, talking
about the 100 books which had been named in the Big Read, as set
up by the BBC, and how their sales had gone up about 30%. But
apparently the books which had rocketed the most included 'Perfume'.
I did think for a split-second, 'Maybe this is our doing', but
then dismissed it. Perhaps AtPo has a wider reach than I imagine...
TCH
[> [> How delightful!!
-- Rahael, 07:23:08 06/08/03 Sun
[> [> Two people in the
same store? What are the odds?!? -- Rob (whose head is filling
up with world-domination plans), 12:01:42 06/08/03 Sun
[> [> [> Technically,
three. And those are just the ones we know of:) -- Haecceity,
14:09:31 06/08/03 Sun
[> [> Which store?
-- d'Herblay, 17:59:37 06/08/03 Sun
I want to run by there tomorrow!
[> [> [> More on store
possibilities -- d'Herblay, 21:31:24 06/08/03 Sun
I ask because Rah has reminded me that Haec is in San Francisco,
where I am for another day, and bookstores are an integral part
of my San Francisco trips. My instinct said that a bookstore as
cool as the one Haec describes has to be City Lights, but my mother
has pointed out that the 19th Ave. Borders is right next to SFSU.
It would be really neat were the bookstore in question the 19th
Ave. Borders, as that is where I picked up Masq when I drove her
to the San Jose meet last year. It would be like a center of mystical
convergence or something.
[> [> [> [> City
Lights it is! 19th Ave Borders was out of stock when I checked
-- Haecceity, 22:34:45 06/08/03 Sun
Though I rather like the idea of a center of mystical convergence
(well- stocked with books!) so close by :)
Ironic that just when the Bay Area ATPo folks got together I had
to be in Chicago for work, thus missing *both* board shindigs!
:(
---Haecceity
[> [> [> [> Haecceity
is in SF! -- Masq, 08:47:21 06/09/03 Mon
Where were you for the board meet last week? Now we'll just have
to have another one.... ; )
[> [> [> [> [>Just not on the day in question :) -- Haecceity,
19:27:25 06/09/03 Mon
I had to go to Chicago for a work thing, then extended my trip
up to lake country for a little much-needed vacation.
My consultant-like job is fun sometimes, but this summer looks
to be a veritable sea of cross-country pond-jumper flights ('cause
I'm running with the metaphor-mix) to a lot of boring meetings
and conventions.
Now if only the ATPo meetings required qualitative research analysis
services...
---Haecceity
[> [> We should at least
take over the world -- mamcu, 18:12:16 06/08/03 Sun
or all parts of our known dimension(s) with this many people being
with us!
[> [> That is so cool!
-- ponygirl, 09:03:14 06/09/03 Mon
When I went to pick up Perfume and Screwtape I noticed that both
times they were displayed on the employees' picks table, making
me wonder if some Chapters/Indigo staffers were doing their book
club reading!
[> [> [> Unfortunately,
not in Houston. -- Arethusa, 15:25:17 06/09/03 Mon
Nobody else was looking for Screwtape and Stars/Destination at
the Borders in Montrose-I asked. Texans need to dine out less
and read more, darnnit!
The
top 25 dramatic scenes from BtVS -- Sophist, 10:38:17 06/02/03
Mon
I can't resist making lists. Here's my current list of the top
25 dramatic scenes in BtVS. An hour from now they'll be in different
order.
1. Beneath You: "Can we rest?"
2. Passion: Giles discovers Jenny's body
3. The Body: "Mom? Mommy?"
4. Becoming 2: Buffy sends Angel to Hell: "Close your eyes."
5. Becoming 2: Buffy leaves Sunnydale: "The winter here is
cold and bitter..."
6. The Gift: Buffy dives off the tower: "The hardest thing
to do in this world is to live in it. Live. For me."
7. Dead Things: Crypt scene
8. WaH: Oz leaves Willow: "In my whole life, I've never loved
anyone else."
9. PG: "I'm 16 years old. I don't want to die."
10. Smashed: B/S bring down the house.
11. TR: "Goodbye to you"
12. Passion: Angel watches Buffy and Willow learn of Jenny's death
13. OMWF: Walk through the fire
14. Innocence: "That was then. This is now."
15. Afterlife: "Every night I save you."
16. Becoming 1: Buffy runs through the school corridors: "No
one asks for their life to change, not really. But it does."
17. GD 1: B/F fight
18. The Body: Anya's speech
19. The Body: Dawn learns Joyce is dead
20. Dead Things: "Please don't forgive me."
21. Normal Again: "Thank you." And the camera pans out
the door of the asylum.
22. Intervention: "What you did for me and Dawn? That was
real."
23. Angel: Buffy kisses Angel "goodbye".
24. The Prom: "I can't breathe."
25. Passion: "I can't do this without you."
Metaphor and the Literal -- lunasea, 13:52:22
06/02/03 Mon
I have to admit this is one of my favorite things about the two
series. They are both Dawson's Creek/Party of Five and Demons/Rocket
Launchers. It deals with some fairly heavy or even mundane issues,
but it also uses metaphors in the form of the supernatural. Most
myth is just the metaphor. Most drama is just the literal. Buffy
takes both worlds and collides them into each other creating an
amazing universe.
I didn't want to detract from the annotation thread and I was
wondering if anyone else wanted to talk about about anything that
had to really exist simultaneously on a metaphorical and a literal
level. I'm not talking about Buffy or Angel has a problem so they
create a demon/bad to symbolize this. I am talking about Buffy
or Angel themselves or anything else someone sees on the shows,
especially AtS, since that is what we are left with at this point.
The dichotomy of Angel/Angelus can be seen as the angel/devil
that sits on all our shoulders. When vamped, the devil gets a
bit more violent and nastier. Also when vamped, the angel takes
flight. All that the creature is left with is the big mean devil
with no counter-balance. (please, leave the Spike debate for some
place else) Have we ever seen a vamp in conflict with themselves
because they want to do good for goodness sake? They don't have
that angel prodding them onto goodness.
Angel is resouled and the angel returns. It is seen that Angel
is the angel, but really the angel is his conscience. Angel is
the creature in the middle of the fight. Angel isn't the metaphorical
angel. He is all of us, with this battle being heightened by him
being a demon. It is also heightened by the battle between the
Senior Partner/Wolfram and Hart and The Powers that Be who both
are trying to influence Angel.
They aren't trying to remove the devil or the angel. If the Senior
Partners wanted Angel's soul, they would have it. They have powerful
magick at their disposal. The PTB's don't want Angel human either.
As human he was released from his fidelity. Both are interested
in the epic struggle that his (formerly) unique condition causes.
There are several episodes that really deal with this dichotomy
represented by Angelus. The first is "Eternity." Angel
has been drugged and thinks he has reached his moment of perfect
happiness. This happiness is artificial and doesn't cause Angel
to actually lose his soul. It is like giving someone a glass of
bitters and telling them it is alcohol. They proceed to think
they are actually getting drunk and act accordingly. It can be
said from this episode that Angelus is the real Angel and that
Angel just supresses him. That is one view and supports Rufus'
position of Angel suffering from MPD/DID.
In "Eternity" Angel tells Rebecca "This isn't about
the way the studio or the network or your fans see you -- it's
about how you see yourself. Your own reflection has been corrupted
into something unrecognizable." Angel isn't written that
differently from Buffy. The supernatural situation mirrors what
is going on with the characters. This episode also includes Cordy's
horrendous acting ability and Wes' feelings of inadequacy. It
is all about how we see ourselves.
When Angel thinks he has lost his soul, he doesn't act like the
"real" him. He acts like he thinks he should. Not should
as in morally should. Should as in how would he act under those
circumstances. Until she tells him what is in the drink, he doesn't
change. It is knowing this that causes him to act differently.
He has been given bitters, but thinks it is the real thing and
acts accordingly. He wants to be called Angelus, something that
differed from the times we saw him on Buffy. His portrayal was
just the tiniest bit off, almost a heightened Angelus, not the
guy we saw Season 2. It was Angel's view of Angelus.
Angel doesn't see himself as the angel. He admits to Faith in
"Orpheus" that he isn't perfect and that he has made
mistakes. The demon is the devil and the conscience is the angel.
Angelus has no angel and is different from Angel who has both.
He doesn't disavow the devil and knows that he is weak, meaning
that he gives into the devil sometimes. He is working on becoming
stronger and telling the devil to sod off. Doesn't mean he always
succeeds. Just means that he keeps trying. He just isn't Angelus,
who can only listen to the devil.
Just how I see my favorite character. How do you think the metaphorical
battle between good and evil that manifests itself as Angel literally
plays out? What other characters are like this? Darla would be
an interesting one to discuss metaphysically. So would Dru. Anyone
want to start a Connor discussion? Any ideas or predictions about
Lorne? We might even venture into a discussion about magick and
Willow. There is some speculation that Giles may make an appearance
next season (then again, there is speculation that everyone will
make an appearance next season). His metaphor is about the patriarchy.
What would this contribute to the story of AtS? I don't see Joss
just letting characters appear for old time's sake. How does Giles'
dabling in magick contribute to his metaphor?
So what do you want to talk about?
| ATPoBt
VS&AtS Archives |
"Chosen" Revisited,
with Spoilers - - Darby, 13:58:24 06/02/03 Mon
Okay, I can't totally ignore the questionable turns of seasonal
continuity, although most have already been covered, but mostly
I'm looking at this as a standalone BtVS episode - I'm hoping
to do more of a seasonal wrap-up later...
Okay, so why exactly did Buffy and Angel make with the megasmoochies
- their last meeting obviously didn't go well (back between S6/S3
episodes), and since Angel moved to LA they've been pretty standoffish.
We know he's coming from some pretty intense stuff, so, um, maybe
he sees a chance for a brief escape, and she...basks...help me
out here-? It sure isn't a chance to share her burden...well,
it is, but then she...yeeks!
We all knew that Caleb was getting back up, but they did it quickly
enough that it wasn't too tedious, and the quick smackdown, although
not the subtlest imagery in the world, sorta worked. Is it really
empowering to slice the Bad Guy's noogies off?
Sara thinks, and I agree, that the credits should have at least
included Anthony Stewart Head and should have been special. Heck,
if they could put Amber Benson in just to kill her off, or do
an close-to-new one for Superstar, this was doable. Shots from
the 1st through current season might have been fun, too.
Ironic that there's an ad for Legally Blonde 2 in the first break
- you just know that Reese has the career SMG covets (probably
thinks she would have had if she hadn't been stuck on tv).
For a place that likes to avoid cliches (that's the official line),
one last run of "he hears the part of the conversation to
make him mad, then leaves and misses the part that would put it
in perspective" was really unnecessary.
The "ringing" of the Scythe seems much more obvious
on the 2nd watch than the first, whatever it means.
Angel, being the mature fellow that he is, of course would withdraw
to establish the second front if Buffy asks - it's not like he
has a history with the First, or unanswered questions about his
return from Hell, or would mind that Buffy has decided that it's
her fight alone...wait a minute. And the second front will be
in LA why, exactly? What, no good eatin' for UberVamps anywhere
else on the west coast?
The Buffy & Angel-discuss-Spike scene sets the tone for this episode
- bits and pieces of characters and interactions extracted from
various points in the history of the show, regardless of whether
those characters still exist. Fun in a nostalgic sort of way,
and only vaguely disturbing. The folks who tuned back in for the
finale after being away for a while had a much more satisfying
experience than we who had stuck through - who knew?
The "fat grandchildren with Spike" line was a little
odd, moreso when you realize that recently-dispatched Jasmine
was Angel's grandchild - not fat, but I would expect in real continuity
a tender subject for him still.
How many alternatives to "cookie dough" do you figure
they went through? Joss was forcing the script to the "eat
me" faux pas, obviously, so the choices would have been limited.
Angel's resistance of the analogy was funny, too.
Apparently, the word "champion" is a communicable disease.
Angel passed the meme to BtVS, so the show needed to be put down
before it spread further.
The First refers to "What you are. How you'll die."
as "alone." I guess it didn't really know what she was,
or what was to come - how she'd live. Of course, pretty much everything
can be wedged into Restless imagery, but the phrasing seems purposeful.
2nd ad break, Eliza's new slice-and-dice movie. This does not
seem like a promising career move, but it's so hard to tell nowadays.
What happened to Pod Person Giles? I was getting used to PPG!
Did this new guy drop out of an alternative universe where there
is no Head family in Bath?
In the retrospect of knowing what the Scoobs are planning, when
Buffy gathers everyone together, why would Willow immediately
know that the spell was going to require a total loss of control
(and, since she seemed to be merely a conduit in the spell, does
that make any sense)? Was it all to set up the "pierced tongue"
reference?
With a few tweaks, this all might have made sense - if the Wolfram
and Hart file was said to have information on the scythe, if all
of the Potentials had been shown to have a certain resonance with
it, if there was information in the pyramid. The actual plan to
make with the mojo could have been set up organically. As it is,
this seems a leap of logic equivalent to "she's part of me,
our blood is the same." Actually, it makes less sense than
that, but it should make more.
What the heck was the choice that the Potentials made? Did some
of them stay at home and get sucked into the crater? They certainly
didn't choose whether to be in on the power boost, it went out
everywhere!
So if we put boxes in front of the sewer access, UberVamps can't,
y'know, push 'em back? Oh, they won't know that the boxes are
blocking vents to the...smelly...sewers...ummmmm...
Gotta admit that having someone come out of 3 years in prison
with a little "street" in their snaps is not all that
far-fetched. Yo, Faith!
Buffy and Spike face each other across the basement. It's there
for a reason, and they hadn't gotten to the makeup sex yet. Who
knows, maybe she digs his shiny trinket, or it's a way of powering
it up. I guess they did whatever you need them to have done.
So instead of defending the stairs up - through the Seal or up
from the basement - the plan is to set the weakest links at distant
points to fight UberVamps who are now mysteriously armed? Hey,
it fits in with all of the other plans this season! They didn't
even designate a half- dozen Potentials to cover the cavern stairs.
And couldn't they have blown up the school's exit points, exposing
them to daylight, to save the world?
Hallway split-up scene for reWatchers - pay attention to Anya,
there's a lot going on there. Emma plays her terrified and covering
it, but you can see past the cover if you look.
The Original Four discuss the mall. Really fun, as long as you
don't think about it.
Do you think Xander or Willow have any idea whether their folks
are still in town? Will they wonder later?
Step 1 - power up all the Potentials. Step 2 - See what the Bauble
does to Spike. Step 3 - Secure the Seal Room. Step 4 - Open the
Seal. Step 5 - Crap, I dropped my note cards! Ah, let's go, I
can remember this without them...
In the Mines of Mordor - um, the UberVamp caverns, the lighting
is by torches, but across the way is an alcove that very much
looks daylit, with teeny UberShadows scurrying about. Maybe this
was leftover Lord of the Rings CGI.
So, the first UberVamp was, like, their Goliath, right, and this
was a cavern full of Davids (but dumber), right? With, um, swords,
which are needed in a cavern full of vampires for...ummmm... And
the hundreds-to- one odds were just to make things interesting.
There are folks out there - Eliza Dushku appears to be one, if
one of her recent interviews is accurate - that think that every
female in the world got the Slayer power. It is a bit confusing,
but it is just Potentials. My son thinks we should have seen someone
standing in a wheelchair - it would have been a nice visual. But
where did all of this power come from? What happened to consequences,
and balance, and magic following laws of physics?
The battle in the cavern is okay but a bit muddy. The battle upstairs,
between humans (Andrew and Anya??? Talk about plotting all for
message and not for logic!) and hordes of super-vamps, just negates
everything we've been told and shown since the beginning. Guess
with some training, the Sunnydale cops should have been able to
keep the night streets safe without a Slayer.
I'm still trying to figure out what the Christ-on-the-cross wound
was supposed to mean. Buffy pitches onto her nose (that's a major
put-down from an abdominal wound) but soon thereafter it's all
forgotten as she rises to the occasion. One unfortunate implication
is that Buffy is still a Goliath among Slayers, able to do and
survive much worse than the run-of-the-mill girls, which defeats
the whole "normal through shared abnormality" thing.
The Anya deathstroke is very disturbing in slo-mo, but the Bringer
knives aren't really long enough to do that. Yech, though. Didn't
anybody factor Bringers into this plan?
There may be a connection between the scythe's ringing and the
activation of Spike's amulet - maybe.
I'm sorry, there is NO WAY that Xander would have left that school
without Anya. None. Zero. Nada. Zeppo - er, zippo. Or been in
any condition except Spike's at the end of The Gift later.
What's the deal with the burning hands???
Stop Joss before he CGI's again! Too much, too fake!
For anyone who knows - is this how coastal California towns work,
you clear the city limits and you're in a flat expanse of desert?
That always seemed a little odd. And I guess Evil Mojo has kept
anyone from driving into Sunnydale for the last month...
The ending was way too jokey for the circumstances, but Buffy
closed the season as she spent it, with her arms folded. Hey,
at least she was smiling.
The Grrr Arrgh guy was lame, there are so many better ways to
do the very last one. What would you have had him do? I'd vote
for getting hit with a shaft of light and going up in a skeletal
poof, but with the same old guy-on-a-stick movement pattern.
Tha-tha-tha-that's all, Slayer lovers!
[> I sense
negativity.... -- happymundi, 14:25:31 06/02/03 Mon
An important reminder that all episodes are good until proven
bad. And that no episodes may be proven bad through invalid criticism,
which includes all valid criticism. And absolutely no satire,
unless one's name ends in Twain, Swift, Voltaire, Queenan, Phoenix,
or 'herblay. Please make a note of this.
Peace out.
-happy m :)
[> [> Shania
Twain is a satirist? -- Darby, who actually toned down the
negativity, 15:02:51 06/02/03 Mon
[> Re: "Chosen"
Revisited, with Spoilers -- Jenny's Love, 15:22:48 06/02/03
Mon
Just letting you know you have my agreement with every one of
your criticisms. That said, I loved 'Chosen'. If I could change
it, Anya would have either lived or Xander would have carried
her body out of the school, and it could have easily been two
hours with special credits and images from the past--felt a little
like they tried too hard to cram it into an hour. Overall, as
I've said, if we actually let logical inconsistencies and plot
holes diminish our love of the best show ever, then Buffy would
indeed have not a fan in the world.
[> [> Re:
"Chosen" Revisited, with Spoilers -- Jenny's Love,
15:45:18 06/02/03 Mon
I would only change one thing really-Anya's death-about 'Chosen'
as it is. However, overall, there are obviously many things that
could have been done aside from plot points not really tied up.
One thing is in a more epic finale, we could have revisited departed
characters--Jenny, Kendra, Joyce, Oz, Tara, Riley, etc. I realize
that Amber declined and Seth declined or couldn't work it out,
but still...sniff sniff. It just all seemed so hurried. WAIT,
I KNOW!--I have no clue where Robia LaMorte is these days, but
WHY OH WHY did they not have her back as the First this year.
She could have appeared to Giles or instead of it having assumed
Buffy's appearance for the last five episodes, Jenny could have
been it's regular appearance (and frankly, before this season
when we only had 'Amends' to go on, I think Jenny was the one
who was thought of as the First since she was the character it
appeared as in 'Amends' that everyone really knew. (P.S., it's
been FOREVER since I've seen 'Amends'-did the First appear as
Buffy in it?)
[> [> [> Seth
Green -- lunasea, 16:03:18 06/02/03 Mon
Oz wasn't in the finale because Seth Green was never asked. Joss
couldn't find the money, so it was never even brought up to the
actor.
[> [> [> Amber
wasn't asked for the final either -- Dochawk, 17:21:10 06/02/03
Mon
Amber was asked to appear in one episode, Conversations with Dead
People. She felt she didn't want Tara's last appearance to be
as an evil being even though most fans would know it was the first
not Tara. ME implied there was something about money, but it wasn't
for the finale. Joss stated that he had an interesting subarc
for him, but couldn't afford him, I don't think it was for the
finale though.
[> [> [> Robia
LaMorte -- lenair, 10:23:51 06/03/03 Tue
Robia LaMorte is very religious, and she was quite uncomfortable
appearing as the "ultimate evil" in "Amends."
I do not think she would have been willing to do that again.
The First did not appear as Buffy in "Amends."
[> One gem
(sp 7.22) -- Tchaikovsky, 15:41:57 06/02/03 Mon
Do you think Xander or Willow have any idea whether their folks
are still in town? Will they wonder later?
That's something I really never considered. It would be too flippant
to suggest that Xander and Willow wouldn't really care less if
their parents got sucked into hell, wouldn't it? I mean, just
because Willow's mother has ignored her for the previous 7 years
except to lock her up and burn her at the stake for being a witch,
and Xander's parents' bickeing finally made him decide not to
get married to Anya?
Starting to wonder whether the omission was deliberate...
Seriously, now, I imagine they moved out in the general rush of
'Empty Places'. Not that anybody mentioned it. It is Season Seven
you know. Was. Off to sob again...
TCH
[> [> i
was wondering about this from the other end -- anom, 20:51:31
06/02/03 Mon
Assuming Xander's & Willow's parents did leave town, would they
really have left their children behind? They may not be good parents,
but they're not that bad. Were there long offscreen arguments
about it? Did X & W just lie to their parents--even urge them
to leave town, assuring them they'd follow suit shortly? Hmm...that
works for me....
[> Cheerfully
spackling (Spoilers through Chosen) -- Sophist, 16:59:37 06/02/03
Mon
their last meeting obviously didn't go well
We don't know how their last meeting went. Buffy never talked
about it. Their penultimate meeting came in Forever, when they
were very comfortable together.
For a place that likes to avoid cliches (that's the official line),
one last run of "he hears the part of the conversation to
make him mad, then leaves and misses the part that would put it
in perspective" was really unnecessary
Every Shakespeare comedy and tragedy that I can remember off the
top of my head (most) uses this cliche or a close variant. At
least JW had B/A move outside where Spike couldn't follow. And
nobody died as a result.
And the second front will be in LA why, exactly? What, no good
eatin' for UberVamps anywhere else on the west coast?
Where else could Angel have the necessary resources?
it's not like he has a history with the First, or unanswered questions
about his return from Hell, or would mind that Buffy has decided
that it's her fight alone
Given the ubiquity of the FE, Angel won't lack for opportunities.
In any case, Buffy wasn't confronting the First its ownself, but
its agents. Angel can do lots of that.
What the heck was the choice that the Potentials made?
To follow Buffy into the Hellmouth.
So instead of defending the stairs up - through the Seal or up
from the basement - the plan is to set the weakest links at distant
points to fight UberVamps who are now mysteriously armed?
The plan was to protect Spike until the amulet did its thing.
If that didn't work, little else mattered.
And couldn't they have blown up the school's exit points, exposing
them to daylight, to save the world?
And after sunset?
What happened to consequences, and balance, and magic following
laws of physics?
Basic entropy -- energy was concentrated, now it's dispersed.
I'm sorry, there is NO WAY that Xander would have left that school
without Anya. None. Zero. Nada. Zeppo - er, zippo. Or been in
any condition except Spike's at the end of The Gift later.
Clearly you don't share my view of Xander.
For anyone who knows - is this how coastal California towns work,
you clear the city limits and you're in a flat expanse of desert?
Absolutely possible. Of course, in Santa Barbara there's the small
matter of the coastal mountains in the way. In LA, if it were
150 years ago, that's just what you'd have seen.
And I guess Evil Mojo has kept anyone from driving into Sunnydale
for the last month...
Time frames are always dubious in the Buffyverse, but the elapsed
time from Touched to Chosen is just a few days.
[> [> Coupla
points (Spoilers through Chosen) -- Darby, 10:04:11 06/03/03
Tue
We don't know how their last meeting went. Buffy never talked
about it.
I was reading into that "lost episode" from the moods
each character was in on their returns to their respective shows,
but it was a reach.
Every Shakespeare comedy and tragedy that I can remember off the
top of my head (most) uses this cliche or a close variant.
Sara asks, "Ah, but was it a cliche when Shakespeare used
it?" It probably was - he liked playing with cliches. It's
not inherently bad, I'm just really tired of this one.
Where else could Angel have the necessary resources?
My point was that the whole idea was kind of silly - if there's
going to be a second front, it would have to be just outside Sunnydale
to be effective, and really it was clear that either the first
front succeeded or nothing mattered.
Given the ubiquity of the FE, Angel won't lack for opportunities.
In any case, Buffy wasn't confronting the First its ownself, but
its agents. Angel can do lots of that.
That's if you believe the First's PR, but the reality was that
this was the first shot Angel would have had against it since
Amends. Or might have again.
The plan was to protect Spike until the amulet did its thing.
I saw no evidence that they were protecting Spike, or that they
were really depending on the amulet to work at all. There was
no reason to see it as the deus ex helios.
And after sunset?
That would have been a problem anyway, but initially those were
the only paths out without daylight - why not restrict the exits
to none by making them all daylit?
Basic entropy -- energy was concentrated, now it's dispersed.
But you've forgotten the feminist subtext - Buffy shared her power
without diminishing it at all. All the girls became full
Slayers. And I think I may have addressed my own quibble - if
the battle is between the Metaphor and the Logic, I know which
way Joss is going.
Clearly you don't share my view of Xander.
Not here, but I'm curious as to how you see this - in the Buffyverse,
where death is much less certain, why wouldn't Xander make sure?
He didn't see her die.
On the others, it just bothers me that Sunnydale is so disconnected
from the world, but I guess that's what makes the Buffyverse a
very different critter from the Angelverse.
[> [> [> Re:
Coupla points (Spoilers through Chosen) -- Sophist, 11:09:46
06/03/03 Tue
"Ah, but was it a cliche when Shakespeare used it?"
I'm sure it was a cliche to Gilgamesh.
if there's going to be a second front, it would have to be just
outside Sunnydale to be effective, and really it was clear that
either the first front succeeded or nothing mattered.
I'm not so sure. The FE's plan, to the extent I understood it,
was for the Ubers to overrun the world:
CALEB/FIRST
I will overrun this earth.
BUFFY
You know how many people have said
that to me?
CALEB/FIRST
I do, since they all had a small part
of me in them. Whereas I have all of
me in me, so I like my chances
somewhat better. And when my army
outnumbers the humans on this earth
the scales will tip and I will be
made flesh.
Given this as a plan, holding a reserve in LA seems as sensible
as any. Given the geography of the area, and pretending we're
dealing with real armies here, the natural route from Santa Barbara
would be south towards LA.
I saw no evidence that they were protecting Spike, or that they
were really depending on the amulet to work at all.
Since I can't see what other plan Buffy might have had, I have
to assume it was the one we saw. That requires protecting Spike.
why not restrict the exits to none by making them all daylit?
They already blew up the school in S3. Repeats are tacky.
Buffy shared her power without diminishing it at all.
Still the same as entropy -- energy is neither created nor destroyed.
My understanding was that the Scythe tapped a well of "reserve"
Slayer power. That's how Buffy and Faith could remain strong.
why wouldn't Xander make sure? He didn't see her die.
He had his own life to consider. Also, Dawn was pulling him out.
He couldn't stay without risking her as well.
I was not at all surprised that Xander wouldn't stay to look for
Anya. I was a little surprised he didn't stay for Buffy.
it just bothers me that Sunnydale is so disconnected from the
world, but I guess that's what makes the Buffyverse a very different
critter from the Angelverse.
I don't get this. The plotline of AtS this season involves complete
absurdities in its treatment of the real world (Apocalypse Nowish,
e.g.). I don't see Chosen as requiring any greater suspension
of disbelief than, say, Hush or Amends.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Coupla points (Spoilers through Chosen) -- shambleau, 12:31:24
06/03/03 Tue
Mostly agree with Sophist's spackling. Once, on another board,
I did a scene-by-scene analysis of Passion. It was in response
to the constant criticisms of the inconsistencies in Season six.
People were saying that they didn't mind the darkness, no, really,
it was the poor execution. Back in the day, ME didn't mess up
like that. Yet I came up with a list for Passion as long as Darby's
for the last few eps of this year. It wasn't hard, either.
If you are unhappy with the show, you can find the inconsistencies
damning, but they have always been there. Me, I just keep my spackle
handy.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Coupla points (Spoilers through Chosen) -- dream, 12:46:57
06/03/03 Tue
I saw no evidence that they were protecting Spike, or that they
were really depending on the amulet to work at all.
Since I can't see what other plan Buffy might have had, I have
to assume it was the one we saw. That requires protecting Spike.
I liked Chosen, though I did think that it worked far better in
terms of character and message than in terms of plot. I like the
idea that the plan was all about the amulet from the beginning
- I would feel better about Spike being so at the center of things
if Buffy had planned it that way. Unfortunately, we weren't shown
that at all. All we were shown was that Buffy and the Potentials
would get all fired up and fight thousands of super-hard-to-kill
vampires, with their fingers crossed that Spike's amulet might
do something helpful. If that was the plan, Buffy far overestimated
the abilities of her troups. That's a depressing note to end on,
so I would rather believe your suggestion. The problem with the
episode, as I saw it, was that that wasn't made clear.
As for the whole "overheard just a part of the conversation"
thing, I thought there was a point to that. Remember last year,
how no one communicated? At the beginning of this year, can't
remember the name of the episode, but Spike realizes he might
have been killing again - and he calls Buffy on the phone. It
was a great moment, an indication that patterns of non-communication
had been broken. I certainly expected him to hide the truth; he
didn't. Though I did think the overheard conversation bit in EoD/Chosen
was a little silly, the end of episode build-up, followed by the
direct conversation between Spike and Buffy in the next episode,
did serve to reinforce the change. Buffy is not disconnected any
more. When those sorts of things happen (and in real life, they
do, as contrived as the cliche may seem), she talks about them.
As failures of communication have been a problem of Buffy's for
just about ever (remember her trying to read Angel's mind in Earshot
rather than simply asking him what had happened with Faith, or
her entire relationship with Joyce in the first two seasons),
it was important to address that issue in the final episode. It
could have been a little better done, I think, but it was okay.
[> [> [> Power
(Spoilers through Chosen) -- heywhynot, 12:38:51 06/03/03
Tue
There was no violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. There
is no Slayer Energy. The Shadowmen activated the first Slayer
by using demon essence to unlock her hidden potential. When she
died the demon essence went to another potential, unlocking her
talents. This kept going on and on. Finally you have Buffy called,
who doesn't follow the traditions of the slayers before her and
makes friends, develops a father/daughter relationship with her
Watcher. When she dies, there are people (specifically Xander)
there to revive her. The demon essence though had moved on to
Kendra, activating her. Buffy on the other hand had her talents/abitlies
unlocked already, so she kept her slayer abilities. This explains
why Buffy was not half as powerful or "normal" when
she came back. When Kendra died, the demon essence went to Faith,
activating her potential. Once activated, the girls stay active.
Whatever was holding the talents back is gone/removed. It isn't
something mystical that gives them abilities, something mystical
activates their abilities.
What Willow did was activate all girls with potential, giving
them access to their abilities. Who knows maybe something mystical
in the past prior to the Shadowmen kept the girls abilities hidden.
We don't know if Willow's spell activates all girls forever or
if only this generation will have all potentials active. The energy
is not spread as their is no slayer energy, ie no violation of
the 1st Law.
The power everyone talked about in the final season was not that
of physical power studied by physicists, but rather conceptual
power (political, economic, etc). This power is really a manipulation
of fear. This is the power of the First. Buffy tried leading in
such a manner, it is not her style though as it separates you
from others as you elevate yourself. It is wielding power. Buffy
in the end decides to overcome fear, to empower.
[> [> [> [> I
like your explanation even better than my own. -- Sophist,
13:45:41 06/03/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> I
agree almost whole-heartedly -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:05:44 06/03/03
Tue
It's still my personal belief that the demon cloud was the original
source of Slayer essence and that it just got passed down to many
potentials, with only one being active at a time. However, as
soon as Buffy talked about making them all Slayers, my mind immediatly
went to "Potential" with the speech about the Slayer
power being inside all of them and just needing to tap into it.
[> [> [> [> On
second thought, is this consistent with GiD? -- Sophist, 15:19:59
06/03/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>Re: On second thought, is this consistent with
GiD? -- heywhynot, 18:35:45 06/03/03 Tue
It is hard to say. The Shadowmen used the demon to create the
first slayer. They took a girl with potential in the tribe and
used the demon to access the girl's talents. Evidently though
the spirit of the demon is still contained. Maybe there is more
abilities that have yet to be tapped. Given the Shadowmen seemed
controlling it is well within reason they made the Slayer strong
enough to fight off the dangers in the world around her but not
too strong. The Shadowmen, in their worldview strength (ie power
in their minds) is held by the few. When Buffy comes to them they
seek to increase her strength as they see it as the only way to
save the world. Buffy eventually sees that to save the world once
needs to empower others.
[> [> [> [> Fray,
again -- mamcu, 08:49:18 06/04/03 Wed
We don't know if Willow's spell activates all girls forever or
if only this generation will have all potentials active.
But in Fray we learn that no Slayers have been called for a long
time (200 years? don't have Fray with me here at work!) until
Fray because of the defeat of all demons in the 21st century.
Thus it appears Willow's work did not empower all potential Slayers
forever-- just those needed at the time.
[> [> [> [> [>From what I heard . . . -- Finn Mac Cool,
14:03:57 06/04/03 Wed
There was a line staying "there were still girls with powers,
but, since there were no demons, none of them were Called"
or something like that. This implies that there were still Slayers
but that, without any demons or vampires around, none of them
were told about the grand Slayer destiny or called to battle.
[> Preserving
this thread -- Masq, 09:30:03 06/03/03 Tue
I think over this weekend, I'll allow posting to archived threads.
Should save some Masq-is-out-of-town grief!
[> Re: "Chosen"
Revisited, with Spoilers -- CW, 10:02:30 06/03/03 Tue
Caleb getting up again - It is a little ridiculous just how many
fans were mildly griping about the way Buffy dispatched him without
making sure he wasn't coming back in the episode before. When
Joss starts relying on cliches, it is time for him to move on
to other projects.
I could discuss more of the points Darby brings up but it all
goes back to the same thing. Buffy has been more of a chore for
Joss than a joy for years. I guess we should feel lucky the last
two seasons were as good as they were.
I really got the feeling especially after reading Joss' interviews
after the season, that Joss hated writing Chosen. It's a fun ep.
but nothing more. I don't think it will ever make many top ten
lists. We used to be thrilled that things on BTVS were planned
out years in advance. I don't think anything more than a vague
outline was ever done for the last two seasons.
Frankly, "Angel" has been even worse for me. Season
four was almost incomprehensible from one episode to the next.
Hopefully, with fewer projects to work on this year, ME will make
some serious effort to make Angel hang together better, whether
by having a less aimless season arc, or by having stand-alone
eps that at least have the charcters acting consistantly most
of the time.
[> [> Re:
Angel: Season 4 -- Wendywho, 12:41:50 06/03/03 Tue
Having just watched all 22 episodes over last weekend, I was surprised
to see just how tightly written season 4 actually was.
[> Arrrggghhh!!!!
-- Caroline, 11:30:43 06/03/03 Tue
I come back to the board after a self-imposed break to avoid some
of the more negative postings on the BtVS, esp. Chosen and what
do I find? Another negative post!!! Oh well. C'est la vie.
I'd like to respond to a couple of points:
It does feel really good to hurt a guys noogies, particularly
when he deserves it.
The cookie dough line - remember last scene of lessons when Warren
says that girls are useless for anything unless you are baking?
Previous eps had made a big deal out of everyone leaving town
- remember Clem in the VW bug?
The choice the potentials made was whether they would go to the
hellmouth and fight. As an aside, I also think that the choice
was about getting full slayer power but that point was more oblique.
The actions of the first evil and the creation of the uber-vamps
was in itself an act that caused an imbalance. The consequence,
the balancing, was good fighting back - the activation of slayer
powers, the effects of the amulet, etc.
Putting files cabinets etc in front of sewer access is designed
to slow the ubies down. Putting the weakest links upstairs protecting
the sewer access fighting just a few ubies who make it through
the slayer line makes a whole lot more sense that putting them
in the hellmouth where they face many more ubies!
I'm not sure what the Christ on the cross wound is that you are
referring to. If you are referring to Buffy being sliced in the
abdomen, that's not the same as the Christ wound. The wound Christ
suffered was to the left side, under the ribs and up into the
heart. Buffy suffered her wound on the right side and in the lower
abdomen. I don't see a Christ reference there.
The burning hands harks back to both the hand and fire imagery
that we have been treated to for the last 2 season, reaching its
height in OMWF where Buffy sings 'I touch the fire and it freezes
me, I look into it but it's black, why can't I feel, my skin should
crack and peel, I want the fire back.' Buffy feels the fire and
in that joining of hands with Spike, the fire burns and purifies
and imho, makes many things clear to both of them - see the looks
of wonder and realization on both their faces as their hands are
joined and burning.
Perhaps only Xander was too jokey for my taste at the end but
that is the typical scoobie response to victory. Buffy seemed
to be removed from it all - the smile that didn't quite reach
her eyes, gazing out into the distance with other thoughts on
her mind.
[> [> The
Choice of the Potentials -- Rhysdux, 21:06:25 06/04/03 Wed
Caro said:
"The choice the potentials made was whether they would go
to the hellmouth and fight. As an aside, I also think that the
choice was about getting full slayer power but that point was
more oblique."
Perhaps the choice was about whether the Potentials would go to
the Hellmouth and fight. (I'm kind of surprised that none of them
refused, given their previous lack of success, but maybe Buffy
really inspired them with her last speech.)
However, I don't see how they could have chosen to get full Slayer
power. Judging from the montage shown when Willow was mystically
redistributing Slayer power to all Potentials, girls all over
the world were affected, not just the thirty or so gathered at
the Hellmouth. This would seem to indicate that the only choice
involving Slayer power was made by Willow, when she agreed to
go along with Buffy's plan and activate all Potentials everywhere.
Did Willow err in conforming to Buffy's plan? I don't know. It
was a decision rooted in desperation, and certainly it seemed
to be the best thing that they could do--even though thirty-odd
Slayers against hundreds of thousands of UberVamps should have
been grossly unequal odds.
And I understand the metaphor that ME was trying to communicate--that
girls could empower each other and, in so doing, grow strong enough
battle and defeat their own monsters, their private demons. The
metaphor isn't a bad one. But choice--on a literal and dramatic
level--isn't part of the equation for most of those receiving
the power.
This says something interesting about choice and free will. Just
as the Shadowmen had their shaman imbue the First Slayer with
the essence of a demon, so does Buffy have her "shamaness"
Willow activate the abilities of all girls everywhere who could
tap into that power. Buffy's decision was the same as that of
the Shadowmen--that choosing power for others was essential if
the human race was to survive. Yes, both the Shadowmen and Willow
granted immense power to those receiving it, but neither the First
Slayer nor the Potentials who were not in Sunnydale had any say
about whether they WANTED to receive this power, or whether they
would have chosen to receive it if someone had asked.
Buffy ultimately doesn't break the pattern of the Shadowmen. She
does exactly what they did, only on a much larger scale.
[> Credits
-- Dochawk, 12:58:36 06/03/03 Tue
I think I want to give a longer reply to some of this, but putting
ASH in the credits has to do with how he is paid and SAG regulations,
so it may just not have been worth the effort (and I doubt ASH
cared).
Current board
| More June 2003